Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Thomas A Watson who wrote (337743)	1/4/2003 4:47:04 PM
From: calgal	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

Since Al invented the Internet, will he have a Party? Some Honoring Internet's 'Birthday' Fri Jan 3, 8:37 AM ET URL:http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20030103/a... By ANICK JESDANUN, AP Internet Writer NEW YORK - Happy birthday?, Internet. By some accounts, Wednesday marked the 20th anniversary of the online medium. It was on Jan. 1, 1983, that the 400 or so computers hooked to what was then called ARPANET had to switch to a communications protocol called TCP/IP, said Vint Cerf, the protocol's co-inventor. It was TCP/IP that allowed multiple networks to coexist and permitted applications like the World Wide Web to develop and thrive. In other words, it made the Internet what it is today. "This is a major milestone," Cerf said. "I consider the January 1983 date to be the real rollout of (the) Internet." Some, however, consider the Internet's age to be a more mature 33. On Sept. 2, 1969, two computers at the University of California, Los Angeles, linked by a 15-foot cable, sent data back and forth, showing that the Internet could work. Sure, the protocol didn't permit non-ARPANET computers to join in, the way America Online and private corporate networks can today. But it affirmed packet switching, the idea that data could be chopped into small packets and reassembled at the destination, giving the Internet its versatility.

To: Thomas A Watson who wrote (337743)	1/6/2003 9:04:42 AM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

No, the United States often actively encourages changes, and therefore "supports" is a preferable term. As for the use of the word "incremental", if a desirable change could be peaceful and revolutionary, I suppose the United States would welcome it. However, it generally has more modest aspirations, since incremental change, as a steady pace, is less likely to cause social turmoil. The difference between a status quo power and a revisionist power is not whether or not they will engage in force, but under what circumstances and to what purpose. A status quo power does not intend that there should never be change, but that force should be a last resort, and used mainly in defense of the international system, in our case, NATO, the WTO, NAFTA, and so forth. A revisionist power wants to attack the international system, in order to construct one much more favorable to its interests and ideology. Revisionist powers are always ascendant powers, not those largely satisfied by the current system. The main question is one of aspirations: regional ambitions are not necessarily a major threat, except inadvertently. We are not at war with poverty and ignorance, although it would certainly be desirable to eliminate them. We are at war with revolutionary movements, and the cadres which support them. Poor, stupid people cannot cause so much trouble. At most, they are recruited as "cannon fodder", or suicide bombs. It takes money, infrastructure, and brains to cause real trouble, and if those are eliminated (including the leadership), our problems would be modest. Certainly benign regime change is a step in the right direction.......