|Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 19 2012 @ 08:59 PM EDT|
|Obviously, the discussion is pointless, since the author|
of the article is not seeking input.
> By basic logic this depends on the statement. If I say my
> cat is white you can't refute this by showing me a black
The argument was that programming does not create a new
device. In this thread of comments you have now set a
new limitation (i.e., changed from 'all cats are white' to
'my cat is white'). You now argue that computers with
volatile program storage are not new devices, and I would
agree if you also specify that the reprogramming remains
an option for the user.
Take away that option of modification, and the
memory/processor combination does become a new device.
> Besides I can return the fire because I have just
> given counterexamples to your statement that data
> storage is irrelevant to the 'new machine' argument.
My statement: "Having erasable memory for data storage is obviously
irrelevant for the 'new machine' argument. "
Your answer: "It depends on how the computer is programmed"
I must have missed something, but I see no link between
my statement and your comment.
A typical digital wristwatch (to pick a ubiquitous example)
has volatile storage for storing the current time, date,
and maybe an alarm time. The program that defines how
to react to different button presses and which numbers to
show on the display is in permanent storage. Once the
chip in the watch is programmed to work as a watch,
that's all it can do.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]