The perpetual calendar
in [Physics]
|
Prev: simple question power, resistance, current, etc
Next: OBSERVATIONS: Einstein's gravitational redshift measured with unprecedented precision
From: Mike Lyle on 2 Mar 2010 16:50 J. Clarke wrote: > On 3/2/2010 2:23 PM, Nick wrote: >> "J. Clarke"<jclarke.usenet(a)cox.net> writes: >> >>> On 3/2/2010 4:38 AM, Lewis wrote: >> >> [nothing I wasn't going to snip] >> >> Look everybody - it's Lewis and Clark(e)! >> >> (sorry guys) > > <groan> You must admit he did react expeditiously, though. -- Mike.
From: James Silverton on 2 Mar 2010 17:37 Skitt wrote on Tue, 2 Mar 2010 13:48:38 -0800: > Evan Kirshenbaum wrote: >> Nick writes: >>> "Peter T. Daniels" writes: >>>> Right, writing "somewhere in England" you wouldn't know >>>> what "English major" means. I don't know the British >>>> nominalization for someone who "reads English" "in >>>> university." >>> >>> If I'd done that and completed the course, I'd be an English >>> Graduate. Otherwise I don't think we have a noun term for >>> what you are when an undergraduate on a particular course of >>> study ("reading", btw, is in fairly limited use these days, most of >>> us (and it's 25 years since I was an undergraduate) would have said >>> that we were "studying English" (or >>> whatever)). >>> >>> I always assumed that "major" meant that you were studying >>> two courses, but one was the most important. Is that the >>> case? >> >> No. Your "major" is the subject that you're intending to get >> a degree in. It's short, I believe, for "major >> concentration", referring to the fact that a certain number >> of courses[1] (and certain specified courses or choices of >> courses) need to be taken from a set that have been >> pre-selected by the department to count toward the degree and >> which will suffice to warrant granting it. (Not all of these >> courses need be taught by that department.) Other courses >> might be taken to satisfy general university requirements or as >> "electives". >> >> When I was at Stanford, to get a bachelor's degree required >> 180 "units", where each quarter-long course (three quarters >> per year) was worth, typically, 3-5 units[2]. Roughly four >> or five classes a quarter for four years, so about 50 courses >> in all. My linguistics major had a requirement of at least >> 45 units courses designated as contributing to the the major, >> but I think that that was on the low end. Looking at an old _Courses >> and Degrees_, it looks as though a math major was >> about 80 units, English about 55 units, physics about 95, >> various engineering disciplines about 105. (Of course, when the >> number was small, most people took courses in their >> departments over and above the minimum. Those in more >> structured departments just had less free choice; it was more >> "at least one from each of these groups of two or three".) >> >> If you actually have a second concentrationm, that will be a "double >> major" if you actually satisfy the requirements for >> both majors (which often involves counting some courses, >> e.g., beginning calculus or physics, toward both). Otherwise >> if one department certifies that you've done a fair amount in >> their field but not enough for a degree, you're considered to >> have a "minor" in that subject. I don't know of any >> universities that will give you a degree based on just >> minors. You have to actually fulfil the requirements of some major. >> >> [1] Where "course", in the American sense, might be "class" >> elsewhere. It's (typically) a quarter's or semester's >> worth of class sessions meeting a certain number of times >> per week on a specific topic, taught by (usually) a faculty >> member. So the Math department might offer courses in >> linear algebra or differential equations. >> >> [2] Typically less a measure of how much work it was than how >> many courses that department thought you should be taking >> at one time. > At the time when I was in college, the courses required for an > engineering degree almost met the requirements for a > mathematics minor. All I would have had to take were two > additional math courses, one of which was History of > Mathematics. I don't remember the name of the other one, but it was > similar in subject matter. > I also don't remember what a "minor in math" was good for. You know, I attended a British university and I would never have said that "I read chemistry". I did receive an honors (specialist) degree and only took 4 full year classes in subjects other than chemistry. I will omit the night school class that I had to take in German. -- James Silverton Potomac, Maryland Email, with obvious alterations: not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not
From: PaulJK on 2 Mar 2010 22:31 sjdevnull(a)yahoo.com wrote: > On Mar 2, 3:25 am, "PaulJK" <paul.kr...(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote: >> Adam Funk wrote: >>> On 2010-03-01, Hatunen wrote: >> >>>> On Mon, 1 Mar 2010 16:16:10 +1300, "PaulJK" >>>> <paul.kr...(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote: >> >>>>> Hatunen wrote: >> >>>>>> When mentioning temperatures I always try to remember to use "C" >>>>>> or "F". >> >>>>> Don't forget "R" and "K" ! >> >>>> I, for one, make very few posts requiring either. >> >>> 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 R�aumurs. :-) >> >> 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 Reom�rs, don't worry >> about them." > > Reaumurs, really? Did she make cheese? Oh, yes, really. R�aumur it was. :-) And actually she did make cottage cheese and such like, as all the house proud housewifes used to do in her time and part of the world. But that had nothing to do with our thermometer. It was just an ordinary household kind you hang on the wall. In our home it hang on the side of the upright (piano that is). > The Rankine scale is by far the most common R-scale I've ever seen in > actual use. Perhaps dual Celsius/R�aumur arrangements were not that uncommon in central European countries like Germany and Austria up to the mid 20th century. pjk
From: PaulJK on 2 Mar 2010 22:51 Peter T. Daniels wrote: > 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. Precisely, now we agree on that, that's something. :-) My "correct meaning" was ironic. Pity we don't a have special typeface like "sans serif ironic". :-) pjk
From: PaulJK on 2 Mar 2010 22:58
James Silverton wrote: > 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. Not that it matters much but do you remember was it Algol60 or Algol58? The year 1960 sounds to me a bit too early for an actual commercial implemetation of Algol60. > 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. pjk |