Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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!

What’s the Internet? (on 1994's Today Show)

CmdrTaco posted more than 3 years ago | from the how-do-you-pronounce-at dept.

The Internet 262

kkleiner writes "In a hilarious video segment from January 24th 1994, The Today Show morning anchors Bryant Gumbel and Katie Couric stumble over the identity and jargon of the internet technology that has come to define the past decade. Gumbel is unclear how you pronounce "@", Katie Couric suggests "about", and no one wants to say "dot" when they read ".com". Confusion with lingo aside, The Today Show cast has to ask a crew member to clarify how the internet works. Do you write to it like mail? Is it just in Universities? Does it require a phone line? This was less than two decades ago, and it's a wonderful reminder of how unprepared the mainstream media was for the innovation that was about to sweep the globe. As the crew member says of the internet, "it's getting bigger and bigger all the time." What a delightful understatement."

cancel ×

262 comments

Why is this funny? (5, Informative)

wideBlueSkies (618979) | more than 3 years ago | (#35070964)

You can't exactly blame these guys for not knowing. The information superhighway was new or unheard of to about 95% of people at that time. Heck, AOL and compuserve hadn't even peaked yet.

You could probably have blamed their producers or research people though.. for not giving them the 5 minute education beforehand.

Re:Why is this funny? (5, Insightful)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 3 years ago | (#35071072)

You could probably have blamed their producers or research people though.. for not giving them the 5 minute education beforehand.

I might point out that the format of these daily TV shows seems to encourage uninformed people to learn with the host(s). We work day jobs so we don't see this anymore but I think what appeals to my grandmother about Regis is that he acts like an average guy just trying to figure stuff out ... and she can identify with that. Note that I said "uninformed" not "stupid." I would posit that the American people would rather embark on a learning adventure than be lectured ... I think this is why Bill Nye (yes, I know he wasn't the original) appealed to me so much as a kid.

I agree I didn't find this very funny, I did not have a computer at the time and spent the majority of my free time reading, bailing hay, playing trombone and walking endless up and down acres of field collecting rocks baseball size or larger. Had you asked me about any of the technologies they addressed here, my answer might have been just as hilarious and even more clueless. Oh well, gotta start somewhere.

I found it cute or quaint at worst. Cute to recall the time when we didn't have this powerful force dictating and providing so much.

Re:Why is this funny? (-1, Troll)

operagost (62405) | more than 3 years ago | (#35071114)

I would posit that the American people would rather embark on a learning adventure than be lectured ... I think this is why Bill Nye (yes, I know he wasn't the original) appealed to me so much as a kid.

Not so much lately. Calling global warming skeptics "almost unpatriotic" and claiming we can feel climate change "in our hearts."

Re:Why is this funny? (2)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 3 years ago | (#35071248)

>>>I agree I didn't find this very funny

I think it's funny but not in the "haha you're stupid" vein, but more like how you laugh when a child is first learning to walk or write. My niece wrote "I hat you" on my laptop and when I read it out loud, she started laughing at herself.

I like to watch old videos from the 80s era. People are even more ignorant. "You call this a keyboard?" Um... yeah that's what it be called. Just like a typewriter.

Re:Why is this funny? (1)

chemicaldave (1776600) | more than 3 years ago | (#35071094)

It's not funny that they don't know what the Internet is, they just serve as the face of society when few people understood what the Internet was. Although I'd bet a majority of society still doesn't know, it's funny to look back on how we reacted to learning about it?

Re:Why is this funny? (4, Interesting)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 3 years ago | (#35071178)

1994 was the year I first got internet access myself. And my access consisted of an email address, telnet, and gopher. Almost no one had WWW access then (though Cello and Mosaic were around). It would be another 1995 before I would get a SLIP account to access the web directly (and this was at a major university). So, yeah, I don't really fault them either for not knowing.

Re:Why is this funny? (1)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 3 years ago | (#35071362)

I got internet in 1988 via 1 kbit/s modem. I was one of the lucky ones who had an internet BBS nearby, so I could access the email and newsgroups of the period (also Fidonet).

My first web browser was Mosaic for Commodore Amiga in 1993. Then Mac Mosaic, Mac Netscape, and finally I sold my soul and bought a Win98 PC (and computing grew dull).

Re:Why is this funny? (1)

mikael (484) | more than 3 years ago | (#35071738)

Same here - most companies and colleges had internal E-mail systems, but getting access to any national network (JANET) required being involved in research. Demon Internet was the first ISP residential service provider in 1993/4 and provided USENET/E-mail access using just a V.34 modem, PPP, and a TCP/IP on DOS.

E-mail and web addresses were common on the side of vans or shop windows until around 2000. It's funny to see them engraved on metal and concrete manhole covers, metal tape and

Re:Why is this funny? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35071932)

1996 is when my high school in Podunk was supposed to get its T1 line (which then was a 60 mile cable run from Chicago as the local COs did not possess those capabilities). I took the sociology class to be the tech liaison for the internet portion of the class. It wasn't installed until it was too late for the class, however. The following year, I became the first "Tech Aide" which was a "student aide" offering that was created at my school for me.

Re:Why is this funny? (1)

MPolo (129811) | more than 3 years ago | (#35071952)

Hmm... In 1989 I got to Graduate School, where I had email, telnet, gopher and news. After leaving school, around 1993 or so, I had a dialup account with Steve Jackson games with the same sort of all-text access (presumably I could have used lynx, but I didn't really know about the WWW at that point). Would that I had kept an email address at io.com! They were offering home SLIP connections, but they cost more than I was willing to pay (and needed a more able computer than I had at the moment). If you ordered a SLIP connection, you were required to buy a reference book from them, as you were expected to troubleshoot yourself.

Re:Why is this funny? (1)

LWATCDR (28044) | more than 3 years ago | (#35071482)

Actually it is bad because they did so little research. It is interesting because it was so early. This predates Netscape, Yahoo and the other internet startups.

Re:Why is this funny? (2)

eln (21727) | more than 3 years ago | (#35071538)

It's interesting to contemplate how much things have changed since then. In 1994 I was a junior in high school and had to give a presentation on some sort of computer-related topic to my CS class. I chose the Internet, which I had been on for about 5 years by then, and nobody else in the class had even heard of it. To assist in my research, my teacher lent me a copy of O'Reilly's "Whole Internet User's Guide and Catalog" (first edition). That book, at around 420 pages long, told you basically everything you needed to know to use the Internet at that time, including a fairly comprehensive list of the most useful gopher, web, and ftp sites available.

Later that year, I taught a class on building personal web pages to a small group. We covered basically everything there was to know about creating state-of-the-art web pages at the time in a single day.

A year later, the dot com boom happened and everything changed. Prior to 1995, though, the Internet was still largely unknown to the general public.

Re:Why is this funny? (1)

c6gunner (950153) | more than 3 years ago | (#35072010)

It's interesting to contemplate how much things have changed since then. In 1994 I was a junior in high school and had to give a presentation on some sort of computer-related topic to my CS class. I chose the Internet, which I had been on for about 5 years by then, and nobody else in the class had even heard of it.

Funny, I did the same thing in 1994. Except the topic of my presentation was "why the internet will never catch on".

Whoops.

Re:Why is this funny? (1)

oracleguy01 (1381327) | more than 3 years ago | (#35072164)

That would be a great thing to read today. I am sure you aren't the only one that thought so at the time though.

Re:Why is this funny? (1)

chargen (90268) | more than 3 years ago | (#35071630)

Geez, they could have educated themselves with a quick 5 minute Google search!

It's a series of tubes (5, Interesting)

Toe, The (545098) | more than 3 years ago | (#35070978)

Even today, a lot of people are pretty dang confused about what them there internets have on 'em.

Re:It's a series of tubes (2)

h00manist (800926) | more than 3 years ago | (#35071354)

Even today, a lot of people are pretty dang confused about what them there internets have on 'em.

And how to drive a non-automatic transmission vehicle, switch the AV setup from cable to watch the dvd, calculate their interest on the credit card, what's the relationship of pounds to kilos and meters to feet, read a map... Basic everyday activities. The internet did improve this, but education still could use a revolution.

Re:It's a series of tubes (4, Insightful)

EvanED (569694) | more than 3 years ago | (#35071644)

Basic everyday activities.

The problem is that some of those things aren't really "basic everyday activities." Most dramatically, it certainly isn't a basic everyday activity for most people to drive a stick shift -- because most people don't have stick shifts. When are you going to drive one? There have only been a couple times ever where I've even really been in a situation in which I might have driven a stick if I knew how. (I'm not speaking from the authority of age here, but I have been driving for over a decade.)

Re:It's a series of tubes (1)

EvanED (569694) | more than 3 years ago | (#35071678)

(Just to clarify: in case it isn't obvious, I'm talking about the USA when it comes to automatics vs sticks. I realize that, for whatever reason, sticks are a lot more popular in most other places.)

Re:Credit Cards! (1)

TaoPhoenix (980487) | more than 3 years ago | (#35071830)

Unfortunately, calculating the interest on a credit card is not basic!

Take a deep breath, here we go!

"Interest" is a fee. "Fees" are also fees. So let's group all the fees. $29 account fee + 0%*(4/12) aka 90 day interest free promo + (17.5%*(1/12)PerMonth compounded for 8 months) - (1% 'cash back' on purchases per actual interest month rolled into the compounding) + UnTouchable Amount that triggers credit score penalty for "too close to limit" as effective hidden fee + %expected risk of penalty rate of 23% for missing payment +%expected risk for credit limit reduction on OTHER cards at the same bank because of a late payment on the card ...

Why bother. Just know they're evil, and save like hell to pay it off.

Re:Credit Cards! (1)

c6gunner (950153) | more than 3 years ago | (#35072050)

Why bother. Just know they're evil, and save like hell to pay it off.

I prefer the "don't spend more than your next paycheck will cover - otherwise, get a line of interest" approach. Haven't paid a penny in interest on any of my CC's in roughly 7 years now.

Re:It's a series of tubes (1)

dmacleod808 (729707) | more than 3 years ago | (#35071984)

I'll give up my stick shift when you pry it from my cold dead hands...

Crusoe launch (3)

suso (153703) | more than 3 years ago | (#35071014)

Isn't Bryant Gumbel the same guy that asked that stupid question at the Transmeta press conference?

Oh, and the @ sign was there long before the Internet. Where do they get these people?

Re:Crusoe launch (1)

sznupi (719324) | more than 3 years ago | (#35071068)

@ was there, but I think not really in daily use by common folks. Just be glad you're not stuck with a word which means "monkey" or "ape" (yes, I know the difference in EN, but in my language it's much less delineated) - can you imagine how stupid this one sounds in serious situations?

Re:Crusoe launch (2)

silly_sysiphus (1300705) | more than 3 years ago | (#35071758)

My preference is in italiano: "chiocciola"--snail. It's rather fun to get to refer to your email address as "sysiphus snail wind.it" (etc)

Re:Crusoe launch (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35071802)

can you imagine how stupid this one sounds in serious situations?

I've heard this plenty of times in very serious situations of the 21st century: "firstName bottomShortLine lastName monkeyTail blabla dot" and a couple of years ago I've even heard something like "myName monkeyTail companyName something... nevermind, just make sure you spell the companyName right and IT should know where to deliver it" ....... I guess someone should introduce them to business cards.

captcha: vomited

Re:Crusoe launch (1)

mikael (484) | more than 3 years ago | (#35071832)

1993/1994 was the time the first TCP/IP stacks became available for PC's - you could run SLIP or PPP through a standard dial-up modem and your PC was "a node on the Internet" with it's own static IP address.... then by default you had your own mail server and even have the ISP dial your PC to run an HTTP server, or pay extra for an ISDN line.

There were so few E-mail addresses and they changed so infrequently that some companies came out with white-page E-mail address books sold in the local bookstores.

Re:Crusoe launch (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35071834)

I liked him better in Gumble to Gumble - Beach Justice.

Couric & Gumbel aren't any better informed tod (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35071016)

Neither is Lauer. Neither is most everyone in the media. Journalism: for those who are too unskilled to do anything else.

Re:Couric & Gumbel aren't any better informed (0)

Lilith's Heart-shape (1224784) | more than 3 years ago | (#35071100)

Neither is Lauer. Neither is most everyone in the media. Journalism: for those who are too unskilled to do anything else.

Journalists are still a little more useful than American public school teachers.

Re:Couric & Gumbel aren't any better informed (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35071206)

I guess. Both groups are part of the same machine designed to produce a supine, dull-witted populace.

phone lines? (2)

alen (225700) | more than 3 years ago | (#35071020)

what's a phone line? my telephone works through time warner cable or the air

Re:phone lines? (1)

blair1q (305137) | more than 3 years ago | (#35071080)

telephone? don't you have IM or twitter or facebook?

Re:phone lines? (1)

MikeDirnt69 (1105185) | more than 3 years ago | (#35071192)

Is that thing we use to go into the Matrix.

Re:phone lines? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35071384)

telephone? don't you have IM or twitter or facebook?

This reminds me of a young co-worker I have who posted to Facebook from her cellphone last week that due to the weather, she was cut off from communicating with the outside world...

Re:phone lines? (1)

Nadaka (224565) | more than 3 years ago | (#35071138)

Silly. A phone line is the gesture used on the iPhone to launch the default phone app.

Re:phone lines? (2)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 3 years ago | (#35071432)

>>>what's a phone line?

It's the twisted-pair copper that carries my internet (upto 50 Mbit/s via VDSL2).

Speaking of phone lines, can my 56K Dialup modem be made to work through my cellphone? I'm thinking of an emergency use, like with the egyptians who have lost internet. The challenge would be connecting the POTS line from the modem to the cellphone's input. (Maybe this cable would work - http://www.thinkgeek.com/gadgets/cellphone/7830/ [thinkgeek.com] )

Re:phone lines? (3, Informative)

uglyduckling (103926) | more than 3 years ago | (#35071696)

No, you can't use your 56K modem over your cellphone... I'm not entirely sure if you're asking a real question or not, but if you want to know the answer - voice traffic over cellphones is compressed in a way that makes sense for voice - mostly the system ensures that everything arrives in the right order, and that there are not significant pauses. Voice communication is pretty tolerant to small gaps in the signal, so generally the network will just drop short segments because that it more natural in conversation that having pauses etc. in the middle of works while the network catches up. For baseband data (i.e. encoded on an audio signal, like an analogue modem) you want the system to _never_ drop data and never pause, you want it to just worsen in quality, and the modem will negotiate down on the rate until it can keep a reliable connection.

/. News Network (0)

Even on Slashdot FOE (1870208) | more than 3 years ago | (#35071030)

People often don't know about things before they were became mainstream. It's not like AOL was at its advertising height, you know.

(Also, I didn't know that @ meant at until I got my first email address in ~'96.)

those were the good old days (1)

alen (225700) | more than 3 years ago | (#35071042)

like when if you wanted to watch TV you had to wait for the right time for a show to start and you can't pick your episode in case of re-runs

or if you had a game console you had to buy strategy guides if you got stuck. you couldn't just go to youtube and find a walkthrough

or you couldn't carry your phone around with you every you went

or look up prices on products right in the store

Re:those were the good old days (1)

sznupi (719324) | more than 3 years ago | (#35071120)

like when if you wanted to watch TV you had to wait for the right time for a show to start and you can't pick your episode in case of re-runs

Huh? We certainly had VHS... many units even could be set to record something at designated time & date (I once left mine unattended for almost a month, to record successive episodes of ... Sea Quest; ehhh, good old days indeed... but who will build it now that Bridger is dead? ;( )

Re:those were the good old days (1)

stewbacca (1033764) | more than 3 years ago | (#35071198)

I think he means you can get any show whenever you want, not the fact you can record one and watch it later. Having VHS didn't eliminate the need to have to wait for a show to start.

Re:those were the good old days (1)

Jason Levine (196982) | more than 3 years ago | (#35072096)

VHS was nice, but it got painful to find a tape you were willing to tape over, remember to set the timer and then when watching the show, fast forward past programs other people in your household recorded to get to your shows. (You could have your own tapes, but that meant switching them out between recordings. Not practical if two recordings were close together.)

Re:those were the good old days (2)

Anrego (830717) | more than 3 years ago | (#35071126)

I remember when putting a video on the internet was a _big deal_.

Anyone remember realplayer?

Seriously, say what you will about youtube.. but what it's done for the internet is astounding.

Also wikipedia! Remember when finding information about something took effort! I remember spending hours trunging through a valley of geocities and angelfire pages and a minefield of ads .. now it's just there, and despite critisism, is usually accurate enough for casual purposes.

Re:those were the good old days (1)

MikeDirnt69 (1105185) | more than 3 years ago | (#35071230)

I remember spending hours trunging through a valley of geocities and angelfire pages and a minefield of ads

Pure adventure! The web was still wild and the porn low-res.

Re:those were the good old days (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35071898)

Buffering...........buffering

Re:those were the good old days (0)

operagost (62405) | more than 3 years ago | (#35071224)

Couldn't program your VCR, eh?

Re:those were the good old days (1)

hduff (570443) | more than 3 years ago | (#35071672)

or you couldn't carry your phone around with you every you went

Yes you could. It was the size of a brick and expensive as Hell, but yes you could.

Focused on different technologies (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35071048)

After a while they start talking about someone going to bed with a fleshlight, and none of them has to ask what that is.

Sigh... (1)

ak_hepcat (468765) | more than 3 years ago | (#35071050)

And at this point, I'd been working on the "Internet" i.e., traditional but including Bitnet, for 7 years.

It's not like it wasn't out there to find. I even had a website online.

Of course, Archie and Veronica were pretty popular alternatives back then. So maybe they just didn't know what to use or where to look...

Re:Sigh... (3, Informative)

timeOday (582209) | more than 3 years ago | (#35071776)

They wouldn't have been doing anybody a favor by reporting on Bitnet, gopher, or Archie, since those never did catch on among Today Show viewers.

Very, very little of what now makes the Internet valuable to people existed at that time.

Slashdot initial conversation (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35071054)

I don't get it. Slash and Dot? Slash dot dot com? wait... org? I'm so confused!

Wow they're so clueless (0)

blair1q (305137) | more than 3 years ago | (#35071056)

Just like the gork who posted this to /. three days after the entire twitterverse had it...

Re:Wow they're so clueless (4, Insightful)

sanosuke001 (640243) | more than 3 years ago | (#35071180)

/. should delete accounts of people who use the word "twitterverse"

Re:Wow they're so clueless (1)

outZider (165286) | more than 3 years ago | (#35071324)

Here's me, wishing I had mod points.

Re:Wow they're so clueless (4, Insightful)

pclminion (145572) | more than 3 years ago | (#35071750)

Actually, /. should delete the accounts of people who do nothing but look for somewhere else the article has appeared first then bitch about how Slashdot didn't "scoop" it -- as if that's EVER how Slashdot worked.

Some of us aren't on Facebook, or Twitter, or whatever the fuck else you are using to get news. Thankfully we have Slashdot.

Re:Wow they're so clueless (4, Funny)

game kid (805301) | more than 3 years ago | (#35071968)

But why? It's perfectly acceptable in the blogosphere!

Re:Wow they're so clueless (0)

corbettw (214229) | more than 3 years ago | (#35071516)

It is pretty sad when /. gets trumped by my idiot cousin and her Facebook wall.

20th Century businesses are still unprepared. (0)

Lilith's Heart-shape (1224784) | more than 3 years ago | (#35071062)

Corporations that depend on a 20th century business model that assumes that information requires physical media and is therefore scare are still unprepared to deal with the internet.

The "dot"... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35071088)

The "dot" still pisses me off. The way that Mr. Gumbel pronounced the address is the way that I always did, up until about '98 when I finally had to explicitly start sayng "dot" because clueless n3wbs wouldn't understand what I meant w/o it.

It always seemed very natural to me to read an address as "user at example (pause) com". Oh, well...

Spent 1994 teaching teachers (1)

Vrallis (33290) | more than 3 years ago | (#35071142)

In 1994 I was in high school, and I spent the summers of 1994 and 1995 teaching elementary and middle school teachers in my district how to browse the web and use email*. Many of our schools had just obtained net access and newer computers capable of more than just Mavis Beacon and Wordperfect for DOS.

Oddly enough the biggest issue I had in all that time was with the more 'senior' teachers almost all suffering from severe arthritis. Many couldn't grip a mouse well enough to use it effectively, particularly trying to negotiate two mouse buttons. No wonder I could never read what they had written on the blackboards!

*Yep, I worked (for pay) for my own school district while in high school. It definitely helped me pay for a lot of the miscellaneous expenses as I moved away for college (particularly upgrading my computer).

Re:Spent 1994 teaching teachers (1)

Nadaka (224565) | more than 3 years ago | (#35071216)

By '94 I had real internet at home on a 14k modem and my older brother had been dialing BBS's for over a decade on a 300 baud modem.

Re:Spent 1994 teaching teachers (1)

Vrallis (33290) | more than 3 years ago | (#35071274)

Pretty much the same here. I'd been on BBSes for a few years at this point, and had an email address via one of them for a while. By 94 I'd say I'd spent far more time on Usenet than the web though since the web could barely be considered even infantile at that point.

Katie is hotter now than back then (1)

halfdan the black (638018) | more than 3 years ago | (#35071148)

Elizabeth Vargas, yummy also.

Re:Katie is hotter now than back then (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35071200)

That's not saying very much. Kouric's haircut in the article is the most ridiculous thing I have ever seen.

Re:Katie is hotter now than back then (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35071416)

Katie is a stupid skank

Internet is capitalized (1)

Lord Byron II (671689) | more than 3 years ago | (#35071164)

Why are we making fun of people for not knowing what the Internet was 17 years ago when the /. summary doesn't even capitalize it properly?

Re:Internet is capitalized (3, Informative)

pclminion (145572) | more than 3 years ago | (#35071258)

Whether to capitalize the word "Internet" is hardly a settled matter. [wikipedia.org] Personally, I don't care if you capitalize it, but if you start arguing about it like it's a big deal, you get put on my list of funny people.

Re:Internet is capitalized (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35071668)

Sigh. Another case of a clueless and spineless troll citing wikipedia as an argument. Usage determines context in english. As usual, wikipedia is not good reference material as it ignores basic social context in favor of proliferating a set of conflicting ideas as arbitrarily valid. Go out, publish something, cite it, welcome to wikimania. The belief that other people should tell you what is real. Ya, that's a good way to determine the accuracy of information. *eyeroll*

Re:Internet is capitalized (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35072074)

It obviously validated the original poster's point that the issue was not settled. Your diatribe completely missed the essential point.

Wall Street (1)

BitHive (578094) | more than 3 years ago | (#35071172)

I was watching Wall Street last night and Gordon Gekko pulls out a portable black and white television about the size of an military field radio and says something to the effect of "See that? It's got a 2 inch screen. I tell you, we're going to a new age, pal!"

Ahhh the memories... (3, Funny)

Sponge Bath (413667) | more than 3 years ago | (#35071228)

1994, when you carried around spare bits in a glass jar and calculated bandwidth with a slide rule. I could tell you more, but my Alzheimer's is acting up.

Re:Ahhh the memories... (1)

benjamindees (441808) | more than 3 years ago | (#35071958)

I had a cellphone on my belt, which was the style at the time.

Whoa, whoa, whoa... (1)

Stenchwarrior (1335051) | more than 3 years ago | (#35071236)

You mean...I don't NEED a phone line to access the internet!? I called AOL and they assure me that I do. I think these TV guys don't know what they are talking about.

Re:Whoa, whoa, whoa... (1)

SnarfQuest (469614) | more than 3 years ago | (#35071532)

No man, the innernet is just a bunch of tubes, dude. You go down to Home Depo and ask for the Al Gore special. Make sure you have a good monkey wrench available.

unprepared? submitter is an ignorant hypocrite. (1)

MichaelKristopeit344 (1967644) | more than 3 years ago | (#35071262)

so a new media delivery medium emerges and the established delivery medium presents it as confusing, and this someone convinces kkleiner that the established delivery mediums were unprepared? it seems to me they were extremely prepared and presented their case convincingly.

kkleiner is no less an ignorant hypocritical marketeer than the today show was and is.

slashdot = stagnated

FWIW (2)

wideBlueSkies (618979) | more than 3 years ago | (#35071318)

Delivery to the following recipient failed permanently:

        violence@nbc.ge.com

Technical details of permanent failure:
DNS Error: Domain name not found

----- Original message -----

MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.103.246.22 with SMTP id y13mr9555665mur.76.1296588457799; Tue,
  01 Feb 2011 11:27:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.102.211.39 with HTTP; Tue, 1 Feb 2011 11:27:37 -0800 (PST)
Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2011 14:27:37 -0500
Message-ID:
Subject: test email
From: XXXXXXX
To: violence@nbc.ge.com
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001636765baf7278a3049b3d8653

Hello 1994... ;)

1994? I was on the Internet in 1983. (5, Interesting)

Animats (122034) | more than 3 years ago | (#35071338)

Back in 1983, I was at "jbn@Ford-wdl1.ARPA":

Date: 15-Jul-83 14:03:40-PDT
From: jbn@FORD-WDL1.ARPA
Subject: Outstanding TOPS-20 TCP bug remains in v5.2
To: ICCB@BBN-UNIX.ARPA, Paetzold@DEC-MARLBORO.ARPA, CLynn@BBNA.ARPA, Tappan@BBNA.ARPA<br/>
Cc: MRC@SU-SCORE.ARPA

For some months now, we have observed that the BBN TOPS-20 implementation of TCP does not perform the TCP close handshake properly. This problem has been documented and reported to the appropriate people as shown below.

Crispin at SU-SCORE has just installed a new TOPS-20 monitor (5.2) and this outstanding problem has NOT been fixed.

The effect of this problem is that when a system which correctly performs the handshake is talking to a noncomplying TOPS-20, and the TCP close is initiated from the non-TOPS-20 end, the non-TOPS-20 end will hang in the close and eventually time out. This tends to cause STOR operations in FTP to TOPS-20 sites to fail. It also has the annoying property for us that every time we get mail from a TOPS-20 site, our TCP logs a protocol violation.

Larson at SRI has located the defective code in TOPS-20 as shown below. The messages below are the previous ones relating to this problem.

As we at Ford Aerospace do not run any TOPS-20 systems, we do not directly have this problem, but our users who need to communicate with some of the TOPS-20 sites find this a continual annoyance. Because of the former importance of TOPS-20 in the ARPANET community, there has been
an informal tradition that the TOPS-20 implementation has been considered the ``standard'' with which others were expected to interoperate. For this reason, it appears that considerable effort has been expended in some of the newer implementations (such as the 4.2BSD systems) to interoperate with TOPS-20 despite this problem. (Elaborate FTP strategies regarding data connection establishment are a means of getting around this problem).

Other implementors should be aware of this problem so that such wasted effort can be avoided.

John Nagle
Ford Aerospace and Communications Corp.

This was back when Berkeley's TCP implementation was new and barely working. (Yes, kiddies, TCP/IP did not come from Berkeley.) Ever wonder why FTP uses a different data connection port for each transfer? That's how it started.

Man: I thought I was an "oldster" around here... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35071566)

"Back in 1983, I was at "jbn@Ford-wdl1.ARPA":" - by Animats (122034) on Tuesday February 01, 02:31PM (#35071338) Homepage

See subject-line. No insult intended, but, you're "showing your age" here with your reply (which is fine/ok & all that).

I was a senior in highschool, & I was using the public internet myself (doing BASIC programming to some DEC systems we "talked to" via the 'oldschool wargames-type' bootjack & modem that looked like a landline phone handle stuck into suction cups!), but I was only a young kid then...

Thus, your reply tells me that you're older than I, & with myself @ 45 yrs. of age as of yesterday, & you apparently already "on the job" while I was still in highschool, tells me you're my "senior" in age here.

APK

P.S.=> No biggie, just an observation on the age bit... but, I was there online myself, but I didn't know SQUAT about networking back then (& I mean ZERO understanding at that point @ least), as I was only JUST beginning to start doing programming via a timeshare system to a remote system on slave terminals that were "online"... apk

leaning how dumbe we are (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35071344)

. is dot not period now and @ is at vice Ampersand fuck have we gave up anything more than one syllable?

Re:leaning how dumbe we are (1)

greghodg (1453715) | more than 3 years ago | (#35071592)

Uh, no, @ has always been "at".

Word 6 spell check. (1)

LaminatorX (410794) | more than 3 years ago | (#35071346)

In 1994, Word 6 didn't know the word, "Internet." It suggested, "internment."

(Jokes about being held captive by Word are left as an exercise to the reader.)

Re:Word 6 spell check. (1)

spongman (182339) | more than 3 years ago | (#35071660)

in 1994, the Internet at Microsoft was a shell account on a Xenix box called 'wingate' you could telnet into then telnet/ftp from there. there was a directory on it that was shared internally over IPX (IP wasn't routed back then) so you could copy files back to your machine. they also had a couple of nntp servers. an unofficial PPPoE connnection showed up hosted by the NT networking team, but the service was spotty...

It would be funny (1)

mrstrano (1381875) | more than 3 years ago | (#35071352)

to ask people now and see what they think the Internet is.

Re:It would be funny (1)

Stenchwarrior (1335051) | more than 3 years ago | (#35071828)

It's Facebook, Twitter and boobies...right?

The extruded dingus! (1)

Matey-O (518004) | more than 3 years ago | (#35071374)

Board Member 1: What if you tire before it's done?
Board Member 2: Does it have rules?
Board Member 3: Can more than one play?
Board Member 4: What makes you think it's a game?
Board Member 3: Is it a game?
Board Member 5: Will it break?
Board Member 6: It better break eventually!
Board Member 2: Is there an object?
Board Member 1: What if you tire before it's done?
Board Member 5: Does it come with batteries?
Board Member 4: We could charge extra for them.
Board Member 7: Is it safe for toddlers?
Board Member 3: How can you tell when you're finished?
Board Member 2: How do you make it stop?
Board Member 6: Is that a boy's model?
Board Member 3: Can a parent assemble it?
Board Member 5: Is there a larger model for the obese?
Board Member 1: What if you tire before it's done?
Board Member 8: What the hell is it?

Re:The extruded dingus! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35071664)

you know, for kids!

Geez... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35071496)

How many more sites must I see this clip posted on? ENOUGH ALREADY!

Geek (2)

Quiet_Desperation (858215) | more than 3 years ago | (#35071498)

Not to mention all that computery stuff was, eeewwwwww, the province of geeks and nerds! Eew eww eww! The two of them could have just completed a three week course giving a concise yet detailed overview of the Internet and they would never admit to it. Little Katie could never face her Delta Delta Delta sisters again if she admitted computer knowledge. Besides, they were millionaires even then. WTF did they care?

Internet circa 1994 (1)

jkeelsnc (1102563) | more than 3 years ago | (#35071518)

Why were they this clueless? The internet was already beginning to take off. At the college i was at in 1993-1994 a lot of people were already logging onto the internet and learning the graces of pine, gopher, telnet, and FTP. I mean it wasn't very sophisticated but it wasn't new! A significant number of students were already there. In fact, I remember logging in to chat with people and use forums on ISCA which some of you may remember at the Univ of Iowa. It was a fairly popular BBS online at the time it seemed. I do remember mentioning to other people including some students of the era what the "information superhighway" was going to mean and many acted like idiots. "Why would I want that?" "Well, that's just stupid. No one will want that" Etc. Pure negativity which is a pretty American way to respond to something new they don't understand. Anyway, they have their foot in their mouth today.

In typical Slashdot form (4, Funny)

sunking2 (521698) | more than 3 years ago | (#35071524)

It only took 17 years for slashdot to pick up this story.

Re:In typical Slashdot form (1)

medv4380 (1604309) | more than 3 years ago | (#35071878)

Is Slashdot even that old?

Re:In typical Slashdot form (1)

140Mandak262Jamuna (970587) | more than 3 years ago | (#35071992)

No. Slashdot is about 11 years old. They had a big bash about it turning 10 last year.

Re:In typical Slashdot form (2)

Jason Levine (196982) | more than 3 years ago | (#35072124)

Don't worry. The Dupe will appear in only 8 more years.

John Boehner: Solved (2)

monoqlith (610041) | more than 3 years ago | (#35071648)

I was wondering where John Boehner got that orange hue. It turns out he's been in 1994 this entire time.

this shows the ignorance of us tv anchors (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35071654)

it just shows the endemic ignorance of tv anchors in the us

@ means about? FAIL. (1)

kimvette (919543) | more than 3 years ago | (#35071788)

I remember even from grammar school that @ is the "commercial at" and is shorthand for "at"

Like, 3 @ 50(imagine the cent sign here - & cent ; does not render on /.)

Re:@ means about? FAIL. (1)

Thud457 (234763) | more than 3 years ago | (#35072166)

that's real efficient, one character to save two.
stupid cavemen.

h-t-t-p colon slash slash (1)

loshwomp (468955) | more than 3 years ago | (#35071942)

The worst was the first few awkward years where everyone on TV or radio pronounced the "http://" as "h-t-t-p colon slash slash" every time they read a URL out loud. I do not miss those days.

Re:h-t-t-p colon slash slash (1)

RPoet (20693) | more than 3 years ago | (#35072112)

Even today, people force themselves through the painful pronunciation of "double you double you double you dot" when it's completely unnecessary for almost all sites.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...