The perpetual calendar
in [Physics]
|
Prev: simple question power, resistance, current, etc
Next: OBSERVATIONS: Einstein's gravitational redshift measured with unprecedented precision
From: Chuck Riggs on 24 Feb 2010 10:16 On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 11:40:04 -0500, "Brian M. Scott" <b.scott(a)csuohio.edu> wrote: >On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 20:19:21 +1300, PaulJK ><paul.kriha(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote in ><news:hlvvbr$50g$1(a)news.eternal-september.org> in >sci.math,sci.physics,sci.astro,sci.lang,alt.usage.english: > >> Brian M. Scott wrote: > >>> R H Draney wrote: > >>> [...] > >>>> If you want a crank, find the person who came up with >>>> Daylight Saving Time.... > >>>> Then find his successor who decided that DST should apply >>>> for more of the year than "Standard" time....r > >>> I like DST; my only objection is that we don't have it all >>> year round. > >> I would prefer if every 24 hour day was made longer by one >> hour, i.e. 25 hours long. [...] > >I'm not sure that 25 hours would be quite long enough. If you don't have a manic personality, which, in effect, extends the day, you could drink lots of coffee, I suppose. -- Regards, Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE
From: Jerry Friedman on 24 Feb 2010 10:31 On Feb 24, 7:56 am, tony cooper <tony_cooper...(a)earthlink.net> wrote: > On Wed, 24 Feb 2010 08:24:18 -0500, jmfbahciv <jmfbahciv(a)aol> wrote: > >Michael Press wrote: > >> In article <7ufdetFoc...(a)mid.individual.net>, Cheryl <cperk...(a)mun.ca> > >> wrote: > > >> [...] > > >>> But we still lack a February holiday, unless we have a big enough snowstorm. > > >> February is the cruelest month. > > >February is the longest month. I thought US had President's Day in > >February now. > > As far as I can tell, the only employers that are closed on > President's Day are government offices, schools, and banks. .... Not even including community colleges, at least around here. -- Jerry Friedman
From: Evan Kirshenbaum on 24 Feb 2010 10:39 Cheryl <cperkins(a)mun.ca> writes: > Peter T. Daniels wrote: >> On Feb 24, 6:40 am, Cheryl <cperk...(a)mun.ca> wrote: >>> I think that's probably the key - the size and/or homogeneity of the >>> location. I associate signs saying "St. So-and-So's Roman Catholic >>> Church" with Toronto, which is a big enough and heterogeneous enough >>> that it's a pretty good bet a good proportion of the population doesn't >>> know which church is which. On the other hand, even in quite small >>> towns, I've seen signs like "TownName United Church" or "St. So-and-So's >>> Anglican Church", so that can't be the entire explanation. >> Do these "small towns" even _have_ a popish parish? > >> "United" means exactly that -- it's not a denomination, but a bunch of >> congregations that got together in order to survive at all despite the >> organization of their individual hierarchies. Baptists and >> Presbyterians are probably the easiest to assimilate to each other (no >> clerical hierarchy), then Methodists (whose "bishops" don't claim the >> apostolic succession of the Episcopalians and Catholics). So in a >> really big and socially stratified small village, you might find a >> Protestant church, an Episcopal one (that's the US term for the >> Anglican Communion, which more and more seems as though it soon won't >> be one), and a Catholic one. > > Ummm - in Canada, 'United Church' is a separate denomination, founded > by Methodists, Presbyterians, and two other groups I tend to forget. > > http://www.united-church.ca/ > > Congregationalists. I thought there was a fourth (Church of Christ), > but apparently not. Some Presbyterians remained independent - there > are two Presbyterian churches in my city - but the United Church must > be the largest and most mainstream of the Protestant churches in > Canada. I had assumed it was United Church of Christ, also a denomination, and one you see in the US. Wikipedia has an article on "United and Uniting Churches" which lists these. the United Methodist Church, and several others around the world (although many don't have "United" in their names, even in translation). -- Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |The General Theorem of Usenet 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |Information: If you really want to Palo Alto, CA 94304 |know the definitive answer, post |the wrong information, and wait for kirshenbaum(a)hpl.hp.com |someone to come by and explain in (650)857-7572 |excruciating detail precisely how |wrong you are. http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ | Eric The Read
From: Cheryl on 24 Feb 2010 10:47 Evan Kirshenbaum wrote: > "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim(a)verizon.net> writes: > >> On Feb 24, 3:09 am, Evan Kirshenbaum <kirshenb...(a)hpl.hp.com> wrote: >>> "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...(a)verizon.net> writes: >>> >>>> On Feb 23, 7:07 pm, Ant nio Marques <antonio...(a)sapo.pt> wrote: >>>>> Besides, until recently, no other church lived for a universal >>>>> ('catholic') vocation. Sure, many of them did have one, but not >>>>> as a central structuring element. Notice the RC was never 'the >>>>> Italian Church' even when popes were italian for centuries long. >>>> Doesn't _every_ extant Christian church use the Nicene Creed? >>>> (With or without the _filioque_.) >>> Assuming that you're not begging the question, no. Mormons >>> don't. I don't believe Jehovah's Witnesses do. I see claims that >>> Seventh-Day Adventists accept the original (325) Nicene Creed but >>> not the revised (381) version. I'm not sure about Christian >>> Scientists. And I would be surprised if there weren't a number of >>> churches (minor, but more mainstream than those mentioned) that >>> don't disagree with it but don't actually use it. >> Er, under what definition of "Christian" are Mormons Christians? > > Under the definition that they consider themselves Christians, that > they worship Jesus as divine, and that they use the New Testament as a > holy book. Under what definition (other than one that says that you > have to accept the Nicean Creed--hence my "begging the question") are > they not? I'd heard a long time ago from a non-Mormon who had lived in Utah that at one time, Mormons didn't consider themselves Christian, and it was only fairly recently that they had started doing so. A quick Google turned up a LOT of debate on the subject, mostly concerned with the traditional Christian teachings that the Mormons don't hold, and Mormon ones that most Christians don't hold, but one started with "Historically, only until recently have Mormons wanted to be called Christians, preferring not to be included with Christian denominations, which Joseph Smith said were, "all wrong ... all their creeds were an admonition in his sight, and that those professors (Christians) were all corrupt" (Pearl of Great Price, Joseph Smith, 2:18-19). " http://cnview.com/on_line_resources/are_mormons_christian.htm Surely in all these groups there must be a Mormon who can inform us whether Mormons have or presently do consider themselves Christians. -- Cheryl
From: Evan Kirshenbaum on 24 Feb 2010 10:53
Mike Barnes <mikebarnes(a)bluebottle.com> writes: > Transfer Principle <lwalke3(a)lausd.net>: >>Here's the original purpose of DST. In certain higher >>latitudes (including most of the UK), the length of the >>daylight at the summer solstice was around 16 hours. With >>the period of daylight centered at noon GMT, this would make >>the sun rise at around 4AM, before most people awake. And >>so we set the clock forward in the spring. The reason we set >>it back in autumn is because if we didn't, the sun wouldn't >>rise at the winter solstice until around 9AM, after most >>people need to be at work or school. >> >>In other words, the only way to avoid _both_ objectionable >>sunrise times (4AM and 9AM) is to have a biannual clock shift. > > Here those extreme sunrise times would be 3:40 and 9:20. I can see > the objection to 9:20, but what's the objection to 3:40? You don't have to get up with the chickens, do you? But I believe that the main objection was that people had to spend money on light in the evening when there were hours of daylight just going to waste before they got up. -- Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |If all else fails, embarrass the 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |industry into doing the right Palo Alto, CA 94304 |thing. | Dean Thompson kirshenbaum(a)hpl.hp.com (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ |