+ Post New Thread
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 35
General Chat Thread, Prosecution of Alan Turing Petition in General; Originally Posted by FN-GM I was told that when apple computers introduced the apple logo with the bite in it ...
  1. #16

    mattx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    9,249
    Thank Post
    1,061
    Thanked 1,070 Times in 626 Posts
    Rep Power
    741
    Quote Originally Posted by FN-GM View Post
    I was told that when apple computers introduced the apple logo with the bite in it was a tribute to Turing. Not sure if its true.
    I think you will find it's got something to do with Job's love of the Beatles......God knows why, the Stones were much better then.

  2. Thanks to mattx from:

    ButterflyMoon (7th September 2009)

  3. #17
    SC-UK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    London
    Posts
    569
    Thank Post
    36
    Thanked 85 Times in 71 Posts
    Rep Power
    30
    The designer said he put the bite into the logo so that the image would be scaleable without ending up looking like a cherry.

    Tom

  4. #18

    beeswax's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    England
    Posts
    2,285
    Thank Post
    285
    Thanked 225 Times in 153 Posts
    Rep Power
    132
    Quote Originally Posted by FN-GM View Post
    I was told that when apple computers introduced the apple logo with the bite in it was a tribute to Turing. Not sure if its true.
    When the pressure became too much for Turing it was said, though this may be apocryphal, he injected an apple with cyanide and took a bite out of it.

  5. #19

    russdev's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Leicestershire
    Posts
    6,985
    Thank Post
    735
    Thanked 559 Times in 374 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    Rep Power
    206

  6. #20
    apoth0r's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Northants
    Posts
    1,221
    Thank Post
    151
    Thanked 180 Times in 132 Posts
    Rep Power
    52
    Good job history has made the world we live in today a much better place to live, a more accepting place.
    Not sure if an apology is needed because those were the times back then, we moan about laws today which might not neccesarily be around in 50 years but we still abide by them?

  7. #21
    PeteM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    123
    Thank Post
    6
    Thanked 6 Times in 6 Posts
    Rep Power
    14

  8. #22

    john's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    London
    Posts
    10,452
    Thank Post
    1,543
    Thanked 1,070 Times in 935 Posts
    Rep Power
    305
    Well done that PM.

  9. #23

    glennda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Sussex
    Posts
    7,821
    Thank Post
    272
    Thanked 1,140 Times in 1,036 Posts
    Rep Power
    351
    Quote Originally Posted by john View Post
    Well done that PM.


    that is a first for Gordon isn't it? him doing something right!

  10. #24
    AyatollahPies's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    900
    Thank Post
    48
    Thanked 105 Times in 95 Posts
    Rep Power
    43
    Quote Originally Posted by tobyglenn View Post
    that is a first for Gordon isn't it? him doing something right!
    How is it doing something right? The guy is dead. He won't benefit from the apology. He could apologise to the families of the dead soldiers in Afghanistan instead,

    Edit: Not having a rant at you tobyglenn. I just fail to see the point in apologising for something you were not responsible for.
    Last edited by AyatollahPies; 11th September 2009 at 03:20 PM.

  11. #25

    glennda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Sussex
    Posts
    7,821
    Thank Post
    272
    Thanked 1,140 Times in 1,036 Posts
    Rep Power
    351
    i would like him to do that aswell, my cousin has been out there and lost friends in iraq, but it is right that he has apologised for the wrong doing that was shown to alan turing.

  12. #26

    Little-Miss's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    London
    Posts
    5,558
    Thank Post
    2,416
    Thanked 800 Times in 481 Posts
    Blog Entries
    2
    Rep Power
    552
    oops....didnt read above...
    Last edited by Little-Miss; 11th September 2009 at 09:28 PM.

  13. #27

    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    London
    Posts
    3,159
    Thank Post
    116
    Thanked 529 Times in 452 Posts
    Blog Entries
    2
    Rep Power
    125
    Quote Originally Posted by tobyglenn View Post
    i would like him to do that aswell, my cousin has been out there and lost friends in iraq, but it is right that he has apologised for the wrong doing that was shown to alan turing.
    I think this is genuinely difficult. Whether there's any point in an apology for what happened to Turing is debatable but certainly the government of the day behaved badly in the way homosexuals were treated so something was definitely wrong.

    Should a government apologise for the fact that soldiers die during a war? Not really sure. I think most people would agree that there is risk from the Taliban and Al Qaida in Afghanistan (and Pakistan). If that's the case then it's probably right for an army to be there and, sadly, soldiers get killed when you're fighting a war.

    Iraq's a bit different; many people think that we should never have sent armies there but our government disagrees (and it's worth remembering that the Conservatives basically also supported this). If it was right for our army to be there then I think it's actually wrong to apologise for the fact that soldiers get killed - that's just what happens in war time.

    Of course, you can argue that the soldiers need better defensive equipment and that's probably true but in reality even if they had vehicles with better armour it would just meant that the bad guys use bigger roadside bombs and people would still die.

  14. #28

    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Surburbia
    Posts
    2,178
    Thank Post
    74
    Thanked 307 Times in 243 Posts
    Rep Power
    116
    If that's the case then it's probably right for an army to be there
    The public are apparently against you: There was some poll published only a couple of days ago and only 1/4 were for the deployment, more than 1/2 were against (the rest were undecided, confused etc.).

  15. #29

    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Notts
    Posts
    47
    Thank Post
    1
    Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by srochford View Post
    I think this is genuinely difficult. Whether there's any point in an apology for what happened to Turing is debatable but certainly the government of the day behaved badly in the way homosexuals were treated so something was definitely wrong.

    Should a government apologise for the fact that soldiers die during a war? Not really sure. I think most people would agree that there is risk from the Taliban and Al Qaida in Afghanistan (and Pakistan). If that's the case then it's probably right for an army to be there and, sadly, soldiers get killed when you're fighting a war.

    Iraq's a bit different; many people think that we should never have sent armies there but our government disagrees (and it's worth remembering that the Conservatives basically also supported this). If it was right for our army to be there then I think it's actually wrong to apologise for the fact that soldiers get killed - that's just what happens in war time.

    Of course, you can argue that the soldiers need better defensive equipment and that's probably true but in reality even if they had vehicles with better armour it would just meant that the bad guys use bigger roadside bombs and people would still die.
    I'm not sure we can blame the government for how he was treated, homosexuality was not publically acceptable in that era, blaming the government for it seems like a cop-out to me.

    Same with Afghanistan really, its easy to blame the politico's and Gordon Brown is torn to pieces over his conduct but the great british public voted these people into office.

    Any politician who sends soldiers into a war should have to justify themselves in my opinion, preferable in public to the relatives of the deceased.
    Last edited by IT_Guy; 12th September 2009 at 12:11 AM.

  16. #30
    torledo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    2,928
    Thank Post
    168
    Thanked 155 Times in 126 Posts
    Rep Power
    48
    Quote Originally Posted by IT_Guy View Post

    Same with Afghanistan really, its easy to blame the politico's and Gordon Brown is torn to pieces over his conduct but the great british public voted these people into office.

    Any politician who sends soldiers into a war should have to justify themselves in my opinion, preferable in public to the relatives of the deceased.
    don't blame the policy makers who also vote on issues such as going to war ? are you sure about that ?

    Sadly the country can't vote in politicians on each and every specific issue, the public make themselves heard if there is widespread protest about issues being debated - i think this is what harriet harmison reffered to as the 'court of public opinion'.

    Even then, this opinion is sometimes led by msm opinion/misinformation. How much does the 'consensus' really understand about bank bailouts or the lisbon treaty beyond newspaper headlines,
    to be able to make an informed decision ?

    That's why the govt. are paid to do, it's why they pay advisers and researchers, to make informed decisions. or not. LOL. Unfortunately the govt. seem to be more swayed by 'special relationships' with foreign superpowers, industry vested interests and the opinion pieces of influential newspapers.

    I don't like the idea at all that voters have to put up or shut up when there really isn't much of a meaningful choice in how to vote, or when to reappoint. Voters have to wait up to five years plus put up with a prime minister who'll delay going to the polls to the last possible moment.

    All the GBP are programmed to do is vote in one of two main political party choices who can barely differentiate from each once they actually get in to power. It used to be the case that the differences were far more apparent, but the days of left-vs-right, nationalisation vs privatisation divides are long gone. Today it's all just slightly different shades of neo-liberalism.

    Or voters can display total apathy and not vote, in which case those that do will vote in one of the two neoliberal options who will be hamstrung anyway by the previous administrations policies for the first four years of office atleast. some choice that is!!! Ha!

    Remind me again why i can't blame the PM and the govt. for decisions they make ?



SHARE:
+ Post New Thread
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. science technicians petition
    By browolf in forum General Chat
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 22nd April 2009, 11:28 PM
  2. Petition - worth signing?
    By Styloid in forum *nix
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 20th May 2008, 11:50 AM
  3. Another petition
    By GrumbleDook in forum General Chat
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 12th October 2007, 02:04 PM
  4. Petition your MP
    By CyberNerd in forum BSF
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 16th December 2006, 07:53 PM

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •