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 28 Feb 2010 05:49 Peter T. Daniels wrote: > On Feb 27, 4:58 pm, "Brian M. Scott" <b.sc...(a)csuohio.edu> wrote: >> On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 12:48:14 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels" >> <gramma...(a)verizon.net> wrote in >> <news:02dc31c7-bbee-4dd6-8c8f-f915da3acdab(a)g7g2000yqe.googlegroups.com> >> in >> sci.math,sci.physics,sci.astro,sci.lang,alt.usage.english: >> >>> On Feb 27, 1:40 pm, "sjdevn...(a)yahoo.com" <sjdevn...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> [...] >> >>>> Until you offer a definition of "Christian" with an >>>> explanation and evidence as to why it's superior to >>>> those generally accepted by lexicographers, there's not >>>> really much left to discuss.- >>> Again I point out, as a linguist, that lexicographers have >>> no special handle on truth, especially as concerns >>> technical terminology. >> But 'Christian' is very far from being exclusively a >> technical term. > > When it concerns Christians' official definitions of what constitutes > a Christian, it certainly is. Some Christians take the view that the final determination of whether someone is or is not a Christian will take place at some later date, when the sheep are separated from the goats by Christ Himself. Therefore, any official definitions in the here and now are of distinctly secondary importance. I know, I know, a lot of others can't let go of the desire to know Right Now, and particularly want to know whether or not that really irritating neighbour is In or Out. And some people who aren't Christians by any definition of the word like to know for some reason or other, probably ranging from simple curiosity to the wish to identify a group to study or poll, who is and is not Christian. -- Cheryl
From: jmfbahciv on 28 Feb 2010 08:59 Robert Bannister wrote: > jmfbahciv wrote: >> Robert Bannister wrote: >>> J. Clarke wrote: >>> >>>> Dunno about the rest of the world, but in the US court-ordered >>>> busing has most kids riding the bus to school anyway, so what >>>> difference does it make? >>> >>> They have to walk to and from the place where the bus stops and often >>> have to wait. >> >> They still have to do that in the dark no matter which leaps we make >> the clocks go. >> >> /BAH > > But not for so much of the year. That's what bugs me personally about > the the change: I am a morning person; I get up at 5:30 and try to > arrive at the gym before 6:15. I know that for quite a few months of the > year, I will have to do this in the dark, but it is so refreshing when > (without daylight saving) we get those few months of light, plus at that > time of the morning, it's usually still pleasantly cool before the > thermometer goes soaring up. I'm sure light has a beneficial effect on > children too, but that sitting in a school bus in the afternoon during > the hottest part of the day is not a good thing. > I like to get up when the light turns on. When I lived in Mass., this was at a reasonable time such as 06:00 in the winter. In Michigan, which is in the same time zone, the light doesn't turn on until after 08:00. I also like it to be dark when I go to bed at 20:30 or so. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 28 Feb 2010 09:01 Robert Bannister wrote: > DKleinecke wrote: >> On Feb 26, 5:12 pm, Mensanator <mensana...(a)aol.com> wrote: >>> On Feb 26, 6:08 pm, Peter Moylan <gro.nalyomp(a)retep> wrote: >>>> jmfbahciv wrote: >>>>> I used to solve my really pesky problems by dreaming the solution, >>>>> or workaround. Sleeping is useful. >>>> There once was a time when I was struggling with difficult theoretical >>>> problems, and I would wake up in the middle of the night with >>>> solutions, >>>> or at least with important insights. Once the morning arrived, I would >>>> recall getting the insights, but couldn't remember what they were. >>>> To fix the problem I put a notepad and pen beside my bed, and went to >>>> bed with the firm resolve to write down any ideas I got in the >>>> night. It >>>> worked: I woke up with yet another brilliant idea, and spent some time >>>> writing down all the details. >>> My subconscience was not, in fact, >>> dreaming up useful ideas. I wasn't missing anything by not writing >>> them down. >> >> I generally put myself to sleep by working on one or another kind of >> intellectual task - writing a paper or solving a problem. I find it >> very soporific. >> >> While I am dozing off I will jerk back from my line of thought to >> something resembling a waking state and generally discover that I have >> instantly forgotten the chain of thought. The relatively few times I >> do remember something have convinced me I have lost nothing >> worthwhile. My subconscious or whatever is guiding me deals, it seems, >> entirely in nonsense. > > My first computer at the beginning of the 80s used to spend up to 4 > minutes "cleaning up" every couple of days. I figure that is what dreams > are about: wiping unused variables, erasing unnecessary data, having one > last check before erasure on the dirty pictures... Or switching connections so you get (or not get) a reality check. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 28 Feb 2010 09:05 James Silverton wrote: > jmfbahciv wrote on Sat, 27 Feb 2010 08:40:48 -0500: > >> James Silverton wrote: >>> Brian wrote on Fri, 26 Feb 2010 10:25:03 -0500: >>> >>>>> 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? >>> >>>> Probably: after all, its zero sense. >>> >>> I am trying to remember when Fortran introduced arrays with >>> arbitrary indexing, that is, starting at numbers other than >>> 1. I have not programmed in Fortran in years and I do >>> remember the change but not when it happened. >>> >> You always could "start" at numbers other than one. Or are >> you talking about the actual memory assigned to the array? > > Yes, there were ways of doing that but when you defined an array with, say, > > DIMENSION A(100) > > The array elements were A(1) to A(100). > > I think it was Fortran77 where, say, > > REAL (0:99) :: A > > became a valid declaration. > Thanks. I swear I read the 77 ANSI proposal but I don't remember this stuff. That one had to cause bugs. /BAH
From: Peter T. Daniels on 28 Feb 2010 08:59
On Feb 28, 1:30 am, "PaulJK" <paul.kr...(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote: > Are you suggesting that some (often disinterested) government > official would have more reliable sources of detail of the birth? I'm observing that over here, birth certificates are done in the hospital (presumably for home etc. births there are equivalent provisions) and signed by witnesses on the spot, not a week later. What about folks who didn't get baptized? |