Which do you have more faith in?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 29-10-2006 11:57PM

Ahhh.... the Global Warming tactic.... interesting, interesting....

galactus · 30-10-2006 12:18AM

The Scientist wrote:

"A computer will never beat the human brain."
Gary Kasparov circa 2000 T.Sc.

Kasparov did accuse the IBM team of cheating in the film "Game Over". Well worth a watch.

At the moment, a well prepared (eg Kramnik v. Deep Fritz, 2002) top-level grandmaster will beat even the best computers. More...

Here's my favourite man v. machine story:

In 1992 Marion Tinsley beat a computer for the world checkers (AKA draughts) championship. Tinsley won 4 games to 2 with 33 draws. At the end of the final game, Marion jumped to his feet and amid thunderous, appreciative applause raised his arms in triumph and exclaimed "Three cheers for human beings!".

Tar.Aldarion · 30-10-2006 02:18PM

AH yeah, but they will beat people every time soon enough with the best outcome for a person being a draw. Computars shall overcom all!

thelordofcheese · 30-10-2006 03:19PM

eamoss wrote:

Computers are just so so so so stupid!!

computers do exactly what you tell them to, no more, no less. Once you get yer head around that, you'll be fine.

So computers, they're more reliable than most people i know.

Thrill · 30-10-2006 03:42PM

People make computers, people program computers, so basicly, your still trusting people whichever way you vote.
(I voted for computers)

Tar.Aldarion · 31-10-2006 11:39AM

People are just computers too, just biological ones. Our program is changing as we evolve, but we still just do what we are designed to do, no more, no less.

Ickle Magoo · 31-10-2006 11:51AM

Always people - what would you have faith in a computer for? Faith in something would indicate to me that it has some kind of awareness of how it chooses to behave & you depend on it making certain choices - which obviously isn't the case with an inanimate object like a computer...

Tar.Aldarion · 31-10-2006 11:58AM

Computers aren't inanimate, I think you just mxed up the meaning.
Anyway, what makes you think people have some kind of awareness of how it chooses to behave and that it is not 100% nature?

Also, would you grant rights to Data from Star Trek? :P

Ickle Magoo · 31-10-2006 12:07PM

Sorry - they aren't free thinking is what I mean - or my home PC certainly isn't!

I don't understand your second point & as Data is a fictional character on a TV show - it doesn't really apply..:p

Hail 2 Da Chimp · 31-10-2006 12:09PM

Cyborgs FTW!!!

Blowfish · 31-10-2006 04:43PM

BlitzKrieg wrote:

Case in point, my computer got a clean bill of help from shop in July, today it turns itself off randomly when I turn it on and takes a couple of go's before it stops being an arse.

Yeah, but it was a human who gave it a clean bill of health.

It would depend on the person, and it would depend on the os. Some people are stupid, and some os's are stupid.

I never trust printers though, too many moving parts for my liking, they always end up breaking before any other part of the pc.

nobodythere · 31-10-2006 09:25PM

Computers are only as reliable as the people who program them.

Capt'n Midnight · 01-11-2006 11:57PM

grasshopa wrote:

Computers are only as reliable as the people who program them.

And those who program the OS and those who setup the security and the crackers who get in and the hardware design flaws and QC problems.

If it's a choice between people and bricks, choose the bricks every time. Electromechanical systems are far more reliable than people. Same with computers, mostly.

You can design mathematical exact programming languages but AFAIK none has any main stream use, you can build super redundant hardware like on aricraft control system. You can't make people more reliable. And as for politicians :rolleyes:

As the sayinng goes "Many people have a reputation for being honest, when in reality their price is too high."

The ESB are the one of the most trusted organisations in the country, possibly the CSO would be up there too, no coincidence that in both cases their work doesn't depend on peoples choices.

I would not trust eVoting, the simple question of "who benefits" applies,
the tax payer don't because it's more expensive
the pundits and people who like the buzz about the counting don't benefit
the media don't benefit since less time and less viewers and overall less interest in the result since there is no suspense
the politicians might benefit from a faster count, but since they aren't going to work the next day the benefit is marginal, they only find a day or so earlier about what they will be doing for the next five years.
the only people who could benefit by a large amount are those who would cheat for party reasons or for a betting scam or whatever

Which do you have more faith in?

Comments