Slashdot Mirror


The World's Oldest Computer May Have Predicted the Future (gizmodo.com)

Gizmodo reports: Discovered in an ancient shipwreck near Crete in 1901, the freakishly advanced Antikythera Mechanism has been called the world's first computer. A decades-long investigation into the 2,000 year-old-device is shedding new light onto this mysterious device... It wasn't programmable in the modern sense, but it's considered the world's first analog computer.
schwit1 shares a report from the Associated Press:: For over a century since its discovery in an ancient shipwreck, the exact function of the Antikythera Mechanism -- named after the southern Greek island off which it was found -- was a tantalizing puzzle.... After more than a decade's efforts using cutting-edge scanning equipment, an international team of scientists has now read about 3,500 characters of explanatory text -- a quarter of the original -- in the innards of the 2,100-year-old remains. They say it was a kind of philosopher's guide to the galaxy, and perhaps the world's oldest mechanical computer.

97 of 143 comments (clear)

  1. With a 0.0000001% accuracy! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Remember the successes! Forget all the failures!

  2. doesn't tell the future by phantomfive · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's kind of pointless to write an article about an ancient Greek text that was found if you don't report what the text actually said.
    Bonus points if you present a translation of the text, which neither article linked to actually does. (Most likely because the researchers aren't sure what the text actually says).

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    1. Re:doesn't tell the future by Hognoxious · · Score: 2

      Especially when it's been known for decades that the item described is an orrery.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    2. Re:doesn't tell the future by Ksevio · · Score: 2

      I guess it does predict the future in a sense that I can predict the sun will rise tomorrow.

    3. Re:doesn't tell the future by tomhath · · Score: 1

      It doesn't contain text, more like labels of what various points on the mechanism represent (planets, signs of the zodiac, etc). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    4. Re:doesn't tell the future by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Too bad it didn't predict the shipwreck.

    5. Re: doesn't tell the future by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It predicted the wave though, the wave was meant to prove the prediction worked, ship wreck was lack of foresight.

    6. Re: doesn't tell the future by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      LOL, forgot to tick the post anonymous did you, micro dick?
      Every time I see this sort of trolling I think, poor fellow, showing his inadequacy in public.

    7. Re:doesn't tell the future by jblues · · Score: 5, Funny

      The text said: "Primum Scribe!" (first post), followed by "Moo dixit boves mooo" (moo say the cows moo). After that "Nescis quid dicis de te twat stupri" (you don't know what you're talking about you fucking twat) and (mostly unintelligible) words of a similar nature.

      --
      If it acquires resources on instantiation like a duck, then its a shared_ptr<Duck>
    8. Re:doesn't tell the future by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      "It's kind of pointless to write an article about an ancient Greek text that was found if you don't report what the text actually said. "

      It was the world's first README.TXT .

    9. Re:doesn't tell the future by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Oh dang it, I knew I should have rtfm

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    10. Re:doesn't tell the future by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Or a EULA.

      Isosceles Bermudopolous (hereinafter referred to as the vendor) accepts no liability for any fault in design or manufacture...

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    11. Re: doesn't tell the future by Blaskowicz · · Score: 1

      Under Hillary's supervision the US propagated rumors that niggers were Ghadaffi's mercenaries, which led to violent anti-black lynchings carried openly in the streets. How worse can you get than that?
      Also, it is US policy to promote Sunni war against Shia by pretending the Syrian regime (what we used to call a country or a state) is a Shia minority persecuting the Sunni majority, as if we hadn't enough of that crap back in 16th century Europe.

    12. Re: doesn't tell the future by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      You'd think that, if Hillary had caused deaths at Benghazi, thirteen hostile Congressional investigations would have found some wrongdoing. Face it, she did what she could with the resources Congress afforded her. Congress needs to accept the fact that, if they don't provide adequate money for embassy and consulate security, bad things might happen.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    13. Re:doesn't tell the future by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      The papers are available here, if you really want them. â18 a pop. Enjoy!

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    14. Re:doesn't tell the future by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Wow, thanks!

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    15. Re:doesn't tell the future by q4Fry · · Score: 1

      Guys! Guys! This firing solution predicts the future for my trebuchet projectiles.

  3. As Yogi Berra Said... by Rob+Riggs · · Score: 1

    It's tough to make predictions, especially about the future.

    --
    the growth in cynicism and rebellion has not been without cause
  4. Obligatory by Yvan256 · · Score: 5, Funny

    The World's Oldest Computer May Have Predicted the Future

    ...the 2,000 year-old-device ... wasn't programmable in the modern sense, but it's considered the world's first analog computer.

    ...it was a kind of philosopher's guide to the galaxy, and perhaps the world's oldest mechanical computer.

    So... 42?

    1. Re:Obligatory by ArsenneLupin · · Score: 1

      Philosopher.
      Philosopher.
      Not hitchhiker :-)

  5. Nostrodumbass by PopeRatzo · · Score: 4, Funny

    an international team of scientists has now read about 3,500 characters of explanatory text

    The fragment says, "...in 2100 years, an Oompa Loompa with strangely tiny fingers will attempt to rise to power. Beware, since he has the mark of the Beast on his forehead, which you can't see because he's got this weird thing going on with his hair. His wife will be a nice piece of Slovenian ass though, so big ups for that."

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
    1. Re:Nostrodumbass by luminousone11 · · Score: 1

      His wife will be a nice piece of Slovenian ass though, so big ups for that."

      Odd Bill Clinton doesn't look Slovenian at all.....

    2. Re:Nostrodumbass by Osgeld · · Score: 1

      Nostrodumbass would be a lot more credible if he had provided that level of detail, in reality (spooky voice) in the future some shit's going to happen

    3. Re:Nostrodumbass by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Nostrodumbass would be a lot more credible if he had provided that level of detail, in reality (spooky voice) in the future some shit's going to happen

      Yes, and it's going to be bad, and it will involve a guy with the letter "L" in his name. Or "M".

      You're right, Osgeld. Nostrodamus was basically doing a cold read on the future.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    4. Re: Nostrodumbass by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Least he's not a nigger, nor a nigger loving jewboy.

      Trump 2016

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
  6. Of course it predicted the future. by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 5, Interesting
    It predicted the future like a calendar or an almanac predicted the future. Jun 15 of the next year is going to be Sunday" or "the next full moon day is going to be on Jul 22". If you consider this predicting the future, oh yeah, it did. It is the whole point of the machine.

    This is a machine that simulated the movement of the planets and the moon using gears. The whole idea of this machine is to predict the phases of the moon and the location of the planets in the coming days.

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    1. Re:Of course it predicted the future. by Nkwe · · Score: 1

      It predicted the future like a calendar or an almanac predicted the future. Jun 15 of the next year is going to be Sunday" or "the next full moon day is going to be on Jul 22". If you consider this predicting the future, oh yeah, it did. It is the whole point of the machine.

      This is a machine that simulated the movement of the planets and the moon using gears. The whole idea of this machine is to predict the phases of the moon and the location of the planets in the coming days.

      Although not magic or anything and it does what it was designed to do, it is still pretty darn cool, especially considering how long ago it was built.

    2. Re:Of course it predicted the future. by MrL0G1C · · Score: 1

      Absolutely, I think all to often we don't like to give credit to ancient civilisations where credit is due. Mythbusters often epitomizes this with the 'if we can't do it then there's no way that they could of' kind of attitude, forgetting that old civilisations often had techniques/methods that have long since been forgotten and those civilisations had decades to perfect their devices and knowledge.

      I find it awe-inspiring that they made this device so early, it's a heck of a lot more sophisticated than a few sticks with beads on.

      --
      Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
    3. Re:Of course it predicted the future. by mark-t · · Score: 4, Informative

      This is a machine that simulated the movement of the planets and the moon using gears.

      Which is an orrery, not a computer. The only reason to label it the latter is for sensationalism.

      Although the fact that they could build something precise enough to achieve this over 2000 years ago is still pretty damn impressive.

    4. Re:Of course it predicted the future. by ArsenneLupin · · Score: 1

      It predicted the future like a calendar or an almanac predicted the future.

      Too bad it wasn't a sports almanac then...

    5. Re:Of course it predicted the future. by wierd_w · · Score: 4, Informative

      It is a purpse built analog mechanical computer.

      What it is not, is a universal computer, nor is it a reprogrammable computer.

      Any universal computer can simulate any other computer, even other universal computers. A purpose built single purpose computer is only capable of performing the calculations it was designed for.

      Compare: a modern universal computer against a mechanical cash register.

      The cash register does computations; generally, it keeps a running tally of a customer's transaction, as well as a running tally of total exchanges made during the day. It cant really do other kinds of tasks. It was not made to do so.

      Likewise, the antikythera mechanism is designed to perform computatuons: logically, when the sinusoid patterns of celestial objects will result in tangencies if overlaid. It really cant do other kinds of tasks. It was not made to do so.

      A universal computer can do both tasks, and any other task a computer is capable of being built for, because it was made to do so.

      The universal computer is fairly modern. purpose built computers are a very ancient thing. Do not try to conflate the two, or claim that one isnt a computer just because it is not a universal turing machine.

    6. Re:Of course it predicted the future. by khallow · · Score: 2

      It merely simulates the motion of certain celestial objects, and any actual computations to be performed from that is left up to the operator of the orrery.

      A simulation is a computation.

    7. Re:Of course it predicted the future. by mark-t · · Score: 1

      No, it is not. Computation can be used to create a simulation, but a simulation is not inherently a computation. For example, you can simulate gravity in space by using a rotating space station, but the rotation is not in any way a simulation.

      As I said, calling this device a computer is sensationalism. It has been known for decades that this device was simply an orrery.

    8. Re:Of course it predicted the future. by mark-t · · Score: 1

      Dang... meant to hit preview and accidentally hit submit.

      I mean that the rotation is not a *computation*.

    9. Re:Of course it predicted the future. by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      > It is a purpse built analog mechanical computer.

      No. It's a clock. It's a hand wound clockwork mechanism with about 200 gears. Calling it a computer is just sensationalist tripe. It's also highly misleading because most people reading or watching aren't going to think "clock" or "adding" machine when they hear the term computer.

      They're going to think of a Turing machine.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    10. Re:Of course it predicted the future. by khallow · · Score: 1

      As a real world example of simulation as computation, we have that one of the earliest demonstrations of the existence of quantum computers was a quantum system which could only be poorly approximated by a classical Turing machine.

      Since the system could trivially simulate itself in real time, it demonstrated that there were computations (here, the simulation which you keep insisting is not a computation) which could be done by quantum phenomena far faster than the classical Turing machine.

    11. Re:Of course it predicted the future. by khallow · · Score: 1

      and any actual computations to be performed from that is left up to the operator of the orrery.

      Another obvious rebuttal here comes when you consider the question of how much much "actual" computation is left after you use the orrery. For example, if the device does a "simulation" that just happens to reduce the additonal computation effort that an operator needs from O(N) to O(1), then it's a computer no matter what you think.

    12. Re:Of course it predicted the future. by mark-t · · Score: 1

      As I attempted to clarify in a followup, I had made a typo, and accidentally hit "submit" instead of "preview". The rotation of a space station is not a computation.

      There are plenty of other simulatiions that are not computations... military training exercises, simulation of medical emergencies when training health personel, and many many others.

      My point is that a simulation does not inherently indicate computation is occurring. An orrery simulates certain celestial body movements, but does not compute anything. Any computations are left to the user of the orrery.

    13. Re:Of course it predicted the future. by mark-t · · Score: 2
      I never disputed that a computation can create a simulation. I suggested only that a simulation does not necessarily involve computation.

      An orrery *simulates* the motion of the celestial bodies it deals with, but it does not compute their positions any more than a compass "computes" which way is north.

    14. Re:Of course it predicted the future. by khallow · · Score: 1

      I suggested only that a simulation does not necessarily involve computation.

      I never suggested that either. I merely pointed out that a simulation is a computation.

      An orrery *simulates* the motion of the celestial bodies it deals with, but it does not compute their positions any more than a compass "computes" which way is north.

      Which is nonsense since it does compute the position of the celestial bodies in a way that a compass doesn't emulate.

    15. Re:Of course it predicted the future. by mark-t · · Score: 1

      Of course it is nonsense... because an orrery doesn't compute anything in the first place. That was my point. A geometric compass can be used to draw a circle with much less effort than what might otherwise be required, but that does not make the compass any kind of tool that computes how to draw a circle. An orrery can be used to tell the position of the celestial bodies that it models, but it definitely does not compute them in any sense of word. Continually asserting that it is a computer will not make it one.

    16. Re:Of course it predicted the future. by aliquis · · Score: 1

      Maybe it's a nice way of saying "The worlds oldest computer was shit"?

      As in the future is shit ;D

    17. Re:Of course it predicted the future. by khallow · · Score: 2

      Of course it is nonsense... because an orrery doesn't compute anything in the first place.

      Which is obvious false since this orrery computes the position of planets. We know the computation it does.

      A geometric compass can be used to draw a circle with much less effort than what might otherwise be required, but that does not make the compass any kind of tool that computes how to draw a circle.

      An orrery is not a geometric compass. A key difference is that the planets have positions not just a circular arc.

      An orrery can be used to tell the position of the celestial bodies that it models, but it definitely does not compute them in any sense of word.

      Which is blatantly false. "Telling the position" is the obvious computation that you refuse to call a computation.

      . Continually asserting that it is a computer will not make it one.

      Back at you. Continually labeling a computation as a "telling" doesn't make it not a computation.

      What's really annoying about your clueless drivel is that this machine as its functioning is described here is clearly a standard analogue computer. Semantics games like calling it an "orrery" or its computations a "telling" and then insisting as a result of the changed labels, then it no longer counts as a computer are just stupid. One can play the same dull semantics games with a general purpose computer to the same pointless outcome.

    18. Re:Of course it predicted the future. by khallow · · Score: 1
      Correction;

      a standard analog computer

    19. Re:Of course it predicted the future. by mark-t · · Score: 1

      Since you've devolved to hurling personal insults, I'm not entirely sure it will be productive to debate the matter further. Contrary to what you seem to think, I am not confused by the fact that this thing cannot be programmed... I am asserting that an ordinary orrery does not actually do anything that can be called "computation" and therefore cannot be considered a computer (although orreries exist that are computers... such as what you would may find in a modern science museum, although come to think of it, you will probably find an old fashioned orrery there as well).

    20. Re:Of course it predicted the future. by khallow · · Score: 1

      I am asserting that an ordinary orrery does not actually do anything that can be called "computation"

      We've heard this before. But every time we still run against the problem that they compute the state of part of the Solar System which is a key thing any remotely accurate simulation does and hence are computers.

      And as I've noted before, simulation is a subset of computation to the point where the idea has even been used to establish an existence proof for quantum computation.

      Finally, your argument is wholly semantic equivocation in nature and thus, doesn't actually depend on whether something is a computation/computer or not. I could apply it to any other computer to determine that it is not a computer, and any other computation to determine that it is not a computation.

      For example, my laptop is a "non-computing machine" and all computations are "not computations". Since everything my non-computing machine does is thus, not a computation by shift of the definition, no actual computation occurs and my laptop is not a computer. You might not recognize the argument since I stripped it to absurdity, but when you insist an orrery computer is not a computer because orreries are not computers and simulation computations are not computations because simulations are not computations, then the outcome is naturally unsound.

    21. Re:Of course it predicted the future. by mark-t · · Score: 1

      But every time we still run against the problem that they compute the state of part of the Solar System

      And it is only the point that we are actuallyt disagreeing, you say that it is a computer because you allege that it computes them. Certainly if it did compute them, that would be true... but it does *NOT* compute them. A thermometer can tell you the temperature, but not because it computes the temperature. An old-fashioned mechanical clock can tell you the time, but not because it computes them.

      The notion that because it simulates the motion of the planets it must be a computer is flawed because simulations are not inherently computations. A fire drill is a simulation of what one should do in an actual fire. An electric slot car race track is a simulation of a real race track. Absolutely anything that can be utilized to approximate something else, to whatever degree of accuracy is desired for one's purposes, can be said to be a simulation.

      Finally, this device was accurate enough for its time... and for the purposes that it was used for, but in relation to what we understand about the solar system today, it was not as accurate as you seem to think it was. Among other things, it assumed that the earth was at the center of everything, which we now know to be false. Copernicus was the first person to posulate the notion that the earth revolved around the sun, and it wasn't until Gallileo that this notion started to become widely accepted as fact.

    22. Re:Of course it predicted the future. by khallow · · Score: 1
      Ok, let's just end this. First, the definition of an analog computer:

      a computer that represents data by measurable quantities, as voltages or, formerly, the rotation of gears, in order to solve a problem, rather than by expressing the data as numbers.

      A simulation of the Solar System for the purposes of simulating some aspect of the Solar System where the physical positions of planets at some time are represented by the machine in any way is thus an analog computer.

      More generally any simulation of the state of a system used for that purpose which generates measurable values for estimate of some aspect of the state of the system is an analog computer.

      Finally, this device was accurate enough for its time... and for the purposes that it was used for, but in relation to what we understand about the solar system today, it was not as accurate as you seem to think it was. Among other things, it assumed that the earth was at the center of everything, which we now know to be false. Copernicus was the first person to posulate the notion that the earth revolved around the sun, and it wasn't until Gallileo that this notion started to become widely accepted as fact.

      This is irrelevant to the discussion. It's still a computer even if it uses an obsolete model or algorithm.

      The notion that because it simulates the motion of the planets it must be a computer is flawed because simulations are not inherently computations. A fire drill is a simulation of what one should do in an actual fire. An electric slot car race track is a simulation of a real race track. Absolutely anything that can be utilized to approximate something else, to whatever degree of accuracy is desired for one's purposes, can be said to be a simulation.

      By the definition of analog computing, these generate measurable quantities of the simulation (such as how fast fire fighters respond to a drill or the speed of the electric slot car) and hence are analog computers.

      Absolutely anything that can be utilized to approximate something else, to whatever degree of accuracy is desired for one's purposes, can be said to be a simulation.

      And when it is used for the that purpose of simulation, it then becomes an analog computer.

    23. Re:Of course it predicted the future. by wierd_w · · Score: 1

      Your argument, as best I can determine, boils down to this canard:

      It is made of gears, and as such it cannot perform computations.

      This is patently false. Not only are there mechanical, gear ratio driven adding machines (as used in old fashioned cash registers from the early 1900s), there is also the INFAMOUS Babbage analytical engine!

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      Not only was it intended to be made of gears, it was intended to be a universal computer on top of it all.

      Babbage's engine is a universal turing maching. It is made of gears.

      Fess up, you done goofed.

    24. Re:Of course it predicted the future. by cwsumner · · Score: 1

      An Orrery requires a computer to be able to work.

      And most arguments are mearly about the definitions of words. Arguing with someone who speaks a different dialect, about the definitions of words, will never get you anywhere! 8-P

    25. Re:Of course it predicted the future. by mark-t · · Score: 1

      The time of day can be represented by the hands on a clock, or even the shadow of a sundial, but even a manufactured mechanical clock does not need to compute anything with respect to the passage of time to convey that information. That it can convey such information at all is nothing but an artifact (albeit an intentional one) of how it is physically built, or in the case of a sundial, how it is oriented with respect to the sun after construction. A mechanical orrery is exactly the same. It doesn't "compute" the position of the planets, it simply shows where they are in relation to eachother, in very much the same way as the hands on a clock convey what time of day it is.

    26. Re:Of course it predicted the future. by khallow · · Score: 1

      A mechanical orrery is exactly the same. It doesn't "compute" the position of the planets, it simply shows where they are in relation to eachother, in very much the same way as the hands on a clock convey what time of day it is.

      This same lame argument can be applied to any other computation or computer. Computers don't actually compute, they just show symbols, combinations of voltages, etc which convey information to us. We'll just completely ignore that these displays of information are the result of computations.

      Once again, here's the definition of an analog computer:

      a computer that represents data by measurable quantities, as voltages or, formerly, the rotation of gears, in order to solve a problem, rather than by expressing the data as numbers.

      First, it's worth noting that an analog clock is a classic analog computer by definition which converts some timing signal (say from a pendulum or rocking gear) into time-relevant information. The data displayed is the time, the problem solved is "What is the time?", and it performs non-trivial computations (your internal clock mechanism doesn't generate hourly pulses and whatnot, it's a series of counters which do that). In fact, if you look at the innards of a clock, you see the computation right away, such as counting the number of seconds till the next minute happens and counting the minutes till the next hour happens. So right away, you're wrong.

      Similarly, the measurable quantities of the orrery are the positions of the planets by however the orrery represents them, or the timing of correlations between planets. It solves problems involving the relative positions of planets and the Moon. And it performs nontrivial computations of the motions of planets in order to do so. Just because the motion is fixed by the internal mechanisms of the machine doesn't matter. That's how most analog computers work.

      At this point, I've shown the definition of an analog computer and shown how two machines, the mechanical clock and the orrery satisfy the definition and hence, are analog computers.

      I apologize for the somewhat insulting tone, but this argument should not have gotten this far. It's just a matter of applying a basic definition to objects which fit the definition. That's not even logic 101.

    27. Re:Of course it predicted the future. by mark-t · · Score: 1

      OK, it's a computer.

  7. Re:It helps calculate positions and dates? by meerling · · Score: 2

    They were also the precursors to scientists because there are a number of them that didn't 'make stuff up', but rather observed and tried to understand why, and from that develop predictions to test. How do you think a philosopher back then identified that the Earth was spherical, much less calculate it's size to a far greater accuracy level than would be expected by someone who's distance data was based on someone pacing out the distances between cities? (If you say "aliens", there's an Coast to Coast collected episodes box coming your way filled with fish heads.) (Yes, that was a joke, I don't think the post office would let you send that.)
    There are plenty of other examples of 'philosophers' doing lots of scientific discovery in all kinds of fields back then. You are mistaking modern philosophers who spend a lot of time lost in their own daydreams with the ancient greek philosophers that did the heavy and indepth thinking trying to figure things out way back then.
    It's kind of like calling a guy who wears a cowboy hat and boots to the country music club a cowboy, and then trying to equate him to the 1800s cowboy that actually herded cattle for a living.

  8. Abacus by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 1

    So can an abacus if you use it to do the calculation of when the sun will rise and since the abacus is 500 years older than this device surely it is the first analog computer which can predict the future.

    1. Re:Abacus by Crashmarik · · Score: 1

      An abacus would have been the first digital computer. If it used really small beads like the text you could make the claim it was the first microcomputer.
      I have heard there was a BASIC system for such devices, you could identify its users by the way they would put a slash through their zeroes.

  9. saturday afternoon by nimbius · · Score: 1

    and unless this computer predicted the rise of low-traffic clickbait, im not interested.

    --
    Good people go to bed earlier.
  10. Go look it up on YouTube, btw. There is a wonderful Nova special about it there, and how multiple geniuses and two mobile versions of fantastically advanced scanners were created and shipped to it, rather than the other way around, due to its fragility.

    --
    (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
  11. 42 by OOSCARR · · Score: 1

    Deep Thought

  12. Shit summary by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The World's Oldest Computer May Have Predicted the Future

    Y'know, it would be nice the summary even remotely hinted at how this thing "predicted in the future."

    --
    systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    1. Re:Shit summary by MrL0G1C · · Score: 1

      Once a week it would give out the correct lottery numbers and the device owner would collect his winnings.

      --
      Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
    2. Re:Shit summary by cwsumner · · Score: 1

      The World's Oldest Computer May Have Predicted the Future

      Y'know, it would be nice the summary even remotely hinted at how this thing "predicted in the future."

      Yes.

      The device can show when the next event will occur, if you advance the date dial and observe the other dials. One example is advance knowledge of lunar eclipses.

  13. Re: by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

    If it's the one where a there's a guy who makes a cog with X[1] teeth by going "... yeah, well, Y is easy, so you just sort of space them apart a bit" and goes on to make one using a chisel it's one of the best documentaries I've ever seen.

    [1] Where X is a prime number and Y is a nearby very unprime number.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  14. Thankfully, it was lost by raymorris · · Score: 2

    Without such a mechanism, astrological calculations were done by intelligent, educated people, white-collar workers so to speak. If machines like this took over this kind of work, such artificial intelligence would have probably destroyed the economy. Or maybe that theory has been proven wrong over the last several thousand years of machines becoming more sophisticated all the time.

    1. Re:Thankfully, it was lost by kheldan · · Score: 1

      Don't be a jackass. The role of tools in human societies, is to help humans do work and enhance their lives. If tools created overall hamper humans and hurt human societies, then they need to be abandoned. If so-called 'AI' (and by the way everyone is misusing that term, thanks mainly to mainstream media, who do not understand it, and oh by the way any decent neuroscientist will tell you we don't have anything even close to real 'AI' yet!) destroys too many people's jobs in the name of corporate profits (i.e., the rich getting richer) and/or causes people to be dumber and less skilled in their own survival, then it's not a Good Thing at all. We'll see, won't we?

      --
      Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
  15. Re:So you slag Trump by objectifying his wife? by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 4, Insightful

    What hypocrisy? Has PopeRatzo previously taken a stance vehemently against personal attacks and sexual objectification (for comedic and satirical purposes)?

    Or, actually, did it occur to you that PopeRatzo might, in fact, be parodying Trump himself?

    --
    systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
  16. Greek, not Latin. by k2r · · Score: 2

    nt

    1. Re:Greek, not Latin. by phantomfive · · Score: 2

      Followed by "pendejos todavia no arregalaron utf-8??" (those friendly fellows still didn't fix utf-8??)

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  17. Re:So you slag Trump by objectifying his wife? by PopeRatzo · · Score: 2

    So you slag Trump by degrading comments about his appearance and sexually objectifying his wife?

    Are you really accusing me of "sexually objectifying" the woman who posed for this picture?

    http://gq-images.condecdn.net/...

    Because I'm pretty sure that once you've posed for a "men's magazine" handcuffed to a bedpost in nothing but heels and jewelry, you're way past the point of having someone else "sexually objectify" you. Yeah, showing off your pootenanny in a stroke book is pretty much the ne plus ultra of being a sexual object. And that's one of the least NSFW photos from that "spread".

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  18. Clearly not the first. by hey! · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Nothing so advanced could have been the "first" thing of its kind. Think about it. If I told you to make a bronze wheel 140mm in diameter with 233 perfectly spaced teeth, would you know how to do it? With tools that were available in 200 BC Greece?

    No there is must have been an at least decades-old tradition of instrument-making leading up to the design and execution of the Antikythera Mechanism, stuff like armillary spheres and quadrants and such. At some point they must have made simpler instruments that maybe could use wheels coupled by friction, and from there the very notion of toothed gears (which we take for granted) could be invented.

    --
    Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    1. Re:Clearly not the first. by wierd_w · · Score: 3, Insightful

      There was. Research the "temple wonders" that were used in ancient Greek (and later, Roman) temples.

      You will be surprised at the degree of engineering skill involved in their creation. Unlike in our modern world, ancient greek mathematics required detailed physical proofs of the predictions of the math, before it was considered true. You can see this in the reconstructed text of the archimedes palimpsest.

      It is very possible that this object was such a proof, made to present findings to nearby scholars.

    2. Re:Clearly not the first. by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      > If I told you to make a bronze wheel 140mm in diameter with 233 perfectly spaced teeth, would you know how to do it? With tools that were available in 200 BC Greece?

      Actually, the gears in question can be replicated with simple hand tools. It requires precision craftsmanship but that wasn't exactly in short supply in those days.

      The Greeks were wicked good at Math. It was basically their thing.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    3. Re:Clearly not the first. by packrat0x · · Score: 1

      The Greeks were wicked good at Math. It was basically their thing.

      Geometry and Trigonometry, yes. Algebra and Calculus, not so much.

      --
      227-3517
    4. Re:Clearly not the first. by shione · · Score: 1

      Marking out teeth on a circle to make a gear is trivial using just a compass and pencil. To make it easier you can mark it out on a big circle then draw those markings back to the centre so you can have 233 perfectly spaced teeth on any diameter gear.

      The teeth would then be cut out of metal sheets with a chisel like they carved stones.

    5. Re:Clearly not the first. by hey! · · Score: 2

      Of course they can. That's how 17th century European clockmakers did it. But the very first mechanical clocks didn't have fine brass gears. It took hundreds of years of clock making to get to that point.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    6. Re:Clearly not the first. by hey! · · Score: 3, Interesting

      This actually makes my point. This is the obvious kind of approach that would occur to any intelligent layman. And it would work for making short two or three wheel gear trains from very large gears where relative precision is easy to attain.

      But the Mechanism is both compact and incredibly elaborate -- far, far more elaborate than a clockwork. I dabble in watch repair so I would know; a basic clock train has five gears in the going train (which transfers power from the spring) and two in the motion work (which drive the hands) for a total of 7, and everything has to be perfect or the watch doesn't run. While the Mechanism is much larger than a watch -- about the size of a mantle clock -- its gear train had at least 30 individual gears. Backlash and other imperfections from crude manufacture, when multiplied over so many gears, would certainly translate into a frozen gear train. Even individual imperfections that were invisible to the naked eye would ruin the operation.

      So they must have had a much more sophisticated gear-machining method than chiseling out bronze blanks by hand. They might have filed teeth for gears of the required precision using some kind of index wheel arrangement; that would have occurred to the Greeks of all people. But the path to success with such methods is paved with many, many failures.

      Anyone capable of constructing something like this would have to have achieved a very high practical level of mastery at gear making before they even attempted something so difficult. Even if they took up gear making with this device in mind, they'd have made many, many proof-of-concept models with much less elaborate gear trains, because the failures they encountered at smaller scales would have guided them to ultimate success that much faster. So it's pretty clear this could not possibly have been the first such device.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    7. Re:Clearly not the first. by hey! · · Score: 1

      Each machine has its own challenges. The watch has to work consistently for years running off of a tiny amount of energy. That's why watchmakers developed the jewel bearing -- to make a bearing that is tight-fitting, long-wearing, and yet low-friction..

      The Mechanism has an enormous number of gears and thus friction to overcome -- especially as the bearings are crude and many gear faces rub against adjacent faces or supporting spacers. These facts may be related: if the bearings were made tight enough to support the gears in place without additional support, the friction might be even worse. So the multiplying effect of additional gears in the train is much, much higher than it would be using modern watchmaking technology. Clearly this mechanism wasn't designed and built by spacefaring aliens; it is a machine of its place time: a very sophisticated but technologically primitive device.

      As for a bike, the challenge is to transmit lots of power; the tolerances are quite loose with a chain drive. There have been shaft drive bikes, but frictional losses are actually greater, as is the challenge of building the frame stiff enough to hold the bevel gears in place; a degree of flex that is meaningless in a chain drive is a problem for an all-gear setup. Still in a shaft driven bike there are only three gears (not counting any internal gearing the hub has). So getting the rear wheel to turn would be possible even if frictional losses were massive.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    8. Re:Clearly not the first. by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Interesting. How do you divide a circle into 233 equal parts using only a compass and pencil?

      Duh, by copying the Antikythera Mechanism. Why re-invent the wheel?

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    9. Re:Clearly not the first. by shione · · Score: 1

      By bisecting lines you can divide a circle up into as many parts as you like. Watch this video to draw a pentagon inside a circle http://www.mathopenref.com/con...

  19. Re:So you slag Trump by objectifying his wife? by Osgeld · · Score: 1

    those are some of the nicest things I have heard about trump this week, obiously he is a supporter of trump and you sir or madam are just a fucking retard

  20. Xa xa by VladimirTrajkovski · · Score: 1

    No way...

  21. Re: by jedidiah · · Score: 1

    It's an astronomical clock. It charted the movements of the moon and planets and predicted eclipses.

    Calling it a "computer" is a bit of a stretch.

    --
    A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
  22. A 2100 year old "computer" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I'm sure a patent troll is filing papers in the eastern district of Texas as I type this.

  23. Re:Ancient Civilization had higher tech than assum by jedidiah · · Score: 2

    When this show was on PBS a retired mechanical engineer created one of the cogs for the machine in about 5 minutes with hand tools. He also had a model of the machine already built.

    The astronomical knowledge and mathematics that went into the machine are FAR more impressive than the mechanism itself.

    --
    A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
  24. Bazinga! by techvet · · Score: 1

    Post of the day.

  25. Re:Ancient Civilization had higher tech than assum by packrat0x · · Score: 1

    I'd mod you up if at least one of your links wasn't to youtube.

    --
    227-3517
  26. Re: So you slag Trump by objectifying his wife? by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

    exposing critical information.

    Looking at that photo spread, I'm pretty sure she's already exposed just about everything.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  27. Aliens... by Morpeth · · Score: 1

    Clearly it was brought and left by aliens... I'm pretty sure The History Channel told me so, and you know, it's The History Channel, they're like TOTALLY about being accurate n' stuff...

    --

    'The unexamined life is not worth living' - Socrates
  28. Can't do write, do math by raymorris · · Score: 1

    > destroys too many people's jobs in the name of corporate profits (i.e., the rich getting richer) and/or causes people to be dumber and less skilled in their own survival, then it's not a Good Thing at all.

    It was feared that if machines did the math, we'd all become "dumber", unable to do math because the machines would do it. Before that, scribes lost their jobs to the printing press. We'll see indeed, just as we have been seeing for the last thousand years or so.

    1. Re:Can't do write, do math by cheesybagel · · Score: 1

      It's getting to the point where expert knowledge ends up being just a collection of links and links to links. It kind of reminds me of how Asimov's Empire ends really.

    2. Re:Can't do write, do math by kheldan · · Score: 1

      Yeah. YOU get it, others don't seem to. Call it the 'convenience economy', that's what they're caught up in. We seem to be living in the age of 'Just Google It', and neither is anyone expected to actually learn anything for themselves, they're not even really motivated to learn anything anyway, when they can 'just google it' instead. When I was in 5th grade, I was put in a small private school, because I had ADHD, but it was long enough ago that people had no idea about it really, except for some doctors and educators, and parents didn't know a thing about it. My parents refused to medicate me. Anyway, in 5th grade at the new school I had a nasty, hard-nosed teacher who scared the crap out of me, and made me stay after school, doing page after page of multiplication tables, forcing me to learn them by rote. I hated it, hated her, but that's the reason, I'm fairly sure, I can do math in my head now as an adult. The reasons why I wasn't learning were totally different, but the effects would have been the same: If I hadn't learned, I wouldn't be as capable as I am as an adult, probably wouldn't be able to think as clearly and precisely as I do. People's minds get lazy if they don't make themselves learn things. Your mind is a tool, too, and like any tool it can get dull and useless with neglect. Too many 'conveniences', too many machines to do everything for us, including think for us, and our minds will turn to mush, people turn into little more than animals in a zoo -- much like your reference to Asimov's Empire novels, which I'd read so long ago and had forgotten about until now: We not only build AI's (in the form of positronic brains) that are more capable in every way than a human brain, but robot bodies to put them in. Eventually they decide, in a progression of thought of the Three Laws, that we need to be 'taken care of' to the point where we do nothing for ourselves -- and aren't allowed to by our robotic servants, because too many things are 'not safe' for humans to engage in. Cautionary, indeed! The question is, though: If we succeed in creating AI on that level, will we prevent it from ruining us, or do we suffer the fate of Asimov's version of humanity in the future? I hope to not live long enough to witness it.

      --
      Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
  29. BBC Documentary about it by pev · · Score: 1

    Well worth watching :
    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Q124C7W0WYA

  30. Re:So you slag Trump by objectifying his wife? by thesandtiger · · Score: 1

    There's a bit of difference between using pictures a person had taken voluntarily for sexual gratification and actually objectifying the person themselves.

    Or, in another way of putting it, just because someone posed for explicit pictures does not mean that's the sum total of their value as a person, which is what "sexual objectification" is usually taken to mean - they aren't a person, but an object that has no value other than to be used for sexual gratification.

    Given what I've read from you in the past, I'm pretty sure you'd agree she's still a human being, even if she is married to a walking bottle of spray tan with a shitty hairpiece.

    --
    Since I can't tell them apart, I treat all ACs as the same person.
  31. Re:So you slag Trump by objectifying his wife? by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

    I'm pretty sure you'd agree she's still a human being

    She is absolutely a human being. A HBILF, in fact.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  32. Re: not a clock by cwsumner · · Score: 1

    It was not a clock, because it had no timekeeping mechanism, no balance wheel or spring or pendulum.

    You would set the date and time desired, and it would show the positions of objects in the sky. Lots of objects!

    It is a specialized computer with "program in masked rom", not generalized. You could call it a calculator, but it is considerebly more complex than that.

  33. Re:It helps calculate positions and dates? by david_thornley · · Score: 1

    Some philosophers liked to figure things out. Some still do.

    However, natural philosophy got a new name, "science", and gradually started to be seen as something different from philosophy per se. People who are interested in natural philosophy and other forms do still exist, but they're considered to be in both philosophy and science as opposed to just being philosophers.

    In your analogy, it would be as if modern people who work with herds of cattle were called "cattle technicians" instead of "cowboys".

    --
    "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  34. Re:So you slag Trump by objectifying his wife? by david_thornley · · Score: 1

    I'm not actually used to sexual objectification, and I really am not well suited to the role of sex object, but I am used to software developer objectification. There are people who have cared little about me as a person, but only about me as a software guy. I'm fine with that as long as I get paid well enough in whatever it is that I want.

    --
    "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes