Computers are a form of TECHNOLOGY.
If there is any science involved please tell me
63 comments
...
I think I just had an aneurysm.
Where do you begin with someone like this?
I guess I could try to work backwards in really simplified terms:
1) Computers contain semiconductors,usually of the CMOS (complementary-symmetry metal oxide semiconductor) variety
2) Construction of CMOS components requires knowledge in such areas as: electricity and magnetism and the basic forms of matter (elements, of which some are metals)
3) That knowledge came through application of the scientific method
So uh, yeah... I picked this one because I need help with my magical computer issue:
None of what I'm posting on the fstdt.com forums is showing up (to me at least), I hit submit and it just refreshes the page but nothing is actually submitted. I've tried: deleting my history, deleting all cookies, restarting my computer. What gives? (I'm using Safari and it was working 24-48 hours ago)
Why does blood come out of my left ear every time I read one of this guy's posts?
Count yourself lucky. I get it coming out of both.
This is nothing. I had a philosophy professor tell a room full of 300 engineering students that science has not produced anything; all products are technology and technology always precedes science, never the reverse. And then gave us a multiple choice test where we had to affirm this fact or suffer the consequences.
This quote reminds me very much of Prof. Waterfall (name may or may not be changed to protect the guilty), and the textbook he used to support his claim. He baldly gave computers as an example of technology that was not science.
He's apparently popular with the Philosophy students, but that was the only semester he was allowed to teach engineers.
It's too bad the word redefinition project award has already been given.
geez, Ens, what school do/did you go to? I'm glad the engineers revolted, I think I would have had a fit. And I'm a philosophy student! Doesn't everyone know this?
Well, apparently not.
Science, shmience. Everything you need to know about computers is in the bible.
Book of Pascal, chapter 3, verse 10 -
- Thus, he thrust the chip upon his motherboard, whilst verifying thou Socket A alignment.
Sometimes it amazes me that some people still adhere to a childish image that a scientist is a guy wearing glasses and a lab coat surrounded by test tubes and flasks and bunsen burners, spending his days mixing chemical A with chemical B to see what happens.
I outgrew that at a young age when I met some guys at Bell Labs who fancied themselves as "scientists".
TDR:
University of Toronto. Engineering Science (aka Engineering Physics), Computer Option. I'll be entering my 4th and final year in September, (not counting any graduate studies).
The philosophy course was designed for two reasons, one was to temper engineer arrogance, which I think is what the science vs. technology thing was about; and the other was to insert some consideration for the ethics of our action. Not a bad idea, but this ended up amounting to nuclear power is bad, turn Texas into a giant windfarm rhetoric. I'm not exaggerating here, the solution to energy was to turn Texas, Alabama, and Idaho into a windfarm and provide all the world's energy from that. Supporting alternative energy is one thing, but you can't try passing this particular oversimplistic "solution" off to a bunch of engineers.
I actually like philosophy, but this guy really managed to ruin a subject that was not particularly popular with his audience as a whole in the first place.
My favourite question from one of his tests:
"How many flops will computers have in 2049?
A. One million billion.
B. Ten million billion.
C. Twenty million billion.
D. One hundred million billion."
I, like approximately 25% of the class, got it right. The answer was C. Cue Dr. Evil's pinky. I turns out there's an obscure passage in Ray Kurzweil's "The Age of Spiritual Machines" that predicts this number. As if we can really predict to within a factor of 2 on a 45-year timeline (at the time of reading; fifty years at the time of authorship).
If there is any science involved please tell me
*sigh*
Fetch me the learnin' stick.
Ens, please hunt down and shoot this "professor", for the good of all humanity. No one that stupid should be allowed to exist.
BTW, there are already computers that operate at more than 1 petaflop, eliminating A. Given basic knowledge about computer advances, you could therefore easily eliminate B, too. Improves your odds to 50/50... though that's still less than stellar.
NonHomogenized:
This was in reference to mainstream desktop processors, not supercomputers. And I may be off by 10 years; that isn't really the important part (but I'm certain the only answer that started with a '2' was the correct answer, and that the answers were in terms of "million billion flops"). Unfortunately, I do not have the test with me, so I cannot obtain the exact wording.
Obviously computers are made from magic, just like the bullet that killed JFK, just like the reason why the Great Depression happened, why the Earth revolves around the sun, and why Jesus has been so popular.
Read the history of computers, the history of the transistor, the history of integrated circuits and the history of lasers, for a start.
The integrated circuit technology was 'reverse engineered' from samples from the Roswell UFO.
So, actually, computers come from SATAn, and yergonnaHell.
Read the rest of the thread too, it's great.
"The other day while installing some new fiber optics cables for a satellite array I overheard some coworkers talking about quarks. Quarks are supposedly tiny particles that nobody can see and nobody has any use for. So why do we know about them? What good does it possibly do us to know what a quark is? Just another example of useless science, and wasted money on the so called research needed for this great discovery. "
From wikipedia: "In particle physics, a quark (pronounced IPA: /kw??(r)k/) is one of the two basic constituents of matter (the other are the leptons). Quarks are the only fundamental particles that interact through all four of the fundamental forces."
He's got to be a troll. Who would be laying fibre optic cable and preaching against technology and science?
Dear Lord, I think my brain committed suicide. Or ran away when I read that. :P
How... what... how can anyone be that dumb ?
"technology always precedes science, never the reverse"
The transistor is a glaring disproof of that stupid assertion.
"Computers are a form of TECHNOLOGY.
If there is any science involved please tell me"
The development of the digital computer, leading to the very thing you're using, spreadingtheword? You have one man to thank:
image
Alan Turing. A scientist. Also an Atheist. And a homosexual.
Not only are your internet privileges revoked (ARPANET created by the very non-Christian Department of Defence), but you're using the product of heathen knowhow, thus it is evil. And you'd better throw it away, lest you catch teh ghey spreadingtheword.
...oh, and it's OS? If it's Windows, Bill Gates is an Atheist. Linux? Linus Torvalds is an Atheist. So you'd better throw that PC away and get a Mac. Mac OSX Snow Leopard? Steve Jobs is an Atheist.
So, short of creating your own unique non-Atheist-developed OS, you're just as fucked.
This quote is too stupid to be worth commenting on.
>>dg
The windfarm thing - wouldn't that disrupt the ecology too? <<
Not relevant. There isn't enough kinetic energy in the air moving through Texas below any sensible altitude to supply the US's (to say nothing of the world's) power needs.
Now, a solar array the size of Texas might work. But then there are questions of distribution and energy storage and environmental impact.
Reminds me of my father, who worked in automobile construction. He is one of these "simple, rural, hard-working, faithful redneck guys".
He once snapped at me "What is science good for, eh? I don't need this nonsense! You academics should be forced to do REAL work!"
It was impossible to explain to this stupid dimwit that without modern thermodynamics, he would never have worked in automobile manufacturing.
@#1676995
You know, in primary school, I'm pretty sure "science" and "technology" are the same subject.
"Primary school", hah! Each of us must crawl before we walk.
Stw must first cross the hurdle of Sandbox 101 to even get to PS.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.