The perpetual calendar
in [Physics]
|
Prev: simple question power, resistance, current, etc
Next: OBSERVATIONS: Einstein's gravitational redshift measured with unprecedented precision
From: Skitt on 23 Feb 2010 14:54 Brian M. Scott wrote: > Skitt wrote: >> Brian M. Scott wrote: >>> Skitt wrote: >>>> PaulJK wrote: >>>>> We invented DST to set clocks back one hour in summer > >>>> forward > >>> That's the usual terminology, at least in the U.S., but it >>> does depends on one's point of view. > >> Deciding whether a clock runs forward or backward, you mean? > > No. When you push the time from (say) 10 to 11, you can see > this as pushing it away from you, just as you might push an > opponent back. When you let it go from 11 to 10, you're > then letting it approach you, i.e., come forward. That is a strange way to look at it with regard to time. What happens to the "spring forward" and "fall back" reminder? It gets reversed for the people of that persuasion? -- Skitt (AmE) can't be persuaded to stray from the normal ...
From: Adam Funk on 23 Feb 2010 15:02 On 2010-02-23, António Marques wrote: > "Roman Catholic" ISN'T AN OFFICIAL SELF-DESIGNATION. ANYWHERE. Are you going to write to all the churches in the UK with "St ____'s Roman Catholic Church" or "St ____'s R. C. Church" on their signs, newsletters, websites, etc., to tell them that they are wrong? (I think this is common in much of the USA too.) In any case, the description is useful, since several church organizations use 'Catholic' in their names, and 'Roman' clearly refers to the one with the HQ in Rome. (We could revive the old BL subject heading "Rome, Church of".) > In the tradition from which the Roman and the Greek Churches come, the > Church has no splitting qualifiers. It's just 'the Church'. 'Roman Church' > can only mean 'the Church in the city of Rome' or 'the Church, in communion > with Rome' (which is redundant). > > From the Church's point of view, there aren't multiple churches. There's > only one. To say that there is more than one church is heresy. It's not a > matter of wishing to be the only one, it's a religious matter. The > multiplicity of churches is anathema and downright sin. Well, they would say that, wouldn't they... > The Roman Church usually calls itself 'the Church', but is fond of > 'Catholic' for a variety of reasons, so 'the Catholic Church' is often used > officially. In ecumenical context, if apporpriate, it doesn't object to also > being 'Roman', but that adjective is otherwise left out since it may be > interpreted as limiting (if not outright contradictory when juxtaposed to > 'catholic'). Courtesy also means the RC is willing to call the Orthodox > 'Orthodox', since it's the name the latter are fond of, not unlike the > catholics are fond of 'Catholic'. That doesn't mean the RC doesn't consider > itself orthodox, or that the EO don't consider themselves catholic. Nor does it mean that other churches can't consider themselves catholic too (typically they mean that they follow church traditions such as the episcopate, the historic creeds, and some form of the Real Presence). Some of them have "Catholic" in the name, some don't. (Note that the Old Catholic Church separated from Roman authority because the Vatican wouldn't send new bishops to the Netherlands even though the RC people there asked for them. The OCs didn't create the schism.) -- Do you know what they do to book thieves up at Santa Rita? http://www.shigabooks.com/indeces/bookhunter.html
From: Adam Funk on 23 Feb 2010 15:10 On 2010-02-23, Yusuf B Gursey wrote: > On Feb 23, 7:26 am, António Marques <antonio...(a)sapo.pt> wrote: >> Yusuf B Gursey wrote (23-02-2010 11:17): >> > also Monophysite Churches (Armenian Orthodox, Jacobite Syrian, Coptic) >> > reject Dec. 25 as the date of Christmass. >> >> It's miaphysite! > > no, it's Monophysite (Mono, from one, Christ having only a divine > nature). AIUI, those churches (I think they are the Oriental Orthodox group) have always considered themselves miaphysite, but other churches have in the past called them monophysite. Sometime relatively recently, Oriental Orthodox and Eastern Orthodox theologians got together and agreed that both groups believed basically the same thing but had always been expressing it in different terms. -- I heard that Hans Christian Andersen lifted the title for "The Little Mermaid" off a Red Lobster Menu. [Bucky Katt]
From: Adam Funk on 23 Feb 2010 15:11 On 2010-02-22, R H Draney wrote: >>> On 2010-02-22, R H Draney wrote: >>> >>>> In APL, indexing starts at one unless you've explicitly set it to zero by >>>> setting the system variable quad-IO....r > Actually, it means some funky character that I can't type here...it's drawn as a > rectangle and pronounced "quad" by the APLinese.... Aha, found the chart: http://unicode.org/charts/PDF/U2300.pdf So I guess quad refers to the quadrilateral (ba-boom) over the L in this diagram? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:APL-keybd2.svg > (Comments are denoted by the "lamp" character, made by overstriking "jot" and > "up-shoe")....r As an emacs user, I'm not going to mock someone else's mnemnonics. BTW, I've noticed that you can get 'aplus-fsf' packages for modern GNU/Linux systems: A+ is a powerful and efficient programming language. It is freely available under the GNU General Public License. It embodies a rich set of functions and operators, a modern graphical user interface with many widgets and automatic synchronization of widgets and variables, asynchronous execution of functions associated with variables and events, dynamic loading of user compiled subroutines, and many other features. Execution is by a rather efficient interpreter. A+ was created at Morgan Stanley. Primarily used in a computationally-intensive business environment, many critical applications written in A+ have withstood the demands of real world developers over many years. Written in an interpreted language, A+ applications tend to be portable. -- Unix is a user-friendly operating system. It's just very choosy about its friends.
From: Peter T. Daniels on 23 Feb 2010 15:35
On Feb 23, 8:44 am, António Marques <antonio...(a)sapo.pt> wrote: > Peter T. Daniels wrote (23-02-2010 12:42): > > On Feb 23, 7:04 am, Andrew Usher<k_over_hb...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >> Peter T. Daniels wrote: > >>>>> "The Catholic Church" (which refers to no specific organization) > >>>>> hasn't spoken for all of Christendom for nearly half a millennium. > > >>>> 'The Catholic Church' or simply 'The Church' refers to exactly one > >>>> organisation. It's disingenuous to pretend otherwise. Also, it's been > >>>> longer than half a millennium if one includes the East. > > >>> One doesn't "include the East." One has to wonder what knowledge you > >>> have of the Eastern churches. > > >> The word 'Christendom', which you used, would normally be taken to > >> include the Eastern Orthodox. One wonders why you wouldn't. > > > They are among the many churches for which the Roman Catholic Church > > (which may have been what you meant by "the Catholic Church"?) does > > not speak. > > It's just that that's what he was saying. That the CC "hasn't spoken for all > of Christendom" for "longer than half a millennium". That was I that said that. Count chevrons very carefully when deleting attributions. > You pretend not to know what "The Catholic Church" refers to, yet your > answer is built on equating it with a certain church currently led by one > Benedict XVI.- It is Usher who said "'The Church' refers to exactly one organisation" (complete with the quaint British spelling). |