This is a quibble, but there are cases when the physics of the computer cannot be disregarded and must be considered. Two of my favourite examples are cosmic ra

This is a quibble, but there are cases when the physics of the computer cannot be disregarded and must be considered. Two of my favourite examples are cosmic rays flipping bits [1] and printers jamming. [2] Regardless, I agree with his overall thesis: the machine is just a hunk of atoms with no meaning of its own. It is us who place a meaning on the machinations of the computer. Computer people have come to accept the abstractions of computer science as tangible and consider the abstractions of mathematics intangible. I think both abstractions are comparable. Both end up being interpreted and executed by humans and by computers, and it is merely the overwhelming prevalence of CS abstractions being executed by computers and mathematical abstractions being executed by humans that is causing this divide between the two tribes. There is much that computer scientists can learn from remembering that the machine is just a represantion of abstractions, just like mathematicians can benefit from remembering that occasionally the physics of the machine are relevant. ---- [1] An entirealy reasonable explanation at times, http://lwn.net/Articles/219983/ http://lwn.net/Articles/219983/ [2] http://nedbatchelder.com/blog/200811/print_this_file_your_printer_will_jam.html http://nedbatchelder.com/blog/200811/print_this_file_your_pr...