BTC to 5000$ soon

[LMGTFY]

... 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).

[Hyena]

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 

[LMGTFY]

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"?

[Hyena]

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 ?

[LMGTFY]

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.

[Hyena]

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.

[LMGTFY]

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.

[crazywack]

I like your positive outlook and hope that Bitcoin can eventualy make it past a 1% marketcap of gold.

Honestly belive it is possible and achievable.

[mixan]

That looks like a unsustainable price to keep even if it reaches that amount.
Try a more realistic number for it to reach this year not in flash forward 10 years 

[Hyena]

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?

[LMGTFY]

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.

[Hyena]

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.

[LMGTFY]

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.

[Hyena]

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

[LMGTFY]

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.

[Hyena]

...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.

[LMGTFY]

...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?

[Hyena]

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.

[LMGTFY]

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.

[Ris88]

My prediction is only up to $ 1,000