Ancient Greek Computer Reconstructed 266
afaik_ianal writes "A working reconstruction of an ancient Greek computer, the Antikythera mechanism, which was found at the bottom of the ocean in 1900 has been unveiled and is on display at the Technopolis museum, in Athens. The device is believed to have been used to calculate the positions of various celestial bodies including the sun and the moon on any given date. While some guesswork was required in the reconstruction, the bulk of the design is based on updated X-ray photographs of the device."
They don't build them like they used to (Score:5, Insightful)
Anyone place odds on our gold and copper monstrosities from the 70's on surviving thousands of years and people figuring out what they were used for? There's something to be said about elegantly simple one use devices like calculators.
Is it a computer? (Score:5, Insightful)
When the title reads 'ancient greek computer', I would expect something more along the lines of the machine that Babbage designed.
Re:Is it a computer? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm coming down on the side of 'glorified watch.' Just wind it up and watch it go. No programming, no modularity, no general problem solving. Certainly nowhere near a Turing machine.
Re:Is it a computer? (Score:5, Insightful)
But then it goes on to explain:
"The device is all the more impressive for its use of a differential gear, which was previously believed to have been invented in the 16th century."
It's far more sophisticated than a clockwork. Call it what you want, but it is a significant discovery in the history of analog computers.
Love the Wikipedia "Warning" (Score:3, Insightful)
It's brilliant. Maybe we should include one at the top of every
On a sidenote, wouldn't it make sense to link to the static version of a Wikipedia entry page, rather than the top / dynamic one? I guess it would detract from the whole editable purpose of Wikipedia, but in terms of providing a reference -- which is what this article is using it for -- it seems like it would be safer to link against a static page of a specific revision, and then let people see the newest version if they wanted to.
Of course if they did that, we'd never get to see their 'Do Not Feed The Trolls' warning.
Re:Non-troll mirror (Score:3, Insightful)
That said, it's still a cool device. Creating a mechanical clockwork that recreates an earth-centric viewpoint of the planetary motion is a remarkable feat in virtually any age.
Re:How Wikipedia views slashdotians... (Score:3, Insightful)
By the same token, no one tags the inside of railroad cars...
Re:Ancient Greece vs the US (Score:3, Insightful)
1) 400 years of occupation under Ottoman empire; they missed the renaissance and the industrial revolution. The current Greek state was founded around 1830, yet it is in the first 30 countries when it comes to economic development and standard of living.
2) 1000 years and more of theocracy in the Byzantine empire. This has had a tremendous effect on demolishing the hellenistic spirit of rational thinking and scientific research that has been the result of over a thousand years of ancient Greek culture. The actual effect of Christianity on this area was to halt development of civilisation for another 1000 years.
3) the geographical position of Greece: big enemies from the east, big enemies from the west; no chance of survival. Western european countries were much more lucky: the closest enemy was far more away. This allowed western countries to loot Africa and India, thus raising the amount of gold in those countries, and helped making them superpowers.
As for Americans, Greeks also make fun of them. Greeks consider Americans naive and stupid. Of course there are misunderstandings from both sides. The large number of successful Greek people in the western world (ranging from MIT professors to big enterpreneurs) proves that Greeks are not stupid at all. The poor emigrants of the early 20th century might have been perceived as stupid, though, but back then, Greeks were little more than savages.
The reason I mentioned above that Greeks today are the same as the ones in Ancient Greece is that the same traits are found in Greece today as in ancient Greece, as those traits are visible in the ancient texts. The most important one is that Greeks are divided, they are constantly fighting against each other, and they are united only when there is an outside danger, as they were in ancient Greece.
They are the same heros of yesterday (as Hitler said: "Greeks don't fight like heros, heros fight like Greeks"). In the war of 1940, Greece played a very important role in the war against Germans: they managed to stall the German invasion for about 6 months, that was enough for winter to catch them up in the Soviet front.
They have the same tendency to philosophise about anything...if one participates in a discussion between Greeks (especially educated ones), you will see the same spirit of exploration as in the ancients, as well as the same temper.
Finally, Greeks are very very competitive, between themselves or with foreigners. They are so competitive, in fact, that everything in Greece can be viewed as a competition. Most of young Greeks are holders of some degree; Greece has the highest percentage of foreign language knowledge, as well as the highest percentage of higher education participants in Europe (the money exported for education purposes to Britain is the highest amongst EU members). They are good in sports (holders of the European cup in soccer and basketball), with many metals in track'n'field; many martial arts categories are dominated by Greeks. Greek sport clubs are part of the few clubs around the world that have top successes in almost every sport. The Greek navy seals are amongst the top 3 around the world (along with the British and the Israelis). Greek fighter pilots are consistently recognized as the best, as they have won lots of international competitions. The spirit of competition is carried from the ancient times: sports where practically born in Greece.
Re:Computer Model Proves GeoCentric Universe (Score:3, Insightful)
Neither scientist nor scientific process accepts models based on faith. Current theories in science are always based on best-fit models of the observable facts. No scientist claims that new models won't supplant older theories as newer, better, more accurate observations are made. But the burden of proof when claiming a theory is wrong is on the scientist with the new idea or new observation. He must show why the new observation is relevent and why the current theory fails to account for the new observation. This keeps real crackpots (e.g. intelligent design advocates) at bay while eventually accepting the good ideas (e.g. Warren and Marshall's ulcer theory). Yes, this can often take awhile and the process is subject to the many frailties of humans. But overall, the process works quite well.
And your post should not have been modded off-topic.