Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > rec.arts.sf.written > #423976 > unrolled thread
| Started by | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-10-02 01:17 -0700 |
| Last post | 2015-10-08 20:31 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 100 — 24 participants |
Back to article view | Back to rec.arts.sf.written
green stars The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-10-02 01:17 -0700
Re: green stars Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> - 2015-10-02 14:40 -0400
Re: green stars djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) - 2015-10-02 22:18 +0000
Re: green stars Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taustinca@gmail.com> - 2015-10-02 16:02 -0700
Re: green stars djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) - 2015-10-03 02:29 +0000
Re: green stars Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taustinca@gmail.com> - 2015-10-02 22:29 -0700
Re: green stars Joy Beeson <jbeeson@invalid.net.invalid> - 2015-10-03 23:49 -0300
Re: green stars "Mike Dworetsky" <platinum198@pants.btinternet.com> - 2015-10-04 08:48 +0100
Re: green stars Cryptoengineer <treifamily@gmail.com> - 2015-10-04 11:07 -0500
Re: green stars "Brian M. Scott" <b.scott@csuohio.edu> - 2015-10-04 12:50 -0400
Re: green stars Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taustinca@gmail.com> - 2015-10-04 10:54 -0700
Re: green stars "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2015-10-04 13:21 -0400
Re: green stars Greg Goss <gossg@gossg.org> - 2015-10-04 11:15 -0600
Re: green stars Stumpy <perilmung@spamnet.con> - 2015-10-05 13:39 -0700
Re: green stars Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-10-08 20:27 -0700
Re: green stars Greg Goss <gossg@gossg.org> - 2015-10-09 00:08 -0600
Re: green stars "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2015-10-09 04:54 -0400
Re: green stars William Vetter <mdhangton@gmail.com> - 2015-10-09 13:09 -0400
Re: green stars petertrei@gmail.com - 2015-10-09 10:16 -0700
Re: green stars scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2015-10-09 18:20 +0000
Re: green stars "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2015-10-09 19:28 -0400
Re: green stars wdstarr@panix.com (William December Starr) - 2015-10-09 21:05 -0400
Re: green stars "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <seawasp@sgeinc.invalid.com> - 2015-10-09 21:42 -0400
Re: green stars "John F. Eldredge" <john@jfeldredge.com> - 2015-10-10 16:55 +0000
Re: green stars "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <seawasp@sgeinc.invalid.com> - 2015-10-04 09:27 -0400
Re: green stars William Vetter <mdhangton@gmail.com> - 2015-10-04 16:45 -0400
Re: green stars Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> - 2015-10-03 17:40 -0400
Re: green stars Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taustinca@gmail.com> - 2015-10-03 14:51 -0700
Re: green stars djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) - 2015-10-03 21:54 +0000
Re: green stars Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taustinca@gmail.com> - 2015-10-03 17:24 -0700
Re: green stars wdstarr@panix.com (William December Starr) - 2015-10-04 06:46 -0400
Re: green stars djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) - 2015-10-04 13:15 +0000
Re: green stars jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-10-04 14:27 +0000
Re: green stars djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) - 2015-10-04 16:53 +0000
Re: green stars jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-10-05 13:02 +0000
Re: green stars djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) - 2015-10-05 14:39 +0000
Re: green stars jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-10-06 13:34 +0000
Re: green stars djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) - 2015-10-06 14:24 +0000
Re: green stars jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-10-07 13:18 +0000
Re: green stars Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> - 2015-10-07 19:27 -0400
Re: green stars "Brian M. Scott" <b.scott@csuohio.edu> - 2015-10-07 19:43 -0400
Re: green stars Greg Goss <gossg@gossg.org> - 2015-10-08 01:58 -0600
Re: green stars The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-10-08 01:11 -0700
Re: green stars The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-10-08 13:49 -0700
Re: green stars The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-10-08 21:20 -0700
Re: green stars The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-10-09 22:04 -0700
Re: green stars Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-10-10 11:49 -0700
Re: green stars hamish.laws@gmail.com - 2015-12-05 02:32 -0800
Re: green stars wdstarr@panix.com (William December Starr) - 2015-10-08 08:19 -0400
Re: green stars Greg Goss <gossg@gossg.org> - 2015-10-09 00:10 -0600
Re: green stars William Vetter <mdhangton@gmail.com> - 2015-10-09 13:19 -0400
Re: green stars wdstarr@panix.com (William December Starr) - 2015-10-09 21:27 -0400
Re: green stars Greg Goss <gossg@gossg.org> - 2015-10-10 20:12 -0600
Re: green stars hamish.laws@gmail.com - 2015-12-05 02:22 -0800
Re: green stars Cryptoengineer <treifamily@gmail.com> - 2015-12-05 10:52 -0600
Re: green stars Greg Goss <gossg@gossg.org> - 2015-12-05 10:42 -0700
Re: green stars "Brian M. Scott" <b.scott@csuohio.edu> - 2015-12-05 13:02 -0500
Re: green stars Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-12-05 11:33 -0800
Re: green stars Kevrob <kevrob@my-deja.com> - 2015-12-05 15:00 -0800
Re: green stars Greg Goss <gossg@gossg.org> - 2015-12-06 01:56 -0700
Re: green stars Lofty Goat <rlwatkins@gmail.com> - 2015-10-05 19:08 -0500
Re: green stars Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> - 2015-10-05 17:20 -0700
Re: green stars djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) - 2015-10-06 01:09 +0000
Re: green stars "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2015-10-05 22:21 -0400
Re: green stars djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) - 2015-10-06 02:33 +0000
Re: green stars "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2015-10-05 23:03 -0400
Re: green stars Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> - 2015-10-05 22:03 -0700
Re: green stars Wayne Brown <fwbrown@bellsouth.net> - 2015-10-08 19:38 +0000
Re: green stars djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) - 2015-10-08 22:19 +0000
Re: green stars The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-10-08 16:14 -0700
Re: green stars The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-10-08 16:16 -0700
Re: green stars The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-10-08 19:33 -0700
Re: green stars "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2015-10-08 21:36 -0400
Re: green stars djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) - 2015-10-09 04:19 +0000
Re: green stars Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-10-08 22:51 -0700
Re: green stars The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-10-09 11:12 -0700
Re: green stars scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2015-10-09 14:05 +0000
Re: green stars "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2015-10-08 18:57 -0400
Re: green stars jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-10-06 13:34 +0000
Re: green stars Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taustinca@gmail.com> - 2015-10-04 10:57 -0700
Re: green stars "Brian M. Scott" <b.scott@csuohio.edu> - 2015-10-04 10:41 -0400
Re: green stars wdstarr@panix.com (William December Starr) - 2015-10-04 13:43 -0400
Re: green stars wdstarr@panix.com (William December Starr) - 2015-10-02 22:38 -0400
Re: green stars Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> - 2015-10-03 17:37 -0400
Re: green stars Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taustinca@gmail.com> - 2015-10-03 14:52 -0700
Re: green stars The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-10-05 01:17 -0700
Re: green stars Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> - 2015-10-05 14:04 -0400
Re: green stars The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-10-05 12:58 -0700
Re: green stars The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-10-05 23:52 -0700
Re: green stars The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-10-06 10:24 -0700
Re: green stars The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-10-06 12:35 -0700
Re: green stars The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-10-06 15:15 -0700
Re: green stars The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-10-06 15:31 -0700
Re: green stars The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-10-06 23:12 -0700
Re: green stars The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-10-06 23:34 -0700
Re: green stars The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-10-07 00:49 -0700
Re: green stars The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-10-08 21:24 -0700
Re: green stars The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-10-05 01:39 -0700
Re: green stars The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-10-05 01:55 -0700
Re: green stars Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-10-08 20:31 -0700
Page 4 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 Next page →
| From | Lofty Goat <rlwatkins@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-05 19:08 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <yNWdnWcApceOjI7LnZ2dnUU7-NmdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #424197 |
On Mon, 05 Oct 2015 13:02:41 +0000, jmfbahciv wrote: > ... I always thought that computers were invented so engineers didn't > have to do arithmetic.... I've been working with computers for 40+ years. Why? I was studying mechanical engineering, and I was terrible at arithmetic. (... And when I dropped out of high-school, no one was hiring sixteen-year- old baby engineers, but programmers that age were almost de rigueur.) -- Goat
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-05 17:20 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <561313c8$0$1658$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net> |
| In reply to | #424197 |
On 10/5/2015 6:02 AM, jmfbahciv wrote: > Dorothy J Heydt wrote: >> In article <PM00052148602F2733@aca41f97.ipt.aol.com>, >> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote: >>> Dorothy J Heydt wrote: >>>> In article <mur018$5ei$1@panix3.panix.com>, >>>> William December Starr <wdstarr@panix.com> wrote: >>>>> In article <nvnzI5.15Dv@kithrup.com>, >>>>> djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) said: >>>>> >>>>>> I managed to get an A in my one physics course (Physics 10, aka >>>>>> Bonehead Physics), but I do not understand anything past Newton. >>>>>> I haven't had to. I take it on faith. >>>>> >>>>> Did you drop a '1' off the end of that, or was the course really >>>>> "Physics [ten]?" >>>> >>>> Yes. >>>> >>>> Its official title, I think, was "physics for Humanities Majors". >>>> Everybody enrolled in the College of Letters and Sciences, who >>>> wasn't actually majoring in a science, had to take it. In a >>>> similar way, those majoring in math or sciences, if they couldn't >>>> pass a basic entrance exam in written English (in which case >>>> they'd take the standard lower-division English courses like the >>>> rest of us) would take English 10, which of course was called >>>> Bonehead English. >>>> >>>> Mind you, this was nearly sixty years ago; I don't know what they >>>> do now. >>>> >>> When I went to college, we were required to take an Honors Physics >>> course which was real physics without using calculus. The art >>> majors were not interested in the course until they figured out >>> it helped them with their art which was mostly drawing and >>> painting. >> >> We did not, thank heaven, have to use calculus. Just algebra. >> At which I was not very good either. >> >> I know I've told this story before, but it's been a while. If >> you remember it from last time, hit 'n' now. >> >> I was living in a rooming house where we did our own cooking. >> There was a kitchen on the ground floor and another (small) >> kitchen on the third floor, where I lived. One of my housemates >> was not only taking Physics 10 when I was, but we had the same >> section with the same TA. So we got the same problem sets, which >> the TA handed out at the Tuesday section and got back at the >> Thursday section. >> >> So every Wednesday evening she and I would settle down in the >> third-floor kitchen and do the problem sets. She had, and knew >> how to use, a slide rule. I didn't. >> >> So we would both read the problem, and I would set up the >> equation, and she would solve it with her slide rule. We would >> thus have exactly the same answers on our problem sets, and get >> the same grades on them. We got some credit toward our final >> grade from the problem sets, more from the midterm, and a lot >> more from the final. >> >> Came the final, and we were put into a much larger room than we'd >> taken the class in, so we could be separated from one another by >> several seats; standard procedure. Memory tells me now that >> there were several hundred problems to solve; it was probably >> more like 100. And there I sat, with no slide rule, just basic >> arithmetic, at which I have always stunk. (And there were no >> electronic calculators, back in the early 1950s.) >> >> After a moment of despair, I reasoned, "Well, this is a physics >> class, not a math class, so if I set up all the equations and >> then solve as many as there's time for by brute force and scratch >> paper, I'll get at least partial credit." So I did that. > > That's how engineers do it :-). Crunching numbers is left > as an exercise for computers. I always thought that computers > were invented so engineers didn't have to do arithmetic. ;-) > No, the ORIGINAL computers were kept around because the male engineers liked having pretty girls to look at and hit on. -- Even Confucius complained about the younger generation's music.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-06 01:09 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nvrxvo.qrs@kithrup.com> |
| In reply to | #424216 |
In article <561313c8$0$1658$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>, Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote: >On 10/5/2015 6:02 AM, jmfbahciv wrote: >> Dorothy J Heydt wrote: >>> In article <PM00052148602F2733@aca41f97.ipt.aol.com>, >>> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote: >>>> Dorothy J Heydt wrote: >>>>> In article <mur018$5ei$1@panix3.panix.com>, >>>>> William December Starr <wdstarr@panix.com> wrote: >>>>>> In article <nvnzI5.15Dv@kithrup.com>, >>>>>> djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) said: >>>>>> >>>>>>> I managed to get an A in my one physics course (Physics 10, aka >>>>>>> Bonehead Physics), but I do not understand anything past Newton. >>>>>>> I haven't had to. I take it on faith. >>>>>> >>>>>> Did you drop a '1' off the end of that, or was the course really >>>>>> "Physics [ten]?" >>>>> >>>>> Yes. >>>>> >>>>> Its official title, I think, was "physics for Humanities Majors". >>>>> Everybody enrolled in the College of Letters and Sciences, who >>>>> wasn't actually majoring in a science, had to take it. In a >>>>> similar way, those majoring in math or sciences, if they couldn't >>>>> pass a basic entrance exam in written English (in which case >>>>> they'd take the standard lower-division English courses like the >>>>> rest of us) would take English 10, which of course was called >>>>> Bonehead English. >>>>> >>>>> Mind you, this was nearly sixty years ago; I don't know what they >>>>> do now. >>>>> >>>> When I went to college, we were required to take an Honors Physics >>>> course which was real physics without using calculus. The art >>>> majors were not interested in the course until they figured out >>>> it helped them with their art which was mostly drawing and >>>> painting. >>> >>> We did not, thank heaven, have to use calculus. Just algebra. >>> At which I was not very good either. >>> >>> I know I've told this story before, but it's been a while. If >>> you remember it from last time, hit 'n' now. >>> >>> I was living in a rooming house where we did our own cooking. >>> There was a kitchen on the ground floor and another (small) >>> kitchen on the third floor, where I lived. One of my housemates >>> was not only taking Physics 10 when I was, but we had the same >>> section with the same TA. So we got the same problem sets, which >>> the TA handed out at the Tuesday section and got back at the >>> Thursday section. >>> >>> So every Wednesday evening she and I would settle down in the >>> third-floor kitchen and do the problem sets. She had, and knew >>> how to use, a slide rule. I didn't. >>> >>> So we would both read the problem, and I would set up the >>> equation, and she would solve it with her slide rule. We would >>> thus have exactly the same answers on our problem sets, and get >>> the same grades on them. We got some credit toward our final >>> grade from the problem sets, more from the midterm, and a lot >>> more from the final. >>> >>> Came the final, and we were put into a much larger room than we'd >>> taken the class in, so we could be separated from one another by >>> several seats; standard procedure. Memory tells me now that >>> there were several hundred problems to solve; it was probably >>> more like 100. And there I sat, with no slide rule, just basic >>> arithmetic, at which I have always stunk. (And there were no >>> electronic calculators, back in the early 1950s.) >>> >>> After a moment of despair, I reasoned, "Well, this is a physics >>> class, not a math class, so if I set up all the equations and >>> then solve as many as there's time for by brute force and scratch >>> paper, I'll get at least partial credit." So I did that. >> >> That's how engineers do it :-). Crunching numbers is left >> as an exercise for computers. I always thought that computers >> were invented so engineers didn't have to do arithmetic. ;-) >> >No, the ORIGINAL computers were kept around because the male engineers >liked having pretty girls to look at and hit on. You mean, like, Grace Hopper? -- Dorothy J. Heydt Vallejo, California djheydt at gmail dot com Should you wish to email me, you'd better use the gmail edress. Kithrup's all spammy and hotmail's been hacked.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-05 22:21 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.307cfa28601fd2fd989b99@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #424217 |
In article <nvrxvo.qrs@kithrup.com>, djheydt@kithrup.com says... > > In article <561313c8$0$1658$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>, > Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote: > >On 10/5/2015 6:02 AM, jmfbahciv wrote: > >> Dorothy J Heydt wrote: > >>> In article <PM00052148602F2733@aca41f97.ipt.aol.com>, > >>> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote: > >>>> Dorothy J Heydt wrote: > >>>>> In article <mur018$5ei$1@panix3.panix.com>, > >>>>> William December Starr <wdstarr@panix.com> wrote: > >>>>>> In article <nvnzI5.15Dv@kithrup.com>, > >>>>>> djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) said: > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> I managed to get an A in my one physics course (Physics 10, aka > >>>>>>> Bonehead Physics), but I do not understand anything past Newton. > >>>>>>> I haven't had to. I take it on faith. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Did you drop a '1' off the end of that, or was the course really > >>>>>> "Physics [ten]?" > >>>>> > >>>>> Yes. > >>>>> > >>>>> Its official title, I think, was "physics for Humanities Majors". > >>>>> Everybody enrolled in the College of Letters and Sciences, who > >>>>> wasn't actually majoring in a science, had to take it. In a > >>>>> similar way, those majoring in math or sciences, if they couldn't > >>>>> pass a basic entrance exam in written English (in which case > >>>>> they'd take the standard lower-division English courses like the > >>>>> rest of us) would take English 10, which of course was called > >>>>> Bonehead English. > >>>>> > >>>>> Mind you, this was nearly sixty years ago; I don't know what they > >>>>> do now. > >>>>> > >>>> When I went to college, we were required to take an Honors Physics > >>>> course which was real physics without using calculus. The art > >>>> majors were not interested in the course until they figured out > >>>> it helped them with their art which was mostly drawing and > >>>> painting. > >>> > >>> We did not, thank heaven, have to use calculus. Just algebra. > >>> At which I was not very good either. > >>> > >>> I know I've told this story before, but it's been a while. If > >>> you remember it from last time, hit 'n' now. > >>> > >>> I was living in a rooming house where we did our own cooking. > >>> There was a kitchen on the ground floor and another (small) > >>> kitchen on the third floor, where I lived. One of my housemates > >>> was not only taking Physics 10 when I was, but we had the same > >>> section with the same TA. So we got the same problem sets, which > >>> the TA handed out at the Tuesday section and got back at the > >>> Thursday section. > >>> > >>> So every Wednesday evening she and I would settle down in the > >>> third-floor kitchen and do the problem sets. She had, and knew > >>> how to use, a slide rule. I didn't. > >>> > >>> So we would both read the problem, and I would set up the > >>> equation, and she would solve it with her slide rule. We would > >>> thus have exactly the same answers on our problem sets, and get > >>> the same grades on them. We got some credit toward our final > >>> grade from the problem sets, more from the midterm, and a lot > >>> more from the final. > >>> > >>> Came the final, and we were put into a much larger room than we'd > >>> taken the class in, so we could be separated from one another by > >>> several seats; standard procedure. Memory tells me now that > >>> there were several hundred problems to solve; it was probably > >>> more like 100. And there I sat, with no slide rule, just basic > >>> arithmetic, at which I have always stunk. (And there were no > >>> electronic calculators, back in the early 1950s.) > >>> > >>> After a moment of despair, I reasoned, "Well, this is a physics > >>> class, not a math class, so if I set up all the equations and > >>> then solve as many as there's time for by brute force and scratch > >>> paper, I'll get at least partial credit." So I did that. > >> > >> That's how engineers do it :-). Crunching numbers is left > >> as an exercise for computers. I always thought that computers > >> were invented so engineers didn't have to do arithmetic. ;-) > >> > >No, the ORIGINAL computers were kept around because the male engineers > >liked having pretty girls to look at and hit on. > > You mean, like, Grace Hopper? Grace Hopper built computers, she wasn't one herself.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-06 02:33 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nvs1sF.yMJ@kithrup.com> |
| In reply to | #424218 |
In article <MPG.307cfa28601fd2fd989b99@news.eternal-september.org>, J. Clarke <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote: >In article <nvrxvo.qrs@kithrup.com>, djheydt@kithrup.com says... >> >> In article <561313c8$0$1658$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>, >> Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote: >> >On 10/5/2015 6:02 AM, jmfbahciv wrote: >> >> Dorothy J Heydt wrote: >> >>> In article <PM00052148602F2733@aca41f97.ipt.aol.com>, >> >>> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote: >> >>>> Dorothy J Heydt wrote: >> >>>>> In article <mur018$5ei$1@panix3.panix.com>, >> >>>>> William December Starr <wdstarr@panix.com> wrote: >> >>>>>> In article <nvnzI5.15Dv@kithrup.com>, >> >>>>>> djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) said: >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>>> I managed to get an A in my one physics course (Physics 10, aka >> >>>>>>> Bonehead Physics), but I do not understand anything past Newton. >> >>>>>>> I haven't had to. I take it on faith. >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> Did you drop a '1' off the end of that, or was the course really >> >>>>>> "Physics [ten]?" >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Yes. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Its official title, I think, was "physics for Humanities Majors". >> >>>>> Everybody enrolled in the College of Letters and Sciences, who >> >>>>> wasn't actually majoring in a science, had to take it. In a >> >>>>> similar way, those majoring in math or sciences, if they couldn't >> >>>>> pass a basic entrance exam in written English (in which case >> >>>>> they'd take the standard lower-division English courses like the >> >>>>> rest of us) would take English 10, which of course was called >> >>>>> Bonehead English. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Mind you, this was nearly sixty years ago; I don't know what they >> >>>>> do now. >> >>>>> >> >>>> When I went to college, we were required to take an Honors Physics >> >>>> course which was real physics without using calculus. The art >> >>>> majors were not interested in the course until they figured out >> >>>> it helped them with their art which was mostly drawing and >> >>>> painting. >> >>> >> >>> We did not, thank heaven, have to use calculus. Just algebra. >> >>> At which I was not very good either. >> >>> >> >>> I know I've told this story before, but it's been a while. If >> >>> you remember it from last time, hit 'n' now. >> >>> >> >>> I was living in a rooming house where we did our own cooking. >> >>> There was a kitchen on the ground floor and another (small) >> >>> kitchen on the third floor, where I lived. One of my housemates >> >>> was not only taking Physics 10 when I was, but we had the same >> >>> section with the same TA. So we got the same problem sets, which >> >>> the TA handed out at the Tuesday section and got back at the >> >>> Thursday section. >> >>> >> >>> So every Wednesday evening she and I would settle down in the >> >>> third-floor kitchen and do the problem sets. She had, and knew >> >>> how to use, a slide rule. I didn't. >> >>> >> >>> So we would both read the problem, and I would set up the >> >>> equation, and she would solve it with her slide rule. We would >> >>> thus have exactly the same answers on our problem sets, and get >> >>> the same grades on them. We got some credit toward our final >> >>> grade from the problem sets, more from the midterm, and a lot >> >>> more from the final. >> >>> >> >>> Came the final, and we were put into a much larger room than we'd >> >>> taken the class in, so we could be separated from one another by >> >>> several seats; standard procedure. Memory tells me now that >> >>> there were several hundred problems to solve; it was probably >> >>> more like 100. And there I sat, with no slide rule, just basic >> >>> arithmetic, at which I have always stunk. (And there were no >> >>> electronic calculators, back in the early 1950s.) >> >>> >> >>> After a moment of despair, I reasoned, "Well, this is a physics >> >>> class, not a math class, so if I set up all the equations and >> >>> then solve as many as there's time for by brute force and scratch >> >>> paper, I'll get at least partial credit." So I did that. >> >> >> >> That's how engineers do it :-). Crunching numbers is left >> >> as an exercise for computers. I always thought that computers >> >> were invented so engineers didn't have to do arithmetic. ;-) >> >> >> >No, the ORIGINAL computers were kept around because the male engineers >> >liked having pretty girls to look at and hit on. >> >> You mean, like, Grace Hopper? > >Grace Hopper built computers, she wasn't one herself. Oh, I see, you're using "computer" meaning "the person who does calculations." E. E. Smith used that too, only his computers were all guys. -- Dorothy J. Heydt Vallejo, California djheydt at gmail dot com Should you wish to email me, you'd better use the gmail edress. Kithrup's all spammy and hotmail's been hacked.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-05 23:03 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.307d0427bcf382fa989b9a@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #424219 |
In article <nvs1sF.yMJ@kithrup.com>, djheydt@kithrup.com says... > > In article <MPG.307cfa28601fd2fd989b99@news.eternal-september.org>, > J. Clarke <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote: > >In article <nvrxvo.qrs@kithrup.com>, djheydt@kithrup.com says... > >> > >> In article <561313c8$0$1658$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>, > >> Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote: > >> >On 10/5/2015 6:02 AM, jmfbahciv wrote: > >> >> Dorothy J Heydt wrote: > >> >>> In article <PM00052148602F2733@aca41f97.ipt.aol.com>, > >> >>> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote: > >> >>>> Dorothy J Heydt wrote: > >> >>>>> In article <mur018$5ei$1@panix3.panix.com>, > >> >>>>> William December Starr <wdstarr@panix.com> wrote: > >> >>>>>> In article <nvnzI5.15Dv@kithrup.com>, > >> >>>>>> djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) said: > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> I managed to get an A in my one physics course (Physics 10, aka > >> >>>>>>> Bonehead Physics), but I do not understand anything past Newton. > >> >>>>>>> I haven't had to. I take it on faith. > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> Did you drop a '1' off the end of that, or was the course really > >> >>>>>> "Physics [ten]?" > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> Yes. > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> Its official title, I think, was "physics for Humanities Majors". > >> >>>>> Everybody enrolled in the College of Letters and Sciences, who > >> >>>>> wasn't actually majoring in a science, had to take it. In a > >> >>>>> similar way, those majoring in math or sciences, if they couldn't > >> >>>>> pass a basic entrance exam in written English (in which case > >> >>>>> they'd take the standard lower-division English courses like the > >> >>>>> rest of us) would take English 10, which of course was called > >> >>>>> Bonehead English. > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> Mind you, this was nearly sixty years ago; I don't know what they > >> >>>>> do now. > >> >>>>> > >> >>>> When I went to college, we were required to take an Honors Physics > >> >>>> course which was real physics without using calculus. The art > >> >>>> majors were not interested in the course until they figured out > >> >>>> it helped them with their art which was mostly drawing and > >> >>>> painting. > >> >>> > >> >>> We did not, thank heaven, have to use calculus. Just algebra. > >> >>> At which I was not very good either. > >> >>> > >> >>> I know I've told this story before, but it's been a while. If > >> >>> you remember it from last time, hit 'n' now. > >> >>> > >> >>> I was living in a rooming house where we did our own cooking. > >> >>> There was a kitchen on the ground floor and another (small) > >> >>> kitchen on the third floor, where I lived. One of my housemates > >> >>> was not only taking Physics 10 when I was, but we had the same > >> >>> section with the same TA. So we got the same problem sets, which > >> >>> the TA handed out at the Tuesday section and got back at the > >> >>> Thursday section. > >> >>> > >> >>> So every Wednesday evening she and I would settle down in the > >> >>> third-floor kitchen and do the problem sets. She had, and knew > >> >>> how to use, a slide rule. I didn't. > >> >>> > >> >>> So we would both read the problem, and I would set up the > >> >>> equation, and she would solve it with her slide rule. We would > >> >>> thus have exactly the same answers on our problem sets, and get > >> >>> the same grades on them. We got some credit toward our final > >> >>> grade from the problem sets, more from the midterm, and a lot > >> >>> more from the final. > >> >>> > >> >>> Came the final, and we were put into a much larger room than we'd > >> >>> taken the class in, so we could be separated from one another by > >> >>> several seats; standard procedure. Memory tells me now that > >> >>> there were several hundred problems to solve; it was probably > >> >>> more like 100. And there I sat, with no slide rule, just basic > >> >>> arithmetic, at which I have always stunk. (And there were no > >> >>> electronic calculators, back in the early 1950s.) > >> >>> > >> >>> After a moment of despair, I reasoned, "Well, this is a physics > >> >>> class, not a math class, so if I set up all the equations and > >> >>> then solve as many as there's time for by brute force and scratch > >> >>> paper, I'll get at least partial credit." So I did that. > >> >> > >> >> That's how engineers do it :-). Crunching numbers is left > >> >> as an exercise for computers. I always thought that computers > >> >> were invented so engineers didn't have to do arithmetic. ;-) > >> >> > >> >No, the ORIGINAL computers were kept around because the male engineers > >> >liked having pretty girls to look at and hit on. > >> > >> You mean, like, Grace Hopper? > > > >Grace Hopper built computers, she wasn't one herself. > > Oh, I see, you're using "computer" meaning "the person who does > calculations." E. E. Smith used that too, only his computers > were all guys. People today don't realize that "computer" used to be a job title. Although rather than "cute girls", the people I knew who remembered that era usually described them as "little old ladies in green eyeshades".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-05 22:03 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5613563c$0$1649$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net> |
| In reply to | #424220 |
On 10/5/2015 8:03 PM, J. Clarke wrote: > In article <nvs1sF.yMJ@kithrup.com>, djheydt@kithrup.com says... >> >> In article <MPG.307cfa28601fd2fd989b99@news.eternal-september.org>, >> J. Clarke <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote: >>> In article <nvrxvo.qrs@kithrup.com>, djheydt@kithrup.com says... >>>> >>>> In article <561313c8$0$1658$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>, >>>> Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote: >>>>> On 10/5/2015 6:02 AM, jmfbahciv wrote: >>>>>> Dorothy J Heydt wrote: >>>>>>> In article <PM00052148602F2733@aca41f97.ipt.aol.com>, >>>>>>> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> Dorothy J Heydt wrote: >>>>>>>>> In article <mur018$5ei$1@panix3.panix.com>, >>>>>>>>> William December Starr <wdstarr@panix.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> In article <nvnzI5.15Dv@kithrup.com>, >>>>>>>>>> djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) said: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I managed to get an A in my one physics course (Physics 10, aka >>>>>>>>>>> Bonehead Physics), but I do not understand anything past Newton. >>>>>>>>>>> I haven't had to. I take it on faith. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Did you drop a '1' off the end of that, or was the course really >>>>>>>>>> "Physics [ten]?" >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Yes. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Its official title, I think, was "physics for Humanities Majors". >>>>>>>>> Everybody enrolled in the College of Letters and Sciences, who >>>>>>>>> wasn't actually majoring in a science, had to take it. In a >>>>>>>>> similar way, those majoring in math or sciences, if they couldn't >>>>>>>>> pass a basic entrance exam in written English (in which case >>>>>>>>> they'd take the standard lower-division English courses like the >>>>>>>>> rest of us) would take English 10, which of course was called >>>>>>>>> Bonehead English. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Mind you, this was nearly sixty years ago; I don't know what they >>>>>>>>> do now. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> When I went to college, we were required to take an Honors Physics >>>>>>>> course which was real physics without using calculus. The art >>>>>>>> majors were not interested in the course until they figured out >>>>>>>> it helped them with their art which was mostly drawing and >>>>>>>> painting. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> We did not, thank heaven, have to use calculus. Just algebra. >>>>>>> At which I was not very good either. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I know I've told this story before, but it's been a while. If >>>>>>> you remember it from last time, hit 'n' now. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I was living in a rooming house where we did our own cooking. >>>>>>> There was a kitchen on the ground floor and another (small) >>>>>>> kitchen on the third floor, where I lived. One of my housemates >>>>>>> was not only taking Physics 10 when I was, but we had the same >>>>>>> section with the same TA. So we got the same problem sets, which >>>>>>> the TA handed out at the Tuesday section and got back at the >>>>>>> Thursday section. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So every Wednesday evening she and I would settle down in the >>>>>>> third-floor kitchen and do the problem sets. She had, and knew >>>>>>> how to use, a slide rule. I didn't. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So we would both read the problem, and I would set up the >>>>>>> equation, and she would solve it with her slide rule. We would >>>>>>> thus have exactly the same answers on our problem sets, and get >>>>>>> the same grades on them. We got some credit toward our final >>>>>>> grade from the problem sets, more from the midterm, and a lot >>>>>>> more from the final. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Came the final, and we were put into a much larger room than we'd >>>>>>> taken the class in, so we could be separated from one another by >>>>>>> several seats; standard procedure. Memory tells me now that >>>>>>> there were several hundred problems to solve; it was probably >>>>>>> more like 100. And there I sat, with no slide rule, just basic >>>>>>> arithmetic, at which I have always stunk. (And there were no >>>>>>> electronic calculators, back in the early 1950s.) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> After a moment of despair, I reasoned, "Well, this is a physics >>>>>>> class, not a math class, so if I set up all the equations and >>>>>>> then solve as many as there's time for by brute force and scratch >>>>>>> paper, I'll get at least partial credit." So I did that. >>>>>> >>>>>> That's how engineers do it :-). Crunching numbers is left >>>>>> as an exercise for computers. I always thought that computers >>>>>> were invented so engineers didn't have to do arithmetic. ;-) >>>>>> >>>>> No, the ORIGINAL computers were kept around because the male engineers >>>>> liked having pretty girls to look at and hit on. >>>> >>>> You mean, like, Grace Hopper? >>> >>> Grace Hopper built computers, she wasn't one herself. >> >> Oh, I see, you're using "computer" meaning "the person who does >> calculations." E. E. Smith used that too, only his computers >> were all guys. > > People today don't realize that "computer" used to be a job title. > Although rather than "cute girls", the people I knew who remembered that > era usually described them as "little old ladies in green eyeshades". > Well, engineers may not have always gotten what they wanted. :D -- Even Confucius complained about the younger generation's music.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Wayne Brown <fwbrown@bellsouth.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-08 19:38 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mv6gnp$5u2$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #424220 |
In rec.arts.sf.written J. Clarke <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
> In article <nvs1sF.yMJ@kithrup.com>, djheydt@kithrup.com says...
>>
>> In article <MPG.307cfa28601fd2fd989b99@news.eternal-september.org>,
>> J. Clarke <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >In article <nvrxvo.qrs@kithrup.com>, djheydt@kithrup.com says...
>> >>
>> >> In article <561313c8$0$1658$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>,
>> >> Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
>> >> >On 10/5/2015 6:02 AM, jmfbahciv wrote:
>> >> >> Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
>> >> >>> In article <PM00052148602F2733@aca41f97.ipt.aol.com>,
>> >> >>> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote:
>> >> >>>> Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
>> >> >>>>> In article <mur018$5ei$1@panix3.panix.com>,
>> >> >>>>> William December Starr <wdstarr@panix.com> wrote:
>> >> >>>>>> In article <nvnzI5.15Dv@kithrup.com>,
>> >> >>>>>> djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) said:
>> >> >>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>> I managed to get an A in my one physics course (Physics 10, aka
>> >> >>>>>>> Bonehead Physics), but I do not understand anything past Newton.
>> >> >>>>>>> I haven't had to. I take it on faith.
>> >> >>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>> Did you drop a '1' off the end of that, or was the course really
>> >> >>>>>> "Physics [ten]?"
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>> Yes.
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>> Its official title, I think, was "physics for Humanities Majors".
>> >> >>>>> Everybody enrolled in the College of Letters and Sciences, who
>> >> >>>>> wasn't actually majoring in a science, had to take it. In a
>> >> >>>>> similar way, those majoring in math or sciences, if they couldn't
>> >> >>>>> pass a basic entrance exam in written English (in which case
>> >> >>>>> they'd take the standard lower-division English courses like the
>> >> >>>>> rest of us) would take English 10, which of course was called
>> >> >>>>> Bonehead English.
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>> Mind you, this was nearly sixty years ago; I don't know what they
>> >> >>>>> do now.
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>> When I went to college, we were required to take an Honors Physics
>> >> >>>> course which was real physics without using calculus. The art
>> >> >>>> majors were not interested in the course until they figured out
>> >> >>>> it helped them with their art which was mostly drawing and
>> >> >>>> painting.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> We did not, thank heaven, have to use calculus. Just algebra.
>> >> >>> At which I was not very good either.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> I know I've told this story before, but it's been a while. If
>> >> >>> you remember it from last time, hit 'n' now.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> I was living in a rooming house where we did our own cooking.
>> >> >>> There was a kitchen on the ground floor and another (small)
>> >> >>> kitchen on the third floor, where I lived. One of my housemates
>> >> >>> was not only taking Physics 10 when I was, but we had the same
>> >> >>> section with the same TA. So we got the same problem sets, which
>> >> >>> the TA handed out at the Tuesday section and got back at the
>> >> >>> Thursday section.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> So every Wednesday evening she and I would settle down in the
>> >> >>> third-floor kitchen and do the problem sets. She had, and knew
>> >> >>> how to use, a slide rule. I didn't.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> So we would both read the problem, and I would set up the
>> >> >>> equation, and she would solve it with her slide rule. We would
>> >> >>> thus have exactly the same answers on our problem sets, and get
>> >> >>> the same grades on them. We got some credit toward our final
>> >> >>> grade from the problem sets, more from the midterm, and a lot
>> >> >>> more from the final.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> Came the final, and we were put into a much larger room than we'd
>> >> >>> taken the class in, so we could be separated from one another by
>> >> >>> several seats; standard procedure. Memory tells me now that
>> >> >>> there were several hundred problems to solve; it was probably
>> >> >>> more like 100. And there I sat, with no slide rule, just basic
>> >> >>> arithmetic, at which I have always stunk. (And there were no
>> >> >>> electronic calculators, back in the early 1950s.)
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> After a moment of despair, I reasoned, "Well, this is a physics
>> >> >>> class, not a math class, so if I set up all the equations and
>> >> >>> then solve as many as there's time for by brute force and scratch
>> >> >>> paper, I'll get at least partial credit." So I did that.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> That's how engineers do it :-). Crunching numbers is left
>> >> >> as an exercise for computers. I always thought that computers
>> >> >> were invented so engineers didn't have to do arithmetic. ;-)
>> >> >>
>> >> >No, the ORIGINAL computers were kept around because the male engineers
>> >> >liked having pretty girls to look at and hit on.
>> >>
>> >> You mean, like, Grace Hopper?
>> >
>> >Grace Hopper built computers, she wasn't one herself.
>>
>> Oh, I see, you're using "computer" meaning "the person who does
>> calculations." E. E. Smith used that too, only his computers
>> were all guys.
>
> People today don't realize that "computer" used to be a job title.
> Although rather than "cute girls", the people I knew who remembered that
> era usually described them as "little old ladies in green eyeshades".
Here are some of those computers at work:
http://creative-automata.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/humancomputer.jpg
--
F. Wayne Brown <fwbrown@bellsouth.net>
ur sag9-ga ur-tur-še3 ba-an-kur9
"A dog that is played with turns into a puppy." (Sumerian proverb)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-08 22:19 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nvxA13.1BHw@kithrup.com> |
| In reply to | #424337 |
In article <mv6gnp$5u2$1@dont-email.me>, Wayne Brown <fwbrown@bellsouth.net> wrote: >In rec.arts.sf.written J. Clarke <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote: >> In article <nvs1sF.yMJ@kithrup.com>, djheydt@kithrup.com says... >>> >>> In article <MPG.307cfa28601fd2fd989b99@news.eternal-september.org>, >>> J. Clarke <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >In article <nvrxvo.qrs@kithrup.com>, djheydt@kithrup.com says... >>> >> >>> >> In article <561313c8$0$1658$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>, >>> >> Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote: >>> >> >On 10/5/2015 6:02 AM, jmfbahciv wrote: >>> >> >> Dorothy J Heydt wrote: >>> >> >>> In article <PM00052148602F2733@aca41f97.ipt.aol.com>, >>> >> >>> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote: >>> >> >>>> Dorothy J Heydt wrote: >>> >> >>>>> In article <mur018$5ei$1@panix3.panix.com>, >>> >> >>>>> William December Starr <wdstarr@panix.com> wrote: >>> >> >>>>>> In article <nvnzI5.15Dv@kithrup.com>, >>> >> >>>>>> djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) said: >>> >> >>>>>> >>> >> >>>>>>> I managed to get an A in my one physics course (Physics 10, aka >>> >> >>>>>>> Bonehead Physics), but I do not understand anything past Newton. >>> >> >>>>>>> I haven't had to. I take it on faith. >>> >> >>>>>> >>> >> >>>>>> Did you drop a '1' off the end of that, or was the course really >>> >> >>>>>> "Physics [ten]?" >>> >> >>>>> >>> >> >>>>> Yes. >>> >> >>>>> >>> >> >>>>> Its official title, I think, was "physics for Humanities Majors". >>> >> >>>>> Everybody enrolled in the College of Letters and Sciences, who >>> >> >>>>> wasn't actually majoring in a science, had to take it. In a >>> >> >>>>> similar way, those majoring in math or sciences, if they couldn't >>> >> >>>>> pass a basic entrance exam in written English (in which case >>> >> >>>>> they'd take the standard lower-division English courses like the >>> >> >>>>> rest of us) would take English 10, which of course was called >>> >> >>>>> Bonehead English. >>> >> >>>>> >>> >> >>>>> Mind you, this was nearly sixty years ago; I don't know what they >>> >> >>>>> do now. >>> >> >>>>> >>> >> >>>> When I went to college, we were required to take an Honors Physics >>> >> >>>> course which was real physics without using calculus. The art >>> >> >>>> majors were not interested in the course until they figured out >>> >> >>>> it helped them with their art which was mostly drawing and >>> >> >>>> painting. >>> >> >>> >>> >> >>> We did not, thank heaven, have to use calculus. Just algebra. >>> >> >>> At which I was not very good either. >>> >> >>> >>> >> >>> I know I've told this story before, but it's been a while. If >>> >> >>> you remember it from last time, hit 'n' now. >>> >> >>> >>> >> >>> I was living in a rooming house where we did our own cooking. >>> >> >>> There was a kitchen on the ground floor and another (small) >>> >> >>> kitchen on the third floor, where I lived. One of my housemates >>> >> >>> was not only taking Physics 10 when I was, but we had the same >>> >> >>> section with the same TA. So we got the same problem sets, which >>> >> >>> the TA handed out at the Tuesday section and got back at the >>> >> >>> Thursday section. >>> >> >>> >>> >> >>> So every Wednesday evening she and I would settle down in the >>> >> >>> third-floor kitchen and do the problem sets. She had, and knew >>> >> >>> how to use, a slide rule. I didn't. >>> >> >>> >>> >> >>> So we would both read the problem, and I would set up the >>> >> >>> equation, and she would solve it with her slide rule. We would >>> >> >>> thus have exactly the same answers on our problem sets, and get >>> >> >>> the same grades on them. We got some credit toward our final >>> >> >>> grade from the problem sets, more from the midterm, and a lot >>> >> >>> more from the final. >>> >> >>> >>> >> >>> Came the final, and we were put into a much larger room than we'd >>> >> >>> taken the class in, so we could be separated from one another by >>> >> >>> several seats; standard procedure. Memory tells me now that >>> >> >>> there were several hundred problems to solve; it was probably >>> >> >>> more like 100. And there I sat, with no slide rule, just basic >>> >> >>> arithmetic, at which I have always stunk. (And there were no >>> >> >>> electronic calculators, back in the early 1950s.) >>> >> >>> >>> >> >>> After a moment of despair, I reasoned, "Well, this is a physics >>> >> >>> class, not a math class, so if I set up all the equations and >>> >> >>> then solve as many as there's time for by brute force and scratch >>> >> >>> paper, I'll get at least partial credit." So I did that. >>> >> >> >>> >> >> That's how engineers do it :-). Crunching numbers is left >>> >> >> as an exercise for computers. I always thought that computers >>> >> >> were invented so engineers didn't have to do arithmetic. ;-) >>> >> >> >>> >> >No, the ORIGINAL computers were kept around because the male engineers >>> >> >liked having pretty girls to look at and hit on. >>> >> >>> >> You mean, like, Grace Hopper? >>> > >>> >Grace Hopper built computers, she wasn't one herself. >>> >>> Oh, I see, you're using "computer" meaning "the person who does >>> calculations." E. E. Smith used that too, only his computers >>> were all guys. >> >> People today don't realize that "computer" used to be a job title. >> Although rather than "cute girls", the people I knew who remembered that >> era usually described them as "little old ladies in green eyeshades". > >Here are some of those computers at work: > >http://creative-automata.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/humancomputer.jpg > Gosh. Do you know the date of that photograph? The hairstyles look sort of 1930s, but their skirts reach to the ground. 1910s maybe? -- Dorothy J. Heydt Vallejo, California djheydt at gmail dot com Should you wish to email me, you'd better use the gmail edress. Kithrup's all spammy and hotmail's been hacked.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-08 16:14 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5616F8D0.34AF@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #424344 |
Dorothy J Heydt wrote: > > In article <mv6gnp$5u2$1@dont-email.me>, > Wayne Brown <fwbrown@bellsouth.net> wrote: > >In rec.arts.sf.written J. Clarke <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote: > >> In article <nvs1sF.yMJ@kithrup.com>, djheydt@kithrup.com says... > >>> > >>> In article <MPG.307cfa28601fd2fd989b99@news.eternal-september.org>, > >>> J. Clarke <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> >In article <nvrxvo.qrs@kithrup.com>, djheydt@kithrup.com says... > >>> >> > >>> >> In article <561313c8$0$1658$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>, > >>> >> Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote: > >>> >> >On 10/5/2015 6:02 AM, jmfbahciv wrote: > >>> >> >> Dorothy J Heydt wrote: > >>> >> >>> In article <PM00052148602F2733@aca41f97.ipt.aol.com>, > >>> >> >>> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote: > >>> >> >>>> Dorothy J Heydt wrote: > >>> >> >>>>> In article <mur018$5ei$1@panix3.panix.com>, > >>> >> >>>>> William December Starr <wdstarr@panix.com> wrote: > >>> >> >>>>>> In article <nvnzI5.15Dv@kithrup.com>, > >>> >> >>>>>> djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) said: > >>> >> >>>>>> > >>> >> >>>>>>> I managed to get an A in my one physics course (Physics 10, aka > >>> >> >>>>>>> Bonehead Physics), but I do not understand anything past Newton. > >>> >> >>>>>>> I haven't had to. I take it on faith. > >>> >> >>>>>> > >>> >> >>>>>> Did you drop a '1' off the end of that, or was the course really > >>> >> >>>>>> "Physics [ten]?" > >>> >> >>>>> > >>> >> >>>>> Yes. > >>> >> >>>>> > >>> >> >>>>> Its official title, I think, was "physics for Humanities Majors". > >>> >> >>>>> Everybody enrolled in the College of Letters and Sciences, who > >>> >> >>>>> wasn't actually majoring in a science, had to take it. In a > >>> >> >>>>> similar way, those majoring in math or sciences, if they couldn't > >>> >> >>>>> pass a basic entrance exam in written English (in which case > >>> >> >>>>> they'd take the standard lower-division English courses like the > >>> >> >>>>> rest of us) would take English 10, which of course was called > >>> >> >>>>> Bonehead English. > >>> >> >>>>> > >>> >> >>>>> Mind you, this was nearly sixty years ago; I don't know what they > >>> >> >>>>> do now. > >>> >> >>>>> > >>> >> >>>> When I went to college, we were required to take an Honors Physics > >>> >> >>>> course which was real physics without using calculus. The art > >>> >> >>>> majors were not interested in the course until they figured out > >>> >> >>>> it helped them with their art which was mostly drawing and > >>> >> >>>> painting. > >>> >> >>> > >>> >> >>> We did not, thank heaven, have to use calculus. Just algebra. > >>> >> >>> At which I was not very good either. > >>> >> >>> > >>> >> >>> I know I've told this story before, but it's been a while. If > >>> >> >>> you remember it from last time, hit 'n' now. > >>> >> >>> > >>> >> >>> I was living in a rooming house where we did our own cooking. > >>> >> >>> There was a kitchen on the ground floor and another (small) > >>> >> >>> kitchen on the third floor, where I lived. One of my housemates > >>> >> >>> was not only taking Physics 10 when I was, but we had the same > >>> >> >>> section with the same TA. So we got the same problem sets, which > >>> >> >>> the TA handed out at the Tuesday section and got back at the > >>> >> >>> Thursday section. > >>> >> >>> > >>> >> >>> So every Wednesday evening she and I would settle down in the > >>> >> >>> third-floor kitchen and do the problem sets. She had, and knew > >>> >> >>> how to use, a slide rule. I didn't. > >>> >> >>> > >>> >> >>> So we would both read the problem, and I would set up the > >>> >> >>> equation, and she would solve it with her slide rule. We would > >>> >> >>> thus have exactly the same answers on our problem sets, and get > >>> >> >>> the same grades on them. We got some credit toward our final > >>> >> >>> grade from the problem sets, more from the midterm, and a lot > >>> >> >>> more from the final. > >>> >> >>> > >>> >> >>> Came the final, and we were put into a much larger room than we'd > >>> >> >>> taken the class in, so we could be separated from one another by > >>> >> >>> several seats; standard procedure. Memory tells me now that > >>> >> >>> there were several hundred problems to solve; it was probably > >>> >> >>> more like 100. And there I sat, with no slide rule, just basic > >>> >> >>> arithmetic, at which I have always stunk. (And there were no > >>> >> >>> electronic calculators, back in the early 1950s.) > >>> >> >>> > >>> >> >>> After a moment of despair, I reasoned, "Well, this is a physics > >>> >> >>> class, not a math class, so if I set up all the equations and > >>> >> >>> then solve as many as there's time for by brute force and scratch > >>> >> >>> paper, I'll get at least partial credit." So I did that. > >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> That's how engineers do it :-). Crunching numbers is left > >>> >> >> as an exercise for computers. I always thought that computers > >>> >> >> were invented so engineers didn't have to do arithmetic. ;-) > >>> >> >> > >>> >> >No, the ORIGINAL computers were kept around because the male engineers > >>> >> >liked having pretty girls to look at and hit on. > >>> >> > >>> >> You mean, like, Grace Hopper? > >>> > > >>> >Grace Hopper built computers, she wasn't one herself. > >>> > >>> Oh, I see, you're using "computer" meaning "the person who does > >>> calculations." E. E. Smith used that too, only his computers > >>> were all guys. > >> > >> People today don't realize that "computer" used to be a job title. > >> Although rather than "cute girls", the people I knew who remembered that > >> era usually described them as "little old ladies in green eyeshades". > > > >Here are some of those computers at work: > > > >http://creative-automata.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/humancomputer.jpg > > > > Gosh. Do you know the date of that photograph? The hairstyles > look sort of 1930s, but their skirts reach to the ground. 1910s > maybe? you're close...ww2
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-08 16:16 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5616F969.713B@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #424344 |
Dorothy J Heydt wrote: > > In article <mv6gnp$5u2$1@dont-email.me>, > Wayne Brown <fwbrown@bellsouth.net> wrote: > >In rec.arts.sf.written J. Clarke <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote: > >> In article <nvs1sF.yMJ@kithrup.com>, djheydt@kithrup.com says... > >>> > >>> In article <MPG.307cfa28601fd2fd989b99@news.eternal-september.org>, > >>> J. Clarke <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> >In article <nvrxvo.qrs@kithrup.com>, djheydt@kithrup.com says... > >>> >> > >>> >> In article <561313c8$0$1658$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>, > >>> >> Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote: > >>> >> >On 10/5/2015 6:02 AM, jmfbahciv wrote: > >>> >> >> Dorothy J Heydt wrote: > >>> >> >>> In article <PM00052148602F2733@aca41f97.ipt.aol.com>, > >>> >> >>> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote: > >>> >> >>>> Dorothy J Heydt wrote: > >>> >> >>>>> In article <mur018$5ei$1@panix3.panix.com>, > >>> >> >>>>> William December Starr <wdstarr@panix.com> wrote: > >>> >> >>>>>> In article <nvnzI5.15Dv@kithrup.com>, > >>> >> >>>>>> djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) said: > >>> >> >>>>>> > >>> >> >>>>>>> I managed to get an A in my one physics course (Physics 10, aka > >>> >> >>>>>>> Bonehead Physics), but I do not understand anything past Newton. > >>> >> >>>>>>> I haven't had to. I take it on faith. > >>> >> >>>>>> > >>> >> >>>>>> Did you drop a '1' off the end of that, or was the course really > >>> >> >>>>>> "Physics [ten]?" > >>> >> >>>>> > >>> >> >>>>> Yes. > >>> >> >>>>> > >>> >> >>>>> Its official title, I think, was "physics for Humanities Majors". > >>> >> >>>>> Everybody enrolled in the College of Letters and Sciences, who > >>> >> >>>>> wasn't actually majoring in a science, had to take it. In a > >>> >> >>>>> similar way, those majoring in math or sciences, if they couldn't > >>> >> >>>>> pass a basic entrance exam in written English (in which case > >>> >> >>>>> they'd take the standard lower-division English courses like the > >>> >> >>>>> rest of us) would take English 10, which of course was called > >>> >> >>>>> Bonehead English. > >>> >> >>>>> > >>> >> >>>>> Mind you, this was nearly sixty years ago; I don't know what they > >>> >> >>>>> do now. > >>> >> >>>>> > >>> >> >>>> When I went to college, we were required to take an Honors Physics > >>> >> >>>> course which was real physics without using calculus. The art > >>> >> >>>> majors were not interested in the course until they figured out > >>> >> >>>> it helped them with their art which was mostly drawing and > >>> >> >>>> painting. > >>> >> >>> > >>> >> >>> We did not, thank heaven, have to use calculus. Just algebra. > >>> >> >>> At which I was not very good either. > >>> >> >>> > >>> >> >>> I know I've told this story before, but it's been a while. If > >>> >> >>> you remember it from last time, hit 'n' now. > >>> >> >>> > >>> >> >>> I was living in a rooming house where we did our own cooking. > >>> >> >>> There was a kitchen on the ground floor and another (small) > >>> >> >>> kitchen on the third floor, where I lived. One of my housemates > >>> >> >>> was not only taking Physics 10 when I was, but we had the same > >>> >> >>> section with the same TA. So we got the same problem sets, which > >>> >> >>> the TA handed out at the Tuesday section and got back at the > >>> >> >>> Thursday section. > >>> >> >>> > >>> >> >>> So every Wednesday evening she and I would settle down in the > >>> >> >>> third-floor kitchen and do the problem sets. She had, and knew > >>> >> >>> how to use, a slide rule. I didn't. > >>> >> >>> > >>> >> >>> So we would both read the problem, and I would set up the > >>> >> >>> equation, and she would solve it with her slide rule. We would > >>> >> >>> thus have exactly the same answers on our problem sets, and get > >>> >> >>> the same grades on them. We got some credit toward our final > >>> >> >>> grade from the problem sets, more from the midterm, and a lot > >>> >> >>> more from the final. > >>> >> >>> > >>> >> >>> Came the final, and we were put into a much larger room than we'd > >>> >> >>> taken the class in, so we could be separated from one another by > >>> >> >>> several seats; standard procedure. Memory tells me now that > >>> >> >>> there were several hundred problems to solve; it was probably > >>> >> >>> more like 100. And there I sat, with no slide rule, just basic > >>> >> >>> arithmetic, at which I have always stunk. (And there were no > >>> >> >>> electronic calculators, back in the early 1950s.) > >>> >> >>> > >>> >> >>> After a moment of despair, I reasoned, "Well, this is a physics > >>> >> >>> class, not a math class, so if I set up all the equations and > >>> >> >>> then solve as many as there's time for by brute force and scratch > >>> >> >>> paper, I'll get at least partial credit." So I did that. > >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> That's how engineers do it :-). Crunching numbers is left > >>> >> >> as an exercise for computers. I always thought that computers > >>> >> >> were invented so engineers didn't have to do arithmetic. ;-) > >>> >> >> > >>> >> >No, the ORIGINAL computers were kept around because the male engineers > >>> >> >liked having pretty girls to look at and hit on. > >>> >> > >>> >> You mean, like, Grace Hopper? > >>> > > >>> >Grace Hopper built computers, she wasn't one herself. > >>> > >>> Oh, I see, you're using "computer" meaning "the person who does > >>> calculations." E. E. Smith used that too, only his computers > >>> were all guys. > >> > >> People today don't realize that "computer" used to be a job title. > >> Although rather than "cute girls", the people I knew who remembered that > >> era usually described them as "little old ladies in green eyeshades". > > > >Here are some of those computers at work: > > > >http://creative-automata.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/humancomputer.jpg > > > > Gosh. Do you know the date of that photograph? The hairstyles > look sort of 1930s, but their skirts reach to the ground. 1910s > maybe? 1920 http://www.shorpy.com/node/5993?size=_original#caption
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-08 19:33 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <56172764.3BB5@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #424351 |
pnalsing@gmail.com wrote: > > On Thursday, October 8, 2015 at 4:16:59 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote: > > Dorothy J Heydt wrote: > > > > > > In article <mv6gnp$5u2$1@dont-email.me>, > > > Wayne Brown <fwbrown@bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > >In rec.arts.sf.written J. Clarke <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> In article <nvs1sF.yMJ@kithrup.com>, djheydt@kithrup.com says... > > > >>> > > > >>> In article <MPG.307cfa28601fd2fd989b99@news.eternal-september.org>, > > > >>> J. Clarke <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >>> >In article <nvrxvo.qrs@kithrup.com>, djheydt@kithrup.com says... > > > >>> >> > > > >>> >> In article <561313c8$0$1658$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>, > > > >>> >> Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote: > > > >>> >> >On 10/5/2015 6:02 AM, jmfbahciv wrote: > > > >>> >> >> Dorothy J Heydt wrote: > > > >>> >> >>> In article <PM00052148602F2733@aca41f97.ipt.aol.com>, > > > >>> >> >>> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote: > > > >>> >> >>>> Dorothy J Heydt wrote: > > > >>> >> >>>>> In article <mur018$5ei$1@panix3.panix.com>, > > > >>> >> >>>>> William December Starr <wdstarr@panix.com> wrote: > > > >>> >> >>>>>> In article <nvnzI5.15Dv@kithrup.com>, > > > >>> >> >>>>>> djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) said: > > > >>> >> >>>>>> > > > >>> >> >>>>>>> I managed to get an A in my one physics course (Physics 10, aka > > > >>> >> >>>>>>> Bonehead Physics), but I do not understand anything past Newton. > > > >>> >> >>>>>>> I haven't had to. I take it on faith. > > > >>> >> >>>>>> > > > >>> >> >>>>>> Did you drop a '1' off the end of that, or was the course really > > > >>> >> >>>>>> "Physics [ten]?" > > > >>> >> >>>>> > > > >>> >> >>>>> Yes. > > > >>> >> >>>>> > > > >>> >> >>>>> Its official title, I think, was "physics for Humanities Majors". > > > >>> >> >>>>> Everybody enrolled in the College of Letters and Sciences, who > > > >>> >> >>>>> wasn't actually majoring in a science, had to take it. In a > > > >>> >> >>>>> similar way, those majoring in math or sciences, if they couldn't > > > >>> >> >>>>> pass a basic entrance exam in written English (in which case > > > >>> >> >>>>> they'd take the standard lower-division English courses like the > > > >>> >> >>>>> rest of us) would take English 10, which of course was called > > > >>> >> >>>>> Bonehead English. > > > >>> >> >>>>> > > > >>> >> >>>>> Mind you, this was nearly sixty years ago; I don't know what they > > > >>> >> >>>>> do now. > > > >>> >> >>>>> > > > >>> >> >>>> When I went to college, we were required to take an Honors Physics > > > >>> >> >>>> course which was real physics without using calculus. The art > > > >>> >> >>>> majors were not interested in the course until they figured out > > > >>> >> >>>> it helped them with their art which was mostly drawing and > > > >>> >> >>>> painting. > > > >>> >> >>> > > > >>> >> >>> We did not, thank heaven, have to use calculus. Just algebra. > > > >>> >> >>> At which I was not very good either. > > > >>> >> >>> > > > >>> >> >>> I know I've told this story before, but it's been a while. If > > > >>> >> >>> you remember it from last time, hit 'n' now. > > > >>> >> >>> > > > >>> >> >>> I was living in a rooming house where we did our own cooking. > > > >>> >> >>> There was a kitchen on the ground floor and another (small) > > > >>> >> >>> kitchen on the third floor, where I lived. One of my housemates > > > >>> >> >>> was not only taking Physics 10 when I was, but we had the same > > > >>> >> >>> section with the same TA. So we got the same problem sets, which > > > >>> >> >>> the TA handed out at the Tuesday section and got back at the > > > >>> >> >>> Thursday section. > > > >>> >> >>> > > > >>> >> >>> So every Wednesday evening she and I would settle down in the > > > >>> >> >>> third-floor kitchen and do the problem sets. She had, and knew > > > >>> >> >>> how to use, a slide rule. I didn't. > > > >>> >> >>> > > > >>> >> >>> So we would both read the problem, and I would set up the > > > >>> >> >>> equation, and she would solve it with her slide rule. We would > > > >>> >> >>> thus have exactly the same answers on our problem sets, and get > > > >>> >> >>> the same grades on them. We got some credit toward our final > > > >>> >> >>> grade from the problem sets, more from the midterm, and a lot > > > >>> >> >>> more from the final. > > > >>> >> >>> > > > >>> >> >>> Came the final, and we were put into a much larger room than we'd > > > >>> >> >>> taken the class in, so we could be separated from one another by > > > >>> >> >>> several seats; standard procedure. Memory tells me now that > > > >>> >> >>> there were several hundred problems to solve; it was probably > > > >>> >> >>> more like 100. And there I sat, with no slide rule, just basic > > > >>> >> >>> arithmetic, at which I have always stunk. (And there were no > > > >>> >> >>> electronic calculators, back in the early 1950s.) > > > >>> >> >>> > > > >>> >> >>> After a moment of despair, I reasoned, "Well, this is a physics > > > >>> >> >>> class, not a math class, so if I set up all the equations and > > > >>> >> >>> then solve as many as there's time for by brute force and scratch > > > >>> >> >>> paper, I'll get at least partial credit." So I did that. > > > >>> >> >> > > > >>> >> >> That's how engineers do it :-). Crunching numbers is left > > > >>> >> >> as an exercise for computers. I always thought that computers > > > >>> >> >> were invented so engineers didn't have to do arithmetic. ;-) > > > >>> >> >> > > > >>> >> >No, the ORIGINAL computers were kept around because the male engineers > > > >>> >> >liked having pretty girls to look at and hit on. > > > >>> >> > > > >>> >> You mean, like, Grace Hopper? > > > >>> > > > > >>> >Grace Hopper built computers, she wasn't one herself. > > > >>> > > > >>> Oh, I see, you're using "computer" meaning "the person who does > > > >>> calculations." E. E. Smith used that too, only his computers > > > >>> were all guys. > > > >> > > > >> People today don't realize that "computer" used to be a job title. > > > >> Although rather than "cute girls", the people I knew who remembered that > > > >> era usually described them as "little old ladies in green eyeshades". > > > > > > > >Here are some of those computers at work: > > > > > > > >http://creative-automata.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/humancomputer.jpg > > > > > > > > > > Gosh. Do you know the date of that photograph? The hairstyles > > > look sort of 1930s, but their skirts reach to the ground. 1910s > > > maybe? > > > > 1920 > > http://www.shorpy.com/node/5993?size=_original#caption > > Well, 1920 wasn't WW2... I understand that, but that is what it says here... http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2013/10/computing-power-used-to-be-measured-in-kilo-girls/280633/ under the photo reads: Women at work tabulating during World War II (Shorpy) wat do you expect from people who write about in www.theatlantic.com, technology, computing-power articles, genuieses??
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-08 21:36 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.3080e417586feca2989ba4@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #424344 |
In article <nvxA13.1BHw@kithrup.com>, djheydt@kithrup.com says... > > In article <mv6gnp$5u2$1@dont-email.me>, > Wayne Brown <fwbrown@bellsouth.net> wrote: > >In rec.arts.sf.written J. Clarke <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote: > >> In article <nvs1sF.yMJ@kithrup.com>, djheydt@kithrup.com says... > >>> > >>> In article <MPG.307cfa28601fd2fd989b99@news.eternal-september.org>, > >>> J. Clarke <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> >In article <nvrxvo.qrs@kithrup.com>, djheydt@kithrup.com says... > >>> >> > >>> >> In article <561313c8$0$1658$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>, > >>> >> Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote: > >>> >> >On 10/5/2015 6:02 AM, jmfbahciv wrote: > >>> >> >> Dorothy J Heydt wrote: > >>> >> >>> In article <PM00052148602F2733@aca41f97.ipt.aol.com>, > >>> >> >>> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote: > >>> >> >>>> Dorothy J Heydt wrote: > >>> >> >>>>> In article <mur018$5ei$1@panix3.panix.com>, > >>> >> >>>>> William December Starr <wdstarr@panix.com> wrote: > >>> >> >>>>>> In article <nvnzI5.15Dv@kithrup.com>, > >>> >> >>>>>> djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) said: > >>> >> >>>>>> > >>> >> >>>>>>> I managed to get an A in my one physics course (Physics 10, aka > >>> >> >>>>>>> Bonehead Physics), but I do not understand anything past Newton. > >>> >> >>>>>>> I haven't had to. I take it on faith. > >>> >> >>>>>> > >>> >> >>>>>> Did you drop a '1' off the end of that, or was the course really > >>> >> >>>>>> "Physics [ten]?" > >>> >> >>>>> > >>> >> >>>>> Yes. > >>> >> >>>>> > >>> >> >>>>> Its official title, I think, was "physics for Humanities Majors". > >>> >> >>>>> Everybody enrolled in the College of Letters and Sciences, who > >>> >> >>>>> wasn't actually majoring in a science, had to take it. In a > >>> >> >>>>> similar way, those majoring in math or sciences, if they couldn't > >>> >> >>>>> pass a basic entrance exam in written English (in which case > >>> >> >>>>> they'd take the standard lower-division English courses like the > >>> >> >>>>> rest of us) would take English 10, which of course was called > >>> >> >>>>> Bonehead English. > >>> >> >>>>> > >>> >> >>>>> Mind you, this was nearly sixty years ago; I don't know what they > >>> >> >>>>> do now. > >>> >> >>>>> > >>> >> >>>> When I went to college, we were required to take an Honors Physics > >>> >> >>>> course which was real physics without using calculus. The art > >>> >> >>>> majors were not interested in the course until they figured out > >>> >> >>>> it helped them with their art which was mostly drawing and > >>> >> >>>> painting. > >>> >> >>> > >>> >> >>> We did not, thank heaven, have to use calculus. Just algebra. > >>> >> >>> At which I was not very good either. > >>> >> >>> > >>> >> >>> I know I've told this story before, but it's been a while. If > >>> >> >>> you remember it from last time, hit 'n' now. > >>> >> >>> > >>> >> >>> I was living in a rooming house where we did our own cooking. > >>> >> >>> There was a kitchen on the ground floor and another (small) > >>> >> >>> kitchen on the third floor, where I lived. One of my housemates > >>> >> >>> was not only taking Physics 10 when I was, but we had the same > >>> >> >>> section with the same TA. So we got the same problem sets, which > >>> >> >>> the TA handed out at the Tuesday section and got back at the > >>> >> >>> Thursday section. > >>> >> >>> > >>> >> >>> So every Wednesday evening she and I would settle down in the > >>> >> >>> third-floor kitchen and do the problem sets. She had, and knew > >>> >> >>> how to use, a slide rule. I didn't. > >>> >> >>> > >>> >> >>> So we would both read the problem, and I would set up the > >>> >> >>> equation, and she would solve it with her slide rule. We would > >>> >> >>> thus have exactly the same answers on our problem sets, and get > >>> >> >>> the same grades on them. We got some credit toward our final > >>> >> >>> grade from the problem sets, more from the midterm, and a lot > >>> >> >>> more from the final. > >>> >> >>> > >>> >> >>> Came the final, and we were put into a much larger room than we'd > >>> >> >>> taken the class in, so we could be separated from one another by > >>> >> >>> several seats; standard procedure. Memory tells me now that > >>> >> >>> there were several hundred problems to solve; it was probably > >>> >> >>> more like 100. And there I sat, with no slide rule, just basic > >>> >> >>> arithmetic, at which I have always stunk. (And there were no > >>> >> >>> electronic calculators, back in the early 1950s.) > >>> >> >>> > >>> >> >>> After a moment of despair, I reasoned, "Well, this is a physics > >>> >> >>> class, not a math class, so if I set up all the equations and > >>> >> >>> then solve as many as there's time for by brute force and scratch > >>> >> >>> paper, I'll get at least partial credit." So I did that. > >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> That's how engineers do it :-). Crunching numbers is left > >>> >> >> as an exercise for computers. I always thought that computers > >>> >> >> were invented so engineers didn't have to do arithmetic. ;-) > >>> >> >> > >>> >> >No, the ORIGINAL computers were kept around because the male engineers > >>> >> >liked having pretty girls to look at and hit on. > >>> >> > >>> >> You mean, like, Grace Hopper? > >>> > > >>> >Grace Hopper built computers, she wasn't one herself. > >>> > >>> Oh, I see, you're using "computer" meaning "the person who does > >>> calculations." E. E. Smith used that too, only his computers > >>> were all guys. > >> > >> People today don't realize that "computer" used to be a job title. > >> Although rather than "cute girls", the people I knew who remembered that > >> era usually described them as "little old ladies in green eyeshades". > > > >Here are some of those computers at work: > > > >http://creative-automata.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/humancomputer.jpg > > > > Gosh. Do you know the date of that photograph? The hairstyles > look sort of 1930s, but their skirts reach to the ground. 1910s > maybe? There's some question about it. The primary online source for it says 1920s, but it also says that it was found in a collection marked "Tabulating Machine Company" (that is the company that Hollerith founded), and that company merged with several others in 1911 to form the Computing Tabulating Recording Co, which in 1924 changed its name to IBM. If that photo was in fact taken by or for the Tabulating Machine Company that would put it between 1896 and 1911. In any case, that link is <http://www.shorpy.com/node/5993>. Click on "view full size" to see it much larger. They're not actually "computing", they're punching Hollerith cards. Here's one from 1924 though in which real "computing" is going on <http://www.shorpy.com/node/4327>. Click full size and you can clearly read the sign "Computing Division Computing Section".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-09 04:19 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nvxqoy.6Gq@kithrup.com> |
| In reply to | #424355 |
In article <MPG.3080e417586feca2989ba4@news.eternal-september.org>, J. Clarke <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote: >In article <nvxA13.1BHw@kithrup.com>, djheydt@kithrup.com says... >> >> In article <mv6gnp$5u2$1@dont-email.me>, >> Wayne Brown <fwbrown@bellsouth.net> wrote: >> >In rec.arts.sf.written J. Clarke <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> In article <nvs1sF.yMJ@kithrup.com>, djheydt@kithrup.com says... >> >>> >> >>> In article <MPG.307cfa28601fd2fd989b99@news.eternal-september.org>, >> >>> J. Clarke <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> >In article <nvrxvo.qrs@kithrup.com>, djheydt@kithrup.com says... >> >>> >> >> >>> >> In article <561313c8$0$1658$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>, >> >>> >> Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote: >> >>> >> >On 10/5/2015 6:02 AM, jmfbahciv wrote: >> >>> >> >> Dorothy J Heydt wrote: >> >>> >> >>> In article <PM00052148602F2733@aca41f97.ipt.aol.com>, >> >>> >> >>> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote: >> >>> >> >>>> Dorothy J Heydt wrote: >> >>> >> >>>>> In article <mur018$5ei$1@panix3.panix.com>, >> >>> >> >>>>> William December Starr <wdstarr@panix.com> wrote: >> >>> >> >>>>>> In article <nvnzI5.15Dv@kithrup.com>, >> >>> >> >>>>>> djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) said: >> >>> >> >>>>>> >> >>> >> >>>>>>> I managed to get an A in my one physics course (Physics 10, aka >> >>> >> >>>>>>> Bonehead Physics), but I do not understand anything >past Newton. >> >>> >> >>>>>>> I haven't had to. I take it on faith. >> >>> >> >>>>>> >> >>> >> >>>>>> Did you drop a '1' off the end of that, or was the course really >> >>> >> >>>>>> "Physics [ten]?" >> >>> >> >>>>> >> >>> >> >>>>> Yes. >> >>> >> >>>>> >> >>> >> >>>>> Its official title, I think, was "physics for Humanities Majors". >> >>> >> >>>>> Everybody enrolled in the College of Letters and Sciences, who >> >>> >> >>>>> wasn't actually majoring in a science, had to take it. In a >> >>> >> >>>>> similar way, those majoring in math or sciences, if they couldn't >> >>> >> >>>>> pass a basic entrance exam in written English (in which case >> >>> >> >>>>> they'd take the standard lower-division English courses like the >> >>> >> >>>>> rest of us) would take English 10, which of course was called >> >>> >> >>>>> Bonehead English. >> >>> >> >>>>> >> >>> >> >>>>> Mind you, this was nearly sixty years ago; I don't know what they >> >>> >> >>>>> do now. >> >>> >> >>>>> >> >>> >> >>>> When I went to college, we were required to take an Honors Physics >> >>> >> >>>> course which was real physics without using calculus. The art >> >>> >> >>>> majors were not interested in the course until they figured out >> >>> >> >>>> it helped them with their art which was mostly drawing and >> >>> >> >>>> painting. >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> We did not, thank heaven, have to use calculus. Just algebra. >> >>> >> >>> At which I was not very good either. >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> I know I've told this story before, but it's been a while. If >> >>> >> >>> you remember it from last time, hit 'n' now. >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> I was living in a rooming house where we did our own cooking. >> >>> >> >>> There was a kitchen on the ground floor and another (small) >> >>> >> >>> kitchen on the third floor, where I lived. One of my housemates >> >>> >> >>> was not only taking Physics 10 when I was, but we had the same >> >>> >> >>> section with the same TA. So we got the same problem sets, which >> >>> >> >>> the TA handed out at the Tuesday section and got back at the >> >>> >> >>> Thursday section. >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> So every Wednesday evening she and I would settle down in the >> >>> >> >>> third-floor kitchen and do the problem sets. She had, and knew >> >>> >> >>> how to use, a slide rule. I didn't. >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> So we would both read the problem, and I would set up the >> >>> >> >>> equation, and she would solve it with her slide rule. We would >> >>> >> >>> thus have exactly the same answers on our problem sets, and get >> >>> >> >>> the same grades on them. We got some credit toward our final >> >>> >> >>> grade from the problem sets, more from the midterm, and a lot >> >>> >> >>> more from the final. >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> Came the final, and we were put into a much larger room than we'd >> >>> >> >>> taken the class in, so we could be separated from one another by >> >>> >> >>> several seats; standard procedure. Memory tells me now that >> >>> >> >>> there were several hundred problems to solve; it was probably >> >>> >> >>> more like 100. And there I sat, with no slide rule, just basic >> >>> >> >>> arithmetic, at which I have always stunk. (And there were no >> >>> >> >>> electronic calculators, back in the early 1950s.) >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> After a moment of despair, I reasoned, "Well, this is a physics >> >>> >> >>> class, not a math class, so if I set up all the equations and >> >>> >> >>> then solve as many as there's time for by brute force and scratch >> >>> >> >>> paper, I'll get at least partial credit." So I did that. >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >> That's how engineers do it :-). Crunching numbers is left >> >>> >> >> as an exercise for computers. I always thought that computers >> >>> >> >> were invented so engineers didn't have to do arithmetic. ;-) >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >No, the ORIGINAL computers were kept around because the male >engineers >> >>> >> >liked having pretty girls to look at and hit on. >> >>> >> >> >>> >> You mean, like, Grace Hopper? >> >>> > >> >>> >Grace Hopper built computers, she wasn't one herself. >> >>> >> >>> Oh, I see, you're using "computer" meaning "the person who does >> >>> calculations." E. E. Smith used that too, only his computers >> >>> were all guys. >> >> >> >> People today don't realize that "computer" used to be a job title. >> >> Although rather than "cute girls", the people I knew who remembered that >> >> era usually described them as "little old ladies in green eyeshades". >> > >> >Here are some of those computers at work: >> > >> >http://creative-automata.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/humancomputer.jpg >> > >> >> Gosh. Do you know the date of that photograph? The hairstyles >> look sort of 1930s, but their skirts reach to the ground. 1910s >> maybe? > >There's some question about it. The primary online source for it says >1920s, but it also says that it was found in a collection marked >"Tabulating Machine Company" (that is the company that Hollerith >founded), and that company merged with several others in 1911 to form >the Computing Tabulating Recording Co, which in 1924 changed its name to >IBM. > >If that photo was in fact taken by or for the Tabulating Machine Company >that would put it between 1896 and 1911. > >In any case, that link is <http://www.shorpy.com/node/5993>. Click on >"view full size" to see it much larger. They're not actually >"computing", they're punching Hollerith cards. > >Here's one from 1924 though in which real "computing" is going on ><http://www.shorpy.com/node/4327>. Click full size and you can clearly >read the sign "Computing Division Computing Section". I sent the photo to my daughter, who is savvy about such things, and she said, "Those hairstyles are about 1920. Just because the hemlines reach the floor doesn't mean it's the tweens. Remember Evie Carnahan in the first Mummy movie? Finger waves and ankle hemlines. The dropped waist and shorter skirts were TRES risque, wouldn't have been accepted in an office." -- Dorothy J. Heydt Vallejo, California djheydt at gmail dot com Should you wish to email me, you'd better use the gmail edress. Kithrup's all spammy and hotmail's been hacked.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-08 22:51 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <4d105f69-4968-4dd7-9151-634f3caa38ff@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #424368 |
On Thursday, October 8, 2015 at 10:30:06 PM UTC-6, Dorothy J Heydt wrote: > "Those hairstyles are about 1920. Just because the hemlines > reach the floor doesn't mean it's the tweens. Remember Evie > Carnahan in the first Mummy movie? Finger waves and ankle > hemlines. The dropped waist and shorter skirts were TRES risque, > wouldn't have been accepted in an office." Indeed, not everyone in the 1920s was a flapper. (I would not have been able to date the photograph so well, though.) John Savard
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-09 11:12 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5618039A.7510@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #424368 |
Dorothy J Heydt wrote: > > In article <MPG.3080e417586feca2989ba4@news.eternal-september.org>, > J. Clarke <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote: > >In article <nvxA13.1BHw@kithrup.com>, djheydt@kithrup.com says... > >> > >> In article <mv6gnp$5u2$1@dont-email.me>, > >> Wayne Brown <fwbrown@bellsouth.net> wrote: > >> >In rec.arts.sf.written J. Clarke <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> In article <nvs1sF.yMJ@kithrup.com>, djheydt@kithrup.com says... > >> >>> > >> >>> In article <MPG.307cfa28601fd2fd989b99@news.eternal-september.org>, > >> >>> J. Clarke <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >>> >In article <nvrxvo.qrs@kithrup.com>, djheydt@kithrup.com says... > >> >>> >> > >> >>> >> In article <561313c8$0$1658$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>, > >> >>> >> Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote: > >> >>> >> >On 10/5/2015 6:02 AM, jmfbahciv wrote: > >> >>> >> >> Dorothy J Heydt wrote: > >> >>> >> >>> In article <PM00052148602F2733@aca41f97.ipt.aol.com>, > >> >>> >> >>> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote: > >> >>> >> >>>> Dorothy J Heydt wrote: > >> >>> >> >>>>> In article <mur018$5ei$1@panix3.panix.com>, > >> >>> >> >>>>> William December Starr <wdstarr@panix.com> wrote: > >> >>> >> >>>>>> In article <nvnzI5.15Dv@kithrup.com>, > >> >>> >> >>>>>> djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) said: > >> >>> >> >>>>>> > >> >>> >> >>>>>>> I managed to get an A in my one physics course (Physics 10, aka > >> >>> >> >>>>>>> Bonehead Physics), but I do not understand anything > >past Newton. > >> >>> >> >>>>>>> I haven't had to. I take it on faith. > >> >>> >> >>>>>> > >> >>> >> >>>>>> Did you drop a '1' off the end of that, or was the course really > >> >>> >> >>>>>> "Physics [ten]?" > >> >>> >> >>>>> > >> >>> >> >>>>> Yes. > >> >>> >> >>>>> > >> >>> >> >>>>> Its official title, I think, was "physics for Humanities Majors". > >> >>> >> >>>>> Everybody enrolled in the College of Letters and Sciences, who > >> >>> >> >>>>> wasn't actually majoring in a science, had to take it. In a > >> >>> >> >>>>> similar way, those majoring in math or sciences, if they couldn't > >> >>> >> >>>>> pass a basic entrance exam in written English (in which case > >> >>> >> >>>>> they'd take the standard lower-division English courses like the > >> >>> >> >>>>> rest of us) would take English 10, which of course was called > >> >>> >> >>>>> Bonehead English. > >> >>> >> >>>>> > >> >>> >> >>>>> Mind you, this was nearly sixty years ago; I don't know what they > >> >>> >> >>>>> do now. > >> >>> >> >>>>> > >> >>> >> >>>> When I went to college, we were required to take an Honors Physics > >> >>> >> >>>> course which was real physics without using calculus. The art > >> >>> >> >>>> majors were not interested in the course until they figured out > >> >>> >> >>>> it helped them with their art which was mostly drawing and > >> >>> >> >>>> painting. > >> >>> >> >>> > >> >>> >> >>> We did not, thank heaven, have to use calculus. Just algebra. > >> >>> >> >>> At which I was not very good either. > >> >>> >> >>> > >> >>> >> >>> I know I've told this story before, but it's been a while. If > >> >>> >> >>> you remember it from last time, hit 'n' now. > >> >>> >> >>> > >> >>> >> >>> I was living in a rooming house where we did our own cooking. > >> >>> >> >>> There was a kitchen on the ground floor and another (small) > >> >>> >> >>> kitchen on the third floor, where I lived. One of my housemates > >> >>> >> >>> was not only taking Physics 10 when I was, but we had the same > >> >>> >> >>> section with the same TA. So we got the same problem sets, which > >> >>> >> >>> the TA handed out at the Tuesday section and got back at the > >> >>> >> >>> Thursday section. > >> >>> >> >>> > >> >>> >> >>> So every Wednesday evening she and I would settle down in the > >> >>> >> >>> third-floor kitchen and do the problem sets. She had, and knew > >> >>> >> >>> how to use, a slide rule. I didn't. > >> >>> >> >>> > >> >>> >> >>> So we would both read the problem, and I would set up the > >> >>> >> >>> equation, and she would solve it with her slide rule. We would > >> >>> >> >>> thus have exactly the same answers on our problem sets, and get > >> >>> >> >>> the same grades on them. We got some credit toward our final > >> >>> >> >>> grade from the problem sets, more from the midterm, and a lot > >> >>> >> >>> more from the final. > >> >>> >> >>> > >> >>> >> >>> Came the final, and we were put into a much larger room than we'd > >> >>> >> >>> taken the class in, so we could be separated from one another by > >> >>> >> >>> several seats; standard procedure. Memory tells me now that > >> >>> >> >>> there were several hundred problems to solve; it was probably > >> >>> >> >>> more like 100. And there I sat, with no slide rule, just basic > >> >>> >> >>> arithmetic, at which I have always stunk. (And there were no > >> >>> >> >>> electronic calculators, back in the early 1950s.) > >> >>> >> >>> > >> >>> >> >>> After a moment of despair, I reasoned, "Well, this is a physics > >> >>> >> >>> class, not a math class, so if I set up all the equations and > >> >>> >> >>> then solve as many as there's time for by brute force and scratch > >> >>> >> >>> paper, I'll get at least partial credit." So I did that. > >> >>> >> >> > >> >>> >> >> That's how engineers do it :-). Crunching numbers is left > >> >>> >> >> as an exercise for computers. I always thought that computers > >> >>> >> >> were invented so engineers didn't have to do arithmetic. ;-) > >> >>> >> >> > >> >>> >> >No, the ORIGINAL computers were kept around because the male > >engineers > >> >>> >> >liked having pretty girls to look at and hit on. > >> >>> >> > >> >>> >> You mean, like, Grace Hopper? > >> >>> > > >> >>> >Grace Hopper built computers, she wasn't one herself. > >> >>> > >> >>> Oh, I see, you're using "computer" meaning "the person who does > >> >>> calculations." E. E. Smith used that too, only his computers > >> >>> were all guys. > >> >> > >> >> People today don't realize that "computer" used to be a job title. > >> >> Although rather than "cute girls", the people I knew who remembered that > >> >> era usually described them as "little old ladies in green eyeshades". > >> > > >> >Here are some of those computers at work: > >> > > >> >http://creative-automata.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/humancomputer.jpg > >> > > >> > >> Gosh. Do you know the date of that photograph? The hairstyles > >> look sort of 1930s, but their skirts reach to the ground. 1910s > >> maybe? > > > >There's some question about it. The primary online source for it says > >1920s, but it also says that it was found in a collection marked > >"Tabulating Machine Company" (that is the company that Hollerith > >founded), and that company merged with several others in 1911 to form > >the Computing Tabulating Recording Co, which in 1924 changed its name to > >IBM. > > > >If that photo was in fact taken by or for the Tabulating Machine Company > >that would put it between 1896 and 1911. > > > >In any case, that link is <http://www.shorpy.com/node/5993>. Click on > >"view full size" to see it much larger. They're not actually > >"computing", they're punching Hollerith cards. > > > >Here's one from 1924 though in which real "computing" is going on > ><http://www.shorpy.com/node/4327>. Click full size and you can clearly > >read the sign "Computing Division Computing Section". > > I sent the photo to my daughter, who is savvy about such things, whose daughter 'isn't' savvy?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-09 14:05 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <8RPRx.88318$qn.14786@fx15.iad> |
| In reply to | #424355 |
"J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> writes: >In article <nvxA13.1BHw@kithrup.com>, djheydt@kithrup.com says... >> Gosh. Do you know the date of that photograph? The hairstyles >> look sort of 1930s, but their skirts reach to the ground. 1910s >> maybe? > >There's some question about it. The primary online source for it says >1920s, but it also says that it was found in a collection marked >"Tabulating Machine Company" (that is the company that Hollerith >founded), and that company merged with several others in 1911 to form >the Computing Tabulating Recording Co, which in 1924 changed its name to >IBM. > >If that photo was in fact taken by or for the Tabulating Machine Company >that would put it between 1896 and 1911. > >In any case, that link is <http://www.shorpy.com/node/5993>. Click on >"view full size" to see it much larger. They're not actually >"computing", they're punching Hollerith cards. > >Here's one from 1924 though in which real "computing" is going on ><http://www.shorpy.com/node/4327>. Click full size and you can clearly >read the sign "Computing Division Computing Section". Ah, rows of Burroughs Class 1 (style 3) adding machines, with beveled glass front and sides. I have one in my office from 1908, and one at home from 1911; both still working. While both of mine are manual, the ones in the photo are motorized versions. Would have been very noisy working conditions.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-08 18:57 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.3080bf042dc55fa3989ba3@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #424337 |
In article <mv6gnp$5u2$1@dont-email.me>, fwbrown@bellsouth.net says... > > In rec.arts.sf.written J. Clarke <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote: > > In article <nvs1sF.yMJ@kithrup.com>, djheydt@kithrup.com says... > >> > >> In article <MPG.307cfa28601fd2fd989b99@news.eternal-september.org>, > >> J. Clarke <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >In article <nvrxvo.qrs@kithrup.com>, djheydt@kithrup.com says... > >> >> > >> >> In article <561313c8$0$1658$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>, > >> >> Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote: > >> >> >On 10/5/2015 6:02 AM, jmfbahciv wrote: > >> >> >> Dorothy J Heydt wrote: > >> >> >>> In article <PM00052148602F2733@aca41f97.ipt.aol.com>, > >> >> >>> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote: > >> >> >>>> Dorothy J Heydt wrote: > >> >> >>>>> In article <mur018$5ei$1@panix3.panix.com>, > >> >> >>>>> William December Starr <wdstarr@panix.com> wrote: > >> >> >>>>>> In article <nvnzI5.15Dv@kithrup.com>, > >> >> >>>>>> djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) said: > >> >> >>>>>> > >> >> >>>>>>> I managed to get an A in my one physics course (Physics 10, aka > >> >> >>>>>>> Bonehead Physics), but I do not understand anything past Newton. > >> >> >>>>>>> I haven't had to. I take it on faith. > >> >> >>>>>> > >> >> >>>>>> Did you drop a '1' off the end of that, or was the course really > >> >> >>>>>> "Physics [ten]?" > >> >> >>>>> > >> >> >>>>> Yes. > >> >> >>>>> > >> >> >>>>> Its official title, I think, was "physics for Humanities Majors". > >> >> >>>>> Everybody enrolled in the College of Letters and Sciences, who > >> >> >>>>> wasn't actually majoring in a science, had to take it. In a > >> >> >>>>> similar way, those majoring in math or sciences, if they couldn't > >> >> >>>>> pass a basic entrance exam in written English (in which case > >> >> >>>>> they'd take the standard lower-division English courses like the > >> >> >>>>> rest of us) would take English 10, which of course was called > >> >> >>>>> Bonehead English. > >> >> >>>>> > >> >> >>>>> Mind you, this was nearly sixty years ago; I don't know what they > >> >> >>>>> do now. > >> >> >>>>> > >> >> >>>> When I went to college, we were required to take an Honors Physics > >> >> >>>> course which was real physics without using calculus. The art > >> >> >>>> majors were not interested in the course until they figured out > >> >> >>>> it helped them with their art which was mostly drawing and > >> >> >>>> painting. > >> >> >>> > >> >> >>> We did not, thank heaven, have to use calculus. Just algebra. > >> >> >>> At which I was not very good either. > >> >> >>> > >> >> >>> I know I've told this story before, but it's been a while. If > >> >> >>> you remember it from last time, hit 'n' now. > >> >> >>> > >> >> >>> I was living in a rooming house where we did our own cooking. > >> >> >>> There was a kitchen on the ground floor and another (small) > >> >> >>> kitchen on the third floor, where I lived. One of my housemates > >> >> >>> was not only taking Physics 10 when I was, but we had the same > >> >> >>> section with the same TA. So we got the same problem sets, which > >> >> >>> the TA handed out at the Tuesday section and got back at the > >> >> >>> Thursday section. > >> >> >>> > >> >> >>> So every Wednesday evening she and I would settle down in the > >> >> >>> third-floor kitchen and do the problem sets. She had, and knew > >> >> >>> how to use, a slide rule. I didn't. > >> >> >>> > >> >> >>> So we would both read the problem, and I would set up the > >> >> >>> equation, and she would solve it with her slide rule. We would > >> >> >>> thus have exactly the same answers on our problem sets, and get > >> >> >>> the same grades on them. We got some credit toward our final > >> >> >>> grade from the problem sets, more from the midterm, and a lot > >> >> >>> more from the final. > >> >> >>> > >> >> >>> Came the final, and we were put into a much larger room than we'd > >> >> >>> taken the class in, so we could be separated from one another by > >> >> >>> several seats; standard procedure. Memory tells me now that > >> >> >>> there were several hundred problems to solve; it was probably > >> >> >>> more like 100. And there I sat, with no slide rule, just basic > >> >> >>> arithmetic, at which I have always stunk. (And there were no > >> >> >>> electronic calculators, back in the early 1950s.) > >> >> >>> > >> >> >>> After a moment of despair, I reasoned, "Well, this is a physics > >> >> >>> class, not a math class, so if I set up all the equations and > >> >> >>> then solve as many as there's time for by brute force and scratch > >> >> >>> paper, I'll get at least partial credit." So I did that. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> That's how engineers do it :-). Crunching numbers is left > >> >> >> as an exercise for computers. I always thought that computers > >> >> >> were invented so engineers didn't have to do arithmetic. ;-) > >> >> >> > >> >> >No, the ORIGINAL computers were kept around because the male engineers > >> >> >liked having pretty girls to look at and hit on. > >> >> > >> >> You mean, like, Grace Hopper? > >> > > >> >Grace Hopper built computers, she wasn't one herself. > >> > >> Oh, I see, you're using "computer" meaning "the person who does > >> calculations." E. E. Smith used that too, only his computers > >> were all guys. > > > > People today don't realize that "computer" used to be a job title. > > Although rather than "cute girls", the people I knew who remembered that > > era usually described them as "little old ladies in green eyeshades". > > Here are some of those computers at work: > > http://creative-automata.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/humancomputer.jpg Good find.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-06 13:34 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <PM0005216FC0AD0999@aca41669.ipt.aol.com> |
| In reply to | #424216 |
Dimensional Traveler wrote: > On 10/5/2015 6:02 AM, jmfbahciv wrote: >> Dorothy J Heydt wrote: >>> In article <PM00052148602F2733@aca41f97.ipt.aol.com>, >>> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote: >>>> Dorothy J Heydt wrote: >>>>> In article <mur018$5ei$1@panix3.panix.com>, >>>>> William December Starr <wdstarr@panix.com> wrote: >>>>>> In article <nvnzI5.15Dv@kithrup.com>, >>>>>> djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) said: >>>>>> >>>>>>> I managed to get an A in my one physics course (Physics 10, aka >>>>>>> Bonehead Physics), but I do not understand anything past Newton. >>>>>>> I haven't had to. I take it on faith. >>>>>> >>>>>> Did you drop a '1' off the end of that, or was the course really >>>>>> "Physics [ten]?" >>>>> >>>>> Yes. >>>>> >>>>> Its official title, I think, was "physics for Humanities Majors". >>>>> Everybody enrolled in the College of Letters and Sciences, who >>>>> wasn't actually majoring in a science, had to take it. In a >>>>> similar way, those majoring in math or sciences, if they couldn't >>>>> pass a basic entrance exam in written English (in which case >>>>> they'd take the standard lower-division English courses like the >>>>> rest of us) would take English 10, which of course was called >>>>> Bonehead English. >>>>> >>>>> Mind you, this was nearly sixty years ago; I don't know what they >>>>> do now. >>>>> >>>> When I went to college, we were required to take an Honors Physics >>>> course which was real physics without using calculus. The art >>>> majors were not interested in the course until they figured out >>>> it helped them with their art which was mostly drawing and >>>> painting. >>> >>> We did not, thank heaven, have to use calculus. Just algebra. >>> At which I was not very good either. >>> >>> I know I've told this story before, but it's been a while. If >>> you remember it from last time, hit 'n' now. >>> >>> I was living in a rooming house where we did our own cooking. >>> There was a kitchen on the ground floor and another (small) >>> kitchen on the third floor, where I lived. One of my housemates >>> was not only taking Physics 10 when I was, but we had the same >>> section with the same TA. So we got the same problem sets, which >>> the TA handed out at the Tuesday section and got back at the >>> Thursday section. >>> >>> So every Wednesday evening she and I would settle down in the >>> third-floor kitchen and do the problem sets. She had, and knew >>> how to use, a slide rule. I didn't. >>> >>> So we would both read the problem, and I would set up the >>> equation, and she would solve it with her slide rule. We would >>> thus have exactly the same answers on our problem sets, and get >>> the same grades on them. We got some credit toward our final >>> grade from the problem sets, more from the midterm, and a lot >>> more from the final. >>> >>> Came the final, and we were put into a much larger room than we'd >>> taken the class in, so we could be separated from one another by >>> several seats; standard procedure. Memory tells me now that >>> there were several hundred problems to solve; it was probably >>> more like 100. And there I sat, with no slide rule, just basic >>> arithmetic, at which I have always stunk. (And there were no >>> electronic calculators, back in the early 1950s.) >>> >>> After a moment of despair, I reasoned, "Well, this is a physics >>> class, not a math class, so if I set up all the equations and >>> then solve as many as there's time for by brute force and scratch >>> paper, I'll get at least partial credit." So I did that. >> >> That's how engineers do it :-). Crunching numbers is left >> as an exercise for computers. I always thought that computers >> were invented so engineers didn't have to do arithmetic. ;-) >> > No, the ORIGINAL computers were kept around because the male engineers > liked having pretty girls to look at and hit on. You don't know what you're talkking about. Those women worked hard. /BAH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taustinca@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-04 10:57 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <XnsA5296F888F39Ataustingmail@69.16.179.42> |
| In reply to | #424128 |
djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote in
news:nvp65o.1ID2@kithrup.com:
> In article <mur018$5ei$1@panix3.panix.com>,
> William December Starr <wdstarr@panix.com> wrote:
>>In article <nvnzI5.15Dv@kithrup.com>,
>>djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) said:
>>
>>> I managed to get an A in my one physics course (Physics 10,
>>> aka Bonehead Physics), but I do not understand anything past
>>> Newton. I haven't had to. I take it on faith.
>>
>>Did you drop a '1' off the end of that, or was the course really
>>"Physics [ten]?"
>
> Yes.
>
> Its official title, I think, was "physics for Humanities
> Majors". Everybody enrolled in the College of Letters and
> Sciences, who wasn't actually majoring in a science, had to take
> it. In a similar way, those majoring in math or sciences, if
> they couldn't pass a basic entrance exam in written English (in
> which case they'd take the standard lower-division English
> courses like the rest of us) would take English 10, which of
> course was called Bonehead English.
>
> Mind you, this was nearly sixty years ago; I don't know what
> they do now.
>
I'm reminded of the discussions of Calculus for Business Majors,
which my math professor referred to as Baby Calculus. We did one
night of it. Only, where business majors basically had to memorize
the formulae and what they did, we had to understand the guts of
it. Most nightmarish couple of hours of math I've ever had.
--
Terry Austin
"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek
Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | rec.arts.sf.written
csiph-web