🚀 go-pugleaf

> In article <3h6fn2$1nm@umd5.umd.edu>,
> brewer@hamlet.umd.edu (Peter Brewer) writes:

>> From: Peter Brewer <brewer@umd5.umd.edu>
>> Date: Mon, 6 Feb 1995 11:12:28 -0500

[much deleted]

>>AT&T developed UNIX, AT&T owned UNIX.  

> Under contract to the federal contract. Berkeley's release of Unix were
> developed under contract to DARPA basically because certain Multics
> machines running NCP needed to talk to each other across the 
> country and that network became the first worldwide Wide Area Network and
> the called it the ARPAnet. In the process of building 'networking' and
> VM into a Unix kernel TCP/IP was developed. IMPs and other networking
> hardware were developed by BBN under contract to the Maryland Procurement
> Office, Ft Meade. Go to the offices at M.I.T. and if they are available
> look up all contracts associated with Maryland Procurement Office and
> DARPA. Do you really believe the Internet 'built itself' due to the 
> 'synergy' of small businesses like Cygnus?  Are you really that naieve
> that you could possibly believe that the tools you use were not in
> part funded by John q Taxpayer? Albeit an ignorant John Q. Taxpayer,
> because if he had known that his money was being spent so that computer
> geeks could play endless games of hack... ;>))

It's one more example of something a government can and should do, but
which private industry doesn't even imagine doing -- infrastructure.  I
read somewhere that the government was cutting back it's direct support
of the Internet, but I'll bet they continue via indirection to support
it for some time to come.

Incidentally, what is the game of "hack"?  :-)

> ...

>>At no time did the UNIX they own ever belong to `the people'. They sold 
>>UNIX off.

> They had promised to place it in the public domain because they were
> totally funded in this area almost exclusively by the Federal government.
> Unfortunately, they broke their oath and there are laws on the books
> about protecting the 'intellectual property' of government contractors.
> ( probably put their by greedy congress critters who went into corporate
>   law after their term in congress. )

Another example of congress being bought (before or after the fact).
I wonder if they know what "intellectual property" means.  After all,
we don't generally associate those "greedy congress critters" with
intelligence.  I read somewhere recently that Supreme Court Justice
Scalia has even written some papers about the possibility of doing
away with intellectual property rights.  Amazing isn't it?

>>> ...
>> ...

> Okay, ask Berkeley who funded BSD. Ask AT&T where most of the money
> came from to fund C++, C, etc., etc. 

Enquiring minds want to know, where *did* that money come from to fund
C and C++?  Was it maybe the same source which mandated Ada, but then
failed or refused to enforce that mandate?  <grin>

>>>> ....
>>> ...
>> ...
> ...

>>>I demand that you profusely thank every damn taxpayer;

>>You just don't have a clue.

> Jumping Jack Flash just burned your rants!

This argument is almost as intellectual as Newt Gingrich's mother calling
Hillary Clinton a "bitch".  Is it any wonder that political "debate"
usually devolves into shouting matches.

>>> ...
>> ...
> ...

> Your 'facts' are a small kernel of corn in huge field of corn rows.
> In that context they are non sequitur.

I don't know what this means, but it's too neat to delete.


>> ...
> ...

> I'm laughing as I put in a call for FireMarshall Bill so that he can
> teach you the fine art of self-immolation. ;-) :)) :>)) hahahahahaha
> 
>>>>>>>> FLAME OFF >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> 
> *******************************************************************************
> ...



Less silly parts have been deleted, so as not to bore the reader.

Enjoy,


Mark S. Hathaway       <hathawa2@marshall.edu>