The perpetual calendar
in [Physics]
|
Prev: simple question power, resistance, current, etc
Next: OBSERVATIONS: Einstein's gravitational redshift measured with unprecedented precision
From: Evan Kirshenbaum on 24 Feb 2010 20:19 Peter Moylan <gro.nalyomp(a)retep> writes: > Evan Kirshenbaum wrote: > >> >> Interestingly, Labour Day [in Australia] is all over the calendar: >> >> Mar. 7th Western Australia >> Mar. 8th Victoria >> May 3rd Queensland >> Oct. 4th ACT, NSW, SA >> >> I don't see it listed for the Tasmanian sites (Launceston and Hobart) >> > The original form of this holiday was called "eight hour day". (I think > it's still called that in Tasmania.) I'm not sure when it became a > public holiday in Australia, but I think it was well before the custom > of using May Day as a celebration of workers' rights. Because Australia > already had an Eight Hour Day, May Day never became a public holiday the > way it did in most other countries. Ah, that's where Tasmania went. Launceston gets "Eight Hour Day" on March 8th and Hobart gets "Eight Hours Day" the same day. Or, at least, those dates are listed, though they don't have "Company Holiday" in the text. Others that aren't flagged as company holidays are Australia Day, Royal Regatta Day, Launceston Cup Day, Canberra Day (ACT), Good Friday, Easter Tuesday (in Hobart), Foundation Day (WA), Queen's Birthday (June 14th except in WA where it's September 27th), Bank Holiday (NSW), Royal National Show Day (Qld), Family & Community Day (ACT), Royal Launceston Show, Royal Hobart Show, Melbourne Cup Day, and Proclamation Day (SA). (I may have missed a couple.) I have no idea whether any or all of them are paid holidays. > That's part of the explanation of why it's not celebrated on the > traditional Labour Day (1st May). The other part of the explanation is > that public holidays are controlled by the states, and the different > states have shown no urge to move towards a more uniform system. -- Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |If I may digress momentarily from 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |the mainstream of this evening's Palo Alto, CA 94304 |symposium, I'd like to sing a song |which is completely pointless. kirshenbaum(a)hpl.hp.com | Tom Lehrer (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/
From: Robert Bannister on 24 Feb 2010 20:28 Peter Moylan wrote: > Evan Kirshenbaum wrote: > >> Interestingly, Labour Day [in Australia] is all over the calendar: >> >> Mar. 7th Western Australia >> Mar. 8th Victoria >> May 3rd Queensland >> Oct. 4th ACT, NSW, SA >> >> I don't see it listed for the Tasmanian sites (Launceston and Hobart) >> > The original form of this holiday was called "eight hour day". (I think > it's still called that in Tasmania.) I'm not sure when it became a > public holiday in Australia, but I think it was well before the custom > of using May Day as a celebration of workers' rights. Because Australia > already had an Eight Hour Day, May Day never became a public holiday the > way it did in most other countries. > > That's part of the explanation of why it's not celebrated on the > traditional Labour Day (1st May). The other part of the explanation is > that public holidays are controlled by the states, and the different > states have shown no urge to move towards a more uniform system. > Moreover, the date given above must be for another year. This year, in WA, it's on the 1st March which will be nice for the Welsh. -- Rob Bannister
From: Robert Bannister on 24 Feb 2010 20:33 Andrew Usher wrote: > Robert Bannister wrote: > >>> 'One' is not, grammatically, a pronoun. It is a nominalised adjective >>> (the number one) that is used in place of a pronoun. >> Are you positive it isn't related to French "on" (as opposed to French >> "un")? > > Well, it certainly could be, and that is the usual derivation given, > although I don't think there's any direct proof. > > Anglo-French 'on' and Middle English 'one' would be very close in > pronunciation, both being some variant of [On]. But still, I think if > that was the origin it was assimilated into English as if it were the > number one. > > Andrew Usher The equivalent in other Germanic languages is not the same as their word for the number "one". -- Rob Bannister
From: Robert Bannister on 24 Feb 2010 20:45 Evan Kirshenbaum wrote: > "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim(a)verizon.net> writes: > >> On Feb 23, 7:07 pm, Ant�nio Marques <antonio...(a)sapo.pt> wrote: >>> Besides, until recently, no other church lived for a universal >>> ('catholic') vocation. Sure, many of them did have one, but not as >>> a central structuring element. Notice the RC was never 'the Italian >>> Church' even when popes were italian for centuries long. >> Doesn't _every_ extant Christian church use the Nicene Creed? (With or >> without the _filioque_.) > > Assuming that you're not begging the question, no. Mormons don't. I > don't believe Jehovah's Witnesses do. I see claims that Seventh-Day > Adventists accept the original (325) Nicene Creed but not the revised > (381) version. I'm not sure about Christian Scientists. And I would > be surprised if there weren't a number of churches (minor, but more > mainstream than those mentioned) that don't disagree with it but don't > actually use it. > I'm pretty sure that Mormons, Jehova's Witnesses and Christian Scientists are not Christians. I'm not sure about Seventh Dayers. -- Rob Bannister
From: Peter T. Daniels on 25 Feb 2010 00:15
On Feb 24, 3:22 pm, Hatunen <hatu...(a)cox.net> wrote: > On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 23:15:35 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels" > > <gramma...(a)verizon.net> wrote: > >On Feb 23, 8:07 pm, Andrew Usher <k_over_hb...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >> Indeed, indexing is not the same thing as counting. If I were creating > >> a non-computer _indexing_ system, I would start from 0 as well. > > >What would you be indexing? Books, for instance, don't have a p. 0. > > That comes down to the question of whether the cardinal numbers > include zero. No, it doesn't; books don't have a p. 0. |