Beep! -And your challenge is?
Well, he was never the best at Just A Minute.
It has been almost two years* since Stephen Fry last put his foot in his mouth - but the boy has gone and done it again. The nation's most cherished TV advertisement voiceover artist is cherished here, too, at El Reg - for his technical wisdom. After his attempt to explain how the internet works (it needs atomic clocks), we …
It's a very modern narrative that Turing was nobbled "coz he was gay". At the time everyone in the establishment, politicians, senior civil servants and military officers, etc had all been to boarding school. They knew all about "the unspeakable vice of the Greeks". It was something you were expected to grow out of, but Turing being gay was no weirder than if he'd insisted on wearing short trousers as a grown-up.
The real problem was a combination of two otherwise OK things: that Turing had a habit of bringing random people home, and that he had a habit of leaving classified documents lying around his house. He knew too much to be fired, and he couldn't be imprisoned or executed because we're the good guys. The chemical thing was the least-worst option.
Oh and there's a reason Dr Black is a famous "woman in computing" and not a famous *computer scientist*...
He couldn't be excecuted because he hadn't commited a capital offense. He might have been imprisoned if he'd carried out 'homosexual acts' in a public manner; I don't know if he ever did. The 'least-worst' option would have been to leave him alone and let him carry on with his work and his life. It seems that he did need serious 'words of advice' about classified documents, though he probably created classified documents just by doodling on a notepad at his kitchen table.
This post has been deleted by its author
Not quite. Apparently nobody bothered about Turing's sexual orientation when he was at Bletchley Park and had access to very secret material. His notorious absent-mindedness would have been more of a threat.
In Manchester, where he is unlikely to have been working on classified material, nobody bothered until he reported one of the random people to the police for involvement in theft from his home.
There's also a strong body of opinion that Turing's death was an accident. He left no note, and people who knew him at Manchester reported that his mood was far from suicidal. One of them pointed out that he bought several new pairs of socks the day before (an observation that is probably less trivial when you consider the clothes rationing of the time).
Lucky me, I am not a tweeter; and neither am I in British or US academia. But who knows, maybe her "Dr." is self-inflicted?
What do you expect from a person who asconds to twitting, that the Broadway musical 'The Book of Mormon' "was honestly the best night out I ever had in my life, and Ive had some good nights out ;))"
Not that I saw it, though I am sure it could not possibly be my best night out.
And, please, leave Stephan Fry out of the picture. He's a nice chap, a good actor, and has never pretended to know what he is blurping about.
I got one page into Moab Is My Washpot before having to put down the beautifully written but lengthy tome for fear that Fry's interminable prose and well practised yet over enunciated diction would forever infect and infest my previous ability to read a book without reading it with the voice of the writer usurping my natural if less eloquent internal diathesis.
>Just read one book of his, it was a disgustingly complete rip-off of "The Count of Monte-Cristo" set in modern times and not even a tenth as good.
>Black Adder, Jeeves etc are diamond, just stick to the acting, mate, OK?
I didn't enjoy 'The Star's Tennis Balls' very much, though I have his other books. However, he was writing (and indeed very rich from writing another adaptation, of My Fair Lady) before he was in Black Adder or Jeeves and Wooster.
An interesting juxtaposition is between the semi-autobiographical The Liar, and his later autobiography Moab Is My Washpot, written a few years after his 1995 nervous breakdown... something happened to reduce his need for disguise. He's appeared much more comfortable in his own skin since then, too.
My partner has a PHd and I can assure you that this was self inflicted, over four long years. I would have thought that the vast majority of PHds are self inflicted, how else would you get one?
Answers on a postcard to Dr Gillian Mckieth, or to give her her full medical title: Gillian Mckieth.
I was sure to hit the ironical undertone since a self-inflicted injury is - you brought up the medical doctor! - one that does not involve anyone else. You inflict it yourself. You cut your finger. You cannot become a PhD on your own, but only in the passive:one is awarded a PhD.
In this sense I had asked if the good 'most influential tech-tweet' had eventually dished out that doctorate for herself, on her own account and awarded it herself.
Actually AC (11:36), in November 2009 the Scottish board of Scottishness ruled that Gillian McKeith is not Scottish, so actually she should be known as ‘Gillian Keith’.
Six months later the EU office of the chief commissioner of the ‘fisheries, fishing & fish returning to the sea’ department met for a series of meetings and, well, long story short they determined that Gillian Keith doesn’t have gills, so should be simply called ‘Ian Keith’.
Now there have been a lot of rumours, but I think it's still accepted she's basically female, and since Ian Keith is clearly a male name I find it misleading, I propose we simply call her ' '.
Dr David
What he seems to have said doesn't look particularly wrong to me. Turing had written Computable Numbers in 1938 but it was only after the war, at the NPL, that he focused on building the universal machine. Due to the lack of momentum at NPL he decided to go to Manchester where at least he would have access to a working computer. For a mathematician he was very hands on, and did lots of building of electronics. Finally, it is arguable that the Manchester device was the worlds first programmable digital logical computer, rather than a calculating machine which is what all previous devices were (and mostly analogue).
AC writes: "What he seems to have said doesn't look particularly wrong to me. Turing had written Computable Numbers in 1938..."
1936. See http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~robins/Turing_Paper_1936.pdf
"... but it was only after the war, at the NPL, that he focused on building the universal machine. Due to the lack of momentum at NPL he decided to go to Manchester where at least he would have access to a working computer."
True. But part of the problem at NPL was too many people trying to "help" design it. Turing included.
"For a mathematician he was very hands on, and did lots of building of electronics."
Hmmm...
"Finally, it is arguable that the Manchester device was the worlds first programmable digital logical computer, rather than a calculating machine which is what all previous devices were (and mostly analogue)."
Argue away...
To me the Manchester mark 1 is undoubtedly the world's first modern digital computer, in that it is the first machine for which one can hold a meaningful and interesting programming competition: http://www.computer50.org/mark1/prog98/index.html
But then I am biased, because the programming competition was my idea (I suggested it to one of the rebuilders in March 1996).
""Finally, it is arguable that the Manchester device was the worlds first programmable digital logical computer, rather than a calculating machine which is what all previous devices were (and mostly analogue)."
Argue away..."
Well, Colossus couldn't be reprogrammed without re-wiring it, so it wasn't a programmable digital logic computer", whereas the Manchester Mk1 (which STILL preceded the Americans) was.
That is not to say that Colossus wasn't an absolutely amazing achievement & Tommy Flowers' statue should be in Trafalgar Square.
The Mark I was actually the second of the Manchester machines. It is the SSEM or "Baby" which holds the honour of being the first stored program computer. It was only built as a test bed for Mark I development and quickly broken up but it was a distinct machine in its own right.
Turing never really had anything to do with either machine - he was more concerned with the NPL pilot ACE and actually spoke of the Baby/Mark I in highly disparaging terms. He considered the design wasteful of hardware - he argued against instruction decoding in favour of effectively embedding each and every control signal in the basic instruction format. Subsequent developments have essentially all followed the Mark I pattern as opposed to Turing's preference, but it seems there is such a cult of Turing admiration that details like that are often brushed aside.
Actually, On Computable Numbers was written and published in 1935, often incorrectly stated as 1936 since the bound volume was 1935/36.
However, it's true that the first operating Turing-complete machine was in Manchester in 1948, but the machine Turing went to Manchester to work on was the second Manchester machine (confusingly called the Mk 1). If only he'd been able to get on with Maurice Wilkes, he could have prospered in Cambridge and probably survived to old age. Sad.
My chance to use the "pedantic" icon.
I also can't find much wrong in what Fry says in this instance - OK he's conflated two similar things:
The idea of a universal computing engine - the mathematical concept - which executes a defined algorithm on a (read/write) paper tape, with a few simple instructions including HALT. This is a "Turing Machine" and is enough to cast various mathematical problems in a concrete and untinkerable manner, for instance the successive approximation to a square root requires decisions and recursive calculation that cannot be easily presented as an equation. One of the great problems of the day was whether certain algorithms would complete, ever, or not - the halting problem.
The first computers were indeed hard-wired in their "instruction code", to perform key-searches for instance, they just replicated an enigma machine in its logic (using specialised "instructions" for instance to rotate the code wheel number 3) and accelerated the output. - a bit like microcode within today's CPU's.
The idea of a reprogrammable computer is really a return to the purity of the universal Turing machine, where arbitrary problems including the enigma replication can be performed, but with a less optimised and more general instruction set. That luxury could not be afforded at station X - they needed all the efficiency they could get.
It's kind of hard to get all that detail into the short conversational statement from Mr Fry - but his value is in introducing the interesting concepts, even being interested in the first place. I will applaud that.
And to be fair to Mr. Fry he is touching on a piece of computer science esoterica - I still have nightmares about ploughing through Minsky's "Computation: Finite & Infinite Machines" as an undergrad.
There does seem to be an unhealthy backlash against Turing's legacy because there is a dispute over the matter of his persecution by the British state. The fact is that he that he stands out as a very bright light in a pantheon not short on bright lights in the theory of computation. And if Stephen Fry slightly misunderstands the technicalia in aiding the well deserved recoginition of Turing we should not really care.
I think what you're missing is a terminological confusion. The Manchester device was the "Manchester Mark 1", but the expression "Universal Machine" usually refers to what is nowadays more commonly called a "Turing machine", which is, of course, a mathematical construct, not a real device. However, according to Wikipedia, a 1949 article describing the Manchester Mark 1 had the title "The University of Manchester Universal High-Speed Digital Computing Machine", so using the term "Universal Machine" to refer to the Manchester Mark 1 isn't entirely insane.
"Finally, it is arguable that the Manchester device was the worlds first programmable digital logical computer, rather than a calculating machine which is what all previous devices were (and mostly analogue)."
I thought the Germans had a computer that was Turing-complete at the start of the war? It may not have been digital though, my recollection is hazy.
I thought the Germans had a computer that was Turing-complete at the start of the war? It may not have been digital though, my recollection is hazy.
If you're thinking of Konrad Zuse's machines: It was proven by Rojas in 1998 that the Z3 was indeed Turing-complete, but the proof involved some steps that were not part of normal operation, and there's no evidence Zuse ever contemplated anything like Turing-complete operation of it.
The difficulty lies in the lack of support for unrestricted looping and conditional jumps. The former is remedied by connecting the ends of the program tape so that the entire program becomes one big loop - in effect it ends with an unconditional branch back to the top. Eventual stopping is produced by causing what is in effect a machine check - it's been a long time since I read Rojas' piece on the subject, but maybe a divide-by-zero - which forces the machine to stop.
The problem of conditional jumps is handled by in effect encoding conditional operations as arithmetical ones. Of course that technique is part of a long line of approaches to coding formal operations, beginning with Herbert's program of formalizing mathematics, which got this whole "computer" business started in the first place.
I'm getting a bit sick of Fry and also that Cox guy that was in D:Ream, spouting gibberish over things they don't really know about just because they can put it into words the plebs (people who get angry over someone being voted out of a talent show, but admit they don't vote) can understand.
Fry is only revered due to QI and having a air of pomposity about him, which is why he always played characters in Blackadder that now just seem to be a natural extension of himself, making me wonder if he was actually acting.
In a survey 8% of people wanted Fry to be Chancellor and 3% wanted Cox, no idea why as neither have anything to do with economics.
Brian Cox is a lecturer in Astrophysics.
I can't stand the guy, but he does know what he's talking about when it comes to space and the universe. He explains things well for those who have not spent most of their adult life studying astrophysics (I'm told).
And Stephen Fry was Jeeves, who as we know, knew everything.
Stephen Fry, as much as you might hate him, was classically educated. As a state-school "star" (i.e. I didn't fail *everything* and came near the top of my year, which meant that when I went to uni I was shocked at how little I knew compared to everyone else), I am quite happy to concede to his level of knowledge on an awful lot of things. The off-the-cuff, unscripted remarks he makes on QI on a range of topics show that he is more knowledgeable about them than I. However, his expertise in computing is limited. That doesn't mean he's worse than the average guy-in-the-street (as someone who works in schools, I can attest to officially-produced posters from major manufacturers that refer to a computer base unit as a "hard drive" - including dodgy description of it containing the CPU! - and that's just the tip of the iceberg), but he's no geek-tech-expert.
Brian Cox? Like Brian May - yes, he of Queen fame - he may be a popular music artist, but he's also highly qualified in a specialist area of physics (strangely, also astrophysics), which gives him instant credence in that chosen subject. Sorry, but there it is. Once you get to that level, and realise the work involved to get the qualifications they have, you have to respect them in that area. Brian May used to get invited onto The Sky At Night, in the same way as Brian Cox now does. Does being in a band mean you can't be intellectual too? I'd hope that, actually, it shows that the music world isn't full of vacuous idiots who can't even hold a note. Chances are that both Cox and May would kick yours or my arse at a pub quiz, and wipe the floor with us when it comes to their knowledge of astrophysics. Hell, they wipe the floor with my brother, who was an astrophysicist that was offered a research job working in an observatory in Australia.
Just because someone is on TV or in a band does not mean they are not intellectual. Have you never seen the program where Jeremy Beadle wiped the floor with endless rounds of people in a general knowledge quiz? That man knew more than anybody who you'll find on Mastermind or Countdown.
That doesn't mean you have to like them - any of them - but you can't really criticise their general intelligence. Sure, we can poke fun at Fry because he doesn't get the computer thing quite as well as we do but - damn - we're on an IT website, so that's hardly surprising. I'm sure he pokes fun at us when we don't know our Latin or whatever he would consider his specialist subject. And I'm sure he could poke fun at us a lot more than we could poke fun at him. Hell, when Alan Davies tried to turn the tables in QI for a special Christmas episode, Fry showed a knowledge of obscure English football facts that I wouldn't be able to even approach.
There's also the issue that I have been heard to give some quite atrocious analogies and explanations about things to people because I just don't have the time to express what I *do* understand. I'll tell factual inaccuracies. But it's better than trying to explain why the NTP server failing affects domain logons to someone who doesn't even know what a server is. And the more off-the-cuff, casual, and unexpected the question, the less accurate my response would be.
I think Fry should limit what he says about computing in public, sure, but he "got" the licensing thing in his short video about open source, even if he didn't get it exactly 100% correct.
Know your limits, yes, but I'd rather have Fry spouting off about something that he hasn't quite grasped 100% than listen to some idiots discussing who slept with their cousin first and so must be the father of the child or whatever other tripe there is on TV when I switch it off.
I think being in a band isn't what annoys, it is that people who are better in their field don't get to make it because they don't have an existing level of fame that allows them to open doors.
Look at the late Jade Goody and all the opportunities she had as a result, there's countless others who never got anywhere near as much opportunities as she did.
Brian Cox is a lecturer in Astrophysics.
I can't stand the guy, but he does know what he's talking about when it comes to space and the universe. More by luck than judgement - he was one of my graduate students, and (to quite quite frank) was the dimmest of the lot. If he had two brains, he's be twice as dull.....
Brian Cox actually has a proper Ph.D in particle physics, has a large number of peer reviewed papers to his name and spends a lot of time playing with data from the LHC. Frankly he is one of the most knowledgeable guys on TV, especially when it comes to talking about the universe and it's origins.
"Brian Cox actually has a proper Ph.D in particle physics, has a large number of peer reviewed papers to his name and spends a lot of time playing with data from the LHC. Frankly he is one of the most knowledgeable guys on TV, especially when it comes to talking about the universe and it's origins."
Doesn't make him any less insufferable, though - personally, the guy gets right on my wick (as does Stephen Fry, if truth be told)
<-- Flames, 'cos I did my PhD in combustion physics ...
>I'm getting a bit sick of Fry
The simple solution is for you to watch less television. Try reading.
>Fry is only revered due to QI and having a air of pomposity about him
Or for his writing, which made him a millionaire in early twenties. One national broadsheet columnist took a pop at him the other week- amusing, because Fry's columns are infinitely more perceptive, witty and self depreciating than that no-name hack's.
>In a survey 8% of people wanted Fry to be Chancellor and 3% wanted Cox, no idea why as neither have anything to do with economics.
Neither has past experience of the current chancellor of the exchequer, who studied History of Art and then a stint as a data entry clerk... I would imagine that Brian Cox has a better grasp of mathematics and computer modelling, which are might considered to be 'transferable skills'. Stephen Fry has spent time in prison for credit card fraud... whether this makes him more or less suitable for the role than Mr Osborne I'll leave to you to decide.
"Neither has past experience of the current chancellor of the exchequer, who studied History of Art and then a stint as a data entry clerk"
No he didn't. He studied Modern History (the period since the Middle Ages) at Oxford.
Arguably that has some relevance to politics.
But broadly speaking, yes, what the hell is he doing being Chancellor? Is there really no'one better experienced who could do it?
This post has been deleted by its author
> The simple solution is for you to watch less television. Try reading.
If only that worked - I watch NO television on my own account, but one doesn't have to be exposed to much at someone elses house for example to catch him, or find him oozing on about something you need to buy.
I also habitually listen to Radio 4, which just makes matters worse.
I love the bloke, and am enthused that he enjoys tech but he's just a bloody consumer. He doesn't work in a tech environment (judging by my companies PC of choice, neither do I)
But that is all he is, a consumer. He's no more an expert commentator on tech than I am on supermarket shopping. Although my Tesco poem is award winning. I say to combat this we all join an actors guild and muscle in on his turf.
What an arse!
>But that is all he is, a consumer.
And that's all he's ever claimed to be so what's your problem? He's never tried to create himself as a tech expert like thousands of others who have blogs and make youtube videos claiming to know what they are actually talking about. He buys stuff and communicates what he thinks. He's famous so he has lots of followers. He buys a lot of stuff so writes a lot of stuff in his own way.
Now if you just don't like the guy then fair enough, but you really shouldn't have an issue with him for puting his thoughts into print.
People hang off his every word as if his view is important, but it is no more important than my view on Tesco.
We all too easily seek some sort of authorisation from celebrity and it's killing the world slowly (maybe a tad over the top) but I am sure you get the gist. His view is no more or less important than mine, simply put I don't care for his social commentary on things he knows little about. He's what we in the IT industry call a user. And the day I take advice from one of them is the day I give my BOFH cup to a PFY.
I don't think he's claimed to be anything other than a consumer of technology, and has made no secret of buying the latest gadget for the sake of it- if I had made myself as rich as he did in his early twenties, I probably would have spent a load on soon-to-obsolete gizmos too. He's had every latest flashy device from the mid-eighties onwards, so as consumers go he's had more first-hand experience than most.
Likewise his friend Douglas Adams, though he took a slightly deeper interest he explained thus: "I'm the kind of person who, if faced with a two hour task on the computer, will spend two days writing some software to do it for me"
This post has been deleted by its author
I may be having a stupid moment, but wasn't the entire point of Turing's Universal Machine precisely as described by Fry, ie that it's a generalised framework on which a specific program can be run to solve a specific problem rather than building problem-specific hardware which can only ever solve one type of problem? I mean, ok, perhaps he should have stressed that the Universal Machine was the idealised version of the programmable computer, but that seems a pretty flimsy reason to have a go. Not that I expect ironclad reasoning when it comes to El Reg looking for chances to have a go at Fry...
It's a Universal Turing Machine, that is a Turing Machine that can compute anything any other Turing Machine can. As you say, it was a concept, and wasn't implemented by Turing.
I remember Gödel, Escher, Bach explained it quite well, but alas, all I can recall from the book are lots of conversations with a tortoise.
Since what Fry said contains some truth, though "first" is always going to be a contentious point, perhaps you'd care to give us an article spelling out what he "should" have said and why what he did say is so laughably wrong, rather than your smug posturing?
This just doesn't seem to be on the scale of Fry's previous attempted explanations.
So, I'm notta looking up Wikipedia, but reciting entirely from memory:
1) We need an Ansatz about what a "mechanical procedure" is to discuss Hilbert's problem of "whether there is a mechanical procedure to decide whether a theorem is true or not"
2) Turing identifies the "mechanical procedure" with the Turing machine, a device controlled by a hardcoded instruction matrix able to read and write symbols on a infinite tape. This is not a practical device, it is a Gedankenexperiment.
3) It immediately turns out that said machine is not powerful enough to solve Hilbert's Entscheidungsproblem in general. This is done by diagonalizing: trying to prove on TM "A" that TM "A" halts while proving that TM "A" halts. This pleases Gödel as unprovable theorems are expected in any "sufficiently complicated" axiomated system (though for some reason, they seem hard to come by in practice).
4) Unfortunately no more powerful "mechanical procedure" has ever been found, and it also turns out that the power of the TM is equal to Lamba Calculus and Stack Automatons (which were invented somewhat earlier I think). Breathless tales of "breaking the Turing Barrier" and "hypercomputing" are just that.
5) The question arises whether there is a special Turing Machine "U" that can emulate (by a hardcoded instruction matrix) any other Turing Machine "M" for which a suitable description can be found on the tape. It immediately turns out that yes, there is such a machine (actually, there is an infinite set of such machines). That set is the "Universal Turing Machine".
6) Practial applications or engineering do not come into this. For actual early universal symbol processing machines, see Babbage's Analytical Engine, Atanasoff-Berry Computer etc.
@Destroy All Monsters
Thank you for attempting to explain the issue. (My comment appearing directly below yours was in fact intended for Andrew, not yourself).
As I understand your post, the issue then is that Turing's Universal Machine is not the first example of a universal symbol processing machine? And/or that the Universal Machine is a hypothetical machine rather than an actual piece of engineering?
He (and his researchers) have been wrong about quite a lot over the years. That whole thing on QI about there being multiple moons was nonsense too. There are some big rocks that orbit around the sun with us, and move around in our sky a little, but they're not orbiting earth and that makes them not moons. AFAICT.
We do have multiple moons! Well satelites is a better word, but still. Multiple big rock like objects orbit earth for a while, before either crashing into it or getting flung away into space.
If that doesnt satisfy your definitions of moon then thats fine, but that would also exclude Phobos and Deimos from being a moon(Mars' his moons).
"We do have multiple moons! Well satelites is a better word, but still. Multiple big rock like objects orbit earth for a while, before either crashing into it or getting flung away into space."
How long is a while, and how long are phobos and deimos likely to be around? Was pretty sure they are captured.
The big rocks mentioned on QI (cruithne, can't remember the other off hand) are not moons, they orbit the sun. There are apparently also some Trojans identified now but I can't find any reference to other moons of earth on the infallible guide to everything (wikipedia), can you enlighten me?
Yes, I think this explains it quite well:
http://www.space.com/15151-earth-multiple-moons-asteroids.html
I find this passage interesting:
"Eventually, minimoons break free of Earth's gravity and resume their paths around the sun. This happens at about nine months for the typical minimoon, but some of them may orbit Earth for decades, researchers said."
Fry is unquestionably a clever bloke, but I strongly suspect that some of the nonsense that he occasionally spouts on TV is actually written by numpty researchers and script writers. His job is to read them from an autocue and pretend that they're his own.
I agree with the Waily Fail about overexposure. Entertaining though Stephen is, he's appearing far too often and needs to step back a bit.
This post has been deleted by its author
He can be very funny and entertaining. But he can also spout the most amazing amount of horseshit, which is delivered in such a confident and authoritative manner that the unknowing will accept it as fact. He knows he has this 'power' and perhaps he should be a bit more careful about he uses it.
If Tommy Flowers had pursued an alternate sexual journey would he be lauded nowadays?
Or if Marian Rejewski had asked to be called Maggie after his holiday would he be known as well?
Alan Turing was a genius but he was a Big Fish in a very small pool ram jam full with Big fish.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombe
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gordon_Welchman
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_Keen
"Only a few months ago he declared that 'improbable' means the same as 'impossible'"
I can't think of two words more easily defined in terms of mathematics. So much for the quality of a private/Oxbridge education (but then again, thanks to the dumb ---ks who run the country, most people know that).
Nice chap but boy does he go on and he seems to be everywhere.
I'll take my technology lectures from someone with a PhD in science and not an English literature degree on the grounds that the science PhD actually knows what they are talking about, where as if I need advice on Thomas Hardy's "Far From The Madding Crowd" then I'll ask Stephen Fry.
The term "universal machine" does not only apply to the theoretical tape-based machine described in Turing's 1936 paper. It is quite reasonable to consider the ACE as an attempt to implement a universal machine. I don't see anything in Fry's comments to indicate that he thinks Turing built a physical "Turing machine" in the silly sense you imply. Fry is quite correct that Turing developed the idea of a universal machine and then went on to build - or at least design - a machine that implemented that idea.
Stephen Fry talking about technology always reminds me of the archetypal drunken uncle dancing at a wedding. He's seen it done, it looks pretty easy, and he if he struts his stuff with enough confidence then everyone seems to quite enjoy it. I don't have a big problem with it really.
Fry is probably better versed in things computery than most of the recent reg commentards. Some of whom have probably not even heard of Turing, and would very much fail to understand his contribution to computing, leaving them with 'oh the gay one in the war' as the sum total of their knowledge.
Don't forget Bill Tutte
who Turing rejected. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W._T._Tutte
Lorenz was a lot bigger deal & was carried over into the cold war as the Ruskies blagged it from the Nazis and used it for years thinking it was uncrackable. Churchill told Stalin about Enigma but Lorenz was never mentioned. It was the greatest secret of Bletchley park. It remained so till the end of the 20th century and many people took it to the grave. It was the Hot Line to Hitler. His personal Fax.
From the article:
"That's, pedantically, ...."
Indeed. The article had no need to be written any further as it ends up being wholly based on a pedantic technical correction of an entertainer. A questionable correction as well, to be entirely pedantic, as outlined by other commentators.
It's Friday, but c'mon, have your pint a tat cooler.
He is just the extraordinarily over paid mouth piece
The problems are much deeper.
First as a 'star' he clearly isn't worth even a fraction of the money he is paid - no one is if I am honest. There are plenty of other people at least as funny, in many cases far funnier. There are also plenty with far more brains and knowledge. What the BBC think they need to pay him the vast sums for I really can't tell.
Second the BBC is stuffed full of researchers and other staff all paid a fortune. Unfortunately they are all - every single last one of them - arts graduates. Nothing, nothing at all on ANY BBC channel - radio or TV is remotely scientific, engineering or based on anything other than the arts. Even when there is a story to do with engineering they bring on some story author, sculptor, painter or other arty farty muppet to pronounce on the subject. They have no interest in or capability in anything outside of 'the arts'. This is a malaise from the top to the bottom of the organisation and leads to the terrible coverage of things and the boredom of the 99.5% of us who do real things for a real living.
Third and finally, the BBC has got its knickers in a twist assuming that we are all as thick and inattentive as the dumbest 4 year old you could ever not wish to meet. Everything is aimed at that segment of our society - everything.
If I had my way the BBC would be forced to rely on subscription for funding, it would then lose out.
> Nothing, nothing at all on ANY BBC channel - radio or TV is remotely scientific, engineering or based on anything other than the arts.
Ug?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006mgxf or
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Miodownik - who has done the long-running Royal Institute Christmas lectures, shown on the BBC, as well as other series.
There are also the BBC / Open University co-productions.
Do you want to rewrite your post so as not to distract from the grains of truth it contains?
>If I had my way the BBC would be forced to rely on subscription for funding, it would then lose out.
So you'd have it preaching to the choir? Okay...
>He's also misspelt program as programme. Surely the greatest crime of all.
Original English spelling was 'program', but 'programme' was popularised by entertainment promoters using it to add some French glamour to their posters.
Just to amuse myself, I use 'program' for computery stuff, and 'programme' for entertainment stuff, but I don't know if there is a hard rule, fluid thing this language is.
Turing's Machine is quite similar to Schrodinger's Cat: they were both created as thought experiments that illustrate some profound truths. Of course, Shrody's moggie is less directly relevant to other experiments than a Turing Machine is...
HOWEVER, while Alan Turing deserves plenty of credit, Konrad Zuse managed to build a Turing-Complete machine in 1941. Herr Zuse principal mistake is that he accomplished this remarkable feat while being German; unfortunately, Herr Zuse failed to implement the technique of his fellow-countryman, Herr von Braun, of applying a retroactive Americanization, so we can now spend hours arguing about something that happened 5 or 6 years later.
As to Mr. Fry: I am reminded of Douglas Adam's description of The Guide: it may be wrong, but it is at least _definitively_ wrong.
(No matter what The Fry Chronicles say, Apple did not invent the WIMP interface. Just sayin').
I thought Turing invented a type of car. Imagine my surprise when I found out that he was a tech boffin. And that nice Mr Fry, busy though he was, selling those delicious Apple pies, saw fit to share his wit and wisdom with a mere plebian such as I. He even found time to enlighten me, after a fashion, about something or other which has now exceeded my attention span. Trebles all round!
As for that Twittersite business, it's all a bit too new fangly for me. First you beg people to follow you and admire your jolly goodness, then you get upset when they disagree over the specific gravity of cheese, and then you throw one of those there hissyfits and stomp off in a huff. Good thing it has a revolving door, I reckon.
That's what mostly irritates me about Stephen Fry's being widely accepted as technically authoritative.
It's just like watching important management decisions about IT being influenced by the tall well-spoken chap with the great looking head of hair, who is actually technically ignorant but can really convey confidence primarily because he's not trying to impart understanding.
Your criticism here is tenuous at best, as others have commented, and certainly not deserving of a whole article flaming someone. This article reflects more on you than Fry, as it just shows an irrational level of hatred, and a willingness to further degrade The Register into just being your own personal ball of hate.
Considering the degree of buffoonery which the author of this 'piece' has managed to incur over the previous years, I would suggest the term 'hack', as opposed to 'writer' or 'journalist'. This 'collection of words' doesn't really carry any weight, and is just a bully piece. I would suspect if I clicked on 'Get more from this author' I would find a big steaming turd appear on my screen.
There was an opportunity to highlight an issue about how people can be misinterpreted, and their knowledge taken as read when it is sometimes rudimentary. However your piece turned into a vitriolic hate piece worthy of Rupert Murdochs arse-lickers from hell. You simply showed yourself to be a very poor writer, and also perhaps jealous of the fact that someone who perhaps has less knowledge of computers et al, still has a bigger following than yourself.
Also, the fact that just about every article you have written which involves Stephen Fry is in the negative: not even a backhanded compliment to be found. However there are lots of websites which seem to call into question your work on a regular basis. Microsoft Media Center 2005?
I'm not a writer (quite apparent) but even I can spot a hack job.
Simplest fix is to resort to the description of Alan Turing's work in the History of Computers section of the Deutches Museum in Munich about 20 years ago .... one small panel explain that Alan Turing was also involved in the development of computers (which seemed to have been almost solely invented by Zuse) and especialy during the period 1940-45 though there was no indication of what he was working on at the time!