Ten Weirdest Types of Computers

An anonymous reader writes to mention that New Scientist has a quick round-up of what they consider to be the ten weirdest types of computers. The list includes everything from quantum computers, to slime molds, to pails of water. "Perhaps the most unlikely place to see computing power is in the ripples in a tank of water. Using a ripple tank and an overhead camera, Chrisantha Fernando and Sampsa Sojakka at the University of Sussex, used wave patterns to make a type of logic gate called an "exclusive OR gate", or XOR gate."

Comments

It ain't ...

[Anonymous Coward]

a computer if I can't get pr0n.

Re:It ain't ...

[Anonymous Coward]

OK editors, forget this is /.? Do you really think you have to explain the words behind XOR?

Re:It ain't ...

[Anonymous Coward]

For the great majority of Slashdot's readers these days, if you gave them a pencil and paper and asked them to demonstrate an xor of two numbers, say 6 and 12, they wouldn't know where to start. Time was when this wasn't so, and not coincidentally, Slashdot was a far more interesting place.

Now we just have a majority of opinionated, non-technical idiots and children who once installed Linux screaming about technology they know absolutely nothing about.

For a while there, though, it was great.

Re:It ain't ...

[uglyduckling]

Well... uh... imagine this piece of paper is the universe, and this pencil is a quantum singularity in n-th dimensional space. No, better still, imagaine that this salt cellar is the universe and this napkin is a small black hole - uh, no, that doesn't work... in fact, *thunk*.

Re:It ain't ...

[lattyware]

Now we just have a majority of opinionated, non-technical idiots and children who once installed Linux screaming about technology they know absolutely nothing about. And those guys who whine about how shit things are, and yet still manage to post.

Re:It ain't ...

[Schlage]

What a time to not have mod points... -1 Troll, and +1 Ironic, to parent if I did. ;-)

Re:It ain't ...

[Anonymous Coward]

And sense when is an XOR gate a type of computer? That's a stretch.

Re:It ain't ...

[TwistedOne151]

6 XOR 12=10 (in binary, 0110 XOR 1100 = 1010).

Re:It ain't ...

[cyphercell]

I knew that once. Don't use it much anymore.

Re:It ain't ...

[rhyder128k]

How do you maintain good performance for your masked sprite routines on your Commodore 64?

Re:It ain't ...

[DiegoBravo]

Slashdot should provide one special "yearly non refundable" mod point for extreme cases where you really have to mod up/down, BTW the current thread doesn't deserve it.

What about the weirdest computer of all?

[MaDMvD]

The brain.

Re:What about the weirdest computer of all?

[Anonymous Coward]

this is the kind of crap they say on the science channel... the science channel is about on par with 5th grade thinking.

So that brings up an important question -- is MaDMvD smarter than a fifth grader?

Re:What about the weirdest computer of all?

[CRCulver]

In his early Known Space stories collected in Tales of Known Space Larry Niven forsaw a future 1975 (ha) where the brains of people managled in car accidents are integrated into spacecraft for guidance, allowing them to continue contributing to society even if their bodies are gone. This entire idea of "brain in a jar" science fiction seems to have faded out with the 1970s.

Re:What about the weirdest computer of all?

[MaDMvD]

So I gather you disagree, from your semi-intelligible response? Did we (collective humanity) or did we not create the computer you are reading this on? Did we not bring about the technological advances that are stated in the very article you are replying (hardly) to? If so, then are we not the ultimate computer? Equipped w/ the highest resolution video, audio, CPU/logic, etc?

Re:What about the weirdest computer of all?

[Anonymous Coward]

except, of course, for "Krang" in Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, the historical characters in Futurama, etc...

Re:What about the weirdest computer of all?

[Naughty Bob]

You'd be interested to know that rat's brain cells have already (the linked article is from 2004) been harnessed to fly a virtual F-22.

The singularity, as the man said, is near.

Re:What about the weirdest computer of all?

[syukton]

An analog asymmetric multiprocessing system complete with random-access memory and a variable-speed bus. Truly, quite weird.

Re:What about the weirdest computer of all?

[knarfling]

Actually, check out Anne McCaffrey's Brainships series. Although the first one, "The Ship Who Sang" was written in 1969, several others like "The Ship Who Searched", and "The City Who Fought" were written in the early 1990's. The last one that I know of, "The City and the Ship" came out in 2004.

I realize that the only one written only by Anne McCaffrey was the original, "The Ship Who Sang", and the others were co-written by other authors. (Usually that means written by other authors using McCaffrey's universe and published with her name and by her permission so as to get better sales.) However, that means that there are several other authors that like to write using the "brain in a [jar|box|ship]" theme.

Re:What about the weirdest computer of all?

[Daimanta]

The singularity, as the man said, is near. And I still don't have my flying car!

Re:What about the weirdest computer of all?

[Reziac]

Worse -- MY brain!

[looking around the room]

Or possibly my computer, which has a mind of its own. ;)

Re:What about the weirdest computer of all?

[geekboy642]

Hi, oh Anonymous Coward. You may have forgotten something, seeing as you've been posting on Slashdot since before CmdrTaco registered, but "Anonymous Coward" isn't exactly a "low uid". In point of fact, I'd say you rank at just about a 12-digit UID.

Go troll Digg, that's a good place for idiots who have nothing better to do than spew pointless venom.

Re:What about the weirdest computer of all?

[truthsearch]

No, but apparently you do now have your flying rats... oh, wait...

Re:What about the weirdest computer of all?

[geekboy642]

I absolutely love that entire series. Then again, I'm definitely a McCaffrey fanboi, anything written in her universe makes me giddy.

Re:What about the weirdest computer of all?

[The Great Pretender]

FTA - "Ferdinando Mussa-Ivaldi of Northwestern University in Chicago has shown how a few brain cells from a lamprey, a primitive eel-like vertebrate can be used to control a robot."

I would like to be the first to welcome our robot controlling, primitive eel-like vertebrate Overlords and welcome them to harness the power of our captive rat brain cells for virtual war.

Re:What about the weirdest computer of all?

[ppc_digger]

I'm pretty sure Pinky is weirder.

Re:What about the weirdest computer of all?

[geekoid]

Singularity is a myth perpetuated by people with no imagination.

Re:What about the weirdest computer of all?

[c6gunner]

So I gather you disagree, from your semi-intelligible response? Did we (collective humanity) or did we not create the computer you are reading this on? Did we not bring about the technological advances that are stated in the very article you are replying (hardly) to? If so, then are we not the ultimate computer? Equipped w/ the highest resolution video, audio, CPU/logic, etc?

Nope. We also created the nuclear bomb, but we're not the ultimate explosion.

Your logic is faulty because there is no rule which states that extremely complex systems have to be created by even more complex systems. This is the same logical fallacy which creationists often advance in order to "prove" the existence of God: the idea that because humans are complex, there must be an even more complex being which created us. In reality, it is quite possible for complex systems to be created as a product of random chance, or natural selection.

As for humans being equipped with "the highest resolution video, audio, CPU/logic, etc", that's just plain silly. Computers can detect and display video at resolutions (and in light spectrums) which are undetectable by the human eye. They can detect and produce sounds which would be inaudible to us. And when it comes to raw number-crunching ability....well, don't be silly. I'd like to see you sit down and brute-force an NT LM hash in your head. Hell, I'll be generous and let you use a pen and paper!

BTW, the guy you were responding to was clearly making a joke. Lighten up.

Re:What about the weirdest computer of all?

[c6gunner]

In his early Known Space stories collected in Tales of Known Space [amazon.com] Larry Niven forsaw a future 1975 (ha) where the brains of people managled in car accidents are integrated into spacecraft for guidance, allowing them to continue contributing to society even if their bodies are gone.

Some idiot who can't even handle a car ends up causing a massive accident, and Niven wants to let him drive a spaceship? Great idea! What could possibly go wrong?

On the bright side, I hear collisions at relativistic velocities are rather painless....

Re:What about the weirdest computer of all?

[Naughty Bob]

Singularity is a myth perpetuated by people with no imagination. So when, mighty imaginer, will computing power plateau?

Re:What about the weirdest computer of all?

[edumacator]

I think the underlying principle the original post was trying to make remains valid. And c6gunner, I think you made the leap in inference when you think he's saying complex things have to come from other complex things. I think he was implying that the human wetworks are pretty impressive to have dreamed up taking ones and zeros and making them into such marvelous things. You have to give him that right.

And to the resolution point. I think you're thinking too literally. Show me a computer that can discern a great masterpiece from a technically proficient work. Show me a computer that can tell what that woman isn't fine, when she says she is. Show me a computer that can identify irony in text. Once I see those things, I will willingly welcome our binary overlords.

Re:What about the weirdest computer of all?

[CustomDesigned]

Your logic is faulty because there is no rule which states that extremely complex systems have to be created by even more complex systems. This is the same logical fallacy which creationists often advance in order to "prove" the existence of God. You are correct when talking strictly about complexity. Intelligent Design people, however, are talking about "chosen" or "specified" complexity. For instance, the number Boggle arrangements is its complexity, but when a person selects a particular arrangement (as opposed to tossing the cubes), that is specified complexity. If an arrangement forms an English sentence, then your judgment of the likelyhood that this was a random roll or selected by an English speaking person would revolve around the Total English Boggle Combinations / Total Boggle Combinations.

This kind of specified complexity is the mirror of entropy - it can only decrease (the message is gradually eroded), with a proof similar to the laws of thermodynamics. No amount of chance plus natural selection will expand the message to reveal more of what the author intended to say.

The philosophical problem comes with detecting design by non-human intelligence, possibly not even part of this universe. There are a ton of presuppositions as to how to recognize a message vs noise. The SETI project has to assume that the hoped for aliens think like us in certain aspects. And you run smack against the anthropic principal as an all purpose alternative for the philosophical materialist.

The materialist basically says that the Boggle cubes all come up in English because the universe has an English filter that is more likely to destroy combinations that are less like English. It is not surprising to the materialist that the universe has this property (that survival would produce intelligence). It is just the nature of the universe. And if it wasn't that way, we wouldn't be here to talk about it.

And once you assume that the universe selects for intelligence, it is no longer surprising that the low level systems supporting that intelligence (cell biology) also appear to be designed. A materialist scientist would even act like an ID scientist and look for "evolutionary strategies" as if there were a Designer, because a universe that selects for intelligence is effectively that.

In fact, textbooks talk about how Evolution did this and Evolution did that, and Evolution found an amazing solution to this problem. (Without actually detailing the step by step evolution of this or that.) The text is just as informative if "Flying Spaghetti Monster" or "God" is substituted for "Evolution".

The war between philosophical materialism and and intelligent design is essentially a religious war, and has very little to do with science.

Re:What about the weirdest computer of all?

[dfedfe]

I take it you mean the brain, but my instinct is to say that brain memory should be considered content addressable (i.e. associative) rather than random-access, but perhaps they are not strictly opposites. Certainly, though, I can't think of any random access processes in the brain. On the other hand, sequential access is a reasonable claim, at least for procedural (performance of learned sequences of actions) and episodic memory (memory for personal events in a spatiotemporal context, implying the ability to recall "the next moment in time" given a starting point).

Re:What about the weirdest computer of all?

[Anonymous Coward]

The dummy plugs don't work!

Re:What about the weirdest computer of all?

[Anonymous Coward]

bombidier to pilot target is at 12 oclock do we drop the load...Sir those look like well cats sir. Why are we bombing those poor animals sir? SQQUUUEEEEKKKK!

Re:What about the weirdest computer of all?

[Aetuneo]

Wait, there are 90 Megapixel sensors for computers now? Why did no one tell me about this?

Re:What about the weirdest computer of all?

[syukton]

The strange dreams people have would seem more random than associative, although they may indeed be associative on some level. Although the single best example I can think of is simple creativity. One's ability to create new things, come up with new ideas, look at things from a different perspective, those seem like random-ish processes.

Re:What about the weirdest computer of all?

[dfedfe]

I more or less agree with those statements, but you've just swapped your use of the word random away from random access memory (which is what we were talking about and which doesn't mean items in memory must be retrieved at random) to talk of random processes.

Clearly elements in an associative memory can be retrieved at random by using noise as a retrieval key and that is more akin to the type of randomness you've just mentioned (and with which I tend to agree).

Re:What about the weirdest computer of all?

[Anonymous Coward]

On the bright side, I hear collisions at relativistic velocities are rather painless....

Are you sure? Thanks to time dilation, the moment of impact would take darn near forever!

Re:What about the weirdest computer of all?

[Anonymous Coward]

Have not read Anne's books, frankly the dragon thing is a turn-off. But a similar ship-brain concept was explored in a book called The Star Wolves by Thorarrin Gunnarson (sp?) wherein outcasts of humanity -space pirates of a sort- with giant thinking computer spaceships had to raid a city run by computer which was formerly the brain of a ship. It alone remembered how to find Earth.

So the pirates broke in and stole it.

It was probably a stupid, simple scifi thing but I recall thinking it would have made an awesome TV show.

Re:What about the weirdest computer of all?

[Whiteox]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donovan's_Brain was the earliest piece I read ages ago.
The article also explores the development of the theme.

A reference to the title can also be found at the end of the Larry Niven short story Becalmed in Hell, in which the character Eric, who lives as a brain and spinal cord on life-support, and works as the directly-connected controller of a NASA exploratory vessel, signs a telegram "DONOVAN'S BRAIN", either as a joke of his own or because Niven surnamed the character "Donovan" in homage.

Re:What about the weirdest computer of all?

[jd]

The philosophical problem comes with detecting design by non-human intelligence, possibly not even part of this universe. There are a ton of presuppositions as to how to recognize a message vs noise.

Yes and no. You cannot distinguish any signal from noise, but you CAN distinguish certain categories of signal from noise. For example, virtually nothing emits much of a signal at the frequency popularly known as "the water-hole". It's (almost) certainly not a maximum for anything. Natural sources are also generally unpolarised, unmodulated, either "random" (chaotic) or periodic, generally cover a fairly wide range of frequencies and have very specific energy characteristics according to the type of body.

It's probably not safe to go with just one parameter - pulsars were thought to be alien at one point because of that - but if you had three out of the six, it would not be unreasonable to suspect alien intelligence. Five or more, and youd need to be a hard-boiled cynic to insist on a natural origin.

So how do you know if something is "random" or not? A random signal will follow a distribution. It doesn't matter what the distribution is, you don't need to care. If you use a very long baseline and the distribution remains more-or-less constant, you have a random signal. This is because a large enough sample size will not have random values but will follow the probability for any given value very closely. Chaotic systems are (dynamically) "stable" and therefore won't vary for a long enough baseline. Non-random sources may or may not vary in their characteristics on a long baseline, but if a system is never stable over any baseline no matter how long, it's not random. There is no definable probability of anything, none of the usual rules governing randomness apply. That doesn't make it alien, there may be naturally-occuring systems that work off the prime number sequence, so you look and see if any other criteria apply.

What if an alien works off some exotic system we don't know anything about? The six criteria I listed will tell you if the source looks and acts natural, on the basis that the more exotic something is, the less likely it is to be indistinguishable from natural sources. We don't have to know anything about how "they" think or organize things, we only have to know that nature neither thinks nor organizes.

Re:What about the weirdest computer of all?

[Anonymous Coward]

I know I won't be popular here with this question but I'm really interested -- you write:

"In reality, it is quite possible for complex systems to be created as a product of random chance, or natural selection."

Care to mention a proven recent example (not a *theory* like that of the evolution)? Thanks.

Re:What about the weirdest computer of all?

[jd]

So I gather you disagree, from your semi-intelligible response? Did we (collective humanity) or did we not create the computer you are reading this on? Did we not bring about the technological advances that are stated in the very article you are replying (hardly) to? If so, then are we not the ultimate computer? Equipped w/ the highest resolution video, audio, CPU/logic, etc?

Alan Turing was rather abhored by the collective humanity at the time, due to his orientation, so I'm not sure collective humanity has any right to barge in on his invention.

As for whether we are the ultimate computer, the computing power of the brain is limited by many factors. Chemical signals are slow, electrical signals are faster but are still very limited, the ability to eliminate heat is rather poor, the circulation of nutrients is limited, a lot of infrastructure is taken up by legacy functions, and redundant wiring and neurons die back after the first 20 years of operation. In terms of I/O, the human brain has a lot but is not the best. Dolphins have all the senses of humans plus stereoscopic ultrasound - both for communication and echo-location. (The I/O centers in their brains are also substantially larger, which is often mistaken for them having larger brains than humans. It is entirely possible that they are smarter, but that won't be why.)

An "ideal" brain would use much lower latency interconnects, would be interleaved with a rapid cooling system, and would prefer expansion to "garbage collection" (at the expense of needing more energy).

Re:What about the weirdest computer of all?

[mapkinase]

Brain is quite lousy computer.

Re:What about the weirdest computer of all?

[slimjim8094]

The brain is Turing-complete, as in it can emulate a Turing machine.

So does that make people computers by definition?

Re:What about the weirdest computer of all?

[CustomDesigned]

we only have to know that nature neither thinks nor organizes. But nature apparently does organize on occasion, because we are here. (Or else something or someone else did the organizing.) So you are looking for signals that are different from most signals in the same way that we are different from most of the products of nature.

Re:What about the weirdest computer of all?

[glitch23]

Your logic is faulty because there is no rule which states that extremely complex systems have to be created by even more complex systems. This is the same logical fallacy which creationists often advance in order to "prove" the existence of God: the idea that because humans are complex, there must be an even more complex being which created us. In reality, it is quite possible for complex systems to be created as a product of random chance, or natural selection.

I've never heard anyone believe in your claim that God had to be more complex just because we are complex. A higher power does not imply greater complexity. You personally can define all you want a higher power to be more complex in order to satisfy your claim of a logical fallacy that you attribute to creationists but you are mischaracterizing them for the sake of trying to prove them wrong. Given what you first stated though, there may be no rule that states extremely complex systems have to be created by even more complex systems but is there a rule that says it can't happen. For that matter, evolution itself is based on something simple becoming more complex so something as simple as the concept of God could easily create Man if the concept of evolution did the same in your mind.

As for humans being equipped with "the highest resolution video, audio, CPU/logic, etc", that's just plain silly. Computers can detect and display video at resolutions (and in light spectrums) which are undetectable by the human eye. They can detect and produce sounds which would be inaudible to us. And when it comes to raw number-crunching ability....well, don't be silly. I'd like to see you sit down and brute-force an NT LM hash in your head. Hell, I'll be generous and let you use a pen and paper!

The guy you responded to lost the point somewhere and you didn't get him back on track either. This isn't about the fastest or most powerful computer. It is about the weirdest computer. What computer do you know can detect human emotion and make moral decisions (yes, even some humans have trouble but they have the capability)? The human brain can perform calculations so it is a computer, an analog computer. How many of those are there? Not many. The wikipedia entry on 'computer' states the following:

A computer is a machine that manipulates data according to a list of instructions. We move our body parts without thinking about it or knowing how it is done but internally our brain is sending a signal to the muscle. We have no clue what instruction that is but the muscle is being manipulated in an analog fashion. The human brain is so weird that we don't even understand how it works in many ways but on the other hand we can build digital computers using components at the atomic level. Weird.

Re:What about the weirdest computer of all?

[Anonymous Coward]

This kind of specified complexity is the mirror of entropy - it can only decrease (the message is gradually eroded), with a proof similar to the laws of thermodynamics. This is, of course, so incomplete as to be bullshit. Thermodynamics only requires entropy to increase globally, or in closed systems. The Earth is not a closed system. Therefore any statement that entropy must increase on Earth because of the laws of thermodynamics is simply false. They easily permit locally decreasing entropy at the cost of increased global entropy. Want proof? Clean your room.

The war between philosophical materialism and and intelligent design is essentially a religious war, and has very little to do with science. It has absolutely nothing to do with science, because intelligent design itself has absolutely nothing to do with science. It only exists to use science-like language as part of a religious argument in order to trap people into thinking that it is somehow related to science.

Re:What about the weirdest computer of all?

[Anonymous Coward]

but they cant pattern match, or recognize faces with any degree of accuracy... careful, like most /. rants you start with a good reply and go off the deep end... a comparative processing analay

egos egos egos

Re:What about the weirdest computer of all?

[The_Dougster]

In his early Known Space stories collected in Tales of Known Space [amazon.com] Larry Niven forsaw a future 1975 (ha) where the brains of people managled in car accidents are integrated into spacecraft for guidance, allowing them to continue contributing to society even if their bodies are gone. This entire idea of "brain in a jar" science fiction seems to have faded out with the 1970s.

Well, maybe jars. Personally, ever since I invented that harmonic portal to the other dimension where I learned how to enslave dead brain tissue within flying silver spheres, I've been extremely busy. Business -- is good!

Re:What about the weirdest computer of all?

[Snowmit]

I however would like to NOT welcome the flesh eating primitive eel-like vertebrate Overlords.

Seriously scientists, what's wrong with you?

Re:What about the weirdest computer of all?

[c6gunner]

Wait, there are 90 Megapixel sensors for computers now? Why did no one tell me about this?

Not for your home PC, no. Check the resolution on spy-sats, though, or on the Hubble (230+ megapixels).

Re:What about the weirdest computer of all?

[c6gunner]

I've never heard anyone believe in your claim that God had to be more complex just because we are complex.

Then you've never argued with a creationist. EVERY argument about God eventually breaks down to the idea that a complex system such as a human being cannot be created by chance or natural selection, therefore "God".

A higher power does not imply greater complexity.

Yes, it does. If it's not more complex, then it's not a higher power. If you fail to understand simple symantics like that, I don't see how we can discuss more complex topics.

Re:What about the weirdest computer of all?

[c6gunner]

I think he was implying that the human wetworks are pretty impressive to have dreamed up taking ones and zeros and making them into such marvelous things

The thing is, the human mind doesn't really do that anyway. Who do you know that programs in binary? And can you imagine a human being creating Windows Vista from scratch, in binary?

Human accomplishments, much like evolutionary progression, are cumulative. Our brains are basically simulation programs - they take data, feed it through a series of filters and rules, and then act on the output. However, since we're able to learn, each successive generation gets a different set of rules and filters, allowing us to work out new problems without first having to go back to basics. As such, it's wrong to say that the human mind created modern computers - rather, the human SPECIES created modern computers. There's a huge difference there. All of our accomplishments owe as much to natural selection and the passage of time as they do to the complexity of the human brain.

But yes, I'd agree that the human brain is an amazingly complex piece of machinery, which is impressively adaptive. If that's what he meant, then we are in 100% agreement.

And to the resolution point. I think you're thinking too literally. Show me a computer that can discern a great masterpiece from a technically proficient work.

Show me a human that can.

Even if we ignore the fact that judging masterpieces has nothing to do with resolution, your argument still makes no sense because the judgement of "masterpieces" is subjective. Show a Picasso to an African tribesman, and he'll probably use it for kindling. On the other hand, the artwork of his own people will doubtless hold great value to him, while being nearly worthless to the average westerner.

Re:What about the weirdest computer of all?

[c6gunner]

This is, of course, so incomplete as to be bullshit. Thermodynamics only requires entropy to increase globally, or in closed systems. The Earth is not a closed system. Therefore any statement that entropy must increase on Earth because of the laws of thermodynamics is simply false. They easily permit locally decreasing entropy at the cost of increased global entropy. Want proof? Clean your room.

Why the hell are you posting as anonymous? The simplicity and accuracy of that paragraph combined make for a truly epic statement. I couldn't have said it any better (or anywhere near as good) myself. I can not fathom why you would seek to distance yourself from it.

Re:What about the weirdest computer of all?

[hcdejong]

That's only true for limited values of "fly", though. The task was to keep the aircraft straight and level in variable crosswinds. This can be accomplished with a simple feedback loop. Things like landing are much more complex.

Re:What about the weirdest computer of all?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't seek to distance myself from the statement. However, I do seek to distance myself from Slashdot.

Re:What about the weirdest computer of all?

[CustomDesigned]

Congratulations! That straw man is history! If I had said anything about entropy increasing on Earth, I'd sure be embarrassed. Now I will say something: over the long term, entropy *will* increase on Earth according to thermodynamics - it is an inexorable as 2 + 2. The sun can only hold it at bay for a few billion years.

You can be as proud as you want of Human accomplishments, but it is all destined for the cosmic heat death and ultimately meaningless - no matter how many meta-universes you propose to rejuvenate this one. Thermodynamics applies to any universe or system of universes - as inexorable as 2 + 2. The only escape from entropy would be if there was some kind of infinite source of creative complexity...

In the realm of specified complexity, sure, you can copy a message like Moby Dick or the Bible. But copies are not guaranteed to be perfect, and have a non-zero chance of degrading the original - even with computers.

Re:What about the weirdest computer of all?

[Anonymous Coward]

The brain is Turing-complete, as in it can emulate a Turing machine.

I doubt I could handle more than the most minimal Turing program. Maybe there's some savant out there than could handle a true Turing machine computation, but I know I'd mess it up. Turing machines aren't allowed to make mistakes.

Re:What about the weirdest computer of all?

[Anonymous Coward]

Your sig says, "I don't respond to Anonymous Cowards." Yet you just responded to one.

Why the hell are you posting as anonymous? The simplicity and accuracy of that paragraph combined make for a truly epic statement. I couldn't have said it any better (or anywhere near as good) myself. I can not fathom why you would seek to distance yourself from it.

I'm not that AC. You seem to assume all ACs are up to no good. When I posted under my name, I was losing about 5 karma to the cap every day. I once posted something that was obviously true and considered trivial knowledge in my field (like comment you replied to), only to be told I was a total moron. In my reply, it was clear I was very annoyed, so someone decided to grief me about it for weeks. On other comments I've received death threats against myself and my family.

As a result, I refuse to post under my account name. Yes, it means most people don't see what I'm saying. That's their loss, not mine. It also means I can only post a few times a day, before I get messages like "Slow Down Cowboy! It's been 10 hours since you last successfully posted a comment." And I also haven't seen a single mod point in years which I can only assume is because I post AC.

You don't like ACs. I understand why, but we're not all evil.

Re:What about the weirdest computer of all?

[Raenex]

Show a Picasso to an African tribesman, and he'll probably use it for kindling. So would I, except for the other people who think it's worth lots of money.

Re:What about the weirdest computer of all?

[edumacator]

But yes, I'd agree that the human brain is an amazingly complex piece of machinery, which is impressively adaptive. If that's what he meant, then we are in 100% agreement.

So we are primarily on the same page. I'm going to hold on to that. :)

Even if we ignore the fact that judging masterpieces has nothing to do with resolution

Forgive me, I'm an English teacher, so I take liberties sometimes with language. I was using the broader definition - analysis into clear-cut components.

Show a Picasso to an African tribesman, and he'll probably use it for kindling.

I would argue that the subjectiveness of our evaluation is indicative of the complexity of the human mind. If I were to spend some time in an African tribe, I would be able to eventually adapt my artistic aesthetic to incorporate this new information.

But like you said, I think we agree in principle.

Re:What about the weirdest computer of all?

[BungaDunga]

Computing did start with binary programming: a mainframe would have a series of on/off switches you would set to represent a space in memory, and another set with the data you want to stick there. Data would be read out with a series of lights that would flash on and off based on binary digits.

You're right, the one overwhelmingly important ability of the human species is to collect data and pass it along to the next generation. If all our computers went up in smoke we could rebuild them with what we have written down; if our records went up too, we'd be back at counting on our fingers for a long time.

Re:What about the weirdest computer of all?

[c6gunner]

I would argue that the subjectiveness of our evaluation is indicative of the complexity of the human mind.

There is certainly some truth to that. The ability of our mind to adapt to different environments is certainly one of it's more important aspects. However, our ability to make subjective judgements isn't exactly unique - you could easily "teach" a computer to subjectively critique art. The only caveat is that the computer's sense of "fine art" would be completely different from our own, and would change from program to program depending on how exactly the filter was written. However, that's not so different from our own minds - we use the filter of societal norms and past experiences in order to make subjective judgements on all kinds of issues, from art to religion to morality. Really, the only difference is that our programming is "natural", and is constantly modified by new experiences, while the computer's programming is artificial and largely static.

But like you said, I think we agree in principle.

Yes, we do, but it's nice to iron out the details sometimes :) Makes for interesting conversation anyway.

Re:What about the weirdest computer of all?

[kvezach]

So when, mighty imaginer, will computing power plateau?

Who knows, but it's not important. You can't make a fire build a house, no matter how powerful fuel you're pouring on it. In other words, it's going to take more than just brute force to scale up intelligence.

Re:What about the weirdest computer of all?

[c6gunner]

Your sig says, "I don't respond to Anonymous Cowards." Yet you just responded to one.

Funny - every time I respond to an AC, someone feels the need to point this out.

My sig is just a warning: if you WANT a response from me, don't post anonymously. It's not a promise, a moto, or a written contract, it's a simple suggestion. On the other hand, if I feel that a certain AC post deserves a response I will respond to it, but such cases are so rare that I can still count them on the fingers of one hand.

You seem to assume all ACs are up to no good.

I assume nothing of the sort, I simply don't usualy have any desire to converse with people who hide their identities.

I once posted something ... told I was a total moron ... decided to grief me about it for weeks ... received death threats against myself and my family.

I find all of that rather difficult to believe. I know that I can be a rather abrasive individual at times, and I've certainly never gone out of my way to hold back my opinions, or placate other commenters, yet I've never had anyone (on slashdot) "grief me", or make any sort of threats. I've certainly been insulted before by people who were painfully gormless, but so what? Such individuals are easily ignored.

The people here, while being a very diverse bunch, generally behave themselves in a civilized manner. For the odd exceptions...well, that's why the moderation process is there, and that's why you can file complaints with the mods about real abuse. Deciding to regularly hide your identity, instead of using the process to help improve slashdot, is just plain cowardice.

You don't like ACs. I understand why, but we're not all evil.

I don't hold any animosity toward any of you, I just find you to be largely irrelevant.

Re:What about the weirdest computer of all?

[Naughty Bob]

That's pure conjecture- But anyhow, not only do we have no understanding of what, exactly, constitutes human intelligence/consciousness etc, but to describe the ongoing attempts to approximate it as 'brute force' tells me you are equating the clock-cycle race with progress in the area (or you have a rather glamorized impression of brutes....).

Re:What about the weirdest computer of all?

[glitch23]

Then you've never argued with a creationist. EVERY argument about God eventually breaks down to the idea that a complex system such as a human being cannot be created by chance or natural selection, therefore "God".

Okay, but that doesn't say anything about requiring God to be more complex than the creation and thus breaking some known or unknown rule.

A higher power does not imply greater complexity.

Yes, it does. If it's not more complex, then it's not a higher power. If you fail to understand simple symantics like that, I don't see how we can discuss more complex topics.

If you fail to be able to properly spell the words you use then I don't see how we can discsuss more complex topics. But anyway, based on what you already stated I'll respond with this: the human brain is very complex but speaking in terms of mathematical computations we can build less complex (compared to the brain) digital computers which can calculate much faster using more complex data. In that case, more computational power in the creation does not require even more computational power (i.e. complexity) in the creator. Raw power has never required great complexity and, if anything, more complexity with the raw power usually entails a sacrifice in efficiency (e.g. heat loss due to more friction with moving parts, mechanically speaking). You failed to provide evidence or examples of why a higher power requires more complexity. Do not try to prove false what you do not understand or do not believe in. Simple bias will prevent you from thinking it is true or possible.

Re:What about the weirdest computer of all?

[Anonymous Coward]

Deciding to regularly hide your identity, instead of using the process to help improve slashdot, is just plain cowardice. This is exactly the kind of crap that makes me post as AC. I try to be informative, and to help people when I see ignorance. I don't come to argue, and I don't come to win points. But on slashdot, people are more than happy to attack others for all kinds of trivial shit. Calling somebody a coward just for posting anonymously is a perfect example of it.

Instead of fighting the hopelessly broken moderation system, I choose to improve slashdot by improving the minds of its readers. You want to call that cowardice? Well fuck you too.

You want to know why we're posting anonymously? Well guess what: you're part of the problem.

-- The AC who posted "Thermodynamics only requires entropy to increase globally"

Re:What about the weirdest computer of all?

[kvezach]

You talk about "computing power" as if it plateauing would prevent the singularity, and Kurzweil et al. make diagrams like these that pretty much link Moore's law and the Singularity together.

As for brute force not leading to scalable intelligence, just take a quick look at tree search. That's exponential; it's just that, as an example, the game tree for chess is narrow enough that computers can beat grandmasters. And it's not just chess. Many other puzzles, when generalized, are NP-complete, and many games PSPACE-complete (at least). To make headway into the harder areas here is going to require real effort and ingenuity, not just traveling up the computing power graph.

Therefore it doesn't matter where computing power will plateau, if it will. As long as the algorithms are exponential for most real cases, the horizon will always catch up with you.

Re:What about the weirdest computer of all?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well you need more arguments then... I am an evolutionist because the theory of evolution is plausible to explain phenomenons and it's not incompatible with creationism, which is not a theory but the content of some religions' messages. Creationism is about who, evolution is about how. An omnipotent omniscient and time-transcending being can create the human he wants in the moment he wants even in a not deterministic universe. Reconstructing or witnessing evolution does not disprove a God in the transcendent, and even the not-proof occam's razor is not applicable unless every single interaction in the universe where the process happened is proved to be totally immanent.
Sorry had to rush but you get the idea: the debate of evolution vs creation as reported by media is a joke.

Re:What about the weirdest computer of all?

[c6gunner]

Okay, but that doesn't say anything about requiring God to be more complex than the creation and thus breaking some known or unknown rule.

*sigh*

I can't believe I'm explaining the creationist argument to a religious person :p I get the feeling I'd be better off just agreeing with you: "Yep, you're right, 'God' is real simple. He wears a safety helmet and rides the short-bus to school".

But anyway, based on what you already stated I'll respond with this: the human brain is very complex but speaking in terms of mathematical computations we can build less complex (compared to the brain) digital computers which can calculate much faster using more complex data. In that case, more computational power in the creation does not require even more computational power (i.e. complexity) in the creator.

So this is your argument:

1) Computers are less complex than humans, so they're evidence that more complex beings can create things which are less complex.
2) But computers are actually MORE complex than humans because they can compute things faster.
3) Therefore God could be less complex than humans.

Neat argument. Except points 1 and 2 are a wee bit contradictory, eh? So which is it? Are computers more complex or less complex?

Regaurdless, you're missing the point entirely. When creationists make the argument about the "blind watchmaker", their entire reason for invoking God is because they cannot fathom that a process as simple as natural selection could be responsible for the creation of complex lifeforms. Also, they claim that God is all powerful and all knowing, which certainly suggests a much more complex lifeform, eh?

Do not try to prove false what you do not understand or do not believe in. Simple bias will prevent you from thinking it is true or possible.

Do not try to prove true what you do not understand or do believe in. Simple bias will prevent you from thinking it is untrue or impossible.

Re:What about the weirdest computer of all?

[RespekMyAthorati]

Human accomplishments, much like evolutionary progression, are cumulative. Our brains are basically simulation programs - they take data, feed it through a series of filters and rules, and then act on the output. However, since we're able to learn, each successive generation gets a different set of rules and filters, allowing us to work out new problems without first having to go back to basics. As such, it's wrong to say that the human mind created modern computers - rather, the human SPECIES created modern computers. There's a huge difference there. All of our accomplishments owe as much to natural selection and the passage of time as they do to the complexity of the human brain.

That actually sounds quite intelligent.
Who are you, and what have you done with c6gunner?

Wetware

[Rassleholic]

The one I find most facinating is MONIAC. A cookie to whoever gets it to run linux.

Re:Wetware

[savorymedia]

Knowing /., someone here will one up it and put BSD on it first.

Re:Wetware

[The 1st Truth]

Interesting. I had wondered where Pratchett came up with the idea of the Igor created economy simulator/controller. Now I know, Thanks!

No Conway's Life?

[pclminion]

Conway's Life is Turing complete. I guess, to a computer scientist, it's not really surprising that an automaton could be Turing complete, but it's still pretty damn awesome to think that little cells replicating on the screen are capable of carrying out any arbitrary computation -- as well as self-reproduction.

I wonder, with a large enough simulation, if self-reproducing, intelligent entities could evolve out of just a few simple rules (and it's really only one rule, if you code it a certain way).

Re:No Conway's Life?

[frovingslosh]

The article missed a lot, but certainly a serious candidate would be the Wireworld Computer, a cellular automaton computer that actually (slowly) computes prime numbers and displays them, done by implementing a digital computer as a cellular automaton. This is an amazing computer, only one op code, and you can watch the data as it flows through the computer, including the stack of 64 registers (a few unused in this program).

Re:No Conway's Life?

[frovingslosh]

The article missed a lot, but certainly a serious candidate would be the Wireworld Computer, a cellular automaton computer that actually (slowly) computes prime numbers and displays them, done by implementing a digital computer as a cellular automaton. This is an amazing computer, only one op code, and you can watch the data as it flows through the computer, including the stack of 64 registers (a few unused in this program).

Sorry, due to a typo the link was lost in the previous post.

Re:No Conway's Life?

[Anonymous Coward]

You may be interested in reading Greg Egan's book Permutation City ( http://gregegan.customer.netspace.net.au/PERMUTATION/Permutation.html ) which deals in part with evolution of life in a cellular automaton.

Re:No Conway's Life?

[tsjaikdus]

From what I understand not all of those machines are turing complete. There's some minimum complexity needed for that. A turing machine is an automaton interfacing a large external memory. In order for it to be turing complete the automaton needs a minimum of 2 internal states (which is in effect a 1-bit memory for internal use) and an external memory that is capable of carrying one trit of information per memory cell (1 out of 3). And although this is (probably) a turing complete system, it is not useful for doing calculations (it is just not efficient).

Why are these weird?

[The Ancients]

weird |wÉÉ(TM)d|

adjective

suggesting something supernatural; uncanny : the weird crying of a seal.

â informal very strange; bizarre : a weird coincidence | all sorts of weird and wonderful characters.

I don't really see them as 'weird' as such - different, and fascinating, and many seem to point a potential way forward for computing. I don't see why we should refer to technology moving forward as 'weird'.

Re:Why are these weird?

[Itninja]

Yeah. The word weird comes from the olde tyme term 'wayward', meaning something unearthly or unnatural. These computers are maybe unusual, but certainly not weird.

Re:Why are these weird?

[value_added]

weird |wÉÉ(TM)d|

Weird is trademarked?

I'm in trouble.

Re:Why are these weird?

[tirerim]

I don't think that's right. 'Weird' comes from Old English 'wyrd', meaning 'destiny', or more specifically the power to control destiny, as in 'the weird sisters'. That grew into the 'unearthly' or 'unnatural' meanings, which then evolved to the modern meanings, but I don't think it ever had a form of 'wayward'.

Regardless, though, the word's etymology doens't have much bearing on what it means today, which certainly includes just 'strange' or 'unusual'. There are plenty of more extreme examples out there, like 'nice', which used to mean 'stupid' or 'ignorant', but its meaning changed enough over time (through several intermediate stages) that it got to what we use today.

Re:Why are these weird?

[Dr. Cody]

Don't try to out-weird me, three-eyes...

Re:Why are these weird?

[dfedfe]

No, no, wee is trademarked.

You're in more trouble than you thought.

Re:Why are these weird?

[Itninja]

That makes sense. My thoughts on the word weird were coning from MacBeth. Modern performances usually substitute 'weird' for the words weyard, weyward, or wayward. Always thought that was the origin....

Pneumatic computer

[Thelasko]

When I worked in manufacturing I would occasionally rig up some logic circuits using a series of pneumatic valves. If only a few conditions had to be met (like don't open door if bucket raised) it was cheaper and easier than installing a PLC.

Personal favourites

[ozamosi]

My personal favorites are computers built in Game of Life and a model railroad.

Re:Personal favourites

[Anonymous Coward]

Where is the model railroad page? (You posted the game of life link twice.)

Re:Personal favourites

[ozamosi]

Crap!

The railroad link is supposed to be http://www.monochrom.at/turingtrainterminal/abstract_eng.htm

K'nex Computing.

[KinkoBlast]

You know, someone on Youtube showed off logic gates in K'nex. But it was only and, or, and not.

Has anyone figured out how to do an xor in k'nex without horrible permutations along the lines of (in scheme, since it's easy for me to think in today)

(define (xor a b) (and (not (and a b)) (or a b)))

?

Re:K'nex Computing.

[Anonymous Coward]

Given that you can make any of the basic logic gates (NAND, NOR, NOT, XOR, XNOR, AND, OR) out of just NAND and/or NOR gates, there's definitely a way to do it. Whether it's "neat" or not is irrelevant. I think most stuff today uses NAND gates for everything because it's cheaper to make.

Re:K'nex Computing.

[Actually, I do RTFA]

NAND and/or NOR gates

Or XNOR...

Re:K'nex Computing.

[tsjaikdus]

It may not be the most beautiful mechanism, but it is a mechanical XOR

http://imageupload.com/~imageupl/show.php/100618_mechanicalXOR.png.html

Re:K'nex Computing.

[tsjaikdus]

I'm thinking... you can create an even better XOR using a differential. It is more difficult, because it involves gears and racks. But then there will be no loss of movement and it won't need springs.

Re:K'nex Computing.

[Ceriel Nosforit]

All of logic is compromised of AND and OR alone. You use these to build NOT. Or you could use NOT and OR to build AND, or NOT and AND to build or.

Really, AND and OR can be described with truth tables which you can take to be arbitrarily defined: We just design them that way because it allows us to do a whole bunch of other things.

Add quantifiers to this and and you get all of math. ALL of it. Basically, the sum of human knowledge, and potential for knowledge, can be summed up as the truth tables for AND and OR plus quantifiers.

Trippy.

Re:K'nex Computing.

[Actually, I do RTFA]

All of logic is compromised of AND and OR alone.

Well, the point is that, yes, using only AND and NOT gates you can build anything. Using only OR and NOT gates you can build anything. You cannot use AND and OR gates to build anything, because you cannot build a NOT gate. However, given only NAND gates or only NOR gate, or only XNOR gates, you can build anything.

Because it is easier to create one type of gate, most chip manufacturers create either NAND or NOR gate chips, and wire them up however (XNOR is less efficent to create most circuits, IIRC).

Add quantifiers to this and and you get all of math. ALL of it.

Except fuzzy logic. Or nonbivalent maths. Or trancendental numbers. Or the concept of '2'.

Re:K'nex Computing.

[Ceriel Nosforit]

You cannot use AND and OR gates to build anything, because you cannot build a NOT gate. Damn, I was sure I had it right, but when double-checking my facts it turns out that I had gotten this key idea wrong the first time around. >:|

The one at Unseen University

[TheWoozle]

Hex

Re:The one at Unseen University

[Anonymous Coward]

+++ Divide By Cucumber Error. Please Reinstall Universe And Reboot +++

Some better examples

[Animats]

Some better examples:

• The Great Brass Brain, an analog tide predictor. It was built in 1910, and used until 1966, for regular tide predictions.
• The Bay Model, a working 1.5 acre model of water flow in San Francisco Bay. Built in 1956, in use until 2000. (You can still visit, but it's not used as a research tool any more.)
• SCEPTRON, a mechanical filter bank of quartz fibres which could record and play spectra onto photographic film. This was trainable as a speech recognition system. Early 1960s.
• The Iconarama., the USAF's Etch-A-Sketch. This was one of the first large screen displays, basically a plotter/slide projector combo. It could write, but not erase selectively, so units were used in pairs, allowing a redraw by the unit not projecting, then a lamp switch. 1950s.

Re:Some better examples

[Intron]

About 40 years ago one of the railroads built an analog computer for controlling switches and retarders in a gravity classification yard (hump yard). It used ball bearings rolling down tracks to model the rolling cars. Google didn't find anything online about it, so I don't have a link.

Well written

[Anonymous Coward]

Quote:

But making something as powerful as a microprocessor this way would require acres of space â" unless your balls or dominoes are very small.

*snicker*

Don't forget most impractical computers

[davidwr]

Students and others throughout the history of computers have come up with Rube Goldberg computer designs using anything from solid-object mechanics to fluids to sounds as computational objects. In WWII groups of human beings were "computers" that solved problems in a 1-person=1-subtask algorithmic manner.

Even some databases and other software packages are technically complete computers. I heard a rumor that EMACS was but don't quote me on that.

The Game of Life is Turing Complete

[still_sick]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conway's_Game_of_Life

It is possible for gliders to interact with other objects in interesting ways. For example, if two gliders are shot at a block in just the right way, the block will move closer to the source of the gliders. If three gliders are shot in just the right way, the block will move farther away. This "sliding block memory" can be used to simulate a counter. It is possible to construct logic gates such as AND, OR and NOT using gliders. It is possible to build a pattern that acts like a finite state machine connected to two counters. This has the same computational power as a universal Turing machine, so the Game of Life is as powerful as any computer with unlimited memory: it is Turing complete. Furthermore, a pattern can contain a collection of guns that combine to construct new objects, including copies of the original pattern. A "universal constructor" can be built which contains a Turing complete computer, and which can build many types of complex objects, including more copies of itself.[4]

homebrew purely optical computer

[smellsofbikes]

They're all impressed by using waves for building logic circuits.
Want to build your own cheap, brilliantly visual set of logic gates to show kids how digital computing works? Nightlights. Each one is a NOT gate. You put two close to a third's sensor and you have a NOR. Put them some distance away with some blocking material around them (this is fussy) and you can get a NAND. A little bit of thinking and combinatorial logic and you can build anything else from those. I've built stacked, carrying half-adders this way, and it's pretty cool to watch small binary numbers get added.
Two nightlights, each with its bulb by the other's sensor, are a flip-flop. Now you have memory.
For extra credit, you can build a ring oscillator by putting an odd number of nightlights in a ring, so each is seeing the next one's sensor, and use that to clock your half-adders and flipflops.
If I had a lot of money and time, it'd be fun to see how far this could be extended (before I had to start hiring kids as tube runners to keep the whole works going.)

Re:homebrew purely optical computer

[Anonymous Coward]

So the monsters hiding under my daughters' bed will be replaced by engineers. Great...

(Cool stuff, BTW)

Re:homebrew purely optical computer

[harry666t]

Argh, damn mod points, never around when you need 'em. Imaginary +1, Interesting from me, sir.

Re:homebrew purely optical computer

[smellsofbikes]

Well, don't mod me interesting -- go build one! Seriously. Nightlights cost like 2/$4 at BigLots! and similar places. The main problem is hooking them all up without potentially electrocuting yourself or going bankrupt buying cheap extension cords. (and for the ring oscillator use the same type of nightlights throughout because if you have different types, they'll often have different delays and sometimes it'll screw up the oscillation and you'll lose pulses.)

Re:homebrew purely optical computer

[Anonymous Coward]

I imagine it's rather messy trying to hook them all up... extension cords and all. Or is there a better way?

Your idea intrigues me.

Re:homebrew purely optical computer

[smellsofbikes]

It's *really* messy. I've done a couple with extension cords, which is the safest way, and I've done a couple with just hookup wire run through the holes in the prongs and wrapped around, when I was in a hurry. The nicest setup I've seen, a guy had done a big random set of nightlights each one taped to a piece of wood, and all those nailed down to a plywood bed, using extension cords. It was just a big mass of them with chaotic patterns flickering across it, but it got me to thinking about how I could turn it into logic gates.

Weirdest storage.

[argent]

OK, let's go back a ways and look at the weirdest storage systems.

Mercury delay lines are a good one. Delay lines in general, actually. I recall readong once about a free-space delay line using a laser beam between Earth and a retroreflector on the moon.

CRT storage tubes are another.

An XOR gate? How banal.

[Anonymous Coward]

Using ripples in a container, you can do Fourier transforms and similar things.

In fact, the ear organ does exactly that (channeling waves through liquids in a properly wound casing and picking up the resulting vibrations at different locations corresponding to different frequencies).

An XOR gate is rather embarrassing...

What about stochastic computers ? Robust, cheap...

[franois-do]

Stochastic computers represented any value between 0 and 1 (both included) by a probability. A set of random bits were sent according to that probability.

Multiplication, always a problem with analog computers at the time, was very simply, quickly and cheaply done by an AND chip (one of the inputs had to be decorrelated of the other by a delay line to avoid parasitic correlations). The addition was a little more tricky, but getting (p1+p2)/2 could be achived with just three basic circuits, if I remember well. Of course you had to remember that the value was scaled, well, exactly the same king of caution you had to observe with analog synthetizers at the very same time.

Details here for whoever is interested... and knows somebody reading French ;-)

http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calculateur_stochastique The complexity of keeping trace of scaling, decorrelations and the like could be taken away by monitoring them from an associated PC, now that I am thinking about it. Try it ! You will like it ;-)

Puzzle computers

[Bob Hearn]

Conway's Life was mentioned, but that is still a deterministic computer.

Many puzzles have been shown to effectively be nondeterministic computers. E.g., you can make a sliding-block puzzle that is solvable if and only if a given traditional computation succeeds.

Science News story:

http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20020817/bob10.asp

Personal plug:

Games, Puzzles, and Computation

They mentioned water computer but...

[Yold]

they didn't mention MONIAC, which is the coolest analogue computers IMHO. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MONIAC_Computer

Re:An XOR gate? How banal.

[NonSequor]

I wasn't impressed with that one either. You could do it by setting up two ripple sources so that the wave peaks will be out of phase when they reach a certain point. If both or neither ripple source is turned on, the water will be calm at that point, but if only one is turned on the camera will see ripples at the point.

How about an old one?

[thatskinnyguy]

What about the Antikythera mechanism?

Computer #1

[Anonymous Coward]

Macintosh

More Weirdness

[Purity Of Essence]

In A.K.Dewdney's Scientific American column (and subsequent books) he documents many unusual mechanical computing devices that solve a range of computationally expensive problems. In a chaptered entitled Analog Gadgets in the book The Armchair Universe he describes several mechanical computing devices that solve a number of many computationally expensive problems (with some caveats):

* a spaghetti powered sorting machine
* computing a convex hull using a board, nails and a rubber band
* finding the shortest path joining two nodes of a graph network using brass rings and string
* finding the minimum Steiner-tree for any number of nodes using pegs sandwiched between parallel sheets of plastic dipped in a soup solution
* a prime calculator using a pair of lasers and parallel mirrors

In the next chapter, Gadgets Revisited, he presents:

* a way to compute the best-fit trend of a graph using a board, nails, rubber bands, and a rod
* finding the longest path through a network of nodes using segments of string knotted together
* computing the forth power of a number based on the principle of elasticity and the deflection of a bar of aluminum
* or the third power of a number by using the same principle applied to a weight placed on the bar
* light refraction computed with soap film suspended between stepped surfaces
* optimal position for a refinery using a board with holes, string, a brass ring, and weights proportional to the cost of transportation for each source of raw material
* number averaging using interconnected graduated glass cylinders
* cubic polynomial solver using a water tank, a balance beam, two scalepans, and a variety of solids to represent terms of the equation: a cone for x, a paraboloid for x and cylinder for cx, and a sphere for d

Re:More Weirdness

[Purity Of Essence]

I hit Submit accidentally.

That should have read:

cubic polynomial solver using a water tank, a balance beam, two scalepans, and a variety of solids to represent terms of the equation: a cone for x^3, a paraboloid for x^2 and cylinder for cx, and a sphere for d

In the Tinkertoy Computer, Dewdney covers the well known Tic-Tac-Toe playing Tinkertoy computer built by MIT, as well as a fanciful computer based on ropes and pulleys featuring an inverter, an OR gate, an AND gate, a multiplexer, a flip-flop, and an adder.

ah Man, is that what pratchet was talking about

[geekoid]

in Making Money? Gee, I guess I'll 'have' to reread it, shucks~

Marble adding machine

[tvelocity]

This article reminds me of a very interesting video on youtube about a marble adding machine. It is constructed out of wood, and the creator also has made a video explaining how it works, in case anyone would like to build one on his own.

ripples!

[dwater]

For those half blind speed readers among you, it's ripples in a tank of water...

Domino Digital Logic

[jone_stone]

This article makes me think, of course, of my experiments in domino digital logic

Prior art

[Anonymous Coward]

XORgate? Isn't that what they called the Pentium-bug scandal?

/is very upset that someone else claimed the XORsyst Gamertag on XBL.

Why does everyone screw this up?

[CrazedWalrus]

That would make possible things that are unfeasible with today's computers â" such as rapidly factoring large prime numbers to crack cryptographic keys.

Thanks Bill Gates. That really would be a neat trick.

Re:Why does everyone screw this up?

[Anonymous Coward]

they see prime factorization and they get confused.

ions in an electric field

[Jeff1946]

Ion paths in an electric field were determined by streching a rubber sheet between walls whose edge heights were proportional the electric voltage on those edges. The rubber sheet would obey Laplace's eqn just like electric fields do. If you roll balls down the rubber sheet they will follow the similar paths to ions in the electric field. Conducting solutions can also be used to for a similar purpose for systems that only vary in two dimentions, like a cylindrical lens. Here a small electric probe can be set up to a servo mechanism to follow the field gradient. The probe is slaved to a pen the draws a parallel path of the probe.

XOR gate

[Jurily]

used wave patterns to make a type of logic gate called an "exclusive OR gate", or XOR gate." Why the explanation? Are /. readers braindead nowadays? What kind of "news for nerds" needs an explanation of what a XOR is?

Re:XOR gate

[Anonymous Coward]

it was in the article -- they just copied. and from the last entery, I assume just to prove that they actually read it.

Re:XOR gate

[Anonymous Coward]

What kind of "news for nerds" needs an explanation of what a XOR is?

Um, they didn't explain what it is. They just expanded the acronym. Had they said that XOR is when one and only one condition is true, then they would be explaining what it is.

LEGO computing

[Dan Posluns]

Any such list is insufficiently researched in my opinion without listing mechanical LEGO logic gates.

No dominoes?

[MrNougat]

No domino computer? Really?

http://www.pinkandaint.com/oldhome/comp/dominoes/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domino_computer

Slime mold?

[ibbie]

Now I feel bad for eating all of those poor things in Nethack.

Re:Slime mold?

[good soldier svejk]

You ate Lord Running Clam!

Re:Random chance cannot create complex systems

[yada21]

The economy. A lobster.

Fluidics

[McGregorMortis]

Personally, I've always found Fluidic Logic to be fascinating. It's based on the flow of a fluid (usually air) through specially-shaped chambers. Typically implemented in a stack of etched glass plates. But no moving parts, just fluid-dynamics. They can make logic gates, flip-flops, all kinds of things.

Re:Random chance cannot create complex systems

[jd]

Give me just one example of a complex system that was created by chance.

Earth. Jupiter. Saturn. Alpha Geminorum. The Andromeda galaxy. The United States tax system.

Neutrino Computing

[Anonymous Coward]

Are neutrinos still thought to travel backward in time? I wanted to build a computer network running on neutrinos but figured its CPU would be maxed out at 100% as soon as you turned it on from running programs in the future. At least you'd get the answers before you asked for them.

Mmmm rather lame article...

[Lisandro]

These are all (interesting) variation of basic logic gates implemented without electronic components. I was expecting something in the vein of the transputer...

Re:SLASHDOT SUX0RZ

[martin_henry]

I can't get my goatse! there's a password! :0 (no pun intended)

eMachines?

[morari]

Oh wait, those aren't weird so much as lame... and probably can't actually be counted as computers, per say.

Re:Random chance cannot create complex systems

[tsjaikdus]

>> You're saying things like a watch can be created by accident?

No, making a watch involves a designer.

However, the designer can be created by accident.

Re:Random chance cannot create complex systems

[Killjoy_NL]

Leaving a rock on another rock and watching it for a full day can be done by accident (sundial)

Not useful

[ajs318]

An exclusive-OR gate is not useful by itself, because there are an equal number of ways of getting a one out of it as a zero.

Any logic function can be built up with just NAND, just NOR, or NOT and either (AND or OR). There's also an odd logic function, BUN (= BUt Not; output is 1 when A=1 and B=0, 0 otherwise) which is sufficient (you can make it into NOT by tying A to logic 1, AND by inverting B or NOR by inverting A). These properties, though, depend on asymmetry in the truth table -- and the EOR function has a highly symmetrical truth table.

Optical fourier analysis

[gregski]

The optical computer section didn't really mention the optical fourier processor. Fourier transforms in this type of system occur in real time, with just a simple lens!

http://sharp.bu.edu/~slehar/fourier/fourier.html

Optical correlators have been built to perform pattern matching, including face recognition:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_correlator

01111001 01100001 011110012

[Sovok]

Or the trinary computer from russia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Setun

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ternary_computer

Nominating #11 - Ice Ice Baby

[DynaSoar]

Protonic processing using doped ice.

In water ice, it is protons, not electrons, that move under voltage. Use pipes instead of wires, fill them with water and freeze. For gates etc. dope the water to give it differential response to voltage.

As with some of the others, there's no good reason to do this other than its neatism.

Re:Random chance cannot create complex systems

[BungaDunga]

The Game of Life (and cellular automata in general) can produce very complex behavior from a very small set of rules. If I run through a set of random live/die rules (one cell dies if it's surrounded by 4, not surrounded by four, surrounded by 3 or 5, etc) I'll eventually come up with one that does something interesting. It could be totally automated and random, but leaving each cellular automata to run and then checking on it and looking for complexity will produce some patterns that /look/ "designed" but are actually produced by a totally random set of rules.

Re:Random chance cannot create complex systems

[jd]

Certainly. Cellular automata were used by Von Neumann to prove that simple rules were sufficient to produce a "Von Neumann machine" - a machine capable of replicating itself - and even a "universal constructor" - a machine capable of constructing any pattern at all from a blueprint. I am not positive, but I think a "Von Neuman machine" pattern is known for Conway's Game of Life.

Re:Random chance cannot create complex systems

[dj_tla]

Actually, a watch can be created through random chance if you think about what watches are made of: gears, ratchets, hands and springs. Randomly put them together in various configurations, keep the good ones (through a natural selection-like process) and randomly mutate those, over and over and over. Eventually you'll get clocks.

Video that illustrates the process: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcAq9bmCeR0