The perpetual calendar
in [Physics]
|
Prev: simple question power, resistance, current, etc
Next: OBSERVATIONS: Einstein's gravitational redshift measured with unprecedented precision
From: Cheryl on 26 Feb 2010 08:57 jmfbahciv wrote: > 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 I notice the change going, say from North America to Europe, or from one end of Canada to another, but recover in a day or so. I stay up as close to my natural bedtime in the new time zone as possible, get a good nights sleep, and I'm functioning more or less normally. Going the other way - east to west - is dead easy for me. All I really notice is the tiredness natural from being shut up in a noisy shaking tube for hours on end. I don't even notice a single hour's change, and certainly nothing less than that. Cheryl -- Cheryl
From: Peter T. Daniels on 26 Feb 2010 09:25 On Feb 25, 8:44 pm, Robert Bannister <robb...(a)bigpond.com> wrote: > Peter T. Daniels wrote: > > On Feb 23, 8:12 pm, Robert Bannister <robb...(a)bigpond.com> wrote: > >> Adam Funk wrote: > >>> On 2010-02-23, Ant nio Marques wrote: > >>>> "Roman Catholic" ISN'T AN OFFICIAL SELF-DESIGNATION. ANYWHERE. > >>> Are you going to write to all the churches in the UK with "St ____'s > >>> Roman Catholic Church" or "St ____'s R. C. Church" on their signs, > >>> newsletters, websites, etc., to tell them that they are wrong? (I > >>> think this is common in much of the USA too.) > >> I won't try to claim such signs don't exist, but I don't remember ever > >> seeing one. The only way I can tell a church is RC is by the > >> architecture and usually by the name (saint I've never heard of or > >> long-winded way of saying Mary). > > > Do you only visit villages so small that they have only one church, or > > so homogeneous that they only have a sprinkling of Protestant churches? > > I don't see what you are getting at. The only churches I notice that > actually stipulate their denomination on their own signs are the ones > that are neither Anglican nor Catholic. The latter appear to assume that > anyone interested will know, and usually, they are right. As I said > above, I won't try to claim that no "Roman Catholic" or "Church of > England" signs exist - just that I haven't noticed them in the same way > I notice Lutheran or whatever. It's the Episcopalians who put up signs at the intersections for blocks around guiding passersby to their church -- with, of course, their familiar insignia. Do try to remember that we have no state religion -- there is no such thing as an "unmarked" (in the technical linguistic sense) church here.
From: Peter T. Daniels on 26 Feb 2010 09:29 On Feb 25, 2:52 am, "PaulJK" <paul.kr...(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote: > Peter T. Daniels wrote: > > On Feb 24, 4:28 am, "PaulJK" <paul.kr...(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote: > >> I was just skimming through, but these screaming capitals > >> stopped me dead in my tracks. I reached into my legal files and > >> pulled out my "Geburts- und Taufschein / Rodný a kÅestnà list", > >> (Birth and Christening certificate). > > >> Under "Religion / NáboženstvÃ" is pre-printed "römisch-katholische / > >> ÅÃmsko-katolické". > > >> It's not in English but it is clearly stated in two different languages. > >> What could be a clearer example of self-designation. > > > That sounds like it was issued by the Czechoslovak government, > > Oh common :-), how could any Czechoslovak government ever > issue a bilingual birth certificates in German and Czech? > > As the certificate says on the top: the government at that time was > "Protectorat Böhmen und Mähren / Protektorát Äechy a Morava". > > > which > > assumed that there were no Protestants -- let alone any Jews -- born > > within its borders? (A church wouldn't be in a position to issue a > > birth certificate, would it?) I.e., not a _self_-designation. > > That is exactly what it is, a birth certificate issued by RC church, > as it says "Gegeben vom Dekanal-Pfarr-Amte in xxxx am xxxx" > (Pfarr crossed out) > > You will have to suspend your disbelieve. The Catholic birth/christening > certificates were indeed issued by the church during the baptism. > I only guess the civil government registry was updated behind the > scene. There is an official stamp affixed with a registration number. > That, I guess, confirms the registration in the government files. How do all those pastors know when and where the baby was born? Do they just take the mother's (or parents') word for it? > I know the various protestant churches who are also quite large > had their own certificates. I don't know if some people belonging > to various other religions had to go to a civil office to register > the births of their children. > > I believe the births were registered this way in all countries > of the old Austrian empire even after she was no more. > Perhaps it was then done the same way in Germany. Biographies of notables up to maybe the middle of the 19th century rarely know the birthdates of their subjects, but only the baptismal dates -- which are usually assumed to be a week or so later. > BTW, there was a certain stigma associated with having > a government birth certificate. A the government certificates > did not state any such detail, it was often taken to mean that > the child or any of the parents were born out of wedlock. > The church certificates record in great details marital statuses > of parents and grandparents, their names, religions, birthdays, > addresses, jobs and professions as well as the names, > addresses and professions of godfathers, godmathers, and > doctors present at the delivery. So, why didn't the government birth certificates record what would seem to be detalis useful to the governments? > Certificates like that are real gold mines for people > researching the genetical family trees. But not for birth dates. > > -- Does that mean Rimsky-Korsakov('s family) was Catholic? > > Could that be originally an old Greek Orthodox family from Lebanon? > :-) What does Korsakov indicate?
From: J. Clarke on 26 Feb 2010 09:15 On 2/26/2010 9:02 AM, jmfbahciv wrote: > 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. Damn I envy you. When I remember dreams they're seldom of anything useful.
From: Peter T. Daniels on 26 Feb 2010 09:36
On Feb 25, 1:24 pm, Adam Funk <a24...(a)ducksburg.com> wrote: > On 2010-02-25, Peter T. Daniels wrote: > > > 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. > > Lots of books are printed without showing the page numbers on the > first page of each chapter, but those unprinted numbers are still in > the sequence. So page 0 is just the copyright page or whatever else > is facing page 1. No, the page before p. 1 is the last roman-numbered page of the front matter (always an even number, of course). If a book doesn't have roman-numbered front matter, so that the first visible page number is 7 or greater, if you count the unnumbered pages back, you'll find that the recto of the first leaf after the endpaper (which it has if it's a hardcover) is p. 1. |