Quote:
Originally Posted by skinsguy
Don't try to throw out quantum computing terms in hopes of making yourself look smart when you have already displayed no working knowledge in computer programming yourself, let alone simple logic.
|
OK, so your answer should have been "no". Thanks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by skinsguy
How in the world did you get THAT from me saying a computer only does what it is instructed to do by the end user or the programmer? Does that even remotely suggest that I said a computer would think for itself? Seriously, are you that retarded?
|
You said
"A computer only does what the programmer and or end user tells it to do. This is fact. A computer cannot think for itself. It must follow a list of commands." which logically means that means that you mistrust programmers or computer operators to do their job or you want computers to think for themselves (which is where things are heading). Say hello to Skynet!
Quote:
Originally Posted by skinsguy
Then why in the world would you be worried about the bias of the programmers?
|
I am trying to create an infallible system.
Quote:
Originally Posted by skinsguy
No, it would simply not.
|
Because you say not? We already have kids at home creating viruses that self correct, why not apply the same efforts to a judicial system that corrects its decisions?
Quote:
Originally Posted by skinsguy
Nope. According to you, that doesn't work. The judicial committee is made up of humans, therefore, the computer system would not work completely separate from any human intervention.
|
The programming and database work could become self-correcting. A Judicial committee would be useful.
Quote:
Originally Posted by skinsguy
No, the computer does nothing more than follow a list of commands.
|
Is that because you say so or because that's what you think? Doesn't matter. Computers can be programmed to do more than you are apparently aware of.