View Full Version : Popular Science with KBFC: The Computer, Part 1
My goal here is to give everyone, particularly those who haven't studied Electrical Engineering, a nice little summary of how your PC works. I'm going to try to get into enough detail so that you're not at any time left wondering, "well, that's nice, but how does that happen?" while also remaining completely intelligible to anyone on the forum. I'd like to note that, while I have a degree in Mechanical Engineering with a focus on Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, I'm not an expert on everything EE-related, so it's entirely possible that some EE types might notice some parts that could be touched up; if so, I welcome any additions/corrections. I am completely confident, however, that I will be able to convey all the information accurately enough to satisfy anyone who ever had curiousity about the subject, but wasn't necessarily planning on applying for a job in R&D at Intel.
Black Boxes
The science behind the computer is a large stack of abstractions. In my experience working in the field, most software engineers are effectively ignorant about what happens to their programs once you look closer than the programming language they work in. While I think this is a disadvantage, it is not a huge one; these days, for most applications, it is completely possible to 'black box' all those details away.
What is a 'black box'? People use 'black box' thinking constantly in their everday lives, but probably don't conceptualize it very often, if at all.
When I hit the gas pedal in my car, I know that the act of pressing the pedal isn't directly responsible for the car accelerating - it provokes some complicated reaction in the complicated machinery of the car - but I don't really care. I can drive my car without knowing about any of that; I just know that I press the gas pedal and it goes. It's not only that I don't need to know about every little reaction in my car's engine, it's actually beneficial that I'm not responsible for it. It would be quite the hassle if I had to concern myself with engine timing and combustion cycles (not to mention chemical reactions at the molecular level) anytime I wanted to go to the store, or casino, or strip club (as some would have it).
So anyway, 'black box' thinking is a key factor in not only our ability to operate complex machinery, but also to develop it. As I hope to show in this article, a computer is basically a series of increasingly larger black boxes. The impetus for this post, though, is that while you don't need to know the contents of a black box in order to use one, it might nonetheless be fascinating to find out - I certainly think it is.
I've composed an outline of topic headers that I will most likely follow. You'll notice that the order of topics follows a general trend of "bigger and bigger black box."
Electrons and Semiconductors
A computer is an incredibly complicated device, with billions of parts working in unison to bring twoplustwo.com to you and me. It's all made possible, though, by creative utilization of a special type of material: the semiconductor.
Transistors
Why semiconductors are so special.
Basic Logic Gates
How transistors are used to solve basic logic problems like AND and OR.
Adders
How we can do math using just our basic logical operations.
Memory
How we can store information using basic logical operations.
Scale
How these simple functions scale into our CPUs.
I/O, A/D and D/A
How we tell the computer what to do, and how it tells us the result.
Internet
How we get computers to talk to one another across the world.
BluffTHIS!
09-26-2005, 06:32 AM
[ QUOTE ]
So anyway, 'black box' thinking is a key factor in not only our ability to operate complex machinery, but also to develop it. As I hope to show in this article, a computer is basically a series of increasingly larger black boxes. The impetus for this post, though, is that while you don't need to know the contents of a black box in order to use one, it might nonetheless be fascinating to find out - I certainly think it is.
[/ QUOTE ]
I think you trying very hard to make a profound point here when there really isn't one. It is evident that the more complex a device gets, the more necessary it is to make its controls easier to operate in order to be efficient and that thus as the complexity of a device increases the operators of same are correspondingly less likely to understand the inner workings as the use of the device becomes more widespread. So all you are really doing in this article is providing another type of "how stuff works" writing with the computer being the "stuff" in question.
[ QUOTE ]
I think you trying very hard to make a profound point here when there really isn't one.
[/ QUOTE ]
Wrong on both counts.
1) I wasn't trying very hard.
2) I made no claim about profundity.
[ QUOTE ]
It is evident that the more complex a device gets, the more necessary it is to make its controls easier to operate in order to be efficient and that thus as the complexity of a device increases the operators of same are correspondingly less likely to understand the inner workings as the use of the device becomes more widespread.
[/ QUOTE ]
All this is evident in the same sense that some basic logic rules are evident to most people. That is to say, they might vaguely agree with the statement, but have never formally conceptualized it in such a way that is required to do any serious work. This is all second nature to me, and I'm sure many others here, but I also have an extensive science (both hard sciences and engineering) background. It occured to me that people coming from different backgrounds (who the post is mostly for anyway) might not be the same. That is why I posted the poll a little earlier, which seemed to confirm at least the possibility that my suspicion was correct.
[ QUOTE ]
So all you are really doing in this article is providing another type of "how stuff works" writing with the computer being the "stuff" in question.
[/ QUOTE ]
And all Ed Miller was doing in Small Stakes Hold'em was providing another type of "how to win at poker" writing. That's EXACTLY what I am doing. That's the whole point. There was a thread earlier in the week where such a post was discussed, and it appeared as if there was some interest, so here it is (an intro, at least). I have to say, I'm curious what sort of malfunction prompted you to write such a reply, with such charming tone?
[ QUOTE ]
1) I wasn't trying very hard.
2) I made no claim about profundity.
[/ QUOTE ]
Well, you gloriously succeeded in your unprofound, lackadaisical effort.
It seems ironic to me that on this forum, you find it somehow useful to do this series of lectures about how computers work when the whole beauty of the computer-based internet is the ability to grab specific information real-time when needed or desired. Anyone can just search the topic (or click somewhere like here:, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer) if they wanted a regurgitated synopsis.
Oh, and the use of black box thinking is less novel than you make it out to be.
"People use 'black box' thinking constantly in their everday lives, but probably don't conceptualize it very often, if at all." -- The layperson uses a computer, drives a car, flies a plane, interacts with a human, watches a TV, listens to a radio, microwaves their food, all with no need (or often desire) to know how the thing operates. They give input and get output and that's all they need to know -- exactly black box thinking. Change "don't conceptualize it" to "don't label it", and we agree.
BluffTHIS!
09-26-2005, 09:21 AM
[ QUOTE ]
And all Ed Miller was doing in Small Stakes Hold'em was providing another type of "how to win at poker" writing. That's EXACTLY what I am doing. That's the whole point. There was a thread earlier in the week where such a post was discussed, and it appeared as if there was some interest, so here it is (an intro, at least). I have to say, I'm curious what sort of malfunction prompted you to write such a reply, with such charming tone?
[/ QUOTE ]
I didn't mean to come off brusk but was just trying to give an honest opinion when you have solicited the views of other posters. And the difference with Ed's book is that although he did write another win at poker book, he targeted a different audience than other 2+2 holdem books and also presented correct advice when other writings targeting that audience aren't 100% correct. You however, are not targeting a different audience or presenting the material in a novel way. In fact you are addressing a more scientifically inclined audience (although not as knowledgeable as readers of Nature or Scientific American), who either has seen such material before or is knowledgeable about how to seek it. In fact my suggestion to you is to choose just 1 of the topics you mentioned and then discuss it in a very detailed way including how that technology may change in the near future.
Bluff,
You did come off “brusk”. (It is obvious - to me - that you must have posted this AFTER having dealt with your buddy, SDM. You let your emotions get the better of you. Btw, did you catch my “mystery series” thing I had/am still having with SDM last night?)
I haven’t read kbfc’s OP here yet (I am at work). But, it sounds like you are criticizing 1) the intent of his article and/or 2) the intent of his article viz a viz his target market:this forum. Or is it 3) the presentation and how where he is heading?
If it is #1, then I suggest you should have responded to his early post when he asked if there was interest. If it is #2, then I suggest same but add that I think you over estimate the number of readers/posters who find this stuff dribble (I think I will find it interesting - but he certainly doesn't want an audience of one.). If it is #3 then I can’t disagree because I haven’t read his OP, yet. Even when I do, I probably won’t be able to give an informed opinion to this regard anyway, so don’t wait on that.
Best regards,
RJT
I wish you had made this post your first reply.
Anyway, I'm clearly aware that there a number of resources online that contain all this info. The idea was to try to shape it into a narrative that might resonate with some readers here. As I mentioned in the other thread, I was thinking in particular about a poster on DailyKos (don't remember his name, but he posts fairly often) who does that with great success.
Still, I think your suggestion has merit. My initial instinct was, "woh, how great is it that human's were able to put something like a computer together - how can I get people to share in this awe?" Upon some reflection, I don't think I can accomplish this for such a large topic. I will consider something more specific as you suggested.
The initial post requesting more science related stuff on here ignores the difficulty that, outside of evolution, there aren't many topics that this forum's broad audience would have any comfort or confidence debating or discussing. (note: I am in no way saying that people's comfort and confidence in debating evolution is at all justified, just that it exists.) I thought a sort of pop-science short narrative might be a solution to this problem, but now I'm reconsidering.
[ QUOTE ]
Well, you gloriously succeeded in your unprofound, lackadaisical effort.
It seems ironic to me that on this forum, you find it somehow useful to do this series of lectures about how computers work when the whole beauty of the computer-based internet is the ability to grab specific information real-time when needed or desired. Anyone can just search the topic (or click somewhere like here:, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer) if they wanted a regurgitated synopsis.
[/ QUOTE ]
How ironic indeed. Pitifully so.
[ QUOTE ]
Oh, and the use of black box thinking is less novel than you make it out to be.
[/ QUOTE ]
This is surely impossible. I don't make it out to be novel at all: zero on the novel scale. As far as I know, the novel scale stops at zero.
[ QUOTE ]
"People use 'black box' thinking constantly in their everday lives, but probably don't conceptualize it very often, if at all." -- The layperson uses a computer, drives a car, flies a plane, interacts with a human, watches a TV, listens to a radio, microwaves their food, all with no need (or often desire) to know how the thing operates. They give input and get output and that's all they need to know -- exactly black box thinking. Change "don't conceptualize it" to "don't label it", and we agree.
[/ QUOTE ]
I don't understand why you are so caught up on this black box thing. All I ever said was, "look, this thing you do everyday.....when I say 'black box,' that's what I'm referring to." The label is the whole point (well, maybe just 99% of the point, but I'm too tired right now to care). I had a suspicion that it wasn't commonly-known terminology - a suspicion, which was basically confirmed - so I made a little aside.
I get the idea here, and from other threads where you've replied to me, that if I were to post a message stating simply, "2+2=4," you would reply with a bunch of diarrhea about world politics and the New York Yankees, trying to provoke argument, and then end your post with something like, "but if you really mean that two added to two equals four, then I guess we agree."
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Well, you gloriously succeeded in your unprofound, lackadaisical effort.
It seems ironic to me that on this forum, you find it somehow useful to do this series of lectures about how computers work when the whole beauty of the computer-based internet is the ability to grab specific information real-time when needed or desired. Anyone can just search the topic (or click somewhere like here:, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer) if they wanted a regurgitated synopsis.
[/ QUOTE ]
How ironic indeed. Pitifully so.
[ QUOTE ]
Oh, and the use of black box thinking is less novel than you make it out to be.
[/ QUOTE ]
This is surely impossible. I don't make it out to be novel at all: zero on the novel scale. As far as I know, the novel scale stops at zero.
[ QUOTE ]
"People use 'black box' thinking constantly in their everday lives, but probably don't conceptualize it very often, if at all." -- The layperson uses a computer, drives a car, flies a plane, interacts with a human, watches a TV, listens to a radio, microwaves their food, all with no need (or often desire) to know how the thing operates. They give input and get output and that's all they need to know -- exactly black box thinking. Change "don't conceptualize it" to "don't label it", and we agree.
[/ QUOTE ]
I don't understand why you are so caught up on this black box thing. All I ever said was, "look, this thing you do everyday.....when I say 'black box,' that's what I'm referring to." The label is the whole point (well, maybe just 99% of the point, but I'm too tired right now to care). I had a suspicion that it wasn't commonly-known terminology - a suspicion, which was basically confirmed - so I made a little aside.
I get the idea here, and from other threads where you've replied to me, that if I were to post a message stating simply, "2+2=4," you would reply with a bunch of diarrhea about world politics and the New York Yankees, trying to provoke argument, and then end your post with something like, "but if you really mean that two added to two equals four, then I guess we agree."
[/ QUOTE ]
Sorry. Tell me more about this "computer" that you speak of.
P.S. I have never once invoked world politics or the Yankees in a discussion. I just pointed out the silliness of your lecture series and the odd way you introduced "black box thinking" as a part of the lecture. If you posted a lecture series describing how "2+2=4" on this science/math forum, you are correct in that I'd flame that as ridiculous, too.
BluffTHIS!
09-26-2005, 12:12 PM
I'll say one more thing regarding the comments of us other posters. If you can't get your article idea past us, then you probably can't get it past the editor.
The only good accomplished by kidluckee and BluffTHIS in their posts is to point out that you have no audience here (other than me)*. (It is also apparent because no one else responded.) Even though it is a relatively easy (or to use kidluckee’s characterization - lackadaisical) effort on your part, it is clearly not worth any effort.
I always disagreed with the posters who say this board is only about religion. My thinking was that the few science OPs are always answered or responded to. If religion posts are prevalent it is because of the lack of interest in other topics. Evidently, I was correct.
If you are done clogging the forum with dribble kbfc, excuse us while we argue ad nauseam about f-ing religion.
* I guess they did accomplish one other thing - they finally agreed upon something.
Well, looks like they also caused us to agree on something, which I doubt will happen very often on this board. When I'm done bawling my eyes out over the grave and unwarranted insult of a thread I started, I'll begin work on something more 'useful' to our friends - I'm thinking about, "Are chocolate milkshakes morally good?"
chezlaw
09-26-2005, 09:46 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Well, looks like they also caused us to agree on something, which I doubt will happen very often on this board. When I'm done bawling my eyes out over the grave and unwarranted insult of a thread I started, I'll begin work on something more 'useful' to our friends - I'm thinking about, "Are chocolate milkshakes morally good?"
[/ QUOTE ]
Chocolate milkshakes are morally good. There is nothing to discuss.
I'm all in favour of more topics just not ******** computers. That's a personal issue not a criticism of your thread.
chez
chez, kbfc:
[ QUOTE ]
Chocolate milkshakes are morally good. There is nothing to discuss.
I'm all in favour of more topics just not ******** computers. That's a personal issue not a criticism of your thread.
chez
[/ QUOTE ]
1) All milkshakes are good.
2) Most milkshakes are morally good.
3) Chocolate milkshakes are good.
I think we can all agree on 1, 2 and 3.
Therefore chocolate milkshakes are morally good.
I am not sure that we can say this, chez. I think it depends on one’s “moral sense”
Let’s discuss - within the next few years.
RJT
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.