I recalled when it dropped below $200, i had thought getting lot of bitcoin was good idea. My thoughts were its very hard for it to go below that. And even if it did, i couldn't see bitcoin falling to below $100. Even if it did, i felt it would go all and it wouldn't take a long time if bought at around $200. Now bitcoin has risen up.
How much money buying bitcoin would you say is still a good buy? Is $430 as its right now still a good buy? Obviously it could swing down to 200 and thats a pretty big drop. The thing is i felt like when it went to 200 a while back, that was a time you should have bought a lot of bitcoin.
Thoughts on this?
That's pretty much how I thought for most of last year - price was ranging between ~$200 and ~£300, so I bought as much as I could when price was ~$200. I'm much less inclined to buy now, mostly because I've now spent the fiat I'd set aside for BTC! However... right now price seems to be ranging again, albeit in a narrowing range, If price went down, to above $370, and then began to rise - I'd consider buying more. If price went down, below $370, I'd hold off and see what happened before making any decision. ($370 seems to be the very recent bottom - i.e. February 2016, ignoring the low in late January). |
|
|
|
The price has vastly crossed the welcome note.
The price also looks stable without much change
or difference in the price. The halving is coming
close which might take the price of bitcoin even
high by crossing the $500 border.
The stability of the price is good for the adoption of the bitcoin. If it is too volatile, merchants will not use it. I keep seeing this being said. Is there is any basis for it? Do we see merchants discontinue using BTC when volatility grows "too much"? What is "too much"? |
|
|
|
The value could go up to $1500 or higher after the halving and the block size increase to 2MB or 4MB.
I doubt it... we are at $400+ right now and it seems like it would stay there for the next week...$1000 might come but I don't think that it would be stable at that price, it fall back around $600 or $700.. It will reach $1k but won't remain stable I guess, it will fall back down and would be around $500-600 by the end of the year, but it will never remain stable for sure. This could well happen. The bitcoin price is never stable. If the price is as stable as the gold, it will have to be $100,000 each. That's really awesome, because the volatility of Gold/USD is 1.00%, and the volatility of BTC/USD is 2.03% and, historically, has been declining (BTC/USD volatility hasn't been above 5% this year, 8% last year, or 12% in 2014.) |
|
|
|
So what would make you change your mind? What arguments, data, evidence, observations, whatever, would you accept?
I would have to be the architect to know the reasons behind the choices of Internet's design. But I would also believe it if the architect was a very close friend of mine and they admitted that they had absolutely no intention to create the Internet in a way that it would remain operational at times of war. I would also want to hear a similar confession from a person who allowed funding to the project and every key participant who knew about it and who had the power to change the course of things. It could very well be that the project was not cancelled only because it had military implications that no one officially talked about. The reasons for such secrecy typically include budget problems. For example, funding policy may require from the project to have solely civilian utility, so any references to military uses may get it cancelled. Just because no one officially talked about the military implications of the Internet does not mean there were none. Especially when the military implications are so damn obvious. Crikey. Well, fare ye well. |
|
|
|
...and skipped the "(law) Anything admitted by a court to prove or disprove alleged matters of fact in a trial." definition.
Anyhoo...
Are you effectively saying "there is nothing you can do that will make me change my mind"? If that's the case I'd be happy to walk, nay, run away and leave you to it.
No I'm not saying that. I simply do not care if you change your mind or not. You are free to stay and you are free to run or do whatever you want to do. I do feel, though, that my work here is done. You have learned your lesson, you have exhausted all your resources and you wish to get away to think about your life in solitude. So what would make you change your mind? What arguments, data, evidence, observations, whatever, would you accept? |
|
|
|
Are you effectively saying "there is nothing you can do that will make me change my mind"? If that's the case I'd be happy to walk, nay, run away and leave you to it.
I'm honestly not bringing this matter to court. I just happen to believe that intellectual and forensic vigour have a role in discourse.
I didn't mean literally to the court. I mean that you chose the definition of the term evidence that is used in the context of courts. Law. data presented to a court or jury in proof of the facts in issue and which may include the testimony of witnesses, records, documents, or objects.
While I'd define it like that: evidence --- something that makes plain or clear; an indication or sign Huh, I thought I picked the two definitions that weren't legal... Except there's not a lack of evidence ( "Facts or observations presented in support of an assertion.", "One who bears witness."). I've provided evidence - an observation from someone who was there, someone who was there bearing witness - stating what the design goals were - and were not. I've also provided evidence (facts and observations around the presentation to the UK's NPL in 1968) of the "discovery" of the utility of packet-switching in resisting nuclear attack (albeit in voice telecommunications rather than data), after the inception of ARPANET. ...and skipped the "(law) Anything admitted by a court to prove or disprove alleged matters of fact in a trial." definition. Anyhoo... Are you effectively saying "there is nothing you can do that will make me change my mind"? If that's the case I'd be happy to walk, nay, run away and leave you to it. |
|
|
|
Except there's not a lack of evidence ( "Facts or observations presented in support of an assertion.", "One who bears witness."). I've provided evidence - an observation from someone who was there, someone who was there bearing witness - stating what the design goals were - and were not. I've also provided evidence (facts and observations around the presentation to the UK's NPL in 1968) of the "discovery" of the utility of packet-switching in resisting nuclear attack (albeit in voice telecommunications rather than data), after the inception of ARPANET. I'm not asking you to accept this uncritically. I'm asking you to accept that your claim is, as it stands, without merit - there is no evidence to support your claim, and you have to date provided no evidence to disprove Charles Herzfeld's claim. You're asking us to accept a claim made by someone with no connection to the events over the claim of people who were present, either at the inception of ARPANET or at the later NPL packet-switching demo. Without supporting evidence, and with evidence to the contrary, that's a really big ask. False. I'm not asking anything, it is you who insist on me agreeing with you. You have to learn that it is normal to have people disagreeing with you. If you want to pose yourself as an evolved being you should try to stop the urge to convert others into your religion (whatever the idea is that you fanatically hold on to). You are now bringing the matter to the court, but courts do not seek out truth, you should know that. If courts did that there would be no innocent people convicted, ever. Tell me honestly, what do you believe, does NASA tells us the truth? Because the spokespersons of NASA are also providing us an observation from someone who was there, someone who was there bearing witness. So if your only requirement for evidence was that a person must have been around the object of discussion in some way, then you must have a REALLY distorted and manipulated description of the world. I'd even call it a hopelessly far developed pathology and refuse to cure it. Are you effectively saying "there is nothing you can do that will make me change my mind"? If that's the case I'd be happy to walk, nay, run away and leave you to it. I'm honestly not bringing this matter to court. I just happen to believe that intellectual and forensic vigour have a role in discourse. |
|
|
|
As a theory it would be falsifiable, no? So you should (a) be able to disprove it, and (b) provide evidence supporting your theory.
It cannot be proven nor disproven due to lack of evidence. Maybe in the future we will have that evidence but right now neither did you nor me provide any. However, it can be reasoned effectively that it is indeed plausible for the Internet to have been created with military ambitions in mind. I'm still assuming your answer is "no", do please shout if you've come up with some new challenge to rational thought.
Your understanding of rational thought is funny to me. You could as well as present the diary of admiral Richard E. Byrd as evidence that the Earth is hollow. Please, come back when you have evidence to support your claim that the Internet was not designed to withstand war. Until that, the common sense will answer the question for us all --- in network centric warfare the Internet is an inevitable invention and thus was probably created for that purpose. Was fire discovered or invented? What you're saying is like "the Internet was discovered". Being an axiomatic element to the network centric warfare, it is impossible for it to be an accident. Let me guess, you think life on Earth is also an accident? Evolution is the result of mere chance? Except there's not a lack of evidence ( "Facts or observations presented in support of an assertion.", "One who bears witness."). I've provided evidence - an observation from someone who was there, someone who was there bearing witness - stating what the design goals were - and were not. I've also provided evidence (facts and observations around the presentation to the UK's NPL in 1968) of the "discovery" of the utility of packet-switching in resisting nuclear attack (albeit in voice telecommunications rather than data), after the inception of ARPANET. I'm not asking you to accept this uncritically. I'm asking you to accept that your claim is, as it stands, without merit - there is no evidence to support your claim, and you have to date provided no evidence to disprove Charles Herzfeld's claim. You're asking us to accept a claim made by someone with no connection to the events over the claim of people who were present, either at the inception of ARPANET or at the later NPL packet-switching demo. Without supporting evidence, and with evidence to the contrary, that's a really big ask. |
|
|
|
Yes, indeed I do. I have statements from people involved in ARPANET at the time that list ARPANET's design goals, and, to date, no one has shown those statements to be false.
I'm sorry to inform you but that is not evidence. It's at most a theory, but to be more just, I'd call it a speculation. As a theory it would be falsifiable, no? So you should (a) be able to disprove it, and (b) provide evidence supporting your theory. "Besides, the Internet was designed to persist during war. "If this statement of yours is correct, then you should be able to provide evidence supporting it, and you should be able to provide evidence disproving Charles Herzfeld's claim that "the ARPAnet came out of our frustration that there were only a limited number of large, powerful research computers in the country, and that many research investigators who should have access to them were geographically separated from them." Do you have any evidence to support your claim?Do you have any evidence that disproves Charles Herzfeld's claim?(Just two yes/no questions. That shouldn't tire you out too much). I'm still assuming your answer is "no", do please shout if you've come up with some new challenge to rational thought. |
|
|
|
Well I assumed you had some reason to make the claim in the first place, you weren't just talking out of your arse. If you just made it up, and it's not grounded in reality, then fair enough. It kind of renders this whole discussion moot, though. OK, I'll make it very short and easy for you to digest. "Besides, the Internet was designed to persist during war. "If this statement of yours is correct, then you should be able to provide evidence supporting it, and you should be able to provide evidence disproving Charles Herzfeld's claim that "the ARPAnet came out of our frustration that there were only a limited number of large, powerful research computers in the country, and that many research investigators who should have access to them were geographically separated from them." Do you have any evidence to support your claim?Do you have any evidence that disproves Charles Herzfeld's claim?(Just two yes/no questions. That shouldn't tire you out too much). I take it your answer, then, is "no"? Do you have any evidence that 2+2 = 4 ? Do you have any evidence that the Internet was not designed to withstand war ? Yes, indeed I do. I have statements from people involved in ARPANET at the time that list ARPANET's design goals, and, to date, no one has shown those statements to be false. On the other hand "Besides, the Internet was designed to persist during war" - a claim you made - isn't supported by any evidence provided to date, and the poster who made the claim seems unable or unwilling to evidence their claim. |
|
|
|
If this statement of yours is correct, then you should be able to provide evidence supporting it
Here's where you go wrong. Where do you get such wild ideas? Who told you this?  I must admit, you tricked me well. You made me believe that you were a worthy opponent but I didn't expect you had such fatal flaws in the very basis of your reasoning. "God does not exist. I cannot provide evidence, thus god must exist?" Come on, you can stop trolling now, you're busted Well I assumed you had some reason to make the claim in the first place, you weren't just talking out of your arse. If you just made it up, and it's not grounded in reality, then fair enough. It kind of renders this whole discussion moot, though. OK, I'll make it very short and easy for you to digest. "Besides, the Internet was designed to persist during war. "If this statement of yours is correct, then you should be able to provide evidence supporting it, and you should be able to provide evidence disproving Charles Herzfeld's claim that "the ARPAnet came out of our frustration that there were only a limited number of large, powerful research computers in the country, and that many research investigators who should have access to them were geographically separated from them." Do you have any evidence to support your claim?Do you have any evidence that disproves Charles Herzfeld's claim?(Just two yes/no questions. That shouldn't tire you out too much). I take it your answer, then, is "no"? |
|
|
|
... long text = shit text ...
The more you need to write in your every reply, the more it shows your lack of ability to contain the situation for your favour. It has now come to a point where you --- instead of trying to put words in my mouth and trying to force me to play by your rules --- have given up and have fallen to a level of a typical internet commentator driven by their emotions. You erroneously think you have shown that the Internet was not designed to withstand war. You think you have proven something that cannot be proven. In reality, you have just shared a theory that the Internet might not have been designed to persist during war. Nice theory, but it will always remain just a theory. I have no problem with you believing in that theory but don't come telling me what I should or should not believe. But really the final nail to your coffin is your own quotation: The ARPAnet was not started to create a Command and Control System that would survive a nuclear attack, as many now claim. To build such a system was clearly a major military need, but it was not ARPA's mission to do this; in fact, we would have been severely criticized had we tried. ... This just gave them the motive to lie about the real reasons behind the creation of the Internet. I normally do not kick people who already lost the fight and were lying on the ground, but since you're probably stubborn enough to continue your rant after this post, I don't feel sorry for you. I know you do agree that the Internet was designed to be versatile. Being versatile is almost equivalent to the ability of withstanding the conditions of war. Robustness implies the natural ability survive in rough conditions such as war. Ability of withstanding in the conditions of war implies inherent robustness. Since here the implication goes both ways we have equivalence. Now you came about saying that even though the Internet was designed to be robust (withstand the conditions of war) it was not designed to withstand the conditions of war (as if it was not robust). I sense an abnormally high level of hypocrisy in you. OK, I'll make it very short and easy for you to digest. "Besides, the Internet was designed to persist during war. "If this statement of yours is correct, then you should be able to provide evidence supporting it, and you should be able to provide evidence disproving Charles Herzfeld's claim that "the ARPAnet came out of our frustration that there were only a limited number of large, powerful research computers in the country, and that many research investigators who should have access to them were geographically separated from them." Do you have any evidence to support your claim? Do you have any evidence that disproves Charles Herzfeld's claim? (Just two yes/no questions. That shouldn't tire you out too much). |
|
|
|
Your thesis is that warfare-persistence was a design goal for ARPANET. Reading back over this discussion I'm surprised you think there's any doubt about that. Perhaps your earlier comments were the fruit of my imagination, but my imagination is still seeing your earlier comments in this thread. Anyway, your thesis - that should be pretty easy for you to prove, eh? Specifically, your thesis is falsifiable - I can show a statement from the guy who commissioned ARPANET saying that warfare-persistence was not a design goal, and iterating what the real design goals were. That too is falsifiable - if you care about the accuracy of your claim, you could make some effort to disprove Charles Herzfeld's statements regarding the design goals of the internet he commissioned. It would make for an exciting new theory about the early history of The Internet - you could be famous.
No, you are absolutely wrong. I have repeated it over and over again and you seem to be deaf, blind and dumb to my statements. I understand your frustration over the fact that I am not playing my role in admitting ownership over the statements that you have so carefully crafted for me. However, you need to understand that what you are doing, is a pointless waste of time. Let me make it really simple for you, because who knows, perhaps I'm talking to a mentally gifted person. 1. The Internet was designed, amongst other things, to withstand war. 2. The commissioner did not have this in mind, but that doesn't falsify the previous statement. Your fallacy lies in the fact that you insist on the commissioner to have been the sole creator of the Internet while in reality he was just a commissioner, much like a police officer is a law enforcer (but not the creator of the law). Or perhaps this will light a bulb for you: If something works very well in a certain condition, then it was designed for such a condition, even if the human aspect of the great designer was not immediately aware of that. You seem to be stuck in the old and rigid way of thinking where a paper trail dictates reality and not vice versa. I repeat myself again and again that there is no way of knowing what were the real reasons behind the creation of the Internet. For starters, the commissioner could lie either knowingly or unknowingly. The papers could be deceiving. If I was to pretend that recorded history is always the utter truth, then of course I would agree that the Internet was not designed for war, being the idiot that I am and believing the sources that you have presented. And since I already know that you have so hard time admitting your defeat I can already guess that you will almost certainly repeat yourself like a broken gramophone. For that reason, I will say one more thing to save myself from too many replies to your funny act of banging your head against the wall. Even if the Internet was obviously and absolutely a terrible invention under the typical conditions of war and your beloved commissioner stated that they never designed the Internet to withstand war, even then I would not immediately interpret this with absolute certainty as what really happened. I was not there when it happened, I have no way of knowing what really happened, but I do have my common sense --- if it looks like cat, acts like a cat and meows like a cat, then it must be a cat. If it looks like it was designed to persist in rough conditions then it was probably designed to persist in rough conditions (no matter what your beloved government-that-would-never-lie-to-you says). 1. If this was the case, you will be able to provide evidence in support of your thesis that the Internet "was designed, amongst other things, to withstand war". 2. Charles Herzfeld stated that: The ARPAnet was not started to create a Command and Control System that would survive a nuclear attack, as many now claim. To build such a system was clearly a major military need, but it was not ARPA's mission to do this; in fact, we would have been severely criticized had we tried. ... ...and, knowing your fascination with the differences between nuclear- and conventional-warfare, and anticipating yet another attempted derailment, I'll quote the rest: ... Rather, the ARPAnet came out of our frustration that there were only a limited number of large, powerful research computers in the country, and that many research investigators who should have access to them were geographically separated from them. He's not talking about his intent; he's talking about the intent of ARPA as a whole, and its sponsors in the wider military and government. He's talking about the design goal being linking computers and networks at scattered (military) research locations to allow sharing of research resources. "If something works very well in a certain condition, then it was designed for such a condition, even if the human aspect of the great designer was not immediately aware of that." I think if you truly believe that (and to give you the benefit of the doubt, I'm sceptical that you do truly believe that) then your definition of "design" is wide enough to drive a cart-horse through. The Internet works very well for the distribution of pornography - why oh why didn't ARPA think of the children? Oh wait, because working very well in a certain condition isn't evidence that the Internet was designed for that condition. Commerce works exceptionally well on the Internet - we should thank ARPA for designing the greatest commercial platform of all time. Oh wait, etc etc. Your argument now appears to be "I concede that warfare persistence wasn't a conscious design goal, but because the Internet may exhibit warfare persistence then we can consider it a design goal regardless". Sorry, your lightbulb is still flickering. Did you replace it after your "the military only design things to persist warfare" fiasco? Like your duck-test (sorry,"cat test), I employ a similar test. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. You've made an extraordinary claim, that flies in the face of the available evidence, and your attempts to justify it have, to date, been demonstrably risible. It should be trivial for you to prove your claim that (your words) "the Internet was designed, amongst other things, to withstand war". The rhetorical dilettantism of a Philosophy 101 student, slightly tipsy in the student union bar and bent on convincing his bored audience that the sky is red and football doesn't exist, is amusing the first few times we encounter it, but ultimately grown ups crave actual rational thought and not silly parlour tricks. You made a statement - back that statement up with facts. I'll be happy to admit defeat - if you can show that (again, your words): "the Internet was designed, amongst other things, to withstand war" has evidence supporting it (and, of course, that the evidence isn't trivially falsifiable - some random on the Internet with a conspiracy theory obviously doesn't count). Design docs from the time, diaries from engineers involved, Herzfeld's shrink's notes revealing him to be a fantasist - honestly, the potential for evidence supporting your assertion is practically limitless. If you cared about the accuracy of what you're claiming, you could have made a good start on finding something to support your claim by now. |
|
|
|
Once again, how did you arrive at that? You're using the RAND corporation's discovery, and using it to support the argument that the pre-existing ARPANET was designed to persist warfare? Are you saying ARPA had access to time-travel technology?
Have you managed to find any evidence to support your thesis? It should be pretty trivial, eh.
I am not your father. What you perceive as my argument is a fruit of your imagination. As for the time travel, ironically The Philadelphia Experiment is an alleged military experiment that is said to have been carried out by the U.S. Navy at the Philadelphia Naval Shipyard in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania some time around October 28, 1943. while Access to the ARPANET was expanded in 1981 when the National Science Foundation (NSF) funded the Computer Science Network (CSNET). In 1982, the Internet protocol suite (TCP/IP) was introduced as the standard networking protocol on the ARPANET. so it is plausible to say that in fact, ARPA could have had access to time-travel technology. Your thesis is that warfare-persistence was a design goal for ARPANET. Reading back over this discussion I'm surprised you think there's any doubt about that. Perhaps your earlier comments were the fruit of my imagination, but my imagination is still seeing your earlier comments in this thread. Anyway, your thesis - that should be pretty easy for you to prove, eh? Specifically, your thesis is falsifiable - I can show a statement from the guy who commissioned ARPANET saying that warfare-persistence was not a design goal, and iterating what the real design goals were. That too is falsifiable - if you care about the accuracy of your claim, you could make some effort to disprove Charles Herzfeld's statements regarding the design goals of the internet he commissioned. It would make for an exciting new theory about the early history of The Internet - you could be famous. |
|
|
|
There is every way for you to know whether you are correct: my assertion is falsifiable; have at it.
The Internet is most certainly an ingenious invention; this became apparent during its inception when - separately, and in the UK - a RAND corporation scientist discussed packet-switching in the context of electronic (voice) communications, and their survivability in the event of a nuclear attack. That's another falsifiable assertion, as before be my guest and have at it.
Great, so you learned your lesson? Once again, how did you arrive at that? You're using the RAND corporation's discovery, and using it to support the argument that the pre-existing ARPANET was designed to persist warfare? Are you saying ARPA had access to time-travel technology? Have you managed to find any evidence to support your thesis? It should be pretty trivial, eh. |
|
|
|
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) There is every way for you to know whether you are correct: my assertion is falsifiable; have at it. The Internet is most certainly an ingenious invention; this became apparent during its inception when - separately, and in the UK - a RAND corporation scientist discussed packet-switching in the context of electronic (voice) communications, and their survivability in the event of a nuclear attack. That's another falsifiable assertion, as before be my guest and have at it. |
|
|
|
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. 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? |
|
|
|
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. 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? |
|
|
|
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? 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? |
|
|
|
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.
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? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
