Total Posts:17|Showing Posts:1-17
Jump to topic:

The New Machinist

malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2013 11:52:28 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
A machinist is one who can only produce a product by way of the use of a machine.

Your computer, and its connect to the internet, is a machine of information, but information without understanding is a useless product.

We are creating a new era of machinists who believe they are intelligent because they understand how to search for, and regurgitate information, but not how to understand it (nor retain the information in memory).

Both the traditional machinist, as well as the New Machinist, are completely useless without their machines to perform all of the work for them.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
sadolite
Posts: 8,834
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2013 6:12:08 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/12/2013 11:52:28 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
A machinist is one who can only produce a product by way of the use of a machine.

Your computer, and its connect to the internet, is a machine of information, but information without understanding is a useless product.

We are creating a new era of machinists who believe they are intelligent because they understand how to search for, and regurgitate information, but not how to understand it (nor retain the information in memory).

Both the traditional machinist, as well as the New Machinist, are completely useless without their machines to perform all of the work for them.

Uh, machine operator here. I could do all of the things I use machines for by hand (old school) but it would take 10 to 100 times longer. I reject your premise about the traditional machinist. But I wholeheartedly agree about the Internet and regurgitation.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2013 7:35:37 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
That we use tools is not a particularly erudite observation. Yes, without tools we would be limited. But to try to claim that a machinist isn't actually clever because he knows how to use one tool (the machine) but conceivably not another (the hand tool) is a poor argument. (And far be it from me to contradict sadolite, I'm sure he can use both the machine and the hand tool).

Similarly, to try to claim that those who use computers and the internet to get information rather than using books seems to fall flat.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2013 10:19:07 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/13/2013 6:12:08 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 3/12/2013 11:52:28 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
A machinist is one who can only produce a product by way of the use of a machine.

Your computer, and its connect to the internet, is a machine of information, but information without understanding is a useless product.

We are creating a new era of machinists who believe they are intelligent because they understand how to search for, and regurgitate information, but not how to understand it (nor retain the information in memory).

Both the traditional machinist, as well as the New Machinist, are completely useless without their machines to perform all of the work for them.

Uh, machine operator here. I could do all of the things I use machines for by hand (old school) but it would take 10 to 100 times longer. I reject your premise about the traditional machinist. But I wholeheartedly agree about the Internet and regurgitation.

I actually respect machinists and the work they do. It was just said for the sake of the analogy and symmetry
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2013 10:22:50 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
http://xkcd.com...
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,726
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2013 12:26:07 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I agree with OP and in fact believe it is far worse than even he probably imagines (Big Wu fan over here BTW). What you are seeing is a glimpse into how technology creates "progress" - but at a price. Internet information is garbage. Reading books is far more useful, far more enlightening, and far more satisfying than the internet or any other future artifice we will bring to expedite our wishes. I am at the point where every time I see parents using technology with their children (usually in the form of touch-screens), I feel a pity for them and the child because they operate under the status quo assumption that technology is only good. Just because something is innovative doesn't mean it improves you. In fact I've found it's almost exclusively the opposite.

I believe there are many technological advances that are great in many ways, but we have this notion of unlimited technological growth and unlimited economic growth that really perplexes me. Everyone wants limitless "stuff," they want it brand-new and and still off-gassing chemicals into their nostrils as they tear open the package. I love the cell-phone commercials the most, probably, trying to make us feel "disconnected" because our smart phones aren't as hip or functional as they should be. Jack's at&t smartphone only runs at 1gH and doesn't have the new "find my car" app, so he's outside in the rain with cars driving by him through puddles and kicking up water all over him. And you people eat that sh!t up. Just about all of you do, not just iPod/iPad carrying metrosexuals. You are all sheep, paying out the a55 for services you don't need, just because someone has created the impression in your mind that you need it (or else you'll end up just like Jack).

Most of the products we buy are not worth creating in the first place. They can be unnecessary, low-quality, unhealthy, non-reusable, and downright unsustainable (typically through aggregate environmental effects). And all of them, just like my car example, help to build this incredibly undesirable society, full of people who are incredibly weak (both physically and mentally), disconnected from each other (FB vs RL?), and who are able to enjoy the natural environment less and less as it is taken from us in order to produce more artificiality. Technology doesn't created efficiency, it destroys it. If you take an 18-year old from 1950, and one from 2010, which one would be an overall better person? The 1950 person will come from an era where the family and community are stronger, the environment is stronger, they almost certainly get more exercise and eat more wholesome foods, and they probably have more free-time than we do DESPITE all of our time-saving creations working for us.
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2013 12:48:40 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
"The civilized man has built a coach, but has lost the use of his feet. He is supported on crutches, but lacks so much support of muscle. He has a fine Geneva watch, but he fails of the skill to tell the hour by the sun. A Greenwich nautical almanac he has, and so being sure of the information when he wants it, the man in the street does not know a star in the sky. The solstice he does not observe; the equinox he knows as little; and the whole bright calendar of the year is without a dial in his mind. His note-books impair his memory; his libraries overload his wit; the insurance-office increases the number of accidents; and it may be a question whether machinery does not encumber; whether we have not lost by refinement some energy, by a Christianity entrenched in establishments and forms, some vigor of wild virtue."
- Ralph Waldo Emerson -

I don't think that technology per se is bad, just the absolute reliance upon it. I always try to learn how to do something by hand before I go out and buy the latest gadget.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2013 12:59:50 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/14/2013 12:48:40 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
"The civilized man has built a coach, but has lost the use of his feet. He is supported on crutches, but lacks so much support of muscle. He has a fine Geneva watch, but he fails of the skill to tell the hour by the sun. A Greenwich nautical almanac he has, and so being sure of the information when he wants it, the man in the street does not know a star in the sky. The solstice he does not observe; the equinox he knows as little; and the whole bright calendar of the year is without a dial in his mind. His note-books impair his memory; his libraries overload his wit; the insurance-office increases the number of accidents; and it may be a question whether machinery does not encumber; whether we have not lost by refinement some energy, by a Christianity entrenched in establishments and forms, some vigor of wild virtue."
- Ralph Waldo Emerson -

I don't think that technology per se is bad, just the absolute reliance upon it. I always try to learn how to do something by hand before I go out and buy the latest gadget.

A. I never said the idea was original...(Ralphie was always more good with the words than me am...)

B. Wax on, wax off, Skepsikyma-san

(yeah...I'm not to hot with micro-circuitry, though...also, I had a much longer, original post which I decided seemed too much like a blog post, so I cut it down to the essentials...I quoted some different writers, though.)

(*video of "Modern Life" by Devo from the album The New Traditionalists....I need to start a Devo thread in Philosophy, but I don't feel like it now)
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
toolpot462
Posts: 289
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2013 10:16:20 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/14/2013 12:26:07 AM, R0b1Billion wrote:
I agree with OP and in fact believe it is far worse than even he probably imagines (Big Wu fan over here BTW). What you are seeing is a glimpse into how technology creates "progress" - but at a price. Internet information is garbage. Reading books is far more useful, far more enlightening, and far more satisfying than the internet or any other future artifice we will bring to expedite our wishes. I am at the point where every time I see parents using technology with their children (usually in the form of touch-screens), I feel a pity for them and the child because they operate under the status quo assumption that technology is only good. Just because something is innovative doesn't mean it improves you. In fact I've found it's almost exclusively the opposite.

I believe there are many technological advances that are great in many ways, but we have this notion of unlimited technological growth and unlimited economic growth that really perplexes me. Everyone wants limitless "stuff," they want it brand-new and and still off-gassing chemicals into their nostrils as they tear open the package. I love the cell-phone commercials the most, probably, trying to make us feel "disconnected" because our smart phones aren't as hip or functional as they should be. Jack's at&t smartphone only runs at 1gH and doesn't have the new "find my car" app, so he's outside in the rain with cars driving by him through puddles and kicking up water all over him. And you people eat that sh!t up. Just about all of you do, not just iPod/iPad carrying metrosexuals. You are all sheep, paying out the a55 for services you don't need, just because someone has created the impression in your mind that you need it (or else you'll end up just like Jack).

Most of the products we buy are not worth creating in the first place. They can be unnecessary, low-quality, unhealthy, non-reusable, and downright unsustainable (typically through aggregate environmental effects). And all of them, just like my car example, help to build this incredibly undesirable society, full of people who are incredibly weak (both physically and mentally), disconnected from each other (FB vs RL?), and who are able to enjoy the natural environment less and less as it is taken from us in order to produce more artificiality. Technology doesn't created efficiency, it destroys it. If you take an 18-year old from 1950, and one from 2010, which one would be an overall better person? The 1950 person will come from an era where the family and community are stronger, the environment is stronger, they almost certainly get more exercise and eat more wholesome foods, and they probably have more free-time than we do DESPITE all of our time-saving creations working for us.

That you think this way only shows that you live in the world you're speaking of. There are plenty of healthy, brilliant people out there. The internet can be a tool of destruction or growth for anyone.
I'll be the one to protect you from
Your enemies and all your demons.
I'll be the one to protect you from
A will to survive and a voice of reason.
I'll be the one to protect you from
Your enemies and your choices, son.
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2013 8:52:40 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/14/2013 10:16:20 AM, toolpot462 wrote:

That you think this way only shows that you live in the world you're speaking of. There are plenty of healthy, brilliant people out there. The internet can be a tool of destruction or growth for anyone.

For anyone who first learns how to think.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,726
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2013 9:45:16 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
That you think this way only shows that you live in the world you're speaking of. There are plenty of healthy, brilliant people out there. The internet can be a tool of destruction or growth for anyone.

It can be bad or good, but I'm finding that it's almost exclusively the former. I'm not trying to say we should shut it down or stop developing it, I'm just saying that people are becoming obsessed with it and it makes no sense to learn how to live with the internet until you are able to live without it first. I would say that if most of you lost your internet connection tomorrow, you would be lost and unable to function in many capacities, despite the fact that the internet has only gained significant popularity in the last 15 years and we did just fine before it came around.

I have a particular distaste for the idea that technology is necessary in any form. In the environmental field, for example, there are many who believe new, clean technologies must be developed to save us from old, dirty technologies. The problem isn't that crude tech is dirty and new tech is clean, it's simply that there's an upper-limit as to how much we can cheat our environment for energy. There will never be a technology invented that gives us plentiful, cheap, clean energy. You can have one or two of these (e.g., plentiful and cheap) but that only means you must sacrifice the environment to achieve it.

The internet is similar in that we are sacrificing certain aspects of our lives in order to attain artificial desires that aren't as important as what we're sacrificing in the first place. People have this idea of utility sky-rocketing as technology progresses, but it simply isn't true. The modern American has all types of gadgets that expedite life, but these devices take from us more than they give.
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/18/2013 1:02:01 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/17/2013 9:45:16 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:
That you think this way only shows that you live in the world you're speaking of. There are plenty of healthy, brilliant people out there. The internet can be a tool of destruction or growth for anyone.

It can be bad or good, but I'm finding that it's almost exclusively the former. I'm not trying to say we should shut it down or stop developing it, I'm just saying that people are becoming obsessed with it and it makes no sense to learn how to live with the internet until you are able to live without it first. I would say that if most of you lost your internet connection tomorrow, you would be lost and unable to function in many capacities, despite the fact that the internet has only gained significant popularity in the last 15 years and we did just fine before it came around.

I got rid of my cell phone and people thought I was crazy...

How can you get by? What if something happens?

Um...I don't know...I'll do what I did in the 80s, before I got a cell phone...deal with it.

There have been a couple times when it would have been nice, especially because pay and public phones are becoming a dying breed, but most stores, especially if you're buying something anyway, will let you use their phones if you ask nicely, so it's really not a big deal...and, I like not being accessible 24/7.

I have a particular distaste for the idea that technology is necessary in any form. In the environmental field, for example, there are many who believe new, clean technologies must be developed to save us from old, dirty technologies. The problem isn't that crude tech is dirty and new tech is clean, it's simply that there's an upper-limit as to how much we can cheat our environment for energy. There will never be a technology invented that gives us plentiful, cheap, clean energy. You can have one or two of these (e.g., plentiful and cheap) but that only means you must sacrifice the environment to achieve it.

Tidal is pretty damn good, and I can't see the negative effects being of any consequence, or that there necessarily are negative effects. Thorium is pretty close to a zero negative effect technology as well, and given that it can use up some of the nasty waste from current nuclear plants, it may be a net positive to the environment while also supplying nearly limitless energy.

But yeah...wind and solar suck, for several reasons (though solar concentration tech ain't half bad)

The internet is similar in that we are sacrificing certain aspects of our lives in order to attain artificial desires that aren't as important as what we're sacrificing in the first place. People have this idea of utility sky-rocketing as technology progresses, but it simply isn't true. The modern American has all types of gadgets that expedite life, but these devices take from us more than they give.

I sacrificed TV. I'd say it's a net gain, but I agree with you, mostly.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,726
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2013 8:49:22 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/18/2013 1:02:01 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 3/17/2013 9:45:16 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:
That you think this way only shows that you live in the world you're speaking of. There are plenty of healthy, brilliant people out there. The internet can be a tool of destruction or growth for anyone.

It can be bad or good, but I'm finding that it's almost exclusively the former. I'm not trying to say we should shut it down or stop developing it, I'm just saying that people are becoming obsessed with it and it makes no sense to learn how to live with the internet until you are able to live without it first. I would say that if most of you lost your internet connection tomorrow, you would be lost and unable to function in many capacities, despite the fact that the internet has only gained significant popularity in the last 15 years and we did just fine before it came around.

I got rid of my cell phone and people thought I was crazy...

How can you get by? What if something happens?

Um...I don't know...I'll do what I did in the 80s, before I got a cell phone...deal with it.

There have been a couple times when it would have been nice, especially because pay and public phones are becoming a dying breed, but most stores, especially if you're buying something anyway, will let you use their phones if you ask nicely, so it's really not a big deal...and, I like not being accessible 24/7.

I have a particular distaste for the idea that technology is necessary in any form. In the environmental field, for example, there are many who believe new, clean technologies must be developed to save us from old, dirty technologies. The problem isn't that crude tech is dirty and new tech is clean, it's simply that there's an upper-limit as to how much we can cheat our environment for energy. There will never be a technology invented that gives us plentiful, cheap, clean energy. You can have one or two of these (e.g., plentiful and cheap) but that only means you must sacrifice the environment to achieve it.

Tidal is pretty damn good, and I can't see the negative effects being of any consequence, or that there necessarily are negative effects.

Not plentiful.

Thorium is pretty close to a zero negative effect technology as well, and given that it can use up some of the nasty waste from current nuclear plants, it may be a net positive to the environment while also supplying nearly limitless energy.

Not familiar with it, but if it were viable they'd be using it.
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2013 9:17:45 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/20/2013 8:49:22 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:
At 3/18/2013 1:02:01 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 3/17/2013 9:45:16 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:
That you think this way only shows that you live in the world you're speaking of. There are plenty of healthy, brilliant people out there. The internet can be a tool of destruction or growth for anyone.

It can be bad or good, but I'm finding that it's almost exclusively the former. I'm not trying to say we should shut it down or stop developing it, I'm just saying that people are becoming obsessed with it and it makes no sense to learn how to live with the internet until you are able to live without it first. I would say that if most of you lost your internet connection tomorrow, you would be lost and unable to function in many capacities, despite the fact that the internet has only gained significant popularity in the last 15 years and we did just fine before it came around.

I got rid of my cell phone and people thought I was crazy...

How can you get by? What if something happens?

Um...I don't know...I'll do what I did in the 80s, before I got a cell phone...deal with it.

There have been a couple times when it would have been nice, especially because pay and public phones are becoming a dying breed, but most stores, especially if you're buying something anyway, will let you use their phones if you ask nicely, so it's really not a big deal...and, I like not being accessible 24/7.

I have a particular distaste for the idea that technology is necessary in any form. In the environmental field, for example, there are many who believe new, clean technologies must be developed to save us from old, dirty technologies. The problem isn't that crude tech is dirty and new tech is clean, it's simply that there's an upper-limit as to how much we can cheat our environment for energy. There will never be a technology invented that gives us plentiful, cheap, clean energy. You can have one or two of these (e.g., plentiful and cheap) but that only means you must sacrifice the environment to achieve it.

Tidal is pretty damn good, and I can't see the negative effects being of any consequence, or that there necessarily are negative effects.

Not plentiful.

Thorium is pretty close to a zero negative effect technology as well, and given that it can use up some of the nasty waste from current nuclear plants, it may be a net positive to the environment while also supplying nearly limitless energy.

Not familiar with it, but if it were viable they'd be using it.

Couldn't this argument be used against any technology which we now have but at one point did not before it was developed?
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,726
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2013 10:21:40 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/20/2013 9:17:45 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 3/20/2013 8:49:22 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:
At 3/18/2013 1:02:01 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 3/17/2013 9:45:16 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:
That you think this way only shows that you live in the world you're speaking of. There are plenty of healthy, brilliant people out there. The internet can be a tool of destruction or growth for anyone.

It can be bad or good, but I'm finding that it's almost exclusively the former. I'm not trying to say we should shut it down or stop developing it, I'm just saying that people are becoming obsessed with it and it makes no sense to learn how to live with the internet until you are able to live without it first. I would say that if most of you lost your internet connection tomorrow, you would be lost and unable to function in many capacities, despite the fact that the internet has only gained significant popularity in the last 15 years and we did just fine before it came around.

I got rid of my cell phone and people thought I was crazy...

How can you get by? What if something happens?

Um...I don't know...I'll do what I did in the 80s, before I got a cell phone...deal with it.

There have been a couple times when it would have been nice, especially because pay and public phones are becoming a dying breed, but most stores, especially if you're buying something anyway, will let you use their phones if you ask nicely, so it's really not a big deal...and, I like not being accessible 24/7.

I have a particular distaste for the idea that technology is necessary in any form. In the environmental field, for example, there are many who believe new, clean technologies must be developed to save us from old, dirty technologies. The problem isn't that crude tech is dirty and new tech is clean, it's simply that there's an upper-limit as to how much we can cheat our environment for energy. There will never be a technology invented that gives us plentiful, cheap, clean energy. You can have one or two of these (e.g., plentiful and cheap) but that only means you must sacrifice the environment to achieve it.

Tidal is pretty damn good, and I can't see the negative effects being of any consequence, or that there necessarily are negative effects.

Not plentiful.

Thorium is pretty close to a zero negative effect technology as well, and given that it can use up some of the nasty waste from current nuclear plants, it may be a net positive to the environment while also supplying nearly limitless energy.

Not familiar with it, but if it were viable they'd be using it.

Couldn't this argument be used against any technology which we now have but at one point did not before it was developed?

It's not so much about "having" the technology as much as it is about technology just not being the answer. I could lay out every single conceivable energy source even hypothetically possible, and in every single case we are going to see that there is going to be some sort of cost involved that makes it prohibitive:
1) Damages the environment (e.g., fossil fuels, nuclear)
2) Is not renewable (e.g., fossil fuels, nuclear)
3) Is dangerous (e.g., nuclear, hydrogen)
4) Is intermittent/cannot deliver baseload power (e.g., solar/wind)
5) Is local (e.g., geothermal, tidal)
6) Is expensive (i.e., any high-tech futuristic solution)

The only option is to diversify our portfolio to minimize risk, control our population numbers, and most importantly use less energy! Waiting for a techno-miracle that is never going to come is not prudent. Futuristic technologies are likely to be very complex and unwieldy, making them dangerous and expensive. Star Trek is NOT coming even in a million years... Carrying around little fusion reactors to power things... Every citizen in town would have the potential energy to destroy the city :P
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2013 10:22:58 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/13/2013 6:12:08 PM, sadolite wrote:
Uh, machine operator here. I could do all of the things I use machines for by hand (old school) but it would take 10 to 100 times longer. I reject your premise about the traditional machinist. But I wholeheartedly agree about the Internet and regurgitation.

What do you specialize in? My grandfather was a tool and die maker all his life (except for a mechanic during the Korean war) and my uncle designs the metal frames for HDTV's.
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
THEVIRUS
Posts: 1,321
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2013 10:29:06 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/12/2013 11:52:28 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
A machinist is one who can only produce a product by way of the use of a machine.

Your computer, and its connect to the internet, is a machine of information, but information without understanding is a useless product.

We are creating a new era of machinists who believe they are intelligent because they understand how to search for, and regurgitate information, but not how to understand it (nor retain the information in memory).

Both the traditional machinist, as well as the New Machinist, are completely useless without their machines to perform all of the work for them.

True, but I consider the internet as a shortcut to the new stuff so we can develop and build of THAT, instead of developing better ways to do what we already can. The internet is like the answer key to Part 1 so you can move straight to Part 2
"So you want me to go to the judge with 'unit, corps, God, country'?" - A Few Good Men

"And the hits just keep on comin'." -A Few Good Men