Babbage, A Look Back

A reader writes "System Toolbox just started a new computer history section in an effort to get us geeks in touch with our "roots." The current article in the monthly column focuses on Charles Babbage. The editor and author hope to raise awareness of our past so that scenes like this won't continue to take place. A big hill to climb, but worth the effort."

Comments

can't believe

[joss]

they didn't mention that rod based mechanical computers are likely to return with nano-tech, with carbon chains as the basic rods

Re:can't believe

[P�l@Paris]

What about organic computers ??

I remember reading long ago about organic molecules being able to "switch" between two polarized states under the influence if an outer electronic field. This was supposed to be a future for nano registries...

Re:can't believe

[Schwarzchild]

What about organic computers ??

What about growing brain matter??? I remember reading about Japanese researchers in the early 90s who were trying to grow brain tissue that could be used for parallel processing type projects.

Re:can't believe

[Zerth]

That reminds me of a scifi/fantasy book I read late 80's/early 90's about a computer made from cultured brain tissue. It was used to run nifty VR D&D games, but the giant brain got cracked by one of the players who was dying of cancer to store his "consciousness", but accidently gave it free will and it held all the players hostage for a body. The management had to find one of the original designers to fix it, since he had, of course, included a backdoor.

That ring any bells for a title, I've been looking for that book, but I can't remember the name(argh).

wasn't it because of babbage...

[motherhead]

...that webster's changed the definition of a computer from a person to a machine?

Re:wasn't it because of babbage...

[rm-r]

I doubt it, he never completed a machine- and the big one, the analytical engine (as opossed to the difference engine) never left the drawing board until a couple of years ago when some guys at the British Science Museum built it.

Re:wasn't it because of babbage...

[wfaulk]

In my OED, the first reference listed (which is supposed to be the earliest available printed example) for the usage of ``computer'' as a device rather than a person is from the January 22, 1898 issue of Engineering:

This was ... a computer made by Mr. W. Cox. He described it as of the nature of a circular slide rule.

Babbage had died 27 years prior.

Re:wasn't it because of babbage...

[Paul Komarek]

I've seen it suggested that it wasn't until the 1950's or so that "computer" referred to a machine. Whether the machines in question were IBM punch machines or the UNIVAC, I don't recall. Since my copy of "History of Modern Computing" hasn't been returned yet, that's where this comment ends.

-Paul Komarek

Re:wasn't it because of babbage...

[Anonymous Coward]

No, he got to work over Ada Lovelace...

Re:wasn't it because of babbage...

[Rand Race]

An etymology of the word 'computer'.

Just being pedantic....

[N Monkey]

"Analytical Society taking on the very way math was done in England."

Actually they do maths in Britain. ;-)

Re:Just being pedantic....

[Anonymous Coward]

Absolutely. "Math" ith a Roman Catholic thervith.

The Difference Machine

[Voidhobo]

For more on Babbage I suggest reading Gibson and Sterling's excellent novel The Difference Machine (which Babbage invented).

Re:The Difference Machine

[dangermouse]

The novel is actually titled The Difference Engine.

And I wouldn't read it for informative purposes (especially the historical sort), but it is a pretty good book.

Re:The Difference Machine

[Warin]

This was probably one of the most disapointing books I have ever read!

After the sheer genius of the Neuromancer Trilogy, I expected this book to be as wonderful and thought provoking. Instead I found it dull and relatively uninspired. It just left me feeling...

I bought it in hardcover on the day our local bookstore received it, and felt cheated. However, that WAS on it's publication way back when...

Maybe I should dig it out and give it another try..

I plead ignorance

[Kargan]

So, um, I guess I should feel dumb for not knowing who 90% of those people were either?

I mean, I'm not l33t or anything, I'm just someone who knows how to fix computers...and would it help me or affect my everyday life if I knew?

Re:I plead ignorance

[rm-r]

That's right, you should feel dumb. I'm not l33t either, but you should know the history of your art for no other reason that to not repeat mistakes (and so as not to have to reinvent the wheel)

Re:I plead ignorance

[maxpublic]

No, it won't have any effect whatsoever on your technical skills. Some of the history is mildly interesting, but the only people who seem to think it absolutely crucial are those who grew up during the time...kinda like Boomers raving about Elvis or the Beatles.

Max

Re:I plead ignorance

[driftingwalrus]

You should feel dumb. This is your TRADE. You should know at least a little about it's history. If you don't recognize names like Ken Thompson and Charles Babbage, you are in a sorry state indeed.

Do you want to know how it helps? It helps you to appreciate where it came from, the work involved in creating these machines and the passion others have had for them. It would help you to understand where YOU fit in the grand scheme of things, and it'll help you to have a little pride in your work. It's all about respect. It's about respecting the genius that made your trade possible, respecting the machine they have built and respecting yourself enough to do the best job you can. As a man who works with computers, you have to live up to the promise of your forebears. No one expects you to be another Babbage or Thompson, but you have a duty to yourself to understand the commitment they had and reflect at least some of it.

You may think of yourself as just someone who fixes computers, but you aren't. You are a steward of the legacy of those that came before, all of us are. All of us have a duty to maintain the tradition and memory of these men. Without there contributions and endless hours of work and passion for the machine, we wouldn't even have computers.

So, pick up a book. Read. The history of our trade is a glorious thing, full of great men and brilliant engineering. Only through it's study can we hope to go as far as they did.

Re:I plead ignorance

[sid_vicious]

Apologies in advance for the horribly OT post - but where did your .sig come from? I used to have a college roommate who would tell me that every time I'd forget an assignment ("You forgot your homework? Then you must fight the bear!").

Re:I plead ignorance

[baronben]

I supose you should look at knowing the histroy of computing just like any other profession should. A painter who knows art histroy will invaritibly be a better painter becuse he can learn from the perviuos masters. A person in the interntainal relations feild had better know about Westphilla (even though thats not a person), Kissenger, or Machivelli. Knowing the histroy of a feild helps you find its future.

Re:I plead ignorance

[Nindalf]

The history of our trade is a glorious thing, full of great men and brilliant engineering. Only through it's study can we hope to go as far as they did.

Absolute garbage. They didn't advance mathematics and computer science by studying history, and we won't either. To continue their work it's important to learn the things they learned, not to learn about them as people.

Where would it stop? Why is someone an ignorant fool for not knowing or caring about this or that person in particular? Which historical figures are essential?

An answer I'm hearing a lot is the snob's answer: "I know what I should, people who know less are ignorant (people who know more are indulging themselves in trivia)."

The real place necessity ends is at the start: it's all trivia. Just as you don't need to know Leibniz or Newton to understand calculus, you don't need to know Grace Hopper to make a compiler. Science history is an interesting subject, but it's no prerequisite for science.

Does it hurt you to be unaware of who first thought of writing numbers as digits? The genius who came up with reliable procedures for adding them? The spectacular genius who generalized expression of fractions by numbers?

No, they've been lost in the mists of time. Most people aren't bothered by this, as it's inconceivable in all but the most abstract sense that there was a time when no human knew these things. Sometimes I think that's why they're so commonly learned: they are no longer the territory of A Great Man and his disciples, just common knowledge a hair above common sense. Certainly, nobody who tackles these subjects only to be confronted by obnoxious fools with, "How dare you learn only the timeless mathematical truth and ignore the circumstances of its discovery?!"

Re:I plead ignorance

[sid_vicious]

Sheesh, friggin' moderators.

Hit me again, I've got karma to burn.

Re:I plead ignorance

[Anonymous Coward]

I know what you mean. I am sure the author only wrote about Babbage because they were god damned contemporaries.

Re:I plead ignorance

[unitron]

"Dumb" means mute, incapable of speech. The word you seek is stupid.

You should not feel stupid for not knowing who these people are (or were). You should just consider your education in that area incomplete. Your intellectual curiousity should be troubled by that incompleteness. The same intellectual curiosity that led you to learn "how to fix computers" in the first place. And since it was, in part, the pioneering of these people that made possible the very existence of the computers you found interesting and challenging enough to learn how to fix, I'd say that they're due from you some modicum of respect and admiration.

Re:I plead ignorance

[Sophacles]

If you don't know the history of the science, then how can you where the future is going? If you know about the "greats" within a field, the people who advanced the field the furthest, then you'll most likely know thier short comings, where their theorys need to be shored up a little bit. And more importantly, you'll know what they had failed at.

In fact one of my professors ranted yesterday that someone was trying to expand on a research track he had abandoned twenty years ago. He realized the ideas were flawed, but since the person didnt know the history (albeit recent)of science (geomorphology in this case) (s)he wasted alot of research time and money.

Actually.... that would be a neat idea, a scientific journal about scientific failures. That way people could know who has abandoned what conectps. It could provide an interesting history of science, and allow people to not have to keep making the same mistakes.

Re:I plead ignorance

[Anonymous Coward]

I think anyone getting a BS in CIS/CS -has- to learn about who those people were. If anyone has a 4 or 2 year degree in CS and doesn't know half those names, let me know.

How can you program without knowing George Boole?!

Re:I plead ignorance

[Rand Race]

So, if you want to make good, inventive, new rock and roll music, knowledge of Elvis and the Beatles is useless? No it won't affect your technical skills, just your creative skills. If you want to be the dime-a-dozen bass player of the digital world then no, you don't need to know history. If you want to actually do something new and inventive history is essential.

Re:I plead ignorance

[cruachan]

You don't have to know about the history or the subject to do it, and personally it doesn't bother me if you don't

However not being interested enough to aquire the background knowledge in your subject - or indeed in history in general - is a good indicator that you are a throughly uninteresting individual yourself and not someone any thinking person would waste their valuable time on.

Re:I plead ignorance

[Rude Turnip]

If those McDonald's workers never gain an understanding of the history of greasetraps and milkshake machines, then they'll always be stuck as burger-flippers and will never have a chance to advance themselves and the fast food industry.

Re:I plead ignorance

[3am]

just a thought, but it sounds like you've never invented/discovered anything worth mentioning...

Re:I plead ignorance

[CmdrPinkTaco]

I guess that part of this argument goes back to the programmer vs computer scientist argument. Programmers are concerned with the task that is at hand, while computer scientists are more concerned with the underlying theory and the How and Why.

Personally I find it difficult not to be exposed to some of the history of computer science in my studies, especially in the areas of mathematics. I can't imagine things like crypto existing without things like Fermat's Little Theorem, Geometry without Euclidian Identies and his Five Postulates. You get the idea.

All of these have applications to computer science, but not programming. It all depends on what your area of focus is.

Re:I plead ignorance

[maxpublic]

Don't be an idiot. Knowing the life history of Babbage won't do thing one to improve my Perl or C++ programming skills. Only a fool would say otherwise.

Straw men to the sidelines where they belong.

Max

Re:I plead ignorance

[driftingwalrus]

It's not that you need to know who Leibniz and Newton where to understand calculus, but you do to respect calculus.

If you are ignorant of the men who created it, you will never be able to respect the creation.

Re:I plead ignorance

[Kargan]

Hahaha!! This is my favorite response yet! So, you are wasting your valuable time responding to me...by your logic, twisted as it is, an indicator that you are not a thinking person!

Re:I plead ignorance

[Rubyflame]

Liebniz and Newton did not invent calculus! They merely discovered it.
Besides, your statement makes no sense. I have no idea who invented, say, the CRT. Does that mean I don't appreciate having one?

Re:I plead ignorance

[Anonymous Coward]

Ok, so we've all got to read up on von Neuman, Turing, Babbage etc. This will help how?
Babbages greatest achievement IMO was introducing Liebniz calculus to Britain. Do I need to know this to add up the prices on my shopping list?

What help is Turing to modern computing? Knowing what a Halting problem is or how Godel's incompleteness theorem applies? It won't help me write a Linux device driver will it?

Some of these historical figures are interesting, but they aren't required reading. In fact, in some cases, it can be a benefit to not know about them at all, some of the best new designs/thoughts have come from people with very little background in a particular field. They are thinking without baggage (or Babbage :P ), and are free to look at the issues in a new light.

On the issue of respecting Genius, take a look at how Babbage thought about Newton - no respect there. He even set a society up to remove Newtonian calculus from the education system. A system used only beacuse of the great respect for Newton - not for the system, it was almost impossible to use.

If I spent time reading up on all the 'Great Men' that designed all of the things I use in my job I wouldn't actually have time to do any work.

Personally I'm interested in the history of computing/maths, but I'm not going to get the 'Thought Police' out to make sure every IT guy knows about K & R. Each to his own.

Re:I plead ignorance

[Rand Race]

Sorry, I didn't know we were only concerned with improving your C++ and Perl skills, I was coming from the angle of improving C++ or Perl themselves. You are right, you don't need to know about Babbage for that. Same as a fry cook doesn't need to know the history of grease traps. If you aspire to more than dredge work, say creating your own programming language or engineering a new method for cooking fries, then you will need to know your history.

But if you are content being the high tech equivlent of a brain-dead, teenage, minimum-wage earning fry cook, ignorance is perfectly acceptable.

Good Historical Overview

[mikey_boy]

I found Computer: A History of the Information Machine, by Martin Campbell-Kelly and William Aspray gave a good overview of the history of computing ... not too detailed but gives enough to lead you to know what you want to find out more about ...

Babbage - a geek who made it?

[tomknight]

"...[Babbage] became the hit of London's social circle and it was often the mark of a party's success or failure as to whether Babbage had accepted an invitation to attend...."

Ahh, geek as social success.... good to see that some things never change ;-)

Tom.

Re:Babbage - a geek who made it?

[Schwarzchild]

I believe that Charles Babbage was one of the people who held the position of Lucasian Professor of Mathematics at Cambridge.

Perhaps it was that they had one of the leading minds in their midst that excited them...sort of like having Hawking drop in on an episode of Star Trek.

*LOL*

[Troed]

I wonder if this Anonymous Coward realised just now what a fool he made of himself yesterday.

Re:*LOL*

[Alsee]

I wonder if this [slashdot.org] Anonymous Coward realised just now what a fool he made of himself yesterday.

No, you just labeled yourself as humor impaired. His Charles Babbage comment was obviously a joke. Note that it was modded +1 funny.

Re:*LOL*

[Troed]

Anything ignorant americans write is considered funny by the rest of the world :) Slashdot is my main laughter of the day.

Read the whole thread, the americans in there weren't joking - and that's plain scary.

(i.e, one of them said that although yes, Europeans have cellular SMS, no one he knows see the point of having it. I guess the 3/4 of a billion (!) SMS sent _each day_ by the rest of the world just show that we're .. uh .. lagging behind the US? *lol*)

Re:*LOL*

[Troed]

(oh, forgot, it wasn't +1 funny when I linked to it in this thread - I'm quite sure it was my comment about it that caused that moderation just now ;)

Re:*LOL*

[s390]

I'm one of the several hundred thousand Europeans protesting against USA-sponsored terrorism.

By writing that as your sig on Slashdot? Kewl, now there's a way to troll flamebait online without ever having to think up anything cogent or even rise from your keyboard. You must be one of those over-privileged '1337 Eurotrash kids who reads comics instead history, smug in your nanny continent that the USA wrenched from tyranny and then rebuilt and protected from another vile menace for decades, not too long ago. You don't have to be grateful for that (after all, most of it probably happened before you were born). But you do need to understand that when the United States is attacked by tyrants or terrorists, we will proceed to kick ass and take names, make no mistake about it! We won't be asking any permission for self-defense.

I passed through Europe on the way to Kuwait, six months before Iraq invaded to kick off the Gulf War. The Lockerbie bombing of Pan Am 103 was recent history. There were armored personnel carriers on the tarmac at Hamburg airport and very visible security guards in the terminal carrying automatic weapons. Luggage was matched to an individual passenger. Europe was cleaning up small cells of home-grown communist terrorists (Red Brigades, Bader Meinhof, etc.). (Switzerland was even tighter on the trip back - I had to go to an isolated corridor, identify my bags, and open them for search.) Acting out in that environment could have easily gotten you shot dead, official explanations later if ever. You are hopelessly naive.

Re:*LOL*

[s390]

...that's naive! Especially when the US amry displays a fondness for hitting targets like a Red Cross warehouse.

I don't usually reply to AC's, but... _if_ that was an errant bomb (and not a vicious Taliban ruse) it was an error. These things happen, even including "friendly fire" casualties among one's own troops (as happened, unfortunately, in the Gulf War). It's a war. People die. They started it. Remember that.

Re:*LOL*

[the_2nd_coming]

Please, we are not al ignorant. Unfortunatly many Americans are under educated and do not feel the need to study on their own....even if it is just watching the history channel.

Re:*LOL*

[couch]

They who? the afghani people? The red cross?

A few non-afghani terrorists commited a horrific act. The USA started a war.

Re:*LOL*

[Anonymous Coward]

Some times I think that levity in this forum falls on deaf ears.

Re:*LOL*

[Klatma]

Yes, but by protecting the terrorist that commited the act, it is as if they commited the act themselves. Don't forget that every aid worker that is over there now knows the risks and dangers of being there. They know that there is a possibility that they can be blown to tiny bits, even by friendly fire. If they did not accept these risks then they should not have gone over there in the first place. As for the innocent Afganistan people that are killed, I am truely remorseful for that, but it is war and sometimes these things happen. I'm not saying that it is right to kill civilians. Great care must be taken to prevent the loss of innocent life, and I beleive that great care has been taken. If the US and allies were not as careful as they have been the death toll would be in the 10,000+ range in stead of 100 range.

Re:*LOL*

[Anonymous Coward]

> I'm one of the several hundred thousand Europeans protesting against USA-sponsored terrorism.

You folks prefer appeasment, huh.

Re:*LOL*

[JimPooley]

Americans fund the bombing of Britain. FACT.
Will Bush's war against terrorism include the countless numbers of Americans who give money to the IRA to buy guns and bombs with?
How many people in New York have contributed to bombs which have killed people in London?
How many will go on funding the IRA to make more bombs to kill more people?
Americans support terrorism by funding the IRA. FACT.

Re:*LOL*

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm one of the several hundred thousand Europeans protesting against USA-sponsored terrorism.

Good. Then I trust you won't mind when we don't come to your aid when Muslim fanatics strike your country. Ungrateful bastard.

~~~

Re:*LOL*

[Anonymous Coward]

I passed through Europe on the way to Kuwait, six months before Iraq invaded to kick off the Gulf War. The Lockerbie bombing of Pan Am 103 was recent history. There were armored personnel carriers on the tarmac at Hamburg airport and very visible security guards in the terminal carrying automatic weapons. Luggage was matched to an individual passenger. Europe was cleaning up small cells of home-grown communist terrorists (Red Brigades, Bader Meinhof, etc.). (Switzerland was even tighter on the trip back - I had to go to an isolated corridor, identify my bags, and open them for search.) Acting out in that environment could have easily gotten you shot dead, official explanations later if ever.

*WoW* You've managed to squeeze over30 years of history into one airport stop ever. Well done!

You are hopelessly naive.

And you are a hopelessly liar.

Re:*LOL*

[Anonymous Coward]

protecting the terrorist that commited the act

Umm, no.

How about "by protecting the terrorist that the US believe probably committed the act, even though they refuse to show anybody their proof"

Re:*LOL*

[3am]

agree or disagree with you, you're a real dickhead.

kurt vonnegut, in cat's cradle, talks about 'granfallooners'. they are meaningless association among people (ie 'hey, we both have black hair!')

to think that short-sightedness and insularity are any more american than they are 'non-american' is just amusingly ignorant.

in making such a broad and silly generalization, you're just as guilty as the people you mock of small-mindedness.

Re:*LOL*

[meehawl]

Who started it? The Afghani people, the "Afghani" jihad warriors, the dispossessed Palestianians, the Israelis? JimPooley made a valid point. For 20 years, Irish-American social and terrorist groups in the US funded a massive bombing campaign in Britain and Ireland that slaughtered thousands. Over this time, scores of people -- some fundraisers, some terrorists -- found refuge in the US and despite British and Irish please, were not extradited. Sometimes for "lack of evidence", sometimes because of legal loopholes, sometimes because of sympathetic authorities. Should Britain have started bombing the states where these people resided? Would Britain have been justified in killing innocent people to try to force the US government to change its policies? The only way out of this honourably is using international law and international courts of justice. The South Africans waited generations for justice. The people in the Balkans have waited nearly a decade. But eventually, given enough concerted military and political pressure, war criminals can be brought to justice. But the US has always flouted international law, having been found guilty several times of war crimes itself. Obviously, no. The Afghan situation is uncomfortably similar. These are the people you're bombing.

Re:*LOL*

[Troed]

You feel good about being a rasist? Nazi swine.

Re:*LOL*

[Alsee]

You feel good about being a rasist? Nazi swine.

Sigh. The American attacks against Al Queda/Bin Laden/Taliban have nothing to do with race. Heck, it would make things much simpler if is was Canada we were bombing.
You state that you are European. No matter where you are in Europe your government leaders are supporting the US. There is a good reason for that. They know more than you do about the situation. The US government is keeping a lot of information under wraps - sharing some of it only with world leaders. #1 They have Iron clad information on who is responsible. #2 The terrorist attack/threat was bigger than generally known. A LOT bigger. My best estimate is that the attack has been no more than 10% successful. The other 90% was either intercepted, foiled, disrupted, failed, blacked out of the news, and/or still out there.
#2 is being kept secret to prevent panic. #1 is being kept secret for 2 reasons - firstly many of the sources of information were already of classified nature, secondly they are still using those sources of information to hunt down the remaining threats. The remaining threats still exceed the damage done on Sept 11.
Bin Laden has STATED that the attacks will continue. Preventing more attacks is not revenge, it is self-defence.

Re:*LOL*

[Troed]

You need to look up the definition of racism. Stating that you should be afraid of Muslims is a rasist comment - stating that you should be afraid of terrorists is not.

The afghan people, being bombed by the US, has had nothing to do with the attacks. The US is well known for killing innocent civilians whenever they feel it's necessary - and in this case it's just more obvious than usual.

I said a while back, and I repeat, that I expect that the third world war will be started by the US - trying to impose "the American Way" upon people who DON'T WANT IT.

Re:*LOL*

[Anonymous Coward]

Erm...you guys in the US don't have SMS...? You're kidding right? I mean...even New Zealand has SMS!

Re:*LOL*

[Alsee]

Stating that you should be afraid of Muslims is a rasist comment

I never said that, and if anyone else here did then I missed it.

The afghan people, being bombed by the US, has had nothing to do with the attacks.

The bombing is precision bombing. Very few non-terrorist non-taliban getting hit. If there were some way to reduce the innocent civilian casualties to zero then that would be great. Unfortunately it's not possible. Considering the raw tonnage of bombs dropped it's pretty impressive the death toll is so low. Bin Laden has stated the terrorist attacks will continue. The USA has a right to defend itself.

The lies of the USA

Heh, pretty funny. I've been to that website before. The articles at Indimedia are &lt Ahem&gt slightly biased.

Lets see what the article you linked to says:

title "The Taliban Is GOOD - don't believe Western propaganda"

"The Soviet Invasion" What does any of that have to do with anything?

"the Taliban" It pretty much says the Taliban are good because things were bad before, from the war. There was no government. Now there is. Well, isn't that a ringing endorsement! It says the Taliban treat women well.

Ummm, what's all this nonsence I keep hearing about RAWA?
"forbids us to let our women walk around like prostitutes" If any woman who goes to college, gets a job in a store, or even shows here face in public is a prostitute deserving to be beaten, I think maybe you have a slightly different definition of prostitute than I do.

"Afghanistan does have a true religion, and that is Islam". Oh goody, they have the correct religion, everyone else has the wrong religion. They must be the good guys!

USA policy is freedom of religion. Islam is practiced within the USA.

Bin Laden: "maybe the United States is looking for a scapegoat"

Ummm, if Bin Laden isn't responsible then why the hell is he releasing video tapes to the press stating that freezing his money won't stop him, and that the terrorist attacks will continue?

"Sanctions...children died" Ah, yes. The Children. Well, I guess if you don't belive Bin Laden is responsible then you don't belive the Taliban knew anything about it either.

Why the hell are the Taliban siezing/attempting to tax the food aid shipments into Afghanistan?

"the statues" Yeah, I saw it on the news. Whatever. At least six freaking paragraphs about the statues.

"Afghanistan is not a terrorist state; we cannot even make a needle. How are we going to be a terrorist state? How are we going to be a
threat to the world?"

Oh, ok then. If Afghanistan can't even make a needle then I guess it's impossible to organize people to hijack planes and kill.

Re:*LOL*

[Troed]

by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 17, @12:33PM (#2442170)
I'm one of the several hundred thousand Europeans protesting against USA-sponsored terrorism.

Good. Then I trust you won't mind when we don't come to your aid when Muslim fanatics strike your country. Ungrateful bastard.

There's your racist.

Now to quote you:


The bombing is precision bombing. Very few non-terrorist non-taliban getting hit. If there were some way to reduce the innocent civilian casualties to zero then that would be great. Unfortunately it's not possible. Considering the raw tonnage of bombs dropped it's pretty impressive the death toll is so low. Bin Laden has stated the terrorist attacks will continue. The USA has a right to defend itself.

Don't you see the problem here? You've just justified killing innocent civilians because _you_ consider yourself at war. Now wake up - the afghan people have NOT in any way supported attacks on your country. They're NOT at war with the US. If there's any evidence (I haven't seen any, have you?) that bin Laden is behind the attacks - then why haven't the US agreed to the Taliban offer to have a trial in a neutral country?

Because your precious US state knows they have no evidence that would hold up in court.

Do you know that the terrorists consider themselves to be at war with the US? Do you realise that the arguments you just used are THE SAME as they're using, to justify killing innocent civilians?

No, I don't think so. Americans are so bloody ignorant they don't even question their own press ...

Facts are - the USA is killing innocent civilians who had NOTHING to do with the terrorist attacks. There's NO justification for that, whatsoever.

Re:*LOL*

[Alsee]

&gt I trust you won't mind when we don't come to your aid when Muslim fanatics strike your country
There's your racist.

Yeah, could be. Or could be that he just plugged in the current instance. I think "Muslim fanatics" is probably an accurate description of the known hijackers. I think his sentence would have been much better with "terrorists" or "anyone" in place of "Muslim fanatics".

Americans are so bloody ignorant they don't even question their own press

Unfortunately I'd have to agree with you there, but no more so than in any other country. Some press may be biased, flawed, or even lie. It is inevitable in any system. The important factor is freedom of the press and intense competition between them. Correcting flawed news is news itself, so the system has self correcting pressures built in.

Do you know that the terrorists consider themselves to be at war with the US?

If war is declared on the US then naturally the US declares war back at them. I can't imagine you arguing with that :)

Facts are - the USA is killing innocent civilians who had NOTHING to do with the terrorist attacks. There's NO justification for that, whatsoever.

Innocent civilians reap rewards and suffer consequences of their government. The Nazis attempted to conquer all of europe. Are you going to claim no one had the right to defend themselves from the Nazis if it meant innocent germans would die?

If the attackers hide amongst the innocent then innocents are going to get killed. If those who declared war on the US were to gather in a big empty field then I'm sure the US would be more than happy to drop an army there and fight it out without civilian casualties.

As I said last post, The US has a right to defend itself.

The US response is very unusual. The normal response is to declare war on an entire country. Instead the US is going to great lengths to restrict the attack to the Taliban and Al-Qaida.

All this assumes that the trail of guilt leads back to Bin Laden and Afghanistan.....

#1 The attack on the US is not "past tense". If the US doesn't get the right people there will be more attacks. It simply makes no sense for the US to attack the wrong people.
#2 Assuming you have seen Bin Laden's news videos, can you possibly claim he's not involved? He all but said "Yo, I'm gonna nuke Los Angeles next!"
#3 As you said, war was declared on the US. Wars have a different standard of evidence than a court.
#4 The US has identified the hijackers and has arrested others involved. The US has researched their entire lives. What countries they've been in. Where they've lived, studied, worked. Who they're involved with. Who they've called. Where they came from. All of their financial transactions. All of their possessions.
#5 The US has recordings of phone calls to Al-Qaida just after the attacks.
#6 After the Al-Qaida phone call info leaked to the press there was a massive crackdown on information. You haven't been seeing specific evidence because it would benefit terrorists hiding in the US.

then why haven't the US agreed to the Taliban offer to have a trial in a neutral country?

I'm no expert on international diplomacy, but I can make a few guesses.

#1 Criminals are extradited to be tried in the country where the crime occured. Standard international law.
#2 As you pointed out, war was declared on the US. During a war trials are for people in custody, not attackers.
#3 Convicting Bin Laden won't stop Al-Qaida. The group needs to be wiped out.
#4 Convicting Bin Laden won't do anything about the Taliban. The Tailiban aided Al-Qaida.
#5 The Taliban have lost all credibility. The real whopper was when they claimed that Bin Laden couldn't be quilty because he doesn't have a phone or anything. I really love that one. Somehow not having a phone AFTER the attack means he didn't organize it BEFORE it occured.

Even if you believe the US is "Evil", I don't see how you can possibly dispute the US declaring war on those that declared war on the US, and attacking those that attacked the US.

Re:*LOL*

[Troed]

Even if you believe the US is "Evil", I don't see how you can possibly dispute the US declaring war on those that declared war on the US, and attacking those that attacked the US.

If I bomb something in Denmark, does that give Denmark the right to wage a war against Sweden - even though the Swedish government agrees to have me put to trial on Norway?

Of course not. But the US thinks they're somehow allowed to launch attacks against anyone whenever they want to.

Re:*LOL*

[Alsee]

If I bomb something in Denmark, does that give Denmark the right to wage a war against Sweden

If Sweden was not complicit in the crime, and makes any halfway credible effort to prosecute criminals and prevent future attacks, then no.

If you were part of a large ongoing organization that announced there would be continued attacks, and the organization had the support and approval of Sweden's government, and that government did squat to prevent future attacks, then hell yes.
At that point Sweden is criminal. As a matter of fact in that case I'd bet Denmark could probably get the approval and/or aid of other countries and the UN.

I honestly expected a better reply from you than a strawman argument ignoring the difference between a rouge individual and an organization being aided and protected by a government.

If you can't find a single weak point in all of my last post then maybe it's time to switch sides on this issue :)

Re:*LOL*

[Troed]

I honestly expected a better reply from you than a strawman argument ignoring the difference between a rouge individual and an organization being aided and protected by a government

You've been told by your government and your biased media that Bin Laden is indeed responsible, and that the talibans have supported him. Now, pray tell, have you seen any proof?

No.

That's all the arguments I need to have.

Re:*LOL*

[Alsee]

You've been told by your government and your biased media that Bin Laden is indeed responsible, and that the talibans have supported him. Now, pray tell, have you seen any proof?
No.

Perhaps you were misinformed. That's the only non-insulting explanation I can think of. If you read this entire post and don't believe any of it then I'd be truely fasinated to hear your explanation. Don't forget to explain why anyone would go through all this effort against uninvolved parties.

I did this search using evidence+linking+bin+laden. 3,360 matches returned. I quit after the first 20 results. I'm sure you'll dismiss some of these items, but don't overlook the guilty verdicts in the embassy bombings near the bottom. :) The only reason Bin Laden wasn't tried in court years ago is because the Taliban are protecting him. Note, any link below longer than 1 line is merely to provide the source of the quote.

"Federal authorities have identified more than a dozen hijackers of Middle Eastern descent in Tuesday's bombings and gathered evidence linking them to Osama bin Laden". Oh yeah, US gov and US media are all lying. Ummm, could you remind me why they'd want to let the actual guilty parties keep blowing stuff up? " Within 48 hours some 4,000 special agents and 3,000 support personnel were assigned to the case, with about 400 FBI laboratory specialists deployed to examine the forensic evidence." There must be over 10,000 people involved in this conspiracy, not even counting everyone in the media.

"A German government spokesman said Wednesday that German, British, French and Israeli secret services had also linked the Saudi dissident to the world's worst terrorist atrocity." Ummm, I guess that means Germany, England, France, and Isreal are part of the conspiracy too? Could you give me a clue why?

During an active investigation eveidence is kept confidential. Here's the leak that prompted a major lockdown on information: "A US Senator Orrin Hatch has said that FBI official intercepted telephone calls, which indicated bin Laden had been involved in plotting the attacks on New York and Washington." Damn, would have been helpful if other operatives in the US phoned Al-Qaida too. I guess that's the end of that source of evidence.

The specific evidence may not be public, but governments are getting to see it. "Meanwhile, the U.S. began providing its allies with what some governments said is clear evidence linking Saudi-born Osama bin Laden to the Sept. 11 attacks. Some reports said that evidence includes records of communications by bin Laden's aides, notes left by suicide hijackers before the attacks, and reports that some of the hijackers received training in bin Laden's military camps."
and "information linking Osama bin Laden with the terrorist's plot. Britain's Tony Blair has seen it. Pakistan's top leaders have seen it. Some evidence has even been published on the Internet." I guess we have to add Japan and Pakistan to the conspiracy list.

"Authorities are also reported to have been gathering evidence that some of those involved in Tuesday's attacks may also have been behind, among others, the bombing of the USS Cole off Yemen and the Millennium bombing plot on U.S. soil." Oh yeah, must be more dis-information.

Specific public evidence hard to come by on in any active investigation, but there's plenty of evidence on the 1998 embassy bombings available. Take a look at this declassified summary of findings of the FBI investigation into the Kenya and Tanzania embassy bombings on August 7, 1998. Written November 18, 1998. There was enough evidence to indict Bin Laden and others on murder and other charges. "In total, the U.S. government has public indictments against 26 members of bin Laden's international group, Al Qaeda. Of those men, three have pleaded guilty and are cooperating with the U.S. government as witnesses. Four were tried this year [and convicted]. Six are in custody in the U.S. or abroad and are awaiting trial. Thirteen, including bin Laden himself, are fugitives. The six other bin Laden associates in custody include several high-ranking members of Al-Qaeda." August 1997 raid on El Hage's house in Nairobi yielded this letter linking Bin Laden to the cell that bombed the embassy.

And Bin Laden implicates himself: "journalists with access to bin Laden said he and his followers openly boasted in recent months that they were preparing for attacks against the United States in retaliation for American support of Israel.
A videotape has been circulating in the Middle East for several months in which bin Laden recites a victory poem about the Cole bombing, and then issues a call to arms: 'To all the Mujah: Your brothers in Palestine are waiting for you; it's time to penetrate America and Israel and hit them where it hurts the most.'" and I still say the video Bin Laden released afterwards amounts to a confession and promise to continue.

Re:*LOL*

[Troed]

Perhaps you were misinformed. That's the only non-insulting explanation I can think of. If you read this entire post and don't believe any of it then I'd be truely fasinated to hear your explanation. Don't forget to explain why anyone would go through all this effort against uninvolved parties.

Maybe for the same reason as in 1991? Oil. You _do_ know that Oil companies want to run pipelines over Afghanistan, right? That's public info (and no, I won't bother to link - you seem to know your way around search engines ;)

You _do_ know why Saddam Hussein (the most likely culprit when it comes to the Anthrax-attacks) is still in charge in Iraq, right? You don't? Ok - well, if the US had killed him off, Iran would've moved in - and your government is _very_ afraid of an even bigger Iran. Blame your own government for the Anthrax deaths. While you're at it, blame them for the WTC attacks as well, you know, it _was_ the CIA who trained Osama bin Laden and gave him weapons to fight those nasty russians ..

Yes, I could keep going - but there's no point. You don't _want_ to question your government and your media, which is plainfully obvious.

As a last note: I often find it amusing reading news about the bombings in Afghanistan on first aftonblandet.se (Sweden's biggest newspaper) and then cnn.com ... while you se big headlines like "100 civilians killed in USA bombing, confirmed by AP reporter" in our headlines, CNN reports the same incident as "talibans claim civilians losses, no confirmation possible. American command dismisses claims".

But, of course, your government never lies. Ever. They've never done that. Of course. They really just want what's best for people everywhere. Yeah. They're not doing it to secure oil deliveries. Nope. Not at all.

Sigh. How does it feel to be so ignorant - really?

Re:*LOL*

[Alsee]

Wow. You believe that the Oil Companies are behind it all. I read your post and just blurted out "Wow".

Oil Companies have a significant amount of influence, but I think you're several orders of magnitude out of scale.

You propose that the Oil Companies have total control of not only of the US government, 10 thousand investigators, 10 thousand of the US media (do you have any clue how many newspapers there are here?), but also of the governments and media of Germany, England, France, Israel, Japan and Pakistan? (Just to list the ones in my post).

Oh yeah - the Oil companies also control the court system. Ummm, why were the Oil Companies interested in indicting Bin Laden for the embassy bombings in 1998? And why did they convict members of Al-Qaida? Even if I accepted your theory I can't figure out the logic there.

Ummm, and I guess the Oil Companies made fake videotapes of Bin Laden talking about attacking America? ummm, maybe I'm dense - this is REALLY not making much sense to me.

You _do_ know that Oil companies want to run pipelines over Afghanistan, right?
Somehow I don't think that manufacturing a war the simplest or cheapest way to pump oil.

You _do_ know why Saddam Hussein (the most likely culprit when it comes to the Anthrax-attacks) is still in charge in Iraq, right?
I wasn't privy to the decision making process, but I think the main reasons were #1 The US didn't want to upset the surrounding governments and #2 I think they really believed that he would have been overthrown from within.

you know, it _was_ the CIA who trained Osama bin Laden and gave him weapons to fight those nasty russians
Yeah, I know. Cold war proxy battle crap. Too bad the CIA didn't know they would have been better off letting Russia conquer Afghanistan.

You don't _want_ to question your government and your media, which is plainfully obvious.
Hehe, amusing. In case you missed it, I was already familiar with indymedia.org. I specifically went looking for opposing viewpoint news sources for 2 reasons. #1 To catch any USA bias in the news #2 To try to understand the other side. It turns out most Afghan news websites are physically located in the US. I specifically went to the trouble to find out which servers were outside the US using this really cool tool.

But, of course, your government never lies. Ever.
No, everybody lies. But I think that people in the US government probably lie less than in most other governments because they know the favorite pass time of the US press is to catch them at it.

Sigh. How does it feel to be so ignorant - really?
What I don't know I can research.

Sigh. How does it feel to have delusions that your cat is a secret agent of the Oil Companies?

Re:*LOL*

[Troed]

But I think that people in the US government probably lie less than in most other governments

Thanks, that was the laugh of the day over here :)

Ignorant, as I said.

(PS: I'm dropping the thread, as I said, you really don't _want_ to see the other side of the arguments. To finish off the discussion, bombing afghanistan will only _increase_ the terrorism attacks against the US .. ) However, seing the Bush administration _finally_ putting pressure on Israel is a step in the right direction.

Re:*LOL*

[Alsee]

&gt But I think that people in the US government probably lie less than in most other governments
Thanks, that was the laugh of the day over here :)

You ignored the half the sentence containing my reasoning - "because they know the favorite pass time of the US press is to catch them at it." You didn't even attempt to support your postion. All you did was post your bias. You know the Truth, and the Truth needs no support.

All you have been doing is making unsupported claims. Throughout this thread I have posted evidence and arguments refuting your statments/position. You have not refuted any of my evidence or my arguments. Every time you lose you just ignore it and try a new position. Lets recap:

"because _you_ consider yourself at war." yet you admit that the terrorists declared war on the US.

"The afghan people[innocent civilians], being bombed by the US" You do not appear to dispute that a country may defend itself, even if it means civilians die. Nor do you dispute that the US is going to extrodinary lengths NOT to hit innocent civilians. If an attacker hides among civilians he puts them at risk.

You falsely equate an individual criminal with an organized government supported campaign.

You claim there is no evidence Bin Laden is involved (interesting note: you never actually seem to claim that Bin Laden / Taliban are innocent). You ignore everything I posted, including court convictions.

You claim my evidence pointing to Bin Laden is all a fiction of the Oil Companies. I explain how it is irrational and goes way beyond the power of even magical companies.

You say I don't _want_ to question my position. I have taken each of your statments and considered them. Evaluated them. When necessary researched them, and addressed them. I have given you the opportunity to dispute my conclusions. You are the one with the closed mind.

The best part is how you constantly call me ignorant because I don't accept any of your unsupported accusations. I was already familiar with your sources of information (Indymedia.org). I present reasoned arguments. I do reseach. I post evidence. I address your statements. You do none of these things. And *I'm* the ignorant one!

I'm dropping the thread
When you lose every point and refuse to reconsider your position then the only option left is to quit. You're prejudiced and incapable of a reasoned debate.

Thus far it has been a battle of wits with an unarmed person. If you can find any flaw in my argument I will either repair it or change my position.

Re:*LOL*

[Troed]

I don't have time to educate all the ignorant americans in the world. Open your eyes.

Re:*LOL*

[Alsee]

I don't have time to educate all the ignorant americans in the world. Open your eyes.

Ahhh, Finally a real challenge! Your author Ted Rall is an excellent writer, and makes a strong case. I had to do some tough research on this one.

I thought communism was dead, but he's an "avowed Marxist" and he says he's waiting for the communist revolution. Ok, kinda peculiar, but that doesn't mean he's wrong.

He advocates violence. He says "Peaceful protests are doomed to be ignored. Only a dose of destruction leads to real social change" and "Not only has there never been a revolution without violence, but there's never been meaningful social change without violence"
Well, that doesn't make him wrong either, but it certainly makes him dangerous. Expecially since he's waiting for a communist revolution.

Nope, what makes him wrong is that his facts are really fiction. No joke. He "quotes" Central Asian expert Ahmed Rashid's book Taliban, except the book says nothing of the sort. I bet you don't believe me, well...

I found a website called spinsanity that goes after the idiots on BOTH sides. They soundly thrash Ann Coulter for labeling those who might be against the war "traitors", and they exposed the article you linked to.

In case you can't be bothered to follow the exposed link and read the article, here's a good piece debunking the article you linked to:

To understand just how weak Rall's case is, consider that he argued that the US has oppressed Afghanistan in his previous column , claiming that "[w]e've been at war with Afghanistan for years" and that "[t]his New War is merely an escalation of genocide by trade sanction." How the US could be both "at war with Afghanistan for years" and paying the salaries of Taliban government officials "[a]s recently as 1999" is never explained or even acknowledged.

So, unless you can support the Ted Rall article you linked to, and/or debunk my spinsanity.org article, then you missed again. I'll give you credit though, your link would have been a strong argument if Ted Rall wasn't full of crap. He almost had me fooled too.

Re:*LOL*

[Alsee]

Opps, one of my links is broken...

I found a website called spinsanity that goes after the idiots on BOTH sides. They soundly thrash Ann Coulter for labeling those who might be against the war "traitors"

Re:*LOL*

[Alsee]

ARRRG! I botched the link again!

here's the naked address:

http://www.spinsanity.org/post.html?2001_10_14_a rc hive.html#6442434

Re:*LOL*

[Anonymous Coward]

sloopy, sloopy

Graduates

[Gumshoe]

The article posted on binaryfreedom is both fascinating and
disturbing but also, I think, misleading, as it suggests that
only the educational misfits are ignorant of computer history.
This is emphatically untrue

I've recently "graduated" from a University in England and I'm
ashamed. I would estimate that 90% of my class are ignorant of
not only computer history but also of trans-Windows computing in
general. Their goal in life seems to be to make as much money as
possible and the computer industry is the vehicle for that
"success".

I wish systemtoolbox all the best in their endeavour but I fear
that the only people who will read these articles will be people
who are interested (and hence already familiar) with this
material already.

Re:Graduates

[rm-r]

I also just graduated from an English university reading comp. sci. I think you're right on the history aspect, as far as 'trans-Windows' I think that depends on where you go- having said that in the six years I was at uni (I took an, uh, 'scenic' route through my education ;-) I did see the uni become more and more window-centric. The uni I joined was focused on first principals (we had to program in pascal for a year, and not turbopascal or delphi or such, just basic pascal) to give us the tools to equip ourselves for any computing career- the basic learn to learn thing I guess. The uni I left was a lot more into 'tools that employers want to see', ie Windows NT/2000, SQL server, and so on- great for the first couple of years of your career while these tools are still being used but once they're superceded your stuck without first principals and the ability to figure out which tool is best for the job, why, and how to use them IMHO

As far as the history goes though, I suppose you are supposed to be interested in computing, and are supposed to do a lot of background reading, so I suppose it could be argued that you should have built up an amount by yourself...

Re:Graduates

[pubjames]

I also graduated from a university in England, although it was ten years ago now.

I studied a combined degree of biology and computer science, and so I used to take courses from both the biology and the CS schools.

What struck me then was what a bunch of dunderheads the computer scientists where. Sure, they new the finer points of Unix better than I ever will, but if you asked them to write an essay on the importance of computers to society, for instance, they could hardly string two words together - an average biology student could have done a far better job of it. Frankly most of their essays were embarrassing in their childish views, ignorance, poor grammar and spelling.

And my point is? Well, at least in my experience, I think that many people who are hardcore computer enthusiasts generally have a far more myopic view of the world than people from other subject areas. They are socially inept and interested in very little else but computers, and even then in very narrow fields of computers rather than the bigger picture. I don't know if it has changed, but when I graduated many big employeers complained that computer graduates often lacked the most basic skills. Is it like this in the USA too?

Re:Graduates

[tubs]

Thats amazing, when I started my degree there was a compulsary module we had to take called "The History of Computing". It covered many topics from Babbage to Gates, I would have though every Uni would have had to have something like that - we even got to watch a video series "The Dream Machine" - the highlight of the first year :-)

Re:Graduates

[BluesMoon]

Well, we were taught comp sci in school. We started in the 8th grade (in 1988). The first three months were complete history, starting with the ABACUS, to the slide rule, napier's bones, babbage, gottfried von liebnitz, lady ada lovelace, and the rest. We ended up at the ENIAC, EDSAC and the UNIVAC, and then moved on to the binary number system for another two weeks - conversion, addition, subtraction, multiplication, floating points, etc. Finally, after all that, we started programming in GW-Basic.

All that's changed now. After I left school, they changed the syllabus. CompSci was changed to Computers, and moved down to the primary section. Students started with paint brush.

Jumping forward many years, in my last year of my Master's, I took part in an inter collegiate computer quiz. The finalists were from the best engineering colleges in Mumbai. They were all stumped on one question - "Who wrote the art of computer programming". Some thought it was a movie!! Suffice it to say, my team of two won that quiz through the sheer ineptness of the competition.

These were all good students, from good colleges, studying computer engineering. I'd think that they'd have read Knuth sometime during those four years, but most hadn't even heard of him.

I now teach several courses, and also give lectures for the ACM. I always make it a point to throw in a bit of history into all my lectures. While talking about grep and sed, I mention how they grew out of ed, and why parens have to be escaped in regexes.

The problem seems to be that the people who set the course don't care about history, and the students who study only care about getting out, so what's past is lost.

Philip

Re:Graduates

[pubjames]

we even got to watch a video series "The Dream Machine" - the highlight of the first year :-)

I think this highlights the low intellectual standards of most CS courses, at least in the UK -the fact that they sat you down in front of a video series as part of the course.

As a biology undergraduate, a lecturer would have given you a list of books and papers to read in your own time. You would then be expected to have sufficient knowledge and analytical power to stand in front of the class to debate an issue, such as "Has the development of computers had a positive or negative impact on peoples lives?" or whatever.

I can imagine a bunch of CS students sat in front of a video thinking "this is great, at least they're not making us do proper work".

Re:Graduates

[FirstNoel]

My experience in th US is very similar. I for one am not the best when it comes to writing down/expressing my thoughts. I can right in sentance fragments like the best of them. But general writing/speaking skills were never emphasized.

Sometimes it's tough to formulate my thoughts in the correct fashion. It's not because I'm an idiot, (some would think that). I feel like my mind is always way ahead of where I should be.

For programming this is great, kind of like chess, always being x number of moves beyond where you actually are.

As for writing like right now, I have a lot to say but don't expect to see it. I have to defrag my brain first.

Sean D

Re:Graduates

[Martin S.]

What struck me then was what a &ltsnipped&gtflamebait&ltsnipped&gt

What strikes me is your generalisations; more characteristic of a liberal arts student than scientist of any subject.

Frankly most of their essays were embarrassing in their childish views, ignorance, poor grammar and spelling.

Taking of which: Your own grammer is not so hot is it. Even this illiterate CS grad has spotted eleven mistakes in your post.

Re:Graduates

[pubjames]

Taking of which: Your own grammer is not so hot is it. Even this illiterate CS grad has spotted eleven mistakes in your post.

You've spotted eleven mistakes in my "grammer"? For someone who can't even spell it that's quite an achievement.

Having re-read my original post I will admit to a couple of basic mistakes and typos. But eleven? Please do enlighten me.

Re:Graduates

[Anonymous Coward]

"Sure, they new the finer points of Unix..."

followed by...

"they could hardly string two words together"

'nuff said.

Re:Graduates

[Anonymous Coward]

hey, get over the "grammer" and "eleven mistakes" and pay attention to the important part of what Martin said: you made a stupid sweeping generalization of people who are into copmuters, because once you met some computer guys who weren't very eloquent.

i was offended by your generalizations, but then i read your reply in which you simply ignored relevant criticism, and i realized that you're just not interesting enough to be offended by.

Re:Graduates

[pubjames]

That's a typo. We all make mistakes.

Re:Graduates

[pubjames]

Sorry if you were offended by my comments. But what I said was:

What struck me then was what a bunch of dunderheads the computer scientists where.

I was talking about the computer scientist at the university I attended. They were, in general, a bunch of dunderheads. Some of them weren't, but then that's generalisation for you. It does not mean, however, that I think you are one.

Re:Graduates

[tubs]

I can imagine a bunch of CS students sat in front of a video thinking "this is great, at least they're not making us do proper work".

Oh yes, and why not. Your just jealous.

The videos were not actually compulsary, but they were fun, and allowed you to get a bit of quality time (oo-er) with the lecturer.

Re:Graduates

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, I'm sorry. I thought what you said was:

I think that many people who are hardcore computer enthusiasts generally have a far more myopic view of the world than people from other subject areas. They are socially inept and interested in very little else but computers, and even then in very narrow fields of computers rather than the bigger picture.

Re:Graduates

[pubjames]

What strikes me is your generalisations; more characteristic of a liberal arts student than scientist of any subject.

Funny! I didn't see your amusing irony the first time I read this. Well done!

Re:Graduates

[pubjames]

Yes, I did say that. It is a generalisation. One that I believe to be true. Sorry if you can't cope with it.

Re:Graduates

[BluePenguin]

As a current CS major this sounds all to familiar. I feel like many Universities are beginning to train computer science students instead of educating them.

Many of my classmates are coming into the industry looking for a job. They jabber about "certification this" and "Test prep for X". The school itself is bending which ever way business seems to dictate this year leaving students gasping as courses are added, dropped, or radically altered.

Few of my fellows do anything for the love of it. Computers are thier job. They don't live it, they don't breathe it, and they don't want to. It's disturbing to me that the computing industry is truly becoming an industry, filling in with widgets who have no more interest than punching a clock and taking thier check.

In other news Geek has been added to the Endangered Species List...

:q!

Re:Graduates

[dillon_rinker]

How did they grow out of ed? Why do parentheses have to be escaped in regexes? Where can I find such esoteric history online?

Re:Graduates

[Knara]

I seriously think that this varies _widely_ from program to program (that being degree program, not the other kind). For example, the degree program I am (finally) finishing this December selected coursework so that you couldn't _get_away_ from the history of Computer Science (to the point where the upper division classes were poorly attended for the first week once the "history of computers" bit started, because after a dozen times through it, it started to drag). Then again, I'm not sure how many degree programs include classes on Computer Ethics, either.

But in the case of the systemtoolbox article, I'm not entirely surprised that 2600 members don't know the history of the very scene they're in. It seems like the newer "computer enthusiast" generation in their teens isn't as "do-it-yourself" oriented as we needed to be in the previous 2 or 3 generations (depending on when you make your chronological divisions). A lot of them seem to be inspired by the "cool factor" the computer scene has received lately from movies like "Hackers" (ironically the title of a _great_ book by Steven Levy, whom I'm sure very few kids have read these days) and "the Matrix".

Finally, I too have noticed the glut of people who have entered computer degree programs hoping for easy employment in high paying jobs. It's really annoying, but my two consolations are 1) that a great number of those people don't make it through the early "weed-out" classes, and 2) They tend to not have the drive that "true" enthusiasts have, so serve as a good basis for allowing me to excel when it comes to grading curves >=)

Re:Graduates

[BluedemonX]

RE: What strikes me is your generalisations; more characteristic of a liberal arts student

Was this unintentional? Or a play on "that's a typical generalisation?"

"Taking of which: Your own grammer is not so hot is it."

Not as bad as your spelling. :)

Liberal Arts is overhyped. When I went to uni I did the IBM thing and took Liberal Arts. What a hotbed of empty-headed left wing slogan-mongering and prejudicial doggerel masquerading as "progressive thinking". I actually heard some shaven-headed "womyn" student (and I use the term loosely) explain to me that given that they could put a man on the moon, the reason why they couldn't make a male birth control pill was phallocratic misogyny. When I started explaining the research (as a contributor (financially) to the MRC male contraception research team) she claimed I was trying to "blind her with science", a typical MALE trick. The discussion degenerated worse when she actually asserted the reason there's no cure for AIDS is that the oppressive patriarchy is homophobic and racist. I walked out of this "student"'s lecture with the full permission of the professor.

SkR1pT K1dd13Z

[StaticEngine]

I can't say I'm surprised that the "hacker youth" is disconnected with the past. Who doesn't know teens like this? In this consumer-oriented society, the focus is on having and bragging about it, not on doing or knowing.

Hell, when I was that age, I used to read computer magazines in class, and a girl who sat next to me once asked "why I read those things?" Since she was hot and I was shocked that she was actually speaking to me, I answered the not quite accurate "it tells me how to fix them," to which she replied, "why don't you just take it to the shop?" Likewise, several months ago, I was talking with a younger cousin about the video game industry (where I'm currently working), and we were discussing what makes games good. His entire list of quality games was less than a year old, and when I mentioned Pac Man and the Infocom games, he had only the vaguest clue that such things once existed. Furthermore, his interests were more in how to get rich writing games rather than how a programmer actually writes good AI routines, or an artist animates characters realisticaly.

The point is, there will always be a large element of society, at any age, which is both ignorant and uninterested in the history of anything. Most of these people will remain in the realm of Average Consumer, while the inquisitive will go forth, research the past, and build the future. The danger comes from the past-less few who simply abuse the tools that are available to them, or arguably worse, become the leaders who direct the doers of society, with little grip on why the wheels of progress turn a certain way, and no concern for how they're powered to enable to future. Because when the percieved joy is in reaching the destination, rather than within the journey itself, it tends to be one hell of a bumpy ride that doesn't exactly pave a smooth road for those who follow.

Re:SkR1pT K1dd13Z

[Dolly_Llama]

I used to read computer magazines in class, and a girl who sat next to me once asked "why I read those things?"

Note to self, Reading Wired and 2600 does NOT impress the babes (or really anyone else). Maybe I should take the Tao of Steve approach.

Re:SkR1pT K1dd13Z

[naasking]

Isn't the whole reason you're reading those things is not to impress people but to learn? Then there's no problem. :-)

Re:SkR1pT K1dd13Z

[pi_rules]

The point is, there will always be a large element of society, at any age, which is both ignorant and uninterested in the history of anything.


Yeah... imagine the shock on my face when an older, degreed, co-worker who had programmed in C for 8 years at a previous position had to ask what "K&R" was when I mentioned it in a discussion. Giving the names wasn't enough, I had to actually tell him what they did. It was even more amazing because I'm 15-16 years younger than he. It's not just a "problem" with younger people... some people just don't care and don't pick up information like they perhaps should be doing.

Developers....

[Anonymous Coward]

Developers, developers, developers, developers, developers!

cluelessness on the "this" link

[Anonymous Coward]

"He used a Captain Crunch whistle to generate a 2600 kilohertz tone to get free phone calls..."

2,600,000 Hz, that's a pretty high pitch!

Re:cluelessness on the "this" link

[Anonymous Coward]

haha, the author of that piece may be a computing god, but he's still a science kiddie.

Charles Baggage - father of the suitcase

[jweatherley]

Looks like a rogue spell checker got at the system toolbox article:

While still a young boy, Baggage was concerned with questions of "how" over those of "why.".

Think about it

[CropCircles]

Quote for article:

The funny thing is that the expression of this "disorder" can be fingered early in life. One can watch for the early warning signs. Children that take apart watches or have a penchant for building elaborate structures from blocks may just be engineers in their pupae stage. By all accounts, Babbage definitely was afflicted by the time of his boyhood. His tinkering with things, his dismantling of gadgets, and his inquisitiveness as to how things worked are all sure signs. While the draw of engineering can be sublimated if caught early and treated with care,

Maybe, ti just might be that the hackers and crackers are just not "evil" as they are made out. Instead of opening watches and playing with blocks they toy around with computers. I say this because recently there was news about a kid being prisoned and I cannot help but wonder at the wasted potential.

Re:Think about it

[dangermouse]

Maybe, ti just might be that the hackers and crackers are just not "evil" as they are made out. Instead of opening watches and playing with blocks they toy around with computers.

This rather doofy rationale has been expounded before. The counterargument, of course, is that if kids tinker with locks it's one thing... when they tinker with the locks on other peoples' buildings and go walking around inside, it's another entirely.

You don't get to "tinker" with other people's stuff. How anyone could think one should be granted that right because one is "curious", I'll never understand.

Re:Think about it

[Djaak]

Maybe, ti just might be that the hackers and crackers are just not "evil" as they are made out.

I think the theory outlined in this 1985 paper about "hackers" (ok, crackers) ethics is still valid : these are mostly young teenagers whose idea of what's wrong and what's right isn't better or worse than that of most kids this age. The author argues that kids breaking into a computer system are at the same level of moral developement as other kids hot-wiring a car for a joyride. Both are just immature vandals, but the thing is that damage caused by computer vandalism is usually much worse.

Re:Think about it

[Steve Cox]

So maybe we should give the script kiddes some watches/lego to play with.

Steve.

Re:Think about it

[dgroskind]

...the hackers and crackers are just not "evil" as they are made out.

Or at least, they aren't beyond redemption. The infamous Captain Crunch seems to have turned his life around and is now a productive member of society.

But evil is not the issue. The law punishes people for what they do, not who they are. Just as they should not be punished for being evil, they should not be spared punishment because they are fundamentally decent.

Many of us have more sympathy for hackers than other types of juvenile delinquents because we recognize some of the same impulses in ourselves. To the extent we advocate mercy for hackers we are also asking for mercy for ourselves. We probably shouldn't let ourselves off the hook so easily either.

Re:Think about it

[CropCircles]

This rather doofy rationale has been expounded before. The counterargument, of course, is that if kids tinker with locks it's one thing... when they tinker with the locks on other peoples' buildings and go walking around inside, it's another entirely.

Yes. That is why I said "kids". They are not adults or grown ups and do not fully understand the implications of their actions. Most are teens that are under tremendous peer pressure. They have much more to contribute to society and their own lives rather than living on with guilt and frustrations.

Next time please resist this urge to score points and if you find my rationale doofy and beleive kids should be put in prison well that says a lot about you.

Quote by Ken Thompson:

[Futurepower(tm)]

The quote by Ken Thompson at the bottom of the article referenced in the Slashdot story is from a very interesting speech, Reflections on Trusting Trust.

Here is the quote:

"I have watched kids testifying before Congress. It is clear that they are completely unaware of the seriousness of their acts. There is obviously a cultural gap. The act of breaking into a computer system has to have the same social stigma as breaking into a neighbor's house. It should not matter that the neighbor's door is unlocked. The press must learn that misguided use of a computer is no more amazing than drunk driving of an automobile."


What should be the Response to Violence?

Re:Quote by Ken Thompson:

[Anonymous Coward]

What should be the Response to Violence?

According to the US president, bombing Afghanistan.

Re:Quote by Ken Thompson:

[Anonymous Coward]

What should be the Response to Violence?

Please put this in your sig.

Isaac Newton or Cave Man

[shredds]

Someone important in British Literature once said, "If I appear so tall, it is because I stand on the shoulders of Giants." (If you can remember who that was, you've got mad skills).
I always think its important to learn about one's roots, but I don't think its as important as understanding our contemporaries.
Sure, Babbage was revolutionary and laid a big foundation for where we are today. But so did all of the people who laid foundations for him; and the people who laid foundations for those people. Without Faraday computers wouldn't exist. Without Newton computers wouldn't exist. Without Aristotle, etc. etc.
Does scrutinizing Aristotle (or Babbage for that matter) propel our computer knowledge farther than if we spent more time studying Kevin Mitnick or Bill Gates [even those who despise him must agree he changed the computing world, for better or worse is not the question]. Does knowing about the history of the punch card help us as much as understanding the status of quantum computing?
The whole premise of computer science is to abstract layers upon layers so the guy who takes over can do more without having to understand fully the layers below him. Knowing about those layers is good, but do you need to know about how capacitors charge in order to write a solid C code?
Where does one draw the line between useful information and cool things to talk about at a party?

Re:Isaac Newton or Cave Man

[mammux]

Bill Gates changed the world of computing? I always considered him more of a distributor than a developer.

-Magnus

Re:Isaac Newton or Cave Man

[rm-r]

I'm pretty certain that quote was Newton himself after being refered to as a maths great or something

Re:Isaac Newton or Cave Man

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, it's attributed to Newton.

Re:Isaac Newton or Cave Man

[shredds]

Actually...Newton had a very similar quote. I believe he said that if he "sees further" it is because he is standing on the shoulders of giants. Coleridge had a very simlilar quote as well. I believe it is someone from British Literature (maybe John Donne or Jonathan Swift)...is remembering who said the quote really all that important? (which comes back to my original point).

Re:Isaac Newton or Cave Man

[jeremyp]

Newton said "If I have seen further it is because I stand on the shoulders of giants". Taken out of context it seems like a noble thing to say, but it was actually intended as an insult to Robert Hooke his contemporary and hated rival, who was very short and by all accounts sensitive about the fact.

Re:Isaac Newton or Cave Man

[poemofatic]

I think the context of that quote was that Hooke objected to Newton not giving him proper credit for "Hooke's Law" --that the restoring force of a spring is proportional to its displacement from equilibrium. Newton then did some research and found about 20 other guys who also "discovered" this rather obvious observation, and cited all of them, placing Hooke's name last on the list. Then he fired off this quote. So the real message is more of a flame of Hooke, yet most people consider it some great admission of humility.

Re:Isaac Newton or Cave Man

[Pogue Mahone]

Bill Gates changed the world of computing?

Yeah, it was going just fine till he came along ... ;-)

Re:Isaac Newton or Cave Man

[pmc]

Newton said "If I have seen further it is because I stand on the shoulders of giants". Taken out of context it seems like a noble thing to say, but it was actually intended as an insult to Robert Hooke his contemporary and hated rival, who was very short and by all accounts sensitive about the fact.

Nope - this is (probably) a fallacy. See this for the details.

Re:Isaac Newton or Cave Man

[dgroskind]

So the real message is more of a flame of Hooke, yet most people consider it some great admission of humility.

In case you missed it, I must refer you to another post by pmc in this thread that points to an very interesting article that refutes your conclusion fairly decisively.

Re:Isaac Newton or Cave Man

[dgroskind]

Where does one draw the line between useful information and cool things to talk about at a party?

Knowledge does not have to be either useful or cool in order to be valuable.

One common approach is that of Cardinal Newman in the Idea of a University: Knowledge is capable of being its own end. Such is the constitution of the human mind, that any kind of knowledge, if it be really such, is its own reward.

The other common approach is to follow Socrates' dictim that "The unexamined life is not worth living", which he derived from his belief that ignorance causes evil.

These approaches still leave unanswered the question of where you draw the line between learning and other activities, knowledge being infinite and time being short.

I submit that there is no line. Learning includes close observation of things around you. In this way you integrate a love learning with everyday life and test the ideas acquired in solitary study.

Despite the fact that most great scientists have been more motivated by the love of learning than anything else, I've found that people who insist that knowledge must have a utilitarian purpose cannot be convinced otherwise.

Re:Isaac Newton or Cave Man

[poemofatic]

I did miss that thread, and thanks for pointing out the essay. My source is much less authorative, since it's my physics teacher from uni. and some old department folklore.

jeez

[TheMMaster]

What I find most disturbing is not that these kids don't know everything about computer history but that they also don't seem to care... I must admit that I didn't know all the people mentioned in the story on binary but I looked up the bios if those people...
This is happening all around us and not only in computer history, how many kids care about history at all??? How many kids know stuff about the first world war, Newton and the old philosophers like Aristoteles ???

I must say this does worry me...

Re:jeez

[dangermouse]

You wanna see something really scary? Ask some teenagers to name all of the Beatles.

And I'm only 22.

Re:jeez

[Pogue Mahone]

You can tell you've been in front of the screen too long when ...

"... I looked up the bios if[sic] those people..."

But the average person doesn't have a BIOS ...

Oh, sorry, biographies

Re:jeez

[WildBeast]

No, just ask them who John Lennon is. You'll be surprised.

Re:jeez

[GlassUser]

Who?

Re:jeez

[Anonymous Coward]

Many (younger) people seem to have a vague idea that he has something to do with Russia...

Don't think so...

[HiQ]

In the sciencemuseum in Londen they built Difference engine no.2. See Babbage at the science museum

Re:Don't think so...

[Anonymous Coward]

they built Difference engine no.2

This has been fixed in the article. The line now reads: Her notes and Babbage's unearthed plans helped this vindication even further when a working and more complex Difference Engine No. 2, the precursor to the Analytical Engine, was constructed by Science Museum in London in 1991.

Thanks for the input.

what else can I say...?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey, hacked any gibsons lately?

And another thing...

[Pogue Mahone]

... that's not so widely known about Charles Babbage is his cryptanalysis expertise. It was he who first cracked the Vigenere polyalphabetic substitution cipher (previously considered to be uncrackable).

For some reason he didn't publish his results. Some believe that he was told not to by the British government, so that they could use his discovery during the Crimean war. Babbage's work on this subject was discovered in his notebooks after his death.

Re:And another thing...

[Anonymous Coward]

Babbage didn't publish because of the DMCA!?!

knowing historical computing

[Anonymous Coward]

I've been "into" computers for a fairly long time (for me, I'm 22). Ironically enough, what spawned my interest into the history of computers was a typing program for DOS (Typing Tutor, I think) on our old IBM XT clone back in the mid - late 80's. The practice typing text involved the history of computing, starting with Charles Babbage and Ada Lovelace (as I recall it also mentioned programmable looms in the middle east as possibly being the first computers).

I've done some reading since (I'm proud to say I could identify all the names in the binaryfreedom article) and I'm presently reading "Hackers" by Steven Levy (yeah, I know, it's been out for a while but I haven't gotten around to it until now).

I find it incredible when I look at people even at work - I work at a tech service company - who have no grasp of computing history. Many of these people are nice people, and some of them quite smart, but many still can't get past their tech college "education". Some of them know what Unix is, but look at me like I'm either crazy or a guru because I've set up Linux and *bsd a few times. If I said "who is ken thompson" or "what is Multics" they wouldn't have a clue. Same can be said with any name other than Bill Gates. It's really quite sad.

I find such ignorance (willful or otherwise) impacts my co-workers' abilities to come up with innovative solutions. For example, I have found it extremely useful to understand the "Unix way" of doing things when approaching a problem, even though we run and support mostly Win32.

As someone once said, "Those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it." (or words to that effect).

Glenn

Reading List

[luckykaa]

I'd suggest "The Cogwheel Brain" By Doron Swade (ISBN: 0 316 64847 7 ) for a very good history of the Difference Engine, as well as an account of the the Science Museum (London) building a replica.

For some nice hacker (i.e. cracker and phreaker) history, I'd suggest Approaching Zero by Brian Clough and Paul Mungo.

Re:That's nothing..

[Anonymous Coward]

I use my rod to compute with daily, and it runs at room temperature without a heatsink or fan.

I have one of those. I like to call it my "Captain Crunch whistle". I use it to get free phone calls; actually, I don't get free calls, but it does save me from typing in the numbers manually.

One 2600 meeting does not a sample make.

[mindpixel]

My advice is to make the effort and go to H2K2 and get a real sample. I think you will find like I did when I spoke at H2K, that the majority are well informed about our history.

Like any culture, our culture needs to be taught! Only so many can have had first hand experience and there are less of us each day. Yet, each day, there are more just coming into interest who need to be taught. If you find such a teacherless group of people interested in computers, you should take it upon yourself to teach who we are.

Show people the first computer you ever programmed. Show them the games you played and wrote. Show them how to say "Hello World!" directly with a Turing Machine or in Java and everything between.

Tell them about Norbert Wiener and Marie Ampere. Warren McCulloch, J.C.R. Licklider, John von Neumann and Vannevar Bush. Alan Turing, Claude Shannon and David Levy (yes Ken Thompson too and Belle). Scott Adams(all three) and Stanislaw Lem. Joeseph Weizenbaum and Eliza, Alaxander Bain and Donald Hebb. Nolan Bushnell, Ted Dabney and Larry Bryan. Alan Kay and Steve Russell. David Gottieb, Joel Hochberg and Al Arcorn. Thomas Hobbes and Levithan. Charles Darwin, Erasmus Darwin and Thomas Huxley. Aristotle and Lucretius. Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, Charles Babbage and Blaise Pascal. B. F. Skinner and Wilhelm Wundt. Robert Tinney and Peter Max. J. Presper Eckert and John Mauchly. John McCarthy and Marvin Minsky. Doug Lenat, Push Singh and myself.

We will always need more teachers who know how to both show and to tell!

Re:One 2600 meeting does not a sample make.

[schmelter_tim]

Like any culture, our culture needs to be taught!

Hear, hear! But a meme needs a route to propagate. Who's going to do it?

Universities aren't interested just in "educating" future academics; they've got a vested interest in crafting a workforce. Their funding derives in large part from donations from business leaders, and those leaders want employees who can program, not employees who have an appreciation for Babbage. An analogy would be to business schools: Graduates are expected to solve "real-world" (as academia sees it) problems, not be able to discourse on the history of efficiency experts. B-Schools aren't so much interested in giving their students a full and complete history of business methods as they are in providing a little bit of context to their graduates, who move on to become employees, who move on to become "leaders", who--they hope--move on to become future corporate alumni donors.

So who educates the next generation (or the current generation; I'm painfully aware of my own ignorance in these matters)? Well, where did you learn about Babbage? Some of us probably learned about him in an academic setting, but I'm guessing that informal channels played a much more important role for most technophiles--if for no other reason then the aggressively informal culture of high-tech in general. I wasn't attracted to computers because there was such a rich history of thought and intellectual culture behind them. I was jazzed by bells, whistles and blinkenlights. Once I got involved, it was an informal network of peers, books, net sites, and conversations that led to expanding my knowledge into historical considerations.

Re:One 2600 meeting does not a sample make.

[mindpixel]

We need roving teachers... HackMasters... who set HackerDojos in every city.

We have one here in Antofagasta, Chile where I live... actually it's just my apartemnt, but I can say from direct experience that the new generating of hackers love to hang out and learn with the older generation... they just love to see my KIM-1 and TRS-80 Model I... my Cray 1 S/1000 supercomputer memory card... my collection of BYTE, 80 Micro, & Kilobaud... my books (especially my books because there is no such thing as a free public library in Chile)... to hear my hacking war stories and most interestingly, to work on new developement projects with me.

Make your self into a HackMaster.

Teach!

CS and History...

[glebite]

I interview a lot of co-op students for job placements in the company that I work for now, and for large company in the past. Sometimes, I get some really cocky student who comes in with a smug attitude that he knows it all.

Sure enough, he can answer the technical questions flawlessly just as if he had read it from a textbook. He could show ingenuity for coming up with solutions on the fly as well... And usually when they get that look in their eye: "I know you want to hire me - make me a REALLY good offer, and I might consider working for you." I then ask the killer question:

"Who is Charles Babbage?"

The blank look on their face is priceless. It's a simple curveball. I've received answers ranging from: "I'm not sure - wasn't he featured in PC Magazine last month?" to "Oh - he's the founder of IBM." and "I... I... Don't know..."

I then answer the question with a short history lesson. They of course often recall it - yes, but didn't think that it was important.

I'm amazed at how much computing history has been forgotten from introductory courses in High School. There was an incredible amount of effort and ingenuity required to get us to the place we are today: information available within seconds, toys to entertain, tools to teach and make life easier (mine is easier now because of them), communication barriers broken down, etc... It's caused other problems too, but man - what doesn't. I'll take the benefits over the problems any day.

Hanging up in my office is a picture of Charles Babbage, and one of Ada.

"Who is Grace Hopper?" is my backup question.

Hehehehe...

Re:CS and History...

[ewagner]

So, do you hire them?

Re:CS and History...

[glebite]

Usually the ones who 'fess up and say that they don't know are the best pick of the litter. The other ones that try to fake their way through have proven to be pretty bad choices.

Yup - hired all sorts, and overall, the best picks are the honest ones.

Re:CS and History...

[staplin]

Actually, I'm proud to say that Babbage, Lovelace, and Hopper all showed up as important names in the Programming Languages class I took as an undergraduate at the University of Wyoming (of all places!). The text, ("Foundations of Programming Languages" by Sebest I think) actually went into a lot of history of each of the languages it touched on (including flowmatic), and the history of computing in general.

I think it's a bit ironic that the only 4 year university in the entire state of Wyoming (considered by many to be the armpit of the US) actually taught something of value that many other (possibly even more prestigious) schools have neglected.

Besides my bit of history, and the fact that I never touched a MS compiler (almost all unix based!) during my years at UW, I wonder what other benefits I've unknowingly collected over an education elsewhere?

Damn kids these days...

[Anonymous Coward]

Damn kids these days don't know shit. Oughta whip 'em all, what with their micro-computers and their video cassette recorders and whatnot. I tell ya...

What's Babbage ?

[Djaak]

Hey, me I'm not like these 2600 7am3rz, I know what Babbage is : it's a programming language. Kidz these days don't even know about the pioneering concept of "artificial stupidity". How sad.

Not my experience

[Goonie]

Sure the average CS student might not be particularly bright outside their area of expertise, but in my experience at university (in Australia) the average biol student was even worse. The strong students in both areas had interests beyond their subject areas, though, and I'd back the CS student's understanding of biology well ahead the average biol student's understanding of CS.

As far as decent writing skills, CS students weren't great. Biol students were appalling. I know, I read their lab reports - it was a struggle.

Re:Not my experience

[pubjames]

Actually, Computer Science teaching seems to be different in Spain (where I currently live) too. For instance, in the UK Computer Science is predominantly a male thing, in Spain it is much more mixed.

So I guess in different countries it is different. Perhaps it is only in the UK where CS students tend to be lacking in other skills.

Re:Not my experience

[bluGill]

When I was in spain I noticed about 40% of the computer staff at the company I worked with was female. Good looking too, but smoking is the in thing there, and only the French beat them as far as not bathing.

In other words from a distance it looks great, but up close I couldn't wait to get away. Maybe your a little less picky, in which case I recomend it, Spain was beatiful even on my limited Spanish. (most speak less english than I spanish)

Re:Not my experience

[pubjames]

Good looking too, but smoking is the in thing there,

This I can agree with.

only the French beat them as far as not bathing.

This I would really disagree with. Most Spanish are fairly obsessive about physical hygene, especially the females.

No, the worst thing about Spanish girls with that it takes such a long time to get into their pants ;-)

Martin Campbell-Kelly

[Stephen Williams]

...was the guy who taught History of Computing at the University of Warwick when I was studying there three years ago. His course was fascinating, and he had a real passion for the subject. If you're interested in Babbage et al and you ever get the chance to talk to Dr. Campbell-Kelly, do.

-Stephen

Re:Martin Campbell-Kelly

[mikey_boy]

yeah, me too ... turned out to be one of the most enjoyable courses I studied - it makes so much difference when a lecturer is into his subject

well a reason to be proud

[RestiffBard]

seeing as there have been many posts claiming ignorance of who some of those people are (congrats for being mature enough to admit it) I have to say I'm damn proud that I know who all of thema re and I've only been using computers since i was 14. (which by /. standards is still considered a newbie in some circles. oh I'm 24 now.

History is bunk

[dgroskind]

I'm dubious about the idea that knowing the history of computer science helps you be a better programmer. I've known several excellent programmers whose knowledge of computer science was limited to the tools of their trade and the underlying theory. My own knowledge of the history of my profession hasn't made learning OOP any easier.

One should have a broader interest in the world than simply making a living but there are many places to go beside the history of computer science. One could argue that, given limited time, one should look outside one's profession rather than inside it for a broader perspective.

Having said that, some of life's lesson can seem more acute when seen in the context of familiar problems. For instance, this example from Babbage's life:

Babbage's private income perhaps deprived him of the drive that would have whipped his work into shape. Every time he came up against a problem with the design of his various engines, his impulse was to turn away and start again. Instead of breaking through the pain barrier, he finished his 80-year life with a lot of drawings and not a prototype in sight.

Many of us who've found a comfortable life in programming struggle with that problem every day.

Re:History is bunk

[mav[LAG]]

I'm dubious about the idea that knowing the history of computer science helps you be a better programmer. I've known several excellent programmers whose knowledge of computer science was limited to the tools of their trade and the underlying theory. My own knowledge of the history of my profession hasn't made learning OOP any easier.

I am of the opposite opinion - that you can't know too much about the history of computing and computer science if you want to be a better programmer. Want to know why adding programmers to a late software project makes it later? Read Brooks. Are there some problems which are not solvable by computer? Study Turing. How does entropy and communications work? Shannon tells all. How and why does LISP do what it does so well? Check out the history of AI research. Does Babbage's engine really work? Hell yes - there's a working model at the Science Museum in London. Seeing it in action was practically a religious experience for me. Why does Unix use pipes? Check out the history of it at Bell Labs online.

You could say that all of these examples could just as well be studied theoretically. But then you'd miss the fun parts - like the story behind IBM's development of OS/360 and how some companies still haven't learned those lessons.
History is full of these amazing guys (and gals - hello Grace) that met and solved all kinds of problems, often in surprising and non-intuitive ways. Many of the anecdotes and broader perspectives do help you with programming if only to teach you something from history. Your Babbage example is a good one.

Re:History is bunk

[dgroskind]

Want to know why adding programmers to a late software project makes it later? I'm a programmer not a project manager and don't want to be a project manager, ever.

Are there some problems which are not solvable by computer? I never encounter those problems, thank Heaven.

How does entropy and communications work? Don't need to know in order to copy a file.

Check out the history of AI research. It's mostly a failure.

Does Babbage's engine really work? Not as well as my PC.

I don't wish to be deliberately obtuse and I support reading widely and deeply but I can't see how any of these examples makes me a better programmer than reading a programming manual.

There is a tendency to justify all kinds of worthwhile activities on the grounds that they are useful as if the pleasure of knowing something is not sufficient. I think it is a mistake to make utility the only test of whether something is important. There is a lot of useful activity that is unimportant, particularly when one looks back on it. When deciding whether learning is important, usefulness is only one criteria. The other criteria, I leave as an exercise to the student.

Re:History is bunk

[3am]

look, i'm sure you'll do fine for the most part without knowledge of computer history.

you'll just be a little more ignorant, but that's by your own choice.

Re:History is bunk

[arkanes]

While I personally enjoy reading about the history of computing and knew at least a little about all the people mentioned, I don't see how what you say at all supports the idea that it'll make you a better programmer - you're confusing the study of these people's knowledge with studying the people themselves. Sure, reading Turing and learning what kind of problems can't be solved by computers is usefull for a programmer - but the history of Turings life is not (at least not within the context of ability to program). Just like the (technical) study of Mozart's music is not the same as the study of Mozart's life.

Re:History is bunk

[Arandir]

"Want to know why adding programmers to a late software project makes it later?" I'm a programmer not a project manager and don't want to be a project manager, ever.

Just wait until they make you be the late programmer on someone else's project.

"Are there some problems which are not solvable by computer?" I never encounter those problems, thank Heaven.

And when you finally run across one you'll spend months banging your head against the wall.

"How does entropy and communications work?" Don't need to know in order to copy a file.

Now your ignorance is really showing.

"Check out the history of AI research." It's mostly a failure.

AI is a failure. The stuff that came out of AI research is not.

"Does Babbage's engine really work?" Not as well as my PC.

Oh puh'leaze! Somewhere there is someone who is a better programmer than you. So it's time to toss yourself into the dustbin of history.

Re:History is bunk

[dgroskind]

you'll do fine for the most part without knowledge of computer history

My original post, which started this thread, said that my knowledge of computer history had not helped me as a programmer, not that I had no knowledge of computer history.

For the record, here are some reasons why a knowledge of computer history could not possibly help with programming:

history is largely a record of obsolete and failed technology. As a programmer you only need a knowledge of successful technology. The lessons to be learned from failure have already been incorporated in the successful technology, which is in the manuals.

computer history has the same limitations of all history: the sources are unreliable and incomplete and the facts are selected by the biases of the historian. As a result, one can not draw any solid conclusions from computer history or any other kind of history.

much of the history has nothing to do with technology. It concerns business decisions, marketing, the personality of key people, and office politics. None of it affects writing code.

many of the important documents in the history of computer science are locked away in corporate archives and trade secrets and therefore unavailable for historians.

many of the key participants in computer history are very much alive and have not set down their memoires or released their archives for historians to collect.

Change in computer science is so rapid and overthrows previous knowledge so completely that knowing what is happening now is nearly impossible, never mind what happened years ago.

None of the foregoing means that you shouldn't know computer history. It just means it isn't useful for one's career.

Re:History is bunk

[dgroskind]

Somewhere there is someone who is a better programmer than you.

Everything I know about programming I learned from better programmers. None of them were historians.

Re:History is bunk

[3am]

i disagree with you.

knowing the history and theory behind a technology make your knowledge of that technology more broad and complete, which will always help your career.

having a sound background in mathematical logic or EE are very similar to knowing computer history in that respect. you can be a very competent programmer without them, but you will have a broader and deeper insight into your code if you are knowledgable in those areas.

the evolution of c++ and oop, the rise of desktop computers, unix/linux connection, and internet/DARPANET... i think these offer important lessons that while not being so immediately advantageous, will help you out career-wise in the long run.

Re:History is bunk

[Arandir]

Those "better programmers" you talk about are all in the past. Ignore them. They are as irrelevant to your daily needs as are Babbage, Turing, Hopper, Shannon and Ritchie. Don't trust anyone over thirty.

Re:History is bunk

[dgroskind]

They are as irrelevant to your daily needs as are Babbage, Turing, Hopper, Shannon and Ritchie.

I'd still like to see an example, perhaps from your personal experience, of how the study of computer history helps you learn a programing language faster, write code faster, write code with fewer bugs, or write programs that are easier to maintain, which is how I make a living.

Even the name of a programming manual that includes some history would be interesting. I've never seen any and I have a ton of O'Reilly books, the best in the field.

The examples raised in an earlier post by mav[LAG] were throw away lines meriting only a flippant response. Some weren't even primarily historical like the reference to Turing machines, which is taught in basic computer science. Knowing who Turing was and his tragic life does not deepen one's understanding of computability.

Many mathematicians are quite knowledgeable about the history of mathematics because even the oldest problems and solutions are relevant to their work. I know of nothing comparable in computer science.

arkanes makes a similar point in a comment in this thread: you're confusing the study of these people's knowledge with studying the people themselves.

Re:History is bunk

[dgroskind]

you're confusing the study of these people's knowledge with studying the people

Further evidence for your point is the fact that programming manuals and documentation never contain any historical references beyond the odd anecdote and the change log.

The technology itself incorporates the lessons of history in a more useful way than trying to draw those lessons from a history book yourself. In fact, if you want to understand the history, you really need to understand the present technology rather than the other way around.

Finally, the true history of computer science is bound up in some heavy duty math so if there is anything to be learned it is beyond the ken of the average programmer. For instance, understanding Turing machines apparently requires understanding the the decidability of mathematical assertions. As a character in a Woody Allen film said, when asked why God permits evil to exist: "I don't even know how the can opener works."

I wish I had some mod points.

[dmaxwell]

That sums up my feelings exactly. I too "just fix" them when they break...Well to be fair I'm doing more and more sysadmining but I'm still not above changing the toner cartridge for the secretaries. Nonetheless, I'm awed by people like Turing, Zuse and Hopper. You're +5 insightful in my book.

Don't forget the cowcatcher

[Leimy]

Actually Charles Babbage invented other things besides the analytical engine and computing machings.

That angular pointy looking wedge on the front side of old style steam locomitives was called a cowcatcher and was used to remove *ahem* debris from train tracks so the trains could keep moving. Live or dead cows could be pushed off the tracks... What an interesting device! :)

Ada Lovelace

[SomethingOrOther]

Of course the 13yr old kids hadn't heard of Babbage.
But they all know Ada was a babe.

Right? :-)

History Lesson

[GigsVT]

p://directory.google.com/Top/Computers/History/Pio neers/

Re:Not Essex uni by any chance?

[Anonymous Coward]

Leeds, I had I friend who went to Leeds Met. uni, where they fell in love with Gates much quicker and he seems to be at a significant disadvantage to me when we compare anyting comp. sci-ish except how to do certain things on Windows NT or Oracle- often he doesn't even know how to do them...

Reason he'd didn't publish...

[FirstNoel]

Maybe he had psychi powers and could see the DMCA, and decided that he didn't want to risk being arrested in the US.

Sean D

Charles Babbage.

[13Echo]

Wasn't he the founder of that overpriced software/Pokemon store? Oh, wait... Nevermind.

Zen and the Art of Computer Programming

[Martin S.]

Perhaps if somebody was to produce a book, entitled "Zen and the Art of Computer Programming", that might help :)

Read the Literature

[Anonymous Coward]

Before the web, before Linux, before ego-software, there were things called professional societies which published -- on paper! -- journals of edited, peer-reviewed information.

Try checking out the Association for Computing Machinery's journals and conferences:

The "Annals of Computing History" has been published for (I think) over 25 years and contains
lots of reviews of machinery, software, and companies, including many first-person accounts of the early days of the info industry.

The Special Interest Group on Programming Languages has even hosted several conferences devoted to the history of agiven language.

It's a matter of size.

[Ungrounded Lightning]

What about organic computers ?? [As an alternative to "mechanical rod" based nanocomputers]

I remember reading long ago about organic molecules being able to "switch" between two polarized states under the influence if an outer electronic field. This was supposed to be a future for nano registries...

It's a matter of size.

Electrons are big, light, fuzzy things, and the electric field goes out a long way. When you want to make circuitry REALLY small you don't want to use that for anything but holding your pieces together, because your gates and wiring would have to be very large to avoid crosstalk.

But atoms are effectively smaller than electrons. The nuclei are MUCH smaller, and they suck their electrons down, making most of the fields cancel out at after a very short distance. And they're heavier, so they don't shake around and flit around as much.

You can send a bit, or several bits, by sliding or rotating a rod as you can by shoving electrons into and out of a wire (even a single-molecule wire), and the signal stays IN the rod except where you WANT it to "come out". At atomic scales moving a rod is nearly as fast as moving an electron (and comparable to moving a hole), so speed isn't a problem.

As for amplification there's not much that can beat an "interposer". That's a piece of matter that gets between a two moving parts and transfers a shove from the one supplying motion "power" to the one carrying a signal away as motion. Expend a little power to put the interposer into position and it will transfer shoves (with no further input) until you pull it away again.

Re:It's a matter of size.

[unitron]

Atoms, which by definition include one or more electrons, are effectively smaller than electrons? The whole is less than the sum of the parts? I could use a little more explanation of that.

Re:It's a matter of size.

[Anonymous Coward]

The atom is larger. Physically. The electron will have a larger field size, though, unless the atom is not in a ground state. In reality, since electrons have to travel along a chain of atoms anyway, why not just move the chain, and not have to worry about those nasty interacting fields? It's cleaner to do it mechanically.

Ah, Babbage

[thejake316]

Babbage's had the best deals on videogames and M$ software back in the day. It's too bad they went belly-up.

Re:Ah, Babbage

[GTRacer]

Belly-up? Maybe where you live...

There's one at a mall near me run by a super-cool guy named Larry. I've shopped there for maybe 15 years.

I've always found it cool that, at the entrance to the store they have a plaque with Babbage's picture and brief bio on it.

GTRacer
- Anybody remember typing in "SmarTerm" for the Atari 130XE? (From magazine bought at Babbage's)

I don't believe this is true.

[Nindalf]

I really don't think Drexler is seriously proposing such a design. He just used the mechanical computer in Nanosystems as an easy example to demonstrate feasibility. Electronic systems would be much faster and smaller, it's just that the physics is much harder to explain convincingly without having models to fiddle with.

Re:I don't believe this is true.

[Suicyco]

We are talking about individual atoms in nanomachines. Electrons take on a whole new life at that scale. Mechanical computing (at true nanoscales) is the only way to get away from quantum effects in this realm. Drexler very seriously proposes mechanical computers (at least when I spoke to him about them he was enthusiastic to say the least.)

Rod logic and geard computing devices are so devilishly simple and elegant they are the hands down winner of nano-cpu designs. On a larger scale, electronics would be much better at handling computing tasks, such as handling the tiny mechanical computing units and coalating tasks and data.

Electronic systems would not be any faster than rod logic, if your rods contained, say, 20 atoms. Mechanical computers would be smaller then anything you could design to process electrons. Now, perhaps there will be some combination of this, such as using positive/negative charges on the tips of rods to contain state information but you would actually be shoving large quantities of electrons around. Thats like using a firehose to extinguish a cigarette.

Re:I don't believe this is true.

[Nindalf]

Mechanical computers would be smaller then anything you could design to process electrons.

I remember, it was probably close to a decade ago, that someone had synthesized a small X-shaped molecule that should function as a diode. IIRC, it was less than 20 atoms. Plenty of people are talking about molecular diodes.

There is no way that you're going to move around some 20-atom monster at the same rate you can move around an electron, or even a thousand electrons. It's a simple matter of mass ratios: electrons are light, molecules are heavy.

If you actually read Nanosystems, you'll see that he's talking about ~1 GHz systems. We've already surpassed that with microelectronics. Nanoelectronics will be probably be smaller, simpler, and more efficient than nanomechanical computer systems and thousands if not millions of times faster. Of course, nano-optical systems, or something weird we can't guess at yet, might be even faster.

Re:I don't believe this is true.

[Suicyco]

From my understanding (and I read nanosystems when it was first published) the point of mechanical computers was that they could opperate at the resonating frequency of the atoms themselves. We can achieve astounding speeds with microelectronics. But in the nano-scale, you have to deal with individual electrons. Individual electrons in this realm behave radically different. You have quantum tunneling effects that could render the devices unstable and inaccurate.

Of course, this can also be used as an advantage, using quantum effects. But the mechanical computers using rod logic, for instance, are not super powerful. They would be simple 8 bit computers that operate in huge conglomerations. If you built a large CPU using nanotechnology, you would probably make it electronic. However, cheap (as in material and design) mechanical computers would be much more efficient. They can receive their power from brownian motion inherent in nature. Using small cams and gears this motion can be captured and put to use. How would you feed power into a molecule in the form of electrons? It could be done but not easily for an autonomous computing unit. Nanocomputing is an entirely different realm, simplicity is the key and complex nanoelectronics aren't simple. But there is room for both, and like you said even other more wild types of architectures we can't even begin to imagine.

I used to work on a team that is designing a public domain nanocomputer design with some researchers in japan and the US. Rod logic is the way the team was focusing when I left the project and had working models in simulations. Its much harder to model electronics at this level and simulate them because of the quantum effects (which are unpredictable and chaotic I believe.)

Of course I could be totally wrong, I haven't followed the latest advances in molecular engineering for a couple of years now. And quantum computing is a whole new ball game and may lead to the best of both worlds, using quantum effects to our advantage. I know some study has already been done on constructing computing devices using buckytubes that use quantum tunneling of electrons to perform tasks.

I think the key though is not speed, but how cheaply and simply things can be constructed because individual computational units should be disposable and easy to construct. We are talking about using billions and billions of them in concert, at this level individual clock speeds of processors is meaningless. I think a large nanocomputer (the size of a sugar cube perhaps) would use a combination of all these technologies. At the lowest level mechanical designs, and at the higher levels electronics and mechanical designs together. At the top level the CPU would behave as a normal computer using electronic inputs and outputs. But internally things diverge into their most efficient forms.

Anywho just my ramblings :-)

Don't neglect your Foundation

[Zaak]

Thanks to your attitude, someday in the future we will forget who discovered the mathematical description of gravity. And thanks to your attitude, knowledge of science will decay and will ultimately cause the downfall of galactic society.

I hope you're happy.

Re:Don't neglect your Foundation

[Patrix]

you're forgetting about hari seldon...

Am I the only one?

[leifw]

Am I the only one who thought it was strange that the article said that the frequency of the pitch used to hack phones was 2600 kHz? That's 2,600,000 Hz. Human hearing tops out around 10,000 Hz, IIRC. 2600 kHz isn't a tone, it's a radio wave, right?

Re:Am I the only one?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think that was an editiing typo - they seemed to have amended it.

Re:Am I the only one?

[unitron]

Technically it would be an ultrasonic tone if one had a whistle that would vibrate the air at a rate of two million, six hundred thousand times per second.

If one had a device that emitted an elctromagnetic wave of the same periodicy, one could refer to that wave as a radio wave. It's about one MegaHertz above the high end of the (US)AM broadcast band.

Re:Am I the only one?

[3am]

doesn't the wave structure break down in to random motion of the air molecules (ie, heat)? does anyone know what the thermal threshold of sound is?

Know your [candidates] limits

[Martin S.]

Whilst personally I'm aware of Babbage's, Ada Bryon and Grace Hoopers contributions. I would regard knowledge of who they are as relatively unimportant.

I agree the best answer to this is 'I don't know'. People that understand the limits of their knowledge are much better than 'know-alls'.

Re:Let me get this straight...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yo Bozo, if yer gonna copy & paste old trolls, do the "*BSD is dying" one, its my fav ...

Yeah, it's sad

[renehollan]

My father was an electrical engineer. Well, not really, since WWII prevented him from ever getting an actual degree (which would have been in medicine, not engineering, but that's a whole 'nother digression). Anyway, he ended up working for RCA Canada, and later SPAR Aerospace, on passive filters for all the satellites from Allouette through Anik C (whadda mean, "satellite TV" is new? That was the only way many Inuit (native northern Canadians) could get TV in the 1970s) and Brazilsat. The point is, I picked up an interest in electronics as a kid, which soon evolved to an interest in computers. See, my father "did neat shit".

Of course, that was way back in the 60's, er 1960's. I actually got to work with a computer in 1973 (HP2000 timesharing monstrosity running basic connected to dialup teletypes -- we got a DECwriter the next year, whee, 300 bps!) and experienced punched cards when I started my Comp. Sc. Degree program in 1979 -- we had DECwriters there too, and a few CRT terminals (at the end of current loop lines at, you guessed it, 300 bps), but course work had to be done via punched cards, submitted to the "express" window. You only had to wait 15-30 minutes for your job to get turned around.

I remember those days quite well. Today, I sometimes interview recent grads for software design jobs. One standard problem I pose is "Write a routine, in any programming language of your choice (I've probably seen it), that sorts an array of things according to some ordering scheme. I don't care about efficiency, but I expect the following: (a) that it is correct, (b) that you can explain the complexity of the algorithm in "O(n)" notation." Of course I expect a bubble sort of integers. One smartass did a Shell sort and got it right. But over 90% of the candidates fail this basic test. That's sad.

The scary part is that peer reviewers think this is being "too hard" on a candidate. Or worse, I remember one kid who added "servlets" to an FTP server -- basically he provided an API for command plug-ins that executed server-side and could provide massaged data back to the client. So, for example, you could do back-end SQL queries via FTP. Obviously an excercise in program extensibility. Trouble is, he didn't even get an offer -- a coworker insisted that he must have been "bullshitting" because "everyone knows that servlets are a Java thing and not an FTP thing". My protests got voted down. So, technical ignorance has permeated even the supposed technical interview -- on the part of the interviewers! Shortly after losing that battle, I left the employ of that company.

I remember building memory boards for an old SWTPC computer (none of us geek kids could afford to buy them assembled). I remember lamenting when the IBM PC booted into ROM Basic and displayed "Ready" -- who's gonna know how the computer gets to that point? that was what, almost 20 years ago?

There is hope. I often see young (say, under 20 years old) posters here who do have a clue. I envy that they have far better tools than I did as a kid, but note that these same "better tools" make it no big deal to be a script kiddie techno-vandal. Compare the history of mass computing to the history of the car. Anyone can drive a car today. Few know how to fix one or what makes it run, But, even with the ease of "turn the key, push on the gas, and remember to steer" driving, some still hack their cars. I take that as a sign that hacking doesn't die -- the computer hacker was a rare breed in the 1970s and still is despite the fact that there are a lot of 'leet wannabees around without a clue.

My advice to the young hacker is to seek out other hackers, young and old (say 40 and up), and avoid the wannabees. Of course, this implies a willingness and responsibility on the part of us "old guys" to mentor -- sure, you don't need a fast sort, or balanced tree structure, when you've got a 1 Ghz processor, but imagine how much faster and scalable your code will be if you use one. In my day, RAM was fast, and disk was S L O W, so you carefully designed your algorithms to minimize disk access. These days, you want stuff to stay locked in processor cache 'cause RAM is slow, by comparison. Look at other "hobies", like HAM radio, and see how "the torch gets passed on" there. We should strive for similar effect.

Re:Yeah, it's sad

[addaon]

For those of us on the other end of the chain, the youngun's, what do you recommend? I've been astounded by the quality of (most of) my University education at a mediocre school... but it's hard to get real mentorship. Is this even possible in this day and age?

Re:Yeah, it's sad

[renehollan]

Well, let's see...

First, rely on yourself. That is, get some good theoretical as well as practical books. Knuth's The Art of Computer Programming comes to mind. Yes, it is dated, but, if you have a math bent, you will enjoy Volume I. O'Reily offers lots of practical books on running this, and administering that.

But, I suggested finding mentors, so lets get to that. I suppose that people like me are the "first generation" of modern personal computer "old farts" -- we didn't really have "old hand" mentors ourselves that were computer people: they were chemists, engineers, physicists, etc. who used computers and learned (i.e. hacked) out of sheer necessity. Them and other people like us... what we had in common was either a need or a desire to hack. The point is that "our" mentors were a lot different than "your" mentors would be.

That said, you should probably start with your peer group -- other young hackers. Find out where they congregate and who they use for mentors. Sometimes us "old guys" will show up at a Linux Users Group meeting, or even a 2600 meeting. But, for me at least, non-hacker life (I have a family, own a home, etc.) makes that a bit difficult schedulewise. So, sadly, we're probably hard to find -- you'll probably have to pool your networking resources (which is why I suggested check with your peer group first). Of course, don't overlook places like Slashdot: you'll probably find an acceptable concentration of us here.

Which brings me to the flip side of the problem... do we, as "old fart" hackers mentor enough? Perhaps we should make an effort to show up at local meetings, or offer to help with computer science classes in schools, that is, make ourselves more accessable.

Countess Ada Lovelace (and moderators these days!)

[SomethingOrOther]

Of course the 13yr old kids hadn't heard of Babbage.
But they all know Ada was a babe

Right? :-)

And to the **** who moded that post as off topic first time around
ADA WROTE THE CODE FOR BABBAGES COMPUTER
The language ADA was named after her you stupid ****!

I supose the article must have been right !!!

unbelievable

[Insipid Trunculance]

I am seriously and truly amazed that teens in US have NO information about the history of computing.I assume that there are computing classes from the very lowest of grades so isnt a bsic introduction to the entire gamut of computing given. it's unbelievable that there exist youth in US without elementary knowledge of what computing in specific and world in general are all about..well atleast that's what i gathered from the article.

Add computing history to comp sci classes!

[zerofoo]

I had this history presented to me while I was in high school. My comp sci and AP comp sci classes threw this in there. We also discusses Blaise Pascal before we learned how to program...guess what language....Pascal!

It would probably be a good idea to discuss the origins of "C" and maybe the UNIX evolutionary tree in college level classes.

-ted

Or possibly...

[iainl]

they might, like me, be so used to just calling it 'Knuth' they've forgotten the title. Mind you, I'm probably just making excuses here.

Dead Germans Project

[Anonymous Coward]

The library school at the University of Tennessee - Knoxville runs the Dead Germans Project where every year, library students write biographies of persons important to the development of the modern library. Many of these persons are also important to the development of computing - people like Charles Babbage and Mortimer Taube. If you are interested in brief summaries of historically important persons in the development of computers, albeit prepared by students studying for their masters of library studies, you could do worse than checking out http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/germans.html

Use things. Love people. Don't get confused.

Apologies

[CropCircles]

Ugh! I couldn't read the other comments in the thread. sorry.

Re:Apologies

[dangermouse]

No problem.

I'm sorry I didn't express myself as clearly as I should have... I personally think the punishment we dole out for many crimes these days has become horribly disproportionate. Under most circumstances, I would agree with you that throwing kids in jail for breaking into computer systems is a bit extreme. After all, as you said, they're kids.

But the reason I would try to refrain from jailing them has nothing to do with curiosity as a justification for criminal activity, as I don't see that as a reasonable defense. More than a few have put forth that very notion, though, and it was that notion to which I was responding.

Again, my apologies.

Wanna see a mechanical computer up close?

[Xunker]

I bet everyone here has actually had real experience with a mechanical compuer (of sorts). While not a 'computer' in the mathematical description, it's pretty close: It's the automobile automatic transmission. They are probably the most complex mechanical device that people contact every day, except for the very newest computer regulated ones.

It actually does computational tasks in a strict sense -- it takes input, does "intelligent" operations on it based on data and outputs it, except in this case it's motion not math. It uses a series of planetary gears, pumps and pulleys to the extent that it make my brain hur thinking about it.

Don't believe that they are so amazing? See for yourself. They even have a cool video showing you how the whole package works.
.

Midwest Graduates

[staplin]

My background is a BS at the University of Wyoming, and more recently a MS at the University of Colorado.

I'm proud to say that all CS majors at UW had to take a senior level programming languages course, which taught some history of computing in addition to the concepts of programming languages. For example, we talked about Babbage and Lovelace, Grace Hopper, Wirth, etc, in addition to Pascal, Prolog, Ada, C, LISP, etc. I don't know if the undergraduate program at CU also covers the history, but I hope it does.

I also remember students complaining that they never got to do any Windows programming at UW. Now I'm glad I didn't. (There were a few topics classes that used VB for GUI stuff, but they were few and far between). For the most part all programming was done on unix boxes. Or, for introductory courses, on PCs using the Borland compilers. Almost all of the graduate courses at CU were unix based, or tended to be platform independent, but all the CS labs are unix or linux.

As a graduate student, I met very few people who had the "I want to program to make me rich" attitude, but that's not suprising at the graduate level. There weren't too many of those in my undergrad CS classes either... but that may have been a bit before the big software boom.

Right before I got my BS, I ended up doing workstudy in the computer labs, and running severl lab sessions for the intro courses. I saw a lot of wannabes drop out after they found out that programming wasn't the "easy" path to riches they thought it would be.

Maybe these differences are produced by beign from a different part of the country. Or maybe they are just an artifact of getting my undergrad degree a few years before you did. Either way, I'm glad I got the broad, trans-windows experience I did. And I hope that the academic community returns to a quality education that isn't just about churning out windows apps for a quick buck.

Sad to Say, it's not just the kids!

[annielaurie]

March is billed as "Womens' History Month." As such it's dear to the hearts of corporate types who are responsible for the "diversity" of their companies, much as Black History Month would receive a nod. Folks were asked for some input for the Womens' History do on the corporate intranet. I suggested that since we were an information-technology company, we might want to include some write-ups of women pioneers in computing. We could start out with Grace Hopper, of course, and then there would be Ada Lovelace, the women "computors" of WWII, those who worked on ENIAC--you could get up quite a respectable--and inspiring--presentation. I cited URLS and offered my services to assist.

Blank stares were the result. They put together their presentation without a single nod to the women on whose shoulders they are literally standing. I can only surmmise that a project to document men (or the history of computing in general) would fare just as badly.

Babages Work

[Martin S.]

http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/collections/exhi bl ets/babbage/start.asp

Crucial bit of missing information of Babbage

[sv0f]

As I understand it, Babbage absolutely despised street musicians. He tried to enact legislation banning them in London. Many knew of his efforts and would 'crank it up' when he passed by, adding to his torment.

Re:Crucial bit of missing information of Babbage

[Anonymous Coward]

Seems to be covered in the article.

He died in his London home to a cacophony of street musicians (a group that Babbage sought to have abolished from the city's streets) who had come from across the country to serenade him on his way outside his window. Let's just say that he didn't make many friends among that group (lawsuits will do that).

I can't believe he didn't mention...

[Spatch3]

I can't believe he didn't mentio the software side of things when it came to the anylitical engine once: Ada Lovelace. Her name wasn't mentined in his article once.

I sent him this friendly helpful email:

Subject:
History:: The Godfather of COmputing - Charles Babbage
Date:
Wed, 17 Oct 2001 09:29:00 -0700
From:
Chris Katscher
Reply-To:
spatch3(at)yahoo(dot)com
Organization:
To:
jones(at)systemtoolbox(dot)com

Yes, but what about the Godmother of computing: Ada Lovelace?

I'ts funny. Whenever I read a blurb about Charles Babbage anywhere
(even the plackard at the software reseller Babbages), I always read
about Ada Lovelace as well. I don't remember you mentioning her name
once in her article. Sure, Charles Babbage was the brains behind the
hardware of the anylitical engine, but Ada was the first person to ever
write a computer program for the first computer: The anylitical engine.

You might want to read up on this here:

http://www.scottlan.edu/lriddle/women/love.htm

and here:

http://www.adahome.com/articles/1997-12/al_birth da y.html

and here:

http://www.sdsc.edu/ScienceWomen/lovelace.html

and here:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN%3D0875185 98 3/malaspgreatbooksA/002-3155834-9131256

and countless other references included here:

http://www.google.com/search?as_q=&num=100&btnG= Go ogle+Search&as_epq=ada+lovelace&as_oq=&as_eq=&lr=l ang_en&as_qdr=all&as_occt=any&as_dt=i&as_sitesearc h=&safe=off

Just suggesting that you give equal light to the software side of
things, without witch the anylitical engine would have been little more
than an engineering curiosity.

Thanks for your attention!
Chris Katscher

there are better Babbage discussions out there . .

[fetta]

There are better written and more interesting discussions of Babbage out there. For example, check out John Lienhard's Engines of our Ingenuity site for some short essays on the topic, including:

http://www.uh.edu/engines/epi1059.htm
http://www.uh.edu/engines/epi1145.htm
http://www.uh.edu/engines/epi646.htm
http://www.uh.edu/engines/epi243.htm
http://www.uh.edu/engines/epi2.htm

Babbage and the theory of computation

[sv0f]

I wrote a report for a Philosophy of Mathematics class in college that may be relevant for this discussion. Babbage is commonly thought of as more of an engineer than a scientist. And his efforts were largely directed to building a mechanical device that exceeded the manufacturing capabilities of the day. As well, the immediate precursors to the Analytic Engine -- the Jacquard Loom and the Difference Engine -- were specialized for narrow, practical purposes.

However, if you examine his writings, you'll realize that he had lofty mathematical goals for the analytic engine. Specifically, he understood it to be an exercise in defining what moderns might call 'effective computability'. There's a striking similarity in his pursuit of this goal and the same explorations by Hilbert, Turing, Church, etc., in the twentieth cetury. At least that's what I argued in my paper.

I recommend his notebooks and the few existing biographies to those with a taste for the history of science and the biography of scientists.

PS: One other conclusion that I drew from my research was that the role of Ada Lovelace in developing the abstract principles of computer science has been highly overstated. She was probably mathematically adept. But she also lead an outrageous (for the time) life. The illegitimate, unmarried, and independently wealthy daughter of a Romantic poet. I suspect Mr. Babbage (Sir Charles?) entertained and amused her, both in his glum disposition and willingness to engage her intellectually. And we owe her a death for her record of and commentary on his actions. But I seriously doubt she originated the grand ideas commonly attributed to her.

your sig

[CoreyG]

Where is your sig from? I know I've heard it before, I just don't know where.

Re:your sig

[Kargan]

Hehe. I wondered if anyone here would ever notice.

It's from an older episode of Saturday Night Live; it's a sketch about a Japanese version of an American sitcom.

Someday maybe http://snltranscript.jt.org will have the script for it, and I hope so, because I've yet to find anything about it online.

"For wacky American people!"

This is not off topic dammit

[harborpirate]

Who is the dumbass that modded this post down?

If you know absolutely fucking nothing about the topic which someone is posting about DON'T MODERATE IT.

At least check the link! directory.google.com/Top/Computers/History/Pioneer s/Lovelace,_Ada/
What the hell is more on topic than that?!

Exactly right.

[ebyrob]

It's the fundamental truths of existence that matter, not this transitory and often useless history and even more hopeless "arbitrary" knowledge.

Forget fraction notations, as long as you understand the meaning behind it, what does the method of expression matter. Learn PI with triangles and it's applications, not this degrees/sin/cos/tan garbage of human invention. After all sin, is really just opposite over adjacent for a triangle with 1/4 of a circle for one of it's angles...

Of course, fundamental concepts are rather unwieldy at times. Ever try to do triple integrals with nothing but limit rules?

This implies another easily forgotten truth: If you want to eat, interact meaningfully with other human beings, or sometimes just get things done, you'll have to learn(or invent) at least a bit of the "trivia". Just try not to make the mistake so many others do of forgetting this stuff doesn't really matter.

Ahead of his time indeed...

[cascadefx]

The Difference Engine number two was ahead of its time, indeed. In a head to head polynomial calculation test with a Windows-based Canon BJ Notebook BN22 (with built-in ink-jet printer), the mechanical Difference Engine initially beat the pants off the laptop, but was then overtaken. Not bad for a technology that was concieved around 160 years before its competitor.

From this account, we find the following description from a witness:

"...With the windows overhead slugging the Canon, the additional time taken for 31-digit extended precision arithmetic, and the printer buffer soaking up results before making them visible to the race referees, the Babbage engine produced nine 31-digit results before the Canon bubble jet printer blasted off the starting blocks. It then spewed out the first 50 results in little more than the time for the Babbage machine to produce one more result. The hare finally overtook the tortoise."

Wow! Not bad for a version 2.0 product. Consider the advancements it would have made had Babbage been successful all those years before.

Reading comprehension time...

[Anonymous Coward]

In case you missed it, I must refer you to another post by pmc in this thread that points to an very interesting article that refutes your conclusion fairly decisively.

Hello? Did you flunk reading comprehension in grade two?

That post (and the article) both say that it WAS a flame of Hooke, just like the poster.

Re:Reading comprehension time...

[dgroskind]

That post (and the article) both say that it WAS a flame of Hooke, just like the poster.

The post I referred to says: "Nope - this is (probably) a fallacy."

The article says:

Finally we come to Newton's reply of 5th February 1676. He says Hooke has ``done what becomes a true Philosophical spirit'' and that ``there is nothing wch I desire to avoyde in matters of Philosophy more than contention, nor any kind of contention more than one in print.'' In response to Hooke's compliment that Newton was the fittest person to continue his investigations, he begins:

you defer too much to my ability for searching into this subject. What Des-Cartes did was a good step. You have added much several ways, & especially in taking ye colours of thin plates into philosophical consideration. If I have seen further it is by standing on ye shoulders of Giants. But I make no question but you have divers very considerable experiments besides those you have published, & some it's very probable the same wth some of those in my late papers. Two at least there are wch I know you have observed.

The tone is certainly conciliatory and significantly Newton praises Hooke for beginning and publishing the study of phenomena of thin plates, just as he did in the letter to Oldenburg on 21st December 1675, and just as Hooke insisted on in his letter to Newton (and remember this is the only claim Hooke makes in that letter.) It seems that all three letters agree over this issue and both Newton and Hooke imply the other has achieved more than they claim credit for. This flatly contradicts suggestions that they are damning each other with faint praise or implying the other's work is unimportant.

I call your attention particularly to the following phrases from the article:

Hooke's compliment that Newton was the fittest person to continue his investigations

The tone is certainly conciliatory

Newton praises Hooke

both Newton and Hooke imply the other has achieved more than they claim credit for

No flame war here. You are in disgrace, Mr. AC.

If Babbage were alive today

[Anonymous Coward]

He would probably be in jail for violating the DMCA or some such silly law. Just check out this 1864 paper on Picking Locks and Deciphering

"Stupid" is too harsh...

[cr0sh]

It would be better to claim he is "ignorant", rather than "stupid" - the word "stupid" implies something fundamentally wrong with his mind, while the word "ignorant" is more of "lack of knowledge", rather than of intelligence.

You are right to claim that he should look into and be curious about these people - they are a part of what has led him to where he is today.

Re:"Stupid" is too harsh...

[unitron]

I said that "stupid" was the correct word to use in that context. I did not say that the statement was any more true due to that correction. I specifically stated otherwise.

Re:Let me get this straight...

[freaq]

ya, so you're in a war. does that mean that innocent civilians are not allowed to indulge in the things that they believe interest them? if so, then the 'terrorists' have already won 99.99999% of the war.

{ rant Warning }
unprecedented? get a grip. not to belittle the tragedy that americans experienced, but a comparison seems in order...

{ rant }
bhopal. 16,000+ innocent civilians died, iirc.

the terrorists had mysterious (though likely evil) motives to do what they chose to do. possibly it was based on some tweaked religious or political dogma. i'm hesitant to speculate more explicitly than that. however, i'm sure they had a clear idea of what the aftermath of their choices would be.

warren anderson had a plain, easy to understand motive to do what he chose to do (profit margin / shareholder value). he knew there were problems at bhopal, and what the possible consequences would be of ignoring them.

the only major difference _from_the_point_of_view_of_the_innocent_civilian_ is in one case, perpetrators synchronized watches, in the other, they synchronized daybooks. dead is dead, and it's no consolation to either the dead or the survivors what the perpetrators motives were.

{ / rant }
warren anderson jumped bail in india, but efforts at extradition from the u.s. have yet to get anywhere.

note that india did _not_ come out with guns blazing, but instead threw a whole lot of the $470M that union carbide handed over at the health care services in the area. almost brought the region up to W.H.O. standards. in all fairness, the effectiveness of the cash influx was questionable - i mean, really, who decided to put the new hospital 6 miles away? why the refusal to subsidize low-emission cooking stoves for the survivors with severe breathing problems? etc.

sorry if that brings down your day, it just seems like a case of short memory or selective long term memory.

peace,
freaq

Actually, yeah - it does hurt...

[cr0sh]

It hurts all of mankind.

Does it hurt you to be unaware of who first thought of writing numbers as digits? The genius who came up with reliable procedures for adding them? The spectacular genius who generalized expression of fractions by numbers?

You know, I sit here in my office - knowing that outside my window, thousands of miles away, people are dying: Some by war, some by famine, some by sheer ignorance. Furthermore, I know that in some cases, these deaths and sufferings are occuring because of the ignorance and lack of understanding of others...

We humans should know at least where these things came from, if not specific identities. For example, I know that the first two things you mentioned, "Numbers as Digits" and "Adding Digits" most likely came from the Middle East, and that our word for Algebra comes from "the Arabic al-jabr". As for the last one, it pains me not to know where it came from, I am certain I could find it with a bit of googling, but I wouldn't doubt it came from the same region as well. Much of the math you speak of actually goes further back, but it is to the Middle East we must look to for our number system and for the number zero (0). These contributions are nothing short of amazing.

In a similar fashion, I tend to wonder how many people in the Middle East are aware of various contributions of Western society's great thinkers, scientists, philosophers, teachers, mathematicians, and medical doctors? How many of them are aware of things they might use every day, without which their standard of living would surely be lower than what it is today (I am thinking of things like automobiles and electricity, basic medicine, and engineering).

These things should bring us together - to cause us all, on every corner of the planet to think "We are human, we have made these things!". We should rightly be humbled by greater men than ourselves, and should strive to be like them or better. We should be proud that we, as humans, have explored our solar system and beyond! That we have stepped foot on another world, beyond our mere Earth.

I think of the photos of the Earth-rise captured by cameras that man invented, hand carried to another world in machines and suits built by man to keep him alive in a world utterly inhospitable to himself, daring it to take his life so that he could step down, and take one picture...

A picture - a world so fragile - and small - holding, as far as we know (though we, as men, dream - yes, we dream - of more...), all the life in the universe...

You know, as I just wrote this, I cried - I know I can't do anything about what is going on in this world - and I know that none of you can, either - not directly. I know that there are people that just don't care. I guess this is why I cried - because despite all of that mankind has achieved - from everything small to everything great - there are still individuals who exist who seem to be unable to look past their own petty self-interests and dream of the possibilities...

Maybe I am just a romantic optimist...

Yes, your vague half-truths are very valuable.

[Nindalf]

The written zero came through the middle-east, not from it. It's a matter of historical record that it was used for over a hundred years in India before being brought to the middle-east; hundreds of years before that it was independently invented by the Mayans, but they were isolated and it didn't spread from them. At any rate, the concept of zero, and modern digital numbers, have been around much longer, embodied in the abacus; there's no saying how long, as the earliest abacii were no doubt just organized piles of ordinary stones. Modern digits, using zero, aren't what I meant, though.

You've been running around with a misconception, and apparently looking down on others who don't hold it. Now that it's corrected, are you a better programmer? I don't believe it's done me any good, it's just a bit of trivia I picked up along the way.

I'm not against history, I'm against educational snobbery: a form of ignorance that causes you to measure the effectiveness of a person at tasks you are good at by the similarity of your education, regardless of which parts of your education were actually relevant to the tasks in question.

A hundred years ago, you'd be ridiculed in similar fashion for not knowing Latin. Now nobody considers it part of basic education, just an obscure subject for specialists. A decline in human knowledge? Nonsense! There are more scholars in more obscure fields now than ever before. By focusing on what is actually relevant to a field, we have more time and energy to make progress in it, and more freedom to follow our own tastes so a team of people will have a broader background of knowledge to draw on, instead of everyone carrying the same limited education around with them.

How does the saying go? "Not constant addition, constant subtraction: strip away the inessentials to approach perfection."

Re:Yes, your vague half-truths are very valuable.

[cr0sh]

Not really a misconception, as I have always considered India to be a part of the Middle East (not sure what it really is - Near East?). As far as whether knowing this makes me a better coder - maybe, maybe not - but it does make me a better human being, with slightly more knowledge about the world. Thank you.

Regarding Latin - it is something I wish I had time to learn, actually - I think it would help in certain situations.

What I was trying to get at is that by forgetting and not realizing that we are humans on a world, who actually share experience and culture - we tend to become separate, and we tend to be more base, and think in an "Us vs Them" fashion - "I am better than you" or "My country is better than yours" - instead of realizing that by continuing to work together, we could achieve extremely great things...

Kids these days

[Anonymous Coward]

I am still in high school and there are at least two kinds of kids these days. The people of 2600 club kinds of kids burn out in high school. They usually just turn to video games or other cheep thrills. Curiosity leaves their minds. there are other types of kids who don't waist time going to clubs at all. They want to learn about programming and computers and would be curious to some degree of computer history. The fact that they don't know anything but ada (myself included) is not much of their fault. People need to be taught about such things. Someone said that hacking should be just like breaking into someone's home. Even if the door is unlocked. Well, I got news for ya.... It isn't illegal to walk into someone's home if the door is unlocked and your not a police officer. Furthermore, do people who break and enter people's homes get 15 years in jail. We punish hackers like they were murderors out of fear. It's stupid! I wish that it was a crime like breaking and entering.

You fool

[Rubyflame]

Sine isn't opposite over adjacent. That's tangent.

Sine is opposite over hypoteneuse.

Why are you bothering educating slashdolts?

[Anonymous Coward]

Slashdolts ARE the skr1pt k1dd13z and they want to hear about Quake3 and mobos and sploits.

Stick with the basics.

Bitching about the younger generation

[Animats]

There are some very competent young people out there in computing. Probably about the same number there were 20 years ago. But they're lost in a sea of bozos who think a 20-line CGI program in Perl, or a macro for Word, is serious programming.

We have a title problem here. The script hackers and the serious developers both call themselves "programmers". But that's just a title problem, no more.

Go to the Game Developer's Conference. Or just read Game Developer magazine. Some very, very smart people are busily cracking tough problems in physical simulation and AI. Those people have broader knowledge than the hackers of 20 years ago.

One big difference today is that today's good programmers know a lot more about business than the programmers of 20 years ago. That's a big plus. Game programmers also tend to know something about art, music, entertainment, and how to deal with Hollywood.

I'm not over 30! I'm just 1F years old

[Anonymous Coward]

Which makes me a teenager. Of course, kids today, you ask them what FF is in decimal and they can't tell you... you'd think they'd never debugged a program in their life...

History? pah, what about geography

[Anonymous Coward]

Most american teenagers (in study after study) can't even find the USA on a map of the world (let alone Afghanistan...)

Slashdot question... which port is Christmas Island closest to - Jakarta or Perth/Freemantle?
Who would have guessed Nauru ;-)

But could you imagine Babbage in today's culture?

[Trogre]

"Mr Babbage, your analytical machine does not work!"

"Oh? What version are you using?"