Quote from: Hyena on February 26, 2016, 02:22:33 PM

Quote from: LMGTFY on February 26, 2016, 01:56:34 PM

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.

I agree that it is common to believe that the Internet was created by the military so that it would persist during a war and in situations where nodes go offline. I also didn't know that such a claim is considered a misconception by some people. But then again, there are opponents to just about anything these days. Is it really a common misconception? I have no way of knowing nor do I care in the context of this topic. It's yet another of these things that cannot be proved nor disproved. Your evidence is not really evidence. And yes, I refuse to believe and no it is not a mistake. Why do you, for example, insist to believe in your referred sources? Don't you think it is human nature to come up with ideas that make other people seem wrong on the pursuit of academic fame, for example? It seems to apply to your misconception theory. But these same people, when confronted with ideas that threaten their description of the world, will do anything to defend it and while doing so they chant how much they think they like it when new science proves old science wrong, how ironic.

> Why do you, for example, insist to believe in your referred sources?

Occam's razor. What's likely to be the most likely explanation? That the guy who commissioned ARPANET would know why he commissioned ARPANET, or that some random on the Internet would know better?

That this can or can't be disproved is bollocks, and a cop-out: my statement is clearly falsifiable. If you don't believe that Charles Herzfeld commissioned ARPANET for the reasons he said - you should be able to construct a falsifiable premise of your own.

...and why on Earth would you say something if you didn't care whether it was true or not? Can we infer from your promotion of $5000 that a similar lack of care was involved?