Ceruzzi, Paul. An Unforeseen Revolution: Computers and Expectations, 1935-1985.
Ceruzzi says that most new technologies are invented to serve the same purpose as old ones but to do so more efficiently, so we don't predict uses other than the one the old technology served. His examples - radio, cars, computers - are all pretty old. Are there more recent examples? Have our predictions become more accurate as we became aware that our predictions for earlier technologies were inadequate? [+]
Ceruzzi notes that computers are perhaps the only technology to have "exponential growth". How might this speed of growth affect the way the computer technology changes our values? Does the rapid change in technology cause a more rapid change in values? [+]
How might this example play into the argument between Bill Joy and Team Brown-Duguid? [+]
What is a vacuum tube? Are they still used in computers? He talks about this problem of fragility, but doesn't address how it was solved.
Vacuum tubes are no longer used in computers. The problem was solved by using solid-state technology.
How could experts calculate that only a handful of computers were necessary to handle the computing needs of the United States? How were "computing needs" determined and what constitutes as a "computing need"?
"Computing needs" were primarily numerical computations - those done by physicists or the military. We'll talk more about these in class.
Computer doubters assumed that computers need not become personal belongings due to their then-dedicated purpose of solving numerical functions, but these days, the computer can achieve far more than that. Did a similarly revolutionary technology - the internet - meet the same type of criticism prior to 'going public'?
It is my impression that the Internet did not encounter the same type of criticism. But by the time the Internet went public, there were a host of other public networks.
On page 260, Ceruzzi discusses the ignorance first computer makers had of a computer being able to complete or be useful for nonnumerical work. When he says, "But the logical design of modern computers for scientific work in fact coincides with the logical design of computers for business purposes", how do the logical designs "coincide" with one another?
In both cases, computing is all about processing information in a systematic way.
Can you explain a little bit about these vacuum tubes that Ceruzzi's talking about? Are they still used on computers today, and if so, how were they made more reliable?
They are no longer used, and haven't been used since, oh, the early 1950's. I'll admit to too little in-depth knowledge of how vacuum tubes work, but I know some things about their features. Some vacuum tubes provide a simple
kind of memory: You set them to a value and you can check that value at any
time. Others provide a bit of control: Given two signals, they can compute
an appropriate combination of those signals.
On p.272, Ceruzzi writes that early computer programmers and designers had a very limited view of how a computer might function. He says that "largely because of their institutional backgrounds, they did not anticipate that many of the applications computers would find require the sorting and retrieval of nonnumeric data." How have institutions changed from then to now to better accommodate the abilities of computers and demands of people using them?
It's not so much "institutions" as the kinds of training people receive. Engineers think in terms of engineering. Biologists in terms of biology. Humanists in terms of a humanistic approach. There's been some movement toward broader training, but not enough.
Has the coding language stayed pretty much the same since von Neumann started using it, or have there been significant improvements/changes to it?
Coding languages have changed significantly.
I don't understand why twenty mathematicians were needed to operate a 1960's computer. What exactly did they do?
They turned the client's problem specification into a program for the computer to run. (That is, they translated from English to computer code.)
Was the use of human computers common and if so, were they against the building and use of computers?
Yes, the use of human computers was common. My impression is that it wasn't a particularly glamorous job and, in fact, many human computers ended up working on electronic computers, which they found to be more rewarding. (But, hey, "computer" was a "woman's job", so it's pretty clear that people didn't ask them what they thought.)
Ceruzzi’s third point to why investors, manufacturers and pioneers underestimated the computer’s potential market was that these actors did not have a good comprehension of the “nature of computing” which is, as I understand it, programming. This inability to comprehend was due to the context, which is comparing early computers to human system for calculation, as Ceruzzi explains. However what else could have contributed to the context of the time that made pioneers of computers not understand the nature of computing or programming?
They understood the nature of computing - to process values electronically. They just didn't understand the potential of computing. Since their work revolved only around numbers, they thought about computing only in terms of numbers. We have the same problem today: Biologists approach issues one way, and don't usually think of other approaches; Mathematicians another; Sociologists another; and so on and so forth.
Throughout Ceruzzi’s article he talks of programming in different ways from mathematical application which are then translated to shapes burned into paper which is fed into a computer, to "coding" which for some like von Neumann was like “typing to writing”. Ceruzzi even goes on to explain that programming could be pushing paddles and buttons “as on a computerized video game”, so then what exactly is programming (in the context of what Ceruzzi speaks about and in general technological terms)?
Programming is the process of encoding an "algorithm" (a process for computing a result based on the inputs) in a formal language that the computer (or another human) could understand.
What are some of the major similarities and differences between the
early computers and the ones we use today?
The same basic model of computation. Similar encoding of information.
What aspect of the early computers required them to be so large?
The size of the basic building blocks - It wasn't until transistors permitted the integrated circuit that we could fit a lot of computational power into a small space.
What material were the vacuum-tube circuits made of? If they weren't reliable because of the great possibility for failure, couldn't they make them from another material that could work better?
Vacuum tubes are made from glass, metal, and usually some insulating material (e.g., cardboard). They were the only way we knew to make fast electronics at the time.
''But just how much more was not apparent until much later, when other people gained familiarity with computers.'' Who gained more familiarity with computers and how come they could see that computers did more than just complicated sequences of arithmetic and the pioneers didn't see it?
You know, I'm not sure that it's possible to identify particular people who saw the greater capabilities of computers. I think it's more that once there were more computers, people began to think of new uses. (It was inevitable, so it doesn't matter too much who it was.)
Ceruzzi believes that making computer programming something "anyone" could do allowed computers to go into the mainstream. However, considering the vast, vast majority of computer users don't write their own programs, did this "democratization" of programming actually happen? (I could be misreading what he means by writing programs).
Many more people are able to program today than were able to program in the 1950's. (Hey, even kids can program because of the new languages.)
If World War 2 hadn't necessitated code breaking and communication computers, would the modern computer exist as it does today?
Yes. There's some evidence for most technological revolutions that it was the right "time". WWII primarily provided the requisite funding.
Ceruzzi believes the compute revolution on began when more people knew of computers. Does a revolution only begin when it's adopted by the masses?
I think the first revolution that Ceruzzi thinks of is the use in business. And note that by 1985, computers had not yet been adopted by the masses.
Since the developers of computers could not see many of the uses computers would later be put to, do you think we are still suffering from this short-sightedness and are not using computers to their full potential, or have they reached the limit as far as variability of function is concerned?
I think we come up with major new perspectives on computers every decade or so and will continue to do so.
Ceruzzi talked about the Eisenhower election and how it allowed for Americans to become aware of the UNIVAC. Have other non technological events put technologies into the public's minds?
An interesting research question. It's certainly likely, but I'm not sure about particulars.
In his essay, Ceruzzi suggests that the manner in which computers are used and impact our lives today was something unforeseen by the early pioneers in the field of computer science. Aeruzzi calls the evolution and adoption of the computer a "revolution". However, in our group's research on the telephone, many authors have said that the telephone itself was not very revolutionary, but the telephone network (or exchange system) changed the way people communicated. Could a similar argument be made for the adoption of the internet post-1985 (and therefore the scope of Ceruzzi's article)?
I'd say that we see a second revolution with the broad installation of the Internet, but that there were still revolutions before that.
For all that Ceruzzi says that early computer scientists didn't predict the widespread use of the computer, I find it hard to believe that *no one* considered its uses for business especially. Is Ceruzzi exaggerating (or choosing to emphasize certain perspectives) for the sake of his argument, and if he is, what criteria can we use to judge a writer's description of a technology's adoption to make sure it's reliable?
I wouldn't call the early developers of computers "computer scientists". In any case, he does provide us with some evidence (direct quotations from leaders in the field, cited). What criteria can you use? Similar criteria you might use for any argumentative paper - What sources are used, has the paper been vetted by peer review, etc.
This sounds like one of those standard "spew out a discussion question" questions. It also needs editing for grammar and clarity.
1. Ceruzzi discusses the use of human computers prior to the introduction of electronic computers. These human computers would perform hundreds of computations a day. What was the rate of failure for the human computers? Did they have a system for accounting for inevitable mistakes in calculations by the human computers?
I'm not sure what the rate of failure was, but there were clearly
mistakes. (E.g., some published tables from the time have known
errors.) I expect that there was a system for checking errors (e.g.,
having multiple people do the same calculation and making sure the
results match).
On pages 237-238, Ceruzzi talks about how the computer, unlike other machines that made human jobs simpler, was not limited by being stuck to a specific action. He states that only acquires its function after its programmed and that prior to that it "can do anything." How much did this line of thinking factor in the computer boom that we have seen today? Could the machines back in the early to mid 20th century really do anything? Or did the technology prohibit their actions?
As long as the computation was expressible and could be done with the limited resources (storage, computing power), the computers could be programmed for any computation.
;
