The perpetual calendar
in [Physics]
|
Prev: simple question power, resistance, current, etc
Next: OBSERVATIONS: Einstein's gravitational redshift measured with unprecedented precision
From: jmfbahciv on 25 Feb 2010 09:28 Evan Kirshenbaum wrote: > tony cooper <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> writes: > >> As far as I can tell, the only employers that are closed on >> President's Day are government offices, schools, and banks. To the >> rest of the working stiffs, President's Day is just another >> work-day...a busier work-day for retail employees, in fact. > > It's a company holiday at HP (in the US). Our holiday calendar is > > New Year's Day (or the first weekday thereafter) > Martin Luther King Day > President's Day > Memorial Day > Independence Day (or the closest weekday) > Labor Day > Thanksgiving Day and the day after > Christmas > > and one "company-designated floater", typically used to make > Christmas, New Years, or the Fourth of July into a four-day weekend. > (This year it's 12/31.) Before we got MLK Day, we got a "Spring > Holiday" that always fell on Good Friday. > > In the UK, they get, let's see > > New Year's Day and, in Scotland, the day after > St. Patrick's Day (only in Northern Ireland) > Good Friday > Easter Monday (except in Scotland) > May Bank Holiday (May 3rd) > Late Spring Bank Holiday (May 31st) > Summer Holiday (July 12th in NI, August 2nd in Scotland) > Late Summer Bank Holiday (August 30th, not in Scotland) > Christmas Day > Boxing Day > > In Australia, the ones marked as "company holidays" are > > New Year's Day > Labour Day > Easter Monday > ANZAC Day (in NSW and WA) > Christmas Day > Boxing Day > > There are a bunch of others on the calendar, varying by site, but it's > not clear that those are actually days off. Interestingly, Labour Day > 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) > And, in Massachusetts, Patriot's Day is a requirement :-). I sure would have liked to have been a fly on the wall when HP discovered that Monday was almost as holy as Christmas. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 25 Feb 2010 09:30 sjdevnull(a)yahoo.com wrote: > On Feb 24, 7:54 am, jmfbahciv <jmfbahciv(a)aol> wrote: >> sjdevn...(a)yahoo.com wrote: >>> On Feb 23, 6:19 am, "J. Clarke" <jclarke.use...(a)cox.net> wrote: >>>> Dunno about the rest of the world, but in the US court-ordered busing >>>> has most kids riding the bus to school anyway >>> Court-ordered busing never affected a substantial fraction of US >>> school children (it peaked at below 5%, IIRC) and since 1980 or so has >>> been very limited. Post-2000, it's headed toward extinction. >> Why are you assuming that kids don't use busses? > > I'm not assuming that. I've re-read the above to figure out why you'd > think that, but I'm stumped. Oh, I read "it's" as busing; you meant the forced changes in which schools kids attended. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 25 Feb 2010 09:40 Bob Myers wrote: > Andrew Usher wrote: > > >> Well, I'm astounded. Indexing from 0 is so obviously the Right Way >> that I can't imagine why anyone would do it the other way. > > Oh, absolutely. Why, I see people in the stores every day, > counting out their money or the number of items they're > going to purchase, and saying to themselves "Zero, one, two..." > > ;-) Especially when the clerk counts change. I'm sure Usher wouldn't object when he gets a dollar short. /BAH
From: Evan Kirshenbaum on 25 Feb 2010 10:33 "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim(a)verizon.net> writes: > On Feb 24, 3:43�pm, "Brian M. Scott" <b.sc...(a)csuohio.edu> wrote: >> Peter T. Daniels wrote: >> > On Feb 24, 10:04 am, Evan Kirshenbaum >> > <kirshenb...(a)hpl.hp.com> wrote: >> >> [...] >> >> >> What's "reportage" is the "I've heard it commented". If Dave, >> >> living in Arizona, has heard it told about Indians, then that's >> >> the tale he's reporting having heard. �And the choice of >> >> ethnicity is an interesting part of the tale, giving insight >> >> into the attitudes of those who tell it (as distinct from those >> >> who merely report having heard it). >> > So ... that Dave has a prejudice concerning American Indians is >> > something he thought we all should know? >> >> No. �It's an asinine unjustified inference on your part. > > So you think that telling racist, or sexist, or whatever, jokes > doesn't reveal the teller's attitude toward the group mocked? > > Or is it that you have no problem with mocking groups? > > Or with negative attitude toward groups? Or is it that you can tell the difference between telling a joke and reporting having heard a joke and that you can recognize that by phrasing your reporting that way the reporter implicitly distances himself from the implication that he agrees with the way it's told? -- Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |The whole idea of our government is 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |this: if enough people get together Palo Alto, CA 94304 |and act in concert, they can take |something and not pay for it. kirshenbaum(a)hpl.hp.com | P.J. O'Rourke (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/
From: Peter T. Daniels on 25 Feb 2010 10:35
On Feb 25, 10:20 am, Evan Kirshenbaum <kirshenb...(a)hpl.hp.com> wrote: > "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...(a)verizon.net> writes: > > On Feb 24, 5:04 pm, Evan Kirshenbaum <kirshenb...(a)hpl.hp.com> wrote: > I would like to know > what definition you would use for determining whether a group (however > heretical) was, in fact, a (heretical) Christian group. "Heretical" _means_ they're not part of the fold. You can hope and pray that they renounce their heresy, but until they do, they're out. > > The wannabes don't get to define who belongs to the club. The > > gatekeepers do. > > If it's an appeal to authority, then I presume your original question > was begged. If the "gatekeepers" assert that the Nicene Creed is > part of being Christian, then no Christian groups fail to use it by > definition. That would seem to be the case. (And there's a difference between regularly reciting a creed, and accepting it as part of doctrine. You'd be hard pressed to find a copy of the Athanasian Creed -- at least, before internet days -- yet it sets forth the basics of, at least, Western Christianity.) > >> > And your Mr. Lee defines himself _out_ of Christianity by the "broader > >> > meaning." > > >> How so? I can see that they've defined themselves out of orthodox > >> Christianity by accepting a non-canonical book, but I don't know what > >> definition of "Christianity" you're using that rules out those > >> following additional books about Jesus. Unless, of course, your > >> definition includes necessarily following things like the Nicene > >> Creed, but clearly that couldn't be your definition or you wouldn't > >> have asked if there were Christian churches that didn't. > > > The various canons of Scripture (which differ slightly around the > > edges) accepted by the various brands of Christianity were finalized > > 1700 or more years ago. No option exists within Christianity for > > adding to that canon. > > I had thought that those who accept other books (at least other > pre-existing books) were considered to be heretical Christians rather > than non-Christians. > > > Especially forgeries claimed to be found on golden plates and > > translated by angels. Into a pastiche of centuries-old diction. > > Or, presumably, if an archaeological site uncovered a new letter, > fully compatible with the current canon, determined by Christian > authorities to have been written by St. Paul. Any church which added > it to their canon would becom non-Christian by your argument. Many similar documents have been discovered in recent decades, and no Christian church has even _considered_ adding them to the canon. |