Sorry I am not being paid to teach you basic philosophy. Look up Natural Rights and the Declaration.

Then the sites are probably using different definitions of what a computer is.

You really do not know anything about the philosophy of natural rights on which the US was founded do you.

I'm actually involved in the field as well. I have a degree in EE and work with substation design and protection. But just to clarify, just because a person has a degree in a specific field doesn't automatically mean they're an expert and know more than anyone outside of that field.

You brought up some really good points about fingers and sticks. My question to you is, at what point between the abacus and the modern computer did these devices actually became known as computers? They were all built from improvements off each other. I'm still trying to figure this question out for myself as well and honestly I don't have a solid explanation for it either way. Depending on how you search for it online, you can get info for and against an abacus being considered a computer.

I'm sorry this has gone into such a long drawn out conversation. And unfortunately (fortunately) I have never used a slide ruler before, I missed out on that as well!

Computers are my day job and my hobby since I was about seven. My Dad was a EE major back when he still had to use a slide rule (I just used it as a sword) and punch cards to write programs. I've been doing computers professionally for 20+ years.

"A computer is a device that was used to aid in calculations."

If that is the case, our toes are computers, are they not? So are lines of sticks. Thus I can't accept such a simplistic definition and I don't know of anyone involved in Computer Science that would either. It's your choice, of course. I would simply caution that you will likely receive a similar response from anyone in the field given such an assertion.

Thanks for commenting back blarman I really do appreciate the in depth explanation. In terms of the modern day computer, you are exactly correct. The Babbage differential engine is known as the device that started / inspired modern computing.

But the abacus is still a computer. A computer is a device that was used to aid in calculations. I think the only part we differ in opinion is to whether a computer has to be able to automatically calculate given a certain set of inputs. For a computer, I would answer no. For a modern computer, I would answer yes.

I take it you must be an engineer or something closely related to it. Anyways again thanks for the post and I look forward to many more conversations like this. Also thank you! I learned a lot from reading your posts and doing some of my own digging around.

There were computers using analog components (vacuum tubes), but there has never been a computer I am aware of using analog logic (I'd love to see a definition of such). Many people confuse the two and think that the advent of "digital" computers was a change not only to the components, but to the logic as well. The way it was used in certain posts led me to believe there was significant confusion on the matter that could be cleared up.

Yes and Locke and Declaration of Independence on which this country was built said you own property because you own yourself and you created something, which includes inventions. The Utilitarian model of property rights does not explain why anyone gains ownership of anything. It is a failed concept and not surprisingly many of its proponents have become socialists.

I am sure you are aware of this, but there were analog computers.

I agree with the abacus

So I'm going to quibble with you again. Computing is always in terms of binary/discrete inputs. The components (vacuum tubes) may have been analog in operation, but the computations and logic were always based on deterministic data points: digital data points (one's and zero's). The transistor's improvements over the vacuum tube were in size, energy use, and discretion: the transistor required only a fraction of the power to operate, occupied a fraction of the space, and gave more discrete and invariable output states than a vacuum tube. (The transistor could also be used as an amplifier, but that is another topic). The underlying logic, however, wasn't affected. With analog components, you were measuring to see if something was a "one" or "present" if the voltage topped a certain standard measure. With digital components, the ceiling and floor of voltage outputs was far easier to differentiate, enabling more discrete identification and processing further down the circuit and resulting in more predictable and precise outputs.

And I still reject the notion of an abacus as a computer. It does not perform the calculations - the human does. You can't give the abacus an instruction and tell it "go" and receive a result. The slide rule is the same, and I don't think anyone is going to dispute the notion that the slide rule is far more complex than an abacus. I would also note that neither the abacus nor slide rule is programmable - the key capability of a true computer. The real productivity of a computer comes in its flexibility to be reconfigured to handle different types of problems. An abacus fails this as well, but was the point of Babbage's original engine. Lastly, what we shouldn't overlook is that critical to the functioning of the engine was the development of binary logic - the true work of genius of Charles Babbage and Ada Lovelace.

Excellent. Thanks for posting this Robbie.

I feel as though I've been trolled this entire post. Every point I've brought up has been dismissed without reason and every question I've asked has gone unanswered.

You are confusing two points. The question is whether it is an invention, not whether you or some other subjective standard decides it is worthy. An invention is an human creation with an objective result. I see all the time people denigrating other people's inventions because they do not understand their industry. How things are shipped can be the difference between a profitable product and one that will not sell. I doubt you understand the industry for the invention that you are putting down. I would call that arrogant ignorance.

IP is absolutely a property right. The basis of property rights is the fact of creations. This is Locke's formulation and this is incorporated into common law by Blackstone's Commentaries on the law.

Sorry, my own train of thought. You are absolutely right that scientists or academics are not necessarily the best inventors