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: jmfbahciv on 1 Mar 2010 07:19 Hatunen wrote: > On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 11:09:57 -0800, David Harmon > <source(a)netcom.com> wrote: > >> On Wed, 24 Feb 2010 09:56:25 -0500 in alt.usage.english, tony cooper >> <tony_cooper213(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. > so does the Post Office. /BAH
From: Peter Moylan on 1 Mar 2010 07:09 Skitt wrote: > Peter T. Daniels wrote: >> Hatunen wrote: >>> "Peter T. Daniels" wrote: >>>> Hatunen wrote: >>>>> David Harmon wrote: > >>>>>> 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. > > Sorry, that's not the way it works. May I respectfully suggest that you stop rattling his cage? You're dealing here with ... well, he's not exactly a troll, but someone who has no ability to acknowledge his mistakes. The end result is boring for everyone looking on. I don't doubt that you're right, Skitt. In fact, I'm pretty certain that you're right. In the end, though, there's no entertainment to be had, and certainly no enlightment, from poking a stick at someone whose responses have become totally predictable. -- Peter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org For an e-mail address, see my web page.
From: jmfbahciv on 1 Mar 2010 07:37 Peter Moylan wrote: > jmfbahciv wrote: >> James Silverton wrote: > >>>> You always could "start" at numbers other than one. Or are >>>> you talking about the actual memory assigned to the array? >>> Yes, there were ways of doing that but when you defined an array with, >>> say, >>> >>> DIMENSION A(100) >>> >>> The array elements were A(1) to A(100). >>> >>> I think it was Fortran77 where, say, >>> >>> REAL (0:99) :: A >>> >>> became a valid declaration. >>> >> Thanks. I swear I read the 77 ANSI proposal but I don't >> remember this stuff. That one had to cause bugs. > > I've never used Fortran 77, but I don't see how that would cause bugs. > If the array bounds have to be declared, the compiler can insert checks > for subscripts being out of bounds, and in fact that is what is done in > most of the modern programming languages I know something about. Those checks are usually done at compile time, not runtime. Your FORTRAN example implies that indexing doesn't have to be an integer. That's what I was thinking about when I made the statement about "had to cause bugs". Someday I should reread the 77 standard again. > > The reason you get so many "array overrun" errors in C - it seems to be > the means most used by hackers to break system security - is not the > confusing "count from zero" convention, but the fact that the language > doesn't really have the concept of "array". Instead, it has a kludge > that lets you write pointer arithmetic in a way that looks like array > subscripting notation. As a result, the language specification more or > less explicitly prohibits compilers from inserting checks for subscript > errors. I've scanned several C programming books, but haven't practiced it. > > 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; Not if your testing doesn't test maximums+1 :-). My blind spot is exactly this when I coded. So I'd always give the program to somebody who would do that flavor of testing. >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. Or you write your own. > The main thing that makes C so > unsuitable for real-world applications is the paucity of run-time checks. > That's one of the problems with having to expand memory on demand rather than reserve it at compile time. Memory addressing space was a scarce resource waybackwhen. /BAH
From: Peter T. Daniels on 1 Mar 2010 07:40 On Mar 1, 2:59 am, Nick <3-nos...(a)temporary-address.org.uk> wrote: > "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...(a)verizon.net> writes: > > > "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. > > So are you suggesting that "failed state" and "rogue state" are > expressions that have no meaning in the US. No, thre is a difference between a bare noun and a qualified noun. Did you not see that I used "nation-state" above? > Because I thought that's where they both originated. Or do they only > apply to one of your provinces going off the rails? What "provinces"? We are not Canada, or ancien regime France.
From: Peter T. Daniels on 1 Mar 2010 07:41
On Mar 1, 4:25 am, Leslie Danks <leslie.da...(a)aon.at> wrote: > Peter T. Daniels wrote: > > [...] > > > "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. > > The word is "Land" or "Bundesland" in Germany and Austria. As is the case > for most political entities, exact translations are impossible and the > terms are frequently left untranslated in English texts (and often written > in italics). If members of English-speaking tribes wish to invent > translations, it is up to them to deal with any ambiguities that may arise. In English, the top-level divisions of Germany are usualy called "states." > The countries of the EU are known as "member states". See? Even in Europe, in English the bare noun isn't used. |