 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 20/05/2010 6:16 PM, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>> Interestingly, I don't recall ever seeing a cream telephone box while
>>> walking around Hull...
>>
>> Neither have I but then I’ve only been there for a couple of days
>> about ten years ago.
>
> You'll notice I picked a city that I've actually visited...
>
Sucker punch :-P
--
Best Regards,
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> I had always assumed that the first computers were like current
> computers, just using relays or whatever instead of transistors, and
> with vastly inferior specifications.
A lot of the theory behind information processing, and especially on
finding the most efficient algorithm to accomplish a specific task,
comes from this era. When a single clock cycle of computer time costs
enough money to show up on a balance sheet, efficiency in computing
becomes something of interest.
> For that matter, does anybody have a broad timeline of when various
> technologies were in use? What are the dates for things like core
> memory, drum memory, punch cards, magnetic tape, relays, vacuum tubes,
> transistors, ICs, etc?
In the early 80s my high school went and bought a card reader for use in
quickly tallying input from the 2000+ students on things like student
council elections and so forth. They wanted me to help get the system
going, but I never spent more than an hour or so with it.
The US military had 50s-era cryptologic equipment, using vacuum tubes
and magnetic cores, in active service until the late 80s. The
transmitter and receiver together took up an entire equipment rack. It
was widely rumored among Air Force crypto technicians that the designer
of the system had been committed to an insane asylum, and that nobody
else fully understood how it worked.
Regards,
John
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 05/20/10 00:31, scott wrote:
> Yep that happens here with all my Japanese colleagues (I think they have
> words for 10e4 and 10e8 there). At first I just thought they were
We have a word for 10e8 here. It's called "billion".
--
The meek shall inherit the dearth.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 05/19/10 09:51, Darren New wrote:
> scott wrote:
>> separate words for 10e9 and 10e12, so there is no such confusion.
>
> And chinese uses steps of 10e5 or so, rather than 10e3. My wife always
Wow. Another one. I wonder how long this has been going on without
people noticing.
I recently bugged a guy at work for doing this.
--
The meek shall inherit the dearth.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Neeum Zawan wrote:
> On 05/19/10 09:51, Darren New wrote:
>> scott wrote:
>>> separate words for 10e9 and 10e12, so there is no such confusion.
>> And chinese uses steps of 10e5 or so, rather than 10e3. My wife always
>
> Wow. Another one. I wonder how long this has been going on without
> people noticing.
>
> I recently bugged a guy at work for doing this.
Heh. It's rather confusing to *me* when she starts talking about "there was
at first a hundred thousand people, then a thousand thousand people!" and
similar convolutions. We don't have a word for ten thousand as such, or I'm
sure it would get even more confusing instead of just a pause while the
translation goes on.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Ada - the programming language trying to avoid
you literally shooting yourself in the foot.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 20 May 2010 18:07:20 -0700, Neeum Zawan wrote:
> 10e8
Sounds more like 100 million to me, unless I can't count. ;-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 21/05/2010 2:12 AM, Darren New wrote:
> We don't have a word for ten thousand as such, or I'm sure it would get
> even more confusing instead of just a pause while the translation goes on.
Try Myriad that can be used for 10,000 as well as a very large number.
--
Best Regards,
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> 10e8
>
> Sounds more like 100 million to me, unless I can't count. ;-)
I think you (and I) can't count!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> When your entire life has taught you that expending almost unbounded
>> amounts of effort always produces no results, it becomes increasingly
>> hard to find motivation...
>
> BTDTGTTS.
I wonder if it's possible to use some kind of Markov-chain method to
probabalistically determine what random initialisms mean?
> Taking control takes effort, and it is/can be a trial-and-
> error process. Doesn't mean it's impossible.
Sure. If some things worked and some things didn't, I could handle that.
But when *nothing* works, where do you go next?
>> Required XKCD link: http://xkcd.com/187/
>
> That's a good one and extremely relevant. :-)
That's why I chose it. ;-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> A lot of the theory behind information processing, and especially on
> finding the most efficient algorithm to accomplish a specific task,
> comes from this era. When a single clock cycle of computer time costs
> enough money to show up on a balance sheet, efficiency in computing
> becomes something of interest.
I'l bet it does...
Of course, today efficiency has nothing to do with how many instructions
it takes and depends *only* on how good its cache behaviour is.
> In the early 80s my high school went and bought a card reader for use in
> quickly tallying input from the 2000+ students on things like student
> council elections and so forth. They wanted me to help get the system
> going, but I never spent more than an hour or so with it.
Man, I had no idea card readers persisted so long!
> The US military had 50s-era cryptologic equipment, using vacuum tubes
> and magnetic cores, in active service until the late 80s. The
> transmitter and receiver together took up an entire equipment rack.
Ah yes, but that's military equipment. It takes a lot of time, money and
effort to design mil spec equipment. If it still works, why change it?
(Or rather, "who's going to pay to redesign it?")
> It
> was widely rumored among Air Force crypto technicians that the designer
> of the system had been committed to an insane asylum, and that nobody
> else fully understood how it worked.
That totally sounds like something the Air Force would rumour. ;-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
