Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Remembering 50 Years of (and Leading Up To) the Internet

timothy posted more than 6 years ago | from the let's-cut-them-some-slack-on-the-nomenclature dept.

The Internet 78

katrina writes "Covering the infamous MafiaBoy bank hack, the launch of the first ever online newspaper — MIT's 'The Tech' — and Brewster Kahle developing the Internet Archive back in 1996, five decades of the most significant Internet developments, hacks, legal battles and innovations have been documented in a massive historical article on Cnet UK."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

penis? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#25182385)

now that's what i'm talking 'bout...

Um they missed something important.... (-1, Offtopic)

isBandGeek() (1369017) | more than 6 years ago | (#25182397)

4chan

Re:Um they missed something important.... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#25182467)

You have a strange definition of "important".

Re:Um they missed something important.... (2, Interesting)

Goldberg's Pants (139800) | more than 6 years ago | (#25182501)

No kidding!

I'm sure the article is great and wonderful, but I made a decision a few months ago to no longer bother with any site that splits their

articles

needlessly

across

multiple

pages.

Re:Um they missed something important.... (2, Insightful)

Djatha (848102) | more than 6 years ago | (#25183111)

Hurrah! to that!

To be serious, there is a part of hypertext theory that states that texts the size of one page on a screen are good. The idea is that users are unable or unwilling to read on and get the message.

However, you and I, and I guess a lot more people, don't like these small chopped up texts. I think that is because we are used to reading long non-trivial texts like novels, scientific papers and the like. Now bear in mind that since the Internet took off the number of less educated people on the Internet has grown enormously in contrast to the number of intelligent highly educated people. As a result more and more of the Internets content isn't targeted towards us anymore.

Here and there are still enclaves of intelligence but I fear that they are only found in the dark catacombs of the Internet. There is always the danger of being overrun by the masses. Even Slashdot is affected: the disagree mail articles ... What is next?

Re:Um they missed something important.... (2, Insightful)

iamstretchypanda (939837) | more than 6 years ago | (#25183279)

As a result more and more of the Internets content isn't targeted towards us anymore.

Do they make more money when we view 1 page of ads or 12? Are they catering to us or the money?

If they weren't targeting the advertisement money versus dedicated readers they could have the option of viewing 1 or 2 pages with ads instead of 12.

Re:Um they missed something important.... (1)

Goldberg's Pants (139800) | more than 6 years ago | (#25183295)

I think it's probably advertising. Why just expose the reader to 1 advertisement when you can make it 12.

It's asinine. I mean I guess the argument could be made that it's like turning the pages in a book, but to counter that there is the fact that if I flip the page in a book, I don't have to wait for the page to load. Let alone have to look at lots of superfluous junk that has no bearing on what I'm trying to read.

Re:Um they missed something important.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#25188585)

text browser are rad

One article - many pages (1)

martyb (196687) | more than 6 years ago | (#25183473)

I did not see a link in the article to put it all one page. I understand the temptation to garner additional ad revenue for laying out the article this way, but I appreciate even more when they provide a "print this article" or "show on one page" link for those of us who. don't. like. interrupted. reading.

Here's a plug for the Firefox addon: Re-pagination [mozilla.org] . Just right click on the "Next" link at the top of the article and then select "Re-Pagination > All". Not perfect, but it gets the job done.

Alternatively, here are direct links to each of the pages in the article:

Chapter 1) [cnet.co.uk] In the Beginning
Chapter 2) [cnet.co.uk] Wiring the Web
Chapter 3) [cnet.co.uk] All About Email
Chapter 4) [cnet.co.uk] Welcome to the Social
Chapter 5) [cnet.co.uk] Online Media
Chapter 6) [cnet.co.uk] Web Property
Chapter 7) [cnet.co.uk] Web 1.0
Chapter 8) [cnet.co.uk] Web 2.0
Chapter 9) [cnet.co.uk] Law and Order
Chapter 10) [cnet.co.uk] Most Epic Fails

They gave credit at the end to some of the notable mentions [cnet.co.uk] that didn't make the final list.

Re:Um they missed something important.... (1)

uglyduckling (103926) | more than 6 years ago | (#25186763)

...particularly when, for no apparent reason, the links to go back and forward through the article are labeled 'Previous Photo' and 'Next Photo'.

Re:Um they missed something important.... (2, Insightful)

houstonbofh (602064) | more than 6 years ago | (#25182531)

Canter and Siegel? Where are Canter and Siegel? They got the fist little spam, but this actually coined the term.

Re:Um they missed something important.... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#25183121)

Sound like jews.

Not just any jews... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#25183557)

Talmud jews...the ones that have sex with children as young as 1-year old just like Mimonetese endorses. Look at the Ted Pike Christian ministry videos, especially "The Other Israel."

Youtube has a directory full [youtube.com] of his content.

Re:Um they missed something important.... (2, Funny)

inKubus (199753) | more than 6 years ago | (#25182653)

Talking about the invention of 4chan is like talking about the invention of masturbation: It was bound to happen, we all do it from time to time, and it won't ever be discussed on CNet.

wait a minute... 50 years (3, Funny)

gearloos (816828) | more than 6 years ago | (#25182401)

I thought Al Gore was only in his 50's.... How old was he when he invented this stuff anyway? This is getting hard to believe now....

Re:wait a minute... 50 years (1)

electrictroy (912290) | more than 6 years ago | (#25183483)

The article is woefully inadequate.

- Where's the discussion about email's invention?
- Or Usenet?
- Or Fidonet (similar to usenet)?
- And he completely ignored Electronic Bulletin Board Systems (BBSes) which were the precursor to modern web forums. From 1980 to circa 1995, the BBS was how people communicated online.
- Another important facet is the gradually increasing speeds from 0.3k up to 56k modems, without which we'd still be using just pure text scrolling on screen at a snail's pace.

This article is not a history of the internet, but just a history of the World Wide Web (1990 onward) and its technologies.

Re:wait a minute... 50 years (1)

electrictroy (912290) | more than 6 years ago | (#25183527)

Ooops. Excuse me while I extricate my foot from my mouth. They discuss email and usenet on pages 5 and 6. My bad! :-(

Still, they did neglect BBSes and Modems in my opinion. Hobbyist BBSes created most of the standards upon which the web is built, and how successful would the internet be if we all still used 0.3k modems?

Worst Slashdot Editing EVAR (5, Insightful)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 6 years ago | (#25182411)

The title of the article is "The 50 most significant moments of Internet history", the title of the Slashdot story? "Remembering 50 Years of (and Leading Up To) the Internet" .. whatever, the fuck, that means.

Disgrace.

Re:Worst Slashdot Editing EVAR (-1, Troll)

timmarhy (659436) | more than 6 years ago | (#25182465)

slashdot is worse than a lot of blogs, and that's a whole level of bad.

Re:Worst Slashdot Editing EVAR (2, Funny)

poopdeville (841677) | more than 6 years ago | (#25182691)

Watch out. The editors have started modding complaints down again.

Re:Worst Slashdot Editing EVAR (1)

king-hobo (1303923) | more than 6 years ago | (#25183089)

ha, i'm told your "off-topic"

Re:Worst Slashdot Editing EVAR (2, Funny)

iamstretchypanda (939837) | more than 6 years ago | (#25183283)

+1 ironic eh?

Re:Worst Slashdot Editing EVAR (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#25183217)

They tried for the OP too, if you look at the moderation history. How is that "flamebait"? It's an entirely valid criticism.

Re:Worst Slashdot Editing EVAR (1)

electrictroy (912290) | more than 6 years ago | (#25183539)

Some people mistaking think the World Wide Web is "the internet". Therefore anything pre-WWW is "leading up to" the the internet's birth (in their view).

Re:Worst Slashdot Editing EVAR (1)

pjt33 (739471) | more than 6 years ago | (#25183851)

Sure, but 1958 is pre-packet switching. Teletype machines could be viewed as leading up to the Internet, but you would struggle to recognise anything pre-60s as an actual computer network.

Re:Worst Slashdot Editing EVAR (1)

Eil (82413) | more than 6 years ago | (#25185183)

Agreed. If you have an hour to waste by clicking on Next Page links to read a poorly-researched and graphics-heavy "article," then it's hard to go wrong here.

If you indeed are curious about the history of the net, this isn't a bad start [wikipedia.org] .

Been waiting 10 years for a system to moderate Slashdot submissions and "editors" instead of just comments, guess I'll wait a while longer.

Re:Worst Slashdot Editing EVAR (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#25187397)

You can't moderate the editors (other than filtering them out in prefrerences), but the Firehose will at least let you vote on the submissions.

Re:Worst Slashdot Editing EVAR (1)

syousef (465911) | more than 6 years ago | (#25187239)

"Remembering 50 Years of (and Leading Up To) the Internet" .. whatever, the fuck, that means.

It means I walked barefoot in the snow to go to school and fight in WWII when I was a little boy and the dinosuars roamed the earth. Now get off my lawn. You don't know how easy you have it!

It's actually about 50 events spanning on 40 years (5, Informative)

NixieBunny (859050) | more than 6 years ago | (#25182421)

...as the Internet (and even ARPANET) didn't exist in 1958, as you may have guessed.

Re:It's actually about 50 events spanning on 40 ye (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#25182677)

Yeah, I was thinking how Al Gore could have created it so young. Really a prodigious!

Nouns (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#25182741)

Yeah, I was thinking how Al Gore could have created it so young. Really a prodigious!

And a prodigy too!

Re:It's actually about 50 events spanning on 40 ye (1)

kitsunewarlock (971818) | more than 6 years ago | (#25186295)

Well, what about Tesla? :P

Forget the Problematic Summary (5, Informative)

Apple Acolyte (517892) | more than 6 years ago | (#25182443)

Read the article instead - it appears to be concise, well-written and nicely formatted. It looks like a job well done by cnet UK.

Re:Forget the Problematic Summary (1)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 6 years ago | (#25182523)

What's with the "next photo" shit?

Re:Forget the Problematic Summary (2, Insightful)

Apple Acolyte (517892) | more than 6 years ago | (#25182855)

Yeah, I saw that after I posted - that's a little confusing. It would have also been nice to have a chronological listing in addition to their category listing. Still worth reading through (although those damn Flash ads were taking gobs of CPU time).

Re:Forget the Problematic Summary (1)

SL Baur (19540) | more than 6 years ago | (#25183491)

The article sucked. As others have pointed out, it was

a
little
bit
of
content
spread
out
over
many
many
slow
to
load
pages.

Two mentions of Digg? Not one of Slashdot, even in the top 100 (though goatse, sigh, was mentioned)?

Not a single mention of Unix, Linux or Open Source software or the GPL?

Add this article to its own category EPIC FAIL.

Re:Forget the Problematic Summary (1)

dingen (958134) | more than 6 years ago | (#25183285)

Read the article instead - it appears to be concise, well-written and nicely formatted. It looks like a job well done by cnet UK.

How can you say this about an article that mixes up basic terms like "the internet" and "the web"?

Lies, Damn Lies (0)

inKubus (199753) | more than 6 years ago | (#25182445)

Pft, I would take this article with a big grain of salt... everyone knows the Internet was invented by Al Gore in the late 80's.

Added an entry for you (0, Redundant)

isBandGeek() (1369017) | more than 6 years ago | (#25182519)

APR 1973: Al Gore invents Internet

Al Gore, with the aid of certain unimportant organizations like DARPA [wikipedia.org] and certain unimportant people, invented the TCP/IP standard. He is also credited with invention of email, instant messaging, IRC chatrooms, Usenet, the Gopher browser, the World Wide Web, search engines, and web 2.0.

The Tech (0)

Zackbass (457384) | more than 6 years ago | (#25182581)

And the reporting the The Tech sucks as much as it ever has. Oh how the times have changed (and haven't)

While digg makes the list ... (5, Insightful)

raxhonp (136733) | more than 6 years ago | (#25182641)

.. Slashdot doesn't, not even in the 100 most significant moments. I don't get it.

Re:While digg makes the list ... (2, Insightful)

Hymer (856453) | more than 6 years ago | (#25182775)

/. is developed/driven by nerds... oh, wait... so was (and is) the Internet.

Re:While digg makes the list ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#25183191)

You really would've deserved a +5, Funny for that comment, but +5, Insightful? Whoever is responsible for THAT really needs to be slapped.

Re: Slap (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#25183875)

Sorta like this?

http://www.flasharcade.com/fun-games/play-1587/slap-the-candidate-game.html

Re:While digg makes the list ... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#25183263)

1.Slashdot is editor-driven(mostly,and for largest chunk of time).
2.Its not that big.Slashdot-effect doesn't work on modern hardware.
3.Slashdot stories are second-hand information,and most value is in user comments.Not particularly important since there are better designed forums which deal with variety of topics daily,that slashdot briefly comments on for a few days.
Posting anonymously for obvious reasons.

Re:While digg makes the list ... (1)

SL Baur (19540) | more than 6 years ago | (#25183521)

3.Slashdot stories are second-hand information,and most value is in user comments.

Duh.

But come on, two entries for Digg when sites like Slashdot and FreeRepublic.com were there first (and are better done)?

Re:While digg makes the list ... (1)

edmazur (958154) | more than 6 years ago | (#25184005)

.. Slashdot doesn't, not even in the 100 most significant moments. I don't get it.

Well, as much as I prefer Slashdot over Digg (I am here after all), Digg does get almost 25 times more unique visitors than Slashdot according to here [compete.com] .

It's a nice history... (1)

Pichu0102 (916292) | more than 6 years ago | (#25182647)

...but it seems the internet is about to lose it's future. It's sad how they want to tear down one of the better tools humanity has come up with in the recent years.

Re:It's a nice history... (0, Troll)

MattPat (852615) | more than 6 years ago | (#25182737)

And your source for this (and definition of "lose it's [sic] future") would be...

Re:It's a nice history... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#25182757)

You just quoted him to flaunt the [sic] didn't you..
In before you [sic] me for the lack of a question mark in the sentence above.

Re:It's a nice history... (1)

MattPat (852615) | about 6 years ago | (#25249627)

Well I certainly didn't mean to troll, it just annoys me when people make vague statements about an anonymous "they" coming to "tear down" the Internet without any explanation as to what exactly they're referring to. Last time I checked, I didn't see any "Closing Soon" signs in my web browser.

The [sic] was just me being an ass 'cause I was already annoyed. :P Sorry about that.

Re:It's a nice history... (1)

barometz (1307743) | more than 6 years ago | (#25183021)

Approaching it from the rear end, sir. Quit your whining and try to avoid this future, 'cause the worst-case scenario is indeed a very scary thought. Personally I'm really really happy with the WWW Foundation and hoping they can get something going.

Re:It's a nice history... (1)

SL Baur (19540) | more than 6 years ago | (#25183537)

Approaching it from the rear end, sir.

Considering that goatse made the list, that's an oddly appropriate, though still disturbing, comment.

Java (2, Insightful)

ProzacPatient (915544) | more than 6 years ago | (#25182721)

This list seems incomplete, it makes no mention of Java, not even in the honorable mentions! No, not JavaScript, but the Java Virtual Machine. I remember all kinds of websites back in the day using Java applets and there was that whole fight between Microsoft and Sun Systems. I think Java is a significant part of internet history, but others might differ on that.

Re:Java (1)

SL Baur (19540) | more than 6 years ago | (#25183599)

This list seems incomplete, it makes no mention of Java, not even in the honorable mentions!

Nor any mention of FORTRAN[1], Perl[2], MySQL, PostgreSQL, any Unix[3], etc.

Sigh.

[1] The successful proof of concept that proved once and for all that hand crafted assembly language was a lose.

[2] Perl came before Java and is significant in the fact that it was the first large-scale community developed language. Arguably, Perl has a larger contribution to the web than Java.

[3] BSD Unix was the Reference Implementation for the Arpanet.

Apple's Internet? (1)

Whiteox (919863) | more than 6 years ago | (#25182729)

Didn't Apple have their own version of the net sometime in the early 90's? I think they went belly up in 95 or 96.

Re:Apple's Internet? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#25183091)

Didn't Apple have their own version of the net sometime in the early 90's?

No

Re:Apple's Internet? (1)

Stormwatch (703920) | more than 6 years ago | (#25183119)

You must be thinking of eWorld. [wikipedia.org]

Re:Apple's Internet? (1)

xkillkillx (987532) | more than 6 years ago | (#25183357)

Or maybe its predecessor Applelink [wikipedia.org]

Re:Apple's Internet? (1)

electrictroy (912290) | more than 6 years ago | (#25183581)

Which reminds me of the unrelated, but similar Quantum Link (Q-Link) for the Commodore 64: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_Link [wikipedia.org] - It started in 1984 and eventually evolved into America Online which still operates the AOL and Netscape Dialup ISPs.

Q-Link charged 6 cents per minute of online time.

I'm glad services today offer "unlimited time", because that 6 cents per minute added up fast! My parents hated me for running-up their bills, but I justified it by saying, "it's educational". ;-)

Re:Apple's Internet? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#25183437)

No you are thinking of the one available on the iPhone in 2008.

Original HTTP deamon developed by NCSA... (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#25182831)

The article says that Apache "succeeded the HTTP daemon developed by Rob McCool in the 70s".

Surely they mean the 90s, when the HTTP protocol was invented?

(The statement is backed by a reference to The Telecommunications Illustrated Dictionary which also says he developed it in the 1970s...)

 

Re:Original HTTP deamon developed by NCSA... (-1, Offtopic)

enrgeeman (867240) | more than 6 years ago | (#25182893)

HTTP protocol? Do you type your PIN number into the ATM machine, too?

Re:Original HTTP deamon developed by NCSA... (1)

lysergic.acid (845423) | more than 6 years ago | (#25185193)

no, i type my PI number into the AT machine.

Where's The Print Button??? (1)

tunapez (1161697) | more than 6 years ago | (#25183001)

No way am I going to click through 10 pages of ads to read 2-3 pages of content.

Greatest of condolences to our new CBS Overlords.

Youtube (1)

imbaczek (690596) | more than 6 years ago | (#25183251)

Youtube is here for only 3 years? I'm honestly shocked, it feels like it's been here forever.

Neglected huge items for the recent "hot" things.. (4, Insightful)

rec9140 (732463) | more than 6 years ago | (#25184221)

itunes? ? ? digg????? Puhlease! These have about as as much to do with the internet and its history and development as I do to creating the universe. Under notable/honorable mentions... you've got a ton of stuff that if it didn't exist would mean alot of things would not be around today.....lets seee.. WithOUT FidoNet and BBS' period much of the concept of "netmail" and etc. would be non existant. FidoNet and the BBS community are responsible for alot more than just an "notable mention." SMTP???? HMMMMMM Do you think this might be important????? Naaahhh Its just the PROTOCOL THAT MOVES EMAIL FROM SERVER TO SERVER! Thats not important. SMTP IS A HUGE DEVELOPMENT! Hayes modems??? Ummm HELLO.... With out the ubiquitous Hayes modems and its clones most people would never have been able to connect to an ISP and the Internet......You also totally blew off Compuserve and QLink remember them....they started as serving Commodore users and became A O L ! ! ! Cisco???? Ummm, nope, they certainly are not more worthy than a notable mention......Lets see the fact that they probably make 80-90% of the equipment that makes the internet work couldn't make them important to the development of the internet.....nope..... digg???? Your kidding right?????? digg wouldn't be around if it were not for SLASHDOT! /. /. /. Feel the slashdot effect!?? Ever hear of it????? Around long for digg and its wannabe siblings. You totally blew them off, not even a notable mention..... JenniCam on notable mention???? You start off with a piece about porn and sex on the internet....well JenniCam was the first and you can not place it on a notable mention list when it started a genre of sites to follow. Considering some of the other items on the "notable" list... its clear that the writer has not been around the development of internet technologies and is a recent adopter.....the clues??? digg, twitter, itunes! These have ZERO, no LESS THAN ZERO value to the development of the internet except to the mindless sheeple using them. If you don't know what uucp is and how it was a factor in the expansion and development of the internet then you have no business writing the article. The fact that you put Cisco on a notable mention list shows how little the author understands the development and status quo of the internet.

Re:Neglected huge items for the recent "hot" thing (1)

Toll_Free (1295136) | more than 6 years ago | (#25184285)

You are right, 100 percent, about everything.

Making a story up, however, that appealed to the geeks and told the truth wouldn't sell advertising. As proof, look above, and see all the tech geeks bitching about not clicking through 10 pages of ads for the article itself.

The people that WILL click through those ads are the ones that won't believe the truth or who honestly don't know what the hell the internet was 10 years ago. Hell, before the sub 1K dollar PC, the internet was a geek refuge. Before online gaming took off (WoW, for one), not a lot of people gave a flying fuck what the internet was.

One of the biggest and best hacks was recrystalling my Hayes 300 baud to get 450 baud out of it.

I remember having to dial in through TeleNET or TYMEnet to get on to CompuSERVE, or ANYTHING else, since I lived in sticks (magically, after having lived everywhere just about in the US, I find myself 40 miles from where I started lol, so I have WiFi access to the internet now).

It would be nice if someone would do a geek article on this subject as well. They did their best, but after all, advertising is what the internet has become.

--Toll_Free

Re:Neglected huge items for the recent "hot" thing (1)

cprael (215426) | more than 6 years ago | (#25185541)

Want something significant to ignore? Tymnet - the world's largest commercial network - in 1976.

Actually, I don't expect much else from an article written by some 20-somethings.

Berners-Lee must be a Prozac addict (1)

macraig (621737) | more than 6 years ago | (#25185775)

To see exactly where the World Wide Web is going, what progress now looks like, try to save a flattened copy of that entire article to a local file, either as HTML or perhaps as an OO or DOC file; you'll have to use a doo-dad like the AntiPagination or RePagination extensions for Firefox, unless you want to drive yourself nuts trying to successively cut and paste each of the twelve pages.

What you initially get when you're done is mostly not even the article at all: it's all "secondary" page content. When this secondary and irrelevant content is removed, the article itself proves to not really be very long at all, and wouldn't justify scattering it across twelve pages... except for CNet UK wanting to artificially increase page views in doing so. I find it telling that an article about the history of the Internet would be so utterly littered with dreck as to be almost unbearable to view.

I don't know anything of Tim Berners-Lee's values, but if he's at all idealistic about his creation then this current state of "progress" must surely drive him to seek solace in a prescription or two. I know it does me; I need a refill after those twelve pages.

Kid these days (1)

PPH (736903) | more than 6 years ago | (#25188343)

When I was your age, we had to flip through printed pages full of ads to follow news stories that were continued on page 42. And then someone had torn out that one because the crossword puzzle was on the back.

And the ink smudged and got all over everything as well.

Re:Kid these days (1)

macraig (621737) | more than 6 years ago | (#25189101)

Point of your rapier wit taken. I remember those good old days, too; it's why I quit reading magazines eventually. We needed something a bit more idealistic there and then, too, I think. Maybe this means I'll "quit the Web" eventually, too... but not today. At least for now I can tweak, edit, and censor the Web in ways that I couldn't edit those magazines, when the only editorial tool I had was a pair of scissors.

Re:Kid these days (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#25189163)

How about you quit the web now so we don't have to listen to your inane aimless drivel.

Re:Kid these days (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#25189291)

How do you suppose people will mod your particular brand of inane but focused drivel, Flamebait or Troll?

Morris Worm NOT Mentioned (1)

realperseus (594176) | more than 6 years ago | (#25190409)

This article is mostly fluff from past 5 years. No mention of the Morris Worm [mit.edu] . Article definately written by a poseur [wikipedia.org] .. .

"bank hack?" (1)

kayditty (641006) | more than 6 years ago | (#25190695)

uhh.. what? mafiaboy just DoSed a few random websites. what does that have to do with banks? and he probably didn't even do it. he's an incompetent idiot; I was in the efnet "takeover group" he was in when he did it.

Mafiaboy hacked a bank? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#25192605)

And all along I figured he was just a skiddie who DDoS'd a few high profile websites..

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?