The perpetual calendar
in [Physics]
|
Prev: simple question power, resistance, current, etc
Next: OBSERVATIONS: Einstein's gravitational redshift measured with unprecedented precision
From: Androcles on 21 Feb 2010 21:25 "Evan Kirshenbaum" <kirshenbaum(a)hpl.hp.com> wrote in message news:k4u62ey8.fsf(a)hpl.hp.com... > "Mike Dworetsky" <platinum198(a)pants.btinternet.com> writes: > >> It all sounds wonderful if you are living in the USA, but how are >> you going to get other countries with their own agendas (such as >> real football--what you dismiss as "soccer") > > Your "real" football, association football, which we (and others) call > by the English nickname of "soccer", is just one football code, and > only dates back to 1863 (based on earlier sets of rules going back to > the 1840s), with rules that included > > If a player makes a fair catch, he shall be entitled to a free > kick, providing he claims it by making a mark with his heel at > once; and in order to take such kick he may go back as far as he > pleases, and no player on the opposite side shall advance beyond > his mark until he has kicked. > > the committee having decided, after much debate to drop > > IX. A player shall be entitled to run with the ball towards his > adversaries' goal if he makes a fair catch, or catches the ball on > the first bound; but in case of a fair catch, if he makes his mark > he shall not run. > > X. If any player shall run with the ball towards his adversaries' > goal, any player on the opposite side shall be at liberty to > charge, hold, trip or hack him, or to wrest the ball from him, but > no player shall be held and hacked at the same time. > > (the latter having been voted out over the objection of one member who > said "hacking is the true football"). > > According to the Wikipedia article on "Football", Australian Rules > football dates back a few years earlier, to the 1850s. Rugby was > first played in the 1820s and first codified in 1871. American > football appears to have been codified in the 1870s, Canadian football > in the 1860s or so, and Gaelic football in the 1880s. > > They all derived from English games that involved kicking the ball, > catching the ball, and (often) running with the ball, batting the > ball, and throwing the ball. > > All of the codes are pretty much about as old (and all have changed a > lot since that time). None is more "real" than any other. And, by > and large, all are called (in English) "football" in the places where > they're the most popular code. And, I believe that your "real > football" is "soccer" most of the places where it isn't the most > popular (or by people for whom it isn't). > > -- > Evan Kirshenbaum > +------------------------------------ > HP Laboratories |The vast majority of humans have > 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |more than the average number of > Palo Alto, CA 94304 |legs. > http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/soccer Etymology: by shortening & alteration from association football Date: 1889
From: The Chief Instigator on 21 Feb 2010 22:12 On Sun, 21 Feb 2010 14:52:21 -0500, Brian M. Scott <b.scott(a)csuohio.edu> wrote: > On Sat, 20 Feb 2010 16:42:12 -0800 (PST), Andrew Usher ><k_over_hbarc(a)yahoo.com> wrote in ><news:732e9ee5-5de8-42e1-9efb-5d5194689d7d(a)q29g2000yqn.googlegroups.com> > in > sci.math,sci.physics,sci.astro,sci.lang,alt.usage.english: > >> Brian M. Scott wrote: > >>>> And the first day of the week is Sunday, not Monday - that >>>> is an incontrovertible fact. > >>> Don't be ridiculous: it's merely a convention. For many of >>> us Monday is unquestionably the first day of the week. > >> It's historically true. No one questioned it before modern times. > > Apparently you're not familiar with the Slavic and Baltic > day-names. For that matter, Sunday is the first day in > Jewish tradition for the same reason that Monday is the > first day for many of us today. > > Brian The Russians start with Ponyedel'nik/Monday (start of the week), Vtornik/Tuesday (second day), Sreda/Wendesday (the middle day), Chetverg/Thursday (the fourth day), Pyatnitsa/Friday (the fifth day, which is often referred to as Pyanitsa, "drunk day"), Subbota/Saturday (the sabbath), and Voskresen'ye/Sunday (resurrection). -- Patrick L. "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patrick(a)io.com) Houston, Texas www.io.com/~patrick/aeros.php (TCI's 2009-10 Houston Aeros) AA#2273 LAST GAME: Houston 4, Peoria 1 (February 21) NEXT GAME: Thursday, February 25 vs. Manitoba, 5:05
From: Yusuf B Gursey on 21 Feb 2010 23:48 In sci.lang Brian M. Scott <b.scott(a)csuohio.edu> wrote in <71abjatraoiv$.22pibfupt3i9.dlg(a)40tude.net>: : On Mon, 22 Feb 2010 09:01:15 +0800, Robert Bannister : <robban1(a)bigpond.com> wrote in : <news:7ue3asF7eoU4(a)mid.individual.net> in : sci.math,sci.physics,sci.astro,sci.lang,alt.usage.english: :> Yusuf B Gursey wrote: :>> On Feb 19, 11:25 am, Mike Barnes :>> <mikebar...(a)bluebottle.com> wrote: : [...] :>>> But I thought that for most people the whole point of :>>> Easter is that they get time off work. :>> not in the US, at least not in my state. :> Are you saying that Easter is not a holiday in your state? : He's saying that people don't get time off work on account : of it. Which is doubtless true; I don't, either. yes. it is not an official holiday, but there is a slowing down of bussiness, as some businesses give employees vacation or have a reduced employee load. I am not a Christian, and while in college I had asked why we were not eating at the regular cafetaria during. the woman in charge, a Puerto Rican, answered in shock: "it's Good Friday!" : Brian
From: Peter T. Daniels on 22 Feb 2010 00:25 On Feb 21, 4:17 pm, Cheryl <cperk...(a)mun.ca> wrote: > Peter T. Daniels wrote: > > On Feb 21, 10:59 am, Mike Barnes <mikebar...(a)bluebottle.com> wrote: > >> Yusuf B Gursey <y...(a)theworld.com>: > >>> On Feb 19, 11:25 am, Mike Barnes <mikebar...(a)bluebottle.com> wrote: > > >>>> But I thought that for most people the whole point of Easter is that > >>>> they get time off work. > >>> not in the US, at least not in my state. > >> So I now understand. Here in England, Friday and Monday are holidays, > >> and school terms fit around them. That's the problem with Easter. I > >> think it's fair to say that many people here would be happy if they > >> fixed the dates of the public holidays (e.g. second weekend in April) > >> and allowed the holy day to shift as it will. I don't if or why > >> disconnecting them would matter to anyone. > > > That's because you're stuck with a state religion. > > > In NYC, parking regulations are suspended for just about anyone's > > religious holidays. > > Hey, we get to take some religious holidays (Christmas Day and Good > Friday) off work even without a state religion! I'm ecumenical; I'd take > ANY religious holidays. I suspect that there's some rule that you have > to be a member of the religion in question in order to not work that > aren't also legal or secular holidays, but that could be fixed by making > them ALL legal holidays. My home province ended up cancelling some of > the religious (ie Christian) holidays from the list of legal days off in > the interests of increased productivity, but some workers still have the > old list embodied in their contracts. Now, of course, some of them get > "Mid-March" and "Mid-July" off rather than religious holidays. What "religious holiday" does "Mid-July" accommodate?
From: Peter T. Daniels on 22 Feb 2010 00:32
On Feb 21, 4:27 pm, Andrew Usher <k_over_hb...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > Mike Dworetsky wrote: > > > I agree, but how does that mean we must celebrate Easter at the full > > > moon? (which the Orthodox don't, anyway) > > > Come on, the answer to a question about why a particular religious festival > > must be celebrated on a day fixed by the phases of the Moon is, "Because". > > So unless you plan to enforce an order to the Catholic Church to abandon a > > practice that is central to their rituals and celebrations, you are on a > > hiding to nothing. > > The Catholic Church has stated, I believe more than once (it's linked > to somewhere in this thread) that fixing Easter to a particular week > would be acceptable. "The Catholic Church" (which refers to no specific organization) hasn't spoken for all of Christendom for nearly half a millennium. (It took almost 200 years to get their newfangled calendar accepted just throughout Western Europe, and it took the Russian Revolution to get it used across the East.) > > Possibly you could have a "civil" calendar and leave the Gregorian calendar > > for "ritual" use only, the way the Orthodox calendar is used, but the point > > about the way in which the whole world adopted the Gregorian calendar for > > civil purposes, even if they were Buddhists or Jews or Shinto or Tao or > > Atheist, is that it led to standardization and a common agreement about > > dates for civil and international matters. > > Yes, and that is why I propose no change in actual day numbering, just > in Christmas and Easter and perhaps other holidays and scheduled > dates, and finally in a standard week numbering starting in August. |