Old calculator for Win10

[Dave-UK]

If you prefer the original calculator you can install it:

http://winaero.com/download.php?view.1795

[philo]

On 02/04/2015 08:56 AM, Dave-UK wrote:
> If you prefer the original calculator you can install it:
>
> http://winaero.com/download.php?view.1795
>
>



For engineers and such, the new calculator could be pretty nice for all
the scientific functions...but for most folks the classic calculator
from those very ancient days of Win8.1 is probably just fine.

Few here under 100 years of age have probably even heard of Windows 8.1
, so thanks for those wonderful memories of times now past.


BTW: I guess Windows 7 must have done calculations using Roman numerals.

[philo]

On 02/04/2015 08:56 AM, Dave-UK wrote:
> If you prefer the original calculator you can install it:
>
> http://winaero.com/download.php?view.1795
>
>



For engineers and such, the new calculator could be pretty nice for all
the scientific functions...but for most folks the classic calculator
from those very ancient days of Win8.1 is probably just fine.

Few here under 100 years of age have probably even heard of Windows 8.1
, so thanks for those wonderful memories of times now past.


BTW: I guess Windows 7 must have done calculations using Roman numerals.

[Dave-UK]

"philo" > wrote in message ...
> On 02/04/2015 08:56 AM, Dave-UK wrote:
>> If you prefer the original calculator you can install it:
>>
>> http://winaero.com/download.php?view.1795
>>
>>
>
>
>
> For engineers and such, the new calculator could be pretty nice for all
> the scientific functions...but for most folks the classic calculator
> from those very ancient days of Win8.1 is probably just fine.
>
> Few here under 100 years of age have probably even heard of Windows 8.1
> , so thanks for those wonderful memories of times now past.
>
>
> BTW: I guess Windows 7 must have done calculations using Roman numerals.


You obviously don't know what you are talking about.
Have you even looked at Windows 7 calculator ?

From the view menu:
Standard
Scientific
Programmer
Statistics
Basic
Unit Conversion
Date calculation
Worksheets >
Mortgage
Vehicle lease
Fuel economy

And no, it doesn't use Roman numerals.

[Dave-UK]

"philo" > wrote in message ...
> On 02/04/2015 08:56 AM, Dave-UK wrote:
>> If you prefer the original calculator you can install it:
>>
>> http://winaero.com/download.php?view.1795
>>
>>
>
>
>
> For engineers and such, the new calculator could be pretty nice for all
> the scientific functions...but for most folks the classic calculator
> from those very ancient days of Win8.1 is probably just fine.
>
> Few here under 100 years of age have probably even heard of Windows 8.1
> , so thanks for those wonderful memories of times now past.
>
>
> BTW: I guess Windows 7 must have done calculations using Roman numerals.


You obviously don't know what you are talking about.
Have you even looked at Windows 7 calculator ?

From the view menu:
Standard
Scientific
Programmer
Statistics
Basic
Unit Conversion
Date calculation
Worksheets >
Mortgage
Vehicle lease
Fuel economy

And no, it doesn't use Roman numerals.

[Robson]

I think windows 10 calculator is a good choice.

"Dave-UK" escreveu na mensagem
b.com...

"philo" > wrote in message
...
> On 02/04/2015 08:56 AM, Dave-UK wrote:
>> If you prefer the original calculator you can install it:
>>
>> http://winaero.com/download.php?view.1795
>>
>>
>
>
>
> For engineers and such, the new calculator could be pretty nice for all
> the scientific functions...but for most folks the classic calculator from
> those very ancient days of Win8.1 is probably just fine.
>
> Few here under 100 years of age have probably even heard of Windows 8.1 ,
> so thanks for those wonderful memories of times now past.
>
>
> BTW: I guess Windows 7 must have done calculations using Roman numerals.


You obviously don't know what you are talking about.
Have you even looked at Windows 7 calculator ?

From the view menu:
Standard
Scientific
Programmer
Statistics
Basic
Unit Conversion
Date calculation
Worksheets >
Mortgage
Vehicle lease
Fuel economy

And no, it doesn't use Roman numerals.

[Robson]

I think windows 10 calculator is a good choice.

"Dave-UK" escreveu na mensagem
b.com...

"philo" > wrote in message
...
> On 02/04/2015 08:56 AM, Dave-UK wrote:
>> If you prefer the original calculator you can install it:
>>
>> http://winaero.com/download.php?view.1795
>>
>>
>
>
>
> For engineers and such, the new calculator could be pretty nice for all
> the scientific functions...but for most folks the classic calculator from
> those very ancient days of Win8.1 is probably just fine.
>
> Few here under 100 years of age have probably even heard of Windows 8.1 ,
> so thanks for those wonderful memories of times now past.
>
>
> BTW: I guess Windows 7 must have done calculations using Roman numerals.


You obviously don't know what you are talking about.
Have you even looked at Windows 7 calculator ?

From the view menu:
Standard
Scientific
Programmer
Statistics
Basic
Unit Conversion
Date calculation
Worksheets >
Mortgage
Vehicle lease
Fuel economy

And no, it doesn't use Roman numerals.

[philo]

On 02/04/2015 09:35 AM, Dave-UK wrote:
> "philo" > wrote in message

> And no, it doesn't use Roman numerals.
>
>
>
>
>


If you did not recognize that as a joke all I can say is:


sheesh

[philo]

On 02/04/2015 09:35 AM, Dave-UK wrote:
> "philo" > wrote in message

> And no, it doesn't use Roman numerals.
>
>
>
>
>


If you did not recognize that as a joke all I can say is:


sheesh

[Dave-UK]

"philo" > wrote in message ...
> On 02/04/2015 09:35 AM, Dave-UK wrote:
>> "philo" > wrote in message
>
>> And no, it doesn't use Roman numerals.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> If you did not recognize that as a joke all I can say is:
>
>
> sheesh
>

I didn't recognize it as a joke because it wasn't a joke.
It was just the usual crap from a linux troll.

[Dave-UK]

"philo" > wrote in message ...
> On 02/04/2015 09:35 AM, Dave-UK wrote:
>> "philo" > wrote in message
>
>> And no, it doesn't use Roman numerals.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> If you did not recognize that as a joke all I can say is:
>
>
> sheesh
>

I didn't recognize it as a joke because it wasn't a joke.
It was just the usual crap from a linux troll.

[philo]

On 02/04/2015 01:07 PM, Dave-UK wrote:
>


*PLONK*

[philo]

On 02/04/2015 01:07 PM, Dave-UK wrote:
>


*PLONK*

[Gene E. Bloch[_2_]]

On Wed, 04 Feb 2015 09:04:50 -0600, philo wrote:

> On 02/04/2015 08:56 AM, Dave-UK wrote:
>> If you prefer the original calculator you can install it:
>>
>> http://winaero.com/download.php?view.1795
>>
>>
>
> For engineers and such, the new calculator could be pretty nice for all
> the scientific functions...but for most folks the classic calculator
> from those very ancient days of Win8.1 is probably just fine.
>
> Few here under 100 years of age have probably even heard of Windows 8.1
> , so thanks for those wonderful memories of times now past.
>
> BTW: I guess Windows 7 must have done calculations using Roman numerals.

I think I might have written a Roman Numeral <--> Decimal converter a
long time ago, just for fun (fun?).

It was not trivial, but not hugely difficult either, IIRC.

I'd say this: if you want to create a calculator to do arithmetic in
Roman numerals, I'd advise using my converter to convert to decimal
first, then do the calculations, then convert back :-)

Sadly, I have no idea where the program might be today. Probably in a
landfill somewhere.

But I just looked at the Android app store, Google Play. No shortage of
Roman Numeral converters if you want one, & many are free.

Here's my first hit:
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.cmgapps.android.numeralsconverter
AKA http://tinyurl.com/khlhyxa

Also, here's a calculator that I found:
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.joelchristophel.romannumeralcalcula tor
AKA
http://tinyurl.com/mltkttx

I just copied the links - I made no attempt to look at the sites :-)

--
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)

[Gene E. Bloch[_2_]]

On Wed, 04 Feb 2015 09:04:50 -0600, philo wrote:

> On 02/04/2015 08:56 AM, Dave-UK wrote:
>> If you prefer the original calculator you can install it:
>>
>> http://winaero.com/download.php?view.1795
>>
>>
>
> For engineers and such, the new calculator could be pretty nice for all
> the scientific functions...but for most folks the classic calculator
> from those very ancient days of Win8.1 is probably just fine.
>
> Few here under 100 years of age have probably even heard of Windows 8.1
> , so thanks for those wonderful memories of times now past.
>
> BTW: I guess Windows 7 must have done calculations using Roman numerals.

I think I might have written a Roman Numeral <--> Decimal converter a
long time ago, just for fun (fun?).

It was not trivial, but not hugely difficult either, IIRC.

I'd say this: if you want to create a calculator to do arithmetic in
Roman numerals, I'd advise using my converter to convert to decimal
first, then do the calculations, then convert back :-)

Sadly, I have no idea where the program might be today. Probably in a
landfill somewhere.

But I just looked at the Android app store, Google Play. No shortage of
Roman Numeral converters if you want one, & many are free.

Here's my first hit:
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.cmgapps.android.numeralsconverter
AKA http://tinyurl.com/khlhyxa

Also, here's a calculator that I found:
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.joelchristophel.romannumeralcalcula tor
AKA
http://tinyurl.com/mltkttx

I just copied the links - I made no attempt to look at the sites :-)

--
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)

[philo]

On 02/04/2015 04:19 PM, Gene E. Bloch wrote:
> On Wed, 04 Feb 2015 09:04:50 -0600, philo wrote:
>
>> On 02/04/2015 08:56 AM, Dave-UK wrote:
>>> If you prefer the original calculator you can install it:
>>>
>>> http://winaero.com/download.php?view.1795
>>>
>>>
>>
>> For engineers and such, the new calculator could be pretty nice for all
>> the scientific functions...but for most folks the classic calculator
>> from those very ancient days of Win8.1 is probably just fine.
>>
>> Few here under 100 years of age have probably even heard of Windows 8.1
>> , so thanks for those wonderful memories of times now past.
>>
>> BTW: I guess Windows 7 must have done calculations using Roman numerals.
>
> I think I might have written a Roman Numeral <--> Decimal converter a
> long time ago, just for fun (fun?).
>
> It was not trivial, but not hugely difficult either, IIRC.
>
> I'd say this: if you want to create a calculator to do arithmetic in
> Roman numerals, I'd advise using my converter to convert to decimal
> first, then do the calculations, then convert back :-)
>
> Sadly, I have no idea where the program might be today. Probably in a
> landfill somewhere.
>
> But I just looked at the Android app store, Google Play. No shortage of
> Roman Numeral converters if you want one, & many are free.
>
> Here's my first hit:
> https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.cmgapps.android.numeralsconverter
> AKA http://tinyurl.com/khlhyxa
>
> Also, here's a calculator that I found:
> https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.joelchristophel.romannumeralcalcula tor
> AKA
> http://tinyurl.com/mltkttx
>
> I just copied the links - I made no attempt to look at the sites :-)
>



Thanks for the great info. I once saw a short movie about performing
calculations with Roman Numerals...it was near impossible

[philo]

On 02/04/2015 04:19 PM, Gene E. Bloch wrote:
> On Wed, 04 Feb 2015 09:04:50 -0600, philo wrote:
>
>> On 02/04/2015 08:56 AM, Dave-UK wrote:
>>> If you prefer the original calculator you can install it:
>>>
>>> http://winaero.com/download.php?view.1795
>>>
>>>
>>
>> For engineers and such, the new calculator could be pretty nice for all
>> the scientific functions...but for most folks the classic calculator
>> from those very ancient days of Win8.1 is probably just fine.
>>
>> Few here under 100 years of age have probably even heard of Windows 8.1
>> , so thanks for those wonderful memories of times now past.
>>
>> BTW: I guess Windows 7 must have done calculations using Roman numerals.
>
> I think I might have written a Roman Numeral <--> Decimal converter a
> long time ago, just for fun (fun?).
>
> It was not trivial, but not hugely difficult either, IIRC.
>
> I'd say this: if you want to create a calculator to do arithmetic in
> Roman numerals, I'd advise using my converter to convert to decimal
> first, then do the calculations, then convert back :-)
>
> Sadly, I have no idea where the program might be today. Probably in a
> landfill somewhere.
>
> But I just looked at the Android app store, Google Play. No shortage of
> Roman Numeral converters if you want one, & many are free.
>
> Here's my first hit:
> https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.cmgapps.android.numeralsconverter
> AKA http://tinyurl.com/khlhyxa
>
> Also, here's a calculator that I found:
> https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.joelchristophel.romannumeralcalcula tor
> AKA
> http://tinyurl.com/mltkttx
>
> I just copied the links - I made no attempt to look at the sites :-)
>



Thanks for the great info. I once saw a short movie about performing
calculations with Roman Numerals...it was near impossible

[Gene E. Bloch[_2_]]

On Wed, 04 Feb 2015 17:04:36 -0600, philo wrote:

> On 02/04/2015 04:19 PM, Gene E. Bloch wrote:
>> On Wed, 04 Feb 2015 09:04:50 -0600, philo wrote:
>>
>>> On 02/04/2015 08:56 AM, Dave-UK wrote:
>>>> If you prefer the original calculator you can install it:
>>>>
>>>> http://winaero.com/download.php?view.1795
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> For engineers and such, the new calculator could be pretty nice for all
>>> the scientific functions...but for most folks the classic calculator
>>> from those very ancient days of Win8.1 is probably just fine.
>>>
>>> Few here under 100 years of age have probably even heard of Windows 8.1
>>> , so thanks for those wonderful memories of times now past.
>>>
>>> BTW: I guess Windows 7 must have done calculations using Roman numerals.
>>
>> I think I might have written a Roman Numeral <--> Decimal converter a
>> long time ago, just for fun (fun?).
>>
>> It was not trivial, but not hugely difficult either, IIRC.
>>
>> I'd say this: if you want to create a calculator to do arithmetic in
>> Roman numerals, I'd advise using my converter to convert to decimal
>> first, then do the calculations, then convert back :-)
>>
>> Sadly, I have no idea where the program might be today. Probably in a
>> landfill somewhere.
>>
>> But I just looked at the Android app store, Google Play. No shortage of
>> Roman Numeral converters if you want one, & many are free.
>>
>> Here's my first hit:
>> https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.cmgapps.android.numeralsconverter
>> AKA http://tinyurl.com/khlhyxa
>>
>> Also, here's a calculator that I found:
>> https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.joelchristophel.romannumeralcalcula tor
>> AKA
>> http://tinyurl.com/mltkttx
>>
>> I just copied the links - I made no attempt to look at the sites :-)
>>
>
> Thanks for the great info. I once saw a short movie about performing
> calculations with Roman Numerals...it was near impossible

That's why they used abacuses.

The weird thing is how close an abacus is to Arabic numerals (by which I
mean any kind of positional notation), yet no one west of India made
that leap until Arab mathematicians eventually learned about them and
passed them on to the West.

I have seen references to algorithms for arithmetic in Arabic numerals,
or even (IIRC) descriptions, but sadly, no movies. I'd guess they're not
for the faint of heart :-)

I just looked at YouTube. Didn't find much, but one explication of
multiplication was too complicated, i.e, it was probably correct :-)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xNKTS3wnhAk

--
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)

[Gene E. Bloch[_2_]]

On Wed, 04 Feb 2015 17:04:36 -0600, philo wrote:

> On 02/04/2015 04:19 PM, Gene E. Bloch wrote:
>> On Wed, 04 Feb 2015 09:04:50 -0600, philo wrote:
>>
>>> On 02/04/2015 08:56 AM, Dave-UK wrote:
>>>> If you prefer the original calculator you can install it:
>>>>
>>>> http://winaero.com/download.php?view.1795
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> For engineers and such, the new calculator could be pretty nice for all
>>> the scientific functions...but for most folks the classic calculator
>>> from those very ancient days of Win8.1 is probably just fine.
>>>
>>> Few here under 100 years of age have probably even heard of Windows 8.1
>>> , so thanks for those wonderful memories of times now past.
>>>
>>> BTW: I guess Windows 7 must have done calculations using Roman numerals.
>>
>> I think I might have written a Roman Numeral <--> Decimal converter a
>> long time ago, just for fun (fun?).
>>
>> It was not trivial, but not hugely difficult either, IIRC.
>>
>> I'd say this: if you want to create a calculator to do arithmetic in
>> Roman numerals, I'd advise using my converter to convert to decimal
>> first, then do the calculations, then convert back :-)
>>
>> Sadly, I have no idea where the program might be today. Probably in a
>> landfill somewhere.
>>
>> But I just looked at the Android app store, Google Play. No shortage of
>> Roman Numeral converters if you want one, & many are free.
>>
>> Here's my first hit:
>> https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.cmgapps.android.numeralsconverter
>> AKA http://tinyurl.com/khlhyxa
>>
>> Also, here's a calculator that I found:
>> https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.joelchristophel.romannumeralcalcula tor
>> AKA
>> http://tinyurl.com/mltkttx
>>
>> I just copied the links - I made no attempt to look at the sites :-)
>>
>
> Thanks for the great info. I once saw a short movie about performing
> calculations with Roman Numerals...it was near impossible

That's why they used abacuses.

The weird thing is how close an abacus is to Arabic numerals (by which I
mean any kind of positional notation), yet no one west of India made
that leap until Arab mathematicians eventually learned about them and
passed them on to the West.

I have seen references to algorithms for arithmetic in Arabic numerals,
or even (IIRC) descriptions, but sadly, no movies. I'd guess they're not
for the faint of heart :-)

I just looked at YouTube. Didn't find much, but one explication of
multiplication was too complicated, i.e, it was probably correct :-)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xNKTS3wnhAk

--
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)

[philo]

On 02/04/2015 05:45 PM, Gene E. Bloch wrote:
> On
>>> I'd say this: if you want to create a calculator to do arithmetic in
>>> Roman numerals, I'd advise using my converter to convert to decimal
>>> first, then do the calculations, then convert back :-)
>>>
>>> Sadly, I have no idea where the program might be today. Probably in a
>>> landfill somewhere.
>>>
>>> But I just looked at the Android app store, Google Play. No shortage of
>>> Roman Numeral converters if you want one, & many are free.
>>>
>>> Here's my first hit:
>>> https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.cmgapps.android.numeralsconverter
>>> AKA http://tinyurl.com/khlhyxa
>>>
>>> Also, here's a calculator that I found:
>>> https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.joelchristophel.romannumeralcalcula tor
>>> AKA
>>> http://tinyurl.com/mltkttx
>>>
>>> I just copied the links - I made no attempt to look at the sites :-)
>>>
>>
>> Thanks for the great info. I once saw a short movie about performing
>> calculations with Roman Numerals...it was near impossible
>
> That's why they used abacuses.
>
> The weird thing is how close an abacus is to Arabic numerals (by which I
> mean any kind of positional notation), yet no one west of India made
> that leap until Arab mathematicians eventually learned about them and
> passed them on to the West.
>
> I have seen references to algorithms for arithmetic in Arabic numerals,
> or even (IIRC) descriptions, but sadly, no movies. I'd guess they're not
> for the faint of heart :-)
>
> I just looked at YouTube. Didn't find much, but one explication of
> multiplication was too complicated, i.e, it was probably correct :-)
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xNKTS3wnhAk
>



The "movie" I saw was a cartoon viewed when I was a kid.

[philo]

On 02/04/2015 05:45 PM, Gene E. Bloch wrote:
> On
>>> I'd say this: if you want to create a calculator to do arithmetic in
>>> Roman numerals, I'd advise using my converter to convert to decimal
>>> first, then do the calculations, then convert back :-)
>>>
>>> Sadly, I have no idea where the program might be today. Probably in a
>>> landfill somewhere.
>>>
>>> But I just looked at the Android app store, Google Play. No shortage of
>>> Roman Numeral converters if you want one, & many are free.
>>>
>>> Here's my first hit:
>>> https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.cmgapps.android.numeralsconverter
>>> AKA http://tinyurl.com/khlhyxa
>>>
>>> Also, here's a calculator that I found:
>>> https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.joelchristophel.romannumeralcalcula tor
>>> AKA
>>> http://tinyurl.com/mltkttx
>>>
>>> I just copied the links - I made no attempt to look at the sites :-)
>>>
>>
>> Thanks for the great info. I once saw a short movie about performing
>> calculations with Roman Numerals...it was near impossible
>
> That's why they used abacuses.
>
> The weird thing is how close an abacus is to Arabic numerals (by which I
> mean any kind of positional notation), yet no one west of India made
> that leap until Arab mathematicians eventually learned about them and
> passed them on to the West.
>
> I have seen references to algorithms for arithmetic in Arabic numerals,
> or even (IIRC) descriptions, but sadly, no movies. I'd guess they're not
> for the faint of heart :-)
>
> I just looked at YouTube. Didn't find much, but one explication of
> multiplication was too complicated, i.e, it was probably correct :-)
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xNKTS3wnhAk
>



The "movie" I saw was a cartoon viewed when I was a kid.

[Robson]

MS Excel has function to convert from arabic to roman numbers.

"philo" escreveu na mensagem ...

On 02/04/2015 05:45 PM, Gene E. Bloch wrote:
> On
>>> I'd say this: if you want to create a calculator to do arithmetic in
>>> Roman numerals, I'd advise using my converter to convert to decimal
>>> first, then do the calculations, then convert back :-)
>>>
>>> Sadly, I have no idea where the program might be today. Probably in a
>>> landfill somewhere.
>>>
>>> But I just looked at the Android app store, Google Play. No shortage of
>>> Roman Numeral converters if you want one, & many are free.
>>>
>>> Here's my first hit:
>>> https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.cmgapps.android.numeralsconverter
>>> AKA http://tinyurl.com/khlhyxa
>>>
>>> Also, here's a calculator that I found:
>>> https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.joelchristophel.romannumeralcalcula tor
>>> AKA
>>> http://tinyurl.com/mltkttx
>>>
>>> I just copied the links - I made no attempt to look at the sites :-)
>>>
>>
>> Thanks for the great info. I once saw a short movie about performing
>> calculations with Roman Numerals...it was near impossible
>
> That's why they used abacuses.
>
> The weird thing is how close an abacus is to Arabic numerals (by which I
> mean any kind of positional notation), yet no one west of India made
> that leap until Arab mathematicians eventually learned about them and
> passed them on to the West.
>
> I have seen references to algorithms for arithmetic in Arabic numerals,
> or even (IIRC) descriptions, but sadly, no movies. I'd guess they're not
> for the faint of heart :-)
>
> I just looked at YouTube. Didn't find much, but one explication of
> multiplication was too complicated, i.e, it was probably correct :-)
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xNKTS3wnhAk
>



The "movie" I saw was a cartoon viewed when I was a kid.

[Robson]

MS Excel has function to convert from arabic to roman numbers.

"philo" escreveu na mensagem ...

On 02/04/2015 05:45 PM, Gene E. Bloch wrote:
> On
>>> I'd say this: if you want to create a calculator to do arithmetic in
>>> Roman numerals, I'd advise using my converter to convert to decimal
>>> first, then do the calculations, then convert back :-)
>>>
>>> Sadly, I have no idea where the program might be today. Probably in a
>>> landfill somewhere.
>>>
>>> But I just looked at the Android app store, Google Play. No shortage of
>>> Roman Numeral converters if you want one, & many are free.
>>>
>>> Here's my first hit:
>>> https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.cmgapps.android.numeralsconverter
>>> AKA http://tinyurl.com/khlhyxa
>>>
>>> Also, here's a calculator that I found:
>>> https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.joelchristophel.romannumeralcalcula tor
>>> AKA
>>> http://tinyurl.com/mltkttx
>>>
>>> I just copied the links - I made no attempt to look at the sites :-)
>>>
>>
>> Thanks for the great info. I once saw a short movie about performing
>> calculations with Roman Numerals...it was near impossible
>
> That's why they used abacuses.
>
> The weird thing is how close an abacus is to Arabic numerals (by which I
> mean any kind of positional notation), yet no one west of India made
> that leap until Arab mathematicians eventually learned about them and
> passed them on to the West.
>
> I have seen references to algorithms for arithmetic in Arabic numerals,
> or even (IIRC) descriptions, but sadly, no movies. I'd guess they're not
> for the faint of heart :-)
>
> I just looked at YouTube. Didn't find much, but one explication of
> multiplication was too complicated, i.e, it was probably correct :-)
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xNKTS3wnhAk
>



The "movie" I saw was a cartoon viewed when I was a kid.

[Robson]

MS Excel has function to convert from arabic to roman numbers.

"philo" escreveu na mensagem ...

On 02/04/2015 05:45 PM, Gene E. Bloch wrote:
> On
>>> I'd say this: if you want to create a calculator to do arithmetic in
>>> Roman numerals, I'd advise using my converter to convert to decimal
>>> first, then do the calculations, then convert back :-)
>>>
>>> Sadly, I have no idea where the program might be today. Probably in a
>>> landfill somewhere.
>>>
>>> But I just looked at the Android app store, Google Play. No shortage of
>>> Roman Numeral converters if you want one, & many are free.
>>>
>>> Here's my first hit:
>>> https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.cmgapps.android.numeralsconverter
>>> AKA http://tinyurl.com/khlhyxa
>>>
>>> Also, here's a calculator that I found:
>>> https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.joelchristophel.romannumeralcalcula tor
>>> AKA
>>> http://tinyurl.com/mltkttx
>>>
>>> I just copied the links - I made no attempt to look at the sites :-)
>>>
>>
>> Thanks for the great info. I once saw a short movie about performing
>> calculations with Roman Numerals...it was near impossible
>
> That's why they used abacuses.
>
> The weird thing is how close an abacus is to Arabic numerals (by which I
> mean any kind of positional notation), yet no one west of India made
> that leap until Arab mathematicians eventually learned about them and
> passed them on to the West.
>
> I have seen references to algorithms for arithmetic in Arabic numerals,
> or even (IIRC) descriptions, but sadly, no movies. I'd guess they're not
> for the faint of heart :-)
>
> I just looked at YouTube. Didn't find much, but one explication of
> multiplication was too complicated, i.e, it was probably correct :-)
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xNKTS3wnhAk
>



The "movie" I saw was a cartoon viewed when I was a kid.

[Robson]

MS Excel has function to convert from arabic to roman numbers.

"philo" escreveu na mensagem ...

On 02/04/2015 05:45 PM, Gene E. Bloch wrote:
> On
>>> I'd say this: if you want to create a calculator to do arithmetic in
>>> Roman numerals, I'd advise using my converter to convert to decimal
>>> first, then do the calculations, then convert back :-)
>>>
>>> Sadly, I have no idea where the program might be today. Probably in a
>>> landfill somewhere.
>>>
>>> But I just looked at the Android app store, Google Play. No shortage of
>>> Roman Numeral converters if you want one, & many are free.
>>>
>>> Here's my first hit:
>>> https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.cmgapps.android.numeralsconverter
>>> AKA http://tinyurl.com/khlhyxa
>>>
>>> Also, here's a calculator that I found:
>>> https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.joelchristophel.romannumeralcalcula tor
>>> AKA
>>> http://tinyurl.com/mltkttx
>>>
>>> I just copied the links - I made no attempt to look at the sites :-)
>>>
>>
>> Thanks for the great info. I once saw a short movie about performing
>> calculations with Roman Numerals...it was near impossible
>
> That's why they used abacuses.
>
> The weird thing is how close an abacus is to Arabic numerals (by which I
> mean any kind of positional notation), yet no one west of India made
> that leap until Arab mathematicians eventually learned about them and
> passed them on to the West.
>
> I have seen references to algorithms for arithmetic in Arabic numerals,
> or even (IIRC) descriptions, but sadly, no movies. I'd guess they're not
> for the faint of heart :-)
>
> I just looked at YouTube. Didn't find much, but one explication of
> multiplication was too complicated, i.e, it was probably correct :-)
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xNKTS3wnhAk
>



The "movie" I saw was a cartoon viewed when I was a kid.

[Roderick Stewart]

On Wed, 4 Feb 2015 15:45:48 -0800, "Gene E. Bloch"
> wrote:

>I just looked at YouTube. Didn't find much, but one explication of
>multiplication was too complicated, i.e, it was probably correct :-)
>
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xNKTS3wnhAk

I you're interested in mathematics on Youtube, I hope you've found
"numberphile", "computerphile" and "vihart". They'll lead you to
others (or into insanity, one or the other).

Rod.

[Roderick Stewart]

On Wed, 4 Feb 2015 15:45:48 -0800, "Gene E. Bloch"
> wrote:

>I just looked at YouTube. Didn't find much, but one explication of
>multiplication was too complicated, i.e, it was probably correct :-)
>
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xNKTS3wnhAk

I you're interested in mathematics on Youtube, I hope you've found
"numberphile", "computerphile" and "vihart". They'll lead you to
others (or into insanity, one or the other).

Rod.

[David Rance[_2_]]

On Wed, 4 Feb 2015 14:19:04 Gene E. Bloch wrote:

>On Wed, 04 Feb 2015 09:04:50 -0600, philo wrote:
>
>> On 02/04/2015 08:56 AM, Dave-UK wrote:
>>> If you prefer the original calculator you can install it:
>>>
>>> http://winaero.com/download.php?view.1795
>>>
>>>
>>
>> For engineers and such, the new calculator could be pretty nice for all
>> the scientific functions...but for most folks the classic calculator
>> from those very ancient days of Win8.1 is probably just fine.
>>
>> Few here under 100 years of age have probably even heard of Windows 8.1
>> , so thanks for those wonderful memories of times now past.
>>
>> BTW: I guess Windows 7 must have done calculations using Roman numerals.
>
>I think I might have written a Roman Numeral <--> Decimal converter a
>long time ago, just for fun (fun?).
>
>It was not trivial, but not hugely difficult either, IIRC.
>
>I'd say this: if you want to create a calculator to do arithmetic in
>Roman numerals, I'd advise using my converter to convert to decimal
>first, then do the calculations, then convert back :-)

How do you cope with zero in roman numerals?

David

--
David Rance writing from Caversham, Reading, UK

[David Rance[_2_]]

On Wed, 4 Feb 2015 14:19:04 Gene E. Bloch wrote:

>On Wed, 04 Feb 2015 09:04:50 -0600, philo wrote:
>
>> On 02/04/2015 08:56 AM, Dave-UK wrote:
>>> If you prefer the original calculator you can install it:
>>>
>>> http://winaero.com/download.php?view.1795
>>>
>>>
>>
>> For engineers and such, the new calculator could be pretty nice for all
>> the scientific functions...but for most folks the classic calculator
>> from those very ancient days of Win8.1 is probably just fine.
>>
>> Few here under 100 years of age have probably even heard of Windows 8.1
>> , so thanks for those wonderful memories of times now past.
>>
>> BTW: I guess Windows 7 must have done calculations using Roman numerals.
>
>I think I might have written a Roman Numeral <--> Decimal converter a
>long time ago, just for fun (fun?).
>
>It was not trivial, but not hugely difficult either, IIRC.
>
>I'd say this: if you want to create a calculator to do arithmetic in
>Roman numerals, I'd advise using my converter to convert to decimal
>first, then do the calculations, then convert back :-)

How do you cope with zero in roman numerals?

David

--
David Rance writing from Caversham, Reading, UK

[wasbit[_4_]]

"Gene E. Bloch" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 04 Feb 2015 09:04:50 -0600, philo wrote:
>
> snip <
>
> I think I might have written a Roman Numeral <--> Decimal converter a
> long time ago, just for fun (fun?).
>
> It was not trivial, but not hugely difficult either, IIRC.
>
> Snip <
>
> Sadly, I have no idea where the program might be today. Probably in a
> landfill somewhere.
>

Any of these perhaps?

A Simple Roman Numeral Converter
-
http://www.nonags.com/freeware-a-simple-roman-numeral-converter-v1-00-00_413.html

Roman Arabic Numerals Converter
-
http://www.tvalx.com/products/RomanArabicNumeralsConverter/RomanArabicNumeralsConverter.html

Roman Numeral Converter
- http://gigrallc.com/software/roman-numeral-converter

Roman Numerals (online)
- http://ostermiller.org/calc/roman.html

Regards
wasbit

[wasbit[_4_]]

"Gene E. Bloch" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 04 Feb 2015 09:04:50 -0600, philo wrote:
>
> snip <
>
> I think I might have written a Roman Numeral <--> Decimal converter a
> long time ago, just for fun (fun?).
>
> It was not trivial, but not hugely difficult either, IIRC.
>
> Snip <
>
> Sadly, I have no idea where the program might be today. Probably in a
> landfill somewhere.
>

Any of these perhaps?

A Simple Roman Numeral Converter
-
http://www.nonags.com/freeware-a-simple-roman-numeral-converter-v1-00-00_413.html

Roman Arabic Numerals Converter
-
http://www.tvalx.com/products/RomanArabicNumeralsConverter/RomanArabicNumeralsConverter.html

Roman Numeral Converter
- http://gigrallc.com/software/roman-numeral-converter

Roman Numerals (online)
- http://ostermiller.org/calc/roman.html

Regards
wasbit

[Robson]

0 or decimals, negative or complex numbers doesn't exist in Roman numerals.
They used their numerals just to count things.

"David Rance" escreveu na mensagem
...

On Wed, 4 Feb 2015 14:19:04 Gene E. Bloch wrote:

>On Wed, 04 Feb 2015 09:04:50 -0600, philo wrote:
>
>> On 02/04/2015 08:56 AM, Dave-UK wrote:
>>> If you prefer the original calculator you can install it:
>>>
>>> http://winaero.com/download.php?view.1795
>>>
>>>
>>
>> For engineers and such, the new calculator could be pretty nice for all
>> the scientific functions...but for most folks the classic calculator
>> from those very ancient days of Win8.1 is probably just fine.
>>
>> Few here under 100 years of age have probably even heard of Windows 8.1
>> , so thanks for those wonderful memories of times now past.
>>
>> BTW: I guess Windows 7 must have done calculations using Roman numerals.
>
>I think I might have written a Roman Numeral <--> Decimal converter a
>long time ago, just for fun (fun?).
>
>It was not trivial, but not hugely difficult either, IIRC.
>
>I'd say this: if you want to create a calculator to do arithmetic in
>Roman numerals, I'd advise using my converter to convert to decimal
>first, then do the calculations, then convert back :-)

How do you cope with zero in roman numerals?

David

--
David Rance writing from Caversham, Reading, UK

[Robson]

0 or decimals, negative or complex numbers doesn't exist in Roman numerals.
They used their numerals just to count things.

"David Rance" escreveu na mensagem
...

On Wed, 4 Feb 2015 14:19:04 Gene E. Bloch wrote:

>On Wed, 04 Feb 2015 09:04:50 -0600, philo wrote:
>
>> On 02/04/2015 08:56 AM, Dave-UK wrote:
>>> If you prefer the original calculator you can install it:
>>>
>>> http://winaero.com/download.php?view.1795
>>>
>>>
>>
>> For engineers and such, the new calculator could be pretty nice for all
>> the scientific functions...but for most folks the classic calculator
>> from those very ancient days of Win8.1 is probably just fine.
>>
>> Few here under 100 years of age have probably even heard of Windows 8.1
>> , so thanks for those wonderful memories of times now past.
>>
>> BTW: I guess Windows 7 must have done calculations using Roman numerals.
>
>I think I might have written a Roman Numeral <--> Decimal converter a
>long time ago, just for fun (fun?).
>
>It was not trivial, but not hugely difficult either, IIRC.
>
>I'd say this: if you want to create a calculator to do arithmetic in
>Roman numerals, I'd advise using my converter to convert to decimal
>first, then do the calculations, then convert back :-)

How do you cope with zero in roman numerals?

David

--
David Rance writing from Caversham, Reading, UK

[Roderick Stewart]

On Thu, 5 Feb 2015 09:48:56 +0000, David Rance
> wrote:

>How do you cope with zero in roman numerals?

You don't.

Rod.

[Roderick Stewart]

On Thu, 5 Feb 2015 09:48:56 +0000, David Rance
> wrote:

>How do you cope with zero in roman numerals?

You don't.

Rod.

[Gene E. Bloch[_2_]]

On Thu, 5 Feb 2015 11:21:45 -0000, Robson wrote:

> 0 or decimals, negative or complex numbers doesn't exist in Roman numerals.
> They used their numerals just to count things.

+I

--
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)

[Gene E. Bloch[_2_]]

On Thu, 5 Feb 2015 11:21:45 -0000, Robson wrote:

> 0 or decimals, negative or complex numbers doesn't exist in Roman numerals.
> They used their numerals just to count things.

+I

--
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)

[Gene E. Bloch[_2_]]

On Thu, 05 Feb 2015 13:02:53 +0000, Roderick Stewart wrote:

> On Thu, 5 Feb 2015 09:48:56 +0000, David Rance
> > wrote:
>
>>How do you cope with zero in roman numerals?
>
> You don't.
>
> Rod.

+I

--
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)

[Gene E. Bloch[_2_]]

On Thu, 05 Feb 2015 13:02:53 +0000, Roderick Stewart wrote:

> On Thu, 5 Feb 2015 09:48:56 +0000, David Rance
> > wrote:
>
>>How do you cope with zero in roman numerals?
>
> You don't.
>
> Rod.

+I

--
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)

[Robson]

I've seen a lot plus one, what does it mean?

"Gene E. Bloch" escreveu na mensagem
...

On Thu, 5 Feb 2015 11:21:45 -0000, Robson wrote:

> 0 or decimals, negative or complex numbers doesn't exist in Roman
> numerals.
> They used their numerals just to count things.

+I

--
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)

[Robson]

I've seen a lot plus one, what does it mean?

"Gene E. Bloch" escreveu na mensagem
...

On Thu, 5 Feb 2015 11:21:45 -0000, Robson wrote:

> 0 or decimals, negative or complex numbers doesn't exist in Roman
> numerals.
> They used their numerals just to count things.

+I

--
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)

[David Rance[_2_]]

On Thu, 5 Feb 2015 11:21:45 Robson wrote:

>
>"David Rance" escreveu na mensagem
...
>
>On Wed, 4 Feb 2015 14:19:04 Gene E. Bloch wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 04 Feb 2015 09:04:50 -0600, philo wrote:
>>
>>> On 02/04/2015 08:56 AM, Dave-UK wrote:
>>>> If you prefer the original calculator you can install it:
>>>>
>>>> http://winaero.com/download.php?view.1795
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> For engineers and such, the new calculator could be pretty nice for all
>>> the scientific functions...but for most folks the classic calculator
>>> from those very ancient days of Win8.1 is probably just fine.
>>>
>>> Few here under 100 years of age have probably even heard of Windows 8.1
>>> , so thanks for those wonderful memories of times now past.
>>>
>>> BTW: I guess Windows 7 must have done calculations using Roman numerals.
>>
>>I think I might have written a Roman Numeral <--> Decimal converter a
>>long time ago, just for fun (fun?).
>>
>>It was not trivial, but not hugely difficult either, IIRC.
>>
>>I'd say this: if you want to create a calculator to do arithmetic in
>>Roman numerals, I'd advise using my converter to convert to decimal
>>first, then do the calculations, then convert back :-)
>
>How do you cope with zero in roman numerals?

>0 or decimals, negative or complex numbers doesn't exist in Roman
>numerals. They used their numerals just to count things.

That was the point I was making! :-)

David

--
David Rance writing from Caversham, Reading, UK

[David Rance[_2_]]

On Thu, 5 Feb 2015 11:21:45 Robson wrote:

>
>"David Rance" escreveu na mensagem
...
>
>On Wed, 4 Feb 2015 14:19:04 Gene E. Bloch wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 04 Feb 2015 09:04:50 -0600, philo wrote:
>>
>>> On 02/04/2015 08:56 AM, Dave-UK wrote:
>>>> If you prefer the original calculator you can install it:
>>>>
>>>> http://winaero.com/download.php?view.1795
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> For engineers and such, the new calculator could be pretty nice for all
>>> the scientific functions...but for most folks the classic calculator
>>> from those very ancient days of Win8.1 is probably just fine.
>>>
>>> Few here under 100 years of age have probably even heard of Windows 8.1
>>> , so thanks for those wonderful memories of times now past.
>>>
>>> BTW: I guess Windows 7 must have done calculations using Roman numerals.
>>
>>I think I might have written a Roman Numeral <--> Decimal converter a
>>long time ago, just for fun (fun?).
>>
>>It was not trivial, but not hugely difficult either, IIRC.
>>
>>I'd say this: if you want to create a calculator to do arithmetic in
>>Roman numerals, I'd advise using my converter to convert to decimal
>>first, then do the calculations, then convert back :-)
>
>How do you cope with zero in roman numerals?

>0 or decimals, negative or complex numbers doesn't exist in Roman
>numerals. They used their numerals just to count things.

That was the point I was making! :-)

David

--
David Rance writing from Caversham, Reading, UK

[David Rance[_2_]]

On Thu, 5 Feb 2015 13:02:53 Roderick Stewart wrote:

>On Thu, 5 Feb 2015 09:48:56 +0000, David Rance
> wrote:
>
>>How do you cope with zero in roman numerals?
>
>You don't.

Precisely! So how can one write a calculator using Roman numerals?

David

--
David Rance writing from Caversham, Reading, UK

[David Rance[_2_]]

On Thu, 5 Feb 2015 13:02:53 Roderick Stewart wrote:

>On Thu, 5 Feb 2015 09:48:56 +0000, David Rance
> wrote:
>
>>How do you cope with zero in roman numerals?
>
>You don't.

Precisely! So how can one write a calculator using Roman numerals?

David

--
David Rance writing from Caversham, Reading, UK

[Paul]

David Rance wrote:
> On Thu, 5 Feb 2015 13:02:53 Roderick Stewart wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 5 Feb 2015 09:48:56 +0000, David Rance
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> How do you cope with zero in roman numerals?
>>
>> You don't.
>
> Precisely! So how can one write a calculator using Roman numerals?
>
> David
>

XI
- XI
------
nulla
------

It's in the section on Zero here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_numerals

Paul

[Paul]

David Rance wrote:
> On Thu, 5 Feb 2015 13:02:53 Roderick Stewart wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 5 Feb 2015 09:48:56 +0000, David Rance
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> How do you cope with zero in roman numerals?
>>
>> You don't.
>
> Precisely! So how can one write a calculator using Roman numerals?
>
> David
>

XI
- XI
------
nulla
------

It's in the section on Zero here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_numerals

Paul

[B00ze/Empire]

On 2015-02-04 09:56, Dave-UK > wrote:

> If you prefer the original calculator you can install it:
> http://winaero.com/download.php?view.1795

This is just the executable from Win 8.1 (not sure about 8.1 but it's
calc.exe in Win 7). I can NOT believe they took it out in Win 10. So all
we're left with is that utterly useless Full Screen App ??

Thanks.
Best Regards,

--
! _\|/_ Sylvain /
! (o o) Member-+-David-Suzuki-Foundation/EFF/Planetary-Society-+-
oO-( )-Oo Grow your own dope - Plant a politician!

[B00ze/Empire]

On 2015-02-04 09:56, Dave-UK > wrote:

> If you prefer the original calculator you can install it:
> http://winaero.com/download.php?view.1795

This is just the executable from Win 8.1 (not sure about 8.1 but it's
calc.exe in Win 7). I can NOT believe they took it out in Win 10. So all
we're left with is that utterly useless Full Screen App ??

Thanks.
Best Regards,

--
! _\|/_ Sylvain /
! (o o) Member-+-David-Suzuki-Foundation/EFF/Planetary-Society-+-
oO-( )-Oo Grow your own dope - Plant a politician!

[Gene E. Bloch[_2_]]

On Thu, 5 Feb 2015 19:29:54 -0000, Robson wrote:

> I've seen a lot plus one, what does it mean?
>
> "Gene E. Bloch" escreveu na mensagem
> ...
>
> On Thu, 5 Feb 2015 11:21:45 -0000, Robson wrote:
>
>> 0 or decimals, negative or complex numbers doesn't exist in Roman
>> numerals.
>> They used their numerals just to count things.
>
> +I

It means Me too or I agree or Add me to the list, but please note that I
didn't quite write plus one, I wrote plus Roman numeral one...

--
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)

[Gene E. Bloch[_2_]]

On Thu, 5 Feb 2015 19:29:54 -0000, Robson wrote:

> I've seen a lot plus one, what does it mean?
>
> "Gene E. Bloch" escreveu na mensagem
> ...
>
> On Thu, 5 Feb 2015 11:21:45 -0000, Robson wrote:
>
>> 0 or decimals, negative or complex numbers doesn't exist in Roman
>> numerals.
>> They used their numerals just to count things.
>
> +I

It means Me too or I agree or Add me to the list, but please note that I
didn't quite write plus one, I wrote plus Roman numeral one...

--
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)

[Gene E. Bloch[_2_]]

On Thu, 5 Feb 2015 22:20:51 +0000, David Rance wrote:

> On Thu, 5 Feb 2015 13:02:53 Roderick Stewart wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 5 Feb 2015 09:48:56 +0000, David Rance
> wrote:
>>
>>>How do you cope with zero in roman numerals?
>>
>>You don't.
>
> Precisely! So how can one write a calculator using Roman numerals?
>
> David

Omit zero.

--
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)

[Gene E. Bloch[_2_]]

On Thu, 5 Feb 2015 22:20:51 +0000, David Rance wrote:

> On Thu, 5 Feb 2015 13:02:53 Roderick Stewart wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 5 Feb 2015 09:48:56 +0000, David Rance
> wrote:
>>
>>>How do you cope with zero in roman numerals?
>>
>>You don't.
>
> Precisely! So how can one write a calculator using Roman numerals?
>
> David

Omit zero.

--
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)

[David Rance[_2_]]

On Thu, 5 Feb 2015 18:01:40 Paul wrote:

>David Rance wrote:
>> On Thu, 5 Feb 2015 13:02:53 Roderick Stewart wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 5 Feb 2015 09:48:56 +0000, David Rance
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> How do you cope with zero in roman numerals?
>>>
>>> You don't.

>> Precisely! So how can one write a calculator using Roman numerals?
>>
>
> XI
> - XI
>------
> nulla
>------
>
>It's in the section on Zero here.
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_numerals

That's a medieval addition to the system. But if we were to take a
calculator back 2,000 years they wouldn't have that! (I'm taking the
*principle* from "A Connecticut Yankee at King Arthur's court!)

Actually a calculator would have been more use to the Ancient Greeks.

Ok, so I'm being pedantic! ;-)

David
--
David Rance writing from Caversham, Reading, UK

[David Rance[_2_]]

On Thu, 5 Feb 2015 18:01:40 Paul wrote:

>David Rance wrote:
>> On Thu, 5 Feb 2015 13:02:53 Roderick Stewart wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 5 Feb 2015 09:48:56 +0000, David Rance
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> How do you cope with zero in roman numerals?
>>>
>>> You don't.

>> Precisely! So how can one write a calculator using Roman numerals?
>>
>
> XI
> - XI
>------
> nulla
>------
>
>It's in the section on Zero here.
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_numerals

That's a medieval addition to the system. But if we were to take a
calculator back 2,000 years they wouldn't have that! (I'm taking the
*principle* from "A Connecticut Yankee at King Arthur's court!)

Actually a calculator would have been more use to the Ancient Greeks.

Ok, so I'm being pedantic! ;-)

David
--
David Rance writing from Caversham, Reading, UK

[Dave-UK]

"B00ze/Empire" > wrote in message ...
> On 2015-02-04 09:56, Dave-UK > wrote:
>
>> If you prefer the original calculator you can install it:
>> http://winaero.com/download.php?view.1795
>
> This is just the executable from Win 8.1 (not sure about 8.1 but it's
> calc.exe in Win 7). I can NOT believe they took it out in Win 10. So all
> we're left with is that utterly useless Full Screen App ??
>
> Thanks.
> Best Regards,
>

I'm running build 9926 and the Win10 calculator is in a resizable window.
Apart from the horrible interface it looks like there are a couple
of features missing (that were in the Win7 calculator), like the Date
calculation and the Statistics option.

[Dave-UK]

"B00ze/Empire" > wrote in message ...
> On 2015-02-04 09:56, Dave-UK > wrote:
>
>> If you prefer the original calculator you can install it:
>> http://winaero.com/download.php?view.1795
>
> This is just the executable from Win 8.1 (not sure about 8.1 but it's
> calc.exe in Win 7). I can NOT believe they took it out in Win 10. So all
> we're left with is that utterly useless Full Screen App ??
>
> Thanks.
> Best Regards,
>

I'm running build 9926 and the Win10 calculator is in a resizable window.
Apart from the horrible interface it looks like there are a couple
of features missing (that were in the Win7 calculator), like the Date
calculation and the Statistics option.

[Bob Henson[_2_]]

On 06/02/2015 9:03 am, David Rance wrote:

> That's a medieval addition to the system. But if we were to take a
> calculator back 2,000 years they wouldn't have that! (I'm taking the
> *principle* from "A Connecticut Yankee at King Arthur's court!)
>
> Actually a calculator would have been more use to the Ancient Greeks.

They had several, but then I'm sure you know that :-). This is the
prettiest/smartest?

http://www.livescience.com/1166-scientists-unravel-mystery-ancient-greek-machine.html

and

http://goo.gl/WzRths

The good old abacus is there, of course.

>
> Ok, so I'm being pedantic! ;-)

It's good to know that some things never change.

Regards,

Don Quixote


--
Experience - a lesson from life discovered just after you most needed it.

Bob
Tetbury, Gloucestershire, UK

[Bob Henson[_2_]]

On 06/02/2015 9:03 am, David Rance wrote:

> That's a medieval addition to the system. But if we were to take a
> calculator back 2,000 years they wouldn't have that! (I'm taking the
> *principle* from "A Connecticut Yankee at King Arthur's court!)
>
> Actually a calculator would have been more use to the Ancient Greeks.

They had several, but then I'm sure you know that :-). This is the
prettiest/smartest?

http://www.livescience.com/1166-scientists-unravel-mystery-ancient-greek-machine.html

and

http://goo.gl/WzRths

The good old abacus is there, of course.

>
> Ok, so I'm being pedantic! ;-)

It's good to know that some things never change.

Regards,

Don Quixote


--
Experience - a lesson from life discovered just after you most needed it.

Bob
Tetbury, Gloucestershire, UK

[David Rance[_2_]]

On Fri, 6 Feb 2015 09:24:14 Bob Henson wrote:

>On 06/02/2015 9:03 am, David Rance wrote:
>
>> That's a medieval addition to the system. But if we were to take a
>> calculator back 2,000 years they wouldn't have that! (I'm taking the
>> *principle* from "A Connecticut Yankee at King Arthur's court!)
>>
>> Actually a calculator would have been more use to the Ancient Greeks.
>
>They had several, but then I'm sure you know that :-). This is the
>prettiest/smartest?
>
>http://www.livescience.com/1166-scientists-unravel-mystery-ancient-greek
>-machine.html

Actually I hadn't heard about that, but my wife had!
>
>and
>
>http://goo.gl/WzRths
>
>The good old abacus is there, of course.

Did you see Bargain Hunt yesterday? They had an old hand £sd calculating
machine which sold for only £15. That was a shame because I've got one
exactly like it, inherited from an uncle many years ago, and was hoping
that I might have a valuable treasure.
>>
>> Ok, so I'm being pedantic! ;-)
>
>It's good to know that some things never change.

Touché!

>Regards,
>
>Don Quixote

Semper fidelis!

--
David Rance writing from Caversham, Reading, UK

[David Rance[_2_]]

On Fri, 6 Feb 2015 09:24:14 Bob Henson wrote:

>On 06/02/2015 9:03 am, David Rance wrote:
>
>> That's a medieval addition to the system. But if we were to take a
>> calculator back 2,000 years they wouldn't have that! (I'm taking the
>> *principle* from "A Connecticut Yankee at King Arthur's court!)
>>
>> Actually a calculator would have been more use to the Ancient Greeks.
>
>They had several, but then I'm sure you know that :-). This is the
>prettiest/smartest?
>
>http://www.livescience.com/1166-scientists-unravel-mystery-ancient-greek
>-machine.html

Actually I hadn't heard about that, but my wife had!
>
>and
>
>http://goo.gl/WzRths
>
>The good old abacus is there, of course.

Did you see Bargain Hunt yesterday? They had an old hand £sd calculating
machine which sold for only £15. That was a shame because I've got one
exactly like it, inherited from an uncle many years ago, and was hoping
that I might have a valuable treasure.
>>
>> Ok, so I'm being pedantic! ;-)
>
>It's good to know that some things never change.

Touché!

>Regards,
>
>Don Quixote

Semper fidelis!

--
David Rance writing from Caversham, Reading, UK

[Joel]

I've just noticed that now. I prefer the old one too. Thanks.

"Dave-UK" wrote in message
b.com...

"B00ze/Empire" > wrote in message
...
> On 2015-02-04 09:56, Dave-UK > wrote:
>
>> If you prefer the original calculator you can install it:
>> http://winaero.com/download.php?view.1795
>
> This is just the executable from Win 8.1 (not sure about 8.1 but it's calc.exe
> in Win 7). I can NOT believe they took it out in Win 10. So all we're left
> with is that utterly useless Full Screen App ??
>
> Thanks.
> Best Regards,
>

I'm running build 9926 and the Win10 calculator is in a resizable window.
Apart from the horrible interface it looks like there are a couple
of features missing (that were in the Win7 calculator), like the Date
calculation and the Statistics option.

[Joel]

I've just noticed that now. I prefer the old one too. Thanks.

"Dave-UK" wrote in message
b.com...

"B00ze/Empire" > wrote in message
...
> On 2015-02-04 09:56, Dave-UK > wrote:
>
>> If you prefer the original calculator you can install it:
>> http://winaero.com/download.php?view.1795
>
> This is just the executable from Win 8.1 (not sure about 8.1 but it's calc.exe
> in Win 7). I can NOT believe they took it out in Win 10. So all we're left
> with is that utterly useless Full Screen App ??
>
> Thanks.
> Best Regards,
>

I'm running build 9926 and the Win10 calculator is in a resizable window.
Apart from the horrible interface it looks like there are a couple
of features missing (that were in the Win7 calculator), like the Date
calculation and the Statistics option.

[Robson]

People will miss windows 8.

"Joel" escreveu na mensagem ...

I've just noticed that now. I prefer the old one too. Thanks.

"Dave-UK" wrote in message
b.com...

"B00ze/Empire" > wrote in message
...
> On 2015-02-04 09:56, Dave-UK > wrote:
>
>> If you prefer the original calculator you can install it:
>> http://winaero.com/download.php?view.1795
>
> This is just the executable from Win 8.1 (not sure about 8.1 but it's
> calc.exe in Win 7). I can NOT believe they took it out in Win 10. So all
> we're left with is that utterly useless Full Screen App ??
>
> Thanks.
> Best Regards,
>

I'm running build 9926 and the Win10 calculator is in a resizable window.
Apart from the horrible interface it looks like there are a couple
of features missing (that were in the Win7 calculator), like the Date
calculation and the Statistics option.

[Robson]

People will miss windows 8.

"Joel" escreveu na mensagem ...

I've just noticed that now. I prefer the old one too. Thanks.

"Dave-UK" wrote in message
b.com...

"B00ze/Empire" > wrote in message
...
> On 2015-02-04 09:56, Dave-UK > wrote:
>
>> If you prefer the original calculator you can install it:
>> http://winaero.com/download.php?view.1795
>
> This is just the executable from Win 8.1 (not sure about 8.1 but it's
> calc.exe in Win 7). I can NOT believe they took it out in Win 10. So all
> we're left with is that utterly useless Full Screen App ??
>
> Thanks.
> Best Regards,
>

I'm running build 9926 and the Win10 calculator is in a resizable window.
Apart from the horrible interface it looks like there are a couple
of features missing (that were in the Win7 calculator), like the Date
calculation and the Statistics option.

[Ken Blake, MVP[_4_]]

On Thu, 5 Feb 2015 18:10:30 -0800, "Gene E. Bloch"
> wrote:

> > +I
>
> It means Me too or I agree or Add me to the list,


Out of curiosity, do you, or anyone else here, know how that got
started?

[Ken Blake, MVP[_4_]]

On Thu, 5 Feb 2015 18:10:30 -0800, "Gene E. Bloch"
> wrote:

> > +I
>
> It means Me too or I agree or Add me to the list,


Out of curiosity, do you, or anyone else here, know how that got
started?

[Gene E. Bloch[_2_]]

On Fri, 06 Feb 2015 08:16:24 -0700, Ken Blake, MVP wrote:

> On Thu, 5 Feb 2015 18:10:30 -0800, "Gene E. Bloch"
> > wrote:
>
>>> +I
>>
>> It means Me too or I agree or Add me to the list,
>
> Out of curiosity, do you, or anyone else here, know how that got
> started?

There was a thread somewhere that talked about that, but I don't recall
the details.

From what I manage to recall it started at one of the social sites, like
Twitter or FaceBook.

And while I was typing, another synonym came to mind: ditto.

--
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)

[Gene E. Bloch[_2_]]

On Fri, 06 Feb 2015 08:16:24 -0700, Ken Blake, MVP wrote:

> On Thu, 5 Feb 2015 18:10:30 -0800, "Gene E. Bloch"
> > wrote:
>
>>> +I
>>
>> It means Me too or I agree or Add me to the list,
>
> Out of curiosity, do you, or anyone else here, know how that got
> started?

There was a thread somewhere that talked about that, but I don't recall
the details.

From what I manage to recall it started at one of the social sites, like
Twitter or FaceBook.

And while I was typing, another synonym came to mind: ditto.

--
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)

[Ken Blake, MVP[_4_]]

On Fri, 6 Feb 2015 12:02:12 -0800, "Gene E. Bloch"
> wrote:

> On Fri, 06 Feb 2015 08:16:24 -0700, Ken Blake, MVP wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 5 Feb 2015 18:10:30 -0800, "Gene E. Bloch"
> > > wrote:
> >
> >>> +I
> >>
> >> It means Me too or I agree or Add me to the list,
> >
> > Out of curiosity, do you, or anyone else here, know how that got
> > started?
>
> There was a thread somewhere that talked about that, but I don't recall
> the details.
>
> From what I manage to recall it started at one of the social sites, like
> Twitter or FaceBook.


I think I remember that too. But I was about not just where it
started, but why that.

[Ken Blake, MVP[_4_]]

On Fri, 6 Feb 2015 12:02:12 -0800, "Gene E. Bloch"
> wrote:

> On Fri, 06 Feb 2015 08:16:24 -0700, Ken Blake, MVP wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 5 Feb 2015 18:10:30 -0800, "Gene E. Bloch"
> > > wrote:
> >
> >>> +I
> >>
> >> It means Me too or I agree or Add me to the list,
> >
> > Out of curiosity, do you, or anyone else here, know how that got
> > started?
>
> There was a thread somewhere that talked about that, but I don't recall
> the details.
>
> From what I manage to recall it started at one of the social sites, like
> Twitter or FaceBook.


I think I remember that too. But I was about not just where it
started, but why that.

[Gene E. Bloch[_2_]]

On Fri, 06 Feb 2015 13:32:26 -0700, Ken Blake, MVP wrote:

> On Fri, 6 Feb 2015 12:02:12 -0800, "Gene E. Bloch"
> > wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 06 Feb 2015 08:16:24 -0700, Ken Blake, MVP wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 5 Feb 2015 18:10:30 -0800, "Gene E. Bloch"
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>>> +I
>>>>
>>>> It means Me too or I agree or Add me to the list,
>>>
>>> Out of curiosity, do you, or anyone else here, know how that got
>>> started?
>>
>> There was a thread somewhere that talked about that, but I don't recall
>> the details.
>>
>> From what I manage to recall it started at one of the social sites, like
>> Twitter or FaceBook.
>
> I think I remember that too. But I was about not just where it
> started, but why that.
>

Plus one = add one, or one more, i.e., someone who agrees, me too (not
me 2). Or how about add one to the score...

--
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)

[Gene E. Bloch[_2_]]

On Fri, 06 Feb 2015 13:32:26 -0700, Ken Blake, MVP wrote:

> On Fri, 6 Feb 2015 12:02:12 -0800, "Gene E. Bloch"
> > wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 06 Feb 2015 08:16:24 -0700, Ken Blake, MVP wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 5 Feb 2015 18:10:30 -0800, "Gene E. Bloch"
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>>> +I
>>>>
>>>> It means Me too or I agree or Add me to the list,
>>>
>>> Out of curiosity, do you, or anyone else here, know how that got
>>> started?
>>
>> There was a thread somewhere that talked about that, but I don't recall
>> the details.
>>
>> From what I manage to recall it started at one of the social sites, like
>> Twitter or FaceBook.
>
> I think I remember that too. But I was about not just where it
> started, but why that.
>

Plus one = add one, or one more, i.e., someone who agrees, me too (not
me 2). Or how about add one to the score...

--
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)

[Ken Blake, MVP[_4_]]

On Fri, 6 Feb 2015 13:44:04 -0800, "Gene E. Bloch"
> wrote:

> On Fri, 06 Feb 2015 13:32:26 -0700, Ken Blake, MVP wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 6 Feb 2015 12:02:12 -0800, "Gene E. Bloch"
> > > wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, 06 Feb 2015 08:16:24 -0700, Ken Blake, MVP wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Thu, 5 Feb 2015 18:10:30 -0800, "Gene E. Bloch"
> >>> > wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>> +I
> >>>>
> >>>> It means Me too or I agree or Add me to the list,
> >>>
> >>> Out of curiosity, do you, or anyone else here, know how that got
> >>> started?
> >>
> >> There was a thread somewhere that talked about that, but I don't recall
> >> the details.
> >>
> >> From what I manage to recall it started at one of the social sites, like
> >> Twitter or FaceBook.
> >
> > I think I remember that too. But I was about not just where it
> > started, but why that.
> >
>
> Plus one = add one, or one more, i.e., someone who agrees, me too (not
> me 2).


Yes, I've supposed the same. But I'm not sure my supposition is
correct.

[Ken Blake, MVP[_4_]]

On Fri, 6 Feb 2015 13:44:04 -0800, "Gene E. Bloch"
> wrote:

> On Fri, 06 Feb 2015 13:32:26 -0700, Ken Blake, MVP wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 6 Feb 2015 12:02:12 -0800, "Gene E. Bloch"
> > > wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, 06 Feb 2015 08:16:24 -0700, Ken Blake, MVP wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Thu, 5 Feb 2015 18:10:30 -0800, "Gene E. Bloch"
> >>> > wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>> +I
> >>>>
> >>>> It means Me too or I agree or Add me to the list,
> >>>
> >>> Out of curiosity, do you, or anyone else here, know how that got
> >>> started?
> >>
> >> There was a thread somewhere that talked about that, but I don't recall
> >> the details.
> >>
> >> From what I manage to recall it started at one of the social sites, like
> >> Twitter or FaceBook.
> >
> > I think I remember that too. But I was about not just where it
> > started, but why that.
> >
>
> Plus one = add one, or one more, i.e., someone who agrees, me too (not
> me 2).


Yes, I've supposed the same. But I'm not sure my supposition is
correct.

[Alek]

Gene E. Bloch wrote on 2/6/2015 3:02 PM:
> On Fri, 06 Feb 2015 08:16:24 -0700, Ken Blake, MVP wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 5 Feb 2015 18:10:30 -0800, "Gene E. Bloch"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>> +I
>>>
>>> It means Me too or I agree or Add me to the list,
>>
>> Out of curiosity, do you, or anyone else here, know how that got
>> started?
>
> There was a thread somewhere that talked about that, but I don't recall
> the details.
>
> From what I manage to recall it started at one of the social sites, like
> Twitter or FaceBook.
>
> And while I was typing, another synonym came to mind: ditto.
>

Amen!

[Alek]

Gene E. Bloch wrote on 2/6/2015 3:02 PM:
> On Fri, 06 Feb 2015 08:16:24 -0700, Ken Blake, MVP wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 5 Feb 2015 18:10:30 -0800, "Gene E. Bloch"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>> +I
>>>
>>> It means Me too or I agree or Add me to the list,
>>
>> Out of curiosity, do you, or anyone else here, know how that got
>> started?
>
> There was a thread somewhere that talked about that, but I don't recall
> the details.
>
> From what I manage to recall it started at one of the social sites, like
> Twitter or FaceBook.
>
> And while I was typing, another synonym came to mind: ditto.
>

Amen!

[Alek]

Ken Blake, MVP wrote on 2/6/2015 3:32 PM:
> On Fri, 6 Feb 2015 12:02:12 -0800, "Gene E. Bloch"
> > wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 06 Feb 2015 08:16:24 -0700, Ken Blake, MVP wrote:
>>
>> > On Thu, 5 Feb 2015 18:10:30 -0800, "Gene E. Bloch"
>> > > wrote:
>> >
>> >>> +I
>> >>
>> >> It means Me too or I agree or Add me to the list,
>> >
>> > Out of curiosity, do you, or anyone else here, know how that got
>> > started?
>>
>> There was a thread somewhere that talked about that, but I don't recall
>> the details.
>>
>> From what I manage to recall it started at one of the social sites, like
>> Twitter or FaceBook.
>
>
> I think I remember that too. But I was about not just where it
> started, but why that.
>
>
>


+1 is to Google Plus as "Like" is to Facebook.

[Alek]

Ken Blake, MVP wrote on 2/6/2015 3:32 PM:
> On Fri, 6 Feb 2015 12:02:12 -0800, "Gene E. Bloch"
> > wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 06 Feb 2015 08:16:24 -0700, Ken Blake, MVP wrote:
>>
>> > On Thu, 5 Feb 2015 18:10:30 -0800, "Gene E. Bloch"
>> > > wrote:
>> >
>> >>> +I
>> >>
>> >> It means Me too or I agree or Add me to the list,
>> >
>> > Out of curiosity, do you, or anyone else here, know how that got
>> > started?
>>
>> There was a thread somewhere that talked about that, but I don't recall
>> the details.
>>
>> From what I manage to recall it started at one of the social sites, like
>> Twitter or FaceBook.
>
>
> I think I remember that too. But I was about not just where it
> started, but why that.
>
>
>


+1 is to Google Plus as "Like" is to Facebook.

[Robson]

"Gene E. Bloch" escreveu na mensagem
...
>
>On Fri, 06 Feb 2015 13:32:26 -0700, Ken Blake, MVP wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 6 Feb 2015 12:02:12 -0800, "Gene E. Bloch"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 06 Feb 2015 08:16:24 -0700, Ken Blake, MVP wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 5 Feb 2015 18:10:30 -0800, "Gene E. Bloch"
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> +I
>>>>>
>>>>> It means Me too or I agree or Add me to the list,
>>>>
>>>> Out of curiosity, do you, or anyone else here, know how that got
>>>> started?
>>>
>>> There was a thread somewhere that talked about that, but I don't recall
>>> the details.
>>>
>>> From what I manage to recall it started at one of the social sites, like
>>> Twitter or FaceBook.
>>
>> I think I remember that too. But I was about not just where it
>> started, but why that.
>>
>
>Plus one = add one, or one more, i.e., someone who agrees, me too (not
>me 2). Or how about add one to the score...
>

Someone who agrees? Kind of like on facebook?

[Robson]

"Gene E. Bloch" escreveu na mensagem
...
>
>On Fri, 06 Feb 2015 13:32:26 -0700, Ken Blake, MVP wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 6 Feb 2015 12:02:12 -0800, "Gene E. Bloch"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 06 Feb 2015 08:16:24 -0700, Ken Blake, MVP wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 5 Feb 2015 18:10:30 -0800, "Gene E. Bloch"
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> +I
>>>>>
>>>>> It means Me too or I agree or Add me to the list,
>>>>
>>>> Out of curiosity, do you, or anyone else here, know how that got
>>>> started?
>>>
>>> There was a thread somewhere that talked about that, but I don't recall
>>> the details.
>>>
>>> From what I manage to recall it started at one of the social sites, like
>>> Twitter or FaceBook.
>>
>> I think I remember that too. But I was about not just where it
>> started, but why that.
>>
>
>Plus one = add one, or one more, i.e., someone who agrees, me too (not
>me 2). Or how about add one to the score...
>

Someone who agrees? Kind of like on facebook?

[Gene E. Bloch[_2_]]

On Fri, 06 Feb 2015 17:16:55 -0500, Alek wrote:

> Ken Blake, MVP wrote on 2/6/2015 3:32 PM:
>> On Fri, 6 Feb 2015 12:02:12 -0800, "Gene E. Bloch"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 06 Feb 2015 08:16:24 -0700, Ken Blake, MVP wrote:
>>>
>>> > On Thu, 5 Feb 2015 18:10:30 -0800, "Gene E. Bloch"
>>> > > wrote:
>>> >
>>> >>> +I
>>> >>
>>> >> It means Me too or I agree or Add me to the list,
>>> >
>>> > Out of curiosity, do you, or anyone else here, know how that got
>>> > started?
>>>
>>> There was a thread somewhere that talked about that, but I don't recall
>>> the details.
>>>
>>> From what I manage to recall it started at one of the social sites, like
>>> Twitter or FaceBook.
>>
>> I think I remember that too. But I was about not just where it
>> started, but why that.
>>
>>
>>
>
> +1 is to Google Plus as "Like" is to Facebook.

Thanks.

I've never been to any of those, so I was in the dark.

I started seeing "+1" in the newsgroups, and never knew its origin
otherwise.

I like your "Amen" in the other post :-)

--
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)

[Gene E. Bloch[_2_]]

On Fri, 06 Feb 2015 17:16:55 -0500, Alek wrote:

> Ken Blake, MVP wrote on 2/6/2015 3:32 PM:
>> On Fri, 6 Feb 2015 12:02:12 -0800, "Gene E. Bloch"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 06 Feb 2015 08:16:24 -0700, Ken Blake, MVP wrote:
>>>
>>> > On Thu, 5 Feb 2015 18:10:30 -0800, "Gene E. Bloch"
>>> > > wrote:
>>> >
>>> >>> +I
>>> >>
>>> >> It means Me too or I agree or Add me to the list,
>>> >
>>> > Out of curiosity, do you, or anyone else here, know how that got
>>> > started?
>>>
>>> There was a thread somewhere that talked about that, but I don't recall
>>> the details.
>>>
>>> From what I manage to recall it started at one of the social sites, like
>>> Twitter or FaceBook.
>>
>> I think I remember that too. But I was about not just where it
>> started, but why that.
>>
>>
>>
>
> +1 is to Google Plus as "Like" is to Facebook.

Thanks.

I've never been to any of those, so I was in the dark.

I started seeing "+1" in the newsgroups, and never knew its origin
otherwise.

I like your "Amen" in the other post :-)

--
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)