HTTP is obsolete. It's time for the Distributed Web (2015)
blog.neocities.org
HTTP is obsolete. It's time for the Distributed Web (2015)
1–10 of 227 posts
Re: HTTP is obsolete. It's time for the Distributed Web (2015)
#2HTTP is not obsolete, it might be outdated, but words have meaning and HTTP one of the most used protocols there is, calling it obsolete is silly.
Re: HTTP is obsolete. It's time for the Distributed Web (2015)
#3HTTP is not obsolete, it might be outdated, but words have meaning and HTTP one of the most used protocols there is, calling it obsolete is silly.
"adj. Outmoded in design, style, or construction: an obsolete locomotive. "[0]
So yes, it's obsolete.
Re: HTTP is obsolete. It's time for the Distributed Web (2015)
#4HTTP is not obsolete, it might be outdated, but words have meaning and HTTP one of the most used protocols there is, calling it obsolete is silly.
"adj. Outmoded in design, style, or construction: an obsolete locomotive. "[0] So yes, it's obsolete. [0] https://www.wordnik.com/words/obsolete
You are of course choosing to ignore the first definition, which says "no longer in use"
Re: HTTP is obsolete. It's time for the Distributed Web (2015)
#5Obsolete? Maybe not yet. But I do think putting forth effort to improving distributed protocols like IPFS could be very helpful in preventing internet censorship like we have seen from Comcast, YouTube, etc. recently.
Re: HTTP is obsolete. It's time for the Distributed Web (2015)
#6Earlier quoted context omitted.
"adj. Outmoded in design, style, or construction: an obsolete locomotive. "[0] So yes, it's obsolete. [0] https://www.wordnik.com/words/obsolete
You are of course choosing to ignore the first definition, which says "no longer in use"
If someone clarifies a meaning by saying "this is what I mean" and pointing to a dictionary definition, a more appropriate response might be "Oh, I didn't realise that's the way you meant it".
That's a sophisticated response. Though you might care to decide which meaning of "sophisticated" you think I'm referencing here.
(There are, in fact, words with widely varying, and even opposed, definitions. Arguing that someone means one that they clearly don't, in such a case, would be exceedingly uncharitable.)
Re: HTTP is obsolete. It's time for the Distributed Web (2015)
#7Earlier quoted context omitted.
"adj. Outmoded in design, style, or construction: an obsolete locomotive. "[0] So yes, it's obsolete. [0] https://www.wordnik.com/words/obsolete
You are of course choosing to ignore the first definition, which says "no longer in use"
No, I'm not. Words can have multiple definitions. One definition does not apply, but a different one does. That's how language works. Hell, most adjectives mean more than one thing, that's just English.
Re: HTTP is obsolete. It's time for the Distributed Web (2015)
#8Does anyone know if Dat can be used over HTTP like IPFS can?
Re: HTTP is obsolete. It's time for the Distributed Web (2015)
#9Earlier quoted context omitted.
You are of course choosing to ignore the first definition, which says "no longer in use"
No, I'm not. Words can have multiple definitions. One definition does not apply, but a different one does. That's how language works. Hell, most adjectives mean more than one thing, that's just English.
> One definition does not apply, but a different one does.
This is you choosing to ignore the first definition. And it's NBD.
I do understand how language works. You can choose to focus on one definition and ignore another, as is clear by this thread.
Re: HTTP is obsolete. It's time for the Distributed Web (2015)
#10Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, I'm not. Words can have multiple definitions. One definition does not apply, but a different one does. That's how language works. Hell, most adjectives mean more than one thing, that's just English.
> One definition does not apply, but a different one does. This is you choosing to ignore the first definition. And it's NBD. I do understand how language works. You can choose to focus on one definition and ignore another, as is clear by this thread.
>This is you ignoring the first definition.
No, it's English allowing words to have multiple definitions.
>I do understand how language works. You can choose to focus on one definition and ignore another, as is clear by this thread.
So why do you take issue with that? If one definition applies, and the other does not, why are you focusing on the definition that doesn't apply? That would be like me picking apart every single word of your post because they can all have multiple meanings. You're straw manning a headline that isn't even making an argument. You're just being disingenuous to be a dick.