Slashdot Mirror
The Greatest Machine Never Built
mikejuk writes "John Graham-Cumming is the leading light behind a project to actually build the analytical engine dreamed of by Charles Babbage. There is a tendency to think that everything that Babbage thought up was little more than a calculating machine, but as the video makes 100% clear the analytical engine was a real computer that could run programs. From the article: 'Of course Ada Lovelace was the first programmer, but more importantly her work with Babbage took the analytical engine from the realms of mathematical table construction into the wider world of non-mathematical programming. Her notes indicate that had the machine been built there is no question that it would have been exploited just as we use silicon-based machines today.
To see the machine built and running programs would be the final proof that Babbage really did invent the general purpose computer in the age of the steam engine.'"
And lots better at that !!
How much more of the 'machine' do we need to hear. I believe anyone who sets out to build YAAM (figure it out) should do it in the privacy of his own home and NOT tell anyone. Well ok, maybe his kids. That's it.
It's much hyped and much over rated.
And you know, I DID NOT read the article nor click the video. I just read the line .... analytical machine and a rush of millions of stories passed through my head with similar 'achievements' or pseudo achievements. It was one machine... many others like it were being built. This one caught traction because the media/historic writing was on it's side. But come on... there is a lot more that can and should be done with your time.
There is a tendency to think that everything that Babbage thought up was little more than a calculating machine
By whom? I have never heard the analytical engine described in terms like that.
it was built in the 90s by the British science museum, I saw it years ago
Can't we just 3D print in orbit or something? You know, get private space involved here?
But now we can build computers within computer programs with redstone. Babbage never had redstone.
A lot happened in the first part of the Victorian era in the UK - I am referencing the UK because (a) that's where Babbage was and (b) I know a little of the history. This was a period when blacksmith engineering was rapidly giving way to scientific engineering. In essence, just as now with silicon, engineering techniques were developing fast as a response to new requirements for precision and metallurgy. So "the technology of the time" would itself have been different if the Government of the day had grasped just what it had, and made a real push for it. I would go out on a limb and suggest that if Prince Albert hadn't died when he did, the Analytical Engine would probably have been built. He was a major proponent of technical development and ruffled a lot of Establishment (classically educated) figures, but his Great Exhibition was a huge success. He died in 1861, in his early 40s. Babbage in 1871.
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
When the speaker on the TED video described Babbage as the kind of nerd who never finished projects because he kept stumbling on something new and exciting to pursue, I thought of this guy.
From tfa:
"The project hopes to have a working machine before the 2030s."
Based on the title I hoped they found the John Galt electrical motor...
A nice "what if" novel was written by Gibson and Sterling, based on a posited successful adoption of the difference engine in Victorian times. It's classed as Sci Fi, but is more of a novel set in an alternative history. Definitely worth reading.
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
It's more likely that Lovelace was simply paraphrasing things Babbage had discussed with her. In the real world, females view mathematics as rape and don't understand why there's a computer on their desk. I've yet to meet a female who can even comprehend the basic features of a word processor such as tabstops or using 1st and 2nd level headings to organize the typo-ridden, disjointed, grammar catastrophe their vaginas vomit up on to a page.
Women don't /want/ to be equal. What they want is to be able to have a baby whenever they choose, and it doesn't matter what guy donates the genetic material necessary, just so long as they can make him look like a creep and a rapist so the child support checks will just flow in. Then they call this "good, christian family values."
Women know they can get most guys to just cave in to their every whim, and that's all that happened between Lovelace and Babbage. She probably gave him a good load of bullshit, just enough to trick him into thinking that she actually understood anything she was taking about. Of course, it was probably to Babbage's advantage anyway to make it look like a female could understand anything not related to motherhood.
Females can get equal pay when they're able to perform equal work. This myth about the first programmer being a woman is just yet another cudgel that females use to try to guilt trip men into giving them more and more handouts.
Well, ladies, you can bitch about it all you want, but they pay me because I make computers do things. You females, apparently, cannot, and that's why you don't get the job. You can call sexism and other hysterics all you want, but at the end of the day, the computer either goes or it doesn't, and you can either go through hundreds of items by hand to create the report the client wants or you can realize that a computer can do it in a matter of seconds. Even if you can't comprehend how the computer produces the answer for me and not for you, you females have to admit that at the end of the day, an employer would rather pay me 133% of your wages because you're only 75% as productive as me.
More men are starting to realize that, and we're getting tired of listening to your bullshit. The computer doesn't care what body parts its operator has no matter how loudly you want to bitch and moan that the gender of the person sitting in front of the computer is what's making it either work or not.
Join the Slashcott! Stay away entirely Feb 10 thru Feb 17! Close all tabs to prevent autorefresh!
Konrad Zuse designed and built the first mechanical computer in 1941. It's his own design using binary.
bite my glorious golden ass.
Charles Babbage is the ultimate example of "The perfect is the enemy of the good." He was so caught up in what he could do better with the Analytical Engine that he did not fill the orders for the Difference Engine. If he had set some people up making Difference Engines rather than spending the money he was given to build a Difference Engine to design the Analytical Engine, he might have been able to get a steady enough flow of money to fund building and designing variations on the Analytical Engine. The question of course is, if he had done that, would he have lived long enough to get any work done on the Analytical Engine at all?
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
I can make the worlds best fucking computer from lego's.
I can do anything.
At least, I can say I can do anything.
So, until these people actually build the machine, they can fuck off, attention seeking glory hounds.
Be seeing you...
not the first mechanical computer by millenia, but rather the first turing-complete programmable automatic mechanical computer. big difference.
Can you really say someone "invented" something if they never actually managed to build it? I have tremendous respect for the work Babbage and Lovelace did, but honestly, I'm not sure they invented the computer any more than da Vinci invented the airplane.
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
I am quoting from memory here, from Terence Kealey's two books, out of which "The economic laws of scientific research" is the best.
Charles Babbage talked the British government into investing in the differential machine. He didn't complete it and the money was wasted. A couple of Swedes actually built the machine, but didn't sell many. You see, once you have calculated logarithmic tables and the like once, you can just print more of them.
The positive result was that the government of the UK did not spend a penny on higher education until after the first world war. I write positive, since the empirical evidence shows that since higher civilian education was all private, it was as a consequence the best in the world. Britain was also the richest country in the world, which helped, but for every dollar government spends on higher education, the private sector spends about 1.25 less. This was true then, and according to the OECD (but hidden away in their reports), it is true now.
Darwin was a self-financed hobby researcher. He did not apply for grants, he did not have PhD students and he did not have to follow politically fashionable theories of the day.
All British universities had huge private endowments. Unfortunately, they invested in government bonds and at the end of WWI, these had been reduced to only 25% of their value. The intended students had also been shot to pieces in the trenches. So in 1920, British universities were bankrupt, because of the government, and became state run.
John Graham-Cumming is the leading light behind a project...
Leading lights generally work better in front of things. I think your metaphorator might be a bit misaligned...
Yep. Looks like you've got some sinusoidal co-pleneration between the literal input shafts. Gonna have to replace your main spurving bearing, maybe the secondary too. A couple of the marzel vanes on your imagery agitator are looking a pretty worn, might want to get those replaced while you're at it.
Bugrit! Millenium hand and shrimp!
From TFA: The project hopes to have a working machine before the 2030s.
If it's going to take them 20 years to build one of these things with today's fabrication technology, how the hell would this have actually been built in the 1800s?
Going to the
I-PROGRAMMER
website is always
a complete
fucking hassle.
It rapes my eyes
with its shitty
layout and
dedication of
only about two
inches of screen
real-estate for
actual content.
I wish people
would just
stop fucking
linking to it
and find another
source for
the stories they
want to discuss.
It's a great project, but I don't think it's really happening. The guy behind it is into PR, not cutting metal. "The project hopes to have a working machine before the 2030s."
There's a simulator for the Analytical Engine. It runs in a Java applet, and you can write and run programs. It's not that hard to program. The Analytical Engine is comparable to a low-end programmable calculator, without trig functions.
The machine itself isn't that complicated; just big. It's big because Babbage specified 1000 memory locations of 50 decimal digits each. So you need 50,000 memory wheels. That's all for data; programs are on cards. The "mill" part of the machine is roughly the complexity of a good mechanical desk calculator.
That's actually far too much memory for what the thing can do. Nobody seems to know why 50 digits, either. Babbage had figured out shifting, and understood scale factors, so it's not that he wanted to put the decimal point in some fixed place and work in fixed fractional mode.
If the thing were built with 100 memory locations of 10 digits each (a typical configuration for an 1980s programmable calculator), it would be equally capable, and 1/50th the size. That's enough capacity for navigational tables and astronomy. Built with full memory, it would be the size of a locomotive, and most of the memory would be idle. The extra memory wouldn't make it useful for bookkeeping or business; the I/O isn't there for that.
I wrote in and asked how many part numbers (different parts) the machine has, which gives a sense of how much manufacturing effort is required. There probably aren't that many; all 50,000 memory wheels will be identical, and most of the "mill" is repeats of a 1 digit mechanical adder. I didn't get an answer.
Somebody should model the machine in SolidWorks or Autodesk Inventor. (Or upgrade the mechanism support in Minecraft and let that crowd do it.)
Wow, that is the most sexist thing I've seen on /. More and more women are in CS degree programs; its not 50/50 but it is no longer just 1 per class. They do as well as the men; the ones with kids tend to not do as well, but then that seems to be a problem with the men with kids too. I'd say kids seems to impact women more than men. Culturally and biologically, the women will prioritize the kids higher than the men over college work. The difference I perceive is so little its more of a guess on my part. The women do let you know they have kids right away while the men with kids may never bring it up; not as an excuse but because women seem to make the kids part of their identity so its almost like another part of their name. Young women and young men are equally poor students; I'd say the young women who feel secure with their boyfriend are better; while the young men do not seem to improve with a steady partner.
Older women of previous generations are a REAL problem; they were raised with mental blocks while the men of that age may also have issues but they feel like they should "get it" at least to some degree simply because they are a man. Culture taught that men are naturally inclined for that stuff, not true but it works on them. Racism may have no basis in science but the genders are extremely different. Gender differences are greater than ANY racial differences and the difference is so obvious that makes all that equality stuff seem stupid; especially if you live with the opposite sex - you have to see it. The brains evolved differently for the two genders; if women were shunned for thinking extremely enough and early enough then they would be less intelligent.... I am not sure how we could have possibly evolved with a great difference in intelligence between genders.
That is not how it worked which is why women are just as smart and men are blinded by their sex drive TODAY. This still gives women undue power over men and protects them to some degree (another reason why smart ones would do better.) Men will settle for any women who can have their children, their drive is all about mass production. Feel lucky that you didn't evolve more male related features like other animals, such as those who leave a plug in the female (the tip of their tool breaks off in the female.)
Women seem to have a social IQ higher than men, possibly because of their evolved situation but it is not so great that some men can't attain high levels of skill at it. Probably it just comes easier to women. Technology is not such a big deal; men have no edge. Now I would say watching some girls grow up that their interests are biased in a direction that puts them at a disadvantage but I can not be sure their bias is all that biological in nature, the culture heavily pushes them even today. I'm also seeing how girls learn behaviors from TV and movies; there is no society anymore, just individual consumers and the childhood peers they learn from are also picking up things from pop "culture" which is all distorted or fake. They may feel like they must have a job and take care of kids and cook letting the man do less...as shown on the culture rewrite machine; but they also get some attitude from there as well. Manipulation and defensive tactics are also learned as well. Given how males watch shallow tv shows... its no wonder they turn out as they do. Watch some chick flicks and see how educational it is, that dribble is almost like a dull educational video on social topics - then compare how much info can be passively picked up vs some stupid BOND movie. For the men, gadgets, tech, aggression, and casual sex (or a lot less everything if it is watching sports... well, add hunting-style tactics if watching sports.)
There are serious real gender differences that do not get discussed because of moron sexists like the parent; we have little in the way of answers nor is it likely we will find that many --- unless you start removing the power of environment... then you can do some proper experim
Yep, the Analytical Engine was a Turing Machine long before Turing showed up. Babbage deserves more credit as the father of computing than Turing does, in my opinion. Just saying.
in 2011
and 2010
This is not news in any way. It was known years ago, the attempt to make it started a long time ago as well (not this one, but a shitload of others), and there is nothing of interest here. Olds, not news.
I think I'll take my chances with Government and taxes versus Libertarians and giant corporations, thank you. I can at least vote for Governments and pay an accountant to ensure I don't pay too much tax. But in your world, where the price of food and oil is set by whoever can buy up all of it and dole it out at will, I don't have a vote.
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
Thomas Fowler actually built a calculation machine in wood, presented to the Royal Society in 1840!!!!
http://www.thomasfowler.org.uk/
This only fault was not to have the social background that Babbage had...
I quote from the front page of the site dedicated to him:
Fowler writes to Airy:
"I had the honor in May 1840 to submit the machine to the inspection of many Learned Men in London among whom were the Marquis of Northampton, Mr Babbage, W F Baily and A de Morgan Esq with many other Noblemen and Gentlemen, Fellows of the Royal Society etc and it would have been a great satisfaction to me if I could have had the advantage of your opinion also. They all spoke favourably of my invention but my greatest wish was to have had a thorough investigation of the whole principle of the machine and its details, as far as I could explain them, in a way very different from a popular exhibition:- this investigation I hope it will still have by some first rate men of science before it is be laid aside or adopted.
I am fully aware of tendency to overrate one's own inventions and to attach undue importance to subjects that preoccupy the mind but I venture to say and hope to be fully appreciated by a Gentleman of your scientific achievements, that I am often astonished at the beautiful aspect of a calculation entirely mechanical.
I often reflect that had the Ternary instead of the binary Notation been adopted in the Infancy of Society, machines something like the present would long ere this have been common, as the transition from mental to mechanical calculation would have been so very obvious and simple.
I am very sorry I cannot furnish you with any drawings of the Machine, but I hope I shall be able to exhibit it before the British Association at Devonport in August next, where I venture to hope and believe I may again be favoured with your invaluable assistance to bring it into notice. I have led a very retired life in this town without the advantages of any hints or assistance from any one and I should be lost amidst the crowd of learned and distinguished persons assembled at the meeting without some kind friend to take me by the hand and protect me."
Charles Babbage, Augustus De Morgan, George Airy and many other leading mathematicians of the day witnessed his machine in operation. These names have become beacons in the history of science yet nowhere will you find reference to Thomas Fowler. Airy asked that he produce plans of his machine but Fowler, recalling his experience with the Thermosiphon, refused to publish his design.
The machine was superior in many respects to Babbage's calculating machine, the Difference Engine, generally regarded as the first digital computer. Fowler's machine anticipated the modern computer in its design by using a ternary calculating method. This is in contrast to Babbage's machine which performed a decimal calculation, an approach which made his machine very complicated. The government of the day became increasingly disillusioned by the money they were having to pour into its development. So much so that the government refused to even look at Fowler's machine. Had Thomas Fowler published his design he would no doubt have won the support of many leading mathematicians of the time. Unfortunately, it took several decades before his approach was re-invented and in the mean time his name had slipped into obscurity.
Yikes, it should not take that long with today's manufacturing technology.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Could it possibly have anything to do with their IQ?
No, don't tell me... it's all 'whitey's fault'...
Your country is being taken over by third worlders who can't even program a computer, let alone BUILD one. What future do you think your children have?
Google "Flying Crowbar". THAT'S the greatest machine never built.
Porn on that must have been awesome!
Only Imperial College could have held this kind of event and invite JG Cumming haha.
http://tedximperialcollege.com/
There is this Also Faisal guy as well who is doing neuro-computing. Pretty neat
Bizeso Advertisement is the place where you can advertise your business and see other advertisement free of cost.Bizeso Advertisement provides you free platform to post new storyboard and discover many other stories . For more visit http://advertisement.bizeso.com
Assuming the best of all possible worlds, the Analytical Engine is built and it works, what aspects of life would have been advanced by it? Whenever I hear about it, people talk about it as if it would have turned Victorian London into a Steampunk Silicon Valley and enabled great advances.
Would running programs on the difference engine have been sophisticated enough or capable of enough complexity to solve significant engineering problems that were too difficult or time consuming to solve with the by-hand mathematics of the era?
Was the system scalable enough that you could have built a bigger one capable of handing more useful/larger computations? Or shrinkable enough to make portable to use on ships or in remote locations, yet still calculate useful things?
That's true.