Give it a rest. The idea that Americans think Americans pioneered everything is even more of a shopworn generalization than Americans who actually think Americans pioneered everything.
Yes it is. It's in the section on "Stored-program architecture":
A number of projects to develop computers based on the stored-program architecture commenced around this time, the first of which was completed in 1948 at the University of Manchester in England, the Manchester Small-Scale Experimental Machine (SSEM or “Baby”).
The UK tech companies found it hard to export to the US
Why?
Selling to mainland Europe required translations
Is that a big deal? Especially if you went for a few major languages, like German, first. I would think that European manufacturers would have been more used to the need for translations than American companies.
it lays to rest the myth that Americans invented the computer
It does, but it's been many years since the "ENIAC was the first electronic computer" myth was prevalent anyway.
The post is right that Baby was tremendously important for being the first computer with an electronically stored program. However if you want to debate who invented the modern computer, it's absurd to say that any one person or group did so. Histories are right to trace it back at least as far as Babbage. In the 1930's and 1940's there were numerous people and groups in the UK, US and even Germany (Zuse) that all made important contributions.
The NSA has a secret budget believed to be around $10B/annually (out of a total intelligence budget of about $75B), and we know that they are spending billions of dollars on new datacenters, so how does anyone know that the USA is falling behind in computers that can be used as weapons?
"Used as weapons" requires further clarification. It doesn't mean weapons used against Americans.
Exaflop computing isn't that widely applicable, except to highly parallel algorithms, and we more or less have that covered by adding bunches of PCs together
The "bunches of PC's" works great for some algorithms, but not all. Furthermore the economy of it depends largely on people donating computing power. There are limits to how far you can go with that. "Exaflop computing isn't that widely applicable" reminds me of the 1950's prediction that 5 computers could satisfy the entire world's needs.
I think this guy is a little more interested in keeping people who want to build exaflop computers employed than he is in actually solving problems
What else is new? The same is true of everybody who tries to sell me something. The question is always whether it's worth it.
Shut up and take the money. Later on we can employ the exa-tech for something useful.
What do you think funded the development of the earliest computers, like ENIAC and Colossus? How about the USAF being about the only customer willing to pay for the first IC's? Or so many of the comm techniques we use today, like CDMA, frequency hopping, and FEC?
More than half the people here are opposed to this because it's vaguely associated with the military. Get a grip. The military ties are a hook to get funding, since defense is the sacred cow of the federal budget. Better money spent on this than turkeys like the F-35. Technology like this is so general and widely applicable that it's useful no matter what excuse is used for development.
In order for NYC to stay as a competitive global city, it needs a dedicated high tech sector
No it doesn't. As a techie I'd love for it to, but even a very big tech sector would be dwarfed by other industries in NYC. NYC already has a lot more tech (mostly software) than people realize, but it's not as visible because so much of it feeds into finance.
like Boston, Los Angeles, D.C., ATL and Seattle
Are you talking about those cities proper, or the metro areas? Big difference. For example I don't think D.C. proper has much tech, but the MD Rockville-Germantown area has a lot. If you're talking metro areas, then w/ NYC you should include much of Northern NJ, Long Island, and Westchester/Rockland. That last for example includes IBM headquarters and a lot of their research labs.
Quite a few tech companies have started to move from Silicon Valley to Texas. In a mushrooming market, you'll get these tight network effects but as things have matured other factors come into play and people start to want to not pay seven figures to live in a tiny box.
Moving much of their operations out of SV (but typically not HQ) is nothing new for larger companies. When's the last time Intel had a fab there?
You could find a smaller town/city than NYC that would still give you enjoyable life experiences (in fact in many ways better with less crime, traffic, etc).
While some of the options may not be as high known as in the city (say for example the Yankees there vs the Spikes here), not dealing with city life alone to me is more than enough of a reason for myself
Crime? If you're talking about the Cincinnati Spikes, you should know that Cincinnati has a higher crime rate than NYC. Cincinnati is #75 for highest crime rates - NYC doesn't even make the top 100. There are a lot of things that are far from wonderful about NY, including the crime, but it irks me when people assume NYC has a higher crime rate than other large (or even small) cities in the US. It's never been near the top, while many cities that people think are some sort of wholesome homeland places are.
I know when I think of the best way to start a new company or open a new branch or expand my new business, the first thing that comes to mind is open it in the most expensive area of one of the most expensive states with the most expensive rent and property costs.
Actually the second "Silicon Valley" is Boulder Colorado.
Sure it is, everybody knows that.
Everybody seems to have some place they like and claim it'll be the next SV because there are a few tech companies there. But here's a hint: it ain't gonna be Boulder. I don't think it'll be NYC either, or certainly not the full scope of SV. NYC is a good place for various business service startups and related software - there is actually nothing new about that. Maybe it's good for social networking garbage as long as that bubble lasts, since NYC is a place to find cool kids. Don't forget that Google bought the entire Port Authority building for $1.8B. It's in the Chelsea neighborhood of Manhattan, which is definitely a cool kid place. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/16/business/at-google-a-place-to-work-and-play.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
Brooklyn is a jail. And every inmate is just taking pride in their own cell block.
No, everybody who doesn't live in Manhattan is a bridge-and-tunnel person. Or maybe it's really bad, and you're from Staten Island. Might as well be in Joisey!
Slashdot Mirror
Two words: Al Gore.
Two words: urban legend.
And it didn't happen in the USA.
Give it a rest. The idea that Americans think Americans pioneered everything is even more of a shopworn generalization than Americans who actually think Americans pioneered everything.
...this machine isn't even mentioned in the Wikipedia computer entry, then? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer
Yes it is. It's in the section on "Stored-program architecture":
A number of projects to develop computers based on the stored-program architecture commenced around this time, the first of which was completed in 1948 at the University of Manchester in England, the Manchester Small-Scale Experimental Machine (SSEM or “Baby”).
The UK tech companies found it hard to export to the US
Why?
Selling to mainland Europe required translations
Is that a big deal? Especially if you went for a few major languages, like German, first. I would think that European manufacturers would have been more used to the need for translations than American companies.
P.S. Wish I had mod points to bump up your post.
it lays to rest the myth that Americans invented the computer
It does, but it's been many years since the "ENIAC was the first electronic computer" myth was prevalent anyway.
The post is right that Baby was tremendously important for being the first computer with an electronically stored program. However if you want to debate who invented the modern computer, it's absurd to say that any one person or group did so. Histories are right to trace it back at least as far as Babbage. In the 1930's and 1940's there were numerous people and groups in the UK, US and even Germany (Zuse) that all made important contributions.
The NSA has a secret budget believed to be around $10B/annually (out of a total intelligence budget of about $75B), and we know that they are spending billions of dollars on new datacenters, so how does anyone know that the USA is falling behind in computers that can be used as weapons?
"Used as weapons" requires further clarification. It doesn't mean weapons used against Americans.
Exaflop computing isn't that widely applicable, except to highly parallel algorithms, and we more or less have that covered by adding bunches of PCs together
The "bunches of PC's" works great for some algorithms, but not all. Furthermore the economy of it depends largely on people donating computing power. There are limits to how far you can go with that. "Exaflop computing isn't that widely applicable" reminds me of the 1950's prediction that 5 computers could satisfy the entire world's needs.
I think this guy is a little more interested in keeping people who want to build exaflop computers employed than he is in actually solving problems
What else is new? The same is true of everybody who tries to sell me something. The question is always whether it's worth it.
there is vanishingly little justification for exascale computing
640k ought to be enough for anyone.
Shut up and take the money. Later on we can employ the exa-tech for something useful.
What do you think funded the development of the earliest computers, like ENIAC and Colossus? How about the USAF being about the only customer willing to pay for the first IC's? Or so many of the comm techniques we use today, like CDMA, frequency hopping, and FEC?
But Truman was a fellow traveler - the ghost of tail gunner Joe told me! Cognitive dissonance - my head is going to explode!
More than half the people here are opposed to this because it's vaguely associated with the military. Get a grip. The military ties are a hook to get funding, since defense is the sacred cow of the federal budget. Better money spent on this than turkeys like the F-35. Technology like this is so general and widely applicable that it's useful no matter what excuse is used for development.
If that had kept going, we'd be living in apartments on Mars by now.
I dunno, people on another thread were complaining that NYC is expensive. Silicon Planet?
In order for NYC to stay as a competitive global city, it needs a dedicated high tech sector
No it doesn't. As a techie I'd love for it to, but even a very big tech sector would be dwarfed by other industries in NYC. NYC already has a lot more tech (mostly software) than people realize, but it's not as visible because so much of it feeds into finance.
like Boston, Los Angeles, D.C., ATL and Seattle
Are you talking about those cities proper, or the metro areas? Big difference. For example I don't think D.C. proper has much tech, but the MD Rockville-Germantown area has a lot. If you're talking metro areas, then w/ NYC you should include much of Northern NJ, Long Island, and Westchester/Rockland. That last for example includes IBM headquarters and a lot of their research labs.
I hear dudes from Toledo wear women's clothing.
Only when they're in Korea.
Right, because Google, Apple, Microsoft, and all other major contenders have giant campuses in NYC...
Google owns 3 million square feet of space in Manhattan, and was willing to pay $1.9B for it.
Quite a few tech companies have started to move from Silicon Valley to Texas. In a mushrooming market, you'll get these tight network effects but as things have matured other factors come into play and people start to want to not pay seven figures to live in a tiny box.
Moving much of their operations out of SV (but typically not HQ) is nothing new for larger companies. When's the last time Intel had a fab there?
What part of OK?
Have fun cow tipping.
NYC hicks.
If you think the world ends at the border of your home town you are a hick. Even if your 'home town' is NYC.
No offense, but your geography is lacking. See this map.
You could find a smaller town/city than NYC that would still give you enjoyable life experiences (in fact in many ways better with less crime, traffic, etc).
While some of the options may not be as high known as in the city (say for example the Yankees there vs the Spikes here), not dealing with city life alone to me is more than enough of a reason for myself
Crime? If you're talking about the Cincinnati Spikes, you should know that Cincinnati has a higher crime rate than NYC. Cincinnati is #75 for highest crime rates - NYC doesn't even make the top 100. There are a lot of things that are far from wonderful about NY, including the crime, but it irks me when people assume NYC has a higher crime rate than other large (or even small) cities in the US. It's never been near the top, while many cities that people think are some sort of wholesome homeland places are.
never heard of the Brooklyn Navy Yard before. didn't know New York City had a navy base. i've heard of the Battery fort but not the Navy Yard.
The Brooklyn Navy Yard was actually a naval shipyard rather than a regular base.
I know when I think of the best way to start a new company or open a new branch or expand my new business, the first thing that comes to mind is open it in the most expensive area of one of the most expensive states with the most expensive rent and property costs.
So you're opening it in SV or SF?
Actually the second "Silicon Valley" is Boulder Colorado.
Sure it is, everybody knows that.
Everybody seems to have some place they like and claim it'll be the next SV because there are a few tech companies there. But here's a hint: it ain't gonna be Boulder. I don't think it'll be NYC either, or certainly not the full scope of SV. NYC is a good place for various business service startups and related software - there is actually nothing new about that. Maybe it's good for social networking garbage as long as that bubble lasts, since NYC is a place to find cool kids. Don't forget that Google bought the entire Port Authority building for $1.8B. It's in the Chelsea neighborhood of Manhattan, which is definitely a cool kid place. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/16/business/at-google-a-place-to-work-and-play.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
Brooklyn is a jail. And every inmate is just taking pride in their own cell block.
No, everybody who doesn't live in Manhattan is a bridge-and-tunnel person. Or maybe it's really bad, and you're from Staten Island. Might as well be in Joisey!
I couldn't even find a list of Brooklyn startups.
Cause we don't bother telling the rubes. If ya ain't in da neighborhood, ya ain't worth talkin' to.