When people argue whether it's necessary, useful or desirable for programmers to know anything about assembly language and the internals of CPUs, I always think of this story.
Nice coincidence as I've just started going through the book "Elements of Computer Systems: Building a Modern Computer from First Principles" by Nisan and Schocken.
I think that it has less to do with people needing to know assembly and more to do with making sure that when people need to know assembly the resources are still there for them to do so. And for people to at least know what assembly is.
To be fair, the story talks more about computers designing other computers. Once we get into that realm we get to the point where the product produced is not entirely understood.
I have met far too many C programmers who just thought of the compiler as "magic." We're already way past the point at which "the product produced is not entirely understood."
Not necessarily. Someone understands it because someone wrote the compiler. And the compiler's source (in the case of gcc) is open for review, as are the specs for things like x86, SSE, etc.
When we get to the point that computers are designing computers, the creators of the evolutionary algorithms used don't necessarily understand the output that their creations are producing.
In terms of C programmers, the programmers themselves might not understand, but they have the ability to investigate if they want to, and the compiler designers at least understand the output of their creation. When evolutionary algorithms are used to design something, we can't always grasp why the output works, we just know that it does.
Both very relevant, and slightly humorous where we surpassed the technology in the stories. A computer weighs more than two humans! And still has crippled computing power. Makes me smile every time.
Upvoted for "The Machine Stops". What vision from 1908! I notice that it's copyright EMF 1947. Any idea what that means? There's something about 'dying in France' that made me think of the Great War.
And to think, this is by the same author who wrote A Passage to India, which is in the entirely different genre. It's amazing that someone who wasn't even a science fiction writer could have such skill at seeing the future.
That's a very moving and worthwhile read, not just because of the practical matter discussed, but also because of the shadow side of any 'advance' in technology.
I agree -- it's easy to forget the tradeoffs technology & specialization gives us. The fact that we spent years learning to read, write, do math, etc. means that most of us don't know much about farming and wilderness survival compared to our ancestors. They'd probably be shocked at our lack of knowledge in these "basic life skills".
A vast majority of modern people would die a helpless death relived of their modern inconveniences. You don't get time to "learn" how to farm when you don't have any food.
And farming is only 1 or 2 generations removed. Give it a few more turns, and one can easily see the world in the story becoming a reality.
I've lived on a farm for a couple of years (in Ontario), and it is simply amazing how much hard work goes in to making a piece of land productive, even with modern tools.
In aerodynamics as applied to jet aircraft they have something called the coffin corner, a speed so close to the limits of the flight envelope in all directions that a small change in velocity will make you either stall or break up.
It's possible that there is such a thing as 'societies coffin corner', a speed of development so great that if it gets exceeded by a little or drops for a short time that we'll literally crash.
Vernor Vinge's stories have addressed a very similar idea. "A Deepness in the Sky" has significant interludes on this topic, though it's not the main focus of the work.
There might well be things that people used to do that we don't even know they did. Obviously I can't give specific examples, but maybe something like a particular way of hunting animals? We wouldn't even know that we lost this technique because its so far removed from anything we need to do.
And I like how extrapolates that trend in the story to a point where most of them don't know much about... well... thinking? Seems like relegating all decision making to the computers would lead to atrophy of the rational side of our brain.
I'm put in mind of when I worked at a bank, hearing stories of people who's job was to plug numbers into a spreadsheet or program, and copy the result to some other place, etc. If the result was orders of magnitude off, they wouldn't catch the error and wonder what was wrong, but just continue on to the next step, oblivious.
So the situation described in the story is already here, in some respects.
Reading old SF without a nostalgia factor is weird. There are all sorts of things just off with the unspoken assumptions of the author, and the extrapolations built on those make the whole story seem skewed. This one looks like it was meant to work as a literal story as well as an allegorical one. Now that it's too dated for that, the allegorical part gets bogged down in the detailed explanations of arithmetic by hand and is a bit vague on exactly what the people who don't bother are missing.
[Edit] Seriously, I used to buy 2nd-hand short story books to get to stories like this (which I've read), but if it has a wider readership this way, but people buy novels, maybe that's copyright's intent?
Not sure what you're trying to say at the end, but copyright's intent was to inspire Asimov to write stories in the first place. Copyright is supposed to give artists/creators the peace of mind to know that once they create someone won't just copy their work and turn a profit on their hard work. (i.e. If Asimov wrote this story, just to have someone copy the book and start selling it on street corners, making money on practically zero effort of their own)
I don't see how protecting Asmiov's work after his death is in any way supposed to inspire him to create more works (he's already dead). And I highly doubt that Asimov cared whether or not his works would be under copyright once he was dead and buried. The only real reason for works to be protected past death is to the benefit of corporations not to the benefit of the general public or the artists/creators themselves.
The "only" is a false dichotomy - you can enjoy creating and wish for your work to benefit something after your death.
That said, the current copyright laws are pretty ridiculous. Creator's life + 10 years would be more than enough, I reckon, instead of life + 50 or whatever it is.
Originally copyrights did not last the creators lifetime, yet people still created things.
Just because Asimov (may have) wished for his children to rake in money off the royalties of his works, doesn't necessarily mean that he (or they) are entitled to such a thing.
Just because Asimov (may have) wished for his children to rake in money off the royalties of his works, doesn't necessarily mean that he (or they) are entitled to such a thing.
One somewhat interesting counterargument: if Asimov had been a grocer, he could have left his children a chain of profitable stores. Why should a writer's legacy to his children be less than a grocer's? If he had created a bank, an advertising agency or a law firm, these too might have outlived him, and no one would question his right to pass his stake down to his family.
I don't necessarily buy that argument, because income from creative works is purely residual in nature, and has no special value in the hands of anyone but the original author (except for whatever a publisher can continue to milk from it.) It's not as if a dead author can experience further incentive to create.
There are reasons to oppose copyright but I don't think this is one of them.
Consider that "Last Lecture" professor, Randy Pausch. He spent some of his last days working on a book. Should the surviving family be denied proceeds? Should his author's advance have been much smaller?
That is; if you believe money is an important incentive for creators, you can't overly penalize people who expect to die before all the returns are in.
You're still free to believe that all copyright is bad, or given too long a term, of course.
That's an edge-case. On the flip-side, if I create something on the day that I'm born, how long until it's out of copyright? Is that figure even a morally right length of time to keep something copyrighted?
Let's not even delve into the 'reverse-copyright extensions' that happen when they apply copyright extensions to works in the past that have already fallen into the public domain... How is pulling something that was created 50+ years ago (with the author dead and gone) back into copyright supposed to 'inspire the arts' in any way, shape or form.
