blog: RSS won't update [internet]

Post by **nikos** » 2012 Oct 14, 07:06

here's the comment area for today's blog post found at
http://zabkat.com/blog/rss-feed-wont-update.htm

Tuxman · Post by **Tuxman** » 2012 Oct 14, 16:19

RSS aggregators, programs like Outlook

Lol what?

Post by **nikos** » 2012 Oct 14, 16:34

I use outlook for everything, including RSS. It's a kitchen sink kind of thing

Tuxman · Post by **Tuxman** » 2012 Oct 14, 16:35

It does not have a text editor.

WimdeLange · Post by **WimdeLange** » 2012 Oct 15, 07:31

Strange reference to this article on the difference between degrees and radians. I have studied mathematics and the author is totally wrong, inconsistent and does not simplify radians at all. But it was fun reading.

jazzcat · Post by **jazzcat** » 2012 Oct 16, 17:10

the author is totally wrong, inconsistent

Would you be able to justify this?

WimdeLange · Post by **WimdeLange** » 2012 Oct 16, 19:46

jazzcat wrote:
the author is totally wrong, inconsistent
Would you be able to justify this?

Are you serious? The fact the this person is defining radius as a distance (in text and in pictures)? While radius and degrees are exactly the same thing, only with a conversion factor which has pi in it.
Radians are only a logical choice because of the fact that the math is easier the using degrees. It has nothing to do with movement of an observed object compared with the movement (of the head) of an observer. That difference is idiot and adds nothing to the idea behind this.

Kilmatead · Post by **Kilmatead** » 2012 Oct 16, 21:58

WimdeLange wrote:It has nothing to do with movement of an observed object compared with the movement (of the head) of an observer. That difference is idiot and adds nothing to the idea behind this.

Considering that the author is just trying to simplify the concept (for those of us who happily slept through maths in school), he had to take a different tact than saying "radians and degrees are the same" - because in the previous paragraph he pointed out that degrees were based on this arbitrary ball of exploding gasses with a perspective based on a "conceived" distance (which, incidentally, just got changed the other day). If he said "radians and degrees are the same" after that, then his audience would surmise "that means radians are based on an arbitrary ball of exploding gasses too" - at which point you personally would either get really upset or start to giggle like a madman.

Thus he tried to describe what Distance could be perceived as, rather than what we consider it just is. And, he kind of made a hash of it - but he does get points for trying something different.

As an observation, people who "study things" yet lack the necessary psychological instability to see beyond what they were taught [sic] tend to get grumpy and entrenched when others simplify things into abstract parables. (Which probably explains why that Jesus fella didn't try and change the world with parabolas, as his audience wouldn't have been impressed, not being mathematical Greeks obsessed with conical surfaces and Cartesian planes.

)

[As my man Lobachevsky does another rotation in his coffin, and Euclid drinks a toast to the victor, - I just start to giggle as is my wont...]

jazzcat · Post by **jazzcat** » 2012 Oct 16, 22:13

radius and degrees are exactly the same thing

Hmm this is an interesting assertion, but is of course wrong. Perhaps you meant to say radians?

Radians are only...

Now you talk of radians, one could say this is inconsistent.
These are the two things you accuse the author of the article of!

Of course I am being slightly pedantic here, but in fairness even when I take your statement as saying the author defines radians as a distance, I think this is not even true. Reading the article again, the author quite clearly defines radians as arc length divided by radius. Perhaps the diagrams could have been better labelled but these are not definitions.

I didn't mean to start a flame war, but it looks like emotions and ego are already running high from your emotive reaction to my response (are you serious?) and your stated study of mathematics.

I just thought you were being unduly harsh to the article without any justification, and I do feel somewhat vindicated by your subsequent response, but I can see where this is going so I had better return to my normal mode of keeping my mouth shut as these things always end up going the same way...

Kilmatead · Post by **Kilmatead** » 2012 Oct 16, 22:25

Umm... seems to me that "arc length divided by radius" is distance, no? But perhaps now I'm being pedantic? :D

Cut the Dutchman some slack, as his language is far more interesting than ours, he's doing us a favour by bothering to lower himself into conversing in English at all - a few mixed up words do not an error-in-logic make.

Robert2 · Post by **Robert2** » 2012 Oct 16, 22:43

Hi,
You might want to have a look at the following pages :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milliradi ... in_radians
http://ask.metafilter.com/85719/Why-do-we-use-radians
http://ph.answers.yahoo.com/question/in ... 532AAIus3w

Post by **nikos** » 2012 Oct 18, 09:23

i cross referenced that article just for the 360 degrees in circle thingy. Can't vouch for rads and what have you

Kilmatead · Post by **Kilmatead** » 2012 Oct 18, 09:58

nikos wrote:Can't vouch for rads and what have you...

If you're going to start a storm in a teacup, you gotta at least drink the tea, dude.

And, just out of interest, isn't Outlook.com designed to move us curmudgeons into the cloud-era (which, of course, will never happen)? Never mind that Office is now going subscription... or that they say Twitter killed the RSS feed (kids will be kids)... you sure your circles don't have 365 degrees in them, as they're apparently supposed to? And how long can you keep using your no doubt very old copy of Outlook anyway...

ZoNi · Post by **ZoNi** » 2012 Oct 18, 10:56

I never had problems with my rss reader (KlipFolio Personal).

But, this was an interesting text