This would be straight out madness. only a lunatic would suggest something like this to happen.
A price rise this big is unknown. Even in the movies.
Topic: BTC to 5000$ soon - page 32. (Read 36764 times)
i think so price slowly move up and steady strong in range $320-$340 and if the price constantly up 1% every weeks, asap price will reach $500.
Well soon in your dreams.
Just think about it realistically. How can an asset x12 in a short period of time. We are talking about an asset with a cap of 6.6 billion.
There is no way this can happen.
Just think about it realistically. How can an asset x12 in a short period of time. We are talking about an asset with a cap of 6.6 billion.
There is no way this can happen.
Yeah right, like that hasn't ever happened before.
Well soon in your dreams.
Just think about it realistically. How can an asset x12 in a short period of time. We are talking about an asset with a cap of 6.6 billion.
There is no way this can happen.
Just think about it realistically. How can an asset x12 in a short period of time. We are talking about an asset with a cap of 6.6 billion.
There is no way this can happen.
My prediction is only up to $ 1,000
Still that is a big rise in mine opinion or I could be totally wrong. I think it will not much higher then 800 or something.
My prediction is only up to $ 1,000
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.
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.
...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.
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?
...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.
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.
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.
Quote
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:
Quote
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.
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.
Quote
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:
Quote
evidence --- something that makes plain or clear; an indication or sign
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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
Try a more realistic number for it to reach this year not in flash forward 10 years
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.
Honestly belive it is possible and achievable.
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).
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.
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.
Jump to: