Re: 11-1-11

[Congoleum Breckenridge]

On 11/1/2011 10:15 PM, News wrote:
> x-no-archive: yes
>
> Date reads the same forwards or backwards!
>
>
Same with 11-11-11

[wazzzy]

Date reads the same forwards or backwards!

upside down too!

[Bill Schenley]

> > > Date reads the same forwards or backwards!
>

> > Same with 11-11-11
>
> upside down too!

And from the inside out.

[BobF]

On Wed, 2 Nov 2011 03:55:42 -0400, "Bill Schenley"
<stra...@neo.rr.com> shouted from the highest rooftop:

From Downunder it looks the same ...

--

"It's not that I'm afraid to die. I just don't want to be there when it happens." - Woody Allen

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Wax-up and drop-in of Surfing's Golden Years: <http://www.surfwriter.net>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[Brad Ferguson]

In article <jce2b7hv6sg0qi7lf...@4ax.com>, Terry del
Fuego <t_del...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, 1 Nov 2011 21:15:56 -0500, "An Unemployed Eight-Year-Old Girl"
> <m...@sb.net> wrote:
>
> >Date reads the same forwards or backwards!
>

> It's an imprecise, obsolete and lazy way of expressing the date.


Is that you, Louis?

[J.D. Baldwin]

In the previous article, Brad Ferguson <Brad Ferguson> wrote:
> > It's an imprecise, obsolete and lazy way of expressing the date.
>
>
> Is that you, Louis?

I'm with Terry. (Not sure how serious he was, but I am in dead
earnest.) YYYY-MM-DD for all written / electronic expressions of the
date. That's the international standard for a reason. Everything
else is stupid.

And while I'm at it, kill Daylight Saving Time and am/pm, writing all
times in 24-hour "military" format.
--
_+_ From the catapult of |If anyone objects to any statement I make, I am
_|70|___:)=}- J.D. Baldwin |quite prepared not only to retract it, but also
\ / bal...@panix.com|to deny under oath that I ever made it.-T. Lehrer
***~~~~----------------------------------------------------------------------

[Brad Ferguson]

In article <j8rh5l$l3r$1...@reader1.panix.com>, J.D. Baldwin

<INVALID...@example.com.invalid> wrote:

> In the previous article, Brad Ferguson <Brad Ferguson> wrote:
> > > It's an imprecise, obsolete and lazy way of expressing the date.
> >
> >
> > Is that you, Louis?
>
> I'm with Terry. (Not sure how serious he was, but I am in dead
> earnest.) YYYY-MM-DD for all written / electronic expressions of the
> date. That's the international standard for a reason. Everything
> else is stupid.

That's the way I do it in filenames, actually. Besides, I knew it
wasn't Louis, because there was a space after the comma.

[Tim J.]

On Wed, 2 Nov 2011 13:39:01 +0000 (UTC),
INVALID...@example.com.invalid (J.D. Baldwin) wrote:

>I'm with Terry. (Not sure how serious he was, but I am in dead
>earnest.) YYYY-MM-DD for all written / electronic expressions of the
>date. That's the international standard for a reason. Everything
>else is stupid.

Been doing that for years to make sure reports print out in true
chronological order, even before the Y2K hysteria began.

[B. R. Slim]

On 11/1/2011 9:15 PM, News wrote:
> x-no-archive: yes
>

> Date reads the same forwards or backwards!
>
>

And still, nobody likes you.

[David Carson]

On Wed, 02 Nov 2011 09:54:50 -0400, Brad Ferguson
<thir...@frXOXed.net> wrote:

>In article <j8rh5l$l3r$1...@reader1.panix.com>, J.D. Baldwin
><INVALID...@example.com.invalid> wrote:
>> I'm with Terry. (Not sure how serious he was, but I am in dead
>> earnest.) YYYY-MM-DD for all written / electronic expressions of the
>> date. That's the international standard for a reason. Everything
>> else is stupid.
>
>That's the way I do it in filenames, actually.

So do I, but without those superfluous, wasteful hyphens.

David Carson
--
Why do you seek the living among the dead? -- Luke 24:5
Who's Alive and Who's Dead
http://www.whosaliveandwhosdead.com

[radioacti...@gmail.com]

Messrs. Baldwin and del Fuego are correct, it seems to me, inasmuch as this is 2011, not 11, a year Christ would have experienced, if He's not merely a myth in the first place.

As for me, I've been so grateful for over a decade now to have somehow survived to see 2000, that I've made it a point for eleven years now to never even once delete the first two digits whenever inscribing the year. Hope I get a chance to write 2022.

[Tim J.]

On Wed, 2 Nov 2011 12:20:51 -0500, an imbicile who ironically calls
himself "News" <m...@sb.net> wrote:

> But, I like the mm/dd/yy format the best, and writing am/pm, or only
>'a' and 'p' for shorthand.
> People shouldn't write 21 November 2011.
> It looks funny, and is stupid.

Please go up to a member of the US military and tell them they are
"funny" and "stupid." Let us know what they say when you get out of
intensive care.

> Should always be written: November 21, 2011.
> The YYYY--MM-DD notation is the real stupid idea, no matter if it is
>arbitrarily made the "international standard." Not all I.S.'s is the best
>way.
> We all know what the year is, so that should be last.
> The MONTH is the most important, then the day, and then the year.
>

So in a chronologically sorted list of dates, 01/01/2012 should appear
BEFORE 12/31/1911?

Didn't give that much thought, did you Roy? Sound familiar? It sure
does to us.

The next true "radar date" is 02/02/2020.

[Tim J.]

On Wed, 2 Nov 2011 12:27:04 -0500, "News" <m...@sb.net> wrote:

> But, we all know what century it is, so the '20' is superfluous and
>unnecessary, but I repeat myself. <g>

Pull out your driver's license, assuming the state of Missouri didn't
declare you incompetent to posses one. Look at the date of birth. Now
look at the year. How many digits are in it? Can you think of any
reason why the first 2 digits aren't superfluous?

[Tim J.]

On Wed, 2 Nov 2011 12:21:48 -0500, "News" <m...@sb.net> wrote:

>>> > Is that you, Louis?

>>>
>>
>> That's the way I do it in filenames, actually. Besides, I knew it
>> wasn't Louis, because there was a space after the comma.
>

> There's *supposed* to be a space after the comma in listing a list.

I'm sorry, where was the list? I must have missed it. Is it imbedded
in that four word sentence somewhere?

[David Carson]

On Wed, 2 Nov 2011 12:20:51 -0500, "News" <m...@sb.net> wrote:

> People shouldn't write 21 November 2011.
> It looks funny, and is stupid.

> Should always be written: November 21, 2011.

I'm surprised you don't find a way to add some parentheses and
exclamation points.

Although the second notation - the one kids are indoctrinated and
forced to use in those nasty, government-run public schools - is more
common in the U.S., I find it disorganized and inefficient.

[Brad Ferguson]

In article <7o53b7d4vfr5qiocp...@4ax.com>, David Carson

<da...@neosoft.com> wrote:

> On Wed, 2 Nov 2011 12:20:51 -0500, "News" <m...@sb.net> wrote:
>
> > People shouldn't write 21 November 2011.
> > It looks funny, and is stupid.
> > Should always be written: November 21, 2011.
>
> I'm surprised you don't find a way to add some parentheses and
> exclamation points.
>
> Although the second notation - the one kids are indoctrinated and
> forced to use in those nasty, government-run public schools - is more
> common in the U.S., I find it disorganized and inefficient.
>
> David Carson

Long as we're at this, I don't use the hyphens, either.

And you're responsible -- yes, *you* -- for me changing the way I write
dates. I now write them as 2 November (or usually just Nov) 2011. It
was something you said about it here, years and years ago. The fact
that Roy thinks it's stupid only further convinces me that it's the
right thing to do.

I am, however, still of an open mind as to the question of the leading
zero in the date. I would write 2 Nov, but I have the computers render
it as 02 Nov. There's a small hack that gives the date and time in the
Mac menu bar as 02 Nov 2011 @ 413p. (I'm not really tempted by the
24-hour clock.) It doesn't look right to me without the leading zero.

[Aje.RavenStar]

"News" wrote in message
news:kqOdnQbjiufx4CzT...@earthlink.com...

x-no-archive: yes

<radioacti...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:75627.2463.1320251324895.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@vbac9...

> Messrs. Baldwin and del Fuego are correct, it seems to me, inasmuch as
> this is 2011, not 11, a year Christ would have experienced, if He's not
> merely a myth in the first place.

> But, we all know what century it is, so the '20' is superfluous and
> unnecessary, but I repeat myself. <g>

You obviously don't pay enough attention to political news or speeches.

[R H Draney]

J.D. Baldwin filted:

>
>
>In the previous article, Brad Ferguson <Brad Ferguson> wrote:
>> > It's an imprecise, obsolete and lazy way of expressing the date.
>>
>>
>> Is that you, Louis?
>
>I'm with Terry. (Not sure how serious he was, but I am in dead
>earnest.) YYYY-MM-DD for all written / electronic expressions of the
>date. That's the international standard for a reason. Everything
>else is stupid.

In that case, today is 2011-11-02....

Now *that's* a palindrome....r


--
Me? Sarcastic?
Yeah, right.

[David Carson]

On Wed, 02 Nov 2011 16:13:55 -0400, Brad Ferguson <thir...@frXOXed.net>
wrote:

>And you're responsible -- yes, *you* -- for me changing the way I write
>dates. I now write them as 2 November (or usually just Nov) 2011. It
>was something you said about it here, years and years ago. The fact
>that Roy thinks it's stupid only further convinces me that it's the
>right thing to do.

I noticed you did, but I didn't connect it to a previous discussion here.

Well, you're the reason I include the sentence about Judge Justice in some
of my execution reports.

>I am, however, still of an open mind as to the question of the leading
>zero in the date. I would write 2 Nov, but I have the computers render
>it as 02 Nov.

When I'm working on a computer that does that, I try to reformat it so the
leading zero isn't displayed.

Part of my preference for writing dates as an 8-digit numeric string, e.g.
18360306 for 6 March 1836, is that every programming language has its own
way of storing dates, and its own set of date comparison and date
conversion operators. They all work differently, and they usually end up
being frustratingly inadequate for whatever it is I'm trying to do. It's
madness when a single application uses SQL, VBscript, and JavaScript, and
none of them treats dates the same way as the others. The 8-digit numeric
string is easier for me to work with, because numeric and string
conversion functions generally work the same from one language to the
next. I get use to writing code that way, and the practice carries over
into other things.

[Tim J.]

On Wed, 2 Nov 2011 20:54:07 -0500, "News" <m...@sb.net> wrote:

>You could have fooled me!

Yeah, like that's a difficult trick.

[J.D. Baldwin]

In the previous article, Terry del Fuego <t_del...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
> I'm both mindlessly screwing with the idiot and serious. I came up
> with YYYY-MM-DD on my own some time around 1970 just because my
> screwed up "mind" really liked the largest-to-smallest order. I
> felt like a genius decades later when I started playing with
> computers and realized that I was right. (OK, full disclosure: When
> I first started doing it, it was YYYYMMDD.W with no hyphens and the
> "W" a numeric representation of the day of the week, starting with
> "1" for Sunday. I realize now that I will burn in Hell because my
> choice of weekday starting points is exactly the kind of arbitrary,
> non-intuitive thing we're talking about avoiding. [...]

You won't burn in Hell for starting with Sunday. But Dennis Ritchie
might reach up and drag you there for not starting with zero.
--
_+_ From the catapult of |If anyone objects to any statement I make, I am
_|70|___:)=}- J.D. Baldwin |quite prepared not only to retract it, but also
\ / bal...@panix.com|to deny under oath that I ever made it.-T. Lehrer
***~~~~----------------------------------------------------------------------

[David Carson]

On Thu, 3 Nov 2011 08:36:14 +0000 (UTC),
INVALID...@example.com.invalid (J.D. Baldwin) wrote:

>
>In the previous article, Terry del Fuego <t_del...@hotmail.com>
>wrote:

>>When
>> I first started doing it, it was YYYYMMDD.W with no hyphens and the
>> "W" a numeric representation of the day of the week, starting with
>> "1" for Sunday. I realize now that I will burn in Hell because my
>> choice of weekday starting points is exactly the kind of arbitrary,
>> non-intuitive thing we're talking about avoiding. [...]
>
>You won't burn in Hell for starting with Sunday. But Dennis Ritchie
>might reach up and drag you there for not starting with zero.

Ugh. The thought of using an ordinal that's three parts one-based and one
part zero-based makes me nauseous.

[J.D. Baldwin]

In the previous article, News <m...@sb.net> wrote:
> > In that case, today is 2011-11-02....
> >
> > Now *that's* a palindrome....r
>

> You are the first one to notice that and point it out!
> Good going, doc!
> Can you figure out when the next date-palindrome will occur?
> Will any of us be alive by then? <g>

Someone got me thinking about palindromes the other day, and I went
back to this three-week-old post. A quick Perl script provided some
answers, and here they are.

The last second-millenium palindromic date (YYYY-MM-DD format) was
1380-08-31. There would not be another for over 621 years, on
2001-10-02.

Last year was 2010-01-02, this year was 2011-11-02. The next
palindromic date will be 2020-02-02, then 2021-12-02. After that,
they occur around every ten years (with a couple of subsequent-year
exceptions in years matching XX10 and XX11) until 3290-09-23. The
next one after that will be 40011004.