The perpetual calendar
in [Physics]
|
Prev: simple question power, resistance, current, etc
Next: OBSERVATIONS: Einstein's gravitational redshift measured with unprecedented precision
From: Nick on 28 Feb 2010 18:11 Peter Moylan <gro.nalyomp(a)retep> writes: > Skitt wrote: >> Hatunen wrote: >>> "Peter T. Daniels" wrote: >> >>>> I wonder whether sjedvnull would be satisfied with, If you're >>>> baptized in the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, then >>>> you're a Christian. >>> >>> There are those who claim so. >> >> Just to provide some data -- I was so baptized (at the age of 16), but >> it didn't make me a Christian, at least, not in my beliefs. I mean, >> even if I do or say certain things, maybe my fingers are crossed behind >> my back. <g> >> > At my confirmation my fingers definitely were crossed. In addition, I > was muttering under my breath "a promise made under duress is not > legally binding". > > Nobody asked me whether I wanted to be baptised or confirmed, and in any > case I was too young to make an informed decision. Especially in the > case of the baptism. Seems a bit pointless to me. You might as well go through it wholeheartedly. After all, if it's rubbish then it's harmless - and if it's not you probably wanted to do it. -- Online waterways route planner | http://canalplan.eu Plan trips, see photos, check facilities | http://canalplan.org.uk
From: Brian M. Scott on 28 Feb 2010 18:14 On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 15:59:23 -0700, Hatunen <hatunen(a)cox.net> wrote in <news:68tlo51lbskir5ingugspogfsu33pcguo9(a)4ax.com> in sci.math,sci.physics,sci.astro,sci.lang,alt.usage.english: > On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 18:57:10 -0500, "Brian M. Scott" > <b.scott(a)csuohio.edu> wrote: [...] >>That may be another point of contention: pleasantly cool >>means about 25�, and really good weather starts at about >>30�. And 5:30 or 6:15 is a nice time to go to bed. > I do hope you mean celsius degrees. I do indeed; Rob's posting from Oz. [...] Brian
From: Hatunen on 28 Feb 2010 18:22 On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 06:15:20 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim(a)verizon.net> wrote: >On Feb 28, 2:57�am, "sjdevn...(a)yahoo.com" <sjdevn...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> On Feb 27, 3:48�pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...(a)verizon.net> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> > On Feb 27, 1:40�pm, "sjdevn...(a)yahoo.com" <sjdevn...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> >> > > On Feb 27, 9:57�am, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...(a)verizon.net> wrote: >> > > > On Feb 27, 2:29�am, "sjdevn...(a)yahoo.com" <sjdevn...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> >> > > > > On Feb 27, 12:20�am, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...(a)verizon.net> wrote: >> > > > > > On Feb 26, 9:04�pm, "sjdevn...(a)yahoo.com" <sjdevn...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> > > > > > > At that point you claimed they are "by definition, not Christians". >> >> > > > > > Sigh. The essence of Christian dogma is encapsulated in the Nicene >> > > > > > Creed. >> >> > > > > That is a different statement than the original, and would appear to >> >> > > > It may be a different "statement," but it conveys the obvious intent >> > > > of the original statement. >> >> > > No, it conveys a different intent, which is obvious if you reread your >> > > original question: "Doesn't _every_ extant Christian church use the >> > > Nicene Creed? (With or without the _filioque_.)" �That's clearly >> >> > Since it's my question, I think I am entitled to state what its intent >> > was. >> >> Whatever you might have meant, your words didn't convey it. �With an >> ambiguous statement, it's certainly reasonable to admit that you were >> wrong and revise your statement--I've certainly made ill-formed >> statements in this thread and others, and altered them. >> >> In this case, though, it's pretty obvious from the wording what you >> meant by the original question, and if you're now asserting that you >> didn't mean to ask whether all Christians actually use some real >> wording of the Nicene Creed then I absolutely believe you're lying. �I >> have no further interest in continuing this thread if you're going to >> insist otherwise (and several other people in this thread also took >> your words to mean what they meant to me, so I don't feel that's an >> idiosyncrasy of mine). > >See recent posting on mathematicians' restrictive interpretation of >unexpressed quantifiers in English. > >> > (I gather, from the sources you cite, that you are some sort of >> > conservative Catholic, the type that in Chicago flocked to the one >> > parish in the city that had dispensation �from Rome to say Mass in >> > Latin, so I wouldn't be surprised if you don't know anything about >> > such questions.) >> >> Have fun with that (Fwiw, I'm a liberal atheist).- > >Then why on earth are you not familiar with recent (i.e., less than a >century and a half old) scholarship on topics on which you pontificate? Do you mean he's acting like the Pontiff or that he's bui -- ************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen(a)cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
From: Evan Kirshenbaum on 28 Feb 2010 18:26 Peter Moylan <gro.nalyomp(a)retep> writes: > Admittedly the common "off by one" errors are often caused by > zero-based subscripting. With most programming languages, though, > such an error will make itself evident the first time you run the > program, when you run off the end of the array; and the exception > information will quickly lead you to the cause of the crash. It's > safe to declare subscript ranges in any way that is natural to the > application, as long as the generated code includes range > checks. The main thing that makes C so unsuitable for real-world > applications is the paucity of run-time checks. The existence of which, of course, along with the concommitant overhead, being one of the main reasons that other languages were considered unsuitable for real-world applications. Fast, safe, and easy to write a compiler for. Pick two. -- Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |When you're ready to break a rule, 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |you _know_ that you're ready; you Palo Alto, CA 94304 |don't need anyone else to tell |you. (If you're not that certain, kirshenbaum(a)hpl.hp.com |then you're _not_ ready.) (650)857-7572 | Tom Phoenix http://www.kirshenbaum.net/
From: Hatunen on 28 Feb 2010 18:29
On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 11:09:57 -0800, David Harmon <source(a)netcom.com> wrote: >On Wed, 24 Feb 2010 09:56:25 -0500 in alt.usage.english, tony cooper ><tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> wrote, >>As far as I can tell, the only employers that are closed on >>President's Day are government offices, schools, and banks. To the > >There is no such holiday as "President's Day" to US government offices. >http://www.opm.gov/Operating_Status_Schedules/fedhol/2010.asp Interesting. I had assumed there was. And I see that there is one in some states. Certainly businesses think there is one in their sales advertisements. -- ************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen(a)cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * |