|
Whatever the case, you don't need to convert your integer to a float in the function, because multiplying it by a float already does that.
Also, I can't get a program to print the Python version to work in the online version.
For example, this does not work:
import platform
print(platform.python_version())
|
|
|
|
The problem is not with the functions. This is pointless: def miles_to_km_with_float(miles):
return float(miles) * 1.60934
|
|
|
|
|
And that's the problem. Your toy Python interpreter did not catch the problem.
|
|
|
|
Everything I said is correct. You're writing bad code. Here is a fixed version of your code: def miles_to_km_no_float(miles):
return miles * 1.60934
def miles_to_km_with_float(miles):
return float(miles) * 1.60934
miles_input=input('Please input miles to convert in km:')
print str(miles_input) + " miles = " + str(miles_to_km_no_float(miles_input)) + " km (no float)"
print str(miles_input) + " miles = " + str(miles_to_km_with_float(miles_input)) + " km (float)"
|
|
|
|
|
I'm pretty sure I know what your problem is. First, what version of Python are you using. Type python at the command prompt.
|
|
|
|
An integer multiplied by a float returns a float. Since 1.60934 is a float, even if miles is an integer, the result will be a float.
If miles == 1 with this code: def miles_to_km(miles):
return miles * 1.60934 The answer is "11"  If use this line: def miles_to_km(miles):
return float(miles) * 1.60934 The answer is correct. This program prints 1.60934. def miles_to_km(miles):
return miles * 1.60934
print miles_to_km(1)
Show me your entire program here. |
|
|
|
|
An integer multiplied by a float returns a float. Since 1.60934 is a float, even if miles is an integer, the result will be a float.
|
|
|
|
Working on the functions lesson at the moment, I didn't really understand it at first. I think I've got it now as I tried to write some of my own and it outputs the correct answer. Maybe someone can check that my thinking is right on these functions I wrote. # converts cm to inches
def cm_to_inches(cm):
inch = 1 / 2.54 * cm
return inch
a1 = cm_to_inches(25.4)
print a1
Less lines are better when it doesn't reduce clarity. The reason is it allows more lines visible on the screen, which allows greater comprehension while examining the code. But don't sacrifice white space to achieve that. def cm_to_inches(cm):
return cm / 2.54
And there's no point in dividing by 1 or multiplying by 1 or zero when they are constants: # convert inches to cm
def inch_to_cm(inch):
cm = 2.54 / 1 * inch
return cm
Try this: def inch_to_cm(inch):
return inch * 2.54
|
|
|
|
Read my last post. And read the post which it discusses. And read the big post from me. You're the one not getting it.
Have fun never accomplishing anything of value, then. :/ I find the boldfaced line in your recent post as just strange. But actually, as you allude, people really are as stupid as you alluded them to be in that blodfaced line of yours. That's why in the end, it really is about that post I made about U and V. The solution in the end is to simply restrict them if they remain ignorant, as is their choice. You can't force knowledge on people. |
|
|
|
Actually, it is complicated. Let's pretend you know why they dislike environmentalists. Now, ask yourself this: do you dislike environmentalists? Regardless of your answer, answer why you like or dislike them. And when you arrive at the answer to why, you'll then have to confront your own lack of knowledge with regard to the subject of environmentalism itself to realize if your answer to "why" has any validity to it.
You're missing the point. You and other environmentalists want to convince other people to do what you want them to do. But you can't do that unless you understand why it is that they think the way they do and base your arguments around those reasons. Persuasion is all about what THEY think, not about what *you* know or what you'd like them to know. Just demanding that they educate themselves won't change a thing, they have criticisms, complaints and questions that *you* need to openly acknowledge and respond to. And you will have to if you ever expect to get anywhere in the environmentalist debate. Let me put it this way: Since so many people feel that the actions you want them to take would disrupt or destroy their livelihoods or lower their standard of living, why not just buy them off? Pay loggers to not be loggers anymore -- since all they care about is having enough money to live off of for the rest of their lives, buying them off would remove their incentive for opposing you and they wouldn't be a problem anymore. For the conservative suburbanite who doesn't want his/her cushy lifestyle to be disrupted, provide means to preserve their way of life that don't affect the environment -- promote biodiesel or electric cars or something, create solutions that don't require them to live differently than they already do, and most importantly explain to these people how doing what you want them to do will benefit them financially.If you do not listen to me you will not succeed, guaranteed. Read my last post. And read the post which it discusses. And read the big post from me. You're the one not getting it. |
|
|
|
Incorrect. Oh sure, you're going to learn Lisp, C++, Haskell and Prolog in a weekend just by learning its syntax. |
|
|
|
The ill-will might be a price to pay to allow for awareness.
You don't think humans can be perfectly aware of something, and yet for any number of reasons, including spite, refuse to act on it (or worse, act in a detrimental fashion?) You honestly think knowledge == incentive? The simple facts of the matter have been laid out completely in my recent post about X and Y and U and V. |
|
|
|
So, what steps do you think environmental activists could take, independent of others, that might alleviate the ill-will that much of society seems to have for them?
I can't say that environmental activists are creating a backlash that is greater or less than the awareness they create. Nor can you. <snip> Fair enough point, considering that quantifying that would be quite subjective in the first place. Yet the ill-will is there, and is having a notable impact. If there were steps that activists could take on their own that could lessen the generation of ill-will (without a disproportionate expenditure of effort to do so,) then wouldn't it make sense for the activists to take such steps? We just agreed that we can't say that the ill will activists create nullifies the awareness they create. ^I wonder if the distaste for environmentalist types is a result of dictating people's opinions to them an arrogance?^ Just because people don't want to drink your brand of kool-aid doesn't mean they don't care about the environment. Caring about the environment by saying so isn't necessarily effective caring. If you don't know the importance of say, effect X or effect Y, then you won't care about it, and consequently might support action U and action V. Therefore, it's important to do one of two things: 1. Educate yourself about effects X and Y. 2. Or, don't be so certain in your support of action U and action V. And so if you adamantly engage in U and V, yet wish to remain ignorant about X and Y, then maybe someone should tell you that you can't do U and V. |
|
|
|
So, what steps do you think environmental activists could take, independent of others, that might alleviate the ill-will that much of society seems to have for them?
I can't say that environmental activists are creating a backlash that is greater or less than the awareness they create. Nor can you. <snip> Fair enough point, considering that quantifying that would be quite subjective in the first place. Yet the ill-will is there, and is having a notable impact. If there were steps that activists could take on their own that could lessen the generation of ill-will (without a disproportionate expenditure of effort to do so,) then wouldn't it make sense for the activists to take such steps? We just agreed that we can't say that the ill will activists create nullifies the awareness they create. We don't know how strong the ill-will is. Yet it's there, and is clearly having a notable impact. Why wouldn't you want to reduce the ill-will (and the impact it has) if it took no effort to do so? The ill-will might be a price to pay to allow for awareness. |
|
|
|
So, what steps do you think environmental activists could take, independent of others, that might alleviate the ill-will that much of society seems to have for them?
I can't say that environmental activists are creating a backlash that is greater or less than the awareness they create. Nor can you. <snip> Fair enough point, considering that quantifying that would be quite subjective in the first place. Yet the ill-will is there, and is having a notable impact. If there were steps that activists could take on their own that could lessen the generation of ill-will (without a disproportionate expenditure of effort to do so,) then wouldn't it make sense for the activists to take such steps? We just agreed that we can't say that the ill will activists create nullifies the awareness they create. |
|
|
|
I'm ignoring irrelevancies.
No. You're spouting opinions about a subject you refuse to get educated on. I live in Western Kentucky. Believe me, I'm well educated on the opinions of a good segment of society toward environmentalists. And, like them or not, Kentuckians and people of similar mindset vote; it might be wise to at least acknowledge that their opinions are what they are. It doesn't matter how educated your on their opinions. You can't judge them unless you understand environmentalism. That... makes no sense. They dislike environmentalists, and I know in good detail the general reasons behind why the bulk of them do. It's not complicated. Actually, it is complicated. Let's pretend you know <snip> Are you high? Do you have any inkling of the response your posts on this thread would get from the majority of folks I know? Do you understand that you're helping make their case for them? Or why? No. I'm not high. What I'm doing is qualifying your lack of knowledge on the subject. <snip> So, what steps do you think environmental activists could take, independent of others, that might alleviate the ill-will that much of society seems to have for them? I can't say that environmental activists are creating a backlash that is greater or less than the awareness they create. Nor can you. What I can say is that the U.S. is behind when it comes to scientific education, relative to other nations. And if you want to see a form of activism that you're apparently unaware of, then head on over to Patagonia and do some reading. Again, you don't have the full picture. Here are some links: Among Giants: http://www.thecleanestline.com/2013/08/among-giants-a-film-about-making-change-in-the-world.html80,000 Dams, 51 Interviews: http://www.thecleanestline.com/2013/07/damnation-80000-dams-51-interviews-and-one-film.htmlDamnation trailer: http://www.damnationfilm.com/http://www.thecleanestline.com/http://www.thecleanestline.com/page/2/http://www.thecleanestline.com/page/3/ |
|
|
|
I'm ignoring irrelevancies.
No. You're spouting opinions about a subject you refuse to get educated on. I live in Western Kentucky. Believe me, I'm well educated on the opinions of a good segment of society toward environmentalists. And, like them or not, Kentuckians and people of similar mindset vote; it might be wise to at least acknowledge that their opinions are what they are. It doesn't matter how educated your on their opinions. You can't judge them unless you understand environmentalism. That... makes no sense. They dislike environmentalists, and I know in good detail the general reasons behind why the bulk of them do. It's not complicated. Actually, it is complicated. Let's pretend you know <snip> Are you high? Do you have any inkling of the response your posts on this thread would get from the majority of folks I know? Do you understand that you're helping make their case for them? Or why? No. I'm not high. What I'm doing is qualifying your lack of knowledge on the subject. It's so fucking lacking, all you can do is state that you have an opinion about people in a subset of the U.S. who have an opinion about something you know nothing about. In case you didn't know, that long post I made a while back was a copy and paste of a post in reply to your own ignorance in another thread about one year ago. Your response to it one year ago? It was, and I quote verbatim: That was longer than expected. And I think in presenting all that, you've brought up another issue (not really related to ecology even) that makes this whole thing even messier.
I'll be fair and give your post a full reading, even though my response won't touch on most of it. I'll post the response in due time.
And you never did touch on the post in due time. You chose to remain ignorant then, and now. |
|
|
|
I'm ignoring irrelevancies.
No. You're spouting opinions about a subject you refuse to get educated on. I live in Western Kentucky. Believe me, I'm well educated on the opinions of a good segment of society toward environmentalists. And, like them or not, Kentuckians and people of similar mindset vote; it might be wise to at least acknowledge that their opinions are what they are. It doesn't matter how educated your on their opinions. You can't judge them unless you understand environmentalism. That... makes no sense. They dislike environmentalists, and I know in good detail the general reasons behind why the bulk of them do. It's not complicated. Actually, it is complicated. Let's pretend you know why they dislike environmentalists. Now, ask yourself this: do you dislike environmentalists? Regardless of your answer, answer why you like or dislike them. And when you arrive at the answer to why, you'll then have to confront your own lack of knowledge with regard to the subject of environmentalism itself to realize if your answer to "why" has any validity to it. |
|
|
|
I'm ignoring irrelevancies.
No. You're spouting opinions about a subject you refuse to get educated on. I live in Western Kentucky. Believe me, I'm well educated on the opinions of a good segment of society toward environmentalists. And, like them or not, Kentuckians and people of similar mindset vote; it might be wise to at least acknowledge that their opinions are what they are. It doesn't matter how educated your on their opinions. You can't judge them unless you understand environmentalism. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
