The perpetual calendar
in [Physics]
|
Prev: simple question power, resistance, current, etc
Next: OBSERVATIONS: Einstein's gravitational redshift measured with unprecedented precision
From: Evan Kirshenbaum on 1 Mar 2010 23:28 Hatunen <hatunen(a)cox.net> writes: > On Mon, 1 Mar 2010 13:43:07 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels" > <grammatim(a)verizon.net> wrote: > >>There is no longer a Lincoln's Birthday holiday (except, presumably, >>in Illinois -- just as Patriots' Day is observed in Massachusetts), >>because Lincoln and Washington were together packaged into Presidents' >>Day. > > No. They weren't, save for perhaps a very few juridictions. California punts on the question, just giving the date (except, interestingly, for Thanksgiving): Cal. Gov. Code 19853. (a) All state employees shall be entitled to the following holidays: January 1, the third Monday in January, the third Monday in February, March 31, the last Monday in May, July 4, the first Monday in September, November 11, Thanksgiving Day, the day after Thanksgiving, December 25, the day chosen by an employee pursuant to Section 19854, and every day appointed by the Governor of this state for a public fast, thanksgiving, or holiday. but the Department of Personnel Administration apparently calls it "Presidents Birthday". http://www.dpa.ca.gov/personnel-policies/holidays.htm -- Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |Any programming problem can be 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |solved by adding another layer of Palo Alto, CA 94304 |indirection. Any performance |problem can be solved by removing kirshenbaum(a)hpl.hp.com |one. (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/
From: Peter T. Daniels on 1 Mar 2010 23:37 On Mar 1, 5:44 pm, Nick <3-nos...(a)temporary-address.org.uk> wrote: > "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...(a)verizon.net> writes: > > On Mar 1, 2:10 pm, Nick <3-nos...(a)temporary-address.org.uk> wrote: > >> "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...(a)verizon.net> writes: > > >> > On Mar 1, 2:59 am, Nick <3-nos...(a)temporary-address.org.uk> wrote: > >> >> "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...(a)verizon.net> writes: > > >> >> > "State" is not a useful term for 'nation-state' because it is serving > >> >> > a different, much more salient function not only in the US, but also > >> >> > in (at least) Mexico and Brazil, and I think Germany. > > >> >> So are you suggesting that "failed state" and "rogue state" are > >> >> expressions that have no meaning in the US. > > >> > No, there is a difference between a bare noun and a qualified noun. Did > >> > you not see that I used "nation-state" above? > > >> So "state" doesn't mean US state when qualified with - oh how about > >> "Pacific". OK that's perfectly clear. > > ^ > what happened there? I didn't put that in. Didn't put what in? > > Wait a minute, you're posting from one of the mathematical groups and > > you don't even understand first-year logic? > > No I'm not. Then where are you posting from? > > Don't you know the difference between converses and inverses versus > > contrapositives? > > No I don't. It's very simple. Given the statement "If A, then B," there is only one valid inference: "If not B, then not A." The inferences "If not A, then not B" and "If B, then A" are not valid. For instance: If "state" means 'nation-state', then it has some sort of qualification. If "state" doesn't have some sort of qualification, then it doesn't mean 'nation-state'. But not If "state" doesn't mean 'nation-state', then it doesn't have some sort of qualification. and not If "state" has some sort of qualification, then it means 'nation- state'. (And, of course, I didn't say "never"; I said "not useful.") > I don't know why I'm doing this either. But let's try again. > > In the world according to you, "state" means a state of the US > because that's what state always means when used by an American. Unless Where did I say "always"? > it's qualified. When it's qualified by "rogue" or "failed" then it > means a country, but when it's qualified by "Pacific" it goes back to > meaning a part of the US. > > So what rule applies? Is a "govinde state" part of the US or not? And > how on earth are the rest of us meant to know? Why do you think there is a single "rule" that applies? I've no idea what a "govinde state" is, if such a thing exists.
From: Peter T. Daniels on 2 Mar 2010 00:42 On Mar 1, 11:28 pm, Evan Kirshenbaum <kirshenb...(a)hpl.hp.com> wrote: > Hatunen <hatu...(a)cox.net> writes: > > On Mon, 1 Mar 2010 13:43:07 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels" > > <gramma...(a)verizon.net> wrote: > > >>There is no longer a Lincoln's Birthday holiday (except, presumably, > >>in Illinois -- just as Patriots' Day is observed in Massachusetts), > >>because Lincoln and Washington were together packaged into Presidents' > >>Day. > > > No. They weren't, save for perhaps a very few juridictions. > > California punts on the question, just giving the date (except, > interestingly, for Thanksgiving): > > Cal. Gov. Code 19853. (a) All state employees shall be entitled > to the following holidays: January 1, the third Monday in January, > the third Monday in February, March 31, the last Monday in May, > July 4, the first Monday in September, November 11, Thanksgiving > Day, the day after Thanksgiving, December 25, the day chosen by an > employee pursuant to Section 19854, and every day appointed by the > Governor of this state for a public fast, thanksgiving, or > holiday. > > but the Department of Personnel Administration apparently calls it > "Presidents Birthday". > > http://www.dpa.ca.gov/personnel-policies/holidays.htm So only people born on the third Monday in February can be President of California? What happened on March 31? Why couldn't they say "the fourth Thursday and Friday of November"?
From: PaulJK on 2 Mar 2010 02:06 Peter T. Daniels wrote: > On Feb 28, 9:50 pm, "PaulJK" <paul.kr...(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote: >> 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). > > "Pacific states" is a wel-established term -- sometimes it includes AK > and HI, sometimes not. > >> This just shows that no matter how hard I try I still sometimes >> fail to correctly translate Merkin E. semantics to English E. > > "State" is not a useful term for 'nation-state' because it is serving > a different, much more salient function not only in the US, but also > in (at least) Mexico and Brazil, and I think Germany. I don't particularly care about lectures on what "nation-state" "nation" or "independent nation" mean in AmE. God knows why you've dragged these in at this late stage when the original mis- understanding was simply between what I thought you meant by "Pacific states" in your "Do the Pacific states get the same coverage we do?", and what you meant by it. Being a resident of one of many Pacific states I responded. Then you said (my emphasis): *We* very, very, very rarely use "state" to mean 'independent nation'. And I responded (my emphasis): And *we* very, very, very rarely use the expression "Pacific states" to exclude the majority of Pacific states (i.e. non-US states in the Pacific). There is nothing more to keep arguing about. Unless you want to keep discussing, yet again, who, USians or the rest, use the words "state" and "nation" with correct meaning. pjk
From: PaulJK on 2 Mar 2010 02:25
Brian M. Scott wrote: > On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 20:23:39 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels" > <grammatim(a)verizon.net> wrote in > <news:5e098d02-5018-444d-b31f-d21303931f38(a)t20g2000yqe.googlegroups.com> > sci.math,sci.physics,sci.astro,sci.lang,alt.usage.english: >> On Feb 28, 9:50 pm, "PaulJK" <paul.kr...(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote: >>> Peter T. Daniels wrote: >>>> On Feb 28, 1:42 am, "PaulJK" >>>> <paul.kr...(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote: > [...] >>>>> 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'. > > For some values of 'we'. > >>> 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). > >> "Pacific states" is a wel-established term -- sometimes it >> includes AK and HI, sometimes not. > > It may be, but I've not encountered it much; in the absence > of any context I'd lean towards Paul's interpretation. > >>> This just shows that no matter how hard I try I still >>> sometimes fail to correctly translate Merkin E. >>> semantics to English E. > >> "State" is not a useful term for 'nation-state' > > Horsefeathers. > >> because it is serving a different, much more salient >> function not only in the US, but also in (at least) >> Mexico and Brazil, and I think Germany. > > Not really: the usual term is <(Bundes)land>, though the > L�nder can also be termed Glied- or Teilstaaten. Better > examples would be Australia and India. Perhaps, Australia is not a perfect example either. I don't know about India, but Australia was my home for more than a decade. There are states (states of Australia) and territories in Australia, however, as far as I remember, Australians may also refer to the "Commonwealth of Australia" as "state of Australia". pjk |