English Idiom in Unix: Directory Recursively

[rantingrick]

On May 24, 5:06 pm, Rikishi42 <skunkwo... at rikishi42.net> wrote:
> On 2011-05-24, Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.pyt... at 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.