The perpetual calendar
in [Physics]
|
Prev: simple question power, resistance, current, etc
Next: OBSERVATIONS: Einstein's gravitational redshift measured with unprecedented precision
From: Brian M. Scott on 24 Feb 2010 14:26 Mike Barnes wrote: > Brian M. Scott <b.scott(a)csuohio.edu>: >> On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 10:57:11 -0800, Skitt >> <skitt99(a)comcast.net> wrote in >> <news:hm18ef$9gh$1(a)news.albasani.net> in >> sci.math,sci.physics,sci.astro,sci.lang,alt.usage.english: >> >>> 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's true only before the event. Afterwards, going from 11 to 10 is > receding. > > But I have some sympathy with your confusion. No confusion; I was simply pointing out that more than one understanding is possible. Brian
From: Brian M. Scott on 24 Feb 2010 14:33 Cheryl wrote: > jmfbahciv wrote: >> <snip> >> What is wrong is forcing the entire populace to go >> through a jetlag twice a year. Their driving is more >> dangerous and productivity falls until each person has >> adjusted his/her internal time clock. Congress has >> been passing laws about truckers getting enough sleep. >> OTOH, they pass clock resetting laws which causes >> everybody to not get enough sleep. What's wrong is that >> it's dangerous and unhealthy. > What's stopping people from going to bed an hour earlier > that night? What's the point? For many of us that would be a wasted hour: we'd neither sleep nor get anything done. Brian
From: Peter T. Daniels on 24 Feb 2010 14:40 On Feb 24, 9:19 am, Cheryl <cperk...(a)mun.ca> wrote: > Peter T. Daniels wrote: > > On Feb 24, 6:40 am, Cheryl <cperk...(a)mun.ca> wrote: > >> Peter T. Daniels wrote: > >>> On Feb 23, 8:12 pm, Robert Bannister <robb...(a)bigpond.com> wrote: > >>>> Adam Funk wrote: > >>>>> On 2010-02-23, Ant nio 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.) > >>>> I won't try to claim such signs don't exist, but I don't remember ever > >>>> seeing one. The only way I can tell a church is RC is by the > >>>> architecture and usually by the name (saint I've never heard of or > >>>> long-winded way of saying Mary). > >>> Do you only visit villages so small that they have only one church, or > >>> so homogeneous that they only have a sprinkling of Protestant churches? > >> 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? > > Sometimes, yes, although more commonly if they're THAT small, they'd > have one or the other - some version of Protestant or Roman Catholic. My > home province has close to 40% of the population reporting themselves in > surveys as Roman Catholics, so even thought they're not entirely evenly > sprinkled over the entire area, there are lots of small towns that are > or are part of a Roman Catholic parish. Nowadays, they usually have to > share a priest with several other small towns, but they still have their > church. > > > "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 was thoroughly confused for a time when I first encountered 'Unitarian > ', as in 'Unitarian Universalism' and assumed that it was the same as > the United Church. > > > When we went on vacation during the school year I had to bring > > evidence of "church attendance" in order not to get penalized for > > missing Sunday School. The one I most remember was the Church of the > > Presidents, an Episcopal church very close to both the White House and > > our hotel (which was still the one presidents would occasionally turn > > up at, although that practice has recently become quite a burden on > > whichever church would be involved). Thus a Scotch-Irish Presbyterian > > congregation wasn't particularly particular in the 1950s/60s. > > Particular enough to require proof of attendance, though! The only > person who insisted I attend Sunday School at all was my mother, and I > became so bored with it that I did a deal with her - I didn't have to go > to Sunday School, and I wouldn't complain at all about attending the > regular services, which at that time were in traditional language with > no special children's talk or any other accommodation for children. I > still think I got by far the better part of that deal, although it did > leave me with a fondness for Victorian hymns. There were awards at the end of the year based on attendance.
From: Cheryl on 24 Feb 2010 14:43 Peter T. Daniels wrote: > > There were awards at the end of the year based on attendance. I don't think I attended Sunday School long enough to get one. -- Cheryl
From: Peter T. Daniels on 24 Feb 2010 14:43
On Feb 24, 10:04 am, Evan Kirshenbaum <kirshenb...(a)hpl.hp.com> wrote: > "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...(a)verizon.net> writes: > > > > > > > On Feb 24, 3:13 am, Evan Kirshenbaum <kirshenb...(a)hpl.hp.com> wrote: > >> "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...(a)verizon.net> writes: > > >> > On Feb 23, 11:01 pm, "Brian M. Scott" <b.sc...(a)csuohio.edu> wrote: > >> >> On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 13:48:34 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels" > >> >> <gramma...(a)verizon.net> wrote in > >> >> <news:b635eda9-c279-4467-91f7-041a0adef830(a)g23g2000vbl.googlegroups..com> > >> >> in > >> >> sci.math,sci.physics,sci.astro,sci.lang,alt.usage.english: > > >> >> > On Feb 23, 12:27 pm, Hatunen <hatu...(a)cox.net> wrote: > > >> >> [...] > > >> >> >> I've hear it commented that daylight time was invented by an > >> >> >> Amrican Indian who, finding his blanket too short to reach > >> >> >> his chin, cut off the lower end of the blanket and sewed it > >> >> >> onto the upper end. > > >> >> [...] > > >> >> > Is there a reason for attaching that story to a particular > >> >> > ethnicity? [...] > > >> >> Quite possibly accuracy in reporting. > > >> > So if it were told about "Ol' Uncle Tom," that would be "accuracy > >> > in reporting" too? > > >> If that's the way he heard it, sure. > > > But since we know it's a tall tale, we know that it is not "true" or > > "reportage." What the story tells us is that the most recent teller > > has a low opinion of American Indians, Irishmen, or (in my > > hypothetical), African Americans. > > What's "reportage" is the "I've heard it commented". If Dave, living > in Arizona, has heard it told about Indians, then that's the tale he's > reporting having heard. And the choice of ethnicity is an interesting > part of the tale, giving insight into the attitudes of those who tell > it (as distinct from those who merely report having heard it). So ... that Dave has a prejudice concerning American Indians is something he thought we all should know? |