Burt Rutan thinks AGW is BS

[PolyGirl]

PCs weren't invented in a laboratory, they were the result of massive computers in universities, the military and NASA, gradually being made cheaper more powerful and more compact.

PC's were invented in a Laboratory.

Definition of Laboratory (noun)

1. A room or building equipped for scientific experimentation or research.
2. An academic period devoted to work or study in such a place.
3. A place where drugs and chemicals are manufactured.
4. A place for practice, observation, or testing.

Regards
Polygirl

[PolyGirl]

Well not exactly. Microcomputers were actually the spawn of calculators.

Well not exactly, Calculators are the spawn of humans as humans were the original computers.

1. Fingers, Toes, and Pebbles
2. Bones with Notches
3. Tally Sticks
4. The Abacus
5. John Napier and Napier's Bones

The first mechanical calculators where built before the first mechanical computers. However the first electronic computers were built before the first electronic calculators. The construction of the first electronic computer COLOSSUS, began in January 1943 and was finished in December 1943.[1] Whereas the world’s first electronic calculator was released in 1961 under the name Anita Mk 8 in England and Anita Mk VII in continental Europe[2]

Now MSimon when you made your statement "Well not exactly. Microcomputers were actually the spawn of calculators", which type of calculator, mechanical or electronic where you exactly talking about?

Regards
Polygirl
[1] An even earlier version of an electronic computer is often given by John Vincent Atanasoff and the ABC and is alleged to have been built in 1942
[2]Anita: the world's first electronic desktop calculator

[Tom Ligon]

Forgive me if I'm coming in a little late here. There were large numbers of electromechanical calculators running in the 1930's, and they were four-bangers (+ - * /), not just adding machines. They were used in a government program to employ mathematicians in the Depression, and the result was tables of trig functions, logarithms, etc. These guys used to crunch exponential series calculations all day, and the name for these poor suckers was "computers."

Somewhere in there you have to acknowledge the Babbage Engine, an attempt at a quasi-programmable electromechanical number cruncher that probably should be classified as a programmable electronic calculator.

It, in turn, was the product of a long series of developments in automatic manufacuring controls developed for the weaving industry. That industry was using punched cards in the 1800's to control looms.

[tomclarke]

Well not exactly. Microcomputers were actually the spawn of calculators.

Well not exactly, Calculators are the spawn of humans as humans were the original computers.

1. Fingers, Toes, and Pebbles
2. Bones with Notches
3. Tally Sticks
4. The Abacus
5. John Napier and Napier's Bones

The first mechanical calculators where built before the first mechanical computers. However the first electronic computers were built before the first electronic calculators. The construction of the first electronic computer COLOSSUS, began in January 1943 and was finished in December 1943.[1] Whereas the world’s first electronic calculator was released in 1961 under the name Anita Mk 8 in England and Anita Mk VII in continental Europe[2]

Now MSimon when you made your statement "Well not exactly. Microcomputers were actually the spawn of calculators", which type of calculator, mechanical or electronic where you exactly talking about?

Regards
Polygirl
[1] An even earlier version of an electronic computer is often given by John Vincent Atanasoff and the ABC and is alleged to have been built in 1942
[2]Anita: the world's first electronic desktop calculator

EDSAC (Cambridge UK) ran its first program in 1949 and was the first stored program computer.

Here is a downloadable simulator:
http://www.dcs.warwick.ac.uk/~edsac/

Best wishes, Tom

[TallDave]

jmc,

Sorry, I haven't seen the abstract. Probably available somewhere.

B) Sure, just noting that people are talking about it. Have been since the 1900s actually.

C) It takes a long time for seas to rise, too. See Holland.

The problem with an ice age descent is that crop yields fall every year. So we're getting poorer and poorer, all else being equal, and less able to deal with the issue, assuming that's even possible. .

Geoengineering can be done reversibly. Lost economic growth and innovation cannot. We can focus on geoengineering R&D for 50 years and come out way ahead of reducing economic growth by 1% for the same time, which amount to cutting world GDP in half.

D) 10% chance CO2 drives temps x 10% chance this has any real consequences = 1%. We will not reach "unprecedented" levels for hundreds or thousands of years. Levels have been more than ten times higher than today -- and we had an Ice Age then.

E) It's not that remote. Tunguska was a millenial event. It could kill tens of millions. Toss it a few billion that's now going into AGW, that would do the trick.

F) Even if something comes along in 20 years cheaper than coal, China won't dismantle existing plants in any relevant time frame.

G) Most don't. This is usually because they're Gaia-ists of one kind or another -- musn't disturb Sacred Mother Earth.

[KitemanSA]

...
E) It's not that remote. Tunguska was a millenial event. It could kill tens of millions. Toss it a few billion that's now going into AGW, that would do the trick.
...

My concern is not so much a Tunguska level event, but the potential aftermath of a Tunguska event.
Imagine:
Iran's new reactor complex mysteriously blows up.
Pakistan's new leader says, I've had enough of those darn Jews and nukes Tel Aviv.
Israel nukes a couple of potential other foes then
all hell (almost literally) breaks loose.
Not a likely scenario? How does it compare with AGW "catastrophies"?

In the 1800s, downtown Seattle raised it's ground level one story to prevent tidal issues. Cities won't be lost, only the first floor or two. And they will still be there as basements. IF AGW HAPPENS!

[MSimon]

Well not exactly. Microcomputers were actually the spawn of calculators.

Well not exactly, Calculators are the spawn of humans as humans were the original computers.

1. Fingers, Toes, and Pebbles
2. Bones with Notches
3. Tally Sticks
4. The Abacus
5. John Napier and Napier's Bones

The first mechanical calculators where built before the first mechanical computers. However the first electronic computers were built before the first electronic calculators. The construction of the first electronic computer COLOSSUS, began in January 1943 and was finished in December 1943.[1] Whereas the world’s first electronic calculator was released in 1961 under the name Anita Mk 8 in England and Anita Mk VII in continental Europe[2]

Now MSimon when you made your statement "Well not exactly. Microcomputers were actually the spawn of calculators", which type of calculator, mechanical or electronic where you exactly talking about? :lol:

Regards
Polygirl
[1] An even earlier version of an electronic computer is often given by John Vincent Atanasoff and the ABC and is alleged to have been built in 1942
[2]Anita: the world's first electronic desktop calculator

I was thinking of Intel's 4004. Which led to the 4040 which were used in Beehive Terminals. I fixed more than a few of those. Which lead to the 8008 which led to the 8080. With the 8080 things really took off. Then came the Z-80. And the 6502 and the 6800 and a whole slew of other families. TMS 9000 for instance. And one of my faves the 68000 (although byte handling is awkward). But the 8086 beat the 68000 by about 6 months and the rest is history.

[KitemanSA]

But the 8086 beat the 68000 by about 6 months and the rest is history.

IBM has a lot to answer for. First they picked the 8086 series and THEN they picked Microsoft; and the rest is compu-hell.

[PolyGirl]

Tom you said

Forgive me if I'm coming in a little late here. There were large numbers of electromechanical calculators running in the 1930's

and

These guys used to crunch exponential series calculations all day, and the name for these poor suckers was "computers."

Tom, you are right in that electromechanical calculators and computers where the predecessors for the electronic ones for example some of the electromechanical calculators were the Autarith, created around 1902, [1], MADAS [2] and the Casio 14-A [3] and for the electromechanical computers the Zues Z1, Z2, Z3 and Z4 [4] and of course the Harvard Mark I – IBM ASCC [5]

The use of computer to refer to a person who does mathematical calculations dates to at least 1613 [6]

However you said

Somewhere in there you have to acknowledge the Babbage Engine, an attempt at a quasi-programmable electromechanical number cruncher that probably should be classified as a programmable electronic calculator.

This is not correct because the Babbage Engines are mechanical computers [7][8] and [9]. In addition Babbage designed the Difference engine around 1822 and the Analytical engine around 1833 to 1837 (these engines where basically never built during his life time). Electrical mechanical devices were bascially being invented from 1830's onwards[10]

Regards
Polygirl

[1] George C. Chase, "History of Mechanical Computing Machinery". Annals of the History of Computing, Volume 2, No. 3, July 1980.
[2] Edward Vanhoutte, “International History of computing, A selective overview (1614-1961)”, pg 4.
[3] Casio
[4] Zuse
[5] Computers
[6] Oxford English Dictionary (2 ed.), Oxford University Press, 1989
[7] Difference engine
[8] Analytical engine
[9] Edward Vanhoutte, “International History of computing, A selective overview (1614-1961)”, pg 2. (Note Vanhoutee refers Babbage engines as Calculators)
[10] history of Electricity

Edit: Corrected citation [10]

[Tom Ligon]

If sea levels start to rise, no US or European cities will be flooded. How do I know this? New Orleans. The dumb suckers didn't learn anything, they are rebuilding it. It has had parts below sea level, kept dry by pumps, for a century.

Manhattan will simply build dikes, and it would not surprise me if they were willing to go to forty feet or more in height.

[PolyGirl]

tomclarke you said

EDSAC (Cambridge UK) ran its first program in 1949 and was the first stored program computer.

That is not correct. Two fully operational computers the IBM SSEC (although it is contested as to being a first stored program)[1][2] [3] and the other was Manchester Small-Scale Experimental Machine also known as (the baby).[3][4][5]. There are other computers that are stored programs that predate EDSAC, but were not fully operational as compared with EDSAC.[6]

Regards
Polygirl

[1] IBM SSEC
[2] IBM SSEC
[3] Edward Vanhoutte, “International History of computing, A selective overview (1614-1961)”, pg 9.
[4] Manchester Small-Scale Experimental Machine
[5] Manchester Small-Scale Experimental Machine
[6] First stored program computer history

[KitemanSA]

WOW!
The battle of the compu-historians!

[tomclarke]

tomclarke you said

EDSAC (Cambridge UK) ran its first program in 1949 and was the first stored program computer.

That is not correct. Two fully operational computers the IBM SSEC (although it is contested as to being a first stored program)[1][2] [3] and the other was Manchester Small-Scale Experimental Machine also known as (the baby).[3][4][5]. There are other computers that are stored programs that predate EDSAC, but were not fully operational as compared with EDSAC.[6]

Regards
Polygirl

[1] IBM SSEC
[2] IBM SSEC
[3] Edward Vanhoutte, “International History of computing, A selective overview (1614-1961)”, pg 9.
[4] Manchester Small-Scale Experimental Machine
[5] Manchester Small-Scale Experimental Machine
[6] First stored program computer history

Thanks for these links Polygirl.

Well, I can still contend that EDSAC is the earliest given the following provisos:
(1) true CPU-controlled RW storage (not paper tape)
(2) computer of enough size to solve useful problems

Mercury delay-line memory - as used by EDSAC - is a clever idea.

Best wishes, Tom

[chrismb]

I thought the Jacquard loom was accepted as the first programmable machine?...... (in a time when 'Computer' was still a job title!)

[ravingdave]

I was thinking of Intel's 4004. Which led to the 4040 which were used in Beehive Terminals. I fixed more than a few of those. Which lead to the 8008 which led to the 8080. With the 8080 things really took off. Then came the Z-80. And the 6502 and the 6800 and a whole slew of other families. TMS 9000 for instance. And one of my faves the 68000 (although byte handling is awkward). But the 8086 beat the 68000 by about 6 months and the rest is history.

My recollection was that the IBM engineers designing the first pc looked really hard at the 68000. They liked everything about it and wanted to use it. However, the 8088 had one advantage that the 68000 did not. The 8088 used an 8bit data bus externally, though internally it was a 16 bit processor. This meant it could use 8 bit wide memory, therefore requiring only half the amount of expensive memory that a 68000 based system would need.(A True 16 bit processor) Since they were trying to hold down costs, this was the selling point that tipped them toward the klutzy 8088, instead of the far superior 68000. At the time, they regarded 64k segmented addressing a benefit. The intel engineers designed the chip to multitask different functions within the 64k segmented memory thinking that no one would ever need more than 64k bytes per program.

What fools!

David