Like many developments in the history of computing, some of the ideas for a GUI computer were thought of long before the technology was even available to build such a machine. One of the first people to express these ideas was Vannevar Bush. In the early 1930s he first wrote of a device he called the “Memex,” which he envisioned as looking like a desk with two touch screen graphical displays, a keyboard, and a scanner attached to it. It would allow the user to access all human knowledge using connections very similar to how hyperlinks work. At this point, the digital computer had not been invented, so there was no way for such a device to actually work, and Bush’s ideas were not widely read or discussed at that time. —Jeremy Reimer —A History of the GUI (Ars Technica)
Bush’s vision was tied to his vision of the potential of analog computing, so it’s a stretch to use the fact that digital computing hadn’t been invented to dismiss Bush’s ideas as unworkable. Wartime research discoveries had led to a boom in scientific publications, which gave his ideas from the previous decade more currency.
Another corner building. Designed and textured. Needs an interior. #blender3d #design #aesthetics #medievalyork #mysteryplay
What have my students learned about creative nonfiction writing? During class they are collaborating on…
Two years after the release of ChatGPT, it may not be surprising that creative work…
I both like and hate that Canvas tracks the number of unmarked assignments that await…
The complex geometry on this wedge building took me all weekend. The interior walls still…
My older siblings say they remember our mother sitting them down to watch a new…
View Comments
Reimer hasn't even written a GUI program himself and is cited as an expert on them, that is a laugh. Why dont you have me read a book by some *expert* about driving a car when that *expert* hasn't even driven one himself.
http://www.windowsitpro.com/articles/index.cfm?articleid=41095&cpage=188#feedbackAnchor
That shows you just how "expert" Jeremy Reimer is:
When Jeremy Reimer confronted by someone with actual degrees and experience in the field of computer science (for Jeremy Reimer impersonating that person on his website), Reimer resorts to posting libellous photos of said person and singlng slanderous songs instead.
This makes sense: Jeremy Reimer has no degree in computer science, nor even a certification in it (not even an A+, much less an MCSE for example), and Jeremy Reimer has no years of professional experience in the field of comp. sci. either.
Jeremy Reimer and his friend Jay Little were also run off by an actual computer person with facts @ that URL above, & were unable to disprove the points that person made.
Both were initially warned for eamil harassment and later kicked from their ISP's &/or Hosting Providers for such reprehensible behaviors as well. Some expert(s) Jeremy Reimer and his friends are about this field.
Jeremy Reimer was exposed as a fraud faking it as some sort of computer expert in the field of computer science here at this url:
http://www.windowsitpro.com/articles/index.cfm?articleid=41095&cpage=187#feedbackAnchor
That was an interesting read. I would suggest you find someone else to cite as an authority in this field. Somebody with eductional credentials in the field of computers and professional experience.
Jeremy Reimer clearly has neither.
These posts makes me want to look up what else Jeremy Reimer has written, to find out why an anonymous reader seems to see him as some kind of a threat. This "Jowie Neckbone" mentioned by Anonymous #3 has posted pretty much the same comment about Reimer elsewhere in the blogosphere.
I'll repeat that the point of my post was to correct something I disagreed with, so I'm not sure how my entry positions Reimer as anything more than the author of an article in ArsTechnica.
Politely correcting a mistake is more productive than calling people names, or agreeing with anonymous name-callers. But since disagreeing with anonymous name-callers is also rarely productive, I'll just say "Thanks for your opinion," and move along.
What Jowie Neckbone posted appears to be the truth.
I wrote Jeremy Reimer and asked him about that which was written above.
He is indeed without any formal education or certification in the field of computer science and lacks years of professional experience in the field of computer science as well.
I am sure your opinion would have been more valuable if you had checked who wrote what and what qualifies them to do so. Jeremy Reimer is totally unqualified. A hack wannabe is what Jeremy Reimer appears to be. Typical arstechnica.
I cite dozens of authors each week, some of them experts, some of them people who just happen to be pretty good at finding sources and putting them together in a way that makes sense to the non-expert. (That's a skill that's not often appreciated by experts, since they don't need entry-level introductions.)
And sometimes I cite an author because I disagree with a point they make. Reimer said that Bush's ideas weren't implemented becuase the digital computer hadn't yet been developed, and I pointed out that Bush was actually exploring the potential of analog technology.
Thanks for your opinion of the rest of Reimer's work, though of course I'm sure you understand your opinion would be more valuable if it weren't an anonymous ad hominem attack.
Anyone reading this ought to be made aware of some facts about Jeremy Reimer:
Jeremy Reimer doesn’t even have a single degree that is about the field of computer sciences or even a certification in comp. sci. fields (like MCSE).
He is utterly lacking professional/in-the-trenches experience in computer science as well.
Yet I see you cited Jeremy Reimer here as somekind of expert in the field of comp. sci.?
Research who it is you are citing for your own sake.
Making a 'sidewalk-surgeon/quack' out to be an expert in a particular field is just bad business.
I.E.-> Jeremy Reimer is just another wannabe poseur with no skills period in computer science, who merely scours wikipedia and other sources and spits back already known information.
This is intelligence? This is being an expert??
I know not: I could do the same myself and so could you other readers.
In other words, nothing fundamental or original exists in the lot of his 'articles' for arstechnica. This makes complete sense - he is not qualified to do otherwise.
(His 'articles' are mere high-school level termpapers @ best)
They are written by a charlatan named Jeremy Reimer posing as a computer expert.
(If this is hard to believe, ask Jeremy Reimer yourself if he has a degree or certification in the field of comp. sci., but more importantly if he has years of actual professional work experience in computer networking, programming, etc. in this field)
You will see he is nothing more than a wannabe trying to pull the wool over your eyes and come off as some sort of authority in this field when he is anything but that).
Jeremy Reimer's just some dunce attempting to create the perception of being a noted authority in the field of computers, with no noted accomplishments in this field, other than writing articles for the playpen arstechnica because he is a forums member there.
You don't see the likes of IBM, Microsoft, or any known/respected companies in the field of computers citing Jeremy Reimer do you? This is because they know better.
Reimer is completely lacking in education, professional experience, & skills is why and this is why he is only capable of being 'published' @ arstechnica. This ought to make you question their expertise & judgement as to who is an expert author as well!
That alone should make you think twice before citing him as somekind of expert.