Did Al Gore Really Invent the Internet?

CommanderFrank

CommanderFrank

Cat Can't Scratch It
Joined
May 9, 2000
Messages
75,399
The answer to that question may not be as ridiculous as we have been led to believe. Technically, no, of course not, but his contribution to the Internet as we know it today, is probably much greater than most would think.

Al Gore was the first political leader to recognize the importance of the Internet and to promote and support its development.
Click to expand...
 
Al Gore maybe easy to mock but he did actually accomplish some interesting things while VP.
 
He contributed tax dollars to the construction of the backbone of the internet and then donated it to companies like Level3 and such.
 
nonedit since this forum has too much serious discussion for mere mortals to edit posts: "Gore Bill"
 
Thanks Tim Berners-Lee... who created the WWW... the part people actually use of the Internet. Not ARPANET. Lol.
 
I'm truly kind of baffled at people's attempts to keep Gore in the spotlight. His relevance faded years ago, and he's become a joke. What is the fascination with him? Is it the same kind that people have with Al Sharpton? Paying the dumb kid to keep giving us a show because he thinks it makes us like him?
 
Zale00 said:
No, but he did invent global warming.
Click to expand...

Not exactly. Perhaps human made, but there's little doubt that the planet is warming. We live in a time where very well demonstrated scientific theories from Big Bang to Evolution are being replaced with religious teachings saying that human science comes from the pit of Hell. What's more extreme? That human activity is warming and changing the climate of Earth or that Earth and almost all life on it was created from beginning to end in 168 hours?
 
heatlesssun said:
Not exactly. Perhaps human made, but there's little doubt that the planet is warming. We live in a time where very well demonstrated scientific theories from Big Bang to Evolution are being replaced with religious teachings saying that human science comes from the pit of Hell. What's more extreme? That human activity is warming and changing the climate of Earth or that Earth and almost all life on it was created from beginning to end in 168 hours?
Click to expand...

Dont, please dont. Only in your bubble do people think that those who recognize global warming is a scam are anti science/racist/sexist/bigot/homophobe/gun-toting/america loving bigots. Thats only in your bubble, the rest of the world is recognizing that global warming is a scam.

Just un-indoctrinate yourself please.
 
Zale00 said:
Dont, please dont. Only in your bubble do people think that those who recognize global warming is a scam are anti science/racist/sexist/bigot/homophobe/gun-toting/america loving bigots. Thats only in your bubble, the rest of the world is recognizing that global warming is a scam.

Just un-indoctrinate yourself please.
Click to expand...

Really? Ask someone outside of my supposed bubble what is the half-life of Uranium-235.
 
heatlesssun said:
Really? Ask someone outside of my supposed bubble what is the half-life of Uranium-235.
Click to expand...

*Hick accent* Its whateva Jeezus says it is! Praise the lord! Halleluja!
...
...
...Really? Spare me the pseudo intellectual elitist snark.
 
Zale00 said:
Dont, please dont. Only in your bubble do people think that those who recognize global warming is a scam are anti science/racist/sexist/bigot/homophobe/gun-toting/america loving bigots. Thats only in your bubble, the rest of the world is recognizing that global warming is a scam.

Just un-indoctrinate yourself please.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure Russia, China, and a few radicals are the only ones that dismiss the science behind global warming. In fact, the only real debate is how severe out impact is on the process. Aside from a few pockets of self-interested groups with enough money to convince a few politicians and their loyal followers to ignore the science the rest of the planet knows something isn't right, it's the overall cause that is in question.

Of course scientists took this same shit from conservatives when they said smoking was bad for you, so the track record of powerful push back from the self-interested, corporate right against knowledge and information is pretty common. Hundreds of billions will be spent fighting this science too, right up until it can no longer be ignored.
 
Well lets think.. What if funding for it had been killed early. Life could be a bit different today. :)
 
Zale00 said:
*Hick accent* Its whateva Jeezus says it is! Praise the lord! Halleluja!
...
...
...Really? Spare me the pseudo intellectual elitist snark.
Click to expand...

So I ask a simple question and this is the response? Let's try this again. How many people outside of my supposed bubble believe that Earth is 10,000 years old?
 
Zale00 said:
... your bubble, the rest of the world is recognizing that global warming is a scam.
Click to expand...

Or, the climate changing abnormally due to human activity is real, because it is real, and humans being able to alter a planets characteristics in a relatively short time frame is real. The scam part was politicians trying to use the situation to further rob the masses (like they do with everything). Yes, I'd go with that, since thats what's actually happening, in reality, where I live. *Waves*

Seriously though, it takes a special kind of person to assume humans can't alter a planets characteristics.

We could let off enough nukes today and end this planet for mankind, today. To assume we can't do it other ways is ignorant. Like, ummm, killing off the coral reefs, chopping down rainforests/forests, underground/aboveground nuclear testing for decade after decade, air pollution, marine pollution, etc.

Yes, you are the kind of person once saying the world was flat when smarter people were trying to clearly explain it's round. Like those people then, you just aren't absorbing information properly today.

I personally can't wait until we start terraforming Mars so a lot of the uninformed people can see what is possible and have it shown on an entirely different planet. Some people just don't see the facts until they have no choice but to. Anyway, go buy a damn fish tank.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/10/131009-climate-change-worldwide-cities-science/
 
MasonD said:
Seriously though, it takes a special kind of person to assume humans can't alter a planets characteristics.
Click to expand...

This is what bothers me the most. Do those that claim that humans can't change Earth's climate actually understand the sum total of human science? Or did God tell them that human science is from the put of Hell? How do you know what you know? I have no deep understanding of climate science. If climate change deniers have superior understanding I would love to see their credentials.
 
I just love the extremism shown in this thread. It must be all science is right or religion is right with no middle ground. I'm not saying I think either side is right or wrong, but I think the reality is much more down the middle than the extremes on either side will admit. The biggest issue that I have is that either side seems to end up using extremist tactics to state that their side is right and the other is full of idiots.
 
Judging by this thread, the Internet should have remained in its 'academic ghetto'.

I remember when the Internet was young and everyone dreamed of public enlightenment due to free flow of information.
 
bbenz33 said:
I just love the extremism shown in this thread. It must be all science is right or religion is right with no middle ground. I'm not saying I think either side is right or wrong, but I think the reality is much more down the middle than the extremes on either side will admit. The biggest issue that I have is that either side seems to end up using extremist tactics to state that their side is right and the other is full of idiots.
Click to expand...

It's not even science vs. religion but pure politics. It's like people can't admit that the evidence is strong. It doesn't mean that it's correct; it just means that the evidence is strong.

People seem to forget that the entire world is to gain from the theory of global warming being wrong and there is a Nobel prize involved for anyone who can disprove it. Acting like it's a scam where there is no gain involved for it being right is just silly. It could well be wrong but there is still a huge consensus and it's stupid to ignore that.
 
So by funding Mosaic, Gore indirectly gave birth to Spyglass Mosaic which was stolen by Microsoft, renamed Internet Explorer, and began to reign hell upon the internet and all future versions of Microsoft's operating systems?
Can someone shoot him for war crimes or something?
 
bbenz33 said:
I just love the extremism shown in this thread. It must be all science is right or religion is right with no middle ground. I'm not saying I think either side is right or wrong, but I think the reality is much more down the middle than the extremes on either side will admit. The biggest issue that I have is that either side seems to end up using extremist tactics to state that their side is right and the other is full of idiots.
Click to expand...

It's because he is a polarizing individual. People are crazy as well and even with a 97 percent census among the scientific community , claim that global climate change is still up for "debate".

It's how it'll always be , anytime someone mentions Al Gore then some poorly informed or ill informed person will cry conspiracy.
 
Zale00 said:
Dont, please dont. Only in your bubble do people think that those who recognize global warming is a scam are anti science/racist/sexist/bigot/homophobe/gun-toting/america loving bigots. Thats only in your bubble, the rest of the world is recognizing that global warming is a scam.

Just un-indoctrinate yourself please.
Click to expand...

They can't. Irrational fear can't be removed by outside sources. They can only approach logic if they want to...and most of them don't.
 
bbenz33 said:
I just love the extremism shown in this thread. It must be all science is right or religion is right with no middle ground. I'm not saying I think either side is right or wrong, but I think the reality is much more down the middle than the extremes on either side will admit. The biggest issue that I have is that either side seems to end up using extremist tactics to state that their side is right and the other is full of idiots.
Click to expand...

Thing is, most people will admit religious extremism exists. But scientific extremism? They'll scoff at your suggestion that the institution of science could possibly be tainted by politics or money. Science is sacred. The science is settled. You're not anti-science, are you? Wait, what do you mean "technocracy"? I don't even know what that means. Must be a creationist word.
 
wonderfield said:
The Internet's a wonderful thing when only some have access to it, but I imagine that's true of all things.
Click to expand...

Yes. We must keep the rabble from interfering with their "skepticism". The last thing the field of science needs is people challenging the status quo.
 
That was all he ever claimed, the quote was made up by the RNC and latched onto by scumbag 'reporters' who decided that repeating RNC talking points was easier (and more amusing/profitable) than actually telling the truth.

Imagine the treatment that Mitt Romney got from the press later in the last campaign, now imagine he had gotten that treatment pretty much right from the outset, and finally imagine (hard though it is) that ALMOST EVERYTHING HE GOT MOCKED FOR WAS TRUE.

That is the treatment Gore 2000 got from the press in a nutshell.

http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh120302.shtml
 
If Arthur C Clark can still get credit for the communication satellite because he wrote a blurb about it in a magazine in a "predict the future" kind of way over 20 years before they became feasible, then I can give some credit to Al Gore for the internet.
 
Stiletto said:
Thing is, most people will admit religious extremism exists. But scientific extremism? They'll scoff at your suggestion that the institution of science could possibly be tainted by politics or money. Science is sacred. The science is settled. You're not anti-science, are you? Wait, what do you mean "technocracy"? I don't even know what that means. Must be a creationist word.
Click to expand...

Okay Stiletto. Please continue. I want to see what scientific evidence you have that global warming is a scam. Only references to peer-reviewed scientific journals are acceptable, as we need some sort of standard for fact-checking.
 
I think the supporters of ManBearPig have led a campaign to make Mr. Gore look like poser.
 
G.W. Bush did not care about the internet as it has a direct connection to God.
 
Correct translation: "Al Gore was among the first politicians to see votes in pledging taxpayer funds to support the companies and schools rolling out the Internet."

At one time I actually liked Gore--at least, I liked him right up until the day I first heard him speak...;) Gore gives new meaning to the expression "wooden." Today, I see no one except a shameless huckster chasing every snake-oil dollar he can lay his grubby hands on--by telling school children that the sky is falling, no less, and needlessly scaring them to death. Not only does this "new breed" of corrupt politician (all of them are corrupt) fall way short in the brains department, but they've reached a new low in the without-a-conscience department. They'd sell their mothers for a vote, and then they'd lie about it--and blame the Republicans for doing it....;)
 
Draktharbar said:
Okay Stiletto. Please continue. I want to see what scientific evidence you have that global warming is a scam.
Click to expand...

The post you quoted did not mention global warming. It talked about corruption within the field of science. The fact that money and politics has an effect on the scientific method towards certain politically valuable conclusions. Do you deny this?
 
Stiletto said:
Thing is, most people will admit religious extremism exists. But scientific extremism? They'll scoff at your suggestion that the institution of science could possibly be tainted by politics or money. Science is sacred. The science is settled. You're not anti-science, are you? Wait, what do you mean "technocracy"? I don't even know what that means. Must be a creationist word.
Click to expand...

Well the difference between science and religion is that science doesn't care what we believe, or what we want. It's a systematical way of understanding nature and the working of nature is absolute, regardless of our political affiliation. Nature doesn't care if a person is a democrat, republican, communist or taliban.

There are scientist in Europe, in Asia, everywhere around the world, and these people doesn't care about the politics in US. So even if politicians tries to buy a group of scientist and make them say something the politician wants, their findings will still have to stand up to the scrutiny of the scientific community around the world, that's the way science works.

The media often only report the final finding by scientist, but the public doesn't know or understand the actual process that went on to ensure those findings were legit before they were accepted.
 
Hornet said:
Well the difference between science and religion is that science doesn't care what we believe, or what we want. It's a systematical way of understanding nature and the working of nature is absolute, regardless of our political affiliation. Nature doesn't care if a person is a democrat, republican, communist or taliban.
Click to expand...

So those scientists, who receive grants and other funding from government officials based on the decisions and preferences of those officials, just submit their conclusions and never discuss them with superiors? Are their superiors fully objective? Nobody in their organizations meets with Washington reps or lobbyists? None of them meet with people like Al Gore, people who push a certain narrative and whose very livelihood would be threatened if news came out like, oh, that warming trends over the last 15 years or so varied entirely from the projection models constantly pushed by people like Al Gore?

This is a problem I see as little different from the obedience to the state. For years, people who questioned the motivations of the federal government were dismissed as kooks. With the recent NSA revelations, people are finally beginning to view skepticism as healthy again. The scientific community is little different. It's not made up solely of scientists. They have management infrastructure for research and development. They have bureaucrats involved. They have people involved with varying interests, and outcomes make a difference as to whether an extra zero is added onto their funding. Yet, somehow this concept is offensive on its nose to science enthusiasts. The institution is not sacred. It's made up of the same kind of people who make churches and governments and corporations. They are not "above" it all, and that elitist paradigm needs to be done away with, if they're not ultimately building towards a technocratic worldview. We've had that about a century ago, and the arrogance contributed to a lot of misery.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top