This
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Would it be prudent to include the accomplishments of other ENIAC members in order to keep Antonelli's in context of her coworkers? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Srosen12 ( talk • contribs) 20:46, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
Subroutine claims John Mauchly during his work on ENIAC, with a citation. 'It Began with Babbage: The Genesis of Computer Science. Oxford University Press. pp. 155–. ISBN 978-0-19-930943-6.'
I did find:
http://fortune.com/2014/09/18/walter-isaacson-the-women-of-eniac/
Mwasheim (
talk) 10:50, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
Unclear is who is speaking/reporting? Sigh. -- Mwasheim ( talk) 10:24, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
This is a bit vague but may be the direction from(
https://courses.cs.washington.edu/courses/csep590/06au/readings/00511940-frist.pdf ):
After 1947, the trade-off decision between the storage of data or the recomputation of an analytic expression
representing the data was made by the women programmers. as part of the programming process. Such decisions continue as a
part of the programming process to some extent even today
Mwasheim (
talk) 11:17, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
Tricky. The ENIAC page also mentions Antonelli (well Mauchly) as responsible for subroutines. The cite there is the fortune article.
Close reading suggestions subroutines where there by design. IE the capability of branching, parallelism and the master programmer for loop control. But that's speculation. Mwasheim ( talk) 11:53, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
Does this "Greenie" (the selected, but replaced, computer) have a name? If not, should we indicate "true name unknown"? NoDepositNoReturn ( talk) 02:16, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
The explanation for why the ENIAC operators worked off of blueprints in this article is that the ENIAC project is classified. The explanation in Betty Holberton was that "they were viewed too incompetent to work with physical materials."
Both seem suspect to me -- obviously, they were competent to operate the ENIAC for years under production circumstances, and were demonstrably competent throughout their preceding careers, so I have to ask "viewed incompetent by whom?" But as for the other claim, I find it highly suspect that the ENIAC would be classified, but not its "blueprints". Were they at different classification levels? What classification?
I changed the Holberton statement to match the Antonelli article, since this one is better developed and higher rated, but I think the blueprint story needs a reference in either case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NoDepositNoReturn ( talk • contribs) 2008-06-15T23:45:19
Hi all. The article had a self-link, which I now removed. If it had a useful purpose, you can revert me. Thanks. Sofia Koutsouveli ( talk) 03:31, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Kathleen Antonelli. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
for
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 04:14, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
I'm not trying to change the article name, but it seem to me that we should be using McNultly for 90% of this.
I would expect and hope that there's some general policy/guidelines for this but haven't the energy currently to chase it up. Thoughts? - Snori ( talk) 00:21, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
The article details how recognition of McNulty's work has suffered by being pushed into her husbands shadow. Sadly this article continues the practice. Her accomplishment were all done under the name McNulty, and to file her under her second husbands name, whom she married very late in life and was no longer active in the field is highly misleading. 69.112.184.37 ( talk) 13:38, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
https://www2.census.gov/library/publications/1947/demographics/p-s-22.pdf
And the census indicates in 1945 median total income was $903 for one person if I am reading it right. AidanWelch ( talk) 00:06, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
This
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Would it be prudent to include the accomplishments of other ENIAC members in order to keep Antonelli's in context of her coworkers? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Srosen12 ( talk • contribs) 20:46, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
Subroutine claims John Mauchly during his work on ENIAC, with a citation. 'It Began with Babbage: The Genesis of Computer Science. Oxford University Press. pp. 155–. ISBN 978-0-19-930943-6.'
I did find:
http://fortune.com/2014/09/18/walter-isaacson-the-women-of-eniac/
Mwasheim (
talk) 10:50, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
Unclear is who is speaking/reporting? Sigh. -- Mwasheim ( talk) 10:24, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
This is a bit vague but may be the direction from(
https://courses.cs.washington.edu/courses/csep590/06au/readings/00511940-frist.pdf ):
After 1947, the trade-off decision between the storage of data or the recomputation of an analytic expression
representing the data was made by the women programmers. as part of the programming process. Such decisions continue as a
part of the programming process to some extent even today
Mwasheim (
talk) 11:17, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
Tricky. The ENIAC page also mentions Antonelli (well Mauchly) as responsible for subroutines. The cite there is the fortune article.
Close reading suggestions subroutines where there by design. IE the capability of branching, parallelism and the master programmer for loop control. But that's speculation. Mwasheim ( talk) 11:53, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
Does this "Greenie" (the selected, but replaced, computer) have a name? If not, should we indicate "true name unknown"? NoDepositNoReturn ( talk) 02:16, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
The explanation for why the ENIAC operators worked off of blueprints in this article is that the ENIAC project is classified. The explanation in Betty Holberton was that "they were viewed too incompetent to work with physical materials."
Both seem suspect to me -- obviously, they were competent to operate the ENIAC for years under production circumstances, and were demonstrably competent throughout their preceding careers, so I have to ask "viewed incompetent by whom?" But as for the other claim, I find it highly suspect that the ENIAC would be classified, but not its "blueprints". Were they at different classification levels? What classification?
I changed the Holberton statement to match the Antonelli article, since this one is better developed and higher rated, but I think the blueprint story needs a reference in either case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NoDepositNoReturn ( talk • contribs) 2008-06-15T23:45:19
Hi all. The article had a self-link, which I now removed. If it had a useful purpose, you can revert me. Thanks. Sofia Koutsouveli ( talk) 03:31, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Kathleen Antonelli. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
for
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 04:14, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
I'm not trying to change the article name, but it seem to me that we should be using McNultly for 90% of this.
I would expect and hope that there's some general policy/guidelines for this but haven't the energy currently to chase it up. Thoughts? - Snori ( talk) 00:21, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
The article details how recognition of McNulty's work has suffered by being pushed into her husbands shadow. Sadly this article continues the practice. Her accomplishment were all done under the name McNulty, and to file her under her second husbands name, whom she married very late in life and was no longer active in the field is highly misleading. 69.112.184.37 ( talk) 13:38, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
https://www2.census.gov/library/publications/1947/demographics/p-s-22.pdf
And the census indicates in 1945 median total income was $903 for one person if I am reading it right. AidanWelch ( talk) 00:06, 25 February 2024 (UTC)