Virus targets

[Jack2000]

Nope here is the truth:
The ABC computer was before eniac there was even court decision that
the abc computer was first and the mother of all modern Personal Computers

Inventors of the Modern Computer
The Atanasoff-Berry Computer the First Electronic Computer - John Atanasoff and Clifford Berry

Professor John Atanasoff and graduate student Clifford Berry built the world's first electronic-digital computer at Iowa State University between 1939 and 1942. The Atanasoff-Berry Computer represented several innovations in computing, including a binary system of arithmetic, parallel processing, regenerative memory, and a separation of memory and computing functions

   
http://inventors.about.com/library/weekly/aa050898.htm
John Vincent Atanasoff:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Atanasoff

[Kintaro]

Bulgarian Pridde Yo.

[Heer0]

Slightly outdated...but whatever...
 
About John Atanasov.
 
John Atanasov (who was a bulgarian in origin, living in USA). He, along with Clifford Berry invented the first electric computer, where "electric" i mean it was assembled from electronical parts, instead of mechanical. Thus the first "real" computer in the world was invented.
 
Their computer wasn't like the the ones we have in our homes, in the terms of power, performance and flexibility.
But the arhitecture of their computer was absolutely the same - John Von Neumann's, which stated that instructions had to be fed in on an a static source (like the modern memory storages, instead of paper tape, or by rearranging hundreds of removable plug wires into a special pattern on a panel, like an old telephone switchboard). Von Neumann also recommended replacing the decimal number system with binary inside the computer, which is particularly suited to the computer as it can be represented easily using electrical charge.
 
I suppose every computers-interrested person should know these facts...:thumbup:

[Lead Head]

Slightly outdated...but whatever...
 
About John Atanasov.
 
John Atanasov (who was a bulgarian in origin, living in USA). He, along with Clifford Berry invented the first electric computer, where "electric" i mean it was assembled from electronical parts, instead of mechanical. Thus the first "real" computer in the world was invented.
 
Their computer wasn't like the the ones we have in our homes, in the terms of power, performance and flexibility.
But the arhitecture of their computer was absolutely the same - John Von Neumann's, which stated that instructions had to be fed in on an a static source (like the modern memory storages, instead of paper tape, or by rearranging hundreds of removable plug wires into a special pattern on a panel, like an old telephone switchboard). Von Neumann also recommended replacing the decimal number system with binary inside the computer, which is particularly suited to the computer as it can be represented easily using electrical charge.
 
I suppose every computers-interrested person should know these facts...:thumbup:

Welcome to the forums:):thumbup:

[pofnlice]

history is written by the winners/those in power...who really knows?

Tesla v Marconi for instance...

Some day, all of this might even matter, but for today, MS made virus propegation possible.

[worker201]

ergo, Windows is a disease?

(sure seems like it to me...)

[H_TeXMeX_H]

history is written by the winners/those in power...who really knows?

Of course those in power write history in their favor, if they had the power (and scribes and libraries to do it) why not ? who was there to force them to write down history without bias ? I know that history is heavily biased from the many many different takes on the same event in different history books. This is most noticible to me (but not limited to) in World history as told by the USA ... what a bunch of BS ... that's why I very much distrust history books. Unless they come up with some real evidence (as opposed to falsified evidence) they can't fully convince me that anything they say happened really did happen. Now, I'm not saying I don't believe in history, I'm just saying that I distrust it very much. Usually in any given argument I'll momentarily assume that the history told to me is (for all intensive purposes) true ... but there is always in the back of my mind the fact that the rich and powerful wrote history in their favor, and that history has also been twisted through the ages by those translators and editors and new all powerful leaders wanting to improve their image.

PS. I just remembered there was an article on how the government was re-classifying historical documents ... removing them from public access until they are further revised ... it was in another post somewhere in here, lemme see if I can find it.

[GenuineAdvantage]

I trust The History Channel

[pofnlice]

[offtopic]History is what it is. It will always be written by the ones who make the decisions and victories...and the ones who control the documentation.
Yes, American History is different than others. IE...American revolution v The Colonial revolt of 1776. History is a matter of perception as well. It all depends where your standing when something happens. What you think you saw, someone an equal distance away, looking from an opposing ngle will generally have a similar but very different story...nothing new....[/offtopic]

How about them windows as a virus target???

[worker201]

[offtopic]History is what it is. It will always be written by the ones who make the decisions and victories...and the ones who control the documentation.
Yes, American History is different than others. IE...American revolution v The Colonial revolt of 1776. History is a matter of perception as well. It all depends where your standing when something happens. What you think you saw, someone an equal distance away, looking from an opposing ngle will generally have a similar but very different story...nothing new....[/offtopic]

 [OFFTOPIC]Of course that's true.  But the problem is that many people define parts of their existence based on what they consider to be historical truths.  Millions of Americans believe right now that Iraq had done something to deserve invasion, that the US was forced to drop the atomic bomb in order to save the lives of American troops, and that American troops were sent to Vietnam to protect the South Vietnamese non-communists (sources available, just ask).  Believing such garbage doesn't harm anyone in and of itself.  However, these beliefs affect how people make decisions about other things that do harm others.  Opening people's eyes to the truth of just one event can have a cascading ripple effect that affects all of society.  So we should probably take the importance of multi-faceted history lessons pretty seriously.[/OFFTOPIC]

[GenuineAdvantage]

that the US was forced to drop the atomic bomb in order to save the lives of American troops,

This one is half true. It wasn't forced but it chose to. And in truth not just American lives. But I suppose 10x the dead through conventional weapons is still better than what was caused by the two atomic bombs combined. So yeah, it was the wrong choice.

[worker201]

Actually, according to a book I read, Japan was already prepared to surrender, and it was trying to get the Soviet Union to arbiter a surrender agreement, since Japan felt (rightly so) that the US would not give them a fair deal (think 10+ years of military occupation).  But we had to test the bomb somewhere.

[GenuineAdvantage]

Don't take it personal, but your events are almost ludicrous. Japan was not friendly with the Soviets, to say the least. Overall they were terrified of Russian occupation (i.e. enslavement) much more than a US occupation. Historical arguments that I've heard float around, and which I tend to believe, even claim that that fear of Russia also contributed to the surrender. And a tough surrender it was. 2 towns destroyed and probably fear from Soviet enslavement. And yet many Japanese STILL did not want to surrender. But it was up to the emperor at the end.

Saying that it was wrong because Japan was about to surrender is like saying it's wrong for me to shoot a known killer pointing a gun at me because in his mind he was about to surrender.

Regardless of historical conjecture, the undeniable reality is that Japan had NOT surrendered and showed no intention of doing so to the enemy, and just after the last main battle around Okinawa which took more lives than the 2 bombs combined and was just one of many many bloody battles in the pacific war. In fact the intention would have seemed the opposite to anyone on the business end of things like their kamikaze strikes.

[pofnlice]

I'm thinking I have to agree with GA...

The Japanese vets I had priviledge to talk with while I was in Korea said they would have never surrendured. They believed Americans were coming to enslave them, treat them miserabley, rape thier women and kill their babies. It wsn't until after the bombs forced a surrendur that they discovered that wasn't the case. It was a great propeganda machine though. It ensured the Japanese would fight hard, long and mostly to the death in the pacific...Not to mention by thier own traditions, defeat was punishable by death anyways.

We won, we got to write the book

[worker201]

Interesting.  Fear of Soviet enslavement never comes up in this book.  However, it does say that the Japanese military was operating outside of the control of the people and government of Japan.  It's possible that the Japanese people could have surrendered, leaving their already rogue military to fend for itself, which certainly would have been disastrous for everyone.

Unfortunately, it's also possible that everything all of us has heard was a big lie.  I certainly wouldn't trust Japanese soldiers to know the truth, anymore than I would trust American soldiers to know the truth.  Their job is to fight, and they are necessarily kept ignorant of overall strategies.

And then again, I've only read one book on the subject.  While it does appear to be completely scholarly, it could be wrong too.  The only thing that can be known for sure is that none of the stories we have heard paint a complete picture.  Thus, it would not be intelligent to blindly believe any of them.