Stopping Invention

This is a discussion on Stopping Invention within the A Brief History of Cprogramming.com forums, part of the Community Boards category; Bit a of a hypothetical here............ If you could go back in time, and stop one thing from being invented ...

  1. #1
    Still A Registered User DISGUISED's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    499

    Stopping Invention

    Bit a of a hypothetical here............

    If you could go back in time, and stop one thing from being invented what would it be?

    Believe it or not, I would say the car.
    Do I like my car? Yes
    Do I like to drive? Most of the time
    Do I think cars are beneficial? Of course, in a lot of ways
    Do I still think the world would have been better off without them? Yes I do, I would have prefered stress free super trains and a hell of a lot less concrete and pollution covering the Earth.

  2. #2
    Xei
    Xei is offline
    Registered User Xei's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Posts
    719
    I would rather not change anything from the past. Altering the past could result in radical change. So in retrospect to the automobile, changing it could potentially alter the technological state which we are at now, including humanity at large(which would result in the entire earth).
    "What are you after - the vague post of the week award?" - Salem
    IPv6 Ready.
    Travel the world, meet interesting people...kill them.
    Trying to fix or change something, only guaruntees and perpetuates its existence.
    I don't know about angels, but it is fear that gives men wings.
    The problem with wanting something is the fear of losing it, or never having it. The thought makes you weak.

    E-Mail Xei

  3. #3
    Magically delicious LuckY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    856
    A much more interesting idea to ponder, I think, is what if someone actually has gone back in time and did stop something from being invented? Think about that.

    I think it would be a wash. You couldn't stop something from being invented forever. At most you would be able to postpone it's creation. Anyway, if I could go back, I'd stop AIDS.

  4. #4
    Senior Member joshdick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Phildelphia, PA
    Posts
    1,146
    I think I'd inform some people in Florida how to punch in the correct hole on a ballot. That would make the world a much better place.
    FAQ

    "The computer programmer is a creator of universes for which he alone is responsible. Universes of virtually unlimited complexity can be created in the form of computer programs." -- Joseph Weizenbaum.

    "If you cannot grok the overall structure of a program while taking a shower, you are not ready to code it." -- Richard Pattis.

  5. #5
    Magically delicious LuckY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    856
    It's funny how you'd rather do that than stop (but preferably kill) Bin-Laden. That would make the world a much better place.

  6. #6
    Cheesy Poofs! PJYelton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Boulder
    Posts
    1,728
    Without a doubt, I'd go back in time and stop the invention that is the bane of human existance, the ChiaPet.

  7. #7
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    168
    I would stop the grand-grand-grand-grandfather of my arch enemy to be born
    -Felix
    Rots Soft
    If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts.
    Albert Einstein (1879 - 1955)

  8. #8
    Mayor of Awesometown Govtcheez's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    MI
    Posts
    8,825
    I'd kill Carrottop.

    Wait, I can do that now.

    /afk

  9. #9
    Senior Member joshdick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Phildelphia, PA
    Posts
    1,146
    Originally posted by LuckY
    It's funny how you'd rather do that than stop (but preferably kill) Bin-Laden. That would make the world a much better place.
    You make it sound like he's the only terrorist in the world. If you kill the president, does that mean that our country can't go on? Of course not; someone steps in to take his place. Likewise, killing Bin Laden would solve nothing. He's just one of many who wish to do harm to our country.

    More change would be affected by changing our entire administration than by murdering the head of an international terrorist organization.
    FAQ

    "The computer programmer is a creator of universes for which he alone is responsible. Universes of virtually unlimited complexity can be created in the form of computer programs." -- Joseph Weizenbaum.

    "If you cannot grok the overall structure of a program while taking a shower, you are not ready to code it." -- Richard Pattis.

  10. #10
    Magically delicious LuckY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    856
    Originally posted by joshdick
    You make it sound like he's the only terrorist in the world. If you kill the president, does that mean that our country can't go on? Of course not; someone steps in to take his place. Likewise, killing Bin Laden would solve nothing. He's just one of many who wish to do harm to our country.

    More change would be affected by changing our entire administration than by murdering the head of an international terrorist organization.
    I had to read your post twice to be sure you actually said what you said. I make it sound like he's the only terrorist? No, what I make it sound like is that he is single-handedly responsible for murdering the most innocent people on our soil in the history of our country. I honestly cannot believe what a ..........ing moron you are. I was very simply pointing out that if we could go back, why just de-elect W so he couldn't wage war against Iraq (which is apparently what you're so unhappy about) when instead you could prevent the most disasterous terrorist attack to ever strike us? Of course he's not the only terrorist in the world you flaming ........... I did not elude to the contrary.
    "Killing Bin Laden would solve nothing." Oh really? Killing him before he planned 9/11 would solve the fate of those thousands of people. Jesus Christ I can't believe I have to explain this to you. So I suppose going back and killing Hitler would have solved nothing as well right? There are just other psychopathic genocidal maniacs to replace him, so if we in fact had the power to go back and kill him, we should instead go back and get a president elected who would keep us out of WWII no matter what, right?
    Pull your thick head out of your ass, if that is even possible (but from the idiocy you are demonstrating I severely doubt it).

  11. #11
    The Earth is not flat. Clyde's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    1,420
    I honestly cannot believe what a ..........ing moron you are
    ... He's simply saying that removing Bin Laden might not make any difference because someone would probably take his place.

    when instead you could prevent the most disasterous terrorist attack to ever strike us?
    How do you know that Bin Laden is key?

    I mean he might be, but why are you so sure he is?

    So I suppose going back and killing Hitler would have solved nothing as well right?
    There is a difference, i think, because Hitler forged the Nazi party his charisma entranced thousands, he was much more driven than those around him. I think you can make much more of a case that he really was key.

    But Bin Laden is just another rich fundamentalist. There are many out there just as determined as he.

    Again i'm not sure if Bin Laden is entirely unimportant, but i certaintly don't think removing him would mean that we would avoid a terrorist uprising against America that seems inevitable given the attitudes in the Muslim world to American foreign policy.

    With Hitler... well certaintly the situation in Germany was a platform for extremism but I don't think all the horrors of the second world war were an inevitability given the problems in Germany.
    Last edited by Clyde; 11-20-2003 at 01:01 PM.
    Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem

  12. #12
    Magically delicious LuckY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    856
    Thank you for responding Clyde. I am happy to discuss this in an even-tempered manner.
    How do you know that Bin Laden is key?

    I mean he might be, but why are you so sure he is?
    I am so sure of it because all evidence points to him. Specifically, he admitted to it. He is the head-master of the terrorist organization and the training camps to which the hijackers belonged.
    There is a difference, i think, because Hitler forged the Nazi party his charisma entranced thousands... But Bin Laden is just another rich fundamentalist.
    Indeed there is a difference, but much more slight than you are letting on. Hitler entranced his nation like no one else at the time could because of his unique personality and Osama is now entrancing probably millions of America-haters like no one else not because of his uniqueness, but because he has the means (namely billions of dollars and a single recognizable face among the people and a world-wide network of well-funded terrorist cells). He is not simply "another rich fundamentalist."
    Again, it is true that were we to eliminate him before he planned 9/11 (and even still now) there are others waiting in line behind him to attack us, but my entire point in all this discussion is that it is a profound revelation to exclaim that you think having a different president is more important than saving the 3000+ innocent people who died 2 years ago.
    Regardless of what Osama did/didn't do, future attacks against America from within are imminent. Changing presidents isn't going to prevent a single one (not literally, but you catch my drift).

  13. #13
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Vancouver
    Posts
    2,220
    George W Bush is a lot more dangerous than Osama Bin Laden. Osama was a small time terrorist. George is a big time terrorist.

  14. #14
    The Earth is not flat. Clyde's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    1,420
    I am so sure of it because all evidence points to him. Specifically, he admitted to it. He is the head-master of the terrorist organization and the training camps to which the hijackers belonged.
    Oh i'm sure he did do it, but as far as i know he didn't create Al-quida (or did he?), and even if he did, if there wasn't an Al-quida there would still have been other terrorist militants.

    The specific event may have been different but i think you can make a fairly strong case that terrorist action was inevitable.

    Indeed there is a difference, but much more slight than you are letting on. Hitler entranced his nation like no one else at the time could because of his unique personality and Osama is now entrancing probably millions of America-haters like no one else not because of his uniqueness, but because he has the means (namely billions of dollars and a single recognizable face among the people and a world-wide network of well-funded terrorist cells). He is not simply "another rich fundamentalist."
    But fundamentalist predate him, so too does organised fundamentalist terror networks. If the only thing that makes him different is his money, well there are other rich fundamentalists.

    Given the growing anti-American feeling in the Muslim world, it seems inevitable that anti-American terrorist networks would form, and dire consequences result.

    Again, it is true that were we to eliminate him before he planned 9/11 (and even still now) there are others waiting in line behind him to attack us, but my entire point in all this discussion is that it is a profound revelation to exclaim that you think having a different president is more important than saving the 3000+ innocent people who died 2 years ago.
    Whilst it may well have saved the people who died in the 2 towers on 9/11. Maybe there would have been a 13/02, maybe it would have been a different site. Who knows.

    Perhaps a different response after 9/11 could have done much to ease the tensions in the Muslim world, perhaps we are heading towards a nightmare scenario where the terrorists and the Western governments each continually scale up the violence of their responses.

    Lots of "perhaps"'s to be sure, but then given the nature of the original question that's all we have.
    Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem

  15. #15
    Still A Registered User DISGUISED's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    499
    This thread was intended to be lighthearted and a fun discussion to escape to from the other popular threads on the board atm. keep it on topic if at all possible please.

    Oh, wait a sec .. I forgot what forum I was on

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Popular pages Recent additions subscribe to a feed

Similar Threads

  1. Multithreading (flag stopping a thread, ring buffer) volatile
    By ShwangShwing in forum C Programming
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 05-19-2009, 08:27 AM
  2. beginner question about stopping a for-loop.
    By Techboy10 in forum C Programming
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 12-11-2008, 05:15 PM
  3. Stopping Processes Question
    By brett in forum Linux Programming
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 06-24-2007, 11:15 PM
  4. stopping in else block
    By linuxman in forum C Programming
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 03-24-2004, 08:35 PM
  5. re: Stopping Invention
    By SinAmerica in forum A Brief History of Cprogramming.com
    Replies: 36
    Last Post: 11-25-2003, 11:58 PM

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21