Slashdot Mirror


Workings of Ancient Calculating Device Deciphered

palegray.net writes "Scientists have discovered new meaning behind the functions of the Antikythera Mechanism, which has been referred to as the oldest known analog computing device. In addition to providing a means to calculate the dates for solar eclipses, the device apparently tracked the four-year cycles of the Olympiad. From the New York Times article: 'Only now, applying high-resolution imaging systems and three-dimensional X-ray tomography, have experts been able to decipher inscriptions and reconstruct functions of the bronze gears on the mechanism. The latest research has revealed details of dials on the instrument's back side, including the names of all 12 months of an ancient calendar.'"

268 comments

  1. Yeah but... by Jabbrwokk · · Score: 1, Funny

    Does it run Linux?

    1. Re:Yeah but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Imagine a Beowulf cluster of these!

    2. Re:Yeah but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      No, but it's completely open source.

    3. Re:Yeah but... by JiminyJones · · Score: 1

      Even if it did, there would probably not be any drivers for it. The Greeks weren't big OSS supporters.

    4. Re:Yeah but... by Jabbrwokk · · Score: 1

      Demosthenes. That asshole.

    5. Re:Yeah but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      I'm imagining Beowulf imagining a Beowulf cluster of these things.

    6. Re:Yeah but... by Theolojin · · Score: 4, Funny

      I, for one, welcome our new analog computing overlor...

      What do you mean, "They're dead"?

      --
      Life is short; think quickly.
    7. Re:Yeah but... by dashesy · · Score: 1

      Open source and old. It should be one of those cryptic C programs with no comments. That explains why they could not get any instruction on how to operate it!

    8. Re:Yeah but... by Abreu · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'm imagining Beowulf imagining a Beowulf cluster of these things.

      Nah, if anything, I can imagine Beowulf ripping out one of its clock hands and throwing it to the sea

      --
      No sig for the moment.
    9. Re:Yeah but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can you imagine a Beowulf Cluster of these things? That'd be so cherry...

    10. Re:Yeah but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Demosthenes. That asshole.

      Up yours, Locke! :)

    11. Re:Yeah but... by linuxpyro · · Score: 1

      I'll bet it could run NetBSD.

      --
      Saying "I'll probably get modded down for this" in a post is the best way to get it modded up.
    12. Re:Yeah but... by CastrTroy · · Score: 1

      They aren't dead, they leave really deep under the earth.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    13. Re:Yeah but... by Pincus · · Score: 3, Funny

      Maybe this is the true origin of the term Beowulf cluster. Beowulf, being the jock/bully, would see a nerd playing with his calculator and give him hell. The nerds responded by clustering together for protection and inadvertently discovered greater computing power.

    14. Re:Yeah but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I predicted these very first two posts. Ahhhh Slashdot, how your constant familiarities of Beowulf clusters, Linux, Soviet Union, Goatse and frosty pissers never tend to cease!

    15. Re:Yeah but... by Atti+K. · · Score: 1

      I for one, welcome our new... uh, never mind.

      --
      .sig: No such file or directory
    16. Re:Yeah but... by gd2shoe · · Score: 2, Informative

      Aside from the language chosen, I'm astonished that an AC actually posted something mildly funny!

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Wiggin

      --
      I won't join Slashcott. OTOH, If Beta goes live, I just won't be back until it's fixed. Sorry Dice.
    17. Re:Yeah but... by chemisus · · Score: 4, Funny

      I predicted these very first two posts. Ahhhh Slashdot, how your constant familiarities of Beowulf clusters, Linux, Soviet Union, Goatse and frosty pissers never tend to cease!

      You must not be new here...

    18. Re:Yeah but... by ailnlv · · Score: 3, Interesting

      You forgot about us insensitive clods

    19. Re:Yeah but... by KillerBob · · Score: 3, Funny

      I think you've mistaken the ancient Greeks for the Crab People. That's ok. It's a common mistake.

      --
      If you believe everything you read, you'd better not read. - Japanese proverb
    20. Re:Yeah but... by breakfastpirate · · Score: 2, Funny

      Hey, I am an insensitive clod you... oh wait.

    21. Re:Yeah but... by Mazin07 · · Score: 1

      Congratulations for first post consistency.

      Before it's repeated...

      "It was designed by the famous Roman programmer Linicus Torivicus."

      "Netcraft confirms it... Antikythera Mechanisms are dying!"

      "Somewhat hard, given that it predates Beowulf by at least 600 years."

      "Correct. Back then, they were called Hydra clusters, for obvious reasons."

      "The Antikythera mechanism is *not* user friendly, and until it is Antikythera will stay with >1% marketshare..."

  2. about time by darkheart22 · · Score: 1, Funny

    it was about time...

    --
    Ever to excel
  3. Whoops by Oxy+the+moron · · Score: 1

    At first glance, I read this as "Workings of Ancient Calculating Divorce Deciphered."

    Good to know that the darn things were as hard to calculate to the "Ancients" as they are today!

    --

    Proudly supporting the Libertarian Party.

  4. 12 Ancient months eh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I hope they included Febturday

    1. Re:12 Ancient months eh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hope they included Febturday

      He said turd!

  5. Workings of AC Frost Posting Script Deciphered by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    #!/usr/bin/perl -w

    print "frost it!\n";

    1. Re:Workings of AC Frost Posting Script Deciphered by eln · · Score: 1

      Psh...if you were using a compiled language like C you probably would have gotten first post.

    2. Re:Workings of AC Frost Posting Script Deciphered by JWSmythe · · Score: 1

          If it was written in assembly it would have posted before the story. :)

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
  6. Data Sets by KGIII · · Score: 5, Informative

    For those interested here are the data sets and some nifty images available to download:

    The Data

    --
    "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    1. Re:Data Sets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Also, a good video of Tatjana van Vark's demonstrator.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zX3dTKdxoSo

      From her site,

      This model of the Antikythera Mechanism is made after schematic fig. 5 in Nature vol. 444 and includes a Hipparchos Solar Mechanism of my own design. However I see a-1 as an output to drive a hypothetical planetarium as illustrated.

      The Antikythera Mechanism cannot easily be driven from a-1 as any engineer will understand, taking into account the gear ratios. My input is the disk containing the lunar phase mechanism. This works beautifully and allows very subtle setting even with the additional load of my hypothetical planetarium.

      From the engineers point of view d-2 would be the perfect input gear. With a crown gear exactly like a-1 engaging d-2 and a little crank, the Antikythera Mechanism (and planetarium) can be driven smoothly and subtly. Experiments confirm this. There is however as far as I know no sign of this arrangement in the original, it is purely my personal curiosity that made me investigate this.

      My geocentric planetarium is based on modern data of planetary motion and is realised by conventional asymmetrical spur gear differentials as described in engineering text books. It is similar in principle to Mr. Wright's but rather different in details. I do not know of any detailed description of Mr. Wright's excellent work so I worked this out myself. As it represents the same solar mechanism, with good approximations, the differences cannot be great. Mine has 28 gears.

      The strange ratio of a-1/b-1 48/223 is an advantage here. My planetarium, after independent use, can be resynchronised with the Antikythera Mechanism from anywhere in a very wide window of time. Since a-1/b-1 is mirrored in my planetarium to provide a one-year-wheel there the actual ratio is irrelevant. I made b-1 with 223 teeth because I had to make it anyway for e-3 and the information does not exclude this.

      Let's not link her site to spare her bandwidth from the click-happy. The sincerely curious can Google.

    2. Re:Data Sets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For those interested in Tatja van Vark's Essence of the Antikythera Mechanism: http://www.tatjavanvark.nl/antikythera/

  7. it just needed to be set... by notgm · · Score: 5, Funny

    when they found it, it was flashing 12.

    1. Re:it just needed to be set... by Shimdaddy · · Score: 0

      You sure it wasn't flashing 8008135?

    2. Re:it just needed to be set... by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      Don't you mean 5318008?

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    3. Re:it just needed to be set... by DJStealth · · Score: 1

      In case anyone doesn't get the above two posts, try it on a calculator, and turn it upside down (for the latter post)

    4. Re:it just needed to be set... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Save ya the trouble. Warning: Recommend holding head upside-down, not monitor. Dropping your monitor on the floor would result in loss of the closest thing to a "social life" you have. Dropping yourself on your head, on the other hand, would result in relatively minor brain damage... your mother will love you in spite of it.

    5. Re:it just needed to be set... by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      No it was shown to be flashings
      10...
      9...
      8...
      7... GET OUT! GET OUT OF THERE!
      6...
      5...
      4...
      3...
      2...
      1...

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
  8. I guess now we know... by Channard · · Score: 1

    ... what Stargate Atlantis's next McGuffin-centric episode will be about.

  9. Where would we be today? by BobTheConvict · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I've always marveled at the "how did they do that" nature of such discoveries and honestly makes me realize an incredible loss of knowledge and skill occurred somewhere in the past (Dark Ages perhaps) that set us back thousands of years.

    1. Re:Where would we be today? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I believe a big "thank you" is in order for organized religion.

    2. Re:Where would we be today? by Abreu · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I believe a big "thank you" is in order for organized religion.

      Actually, the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire had more to do with it.

      The Church, if anything, managed to save some of the knowledge that would otherwise would have been lost.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_ages

      --
      No sig for the moment.
    3. Re:Where would we be today? by mattack2 · · Score: 1

      In "Cosmos", Carl Sagan kept mentioning the burning of the Library at Alexandria as such a loss of knowledge. Checking the Wikipedia article, apparently we don't actually know when it was destroyed.

    4. Re:Where would we be today? by sm62704 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You're right, but not the way you think. Modern science was started by the Catholic church. The dark ages were brought about by the fall of the Roman Empire. Had it not been for the church we might well still be in the dark ages.

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
    5. Re:Where would we be today? by Apathist · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The Church, if anything, managed to save some of the knowledge that would otherwise would have been lost.

      Sure, if by "save" you mean "appropriate for exclusive use".

      Yes, the fall of the Roman Empire immediately preceded the Dark Ages. However, problem of the Dark Ages was not so much that there was no central empire to act as a beacon of light, but more that education and knowledge was available only to the clergy (and the wealthy, via the clergy). It is very telling that the Renaissance only began with the translation of the Bible into a common tongue, instead of being exclusively in Latin - that only priests could read.

    6. Re:Where would we be today? by gujo-odori · · Score: 1

      The translation of the Bible into the vernacular was a result of the Renaissance, not a trigger of it.

    7. Re:Where would we be today? by mangu · · Score: 4, Informative

      Actually, the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire had more to do with it.

      The cause of that fall is still under debate, but the least that can be said is that it was closely correlated to the rise of the Roman Church. OK, correlation is not causation, but there is no causation without correlation, causation hasn't been disproved either.

      The Church, if anything, managed to save some of the knowledge that would otherwise would have been lost.

      Yes, and the rest of that knowledge was lost when they scraped old parchment to write their own texts

      And the Church murdering scholars and librarians that didn't belong to the Church didn't help too much either. The Church Father known as "Pillar of Faith" who had Hypatia killed was the same man who had Mary mother of Jesus proclaimed as an "eternal virgin".

    8. Re:Where would we be today? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yep. I remember me as a little kid crying because of all those papyrus burning, when I was watching Cosmos.
      But not only that, the burning of the codex dresdensis and many other mayans documents, and all the other books/papyrus burning organized by the Christian churches and sects also were responsible for destroying pretty much all the knowledge of the ancient past.
      So, replying to my other friends, as well: you watching too many movies and reading too much fiction books about the Catholic/Christian churches. Their religion, since the beginning, as a schism from the Judaism, was AGAINST knowledge and education. As the Islamism, as another branch of the same religions is still against knowledge. Pretty much, on the Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianism and Islamism) only a small group of out-casts kept the knowledge (Khabalists on the Judaism, some persecuted sects on the Christianism, and the Sufists on the Islamism). The raging mobs those religions always gathered, were and are known by the constant book barbecuing...

    9. Re:Where would we be today? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On top of the fall of Rome, there were also the purges of pagan and other texts the Christian church didn't agree with.

    10. Re:Where would we be today? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Have you considered the invention of the Gutenberg press at all? Before that many books were hand-transcribed and cost a small fortune. the Cambridge library in 1424 only contained about 125 books, the total value of which was probably around the size of a king's entire estate. A single book could cost as much as a farm.

    11. Re:Where would we be today? by clone53421 · · Score: 5, Funny

      The Church Father known as "Pillar of Faith" who had Hypatia killed was the same man who had Mary mother of Jesus proclaimed as an "eternal virgin".

      Eternal virgin? If that was true, then to heck with this "saint Mary" stuff... Joseph was more of a saint than she was!

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    12. Re:Where would we be today? by Paracelcus · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Wasn't it a mob of rabid Christians that finally succeeded in destroying the great library of Alexandria? It might have been the single greatest loss of knowledge/history/culture in the entire existence of mankind. Just think of one of tens of thousands of losses, the complete works of Imnhotep, the man who invented modern architecture, medicine, mathematics and who knows what else, thousands of years before anybody else.

      --
      I killed da wabbit -Elmer Fudd
    13. Re:Where would we be today? by Penguinisto · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Points of order:

      * "exclusive use", while not perfect, is far preferable to "left to rot", which is pretty much what would've happened if there wasn't at least some entity willing to preserve what would otherwise be disposed of by various invading armies, hordes, etc).

      * Throughout Europe (save for Spain during the Islamic occupations), Latin was the common metric of literacy and fluency among anyone who had even the most rudimentary of noble titles. For most of the early portions of the Dark Ages, IIRC it was pretty much the only language of inter-kingdom commerce (which meant that import-export type merchants either knew it, or they got ripped off a lot).

      * Err, The Bible wasn't printed in any non-Latin language until the 1450's CE, during the Italian Renaissance, which began quite a bit earlier (13th century), with the arrival of Islamic mathematics and philosophies that came back with returning crusaders... and not by Latin-to-Vulgar biblical translations. You were close, though - in that one invention during the same time period made knowledge easier to access... though not for the reasons you state.

      Don't think "Bible", think "Printing Press". Scribe-time before the press was invented was hella expensive for anyone not in the Church wanting copies of something (said church was otherwise busy trying to keep copies of not only internal liturgical and dogmatic script, but to maintain legible copies of everything they could scrounge from the by-now-dead Roman and Greek empires).

      HTH a little,

      /P

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    14. Re:Where would we be today? by chord.wav · · Score: 2, Funny

      And how do you know these "Dark ages" weren't caused on purpose by aliens or humans from the future to stop us from achiving an even worse future? How do you know???

      Getting serious, imagine what our future generations will say about these days: Patriot act, Trusted computing, DRM, Intellectual copyright, HD TV bit flag, etc, etc, etc. All of them setting us back, maybe, thousands of years. And what do we do? We keep buying iPods and other closed-source stuff and software. It's all about preserving Status Quo...

    15. Re:Where would we be today? by mdmkolbe · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Good, bad or ugly, it's still a fact that more knowledge was preserved with the Church than would have been without. The monks may have shown bias in which texts they copied, but it's not like anyone else was copying or distributing other works on as large a scale.

    16. Re:Where would we be today? by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 5, Informative

      It is very telling that the Renaissance only began with the translation of the Bible into a common tongue, instead of being exclusively in Latin - that only priests could read.

      Well, that would certainly be telling. If it were true.

      During the so-called Dark Ages, Latin was the language of educated Christians, just as Arabic was the language of educated Muslims - all REAL scholarship was written in Latin or Arabic (Yah, yah, Hindus used another language for scholarship, but since we're talking "Dark Ages", we're talking Europe), depending on the source. Latin (or Arabic) was not exclusive to the priesthood - it was taught everywhere literacy was taught, as PART of literacy.

      Note that a bit later, French filled a similar role - it was the Lingua Franca for any person who laid claim to education. Still later, English has taken up that role, which is perhaps why you didn't understand the relation between Latin and Education - you grew up speaking the modern equivalent of Latin.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    17. Re:Where would we be today? by AmberBlackCat · · Score: 1

      I wonder if, with the effect of television, Internet, and other things, the same thing could be gradually happening to us again.

    18. Re:Where would we be today? by mdmkolbe · · Score: 5, Informative

      Wasn't it a mob of rabid Christians that finally succeeded in destroying the great library of Alexandria?

      We don't know. The Wikipedia page lists at least four theories about how or when the library was destroyed. Two are due to conquests by the Roman Emperor, one due to conquest by Muslims and one by Christians when the pagan temples were ordered destroyed by the Roman Emperor.

    19. Re:Where would we be today? by amRadioHed · · Score: 1

      The destruction of the Library of Alexandria is another probable cause for our great loss of ancient knowledge.

      --
      We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
    20. Re:Where would we be today? by Crazyswedishguy · · Score: 2, Funny

      I'm sure Galilei would agree.

      --
      This space up for sale.
    21. Re:Where would we be today? by HighOrbit · · Score: 2, Informative

      Sure, if by "save" you mean "appropriate for exclusive use".

      Yes, the fall of the Roman Empire immediately preceded the Dark Ages. However, problem of the Dark Ages was not so much that there was no central empire to act as a beacon of light, but more that education and knowledge was available only to the clergy (and the wealthy, via the clergy). It is very telling that the Renaissance only began with the translation of the Bible into a common tongue, instead of being exclusively in Latin - that only priests could read.

      It sounds like you are accusing the Church of suppressing education and civilization. Are you saying the collaspe of education and civilization had nothing to do with that whole burning and pillaging thing from the pagan barbarian hordes such as the Goths and Vandals? As far as the availability of education, I doubt the tillers of the land in the Late Empire were anymore literate than the tillers of the land in the Dark Ages. What did happen is that trade was choked off and the economy collapsed as a result of a bunch of petty barbarians chieftans destroying the political and economic unity of the Empire. The literate magister of the latin villa (ruling class) was replaced with an illiterate german lord of the manor

      The old educated economic classes were destroyed and disposed by the germans. The Church was the only educated class left, but by accident and not by their own design. They were "exclusively" educated because they provided education themselves internally, not because they choked it off to the rest of the world. The church held it togather as best they could. They were certainly not responsible for the advent of Dark Ages as you seem to imply.

    22. Re:Where would we be today? by mdmkolbe · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I believe a big "thank you" is in order for organized religion.

      I believe you meant this sarcastically, but it shouldn't be so. The Church did both a lot of good things and a lot of bad things, just like any other organization that has been around for any period of time.

      In this case though, the Church mitigated the effects of the fragmentation that occurred after the fall of the Roman Empire simply by being a Pan-European organization that survived the fall. The very act of it continuing to function would have encouraged more contact between the fragments than would have happened otherwise.

    23. Re:Where would we be today? by Apathist · · Score: 1

      I did not imply that the advent of the Dark Ages was the church's fault. What I was trying to be explicit about was the responsibility the church bears for the part it played in impeding progress towards the Enlightenment.

      As others posters have pointed out, my assertion that the translation of the Bible into vernacular heralded the Renaissance is incorrect. However, I stand by the point that the church certainly did not go to pains to educate the people - perferring itself to be the sole source of "wisdom" - and as such it cannot be disputed that their powerlust worked to maintain the status quo of the dark ages.

    24. Re:Where would we be today? by ElectricTurtle · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Modern science was a direct result of Aristotelian empiricism. Just because Aquinas stumbled upon Aristotle and "rediscovered" AKA plagiarized his work doesn't mean the Catholics deserve any credit. If the Church hadn't spent centuries burning "heretics" and "pagan writings" maybe it wouldn't have needed to "rediscover" the wisdom of the previous era.

      --
      I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
    25. Re:Where would we be today? by meringuoid · · Score: 1
      I believe a big "thank you" is in order for organized religion.

      For Islam in particular, whose followers preserved and extended the mathematics and astronomy of the ancient world, while Christians forgot the lot.

      --
      Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
    26. Re:Where would we be today? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think the single greatest loss of knowledge that has happened was the Library of Alexandria. Its mission was to store the accumulated knowledge of the world, and it was sacked on several occasions. Julius Caesar, Aurelian, Christians, and Muslims all had a part in destroying the accumulated knowledge stored at the library. I've always wondered where civilization would be today if the library and its collection had survived.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Library_of_alexandria

    27. Re:Where would we be today? by DerekLyons · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Actually, the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire had more to do with it.

      The cause of that fall is still under debate, but the least that can be said is that it was closely correlated to the rise of the Roman Church.

      You can say it, sure. You can also say "the quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog".

      OK, correlation is not causation, but there is no causation without correlation, causation hasn't been disproved either.

      Translation: "I want to make it sound like I'm educated and unbiased without actually being either, especially the latter. Learning is hard."

    28. Re:Where would we be today? by ElectricTurtle · · Score: 2, Interesting

      This assumes that fragmentation is intrinsically negative. Nevermind that the 'fragmented' Greek and Anatolian states were practically the definition of civilization prior to Rome. What about the 'fragmentation' of China before the Qin dynasty? Christianity effectively neutered both Rome and eventually the Vikings. Rather than implement the constructive synthesis/syncresis of Rome, Christianity by nature employed a destructive imposition of socio-cultural concepts that would pave all of Europe into something of a bland monoculture. It wouldn't be a stretch to say that the Christianization of Europe was the first step on the road to today's modern Westernized monoculture. Anyway, the whole point is that there was and can be very valuable and successful 'fragmented' civilizations.

      --
      I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
    29. Re:Where would we be today? by lelitsch · · Score: 2, Informative

      Actually, pretty much everyone pitched in on the destruction:

      -Julius Ceasar burned it down in 48BCE (pagan)
      -Emperor Aurelian destroyed the remains in 274 CE (pagan)
      -Emperor Theophilus ordered it destroyed in 391 CE (Christian)
      -Amr ibn al 'Aas burned what was left of it in 642 CE (Muslim)

      But by all accounts, most of the damage was done in 48.

    30. Re:Where would we be today? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Modern historians consider that there were two Renaissances: one in the 12th century, where Europe got new tech from Islam and began growing scientifically and culturally; the other around the fifteenth century and centered around the fall of Constantinople and the invention of the printing press. The fall of Constantinople threw Greek scholars into the west, which in turn caused the rise of Humanism, the revival of classical over medieval Latin, and an examination of Greek sources of the Bible and retranslations, which in turn made earlier attempts, like Wycliff's, at translating into the vulgar tongues take hold. The printing press helped that effort too; much of the Catholic side of the Reformation was people like Saint Sir Thomas More burning books and executing publishers.

    31. Re:Where would we be today? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't remember which city it was off-hand, but the Muslims basically sold the Crusaders a city, and when they got inside found a huge wealth of books and knowledge which they then brought back to Europe- this is what started the Renaissance.

      So we can thank those 'dirty Arabs' for saving Western civilization.

    32. Re:Where would we be today? by Omestes · · Score: 1

      Except the Arabs, of course. The Enlightenment was mainly a function of ancient Greek (and Roman) texts flowing back to Europe (via Italy) from the Arabs, who kept science and philosophy alive while we were running about trying to sac Jerusalem over and over and burning anyone who looked at Jesus funny.

      --
      A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
    33. Re:Where would we be today? by Hektor_Troy · · Score: 1

      you grew up speaking the modern equivalent of Latin.

      He grew up speaking a dead language? What was it - Norwegian Blue?

      --
      We do not live in the 21st century. We live in the 20 second century.
    34. Re:Where would we be today? by ktappe · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It sounds like you are accusing the Church of suppressing education and civilization.

      He may not be, but I am. If you do not think the Church has suppressed education, then you need to go have a long look at texts describing the Inquisition. One single example is how the Church dictated the wholesale burning of every scrap of paper documenting the Mayan civilization because it was declared heresy. (Ref: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/maya). Another very famous example is the Church excommunication of Galileo for daring to suggest the earth orbits the sun. And of course there's the modern-day refusal to accept natural selection as a concept they'll tolerate being taught in schools. Many, many other examples are out there for the learning if you care to look.

      Are you saying the collaspe of education and civilization had nothing to do with that whole burning and pillaging thing from the pagan barbarian hordes such as the Goths and Vandals?

      They were largely disorganized. The Church is far and away the longest lasting, best-funded, globally-organized suppressor of education that has ever existed. No other example even comes close.

      --
      "We can categorically state we have not released man-eating badgers into the area." - UK military spokesman, July 2007
    35. Re:Where would we be today? by Peter+H.S. · · Score: 1

      You're right, but not the way you think. Modern science was started by the Catholic church. The dark ages were brought about by the fall of the Roman Empire. Had it not been for the church we might well still be in the dark ages.

      (I think it is a shame you got a "Flamebait" moderation, even though I disagree with you)

      While the Christian universal church did keep both reading and writing alive, I don't think it could be credited for the creation of modern science. And don't forget that among the first thing the newly Christianized Roman Empire did was to outright forbid any non-christian education, so all universities were closed.

      IMHO the major reason why the Christian church didn't outright ban all heathen books was because of the lesson learned by Julian the Apostate the last pagan emperor who actually forbade Christians to read/use pagan text in their education. The results were predictable; the Christians then got a third rate education, severely lacking any effective teaching in rhetoric, law, etc. The church didn't seem to forget that lesson so despite many attempts by pious people to ban heathen books the church resisted. The church however was very selective in what they found interesting to keep, so very few Greek scientific works survived because of the Church.
      IMHO, the church's positive influence in western civilization are more to be found in its energetic work to tame the extremely violent warrior aristocracy that ruled the western Europe.

      --
      Regards

    36. Re:Where would we be today? by uniquename72 · · Score: 1

      The Church, if anything, managed to save some of the knowledge that would otherwise would have been lost.

      You mean, the Church managed to coopt the learning already well-established in the Muslim world that would otherwise would have been lost in Europe.

      /not muslim
      /not christian
      /not european

    37. Re:Where would we be today? by samkass · · Score: 1

      Actually, the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire had more to do with it.

      The Church, if anything, managed to save some of the knowledge that would otherwise would have been lost.

      That's true if by "The Church" you are referring to Islam. Most of the knowledge and advances that came through that era came out of Islamic works. They had the advantage of being located between Greece and India, and fused the knowledge of each of those cultures into new practices such as algebra and algorithmic analysis. While Europe degenerated into small city-states.

      --
      E pluribus unum
    38. Re:Where would we be today? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If it was so important, why didn't they make another copy?

    39. Re:Where would we be today? by Opyros · · Score: 2, Informative

      And this article argues that the destruction was gradual, and may have been as much due to physical deterioration of the scrolls over time as any act of violence.

    40. Re:Where would we be today? by giorgist · · Score: 5, Informative

      Amm ... look up Byzantium. It never saw a dark ages but continued to creat and inovate.

      The Renaissance was in part as a result of the sacking of Kostantinopole were phylosophers and scientists had to flee to Italy.

      The Bible and espcialy the new tesament was written in Greek the language of teh Byzantium as opposed to Latin.

      G

    41. Re:Where would we be today? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They can't both be insightful, dumbasses.

    42. Re:Where would we be today? by dlcarrol · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I can't speak to the Mayan stuff, but Galileo was an ass. He happened to be a correct ass, but his discipline was as much political as anything else.

      To put a point on it, suppose that someone showed up with solid evidence that disproved anthropogenic climate change and instead pointed conclusively to sunspots or cattle by-products. See the comparison? Two competing theories, one carrying the day (for good or ill) in contemporary considerations. So this guy shows up with evidence, but is a pompous ass and tells the UNCC, et al to get bent and mocks them in the academic papers it publishes with the perfectly good data.

      I'm not saying that it justifies ignoring his conclusions or anything, but to sit here 450 years later and pretend that he didn't have something to do with his situation is just plain special pleading.

    43. Re:Where would we be today? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      If you do not think the Church has suppressed education, then you need to go have a long look at texts describing the Inquisition. One single example is how the Church dictated the wholesale burning of every scrap of paper documenting the Mayan civilization because it was declared heresy. (Ref: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/maya).

      That was a policy decision by one dude, not "the Church". In his defense, he was trying to stamp out an ongoing religious practice of ritual human sacrifice. Yes, the local population was cutting the hearts out of people -- mostly children and teenagers -- to appease the gods. Book-burning or not, I'm rather more sympathetic to the Christian religion than the Mayan.

      Anyway, it's not clear that the Mayan civilization had any technical learning to teach the Spanish. These were almost certainly just instruction manuals for the right way to tear peoples' insides out. The Mayan civilization had been in decline for hundreds of years at this point. And Spain already had acquired a quite decent number system (including zero) from India, via the Arabs, along with a lot of other neat stuff.

      Another very famous example is the Church excommunication of Galileo for daring to suggest the earth orbits the sun.

      Galileo was never excommunicated for that reason nor for any other. His punishment (house arrest) was a bit closer to the Comfy Chair than that. But yes, condemning his writings was a bad move.

      And of course there's the modern-day refusal to accept natural selection as a concept they'll tolerate being taught in schools.

      This is absolutely not an action of "the Church" but of a fairly small number of American conservative evangelicals. The people who tell you that the teaching of evolution is demonic are the same sort of people who will tell you that Rome is "Babylon the Great", the Pope is the anti-Christ, his satanic organization is the Great Harlot, etc.

      Many, many other examples are out there for the learning if you care to look.

      If there are, why do people always drag out the same example of Galileo?

      They were largely disorganized. The Church is far and away the longest lasting, best-funded, globally-organized suppressor of education that has ever existed. No other example even comes close.

      I'm guessing you don't get MTV.

    44. Re:Where would we be today? by jtgd · · Score: 1

      The burning of the library at Alexandria?

      --
      J
    45. Re:Where would we be today? by Geno+Z+Heinlein · · Score: 1

      -Julius Caesar burned it down in 48BCE (Olympian, by way of Rome)
      -Emperor Aurelian destroyed the remains in 274 CE (Olympian, by way of Rome)
      -Emperor Theophilus ordered it destroyed in 391 CE (Christian)
      -Amr ibn al 'Aas burned what was left of it in 642 CE (Muslim)

      Fixed. AKA, please don't patronize others' religion, thanks.

    46. Re:Where would we be today? by laddiebuck · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Oh, and who do you think preserved most of the pre-Dark Ages knowledge for us in the first place? Who copied and preserved the Greek philosophical texts? That's right, the Church. Monks in monasteries. The Church has played a very important role in education.

      Natural selection is a particularly bad example, as the Catholic and Anglican churches (which were the only active ones in the times you are speaking of) both endorse evolution by natural selection. Just some fundamentalist American churches don't.

    47. Re:Where would we be today? by laddiebuck · · Score: 1

      In a word, no. I wish I hadn't already posted in this thread and could use my mod points on such a gross perversion of the facts.

    48. Re:Where would we be today? by laejoh · · Score: 1

      I agree, and... am off to read A Canticle for Leibowitz, again!

    49. Re:Where would we be today? by mdmkolbe · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I stand by the point that the church certainly did not go to pains to educate the people.

      Anyone who could afford the time to be educated, was educated. Cathedral and monastery schools dotted the landscape and you didn't have to become a monk or priest to join these schools.

      Unfortunately most peasants couldn't afford the time to get educated. They were too busy growing crops and living like peasants. That isn't the Church's fault. That's the result of the inefficient food production system at the time. It would be dishonest to ascribe sinister motives to this simple fact of life.

      On the other hand, those that could afford the time, would usually prefer to become doctors, lawyers or priests after they were educated instead of going back to their peasant lives. In other words, there were no educated peasants because once a peasant was educated, he was no longer a peasant.

    50. Re:Where would we be today? by mdmkolbe · · Score: 2, Informative

      And of course there's the modern-day refusal to accept natural selection

      The official position of the Church as established in the Papal encyclical "Humani generis" is the opposite of what you claim it is.

    51. Re:Where would we be today? by sir+fer · · Score: 1

      However, problem of the Dark Ages was not so much that there was no central empire to act as a beacon of light, but more that education and knowledge was available only to the clergy

      Uh , the Vatican WAS the centre of control of its own empire during the era called the dark ages.

      --
      Debian FTW ;o)
    52. Re:Where would we be today? by Maserati · · Score: 1

      As others posters have pointed out, my assertion that the translation of the Bible into vernacular heralded the Renaissance is incorrect.

      It may not have caused it as directly as you asserted originally, but "heralded" is exactly what it did. The printed Bible in the vernacular was walking down the street, beating a drum and shouting that something is going on. It was as recently as the previous century or two that possession of a manuscript Bible in English would get you burned.

      --
      Veteran, Bermuda Triangle Expeditionary Force, 1992-1951
    53. Re:Where would we be today? by Apathist · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Oh, and who do you think preserved most of the pre-Dark Ages knowledge for us in the first place? Who copied and preserved the Greek philosophical texts? That's right, the Church. Monks in monasteries. The Church has played a very important role in education.

      Oh please. The church has played a very important role in the education of things they believe in. How many of those documents that were studiously preserved were considered heretical? Or even just pagan? Most likely zero. And what happened to such deeply offensive documents? Discarded, destroyed, with a vengeance, perhaps?

      Why this dichotomy of perservation principles? Because they weren't interested in history, or even in education itself - they were interested in power. Power via access to knowledge. It's a common theme today; knowledge is power - and the church back then knew it too.

      They weren't interested in preserving. They were interested in controlling.

    54. Re:Where would we be today? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You've been filled with Liberal B.S., probably obtained from the well organized suppressor of education called the public school system. You might want to check how well that system does versus the Catholic schools. "The Church," in whatever form, is an evolutionary step in any advancing civilization. It is just an example of human nature. Widespread education came mostly as the result of the invention of the printing press and the existence of leisure time. The printing press was created out of the desire to spread religion. Leisure time was often only available to the rich. The advancement of western civilization, capitalism, liberty, and democracy is what brought leisure time to the masses. This civilization sprung forth from the same tree as "The Church," as an evolutionary next step. What is the next evolutionary step? Putting one's faith in man and government instead of something greater. If you thought the church was bad, just wait...

    55. Re:Where would we be today? by jstott · · Score: 2, Informative

      Another very famous example is the Church excommunication of Galileo for daring to suggest the earth orbits the sun.

      Sigh, here we go again with the same Galileo foolishness. C'mon people, if you're going to keep invoking Galileo, at least read the Wikipedia page first, so you know what actually happened.

      First point: Copernicus was the one who suggested that the earth orbits around the sun. He was also a Catholic priest.

      Second point: Galileo provided the observational evidence to support Copernicus, but this isn't what got him in trouble.

      What got Galileo in trouble is that he took his scientific ideas (including the wacky ones that no one ever hears about, like the tides being caused by the slowing down and speeding up of the earth's rotation every day) and was drawing theological conclusions from them. To talk about the earth going around the sun as a philosophical point was something the Church could live with (hence the good relations Copernicus enjoined). For an untrained layman to persist in making theological claims, however, is quite something else in the Church's mind (see Brodrick's biography of Galileo for more details concerning the theological controversy). Most of you get a up in arms when creationists insist that the earth is only 6000 years old, because that's an imposition of religion on to science, why shouldn't the Church get upset when scientists try to tell it about God?

      That Galileo also had a habit of publicly ridiculing anyone who disagreed with him did not help matters. For example, his book "Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems" one of the three literary figures parrots the words of Pope Urban VIII. Because Urban was an Aristotlean, Galileo named his character "Simplicius"; understandably, the Pope was not impressed. This did not improve his standing in the eyes of the powers that be.

      In short, the scientific debate was largely peripheral to the Galileo affair. What got Galileo in trouble is that he insisted on drawing theological conclusions from his scientific data.

      -JS

      --
      Vanity of vanities, all is vanity...
    56. Re:Where would we be today? by Stooshie · · Score: 1

      WTF!?! The earth goes round the sun? Sheesh, where have I been all these years.

      --
      America, Home of the Brave. ... .and the Squaw.
    57. Re:Where would we be today? by IrquiM · · Score: 1

      Actually, the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire had more to do with it.

      The Church, if anything, managed to save some of the knowledge that would otherwise would have been lost.

      Oh? So you mean all the book-burnings by the Catholic Church saved the knowledge?

      --
      This is blinging
    58. Re:Where would we be today? by Stooshie · · Score: 1

      ... Most of you get a up in arms when creationists insist that the earth is only 6000 years old, because that's an imposition of religion on to science ...

      There is nothing wrong with religion commenting on science as long as they have experimental data to back it up and open their results up to peer review etc ...

      However, anyone is entitled to comment on religion. It is a matter of belief. I need no data to make my beliefs about the bible known. Religion has no rigorous system for understanding the bible/qu'uran/book of mormon etc...

      --
      America, Home of the Brave. ... .and the Squaw.
    59. Re:Where would we be today? by Stooshie · · Score: 2, Insightful

      ... Modern science was started by the Catholic church ...

      True, to an extent, until the results of their scientific endeavours started conflicting with "biblical truth"

      --
      America, Home of the Brave. ... .and the Squaw.
    60. Re:Where would we be today? by Sqityl · · Score: 1

      I really should point out that those parchments would have decayed anyway, in fact, the only works we still have from ancient times were those which were painstakingly copied out my monks and scholars over centuries. (I'm not sure why they would have done that though)
      But you do raise a good point, what if they had copied out more technical and engineering works rather than letters between Roman authors? I would have personally loved to see the imperial records from the destruction of Pompeii and Herculaneum.

    61. Re:Where would we be today? by turtledawn · · Score: 1

      You managed Byzantium and Renaissance, but missed on philosophers and testament? What's up with that? :-)

      --
      Uh, "if it looks roughly mouse-shaped according to my infra-red sensitive pit, eat it"? --Chris Burke 09-08-10
    62. Re:Where would we be today? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It sounds like you are accusing the Church of suppressing education and civilization.

      He may not be, but I am. If you do not think the Church has suppressed education, then you need to go have a long look at texts describing the Inquisition. One single example is how the Church dictated the wholesale burning of every scrap of paper documenting the Mayan civilization because it was declared heresy. (Ref: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/maya). Another very famous example is the Church excommunication of Galileo for daring to suggest the earth orbits the sun. And of course there's the modern-day refusal to accept natural selection as a concept they'll tolerate being taught in schools. Many, many other examples are out there for the learning if you care to look.

      Are you saying the collaspe of education and civilization had nothing to do with that whole burning and pillaging thing from the pagan barbarian hordes such as the Goths and Vandals?

      They were largely disorganized. The Church is far and away the longest lasting, best-funded, globally-organized suppressor of education that has ever existed. No other example even comes close.

      No,
      Galileo was not excommunicated from the church because of his belief of the earth orbiting the sun. The Pope actually agreed with his claims. It wasn't until he insulted the pope in his book that he was excommunicated and seeing that he worked for the church it probably was not the smartest thing to do on his part.

    63. Re:Where would we be today? by mdmkolbe · · Score: 1

      It was as recently as the previous century or two that possession of a manuscript Bible in English would get you burned.

      That is (yet another) a myth. Vanacular translations of varying completeness and quality existed for centuries, for example Cyril and Methodius (c. 800) who invented the Cyrillic alphabet just so they could translate the bible into the vernacular.

      This myth seems to have been derived from the council at Toulouse, France in 1229. It was in was attempting to counter the Albigensian or Catharist heresy (a variant of Manichism) which held that marriage is evil because all matter is evil. The Albigensians published an inaccurate translation of the Bible in the vernacular language (much like Jehovah's Witnesses and their doctored translation of the bible). This specific translation was forbidden.

      (Aside from the above, your main point that the increase in the number of vernacular (not just English) translations that happened in 1400-1500 was "heralding" something is exactly right. But it was probably heralding the rise of literacy rather than any religious shifts.)

    64. Re:Where would we be today? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That Straight Dope article has some questionable assertions.

      "Scrolls, unlike books, don't stand upright on the shelf, but lie in a heap. To get one, you have to shuffle around the others. It's unlikely there was a precise filing system."

      Uh... yeah. Ever heard of a rack? How arrogant do you have to be to assume that the people responsible for the greatest accumulation of written knowledge in the ancient world kept their wisdom in a giant heap?

      Hell, even if one assumes that vertical separators are beyond the ken of the librarians, simple shelves will do the trick. Just place only a single layer on a given shelf, and reduce the space between shelves so that you're not wasting it.

      But hey, who am I kidding? Clearly, they were ignorant savages who collected scrolls purely for use as ineffectual bludgeons.

    65. Re:Where would we be today? by sm62704 · · Score: 1

      (I think it is a shame you got a "Flamebait" moderation, even though I disagree with you)

      It's been modded back up, thx. There are too many slashdotters who will mod a comment they disagree with down, others who will mod a comment down because they don't like the commenter, and a lot of rabid aniitheists who will mod any comment that has anything positive to say about any religion down.

      There were a lot of interesting comments in reply to my comment, including yours, and I thank you for posting it.

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
    66. Re:Where would we be today? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would like to point out that, in fact, most of ancient knowledge was saved by muslims, not the church.

      Muslim culture lived it's golden age at the same time europe was in it's darkest one.

    67. Re:Where would we be today? by Lodragandraoidh · · Score: 1

      What amazes me is that the librarians were able to keep it going for over 600 years - even with attacks against it.

      Makes me wonder where the Library of Congress, Wikipedia, or the Internet Archive are going to be in 600 years...

      --

      Lodragan Draoidh
      The more you explain it, the more I don't understand it. - Mark Twain
    68. Re:Where would we be today? by smoker2 · · Score: 1

      For a good presentation of all these ideas and stories regarding the church and Galileo, as well as other scientists throughout history - try to see "The Day the Universe Changed", a 10 part series by James Burke filmed in the 1980s.
      You can get it from any decent tracker site.
      When it was shown that the Earth and the rest of the planets actually orbit the Sun, the church were quite pleased. It solved one of their major problems by making Easter and other notable festivals easier to place on the calendar.

    69. Re:Where would we be today? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Eternal virgin? If that was true, then to heck with this "saint Mary" stuff... Joseph was more of a saint than she was!

      or she was really ugly.

    70. Re:Where would we be today? by mysticgoat · · Score: 1

      Correction to first "point of order":

      The early Church was very picky about what it chose to preserve, to the point of scrubbing out ancient texts that did not support its orthodoxy and overwriting the recycled parchment with approved text. See, for instance, the Archimedes Palimpsest. Much of the research value of medieval transcriptions is not in the gospels, hymns, and psalms that the Church scribes produced, but in the underwriting of scientific and historic text that the Church had tried to scrub out when it recycled the parchments.

      Also, note that a strong theme through the Dark Age of Europe was the Church's efforts to destroy indigenous modes of transmission of knowledge, such as the druidic schools of celtic Europe, and the wiccan-like organizations that worked to preserve agricultural, meteorologic, and medicinal knowledge (and whatever writings from the Empire days they could preserve-- although thanks to The Church, that was a life-threatening activity).

      At best, the first "point of order" is contestable. It is most definitely not something that can be simply asserted: it requires a strong argument to back it up.

    71. Re:Where would we be today? by mysticgoat · · Score: 1

      Well, that's true.

      But in context, possession of the means to copy text was discouraged by the Church. Persons who found themselves with supplies of parchment or ink were strongly encouraged to contribute those to the Church. Those who did not do so were publicly admonished by the Church and thus shunned by the general populace. Those who actively engaged in attempting to teach or preserve ancient knowledge faced persecution as witches, and too often ended up forfeiting all their belongings (with the parchments going to the Church for scrubbing out and re-use with acceptable text).

      How often is too often? Published estimates since 1947 have varied widely between 40 thousand and 9 million European witches put to death during the 400 years of the Burning Times. Somewhere around 4 million over 400 years over all of western Europe is a good guess based on what acturial research has been done at this point. The witch trial was a great way for a village to rid itself of an irritating loner, especially if he or she had something worth acquiring and was getting too old to contribute to the workforce. It also had the secondary benefits of providing the village with free theater (like an ancient Roman Circus), and serving to keep others who might disturb the order of things in line.

      So, yeah, the Church was the only large organization that was preserving the old texts, though more often than not the original text was scrubbed out so the parchment could be used for Church writing. But they had the monopoly mostly because they enforced it, up to the point of endorsing torture and death to anyone trying to compete.

    72. Re:Where would we be today? by Heian-794 · · Score: 1

      You can see an artist's conception of how the scrolls might have been arranged in this photo:

      http://www.sacred-destinations.com/egypt/images/alexandria/library/reonconstruction-storage-rooms-cosmos.jpg

      I first saw this as a child reading Carl Sagan's "Cosmos", and, knowing nothing of the scroll format or anything other than modern books, took quite a while to figure out just what all those little circles jutting out of the walls were, and where all the books could have been.

      My memory is spotty now, but I think in the television series (which I saw much later) Sagan walked past these shelves, and there were subject names written nearby in Greek.

      The format in the photo certainly doesn't seem ideal for those poor scrolls on the tops of each diamond-shaped area, since they'll have to be lifted aside over and over. But I'm sure, given that it was Alexandria, that they put the most frequently used scrolls on the top, or had some other efficiency-oriented scheme. You don't gather that many great minds in one place without coming up with good ideas.

    73. Re:Where would we be today? by Darby · · Score: 1


      Oh, and who do you think preserved most of the pre-Dark Ages knowledge for us in the first place? Who copied and preserved the Greek philosophical texts?

      That would be mostly to the credit of the Muslims. The Church did some positive things in that area, but nowhere near enough to outweigh their policy of destroying all knowledge that disagreed with their fairy tale.

      There was some small amount of knowledge saved by the church, but their policy was to opposite, so you're taking an exception and trying to put it forward as the general case which is obviously nonsensical.
      Keep in mind that you're defending some of the most vile specimens that our species has ever produced. People who write at length about how important it was to baste heretics while roasting them alive so that they could suffer longer and that for the "crime" of disagreeing with the church on matters which they were quite obviously wrong even at the time.

      Seriously, try and have a sense of perspective. A few accidental good deeds do not make up for a couple thousand years of the most disgusting, malicious, and willful atrocities in the name of oppressing sane, rational thought.

    74. Re:Where would we be today? by Darby · · Score: 1

      In short, the scientific debate was largely peripheral to the Galileo affair. What got Galileo in trouble is that he insisted on drawing theological conclusions from his scientific data.

      Ahhh, so it's perfectly ok to use brutal thuggery to oppress opinions and free thinking provided it's in defense of idiotic fairy tales which are being used to keep people under the control of a sick group of monsters.

      It's good to know that you're such a nice, rational, decent, ethical upstanding human being.

    75. Re:Where would we be today? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Agreed although the church did not excommunicate Galileo so much because of the earth's orbit as that he lampooned the pope with the church's official beliefs of the time.

    76. Re:Where would we be today? by laddiebuck · · Score: 1

      I'm afraid you subscribe to the common propaganda about the Church put forth by Protestants. Recent historical analysis of the Inquisition, for instance, shows that thousands of times more people were burned for witchcraft by Protestant communities than the Catholic Church. In other words, simple and uneducated barbaric folk. Now, I am not trying to exonerate the Catholic Church; I detest many things about it myself. But your portrayal of them as being a force for suppressing rather than preserving, on the whole, knowledge throughout the Dark Ages simply does not stand up to what we know about history. And your claim that Muslims preserved more knowledge than the Church simply shows how biased and ridiculous your claims are. If you do wish to argue further, then please cite some reputable reference.

    77. Re:Where would we be today? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Correction to first "point of order":

      The early Church was very picky about what it chose to preserve, to the point of scrubbing out ancient texts that did not support its orthodoxy and overwriting the recycled parchment with approved text. See, for instance, the Archimedes Palimpsest.

      If you'd actually followed your own link, you would have seen the copy of Archimedes' work was made by a monk in the 10th century AD, and erased to be written over a few centuries later. It is the copy made by a monk that we are reading now. So at least some people in the medieval Church considered the work to be valuable enough to expend quite precious resources in producing a copy. Presumably the copy was made because the original was crumbling to dust; had the Church not made a copy, we would not have this work today.

    78. Re:Where would we be today? by Darby · · Score: 1

      I'm afraid you subscribe to the common propaganda about the Church put forth by Protestants. Recent historical analysis of the Inquisition, for instance, shows that thousands of times more people were burned for witchcraft by Protestant communities than the Catholic Church.

      One church another church. All you demonstrate is a simple proof that there is no all powerful god who ever wanted to communicate a clear message to humanity. Were there it never could have gotten so confused. Simple and absolute proof, yet you completely fail to grasp what you just said.
      Yes, the Catholic Church and the Protestant churches have always been bottom of the barrel scum with few, if any exceptions. You're not actually making any sort of a point here regardless of what you think.

      Now, I am not trying to exonerate the Catholic Church; I detest many things about it myself. But your portrayal of them as being a force for suppressing rather than preserving, on the whole, knowledge throughout the Dark Ages simply does not stand up to what we know about history.

      Actually, it does. Your rewriting of history to attempt to exonerate a baby raping, nazi supporting, organization who only in the 1920s gave up the official policy of torture for heretics does demonstrate much about your character and your disgust for ethical behavior, but just because you make ridiculous claims flying in the face of what we do know about history doesn't make them true.

      And your claim that Muslims preserved more knowledge than the Church simply shows how biased and ridiculous your claims are.

      Yes, you desperately want that fact to be incorrect so you demand that it must be. That's the defining quality of the religious.

      Given how much farther advanced they were due to building off of the knowledge that they preserved, it's quite obvious.
      Again, your desperate delusional desires to believe that evil is good have no bearing whatsoever on reality.

      You might consider providing proof for your insane babbling, rather than demand some from me which you will reject out of hand as it doesn't come from properly sterilized sources.

    79. Re:Where would we be today? by mysticgoat · · Score: 1

      Logic in parent is pretty lame. It requires assuming that the original scribe who made the 90 page copy of Archimede's work was a monk, or otherwise working in the Church. There is no basis for that assumption.

      In the 900s, there were still a number of small organizations unaffiliated with the Church who were intent on preserving various aspects of the Old Ways, especially with regard to the core knowledge of technologies like shipbuilding, navigation, and architecture. It is very likely that the original scribe was affiliated with one of these pre-Masonic groups. The folio might well have come into the Church's hands through the normal disbursement of wealth following the burning of a witch (the original text was erased in the early phase of the Burning Times, a few decades before the "official" start of the Medieval Inquisition). Or possibly it came to the Church as a donation made by some pious person who received the folio as part of an inheritance: a book two centuries old full of esoteric diagrams and strange instructions.

      In any case, the original 90 pages of parchment was scrubbed and scrubbed again with a mixture of soured milk and oat bran to eradicate the geometry text. Each page was then carefully bisected to create the quartos. Preparing the pages for their new writing was a process that took weeks of careful labor. It was not something done on the spur of the moment: this was most definitely a deliberate destruction of knowledge.

    80. Re:Where would we be today? by laddiebuck · · Score: 1

      Yes, you would never engage in "insane babbling", would you?

      "exonerate a baby raping, nazi supporting, organization"
      Oh, right...

      You also immediately jumped to the conclusion that I'm religious. And may I remind you that you brought the Protestant churches into the picture, not I. My original post referred merely to who preserved so much knowledge for us -- the Catholic Church. But rave on, good sir, rave on...

      "You might consider providing proof for your insane babbling, rather than demand some from me which you will reject out of hand as it doesn't come from properly sterilized sources."

      I don't think many references are needed to disprove your idiotic statements with who's the bottom of barrel scum. The worst violators of human rights are, in approximate order: uncivilised tribal societies, pre-Industrial non-Western countries, feudal systems, tyrannical Western-styled governments (from Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia to African and Latin American petty dictatorships), and then perhaps near the end of the list you might find pre-Enlightenment modern organised religion (Muslim, Hindu, Protestant Christian, Catholic Christian, in order of decreasing violence). Let me know what you'd like me to cite.

      You, sir, simply have an agenda, and are blinded to reason because of it.

  10. not just the first known analog computer... by Bob+the+Hamster · · Score: 5, Funny

    ... also the first known example of "feature creep"

  11. modern data recovery by crescente · · Score: 1

    Haha, X-rays decipher your transcriptions! Someone forgot to do a wipe before throwing away the computer.

    1. Re:modern data recovery by Spy+der+Mann · · Score: 1

      I don't even want to imagine a computer with the developers' manual carved on it!

      Hey, maybe that's why ancient computers depicted in Sci-fi shows have these gigantic walls with hieroglyphs on them... *ponders*

    2. Re:modern data recovery by nospam007 · · Score: 2, Funny

      >I don't even want to imagine a computer with the developers' manual carved on it!

      One of the Corinthian Letters mentioned in the bible actually was named "Read me first!" (in Corinthian Bold Condensed), but since they didn't understand what it was about, it was not included in the bible.

  12. Need one today by whitehatlurker · · Score: 5, Informative

    The article is dated tomorrow. NYT needs a device for calculating time more precisely.

    --
    .. paranoid crackpot leftover from the days of Amiga.
    1. Re:Need one today by Abreu · · Score: 2, Funny

      ...or maybe the Antikythera Mechanism is actually a time machine!

      --
      No sig for the moment.
    2. Re:Need one today by palegray.net · · Score: 1

      I noticed this myself when submitting the article; it was an amusing bit of irony, considering the subject matter. Be sure to read the New York Times tomorrow, when they'll be reporting on the outcome of the Olympics :).

    3. Re:Need one today by trongey · · Score: 1

      The article is dated tomorrow...

      So is half of the mail in my inbox. Most of the rest is dated 2038.

      --
      You never really know how close to the edge you can go until you fall off.
    4. Re:Need one today by Sockatume · · Score: 1

      Off topic, but just what is the deal with that? I know it gets the mail to the top of the inbox, but why 2038 specifically? *googley* OIC, it's related to the year 2038 problem. I should've realised that.

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
    5. Re:Need one today by game+kid · · Score: 1

      Jokes aside (your "Whoosh" keys shall faze me not), they probably meant the paper publish date (unless they publish every hour or somesuch--and given that they've reduced the size of the newspaper to save money and have complained about shrinking revenues before, that won't happen).

      --
      You can hold down the "B" button for continuous firing.
    6. Re:Need one today by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now there's a good premise for a bad scifi book.

    7. Re:Need one today by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If the parent were moderated funny, I wouldn't bother posting this, but since the parent is +5 Informative...

      The New York Times dates articles based upon their publication in the print edition, but posts them on their site whenever the article is deemed ready.

      In other words, this article was presumably finished after the deadline for today's print edition, and is therefore scheduled to appear in tomorrow's---hence the date.

  13. good news is... by C0vardeAn0nim0 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    now we, computer geeks, can claim ancient greek heritage.

    how cool is that, hmmm ?

    --
    What ? Me, worry ?
    1. Re:good news is... by Yetihehe · · Score: 1

      You mean like getting out of bath naked? Sometimes it's so cool you can even freeze to death (very cool death it is).

      --
      Extreme Programming - Redundant Array of Inexpensive Developers
    2. Re:good news is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

      You would like that, what with the child buggery and slave ownership.

    3. Re:good news is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Explains the lack of female companionship.

    4. Re:good news is... by Flesaurs · · Score: 1

      How about Stonehenge????? Stephen Hawkings thought that was an analogue astronomical computer. Now computer nerds can prance around in woad when the summer solstice is on and have a human sacrifice!

    5. Re:good news is... by Flesaurs · · Score: 1

      I made a slight mistake, it was not Stephen Hawkings that allows us to paint ourselves with woad, it is Gerald Hawkins. he is dead (but not sacrificed) and would be probably turning in his grave being called Stephen Hawkings by me.

    6. Re:good news is... by C0vardeAn0nim0 · · Score: 1

      i'm in (except for the huma sacrifice, of course).

      --
      What ? Me, worry ?
  14. Again? by Darth_brooks · · Score: 1

    Isn't this the eighth or ninth time this year that they've "discovered" the inner workings of this damn thing?

    --
    There are some people that if they don't know, you can't tell 'em.
    1. Re:Again? by oahazmatt · · Score: 4, Funny

      Isn't this the eighth or ninth time this year that they've "discovered" the inner workings of this damn thing?

      It's hard to say. They're also using the device to keep count... They think.

      --
      Those who believe the Internet is private,
      find their privates are on the Internet.
  15. but by Coraon · · Score: 1

    how do we use it to open a stable wormhole to other planets?

    --
    -Ours is the wisdom of Solomon, the magic of Merlyn, the fall of Icaris.
    1. Re:but by SuiteSisterMary · · Score: 2, Funny

      how do we use it to open a stable wormhole to other planets?

      You hook it up to the Baghdad Battery.

      --
      Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
  16. Yes by GameboyRMH · · Score: 5, Funny

    But some idiot lost the boot cog and it won't work with any known version of GRUB, LILO, SYSLINUX or LOADLIN :(

    Historians speculate that if someone could get it to boot up, it would run faster than a modern PC running Vista!

    --
    "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    1. Re:Yes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it would run faster than a modern PC running Vista!

      So does my left nut...

    2. Re:Yes by Koiu+Lpoi · · Score: 2, Funny

      That's... not saying much. That's like saying "My car runs faster than a dead walrus!"

    3. Re:Yes by Cley+Faye · · Score: 1

      Historians speculate that if someone could get it to boot up, it would run faster than a modern PC running Vista!

      Wait, in it's current state, it's already running like a modern PC with Vista!

    4. Re:Yes by Perf · · Score: 1

      My father's Oldsmobile was a Vista Cruiser. Second generation. It could outrun you dead walrus.
      (Well, not now, it has since died, been pasturized, sold for scrap, chopped up into car chunks, and reincarnated.)
      Long live the Family Truckster!

    5. Re:Yes by ziggy00001 · · Score: 4, Funny

      ...Historians also believe the original engineers will patch the DNS exploit before Jobs and Co.

    6. Re:Yes by Oktober+Sunset · · Score: 4, Funny

      oh you think do you? with a few adjustments, I could use the tusks as runners, construct a sturdy frame with the hide stretched over the bones, and using the skull as a burner and the heart and lungs as fuel injector and air intakes, the stomach could be used as a fuel tank and I would have a Blubber Powered Walrus Rocket Sled, easily faster than most production cars in icy conditions.

      Ha! Never underestimate the powers of a dead walrus! (or a twisted imagination)

    7. Re:Yes by Reeses · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure that, at the least, it'll tell time as fast as Vista.

      --
      Reeses
    8. Re:Yes by Nullav · · Score: 1

      It seems more like saying "My dead walrus runs faster than your rusty car".

      --
      I just read Slashdot for the articles.
    9. Re:Yes by SolusSD · · Score: 1

      maybe they aren't trying hard enough. grub can boot anything!

    10. Re:Yes by ELProphet · · Score: 1

      Historians speculate that if someone could get it to boot up, it would run faster than a modern PC running Vista!

      CowboyNeal can run a marathon faster than a vista PC can boot. It'll take more than that to impress me.

    11. Re:Yes by coppermine · · Score: 1

      Everybody knows that, even a dead clock shows correct time twice a day...

  17. You kids, I swear by sm62704 · · Score: 5, Funny

    With your bronze gears and such tomfoolery. Back in my day we sisn't even have abacuses. We had to count everything by hand, do the math in our heads, and remember it!

    Now get off my lawn, and take your newfangled gizmo with you!

    --
    mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
    1. Re:You kids, I swear by sokoban · · Score: 0

      Back in my day we sisn't even have abacuses.

      Or spellcheckers, apparently.

      --
      09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 is the magic number.
    2. Re:You kids, I swear by mangu · · Score: 0

      We had to count everything by hand

      That's why I was more intelligent than my sister, I could count up to 11.

    3. Re:You kids, I swear by Pontiac · · Score: 0

      Wow, Senator John McCain right here on Slashdot..

      --
      If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur. --Red Adair
    4. Re:You kids, I swear by Gilmoure · · Score: 2, Funny

      He knows 'teh Google'.

      --
      I drank what? -- Socrates
  18. Old news. Drumming up Olympics interest. by molo · · Score: 0

    This news is almost 2 years old. I suspect that this is being reported now to drum up Olympics interest.

    From wikipedia:

    Recent research, reported on 30 November 2006 in the science journal Nature, has concluded that the mechanism tracked the Metonic calendar, predicted solar eclipses, and calculated the timing of the Ancient Olympic Games. Inscriptions on the instrument closely match the names of the months on calendars from Illyria and Epirus in northwestern Greece and with the island of Corfu.

    -molo

    --
    Using your sig line to advertise for friends is lame.
  19. Rebuild? by Midnight+Thunder · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Once they finish working this out, I would really be interested if someone manages to reproduce a working version.

    --
    Jumpstart the tartan drive.
    1. Re:Rebuild? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      There is a working version reproduction at the historical museum in Athens, I think.

    2. Re:Rebuild? by kungfugleek · · Score: 5, Funny

      Me too. And the first thing I'd do is turn it upside down and try to spell BOOBIES.

    3. Re:Rebuild? by hkz · · Score: 2, Informative
    4. Re:Rebuild? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's analog, though... :-/

    5. Re:Rebuild? by jawtheshark · · Score: 1

      Just a silly question: if they have a working replica, why don't they know what the original does?

      --
      Ahhh...the great dumpster continuum. Many a free computer will be found there. -- sowth (748135)
    6. Re:Rebuild? by Gat0r30y · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't analog boobies be even better?

      --
      Prediction: The real iPhone killer is going to be sex robots from Japan. Think about it.
    7. Re:Rebuild? by Carnildo · · Score: 1

      If I give you the uncommented source code for a program, will you be able to figure out what it does?

      --
      "They redundantly repeated themselves over and over again incessantly without end ad infinitum" -- ibid.
    8. Re:Rebuild? by TriggerFin · · Score: 1

      I get that no one reads the articles. Why don't people read the summaries they're commenting on, though?

      Inscriptions and small details weren't visible on the extensively corroded original, so weren't duplicated on the replica. It took this further effort to detect this stuff.

      --
      Here's your sig.
    9. Re:Rebuild? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      twice as good as real ones, actually. I know.

    10. Re:Rebuild? by BattleApple · · Score: 1

      If I give you the uncommented source code for a program, will you be able to figure out what it does?

      I've been doing that almost every day at work for the past 10 years

    11. Re:Rebuild? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's a beautiful implementation!

    12. Re:Rebuild? by arb+phd+slp · · Score: 1

      I would pay good money for a brass working replica of this.
      Astrolabes, orreries, and other old computing devices are quite beautiful and I'm collecting these and nautical navigation tools to decorate a den.

      --
      There's a perfect xkcd for my sig but I'm too lazy to look it up. sudo someone go find it.
    13. Re:Rebuild? by emilper · · Score: 1

      you should not have signed that ... now you will be checked for guns every time you enter the office building.

    14. Re:Rebuild? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, yeah, but that probably depends on the resolution... (And yes, I'm the GP.)

  20. Of course it runs NetBSD!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Of course it runs NetBSD!!

  21. I'm wrong. by molo · · Score: 1

    Nevermind. I have been trolled by wikipedia.

    -molo

    --
    Using your sig line to advertise for friends is lame.
  22. Deciphered information by swb · · Score: 1

    I think it read "Proof of license -- Certificate of Authenticity -- See License Terms -- Label not to be sold seperately".

    1. Re:Deciphered information by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      ...and they booted it up but weren't actually able to get it working because it just printed a bunch of error messages.

      First it said the ROM checksum was invalid, and then it gave a non-system disk error. Once they got those straightened out DiskScan(TM) had to run a thorough scan, and after all that it still didn't work... something about some kind of "Greek Genuine Advantage".

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
  23. Meh. by jesdynf · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    They also had a device capable of telling you WHERE the Olympics would be held -- it's very elegant. You just have everyone who wants to host the Olympics bring a lot of gold to one place, and you place each person's amount of gold on the device. The device measures the relative merits of holding the Olympics at any particular place.

    --
    Yahoo! Pipes are awesome. How awesome? http://pipes.yahoo.com/jesdynf/slashdot
    1. Re:Meh. by whitehatlurker · · Score: 1

      That would have been a card that read Olympia! Where else would they hold the Olympic games?

      --
      .. paranoid crackpot leftover from the days of Amiga.
    2. Re:Meh. by jesdynf · · Score: 0, Redundant

      I know, I know.

      --
      Yahoo! Pipes are awesome. How awesome? http://pipes.yahoo.com/jesdynf/slashdot
  24. 12 months? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Weren't there only ten months at that time? I think the Antikythera Mechanism predated the Julian calendar by many years.

    1. Re:12 months? by tedmg09130913 · · Score: 1

      It seems to use the Metonic calendar.

    2. Re:12 months? by reverseengineer · · Score: 5, Informative

      The original Roman calendar had ten months, yes, and actually only covered about 300 days, with most of winter considered off-calendar. However, by tradition, the second Roman king, Numa Pompilius reformed this calendar and added January and February (at the end of the calendar), giving the year 12 months (and so at this time, the names of December, etc. as numbered months still made sense). This was the calendar used (with modifications) from roughly 700 BC to the introduction of the Julian calendar in 46BC. The calendar of Numa Pompilius ended up with some crazy leaps and intercalations to keep it reasonably in line with the solar year, so reform was definitely due.

      In doing so, the Romans consulted with Greek astronomers, who had a lot of data about such things (though the Julian calendar is merely a solar calendar that keeps pretty good time with the moon, and not a true lunisolar calendar like one based on the Metonic cycle would be). Greece at the time of the Antikythera mechanism (about 50-100 years earlier than the Julian reform), had in fact just come under Roman control.

      In addition to reforming the "leap" system, January got pushed to the start of the year, making the "number-names" months no longer descriptive, and the months of Quintilis and Sextilis were renamed for Julius Caesar and Augustus Caesar, respectively.

      --
      "FDA staff reviewers expressed concern about the number of patients who were left out of the study because they died."
    3. Re:12 months? by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Weren't there only ten months at that time?

      What, they hadn't discovered the other two?

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  25. cute but... by commodoresloat · · Score: 5, Informative

    Bad example; when working as a speech-writer for legal disputes, Demosthenes was actually criticized for revealing his arguments to his opponents before trial; though considered unethical at the time, that approach seems pretty consistent with open source. He also published all of his speeches so that students could learn from them; again, very much an open source practice.

    1. Re:cute but... by Jabbrwokk · · Score: 1, Funny

      He was still an asshole.

      And he can't have been open-source -- he was too popular.

  26. That's great but... by DustoneGT · · Score: 5, Funny

    Don't let the patent trolls know any of this. I am sure they each have ten patents on the operation of this device.

  27. This can not be correct .... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

    The latest research has revealed details of dials on the instrument's back side, including the names of all 12 months of an ancient calendar.'"

    The Greek calendar only had 10 months. The Roman's bastardized the calendar to have 12 month (adding August and then July) centuries after the was created.

    1. Re:This can not be correct .... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      From the article :

      Dr. Freeth, who is also associated with Images First Ltd., in London, explained in an e-mail message that the Metonic calendar was designed to reconcile the lengths of the lunar month with the solar year. Twelve lunar months are about 11 days short of a year, but 235 lunar months fit well into 19 years.

    2. Re:This can not be correct .... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nice try. July and August already existed, the Romans just renamed them.

  28. Macedonian Olympians? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Speaking of ancient Olympics.... I always thought only Greeks were allowed to compete in ancient Olympics. I recently read at some blog that ancient Macedonians were slavic not Greeks. (mind you the same blog claimed Aristotle was a slavic philosopher)

    So did the ancient Macedonians see themselves as Greeks or not? I'm leaning on yes (since there is that follow-up whole Hellenic period too) but I'm no history major. Anybody know?

    1. Re:Macedonian Olympians? by silentcoder · · Score: 2, Informative

      The didn't exactly LIKE one another but they intermarried and got along. Alexander the Great (or rather more to the point, his father Phillip the Great) was Macedonian and would come to rule pretty much all the Greek Islands and (by the end of Alexander's life) most the known ancient world all the way to India.

      There is clear references in Alexander's diary that he suffered some discrimination as a child for being a Macedonian but it was like the difference between a modern-day Scottish and Welsh. Very much like that actually. Ultimately the political differences were small and the cultural differences even smaller. Small enough for Macedonians to become the first Greek emperors anyway.
      Now as for Macedonians having been Slavic - that is a bit of a stretch, the slavic nations as we typically think of them didn't really come into their own for close on a thousand years AFTER the time of Alexander, though they outlasted the Romans by a bit they appeared around the same time.
      I would say it's plausable that the Slavics may have had Macedonian ancestry, since Macedonia was quite possibly the first settlement of any kind of civilization in Europe but that far back we have almost no evidence of anything and that is pure conjecture. The Slavics could just as easily have been there 10 thousand years earlier and just not left any earlier evidence. To say they may be descended from Macedonians is plausable, but no more so than to say they may have been the descendents of interbreeding between early homo-sapiens and early homo-Neanderthalenses that only developed into a more structured society later. Their highly barbarian society (as opposed to the highly tribal Greeks and Macedonians) doesn't really fit with a RECENT common descent though (for what my gutt feeling is worth - which is at least as much as any other person who studied ancient cultural history).

      In the end, the only thing we know for an absolute fact about descent more than one thousand years old is that we are probably ALL descended from Africans our earliest human ancestors were probably dark skinned. Even THEN there are things we do not know - like did the Australian Aborigines split off from the same people who migrated to Europe ? Or did they reach Australia before the continents split ?
      There is no way to know short of DNA research which nobody has done yet.

      *No, the fact that it is written down is NOT proof to a historian. Alexander probably wouldn't lie about being Macedonian as it must have put a crimp on his career prospects, but we cannot know that he DIDN'T - and a king could easilly pretty damn sure that nothing ever gets written down that contradicts his story - so seriously, we have no real proof. Only tiny bits of supporting evidence, history is trying to figure out the most sensible explanations for them, knowing one of your students will probably come up with something better than you did and be too lazy to write in his paper.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    2. Re:Macedonian Olympians? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks for the informative reply but I'm still a bit confused about the Macedonian-Greek connection. I realize ancient Macedon was a separate state back then but that really isn't compelling evidence against it being less Greek or not. The same can be said of ancient Athens... and Sparta... and Corinth... etc.. since there was no Greek state at all back then. They all went to war with each other at times but they did seem to share common language and culture. (more than they did with their peers)

      Granted more concrete DNA evidence is still pending but certain cultural groups like Italians, Greeks, Chinese, Jews, and a few others can trace back their roots for thousands of years since there is a long written record, artwork and statues that show physical features, similar language, and a very large collection of works through the ages.

      Again I am no history major but as far as I know ancient Macedonians viewed themselves as Greeks (at least in the ancient sense) because:

      A. They voluntarily joined the Greek-only Olympic games and were voluntarily accepted by Hellanodikai (people who apparently checked the Greekness of competitors). And this was centuries before Alexander conquered all of Greece)

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Macedonians#Participation_in_panhellenic_events

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hellanodikai

      B. Alexander spread primarily Greek ideas, culture and language to all the regions he conquered. (and the subsequent centuries were subsequently known as the Hellenic age.

    3. Re:Macedonian Olympians? by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      And the answer to that is: so are the historians.
      There are a lot of strong theories but we really don't know exactly. We do know that the Macedonians were very close culturally to the Greeks and certainly later on very close genetically since they intermarried A LOT - but we don't know for sure what their origins were. Were the Macedonians descendents of the Greeks ? The Greeks from the Macedonians ? Or were they from entirely different sources that joined culturally largely because of their proximity ? Truth is, nobody knows for sure, there are no records going back far enough and most of what we have from the times are so mixed with mythology that it makes figuring out what mythology was truth, what was mythology but not real and what was real but LOOKS like mythology a veritable nightmare.
      For one thing, we now have archeological evidence of a genetic defect that could lead to giantism combined with a single centrally-placed eye - so that means the Cyclops MIGHT have been real. Of course the skull we based that on WAS found in Texas so COULD the anomally have been widespread enough to have occurred in Greece and be documented ? Or maybe there is no link and the Illiads' cyclops is really just a story.
      About the best answer anybody will give you is that however they originated it probably happened (and we can't even say THAT for sure) before the invention of writing. Genetics are unlikely to help that much either because even a strong set of correlating markers often cannot clearly tell you which set is older.

      An example is my own genetics. The Venters in South Africa are Afrikaners who have long held traditionally that we are of German descent. Recorded history confirms this at least partially (there is strong records that the first Venter in South Africa was a German migrant who Dutchified his German name - Von Demptner) - but we bear a set of markers unique among all Afrikaners (including fellow German descendants) that is not found anywhere else in the world - except among one subset of Polish people. Nobody knows where or how our ancestors got to Hameln from Poland, but one theory suggests that they didn't. That we are in fact descended from Vikings who went to live in Germany and were themselves descended from interbreeding while the Vikings ruled much of Poland many years earlier. We don't yet have enough data on the Slavic gene-markers to confirm this though it matches a lot of what we DO have in recorded history (and I must admit I rather like the idea of being some tiny bit Viking :p ).

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    4. Re:Macedonian Olympians? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      An interesting reply but again you seem to have bypassed my point that the ancient Macedonians appeared to view themselves as "greeks". (or at least that's what I think documents appear to show).

      The gest of your argument appears to be racial/genetic in nature but I'm not particular fond of using that sole metric since no nation on earth is racial pure (which essentially would be clones). Every American today is not from the exact same genetic stock... neither is every German.... nor everybody in Japan... etc.. What gene defines a "race" after all? The science has always been superficial and fraught with politics. (what got the Nazis into trouble)

      While there should be some demonstration of plausible strong genetic relationships (e.g. the Chinese didn't create the Pyramids) it seems more sensible to me that things like geography, culture, language, and how people self-identify are the best indicators. As you point out yourself we all came from Africa as some point but we all don't necessarily self-identify as "african".

      Take Jewish people for instance. Many of them clearly don't share the darker physical characteristics of middle eastern semetic people from 2000 BCE and are a mix of many ethnic groups. Or try suggesting to Italians they aren' related to Romans. Or the Chinese that they aren't related to ancient chinese because events happened over a thousand years ago?

      While people living in proximity can gain each others physical characteristics with interbreeding... is there such a thing as a "German" gene? A german race? Didn't Germans also come from other places?

      Is a sixth generation American from Mexican immigrants living in New York city today... who calls themselves American.... going to have their identity revoked in the future because of some foggy racial argument that isn't true by even today's standards?

      Or is how people self-identified back then going to be respected into future generations?

  29. Why calculate timing of the Olympiad? by thedullroar · · Score: 1

    The wikipedia article indicates that people think the device was designed with compactness in mind. So why would you add the feature of calculating when 4 years had passed? It's already keeping track of the months, so couldn't you just count them as they went past? Did I miss something?

    --
    Didn't your mother teach you not to do things you would be ashamed to see on the evening news?
    1. Re:Why calculate timing of the Olympiad? by Tofino · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The wikipedia article indicates that people think the device was designed with compactness in mind. So why would you add the feature of calculating when 4 years had passed? It's already keeping track of the months, so couldn't you just count them as they went past? Did I miss something?

      You've clearly never developed software for salespeople.

    2. Re:Why calculate timing of the Olympiad? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Same reason years are included on calendars. They marked time by Olympiad.

      i.e. Captain's Log: 2nd of March in the 2nd year of the 43rd Olympiad - Some fool lost my clock!

    3. Re:Why calculate timing of the Olympiad? by _Sprocket_ · · Score: 1

      The wikipedia article indicates that people think the device was designed with compactness in mind. So why would you add the feature of calculating when 4 years had passed? It's already keeping track of the months, so couldn't you just count them as they went past? Did I miss something?

      I'm going to hazard a guess that it has something to do with this:

      Dr. Freeth, who is also associated with Images First Ltd., in London, explained in an e-mail message that the Metonic calendar was designed to reconcile the lengths of the lunar month with the solar year. Twelve lunar months are about 11 days short of a year, but 235 lunar months fit well into 19 years.

      âoeFrom this it is possible to construct an artificial mathematical calendar that keeps in synchronization with both the Sun and the Moon,â Dr. Freeth said.

      The Metonic calendar today, he noted, is the basis for the Jewish religious calendar and in calculations to date Easter in the Christian calendar.

      Both Easter and the original Olympic games were based on astronomy - not a calendar. The device is (apparently) attempting to keep date calculations in sync with various astronomic events - reconciling them to a calculable cycle. Since the Olympiad is one of those cycles, it's no surprise that it would be included. And it explains why the exact date and month of each 4yr cycle would shift from cycle to cycle.

    4. Re:Why calculate timing of the Olympiad? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, if you actually read the Wiki article:

      The calendar dial can be moved to adjust, to compensate for the effect of the extra quarter day in the year (there are almost 365.25 days per year) by turning the scale backwards one day every four years.

      So I'm guessing this is a way to keep track of whether you are adjusted for leap year or not.

    5. Re:Why calculate timing of the Olympiad? by thedullroar · · Score: 1
      I didn't claim to have read the entire Wiki article. I think that is clear from my asking "Did I miss something?" which is obviously a rhetorical question loosely disguising "What did I miss?"

      As long as there are anonymous cowards like yourself itching to "answer" my question, why shouldn't I reveal that I am occasionally lazy, or value my job more than finding the answer to my own question, and ask instead of investigating?

      --
      Didn't your mother teach you not to do things you would be ashamed to see on the evening news?
  30. Using my own device... by mholve · · Score: 0

    ...I've determined the next Olympiad to begin in...

    Eight days.

  31. It Computes Dates by Nom+du+Keyboard · · Score: 4, Funny

    Okay, it computes dates. So does it also end on December 21, 2012?

    --
    "It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
  32. BSOD by 192939495969798999 · · Score: 0

    A blue screen of death on this thing meant Zeus shot a lightning bolt at your ass!

    --
    stuff |
  33. Computer Model Proves GeoCentrism by HighOrbit · · Score: 2, Interesting
    This is mostly a repost of some things I wrote a few years back, but this should serve as a cautionary tale about computer models and science. This device could "scientifically" prove geo-centrism in the sense of being valid science according to the scientific method.

    Valid reproducable observations that lead to a hypothesis and valid proven predictions does not make it "true". Based upon the Article, the Greeks used this to *accurately* predict the positions of planets. This meets all four steps of our modern scientific method.

    1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena. The Greeks see the planets, moon, and sun move across the sky
    2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. The Greeks form a geo-centric hypothosis "in which each body describes a circle (the epicycle) around a point that itself moves in a circle around the earth"
    3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations. The Greeks build a mental model of the universe to predict where the the heavenly bodies will be in the sky and then build a device (computer model) that will execute their prediction.
    4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments. The Greeks can run the machine over and over and every time come up with a reasonably accurate prediction that can be verified by going back and seeing that the phenomena conforms to the prediction of the computer model

    So, does this mean that a geocentric universe was "proven" by science in the 1st century BC? We would say that was absurd because we have more information about the universe now than the Greeks had from just looking skyward. But how many other computer models and predictions do we take on faith as "science" which are based on incomplete information. Our best global warming climate models are extemely *inaccurate* compared to this relatively accurate device. Yet we accept the (modern) inaccurate models on faith and reject the (ancient) accurate model that this device "proves".

    So my point here is that "scientific" computer models should be greeted with skepticism, even when they accurately predict. They should be absolutely scorned when they fail to accurately predict. There are a whole bunch of "scientists" out there running computer similations that are far less predictive than this device that is likey based on a geocentric theory of the universe.

    1. Re:Computer Model Proves GeoCentrism by Wylfing · · Score: 2, Informative

      Dear HighOrbit,

      Please take a history class, or read a book. There were plenty of heliocentric and round-earth hypotheses put forward during the classical Greek period. Often, the observations and measurement-taking were fantastically good. Furthermore, science doesn't seek to prove anything.

      --
      Our intelligent designer has never created an animal that we couldn't improve by strapping a bomb to it.
    2. Re:Computer Model Proves GeoCentrism by Red+Flayer · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Emphasis mine:

      So my point here is that "scientific" computer models should be greeted with skepticism, even when they accurately predict. They should be absolutely scorned when they fail to accurately predict. There are a whole bunch of "scientists" out there running computer similations that are far less predictive than this device that is likey based on a geocentric theory of the universe.

      ALL models should be greeted with skepticism. Hell, all THEORIES and all HYPOTHESES should be greeted with skepticism.

      That is the very foundation of successful application of the scientific method.

      There's a big problem with what you're saying, however... you say that a model that does not accurately predict should be scorned. That is false. Models are often revised to account for inaccurate predictions. As one famous scientist explained, it is not the Eureka! moments that drive true discovery, it is the "That's funny..." moments. In other words, the failure of a model to accuately predict will often lead to greater understanding of what is being modeled. Do you think that the General Theory of Relativity should be scorned, even though, as a modeal, it fails to accurately predict the existence of dark energy and dark matter?

      So, to sum up -- yes, skepticism is important in all science. But a model that does not predict accurately may still have value to the scientific community... at the very least, it can be the starting point for a revised model that does accurately predict.

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    3. Re:Computer Model Proves GeoCentrism by Sockatume · · Score: 1

      It's simply a question of the right model for the job. As everybody knows, a geocentric model of planetary motion can be pretty reasonably accurate, although it's inelegant. Heliocentric models, or better yet, neutral gravitational models of the solar system provide more accurate results, and have the advantage of a certain degree of elegance. The questions are, how accurate is the fit, how efficient is the method, and how powerful are the predictions?

      These are the questions scientists have in mind when working with all models, from empirical simulations of human behaviour all the way down to ab initio quantum mechanical simulations of chemistry, be they performed on computer or on paper. It's a qualitative issue, not a simple "this model is right, that model is wrong" problem. I'm sure chemistry students can relate - depending on the situation, atoms can be handled as anything from billiard balls and sticks to freaky quantum-mechanical assemblages.

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
    4. Re:Computer Model Proves GeoCentrism by Ambitwistor · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So, does this mean that a geocentric universe was "proven" by science in the 1st century BC?

      It means that geocentrism is a reasonably good theory in terms of predictive skill, although not as good as the theories of orbital mechanics which came after (heliocentrism, Keplerian ellipses, Newtonian gravity, Einsteinian gravity, ...)

      Our best global warming climate models are extemely *inaccurate* compared to this relatively accurate device.

      So?

      Yet we accept the (modern) inaccurate models on faith

      No, we don't. You ever open up the IPCC report and see the big error bars? Everyone knows that modern climate models come with substantial uncertainty. All models have uncertainty, some more and some less. The point with climate models is that, even with large error bars, you can still exclude hypotheses such as "the warming is mostly natural" or "the warming in 2100 will be less than 1 degree under business-as-usual emissions scenarios".

      and reject the (ancient) accurate model that this device "proves"

      Regardless of how accurate ancient models are, modern models are more accurate still, which is why we reject them in favor of newer models. This is the same as why we reject older climate models (e.g., simple energy balance models) in favor of modern general circulation models. No, they're not as accurate as even old theories of orbital mechanics; orbits are simple and predictable. That doesn't mean that they're not useful, or not scientific, or have no predictive skill.

      There are a whole bunch of "scientists" out there running computer similations that are far less predictive than this device that is likey based on a geocentric theory of the universe.

      Again, so?

      And what's with the scare quotes around scientists? Are you going to claim that climate scientists aren't real scientists?

    5. Re:Computer Model Proves GeoCentrism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The scientific method never proves anything. It only disproves things. Something is accepted as current scientific knowledge if it's the best (most accurate, simplest, most predictive, testable, ...) theory that hasn't been disproved.

      Yes, our models now likely have things wrong with them, but they're more right than older models.

    6. Re:Computer Model Proves GeoCentrism by QuoteMstr · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "All theories are wrong. Some are useful."

      Read Thomas Kuhn's influential book, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.

    7. Re:Computer Model Proves GeoCentrism by gd2shoe · · Score: 1

      Furthermore, science doesn't seek to prove anything.

      That's highly debatable. I was required to take a philosophy of science class. About the only thing I can conclude from that class is that there is no consensus to the definition of science. Making theories and taking real world measurements seem to be the only things truly agreed upon.

      --
      I won't join Slashcott. OTOH, If Beta goes live, I just won't be back until it's fixed. Sorry Dice.
    8. Re:Computer Model Proves GeoCentrism by NotmyNick · · Score: 1

      What does this have to do with the article? The article is about a non-operable, mechanical computer used as a calendar and astrolabe. The closest thing it has to do with weather or climate is that it displays the date. Can't you wait until the next climate article to repost your screed?

      --
      Notmysig
    9. Re:Computer Model Proves GeoCentrism by SoVeryTired · · Score: 1

      What you're missing is that in before Newton, Geocentrism was a very valid scientific theory.

      Before Newton's law of Universal gravitation, scientists had no way of explaining why the planets would whizz around the sun in circles, which is what heliocentrism states. In fact, this is totally contrary to the well-established physics they had at the time. In addition to this, heliocentrism predicted parallax between the stars, which wasn't experimentally observable until long afterward.

      Granted, heliocentrism explained retrograde motion of planets, but it wasn't as flawless a theory as people think. It's not a case of "geocentrism is unscientific, heliocentrism is scientific". They were both valid in their own right at the time.

      --
      Slashdot: news for Apple. Stuff that Apple.
    10. Re:Computer Model Proves GeoCentrism by SoVeryTired · · Score: 1

      Sorry to reply to my own post, but I carelessly forgot to add that you can learn more from a Preimiter Institute lecture on the subject, available here:
      http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=551&Itemid=568&lecture_id=3503

      --
      Slashdot: news for Apple. Stuff that Apple.
    11. Re:Computer Model Proves GeoCentrism by Mahjub+Sa'aden · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That statement is itself in effect a theory, invalidating its own conclusion.

      --
      What is is all that is. Isn't that obvious?
    12. Re:Computer Model Proves GeoCentrism by AySz88 · · Score: 1

      I think this betrays a common misunderstanding of science, due to it so often being glossed over. Science aims to find truth, but the methods involved cannot "prove" a hypothesis is true. It can only disprove. So, I think the best scientists can do is to try to get:
      1) Truth, or
      2) Something close enough to the truth that they cannot (yet) distinguish it from truth, or
      3) A useful (quick) approximation of the truth.

      Obviously, #1 and #2 can't really be distinguished from each other. The conclusion of the Greeks falls under number two (though perhaps number three if they in fact knew it was just a calculator). When people talk about science "proving" something, it's probably based on this sort of metric, plus "and we can't think of any better explanation that isn't overly contorted" (for more on "isn't overly contorted", see Occaam's Razor).

      Global climate simulations fall under number three, and are different beasts than the pursuit of exact truth. Nobody is saying that the climate simulations are providing exact predictions - they are providing useful, fast approximations. Fortunately, we know how to calculate the accuracy of the models, so we can quantify this uncertainty and get "x% certain".

      You're also saying that people should be skeptical because people can't always be certain that scientists have their underlying understanding correct. Philosophically, you're right in a way - we can't really know this uncertainty, because it requires extrapolation into things we haven't conceived yet (so that we can tell the difference between truth and our current best theory). But it's folly to act on anything other than the best information you currently have. Your last statement basically means, "to our best knowledge, with 90+% probability, the climate will warm considerably if we don't stop pumping out carbon dioxide, but since there's a chance we might be wrong about our model of the atmosphere, we should disregard this prediction". This is like saying, "to my best knowledge, going to Las Vegas casinos is a bad investment strategy, but since I'm not sure whether I understand the underlying algorithm for the slot machines, I'm going to disregard my prediction." I don't know if that seems absurd to you (I'm sure somebody out there gambles with this justification), but it sure seems absurd to me. It's nice to hindcast and consider yourself superior ("hey, that bank of slot machines was using a version of OpenSSL with the bad random number generator, we could have made millions on those machines!"), but any expectation of benefiting from such results through luck is foolish.

      (FYI, the "heliocentric" model is just a very useful approximation, too. The Sun is in fact in an accelerating frame of motion around the center of the galaxy, and perhaps the galaxy too around some larger structures. I hear that we can't predict the location of Earth in its orbit at approximately a million years out. Better throw away that calendar for the year 1253135, eh?)

    13. Re:Computer Model Proves GeoCentrism by oldhack · · Score: 1

      Pah, you were in a philosophy class where anything and everything is debatable.

      --
      Fuck systemd. Fuck Redhat. Fuck Soylent, too. Wait, scratch the last one.
    14. Re:Computer Model Proves GeoCentrism by DocSavage64109 · · Score: 1

      That statement is itself in effect a theory, invalidating its own conclusion.

      Only if it's not useful.

  34. Looks like they found... by Boap · · Score: 1

    An ancient doping clock/calendar.

  35. Re:Rebuild? Imagine if they did... by Namlak · · Score: 1

    Once they finish working this out, I would really be interested if someone manages to reproduce a working version.

    You could build a Beowulf cluster of them!

  36. 13 months by Colin+Smith · · Score: 1

    28 days each.

    Then there's new years day, but that's just a blur.

    YKIMS.

     

    --
    Deleted
    1. Re:13 months by Pincus · · Score: 0

      And the leap year day is just to recover from that extra crazy New Year's celebration that comes around every few years?

    2. Re:13 months by treeves · · Score: 1

      Ethiopia still uniquely uses a 13-month calendar, the last month being only 6 or 7 days, IIRC.
      "13 months of Sunshine" as their tourism posters say.

      --
      ...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.
    3. Re:13 months by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow like the mayan (from central america) thats weird http://hardware.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=630965&cid=24411237

  37. RS232 9600 baud ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Looks like its has a Serial port on the side of it?
    wait, nevermind, its USB 2.0, I thought they were more advanced than that.

  38. Early Edition? by Huggs · · Score: 1

    This device seems to have the ability to accurately predict the future as well. According to the date on TFA, the article hasn't even been published yet!

    Truly a marvel of ancient ingenuity! (all sarcasm aside)

  39. Doubt it... by PRMan · · Score: 1

    There are 12 lunar periods. I have never heard that the Greeks had 10 months.

    --
    Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
  40. Workings of Ancient Calculating Device Deciphered? by justaguylikeme · · Score: 0, Troll

    They're behind the times... I learned how to use a slide rule ages ago.

  41. Bah Luxury by gijoel · · Score: 1

    Why back in my day we could't afford anything so fancy as fingers and toes. No We had to use Henges to calculate our maths.

    Every morning I had to get up and trudge 200 mile through snow to get a 20 ton piece of rock and then drag it all the way down to Salisbury just to do me multiplication table.

  42. What was the drive mechanism? by kanweg · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    How did it work? Did it have springs?

    Bert

    1. Re:What was the drive mechanism? by Panaflex · · Score: 1

      Adenosine triphosphate, of course!!

      --
      I said no... but I missed and it came out yes.
  43. Somebody forgot to enter... by slashmaddy · · Score: 1

    4 8 15 16 23 42

  44. "eternal virgin" a blatent lie by gd2shoe · · Score: 1

    That's just silly. Where then did Jesus's brothers ands sisters come from? (Mark 6:3)

    Before you reply, get your minds out of the gutter. Of course Joseph "knew" his wife. I think that was the mangu's point.

    --
    I won't join Slashcott. OTOH, If Beta goes live, I just won't be back until it's fixed. Sorry Dice.
    1. Re:"eternal virgin" a blatent lie by clone53421 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      That's just silly. Where then did Jesus's brothers ands sisters come from?

      I agree, but for fairness' sake I'll add that some people think that "brothers and sisters" referred to his cousins (linguistically it's perhaps possible, but again, I agree with you: they were biological children of Mary and Joseph). Better evidence, IMO, is Matthew 1:25a: "But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son." If that doesn't say they "did it", I don't know what would...

      Anyway, the whole "virgin Mary" business is silly: Jesus was born of a virgin. Nothing says she had to remain a virgin after that. The idea of a "sinless Mary" is silly, too: "My soul doth magnify the Lord. / And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour." Savior from what, if she was sinless? And if she was sinless, Jesus wouldn't have had to die for sin: she could have done it.

      Of course Joseph "knew" his wife. I think that was the mangu's point.

      I know... I was responding to the quoted "Pillar of Faith". It was just too good to pass up... can't you picture Joseph? - "You mean we can't ever WHAT?!"

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    2. Re:"eternal virgin" a blatent lie by gd2shoe · · Score: 1

      An interesting and well thought out post.

      Yes, I realized that your first post was a joke, but I expected that it would only invite further, much less reverent joking. I'm glad you didn't take offense. (please note my use of "minds" plural. It was not directed at you, but the invariable religion trolls here.)

      --
      I won't join Slashcott. OTOH, If Beta goes live, I just won't be back until it's fixed. Sorry Dice.
    3. Re:"eternal virgin" a blatent lie by mangu · · Score: 1

      And if she was sinless, Jesus wouldn't have had to die for sin: she could have done it.

      It goes further than that: according to the dogma of Immaculate Conception Mary was conceived without any sin, including the original sin, because the perfection of Jesus couldn't be born of an imperfect being.

      I wonder how mathematical induction would fit to this dogma, because, in order to be perfect, Mary should also be born of a perfect woman, and so on, all the way to Eve who committed the original sin to begin with. Let's say, it would be the "mother of all paradoxes"...
       

    4. Re:"eternal virgin" a blatent lie by mdmkolbe · · Score: 1

      "But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son"

      The word used for "until" is Heos in Greek and doesn't mean "until after". It is the same word rendered as "unto" in Luke 1:80 "[John] was in the deserts till the day of his shewing unto Israel." But we know for a fact that John was in the deserts after his going public to Israel.

    5. Re:"eternal virgin" a blatent lie by mdmkolbe · · Score: 1

      Perfection != Sinlessness. Induction problem solved.

    6. Re:"eternal virgin" a blatent lie by kamochan · · Score: 1

      "But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son"

      Obvious. The mailman did it.

    7. Re:"eternal virgin" a blatent lie by Stooshie · · Score: 1

      It does in this context

      --
      America, Home of the Brave. ... .and the Squaw.
    8. Re:"eternal virgin" a blatent lie by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      But we know for a fact that John was in the deserts after his going public to Israel.

      Perhaps he was still in the desert after that, but he was also NOT in the desert some of the time. Most notably, he was baptizing at the river. So all this means is he spent part of his time IN the desert and part of his time NOT in it: by that definition of "until", Mary and Joseph DID have sex part of the time and DIDN'T the rest of the time... and since having sex constantly 24/7 would be astonishing, I'm guessing this is a reasonable interpretation.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    9. Re:"eternal virgin" a blatent lie by mdmkolbe · · Score: 1

      It may be a possible reading but that is not the only reasonable reading since the Greek word "heos" doesn't have the same connotations that the English word "until" does.

      The point is that that particular verse doesn't provide any insight into which reading is more correct and thus the GGP's using it as a proof text is erroneous. That verse doesn't prove it one way or the other.

    10. Re:"eternal virgin" a blatent lie by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      I'm not even talking about the English word. The statement in Greek to the effect of "[John] was in the deserts till the day of his shewing unto Israel" doesn't imply that he stayed in the desert AFTER that (he might have been there, but he certainly wasn't all the time), and the statement "he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son" doesn't imply that he STILL didn't after she gave birth. He'd have been crazy not to, because it wasn't necessary to fulfill prophecy. Nowhere in the Bible is the concept of the "eternal virgin Mary" ever even hinted at!

      And no, it doesn't "prove" they had sex, but it strongly implies it: otherwise it would have just said "Joseph had no union with her." Any connotation of the word "until" being aside, there's absolutely no reason to explicitly point out that she was still a virgin when she gave birth if the statement is actually supposed to be read "she remained a virgin forever". If she remained a virgin forever, by definition she was a virgin when she gave birth.

      Anyway, I'm not going to argue my point any further: the burden of proof lies with the people who claim she WAS an "eternal virgin". Mary was married; married people have sex, and always have. Unless there's a good reason to believe she DIDN'T, we can assume she did. I don't know if you're playing devil's advocate or if you actually hold this position, but the burden of proof lies with you, not me.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    11. Re:"eternal virgin" a blatent lie by mdmkolbe · · Score: 1

      I am on the side of reason and fair discussion. But you made a fallacious claim and truth is not served by bad logic regardless of whether I agree with the conclusion. "Iron sharpens iron" so I point out this flaw so you may improve.

      I agree with you that the burden of proof lies with those who hold that Mary was a "Perpetual Virgin" (it appears "perpetual" is the more common term than "eternal"). But you made an affirmative claim which shifts the burden to you to substantiate that claim regardless of where the burden of proof started.

      Specifically, you said in reference to Matthew 1:25, "If that doesn't say they 'did it', I don't know what would...". As I have pointed out, the words and phrasing used do not imply the affirmative that they "did it", but rather are neutral on the subject. Thus you failed your burden of proof in making such a claim.

      I grant that the failure of your affirmative claim does not settle the bigger question, but that is not the issue I bring forth. The issue is rather that independent of the answer to the bigger question, the reasons you give are fallacious.

      (As an aside and in fairness, the bigger question is not an open and shut case either way. Wikipedia lists a number of early Christian writings in favor of it. And there are proof texts (e.g. Luke 1:34, Ezekiel 44:2) in favor of the "Perpetual Virginity" (though perhaps as just weak as Matthew 1:25).)

    12. Re:"eternal virgin" a blatent lie by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      Specifically, you said in reference to Matthew 1:25, "If that doesn't say they 'did it', I don't know what would...". As I have pointed out, the words and phrasing used do not imply the affirmative that they "did it", but rather are neutral on the subject. Thus you failed your burden of proof in making such a claim.

      You're being too harsh. I already said that claim doesn't "prove" it. It very strongly supports it, though.

      Luke 1:34

      An unmarried Jewish girl claimed to have never been with a man? That proves nothing... any chaste unmarried girl could have said that. It doesn't imply that the marriage didn't later involve sex.

      Ezekiel 44:2

      That passage is figurative, so it can't be used to prove anything. Figurative passages must be interpreted in light of the rest of scripture, and an "perpetual virgin" isn't supported elsewhere.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
  45. What about the Crab Nebula? by mangu · · Score: 1, Interesting

    it's not like anyone else was copying or distributing other works on as large a scale.

    Only in Europe, and only because anyone who wrote a book without the Church approval would be burned at the stake. But what about the rest of the world? While the monks in Europe were copying their religious texts, the rest of the world was inventing Damascus steel and the number zero, among many other things.

    The monks in Europe were so blinded by their faith they couldn't see the brightest supernova in historic times. Not a single mention to one of the most remarkable natural events ever seen on Earth. No wonder they call it the DARK Age!

  46. To be entirely fair... by Moraelin · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Well, I'm an atheist (ok, more agnostic) and swift to blame religion myself. Butm to be entirely fair, I'm not sure why you blame the church there.

    1. The early Franks were pretty proud that they're warriors, not scribes. They're not the only ones.

    Charlemagne was the first monarch there who even tried to learn to write. Very late in life and, while he must be commended for his real efforts and time dedicated, it seems to have gone nowhere.

    2. Antiquity itself wasn't that much more literate. Yes, in the middle ages only the rich learned to read and write. Guess what? The Hellots of Sparta and the poor of Rome, but especially _outside_ Rome weren't much richer and nobody taught them to read and write. And even in Egypt, while for the rich it was a thing of _pride_ to be literate (and addressing a letter "to your scribe" was a form of flattery, meaning, "I know you're your own scribe"), don't think that the poor working the fields had time to go to school.

    We have a somewhat distorted view of Greece and Rome, in that basically we have a distorted tunnel view of it. We see the greatness of Athens at its peak, or Sparta... which were populated only with rich slave owners, whose only job was to be soldiers and philosophers. Athens additionally had managed to cheat the other Greek states, who had joined as _allies_ against Persia, with Athens as merely heading and organizing the army and funds, but found themselves actually turned into vassals of Athens and paying tribute as... well, more like a form of paying for protection. And not against the Persians, if you know what I mean.

    So, yeah, the Athenians of Pericle could build great statues and temples, and sit around debating politics and philosophy, on the money of the whole rest of Greece and on the work of countless slaves. They _were_ the rich guys, and yeah, they could read and write. Big improvement over the Dark Ages, where also the rich guys could read and write, eh?

    Ditto in Rome. We look mainly at what happened inside Rome itself, and the great democracy they had, but forget about the whole regions where they reduced the peasants to utter poverty by confiscating the lands and distributing the lands of a whole bloody province to half a dozen rich families. Again, we see the rich and maybe also middle classes this time, getting an education and living in nice cities. And a few slaves used as personal clerks. But forget about the 80% of the population, who was working the fields outside the cities, and who lived a heck of a lot worse and nobody educated those. Don't think that anyone educated the slaves in Sicily, which are documented to have been borderline starved and sometimes outright starved, so their masters could sell more grain to Rome. Or don't think that the slaves in the mines, which was little more than a slow death sentence, got educated first.

    Ancient times were a lot shittier than some people assume. Maybe a little better than the darkest of the Dark Ages, but for most of the poor people, not by much or not at all.

    3. Romans insisted on your learning Roman or Greek too, so...

    4. What we inherited as the idea of the Dark Ages is, well, partially (though not totally) just the eternal circle of nihilism. Each time people go disillusioned, it seems to be a common reaction to go basically "OMG, our contemporary culture is nothing, we're living in the (new) Dark Ages" and "somewhere else / somewhere in the past, now that was Teh Golden Age, and the land of milk and honey!"

    So back then, someone thought Rome was all that. Funnily enough, Rome at various points had thought Greece had been all that. And Greece had thought that their Mycaenean ancestors had been all that. And if you go forward in time instead, you find a disillusioned 19'th century England thinking that the middle ages had been such a golden age of chivalry. Some still do.

    Others look with nostalgia at the peak of the age of disease, social injustice, broken social contracts, nobles _and_ cities plundering the former common lands

    --
    A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
    1. Re:To be entirely fair... by KGIII · · Score: 1

      I enjoyed that read - thanks you. I don't usually moderate but if I did then I'd mod you +10 informative.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    2. Re:To be entirely fair... by Starcub · · Score: 2, Insightful

      But essentially what sealed the fate of Europe and caused wide-spread rejection of the present and the Church in favour of rediscovering the ancient science and ways, were the plague outbursts. It proved repeatedly that the Church and faith can do nothing to prevent it, and present day alchemists can't do jack shit either.

      Always it's science vs. religion; I bet bet you got this from a textbook you read as part of some secular course curriculum, just like I did. Everyone with half a brain can see the same rediculous divisions being fabricated by the God haters of today between science and religion (evolution vs. creationism being a prime example). Well guess what, the university system we know of today has it's roots in the Catholic Church, particularly in a few monastic orders like the Jesuits who, during the dark ages, studied and preserved what bits of ancient knowledge they had access to in their own collections.

      What caused widespread rejection of the church were the abuses that occurred via troublemakers from within. In addition, the invention of the printing press and widespread dissemination of the Bible (which the Church actually encouraged) allowed people to edit and misinterpret as they wished. They attributed to the Faith the abilility to answer questions it was never meant to answer, and they do whatever they think they can get away with to hide the vastly more important message that it was intended to be. So the baby is thrown out with the bathwater.

      They continue doing the same thing today, secretly. But these are the activities of the eternal enemies of the church, not the Church proper. And these types of activities are most practiced by secular rulers, and alway have been. I'm willing to bet that devices like the one in this article have been handed down in secret 'labs' through countless generations of corrupted power mongerers. A thousand years from now, we will be reading about ingenious quantum tech devices or some such that were developed in secret labs by contemporary worldly leaders that were also secretly used to create 'supernatural' phenomenon to tip the scales of power in their own favor just as this device probably was by the 'kings of the east' that had it.

    3. Re:To be entirely fair... by ticktickboom · · Score: 0

      "Others look with nostalgia at the peak of the age of disease, social injustice, broken social contracts, nobles _and_ cities plundering the former common lands of the peasants and forcing them to pay to use their own former pastures, religious wars and persecution, of mass morbid depression, etc." that sounds like your speaking of today...

    4. Re:To be entirely fair... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So what did we learn kids from all this?

      SMASH THE FUCKING STATE!

    5. Re:To be entirely fair... by ElectricTurtle · · Score: 1

      Although well written, you response assumes a lot of false premises, the worst of which is trying to equate the Dark Ages with Antiquity on a spectrum of literacy. First and foremost, no civilization has had a literate majority until the modern era. To impugn the literacy of a single previous era is effectively to impugn them all, and consequentially ignore all of the very real differences between eras.

      Although anything analogous to the pursual of science in antiquity was done largely by bored, wealthy eccentrics, at least nobody was going to demand that Archimedes be put to death because his projects might be 'channeling the power of the devil' or some such nonsense. That's the primary difference between Antiquity and the Dark Ages, because of the ubiquitous acceptance of polytheistic concepts in the ancient world, if Roman X thought Ceres was cooler than Vesta, chances are he wouldn't kill or otherwise advocate the harm of Roman Y who thought the opposite. Whereas in the Dark Ages mobs would abuse, torture and kill people who were even rumored to harbor thoughts that ran contrary to doctrine. The Dark Ages weren't dark because of illiteracy, they were dark because the entire social order was more inimical to any kind of useful thought than any other era in the whole human progress and development, and that attitude was a direct result of the doctrine of the Catholic church.

      --
      I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
  47. My initial reaction by lena_10326 · · Score: 1

    Time warp: a view into the devices of BC geeks.

    Geekdom is eternal.

    --
    Camping on quad since 1996.
  48. And the inscriptions reveal... by frooge · · Score: 1

    ...that the original creator of the Antikythera mechanism was Milo Rambaldi.

  49. Finally... by Greyor · · Score: 1

    This is absolutely fantastic. I remember being quite excited when I heard the news of the discovery, and I've followed up whenever I can on this. I'm a Classics major so this is close to home, at least for my studies, and it's great to see they've learned more about it. I'd be interested to know what actual Greek words they've found on the mechanism as well, though. Cheers indeed.

  50. Somehow similar to ancient Maya calendar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As explained here in detailed previous comments: http://hardware.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=208132&cid=16971732

    Googling i founded recently in media fire the book talked about in the comments
    http://www.mediafire.com/?dytnt0osvym

    And other file (about the same book i believe) that proposes an explanation of the eclipse table in Dresden codex
    http://tzolkinhaab.googlepages.com/Tabla_Eclipses_Mayas.pdf

    The "status quo" proposes a mathematic astronomic foundation deformed by political religious practices... you can find this accepted view in the most referenced introductory books about the calendar (and academic papers by these authors or that cite them)
    - "Sky Watchers" by Anthony F. Aveni
    - "Star Gods" by Susan Milbrath
    The problem is, that today most accepted by scholars political/religious deformations of the practice, are defined in therms of what we dont know (theory its full of holes and unexplained cases, and ad-hoc solutions are proposed in a case by case interpretative way)

    There is an academic "status quo" but at the same time every body wants to perfect it (change it)

    I like this alternate view because can be "tested" using planetary software (like Starry Night) and its free of "academic turf politics" because proposes a mathematical model of the mesoamerican calendar.

    Ancient mesoamericans to use an astronomical based calendar, didnt need to know spherical movement or planet to star concepts; just the naked eye observation of "lights" in the sky moving. In their stage of culture development, to make sense of it using detailed historical records, mystic thinking and very limited mathematics; they could had ended with a calendar so unusual.

    I am making some degree of interpretation of the sources. I am not aware of the originals, only using the resumed workbook

    The mayas to designate a day used 20 names, counted with a numeric system base 13 (from 1 to 13), grouped in 5 days "weeks", and 20 days "months", to form 260 unique combinations like designations for days (number:name) in a repetitive calendar we call "tzolkin" divided in 65 days "seasons" (of course i am making a simil, werent called like that) Examples of the names are: Imix, Ik, Akbal, Kan, Chicchan, Cimi, Manik, Lamat, Muluc, Oc, Chuen, Eb, Ben, Ix, Men, Cib, Caban, Etznab, Cauac, Ahau. An example of a tzolkin date could be "1 Imix"

    The list of names had intercalated orientation (orient, nort, ponient, sout) so every "week" (5 days) started and ended with the same orientation... and every of the 260 designations of days informs elapsed days and orientation. They also divided the calendar in periods of 52 days (unique combinations of 13 numbers with 4 orientations)

    This system its then based on the relation of two sets: the base 13 numbers and the 20 names. The consecutive asociation was done trought simple counting, making pairs... there were not needed any operations with positional notation.

    All this counts (asociations) are cyclic... repetitive, but not identical because every repetition starts at a diferent point in the cycle. I think of them, like time units (for example [day:orientation] to name a "week") The name of the repetition its given by is starting day (for example "week" 1-nort) The relation of two sets with a difference in cardinality of 1 its very common in the maya "time units" (for example 5 days:4 orientations) and its called "movement efect" because the maya didnt have a word for "time", to talk about the elapsing of time they used words related to movement

    The maya also used a calendar of 365 days we call haab (divided in 73 "weeks" of 5 days or 18 "months" of 20 days plus 1 week... of bad luck) The haab is an alternate form of the tzolkin that relates (trought consecutive asociation) the number of day (from 0 to 19) and name of the month. Examples of the names of the month are: Pop, Uo, Zip, Zotz, Tzec, Xul, Yaxkin, Mol, Chen, Yax, Zac, Ceb, Mac, Kankin, Muan... An example of a haab date could be "4 Ahau - 18 Pop". Therefore, the

  51. Not so impressive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Even my grandma can run faster than a PC running Vista.

  52. only if... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...it was a cluster of boobies. Yeah! and they were running linux...and...and....real

  53. Archaeology gets harder or easier with time? by Wyck · · Score: 1

    It makes me wonder if ancient archaeologists were unearthing simple tools (perhaps hunting and farming implements) that were ancient to them, and had equal difficulty imagining how they worked and what their purpose was, or if archaeology was easier long ago. And will archaeology be harder or easier in the future? Hopefully we are leaving more clues behind, but our devices are more complex.

    It makes me wonder how much difficulty future archaeologists will have in a few thousand years when they unearth the Slashdot servers and try to imagine how they worked and what purpose they served.

  54. Mod parent up! by Jabbrwokk · · Score: 1

    Those are awesome! Mod parent up (if this thread is still alive.)

  55. No real "market" for such devices by peter303 · · Score: 1

    Maybe a rich nobelman or bishop might sponsor a craftsman to make such exquisite devices, but there werent hat many potential customers. Modern clockworks got off the ground because churches and monastaries wanted more reliable ways of scheduling group prayer and there were a lot these in late medieval times. Then busnessmen and up-and-coming-types want one too, and you'v got a good market then.

    Similar issue in China. Crasftsman made some nifty things for the emporeror, but few others to sell it to.

  56. Is 'Antikythera' an early OLPC? by coppermine · · Score: 1

    This device has an uncanny similarity with OLPC machines. They both are powered by hand cranks and they both can do/count googole.