The perpetual calendar
in [Physics]
|
Prev: simple question power, resistance, current, etc
Next: OBSERVATIONS: Einstein's gravitational redshift measured with unprecedented precision
From: Peter T. Daniels on 28 Feb 2010 18:46 On Feb 28, 6:41 pm, Hatunen <hatu...(a)cox.net> wrote: > On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 15:36:41 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels" > > > > > > <gramma...(a)verizon.net> wrote: > >On Feb 28, 5:22 pm, Hatunen <hatu...(a)cox.net> wrote: > >> On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 06:57:41 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels" > > >> <gramma...(a)verizon.net> wrote: > >> >There's no such thing as "a Catechism." When I was little, the few > >> >Catholics I knew had to memorize something called "the Baltimore > >> >Catechism," which had no parallel whatsoever in either my Presbyterian > >> >church or my Episcopal school. > > >> The term may not have been explicitly used, but seehttp://www.pcusa.org/catech/studycat.htmandhttp://anglicansonline.org... > > >> >The Baltimore Catechism, however, was > >> >rendered obsolete by Vatican II. I don't know what "a Catechism" would > >> >be, fifty years later. > > >> Hm. Seehttp://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/ccc_toc.htm > > >So can you find someplace in that document where the text of the > >Apostles' Creed is given? > > What does that have to do with your statement, 'There's no such > thing as "a Catechism."'? > > >> Google reveals many, many more pointers to - catholic catechism - > > >And would one of them be the "a Catechism" our conservative Catholic > >atheist referred to? > > 'There's no such thing as "a Catechism."' > > Then what are all those pointers pointing to? Try looking at what he actually said.
From: Peter Moylan on 28 Feb 2010 20:07 Nick wrote: > Peter Moylan <gro.nalyomp(a)retep> writes: >> 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. And if I picked the wrong god? I can think of at least one god who is hostile towards those who worship a different god. -- Peter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org For an e-mail address, see my web page.
From: Peter Moylan on 28 Feb 2010 20:40 Evan Kirshenbaum wrote: > 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. > I take your point, but the world has changed since such decisions were made. The computer I'm now using has a processor that's about 100 times as fast as the one in the first PC I ever had. I'm doing a job at present that requires a lot of real-time graphics processing, and it turns out that we have a lot of spare processor time. Besides, it's been true for a number of years now that software written in high-level languages often runs faster (up to about a 5% improvement) than the same software written in C. That's because modern compilers do a lot of code optimisation, but with a low-level language a lot of optimisation possibilities aren't applicable. As for range checks: some processors now in use do a range check in a single machine language instruction. Your "easy to write a compiler for" is more to the point. With the kinds of processor that are typically used for embedded applications, compilers are available for exactly one language, so the programmer has no choice. -- Peter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org For an e-mail address, see my web page.
From: PaulJK on 28 Feb 2010 21:35 Peter T. Daniels wrote: > 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? Well, obviously their certificates were not issued by any christian church. I don't really know which government department was responsible for issuing BCs at that time. Most of my mother's family were atheists for generations. They usually had their children baptised in a church nearest to their home. I presume it was then the cheapest way of conforming to the law and getting the birth certificates issued. pjk
From: Hatunen on 28 Feb 2010 21:39
On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 15:46:47 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim(a)verizon.net> wrote: >On Feb 28, 6:41�pm, Hatunen <hatu...(a)cox.net> wrote: >> On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 15:36:41 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels" >> >> >> >> >> >> <gramma...(a)verizon.net> wrote: >> >On Feb 28, 5:22 pm, Hatunen <hatu...(a)cox.net> wrote: >> >> On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 06:57:41 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels" >> >> >> <gramma...(a)verizon.net> wrote: >> >> >There's no such thing as "a Catechism." When I was little, the few >> >> >Catholics I knew had to memorize something called "the Baltimore >> >> >Catechism," which had no parallel whatsoever in either my Presbyterian >> >> >church or my Episcopal school. >> >> >> The term may not have been explicitly used, but seehttp://www.pcusa.org/catech/studycat.htmandhttp://anglicansonline.org... >> >> >> >The Baltimore Catechism, however, was >> >> >rendered obsolete by Vatican II. I don't know what "a Catechism" would >> >> >be, fifty years later. >> >> >> Hm. Seehttp://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/ccc_toc.htm >> >> >So can you find someplace in that document where the text of the >> >Apostles' Creed is given? >> >> What does that have to do with your statement, 'There's no such >> thing as "a Catechism."'? >> >> >> Google reveals many, many more pointers to - catholic catechism - >> >> >And would one of them be the "a Catechism" our conservative Catholic >> >atheist referred to? >> >> 'There's no such thing as "a Catechism."' >> >> Then what are all those pointers pointing to? > >Try looking at what he actually said. I did again. "There's no such thing as 'a catechism'". There certainly seems to be such a thing. I might agree, though, that there's no such thing as 'the catecachism'. -- ************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen(a)cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * |