[lnkForumImage]
TotalShareware - Download Free Software
Confronta i prezzi di migliaia di prodotti.
Asp Forum
 Home | Login | Register | Search 


 

Forums >

comp.lang.ruby

Re: Timezone Adjustment?

Lon Baker

12/1/2004 2:52:00 PM

Thanks for the suggestions and here is what I had come up with.

The time is stored in a datetime field in MySQL. Assuming I stored it
as UTC/GMT, when it is displayed I am simply adjusting it based on the
users preferences, currently these are limited to US timezones.

t = time from database in UTC/GMT

t + Time.zone_offset('PST') #displays Pacific Standard Time
t + Time.zone_offset('MST') #displays Mountain Standard Time
t + Time.zone_offset('CST') #displays Central Standard Time
t + Time.zone_offset('EST') #displays Eastern Standard Time

--
Lon
7 Answers

wy

2/12/2012 10:05:00 PM

0

On Feb 12, 5:00 pm, "Tom Gardner" <kl57...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "wy"  wrote in message
>
> news:77999d3b-7fb0-4550-bcab-8adfe2ce7946@bs8g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
>
> On Feb 11, 1:31 pm, jane <jane.pla...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> How would she have that liberty to take birth control if it's denied
> her by those who believe they have a greater liberty to deny her birth
> control?  Your logic would apply that to any and all groups seeking a
> right of liberty to deny the individual.  So then are you saying you
> believe in liberty of the collective (those who make up the totality
> of a religion) over liberty of the individual (someone like you)?  And
> then, how is birth control even related to religion in any way
> whatsoever?  There's nothing in the bible that prohibits it, so who
> has decided that it should be prohibited, if not God or Jesus?  In
> other words, you're siding with the fallacious thought of the
> collective over the rational thought of the individual.
> _________________________________________________
>
> No one is denying a woman's liberty to use birth control or the abortion
> pill.  She can get those anywhere.  The church believes that it shouldn't be
> complicit by paying for it.  She can buy it on her own.  The argument is
> REALLY about the abortion pill.

"The policy does not cover drugs that cause abortion, such as RU-486."

http://www.truth-out.org/just-facts-churches-and-contraceptive-coverage-mandate/...

So then, what is the real argument about now?

Pepe Le Jew

2/12/2012 10:06:00 PM

0

In article <N7WdnVv-4v7GrKXSnZ2dnUVZ_v2dnZ2d@mchsi.com>,
Bible Studies with Satan <bible@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Pepe Le Jew wrote:
>
> > In article <noOdnRynJJYlt6XSnZ2dnUVZ_o2dnZ2d@mchsi.com>,
> > Bible Studies with Satan <bible@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> jane wrote:
> >>
> >> > On Feb 12, 3:47?pm, Pepe Le Jew <Peps...@zionet.com> wrote:
> >> >> In article <jh96v9$qd...@dont-email.me>, "NotMe" <m...@privacy.net>
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> > BTW Catholic is a sub set of Christianity much of which is totally in
> >> >> > opposition to the Catholic doctrin.
> >> >>
> >> >> So, if the flock is not following the tenets of their faith, that gives
> >> >> government the right to force policies on that church that conflict
> >> >> with
> >> >> the tenets of the faith.
> >> >>
> >> >> It's fun to watch liberals, presumably freeing the oppressed, champion
> >> >> political behavior which historically leads to oppression.
> >> >
> >> > Liberals only support minority rights if that minority votes democrat.
> >>
> >> We support labor rights. If a person is hired to work in a hospital, they
> >> should
> >> get the same national health insurance as other hospitals provide.
> >
> > Unless that would violate the charter of the the institution.
>
> Nope. Sorry, you ccan't write a charter that says you can take LSD and have
> it be magically legal.

The institution is neither compelling nor allowing their employees to do
anything.


The government is compelling the institution to go against their charter,
which is religiously based.

Maybe there are precedents, a Muslim-based institution that must provide
pork, for instance, but I haven't found any.


> > People who apply to work in these institutions are aware of the charter,
> > and what insurance will or will not cover.
>
> We have national health insurance now.
> If you want wingnut health insurance,
> you'll have to move to Somalia!

We do not have "national health insurance", and coverage in question is
through private-sector companies.

Next.

M.I. Wakefield

2/12/2012 10:10:00 PM

0

"Tom Gardner" wrote in message
news:VtSdnYwKgrUWq6XSnZ2dnUVZ_smdnZ2d@giganews.com...

Snip!

> No one is denying a woman's liberty to use birth control or the abortion
> pill. She can get those anywhere. The church believes that it shouldn't
> be complicit by paying for it. She can buy it on her own. The argument
> is REALLY about the abortion pill.

Sorry. Too late to change hills ... you're on the one that says you don't
want women to have access to the birth control pill, and that's just where
Obama wanted you.

Pepe Le Jew

2/12/2012 10:10:00 PM

0

In article
<273272fa-e71f-40e5-b06b-be9d5716b222@e27g2000vbu.googlegroups.com>,
wy <wy_@myself.com> wrote:

> On Feb 12, 3:48?pm, Pepe Le Jew <Peps...@zionet.com> wrote:
> > In article <jh96va$qd...@dont-email.me>, "NotMe" <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
> > > "Pepe Le Jew" <Peps...@zionet.com> wrote in message
> > >news:Pepster-125E26.12525812022012@news.giganews.com...
> > > > In article
> > > > <9528e180-1e6f-4079-8834-38f3f8e93...@b18g2000vbz.googlegroups.com>,
> > > > wy <w...@myself.com> wrote:
> >
> > > >> On Feb 12, 1:31 pm, Pepe Le Jew <Peps...@zionet.com> wrote:
> > > >> > In article
> > > >> > <d24d525b-7f65-44f7-9736-8cf2deb65...@l16g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> > > >> > wy <w...@myself.com> wrote:
> > > >> > > On Feb 12, 9:42 am, Pepe Le Jew <Peps...@zionet.com> wrote:
> > > >> > > > In article
> > > >> > > > <792383ae-8ccc-4fcf-afec-2a882f681...@y10g2000vbn.googlegroups.co
> > > >> > > > m>,
> >
> > > >> > > > wy <w...@myself.com> wrote:
> > > >> > > > > On Feb 12, 6:52 am, jane <jane.pla...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >> > > > > > On Feb 11, 3:10 pm, Pepe Le Jew <Peps...@zionet.com> wrote:
> >
> > > >> > > > > > > In article
> > > >> > > > > > > <00b0dd06-cb72-4d69-87b6-aaeb03909...@s13g2000yqe.googlegro
> > > >> > > > > > > ups.
> > > >> > > > > > > com
> > > >> > > > > > > >,
> >
> > > >> > > > > > > jane <jane.pla...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >> > > > > > > > On Feb 10, 7:24 pm, Pepe Le Jew <Peps...@zionet.com>
> > > >> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > >> > > > > > > > > In article
> > > >> > > > > > > > > <fe557ddc-baab-4875-a755-9a90cfe01...@p21g2000yqm.googl
> > > >> > > > > > > > > egro
> > > >> > > > > > > > > ups
> > > >> > > > > > > > > .com
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >,
> >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > wy <w...@myself.com> wrote:
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > On Feb 9, 11:24 am, "C...@PrayForMe.com"
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > <C...@PrayForMe.com>
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > If government can force institutions and force
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > individuals to
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > compromise on religious convictions our government
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > can do
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > anything.
> >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > You mean like religion forces people to abide by
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > their
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > rules
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > and
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > regulations or else?
> >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > Churches have cops and jails?
> >
> > > >> > > > > > > > You are trying to argue with a Canadian who doesn't
> > > >> > > > > > > > understand
> > > >> > > > > > > > our
> > > >> > > > > > > > right to freedom; Wy thinks that citizens are subjects
> > > >> > > > > > > > of
> > > >> > > > > > > > the
> > > >> > > > > > > > Royal
> > > >> > > > > > > > Family.
> >
> > > >> > > > > > > We're not?
> >
> > > >> > > > > > > WTF are Barack and Michelle then?
> >
> > > >> > > > > > Obama is "sort of a god"[1]
> >
> > > >> > > > > > I guess that explains why he thinks he can dictate religious
> > > >> > > > > > beliefs.
> >
> > > >> > > > > When exactly has he dictated religious beliefs?
> >
> > > >> > > > By forcing the church to offer that which is against their
> > > >> > > > belief.
> >
> > > >> > > Cite exactly where and when he did that. I'll try not to totally
> > > >> > > crack up when you do.
> >
> > > >> > They have to pay for stuff that violates the tenets of their faith.
> >
> > > >> > The weasel-in-chief is playing a shell game, but it's not working.
> >
> > > >> > I think it's terrific, I'd like to see more of this sort of
> > > >> > boldness.
> >
> > > >> In other words, you can't cite exactly where and when this was
> > > >> supposed to have actually happened. ?I thought so.
> >
> > > > I thought you were aware of the edict for the Catholic Church to
> > > > provide
> > > > for birth control inclusion in insurance for employees of Catholic
> > > > institutions.
> >
> > > > Do you need a link to the story?
> >
> > > Creditable links are most welcome. ?BTW the rules do NOT apply to the
> > > church.
> >
> > You need a link too?
> >
> > That's two people supporting the President who need links to see what the
> > hell this is all about.
> >
> > http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/us-bi......
> > as-contraception-compromise/2012/02/11/gIQAlGVO7Q_story.html
>
> Here's a better link that includes the relevant information which your
> link excludes:


Sorry, I linked to the WaPo because it is usually an accepted source for
the left.


>
> "Nonprofit organizations that "primarily" exist to spread their
> religious values and primarily serve and employ people who share those
> values are exempt from the rule. This means that churches and houses
> of worship are exempt, but religiously affiliated schools and
> hospitals that serve and employ people of different faiths are not
> exempt."
>
> http://www.truth-out.org/just-facts-churches-and-contraceptive-cover...
> e/1328214331
>
> And yes, Virginia, there really is a difference between a church and
> its religion and religious-affiliated institutions that are not
> religions.


But, it is their similarity and connection to the church which are the
salient issue.

The answer is painfully obvious. The Catholic church should shutter these
charitable institutions if the government uses those institutions as a
vehicle to exert State power over them.
'
Whoever is being served by these institutions can enter the superior
government system.

That's a real win for the left.

Pepe Le Jew

2/12/2012 10:44:00 PM

0

In article
<e8bfff6f-d80d-41aa-8087-4b14d3a6261e@do4g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
wy <wy_@myself.com> wrote:

> On Feb 12, 5:00?pm, "Tom Gardner" <kl57...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > "wy" ?wrote in message
> >
> > news:77999d3b-7fb0-4550-bcab-8adfe2ce7946@bs8g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > On Feb 11, 1:31 pm, jane <jane.pla...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > How would she have that liberty to take birth control if it's denied
> > her by those who believe they have a greater liberty to deny her birth
> > control? ?Your logic would apply that to any and all groups seeking a
> > right of liberty to deny the individual. ?So then are you saying you
> > believe in liberty of the collective (those who make up the totality
> > of a religion) over liberty of the individual (someone like you)? ?And
> > then, how is birth control even related to religion in any way
> > whatsoever? ?There's nothing in the bible that prohibits it, so who
> > has decided that it should be prohibited, if not God or Jesus? ?In
> > other words, you're siding with the fallacious thought of the
> > collective over the rational thought of the individual.
> > _________________________________________________
> >
> > No one is denying a woman's liberty to use birth control or the abortion
> > pill. ?She can get those anywhere. ?The church believes that it shouldn't
> > be
> > complicit by paying for it. ?She can buy it on her own. ?The argument is
> > REALLY about the abortion pill.
>
> "The policy does not cover drugs that cause abortion, such as RU-486."
>
> http://www.truth-out.org/just-facts-churches-and-contraceptive-cover...
> e/1328214331
>
> So then, what is the real argument about now?



Birth control pills.

wy

2/12/2012 11:30:00 PM

0

On Feb 12, 5:44 pm, Pepe Le Jew <Peps...@zionet.com> wrote:
> In article
> <e8bfff6f-d80d-41aa-8087-4b14d3a62...@do4g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>  wy <w...@myself.com> wrote:
> > On Feb 12, 5:00 pm, "Tom Gardner" <kl57...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > "wy"  wrote in message
>
> > >news:77999d3b-7fb0-4550-bcab-8adfe2ce7946@bs8g2000vbb.googlegroups.com....
>
> > > On Feb 11, 1:31 pm, jane <jane.pla...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > How would she have that liberty to take birth control if it's denied
> > > her by those who believe they have a greater liberty to deny her birth
> > > control?  Your logic would apply that to any and all groups seeking a
> > > right of liberty to deny the individual.  So then are you saying you
> > > believe in liberty of the collective (those who make up the totality
> > > of a religion) over liberty of the individual (someone like you)?  And
> > > then, how is birth control even related to religion in any way
> > > whatsoever?  There's nothing in the bible that prohibits it, so who
> > > has decided that it should be prohibited, if not God or Jesus?  In
> > > other words, you're siding with the fallacious thought of the
> > > collective over the rational thought of the individual.
> > > _________________________________________________
>
> > > No one is denying a woman's liberty to use birth control or the abortion
> > > pill.  She can get those anywhere.  The church believes that it shouldn't
> > > be
> > > complicit by paying for it.  She can buy it on her own.  The argument is
> > > REALLY about the abortion pill.
>
> > "The policy does not cover drugs that cause abortion, such as RU-486."
>
> >http://www.truth-out.org/just-facts-churches-and-contracept......
> > e/1328214331
>
> > So then, what is the real argument about now?
>
> Birth control pills.

It probably is, but it's being effectively disguised as an artificial
religious rights issue.

Pepe Le Jew

2/13/2012 12:09:00 AM

0

In article
<6edfd2e7-b2fb-4491-bef1-6202dfb8547b@bs8g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
wy <wy_@myself.com> wrote:
>
> > > So then, what is the real argument about now?
> >
> > Birth control pills.
>
> It probably is, but it's being effectively disguised as an artificial
> religious rights issue.

It actually is.

The State is compelling a Church to do something against a tenet of the
church.