OT: Speed of light [was Re: Why not a Python compiler?]

[Dotan Cohen]

On 14/02/2008, Steven D'Aprano <steve at remove-this-cybersource.com.au> 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 targets without learning to compensate for gravity.
>  >
>
> > You are forgetting two importance things here. One, the archer does not
>  > have a crosshair that he puts slightly above the window. He is going
>  > mostly by feel and experience. I shot quite a few arrows when I was of
>  > the age that does that, and as skill builds, the arrows know to find
>  > their target. The archer is not moving dials or crosshairs.
>
>
> So what? He's still *aiming*.
>
>  I don't know if you did proper archery, as I have, or just played around
>  with a toy bow with rubber arrows, but it's only in fairy tales that
>  there are magic arrows that "know to find their target". The archer may
>  not be able to articulate all the factors involved, but you can damn well
>  bet that "aim a little bit higher than the target" is one of the factors
>  that he could consciously say.
>
>  ("A little bit" is naturally dependent on how distant the target is.)
>
>  They weren't idiots, and even in the Middle Ages if you aimed directly at
>  a distant target your arrow would drop below where you were aiming.

I did some archery at summer camp for maybe four years, that would be
two months each year. Not a lot, but although I don't remember the
specifics of distance and equipment, I was one of the better kids on
the range. I knew well enough that aim was different at distance than
at close range, but it was more than just "aiming higher".

>  > The second thing that you are forgetting is that archery skills are a
>  > classified military information. Should one develop a system for
>  > improving accuracy, he would not tell it to everyone.
>
>
> What a load of bollocks.
>
>  Far from archery skills being a "military secret", archery was a common
>  skill amongst both the nobility and the commoners. Nobles hunted game;
>  even ladies sometimes hunted small game like rabbits. Professional
>  hunters used the bow to feed themselves and their families. People
>  learned to use the bow from childhood.
>
>  In 1363, England's King Edward III declared that every able-bodied man in
>  the kingdom, rich and poor alike, must practice archery at holidays and
>  other opportunities. Archery skills weren't a secret known by a few, they
>  were extremely common. In modern terms, don't think "knows the codes to
>  launch the nuclear missiles", think "knowing how to aim your rifle at a
>  target and pull the trigger": even the guys sitting out the war behind a
>  desk are expected to know how to shoot a rifle. In some battles, English
>  armies were made up of up to nine archers out of every ten fighting men.
>  A skill that common was no secret.
>
>  The overwhelming military advantage England had over the French was the
>  hardware and tactics: the Welsh longbow was a formidable weapon, far more
>  powerful than the European bows, and the English nobility relied on it
>  while the French treated their peasant soldiers with contempt. The
>  English lords might have been just as contemptuous of their archers'
>  social class as the French were, but they had nothing but respect for the
>  power of their weapon. The French archers were simply outgunned, or
>  outbowed if you prefer, and the French knights were brave but stupid.
>

I was unaware of the popularity of the sport. I should have checked my
facts and not posted my opinions. Thank you for the history lesson,
and more importantly, the etiquite lesson.

Dotan Cohen

http://what-is-what.com
http://gibberish.co.il
א-ב-ג-ד-ה-ו-ז-ח-ט-י-ך-כ-ל-ם-מ-ן-נ-ס-ע-ף-פ-ץ-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?