OK. Define it unambiguously, with the specific set of characteristics which define it, and those which it can't possibly have. There can be no exceptions or subjective measures. You should also be able to find at least one official definition which matches your usage and cite it.
So far I've seen: presence of a keyboard, ability to create stuff, not a mainframe, compatible with the original IBM PC, not a Mac, and not a tablet or phone.
Go ahead, define it, and then enumerate the ways in which a tablet computer (platform agnostic please) isn't a PC.
Because in the early 80's a VIC-20 was considered a "personal computer", and if you're saying "PC" and "personal computer" are different terms, you will need to define each of these in detail and explain how they differ.
I'm using "PC" and "personal computer" interchangeably because, well, they've been that way for about 30 years or so (except where people have retroactively decided it only applies to the original IBM PCs).
Tablets are not meant for creating, only consuming.
The intent is irrelevant... most desktops will only ever be used to consume, not create. Do they stop being computers at that point? And you can definitely create on it -- I create documents on my tablet all the time, send emails, and create mind maps, so clearly I'm creating -- did that magically change the device into a PC, or was it already one? I can do spreadhsheets and run Angry Birds, how about them? Or is there some subset of creating which makes it a different thing? Would a bluetooth keyboard magically turn it into a PC??
There is no hardware that is upgradable, and connectivity options are usually limited rather severely on a tablet
Oh, horseshit. I've seen Compaq computers that weren't upgradeable and had limited connectivity options -- did they cease to be computers?
Redefining tablets as PCs is just a way for fanbois to trumpet their favorite manufacturer.
Pick a manufactuer... Microsoft, Samsung, Google, Acer... anybody at all who makes tablets so we can put this stupid idea to rest. I don't give a shit who makes it, or your feelings about the fanbois for any given platform. It's a computer, it's a personal device.
If someone gave you an Android tablet which had a programming language on it, would it be a personal computer at that point? Emacs? Porn? What one thing would you be able to do on a tablet and deem it to now have become a PC?
This is stupid metaphysics -- if I make a table shorter and sit on it, at which point does it become a chair? If I put a plate of food on a chair and eat, does it become a table?
A tablet and most smart phones are general purpose computing devices, which can be programmed to do new things based on programming languages which get port to them, you can create, consume, and otherwise use data. The fact that Surface Pro is essentially a laptop in a slightly different box doesn't change anything.
Well, to solve complex problems computer must be programmable. And since it's personal, programmable by its owner. Now, how many tablets (especially Apple tablets) are capable of executing programs written on them?
Specious and irrelevant.
Back in the days you needed paper tape or punch cards, the code wasn't "written on them", and most software people will ever run wasn't written by them or on that computer. So it's not a computer until you write code on it? So by that definition most secretaries don't have computers then? I don't follow this non-logic.
Seriously, why is everybody trying to make up their own convenient definitions of "personal", "computer", and "personal computer"??
According to any definition which would be accepted by the ACM, both a smart phone and a tablet are computers. Has Slashdot suddenly gotten stupid?? If you could port Java to the or any other programming language to it.. it is by definition a computer.
And since I know iOS stuff is written in Objective C, any argument that a tablet isn't a computer is a self-serving argument based on really annoying semantics.
You are right, the ENIAC was a super computer. It was not a PC though (PERSONAL COMPUTER).
Gee, no kidding... but people are saying lack of a keyboard makes it not a computer. That's not true.
So if it's a general purpose computing device (which it is), other than semantics by people who seemingly don't know anything about computers... what specific trait about a tablet makes it not a computer? Being handheld? Being small?
Different architecture, different form factor, different OS, different input method seems like good reasons for classifying it as different from a traditional PC.
But it isn't. Look at Microsoft Surface Pro or whatever it's called.
It's running the Windows desktop OS, has the same CPU architecture (it's Intel). It's the same architecture as a PC (give or take a few details) wrapped in a box with a built in screen. But it's essentially a desktop machine that's running a desktop OS which has been re-packaged.
So would that machine be a "computer" whereas an Android one wouldn't be? Based on what specific criteria?
The personal in PC means the device was designed primarily to be used by one user at a time.
No, it means the device was intended to be owned by people, which was a change from when computers were big giant things in dedicated rooms nobody ever went near and no individual could ever hope to own.
My 486 Linux box could run more than one user back in 1993 -- was it not a "Personal Computer"? It was mine, it was a computer. Or did it magically become a server instead of a PC?
The number of intended users is not now, and never has been, part of the definition of "personal" in PC.
No, but you can't claim that a smart phone or tablet isn't a computer on that basis... ENIAC wasn't personal, but by the GPs definition it didn't have a keyboard, so it wasn't a computer either. Which is blatantly false.
By the definition I learned when I got my degree in CS, if it is capable of solving Turing complete problems, it is a computer -- and why we should be having this argument on Slashdot of all places is mind boggling.
If I used a bluetooth keyboard with an iPad, do you think that keyboard magically turns it from "not a computer" to "is a computer"?? But a virtual keyboard keeps it from being one??
The architecture itself would be capable of running any programming language ported to it -- that is what makes it a computer. It has a general purpose CPU with an instruction set, and the ability to write new logic on it that isn't defined statically in hardware, ergo, computer.
So we should include phones and game consoles as well. Got it.
If they're capable of solving Turing complete problems, they absolutely they are. By definition.
An XBox is a PC which has been wrapped in a box and sold in retail stores, but it's an example of a computer for sure. It's essentially an Intel processor and a desktop PC.
And modern phones, which can be arbitrarily programmed and aren't just hard wired to be phones? Guess what, a smart phone is essentially a computer in a little tiny case.
Walk into any CS department anywhere in the world, and argue to a professor that a smart phone or a tablet isn't a computer -- they'll either laugh at you, or educate you.
Well, let's see.. it has a CPU, memory, can do input, processing, and output (the Von Neumann definition). It's capable of doing Turing complete things, and writing code written for it.
It's personal, and it meets all of the definitions of computer.
we might as well start considering smart phones PCs, since a modern tablet is basically just a scaled up smart phone.
By any meaningful definition, a modern smart phone is more of a computer than what we had 20 years ago -- by a huge factor.
So, tell us, what aspects of a phone or tablet make it not a computer in your mind? They'll both run rings around an old 486.
We're no longer talking about things which are hardware specific to a task, and you could easily port any programming language to that platform. The absence of a physical keyboard or mouse don't make you not a computer (because they used to have neither).
It seems like you've made a political decision here, which is that every behavior should be accepted.
And you've made a political decision by saying it's up to you to decide what should be accepted.
Not everyone agrees.
Some of us want our kids to grow up in a world where only healthy behaviors exist.
Some of us don't give a crap about your kids -- we don't wish them harm, but the existence of your children should not be a short cut to abridging the rest of our rights. Raise your children however you like, but you don't get a vote on how the rest of us live our lives.
And if you're so deluded to believe that you will ever exist in a world where only healthy behavior exist... you're a little out of touch with reality.
We want people to go experiment elsewhere, and face the consequences of their experiments without dragging us down with them.
Yes, it's called their own homes and lives, and you can mind your own damned business. Nobody is asking you to participate in any of this stuff... but if you think it's your right to tell others what they can and can't do, you're mistaken.
Any law like this, no matter how well intentioned, becomes used for something else and gets expanded.
Who wouldn't object to child porn being blocked? Who wouldn't object to violent porn being blocked? Who wouldn't object to animal porn being blocked? Who wouldn't object to gay porn being blocked? Who wouldn't object to all porn being blocked?
These things seem to pretty much always go through scope creep in the worst possible way.
It's not snake oil... they're leveraging the existing fear of emissions from cell phones to get paranoid people to help them map cell phone coverage.
If you're interested in this app, you already believe it's harmful -- it's just that the end goal is to use the crazies to map out the cell phone coverage, and that's where the money is.
Its crowd-sourcing by using people's own fears -- and they'll be happy to know how to minimize their exposure.
I'ts actually kind of funny, and it's like saying "well, if the herd is already spooked, we can glean some other interesting information out of this based on what they do next".
Would I buy this app? Nope. Do I think they're doing anything shady? Well, not without the people buying into the belief in the first place.
My thoughts exactly. I've already disconnected my 360 from my network because I was seeing ads in games and I was finding some of them are so busy telling me about the crap I could buy on line I didn't care any more.
I only game occasionally, and I have no interest whatsoever in having it constantly on-line.
So if the next gen consoles come out and require they be constantly connected to the internet... there will be no new console.
If they do this, many users will just go ahead and do it anyway -- but I sure as hell won't.
OK, how's this... Dear CCC et all, we're sorry to hear you're a bunch of ignorant douchebags who feel it should be your right to install crap onto our computers. Screw off. Sincerely, Canadians. Have a nice day.
But given the sheer number of examples posted here of the use of the term, it's not like they can claim they invented it.
Once you decide Marines are the bad-asses who go in first, and once you figure out people will eventually go to space -- it's pretty logical to assume Space Marines, Space Soliders, Space Navy, Space Pilots.
It's a descriptive term -- yes, if you're selling tabletop games called "Space Marines", fine. But these guys really need to be sanctioned for over-stepping their actual trademark. And their lawyers should bloody well have known this didn't apply here.
I'm surprised this confusion still exists, the counter-notice puts the matter firmly back in the jurisdiction of the court system at only the cost of revealing the noticee's personal information so a lawsuit can proceed.
Which makes for a nice lovely way to get the real personal information of people on the internet. Why should someone be forced to identify themselves to you based on an unsupported claim?
Sorry, but I still think there should be some initial burden of evidence on the claimant -- but, as I've said elsewhere, the companies who paid the lawmakers for this wanted to avoid red tape.
It's a broken, defective system designed only to the advantage of the copyright lobby.
This is about the eBook edition. The Paperback is obviously still available and it would seem to me that the trademark is not applicable there.
Do you know where the trademark is applicable? People selling games called Space Marines.
Since this is neither, someone's lawyer should refer them to Arkell v Pressdam -- they have absolutely no legal right to the phrase space marine in an ebook, a paper book or anything except the area in which they trademarked it.
Detroit had a rash of fake cop cars pulling people over and robbing them. At one point they just said if a cop wants to pull you over, drive to a police station.
Which is great right up until you get shot for failing to obey the police officer.
That or you'll probably be charged with resisting arrest and felony evasion.:-P
Sure I see blog posts hosted by them all the time but seriously why would a reputable organization (if you can call WordPress that) would remove the content without first checking with the blog owners or verifying the claims, then they are truly the bad guys here.
Because that's how they keep from getting sued themselves.
If they take down on request, they keep their safe harbour. If they ask for details or proof, they can become more involved than they'd like.
The system is set up to favor the claimants, with no consideration for any burden of proof other than "because I said so". Because the lobbyists who paid for this law wanted it that way.
But it completely goes outside of most legal things like due process and judicial oversight -- guilty until proven innocent.
If this can happen it points to the fact that the entire DMCA process is utterly broken and open to abuse.
No proof is required on the side of the claimant, but the accused can immediately lose their stuff.
This is a side effect of a process which was designed by content owners to get stuff taken down with minimal effort and red tape. It has the effect of random idiots being able to take down stuff without any oversight.
What needs to happen is the content owners need to have some higher burden of proof that they are the copyright holders, and that there's real infringement going on.
I'm sure somebody here will help you with this. They probably shouldn't.
Why? Just like there's "significant, non-infringing applications" of DVD burners and the like -- there's perfectly valid reasons why someone would need to review their security tapes for activity.
And just like DVD burners, outlawing them because they could be used for something you disapprove of is a bad idea.
Or, are you suggesting we should withold all of our technical expertise based on what I can only assume is general paranoia that Big Brother will misuse it? Because Big Brother has way more intrusive stuff than this, they don't need our help.
The Google 'partner' that builds the phone isn't making a profit anymore than the actual manufacturer making the RT and Pro
I should hope they are, otherwise they're going to go out of business.
They may not be making all of the profits, but if they're doing manufacturing without making any profit, they'd be idiots.
But Microsoft has typically let their partners design the boxes to run Windows, with this Microsoft is entering actually designing and selling Microsoft branded hardware. Except for keyboards and Mice, they've never actually had their brand on the hardware for the most part.
'Declaring war' might be a little strong, but Microsoft is definitely moving into competing with their former partners.
Part of their reasoning for this is that they want to compete with Apple and get the money on the hardware too, but part of it might be that the manufacturers weren't lining up to create new devices around a platform they don't know if anybody wants -- so why should they take the risks ?
Slashdot Mirror
OK. Define it unambiguously, with the specific set of characteristics which define it, and those which it can't possibly have. There can be no exceptions or subjective measures. You should also be able to find at least one official definition which matches your usage and cite it.
So far I've seen: presence of a keyboard, ability to create stuff, not a mainframe, compatible with the original IBM PC, not a Mac, and not a tablet or phone.
Go ahead, define it, and then enumerate the ways in which a tablet computer (platform agnostic please) isn't a PC.
Because in the early 80's a VIC-20 was considered a "personal computer", and if you're saying "PC" and "personal computer" are different terms, you will need to define each of these in detail and explain how they differ.
I'm using "PC" and "personal computer" interchangeably because, well, they've been that way for about 30 years or so (except where people have retroactively decided it only applies to the original IBM PCs).
The intent is irrelevant ... most desktops will only ever be used to consume, not create. Do they stop being computers at that point? And you can definitely create on it -- I create documents on my tablet all the time, send emails, and create mind maps, so clearly I'm creating -- did that magically change the device into a PC, or was it already one? I can do spreadhsheets and run Angry Birds, how about them? Or is there some subset of creating which makes it a different thing? Would a bluetooth keyboard magically turn it into a PC??
Oh, horseshit. I've seen Compaq computers that weren't upgradeable and had limited connectivity options -- did they cease to be computers?
Pick a manufactuer ... Microsoft, Samsung, Google, Acer ... anybody at all who makes tablets so we can put this stupid idea to rest. I don't give a shit who makes it, or your feelings about the fanbois for any given platform. It's a computer, it's a personal device.
If someone gave you an Android tablet which had a programming language on it, would it be a personal computer at that point? Emacs? Porn? What one thing would you be able to do on a tablet and deem it to now have become a PC?
This is stupid metaphysics -- if I make a table shorter and sit on it, at which point does it become a chair? If I put a plate of food on a chair and eat, does it become a table?
A tablet and most smart phones are general purpose computing devices, which can be programmed to do new things based on programming languages which get port to them, you can create, consume, and otherwise use data. The fact that Surface Pro is essentially a laptop in a slightly different box doesn't change anything.
Specious and irrelevant.
Back in the days you needed paper tape or punch cards, the code wasn't "written on them", and most software people will ever run wasn't written by them or on that computer. So it's not a computer until you write code on it? So by that definition most secretaries don't have computers then? I don't follow this non-logic.
Seriously, why is everybody trying to make up their own convenient definitions of "personal", "computer", and "personal computer"??
According to any definition which would be accepted by the ACM, both a smart phone and a tablet are computers. Has Slashdot suddenly gotten stupid?? If you could port Java to the or any other programming language to it .. it is by definition a computer.
And since I know iOS stuff is written in Objective C, any argument that a tablet isn't a computer is a self-serving argument based on really annoying semantics.
Gee, no kidding ... but people are saying lack of a keyboard makes it not a computer. That's not true.
So if it's a general purpose computing device (which it is), other than semantics by people who seemingly don't know anything about computers ... what specific trait about a tablet makes it not a computer? Being handheld? Being small?
But it isn't. Look at Microsoft Surface Pro or whatever it's called.
It's running the Windows desktop OS, has the same CPU architecture (it's Intel). It's the same architecture as a PC (give or take a few details) wrapped in a box with a built in screen. But it's essentially a desktop machine that's running a desktop OS which has been re-packaged.
So would that machine be a "computer" whereas an Android one wouldn't be? Based on what specific criteria?
No, it means the device was intended to be owned by people, which was a change from when computers were big giant things in dedicated rooms nobody ever went near and no individual could ever hope to own.
My 486 Linux box could run more than one user back in 1993 -- was it not a "Personal Computer"? It was mine, it was a computer. Or did it magically become a server instead of a PC?
The number of intended users is not now, and never has been, part of the definition of "personal" in PC.
No, but you can't claim that a smart phone or tablet isn't a computer on that basis ... ENIAC wasn't personal, but by the GPs definition it didn't have a keyboard, so it wasn't a computer either. Which is blatantly false.
By the definition I learned when I got my degree in CS, if it is capable of solving Turing complete problems, it is a computer -- and why we should be having this argument on Slashdot of all places is mind boggling.
If I used a bluetooth keyboard with an iPad, do you think that keyboard magically turns it from "not a computer" to "is a computer"?? But a virtual keyboard keeps it from being one??
The architecture itself would be capable of running any programming language ported to it -- that is what makes it a computer. It has a general purpose CPU with an instruction set, and the ability to write new logic on it that isn't defined statically in hardware, ergo, computer.
If they're capable of solving Turing complete problems, they absolutely they are. By definition.
An XBox is a PC which has been wrapped in a box and sold in retail stores, but it's an example of a computer for sure. It's essentially an Intel processor and a desktop PC.
And modern phones, which can be arbitrarily programmed and aren't just hard wired to be phones? Guess what, a smart phone is essentially a computer in a little tiny case.
Walk into any CS department anywhere in the world, and argue to a professor that a smart phone or a tablet isn't a computer -- they'll either laugh at you, or educate you.
Well, that's both arbitrary and wrong. The older mainframes that used paper tape and punch cards didn't have keyboards.
You don't get to define what makes a computer, and by any meaningful definition, a tablet is undeniably a computer.
ENIAC didn't have a keyboard, that doesn't mean it wasn't a computer.
Sorry, but you're wrong.
Well, let's see .. it has a CPU, memory, can do input, processing, and output (the Von Neumann definition). It's capable of doing Turing complete things, and writing code written for it.
It's personal, and it meets all of the definitions of computer.
By any meaningful definition, a modern smart phone is more of a computer than what we had 20 years ago -- by a huge factor.
So, tell us, what aspects of a phone or tablet make it not a computer in your mind? They'll both run rings around an old 486.
We're no longer talking about things which are hardware specific to a task, and you could easily port any programming language to that platform. The absence of a physical keyboard or mouse don't make you not a computer (because they used to have neither).
And you've made a political decision by saying it's up to you to decide what should be accepted.
Some of us don't give a crap about your kids -- we don't wish them harm, but the existence of your children should not be a short cut to abridging the rest of our rights. Raise your children however you like, but you don't get a vote on how the rest of us live our lives.
And if you're so deluded to believe that you will ever exist in a world where only healthy behavior exist ... you're a little out of touch with reality.
Yes, it's called their own homes and lives, and you can mind your own damned business. Nobody is asking you to participate in any of this stuff ... but if you think it's your right to tell others what they can and can't do, you're mistaken.
Any law like this, no matter how well intentioned, becomes used for something else and gets expanded.
Who wouldn't object to child porn being blocked? Who wouldn't object to violent porn being blocked? Who wouldn't object to animal porn being blocked? Who wouldn't object to gay porn being blocked? Who wouldn't object to all porn being blocked?
These things seem to pretty much always go through scope creep in the worst possible way.
It becomes the morality clause.
It's not snake oil ... they're leveraging the existing fear of emissions from cell phones to get paranoid people to help them map cell phone coverage.
If you're interested in this app, you already believe it's harmful -- it's just that the end goal is to use the crazies to map out the cell phone coverage, and that's where the money is.
Its crowd-sourcing by using people's own fears -- and they'll be happy to know how to minimize their exposure.
I'ts actually kind of funny, and it's like saying "well, if the herd is already spooked, we can glean some other interesting information out of this based on what they do next".
Would I buy this app? Nope. Do I think they're doing anything shady? Well, not without the people buying into the belief in the first place.
My thoughts exactly. I've already disconnected my 360 from my network because I was seeing ads in games and I was finding some of them are so busy telling me about the crap I could buy on line I didn't care any more.
I only game occasionally, and I have no interest whatsoever in having it constantly on-line.
So if the next gen consoles come out and require they be constantly connected to the internet ... there will be no new console.
If they do this, many users will just go ahead and do it anyway -- but I sure as hell won't.
OK, how's this ... Dear CCC et all, we're sorry to hear you're a bunch of ignorant douchebags who feel it should be your right to install crap onto our computers. Screw off. Sincerely, Canadians. Have a nice day.
But given the sheer number of examples posted here of the use of the term, it's not like they can claim they invented it.
Once you decide Marines are the bad-asses who go in first, and once you figure out people will eventually go to space -- it's pretty logical to assume Space Marines, Space Soliders, Space Navy, Space Pilots.
It's a descriptive term -- yes, if you're selling tabletop games called "Space Marines", fine. But these guys really need to be sanctioned for over-stepping their actual trademark. And their lawyers should bloody well have known this didn't apply here.
Which makes for a nice lovely way to get the real personal information of people on the internet. Why should someone be forced to identify themselves to you based on an unsupported claim?
Sorry, but I still think there should be some initial burden of evidence on the claimant -- but, as I've said elsewhere, the companies who paid the lawmakers for this wanted to avoid red tape.
It's a broken, defective system designed only to the advantage of the copyright lobby.
Copyright violation (in space), taking a shit (in space), pigs (in space) ... this is a fun game. ;-)
Do you know where the trademark is applicable? People selling games called Space Marines.
Since this is neither, someone's lawyer should refer them to Arkell v Pressdam -- they have absolutely no legal right to the phrase space marine in an ebook, a paper book or anything except the area in which they trademarked it.
Which is great right up until you get shot for failing to obey the police officer.
That or you'll probably be charged with resisting arrest and felony evasion. :-P
Probably not -- it's like political satire, it's not like you won't get free examples to work with.
You don't need to try very hard to find examples of the DMCA process being horribly broken.
Automated software, random idiots ... same thing really.
Because that's how they keep from getting sued themselves.
If they take down on request, they keep their safe harbour. If they ask for details or proof, they can become more involved than they'd like.
The system is set up to favor the claimants, with no consideration for any burden of proof other than "because I said so". Because the lobbyists who paid for this law wanted it that way.
But it completely goes outside of most legal things like due process and judicial oversight -- guilty until proven innocent.
If this can happen it points to the fact that the entire DMCA process is utterly broken and open to abuse.
No proof is required on the side of the claimant, but the accused can immediately lose their stuff.
This is a side effect of a process which was designed by content owners to get stuff taken down with minimal effort and red tape. It has the effect of random idiots being able to take down stuff without any oversight.
What needs to happen is the content owners need to have some higher burden of proof that they are the copyright holders, and that there's real infringement going on.
Why? Just like there's "significant, non-infringing applications" of DVD burners and the like -- there's perfectly valid reasons why someone would need to review their security tapes for activity.
And just like DVD burners, outlawing them because they could be used for something you disapprove of is a bad idea.
Or, are you suggesting we should withold all of our technical expertise based on what I can only assume is general paranoia that Big Brother will misuse it? Because Big Brother has way more intrusive stuff than this, they don't need our help.
I should hope they are, otherwise they're going to go out of business.
They may not be making all of the profits, but if they're doing manufacturing without making any profit, they'd be idiots.
But Microsoft has typically let their partners design the boxes to run Windows, with this Microsoft is entering actually designing and selling Microsoft branded hardware. Except for keyboards and Mice, they've never actually had their brand on the hardware for the most part.
'Declaring war' might be a little strong, but Microsoft is definitely moving into competing with their former partners.
Part of their reasoning for this is that they want to compete with Apple and get the money on the hardware too, but part of it might be that the manufacturers weren't lining up to create new devices around a platform they don't know if anybody wants -- so why should they take the risks ?