"You didn't get there on your own"

[kaz]

We all knew in our hearts anything this revolutionary couldn't have been built by a government bureaucracy.


Gordon Crovitz: Who Really Invented the Internet?

Contrary to legend, it wasn't the federal government, and the Internet had nothing to do with maintaining communications during a war.

A telling moment in the presidential race came recently when Barack Obama said: "If you've got a business, you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen." He justified elevating bureaucrats over entrepreneurs by referring to bridges and roads, adding: "The Internet didn't get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all companies could make money off the Internet."

Crovitz: Who Really Invented the Internet? - WSJ.com

Good article. My background is business/IT. It's not realized the massive role that Xerox played in the advancement of PC/networking technology at all outside techie circles or how badly they bungled it by giving it all away.

On a side note, humorously, when I was in management consulting I worked for commercial companies, but I did do two government projects. In both cases, government agencies wanted to bring a commercial perspective to their government organizations.

One was a web strategy ... for ARPA ...

 

[Full-Auto]

Did anyone think that the biggest strongest economy was never going to recover? But let us remember what was said when Obama and company started spending money we didn't have, it would not help it would hurt. So what did we get, the longest weakest recovery in history and it looks like we may go back into a recession. So the fact is that what Obama did is not working the evidence needed....the debt put on our grandchildren to avoid the pain now. Sad what we have done.

We did receive some good news today...Sort off.

The market tanked 200 points based upon European fears. The Euro is now at a two year low against the dollar. Taking some of the sting out of dem created inflation.

No worries though this will probably prompt democrats to print more money to give away.

 

[Murf76]

While I realize that the whole off-topic discussion regarding Medicare and Social Security is purely a deflection to take our minds of the fact that Barack Obama has no more idea how business works in this country than your average 2nd grader, what our resident lefties have failed to note is..... that all those programs are UNSUSTAINABLE in their current form.

So. If these entitlements and welfare programs were actually of any REAL importance to them, why the hell would they vote for a guy who has SAT ON HIS ASS for the last three and a half years without ONE competent idea about what we're gonna do about it?

There's no budget.
There's no reform of entitlements, or even any efforts at reform of entitlements.
They've given us a whole new LARGER entitlement that costs three times what they said it would.
And we're approaching 16 TRILLION in debt, which as I've pointed out repeatedly, will cost us a cool trillion in CASH annually by the end of the decade on our current path.

Face it libs, your guy is a disaster. And here we are, at the brink of another recession and at a time when consumer confidence is shot.... and what's he doing? He's out mind-fucking small business people.

Where did our debt come from? When did massive debt become part of the American economy?

Reagan switched the federal government from what he critically called, a “tax and spend” policy, to a “borrow and spend” policy, where the government continued its heavy spending, but used borrowed money instead of tax revenue to pay the bills. The results were catastrophic. Although it had taken the United States more than 200 years to accumulate the first $1 trillion of national debt, it took only five years under Reagan to add the second one trillion dollars to the debt. By the end of the 12 years of the Reagan-Bush administrations, the national debt had quadrupled to $4 trillion!

And where was all this angst and concern about debt from conservatives when Bush and Republicans controlled the White House and both houses of Congress for almost a decade??? When Bush was starting a 3 trillion dollar war of ideology in Iraq, there was not a fucking PEEP from you right wingers, just cheers and 'bring 'em on'... And where was this less government mantra? You right wingers LOVED BIG government and government intervention into people lives... the Patriot Act, trashing habeas corpus, the Geneva Conventions and the US War Crimes Act.

And what was the concern in the Bush administration about debt and deficits? NONE...Bush's solution was to eliminate the voices of concern.

Paul O'Neill was fired from his job as George Bush's Treasury Secretary for disagreeing too many times with the president's policy on tax cuts.

The president had promised to cut taxes, and he did. Within six months of taking office, he pushed a trillion dollars worth of tax cuts through Congress.

But O'Neill thought it should have been the end. After 9/11 and the war in Afghanistan, the budget deficit was growing. So at a meeting with the vice president after the mid-term elections in 2002, O'Neill argued against a second round of tax cuts.

"Cheney, at this moment, showed his hand. He said to O'Neill: 'You know, Paul, Reagan proved that deficits don't matter. We won the mid-term elections, this is our due.' … O'Neill was speechless."

"It was not just about not wanting the tax cut. It was about how to use the nation's resources to improve the condition of our society," says O'Neill. "And I thought the weight of working on Social Security and fundamental tax reform was a lot more important than a tax reduction."

Why is it that you people persist in trying to blame previous administrations for what's going on today, right now?
You know, it's not working and nobody is fooled. People aren't buying that Obama isn't culpable in the economic malaise we're seeing currently. A poll out this morning from The Hill reflects an 'it's the policies, stupid' belief that is absolutely correct.
The Hill Poll: Majority of voters blame president for bad economy - TheHill.com

It's not partisan cherry-picking to understand why Reagan was able to work Keynes but Obama is not. There are common sense REASONS why Reagan was successful but Obama has failed. It does no good to try to stimulate growth with an influx of money if your policies are poised to stifle any growth that might occur. Reagan exuded American optimism and his policies on taxes and regulations were likewise designed to create optimism in the business climate. Obama is just the opposite. He stood back and allowed Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid to treat our treasury like a Democrat candy store and then attached himself firmly to policies across the board which make the business environment less stable, all the while yammering on about "shared sacrifice". Higher taxes, more regulation, Obamacare, Card Check, Cap-n-Tax... all these things poison the well, and that's when he's not straight up demonizing Wall Street.

You wanna know when Obama sealed his fate with the American people?... it was the day he signed Porkulus, just three weeks in. IF he had sent back that bill and told Nancy Pelosi not to bring him another such partisan piece of crap, he'd have kept the true mandate given him by the people. Barack Obama promised a post-partisan, post-racial, "new way of doing business in Washington". He was sent there to clean up corruption and cronyism, not to give us a gargantuan new healthcare entitlement. If people will bother themselves to remember, the only real difference between his platform and Hillary Clinton's was that he was against a healthcare mandate.

But he never understood the TRUE mandate of the people. And that's because his high-blown rhetoric on the trail was just that... rhetoric; just crap one says to get elected before falling back on the socialist ideology he actually believes in. You can't be a leader if you aren't a man of your word. You can't set a new tone of bipartisanship and healing in Washington if your attitude is "I won". Of course, those of us who were paying close attention already knew that he would fail, that he was lying about who he was. But average voters who don't follow politics daily were quite taken in, because underneath it all, as a people, what we really want most is for somebody to "drain the swamp". Instead, Obama crowned himself Alligator King, and he's going to pay for that in November.

I know I pointed this out earlier, but once again... George Bush left office with an approval rating on only 29%-30%. You're not even carrying your own party with numbers that low. So, no... we didn't like the fact that he spent too much and grew government by too much, even though we liked him as a person. He was who he said he was. He didn't try to fool us into believing he was someone else.

So, your supposition that their was no "angst and concern" about Republicans expanding government and spending taxpayer money has no basis in fact. You appear to be forgetting that Republicans were reprimanded for their misdeeds as late as 2006, when we stood aside and let them take their medicine at the polls. Unlike Democrats, they don't receive slavish devotion for everything they do. Conservatives don't roll like that, and while we might make a "lesser of two evils" vote, when we're LIED to, we see evil.

Meanwhile back at the ranch, Barack Obama has doubled down on every behavior Bush received criticism for on the left. Spending, making war, abrogating freedom... and his devoted followers make excuse after excuse. Where's your "angst and concern"? This guy is more George Bush than George himself was.

 

[The T]

Did anyone think that the biggest strongest economy was never going to recover? But let us remember what was said when Obama and company started spending money we didn't have, it would not help it would hurt. So what did we get, the longest weakest recovery in history and it looks like we may go back into a recession. So the fact is that what Obama did is not working the evidence needed....the debt put on our grandchildren to avoid the pain now. Sad what we have done.

We did receive some good news today...Sort off.

The market tanked 200 points based upon European fears. The Euro is now at a two year low against the dollar. Taking some of the sting out of dem created inflation.

No worries though this will probably prompt democrats to print more money to give away.

How long before QE III is announced?

 

[Uncensored2008]

We all knew in our hearts anything this revolutionary couldn't have been built by a government bureaucracy.


Gordon Crovitz: Who Really Invented the Internet?

Contrary to legend, it wasn't the federal government, and the Internet had nothing to do with maintaining communications during a war.

A telling moment in the presidential race came recently when Barack Obama said: "If you've got a business, you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen." He justified elevating bureaucrats over entrepreneurs by referring to bridges and roads, adding: "The Internet didn't get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all companies could make money off the Internet."

Crovitz: Who Really Invented the Internet? - WSJ.com

You know, I once had the pleasure of having lunch with Bob Metcalfe. He was the keynote at a technology seminar and I ended up at his table during the lunch service. Fascinating man and utterly brilliant.

This is a long way of saying that while the Internet could not exist without Metcalfe's ethernet, the Internet is not ethernet alone. Darpa had a great deal to do with the development of the Internet, it was they who funded Cerf and Bob Kahn. TCP/IP is pretty important for packet switching without physical circuits.

The reality is that the Internet was inevitable. While government funding had a lot to do with the infrastructure we all are using now, without it there was a revolution going on with BBS operators using relay chat and doors to route messages and email nation wide years before government could do the same.

Silicone Valley is where it is because that's where PARC was. PARC is the most important technological research facility in history. Everything from the mouse, to the GUI, to CD's and DVD's are the result of Xerox research.

 

[Foxfyre]

Did anyone think that the biggest strongest economy was never going to recover? But let us remember what was said when Obama and company started spending money we didn't have, it would not help it would hurt. So what did we get, the longest weakest recovery in history and it looks like we may go back into a recession. So the fact is that what Obama did is not working the evidence needed....the debt put on our grandchildren to avoid the pain now. Sad what we have done.

We did receive some good news today...Sort off.

The market tanked 200 points based upon European fears. The Euro is now at a two year low against the dollar. Taking some of the sting out of dem created inflation.

No worries though this will probably prompt democrats to print more money to give away.

Yeah, we've been watching the market all morning. The Dow down almost 250 at one point but has recovered about half of that the last time I looked.

Isn't it funny how the President wants to take credit for the accomplishments of private enterprise, but doesn't want the government to take any credit for:
1. The most lackluster market since the great depression. (As of Saturday morning, the Dow was up only 5% this year. That is utterly pathetic.)
2. Runaway inflation which the government denies is occuring, but which is painfully obvious to those of us buying groceries every week.
3. Continued weak private sector job growth with hundreds of thousands of new unemployment claims filed every week and most economists now suspecting the government is also fudging the unemployment percentage.
4. Flat and declining wages with more people below the poverty line every week.
5. More and more people going under water on their mortgages as home values continue to decline and banks still in trouble as millions more foreclosures are likely to happen.

So how about that Mr. President? All that didn't happen all by itself. If you are so convinced that I didn't build my business, and you want government to take all the credit for it, maybe government will also take the credit for an economy so bad that we closed the same business last year?

 

[Bfgrn]

While I realize that the whole off-topic discussion regarding Medicare and Social Security is purely a deflection to take our minds of the fact that Barack Obama has no more idea how business works in this country than your average 2nd grader, what our resident lefties have failed to note is..... that all those programs are UNSUSTAINABLE in their current form.

So. If these entitlements and welfare programs were actually of any REAL importance to them, why the hell would they vote for a guy who has SAT ON HIS ASS for the last three and a half years without ONE competent idea about what we're gonna do about it?

There's no budget.
There's no reform of entitlements, or even any efforts at reform of entitlements.
They've given us a whole new LARGER entitlement that costs three times what they said it would.
And we're approaching 16 TRILLION in debt, which as I've pointed out repeatedly, will cost us a cool trillion in CASH annually by the end of the decade on our current path.

Face it libs, your guy is a disaster. And here we are, at the brink of another recession and at a time when consumer confidence is shot.... and what's he doing? He's out mind-fucking small business people.

Where did our debt come from? When did massive debt become part of the American economy?

Reagan switched the federal government from what he critically called, a “tax and spend” policy, to a “borrow and spend” policy, where the government continued its heavy spending, but used borrowed money instead of tax revenue to pay the bills. The results were catastrophic. Although it had taken the United States more than 200 years to accumulate the first $1 trillion of national debt, it took only five years under Reagan to add the second one trillion dollars to the debt. By the end of the 12 years of the Reagan-Bush administrations, the national debt had quadrupled to $4 trillion!

And where was all this angst and concern about debt from conservatives when Bush and Republicans controlled the White House and both houses of Congress for almost a decade??? When Bush was starting a 3 trillion dollar war of ideology in Iraq, there was not a fucking PEEP from you right wingers, just cheers and 'bring 'em on'... And where was this less government mantra? You right wingers LOVED BIG government and government intervention into people lives... the Patriot Act, trashing habeas corpus, the Geneva Conventions and the US War Crimes Act.

And what was the concern in the Bush administration about debt and deficits? NONE...Bush's solution was to eliminate the voices of concern.

Paul O'Neill was fired from his job as George Bush's Treasury Secretary for disagreeing too many times with the president's policy on tax cuts.

The president had promised to cut taxes, and he did. Within six months of taking office, he pushed a trillion dollars worth of tax cuts through Congress.

But O'Neill thought it should have been the end. After 9/11 and the war in Afghanistan, the budget deficit was growing. So at a meeting with the vice president after the mid-term elections in 2002, O'Neill argued against a second round of tax cuts.

"Cheney, at this moment, showed his hand. He said to O'Neill: 'You know, Paul, Reagan proved that deficits don't matter. We won the mid-term elections, this is our due.' … O'Neill was speechless."

"It was not just about not wanting the tax cut. It was about how to use the nation's resources to improve the condition of our society," says O'Neill. "And I thought the weight of working on Social Security and fundamental tax reform was a lot more important than a tax reduction."

Why is it that you people persist in trying to blame previous administrations for what's going on today, right now?
You know, it's not working and nobody is fooled. People aren't buying that Obama isn't culpable in the economic malaise we're seeing currently. A poll out this morning from The Hill reflects an 'it's the policies, stupid' belief that is absolutely correct.
The Hill Poll: Majority of voters blame president for bad economy - TheHill.com

It's not partisan cherry-picking to understand why Reagan was able to work Keynes but Obama is not. There are common sense REASONS why Reagan was successful but Obama has failed. It does no good to try to stimulate growth with an influx of money if your policies are poised to stifle any growth that might occur. Reagan exuded American optimism and his policies on taxes and regulations were likewise designed to create optimism in the business climate. Obama is just the opposite. He stood back and allowed Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid to treat our treasury like a Democrat candy store and then attached himself firmly to policies across the board which make the business environment less stable, all the while yammering on about "shared sacrifice". Higher taxes, more regulation, Obamacare, Card Check, Cap-n-Tax... all these things poison the well, and that's when he's not straight up demonizing Wall Street.

You wanna know when Obama sealed his fate with the American people?... it was the day he signed Porkulus, just three weeks in. IF he had sent back that bill and told Nancy Pelosi not to bring him another such partisan piece of crap, he'd have kept the true mandate given him by the people. Barack Obama promised a post-partisan, post-racial, "new way of doing business in Washington". He was sent there to clean up corruption and cronyism, not to give us a gargantuan new healthcare entitlement. If people will bother themselves to remember, the only real difference between his platform and Hillary Clinton's was that he was against a healthcare mandate.

But he never understood the TRUE mandate of the people. And that's because his high-blown rhetoric on the trail was just that... rhetoric; just crap one says to get elected before falling back on the socialist ideology he actually believes in. You can't be a leader if you aren't a man of your word. You can't set a new tone of bipartisanship and healing in Washington if your attitude is "I won". Of course, those of us who were paying close attention already knew that he would fail, that he was lying about who he was. But average voters who don't follow politics daily were quite taken in, because underneath it all, as a people, what we really want most is for somebody to "drain the swamp". Instead, Obama crowned himself Alligator King, and he's going to pay for that in November.

I know I pointed this out earlier, but once again... George Bush left office with an approval rating on only 29%-30%. You're not even carrying your own party with numbers that low. So, no... we didn't like the fact that he spent too much and grew government by too much, even though we liked him as a person. He was who he said he was. He didn't try to fool us into believing he was someone else.

So, your supposition that their was no "angst and concern" about Republicans expanding government and spending taxpayer money has no basis in fact. You appear to be forgetting that Republicans were reprimanded for their misdeeds as late as 2006, when we stood aside and let them take their medicine at the polls. Unlike Democrats, they don't receive slavish devotion for everything they do. Conservatives don't roll like that, and while we might make a "lesser of two evils" vote, when we're LIED to, we see evil.

Meanwhile back at the ranch, Barack Obama has doubled down on every behavior Bush received criticism for on the left. Spending, making war, abrogating freedom... and his devoted followers make excuse after excuse. Where's your "angst and concern"? This guy is more George Bush than George himself was.

See, you folks are STILL defending Bush and Reagan...thank you for proving my points.

 

[Murf76]

Where did our debt come from? When did massive debt become part of the American economy?

Reagan switched the federal government from what he critically called, a “tax and spend” policy, to a “borrow and spend” policy, where the government continued its heavy spending, but used borrowed money instead of tax revenue to pay the bills. The results were catastrophic. Although it had taken the United States more than 200 years to accumulate the first $1 trillion of national debt, it took only five years under Reagan to add the second one trillion dollars to the debt. By the end of the 12 years of the Reagan-Bush administrations, the national debt had quadrupled to $4 trillion!

And where was all this angst and concern about debt from conservatives when Bush and Republicans controlled the White House and both houses of Congress for almost a decade??? When Bush was starting a 3 trillion dollar war of ideology in Iraq, there was not a fucking PEEP from you right wingers, just cheers and 'bring 'em on'... And where was this less government mantra? You right wingers LOVED BIG government and government intervention into people lives... the Patriot Act, trashing habeas corpus, the Geneva Conventions and the US War Crimes Act.

And what was the concern in the Bush administration about debt and deficits? NONE...Bush's solution was to eliminate the voices of concern.

Paul O'Neill was fired from his job as George Bush's Treasury Secretary for disagreeing too many times with the president's policy on tax cuts.

The president had promised to cut taxes, and he did. Within six months of taking office, he pushed a trillion dollars worth of tax cuts through Congress.

But O'Neill thought it should have been the end. After 9/11 and the war in Afghanistan, the budget deficit was growing. So at a meeting with the vice president after the mid-term elections in 2002, O'Neill argued against a second round of tax cuts.

"Cheney, at this moment, showed his hand. He said to O'Neill: 'You know, Paul, Reagan proved that deficits don't matter. We won the mid-term elections, this is our due.' … O'Neill was speechless."

"It was not just about not wanting the tax cut. It was about how to use the nation's resources to improve the condition of our society," says O'Neill. "And I thought the weight of working on Social Security and fundamental tax reform was a lot more important than a tax reduction."

Why is it that you people persist in trying to blame previous administrations for what's going on today, right now?
You know, it's not working and nobody is fooled. People aren't buying that Obama isn't culpable in the economic malaise we're seeing currently. A poll out this morning from The Hill reflects an 'it's the policies, stupid' belief that is absolutely correct.
The Hill Poll: Majority of voters blame president for bad economy - TheHill.com

It's not partisan cherry-picking to understand why Reagan was able to work Keynes but Obama is not. There are common sense REASONS why Reagan was successful but Obama has failed. It does no good to try to stimulate growth with an influx of money if your policies are poised to stifle any growth that might occur. Reagan exuded American optimism and his policies on taxes and regulations were likewise designed to create optimism in the business climate. Obama is just the opposite. He stood back and allowed Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid to treat our treasury like a Democrat candy store and then attached himself firmly to policies across the board which make the business environment less stable, all the while yammering on about "shared sacrifice". Higher taxes, more regulation, Obamacare, Card Check, Cap-n-Tax... all these things poison the well, and that's when he's not straight up demonizing Wall Street.

You wanna know when Obama sealed his fate with the American people?... it was the day he signed Porkulus, just three weeks in. IF he had sent back that bill and told Nancy Pelosi not to bring him another such partisan piece of crap, he'd have kept the true mandate given him by the people. Barack Obama promised a post-partisan, post-racial, "new way of doing business in Washington". He was sent there to clean up corruption and cronyism, not to give us a gargantuan new healthcare entitlement. If people will bother themselves to remember, the only real difference between his platform and Hillary Clinton's was that he was against a healthcare mandate.

But he never understood the TRUE mandate of the people. And that's because his high-blown rhetoric on the trail was just that... rhetoric; just crap one says to get elected before falling back on the socialist ideology he actually believes in. You can't be a leader if you aren't a man of your word. You can't set a new tone of bipartisanship and healing in Washington if your attitude is "I won". Of course, those of us who were paying close attention already knew that he would fail, that he was lying about who he was. But average voters who don't follow politics daily were quite taken in, because underneath it all, as a people, what we really want most is for somebody to "drain the swamp". Instead, Obama crowned himself Alligator King, and he's going to pay for that in November.

I know I pointed this out earlier, but once again... George Bush left office with an approval rating on only 29%-30%. You're not even carrying your own party with numbers that low. So, no... we didn't like the fact that he spent too much and grew government by too much, even though we liked him as a person. He was who he said he was. He didn't try to fool us into believing he was someone else.

So, your supposition that their was no "angst and concern" about Republicans expanding government and spending taxpayer money has no basis in fact. You appear to be forgetting that Republicans were reprimanded for their misdeeds as late as 2006, when we stood aside and let them take their medicine at the polls. Unlike Democrats, they don't receive slavish devotion for everything they do. Conservatives don't roll like that, and while we might make a "lesser of two evils" vote, when we're LIED to, we see evil.

Meanwhile back at the ranch, Barack Obama has doubled down on every behavior Bush received criticism for on the left. Spending, making war, abrogating freedom... and his devoted followers make excuse after excuse. Where's your "angst and concern"? This guy is more George Bush than George himself was.

See, you folks are STILL defending Bush and Reagan...thank you for proving my points.

Did you have one? The only "point" you had as far as I could tell is that you're a true partisan who can't bring himself to recognize the faults of his candidate. If you had a problem with George W. Bush... you ought to be having a HUGE problem with Barack Obama. If you have a problem with Iraq, at least Bush had Congressional approval (nearly unanimous come to that) and had worked through the UN for YEARS before he went in. He didn't just strike out unilaterally the way we saw Obama do in Libya.

It's simply not credible that the left could excoriate Bush and then embrace Obama, ignoring that Obama has doubled down on everything they claimed to hated in his predecessor.

 

[Full-Auto]

Did anyone think that the biggest strongest economy was never going to recover? But let us remember what was said when Obama and company started spending money we didn't have, it would not help it would hurt. So what did we get, the longest weakest recovery in history and it looks like we may go back into a recession. So the fact is that what Obama did is not working the evidence needed....the debt put on our grandchildren to avoid the pain now. Sad what we have done.

We did receive some good news today...Sort off.

The market tanked 200 points based upon European fears. The Euro is now at a two year low against the dollar. Taking some of the sting out of dem created inflation.

No worries though this will probably prompt democrats to print more money to give away.

How long before QE III is announced?

We cant let our european allies suffer against the value of the dollar. Expect it soon.

 

[The T]

We did receive some good news today...Sort off.

The market tanked 200 points based upon European fears. The Euro is now at a two year low against the dollar. Taking some of the sting out of dem created inflation.

No worries though this will probably prompt democrats to print more money to give away.

How long before QE III is announced?

We cant let our european allies suffer against the value of the dollar. Expect it soon.

They know that if the EU falls? WE are in that line of dominoes.

 

[amrchaos]

(Sarcasm)

You right wingers are driving me crazy. OK--OK, Obama did not turn the economy around ok!!

But remember--We blame Bush!! Why you say?

Because if it was not for Bush, we would not have Obama! Nahhhh!!

 

[Full-Auto]

(Sarcasm)

You right wingers are driving me crazy. OK--OK, Obama did not turn the economy around ok!!

But remember--We blame Bush!! Why you say?

Because if it was not for Bush, we would not have Obama! Nahhhh!!

If democrats hadnt nominated Kerry we wouldnt have had Bush a second term.


This is a fun game. Your serve..........

 

[edthecynic]

We all knew in our hearts anything this revolutionary couldn't have been built by a government bureaucracy.


Gordon Crovitz: Who Really Invented the Internet?

Contrary to legend, it wasn't the federal government, and the Internet had nothing to do with maintaining communications during a war.

A telling moment in the presidential race came recently when Barack Obama said: "If you've got a business, you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen." He justified elevating bureaucrats over entrepreneurs by referring to bridges and roads, adding: "The Internet didn't get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all companies could make money off the Internet."

Crovitz: Who Really Invented the Internet? - WSJ.com

WSJ
Just another Half Truth/Whole Lie from the FOX Street Journal!

Those dippy Hippies in the Free Speech Movement had more to do with the creation of the internet than Xerox!! Anyone who talks about the creation of the internet and doesn't include Bill Joy is just plain lying to you. It was Bill Joy who released the first free version of UNIX operating system which is now known as BSD UNIX. (Berkeley Software Distribution) Without BSD UNIX there would still be no internet. And Joy, a hippie from UC Berkley, released BSD UNIX to the world for free!!!!!!! And Cerf and Joy acknowlege Gore for getting the government funding needed for the internet.

OLD-COMPUTERS.COM : HISTORY / detailed info

In March 1978, Bill Joy, who studied at the University of California at Berkeley, released the first free version of UNIX operating system which is now known as BSD UNIX. (Berkeley Software Distribution)

The history of UNIX starts back in 1969, when Ken Thompson, Dennis Ritchie and others started working on a Digital Equipment PDP-7 computer at Bell Labs. The first edition was launched in 1971 and was mainly used for text processing. It had a kernel, an assembler for the DEC PDP-11/20, a file system and some vital tools, including the 'ed' (editor for mortals) text editor written by Bill Joy.

Two years later, the Fourth Edition was totally rewritten in C language with multi-platform support in mind, allowing it to be used on a wide range of computers. In 1975, the Sixth Version, widely known as 'Version 6' was the first UNIX version really available outside the Bell Labs. The first BSD version was derived from this V6.

The second BSD version was launched a few months later with the full kernel source codes. This version became the backbone of the Internet and introduced the "open source" concept.
From this time, the various flavours of UNIX were divided in two different families, the BSD based types and those derived from the SYSTEM V.
The Berkeley version of UNIX became the standard in education and research and was notable for introducing using TCP/IP to UNIX (later Bill Joy will be nicknamed the "Edison of the Internet"). BSD was widely distributed in source form so that others could learn from it and improve it.

After having been involved in the BSD project, Bill Joy co-founded Sun Microsystems in 1982 and led technical strategy of the company. He designed Sun's Network File System (NFS), parts of the SPARC microprocessor architecture as well as basic pipeline used in all of Sun's SPARC microprocessors.
Later, he was the co-author of the specification for the Java programming language.
In 1998, Bill was appointed as Chief Scientist of the company.

 

[amrchaos]

(Sarcasm)

You right wingers are driving me crazy. OK--OK, Obama did not turn the economy around ok!!

But remember--We blame Bush!! Why you say?

Because if it was not for Bush, we would not have Obama! Nahhhh!!

If democrats hadnt nominated Kerry we wouldnt have had Bush a second term.


This is a fun game. Your serve..........

If Jeb did not steal florida, we would have had Al Gore!!

Oh wait--Let me do that again.

If Republicans did not force term limits on the president, we would have Clinton a third term!!

 

[OODA_Loop]

Not government funds, tax dollars funded the internets.

 

[amrchaos]

Not government funds, tax dollars funded the internets.

The internet was really part of a military research and technology project.

Yep, the military kick ass in every field, huh?

 

[Uncensored2008]

Those dippy Hippies in the Free Speech Movement had more to do with the creation of the internet than Xerox!! Anyone who talks about the creation of the internet and doesn't include Bill Joy is just plain lying to you. It was Bill Joy who released the first free version of UNIX operating system which is now known as BSD UNIX. (Berkeley Software Distribution) Without BSD UNIX there would still be no internet. And Joy, a hippie from UC Berkley, released BSD UNIX to the world for free!!!!!!! And Cerf and Joy acknowlege Gore for getting the government funding needed for the internet.

Ed, I know that you're a partisan hack with zero integrity, still, this is a very odd position.

BSD may be wonderful (I find it vastly inferior to Linux) but the foundation of the internet? Are you serious?

In March 1978, Bill Joy, who studied at the University of California at Berkeley, released the first free version of UNIX operating system which is now known as BSD UNIX. (Berkeley Software Distribution)

The history of UNIX starts back in 1969, when Ken Thompson, Dennis Ritchie and others started working on a Digital Equipment PDP-7 computer at Bell Labs. The first edition was launched in 1971 and was mainly used for text processing. It had a kernel, an assembler for the DEC PDP-11/20, a file system and some vital tools, including the 'ed' (editor for mortals) text editor written by Bill Joy.

All very lovely - with nothing to do with the Internet.

Using TCP/IP was not particularly innovative - CREATING NCP, then TCP, was, but not using it. Everyone did that.

 

[Uncensored2008]

The internet was really part of a military research and technology project.

Yep, the military kick ass in every field, huh?

DARPA funded research, but most of the work was done at Stanford, Berkley, Santa Monica City College (J.C. Licklider), UCLA, and UCSB.

The military did virtually none of the research and very little of the development. The contribution of ARPA and DARPA was that of funding.

Fun fact, Pacific Bell (AT&T) provided more funding in 1968 for ARPA than the defense department, one of the main reasons that the "D" was dropped was the partnership of telcos in the whole affair.

 

[edthecynic]

Those dippy Hippies in the Free Speech Movement had more to do with the creation of the internet than Xerox!! Anyone who talks about the creation of the internet and doesn't include Bill Joy is just plain lying to you. It was Bill Joy who released the first free version of UNIX operating system which is now known as BSD UNIX. (Berkeley Software Distribution) Without BSD UNIX there would still be no internet. And Joy, a hippie from UC Berkley, released BSD UNIX to the world for free!!!!!!! And Cerf and Joy acknowlege Gore for getting the government funding needed for the internet.

Ed, I know that you're a partisan hack with zero integrity, still, this is a very odd position.

BSD may be wonderful (I find it vastly inferior to Linux) but the foundation of the internet? Are you serious?

In March 1978, Bill Joy, who studied at the University of California at Berkeley, released the first free version of UNIX operating system which is now known as BSD UNIX. (Berkeley Software Distribution)

The history of UNIX starts back in 1969, when Ken Thompson, Dennis Ritchie and others started working on a Digital Equipment PDP-7 computer at Bell Labs. The first edition was launched in 1971 and was mainly used for text processing. It had a kernel, an assembler for the DEC PDP-11/20, a file system and some vital tools, including the 'ed' (editor for mortals) text editor written by Bill Joy.

All very lovely - with nothing to do with the Internet.

Using TCP/IP was not particularly innovative - CREATING NCP, then TCP, was, but not using it. Everyone did that.

Notice how CON$ take a tangent, TCP/IP, to distract from the main subject of the post, BSD UNIX.

And Linux is based on BSD UNIX!!!!! No BSD UNIX, no Linux.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Notice how CON$ take a tangent, TCP/IP, to distract from the main subject of the post, BSD UNIX.

Ed, you're a hack and a troll, but this has nothing to do with right or left, this is technology you drooling moron.

Networking technologies interconnect various nodes, be they other networks, routers, switches, etc. One of the marvelous and innovative aspects of TCP/IP and Ethernet is both are agnostic in regard to OS. The network packets are not tied to proprietary stack as was the case with Big Blue and the 390 networks that banks and government used. The beauty of the system was the a Unix box could talk to OS32 which could talk to an Apple micro.

And Linux is based on BSD UNIX!!!!! No BSD UNIX, no Linux.

No moron, it is not. Torvalds wrote Linux as a Unix like operating system that could be ported to many different devices, including a Vic-20. It is not BSD based - as 3 lawsuits have proven.

Linux is a superior OS to FreeBSD and it's bastard child, OSX. Much of the reason it's superior is that it is not constrained to Unix convention.