The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
I was helping my Dad clean out his loft today - a day of work :-)
Anyway, I stumbled across some old school books of mine. Saw how crappy my handwriting was, and strangely remebered some of the lessons I had written someof the work in. It brought back a lot of memories, especially the face of a girl called Emily, as I hadher writing in my book.
I've ust got back from Dad's, and when I was there I was thumbing through an old Science book - and I started to notice howmuch Science has ruined everything.
For example, I was looking at an exercise about cars, air resistance, friction and pressure, which was trying to look at how a car moved and how the forces had to be unequal for a change in speed.
And then it doomed on me how much Science is ruining life. I don't care how a car moves forward, I don't care how it competes with Air Resistance, I don't care about air Molecules bouncing off my car, and more hitting the car the faster I go. I want to sit in my car, and drive with the magic of having little idea of how it manages to move.
That was probably a bad example - but then, If I hadn't learnt about all this higgery-jiggery, I would think that the way a car worked was that you turn the engine on, and the harder you press down the accelerator, the faster the wheel spins and the faster the car goes. I now have a horrible feeling in my mind - like a child who has just been told that Santa is a lie. The magic has gone, and I see things the technical way.
Science is the scrooge of education.
Anyway, I stumbled across some old school books of mine. Saw how crappy my handwriting was, and strangely remebered some of the lessons I had written someof the work in. It brought back a lot of memories, especially the face of a girl called Emily, as I hadher writing in my book.
I've ust got back from Dad's, and when I was there I was thumbing through an old Science book - and I started to notice howmuch Science has ruined everything.
For example, I was looking at an exercise about cars, air resistance, friction and pressure, which was trying to look at how a car moved and how the forces had to be unequal for a change in speed.
And then it doomed on me how much Science is ruining life. I don't care how a car moves forward, I don't care how it competes with Air Resistance, I don't care about air Molecules bouncing off my car, and more hitting the car the faster I go. I want to sit in my car, and drive with the magic of having little idea of how it manages to move.
That was probably a bad example - but then, If I hadn't learnt about all this higgery-jiggery, I would think that the way a car worked was that you turn the engine on, and the harder you press down the accelerator, the faster the wheel spins and the faster the car goes. I now have a horrible feeling in my mind - like a child who has just been told that Santa is a lie. The magic has gone, and I see things the technical way.
Science is the scrooge of education.
Page:
Microchips wrote:
> In theory, yes. I have a question though. You say that NASA could
> have produced fake photo/film evidence, wouldn't it look at bit fishy
> tough?
It did - that's how people spotted it. Flags waving in the breeze that wouldn't exist on the moon, people well lit when they are in shadow, things appearing in front of the cross hairs that are apparently etched onto the camera......I could go on....
> In theory, yes. I have a question though. You say that NASA could
> have produced fake photo/film evidence, wouldn't it look at bit fishy
> tough?
It did - that's how people spotted it. Flags waving in the breeze that wouldn't exist on the moon, people well lit when they are in shadow, things appearing in front of the cross hairs that are apparently etched onto the camera......I could go on....
Blank wrote:
> So sending an un-living object to one planet means we can send living
> people to another?
In theory, yes. I have a question though. You say that NASA could have produced fake photo/film evidence, wouldn't it look at bit fishy tough?
If you can send a robot to Mars, you can send a human to the moon, without a doubt.
> So sending an un-living object to one planet means we can send living
> people to another?
In theory, yes. I have a question though. You say that NASA could have produced fake photo/film evidence, wouldn't it look at bit fishy tough?
If you can send a robot to Mars, you can send a human to the moon, without a doubt.
Stardust wrote:
> We have space, and the sea - both environments that, with science,
> could be used by populations.
Indeed, the sea could be of great use being about 70% of the Earths surface. You could also build self-contained cities that go miles into the sky, saving considerable space. Ultimatly these will both result in horrendous pollution to the point where Earth is uninhabitable. Thus space is our best bet.
Bye.
> We have space, and the sea - both environments that, with science,
> could be used by populations.
Indeed, the sea could be of great use being about 70% of the Earths surface. You could also build self-contained cities that go miles into the sky, saving considerable space. Ultimatly these will both result in horrendous pollution to the point where Earth is uninhabitable. Thus space is our best bet.
Bye.
I see the point about how our increasing medical technology leads to less people dying, but I also think that science will provide more answers to that problem.
We have space, and the sea - both environments that, with science, could be used by populations. Space is the greatest challenge, but an entirely possible one. America is getting very very close to new propulsion systems, and no doubt they're just the ones who get the media attention, but others will be doing likewise. We, as a race, need to extend our reach into space to survive.
A cynic could argue that, even the overpopulation resulting from better medical science is controlled in other ways.
We have space, and the sea - both environments that, with science, could be used by populations. Space is the greatest challenge, but an entirely possible one. America is getting very very close to new propulsion systems, and no doubt they're just the ones who get the media attention, but others will be doing likewise. We, as a race, need to extend our reach into space to survive.
A cynic could argue that, even the overpopulation resulting from better medical science is controlled in other ways.
Science and maths is the fundamental basis of Civilization along with culture and the arts and both are interlinked. Yet in a bitter irony it will be our downfall. Not from a weapon but quite possibly the saving of lives. The more illnesses we cure the closer we come as a species to our inevitable doom. Death is indeed natures way of sustaining the universe and as we say cure cancer we add more and more people to the worlds population roster. As much as I wouldn't want anyone I know to die of such things I am deep down aware that because we continue to defy nature we will eventually be so overpopulated that we will be competing for space to live in on the planet to the point of nuclear war. Ironic.
Ah well, never mind!
As for some of you who think that spending millions on space research is a waste of money when we should be curing poverty and hunger then A) consider my first point and B) consider the same scenerio 500 years back...you could say the same for exploring the new world. Space colonisation is our only hope and we only have a few centuries left before we end up in a sticky situation.
Also, may I just rant about 3rd world hunger? They starve because the population is too big for the enviroment to sustain them. If people will insist on mating every 3 seconds in a climate that consists of rocks and sand then it is quite obvious that your children won't survive. Remember that famines used to be commonplace in the Western world up until about 150 years ago and even less in some cases. Not that this means we should treat the 3rd world the same but just think that it is the same with animals; too many children and not enough food equals death to pan out the population. It doesn't help that we have no natural predators, though it could be argued that it is for this very reason that we kill each other.
The End.
Ah well, never mind!
As for some of you who think that spending millions on space research is a waste of money when we should be curing poverty and hunger then A) consider my first point and B) consider the same scenerio 500 years back...you could say the same for exploring the new world. Space colonisation is our only hope and we only have a few centuries left before we end up in a sticky situation.
Also, may I just rant about 3rd world hunger? They starve because the population is too big for the enviroment to sustain them. If people will insist on mating every 3 seconds in a climate that consists of rocks and sand then it is quite obvious that your children won't survive. Remember that famines used to be commonplace in the Western world up until about 150 years ago and even less in some cases. Not that this means we should treat the 3rd world the same but just think that it is the same with animals; too many children and not enough food equals death to pan out the population. It doesn't help that we have no natural predators, though it could be argued that it is for this very reason that we kill each other.
The End.
Stryke wrote:
> No. Science rocks. You're a gimp.
Aren't we in a pleasant mood today?
> No. Science rocks. You're a gimp.
Aren't we in a pleasant mood today?
Science isn't ruining life, but not believing in magic makes life dull. There's nothing wrong about indulging in outlandish ideas, just as long as they don't harden into fixed beliefs.
Infuse hocus-pocus into anything and everything.
The imagination needs the fodder of magic.
Infuse hocus-pocus into anything and everything.
The imagination needs the fodder of magic.
No. Science rocks. You're a gimp.
Blank wrote:
> Microchips wrote:
> Without science, we would never have walked on the moon,
>
> ...which is where I come with the "we never walked on the
> moon" debate. Well....we didn't. Or if we did, the photos given
> to us by NASA are fakes. There's lots and lots of proof.
Yes, maybe, but there's also lots of proof that we did. For instance, we sent the 'Rover' to Mars. If that was possible, surely we would be able to send Humans to the moon?
> Microchips wrote:
> Without science, we would never have walked on the moon,
>
> ...which is where I come with the "we never walked on the
> moon" debate. Well....we didn't. Or if we did, the photos given
> to us by NASA are fakes. There's lots and lots of proof.
Yes, maybe, but there's also lots of proof that we did. For instance, we sent the 'Rover' to Mars. If that was possible, surely we would be able to send Humans to the moon?
Page: