Melinda Muzzey

From Hst250
Jump to: navigation, search

Wiki Entry #1: ENIAC

ENIAC:

The ENIAC, short for Electronic Numerical Integrator and Computer sprang to life in November of 1945. ENIAC was developed to calculate firing tables for the armed forces but because of its design, it was able to do a full range of computing problems. It was intended to help the armed forces by improving the accuracies of bomb attacks and pointing it towards the target. ENIAC consisted of 18,000 vacuum tubes and the life expectancy of one tube was estimated to be around 3,000 hours. This in turn would lead to a tube failure every 10 minutes. It also included 70,000 resistors, 10,000 capacitors, 6,000 switches and 1,500 relays. The ENIAC was able to perform 5,000 simple addition or subtraction operations between the ten digits it was able to store on the accumulator. Once it was finished ENIAC was arranged in a U-shape and measured 50-30 feet. It consisted of 40 individual units and each was two feet wide by two feet deep by eight feet tall. Half of the units were the accumulators which contained 500 tubes and stored a ten-digit decimal number. The other units were control units, equipment for controlling the IBM card readers and punches, and circuits for multiplication and division (Campbell-Kelly & Aspray, 1996)

Important Actors:

Its creator was a young man named John Presper Eckert who was a recent graduate with a master’s degree at Moore School, Pennsylvania. He was considered one of the best electronic engineers at that school and has worked on the differential analyzer with John W. Mauchly. John Mauchly on the other hand was the one responsible for putting the idea of the ENIAC forward. He was an assistant professor at the Moore School and a graduate of the Engineering, Science, Management War training (ESMWT) program in 1941. He consulted with Lieutenant Herman H. Goldstine who used his power to promote the creation of the ENIAC. On April 9 1943 the project was put in action and Eckert and Mauchly were able to start building ENIAC (Campbell-Kelly & Aspray, 1996).

Limitations:

The ENIAC, just like any other technological advancements had its limitations. Because of the excessive amount of vacuum tubes and other parts, one of the problems was the time it would take to reprogram the machine when one problem was completed and another one was to be run. In order to reprogram the machine, one would have to change and manipulate the tubes and wires, which was very time consuming. Next the machine was only able to store twenty numbers, which would not be suitable for solving partial differential equations. Because of the limitations they have developed a new model which would become known as the stored-program computer on which all current computers are based on, the EDVAC (Campbell-Kelly & Aspray, 1996).

Why was it important?

ENIAC was different than any other “computer” that had already been developed. The most significant difference is that unlike the Harvard I for example, ENIAC did not need punch cards in order to be reprogrammed. To reprogram the Harvard I all you would need to do, is to switch out the punch cards. The ENIAC on the other hand did not run on punch cards, it was completely electronic. In order to reprogram the machine, somebody would have to physically change the machine, by manipulating the tubes. This was a very time consuming, complicated and lengthy process. It is also very important because it lead the way to today’s computer by establishing a stored program computer. Even though ENIAC did not technically run on this program it served as a solution to the limitations the ENIAC brought with it.

Works Cited Campbell-Kelly Martin & W. Aspray (1996) Creating the Computer. In Computer: A History of the Information Machine (pp. -137) New York: Harper Collins

Wiki Entry #2: ERA 1101

What was it?

ERA 1101 was a new 24 binary- digit computer that incorporated high-speed arithmetic circuits and had a large internal storage capacity. It was first in operation 8 days after it had been introduced to the United States Government in 1950. Most computers during that time were based on a trial and error basis but the ERA 110 underwent more than five years of extensive research and development before being implemented. The ERA 1101 is a product from Engineering Research Associates, Inc. It was part of the computer group that was labeled as “Giant Brains” and was able to add, subtract, multiply, divide, detect signs, shift, and detect zeroes (Introducing the ERA 1101: An operationally proven high-speed, electronic, general-purpose digital computer).

How does it work?

The ERA 1101 mainly operated on punched tape. In order for it to work, a photo-electric tape reader was used for the input and would receive punched tape that was prepared with a 10-key keyboard and tape punch. The tape reader would then read the punched cards at high speed and send the information to the magnetic drum storage system where it would hold the program. It would then convert the binary numbers into decimal numbers and send them to a typewriter or a tape punch where you would receive the solution of the problem (Introducing the ERA 1101: An operationally proven high-speed, electronic, general-purpose digital computer).

Characteristics:

The ERA 1101 consisted of 24 binary digits, which is the equivalent of 7DD plus signs. Overall it was able to store 16,384 numbers and/or commands and execute a problem between 32 microseconds and 17 milliseconds. It was able to punch in 37 numbers per second and give 7 decimal digits per second to the typewriter. When the computer was instructed to do addition, it would only take 96 microseconds and for multiplication it would be around 353 microseconds. Lastly the ERA 1101 was able to carry out 38 different arithmetic and logical manipulation (Introducing the ERA 1101: An operationally proven high-speed, electronic, general-purpose digital computer).

Engineering Research Associates Incorporate:

Engineering Research Associates Incorporate also often known as ERA started out as a group that was working on breaking codes for the United States Navy during World War Two. Once the war was over the head of the group, William Norris was encouraged to start his own commercial business that would allow him to continue his work. ERA developed several machines that were used by government agencies including the ERA 1101. In 1952, a company called Remington Rand bought ERA and made them, together with another company Eckert-Mauchly Computer Corporation, the Univac division of Remington Rand, later Sperry Rand Incorporation (Company: Engineering Research Associates ).

Why is it important?

The ERA 1101 made several important contributions to the development of computers and the history of digital age. At first it seems like we are going a step back when looking at ENIAC. ENIAC was developed a few years earlier and the idea was to move away from using punched cards in order to instruct the computer on what to do. Nevertheless, the ERA 1101 had several important contributions. First off, unlike the ENIAC, the ERA 1101 had a large capability to store information. As mentioned, it was able to hold more than 16,000 numbers and/or commands. This is of importance because it showed us that we can build a computer with more memory capacity. Also the ERA 1101 was a very fast computer that was able to do the calculations needed in less than a second. Lastly the maintenance of the machine was very predictable. ERA developed routine maintenance methods to keep the machine from crashing and for its first 500 hours it only needed 16 hours of unscheduled maintenance. As noted the routine maintenance methods were a good idea because it keeps the computer from crashing and allows for more work to be done. This could have served as the foundation for today’s computers in the sense that we have new updates that need to be installed to keep the computer from crashing. Even though the ERA 1101 did not make major improvements in driving away from punched cards and switching to digital, it did allow for improvements in other areas such as the bigger memory capacity and the routine maintenance that allows the computer to run on its full potential (The ERA computation center for industry, government and research).

Work Cited:

Company: Engineering Research Associates . (n.d.). Retrieved from Selling the Computer Revolution: Marketing Brochures in the Collection: http://www.computerhistory.org/brochures/companies.php?alpha=d-f&company=com-42b9d891bbf21#

(n.d.). Introducing the ERA 1101: An operationally proven high-speed, electronic, general-purpose digital computer. Minnesota: Engineering Research Associates Inc. Retrieved from http://archive.computerhistory.org/resources/text/ERA/ERA.1101.1951.102646300.pdf

(n.d.). The ERA computation center for industry, government and research. Minnesota: Engineering Research Assosicates Inc. Retrieved from http://archive.computerhistory.org/resources/text/ERA/ERA.Computation_Center.1950.102646301.pdf

Wiki Entry #3: Malware

Overview

There are many different kinds of malware. Some of the most common forms include Viruses, Worms, Trojans and Bots. They are the main reason why everybody should have software protection, such as Norton or McAfee, on any device that is able to connect to the Internet. These devices include Laptops, Tablets, and Phones. Not many people use anti-virus protection on their phone but it is becoming a lot more common to spread malware on a phone because of the lack of security.

Viruses

Viruses are the most common type of malware. They are a set of non-autonomous routines capable of modifying programs or systems so they contain executable copies of themselves. In order for a virus to spread it needs to be attached to a host, which can be anything from an email attachment to a link on a website. A Virus can spread through various methods. They can spread through booting a device through an infected medium, when you execute an infected program or when you open an infected file. Polymorphic viruses are a special kind of virus and very dangerous. Polymorphic viruses change the code each time it spreads. This makes it difficult for the security to identify and catch the virus. One of the better aspects of a virus is that it is user active so if you are careful on what you are doing and where you are clicking on you are less likely to get infected (Taylor et al. 2011).

Worms

Worms unlike Viruses are replicating malware that does not need a host to spread. Since they do not need a host they can spread very fast and take up memory space and network resources and if continued can cause a Denial of Service attack (Taylor et al. 2011).

Trojans Horses

Trojan Horses got their name from the history of the Trojan horse. In history the Trojans (people) hid in a big wooden horse until they attacked. This is exactly what the Trojan horse does. Trojan horses appear to be a simple, harmless program but they contain hidden functions. Because Trojan horses do not replicate themselves, the creator has to send the file to each person separate. A good way to deliver a Trojan could be through a song or a program that you can download for free online. Trojan Horses can also serve as a medium for attackers. Instead of making the Trojan the dangerous program, they can create a backdoor for attackers. This way your computer, if infected, would be used as a gate to your information. Sub7 is one of the most well-known Trojans. This Trojan allows the attacker to use the compromised machine as an attack launch point. It can also be used as a port scanner, provide access to stored information and lets the attacker control the entire machine (Taylor et al. 2011).

Bots

Bots are software robots that run autonomously on compromised systems. They infect multiple machines via exploit packets or buffer overflow programs. Once infected the attacker is able to use that computer in any way desired. Instead of using their own computer for an attack, they send commands to the infected computer who will then deliver the attack. Bots are used to send spam, DDOS attacks, and to check credit card numbers (Taylor et al. 2011).

Why is it important to know about Malware?

Malware is one of the bigger reasons why we have to deal with fraud and identity theft. They allow the attacker to receive information about someone and then use it to their advantage. Also one of the main reasons why malware is important for the history of digital age is because they have caused tremendous trouble. One example is the Stuxnet virus. The Stuxnet worm a creation of Israel and the US, attacked a nuclear facility in Iran. The worm shut down some of the machines and disrupted the plans for the facility (Asa, 2012). This virus could have caused another war. With the increase of computers and other devices that are capable of connecting to the internet and almost every person being connected to the internet malware is and will continue to be a problem for everyone. The question with this though is how to handle it. People argue that every person is responsible for their devices and it is no different than brushing your teeth while other people think that the government should go after these people.

Work Cited

Asa, N. (2012, June 1). Cyberattacks on Iran- Stuxnet and Flame. Retrieved from The New York Times: http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/c/computer_malware/stuxnet/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier

Taylor, R. W., Fritsch, E. J., Liederbach, J., & Holt, T. J. (2011). Digital crime and digital terrorism (2nd ed.). Prentice Hall.

Final Paper: Violent Video games and aggression

Probably every child, teenager and adult has heard the notion that the aggression portrait in media can lead to heightened aggression in teenagers. In 1966 Charles Whitman a 25 year old college student shot his wife and kids before bringing a rifle to the school tower in Austin Texas killing 14 other students. In 1998 two children 10 and 8 years of age brought seven guns to their elementary school and shot the students while they were exiting the building after they pulled the fire alarm. They killed four students and one teacher. In 1999 two students named Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris shot 20 people and killed 13 at a Colorado High School. In 2007 a 23 year old college student at Virginia Tech University killed 32 people (Deadliest U.S. school shootings, 2012). Many people have wondered if some of these school shootings as well as other forms of aggressive behavior have been influenced by the media. The media that was first studied was Television, whether this meant movies, TV shows or the news. Research has found that watching violence on television changes children’s perception and attitudes about violence and making aggression more acceptable in general as well as in engaging in it (as cited in Kooper & Mackie, 1986). Other studies failed to show a correlation between violent video games and aggression (as cited in Scott, 1995). This example shows that there are some inconsistencies.

This paper, on the other hand does not focus on television but instead it focuses on Video games. According to the National Institute on Media and the Family, as of 2001, around 79% of the youth in the United States play video games and many of these children play for eight hours or more (Walsh, 2001). Many of the video games that are played involve some type of violence whether it is a one person shooting game, a driving game, or a fighting game. This could lead people to think that video games are the reason, or a main component of children developing aggressive and hostile behavior. To give a better idea of whether video games increases a child’s aggression, the following paper will look at studies that have found a relationship between video games and aggression and other studies that were unable to find a significant relationship between aggression and video games. This paper proposes that video games have an effect on aggression but the individual’s background is also important in determining aggression.

A study conducted by Deselms and Altman (2003) investigated whether the effect that violent behavior becomes more acceptable with exposure to violence in television and film would also hold true for exposure to violence in video games. They hypothesized that playing violent video games would desensitize viewers to violence and making them more acceptable of it. This study consisted of two experiments. The first experiment consisted of participants playing one of three different video games; they then read crime vignettes and assigned jail sentences to those criminals. It was hypothesized that participants who played the most violent video games would assign the most lenient sentences, while people who played the least violent video games would assign the harshest sentences. Ninety-two students, 46 female and 49 male, participated in this study. They were recruited from an introductory course in psychology and earned credits towards their class.

Each participant was randomly assigned to one of three conditions, a low violent game, NBA Jam, a somewhat violent game, Mortal Kombat, and a very violent game, Mortal Kombat II. They practiced the game for 10 minutes and got 30 minutes to actually play it. After that they were given a story about a college student who after a comment hit his friend with a beer bottle and a fight broke out. The participants could choose from four different incarceration sentences ranging from no incarceration to incarceration for more than 20 years. A higher charge would indicate less tolerance of aggressive acts while a lesser charge would indicate a higher tolerance of aggression.

The results show that men and women scored differently. Women gave similar survey scores no matter what game they played while men gave different scores based on the game they played. Men gave shorter jail sentences after playing Mortal Kombat II compared to when they played NBA Jam while women did not significantly change jail term sentences. In this experiment the authors found that their hypothesis that with exposure to violence someone will see aggression as more acceptable is true in men, but not women. A possible explanation of this effect is that the scale was not sensitive enough to portrait change in women’s attitude. Their second experiment was conducted to address this effect (Deselms & Altman, 2003).

The second experiment consisted of 59 students, 28 female and 31 male, who were recruited from the same population as in the first study. In this case they only used two of the three video games, NBA Jam and Mortal Kombat II because these two games had the biggest contrast in violence. Also the jail sentences were changed from a 4 choice scale to a 7 choice scale. Lastly students were instructed to return an hour after they had taken the first survey to fill out another one. In this study, results have shown that there was a significant relationship between gender and game. They found that men assigned more lenient punishments after playing Mortal Kombat II than after playing NBA Jam. They also assigned more lenient punishments after playing Mortal Kombat II compared to women who played the same game. On the other hand, women assigned harsher punishments after playing Mortal Kombat II and more lenient ones after playing NBA Jam. Overall just as in experiment one, in this experiment as well the hypothesis only hold true for men; by playing a more violent game men see aggression as more acceptable.

The authors note that the finding of women being more sensitive after playing a more violent game to be inconsistent with earlier research. The reason for that is that most studies did either not look at the differences in gender or they found no difference in aggression between men and women. They point out that the difference between males and females may lay in our social culture. Boys are brought up to be more acceptable of violence because they use it in everyday activities, such as sports. For example boys are more likely to play football, hockey and boxing in which some type of violence is necessary and acceptable. Girls on the other hand play sports such as softball, volleyball and tennis. Therefore one of the alternative explanations of why scores differ might lay in the way children are socialized (Deselms & Altman, 2003).

This study also poses some limitations. It is hard to say whether the results can be generalized to the overall population because only students in an introductory psychology class were recruited. College students might have a different thought process than children or adults. Another limitation that might come up is that only people who like video games signed up for this study. Even though they received extra credit for their class, it might have been more of an incentive for people who regularly play video games. If this is the case people’s character might have already been altered to be more or less lenient.

Another study conducted by Giumetti and Markey (2007) looked at whether the main effect of playing violent video games is moderated by the personality trait of anger. They predicted that both playing violent video games and personality traits such as anger are related to aggression. It is hypothesized that participants who play violent video games will be more likely to act aggressively to certain stimuli. They also hypothesize that people who are angry will respond more aggressively to the same stimuli than individuals who are not angry. Lastly it is hypothesized that anger will moderate the effect of violent video games. The experiment consisted of three phases. Phase one consisted of a questionnaire regarding demographics such as age, gender and year in college and a questionnaire regarding anger. A 7-item anger scale of the Aggression questionnaire was used and it assessed the tendency for emotional arousal and the preparation of aggressive behavior. Phase two consisted of playing a video game. The participants were randomly assigned to play one of three violent video games, Mortal Kombat: Deadly Alliance; Doom 3; or Return to Castle Wolfenstein, or one of three non-violent video games, Tetris Worlds; Top Spin Tennis; or Project Gotham Racing for about 15 minutes. Phase three consisted of a story that was used to measure aggression. They were presented with three stories, each was a brief scenario with a negative outcome for the main character, and they were instructed to write down 20 things they thought the main character might do, think or feel. A total of 167 university undergraduate students, 79 female and 88 male that were recruited from a general psychology class and were given class credit for their participation were used (Giumetti & Markey, 2007).

Results show that violent video games produced significantly more aggressive responses than nonviolent video games. They also found that anger was not significantly related to aggression. That makes the second hypothesis incorrect in relation to this experiment but they did find that anger significantly moderated the effect of video game condition. This indicates that higher anger individuals respond more aggressively if they play a violent video game and therefore the third hypothesis holds true. Lastly they found that low levels of anger were not significantly affected by violent video games, demonstrating that video games alone might not be the reason for increased aggression. Overall they found that participants who played violent video games are more likely to respond aggressively to stimuli in comparison to participants who played non-violent video games. Also, people who were angry were more likely to respond aggressively if they were exposed to violent video games than when they were to non-violent video games making video games a moderator.

This study as well poses some limitations. Just like the other study, it is hard to generalize the results to the general public because only college students had been recruited. Furthermore it is hard to generalize the results outside a laboratory. In this study people did not have the choice to select what video game they would like to play and some people might not like violent video games and therefore would not choose to play them. Results might have been different if people were able to choose what game they would like to play.

Now, studies that did not find an association between video games and violence, in particular aggression are discussed. An experiment conducted by Ferguson, Rueda, Cruz, Ferguson, Fritz and Smith (2008) looked at whether there was a causal relationship between video games and aggression or if the effect is a byproduct of family violence and intrinsic violence motivation. The study consisted of two parts with one looking at aggression in the laboratory and the second at violent crime in real life. The first study consisted of undergraduate student being assigned to three conditions. In the first condition, the participants were assigned to violent video game, in the second condition participants were assigned to a nonviolent video game, and in the third condition, the participants were given a brief description of each game and they could decide what game to play. The authors hypothesized that exposure to video game violence in a controlled environment results in an increase in aggression on a subsequent laboratory measure of aggression. The second hypothesis stated that individuals that are exposed to more violent video games in real life are more aggressive on a laboratory measure of aggression.

Participants were chosen from two public universities in Texas and Wisconsin and 101 students, 46 males and 55 females participated in exchange for extra credit in their coursework. The aggression questionnaire short form was used to measure the trait aggression. The authors asked the participants about their video-game playing habits, including what games they frequently played, for how long and how violent the game was. In order to measure aggressive behavior they used a modified version of the Taylor Competitive Reaction Time Test (TCRTT). Lastly a follow up survey was used to ask the participants about their perception of the video game they played and whether they found the games to be fun, exciting or frustrating. A first shooter person game Medal of Honor: Allied Assault was used for the violent video game and Myst III: Exile was used for the non-violent video game.

Results show that the violent video game was more exciting than the non-violent video game but the non-violent video game was rated more frustrating. They also found that people were more familiar with the violent game Medal of Honor: Allied Assault. In the third condition, where people were allowed to choose the game, females were more likely to choose the non-violent game. They also found that neither violent nor non-violent video game produced more aggression showing that video games and aggression are not related. Overall the authors failed to support the hypothesis that exposure to a violent game causes aggression in a laboratory setting. Results did show that males were more aggressive than females and that could lead to more males playing more violent video games (Feguson, et al., 2008).

The second study consisted of 428 undergraduate students, 173 male and 255 female, from a public university in Florida who received extra credit for participation. They used the Buss Aggression questionnaire short form to measure trait aggression. They also used the Family Conflict Scale to measure family violence exposure, including direct physical and sexual abuse, witnessing domestic violence, neglect and exposure to drug abuse. Lastly they had participants fill out the National Youth Survey in order to determine criminal behavior. Results indicate that video-game violence was related to trait aggression but not to violent criminal behavior. Also they only found that male gender and exposure to verbal abuse to be related to trait aggression but factors such as violent video games, or other forms of family violence are not related. Especially male gender and exposure to physical abuse were significant predictors of violent criminal behavior. Lastly they found that exposure to violent video games had little effect on players. It appears to be that the exposure to violent video games is only a byproduct of aggression. The authors assume that the interaction between aggressive personality and violent video game exposure is predictive of violent crime. This study shows that violent video games alone did not have a significant effect on aggression but when combined with family violence aggression increased (Feguson, et al., 2008).

There are several limitations that should be addressed in this paper. First of they had more female participants than male. As seen in the results, females were more likely to choose the non-violent video game over the violent. This difference could lead to different results if the study was replicated including more males. Also only college students were used in this experiment and therefore we cannot be certain that the results can be generalized to a bigger population.

The last study was conducted by Scott (1995). This study aimed at investigating the effect aggressive computer game playing had on individuals of differing personalities and in which particular aspects of aggressiveness this might be experienced. The author hypothesized that there would be a linear increase in aggressive affect after playing nonaggressive, moderately aggressive and highly aggressive games.one hundred and seventeen students, 42 men and 75 women, were recruited. The nonaggressive game they used was Tetris, the moderately aggressive game was Overkill and the highly aggressive game was Fatal Fury. They were instructed to play the game for 10 minutes. After that the researcher asked the participants about previous experience and present involvement in video games.

Results show that there were significantly differences in aggression between the nonviolent and moderately violent video game, and the moderately violent and highly violent video game but not between the nonviolent and the highly violent game. This finding indicates that there is no linear trend between the games. Overall there was no significant difference between the aggressiveness and level of game aggression, showing that there is no relationship between playing video games and aggression (Scott, 1995).

Here as well, the choice of participants had a rather limited effect. Only college students were recruited that makes it hard to generalize. College students might play a lot more or a lot less video games because of school and study habits.

Based on all the research described and investigated, this paper holds to the proposed prediction that video games have an effect on violence, in particular aggression. From research that was introduced earlier, we know that the media, such as movies, has an effect on aggression. We also found that to be true in video games. One study included family factors such as abuse and found there was no relationship (Feguson, et al., 2008). Even though evidence suggests there is a relationship, family violence was not included in those. We saw that when family violence is controlled for there is no significant relationship leading to the suggestion that violent video games alone are not an important factor in determining a child’s aggression. More research needs to be conducted in order to find out how much impact violent video games really have. Also, not mentioned in the prediction, but gender seems to have an important effect. Most of the studies, whether they found a relationship or they did not, found a relationship between males and video games. It appears that males are more affected by violent video games than are female. Considering males grow up learning that some violence is acceptable, playing violent video games might trigger this effect in real life.

Work Cited

Deadliest U.S. school shootings. (2012, Aril 02). Retrieved from San Francisco Chronicle: http://www.sfgate.com/crime/article/Deadliest-U-S-school-shootings-3454376.php

Cooper, J., & Mackie, D. (1986). Violent video games and aggression in children. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 16(8), 726-744.

Deselms, J. L., & Altman, J. D. (2003). Immediate and prolonged effects of video game violence. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 33(8), 1553-1563.

Feguson, C. J., Rueda, S. M., Cruz, A. M., Ferguson, D. E., Fritz, S., & Smith, S. M. (2008). Violent viode games and aggression: causal relationship or byproduct of family violence and intrinsic violence motivation. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 35(311), 311-332.

Giumetti, G. W., & Markey, P. M. (2007). Violent viode games and angewr as predictors of aggression. Journal of Research in Personality, 41, 1234-1243.

Scott, D. (1995). The effect of video games on feelings of aggression. The Journal of Psychology, 129(2), 121-132.

Walsh, D. (2001). Video game violence and public policy. Retrieved from National Institute on Media and the Family: http://culturalpolicy.uchicago.edu/papers/2001-video-games/walsh.html