BTC to 5000$ soon

[Hyena]

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?

[1714996404]

1714996404

[1714996404]

1714996404

[1714996404]

1714996404

[1714996404]

1714996404

[LMGTFY]

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?

[Hyena]

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.

[LMGTFY]

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?

[Hyena]

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.

[LMGTFY]

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?

[Nimbulan]

won't be soon, will take 4 years or so, good to see how people think positive, but thats not logical to see such a huge price rise in just less than 4 years

[Hyena]

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)

[LMGTFY]

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.

[Hyena]

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?

[LMGTFY]

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.

[CryptoBjorn]

won't be soon, will take 4 years or so, good to see how people think positive, but thats not logical to see such a huge price rise in just less than 4 years

You are right if you look at the price right now its says already enough the price is now pretty low and it can not rise from this amount to the amount of the 5k its not realistic.
I think its a matter of time before this happens but I think it will take years before its even possible to reach this amount.

[Koamder]

won't be soon, will take 4 years or so, good to see how people think positive, but thats not logical to see such a huge price rise in just less than 4 years

I also think it will make many more years to $5000. The popularity of bitcoin is not not high yet.

[Mitchow]

won't be soon, will take 4 years or so, good to see how people think positive, but thats not logical to see such a huge price rise in just less than 4 years

I also think it will make many more years to $5000. The popularity of bitcoin is not not high yet.

You are right, it will take a long time to reach there, not so easy and simple as to reach that level we need more user adoption and if the adoption is higher in future, then there are chances to reach that level.

[Hyena]

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. 

[LMGTFY]

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.

[Hyena]

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).

[Dr.Osh]

won't be soon, will take 4 years or so, good to see how people think positive, but thats not logical to see such a huge price rise in just less than 4 years

I also think it will make many more years to $5000. The popularity of bitcoin is not not high yet.

requires more than just fame to make bitcoin price becomes $ 5,000 and it takes a very long time, and bitcoin price of $ 1,000 must pass first, because it is the highest point of the price of bitcoin

[LMGTFY]

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.

[Hyena]

... 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.