Comments by "" (@sirtra) on "Mental Outlaw"
channel.
-
951
-
172
-
142
-
53
-
35
-
32
-
31
-
26
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
14
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@rars0n oh you don't want to talk about the price of your fathers phone and when he got it now?! What a freaking surprise! But okay, we can pretend your father having a phone that would have cost $10k in today's money (adjusted for inflation) in the early 90's was no big deal.
I guess you don't want to talk about warez and IRC anymore too?!
The Nokia 5110 did NOT cost $100 back in 98, maybe on a 24 month PLAN but that doesn't equate to it costing $100 tbh. At the end of said XX months you would have paid at least a grand or 2 and a chunk of that was repaying the cost of the phone. If you tried to cancel before your contract ended they would typically slug you with the outstanding balance etc. At least that's how it worked where i am, i clearly can't speak for every place on earth but no way you could walk into a shop with $100 and walk out with a 5110 without signing a contract.
But more to the point it was in 1998 - which is late 90's.
You're basically now agreeing with me that for 95% of the population it was late 90' or early 00's where the average Joe could afford one and they became a thing, ie common place.
That was my passing remark which i've re-iterated over and over but you just aren't willing to acknowledge reality are you?
But hey, keep focusing on this one thing and keep searching for some technicality if it's going to help you sleep at night.
Perhaps this might help you realize i wasn't born yesterday, it's from one of the first results googling "when did cell phones become common place" and it appears this is where you got the "$100" figure from.. more interestingly you omitted everything else, i wonder why. You can't rewrite history based on cherry picking from search results... you really don't want me to actually put some effort in and find sources to backup everything i've said do you? My entire life long career is in telecommunications btw.
---
"Cell phones became common in the late 1990s. The first cell phone was introduced in 1973.
Cell phones became popular in the 1990s when the cellular revolution started. Prior to this time, mobile phones were mostly used by businesses and government officials. However, with the advent of cellular technology, cell phones became more accessible to the general public. This made it possible for people to stay connected with family and friends wherever they were. Additionally, cellular technology made it possible for businesses to communicate with customers and employees. As a result, cell phones became a ubiquitous part of everyday life.
How Much Were Cell Phones in the 90s
In the 1990s, cell phones were a novel idea. The Simon Personal Communicator, jointly marketed by IBM and BellSouth, was the first mobile phone to add PDA features. These phones allowed people to stay connected with friends and family even when they were away from home. They were also very expensive, costing around $2,000. However, cell phone technology has continued to evolve, and today there are many different types of cell phones available on the market.
What Cell Phones Were Available in 1998
In 1998, there were three cell phone models available on the market: the Nokia 5110, Nokia 6130, and Nokia 6150. Nokia 5110 was the most popular phone of the three, with over 150 million units sold. Nokia 6130 was the second most popular phone, with over 100 million units sold. Nokia 6150 was the least popular phone, with only around 40 million units sold.
One reason why Nokia 5110 was so popular was because it was affordable. It cost around $100 to purchase and was available in black, green, and red. Nokia 6130 was also affordable, with a price of around $150. The only downside to Nokia 6130 was that it was not available in black or red. Nokia 6150 was the most expensive phone of the three, costing around $300. However, it was also the most popular phone, with over 100 million units sold.
"
✌️
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Mordenperson ah sweet child, google is NOT your friend.
It has lead you down a path where you believe what we call the "internet" today was created in the 1960's.
I think we can all agree that from a rudimentary perspective, a protocol is needed in order for communication to occur on a network. For the internet, i think we can all agree that IP would be that protocol.
With this in mind here is another snippet to help you understand how foolish you look making the claim the internet was "created" in the 1960's by "network engineer"
This is all i have time for today, i can continue tomorrow if you would like.. personally i'd suggest this would be a good time for you to also call it quits, but why would you take my advice eh? What would i know? You've got google!!
---
In May 1974, the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) published a paper entitled "A Protocol for Packet Network Intercommunication".[4] The paper's authors, Vint Cerf and Bob Kahn, described an internetworking protocol for sharing resources using packet switching among network nodes. A central control component of this model was the "Transmission Control Program" that incorporated both connection-oriented links and datagram services between hosts. The monolithic Transmission Control Program was later divided into a modular architecture consisting of the Transmission Control Protocol and User Datagram Protocol at the transport layer and the Internet Protocol at the internet layer. The model became known as the Department of Defense (DoD) Internet Model and Internet protocol suite, and informally as TCP/IP.
IP versions 1 to 3 were experimental versions, designed between 1973 and 1978.[5] The following Internet Experiment Note (IEN) documents describe version 3 of the Internet Protocol, prior to the modern version of IPv4:
1
-
@totally_not_a_bot cool story bro, just a few questions:
1) what year was this declassified document written exactly?
2) what was in this declassified document, just give us 1 or 2 examples of compelling evidence, maybe ask your father to help - alternatively if you "pulled it up" why not just share where you "pulled it up" from so we can all see the declassified document you found so easily. Doesn't need to be a link, just describe how we can find it too eg search phrase and site name.
3) what role or title did your father have exactly when he was doing "network analysis" as that sounds like an analytics role which are typically based around mathematics, accounting, etc.
4) what is "computer data" exactly? Is it digital or analogue? How is it different from say encrypted communication channels for voice or satellite television signals? How does one determine and classify it into the "computer" bucket?
And now for the most important question of all:
5) what does any of what you said have to do with the topic of "network engineer" and what have you proven exactly? I'm not even convinced you have a father in your life let alone talked to him from the information you provided. Did you honestly think i'd read this and go, welp, i guess there were "fluffy unicorns" in 1980 because someone on the internet asked his dad who said yes? Seriously?!
As i've already clearly stated, there was indeed people who built computer systems, phone networks, data storage and so forth but none, and i literally mean none, of them would have had the official title of "network engineer" in the 60's, 70's or 80's. That's just not how things were back then, the fascination with job title is a recent development in society.
I pulled up a document on creative writing and your comment, i showed it to my hairdresser's boyfriend's sister (she is an author who writes screenplays for MGM) and she said "yep thats exactly the same type of stuff i do" so congratulations on becoming an author dude! You've made it!!
Please provide a source or specifics in future if you wish to be taken seriously.
Act like a child, get treated like a child but thanks for playing, this was fun! Sincerely, i had a blast writing it, 10/10 would do again 😘
1
-
@coloradoing9172 your account is one year old and you have made a total of 2 comments on this channel, both of them to myself.. awww if i didn't know any better i'd say you almost might have a crush on me.
My guess is you're a sock puppet account or sibling/friend/acquaintance of someone else in this thread and got dragged into this, you know how you can make the notifications stop.. remove your 2 comments and problem solved.
At least the others attacking me had accounts in the realm of 11 to 17 years old and had commented on this channel prior so they actually took a risk, albeit a very tiny one, but as i'm sure you can appreciate being a person who uses the phrase "goalpost shifting" this is not an insignificant detail. Taking into consideration that many of them have displayed personality traits which suggest they place higher importance on how others perceive them rather than their own understanding or knowledge, it makes the stakes higher - tarnishing an account you've had for 10+ years on a channel you regularly read/write comments on actually has weight.
You on the other hand have really no skin in the game and so making flippant comments or throwing things at the wall to see what sticks is a low cost / high reward scenario - you can simply disappear as quickly as you arrived here.
With this in mind i'm going to tackle you differently - getting into the weeds on the technical side won't actually bear any fruit, your goal is not proving your existing knowledge but rather trying to disprove what someone else has said (namely me).
What you've cut'n'pasted might seem to you like a compelling argument, i mean look at all those acronyms, you must be legit and have a deep understanding about the history right?
Well the trap with the technique of working backwards on something like this, ie you're seeking for a predetermined answer irrespective of whether it's accurate or not, is that you fall victim to confirmation bias.
You will hunt for some piece of information or data which fits the answer you want and upon finding it, you've met the objective or goal and use it in haste.
This leads to some rather funny outcomes sometimes as often the lack of context and awareness how things evolve over time can cause ppl to apply current terminology to the past.
Take for example the term "influencer" - what this equates to in 2023 is radically different to 1993. It's not that one or the other is correct vs wrong, but rather you can't retrofit the modern meaning to the past. You'll be able to find all sorts of "evidence" that there was indeed influencers in 1993, that did indeed influence other people - even so far as to what ppl might buy, what is populat, trends etc. I bet you'll find all sort of references or metrics to support the claim that "influencers" did exist and were a thing in 1993. As this is true, even today there are ppl who fit the 1993 terminology but that doesn't equate in reverse.
More examples - firewall, packets, desktop, administrator, leech, shopping cart, cookies ... and so forth.
The biggest telltale sign that you're here for disingenuous and combative purposes, don't have anything of value to add or actually care about the subject matter is right at the start of your reply.
You're getting sick of this windbag in your notifications feed.
I love you too bae, so much so i've given you a solution to the problem causing you so much frustration.
Seems like a no-brainer for an account that is one year old with 2 comments on this channel, unless of course your real life reputation will take a hit... what a dilemma eh?
Sounds like an awful predicament to have put yourself in. But what would i know, i clearly have no clue. And you've got google! The trusty side kick that knows everything!!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1