Israeli technology turns air into drinking water

Resting in H.E.L.L
Banned
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Jun 9, 2009
Messages
1,328
Best answers
0
Because they are people, like you or me, trying to survive. To feed their family.
 
Death from Above
✔️ HL Verified
🚂 Steam Linked
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Nov 25, 2001
Messages
4,943
Best answers
0
Indeed

Troops are more often then not fighting a fight because they are told not because they want to. All they want is to protect their family, their home, their country.
 
Cunning as Zeus
Banned
✔️ HL Verified
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Nov 23, 2003
Messages
6,079
Best answers
0
And more importantly, this has commercial applications. Military technology quite frequently precedes the civilian tech we eventually use.
 
New Member
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Oct 4, 2004
Messages
1,572
Best answers
0
Eh... this sounds like a dehumidifier with some filters and low-tech gadgets attached. We could've made this fifty years ago. I reckon it takes a significant bit of power (and money for the parts) to do this, and that's why it isn't used for *everybody's* water supplies. It really doesn't seem very high tech to me.

That being said, it's likely very useful for military applications, as it yields lower risk of getting the soldiers sick from or dependent on native water supplies.
 
Cunning as Zeus
Banned
✔️ HL Verified
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Nov 23, 2003
Messages
6,079
Best answers
0
I could take a **** in a puddle and still drink it with no ill effects with some of the **** they give us. What this does is keep combat troops in the fight, rather than having to either depart for resupply or risk getting friendlies blown up en route to resupply. I was thinking this would not so much be used for "everyones' water supplies", but for small villages and towns that drink what amounts to sewage. All it seems to require a generator.
 
New Member
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Oct 4, 2004
Messages
1,572
Best answers
0
I remain skeptical. All of this technology seems to have existed a long time ago. There's probably a reason why it's only recently been introduced. My guess is still "it's very expensive", though there's no doubt it could be useful in areas where there's significant amounts of moisture. In very cold climates, however, it would be useless if applied outside (inside you could probably conserve some liquid, but not a lot), so for scientific research in desolate places, it's a bit limited. As for villages... If a village can afford to use a generator to take water from the air, it can probably afford water to begin with. I reckon it would be convenience more than it would be anything else.

An interesting development for civilian (third world) use is a titanium dioxide based container which uses free radicals to kill harmful bacteria. I'm a sucker for titanium dioxide, I really am.
 
Cunning as Zeus
Banned
✔️ HL Verified
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Nov 23, 2003
Messages
6,079
Best answers
0
I'd imagine the reason it's being introduced now is it really wasn't needed once upon a time. It still isn't needed now, but its uses are a little more apparent due to rampant war. I'm not really knowledgeable enough to say water in cold climates probably isn't nearly as nasty as that in warmer environments, but I'll assume that's the case just the same. I don't know that eskimos are the target demographic for this product. Back to villages, is buying clean water on a regular basis really less expensive than running a generator when clean water is harder to come by than fuel? Add missionaries to the mix, and we have an environment conducive generating basically free, clean water.
 
New Member
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Oct 4, 2004
Messages
1,572
Best answers
0
Back to villages, is buying clean water on a regular basis really less expensive than running a generator when clean water is harder to come by than fuel? Add missionaries to the mix, and we have an environment conducive generating basically free, clean water
I mean that if a village can afford a generator running the whole day, they can probably afford a simple purification plant of some kind, or at least the simple technology needed to kill off most of the bad germs (UV light does basically exactly what titanium dioxide does).
I'm not really knowledgeable enough to say water in cold climates probably isn't nearly as nasty as that in warmer environments, but I'll assume that's the case just the same.
I was referring to scientific research stations, where it may be difficult to get pure (non saline) water (without melting it - and melting, as you may know, has a high energy expenditure due to the nature of hydrogen bonds and the lattice energies involved in breaking up and liquifying ice. I would assume inuits melt their water with fire, but fire might not very ideal for research stations, for more than one reason.

One might imagine great use for this kind of technology in future self-sustained, extraterrestrial colonies, however (as it would essentially recycle humidity generated by living into water that can be consumed, meaning a smaller quantity of "fresh" water would be needed, making the equipment requirements much lower for colonization -- saving on precious fuel and volume in any space faring vessel that would carry people, supplies and equipment).
 
Judge. Jury. Executioner
👮 Moderator
★ Black Lounger ★
✔️ HL Verified
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Aug 26, 2010
Messages
2,241
Best answers
1
WE'VE GOT HOSTILES!!!
 
Cunning as Zeus
Banned
✔️ HL Verified
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Nov 23, 2003
Messages
6,079
Best answers
0
I mean that if a village can afford a generator running the whole day, they can probably afford a simple purification plant of some kind, or at least the simple technology needed to kill off most of the bad germs (UV light does basically exactly what titanium dioxide does).

Which has more applications? A generator or a water purification plant? In what war-torn village do the people have connections to get supplies to purify water but not to get food?


I was referring to scientific research stations, where it may be difficult to get pure (non saline) water (without melting it - and melting, as you may know, has a high energy expenditure due to the nature of hydrogen bonds and the lattice energies involved in breaking up and liquifying ice. I would assume inuits melt their water with fire, but fire might not very ideal for research stations, for more than one reason.

If they can afford to operate as a research station, they can probably afford and maintain connections with people able to supply the solutions you prefer. Again, not the target demographic.

One might imagine great use for this kind of technology in future self-sustained, extraterrestrial colonies, however (as it would essentially recycle humidity generated by living into water that can be consumed, meaning a smaller quantity of "fresh" water would be needed, making the equipment requirements much lower for colonization -- saving on precious fuel and volume in any space faring vessel that would carry people, supplies and equipment).

A derivative of this product or something of the nth generation. I'm focusing on this particular products applications today, rather than the distance future where this technology will have undoubtedly been superceded by something far more efficient.
Yut .
 
New Member
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Oct 4, 2004
Messages
1,572
Best answers
0
Which has more applications? A generator or a water purification plant? In what war-torn village do the people have connections to get supplies to purify water but not to get food?
Your statement makes very little sense. I never said you didn't need energy for the UV light. In fact, UV light is generated almost entirely through electricity... indicating that the generator would be needed. My point was -- and this is important, so please read it instead of replying with rhetoric -- that this technology is pretty useless for poor people, as it's far more expensive than a UV or TiO2 based solution to the same problem...

If they can afford to operate as a research station, they can probably afford and maintain connections with people able to supply the solutions you prefer. Again, not the target demographic.
I realize you spend most of your time in hot areas, so you might not understand how difficult it is to resupply things in very cold places. It's expensive and dangerous, and the more rarely you need to receive essentials, the better -- in regards to both financing and the people involved.

The "target demographic" is clearly the military, who as you've pointed out (and they pointed out long before you) has use of this. Arguing over the "target demographic" while proposing this be used for villages seems a bit outlandish and mostly based in rhetoric. You don't have to "win" every discussion, Zeo, sometimes it's nice to just discuss things. I recommend you take your superiority complex up with Doku on your next cookie-filled session.
A derivative of this product or something of the nth generation. I'm focusing on this particular products applications today, rather than the distance future where this technology will have undoubtedly been superceded by something far more efficient.
The future isn't as distant as you think, and I see no reason why this technology would change drastically. There are only so many ways you can draw water from the air. Trust me, scientists have tried most of them. Even if technology as a whole "moves forwards", that doesn't mean it happens at a constant pace, nor that all technologies will be developed further. I hope I don't have to quote the NASA space pen incident here.

I can guarantee you that no matter how far you go into the future, this technology will be useful for colonization. Why? Because it seems simple. And when you're doing colonization, or anything like it, you don't want a ton of complicated parts that you need specialists to fix. Odds are good this will be used to recycle moisture in the air. How it's then stored and filtered might change drastically the next two hundred years, but the principle is largely the same, just as the principle of a sharp edge to cut things has remained the same for a few thousand years. Materials and methods for creation change, but the thing itself, not so much.
 
Cunning as Zeus
Banned
✔️ HL Verified
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Nov 23, 2003
Messages
6,079
Best answers
0
How is a technology is that is essentially hooked up to preexisting vehicles, generators or operated by solar power more expensive than creating a purification plant? Unless you meant something different, I don't understand how that works out, especially when the Sun is rocking with its **** out in the climates I'm talking about. You speak of rhetoric, and then provide absolutely no figures to make your case.

You said:
The "target demographic" is clearly the military, who as you've pointed out (and they pointed out long before you) has use of this. Arguing over the "target demographic" while proposing this be used for villages seems a bit outlandish and mostly based in rhetoric. You don't have to "win" every discussion, Zeo, sometimes it's nice to just discuss things. I recommend you take your superiority complex up with Doku on your next cookie-filled session.


Really? From the article:

The Article said:
Eventually, Water-Gen hopes the technology can be implemented not just in the military, but in water-scarce regions around the world too.
Holy ****, it's almost like their expanded mission statement is to use the military for funding so they can later mass produce the tech for people who need it around the world. Again, you speak of rhetoric, and yet you can't be bothered to read the article. Then you compound that with an ad hominem because, hey, it's what you do.

You see no reason why this technology would change? You've already stated there are multiple ways to filter water, I've experienced a dozen more ways to clean the dirtiest of water, and yet, despite all that, here we have yet another piece of gear being produced to do the same thing. That's technology for you, I guess. So long as we seek to improve on our creations, there will always be something better in store for humanity. It's called progress.

And I can guarantee you the tech we use today will not be the tech we use 10 years from now. That's just the way of the world, in general. It's why I'm not using a Winchester. It's why you're driving a model T. Yeah, they each have the same general functions as the tech that exists today, but there have been a series of improvements and upgrades that relegate it to a thing of the past. I'm not sure what is to gain by arguing against this point.
 
New Member
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Oct 4, 2004
Messages
1,572
Best answers
0
How is a technology is that is essentially hooked up to preexisting vehicles, generators or operated by solar power more expensive than creating a purification plant? Unless you meant something different, I don't understand how that works out, especially when the Sun is rocking with its **** out in the climates I'm talking about. You speak of rhetoric, and then provide absolutely no figures to make your case.
The initial cost is bound to be more for equipment that relies heavily on filters and has a bunch of components... That's just common sense. And powering dehumidifiers and anything that operates like them tends to take a bit of energy (you're essentially reversing entropy). Lightbulbs (even if they are UV) and coated plastics/glass tends to be far cheaper than equipment that pulls humidity from the air. You're still doing the rhetoric thing.
Really? From the article:
And I'm telling you that it's not particularly realistic for poor areas. More wealthy villages that are isolated might have use for this technology. I wasn't arguing against them, I was arguing against you and your rhetoric.

You see no reason why this technology would change? You've already stated there are multiple ways to filter water, I've experienced a dozen more ways to clean the dirtiest of water, and yet, despite all that, here we have yet another piece of gear being produced to do the same thing. That's technology for you, I guess. So long as we seek to improve on our creations, there will always be something better in store for humanity. It's called progress.
I said I see no reason why the technology for drawing water out of the air would change. I believe I specified in my last post that the other things would change. As an example, air conditioners and refridgerators have used essentially the same principles and technology for what, four or five decades now... With only minor changes to slightly increase efficiency. You said that we'd replace this type of thing entirely. Have we replaced ACs? No, we have not. You're a space pen kind of man, Zeo, and that's just silly.

And I can guarantee you the tech we use today will not be the tech we use 10 years from now. That's just the way of the world, in general. It's why I'm not using a Winchester. It's why you're driving a model T. Yeah, they each have the same general functions as the tech that exists today, but there have been a series of improvements and upgrades that relegate it to a thing of the past. I'm not sure what is to gain by arguing against this point.
This is just plain dumb. Most of your weapons are bound to be 10 years older or more in design, and well over two thirds of their components... The ammunition is probably even older by design. Hell, take a standard .50 cal machine gun. How much have those changed?

Your arguments seem to rely on a fantasy world where everything is new and evolving, and then you try to insult me and put me down by misquoting me.
 
Cunning as Zeus
Banned
✔️ HL Verified
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Nov 23, 2003
Messages
6,079
Best answers
0
The initial cost is bound to be more for equipment that relies heavily on filters and has a bunch of components... That's just common sense. And powering dehumidifiers and anything that operates like them tends to take a bit of energy (you're essentially reversing entropy). Lightbulbs (even if they are UV) and coated plastics/glass tends to be far cheaper than equipment that pulls humidity from the air. You're still doing the rhetoric thing.
R&D and mass production would be paid for by the military, reducing the costs of the technology for civilians when it finally hits the market. That's why the military is being targeted first. Despite both myself and the manufacturer stating this technology would be put to good use by civilians in the future, meaning not today, you insist on pretending tomorrow's market is exactly the same for an unproven product (proven being the efficiency of using such a product over resupply) as it is today. And so not only will this technology be cheaper for potential buyers, but for the environments of which I speak, it will essentially power itself given its ability to be solar powered.

And I'm telling you that it's not particularly realistic for poor areas. More wealthy villages that are isolated might have use for this technology. I wasn't arguing against them, I was arguing against you and your rhetoric.
The UN, humanitarian agencies and the US military would tend to disagree with you in that regard. A poor village doesn't necessarily need to even pay for the technology; just maintain it. And if its powering itself, all that will need to be done is regular upkeep and maintenance, probably in the form of new filters. So even if a village couldn't pay for what will ultimately be a much cheaper piece of technology, it is still completely usable by poorer nations and villages.

I said I see no reason why the technology for drawing water out of the air would change. I believe I specified in my last post that the other things would change. As an example, air conditioners and refridgerators have used essentially the same principles and technology for what, four or five decades now... With only minor changes to slightly increase efficiency. You said that we'd replace this type of thing entirely. Have we replaced ACs? No, we have not. You're a space pen kind of man, Zeo, and that's just silly.
Terrible examples to use, considering how many changes and generations the AC and fridges have undergone over the years and how diverse the units are depending on the size and scope required to meet the needs of consumers. So sure, same principles, but the same technology? No. And that's why I stated an Nth generation of this tech or a derivative of the original would supercede what we're seeing today. Because it happens every time. Does that mean we're discovering completely new fundamentals with which to obtain water from air? No. It means the technology evolves to suit the needs of the people it serves, either for safety reasons, as was the case with the AC and fridge, or general improvements to efficiency or whatever the case may be.

This is just plain dumb. Most of your weapons are bound to be 10 years older or more in design, and well over two thirds of their components... The ammunition is probably even older by design. Hell, take a standard .50 cal machine gun. How much have those changed?
If you're talking about the weapons itself and not R&D, then you're wrong depending on what MOS you're referring to. I mention R&D because by your definition, the F-22 is a decade plus old as far as design goes. That doesn't make it any less superior to anything out there. 10 years also doesn't dismiss the fact that we change out our weapons en mass regularly. The M16 has undergone several generational changes, was replaced by the M4 which will soon be replaced by the IC. The only reason we're not all using SCARs is because it isn't financially viable, or necessary, to do so. Does that mean there aren't better rifles than what we're using? No. It just means we try to spend as little as possible on weaponry that will ultimately create the same results, albeit less efficiency or effectively. So while someone may like the Model T over a Viper, the Viper is undoubtedly a superior product.

Argue all you like, this technology will make it to poor villages with or without your approval. I understand you're an expert in everything academic, because Norway. I take this into account when making a post, because I know it's your goal to prove me wrong whenever you think the opportunity presents itself. But that doesn't change where this tech is going and how its going to be implemented. Your opinion is not taken into consideration when money is to be made.

Also, I'm not sure where you're trying to go with the space pen train of thought. Unless, you know, you have no clue as to the space pen's background, which is undoubtedly the case. But go ahead and prove me wrong in this regard.
 
New Member
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Oct 4, 2004
Messages
1,572
Best answers
0
R&D and mass production would be paid for by the military, reducing the costs of the technology for civilians when it finally hits the market. That's why the military is being targeted first. Despite both myself and the manufacturer stating this technology would be put to good use by civilians in the future, meaning not today, you insist on pretending tomorrow's market is exactly the same for an unproven product (proven being the efficiency of using such a product over resupply) as it is today. And so not only will this technology be cheaper for potential buyers, but for the environments of which I speak, it will essentially power itself given its ability to be solar powered.
The UN, humanitarian agencies and the US military would tend to disagree with you in that regard. A poor village doesn't necessarily need to even pay for the technology; just maintain it. And if its powering itself, all that will need to be done is regular upkeep and maintenance, probably in the form of new filters. So even if a village couldn't pay for what will ultimately be a much cheaper piece of technology, it is still completely usable by poorer nations and villages.
You really don't know enough about competing technologies to make any claims what so ever here, but keep doing it if it makes you feel good.

Terrible examples to use, considering how many changes and generations the AC and fridges have undergone over the years and how diverse the units are depending on the size and scope required to meet the needs of consumers. So sure, same principles, but the same technology? No. And that's why I stated an Nth generation of this tech or a derivative of the original would supercede what we're seeing today. Because it happens every time. Does that mean we're discovering completely new fundamentals with which to obtain water from air? No. It means the technology evolves to suit the needs of the people it serves, either for safety reasons, as was the case with the AC and fridge, or general improvements to efficiency or whatever the case may be.
Space pen.

If you're talking about the weapons itself and not R&D, then you're wrong depending on what MOS you're referring to. I mention R&D because by your definition, the F-22 is a decade plus old as far as design goes. That doesn't make it any less superior to anything out there. 10 years also doesn't dismiss the fact that we change out our weapons en mass regularly. The M16 has undergone several generational changes, was replaced by the M4 which will soon be replaced by the IC. The only reason we're not all using SCARs is because it isn't financially viable, or necessary, to do so. Does that mean there aren't better rifles than what we're using? No. It just means we try to spend as little as possible on weaponry that will ultimately create the same results, albeit less efficiency or effectively. So while someone may like the Model T over a Viper, the Viper is undoubtedly a superior product.

Argue all you like, this technology will make it to poor villages with or without your approval. I understand you're an expert in everything academic, because Norway. I take this into account when making a post, because I know it's your goal to prove me wrong whenever you think the opportunity presents itself. But that doesn't change where this tech is going and how its going to be implemented. Your opinion is not taken into consideration when money is to be made.

Also, I'm not sure where you're trying to go with the space pen train of thought. Unless, you know, you have no clue as to the space pen's background, which is undoubtedly the case. But go ahead and prove me wrong in this regard.
I never said anything about "superiority" here. I never said an old product can't be good. And that was my point with this technology. It won't change very much because this technology doesn't need advanced R&D to do what it needs to. I've been saying space pen a few times here because you seem to be implying that "more advanced is better" -- I'm assuming you know what the space pen is a reference to, since you seem to be pretending you know this entire field better than someone who studies it.

The main points here are:

Financial viability in competition with other, pre-existing technologies

What is needed? Why do we need to take the water out of the air, when it could just as easily be taken from dirty water sources cleaned with competitive, better developed, and overall more financially viable technologies? That's what I mean with the 50 cal. It has changed virtually nothing in a hundred years. Why? Because it does what it needs to, and it does it well. You seem to be implying that the world is in a constant race to improve everything. It isn't. Necessity is the mother of invention. And necessity has already developed better technologies for cleansing water than having to suck it out of the air. I say better, because in principle, it takes more energy per liter of cleansed liquid to do this than to clean it with UV light or hell, using a Titanium Dioxide container that requires nothing but sunlight and costs virtually nothing in upkeep and creation.

As for me proving you wrong, I think you're onfusing me with you. I pointed out that this technology could be used for space exploration, and you use some bull**** arguments to say it won't be. That's you trying to prove me wrong, when you have virtually no knowledge of the subject in the first place. Then you try to turn the tables on me with rhetoric. You like to argue, that's fine, but don't pretend there's any other reason you're bickering with me here.

And finally, the space pen reference is to you thinking that the future will be "more advanced". That's not true. Good scientists always choose the simplest solution to a problem (as simple as possible, but no simpler). An example of bad science is making a "space pen" when all that was needed was a pencil. In the same way, it's stupid to try and replace the already very good technologies we've developed with some fancy thing that is really only suited for "sealed living areas" and the military. Yes, it's cool technology. No, it probably won't be very useful for poor villages.

If you want to bicker with me about this more, I'll be happy to send and receive PMs, but since you enjoy making a spectacle, and constantly try to put me down with rhetoric in any discussion where I disagree with you, I'm not continuing the discussion in this thread. At least not until you can show me some reasoning that explains why we would use this ridiculously complicated technology to replace already existing, excellent technology that is cheap.
 
Cunning as Zeus
Banned
✔️ HL Verified
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Nov 23, 2003
Messages
6,079
Best answers
0
You really don't know enough about competing technologies to make any claims what so ever here, but keep doing it if it makes you feel good.
'

Not even an attempt to argue the point. Nice.

Space pen.
Please, explain the concept of the space pen. And by explain, I don't mean, "You don't know about the space pen? It's so self-evident!" like you did with the deus ex argument, which you were also completely wrong about. Once again, I'm asking you to explain the story, because you don't seem to grasp how ironic it is that you keep mentioning it.

I never said anything about "superiority" here. I never said an old product can't be good. And that was my point with this technology. It won't change very much because this technology doesn't need advanced R&D to do what it needs to. I've been saying space pen a few times here because you seem to be implying that "more advanced is better" -- I'm assuming you know what the space pen is a reference to, since you seem to be pretending you know this entire field better than someone who studies it.
You don't seem to have read the argument. I'm not saying an old product can't be good, either. I'm saying a better product will undoubtedly be created. My comparison was between the SCAR and the M4/M16. While they essentially do the same thing, the former is superior to the latter 2. They did not reinvent the wheel with the SCAR. They simply made a better weapon.

What is needed? Why do we need to take the water out of the air, when it could just as easily be taken from dirty water sources cleaned with competitive, better developed, and overall more financially viable technologies? That's what I mean with the 50 cal. It has changed virtually nothing in a hundred years. Why? Because it does what it needs to, and it does it well. You seem to be implying that the world is in a constant race to improve everything. It isn't.Necessity is the mother of invention. And necessity has already developed better technologies for cleansing water than having to suck it out of the air. I say better, because in principle, it takes more energy per liter of cleansed liquid to do this than to clean it with UV light or hell, using a Titanium Dioxide container that requires nothing but sunlight and costs virtually nothing in upkeep and creation.
And in arid environments where there aren't pools of water to be cleansed? In areas where water isn't immediately available or forthcoming? That isn't even really the point, because the technologies you're pushing already exist, and yet don't seem to have found their way to those who'd benefit most. In war torn countries occupied by, say, the US, however, we'd be bringing these units with us, and guess who'd benefit from it as much as us? That's right, the civilian populace. They'd have access to the same tech we do because we provide humanitarian assistance after carpet bombing everyone into oblivion. So while necessity may have created "better" technologies, it hasn't really provided anyone with the means or inclination to make sure it was available to everyone who needs it, while this tech would be available simply because we're carrying it around.

As for the .50 cal, the weapon hasn't needed to change because the ammunition has. If it weren't for the various types of ammunition available to the .50 cal, it'd be an utterly useless weapon against a modern military.

As for me proving you wrong, I think you're onfusing me with you. I pointed out that this technology could be used for space exploration, and you use some bull**** arguments to say it won't be. That's you trying to prove me wrong, when you have virtually no knowledge of the subject in the first place. Then you try to turn the tables on me with rhetoric. You like to argue, that's fine, but don't pretend there's any other reason you're bickering with me here.
My bull**** argument stated an Nth generation or derivative of this particular product would be used. This isn't debatable. As it exists now, it'll probably go through a dozen more variations before it actually hits the market. Keep in mind we're arguing because you stated we'd never use this tech in the environments I mentioned. The fact that the technology you cite exists, and still isn't doing a whole lot of good on the ground suggests its better on paper, but not where it matters most.

And finally, the space pen reference is to you thinking that the future will be "more advanced". That's not true. Good scientists always choose the simplest solution to a problem (as simple as possible, but no simpler). An example of bad science is making a "space pen" when all that was needed was a pencil. In the same way, it's stupid to try and replace the already very good technologies we've developed with some fancy thing that is really only suited for "sealed living areas" and the military. Yes, it's cool technology. No, it probably won't be very useful for poor villages.
Really? Because NASA used pencils before they invested in the space pen, which was eventually used by the Russians. It was cheap, it was effective and it didn't clog up instruments or potentially cause harm to astronauts because the tip didn't break off as was the case with pencils. You're citing a myth that's been debunked a dozen times over to make a point. I can't take whatever point you're attempting to make seriously when its foundation is false.

If you want to bicker with me about this more, I'll be happy to send and receive PMs, but since you enjoy making a spectacle, and constantly try to put me down with rhetoric in any discussion where I disagree with you, I'm not continuing the discussion in this thread. At least not until you can show me some reasoning that explains why we would use this ridiculously complicated technology to replace already existing, excellent technology that is cheap.
I don't understand how someone who uses nothing but rhetoric can have the gall to cast the blame on another.

edit:

Forced double post as edit isn't working:

The concept of the pencil vs. the space pen is, in essence, quite applicable to this particular scenario as the "more complicated" technology is preferable to the "simplest solution".
 
New Member
✔️ HL Verified
Joined
Apr 9, 2011
Messages
104
Best answers
0
The great conspiracy is when I set up this thread just so that it will eventually lead into an argument between you two. My plans did work and :sad: now we have no alliance with each other. :(
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top