Maher's Digital World

Hello again, dear comrades!  :)
I want to share with you one thing, which impressed me very much!
As all of you, brothers, I'm a computer enthusiast, but not only in ultra-modern PC's but in computing machines history as well. Sometimes old computing machines have a certain charm, also it's interesting sometimes to work with a bare hardware, without any OSes, even without assembler!  :) Also I'm interesting in a unusual computing systems, like mechanical or organic computers.
There is a very few info about this themes, but sometimes we can find a very interesting info.
As you can know, first "computer" with all of necessary parts was invented at mid 1820's in England, by Charles Babbage, and called "The Difference Engine".
That was a mechanical computer, but it had a multiple registers for calculating, memory, an input and output devices. Also it could be programmed, via perforated cards. It didn't use a binary system, and operated only with decimal.
It wasn't built because at that time was no standarts for mechanical parts (and a Difference Engine it had more than 10000 parts, and they going jammed very often, preventing the work of Engine). But it was wery interesting piece of machinery, and also very beauty, like any bare mechanisms.
Till this evening, I haven't any good wideo info about that thing, but today I found a very good youtube video about working difference engine.
You can watch it here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BlbQsKpq3Ak).
Enjoy!

I don't think there's any clear-cut "first computer" anywhere in history. Many will argue that the Abacus preceded Babbage's difference engineas well as Blaise Pascal's mechanical calculator. Still others insist that the first "real" computer was any based on Alan Turing's theoretical machine published in his 1936 paper, and even then I don't believe Turing was the first to suggest using binary digits.

It's a little bit like asking who invented television. There's no clear-cut answer given that so many different systems came and went.

Well, friend, there may be variants in term "computer" indeed.
Under term "computer" I mean programable calculating system with memory for program (somethins between von Neumann and Harvard architecthure, closest example - our IBM-PC-compatible computers). And Abacus and Pascaline have no way to program them, it's just a calculators.

Maybe here is a language difference also; for us, russians, "computer" is foreign word, and because of this, "computer" means mostly (only?) PC or supercomputers, it's a special word. Other types of computing macnines we know under other termins. That's why I said that difference engine was a first "computer". (As I know, in English words "compute" and "calculate" is synonims, and maybe because of this you cited as an example a Pascal's machine).

Also, in my previous post I make a little mistake. The "Difference Engine" mostly a calculator, not a computer. Babbage's computer programmable with a perforated cards called an "Analitycal Engine", and wasn't built.

And once more. If to tell about Turing Machine - here is emulator (http://www.google.com/doodles/alan-turings-100th-birthday) of that machine, made by Google. :)

Toвaрич (hope spelling is correct), again we come to an endless debate about exactly what is and what is not a computer. This is precisely why it's so hard to determine which was the first. For example, is the Casio digital watch on your wrist a computer? It performs all it's functions not too different from a PC, but when it was constructed it's software was burned onto it's ROM chips so it can only do what they designed it for.

Similarly, the word "computer" doesn't tell you much either. As you correctly state, in English "compute" simply means to calculate. In a 1935 dictionary, "computer" was not a machine, it was a human who worked at [for example] an engineering firm. His job was to spend all day with pencil and paper doing the tremendous amounts of math which was needed to carry out projects. It was some 10 years later that the definition changed to a machine that basically does the same job. Naturally they used this word for the machine because no other existed.

It becomes more vague when you consider the Mark IV - the behemoth used by the US Military during WW-II. This giant with it's 18,000 vacuum tubes could do an incredible 5,000 calculations per second and allowed the army to prepare the necessary firing tables for its artillery units. The only way to get this thing to do something different was to step inside it and change the wires around. So once again, is this a computer or not?

Not at all correct, brother. :) Товарищ - that's correct.
"Ч" pronounces as "ch" (like in "cherokie"), and "Щ" pronounces as sonorously "sch`" (like when teen girl sais "Ow, s*it!")  :)

Well, back to computers. I think, the best way to determine, what is computer, is "feature comparison". What feature must have a machine to do the same job as computer-employee? As you can understand, it shouldn't be addicted to cigarettes or have a visor-cap (that's non-functional features  :) ) but it must perform a calculating without a human control.
For this, it must have a memory for data and memory for a program, then, it must have a computing unit (for example, CPU), and it must have an input and output interfaces. Also, a memory must be rewritable for executing many programs.
So, in that classification, we can say that the Casio watch works almost like a computer but isn't a computer (they can execute only one program). Also, Mark-1 (not IV) (ASCC) was not fully electronic, but it was a computer (it had a memory for programs). First full electronic computer was ENIAC, under Mark-IV you describe this giant.
Also, for example, modern smartphone in this classification is also a computer, because it can use different programs, uploaded in it.

Toвaрищ, the reason I mispelled the word the last time (other than not being fluent in Russian) is that when this was transliterated into English, the word "tovarich" was used. Whoever did this used the pronunciation instead of the proper spelling. Thanks for the correct information. BTW and while we're on the subject, please explain the difference between И and Й. The Unicode program on my tablet say they correspond to "I" and "short I" respectively.

BTW, did you read my little tip about being able to type in almost any character without having to use Character Map? If not I'll gladly repost it.

With respect to computers, since there is no worldwide accepted detailed definition for that word, what you did was simply say that any time you use the word, you refer specifically to a machine that can do what you explained in your post. This is certainly OK when no clearer definition exists and there is an endless debate about what is and is not a computer. Since I'm too lazy to open another tab and look up the information in Wiki, please tell me if Babbage's difference engine lives up to your definition.

I'm curious as to why the Mark 1 was not fully electronic whereas ENIAC was. To my knowledge both used vacuum tubes, relays and tons or wiring with no silicon based solid state parts anywhere. Can you explain?

Yes, shure, buddy! :)
A program on your tablet said correct, but...  :D Well... It said how it's called (named), not how it's pronounced. :) "Й" name translated to English exactly as "short..." or " shorted I". As for pronunciation that's a bit difficult to explain. :)
"И" mostly equal to your English "i", maybe it sounds a bit longer. But not so long like "ee" in, for example, word "Lee". The closest for russian "И"  is "i" in words like "winter", "victory", "win"
"Й"... Well... closest example which I can find now is like "ye" in "eye". "Eye" pronounces like "aX" were that X is very close equivalent of "й". In russian transliteration I can write "eye" like "ай". Also word "key" - it ends with sound very close to "й".

Yes, I read your tip, thanks.  :)

Wow, damn...  :) Another one language difference. 15 minutes I  tried to understand what you want to say about Babbage's Engine.  :) "lives up to" (without context) translating to russian like "can live till". But "lives up to " with a context means very different.  :) Yes, Babbage's difference engine comes very-very closely to my definition.

Mark I, as you correctly statr, used a large amount of vacuum tubes, relays and other electronic components in its ALU, but that ALU synchronising between each other mechanically, with a 15-meters shaft. ENIAC didn't use such mechanical system.

Hey Toвaрищ,

Believe it or not, I very clearly understood the difference between и and й. It's simply that one "stronger" than the other. Also, please accept my apologies for confusing you, with the phrase "lives up to". In English it means, as you understood, that it meets your expectations or qualifies under your definition.

Since we're on the subject of linguistics, I have a question. Unless I read incorrectly, the big sign on the tomb of the founder of the CCCP says "Λэнйн" (or so I think, not sure). The question is, why do they use "Λ", which is the Greek letter lamdba, when according to my chart there is no Λ in the Cyrillic alphabet? The closest equivalent to the Latin "L" is "Л", which is called "el". What's this all about?

I'm not too clear on your explanation the 15 meter shaft used by Mark 1. Is this how different ALU's communicated or are talking different computers here? What was the difference in ENIAC?

As about "lives up to" - forget it, it just was interesting, no need to apologize. :)

The sign on Mavzoley (mausoleum) says "Ленин".  And "Л" (equal to "L"; it's called "el" but pronounced exact as "L") in fact is in cyrillic alphabet.  :) My name in russian writing is Ð"аниил.
Oh, no, I mean, yes, now I understand what you want to ask. "Л" in some fonts, or in hand-writing may be written as "Λ". On the Mavzoley there is just uncommon "angular" font, it was loved by USSR propaganda stylists.

Mark-I consists with 24 modules, one module for each decimal register, and, as I can understand, every module contain also a computing unit for operations with each register. That modules connects between each other with long rotating shaft, which turn on and off relays around it. ENIAC, (and also our russian Ð'ЭСМ (Big Electronic Calculating Machine in english translation)) didn't use any mechanical conections in them, only electronic wiring.

Hi once again,

Certainly I believe you when you said that the correct inscription on the Mavzoley is "Ленин" and the L is simply an incorrect font. I went to Google images to see a picture of the sign. Frankly if the first letter isn't Λ (lambda), it certainly looks like it - you can see the picture yourself. The letter looks nothing like Л. Another question. The second letter of the sign is E. According to my tablet, this corresponds ye in the Latin alphabet. For example, isn't "Yeltsin" spelled EлÑ,cйн?? Why doesn't the Mavzoley read "Лэнин" instead -- or is the proper Russian pronunciation "Lyenin"?

Is "Stalin" spelled CÑ,aлйн or CÑ,aлин? BTW, I liked the way you transliterated your name. It's a perfect letter-by-letter equivalent.  ;)

Pardon my errors - I'm doing what I can to learn as much as possible about the Cyrillic alphabet. Thanks for teaching me.  :)

By the way, on your keyboard of which you uploaded a picture, do you simply hit Alt-LeftShift for Latin characters and then memorize their location? Of, and as you probably know, the alphabet used on this forum was developed by the Roman Empire. They spoke Latin, hence its name.

Hello again.
That's "Л", trust me.  :) Well, yes, it's look a bit different, but that is "Л". Yeah, we, russians, are strange and unpredictable barbarians.  ;D

Now to "Е". You absolutely correct, russian "Е" pronounced as "ye". But "Yeltsin" spelled as "Ельцин", yours english pronunciation isn't fully correct. There is soft sign ("ÑŒ") after "L", and more correct (for my russian ears) can be something like "Yel`tseen". "Y" is almost non-pronouncing, it's very short. For correct pronounciation you shoud say it fast and almost without "y", simple "L_yeneen", "yEltseen". Also if speak about "Й", it's very rare occures in the middle of the word. It's almost always at the end of the word. The examples can be "Юрий" - "Yuriy" (Gagarin), "Ð"еоргий" = "Georgiy" (Jukov), and so on. So, Stalin spelled like "СÑ,алин".

"Э" sounds mostly like yours Indefinite article "a". "A" in front of, for example, "a table" is almost like our "э". I can transliterate this like "э Ñ,эйбл".

No need to pardons, I'm glad to help you.  :)
Also, I'm not need to memorize locations of a letters. Here in Russia we use a dual-alphabet keyboards. For example, I have a Logitech G11 keyboard ant it have Latin and Cyrillic simbols. You can see it on the photo.
(https://i.ibb.co/FXwfS7N/keyboard.jpg)

Hey Toвapищ !

Yes, I believe you when you said the letter on the mausoleum is Л and not Λ.  :)  The confusion comes from the font that was used. It's also clear why the 2nd letter is E and not Э because if that were the case, then the man's name would be pronounced something like "Lanin"(incorrect) instead of "Lyeneen" or "Lieneen"(correct). In all this time I never realized the correct pronunciation. Your transliteration of "a table" was quite helpful.

Thanks for explaining about the soft sign. I'm also seeing there's a hard sign (Ъ). Is this also a silent letter that's meant to alter the pronunciation of another?

You transliterated Ð"eopгий's same as "Jukov", yet here they spell it as "Zhukov". Is the proper Cyrillic spelling "Жукoв" or "Юкoв" - or something else?

I saw your keyboard. Do you use Alt-LeftShift to switch between alphabets or is this done at the hardware level by flipping a switch on the keyboard? I don't know if you're running Windows 8, but if so you'd use Winkey-Spacebar, not Alt-LeftShift. I asked the question because the previous keyboard you sent a picture of didn't have Latin characters on it except those such as CapsLock or Esc.

Yes, friend. A hard sign ("Ъ") is non-pronounce, but we use it to show hard pronunciation. Also, it's rare like "й". Before soviet language reform at (1920-s) it used at the end of almost each word. My name, for example, in pre-reform spelling should be printed as Ð"аниилъ. In fact, this was stupid, because most part of russian words ends with a hard pronounciation, and there is no need to write it always, that's already understandable ("by default"  :) ). After reform there was made an agreement, which says that hard sign must be written only in middle of words, where it really needs.
As example of using "ÑŠ" I can use word "объясняÑ,ÑŒ" (means "explaning"). It reads like "ob-yasnyat`". If we don't set "ÑŠ" after "б", we'll get wrong-spelling word "обясняÑ,ÑŒ",which pronounces like "obyasnyat". This pronounciation is illiterate.

Now, back to unusual computers theme.
One of most interesting computers was developed and manufactured in USSR since 1959 till 1972. That was "СеÑ,унь" ("Setun`"), developed by scientist group leaded by Nikolay Brusnetscov (Николай Ð'руснецов).
At a first glance this was an average big computer of that epoch. Physically it was a bunch of big metal cabinets with lamps and tumblers on their panels and with numerous count of transistors inside. System stats also was typical tor that time - latest model "СеÑ,унь-70" had a 200 kHz CPU, raw performance 4500 FLOPS, consumable power 2.5kWt (and it looks like that modern desktops with SLI of top videocards will soon get that!  ;D ), input via perforated tape or via photo-reader, output via matrix printer...
"What's unusual?" - you ask.
Computers of "Setun`" series works with ternary logic.
It had no bits or bytes - it used trits and trytes.  A trit, unlike bit, can store 3 states - 0, 1, and 2. Tryte is an array of 9 trits. So, when byte can store only 256 states, tryte can store 19683 states. Because of that, ternary computers, with the same amount of memory, can use and store info much more efficient. That was also submitted by mathematical theory, which said that most efficient state of notation for saving information is one with radix 2,71... (Euler number). Radix 3 closer to Euler number, than radix 2.
Setun was very good computer for its time. But there was some troubles with hardware. Logical units for threnary computer is more difficult to develop and build, and, because of this, cost more money. Also, it was a bit difficult to program this computers, because where binary logic have two states - "yes" and "no", ternary logic have three states - "yes", "no" and "it depends!"  ;D That was a bit difficult to work with that, but also it was better for practical applications - for example, if we constructing an autopilot we can use only one trit for control, where "1" can mean "a bit higher", "2" can mean "a bit lower", and "0" can mean "Yeah! All fine!".

That's all for today. It's a good weather outside, sun, clear sky, -20. I'll go for a walk.  :)

Update:
Oh, and some more, I forgot it when wrote a post.
If talk about "Zhukov" the correct russian spelling is "Жуков", and yes, "Zhukov" transliteration is more correct, yes.
And as about keyboard - I use Ctrl-Shift. I prefer this more than Alt-Shift, because Ctrl-Shift is like in DOS, first OS I saw.

@Daniil
Certainly I understand what you mean by teriary - basically you're using a base 3 numeration system. What I don't fully understand is how they managed to get their computers to understand "maybe" when that concept is inherent to human brains or maybe analog computers. This is, of course, unless it means the calculation has to wait on what others did before deciding.

Let me ask you something else. Nicholas II and Ivan the Terrible were Tsars or Czars. Is that Цap or Жap - or neither?

DOS - ahh.. yes, I remember it perfectly. I often wonder what many people would do today if they were looking at C:\> instead of nice icons to click on.

@humbert
I don't know exactly how they dealed the problem of "maybe" state. I never saw that computers in real. Last "Setun`" was disassembled at 1986, as I know... All that I heared, that "maybe" was on this ternary systems as a result of dividing by zero and other such operations. They somehow linked "maybe" state to a mathematical uncertainty. Also that mathematical uncertainty had used as values of variable. Other details is unknown to me.

About Tsar - it writing as "Царь", and pronounced as "tsar`". Also, it's correct for Ivan IV The Terrible, but Nikolay II is "His Majesty The Emperor", and tsar is only one of his title.

Also, Ivan IV isn't "The Terrible". He called "Иван Ð"розный" (pronounce as "Ivan Grozniy"), and "Terrible" isn't correct translation. "Ð"розный" don't have bad color in it like "terrible" term, in my opinion, "redoubtable" would be better translation.

I don't know what people would do today if were they look at C:\>, but in that case Internet were be much more clear and easy for searching! :) ;D

@Daniil

One thing I do know is if Setun (or any other system) really worked, not only the Russians but everyone else would have adopted the system. Regardless of how the system was designed to word, as I see it the fact they closed it down says a lot. It's also no coincidence that it happened in 1986, which is about the time when PC's and Macs were starting to become mainstream.

I noticing that Цapь has a soft sign. Is this to downgrade pronunciation of the final P?

I don't know why Ivan here is referred to as "Ivan the Terrible". I'm thinking it's because (according to what I've heard) that the man was a psychopath who enjoyed torturing prisoners and other such things. I imagine the Cyrillic spelling of his name is do to a different pronunciation - I'd think it was Ð"poзний. According to my tablet Ñ‹ is "yeru" - doesn't that have a Y sound like in "yes"?

Well, in Silicon valley there was also developments for ternary computers, at 2008 they built TCA2.0 ternary system. Don't know the details.
Also, I don't say that today computers is a crap because they are binary. That's the expected pattern of evolution of computing systems - old and weird dinosaurs like Setun replaced with more effective, more competitive models. PC's and Gorbachev's "pyerestroyka" kills russian computer industry, that was not bad and not good, that was evolution. But that process was very interesting, because it clearly shows flow of evolution process, and a similarity between economical/technological and life evolution.

Царь pronounciation like Tsar', "r" is soft and ringing.

I heared that Ivan IV psyhopathy caused by unlucky love, he was first "Alone in the Network". He had a great "mail romance" with English Queen, and when she selected another men, that's make tsar angry and madness.

Ы... Ы-Ñ‹-Ñ‹-Ñ‹-Ñ‹-Ñ‹-Ñ‹-Ñ‹-Ñ‹...... U-u-u-u-u-u.....  ;D How to explain that for you?.. That's really difficult!.. Ы pronounces like something is something between R and U, but closer to I. In fact, "yeru" name is very good for it, bur we calls it just "Ы".
Watch this clip, cutted out from "Операция Ы" (http://citatyizfilmov.ru/video/1938/%D0%A7%D1%82%D0%BE%D0%B1%D1%8B-%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%BA%D1%82%D0%BE-%D0%BD%D0%B5-%D0%B4%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%B0%D0%B4%D0%B0%D0%BB%D1%81%D1%8F) ("Operation Y"), famous russian comedy filmed at 1965. At 0:09 one of thieves said pure "Ы".

@Daniil
I don't remember saying something about binary computers being crap, or that you said it. All I said was that in every situation I've seen so far (and not just in computing), when extensive testing demonstrates that a system being tested is indeed not a better mousetrap (as we say here), then it just fades away. This is clearly the case of ternary computing. If indeed the system had proven itself to be generally better, rest assured it would have caught on like fire. Naturally, when I say "better" I mean all around. Anything can be better but might have an Achilles Heel that will kill it.

Did Pyerestroyka stop the Russian computer industry because government funding stopped and the programmers were not prepared to go commercial? Or is there another reason?

The pronunciation of "Tsar" is what I believed, i.e., the soft sign is there to water down the pronunciation of P (equivalent to R in Latin alphabet). I also watched the clip and even read underneath, so I was able to follow along and notice the pronunciation. I know perfectly how hard it is when a sound that exists in one language doesn't exist in another nor can it be easily replicated by a group of letters. I've run into this situation going from English to Spanish and back.

Quote from: Daniil on December 16, 2012, 03:46 PM
Hello again.
That's "Л", trust me.  :) Well, yes, it's look a bit different, but that is "Л". Yeah, we, russians, are strange and unpredictable barbarians.  ;D

Now to "Е". You absolutely correct, russian "Е" pronounced as "ye". But "Yeltsin" spelled as "Ельцин", yours english pronunciation isn't fully correct. There is soft sign ("ÑŒ") after "L", and more correct (for my russian ears) can be something like "Yel`tseen". "Y" is almost non-pronouncing, it's very short. For correct pronounciation you shoud say it fast and almost without "y", simple "L_yeneen", "yEltseen". Also if speak about "Й", it's very rare occures in the middle of the word. It's almost always at the end of the word. The examples can be "Юрий" - "Yuriy" (Gagarin), "Ð"еоргий" = "Georgiy" (Jukov), and so on. So, Stalin spelled like "СÑ,алин".

"Э" sounds mostly like yours Indefinite article "a". "A" in front of, for example, "a table" is almost like our "э". I can transliterate this like "э Ñ,эйбл".

No need to pardons, I'm glad to help you.  :)
Also, I'm not need to memorize locations of a letters. Here in Russia we use a dual-alphabet keyboards. For example, I have a Logitech G11 keyboard ant it have Latin and Cyrillic simbols. You can see it on the photo.
(https://i.ibb.co/FXwfS7N/keyboard.jpg)

Always wondered how Russian's keyboards work, can you show the whole keyboard?? We don't have the same layout on the keys(The one provided is a little bit hard to see from the angle of the camera) I noticed your ~ is to the left of "1" where we have §, and our ~is to the left of enter, and right of "å"

Quote from: humbert on December 30, 2012, 02:22 AM
@Daniil
Did Pyerestroyka stop the Russian computer industry because government funding stopped and the programmers were not prepared to go commercial? Or is there another reason?

At a glance yes, but there is some other very interesting and deeper reasons. It'svery interesting to investigate that process, because it shows very interesting economical differences between soviet and west economics, shows links between economic and technical evolution and also is close to different interesting computer questions. I even wrote a course work about this at my institute at previous year.

What was the main differences between soviet and western economics? That was firstly, a planning and, then, a private ownership.
Planning also exists in western economics, but there is one very important difference - western planning is "dynamical", i.e., any plan includes variants for good and bad events flowing. Any modern business plan can be an example.
Soviet planning was "solid". There was one central target - to build communism!!! -  and any planning follows this. And because of that plans was closer to army-like orders: "Do N thousands of pieces of bread (rockets/AK's/cakes/trucks) till XX.YY.19XX, obey without questions!"
Private onership in fact exists at USSR (the legends about "nothing private", exists at western countries, was incorrect). You could be owner of a pen, or your clothes, or for example, TV... (Not a car, and also not a room/house. Because any car was registered in army and in case of war was requested for army use, and any house was in ownership of country, which rent it for you (but for a lifetime and on very good conditions, also if you haven't one, they specifically find housing for you)) But you coudn't have a business in private property, that was a crime.

Soviet computer industry followed this rules. That's why in USSR was very good big computers, and (before Pyerestroyka) was absolutelly no PC's (and even a thoughts about them). That's easy to explain. If here is no private business, you don't need a private computing power. As you can remember, first Intel x86 computers was adverted as tools for finance groups, for small and medium business, like a machine for easy and cheap bookkeeping. In USSR was no need for such machines, because there was no small or medium business at all. All workshops and machinery plants was government-owned and very big, almost all of them had a big computer in special laboratory (so called Calculating Center), and bookkeeping (which was also very simple at socialistic economic) was executing on this computer, like a one of secondary, not important tasks.
After the Pyerestroyka came and that idiot Gorbachev raised to power, he said, that "We, tassazat, must overtake the USA and Europe in the computer industry!" Idea was good, but they in government (like in many other times!) don't knew the way to overtake. And they started to copy western PCs. Sometimes that was good copies (Russian "Agat" was very good clone of "Apple II"), sometimes that was fully russian inventions (like PCs based on Warzshaw Pact PDP-11 architecture, slowly but stable, reliable and not bad at all), sometimes that was a fully crap, like ES-series PCs. But the main problem of them was their useless for economics. This PCs have no buyers - they was useless for big plants and factories, and common peoples can't buy it.
For a time this computers was used in schools, but there was another problem. Most of PCs setted up in schools was ES-series PCs. ES was an clone of Intel 8086 system, with extended memory and other stuff, not bad at all, but... They was extended in a soviet style - they was connected into a kind of a local network, called Classroom Computer System. Only the main (tecaher's) computer had a disc drives, floppy drives and other. Other computers connects to it and downloads a programs into a memory, You can understand, how slow and unstable it worked (with those amounts of memory and bandwidths). Also, if one of PC's turns off, all classroom network turns off. So, that was a real crap, and a very price crap - only the best schools (Or one which was under control of a big factories) can got that Classroom Computer System.
Pyerestroyka goes on, soviet PCs layed in dust at storehouses or worked at schools, big economic didn't need in them. But planning system worked, so - "Obey without questions! Make that PCs!! Communism!!! We'll overtake them!!!" Then all started to understand - no, we can't overtake, that's bad idea!
Gorbachev was removed from throne, bounds was opened, and big factories (except the military ones) started to die out. Soviet PCs already was useless to anyone, and after on russian market found first western PC, soviet ES and other was doomed. Western PCs was more primitive at architecture, and price 3 times more, but, because of frequency and memory was 10 times more powerfull. Also, they was highly standartized, had a variety of add-ons, repair parts and modules, and, which is more important - very good software for any applications. So, markets for business was occupied by IBM-PC compatible machines and markets for private buyers was filled with old Intel PCs and ZX-Spectrums. That was an end of soviet computers history, and the beginning of new age.

Quote from: Shadow.97 on January 03, 2013, 12:49 PM
Always wondered how Russian's keyboards work, can you show the whole keyboard?? We don't have the same layout on the keys(The one provided is a little bit hard to see from the angle of the camera) I noticed your ~ is to the left of "1" where we have §, and our ~is to the left of enter, and right of "å"

Yes, sure, friend. I'll photo a white keyboard, there you can see layout better. I'll post photo a bit later (white keyboard is out there).

As I promised, here is a picture of russian keyboard.
(https://i.ibb.co/rwDxV1R/KA-Russian-Student-20820.jpg)

Quote from: Daniil on January 28, 2013, 04:04 PM
As I promised, here is a picture of russian keyboard.
(https://i.ibb.co/rwDxV1R/KA-Russian-Student-20820.jpg)

Is the Russian keyboard layout easy to use?? And i wouldn't be able to write on that keyboard because of the Enter key being misshaped in my eyes, mine is much bigger and reaches from shift to backspace. I think we have our totally own scandinavian layout but i am not sure. And i have German at school, and they have this key "ß" So i made a custom layout and added it to CTRL shift S, (sharp s=ß) Have you been in need of doing something like that for any common key in Russian?

@Shadow - I agree that using a keyboard with a narrow, rectangular enter key isn't easy. My favorite is one that has both an oversized enter key and a wide backspace key. Sadly these are extremely hard to get, and when you see one you should grab it immediately. I found such a keyboard on a site dedicated to disabled people. It had oversized letters which I don't really need, but the keyboard pattern was there. I paid almost $50 for each one (ouch!).

As for characters you don't normally use, I like either the extended character set (Alt 128-255) or the Iso Latin-1 character set (Alt 0128-0255). For example, the German sharp S is Alt-0223 (ß). Even if the characters you want aren't on these 2 sets, you're not out of luck. Use the little Unicode registry mod I posted and you can enter any character using Alt + it's unicode number. You can also type this same letter as Alt +0DF (you must use the plus sign). The only problem with this is that some proggies (including Firefox) confuse Alt and one of the letters as one of its commands. If you run into that problem, you can type this into Notepad then cut and paste.

I'll repost the registry mod for whoever wants it.

@Shadow
Yes, comrad, it's easy. It's like russian classic typewriter, with only a few differences. And no, we don't need any layout customisations. Also, small Enter key is only on this model of keyboard, on my kb it's big "classic" enter, also there is very many variations of enter. I had see a even a vertical enters (like num enter, but on place of normal enter).

OK, that's time to enhance topic about unusual computers.
Today we'll talk about interesting computer modelling.


As you can know, many PC's used for modelling different things, starting with simple 3D-modelling for an indi-games and to very difficult modelling of physical and economical processes like space flights, nuclear weapons and predicting of stock exchange course. As an IT-specialist, system administrator and a programer, fascinated by big and powerfull computer systems (and also as a man, fascinated by beauty, difficulty and complexity of our world and our life) I like different modelling on computers very much, and use it if I need.

Also I'm interested in an evolution secrets. A way of life evolution is even today mostly unlearned, and scientists and enthusiasts from different countries tries to investigate it.

And - I had found very interesting software, which is modelling (a bit) a way of primitive evolution.
That is GenePool (http://www.swimbots.com/).
What is it? It's a program, which is modelling an evolution of a simple life. In a program, in fact, is a virtual "pool", where is different simple organisms (so called Swimbots), with randomly generated genetical code. (Genetical code model is very simple, as I can understand.) This virtual organisms has a 2 scripted instincts - eating and mating. They eating green dots of "food", and prefer to mate with organisms of the same or close color. Their movings follows the rules of a physics of a liquid patterns.
You can download this prog (it's free), start it and watch, how evolute swimbots in your gene-pool. In about of 30 minutes on modern PC (about a 45 min on my dual Irwindale-Xeon 3GHz) you can see a well-differenting populations of a new species.
Ofcourse, you can save states of your genetic experiments, and even to share it to friends with the save-files.
Try it, it's interesting.  :)

Quote from: Daniil on February 16, 2013, 10:16 AM
OK, that's time to enhance topic about unusual computers.
Today we'll talk about interesting computer modelling.


As you can know, many PC's used for modelling different things, starting with simple 3D-modelling for an indi-games and to very difficult modelling of physical and economical processes like space flights, nuclear weapons and predicting of stock exchange course. As an IT-specialist, system administrator and a programer, fascinated by big and powerfull computer systems (and also as a man, fascinated by beauty, difficulty and complexity of our world and our life) I like different modelling on computers very much, and use it if I need.

Also I'm interested in an evolution secrets. A way of life evolution is even today mostly unlearned, and scientists and enthusiasts from different countries tries to investigate it.

And - I had found very interesting software, which is modelling (a bit) a way of primitive evolution.
That is GenePool (http://www.swimbots.com/).
What is it? It's a program, which is modelling an evolution of a simple life. In a program, in fact, is a virtual "pool", where is different simple organisms (so called Swimbots), with randomly generated genetical code. (Genetical code model is very simple, as I can understand.) This virtual organisms has a 2 scripted instincts - eating and mating. They eating green dots of "food", and prefer to mate with organisms of the same or close color. Their movings follows the rules of a physics of a liquid patterns.
You can download this prog (it's free), start it and watch, how evolute swimbots in your gene-pool. In about of 30 minutes on modern PC (about a 45 min on my dual Irwindale-Xeon 3GHz) you can see a well-differenting populations of a new species.
Ofcourse, you can save states of your genetic experiments, and even to share it to friends with the save-files.
Try it, it's interesting.  :)

I think you would like Spore( a game ) you take part of evolution.
Anyways, I think I will test the program. (but not today)

I saw a "Spore", but it's not what I like. Spore is... Well, for kids. "Try to build a little monster and care it like a tamagochi." Nice and eye-candy, but very far from real evolution.
GenePool isn't like that. Swimbots looks choppy, and here is no gameplay at all, in fact. But... Swimboats really evoluting, without your actions.
Also, GenePool author by this program tries to make a basement for an idea, that "sexual attractiveness" is more poverfull criteria of natural selection, then the "best fitness". I can't agree with that. IMHO, "sexual attractivness" is our own, humans, perception of "best fitness", and it goes mostly from our brain, than from instinct (I mean, it's typical only for humans).

@Daniil - this might be a gross oversimplification, but as far as I know the engine that drives evolution is what Darwin called "natural selection", i.e., only the strong survive and pass those genes on to their offspring. You do not have to look at dinosaur fossils to see it in action - a perfect example is those species of bacteria that are now resistant to antibiotics that killed trillions of their comrades who could not adapt.

As for the other stuff you said, let me ask you - do you believe everything can be explained and understood by converting it into a stream of ones and zeros? There are many things out there that I can't see how to do such a thing. I suppose my favorite example is dealing with women. As you probably know, with them 1+1 does not always = 2.  You're a smart guy, give me your opinion.

@humbert
I meant exactly the same - swimbot's "sexual attractiveness", based on similarity of bytes, coded it's colour, is just a stupid rule, given by a programmer, and because of that it isn't correct "evolution model".

As for your second question - well... In my (humble) opinion, theoretically we can mathematically modelling anything around us. But practically we shurely coudn't do this. And your example is very good. We almost can't model processes based on top neural activity, i.e., psychology, or economics (which is == psychology, in fact), because of exteremly wide amount of source data (in fact, for psychology modelling we must digitalised whole life expirience of selected human). I think, even a quantum computers woudn't be able to modelling this.

Today I lurking the internet in a search for a relay (on my car was broken a switch which turn on a stop signal when I press brake pedal. It was very dieselpunk mechanical switch, so I want to replace it with a bit more modern combination of magnet reed and relay).

But I found something which is much more interesting than just a relay!

Take a look at this: relay computer (http://web.cecs.pdx.edu/~harry/Relay/)!

It is built by one guy from Portland Univercity, for educational purposes (as I can understand). Yes, today it's looks more weird than interesting, but - it's nice. 8 bit, wooden blocks, input by switches - romantics of early computers, like in old soviet science fiction, where mechanical computers controls the thermo-nuclear spaceships. 
And just hear the sound, it's like a railway steamer! ;D you can calculate its "CPU" frequency by it!

Video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=n3wPBcmSb2U&x-yt-cl=85114404&x-yt-ts=1422579428)


Also, another very interesting educational video - what is logical units of the computer and how to create them:
Making your own 4 bit computer from transistors (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=xISG4nGTQYE&x-yt-cl=85114404&x-yt-ts=1422579428)

@Daniil - I think I understand why a computer that uses electromechanical relays instead of transistors would probably work with your car. As far as I know your car has no electronic parts at all except maybe the radio. Analog works only with analog, right?  :)

I would not rule out the possibility that human brain processes such as psychology could not be modeled by an advanced quantum computer. I don't know too much about quantum computing, but I've heard that with them it's possible for a qubit to be both 1 and 0 at the same time. Seems to me human psychology works the same way.

Quote from: humbert on February 03, 2015, 03:12 AM
@Daniil - I think I understand why a computer that uses electromechanical relays instead of transistors would probably work with your car. As far as I know your car has no electronic parts at all except maybe the radio. Analog works only with analog, right?  :)

Ha, you're wrong, comrade. ;D I already set a automobile computer on my car. Ofcourse, it is russian car computer i.e., a hybrid of school calculator and missile guidance block. But it works - it calculates RPMs, voltage output of generator, oil and external temp and so on. Very nice and small thing. But you right analog works well only with analog - if Volga would had an onboard computer, it would be a relay-based one. :D

Quote from: humbert on February 03, 2015, 03:12 AM
I would not rule out the possibility that human brain processes such as psychology could not be modeled by an advanced quantum computer. I don't know too much about quantum computing, but I've heard that with them it's possible for a qubit to be both 1 and 0 at the same time. Seems to me human psychology works the same way.

Well, today I can't say this with full assurance. I read some articles about quantum computers, and I understand that I understand nothing. :) It's much more complicated than our good old machine commands of x86. I will read some more serious books about this, and then can say something with more assurance.
Also, I (at my job) have deal with different computer models of human heart, and I can say that main difficulty isn't calculate a model - with multi-GPUs and GPGPU calculations we have REALLY many computing power. The main difficulty is to create such model. And that's, damn, only a heart, just a pump made of meat (very primitive and bad designed pump, btw.) If we want to create a model of human psychology, we must firstly understand what we want to create, i.e., understand our own psychology a bit deeper.

You created an ECU (Engine Control Unit), i.e., an electronic car computer for your car? There wasn't one on there before? If not then how do you connect it? Also, what exactly does your computer do?

Few scientists (if any) understand the quantum world. Many rules of physics don't apply at the quantum level. With respect to what you mentioned regarding the heart and human psychology, obviously you're referring to the complexities involved in writing the proper software. As you know, the most complex quantum computer is useless if there is no software to take advantage of its features. Computer mapping human psychology is impossible with a conventional digital computer regardless of how good the software is. Not so for quantums, or so I think.

Quote from: humbert on February 04, 2015, 03:23 AM
You created an ECU (Engine Control Unit), i.e., an electronic car computer for your car? There wasn't one on there before? If not then how do you connect it? Also, what exactly does your computer do?

I didn't "create" it. ;D On Volga, as on all soviet cars, never were any electronic ECU or any type of computer (on russian cars first ECU was on VAZ-2113 (Lada Samara 2) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lada_Samara) at 2004). But, ofcourse, today it's not comfortable without it (in all soviet cars, for example, is no tachometer). So, here in St.Petersburg one small firm created a series of small car computers, which can be installed on most soviet cars. I bought one of this and install it on car.

It is a small box with wires and simple display like on electronic watch, it can work as watches, tachometer, thermometer, voltmeter and a kind of trip computer.
It connects to power and ground, and it have 2 sensors.
First is for tachometer - it connects to control wire of ignition coil and enumerate count of ignition impulses. It knows a rate of impulses (you set up this in control menu), and basing on this, calculates RPM. (For example, ZMZ-24D engine in my Volga have 4 cylinders, and do one turn of crankshaft after 2 combustion cycles in cylinders. So I set up "1 per 2" mode, ECU calculates this, and shows me RPM). You can set up a RPM warning, ECU will beep if you exceed allowed RPM.

Second sensor is a temp sensor, I doesn't connect it yet, but I want to connect it to hull - at winter it's useful to know outer temp.
Also it measure voltage of power supply (and beeps if it is too low). Also it can work as watches.

You also can set up a trip control function (set up a fuel consumption values at low and high RPM,  set up how many fuel is in tank, and it will aproximately calculate distance you can run), but it is so approximately, that I doesn't use this feature.

@Daniil - based on what you just explained, I'm under the impression the car computer you have is mostly a complex passive sensor to tell you what's happening. Cars sold in America have active ECU's, among other things they monitor the amount of fuel injected into the cylinders. There are strict standards on efficiency (km/liter) and air pollution - without an active ECU achieving them is impossible. That's precisely why they're called "Engine Control Units".

Of course I assume your car has a manual transmission. It's said that here in America, a manual transmission is an anti-theft device.  :)