On 14/02/2008, Steven D'Aprano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 10:35:09 +0200, Dotan Cohen wrote:
>
> >> If they asked an archer to fire an arrow through a distant window, he'd
> >> aim slightly above it. You can't spend dozens of hours every week
> >> shooting arrows at targe
On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 10:35:09 +0200, Dotan Cohen wrote:
>> If they asked an archer to fire an arrow through a distant window, he'd
>> aim slightly above it. You can't spend dozens of hours every week
>> shooting arrows at targets without learning to compensate for gravity.
>
> You are forgetting
On 14/02/2008, Steven D'Aprano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 22:13:51 +, I V wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 11 Feb 2008 14:07:49 -0800, Erik Max Francis wrote:
> >> experience. The notion of impetus -- where an object throw moves in a
> >> straight line until it runs out of impetus
On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 22:13:51 +, I V wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Feb 2008 14:07:49 -0800, Erik Max Francis wrote:
>> experience. The notion of impetus -- where an object throw moves in a
>> straight line until it runs out of impetus, then falls straight down --
>> is clearly contrary to everyday exper
I V wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Feb 2008 14:07:49 -0800, Erik Max Francis wrote:
>> experience. The notion of impetus -- where an object throw moves in a
>> straight line until it runs out of impetus, then falls straight down --
>> is clearly contrary to everyday experience of watching two people throw
>
Grant Edwards wrote:
> A slug is 14.593903 kg according to the trysty old Unix "units"
> program. Hmm, I always thought a slug weighed exactly 32 lbs,
> but I see it's 32.174049. Learn something new every day...
It's defined so that 1 slug times the acceleration due to gravity is a
pound. The
On Mon, 11 Feb 2008 14:07:49 -0800, Erik Max Francis wrote:
> experience. The notion of impetus -- where an object throw moves in a
> straight line until it runs out of impetus, then falls straight down --
> is clearly contrary to everyday experience of watching two people throw
> a ball back and
On 2008-02-13, Jeff Schwab <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Grant Edwards wrote:
>> On 2008-02-13, Jeff Schwab <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
Eh? Last I checked both pound and kilogram are units of mass, so where is
the incompatibility?
>>> I've never heard of "pound" as a unit of mass. At l
-On [20080213 20:16], Jeff Schwab ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>So what is the mass of a slug, anyway? (I assume this is slug as in
>bullet, not slimy, creeping thing.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slug_(mass) would be my guess.
--
Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven / asmodai
イェルーン ラウフロック ヴァン デル ウェル
-On [20080213 18:46], Jeff Schwab ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>I've never heard of "pound" as a unit of mass.
Then please correct/fix:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pound_(mass)
Me being mainland European I know not this silly system called imperial.
[Yes, partially in good jest...]
--
Jeroen R
Grant Edwards wrote:
> On 2008-02-13, Jeff Schwab <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>> Eh? Last I checked both pound and kilogram are units of mass, so where is
>>> the incompatibility?
>> I've never heard of "pound" as a unit of mass. At least where I went to
>> school (Boston, MA), "pound" is the
On 2008-02-13, Jeff Schwab <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Eh? Last I checked both pound and kilogram are units of mass, so where is
>> the incompatibility?
>
> I've never heard of "pound" as a unit of mass. At least where I went to
> school (Boston, MA), "pound" is the English unit of force, "slu
Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven wrote:
> -On [20080212 22:15], Dotan Cohen ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>> 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,
On 13/02/2008, Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> -On [20080212 22:15], Dotan Cohen ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> >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 con
Dotan Cohen wrote:
> On 13/02/2008, Erik Max Francis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> 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
> 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!
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
On 13/02/2008, Erik Max Francis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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
Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven wrote:
> -On [20080212 22:15], Dotan Cohen ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>> 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
greg wrote:
> Erik Max Francis wrote:
>> 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
> wh
-On [20080212 22:15], Dotan Cohen ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>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? Las
Erik Max Francis wrote:
> 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. the
On 12/02/2008, Erik Max Francis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Dennis Lee Bieber wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 12 Feb 2008 00:18:38 -0800, Erik Max Francis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > declaimed the following in comp.lang.python:
> >
> >> equivalence for everyday usage and make no requirement of using the
> >
On 2008-02-12, Jeff Schwab <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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 an
Dennis Lee Bieber wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Feb 2008 00:18:38 -0800, Erik Max Francis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> declaimed the following in comp.lang.python:
>
>> equivalence for everyday usage and make no requirement of using the
>> "proper" units for mass (kg) vs. weight (N) for, say, buying things at
>
Dennis Lee Bieber wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Feb 2008 00:18:38 -0800, Erik Max Francis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> declaimed the following in comp.lang.python:
>
>> equivalence for everyday usage and make no requirement of using the
>> "proper" units for mass (kg) vs. weight (N) for, say, buying things at
>
Robert Bossy wrote:
> 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 ne
Jeff Schwab wrote:
> Erik Max Francis wrote:
>
>> Jeff Schwab wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Erik Max Francis wrote:
>>>
Robert Bossy wrote:
> I'm pretty sure we can still hear educated people say that free fall
> speed depends on the weight of the object without realiz
On Feb 12, 7:16 am, Jeff Schwab <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Erik Max Francis wrote:
> > Jeff Schwab wrote:
>
> >> Erik Max Francis wrote:
> >>> Grant Edwards wrote:
>
> On 2008-02-12, Jeff Schwab <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Fair enough!
>
> Dear me, what's Usenet coming to these d
Erik Max Francis wrote:
> Jeff Schwab wrote:
>
>> Erik Max Francis wrote:
>>> Grant Edwards wrote:
>>>
On 2008-02-12, Jeff Schwab <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Fair enough!
Dear me, what's Usenet coming to these days...
>>>
>>> I know, really. Sheesh! Jeff, I won't stand for th
Jeff Schwab wrote:
> Erik Max Francis wrote:
>> Grant Edwards wrote:
>>
>>> On 2008-02-12, Jeff Schwab <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Fair enough!
>>>
>>> Dear me, what's Usenet coming to these days...
>>
>> I know, really. Sheesh! Jeff, I won't stand for that! Argue with
>> me! :-)
>
> OK,
Erik Max Francis wrote:
> Grant Edwards wrote:
>
>> On 2008-02-12, Jeff Schwab <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> Fair enough!
>>
>> Dear me, what's Usenet coming to these days...
>
> I know, really. Sheesh! Jeff, I won't stand for that! Argue with me!
> :-)
OK, uh... You're a poopy-head.
For
Grant Edwards wrote:
> On 2008-02-12, Jeff Schwab <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Fair enough!
>
> Dear me, what's Usenet coming to these days...
I know, really. Sheesh! Jeff, I won't stand for that! Argue with me! :-)
--
Erik Max Francis && [EMAIL PROTECTED] && http://www.alcyone.com/max/
Grant Edwards wrote:
> On 2008-02-10, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> ? ? ? A Parsec is a fixed value (which, admittedly, presumes
> the culture developed a 360degree circle broken into degrees
> => minutes => seconds... or, at least, some units compatible
> with t
On 2008-02-10, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
? ? ? A Parsec is a fixed value (which, admittedly, presumes
the culture developed a 360degree circle broken into degrees
=> minutes => seconds... or, at least, some units compatible
with the concept of an "arc second"
On 2008-02-12, Jeff Schwab <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Erik Max Francis wrote:
>> Jeff Schwab wrote:
>>
>>> 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
Erik Max Francis wrote:
> Jeff Schwab wrote:
>
>> 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
Jeff Schwab wrote:
> 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 s
In article
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Feb 8, 2:53?pm, Lou Pecora <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > ?Grant Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > On 2008-02-08, Dennis Lee Bieber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
>
Erik Max Francis wrote:
> Jeff Schwab wrote:
>
>> Erik Max Francis wrote:
>>> Robert Bossy wrote:
I'm pretty sure we can still hear educated people say that free fall
speed depends on the weight of the object without realizing it's a
double mistake.
>>>
>>> Well, you have to quali
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Feb 2008 19:54:30 +1300, greg wrote:
>
>>> Until DeBroglie formulated
>>> its hypothesis of dual nature of matter (and light): wave and particle
>>> at the same time.
>> Really it's neither waves nor particles, but something else for which
>> there isn't a go
Grant Edwards wrote:
> On 2008-02-09, Thomas Dybdahl Ahle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Quantum mechanics are closely related to philosophy.
>
> I've never understood that claim. You can philosophize about
> anything: biology, math, weather, the stars, the moon, and so
> on. I don't see how QM
Jeff Schwab wrote:
> Erik Max Francis wrote:
>> Robert Bossy wrote:
>>> I'm pretty sure we can still hear educated people say that free fall
>>> speed depends on the weight of the object without realizing it's a
>>> double mistake.
>>
>> Well, you have to qualify it better than this, because wha
Erik Max Francis wrote:
> Robert Bossy wrote:
>> Grant Edwards wrote:
>>> After repeated attempts at the tasks set for them in the
>>> experiments, the subjects would learn strategies that would
>>> work in a Newtonian world, but the initial intuitive reactions
>>> were very non-Newtonian (regardle
Steve Holden wrote:
> Well the history of physics for at least two hundred years has been a
> migration away from the intuitive. In strict linguistic terms the word
> "subatomic" is a fine oxymoron. I suspect it's really "turtles all the
> way down".
Well, hard to say that's been a monotonic p
Robert Bossy wrote:
> Grant Edwards wrote:
>> After repeated attempts at the tasks set for them in the
>> experiments, the subjects would learn strategies that would
>> work in a Newtonian world, but the initial intuitive reactions
>> were very non-Newtonian (regardless of how educated they were
>>
En Mon, 11 Feb 2008 14:05:27 -0200, Grant Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
escribi�:
> On 2008-02-11, Steve Holden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Well the history of physics for at least two hundred years has
>> been a migration away from the intuitive.
>
> Starting at least as far back as Newtonian
On 11/02/2008, Grant Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 2008-02-11, Steve Holden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Well the history of physics for at least two hundred years has
> > been a migration away from the intuitive.
>
> Starting at least as far back as Newtonian mechanics. I once
> rea
Grant Edwards wrote:
> On 2008-02-11, Steve Holden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>> Well the history of physics for at least two hundred years has
>> been a migration away from the intuitive.
>>
>
> Starting at least as far back as Newtonian mechanics. I once
> read a very interesting art
On 2008-02-11, Steve Holden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Well the history of physics for at least two hundred years has
> been a migration away from the intuitive.
Starting at least as far back as Newtonian mechanics. I once
read a very interesting article about some experiments that
showed that
On 09/02/2008, Ron Provost <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> The division between philosophy and science can be fine indeed. Philosophy
> and science are the two rigorous methods of inquiry into the fundamental
> nature of things (other methods include religion and superstition). Because
> of it's p
On 09/02/2008, Ron Provost <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> The division between philosophy and science can be fine indeed. Philosophy
> and science are the two rigorous methods of inquiry into the fundamental
> nature of things (other methods include religion and superstition). Because
> of it's p
greg wrote:
> Gabriel Genellina wrote:
>
>> Before the famous Michelson-Morley experiment (end of s. XIX), some
>> physicists would have said "light propagates over ether, some kind of
>> matter that fills the whole space but has no measurable mass", but the
>> experiment failed to show any
On Mon, 11 Feb 2008 19:54:30 +1300, greg wrote:
>> Until DeBroglie formulated
>> its hypothesis of dual nature of matter (and light): wave and particle
>> at the same time.
>
> Really it's neither waves nor particles, but something else for which
> there isn't a good word in everyday English. P
The division between philosophy and science can be fine indeed. Philosophy and
science are the two rigorous methods of inquiry into the fundamental nature of
things (other methods include religion and superstition). Because of it's
process, science limits itself to those questions which can be
Gabriel Genellina wrote:
> Before the famous Michelson-Morley experiment (end of s. XIX), some
> physicists would have said "light propagates over ether, some kind of
> matter that fills the whole space but has no measurable mass", but the
> experiment failed to show any evidence of it exist
On Feb 10, 7:29 am, Stefan Behnel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> > On Sat, 09 Feb 2008 01:11:09 +, Marc 'BlackJack' Rintsch wrote:
>
> >> On Fri, 08 Feb 2008 05:12:29 -0800, Ryszard Szopa wrote:
>
> >>> Expressing simple loops as C for loops...
> >> You mean simple loops
On 2008-02-09, Doug Morse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Or just the old particle/wave dichotomy... particles
>> travel, waves propagate (that is, the wave form -- crest/dip
>> -- changes position, but the material of the medium it is in
>> just jiggles in place).
> So, showing of my physi
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Sat, 09 Feb 2008 01:11:09 +, Marc 'BlackJack' Rintsch wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 08 Feb 2008 05:12:29 -0800, Ryszard Szopa wrote:
>>
>>> Expressing simple loops as C for loops...
>> You mean simple loops like ``for i in xrange(1000):``? How should the
>> compiler know wha
On Feb 6, 2:43 am, "Luis M. González" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 5 feb, 05:19, Santiago Romero <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > ( Surely if this question has been asked for a zillion of times... )
> > ( and sorry for my english! )
>
> > I'm impressed with python. I'm very happy with th
En Sat, 09 Feb 2008 19:01:31 -0200, Doug Morse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> escribi�:
> So, showing of my physics ignorance: I presume then that this means that
> light, say from the sun, is actually sending particles to the earth,
> since the
> space between is mostly vacuum? Or is there enough materi
On Feb 8, 2:53�pm, Lou Pecora <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> �Grant Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On 2008-02-08, Dennis Lee Bieber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > � � � A Parsec is a fixed value (which, admittedly, presumes the culture
> > > developed a
Grant Edwards wrote:
> On 2008-02-09, Thomas Dybdahl Ahle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Sat, 2008-02-09 at 14:56 +0100, Martin P. Hellwig wrote:
Propagate, travel, what's the difference?
>>> Unfortunately, I didn't study any of this but I sure do remember the
>>> answer one drunk phys
So, showing of my physics ignorance: I presume then that this means that
light, say from the sun, is actually sending particles to the earth, since the
space between is mostly vacuum? Or is there enough material in the
near-vacuum of space for propogation to occur?
On Sat, 09 Feb 2008 12:25:51
On 2008-02-09, Thomas Dybdahl Ahle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Sat, 2008-02-09 at 14:56 +0100, Martin P. Hellwig wrote:
>> > Propagate, travel, what's the difference?
>> >
>> Unfortunately, I didn't study any of this but I sure do remember the
>> answer one drunk physic said to me in a bar
On Sat, 2008-02-09 at 14:56 +0100, Martin P. Hellwig wrote:
> > Propagate, travel, what's the difference?
> >
> Unfortunately, I didn't study any of this but I sure do remember the
> answer one drunk physic said to me in a bar when I ask him the question:
> "Does light travel or propagate?"
> H
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Wed, 06 Feb 2008 10:14:10 -0600, Reedick, Andrew wrote:
>
'c' is also the speed of light.
>>> 'c' is the speed of light _in_a_vacuum_.
>> True.
>>
>>
And since nothing can travel faster than light...
>>> Nothing can travel faster than the speed of light _in_a_
On Sat, 09 Feb 2008 01:11:09 +, Marc 'BlackJack' Rintsch wrote:
> On Fri, 08 Feb 2008 05:12:29 -0800, Ryszard Szopa wrote:
>
>> Expressing simple loops as C for loops...
>
> You mean simple loops like ``for i in xrange(1000):``? How should the
> compiler know what object is bound to the nam
Luis M. González wrote:
> On 8 feb, 22:15, Marc 'BlackJack' Rintsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Fri, 08 Feb 2008 17:45:36 +, Grant Edwards wrote:
>>> On 2008-02-08, Arnaud Delobelle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Please get back on topic. This discussion is about parsecs and
wookies
On 8 feb, 22:15, Marc 'BlackJack' Rintsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, 08 Feb 2008 17:45:36 +, Grant Edwards wrote:
> > On 2008-02-08, Arnaud Delobelle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >> Please get back on topic. This discussion is about parsecs and
> >> wookies now.
>
> > What's a "woo
On Fri, 08 Feb 2008 17:45:36 +, Grant Edwards wrote:
> On 2008-02-08, Arnaud Delobelle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Please get back on topic. This discussion is about parsecs and
>> wookies now.
>
> What's a "wookie" a unit of?
The degree of confusion among the jury when using the Chewb
On Fri, 08 Feb 2008 05:12:29 -0800, Ryszard Szopa wrote:
> Expressing simple loops as C for loops...
You mean simple loops like ``for i in xrange(1000):``? How should the
compiler know what object is bound to the name `xrange` when that loop is
executed?
Ciao,
Marc 'BlackJack' Rintsch
-
Grant Edwards wrote:
> On 2008-02-08, Arnaud Delobelle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>> the compiler could do little else except translate it to something
>>> like:
>>>
>>> (python:add a b)
>> [snip more interesting considerations about compiling python]
>>
>> Please get back on topic. This discu
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Grant Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 2008-02-08, Dennis Lee Bieber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > A Parsec is a fixed value (which, admittedly, presumes the culture
> > developed a 360degree circle broken into degrees => minutes =>
> > seconds... or
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:python-
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Grant Edwards
> Sent: Friday, February 08, 2008 12:46 PM
> To: python-list@python.org
> Subject: Re: Why not a Python compiler?
>
> On 2008-02-08, Arnaud Delobelle &
Grant Edwards wrote:
> On 2008-02-08, Arnaud Delobelle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>> the compiler could do little else except translate it to something
>>> like:
>>>
>>> (python:add a b)
>> [snip more interesting considerations about compiling python]
>>
>> Please get back on topic. This discu
On 2008-02-08, Arnaud Delobelle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> the compiler could do little else except translate it to something
>> like:
>>
>> (python:add a b)
> [snip more interesting considerations about compiling python]
>
> Please get back on topic. This discussion is about parsecs and
> woo
Ryszard Szopa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> The main determinant of Python's performance isn't the interpreter
>> overhead, but the amount of work that must be done at run-time and
>> cannot be moved to compile-time or optimized away.
>
> Well, I am still not convinced that Python is intrinsicall
On 2008-02-08, Dennis Lee Bieber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> A Parsec is a fixed value (which, admittedly, presumes the culture
> developed a 360degree circle broken into degrees => minutes =>
> seconds... or, at least, some units compatible with the concept of an
> "arc second", like 400 g
On 2008-02-07, Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> -On [20080207 22:09], Reedick, Andrew ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>>Errr... didn't one of the novels explain it away by describing the
>>kessel run as a region of space warped by black holes or other objects?
>>Bragging rights
On Feb 8, 12:25 am, Hrvoje Niksic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Steven D'Aprano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Be fair -- he's asking what specific features of Python make it
> > hard. That's a reasonable question.
>
> Indeed. The best explanation I've seen explained goes something like
> this: i
On 8 Feb, 08:16, Arnaud Delobelle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> [snip more interesting considerations about compiling python]
>
> Please get back on topic. This discussion is about parsecs and
> wookies now.
Yes, it's like the lower-value parts of Wikipedia have spilled out
onto Usenet. ;-)
But
rsday, February 07, 2008 3:32 PM To: python-list@python.org
>>> Subject: Re: Why not a Python compiler?
>>>
>>>> I wonder if George Lucas intended it as a joke or if he thought a
>>>> parsec was a unit of time.
>>>
>>> The latter because it
"Santiago Romero" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Why not a Python COMPILER?
Check out CLPython it has a Python compiler, though I highly doubt it is
what you are thinking of.
>From http://common-lisp.net/project/clpython/manual.html
Sometimes, the generated Pyth
Hallöchen!
Reedick, Andrew writes:
>> -Original Message-
>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:python-
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Torsten Bronger
>> Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2008 3:32 PM
>> To: python-list@python.org
>> Subject: Re: Why not a
On Feb 7, 11:25 pm, Hrvoje Niksic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Steven D'Aprano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Be fair -- he's asking what specific features of Python make it
> > hard. That's a reasonable question.
>
> Indeed. The best explanation I've seen explained goes something like
> this: i
Steven D'Aprano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Be fair -- he's asking what specific features of Python make it
> hard. That's a reasonable question.
Indeed. The best explanation I've seen explained goes something like
this: imagine a hypothetical Python compiler that achieves native
compilation
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Thu, 07 Feb 2008 09:06:32 -0500, Steve Holden wrote:
>
>> Ryszard Szopa wrote:
>>> On Feb 5, 9:30 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>>
I don't know the exact details but I think the issue is the dynamic
nature of Python makes it impossible to correctly store the v
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Thu, 07 Feb 2008 13:44:05 -0700, Ivan Van Laningham wrote:
>
>> Gary Kurtz at SunCon 77 explained that it was a test to see if Obi-Wan
>> knew what he was doing; supposedly, Obi-Wan's expression indicated that
>> he knew Solo was feeding him shit.
>
> Why the hell woul
Ivan Van Laningham wrote:
> Gary Kurtz at SunCon 77 explained that it was a test to see if Obi-Wan
> knew what he was doing; supposedly, Obi-Wan's expression indicated
> that he knew Solo was feeding him shit.
>
> I think Lucas didn't have a clue, myself; it's not credible that
> citizens of a st
-On [20080207 22:09], Reedick, Andrew ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>Errr... didn't one of the novels explain it away by describing the
>kessel run as a region of space warped by black holes or other objects?
>Bragging rights for crossing such a field thus centered on shortest
>distance instead of tim
On Thu, 07 Feb 2008 09:06:32 -0500, Steve Holden wrote:
> Ryszard Szopa wrote:
>> On Feb 5, 9:30 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>>> I don't know the exact details but I think the issue is the dynamic
>>> nature of Python makes it impossible to correctly store the various
>>> types and changes in
On Thu, 07 Feb 2008 13:44:05 -0700, Ivan Van Laningham wrote:
> Gary Kurtz at SunCon 77 explained that it was a test to see if Obi-Wan
> knew what he was doing; supposedly, Obi-Wan's expression indicated that
> he knew Solo was feeding him shit.
Why the hell would the pilot care whether the passe
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Torsten Bronger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > a parsec was a unit of time.
>
> The latter because it was corrected in the novelization.
>
> Tschö,
> Torsten.
Sounds like one. The reverse of light year that sounds like a unit of
time, but isn't. I've heard it
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:python-
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Torsten Bronger
> Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2008 3:32 PM
> To: python-list@python.org
> Subject: Re: Why not a Python compiler?
>
> >
> > I wonder if George
Gary Kurtz at SunCon 77 explained that it was a test to see if Obi-Wan
knew what he was doing; supposedly, Obi-Wan's expression indicated
that he knew Solo was feeding him shit.
I think Lucas didn't have a clue, myself; it's not credible that
citizens of a starfaring civilization who deliberately
Hallöchen!
Grant Edwards writes:
> On 2008-02-06, Gary Duzan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>>
>> Grant Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>> [...]
>>>
>>> Ouch. Two demerits for using the distance unit "parsec" in a
>>> context where a quantity of time was r
On 2008-02-06, Gary Duzan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Grant Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>On 2008-02-06, Reedick, Andrew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>> One demerit has been marked against your geek card for missing
>>> an obvious science pun. Additiona
Jean-Paul Calderone wrote:
> On Thu, 07 Feb 2008 11:03:12 +0100, Stefan Behnel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>> Take a look at Cython. It's an optimising Python-to-C compiler for
>> writing
>> Python extensions. So you can basically take a Python module and
>> compile it to
>> C code that runs again
On Feb 7, 9:06 am, Steve Holden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ryszard Szopa wrote:
> > On Feb 5, 9:30 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >> I don't know the exact details but I think the issue is the dynamic
> >> nature of Python makes it impossible to correctly store the various
> >> types and change
Bjoern Schliessmann wrote:
> Learning English also is not too hard. So everyone should be
> capable of writing poetry of Shakespeare niveau.
You're lucky that you can infer anything from a wrong statement.
http://www.mipmip.org/tidbits/pronunciation.shtml
Stefan
--
http://mail.python.org/mailma
1 - 100 of 132 matches
Mail list logo
