Leap years, yet again
Bo Lindbergh
March 1 and everyone else a happy February 29.
If you weren't around in May 1997 or if you've succeeded in repressing the
memory of that long and pointless thread, you can check out the cause at
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=239142250
/Bo Lindbergh (see X-From header field)
Marco S Hyman
> Since today is Wagonersday, I'd like to wish Shannon Wagoner a happy
> March 1 and everyone else a happy February 29.
Heh... I didn't remember the name, having successfully blocked that
memory, but remember the thread quite well. In hindsight I think
it was one of the better trolls... Damn good bait.
// marc
gr...@apple2.com
d88...@bitbucket.nada.kth.se.invalid (Bo Lindbergh) wrote:
> Since today is Wagonersday, I'd like to wish Shannon Wagoner a happy
> March 1 and everyone else a happy February 29.
I wonder if it is Tuesday or Wednesday in her world.
--
-- --- <gr...@apple2.com>
-- -- -- ------------------------------------------------------------------
-- -- --- <http://www.war-of-the-worlds.org/>
---
John Winters
Bo Lindbergh <d88...@bitbucket.nada.kth.se.invalid> wrote:
>Since today is Wagonersday, I'd like to wish Shannon Wagoner a happy
>March 1 and everyone else a happy February 29.
>
>memory of that long and pointless thread, you can check out the cause at
>http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=239142250
I went to have a look and was surprised to find I actually contributed
to the thread. Some sort of defence mechanism had obviously blocked
it out of my memory.
Perhaps we should all e-mail Shannon and say "Have a nice day"?
John
--
John Winters. Wallingford, Oxon, England.
The Linux Emporium - the source for Linux CDs in the UK
See http://www.linuxemporium.co.uk/
Charlie Gibbs
(Marco S Hyman) writes:
>d88...@bitbucket.nada.kth.se.invalid (Bo Lindbergh) writes:
>
>> Since today is Wagonersday, I'd like to wish Shannon Wagoner a happy
>> March 1 and everyone else a happy February 29.
>
>Heh... I didn't remember the name, having successfully blocked that
>memory, but remember the thread quite well. In hindsight I think
>it was one of the better trolls... Damn good bait.
The ironic thing is that a lot of our SCO 3.2v4.2 sites think
today is March 1. Prior to applying SCO's Y2K patch (which
apparently updated run-time libraries too), the localtime()
function also had the Wagoner bug. We're currently very busy
sending out updates...
--
cgi...@sky.bus.com (Charlie Gibbs)
Remove the first period after the "at" sign to reply.
Brian Inglis
Winters) wrote:
>In article <89gh7f$7kd$1...@news.su.se>,
>Bo Lindbergh <d88...@bitbucket.nada.kth.se.invalid> wrote:
>>Since today is Wagonersday, I'd like to wish Shannon Wagoner a happy
>>March 1 and everyone else a happy February 29.
>>
>>If you weren't around in May 1997 or if you've succeeded in repressing the
>>memory of that long and pointless thread, you can check out the cause at
>>http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=239142250
>
>I went to have a look and was surprised to find I actually contributed
>to the thread. Some sort of defence mechanism had obviously blocked
>it out of my memory.
>
>Perhaps we should all e-mail Shannon and say "Have a nice day"?
>
>John
I should email the manager of the Y2K project I was on last year!
No wonder they needed to do the project. Sheesh! I've been coding
that rule for over 25 years.
Thanks. Take care, Brian Inglis Calgary, Alberta, Canada
--
Brian_...@CSi.com (Brian dot Inglis at SystematicSw dot ab dot ca)
use address above to reply
gr...@apple2.com
"Charlie Gibbs" <cgi...@sky.bus.com> wrote:
> The ironic thing is that a lot of our SCO 3.2v4.2 sites think
> today is March 1. Prior to applying SCO's Y2K patch (which
> apparently updated run-time libraries too), the localtime()
> function also had the Wagoner bug. We're currently very busy
> sending out updates...
I got caught by my own watch which has no concept of the year at all and
thus gains a full day every 4 years (presuming it will cease to function
before 2100 -- the "mode" button barely works anymore).
Mike Swaim
> In article <822.94T27...@sky.bus.com>,
> "Charlie Gibbs" <cgi...@sky.bus.com> wrote:
>> The ironic thing is that a lot of our SCO 3.2v4.2 sites think
>> today is March 1. Prior to applying SCO's Y2K patch (which
>> apparently updated run-time libraries too), the localtime()
>> function also had the Wagoner bug. We're currently very busy
>> sending out updates...
> I got caught by my own watch which has no concept of the year at all and
> thus gains a full day every 4 years (presuming it will cease to function
> before 2100 -- the "mode" button barely works anymore).
My watch has no concept of which month it is and thought today was the
30th.
--
Mike Swaim, Avatar of Chaos: Disclaimer:I sometimes lie.
Home: swaim at nol * net Quote: "Boingie"^4 Y,W&D
bme...@cs.monash.edu.au
>d88...@bitbucket.nada.kth.se.invalid (Bo Lindbergh) writes:
>> Since today is Wagonersday, I'd like to wish Shannon Wagoner a happy
>> March 1 and everyone else a happy February 29.
>Heh... I didn't remember the name, having successfully blocked that
>memory, but remember the thread quite well. In hindsight I think
>it was one of the better trolls... Damn good bait.
ARGH! Remember his/her "proof" for why 2000 *is not* a leap year?
Bernie
--
Thou wilt show my head to the people: it is worth showing
Georges Jacques Danton
French revolutionary
To his executioner, 5 April 1794
Eric Chomko
[...]
: >
: >I went to have a look and was surprised to find I actually contributed
: >to the thread. Some sort of defence mechanism had obviously blocked
: >it out of my memory.
: >
: >Perhaps we should all e-mail Shannon and say "Have a nice day"?
: >
: >John
: I should email the manager of the Y2K project I was on last year!
: No wonder they needed to do the project. Sheesh! I've been coding
: that rule for over 25 years.
Everone has beaten it to death. One just needs to remember that in a 400
year period that 97 leap years are needed to keep the calendar straight
with the earths movement.
But for the REAL prize when does the the 97 leap years in a 400 year
period require yet another adjustment? IOW, if a day is needed every 4
years, but after 400 years 3 days need to be subtracted, when do we need
to add in another day to compensate for the inaccuracy of the 400 year
rule?
Eric
Howard S Shubs
<cho...@IDT.NET> wrote:
>But for the REAL prize when does the the 97 leap years in a 400 year
>period require yet another adjustment? IOW, if a day is needed every 4
>years, but after 400 years 3 days need to be subtracted, when do we need
>to add in another day to compensate for the inaccuracy of the 400 year
>rule?
We'll need that after around 2500 years. It's not exactly our problem.
--
Howard S Shubs, the Denim Adept
Marco S Hyman
> But for the REAL prize when does the the 97 leap years in a 400 year
> period require yet another adjustment? IOW, if a day is needed every 4
> years, but after 400 years 3 days need to be subtracted, when do we need
> to add in another day to compensate for the inaccuracy of the 400 year
> rule?
Seen in a newspaper article earlier this week: years divisible by 4000
are not leap years. True?
// marc
gla...@glass2.lexington.ibm.com
>In article <89gh7f$7kd$1...@news.su.se>,
>d88...@bitbucket.nada.kth.se.invalid (Bo Lindbergh) wrote:
>
>> March 1 and everyone else a happy February 29.
>
>
> -- --- <gr...@apple2.com>
> -- -- -- ------------------------------------------------------------------
> -- -- --- <http://www.war-of-the-worlds.org/>
> ---
Actually, I think it's "his" world.
Dave
P.S. Standard Disclaimer: I work for them, but I don't speak for them.
David Rifkind
Not. Although a 4000-year correction would improve the calendar, and
has been proposed, no official body has actually adopted the rule.
--
"The privileged being which we call human is distinguished from other
animals only by certain double-edged manifestations which in charity we
can only call 'inhuman.'" -- Epiktistes
Johnny Billquist
>
> Marco S Hyman <ma...@snafu.org> writes:
>
> >d88...@bitbucket.nada.kth.se.invalid (Bo Lindbergh) writes:
>
> >> March 1 and everyone else a happy February 29.
>
> >memory, but remember the thread quite well. In hindsight I think
> >it was one of the better trolls... Damn good bait.
>
> ARGH! Remember his/her "proof" for why 2000 *is not* a leap year?
I just read through some of that old discussion, and I must say that
both sides were pretty silly, and both talked by each other.
Johnny
--
Johnny Billquist | johnny.b...@netinsight.net
Net Insight AB | phone: +46 8 685 04 88
Västberga Allé 9 | fax: +46 8 685 04 20
Box 42093 |
SE-126 30 STOCKHOLM, Sweden | http://www.netinsight.net
Eric Chomko
: In article <89jpgv$i...@nnrp3.farm.idt.net>, Eric Chomko
: <cho...@IDT.NET> wrote:
: >But for the REAL prize when does the the 97 leap years in a 400 year
: >period require yet another adjustment? IOW, if a day is needed every 4
: >years, but after 400 years 3 days need to be subtracted, when do we need
: >to add in another day to compensate for the inaccuracy of the 400 year
: >rule?
: We'll need that after around 2500 years. It's not exactly our problem.
Actually, 3333 years hence to be more exact. And it isn't our problem, but
it IS fun to talk about it today. :)
Eric
: --
Eric Chomko
: > But for the REAL prize when does the the 97 leap years in a 400 year
: > period require yet another adjustment? IOW, if a day is needed every 4
: > years, but after 400 years 3 days need to be subtracted, when do we need
: > to add in another day to compensate for the inaccuracy of the 400 year
: > rule?
: Seen in a newspaper article earlier this week: years divisible by 4000
: are not leap years. True?
Well that might handle it. But the first need for it will not be until
5333.
Eric
: // marc
Howard S Shubs
<ma...@snafu.org> wrote:
>Seen in a newspaper article earlier this week: years divisible by 4000
>are not leap years. True?
Proposed.
Keith F. Lynch
David Rifkind <drif...@acm.deleteme.org> wrote:
> Not. Although a 4000-year correction would improve the calendar, and
> has been proposed, no official body has actually adopted the rule.
Is there any official body with authority over the calendar?
There's little point to a more accurate calendar, since the number of
days in a year isn't constant, but is gradually decreasing. By the
time the 4000 year rule took effect once, we'd need to replace it with
a different rule.
There's no great harm in the seasons gradually getting out of sync
with the months. So what if the winter solstice drifts into January
or November in ten thousand years?
The great virtue of our calendar is backwards compatibility. Can you
imagine how much legacy code there will be in 2000 more years? Can
you imagine trying to change all of it?
Our calendar is seriously out of whack with the moon's phases. But
nobody seems to mind. On the other hand, the Moslem's calendar is
in sync with the moon's phases but seriously out of whack with the
seasons. And they don't seem to mind.
--
Keith F. Lynch - k...@radix.net or k...@clark.net - http://www.clark.net/pub/kfl/
I always welcome replies to my e-mail, postings, and web pages, but
unsolicited bulk e-mail sent to thousands of randomly collected
addresses is not acceptable, and I do complain to the spammer's ISP.
Stephen Bodnar
(Keith F. Lynch) wrote:
>In article <DWkv4.461$Ue1....@news.uswest.net>,
>David Rifkind <drif...@acm.deleteme.org> wrote:
>
>There's no great harm in the seasons gradually getting out of sync
>with the months. So what if the winter solstice drifts into January
>or November in ten thousand years?
If global warming continues, then it
won't matter if the summer solstice is in December in the
northern hemisphere, anyways!
(thfic - tongue held firmly in cheek)
Stephen
Howard S Shubs
>Our calendar is seriously out of whack with the moon's phases. But
>nobody seems to mind. On the other hand, the Moslem's calendar is
>in sync with the moon's phases but seriously out of whack with the
>seasons. And they don't seem to mind.
Nah, it's the earth which is out of phase with the moon and the sun.
Samuel W. Heywood
<snip>
> Is there any official body with authority over the calendar?
No, there is not an internationally accepted official body with authority
over the calendar. The calendar one is to accept will depend upon his
religion and nationality. For example, if you are a good Roman Catholic,
you will accept the proclamations of The Vatican on this issue. If you
are a member of the Church of England, or if you are a good Buddist, or
if you are a good Moslem, then you will accept as authoritative whatever
is the official decree of your religion. If you have no religion, or if
you refuse to accept what your government says on this matter, then you
are free to invent your own calendar.
Sam Heywood
-- This mail sent by PC-Pine, v.3.96 for DOS, http://www.washington.edu/pine
Floyd Davidson
>
>I'm not sure what effect it has. But looked at practically, if you
>wanted to fix the calendar by adjusting the day, you'd have to 'unlock'
>the length of the day from the sun. Having Christmas in spring might
>not bother everyone, but having noon after sunset probably would.
I have good reason to believe that Christmas in the spring might
be a lot more of a bother than so called "odd" times for sunset
or sunrise, which I assure you really don't bother people much.
--
Floyd L. Davidson fl...@barrow.com
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)
John Varela
<samuel_...@subdimension.com> wrote:
> On 4 Mar 2000, Keith F. Lynch wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > Is there any official body with authority over the calendar?
>
> No, there is not an internationally accepted official body with authority
> over the calendar. The calendar one is to accept will depend upon his
> religion and nationality. For example, if you are a good Roman Catholic,
> you will accept the proclamations of The Vatican on this issue. If you
> are a member of the Church of England, or if you are a good Buddist, or
> if you are a good Moslem, then you will accept as authoritative whatever
> is the official decree of your religion. If you have no religion, or if
> you refuse to accept what your government says on this matter, then you
> are free to invent your own calendar.
True. Similar considerations govern whether you think the week starts
on Sunday or on Monday.
--
John Varela
jvarela at mindspring dot com
Don Stokes
Bearing in mind of course that if you choose the former, not turning up
to work on Friday might be a career limiting move...
-- don
Jacqui or (maybe) Pete
Rifkind) wrote:
>On 01 Mar 2000 17:40:02 -0800, Marco S Hyman wrote:
>>Eric Chomko <cho...@IDT.NET> writes:
>>
>>> But for the REAL prize when does the the 97 leap years in a 400 year
>>> period require yet another adjustment? IOW, if a day is needed every 4
>>> years, but after 400 years 3 days need to be subtracted, when do we need
>>> to add in another day to compensate for the inaccuracy of the 400 year
>>> rule?
>>
>>Seen in a newspaper article earlier this week: years divisible by 4000
>>are not leap years. True?
>
>Not. Although a 4000-year correction would improve the calendar, and
>has been proposed, no official body has actually adopted the rule.
Isn't this what leap-seconds are for? Surely it would be possible to
lose the leap-years all together and just make Jan 1st 6-odd hours
longer (giving us all some much-needed extra time in bed)?
David Rifkind
No again. Leap seconds have a different purpose entirely. They keep
the standard day synchronized with the astronomical day, and have
nothing to do with the calendar.
Jacqui or (maybe) Pete
Rifkind) wrote:
...
>>Isn't this what leap-seconds are for? Surely it would be possible to
>>lose the leap-years all together and just make Jan 1st 6-odd hours
>>longer (giving us all some much-needed extra time in bed)?
>
>No again. Leap seconds have a different purpose entirely. They keep
>the standard day synchronized with the astronomical day, and have
>nothing to do with the calendar.
I see.
So although lengthening the day does have an effect on the calendar
it's considered small enough to be ignored?
David Rifkind
I'm not sure what effect it has. But looked at practically, if you
wanted to fix the calendar by adjusting the day, you'd have to 'unlock'
the length of the day from the sun. Having Christmas in spring might
not bother everyone, but having noon after sunset probably would.
--
Derek Peschel
... Except perhaps in Islmic countries. I wonder what work schedule
non-Muslims use in those countries? Or what Muslims do in Christian countries?
Actually, in some fields, insistence on a rigid schedule seems to be less of a
requirement than it used to be. Some people do take Fridays off.
-- Derek
John Winters
Jacqui or (maybe) Pete <p...@gol.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 02 Mar 2000 03:08:19 GMT, drif...@acm.deleteme.org (David
>Rifkind) wrote:
>
>>On 01 Mar 2000 17:40:02 -0800, Marco S Hyman wrote:
>>>Eric Chomko <cho...@IDT.NET> writes:
>>>
>>>> But for the REAL prize when does the the 97 leap years in a 400 year
>>>> period require yet another adjustment? IOW, if a day is needed every 4
>>>> years, but after 400 years 3 days need to be subtracted, when do we need
>>>> to add in another day to compensate for the inaccuracy of the 400 year
>>>> rule?
>>>
>>>Seen in a newspaper article earlier this week: years divisible by 4000
>>>are not leap years. True?
>>
>>Not. Although a 4000-year correction would improve the calendar, and
>>has been proposed, no official body has actually adopted the rule.
>lose the leap-years all together and just make Jan 1st 6-odd hours
>longer (giving us all some much-needed extra time in bed)?
This is a joke isn't it?
John
--
John Winters. Wallingford, Oxon, England.
The Linux Emporium - the source for Linux CDs in the UK
See http://www.linuxemporium.co.uk/
John Varela
wrote:
> Isn't this what leap-seconds are for? Surely it would be possible to
> lose the leap-years all together and just make Jan 1st 6-odd hours
> longer (giving us all some much-needed extra time in bed)?
Adding six hours to one day would just mess up everyone's circadian
rhythms, but adding a half-hour to the first of every other month
(thus adding six hours every year and 24 hours every four years) could
work. Think of all the money to be made selling clocks and watches
that conform to the new system. Microsoft could sell new versions of
Windows and Office for the new calendar. All the Y2K programmers
would be re-employed.
--
John "let's go for it" Varela
Ben Clifford
Derek Peschel <dpes...@sumatra.cs.washington.edu> wrote:
>>Bearing in mind of course that if you choose the former, not turning up
>>to work on Friday might be a career limiting move...
>... Except perhaps in Islmic countries. I wonder what work schedule
>non-Muslims use in those countries? Or what Muslims do in Christian countries?
The American University in Cairo works Sunday-Thursday with Friday and
Saturday as weekend days.
However, they get Islamic holidays, Roman Catholic based Christian holidays,
Orthodox Christian holidays and United States holidays.
So they really don't study much there... :-))
And the Muslims round here (the east end of London) seem to work Monday-Friday
although there is apparently increased mosque activity on Fridays.
Ben
William Hamblen
> So although lengthening the day does have an effect on the calendar
>it's considered small enough to be ignored?
The effect is to change the number of days in a year
slightly. The day lengthens itself, or rather friction from the
lunar and solar tides lengthens the day. The earth is running
down in comparison to the atomic clocks; therefore the leap
seconds to keep UTC in sync with the rotation of the earth.
William Hamblen
>I have good reason to believe that Christmas in the spring might
>be a lot more of a bother than so called "odd" times for sunset
>or sunrise, which I assure you really don't bother people much.
People in the southern hemisphere have Christmas every summer.
Doesn't seem to bother them one bit.
Maurice Fox
<samuel_...@subdimension.com> wrote:
> On 4 Mar 2000, Keith F. Lynch wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > Is there any official body with authority over the calendar?
>
> No, there is not an internationally accepted official body with authority
> over the calendar. The calendar one is to accept will depend upon his
> religion and nationality. For example, if you are a good Roman Catholic,
> you will accept the proclamations of The Vatican on this issue. If you
> are a member of the Church of England, or if you are a good Buddist, or
> if you are a good Moslem, then you will accept as authoritative whatever
> is the official decree of your religion. If you have no religion, or if
> you refuse to accept what your government says on this matter, then you
> are free to invent your own calendar.
Which a lot of folks have done. Years ago I was in grad school and
went to a professor/student cookout somewhere on Foxhall Road in
Washington, DC. The wall of the back yard was a brick, stone, and
concrete depiction of someone's proposed new calendar with uniform
length months and some kind of scheme for catching up with the odd
days at the end of year. Unfortunately, I have lost the address, and
don't have the nerve to walk up Foxhall road making uninvited
inspections of people's back yards.
Maurice Fox
nor...@mech.eng.usyd.edu.au
: drif...@acm.deleteme.org (David Rifkind) wrote:
:>
:>I'm not sure what effect it has. But looked at practically, if you
:>wanted to fix the calendar by adjusting the day, you'd have to 'unlock'
:>the length of the day from the sun. Having Christmas in spring might
:>not bother everyone, but having noon after sunset probably would.
: I have good reason to believe that Christmas in the spring might
: be a lot more of a bother
I have never understood why people would want Christmas in the middle
of winter when the weather is so crap. If you are going to get a two week
stat holiday, isn't better to have it in summer when you can make the best
use of it and go sailing?
: than so called "odd" times for sunset
: or sunrise, which I assure you really don't bother people much.
I know -- people cope so well with the start/end of daylight saving. You
do realise that the circadian rhythm is tuned by feedback from exposure
to light?
So what are your "reasons"?
--
Stuart Norris nor...@mech.eng.usyd.edu.au
Mechanical Engineering,University of Sydney,NSW 2006 wk:+(61 2) 9351-2272
http://flo.mech.eng.usyd.edu.au/norris hm:+(61 2) 9326-5276
John Varela
Clifford) wrote:
> And the Muslims round here (the east end of London) seem to work Monday-Friday
> although there is apparently increased mosque activity on Fridays.
Since Ataturk, the Turks observe the European Saturday-Sunday weekend.
They may be the only Muslim country that does that. Anyway, it
serves as an existence proof that the Friday-Saturday weekend isn't an
absolute requirement in Muslim countries.
--
John Varela
Floyd Davidson
>On Sun, 5 Mar 2000 22:25:48, nor...@mech.eng.usyd.edu.au wrote:
>
>> I have never understood why people would want Christmas in the middle
>> of winter when the weather is so crap. If you are going to get a two week
>> stat holiday, isn't better to have it in summer when you can make the best
>> use of it and go sailing?
>
>all week long. We wouldn't want you working stiffs taking a holiday
>in the middle of the summer and crowding up our golf course. Here in
>Virginia we can usually play golf up until the middle of December,
>just in time to knock off for the Xmas holiday. Let's keep it that
>way.
Don't be paying no never mind to them Aussies. Christmas in the
middle of summer! What can you expect from someone whose whole
world is upside-down...
We're on top of the world here, and Christmas is a big deal in
December. We tend to have lots of outside Christmas light
displays, because with only an hour or two of dim twilight, we
have all day long to look at them. :-)
Floyd
Charles Richmond
>
> On Sun, 05 Mar 2000 04:32:10 GMT, Jacqui or (maybe) Pete wrote:
> >
> > [snip...] [snip...] [snip...]
> >
> > So although lengthening the day does have an effect on the calendar
> >it's considered small enough to be ignored?
>
> wanted to fix the calendar by adjusting the day, you'd have to 'unlock'
> the length of the day from the sun. Having Christmas in spring might
> not bother everyone, but having noon after sunset probably would.
>
Christmas in the summer. And if you say "It will be a cold day
in July before *I* celebrate Christmas in summer!!!"...remember that
in Oz, they already have cold days in July too!!!
--
+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| Charles and Francis Richmond <rich...@plano.net> |
+-------------------------------------------------------------+
Charles Richmond
if he could swipe the idea from you.
Floyd Davidson
>Floyd Davidson (fl...@ptialaska.net) writes:
>>
>> We're on top of the world here, and Christmas is a big deal in
>> December. We tend to have lots of outside Christmas light
>> displays, because with only an hour or two of dim twilight, we
>> have all day long to look at them. :-)
>
> on polar bears any more - they just follow the tracks to those lights.
> Fortunately, all the red bulbs disguise the blood of new Alaskans.
Polar bears really aren't much of a problem. The last couple of
them that grabbed anyone came to grief over it. At one of the
DEWLINE sites a few years ago a bear broke a window and climbed
inside to grab a guy. He was literally biting the guys butt when
another fellow got out a gun an shot the bear dead. (They fired
the guy for having a weapon on site.)
A more recent case happened in a little village west of Barrow.
Seems a young man and his pregnant wife were out partying, and
at 4 AM when they started walking home they ran into a bear.
They man pulled out a pocket knife and told this wife to head
for safety while he distracted the bear. The next day they
found little more than a bloody splotch where that had taken
place... but they found the bear a few hundred feet away,
clearly dead drunk and unable to walk.
John Varela
> I have never understood why people would want Christmas in the middle
> of winter when the weather is so crap. If you are going to get a two week
> stat holiday, isn't better to have it in summer when you can make the best
> use of it and go sailing?
No no no. As it is, we retired guys have the golf course to ourselves
all week long. We wouldn't want you working stiffs taking a holiday
in the middle of the summer and crowding up our golf course. Here in
Virginia we can usually play golf up until the middle of December,
just in time to knock off for the Xmas holiday. Let's keep it that
way.
--
Don Stokes
John Varela <jva...@nospam.com> wrote:
>Since Ataturk, the Turks observe the European Saturday-Sunday weekend.
> They may be the only Muslim country that does that. Anyway, it
>serves as an existence proof that the Friday-Saturday weekend isn't an
>absolute requirement in Muslim countries.
Not a good example. Turkey is constitutionally a secular state, and
quite deliberately Western-leaning in many ways, including the use of
the Roman alphabet (a change from the Ottoman use of a monified Arabic).
-- don
Heinz W. Wiggeshoff
Ariel Scolnicov
> On Sun, 05 Mar 2000 01:27:40 GMT, Don Stokes <d...@news.daedalus.co.nz> wrote:
> >John Varela <jva...@nospam.com> wrote:
> >>On Sun, 5 Mar 2000 04:30:20, "Samuel W. Heywood"
> >><samuel_...@subdimension.com> wrote:
>
> >>> No, there is not an internationally accepted official body with authority
> >>> over the calendar. The calendar one is to accept will depend upon his
> >>> religion and nationality. For example, if you are a good Roman Catholic,
> >>> you will accept the proclamations of The Vatican on this issue. If you
> >>> are a member of the Church of England, or if you are a good Buddist, or
> >>> if you are a good Moslem, then you will accept as authoritative whatever
> >>> is the official decree of your religion. If you have no religion, or if
> >>> you refuse to accept what your government says on this matter, then you
> >>> are free to invent your own calendar.
> >>
> >>True. Similar considerations govern whether you think the week starts
> >>on Sunday or on Monday.
> >
> >Bearing in mind of course that if you choose the former, not turning up
> >to work on Friday might be a career limiting move...
>
> ... Except perhaps in Islmic countries. I wonder what work schedule
> non-Muslims use in those countries? Or what Muslims do in Christian countries?
IINAIC, but we have more Muslims than Christians. When we went to a
5-day week, the weekend became Friday + Saturday. This is also
convenient for orthodox Jews, since Saturday takes some preparing
for. Previously, Friday was half a working day.
(Obviously, Muslima and Christians not working for the government take
their day of rest off; these comments apply mainly to Jewish areas,
and government service in the big cities).
I've no idea what a good solution would be for a Muslim-Christian
country.
--
Ariel Scolnicov
Brian Inglis
>Marco S Hyman <ma...@snafu.org> wrote:
>: Eric Chomko <cho...@IDT.NET> writes:
>
>: > But for the REAL prize when does the the 97 leap years in a 400 year
>: > period require yet another adjustment? IOW, if a day is needed every 4
>: > years, but after 400 years 3 days need to be subtracted, when do we need
>: > to add in another day to compensate for the inaccuracy of the 400 year
>: > rule?
>
>: Seen in a newspaper article earlier this week: years divisible by 4000
>: are not leap years. True?
>
>Well that might handle it. But the first need for it will not be until
>5333.
>
>Eric
>
>: // marc
Shouldn't we add it 1666-7 years after calendar reform to keep
the average error less than 1/2 day, so between 3248 and 3409
would be ideal. Doing so in 3200 and every 3200 years thereafter
would be more accurate than 4000. Hopefully before then, someone
will have come up with a unified secular calendar that also
simplifies the calculation of all religious celebrations of
interest to large segments of the population.
Thanks. Take care, Brian Inglis Calgary, Alberta, Canada
--
Brian_...@CSi.com (Brian dot Inglis at SystematicSw dot ab dot ca)
use address above to reply
gr...@apple2.com
Brian.do...@SystematicSw.ab.ca wrote:
> Shouldn't we add it 1666-7 years after calendar reform to keep
> the average error less than 1/2 day, so between 3248 and 3409
> would be ideal. Doing so in 3200 and every 3200 years thereafter
> would be more accurate than 4000.
Well, there's what's logical and there's what's convenient. They aren't
always the same thing.
--
-- --- <gr...@apple2.com>
-- -- -- ------------------------------------------------------------------
-- -- --- <http://www.war-of-the-worlds.org/>
---
Simo Tuominen
<nor...@mech.eng.usyd.edu.au> wrote in message
news:89umtc$rdo$1...@metro.ucc.usyd.edu.au...
> Floyd Davidson <fl...@ptialaska.net> expounded:
> : drif...@acm.deleteme.org (David Rifkind) wrote:
> :>
you
> :>wanted to fix the calendar by adjusting the day, you'd have to
'unlock'
> :>the length of the day from the sun. Having Christmas in spring
might
> :>not bother everyone, but having noon after sunset probably would.
>
> : be a lot more of a bother
>
middle
> of winter when the weather is so crap. If you are going to get a two
week
They don't. AFAIK it was originally called Saturnalia, and was a Roman
festivity. The name was changed because some Roman emperor got this
idea of "Christianizing" the empire. We're going to have no pagan
holidays, no sirree.
> stat holiday, isn't better to have it in summer when you can make
the best
> use of it and go sailing?
That's what we in .fi have the mid summer's party for. That, drinking,
starting forest firest and some rather more private things. ;)
> : than so called "odd" times for
sunset
> : or sunrise, which I assure you really don't bother people much.
>
> I know -- people cope so well with the start/end of daylight saving.
You
> do realise that the circadian rhythm is tuned by feedback from
exposure
> to light?
That's why I like flextime. I can wake up at 8. 7 is much worse.
Ben Clifford
>I've no idea what a good solution would be for a Muslim-Christian
>country.
Increase the number of rest days and decrease the number of working days.
I believe this was used in the UK in the 1970s (for other reasons).