Difference between revisions of "387: Advanced Technology"

Explain xkcd: It's 'cause you're dumb.
Jump to: navigation, search
(I am startiting to get used to adding categories and editing transcripts! (I do not wish to burden Lcarsos any more...))
 
(Explanation: OOH! Von Neumann and Harvard machines! My favorite subject! How did you know?)
Line 8: Line 8:
  
 
==Explanation==
 
==Explanation==
For how advanced technology is, we (on late 2012) still have yet to create a machine that replicates itself perfectly, an accomplishment that only humans themselves can lay a claim.
+
Despite how advanced technology is, we (on late 2012) still have yet to create a machine that replicates itself, an accomplishment that only biological organisms can lay claim to.
  
A Von Neumann machine refers to the underlying infrastructure behind the computers of our time.
+
A {{w|Von Neumann architecture|Von Neumann machine}} refers to the underlying infrastructure behind most the computers of our time. Von Neumann machines allow data and executable code to intermingle in a single memory space. By contrast the {{w|Harvard architecture}}, which is used in many automated voting machines, strictly separates data and executable code, which makes it much harder to exploit but is much more difficult to construct as it requires parallel structures to store code and data.
  
 
{{Incomplete}}
 
{{Incomplete}}

Revision as of 18:43, 12 December 2012

Advanced Technology
We are sexy, sexy Von Neumann machines.
Title text: We are sexy, sexy Von Neumann machines.

Explanation

Despite how advanced technology is, we (on late 2012) still have yet to create a machine that replicates itself, an accomplishment that only biological organisms can lay claim to.

A Von Neumann machine refers to the underlying infrastructure behind most the computers of our time. Von Neumann machines allow data and executable code to intermingle in a single memory space. By contrast the Harvard architecture, which is used in many automated voting machines, strictly separates data and executable code, which makes it much harder to exploit but is much more difficult to construct as it requires parallel structures to store code and data.


Ambox notice.png This explanation may be incomplete or incorrect:
Please include the reason why this explanation is incomplete, like this: {{incomplete|reason}}

If you can address this issue, please edit the page! Thanks.

Transcript

[Cueball is inspecting a woman's crotch.]
Cueball: It's neat how you contain a factory for making more of you.


comment.png add a comment! ⋅ comment.png add a topic (use sparingly)! ⋅ Icons-mini-action refresh blue.gif refresh comments!

Discussion

"OOH! Von Neumann and Harvard machines! My favorite subject! How did you know?" - Lcarsos
[...because you just told me, moderator!] Greyson (talk) 18:53, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

It seems to me that Cueball is examining Megan's abdomen (where her uterus, the "factory" itself, is contained), rather than her crotch as stated by the Explain XKCD description. It's not just the logic, but also the shape of Cueball's head (which may just be an artifact of the drawing process). Does anyone agree, or is it probably just me? JET73L (talk) 17:14, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

It's there in the official transcript.117.194.199.173 15:08, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
Still seems kind of, i don't know, incorrect. The crotch is the factory door, not the factory. 108.162.219.58 18:18, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Hmmm, self-replicating Von Neumann machines are more like parthenogenic aphids (asexual or "clones") rather than human sexual reproduction... Meg would not be able to copy herself. Apart from that, I like this cartoon as it does point out how fantastic reproduction really is. Oh, and Cueball 'should' be looking at her abdomen rather than her crotch methinks Squirreltape (talk) 16:13, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Would this behaviour constitute as sexual harassment? 42.book.addict (talk) 03:40, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

If you did it to random individuals, with no prior context. But situationally, though I wouldn't want to speak on behalf of this particular partnership, I wouldn't at all leap to assuming it was an unwanted gesture.
We only really get Randall's POV of his/Cueball's relationship with the respective 'Megan', but hard to imagine we'd be amongst the first to even get hints to the contrary, this way. (Of all the couples one might know, hardly our prime concern. Trust to those who'd know better. If you need to, keep your eye on 'iffy' relationships amongst those you actually know from more than electronic pen-and-ink, where you can perhaps make a more positive difference if necessary.)
Good to know you're aware of such possible problems, in society, but a bit of a leap of imagination to leap to an unbiden defence of someone's unknown feelings. (In a possibly entirely fictional episode, at that.) 141.101.99.210 10:22, 5 February 2024 (UTC)