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: PaulJK on 24 Feb 2010 04:43 Brian M. Scott wrote: > On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 20:19:21 +1300, PaulJK > <paul.kriha(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote in > <news:hlvvbr$50g$1(a)news.eternal-september.org> 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 would prefer if every 24 hour day was made longer by one >> hour, i.e. 25 hours long. [...] > > I'm not sure that 25 hours would be quite long enough. I agree, it wouldn't. I just didn't want to sound like some kind of an extremist. 28 was mentioned by some other posters. That would do me rather well. Yes, 28, that would be perfect. pjk
From: benlizro on 24 Feb 2010 04:49 On Feb 24, 11:43 am, Mike Barnes <mikebar...(a)bluebottle.com> wrote: > Brian M. Scott <b.sc...(a)csuohio.edu>: > > > > >On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 10:57:11 -0800, Skitt > ><skit...(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. I get totally confused > when someone describes a time zone as being "ahead of" or "behind" > another. It can be either, depending on one's viewpoint. > > -- > Mike Barnes > Cheshire, England Discussion on sci.lang during the Beijing Olympics: Ross in New Zealand: > > We are 4 hours later than China. During the games we were getting live > > coverage from noon to 2am, i.e. 8am to 10pm Beijing time. Peter in NY: > I think you're earlier, because your 8:00 was 4 hours before their > 8:00. Ross: We are earlier in arriving at a given time, but on the other hand, if you ask "What time is it?", it is four hours later here than there. Peter: > Surely you can't say that NY is 12 hr earlier than China? We're > _behind_ them, you're _ahead_ of them. etc.
From: PaulJK on 24 Feb 2010 05:01 Skitt wrote: > PaulJK wrote: > >> We invented DST to set clocks back one hour in summer > > forward Good Lord, have I been doing this wrong all these years? :-) Our summer time over here downunder will soon be over and then I better get it right and wind my clocks back. pjk >> because in summer it's bright earlier. >> In summer kids go to school an hour earlier but in winter >> they go to school at the time they always used to go.
From: PaulJK on 24 Feb 2010 05:06 Trond Engen wrote: > Brian M. Scott skrev: > >> On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 10:41:20 -0800, Skitt >> <skitt99(a)comcast.net> wrote in >> <news:hm17gp$89l$1(a)news.albasani.net> in >> sci.math,sci.physics,sci.astro,sci.lang,alt.usage.english: >> >>> 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. > > And everything is the other way around in New Zealand. Just try to remember exactly which way to wind your clock when its face is upside down and you are standing on your head. pjk
From: Adam Funk on 24 Feb 2010 06:08
On 2010-02-23, António Marques wrote: > Adam Funk wrote (23-02-2010 20:02): >> On 2010-02-23, António Marques wrote: >>> 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. >> >> Well, they would say that, wouldn't they... > > It's not what you think. Either the Church's message is universal and Christ > did found one Church, or it isn't. To endorse the idea of multiple churches > is like endorsing the idea of apartheid. Mainstream Protestants consider > themselves part of the one Church, the Orthodox who are known for thinking > everyone else is a heretic even agree (most of them) that any church is part > of the one Church to the extent of its orthodox doctrine, and the RC holds a > similar view. Yes, right. I misunderstood what you wrote. -- The three-martini lunch is the epitome of American efficiency. Where else can you get an earful, a bellyful and a snootful at the same time? [Gerald Ford, 1978] |