![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
ventaI need your help. Yes, yours.
Could you tell me - before you read what's under the cut - what you think constitutes a machine. Include any specific things it must or must not have. You may continue in comments if a textbox isn't long enough.
[Poll #1186515]
Recently I was involved in a guessing game. As games go, it wasn't a great one, it was "guess what Simon's second favourite sport is". Now, Simon is your typical pale, thin, smart indiekid who, in defiance of all stereotypes, plays a lot of football.
At the point at which I joined in the game, it had already been established that Simon's Second Favourite Sport (SSFS) involved a machine. Further questions established that the machine was not used for scoring, was integral to the sport...
Eventually, SSFS was identified as cycling. At which point I felt decidedly cheated. Firstly, because I don't think cycling is a sport - it's a means of getting from A to B, or at best a passtime. But I'm aware others don't agree on this one.
Secondly, I'd never call a bicycle a machine. I'm aware that they have been historically referred to as machines, but whenever I read it it strikes me as odd. After some thinking, I finally pinned down the problem: in my mind, a machine must be somehow powered (oil, gas, electricity, clockwork, but not human).
I feel it should also have moving parts, and perform some task which would otherwise be done laboriously by hand. However, the more I think about it, the more convinced I am that my definition wouldn't stand up in a court of law. My classification is much more arbitrary than I'd thought.
So...
[Poll #1186516]
When challenged, I insisted that bicycles should be categorised as "contraptions".
Could you tell me - before you read what's under the cut - what you think constitutes a machine. Include any specific things it must or must not have. You may continue in comments if a textbox isn't long enough.
[Poll #1186515]
Recently I was involved in a guessing game. As games go, it wasn't a great one, it was "guess what Simon's second favourite sport is". Now, Simon is your typical pale, thin, smart indiekid who, in defiance of all stereotypes, plays a lot of football.
At the point at which I joined in the game, it had already been established that Simon's Second Favourite Sport (SSFS) involved a machine. Further questions established that the machine was not used for scoring, was integral to the sport...
Eventually, SSFS was identified as cycling. At which point I felt decidedly cheated. Firstly, because I don't think cycling is a sport - it's a means of getting from A to B, or at best a passtime. But I'm aware others don't agree on this one.
Secondly, I'd never call a bicycle a machine. I'm aware that they have been historically referred to as machines, but whenever I read it it strikes me as odd. After some thinking, I finally pinned down the problem: in my mind, a machine must be somehow powered (oil, gas, electricity, clockwork, but not human).
I feel it should also have moving parts, and perform some task which would otherwise be done laboriously by hand. However, the more I think about it, the more convinced I am that my definition wouldn't stand up in a court of law. My classification is much more arbitrary than I'd thought.
So...
[Poll #1186516]
When challenged, I insisted that bicycles should be categorised as "contraptions".
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2008-05-12 02:18 pm (UTC)So by adding the fun definition then a bicycle isn't a machine, whereas a lawn mower is. It does however mean that a vibrator is demoted from its machine status... and it makes cars and chainsaws rather complicated as well.
However, I still stand by my 'pretty much everything is a machine of one sort or another, its just that it isn't always mankind which is operating or benefiting from the machinery' stance. It's both nauseatingly profound and a total cop-out at the same time...