The perpetual calendar
in [Math]
|
Prev: THE MIND OF MATHEMATICIANS PART 7 " SPATIAL MATHEMATICS , VALUE OF 1 and 3
Next: Exactly why the theories of relativity are complete nonsense- the basic mistake exposed!
From: Peter Moylan on 28 Feb 2010 20:40 Evan Kirshenbaum wrote: > Peter Moylan <gro.nalyomp(a)retep> writes: > >> Admittedly the common "off by one" errors are often caused by >> zero-based subscripting. With most programming languages, though, >> such an error will make itself evident the first time you run the >> program, when you run off the end of the array; and the exception >> information will quickly lead you to the cause of the crash. It's >> safe to declare subscript ranges in any way that is natural to the >> application, as long as the generated code includes range >> checks. The main thing that makes C so unsuitable for real-world >> applications is the paucity of run-time checks. > > The existence of which, of course, along with the concommitant > overhead, being one of the main reasons that other languages were > considered unsuitable for real-world applications. > > Fast, safe, and easy to write a compiler for. Pick two. > I take your point, but the world has changed since such decisions were made. The computer I'm now using has a processor that's about 100 times as fast as the one in the first PC I ever had. I'm doing a job at present that requires a lot of real-time graphics processing, and it turns out that we have a lot of spare processor time. Besides, it's been true for a number of years now that software written in high-level languages often runs faster (up to about a 5% improvement) than the same software written in C. That's because modern compilers do a lot of code optimisation, but with a low-level language a lot of optimisation possibilities aren't applicable. As for range checks: some processors now in use do a range check in a single machine language instruction. Your "easy to write a compiler for" is more to the point. With the kinds of processor that are typically used for embedded applications, compilers are available for exactly one language, so the programmer has no choice. -- Peter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org For an e-mail address, see my web page.
From: PaulJK on 28 Feb 2010 21:35 Peter T. Daniels wrote: > On Feb 28, 1:30 am, "PaulJK" <paul.kr...(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote: > >> Are you suggesting that some (often disinterested) government >> official would have more reliable sources of detail of the birth? > > I'm observing that over here, birth certificates are done in the > hospital (presumably for home etc. births there are equivalent > provisions) and signed by witnesses on the spot, not a week later. > > What about folks who didn't get baptized? Well, obviously their certificates were not issued by any christian church. I don't really know which government department was responsible for issuing BCs at that time. Most of my mother's family were atheists for generations. They usually had their children baptised in a church nearest to their home. I presume it was then the cheapest way of conforming to the law and getting the birth certificates issued. pjk
From: Hatunen on 28 Feb 2010 21:39 On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 15:46:47 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim(a)verizon.net> wrote: >On Feb 28, 6:41�pm, Hatunen <hatu...(a)cox.net> wrote: >> On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 15:36:41 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels" >> >> >> >> >> >> <gramma...(a)verizon.net> wrote: >> >On Feb 28, 5:22 pm, Hatunen <hatu...(a)cox.net> wrote: >> >> On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 06:57:41 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels" >> >> >> <gramma...(a)verizon.net> wrote: >> >> >There's no such thing as "a Catechism." When I was little, the few >> >> >Catholics I knew had to memorize something called "the Baltimore >> >> >Catechism," which had no parallel whatsoever in either my Presbyterian >> >> >church or my Episcopal school. >> >> >> The term may not have been explicitly used, but seehttp://www.pcusa.org/catech/studycat.htmandhttp://anglicansonline.org... >> >> >> >The Baltimore Catechism, however, was >> >> >rendered obsolete by Vatican II. I don't know what "a Catechism" would >> >> >be, fifty years later. >> >> >> Hm. Seehttp://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/ccc_toc.htm >> >> >So can you find someplace in that document where the text of the >> >Apostles' Creed is given? >> >> What does that have to do with your statement, 'There's no such >> thing as "a Catechism."'? >> >> >> Google reveals many, many more pointers to - catholic catechism - >> >> >And would one of them be the "a Catechism" our conservative Catholic >> >atheist referred to? >> >> 'There's no such thing as "a Catechism."' >> >> Then what are all those pointers pointing to? > >Try looking at what he actually said. I did again. "There's no such thing as 'a catechism'". There certainly seems to be such a thing. I might agree, though, that there's no such thing as 'the catecachism'. -- ************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen(a)cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
From: Hatunen on 28 Feb 2010 21:40 On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 15:44:53 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim(a)verizon.net> wrote: >On Feb 28, 6:29�pm, Hatunen <hatu...(a)cox.net> wrote: >> On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 11:09:57 -0800, David Harmon >> >> <sou...(a)netcom.com> wrote: >> >On Wed, 24 Feb 2010 09:56:25 -0500 in alt.usage.english, tony cooper >> ><tony_cooper...(a)earthlink.net> wrote, >> >>As far as I can tell, the only employers that are closed on >> >>President's Day are government offices, schools, and banks. �To the >> >> >There is no such holiday as "President's Day" to US government offices. >> >http://www.opm.gov/Operating_Status_Schedules/fedhol/2010.asp >> >> Interesting. I had assumed there was. And I see that there is one >> in some states. Certainly businesses think there is one in their >> sales advertisements. > >The Post Office was closed for Presidents' Day in 2010. Not an American post office. They were closed for Washington's Birthday, no matter what a sign on the door or whatnot might have said. -- ************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen(a)cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
From: PaulJK on 28 Feb 2010 21:50
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). This just shows that no matter how hard I try I still sometimes fail to correctly translate Merkin E. semantics to English E. pjk |