Slashdot Mirror
526 Years On, Da Vinci's Clockwork Car Constructed
SimianOverlord writes "The Guardian (and several other news outlets) report on the attempt by Professor Paulo Galluci and his team to build a working model of Leonard Da Vinci's clockwork powered car, designed in 1478. Previous attempts have been made to create the vehicle, but they failed to work properly. This is thought to be due to a misunderstanding of the original design, which is corrected in the new model. Apart from the 1/3 scale replica, the team have also made a full size model but have not dared to test it. Professor Galluzzi explained "It is a very powerful machine. It could run into something and do serious damage.""
Have you been touched by his noodly appendage?
(Emphasis mine)
Not to pick nits, but shouldn't it have infinite miles per gallon? Zero miles per gallon implies that, no matter how much gas you put in it, it'll never go anywhere.
For a stranded time traveler, Leonard did quite well, don't you think?
Imagine if Da Vinci's genius would have been amplified by the use of computers--CAD simulations; and computation. He could have accomplished even more than his prodigious list of both scientific and artistic accomplishments.
Harpo Tunnel Syndrome--my wrist feels funny.
That's odd, I thought the drivers in NASCAR races turned left mostly because they race on oval tracks in America. I'm sure if NASCAR suddenly became popular in Britain or Australia, they'd all be making right hand turns.
God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
So we assume that because DaVinci was such a genius, this failure must be due to people failing to understand his design. Bright people then try to figure out what he could have meant.
It seems to me there is a very real possibility that what we actually have is a new design by those bright people, somewhat inspired by DaVinci's ideas.
I've been trying to explain this to people for years. When handled properly, patents are in the best interest of everyone. Leonardo had to have other ways of protecting his work, namely his weird code.
'Standards' in computing only impress those who are impressed by things like 'standards'.
In fact, my experience is that only another genius would recognize that the work of a genius could have flaws that require correcting.
Most people are sheep and blindly follow "the directions," even when those directions result in nonfunctioning items. They blame the nonfunctionality on themselves, rather than on the design.
Hence the notations you'll find on many processed food products these days, "You'll find that this might taste good with a little cheese on it. Or maybe some salt." They have to be told to "think outside the box," as it were. Many people get all weird about the idea of even modifying a published recipe. The published version is the "correct" version in their minds. Perhaps this phemonenon is a good part of why some people get all weird about the idea of open source software. They need to feel that out there, somewhere, is a definatively "correct" version, handed down from the mountain engraved on stone tablets by some programing god or other.
Most people who play classical music play it as if they were some sort of flawed mechanism in a player piano whose function is to reproduce the markings on the paper as closely, and mechanically, as possible.
The musical genius recognizes that the markings on the paper are one genius talking to another genius, saying, "Hey, look at this idea," and interprets the music.
KFG
I will disagree on one point. The sheep these days never accept blame, and make claim that the designer was an idiot, and it's obviously just junk.
And I do agree with your point about OSS. Many times it would almost take a genious to follow those directions to the letter, but even if you did, it would most likely fail. You have to think on your feet to spot little details for your particular situation (as everyone has their own unique situation) and make adjustments.
The musical genius recognizes that the markings on the paper are one genius talking to another genius, saying, "Hey, look at this idea," and interprets the music.
That reminds me of Mozart's "Ein musikalischer Spass". Only now people are starting to realize the true genious behind it. Ironic that any "bird brain" could have figured it out. ;-)
Naturally, I'm partial to jokes... even subtle ones.
Although he certaintly encoded his work on things other than weapons, mostly after he got old, his defense contractor work is most of what's encoded. Leonardo didn't give a shit about intellectual property, he had patrons. He didn't have to worry about the artist down the block stealing his animatronic kight design and taking over his contract with Wal-Mart. He got paid even when he didn't produce anything, which is actually what happened most of the time, and why he changed patrons more often than he changed his underwear.
He encoded the tanks and the ballistas and everything in case the wrong guy wanted to build them. He encoded other things for his own reasons, but he never encoded anything because he was afraid that Italian noblemen would start paying for the bragging rights of having the guy who ripped off Da Vinci stay in the guest house.
And the modern term for "patron" is "employer."
In the case of the machinery of warfare the federal government often takes the place of the Lord, as they stand in much the same relationship to one another.
The government often employs its own patent systems to protect the ideas embodied in its war machines, since those 'secrets' never remain secret very long after a device is actually produced.
Perhaps that's an underlying reason why governments have been so willing to extend the protections of patents beyond all normal reason.
KFG
Stars = shooting stars.
Since Hebrew doesn't have the word "meteor", it would have been difficult to have it any other way.
Your mention of pi equaling three proves that you are just another atheist parroting an oft-repeated fallacy - because it's not God that creates the "sea" (the bowl or tub) but Solomon. Number one, since all the measurements of the bowl are given in round figures, there's no way pi would every pop up exactly. Number two, they were probably measuring the outside circumference of the bowl. Since the rim is described as opening like a "lily blossom", this measurement would have resulted in numbers that were slightly "off".
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
A food preparer follows the recipie.. a Great chef looks at the recipie for the general idea, throws it aside and then creates the meal.
Great Chef's also are extremely happy to tell you all about that meal, even the ingredients and enough information that another chef can reproduce it very well, if not exactly.. althoguh the taste will still be different as you cannot recreate the chef's steps exactly... not even the great chef can reproduce his creations exactly.
The Best minds in the world are happy to share with you how it was done... it is the no talent hacks with something to hide that favor hiding everything from view.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Though I think he would have had to fear the general public instead. When the patent system was passed by congress Leonardo had been dead for over 200 years. Him coming to America and walking around then would probably have caused quite a stir.
It is however true that the idea of patents are a good thing. Encouraging people to freely share their ideas is good. However in the current implementations patent systems are not good. Mainly they make it very difficult and expensive for "little people" to get patents. And when they have them there is little they can do if a bigger company would want to infringe. Since the big companies have patented a shitload of little things they'll just counter sue you. You'll be bancrupt before you can get any money.
Ah, apologists. It's easy to reinterpret language in light of modern knowledge. "Four corners" is straight out of pre-Biblical thinking, where the Earth was really considered to have four corners. An apologist can say that when it was said in the Bible (as opposed to by some other heathens), it meant something different, but if you'd gone back to, say, a Jew of the day and asked them what they thought "four corners" meant, they would've thought you were crazy if you said the Earth was a sphere. Likewise, shooting stars were called "shooting stars" precisely because that's what people originally thought they were.
Marking machines?!
I'm glad I'm British, where teachers still read pupils' answers. In my day, we almost always used to have to answer in complete sentences rather than giving an answer from among multiple choices. That taught us to form proper sentences.
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
"...that only exist because of patents."
I'm sorry you believe this. Who exactly told you this? Did you read this somewhere? Was it part of your history class in high school? PATENTS DO NOT FURTHER SCIENCE. Patents are a legal document that are claimed to exist for incentive purposes, but used more so as protection against competition. You have no idea what science is if you believe that patents are somehow directly involved in progress in science and technology. The idea that patents help progress is one of the largest myths about them. You could have your opinions about what patents HAVE accomplished, but as a realist, I don't give a shit about what you think, but what the inventor, the scientist, the researcher, the investor, the employees, the customers, the wealthy, and the various others involved with the progress of science and technology think. THEY ARE THE ONES THAT DO IT, NOT YOU. Do some reading about the progress of science and technology and the legal system behind it.
There is a reason for patents and copyrights, and various intellectual property laws. They served their purpose, but unfortunately have not changed with times. If the system were perfect, it would have slowly dissolved by now. There is no need for it today. If you would like I could explain why. Just ask.
Question everything.
not even the great chef can reproduce his creations exactly
Romantic idea, but not true. Just because they're not using measuring spoons/cups, doesn't mean they're not measuring. A chef can pour out exact amounts of ingredients. After working under the one I did for a summer, I was able to get exact teaspoons and tablespoons of salt by pouring them in my hand, and I was getting close to trusting myself to pour a cup of liquid from a bottle directly into the mixture.
Also, since chefs know the science behind food preparation, recipies are like note progressions in music. Saying that a chef couldn't remember how to re-create a dish they made is like saying a musician couldn't remember a chord progression. If it turns out good, they're going to remember for at least awhile.