Oh, I know all about Gitlow. It's actually the definition of "bad law." Great, so we incorporate the First with the Fourteenth through some strange voodoo as neither has language that supports such a thing, yet we're going to keep Gitlow in jail anyway. Brilliant! So now states can no longer prohibit speech? Great, who do I go to when I receive a death threat now? It can't be a crime, as that would be an infringement. Yell fire in a crowded theater? Speech, that's for damn sure, but the states are prohibited from infringing on it now! Incitement to commit violence? Speech! Can't infringe upon it. Let that man stir up the mob to go lynch someone. So, to fix that mistake, we have to poke holes and suddenly "shall make no" means "can make some." What's that being tossed out the window? The whole concept of Constitutional guarantees, as not only do states have all these exceptions, the Federal government has them to!
See, in the US Constitution, the Federal judicial branch only has jurisdiction UNDER the law, not over it, with good reason, otherwise we end up with the situation today where an obscure court ruling can take away your rights or the Anti-Civil Liberties Union can threaten to drag your small town into an expensive legal battle because you dared to show a nativity scene on public property (Them thar parks are reserved for Gay Pride parades only!). In order for the courts to gain this "interpretive" power over the Constitution, they had to first exercise it. Wouldn't you think if the Constitution were to be so easily changed that it wouldn't take three fourths of the states to do it?
And great, Roy Moore used state funds for the monument and other judges didn't want him to do it. Too bad that a) it's not federal funds and b) it still does not make it a law. So those fact were not included because it is irrelevant to the arguement that the First Amendment forbids it.
No, if that were true, we shouldn't have any copyright at all. You're assuming the Constitution is actually being followed. Here's a hint; it isn't.
Here's a great recent example. In 2002 you had Judge Roy Moore being ordered to remove the Ten Commandments from his court house as it violated the First Amendment. Now, whether or not you agree with the display is unimportant here, all that's important is what the First Amendment says, as that's what was being used to justify the lawsuit to get the display removed:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
The important part here are the first five words. Congress shall make no law. Congress is specifically defined in Article I, saying it "shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives." Did Judge Roy Moore consist of a Senate and a House of Representatives? No, of course not. So right off the bat we know the First Amendment doesn't apply. Is the display of the Ten Commandments a law? Well, was it ever a bill that went through the legislative process? No? Does it bind anyone to perform or not perform a certain action with a penalty or reward attached to that conduct, enforced by a Constitutionally(state or federal)-authorized agency of the Executive branch? No? Then it isn't a law. So we have something, which did not involve Congress and was not a law, being forcibly removed, censored even, by the First Amendment? If that's not proof enough for you that the Constitution is a meaningless document today, where the First Amendment can be used to justify actions of the Federal government that the First Amendment is supposed to prevent, I don't know what is.
Except the First Amendment (Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech) turns right around and says that they can't do that. Amendments, by definition, override every conflicting thing that has come before. So Article I, Section 8, clause 8 gets overruled. Now, if you have a latter Amendment that gives that power back to the government, then you would be right. Otherwise, only the states can have that power under the Constitution.
your typical PC heat pipe thing uses air where this one is using fluid.
What? Heat pipes use fluid that evaporates and condenses. If you don't believe me would you believe NASA? Here's one from Coolermaster just to show it's not limited to G5s and satelites.
How in the hell would one that doesn't use fluid work?
It's not really as vauge as you think. Sure, it will include phrases such as "unreasonable" which will change in definition from person to person, but when it says "Congress shall make no law..." that's a statement filled with absolute statements. Unfortunately that doesn't prevent the system from interpreting "Congress shall make no law..." to mean "Federal and State agencies shall make no laws/policies/displays... unless the Judicial branch thinks it's a good idea."
This particular Xeon? What, are you saying the 400MHz FSB ones would have faired better? A 533MHz FSB is the best you're going to get from the current product line.
I think the electronic part is very important, however, as it was electronics, not mechanics, that has allowed computers to become so powerful in such tiny packages.
But the door knob is not keeping track of a number, simply an on/off state (which is not being manipulated by the door knob, but by the user). So, the door knob is a binary device, as such it cannot be considered an analog computer.
I'll cite wikipedia for lamda calculus. Same thing as the Turing machine. As far as definitions based off physical (idealized or not) hardware, we can also go by my Dell and state all computers must have a GPU. Sure, my Dell was never created in order to try and define "computer," but the register machine wasn't thought up for that purpose either. I'm willing to say let's just agree to disagree here. But I can see you down the road being tired of the redundancy you encounter when you read "programmable computer".
Symbol (second definition): something that stands for or suggests something else by reason of relationship, association, convention, or accidental resemblance; especially : a visible sign of something invisible
Analog Computer: a computer that operates with numbers represented by directly measurable quantities (as voltages or rotations)
So my definition does not rule out any analog computers
But weak equivalence has nothing to do with what a computer is (which, it so happens, is what the thread is about at the moment), just how a the output of one system (normally cognitive) compares to the output of another system. A non-progammable device could have weak equivalence with a human or a programmable device depending on the task, which is why I wondered why you brought it up in the first place.
Just as you pick things that are not part of the definition of a computer to claim that a calculator is not a computer.
But, for fun, let's see what goo 'ol Webster has to say about "computer":
A device that computes, especially a programmable electronic machine that performs high-speed mathematical or logical operations or that assembles, stores, correlates, or otherwise processes information.
One who computes.
Compute:
To determine by mathematics, especially by numerical methods: computed the tax due. See Synonyms at calculate.
To determine by the use of a computer.
Keep in mind, "especially" does not mean "exclusively." Now, I'm willing to say my definition is not 100% accurate, and perhaps, just perhaps, you could stretch it so far that a door knob is a "computer" under it. However, if we refine it by Webster so it doesn't use the root word:
A device that determines by mathematics (The study of the measurement, properties, and relationships of quantities and sets, using numbers and symbols), especially a programmable electronic machine that performs high-speed mathematical or logical operations or that assembles, stores, correlates, or otherwise processes information.
And I'm sorry, a door knob does not determine anything by mathematics.
How is it meaningless? Is an abacus a computer under my definition? No. Why? Because it doesn't manipulate data, the person using it has to do that. Is an ignition switch a computer? No, it recieves input and gives output, but it doesn't manipulate data at all. And I really fail to see how Turing-equivalence comes into this. Although it has a precise definition, it appears you are unfamiliar with it.
Interesting, when I ask normal people for a definition of computer, I generally gut something along the lines of either "Who the hell are you and what are you doing in my bathroom?" or "Uh... something that computes?" Of course humans are computers. The greatest dream in computer science is to create a neural net; an artificial brain, for true AI. Perhaps "artificial" should be added to the definition if you are uncomfortable with the concept that your grey matter is a glorified computer. I personally don't see a distinction in how something is made asside from the price tag and perhaps environmental impact, just the function.
Except your doorknob doesn't manipulate data, thus, not a computer. What do you know? My definition isn't so useless after all!
BTW: The V1 used fixed wings for lift, yet it was a jet-powered missile. But maybe the "jet" requirement wasn't so good. How about "pressurized cabin."
Your average calculator is repeat is a computer. A computer is anything that can recieve data, manipulate data, and then output the result. Your definition is a bit like saying the Write flyer isn't an airplane because it didn't have a jet engine.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh, I know all about Gitlow. It's actually the definition of "bad law." Great, so we incorporate the First with the Fourteenth through some strange voodoo as neither has language that supports such a thing, yet we're going to keep Gitlow in jail anyway. Brilliant! So now states can no longer prohibit speech? Great, who do I go to when I receive a death threat now? It can't be a crime, as that would be an infringement. Yell fire in a crowded theater? Speech, that's for damn sure, but the states are prohibited from infringing on it now! Incitement to commit violence? Speech! Can't infringe upon it. Let that man stir up the mob to go lynch someone. So, to fix that mistake, we have to poke holes and suddenly "shall make no" means "can make some." What's that being tossed out the window? The whole concept of Constitutional guarantees, as not only do states have all these exceptions, the Federal government has them to!
See, in the US Constitution, the Federal judicial branch only has jurisdiction UNDER the law, not over it, with good reason, otherwise we end up with the situation today where an obscure court ruling can take away your rights or the Anti-Civil Liberties Union can threaten to drag your small town into an expensive legal battle because you dared to show a nativity scene on public property (Them thar parks are reserved for Gay Pride parades only!). In order for the courts to gain this "interpretive" power over the Constitution, they had to first exercise it. Wouldn't you think if the Constitution were to be so easily changed that it wouldn't take three fourths of the states to do it?
And great, Roy Moore used state funds for the monument and other judges didn't want him to do it. Too bad that a) it's not federal funds and b) it still does not make it a law. So those fact were not included because it is irrelevant to the arguement that the First Amendment forbids it.
No, if that were true, we shouldn't have any copyright at all. You're assuming the Constitution is actually being followed. Here's a hint; it isn't.
Here's a great recent example. In 2002 you had Judge Roy Moore being ordered to remove the Ten Commandments from his court house as it violated the First Amendment. Now, whether or not you agree with the display is unimportant here, all that's important is what the First Amendment says, as that's what was being used to justify the lawsuit to get the display removed:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
The important part here are the first five words. Congress shall make no law. Congress is specifically defined in Article I, saying it "shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives." Did Judge Roy Moore consist of a Senate and a House of Representatives? No, of course not. So right off the bat we know the First Amendment doesn't apply. Is the display of the Ten Commandments a law? Well, was it ever a bill that went through the legislative process? No? Does it bind anyone to perform or not perform a certain action with a penalty or reward attached to that conduct, enforced by a Constitutionally(state or federal)-authorized agency of the Executive branch? No? Then it isn't a law. So we have something, which did not involve Congress and was not a law, being forcibly removed, censored even, by the First Amendment? If that's not proof enough for you that the Constitution is a meaningless document today, where the First Amendment can be used to justify actions of the Federal government that the First Amendment is supposed to prevent, I don't know what is.
Except the First Amendment (Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech) turns right around and says that they can't do that. Amendments, by definition, override every conflicting thing that has come before. So Article I, Section 8, clause 8 gets overruled. Now, if you have a latter Amendment that gives that power back to the government, then you would be right. Otherwise, only the states can have that power under the Constitution.
Are they uniformed? If not: terrorist.
Great! Now how do you suggest a dead person verify his vote(s)?
Communism fell during Bush Sr, not Reagan, so I fail to see your point here...
I can remove content I disagree with at will from my lawn. Is that censorship, or is that my free speech?
More like 1.5X the price for a good one ($613.00 for a Quadro FX 1100)
your typical PC heat pipe thing uses air where this one is using fluid.
What? Heat pipes use fluid that evaporates and condenses. If you don't believe me would you believe NASA? Here's one from Coolermaster just to show it's not limited to G5s and satelites.
How in the hell would one that doesn't use fluid work?
It's not really as vauge as you think. Sure, it will include phrases such as "unreasonable" which will change in definition from person to person, but when it says "Congress shall make no law..." that's a statement filled with absolute statements. Unfortunately that doesn't prevent the system from interpreting "Congress shall make no law..." to mean "Federal and State agencies shall make no laws/policies/displays... unless the Judicial branch thinks it's a good idea."
This particular Xeon? What, are you saying the 400MHz FSB ones would have faired better? A 533MHz FSB is the best you're going to get from the current product line.
Sure, and we all know no parents sit down with their kids to watch the Super Bowl.
Watching the Super Bowl with my extended family used to be a yearly tradition. Just glad that ended long ago... for many reasons...
I think the electronic part is very important, however, as it was electronics, not mechanics, that has allowed computers to become so powerful in such tiny packages.
But the door knob is not keeping track of a number, simply an on/off state (which is not being manipulated by the door knob, but by the user). So, the door knob is a binary device, as such it cannot be considered an analog computer.
Ah, the tyrany of words...
I'll cite wikipedia for lamda calculus. Same thing as the Turing machine. As far as definitions based off physical (idealized or not) hardware, we can also go by my Dell and state all computers must have a GPU. Sure, my Dell was never created in order to try and define "computer," but the register machine wasn't thought up for that purpose either. I'm willing to say let's just agree to disagree here. But I can see you down the road being tired of the redundancy you encounter when you read "programmable computer".
Webster again:
Symbol (second definition):
something that stands for or suggests something else by reason of relationship, association, convention, or accidental resemblance; especially : a visible sign of something invisible
Analog Computer:
a computer that operates with numbers represented by directly measurable quantities (as voltages or rotations)
So my definition does not rule out any analog computers
The "Turing Machine" is a) more like a program than a physical device and b) developed to define an algorithm, not a computer.
But weak equivalence has nothing to do with what a computer is (which, it so happens, is what the thread is about at the moment), just how a the output of one system (normally cognitive) compares to the output of another system. A non-progammable device could have weak equivalence with a human or a programmable device depending on the task, which is why I wondered why you brought it up in the first place.
Just as you pick things that are not part of the definition of a computer to claim that a calculator is not a computer.
But, for fun, let's see what goo 'ol Webster has to say about "computer":
Compute:
Keep in mind, "especially" does not mean "exclusively." Now, I'm willing to say my definition is not 100% accurate, and perhaps, just perhaps, you could stretch it so far that a door knob is a "computer" under it. However, if we refine it by Webster so it doesn't use the root word:
A device that determines by mathematics (The study of the measurement, properties, and relationships of quantities and sets, using numbers and symbols), especially a programmable electronic machine that performs high-speed mathematical or logical operations or that assembles, stores, correlates, or otherwise processes information.
And I'm sorry, a door knob does not determine anything by mathematics.
How is it meaningless? Is an abacus a computer under my definition? No. Why? Because it doesn't manipulate data, the person using it has to do that. Is an ignition switch a computer? No, it recieves input and gives output, but it doesn't manipulate data at all. And I really fail to see how Turing-equivalence comes into this. Although it has a precise definition, it appears you are unfamiliar with it.
Interesting, when I ask normal people for a definition of computer, I generally gut something along the lines of either "Who the hell are you and what are you doing in my bathroom?" or "Uh... something that computes?" Of course humans are computers. The greatest dream in computer science is to create a neural net; an artificial brain, for true AI. Perhaps "artificial" should be added to the definition if you are uncomfortable with the concept that your grey matter is a glorified computer. I personally don't see a distinction in how something is made asside from the price tag and perhaps environmental impact, just the function.
Except your doorknob doesn't manipulate data, thus, not a computer. What do you know? My definition isn't so useless after all!
BTW: The V1 used fixed wings for lift, yet it was a jet-powered missile. But maybe the "jet" requirement wasn't so good. How about "pressurized cabin."
And the Wright Flyer couldn't fly across the Atlantic. Your point?
Damn it! I mean WRIGHT. God my typing/spelling skills have been going down hill...
Your average calculator is repeat is a computer. A computer is anything that can recieve data, manipulate data, and then output the result. Your definition is a bit like saying the Write flyer isn't an airplane because it didn't have a jet engine.