Topic: BTC to 5000$ soon - page 33. (Read 36740 times)

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.

Do you have any evidence that 2+2 = 4 ?

Do you have any evidence that the Internet was not designed to withstand war ?

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.


I take it your answer, then, is "no"?

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 

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).

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:

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.

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

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).

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.

I am not your father. What you perceive as my argument is a fruit of your imagination.

As for the time travel, ironically

while


so it is plausible to say that in fact, ARPA could have had access to time-travel technology. 

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.

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

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.

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.

Great, so you learned your lesson?

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.

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)

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

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?