The perpetual calendar
in [Physics]
|
Prev: simple question power, resistance, current, etc
Next: OBSERVATIONS: Einstein's gravitational redshift measured with unprecedented precision
From: Hatunen on 28 Feb 2010 21:40 On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 15:44:53 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim(a)verizon.net> wrote: >On Feb 28, 6:29�pm, Hatunen <hatu...(a)cox.net> wrote: >> On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 11:09:57 -0800, David Harmon >> >> <sou...(a)netcom.com> wrote: >> >On Wed, 24 Feb 2010 09:56:25 -0500 in alt.usage.english, tony cooper >> ><tony_cooper...(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. > >The Post Office was closed for Presidents' Day in 2010. Not an American post office. They were closed for Washington's Birthday, no matter what a sign on the door or whatnot might have said. -- ************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen(a)cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
From: PaulJK on 28 Feb 2010 21:50 Peter T. Daniels wrote: > On Feb 28, 1:42 am, "PaulJK" <paul.kr...(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote: >> Peter T. Daniels wrote: >>> On Feb 26, 1:40 am, "PaulJK" <paul.kr...(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote: >>>> Peter T. Daniels wrote: >> >>>>> Do the Pacific states get the same coverage we do? >> >>>> Ignoring the various pay, satellite, and cable channels, there >>>> are about twelve free-to-air locally broadcast channels. >>>> One of the free-to-air channels (Prime) broadcasts Winter >>>> Olympics every day nonstop from 5:30am to 6:30pm. Looking >>>> at today's Friday schedule, apart from the half-hour WO news >>>> at 5:30am and Cross Country skiing at 10:30-11:30am all the >>>> events are live. >> >>>> If by "same coverage" you mean "identical programming" then >>>> the answer is no. All commentators are either New Zealanders >>>> or people who are aware of commenting for the downunder >>>> or specifically kiwi audience. Now and then they interrupt >>>> the program to switch to another competition to show >>>> a kiwi athlete, who would we normally not see, perform >>>> their shtick and then switch back. >> >>> Eh? You take "Pacific states" -- in the context of time zones -- to >>> include New Zealand?? >> >> Whoops, sorry, I didn't realise that by "Pacific states" you meant >> "US Pacific states". > > We very, very, very rarely use "state" to mean 'independent nation'. And we very, very, very rarely use the expression "Pacific states" which would exclude the majority of Pacific states (i.e. non-US states in the Pacific). This just shows that no matter how hard I try I still sometimes fail to correctly translate Merkin E. semantics to English E. pjk
From: PaulJK on 28 Feb 2010 22:13 Brian M. Scott wrote: > On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 21:39:57 +1300, PaulJK > <paul.kriha(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote in > <news:hmda2a$uic$1(a)news.eternal-september.org> in > sci.math,sci.physics,sci.astro,sci.lang,alt.usage.english: > > [...] > >> Objects with negative weight do not need escape velocity >> to escape to space. They can ascend slowly with >> impressive majestic grace. > > Shopping baskets have a hard time achieving impressive > majestic grace, even when filled with negative watermelons. If I were PTD I'd say: I didn't say they do, I said they can. If they felt like it, they could. pjk
From: PaulJK on 28 Feb 2010 22:16 Hatunen wrote: > On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 18:14:54 -0500, "Brian M. Scott" > <b.scott(a)csuohio.edu> wrote: > >> 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. > > When mentioning temperatures I always try to remember to use "C" > or "F". Don't forget "R" and "K" ! pjk
From: Peter T. Daniels on 28 Feb 2010 23:17
On Feb 28, 9:39 pm, Hatunen <hatu...(a)cox.net> wrote: > On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 15:46:47 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels" > <gramma...(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'. No, that's what _I_ said. Try looking at what I was responding to. |