Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.python > #11367 > unrolled thread
| Started by | rantingrick <rantingrick@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2011-08-13 22:57 -0700 |
| Last post | 2011-08-14 18:40 -0700 |
| Articles | 9 on this page of 49 — 24 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.python
Ten rules to becoming a Python community member. rantingrick <rantingrick@gmail.com> - 2011-08-13 22:57 -0700
Re: Ten rules to becoming a Python community member. Andrew Berg <bahamutzero8825@gmail.com> - 2011-08-14 02:54 -0500
Re: Ten rules to becoming a Python community member. Alister Ware <alister.ware@ntlworld.com> - 2011-08-14 10:58 +0000
Re: Ten rules to becoming a Python community member. Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2011-08-14 13:08 +0100
Re: Ten rules to becoming a Python community member. Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2011-08-14 08:07 +0000
Re: Ten rules to becoming a Python community member. Irmen de Jong <irmen.NOSPAM@xs4all.nl> - 2011-08-14 15:21 +0200
Re: Ten rules to becoming a Python community member. Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2011-08-14 14:46 +0100
Re: Ten rules to becoming a Python community member. harrismh777 <harmar@member.fsf.org> - 2011-08-14 15:11 -0500
Re: Ten rules to becoming a Python community member. Neil Cerutti <neilc@norwich.edu> - 2011-08-15 12:06 +0000
Re: Ten rules to becoming a Python community member. MRAB <python@mrabarnett.plus.com> - 2011-08-15 17:44 +0100
Re: Ten rules to becoming a Python community member. Neil Cerutti <neilc@norwich.edu> - 2011-08-15 17:14 +0000
Re: Ten rules to becoming a Python community member. Gregory Ewing <greg.ewing@canterbury.ac.nz> - 2011-08-16 12:52 +1200
Re: Ten rules to becoming a Python community member. MRAB <python@mrabarnett.plus.com> - 2011-08-16 02:59 +0100
Re: Ten rules to becoming a Python community member. Roy Smith <roy@panix.com> - 2011-08-15 22:01 -0400
Re: Ten rules to becoming a Python community member. Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2011-08-16 02:33 +0000
Re: Ten rules to becoming a Python community member. Kevin Walzer <kw@codebykevin.com> - 2011-08-14 11:23 -0400
Re: Ten rules to becoming a Python community member. rantingrick <rantingrick@gmail.com> - 2011-08-14 10:21 -0700
Re: Ten rules to becoming a Python community member. Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2011-08-14 18:38 +0100
Re: Ten rules to becoming a Python community member. Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2011-08-15 10:56 +1000
Re: Ten rules to becoming a Python community member. Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2011-08-15 04:28 +0000
Re: Ten rules to becoming a Python community member. Tim Chase <python.list@tim.thechases.com> - 2011-08-14 14:50 -0500
Re: Ten rules to becoming a Python community member. Dave Angel <davea@ieee.org> - 2011-08-14 18:01 -0400
Re: Ten rules to becoming a Python community member. rantingrick <rantingrick@gmail.com> - 2011-08-14 18:35 -0700
Re: Ten rules to becoming a Python community member. Christophe Chong <christophechong@gmail.com> - 2011-08-14 22:01 -0700
Re: Ten rules to becoming a Python community member. Gregory Ewing <greg.ewing@canterbury.ac.nz> - 2011-08-16 12:48 +1200
Re: Ten rules to becoming a Python community member. Roy Smith <roy@panix.com> - 2011-08-15 20:57 -0400
Re: Ten rules to becoming a Python community member. Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2011-08-16 11:53 +1000
Re: Ten rules to becoming a Python community member. rantingrick <rantingrick@gmail.com> - 2011-08-15 21:50 -0700
Re: Ten rules to becoming a Python community member. alex23 <wuwei23@gmail.com> - 2011-08-16 00:07 -0700
Re: Ten rules to becoming a Python community member. rantingrick <rantingrick@gmail.com> - 2011-08-16 08:06 -0700
RE: Ten rules to becoming a Python community member. "Prasad, Ramit" <ramit.prasad@jpmorgan.com> - 2011-08-16 13:51 -0400
Re: Ten rules to becoming a Python community member. "Martin P. Hellwig" <martin.hellwig@gmail.com> - 2011-08-16 19:37 +0100
Re: Ten rules to becoming a Python community member. Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2011-08-16 19:42 +0100
Re: Ten rules to becoming a Python community member. MRAB <python@mrabarnett.plus.com> - 2011-08-16 20:03 +0100
Re: Ten rules to becoming a Python community member. rantingrick <rantingrick@gmail.com> - 2011-08-16 13:13 -0700
Re: Ten rules to becoming a Python community member. David Monaghan <monaghand.david@gmail.com> - 2011-08-16 22:55 +0100
Re: Ten rules to becoming a Python community member. rantingrick <rantingrick@gmail.com> - 2011-08-16 16:12 -0700
Re: Ten rules to becoming a Python community member. John Gordon <gordon@panix.com> - 2011-08-16 23:25 +0000
Re: Ten rules to becoming a Python community member. rantingrick <rantingrick@gmail.com> - 2011-08-16 16:50 -0700
Re: Ten rules to becoming a Python community member. John Gordon <gordon@panix.com> - 2011-08-17 00:33 +0000
Re: Ten rules to becoming a Python community member. Tim Chase <python.list@tim.thechases.com> - 2011-08-16 20:02 -0500
Re: Ten rules to becoming a Python community member. Chris Kaynor <ckaynor@zindagigames.com> - 2011-08-16 18:09 -0700
Re: Ten rules to becoming a Python community member. rantingrick <rantingrick@gmail.com> - 2011-08-16 18:47 -0700
Re: Ten rules to becoming a Python community member. SigmundV <sigmundv@gmail.com> - 2011-08-17 15:48 -0700
Re: Ten rules to becoming a Python community member. David Monaghan <monaghand.david@gmail.com> - 2011-08-17 00:43 +0100
Re: Ten rules to becoming a Python community member. Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2011-08-17 11:14 +1000
Re: Ten rules to becoming a Python community member. "Martin P. Hellwig" <martin.hellwig@butterfly.uk.com> - 2011-08-16 19:37 +0100
Re: Ten rules to becoming a Python community member. Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2011-08-14 23:57 +0100
Re: Ten rules to becoming a Python community member. rantingrick <rantingrick@gmail.com> - 2011-08-14 18:40 -0700
Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]
| From | Tim Chase <python.list@tim.thechases.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-08-16 20:02 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <mailman.109.1313542947.27778.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #11636 |
On 08/16/2011 07:33 PM, John Gordon wrote: > I stand by my assertion that the phrase "I used to do X" carries the > meaning that you have done X in the past but DO NOT INTEND to do so > in the future. I'd tweak the meaning to be something like "I did X regularly in the past and I no longer do it regularly". E.g. "I used to drink a lot of cranberry juice"[*] connotes that I drank it regularly, but no longer drink it regularly, even though I might still drink it occasionally. But on the whole, I side with John far more than I side with RR on the issue. -tkc [*] seriously, in college I managed to put away over a gal/day. Ah, to be young again and have an unlimited cafeteria food-plan.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Chris Kaynor <ckaynor@zindagigames.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-08-16 18:09 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <mailman.110.1313543405.27778.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #11636 |
On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 6:02 PM, Tim Chase <python.list@tim.thechases.com> wrote: > On 08/16/2011 07:33 PM, John Gordon wrote: >> >> I stand by my assertion that the phrase "I used to do X" carries the >> meaning that you have done X in the past but DO NOT INTEND to do so >> in the future. > > I'd tweak the meaning to be something like "I did X regularly in the past > and I no longer do it regularly". E.g. "I used to drink a lot of cranberry > juice"[*] connotes that I drank it regularly, but no longer drink it > regularly, even though I might still drink it occasionally. But on the > whole, I side with John far more than I side with RR on the issue. There is a difference between "I used to drink cranberry juice" and "I used to drink a lot of cranberry juice". The first says that you no longer drink it at all, while the latter has quantified the statement to say you may still drink it occasionally, but less than you used to. The key is that "a lot" quantifies "drink" in the second statement. > > -tkc > > > [*] seriously, in college I managed to put away over a gal/day. Ah, to be > young again and have an unlimited cafeteria food-plan. > > > > > > -- > http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rantingrick <rantingrick@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-08-16 18:47 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f2f79e14-a8a5-4168-a8d7-92bf6e08e64b@a7g2000yqb.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #11636 |
On Aug 16, 7:33 pm, John Gordon <gor...@panix.com> wrote: > In <ef0722a3-59ff-4fc3-87a9-e637ce9e2...@en1g2000vbb.googlegroups.com> rantingrick <rantingr...@gmail.com> writes: > > > > "wore" means you have worn them in the past. > > > > "used to wear" means you have worn them in the past AND don't intend > > > to do so again. > > Actually that assertion is wrong. > > No one can predict the future. Not even YOU can predict whether or not > > Of course -- that's why the word "intend" was part of my answer. Did you > overlook that crucial word? > > I stand by my assertion that the phrase "I used to do X" carries the > meaning that you have done X in the past but DO NOT INTEND to do so > in the future. Okay and i'm with you as long as you'll also agree that "i wore wooden shoes" carries the meaning that i've worn shoes in the past but gives no indication that i will wear shoes again. And if you agree with that (which is a fact BTW) then you must also agree that "i used to wear wear wooden shoes" also gives no guarantee that i won't wear them again. This point i have been trying to make all along is: Speaking with this verbiage leaves to much to be desired. To much meaning is specific *only* to the sender and prone to cause subtle errors upon receiving due to errors of the "lost-in-translation" kind. We must remove these ambiguities from our speech and from our code if we ever expect to evolve into a species capable of taking the next logical step in our evolution. That step will require massive amounts of coherent and articulate collaboration across many cultures. How do solve that problem you ask? By removing all cultures and joining the culture of Mankind. We know that knowledge is being spread far and wide and to every corner of this planet. No one will ever be robbed of an education because all the knowledge is being cataloged in the world wide library (WWW). A person living in a mud hut in Africa has the same access to the knowledge base as a professor working at a prestigious college. No more will the class structure be relevant because knowledge IS power. The playing fields are beginning to be leveled and the world is on course for a huge shake up soon. How soon this event will culminate into reality is yet to be known however i can assure you people that at our current rate, sadly it is going to be a very long time! The transition is not evolving as fast as it should be because we refuse to eradicate the enormous amounts of multiplicity that plague our knowledge bases. Language is one of the top offenders, which manifest itself over and over like a stupidity virus; and the worst part is that it shows no readily perceivable symptoms to the zombie masses! These "masses" of hosts continue on day after day infecting new people with this disease of multi-language-ism and as such entropy grows. Leaps are made but then setbacks are certain due to entropy. On and on we continue to be slung back and forth due to this elastic rubber band of stupidity. Some folks get emotional when i speak of these things. They confuse multiplicity with freedom. They fear the loss of their freedom to be lazy, slothful, and stupid. Yes you have a right to be these things if you want, but don't be expecting that your gene-pool will be part of the future because you will be bred out of existence! The future belongs to the intelligent agents capable of eradicating multiplicity and harnessing what mother nature could never harness with billions and billions of years built on innumerable random guesses... the future belongs to those with an IMAGINATION! An imagination is the most power tool we posses. With imagination we can drive evolution. Without imagination nothing you see or know would exist. We would be caught forever in the infinite loop of ape-ian stupidity and left to wither as just a blip on the evolutionary radar. With our imagination we can not only harness our world but also our universe (which is far more expansive than we have yet to realize). We can even harness evolution itself! We can transcend the flesh, and then, THEN... we shall take our rightful place as the gods! Maybe there is even an evolution of the gods of which replacements are created every trillion or so years. We are next in line to replace the aging gods that now control the known universe. To continue to deny that we are natures greatest creation would be tantamount to bitch slapping our very own mothers. Instead we should make her proud by being all that we can be and using our intelligence to utterly destroy her and IN EFFECT become something greater in the process than we ever where before. Progress "progresses" by the prodigy standing on the shoulders of the creators to reach that "next" higher cookie jar. The future is not saving the whales or the dolphins, or the endangered three toed alligator. Neither is the future "save the earth". The future is transcendence from the flesh into a new state of being. No form of matter how well we maintain this earth, one day the sun will consume it. Likewise one day the sun be consumed. Do not put your faiths and beliefs in matter, because matter is fluid -- here today and changed tomorrow. Instead, put your faith in knowledge, order, and finally the end goal of transcendence beyond the confines of flesh. Recently I was an unwilling party to this completely ridiculous TV show about how the human race would be an "X" number of years from now -- through-out the show "X" was incremented. These idiots (calling themselves scientist) imagined that we would still be flying space ships as the last stars in the universe burned out. All the while i am thinking to myself (and laughing) how completely moronic these guys are. Newsflash! If we do not make the transcendence in the next 1000 years we may never make it and therefor some other life form will have to take a shot some time in the distant future. But i can tell you one thing for sure. In 10,000 years we are NOT going to be flying around in spaceships. We will have transcended the physical flesh and harnessed pure energy which will in turn fuel our expanding singular intelligence. At that time the currently known universe will become the size of your backyard swimming pool. Nature is random, but true evolution is the harnessing of evolution to bring about order in the known universe. We were put into this universe to bring about order from the chaos (something random guesses can never accomplish) don't be an idiot and waste your life saving the dolphins and recycling. Yes, be kind to other people (and lower lifeforms), but realize that they are a means to an end. Singularity is the end.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | SigmundV <sigmundv@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-08-17 15:48 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <57d73724-6120-4ff3-8b34-ba67e2b9de04@q3g2000yqi.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #11646 |
Bloody hell! This is the most persistent troll I've seen to date. He expected to get a raging army of pythoners after him, but people are just laughing at him. This is a mailing list, not a novel, so colloquialisms are welcome. The language on a mailing list should be informal and not necessarily grammatically correct. Sigmund
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Monaghan <monaghand.david@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-08-17 00:43 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <37vl47hrcer8a6d7eoc8o2980ihaj7ci25@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #11619 |
On Tue, 16 Aug 2011 16:12:53 -0700 (PDT), rantingrick <rantingrick@gmail.com> wrote: >On Aug 16, 4:55 pm, David Monaghan <monaghand.da...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Tue, 16 Aug 2011 13:13:10 -0700 (PDT), rantingrick >> >> <rantingr...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >If conciseness is all you seek then perhaps you prefer the following? >> >> >ORIGINAL: "I used to wear wooden shoes" >> >CONCISE: "I wore wooden shoes" >> >ORIGINAL: "I have become used to wearing wooden shoes" >> >CONCISE: "I like wearing wooden shoes" >> >However as you can see much of the rich information is missing. >> >> Indeed. Neither of your two concise examples has the same meaning of the >> originals. > >Really? Are you sure? Yes. > ORIGINAL1: "I used to wear wooden shoes" There's an implicit corollary to this sentence: "...but I don't any more", which is missing from your concise sentence: >CONCISE_1a: "I wore wooden shoes" > ORIGINAL_2: "I have become used to wearing wooden shoes" This carries the meaning, "I wasn't always comfortable/accustomed to wearing wooden shoes, but I am now". This is a totally different meaning from: >CONCISE_2a: "I like wearing wooden shoes" which refers only to the present and is much more positive. In fact, now I consider it, these examples are so clearly different that you can't be a native English speaker. Either that, or I've just fed a troll. Damn. DaveM
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-08-17 11:14 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <4e4b1602$0$29970$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #11617 |
David Monaghan wrote: > On Tue, 16 Aug 2011 13:13:10 -0700 (PDT), rantingrick > <rantingrick@gmail.com> wrote: > >>If conciseness is all you seek then perhaps you prefer the following? >> >>ORIGINAL: "I used to wear wooden shoes" >>CONCISE: "I wore wooden shoes" > >>ORIGINAL: "I have become used to wearing wooden shoes" >>CONCISE: "I like wearing wooden shoes" > >>However as you can see much of the rich information is missing. > > Indeed. Neither of your two concise examples has the same meaning of the > originals. The second one is considerably different. Consider: "I have become used to getting up at 3am to be flogged for an hour by my boss. Between the sleep deprivation and the scar tissue on my back, I hardly feel a thing any more." versus "I like getting up at 3am to be flogged for an hour by my boss. I get all tingly in my man-bits, if you know what I mean." The first case is more subtle. The implication of "I used to wear..." is that you did back in the past, but no longer do, while "I wore..." has no such implication. It merely says that in the past you did this, whether you still do or don't is irrelevant. -- Steven
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Martin P. Hellwig" <martin.hellwig@butterfly.uk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-08-16 19:37 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <mailman.94.1313519870.27778.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #11592 |
On 16/08/2011 18:51, Prasad, Ramit wrote: >> Incorrect past tense usage of "used to": >> """ I "used to" wear wooden shoes """ > >> Incorrect description using "used to": >> """ I have become "used to" wearing wooden shoes """ > >> Correct usage of "used to": >> """ Wooden shoes can be "used to" torture someone """ > > Double you tee eff? Maybe this is a cultural language difference, but I believe all of the above are correct. Well, I am not sure about the middle one but the other two are valid. > Well admittedly English isn't my native language, But indeed all sentences seem correct to me. With the first sentence meaning: in the past I wore wooden shoes, but presently I do not. With the second sentence meaning: in the past I was not used to (i.e. uncomfortable, hey bonus points!) wearing wooden shoes, but presently I am used to it (although not necessarily comfortable, but at least not uncomfortable). I actually can't figure out a way of saying those two sentences more concise or correct then it has been given. But then again I do recognize that these are quite 'Germanic'* ways of constructing sentences, as in freely mixing past, present and future to indicate that a certain description is restricted to a specific time frame. * For the lack of a better description, I am not a linguist, but I was born in Germany and I am often guilty of mixing times. Also RR, congratualation to another troll post that turned out quite interesting :-) -- mph
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-08-14 23:57 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <mailman.2288.1313362640.1164.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #11403 |
On Sun, Aug 14, 2011 at 11:01 PM, Dave Angel <davea@ieee.org> wrote: > I'm inclined to ignore typos in emails except in the case where the intent > is to abuse others. > +1 QOTW. It is, however, a well-known tradition that spelling/grammar flames should contain one spelling/grammer error. Oh, I just did it myself, didn't I. ChrisA
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rantingrick <rantingrick@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-08-14 18:40 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <cdf23606-2ad2-46f3-801e-7ccadd5ce39a@eb1g2000vbb.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #11367 |
On Aug 14, 7:56 pm, Steven D'Aprano <steve +comp.lang.pyt...@pearwood.info> wrote: > Chris Angelico wrote: > > I think you need to start a blog, Rick. > > You'd be easier to ignore. > > And yet, here you are, engaging him in conversation and feeding him the > attention he craves :( Yes, Steven loves rule # 2. Second only to the strawmen armies he has built. Kurtz: "What do you call it when the assassins accuse the assassin?"
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.python
csiph-web