Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Barbara Liskov Wins Turing Award

Posted by kdawson on from the getting-a-clu dept.

jonniee writes "MIT Professor Barbara Liskov has been granted the ACM's Turing Award. Liskov, the first US woman to earn a PhD in computer science, was recognized for helping make software more reliable, consistent and resistant to errors and hacking. She is only the second woman to receive the honor, which carries a $250,000 purse and is often described as the 'Nobel Prize in computing.'"

17 of 187 comments (clear)

  1. Turing test by ignishin · · Score: 5, Funny

    Does this mean she passed the turing test?

    1. Re:Turing test by MrEricSir · · Score: 5, Funny

      I hope not. MIT professors are not human.

      --
      There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
    2. Re:Turing test by dedazo · · Score: 2, Funny

      At MIT, they give the test to the professors the award to the machines. Yeeeaaahhh

      --
      Web2.0: I love when people Flickr my cuil and digg my boingboing until my google is reddit and I start to yahoo
    3. Re:Turing test by rockNme2349 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Oblig XKCD

      http://xkcd.com/329/

      --
      Sewage Treatment Facilities - "Our duty is clear."
    4. Re:Turing test by Stormwatch · · Score: 3, Funny

      No, it means she is turing-complete.

      --
      Circumcision is child abuse.
  2. Good for her... by Em+Emalb · · Score: 4, Funny

    I bet she has some stories from "the old days" of being about the only female geek around.

    Good for her.

    --
    Sent from your iPad.
    1. Re:Good for her... by saiha · · Score: 3, Funny

      Yeah, there are like twice as many now.

  3. Purses and wallets? by interkin3tic · · Score: 4, Funny

    She is only the second woman to receive the honor, which carries a $250,000 purse and is often described as the 'Nobel Prize in computing

    Did they give $250,000 wallets to the men who won previously?

    1. Re:Purses and wallets? by CaptainPatent · · Score: 4, Funny

      No, they're just bragging about the luxurious accessories the award lugs around all day.

      --
      Well, back to rejecting software patent applications.
  4. So does that mean... by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 2, Funny

    ...we can't tell her apart from a computer over a teletype link?

    No, wait...

  5. Re:making software more reliable? by ChienAndalu · · Score: 5, Funny

    No, electrons are reliable. They'll do what you tell them to do. Hardware engineers however design crappy hardware.

  6. Re:making software more reliable? by Ardeaem · · Score: 4, Funny

    No, electrons are reliable. They'll do what you tell them to do.

    I, for one, am never sure quite what my electrons are doing. After that Heisenberg guy, they've been a bit flaky...

  7. Re:Don't let the award fool you. by geekoid · · Score: 2, Funny

    HAHAHahahhaha...
    Someone with your sig has the gall to write that about a book?

    Irony is rich today.

    Oh, and how about an example of where she is wrong? I don't think I ahve ever read her stuff but I would like to see an example of what you are talking about.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  8. Re:making software more reliable? by iminplaya · · Score: 3, Funny

    No, quantum mechanics is reliable. It defines physical uncertainties in a robust way.

    Only when you're watching. Behind your back it's complete chaos.

    --
    What?
  9. Re:making software more reliable? by spacefiddle · · Score: 2, Funny

    Now get off my lawn!

    10 PRINT LAWN
    20 GOTO CURB

    --
    That which does not kill us makes us... st
  10. Re:1968 by turing_m · · Score: 4, Funny

    Why?

    Just a guess, but maybe his tastes don't lean towards guys with beards and questionable personal hygiene.

    --
    If I have seen further it is by stealing the Intellectual Property of giants.
  11. Re:making software more reliable? by Workaphobia · · Score: 2, Funny

    http://xkcd.com/485/

    No, Brian Greene is reliable. He's been knitting furiously since the beginning of the universe, and isn't likely to quit anytime soon.

    Quantum mechanics suffers from being far more difficult to understand than a tiny man controlling reality.

    --
    Evidently, the key to understanding recursion is to begin by understanding recursion. The rest is easy.