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 23 Feb 2010 07:49 On Feb 23, 1:54 am, R H Draney <dadoc...(a)spamcop.net> wrote: > Brian M. Scott filted: > > > > >On Mon, 22 Feb 2010 20:32:03 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels" > ><gramma...(a)verizon.net> wrote in > ><news:ad442cf6-ce22-4ffe-b05b-786b865fb3fc(a)g19g2000yqe.googlegroups.com> > >in > >sci.math,sci.physics,sci.astro,sci.lang,alt.usage.english: > > >> The point is that the kiddies shouldn't go off to school > >> in the dark. > > >I hadn't noticed that DST would make much difference to that > >in many of the places that I've lived. > > It did back in the 70s, where I lived when they decided to experiment with > year-round DST....r I think that was one year, during the Energy Crisis. Maybe they thought school buses used less gas in daylight, or something like that.
From: Peter T. Daniels on 23 Feb 2010 07:51 On Feb 23, 6:19 am, "J. Clarke" <jclarke.use...(a)cox.net> wrote: > On 2/22/2010 11:32 PM, Peter T. Daniels wrote: > > > > > > > On Feb 22, 10:55 pm, "Brian M. Scott"<b.sc...(a)csuohio.edu> wrote: > >> On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 09:37:43 +0800, Robert Bannister > >> <robb...(a)bigpond.com> wrote in > >> <news:7ugpr7Fll6U1(a)mid.individual.net> 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 think you should go and live in Inverness until you > >>> change your mind. > > >> I can't imagine why you think that I'd change my mind. As > >> far as I'm concerned, DST has no disadvantages at any time > >> of year in any climate at any latitude. In winter at higher > >> latitudes its advantages are minimal, but it still has no > >> disadvantages. I couldn't care less how dark it is in the > >> morning; it's in the afternoon and evening that I want the > >> benefit of as much daylight as possible. > > > The point is that the kiddies shouldn't go off to school in the dark. > > Dunno about the rest of the world, but in the US court-ordered busing > has most kids riding the bus to school anyway, so what difference does > it make?- Eh? What century do you live in?
From: Mike Barnes on 23 Feb 2010 07:56 Andrew Usher <k_over_hbarc(a)yahoo.com>: >Mike Barnes wrote: > >> Wrong. It's not believing that the first day of the week is a Sunday >> that makes you a crank. >> >> What makes you a crank is writing that it's an incontrovertible fact. > >Isn't that a tautology though? If one believes something, one believes >it to be true. It's not a matter of true or false. The start of the week is a perception, not a fact. Different people have different perceptions. If you appear not to recognise this, you risk being thought a crank. -- Mike Barnes Cheshire, England
From: António Marques on 23 Feb 2010 08:16 Adam Funk wrote (23-02-2010 11:39): > On 2010-02-23, Andrew Usher wrote: > > >>>> The Catholic Church has stated, I believe more than once (it's linked >>>> to somewhere in this thread) that fixing Easter to a particular week >>>> would be acceptable. > > ("Catholic" is a commonly used but imprecise abbreviation of "Roman > Catholic".) > >> Peter T. Daniels wrote: > >>> "The Catholic Church" (which refers to no specific organization) >>> hasn't spoken for all of Christendom for nearly half a millennium. >> >> 'The Catholic Church' or simply 'The Church' refers to exactly one >> organisation. It's disingenuous to pretend otherwise. Also, it's been >> longer than half a millennium if one includes the East. > > The "Roman Catholic Church", the "Old Catholic Church", and the > "Polish National Catholic Church" are independent of each other. > > The "Eastern Catholic Churches" are under papal authority but I don't > think they describe themselves as "Roman Catholic". Gad, not again! You're trolling, aren't you? "Roman Catholic" ISN'T AN OFFICIAL SELF-DESIGNATION. ANYWHERE. In the tradition from which the Roman and the Greek Churches come, the Church has no splitting qualifiers. It's just 'the Church'. 'Roman Church' can only mean 'the Church in the city of Rome' or 'the Church, in communion with Rome' (which is redundant). From the Church's point of view, there aren't multiple churches. There's only one. To say that there is more than one church is heresy. It's not a matter of wishing to be the only one, it's a religious matter. The multiplicity of churches is anathema and downright sin. Now, historically, 'Catholic Church' has been used whenever one needs to contrast the Church to some heretic/schismatic group. And that simply because while the heretics/schismatics were glad to call themselves 'church', if someone came to them asking for 'the catholic church', all of them would point to the non-heretics/schismatics. For whatever reason, not one heretic/schismatic body has ever called itself simply-'Catholic'-without-more. Not in the ancient world, not after the E-W schism, not after the Reformation. It's under the name 'Catholic' that catholics were persecuted in northern Europe. When someone mentions 'catholics', it's not to eastern orthodox, old or polish catholics that they are refering to. 'Catholic' meaning 'universal' was also until recently an accurate descriptor, since the Roman Church more than any other sought to be a universal organisation, as opposed to the politically-splintered Protestants and the ethnically-splintered various Orthodoxes. In more recent times, most of those have boosted their universal aspirations (which always existed), of course. The Roman Church usually calls itself 'the Church', but is fond of 'Catholic' for a variety of reasons, so 'the Catholic Church' is often used officially. In ecumenical context, if apporpriate, it doesn't object to also being 'Roman', but that adjective is otherwise left out since it may be interpreted as limiting (if not outright contradictory when juxtaposed to 'catholic'). Courtesy also means the RC is willing to call the Orthodox 'Orthodox', since it's the name the latter are fond of, not unlike the catholics are fond of 'Catholic'. That doesn't mean the RC doesn't consider itself orthodox, or that the EO don't consider themselves catholic. Officaly not being there a 'Roman Catholic Church', the question of whether the 'Eastern Catholic Churches' are 'Catholic' but not 'Roman Catholic' makes no sense. But if one applies Church terminology, then 'Roman Catholic Church' can only mean 'The Catholic Church, in communion with Rome', which the ECC certainly are. Now, you *may* wish to call the Roman Church 'the Roman Catholic Church', but in that case you're not the best source of information on the relationship of the ECC to the RC. People *not* into the church's organisation may think that 'Roman' refers to the Roman Rite. It doesn't. The adjective that may go with 'Roman Rite' is 'Latin', but even that is not very accurate. but it *is* accurate to say that the ECC are 'non-Latin CC', even if it's somewhat unwieldy.
From: António Marques on 23 Feb 2010 08:25
jmfbahciv wrote (23-02-2010 12:23): > 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 simply wish people would choose one and stop creating > two jet lags/year. Hey, I have nothing against the one where you get an extra hour. Iinm it has even been shown that that weekend has the least heart-related problems in emergency rooms. |