Well no. Not sure how you got that bizarre idea, I still hold to the quaint notion that Charles Herzfeld's not an idiot. Anyway, what was your answer to my question? Have you now given up on the argument that everything the military designed was implicitly designed with warfare-persistence as a goal?
Too bad, then we have nothing to discuss. You clearly and blindly believe in your sources and I clearly and blindly keep saying that there is no way of knowing for neither you nor me what were the real reasons behind the inception of the Internet. And you have to agree with that, there's simply no other way. Well, there are ways, but those ways are reserved for morons. For example, you could insist that a paper trail and a confession of some key participant is always guaranteed to be 100% truth. But that's obviously a fallacy, don't you think? What I do agree on, is that there's a theory that the Internet might not have been designed to survive a nuclear war. Which isn't a far fetched theory because there are not many inventions designed to survive a nuclear war anyway. But when it comes conventional wars where central units of command are the first bombing targets, it becomes very obvious that the Internet is tactically an ingenious invention. Do you honestly believe that the military IT guys sitting around the table putting the first draft of the Internet on paper didn't think of that? You think a bunch of morons designed the Internet? And it was a mere accident that the Internet happened to have all the traits necessary for being resilient to attacks? (these were rhetoric questions, you don't have to answer those, if you do you will only show your stupidity) |
|
|
|
Well then you should find it trivial to falsify Charles Herzfeld's assertion. Give us some insight that the commissioner of ARPANET failed to give us. Incidentally, that sentence with which you now agree was in response to your apparent argument that everything the military designed was implicitly designed with warfare-persistence as a goal. I take it you've now given up on that argument, and we could move on?
Hah, so you do admit that the Internet could have been designed to have warfare-persistence in mind, although in some petty cases it is clearly not so (captain Obvious to the rescue). So why the big drama around your childhood? Go tell your story to your father or something, I'm not a psychiatrist. |
|
|
|
No answer? Can I assume you accept that the military do, on occasion, design things where warfare-persistence is not a design goal. Or would you like to try another desperate roll of the dice?
Of course I agree with such a sentence. But that one occasion being the Internet is just laughable. |
|
|
|
That's because you keep making strange-ass assumptions. If you focus on what I'm saying, and not what you think I'm saying - or would like me to be saying - you should do better. Now, what was it about my non-warfare-persistence examples list response to your argument that you actually take issue with?
I remember I said something similar to you some time ago. How does it feel to taste your own medicine? |
|
|
|
How, exactly, am I "comparing the Internet with a civilian setting"? I listed numerous examples of the military designing things without warfare-persistence as a design goal - bridges in relief operations, administrative buildings in cities, limpet-mines. And "comparing the Internet with a civilian setting" was what you took from that? Honestly, I'm struggling to see how - or why - you would do that unless you were trying to deflect attention away from the issue at hand. Now, what was it about that response to your argument you actually take issue? (And, for bonus points, how might it be affected by your presumption of childhood trauma?)
I'm getting doubts that you even know what the Internet is and how it works. If that's the case, I'm out. Seriously, you seem to know what an EMP is yet you fail to grasp that the Internet in its concept is not vulnerable to the EMPs at all. The power grid is vulnerable because the energy business is the only business that is not regulated. Typically regulation would require basic defence of the critical infrastructure against natural disasters but it's not the case with the power stations (at least not in the US). If the connections between nodes were properly shielded there would be no threat to the Internet from even a nuclear explosion. |
|
|
|
Ah, that last paragraph helped explain much of the "how can you know?" drivel. I can safely say I don't start with "your readers'" base knowledge (I mean, I'm familiar with much of it, but I wouldn't say I have <ahem> knowledge). Well, good luck battling the Illuminati.
As to how I know that the military design things that aren't intended to display warfare-persistence - well, partly common sense, seeing what army engineers build in civilian settings, watching disaster-relief operations in a few places, and having a military (naval) parent who designed things that were not intended to persist but rather to cease to exist, very rapidly.
Ah, that last paragraph helped explain much of the "how can you know?" drivel. It's called expectation bias and you're full of it, which is sad. I mean I'm sorry for your childhood dramas but comparing the Internet to a civilian setting is even more ridiculous than battling the Illuminati (which is by the way not what I am doing anyway, so again, expectation bias much on your side). |
|
|
|
I won't, don't worry. Though I have to admit I don't have a come back to your last paragraph - partly because I have little idea what you're saying or why it's relevant, but mostly because it's got nothing to do with my argument.
Perhaps you wish to present me with some evidence that clearly shows that I was worrying?  My argument, you will recall, is that the Internet was not designed with warfare-persistence as a design goal. It had specific design goals, of which warfare-persistence was not one. Charles Herzfeld has stated what the design goals were. All of this is falsifiable: you could disprove Charles Herzfeld, for example, by finding a collaborator prepared to spill the beans.
How can you know? You didn't design the Internet. Neither did the commissioner. You should be intelligent enough to understand that what is written on the paper is a whole different story from what is really going on, especially when it comes to spending the taxpayers' money. Your argument currently appears to be "military project implies warfare-persistence" Well, it's possible that the Seabees - the US Navy's "Construction Battalion" - had warfare-persistence as a design goal when they were repairing roads and bridges in the wake of Hurricane Georges. I guess warfare-persistence was certainly a goal when the Pentagon was first built - I don't believe anyone thinks it's a realistic goal for some modern military buildings, but perhaps the administrative buildings are all civilian-designed? Perhaps. The military design things to blow up, they design temporary things, they design things that won't ever be near any battlefield - they design things for all sorts of reasons. Incredibly, they aren't just in the business of waging and surviving war.
That truly is incredible. How do you know that? I keep coming back to this, but I guess it's the crux of the issue - why would you say something and not care whether it was true or not? Why would you post something on a public forum and then try and deflect any criticism? There's a great discussion to be had around BTC and gold and stores of value, but you seem hostile to any real discussion beyond the usual cheerleading.
Because I demand my readers to have a certain degree of base knowledge. I'm not into babysitting oblivious sheeple, I let them disagree with me while secretly laughing into my paw. The time is ripe for the end of the current financial parasitism all over the world. It's make it or break it year for the Illuminati. The demand for physical gold is a clear indicator that something big has started to happen, there's no place for argument here because these are all pure facts. The global shipping is said to have ceased. The Worldwide Economy is Grinding to a Halt. The migrant crisis, tensions regarding Turkey, Russia and Saudi Arabia. 2016 being the Jubilee year, gold and silver soar and markets crash. The Death of Economic Recovery in 2016 by Peter Schiff. I don't have to even mention that BTC block halving will soon take place. Also the US presidential elections and for fuck sake, there's a limited amount of physical gold and silver and other conventional stores of value. But there are a lot of cryptocurrencies that can now be put in test for the first time in the history during a global financial crisis. Remember why Satoshi invented Bitcoin? It was exactly for the situation that is currently unfolding. Hell, they are attempting to ban CASH. You have to be a totally delusional moronic sheep living under a rock to dismiss all these issues and I even didn't go into the QE and interest rates. For fuck sake, if you don't understand these basics there is nothing I've got to tell you. |
|
|
|
Yes, as you state I do know that there's a huge difference between a nuclear war and a war in general (electro-magnetic pulses from nuclear explosions create havoc for electromagnetic communications - pretty much all modern communications). I'm not sure why you're trying to derail this down that way, it really doesn't matter which type of war it is - ARPANET was not designed with warfare-persistence as a design goal.
Thanks for your admission. I sometimes wish threads were tagged "no analysis or thought here!" - it would make life much easier.
And don't get kicked in the butt by the door on your way out. But seriously though, it doesn't take a genius to understand that if military creates something for their own use it is automatically meant to withstand war. It's so obvious that they don't even put it into the reports. And to make matters worse for you, it is outright trivial that a decentralized network of any kind is versatile at times of war. You're just trying to be a smartass by citing offtopic in a hostile way while you could as well as do it without the obvious stench of a saboteur all over the place. By the way, the Internet is vulnerable to EMPs for the same reason the power grid is vulnerable --- because the civilian infrastructure hasn't been built in way that it would be resistant to electromagnetic pulses. When it comes to that, the Internet is the least of your worries. You will be without power, for months. If that's your argument then it's an outright doomsday argument that should be discarded even faster than a wild claim for 5k prices in the near term future. What crazy theory is next in your back pocket? That bitcoin wouldn't survive a zombie apocalypse? Come on, man, by now you just have to see your fallacy, it's so big and red and in your face. |
|
|
|
> Why do you, for example, insist to believe in your referred sources?
Occam's razor. What's likely to be the most likely explanation? That the guy who commissioned ARPANET would know why he commissioned ARPANET, or that some random on the Internet would know better?
That this can or can't be disproved is bollocks, and a cop-out: my statement is clearly falsifiable. If you don't believe that Charles Herzfeld commissioned ARPANET for the reasons he said - you should be able to construct a falsifiable premise of your own.
...and why on Earth would you say something if you didn't care whether it was true or not? Can we infer from your promotion of $5000 that a similar lack of care was involved?
I'm seriously getting bored of you. Not only you seem to know that there's a huge difference between a nuclear war and a war in general. You now don't seem to see a difference between reasons to commission something and reasons to actually do something. What are you trying to achieve here anyway? Make me admit that I didn't care to explain deeply enough my reasons to believe that 5k prices are bound to happen soon? Yes I admit it, I didn't care and you cannot make me care more because it is not about convincing the opponents to see the light but it is about seeing who the opponents are, how they think, what's their average intellect is and so on. |
|
|
|
Meh, the Internet wasn't designed top persist during any sort of war - that simply wasn't a design goal. But yes, nuclear and non-nuclear wars are different. The mistake you made was to repeat a common myth. The mistake you now make is to refuse to believe that you could possibly have erred, in the face of evidence. I know you made a wild prediction.I can only cite the people who did invent the Internet, correct. "Barking what fits my agenda", I like that. The topic is ludicrous, it really doesn't need my help sabotaging it. I'm not talkscheep, I'm not a bear troll. I've been in Bitcoin for a long time, I've been in it seriously since that Slashdot article, bought a GPU, started mining in earnest. I believed - and continue to believe - that there's a possibility that Bitcoin could be huge, many, many orders of magnitude bigger than present. I just don't think we'll convince people that that's possible if our analysis is sketchy hopium and we dismiss any criticism out of hand. I agree that it is common to believe that the Internet was created by the military so that it would persist during a war and in situations where nodes go offline. I also didn't know that such a claim is considered a misconception by some people. But then again, there are opponents to just about anything these days. Is it really a common misconception? I have no way of knowing nor do I care in the context of this topic. It's yet another of these things that cannot be proved nor disproved. Your evidence is not really evidence. And yes, I refuse to believe and no it is not a mistake. Why do you, for example, insist to believe in your referred sources? Don't you think it is human nature to come up with ideas that make other people seem wrong on the pursuit of academic fame, for example? It seems to apply to your misconception theory. But these same people, when confronted with ideas that threaten their description of the world, will do anything to defend it and while doing so they chant how much they think they like it when new science proves old science wrong, how ironic. |
|
|
|
I don't care about it that much, either - it's straying well into off-topic. However, you raised it. You - presumably - persist in your claim despite being shown evidence to the contrary. Disprove that evidence, or accept you made a mistake. Incidentally, here's Charles Herzfeld, ARPA's director at the time discussing why ARPANET was created, what the goals for it were - and weren't. But don't just take his word for it, Google is your friend. The reason it matters is - you made an appeal to your legendary status. I'm of the opinion that, particularly where matters of money is concerned, accuracy is better than longevity. If you raise a topic it looks pretty shabby trying to deflect criticism by calling other participants "brats", dismissing them because you perceive them to be comparative newbies. Particularly when, in the same post, you repeat a common myth. Well, for starters, I never said that the Internet was designed to persist during a nuclear war. So if you insist on clinging so dramatically to that part of my reply, then at least do it correctly. There's a huge difference between a nuclear war and a war in general. So what mistake could I have ever made? Just because you have wet dreams of me having made a mistake does not imply that I have actually made any. Wishful thinking busted. What is also laughable in your behaviour is the fact that you actually think that you can prove me wrong while in reality it is quite impossible. It just portrays you as a rhetoric dilettante. You see, I made a wild prediction based on vague calculations that in their essence cannot ever be falsified. Trying to do so only shows the attempter's lack of wisdom. What is more, it is impossible to win an online debate, and since you seem to be rather serious in your business I can only guess that you're either an excellent troll such as myself or a typical idiot who still has a lot to learn. Either way, you have not contributed constructively to this topic. If all you wanted to say was that in your opinion the Internet was not to designed to survive a nuclear war then why didn't you just state that and leave the making of conclusions to every reader themselves? It's of course good to know that some people perceive it as a misconception that the Internet was designed to survive nuclear wars but then I would ask --- did you invent the Internet? Since the answer is no, you have no way of knowing the full story around the conception of Internet. You just bark what fits your agenda and it is damn obvious that in this case your agenda is to sabotage this topic. |
|
|
|
You said, and I quote, "Besides, the Internet was designed to persist during war." It wasn't, that's a common misconception. Persistence during war wasn't a design consideration. A separate study into voice-communications by the RAND corporation looked at using packet-switching for persistent during an exchange of nuclear weapons - that's where the misconception comes from. Whether or not the Internet might survive such an exchange is academic, unless you'd like to revise your "Besides, the Internet was designed to persist during war. " to "Besides, the Internet might persist during war".
Love the Satoshi stuff, keep it coming.
Bullshit. You have no way of knowing the real reasons why the Internet came to be. You're just quoting stuff that fits your agenda, trying hard to argue with me on the matter that I do not care about. Myself, I have also a bit of experience in the market of physical silver (have bought some shiny stuff for me as well, remember $4 price and $50 as well), and I am very sceptical about seeing even three digit silver in the next 2-3 years. I repeat, I have heard similar opinions from many PM-bugs (PM stands for precious metals) and whereas some of the fears are truth, the 'end of the world as we know it' (aka the end of the great Keynesian experiment) theory is made under the assumptions that the 'powers that be' will play boldly and blindly their game to the final crash without re-adapting to the changing conditions. I think this assumption is invalid, and it was already demonstrated that if you own the cards, the table, the referees you can change the game as it pleases you at any given moment.
You are right, in Starcraft matches the player that has clearly lost the game says gg and resigns. The other player won't get to destroy the loser's town. Only AI will fight it until the last drop of blood. From here we can induce that when it becomes clear that bitcoin is the shit worldwide there are suddenly no opponents left to humiliate on their loss. However, I also think that our current condition is not as bad as you have put it. There is no single entity that controls everything and who makes the rules. The fact that we are presented such image is in itself a reason to believe that it is not true because boasting about one's power is a sign of weakness. |
|
|
|
The Internet was not designed to persist during a nuclear war.: 5 It was from the RAND study that the false rumor started claiming that the ARPANET was somehow related to building a network resistant to nuclear war. This was never true of the ARPANET, only the unrelated RAND study on secure voice considered nuclear war. However, the later work on Internetting did emphasize robustness and survivability, including the capability to withstand losses of large portions of the underlying networks. (ARPANET was "an internet", a network-of-networks. It grew to become the pre-eminent internet now known as The Internet.) ...and $4 BTC? Pah, get off my lawn! It took me 4 days to mine my first 50 BTC with a CPU, and they were only worth $0.10! I kinda forgot about Bitcoin after that, until Slashdot ran a story about Dollar-parity ("OMG! How can magic internet money be worth more than the Dollar? It's unpossible!"). If that's true then where's the proof that the Internet would not survive a war? It's kind of dumb to argue whether the Internet was designed to survive wars or not when what really matters is if it actually would survive a war or not. And the stuff you quoted yourself indicates that the later work on Internetting did emphasize robustness and survivability, including the capability to withstand losses of large portions of the underlying networks. So WTF dude? And you just admitted that you kinda forgot about Bitcoin after that. It says everything about you. Satoshi invents the greatest technology after Internet and you kind of forget about it. Just STFU and leave, you're embarrassing yourself. |
|
|
|
Do you guys realize if there's thermo nuclear war, the internet won't survive? In fact, any and all electronic gears, including computers, phones, any electronic gadgets will stop working?
$5K??? R U Joking??? We can't seem to get back up to $500, let alone $1k, and U R talking bout $5K??? You must be HYENA.
You realize that a full blown nuclear war is the worst possible scenario that will never happen? The other humanoid species would simply not let that happen. What I am referring to is a false flag nuclear attack or a false flag asteroid hit to a specific location on Earth not the whole Earth. Besides, the Internet was designed to persist during war. Have some respect for a legendary member, brats. I have seen Bitcoin ever since it was trading 4$ each. I remember times when a regular PC mined 1 whole bitcoin per day. Now is the time to accumulate cheap bitcoins and physical silver. 5000$ bitcoins are a very pessimistic prediction, a more probable scenario would include at least 10 000$ bitcoins since it would account for human psychology, fear of missing out and panic buying. |
|
|
|
I'm so happy to read so many people disagreeing with it so boldly. This means it has become a really realistic possibility because the majority is always wrong.
what you are saying is true but bitcoin to reach $5k will take some time its not that easy to achieve that milestone, as it is said that there is no short cut to success same goes with the value of bitcoins, it will reach there in future but it will take time. If it doesn't happen in 2016 and if the world continues to be more or less the same it has been for the past 10 years THEN I would agree with you. However, 2016 truly is a critical point in time. I'm even worried that bitcoin's price might be the least of our problems this year. We're lucky if we don't get to see a full blown WW3 this year. I mean look at Turkey, Russia and Saudi Arabia and their flirting with nuclear bombs lately. Doesn't appear good at all. |
|
|
|
|
I'm so happy to read so many people disagreeing with it so boldly. This means it has become a really realistic possibility because the majority is always wrong.
|
|
|
|
but when he starts saying things like he delivered a letter to rockefeller from the ghost of his grandfather? Thats where he loses me
Yeah that truly is funny and in such cases I prefer to laugh on the spot. Take what I need and discard what I don't like. |
|
|
|
That sounds to me a lot like gold bug mantra. I have heard it a lot since the crash from the ATH in gold. That is in the last FIVE years gold was gonna go someday to five digit territory and even beyond. Never happened. Quite to the contrary gold was put under huge selling pressure instantiated by the big banks (also called The Cartel by the gold bugs) every time there was an important support line, to induce even more damage. And so gold went from $19xx to $10xx handle, that is nearly 50% discount. Bitcoin is of course younger and more volatile, but $5k is a pure sci-fi and I suppose this thread should be moved to such a section.
For the record I'm not a goldbug. In fact, I hold zero physical gold. Instead I hold physical silver and I believe silver has much higher profit potential than gold. Silver is simply undervalued, especially against gold. I will swap my silver to gold when the silver/gold ratio goes down. The demand for physical precious metals is getting higher and higher lately. We all know that the amount of physical precious metals in the vaults is far lower than what is shown in the books. Guess what happens when the vaults get empty? That's when the price skyrockets but people are unable to buy into gold/silver since there is simply nothing left. People will then look other alternatives such as bitcoins and BOOM BTC GOES TO 17000$ |
|
|
|
A malformed image of you? I simply showed you that the guy you are sharing with others is not credible. You then went into defense mode saying that my brain would not allow me to believe this guy.
A further 5 min of research shows that he claims the ghost of his grandfather was an adviser to a Canadian Prime Minister?? Now he is on the level of bat ish crazy. Or more commonly known as a disinformation agent. He mixes truth with (in his case) absolutely insane and unbelievable nonsense.
Again I'm sorry that you believe anything that comes from this lunatic, because you must in order to go sharing his videos. I am going to stay far away from his nonsense, but yes I too am amazed he got an interview with rockefeller
And I simply do not care if the guy is credible or not because he is not my only source of information, obviously. What he says aligns with other sources and in combination the knowledge I get this way is at least plausible if not outright obvious. You know the old saying "don't shoot the messenger" ? In your case we should invert that sentence so that it would become "Just because you don't like the messenger, you should not discard the message." |
|
|
|
Not even close. I listened to and read some of his work with an open mind. He sounded legit at first, but some of the things he says just threw up huge red flags, like some of the things I mentioned before. Yes he's interesting to listen to, but he sounds like he has WAY too fantastical of an imagination (or lots of very questionable sources?) to be taken seriously. And I didn't have dig too deep to find these flat out wrong statement, predictions, whatever you want to call them. The fact that he constantly says things, like "my sources tell me" doesn't make anything he is saying credible in the least bit.
I mean, he claims to be the "spokesman" for the "white dragon society" who was offered $25 TRILLION (or $50 trillion) to "stay quiet?" Give me a break dude.
Sounds like YOU may be the one too wrapped up in his work to see that he is not a very good source of information.
Not even close. I don't care much about that particular guy and I don't know the essence of his other work. I only know him for actually getting an interview from David Rockefeller. Another 5 min of reading turns up this, where he not only claims, but PROMISES that:
"The Rothschilds, the Rockefellers, the Jewish bankers in Wall Street, Goldman Sachs, ah, what do you call them, the Bushes and the Clintons."
"THESE are the kind of people we don't want in power any more. And we're going to remove them. That's the promise: THIS YEAR [2012]"
I don't disagree with the gist of what he is saying, those in control of world finances, gvts, etc are horrible, and more or less have most people enslaved, whether they know it or not.
But, you are right though, there is nothing further to argue here. I'm sorry if you've spent countless hours listening to this guy (and are apparently enthralled by him), but unfortunately he has little to no credibility.
Why feel sorry for something that didn't happen? You clearly have a malformed image of me. I can just throw you another video to chew if you think you have for some reason discarded the previous one as garbage. The Economic System Will Most Likely Crash By 2016 And Everyone Will Feel The Pain: Jeff Berwick |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
