22 Feb
2004
22 Feb
'04
4:05 p.m.
John Lawson <jpl15(a)panix.com> wrote:
But there already were IBM Hollerith machines in World War II, weren't there?
I even remember reading about Nazis using them for bean counting in their camps.
So how can it only be 39 years old? WW2 ended in 1945, so it must be at least
2004-1945=59 years old.
MS
39th?
Shouldn't it be older than that?
No; they're very near Rochester. 
22 Feb
22 Feb
4:31 p.m.
New subject: Hollerith (was: lk401 keyboard protocol?
> > 39th? Shouldn't it be older than that?
On Sun, 22 Feb 2004, Michael Sokolov wrote:
But there already were IBM Hollerith machines in World
War II, weren't there?
I even remember reading about Nazis using them for bean counting in their camps.
So how can it only be 39 years old? WW2 ended in 1945, so it must be at least
2004-1945=59 years old.
Yes, young ones.
The 1890 census was, indeed, before World War II.
Hollerith Tabulating Company was absorbed in about 1915 into
Calculating-Tabulating-Recording Co., which changed name to
IBM in about 1925
--
Grumpy Ol' Fred cisin(a)xenosoft.com
5:37 p.m.
New subject: Hollerith (was: lk401 keyboard protocol?
On Sun, 22 Feb 2004 blstuart(a)bellsouth.net wrote:
Feb 29, 1860.
Therefore, 35th birthday (1900 was NOT a leap year)
Some 1890 ASCII keyboards:
http://www.computer.org/history/development/graphics/1890hol1.jpg
The reason why the 1890 census was expected to take too long
to process without Hollerith was:
A) There were too many dinosaurs to count
B) Volts flowed slower in those days
C) They were using MICROS~1 software
D) There was a shortage of 1s to use in making binary
E) The need to invent hanging chad
> > >
39th? Shouldn't it be older than that?
Methinks ol' Herman must have been
born on February 29, 1848. 
5:52 p.m.
New subject: Hollerith (was: lk401 keyboard protocol?
In message <20040222202842.V77297(a)newshell.lmi.net>et>, Fred Cisin writes:
On Sun, 22 Feb 2004 blstuart(a)bellsouth.net wrote:
Feb 29, 1860.
Therefore, 35th birthday (1900 was NOT a leap year)
DOH (accompanied by the distinctive sound of a palm and
a forehead making rapid contact)! And afer all the times
I've covered the leap year example in class, how could
I have forgotten that. Of course, since I was working
> >
> 39th? Shouldn't it be older than that?
Methinks ol' Herman must have
been born on February 29, 1848. from 39th birthday, I would have ended up with 1844
which would still have been off.
The reason why the 1890 census was expected to take too
long
to process without Hollerith was:
A) There were too many dinosaurs to count
B) Volts flowed slower in those days
C) They were using MICROS~1 software
D) There was a shortage of 1s to use in making binary
E) The need to invent hanging chad
Gee I thought that it was because they were being sued
because the idea of counting people violated SCO's
intellectual property.
BLS
23 Feb
23 Feb
12:22 a.m.
New subject: Hollerith (was: lk401 keyboard protocol?
Exactly!
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: cctalk-bounces(a)classiccmp.org
>> [mailto:cctalk-bounces@classiccmp.org] On Behalf Of
>> blstuart(a)bellsouth.net
>> Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2004 11:11 PM
>> To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts
>> Subject: Re: Hollerith (was: lk401 keyboard protocol?
>>
>> >> > > 39th? Shouldn't it be older than that?
>>
>> Methinks ol' Herman must have been born on February 29, 1848.
>>
>> Brian L. Stuart
>>
7:29 a.m.
New subject: Hollerith (was: lk401 keyboard protocol?
Well, ...
not "Exactly!", since he was born in 1860, therefore it would be 35, not
39 (NB: 1900 was NOT a leap year)
On Mon, 23 Feb 2004, David V. Corbin wrote:
Exactly!
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: cctalk-bounces(a)classiccmp.org
>>> [mailto:cctalk-bounces@classiccmp.org] On Behalf Of
>>> blstuart(a)bellsouth.net
>>> Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2004 11:11 PM
>>> To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts
>>> Subject: Re: Hollerith (was: lk401 keyboard protocol?
>>>
>>> >> > > 39th? Shouldn't it be older than that?
>>>
>>> Methinks ol' Herman must have been born on February 29, 1848.
>>>
>>> Brian L. Stuart
1:15 p.m.
New subject: Hollerith (was: lk401 keyboard protocol?
To those who (correctly) posted that I was off by 4 (16) years, you are all
100% correct. Mia Culpa.
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: cctalk-bounces(a)classiccmp.org
>> [mailto:cctalk-bounces@classiccmp.org] On Behalf Of Fred Cisin
>> Sent: Monday, February 23, 2004 1:29 PM
>> To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts
>> Subject: RE: Hollerith (was: lk401 keyboard protocol?
>>
>> Well, ...
>> not "Exactly!", since he was born in 1860, therefore it
>> would be 35, not
>> 39 (NB: 1900 was NOT a leap year)
>>
>> On Mon, 23 Feb 2004, David V. Corbin wrote:
>>
>> > Exactly!
>> >
>> > >>> -----Original Message-----
>> > >>> From: cctalk-bounces(a)classiccmp.org
>> > >>> [mailto:cctalk-bounces@classiccmp.org] On Behalf Of
>> > >>> blstuart(a)bellsouth.net
>> > >>> Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2004 11:11 PM
>> > >>> To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts
>> > >>> Subject: Re: Hollerith (was: lk401 keyboard protocol?
>> > >>>
>> > >>> >> > > 39th? Shouldn't it be older than that?
>> > >>>
>> > >>> Methinks ol' Herman must have been born on February 29,
1848.
>> > >>>
>> > >>> Brian L. Stuart
7436
days inactive
7437
days old
7 comments
4 participants
participants (4)
-
blstuart＠bellsouth.net -
cisin＠xenosoft.com -
dvcorbin＠optonline.net -
msokolov＠ivan.Harhan.ORG