Grace Hopper, UNIVAC, and the First Programming Language 137
M-Saunders (706738) writes "It weighed 13 tons, had 5,200 vacuum tubes, and took up a whole garage, but the UNIVAC I was an incredible machine for its time. Memory was provided by tanks of liquid mercury, while the clock speed was a whopping 2.25 MHz. The UNIVAC I was one of the first commercial general-purpose computers produced, with 46 shipped, and Linux Voice has taken an in-depth look at it. Learn its fascinating instruction set, and also check out FLOW-MATIC, the first English-language data processing language created by American computing pioneer Grace Hopper."
Re:That's ADMIRAL Grace Hopper (Score:5, Informative)
no, Rear Admiral, Lower Half. But during WW II, her rank was Lieutenant, Junior Grade. She retired with rank of Commander in 1966. But then returned to service and was promoted to Captain in 1973, and by act of Congress Commodore in 1983. That rank had its name changed to the RA, LH in the 90s
Re:Coined the term 'bug' (Score:3, Informative)
No she didn't.
The journal entry reads "first example of an actual bug", which clearly indicates that the term was already in use.
If you look in the OED, the first use of "bug" to mean a technical glitch of some sort dates from 1870-1899.
To be fair, Hopper never claimed to have originated the term.
Re:Finally! (Score:5, Informative)
I'm an old guy, and I'm telling you that what you just said was, well, un-educated. It's hard to come up with a good word for that without sounding pejorative, so I apologize in advance. Anyway, I've heard this before and it's bullshit. It always seems to come from people who were born into wealth or privilege.
It's very much like "slaves got free food and shelter, so what were they complaining about argument".
Did you notice that the list of privileges you laid out are all in relation to a husband? For almost all women before the 1960's the only possible comfortable life was by having a husband. People in power had absolutely no problem with refusing jobs, loans, or admittance to anything by saying to her face "no, you're a female, this is for men ". Trust me on this; I was there.
until the 1960's:
Almost no University or medical school (except women's colleges) would accept her as a student unless she was a blood relative of a faculty member or wealthy donor.
Those that did accept women only allowed them into nursing, teaching, or similar programs. yes, I know there were a few exceptions and those were EXCEPTIONS, so don't give us any examples of someone who got in.
Almost no bank would grant a loan for business or property without the written permission of her husband, unless she was a blood relative of one of the bank's officers.
Almost no career advancement path was available for a woman, but they could do the same work with a lower title. Women could be bookkeepers, but not accountants. They could move from clerk to office manager (of clerks), but not district or regional managers.
Yes, there were women that got careers and did well. My mother was one of those, but had to fight bald-faced anti-female discrimination constantly. No one should go through what she did just to get her job done. She was an exception, probably a 5-sigma IQ and also raised as a tomboy, and also had a husband who backed her up. Very few people can't bring to a fight what she was born with; she was one of the exceptions.
But for every one of those there were countless others who had the door slammed in their face or stabbed in the back for the sole reason they were female.
Re:Finally! (Score:2, Informative)
It's very much like "slaves got free food and shelter, so what were they complaining about argument".
Aaand we're off. Women as historical slaves. Let's take a closer look at that, shall we?
NO, that's not what I said. I did NOT say women were historical slaves.
I am comparing the points made by of Gilder and Rensselaer (that women had certain advantages in society) to the similar points made by slavery apologists.
Perhaps, I did a bad job of what I was stating. I am comparing the type of argument, not the living conditions. Once again, I am NOT stating that women were historical slaves. For one thing, in western society at least, marriage was voluntary.
Did you notice that the list of privileges you laid out are all in relation to a husband?
Yes, that was the point I was making. Wives in comparison to husbands, people of equivalent social status except one has more priveleges than the other, and it turns out that it wasn't the husband. This came from a woman of the time incidentally, and an awful lot of women agreed with her. Of course they were probably also incensed at the attitudes of the suffragettes towards poor folk and those of colour.
The point I'm making is that these advantages were only between husband and wife. Not everyone is married. I don't see why single women should be punished for the advantages married women have.
For almost all women before the 1960's the only possible comfortable life was by having a husband.
So any unmarried women rapidly died off in poverty?
NO! I did not say that!
I meant what I said. What I said was "For almost all women before the 1960's the only possible comfortable life was by having a husband."
How can you conflate not "being comfortable" with "died off in poverty"?
Seriously, how?
People in power had absolutely no problem with refusing jobs, loans, or admittance to anything by saying to her face "no, you're a female, this is for men ". Trust me on this; I was there.
And do you think that was because they hated women or didn't want to have to deal with long absences if she got pregnant? There's usually a practical reason for all of this stuff once you scratch the surface and dispense with the hysterics.
Well, the answer is "all of the above". Some hated women; misogynists had free reign not so long ago, and there was no body of law to stop them.
True, some "didn't want to have to deal with long absences if she got pregnant", but that was an after-the-fact excuse. The people who said those kinds of things would not hire a women under any circumstance, so the pregnancy argument is BS. It falls into the same kinds of reason people gave for why they would not hire a Catholic or a Jew. It's just an excuse for their bias. And yes, there may be practical reasons for all this stuff, but the point is you cannot exclude all of a class of people (women) on the grounds that some have a problem, like getting pregnant.
Almost no University or medical school (except women's colleges) would accept her as a student unless she was a blood relative of a faculty member or wealthy donor.
Which applied to men also. Third level education was for rich people back then.
Are you being intentionally obtuse? This has nothing to do with being rich or poor.
Most universities did not consider nor accept the applications of females. When you look closer at the cases of those few who did get in, you'll find that those women did not go through the application process, they were admitted through the intervention of a person of influence.
yes, I know there were a few exceptions and those were EXCEPTIONS, so don't give us any examples of someone who got in.
Okay, so