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 T. Daniels on 28 Feb 2010 23:23 On Feb 28, 9:50 pm, "PaulJK" <paul.kr...(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote: > 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). "Pacific states" is a wel-established term -- sometimes it includes AK and HI, sometimes not. > This just shows that no matter how hard I try I still sometimes > fail to correctly translate Merkin E. semantics to English E. "State" is not a useful term for 'nation-state' because it is serving a different, much more salient function not only in the US, but also in (at least) Mexico and Brazil, and I think Germany.
From: Brian M. Scott on 1 Mar 2010 00:08 On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 20:23:39 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim(a)verizon.net> wrote in <news:5e098d02-5018-444d-b31f-d21303931f38(a)t20g2000yqe.googlegroups.com> in sci.math,sci.physics,sci.astro,sci.lang,alt.usage.english: > On Feb 28, 9:50�pm, "PaulJK" <paul.kr...(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote: >> Peter T. Daniels wrote: >>> On Feb 28, 1:42 am, "PaulJK" >>> <paul.kr...(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote: [...] >>>> 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'. For some values of 'we'. >> 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). > "Pacific states" is a wel-established term -- sometimes it > includes AK and HI, sometimes not. It may be, but I've not encountered it much; in the absence of any context I'd lean towards Paul's interpretation. >> This just shows that no matter how hard I try I still >> sometimes fail to correctly translate Merkin E. >> semantics to English E. > "State" is not a useful term for 'nation-state' Horsefeathers. > because it is serving a different, much more salient > function not only in the US, but also in (at least) > Mexico and Brazil, and I think Germany. Not really: the usual term is <(Bundes)land>, though the L�nder can also be termed Glied- or Teilstaaten. Better examples would be Australia and India. Brian
From: Joachim Pense on 1 Mar 2010 00:30 (Overridden, original article had an unwanted f'up) Peter T. Daniels (in alt.usage.english): > On Feb 28, 9:40 pm, Hatunen <hatu...(a)cox.net> wrote: >> On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 15:44:53 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels" >> >> >> >> >> >> <gramma...(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. > > Don't be ridiculous. Washington's Birthday is February 22 (Gregorian), > and Presidents' Day was observed on Feburary 15. "Washington's Birthday is a United States federal holiday celebrated on the third Monday of February. It is also commonly known as Presidents Day (sometimes spelled as Presidents' Day or President's Day). As Washington's Birthday or Presidents Day, it is also the official name of a concurrent state holiday celebrated on the same day in a number of states. Contents History. Titled Washington's Birthday, a federal holiday honoring George Washington was originally implemented by an Act of Congress in 1880 for government offices in the District of Columbia (20 Stat. 277) and expanded in 1885 to include all federal offices (23 Stat. 516). As the first federal holiday to honor an American citizen, the holiday was celebrated on Washington's actual birthday, February 22.[1] On January 1, 1971, the federal holiday was shifted to the third Monday in February by the Uniform Monday Holiday Act. This date places it between February 15 and 21, which makes the name "Washington's Birthday" a misnomer, since it never lands on Washington's actual birthday, February 22." <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President%27s_day> -- My favourite # 30: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ZmAgFyVo48> My favourite # 55: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6iXyxQ3MYGw>
From: tony cooper on 1 Mar 2010 00:37 On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 20:19:23 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim(a)verizon.net> wrote: >On Feb 28, 9:40�pm, Hatunen <hatu...(a)cox.net> wrote: >> On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 15:44:53 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels" >> >> >> >> >> >> <gramma...(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. > >Don't be ridiculous. Washington's Birthday is February 22 (Gregorian), >and Presidents' Day was observed on Feburary 15. Your foot's bleeding again. Have the bullet removed before the wound festers. Washington's Birthday was officially shifted to the third Monday in February by the Uniform Monday Holiday Act in 1971. The federal holiday has never officially been changed to President's Day. The change was made 39 years ago. You've never noticed? -- Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
From: Skitt on 1 Mar 2010 01:23
PaulJK wrote: > Peter T. Daniels wrote: >> "PaulJK" 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. I was born in a country that had no birth certificates, therefore I am without one. Every adult in that country had a passport, and the birth of a child was recorded in the mother's passport. I have a certified translation of that entry, and it sufficed whenever a birth certificate was required. Now I have my own passport, but of the USA kind. -- Skitt (AmE) AUE's token Latvian |