Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.programming > #7182 > unrolled thread

'Leap Second' to Be Added on New Year's Eve This Year

Back to article view | Back to comp.programming

Contents

  'Leap Second' to Be Added on New Year's Eve This Year "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2016-12-22 21:43 +0800
    Re: 'Leap Second' to Be Added on New Year's Eve This Year Siri Cruise <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2016-12-22 05:48 -0800
      Re: 'Leap Second' to Be Added on New Year's Eve This Year "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2016-12-22 22:09 +0800
      Re: 'Leap Second' to Be Added on New Year's Eve This Year Krzysztof Mitko <invalid@kmitko.at.list.dot.pl> - 2016-12-24 13:47 +0100
        Re: 'Leap Second' to Be Added on New Year's Eve This Year Siri Cruise <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2016-12-24 05:39 -0800
    Re: 'Leap Second' to Be Added on New Year's Eve This Year Mark Lloyd <not@mail.invalid> - 2016-12-22 14:31 -0600
      Re: 'Leap Second' to Be Added on New Year's Eve This Year Mark Storkamp <mstorkamp@yahoo.com> - 2016-12-23 08:34 -0600
        Re: 'Leap Second' to Be Added on New Year's Eve This Year "J-P. Rosen" <rosen@adalog.fr> - 2016-12-23 16:55 +0100
        Re: 'Leap Second' to Be Added on New Year's Eve This Year Ken Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2016-12-30 11:17 -0500
          Re: 'Leap Second' to Be Added on New Year's Eve This Year Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-12-30 09:38 -0800
            Re: 'Leap Second' to Be Added on New Year's Eve This Year hah <hah@no.email.stupid.invalid> - 2016-12-30 15:59 -0600
          Re: 'Leap Second' to Be Added on New Year's Eve This Year Mark Lloyd <not@mail.invalid> - 2016-12-30 15:47 -0600
          Re: 'Leap Second' to Be Added on New Year's Eve This Year Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com> - 2016-12-30 15:14 -0700
            Re: 'Leap Second' to Be Added on New Year's Eve This Year Kaz Kylheku <221-501-9011@kylheku.com> - 2016-12-30 23:26 +0000
      Re: 'Leap Second' to Be Added on New Year's Eve This Year "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2017-01-03 20:46 -0500
    Re: 'Leap Second' to Be Added on New Year's Eve This Year Jason <jason_warren@ieee.DELETE.org> - 2016-12-22 17:14 -0500
      Re: 'Leap Second' to Be Added on New Year's Eve This Year "Jonathan N. Little" <lws4art@gmail.com> - 2016-12-22 17:40 -0500
        Re: 'Leap Second' to Be Added on New Year's Eve This Year Jason <jason_warren@ieee.org> - 2016-12-23 19:57 -0500
          Re: 'Leap Second' to Be Added on New Year's Eve This Year Char Jackson <none@none.invalid> - 2016-12-23 21:44 -0600
            Re: 'Leap Second' to Be Added on New Year's Eve This Year "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2016-12-31 23:42 +0000
      Re: 'Leap Second' to Be Added on New Year's Eve This Year Ken Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2016-12-30 11:16 -0500
        Re: 'Leap Second' to Be Added on New Year's Eve This Year Mark Lloyd <not@mail.invalid> - 2016-12-30 15:58 -0600
          Re: 'Leap Second' to Be Added on New Year's Eve This Year Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-12-30 14:37 -0800
            Re: 'Leap Second' to Be Added on New Year's Eve This Year Mark Lloyd <not@mail.invalid> - 2016-12-30 19:16 -0600
              Re: 'Leap Second' to Be Added on New Year's Eve This Year Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-12-30 17:48 -0800
                Re: 'Leap Second' to Be Added on New Year's Eve This Year Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2016-12-31 10:08 +0000
                Re: 'Leap Second' to Be Added on New Year's Eve This Year Mark Lloyd <not@mail.invalid> - 2016-12-31 14:20 -0600
                Re: 'Leap Second' to Be Added on New Year's Eve This Year Mark Lloyd <not@mail.invalid> - 2016-12-31 14:34 -0600
                  Re: 'Leap Second' to Be Added on New Year's Eve This Year Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2016-12-31 16:45 -0500
                    Re: 'Leap Second' to Be Added on New Year's Eve This Year Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com> - 2016-12-31 16:34 -0700
                      Re: 'Leap Second' to Be Added on New Year's Eve This Year Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2016-12-31 20:52 -0500
                      Re: 'Leap Second' to Be Added on New Year's Eve This Year Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-01-01 12:22 +0000
                      Re: 'Leap Second' to Be Added on New Year's Eve This Year Mark Lloyd <not@mail.invalid> - 2017-01-01 15:47 -0600
                  Re: 'Leap Second' to Be Added on New Year's Eve This Year Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-12-31 13:59 -0800
                Re: 'Leap Second' to Be Added on New Year's Eve This Year Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2017-01-01 13:46 -0500
                  Re: 'Leap Second' to Be Added on New Year's Eve This Year Mark Lloyd <not@mail.invalid> - 2017-01-01 16:12 -0600
                    Re: 'Leap Second' to Be Added on New Year's Eve This Year Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2017-01-01 19:44 -0500
                      Re: 'Leap Second' to Be Added on New Year's Eve This Year Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2017-01-01 22:31 -0500
                    Re: 'Leap Second' to Be Added on New Year's Eve This Year Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com> - 2017-01-02 11:23 -0700
                      Re: 'Leap Second' to Be Added on New Year's Eve This Year Mark Lloyd <not@mail.invalid> - 2017-01-02 19:03 -0600
                    Re: 'Leap Second' to Be Added on New Year's Eve This Year Mark Storkamp <mstorkamp@yahoo.com> - 2017-01-02 13:46 -0600
                      Re: 'Leap Second' to Be Added on New Year's Eve This Year Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2017-01-02 14:55 -0500
                        Re: 'Leap Second' to Be Added on New Year's Eve This Year Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2017-01-02 20:00 +0000
                          Re: 'Leap Second' to Be Added on New Year's Eve This Year Sam E <why.should.this@be.email.invalid> - 2017-01-02 19:07 -0600
                            Re: 'Leap Second' to Be Added on New Year's Eve This Year Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2017-01-03 06:45 +0000
                              Re: 'Leap Second' to Be Added on New Year's Eve This Year Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2017-01-03 09:42 -0500
                              Re: 'Leap Second' to Be Added on New Year's Eve This Year "Cybe R. Wizard" <cybe_r_wizard@WizardsTower.invalid> - 2017-01-03 11:27 -0600
                                Re: 'Leap Second' to Be Added on New Year's Eve This Year Caver1 <caver1@inthemud.org> - 2017-01-03 14:25 -0500
                              Re: 'Leap Second' to Be Added on New Year's Eve This Year "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2017-01-03 17:34 -0500
                        Re: 'Leap Second' to Be Added on New Year's Eve This Year Mark Storkamp <mstorkamp@yahoo.com> - 2017-01-02 14:20 -0600
                          Re: 'Leap Second' to Be Added on New Year's Eve This Year Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2017-01-02 15:36 -0500
                          Re: 'Leap Second' to Be Added on New Year's Eve This Year "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2017-01-04 12:09 -0500
                            Re: 'Leap Second' to Be Added on New Year's Eve This Year Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2017-01-04 19:12 -0500
                      Re: 'Leap Second' to Be Added on New Year's Eve This Year Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2017-01-02 15:06 -0500
                        Re: 'Leap Second' to Be Added on New Year's Eve This Year Mark Lloyd <not@mail.invalid> - 2017-01-02 19:10 -0600
                          Re: 'Leap Second' to Be Added on New Year's Eve This Year Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2017-01-02 22:56 -0500
                        Re: 'Leap Second' to Be Added on New Year's Eve This Year "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2017-01-04 12:34 -0500
                          Re: 'Leap Second' to Be Added on New Year's Eve This Year Mark Lloyd <not@mail.invalid> - 2017-01-04 15:32 -0600
                            Re: 'Leap Second' to Be Added on New Year's Eve This Year Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-01-04 13:51 -0800
                              Re: 'Leap Second' to Be Added on New Year's Eve This Year Mark Lloyd <not@mail.invalid> - 2017-01-04 22:37 -0600
                            Re: 'Leap Second' to Be Added on New Year's Eve This Year "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2017-01-04 17:21 -0500
                            Re: 'Leap Second' to Be Added on New Year's Eve This Year Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2017-01-05 09:20 -0800
                              [OT] Meaning and truth (Was Re: 'Leap Second' to Be Added on New Year's Eve This Year) Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2017-01-05 13:34 -0500
                            Re: 'Leap Second' to Be Added on New Year's Eve This Year Caver1 <caver1@inthemud.org> - 2017-01-07 17:20 -0500
                              Re: 'Leap Second' to Be Added on New Year's Eve This Year Kaz Kylheku <221-501-9011@kylheku.com> - 2017-01-07 22:57 +0000
                                Re: 'Leap Second' to Be Added on New Year's Eve This Year "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2017-01-07 19:06 -0500
                                  Re: 'Leap Second' to Be Added on New Year's Eve This Year Kaz Kylheku <221-501-9011@kylheku.com> - 2017-01-08 06:16 +0000
                                    Re: 'Leap Second' to Be Added on New Year's Eve This Year "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2017-01-08 10:26 -0500
                      Re: 'Leap Second' to Be Added on New Year's Eve This Year Mark Lloyd <not@mail.invalid> - 2017-01-02 19:05 -0600
                      Re: 'Leap Second' to Be Added on New Year's Eve This Year "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-01-04 00:28 +0000
              Re: 'Leap Second' to Be Added on New Year's Eve This Year raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2017-01-01 10:01 +0000
            Re: 'Leap Second' to Be Added on New Year's Eve This Year Mark Lloyd <not@mail.invalid> - 2016-12-31 14:29 -0600
    Re: 'Leap Second' to Be Added on New Year's Eve This Year "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2016-12-31 21:57 +0000
      Re: 'Leap Second' to Be Added on New Year's Eve This Year "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2017-01-03 20:06 -0500
        Re: 'Leap Second' to Be Added on New Year's Eve This Year "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-01-04 15:44 +0000
          Re: 'Leap Second' to Be Added on New Year's Eve This Year "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2017-01-04 14:11 -0500
            Re: 'Leap Second' to Be Added on New Year's Eve This Year "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-01-04 19:58 +0000
        Re: 'Leap Second' to Be Added on New Year's Eve This Year Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-01-04 16:17 +0000
          Re: 'Leap Second' to Be Added on New Year's Eve This Year "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-01-04 21:03 +0000
            Re: 'Leap Second' to Be Added on New Year's Eve This Year "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2017-01-05 14:15 -0600
              Re: 'Leap Second' to Be Added on New Year's Eve This Year "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-01-06 01:26 +0000
            Re: 'Leap Second' to Be Added on New Year's Eve This Year raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2017-01-09 17:12 +0000
              Re: 'Leap Second' to Be Added on New Year's Eve This Year Har-dee-har-har <YouMustBeKidding@This.Com> - 2017-01-09 09:53 -0800
                Re: 'Leap Second' to Be Added on New Year's Eve This Year "J-P. Rosen" <rosen@adalog.fr> - 2017-01-10 07:20 +0100
              Re: 'Leap Second' to Be Added on New Year's Eve This Year "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-01-12 23:17 +0000
                Re: 'Leap Second' to Be Added on New Year's Eve This Year Tim <timothybil@yahoo.com> - 2017-01-13 00:51 -0600
        Re: 'Leap Second' to Be Added on New Year's Eve This Year antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl - 2017-01-05 19:28 +0000
          Re: 'Leap Second' to Be Added on New Year's Eve This Year "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-01-05 21:41 +0000
    Re: 'Leap Second' to Be Added on New Year's Eve This Year Dänk 42Ø <dank@nugget.org> - 2017-01-02 07:08 +0000
      Re: 'Leap Second' to Be Added on New Year's Eve This Year Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-01-01 23:46 -0800
        Re: 'Leap Second' to Be Added on New Year's Eve This Year Dänk 42Ø <dank@nugget.org> - 2017-01-02 21:56 +0000
          Re: 'Leap Second' to Be Added on New Year's Eve This Year Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-01-02 15:38 -0800
      Re: 'Leap Second' to Be Added on New Year's Eve This Year "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2017-01-03 20:26 -0500

Page 4 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5  Next page →

#7261

On 01/04/2017 04:32 PM, Mark Lloyd wrote:
> On 01/04/2017 11:34 AM, James R. Kuyper wrote:
>
>> As an
>> atheist, I certainly deny that Christ was divine, or even divinely
>> inspired.
>
> I don't deny that Christ was divine. I can't, considering that both
> "Christ" and "divine" are only religious words which have no meaning
> outside that belief system. The words would have to MEAN SOMETHING for
> that to be denied.

They have a meaning outside that belief system - if you don't share that 
belief system, then the meaning that they have describes something that 
doesn't exist - but it is still meaningful.

For comparison: I believe that general relativity requires that 
4-momentum be conserved (which corresponds in the Newtonian 
approximation to separate conservation laws for energy and 3-momentum). 
However, it's perfectly meaningful to describe a physical interaction 
that doesn't conserve 4-momentum - only by understanding what such a 
description means can you set up an experiment to detect whether or not 
such an interaction has actually occurred. Only by setting up many such 
experiments, and having them all repeatedly fail to detect conservation 
violations, can you justify having reasonable confidence in the 
conservation of momentum.

To deny that those words have meaning outside that belief system, is to 
reveal that you don't really understand what meaning it is that they 
express. That, in turn, means you cannot justify being sure that what 
they describe does not exist.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#7264

On Wed, 4 Jan 2017 15:32:40 -0600, Mark Lloyd <not@mail.invalid>
wrote:

>On 01/04/2017 11:34 AM, James R. Kuyper wrote:
>
>> As an
>> atheist, I certainly deny that Christ was divine, or even divinely
>> inspired.
>
>I don't deny that Christ was divine. I can't, considering that both 
>"Christ" and "divine" are only religious words which have no meaning 
>outside that belief system. The words would have to MEAN SOMETHING for 
>that to be denied.

     But that does not mean that the thing actually exists.

     Consider fairies, unicorns, Santa Claus, and way more.

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#7265 — [OT] Meaning and truth (Was Re: 'Leap Second' to Be Added on New Year's Eve This Year)

On 2017-01-05 12:20, Gene Wirchenko wrote:
> On Wed, 4 Jan 2017 15:32:40 -0600, Mark Lloyd <not@mail.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>> On 01/04/2017 11:34 AM, James R. Kuyper wrote:
>>
>>> As an
>>> atheist, I certainly deny that Christ was divine, or even divinely
>>> inspired.
>>
>> I don't deny that Christ was divine. I can't, considering that both
>> "Christ" and "divine" are only religious words which have no meaning
>> outside that belief system. The words would have to MEAN SOMETHING for
>> that to be denied.
>
>      But that does not mean that the thing actually exists.
>
>      Consider fairies, unicorns, Santa Claus, and way more.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Gene Wirchenko

J. J. Ayer and others analysed the difference between fact and fiction 
about 100 years ago now. Fictions are neither true nor false, he said, a 
stance that makes sense to me, having been trained in literary studies. 
This doesn't mean fictions are meaningless, nor that their meanings are 
neither true nor false. For example, a novel may be psychologically more 
true than a biography: it all depends on the skills and insights of the 
narrator.

The difference between history and fiction is that history purports to 
be a story about actual events. This difference matters, hence since 
roughly the mid-1600s we have evolved different styles for history and 
fiction. But both are stories. The meaning of a story arises from its 
structure, not its contents. The easiest example perhaps is satire, 
which purports to be about real people and real events. It's the way 
these elements are presented and arranged that makes the difference 
between a satire and a history (although with some subjects it's not 
easy to tell the difference, vide the self-satire of so many of our 
politicians and celebrities).

"Interpretations" of scientific theories are convenient fictions, useful 
for applying the theories to engineering (for example).


Etc.

-- 
Best,
Wolf K
https://kirkwood40.blogspot.com
It's called "opinion" because it's not knowledge.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#7282

On 01/04/2017 04:32 PM, Mark Lloyd wrote:
> On 01/04/2017 11:34 AM, James R. Kuyper wrote:
>
>> As an
>> atheist, I certainly deny that Christ was divine, or even divinely
>> inspired.
>
> I don't deny that Christ was divine. I can't, considering that both
> "Christ" and "divine" are only religious words which have no meaning
> outside that belief system. The words would have to MEAN SOMETHING for
> that to be denied.
>

Just because you don't believe in the concepts that they 
refer to doesn't mean they have no meaning.
You know exactly what they refer to so they even have 
meaning to you.

-- 
Caver1

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#7284

On 2017-01-07, Caver1 <caver1@inthemud.org> wrote:
> On 01/04/2017 04:32 PM, Mark Lloyd wrote:
>> On 01/04/2017 11:34 AM, James R. Kuyper wrote:
>>
>>> As an
>>> atheist, I certainly deny that Christ was divine, or even divinely
>>> inspired.
>>
>> I don't deny that Christ was divine. I can't, considering that both
>> "Christ" and "divine" are only religious words which have no meaning
>> outside that belief system. The words would have to MEAN SOMETHING for
>> that to be denied.
>>
>
> Just because you don't believe in the concepts that they 
> refer to doesn't mean they have no meaning.
> You know exactly what they refer to so they even have 
> meaning to you.

"outside that belief system"

Just like "nondeterministic finite automaton" has
no meaning outside CS.

I know what that refers to because I'm able to put myself
into that scope.

-- 
TXR Programming Lanuage: http://nongnu.org/txr
Music DIY Mailing List:  http://www.kylheku.com/diy
ADA MP-1 Mailing List:   http://www.kylheku.com/mp1

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#7286

On 01/07/2017 05:57 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
> On 2017-01-07, Caver1 <caver1@inthemud.org> wrote:
>> On 01/04/2017 04:32 PM, Mark Lloyd wrote:
>>> On 01/04/2017 11:34 AM, James R. Kuyper wrote:
>>>
>>>> As an
>>>> atheist, I certainly deny that Christ was divine, or even divinely
>>>> inspired.
>>>
>>> I don't deny that Christ was divine. I can't, considering that both
>>> "Christ" and "divine" are only religious words which have no meaning
>>> outside that belief system. The words would have to MEAN SOMETHING for
>>> that to be denied.
>>>
>>
>> Just because you don't believe in the concepts that they
>> refer to doesn't mean they have no meaning.
>> You know exactly what they refer to so they even have
>> meaning to you.
>
> "outside that belief system"

Noted, and rejected: you don't have to share someone's belief in 
something in order to understand the meaning of that belief well enough 
to say "I don't believe in that". It's not that "Christ" and "divine" 
don't have meaning to non-believers. They do have a meaning; what they 
lack, in the opinion of the non-believer, is a referent.

> Just like "nondeterministic finite automaton" has
> no meaning outside CS.

CS, in this context, is not a belief system, but a formalism. Only 
within that formalism can those terms have meaning - but there's nothing 
you have to believe in, in order to understand that meaning. You just 
have to know what the fundamental terms mean, so you have the right 
context to understand the derived terms.

> I know what that refers to because I'm able to put myself
> into that scope.

You should also be able to put yourself in the scope of understanding 
the meaning of religious beliefs that you don't share, despite the fact 
that you don't share them.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#7289

["Followup-To:" header set to comp.programming.]
On 2017-01-08, James R. Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> wrote:
> On 01/07/2017 05:57 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>> On 2017-01-07, Caver1 <caver1@inthemud.org> wrote:
>>> On 01/04/2017 04:32 PM, Mark Lloyd wrote:
>>>> On 01/04/2017 11:34 AM, James R. Kuyper wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> As an
>>>>> atheist, I certainly deny that Christ was divine, or even divinely
>>>>> inspired.
>>>>
>>>> I don't deny that Christ was divine. I can't, considering that both
>>>> "Christ" and "divine" are only religious words which have no meaning
>>>> outside that belief system. The words would have to MEAN SOMETHING for
>>>> that to be denied.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Just because you don't believe in the concepts that they
>>> refer to doesn't mean they have no meaning.
>>> You know exactly what they refer to so they even have
>>> meaning to you.
>>
>> "outside that belief system"
>
> Noted, and rejected: you don't have to share someone's belief in 
> something in order to understand the meaning of that belief well enough 
> to say "I don't believe in that". It's not that "Christ" and "divine" 
> don't have meaning to non-believers. They do have a meaning; what they 
> lack, in the opinion of the non-believer, is a referent.

They have a meaning inside the belief system. Thinking inside the
belief system to grok the meaning doesn't require one to be a believer.

>> I know what that refers to because I'm able to put myself
>> into that scope.
>
> You should also be able to put yourself in the scope of understanding 
> the meaning of religious beliefs that you don't share, despite the fact 
> that you don't share them.

Bingo.

However, that meaning consists of connections entirely inside that
system.

The only connection between those words and the real world is that they
are related to certain ritualistic behaviors, and cultural artifacts.

Those connections are self-referential.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#7291

On 01/08/2017 01:16 AM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
> ["Followup-To:" header set to comp.programming.]
> On 2017-01-08, James R. Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> wrote:
>> On 01/07/2017 05:57 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>>> On 2017-01-07, Caver1 <caver1@inthemud.org> wrote:
>>>> On 01/04/2017 04:32 PM, Mark Lloyd wrote:
>>>>> On 01/04/2017 11:34 AM, James R. Kuyper wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> As an
>>>>>> atheist, I certainly deny that Christ was divine, or even divinely
>>>>>> inspired.
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't deny that Christ was divine. I can't, considering that both
>>>>> "Christ" and "divine" are only religious words which have no meaning
>>>>> outside that belief system. The words would have to MEAN SOMETHING for
>>>>> that to be denied.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Just because you don't believe in the concepts that they
>>>> refer to doesn't mean they have no meaning.
>>>> You know exactly what they refer to so they even have
>>>> meaning to you.
>>>
>>> "outside that belief system"
>>
>> Noted, and rejected: you don't have to share someone's belief in
>> something in order to understand the meaning of that belief well enough
>> to say "I don't believe in that". It's not that "Christ" and "divine"
>> don't have meaning to non-believers. They do have a meaning; what they
>> lack, in the opinion of the non-believer, is a referent.
>
> They have a meaning inside the belief system. Thinking inside the
> belief system to grok the meaning doesn't require one to be a believer.
>
>>> I know what that refers to because I'm able to put myself
>>> into that scope.
>>
>> You should also be able to put yourself in the scope of understanding
>> the meaning of religious beliefs that you don't share, despite the fact
>> that you don't share them.
>
> Bingo.
>
> However, that meaning consists of connections entirely inside that
> system.

Not in any of the major world religions: there's innumerable connections 
between their religious beliefs and the real world. In fact, some of 
those religions go to the opposite extreme - what we call reality is 
just an illusion, and it's the supernatural world that's actually real - 
however, even those religions postulate connections between the 
religious "true reality" and the "illusionary" real world.

It's precisely the fact of those connections and the failure of those 
connections to match the way reality works that allows me to say that I 
don't share those beliefs. If they were just making claims with no 
connection to reality, I couldn't justify rejecting those claims.

> The only connection between those words and the real world is that they
> are related to certain ritualistic behaviors, and cultural artifacts.
>
> Those connections are self-referential.

Many ordinary Believers treat their Beliefs that way: there's the real 
world, and the supernatural world. They profess a belief in both, but 
while they might claim otherwise, for all practical purposes they act as 
if the supernatural world has no relevance to the real world - except to 
provide a justification for hating those who have different beliefs 
about the supernatural world. But that's not the religion as actually 
taught by most religious leaders. There's a lot of religious leaders out 
there, and I can't claim to know what all of them teach. I wouldn't be 
surprised to find one who does in fact teach something like that - but 
it's not the usual case.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#7239

On 01/02/2017 01:46 PM, Mark Storkamp wrote:
> In article <g9faA.342110$dF2.340169@fx44.iad>,
>  Mark Lloyd <not@mail.invalid> wrote:
>
>
>> ** - I try to use CE / BCE instead of AD / BC. The numbers are the same,
>> and it avoids a particular assumption.
>>
>> [snip]
>
> And it's easy to remember too. Christian Era and Before Christian Era.
>

I've also heard Common Era, although I'm not sure what that means.

-- 
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.us/

"Definitions are the guardians of rationality, the first line of defense
against the chaos of mental disintegration." Ayn Rand

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#7248

On Mon, 02 Jan 2017 19:46:04 -0000, Mark Storkamp <mstorkamp@yahoo.com> wrote:

> In article <g9faA.342110$dF2.340169@fx44.iad>,
>  Mark Lloyd <not@mail.invalid> wrote:
>
>
>> ** - I try to use CE / BCE instead of AD / BC. The numbers are the same,
>> and it avoids a particular assumption.
>>
>> [snip]
>
> And it's easy to remember too. Christian Era and Before Christian Era.

It's just a fucking label.  Everyone knows what it means, and nobody assumes you're a religious nut for using it.

-- 
The success of the "Wonder Bra" for under-endowed women has encouraged the designers to come out with a bra for over-endowed women.
It's called the "Sheep Dog Bra"- it rounds them up and points them in the right direction.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#7219

Mark Lloyd <not@mail.invalid> wrote:

> On 12/30/2016 04:37 PM, Keith Thompson wrote:
> 
> > The time is stored in a time_t value returned by the time()
> > function.  The time_t type is required to be a real type (integer
> > or floating-point, not complex) capable of representing times.
> > (On many systems it's a signed integer representing seconds since
> > 1970-01-01 00:00:00 UTC.)
> 
> Used to be 32-bit, why I thought Y2K was going to be much less of a 
> problem than Y2.038K (Jan 17 2038 IIRC).

That's U*x, not C. Despite what some anarcho-politically motivated
sources may tell you, they're not the same, and except for a very few
months in their very beginnings, never have been.

Richard

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#7208

On 12/30/2016 04:37 PM, Keith Thompson wrote:

[snip]

> That depends on how Javascript, or the code your web page is running,
> handles leap seconds.
>

I did make a little change yesterday, to limit the Javascript 
Date.getSeconds() and Date.getUTCSeconds() function return value to 59, 
since the analog clock can't display properly (since it uses an angle 60 
= 0). That is, I have it show 23:59:60 as 23:59:59 rather than 23:59:00.

-- 
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.us/

"Call on God, but row away from the rocks." [Indian proverb]

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#7211

On Thu, 22 Dec 2016 13:43:58 -0000, Mr. Man-wai Chang <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> wrote:

> 'Leap Second' to Be Added on New Year's Eve This Year
>
> Full story: <http://www.space.com/33361-leap-second-2016-atomic-clocks.html>
>
>   Revelers will get to celebrate New Year's Eve for a tiny bit longer
> than usual this year.
>
> A "leap second" will be added to the world's official clocks on Dec. 31
> at 23 hours, 59 minutes and 59 seconds Coordinated Universal Time (UTC),
> which corresponds to 6:59:59 p.m. EST; the clocks will read 23:59:60
> before ticking over to midnight. The goal is to keep two different
> timescales in sync with each other.
>
> The units of time had long been defined based on Earth's rotation
> relative to distant celestial bodies. But that changed with the
> invention of atomic clocks in the mid-20th century; scientists then
> decided to base the second on the natural vibrations of the cesium atom.
> [How to Build the Most Accurate Atomic Clocks (Video)]
>
> These two timescales don't match up exactly, however. Measurements show
> that, because the moon's gravitational pull and other factors are
> gradually slowing Earth's spin, the rotation-based scale loses between
> 1.5 and 2 milliseconds per day compared to atomic time — meaning the two
> diverge by a full second every 500 to 750 days.
>
> Leap seconds are a way to make up for this difference. Since 1972, the
> International Earth Rotation and Reference Systems Service (IERS) — the
> organization that keeps track of time for the world — has added 26 leap
> seconds to atomic clocks, with the last such insertion coming on June
> 30, 2015.
>
>   The aim is to keep the two timescales within 0.9 seconds of each other.
>
> "We can easily change the time of an atomic clock, but it is not
> possible to alter the Earth's rotational speed to match the atomic
> clocks," officials with the U.S. Naval Observatory (USNO), which
> maintains the Department of Defense's master clock, noted — wryly, it
> would seem — in a statement today (July 6).
>
> While Earth's rotation rate is slowing, the effect is quite subtle.
>
> "Confusion sometimes arises over the misconception that the occasional
> insertion of leap seconds every few years indicates that the Earth
> should stop rotating within a few millennia," USNO officials wrote.
> "This is because some [people] mistake leap seconds to be a measure of
> the rate at which the Earth is slowing. The 1-second increments are,
> however, indications of the accumulated difference in time between the
> two systems."
>
> When leap seconds are added, they are always inserted on June 30 or Dec.
> 31 of a particular year. In 1972, IERS officials called for a leap
> second to be inserted on both dates.

I wish they'd turn their attentions to not turning the clocks back and forth all the fucking time!


-- 
I was doing some remolishments to my house the other day and accidentally defurbished it.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#7249

On 12/31/2016 04:57 PM, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Dec 2016 13:43:58 -0000, Mr. Man-wai Chang <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> wrote:
...
>> A "leap second" will be added to the world's official clocks on Dec. 31
>> at 23 hours, 59 minutes and 59 seconds Coordinated Universal Time (UTC),
>> which corresponds to 6:59:59 p.m. EST; the clocks will read 23:59:60
>> before ticking over to midnight. The goal is to keep two different
>> timescales in sync with each other.
>>
>> The units of time had long been defined based on Earth's rotation
>> relative to distant celestial bodies. But that changed with the
>> invention of atomic clocks in the mid-20th century; scientists then
>> decided to base the second on the natural vibrations of the cesium atom.
>> [How to Build the Most Accurate Atomic Clocks (Video)]
>>
>> These two timescales don't match up exactly, however. Measurements show
>> that, because the moon's gravitational pull and other factors are
>> gradually slowing Earth's spin, the rotation-based scale loses between
>> 1.5 and 2 milliseconds per day compared to atomic time — meaning the two
>> diverge by a full second every 500 to 750 days.
>>
>> Leap seconds are a way to make up for this difference. Since 1972, the
>> International Earth Rotation and Reference Systems Service (IERS) — the

That name always struck me as rather funny - it seems to imply that 
they're responsible for making the Earth rotate. What they're actually 
responsible for is keeping track of the Earth's rotation.

>> organization that keeps track of time for the world — has added 26 leap
>> seconds to atomic clocks, with the last such insertion coming on June
>> 30, 2015.
>>
>>   The aim is to keep the two timescales within 0.9 seconds of each other.
...
> I wish they'd turn their attentions to not turning the clocks back and forth all the fucking time!

If you could make the Earth rotate at a fixed rate, there would be no 
need for leap seconds. It's perfect feasible, though the costs would be 
astronomical. Would you care to pay enough in taxes to make that happen?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#7252

On Wed, 04 Jan 2017 01:06:06 -0000, James R. Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> wrote:

> On 12/31/2016 04:57 PM, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
>> On Thu, 22 Dec 2016 13:43:58 -0000, Mr. Man-wai Chang <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> wrote:
> ...
>>> A "leap second" will be added to the world's official clocks on Dec. 31
>>> at 23 hours, 59 minutes and 59 seconds Coordinated Universal Time (UTC),
>>> which corresponds to 6:59:59 p.m. EST; the clocks will read 23:59:60
>>> before ticking over to midnight. The goal is to keep two different
>>> timescales in sync with each other.
>>>
>>> The units of time had long been defined based on Earth's rotation
>>> relative to distant celestial bodies. But that changed with the
>>> invention of atomic clocks in the mid-20th century; scientists then
>>> decided to base the second on the natural vibrations of the cesium atom.
>>> [How to Build the Most Accurate Atomic Clocks (Video)]
>>>
>>> These two timescales don't match up exactly, however. Measurements show
>>> that, because the moon's gravitational pull and other factors are
>>> gradually slowing Earth's spin, the rotation-based scale loses between
>>> 1.5 and 2 milliseconds per day compared to atomic time — meaning the two
>>> diverge by a full second every 500 to 750 days.
>>>
>>> Leap seconds are a way to make up for this difference. Since 1972, the
>>> International Earth Rotation and Reference Systems Service (IERS) — the
>
> That name always struck me as rather funny - it seems to imply that
> they're responsible for making the Earth rotate. What they're actually
> responsible for is keeping track of the Earth's rotation.

I am now imagining someone turning an ignition key and cursing.

>>> organization that keeps track of time for the world — has added 26 leap
>>> seconds to atomic clocks, with the last such insertion coming on June
>>> 30, 2015.
>>>
>>>   The aim is to keep the two timescales within 0.9 seconds of each other.
> ...
>> I wish they'd turn their attentions to not turning the clocks back and forth all the fucking time!
>
> If you could make the Earth rotate at a fixed rate, there would be no
> need for leap seconds. It's perfect feasible, though the costs would be
> astronomical. Would you care to pay enough in taxes to make that happen?

Rotation rate is nothing to do with DST.

-- 
Hard work pays off in the future. Laziness pays off now.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#7256

On 01/04/2017 10:44 AM, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
> On Wed, 04 Jan 2017 01:06:06 -0000, James R. Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>> On 12/31/2016 04:57 PM, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
>>> On Thu, 22 Dec 2016 13:43:58 -0000, Mr. Man-wai Chang <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> wrote:
>> ...
...
>>>> Leap seconds are a way to make up for this difference. Since 1972, the
>>>> International Earth Rotation and Reference Systems Service (IERS) — the
>>
>> That name always struck me as rather funny - it seems to imply that
>> they're responsible for making the Earth rotate. What they're actually
>> responsible for is keeping track of the Earth's rotation.
>
> I am now imagining someone turning an ignition key and cursing.

I was imagining a giant hand crank. :-)

>>>> organization that keeps track of time for the world — has added 26 leap
>>>> seconds to atomic clocks, with the last such insertion coming on June
>>>> 30, 2015.
>>>>
>>>>   The aim is to keep the two timescales within 0.9 seconds of each other.
>> ...
>>> I wish they'd turn their attentions to not turning the clocks back and forth all the fucking time!
>>
>> If you could make the Earth rotate at a fixed rate, there would be no
>> need for leap seconds. It's perfect feasible, though the costs would be
>> astronomical. Would you care to pay enough in taxes to make that happen?
>
> Rotation rate is nothing to do with DST.

And neither does IERS. I assumed that he was talking about leap seconds, 
thought DST also fits his complaint.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#7257

On Wed, 04 Jan 2017 19:11:30 -0000, James R. Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> wrote:

> On 01/04/2017 10:44 AM, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
>> On Wed, 04 Jan 2017 01:06:06 -0000, James R. Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On 12/31/2016 04:57 PM, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 22 Dec 2016 13:43:58 -0000, Mr. Man-wai Chang <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> ...
> ...
>>>>> Leap seconds are a way to make up for this difference. Since 1972, the
>>>>> International Earth Rotation and Reference Systems Service (IERS) — the
>>>
>>> That name always struck me as rather funny - it seems to imply that
>>> they're responsible for making the Earth rotate. What they're actually
>>> responsible for is keeping track of the Earth's rotation.
>>
>> I am now imagining someone turning an ignition key and cursing.
>
> I was imagining a giant hand crank. :-)

You must be older than me.

>>>>> organization that keeps track of time for the world — has added 26 leap
>>>>> seconds to atomic clocks, with the last such insertion coming on June
>>>>> 30, 2015.
>>>>>
>>>>>   The aim is to keep the two timescales within 0.9 seconds of each other.
>>> ...
>>>> I wish they'd turn their attentions to not turning the clocks back and forth all the fucking time!
>>>
>>> If you could make the Earth rotate at a fixed rate, there would be no
>>> need for leap seconds. It's perfect feasible, though the costs would be
>>> astronomical. Would you care to pay enough in taxes to make that happen?
>>
>> Rotation rate is nothing to do with DST.
>
> And neither does IERS. I assumed that he was talking about leap seconds,
> thought DST also fits his complaint.

-- 
Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus, Managers are from Uranus.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#7253

On 04/01/17 01:06, James R. Kuyper wrote:
> On 12/31/2016 04:57 PM, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
>> On Thu, 22 Dec 2016 13:43:58 -0000, Mr. Man-wai Chang
>> <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> wrote:
> ...
>>> A "leap second" will be added to the world's official clocks on Dec. 31
>>> at 23 hours, 59 minutes and 59 seconds Coordinated Universal Time (UTC),
>>> which corresponds to 6:59:59 p.m. EST; the clocks will read 23:59:60
>>> before ticking over to midnight. The goal is to keep two different
>>> timescales in sync with each other.
>>>
>>> The units of time had long been defined based on Earth's rotation
>>> relative to distant celestial bodies. But that changed with the
>>> invention of atomic clocks in the mid-20th century; scientists then
>>> decided to base the second on the natural vibrations of the cesium atom.
>>> [How to Build the Most Accurate Atomic Clocks (Video)]
>>>
>>> These two timescales don't match up exactly, however. Measurements show
>>> that, because the moon's gravitational pull and other factors are
>>> gradually slowing Earth's spin, the rotation-based scale loses between
>>> 1.5 and 2 milliseconds per day compared to atomic time — meaning the two
>>> diverge by a full second every 500 to 750 days.
>>>
>>> Leap seconds are a way to make up for this difference. Since 1972, the
>>> International Earth Rotation and Reference Systems Service (IERS) — the
>
> That name always struck me as rather funny - it seems to imply that
> they're responsible for making the Earth rotate. What they're actually
> responsible for is keeping track of the Earth's rotation.
>
>>> organization that keeps track of time for the world — has added 26 leap
>>> seconds to atomic clocks, with the last such insertion coming on June
>>> 30, 2015.
>>>
>>>   The aim is to keep the two timescales within 0.9 seconds of each
>>> other.
> ...
>> I wish they'd turn their attentions to not turning the clocks back and
>> forth all the fucking time!
>
> If you could make the Earth rotate at a fixed rate, there would be no
> need for leap seconds. It's perfect feasible, though the costs would be
> astronomical. Would you care to pay enough in taxes to make that happen?


You missed his point. He's not talking about leap seconds now, but about 
Daylight Saving Time. He thinks it's stupid that we keep putting our 
clocks forward an hour in the spring and an hour back in the evening --- 
and he's right. Those who are familiar with his output should not be 
/too/ surprised that he's right --- even a stopped clock can be right 
twice a day.


-- 
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#7258

On Wed, 04 Jan 2017 16:17:12 -0000, Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> wrote:

> On 04/01/17 01:06, James R. Kuyper wrote:
>> On 12/31/2016 04:57 PM, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
>>> On Thu, 22 Dec 2016 13:43:58 -0000, Mr. Man-wai Chang
>>> <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> wrote:
>> ...
>>>> A "leap second" will be added to the world's official clocks on Dec. 31
>>>> at 23 hours, 59 minutes and 59 seconds Coordinated Universal Time (UTC),
>>>> which corresponds to 6:59:59 p.m. EST; the clocks will read 23:59:60
>>>> before ticking over to midnight. The goal is to keep two different
>>>> timescales in sync with each other.
>>>>
>>>> The units of time had long been defined based on Earth's rotation
>>>> relative to distant celestial bodies. But that changed with the
>>>> invention of atomic clocks in the mid-20th century; scientists then
>>>> decided to base the second on the natural vibrations of the cesium atom.
>>>> [How to Build the Most Accurate Atomic Clocks (Video)]
>>>>
>>>> These two timescales don't match up exactly, however. Measurements show
>>>> that, because the moon's gravitational pull and other factors are
>>>> gradually slowing Earth's spin, the rotation-based scale loses between
>>>> 1.5 and 2 milliseconds per day compared to atomic time — meaning the two
>>>> diverge by a full second every 500 to 750 days.
>>>>
>>>> Leap seconds are a way to make up for this difference. Since 1972, the
>>>> International Earth Rotation and Reference Systems Service (IERS) — the
>>
>> That name always struck me as rather funny - it seems to imply that
>> they're responsible for making the Earth rotate. What they're actually
>> responsible for is keeping track of the Earth's rotation.
>>
>>>> organization that keeps track of time for the world — has added 26 leap
>>>> seconds to atomic clocks, with the last such insertion coming on June
>>>> 30, 2015.
>>>>
>>>>   The aim is to keep the two timescales within 0.9 seconds of each
>>>> other.
>> ...
>>> I wish they'd turn their attentions to not turning the clocks back and
>>> forth all the fucking time!
>>
>> If you could make the Earth rotate at a fixed rate, there would be no
>> need for leap seconds. It's perfect feasible, though the costs would be
>> astronomical. Would you care to pay enough in taxes to make that happen?
>
>
> You missed his point. He's not talking about leap seconds now, but about
> Daylight Saving Time. He thinks it's stupid that we keep putting our
> clocks forward an hour in the spring and an hour back in the evening ---
> and he's right. Those who are familiar with his output should not be
> /too/ surprised that he's right --- even a stopped clock can be right
> twice a day.

Also, I've yet to see a reason why we can't just live with being 1 second different to sunrise....

-- 
Do infants have as much fun in their infancy as adults do in adultery?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#7267

"James Wilkinson Sword" wrote:

>Also, I've yet to see a reason why we can't just live with being 1 second 
>different to sunrise....

I think we can.  But since there is more than a minutes error accumulated 
during a person's lifetime, I am glad someone is doing this.

I am fascinated by the fact that they *can* do this. I would assume that 
this requires rough agreement (a few milliseconds difference) between 
measurements made at  different observatories.  These are on different 
plates of this earth, and these plates are drifting, earthquakes are moving 
the observatories, and so on. .

GPS is not an answer, it intrinsically has the same problems. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 4 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.programming

csiph-web