The perpetual calendar
in [Physics]
|
Prev: simple question power, resistance, current, etc
Next: OBSERVATIONS: Einstein's gravitational redshift measured with unprecedented precision
From: PaulJK on 26 Feb 2010 02:47 jmfbahciv wrote: > 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. Would he perhaps see some value in minting zero cent coins? pjk
From: PaulJK on 26 Feb 2010 03:00 Mensanator wrote: > On Feb 25, 5:00 pm, Peter Moylan <gro.nalyomp(a)retep> wrote: >> Adam Funk wrote: >>> On 2010-02-24, 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..." >> >>> The initialized state of my shopping basket contains 0 items. Each >>> item I put in increments it. If I initialized at 1, my shopping would >>> crash with a 1-off error on unpacking. >> >> If your shopping basket had been designed by a C programmer, its initial >> state would be the state just before the zeroth item was inserted. That >> suggests that initially the basket contains -1 items. > > This is still wrong. As a database programmer, the initial > state of my shopping basket is Null. Only after I make a > decision about whether to buy Mallomars does the state > (with respect to Mallomars) change to 0 or 1. The initial > state is never -1. > > Don't be confused by the practical consideration of not > being able to distinguish between Null and 0. In databases, > there is no ambiguity at all, since anything added to a > Null results in Null, anything compared to a Null is false. Null compared to a Null is false too? > The same does NOT hold for values of 0. > > 99 bottles of beer on the wall, > 99 bottles of beer! > If Null bottles should happen to fall, > Null bottles of beer on the wall! > >> >> -- >> Peter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org >> For an e-mail address, see my web page.
From: Chuck Riggs on 26 Feb 2010 05:47 On 24 Feb 2010 09:37:25 -0800, R H Draney <dadoctah(a)spamcop.net> wrote: >Chuck Riggs filted: >> >>On 23 Feb 2010 17:41:22 -0800, R H Draney <dadoctah(a)spamcop.net> >>wrote: >> >>>Robert Bannister filted: >>>> >>>>The eternal rift between morning and evening people. I get very ratty >>>>when politicians force me to get up in the dark more often than need be, >>>>whereas I think dinner is best eaten when it is dark outside. >>> >>>Quite right...I had breakfast yesterday at noon, and dinner at midnight....r >> >>Scrambled eggs and coffee at noon, is lunch just the same, IMO. The >>transition, the uncrossable barrier, is around ten. > >Uncrossable?...pah!...I often cross it in my sleep!...r How sinful! -- Regards, Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE
From: jmfbahciv on 26 Feb 2010 08:55 Cheryl wrote: > jmfbahciv wrote: >> Cheryl wrote: >>> jmfbahciv wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> <snip> >>>> >>>> What is wrong is forcing the entire populace to go through >>>> a jetlag twice a year. Their driving is more dangerous >>>> and productivity falls until each person has adjusted his/her >>>> internal time clock. Congress has been passing laws >>>> about truckers getting enough sleep. OTOH, they pass clock >>>> resetting laws which causes everybody to not get enough sleep. >>>> What's wrong is that it's dangerous and unhealthy. >>> >>> What's stopping people from going to bed an hour earlier that night? >> >> We're talking about resetting the biological cycle. People, essentially >> do go to bed an hour earlier (or later) depending on the clock switch. >> That changes the biology. >> >>> >>> Anyway, that only works for one direction. The other time, everyone >>> gets an extra hour of sleep, and therefore should be more rested and >>> less likely to have accidents. >>> >> >> Wrong. An hour extra, from the usual habit, creates a hangover. >> >> /BAH > > I've never noticed an hour either way making much difference. I must > have an adjustable biological cycle. > You're lucky. A plane flight from one side of a time zone, west, to the other, affected me. Times were the same but the sunlight was different. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 26 Feb 2010 09:02
PaulJK wrote: > Mike Barnes wrote: >> PaulJK <paul.kriha(a)paradise.net.nz>: >>> Brian M. Scott wrote: >>>> On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 20:19:21 +1300, PaulJK >>>> >>>>> I would prefer if every 24 hour day was made longer by one >>>>> hour, i.e. 25 hours long. [...] >>>> I'm not sure that 25 hours would be quite long enough. >>> I agree, it wouldn't. I just didn't want to sound like some kind >>> of an extremist. 28 was mentioned by some other posters. >>> That would do me rather well. Yes, 28, that would be perfect. >> Four extra hours in a day, but about twelve fewer years in a life. Are >> you sure? > > When I freewheel I still need only 7-8 hour sleep. > > I am sure. In 20 active hours/day I could accomplish 25% more > in my life. Or enjoy things I like doing for 25% longer. I wouldn't > care about the number of years, if I could have 25% more > awake time in life. I used to solve my really pesky problems by dreaming the solution, or workaround. Sleeping is useful. /BAH |