Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

It's Time To Build the Analytical Engine

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the future-is-awhile-ago dept.

macslocum writes "John Graham-Cumming is launching a project to finish Charles Babbage's dream and build an Analytical Engine for public display. The goal: inspire future generations of scientists to work on their own 100-year leaps."

6 of 127 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Question: If we had such a computer, or artific by Mike+D.+Kristopeit · · Score: -1, Offtopic

    would this secretly existing machine be labeled as flawed if it chose to do nothing in the face of mutual assured destruction?

  2. Re:Question: If we had such a computer, or artific by Mike+Da.+Kristopeit · · Score: -1, Offtopic

    there is no overcoming true assuredness... you are denying the existence of a true MAD situation and instead countering a perceived potential threat. such countering actions could very well trigger the destruction you are acting to eliminate.

  3. Re:Question: If we had such a computer, or artific by BadAnalogyGuy · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Your assertion is false. Given that you cannot be sure your opponent will not make a first strike except for fear of retaliation, your force must be able to overcome any first strike and respond with enough force to destroy his. Therefore your strategy must be to protect against incoming attacks as well as overcoming enemy defenses. Since you cannot know exactly how your enemy is also progressing, it is absolutely imperative to 1) continue improving first strike capabilities to force the enemy to hold back on its first strike and 2) continue improving second strike capability in case the enemy decides to strike first.

    What is false in your assertion is that there is such a thing as true assuredness. The program that decides such a thing exists and stops development and production of new weapons is buggy.

  4. Re:Question: If we had such a computer, or artific by Kristopeit,+M.+D. · · Score: -1, Offtopic
    just because you decided to use an acronym doesn't change the "A" from representing the word "ASSURED", which i'll remind you does not include the possibility of falsehood.

    if are now suggesting the destruction is NOT assured.

    not only is your continued assertion false, and mine obviously correct, but YOU ARE AN IDIOT.

  5. Re:Question: If we had such a computer, or artific by JonySuede · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    not only is your continued assertion false, and mine obviously correct, but YOU ARE AN IDIOT.

    that part really adds a lots to your argument

    --
    Jehovah be praised, Oracle was not selected
  6. Re:Question: If we had such a computer, or artific by vegiVamp · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    YOU ARE AN IDIOT is the new YOU ARE NOTHING, apparently.

    --
    What a depressingly stupid machine.