On May 24, 5:06 pm, Rikishi42 <skunkwo...@rikishi42.net> wrote: > On 2011-05-24, Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.pyt...@pearwood.info> wrote:
> > I wonder whether physicists insist that cars should have a "go faster > > pedal" because ordinary people don't need to understand Newton's Laws of > > Motion in order to drive cars? > > Gas pedal. Pedal was allraedy known when the car was invented. The simple > addition of gas solved that need. Oh, and it's break pedal, not > descellarator. (sp?) Yes "Gas Pedal"... that clears up all the confusion </sarcasm>. However i would have thought if the vehicle had a "decelerator petal" it would at least sport a complimentary "accelerator petal". You know the whole "equal and opposite thing"? > > Who are you to say that people shouldn't be exposed to words you deem > > that they don't need to know? > > I'm one of the 'people'. You say exposed to, I say bothered/bored with. > > I have nothing against the use of a proper, precise term. And that word can > be a complex one with many, many sylables (seems to add value, somehow). > > But I'm not an academic, so I don't admire the pedantic use of terms that > need to be explained to 'lay' people. Especially if there is a widespread, > usually shorter and much simpler one for it. A pointless effort if > pointless, even when comming from a physicist. :-) You may be "right", but then again, who knows, you may be left? In this upside down world of layperson colloquialisms -- which ironic-ly enough are devised to "ease communication"... right? I mean i "used to" think that choosing words that clearly described my intentions was a good idea but heck, i would hate to think that those poor laypeople had to languish though such tongue twisting syllable gymnastics just for the sake of clear communications. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
