<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">I second that! <div>Best, Marc</div><div><i><br></i></div><div><div><div>On Jun 25, 2014, at 4:07 PM, Chuck House wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><div>Superb!<br><br>On Jun 25, 2014, at 3:28 PM, Dag Spicer <<a href="mailto:dspicer@computerhistory.org">dspicer@computerhistory.org</a>> wrote:<br><br><blockquote type="cite">Here’s a (hopefully) relevant piece I wrote back in 2000 on “Firsts" for The Mercurians, the communications specialty group within SHOT.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Source: <a href="http://www.mercurians.org/2000_Spring/letters.htm">http://www.mercurians.org/2000_Spring/letters.htm</a><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Not the First Word on "Firsts"<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">To the Editors:<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">I enjoyed reading the editorial on "firsts" in the recent issue of Antenna. It resonated very strongly with the activities of The Computer Museum History Center, where I am Curator & Manager of Historical Collections. We are very frequently asked: "what or who was first?" Some time ago, I instructed all History Center staff to never use the "f-word" (or, in fact, any superlatives) as a matter of Museum policy. The reasons for this particular institutional prohibition are several.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">To begin, as Robert Merton noted in his great paper on "Singletons and Multiples in Science," it is rare that anything is objectively invented first or, if so, the unpacking of the relevant historical details in support of such claims blurs into "matters of religion" or patent disputes, neither of which necessarily correspond to priority beyond the narrow "qui bono" constructions that often underlie them. That is not to say the facts do not matter, but simply that often the reasons a particular question is being asked will tell you more than any putative answer. Are we thus mired in our own "subject-positions?" Do we always have to "follow the money"? No, but it's almost always more historically truthful to get questioners to change tack and ask the right question rather than telling them what they want to hear.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Also, the concept of "firsts" doesn't sit well with a sophisticated, critical understanding of the historical process of invention generally. With respect to the history of computing, I am constantly amazed at the invention of "firsts" by later aspirants to the throne. Innovations in microprocessor design, for example, almost invariably have antecedents in the "ancient" technologies of the mainframe from thirty or forty years ago. It is only the lack of disciplinary identity and historical consciousness among each generation of engineering graduates that fosters this "I did it first" perspective.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">In complex systems, such as are typical of 20th century innovations, the adage "No man is an island" is particularly apt. As we know well, Edison, for example, did more than invent the light bulb. He devised an infrastructure for the bulb to live in. The same can be said for inventors of the telegraph, the telephone, jet aircraft, atomic weapons, radio and television, the laser, and in our case, computers. The "Search for Firsts," as suggested above, is usually of legalistic and journalistic significance only. Lawyers and journalists are particularly reluctant to accept the Center's refusal to make definitive claims on behalf of any one individual!<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Claimants to firsts generally deploy as their first line of attack the concealment of context. This is particularly disturbing to any historian of technology and has the "hero worship" alluded to in the recent Antenna editorial as its substrate. I think this also nicely echoes your quoted source's remark that "...everyone loves an argument over fact rather than theory." Rather than addressing the subtleties of many people within a specific technical community working on related problems, it is simply the desire to encapsulate in a few short thoughts someone who can become iconic for a specific invention. If they are deceased, so much the better! There are no messy letters to the editor refuting public claims to the contrary. Newspapers and the media generally are the worst offenders. Nonetheless, with some explanation, reporters can be guided gently towards succinct descriptions of an invention that remain true to historical fact, viz. an explanation that will satisfy both layperson and sophisticate.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Because we at the Center view ourselves as one of the few keepers of the interpretive and historical conscience in the history of computing, and that we are considered authoritative within this specialty by a large as well as diverse audience, it is only ethical for us to not only explain the facts, but to instruct seekers of knowledge in their deployment. Piaget noted that a child develops the ability to ask "where did this come from?" at about the age of 12, and that the explanations they find satisfactory at this age are relatively simplified (if not simplistic). Not accidentally, the "intelligent twelve year old" is generally the level at which most media target their audience in terms of vocabulary and, I think, understanding. To break out of the heroic mold of history, we need to overcome this rather low bar with explanations that put individuals within their communities, moving from the paradigm "L'invention, c'est moi" to one in which the earthly inventions homo faber creates revolve around communities not individuals. Even towering figures, like Seymour Cray, to cite someone in the history of computing, had his refrigeration engineer without whom Cray's machines would have melted within minutes.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">I often meditate on the agony that Elisha Gray must have felt. He filed his patent application for the telephone only hours after Alexander Graham Bell, and as a result, he was written out of history. I think it is Gray's resultant lifetime of disappointment that makes me so wary of, and reluctant to claim, anything as a "first." There are rare exceptions, I'll admit, but it seems the height of injustice to perpetuate narratives that turn the history of technology and the process of invention into such a zero-sum game.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">I would enjoy hearing from others about this topic. On having these thoughts I am certain of one thing: I am not the first.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">________________________________<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Dag Spicer is an electrical engineer and historian of technology with advanced degrees from the University of Toronto and Stanford University. He is Curator and Manager of Historical Collections at The Computer Museum History Center, home to the world's largest collection of computing artifacts, in Mountain View, California.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">--<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Dag Spicer<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Senior Curator<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Computer History Museum<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Editorial Board, IEEE Annals of the History of Computing<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">1401 North Shoreline Boulevard<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Mountain View, CA 94043-1311<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Tel: +1 650 810 1035<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Fax: +1 650 810 1055<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Twitter: @ComputerHistory<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">On Jun 25, 2014, at 7:46 AM, Thomas Haigh <thaigh@computer.org<<a href="mailto:thaigh@computer.org">mailto:thaigh@computer.org</a>>> wrote:<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Hello everyone,<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Hmm, the discovery of those diagrams is good news for EDSAC rebuilders but I<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">was surprised to see that the press release twice calls EDSAC "the first<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">practical general purpose computer." One occurrence is in the boilerplate<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">passage on EDSAC at the bottom of the release, which suggests that this is<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">TNMOC's official position. That seems to violate the de facto truce<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">concluded between early computer history enthusiasts in the early 1980s when<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">they settled on the appropriate series of adjectives to go between "first"<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">and "computer." As Mike Williams once wrote, "there is more than enough<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">glory in the creation of the modern computer to satisfy all of the early<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">pioneers, most of whom are no longer in a position to care anyway." (That's<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">the introduction to the "The First Computers: History and Architecture"<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">collection from 2000). ENIAC got the metaphorical trophy for "first general<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">purpose electronic digital computer" in its original 1945 configuration<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">whereas EDSAC went home with the award for "first practical stored program<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">computer."<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">This reminds me that the second in my series of articles with Crispin Rope<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">and Mark Priestley about ENIAC and its early-1948 conversion to what has<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">sometimes been called read-only stored program operation was recently<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">published in Annals. We try to switch focus from "firsts" to questions of<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">practical capabilities, in support of our detailed analysis of ENIAC's 1948<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Monte Carlo program in the third and final paper, although we do conclude<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">that an entirely practical version of the programming method described in<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">the seminal 1945 First Draft of a Report on the EDVAC was implemented on<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">ENIAC in March-April 1948, some months before the Manchester "Baby" ran what<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">has usually been considered the first modern program.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Williams also noted that, "If you add enough adjectives to a description you<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">can always claim your own favorite. For example ENIAC is often claimed to be<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">the 'first electronic, general purpose, large scale, digital computer' and<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">you certainly have to add all those adjectives before you have a correct<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">statement." In our own work we argue that the history is somewhat more<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">complicated than can be captured by those "first [adjective] [adjective]<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">[adjective] computer" phrases, but that doesn't mean that "general purpose"<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">and "stored program" can be conflated. People who care about "firsts" also<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">need to take care with those adjectives.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">The paper is Thomas Haigh, Mark Priestley & Crispin Rope, "Engineering 'The<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Miracle of the ENIAC': Implementing the Modern Code Paradigm" IEEE Annals of<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">the History of Computing 36:2 (April-June 2014):41-59 and you can read it at<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><a href="http://eniacinaction.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/EngineeringTheMiracleoft">http://eniacinaction.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/EngineeringTheMiracleoft</a><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">heENIAC-scanned.pdf or, if you have access, from the IEEE CS Digital Library<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">at <a href="http://www.computer.org/csdl/mags/an/2014/02/man2014020041-abs.html">http://www.computer.org/csdl/mags/an/2014/02/man2014020041-abs.html</a>. Our<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><a href="http://www.EniacInAction.com">www.EniacInAction.com</a> website already includes a selection of technical<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">documents and primary sources related to ENIAC's conversion and to the Monte<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Carlo programs it ran in 1948 (though it is not yet complete or attractively<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">presented).<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Best wishes,<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Tom<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">From: <a href="mailto:members-bounces@sigcis.org">members-bounces@sigcis.org</a> [mailto:members-bounces@sigcis.org] On<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Behalf Of B. Randell<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2014 4:43 AM<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">To: members<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Cc: B. Randell<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Subject: [SIGCIS-Members] Fwd: News - Lost EDSAC diagrams reveal secrets of<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">one of the earliest computers<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Hi:<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Begin forwarded message:<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">From: Stephen Fleming <<a href="mailto:stephen.fleming@palam.co.uk">stephen.fleming@palam.co.uk</a>><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Subject: News - Lost EDSAC diagrams reveal secrets of one of the earliest<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">computers<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Date: 25 June 2014 09:16:22 BST<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">To: <<a href="mailto:brian.randell@ncl.ac.uk">brian.randell@ncl.ac.uk</a>><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Reply-To: <k><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">NEWS RELEASE<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Lost EDSAC diagrams reveal secrets of one of the earliest computers<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">25 June 2014<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Some of the earliest diagrams of a computer have been rediscovered more than<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">sixty years after they were drawn and are giving the EDSAC team at The<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">National Museum of Computing fresh insights into their ongoing<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">reconstruction of the world's first general purpose computer.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">You can read the full release<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">here: <a href="http://www.tnmoc.org/news/news-releases/lost-edsac-diagrams-reveal-sec">http://www.tnmoc.org/news/news-releases/lost-edsac-diagrams-reveal-sec</a><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">rets-one-earliest-computers<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Cheers<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Brian Randell<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">School of Computing Science, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE1<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">7RU<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">EMAIL = <a href="mailto:Brian.Randell@ncl.ac.uk">Brian.Randell@ncl.ac.uk</a> PHONE = +44 191 222 7923<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">URL = <a href="http://www.cs.ncl.ac.uk/people/brian.randell">http://www.cs.ncl.ac.uk/people/brian.randell</a><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">_______________________________________________<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">This email is relayed from <a href="mailto:members@sigcis.org">members@sigcis.org</a>, the email discussion list of SHOT SIGCIS. The list archives are at <a href="http://sigcis.org/pipermail/members/">http://sigcis.org/pipermail/members/</a> and you can change your subscription options at <a href="http://sigcis.org/mailman/listinfo/members">http://sigcis.org/mailman/listinfo/members</a><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">_______________________________________________<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">This email is relayed from <a href="mailto:members@sigcis.org">members@sigcis.org</a>, the email discussion list of SHOT SIGCIS. The list archives are at <a href="http://sigcis.org/pipermail/members/">http://sigcis.org/pipermail/members/</a> and you can change your subscription options at <a href="http://sigcis.org/mailman/listinfo/members">http://sigcis.org/mailman/listinfo/members</a><br></blockquote><br>_______________________________________________<br>This email is relayed from <a href="mailto:members@sigcis.org">members@sigcis.org</a>, the email discussion list of SHOT SIGCIS. The list archives are at <a href="http://sigcis.org/pipermail/members/">http://sigcis.org/pipermail/members/</a> and you can change your subscription options at <a href="http://sigcis.org/mailman/listinfo/members">http://sigcis.org/mailman/listinfo/members</a><br></div></blockquote></div><br><div apple-content-edited="true"><div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: medium; ">Marc Weber | <a href="mailto:marc@webhistory.org">marc@webhistory.org</a> | +1 415 282 6868 <br>Internet History Program Founder and Curator, Computer History Museum <br>1401 N Shoreline Blvd., Mountain View CA 94043 <a href="http://computerhistory.org/nethistory">computerhistory.org/nethistory</a><br>Co-founder, Web History Center and Project, webhistory.org <br></div></div><br></div></body></html>