|
HardDisk posted:I want to hear all the clunks. Maybe give him a set of specific calculations and see how he does it on video
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2016 05:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 09:54 |
|
|
Phanatic posted:I really want to see Kozmonaut dissect this. In depth. I'd love to see those reviews and especially if that "measurable difference" is actually measurable, or simply another case of "guys, I'm REALLY sure I heard a difference, trust me." Personally, I'll be waiting for Archimago to do a write up and comparison, he did one a while back comparing the analog output on the iPhones 4 and 6, and found them comparable to well-regarded external DACs: http://archimago.blogspot.dk/2014/10/measurements-apple-iphone-4-iphone-6.html
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2016 05:48
|
|
|
HardDisk posted:I want to hear all the clunks. Watch "The Imitation Game". It came out a few years ago, and it shows Alan Turing building and using one of these during WWII.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2016 14:08
|
|
|
Zopotantor posted:A polarizing filter should get rid of that button glare. Huh, neat. I'm a complete rookie when it comes to cameras / shooting video, so tips like that are very appreciated. I'll try that. HardDisk posted:I want to hear all the clunks. Sorry about that. I'm a bit of a technology nerd, so I guess I focus more on the technical aspects rather than the actual usage of the thing. I like your idea to put a more practical demonstration. Fortunately I work in finance, so I already have some ideas I'm tossing around that'd work for a video like that. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2016 14:16
|
|
|
Spy_Guy posted:I like your idea to put a more practical demonstration. Do it! It's mechanical/tech porn already. Seeing it's functions during a practical method is just icing on the cake. You have a few old mechanical calculators right? You should start a series of each one. I would do each in 3 stages. The history, how the mechanisms operate and a practical demonstration.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2016 16:38
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:The original Enigmas could be pretty easily broken by hand once cryptographers figured out how they worked, as well as some sloppy behavior and less secure procedures used by the operators; So there's handwork (and crucial handwork!) before and after the Bombe, but without the Bombe there are too many settings for you to try all of them on a plaintext. Hence the Bombe, hence a foundational element in the development of computers. e: And you'd already said that, because you were talking about the first Enigmas in that paragraph, and you went on to discuss the Bombe. I apologize for my poor reading skills. Arsenic Lupin has a new favorite as of 20:51 on Sep 10, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2016 20:40
|
|
|
Arsenic Lupin posted:When switchover came, the next new message had to be run through the fanciest computer of the day, called the bombe. It was an electromechanical machine designed to do one task only, decipher part of the initial Enigma settings after being primed with an initial set of information deduced manually by cryptoanalysts. It was essentially a bunch of reverse enigma machines that worked its way through a subset of possible settings until it found something that resembled unencrypted text, which would then reveal the wheel settings and part of the plugboard settings. The Colossus was the first true programmable computer used to defeat the Lorenz cipher.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2016 21:53
|
|
|
Collateral Damage posted:Nitpick, the Bombe wasn't a computer. You’re quite right that Colossus was the forerunner of modern computers and Bombe was not, but if analogue computers can be computers, I don’t see why the Bomb cannot be a type of computer.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 00:04
|
|
|
The Bombe isn't turing-complete, is why.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 00:08
|
|
|
DoctorWhat posted:The Bombe isn't turing-complete, is why. No real computer is, strictly speaking, turing complete
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 00:09
|
|
|
DoctorWhat posted:The Bombe isn't turing-complete, is why.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 00:39
|
|
|
This has probably been posted in the thread a dozen times by this point, but it’s been a while: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1i-dnAH9Y4
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 00:51
|
|
|
KozmoNaut posted:I'd love to see those reviews and especially if that "measurable difference" is actually measurable, or simply another case of "guys, I'm REALLY sure I heard a difference, trust me." iPhones have always had pretty good headphone output My Nexus 6P on the other hand sounds bad enough that I've resorted to a Bluetooth DAC/headphone amp (and the LG G3 I had beforehand sounded even worse)
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 01:19
|
|
|
Arsenic Lupin posted:That's not quite true. The German High Command reset the key daily. When switchover came, the next new message had to be run through the fanciest computer of the day, called the bombe. You fed in the message and a "crib" (sequence of text that would probably be in the message) created by cryptographers, then ran them through the Bombe. Once you'd found a likely set of settings, you ran one decryption by hand to see if it looked appropriate; if not, try again with a new crib. Yeah, the daily reset was actually not enough to prevent the order from being broken. They tried doing it more often, but they simply couldn't overcome mistakes in the procedure. It's been said that the Enigma probably could have been unbreakable if not for those issues. Platystemon posted:You’re quite right that Colossus was the forerunner of modern computers and Bombe was not, but if analogue computers can be computers, I don’t see why the Bomb cannot be a type of computer. I'd argue against the Bombe being a true computer because it was extremely restricted in what it could do. As has been said, the Bombe was essentially a bunch of Enigmas hooked together that would try every possible Enigma setting to see if they could determine the encryption for a particular message. The Bombe could not do anything except for this task, and would have to be completely taken apart and rebuilt for anything else. Primitive computers before the invention of easy programming could still be used for a variety of tasks, as they were often generalized "do math" machines. It was definitely a big step in the creation of computers, but it wasn't really a computer. chitoryu12 has a new favorite as of 04:51 on Sep 11, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 04:47
|
|
|
My Lovely Horse posted:I went to a museum where they had a ton of these mechanical calculators and it kinda highlighted (highlit?) a problem I have with tech museums in general: I can only look at so many exhibits before I want to see them in action. I realize if you let people play with them freely, someone would break it, but the way it is now, I can go to the museum and get kinda bored or I can watch someone explain the thing in-depth for half an hour on youtube. http://www.livingcomputermuseum.org/
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 05:00
|
|
|
Most people have seen a printing press. A typesetter puts together the letters and words to build the lines of type that get locked in the press to get inked and print on the paper. Now we just use computers to layout everything. But between the 2 there was a really neat machine called a Linotype. It was this crazy Rube Goldberg contraption that let you type in a whole line of type on a keyboard. It would mechanically pick reverse molds of those letters off their storage spaces, place them in a row and justify the text by adjusting the size of the spaces between words, shoot molten lead into the mold to create an entire line of type ready to go into the press and then sort all the letter molds back to their storage spaces. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EzilaRwoMus&t=218s The whole thing is like an IBM Selectric on steroids with 600F lead tossed in for good measure. There is a documentary that was on Amazon Prime that is really great Linotype: The Film https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=avDuKuBNuCk I only know about them because the lead mixture they use is blended to cast fine details and be hard to stand up to an entire run of a paper without distorting. These are great properties for casting bullets so most bullet casters look for old printshops or newspapers to try to get the old linotype lead to cast with. my turn in the barrel has a new favorite as of 14:13 on Sep 11, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 14:11
|
|
|
I definitely remember hearing all about those when the 2004 election was happening and there was the whole brouhaha about those Dan Rather memos.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 14:18
|
|
|
There’s a film about the last day the New York Times used hot lead, on 2 July 1978, entitled Farewell etaoin shrdlu. Apparently we have Linotype: The Film to thank for digitising it. I did not know that.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 14:59
|
|
|
Pubic Lair posted:Most people have seen a printing press. A typesetter puts together the letters and words to build the lines of type that get locked in the press to get inked and print on the paper. My brother's best friend's father, later my geometry teacher, had a working Linotype and matching press in his barn. It was amazingly cool; I remember his casting each of our names, and the type spitting into the tray too hot to touch.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 17:01
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:This has probably been posted in the thread a dozen times by this point, but it’s been a while: Thanks, I had another YouTube video which was part 1 of this bookmarked to watch from it being linked somewhere on the forums, but this was way longer and really cool. I always wondered how those things worked since I've seen a couple. How can they call it a computer if it's not Turing complete though? 
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2016 09:13
|
|
|
There's a hipstery letterpress down the street from my home but since they spelled putiikki butiikki on their web site, I wouldn't trust them to print poo poo. e: Welp seems like the quality of their work is poo poo anyway. http://www.letterpresshouse.com/life-at-the-letterpress/2016/7/7/a-barber-poster Nice gap between TIP and a man, shitheads! 3D Megadoodoo has a new favorite as of 10:30 on Sep 12, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2016 10:27
|
|
|
Jerry Cotton posted:There's a hipstery letterpress down the street from my home but since they spelled putiikki butiikki on their web site, I wouldn't trust them to print poo poo. Took me a moment but their line spacing seems to be based of capitalized lettering.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2016 11:42
|
|
|
Humphreys posted:Took me a moment but their line spacing seems to be based of capitalized lettering. Regardless on what it's based on, when you're making a poster that only contains huge letters you should hand-space everything so that it looks good. (In my non-humble opinion.) It would still be a naff and ugly poster though. e: I mean they did do it by hand, just wrong.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2016 12:12
|
|
|
Arsenic Lupin posted:Neither are the old analog computers used to do things like calculate where a bomb would land, calculate differentials, and calculate firing trajectories. Yeah, they aren't computers, they are calculators
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2016 14:12
|
|
|
This is the worst discussion about a purely semantic issue I've ever seen and I haven't even participated yet.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2016 14:13
|
|
|
Why does it matter though? And do we need to produce a transition curve describing how much like a calculator and computer something is?
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2016 14:17
|
|
|
What's the difference between calculating and computing anyway? I know computing was done* long before machine computers existed. *)  What I mean of course is "the word computer was used"
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2016 14:21
|
|
|
Jerry Cotton posted:This is the worst discussion about a purely semantic issue I've ever seen and I haven't even participated yet. I’ve seen way worse, but I think I’ve blocked the specifics out of my memory because I can’t recall them now.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2016 14:21
|
|
|
Tunicate posted:No real computer is, strictly speaking, turing complete If you want to be a sperg, yes, but that's only because no real computer has infinite memory.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2016 16:16
|
|
|
Pham Nuwen posted:If you want to be a sperg, yes, but that's only because no real computer has infinite memory. Yes but that has implications on what is computable.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2016 16:20
|
|
|
Collateral Damage posted:The Colossus was the first true programmable computer used to defeat the Lorenz cipher. Wasn't the Z3 the first programmable computer? Or, if it wasn't, what made Colossus the first? I'm not very savvy with early computer stuff
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2016 23:51
|
|
|
Rappaport posted:Wasn't the Z3 the first programmable computer? Or, if it wasn't, what made Colossus the first? I'm not very savvy with early computer stuff Z3 was built first. Colossus had to be re‐wired to re‐program it. Z3 could be fed new programs on punched tape. Colossus’s claim is that it used valves (vacuum tubes), while Z3 used telephone relays with moving parts, making Colossus “electronic” while Z3 was not.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2016 03:30
|
|
|
It's a good thing we have all these beep-boops around to keep us straight regarding computability and turing-completion and the true definition of "computation". Next up: Is the human brain a computer? ACTUAL OBSOLETE TECHNOLOGY, SHUT UP: My mother died recently. She was a doctorate student at Pitt decades ago, and was also the first head of their division of computer-based research while there. They used a set of IBM machines that took punchcards. We're cleaning up my parents' house, as my mother was a hoarder and dad's a quadruple-amputee. I found my mother's doctoral dissertation data. The dissertation that she never delivered, of course. It's on 9-line, 80-column Hollerith card. There are sixteen banker's boxes, and my phone camera is loving dead or I'd share pictures. I'll try and get some pics when my fiancee comes home from work. There are also ten full boxes of unopened card decks. e: I found her Port-A-Punch. That's cool! Exit Strategy has a new favorite as of 06:33 on Sep 13, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2016 06:28
|
|
|
Exit Strategy posted:It's a good thing we have all these beep-boops around to keep us straight regarding computability and turing-completion and the true definition of "computation". Next up: Is the human brain a computer? Why wasn't she able to finish her doctorate?
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2016 06:56
|
|
|
Non Serviam posted:Why wasn't she able to finish her doctorate? She hoarded all the punchcards.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2016 08:24
|
|
|
Rappaport posted:Wasn't the Z3 the first programmable computer? Or, if it wasn't, what made Colossus the first? I'm not very savvy with early computer stuff
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2016 08:30
|
|
|
Rappaport posted:Wasn't the Z3 the first programmable computer? Or, if it wasn't, what made Colossus the first? I'm not very savvy with early computer stuff The Z3 was also Turing-complete on a technicality, IIRC
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2016 12:23
|
|
|
Exit Strategy posted:e: I found her Port-A-Punch. That's cool!
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2016 12:46
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:Colossus had to be re‐wired to re‐program it. Z3 could be fed new programs on punched tape. Even the Z1 was programmable! I love the Z1, it was 100% mechanical, the only electrical (not electronic!) component was the clock, a motor spinning at 60 rpm i.e. 1 Hz. The thing must have been a nightmare to keep running reliably, so much grinding metal, but drat, the balls in single-handedly building such a complex machine knowing that the technology wasn't quite there yet Jerry Cotton posted:This is the worst discussion about a purely semantic issue I've ever seen and I haven't even participated yet. It's not purely semantic. It's no coincidence nor conspiracy that Turing, and not Zuse (or Babbage) is considered the founder of computer science: there's a world of difference between a calculator and a programmable machine, it's a whole new branch of science. Zuse and Babbage designed universal programmable machines (the Z1 and the analytical engine, respectively) but didn't realize they were fundamentally different from calculators
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2016 13:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 09:54 |
|
|
hackbunny posted:It's no coincidence nor conspiracy that Turing, and not Zuse (or Babbage) is considered [by whom? -Discuss] the founder of computer science
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2016 13:35
|
|