Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> Chambers wrote:
>>> Even 500 years ago, people knew the Earth was round.
> 
>> """
>> In fact, people have known since at least the 4th century BC that the 
>> earth is round, and the pseudo-scientific conviction that we actually 
>> live on a disc didn't emerge until Victorian times.
>> """
> 
>   A disc is "round". A torus is "round". A ring is "round". A cylinder is
> "round".
> 
>   Why do they always use "round" to mean "spherical" in this context,
> given that the meaning of the word is not very exact?
> 

But the earth isn't spherical, it's ellipsoidal or do I mean oblate 
spheroid. ;-)

John

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
>   A disc is "round". A torus is "round". A ring is "round". A cylinder is
> "round".
> 
>   Why do they always use "round" to mean "spherical" in this context,
> given that the meaning of the word is not very exact?

Because nobody really believes the earth is a torus or a ring or a 
cylinder? They're trying to distinguish "round" from "flat", not "round" 
from "every other possible shape". :-)

-- 
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
  Ever notice how people in a zombie movie never already know how to
  kill zombies? Ask 100 random people in America how to kill someone
  who has reanimated from the dead in a secret viral weapons lab,
  and how many do you think already know you need a head-shot?

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Because nobody really believes the earth is a torus or a ring or a 
> cylinder? They're trying to distinguish "round" from "flat", not "round" 
> from "every other possible shape". :-)

  Is Captain America's shield round? I think anyone would answer "yes".
Yet it's not spherical.

  The "earth is flat" belief stated, actually that the Earth is like a
disk not too dissimilar to a round shield. *Round* shield.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
>   Is Captain America's shield round? I think anyone would answer "yes".
> Yet it's not spherical.

Yes. And therein lies the problem: who would assume that if you said 
"Captain America's Shield is Round" that you mean it's spherical? I 
understand that you're saying both spheres and disks are "round", but 
given that one position on the topic is "flat", then "round" is 
obviously the other position on the topic.

People talk to people. Maybe you're talking to computers too much lately 
or something. Seriously, I mean, did you actually not know what they 
were saying? :-)

-- 
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
  Ever notice how people in a zombie movie never already know how to
  kill zombies? Ask 100 random people in America how to kill someone
  who has reanimated from the dead in a secret viral weapons lab,
  and how many do you think already know you need a head-shot?

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> People talk to people. Maybe you're talking to computers too much lately 
> or something. Seriously, I mean, did you actually not know what they 
> were saying? :-)

  It's not a question about understanding or not understanding what they
mean with their words, but about desiring a bit more of unambiguousity.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 9 Aug 2008 04:37:38 -0400, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:

>Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> People talk to people. Maybe you're talking to computers too much lately 
>> or something. Seriously, I mean, did you actually not know what they 
>> were saying? :-)
>
>  It's not a question about understanding or not understanding what they
>mean with their words, but about desiring a bit more of unambiguousity.

But the word "round" *is* ambiguous, its meaning is dependant on context. 
That's the English language for you. 
For instance no one really expected the roundheads to have spherical,
cylindrical or disc like heads. Nor do the "flat Earthers" say that the Earth is
perfectly flat. Take these things with a pinch of salt, old bean. (Not that I
think that you are actually an ancient seed) ;)
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:

> For example, if Word had reasonable documentation, you'd be able to 
> figure out how to use templates, wouldn't you? ;-) <scnr>

That's like saying "If IE's braindead layout algorithm was well 
documented, people would be able to understand it." It doesn't follow. :-P

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 12 Aug 2008 09:19:42 +0100, Invisible wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
> 
>> For example, if Word had reasonable documentation, you'd be able to
>> figure out how to use templates, wouldn't you? ;-) <scnr>
> 
> That's like saying "If IE's braindead layout algorithm was well
> documented, people would be able to understand it." It doesn't follow.
> :-P

LOL, but you know I'm right. ;-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

>> That's like saying "If IE's braindead layout algorithm was well
>> documented, people would be able to understand it." It doesn't follow.
>> :-P
> 
> LOL, but you know I'm right. ;-)

Nah. You can design a feature so badly that nobody can comprehend it, no 
matter how good the manual is. ;-)

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 12 Aug 2008 21:01:56 +0100, Orchid XP v8 wrote:

>>> That's like saying "If IE's braindead layout algorithm was well
>>> documented, people would be able to understand it." It doesn't follow.
>>> :-P
>> 
>> LOL, but you know I'm right. ;-)
> 
> Nah. You can design a feature so badly that nobody can comprehend it, no
> matter how good the manual is. ;-)

True, but as we've already discussed, there are people using templates in 
Word without issue, so it's not poor documentation, but rather a lack of 
understanding of the documentation that's the issue.  ;-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message