View previous topic | View next topic

Errata

Page 3 of 4
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

CaptTimmy
128542.  Thu Dec 21, 2006 11:44 pm Reply with quote

JackBassV wrote:
On Page 184, paragraph 4, the book states about Galileo:
Quote:
He is most famous for his support of the Copernican (or Aristarchan) theory, that the Sun went round the Earth.


Whoops^^;

Only on Page 183, is Aristarchus stated to be the man who first said the Earth went around the Sun.

Not enough proof-reading here<_<


I don't see where it said Galileo was the first one, just famous for the support of the theory, observed by Aristarchus

Maybe what you are saying, and what I'm interpreting are two different things and it certainly doesn't help that I don't have the book...

 
samivel
128548.  Fri Dec 22, 2006 2:21 am Reply with quote

Yeah, that doesn't look like a proofreading (or any other) error to me. The book states that Aristarchus first postulated that the earth orbits the sun, and not the other way round, and that Galileo supported this view. It doesn't suggest that the idea originated with Galileo.

 
dr.bob
128560.  Fri Dec 22, 2006 4:51 am Reply with quote

Crap, just read JackBassV's post more carefully. It mentions that the Copernican (or Aristarchan) theory was that the Sun goes 'round the Earth, when clearly it should be the other way 'round.

Oops!

Can anyone with a copy of the book to hand confirm the wording?

 
suze
128599.  Fri Dec 22, 2006 6:42 am Reply with quote

On p 183 the Aristarchan theory is correctly stated - i.e. he suggested that the Earth goes around the Sun.

But turn over, and p 184 does indeed state (my italics)

p 184 wrote:
He is most famous for his support of the 'Copernican' (or Aristarchan) theory, that the Sun went round the Earth.


Oops!

Points for JackBassV, methinks.

 
dr.bob
128642.  Fri Dec 22, 2006 10:44 am Reply with quote

Damn, how did I miss that one?! :)

 
copperbottom
130612.  Tue Jan 02, 2007 8:47 am Reply with quote

Another proof reading error, to add to the list:
- pp24/25 'Who invented the steam engine?' refers to Heron's invention of the steam engine in Alexandria - but the book jacket's catchy list of teaser answers gives this as located in Greece. This is probably confused because a later snippet in the same item attributes the invention of the railway to Periander of Athens (wrongly, but that's a different story).

 
Syred
131499.  Fri Jan 05, 2007 7:56 am Reply with quote

Gosh! My (Q)u(i)bble seems so trivial in comparison but I must take issue with the reference to "Tweety-Pie" on page 161. This character's name is and always has been simply "Tweety" as created by Bob Clampett and named in every frontispiece of the Warner cartoons.
"Tweetie Pie" (Note different spelling) was merely the punning title ( as in Sweetie Pie) of the first cartoon to team him with Sylvester and this caused the confusion.
See Jerry Beck's history of the series - "I Tawt I Taw a Puddy Tat" 1991
at page 52 and passim.

 
King of Quok
131986.  Sun Jan 07, 2007 8:55 am Reply with quote

It's a literary error, but the quotation ascribed to 'A Winter's Tale' on pp.41-42 ('Which owl says 'Tu-whit, tu-whoo') comes instead from a much earlier Shakespeare play, 'Love's Labours Lost', where it forms part of a sung epilogue to the action of the play.

And I know that there are endless quibbles over the title of the correct play being rendered as either 'Love's Labours Lost' or 'Love's Labour's Lost', but as Shakespeare played fast and loose with punctuation, it seems very awkward to find a definite answer, though I'd suggest that since the labours of more than one of the protagonists (Ferdinand, Dumaine, Biron, Longueville, Armado) are at least temporarily stalled, if not lost it should be the plural 'labours' rather than the singular 'labour's'. And I know there's endless debate about Biron/Berowne too...

 
sonny sixshooter
135586.  Wed Jan 17, 2007 1:15 pm Reply with quote

Hello all.

First post here. I really enjoy the book. It's a great read! However, as so many others a few of the answers has me puzzled.

On page 33-34 it says that a head is estimated to stay conscious about five to thirteen seconds... where do those estimates come from?

Then there are the chapters without answers. Like "How do Plar Bears Disguise Themselves?" and "What has a Three-second Memoty?". After reading them, I know a lot about Polar Bears and Gold Fish, but I dnt know the answers to the questions.

And then my favourite... On page 68 it says: "... the slowest recorded speed of light.... was just over 60 kph..: slower than a bicycle."

Now, I don't know what kind of bicycles you have in Britain... but I want one!

I guess most of the people who buy this book have the annoying habit of always finding flaws in everything. However, I did enjoy book, and will continue to do so. Really.

 
CaptTimmy
135667.  Wed Jan 17, 2007 5:41 pm Reply with quote

sonny sixshooter wrote:
And then my favourite... On page 68 it says: "... the slowest recorded speed of light.... was just over 60 kph..: slower than a bicycle."

Now, I don't know what kind of bicycles you have in Britain... but I want one!


Perhaps bicycle is not the thing that you pedal, but perhaps a motorcycle?

 
smiley_face
135670.  Wed Jan 17, 2007 5:49 pm Reply with quote

CaptTimmy wrote:
sonny sixshooter wrote:
And then my favourite... On page 68 it says: "... the slowest recorded speed of light.... was just over 60 kph..: slower than a bicycle."

Now, I don't know what kind of bicycles you have in Britain... but I want one!


Perhaps bicycle is not the thing that you pedal, but perhaps a motorcycle?


I'm fairly sure that the indoor Olympic cyclists aren't far off 60kph.

Edit: http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/sport/newsid_3530000/3530832.stm

Quote:
"How fast do you go?"
I reach speeds of up to 40 miles an hour - so it's really important I wear my helmet!

40 miles an hour = 64.4kph, so there we go.

 
Nicholls
136007.  Thu Jan 18, 2007 12:41 pm Reply with quote

I'm not sure if someone has mentioned this, but occasionally the writers quote numbers as say 1 billion (they mean 1,000,000,000). Officially in Britain 1 billion is 1,000,000,000,000, quite literally bi-llion. It is only in America that they have the former definition of billion (1,000,000,000) although I may be wrong about this as the English language seems to be continually becoming Americanised.

 
samivel
136009.  Thu Jan 18, 2007 12:51 pm Reply with quote

That was true at one time, but nearly every citation I can find (whether English in origin or not), uses the American definition of billion.

 
smiley_face
136013.  Thu Jan 18, 2007 12:57 pm Reply with quote

Well if there were 6,000,000,000,000 people on the planet, I'd be bloomin' scared!

 
gerontius grumpus
136152.  Thu Jan 18, 2007 6:57 pm Reply with quote

Nicholls wrote:
I'm not sure if someone has mentioned this, but occasionally the writers quote numbers as say 1 billion (they mean 1,000,000,000). Officially in Britain 1 billion is 1,000,000,000,000, quite literally bi-llion. It is only in America that they have the former definition of billion (1,000,000,000) although I may be wrong about this as the English language seems to be continually becoming Americanised.


I'm not sure but I think the American billion has now been assimilated into general usage in Britain now.

 

Page 3 of 4
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

All times are GMT - 5 Hours


Display posts from previous:   

Search Search Forums

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group