Ah, yes, I still recall toggling in the bootstrap loader on an HP 2116A.
The index, middle, and ring fingers on my right hand can still do
"3-finger binary" (octal). I daresay I could still do some of its
assembly language programing if I put my mind to it. We had a TTYPE and
a punched-tape reader. No monitor, of course. The boss wouldn't spring
for a magnetic tape unit (MTU), either. The FORTRAN compiler was too
expensive, so we had to use that new, cheap programming language called
BASIC. (The compiler and the assembler were on two separate punched
paper tapes.) But the campus computer had just been upgraded from
FORTRAN II to to FORTRAN IV so we did the heavy duty calculations on it.
Jim
On 2011-01-16 0601, John M. Steele wrote:
Original FORTRAN didn't have the luxury of lower case. It evolved in the
days of Teletypes (punched tape input) and keypunches (punched card
input). ASCII only had 64 characters, including non-printing control
characters. The origin of line numbers in programs was to reassemble the
card deck if dropped or the card reader mangled some cards.
At the time, we were properly grateful as it was superior to writing
machine code by hand and toggling it in on front panel switches (the
bootstrap loader) and we were reminded of the convenience everyday (the
bootstrap loader).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*From:* James R. Frysinger <j...@metricmethods.com>
*To:* U.S. Metric Association <usma@colostate.edu>
*Sent:* Sat, January 15, 2011 7:02:07 PM
*Subject:* [USMA:49525] Re: Screen size conundrum
I don't know of any computer programming language up to and within
FORTRAN's generation of languages that did or does use superscripts.
Some higher (upper generation) languages such as MathCAD and Mathematica
might perhaps use superscripts, though.
In fact, computer languages are the source of the caret we often use
here to represent superscripting. Similar "workarounds" exist for
subscripting (such as the use of the underscore). Some of the "layout"
programs (such as LaTeX) and spreadsheets make similar adaptations.
Jim
On 2011-01-15 1124, Martin Vlietstra wrote:
> ... FORTRAN did not have the luxury of superscripts and subscripts
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-u...@colostate.edu <mailto:owner-u...@colostate.edu>
[mailto:owner-u...@colostate.edu <mailto:owner-u...@colostate.edu>] On
Behalf
> Of James R. Frysinger
> Sent: 15 January 2011 16:52
> To: U.S. Metric Association
> Subject: [USMA:49523] Re: Screen size conundrum
>
> Correction: E notation is not engineering notation. It is FORTRAN
> notation, since carried forth into other computer languages.
>
> Jim
>
> On 2011-01-15 1046, James R. Frysinger wrote:
>> I can find no examples of engineering (E) notation in the SI Brochure.
>> All of their examples are in terms of scientific notation (×10). NIST SP
>> 811 prefers scientific notation.
>>
>> Apart from that, Gene's preference might be fine for engineers and
>> scientists, but I cannot imagine it being used in advertisements meant
>> for public information.
>>
>> Jim
>>
>> On 2011-01-14 2339, mech...@illinois.edu
<mailto:mech...@illinois.edu> wrote:
>>> For Jim's sample, I would prefer "pixel density" of 20.84 E6 m^-2;
>>> keeping the prefix "milli" out of the denominator, retaining only the
>>> four original significant digits, and avoiding confusing of the
>>> "entity" (pixel) with the SI unit (m^-2), even though base 10
>>> exponential notation (E6) is not universally established.
>>>
>>> ---- Original message ----
>>>> Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2011 11:39:48 -0600
>>>> From: "James R. Frysinger"<j...@metricmethods.com
<mailto:j...@metricmethods.com>>
>>>> Subject: [USMA:49516] Re: Screen size conundrum
>>>> To: "U.S. Metric Association"<usma@colostate.edu
<mailto:usma@colostate.edu>>
>>>>
>>>> Pixels are discrete, uniform (within one device) entities. Rather like
>>>> ladybugs. I think the proper unit is merely inverse square meters
>>>> (m^-2). If one is not averse to using prefixes in the denominator,
then
>>>> large numerical values can be avoided.
>>>>
>>>> Sample:
>>>> "The display screen of my HP laptop is set to 1680 pixels by 1050
>>>> pixels, for a total of 1 764 000 pixels. Its dimensions are 36.8 cm by
>>>> 23.0 cm, giving it an area of 846.40 cm2. Its pixel density then
is 2084
>>>> cm^-2."
>>>>
>>>> Note that in the above example, the result could have been given as
>>>> 20.84 mm^-2 (or 20.84/mm2). If one objects to using prefixes in the
>>>> denominator, then this would have been 20 840 000/m2, a rather
large and
>>>> cumbersome number. Note that I have provided 4 digit precision here,
>>>> rather than 3 digit precision, despite the precision of the screen
>>>> dimensions.
>>>>
>>>> Personally, I prefer seeing the number of pixels in a square
centimeter
>>>> or in a square millimeter. I have no great objection to prefixes in
>>>> denominators, especially when there are no units in the numerator.
I can
>>>> visualize a square centimeter or square millimeter at least as
easily as
>>>> I can visualize a square meter. But I can visualize 21 or 2100
much more
>>>> easily than I can visualize 21 000 000.
>>>>
>>>> By the way, one must distinguish among native resolution (or pixel
>>>> density) and those provided by software techniques.
>>>>
>>>> Jim
>>>>
>>>> On 2011-01-14 1059, mech...@illinois.edu
<mailto:mech...@illinois.edu> wrote:
>>>>> Michael, Jon, and Patrick,
>>>>>
>>>>> The "best" unit for TV screen area (size) is the coherent SI unit
>>>>> "meter squared."
>>>>> Flat screens of area about 1 m^2 and larger are already quite common.
>>>>>
>>>>> The "best" unit for TV pixel density is the unit "pixels per meter
>>>>> squared."
>>>>> (I hesitate to call "pixels/m^2" an "SI unit." How is "pixel"
>>>>> related to SI?
>>>>>
>>>>> Of course, SI prefixes may be applied to the numerators of each unit
>>>>> (preferably, excluding prefixes in the denominators).
>>>>>
>>>>> Gene.
>>>>>
>>>>> ---- Original message ----
>>>>>> Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2011 07:00:14 -0500
>>>>>> From: Jon Saxton<spam.t...@verizon.net
<mailto:spam.t...@verizon.net>>
>>>>>> Subject: [USMA:49509] Re: Screen size conundrum
>>>>>> To: "U.S. Metric Association"<usma@colostate.edu
<mailto:usma@colostate.edu>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I thought about this issue about 4 years ago. I think the best unit
>>>>>> for
>>>>>> measuring screen sizes is dm² but I expect an adverse reaction from
>>>>>> other members of this list.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2011-01-12 1858, Michael GLASS wrote:
>>>>>>> Dear People,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There's a real problem with electronic screen sizes - all of them.
>>>>>>> This
>>>>>>> includes cameras, video cameras, computers, DVD players GPS
>>>>>>> monitors and
>>>>>>> television sets.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 1 Because the screens are different shapes, there is no fixed
>>>>>>> relationship
>>>>>>> between the size of the screen and the measure given.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 2 Even in cases where there is a fixed ratio between shape of the
>>>>>>> screen and
>>>>>>> the size of the screen, the increase in the size is not linear,
>>>>>>> but is
>>>>>>> related to the square of the number given.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 3 As a result, power consumption on larger screen sizes is far
>>>>>>> higher than
>>>>>>> might be anticipated by looking at the screen size. For example, a
>>>>>>> 15 inch
>>>>>>> computer monitor is very nearly a 33% larger than a 13 inch model
>>>>>>> whereas 15
>>>>>>> is just over 15% larger than 13.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 4 With the issue of global warming, the power consumption of
>>>>>>> larger screens
>>>>>>> is a matter of increasing concern.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 5 Even if you express screen sizes in metric terms the diagonal is
>>>>>>> still a
>>>>>>> misleading measure of the size of the screen.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It seems to me that the best way to express the size of the screen
>>>>>>> is to
>>>>>>> give its area. So here is my conundrum: would it be better to
>>>>>>> express this
>>>>>>> size in square metres, square millimetres or square metres? What
>>>>>>> do others
>>>>>>> think?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Michael Glass
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> James R. Frysinger
>>>> 632 Stony Point Mountain Road
>>>> Doyle, TN 38559-3030
>>>>
>>>> (C) 931.212.0267
>>>> (H) 931.657.3107
>>>> (F) 931.657.3108
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
--
James R. Frysinger
632 Stony Point Mountain Road
Doyle, TN 38559-3030
(C) 931.212.0267
(H) 931.657.3107
(F) 931.657.3108
--
James R. Frysinger
632 Stony Point Mountain Road
Doyle, TN 38559-3030
(C) 931.212.0267
(H) 931.657.3107
(F) 931.657.3108
