Honoring Alan Turing, "Father of Computer Science"

alphadogg writes "Google's Vint Cerf and others are spearheading celebrations in Silicon Valley and the UK this month to celebrate the 100th anniversary of Alan Turing's birth. 'The man challenged everyone's thinking,' says Vint Cerf, Google's chief Internet evangelist, in an interview with Network World. 'He was so early in the history of computing, and yet so incredibly visionary about it.' Cerf — who is president-elect of the Association for Computing Machinery and general chair of that organization's effort to celebrate the upcoming 100th anniversary of Turing's birth on June 23 — says that it's tough to overstate the importance of Turing's role in shaping the world of modern computing. Turing's accomplishments included his breakthrough Turing machine, cracking German military codes during WWII and designing a digital multiplier called the Automated Computing Machine."

Comments

And he killed a dragon once with a vacuum tube

[crazyjj]

Okay, well that last one sounds a little more implausible than the rest--granted.

Re:And he killed a dragon once with a vacuum tube

[msheekhah]

I was there. I saw it.

Re:And he killed a dragon once with a vacuum tube

[Anonymous Coward]

No gay man ever fathered a child in your universe?

Re:And he killed a dragon once with a vacuum tube

[Anonymous Coward]

No one owes you their sperm.

Plus, it wasn't his homosexuality that prevented him from reproducing. Had he lived longer, for all we know, he may have chosen to donate some sperm. But we'll never know, because the effects of stupid laws pushed him to end his life far too prematurely.

Re:And he killed a dragon once with a vacuum tube

[Anonymous Coward]

He was treated most shabbily by the Government of the day. His homosexuality and naivety did not serve him well. He submitted to chemical castration and other enforced steps to cure him, deeds regarded as criminal by today's standards.

Re:And he killed a dragon once with a vacuum tube

[qbitslayer]

I'm sure his DNA can be recovered from the grave and used later for cloning. Tissue in the teeth can last a long time.

Re:And he killed a dragon once with a vacuum tube

[Mystra_x64]

Sometimes legacy is not about DNA transfer.

Re:And he killed a dragon once with a vacuum tube

[Anonymous Coward]

Okay, well that last one sounds a little more implausible than the rest--granted.

It sounds more plausible than a gay man fathering a computer as everyone knows he wouldn't touch its mother.

Re:And he killed a dragon once with a vacuum tube

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Not if he was exclusively gay, no. And I don't plug male connectors into male connectors either, do you?

Re:And he killed a dragon once with a vacuum tube

[Anonymous Coward]

And I don't plug male connectors into male connectors either, do you?

No. But so what if I did?

Re:And he killed a dragon once with a vacuum tube

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Then you'd be a stupid idiot who doesn't understand how things work.

He made people think. It finally killed him.

[gestalt_n_pepper]

'The man challenged everyone's thinking,' says Vint Cerf, Google's chief Internet evangelist, in an interview with Network World.

No wonder he was driven to suicide. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Turing#Death

Re:He made people think. It finally killed him.

[Samantha Wright]

Still unclear: if this event is being organized by Google's Vint Cerf and others, how many Vint Cerfs are there?!

Re:He made people think. It finally killed him.

[Anonymous Coward]

"Google's Vint Cerf" seemed inappropriate to me, considering Mr. Cerf's background. It should be "Vint Cerf's Google".

Re:He made people think. It finally killed him.

[fm6]

If he actually did commit suicide (I have my doubts) it was related to his homosexuality and the legal persecution thereof. Which doesn't really have a lot to do with challenges to thinking. Perhaps another kind of challenge.

But will they say gay?

[Fwipp]

I wonder if they'll mention his persecution by the British government for being gay. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_turing#Conviction_for_indecency
How we reward our heroes in this world...

Re:But will they say gay?

[Trepidity]

Judging by the program for the meatspace event next week, it looks like no. Not even the abstract for the "Turing the Man" panel, which is probably the only one it'd really fit in, mentions his persecution by the British government. The description of what precisely the panel will discuss about his life is vague enough that it might be mentioned at the actual event, though.

Re:But will they say gay?

[MrEricSir]

A few months ago the British government decided not to pardon Turing for his "crime" of being gay.

Their reasoning for rejecting the pardon request seems reasonable:

"However, the law at the time required a prosecution and, as such, long-standing policy has been to accept that such convictions took place and, rather than trying to alter the historical context and to put right what cannot be put right, ensure instead that we never again return to those times."

So it seems that's been addressed by the British government recently. Even though full equality may be a few steps away -- and we shouldn't whitewash that fact -- it's also important to acknowledge that there was far more to Turing than his sexuality.

Re:But will they say gay?

[GodfatherofSoul]

I love the idea of leaving these illegal prosecutions on the books. It seems to inspire a false sense of closure when people are posthumously pardoned. About the only time it's tangibly relevant is when someone has a conviction on their records that blocks opportunities like employment.

Re:But will they say gay?

[INowRegretThesePosts]

Even though full equality may be a few steps away

Equality in what sense?

Re:But will they say gay?

[MrEricSir]

Well I can't say much on the topic because I don't live in the UK, but they still don't allow gay couples to get married, for example.

Re:But will they say gay?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, mainly that. You can get a Civil Partnership, and the law says that Civil Partnerships are /like/ a marriage, but they aren't marriage. Anything a straight couple can do, a gay couple can legally do, but in some cases the gay couple has to fill out extra paperwork or jump through other hoops, whereas things happen automatically if you're married.

Plus of course society is still riddled with homophobia. They may not lock you up but they can be pretty horrible to you.

Re:But will they say gay?

[serviscope_minor]

Personally, I understand their point of view. It's arguable better not to give a false sense of clousre (Turing is dead and beyond caring now) than to whitewash history. Closure means moving on, and it's best not to move on and forget what caused it in the first place.

Re:But will they say gay?

[INowRegretThesePosts]

Well I can't say much on the topic because I don't live in the UK, but they still don't allow gay couples to get married, for example.

Please read http://frexpression.wordpress.com/2010/10/20/a-gay-man-decries-gay-rights/. Its author is an atheist homosexual.

Re:But will they say gay?

[MrEricSir]

Why would anyone waste their time reading a bunch of divisive partisan nonsense? That blog post is about as relevant as anything Glenn Beck or DailyKos has to say on the issue.

Re:But will they say gay?

[Capsaicin]

I love the idea of leaving these illegal prosecutions on the books.

What was illegal about the prosecution?! Was he not convicted of a crime by due process of law upon evidence and beyond reasonable doubt?

The point of Lord McNally was making was that just because the particular offence "now seems both cruel and absurd," does not mean it was not at that point in history a criminal offence. That being the case a pardon is not appropriate. What is appropriate is that we recognise the criminal law ought not to intervene in the choice of sexual behaviour among consenting adults. And that we should be careful not to elect to the legislature people who would seek once again to make it so.

Re:But will they say gay?

[INowRegretThesePosts]

Arguments stand on their own.
Ad hominem attacks are shameful.

Re:But will they say gay?

[tqk]

So it seems that's been addressed by the British government recently.

The English language can be astonishing in its power, yes? To say so much, yet say so little.

Re:But will they say gay?

[danlip]

A posthumous pardon isn't whitewashing history. It's an official admission from the government that they were wrong and a great injustice was done. If anything it draws attention to the injustice, which I would say is a good thing. Especially since we still live in an era where too many people think that gay people should still be prosecuted/persecuted.

Re:But will they say gay?

[tqk]

I love the idea of leaving these illegal prosecutions on the books.

The prosecution wasn't illegal; his actions were. That's the point.

About the only time it's tangibly relevant is when someone has a conviction on their records that blocks opportunities like employment.

As in Turing's case, or Oppenheimer's, or Socrates?

      "The nail that stands up will be hammered down." -- Japanese proverb.

We're all just fuel in other people's machines, and those machines appear to run best on prejudice. Humans are generally incapable of minding their own business. We all seem to think we know better what any other one ought to be doing. Queue Rodney King.

Re:But will they say gay?

[Anonymous Coward]

Its important to note that, in 2006 The british labor government pardoned, all british servicemen in WW1 who were executed. I believe this was to do with them recognising that shell shock was largely not cowardice, but was in fact an illness.

So pardons are possible.

Re:But will they say gay?

[samoanbiscuit]

Why don't you ever try to quote your arguments, or paraphrase the gist of them? Why do you just place cryptic links full of wordspam agreeing with your world-veiw? Here's a link to a concept I think you're using here. Argumentum ad tl:dr basically means you're burying your opponent in reams of text that could meaningfully be expressed in a few sentences.

An easy summary of what your link has to say is this:"I am a gay man, and therefore I speak for all gays; however, those gosh darn gay activists on the news DON'T speak for all gays, so have I proclaimed by the power vested in me by my suspicion of the evil government. When gay activism was repealing laws that criminalized homosexuality, I supported it, but now that they're trying to make NEW gosh darned laws making gay marriage legal, I don't support it because it goes against the beliefs of all these conservative Christians who have been so nice to me. In fact, "no major religious conservative has called for legal measures against homosexuals.", they're just "acting defensively, in working to overturn gay rights legislation that attacked their most deeply held beliefs.""

And my reply to that argument is: "Riiiiiight... Totally only defensively, and your deeply held religious beliefs TOTALLY have more importance than my life and my freedom

Re:But will they say gay?

[Anonymous Coward]

Queue Rodney King.

Line to the left or to the right?

Re:But will they say gay?

[Anonymous Coward]

IF the argument stood on its own then it wouldn't need to title "A Gay man decries gay rights". Why does it matter that the guy is gay?

Or do you think the ad hominem only applies when someone is disagreeing with you?

Re:But will they say gay?

[INowRegretThesePosts]

IF the argument stood on its own then it wouldn't need to title "A Gay man decries gay rights". Why does it matter that the guy is gay?

Because some people have the worldview that heterosexuals hate homosexuals. So they never read anything pro-traditional-marriage
written by a heterosexual. That text, having the title it has, could destroy that barrier and actually be _read_ by people, so they can think
for themselves.

Re:But will they say gay?

[tqk]

Queue Rodney King.

Line to the left or to the right?

Queue, cue, kew, whatever. Clue? No.

Odd things happen when Scotch is involved. Can't we all just get along?

Re:But will they say gay?

[INowRegretThesePosts]

Why don't you ever try to quote your arguments, or paraphrase the gist of them?

Because I don't think such a complex topic could be summarized to a paragraph.

Why do you just place cryptic links full of wordspam agreeing with your world-veiw?

Ad hominem.

An easy summary of what your link has to say is this:"I am a gay man, and therefore I speak for all gays;

I don't see how you could think that this is what the text means.

And my reply to that argument is: "Riiiiiight... Totally only defensively, and your deeply held religious beliefs TOTALLY have more importance than my life and my freedom

We are talking about the right to freedom of expression (homosexual militants are very keen to criminalize Christian viewpoints as "hate speech"), freedom to choose who will take care of your children (homosexual militants are keen to criminalize workplace "prejudice" based on sexual acts or sexual "Identity" - this means that if the teacher of your 10-yeard-old decides to work dressed like a drag queen, you are forbidden by law to do anything about it).

Re:But will they say gay?

[Xest]

Yes, the problem is when double standards are used.

The government went against their excuse quoted by the GP in pardoning long dead World War I soldiers who were convicted of cowardice.

This has the implication that government believes some past crimes (homosexuality) don't deserve pardons, but others (cowardice) do.

The reality is many Tory MPs are still homophobic bigots, as we're seeing to be the case now that gay marriage has come up and the Tories are the biggest potential barrier to it, so to pardon Turing would've upset many of the Tory backbench, whilst pardoning a bunch of people who were equally legitimately convicted under the rules at the time for cowardice is a populist move to make a bunch of whiners who aren't even old enough to have known their ancestors tried for cowardice shut the fuck up is acceptable.

So the excuse is just "blah blah blah bullshit", the real reason is still political, whether you feel it's the right thing to do or not, your feeling on whether pardons should or shouldn't be given is not the actual reason a pardon was not given unfortunately. As you're no doubt aware, rationality is rarely ever the purpose for doing anything in politics.

Re:But will they say gay?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why don't you ever try to quote your arguments, or paraphrase the gist of them?

Because I don't think such a complex topic could be summarized to a paragraph.

So write a few paragraphs. Just make them your own.

Why do you just place cryptic links full of wordspam agreeing with your world-veiw?

Ad hominem.

No it's not. Learn what "ad hominem" means before accusing someone of using it.

An easy summary of what your link has to say is this:"I am a gay man, and therefore I speak for all gays;

I don't see how you could think that this is what the text means.

It's pretty easy, given that's the message he's trying to convey. And so are you. Your point in quoting him is that he somehow represents the "truth" about the issue because he's gay and happens to agree with you.

And my reply to that argument is: "Riiiiiight... Totally only defensively, and your deeply held religious beliefs TOTALLY have more importance than my life and my freedom

We are talking about the right to freedom of expression (homosexual militants are very keen to criminalize Christian viewpoints as "hate speech"), freedom to choose who will take care of your children (homosexual militants are keen to criminalize workplace "prejudice" based on sexual acts or sexual "Identity" - this means that if the teacher of your 10-yeard-old decides to work dressed like a drag queen, you are forbidden by law to do anything about it).

Okay. From now on I'm going to object to any teacher wearing religious paraphernalia to school.

That kind of freedom cuts both ways.

Re:But will they say gay?

[Anonymous Coward]

Its important to note that, in 2006 The british labor government pardoned, all british servicemen in WW1 who were executed. I believe this was to do with them recognising that shell shock was largely not cowardice, but was in fact an illness.

So pardons are possible.

A positive step, but to pardon only Turing would be unfair. It works for the servicement because they were *ALL* pardoned.

Still, it does show how far we have come in 60 years, in some areas at least.

Google doodle finally

[GoNINzo]

I've requested a Google doodle for Alan Turing's birthday for a couple years now. I'm just glad to hear they'll finally put one up.

Re:Google doodle finally

[GonzoPhysicist]

I wonder if the doodle will be programmable, or even make it Turing complete for full nerd-gasm.

Not just computers

[JoshuaZ]

Turing didn't just help with practical computers. A lot of his ideas mattered in many other fields. For example, his idea of the Turing machine http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_machine and related work was vital to a lot of other fields such as the rise of theoretical computer science, and even as far as the study of equations with integer solutions (called Diophantine equations) in the form of Hilbert's Tenth Problem http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilbert's_tenth_problem.

Essentially, Hilbert asked whether there was a general algorithm to determine whether a given equation in integer variables had a solution. Even for individual equations figuring this out can be very difficult. For example it was known even in ancient times that x^2+y^2=z^2 had infinitely many integer solutions, but it took Fermat to show that x^4+y^4=z^4 did not. It turned out that there is no general way of answering these sorts of questions. The problem was solved by lot of people, especially Julia Robinson, Martin Davis, , Hilary Putnam, and ultimately finished off by Yuri Matiyasevich. The solution was to show that one can actually model an arbitrary Turing machine as a system of Diophantine equations, where the machine halting is equivalent to the Diophantine equations having a solution. Thus, if one can solve that one can answer whether any given Turing machine can halt, which Turing showed could not be done in general, using a clever trick- this is known as the Halting theorem http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem. Curiously, the equivalent problem over the rationals is still open, and is turning out to be connected to deep issues in topology and the theory of elliptic curves. So Turing's ideas and thoughts are still pushing us forward and making us ask new questions.

Re:Not just computers

[Xest]

Yes, I think to put your point more simply, the thing about Turing is that he was one of the 20th centuries mathematical greats.

Like Fermat in the 17th century, Newton in the 17th/18th century, etc. people like Godel and Turing were the equivalent mathematical greats of the 20th century, and because their contributions are so relatively recent, the ripples of the effect of their work are still being felt to this day.

In another hundred or two hundred years, Turing's name will be listed alongside everyone from Archimedes, to Fermat, to Newton, and so on, as a mathematician, his work was simply that important to humanity.

Re:Fuck the British government

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds like you've got a cock up your arse.

Just sayin

[bigredradio]

Has anyone noticed this before.... just sayin.

Re:Fuck the British government

[Anonymous Coward]

Alan had moved on from computers. I doubt he would have done more.

Re:Fuck the British government

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds like you've got a cock up your arse.

Or vagina.

Alan Turing

[Anonymous Coward]

It's so sad on reflection when we look on how we (and I'm British) treated him, just because he was homosexual. I'm afraid that we've lost many greats over the ages because of their peccadillos. At least now for many (but not everywhere) this is not a issue. Now Alan is receiving the recognition he truly deserved, along with Charles Babbage and don't forget Ada Byron.

Re:Alan Turing

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not a coward, just never figured out how of if I had to register! Ben Cowell

Re:Alan Turing

[kenh]

The british had a long-standing tradition of mis-treating many, many talented citizens of the Realm that had the misfortune of being practicing homosexuals.

Re:Alan Turing

[nukenerd]

I thought he had been receiving such recognition for some time now, certainly since I first heard of him some years ago.

Re:Alan Turing

[smithmc]

It's so sad on reflection when we look on how we (and I'm British) treated him, just because he was homosexual. I'm afraid that we've lost many greats over the ages because of their peccadillos.

Because of theirpeccadillos? Or because of the ignorance and intolerance of the majority?

No, it was homophobia that killed him

[Relic of the Future]

Despite your implication, there is no "persecuted genius" (a /. reader wish-fulfillment dream for sure) story here. I mean, he was a genius, of that there is no doubt, and he was persecuted, but they weren't really connected. Even in his own lifetime his work was honored and well-received. Where the persecution comes in, is in the conviction for homosexual indecency, and having his security clearance (and thus, most of his ability to continue working) revoked, and being subjected to court-ordered chemical castration. But to know about that, you'd have to scroll up on the wikipedia page.

Re:No, it was homophobia that killed him

[Kupfernigk]

I think destroying someone's career because of his sexual orientation counts as persecution in most modern societies.

Re:No, it was homophobia that killed him

[Anonymous Coward]

I take your point, however back then, being homosexual also made people *think* in ways that weren't necessarily comfortable, particularly when considering those odd friends and relatives that never married.

These days, it makes them watch daytime TV. Times change.

Re:No, it was homophobia that killed him

[newcastlejon]

I think destroying someone's career because of his sexual orientation counts as persecution in most modern societies.

Indeed, but the question was whether or not he was persecuted for being a genius.
He wasn't; he was persecuted for being gay... or to be more precise committing the then-crime of "gross indecency".

Re:No, it was homophobia that killed him

[Anonymous Coward]

What you're missing is that being homosexual also challenged everyone's thinking.

The poster you're replying to didn't mention the word 'genius'. You're delving into your own /. wish-fulfillment by inventing something to reply to.

Re:No, it was homophobia that killed him

[Darinbob]

In his lifetime most of his wartime work was unknown and still very secret. He probably should have gotten a medal or award of some sort for his work but that would involve revealing secret information. His after war computer work was better known, but that was in a much smaller circle of academics and later in his life. As I heard it, as part of his depression after being convicted was that he believed his work would be tainted by association with a criminal and forgotten about.

Af for the chemical castration, that was a very new idea at the time. No one really knew what it would do (mass doses of estrogen) but the theory was that it would "cure" the homosexuality. It was given as a choice between that or jail time, and it's entirely possible that some people thought it was the lesser punishment choice for someone with his reputation. It's in hindsight that we see this crude cure as being the worse punishment, and it contributed to his depression.

Re:No, it was homophobia that killed him

[Marxist Hacker 42]

And for those of use who believe in evolution and genetics influencing ability, robbing the world of future geniuses by refusing to breed.

Re:No, it was homophobia that killed him

[Anonymous Coward]

oh fuck you, no one is forced to breed and if they were all it requires is tossing in a cup.

Re:No, it was homophobia that killed him

[icebraining]

He would only have "robbed" if he had killed fetuses or infants.

He "robbed" the world much like you are robbing me by not giving me all your money.

Re:No, it was homophobia that killed him

[Shihar]

So I can then I assume from your comment that you will hold fast to your beliefs that only the intelligent should survive and will yourself refuse to breed? Shitty bigots like you are the reason why Turing died. If Turing had been living in Boston today, he would have merrily continued with his work, gotten married to someone he loved, and if it tickled his fancy, have had a kid. The kid could have been from his very own sperm if that is so fucking important to you. It is kind of hard to breed when if it leaks out that your partner has the wrong naughty bits, the government castrates you. I suppose you think the Jews that got dumped into gas chambers in Auschwitz are also assholes for not breeding?

The bigoted British government of the 50s robbed the world of Turing passing down a legacy, not his sexual orientation.

Re:No, it was homophobia that killed him

[Anonymous Coward]

Based on your past few comments, if you think forcing someone to breed is a good idea, or that someone 'owes' that to you, then I hope you save the world some pain and avoid breeding yourself, or at least don't teach anyone that braindead idea.

Re:No, it was homophobia that killed him

[serviscope_minor]

I wasn't sure if your first post was a badly written joke or a troll. It seems you are persisting, so either you insist on repeatedly making bad jokes or you're a nutcase.

Please do use a favour and don't breed, so you don't rob future generations of oxygen.

(or, just in case you're joking, please don't breed because to world does not need more people who can't tell when their pet joke isn't funny)

Re:No, it was homophobia that killed him

[Guy Harris]

And for those of use who believe in evolution and genetics influencing ability, robbing the world of future geniuses by refusing to breed.

Robbing the world of future children who might, or might not, have been geniuses. (Those who believe in evolution and genetics influencing ability are presumably familiar with, for example, the notion of recessive genes.... They're presumably also familiar with the notion that merely having a set of genes for some trait does not always magically ensure that the trait will manifest itself in the way you want; had, for example, Alan not been a particularly good father in this hypothetical world where he was a father, the kids might, or might not, have ended up as geniuses or, even if they did, they might not have ended up as productive geniuses.)

And, if he contributed more to the success of his brother John's children as a result of not having children of his own than he would have contributed to the success of his own children had he had any, perhaps it was a net win for the cause of geniuses. (Google is your friend.)

Re:No, it was homophobia that killed him

[grep_rocks]

Would he have been persecuted for being gay if he was not a so well recognized figure? I doubt it - somebody wanted to "put him in his place" - analogously you can say Bill Clinton was impeached for perjury, and while technically true, he would not have been put in that situation if there were not some very powerful people out to fuck him.

Re:No, it was homophobia that killed him

[Marxist Hacker 42]

"So I can then I assume from your comment that you will hold fast to your beliefs that only the intelligent should survive and will yourself refuse to breed?"

I actually consider this realization of fact, not belief, to be proof that I should breed.

It is incredibly hard to breed when you don't know the difference between a plug and a socket.

Re:No, it was homophobia that killed him

[Marxist Hacker 42]

It's only braindead to people who put freedom above duty.

Re:No, it was homophobia that killed him

[Marxist Hacker 42]

It's not a joke- as anybody who actually knows the difference between compatible plug and a compatible socket should know.

Re:No, it was homophobia that killed him

[Xest]

Yes but that's not what the GP was saying.

There's no doubt Turing was persecuted, and no doubt he was a genius, but he wasn't persecuted because he was a genius that's the point.

The term "persecuted genius" is related to the idea of someone being persecuted because they had ideas that were ahead of their time, but were offensive, to say, the church, and so were persecuted for those ideas, even though those ideas were factually correct.

Gallileo is the obvious example, he figured out that the Earth revolves around the sun, rather than the prominent and rather arrogant view at the time that the entire universe revolved around Earth (and to some degree, everything in the universe revolved around mankind). The Vatican rather hated this view and eventually forced him to spend the rest of his life under house arrest for it.

There was no problem with the ideas Turing put forth, no one was persecuting him for his groundbreaking work in maths and computing, rather they were persecuting him for his sexual orientation. In other words, rather than the term "persecuted genius" which has a specific meaning and background to it, it's probably better to say that he was a genius, that was persecuted.

Re:No, it was homophobia that killed him

[Anonymous Coward]

I actually consider the fact having just looked at your Facebook profile (http://www.facebook.com/theodore.seeber from your blog: http://outsidetheautisticasylum.blogspot.co.uk/) on your homepage link that you are morbidly obese a reason why you shouldn't breed and hopefully never will.

Well, that and the fact you're dumb enough to think god exists which is born of the same childlike logic that makes kids think Santa is real.

At least you'll die early with all that excess weight, that's something the world can be thankful of.

Might I also note that thankfully, it's also incredibly hard to breed when you're too fat to even find your own dick?

Re:No, it was homophobia that killed him

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, penises fit quite nicely in both anuses and mouths. I see no incompatibility whatsoever.

Re:No, it was homophobia that killed him

[Shihar]

AC Wrote:

I actually consider the fact having just looked at your Facebook profile (http://www.facebook.com/theodore.seeber from your blog: http://outsidetheautisticasylum.blogspot.co.uk/ [blogspot.co.uk]) on your homepage link that you are morbidly obese a reason why you shouldn't breed and hopefully never will.

Well, that and the fact you're dumb enough to think god exists which is born of the same childlike logic that makes kids think Santa is real.

At least you'll die early with all that excess weight, that's something the world can be thankful of.

Might I also note that thankfully, it's also incredibly hard to breed when you're too fat to even find your own dick?

Holy shit! AC is right. You are one fat fuck. Not only are you a fat fuck, but you also also appear to believe in magic. Don't breed dude. Not only are you physically unhealthy, but your belief in magical forces and spirits pretty well disqualifies you as a person who should be breeding.

Fat fuck wrote:

It is incredibly hard to breed when you don't know the difference between a plug and a socket.

Again, you appear to be a fucking moron. It is pretty easy for a gay to breed. You just need a womb. There is no shortage. Granted, it costs a little more than when two hillbillies fuck in the woods. You also seem to be under the delusion that people who have gay sex are confused about what naughty bits they posses. They aren't. They fully recognize that the sex they are having isn't for the purpose of reproduction and purely for fun. Most sex humans have isn't for reproduction. Well, in your case it might be. If you sucker some woman into having a relationship with you, I imagine she would only be letting your lard ass roll onto her if she was looking for a baby. You don't look like you have it all going in the "sweet loving" category, if you catch my drift.

In fact, I think this explains a lot about your bitterness towards gays. It must gal you to realize that there are people out there having sex purely for recreation. You, yourself, unable to sucker a woman into letting you enjoy regular recreational sex, have turned your cognitive dissidents to 11 and rationalize that sex is evil unless it is for procreation. You also appear to have picked up a belief in a magical sky man who gives a shit about you.

Here is my advice. Drop the belief in the magic sky man and accept that the world is as it appears to be and that there is no magic, holy or otherwise in it. Go to the gym and eat better. Do this for a year or two. It will feel good after a time. I promise. Work on being a less bigoted and shitty human so that you can attract people who enjoy life. You see, you are such a miserable fuck to be around that only people who believe in a magical god can stand to be around you, and only then because of their shared delusional belief in magic. What you need to do is work on being a less miserable fuck so that you can be around other more fun and interesting people. If you work on improving the health of your body and being less of a shit head, you will be able to hang out with people who have fun and are merry. Through such friends you might be able to find a lady who is okay with your now improved body and personality. With said lady, you can do the rest of the world a favor and get laid... laid just for fun. Once laid, the last vestiges of your miserable fat fuck personality will vanish. People around you will be happier and you will be happier. Win win.

That, or you can cling to your belief in a magic sky man and run around foaming at the mouth about how the gays are going to eat your children. Honestly, it doesn't really matter to me because I am going to go enjoy some recreational sex.

Re:No, it was homophobia that killed him

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Then you should have noted that I already have a child. In addition to that, may I suggest your bigotry against the obsese is no different than my bigotry against idiots?

Re:No, it was homophobia that killed him

[Marxist Hacker 42]

2nd reply on religion in general. Most people understand that Santa really exists, it takes a materialist idiot to think that there's only one form of existance.

Re:No, it was homophobia that killed him

[Marxist Hacker 42]

That's because you don't have any clue what a penis is actually used for.

Re:No, it was homophobia that killed him

[Anonymous Coward]

Dude.. you literally believe in magic. You are a moron.

Something else to remember...

[mseeger]

Please also remember, that he was driven into suicide by the nation he protected because he just was who he was. He had done nobody harm but was convicted because others decided what was morally acceptable between consenting adults.

Remember the talent we lost to bigotry :-(.

Re:Something else to remember...

[Anonymous Coward]

And to top it off he was robbed by the little faggot who turned him in, the cops gave didn't prosecute him for theft since he turned Turning in for being gay.

I would have thought that robbery would be a worse crime than buggery even back then.

Re:Something else to remember...

[kenh]

The only witness of the alleged theft was a suspected bugger...

Re:Something else to remember...

[Marxist Hacker 42]

And nobody even bothers to think about the talent we lost to the fact he was a homosexual. Intelligence *is* genetic, after all; it is the duty of the smart to breed.

Re:Something else to remember...

[Anonymous Coward]

it is the duty of the smart to breed.

Such a "duty" doesn't exist in any form.

Re:Something else to remember...

[serviscope_minor]

duty of the smart to breed.

I guess that makes it your duty not to.

Re:Something else to remember...

[samoanbiscuit]

Fuckwit. You don't seem to realize heterosexuality is no guarantee someone will procreate, and homosexuality is not some promise that someone will not. Artificial insemination. Sperm banks. Idiots like you who think they're so intelligent and that intelligence is genetic usually know all about these things because they're rejected from every sperm bank they apply to.

Re:Something else to remember...

[Guy Harris]

And nobody even bothers to think about the talent we lost to the fact he was a homosexual. Intelligence *is* genetic, after all; it is the duty of the smart to breed.

So get to work; one child is far from enough. You're not doing your duty!

Re:Something else to remember...

[Marxist Hacker 42]

True, heterosexuality is no guarantee that somebody will procreate, but until you can make a man pregnant by another man, homosexuality pretty much IS a guarantee that he won't.

Artificial insemination requires a woman to be involved, and gay men are afraid of women or else they would not be gay.

Re:Something else to remember...

[samoanbiscuit]

until you can make a man pregnant by another man, homosexuality pretty much IS a guarantee that he won't.

Did you read anything at all after my first sentence? You don't need a wife/female partner if you want a genetic child, you just need to be rich enough to afford a surrogate. Several homosexual celebrities (and countless more rich non-famous ones) have done this already. I actually think surrogacy is good because it requires the parents to be rich enough (or have a friend who is generous enough) and determined enough to pursue it, better than Billy-Bob and Jenna-May having a baby because he was wearing the condom on his finger.

Artificial insemination requires a woman to be involved, and gay men are afraid of women or else they would not be gay.

Wow. Just wow. I now realize you know nothing at all about gay people. Gay men are NOT afraid of women. They just don't want to fuck them. Do you know what happens when you meet someone interesting whom you don't want to fuck? You become friends. The stereotype of a fabulous gay man and a woman being best friends (BFFs?) is a stereotype for a reason, because it's common. There are a few gay men who don't like women at all, just like there are a few straight women who think gay men all want to steal their husbands, but in general, gay man + straight woman is like cheeto powder on fried bacon. So wrong yet so RIGHT!

Re:Something else to remember...

[Marxist Hacker 42]

"Did you read anything at all after my first sentence?"

When your first sentence is a vicious, premeditated lie, there's no need to read anything else.

Re:Something else to remember...

[samoanbiscuit]

When your first sentence is a vicious, premeditated lie, there's no need to read anything else.

When your only rebuttal to a well thought out reply is to point out the rudeness of the initial reply (that you conveniently ignored when you thought your "logic" would convince lil' old me), it shows someone who's willing to shift goalposts in order to win arguments. That is not someone I want to engage with in discussion, because such people are not likely to engage in good faith.

FYI: Lies are not like murder, sticking the adjective "premeditated" in front of them does not somehow make them worse. That goes without say even as your continued statements on this matter show me in abundance that you are indeed a "fuckwit", and that was no lie or error on my part.

Re:Something else to remember...

[Marxist Hacker 42]

"When your only rebuttal to a well thought out reply "

There isn't any thought behind your reply, just more prejudiced, heterophobic garbage.

And lies are like murder- it's murdering the truth.

Re:Something else to remember...

[samoanbiscuit]

There isn't any thought behind your reply, just more prejudiced, heterophobic garbage.

Wow, amazing. Every single comment in your comment history that's not about a technical matter of some sort is either anti-gay garbage like "I don't plug male connectors into male sockets", or some anti-atheist garbage. I like how criticizing a straight person makes me "heterophobic". Everyone is entitled to their own views, but not to their own facts, and you live in a reality distortion field that would make Steve Jobs envious. I like how terse and accusative your posts have become as the people you argue with present sound arguments and you need to label them "lies" or "garbage" in order to think you "won".

And lies are like murder- it's murdering the truth.

It's amazing that someone so against atheists would have the nerve to say this, because the shit you've said is like genocide, if we follow your analogy. You are retreating into terse attacks because you realize that I am right, you just don't want to admit it because it's dangerous to your world view. That's OK. People don't always have to change their world view. Sometimes things change slowly, and we'll just wait for you and people like you to die (or become too senile to vote) of natural causes, and then progress will be achieved. I know people like you normally indoctrinate their children something fierce, but then, it's all part of memes fighting other memes, if Richard Dawkins is to be believed.

Re:Fuck the British government

[dkf]

To be fair, that all happened 60 years ago and many of those rules (including the ones making homosexuality illegal) are long gone. So too are virtually all the people involved (and the ones still alive are certainly no longer in a position to do much about it). About the only thing we can do now is say that it was a terrible shame that he died so young, and celebrate what he did achieve.

Re:Fuck the British government

[Kupfernigk]

Really? So working on biological algorithms and AI wasn't computing?

To be fair

[Kupfernigk]

We did it because of American pressure; they refused to cooperate with us if we didn't go along with loony McCarthyism. Nobody persecuted Montgomery because his career was over after WW2 and he was of no strategic interest.

Re:To be fair

[nukenerd]

Montgomery was not a homosexual. After his wife's death there was nothing to suggest that he was anything but celibate, notoriously so. As one American aide said, "You just DO NOT get personal with this guy", and he was only meaning having a beer with him.

I am not particularly sympathetic with gays, but they can get on with it as far as I am concerned (as Black Adder said, "leaving more totty for the rest of us"). They score far more than heteros ever do, I gather.

I have always been kicked in the teeth for being hetero, not least by women themselves. People seemed to think that, if you are good at passing exams and understand things like computers, then you should be asexual. Perhaps that was the case with Turing, not that he was gay, but that he was brainy AND gay.

I've met Vint Cerf

[G3ckoG33k]

I've met Vint Cerf, who unlike Turing is alive.

Re:I've met Vint Cerf

[tqk]

I've met Vint Cerf, who unlike Turing is alive.

Whoopee for you. I've met RMS and he signed my Emacs book, and he's alive too.

On the bright side, Jeffrey Dahmer, John Wayne Gacy, and Ted Bundy are dead. USA!

Re:correction

[Samantha Wright]

Nah, during the fifties it was illegal to be cheerful, too.

Fuck Whom

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck them, and their stupid apology

The people who persecuted Turing are dead or so feebleminded by extreme age that I can guarantee they'll never bear any seriously responsibilities ever again. The people who did the apologizing didn't persecute him, any more than I have owned slaves kidnapped from Africa or you have broken treaties with the Sioux Nation.

But I guess you might say that makes the contemporary government's apology meaningless, thereby undermining all apologies and leading to a world full of cynical assholes who never believe someone else is sorry. Ok, fuck them for that.

Re:Fuck Whom

[kenh]

Many slaves were captured by rival tribes and traded to slave trades for trinkets, sold into the slave trade by their fellow countrymen.

Re:Fuck Whom

[pclminion]

As I tell my four year old when he messes up, you apologize but you also DO something about it. Just saying you are sorry is a platitude. Did Britain's apology come along with some tangible action or is it just useless verbiage?

Re:Fuck Whom

[Anonymous Coward]

Tangible action was the problem -- in this case, doing nothing about "grossly indecent" gayness is the solution. What sort of action do you want? A giant sculpture in Trafalgar Square of post-chemical-castration zombie testicles teabagging closeted bureaucrats? A Big Gay Turing Chair at Cambridge (well-endowed, of course)?

Well okay, you're right then, these are actually pretty awesome ideas.

Re:Fuck Whom

[Shihar]

Cool story bro.

Re:Fuck Whom

[Anonymous Coward]

Useless verbiage is the most you can hope for; it is the best case scenario. Turing is already dead and the people who fucked with him are dead. Everyone is dead. Of course the apologies will be empty words. What little action there was to take, was taken decades ago when the numbingly stupid laws were repealed.

If there's action to be taken now, it's "don't vote for stupid laws again. Don't be stupid. Weird Al is a comedian, not an advisor."

Re:Fuck Whom

[Anonymous Coward]

What kind of tangible action could there be? It's not like they can raise the dead.

Re:Fuck the British government

[SuricouRaven]

Blaming Britain today for the unfortunate event is no different than blaming America today for their support of slavery and then segregation. Cultures change. We're really rather embarassed about it now.

Not Everybody Worships Turing, Sorry

[qbitslayer]

Some believe that everything that ails computing, from the software unreliability and low productivity crisis to the current parallel programming crisis, can be blamed on the computer industry's strange infatuation with Turing. When you have some time, ask yourself what Turing has done for parallel programming or software unreliability. Heck, Charles Babbage's analytical engine was a Turing Machine a century before Turing. Go figure.

Parallel Computing: The End of the Turing Madness

Re:Not Everybody Worships Turing, Sorry

[deniable]

I thought it was von Neumann that got blamed for this rather than Turing. Then again, there's probably enough blame to go around.

Re:Not Everybody Worships Turing, Sorry

[JasterBobaMereel]

von Neumann was after Turing, he gets credit because his theoretical universal computer was similar to the actual ones we use ....

Re:Not Everybody Worships Turing, Sorry

[deniable]

Von Neumann Bottleneck The GP was complaining about Turing providing a bad architecture.

Re:Not Everybody Worships Turing, Sorry

[buglista]

What? A UTM is a mathematical model of a computer; yes, even your beloved parallel computers can't do anything fundamentally different to a UTM. The guy wasn't suggesting it as a programming paradigm, he was using it to prove things about Computability.

Re:Not Everybody Worships Turing, Sorry

[Anonymous Coward]

Heck, Charles Babbage's analytical engine was a Turing Machine a century before Turing. Go figure.

Hero of Alexandria didn't codify thermodynamics, but should we still give him credit?

Re:Not Everybody Worships Turing, Sorry

[JasterBobaMereel]

...the Turning machine has the same issue ....and it's impractical (but was not designed to be real)

 

Re:Not Everybody Worships Turing, Sorry

[HarryatRock]

No worship, just admiration. The point about Turing machines is that Babbage didn't know he'd designed one. Although it's possible that Ada had an inkling about the "universality" thing which is what the great man was first to understand.
As for the software problems we face today, and the "parallelism crisis", there is nothing in Turing's work which can be blamed for these, or are you blaming him for not working on these?
Computation is not the same as IT, and failure to understand that may well be the root cause of the poor standards of program design we see today. In fact I am saddened by the thought that even some of the people praising Turing fail to grasp his real gift to us, the fundamental theorem on the unsolvability of the halting problem.

Re:Not Everybody Worships Turing, Sorry

[mcgrew]

How can you blame bad programming on the hardware? Early computers weren't paralell, so how can you blame that on Turing?

There's an old saying: a poor workman blames his tools. If your programs suck, you suck at programming. Period. Find a different field!

What about,,,

[kenh]

Charles Babbage & Ada Lovelace?

For you young whipper-snappers:

"Charles Babbage, FRS (26 December 1791 – 18 October 1871)[1] was an English mathematician, philosopher, inventor and mechanical engineer who originated the concept of a programmable computer.[2] Considered a "father of the computer",[3] Babbage is credited with inventing the first mechanical computer that eventually led to more complex designs.["

"Augusta Ada King, Countess of Lovelace (10 December 1815 - 27 November 1852), born Augusta Ada Byron, was an English mathematician and writer chiefly known for her work on Charles Babbage's early mechanical general-purpose computer, the analytical engine. Her notes on the engine include what is recognised as the first algorithm intended to be processed by a machine; thanks to this, she is sometimes considered the world's first computer programmer."

Re:What about,,,

[mdmarkus]

And if you bring up them, how about when they go and fight crime!

Re:Fuck the British government

[Quiet_Desperation]

I knew this would go memetic. We're doomed.

Re:Fuck the British government

[osu-neko]

Blaming Britain today for the unfortunate event is no different than blaming America today for their support of slavery and then segregation. Cultures change. We're really rather embarassed about it now.

I neither owned slaves nor supported segregation. I have nothing to be embarrassed about on that score. The fact that I was born (due to no conscious decision of my own) geographically near the locations in which other people once did these things seems like a really bizarre thing to be embarrassed about.

Exactly!

[elsurexiste]

There are plenty of parents of "computer science". Alan Turing was more like the grandfather of modern computing, along with Ada and Babbage, and the father would be Von Neumann.

Re:Exactly!

[chthon]

I think that Alan Turing should be considered the father of computer science, because he showed a general model for implementing algorithms, the Turing Machine, and he showed the direction about analysing algorithms.

But I think it should be fair to say that, like in the case of Newton, he also stood on the shoulders of the people before him: Kurt GÃdel, Alonzo Church, SchÃnfinkel/Curry, and probably some others.

Re:Exactly!

[Anonymous Coward]

Agreed. There are astronomers and there are astrophysicists. They are different, just like "the father of the computer" and "the father of computer science" can be different.

Re:Fuck the British government

[jelizondo]

Unless, of course, you folks keep doing it today.

Re:Fuck the British government

[drinkypoo]

By and large it ain't the folks doing it. They're doing it to the folks, too.

Re:Fuck the British government

[Marxist Hacker 42]

And if he hadn't have been homosexual, what might his children have accomplished?

rust never sleeps

[PopeRatzo]

Vint Cerf, Google's chief Internet evangelist

Interesting that a title like "Google's chief Internet evangelist" sounded so cool in 2000 now sounds so completely dorky.

The future is so 1999.

Re:Fuck the British government

[icebraining]

Because being gay makes you infertile and being straight forces you to breed?

Just go away, ignorant buffoon.

Not Turing. von Neumann.

[Animats]

Von Neumann was much more influential than Turing. Not only did von Neumann do brilliant work in multiple areas of mathematics, he invented modern computer architecture. Babbage's design was more like a Jacquard loom card reader coupled to a calculator. Turing's theoretical machine had to roll a long tape back and forth, and the cryptographic machines were essentially hard-wired or plugboard-programmed. Those machines are closer in concept to Hollerith/IBM tabulators of the 1920s to 1950s.

Von Neumann got computer architecture right. He saw that the right answer was RAM, with programs and data in the same memory: The device requires a considerable memory. While it appeared that various parts of this memory have to perform functions which differ somewhat in their nature and considerably in their purpose, it is nevertheless tempting to treat the entire memory as one organ, and to have its parts even as interchangeable as possible for the various functions enumerated above."

He also figured out that 1) everything inside the machine should be binary, not decimal, 2) memory sizes should be a power of two, 3) about 2^18 bits of RAM were needed to get any useful work done, 4) delay-line memory would work in the short term, but "iconoscope" memory (see Williams tube), which is random access, would be better, and 5) what a reasonable instruction set should look like.

Re:Not Turing. von Neumann.

[serviscope_minor]

Von Neumann was much more influential than Turing. Not only did von Neumann do brilliant work in multiple areas of mathematics, he invented modern computer architecture.

I'm not trying to denigrate von Neumann's achievements but...

Actually, pretty much all deeply embedded microcontrollers are Harvard architecture. Actually, most modern processers have separate paths from instruction cache and data cache making them much more like Harvard architecture than Von Neumann. That's why self modifying code is hideously slow on the modern CPUs that actually bother to flush things when a write aliasing the instruction cache is made. The other CPUs won't even see the modification.

Also, Zuse attempted to patent the idea in 1941.

He also figured out that 1) everything inside the machine should be binary,

All of Zuse's machines were binary as was Colossus. However, the last serious non-binary computer (Setun) performed very well, notably better than competing binary designs at the time.

Re:Not Turing. von Neumann.

[mattack2]

I haven't read the book, but read a review in the paper over the weekend.

"Turing's Cathedral", which, despite the name, is about the group led by Von Neumann
http://www.amazon.com/Turings-Cathedral-Origins-Digital-Universe/dp/0375422773

Re:Not Turing. von Neumann.

[grouchomarxist]

The Von Neumann architecture is more like a modern computer, but the Turing machine, because it is simpler, is better for mathematics. Because it is simpler is it easier to prove that it has the same capabilities as other systems (that is, for Church thesis equivalency).

As far as I know Turing only intended his machine to be used for mathematical purposes, I don't think the ACE was modeled after the Turning machine.

Influence is very difficult to measure, but Von Neumann was more influence by Turing than Turing by Von Neumann.

It's also interesting to note that the ACE had subroutines, while the EDVAC did not.

Re:Not Turing. von Neumann.

[Guy Harris]

Actually, most modern processers have separate paths from instruction cache and data cache making them much more like Harvard architecture than Von Neumann.

Except for the ability to load arbitrary applications rather than running what's in the instruction memory, and being able to add new applications to the repertoire under program control, but that really isn't that important, I guess. To be fair, you could have a "modified Harvard architecture" in which you have instructions to write to the instruction memory and I/O data paths to allow data to be read into instruction memory.

In any case, there are two issues that matter here - the "macroarchitecture" issue of whether the set of software the machine can run is fixed into the machine or extensible and modifiable, and the "microarchitecture" issue of whether there are separate data paths, at any point, for code and data fetching. For the first of those two issues, most modern processors are much more like the IAS machine than like, say, the IBM Automatic Sequence Controlled Calculator at Harvard. On the second of those issues, well, which data paths are you talking about? The ones between the processor and the level-1 caches, or the ones between the level-1 caches and the rest of the memory hierarchy? (Are there any systems with split I&D level 2 or higher level caches?)

That's why self modifying code is hideously slow on the modern CPUs that actually bother to flush things when a write aliasing the instruction cache is made.

...or on the ones where you explicitly do an icache flush.

However, if, instead of modifying existing code, you generate new code in a fresh chunk of virtual memory and start using that code, it's not so bad. I suspect more of the latter (e.g., just-in-time compiling) is done than the former these days.

Re:Not Turing. von Neumann.

[Anonymous Coward]

What's even more impressive is that the von Neumann architecture is basically just his "crappy" prototype. As far as I can recall, he was working on a better architecture when he died. Who knows what might have been had he lived for a few more years...

Re:Not Turing. von Neumann.

[glwtta]

Von Neumann was influential in the design modern computers, Turing was one of the major influences in the development of Computer Science.

There isn't really much overlap between the two.

Re:Not Turing. von Neumann.

[Anonymous Coward]

There's a Perimeter Institue Lecture here on TVO's web site by Dyson that follows his book. Great stuff.
http://ww3.tvo.org/video/173792/george-dyson-origins-digital-universe

Re:Not Turing. von Neumann.

[Anonymous Coward]

Von Neumann was influential in the design modern computers, Turing was one of the major influences in the development of Computer Science.

There isn't really much overlap between the two.

There is some overlap. If you look at complexity theory (a field that relies heavily on different notions of Turing machines for defining precisely what time and space complexity of programs is and how complexity classes are related) there is also this subfield of "circuit complexity" that is concerned with the depth of number of gates in of digital combinatorial circuits (to simplify things a bit). And then there are different types automata that are also used in concrete hardware designs not only in theory to define certain classes of languages or (concurrent, reactive, etc.) systems.

Re:Not Turing. von Neumann.

[serviscope_minor]

Except for the ability to load arbitrary applications rather than running what's in the instruction memory, and being able to add new applications to the repertoire under program control, but that really isn't that important, I guess.

Yes they certainly can do that, though that is a comparatively very slow process, which is somewhat separate from execution. They are very much a hybrid with shades of both. Fun fact, many modern not-too-cheap deeply embedded micros (like the Atmel ones used in the arduino) can also flash their own memory, so despite really being Harvard architecture (the instruction memory is flash), they can still load programs under program control, like your suggestion. I can't recall if they need any external hardware (e.g. a charge pump capacitor) or if it's all internal.

On the second issue, for microcontrollers, the datapath between CPU and memory is different for instructions and data. Not only is the memory architecture different (SRAM versus flash), but the bit widths are different too (e.g. 14 bit instructions, 8 bit data). For the desktop CPUs, I was referring to the path between the L1 caches and the CPU. That's maybe a bit of a cheat, though many non-backwards compatible CPUs (I believe the ARM falls into this category) won't automatically flush the icache on an aliased write, so it behaves in a quite harvard-like manner.

One fun thing I found is that hard coded convolution kernels on a P3 are 2x faster than ones read from memory. The reason being that the kernel values came out of the instruction cache and the data came from the data cache. The result was effectively twice the memory bandwidth, since two busses were being used.

(Are there any systems with split I&D level 2 or higher level caches?)

Almost certainly, though I'm not aware of any. Once you move away from deeply embedded micros and desktop CPUs, there are some eye-wateringly exotic arcitectures in use out there, especially DSPs and the like.

However, if, instead of modifying existing code, you generate new code in a fresh chunk of virtual memory and start using that code, it's not so bad. I suspect more of the latter (e.g., just-in-time compiling) is done than the former these days.

Yes, that's not so bad. It still requires the old icache to be at least partially flushed when new code is read. It also requires a read (probably) from main memory, so you have to be sure about saving 200 cycles or so. Certainly worth it for something long running, not so much for the old fashioned style.

Re:Not Turing. von Neumann.

[mvdwege]

Turing's theoretical machine had to roll a long tape back and forth

Modern computers still do that. What do you think the instruction pointer in a modern CPU is?

Mart

Re:Not Turing. von Neumann.

[Tyler Durden]

He also figured out that 1) everything inside the machine should be binary, not decimal

Sorry to nitpick, but is that decision all that revolutionary? You need a machine that needs to represent numbers. It's well known that numbers can be reasonably represented with any base above 1. With a machine you can easily represent the concept of two possible states, "on" or "off".

Now let's see, whatever should we do????

Re:Not Turing. von Neumann.

[GbrDead]

1) everything inside the machine should be binary, not decimal

That was actually John Atanasoff's idea.

Re:Not Turing. von Neumann.

[Tyler Durden]

Right, but the CPU can randomly access any point in memory it needs for reading/writing. It's not like accessing a high address in real memory and then a low address in real memory involves scanning through all the intermediate addresses or anything.

Re:Not Turing. von Neumann.

[Richy_T]

Yeah, what goobers. Why didn't they just look it up on Wikipedia?

Re:Not Turing. von Neumann.

[mcgrew]

3) about 2^18 bits of RAM were needed to get any useful work done

That's about 32kb, do you have a citation? Because if he really said that, he was wrong. I wrote word processors, games, drawing programs, even a joke turing test taker that ran on half that much memory. Hell, somebody wrote a pretty good chess program that would run on a 4k Timex!

Re:Not Turing. von Neumann.

[littlebigbot]

If you're Russian, use ternary: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ternary_computer

Re:correction

[networkBoy]

[hat tip]

Why "loony"?

[INowRegretThesePosts]

We did it because of American pressure; they refused to cooperate with us if we didn't go along with loony McCarthyism

Why do you call it "loony"?

Not for "being who he was"

[Anonymous Coward]

Please also remember, that he was driven into suicide by the nation he protected because he just was who he was.

You may criticize the government's punishment of homosexual acts, but don't misrepresent the situation.
He wasn't punished for a physical quality; he was punished for an action - shoving a penis up his anus.

Debate becomes meaningless when people don't acknowledge the facts.

Re:Not for "being who he was"

[Guy Harris]

Please also remember, that he was driven into suicide by the nation he protected because he just was who he was.

You may criticize the government's punishment of homosexual acts, but don't misrepresent the situation. He wasn't punished for a physical quality; he was punished for an action - shoving a penis up his anus.

Debate becomes meaningless when people don't acknowledge the facts.

OK, then, he was driven into suicide because he had sex with a man as a result of being attracted to men. (Presumably you're making the assertion at the end of the last sentence of the second paragraph because Turing not only acknowledged a sexual relationship with Arnold Murray but acknowledged that particular act, as opposed to various other acts in which they could have engaged instead, rather than just guessing at what happened.)

Your nick

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you really a Marxist (of the Karl variety)
or are you just kidding?

Re:Your nick

[Marxist Hacker 42]

I am evolving on the supject- my sig line and my nick should be taken together. I am certainly NOT for the chaos that is the so-called "free market", but I recognize that there is little-to-no difference between a monopoly in capitalism and the state owning everything in communism. Thus, Tendance Chesterton. Learn your French.

Re:Your nick

[INowRegretThesePosts]

I wouldn't associate myself with Karl Marx. Not even kidding.
Marxism is an inhuman ideology that denies the dignity and complexity of human nature (Marx's "materialist conception of history" says that all history, including religion and philosophy developments, is determined by economic factors) and led to 90-100M deaths.

Re:Your nick

[Marxist Hacker 42]

And capitalism in the United States under the right to choose has lead to a genocide of 56 million.

But I am about to change my sig line. My Marxist tendencies are MUCH closer to Abp. Reinhard Marx than to the atheist/materialist Karl Marx (I think they are related, but Reinhard is still alive- Archbishop of Munich in Westphalia).

Re:Your nick

[INowRegretThesePosts]

And capitalism in the United States under the right to choose has lead to a genocide of 56 million.

Have you studied the recent developments of Marxism? Under Antonio Gramsci and Herbert Marcuse,
Marxism has morphed into the New Left - a kind of Left that works within the framework of democracy
(they no longer focus on violent revolutions and the dictatorship of the proletariat), and which adds to
their cause of collectivisation of the means of production, the causes of feminism,
homosexual militancy, "affirmative action", immigration, etc. You can see it for yourself - check
the Antonio Gramsci writings on cultural hegemony, the Herbert Marcuse book "Eros and Civilization"
and the Herbert Marcuse concept of "repressive tolerance" - which gave birth to Political Correctness.
The Church itself was severely affected by this kind of Marxism, through the advent of "Liberation Theology" -
which, thank God, has started to be controlled since the pontificate of blessed John Paul the Great.

It is this New Left that advocates abortion - it is no coincidence that, all over the world, leftist parties are the
staunchest defenders of "reproductive rights". Nor is it a coincidence that the first modern country to legalize
abortion was the Soviet Union (although, admitedly, that wasn't the New Left but the old Marxist-Leninist Left).

In short, those 56 million deaths, plus the _hundreds of millions_ of abortions that ocurred outside the USA,
were caused by Marxism.

Regards

PS: I don't want to offend you. I think this can be a productive debate, and we both can learn.I would thank you
very much if you dignified me with answers to my objections.

PS2: If my grammar or vocabulary is weird, remember that English is my second language.

PS3: I have taken the liberty of adding you to my circles in Google Plus. I hope you don't mind.

Re:Your nick

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Crony Capitalism is also a form of Marxism- it was Karl Marx who wrote Das Kapital, on which the collectivism of the stock exchanges is based.

There is no "right", only the New Left in power- at all.

Thus Tendance Reinhard.

Re:Your nick

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Back to your points- I believe in subsidiarity and an absolute right to private property. NEITHER the capitalists nor the socialists believe in that; I join Pope Leo XIII in saying that there is no difference between a communist state and a capitalist oligarchy.

So therefore, I think in English being a new language to you- and not knowing the french in my sig line in which I explain myself- you are classifying me as being a part of the New Left, when in reality I'm part of the Christian Center.

Re:Your nick

[INowRegretThesePosts]

I didn't mean to classify _you_ as part of the New Left, I merely accused
the New Left of being responsible for free abortion.

And, which encyclical of Pope Leo XIII are you referring to? It could be a good
read for me.

Re:Your nick

[INowRegretThesePosts]

And, how to you reconcile an absolute right to private property
with forced taxation?

I am not a faithful libertarian, but I have read some of their arguments
and I don't know how to refute them.

Re:Your nick

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Rerum Novarum- his answer to Karl Marx. Linked to here along with the rest of The Seven Economics Encyclicals

Re:Your nick

[Marxist Hacker 42]

"And, how to you reconcile an absolute right to private property with forced taxation?"

Paying for services rendered. Including rent on money, which is properly owned by the government under the American system thanks to the 1873 Supreme Court Interpretation of Article I Sections 8 & 10, which gives Congress (and therefore the FED) a monopoly on the ownership of money.

Beyond that- the concept of the common good, for which the free market has shown itself to be absolutely dismal at providing for.

Re:Your nick

[Marxist Hacker 42]

BTW, I should note that no right is without limit; by an absolute right of private property I mean that every citizen should be granted enough productive property with which to feed his family, which cannot be bought, sold, taxed, or gambled away, that is his from conception until natural death.

Whether he uses that property or not, and what profit he gains from it, is up to him, his God-given talents, and the work he puts in.

Re:Your nick

[INowRegretThesePosts]

I failed to be convinced by your explanation above, but maybe this is due
to my very limited knowledge of Catholic Social Teaching. I need to study
it further.

Regards

PS: replying to what you wrote in another post: no, unfortunately I do not know
of any Catholic review of blogs.

PS2: There is a Catholic Historian from Harvard named Thomas Woods, who wrote
the excellent book "The Catholic Church: Builder of Civilization" which is evaluated
P-A2 by Almudi. He also wrote "The Church and the Market: A Catholic Defense of
the Free Economy", which argues that minimal-state Libertarianism is compatible
with Catholic teaching. Unfortunately, I could not find a Catholic evaluation of this
last book. Nor have I read it. But maybe you will find it interesting as another
perspective.

Re:Your nick

[INowRegretThesePosts]

I forgot to add: despite not knowing of any magisterial evaluation of blogs,
I can give you my own opinion.

I know of
1. National Catholic Register - http://www.ncregister.com/

2. http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/

3. Fr. Z's Blog – What Does The Prayer Really Say? - http://wdtprs.com/blog/

4. Crisis Magazine - http://www.crisismagazine.com/

All 4 sites above are pro-life, pro-family, orthodox Catholic. Excellent.
But be warned that Crisis Magazine sometimes gets involved in political matters
and they usually lean Libertarian.

And a strong disrecomendation:
National "Catholic" Reporter - ncronline.org
These people claim to be Catholics, but they vilify the Pope, condemn Eucharistic adoration,
advocate for homosexualism, make-believe priestesses, and other heresies. They have written that
the Catholic laity should rebel against the Holy See. The only useful content on that site are
the articles by John Allen.

And a mild disrecomendation:
www.americamagazine.org - they are absolutely not as bad as the National "Catholic" Reporter,
but sometimes they oppose legitimate actions by the Holy See such as the reform of the LCWR.

Regards

Re:Your nick

[Marxist Hacker 42]

I've read most of Thomas Wood's stuff, along with Hayek and Mises who he introduced me to. But you see, that is the problem- both Hayek and Mises were atheistic materialists.

Thomas E. Woods, when Pope Benedict XVI wrote _Caritas In Veritate_ in his review admitted outright that he is a dissenter on the subject of Catholic Social Justice, because it isn't practical from a materialist point of view. I reject atheist materialism as immoral, and thus, I am forced to reject Thomas E. Woods as an authority on the subject of economics.

Re:Your nick

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Yep, I've read all of those- and I agree that Crisis Magazine, National Catholic Reporter, and America Magazine are all written by dissenting Cafeteria Catholics (though Crisis is an interesting foil in that list, for it dissents in a fiscally liberal, rather than sexually liberal, methodology, and thus has less to argue with traditional Catholicism, because fiscal libertarians are what I call "nice atheists" in that they leave their neighbor alone, unlike the New Atheists of the Freedom From Religion Foundation).

Not for "being gay". For committing n indecent act

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder if they'll mention his persecution by the British government for being gay. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_turing#Conviction_for_indecency [wikipedia.org]

You may criticize the government's punishment of homosexual acts, but don't misrepresent the situation.
He wasn't punished for a physical quality; he was punished for an action - shoving a penis up his anus.

Debate becomes meaningless when people don't acknowledge the facts.

Re:Fuck the British government

[Shihar]

You don't have to blame the national entity. I mean shit, if you did, the Germans, Japanese, and Americans would be on the permanent shit list. That said, it is your duty to learn about what a dick your nation has been, and to not just merrily celebrate your glorious historical triumphs in a vacuum. A little humility in the face of your cultures past failings is healthy and helps prevent you from making those same mistakes.

Re:Fuck the British government

[Anonymous Coward]

Troll, you're feeding it.

Don't think so

[INowRegretThesePosts]

Plus of course society is still riddled with homophobia. They may not lock you up but they can be pretty horrible to you.

I don't think so. The vast majority of people respect homosexuals.
The homosexual militancy tries to project an image of poor victims,
but, in 2012, that is not so. Not in America or Europe. I think that,
just like the feminist movement, the homosexual militancy has already
achieved its reasonable goals and all they have left are unreasonable goals.

In places like Iran, though, homosexuals are unfortunately treated awfully.

Re:Don't think so

[Tenebrousedge]

In both cases the goal is full equality. You weren't involved in making America or Europe a better place than Iran, kindly do shut the fuck up about those whose progress you laud.

Also it's important to note that, as with the case of RMS and similarly Fox News, a few extremists can be very useful in shifting the Overton window.

Re:Don't think so

[samoanbiscuit]

I don't think so. The vast majority of people respect homosexuals. The homosexual militancy tries to project an image of poor victims, but, in 2012, that is not so

I know right? Like how you apparently support them! And apparently it's just the militant ones you don't like, because apparently they're giving the media this idea that they're poor victims! How dare those kids kill themselves after years of homophobic bullying, they're giving the world the wrong impression about how much they are respected!

I TOTALLY get you! I would like to subscribe to your newsletter for more of your idea

Re:Don't think so

[INowRegretThesePosts]

You weren't involved in making America or Europe a better place than Iran, kindly do shut the fuck up about those whose progress you laud.

I think you can do better than that cheap ad hominem.

And in the case of feminists or homosexual militancy, what reasonable goal do they have left?

Re:Don't think so

[Tenebrousedge]

Ad hominem? Sir, you mistake me, and your characterization of the movements as 'militant' is a slander.

I do not rely for my argument on your idiocy, never fear. Again, the goal is complete equality in matters of sex and sexuality. That has always been the goal, and neither have you offered a logical reason why it should not be so, nor do I believe that such a reason can exist. The capabilities of either sex, and the love between them, are equal in nature and kind. To say that while the progress towards a goal is a good thing, but that further progress is bad, is logically inconsistent, given no other premise.

So it falls to you to display your prejudices -- I mean, your premise. What exactly is it about equality in sex and/or sexuality that you find objectionable?

You may feel free not to respond, I will waste no time in calling your bigotry what it is.

Re:Don't think so

[INowRegretThesePosts]

I know right? Like how you apparently support them! And apparently it's just the militant ones you don't like, because apparently they're giving the media this idea that they're poor victims! How dare those kids kill themselves after years of homophobic bullying, they're giving the world the wrong impression about how much they are respected!

http://www.crisismagazine.com/2012/students-need-protection-from-pro-gay-education

Re:Don't think so

[samoanbiscuit]

Here's some illustrative quotes from the article:

For example, in spite of claims that persons with same-sex attraction (SSA) are ‘born that way’ and can’t change, there is no scientific evidence that to back up these assertions,[1] and plenty of evidence that SSA is rooted in early negative experiences[2] and that change is possible.[3] Many teenagers who think they might be “gay” discover later they aren’t.

The last claim is true. Sexuality is confusing, and a lot of teenagers might think they're X when really they're Y, or even Z. Having more knowledge about the spectrum of human sexual behaviour just helps them solve their confusion quicker. Everything else in that paragraph is just plain bullshit.

Sexually transmitted diseases are rampant in the gay community. Since 1981, 300,000 MSM have died of AIDS, and 6,000 are expected to die this year and every year for the foreseeable future. According to the CDC, in 2008, 17,940 MSM were diagnosed with HIV infections, an increase of 17% from 2005. MSM accounted for 53% of all new infections. MSM are 44 to 86 times more likely to be diagnosed HIV positive than men who don’t.

Do you know why those health statistics use the term MSM (Men who have Sex with Men)? Because they encompass everything from gay and proud fashion designers who live in San Fransisco and attend pride, right down to conservative, anti-gay, religious leaders, so deep in the closet they might as well be in Narnia. If homosexuals/bisexuals were not forced by public opinion into hiding and marginalizing their sexual behaviour (and despite how gay and free the big cities are, it's still a thing in most countries, even the most progressive ones), it would be safer, much more like heterosexual dating patterns.

Did you know that as among abstinence only taught straight teens, sex remains just as high, yet condom usage falls much lower, and anal sex rates increase because girls think that preserving their hymens somehow maintains their "virginity".

This has diverted attention from Savage’s objective: promoting his “It gets better,” campaign, the purpose of which is to encourage confused and troubled teenagers to ‘come out’ and experiment with homosexuality.

Anyone with basic comprehension skills will realize within moments of reading/watching an "It Get's Better" testimonial that it has NOTHING to do WHATSOEVER with "converting" or "corrupting" young people into trying something they might not normally do, and EVERYTHING to do with telling young LGBT people who need to deal with fuckhead parents and communities with attitudes like yours, that they shouldn't despair, and definitely SHOULD NOT commit suicide, but rather soldier on till they become independent adults, then GTFO that cow town, and into the big city.

Re:Don't think so

[FrootLoops]

That's remarkably ignorant. In the US, the most glaring unfinished goal is marriage equality. A small fraction of states offer same-sex marriage and a few offer all-but-the-word-marriage civil unions. The rest (about half) offer varying degrees of no recognition whatsoever to some limited recognition. The federal government offers no recognition whatsoever, so for instance gay couples cannot file joint federal tax returns, even if they live in a state which recognizes same sex marriage.

Gay adoption is another patchwork of unfinished legal crap in the US. From Lambda Legal,

About half of all states permit second-parent adoptions by the unmarried partner of an existing legal parent, while in a handful of states courts have ruled these adoptions not permissible under state laws. This leaves parents in many states legally unrecognized or severely disadvantaged in court fights with ex-spouses, ex-partners or other relatives.

I could also discuss workplace discrimination, bullying, and general societal attitudes towards homosexuality. To be fair, that latter point has improved very considerably in recent years, at least in the US.

More generally, my and I think many gay people's ultimate goal is societal apathy towards homosexuality--I want people to think of homosexuality in the same terms as having green eyes. I want activism to be completely unnecessary and for opponents to stop caring. When you strip away the layers of religious doctrine and social tradition, being gay really isn't a big deal. Let us marry and adopt just like every other couple and stop singling us out. If that goal is unreasonable, I would love to know why. (It may be unrealistic, but that's not the same thing.) (The same applies to the other groups in the LGBT... alphabet soup.)

Re:Don't think so

[Anonymous Coward]

ITYM ad homonem.

Ummm .... no. When he wrote "ad hominem", he probably meant ad hominem [sic]. Oddly enough.

Re:Don't think so

[Kyrene]

"And in the case of feminists or homosexual militancy, what reasonable goal do they have left?"

Where should I start, or do you live with your head in the sand?

For women, earning the same as men. Not having our right over our own bodies and choice over childbirth being decided by men. Not having a government run by mostly men. Not being discriminated against in the workforce. Better healthcare. Elimination of the rape culture.

For the LGBT community...I think what they'd like is the freedom to be who they are without losing their jobs, being assaulted or murdered, you know...basic human rights.

That's just the short list. For the rest, well...I'd advise maybe getting out there and well, being in the world. Ya know.

Re:Don't think so

[Kyrene]

For some, marriage isn't the big goal. It's being able to walk down the street without being physically assaulted.

I know people in my area who have been, and I live in a supposedly "liberal" area. That's kinda terrifying.

Re:Don't think so

[INowRegretThesePosts]

For women, earning the same as men. Not having our right over our own bodies and choice over childbirth being decided by men. Not having a government run by mostly men. Not being discriminated against in the workforce. Better healthcare. Elimination of the rape culture.

I have seen no evidence that women and men who have the same education, the same work experience and the same priorities are paid differently. On the contrary, I have seen studies that say that women who are paid less than men actually chose that - because, when they negotiate working agreements, they prefer better working conditions (such as not having to work overtime, having more time for their children) than high salary.

Regarding abortion, you should know that the percentage of pro-lifers is equal among women and men.

Regarding "government run by men". Most women don't seem to have a problem with that, given that they vote for men. Women are a majority of the voters.

And "rape culture"? Last I checked, rapists are the most despised criminals in the world. Even other criminals _hate_ them.

Re:Don't think so

[INowRegretThesePosts]

Being able to redefine "marriage" is not a right.
If that was so, then polygamous/polyandrous/incestuous groups would have the same right.

The whole homosexual militancy is devoid of rational arguments - it is based entirely on
"shut up you ******* bigot, we demand our rights!".

Re:Don't think so

[INowRegretThesePosts]

The last claim is true. Sexuality is confusing, and a lot of teenagers might think they're X when really they're Y, or even Z. Having more knowledge about the spectrum of human sexual behaviour just helps them solve their confusion quicker. Everything else in that paragraph is just plain bullshit.

How so? Simply claiming "bullshit" doesn't do.

If homosexuals/bisexuals were not forced by public opinion into hiding and marginalizing their sexual behaviour (and despite how gay and free the big cities are, it's still a thing in most countries, even the most progressive ones), it would be safer, much more like heterosexual dating patterns.

What's the evidence for that?
And, in fact, male-on-male sex has a much greater chance of transmitting diseases than normal sex.

Anyone with basic comprehension skills will realize within moments of reading/watching an "It Get's Better" testimonial that it has NOTHING to do WHATSOEVER with "converting" or "corrupting" young people into trying something they might not normally do, and EVERYTHING to do with telling young LGBT people who need to deal with fuckhead parents and communities with attitudes like yours, that they shouldn't despair, and definitely SHOULD NOT commit suicide, but rather soldier on till they become independent adults, then GTFO that cow town, and into the big city.

Having seen videos in their website, it does tell that "coming out" is good. That obviously encourage confused teens to engage in sexual acts they currently think would be fun.

Re:Don't think so

[Kyrene]

I have seen no evidence that women and men who have the same education, the same work experience and the same priorities are paid differently. On the contrary, I have seen studies that say that women who are paid less than men actually chose that - because, when they negotiate working agreements, they prefer better working conditions (such as not having to work overtime, having more time for their children) than high salary.

So you haven't seen numerous studies regarding this at ALL?

Regarding abortion, you should know that the percentage of pro-lifers is equal among women and men.

Source, please. And I was addressing BIRTH CONTROL, not abortion. The fact that you're already confusing the two tells me where you stand on this one....

Regarding "government run by men". Most women don't seem to have a problem with that, given that they vote for men. Women are a majority of the voters.

...wow. I don't even know what to make of this argument, other than it assumes that women aren't in government because women aren't voting for them, and women "don't have a problem with this"? What? No.

And "rape culture"? Last I checked, rapists are the most despised criminals in the world. Even other criminals _hate_ them.

Then why is there so much victim blaming and shaming, and trying to solve the problem by telling women where to go and what to wear versus teaching men not to rape? Why have I run into women who make comments like "At least if you're ugly, you won't be raped" like being attractive has anything to do with it? That's called "rape culture".

You're obviously a victim of head-in-the-sand-itis, so I don't expect a coherent reply to this other than "Uh...uh...YOUR MOM!"

Re:Don't think so

[samoanbiscuit]

How so? Simply claiming "bullshit" doesn't do.

And simply writing words down doesn't make them true.

And, in fact, male-on-male sex has a much greater chance of transmitting diseases than normal sex.

You do realize that 25% of homosexual men in relationships do not engage in anal sex. Furthermore, there are these real nifty inventions called condoms, I'm sure you've heard of them, which makes anal sex just as safe as the other kind

Having seen videos in their website, it does tell that "coming out" is good.

Do you even know what "coming out" means? It doesn't mean some sort of club crawl through a dozen trashy gay nightclubs, it means being honest with yourself and those around you, and telling them you're gay/lesbian/bisexual. That's all it means, nothing more, nothing less.

That obviously encourage confused teens to engage in sexual acts they currently think would be fun.

Coming out has everything to do about being true to yourself, and NOTHING to do with any sexual acts. The fact that you could conflate the two suggests that I should not bother debating you further because you're one of those conservative fuckwits who will never learn and never change their opinions.

Re:Don't think so

[FrootLoops]

(Sorry for the late reply, family medical stuff.)

Marriage has been redefined often throughout history. The US redefined marriage less than a century ago to allow interracial marriage--by your reasoning, we should have continued not allowing a black man to marry a white woman. That's preposterous, hopefully to both of us. For you to suggest the "whole homosexual militancy" (what does that even mean?) "is devoid of rational arguments" when your own arguments are so woefully inadequate is very annoying and somewhat depressing.

I have to admit, I have no idea what's wrong with polygamous marriage. It's prominently featured in the Bible (not negatively either--I hope you don't bring up Leah/Rachel, where the fault clearly wasn't polygamy but dishonesty) and has been legal or encouraged in many societies through the years. Forcing a young bride to marry an old man is certainly wrong, but why would I want to prevent eg. four loving adults from pooling resources? It's not for me, but that's irrelevant. Incestuous (straight) marriage has a good chance of producing genetically disabled children, which is a bad enough thing that society has an interest in preventing it, so I am provisionally alright with banning incestuous marriage on those grounds--though making incestuous child-making illegal is more direct and preferable. I have nothing against incestuous gay marriage, by the way--well, I find it distasteful, but again who am I to deny them when I have no real reason to do so? "Ick" doesn't count.

I want to reiterate how poor your arguments have been: a few seconds' thought uncovers major holes, you appear truly uninformed, and you also ignored the vast majority of my post. You may simply be trolling, but I've decided to assume not just in case. Given how truly terrible your discussion so far has been, it would be best for you to keep your mouth shut (or the textual equivalent) on this issue until you have something of value to contribute. (Please don't think I'm singling you out because you oppose my view; gay marriage supporters are often no better.)

Re:Don't think so

[FrootLoops]

I'm sorry to hear that. I haven't lived in such a ridiculous place myself. "The most glaring" was too strong; I should have said, "The first ... that comes to mind."

Re:Don't think so

[FrootLoops]

While I generally agree with you, "freedom to be who they are ... [is a] basic human right" isn't a terribly complete argument. Murderers should not have the freedom to be who they are; clearly being who you are is not a basic human right. Add the requirement that the actions don't hurt others and you still have problems--straight people then shouldn't have children since they'll inevitably get hurt and die. How you justify giving gay people the right not to lose their jobs just because they're gay is a complicated philosophical question. Of course, the same is true with "gay" replaced by "black" or "male" or what-have-you.

My own view is that permissiveness is the only philosophically tenable position. One should only deny someone else the ability to do something when the first person has "good cause" (which is unfortunately nebulous). For instance, I'm unsure of my stance on abortion--do I think the baby is a person, and if so when, and if so what does that mean since they're clearly not a usual person? And if a child is a person, do I think an adult chimp with much more intelligence than a human infant is a person too?

If I consider preserving the baby's life as "good cause", I'm probably required logically to consider chimp killing murder, which seems at least odd, but not absurd.
If I don't consider preserving the baby's life as "good cause", I'm forced to allow the value of a person to vary as they age, from nothing (or not high) to very high. But what makes that value increase? Does a mentally handicapped person's value decrease, or an asshole's? When is the moment that a person's value is high enough to institute penalties for killing them?

My general permissiveness doctrine even has trouble with sodomy, which I personally want very strongly to be acceptable. (I should perhaps mention that, because of the straight/gay ratio, anal sex is in absolute terms performed by more straight men than gay men.) Still, HIV spreads faster through anal sex than any other kind of sex, which does real and lasting harm to society; is that "good cause" to outlaw it? Among people who practice safe sex, not at all, but among the rest? Should it be illegal to infect someone with certain STD's? I do not know.

Sorry for the philosophical ramblings. I usually don't indulge that whim since it leads to lots of interesting but almost unanswerable questions.

Re:Don't think so

[FrootLoops]

I was trying not to reply to you again, but that article is silly enough I had to discuss it at least in part.

...“It gets better,” campaign, the purpose of which is to encourage confused and troubled teenagers to ‘come out’ and experiment with homosexuality.

That's a straw-man created by a purposeful mischaracterization. The videos could replace "gay" with "black" with no essential change. The project has nothing to do with sex and everything to do with providing figures who accept you when you don't feel like anyone around you does. Try growing up gay in conservative land.

...Savage’s message that being gay ... is cool.

Another straw-man. Savage would never encourage truly straight people to be gay. Not that I agree with him on everything either, but that's another issue.

...[something] has been implicit in pro-gay education from the beginning, namely that it is stridently anti-Christian.

Yet more straw-men. There are many Christians who accept homosexuality, either personally (eg. a majority of American Catholics) or theologically (eg. American Episcopals). While I confess I do not know what "pro-gay education" means precisely, some of the aforementioned Christians are highly pro-gay and educate others on their views. A prominent example that comes to mind is the (gay, Christian) author of Box Turtle Bulletin.

...[while some say they are] ‘born that way’ and can’t change, there is no scientific evidence that to back up these assertions,[1]

[1]'s third reference says, "Family and twin studies have provided evidence for a genetic component to male sexual orientation" and "Twin studies consistently show that male sexual orientation is moderately heritable", which flat-out contradicts the statement it's meant to support. But of course, cherry-picking and misrepresenting research serves the author's purpose, and from the straw-men above they have no qualms with lies. Regardless, no study will ever convince me that I chose to be gay. It's been inconvenient, to say the least: finding an amazing girl to say "I love you" to yet having absolutely zero sexual or romantic desire for her was... extremely unfortunate. I like dudes and am "meant" to be with them, nothing more or less.

...and plenty of evidence that SSA is rooted in early negative experiences[2]

[2] refers to a paper by George Rekers, of various gay scandals fame, most notably saying a rentboy was "lifting his luggage". I will not analyze it further because of the obvious conflict of interest.

...and that change is possible.[3]

[3] refers to an analysis of the Spitzer ex-gay studies, which have been criticized in depth and at length elsewhere (google it if you're interested; I won't write up my own version). I myself do not deny that change is possible, but I contend that it is extraordinarily rare. Ex-gay ministries are often unclear about it, but "change" usually just means celibacy and not heterosexuality (I can provide references if needed, though again it's easy to google). I imagine the same would be true of straight people--a very, very small fraction of "thoroughly straight" people could be turned gay with the right therapy and motivations--but I'm not aware of anyone trying this.

MSM are 44 to 86 times more likely to be diagnosed HIV positive than men who don’t.[5]

[5] (a reputable CDC report) supports the statistics immediately preceding this, but does not contain this particular statistic. Extrapolating from the report's 2% estimate of the fraction of the population that is MSM (meaning 4% of the male population that is MSM) the 61% of

Re:Don't think so

[INowRegretThesePosts]

Marriage has been redefined often throughout history.

But the "lifelong convenant between man and woman for starting a family and begetting children" has remained for millennia.
The Latin "matrimonium" is derived from mater (mother). The other part of matrimony comes from monium, an action, state or condition. The implication is clear: Matrimony is the action, state or condition within which motherhood rightly occurs

I have to admit, I have no idea what's wrong with polygamous marriage. It's prominently featured in the Bible (not negatively either--I hope you don't bring up Leah/Rachel, where the fault clearly wasn't polygamy but dishonesty) and has been legal or encouraged in many societies through the years. Forcing a young bride to marry an old man is certainly wrong, but why would I want to prevent eg. four loving adults from pooling resources? It's not for me, but that's irrelevant. Incestuous (straight) marriage has a good chance of producing genetically disabled children, which is a bad enough thing that society has an interest in preventing it, so I am provisionally alright with banning incestuous marriage on those grounds--though making incestuous child-making illegal is more direct and preferable.

So you have nothing against a man "marrying" his own father, because they have no chance to beget genetically defective children?

who am I to deny them when I have no real reason to do so? "Ick" doesn't count.

Your "denying" language is wrong. When the government recognizes a "marriage" that most people do not want to recognize, the government is not merely "allowing" something, it is actually forcing people to act against their will. For example, suppose that a Christian bread&breakfast only allows married people to sleep together. Most likely, such a bread&breakfast does not want a man to sodomize his own father in their room. By forcefully instituting homosexual incestuous "marriage", coupled with anti-discrimination laws, the government is forcing the bread&breakfast to do something against their will.

I want to reiterate how poor your arguments have been

I don't remember offering any positive arguments; I merely applied reductio ad absurdum to the pro-same-sex-marriage argument that "marriage is a civil right", and then I complained that that side very rarely offers argumentation, and 98% of the time they simply shout down their opponents with "SHUT UP YOU ******* BIGOT!" screams.

As for positive argumentation, see
http://frexpression.wordpress.com/2010/10/20/a-gay-man-decries-gay-rights/
and
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html

Re:Don't think so

[INowRegretThesePosts]

But the "lifelong convenant between man and woman for starting a family and begetting children" has remained for millennia.

I meant
But the "lifelong convenant between man and woman for starting a family and begetting children" aspect has remained for millennia.

Re:Don't think so

[INowRegretThesePosts]

Something I forgot to say: as I wrote above, forcefully instituting a "marriage" that most people do not recognize is not merely "allowing" something, it is _forcing_ people to act as if it exists. The forced institution of same-sex "marriage", coupled with anti-discrimination laws, means that health insurance plans will be forced to cover the male "spouse" of another man, that bread& breakfast owners will be forced to allow sodomy in their own homes, that adoption agencies will be forced to give children to same-sex couples, etc.

Such a loss of freedom would need to have a strong motive, a strong benefit for society, to be justifiable; but it doesn't. It has no positive benefits (such as the stable and healthy environment for children that real marriage creates), and it encourages a behavior that is associated with mental problems, drug abuse, 60 times higher rates of AIDS and other diseases, promiscuity, and reduced lifespan.

Re:Don't think so

[FrootLoops]

You continue to spout uninformed garbage. Please stop. As I mentioned in my other reply to you, gay men do not have "60 times higher rates of AIDS". You can find such figures amongst despicable anti-gay propaganda, but it's not true--such figures are often taken from gay men in STD clinics, which is obviously unfair, and it completely ignores the African HIV/AIDS epidemic, which is predominantly heterosexual. In fair studies, gay men are perhaps somewhat more promiscuous than straight men (though not by a ton), while gay women are significantly less promiscuous. I won't take the time to discuss the other points you raised in this vein. As always, you've ignored the inconvenient lesbians.

Speaking of lesbians, there is strong evidence from decades of research that lesbian couples raise children of the same (possibly slightly better) "quality" as children raised by straight couples. Gay male studies are much further behind for some reason; no conclusions can be drawn yet. I know a very common argument in the anti-gay community is that straight couples offer a better environment for children than gay couples, but it's simply not true, at least for lesbians. Single parents of any orientation provide a worse environment, on average, than a two-parent household, but straight couples and lesbians are equivalent. By the way, this leads me to a societal benefit for recognizing gay couples: they can raise children more effectively than single people and so should be encouraged to do so, particularly through adoption, and the various legal and social benefits of marriage do encourage that.

But the "lifelong convenant [sic] between man and woman for starting a family and begetting children" aspect has remained for millennia.

That is again simply false. Marriage has been a way to seal contracts and treaties for those millennia, independent of necessarily "starting" a family (a family could already have been started with further wives tacked on for political reasons, for instance). There is some evidence for ancient same-sex marriage in various cultures, though it's spotty. Finally, there are several traditions providing for purposefully temporary marriage, which I will assume you did not mean when you said "family". The definition of marriage is a complicated issue for anthropologists to debate; stating whatever random crap comes to your mind is unhelpful and bound to be woefully oversimplified.

The polygamous marriage discussion is a rabbit trail, but no, I do not see anything fundamentally wrong with a man marrying his father. In almost any real case it would be horrible, but what if, for instance, a man donates sperm to a sperm bank, the child is born and raised completely independent of him, both the father and child are gay, and the two end up meeting without knowing they were related. Why shouldn't they marry? Because of the result of a genetic test they might never even take?

I don't remember offering any positive arguments

I said "argument", not "positive argument". You appear to have arbitrarily decided positive arguments were what I was discussing, when that was not the case. Your proof by contradiction (Latin does not impress me, by the way) was a poor argument, as I pointed out, since it didn't handle the mixed-race marriage case. I hope it's disconcerting to you that even when you tried to be very careful you still screwed up. It would be for me.

You make a good point about "denying" rights vs. forcing others to do something with respect to anti-discrimination laws. I have mixed feelings on such laws (I only mentioned workplace discrimination originally, not "bed and breakfast" discrimination). While I don't believe it's right to discriminate against same-sex (or mixed-race, etc.) couples at a bed and breakfast, I'm not sure it should be illegal. I do not know what the law says about such situations; I was under the impression that not-for-profits can discriminate for any reason they wish, perhaps unless they accep

Re:Don't think so

[samoanbiscuit]

Thank you for having the patience and fortitude to dive through that link of stupidity and debunking it's claims. I tried to do so up the thread, but in a much more haphazard fashion.

Re:correction

[Anonymous Coward]

incorrect usage of 'Gay' you should have written "persecution by the British government for being A gay

No. In referring to the particular cultural manifestation of homosexuality, 'gay' is first and foremost an adjective. Not only is its use as a noun "a gay" for "a gay man" derogatory, it is arguably "incorrect usage." It is incorrect in the same way as the statement "ozduo is an ignorant" would be better be phrased simply as "ozduo is ignorant."

Re:Fuck the British government

[Trogre]

Statistically, yes.

Father of the computer science ?

[Taco Cowboy]

I don't think Alan Turing qualifies as the "Father" of computer science

Long before Alan Turing, Charles Babbage and Ada Lovelace had already done incredible things with the Difference Engine

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

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

No offence to Mr. Turing's fanbois, but we need to give credit to where the credit is truly due
 

Re:Father of the computer science ?

[marcosdumay]

Keep in mind that "computer science" is not the science of building computers, and you'll understand why Turing got the title.

Re:Father of the computer science ?

[Taco Cowboy]

Keep in mind that "computer science" is not the science of building computers

Keep in mind that Lady Ada Lovelace didn't take any part in the "building computer" phase

The role of Lady Lovelace is in the "Programming"

Do read up Lady Ada Lovelace when you have the time
 

Re:Father of the computer science ?

[Sudline]

Computer science has a lot of father:
Mad mathematicians of the twentieth century

Any document about computer history can confirm that.

Re:Father of the computer science ?

[buglista]

"[Computer science] is not really about computers -- and it's not about computers in the same sense that physics is not really about particle accelerators, and biology is not about microscopes and Petri dishes...and geometry isn't really about using surveying instruments. Now the reason that we think computer science is about computers is pretty much the same reason that the Egyptians thought geometry was about surveying instruments: when some field is just getting started and you don't really understand it very well, it's very easy to confuse the essence of what you're doing with the tools that you use."

E.W Dijksra.

Re:Father of the computer science ?

[LucyMary]

I agree with you!

Re:Father of the computer science ?

[Anonymous Coward]

that explains why she's such a hoe.

Re:Father of the computer science ?

[Tyler Durden]

Great. But what the GP failed to mention is that computer science doesn't necessarily involve actual programming either.

Re:Father of the computer science ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Great. But what the GP failed to mention is that computer science doesn't necessarily involve actual programming either.

Like the poster said, do read up Lady Ada Lovelace when you have the time.

What she did was not "programming" in the sense of sitting down at a machine and making it do things. Instead, she wrote about mathematical operations that could be done on Babbage's engine without actually having one to experiment with. In plain terms, she wrote what is probably the second computer science paper ever written, and that's only if you count Babbage's description of his machine as the first.

Re:Father of the computer science ?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think anyone's calling Ada Lovelance the FATHER of computer science anytime soon.

Re:Father of the computer science ?

[Tyler Durden]

I read up on more on Ada Lovelace, and she did create original algorithms. So yes, real computer science. Point taken.

I still wouldn't consider her or Babbage to be the "Father" (or "Mother") of computer science though. The title isn't just about who came first. What Alan Turing came up with was a general model of computation, and also some limitations of what kind of problems can solved by this model. That and the fact that a single computational machine could be built to simulate a machine to solve any computable problem. This is much more foundational work that Babbage and Lovelace did. Even though the difference engine did turn out to be Turing complete.

If there was anyone else who could instead be considered the father of computer science it would be Alonzo Church. He came up with his model of compuation (the Lambda Calculus), recognized its own limitations, and published his findings before Turing. But since Turing's concept was more grounded a concept of an actual machine, he is given the credit for making it into something more readily practical.

Re:Father of the computer science ?

[Anonymous Coward]

I demand a paternity test.

Re:Father of the computer science ?

[Anonymous Coward]

>I don't think Alan Turing qualifies as the "Father" of computer science
Of course he does. if it makes you happy call him "_a_ Father of Computer Science"

>Long before Alan Turing, Charles Babbage and Ada Lovelace had already done incredible things with the Difference Engine
Yeah sure, but why stop there? Where would they be without Liebniz?
And where would he be without the "shoulders of giants" below him?

The fact of the matter is that the mathematical paper Turing wrote in 1936 was fundamental in CREATING Computer Science as a field of mathematics.
And he is therefore widely accepted as the father of Computer Science.
Obviously his paper was dependent on all that came before him. ALL work is dependent on the work that came before it.

He was also just as fundamental in the field of Artificial Intelligence as well.

Turung on the £10 banknote

[Catmeat]

Any UK people reading this should go to the government e-petitions site and sign the petition to have Turing put on the next update of the ten-pound banknote.

http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/31659

arent there enough Queens on banknotes?

[peter303]

I didnt mean to be insulting, but this joke was too obvious.

Tommy Flowers?

[oldmac31310]

Doesn't Tommy Flowers get any love?

"Turing's Cathedral"

[LeadSongDog]

This book is an excellent read. Partly a collection of biographies, partly a history of the Institute for Advanced Studies, partly the story of the greatest of many Nazi blunders, pissing off the cleverest people they might otherwise have had working for them, then allowing them to get away. It delves into computing, codebreaking, bomb development, poker, drinking, and lots of other fascinating pastimes of the ultrasmart.

Just like the others

[INowRegretThesePosts]

The whole strategy of the Left in the marriage debate is to shout out their opponents with attacks of "idiocy" and "bigotry".
Since you have walked down that path, I see no point in arguing with you. As Aristotle used to say, meaningful debate requires both sides to seek the Truth.

Beware

[INowRegretThesePosts]

Note: if you do want to read those books I mentioned, talk to your confessor first.
They are deeply against the Faith.
See http://www.almudi.org/Libros/tabid/501/A/ViewSearch/CustomFieldIDs/42/SearchValues/gramsci/sortBy/cf40/sortDir/Ascending/Default.aspx
and
http://www.almudi.org/Libros/tabid/501/A/ViewSearch/CustomFieldIDs/42/SearchValues/marcuse/sortBy/cf40/sortDir/Ascending/Default.aspx

Re:Beware

[Marxist Hacker 42]

I have read most of those previously. My answer is that my nick comes from my youth, when I was attracted by the left *before* I found out that the con artists of the left had taken over the economy *of the entire world*- and that the Atheist Austrian Libertarians and the Atheist Soviet Communists *were the same people*.

Re:Beware

[INowRegretThesePosts]

I have realized that the links I posted in the grand-parent post are uninteligible without
explaining what "P-C3" is. It is explained here: http://www.almudi.org/Libro.aspx

And in what way are the Austrian Libertarians equal to the Soviets?

Re:Beware

[Marxist Hacker 42]

That's interesting, I have never seen that site before, though I've long wanted such a thing, is there one that reviews blogs as well as books?

Austrian Libertarians, like Soviet Socialists, approach economics entirely from a Atheist/materialist point of view. Their only purpose is to prevent rebellion while enabling a central group or organization to centralize as many resources as possible. Thus, many of their moral claims are rather dubious at best; downright murderous at worst. The only real difference is in who is in charge of the collective- politician con artists or C-level executive con artists. For the Soviets, all the real wealth will concentrate into the control and hands of the politicians; for the Austrians all the real wealth will concentrate into the control and the hands of the business people; and neither group cares one whit who they hurt to achieve this.

More recommendations

[INowRegretThesePosts]

I realize I am spending too much of your time, but I forgot
to add more recommendations:

1. http://www.firstthings.com/ This is an ecumenical Christian magazine, written in a scholarly style. It is intellectually deep and otrhodox.

2. Articles by George Weigel. This man is a scholar, and an admirer of Pope John Paul II and Benedict XVI. He wrote a biography of John Paul II. His writing is excellent. See http://ratzingerfanclub.com/justwar/#weigel
Be warned, though, that AFAICT he supported Iraq's War. See http://www.firstthings.com/article/2007/03/just-war-and-iraq-wars-36 (I only read the first 12 paragraphs of it. It is huge)

And thank you very much for pointing the antagonism Thomas Woods x Caritas In Veritate. I put it on Google and found excellent reading material. I'll read it when I have time.

Regards

Re:More recommendations

[Marxist Hacker 42]

The Iraq war is a great example of why consequentialism is a heresy. YES, we went in with noble aspirations (though I think the timing was a bit off, seeing as how bin Laden would evade us for another 7-8 years as a result). But we failed to take into account *what the Iraqis really wanted* which is NOTHING like the government we gave them. And that's why it failed- because good intentions aren't enough. To switch from Catholicism to Buddhism for a second, you've got to have ALL eight rights of the eightfold path to be successful (I was once known as a Zen Catholic as well)- right intention alone isn't enough.

That's why I kind of disagree with the more modern just war theories, even though they're taught by the church, and go back to the Augustinian instead: A Just War has three marks- you are defending something you love, you are fighting in your own territory (and stop when you get to the border, invasion is little more than revenge), and you are showing love for your enemy by giving him the simple human dignity of looking in his eyes when you kill him.

Almost no modern warfare has all three of those marks, and thus, almost no modern warfare can become just under the Augustinian model, which is why we invented the more complex just war theory, which oddly enough, STILL almost no modern warfare fits.

A huge part of the reason for this is something that the atheist George Orwell noted and used in his novels (yes, I did find something good in atheism though this is a bit of a negative): To win a war, you have to become as unjust as the enemy you are facing. If you're not willing to do that, you will not win. I say this is the reason why the Christeros lost the Mexican Revolution.

Re:More recommendations

[INowRegretThesePosts]

I have seen people argue that George W. Bush was naive in believing
that he could bring democracy to Iraq. The separation of Church and
state (the kind proposed by the American Founding Fathers, not the
bigoted anti-theist kind proposed by Richard Dawkins) comes from a
Christian concept: "Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's,
and unto God the things that are God's". Even though many Catholics
used to defend theocratic absolutist monarchy, the seed of political freedom
existed in the religious/cultural ethos of Europe, and the Enlightenment
intellectuals (who brought us great evils, but also great goods) were able
to rescue it and bring down theocratic absolutist monarchy.

Islam, however, lacks this seed. Bringing down secularist dictatorships
(such as that of Saddam Hussein) only results in Islamist repressive
regimes taking their place, including religious cleansing (specially
against Jews and Christians).

I am _not_ saying that we should invade Muslim countries and plant
secularist dictators there; I am merely saying that, when a secularist
dictator is _already_ in power, removing him by violence only makes
things worse.

Pope Benedict has written on the subject. See
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/ratzinger2.html
(Don't worry, the link above is a verbatim excerpt from the Pope's
writing; the Lew Rockwell site seems to be the only place to have
published it online, but it is free of anarcho-capitalist rhetoric).

Even more recommendations!

[INowRegretThesePosts]

http://www.catholicworldreport.com/
is an excellent, deep, charitable resource. I heard it is read at the Holy See.

Re:Even more recommendations!

[Marxist Hacker 42]

And the first article today on that site is very excellent.