Random Factoids

[jducoeur]

There's a diary entry waiting to be written as soon as I have a bit of time. But first, two randomnesses that I've been meaning to mention for a day or two.

Randomness The First: My stepmother is currently reading a newish book called Blink, which is by Malcolm Gladwell, author of The Tipping Point. I've only read the first chapter, but it seems to be a rather fascinating excursion into the concept of intuition -- more precisely, it's an examination of the way that area experts can instantly, almost preternaturally, size up something that is in their field, even if they can't quite explain how. Looks to be both interesting and well-written. (Yes, siderea, this particular randomness was mainly for you -- it seemed right up your alley, if you haven't already read it.)

Randomness the Second: My Dad has been reading into the life of Thomas Edison lately. One side observation that came out of this was that Edison was already using the term "bug" to mean exactly what we mean by it, back in the 1870s or so. (Contrary to standard computer-industry myth, which generally attributes the term to Admiral Hopper much more recently.) And by the 1890s, people were already complaining that he would come out to fix one bug, and introduce two more in its place. All of which goes to show just how little ever changes...

Comments

[siderea]

Heh. It is, in fact, in the queue. I'm planning on borrowing tn3270's copy.

Er, have you read The Tipping Point yet?

[jducoeur]

No, although it's high in my (pathetically overlarge) queue. Lack of free time is the current bane of my existence...

[tafkad.livejournal.com]

Hmmmm. The "bug" discussion does lead to the question of cultural baggage. Is it possible (likely?) that the author was using a term that is common today, with the notion that it would help make Edison more accessible to the modern reader? Is it possible (likely?) that the author simply hadn't thought of it, because the word is in such prevalent use today that the author/editors forgot (or worse, never knew) it wasn't always the normal term?

It's kind of like soccer in America. When I was a kid in the 1960s through 80s, soccer was an offbeat sport. Nothing against it, but it just wasn't that big a deal. Kids who played it were playing something that was cool because it was mostly known for being done in other countries. Kind of like rugby. When the World Cup came to the United States, and when the women's team became extraordinarily famous in the 1990s, suddenly it was so bleeping ubiquitous that "soccer mom" became a kind of shorthand to explain someone who was rampantly normal. Society collectively forgot that Little League baseball/softball and Pop Warner football were once the ubiquitous sports.

Submitted for your approval: In the year 2060, American suburban moms piling kids into that decade's equivalent of the minivan to take them to cricket practice. That's the extended metaphor to explain what I'm babbling about.

[jducoeur]

Is it possible (likely?) that the author was using a term that is common today, with the notion that it would help make Edison more accessible to the modern reader?

It seems not -- my father's recollection (unfortunately, he doesn't have the reference to hand right now) is that the word was being used in direct quotes from Edison, referring to problems in telegraph equipment. He's going to try to dig that up again when he can, to check.

Ah -- a little Googling around supports this. From the online dictionary at DataSegment:

Indeed, the use of "bug" to mean an industrial defect was
already established in Thomas Edison's time, and a more
specific and rather modern use can be found in an electrical
handbook from 1896 ("Hawkin's New Catechism of Electricity",
Theo. Audel & Co.) which says: "The term "bug" is used to a
limited extent to designate any fault or trouble in the
connections or working of electric apparatus." It further
notes that the term is "said to have originated in
quadruplex telegraphy and have been transferred to all
electric apparatus."

So yeah -- it seems that the computer industry's assumption that we came up with the word is incorrect. That same page speculates that the usual assumption that "bug" refers to a physical bug in the computer equipment may be a folk memory of the same speculation from the telegraph days. It also discusses the possibility that it may be a contraction of "bugbear", and goes back to Shakespearean English in that form...

[fiantha.livejournal.com]

If I remember my folklore correctly, the bugbear contraction would certainly make sense, given that they were blamed for inexplicable agricultural setbacks oddly parrallel to the ones we get in modern technology- bread failing to rise, spoilage of stored food, missing objects and tipped over containers of whatnot. I could be thinking of hobgoblins, but all of the terms are pretty interchangeable anyways. Oh, and this is Lillian, the soon-to-be co-provost of Greenwood Isle. We were introduced at coucil a few weeks back. I hope you don't mind that I've friended you.

[jducoeur]

[Let's try that again, as me this time...]

I hope you don't mind that I've friended you.

Not at all -- happy to have you on board...

[metageek.livejournal.com]

That entry at datasegment acknowledges that it came from the Jargon File; and the Jargon File's entry for bug has been updated since then, including a more detailed citation of the Shakespearean usage.

[elizabear.livejournal.com]

dsrtao and I both just read TIPPING POINT and BLINK. They're both wonderful, and we'll be buying copies to keep in our library.

I also recommend ANIMALS IN TRANSLATION. It's a good companion to both of the above.