4 ms·

You know; here's a real simple way to adjudge which technological innovations are important. I should really have thought of this before, but as they say, "ston

You know; here's a real simple way to adjudge which technological innovations are important. I should really have thought of this before, but as they say, "stone sharpens steel." Certainly a lot of stones around here. A categorically "important technological innovation" is the kind that, the possession of which would provide an overwhelming and obvious advantage for the society which possesses it, versus the society which doesn't, in the event of a war. Airplanes. Jets. Spacecraft. Atom Bombs. Radar. Antibiotics. Since 1969, no society on the planet has developed such a technology, or if they have, they ain't talking about it. The end.

tempguy9999 7y ago
You seem to have ignored the points I made so, do you acknowledge that various forms of airborne advantage existed long before you recognised them? Please address the points in my posts. > Certainly a lot of stones around here Stop being a dick. Contest other people's viewpoints, don't 'dildo' this and 'stone' that. Deal with facts. Play the ball not the man. > provide an overwhelming advantage for the society which possesses it in the event of a war. Airplanes. Jets. Spacecraft. Atom Bombs. Antibiotics ISIS did not have much by way of aircraft, jets (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_equipment_of_ISIL#Aircraft https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_equipment_of_ISIL#Air...), no spacecraft or thank god, nukes. Neither did one side in the vietnam war. How did those turn out? > Since 1969, no society on the planet has developed such a technology. You assert this, whether that is true is questionable. TBH given your current record on this thread your reception of anything that isn't kowtowing acceptance of your goodness, I can't take you seriously.
- scottlocklin 7y ago
  You haven't made any points I can identify, so, yes indeed I did ignore them, going back to my point. I do thank you for taking the time to share your argument; it annoyed me enough to come up with the above summarization of what technologically important breakthroughs are. It also demonstrates ably why a jet airplane is an important improvement over, say, a train; something a child would find obvious, but which some people seem to find confusing.
  - tempguy9999 7y ago
    Since you're struggling, let me point them out. 1. aerial surveillance goes back a lot further than you realised. Got it? 2. The vietnamese had little of the great advantages you list, yet the US which had them in spades, lost. ISIS is similarly disadvantaged but is also clinging on like the cancer they are. So your claim there was "overwhelming advantage for the society which possesses [them]" is bunk. Got it? > demonstrates ably why a jet airplane is an important improvement over, say, a train; something a child would find obvious which I partly acknowledged, excepting the bits about surveillance. Got it? The bit about you responding ad hom is dickishly annoying. Got it?
    - scottlocklin 7y ago
      The North Vietnamese lost actually; and had they not been under the Soviet nuclear umbrella, and recipient of billions in Soviet aid, they would have lost a lot quicker to US technological superiority. There were no US troops in South Vietnam when the North entered Saigon. I dunno what you hope to achieve here; do you think any significant population of people think jets are no big deal?
      - tempguy9999 7y ago
        The US did not achieve their goals is the bottom line. Perhaps another example, the korean war. In both cases the US had the overwhelming advantage including nukes. Your point is wrong, or right, or needs tightening up so that it can be decided as wrong or right. There is validity in your point but it's not the whole thing, or there would have been unambiguous victory for the US in the cases I gave. The problem here is not jets/technology but that you won't acknowledge when you're on shaky ground; the problem is now your judgement. You know what, that's a metaphor for so many of the ills and shortcomings of humanity. You will lose nothing and gain much by just putting your hands up to it and rethinking, but you won't (we're all guilty of that to various degrees, me also). Your position may be wrong or right or something in between, but it needs refining and thinking through first. Bugs in software are often seen as failings, and they are, but they can be turned into an asset. People's questioning your views here may indicate where you need to rethink (not necessarily change your mind, perhaps just refine and stabilise your position, or perhaps abandon it). Treat their questions and counterclaims as an asset too.

tempguy9999 7y ago

You seem to have ignored the points I made so, do you acknowledge that various forms of airborne advantage existed long before you recognised them? Please address the points in my posts. > Certainly a lot of stones around here Stop being a dick. Contest other people's viewpoints, don't 'dildo' this and 'stone' that. Deal with facts. Play the ball not the man. > provide an overwhelming advantage for the society which possesses it in the event of a war. Airplanes. Jets. Spacecraft. Atom Bombs. Antibiotics ISIS did not have much by way of aircraft, jets (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_equipment_of_ISIL#Aircraft https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_equipment_of_ISIL#Air...), no spacecraft or thank god, nukes. Neither did one side in the vietnam war. How did those turn out? > Since 1969, no society on the planet has developed such a technology. You assert this, whether that is true is questionable. TBH given your current record on this thread your reception of anything that isn't kowtowing acceptance of your goodness, I can't take you seriously.

scottlocklin 7y ago
You haven't made any points I can identify, so, yes indeed I did ignore them, going back to my point. I do thank you for taking the time to share your argument; it annoyed me enough to come up with the above summarization of what technologically important breakthroughs are. It also demonstrates ably why a jet airplane is an important improvement over, say, a train; something a child would find obvious, but which some people seem to find confusing.
- tempguy9999 7y ago
  Since you're struggling, let me point them out. 1. aerial surveillance goes back a lot further than you realised. Got it? 2. The vietnamese had little of the great advantages you list, yet the US which had them in spades, lost. ISIS is similarly disadvantaged but is also clinging on like the cancer they are. So your claim there was "overwhelming advantage for the society which possesses [them]" is bunk. Got it? > demonstrates ably why a jet airplane is an important improvement over, say, a train; something a child would find obvious which I partly acknowledged, excepting the bits about surveillance. Got it? The bit about you responding ad hom is dickishly annoying. Got it?
  - scottlocklin 7y ago
    The North Vietnamese lost actually; and had they not been under the Soviet nuclear umbrella, and recipient of billions in Soviet aid, they would have lost a lot quicker to US technological superiority. There were no US troops in South Vietnam when the North entered Saigon. I dunno what you hope to achieve here; do you think any significant population of people think jets are no big deal?
    - tempguy9999 7y ago
      The US did not achieve their goals is the bottom line. Perhaps another example, the korean war. In both cases the US had the overwhelming advantage including nukes. Your point is wrong, or right, or needs tightening up so that it can be decided as wrong or right. There is validity in your point but it's not the whole thing, or there would have been unambiguous victory for the US in the cases I gave. The problem here is not jets/technology but that you won't acknowledge when you're on shaky ground; the problem is now your judgement. You know what, that's a metaphor for so many of the ills and shortcomings of humanity. You will lose nothing and gain much by just putting your hands up to it and rethinking, but you won't (we're all guilty of that to various degrees, me also). Your position may be wrong or right or something in between, but it needs refining and thinking through first. Bugs in software are often seen as failings, and they are, but they can be turned into an asset. People's questioning your views here may indicate where you need to rethink (not necessarily change your mind, perhaps just refine and stabilise your position, or perhaps abandon it). Treat their questions and counterclaims as an asset too.