Noa Regev asks: Why are the numbers on the calculator and keyboard reversed from their order on the phone? What logic is there behind this?
In biology, a phenomenon called "convergent evolution" is known, meaning the appearance of similar structures in different creatures. For example, whale fins and fish fins are similar in shape because they are adapted for movement in water but their evolutionary origins are completely different. During the adaptation to life in the sea, the whale developed a tail fin that is very similar to a fish's tail, but the structure of the spine of a mammal does not allow a vertical tail like a fish, and thus the typical balanced tail of whales was created. In a very similar way, the telephone keys and the number keys on the right side of the keyboard are similar in their basic shape because on both boards the designers had to squeeze the same 10 digits into a square surface but their historical origin is completely different.
Let's start with the keyboard. The first oddity is the reality of two sets of numbers: one above the letters and the other on the left side. The keyboard was built for people who are already used to keyboards, the letters on the left side are arranged so that those who have learned to type on typewriters will find the familiar arrangement of letters (QWERTY) and the numbers in the same top row where they were placed on the typewriter. The right side of the keyboard, the one used to type numbers in Num lock mode, is intended for people who are used to typing on the keyboard of calculators.
Those who are as old as mine remember the calculating machines that summed up series of numbers and printed the calculation on a long paper snake. Experienced traders and accountants totaled numbers by speed typing in a blind method. When the computer replaced the machine with the coil on their desk, they expected to receive and indeed received a number board as they knew it: the number 1 on the lower left and 9 on the upper right.
The mother of the right of the keyboard, the calculating machine, inherited the arrangement of digits from the grandmother of the keyboard: the cash register. In 1879 James Ritty from Ohio in the USA invented a mechanical cash register and registered a patent for his invention. The idea was purchased by a businessman named Patterson who founded the National Cash Register Company which became known by the initials NCR.
The company (and other companies following it) created cash registers that allowed the business owner to know at the end of the day how much money entered the cash register. The keys in those cash registers were arranged with the number 1 at the bottom. This arrangement makes sense: the cashier's hands receive payment on the table and the digits are arranged so that the digit 1 is the closest to him.
And what about the phones? As mentioned, the telephone keypad is packed with the same digits but its origin is quite different. Before the keypad, generations of telephonists got used to dial telephones. To dial, it was necessary to rotate a disk along an arc of a circle clockwise from the desired digit to the stop and then let go. The disk would return to its initial position by a spring and depending on the path it traveled, an appropriate number of pulses would be produced. One pulse was produced for the shortest path traveled by the dial and the number 1 is placed accordingly at the top right. In the 1s, the Bell company developed a keypad that would replace the dial and kept the order to which telephone operators were accustomed: the small numbers at the top. Apparently, the number 1 should have been on the upper right side, but since every phone number has paired letters, the Latin alphabet (to allow easy memorization of phone numbers) and the reading direction is in English from left to right, the XNUMX moved to the left.
Amazingly, for several decades the two number systems have been living peacefully side by side, most of the ATM machines, since it was launched The first ATM in 1969 The arrangement of the digits on the phone is adopted, probably to allow the memorization of the secret code as a word from the letters linked to the digits, and in contrast, most calculator apps on cell phones present the user with a Num lock-like digit panel
Did an interesting, intriguing, strange, delusional or funny question occur to you? Send to ysorek@gmail.com
More of the topic in Hayadan:
dvorak vs. qwerty - the battle for typing speed (Aria Seter)
I, Robot - a thought-provoking book
12 תגובות
Dr. Israel Zviel
Well done - I have full respect for doctors, but I suggest that they concentrate on the field of medicine.
What you said about probability, as you were told, is complete nonsense. As a doctor, you should know that chemistry is not a probabilistic process.
http://faculty.rwu.edu/aespinosa/aespinosa/Outreach_files/The%20Jackprot%20Simulation.pdf
What you said about the potassium channels - read here:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3707557/
As Tomer said, we would be happy for one phenomenon that contradicts evolution.
And yet, what is that conclusive proof that evolution is a collection of nonsense in juice?
Nissim, I read your comment. I just wanted to comment on one point. You just don't know about potassium channels. And on the mechanism there. And it's a shame. You talked about knowledge and demonstrated a lack of knowledge. Arrogance, my friend, has to be backed up by something. Otherwise she is ridiculed
i am a doctor I also studied biology at Tel Aviv University. And according to the comments here, I know much more about science than all the commenters. For example, anatomy in biology is a tiny science. In medicine it is a huge study with a lot of knowledge and details. Physiology in biology is a relatively small field while in medicine it is a very large field. And I studied both in biology and medicine, and well. There was someone here who volunteered to eat his keyboard. Let him start preparing….
I'm already used to the moment I talk about evolution, the attacks are personal, without any scientific integrity. So there is no point in responding. Those who are interested will find the facts themselves. To explain the ear, the fields I have studied for decades, apart from biology and medicine, are the fields of evolution, cybernetics, statistics and computers. I know Darwin's book, and I have read it. kind person I also read a lot of books and scientific articles in the field. I am in contact with scientists in Israel and around the world on the subject of evolution versus intelligent design. Unlike those who attacked me in a predictable way, I respect people's opinions and hold a meaningful and respectful dialogue. Even if I think the person in front of me is wrong. For me, the argument is about the nature of the matter and not about the nature of a person. That's why I don't hold debates with those who don't know how to hold a cultural discussion.
Dr. Israel Zviel
I hope you're not really "Der" - because it doesn't sound like that.
My father explained something basic to you that every beginning student probably knows.
Your probabilistic explanation is wrong and only shows a basic lack of understanding. In addition - chemistry is not a probabilistic process!!
Your explanation about the whale only shows your lack of integrity - even a 7-year-old child can understand that it is possible to start eating at a small depth and over the course of generations go through adaptation to eat in the depths.
If there is one fact that contradicts the theory of evolution - then please show it... and the Nobel Prize is yours!!!
Darwin may have had very little knowledge but - 1) he had much, much more knowledge than you, 2) he was smart, modest and honest - 3 qualities that you probably do not excel at.
I would love to know the source of the assertion that Darwin struggled with his theory. Did you read it on the Discovery Institute website?
"One nanometer of potassium hydrate" - what is this nonsense?
This conference (66 and not 67 ... but not bad) is nicely summarized here -
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00029890.2018.1450570?scroll=top&needAccess=true
And they didn't find any problem with evolution there!!! Just show that the intelligent design practitioners are a bunch of charlatans.
You were right about the teeth story, surprisingly. But as for the rest - you just talked nonsense.
And of course - present one piece of evidence that contradicts evolution - eat my keyboard.
Dr. Zviel. Computing probability forwards, not backwards. Something happened whose probability is one.
In any case, your idea is that the specific evolution that took place has a slim chance, but the chance of some kind of evolution is 1, and therefore it fits with the probability calculations of the different kinds of pans.
Lorm, if that's your real name. Answer to your question.
Real science is based on facts. The theory serves the facts. In this sense, the theory of evolution is no different from any other scientific theory. It is subject to the facts.
There are many facts that contradict the theory of evolution. A very simple calculation proves that the theory of evolution has a low to zero probability of being valid.
Biologists and mathematicians met in 1967 at Wistar in Philadelphia. The biologists presented them with the theory of evolution to test the mathematical model. The mathematicians checked and the answer was that the theory of evolution is not scientifically sound.
Since then, medical, biological, biochemical knowledge has greatly expanded. The more it expands, the more it turns out that evolution is an outdated theory without a scientific basis, based on faith and a lot of emotions.
Just to mention that for 1600 people thought that a woman had fewer teeth than a man. Why ? Because Aristotle stated so. Only when empirical science began did the fact that the number of teeth were the same become clear. Darwin was a science lover with very little knowledge. And even he felt that the theory of evolution was flawed and struggled a lot.
To say that the whale developed as a mammal the ability to eat a beef meal in a kilometer long valley, when developing the ability to dive is an enormous task in scope, is to turn biology into literature.
To say that our lives depend on one nanometer of potassium hydrate, and that it is random, is again betting on the wrong theory.
I guess Dr. Israel Zviel thinks he has proven something.
I wonder what
Note the contradiction.
The keyboards were developed by humans. intelligent.
The fins were developed by evolution. without reason Randomly. without planning
How about a little common sense?
Pay attention to the choice.
The points were developed by humans. intelligent.
The fins were developed by evolution. without reason Randomly. without planning
How about a little common sense?
Note: the circular dial did not create pulses but disconnections...
Ahla wrote