Comment Feed for 01:02:03 04/05/06 - Where will you be? (Coffeehouse on Channel 9)

Re: 01:02:03 04/05/06 - Where will you be?

UlsterFry — Thu, 06 Apr 2006 12:51:52 GMT

Well I've never referered to the date as April first two thousand and six.

For me the most logical is to have the date follow a natural order of accendency i.e. day/month/year

And thank god the US didn't re-arrange the time to HH:SS:MM

Re: 01:02:03 04/05/06 - Where will you be?

Stephen — Thu, 06 Apr 2006 12:17:24 GMT

CannotResolveSymbol wrote:

eagle wrote: I was asleep......

How unfortunate that the numbers never aline for the dreary inhabitants of Britain.

Wouldn't 4 May work for Britain? Unless you insist on using 04/05/2006, in which case you've missed it by a couple of millenia.

Yep, our's is in 28 day's. On the 4th of May 01:02:03 04/05/06

Re: 01:02:03 04/05/06 - Where will you be?

mrstick — Thu, 06 Apr 2006 11:54:55 GMT

Maurits wrote:

BHpaddock wrote: MM/DD/YYYY makes the most sense. It provides the most useful information first

How do you figure that MM is more useful than DD, and DD more useful than YYYY?

Maybe because 'George' told him it was..... ;) j/k

Re: 01:02:03 04/05/06 - Where will you be?

Maurits — Wed, 05 Apr 2006 17:51:44 GMT

BHpaddock wrote:
MM/DD/YYYY makes the most sense. It provides the most useful information first

How do you figure that MM is more useful than DD, and DD more useful than YYYY?

Re: 01:02:03 04/05/06 - Where will you be?

JonathonW — Wed, 05 Apr 2006 17:49:29 GMT

eagle wrote:
I was asleep......

How unfortunate that the numbers never aline for the dreary inhabitants of Britain.

Wouldn't 4 May work for Britain? Unless you insist on using 04/05/2006, in which case you've missed it by a couple of millenia.

Re: 01:02:03 04/05/06 - Where will you be?

Brandon Paddock — Wed, 05 Apr 2006 17:39:50 GMT

Manip wrote:

I think there are only two correct formats:

DD/MM/YYYY or YYYY/MM/DD

The MM/DD/YYYY format is just stupid as heck, and makes no sense at all. I also don't mind the DD/MM/YY format (short-year) but it can be less clear than the longer one stated above.

Actually MM/DD/YYYY makes the most sense. It provides the most useful information first, from left-to-right.

It's an argument no one is ever going to win.

Re: 01:02:03 04/05/06 - Where will you be?

eagle — Wed, 05 Apr 2006 10:52:55 GMT

I was asleep......

How unfortunate that the numbers never aline for the dreary inhabitants of Britain.

Re: 01:02:03 04/05/06 - Where will you be?

mrstick — Wed, 05 Apr 2006 10:08:07 GMT

zzzzz wrote:
I'm a fan of just the seconds since some date you choose. This way you don't care how you display it, it will always be correct

for Unix is 1972 in windows its 1980

That has got to be the absolute funniest comment I have seen for a while....

Thanks for cheering my day up!

Re: 01:02:03 04/05/06 - Where will you be?

matt0210 — Wed, 05 Apr 2006 08:26:57 GMT

Tom Servo wrote:
Where'll everyone be at 2006-05-04T03:02:01Z?

In my bed, sleeping. Wake me in 2010 or later ;-)

Re: 01:02:03 04/05/06 - Where will you be?

DoomBringer — Wed, 05 Apr 2006 07:55:52 GMT

I think I was in Imperial City... oh wait, that was Oblivion I was playing. Silly computer games.

I should have been doing homework though.

Re: 01:02:03 04/05/06 - Where will you be?

Minh — Wed, 05 Apr 2006 06:20:45 GMT

Hah! MS' prince-pauper threat model.

Re: 01:02:03 04/05/06 - Where will you be?

JonathonW — Wed, 05 Apr 2006 06:06:09 GMT

Well, didn't make it to bed first (actually, this is sorta staged b/c I missed the exact second, but I took it at about 1:02:20, so that's not too bad, is it?

Re: 01:02:03 04/05/06 - Where will you be?

W3bbo — Tue, 04 Apr 2006 21:34:38 GMT

Angus wrote:
In all my time writing the date at school only one teacher has ever wanted us to write the date in the format

Then your teacher is a backward sadist, tell him/her to take a look at the ISO 8601 overview and consider purchasing the formal standard, the only excuse he/she can give is "tradition", and as any progressive/L+R person will tell you, is good for nothing other than some sentimental/emotional part of the frail human mind, ethical transhumanism FTW!

Re: 01:02:03 04/05/06 - Where will you be?

out180 — Tue, 04 Apr 2006 20:50:38 GMT

Makes me miss the good old DTG format. :D

040302Z MAY 2006

I'm in Sierra at the moment. ;)

* I'm assuming the previous post of the time in Z is correct, I didn't bother to figure it myself.

Re: 01:02:03 04/05/06 - Where will you be?

Angus — Tue, 04 Apr 2006 20:11:28 GMT

In the UK people tend to say the date like this:

e.g. Date => 05-04-2006
       Words => The fifth of April, two thousand and six

The logical way to write it, if said in the above way, would be:

DD-MM-YYYY

Although some people shorten the year to something like this:

e.g. Date => 05-04-06
       Words => The fifth of April, oh six

       Date => 05-04-96
       Words => The fifth of April, ninety six

This makes another logical way to write it:

DD-MM-YY

In all my time writing the date at school only one teacher has ever wanted us to write the date in the format:

<month>, <day number> <year>

Most people that I know prefer:

<day name> <day number> <month>   {<year>}

The writing of the year is not something I do, but others I know do.

I use the written date, i.e. with words for anything other than Mathematics, in which I write the date in numbers, in the format DD-MM-YY.

All seems pretty logical really.

Angus Higgins

Re: 01:02:03 04/05/06 - Where will you be?

W3bbo — Tue, 04 Apr 2006 19:45:12 GMT

jmacdonagh wrote:
Or do people say: The 8th day of December in 2005?

"Eighth December Two-thousand and five" instead.

Re: 01:02:03 04/05/06 - Where will you be?

Maurits — Tue, 04 Apr 2006 19:41:14 GMT

jmacdonagh wrote:
Doesn't the MM/dd/yyyy logic follow how you speak dates in English?

Unless it's "the Fourth of July" ;)

Re: 01:02:03 04/05/06 - Where will you be?

jmacdonagh — Tue, 04 Apr 2006 19:37:24 GMT

Doesn't the MM/dd/yyyy logic follow how you speak dates in English?

December 8th, 2005 -> 12/8/2005

Or do people say: The 8th day of December in 2005?

Re: 01:02:03 04/05/06 - Where will you be?

zzzzz — Tue, 04 Apr 2006 19:34:03 GMT

I'm a fan of just the seconds since some date you choose. This way you don't care how you display it, it will always be correct

for Unix is 1972 in windows its 1980 :s

Re: 01:02:03 04/05/06 - Where will you be?

sgomez — Tue, 04 Apr 2006 19:21:59 GMT

Stephen wrote:

ASFAIK

US = mm/dd/yy

AU & UK = dd/mm/yy

Latin America = dd/mm/yyyy
As a developer I'm a YYYYMMDD fan... waaaay easier!

Regards
.seb
--
http://sgomez.blogspot.com

Re: 01:02:03 04/05/06 - Where will you be?

JohnAskew — Tue, 04 Apr 2006 19:14:07 GMT

I will be sitting in a lotus position eating bon bons and humming the words to Mary Poppins "Supercadufragelisticexpialidotious".

;)

Re: 01:02:03 04/05/06 - Where will you be?

Yggdrasil — Tue, 04 Apr 2006 19:10:32 GMT

Maurits wrote:
I'm a yyyy/mm/dd fan myself, even though no country uses it. It just sorts better.

AFAIK, the Japanese locale uses yyyy/mm/dd.

Re: 01:02:03 04/05/06 - Where will you be?

W3bbo — Tue, 04 Apr 2006 18:14:58 GMT

[quote user="Harlequin"]Yeah, I wish the date formats had a standard. There was a Microsoft event or something I was looking at, the email I got said it was on 8/6/2006, and the website said 6/8/2006. Thus I had NO idea what day it was on, since nowhere was there a long version of the date to be seen... [/quot

There is a standard, it's called ISO 8601.

Aka:

"YYYY-MM-DD HH:NN:SS" (seconds are optional).

Never use slashes with ISO8601, always use dashes instead.

Re: 01:02:03 04/05/06 - Where will you be?

Angus — Tue, 04 Apr 2006 17:28:29 GMT

harumscarum wrote:
I will be sitting in a restaurant with some coworkers debating on going back to work.

I was assuming it would be 1:02:03 am; am I correct? (Are you oing to be in a restaurant at that hour?) If I am not correct we need to have the debate of whether to use the 24-hour clock or not. :p

Angus Higgins

Re: 01:02:03 04/05/06 - Where will you be?

JonathonW — Tue, 04 Apr 2006 17:27:57 GMT

I too will be asleep (hopefully).