- Members - lists.sigcis.org

daily conditions on the ground
by Willard McCarty 29 Aug '21

29 Aug '21

Dear SIGCIS members, I am looking for studies in the reception history of computing, ca. 1940-1960, that are based on evidence from widely available demotic sources, chiefly newspapers and magazines, in N America and Europe. I'm wanting to understand the social and political conditions ordinary people (including academics when they were at home) encountered day to day that would have conditioned their reactions and inclinations. Within academia those I'm focused on would not be the insiders, rather their curious or indifferent or back-turned sceptical colleagues. Many thanks for any references or hints of where to look. Yours, WM -- Willard McCarty, Professor emeritus, King's College London; Editor, Interdisciplinary Science Reviews; Humanist www.mccarty.org.uk

1 0

Post War Britain and the Tech Revolution
by Michael Winterbottom 26 Aug '21

26 Aug '21

Post War Britain and the Tech Revolution Historian Dr Sam Blaxland of Swansea University argues that the Archives of Information Technology collection is a rich resource for anyone studying the social and cultural history of post-war Britain. Read the full research paper here:- https://archivesit.org.uk/the-archives-of-information-technology-more-than-… <https://archivesit.org.uk/the-archives-of-information-technology-more-than-…>

1 0

Re: [SIGCIS-Members] Query about invention of wired networking
by Brian E Carpenter 25 Aug '21

25 Aug '21

If the trophy is for a stored-program machine, to me Zuse's claim is dubious and Williams+Kilburn get it (but the EDVAC *design* got it first on paper). Regards Brian Carpenter (biased, of course, by having been a grad student in Kilburn's department in the 1960s.) On 25-Aug-21 11:52, petereckstein wrote: > I apologize for jumping the gun by recalling that Eckert had told me that he had never heard of Turing. I have checked my notes on an interview from many decades ago and find no mention of Turing one way or another. I was probably thinking of what Eckert said about Babbage as his having had no influence. > > Now that I have read Tom Haigh's article, I do want to register one dissent. > If his metaphorical trophy is for the "first general-purpose automatic electronic digital computer," I would argue that Eckert and Mauchly at least hold the American title. The Atanasoff machine was not fully automatic, as intermediate results had to be carried by hand from one part of the machine to another, and it was not designed to be general-purpose but rather to solve simultaneous equations, which the recreated machine could do, but not nearly as fast as one of my early teenaged grandchildren. The early Aiken machines were electro-mechanical, not fundamentally electronic, in their manipulation of cardboard punch cards. One or more of the Europeans on Tom's list of trophy holders--Zuse, Kilburn, Wilkes, and especially Flowers--may have a claim, but I am not competent to judge. > > > > > Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy Tablet > > > -------- Original message -------- > From: petereckstein <petereckstein(a)comcast.net> > Date: 8/24/21 6:44 PM (GMT-05:00) > To: thomas.haigh(a)gmail.com, 'Douglas Lucas' <dal(a)riseup.net>, members(a)sigcis.org > Subject: Re: [SIGCIS-Members] Query about invention of wired networking > > Doug, > > I am a bit impatient with anything that perpetuates the It All Began with Turing mythology. I have not yet read Tom Haigh's article arguing that Turing did not invent the computer but I very much agree with the title. The leaders of the team that developed Eniac were Mauchly, a physicist, who was partly inspired by the counting circuits being used by physicists in the 1930s to count pulses, and Eckert, an electronic engineer, who was partly inspired by devices using multiple vacuum tubes. Eckert told me very emphatically that he had never even heard of Turing during the Eniac project. Turing may have played a (small or large) role in the British wartime Colossus, but that machine had little influence on subsequent computer development, because it was foolishly destroyed and then kept secret for many years. > > I am not sure where you want to go with your project, but perhaps there is some relevance in Binac, a one-off machine that the Eckert-Mauchly company built in the late forties or very early fifties. It was two processing units connected to each other, primarily, as I remember the story, for backup rather than for communication. Nancy Stern discusses it in her book, and there have been subsequent articles in the Annals. > > Peter Eckstein > > Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy Tablet > > > -------- Original message -------- > From: thomas.haigh(a)gmail.com > Date: 8/24/21 6:14 PM (GMT-05:00) > To: 'Douglas Lucas' <dal(a)riseup.net>, members(a)sigcis.org > Subject: Re: [SIGCIS-Members] Query about invention of wired networking > > Hello Doug, > > > > First off, you’ll find that while mathematicians and theoretical computer scientists often suggest that the computers constructed in the 1940s were in some way inspired or prompted by Turing’s theoretical work, the professional historians who’ve looked at the period generally agree that they weren’t. You’ll see some pointers to relevant work in my snappy summary “Actually, Turing Did Not Invent the Computer.” https://cacm.acm.org/magazines/2014/1/170862-actually-turing-did-not-invent… <https://cacm.acm.org/magazines/2014/1/170862-actually-turing-did-not-invent…> > > > > The impetus to provide remote access to computers likewise came from practical needs of the 1950s and early 1960s rather than theory. Two important early examples are the SAGE air defense network, described by Paul Edwards in _/The Closed World/_ and timesharing at Dartmouth University (and elsewhere) to provide multiple users with simultaneous interactive access to a single computer, described by Joy Rankin in _/A People’s History of Computing in the United States/_. > > > > The idea of connecting several computers together for general purpose communication, rather than hooking up terminals, peripherals, or data capture devices to a single computer, came slightly later. The idea was first realized in the ARPANET, which evolved to become the Internet. A great deal has been written on its history, beginning with Janet Abbate’s classic _/Inventing the Internet/_. I’d also recommend Mitch Waldrop’s _/The Dream Machine/_ for a broader look at interactive computing, timesharing, and networking in the era. > > > > In this case there was a conceptual work that predated and heavily influenced the actual network: Paul Baran’s description of what became known as packet switching. Though the relative conceptual contributions of Paul Baran, Leonard Kleinrock, and Louis Pouzin to the ideas that underlie these networks have been enthusiastically debated. You might look at the articles published in the journal Internet Histories, including several relevant publications by Morton Bay, for more on this topic. See https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rint20 <https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rint20>. Also Andrew Russell’s _/Open Standards and the Digital Age/_. And many others – it’s a substantial literature, much too large to describe in a single message, but if you want to know about the history of networking you should read on this topic rather than about Turing…. > > > > Best wishes, > > > > Tom > > > > *From:* Members <members-bounces(a)lists.sigcis.org> *On Behalf Of *Douglas Lucas > *Sent:* Tuesday, August 24, 2021 4:44 PM > *To:* members(a)sigcis.org > *Subject:* [SIGCIS-Members] Query about invention of wired networking > > > > Dear SIGCIS members, > > I'm a freelance writer/journalist who's published in multiple news outlets on hacktivism and who's lurked on this email list for some time. The past several months, I've been reading a great dealing about Alan Turing and the math behind /Computable Numbers/ (fundamental theorem of arithmetic, Gödel encoding, etc). A fairly straightforward question occurred to me, one I hope this list can help answer: > > As is well known, Turing's 1936 paper /Computable Numbers/ invented the concept of a universal machine, which includes what today would be called an airgapped computer. For quite a while, all computers (universal machines) were airgapped devices. The historical casual chain is clear: first the idea documented in /Computable Numbers /came into existence, and only later are physical computers actually built, initially as standalone, airgapped devices. > > But how did plugging computers into one another with wires/cables begin? Did a thinker first conceive of a profound idea underpinning wired/cabled networking, and then only later, engineers implemented that concept in the physical realm? Or, did people first begin hooking computers up to one another, perhaps experimentally, and then a theorist subsequently created an idea to describe/frame what was happening (maybe a mathematical graph theory or something)? > > To put it another way, in terms of a simple standardized test-like verbal analogy, /Computable Numbers/ is to airgapped computers as ??? is to wired/cabled networking of computers. > > I omit wireless connections (e.g., Bluetooth) for the time being. > > Thanks much, > > Doug Lucas > > > _______________________________________________ > This email is relayed from members at sigcis.org, the email discussion list of SHOT SIGCIS. Opinions expressed here are those of the member posting and are not reviewed, edited, or endorsed by SIGCIS. The list archives are at http://lists.sigcis.org/pipermail/members-sigcis.org/ and you can change your subscription options at http://lists.sigcis.org/listinfo.cgi/members-sigcis.org >

2 2

Ellen Ullman, Halt & Catch Fire & a nuclear podcast
by thomas.haigh＠gmail.com 25 Aug '21

25 Aug '21

Hello SIGCIS, Communications of the ACM has now published the third part of my trilogy on classic depictions of IT work. "Women's Lives in Code" explores two depictions of IT work in the 1980s and 1990s: Ellen Ullman's wonderful memoir _Close to the Machine_ and the more recent historical TV drama "Halt and Catch Fire." Spoiler: if you tried season 1 of the show and gave up, just skip to season 2. https://cacm.acm.org/magazines/2021/9/255032-womens-lives-in-code/fulltext This marks the conclusion of my foray into media criticism. If you missed the first two parts, you can read about Kidder's _Soul of a New Machine_ at https://cacm.acm.org/magazines/2021/1/249451-the-immortal-soul-of-an-old-mac hine/fulltext and Levy's _Hackers_ at https://cacm.acm.org/magazines/2021/4/251341-when-hackers-were-heroes/fullte xt. While I am here, I should mention that I was the guest on Shelly Lesher's _My Nuclear Life_ podcast recently. The conversation focused on the connection of the nuclear program to the very early history of electronic computing, retelling the ENIAC/EDVAC story from that viewpoint. Basically material from _ENAIC in Action_, my 2016 book with Mark Priestley and Crispin Rope. But if you'd rather listen than read, find it at https://mynuclearlife.com/episode/history-of-early-computing-with-thomas-hai gh. She's a lively interviewer and has had some important guests on earlier episodes so I recommend the podcast for those with an interest in nuclear history. Best wishes, Tom

1 0

CCS - September 16th 2021 Investigating the Work and Life of Percy Ludgate (1883-1922)
by Roger Johnson 25 Aug '21

25 Aug '21

Dear Fellow Members The first meeting of the Computer Conservation Society for the 2021/22 season is on Thursday 16th September 2021 at 2.30pm (London time). Our speaker is one of the leading UK computing pioneers and a leading computer historian, Prof Brian Randell, for many years on the staff of Newcastle University. Those responsible for arranging and delivering the CCS meeting programme have decided that all meetings from now on will be hybrid meetings meaning that it will be possible to either attend in person at BCS London or to join via Zoom. In addition all meetings will continue to be recorded. The only exception that we foresee to these arrangements will be the December Film Show where we may be limited by copyright considerations. During the past year we have had a number of successful talks by speakers located abroad or speaking from their homes. Please note that some meetings this year the speaker may be speaking from a remote location rather than being present in London in person. Trials of the technology have demonstrated that wherever the speaker is located, questions and comments can be put to the speaker both by remote participants and also by the audience in London. The title of the first meeting is Investigating the Work and Life of Percy Ludgate (1883-1922). Our speaker is Prof Brian Randell. Due to the continuing high levels of Covid-19 in London the organisers have agreed with Prof Randell that he will make his presentation from his home. Brian Randell has written that: Percy Edwin Ludgate is notable as the second person to publish a design for an Analytical Machine, the first after Babbage's "Analytical Engine". In this talk I will describe results of the first new investigation into the life and work of Percy Ludgate since my paper on Ludgate of nearly 50 years ago. This investigation, led by Brian Coghlan of Trinity College Dublin, has uncovered a range of new material, including two significant discoveries, one concerning Ludgate's machine and the other his family. It is essential to pre-register for the event. To do so, follow this link http://www.computerconservationsociety.org/lectures/current/lecture.htm and click on the "Book" symbol. You will be asked whether you are planning to attend in person at the BCS, London or remotely via Zoom. The link to Zoom will be circulated by email the day before the meeting. If you have not used the Zoom software before it is available as a free download by clicking on the link. I recommend that you download it ahead of the start of the meeting. The physical meeting is at the BCS, Ground Floor, 25 Copthall Ave, London EC2R 7BP. The building is fully accessible. This is in the City and close to Moorgate tube and within easy walking distance of Liverpool Street and Bank stations. See http://streetmap.co.uk/postcode/ec2r7bp . The meeting room in London will be open with tea and coffee from 2PM to meet fellow members and to allow the talk will begin at 2.30PM. Our meetings are open to all free of charge so do pass on this invitation to others who may be interested in this meeting or other CCS activities. The programme for the current season will be found at http://www.computerconservationsociety.org/lectures/current/lecture.htm Good wishes Roger Johnson CCS London Programme Secretary

1 0

Re: [SIGCIS-Members] Query about invention of wired networking
by petereckstein 24 Aug '21

24 Aug '21

I apologize for jumping the gun by recalling that Eckert had told me that he had never heard of Turing. I have checked my notes on an interview from many decades ago and find no mention of Turing one way or another. I was probably thinking of what Eckert said about Babbage as his having had no influence. Now that I have read Tom Haigh's article, I do want to register one dissent.If his metaphorical trophy is for the "first general-purpose automatic electronic digital computer," I would argue that Eckert and Mauchly at least hold the American title. The Atanasoff machine was not fully automatic, as intermediate results had to be carried by hand from one part of the machine to another, and it was not designed to be general-purpose but rather to solve simultaneous equations, which the recreated machine could do, but not nearly as fast as one of my early teenaged grandchildren. The early Aiken machines were electro-mechanical, not fundamentally electronic, in their manipulation of cardboard punch cards. One or more of the Europeans on Tom's list of trophy holders--Zuse, Kilburn, Wilkes, and especially Flowers--may have a claim, but I am not competent to judge.Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy Tablet -------- Original message --------From: petereckstein <petereckstein(a)comcast.net> Date: 8/24/21 6:44 PM (GMT-05:00) To: thomas.haigh(a)gmail.com, 'Douglas Lucas' <dal(a)riseup.net>, members(a)sigcis.org Subject: Re: [SIGCIS-Members] Query about invention of wired networking Doug,I am a bit impatient with anything that perpetuates the It All Began with Turing mythology. I have not yet read Tom Haigh's article arguing that Turing did not invent the computer but I very much agree with the title. The leaders of the team that developed Eniac were Mauchly, a physicist, who was partly inspired by the counting circuits being used by physicists in the 1930s to count pulses, and Eckert, an electronic engineer, who was partly inspired by devices using multiple vacuum tubes. Eckert told me very emphatically that he had never even heard of Turing during the Eniac project. Turing may have played a (small or large) role in the British wartime Colossus, but that machine had little influence on subsequent computer development, because it was foolishly destroyed and then kept secret for many years.I am not sure where you want to go with your project, but perhaps there is some relevance in Binac, a one-off machine that the Eckert-Mauchly company built in the late forties or very early fifties. It was two processing units connected to each other, primarily, as I remember the story, for backup rather than for communication. Nancy Stern discusses it in her book, and there have been subsequent articles in the Annals.Peter EcksteinSent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy Tablet-------- Original message --------From: thomas.haigh(a)gmail.com Date: 8/24/21 6:14 PM (GMT-05:00) To: 'Douglas Lucas' <dal(a)riseup.net>, members(a)sigcis.org Subject: Re: [SIGCIS-Members] Query about invention of wired networking Hello Doug, First off, you’ll find that while mathematicians and theoretical computer scientists often suggest that the computers constructed in the 1940s were in some way inspired or prompted by Turing’s theoretical work, the professional historians who’ve looked at the period generally agree that they weren’t. You’ll see some pointers to relevant work in my snappy summary “Actually, Turing Did Not Invent the Computer.” https://cacm.acm.org/magazines/2014/1/170862-actually-turing-did-not-invent… The impetus to provide remote access to computers likewise came from practical needs of the 1950s and early 1960s rather than theory. Two important early examples are the SAGE air defense network, described by Paul Edwards in _The Closed World_ and timesharing at Dartmouth University (and elsewhere) to provide multiple users with simultaneous interactive access to a single computer, described by Joy Rankin in _A People’s History of Computing in the United States_. The idea of connecting several computers together for general purpose communication, rather than hooking up terminals, peripherals, or data capture devices to a single computer, came slightly later. The idea was first realized in the ARPANET, which evolved to become the Internet. A great deal has been written on its history, beginning with Janet Abbate’s classic _Inventing the Internet_. I’d also recommend Mitch Waldrop’s _The Dream Machine_ for a broader look at interactive computing, timesharing, and networking in the era. In this case there was a conceptual work that predated and heavily influenced the actual network: Paul Baran’s description of what became known as packet switching. Though the relative conceptual contributions of Paul Baran, Leonard Kleinrock, and Louis Pouzin to the ideas that underlie these networks have been enthusiastically debated. You might look at the articles published in the journal Internet Histories, including several relevant publications by Morton Bay, for more on this topic. See https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rint20. Also Andrew Russell’s _Open Standards and the Digital Age_. And many others – it’s a substantial literature, much too large to describe in a single message, but if you want to know about the history of networking you should read on this topic rather than about Turing…. Best wishes, Tom From: Members <members-bounces(a)lists.sigcis.org> On Behalf Of Douglas LucasSent: Tuesday, August 24, 2021 4:44 PMTo: members(a)sigcis.orgSubject: [SIGCIS-Members] Query about invention of wired networking Dear SIGCIS members,I'm a freelance writer/journalist who's published in multiple news outlets on hacktivism and who's lurked on this email list for some time. The past several months, I've been reading a great dealing about Alan Turing and the math behind Computable Numbers (fundamental theorem of arithmetic, Gödel encoding, etc). A fairly straightforward question occurred to me, one I hope this list can help answer:As is well known, Turing's 1936 paper Computable Numbers invented the concept of a universal machine, which includes what today would be called an airgapped computer. For quite a while, all computers (universal machines) were airgapped devices. The historical casual chain is clear: first the idea documented in Computable Numbers came into existence, and only later are physical computers actually built, initially as standalone, airgapped devices.But how did plugging computers into one another with wires/cables begin? Did a thinker first conceive of a profound idea underpinning wired/cabled networking, and then only later, engineers implemented that concept in the physical realm? Or, did people first begin hooking computers up to one another, perhaps experimentally, and then a theorist subsequently created an idea to describe/frame what was happening (maybe a mathematical graph theory or something)?To put it another way, in terms of a simple standardized test-like verbal analogy, Computable Numbers is to airgapped computers as ??? is to wired/cabled networking of computers.I omit wireless connections (e.g., Bluetooth) for the time being.Thanks much,Doug Lucas

1 0

Re: [SIGCIS-Members] Query about invention of wired networking
by Brian E Carpenter 24 Aug '21

24 Aug '21

On 25-Aug-21 10:44, petereckstein wrote: > Doug, > > I am a bit impatient with anything that perpetuates the It All Began with Turing mythology. I have not yet read Tom Haigh's article arguing that Turing did not invent the computer but I very much agree with the title. The leaders of the team that developed Eniac were Mauchly, a physicist, who was partly inspired by the counting circuits being used by physicists in the 1930s to count pulses, and Eckert, an electronic engineer, who was partly inspired by devices using multiple vacuum tubes. Eckert told me very emphatically that he had never even heard of Turing during the Eniac project. The reasoned argument about Turing's contribution is quite orthogonal to ENIAC. The question is whether "On Computable Numbers" had any impact on the decision to make EDVAC a stored program machine. It's very possible that it didn't, but von Neumann definitely knew about "On Computable Numbers". On the other hand, Turing definitely read von Neumann's EDVAC report before he designed the ACE in late 1945. Additionally, Zuse definitely did not know about "On Computable Numbers" at the relevant time. Zeitgeist. > Turing may have played a (small or large) role in the British wartime Colossus, but that machine had little influence on subsequent computer development, because it was foolishly destroyed and then kept secret for many years. Although some components made their way into the University of Manchester prototype. I suspect that quite a lot of people who became UK computing pioneers knew about Colossus, but you will never find that in writing or even oral history because of the UK's Official Secrets Act. Regards Brian Carpenter > > I am not sure where you want to go with your project, but perhaps there is some relevance in Binac, a one-off machine that the Eckert-Mauchly company built in the late forties or very early fifties. It was two processing units connected to each other, primarily, as I remember the story, for backup rather than for communication. Nancy Stern discusses it in her book, and there have been subsequent articles in the Annals. > > Peter Eckstein > > Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy Tablet > > > -------- Original message -------- > From: thomas.haigh(a)gmail.com > Date: 8/24/21 6:14 PM (GMT-05:00) > To: 'Douglas Lucas' <dal(a)riseup.net>, members(a)sigcis.org > Subject: Re: [SIGCIS-Members] Query about invention of wired networking > > Hello Doug, > > > > First off, you’ll find that while mathematicians and theoretical computer scientists often suggest that the computers constructed in the 1940s were in some way inspired or prompted by Turing’s theoretical work, the professional historians who’ve looked at the period generally agree that they weren’t. You’ll see some pointers to relevant work in my snappy summary “Actually, Turing Did Not Invent the Computer.” https://cacm.acm.org/magazines/2014/1/170862-actually-turing-did-not-invent… <https://cacm.acm.org/magazines/2014/1/170862-actually-turing-did-not-invent…> > > > > The impetus to provide remote access to computers likewise came from practical needs of the 1950s and early 1960s rather than theory. Two important early examples are the SAGE air defense network, described by Paul Edwards in _/The Closed World/_ and timesharing at Dartmouth University (and elsewhere) to provide multiple users with simultaneous interactive access to a single computer, described by Joy Rankin in _/A People’s History of Computing in the United States/_. > > > > The idea of connecting several computers together for general purpose communication, rather than hooking up terminals, peripherals, or data capture devices to a single computer, came slightly later. The idea was first realized in the ARPANET, which evolved to become the Internet. A great deal has been written on its history, beginning with Janet Abbate’s classic _/Inventing the Internet/_. I’d also recommend Mitch Waldrop’s _/The Dream Machine/_ for a broader look at interactive computing, timesharing, and networking in the era. > > > > In this case there was a conceptual work that predated and heavily influenced the actual network: Paul Baran’s description of what became known as packet switching. Though the relative conceptual contributions of Paul Baran, Leonard Kleinrock, and Louis Pouzin to the ideas that underlie these networks have been enthusiastically debated. You might look at the articles published in the journal Internet Histories, including several relevant publications by Morton Bay, for more on this topic. See https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rint20 <https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rint20>. Also Andrew Russell’s _/Open Standards and the Digital Age/_. And many others – it’s a substantial literature, much too large to describe in a single message, but if you want to know about the history of networking you should read on this topic rather than about Turing…. > > > > Best wishes, > > > > Tom > > > > *From:* Members <members-bounces(a)lists.sigcis.org> *On Behalf Of *Douglas Lucas > *Sent:* Tuesday, August 24, 2021 4:44 PM > *To:* members(a)sigcis.org > *Subject:* [SIGCIS-Members] Query about invention of wired networking > > > > Dear SIGCIS members, > > I'm a freelance writer/journalist who's published in multiple news outlets on hacktivism and who's lurked on this email list for some time. The past several months, I've been reading a great dealing about Alan Turing and the math behind /Computable Numbers/ (fundamental theorem of arithmetic, Gödel encoding, etc). A fairly straightforward question occurred to me, one I hope this list can help answer: > > As is well known, Turing's 1936 paper /Computable Numbers/ invented the concept of a universal machine, which includes what today would be called an airgapped computer. For quite a while, all computers (universal machines) were airgapped devices. The historical casual chain is clear: first the idea documented in /Computable Numbers /came into existence, and only later are physical computers actually built, initially as standalone, airgapped devices. > > But how did plugging computers into one another with wires/cables begin? Did a thinker first conceive of a profound idea underpinning wired/cabled networking, and then only later, engineers implemented that concept in the physical realm? Or, did people first begin hooking computers up to one another, perhaps experimentally, and then a theorist subsequently created an idea to describe/frame what was happening (maybe a mathematical graph theory or something)? > > To put it another way, in terms of a simple standardized test-like verbal analogy, /Computable Numbers/ is to airgapped computers as ??? is to wired/cabled networking of computers. > > I omit wireless connections (e.g., Bluetooth) for the time being. > > Thanks much, > > Doug Lucas > > > _______________________________________________ > This email is relayed from members at sigcis.org, the email discussion list of SHOT SIGCIS. Opinions expressed here are those of the member posting and are not reviewed, edited, or endorsed by SIGCIS. The list archives are at http://lists.sigcis.org/pipermail/members-sigcis.org/ and you can change your subscription options at http://lists.sigcis.org/listinfo.cgi/members-sigcis.org >

1 0

Re: [SIGCIS-Members] Query about invention of wired networking
by Douglas Lucas 24 Aug '21

24 Aug '21

Hi Dennis, Thomas, Peter, and the SIGCIS list, Wow, thank you all for the helpful corrections and avenues to pursue! Thomas, I'll definitely read your "Actually" article and the books you recommend. Dennis, I'll check out the telegraph and signalling for sure. Peter, thanks for the information about the Eckert-Mauchly company. A little background about my project. From 2009 or so onward, I reported in person from multiple federal sentencing hearings pertaining to the hacktivism/transparency movement. For example, I reported for different venues from the sentencings of Jeremy Hammond, the PayPal 14, and most recently whistleblower Reality Winner [1]. I was also a talking head expert regarding the Stratfor emails in the documentary _The Hacker Wars_; some of my work in that regard was discussed here [2]. Over the years, people have suggested many times that I write a book based on those days, but of course it became apparent to me that audiences are too often far more interested in the personalities of sexy hacker heroes (Rolling Stone articles, for instance) than they are in challenging or philosophical topics that have greater impact on our world. Audiences might eat up heart-throb hackers but don't understand what computer software even is. I'm also interested in this global data commons project [3], but would like to understand it better in terms of computer science history. For those reasons, I've decided to learn more about computers _per se_, aiming to eventually create a book that does include the "hacker heroes" but also the historical and philosophical material required to understand our knowledge economy world better. (For what it's worth, I grew up on BBSes as a little kid in the late '80s and early '90s.) It was the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy that suggested to me _Computable Numbers_ as a starting place, and I'd taken some philosophy of mind courses in college, so I read Andrew Hodges' _Alan Turing: The Enigma_. I'm now reading Martin Davis' _The Universal Computer: The Road from Leibniz to Turing_ and trying to get a handle on the math/logic. I don't have any more definite plans as I'm mostly in the early stage of researching, and I tend to be a generalist autodidact who disregards commercial imperatives, pursues my curiosity, and takes a zillion years to finish anything. Thanks again for all the suggestions. I'm currently in an intensive CELTA certification course for teaching ESL, so I might not reply promptly to further messages, apologies. Doug Links: ------ [1] http://www.dailypublic.com/articles/08242018/reality-winner-sentenced-63-mo… [2] http://whowhatwhy.org/2013/12/04/whowhatwhys-douglas-lucas-on-leaked-privat… [3] https://www.getgee.xyz/

1 0

Fwd: First Event in IFIP 60th Anniversary Future of Information Processing Event Series
by Schmitt, Martin 19 Aug '21

19 Aug '21

Dear Sigcis community, this year, the International Federation for Information Processing (IFIP) is celebrating its 60th anniversary with a series of events. The series is mainly organized by the German „Gesellschaft für Informatik“ (GI). I just wanted to let you know that the first event will take place on the 30th of August. It might be of interest for some of you here on the list, even though it does not follow a genuinely historic perspective. Rather, recent questions of software design and programming languages are discussed in a broader, long term view. Best, Martin Wissenschaftlicher Mitarbeiter | Post-Doc | digital enthusiast Technische Universität Darmstadt Institut für Geschichte Fachgebiet Technikgeschichte Mail: martin.schmitt(a)tu-darmstadt.de<mailto:martin.schmitt@tu-darmstadt.de> Tel: +49 6151-16-57327 http://www.computerisierung.com<http://www.computerisierung.com/> & Assoziierter Wissenschaftler LEIBNIZ-ZENTRUM FÜR ZEITHISTORISCHE FORSCHUNG | POTSDAM Vice Chair IFIP WG 9.7 „History of computing" Zuletzt erschienen: Leslie, Christopher und Martin Schmitt (eds.): Histories of Computing in Eastern Europe, Cham: Springer International Publishing 2019 (IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology 549), https://www.springer.com/978-3-030-29159-4 Anfang der weitergeleiteten Nachricht: Von: Eduard Dundler <eduard.dundler(a)ifip.org<mailto:eduard.dundler@ifip.org>> Betreff: First Event in IFIP 60th Anniversary Future of Information Processing Event Series Datum: 19. August 2021 um 09:21:43 MESZ An: Ifip_ga <ifip_ga(a)ifip.org<mailto:ifip_ga@ifip.org>>, Ifip_memsocs <ifip_memsocs(a)ifip.org<mailto:ifip_memsocs@ifip.org>>, Ifip_wgoff <ifip_wgoff(a)ifip.org<mailto:ifip_wgoff@ifip.org>>, Ifip_tcoff <Ifip_tcoff(a)ifip.org<mailto:Ifip_tcoff@ifip.org>> Kopie: "Hatas, Kristina" <kristina.hatas(a)gi.de<mailto:kristina.hatas@gi.de>> Dear IFIP community and friends, the IFIP 60th Anniversary Future of Information Processing Event Series is kicking off on 30 August, 3-4.15 pm CET with the event “The Silent Revolution: Software as the Technological Fabric of Society<https://meetgi.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_GlQBHJd1RMufTiMma_Jw8A>”. The first event, organized by members of WG 2.1 and WG 2.8, will highlight the historical and increasingly important role software—and in this process IFIP—has played as a critical infrastructure for modern society, including the generally underappreciated role fundamental software theory and practice has played in making this possible ‘under the hood’. [cid:image001.png@01D7945A.851D33D0] The event will feature: * Greg Morrisett (Cornell Tech) * Julia Lawall (INRIA, secretary of TC2) * Jakob Rehof (TU Dortmund and Fraunhofer ISST) * Reinhard Wilhelm (Universität des Saarlandes and AbsInt) and will be moderated by * Fritz Henglein (University of Copenhagen and Deon Digital). The event will be hosted as a Zoom webinar. Registration is possible through the following link: https://meetgi.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_GlQBHJd1RMufTiMma_Jw8A About the session: Software has been at the center of a silent revolution: from an ancillary role to computer hardware, it has emerged as the technological fabric of a globally interconnected society. This has been fueled by generally unnoticed, yet visionary under-the-hood advances in software theory and practice at academic and industrial institutions, fostered by IFIP’s provision of long-term technical fora. In this session thought leaders from academia and industry will discuss the role and impact of principled design, methodology and implementation of high-level programming languages in this silent revolution. They will reflect not only on the increasingly severe demands on software safety, security and productivity in today’s systems, but also on advancing languages and their algorithmic calculi, formal verification, automated analysis and synthesis as under-the-hood facilitators of tomorrow’s artificially intelligent, data-driven, robotic, interconnected-device-based, decentralized and parallel systems. About the Future of Information Processing Event Series The Event Series consists of ten events in total, featuring IFIP experts and high-level guests discussing questions arising at the intersection of technology and the information society. The events be online panels of 75 minutes each consisting of short speeches, a moderated discussion and a Q&A with the audience. Recordings of the events will be made available on YouTube. Information and registration links for the following events will be available shortly on the IFIP 60th Jubilee Web Site<https://ifip.org/jubilee60/?r=events>. Best regards Eduard Dundler ======================================== General Secretary International Federation for Information Processing Tel.: +43 2236 73 616 10 Fax: +43 2236 73 616 e-mail: eduard.dundler(a)ifip.org<mailto:eduard.dundler@ifip.org> ========================================= [cid:ED79A4C0-5B87-4766-B650-CE943E98A6D5] Martin Schmitt Wissenschaftlicher Mitarbeiter | Post-Doc | digital enthusiast Technische Universität Darmstadt Institut für Geschichte Fachgebiet Technikgeschichte Mail: martin.schmitt(a)tu-darmstadt.de<mailto:martin.schmitt@tu-darmstadt.de> Tel: +49 6151-16-57327 http://www.computerisierung.com<http://www.computerisierung.com/> & Assoziierter Wissenschaftler LEIBNIZ-ZENTRUM FÜR ZEITHISTORISCHE FORSCHUNG | POTSDAM Vice Chair IFIP WG 9.7 „History of computing" Zuletzt erschienen: Leslie, Christopher und Martin Schmitt (eds.): Histories of Computing in Eastern Europe, Cham: Springer International Publishing 2019 (IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology 549), https://www.springer.com/978-3-030-29159-4

1 0

SIGCIS CONFERENCE 2021: Schedule and Registration Now Live
by Laine Nooney 13 Aug '21

13 Aug '21

Dear SIGCIS Community, I am pleased to announce schedule and registration information for our annual conference, SIGCIS 2021: Online Edition, from Sept 23-25. We have over 50 participants from across the globe giving presentations over the course of the conference's three days. Our keynote panel is called "Stack Trace: The Limits of History," and features Rayvon Fouché, Lisa Nakamura, Jason Edward Lewis + Lucy Suchman, moderated by Morgan Ames. We expect this to be a fantastic 3 days! You can check out the full program here: http://meetings.sigcis.org/ and register here: https://bit.ly/3jP1LPF This event is a single channel conference hosted on Zoom. Since participants are from across time zones, we'll be recording presentations and making them available to registered attendees and participants for two weeks after the conference. *You must register to receive the links to the conference and the recorded videos*. No registration with SHOT, our parent organization, is required. We're using Eventbrite to handle registration, and running registration as donation only, pay what you can. We provide tiered recommendations, but everyone should only pay what they feel capable of contributing. If you can't pay anything, shoot me an email and we'll make sure you're registered. Looking forward to seeing you all at the conference! --SIGCIS Meetings Organizing Committee Laine Nooney, New York University (SIGCIS Vice-Chair of Meetings) Stephanie Dick, University of Pennsylvania Morgan G. Ames, University of California, Berkeley Xiaochang Li, Stanford University

1 0