Re: unnatural languages
- From: "DKleinecke" <kleinecke@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 21 Mar 2007 21:07:42 -0700
On Mar 21, 1:47 pm, hru...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Herman Rubin) wrote:
DKleinecke <kleine...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mar 20, 5:54 am, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mar 15, 7:58 pm, "DKleinecke" <kleine...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Only a handful of real computers were ever as big as a roomHAL took up almost the entire spacecraft.
(unless one has in mind a closet). But an entire system needed a lot
of floorspace because there were so many large peripherals.
Even with the reduction in size of computers, we still
have computers which will fill up a fair-sized room,
and when one includes the peripherals, a fairly large
room. If we can make them smaller, making them larger
will allow us to do more. The shrinking rate cannot
go on too much longer.
Computers with the capacity of HAL have not yet been
built. For one thing, we do not understand language
well enough.
I was actually more impressed by another fictitious computer. The one
in the old British TV version of the Hitch-hiker's Guide to the
Galaxy. The one whose answer was 42.
Imaginary computers can be any size they want to be. We don't know
what the capacity (quarts?) of HAL was. Perhaps you meant capability.
But capability has nothing to do with size.
Think small. Greener.
.
- References:
- Re: unnatural languages
- From: Peter T. Daniels
- Re: unnatural languages
- From: DKleinecke
- Re: unnatural languages
- From: Herman Rubin
- Re: unnatural languages
- Prev by Date: Re: Esperanto and Interlingua
- Next by Date: Re: Esperanto and Interlingua
- Previous by thread: Re: unnatural languages
- Next by thread: Re: unnatural languages
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|