Why not a Python compiler?

  • Thread starter Santiago Romero
  • Start date
G

Grant Edwards

How come they spoke English?

In some of the series, they sure didn't do it very well, but I
presume they were forced to read what was written.

If you want to see a movie where the aliens -- at least for
part of the movie -- speak an alien language (with subtitles),
there's "Battlefield Earth". It's amazingly awful. And not in
a fun, campy, MST3K, way. It's awful in more of a dull,
aching, why-didn't-the-dentist-prescribe-better-painkillers
sort of way. Sure glad I didn't see that one in a theater...
 
J

Jeff Schwab

Grant said:
In some of the series, they sure didn't do it very well, but I
presume they were forced to read what was written.

If you want to see a movie where the aliens -- at least for
part of the movie -- speak an alien language (with subtitles),
there's "Battlefield Earth". It's amazingly awful. And not in
a fun, campy, MST3K, way. It's awful in more of a dull,
aching, why-didn't-the-dentist-prescribe-better-painkillers
sort of way. Sure glad I didn't see that one in a theater...


http://www.theonion.com/content/node/29426
 
J

Jeff Schwab

Erik said:
I know, really. Sheesh! Jeff, I won't stand for that! Argue with me!
:)

OK, uh... You're a poopy-head.

Forgive the cliché, but there's already too much road rage on the
information superhighway. I've had limited access to Usenet for the
last couple of years, and coming back, I find myself shocked at how many
people seem to be mean and argumentative just for the heck of it. Was
it really always this hostile? Maybe I've gotten soft in my old age.
 
E

Erik Max Francis

Jeff said:
OK, uh... You're a poopy-head.

Forgive the cliché, but there's already too much road rage on the
information superhighway. I've had limited access to Usenet for the
last couple of years, and coming back, I find myself shocked at how many
people seem to be mean and argumentative just for the heck of it. Was
it really always this hostile? Maybe I've gotten soft in my old age.

Note smiley. Grant and I were joking.
 
R

Robert Bossy

Jeff said:
So what's the "double mistake?" My understanding was (1) the misuse
(ok, vernacular use) of the term "free fall," and (2) the association of
weight with free-fall velocity ("If I tie an elephant's tail to a
mouse's, and drop them both into free fall, will the mouse slow the
elephant down?")
In my mind, the second mistake was the confusion between weight and mass.

Cheers
RB
 
E

Erik Max Francis

Robert said:
In my mind, the second mistake was the confusion between weight and mass.

I see. If so, then that sounds like another terminology gotcha. The
distinction between weight and mass is all but irrelevant for everyday
activities, since the acceleration due to gravity is so nearly constant
for all circumstances under which non-physicists operate in everyday life.

Not only in everyday life does the terminal speed of a falling object
depend on its mass (m) -- among other things -- but that is also
equivalent to that speed depending on its weight (m g_0). Physicists
even talk about a "standard gravity" or "acceleration due to gravity"
being an accepted constant (g_0 = 9.806 65 m/s^2), and most SI
guidelines, including NIST's, fully acknowledge the effective
equivalence for everyday usage and make no requirement of using the
"proper" units for mass (kg) vs. weight (N) for, say, buying things at
the store, even though it's technically wrong (where "weight" is given
in kilograms even though that's not a unit of weight, but rather of mass).

To put it another way, there are far better ways to teach physics than
this, because these misunderstanding are not wrong in any meaningfully
useful way.
 
D

Dennis Lee Bieber

equivalence for everyday usage and make no requirement of using the
"proper" units for mass (kg) vs. weight (N) for, say, buying things at

Ah, but in the US, the unwashed masses (as in "lots of people")
don't even know that there is a difference between lb-force and lb-mass
(okay, all they know of is a simple "lb" which is based upon force of
gravity at point of measurement, while lb-mass is a sort of artificial
unit... don't mention slugs <G>)
--
Wulfraed Dennis Lee Bieber KD6MOG
(e-mail address removed) (e-mail address removed)
HTTP://wlfraed.home.netcom.com/
(Bestiaria Support Staff: (e-mail address removed))
HTTP://www.bestiaria.com/
 
E

Erik Max Francis

Dennis said:
Ah, but in the US, the unwashed masses (as in "lots of people")
don't even know that there is a difference between lb-force and lb-mass
(okay, all they know of is a simple "lb" which is based upon force of
gravity at point of measurement, while lb-mass is a sort of artificial
unit... don't mention slugs <G>)

Yes, exactly; you started with another word game and then in the process
dismissed it with a half-joke at the end. Pounds came first, and
rationalized systems (lbm/lbf, slug/lb, and even ridiculous retrofits
like kg/kgf, completely turning the apple cart upside down) came
afterwards. The point is, the difference between the two is _totally
irrelevant_ to those "unwashed masses" (and in the contexts we've been
talking about). Even NIST (among other) SI guidelines acknowledge that
because, well, it's blatantly obvious.

That actually feeds right back into my earlier port about physics
subsuming terminology to its own ends. Making the distinction between
mass and weight is critical for understanding physics, but not for
everyday behavior involving measuring things in pounds; after all, in
extending the popular concept of a "pound," different physicists made a
distinction between mass and weight differently (i.e., the rationalized
systems above) such that there is no accepted standard. Of _course_
physicists have to make a distinction between mass and weight, and to do
so with Imperial or American systems of units requires deciding which
one a "pound" is, and what to do with the other unit. But that's a
physicist making distinctions that do not exist in the more general
language, just the same as a physicist meaning something different by
"free fall" than a layman.

But (say) dinging some Joe Schmo because he doesn't know that a pound is
really a unit of force (or mass) is really just playing pointless word
games. As I said earlier, there are better ways to teach physics.
 
S

Steve Holden

Dennis said:
Ah, but in the US, the unwashed masses (as in "lots of people")
don't even know that there is a difference between lb-force and lb-mass
(okay, all they know of is a simple "lb" which is based upon force of
gravity at point of measurement, while lb-mass is a sort of artificial
unit... don't mention slugs <G>)

Shouldn't that be "the unwashed weights"?

determined-to-misunderstand-ly y'rs - steve
 
G

Grant Edwards

Forgive the cliché, but there's already too much road rage on the
information superhighway. I've had limited access to Usenet for the
last couple of years, and coming back, I find myself shocked at how many
people seem to be mean and argumentative just for the heck of it. Was
it really always this hostile?

It varies from group to group. Some of them were just as bad
15 years ago.
 
G

greg

Erik said:
My point was, and still is, that if this question without further
context is posed to a generally educated laymen, the supposedly wrong
answer that was given is actually _correct_.

Except that they probably don't understand exactly how and
why it's correct. E.g. they will likely expect a 2kg hammer
to fall to the floor twice as fast as a 1kg hammer, which
isn't anywhere near to being true.
 
E

Erik Max Francis

greg said:
Except that they probably don't understand exactly how and
why it's correct. E.g. they will likely expect a 2kg hammer
to fall to the floor twice as fast as a 1kg hammer, which
isn't anywhere near to being true.

Well, sure. But if the point of the question is to just point at
ignorance of physics concepts among the general population to make
people feel like jackasses, then that's not very hard to do. It's also
not very constructive.

The bigger picture is that if the sole purpose is to shame people
without physics knowledge (because really, what other point is there for
asking such trick questions), the fact that the questioner phrased the
question poorly enough and had to know that the context would be
misinterpreted -- so that, oops, the naive answer is actually _correct_
in context -- that he's the only person who should be ashamed.
 
J

Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven

-On [20080212 22:15] said:
Note that Google will give a calculator result for "1 kilogram in
pounds", but not for "1 kilogram in inches". I wonder why not? After
all, both are conversions of incompatible measurements, ie, they
measure different things.

Eh? Last I checked both pound and kilogram are units of mass, so where is
the incompatibility?

--
Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven <asmodai(-at-)in-nomine.org> / asmodai
イェルーン ラウフロック ヴァン デル ウェルヴェン
http://www.in-nomine.org/ | http://www.rangaku.org/
To fight and conquer in one hundred battles is not the highest skill. To
subdue the enemy with no fight at all, that's the highest skill...
 
E

Erik Max Francis

Jeroen said:
-On [20080212 22:15] said:
Note that Google will give a calculator result for "1 kilogram in
pounds", but not for "1 kilogram in inches". I wonder why not? After
all, both are conversions of incompatible measurements, ie, they
measure different things.

Eh? Last I checked both pound and kilogram are units of mass, so where is
the incompatibility?

He's saying something that's conditionally true depending on the system
of units you're using, hence your (quite understandable) confusion.

Once upon a time there were no physicists. In this happy-go-lucky era,
certain people living in a certain area of the world had a unit of
measurement for how hard gravity pushed something into the ground, and
how hard it was to push something along the ground. The figure was
called "weight," and in the particular area we're talking about, the
unit associated with it was called the _pound_.

Then physicists came along and pointed out that those two things aren't
quite the same thing, though no one had really noticed it before. If
you lived on a lower-gravity world, for instance, like the Moon or Mars,
then it would be easier to lift something, but it would still resist
being pushed just as much. If you were floating in space, far away from
any gravitating bodies, then that something wouldn't be being pushed
into any ground at all, but still would have just the same resistance to
being pushed (these bastard "somethings" don't like being shoved around,
you see).

The names of those two notions ended up being called "weight" (or
"force") and "mass." But what to do about the lowly pound? It's kind
of both, as we already discussed, but in proper physics it can't be. So
you have to split it into two units -- one for mass, one for weight.
For brand new metric systems (in all their variants), their units were
made up from scratch and so this didn't present a problem. So how did
they do it?

The answer is that different subgroups of those who used the pound did
it differently. Some accepted pound as the unit of mass, and invented a
unit of weight, called the _poundal_. Some took the pound as being a
unit of weight, and invented the _slug_ as the corresponding mass unit.
Some went so far as to effectively invent two new units: the
_pound-mass_ and the _pound-force_, and because of their names I don't
have to tell you which is which.

So there's a hodge podge of different rationalized unit systems for
dealing with the pound and its brethren, and different people are taught
different things and are perpetually confused. And not much good comes
of it.

And the rest of us just use SI. (And if you bring up the
_kilogram-force_, I'll just cry.)
 
D

Dotan Cohen

And the rest of us just use SI. (And if you bring up the
_kilogram-force_, I'll just cry.)

Don't cry, I just want to say that I've hated the kilogram-force
almost as much as I've hated the electron-volt. Who is the lazy who
comes up with these things?

Dotan Cohen

http://what-is-what.com
http://gibberish.co.il
×-ב-×’-ד-×”-ו-×–-×—-ט-×™-ך-×›-ל-×-מ-ן-× -ס-×¢-×£-פ-×¥-צ-ק-ר-ש-ת

A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
 
C

cokofreedom

And the rest of us just use SI. (And if you bring up the
_kilogram-force_, I'll just cry.)

SI = Super Incredible?

Awesome name for Force/Mass / NewItemOfClothing2050!
 

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Members online

Forum statistics

Threads
473,768
Messages
2,569,574
Members
45,049
Latest member
Allen00Reed

Latest Threads

Top