Stickybuffalo.com

Apparently a film about the World War II codebreaking machine, Colossus, has prompted a bit of celebration about Britain’s contribution to early computer development, along with a report by Mark Ward over at the BBC web site. And that’s lovely, and it’s a compelling story. But Ward’s report, unfortunately, gets a bit carried away with British pride. And in the process fudges one or two small but very important points. Repeatedly.

Ward writes: “Colossus is regarded as being the world’s first digital, electronic computer…”

And quotes Phil Hayes, the chief engineer at the National Museum of Computing, as saying “…it’s the first electronic computer.”

Neither of these statements is really accurate. In the same story, Ward repeats the assertion but with a key disclaimer: “…was the first electronic, digital programmable computer.” The word “programmable” has been added, though unfortunately all three of these claims are dropped into the same story without any comment on the difference between them, or which one is in fact accurate, and Ward therefore gives the impression that they’re all interchangeable and that, essentially, the Colossus was just “the first computer” regardless of whatever qualifiers you add.

Except that is not true, sir.

Yes, Colossus was the first electronic digital programmable computer. It was not the first electronic computer, or the first electronic digital computer. We have a computer museum here in the United States, too, perhaps a bit less “national” in character; if you visit its web site you’ll find information about not only American contributions to computer technology but the work of other pioneers, as well, including the Colossus. It also, however, includes information about another device conceived in 1937, and up and running one year before Colossus. Some of you may have heard of it, probably. (more…)

The alleged entertainment value of this endless Republican primary campaign is, to a very great extent, lost on me. I consider the whole spectacle an unhelpful, absolutely ludicrous farce, which of course consumes real attention and other resources which could be better spent on just about anything you care to name. I stand by my assertion that Mitt Romney is the Republican presidential candidate, and all the continued insistence that there is some sort of competitive race still in progress is just meaningless noise.

All that said, this is so choice that I do feel a smidge of gratitude for the context which prompted it, however ludicrous it is otherwise. Economist blogger N.L. of Chicago examines Newt Gingrich’s recent new personal record in campaign-trail clowning, the promise of a “permanent moon base” within just a dozen years, which would seem to exemplify the silliness of most coverage of this campaign. Yet in giving this implausible dream-scenario a serious look, N.L. somehow confounds all logic to produce results which are nothing short of sublime:

Technologically, then, it is feasible to get 15,000 people onto the moon for the kind of money that exists in America’s treasury. But then things start to enter the realm of fantasy [...] it will become necessary to work out how to create a closed-loop ecological system—where everything is recycled, reused and entirely sustainable. Energy must be renewable. Food must be grown, waste water must be reused and the air must be kept clean. In other words it would resemble the sort of crazy liberal fantasy that drives Republicans nuts on Earth.

Yes, that is quite good. Quite, quite good. The closing paragraph is really almost overkill, but hey, so is the entire campaign, so:

…as [Moon Base Gingrich] pursues statehood, we must consider whether it will swing Republican or Democrat. Lets think about this, the population will be highly educated, eco-friendly and very likely dependent on vast government support. Perhaps Newt [genuinely] has gone mad.