Discussion:
Evidence that ARPANET was Designed to Survive a Nuclear War
(too old to reply)
D B Davis
2018-12-13 15:53:54 UTC
Permalink
RAND's preface, dated 1964, shows clear intention to build a wide area
data network that can survive a nuclear war:

An electrical engineer by training, Paul Baran worked for Hughes
Aircraft Company's systems group before joining RAND in 1959.
While working at RAND on a scheme for U.S. telecommunications
infrastructure to survive a "first strike," Baran conceived of
the Internet and digital packet switching, the Internet's
underlying data communications technology. His concepts are
still employed today; just the terms are different. His seminal
work first appeared in a series of RAND studies published between
1960 and 1962 and then finally in the tome "On Distributed
Communications," published in 1964.

https://web.archive.org/web/20101228070851/http://www.rand.org:80/about/history/baran-list.html

NSFNET's Final Report, dated a couple of decades later, clearly
indicates that ARPANET was designed to withstand nuclear attack.

These WANs were primarily Federal research projects, the first
of which was the ARPANET in 1969. An outgrowth of the Department
of Defense's Advanced Research Projects Agency, the ARPANET's
packet-switching scheme was meant to provide reliable
communications in the face of nuclear attack.

https://web.archive.org/web/20091104065325/https://www.merit.edu/documents/pdf/nsfnet/nsfnet_report.pdf

Eugene Miya (a student at one of the early ARPA sites) mentions nuclear
war suvivability in an October 16, 1990 usenet post to comp.misc and
alt.folklore.computers entitled "Re: Internet: The Origins."

“Why? Lots of reasons: intellectual curiosity, the need to
have different machines communicate, study fault tolerance
of communications systems in the event of nuclear war, share
and connect expensive resources, very soft ideas to very hard
ideas....”

http://www.ais.org/~jrh/acn/text/Back_Issues[1993-1997]/ACN5-3.txt

✍☮

Thank you,
--
Don
J. Clarke
2018-12-14 00:58:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by D B Davis
RAND's preface, dated 1964, shows clear intention to build a wide area
An electrical engineer by training, Paul Baran worked for Hughes
Aircraft Company's systems group before joining RAND in 1959.
While working at RAND on a scheme for U.S. telecommunications
infrastructure to survive a "first strike," Baran conceived of
the Internet and digital packet switching, the Internet's
underlying data communications technology. His concepts are
still employed today; just the terms are different. His seminal
work first appeared in a series of RAND studies published between
1960 and 1962 and then finally in the tome "On Distributed
Communications," published in 1964.
https://web.archive.org/web/20101228070851/http://www.rand.org:80/about/history/baran-list.html
NSFNET's Final Report, dated a couple of decades later, clearly
indicates that ARPANET was designed to withstand nuclear attack.
These WANs were primarily Federal research projects, the first
of which was the ARPANET in 1969. An outgrowth of the Department
of Defense's Advanced Research Projects Agency, the ARPANET's
packet-switching scheme was meant to provide reliable
communications in the face of nuclear attack.
https://web.archive.org/web/20091104065325/https://www.merit.edu/documents/pdf/nsfnet/nsfnet_report.pdf
Eugene Miya (a student at one of the early ARPA sites) mentions nuclear
war suvivability in an October 16, 1990 usenet post to comp.misc and
alt.folklore.computers entitled "Re: Internet: The Origins."
“Why? Lots of reasons: intellectual curiosity, the need to
have different machines communicate, study fault tolerance
of communications systems in the event of nuclear war, share
and connect expensive resources, very soft ideas to very hard
ideas....”
http://www.ais.org/~jrh/acn/text/Back_Issues[1993-1997]/ACN5-3.txt
??
Thank you,
How much would it cost to buy you a life?
Ninapenda Jibini
2018-12-14 04:18:17 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 13 Dec 2018 15:53:54 -0000 (UTC), D B Davis
Post by D B Davis
RAND's preface, dated 1964, shows clear intention to build a
An electrical engineer by training, Paul Baran worked for
Hughes Aircraft Company's systems group before joining RAND
in 1959. While working at RAND on a scheme for U.S.
telecommunications infrastructure to survive a "first
strike," Baran conceived of the Internet and digital packet
switching, the Internet's underlying data communications
technology. His concepts are still employed today; just the
terms are different. His seminal work first appeared in a
series of RAND studies published between 1960 and 1962 and
then finally in the tome "On Distributed Communications,"
published in 1964.
https://web.archive.org/web/20101228070851/http://www.rand.or
g:80/about/history/baran-list.html
NSFNET's Final Report, dated a couple of decades later, clearly
indicates that ARPANET was designed to withstand nuclear attack.
These WANs were primarily Federal research projects, the
first of which was the ARPANET in 1969. An outgrowth of the
Department of Defense's Advanced Research Projects Agency,
the ARPANET's packet-switching scheme was meant to provide
reliable communications in the face of nuclear attack.
https://web.archive.org/web/20091104065325/https://www.merit.
edu/documents/pdf/nsfnet/nsfnet_report.pdf
Eugene Miya (a student at one of the early ARPA sites) mentions
nuclear war suvivability in an October 16, 1990 usenet post to
comp.misc and alt.folklore.computers entitled "Re: Internet: The
Origins."
“Why? Lots of reasons: intellectual curiosity, the need to
have different machines communicate, study fault tolerance
of communications systems in the event of nuclear war, share
and connect expensive resources, very soft ideas to very
hard ideas....”
http://www.ais.org/~jrh/acn/text/Back_Issues[1993-1997]/ACN5-
3.txt
??
Thank you,
How much would it cost to buy you a life?
Good question. I'd ask how much you paid, but you're obviously
still shopping, too.

It takes two to tango, son.
--
Terry Austin

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
Default User
2018-12-14 05:12:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by D B Davis
RAND's preface, dated 1964, shows clear intention to build a wide
Why is this posted to rec.arts.comics.strips?


Brian
D B Davis
2018-12-14 05:58:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Default User
Post by D B Davis
RAND's preface, dated 1964, shows clear intention to build a wide
Why is this posted to rec.arts.comics.strips?
This debate started in the "A Girl and Her Fed: Anti Vaxxers" thread
that Lynn originally posted to both groups. My thread was posted to
both groups as a courtesy to readers who followed the debate in either
group.



Thank you,
--
Don
Default User
2018-12-14 18:39:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by D B Davis
Post by Default User
Why is this posted to rec.arts.comics.strips?
This debate started in the "A Girl and Her Fed: Anti Vaxxers" thread
that Lynn originally posted to both groups. My thread was posted to
both groups as a courtesy to readers who followed the debate in either
group.
Why didn't you keep IN that thread?


Brian
D B Davis
2018-12-15 01:02:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Default User
Post by D B Davis
Post by Default User
Why is this posted to rec.arts.comics.strips?
This debate started in the "A Girl and Her Fed: Anti Vaxxers" thread
that Lynn originally posted to both groups. My thread was posted to
both groups as a courtesy to readers who followed the debate in either
group.
Why didn't you keep IN that thread?
The debate's in that other thread. This thread presents evidence from
three separate sources, which appear together for the first time, AFIAK.
This thread subsumes the debate and the two usenet groups where the
debate took place. This thread is intended to provide evidence to the
Internet at large for the benefit of future historians.



Thank you,
--
Don
Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
2018-12-15 00:16:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by D B Davis
Post by Default User
Post by D B Davis
Post by Default User
Why is this posted to rec.arts.comics.strips?
This debate started in the "A Girl and Her Fed: Anti Vaxxers"
thread that Lynn originally posted to both groups. My thread
was posted to both groups as a courtesy to readers who
followed the debate in either group.
Why didn't you keep IN that thread?
The debate's in that other thread. This thread presents evidence
from three separate sources, which appear together for the first
time, AFIAK. This thread subsumes the debate and the two usenet
groups where the debate took place. This thread is intended to
provide evidence to the Internet at large for the benefit of
future historians.
Because future historians looking into the origins of the internet
will obviously be looking in newsgroups devoted to written science
fiction and comics.

It's off topic for _both_ groups.

So let me translate:

"I know everybody killfiled the other thread, but I'm too weak and
insecure to admit I'm just desperate for attention."

Or mabye:

"I'm an asshold troll."
--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
Default User
2018-12-15 19:20:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by D B Davis
Post by Default User
Post by D B Davis
Post by Default User
Why is this posted to rec.arts.comics.strips?
This debate started in the "A Girl and Her Fed: Anti Vaxxers"
Why didn't you keep IN that thread?
The debate's in that other thread. This thread presents evidence
Who the fuck cares what "evidence" you think you have or how important
you think it is to make sure we all see it? It was bad enough having
one thread on the topic. If you had something else to say, KEEP it in
the original.

I was okay with the effort to bring some comic traffic to RACS, given
the much reduced state over there. Bringing in this type of typical
RASFW stuff there is not helping.



Brian
Robert Carnegie
2018-12-15 22:37:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Default User
Post by D B Davis
Post by Default User
Post by D B Davis
Post by Default User
Why is this posted to rec.arts.comics.strips?
This debate started in the "A Girl and Her Fed: Anti Vaxxers"
Why didn't you keep IN that thread?
The debate's in that other thread. This thread presents evidence
Who the fuck cares what "evidence" you think you have or how important
you think it is to make sure we all see it? It was bad enough having
one thread on the topic. If you had something else to say, KEEP it in
the original.
I was okay with the effort to bring some comic traffic to RACS, given
the much reduced state over there. Bringing in this type of typical
RASFW stuff there is not helping.
I'm indifferent. Everyone else gave their opinion,
so I thought I should say.

By the way, once the internet's actual use became
apparent, it was reconfigured so that one backhoe [*]
in the wrong place can sever a continent. Example:
<https://www.linx.net> "connecting more than 80 countries".

[*] (Which is not what the previous sentence encourages
you to think.)

Linx may be no longer a node whose loss actually
disconnects everybody, they may have alternate routes
by now. But from news coverage that I remember seeing,
admittedly one or more times in the last 35 years,
whenever Linx in London went offline, everyone was offline.

D B Davis
2018-12-15 01:13:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Default User
Post by D B Davis
Post by Default User
Why is this posted to rec.arts.comics.strips?
This debate started in the "A Girl and Her Fed: Anti Vaxxers" thread
that Lynn originally posted to both groups. My thread was posted to
both groups as a courtesy to readers who followed the debate in either
group.
Why didn't you keep IN that thread?
The debate's in that other thread. This thread presents evidence from
three separate sources, which appear together for the first time, AFIAK.
This thread transcends the debate and the two usenet groups where the
debate took place. This thread is intended to provide evidence to the
Internet at large for the benefit of future historians. It must
standalone for clarity's sake.



Thank you,
--
Don
J. Clarke
2018-12-15 01:21:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by D B Davis
Post by Default User
Post by D B Davis
Post by Default User
Why is this posted to rec.arts.comics.strips?
This debate started in the "A Girl and Her Fed: Anti Vaxxers" thread
that Lynn originally posted to both groups. My thread was posted to
both groups as a courtesy to readers who followed the debate in either
group.
Why didn't you keep IN that thread?
The debate's in that other thread. This thread presents evidence from
three separate sources, which appear together for the first time, AFIAK.
This thread transcends the debate and the two usenet groups where the
debate took place. This thread is intended to provide evidence to the
Internet at large for the benefit of future historians. It must
standalone for clarity's sake.
Oh, aren't _we_ self-important.
D B Davis
2018-12-15 07:33:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by D B Davis
RAND's preface, dated 1964, shows clear intention to build a wide area
An electrical engineer by training, Paul Baran worked for Hughes
Aircraft Company's systems group before joining RAND in 1959.
While working at RAND on a scheme for U.S. telecommunications
infrastructure to survive a "first strike," Baran conceived of
the Internet and digital packet switching, the Internet's
underlying data communications technology. His concepts are
still employed today; just the terms are different. His seminal
work first appeared in a series of RAND studies published between
1960 and 1962 and then finally in the tome "On Distributed
Communications," published in 1964.
https://web.archive.org/web/20101228070851/http://www.rand.org:80/about/history/baran-list.html
NSFNET's Final Report, dated a couple of decades later, clearly
indicates that ARPANET was designed to withstand nuclear attack.
These WANs were primarily Federal research projects, the first
of which was the ARPANET in 1969. An outgrowth of the Department
of Defense's Advanced Research Projects Agency, the ARPANET's
packet-switching scheme was meant to provide reliable
communications in the face of nuclear attack.
https://web.archive.org/web/20091104065325/https://www.merit.edu/documents/pdf/nsfnet/nsfnet_report.pdf
Eugene Miya (a student at one of the early ARPA sites) mentions nuclear
war suvivability in an October 16, 1990 usenet post to comp.misc and
alt.folklore.computers entitled "Re: Internet: The Origins."
“Why? Lots of reasons: intellectual curiosity, the need to
have different machines communicate, study fault tolerance
of communications systems in the event of nuclear war, share
and connect expensive resources, very soft ideas to very hard
ideas....”
http://www.ais.org/~jrh/acn/text/Back_Issues[1993-1997]/ACN5-3.txt
Posterity's better served by locating this information, along with
additional links, at http://crcomp.net/history/ARPANET



Thank you,
--
Don
Loading...