Quote from: Hyena on February 26, 2016, 01:23:45 PM

Quote from: LMGTFY on February 26, 2016, 12:45:10 PM

I don't care about it that much, either - it's straying well into off-topic. However, you raised it. You - presumably - persist in your claim despite being shown evidence to the contrary. Disprove that evidence, or accept you made a mistake. Incidentally, here's Charles Herzfeld, ARPA's director at the time discussing why ARPANET was created, what the goals for it were - and weren't. But don't just take his word for it, Google is your friend.

The reason it matters is - you made an appeal to your legendary status. I'm of the opinion that, particularly where matters of money is concerned, accuracy is better than longevity. If you raise a topic it looks pretty shabby trying to deflect criticism by calling other participants "brats", dismissing them because you perceive them to be comparative newbies. Particularly when, in the same post, you repeat a common myth.

Well, for starters, I never said that the Internet was designed to persist during a nuclear war. So if you insist on clinging so dramatically to that part of my reply, then at least do it correctly. There's a huge difference between a nuclear war and a war in general. So what mistake could I have ever made? Just because you have wet dreams of me having made a mistake does not imply that I have actually made any. Wishful thinking busted. What is also laughable in your behaviour is the fact that you actually think that you can prove me wrong while in reality it is quite impossible. It just portrays you as a rhetoric dilettante.

You see, I made a wild prediction based on vague calculations that in their essence cannot ever be falsified. Trying to do so only shows the attempter's lack of wisdom. What is more, it is impossible to win an online debate, and since you seem to be rather serious in your business I can only guess that you're either an excellent troll such as myself or a typical idiot who still has a lot to learn. Either way, you have not contributed constructively to this topic. If all you wanted to say was that in your opinion the Internet was not to designed to survive a nuclear war then why didn't you just state that and leave the making of conclusions to every reader themselves?

It's of course good to know that some people perceive it as a misconception that the Internet was designed to survive nuclear wars but then I would ask --- did you invent the Internet? Since the answer is no, you have no way of knowing the full story around the conception of Internet. You just bark what fits your agenda and it is damn obvious that in this case your agenda is to sabotage this topic.

Meh, the Internet wasn't designed top persist during any sort of war - that simply wasn't a design goal. But yes, nuclear and non-nuclear wars are different. The mistake you made was to repeat a common myth. The mistake you now make is to refuse to believe that you could possibly have erred, in the face of evidence.

I know you made a wild prediction.

I can only cite the people who did invent the Internet, correct. "Barking what fits my agenda", I like that. The topic is ludicrous, it really doesn't need my help sabotaging it.

I'm not talkscheep, I'm not a bear troll. I've been in Bitcoin for a long time, I've been in it seriously since that Slashdot article, bought a GPU, started mining in earnest. I believed - and continue to believe - that there's a possibility that Bitcoin could be huge, many, many orders of magnitude bigger than present. I just don't think we'll convince people that that's possible if our analysis is sketchy hopium and we dismiss any criticism out of hand.