Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.arch > #3118 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2011-08-23 10:48 -0700 |
| Last post | 2011-08-29 09:18 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 246 — 39 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.arch
Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2011-08-23 10:48 -0700
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-08-23 16:24 -0700
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Terje Mathisen <"terje.mathisen at tmsw.no"> - 2011-08-24 07:20 +0200
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-08-23 23:22 -0700
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2011-08-24 14:38 -0700
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2011-08-25 17:42 -0700
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2011-08-27 09:45 -0700
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2011-08-27 18:03 -0700
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Brett Davis <ggtgp@yahoo.com> - 2011-08-26 20:31 -0500
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-08-26 20:08 -0700
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2011-08-27 02:35 -0700
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Brett Davis <ggtgp@yahoo.com> - 2011-08-27 15:27 -0500
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2011-08-27 13:41 -0700
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Brett Davis <ggtgp@yahoo.com> - 2011-08-27 17:34 -0500
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2011-08-27 17:40 -0700
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2011-08-27 17:50 -0700
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2011-08-28 23:49 -0700
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-08-27 22:40 -0700
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! "Andy \"Krazy\" Glew" <andy@SPAM.comp-arch.net> - 2011-08-28 19:33 -0700
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Terje Mathisen <"terje.mathisen at tmsw.no"> - 2011-08-29 13:56 +0200
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! "Andy \"Krazy\" Glew" <andy@SPAM.comp-arch.net> - 2011-08-29 09:07 -0700
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! nmm1@cam.ac.uk - 2011-08-29 17:56 +0100
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! "Andy \"Krazy\" Glew" <andy@SPAM.comp-arch.net> - 2011-08-29 11:56 -0700
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Peter Flass <Peter_Flass@Yahoo.com> - 2011-08-29 16:12 -0400
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! nmm1@cam.ac.uk - 2011-08-29 20:46 +0100
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Kalle Olavi Niemitalo <kon@iki.fi> - 2011-08-30 07:48 +0300
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! nmm1@cam.ac.uk - 2011-08-30 08:22 +0100
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-08-31 11:34 -0700
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! "Andy \"Krazy\" Glew" <andy@SPAM.comp-arch.net> - 2011-08-29 22:22 -0700
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Andrew Reilly <areilly---@bigpond.net.au> - 2011-08-30 11:17 +0000
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! nmm1@cam.ac.uk - 2011-08-30 12:35 +0100
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2011-08-30 07:02 -0700
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! nmm1@cam.ac.uk - 2011-08-30 15:18 +0100
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2011-08-30 15:12 -0700
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! nmm1@cam.ac.uk - 2011-08-31 08:30 +0100
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2011-09-01 09:54 -0700
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2011-09-01 10:09 -0700
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! nmm1@cam.ac.uk - 2011-09-01 18:01 +0100
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2011-09-01 12:25 -0700
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! sidd <sidd@situ.com> - 2011-09-01 20:02 -0400
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Elliott Roper <nospam@yrl.co.uk> - 2011-09-02 10:27 +0100
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! nmm1@cam.ac.uk - 2011-09-02 11:33 +0100
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2011-09-02 08:09 -0700
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2011-09-02 08:12 -0700
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! nmm1@cam.ac.uk - 2011-09-02 15:50 +0100
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2011-09-02 08:49 -0700
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! nmm1@cam.ac.uk - 2011-09-02 17:00 +0100
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2011-09-02 15:55 -0700
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2011-09-03 18:06 -0700
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2011-09-02 07:58 -0700
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! nmm1@cam.ac.uk - 2011-09-02 15:56 +0100
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2011-09-02 07:42 -0700
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Andreas Eder <andreas_eder@gmx.net> - 2011-09-02 17:51 +0200
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! sidd <sidd@situ.com> - 2011-08-31 12:11 -0400
Complex Number Representation nmm1@cam.ac.uk - 2011-09-02 21:22 +0100
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! "Andy \"Krazy\" Glew" <andy@SPAM.comp-arch.net> - 2011-08-30 07:08 -0700
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Terje Mathisen <"terje.mathisen at tmsw.no"> - 2011-08-31 10:39 +0200
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! "Andy \"Krazy\" Glew" <andy@SPAM.comp-arch.net> - 2011-08-31 08:00 -0700
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Terje Mathisen <"terje.mathisen at tmsw.no"> - 2011-08-31 18:38 +0200
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Peter Flass <Peter_Flass@Yahoo.com> - 2011-08-31 13:18 -0400
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! "Andy \"Krazy\" Glew" <andy@SPAM.comp-arch.net> - 2011-08-31 19:09 -0700
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Brett Davis <ggtgp@yahoo.com> - 2011-08-30 00:19 -0500
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Brett Davis <ggtgp@yahoo.com> - 2011-08-31 23:46 -0500
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-08-31 09:56 -0700
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Terje Mathisen <"terje.mathisen at tmsw.no"> - 2011-09-01 08:23 +0200
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-08-31 14:02 -0700
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2011-09-01 04:02 -0700
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Terje Mathisen <"terje.mathisen at tmsw.no"> - 2011-09-01 19:42 +0200
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-08-31 23:20 -0700
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! "James Van Buskirk" <not_valid@comcast.net> - 2011-09-12 15:53 -0600
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! nmm1@cam.ac.uk - 2011-09-12 22:31 +0100
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! nmm1@cam.ac.uk - 2011-09-12 22:56 +0100
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> - 2011-09-12 21:00 -0400
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! nmm1@cam.ac.uk - 2011-09-13 10:10 +0100
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Terje Mathisen <"terje.mathisen at tmsw.no"> - 2011-09-13 04:58 +0200
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Peter Flass <Peter_Flass@Yahoo.com> - 2011-09-01 07:25 -0400
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Tim Shoppa <shoppa@trailing-edge.com> - 2011-09-01 10:37 -0700
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! nmm1@cam.ac.uk - 2011-09-01 18:25 +0100
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Bill Findlay <yaldnif.w@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2011-09-01 19:56 +0100
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2011-09-01 12:30 -0700
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2011-09-01 12:38 -0700
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Peter Flass <Peter_Flass@Yahoo.com> - 2011-09-01 17:13 -0400
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Patrick Scheible <kkt@zipcon.net> - 2011-09-01 14:48 -0700
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! nmm1@cam.ac.uk - 2011-09-01 22:49 +0100
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2011-09-01 18:08 -0500
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! "Charlie Gibbs" <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2011-09-02 00:26 -0800
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! "Andy \"Krazy\" Glew" <andy@SPAM.comp-arch.net> - 2011-09-02 05:06 -0700
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2011-09-02 10:46 -0500
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Stephen Fuld <SFuld@alumni.cmu.edu.invalid> - 2011-09-02 12:08 -0700
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Patrick Scheible <kkt@zipcon.net> - 2011-09-02 13:54 -0700
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2011-09-03 14:57 +0000
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! nmm1@cam.ac.uk - 2011-09-03 15:33 +0100
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2011-09-03 13:42 -0700
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2011-09-04 08:46 +1000
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2011-09-04 08:05 +0100
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2011-09-04 17:44 +1000
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2011-09-04 08:56 +0100
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2011-09-04 18:52 +1000
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2011-09-04 08:55 -0700
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! nmm1@cam.ac.uk - 2011-09-04 16:46 +0100
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2011-09-04 13:21 +0000
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! nmm1@cam.ac.uk - 2011-09-04 14:03 +0100
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Peter Flass <Peter_Flass@Yahoo.com> - 2011-09-04 14:15 -0400
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! nmm1@cam.ac.uk - 2011-09-04 18:52 +0100
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Peter Flass <Peter_Flass@Yahoo.com> - 2011-09-04 15:00 -0400
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! nmm1@cam.ac.uk - 2011-09-04 21:02 +0100
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Peter Flass <Peter_Flass@Yahoo.com> - 2011-09-04 19:22 -0400
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! nmm1@cam.ac.uk - 2011-09-05 07:09 +0100
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2011-09-05 04:48 +1000
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> - 2011-09-04 20:18 -0400
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2011-09-04 03:53 +1000
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2011-09-04 13:21 +0000
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2011-09-05 03:57 +1000
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2011-09-04 08:47 -0700
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2011-09-05 04:03 +1000
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Peter Flass <Peter_Flass@Yahoo.com> - 2011-09-04 14:30 -0400
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2011-09-05 04:49 +1000
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2011-09-04 15:53 -0700
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2011-09-05 09:55 +1000
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Piotr Wyderski <peter.pan@neverland.mil> - 2011-10-19 19:17 +0200
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2011-09-04 19:54 +0100
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! nmm1@cam.ac.uk - 2011-09-04 20:56 +0100
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Peter Flass <Peter_Flass@Yahoo.com> - 2011-09-04 19:16 -0400
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2011-09-04 16:26 -0700
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Morten Reistad <first@last.name> - 2011-09-05 13:45 +0200
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Bakul Shah <usenet@bitblocks.com> - 2011-09-05 12:09 -0700
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! nmm1@cam.ac.uk - 2011-09-05 20:51 +0100
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Morten Reistad <first@last.name> - 2011-09-06 10:57 +0200
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2011-09-06 19:43 +1000
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Morten Reistad <first@last.name> - 2011-09-06 10:55 +0200
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2011-09-06 11:36 +0100
OT English Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! wclodius@lost-alamos.pet (William Clodius) - 2011-09-05 13:33 -0600
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Patrick Scheible <kkt@zipcon.net> - 2011-09-05 23:12 -0700
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! "Charlie Gibbs" <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2011-09-07 09:44 -0800
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2011-09-03 13:41 -0500
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2011-09-03 21:36 +0000
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2011-09-03 20:18 -0500
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Peter Flass <Peter_Flass@Yahoo.com> - 2011-09-04 08:31 -0400
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! nmm1@cam.ac.uk - 2011-09-04 13:11 +0100
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2011-09-05 17:14 +0000
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! blmblm@myrealbox.com <blmblm.myrealbox@gmail.com> - 2011-09-07 09:07 +0000
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2011-09-07 12:15 +0100
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> - 2011-09-07 08:37 -0400
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2011-09-07 13:50 +0100
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> - 2011-09-07 09:21 -0400
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Bernd Felsche <berfel@innovative.iinet.net.au> - 2011-09-08 08:42 +0800
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2011-09-08 14:10 +0000
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2011-09-08 19:09 -0700
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Patrick Scheible <kkt@zipcon.net> - 2011-09-05 22:50 -0700
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2011-09-06 13:45 +0000
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Patrick Scheible <kkt@zipcon.net> - 2011-09-06 09:08 -0700
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2011-09-07 14:13 +0000
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Patrick Scheible <kkt@zipcon.net> - 2011-09-07 09:42 -0700
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Bernd Felsche <berfel@innovative.iinet.net.au> - 2011-09-08 09:05 +0800
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2011-09-08 14:10 +0000
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2011-09-08 04:49 +1000
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2011-09-08 14:09 +0000
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2011-09-09 03:17 +1000
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> - 2011-09-10 23:07 -0700
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2011-09-11 09:06 +0100
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! nmm1@cam.ac.uk - 2011-09-11 10:07 +0100
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2011-09-11 06:48 -0700
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Peter Flass <Peter_Flass@Yahoo.com> - 2011-09-11 08:26 -0400
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! nmm1@cam.ac.uk - 2011-09-11 13:00 +0100
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Patrick Scheible <kkt@zipcon.net> - 2011-09-11 07:36 -0700
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Piotr Wyderski <peter.pan@neverland.mil> - 2011-10-19 19:15 +0200
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Patrick Scheible <kkt@zipcon.net> - 2011-10-19 14:45 -0700
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! "Charlie Gibbs" <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2011-10-19 17:13 -0800
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2011-10-20 13:38 +0000
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! blmblm@myrealbox.com <blmblm.myrealbox@gmail.com> - 2011-10-27 09:01 +0000
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Peter Flass <Peter_Flass@Yahoo.com> - 2011-09-02 20:41 -0400
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2011-09-03 06:58 +0100
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! nmm1@cam.ac.uk - 2011-09-03 07:19 +0100
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Bakul Shah <usenet@bitblocks.com> - 2011-09-02 21:54 -0700
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Stephen Fuld <SFuld@alumni.cmu.edu.invalid> - 2011-09-03 09:05 -0700
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! nmm1@cam.ac.uk - 2011-09-03 16:42 +0100
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2011-09-03 21:00 +0000
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Bakul Shah <usenet@bitblocks.com> - 2011-09-03 11:01 -0700
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! nmm1@cam.ac.uk - 2011-09-03 19:18 +0100
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Bakul Shah <usenet@bitblocks.com> - 2011-09-03 13:05 -0700
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! nmm1@cam.ac.uk - 2011-09-04 08:09 +0100
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2011-09-03 21:34 +0000
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Jean-Marc Bourguet <jm@bourguet.org> - 2011-09-04 22:15 +0200
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! nmm1@cam.ac.uk - 2011-09-04 21:07 +0100
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Peter Flass <Peter_Flass@Yahoo.com> - 2011-09-02 20:21 -0400
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Tim Shoppa <shoppa@trailing-edge.com> - 2011-09-06 09:32 -0700
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! blmblm@myrealbox.com <blmblm.myrealbox@gmail.com> - 2011-09-07 09:09 +0000
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2011-09-07 07:17 -0700
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2011-09-07 16:00 +0100
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Bill Findlay <yaldnif.w@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2011-09-07 16:40 +0100
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2011-09-07 09:57 -0700
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Patrick Scheible <kkt@zipcon.net> - 2011-09-07 09:39 -0700
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Morten Reistad <first@last.name> - 2011-09-07 20:47 +0200
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2011-09-08 14:09 +0000
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Stephen Fuld <SFuld@alumni.cmu.edu.invalid> - 2011-09-08 09:13 -0700
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Morten Reistad <first@last.name> - 2011-09-08 18:59 +0200
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2011-09-09 15:21 +0000
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2011-09-09 12:48 -0700
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2011-09-10 06:27 +1000
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Morten Reistad <first@last.name> - 2011-09-09 23:04 +0200
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Bernd Felsche <berfel@innovative.iinet.net.au> - 2011-09-08 08:57 +0800
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2011-09-08 14:10 +0000
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! "Charlie Gibbs" <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2011-09-08 07:50 -0800
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> - 2011-09-08 12:07 -0400
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> - 2011-09-08 12:10 -0400
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2011-09-08 17:38 +0100
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2011-09-09 03:43 +0000
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2011-09-08 12:21 -0500
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Peter Flass <Peter_Flass@Yahoo.com> - 2011-09-01 17:09 -0400
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2011-09-02 08:59 +1000
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! blmblm@myrealbox.com <blmblm.myrealbox@gmail.com> - 2011-09-07 09:07 +0000
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2011-09-07 20:03 +1000
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! blmblm@myrealbox.com <blmblm.myrealbox@gmail.com> - 2011-09-08 16:55 +0000
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2011-09-09 03:52 +1000
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! blmblm@myrealbox.com <blmblm.myrealbox@gmail.com> - 2011-10-01 15:57 +0000
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2011-10-02 05:51 +1100
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! blmblm@myrealbox.com <blmblm.myrealbox@gmail.com> - 2011-10-07 11:31 +0000
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Morten Reistad <first@last.name> - 2011-09-07 14:08 +0200
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2011-09-07 14:18 +0100
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2011-09-07 14:05 +0000
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Morten Reistad <first@last.name> - 2011-09-07 20:54 +0200
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2011-09-08 05:27 +1000
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! timcaffrey@aol.com (Tim McCaffrey) - 2011-09-16 18:48 +0000
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! sidd <sidd@situ.com> - 2011-09-07 18:53 -0400
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2011-09-08 04:37 +1000
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Terje Mathisen <"terje.mathisen at tmsw.no"> - 2011-09-08 10:19 +0200
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! kenney@cix.compulink.co.uk - 2011-09-08 05:14 -0500
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> - 2011-09-11 12:58 -0700
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2011-09-12 10:01 +0100
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2011-09-12 19:35 +1000
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Patrick Scheible <kkt@zipcon.net> - 2011-09-12 09:25 -0700
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2011-09-12 13:27 -0400
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Ben Pfaff <blp@cs.stanford.edu> - 2011-09-12 10:41 -0700
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Patrick Scheible <kkt@zipcon.net> - 2011-09-12 11:34 -0700
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2011-09-13 05:40 +1000
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2011-09-12 15:53 -0400
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2011-09-12 13:08 -0700
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2011-09-08 04:14 +1000
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2011-09-07 11:31 -0700
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2011-09-08 05:35 +1000
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Bernd Felsche <berfel@innovative.iinet.net.au> - 2011-09-08 08:40 +0800
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Terje Mathisen <"terje.mathisen at tmsw.no"> - 2011-09-07 20:25 +0200
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! blmblm@myrealbox.com <blmblm.myrealbox@gmail.com> - 2011-09-08 16:58 +0000
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2011-09-08 12:31 -0500
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Terje Mathisen <"terje.mathisen at tmsw.no"> - 2011-08-30 13:46 +0200
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2011-08-29 09:18 -0700
Page 12 of 13 — ← Prev page 1 … 10 11 [12] 13 Next page →
| From | Morten Reistad <first@last.name> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-09-07 20:54 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <4e67c1da$2@news.broadpark.no> |
| In reply to | #3522 |
In article <9cpc1vFhasU1@mid.individual.net>, Huge <usenet@huge.org.uk> wrote: >On 2011-09-07, Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote: >> On Wed, 7 Sep 2011 14:08:23 +0200 >> Morten Reistad <first@last.name> wrote: >> >>> The critical year for the calculator was 1979, that is when it hit >> >> That sounds too late, I started senior school in 1970 using slide >> rules. By about 1974 enough of the class had calculators that they were >> allowed to be used in the daily slide rule drills. Those using calculators >> usually took longer and produced more wrong answers than those with slide >> rules. >> >> I'd put the critical year at 1975, (Sinclair put out the Cambridge >> in 1973 for about £40 dropping to about £30 quite quickly) by 1975 >> calculators had pretty much completely supplanted slide rules in schools >> although I stuck with my 10" British Thornton until 1976 when I got a CBM >> SR4190 (90 function scientific cost about £50). I still have the slide rule >> (in perfect order) but that calculator is long since dead and gone. I remember buying a calculator in 1978; they were still specialist items, and you had to go to a bookstore or electronics place to get one, even if the price was way down by then; somewhere around NOK 150 then. The next spring they hit the mass market outlets. That is when the hoi polloi picked them up. There were noises in High School about calculators starting ca 1974, but the primary school levels didn't see the large influx intil ca 1980. >[Rummages in desk drawer. Gets out Faber-Castell 52/82 Slide Rule. Sighs >nostalgically.] > >I think I bought that in about 1970. The calculators we had at school >were mechanical (I have one of those, too, although I only acquired it >recently.) The first electronic calculator I saw was in in the prep >room of my first year organic chemistry class when I went to University >in 1972. It had Nixie tubes, and I've wanted a Nixie tube clock ever >since. My dad had such a nixie tube calculator ca 1972, but that was an expensive item; and it used 220V power (and got quite hot). It was an accountant item for him. -- mrr
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-09-08 05:27 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <9cputjF6b1U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #3539 |
Morten Reistad wrote > Huge <usenet@huge.org.uk> wrote >> Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote >>> Morten Reistad <first@last.name> wrote >>>> The critical year for the calculator was 1979, that is when it hit >>> That sounds too late, I started senior school in 1970 using slide >>> rules. By about 1974 enough of the class had calculators that they >>> were allowed to be used in the daily slide rule drills. Those using >>> calculators usually took longer and produced more wrong answers >>> than those with slide rules. >>> I'd put the critical year at 1975, (Sinclair put out the Cambridge >>> in 1973 for about £40 dropping to about £30 quite quickly) by 1975 >>> calculators had pretty much completely supplanted slide rules in >>> schools although I stuck with my 10" British Thornton until 1976 >>> when I got a CBM SR4190 (90 function scientific cost about £50). >>> I still have the slide rule (in perfect order) but that calculator is >>> long since dead and gone. > I remember buying a calculator in 1978; they were still specialist items, > and you had to go to a bookstore or electronics place to get one, No they werent. I bought a simple 4 function calculator in 71 and bought it at the store that sold TVs, washing machines and stoves etc. And I know the date with absolute certainty because I moved into that house I built using it in 73 with the house still not complete and powered from the builder's temporary supply using a long extension cord which eventually partly melted at the knot I used to keep it up in the air when it had to take the 10A for the stove and oven etc for a year or so before the council chucked a wobbly about that and I had to connect the power properly. > even if the price was way down by then; somewhere around NOK 150 then. > The next spring they hit the mass market outlets. You lot were well behind much of the rest of the world. > That is when the hoi polloi picked them up. > There were noises in High School about calculators starting ca 1974, > but the primary school levels didn't see the large influx intil ca 1980. >> [Rummages in desk drawer. Gets out Faber-Castell 52/82 Slide Rule. >> Sighs nostalgically.] >> I think I bought that in about 1970. The calculators we had at school >> were mechanical (I have one of those, too, although I only acquired >> it recently.) The first electronic calculator I saw was in in the >> prep room of my first year organic chemistry class when I went to >> University in 1972. It had Nixie tubes, and I've wanted a Nixie tube >> clock ever since. > My dad had such a nixie tube calculator ca 1972, but that was an > expensive item; and it used 220V power (and got quite hot). It was > an accountant item for him. The HP35 was available then http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HP-35 You've mangled the dates utterly http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calculator#Pocket_calculators
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | timcaffrey@aol.com (Tim McCaffrey) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-09-16 18:48 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <j505mc$q25$1@USTR-NEWS.TR.UNISYS.COM> |
| In reply to | #3539 |
In article <4e67c1da$2@news.broadpark.no>, first@last.name says... > >In article <9cpc1vFhasU1@mid.individual.net>, Huge <usenet@huge.org.uk> wrote: >I remember buying a calculator in 1978; they were still specialist items, >and you had to go to a bookstore or electronics place to get one, even >if the price was way down by then; somewhere around NOK 150 then. > >The next spring they hit the mass market outlets. That is when the hoi >polloi picked them up. > >There were noises in High School about calculators starting ca 1974, but >the primary school levels didn't see the large influx intil ca 1980. > Perhaps things were different here. 1975 I had to learn to use a slide rule for chemistry (in high school). 1976 I had to have a scientific calculator, which I had bought the year before at the hardware store I worked at (made by Commodore). - Tim
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | sidd <sidd@situ.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-09-07 18:53 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <j48sld$894$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #3522 |
On Wednesday 07 September 2011 10:05, Huge wrote: > It had Nixie tubes, and I've wanted a Nixie tube clock ever > since. > > [Sighs nostalgically some more]. > i once had a very,very,very sensitive ohmmeter with Nixie tube display, designed to measure large numbers of ohms. i could stand on a ladder to the head of the cryostat and run a probe past a rail of a hundred connections or so, and watch the display on the rack across the room and if i had any leakage at all, the whole display would flash...if the display remained dark i would laff like a maniac since that meant i would not have to warm up the cryostat and find and fix the short...which sometimes had the orrible habit of disappearing at room temperature... sidd
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-09-08 04:37 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <9cprv6FcnpU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #3520 |
Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
> Morten Reistad <first@last.name> wrote
>> blmblm@myrealbox.com <blmblm.myrealbox@gmail.com> wrote
>>> My favorite example is what happens when, asked to pay in a
>>> retail establishment, I count out an amount of cash that will result
>>> in my getting back a few largish bills rather than small bills and
>>> change (e.g., $20.79 for a bill of $10.79). Usually the checkout
>>> clerk just enters the amount in the cash register, but every once
>>> in a while he or she will look at me in puzzlement and say "this is
>>> too much". Sometimes my explanation ("but this way you give me back
>>> a $10 bill") suffices. Sometimes there's still this look of puzzlement,
>>> but usually the clerk can be encouraged to just enter the amount, etc.
>>> Then again, it occurs to me that some of the puzzled looks have
>>> come from people old enough to have learned to do arithmetic
>>> without mechanical/electronic assistance. <shrug>
>> The critical year for the calculator was 1979,
>> that is when it hit the large consumer stores
> That sounds too late,
Yeah, it does to me too.
> I started senior school in 1970 using slide rules. By about 1974
> enough of the class had calculators that they were allowed to be
> used in the daily slide rule drills. Those using calculators usually took
> longer and produced more wrong answers than those with slide rules.
Those wouldnt be the kids that would be running cash registers much tho.
> I'd put the critical year at 1975, (Sinclair put out the Cambridge
> in 1973 for about Ł40 dropping to about Ł30 quite quickly)
I bought a cheap 4 function calculator in 71 for use when
building the house, Japanese, Casio or something.
> by 1975 calculators had pretty much completely supplanted slide rules in schools
But not likely for those who would be running cash registers in stores when they were in school.
Maybe he meant that 79 was when calculators showed up on cash
registers in large consumer stores. That doesnt sound right either, but
I dont have any real way to verify that particular date and I doubt it all
happened in the same year world wide on that in that year anyway.
> although I stuck with my 10" British Thornton until 1976 when
> I got a CBM SR4190 (90 function scientific cost about Ł50).
> I still have the slide rule (in perfect order) but that calculator
> is long since dead and gone.
I never bothered with a fancy calculator myself, just the simple one for
building the house, because I had HP35s and 45s at work and we were
welcome to borrow them if we wanted to. Didnt use one for building the
house because the LED displays werent readable in full sun outside.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Terje Mathisen <"terje.mathisen at tmsw.no"> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-09-08 10:19 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <edamj8-e1q.ln1@ntp6.tmsw.no> |
| In reply to | #3520 |
Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote: > On Wed, 7 Sep 2011 14:08:23 +0200 > Morten Reistad<first@last.name> wrote: > >> The critical year for the calculator was 1979, that is when it hit > > That sounds too late, I started senior school in 1970 using slide > rules. By about 1974 enough of the class had calculators that they were > allowed to be used in the daily slide rule drills. Those using calculators > usually took longer and produced more wrong answers than those with slide > rules. > > I'd put the critical year at 1975, (Sinclair put out the Cambridge > in 1973 for about £40 dropping to about £30 quite quickly) by 1975 > calculators had pretty much completely supplanted slide rules in schools > although I stuck with my 10" British Thornton until 1976 when I got a CBM > SR4190 (90 function scientific cost about £50). I still have the slide rule > (in perfect order) but that calculator is long since dead and gone. > I still have my TI SR50A, from around 1975. I had to replacethe (rechargeable) battery pack with 3 (or 4?) AA cells, but otherwise it still workedthe last time I checked. Terje -- - <Terje.Mathisen at tmsw.no> "almost all programming can be viewed as an exercise in caching"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenney@cix.compulink.co.uk |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-09-08 05:14 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <6-SdneejbbsfCPXTnZ2dnUVZ7tKdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #3520 |
In article <20110907141851.6b565e9a.steveo@eircom.net>, steveo@eircom.net (Ahem A Rivet's Shot) wrote: > That sounds too late, I started senior school in 1970 using slide > rules. B I was born in 1955 and did maths to Ordinary National Certificate level my A levels were biology, physics and chemistry. I do not remember any mechanical aides we used log and trig tables for calculations. By the way British railways still chains and miles for distance measurement. Ken Young
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-09-11 12:58 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <4l4q67ldfpkgn3ae80hv9qfn6od727v0t5@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #3520 |
On Wed, 7 Sep 2011 14:18:51 +0100, Ahem A Rivet's Shot
<steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
>On Wed, 7 Sep 2011 14:08:23 +0200
>Morten Reistad <first@last.name> wrote:
>
>> The critical year for the calculator was 1979, that is when it hit
>
> That sounds too late, I started senior school in 1970 using slide
>rules. By about 1974 enough of the class had calculators that they were
>allowed to be used in the daily slide rule drills. Those using calculators
>usually took longer and produced more wrong answers than those with slide
>rules.
I was born in 1960. When I entered high school (grade 8), math
had a slide rule course. By the time I was in grade 10, it did not.
> I'd put the critical year at 1975, (Sinclair put out the Cambridge
>in 1973 for about £40 dropping to about £30 quite quickly) by 1975
>calculators had pretty much completely supplanted slide rules in schools
>although I stuck with my 10" British Thornton until 1976 when I got a CBM
>SR4190 (90 function scientific cost about £50). I still have the slide rule
>(in perfect order) but that calculator is long since dead and gone.
Which about matches my experience.
Sincerely,
Gene Wirchenko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-09-12 10:01 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <20110912100127.2774ad07.steveo@eircom.net> |
| In reply to | #3622 |
On Sun, 11 Sep 2011 12:58:47 -0700 Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> wrote: > On Wed, 7 Sep 2011 14:18:51 +0100, Ahem A Rivet's Shot > <steveo@eircom.net> wrote: > > >On Wed, 7 Sep 2011 14:08:23 +0200 > >Morten Reistad <first@last.name> wrote: > > > >> The critical year for the calculator was 1979, that is when it hit > > > > That sounds too late, I started senior school in 1970 using slide > >rules. By about 1974 enough of the class had calculators that they were > >allowed to be used in the daily slide rule drills. Those using > >calculators usually took longer and produced more wrong answers than > >those with slide rules. > > I was born in 1960. 1959 for me so we're pretty much contemporary. -- Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays C:>WIN | A better way to focus the sun The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-09-12 19:35 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <9d6239FnbU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #3634 |
Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote > Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> wrote >> Ahem A Rivet's Shot steveo@eircom.net wrote >>> Morten Reistad <first@last.name> wrote >>>> The critical year for the calculator was 1979, that is when it hit >>> That sounds too late, I started senior school in 1970 using slide >>> rules. By about 1974 enough of the class had calculators that they >>> were allowed to be used in the daily slide rule drills. Those using >>> calculators usually took longer and produced more wrong answers than >>> those with slide rules. >> I was born in 1960. > 1959 for me so we're pretty much contemporary. Mere children.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Patrick Scheible <kkt@zipcon.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-09-12 09:25 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <86zki9locd.fsf@zipcon.net> |
| In reply to | #3622 |
Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> writes: > I was born in 1960. When I entered high school (grade 8), math > had a slide rule course. By the time I was in grade 10, it did not. I was born in 1962. We spent a day or two using slide rules, just to see how they worked and to motivate the study of logarithms. We didn't use them long enough to get good, just to understand the basics. After that unit, we went back to calculators for homework and pencil and paper for tests. We spent a bit longer on trig tables, including use of interpolation tables. -- Patrick
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-09-12 13:27 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <Pine.LNX.4.64.1109121322040.2964@darkstar.example.net> |
| In reply to | #3639 |
On Mon, 12 Sep 2011, Patrick Scheible wrote:
> Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> writes:
>
>> I was born in 1960. When I entered high school (grade 8), math
>> had a slide rule course. By the time I was in grade 10, it did not.
>
> I was born in 1962. We spent a day or two using slide rules, just to
> see how they worked and to motivate the study of logarithms. We didn't
> use them long enough to get good, just to understand the basics. After
> that unit, we went back to calculators for homework and pencil and paper
> for tests.
>
> We spent a bit longer on trig tables, including use of interpolation
> tables.
>
Yes, it had to depend on the school, and location.
I was born in 1959, and there was no mention of slide rules in high
school. I remember the HP-35 arriving, because someone I knew (obviously
an adult) bought one pretty early on, thanks to a group buy at his place
of work. Odd how I can get a ten dollar calculator today that has more
functions than that HP-35, but at the time it was very impressive (and
expensive). I got a slide rule from him, though I'm not sure he had
been using that one up till the HP-35 arrived. And I learned the
rudiments of using a slide rule, that I promptly forgot.
I actually have a longer one, foot long, that came in a box of junk when a
neighbor moved a few years ago.
I got my first calculator about 1974, the local surplus outlet had four
function calculators cheap already. I schemed to get a scientific
calculator, something like the TI-50, then the prices dropped and the
TI-30 was out there and more reasonably priced, something like $30 if I
remember here in Canada. It too had more functions than the HP-35.
But I don't remember calculators showing up in high school, too early, not
much interest. Nobody had a slide rule that I knew of, either. I think
it was too early to ban or endorse calculators.
Michael
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Pfaff <blp@cs.stanford.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-09-12 10:41 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <87r53l4q0p.fsf@blp.benpfaff.org> |
| In reply to | #3640 |
Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> writes: > I was born in 1959, and there was no mention of slide rules in high > school. I remember the HP-35 arriving, because someone I knew > (obviously an adult) bought one pretty early on, thanks to a group buy > at his place of work. Odd how I can get a ten dollar calculator today > that has more functions than that HP-35, but at the time it was very > impressive (and expensive). I got a slide rule from him, though I'm > not sure he had been using that one up till the HP-35 arrived. And I > learned the rudiments of using a slide rule, that I promptly forgot. I bought an HP-35s from HP, new, around 2008. I didn't realize that HP reused model numbers like that. Oh, now I see from wikipedia that the 35s is a "commemorative" model. -- Ben Pfaff http://benpfaff.org
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Patrick Scheible <kkt@zipcon.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-09-12 11:34 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <86r53lliee.fsf@zipcon.net> |
| In reply to | #3640 |
Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> writes: > Odd how I can get a ten dollar calculator today that has more > functions than that HP-35, but at the time it was very impressive (and > expensive). Yes, however the keys on the $10 calculator won't be as nice as the keys on the HP. I'm not sure anyone, including HP, makes calculators with keys as nice anymore. -- Patrick
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-09-13 05:40 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <9d75hjFrlcU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #3642 |
Patrick Scheible wrote > Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> wrote >> Odd how I can get a ten dollar calculator today that has more >> functions than that HP-35, but at the time it was very impressive >> (and expensive). > Yes, however the keys on the $10 calculator won't be as nice as the > keys on the HP. I'm not sure anyone, including HP, makes calculators > with keys as nice anymore. I used to say that about PC keyboards too. But now we have seen a rash of keyboards like the Logitech K800 which might have fixed the problem with the lack of double injection moulded keytops where the lettering isnt just stuck on the top.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-09-12 15:53 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <Pine.LNX.4.64.1109121549190.3270@darkstar.example.net> |
| In reply to | #3642 |
On Mon, 12 Sep 2011, Patrick Scheible wrote: > Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> writes: > >> Odd how I can get a ten dollar calculator today that has more >> functions than that HP-35, but at the time it was very impressive (and >> expensive). > > Yes, however the keys on the $10 calculator won't be as nice as the keys > on the HP. I'm not sure anyone, including HP, makes calculators with > keys as nice anymore. > And one of these days I will get those HP calculators I picked up at garage sales working, both needing new batteries. That seems to have faded, but for a few years in the nineties I amassed a half dozen or so early scientific calculators, two HP (including the HP-55 which came relatively soon after the 35) and some TI (including one that came with the printer). None of the exotic ones that read cards, though. A couple of years ago I finally decided to get my TI LED watch going, only to discover that a part that holds the battery in has someone come off, and I'm not sure how it's supposed to go back together. I dropped that watch (my second LED watch, the first was plastic and fell out of my pocket while I was mowing the lawn, the pieces were found later, so I repalced it with a clearance metal cased TI LED watch) as soon as LCD watches became cheap, it was bothersome to press the button each time you needed the time, but nowadays it would be fun to wear around. Michael
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-09-12 13:08 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <009f0747-584a-4c40-a854-733fef2edd16@u10g2000yqk.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #3642 |
On Sep 12, 12:34 pm, Patrick Scheible <k...@zipcon.net> wrote: > Yes, however the keys on the $10 calculator won't be as nice as the keys > on the HP. I'm not sure anyone, including HP, makes calculators with > keys as nice anymore. True enough. But who is going to pay the price of nicer keys, when that would mean paying much more for a calculator than one needs to? If the electronics in a calculator, of necessity, cost hundreds of dollars, then spending a few bucks extra to have a decent keyboard to go with them seems only reasonable. Spending more on the keyboard than the calculator, though, seems crazy. Which, of course, is why IBM never made beam spring keyboards (like on the old Displaywriter) to plug into your PC. You have to settle for buckling spring. Which is still pretty decent. Want a new one? Shameless plug for: http://pckeyboards.stores.yahoo.net/ In fact, the nice people at Unicomp have (finally!!!) made a version of the famous Model M that you can plug into your (newer - no ADB version, just USB) Macintosh computer. John Savard
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-09-08 04:14 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <9cpql4F13kU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #3516 |
Morten Reistad wrote
> blmblm@myrealbox.com <blmblm.myrealbox@gmail.com> wrote
>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>>> Peter Flass wrote
>>>> Kids these days can't even do arithmetic in their heads
>>>> in dollars and cents! They can't make change without a
>>>> cash register or calculator telling them how much.
>>> Yes they can. The ones I buy my tomatoes at the market from can.
>> So apparently *some* of them can. I guess you don't observe ones
>> that can't? I do, sort of [*] .... Could this be something that's
>> different in different countries?
> My dad worked in banks for 20 years before there were digital
> computers (and remembers the "computer" as a work title).
> He sometimes plays with the heads of the people at the supermarket
> checkout by starting to give the money, exact change; and then sends
> the goods through, and just goes to get the goods packed.
> He hasn't made a mistake in pricing there yet,
I have enough trouble working out whether I am over the
$20 or $30 total that you need to be to get the senior's
discount or the 4c/litre discount off the gasoline.
> but the stores have regular differences. It may hold up
> a register for a few minutes when they sort this out.
>> [*] My favorite example is what happens when, asked to pay in a
>> retail establishment, I count out an amount of cash that will result
>> in my getting back a few largish bills rather than small bills and
>> change (e.g., $20.79 for a bill of $10.79). Usually the checkout
>> clerk just enters the amount in the cash register, but every once
>> in a while he or she will look at me in puzzlement and say "this is
>> too much". Sometimes my explanation ("but this way you give me back
>> a $10 bill") suffices. Sometimes there's still this look of
>> puzzlement, but usually the clerk can be encouraged to just enter
>> the amount, etc.
>> Then again, it occurs to me that some of the puzzled looks have
>> come from people old enough to have learned to do arithmetic
>> without mechanical/electronic assistance. <shrug>
> The critical year for the calculator was 1979, that is when it hit
> the large consumer stores;
Thats not right. I bought a cheap 4 function calculator in 71 when
I was building the house, to do calculations with when building.
And I remember the date because I asked the salesdroid if it
would work well in full sunlight and we both walked out the
front of the store to try it when he didnt know if it would or not.
I did the more fancy stuff on the DEC minis at work but needed
a cheap calculator for building the house and wasnt prepared to
pay a lot more for the HP35 for that use. It doesnt work in full
sun anyway, with its led display.
> and people that were not in 4th grade by then are vulnerable to this problem.
I dont recall kids in school had calculators in 79.
> Which should make a cutoff year of birth at 1968 or something.
Fraid not.
> I knew there was something about that year.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-09-07 11:31 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <48753eee-ebd0-4eda-99bf-db59fe1b8d87@1g2000vbu.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #3532 |
On Sep 7, 12:14 pm, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote: > I dont recall kids in school had calculators in 79. Hmm. I'll have to check the history on this. Pocket calculators started out pricey, but they came down fast. 1971: the Bowmar 901B. 1972: the Hewlett-Packard HP 35. 1974: the Texas Instruments SR-50. 1975: Some cheap pocket calculators started coming out, as low as $20. 1978: LCD calculators finally pretty much take over from ones with glowing displays. So if kids didn't have them in school, it was probably because the schools didn't allow them yet. John Savard
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-09-08 05:35 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <9cpvbdFa72U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #3533 |
Quadibloc wrote > Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote >> I dont recall kids in school had calculators in 79. > Hmm. I'll have to check the history on this. > Pocket calculators started out pricey, but they came down fast. > 1971: the Bowmar 901B. > 1972: the Hewlett-Packard HP 35. > 1974: the Texas Instruments SR-50. > 1975: Some cheap pocket calculators started coming out, as low as $20. That list is quite mangled http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calculator#Pocket_calculators > 1978: LCD calculators finally pretty much take over from ones with glowing displays. > So if kids didn't have them in school, it was probably because the schools didn't allow them yet. Yeah, I do recall some controversy about that, but dont recall the dates that changed.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 12 of 13 — ← Prev page 1 … 10 11 [12] 13 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.arch
csiph-web