Friday, December 02, 2011
A couple of months ago I brought you the news of the sad
death
of Dennis Ritchie, the co-developer of the
Unix operating system. As it happens, his death occurred just
before the 'official' anniversary of the birth of Unix - the
publishing of the first Unix manual in November of 1971.
Spectrum, one of the publications of IEEE (the Institute of
Electrical and Electronics Engineers), has a great article of the birth and impact of
Unix. It's a must-read for
anyone interested in computers or the history of technology.
One thing in the article struck me: that an original copy of Unix
did not exist until it was recreated (and only then after great
effort) by some software engineers. It's interesting to think that
a vital part of technological history was essentially lost, and
might have remained that way had someone not cared about it.
Electronic creations are fleeting; they're jettisoned wholesale
when new and better creations are introduced, and nowhere is that
more true than with software. We upgrade our software and throw out
the old versions; the media deteriorates or the ability to read it
is lost. It's hard, for instance, to find an actual copy of any
early software for any computer, let alone the more obscure stuff.
Software is planned obsolescence in its highest form, and one where
the old literally disappears permanently at a keystroke to make
room for the new.
The topic of preserving our technological heritage is one I think
about frequently. There are many early and important computers
which no longer exist; in a few rare instances, like the first
version of Unix, enthusiasts have taken it upon themselves to build
replicas. The Colossus project in England is a perfect example,
without which we would have no record of the pioneering machine or
the people who built it.
There is only one SAGE - the largest computer ever built - left in
existence, and it is non-functional. These and many more
achievements, and the people who made them, are fading into
obscurity.
This is of particular interest to me as an author. My work here on
this blog (and the rest of my site) exists only as ones and zeroes
on a computer somewhere. At some future point all of what I've done
will simply disappear; electronic copies of my book can disappear
too, no longer left to future discovery on the dusty shelves of
some thrift store.
Nooks, Kindles and iPads may in fact be the future of reading, but
I'd still like to see paper books available if for no other reason
than to serve as a marker to future generations: we were here, this
is what we did, and you don't need to restore some ancient device
(if it's even possible) just to read them.
'Ephemera' is the term used to describe things that weren't meant
to last, things that were never expected to leave an imprint on the
world. If we're not careful, everything we do - and our very
existence - will end up in that category.
-=[ Grant ]=-
Tags: old.technology, books
Friday, November 18, 2011
Many years ago I was sitting in a small room at the Eastman Kodak
Marketing Education Center near Rochester, New York. In that room
were a number of movers and shakers in the photographic industry,
talking with some Kodak VPs about the state and future of the
business.
At one point they asked us what we felt was the biggest threat to
photography. When my turn came, I told them that in ten years
photography would cease to exist, to be replaced by what we then
called electronic cameras. My belief was based on the fact that
video cameras had, in less than five years, destroyed the home and
serious amateur movie business. I reasoned that the same would
happen to film photography, and for the same reasons.
The Kodak folks were nothing if not self assured, and they told me
I was dead wrong in both my analysis and predictions: "people will
always want to hold their memories in their hands", said one
executive, and another chimed in that "real movies will always be
made on film."
I was wrong about the timeline - it took twice as long for digital
photography to take hold as I had thought, and the last bastion of
silver halide on acetate as a common imaging medium has in fact
been the movies. But that, too, has changed. Another era is ending
before our eyes.
That’s because the major makers of movie cameras - Arriflex,
Panavision, and Aaton - are now focusing exclusively on digital,
and are no longer making film cameras. These companies have
discontinued the production of all film cameras simply because no
one buys them anymore. The rise of HD video, and their immediacy
coupled with lower production costs, is making video the dominant
form of movie production today.
There is certainly a place for film, and film production itself has
not completely disappeared, but the used market is glutted with
16mm, 35mm, and even 70mm cameras - enough so that the makers of
these things, according to an article in at
collider.com, have decided that there is
no longer any need for new examples to be produced.
It's fun to be vindicated, at least occasionally.
-=[
Grant ]=-
Tags: old.technology
Wednesday, October 05, 2011
Yesterday Apple announced a new iPhone, and with it an advanced
software to add voice control to that phone. (“Siri”?
Who names these things?)
Almost immediately the blogs and tech sites were abuzz with
inevitable comparisons to the competition, complete with tables
breaking down the products feature by feature.
I found it amusing that they all had one line that said 'voice
control', with a simple "YES" or checkmark on each product. Some of
the more adventurous would take pains to point out that the
competition had 'voice control' for some time, and Apple was just
catching up. What they failed to take into account was the relative
sophistication and integration of the feature on all the products;
love 'em or hate 'em, Apple's new voice assistant goes well beyond
the simple "call Bill at work" kinds of control that phones have
had for years. The software anticipates and evaluates natural
language requests in a way that hasn't yet been done on a consumer
device, and interacts with the phone's functions in a wider way
than we're accustomed to.
(My best friend was the founder of a software company which did
pioneering work in the field of computer control via voice
recognition. Even he's impressed with how far Apple was able to
push this technology, and he's about as jaded an expert in that
field as you could ever find. He’s also one of the best
shooting instructors I know, which gives me the perfect segue into
this article’s actual topic!)
My point is not to sell phones - personally, I don't derive my
self-worth from what I buy or what you don't buy - but rather to
point out the folly of making bullet point comparisons. If you just
looked at the bullet point of voice control and saw the checkmark,
you wouldn't come away understanding the vastly different ways in
which that feature has been implemented.
This goes well beyond phones, as lots of people do the same thing
when they take defensive shooting classes. I call them "checklist
students" - people who make decisions as to what school or class
they'll attend by looking over a list of topics being covered. I've
actually talked to people who have chosen one class over another
because of the number of topics covered, without understanding the
depth of the instruction or the unique approach of the
instructor.
I've also seen students request refunds from instructors when the
simple number of things they learned wasn't the same as in other
classes they've attended, even though the student made no effort to
understand or become competent in those things that were taught.
The checklist is in control, not their desire to learn nor their
appreciation of their own skill development.
There are instructors out there who will throw a million different
topics into a class and give the students perhaps a couple of
minutes with each, then dash on to the next item on the agenda.
There are other instructors who cover a fraction of those topics
but cover them thoroughly, giving students time and opportunity to
really start to develop some proficiency. Unfortunately, the former
tend to be the more successful - checklists, it would seem, sell
classes as well as phones, cameras, cars, and just about everything
else.
If you buy a phone via a checklist, the worst that happens is that
you don't have the functionality of another phone. You can always
get another. When it comes to your skill development, particularly
the ability to successfully defend your own life, the stakes are a
little higher. Make your training decisions based not on an
ambitious list of topics, but on an understanding of what, how and
why your instructor does what he/she does.
Leave the checklists to those who would rather brag than
learn.
-=[
Grant ]=-
Tags: gun.skool, georges.rahbani
Friday, May 21, 2010
Yesterday was a monumental day in the history of the 'net: Duke
University, the birthplace of Usenet, shut down its Usenet server
some thirty
years after it first came to
life.
Citing diminishing use and rising costs as the reason for the
shutdown, this comes as sad news for those of us who cut their
teeth on newsgroups. While there are other servers still hosting
Usenet traffic, the closure of the Duke server is a sign that the
end is near.
I spent far too much free time on Usenet in the '80s and '90s.
Before the World Wide Web, Usenet was THE source of information and
interaction on the 'net. If you know what DoD stands for, you spent
a lot of time on rec.motorcycles; if you know who the KoTL is, you
spent
too much time there!
There are people I "met" on Usenet with whom I still correspond. I
first encountered Ed Harris, whose name should not be unknown to
readers of this blog, on rec.guns. That was more years ago than
either of us care to recount, and despite never having been
face-to-face we've exchanged ideas, shared projects and even
collaborated a bit on a training manual for emergency
communications. There are others whose names would mean nothing to
you, but mean a great deal to me.
With so many ISPs dropping Usenet access, people for whom the WWW
is the whole 'net don't see the loss. For those of us who remember
FidoNet gateways and bang
paths it's like losing an old
friend.
Virtually, of course.
-=[
Grant ]=-
Tags: old.technology, computers,
ed.harris
Monday, December 14, 2009
GETTING
THE MESSAGE: I've been harping on
the failures of "Rule #1" for some time now, and it
seems that the attitude is catching on. Slowly, but at least
progress is being made.
IT
ISN'T JUST ME: I've recently expounded on
the issue of
dogmatic teaching in the self defense world,
and I'm not alone in my criticism. Check out this post from Roger Phillips
over at
warriortalk.com, then read the entire discussion. (I've never met Roger,
don't know him from Adam, but he makes sense. Can't say that about
everyone.)
POCKET
COMPANION: no, not a J-frame!
From Dustin's Gun Blog I learned of a new
iPhone/iPod Touch app called Legal Heat. It's an interactive
version of their printed guide to concealed carry and gun laws in
all 50 states, written by attorneys and instructors. It' a great
idea, and something that's needed. Unfortunately, despite the
viability of the concept I cannot in good conscience recommend this
particular app.
There is a big issue with Legal Heat's usability. The pages are
just images of the book, which means they're pictures and not text.
This sounds inconsequential, but it's not. When you bring up the
laws on a state, because it's showing the whole page the text is
tiny; unreadably small. To read it, you need to magnify the image
by pinching. (The usual double-tap doesn't work, because it doesn't
work on full-frame images!) Once you magnify the image to read the
text, you have to continually scroll back and forth because images
don't wrap text. Finally, the app doesn't support screen rotation;
it only displays in portrait orientation, which exacerbates the
scrolling issue.
Frankly, iPhone users are accustomed to a higher level of
application quality than Legal Heat delivers. If they would simply
make their pages actual text and enable screen rotation I'd be
comfortable recommending it. As it stands, even at $1.99 it's not
worth the hassle.
DEAL
ALERT: My background in commercial
photography has left me more than a little anal retentive with
regards to optics, particularly when it comes to binoculars. I'm a
fan of porro-prism designs, as they a) have better
three-dimensional perspective, b) are brighter, and c) cost less
than roof-prism types for any given level of optical quality
(resolution/contrast.)
Minox makes some of the best porro-prism binocs. The optical
performance is exceptional, and the build quality matches the
glass. They make an 8x and a 10x version, and at a street price of
roughly $550 they are something of a bargain; you'll need to spend
roughly twice as much to get a roof prism of comparable
performance, and you still won't get the perspective advantage that
the porro-prism design gives you.
Despite their advantages, porro-prism designs are distinctly
unfashionable these days and don't sell well regardless of brand.
Roof prisms are what people buy, and Minox has bowed to the market:
they've discontinued the 10x model. SWFA
is closing them out at $299.95, which has to be
classed as a screaming good deal. You won't find anything even
approaching their optical performance for that kind of money. (Yes,
I grabbed a pair - for that price, I wasn't about to pass them
up!)
-=[
Grant ]=-
Tags: safety, dogma, apps, optics
Friday, December 11, 2009
Once upon a time, two geeks met in college. They had some neat
ideas about the world of computers, and were anxious to put their
ideas into production. They started a little company.
Shortly after they incorporated, they introduced a new computer -
one that was more accessible, more flexible, and under the control
of a single person. They didn't make many of them, and very few
exist today, but with it they changed the face of computing
forever.
No, I'm not talking about Jobs & Wozniak. I'm thinking of Ken
Olsen and Harlan Anderson, and the company they founded -
Digital Equipment Corporation. DEC, as it would come to
be known, introduced what was really the earliest commercial
incarnation of the personal computer: the PDP-1.

The PDP-1 certainly didn't look like what we've come to expect of
the PC. Nevertheless, it started the downsizing of computing power,
and introduced a concept critical to the modern PC: user
interaction, as opposed to batch data processing. This shift was
the necessary step to creating true personal computers, and DEC got
there first.
Interactivity opened up huge new vistas for the computer. The PDP-1
has the distinction of initiating things we now take for granted:
text editing, music programs, and even computer gaming. (The very
first computer video game, 'Spacewar!', was written for the PDP-1.
Yes, you have DEC to thank for your Wii.)
DEC only made 50 PDP-1 machines, of which only 3 are known to have
survived. All of them are currently in the collection of the
Computer History Museum. One is fully operational,
and is demonstrated twice a month by running that historic computer
game. They've
got a terrific website that details the history and restoration of
the PDP-1.
-=[
Grant ]=-
Tags: computers, old.technology
Friday, November 20, 2009
Back in '51, the Atomic Energy Research Establishment in
Oxfordshire welcomed a new member to their staff: a computer. Today
we don't even bat an eyelid when a new PC shows up in the office,
but back then computers were a Big Deal. (After all, how many new
staff members get their own office - the largest one in the
building?)
The
Harwell Computer, later to be known as
"WITCH" (Wolverhampton Instrument for Teaching Computing from
Harwell), now occupies a unique position in computing history. It
holds the distinction of being the world's oldest surviving
computer with electronically-stored data and
programs. All the original parts are
present and it is capable, in theory, of being operated.

Though it hasn't been switched on for over 35 years, it is
now being restored to operational status
at the Museum of
Computing at Bletchley Park. They expect the restoration to be
completed next summer, at which point the WITCH will be able to
claim another title: oldest operational computer, beating out
the Ferranti Pegasus whipper-snapper at London's
Science Museum.
-=[
Grant ]=-
Tags: old.technology, computers
Friday, September 04, 2009
One might think that this era in history is the most well
documented that has ever existed. Why, we have photography and
sound recording and movies (and their digital equivalents.)
Everything, it seems, has been saved for posterity. How much better
preserved we are than our forebears!
Yep, you'd think so. And you'd be dead wrong.
There are huge gaps in our archival record, and oddly enough they
have to do with the very things that should be most easily
chronicled: our technology. Obsolete technology is disappearing,
and with it a vital understanding of what we as a species have
accomplished in this world. Decorative arts seem to be deemed
worthy of perpetuation, no matter their relative importance, while
everything else is consigned to the scrap heap.
Take just the computer - there are surprisingly few organizations
who have made an effort to preserve this recent technology. With
programmable computers being no more than about 60 years old, we
should have a very good record of all that has passed in their
development. We don't. Old computers are rare, and the earliest
(physically largest) machines are virtually all gone. Of those
first pioneers we have nothing but a few bad photos and the
occasional fragmentary drawing.
That's just the tip of the iceberg. There are many other gaps in
our historical records through which technologies, people,
organizations, and companies have fallen. There are a few places
attempting to preserve bits and pieces of our technological past,
and one of them is the Southwest Museum of
Engineering, Communications and Computation
(SMECC).
SMECC maintains a fascinating site that gives a good feeling for
the breadth of their collections. Particularly valuable are the
first-person chronicles of the people who actually made the things
in the museum's collection.
A warning: their site is perhaps the worst example of Microsoft
FrontPage design. It's not nice to look at, not well laid out, and
you'll have to poke around to find the gems. It feels like a
throwback to the early '90s internet, which I suppose one could
argue is appropriate for a museum. (With all that, it's still
better than the average MySpace page.)
Any self-respecting geek could easily spend days there. Whether
you're into computers, radios, or microscopes, SMECC has something
for you.
-=[
Grant ]=-
Thursday, August 07, 2008
I've
previously mentioned my appreciation for the work
that NASA has done over it's 50-year history. NASA grew up right
along with me - or me with it - and NASA was always doing the
exciting stuff boys of that era were smitten by: Astronauts. Fast
planes. Rockets. The Moon.
(It wasn't just spectacle, though; NASA was the catalyst for
technological progress that continues to be felt today. A
surprising number of the things we now take for granted can be
traced directly back to some NASA project.)
We learned about the exploits of the engineers, technicians and
astronauts through NASA-supplied pictures in the magazines of the
day. My early interest in science was kindled by those pictures,
and some of them I still remember.
NASA documented everything, but not all of their photos were of
general interest. A large percentage of their images were never
seen by the general public because the media was understandably
reluctant to publish anything of interest only to nerds. Through
the magic of the internet, however, we now have ready access to
some of those great pictures.
The agency has launched a new site just for NASA
images. You can search or browse
and download your selected pictures, drawings, and illustrations -
some of them of quite high resolution. You'll find lots of
astronomical images, of course, but you'll find all kinds of other
things too.
Two of my favorites from the 1969 launch of Apollo 11, taking the
first men to the moon:
Saturn V rocket
FTW!
If you're a science buff like me, you can spend large amounts of
time on their site. I recommend that you not try this a) at work,
or b) when your significant other expects you to be paying
attention to him/her/the kids/household chores/your dinner guests.
You have been warned!
-=[
Grant ]=-
Tags: nasa, photography