Printable View
The foundations of modern computing were the results of military spending. Without the upfront capital for R&D supplied by the military, it would have never gotten off the ground. 30 years ago, nobody expected so many people to have PCs, the idea was considered absurd.Quote:
Originally Posted by Viking
You are confusing current advancement with the technological leaps needed to get to the commercially viable point.
Isn't it impossible by definition ~:confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by Wakizashi
war can be seen as the corruption of competition, not the epitome thereof. the process consuming itself. not necessarily my views, but i've run into that idea somewhere before.
They are, but did not at all have to.Quote:
Originally Posted by drone
And if the military had kept the computers to themselves, it'd still been. However, commercial forces saw the computer's use, and as a consequence we now find them in our homes.Quote:
30 years ago, nobody expected so many people to have PCs, the idea was considered absurd.
A "leap" is highly relative.Quote:
You are confusing current advancement with the technological leaps needed to get to the commercially viable point.
Glad to, and I'd gladly stand you to a 2nd round. Might have to work on the co-location portion a bit first...:cheesy:Quote:
Originally Posted by Adrian II
Well, it's a fallacy to state my point in the phrasing I did. It would be more correct to say that:Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro
Historically, a large majority of cultures have not made significant efforts at funding such "civil science" efforts absent the prompting of war or analogous emergency. Barring a broad alteration in human attitude and practice -- of which I currently see no evidence -- I will conclude that this "prompted only by war or dire emergency" approach will continue.
It's an interesting discussion, and an intriguing premise. What we don't have of course, is a control experiment.
One can wonder what the world might look like, and how far it may have advanced, if conflict was not a defining characteristic of Mankind to date.
Unless one counts the Harry Lime Thesis, of course.
It figures that I'd Google something Banquo says and the top hit is a JSTOR article. :2thumbsup:Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost
Google "cuckoo clock".Quote:
Originally Posted by Vladimir
Sorry. Meant to be Tongue-in-Cheek.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro
The military didn't, so PCs became part of the aforementioned "peace dividend". Taxpayer dollars well spent.Quote:
Originally Posted by Viking
Commercial forces saw the computer's use, but did not originally develop them. Sure, market forces have pushed processor and graphics tech, but this is a relatively new phenomenon. From 1946 (ENIAC) to 1977 (Apple][, TRS-80), the home PC was no driving force. Computing foundations in both hardware (transistors, size reduction, storage, etc) and software (OS's, languages, databases, communication protocols) resulted from either R&D or contracts funded by the military. Without these building blocks, computers would not be commercially viable.Quote:
Originally Posted by Viking
,,,
Well, anyhow, the point that I am trying to make is that military is not at all necessary for our modern techonologies. It is like blaming USA for that the nuclear bomb ever was invented, or blaming a caveman way back in time for the invention of weapons.Quote:
Originally Posted by drone
Wiki. No surprise. :shrug:Quote:
Originally Posted by Adrian II
I agree with the general gist of the OP. That it is the intellectual journey through life that is important. But I would like to adress the notion that this excludes hoping for world peace and and justice.
From the OP I get the feeling that you think world peace is synonomus with everybody holding hands singing "koomba ya" (sp?) around a campfire.
Conflict and disagreement is an integral and necessary part of life, if everybody got things the way they wanted they would be spoilt and we'd end up with conflict anyway. But do we have to let conflict and disagreement descend into war?
Considering that most conflicts are about limited resources, of which human labour and intelligence is part, do we honestly desire to throw lives away needlessly?
If we had proper bargaining channels, (or simply a will not to turn to killing eachother to get what we want) could we not reach agreements that benefit both/all parties?
Like you said Adrian:
If governments could talk and make deals and not bicker like little children then there would be justice as well because the parties freely entered an agreement.Quote:
Most conflicts (of interest or arms) result from opposing views, fears and misunderstandings, even miscommunication. They are seldom the result of outright evil on both sides
The point is that war is no longer, if it ever were, a good way to solve conflict, so why should we not hope for a world where people do not have to fear getting killed over dissagreements that stem from fear, misunderstandings and miscommunication.
Conflict bring it on, war no thanks..
Sorry Vlad. :embarassed:Quote:
Originally Posted by Vladimir
The quote to which I referred is from the film "The Third Man", where the antagonist Harry Lime says:
It was a tongue-in-cheek example of a control experiment.Quote:
Like the fella says, in Italy for 30 years under the Borgias they had warfare, terror, murder, and bloodshed, but they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, and the Renaissance. In Switzerland they had brotherly love - they had 500 years of democracy and peace, and what did that produce? The cuckoo clock.
:laugh4: You didn't know of my fetish for JSTOR. Consider it a compliment and be glad it wasn't, Wiki. Never heard of that film but the quote is familiar.Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost
In other words... You're Dorian Grey, nice to meet you. Can I see your picture?Quote:
Originally Posted by Adrian II
Chertkov, rather.Quote:
Originally Posted by Soulforged