Remembering Alan Turing On His 99th Birthday

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Remembering Alan Turing On His 99th Birthday

Posted by CmdrTaco on Thursday June 23, 2011 @01:23AM from the your-machines-confound-me dept.

Blacklaw writes "Today marks the 99th anniversary of the birth of Alan Turing, a noted polymath and cryptanalyst who is regarded by many as being the grandfather of modern computing."

97 of 146 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Thank you by Haedrian · 2011-06-23 01:26 · Score: 5, Insightful

Thank you mister Turing. Sorry about the whole anti-gay thing.
Sent from my physical implementation of Turing Machine.
1. Re:Thank you by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-23 01:40 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Hey, in the US we did the same thing with our World War II scientist-hero, only we started calling Oppenheimer a "communist" instead.
  Oppenheimer and Turing won that fucking war, and this is what they got for it.
2. Re:Thank you by Mr.+Slippery · 2011-06-23 01:56 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  It was therefore right (in the sense of the community he was working in/for) to get rid of him.
  
  You are either ignorant of what happened to Turing, or a total asshole.
  Turing was not just let go from an intelligence related job, which would be bad enough. He was convicted of "indecency" and made to undergo chemical castration via estrogen injections. There is nothing "right" about what happened to him.
  
  --
  Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
  You cannot wash away blood with blood
3. Re:Thank you by syousef · 2011-06-23 01:57 · Score: 1
  
  So the ultimate way to get rid of a person in any era is to call them a communist terrorist faggot with an English public school education?
  
  --
  These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
4. Re:Thank you by dkleinsc · 2011-06-23 02:01 · Score: 2
  
  Sent from my physical implementation of Turing Machine.
  Ok, I'm impressed - where do you keep your infinitely large memory tape?
  But seriously, that guy was probably as much a part of the Allied victory as General Patton was, and proof that homophobia hurts all of us.
  
  --
  I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
5. Re:Thank you by Haedrian · 2011-06-23 02:05 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  English public schools are and always have been full of faggotry.
  Not sure whether you chose that word by accident - but "Fagging" (same root) was common in english public schools and it had nothing to do with homosexuality.
  https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Fagging
6. Re:Thank you by ArcherB · 2011-06-23 02:08 · Score: 2
  
  If you didn't shout from the rooftops about it, no-one cared or cares. But "faggot!" has, until 30 years ago, been an excellent excuse to get rid of someone you don't like - just as "terrorist!" is used today. (Remember, the difference between a freedom fighter and a terrorist is that the former is on your side.)
  Terrorist: a radical who employs terror as a political weapon; usually organizes with other terrorists in small cells; often uses religion as a cover for terrorist activities.
  "Freedom Fighters" do not try to invoke fear in a civilian population. Freedom Fighters do not target civilian populations. Terrorists do both.
  To get back on topic, Turing ended his life before his lifestyle was deemed acceptable. It is a real shame. If he could have stuck it out for a few more years, he could have been an example that who one likes to bed with has no effect on their professional competency.
  
  --
  There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
7. Re:Thank you by Hazel+Bergeron · 2011-06-23 02:11 · Score: 1
  
  Yup. My old school rules even included the tongue-in-cheek, "There is no tradition of fagging." And it almost has nothing to do with homosexuality ;-).
8. Re:Thank you by Hazel+Bergeron · 2011-06-23 02:30 · Score: 1
  
  Freedom Fighters do not target civilian populations.
  What was Mandela when leading Umkhonto we Sizwe?
9. Re:Thank you by Tsingi · 2011-06-23 02:38 · Score: 1
  
  So the ultimate way to get rid of a person in any era is to call them a communist terrorist faggot with an English public school education?
  If he is a middle aged white male as well, you can, with impunity, shoot him down in the street.
10. Re:Thank you by Tsingi · 2011-06-23 02:42 · Score: 1
  
  "Freedom Fighters" do not try to invoke fear in a civilian population. Freedom Fighters do not target civilian populations.
  So there you have it, Israel is a terrorist nation.
11. Re:Thank you by Hazel+Bergeron · 2011-06-23 02:53 · Score: 1
  
  it's unfortunate that being good at what you do isn't nearly enough
  Being good at what you do should be irrelevant - it's just more obvious when a celebrity is mistreated. If only the mentally/physically mighty get treated well, then, you know...
12. Re:Thank you by Denogh · 2011-06-23 02:54 · Score: 1
  
  "Freedom Fighters" do not try to invoke fear in a civilian population. Freedom Fighters do not target civilian populations.
  So there you have it, Israel is a terrorist nation.
  If we simply must derail this topic with politically divisive, completely unrelated stuff then I suppose we must also call out their Palestinian opponents as terrorists.
13. Re:Thank you by Hazel+Bergeron · 2011-06-23 03:23 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, the fledgling intelligence community, fledgling in the 40s and 50s, because it's not as if the likes of MI5 had been around since 1909 or anything.
  The interwar intelligence community was nothing like post-WW2, and MI5 was not in a fit state for much in 1939. But you probably wanted to argue that GCHQ was just a renamed GCCS, which would be news to everyone.
  
  By that logic
  Read the bit in brackets. Just because something's judged right/wrong by you it doesn't mean it will be judged right/wrong by someone operating from a different set of principles. For GCHQ, Turing was wrong - not because he was gay but because he was not politically malleable. You can't study history by dismissing contemporary motivations and substituting your own.
14. Re:Thank you by LongearedBat · 2011-06-23 03:33 · Score: 1
  
  "Fagging" (same root)
  
  In a sense, that is exacly what it means today.
15. Re:Thank you by causality · 2011-06-23 03:37 · Score: 1
  
  Read the bit in brackets. Just because something's judged right/wrong by you it doesn't mean it will be judged right/wrong by someone operating from a different set of principles. For GCHQ, Turing was wrong - not because he was gay but because he was not politically malleable. You can't study history by dismissing contemporary motivations and substituting your own.
  Ah this old argument. Man. It's so easily shot down, it's a miracle it still persists. But okay, I'll indulge you.
  So there is no absolute truth, right? Are you absolutely certain? You see, it defeats itself trivially and is therefore worthy of no more attention.
  Not only should we compare history to our standards, it's one of the most important functions of history. Stop making this all about personal attacks (against those who hated Turing) and look at the big picture. What have we learned, if anything, from past injustices? Are we truly more advanced than those who came before us, or are we decaying into our own brand of decadence, our own ready excuses for mistreating and abusing others? Are we just "making nice" to cover that up with outward behavior? At the same time we see how wrong our ancestors were, do we have our own wrongs we prefer to deny? These are worthy questions. Your relativism would sweep them under the rug.
  It's fucking shameful that history is taught in our schools in terms of "ok, memorize that so-and-so won X War on Date Y". It completely trivializes what could be understood from it.
  
  --
  It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
16. Re:Thank you by mcvos · 2011-06-23 03:54 · Score: 1
  
  If we simply must derail this topic with politically divisive, completely unrelated stuff then I suppose we must also call out their Palestinian opponents as terrorists.
  One big difference: Palestinian attacks do not come from the Palestinian Authority. Israeli attacks do come from the Israelian government.
17. Re:Thank you by mcvos · 2011-06-23 04:01 · Score: 1
  
  Not being politically malleable is no reason to drive someone to suicide. Not now, not then. Fire him and then knight him for his tremendous work.
18. Re:Thank you by Hazel+Bergeron · 2011-06-23 04:14 · Score: 1
  
  Or drive him to suicide and eliminate a liability. It certainly worked with David Kelly only a few years ago.
  It's not like they're thinking, "Shit, in 40 years' time people will be cool with gays and we might be looked upon badly."
19. Re:Thank you by mbkennel · 2011-06-23 04:21 · Score: 2
  
  Oppenheimer probably was a socialist or communist politically, but still he never cooperated with the USSR or was there any suggestion he ever would.
  The issue of being homosexual was a problem when they had to stay in the closet---you were susceptible to blackmail, e.g. from foreign intelligence services who didn't have a problem finding this stuff out or using it.
20. Re:Thank you by bcmm · 2011-06-23 04:48 · Score: 1
  
  Turing ended his life before his lifestyle was deemed acceptable. It is a real shame. If he could have stuck it out for a few more years, he could have been an example that who one likes to bed with has no effect on their professional competency.
  It is quite possible that he would not have killed himself were it not for the mood-altering effects of the medication he was forced to take.
  
  --
  # cat /dev/mem | strings | grep -i llama
  Damn, my RAM is full of llamas.
21. Re:Thank you by tnk1 · 2011-06-23 05:08 · Score: 1
  
  What was Mandela when leading Umkhonto we Sizwe?
  A terrorist. He got over it.
22. Re:Thank you by Hazel+Bergeron · 2011-06-23 05:08 · Score: 1
  
  Sigh, internet.
23. Re:Thank you by Hazel+Bergeron · 2011-06-23 05:23 · Score: 1
  
  OK. Was he also a freedom fighter?
  Put another way, his group aimed at government and military targets. I assume you allow freedom fighters to do this.
  Did he stop becoming a freedom fighter each time his group also chose what might be labeled a civilian target?
  How long after that targeting those civilians did his whole mission revert to fighting for freedom?
  While we're here, how long after the bombing of Dresden did the Allies in WW2 start becoming freedom fighters again?
  I have this image of a civilian target capacitor which is charged up each time you target a civilian - perhaps the applied voltage increases if you happen to hit a baby or a woman, but I'm not sure. But I guess that until it discharges below some trigger level, you're not considered to be a freedom fighter. I also assume that the discharge resistor's resistance is decreased if you have particularly effective PR to argue that civilian hits were actually collateral damage, or that the civilians contribute to the regime's infrastructure.
  I further imagine that all these public relations parameters are tweaked in the war room. After all, it's certainly not the place for fighting.
24. Re:Thank you by Omestes · 2011-06-23 05:32 · Score: 1
  
  I agree, to a point. We should, though, understand the views of history, and the social norms and mores of various cultures through history. In other words we should understand what the baseline, normal, views were. We risk dismissing every single person in history that did something brilliant, or had a brilliant idea, because they were "antisemetic", "sexist", "racist", "anti-communist", or a "papist".
  As a person who invested extensive time and money in an education studying historical ideas, I've noticed that this is a huge problem; dismissing historical figures because they don't line up with our current transitory societal norms. Not liking Jews (or being dismissive of women, or blacks, or...) in a time when not liking Jews (or women, or blacks, or...) was common place isn't as important as not liking Jews (or...) now, when this view has mostly been exposed as bigoted lunacy.
  This is especially common with Hitler (ontopic, so Godwin averted); anyone in Germany in the mid-30's who even mentioned the name Hitler, or had any sympathy whatsoever with his politics (even if they weren't in favor, or aware of the extent of the "final solution" bits) are magically discredited. This ignores a whole bunch of context in favor of moralizing newthink. Oddly while we dismiss certain people (like Martin Heidegger) we completely ignore the more odious bits of people closer to us (Woodrow Wilson's eugenics binge).
  
  --
  A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
25. Re:Thank you by causality · 2011-06-23 06:11 · Score: 1
  
  I agree, to a point. We should, though, understand the views of history, and the social norms and mores of various cultures through history. In other words we should understand what the baseline, normal, views were. We risk dismissing every single person in history that did something brilliant, or had a brilliant idea, because they were "antisemetic", "sexist", "racist", "anti-communist", or a "papist".
  As a person who invested extensive time and money in an education studying historical ideas, I've noticed that this is a huge problem; dismissing historical figures because they don't line up with our current transitory societal norms. Not liking Jews (or being dismissive of women, or blacks, or...) in a time when not liking Jews (or women, or blacks, or...) was common place isn't as important as not liking Jews (or...) now, when this view has mostly been exposed as bigoted lunacy.
  To me this is all so simple. It is evident to me that all the controversy and conflict comes from the inability of many to look at something objectively without being a slave and bond-servant to their own tender sensibilities. Dispassionate evaluation without inserting yourself and your feelings into every little thing is clearly the superior way. Having feelings, even passionate ones, is good and well so long as you are their master; otherwise the proper order is reversed and they serve to foster ignorance. This ignorance is the very worst kind because the person cherishes it, will defend it, and will not part with it easily.
  Let's take someone like Thomas Jefferson. In many ways he was a true individual. His love of freedom and his willingness to take great personal risk to advance it is nothing less than heroic. But he owned slaves and probably compelled sexual favors the female slaves who were definitely not in a position to refuse.
  To me this is so simple. His willingness to own slaves is the sense in which he was not ahead of his time, did not have the capacity to independently evaluate the morality of the situation, was merely a product of his culture. He was not a perfect free-thinking individual. The fact that he was an exceptionally great man in so many other ways does not contradict this. What free thought he had was put to excellent use. What free thought he lacked blemished his memory.
  You see this in politics even today. It's like we want people to be perfect saints who are absolutely blameless in every conceivable way. Such people generally do not exist. We keep getting disappointed about the fact that evil is everywhere, even within great men. It's as though this is a big surprise, as though there aren't many repetitive examples. This is called denial. If you love virtue and truth, stop worrying about people and things you cannot control. Work on yourself and stop depending on some messianic paragon of all virtue to show you the way. Even if there were such a leader today, making yourself a behavioral clone of him robs you of any true appreciation. That kind of change does not come from follow-the-leader, not even with the best possible leaders. It comes from the inside and moves outwards.
  
  This is especially common with Hitler (ontopic, so Godwin averted); anyone in Germany in the mid-30's who even mentioned the name Hitler, or had any sympathy whatsoever with his politics (even if they weren't in favor, or aware of the extent of the "final solution" bits) are magically discredited. This ignores a whole bunch of context in favor of moralizing newthink. Oddly while we dismiss certain people (like Martin Heidegger) we completely ignore the more odious bits of people closer to us (Woodrow Wilson's eugenics binge).
  Hitler was amazingly popular in the USA until the extent of his evil was better known. His talk of eugenics appealed to the "Social Darwinism" mentality of the old-money families. Wilson wasn't the only one who celebrated him. Henry Ford and many other businessmen thought he was jus
  
  --
  It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
26. Re:Thank you by causality · 2011-06-23 06:20 · Score: 1
  
  I also wanted to add that you are providing a great example of how to have constructive discussion. This is the sort which edifies and elevates. Sadly it seems to be a lost art of sorts. That's why I am specifically pointing that out, not so much for you but for others who need examples to understand the difference.
  Thank you for expanding on a worthy subject without making it degenerate into the "I'm right so you have to be wrong" polarity that's only really appropriate for undisputable facts. I'm appreciative but I am not complementing you. You complement yourself by handling it this way. It's not a matter of agreement or whether I see this exactly the way that you do. It's simply nice to converse with an actual adult.
  
  --
  It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
27. Re:Thank you by tnk1 · 2011-06-23 06:40 · Score: 1
  
  You're falling into the trap of saying that just because he was good at math and patriotic, homosexuality could not possibly be a problem.
  It's just as easy to take a convicted serial killer with a predilection for men and use that as proof that homosexuals are deviant and dangerous.
  Alan Turing was not great because he was gay, he was great because he was smart and worked for freedom. He also happened to be gay.
  I personally agree that there is nothing about being gay that makes you a public danger, and so in that regard, the law was unnecessary and wrong. However, the reason he lost his clearance was entirely valid, his personal relationships could be used as a pressure point to make him an agent of a foreign power. The same goes for men cheating on their wives.
  So, fair or not, I hope that if gays or adulterers, or lovers of My Little Pony are truly more susceptible to being turned into agents, that this continues to be taken into account.
28. Re:Thank you by JockTroll · 2011-06-23 08:46 · Score: 1
  
  Not in Old Blighty. He must look foreigner and be guilty of being, for instance, Electrician while Brazilian.
  
  --
  Geeks are so full of shit that "beating the crap out of them" takes a whole new meaning.
29. Re:Thank you by tnk1 · 2011-06-23 09:11 · Score: 2
  
  The freedom fighter vs. terrorist labels are silly because they are apples and oranges. Being a freedom fighter is a label that describes your goals and being a terrorist describes your strategy. Fighting for freedom can employ terror tactics and terrorists may support a repression instead of opposing it (ie. pro-government death squads). The terms are not mutually exclusive nor are they directly opposing.
  As long as Mandela believed that private citizens were targets, he was a terrorist. It didn't matter if he stopped actual civilian attacks at some point if he did not change his general strategy. As long as his group considered civilians as primary targets, as opposed to collateral damage to be avoided, they were a terrorist group. Obviously, the outside world's general impression of Mandela as a terrorist could only be informed by their observations, so Mandela's actions over twenty years could allow him to shed his terrorist label, whereas if bin Laden had decided to become a non-terrorist the day before he was shot, it's unlikely we would ever know (or believe) it, even if it was 100% true.
  At the same time, Mandela was always a freedom fighter, whereas bin Laden was not so much. Mandela wanted freedom for the black majority, bin Laden wanted an Islamic caliphate which imposed a minority order on the larger population.
  When you hear the false dichotomy of terrorist vs. freedom fighter you are only comparing the connotations of the two words. The reason for that is that it can be tricky to separate the goals of a fighter from their methods. For instance, I don't think anyone doubts that the Palestinians are getting shat on. The question is, what is the best way of ensuring that they can live in peace and prosperity. Although many of the Palestinian terrorist groups are co-opted by other states like Iran, if you take their rhetoric at its face value, their goals are legitimate, its their methods that are violent, counterproductive, and generally vile. They are therefore, terrorist freedom fighters. Obviously, they emphasize the freedom fighter part, to make themselves look good, and the other side emphasizes the terrorist side to get the negative connotation. They're both being inaccurate for their own reasons.
  As far as Dresden goes, Dresden was a terror bombing. It was a terrorist act because it employed terror in the attempt to attain its strategy. So, like Nelson Mandela, Bomber Command and the US Air Force were engaging in terrorist acts and thus, could be labeled terrorists.
  However, given who they were fighting, they could also be labeled freedom fighters. There is no dissonance even if they engaged in a terrorist act. Additionally, it should be pointed out that Germany used terror bombing in Spain and in Rotterdam to accomplish its goals. Terror bombing Dresden was much, much worse, but we are not talking about a bombing that was singular, one-sided, and unprovoked.
  So why is everyone uptight about the Palestinians and al-Queda? Isn't Dresden the same thing, so don't we deserve it? Sure we do, but only if you subscribe to the notion someone else being a murderous thug in the past gives you the right to be a murderous thug too. Personally, I have always felt that you don't get to claim the high ground by taking the low road, no matter how many people take the same path.
30. Re:Thank you by Hazel+Bergeron · 2011-06-23 10:42 · Score: 1
  
  Fine answer. I agree re the false dichotomy: the problem is that people think terrorist=bad vs freedomFighter=good, so all you have to do is convince people that some group is one or the other.
  I'm not sure I'm clear about your use of the terrorist label: what if your strategy is to target civilians to destroy infrastructure / economy / etc., rather than to strike morale-breaking terror into the population? An efficient annihilation of a capital city with one large bomb might bring a country to its knees, for example.
31. Re:Thank you by tnk1 · 2011-06-23 11:52 · Score: 1
  
  Before I realized that my post was getting long, I had gotten into the total war aspect of WWII, especially in regard to Germany. It is true that once Germany had been able to move a lot of factories into hardened locations, what ended up being most vulnerable was workforce housing. Thus, targeting habitation areas would have an effect on production. Of course, the idea was to destroy the buildings, not the people, but there's really no way of bombing a residential area and not expecting to hit people. That was one way that they used bombing in WWII.
  The point of hitting a capital is usually to hit command and control, as well as leadership positions. A big bomb on a capital city might be justifiable militarily, but I think only if the air defenses were such that you could only expect to get maybe one or two bombs through. Otherwise, some effort should probably be taken to hit those targets individually because there is nothing special about the normal civilians in a capital as opposed to any other city.
  Terrorism is pretty much about an intended strategy. If you mean to just hit a strategic target, and you take reasonable precautions to keep the level of force down to what is needed, I don't think you should call it terrorism even if you nuked the city. Of course, it may be very hard to prove that you had to use that level of force in the aftermath.
  On the other hand, if you obliterated the capital and regarded the terror effect as beneficial or even a desirable side effect and therefore took no steps to manage the level of firepower used, then it was a terror act even if it that was at best a secondary objective.
  Since we have to judge intent with observations, this is an unsatisfying answer. The only possible way of being objective about it is by using conventions and laws to gauge actions and assume a certain intent if those lines are breached. Even then, circumstances can vary wildly in a war, but it is probably the best way to go about it.
  So, to get to Dresden, although they did argue that there were military objectives in the city and its environs, I think there was at least the understanding that they regarded terrorizing the population as at least a beneficial effect and made little effort to control the firepower used in the pursuit of otherwise reasonable targets. For that reason, I generally would regard that act and its planning to be terrorist.
  I should note that I do make a distinction between pursuit of a firebombing in a total war situation and an act of specifically targeting non-combatants in peacetime when negotiation is possible.
  As General Sherman said, "You cannot qualify war in harsher terms than I will. War is cruelty, and you cannot refine it; and those who brought war into our country deserve all the curses and maledictions a people can pour out"
  To me, the use of terror to bring war, as oppose to stopping a war, is an important difference between what we see today, and what you saw in WWII. Even though I feel that terror is, in the end unjustifiable and counterproductive, the distinction is still important to make.
32. Re:Thank you by Haedrian · 2011-06-23 13:02 · Score: 1
  
  Turing Test =/= Turing Machine =/= Turing Reduction
  Guy certainly was prolific though.
33. Re:Thank you by JasterBobaMereel · 2011-06-23 20:04 · Score: 1
  
  ...and to Hsue-Shen Tsien, who founded the Jet propulsion laboratory, then during the Red Scare he was deemed to have communist sympathies ("well he must he is chinese"!) and so was imprisoned and then left for China and founded the Chinese rocketry and space program ..
  
  --
  Puteulanus fenestra mortis
34. Re:Thank you by AmiMoJo · 2011-06-23 22:05 · Score: 1
  
  Gay sex was actually illegal in the UK up to the 1960s. It was only in the 90s that there was parity for the age of consent, and then in the 2000s parity for legal union (marriage) and inheritance and adoption rights. It has been a very long road.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
35. Re:Thank you by black+soap · 2011-06-24 01:03 · Score: 1
  
  Are the Palestinian attacks actively discouraged by the Palestinian Authority, or does the PA just assume those rockets are going to be put to some legitimate, peaceful use?
36. Re:Thank you by black+soap · 2011-06-24 01:08 · Score: 1
  
  When you have a secret your employers would disapprove of, you are blackmailable and are considered a liability. Then homophobes (or any other -ophobes) will use that an excuse to exclude people that are different from their super-secret clubs. Ironically, if the employers weren't homophobes, the employee's sexuality would not create a security risk.
37. Re:Thank you by jfmiller · 2011-06-24 05:04 · Score: 1
  
  Ok, I'm impressed - where do you keep your infinitely large memory tape?
  At NewEgg.com using lazy evaluation.
  
  --
  Strive to make your client happy, not necessarly give them what they ask for
38. Re:Thank you by operagost · 2011-06-24 07:50 · Score: 1
  
  Like the Special Olympics, right?
  
  --
  
  Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
39. Re:Thank you by Hazel+Bergeron · 2011-06-24 08:11 · Score: 1
  
  wat r u implying u disablist nazi racist communist capitalist god-bashing jesus-worshipping privileged bitter working class low IQ ivory tower academic anti-semitic israeli lobbyist goat-worrier?
  Also, yes. But I preferred W. S. Coffin(!)'s original. Though I imagine the rat would respond with a tour of his hookers and blow. Conjunction.
40. Re:Thank you by LandruBek · 2011-06-25 07:04 · Score: 1
  
  That's Doctor Turing to you. :)
  
  --
  $META_SIG_JOKE
41. Re:Thank you by lucian1900 · 2011-06-28 04:07 · Score: 1
  
  I believe you misunderstood the comment. I believe my grandparent meant that discriminating against people is stupid and harmful, this being a particular example of it harming our society.
And shamefully treated too. by Gandalf_the_Beardy · 2011-06-23 01:27 · Score: 4, Insightful

I always wonder what more he would have gone on to if he hadn't been branded a pervert - one of the UK Govt's more shameful episodes.
As it was, the Turing machine remains an excellent means of terrorising computing undergraduates. I've never seen such confusion when we saw the concept for the first time in class.
1. Re:And shamefully treated too. by donscarletti · 2011-06-23 01:55 · Score: 1, Funny
  
  I always wonder what more he would have gone on to if he hadn't been branded a pervert
  
  As a mathematician over 30? Probably he could have done some teaching, hung out at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton for a while, get tenure somewhere, smoke a pipe and so forth.
  
  --
  When Argumentum ad Hominem falls short, try Argumentum ad Matrem
2. Re:And shamefully treated too. by betterunixthanunix · 2011-06-23 04:54 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Andy Wiles was over 30 when he proved Fermat's Last Theorem...
  
  --
  Palm trees and 8
Re:If he is the grandfather... by royallthefourth · 2011-06-23 01:34 · Score: 1

bill gates obviously
Why 99 by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-23 01:35 · Score: 1

Thought 100 would be the more "special" occasion.
1. Re:Why 99 by mr1911 · 2011-06-23 01:42 · Score: 2
  
  We will get to that in about a year.
  
  --
  This post comes with a double-your-money-back guarantee!
  Any offense taken to this post is at your sole discretion.
2. Re:Why 99 by agentgonzo · 2011-06-23 01:57 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Slashdot is trying to atone for its past history of posting news stories months after they happen by being a whole year early for this particular one. Also, expect three threads on the subject next year.
3. Re:Why 99 by BeShaMo · 2011-06-23 01:59 · Score: 1
  
  I take it you missed the 98th birthday commemoration last year?
4. Re:Why 99 by jonescb · 2011-06-23 02:45 · Score: 2
  
  We start counting from 0 here.
5. Re:Why 99 by Lord+Lode · 2011-06-23 03:44 · Score: 1
  
  You can't celebrate him enough!
6. Re:Why 99 by Kittenman · 2011-06-23 09:05 · Score: 1
  
  We will get to that in about a year.
  And then we can all say 'Dupe'. Or almost.
  
  --
  "The greatest lesson in life is to know that even fools are right sometimes" - Winston Churchill
If he's so smart how come he's dead? by bazmail · 2011-06-23 01:37 · Score: 2

Yeah go ahead.....
1. Re:If he's so smart how come he's dead? by stardaemon · 2011-06-23 01:49 · Score: 1
  
  Ok, I will:) He isn't smart any more. Comes with being dead.
  
  --
  The only way to stay sane in an insane world, is to be mad yourself...
Re:Polymath? by Hazel+Bergeron · 2011-06-23 01:40 · Score: 4, Funny

Cockney rhyming slang for a bath. The man was a large iron/enamel basin. And basins give a ringing sound when you strike them. Two strikes, turings. Whence the Turing machine.
Re:Polymath? by Gandalf_the_Beardy · 2011-06-23 01:43 · Score: 3, Informative

Someone who is skilled in multiple different disciplines like Leonardo da Vinci, (Painting, sculpture, engineer, physicist, astronomer, anatomist, geologist, architect) or perhaps Jefferson, (author, lawyer, musician, botanist, diplomat)
Re:And Google forgot this... by Hazel+Bergeron · 2011-06-23 01:45 · Score: 5, Interesting

However.
Re:Polymath? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-23 01:54 · Score: 1

You forgot "pitcher" and "catcher".
Turing, victim of hypocrisis by Opportunist · 2011-06-23 01:57 · Score: 4, Insightful

While we're in dire need of your skills, we'll look past your "oddities", but as soon as the fag did his part he can as well go to hell.
How many good people do we have to lose due to hypocrites and stupid laws influenced by religion before we notice that the Gallileos and Turings did more to our progress as humans than all the bible thumpers together?

--
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
1. Re:Turing, victim of hypocrisis by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-23 02:12 · Score: 1
  
  I call BS:
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_thinkers_in_science
  Just because you would like to believe that all "bible thumpers are idiots does not make it true, and just because some people (the church) have made bad decisions does not make them all wrong. Please remember that "the Church" was also the same group that pushed for public education, health care reform, communcation and peace.
2. Re:Turing, victim of hypocrisis by royallthefourth · 2011-06-23 02:13 · Score: 1
  
  Gallileos ... did more to our progress as humans than all the bible thumpers together
  Remember that shortly before Galileo the monks were just about the only literate persons and wrote all of the literature in their time. The church was huge and its right hand often offered a blessing while the left destroyed. It was part of a larger social order that by constant warfare between tiny states (among other savage means) prevented anyone else from gaining education, be it accidental or intentional. Of course, the world isn't arranged by feudalism anymore and its last remnants (the church, monarchy) are only influential in the most backward places.
3. Re:Turing, victim of hypocrisis by WillAdams · 2011-06-23 02:20 · Score: 1
  
  Well, the Bible thumpers have had their moments:
  http://www.amazon.com/Irish-Saved-Civilization-Hinges-History/dp/0385418493
  And Galileo _was_ a devout Catholic (which makes his story all the more poignant).
  At least you got Turing's situation right. What we really need is for someone to make the explicit statement that ``Civil Unions'' should be accorded _all_ the legal rights, privileges and status as marriage and we could move on to solving real problems as opposed to arguing over labels. At least the UN got on board in a recent resolution:
  http://articles.cnn.com/2011-06-17/world/un.lgbt.rights_1_gay-rights-human-rights-gay-pride-event?_s=PM:WORLD
  
  --
  Sphinx of black quartz, judge my vow.
4. Re:Turing, victim of hypocrisis by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-23 02:31 · Score: 1
  
  Then too there was Anthony Blunt who was gay, a Soviet spy, worked in MI5 during the war (and passed on Enigma translations which originated with the group where Turing worked) and who ended up working as an art historian (in part for the royal family, I believe) and who did quite well for himself.
5. Re:Turing, victim of hypocrisis by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-23 02:44 · Score: 1
  
  the Gallileos and Turings did more to our progress as humans than all the bible thumpers together?
  
  Yeah, Newton was a chump!
6. Re:Turing, victim of hypocrisis by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-23 03:02 · Score: 1
  
  You do realize that almost all of Galileo's work was done on The Church's dime right? But keep believing the fairy tale that bible thumpers aren't also patrons of science.
7. Re:Turing, victim of hypocrisis by ChrisMaple · 2011-06-23 07:29 · Score: 1
  
  And he's a bigger crook than I could ever hope to be. (BHO)
  
  --
  Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
8. Re:Turing, victim of hypocrisis by ChrisMaple · 2011-06-23 07:40 · Score: 1
  
  "Bible thumper" means a lot more than Christian. It means someone who loudly proclaims that all truth comes from the Bible, and that anything that contradicts the Bible is wrong. It means someone who reads the Bible, and if he's smart enough to see the internal contradictions, twists his mind to find ways to make the contradiction go away.
  Such people are at a substantial disadvantage compared to others who aren't wasting their time on fairy tales or destroying their minds making nonsense compatible with reality.
  
  --
  Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
Re:Polymath? by syousef · 2011-06-23 01:59 · Score: 1

Someone who is skilled in multiple different disciplines like Leonardo da Vinci, (Painting, sculpture, engineer, physicist, astronomer, anatomist, geologist, architect) or perhaps Jefferson, (author, lawyer, musician, botanist, diplomat)
And here I thought Polymath was the name of any parrot who could add. The ones that can't are called PolyWantACracker.

--
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
Re:Polymath? by Inda · 2011-06-23 02:08 · Score: 1

lol. Highly unlikely. Fair play for the +5.

Been racking my brain and I cannot think of RS for bath... but it has never been polymath. It doesn't even rhyme in Norf Landan.

--
This post contains benzene, nitrosamines, formaldehyde and hydrogen cyanide.
Re:And Google forgot this... by las1001n · 2011-06-23 02:21 · Score: 1

But on the other hand, SMBC http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=1904
Alan Turing should be Knighted by FlipperPA · 2011-06-23 02:27 · Score: 1

There's a campaign that was start to Knight Alan Turing, which would be an appropriate honor bestowed by the government which treated him so horrifically. More information is available here:
http://news.pinkpaper.com/NewsStory.aspx?id=1704 ...or just Google it. If it were to happen a year from today, that would be wonderfully appropriate, though I doubt Turing would care too much about a number stuck in base 10.
A Toast to Alan! by paulsnx2 · 2011-06-23 02:35 · Score: 1

Alan Turing demonstrated (through what was a thought experiment) the very nature of computation. His contributions stand head and shoulders over any other computational theorist, ever.
Turing machines model computation while striping away all the artifacts required to really build a computer system. At the same time, they demonstrate and prove that there isn't any difference between the results of a computer, and a computer simulating a computer. In one paper he provided us with the model to understand how to build computers, and how to write really fun movies (Matrix, Total Recall, and many others)
A toast to you, Alan! You are loved, and you are missed!
1. Re:A Toast to Alan! by smallfries · 2011-06-23 03:20 · Score: 1
  
  Dude, I know that it is Alan's birthday, but you shouldn't use it to diss the Church like that.
  
  --
  Slashdot: where don knuth is an idiot because he cant grasp the awesome power of php
2. Re:A Toast to Alan! by glwtta · 2011-06-23 03:49 · Score: 1
  
  His contributions stand head and shoulders over any other computational theorist, ever.
  
  Well, Alonzo Church had a bit to do with it, too.
  
  --
  sic transit gloria mundi
3. Re:A Toast to Alan! by oursland · 2011-06-23 14:34 · Score: 1
  
  Heck, Alonzo Church did it first, roughly six months prior to Alan Turing.
An Apology by assertation · 2011-06-23 02:37 · Score: 1

Has anyone ever suggested that the British government issue an apology (torturing him because he was gay) to his family or the gay community as well as doing something to commemorate him?
1. Re:An Apology by Gandalf_the_Beardy · 2011-06-23 02:41 · Score: 1
  
  Already been done...
  http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8249792.stm
  "Gordon Brown has said he is sorry for the "appalling" way World War II code-breaker Alan Turing was treated for being gay."
2. Re:An Apology by Stoobalou · 2011-06-23 02:45 · Score: 1
  
  http://www.thinq.co.uk/2010/3/25/government-gives-250000-to-bletchley-park/ PM Gordon Brown said sorry for all the chemical castration and that back in March. And coughed up Â£250,000 for the park's upkeep
3. Re:An Apology by assertation · 2011-06-23 02:57 · Score: 1
  
  Nice to hear about the decent thing being done for a change.
4. Re:An Apology by Xest · 2011-06-23 03:07 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, we finally got the cunts to do this just the year before last.
  I say finally because many attempts for such a thing had been rejected so many times before, even since the millenium which shows how utterly fucking pathetic governments are at accepting that sometimes they didn't do the right thing.
  It's shameful that it took so long, it's shameful that even in recent years it was still rejected, but at least they finally did it.
  As for commemorating him, that's really gone ahead without the government, there are numerous ways in which he's commemorated around the country, generally funded by private or academic institutions.
5. Re:An Apology by assertation · 2011-06-23 03:12 · Score: 1
  
  Good to hear that the right thing has been done.
6. Re:An Apology by assertation · 2011-06-23 03:14 · Score: 1
  
  That is one thing I respect about the German government. They gave apologies for WWII and I believe the Holocaust.
  I still think the government should do something to commemorate him. A statue, a memorial or at least a postage stamp
7. Re:An Apology by oursland · 2011-06-23 14:32 · Score: 1
  
  The right thing can never be done. But, they have acknowledged their fuck ups.
8. Re:An Apology by rbrausse · 2011-06-30 03:24 · Score: 1
  
  A statue, a memorial or at least a postage stamp
  A stamp would be the most visible remembrance, so if the government tries to ignore this issue a statue somewhere in the wild is more likely.
  but wait:
  
  So on behalf of the British government, and all those who live freely thanks to Alan’s work I am very proud to say: we’re sorry, you deserved so much better.
  
  it was late, it was little* - but the government is not too much to blame here.
  *) some other items are a plaque at his birthhouse or this statue at Bletchley Park
not goatse, honest! by Thud457 · 2011-06-23 02:51 · Score: 1

think different?

what, too soon?

--
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Someone remind Google by Sparky69 · 2011-06-23 02:54 · Score: 1

Of all the days that Google should have a custom search page today would be it. They've had it for people a lot more obscure than Turing who is ultimately responsible for any of them having jobs. Just sayin!
Horribly sad story. by bodland · 2011-06-23 03:11 · Score: 2

I learned about Turing many years ago, but his personal story was only made aware to me recently.

I am glad to see that apologies have been made but it doesn't make up for the tragedy of a brilliant man...a brilliant gay pioneer.

Speculation on if he committed suicide fails to mention that a dramatic side effect of estrogen use in males is the development of female secondary sexual characteristics, a "second pubery". Two years on estrogen injections that no doubt were at quite a high dosage to supress testosterone, Turing more than likely developed noticeable breasts accompanied by fat shifts and loss of muscle mass...not to mention the atrophy of the genitals...

One could speculate it was extremely difficult for a sexually active healthy gay man in his early 40's to undergo a "forced transition". After two years Turing was probably seeing his body turn quite female as subcutaneous fat settled into female patterns on his body and muscle tone gives way to a more smooth appearance, and body hair reduces to a terminal stage and become less vigorous. Other effects include reduction in stamina and aggression as well as physical strength. His sexuality and attractiveness to other gay men was being taken away from him. It was likely too much...add to it the extreme effects on emotions caused by the influence of estrogen if his dosage was not maintained consistently it would result in wildly shifting levels of testosterone and estrogen resulting in more emotional instability.

It would not be surprising that he could no longer live himself. In the end his story ends as another example, in a long string, of cruelties society has inflicted on gay people throughout history.
1. Re:Horribly sad story. by Dixie_Flatline · 2011-06-23 09:50 · Score: 1
  
  It's worth pointing out that it hasn't ALWAYS been true. It's more true of modern, western societies. If you look into the history of both homosexuality and monogamy, the trend towards cruelty started just a couple thousand years ago.
  'Spartanizing' was a word Athenians used to describe the practice of having sex with boys. Contrary to the movie 300, Spartans were the ones likely to be in homosexual relationships. (In fact, I've read that Spartans were encouraged to partner with one of the other troops; people that love one another will fight fiercely for each other.)
  Leaving aside the morality of having sex with children (I think it's wrong; clearly the Romans thought differently) there was a clearly a different opinion when it came to having sex with those of the same gender. You see that sort of theme pop up in various early histories.
  I'm not gonna say it was a panacea, but I think that it's been worse over the last couple thousand years, with the advent of Christian moralities. Slowly, we're managing to put that to rest, and hopefully we won't find too many new groups to persecute in their place. :/
  (P.S. I'm no historian, I'm just piecing bits of random readings that I've done together.)
Logicomix by Evtim · 2011-06-23 03:29 · Score: 1

Hey, let's write to the creators of the Logicomix [http://www.logicomix.com/en/] - they were planning for a second book that would follow Von Neumann and Turing! What better occasion than the 100th anniversary!
I though their work about Russell, Whitehead , Godel and so on was simply superb!
Pardon My BlogWhoring... by ideonexus · 2011-06-23 03:56 · Score: 1

...but I drew up a dinky cartoon about Alan Turing's treatment:
Super Science Ninja Squad: Alan Turing

--
i ~ Celebrating Science, Cyberspace, Speculation
Re:If he is the grandfather... by mbkennel · 2011-06-23 04:26 · Score: 1

Johnny von Neumann
Respect the man ... by i-reek · 2011-06-23 04:39 · Score: 1

or step the fuck off this site
Re:celebrating bdays of dead folks... by betterunixthanunix · 2011-06-23 04:50 · Score: 1
It's funny how you manage to leave out the really great minds in computer science. Church, Cook, and Levin should be the ones you mention, since their work is at least on par with Turing's. Lady Ada makes for a nice story about programming, but it pales in comparison to:
- Church and Turing settling the Entscheidungsproblem and proving that different models of computability are equivalent (Church-Turing thesis).
- Cook and Levin establishing the existence of the NP-complete problems.
- Micali and Goldwasser's early work on provable security (this probably makes more of a difference in your daily use of crypto than Turing's work).
--
Palm trees and 8
What, no Google doodle? by DemonGenius · 2011-06-23 04:59 · Score: 1

Google really screwed up on this one, given the odd people/events they already created doodles for, especially given who made Google possible in the first place. Shame on you Google... shame.
Father of Computing by soboroff · 2011-06-23 06:00 · Score: 1

"Modern computing"? He's the father (or certainly one of the fathers) of computation as any sort of scientific or mathematical discipline.
Re:Polymath? by __aancvu2993 · 2011-06-23 07:49 · Score: 1

Offtopic but good one. I mean it. I'm also sick of the sheeple born with their brain disconnected. Like the bunch of idiots here making light of hate crimes commited by the state.
Too frequently I am also enraged by retards but, I'm not trying to save you or anything, it's just a fit of rage but remember to look at nature, read Einstein's writings, listen to Bach. You deserve it. Idiots cannot ruin that.