From jyates at MIT.EDU Fri Jan 9 08:56:12 2009 From: jyates at MIT.EDU (JoAnne Yates) Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2009 08:56:12 -0500 Subject: [SIGCIS-Members] Yates, _Structuring the Information Age_ now available in paperback Message-ID: <4967577C.8060600@mit.edu> Hi, all-- With apologies for dual posting and for the advertisement, I wanted to let you know that Johns Hopkins Univ. Press just issued _Structuring the Information Age: Life Insurance and Technology in the Twentieth Century_ in paperback form, considerably reducing its price. Happy New Year to all! JoAnne Yates -- JoAnne Yates Deputy Dean Sloan Distinguished Professor of Management MIT Sloan School of Management MIT E52-475 50 Memorial Drive Cambridge, MA 02472-1347 617-253-7157 Administrative Assistant Kathleen Doyle PH: 617-253-5555 email: kdoyle at mit.edu From petpaju at utu.fi Tue Jan 20 03:48:32 2009 From: petpaju at utu.fi (Petri Paju) Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2009 10:48:32 +0200 Subject: [SIGCIS-Members] Three future conferences Message-ID: <49758FE0.9030508@utu.fi> Hi all, Here are three conferences that may be relevant for some of us. 1. Call for Papers ? Workshop Announcement Telecommunication and Globalization: Information Flows in the Nineteenth and Early Twentieth Century 24-25 September 2009, Heidelberg, Germany (Proposals dead line 30 April 2009.) - For more, see below. 2. Annual Meeting of the Society for Social Studies of Science October 28 ? November 1, 2009, Washington, DC Submit Abstract and Session Proposals by March 1 - For more, see below. 3. 21st Annual Conference on Accounting, Business & Financial History at Cardiff University, 14-15 September 2009 Announcement of Conference and Call for Papers Those wishing to offer papers to be considered for presentation at the conference should send an abstract of their paper (not exceeding one page) by 1 June 2009 to:...google for more. ** Best wishes, Petri Paju 1. Call for Papers ? Workshop Announcement Telecommunication and Globalization: Information Flows in the Nineteenth and Early Twentieth Century 24-25 September 2009, Heidelberg, Germany Organized by the Junior Research Group ?Asymmetries in Cultural Information Flows: Europe and South Asia in the Global Information Network since the Nineteenth Century? (headed by Dr Roland Wenzlhuemer) at the Cluster of Excellence ?Asia and Europe in a Global Context?, University of Heidelberg (http://www.asia-europe.uniheidelberg.de/Plone/research/areas/b/projects/b9-information-flows). Globalization challenges the established relationship between time and space and detaches human interaction from co-locality or proximity. By bringing geographically distant and socioculturally diverse places in touch, it creates a placeless global sphere. When its constituting transregional connections and transfers become numerous and significant enough, this sphere develops a rationale of its own and starts to interact with the local. Globalization becomes a historically relevant process that has a formative impact on local life and culture. By enabling ever-increasing flows of information and knowledge which connect people over great geographic and cultural distances, telecommunication technologies have played and continue to play a key role in processes of globalization. The emergence during the nineteenth and early twentieth century of a global telecommunication network significantly altered the nature of human communication and represented a vital phase in the history of global connections. For the first time in history, long-distance communication became ?dematerialized?, i.e. it became detached from the physical medium which enabled its transmission. This workshop invites scholars and students in the humanities and social sciences to explore the complex interrelations between telecommunication technologies and globalization in a historical and socio-cultural perspective. The focus of the workshop rests on the emergence of a global network of telegraph and telephone lines during the nineteenth and early twentieth century and its impact on various domains of human activity, such as government, administration, trade, transport, commerce, labour, news, language, and knowledge production. The workshop organizers seek to provide an interdisciplinary forum for debating how this significant historical development impacted on the rationale of the global sphere and translated into economic, political, social and cultural changes at the local level. It is hoped that this forum will allow for new and fascinating perspectives on the interplay of telecommunication technologies and globalization. Potential questions to be explored include: ? Which socio-economic and cultural factors contributed to the emergence of particular global network patterns? ? What was the role of telecommunication in linking the global and the local? How did it change the rationale of the global sphere? ? How did new telecommunication technologies transform existing perceptions of time and space? ? How were the global and the local negotiated through telecommunication technologies? In what ways did agents in non-information societies adopt and adapt foreign (i.e. European/North American) information technologies to their own ends? How did such developments in the field of technology and colonial enterprise impact upon European societies? ? Did technologies shape their own networks? And how did emerging communication patterns impact upon the development of the technology itself? ? Can we find asymmetries in global network patterns and information flows? Did lessconnected regions automatically find themselves at the receiving end of information flows? ? Can we find evidence for processes of political and cultural centralization? If so, have there been counterstrategies in order to preserve the influence and leeway of agents in the periphery? ? How did these new technologies impact upon news collection and distribution? How did they change pre-existing ideas and practices of networking? ? What was the impact of these new communication technologies on language and cultural perceptions of language? How did they contribute to processes of language standardization and language globalization? Proposals of not more than 500 words may be submitted electronically (Word or PDF) to the organizing committee (Amelia Bonea, bonea at asia-europe.uni-heidelberg.de and Paul Fletcher, fletcher at asia-europe.uni-heidelberg.de) by 30 April 2009. For further inquiries, please contact the organizing committee. -- Dr Roland Wenzlhuemer Junior Research Group Leader Cluster of Excellence 'Asia and Europe in a Global Context' University of Heidelberg Karl Jaspers Centre Vo?stra?e 2, Geb?ude 4400 69115 Heidelberg Germany Phone +49 (0) 6221 54 4095 Fax +49 (0) 6221 54 4012 Web http://www.asia-europe.uni-heidelberg.de Email wenzlhuemer at asia-europe.uni-heidelberg.de 2. Annual Meeting of the Society for Social Studies of Science October 28 ? November 1, 2009, Washington, DC Submit Abstract and Session Proposals by March 1 Dear Colleague: 4S conference welcomes contributions on topics from the range of fields found within science and technology studies. This year?s conference will not have a predetermined theme. Consequently, proposals for sessions and papers should emphasize how they will make innovative and timely contributions to any theme relevant to science and technology studies (STS). Our new abstract submission system is now online. All submitters and authors will need to create a new user account in this system. Aside from this small inconvenience, we are confident the new system will enable more efficient conference management and improved communication with participants. Submit abstracts and session proposals here. Deadline is March 1. Program practices Given the growing size of the 4S conferences and the desire to be as inclusive as possible, the program committee will need to make full use of the available time slots. Therefore, individuals may be listed for a paper presentation and one other role (such as session chair or discussant but not a second paper) for a maximum of two appearances. Paper abstracts may be submitted individually or by a session organizer. Submissions are in the form of abstracts of 500 words or less, and must include a summary of the paper?s main arguments and methodology, as well as a brief statement on the contribution to the STS literature. Session proposals should be limited to 500 words total, and should contain a summary and rationale for the session, as well as a brief discussion of its contribution to STS. Session proposals should list names of all session organizers and panelists, including institutional affiliations and (electronic) addresses. Session proposals should be based on the assumption of two-hour time slots with twenty minutes per presentation. A typical session may have five papers, one discussant, and a ten-minute open discussion slot. You must have a minimum of three complete paper abstracts in order to submit a session proposal. The program committee may assign additional papers to proposed sessions. Proposals for double and triple sessions on a single topic may receive a request to consolidate the topic into one panel or to break the multiple sessions into different topics. The meeting welcomes papers, sessions and events that are innovative in their delivery, organization, range of topics, type of public and which bring new resources to the STS community to explore these new relations and themes. Apart from traditional research papers, the conference will also welcome proposals for sessions and papers using ?new media? or other forms of innovative presentation. New session format This year, for the first time, the 4S is including a new ?workshop? format. This is an opportunity for informal presentations, with presenters and other attendees seated around tables. This format is ideal for a more interactive presentation of preliminary ideas and work in progress. Authors and session organizers should indicate if they would like to be part of a workshop table. Submissions for ?workshop? presentations are included under the one first-authored submission limit, stated above. It is also possible for sessions to be proposed as workshop tables. For more information, visit the 4S website at http://www.4sonline.org/meeting.htm . Sincerely, Barbara Allen and Daniel Breslau, Program co-chairs, meeting at 4sonline.org -- Petri Paju, FT, tutkija, Turun yliopisto -- Ph.D. Researcher, Univ. of Turku http://users.utu.fi/petpaju/ From rmacdou at uwo.ca Tue Jan 27 11:37:13 2009 From: rmacdou at uwo.ca (Rob MacDougall) Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2009 11:37:13 -0500 Subject: [SIGCIS-Members] IEEE Life Members' Prize in Electrical History In-Reply-To: <2329502f0901270815k489b8a00yea058e0302ce0ad8@mail.gmail.com> References: <2329502f0901270815k489b8a00yea058e0302ce0ad8@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <2329502f0901270837m25fb1bafxeeac1cbe6891b2c6@mail.gmail.com> Dear colleagues, This is the annual call for submissions for SHOT's IEEE prize in electrical history. If you or someone you know has published a deserving article in 2008 dealing with any aspect of the history of electricity, electronics, telecommunications, or any other electrically-related field -- and this should includes most work in the history of computing -- please consider nominating it for the IEEE Life Members' Prize in Electrical History. Paper authors are encouraged to nominate themselves by submitting a copy of their article, and everyone is asked to submit notice of anything that they have seen published in 2008 that they feel is worthy of being considered for the Prize. The deadline for submissions is April 15, 2009. The official prize announcement appears below. For more information, please contact me at rmacdou at uwo.ca. Robert MacDougall Prize Committee Chair THE IEEE LIFE MEMBERS' PRIZE IN ELECTRICAL HISTORY The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) Life Members' Prize in Electrical History, supported by the IEEE Life Members' Fund and administered by the Society for the History of Technology (SHOT), is awarded annually to the best paper in the history of electrotechnology?--power, electronics, telecommunications, and computer science?--published during the preceding year. Any article published in a learned periodical is eligible if it treats the art or engineering aspects of electrotechnology and its practitioners. The article must be written in English, although the journal or periodical in which it appears may be a foreign language publication. The prize consists of a cash award of $500 and a certificate. To nominate an article, please send a copy (paper or electronic) of the article to each member of the prize committee. Deadline for the 2008 prize is April 15, 2009. Robert MacDougall (chair) Department of History University of Western Ontario Social Science Centre 4328 London, Ontario N6A 5C2 CANADA rmacdou at uwo.ca Susan Schmidt Horning Department of History St. John's University 8000 Utopia Parkway Jamaica, NY 11439 schmidts at stjohns.edu Andrew J. Butrica P.O. Box 30223 Bethesda, MD 20824-0223 abutrica at earthlink.net From evan at snarc.net Thu Jan 29 02:49:08 2009 From: evan at snarc.net (Evan Koblentz) Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2009 02:49:08 -0500 Subject: [SIGCIS-Members] BRL computer reports? Message-ID: <001c01c981e6$12752ca0$0301a8c0@evan> This week I "discovered" the Army's Ballistics Research Lab computer reports from 1961 and 1964 here: http://ed-thelen.org/comp-hist/on-line-docs.html#History. Does anyone know if the BRL continued publishing such reports after 1964, and if so, where I might find them (ideally online)...? - Evan -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://sigcis.org/pipermail/members/attachments/20090129/b2359338/attachment.htm From evan at snarc.net Sat Jan 31 05:05:11 2009 From: evan at snarc.net (Evan Koblentz) Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2009 05:05:11 -0500 Subject: [SIGCIS-Members] ENIAC move from Penn to Aberdeen Message-ID: <000001c9838b$689667b0$0301a8c0@evan> Does anyone know the details about how ENIAC was physically moved from Penn to Aberdeen? I've heard conflicting accounts of whether it was put on trucks or train(s). I would like to read a detailed and accurate account of the moving process -- exactly how it was done, by whom, what problems they encountered, etc. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://sigcis.org/pipermail/members/attachments/20090131/7bbecdc3/attachment.htm From evan at snarc.net Sat Jan 31 05:20:17 2009 From: evan at snarc.net (Evan Koblentz) Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2009 05:20:17 -0500 Subject: [SIGCIS-Members] Another question - "Giant Brains" Message-ID: <000001c9838d$850fea90$0301a8c0@evan> Was the term "Giant Brains" already popular when Edmund Berkeley used it in his 1949 book title, or should he get credit for popularizing it? I'm mentioning the term in a footnote and want to be sure credit goes to the right source. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://sigcis.org/pipermail/members/attachments/20090131/342e4124/attachment.htm From jwcorta at us.ibm.com Sat Jan 31 10:18:03 2009 From: jwcorta at us.ibm.com (James Cortada) Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2009 09:18:03 -0600 Subject: [SIGCIS-Members] Another question - "Giant Brains" In-Reply-To: <000001c9838d$850fea90$0301a8c0@evan> References: <000001c9838d$850fea90$0301a8c0@evan> Message-ID: He popularized the term, although it is not clear to me that he was the first to utter it. The concept had been floating around since at least the mid-1930s in the form of mechanically augmenting thinking. based on what I read in the 1930s and 1940s, I would give him--or his book editor--credit for the phrase. This is similar to the problem we still have with the word automation. It was in use at Ford Motors in the late 1940s but nobody knew about it or used the phrase until John Diebold did when he used it as the title for a best selling book published in the early 1950s. He told me that he had gotten the word from Ford and his editor encouraged him to use in the title of the book. The only really clever book title he ever came up with for his 7+ books. His experience is what taught me to spend a lot of time thinking about the title of any book you publish, fighting and dialoguing with editors, marketing people, and others until you get it right. Jim (James) W. Cortada IBM Institute for Business Value 3001 West Beltline Highway Madison, WI 53713 USA jwcorta at us.ibm.com 608-270-4462 From: "Evan Koblentz" To: Date: 01/31/09 04:20 AM Subject: [SIGCIS-Members] Another question - "Giant Brains" Was the term "Giant Brains" already popular when Edmund Berkeley used it in his 1949 book title, or should he get credit for popularizing it? I'm mentioning the term in a footnote and want to be sure credit goes to the right source._______________________________________________ This email is relayed from members at sigcis.org, the email discussion list of SHOT SIGCIS. The list archives are at http://sigcis.org/pipermail/members/ and you can change your subscription options at http://sigcis.org/mailman/listinfo/members -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://sigcis.org/pipermail/members/attachments/20090131/7e452bda/attachment-0001.htm -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: graycol.gif Type: image/gif Size: 105 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://sigcis.org/pipermail/members/attachments/20090131/7e452bda/attachment-0002.gif -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ecblank.gif Type: image/gif Size: 45 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://sigcis.org/pipermail/members/attachments/20090131/7e452bda/attachment-0003.gif From a.vandormael at skynet.be Sat Jan 31 11:07:37 2009 From: a.vandormael at skynet.be (Armand Van Dormael) Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2009 17:07:37 +0100 Subject: [SIGCIS-Members] Introducing myself Message-ID: Dear Colleagues, It is a great pleasure for me to join Sigcis. I hope I can make a contribution to your research. Several eminent historians have drawn attention to major gaps in the history of computing. Much of computing technology was developed in Europe, but its originators are not recognized even in their home country. Since Europe has no computer industry, historians have not been interested. On February 24, 2003, the New York Times published an article titled: Herbert F. Matar?. An Inventor of the Transistor Has His Moment. Fifty-five years after the fact, this was the first time Matar? was given credit for his work. In 1986, the Boston Computer Museum held a contest to determine who invented the microcomputer. The Micral created by Fran?ois Gernelle was recognized as the first commercially distributed microcomputer. . Both Matar? and Gernelle have provided me with ample documentation and information about their work. My forthcoming book The Silicon Revolution explores this unmapped area of history. It constitutes a documented analysis and a coherent narrative of the development of computing in the United States, Europe and Asia. Please see:/http://www.avandor.net IEEE paper The French Transistor. NY Times: Herbert F. Matar?. An Inventor of the Transistor Has His Moment. Armand Van Dormael 33A Dr?ve de la Meute 1410 Waterloo Belgium Tel/fax +32 2 354 96 63 a.vandormael at skynet.be -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://sigcis.org/pipermail/members/attachments/20090131/4298122e/attachment.htm From blongo at umn.edu Sat Jan 31 12:26:04 2009 From: blongo at umn.edu (Bernadette Longo) Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2009 11:26:04 -0600 Subject: [SIGCIS-Members] Another question - "Giant Brains" In-Reply-To: References: <000001c9838d$850fea90$0301a8c0@evan> Message-ID: <498489AC.3020204@umn.edu> Hi all -- The term "giant brains" had also been used numerous times by the Science Service Newsletter editor during the 1930s in terms of earlier mechanical calculators. Ditto to Jim's comments...Bernadette Longo James Cortada wrote: > > He popularized the term, although it is not clear to me that he was > the first to utter it. The concept had been floating around since at > least the mid-1930s in the form of mechanically augmenting thinking. > based on what I read in the 1930s and 1940s, I would give him--or his > book editor--credit for the phrase. This is similar to the problem we > still have with the word automation. It was in use at Ford Motors in > the late 1940s but nobody knew about it or used the phrase until John > Diebold did when he used it as the title for a best selling book > published in the early 1950s. He told me that he had gotten the word > from Ford and his editor encouraged him to use in the title of the > book. The only really clever book title he ever came up with for his > 7+ books. His experience is what taught me to spend a lot of time > thinking about the title of any book you publish, fighting and > dialoguing with editors, marketing people, and others until you get it > right. > > Jim (James) W. Cortada > IBM Institute for Business Value > 3001 West Beltline Highway > Madison, WI 53713 USA > jwcorta at us.ibm.com > 608-270-4462 > > Inactive hide details for "Evan Koblentz" ---01/31/2009 04:20:10 > AM---Was the term "Giant Brains" already popular when Edmund B"Evan > Koblentz" ---01/31/2009 04:20:10 AM---Was the term "Giant Brains" > already popular when Edmund Berkeley used it in his 1949 book title, > or should he get credit for po > > > From: > "Evan Koblentz" > > To: > > > Date: > 01/31/09 04:20 AM > > Subject: > [SIGCIS-Members] Another question - "Giant Brains" > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > Was the term "Giant Brains" already popular when Edmund Berkeley used > it in his 1949 book title, or should he get credit for popularizing > it? I'm mentioning the term in a footnote and want to be sure credit > goes to the right source._______________________________________________ > This email is relayed from members at sigcis.org, the email discussion > list of SHOT SIGCIS. The list archives are at > http://sigcis.org/pipermail/members/ and you can change your > subscription options at http://sigcis.org/mailman/listinfo/members > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > This email is relayed from members at sigcis.org, the email discussion list of SHOT SIGCIS. The list archives are at http://sigcis.org/pipermail/members/ and you can change your subscription options at http://sigcis.org/mailman/listinfo/members -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: blongo.vcf Type: text/x-vcard Size: 404 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://sigcis.org/pipermail/members/attachments/20090131/b30fe344/attachment.vcf From allan.olley at utoronto.ca Sat Jan 31 14:38:25 2009 From: allan.olley at utoronto.ca (Allan Olley) Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2009 14:38:25 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time) Subject: [SIGCIS-Members] Another question - "Giant Brains" In-Reply-To: <498489AC.3020204@umn.edu> References: <000001c9838d$850fea90$0301a8c0@evan> <498489AC.3020204@umn.edu> Message-ID: Hey, Just did a quick check on JSTOR on the Science Service's The Science News-letter (what I assume Bernadette Longo refered to). The term "mechanical brain" is used about three times in the 1930s for some kind of calculator or control system. First instance in 1930 for a planetarium's control system (The Science News-Letter, Vol. 17, No. 475 (May 17, 1930), pp. 312-313) and then in 1932 to describe Bush's Differential Analyzer (The Science News-Letter, Vol. 22, No. 606 (Nov. 19, 1932), p. 320), which is also called a mathematical brain. The phrase "electronic 'brain'" is used to refer to a computing gunsight in 1944 (The Science News-Letter, Vol. 46, No. 21 (Nov. 18, 1944), p. 326) Note that for example the press release by Harvard in 1944 for the IBM ASCC/Harvard Mark I refers to it as a "super-brain." (p. 124, Cohen, _Howard Aiken: Portrait of a computer pioneer_) So I think it is safe to say that the use of the word/analogy of brain to describe a computer was popular before Berkeley. The exact phrase "giant brain" is apparently not used anywhere in JSTOR's database (which is a number of scientific and other journals) before 1950 to describe machines... I did a quick check of the NY Times and found an article from 1947 with the following title "NEW GIANT 'BRAIN' DOES WIZARD WORK; Bureau of Standards Says It Can Solve Vast Mathematical Problems in a Few Minutes" August 25, 1947, Monday Page 19, 602 words. About the Bureau of Standards plans for machines,"giant "electronic brains"" refered to, so the title may be an abreviation of that. It is based off a U.P. newswire. However this is the only pre-1949 reference, so it hardly suggests it is a popular description. Refering to early computers as giant brains is a natural way to describe them given their size and previous practice and so the phrase was probably coined more than once (like many computer algorithms that have been invented multiple times). I suspect if you did a search of all searchable newspapers and other available sources you would find a few more instances of the phrase "giant brain" however it does seem to me like Berkeley popularized the description. -- Yours Truly, Allan Olley http://individual.utoronto.ca/fofound/ On Sat, 31 Jan 2009, Bernadette Longo wrote: > Hi all -- The term "giant brains" had also been used numerous times by > the Science Service Newsletter editor during the 1930s in terms of > earlier mechanical calculators. Ditto to Jim's comments...Bernadette > Longo > > James Cortada wrote: >> >> He popularized the term, although it is not clear to me that he was the >> first to utter it. The concept had been floating around since at least >> the mid-1930s in the form of mechanically augmenting thinking. based on >> what I read in the 1930s and 1940s, I would give him--or his book >> editor--credit for the phrase. This is similar to the problem we still >> have with the word automation. It was in use at Ford Motors in the late >> 1940s but nobody knew about it or used the phrase until John Diebold >> did when he used it as the title for a best selling book published in >> the early 1950s. He told me that he had gotten the word from Ford and >> his editor encouraged him to use in the title of the book. The only >> really clever book title he ever came up with for his 7+ books. His >> experience is what taught me to spend a lot of time thinking about the >> title of any book you publish, fighting and dialoguing with editors, >> marketing people, and others until you get it right. >> >> Jim (James) W. Cortada >> IBM Institute for Business Value >> 3001 West Beltline Highway >> Madison, WI 53713 USA >> jwcorta at us.ibm.com >> 608-270-4462 >> >> Inactive hide details for "Evan Koblentz" ---01/31/2009 04:20:10 >> AM---Was the term "Giant Brains" already popular when Edmund B"Evan >> Koblentz" ---01/31/2009 04:20:10 AM---Was the term "Giant Brains" >> already popular when Edmund Berkeley used it in his 1949 book title, or >> should he get credit for po >> >> >> From: "Evan Koblentz" >> >> To: >> >> Date: 01/31/09 04:20 AM >> >> Subject: [SIGCIS-Members] Another question - "Giant Brains" >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> >> >> Was the term "Giant Brains" already popular when Edmund Berkeley used >> it in his 1949 book title, or should he get credit for popularizing it? >> I'm mentioning the term in a footnote and want to be sure credit goes >> to the right source._______________________________________________ >> This email is relayed from members at sigcis.org, the email discussion >> list of SHOT SIGCIS. The list archives are at >> http://sigcis.org/pipermail/members/ and you can change your >> subscription options at http://sigcis.org/mailman/listinfo/members >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> _______________________________________________ >> This email is relayed from members at sigcis.org, the email discussion >> list of SHOT SIGCIS. The list archives are at >> http://sigcis.org/pipermail/members/ and you can change your >> subscription options at http://sigcis.org/mailman/listinfo/members > > From thaigh at computer.org Sat Jan 31 15:49:47 2009 From: thaigh at computer.org (Thomas Haigh) Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2009 14:49:47 -0600 Subject: [SIGCIS-Members] Another question - "Giant Brains" In-Reply-To: References: <000001c9838d$850fea90$0301a8c0@evan> <498489AC.3020204@umn.edu> Message-ID: <8bc235380901311249u26f384ccyd77b7f1347384378@mail.gmail.com> The title has great retro kitsch value, but I believe that "Giant Brains" popularized a more important phrase. Berkeley defined the computer as "a machine that handles information, transfers information from one part of the machine to another and has a flexible control over the sequence of its operation." This makes it special because transfers information automatically, doesn't need minute to minute instructions -this makes "a deep break with the past" even though "machines that handle information have existed for more than 200 years." So he situates the as one in a long lineof information handling machines going back to languages as "systems for handling information", nerve cells, cave paintings, books, etc as "physical equipment for handling information." That's the context in which it makes sense to call a computer a giant brain, not because both think but because both handle information. While Shannon's information theory had obvious relevance for people building digital computers, this is the earliest (1949) expansive framing I'm aware of for the computer as a universal information processing machine. I'd be interested to hear if anyone knows of an earlier one, but it's surely the earliest one to reach a mass general audience. Tom 2009/1/31 Allan Olley > Hey, > Just did a quick check on JSTOR on the Science Service's The > Science News-letter (what I assume Bernadette Longo refered to). The term > "mechanical brain" is used about three times in the 1930s for some kind > of calculator or control system. First instance in 1930 for a > planetarium's control system (The Science News-Letter, Vol. > 17, No. 475 (May 17, 1930), pp. 312-313) and then in 1932 to describe > Bush's Differential Analyzer (The Science News-Letter, Vol. 22, No. 606 > (Nov. 19, 1932), p. 320), which is also called a mathematical brain. The > phrase "electronic 'brain'" is used to refer to a computing gunsight in > 1944 (The Science News-Letter, Vol. 46, No. 21 (Nov. 18, 1944), p. 326) > Note that for example the press release by Harvard in 1944 for the > IBM ASCC/Harvard Mark I refers to it as a "super-brain." (p. 124, Cohen, > _Howard Aiken: Portrait of a computer pioneer_) So I think it is safe to > say that the use of the word/analogy of brain to describe a computer was > popular before Berkeley. > The exact phrase "giant brain" is apparently not used anywhere in > JSTOR's database (which is a number of scientific and other journals) > before 1950 to describe machines... > I did a quick check of the NY Times and found an article from 1947 > with the following title "NEW GIANT 'BRAIN' DOES WIZARD WORK; Bureau of > Standards Says It Can Solve Vast Mathematical Problems in a Few Minutes" > August 25, 1947, Monday Page 19, 602 words. About the Bureau of Standards > plans for machines,"giant "electronic brains"" refered to, so the title > may be an abreviation of that. It is based off a U.P. newswire. However > this is the only pre-1949 reference, so it hardly suggests it is a popular > description. > Refering to early computers as giant brains is a natural way to > describe them given their size and previous practice and so the phrase > was probably coined more than once (like many computer algorithms that > have been invented multiple times). I suspect if you did a search of all > searchable newspapers and other available sources you would find a few > more instances of the phrase "giant brain" however it does seem to me > like Berkeley popularized the description. > -- > Yours Truly, > Allan Olley > > http://individual.utoronto.ca/fofound/ > > On Sat, 31 Jan 2009, Bernadette Longo wrote: > > > Hi all -- The term "giant brains" had also been used numerous times by > > the Science Service Newsletter editor during the 1930s in terms of > > earlier mechanical calculators. Ditto to Jim's comments...Bernadette > > Longo > > > > James Cortada wrote: > >> > >> He popularized the term, although it is not clear to me that he was the > >> first to utter it. The concept had been floating around since at least > >> the mid-1930s in the form of mechanically augmenting thinking. based on > >> what I read in the 1930s and 1940s, I would give him--or his book > >> editor--credit for the phrase. This is similar to the problem we still > >> have with the word automation. It was in use at Ford Motors in the late > >> 1940s but nobody knew about it or used the phrase until John Diebold > >> did when he used it as the title for a best selling book published in > >> the early 1950s. He told me that he had gotten the word from Ford and > >> his editor encouraged him to use in the title of the book. The only > >> really clever book title he ever came up with for his 7+ books. His > >> experience is what taught me to spend a lot of time thinking about the > >> title of any book you publish, fighting and dialoguing with editors, > >> marketing people, and others until you get it right. > >> > >> Jim (James) W. Cortada > >> IBM Institute for Business Value > >> 3001 West Beltline Highway > >> Madison, WI 53713 USA > >> jwcorta at us.ibm.com > >> 608-270-4462 > >> > >> Inactive hide details for "Evan Koblentz" ---01/31/2009 04:20:10 > >> AM---Was the term "Giant Brains" already popular when Edmund B"Evan > >> Koblentz" ---01/31/2009 04:20:10 AM---Was the term "Giant Brains" > >> already popular when Edmund Berkeley used it in his 1949 book title, or > >> should he get credit for po > >> > >> > >> From: "Evan Koblentz" > >> > >> To: > >> > >> Date: 01/31/09 04:20 AM > >> > >> Subject: [SIGCIS-Members] Another question - "Giant Brains" > >> > >> > >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >> > >> > >> > >> Was the term "Giant Brains" already popular when Edmund Berkeley used > >> it in his 1949 book title, or should he get credit for popularizing it? > >> I'm mentioning the term in a footnote and want to be sure credit goes > >> to the right source._______________________________________________ > >> This email is relayed from members at sigcis.org, the email discussion > >> list of SHOT SIGCIS. The list archives are at > >> http://sigcis.org/pipermail/members/ and you can change your > >> subscription options at http://sigcis.org/mailman/listinfo/members > >> > >> > >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> This email is relayed from members at sigcis.org, the email discussion > >> list of SHOT SIGCIS. The list archives are at > >> http://sigcis.org/pipermail/members/ and you can change your > >> subscription options at http://sigcis.org/mailman/listinfo/members > > > > > _______________________________________________ > This email is relayed from members at sigcis.org, the email discussion list > of SHOT SIGCIS. The list archives are at > http://sigcis.org/pipermail/members/ and you can change your subscription > options at http://sigcis.org/mailman/listinfo/members > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://sigcis.org/pipermail/members/attachments/20090131/1f021019/attachment-0001.htm From jwcorta at us.ibm.com Sat Jan 31 17:21:37 2009 From: jwcorta at us.ibm.com (James Cortada) Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2009 16:21:37 -0600 Subject: [SIGCIS-Members] Another question - "Giant Brains" In-Reply-To: <8bc235380901311249u26f384ccyd77b7f1347384378@mail.gmail.com> References: <000001c9838d$850fea90$0301a8c0@evan> <498489AC.3020204@umn.edu> <8bc235380901311249u26f384ccyd77b7f1347384378@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: So much good dialogue has taken place today on this topic that I think we should ask Evan to consolidate all of this into a short article that goes into one of the back sections of the Annals or into an article in some media journal. If that works, there are a bunch of other things we could flush out from time to time using this social networking/wisdom of crowds approach. We might even expand Evan's assignment by discussing automation next weekend and then the following weekend cybernetics. Jim (James) W. Cortada IBM Institute for Business Value 3001 West Beltline Highway Madison, WI 53713 USA jwcorta at us.ibm.com 608-270-4462 From: Thomas Haigh To: members at sigcis.org Date: 01/31/09 02:50 PM Subject: Re: [SIGCIS-Members] Another question - "Giant Brains" The title has great retro kitsch value, but I believe that "Giant Brains" popularized a more important phrase. Berkeley defined the computer as "a machine that handles information, transfers information from one part of the machine to another and has a flexible control over the sequence of its operation." This makes it special because transfers information automatically, doesn't need minute to minute instructions -this makes "a deep break with the past" even though "machines that handle information have existed for more than 200 years." So he situates the as one in a long lineof information handling machines going back to languages as "systems for handling information", nerve cells, cave paintings, books, etc as "physical equipment for handling information." That's the context in which it makes sense to call a computer a giant brain, not because both think but because both handle information. While Shannon's information theory had obvious relevance for people building digital computers, this is the earliest (1949) expansive framing I'm aware of for the computer as a universal information processing machine. I'd be interested to hear if anyone knows of an earlier one, but it's surely the earliest one to reach a mass general audience. Tom 2009/1/31 Allan Olley Hey, Just did a quick check on JSTOR on the Science Service's The Science News-letter (what I assume Bernadette Longo refered to). The term "mechanical brain" is used about three times in the 1930s for some kind of calculator or control system. First instance in 1930 for a planetarium's control system (The Science News-Letter, Vol. 17, No. 475 (May 17, 1930), pp. 312-313) and then in 1932 to describe Bush's Differential Analyzer (The Science News-Letter, Vol. 22, No. 606 (Nov. 19, 1932), p. 320), which is also called a mathematical brain. The phrase "electronic 'brain'" is used to refer to a computing gunsight in 1944 (The Science News-Letter, Vol. 46, No. 21 (Nov. 18, 1944), p. 326) Note that for example the press release by Harvard in 1944 for the IBM ASCC/Harvard Mark I refers to it as a "super-brain." (p. 124, Cohen, _Howard Aiken: Portrait of a computer pioneer_) So I think it is safe to say that the use of the word/analogy of brain to describe a computer was popular before Berkeley. The exact phrase "giant brain" is apparently not used anywhere in JSTOR's database (which is a number of scientific and other journals) before 1950 to describe machines... I did a quick check of the NY Times and found an article from 1947 with the following title "NEW GIANT 'BRAIN' DOES WIZARD WORK; Bureau of Standards Says It Can Solve Vast Mathematical Problems in a Few Minutes" August 25, 1947, Monday Page 19, 602 words. About the Bureau of Standards plans for machines,"giant "electronic brains"" refered to, so the title may be an abreviation of that. It is based off a U.P. newswire. However this is the only pre-1949 reference, so it hardly suggests it is a popular description. Refering to early computers as giant brains is a natural way to describe them given their size and previous practice and so the phrase was probably coined more than once (like many computer algorithms that have been invented multiple times). I suspect if you did a search of all searchable newspapers and other available sources you would find a few more instances of the phrase "giant brain" however it does seem to me like Berkeley popularized the description. -- Yours Truly, Allan Olley http://individual.utoronto.ca/fofound/ On Sat, 31 Jan 2009, Bernadette Longo wrote: > Hi all -- The term "giant brains" had also been used numerous times by > the Science Service Newsletter editor during the 1930s in terms of > earlier mechanical calculators. Ditto to Jim's comments...Bernadette > Longo > > James Cortada wrote: >> >> He popularized the term, although it is not clear to me that he was the >> first to utter it. The concept had been floating around since at least >> the mid-1930s in the form of mechanically augmenting thinking. based on >> what I read in the 1930s and 1940s, I would give him--or his book >> editor--credit for the phrase. This is similar to the problem we still >> have with the word automation. It was in use at Ford Motors in the late >> 1940s but nobody knew about it or used the phrase until John Diebold >> did when he used it as the title for a best selling book published in >> the early 1950s. He told me that he had gotten the word from Ford and >> his editor encouraged him to use in the title of the book. The only >> really clever book title he ever came up with for his 7+ books. His >> experience is what taught me to spend a lot of time thinking about the >> title of any book you publish, fighting and dialoguing with editors, >> marketing people, and others until you get it right. >> >> Jim (James) W. Cortada >> IBM Institute for Business Value >> 3001 West Beltline Highway >> Madison, WI 53713 USA >> jwcorta at us.ibm.com >> 608-270-4462 >> >> Inactive hide details for "Evan Koblentz" ---01/31/2009 04:20:10 >> AM---Was the term "Giant Brains" already popular when Edmund B"Evan >> Koblentz" ---01/31/2009 04:20:10 AM---Was the term "Giant Brains" >> already popular when Edmund Berkeley used it in his 1949 book title, or >> should he get credit for po >> >> >> From: "Evan Koblentz" >> >> To: >> >> Date: 01/31/09 04:20 AM >> >> Subject: [SIGCIS-Members] Another question - "Giant Brains" >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> >> >> Was the term "Giant Brains" already popular when Edmund Berkeley used >> it in his 1949 book title, or should he get credit for popularizing it? >> I'm mentioning the term in a footnote and want to be sure credit goes >> to the right source._______________________________________________ >> This email is relayed from members at sigcis.org, the email discussion >> list of SHOT SIGCIS. The list archives are at >> http://sigcis.org/pipermail/members/ and you can change your >> subscription options at http://sigcis.org/mailman/listinfo/members >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> _______________________________________________ >> This email is relayed from members at sigcis.org, the email discussion >> list of SHOT SIGCIS. The list archives are at >> http://sigcis.org/pipermail/members/ and you can change your >> subscription options at http://sigcis.org/mailman/listinfo/members > > _______________________________________________ This email is relayed from members at sigcis.org, the email discussion list of SHOT SIGCIS. The list archives are at http://sigcis.org/pipermail/members/ and you can change your subscription options at http://sigcis.org/mailman/listinfo/members _______________________________________________ This email is relayed from members at sigcis.org, the email discussion list of SHOT SIGCIS. The list archives are at http://sigcis.org/pipermail/members/ and you can change your subscription options at http://sigcis.org/mailman/listinfo/members -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://sigcis.org/pipermail/members/attachments/20090131/ccec2c08/attachment.htm -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: graycol.gif Type: image/gif Size: 105 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://sigcis.org/pipermail/members/attachments/20090131/ccec2c08/attachment.gif -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ecblank.gif Type: image/gif Size: 45 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://sigcis.org/pipermail/members/attachments/20090131/ccec2c08/attachment-0001.gif From hemmendd at union.edu Sat Jan 31 18:00:46 2009 From: hemmendd at union.edu (David Hemmendinger) Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2009 18:00:46 -0500 Subject: [SIGCIS-Members] Automation In-Reply-To: References: <000001c9838d$850fea90$0301a8c0@evan> <498489AC.3020204@umn.edu> <8bc235380901311249u26f384ccyd77b7f1347384378@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20090131230046.577C19FB9AF@athena.union.edu> >So much good dialogue has taken place today on this topic that I think we >should ask Evan to consolidate all of this into a short article that goes >into one of the back sections of the Annals or into an article in some >media journal. If that works, there are a bunch of other things we could >flush out from time to time using this social networking/wisdom of crowds >approach. We might even expand Evan's assignment by discussing automation >next weekend and then the following weekend cybernetics. To follow up Jim's suggestion: according to various sources, Del S. Harder started an Automation Department at Ford in 1947. Some say that he coined the word, but without offering evidence to show a precise origin. Diebold's book was published by Van Nostrand in 1952. Several sources, none giving any dates earlier than 1946 for Harder's use of the term: A Brief Historical Perspective on Factory Automation, S.T. Enns, P. Zhu and P. Suwanruji, Dept. of Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering, University of Calgary, in the APICS Newsletter, March 2004, pp 5-7. http://www.apics-calgary.org/NewsletterArchive/APICSnewsletter_Mar04.pdf . Slava Gerovitch's "Automation" article in the Encyclopedia of Computer Science says that Ford established an Automation Department in 1947, though without referring to Harder. Dirk de Wit, _The Shaping of Automation_ Publikaties Faculteit der Historische en Kunstwetenschappen, Rotterdam, 1994 discusses the origin of the term, attributing it to Harder at Ford in 1947. (Google books). Time Magazine, "Automation Speeds Recovery, Boosts Productivity, Pares Jobs", Dec 29, 1961 http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,827230,00.html , anecdotally attributes the term to Harder. David Hemmendinger hemmendd at union.edu Computer Science Dept. http://athena.union.edu/~hemmendd Union College +1 518 388 6319 Schenectady, NY 12308 FAX: +1 518 388 6789 From tympas at phs.uoa.gr Sat Jan 31 18:35:49 2009 From: tympas at phs.uoa.gr (Aristotle Tympas) Date: Sun, 1 Feb 2009 01:35:49 +0200 (EET) Subject: [SIGCIS-Members] On the continuity of calling computing artifacts 'brains' In-Reply-To: References: <000001c9838d$850fea90$0301a8c0@evan> <498489AC.3020204@umn.edu> <8bc235380901311249u26f384ccyd77b7f1347384378@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <840863289e72d7a9cd2cbb42a7074bc8.squirrel@webmail.uoa.gr> There certainly were references to mechanical brains before the electronic ones, and there were also references to electric brains. Here is a 1948 quote, which I circulate to the list because it shows what someone like Edmund Berkeley could read while he was preparing his 1949 book: "During the war when paint was hard to get everywhere, steel power lines in tropic India rusted and fell. A power company in that far-off land had to find a way to send the same amount of electricity over the remaining transmission lines. Logically they brought the problem to America?s largest electromechanical ?brain? at Georgia Tech. The brain has ?thought out? similar problems from Florida to Pennsylvania"(0. Fanning, ?Tech Electric Brain ?Fixcs? India Power,? Atlanta J., p.2-B, July 25, 1948: the same article also described to this network analyzer as a 'giant brain'). For colleagues who may have a further interest in the issue: The quote is included in a 1996 article that I wrote for the Annals of the History of Computing (Annals, Volume 18, Number 4). In this I argued that there is deep continuity in the ideology of calling computing artifacts 'brains' (and intelligent machines, more generally), and that it is this continuity that explains why there was not much objection to the post-World War II presentation of the electronic computer as a thinking machine: the society was habituated to such presentations for many decades before the 1940s. At the time I had little idea of how deep this continuity actually was. Every genre of pre-electronic computing artifacts that I had the opportunity to study since then (used in the context of computing electrification or more generally) was uniformly thought as capable of artificial intelligence. The network analyzer of the interwar period looked physically like the ENIAC. But even something as humble as a slide rule (not to say a desktop calculator or a planimeter) was habitually called "brainy". -- ??????????? ?????? / Aristotle Tympas Assistant Professor, History of Technology in Modernity University of Athens, Greece Webpage: http://www.phs.uoa.gr/hst/Tympas.html From blongo at umn.edu Sat Jan 31 18:37:18 2009 From: blongo at umn.edu (Bernadette Longo) Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2009 17:37:18 -0600 Subject: [SIGCIS-Members] Another question - "Giant Brains" In-Reply-To: <8bc235380901311249u26f384ccyd77b7f1347384378@mail.gmail.com> References: <000001c9838d$850fea90$0301a8c0@evan> <498489AC.3020204@umn.edu> <8bc235380901311249u26f384ccyd77b7f1347384378@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4984E0AE.9080202@umn.edu> In some of those 1930 Science Newsletter articles, Vannevar Bush's analog differential analyzer was referred to as a "giant brain." The intent of that federally supported publication was to popularize scientific information. (The archives of this historic journal are located at the Smithsonian Archives.) So in some senses, Berkeley's book title was in that earlier tradition of science popularizers claiming that a mechanical brain (another descriptive phrase often used for these early computers) could handle information like a brain -- or that human brains handle information like mechanical machines. As much as an argument for the machine being like the human brain, this could be understood as an argument about the human brain being like a machine. Another piece of information on the term "automation," Berkeley also edited and published what is probably the first professional journal for computer developers -- _Computers and Automation_ -- from 1950-1973, which seems to make him one of the early adopters and popularizers of this term, too...Bernadette Longo Thomas Haigh wrote: > The title has great retro kitsch value, but I believe that "Giant > Brains" popularized a more important phrase. Berkeley defined the > computer as "a machine that handles information, transfers information > from one part of the machine to another and has a flexible control > over the sequence of its operation." This makes it special because > transfers information automatically, doesn't need minute to minute > instructions -this makes "a deep break with the past" even though > "machines that handle information have existed for more than 200 > years." So he situates the as one in a long lineof information > handling machines going back to languages as "systems for handling > information", nerve cells, cave paintings, books, etc as "physical > equipment for handling information." That's the context in which it > makes sense to call a computer a giant brain, not because both think > but because both handle information. > > While Shannon's information theory had obvious relevance for people > building digital computers, this is the earliest (1949) expansive > framing I'm aware of for the computer as a universal information > processing machine. I'd be interested to hear if anyone knows of an > earlier one, but it's surely the earliest one to reach a mass general > audience. > > Tom > > 2009/1/31 Allan Olley > > > Hey, > Just did a quick check on JSTOR on the Science Service's The > Science News-letter (what I assume Bernadette Longo refered to). > The term > "mechanical brain" is used about three times in the 1930s for some > kind > of calculator or control system. First instance in 1930 for a > planetarium's control system (The Science News-Letter, Vol. > 17, No. 475 (May 17, 1930), pp. 312-313) and then in 1932 to describe > Bush's Differential Analyzer (The Science News-Letter, Vol. 22, > No. 606 > (Nov. 19, 1932), p. 320), which is also called a mathematical > brain. The > phrase "electronic 'brain'" is used to refer to a computing > gunsight in > 1944 (The Science News-Letter, Vol. 46, No. 21 (Nov. 18, 1944), p. > 326) > Note that for example the press release by Harvard in 1944 for the > IBM ASCC/Harvard Mark I refers to it as a "super-brain." (p. 124, > Cohen, > _Howard Aiken: Portrait of a computer pioneer_) So I think it is > safe to > say that the use of the word/analogy of brain to describe a > computer was > popular before Berkeley. > The exact phrase "giant brain" is apparently not used > anywhere in > JSTOR's database (which is a number of scientific and other journals) > before 1950 to describe machines... > I did a quick check of the NY Times and found an article > from 1947 > with the following title "NEW GIANT 'BRAIN' DOES WIZARD WORK; > Bureau of > Standards Says It Can Solve Vast Mathematical Problems in a Few > Minutes" > August 25, 1947, Monday Page 19, 602 words. About the Bureau of > Standards > plans for machines,"giant "electronic brains"" refered to, so the > title > may be an abreviation of that. It is based off a U.P. newswire. > However > this is the only pre-1949 reference, so it hardly suggests it is a > popular > description. > Refering to early computers as giant brains is a natural way to > describe them given their size and previous practice and so the phrase > was probably coined more than once (like many computer algorithms that > have been invented multiple times). I suspect if you did a search > of all > searchable newspapers and other available sources you would find a few > more instances of the phrase "giant brain" however it does seem to me > like Berkeley popularized the description. > -- > Yours Truly, > Allan Olley > > http://individual.utoronto.ca/fofound/ > > On Sat, 31 Jan 2009, Bernadette Longo wrote: > > > Hi all -- The term "giant brains" had also been used numerous > times by > > the Science Service Newsletter editor during the 1930s in terms of > > earlier mechanical calculators. Ditto to Jim's comments...Bernadette > > Longo > > > > James Cortada wrote: > >> > >> He popularized the term, although it is not clear to me that he > was the > >> first to utter it. The concept had been floating around since > at least > >> the mid-1930s in the form of mechanically augmenting thinking. > based on > >> what I read in the 1930s and 1940s, I would give him--or his book > >> editor--credit for the phrase. This is similar to the problem > we still > >> have with the word automation. It was in use at Ford Motors in > the late > >> 1940s but nobody knew about it or used the phrase until John > Diebold > >> did when he used it as the title for a best selling book > published in > >> the early 1950s. He told me that he had gotten the word from > Ford and > >> his editor encouraged him to use in the title of the book. The only > >> really clever book title he ever came up with for his 7+ books. His > >> experience is what taught me to spend a lot of time thinking > about the > >> title of any book you publish, fighting and dialoguing with > editors, > >> marketing people, and others until you get it right. > >> > >> Jim (James) W. Cortada > >> IBM Institute for Business Value > >> 3001 West Beltline Highway > >> Madison, WI 53713 USA > >> jwcorta at us.ibm.com > >> 608-270-4462 > >> > >> Inactive hide details for "Evan Koblentz" ---01/31/2009 04:20:10 > >> AM---Was the term "Giant Brains" already popular when Edmund B"Evan > >> Koblentz" ---01/31/2009 04:20:10 AM---Was the term "Giant Brains" > >> already popular when Edmund Berkeley used it in his 1949 book > title, or > >> should he get credit for po > >> > >> > >> From: "Evan Koblentz" > > >> > >> To: > > >> > >> Date: 01/31/09 04:20 AM > >> > >> Subject: [SIGCIS-Members] Another question - "Giant Brains" > >> > >> > >> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >> > >> > >> > >> Was the term "Giant Brains" already popular when Edmund > Berkeley used > >> it in his 1949 book title, or should he get credit for > popularizing it? > >> I'm mentioning the term in a footnote and want to be sure > credit goes > >> to the right source._______________________________________________ > >> This email is relayed from members at sigcis.org > , the email discussion > >> list of SHOT SIGCIS. The list archives are at > >> http://sigcis.org/pipermail/members/ and you can change your > >> subscription options at http://sigcis.org/mailman/listinfo/members > >> > >> > >> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> This email is relayed from members at sigcis.org > , the email discussion > >> list of SHOT SIGCIS. The list archives are at > >> http://sigcis.org/pipermail/members/ and you can change your > >> subscription options at http://sigcis.org/mailman/listinfo/members > > > > > _______________________________________________ > This email is relayed from members at sigcis.org > , the email discussion list of SHOT > SIGCIS. The list archives are at > http://sigcis.org/pipermail/members/ and you can change your > subscription options at http://sigcis.org/mailman/listinfo/members > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > This email is relayed from members at sigcis.org, the email discussion list of SHOT SIGCIS. The list archives are at http://sigcis.org/pipermail/members/ and you can change your subscription options at http://sigcis.org/mailman/listinfo/members -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: blongo.vcf Type: text/x-vcard Size: 404 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://sigcis.org/pipermail/members/attachments/20090131/f67a742d/attachment.vcf