Slashdot Mirror


Evelyn Berezin, Who Built the First True Word Processor, Has Died at 93 (nytimes.com)

An anonymous reader shares a report: Evelyn Berezin, a computer pioneer who emancipated many a frazzled secretary from the shackles of the typewriter nearly a half-century ago by building and marketing the first computerized word processor, died on Saturday in Manhattan. She was 93.

In an age when computers were in their infancy and few women were involved in their development, Ms. Berezin (pronounced BEAR-a-zen) not only designed the first true word processor; in 1969, she was also a founder and the president of the Redactron Corporation, a tech start-up on Long Island that was the first company exclusively engaged in manufacturing and selling the revolutionary machines.

93 comments

  1. Salute the innovators by Drethon · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Everything we have is an improvement of existing technologies going back thousands of years. We wouldn't be where we are today if someone didn't come up with a way to improve on what we had. The innovators will live on forever in the new technologies, whether or not we remember who made the improvement.

    1. Re: Salute the innovators by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Masturbate and then jizz on a buscuit that you'll eat?

    2. Re: Salute the innovators by Drethon · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This is a silly article. what the hell do you want me to do with this information besides forget about it because I don't know what the hell you want me to do with it. It's not relevant to anything I need to do

      Some people are interested in why computers work, which helps with how to make them work better.

    3. Re: Salute the innovators by mermeid007 · · Score: 1

      Hey stay positive

    4. Re:Salute the innovators by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We stand on the shoulders of giants.

    5. Re: Salute the innovators by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      This is a silly article. what the hell do you want me to do with this information besides forget about it because I don't know what the hell you want me to do with it. It's not relevant to anything I need to do

      Well, nobody gives a shit what you do with it or how you feel about it, princess.

      Someone who built something which pretty much everybody who has ever used a computer has used a version of has now died.

      In terms of impact on the computer industry as a whole, that's one hell of an accomplishment to attach to one person. It's worth noting that the person who created the first word processor has died, especially here on Slashdot.

      That it turns you into a whiny idiot isn't our problem.

    6. Re: Salute the innovators by whitroth · · Score: 2

      Let see, so you're saying you have no idea how the computer and software you use got to this point, and you don't care about anything before 15 min ago. You certainly don't want to know what your parents did before you walked out the door.

      You're an ignorant little snot, and when you wind up in big trouble, and can't get hold of support to fix it, you'll pound the desk and go "how did this happen."

      Grow up, kid.

    7. Re:Salute the innovators by Drethon · · Score: 1

      We stand on the shoulders of giants.

      And some of those giants look like every day people.

    8. Re: Salute the innovators by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      Ignoring the Troll.
      I expect the people who wanted these word processors would like any other business make a business case for them, showing the costs and benefits of using them. Then sending that information to the purchasing manager to buy them.
      Before networked computers most businesses didn't need much of an IT, and early IT departments were just expansion of the Telecom department.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    9. Re:Salute the innovators by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Agreed, except for the innovators whose "innovation" amounts to turning us into a surveillance society. On principle, I will never even consider saluting those pieces of shit.

    10. Re: Salute the innovators by AndrewFlagg · · Score: 2

      and here I thought Paul Lutus was a pioneer with Apple Writer - just kidding Paul -- ;-) your deal with Apple with 25% royalty was genius and a killer to Apple. Live long and prosper word processing... aka.winword pss support microsoft '91-92 bellevue washington. ;-) winword 1.10a - oh how times have passed and things still seem just the same... where is that darn normal.dot that i have to delete and start over..oh no.. my macros.. hehe.. and custom.dic -- really? named what?

    11. Re: Salute the innovators by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you know, specifically, who invented the split vacuum tube used in batch processors containing IBM series core memory or are you just a snotty kid that doesn't care about anything before your time?

      The next time you get in trouble and your C# wont compile surely you will pound the desk and go "how did this happen," for not knowing who invented that split tube.

      Grow up, kid.

    12. Re: Salute the innovators by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Usually, they were an extension of the accounting department. Accounting was usually the first department to use computers. This is why in companies that lack a CTO/CIO (or equivalent), IT reports to the CFO.

    13. Re:Salute the innovators by grep+-v+'.*'+* · · Score: 1

      We wouldn't be where we are today if someone didn't come up with a way to improve on what we had.

      So you mean idea appropriation, both within and between cultures? My, don't let the SJWs hear that. They might have to give up their iStuff since Marconi, an ITIALIAN, basically invented radio waves which has been used, well, everywhere.

      I've used a Teletype model 33 (GO Paper Tape!), an IBM Selectric, and have seen a Wang network. I'm far away from her, but have never heard of Redactron or Mrs. Berezin before. I hope she had a good life and mostly had fun doing it.

      I guess she was using discreet 7400-level ICs?

      --
      If the universe is someone's simulation -- does that mean the stars are just stuck pixels?
    14. Re:Salute the innovators by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am sure glad there ain't no giants standing on my shoulders - or any other part of my body, for that matter!

    15. Re: Salute the innovators by ljw1004 · · Score: 1

      This is a silly article. what the hell do you want me to do with this information besides forget about it because I don't know what the hell you want me to do with it. It's not relevant to anything I need to do

      PLEASE DON'T WATCH ANY NATURE DOCUMENTARIES. Nor any international news. Definitely don't read any articles about cosmology in Scientific American. Nor go to the opera. And steer clear of learning any information about the Second World War. And if anyone offers you a "Joy of Knowledge Encyclopedia", please laugh in their face because it's an oxymoron.

    16. Re: Salute the innovators by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ooh, he shoots and.............misses!

    17. Re: Salute the innovators by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Personally I celebrate the person who said "This is a silly article. what the hell do you want me to do with this information besides forget about it because I don't know what the hell you want me to do with it. It's not relevant to anything I need to do". I just wish I could celebrate him posthumously.

    18. Re: Salute the innovators by AntronArgaiv · · Score: 1

      Regarding Marconi...there were others investigating radio at the time, but his real genius was building a profitable company around his discovery and monopolizing the radio communications business for years.

    19. Re: Salute the innovators by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Like any history less, remembering where we came from and how we got here can help in getting us to where we are going next.

    20. Re: Salute the innovators by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      In particular, Marconi's 1894 demonstration of radio transmission/reception followed up Hertz's 1888 demonstration.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    21. Re: Salute the innovators by edris90 · · Score: 1

      what I'm saying is what difference does it make whether he's alive or dead now now that his contributions have already been propagated? What what useful output is expected from this? What did the article writer hope to achieve by bringing specific notes to his death? How does that help people?

    22. Re: Salute the innovators by edris90 · · Score: 1

      Specific notice, not notes. Was it just social duty to ritual acknowledgement?

    23. Re: Salute the innovators by edris90 · · Score: 1

      The point is it doesn't matter who did what and what name gets attached to things as long as the information on how to do things is still available. What importance is knowing that this specific person did it versus knowing that somebody did it.

  2. Re:Sexists, misogynists, and incels by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And a (truly wonderful) woman made popular the first computer "bug"; what's your point?
    Not everyone is like you, and anyone who has a mother knows where the real strength of
    a family comes from.

    Aside from that, this is a generation which has / and is seeing the passing of many amazing
    innovators that shaped many of the simple things we take for granted today. God Speed!

    CAP === 'untimely'

  3. Re:Sexists, misogynists, and incels by guruevi · · Score: 1

    And here I thought all innovation was done by (white) male privilege and they invented everything to keep the subjugation of woman in place.

    --
    Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
  4. first TRUE FFS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    How many people are we going to go through to claim the accolade of creating the first this or the first TRUE that.

    Yeah we get it. Someone died and a "journalist" wanted to applaud their great accomplishment which wasn't impressive enough to stand on it's own, so the True Scotsman gets rolled out. Ms. Berezin wouldn't have even recognized the phrase "tech-startup" at any point in her career, yet gets praise for that too.

    Perhaps for demographic reasons this one will stick and this will be the last story about the inventor of the first true word processor we will get.

  5. Re: Sexists, misogynists, and incels by edris90 · · Score: 0

    My my don't you have a chip on your shoulder... Would you like a hug?

  6. Re:Sexists, misogynists, and incels by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    Hope that was therapeutic! The 0.01% of 'great white males' that disagree with you can, indeed, "suck it". However, the other 99.99% of us, that agree with you, have to wonder why you have to make such gross and disparaging generalizations. There are assholes, and in many forms, sexes, and colors. But for the overwhelmingly large portion of the population - we're just people. People who are glad to see a pioneer and an innovator (regardless of any physical attribute) remembered.

    This 'great white male'-splaining brought to you by privileged.com (not really, and no idea who/what owns that domain, so don't antagonize them for my bad joke).

  7. Re:Sexists, misogynists, and incels by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There are assholes, and in many forms, sexes, and colors.

    ... and political persuasions.

  8. Re:Sexists, misogynists, and incels by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You mean the fact that no one was keeping women back in the 1960s?

  9. Re: Sexists, misogynists, and incels by jnork · · Score: 0

    Uh... I'll be sure to stop being a misogynist prick as soon as I'm finished beating my wife.

    A privileged white male needs his priorities, after all.

    --
    Cleverly disguised as a responsible adult.
  10. More women than people think by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It always sounds like women are new to the field of programming, but I think there were many women who made great contributions to the field in the 70s and part of 80s. For some reason the drop in representation came after and lasted for like 20 years.

    1. Re: More women than people think by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      True that. Men invaded the field when "programming" stopped being related to "inputting things on a keyboard" e.g. being a secretary. Salaries rose, men arrived, and suddenly programming became a thing women couldn't do anymore.

    2. Re: More women than people think by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When women were those "programmers", they were just glorified secretaries.

    3. Re: More women than people think by Anne+Thwacks · · Score: 1
      When women were those "programmers", they were just glorified secretaries.

      No, actually, they weren't.

      --
      Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
  11. Never heard of her by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Redactron, yes, but never Ms Berezin. What a fascinating career she had. She deserves more recognition than she got.

  12. shackles? by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 2

    a computer pioneer who emancipated many a frazzled secretary from the shackles of a job nearly a half-century ago by building and marketing the first computerized word processor,

    1. Re:shackles? by mermeid007 · · Score: 1

      Shackles. Like the ones you are in now! (evil laughter) Get used to it.

    2. Re:shackles? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I like my job, I'm really good at it and I'm being paid very well.

      If that's what it's like to wear shackles then chain me to the wall!

    3. Re: shackles? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are reading a little too far into that text because everybody and their mother knows computer terminals replaced the typewriters not the typists. Duh.

      If you want to talk about OCR or some other form of automation fine, but the word processor didnâ(TM)t tek yer jerbs.

  13. Redactron? by rnturn · · Score: 1

    Too many years ahead of its time. Given the number of government documents that are issued nowadays with huge swaths of text hidden behind black boxes, Redactron should have been raking in the cash selling their machines to government offices.

    --
    CUR ALLOC 20195.....5804M
  14. First word processor? by ortholattice · · Score: 1

    The article doesn't say when she wrote it, only that she started a company in 1969. However, Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... says the Expensive Typewriter written in 1961-2 for a PDP-1, with IBM Selectric output, "may be considered the first word processing program".

    1. Re:First word processor? by xfade551 · · Score: 2

      I think this is in reference to a piece of software, but to the hardware device known as a "word processor". They were basically mini-computers that booted directly into a word processing application (and had no other software applications), and had a build-in printing device and sometimes a built-in monitor. They were still being sold in the late-1980s, maybe even the first couple years of the 1990s, but were substantially less expensive than a PC & printer (that is, during the 1980s).

    2. Re:First word processor? by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      The problem is the ambiguous definition. Sure, it may have been the first turnkey word-processing hardware system (a *very* limited one), but word processing in general existed before (and was even more advanced that this system - quality type justification programs were available for the PDP-1, for example).

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    3. Re:First word processor? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oddly the Amstrad PCW was a general purpose computer specialised in word processing. It was successful and a ton cheaper than e.g. an IBM PC and printer.
      They could make many interesting choices e.g. a Z80 with 256K or 512K RAM (that's relatively a lot for an 8-bit computer). All-in-one design (plus printer that can sit on top), rather high res of 720x256 so it could display more characters than CGA's 640x200, could do graphics but the only feature is vertical scrolling - a perfectly good one.
      I've learnt it has almost no ROM, it needs to boot from floppy to do anything at all. i.e. there is no character generation code or character set stored in ROM.

  15. Re: Sexists, misogynists, and incels by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Some who had a mother knew alcoholism, narcissism, borderline, bipolar syndrome, autism, illness or death.

  16. first word processor was IBM MT/ST in 1964 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What a bunch of fake news... IBM had a editable and correctable word processor in 1964. It also had mail merge.

    1. Re:first word processor was IBM MT/ST in 1964 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      BBN had one in 1960 and MIT had another in 1961, both running on a PDP-1 driving an IBM Selectric.

    2. Re:first word processor was IBM MT/ST in 1964 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Guys made them, therefore they were not "true" word processors, completely unremarkable and should be excluded from written history. Shame on them for trying to steal Evelyn's fame.

  17. Hmmm... by the_skywise · · Score: 3, Informative
    Buried in the FTFA

    In 1968, Ms. Berezin began working on ideas for a true computer for word processing, using tiny chips, known as integrated circuits, or semiconductors, to record and retrieve keystrokes for text editing. Since 1964, I.B.M. had been making word processors using a Selectric Typewriter and a magnetic tape drive to save and retrieve keystrokes. The tape could be corrected and used to retype text, but since the machine lacked semiconductor chips, Ms. Berezin said, it was not a true computer.

    And thus the vaunted NYTimes drops "Computerized" from the headline and crediting her with inventing "The First TRUE Word Processor" which means a wholly different thing.

    1. Re:Hmmm... by the_skywise · · Score: 1

      And that should be "Buried in TFA"
      sigh... so much for word processing...

    2. Re:Hmmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So Charles Babbage's analog mechanical computer was not a computer and the computers using vacuum tubes and relays were not computers. Oh boy!! how history is changed in ones mind.

    3. Re:Hmmm... by TimothyHollins · · Score: 1

      Of course not. Charles Babbage was a man, and this article is in the NYT.

      It doesn't take a genius to figure out that this is yet another of those SJW articles that take extensive artistic freedom with history to paint women as "omg best ever but so oppressed". It even says "True Word Processor" in the title because if it had just said "Word Processor" it would be too obvious a lie.

      As always, one has to wonder what these "journalists" *actually* think about women if they have to lie and re-write history to make them competitive in their own eyes...

  18. Deeper story in there somewhere... by SuperKendall · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This is the first I had ever heard of this system... it's really a shame she is gone now, because I would have loved to see someone interview her as part of a case study as to why that company failed.

    It sounded like they had great machines that advanced well over time, a head start in the use of microprocessors, and a. lot of high end clients. So how was it that the company was bypassed by so many others? Was it to specialized where IBM was more general computing? That doesn't explain how other competitors like Wang on Olivetti also surpassed them later on.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Deeper story in there somewhere... by istartedi · · Score: 1

      TFA says it got acquired by Burroughs though, so not a total failure. That's a common trajectory for a lot of start-ups and bigger companies also. In fact, Burroughs itself was acquired a few years later. I don't see anything unusual about it, just the usual competition and consolidation.

      --
      For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
    2. Re:Deeper story in there somewhere... by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      It failed because interest rates in that era were extremely high and that added to the cost of doing business. Once interest rates go back up you will see a LOT of companies fail very quickly because they can't make their loan obligations. It is not normal for companies to have $20 billion in debt like they have been this decade.

    3. Re:Deeper story in there somewhere... by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

      Maybe not a total failure, but it seems like that company could have and should have been the one acquiring Burroughs, or even IBM for that matter.

      --
      "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    4. Re:Deeper story in there somewhere... by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

      It failed because interest rates in that era were extremely high and that added to the cost of doing business.

      That was true for competitors also though, who had to take out more loans to catch up. Redactron already had a good revenue stream and lots of customers, so high interest rates should have served to protect their position, not harm it.

      --
      "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    5. Re:Deeper story in there somewhere... by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      I'd expect a company that makes a variety of different computerized systems like Burroughs or IBM to buy a company that specializes in just one type, not vice versa.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    6. Re:Deeper story in there somewhere... by jrumney · · Score: 3, Informative

      There are interviews where the curious can find more: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... or if you have the patience for a 3+ hour interview, https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    7. Re:Deeper story in there somewhere... by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

      Thanks, I probably will take a look (even the longer one sounds interesting!!). Too much short form content these days with no depth.

      --
      "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    8. Re:Deeper story in there somewhere... by Dan+East · · Score: 1

      Probably for the same reason I have failed to be successful as a business (aka profiting in a big way from my projects). I consider myself an innovator and someone who pushed the boundaries of technology at various points in time. See this and this for public examples. However my problem is I'm not motivated by money, I'm not a good marketer, and I'm not interested in being a businessman.

      Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Mark Zuckerberg, etc didn't become billionaires because they were the best software developers in the world or because they were the first to create a given product. It was because they could market an idea, as well as simply being in the right place at the right time. Evelyn Berezin more than likely failed due to the business side of things.

      --
      Better known as 318230.
    9. Re:Deeper story in there somewhere... by makomk · · Score: 1

      From what I can tell, it was basically a technological dead end - she created a computerized version of IBM's older electromechanical MT/ST that didn't offer enough of an advantage over the older tech to justify itself, the company also didn't have the financial backing to undercut IBM because most customers rented rather than buying, and its whole approach was about to be obsoleted by actual recognizably-modern word processing systems with screens and interactive editing of text which other companies created first.

  19. It maked me wonder... by ZombieCatInABox · · Score: 0

    It makes me wonder: Would you have been as much critical if the article in question was about a man, and not a woman ?

    Jusk askin...

    1. Re:It maked me wonder... by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      Myself, very. When it comes to technical history, I'm absolutely obnoxious.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    2. Re:It maked me wonder... by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 2
      To add to what I wrote, consider this:

      Her chief competitor, International Business Machines, made devices that relied on electronic relays and tapes, not semiconductor chips.

      This is absolute bullshit. IBM was one of the leaders in digital circuit packaging at that time. Fuck, they already had standardized semiconductor logical modules five years before this alleged invention. Electronic relays, my ass.

      The whole article is garbage.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    3. Re:It maked me wonder... by the_skywise · · Score: 1

      Actually - yeah. You see this isn't about sexism or racism or classism - it's about history and facts and not giving everybody a participation award. It's even in question whether the Wright Brothers were really and truly FIRST in inventing the airplane.
      In fact I wasn't even skeptical going into the article - I was more curious about what her thought processes had been in "INVENTING WORD PROCESSING" - what was her aha moment, what made her come up with the concept of editing dynamically when liquid paper sufficed for most typos (solely invented by a woman) Turns out word processing as a concept already existed and she was just the first to digitize the process which, while still impressive, isn't on the level of upending an entire industry single handedly.
      Digitizing an already existing "analog" process is a natural progression in invention.

    4. Re:It maked me wonder... by the_skywise · · Score: 1

      To be fair IBM had the capacity to do this but they didn't (for whatever reason, no one thought of it, management didn't see the need, sales wouldn't have been that much different vs dev costs, etc) (think DOS and Microsoft) She saw the need and ran with it - kudos.

    5. Re:It maked me wonder... by jrumney · · Score: 1

      In an interview, she acknowledged that she knew that IBM could easily improve their word processors to match hers, but being IBM she also knew that they would still be expensive, and the market would still be open to her.

    6. Re:It maked me wonder... by oogoliegoogolie · · Score: 1

      Probably not, because when a man is recognized for his achievement we all know, without even saying, that the man accomplished something standing on the shoulders of others that came before him.
      Whereas when a woman is recognized for her achievement, every story invariably has a huge feminist, sexist,& misandrist SJW agenda and is spun into a story which portrays her as a brave courageous one-woman-army heroine who struggled, battled, and clashed everyday against male-created roadblocks that were erected everywhere she turned. The brave courageous woman never gave up and soldiered on and used her superior feminine ingenuity and intellect to overcome, beat, overthrow, and succeed against the misogynistic hierarchy created by all men who tried to destroy her work and accomplishments in her crusade against male domination.

      So ya, nowadays every time there is a story about some woman's historical accomplishment I always take it with a grain of critical salt.

    7. Re:It maked me wonder... by najajomo · · Score: 1

      > It makes me wonder: Would you have been as much critical if the article in question was about a man, and not a woman ?

      No, the claim to the worlds first true word processor would require the same preponderance of evidence regardless as to the gender. While we could admire the ingenuity, a device the size of a small refrigerator that requires an IBM Selectric typewriter to function does not qualify as the first true word processor. I realize that it is currently fashionable to find a female equivalent of the male inventor, but distorting the historical record doesn't help.

    8. Re:It maked me wonder... by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      Turns out word processing as a concept already existed and she was just the first to digitize the process

      How does it make sense to say that when this actually happened a decade earlier, around 1960 or so?

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    9. Re:It maked me wonder... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There wouldn't be any article in this case. Or, if there was an article for every minor achievement, there would be millions of them and everyone would just ignore them.

  20. Re:Sexists, misogynists, and incels by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    " However, the other 99.99%"

    LOL. It's not even close to that number, but good on ya for being hopeful I guess.

  21. Re:Sexists, misogynists, and incels by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Laying it on awfully thick, aren't you, Shlomo?

  22. Sorry, no, not the first by russotto · · Score: 1

    The first (or at least an earlier one) would be the IBM MT/ST. Like the Redactron, it was based on an IBM Selectric.

  23. Re:Sexists, misogynists, and incels by Anne+Thwacks · · Score: 1
    anyone who has a mother knows where the real strength of a family comes from.

    Strait from the Fortran manual - if you ask my mother :-}

    --
    Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
  24. Re:Sexists, misogynists, and incels by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

    Being ugly is an impediment to finding love. Incels suffer pretty serious psychological issues, and yeah, the opposite sex and well even many of the same gender, shy away from the kind of behaviors Incels are known for.

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  25. Re:Sexists, misogynists, and incels by jrumney · · Score: 1

    You might want to read up on the history of why she started her own company...

  26. Re: Sexists, misogynists, and incels by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That truly is a shame. What's your point?

  27. Re: Sexists, misogynists, and incels by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If someone asks me if I have stopped beating my wife, the response would be “Why?”

  28. Russians all over the place! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Bear-a-zyne lady is obviously one of them. We should reconsider using word processors.

  29. Fake News by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ms Berezin did something, apparently some development work that she tried to commercialize. It was not as revolutionary as the dogmatic NY Times wants us to believe.

    Word processors did, however, see wide use in the 70s and probably into the 80s. They were specialized minimal computers with screens that were sold to be used by typists, and were used by companies whose main output was documents.