Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #524213 > unrolled thread
| Started by | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-10-02 01:17 -0700 |
| Last post | 2015-10-04 07:53 -0500 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 98 — 28 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
green stars The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-10-02 01:17 -0700
Re: green stars Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-10-02 08:19 -0500
Re: green stars john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2015-10-02 06:30 -0700
Re: green stars Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-10-02 08:59 -0500
Re: green stars benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-10-02 12:24 -0400
Re: green stars HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2015-10-05 10:19 -0700
Re: green stars Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-10-03 12:14 +0200
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 Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-10-02 17:45 -0500
Re: green stars Angelo <patrizio.pan-2002@libero.it> - 2015-10-05 08:30 -0700
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 "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 wdstarr@panix.com (William December Starr) - 2015-10-08 08:19 -0400
Re: green stars pnalsing@gmail.com - 2015-10-08 08:59 -0700
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 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 pnalsing@gmail.com - 2015-10-08 17:33 -0700
Re: green stars The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-10-08 19:33 -0700
Re: green stars pnalsing@gmail.com - 2015-10-08 19:59 -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 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 Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-10-03 17:36 -0500
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 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 Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-10-05 13:07 -0500
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 pnalsing@gmail.com - 2015-10-06 11:39 -0700
Re: green stars The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-10-06 12:35 -0700
Re: green stars pnalsing@gmail.com - 2015-10-06 13:20 -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 pnalsing@gmail.com - 2015-10-06 15:58 -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 "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2015-10-02 13:26 -0700
Re: green stars "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2015-10-06 09:58 -0700
Re: green stars Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-10-04 07:53 -0500
Page 3 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 Next page →
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-08 01:11 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5616252A.60FB@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #525244 |
Greg Goss wrote: > > Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> wrote: > > >I think all of us who went through engineering in the 80's and 90's had > >to deal with brain-dead method of teaching. The teachers weren't ready > >yet for the new world of calculators and computers, and they were > >actively resisting it. People in the late 90's and beyond probably > >didn't have to go through this problem. > > 80s and 90s? I got a scientific calculator in grade 10 in 1973. > There was resistance to using it up to 75. I never ran into any > objections to using it in college after 1975. > > The "rubber book" I got cheap in 1975 because it was the previous > edition was, I think, the last edition to include log and trig tables. > The next edition was a fifth the size because you were expected to do > trig on your calculator. > > Was there still resistance in the 80s to calculators? Really? Where? > -- > We are geeks. Resistance is voltage over current. you don't have a resistance if you don't know how to calculate... people who didn't know hot to add 3+2 were very happy with calculators.. Now, those other symbols on the calculator...had no use for it. a waste of space if you ask me.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-08 13:49 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5616D6E2.10FC@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #525246 |
The Starmaker wrote: > > Greg Goss wrote: > > > > Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > >I think all of us who went through engineering in the 80's and 90's had > > >to deal with brain-dead method of teaching. The teachers weren't ready > > >yet for the new world of calculators and computers, and they were > > >actively resisting it. People in the late 90's and beyond probably > > >didn't have to go through this problem. > > > > 80s and 90s? I got a scientific calculator in grade 10 in 1973. > > There was resistance to using it up to 75. I never ran into any > > objections to using it in college after 1975. > > > > The "rubber book" I got cheap in 1975 because it was the previous > > edition was, I think, the last edition to include log and trig tables. > > The next edition was a fifth the size because you were expected to do > > trig on your calculator. > > > > Was there still resistance in the 80s to calculators? Really? Where? > > -- > > We are geeks. Resistance is voltage over current. > > you don't have a resistance if you don't know how to calculate... > > people who didn't know hot to add 3+2 were very happy with calculators.. > > Now, those other symbols on the calculator...had no use for it. > > a waste of space if you ask me. after I figured out the + and the - sign on the calculator.. it took years before i figured out what the * was for...nevermind the / sign... i mean...hows is one suppose to know it's giving the right answers???? i know i must have press the CE button a million times!!!! Did you hear about the bank robber who put lemon juice on his face because he heard that the ingredient was used in invisible inks...so the bank cameras could not take his picture?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-08 21:20 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5617408D.5FEE@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #525305 |
The Starmaker wrote: > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > Greg Goss wrote: > > > > > > Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > >I think all of us who went through engineering in the 80's and 90's had > > > >to deal with brain-dead method of teaching. The teachers weren't ready > > > >yet for the new world of calculators and computers, and they were > > > >actively resisting it. People in the late 90's and beyond probably > > > >didn't have to go through this problem. > > > > > > 80s and 90s? I got a scientific calculator in grade 10 in 1973. > > > There was resistance to using it up to 75. I never ran into any > > > objections to using it in college after 1975. > > > > > > The "rubber book" I got cheap in 1975 because it was the previous > > > edition was, I think, the last edition to include log and trig tables. > > > The next edition was a fifth the size because you were expected to do > > > trig on your calculator. > > > > > > Was there still resistance in the 80s to calculators? Really? Where? > > > -- > > > We are geeks. Resistance is voltage over current. > > > > you don't have a resistance if you don't know how to calculate... > > > > people who didn't know hot to add 3+2 were very happy with calculators.. > > > > Now, those other symbols on the calculator...had no use for it. > > > > a waste of space if you ask me. > > after I figured out the + and the - sign on the calculator.. > it took years before i figured out what the * was for...nevermind the / > sign... > > i mean...hows is one suppose to know it's giving the right answers???? > > i know i must have press the CE button a million times!!!! the problem with these little devices is that it is doing the thinking for you... like a driver less car... brain less... a lot of that around here.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-09 22:04 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <56189C4D.9DB@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #525377 |
The Starmaker wrote: > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > Greg Goss wrote: > > > > > > > > Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > >I think all of us who went through engineering in the 80's and 90's had > > > > >to deal with brain-dead method of teaching. The teachers weren't ready > > > > >yet for the new world of calculators and computers, and they were > > > > >actively resisting it. People in the late 90's and beyond probably > > > > >didn't have to go through this problem. > > > > > > > > 80s and 90s? I got a scientific calculator in grade 10 in 1973. > > > > There was resistance to using it up to 75. I never ran into any > > > > objections to using it in college after 1975. > > > > > > > > The "rubber book" I got cheap in 1975 because it was the previous > > > > edition was, I think, the last edition to include log and trig tables. > > > > The next edition was a fifth the size because you were expected to do > > > > trig on your calculator. > > > > > > > > Was there still resistance in the 80s to calculators? Really? Where? > > > > -- > > > > We are geeks. Resistance is voltage over current. > > > > > > you don't have a resistance if you don't know how to calculate... > > > > > > people who didn't know hot to add 3+2 were very happy with calculators.. > > > > > > Now, those other symbols on the calculator...had no use for it. > > > > > > a waste of space if you ask me. > > > > after I figured out the + and the - sign on the calculator.. > > it took years before i figured out what the * was for...nevermind the / > > sign... > > > > i mean...hows is one suppose to know it's giving the right answers???? > > > > i know i must have press the CE button a million times!!!! > > the problem with these little devices is that it is doing the thinking > for you... > besides...those calculators..make mistakes.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | wdstarr@panix.com (William December Starr) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-08 08:19 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <mv5n19$s4e$1@panix3.panix.com> |
| In reply to | #525244 |
In article <d7mm0aF4l4jU1@mid.individual.net>, Greg Goss <gossg@gossg.org> said: > The "rubber book" I got cheap in 1975 because it was the previous > edition was, I think, the last edition to include log and trig > tables. The next edition was a fifth the size because you were > expected to do trig on your calculator. You're talking about the rubber math book, right? For me at least, unadorned "rubber book" defaults to meaning the three-inch-thick Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, which for as long as they keep publishing it on paper (do they still?) is unlikely to ever slim down very much. (Still have my "52nd Edition, 1971-1072" edition. Admittedly, more because you never know when a 3x8x11" chunk of matter is going to come in handy than because I ever look anything up in it, but still.) -- wds
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | pnalsing@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-08 08:59 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <dfb2101f-dd33-4994-8a32-a7108e426ca6@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #525264 |
On Thursday, October 8, 2015 at 5:20:02 AM UTC-7, William December Starr wrote: > In article <d7mm0aF4l4jU1@mid.individual.net>, > Greg Goss <gossg@gossg.org> said: > > > The "rubber book" I got cheap in 1975 because it was the previous > > edition was, I think, the last edition to include log and trig > > tables. The next edition was a fifth the size because you were > > expected to do trig on your calculator. > > You're talking about the rubber math book, right? For me at least, > unadorned "rubber book" defaults to meaning the three-inch-thick > Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, which for as long as they keep > publishing it on paper (do they still?) is unlikely to ever slim down > very much. > > (Still have my "52nd Edition, 1971-1072" edition. Admittedly, more > because you never know when a 3x8x11" chunk of matter is going to come > in handy than because I ever look anything up in it, but still.) > > -- wds Pretty sure you guys are talking about the CRC (Chemical Rubber Company)... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CRC_Handbook_of_Chemistry_and_Physics ... I still have mine from the 60's... \Paul A
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Greg Goss <gossg@gossg.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-09 00:10 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <d7p439Fng61U2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #525264 |
wdstarr@panix.com (William December Starr) wrote: >In article <d7mm0aF4l4jU1@mid.individual.net>, >Greg Goss <gossg@gossg.org> said: > >> The "rubber book" I got cheap in 1975 because it was the previous >> edition was, I think, the last edition to include log and trig >> tables. The next edition was a fifth the size because you were >> expected to do trig on your calculator. > >You're talking about the rubber math book, right? For me at least, >unadorned "rubber book" defaults to meaning the three-inch-thick >Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, which for as long as they keep >publishing it on paper (do they still?) is unlikely to ever slim down >very much. The three inch 4400 (thin) page book was replaced by one about an inch and a half thick, once they didn't have to do the math tables anymore. >(Still have my "52nd Edition, 1971-1072" edition. Admittedly, more >because you never know when a 3x8x11" chunk of matter is going to come >in handy than because I ever look anything up in it, but still.) I knew where mine was before the spasm of moves between 2003 and 2005. I no longer know where anything is. Mine may have been 54th edition. -- We are geeks. Resistance is voltage over current.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | William Vetter <mdhangton@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-09 13:19 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <mv8ss4$9vi$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #525388 |
Greg Goss wrote: > wdstarr@panix.com (William December Starr) wrote: > >> In article <d7mm0aF4l4jU1@mid.individual.net>, >> Greg Goss <gossg@gossg.org> said: >> >>> The "rubber book" I got cheap in 1975 because it was the previous >>> edition was, I think, the last edition to include log and trig >>> tables. The next edition was a fifth the size because you were >>> expected to do trig on your calculator. >> >> You're talking about the rubber math book, right? For me at least, >> unadorned "rubber book" defaults to meaning the three-inch-thick >> Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, which for as long as they keep >> publishing it on paper (do they still?) is unlikely to ever slim down >> very much. > > The three inch 4400 (thin) page book was replaced by one about an inch > and a half thick, once they didn't have to do the math tables anymore. > >> (Still have my "52nd Edition, 1971-1072" edition. Admittedly, more >> because you never know when a 3x8x11" chunk of matter is going to come >> in handy than because I ever look anything up in it, but still.) > They changed the format of the solubility tables for chemicals around 1979, so it only listed what the stuff was soluble in, and you had to guess what the insolubilities were by omission. That was the only important change I ever noticed. For me, it made the book half as useful. There's another one, _Lange's Handbook of Chemistry_ that's similar, that I've always liked better.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | wdstarr@panix.com (William December Starr) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-09 21:27 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <mv9pi9$b3n$1@panix3.panix.com> |
| In reply to | #525388 |
In article <d7p439Fng61U2@mid.individual.net>,
Greg Goss <gossg@gossg.org> said:
> wdstarr@panix.com (William December Starr) wrote:
>
>> You're talking about the rubber math book, right? For me at least,
>> unadorned "rubber book" defaults to meaning the three-inch-thick
>> Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, which for as long as they keep
>> publishing it on paper (do they still?) is unlikely to ever slim
>> down very much.
>
> The three inch 4400 (thin) page book was replaced by one about an
> inch and a half thick, once they didn't have to do the math tables
> anymore.
I'm puzzled. Looking at the tables of contents (yes, plural; one
for each separately page-numbered section) in my 52nd edition,
1971-1972, the highest page numbers for each section are:
Mathematical Tables ..... A-191
The Elements and
Inorganic Compounds ..... B-542
Organic Compounds ....... C-775
General Chemical ........ D-238
General Physical
Constants ............... E-229
Miscellaneous ........... F-296
(Index) ................. I-34
...which adds up to 2,305 pages[1], of which the math tables take up
only about 8.3% of the total. Delete them and you sure don't cut the
page-count in half. (By the way, where did you get that 4,400 number
from? I can't believe that some earlier of later edition was _that_
different from the 52nd.)
-----------
*1: There's a little bit of slop in there because a section
might go on for a page or two after the start of its
last entry, but that's negligible.
-- wds
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Greg Goss <gossg@gossg.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-10 20:12 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <d7tusnFuc3iU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #525538 |
wdstarr@panix.com (William December Starr) wrote: >Greg Goss <gossg@gossg.org> said: >> The three inch 4400 (thin) page book was replaced by one about an >> inch and a half thick, once they didn't have to do the math tables >> anymore. >...which adds up to 2,305 pages[1], of which the math tables take up >only about 8.3% of the total. It was the seventies. Perhaps my memory of doing that calculation myself was garbled. -- We are geeks. Resistance is voltage over current.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lofty Goat <rlwatkins@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-05 19:08 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <yNWdnWcApceOjI7LnZ2dnUU7-NmdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #524641 |
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 | #524641 |
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 | #524804 |
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 | #524809 |
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 | #524820 |
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 | #524823 |
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 | #524825 |
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 | #524825 |
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 | #525294 |
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 | #525335 |
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]
Page 3 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web