"Yup," said a knowing detractor, "but my rule does not need a wall plug."

Still and all - the crowds they were amazed.

________________

It was not long before just about everyone who thought themselves smart began making boxes that did things. Soon there were many boxes doing many different things - each according to its own way. It should be noted that each of these smart people knew that the way their box did things was the only smart way to do things. The only thing that each of these smart people could agree upon was that boxes that did things had to have a new name otherwise they would be confused with ordinary boxes. One of them said, "that box computes."

It should be noted that compute was once a very neglected word. It had a limited meaning that associated it with math. Due mostly to unhappy memories of forced association with algebra most schooled people over the age of twelve came to dislike anything that reminded them of math. Since compute was a minor, alternate word specifically associated all things math most people chose to ignore its existence. Anyway you look at it, reckon is much more fun to say. It has such a bumpkin flavor to it that it drove even the English teachers crazy, which of course, made it an even more favorable word.

The word computer immediately became part of the box maker's argot. Notice how well I slipped in that word argot. It is a cousin word of slang and jargon, but argot is usually used to indicate words used by unsavory sorts, theives, stockbrockers and such. Out of nowhere we got an almost new noun. I'm sure John Henry said something like, "He's a real computer, that one?" at least once when refering to Ben Franklin. But, for the most part computer was a word born just for computers.

"It does not compute" soon became the catch-phrase that was used to deride other people's boxes. Later it became a demeaning invective against other makers of boxes who obviously were not smart and therefore were to be referenced only in the third person neuter. Only later did the expression take on a life of its own and shift its meaning away from boxes and their creators to describe instead a problem and/or its solution. It became a great way for the boxes themselves to disclaim responsibility for any and all problems.

This subtle shift in idiomatic meaning marked the instant when the first, really big computer mistake was made. Since that reversal of logic, people have been designing problems for computers instead of designing computers for problems. This has done wonders for the increase in the number of computers but very little to decrease the number of problems. Indeed, managers today are faced with more problems than they ever had before the computer came into existence. But then, computers have provided more jobs for people than people ever provided for computers. Possibly we should thank them and surely we would if only we knew whether they were boxes or they were computers.

And, the economy keeps on roiling along. One problem is that we all are trying to find a way to keep from sinking completely without computers to support us.

A writing instructor once told me that one of the most glaring mistakes made by writers is improper introduction to topics. She insisted that "backing-in" to a subject was a terrible way to string together words. She insisted that all writing should have its subject stated right away. Okay. So it's time to get to the subject of this piece.

A long time ago, when computers first began computing, every computer builder in the world was convinced theirs was the best of all the ways to compute. As example I give you ASCII (American Standard Code for Information Interchange) and IPSIDAC. - there were more of these type conglomorations but for the sake of brevity I'll limit discussion to the two, those being the final major contenders for computer supremecy. They, each of them, are to computers what alphabets are to humans. They are codes that describe the orders of ones (1) and zeros (0) used to represent all things written so that computers can compute. I'll save the description of how this is done for a later date - a much later date. Suffice that an A is described by a string of ones and zeros and a B is described by a slightly different string of ones and zeros. And, so on through the alphabet, the numbers, and the symbols we use in everyday life. Those alphabet looking words I used above, ASCII and IPSIDAC, were acronyms, or initials of the titles strung together to make words, that represented the two major ones and zeros alphabets used by computers. They were not interchangeable.

Your computer used one alphabet or the other or it had two brains with a translator or some such nonsense. The latter part is not exactly true but you get the idea. Basically the only advantage of one over the other was determined by who could yell the loudest, or be the most convincing or both. There were NO, repeat NO, real advantages of one over the other. Yet -- every computer person on earth was determined to convince everyone else that one or the other was better - either that or they were demanding that the once they had invented was better than either one. The same idea is true today in most things computer.

The disagreement went on for the better part of decades. All the more time to sell twice the number of computers really needed. And all the more to make certain that the monies flow to the coffers that can claim superiority the loudest.

The most important word in the computer industry today is proprietary. Forget what's better or worse or works better or even works at all. The number one factor is whose property is it to sell. This is all very understandable. To belabor the obvious, the computer company has to make money off their computer otherwise they don't have money to make computers. But too often the differences in product M and product the other M has to do with the most ridiculous of things.

For instance, recently the brouhaha has been browsers, those software daemons that control the way you surf through the internet. One of the really big differences between the two top contenders has nothing to do with what they do or how they do it but how they say it.

In product one the location of an object is refered to with the terms "top" and "left", in product two the very same - very same - positions are refered to as pixelleft and pixeltop. I quivver now using the latter, proprietary terms without permission. The problem is that computers are very, very, quite contrarily literally particular about names and words. They don't assume or guess - unless you tell them how to guess or assume. If you use left when they understand pixelleft you might just as well say overundertupdownthere for all the good it will do.

Change ours to agree with yours is not part of the licensing agreement. Forget both changing for the sake of harmony. The word NERD just might as well be an acronym for Never Express Reasonable Decisions. Billions, literally billions of dollars are spent every day, that is day, just to make certain two companies make their products with enough differences to be different. Those billions don't buy anything that is really any different. And you thought all that money was spent of engineering research. Ha!

I do a lot of computer graphic work. It is beyond my capabilities to withstand the grief it takes to adequately explain the incomprehensible stupidity that has and still does surround the lack of agreement over a computer language definition for a color red. Notice I refer to A color red - any red. Pick one. Whole nations have been parcel to the quandary. Forget agreement over "the" red. I honestly and truly believe that agreement will never come.

While the industrial money bins of the world swap bills and ills over the minutiae the main product for sale today is speed and memory. We must "upgrade" until every man/woman-jack/jaqualine amongst us has a computer in in every room and on every desk that has enough "power" to remote control a spaceship to Anteres and make sure the porchlight gets turned off at sunup during the process. AND, let's not even talk about talkin' to the computer by phone.

Q: What do you call more than one computer?

A: A glitch of computers.

Q: Goodness, that is an answer all its own, isn't it?

A: I am so glad I could help.

________________

From the onset of the computer 'craze?' the warnings have come from every ideology - kids will forget how to add. It has gone further than that. Kids now are growing up not knowing how to do anything that does not involve buttons. Shucks, good money has been offered for a word to substitute for 'dial' a phone. "Dial it back" meaning "calm down" was lost to the language some time back and kids now have learned to 'punch' everything in sight.

Does this count as a 'self-fulfilling prophecy'?

patrig