That's a completely false assumption. Just because a computer can do more varied things (and lets be honest, it can only crunch and compare numbers in the end) does not mean it can do more "meaningful" things. That's just saying that based on MY criteria the computer is more meaningful, but if you were a formula 1 driver, the car's engineering would be much more meaningful. The car is designed to fill a niche role in our lives, and doing it with the level of refinement and efficiency we expect these days, it is a very advanced piece of kit.
What I mean by "meaningful complexity" is that the exact way in which the atoms are arranged on a small scale actually matters to us in a computer, while it does not in a car. If you were measuring complexity solely in an information-theoretic manner, a car has many more atoms than a computer, and so would be more complex, in a sense. However, the difference is that while rearranging a small number of atoms in a CPU could break it, it is not so for a car.
To put it in simpler terms, modern consumer CPUs have almost a billion transistors. How many parts are there in a car?
To put it in simpler terms, modern consumer CPUs have almost a billion transistors. How many parts are there in a car?
That's in no way a fair comparison as nearly every part on the car is considerably more complex than a transistor. Sure a switch is 3 or 4 parts, but a cylinder head is one part. A modern cylinder head has had thousands and thousands of hours spent on it to get the air and fuel to swirl in just the right way. Same thing inside my engine. Sure a connecting rod and cap is about 6 pieces, but the assembly is built to withstand acceleration in excess of 26,500 m/s^2, that's more than 2700 times gravity. I could go on, but I think you get the idea.
You're saying the CPU is more advanced because it's smaller. I'm arguing that in terms of the amount of man hours that went into them, they're actually much closer than you might think.
That's in no way a fair comparison as nearly every part on the car is considerably more complex than a transistor. Sure a switch is 3 or 4 parts, but a cylinder head is one part. A modern cylinder head has had thousands and thousands of hours spent on it to get the air and fuel to swirl in just the right way. Same thing inside my engine. Sure a connecting rod and cap is about 6 pieces, but the assembly is built to withstand acceleration in excess of 26,500 m/s^2, that's more than 2700 times gravity. I could go on, but I think you get the idea.
Also, your engine harnesses the force of hundreds of explosions a second to provide motive force in your car, which is pretty awesome just about any way you look at it.
Also, your engine harnesses the force of hundreds of explosions a second to provide motive force in your car, which is pretty awesome just about any way you look at it.
They're different sorts of complicated. The modern car is a marvel of modern mechanical engineering. Microelectronics engineering is also incredibly impressive.
Let me put it this way: modern engineering is fucking incredible. The things we humans can do are endlessly amazing.
They're different sorts of complicated. The modern car is a marvel of modern mechanical engineering. Microelectronics engineering is also incredibly impressive.
Let me put it this way: modern engineering is fucking incredible. The things we humans can do are endlessly amazing.
Thank you for getting exactly what I was driving at.
You're saying the CPU is more advanced because it's smaller. I'm arguing that in terms of the amount of man hours that went into them, they're actually much closer than you might think.
Advanced is not the same thing as complex. I agree they're equally advanced, but not equally complex.
You're saying the CPU is more advanced because it's smaller. I'm arguing that in terms of the amount of man hours that went into them, they're actually much closer than you might think.
Advanced is not the same thing as complex. I agree they're equally advanced, but not equally complex.
Then I would further argue that in terms of the value of technology, how advanced it is is far more important than how complex it is, and that complexity is just one of a myriad ways of determining how advanced something is.
Yeah... I'm not downloading iTunes, I don't care what it is.
You're serious?
I know what iTunes is, obviously. I just mean that, no matter what might be available exclusively through the iTunes store, It will never be worth the pain that will follow installing iTunes, and with it Quicktime and apple's automatic update.
I drive in winnipeg, so it's more or less an exercise of steeling your nerves and avoiding the kamikaze drivers and refraining from murder. This hellhole is not a fun place to go driving, the roads are shitty, the people are stupid and trying to find things is really difficult. If you haven't been here, than don't come!
I know it was talked about before, but it's cool whatever you prefer. I love driving manual. It's weird whenever I drive automatics, but I understand how nice they are when it comes to stop and go traffic.
It's a skill that I'm happy to have learned and don't consider obsolete unlike what others think.
I know it was talked about before, but it's cool whatever you prefer. I love driving manual. It's weird whenever I drive automatics, but I understand how nice they are when it comes to stop and go traffic.
It's a skill that I'm happy to have learned and don't consider obsolete unlike what others think.
I know it was talked about before, but it's cool whatever you prefer. I love driving manual. It's weird whenever I drive automatics, but I understand how nice they are when it comes to stop and go traffic.
It's a skill that I'm happy to have learned and don't consider obsolete unlike what others think.
I'd love to learn to drive stick. I'm just afraid of wrecking someone's car while trying to drive it, since mine is an automatic. If soemone wants to teach me to drive manual in their car and is willing to accept the risks, I'm game.
I'd love to learn to drive stick. I'm just afraid of wrecking someone's car while trying to drive it, since mine is an automatic. If soemone wants to teach me to drive manual in their car and is willing to accept the risks, I'm game.
The only risk I gave my parents Volvo was wearing out the clutch, which had to get repaired a year after I started learning how to drive. However, I think the clutch was the original one the car came with.
I'd love to learn to drive stick. I'm just afraid of wrecking someone's car while trying to drive it, since mine is an automatic. If soemone wants to teach me to drive manual in their car and is willing to accept the risks, I'm game.
I'd love to learn to drive stick. I'm just afraid of wrecking someone's car while trying to drive it, since mine is an automatic. If soemone wants to teach me to drive manual in their car and is willing to accept the risks, I'm game.
I'd love to learn to drive stick. I'm just afraid of wrecking someone's car while trying to drive it, since mine is an automatic. If someone wants to teach me to drive manual in their car and is willing to accept the risks, I'm game.
There's this job some people practice. It's called Driving Instructor. For an amount of money they teach you how to drive stick in a vehicle specifically adapted to teaching said skill.
Next time I visit, it's on.
Don't fucking do that unless you have at the least two braking paddles in your car on either side.
The problem here being is that 1) children with yet insufficient responsibility and ability to deal with said responsibility are taught how to drive in the US, and 2) they're being taught the lowest level of skill required (not just talking about the lack of stick here) to function solely in a vehicle and get somewhere. It's a miracle there's not more accidents happening on a day to day basis than there are, if you ask me.
"The problem is that Jen refuses to learn how to drive a stick shift car, citing her unsure driving nature and the safety of their baby boy."
Lol, what? Sounds like she's making excuses for being shitty at driving.
Yeah, she pretty much was. I listened to that yesterday, and basically she was making excuses not to learn because she was afraid to learn, because she'd only ever driven autos. In the end, Hodgeman ruled she had to learn, and that the husband had to buy a newer, more reliable car so that they could still drive both cars, rather than him riding his motorbike all the time.
Comments
If you were measuring complexity solely in an information-theoretic manner, a car has many more atoms than a computer, and so would be more complex, in a sense. However, the difference is that while rearranging a small number of atoms in a CPU could break it, it is not so for a car.
To put it in simpler terms, modern consumer CPUs have almost a billion transistors. How many parts are there in a car?
You're saying the CPU is more advanced because it's smaller. I'm arguing that in terms of the amount of man hours that went into them, they're actually much closer than you might think.
Let me put it this way: modern engineering is fucking incredible. The things we humans can do are endlessly amazing.
I know it was talked about before, but it's cool whatever you prefer. I love driving manual. It's weird whenever I drive automatics, but I understand how nice they are when it comes to stop and go traffic.
It's a skill that I'm happy to have learned and don't consider obsolete unlike what others think.
Lol, what? Sounds like she's making excuses for being shitty at driving.
Kind of excited.
The problem here being is that 1) children with yet insufficient responsibility and ability to deal with said responsibility are taught how to drive in the US, and 2) they're being taught the lowest level of skill required (not just talking about the lack of stick here) to function solely in a vehicle and get somewhere. It's a miracle there's not more accidents happening on a day to day basis than there are, if you ask me.