Turing FINALLY given Royal Pardon

[Goldstone1976]

In addition to the one in 2009?

As comfortable as I am with accepting homosexuality as normal human behaviour, I question whether he is right for a pardon. He knowingly broke the law when subject to high level security clearance and compromised national security.

Which does nothing to take away his towering genius. I have been slowly reading his biography and not got beyond university days but he just makes me feel inadequate.

Can I extend your point a bit, please?

In addition to now, by logical extension, having to pardon all homosexual folk convicted under the same Act as Turing, are we not also ethically bound to pardon everyone ever convicted under ANY Act that has subsequently been repealed? Logically, we should now go back through history and pardon anyone who was rightfully convicted under the laws in force at the time if they've since been repealed, no? Clearly ludicrous.

While I abhor what was done to Turing, it does seem as though his pardon has more to do with his sexuality and his brilliant work than it does with any true assessment of whether a pardon is legally justified.

As an aside, the current Queen was head of state when Turing was convicted. I haven't thought through whether there are any implications of her being the Monarch who was reigning at both the time he was convicted and then pardoned. Probably not, I guess. Though it does show just how much public opinion has changed on the matter of homosexuality in the reign of one Monarch.

 

[seagullsovergrimsby]

Today , chemical castration for paedos would be a vote winner but what will attitudes be like in 60 years time ?

 

[Dave the OAP]

Today , chemical castration for paedos would be a vote winner but what will attitudes be like in 60 years time ?

Or what were the attitudes 2000+ years ago when parents gladly handed over their siblings to rich and powerful men to curry favour and influence!

 

[Diego Napier]

I agree that this development has been going on forever, but I assume that as time goes on, the things we're doing wrong will be lower on the savage scale.

I think that's a very fair assumption; step changes such as refraining from cannibalism, trial by ordeal and burning witches probably won't occur so frequently in the future!

Although, thinking about it, perhaps that's a judgement clouded by my perspective at this point in time. Perhaps in 50 years, when "printing" meat will be perfected, intentionally eating sentient beings will be considered equally savage.

 

[pigbite]

no thats effing counting. look, yes there's been some form of computing, but it would make more sence to delinate as "Computing" from 1940's on and "proto-computing" for everything before. the paradigm completely changes precisely because of the capabilities post Turing machine are so different to anything envisaged before.

An abacus is not just a set of beads with which you can count. In the right hands it can be used for complex calculations, computations you might say. Fair enough, presenting the abacus is perhaps stretching the point towards the realms of pedantry but it's also fair to say that there analogue, mechanical devices that performed repetitive computational tasks for many years before the 1940s. Charles Babbage springs to mind - look at the Difference Engine and the Analytical Engine. The latter device sported a logic unit, control flow, memory and was programmed with punch cards. It was never built at the time but I believe examples have been constructed since. It is considered as Turing complete.

I fully agree the nature of computing was changed completely by Turing and of course we have seen the explosion of electronic computing since then. That time period is a dividing line between the analogue and digital computing worlds. The power of computers now are well beyond anything developed 70 years ago but they share the base capabilities.

The only reason I can see for arguing that the well accepted phrase "modern computing" should be changed is that the term refers to an expanding time period since the mid 1940s. What was developed even 5, let along 10 or 20, years ago is technologically out of date now. Not so modern but not the same as having to delineate in the way you suggest.

 

[pigbite]

Or what were the attitudes 2000+ years ago when parents gladly handed over their siblings to rich and powerful men to curry favour and influence!

Sadly not so different to the attitude of a very small minority that allows someone like Ian Watkins to get mothers to allow the abuse of their own children.

 

[Triggaaar]

Although, thinking about it, perhaps that's a judgement clouded by my perspective at this point in time. Perhaps in 50 years, when "printing" meat will be perfected, intentionally eating sentient beings will be considered equally savage.

Yes, but they could be considered savage at that time, due to the alternatives available. If that occurs, I don't think we'll look back at today as a savage time (in terms of eating animals).

What I hope will be considered savage, is the amount of testing we do on animals for cosmetics etc. I already consider that as savage.

 

[The Large One]

no thats effing counting. look, yes there's been some form of computing, but it would make more sence to delinate as "Computing" from 1940's on and "proto-computing" for everything before. the paradigm completely changes precisely because of the capabilities post Turing machine are so different to anything envisaged before.

Computing - to determine by mathematics.

That includes not just electronic computers, but goes back thousands of years in calculating, for example, the construction of the infrastructure of entire cities.

Ancient Mesopotamia still has examples of civil engineering projects far in advance of (at the time of construction) contemporary civilisations. Similarly, in Egypt, those pyramids didn't design themselves, nor the Coliseum in Rome. All those calculations needed computing.

 

[beorhthelm]

The only reason I can see for arguing that the well accepted phrase "modern computing" should be changed is that the term refers to an expanding time period since the mid 1940s. What was developed even 5, let along 10 or 20, years ago is technologically out of date now. Not so modern but not the same as having to delineate in the way you suggest.

i was going to leave it, but my point is when did this become an accepted phrase? it seems a recent term that pops up in BBC and other non-technical articles. in IT eduction through the 90's i dont ever recall it. Computers as we know them start in 1940's, before that the term meant clerks. The fact there is a single incomplete example, the Analytical engine, is the expection that shows the rule. conceptually, computers didnt change much from 1940's to today, but if there is a "modern" era i'd say its the transistion to parallelism, thats a step change.

to say everything since Turing is "modern" devalues and misses just how significant his contibution was, suggesting he just improved an idea already in wide use. but computers just arent around before, i.e. IBM called their wares tabulation machines, others sold mechanical/electrical calculators. arguments are had over which machine was the "first computer", Colossus, ENIAC or Zuse, which doesnt make alot of sence against a context of "modern computing" starting in 1936, does it?

 

[Goldstone Rapper]

So the Monarchy is basically saying: 'I now forgive you for being homosexual, because you were a computer genius who saved lives.'

Very, very strange.

An asking of forgiveness by the Queen to Turing's family would be more in order.

 

[brakespear]

Surely everyone who was found guilty of this "crime" should be pardoned not just a high profile victim of this injustice.

Yes, this - was mentioned on the news this morning by somebody whose name escapes me (the sculptor of the Turing memorial I think) that it seems if you are deemed 'useful' to the State then you get a pardon.

 

[Shropshire Seagull]

Odd that this comes 60 years after he committed suicide.
What next, a letter to the French forgiving the Normans for sticking an arrow in King Harold's eye?

The point made on changing culture over the decades on what becomes acceptable or unacceptable I find interesting. The scorn now on drink drivers was never like that 30 - 40 years a go. Perhaps mobile phone use whilst driving will get there too one day.

 

[spring hall convert]

A lesson for us all to question authority when it is fostering inequality.

It's a sign of how far we've come that if you told a young adult that they were chemically castrating peoople in this country for being gay only 60 years ago, I suspect most wouldn't believe you. Virtually all would be horrified.

 

[m20gull]

Can I extend your point a bit, please?

In addition to now, by logical extension, having to pardon all homosexual folk convicted under the same Act as Turing, are we not also ethically bound to pardon everyone ever convicted under ANY Act that has subsequently been repealed? Logically, we should now go back through history and pardon anyone who was rightfully convicted under the laws in force at the time if they've since been repealed, no? Clearly ludicrous.

While I abhor what was done to Turing, it does seem as though his pardon has more to do with his sexuality and his brilliant work than it does with any true assessment of whether a pardon is legally justified.

As an aside, the current Queen was head of state when Turing was convicted. I haven't thought through whether there are any implications of her being the Monarch who was reigning at both the time he was convicted and then pardoned. Probably not, I guess. Though it does show just how much public opinion has changed on the matter of homosexuality in the reign of one Monarch.

You certainly can extend my point. It almost seems that his celebrity is causing the pardon. As to the monarch's position, a representative parliament makes laws and an independent judiciary implements them so
I think Liz is in the clear.

 

[Dave the OAP]

Sadly not so different to the attitude of a very small minority that allows someone like Ian Watkins to get mothers to allow the abuse of their own children.

Yes, I cannot understand the mentality of some people

 

[m20gull]

no thats effing counting. look, yes there's been some form of computing, but it would make more sence to delinate as "Computing" from 1940's on and "proto-computing" for everything before. the paradigm completely changes precisely because of the capabilities post Turing machine are so different to anything envisaged before.

The key word for me is "programmable", i.e. a computer that can be told to do things for itself.

 

[pigbite]

i was going to leave it, but my point is when did this become an accepted phrase? it seems a recent term that pops up in BBC and other non-technical articles. in IT eduction through the 90's i dont ever recall it. Computers as we know them start in 1940's, before that the term meant clerks. The fact there is a single incomplete example, the Analytical engine, is the expection that shows the rule. conceptually, computers didnt change much from 1940's to today, but if there is a "modern" era i'd say its the transistion to parallelism, thats a step change.

to say everything since Turing is "modern" devalues and misses just how significant his contibution was, suggesting he just improved an idea already in wide use. but computers just arent around before, i.e. IBM called their wares tabulation machines, others sold mechanical/electrical calculators. arguments are had over which machine was the "first computer", Colossus, ENIAC or Zuse, which doesnt make alot of sence against a context of "modern computing" starting in 1936, does it?

I've no idea what the etymology of the phrase is and to be fair it's not a very precise term but by whatever mechanism, social osmosis or otherwise, the term is there and is generally understood to refer to the period contemporary with Turing's work.

Regardless, since the term "modern" is defined as (according to the OED)

relating to the present or recent times as opposed to the remote past:

the pace of modern life
modern European history​

characterized by or using the most up-to-date techniques, ideas, or equipment:

they do not have modern weapons​

denoting the form of a language that is currently used, as opposed to any earlier form:

modern German​

denoting a current or recent style or trend in art, architecture, or other cultural activity marked by a significant departure from traditional styles and values:

Matisse’s contribution to modern art​

...and that there are many examples of various analogue, mechanical and basic electro-mechanical computational machines for hundreds, indeed thousands, of years (warning - imminent appeal to Wikipedia!):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_computing_hardware
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_computing_hardware_2400_BC–1949

...then I believe the era of electronic, digital computing ushered in by Turing can be described as modern and does not in any way diminish his contribution.

The arguments about the "first" computer have to be put in the context of factors such as Turing completeness, electronic components, purpose (e.g. ENIAC was general purpose, Colossus was designed to break the Enigma), digital architecture. This is precisely why Turing's work was so ground breaking and pivotal. These factors, taken as a composite, define the difference between something like ENIAC and an abacus. They define the parameters for "modern" computing.

 

[m20gull]

Stupid double post.

 

[drew]

can we please stop using the daft term "modern computing" unless one can explain what computing was before this modern age?

and lets not understate things, he is the father of computing, along with Von Neumann.

Two 'fathers' of modern computing. I wonder if Alan Turing would see the irony of that!!!

 

[beorhthelm]

Two 'fathers' of modern computing. I wonder if Alan Turing would see the irony of that!!!

i was hoping someone spotted