The Web Is Not the Internet 412
pigrabbitbear writes with this rant from Motherboard.vice.com: "The Internet and the World Wide Web are not the same thing. They're not synonyms. They don't even serve the same function. And, just like how England is in the United Kingdom, but the United Kingdom isn't England, getting the distinction wrong means you can inadvertently sound like a dummy. Most of the time they can be used synonymously and no one will care, but if you're talking about history or technical stuff and you want to be accurate or a know-it-all or beat a computer at Jeopardy, you should know the difference. The Web was born at CERN in 1990, as a specific, visual protocol on the Internet, the global network of computers that began two decades earlier."
And 2+2=4 (Score:5, Informative)
Now we all know.
Re:And 2+2=4 (Score:5, Funny)
Now we all know.
But 2+2=5, for very large values of 2
This whole arguement is a single voice mumbling in a maelstrom. Rather like people pointing out the 21st century began on Jan 1, 2001, not on Jan 1, 2000 (while being utterly ignored by all the happy people partying.)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
2+2=5, for very large values of 2
That never made sense to me. It always seemed that 2+2 should equal 6 for very large values of 2.
Re:And 2+2=4 (Score:4, Interesting)
2.4 rounds to 2, 2.4 + 2.4 = 4.8, which rounds to 5.
Re: (Score:2)
thats why 2.499999...[endless nines] rounds to 3
Re:And 2+2=4 (Score:5, Insightful)
If you're going to argue that 2.9 is a large value of 2, and not a small value of 3 (in other words, if you're going to truncate rather than round), then you need to do the same action to the result as well. trunc(5.7) is 5, not 6.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
And you libel slashdot with the same sentence?
A pox upon your house and damn your eyes, sir!
Re:And 2+2=4 (Score:5, Funny)
As an engineer, I interpret the value 2 as anything that is usually and reasonably rounded off to 2 ...
Well you (and all these other idiots) should be ashamed. 2+2=4 is obviously using Integers, and there is no 2.x in the set of Integers.
You sound like a bunch of Cardinals discussing how many angels fit on the head of a pin. First you assume angels exist, and it all goes downhill from there.
Great, you're an engineer. Just don't touch anything!
Re:And 2+2=4 (Score:4, Insightful)
Rounding during calculations is a mistake.
Calculate with as much precision as you can.
Report with as much precision as you need.
Re:And 2+2=4 (Score:5, Insightful)
(while being utterly ignored by all the happy people partying)
While sensible hedonists used the confusions as an excuse for an extra large party two years running.
Re: (Score:2)
The author is not only wasting his time with pedancy, but also wrong. Quote: "The Web was born at CERN in 1990, as a specific, visual protocol on the Internet: the global network of computers that began two decades earlier."
No. The internet began in 1983... seven years earlier. Prior to that it was the ARPAnet with an entirely different protocol. If the guy wishes to nitpick the separation between WWW and internet, than he should be just as studious about separating internet versus ARPAnet.
Re: (Score:3)
I wonder if we can
Re: (Score:3)
If only they'd stop their partying long enough for me to point out that technically they are partying for the wrong reasons. Actually I'm making that up. I never get invited to those types of parties anymore. I don't know why, I'm full of all sorts of information like that.
Re: (Score:3)
That argument got us in the Vietnam War.
Re: (Score:2)
Not if you're using base 4.
not always... (Score:2)
2 cups of water + 2 cups of alcohol 4 cups of fluid. /end chemistry jackassery
ugh... (Score:2)
this should have read:
"2 cups of water + 2 cups of alcohol does not equal 4 cups of fluid. /end chemistry jackassery"
Re:ugh... (Score:5, Interesting)
this should have read:
"2 cups of water + 2 cups of alcohol does not equal 4 cups of fluid. /end chemistry jackassery"
Indeed it does not. If you add 2 cups of water to 2 cups of ethanol you get almost 4.1 cups of fluid due to the excess volume of mixing [wikipedia.org]. The result is fractionally greater if thermal expansion due to released enthalpy of mixing is included.
Pardon my deficiency in jackassery where physical chemistry is concerned.
Re: (Score:3)
Indeed it does not. If you add 2 cups of water to 2 cups of ethanol you get almost 4.1 cups of fluid due to the excess volume of mixing [wikipedia.org]. The result is fractionally greater if thermal expansion due to released enthalpy of mixing is included.
Pardon my deficiency in jackassery where physical chemistry is concerned.
the inverse of that would be 2 cups of water added to 2 cups of isopropyl alcohol will give you less than 4 cups due to the liquids dissolving in one another.
Re: (Score:2)
It's true for every system satisfying the axioms of arithmetic [wikipedia.org].
Re:And 2+2=4 (Score:4, Interesting)
Slowly over time, being a technical person has became from a socially award activity to something more socially acceptable, and well recognized.
We need stories like this to increase or "Anality" towards the general public, because we just can't go along being socially accepted.
But...
How much work on the internet do we do outside normal HTTP/HTTPS protocols? Most of our email clients are now Web Based. Cloud Applications tend to communicate via Web Services, On your local intranet at work, most of the stuff is Web Based...
So if I found someone who mixes Internet and World Wide Web I am not going to correct them, unless we are talking in a very technical level.
I had more issue back in the 1990's where people thought AOL was the internet. And the Only Way to get on it.
Anality (Score:3, Insightful)
Slowly over time, being a technical person has became from a socially award activity to something more socially acceptable, and well recognized. We need stories like this to increase or "Anality" towards the general public, because we just can't go along being socially accepted.
Some of it is needed however. Too much "anality" and you become a dweeb again, too little and you lose your expert status.
The public expects some level of nitpickery, anal irrelevance, incomprehensible babble, and irrelevant findings for you to continue your status as egghead.
Re: (Score:2)
But if you are truly and expert, you will do incomprehensible babble from time to time, we don't need stories to try to make us go further.
Re: (Score:3)
"I had more issue back in the 1990's where people thought AOL was the internet. And the Only Way to get on it."
dark days, indeed.
Re: (Score:3)
Even if you use a web-client to access your email, the email still uses other protocols (POP, SMTP, IMAP) to move from server to server. So yes, we are using things other than the World Wide Web. Also, I thought Web Services are were being obsoleted by WPF Services and the like...No longer restricted to HTTP protocol.
Re:And 2+2=4 (Score:4, Informative)
How much work on the internet do we do outside normal HTTP/HTTPS protocols?
Quite a lot in traffic terms. Streaming video (Netflix et al.) and BitTorrent use massive amounts of traffic without a lot of HTTP(S). Lesser bandwidth uses, but still very important include VoIP, SSH, SMTP/POP3/IMAP, various instant messaging protocols, VNC...honestly, if you're doing most of your work within only HTTP, you're an internet lightweight. It's a magical Internet out there, jellomizer ol' buddy -- let's go exploring.
Yaz
Re:You were correcting someone? (Score:4, Insightful)
Maybe you should RTFA since you are wrong on many issues.
You claim, in your signature, to be a senior systems engineer/architect... perhaps you'd best do some research into the architecture of the Internet before you spout off.
Briefly... when you turn on your computer, you send a DHCP request to your router. While it's possible to manually configure your system, we get to the router's configuration... *very* few ISPs in the world actually provide static configurations to their customers, because most of them have more customers than IP addresses. This brings us to the next step: your router will use some combination of DHCP and/or RADIUS to connect to your ISP. Most cable ISPs use straight DHCP coupled with a lease based on your MAC, while most DSL ISPs use RADIUS to authenticate before handing you over to DHCP. For FTTH installations, I've seen either configuration.
So by this point, you haven't even sent your first DNS request (or direct IP, since you seem hung up on the idea that the majority of Internet users could simply memorize the IP addresses of their favourite sites and don't need DNS to surf), and you've already communicated with at least one DHCP server, possibly more, and possibly a RADIUS server.
Now, it's true, usually, that you can simply communicate with most servers by putting the IP address in the address bar, but in all seriousness, do you believe that the majority of users have memorized the IP addresses of every site they visit? Unless you really want to be pedantic on the point, we can dismiss it as fucking ridiculous, because it is. Even if you want to be pedantic, and suggest that people actually can memorize that crap and not need a ghetto DNS in the form of writing down the IPs and keeping a piece of paper beside their computer, they still need to be able to access DNS so they can click on that picture of a cat that somebody posted on Facebook, and which is hosted on a server they've never heard of before.
You claim that servers don't use DHCP, but I'm guessing you've never set up a server in colocation. I haven't had an actual static IP in a datacenter in almost 10 years... most of them will ask you for the MAC address, and configure their DHCP to give you the appropriate information. My server's IP hasn't changed in years, but it's still DHCP.
Your contention that webmail doesn't require IMAP is true enough, but that doesn't change the fact that every webmail service I've ever used actually is using IMAP in the back-end, and that if you know the server names you can configure your mail client to connect through IMAP instead of using the webmail interface. There's no point in reinventing the wheel, and IMAP natively supports folders, filters, and search functions that most webmail relies on. You *could* implement something as feature rich without running IMAP, but it'd be a colossal waste of time. And then you reject the notion of there being a database because "the user will never see it". Bullshit. The user sees and uses it on a daily basis, they just don't realize they're using it, which was kind of the point I was making, if you'd actually read it.
You then complain that if SMTP and HTTP didn't exist, somebody would invent something else... that's a red herring. The protocols do exist, and people use them. If they didn't exist, there would still be a need to transfer that kind of data. You essentially make my argument for me, at this point, by proclaiming that http isn't necessary, by virtue of the fact that if http didn't exist then something else would. That's how the internet works, at the end of the day... *many* different ways to send information around from system to system.
I'm amused by the strawman you try to make at the end of your post, too, btw. I'm tempted to respond in kind, but honestly, what would it accomplish? The people reading this will draw their own conclusions. My point about "average" users stands, though... I deal with them on a daily basis at work, and I have seen their eyes glaze ove
Interweb (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Interweb (Score:5, Funny)
interwebs is plural, duh.
Re:Interweb (Score:4, Funny)
interwebs is plural, duh.
Interwebs ARE plural, duh.
Re:Interweb (Score:5, Funny)
Always been partial to intertubes.
Re:Interweb (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
I deserved that.
Re: (Score:2)
interwebs is plural, duh.
Interwebz has a 'z' in it duh.
Re:Interweb (Score:4, Funny)
It is interweb, not internet. ;-)
"You got your Internet in my Web!"
"You got your Web in my Internet!"
It's a whole new taste sensation! Alert the news! Oh, they don't care, there's a traffic accident or a house on fire or Tom Cruise is having another arranged marriage...
Re: (Score:2)
well duh (Score:5, Insightful)
This is not news for nerds or stuff that matters.
Re:well duh (Score:5, Interesting)
Not sure it's news for anyone. I know completely nontech folks who get the distinction because the use the web along with email and messaging and video streaming and online gaming. They seem to refer to the "web" when appropriate, and when they occasionally don't, who the hell cares?
Re:well duh (Score:5, Insightful)
I did a poll of my 3 year old son, my wife, and my 85 year old grandmother, none of them thought this was news. How does this crap get on the front page. This site is turning into a vanity press for people who can game the firehose.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, you can have the firehose, which can be gamed, or you can have VA Systems^W^W Geeknet spend their hard-earned revenues on hiring editors like Timothy to hand-curate the content.... which would *you* prefer?
Re: (Score:3)
I was gonna do that, but I would have to dig up the patio
Re:the firehose (Score:2, Informative)
The next submission to be accepted.
http://www.angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif [angryflower.com]
Re: (Score:2)
So even in this very useless thread I found something worthy of being bookmarked.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
This is not news for nerds or stuff that matters.
Slashdot needs to allow a +10 insightful for this comment...
This story is for idiots (Score:2, Informative)
Slashdot is jumping the fucking shark. This story belongs on CNN.com, where their tech reporters are busy giving the dead Steve Jobs rimjobs every day.
Why, thank you for that pedantic rant (Score:5, Funny)
Bet you're a hoot at parties. I can only imagine how charming a fellow you are when someone uses the term "hacker" to refer to someone who breaks into computer systems.
Laymen's Terms (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
This is Slashdot? (Score:5, Insightful)
What the fuck happened to this site? Seriously.
I used to come here daily to get my news fix and now it's more like once a month... and I'm immediately disappointed in the quality. I can't even be bothered to log in anymore.
This is amazingly horrible.
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Tubes (Score:2)
When were the tubes born?
Can a story be modded "Troll" or "Flamebait"? (Score:2)
We're on Slashdot... It's 2012... I'm pretty sure that this "revelation" was unnecessary for those that frequent this site.
Re: (Score:2)
We're on Slashdot... It's 2012... I'm pretty sure that this "revelation" was unnecessary for those that frequent this site.
Yeah. Now we can return to our Gopher and Archie servers and get some real research done...
Re: (Score:2)
If stories could be modded, this story would argue for adding a new "Obvious" mod.
Re: (Score:2)
I suggest they be tortured, or at the very least subjected to a Ludovico-style "reconditioning" to ensure this never happens again.
The article's wrong too (Score:5, Informative)
The web is not simply whatever is transmitted over HTTP. It's an information space, where anything addressable by URI is a leaf in the node. For instance, a telephone number is part of the web because of tel: URIs. Most of the things on his list are part of the web too - there are FTP and NNTP protocols. And in fact, some P2P networks work over HTTP anyway.
From Tim Berners-Lee himself, writing in 1996 [w3.org]:
Re:The article's wrong too (Score:5, Informative)
The Internet is a network of computers. The World Wide Web is a network of information. The Semantic Web is a network of information with contextual meaning in an annotated (preferably machine-readable) form.
Re: (Score:2)
But those services don't follow the W3C standards, so strictly speaking they are not web.
W3C is not the Web, either (Score:2)
Since the web existed before the W3C was created to develop and promote standards for the web, the fact that services don't follow W3C standards can't mean they aren't part of the web. It might mean that they aren't part of the "open web" (though if they follow open standards that don't happen to be W3C standards, even that's dubious.)
Re: (Score:2)
The web is not simply whatever is transmitted over HTTP. It's an information space, where anything addressable by URI is a leaf in the node.
The web is an "information space" with abstract entities that cannot (necessarily) be located or interpreted in any consistent way? Sorry, but even though you have cited mightly (invoking the great TBL himself), this is strictly an academic viewpoint. It's cute, but I wouldn't bring it up in a job interview.
For practicioners, the web is a specific technological ecosystem backed by a specific set of protocols and a handful of major players. And NNTP ain't it.
Re: (Score:2)
"The web" is mostly marketing buzzcrap. So if anything, it's a disinformation space.
And what is the Internet? (Score:5, Interesting)
Who can give a better definition?
Re: (Score:3)
The Internet is the internet that most networks are part of.
Re: (Score:3)
Before I start with my definition, how familiar are you with tubes?
How did this get to the front page? (Score:2)
Was it visual? (Score:4, Interesting)
The Web was born at CERN in 1990, as a specific, visual protocol
The first web browser I used was text-only, called 'www', running on a Sun box. Was the visual component really there initially with the hyperlinks?
Re:Was it visual? (Score:5, Informative)
MicroVAX for me. As I recall, the visual component was there initially, if your monitor could display graphics. Since the WWW was originally concieved as a way for researchers to share research results over the internet, URLs could refer to non-textual information, including, but not limited to visual information. Though the original browser was text-only, you could browse to an image that would display on your graphics capable monitor. It just wasn't integrated into the page alongside the text. The integrated text+graphics browser you're thinking of became popular with the development of Mosaic, although there were a few other WWW clients that did a passable job of it before Mosaic came along. Mosaic worked best, though, so it was the game-changer.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, for some meaning of "visual".
For example, vi (the editor) has this name because it originated as the "visual" mode of ex, a line-oriented (so non-visual) editor. So, even a rudimentary text-mode web browser would be considered "visual" when compared with FTP, for example.
This bodes well... (Score:4, Funny)
"The AOL" (Score:5, Funny)
I want to surf the World Wide Web (Score:2)
would that be considered cybersquatting?
BUT ... (Score:2)
Oh good. (Score:2)
Thanks for the tip.
Slashdot has really gone uphill since CmdrTaco left.
Oh yeah...what's next? (Score:3)
...next thing you're going to say that 'cee-ment' and 'concrete' aren't the same thing.
Soooo.... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
the difference between The Web and The Internet
with The Web if you have a new computer (or one that was just reloaded because a virus ate Windows AGAIN) you
start surfing around and spend the next 5 days trying to get all that "stuff" back on your computer (and have to babysit the installers to make sure you don't load any "extra" programs).
with The Internet you grab your key with Ninite on it (you already picked out your list of programs) or hit ninite.com and make your picks and then run a program and THE
People that don't know that... (Score:2)
And another thing... (Score:2)
Remember folks, thanks to everyone being taught MS-DOS in the 80's and early 90's, all web addresses are pronounced:
Aitch Tee Tee Pee, Colon, Backslash, Backslash...
Obligatory xkcd [xkcd.com]
Short easy names for things win. (Score:3, Insightful)
> but the United Kingdom isn't England
I suppose too that The United States of America is in the Americas but the United States thereof is not the same thing as America? And we dursn't call it just "the States" either because that's ambiguous because there might be other countries with the word "States" in their name at some point? Shall we stop calling China just "China" and start spelling out "The People's Democratic Socialist Republic of Maoist China" or whatever it's called in the formal diplomatic papers, every single time we refer to it, and similarly for the other one across the strait? And we should say "The Republic of the Netherlands" instead of Holland?
Phooey. Life's too short, and all that gratuitous verbiage takes too long to say every single time. I'm going to keep on calling them England and America and China and Taiwan. Every single person on the planet knows exactly which country I mean, *including* the sadly misguided people who insist I should call them by their ridiculously long official names all the time. Stuff that.
It's a little different with the web, because "the web" doesn't actually take longer to say than "the internet" or even just "the net". So, okay, we can call it "the web". I can live with that one.
Cool story, bro. (Score:2)
Tell it again.
Err, yes, we know (Score:2)
The Web Is Not the Internet
Did someone say it is?
Re: (Score:2)
I have never heard anyone say that the web is the internet, or use "web" to mean "internet." Actually, I very rarely hear anybody use the term "web" anymore in this context; everyone says "internet." I suppose it's true that oranges are not cats, bats are not telephones, and the World Bank is the the Eurozone, but nobody is claiming any of those things either and we don't need articles about the distinctions. Perhaps the author conflated the two concepts for a long time and assumed that everyone else had
Now way, mates! We are just background noise! (Score:3)
Internet is the WWW and vice versa. It's a fact and it's a matter of statistics. ...
The fact that 0.001% (at best) of mankind knows the difference among DNS, IP, TCP, HTTP and HTML is irrelevant to the whole world.
It's just one thousandth or, according to some source [internetworldstats.com], just 2.6M persons. It's just background noise!
Say it with me thrice: "Internet is the WW"
If you point out the difference between terms (Score:4, Insightful)
If you point out the difference between these two terms in everyday speech, then you are part of the problem.
I'm not talking about IT professionals talking to other IT professionals. I'm talking about people talking to other people. I long ago gave up correcting the term "the internet is down", and you should, too. If you can figure out what people are referring to without correcting them, you will go farther in this world than by being an "always correct" dick.
Wait... what? It's Cyberspace! (Score:3)
I thought we were all in Cyberspace, and the Blogosphere...
Either way we all know its tubes all the way down anyway...
Wrong! (Score:3)
Everybody knows it's the Information Super Highway and that it all exists within Cyberspace!
In other Slashdot news.... (Score:2)
Your computer case is not called "the hard drive" or the "cpu", although that's what most people refer to them as.... and if you are running out of disk space, you don't need more "memory".
. . .and no one will care. (Score:3)
Most of the time they can be used synonymously and no one will care. . .
'nough said.
Re: (Score:2)
... also isn't the Internet.
You spelt it wrong - it's with a little 'f'
And it's zuckernet to the faithful.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
They don't. [slashdot.org]
Just count the number of people that claim the internet was created at cern when responding to people than correctly state that the internet was created by DARPA in the United States.
Re:why are you telling us? (Score:4)
I count exactly 0.
If fact seaching for CERN (other than hits on the word concern) returns one post which uses CERN (and its reply):
Which displays a distinct lack of knowledge of either EU membership or the location of CERN and an inability to indicate quotations from what it is replying to. But it's certainly clear that it is refering to the WWW when it says "it came from CERN".
So please be specific with this people and their posts you counted at that url getting it wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
...kay?
Yeah, I know. Tell that to the people at the bus stop, all texting and surfing and nattering on their smartypants phones and watch their eyes glaze over.
sorry I was late, boss. was at the stop and someone made my eyes glaze over and I was so distracted I missed the bus.
Re: (Score:2)
Doubt it. They'll get all interested and finally ask the one question that this whole rant is about:
"Wait, what? England and the UK aren't the same thing?"
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sure it does! Hell, seriously, TV shows? People really abuse Usenet to download TV shows? That's what bandwidth on Usenet servers is wasted on today? Now everything makes a lot more sense, ya know? I mean, connections get faster and faster but it takes me longer and longer to download my porn.
Re: (Score:2)
I tend to tell marketing that it's an invention by Germans and actually a misunderstanding. Cloud is spelled "klaut" in German, and it means "he/she/it filches".
If they still don't get it, it's time for a presentation on basic Internet security.