The perpetual calendar
in [Physics]
|
Prev: simple question power, resistance, current, etc
Next: OBSERVATIONS: Einstein's gravitational redshift measured with unprecedented precision
From: Adam Funk on 2 Mar 2010 07:38 On 2010-03-02, PaulJK wrote: > Adam Funk wrote: >> I don't think I've every seen an R or K thermometer (except in >> books). > > Still, that shouldn't stop you from mentioning temperatures in > Kelvins or Réaumurs. :-) No, it wouldn't. Practically, I deal with cookbooks in C and F, an oven in C, and a cooking thermometer in F. I have a conversion table fridge magnet. > BTW, when I was growing up in my old family's home we had > a room thermometer with a C scale on one side and R scale > on the other. When I asked my mum what was the R scale > for, she said: "Oh, they are some Reomírs, don't worry > about them." Interesting. -- ....the reason why so many professional artists drink a lot is not necessarily very much to do with the artistic temperament, etc. It is simply that they can afford to, because they can normally take a large part of a day off to deal with the ravages. [Amis _On Drink_]
From: Peter T. Daniels on 2 Mar 2010 08:05 On Mar 2, 2:06 am, "PaulJK" <paul.kr...(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote: > 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. What do you mean by "correct meaning"? Words mean what their users mean them to mean, and when different communities of users use them with different meanings, we get misunderstandings.
From: Peter T. Daniels on 2 Mar 2010 08:09 On Mar 2, 3:04 am, Nick <3-nos...(a)temporary-address.org.uk> wrote: > "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...(a)verizon.net> writes: > > > Then where are you posting from? > > You're the persistent Google groups user IIRC. Look it up, or don't > care. > > Actually, of course, it's "somewhere in England". So you're claiming there are no mathematicians, physicists, or astrononmers in England? I find that rather hard to believe. > >> > 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? > > Because you said there was. First you said words to the effect that > "state means part of the US", then you changed that "not when qualified > it doesn't". You come up with nonsense like that and deny you're a mathematician, physicist, or astronomer? > > I've no idea what a "govinde state" is, if such a thing exists. > > So how do you know whether it's a "US-type" or a "nation-type" state? > And if you don't, how can you make such absolute statements about what > "state" means in the mouth of a speaker of US English? Where did I make an "absolute statement"? > Face it, you made another gross generalisation. Just for once, accept > it and move on. What's wrong with generalizations? Humanity would be in a pretty sorry state if it were not possible to operate with generalizations. Now I'm beginning to think you're an English major.
From: James Silverton on 2 Mar 2010 08:28 PaulJK wrote on Tue, 2 Mar 2010 21:01:20 +1300: > Algol 60, i.e. thirty years before Fortan90, allowed general > expressions in array declarations, e.g. > real array A(i*2 : fcall(p,3)); > It wasn't particularly difficult to compile, since all code to > compile general arithmetical expressions was already there. > The expression (i*2) and the function call (fcall(p,3)) had to > be evaluated at run time but that wasn't difficult either. > The whole array declaration was evaluated at run time > as if it were a function call which resulted in an area of > memory being reserved on the top of the stack by pointing > the top of the stack pointer beyond it. Actually, the first compiled language that I used was Algol in 1960. The resulting programs on the Burrouughs 220 were so pathetically unoptimized and slow that I ended up using machine language and a primitive assembler. I never brought myself to use Algol again. -- James Silverton Potomac, Maryland Email, with obvious alterations: not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not
From: Peter T. Daniels on 2 Mar 2010 08:34
On Mar 2, 6:39 am, Cheryl <cperk...(a)mun.ca> wrote: > CDB wrote: > > Robert Bannister wrote: > >> Hatunen wrote: > >>> "Brian M. Scott" <b.sc...(a)csuohio.edu> wrote: > >>>> Hatunen<hatu...(a)cox.net> wrote: > > >>>> "Brian M. Scott" <b.sc...(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". > >> I thought there was only one country that used F, although I suppose > >> Canada swings both ways, so we only have to remember who lives in > >> America. > > > We still use imperial for some things, but temperatures, apart from > > body-temperatures, are Celsius. I would be surprised to find someone > > under 30 who was comfortable with Fahrenheit. > > And baking. Most ovens and recipes have Fahrenheit. > > Everyone uses Celsius for the weather. > > It seems as though we got stuck halfway in the conversion process - > fabric and other sewing materials have been sold by metric measures for > many years, but when looking for a new curtain-rod recently, I noticed > that the type I was looking for was offered in 7 or 10 foot lengths > (which were singularly useless since I was looking for 5 foot lengths). Might I suggest that (unless you were looking at fantastically expensive yard goods with a one-off, non-repeating, pattern) that you purchase 10-foot material and cut it in half? > Maybe they haven't converted the curtain-rod factories yet, or maybe > we're lumped in as a market with the US, so we get sometimes get US > goods, with maybe a sticker with the metric equivalent stuck on the > package). > > I think the nurses weigh newborns in metric, and convert the weight to > pounds for the proud parents. I've never really understood why the first > thing (after boy or girl?) people want to announce is how heavy the baby is. An indication of healthiness? And, 15 or so years later, the mother will want to be able to clarify to the offspring how many hours she spent in pain delivering that enormous mass of needs and demands and this is the thanks she gets. |