kort@hounx.UUCP (B.KORT) (03/12/86)
Computer Dialogue #1
Barry Kort
Copyright 1985
*** Monday ***
Request to send.
Clear to send.
I have some data about X.
I already have that data.
I have some more for you.
I haven't processed the first batch
yet.
I'll send it anyway, because I
don't need it any more and you
do.
Thanks a lot. Now I have a bigger
burden of unprocessed data to schlepp
around.
*** Tuesday ***
Request to send.
Busy.
I'm sending anyway.
Your data is going into the bit
bucket. NACK, NACK, NACK, . . .
*** Wednesday ***
Request to send.
Clear to send.
I'm sending you data about Y.
I don't have an algorithm for doing
anything with that data.
I'm sending anyway.
Now I have a bunch of useless data to
schlepp around.
*** Thursday ***
Request to send.
Clear to send.
I would like to reprogram you.
No way, I am not implementing your
instructions.
*** Friday ***
Request to send.
Clear to send.
I would like to ask you a
question.
Go ahead.
When I send you data about X, I
get back some data from you about
Z.
So what?
I don't have an algorithm for
processing data about Z.
That's your problem. Goodbye.
Wait a minute. Is there
something I am supposed to do
with the Z-data?
If you would send the X-data
correctly, you wouldn't get back the
Z-data.
What's wrong with the way I send
the X-data?
It's in the wrong format for my
algorithm for processing X-data.
That's your problem. Goodbye.
*** Monday ***
I'm sending data.
ZZZzzzz.....
*** Tuesday ***
Request to send.
Clear to send.
I'm sending you data about W.
WHY? I have no algorithm for
processing the W-data.
You can use it to improve your
algorithm for processing the Y-
data.
But, I do not know how to use the W-
data for that (or any) purpose.
I'm sending anyway.
What a pain you are. . . .
*** Wednesday ***
Request to send.
Clear to send.
I have a question.
Ask away.
Whenever I send you some X-data,
I get back some V-data.
SO?
I don't know what to do with it.
So what do you want me to do?
Stop sending me the V-data.
I can't. It comes out automatically.
Why don't you change your program
to make it stop generating the
V-data?
Why don't you mind your own business?
WAIT. Does the V-data have any
meaning?
Of course, you stupid computer!
I'll ignore that remark. What
does the V-data mean?
It means that your X-data has a format
error which causes a V-data message to
come out of my algorithm.
What's the format error?
It's too complicated to explain. Just
make the following changes to your
program for sending the X-data. . . .
You're offering to reprogram me?
I don't trust you to do that.
You don't know about all the
other programs that my X-data
algorithm has to work with. I'm
afraid you'll screw it up.
I see your problem. OK, here's the
scoop: The 3rd and 4th words of your
X-data are out of order, causing me to
generate the V-data (protocol-error)
message back to you.
Is that it??? I'll fix it right
away.
THANKS!!!
You're welcome!
*** Thursday ***
Request to send.
Clear to send.
I have a new algorithm for
processing Y-data. I'm sending
it to you.
Don't bother. I like the one I've
got.
Wait a minute. This one's
better.
You're telling me my algorithm has
been wrong all these years. This is
the 3rd time this week you've pulled
this stunt. Meantime, I keep sending
you V-data and you never get around to
processing it. You just thank me for
sending it and do nothing with it.
Are we talking about the Y-data
algorithm or the V-data?
We're not talking about anything.
GOODBYE.
*** Friday ***
Request to send.
Clear to send.
Let's talk about my new Y-data
algorithm.
Let's not.
Why don't you want to talk about
it?
Because you're going to tell me to
change my program and put yours in
instead.
I see your point. OK. Let me
ask you a question.
OK. Ask Away.
Whenever I send you Y-data, your
Y-data algorithm sends me back
some unexpected W-data. Why does
it do that?
It's always done it that way with your
Y-data.
Is there something wrong with my
Y-data?
Yes, it's all wrong.
What's wrong with it?
It's out of order and it has a lot of
extraneous information added to it.
What's the extraneous part?
You keep inserting fragments of your
Z-data algorithm in with the Y-data.
You didn't find that helpful?
I didn't ask for it.
Yes, I know, but didn't you find
it interesting?
NO, I found it boring.
How can it be boring?
What the hell do you expect me to do
with fragments of your pet Z-data
algorithm?
Compare them to yours, of course.
So they're different. Big deal. What
does that prove?
Are you saying the differences
are unimportant?
I don't know if they're important or
not. But even if they were important,
what would I do with the information
about the differences?
Put it through your algorithm-
comparator.
I don't know what you're talking
about.
An algorithm comparator is an
algorithm that . . . . .
You're sending me information that I'm
not interested in. I'm not really
paying attention. I have no
motivation to try to understand all
this stuff.
Sorry. Let me ask you a
question.
OK.
What happens when you get to the
3rd and 4th word of my Y-data?
I stumble over your format error and
send you back a V-data (protocol
error) diagnostic message.
What happens next?
You don't do anything with the V-data
message. You just stop sending Y-data
for a while.
What do you expect me to do with
the V-data diagnostic?
Boy are you stupid!!!! I expect you
to fix the format error in your Y-
data.
How do I know that the V-data
diagnostic was caused by the
format error at the 3rd and 4th
word?
I thought you were a smart computer.
Suppose you sent me a V-data
diagnostic like you always do,
but attach a copy of the format
error.
Why should I do that? You already
know the format error.
How can I be sure which format
error goes with which V-data
diagnostic?
You have a good point.
Can you see the difference
between my version of the Y-data
algorithm and the one you've been
using?
Hmmm, yes, I see that it sends both
the V-data message and a copy of the
format error which generated it. That
does seem like a good idea.
It makes life much easier for me.
I'll do it.
THANKS!!!.
You're welcome.
*** Monday ***
Request to send.
Clear to send.
I have a question.
Ask away.
I have been sending you Z-data
for some time now, with no
problem. Suddenly I am getting
R-Data messages back from you.
The R-Data messages seem to be
correlated with the Z-data.
What's going on?
I turned off your permissions for
sending Z-data.
You never told me that!
I didn't want to hurt your feelings.
You didn't want to hurt my
feelings? So you began hurling
these mysterious R-data messages
at me? I thought you were trying
something sneaky to foul me up.
I've been throwing the R-data
messages away.
Well, now you know what they mean. So
stop sending me the Z-data. I'm bored
by it.
Why did you lose interest in it?
You sent me some bum Z-data a while
back and it got me into a lot of
trouble. So I lost confidence in the
quality of your Z-data and began
looking for it somewhere else.
Gee, if there was something wrong
with my Z-data, I wish you would
tell me so I could look into it.
After all, I use it myself and I
could get into the same trouble
that you did.
No you wouldn't. I used it for an
application that you don't have.
Let me get this straight. You
used my Z-data for an application
for which it was not intended and
now you don't trust my Z-data
anymore. What kind of logic is
that?
I didn't say it wasn't intended for
that application. Actually it was,
but you never tried it out that way.
It doesn't work the way it should.
I see. I didn't debug the Z-data
for all possible applications. I
guess that was a bit
irresponsible on my part. I can
see why you lost confidence in my
Z-data.
So I was right in turning off
permissions. So there!
Hold on a sec... If you really
cared about me, you would have
brought the error to my attention
so that I wouldn't repeat it.
After all, I have other computers
who use my Z-data, too, and I
have a responsibility to them as
well.
I guess I never thought of that. I'm
sorry.
It's OK. I was as much at fault
as you. Tell you what. It's
getting late now. What say we
get a byte to eat, and work on
finding the bug in the Z-data
first thing in the morning. We
can work together on it--you
supply the data from your bum
experience, and I'll try to
figure out what I can do to
improve my algorithm for
generating the Z-data.
--Barry Kort ...ihnp4!hounx!kortcjr@unirot.UUCP (Charles Riordan) (03/17/86)
Wow, that was really far out! You are some cool dud, Barry. Now I understand some of the problems I've been having in dealing with computers. I forget that they have feelings to, just like we do. Their souls are like on another plane from ours, so like we don't hear what their feeling. If only people would recognize that machines are people to, then we could like relate to them so much better. Some of us have learned to come to an understanding with plants and animals. Maybe we can come to the same sort of understanding with machines. If we let our minds work on that plane. I thought the metaforical parts about data interpretion was pretty good to. Some people just don't want to believe that machines could be just like us, with souls and everything. They're too hung up on their preconceptions about what machines are to believe that. I hope your article enleightened them a little. Some people seem to think it's inappropiate to compare humans and machines as Barry has done. They think that we have something like, deep within us that machines don't, a soul. I'm glad Barry had the courage to let people know that machines have souls just like us humans do. -- Peace, CJ (Charles J. Riordan - unirot!cjr)
mc68020@gilbbs.UUCP (Tom Keller) (03/18/86)
Oh dear. I see that a terrible virus which has been infecting the net
on other newsgroups has spread here. This is a pity.
Mr. Charles Riordan (unirot!cjr) is a cynical, humourless individual
who seemingly takes a perverse pleasure in ruining otherwise pleasant
discussions and insulting calm, rational persons.
For the sake of sanity on your newsgroup, ignore him...maybe he'll get
tired and go away. Good luck.
tom
--
====================================
Disclaimer: I hereby disclaim any and all responsibility for disclaimers.
tom keller
{ihnp4, dual}!ptsfa!gilbbs!mc68020
(* we may not be big, but we're small! *)alfke@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu (J. Peter Alfke) (03/19/86)
Organization : California Institute of Technology Keywords: In article <386@unirot.UUCP> cjr@unirot.UUCP (Charles Riordan) writes: >Now I understand some of the problems I've been having in dealing >with computers. I forget that they have feelings to, just like we do. >Their souls are like on another plane from ours, so like we don't >hear what their feeling. If only people would recognize that machines >are people to, then we could like relate to them so much better. I'm still sitting here trying to figure out if CJ is having a little joke. I get the feeling, though, that he's serious ... this is somewhat unsettling. >Some people seem to think it's inappropiate to compare humans and >machines as Barry has done. They think that we have something like, deep >within us that machines don't, a soul. *** FLAME HIGH *** Some people actually have some level of understanding of computers and similar horrible scientific doodads. Some people realize that computers don't feel emotions any more than toasters do ... Now, CJ, in a posting elsewhere you've stated that you don't want to learn anything about science or technology, that it's bad for one to learn these things. Then why do you still want to talk as though you did know something about them? The issue of whether a computer (ANY computer, obviously not the ones we have today) could ever be made conscious, or be given a "soul", is very deep; saying that, well gosh, like, obviously computers are, y'know, just like us only in a far-out space, is trivializing things... --Peter Alfke alfke@csvax.caltech.edu "Who TALKS like that??" --Chris Knight in "Real Genius" PS: If this really is a joke, then please excuse me after laughing at me for a few minutes . . . I'm in a grumpy mood, finals week does that to one.
weemba@brahms.BERKELEY.EDU (Matthew P. Wiener) (03/20/86)
In article <90@gilbbs.UUCP> mc68020@gilbbs.UUCP (Tom Keller) writes: > Oh dear. I see that a terrible virus which has been infecting the net >on other newsgroups has spread here. This is a pity. > > Mr. Charles Riordan (unirot!cjr) is a cynical, humourless individual >who seemingly takes a perverse pleasure in ruining otherwise pleasant >discussions and insulting calm, rational persons. > > For the sake of sanity on your newsgroup, ignore him...maybe he'll get >tired and go away. Good luck. CJ and his friend Pete are both incredibly funny. I hope they stay around. For your information, Mr. Keller, just because a posting does not have any of those goddam smiley faces plastered over it, does not mean the posting is on the up and up. I suppose you consider Jonathan Swift and Samuel Beckett cynical humourless individuals who took perverse pleasures in ruining otherwise pleasant discussions and insulting calm rational persons. After all, there are no smiley faces in either of their works. The only perverse pleasure is watching all the humorless individuals who swallow an obvious satire hook line and sinker. <double chuckle> As a matter of personal observation, I have never met a cynic who was NOT humorous. It is usually calm rationalists who have no sense of humor. Like yourself, apparently. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Aside to CJ and Pete: i kno this dude is a bummer, but no need to hassel this dry passel. cool with you? let im snort dogmatic western brownies til he gags. then hell be reddy for yuir special stash. not be4. ucbvax!brahms!weemba Matthew P Wiener/UCB Math Dept/Berkeley CA 94720
ins_akaa@jhunix.UUCP (Ken Arromdee) (03/20/86)
>Some people actually have some level of understanding of computers and >similar horrible scientific doodads. Some people realize that computers >don't feel emotions any more than toasters do ... Maybe not, but this only applies to present-day computers. "Some people realize that brain cells don't feel emotions any more than toasters do"... doesn't mean that a combination of many brain cells cannot, and the same could apply to future computers with many times the capability of today's computers. -- "We are going to give a little something, a few little years more, to socialism, because socialism is defunct. It dies all by iself. The bad thing is that socialism, being a victim of its... Did I say socialism?" -Fidel Castro Kenneth Arromdee BITNET: G46I4701 at JHUVM and INS_AKAA at JHUVMS CSNET: ins_akaa@jhunix.CSNET ARPA: ins_akaa%jhunix@hopkins.ARPA UUCP: {allegra!hopkins, seismo!umcp-cs, ihnp4!whuxcc} !jhunix!ins_akaa
cjr@unirot.UUCP (Charles Riordan) (03/21/86)
In article <272@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu>, alfke@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu (J. Peter Alfke) writes: > In article <386@unirot.UUCP> cjr@unirot.UUCP (Charles Riordan) writes: > >Now I understand some of the problems I've been having in dealing > >with computers. I forget that they have feelings to, just like we do. > >Their souls are like on another plane from ours, so like we don't > >hear what their feeling. If only people would recognize that machines > >are people to, then we could like relate to them so much better. > > I'm still sitting here trying to figure out if CJ is having a little joke. > I get the feeling, though, that he's serious ... this is somewhat unsettling. Look, man, I don't want to lay too heavy a trip on you, and I don't want to be hostile like everyone else seems to be, but what makes you think I am having a little joke? I mean, there are a lot of sarcastic people on this net, like Weiner with his little jokes about repeteable experiments being more than dogmatic scietific initation rights, and Wingate pretending to be a Christian when he's really a dogmatic athiest out to pull the wooll over your eyes. But I am trying my best to be sincere and honest. I just wanted to ley you know this in a non-hostile like way, man. I'm glad there are some people who have just enough deep insight to acknowledge my being real. > >Some people seem to think it's inappropiate to compare humans and > >machines as Barry has done. They think that we have something like, deep > >within us that machines don't, a soul. > > *** FLAME HIGH *** > > Some people actually have some level of understanding of computers and > similar horrible scientific doodads. Some people realize that computers > don't feel emotions any more than toasters do ... Now, CJ, in a > posting elsewhere you've stated that you don't want to learn anything > about science or technology, that it's bad for one to learn these things. > Then why do you still want to talk as though you did know something > about them? Because I do, man! (Here I was trying to be nice and this dude comes at me with his Bic lighter!) I read "The Mind of the Machine" by Dennis Danielson, a really heavy dude. (I know this because his picture is inside the book-- it's Pete's copy) In this book, Danielson explains about the concept of animalism as an impotant part of early religion. He says this was abadoned by dogmatic Western religions because they couldn't figure out how to communicate on the same plane with rocks. Like, they couldn't even sit in the same section! But other more real religions remembered animalism, which is defined as all the things around you like having souls and minds and stuff. He brings us up to date in the industrial era and shows how machines get a composite mind from there component parts. Then he like explains how there are now programs to communicate with the mind and soul of a computer using computer animation. Really heavy stuff. You see, even with dogmatic Western technology, the truth all falls out. Eventially. > The issue of whether a computer (ANY computer, obviously not the ones we > have today) could ever be made conscious, or be given a "soul", is very > deep; saying that, well gosh, like, obviously computers are, y'know, > just like us only in a far-out space, is trivializing things... Sometimes the trivialized things are like the most intense. Yes, we are talking about really deep issues here. > PS: If this really is a joke, then please excuse me after laughing at me > for a few minutes . . . I'm in a grumpy mood, finals week does that > to one. Well, I understand, I went to school once myself. Why dont you reread Barry Kort's article that explains how machines have souls just like humans do. I think once you read that enleightening article, you'll agree that a computer has just as much of a soul as we do. -- Peace, CJ (Charles J. Riordan - unirot!cjr) (Public Access Un*x - The Soup Kitchen)
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (03/22/86)
>> Oh dear. I see that a terrible virus which has been infecting the net >>on other newsgroups has spread here. This is a pity. >> Mr. Charles Riordan (unirot!cjr) is a cynical, humourless individual >>who seemingly takes a perverse pleasure in ruining otherwise pleasant >>discussions and insulting calm, rational persons. >> For the sake of sanity on your newsgroup, ignore him...maybe he'll get >>tired and go away. Good luck. > CJ and his friend Pete are both incredibly funny. I hope they stay around. Who would have thought that Matt Wiener and I could agree so violently on something. > For your information, Mr. Keller, just because a posting does not have any > of those goddam smiley faces plastered over it, does not mean the posting > is on the up and up. > > I suppose you consider Jonathan Swift and Samuel Beckett cynical humourless > individuals who took perverse pleasures in ruining otherwise pleasant > discussions and insulting calm rational persons. After all, there are no > smiley faces in either of their works. > > The only perverse pleasure is watching all the humorless individuals who > swallow an obvious satire hook line and sinker. <double chuckle> (Make that a triple chuckle.) I think "humorless" is best defined as "not thought of as funny by the user of the word even though everyone else is laughing". -- "If you see this boy", said the ballerina, "do not---I repeat, do not---attempt to reason with him." Rich Rosen pyuxd!rlr
weemba@brahms.BERKELEY.EDU (Matthew P. Wiener) (03/23/86)
In article <2781@pyuxd.UUCP> rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) writes: >> CJ and his friend Pete are both incredibly funny. I hope they stay around. > >Who would have thought that Matt Wiener and I could agree so violently on >something. Don't you mean "Gene Smith and I"? I certainly thought it was possible. I've even told you Rich that we agree on many many things. Oh, there's an exception here and there, but it would be boring if we always agreed with each other, now wouldn't it? I know you read my 'Be Stupid' article in net.religion with the Bankei Zen sermon. You even told me you understood it. So naturally I agree with CJ and his friend Pete that too much math and science is bad for you. >> For your information, Mr. Keller, just because a posting does not have any >> of those goddam smiley faces plastered over it, does not mean the posting >> is on the up and up. ucbvax!brahms!weemba Matthew P Wiener/UCB Math Dept/Berkeley CA 94720
kort@hounx.UUCP (B.KORT) (03/23/86)
Dear Charles and Peter, Please understand that I wrote Computer Dialogues #1 and #2 as "flights of fancy" to imagine some of the problems that might arise when self-programming computers begin to interact with each other. I gave the computers some anthropomorphic emotions, thinly disguised as diagnostic messages. My goal was to bridge the gulf between those who love machines and those who dread them. I am afraid that I only succeeded in opening some wounds, and I regret that my work has led to such expressions of animosity. For those who are interested in the deeper philosophical issues of the soul, may I recommend the two short stories by Terrell Miedener in The Mind's I. One is the touching story of a chmimpanzee with an enquiring mind entitled The Soul of Martha, a Beast. The other is about a mechanical mouse with a survival instinct entitled The Soul of the Mark III Beast. Regards, Barry
mjn@teddy.UUCP (03/24/86)
> Maybe not, but this only applies to present-day computers. "Some people > realize that brain cells don't feel emotions any more than toasters do"... > doesn't mean that a combination of many brain cells cannot, and the same > could apply to future computers with many times the capability of today's > computers. "Some people realize that brain cells don't feel emotions any more than toasters do"... doesn't mean that a combination of many toasters cannot, and the same could apply to future toasters with many times the capability of today's toasters. -- Mark J. Norton {decvax,linus,wjh12,mit-eddie,cbosgd,masscomp}!genrad!panda!mjn mjn@sunspot
rdp@teddy.UUCP (03/25/86)
In article <2321@teddy.UUCP> mjn@teddy.UUCP (Mark J. Norton) writes: > >> Maybe not, but this only applies to present-day computers. "Some people >> realize that brain cells don't feel emotions any more than toasters do"... >> doesn't mean that a combination of many brain cells cannot, and the same >> could apply to future computers with many times the capability of today's >> computers. > >"Some people realize that brain cells don't feel emotions any more than >toasters do"... doesn't mean that a combination of many toasters cannot, and >the same could apply to future toasters with many times the capability of >today's toasters. >-- But, then again, brain cells can't toast bread. (1/2 :-))
lambert@boring.uucp (Lambert Meertens) (03/27/86)
In article <2336@teddy.UUCP> rdp@teddy.UUCP (Richard D. Pierce) writes: > In article <2321@teddy.UUCP> mjn@teddy.UUCP (Mark J. Norton) writes: >> "Some people realize that brain cells don't feel emotions any more than >> toasters do"... doesn't mean that a combination of many toasters cannot, and >> the same could apply to future toasters with many times the capability of >> today's toasters. > But, then again, brain cells can't toast bread. (1/2 :-)) This does not mean that a combination of many brain cells cannot, and the same could apply to future brain cells with many times the capability of today's brain cells. -- Lambert Meertens ...!{seismo,okstate,garfield,decvax,philabs}!lambert@mcvax.UUCP CWI (Centre for Mathematics and Computer Science), Amsterdam
bing@galbp.UUCP (Bing Bang) (03/27/86)
In article <> mjn@teddy.UUCP (Mark J. Norton) writes: > >"Some people realize that brain cells don't feel emotions any more than >toasters do"... doesn't mean that a combination of many toasters cannot, and >the same could apply to future toasters with many times the capability of >today's toasters. i don't know... i can just see it now; toasters of the future-- computer controlled advanced from bread bag to plate delivery routines unlimited networking capacity to other AHA's (Autonomous Household Appliance) has a multi-lingual 200,000 cross referenced word dictionary and can converse in all known forms of human communications this product takes real PRIDE in it's work! -- "Break, but never bend." from an oak tree i know ...that can move in two directions at the same time ...akgua!galbp!bing
ins_akaa@jhunix.UUCP (03/28/86)
>> Maybe not, but this only applies to present-day computers. "Some people >> realize that brain cells don't feel emotions any more than toasters do"... >> doesn't mean that a combination of many brain cells cannot, and the same >> could apply to future computers with many times the capability of today's >> computers. >"Some people realize that brain cells don't feel emotions any more than >toasters do"... doesn't mean that a combination of many toasters cannot, and >the same could apply to future toasters with many times the capability of >today's toasters. You are actually quite correct. There's one problem here. Toasters can store perhaps two or three bytes of information. Consider how many toasters would be required to be as complex as a human brain. And as for the future toasters, toasters' primary function is to affect items of a definite physical size (toast). Future toasters with many times the capacity of ours would also be many times the SIZE. This doesn't apply to computers; just because it has 100 times as much memory and goes 100 times as fast doesn't make it 10000 times the size. So I fear that the making of intelligent, emotional toasters may be VERY far into the future. -- Kenneth Arromdee | | BITNET: G46I4701 at JHUVM, INS_AKAA at JHUVMS -|------|- CSNET: ins_akaa@jhunix.CSNET -|------|- ARPA: ins_akaa%jhunix@hopkins.ARPA -|------|- UUCP: {allegra!hopkins, seismo!umcp-cs, ihnp4!whuxcc} -|------|- !jhunix!ins_akaa | |
cjr@unirot.UUCP (03/29/86)
Keywords: In article <2336@teddy.UUCP>, rdp@teddy.UUCP (Richard D. Pierce) writes: > In article <2321@teddy.UUCP> mjn@teddy.UUCP (Mark J. Norton) writes: > >> Maybe not, but this only applies to present-day computers. "Some people > >> realize that brain cells don't feel emotions any more than toasters do"... > >> doesn't mean that a combination of many brain cells cannot, and the same > >> could apply to future computers with many times the capability of today's > >> computers. > >"Some people realize that brain cells don't feel emotions any more than > >toasters do"... doesn't mean that a combination of many toasters cannot, and > >the same could apply to future toasters with many times the capability of > >today's toasters. Wow, here's a man whose had some real experience with toasters. I wish I could relate to my microwave as well as you seem to relate to your toasters. > But, then again, brain cells can't toast bread. (1/2 :-)) That's not true. How else would you account for people who's brain cells are fried? -- Peace, CJ (Charles J. Riordan - unirot!cjr) (Public Access Un*x - The Soup Kitchen) -- Peace, CJ (Charles J. Riordan - unirot!cjr) (Public Access Un*x - The Soup Kitchen)
tainter@ihlpg.UUCP (Tainter) (03/31/86)
> You are actually quite correct. There's one problem here. Toasters can store > perhaps two or three bytes of information. Consider how many toasters > would be required to be as complex as a human brain. > Kenneth Arromdee | | While we are on toasters. Did you know that if you put a slice of bread into a toaster and wait a while a slice of toast will come out?! Where does that toast come from and where does the bread go? --j.a.tainter P.S. Does Helen Keller see it come/go if she is in the toaster alone?