| Author |
Message |
the Omrud
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 07, 2005 1:34 am
Post subject: Re: the asterisk |
|
|
gekko <gekko@lutz.kicks-ass.org.INVALID> spake thusly:
| Quote: | Okay, so, like, there was this, um, you know, the Omrud
usenet.omrud@gmail.com>, who was all, 'You go girl,' and then went:
Chess One <innes8@verizon.net> spake thusly:
Back in 1974, when I was studying acounting and economics as
seperate disciplines, [we were also privileged to play with the
first computers, and associated ticker-tape and punch cards]. In
those days studies in economics were of a generic
market-capitalism type and diffident even to suffering
mixed-economy models to intrude on 'theory' of economics, which
was intepreted entirely as market-theory.
Those weren't the "first" computers. In 1974 there had been
nearly three decades of electronic computers.
So, just to ask ... in 1974, the "first computers" had already
existed for 30 years, yes?
Might not a person, in 1974, have been able to play with one of
those? Or had they all been thrown away by then?
|
They had been dismantled and lost, apart from a few bits which
survived as curiosities. I suspect that nobody accorded them any
importance at the time and the parts were no doubt needed for other
projects. Things were in short supply after the war. If they had
still existed, it wouldn't have been possible to play with them as
they were unreliable at best, and they certainly didn't have any tape
or card readers, which were only later added to computers.
In 1974 I was at Manchester University studying Computer Science
under Tom Kilburn who had in 1940 written the first program on the
first stored-program electronic computer. No large part of that
first computer still existed by the 70s. A replica was rebuilt for
the 50th anniversary in 1998 - it now lives in the Science Museum in
Manchester where you can see it working one or two days per week.
http://www.computer50.org/mark1/new.baby.html
http://www.computer50.org/mark1/ip-r.rebuild.html
--
David
=====
replace usenet with the
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
gekko
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 07, 2005 2:25 am
Post subject: Re: the asterisk |
|
|
Okay, so, like, there was this, um, you know, the Omrud
<usenet.omrud@gmail.com>, who was all, 'You go girl,' and then went:
| Quote: | gekko <gekko@lutz.kicks-ass.org.INVALID> spake thusly:
Okay, so, like, there was this, um, you know, the Omrud
usenet.omrud@gmail.com>, who was all, 'You go girl,' and then
went:
Chess One <innes8@verizon.net> spake thusly:
Back in 1974, when I was studying acounting and economics as
seperate disciplines, [we were also privileged to play with
the first computers, and associated ticker-tape and punch
cards]. In those days studies in economics were of a generic
market-capitalism type and diffident even to suffering
mixed-economy models to intrude on 'theory' of economics,
which was intepreted entirely as market-theory.
Those weren't the "first" computers. In 1974 there had been
nearly three decades of electronic computers.
So, just to ask ... in 1974, the "first computers" had already
existed for 30 years, yes?
Might not a person, in 1974, have been able to play with one of
those? Or had they all been thrown away by then?
They had been dismantled and lost, apart from a few bits which
survived as curiosities. I suspect that nobody accorded them any
importance at the time and the parts were no doubt needed for
other projects. Things were in short supply after the war. If
they had still existed, it wouldn't have been possible to play
with them as they were unreliable at best, and they certainly
didn't have any tape or card readers, which were only later added
to computers.
In 1974 I was at Manchester University studying Computer Science
under Tom Kilburn who had in 1940 written the first program on the
first stored-program electronic computer.
|
Yes, *the* first.
Hm. Odd. I'd thought that some of earliest electronic computers were
in the Smithsonian. Haven't checked, mind.
Ah, well.
1974 would be the early-adopter era for the first personal computers,
yes?
http://www.blinkenlights.com/pc.shtml
--
gekko
The present day composer refuses to die. -- Edgar Varese |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jitze Couperus
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 07, 2005 6:44 am
Post subject: Re: the asterisk |
|
|
On Sun, 06 Nov 2005 19:25:03 GMT, gekko
<gekko@lutz.kicks-ass.org.INVALID> wrote:
| Quote: |
Hm. Odd. I'd thought that some of earliest electronic computers were
in the Smithsonian. Haven't checked, mind.
|
The last time I checked the Smithsonian, they were pretty poor in
the area of early computing. A much better collection on the left side
of the pond is in the San Francisco Bay Area (Silicon Valley) where we
have The Computer History Museum, see
http://www.computerhistory.org/
Here you can see a large bit of Whirlwind (1951) which was a pioneer
in the sense that it was the first to use core memory (instead of
e.g. Williams tubes) and which begat Sage. A complete Sage was
too large physically to be accommodated in the museum, but they have
goodly chunk of one there - my favourite because it had both a
telephone and an ash-tray integrated into the operator's console.
http://www.vintage-computer.com/images/chmopenhouse/sage.jpg
They also have the Johnniac (1954) there, one of John Von Neumann's
originals - see
http://www.vintage-computer.com/images/chmopenhouse/johniac.jpg
The only really unusual item (in the context of computer history) that
the Smithsonian has to my knowledge, is the operator's console
of a CDC 3800 - of which there are no other known samples in
existence. The last 10 were were very deliberately destroyed
under a federal requirement to do with secrets possibly being
recovered therefrom[1]... despite the fact that these machines
were around 40 yrs old when they met their demise, and were
located in a large blue building less than a mile from the current
home of the above museum (Skitt used to work just down
the road a bit). For the cost of renting a large flat-bed truck
for an hour or two, and requisite forklifts and muscle power,
we coulda had one in the museum. But because knowledge
of the very existence of these machines was a no-no, it
was hard to figure how/who to appeal to...
[1] Winston Churchill issued a similar edict about obliterating
a certain computer(s) - lest knowledge of their capabilities
leaked out "...to be broken up into pieces no larger than
a man's fist...". Luckily, despite this edict being carried out,
such a machine has successfully been re-created in England.
Jitze
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Paul Wolff
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 07, 2005 7:23 am
Post subject: Re: the asterisk |
|
|
In message <436e88a9.341849546@news.znet.com>, Jitze Couperus
<couperus-eschew-this@znet.com> writes
| Quote: |
[1] Winston Churchill issued a similar edict about obliterating a
certain computer(s) - lest knowledge of their capabilities leaked out
"...to be broken up into pieces no larger than a man's fist...".
Luckily, despite this edict being carried out, such a machine has
successfully been re-created in England.
|
I don't know if this is the one you mean - Tony Sale's rebuild of
Colossus at Bletchley Park:
http://www.codesandciphers.org.uk/heritage/ColRbd.htm
--
Paul
In bocca al Lupo! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Peter Duncanson
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 07, 2005 7:30 am
Post subject: Re: the asterisk |
|
|
On Sun, 06 Nov 2005 19:25:03 GMT, gekko
<gekko@lutz.kicks-ass.org.INVALID> wrote:
| Quote: | Okay, so, like, there was this, um, you know, the Omrud
usenet.omrud@gmail.com>, who was all, 'You go girl,' and then went:
gekko <gekko@lutz.kicks-ass.org.INVALID> spake thusly:
Okay, so, like, there was this, um, you know, the Omrud
usenet.omrud@gmail.com>, who was all, 'You go girl,' and then
went:
Chess One <innes8@verizon.net> spake thusly:
Back in 1974, when I was studying acounting and economics as
seperate disciplines, [we were also privileged to play with
the first computers, and associated ticker-tape and punch
cards]. In those days studies in economics were of a generic
market-capitalism type and diffident even to suffering
mixed-economy models to intrude on 'theory' of economics,
which was intepreted entirely as market-theory.
Those weren't the "first" computers. In 1974 there had been
nearly three decades of electronic computers.
So, just to ask ... in 1974, the "first computers" had already
existed for 30 years, yes?
Might not a person, in 1974, have been able to play with one of
those? Or had they all been thrown away by then?
They had been dismantled and lost, apart from a few bits which
survived as curiosities. I suspect that nobody accorded them any
importance at the time and the parts were no doubt needed for
other projects. Things were in short supply after the war. If
they had still existed, it wouldn't have been possible to play
with them as they were unreliable at best, and they certainly
didn't have any tape or card readers, which were only later added
to computers.
In 1974 I was at Manchester University studying Computer Science
under Tom Kilburn who had in 1940 written the first program on the
first stored-program electronic computer.
Yes, *the* first.
This discussion refers to electronic digital computers. Before them were |
(electric) relay computers, electromechanical analog(ue) computers and
electronic analog(ue) computers. And of course all the non-electric
mechanical calculators.
Quite possibly.
Peter Duncanson
UK (posting from a.u.e) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jitze Couperus
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 07, 2005 8:08 am
Post subject: Re: the asterisk |
|
|
On Mon, 7 Nov 2005 00:23:54 +0000, Paul Wolff
<bounceme@two.wolff.co.uk> wrote:
| Quote: | In message <436e88a9.341849546@news.znet.com>, Jitze Couperus
couperus-eschew-this@znet.com> writes
[1] Winston Churchill issued a similar edict about obliterating a
certain computer(s) - lest knowledge of their capabilities leaked out
"...to be broken up into pieces no larger than a man's fist...".
Luckily, despite this edict being carried out, such a machine has
successfully been re-created in England.
I don't know if this is the one you mean - Tony Sale's rebuild of
Colossus at Bletchley Park:
http://www.codesandciphers.org.uk/heritage/ColRbd.htm
|
Indeed - although almost all of the "bombes" also met a similar fate.
But these were electro-mechanical devices rather than electronic
and certainly wouldn't qualify as computers. I think I heard that
one or two bombes were in fact retained, as well as a later variant
of Colossus (Mk 2) and these saw service with the establishment that
replaced the "school" at Bletchley Park.
Jitze |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chess One
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 08, 2005 12:50 am
Post subject: Re: the asterisk |
|
|
"Peter Duncanson" <mail@peterduncanson.net> wrote in message
news:ho7tm1lmbne4cj72qusd5nfrh2ilb15ot6@4ax.com...
| Quote: |
This discussion refers to electronic digital computers. Before them were
(electric) relay computers, electromechanical analog(ue) computers and
electronic analog(ue) computers. And of course all the non-electric
mechanical calculators.
|
Yes - we ticker tape pioneers didn't actually have a computer, we had a room
sized modem - the computer was 300 miles away in London. You not only got to
write your program but usually the 'operating system' too [Basic or maybe
Algol].
I showed a kid a picture book of early computer stuff, and he looked at all
the hardware [no keyboard, no monitor] and didn't recognise anything at all!
Except the endpapers of the book had flow-charts, and he recognised them for
what they were.
Do you know what was Turing's output in 1941?
Phil
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chess One
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 08, 2005 12:57 am
Post subject: Re: the asterisk |
|
|
"gekko" <gekko@lutz.kicks-ass.org.INVALID> wrote in message
news:Xns9706734CCC593crinkles@217.68.187.32...
| Quote: | Okay, so, like, there was this, um, you know, the Omrud
usenet.omrud@gmail.com>, who was all, 'You go girl,' and then went:
Chess One <innes8@verizon.net> spake thusly:
Back in 1974, when I was studying acounting and economics as
seperate disciplines, [we were also privileged to play with the
first computers, and associated ticker-tape and punch cards]. In
those days studies in economics were of a generic
market-capitalism type and diffident even to suffering
mixed-economy models to intrude on 'theory' of economics, which
was intepreted entirely as market-theory.
Those weren't the "first" computers. In 1974 there had been
nearly three decades of electronic computers.
So, just to ask ... in 1974, the "first computers" had already
existed for 30 years, yes?
Might not a person, in 1974, have been able to play with one of
those? Or had they all been thrown away by then?
|
The poster above is referring to the very first computers [Mammoth &c]
developed on a mathematical model of Alan Turing's - it was used extensively
at Bletchley Park during WWII to render German Enigma messages into
plaintext.
[It was not directly successful, and in fact, without a 'crib' from a human
intepreter of the message [a cryptanalyst] it could not resolve Enigma. This
was the most closely guarded subject of the entire war, more so than the
bomb, at least according to Churchill.
A 'Turing Engine' is still the same technical designation for the thing you
are currently writing on, a single processor. The only mathematical
differrence between the first one and current models is speed.
Cordially, Phil
| Quote: |
--
gekko
The present day composer refuses to die. -- Edgar Varese |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 08, 2005 1:01 am
Post subject: Re: the asterisk |
|
|
In alt.fan.cecil-adams the Omrud <usenet.omrud@gmail.com> wrote:
| Quote: | gekko <gekko@lutz.kicks-ass.org.INVALID> spake thusly:
So, just to ask ... in 1974, the "first computers" had already
existed for 30 years, yes?
Might not a person, in 1974, have been able to play with one of
those? Or had they all been thrown away by then?
They had been dismantled and lost, apart from a few bits which
survived as curiosities.
|
About twelve years or so ago, I noticed in one of the EECS buildings on
the north campus of University of Michigan, they had a couple pieces
of ENIAC, I think a register and an adder. It's a big black thingy the
size of a couple refrigerstors, and it was just sitting in the building
atrium with a little sign in front of it.
Google says this: http://www.engin.umich.edu/soc/acm/aboutacm.html
"Another big project we have is the restoration of the ENIAC
computer. We're trying to get it running again and connected to
the internet. We're looking for hardware and software people..."
I'm guessing that's gonna be some pretty hard hardware, and involve a
lot of tube-testing, soldering, and pot cleaner.
I wish I still lived near A2. I'd love to help. If they get it
running, keep it up long enough to get a TCP/IP stack on the damned
thing, and actually connect it to the internet, I'll be stunned
stupid. I wonder what the MESH budget for vacuum tubes is? Or if
they've considered the impact on the building's HVAC? Tie it into the
physical plant, and heat the damn building with it, maybe?
--
Huey |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chess One
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 08, 2005 1:02 am
Post subject: Re: the asterisk |
|
|
"Chess One" <innes8@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:mAMbf.496$2R6.295@trndny06...
| Quote: | A 'Turing Engine' is still the same technical designation for the thing
you are currently writing on, a single processor. The only mathematical
differrence between the first one and current models is speed.
|
I should have added if an emphasis was necessary, that 'Turing Engline' does
not refer to any sort of technology or hardware, the 'engine' is a
matematical one. A sheet of paper can constitute a Turing Engine, and in
fact so were Alan Turing's first models on-paper ones. Phil
| Quote: | Cordially, Phil
--
gekko
The present day composer refuses to die. -- Edgar Varese
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Paul Wolff
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 08, 2005 4:15 am
Post subject: Re: the asterisk |
|
|
In message <436eadd4.351364250@news.znet.com>, Jitze Couperus
<couperus-eschew-this@znet.com> writes
| Quote: | On Mon, 7 Nov 2005 00:23:54 +0000, Paul Wolff
bounceme@two.wolff.co.uk> wrote:
In message <436e88a9.341849546@news.znet.com>, Jitze Couperus
couperus-eschew-this@znet.com> writes
[1] Winston Churchill issued a similar edict about obliterating a
certain computer(s) - lest knowledge of their capabilities leaked out
"...to be broken up into pieces no larger than a man's fist...".
Luckily, despite this edict being carried out, such a machine has
successfully been re-created in England.
I don't know if this is the one you mean - Tony Sale's rebuild of
Colossus at Bletchley Park:
http://www.codesandciphers.org.uk/heritage/ColRbd.htm
Indeed - although almost all of the "bombes" also met a similar fate.
But these were electro-mechanical devices rather than electronic
and certainly wouldn't qualify as computers. I think I heard that
one or two bombes were in fact retained, as well as a later variant
of Colossus (Mk 2) and these saw service with the establishment that
replaced the "school" at Bletchley Park.
I heard the same. But we mustn't talk about it. |
--
Paul
In bocca al Lupo! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mike Lyle
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 08, 2005 7:16 am
Post subject: Re: the asterisk |
|
|
Jitze Couperus wrote:
| Quote: | On Mon, 7 Nov 2005 00:23:54 +0000, Paul Wolff
bounceme@two.wolff.co.uk> wrote:
In message <436e88a9.341849546@news.znet.com>, Jitze Couperus
couperus-eschew-this@znet.com> writes
[1] Winston Churchill issued a similar edict about obliterating a
certain computer(s) - lest knowledge of their capabilities leaked
out "...to be broken up into pieces no larger than a man's
fist...".
Luckily, despite this edict being carried out, such a machine has
successfully been re-created in England.
I don't know if this is the one you mean - Tony Sale's rebuild of
Colossus at Bletchley Park:
http://www.codesandciphers.org.uk/heritage/ColRbd.htm
Indeed - although almost all of the "bombes" also met a similar
fate.
But these were electro-mechanical devices rather than electronic
and certainly wouldn't qualify as computers. I think I heard that
one or two bombes were in fact retained, as well as a later variant
of Colossus (Mk 2) and these saw service with the establishment
that
replaced the "school" at Bletchley Park.
|
Interested to learn of the US Govt's attitude to destroying the
computers: a new slant on something I didn't understand. I'd always
assumed (on intuition, not evidence) that Churchill had made the
destruction order as part of some quiet self-destructive deal with
the Americans, in line with the brutal concessions he had to make in
return for Lend-Lease. After all, it must have been clear to any
half-awake thinker that this kind of decryption power was going to be
necessary, given that the Cold War had already started before WW2 had
properly finished.
--
Mike. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Earle Jones
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 08, 2005 7:26 am
Post subject: Re: the asterisk |
|
|
In article <11mgqcvb3f6of05@corp.supernews.com>,
"Mike Lepore" <lepore5@bestweb.net> wrote:
| Quote: | For most of my life, I thought that the asterisk had eight points.
Trying to imitate the appearance used by the typewriter and the
publishing industry, I always formed the asterisk in handwriting
by first making a + sign and then superimposing an x on it.
About a year ago, I looked carefully at some printed material
and discovered that the asterisk has six points.
I wonder how I could have been so unobservant, and what
else I have been missing.
--
Mike Lepore email delete the 5
|
*
I propose we call the six-legged asterisk the 'insectrisk' and the
eight-legged asterisk the 'arachnisk'.
earle
* |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Reunite Gondwanaland (Mar
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 08, 2005 8:06 am
Post subject: Re: the asterisk |
|
|
On Sat, 05 Nov 2005 16:44:45 GMT, Tony Cooper
<tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> wrote:
| Quote: | I was hoping for a more concrete example of something that was at one
time accepted as a fact, where subsequent examination has shown that
the one-time fact was incorrect, and where there was a period of time
when the new fact was not accepted by everyone. It is in that period
of time that the teacher who teaches the new fact may chose to allude
to the possibility of the new discovery being the right fact, but not
teach that the new fact is the right fact even though the teacher
believes it to be the right fact.
|
Plate tectonics or the K-T extinction per Alvarez or glaciation or the
Scablands ("How could I have been so wrong?") or Uniformitarianism or
any other paradigm shift in the sciences. These are just a few that
occurred to me randomly and there are lots more.
Mary
--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer
We didn't just do weird stuff at Dryden, we wrote reports about it.
reunite.gondwana@gmail.com or miliff@qnet.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jitze Couperus
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 08, 2005 8:06 am
Post subject: Re: the asterisk |
|
|
On Tue, 8 Nov 2005 00:16:09 -0000, "Mike Lyle"
<mike_lyle_uk@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk> wrote:
| Quote: |
Interested to learn of the US Govt's attitude to destroying the
computers: a new slant on something I didn't understand. I'd always
assumed (on intuition, not evidence) that Churchill had made the
destruction order as part of some quiet self-destructive deal with
the Americans, in line with the brutal concessions he had to make in
return for Lend-Lease. After all, it must have been clear to any
half-awake thinker that this kind of decryption power was going to be
necessary, given that the Cold War had already started before WW2 had
properly finished.
|
My understanding is roughly as follows. Upon the conclusion
of WWII, the four powers between them were all aware
that both the Enigma and Geheimschreiber types of technology
had been skunked - but other lesser powers remained
unaware of this fact. They coninued to rely upon the
German claims that such were unbreakable - and continued
to use them - much to the glee of the chaps in Gloucester
and the guys in Maryland. And Churchill didn't want it to
get out that certain gentlemen were able to read other
gentlemen's mail. Let them keep doing it...
The list of nations still using (variants of) these technologies
slowly dwindled, but there were still some who were using
them right until the capture of the Pueblo by the N. Koreans
in early 1968.
It was this capture that finaly opened the eyes of the last
remaining naifs... and a few years later the word "Bletchley"
started to be mentioned in books - at least in a cautious and
circuitous fashion. Then when Gordon Welchman published
his book in 1982 (The Hut 6 Story) the lid got blown off everything
and this technology was well and truly skunked.
So Churchill's aim was to protect the knowledge that these
technologies were unsafe for use. But the reason "secure"
computers are destroyed these days is to ensure that any
lingering magnetic images on disk or memory or whatever
can never be recovered - even the bloody operator's
console - pace stupid bureaucrats. Different motivation but
the same net result.
Jitze |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in