4 ms·
Bizarre. Phones and tablets are definitely computers. We can attach a keyboard and a screen to it. We can print from it. We can attach mice. They can run arbitr
by wiseleo 7y ago
Bizarre. Phones and tablets are definitely computers. We can attach a keyboard and a screen to it. We can print from it. We can attach mice. They can run arbitrary software, subject to platform restrictions.
- badumtss 7y agoI can attach a keyboard to my toaster as well, it doesn't necessarily mean that it is a computer. "A computer is a machine that can be instructed to carry out sequences of arithmetic or logical operations automatically via computer programming." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer
- touristtam 7y agoYou can definitely send instructions to a lot of modern devices that would have not integrated such a powerful chipset decade ago: not only the toaster you are referring to, but a fridge, a wash machine, a tv, a light bulb, a door bell. The list goes on and on, as long as a new product is brought to market that integrate a processor and brand itself as "smart" there is a good change a computer has been blended in what otherwise would be a dumb device with a single purpose.
- mirekrusin 7y agoWith this definition a cable can be computer; or a lightbulb.
- pests 7y agoDoes the law apply to the old human computers back in the day too.
- dagw 7y agoThe argument from the judge seems to be that if the lawmakers had meant the law to cover both 'traditional' computers and smartphones, they would have written "computers and smartphones" in the text of the law. By excluding the word "phone" from the text of the law and only talking about "computers" the judge interpreted that as the intention wasn't to include smartphones in the law. Basically he's telling the law makers that if they want the law to cover smartphones they should make it clear in the text that that is their intention.
- jobigoud 7y ago> if the lawmakers had meant the law to cover both 'traditional' computers and smartphones, they would have written "computers and smartphones" That seems a fairly weak argument. Why can't they write a law that applies to all computers by default? including future form factors like wearables and glasses and anything not invented yet. This logic implies that the law has to be amended every time we find a new computer shape.
- dagw 7y agoWhy can't they write a law that applies to all computers by default? They obviously can, but according to the judge, they didn't. The judge basically wants them to go back and clarify what they mean when they wrote "computer".
- env123 7y agoWell, he's a bad judge then. He should be able to adapt to the situation rather than follow the law literally
- dagw 7y agoIt's an interesting philosophical question if nothing else. If a law is unclear, to what extent should a judge be deciding what the law “should" say vs. going with what's on the page and telling the lawmakers that they need to clarify their intentions.
- cr0sh 7y agoI guess it's ultimately what - if anything - the law in question (or whatever it may reference) defines a "computer" as (legally). Maybe the definition on the books says a computer is a device with a screen and a keyboard, and maybe other input/output devices like a printer or a mouse. Maybe it says something about typing on a computer, or sitting down at a computer, or such? It probably doesn't do anything like reference what the technical definition of a computer is (and funnily enough, if it did - even that would likely be wrong, and exclude things like analog computers, relay machines, mechanical differential analyzers, and a whole host of other things which historically and otherwise are "computers").