Technology that refuses to die

Post Reply New Topic

The bad thing about IBOC HD radio on AM is at night when the AM signal skips on the ionosphere, the wider bandwidth causes it to "walk over" other station's signals. When KDKA-AM here in Pittsburgh used it, if you wanted to listen to CFRB Toronto on 1010 or WBZ Boston on 1030, the IBOC signal "walked over" their signal and sometimes again do to the skip, even in their own markets, it can be a problem. I think most AM IBOC has been stopped because of it.

Or maybe come up with something else that won't kill half the human race in the event of a total meltdown in a critical location?

Current solar technology may suck, but who says it can't be refined into something incredibly efficient and cheap? Coal power has come a long way - why can't solar be super-refined, or some other alternative entirely? Nuclear power has too big of a drawback - even if things don't go badly, the waste is WAY more lethally toxic than CO2 emissions!

Nuclear energy is another technology that needs to go away.

Those are still around?

Money, Weapons, Surveillance & Religion

Religion isn't a technology, so can you athiests please quit shoving your beliefs down everyone's throats?

You start that on this site, it never ends well.

Plus I had to witness a new pope parade not too many moons ago if I recall correctly.. Just saying.

You but. It is electronically transmitted hard copy.

ruveyn

There is certainly place for amelioration though, like I already linked in this thread. http://quasiturbine.promci.qc.ca/EIndex.htm
80% of efficiency! Way better that the measly 30% of traditionnal piston engine.

It may have been said in the thread already, but

One word.

COBOL.

Not even a low yield nuke pointed directly at the top of that language's stack would kill it.

It's way better because it's an air powered engine.

The inertia it takes to get a chain spinning is a lot less than a car. You'd be better off going back to woodgas.. the tank would be smaller.

I disagree. Religion is a system, a method, a procedure and a technology. Religions have been shown to be effective as tools to keep populaces under control. When everybody thinks alike, it becomes easier to maintain rules and laws.

Note that I regard religion and belief to be two very different concepts;

Logically, it's impossible to not have a belief at some level. Otherwise, you'd have to know everything. Therefore, saying that having personal beliefs is either preferable or not makes no sense at all. Acceptance is the only sane resolution.

Religion (or any kind of dogmatism) however, is telling you what to believe (often forcefully), and is therefore hindering peoples ability to achieve real contentment and satisfactory answers to their questions. Especially now that we have access to so much more information (ie. science) than we used to.

And by the way, did I say I am an atheist? I prefer the term agnostic. I find it more scientifically accurate.

Two things:
1. Religion isn't a technology, because it's not exactly a tangible object (or something that is created through tangible objects, e.g. computer software). It's simply a collection of ideas and theories.
2. I don't think this is the right place to start a religion-focused flame war.

Ennergy density is an important important factor but EROIE (energy return on invested energy) is the most important of all. You need a high EROIE to keep running this whole civilization.

The infamous COBOL... I fear It will still therefor the 10KY bug.

A: If I understand your definition of "technology" correctly, I don't agree with it. In fact, it doesn't even make any sense [to me] after having had a closer inspection.

Let me try to explain:

• Nothing has ever indicated that anything can be 'created' (however defined) through objects, entities, concepts or ideas, that, either themselves are not tangible, or not ultimately descending from something that is tangible.
  Unless you rationalize that something conceptually symbolic and abstract is somehow capable of influencing our physical reality directly (ie. be the definitive cause of energy changing states → affect distribution of matter, alter the position or velocity of atoms, warp spacetime, etc.) - in which case I'd have to opt out of this discussion until my brain has lucubrated the ability to adequately process such information, without getting spun up at (pun intended) eternally recursive logical cognitions, due to me currently still appreciating it to be incoherent and riddled with contradictory paradoxes.

This critical observation (or lack thereof, if you prefer - which, in the context I'm trying to portray, basically means the same thing) translates to the following sequential and bold conclusions, according to my own subjective sense of deduction (or lack thereof, if you prefer):

• Any inferentially presumptive origin of the ultimate ensemble must be tangible.
  Assuming we agree on the definition of "tangible" as something that is directly pertaining to our physical reality - discovered or not.
  
• Religion is something that ultimately must have been created by - or through - a corporeal entity.
  Just like everything else, and for example by humans. (What do I know?)

If these statements are not agreed upon, there can be only two alternative explanations:

1. at least one assumption has to be made from an imaginary standpoint that is based outside of observed reality.
2. there is something I have overlooked, don't know about or utterly fail to understand - in which case I'd really appreciate getting corrected, completed and brought to final enlightenment.

My definition of "technology" on the other hand, as assumed in my list of technologies that refuse to die, is reconcilable with the following catenation (having the pieces that I think are accommodating the term "religion" in bold):


Note though, that I'm making a few a reservations myself. For example, I believe that thoughts, dreams, ideas and beliefs (!) are essentially abstract sums of observable physical processes or derivatives - not something based in any chimerical reality. So, please go ahead and confront me if you have any objections or questions to what I'm trying to say!

I know from repeatedly obtained personal feedback that I can be hard to follow at times, and tend to have excessively complex (read: long-winded) explanations bordering on circumstantiality.


A: That was never my intention. I was merely listing technologies that refuse to die, when unexpectedly motivated to interpret my reasoning behind some of them.

Have a nice day!

EDIT:
- Fixed layout to make the unintelligible appear intelligible.
- Grammar.
- Semantics.

Last edited by Kenjuudo on 21 Mar 2013, 8:09 pm, edited 9 times in total.

So, according to you, practically everything is technology? That seems about right.