Decimal versus binary arithmetic was Re: J4 - presentation/discussion on "Future of the COBOL Standard"
in [Cobol]
|
Prev: Printing from M/F COBOL
Next: Packed decimal versus binary was Re: J4 - presentation/discussion on "Future of the COBOL Standard"
From: Robert on 9 Apr 2008 20:54 On Wed, 09 Apr 2008 07:53:32 -0600, Howard Brazee <howard(a)brazee.net> wrote: >On Tue, 08 Apr 2008 20:39:22 -0500, Robert <no(a)e.mail> wrote: > >>Defensive workers initially love people who KNOW they're right, because they think the >>person will self-destruct. For example, when he says he can rewrite that 16 hour job to >>run in 30 minutes, they happily assign it to him and tell the manager it will soon run >>like lightning. > >I haven't worked with people like that. > >>They stop loving him when they recieve an email apologizing for the estimation error, >>announcing it runs in 10 minutes, as evidenced by the attached log. When the manager asks >>what technical trick did the magic, the answer is he removed technical tricks others had >>tried, then rewrote the convoluted logic the way is should have been written. > >Making things work right is popular - at least when the person doing >so doesn't try hard to make others look bad. It doesn't matter what the person says, they think the FACT makes them look bad. The only way around it would be to lie about the solution. Say you used secret Vulcan military technology unknown to anyone in the Federation. Some managers would know they are being patronized, some think programming is all black art.
From: Robert on 9 Apr 2008 21:00 On Wed, 09 Apr 2008 07:51:19 -0600, Howard Brazee <howard(a)brazee.net> wrote: >On Tue, 08 Apr 2008 20:39:22 -0500, Robert <no(a)e.mail> wrote: > >>>This is the human characteristic that not only is the cause of most >>>wars, but it also gets in the way of progress of all kinds. >> >>No, what gets in the way of progress is lack of leadership with vision. Without a leader, >>workers devolve to maintaining the status quo. A manager who lets them get away with it is >>a bureaucrat, not a leader. > >Oh, there are plenty of leaders who have visions. And when those >visions conflict with reality, reality is ignored. Do you mean the 'reality' that no one would pay $8/gal for drinking water? That people wouldn't replace a $30/mo wireline phone with a $80/mo cell phone? That you can't make money providing free web searches? That people won't pay for TV when they can get it free?
From: Richard on 9 Apr 2008 21:45 On Apr 10, 12:19 pm, Robert <n...(a)e.mail> wrote: > On Tue, 8 Apr 2008 21:41:10 -0700 (PDT), Richard <rip...(a)azonic.co.nz> wrote: > >On Apr 9, 3:05 pm, Robert <n...(a)e.mail> wrote: > >> On Mon, 7 Apr 2008 22:09:08 -0700 (PDT), Richard <rip...(a)azonic.co.nz> wrote: > >> >On Apr 5, 3:19 pm, Robert <n...(a)e.mail> wrote: > >> >> As a point of interest, if you are standing within 6 km of either pole, you > >> >> will actually see the sun rise in the west .. once per year. > > >> >You seem to have a strange idea about what one sees when within the > >> >polar areas. > > >> Applying an adjective such as strange without elaboration does not establish the validity > >> of that adjective. > > >> The Earth rotates counter-clockwise, viewed from the north. That's why the sun rises in > >> the east in most places. The Earth orbits the sun clockwise. Close to the poles, > >> rotational effects become insignificant. The Earth's orbit and 22 degree tilt causes > >> sunrise at the poles. That's why the sun rises in the west there. > > >That is exactly the sort of 'strange idea' that you seem to have. In > >fact it is completely wrong headed nonsense. > > >Close to the poles the 'rotational effect' is exactly the same as > >anywhere else: the sun moves at 15 degrees per hour across the sky. It > >happens that at the poles for many months that movement across the sky > >is entirely below the horizon and for many other months it is entirely > >above the horizon. > > >At some point near the equinox the sun is circling only just below the > >horizon and it completes the circle in 24 hours, at some point it will > >become fractionally visible as a 'sunrise' and this can occur at any > >point on the horizon depending on the relationship between earth's > >orbit and rotation and the height of the observer. > > >Your claim that it 'rises in the west' may be true for one observer > >one year but false for another some short distance away or standing at > >a different height. It will also vary each year. > > >If two observers both see the sun's first glimpse at the same time > >they may be on different sides of the pole. One would see it 'in the > >west' and the other 'in the east'. Or possibly 'in the north' and 'in > >the south'. > > >6 hours later the sun is at a different point of the horizon 90 > >degrees away and another observer may see it for the first time. > > >The sun may also dip back and 24 hours later 'rise' again in a > >somewhat different place and for a slightly longer time while it > >travels along the horizon. > > After giving this some thought, I concede you are right. Perhaps these thoughts will shed > more light on the answer. Or less. > The key concept is that the number days in a year is not an integer. There are ~365.24 > days in a year. Suppose on year one the sun rises at the north pole March 21 (vernal > equinox) on a meridian (line of longitude) that goes through Greenwich, England. On year > two, it will rise six hours later, on a meridian that goes through the US. On year 3, it > will rise on the international date line. On year 4, it will rise on a meridian that goes > through Asia. On year 5, it will rise again almost, but not exactly, on the Greenwich > meridian. That is one of the effects that I had as 'the relationship between earth's orbit and rotation', yes. The actual position of seeing the sunrise also depends on the configuration of the horizon (especially at the South Pole), the height of the observer and refraction. > The second concept is the definition of east and west. Conventionally, it is relative to > the observer. That is meaningless at the north pole, where the only direction is south. Actually your original was 'within 6 km of either pole'. At this distance there is an actual east and west as well as a north and south. The direction of the sunrise will be 'south' if you are where the pole is between you and the sun, or east or west if you are one side or the other. > An > alternative definition is the (Anglo-centric) one of relative to Greenwich, England. If > the sun rises on a US meridian, it can be said to 'rise in the west'; on an Asian > meridian, it 'rises in the east'. What about the other two? Common sense says that if > you're facing north, east is on your right. Thus, the international date line is north and > the Greenwich meridian is south. Attempting to claim that it will rise on a particular meridian is pointless because it depends on observer height as well as which year it is. Apart from that, your attempted rationalization is nonsense. While the terms 'eastern hemisphere' and 'western hemisphere' are well understood, so are the 'northern' and 'southern', but not as you attempt to redefine them. > I disagree with your assertion that the sun can rise, dip below the horizon, then rise > again the next day. There are three wobbles in the Earth's orbit, called Milancovitch > cycles, whose periods range from 20,000 to 100,000 years. The Earth doesn't wobble and > reverse in one day. This depends on how far from the actual axis you actually are and the configuration of the horizon. The sun 'rises' at about 15 minutes of arc per day which means that it takes over 2 days to go from first sight to fully visible as it moves around the horizon. It also means that your 'within 6 km' makes a difference of some hours and will give enough difference to the horizon to make the effect I described. > This explanation is from my original thoughts, not gleaned from any website. Which shows the limitations of unsupported thoughts.
From: Howard Brazee on 10 Apr 2008 09:36 On Wed, 09 Apr 2008 20:00:40 -0500, Robert <no(a)e.mail> wrote: >>Oh, there are plenty of leaders who have visions. And when those >>visions conflict with reality, reality is ignored. > >Do you mean the 'reality' that no one would pay $8/gal for drinking water? That people >wouldn't replace a $30/mo wireline phone with a $80/mo cell phone? That you can't make >money providing free web searches? That people won't pay for TV when they can get it free? No. But people on both sides of most wars have "vision". Vision is not sufficient.
From: Howard Brazee on 10 Apr 2008 10:53
On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 07:36:17 -0600, Howard Brazee <howard(a)brazee.net> wrote: >No. But people on both sides of most wars have "vision". > >Vision is not sufficient. I expect the Republicans will recognize this during the presidential election this year. Leadership without vision is probably worse. (At least get an idea of where we should be after we take the journey - and what we will do then). |