On 19 Feb 2007 18:08:58 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (john gilmore) wrote: >> Likewise, I consider teaching Roman numerals a waste of time. >> > >I instead judge anyone who cannot read (and write) Roman numerals >subliterate.
Why? If someone doesn't know past, say 100 - is that any less useful as a hundred other measures of literacy (there is some measure which you or I fail). As far a literacy goes, I expect people to know the Old Testament stories - but because it's a religious book, we aren't taught it in schools. I'm illiterate with regards to stories in the Koran - which is a much more significant lack than Roman numerals. As far as writing large Roman Numerals, I had to do that in a program one time, and in researching, I found that there isn't just *one* standard way of writing them. (sort of like the way there used to be multiple ways of spelling words). But if it parses out unambiguously, it doesn't really matter. Computer literacy is something that changes constantly. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
