info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
new Date().toLocaleTimeString() sponned in Fall Creators Update. UL locale
378 views
Skip to first unread message
Dr J R Stockton
Dec 31, 2017, 12:57:38 PM12/31/17
to
All of my PCs are set, everywhere that I have found, to
use UK, English, and ISO 8601, including the 24-hour clock.
JavaScript new Date().toLocaleTimeString() in up-to-date
Windows 7, final Windows XP, and probably in Windows 98 &
maybe even in Windows 3.x, and probably also in previous
Windows 10, gave the 24-hour clock, "HH:MM:SS"
Today, I allowed a Windows 10 update on my laptop FUJ-2012
- what arrived was Fall Creators Update, I think.
In the new update, I get "hh:mm:ss PM". I expect to see
AM tomorrow morning. and an wondering whether the hours
field will have its leading zero before 10:00; I believe
I've seen corresponding ineptitude somewhere in UTC time.
That is the case in all of the browsers I tested, which
are not all that I have.
I don't know what happens in other locales, but it seems
likely that Evertjan & others will be able to tell us.
Note to EjH - in the Subject, sponning does not have its
Dutch meaning; it has the Grytpype-Thynne one.
I am altering my applications to build the time string
from the hour, minute, and second numbers.
The update also did not preserve my chosen screen saver
setting, which is the time.
HNY,
--
(c) John Stockton, near London, UK. Using Google, no spell-check. |
Mail: J.R.""""""""@physics.org - or as Reply-To, if any. |
use UK, English, and ISO 8601, including the 24-hour clock.
JavaScript new Date().toLocaleTimeString() in up-to-date
Windows 7, final Windows XP, and probably in Windows 98 &
maybe even in Windows 3.x, and probably also in previous
Windows 10, gave the 24-hour clock, "HH:MM:SS"
Today, I allowed a Windows 10 update on my laptop FUJ-2012
- what arrived was Fall Creators Update, I think.
In the new update, I get "hh:mm:ss PM". I expect to see
AM tomorrow morning. and an wondering whether the hours
field will have its leading zero before 10:00; I believe
I've seen corresponding ineptitude somewhere in UTC time.
That is the case in all of the browsers I tested, which
are not all that I have.
I don't know what happens in other locales, but it seems
likely that Evertjan & others will be able to tell us.
Note to EjH - in the Subject, sponning does not have its
Dutch meaning; it has the Grytpype-Thynne one.
I am altering my applications to build the time string
from the hour, minute, and second numbers.
The update also did not preserve my chosen screen saver
setting, which is the time.
HNY,
--
(c) John Stockton, near London, UK. Using Google, no spell-check. |
Mail: J.R.""""""""@physics.org - or as Reply-To, if any. |
Evertjan.
Dec 31, 2017, 2:48:38 PM12/31/17
to
Dr J R Stockton <J.R.St...@physics.org> wrote on 31 Dec
2017 in comp.lang.javascript:
> All of my PCs are set, everywhere that I have found, to
> use UK, English, and ISO 8601, including the 24-hour clock.
>
> JavaScript new Date().toLocaleTimeString() in up-to-date
> Windows 7, final Windows XP, and probably in Windows 98 &
> maybe even in Windows 3.x, and probably also in previous
> Windows 10, gave the 24-hour clock, "HH:MM:SS"
>
> Today, I allowed a Windows 10 update on my laptop FUJ-2012
> - what arrived was Fall Creators Update, I think.
>
> In the new update, I get "hh:mm:ss PM". I expect to see
> AM tomorrow morning. and an wondering whether the hours
> field will have its leading zero before 10:00; I believe
> I've seen corresponding ineptitude somewhere in UTC time.
<!DOCTYPE html>
<script type='text/javascript'>
'use strict';
document.write(new Date().toLocaleTimeString());
// in Windows 10 Home ver 1709 build 16299.125:
// '8:26:41 PM' Google Chrome version 64.0.3282.39
// (Off.B.) beta (64-bit)
// '20:27:14' Microsoft Edge 41.16299.15.0
</script>
> That is the case in all of the browsers I tested, which
> are not all that I have.
>
> I don't know what happens in other locales, but it seems
> likely that Evertjan & others will be able to tell us.
>
> Note to EjH - in the Subject,
What Subject are you talking about, a British one?
> sponning does not have its
> Dutch meaning;
rabbet; runway; slot; chamfer; groove; fluting; rifling
> it has the Grytpype-Thynne one.
I seem to miss the context altogether.
> I am altering my applications to build the time string
> from the hour, minute, and second numbers.
Well, don't use these silly ones,
like ".toLocaleTimeString()",
as they only apply to American logic.
Use standard ones, or their UTC sisters, like:
getDate()
getDay()
getFullYear()
getHours()
getMilliseconds()
getMinutes()
getMonth()
getSeconds()
and
getTimezoneOffset()
======
However, I prefer serverside coding.
> The update also did not preserve my chosen screen saver
> setting, which is the time.
Is your screen worth saving?
Or do you want to save time?
--
Evertjan.
The Netherlands.
(Please change the x'es to dots in my emailaddress)
2017 in comp.lang.javascript:
> All of my PCs are set, everywhere that I have found, to
> use UK, English, and ISO 8601, including the 24-hour clock.
>
> JavaScript new Date().toLocaleTimeString() in up-to-date
> Windows 7, final Windows XP, and probably in Windows 98 &
> maybe even in Windows 3.x, and probably also in previous
> Windows 10, gave the 24-hour clock, "HH:MM:SS"
>
> Today, I allowed a Windows 10 update on my laptop FUJ-2012
> - what arrived was Fall Creators Update, I think.
>
> In the new update, I get "hh:mm:ss PM". I expect to see
> AM tomorrow morning. and an wondering whether the hours
> field will have its leading zero before 10:00; I believe
> I've seen corresponding ineptitude somewhere in UTC time.
<script type='text/javascript'>
'use strict';
document.write(new Date().toLocaleTimeString());
// in Windows 10 Home ver 1709 build 16299.125:
// '8:26:41 PM' Google Chrome version 64.0.3282.39
// (Off.B.) beta (64-bit)
// '20:27:14' Microsoft Edge 41.16299.15.0
</script>
> That is the case in all of the browsers I tested, which
> are not all that I have.
>
> I don't know what happens in other locales, but it seems
> likely that Evertjan & others will be able to tell us.
>
> Note to EjH - in the Subject,
> sponning does not have its
> Dutch meaning;
> it has the Grytpype-Thynne one.
> I am altering my applications to build the time string
> from the hour, minute, and second numbers.
like ".toLocaleTimeString()",
as they only apply to American logic.
Use standard ones, or their UTC sisters, like:
getDate()
getDay()
getFullYear()
getHours()
getMilliseconds()
getMinutes()
getMonth()
getSeconds()
and
getTimezoneOffset()
======
However, I prefer serverside coding.
> The update also did not preserve my chosen screen saver
> setting, which is the time.
Or do you want to save time?
--
Evertjan.
The Netherlands.
(Please change the x'es to dots in my emailaddress)
JJ
Jan 1, 2018, 4:42:02 PM1/1/18
to
On Sun, 31 Dec 2017 20:48:28 +0100, Evertjan. wrote:
>
> document.write(new Date().toLocaleTimeString());
>
> // in Windows 10 Home ver 1709 build 16299.125:
>
> // '8:26:41 PM' Google Chrome version 64.0.3282.39
> // (Off.B.) beta (64-bit)
>
> // '20:27:14' Microsoft Edge 41.16299.15.0
In Windows 7 SP1 x64, my time locale is set to:
>
> document.write(new Date().toLocaleTimeString());
>
> // in Windows 10 Home ver 1709 build 16299.125:
>
> // '8:26:41 PM' Google Chrome version 64.0.3282.39
> // (Off.B.) beta (64-bit)
>
> // '20:27:14' Microsoft Edge 41.16299.15.0
- Short format: HH:mm
- Long format: HH:mm:ss
When tested in web browsers:
console.log(new Date().toLocaleTimeString());
//"3:58:24 AM" - Chromium 59.0.3067.0 and Firefox ESR 52.1.2
//"03:58:24" - MSIE 11
//"03:58:24" - Opera (Presto) 11.64
In Ubuntu v14 x64 set with 24-hour time format:
console.log(new Date().toLocaleTimeString());
//"03.58.24" - Firefox 47
In Zorin v12 x64 set with 24-hour time format:
console.log(new Date().toLocaleTimeString());
//"03:58:24" - Chromium 60.0.3112.113
In Debian v8.9 x64 set with 24-hour time format:
console.log(new Date().toLocaleTimeString());
//"3:58:24 AM" - Firefox ESR 52.3.0
So, it looks like a web browser issue rather than OS.
Evertjan.
Jan 1, 2018, 5:38:36 PM1/1/18
to
Methinks having the browser or the o.s. settings dictate
how my web-page will visualize time is a non-issue.
If at all possible, static date/time should be rendered
serverside, just like all other data code that messses up
crossbrowser or crossbrowserversion wize.
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
Jan 2, 2018, 8:25:26 PM1/2/18
to
JJ wrote:
> So, it looks like a web browser issue rather than OS.
Your logic is flawed. In order to make that determination, you would have
> So, it looks like a web browser issue rather than OS.
to test at least two browsers with two different settings on the same
operating system. With that said, the date and time formats are usually not
determined by the operating system, but by the desktop.
--
PointedEars
FAQ: <http://PointedEars.de/faq> | <http://PointedEars.de/es-matrix>
<https://github.com/PointedEars> | <http://PointedEars.de/wsvn/>
Twitter: @PointedEars2 | Please do not cc me./Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
Evertjan.
Jan 3, 2018, 6:55:13 AM1/3/18
to
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <Point...@web.de> wrote on 03 Jan 2018 in
comp.lang.javascript:
> JJ wrote:
>
>> So, it looks like a web browser issue rather than OS.
>
> Your logic is flawed. In order to make that determination, you would
> have to test at least two browsers with two different settings on the
> same operating system.
No, one setting with two browsers will do.
> With that said, the date and time formats are
> usually not determined by the operating system, but by the desktop.
The "DESKTOP", realy?
I did wrote year in this tread:
"Evertjan." wrote on 31 Dec 2017 in comp.lang.javascript:
> <!DOCTYPE html>
> <script type='text/javascript'>
> 'use strict';
comp.lang.javascript:
> JJ wrote:
>
>> So, it looks like a web browser issue rather than OS.
>
> Your logic is flawed. In order to make that determination, you would
> have to test at least two browsers with two different settings on the
> same operating system.
> With that said, the date and time formats are
> usually not determined by the operating system, but by the desktop.
I did wrote year in this tread:
"Evertjan." wrote on 31 Dec 2017 in comp.lang.javascript:
> <!DOCTYPE html>
> <script type='text/javascript'>
> 'use strict';
> document.write(new Date().toLocaleTimeString());
>
> // in Windows 10 Home ver 1709 build 16299.125:
>
> // '8:26:41 PM' Google Chrome version 64.0.3282.39
> // (Off.B.) beta (64-bit)
>
> // '20:27:14' Microsoft Edge 41.16299.15.0
> </script>
>
> // in Windows 10 Home ver 1709 build 16299.125:
>
> // '8:26:41 PM' Google Chrome version 64.0.3282.39
> // (Off.B.) beta (64-bit)
>
> // '20:27:14' Microsoft Edge 41.16299.15.0
Dr J R Stockton
Jan 4, 2018, 7:02:17 AM1/4/18
to
On Wednesday, January 3, 2018 at 1:25:26 AM UTC, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> JJ wrote:
>
> > So, it looks like a web browser issue rather than OS.
>
> Your logic is flawed. In order to make that determination, you would have
> to test at least two browsers with two different settings on the same
> operating system.
No; it is a script engine issue. AIUI, on a fully-Microsoft PC, the script engine DLL is shared between Internet Explorer (and I suppose, Edge), Windows Scripting Host, applications on Microsoft Office, and anything else that wants to use it. Other applications, such as Chrome & Vivaldi, may have their own unshared script engines or may share other engines. And likewise for non-Windows systems.
> JJ wrote:
>
> > So, it looks like a web browser issue rather than OS.
>
> Your logic is flawed. In order to make that determination, you would have
> to test at least two browsers with two different settings on the same
> operating system.
The intent of the original article was to suggest that anyone who
writes or maintains code using a toLocale string method of a
JavaScript Date object might do well to consider the possible
effects of varying what might be considered to be an appropriate
format for the string. These include :
* Breach of ISO8601
* Displayed string now can be longer and of inconsistent length
(in characters and/or ems and/or pixels)
* Breaking code logic
* Annoyance
ECMA please note : Global needs a new Object, containing all of the Locale information in an internationally-defined format, read/write and settable to any specific locality known by the OS.
We could then, for example, sit comfortably in Pompey and test our Web pages to find out what the incoming Potarneylanders would see in their own systems, without confusing other applications in our own computers.
Martin Honnen
Jan 4, 2018, 7:30:22 AM1/4/18
to
On 04.01.2018 13:02, Dr J R Stockton wrote:
> AIUI, on a fully-Microsoft PC, the script engine DLL is shared between Internet Explorer (and I suppose, Edge), Windows Scripting Host, applications on Microsoft Office, and anything else that wants to use it.
That is a thing of the past. IE moved away from the ActiveX based
> AIUI, on a fully-Microsoft PC, the script engine DLL is shared between Internet Explorer (and I suppose, Edge), Windows Scripting Host, applications on Microsoft Office, and anything else that wants to use it.
JScript engine long ago. Edge for sure doesn't share the script engine
with Windows Script Host, it has its own script engine. The script
engine of Edge is under continuous development, the one for IE not. (see
for instance the Edge columns at
https://kangax.github.io/compat-table/es6/ compared to the IE 11 column)
And the engine for WSH hasn't been developed further I think since IE
got its own, not ActiveX based one.
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
Jan 4, 2018, 10:48:27 AM1/4/18
to
Dr J R Stockton wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 3, 2018 at 1:25:26 AM UTC, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
> wrote:
>> JJ wrote:
>> > So, it looks like a web browser issue rather than OS.
>> Your logic is flawed. In order to make that determination, you would
>> have to test at least two browsers with two different settings on the
>> same operating system.
>
> No;
Yes it is.
> wrote:
>> JJ wrote:
>> > So, it looks like a web browser issue rather than OS.
>> Your logic is flawed. In order to make that determination, you would
>> have to test at least two browsers with two different settings on the
>> same operating system.
>
> No;
> it is a script engine issue.
it is first determined by the locale, however that is set. For example,
LC_TIME=de_CH.UTF-8 firefox-esr
causes
d.toLocaleString() === "4.1.2018, 16:41:34"
while
LC_TIME=C firefox-esr
causes
d.toLocaleString() === "1/4/2018, 4:41:34 PM"
for the same Date d, whereas “firefox-esr” starts navigator.userAgent ===
"Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/52.0".
> AIUI, on a fully-Microsoft PC […]
There is no such thing, and there is not only Microsoft Windows. “JJ” had
tested on different *Linux* distributions, without taking into account that
the distribution does not determine the date and time format, but first the
locale which may be determined by settings of the used desktop
(environment)¹, and then the used script engine.
________
¹ <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desktop_environment>
Joao Rodrigues
Jan 6, 2018, 10:02:17 AM1/6/18
to
On 31/12/2017 15:57, Dr J R Stockton wrote:
> All of my PCs are set, everywhere that I have found, to
> use UK, English, and ISO 8601, including the 24-hour clock.
>
> JavaScript new Date().toLocaleTimeString() in up-to-date
> Windows 7, final Windows XP, and probably in Windows 98 &
> maybe even in Windows 3.x, and probably also in previous
> Windows 10, gave the 24-hour clock, "HH:MM:SS"
>
> Today, I allowed a Windows 10 update on my laptop FUJ-2012
> - what arrived was Fall Creators Update, I think.
>
> In the new update, I get "hh:mm:ss PM". I expect to see
> AM tomorrow morning. and an wondering whether the hours
> field will have its leading zero before 10:00; I believe
> I've seen corresponding ineptitude somewhere in UTC time.
>
> That is the case in all of the browsers I tested, which
> are not all that I have.
>
> I don't know what happens in other locales, but it seems
> likely that Evertjan & others will be able to tell us.
>
You may use .toLocaleTimeString() with the new locales and options
> All of my PCs are set, everywhere that I have found, to
> use UK, English, and ISO 8601, including the 24-hour clock.
>
> JavaScript new Date().toLocaleTimeString() in up-to-date
> Windows 7, final Windows XP, and probably in Windows 98 &
> maybe even in Windows 3.x, and probably also in previous
> Windows 10, gave the 24-hour clock, "HH:MM:SS"
>
> Today, I allowed a Windows 10 update on my laptop FUJ-2012
> - what arrived was Fall Creators Update, I think.
>
> In the new update, I get "hh:mm:ss PM". I expect to see
> AM tomorrow morning. and an wondering whether the hours
> field will have its leading zero before 10:00; I believe
> I've seen corresponding ineptitude somewhere in UTC time.
>
> That is the case in all of the browsers I tested, which
> are not all that I have.
>
> I don't know what happens in other locales, but it seems
> likely that Evertjan & others will be able to tell us.
>
arguments [1]:
var date = new Date();
var options = {
year: 'numeric', month: 'numeric', day: 'numeric',
hour: 'numeric', minute: 'numeric', second: 'numeric',
hour12: false,
timeZone: 'GMT' // London - UK
};
console.log(date.toLocaleTimeString('en-GB', options));
// 06/01/2018, 14:57:25
Or use the Intl object from the ECMAScript Internationalization API [2]
directly:
console.log(new Intl.DateTimeFormat('en-GB', options).format(date));
[1]
<https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Reference/Global_Objects/Date/toLocaleTimeString>
[2]
<https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Reference/Global_Objects/DateTimeFormat>
Cheers,
Joao Rodrigues
Dr J R Stockton
Jan 6, 2018, 2:18:48 PM1/6/18
to
On Saturday, January 6, 2018 at 3:02:17 PM UTC, Joao Rodrigues wrote:
> On 31/12/2017 15:57, Dr J R Stockton wrote:
> > All of my PCs are set, everywhere that I have found, to
> > use UK, English, and ISO 8601, including the 24-hour clock.
> > ...
> On 31/12/2017 15:57, Dr J R Stockton wrote:
> > All of my PCs are set, everywhere that I have found, to
> > use UK, English, and ISO 8601, including the 24-hour clock.
> You may use .toLocaleTimeString() with the new locales and options
> arguments [1]:
>
> var date = new Date();
> var options = {
> year: 'numeric', month: 'numeric', day: 'numeric',
> hour: 'numeric', minute: 'numeric', second: 'numeric',
> hour12: false,
> timeZone: 'GMT' // London - UK
> };
>
> console.log(date.toLocaleTimeString('en-GB', options));
> // 06/01/2018, 14:57:25
> Or use the Intl object from the ECMAScript Internationalization API [2]
> directly:
>
> console.log(new Intl.DateTimeFormat('en-GB', options).format(date));
Also, timeZone is a terminological ineptitude; a Time Zone is defined as the set of places which, in local winter, have the same offset from GMT/UTC.
I believe that one current user is closely enough associated with ECMA : please ask ECMA to BUY a current copy of ISO8601 and READ it.
Joao Rodrigues
Jan 7, 2018, 10:07:13 AM1/7/18
to
On 06/01/2018 17:18, Dr J R Stockton wrote:
> On Saturday, January 6, 2018 at 3:02:17 PM UTC, Joao Rodrigues wrote:
>> On 31/12/2017 15:57, Dr J R Stockton wrote:
>>> All of my PCs are set, everywhere that I have found, to
>>> use UK, English, and ISO 8601, including the 24-hour clock.
>>> ...
>
>> You may use .toLocaleTimeString() with the new locales and options
>> arguments [1]:
>>
>> var date = new Date();
>> var options = {
>> year: 'numeric', month: 'numeric', day: 'numeric',
>> hour: 'numeric', minute: 'numeric', second: 'numeric',
>> hour12: false,
>> timeZone: 'GMT' // London - UK
>> };
>>
>> console.log(date.toLocaleTimeString('en-GB', options));
>> // 06/01/2018, 14:57:25
>
>
> toLocaleTimeString SHOULD NOT give the _date_, so either the spec or the implementation is WRONG.
The Date.prototype.toLocaleTimeString method indeed returns a time as a
> On Saturday, January 6, 2018 at 3:02:17 PM UTC, Joao Rodrigues wrote:
>> On 31/12/2017 15:57, Dr J R Stockton wrote:
>>> All of my PCs are set, everywhere that I have found, to
>>> use UK, English, and ISO 8601, including the 24-hour clock.
>>> ...
>
>> You may use .toLocaleTimeString() with the new locales and options
>> arguments [1]:
>>
>> var date = new Date();
>> var options = {
>> year: 'numeric', month: 'numeric', day: 'numeric',
>> hour: 'numeric', minute: 'numeric', second: 'numeric',
>> hour12: false,
>> timeZone: 'GMT' // London - UK
>> };
>>
>> console.log(date.toLocaleTimeString('en-GB', options));
>> // 06/01/2018, 14:57:25
>
>
> toLocaleTimeString SHOULD NOT give the _date_, so either the spec or the implementation is WRONG.
string value (implementation-dependent) in the current time zone that is
appropriate to the host environment's current locale or a specified locale.
Modern browsers implement the Date.prototype.toLocaleTimeString method
as specified in the ECMA-402 Internationalization API.
In the example above, the locales parameter was specified as 'en-GB' and
the options parameter was used to customise the returning string. I
apologise for adding the date portion in the formatting options as this
was misleading to you, however I only did that to show what can be done
with that parameter.
>
>> Or use the Intl object from the ECMAScript Internationalization API [2]
>> directly:
>>
>> console.log(new Intl.DateTimeFormat('en-GB', options).format(date));
>
> It can give the same, but that format is not ISO8601:2004 (which, according to Wikipedia, is the latest). Date field order wrong, date separator wrong. date/time separator wrong.
string as "date, time", but I recognise that was not a good idea given I
was using the toLocaleTimeString() method. :-(
> The method appears unknown to IE11 in Win7.
Intl.DateTimeFormat internally to format the time, which adds support
for the locales and options arguments:
<https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/scripting/javascript/reference/tolocaletimestring-method-date-javascript>
But it seems to me that IE 11 doesn't recognise some values for the
options parameter such as "GMT" for timeZone. So I have rewritten the
the example as below to work in IE 11 under Win 10:
var date = new Date();
var options = {
minute: '2-digit',
second: '2-digit',
hour12: false
};
document.write('<p>' + date.toLocaleTimeString('en-GB', options) + '</p>');
>
> Also, timeZone is a terminological ineptitude; a Time Zone is defined as the set of places which, in local winter, have the same offset from GMT/UTC.
>
the options parameter. The default is the runtime's default time zone.
Implementations may also recognize the time zone names of the IANA time
zone database, such as "Asia/Shanghai", "Asia/Kolkata", "America/New_York".
<https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Reference/Global_Objects/Date/toLocaleTimeString>
--
Joao Rodrigues
Dr J R Stockton
Jan 7, 2018, 3:19:49 PM1/7/18
to
On Sunday, January 7, 2018 at 3:07:13 PM UTC, Joao Rodrigues wrote:
> On 06/01/2018 17:18, Dr J R Stockton wrote:
> > On Saturday, January 6, 2018 at 3:02:17 PM UTC, Joao Rodrigues wrote:
> >> On 31/12/2017 15:57, Dr J R Stockton wrote:
> >>> All of my PCs are set, everywhere that I have found, to
> >>> use UK, English, and ISO 8601, including the 24-hour clock.
> >>> ...
> On 06/01/2018 17:18, Dr J R Stockton wrote:
> > On Saturday, January 6, 2018 at 3:02:17 PM UTC, Joao Rodrigues wrote:
> >> On 31/12/2017 15:57, Dr J R Stockton wrote:
> >>> All of my PCs are set, everywhere that I have found, to
> >>> use UK, English, and ISO 8601, including the 24-hour clock.
> >>> ...
> > Also, timeZone is a terminological ineptitude; a Time Zone is defined as the set of places which, in local winter, have the same offset from GMT/UTC.
> >
>
> ECMAScript implementations must recognize at least "UTC" for timeZone in
> the options parameter. The default is the runtime's default time zone.
> Implementations may also recognize the time zone names of the IANA time
> zone database, such as "Asia/Shanghai", "Asia/Kolkata", "America/New_York".
> <https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Reference/Global_Objects/Date/toLocaleTimeString>
ECMA has accepted a terminological ineptitude.
> >
>
> ECMAScript implementations must recognize at least "UTC" for timeZone in
> the options parameter. The default is the runtime's default time zone.
> Implementations may also recognize the time zone names of the IANA time
> zone database, such as "Asia/Shanghai", "Asia/Kolkata", "America/New_York".
> <https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Reference/Global_Objects/Date/toLocaleTimeString>
The IANA — Time Zone Database at https://www.iana.org/time-zones is not a Time Zone Database : "It is updated periodically to reflect changes made by political bodies to time zone boundaries, UTC offsets, and daylight-saving rules.". It has a California address, and it is well known that Americans, especially over on that coast, disregard International Standards, etc. *
The proper meaning of Time Zone is that in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_zone - "A time zone is a region of the globe that observes a uniform standard time ...". And https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_time - "In regions where daylight saving time is used, that time is defined by another offset, from the standard time in its applicable time zones." in which the last two words should be replaced by 'regions' or similar.
So the UK (excepting, AIUI, one very small part) and Iceland are in the GMT Time Zone (WET (UTC+0)), even when the UK (but not Iceland) has Summer Time.
Granted, Wikipedia is not definitive; but in this case it is right.
* The Americans love standards - that is why they make so many different ones of their own whenever the whim takes them.
Jon Ribbens
Jan 8, 2018, 6:44:00 AM1/8/18
to
On 2018-01-07, Dr J R Stockton <J.R.St...@physics.org> wrote:
> So the UK (excepting, AIUI, one very small part) and Iceland are in
> the GMT Time Zone (WET (UTC+0)), even when the UK (but not Iceland)
> has Summer Time.
Where are you getting this idea that the time zone in the UK should
> So the UK (excepting, AIUI, one very small part) and Iceland are in
> the GMT Time Zone (WET (UTC+0)), even when the UK (but not Iceland)
> has Summer Time.
be called "the GMT Time Zone"? It is a contradiction in terms since
GMT is not a time zone and the UK is not on GMT during the summer.
Evertjan.
Jan 8, 2018, 7:27:06 AM1/8/18
to
Jon Ribbens <jon+u...@unequivocal.eu> wrote on 08 Jan 2018 in
comp.lang.javascript:
No, John is right.
The "time-zone" does not change during summer-time time-shift,
as time-zone defines a zone, read region, not a time.
comp.lang.javascript:
The "time-zone" does not change during summer-time time-shift,
as time-zone defines a zone, read region, not a time.
Dr J R Stockton
Jan 8, 2018, 9:09:43 AM1/8/18
to
On Monday, January 8, 2018 at 11:44:00 AM UTC, Jon Ribbens wrote:
By law, UK Time is GMT-based (unless the law has changed); but in actuality UK time is UTC-based, in all parts, and the Summer Time offset is an hour ahead of Winter Time.
AISB, a Time Zone is defined as a set of places which have the same Standard Time offset from GMT/UTC - and Standard Time is Winter Time, with Summer Time being offset forward from that (in practice, by a multiple of 30 minutes). ((( The delightful story that the Irish, realising that Summer Time lasts longer than Winter Time, decided to use GMT+1 as their Standard Time and set their clocks back by an hour for Winter is presumed to be untrue. Alas. )))
Most computers, although intermittently synchronised to a UTC source, actually use GMT+drift, since they ignore Leap Seconds.
> On 2018-01-07, Dr J R Stockton <...> wrote:
> > So the UK (excepting, AIUI, one very small part) and Iceland are in
> > the GMT Time Zone (WET (UTC+0)), even when the UK (but not Iceland)
> > has Summer Time.
>
> Where are you getting this idea that the time zone in the UK should
> be called "the GMT Time Zone"? It is a contradiction in terms since
> GMT is not a time zone and the UK is not on GMT during the summer.
I get the idea from reading truly authoritative sources of information, such as, but not necessarily all of, and not only, NPL, BIPM, NIST - and by remembering that Microsoft is unreliable.
> > So the UK (excepting, AIUI, one very small part) and Iceland are in
> > the GMT Time Zone (WET (UTC+0)), even when the UK (but not Iceland)
> > has Summer Time.
>
> Where are you getting this idea that the time zone in the UK should
> be called "the GMT Time Zone"? It is a contradiction in terms since
> GMT is not a time zone and the UK is not on GMT during the summer.
By law, UK Time is GMT-based (unless the law has changed); but in actuality UK time is UTC-based, in all parts, and the Summer Time offset is an hour ahead of Winter Time.
AISB, a Time Zone is defined as a set of places which have the same Standard Time offset from GMT/UTC - and Standard Time is Winter Time, with Summer Time being offset forward from that (in practice, by a multiple of 30 minutes). ((( The delightful story that the Irish, realising that Summer Time lasts longer than Winter Time, decided to use GMT+1 as their Standard Time and set their clocks back by an hour for Winter is presumed to be untrue. Alas. )))
Most computers, although intermittently synchronised to a UTC source, actually use GMT+drift, since they ignore Leap Seconds.
Jon Ribbens
Jan 8, 2018, 11:34:04 AM1/8/18
to
On 2018-01-08, Dr J R Stockton <J.R.St...@physics.org> wrote:
> On Monday, January 8, 2018 at 11:44:00 AM UTC, Jon Ribbens wrote:
>> Where are you getting this idea that the time zone in the UK should
>> be called "the GMT Time Zone"? It is a contradiction in terms since
>> GMT is not a time zone and the UK is not on GMT during the summer.
>
> I get the idea from reading truly authoritative sources of
> information, such as, but not necessarily all of, and not only, NPL,
> BIPM, NIST - and by remembering that Microsoft is unreliable.
It's Microsoft that (falsely/misleadingly) claims that the UK's
> On Monday, January 8, 2018 at 11:44:00 AM UTC, Jon Ribbens wrote:
>> Where are you getting this idea that the time zone in the UK should
>> be called "the GMT Time Zone"? It is a contradiction in terms since
>> GMT is not a time zone and the UK is not on GMT during the summer.
>
> I get the idea from reading truly authoritative sources of
> information, such as, but not necessarily all of, and not only, NPL,
> BIPM, NIST - and by remembering that Microsoft is unreliable.
time zone is "GMT". What is your reason for agreeing with them?
"NPL BIPM NIST" is not a cite.
> AISB, a Time Zone is defined as a set of places which have the same
> Standard Time offset from GMT/UTC - and Standard Time is Winter
> Time, with Summer Time being offset forward from that (in practice,
> by a multiple of 30 minutes).
and also the time in the UK in the summer is not GMT.
Jon Ribbens
Jan 8, 2018, 11:36:19 AM1/8/18
to
On 2018-01-08, Evertjan. <exxjxw.h...@inter.nl.net> wrote:
> Jon Ribbens <jon+u...@unequivocal.eu> wrote on 08 Jan 2018 in
> comp.lang.javascript:
> Jon Ribbens <jon+u...@unequivocal.eu> wrote on 08 Jan 2018 in
> comp.lang.javascript:
>> Where are you getting this idea that the time zone in the UK should
>> be called "the GMT Time Zone"? It is a contradiction in terms since
>> GMT is not a time zone and the UK is not on GMT during the summer.
>
> No, John is right.
>
> The "time-zone" does not change during summer-time time-shift,
> as time-zone defines a zone, read region, not a time.
Obviously I'm not denying that the UK (currently) has a time zone.
>> be called "the GMT Time Zone"? It is a contradiction in terms since
>> GMT is not a time zone and the UK is not on GMT during the summer.
>
> No, John is right.
>
> The "time-zone" does not change during summer-time time-shift,
> as time-zone defines a zone, read region, not a time.
What I would like is a reference that someone with the authority to do
so has given that time zone the exceedingly misleading name of "GMT".
Mark-
Jan 8, 2018, 1:58:40 PM1/8/18
to
Jon Ribbens wrote:
> Yes. None of that contradicts the facts that GMT is not a Time Zone...
What?
GMT IS a time zone (UTC + 0).
Countless sources state GMT as a time zone.
Just one of thousands, https://www.timeanddate.com/time/zones/
> Yes. None of that contradicts the facts that GMT is not a Time Zone...
What?
GMT IS a time zone (UTC + 0).
Countless sources state GMT as a time zone.
Just one of thousands, https://www.timeanddate.com/time/zones/
Jon Ribbens
Jan 8, 2018, 2:33:45 PM1/8/18
to
On 2018-01-08, Mark- <nos...@mapson.xyz> wrote:
> Jon Ribbens wrote:
>> Yes. None of that contradicts the facts that GMT is not a Time Zone...
>
> What?
>
> GMT IS a time zone (UTC + 0).
Please read the thread. As everyone is agreed, a Time Zone is
> Jon Ribbens wrote:
>> Yes. None of that contradicts the facts that GMT is not a Time Zone...
>
> What?
>
> GMT IS a time zone (UTC + 0).
a geographic area or set of areas which use a common time standard.
"GMT" is not a geographic area, it *is* a time standard, and one
which in summer time does not equal the time used in the UK.
Mark-
Jan 8, 2018, 3:26:44 PM1/8/18
to
Jon Ribbens wrote:
> Please read the thread.
I read the complete thread.
GMT IS associated with a "geographic area or set of areas".
The "which use a common time standard" is the error.
The zone exists regardless of all or any inhabitants time selection.
> Please read the thread.
I read the complete thread.
GMT IS associated with a "geographic area or set of areas".
The "which use a common time standard" is the error.
The zone exists regardless of all or any inhabitants time selection.
Evertjan.
Jan 8, 2018, 4:11:40 PM1/8/18
to
"Mark-" <nos...@mapson.xyz> wrote on 08 Jan 2018 in comp.lang.javascript:
> Jon Ribbens wrote:
>
>
>> Please read the thread.
>
> I read the complete thread.
>
> GMT IS associated with a "geographic area or set of areas".
> The "which use a common time standard" is the error.
Well, I am "associated" with you, because we write in the same thread,
> Jon Ribbens wrote:
>
>
>> Please read the thread.
>
> I read the complete thread.
>
> GMT IS associated with a "geographic area or set of areas".
> The "which use a common time standard" is the error.
that does not mean you are me, thinking so would be a delusion.
GMT or the "mean" [because of the earth and it's path are not perfectly
round] of the 0 meridian of Greenwich [because you neet to fix is somehere
and England ruled the waves then] is a time definition.
I see no problem calling a time-region after this GMT,
I prefer to call it the the WET-zone.
However, the name of such region or zone should not does not change when
summer time [= 'dst' for the transponders] is aplied.
> The zone exists regardless of all or any inhabitants time selection.
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
Jan 8, 2018, 8:10:56 PM1/8/18
to
Mark- <nos...@mapson.xyz> wrote:
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
That is _not_ a proper From header field value. Read and observe RFC 5536.
> Jon Ribbens wrote:
>> Yes. None of that contradicts the facts that GMT is not a Time Zone...
>
> What?
>
> GMT IS a time zone
It was.
> (UTC + 0).
This is properly written “UTC” or “UTC±00:00”. UTC(±00:00) is a time zone;
GMT is not (anymore). GMT (Greenwich Mean Time) is used as a standard time
in that time zone instead.
<https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e8/Standard_World_Time_Zones.png>
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenwich_Mean_Time#Time_zone>
> Countless sources state GMT as a time zone.
Those sources are out of date or incorrect.
AISB.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
That is _not_ a proper From header field value. Read and observe RFC 5536.
> Jon Ribbens wrote:
>> Yes. None of that contradicts the facts that GMT is not a Time Zone...
>
> What?
>
> GMT IS a time zone
> (UTC + 0).
This is properly written “UTC” or “UTC±00:00”. UTC(±00:00) is a time zone;
GMT is not (anymore). GMT (Greenwich Mean Time) is used as a standard time
in that time zone instead.
<https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e8/Standard_World_Time_Zones.png>
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenwich_Mean_Time#Time_zone>
> Countless sources state GMT as a time zone.
AISB.
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
Jan 8, 2018, 8:31:47 PM1/8/18
to
Mark- wrote:
> Jon Ribbens wrote:
>> Please read the thread.
>
> I read the complete thread.
But one or more of your research depth, reading capabilities, or
> Jon Ribbens wrote:
>> Please read the thread.
>
> I read the complete thread.
understanding is lacking.
> GMT IS associated with a "geographic area or set of areas".
Britannica, arguably one of the authorities on whether GMT is a time zone,
defines it as follows:
,-<https://www.britannica.com/science/time-zone>
|
| *Time zone*, a zone on the terrestrial globe that is approximately 15°
| longitude wide and extends from pole to pole and within which a uniform
| clock time is used. Time zones are the functional basis of <standard
| time>.
> The "which use a common time standard" is the error.
,-<https://greenwichmeantime.com/what-is-gmt/>
|
| Setting a Standard for World Time Zones
|
| Note: UK Time is GMT during winter - between October and March
> The zone exists regardless of all or any inhabitants time selection.
Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (UK) All of Great Britain, for
example, switches forth and back between GMT and BST (British Summer Time)
without changing its geographical location.
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
Jan 8, 2018, 8:55:38 PM1/8/18
to
Mark- wrote:
> Jon Ribbens wrote:
>> Please read the thread.
>
> I read the complete thread.
> Jon Ribbens wrote:
>> Please read the thread.
>
> I read the complete thread.
But one or more of your research depth, reading capabilities, or
understanding is lacking.
understanding is lacking.
> GMT IS associated with a "geographic area or set of areas".
But that is _not_ the definition for “time zone”. The Encyclopædia
Britannica, arguably one of the authorities on whether GMT is a time zone,
defines it as follows:
,-<https://www.britannica.com/science/time-zone>
|
| *Time zone*, a zone on the terrestrial globe that is approximately 15°
| longitude wide and extends from pole to pole and within which a uniform
| clock time is used. Time zones are the functional basis of <standard
| time>.
Britannica, arguably one of the authorities on whether GMT is a time zone,
defines it as follows:
,-<https://www.britannica.com/science/time-zone>
|
| *Time zone*, a zone on the terrestrial globe that is approximately 15°
| longitude wide and extends from pole to pole and within which a uniform
| clock time is used. Time zones are the functional basis of <standard
> The "which use a common time standard" is the error.
No, *you* are in error.
,-<https://greenwichmeantime.com/what-is-gmt/>
|
| Setting a Standard for World Time Zones
|
| Note: UK Time is GMT during winter - between October and March
,-<https://greenwichmeantime.com/what-is-gmt/>
|
| Setting a Standard for World Time Zones
|
| Note: UK Time is GMT during winter - between October and March
> The zone exists regardless of all or any inhabitants time selection.
That is why GMT is not the name of a time zone (anymore). The United
Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (UK), for example, switches
Mark-
Jan 8, 2018, 10:35:45 PM1/8/18
to
> That is not a proper From header field value. Read and observe RFC
> 5536.
Bite me.
> Those sources are out of date or incorrect.
Says the guy using Wikipedia as a source.
LOL, Wikipedia as a source. HA
>But one or more of your research depth, reading capabilities, or
understanding is lacking.
I have read so many of your post and you are always right (in your
mind) and in most post, you are a pedantic condescending ass,
disdainful of all others.
Wasting my time with you has come to an end.
> 5536.
Bite me.
> Those sources are out of date or incorrect.
LOL, Wikipedia as a source. HA
>But one or more of your research depth, reading capabilities, or
understanding is lacking.
mind) and in most post, you are a pedantic condescending ass,
disdainful of all others.
Wasting my time with you has come to an end.
Andrew Poulos
Jan 8, 2018, 11:51:19 PM1/8/18
to
On 9/01/2018 2:35 PM, Mark- wrote:
> I have read so many of your post and you are always right (in your
> mind) and in most post, you are a pedantic condescending ass,
> disdainful of all others.
Despite the unfortunate tone he often uses I suspect that PE is right
> I have read so many of your post and you are always right (in your
> mind) and in most post, you are a pedantic condescending ass,
> disdainful of all others.
significantly more times than not.
Andrew Poulos
Evertjan.
Jan 9, 2018, 3:36:19 AM1/9/18
to
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <Point...@web.de> wrote on 09 Jan 2018 in
comp.lang.javascript:
> That is why GMT is not the name of a time zone (anymore).
That maybe so, dependent of what standard you quote, but a time-zone is a
region.
> The United
> Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (UK), for example, switches
> forth and back between GMT and BST (British Summer Time) without changing
> its geographical location.
That is beside the point: what time is used in a time-zone does not
'switch' the region, so the name of the time-zone is not[!] BST in summer.
comp.lang.javascript:
> That is why GMT is not the name of a time zone (anymore).
region.
> The United
> Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (UK), for example, switches
> forth and back between GMT and BST (British Summer Time) without changing
> its geographical location.
'switch' the region, so the name of the time-zone is not[!] BST in summer.
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
Jan 9, 2018, 7:19:34 AM1/9/18
to
Mark- wrote:
> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> Mark- <nos...@mapson.xyz> wrote:
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> That is not a proper From header field value. Read and observe RFC
>> 5536.
>
> Bite me.
No, if you continue like this, I will ignore you instead. Because then you
> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> Mark- <nos...@mapson.xyz> wrote:
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> That is not a proper From header field value. Read and observe RFC
>> 5536.
>
> Bite me.
cannot be reasoned with, and reading and replying to your postings is a
waste of time. Especially as so far you had nothing on topic to offer.
>> Those sources are out of date or incorrect.
>
> Says the guy using Wikipedia as a source.
the Encyclopædia Britannica in 2005:
<https://www.nature.com/articles/438900a>
Second, again you have not read the whole thread. I have posted another
follow-up shortly after:
<news:2922315.o...@PointedEars.de>
> LOL, Wikipedia as a source. HA
first Google hit instead of doing proper research. (I know because I have
googled for “gmt "time zone"” as well.)
Wikipedia is not just any wiki. It is an encyclopedia and as such requires
from its editors to include references for statement:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability>
For that reason, some universities have started to accept references to
Wikipedia articles in scientific work given that the timestamp is specified,
too:
<http://guides.library.ucla.edu/wikipedia/citing-wikipedia>
In your hubris, you have not followed either references.
Mark-
Jan 9, 2018, 8:17:52 AM1/9/18
to
Andrew Poulos wrote:
> Despite the unfortunate tone he often uses I suspect that PE is right
> significantly more times than not.
That you "suspect" indicates an opinion, not fact. Please do not be an
> Despite the unfortunate tone he often uses I suspect that PE is right
> significantly more times than not.
apologist for an ass.
I fail to see why people tolerate a person acting like PE does. It does
not do them, society or you any favors.
Evertjan.
Jan 9, 2018, 8:45:12 AM1/9/18
to
"Mark-" <nos...@mapson.xyz> wrote on 09 Jan 2018 in comp.lang.javascript:
> Andrew Poulos wrote:
>
>> Despite the unfortunate tone he often uses I suspect that PE is right
>> significantly more times than not.
>
> That you "suspect" indicates an opinion, not fact. Please do not be an
> apologist for an ass.
What nonsense.
> Andrew Poulos wrote:
>
>> Despite the unfortunate tone he often uses I suspect that PE is right
>> significantly more times than not.
>
> That you "suspect" indicates an opinion, not fact. Please do not be an
> apologist for an ass.
You cannot state a fact, only opinion, and therefore you have to give logic
founded on evidence to stear your opinion in the direction of a fact.
The 'truthfulness of a statement' [making it 'factual'] is not dependend on
authority or dogma, but on evidence and logic.
> I fail to see why people tolerate a person acting like PE does. It does
> not do them, society or you any favors.
Why should you only be tolerant if it favours you, me or society?
Mark-
Jan 9, 2018, 9:14:08 AM1/9/18
to
Evertjan. wrote:
>You cannot state a fact, only opinion,
Balderdash.
>You cannot state a fact, only opinion,
> Why should you only be tolerant if it favours you, me or society?
I said "It does not do them, society or you any favors." THEM, THEM, I
said THEM first, that is the primary point. Society is secondary and
you/me are tertiary, in this instance.
Time to exit stage left.
Andrew Poulos
Jan 10, 2018, 1:28:48 AM1/10/18
to
On 10/01/2018 1:13 AM, Mark- wrote:
> I said "It does not do them, society or you any favors." THEM, THEM, I
> said THEM first, that is the primary point. Society is secondary and
> you/me are tertiary, in this instance.
That you believe my tolerance a failing is, perhaps, your failing.
> I said "It does not do them, society or you any favors." THEM, THEM, I
> said THEM first, that is the primary point. Society is secondary and
> you/me are tertiary, in this instance.
Andrew Poulos
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
Jan 10, 2018, 3:01:14 PM1/10/18
to
Mark-
Jan 10, 2018, 4:00:43 PM1/10/18
to
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> Please do not feed the troll.
My my, nasty. But that is normal for your post. I guess that makes you
> Please do not feed the troll.
a gnome.
Dr J R Stockton
Jan 20, 2018, 11:43:36 AM1/20/18
to
On Monday, January 8, 2018 at 4:34:04 PM UTC, Jon Ribbens wrote:
The Standard Time in the UK (a modicum excepted, according to Clive) is (by Law, as translated from the EU, IIRC) GMT - however, the UK's standard time is UTC-based. Time Zones are normally designated by the nominal number of hours by which the Standard Time is offset from UTC, which for the UK (except ...) is 0. GMT and UTC are similar but not synonymous.
The definition of the Date Object implies that ECMAscript time is actually GMT-based, since ECMAscript has no Leap Seconds.
> "NPL BIPM NIST" is not a cite.
Agreed not a cite. But you can look them up in Wikipedia (for NPL, an intelligent selection is then needed) and thence access their Web sites.
> > AISB, a Time Zone is defined as a set of places which have the same
> > Standard Time offset from GMT/UTC - and Standard Time is Winter
> > Time, with Summer Time being offset forward from that (in practice,
> > by a multiple of 30 minutes).
>
> Yes. None of that contradicts the facts that GMT is not a Time Zone,
> and also the time in the UK in the summer is not GMT.
GMT is not the formal name of our Time Zone, just an adequate nickname, but the Standard Time in the UK (") is by Law GMT (IIRC) and in practice is UTC.
> On 2018-01-08, <JRS> wrote:
> > On Monday, January 8, 2018 at 11:44:00 AM UTC, Jon Ribbens wrote:
> >> Where are you getting this idea that the time zone in the UK should
> >> be called "the GMT Time Zone"? It is a contradiction in terms since
> >> GMT is not a time zone and the UK is not on GMT during the summer.
> >
> > I get the idea from reading truly authoritative sources of
> > information, such as, but not necessarily all of, and not only, NPL,
> > BIPM, NIST - and by remembering that Microsoft is unreliable.
>
> It's Microsoft that (falsely/misleadingly) claims that the UK's
> time zone is "GMT". What is your reason for agreeing with them?
Well, I rarely like agreeing with them; but if & when they claim that the UK's Time Zone is permanently 0, GMT, UTC, GMT+0, UTC-0, etc., they are correct - which does not of course prevent other parts of the firm from being wrong. Consider their VBscript function DatePart which for a decade or more has been capable of giving the occasional one-day week ...
> > On Monday, January 8, 2018 at 11:44:00 AM UTC, Jon Ribbens wrote:
> >> Where are you getting this idea that the time zone in the UK should
> >> be called "the GMT Time Zone"? It is a contradiction in terms since
> >> GMT is not a time zone and the UK is not on GMT during the summer.
> >
> > I get the idea from reading truly authoritative sources of
> > information, such as, but not necessarily all of, and not only, NPL,
> > BIPM, NIST - and by remembering that Microsoft is unreliable.
>
> It's Microsoft that (falsely/misleadingly) claims that the UK's
> time zone is "GMT". What is your reason for agreeing with them?
The Standard Time in the UK (a modicum excepted, according to Clive) is (by Law, as translated from the EU, IIRC) GMT - however, the UK's standard time is UTC-based. Time Zones are normally designated by the nominal number of hours by which the Standard Time is offset from UTC, which for the UK (except ...) is 0. GMT and UTC are similar but not synonymous.
The definition of the Date Object implies that ECMAscript time is actually GMT-based, since ECMAscript has no Leap Seconds.
> "NPL BIPM NIST" is not a cite.
> > AISB, a Time Zone is defined as a set of places which have the same
> > Standard Time offset from GMT/UTC - and Standard Time is Winter
> > Time, with Summer Time being offset forward from that (in practice,
> > by a multiple of 30 minutes).
>
> Yes. None of that contradicts the facts that GMT is not a Time Zone,
> and also the time in the UK in the summer is not GMT.
Jon Ribbens
Jan 21, 2018, 10:10:00 AM1/21/18
to
On 2018-01-20, Dr J R Stockton <J.R.St...@physics.org> wrote:
> On Monday, January 8, 2018 at 4:34:04 PM UTC, Jon Ribbens wrote:
>> It's Microsoft that (falsely/misleadingly) claims that the UK's
>> time zone is "GMT". What is your reason for agreeing with them?
>
> Well, I rarely like agreeing with them; but if & when they claim
> that the UK's Time Zone is permanently 0, GMT, UTC, GMT+0, UTC-0,
> etc., they are correct - which does not of course prevent other
> parts of the firm from being wrong.
I'm thinking mostly of Outlook meeting invites, which describe
> On Monday, January 8, 2018 at 4:34:04 PM UTC, Jon Ribbens wrote:
>> It's Microsoft that (falsely/misleadingly) claims that the UK's
>> time zone is "GMT". What is your reason for agreeing with them?
>
> Well, I rarely like agreeing with them; but if & when they claim
> that the UK's Time Zone is permanently 0, GMT, UTC, GMT+0, UTC-0,
> etc., they are correct - which does not of course prevent other
> parts of the firm from being wrong.
the date and time in the following format:
TZID=GMT Standard Time:20180601T150000
which is at best extremely misleading and at worst completely wrong.
Apple Mail invites look like the following instead:
TZID=Europe/London:20180601T150000
which is much clearer. (Amusingly, the Apple invite also appears
for some reason to contain the complete daylight savings rules for
the UK from 1916 to the present day.)
> The Standard Time in the UK (a modicum excepted, according to Clive)
> is (by Law, as translated from the EU, IIRC) GMT - however, the UK's
> standard time is UTC-based. Time Zones are normally designated by
> the nominal number of hours by which the Standard Time is offset
> from UTC, which for the UK (except ...) is 0. GMT and UTC are
> similar but not synonymous.
itself is not. For example, the time in the UK and the time in Mali
are both currently GMT+0 but they are not in the same time zone as
in a few months the UK will be GMT+1 and Mali will still be GMT+0.
>> "NPL BIPM NIST" is not a cite.
>
> Agreed not a cite. But you can look them up in Wikipedia (for NPL,
> an intelligent selection is then needed) and thence access their Web
> sites.
I don't know what those organisations are or that I cannot find
their websites, the problem is that you have given no indication
which of their hundreds of thousands of publications you are
referring to.
> GMT is not the formal name of our Time Zone, just an adequate
> nickname, but the Standard Time in the UK (") is by Law GMT (IIRC)
> and in practice is UTC.
use it that way then in the summer if someone says "I'll meet you at
3pm GMT" you have no way of knowing what time they intend to meet you.
Amusingly, something like this sort of issue actually came up last night,
as I was going to an event at the "St Moritz" club in London which was
advertised by a Facebook event. Facebook had assumed the organiser
meant St Moritz in Switzerland so the advertised start time for the
event was "22:00 CET", and I had no way of knowing whether they
actually meant 21:00 GMT or 22:00 GMT.
Evertjan.
Jan 21, 2018, 11:26:35 AM1/21/18
to
Jon Ribbens <jon+u...@unequivocal.eu> wrote on 21 Jan 2018 in
comp.lang.javascript:
> My point is that it is not at all an adequate nickname, because if you
> use it that way then in the summer if someone says "I'll meet you at
> 3pm GMT" you have no way of knowing what time they intend to meet you.
What nonsense.
I know exactly what is ment.
[Intentions are always only known after the fact.]
Time-zone defines an area, which can be called GMT.
GMT-time is the winter time of the GMT-time-zone.
comp.lang.javascript:
> My point is that it is not at all an adequate nickname, because if you
> use it that way then in the summer if someone says "I'll meet you at
> 3pm GMT" you have no way of knowing what time they intend to meet you.
I know exactly what is ment.
[Intentions are always only known after the fact.]
Time-zone defines an area, which can be called GMT.
GMT-time is the winter time of the GMT-time-zone.
Jon Ribbens
Jan 21, 2018, 11:41:28 AM1/21/18
to
On 2018-01-21, Evertjan. <exxjxw.h...@inter.nl.net> wrote:
> Jon Ribbens <jon+u...@unequivocal.eu> wrote on 21 Jan 2018 in
> comp.lang.javascript:
>> My point is that it is not at all an adequate nickname, because if you
>> use it that way then in the summer if someone says "I'll meet you at
>> 3pm GMT" you have no way of knowing what time they intend to meet you.
>
> What nonsense.
> I know exactly what is ment.
> [Intentions are always only known after the fact.]
>
> Time-zone defines an area, which can be called GMT.
>
> GMT-time is the winter time of the GMT-time-zone.
Ok, I'll meet you in Trafalgar Square on 1st June at at 3pm (GMT).
> Jon Ribbens <jon+u...@unequivocal.eu> wrote on 21 Jan 2018 in
> comp.lang.javascript:
>> My point is that it is not at all an adequate nickname, because if you
>> use it that way then in the summer if someone says "I'll meet you at
>> 3pm GMT" you have no way of knowing what time they intend to meet you.
>
> What nonsense.
> I know exactly what is ment.
> [Intentions are always only known after the fact.]
>
> Time-zone defines an area, which can be called GMT.
>
> GMT-time is the winter time of the GMT-time-zone.
At what time in UTC do you think I am saying I will be there?
Evertjan.
Jan 21, 2018, 1:15:40 PM1/21/18
to
> Ok, I'll meet you in Trafalgar Square on 1st June at at 3pm (GMT).
> At what time in UTC do you think I am saying I will be there?
1500Z,
> At what time in UTC do you think I am saying I will be there?
as you are stating a time in GMT, not a time-zone,
and a region [Trafalgar Square].
First time I was feeding the birds there was in May 1946.
I think I'll pass on your invitation,
as I expect you will be rather uncertain about your own timing,
and feeding the birds is not done anymore.
<https://youtu.be/kRQTOAKKrpo>
Jon Ribbens
Jan 21, 2018, 1:56:53 PM1/21/18
to
On 2018-01-21, Evertjan. <exxjxw.h...@inter.nl.net> wrote:
> Jon Ribbens <jon+u...@unequivocal.eu> wrote on 21 Jan 2018 in
> comp.lang.javascript:
>> Ok, I'll meet you in Trafalgar Square on 1st June at at 3pm (GMT).
>> At what time in UTC do you think I am saying I will be there?
>
> 1500Z,
> as you are stating a time in GMT, not a time-zone,
> and a region [Trafalgar Square].
No, sorry, I meant "GMT the time zone", so I'll be there at 1400Z
> comp.lang.javascript:
>> Ok, I'll meet you in Trafalgar Square on 1st June at at 3pm (GMT).
>> At what time in UTC do you think I am saying I will be there?
>
> 1500Z,
> as you are stating a time in GMT, not a time-zone,
> and a region [Trafalgar Square].
and you'll miss me and won't get the €50 I was surely going to give
you.
Evertjan.
Jan 21, 2018, 3:58:20 PM1/21/18
to
> On 2018-01-21, Evertjan wrote:
>> Jon Ribbens wrote on 21 Jan 2018
What you mistakenly ment does not count,
because by GMT you could also mistakenly have ment
Waktu Indonesia Barat or Pacific Summer Time.
> so I'll be there at 1400Z
At your peril, because I take my own time
feeding the birds [or the trolls] of a region.
This Wednesday around 15:00 EST,
after exiting the American Museum of Natural History,
where I viewed "Dark Universe", spoken by Neil deGrasse Tyson,
in it's Hayden Planetarium <https://vimeo.com/83791897>,
I was in Central Park feeding the black and the gray squirrels.
> and you'll miss me and won't get the €50 I was surely going to give
> you.
You should not resort to bribes to prove your point.
btw, .toLocaleTimeString() should be unnecesary, as,
according to Albert Einstein, time is necessarily a local phenomenon.
>> Jon Ribbens wrote on 21 Jan 2018
>>> Ok, I'll meet you in Trafalgar Square on 1st June at at 3pm (GMT).
>>> At what time in UTC do you think I am saying I will be there?
>>
>> 1500Z,
>> as you are stating a time in GMT, not a time-zone,
>> and a region [Trafalgar Square].
>
> No, sorry, I meant "GMT the time zone"
Yes, you should be sorry, Jon.
>>> At what time in UTC do you think I am saying I will be there?
>>
>> 1500Z,
>> as you are stating a time in GMT, not a time-zone,
>> and a region [Trafalgar Square].
>
> No, sorry, I meant "GMT the time zone"
What you mistakenly ment does not count,
because by GMT you could also mistakenly have ment
Waktu Indonesia Barat or Pacific Summer Time.
> so I'll be there at 1400Z
feeding the birds [or the trolls] of a region.
This Wednesday around 15:00 EST,
after exiting the American Museum of Natural History,
where I viewed "Dark Universe", spoken by Neil deGrasse Tyson,
in it's Hayden Planetarium <https://vimeo.com/83791897>,
I was in Central Park feeding the black and the gray squirrels.
> and you'll miss me and won't get the €50 I was surely going to give
> you.
btw, .toLocaleTimeString() should be unnecesary, as,
according to Albert Einstein, time is necessarily a local phenomenon.
Jon Ribbens
Jan 21, 2018, 6:03:25 PM1/21/18
to
On 2018-01-21, Evertjan. <exxjxw.h...@inter.nl.net> wrote:
> Jon Ribbens <jon+u...@unequivocal.eu> wrote on 21 Jan 2018 in
> comp.lang.javascript:
>> On 2018-01-21, Evertjan wrote:
>>> Jon Ribbens wrote on 21 Jan 2018
>>>> Ok, I'll meet you in Trafalgar Square on 1st June at at 3pm (GMT).
>>>> At what time in UTC do you think I am saying I will be there?
>>>
>>> 1500Z,
>>> as you are stating a time in GMT, not a time-zone,
>>> and a region [Trafalgar Square].
>>
>> No, sorry, I meant "GMT the time zone"
>
> Yes, you should be sorry, Jon.
>
> What you mistakenly ment does not count,
> because by GMT you could also mistakenly have ment
> Waktu Indonesia Barat or Pacific Summer Time.
I apologise profusely for treating you as if you were a rational
> comp.lang.javascript:
>> On 2018-01-21, Evertjan wrote:
>>> Jon Ribbens wrote on 21 Jan 2018
>>>> Ok, I'll meet you in Trafalgar Square on 1st June at at 3pm (GMT).
>>>> At what time in UTC do you think I am saying I will be there?
>>>
>>> 1500Z,
>>> as you are stating a time in GMT, not a time-zone,
>>> and a region [Trafalgar Square].
>>
>> No, sorry, I meant "GMT the time zone"
>
> Yes, you should be sorry, Jon.
>
> What you mistakenly ment does not count,
> because by GMT you could also mistakenly have ment
> Waktu Indonesia Barat or Pacific Summer Time.
person who might have a reasonable point to make. I shall attempt
not to make that mistake again.
Evertjan.
Jan 22, 2018, 4:41:29 AM1/22/18
to
Jon Ribbens <jon+u...@unequivocal.eu> wrote on 22 Jan 2018 in
instead of reasoning as discussing the arguments,
where both sides might learn something,
then you are right.
However you seem to prefer the ad-hominem falacy.
comp.lang.javascript:
> On 2018-01-21, Evertjan. <exxjxw.h...@inter.nl.net> wrote:
>> Jon Ribbens <jon+u...@unequivocal.eu> wrote on 21 Jan 2018 in
>> comp.lang.javascript:
>>> On 2018-01-21, Evertjan wrote:
>>>> Jon Ribbens wrote on 21 Jan 2018
>>>>> Ok, I'll meet you in Trafalgar Square on 1st June at at 3pm (GMT).
>>>>> At what time in UTC do you think I am saying I will be there?
>>>>
>>>> 1500Z,
>>>> as you are stating a time in GMT, not a time-zone,
>>>> and a region [Trafalgar Square].
>>>
>>> No, sorry, I meant "GMT the time zone"
>>
>> Yes, you should be sorry, Jon.
>>
>> What you mistakenly ment does not count,
>> because by GMT you could also mistakenly have ment
>> Waktu Indonesia Barat or Pacific Summer Time.
>
> I apologise profusely for treating you as if you were a rational
> person who might have a reasonable point to make. I shall attempt
> not to make that mistake again.
If you define "reasonable" as agreeing with you,
> On 2018-01-21, Evertjan. <exxjxw.h...@inter.nl.net> wrote:
>> Jon Ribbens <jon+u...@unequivocal.eu> wrote on 21 Jan 2018 in
>> comp.lang.javascript:
>>> On 2018-01-21, Evertjan wrote:
>>>> Jon Ribbens wrote on 21 Jan 2018
>>>>> Ok, I'll meet you in Trafalgar Square on 1st June at at 3pm (GMT).
>>>>> At what time in UTC do you think I am saying I will be there?
>>>>
>>>> 1500Z,
>>>> as you are stating a time in GMT, not a time-zone,
>>>> and a region [Trafalgar Square].
>>>
>>> No, sorry, I meant "GMT the time zone"
>>
>> Yes, you should be sorry, Jon.
>>
>> What you mistakenly ment does not count,
>> because by GMT you could also mistakenly have ment
>> Waktu Indonesia Barat or Pacific Summer Time.
>
> I apologise profusely for treating you as if you were a rational
> person who might have a reasonable point to make. I shall attempt
> not to make that mistake again.
instead of reasoning as discussing the arguments,
where both sides might learn something,
then you are right.
However you seem to prefer the ad-hominem falacy.
Joao Rodrigues
Jan 22, 2018, 8:17:10 AM1/22/18
to
On 21/01/2018 16:56, Jon Ribbens wrote:
> On 2018-01-21, Evertjan wrote:
>> Jon Ribbens wrote on 21 Jan 2018 in
> On 2018-01-21, Evertjan wrote:
>> comp.lang.javascript:
>>> Ok, I'll meet you in Trafalgar Square on 1st June at at 3pm (GMT).
>>> At what time in UTC do you think I am saying I will be there?
>>
>> 1500Z,
>> as you are stating a time in GMT, not a time-zone,
>> and a region [Trafalgar Square].
>
Armed Forces, aviation and maritime companies around the globe use the
>>> Ok, I'll meet you in Trafalgar Square on 1st June at at 3pm (GMT).
>>> At what time in UTC do you think I am saying I will be there?
>>
>> 1500Z,
>> as you are stating a time in GMT, not a time-zone,
>> and a region [Trafalgar Square].
>
NATO Letter Timezones, being "Z" (Zulu time or Zero meridian time) the
same as UTC+0 [1].
So if you say 1500Z, it means 3pm in UTC+0.
> No, sorry, I meant "GMT the time zone", so I'll be there at 1400Z
2018, I mean if Donald Trump and Kim Jong-un don't press their nuclear
buttons before that. Therefore, 3pm in London will be 1400Z (UTC) + 1.
[1] <http://www.world-timezone.com/military-nato-letter-timezones/>
--
Joao Rodrigues
Mark-
Jan 22, 2018, 9:24:12 AM1/22/18
to
Joao Rodrigues wrote:
> I mean if Donald Trump and Kim Jong-un don't press their
> nuclear buttons before that
<shaking head>
> I mean if Donald Trump and Kim Jong-un don't press their
> nuclear buttons before that
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
Jan 22, 2018, 9:50:50 PM1/22/18
to
Joao Rodrigues wrote:
> On 21/01/2018 16:56, Jon Ribbens wrote:
>> On 2018-01-21, Evertjan wrote:
>>> Jon Ribbens wrote on 21 Jan 2018 in
>>> comp.lang.javascript:
>>>> Ok, I'll meet you in Trafalgar Square on 1st June at at 3pm (GMT).
>>>> At what time in UTC do you think I am saying I will be there?
>>> 1500Z,
>>> as you are stating a time in GMT, not a time-zone,
>>> and a region [Trafalgar Square].
>
> Armed Forces, aviation and maritime companies around the globe use the
> NATO Letter Timezones, being "Z" (Zulu time or Zero meridian time) the
> same as UTC+0 [1].
>
> So if you say 1500Z, it means 3pm in UTC+0.
>
> […]
> On 21/01/2018 16:56, Jon Ribbens wrote:
>> On 2018-01-21, Evertjan wrote:
>>> Jon Ribbens wrote on 21 Jan 2018 in
>>> comp.lang.javascript:
>>>> Ok, I'll meet you in Trafalgar Square on 1st June at at 3pm (GMT).
>>>> At what time in UTC do you think I am saying I will be there?
>>> 1500Z,
>>> as you are stating a time in GMT, not a time-zone,
>>> and a region [Trafalgar Square].
>
> Armed Forces, aviation and maritime companies around the globe use the
> NATO Letter Timezones, being "Z" (Zulu time or Zero meridian time) the
> same as UTC+0 [1].
>
> So if you say 1500Z, it means 3pm in UTC+0.
>
> [1] <http://www.world-timezone.com/military-nato-letter-timezones/>
The Web site you are citing contains dubious information in at least two
respects.
First, as we have discussed earlier, GMT is _not_ a timezone, but a standard
time. This also applies to other standard times listed as “time zones”.
Second, although “Zulu” is probably related to the NATO Alphabet, because it
is that alphabet’s word for spelling the letter “Z”, it could be
coincidental that it is also the time at the “zero meridian”. The military
time zones are labeled eastwards with letters, starting with UTC+1 to
receive the letter “A”, which makes the last timezone in that order to be
UTC+0 and to receive the letter “Z” (it is claimed that “J” has been
intentionally omitted for various reasons). The Web site gives the
impression that this is not so, which may well be wishful thinking.
See also: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_military_time_zones>
Mark-
Jan 22, 2018, 11:41:15 PM1/22/18
to
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> First, as we have discussed earlier, GMT is not a timezone, but a
> See also: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_military_time_zones>
Back to wikipedia as a source. HA
> First, as we have discussed earlier, GMT is not a timezone, but a
> standard time. This also applies to other standard times listed as
> “time zones”.
Many others disagree.
> “time zones”.
> See also: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_military_time_zones>
Back to wikipedia as a source. HA
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
Jan 23, 2018, 2:55:45 AM1/23/18
to
Mark- wrote:
> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> First, as we have discussed earlier, GMT is not a timezone, but a
>> standard time. This also applies to other standard times listed as
>> “time zones”.
>
> Many others disagree.
“Even if all the experts agree, they may well be mistaken.”
> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> First, as we have discussed earlier, GMT is not a timezone, but a
>> standard time. This also applies to other standard times listed as
>> “time zones”.
>
> Many others disagree.
—Bertrand Russell, philosopher (1872–1970)
>> See also: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_military_time_zones>
>
> Back to wikipedia as a source. HA
John G Harris
Jan 23, 2018, 3:44:58 AM1/23/18
to
On Tue, 23 Jan 2018 04:41:06 +0000 (UTC), "Mark-" <nos...@mapson.xyz>
wrote:
>Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>
>> First, as we have discussed earlier, GMT is not a timezone, but a
>> standard time. This also applies to other standard times listed as
>> “time zones”.
>
>Many others disagree.
<snip>
Greenwich Mean Time is a time, though not a very reliable one.
"GMT" is a nickname for a time zone, but a rather confusing one.
John
wrote:
>Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>
>> First, as we have discussed earlier, GMT is not a timezone, but a
>> standard time. This also applies to other standard times listed as
>> “time zones”.
>
>Many others disagree.
Greenwich Mean Time is a time, though not a very reliable one.
"GMT" is a nickname for a time zone, but a rather confusing one.
John
Dr J R Stockton
Jan 23, 2018, 6:00:22 AM1/23/18
to
On Sunday, January 21, 2018 at 4:41:28 PM UTC, Jon Ribbens wrote:
> On 2018-01-21, Evertjan. <exxjxw.h...@inter.nl.net> wrote:
> > Jon Ribbens <jon+u...@unequivocal.eu> wrote on 21 Jan 2018 in
> > comp.lang.javascript:
> On 2018-01-21, Evertjan. <exxjxw.h...@inter.nl.net> wrote:
> > Jon Ribbens <jon+u...@unequivocal.eu> wrote on 21 Jan 2018 in
> > comp.lang.javascript:
> Ok, I'll meet you in Trafalgar Square on 1st June at at 3pm (GMT).
> At what time in UTC do you think I am saying I will be there?
You are saying (assuming current rules) UTC 15:00:00 +/- < 0.9 s - or possibly <=. Remember, when timing your arrival, that you are unlikely to be able to know the exact GMT time, since, although UK legal time is apparently GMT, the disseminated time in the UK is UTC-based.
> At what time in UTC do you think I am saying I will be there?
Dr J R Stockton
Jan 23, 2018, 6:19:34 AM1/23/18
to
On Sunday, December 31, 2017 at 5:57:38 PM UTC, Dr J R Stockton wrote:
> All of my PCs are set, everywhere that I have found, to
> use UK, English, and ISO 8601, including the 24-hour clock.
>
> JavaScript new Date().toLocaleTimeString() in up-to-date
> Windows 7, final Windows XP, and probably in Windows 98 &
> maybe even in Windows 3.x, and probably also in previous
> Windows 10, gave the 24-hour clock, "HH:MM:SS"
>
> Today, I allowed a Windows 10 update on my laptop FUJ-2012
> - what arrived was Fall Creators Update, I think.
>
> In the new update, I get "hh:mm:ss PM". I expect to see
> AM tomorrow morning. and an wondering whether the hours
> field will have its leading zero before 10:00; I believe
> I've seen corresponding ineptitude somewhere in UTC time.
>
> That is the case in all of the browsers I tested, which
> are not all that I have.
>
> I don't know what happens in other locales, but it seems
> likely that Evertjan & others will be able to tell us.
>
> Note to EjH - in the Subject, sponning does not have its
> Dutch meaning; it has the Grytpype-Thynne one.
>
> I am altering my applications to build the time string
> from the hour, minute, and second numbers.
>
> The update also did not preserve my chosen screen saver
> setting, which is the time.
>
> HNY,
> All of my PCs are set, everywhere that I have found, to
> use UK, English, and ISO 8601, including the 24-hour clock.
>
> JavaScript new Date().toLocaleTimeString() in up-to-date
> Windows 7, final Windows XP, and probably in Windows 98 &
> maybe even in Windows 3.x, and probably also in previous
> Windows 10, gave the 24-hour clock, "HH:MM:SS"
>
> Today, I allowed a Windows 10 update on my laptop FUJ-2012
> - what arrived was Fall Creators Update, I think.
>
> In the new update, I get "hh:mm:ss PM". I expect to see
> AM tomorrow morning. and an wondering whether the hours
> field will have its leading zero before 10:00; I believe
> I've seen corresponding ineptitude somewhere in UTC time.
>
> That is the case in all of the browsers I tested, which
> are not all that I have.
>
> I don't know what happens in other locales, but it seems
> likely that Evertjan & others will be able to tell us.
>
> Note to EjH - in the Subject, sponning does not have its
> Dutch meaning; it has the Grytpype-Thynne one.
>
> I am altering my applications to build the time string
> from the hour, minute, and second numbers.
>
> The update also did not preserve my chosen screen saver
> setting, which is the time.
>
> HNY,
Dr J R Stockton
Jan 23, 2018, 6:24:50 AM1/23/18
to
On Tuesday, January 23, 2018 at 4:41:15 AM UTC, Mark- wrote:
> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> > See also: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_military_time_zones>
>
> Back to wikipedia as a source. HA
See also https://militarybenefits.info/military-time/
>
> Back to wikipedia as a source. HA
Dr J R Stockton
Jan 23, 2018, 7:24:55 AM1/23/18
to
On Sunday, January 21, 2018 at 3:10:00 PM UTC, Jon Ribbens wrote:
(2) The UK has never had "daylight savings rules". We have Summer Time rules (and the probable-first British use of summer time began in late September 1915).
> > The Standard Time in the UK (a modicum excepted, according to Clive)
> > is (by Law, as translated from the EU, IIRC) GMT - however, the UK's
> > standard time is UTC-based. Time Zones are normally designated by
> > the nominal number of hours by which the Standard Time is offset
> > from UTC, which for the UK (except ...) is 0. GMT and UTC are
> > similar but not synonymous.
>
> No, the time in time zones is designated that way, but the time zone
> itself is not. For example, the time in the UK and the time in Mali
> are both currently GMT+0 but they are not in the same time zone as
> in a few months the UK will be GMT+1 and Mali will still be GMT+0.
The True Definition of Time Zone is that of the international Washington Conference of 1884, and cannot be affected by the contagious idiocies of US nerds.
> >> "NPL BIPM NIST" is not a cite.
> >
> > Agreed not a cite. But you can look them up in Wikipedia (for NPL,
> > an intelligent selection is then needed) and thence access their Web
> > sites.
>
> You might as well cite "the Internet". The problem is not that
> I don't know what those organisations are or that I cannot find
> their websites, the problem is that you have given no indication
> which of their hundreds of thousands of publications you are
> referring to.
Search tools will find what you need - I checked that before posting.
> > GMT is not the formal name of our Time Zone, just an adequate
> > nickname, but the Standard Time in the UK (") is by Law GMT (IIRC)
> > and in practice is UTC.
>
> My point is that it is not at all an adequate nickname, because if you
> use it that way then in the summer if someone says "I'll meet you at
> 3pm GMT" you have no way of knowing what time they intend to meet you.
The meaning of the sentence is clear : 3pm GMT *always* means an instant within 0.9 seconds of 15:00 UTC (assuming BIPM have got their Leap Seconds right). It may not express the intent of "someone".
> Amusingly, something like this sort of issue actually came up last night,
> as I was going to an event at the "St Moritz" club in London which was
> advertised by a Facebook event. Facebook had assumed the organiser
> meant St Moritz in Switzerland so the advertised start time for the
> event was "22:00 CET", and I had no way of knowing whether they
> actually meant 21:00 GMT or 22:00 GMT.
Never trust US software/citizens for any matter external to the USA - especially date & time. I have heard tell of a case in which, in September of the year YYYY, an American was (rightly) denied entry to Europe because his visa was marked as expiring on 10/07/YYYY.
For the lettering of the time zones on the high seas, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nautical_time and http://astro.ukho.gov.uk/nao/miscellanea/WMTZ/ . Be aware that the 'MY' zone is anomalous - places within it all have the same local standard (=winter) time, but not necessarily the same local date.
--
(c) John Stockton, near London, UK. Using Google. |
> On 2018-01-20, Dr J R Stockton <#> wrote:
> > On Monday, January 8, 2018 at 4:34:04 PM UTC, Jon Ribbens wrote:
> >> It's Microsoft that (falsely/misleadingly) claims that the UK's
> >> time zone is "GMT". What is your reason for agreeing with them?
> >
> > Well, I rarely like agreeing with them; but if & when they claim
> > that the UK's Time Zone is permanently 0, GMT, UTC, GMT+0, UTC-0,
> > etc., they are correct - which does not of course prevent other
> > parts of the firm from being wrong.
>
> I'm thinking mostly of Outlook meeting invites, which describe
> the date and time in the following format:
>
> TZID=GMT Standard Time:20180601T150000
>
> which is at best extremely misleading and at worst completely wrong.
> Apple Mail invites look like the following instead:
>
> TZID=Europe/London:20180601T150000
>
> which is much clearer. (Amusingly, the Apple invite also appears
> for some reason to contain the complete daylight savings rules for
> the UK from 1916 to the present day.)
(1) Fine examples of the folly of not following ISO8601 in all respects - and "TZID" is appropriate for neither.
> > On Monday, January 8, 2018 at 4:34:04 PM UTC, Jon Ribbens wrote:
> >> It's Microsoft that (falsely/misleadingly) claims that the UK's
> >> time zone is "GMT". What is your reason for agreeing with them?
> >
> > Well, I rarely like agreeing with them; but if & when they claim
> > that the UK's Time Zone is permanently 0, GMT, UTC, GMT+0, UTC-0,
> > etc., they are correct - which does not of course prevent other
> > parts of the firm from being wrong.
>
> I'm thinking mostly of Outlook meeting invites, which describe
> the date and time in the following format:
>
> TZID=GMT Standard Time:20180601T150000
>
> which is at best extremely misleading and at worst completely wrong.
> Apple Mail invites look like the following instead:
>
> TZID=Europe/London:20180601T150000
>
> which is much clearer. (Amusingly, the Apple invite also appears
> for some reason to contain the complete daylight savings rules for
> the UK from 1916 to the present day.)
(2) The UK has never had "daylight savings rules". We have Summer Time rules (and the probable-first British use of summer time began in late September 1915).
> > The Standard Time in the UK (a modicum excepted, according to Clive)
> > is (by Law, as translated from the EU, IIRC) GMT - however, the UK's
> > standard time is UTC-based. Time Zones are normally designated by
> > the nominal number of hours by which the Standard Time is offset
> > from UTC, which for the UK (except ...) is 0. GMT and UTC are
> > similar but not synonymous.
>
> No, the time in time zones is designated that way, but the time zone
> itself is not. For example, the time in the UK and the time in Mali
> are both currently GMT+0 but they are not in the same time zone as
> in a few months the UK will be GMT+1 and Mali will still be GMT+0.
> >> "NPL BIPM NIST" is not a cite.
> >
> > Agreed not a cite. But you can look them up in Wikipedia (for NPL,
> > an intelligent selection is then needed) and thence access their Web
> > sites.
>
> You might as well cite "the Internet". The problem is not that
> I don't know what those organisations are or that I cannot find
> their websites, the problem is that you have given no indication
> which of their hundreds of thousands of publications you are
> referring to.
> > GMT is not the formal name of our Time Zone, just an adequate
> > nickname, but the Standard Time in the UK (") is by Law GMT (IIRC)
> > and in practice is UTC.
>
> My point is that it is not at all an adequate nickname, because if you
> use it that way then in the summer if someone says "I'll meet you at
> 3pm GMT" you have no way of knowing what time they intend to meet you.
> Amusingly, something like this sort of issue actually came up last night,
> as I was going to an event at the "St Moritz" club in London which was
> advertised by a Facebook event. Facebook had assumed the organiser
> meant St Moritz in Switzerland so the advertised start time for the
> event was "22:00 CET", and I had no way of knowing whether they
> actually meant 21:00 GMT or 22:00 GMT.
For the lettering of the time zones on the high seas, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nautical_time and http://astro.ukho.gov.uk/nao/miscellanea/WMTZ/ . Be aware that the 'MY' zone is anomalous - places within it all have the same local standard (=winter) time, but not necessarily the same local date.
--
(c) John Stockton, near London, UK. Using Google. |
Jon Ribbens
Jan 23, 2018, 9:14:45 AM1/23/18
to
On 2018-01-23, Dr J R Stockton <J.R.St...@physics.org> wrote:
> On Sunday, January 21, 2018 at 4:41:28 PM UTC, Jon Ribbens wrote:
>> On 2018-01-21, Evertjan. <exxjxw.h...@inter.nl.net> wrote:
>> > Jon Ribbens <jon+u...@unequivocal.eu> wrote on 21 Jan 2018 in
>> > comp.lang.javascript:
>
>> Ok, I'll meet you in Trafalgar Square on 1st June at at 3pm (GMT).
>> At what time in UTC do you think I am saying I will be there?
>
> You are saying (assuming current rules) UTC 15:00:00 +/- < 0.9 s -
> or possibly <=. Remember, when timing your arrival, that you are
> unlikely to be able to know the exact GMT time, since, although UK
> legal time is apparently GMT, the disseminated time in the UK is
> UTC-based.
No, sorry, I meant the "GMT time zone" that you claim is a thing
> On Sunday, January 21, 2018 at 4:41:28 PM UTC, Jon Ribbens wrote:
>> On 2018-01-21, Evertjan. <exxjxw.h...@inter.nl.net> wrote:
>> > Jon Ribbens <jon+u...@unequivocal.eu> wrote on 21 Jan 2018 in
>> > comp.lang.javascript:
>
>> Ok, I'll meet you in Trafalgar Square on 1st June at at 3pm (GMT).
>> At what time in UTC do you think I am saying I will be there?
>
> You are saying (assuming current rules) UTC 15:00:00 +/- < 0.9 s -
> or possibly <=. Remember, when timing your arrival, that you are
> unlikely to be able to know the exact GMT time, since, although UK
> legal time is apparently GMT, the disseminated time in the UK is
> UTC-based.
that exists, so I meant 1500 BST / 1400 UTC.
Jon Ribbens
Jan 23, 2018, 9:30:04 AM1/23/18
to
On 2018-01-23, Dr J R Stockton <J.R.St...@physics.org> wrote:
> On Sunday, January 21, 2018 at 3:10:00 PM UTC, Jon Ribbens wrote:
>> No, the time in time zones is designated that way, but the time zone
>> itself is not. For example, the time in the UK and the time in Mali
>> are both currently GMT+0 but they are not in the same time zone as
>> in a few months the UK will be GMT+1 and Mali will still be GMT+0.
>
> The True Definition of Time Zone is that of the international
> Washington Conference of 1884, and cannot be affected by the
> contagious idiocies of US nerds.
Given your reluctance to provide any cites so far, I fear this request
> On Sunday, January 21, 2018 at 3:10:00 PM UTC, Jon Ribbens wrote:
>> No, the time in time zones is designated that way, but the time zone
>> itself is not. For example, the time in the UK and the time in Mali
>> are both currently GMT+0 but they are not in the same time zone as
>> in a few months the UK will be GMT+1 and Mali will still be GMT+0.
>
> The True Definition of Time Zone is that of the international
> Washington Conference of 1884, and cannot be affected by the
> contagious idiocies of US nerds.
is doomed before I've even made it, but: please provide a cite for
that. If you mean the International Meridian Conference at Washington
in October 1884, as far as I can tell it did not propose any
definition of the term "time zone".
> Search tools will find what you need - I checked that before posting.
your claims - I suspect the latter. It would've been easier if you
could've just said so earlier.
>> My point is that it is not at all an adequate nickname, because if you
>> use it that way then in the summer if someone says "I'll meet you at
>> 3pm GMT" you have no way of knowing what time they intend to meet you.
>
> The meaning of the sentence is clear : 3pm GMT *always* means an
> instant within 0.9 seconds of 15:00 UTC
Mark-
Jan 23, 2018, 9:44:22 AM1/23/18
to
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> “Even if all the experts agree, they may well be mistaken.”
>
> —Bertrand Russell, philosopher (1872–1970)
>
And that includes YOU.
> “Even if all the experts agree, they may well be mistaken.”
>
> —Bertrand Russell, philosopher (1872–1970)
>
Evertjan.
Jan 23, 2018, 9:44:22 AM1/23/18
to
Jon Ribbens <jon+u...@unequivocal.eu> wrote on 23 Jan 2018 in
comp.lang.javascript:
I grant you you could have erroneously ment time-zone,
but your meaning does not make it correct, as I said before,
because, if you add the 'word' GMT to a time,
the primary if not only meaning is GMTime.
Anyway,
altough you offered money to prove your point,
[how silly that is, Trumpian even],
I will not be there for you.
comp.lang.javascript:
but your meaning does not make it correct, as I said before,
because, if you add the 'word' GMT to a time,
the primary if not only meaning is GMTime.
Anyway,
altough you offered money to prove your point,
[how silly that is, Trumpian even],
I will not be there for you.
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
Jan 23, 2018, 2:04:40 PM1/23/18
to
Usenet discussion:
- a real name
- a proper From address (see RFC 5536)
- a sound argument
Have a nice rest of life. *PLONK*
F’up2 poster
Michael Haufe (TNO)
Jan 23, 2018, 4:27:35 PM1/23/18
to
Dr J R Stockton wrote:
> Mark- wrote:
> > Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>
> > > See also: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_military_time_zones>
> >
> > Back to wikipedia as a source. HA
>
> See also https://militarybenefits.info/military-time/
Good list, but the official organization is:
> > Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>
> > > See also: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_military_time_zones>
> >
> > Back to wikipedia as a source. HA
>
> See also https://militarybenefits.info/military-time/
<http://aa.usno.navy.mil/faq/index.php>
Mark-
Jan 23, 2018, 6:10:15 PM1/23/18
to
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> > Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> Have a nice rest of life. PLONK
> > Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
Sorry you had to grab your toy and run home.
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
Jan 23, 2018, 6:45:06 PM1/23/18
to
<http://web.archive.org/web/20170719085934/aa.usno.navy.mil/faq/index.php>
is available.
<http://web.archive.org/web/20170710163521/http://aa.usno.navy.mil/graphics/TimeZoneMap2016.png>
is most interesting because it makes obvious what I
misinterpreted/overlooked in the Wikipedia article before: The military time
zones starting from “N” are labeled *westwards* from the Greenwich meridian
rather than continuing the labeling that started eastwards with “A”. This
supports the argument that time zone “Z” was labeled so intentionally
instead.
Joao Rodrigues
Jan 23, 2018, 10:37:41 PM1/23/18
to
On 23/01/2018 00:50, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> Joao Rodrigues wrote:
>
>> On 21/01/2018 16:56, Jon Ribbens wrote:
>>> On 2018-01-21, Evertjan wrote:
>>>> Jon Ribbens wrote on 21 Jan 2018 in
>>>> comp.lang.javascript:
>>>>> Ok, I'll meet you in Trafalgar Square on 1st June at at 3pm (GMT).
>>>>> At what time in UTC do you think I am saying I will be there?
>>>> 1500Z,
>>>> as you are stating a time in GMT, not a time-zone,
>>>> and a region [Trafalgar Square].
>>
>> Armed Forces, aviation and maritime companies around the globe use the
>> NATO Letter Timezones, being "Z" (Zulu time or Zero meridian time) the
>> same as UTC+0 [1].
>>
>> So if you say 1500Z, it means 3pm in UTC+0.
>>
>> […]
>> [1] <http://www.world-timezone.com/military-nato-letter-timezones/>
>
> The Web site you are citing contains dubious information in at least two
> respects.
Independently of the problems regarding that site, Military time zones
> Joao Rodrigues wrote:
>
>> On 21/01/2018 16:56, Jon Ribbens wrote:
>>> On 2018-01-21, Evertjan wrote:
>>>> Jon Ribbens wrote on 21 Jan 2018 in
>>>> comp.lang.javascript:
>>>>> Ok, I'll meet you in Trafalgar Square on 1st June at at 3pm (GMT).
>>>>> At what time in UTC do you think I am saying I will be there?
>>>> 1500Z,
>>>> as you are stating a time in GMT, not a time-zone,
>>>> and a region [Trafalgar Square].
>>
>> Armed Forces, aviation and maritime companies around the globe use the
>> NATO Letter Timezones, being "Z" (Zulu time or Zero meridian time) the
>> same as UTC+0 [1].
>>
>> So if you say 1500Z, it means 3pm in UTC+0.
>>
>> […]
>> [1] <http://www.world-timezone.com/military-nato-letter-timezones/>
>
> The Web site you are citing contains dubious information in at least two
> respects.
are very easy to understand, and their usage is wide-spread in the civil
aviation and maritime transport.
>
> First, as we have discussed earlier, GMT is _not_ a timezone, but a standard
> time. This also applies to other standard times listed as “time zones”.
>
> Second, although “Zulu” is probably related to the NATO Alphabet, because it
> is that alphabet’s word for spelling the letter “Z”, it could be
> coincidental that it is also the time at the “zero meridian”.
also called the Prime Meridian, that supposedly crosses the Royal
Observatory, a beautiful museum nowadays in Greenwich, London, UK. BTW,
visitors love to take the classic photo with one foot on each side of
the imaginary line, but the Prime Meridian doesn't actually pass through
the stainless steel mark on the ground on which visitors stand to strike
a pose. It's easy to check with a GPS equipment that the zero meridian
is some metres away from that mark on the ground.
As someone who served in the Navy for many, many years, I can tell you
that all Navy communications are based on the "Z" time zone, specially
because joint military exercises with other countries, and because my
country has 4 time zones (O, P, Q and R) and not all States follow the
DST from Oct thru Feb.
> The military
> time zones are labeled eastwards with letters, starting with UTC+1 to
> receive the letter “A”, which makes the last timezone in that order to be
> UTC+0 and to receive the letter “Z” (it is claimed that “J” has been
> intentionally omitted for various reasons).
military tend to use "Z" or their own local time zone letter when
dealing with other organizations within the same area.
--
Joao Rodrigues
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
Jan 23, 2018, 10:57:15 PM1/23/18
to
Joao Rodrigues wrote:
> On 23/01/2018 00:50, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> Second, although “Zulu” is probably related to the NATO Alphabet, because
>> it is that alphabet’s word for spelling the letter “Z”, it could be
>> coincidental that it is also the time at the “zero meridian”.
>
> Letter "Z" was picked because of the "Zero Meridian" (0º longitude),
Cite evidence.
> On 23/01/2018 00:50, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> Second, although “Zulu” is probably related to the NATO Alphabet, because
>> it is that alphabet’s word for spelling the letter “Z”, it could be
>> coincidental that it is also the time at the “zero meridian”.
>
> Letter "Z" was picked because of the "Zero Meridian" (0º longitude),
> also called the Prime Meridian, that supposedly crosses the Royal
> Observatory,
> a beautiful museum nowadays in Greenwich, London, UK.
> [pointless rant]
Mark-
Jan 23, 2018, 11:10:47 PM1/23/18
to
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> > [pointless rant]
Such a nice congenial fellow.
> > [pointless rant]
Such a nice congenial fellow.
Joao Rodrigues
Jan 24, 2018, 7:20:04 AM1/24/18
to
falling off of my ship. :-D
--
Joao Rodrigues
John G Harris
Jan 24, 2018, 8:51:24 AM1/24/18
to
On Wed, 24 Jan 2018 01:37:32 -0200, Joao Rodrigues
<group...@yahoo.com> wrote:
<snip>
Yes, and and also no. UK Ordnance Survey longitudes are different from
US GPS longitudes. They can be different by 100m. See
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DmvHZ4omB2A>
Also, the Astronomer Royal moved the Prime Meridian by about 20m in
the late 1800s without tell anyone outside the observatory.
John
<group...@yahoo.com> wrote:
<snip>
> but the Prime Meridian doesn't actually pass through
>the stainless steel mark on the ground on which visitors stand to strike
>a pose. It's easy to check with a GPS equipment that the zero meridian
>is some metres away from that mark on the ground.
<snip>
>the stainless steel mark on the ground on which visitors stand to strike
>a pose. It's easy to check with a GPS equipment that the zero meridian
>is some metres away from that mark on the ground.
Yes, and and also no. UK Ordnance Survey longitudes are different from
US GPS longitudes. They can be different by 100m. See
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DmvHZ4omB2A>
Also, the Astronomer Royal moved the Prime Meridian by about 20m in
the late 1800s without tell anyone outside the observatory.
John
Joao Rodrigues
Jan 24, 2018, 2:14:03 PM1/24/18
to
--
Joao Rodrigues
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
Jan 25, 2018, 2:21:01 AM1/25/18
to
attacks and other fallacies to “save face”. And feeding the latest troll.
John G Harris
Jan 25, 2018, 5:26:59 AM1/25/18
to
On Thu, 25 Jan 2018 08:20:51 +0100, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
<Point...@web.de> wrote:
>Joao Rodrigues wrote:
>
>> Em 24/01/2018 02:10, Mark- escreveu:
>>> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>>>> [pointless rant]
>>> Such a nice congenial fellow.
>>
>> Indeed. And I wouldn't bother to shout "Man overboard!" if I saw him
>> falling off of my ship. :-D
>
>IOW: You have no evidence, so you believe you have to resort to /ad hominem/
>attacks and other fallacies to “save face”. And feeding the latest troll.
Thomas doesn't understand what /ad hominem/ means.
<Point...@web.de> wrote:
>Joao Rodrigues wrote:
>
>> Em 24/01/2018 02:10, Mark- escreveu:
>>> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>>>> [pointless rant]
>>> Such a nice congenial fellow.
>>
>> Indeed. And I wouldn't bother to shout "Man overboard!" if I saw him
>> falling off of my ship. :-D
>
>IOW: You have no evidence, so you believe you have to resort to /ad hominem/
>attacks and other fallacies to “save face”. And feeding the latest troll.
"Such a nice congenial fellow." was an entirely justified remark about
someone who claimed that Joao wrote the words "[pointless rant]" when
he clearly didn't. That remark was not an ad hominem argument (because
it's not an argument).
John
Mark-
Jan 25, 2018, 9:27:01 AM1/25/18
to
very little sense. He seems to be angry most of the time.
Dr J R Stockton
Jan 25, 2018, 4:33:12 PM1/25/18
to
> (c) John Stockton, near London, UK. Using Google, no spell-check. |
Andrew Poulos
Jan 25, 2018, 11:42:41 PM1/25/18
to
Andrew Poulos
Evertjan.
Jan 26, 2018, 5:20:04 AM1/26/18
to
Andrew Poulos <ap_...@hotmail.com> wrote on 26 Jan 2018 in
comp.lang.javascript:
> Ad hominem is not an argument it is a form of rebuttal.
Wrong.
1 A rebuttal is a form of argument, as it is a form of evidence that is
presented to contradict or nullify other evidence that has been presented by
an adverse party.
2 Ad-hominem is an adjective, so it cannot be "a rebuttal".
"An ad-hominem" can only be a shortcut for "An ad-hominem something",
like an "An ad-hominem rebuttal", which is a form of fallacious argument.
3 An ad-hominem argument is a pseudo-argument,
as the argument is not about the subject of the discussion,
but fallaciously attacks the opponent.
Such fallacy is called "the ad-hominem fallacy".
"argumentum ad hominem" <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem>:
"Ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"[1]), short for
argumentum ad hominem, is a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby an
argument is rebutted by attacking the character, motive, or other attribute
of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument,
rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.[2]"
comp.lang.javascript:
> Ad hominem is not an argument it is a form of rebuttal.
1 A rebuttal is a form of argument, as it is a form of evidence that is
presented to contradict or nullify other evidence that has been presented by
an adverse party.
2 Ad-hominem is an adjective, so it cannot be "a rebuttal".
"An ad-hominem" can only be a shortcut for "An ad-hominem something",
like an "An ad-hominem rebuttal", which is a form of fallacious argument.
3 An ad-hominem argument is a pseudo-argument,
as the argument is not about the subject of the discussion,
but fallaciously attacks the opponent.
Such fallacy is called "the ad-hominem fallacy".
"argumentum ad hominem" <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem>:
"Ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"[1]), short for
argumentum ad hominem, is a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby an
argument is rebutted by attacking the character, motive, or other attribute
of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument,
rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.[2]"
Andrew Poulos
Jan 26, 2018, 3:16:52 PM1/26/18
to
On 26/01/2018 9:19 PM, Evertjan. wrote:
> Andrew Poulos <ap_...@hotmail.com> wrote on 26 Jan 2018 in
> comp.lang.javascript:
>
>> Ad hominem is not an argument it is a form of rebuttal.
>
> Wrong.
I don't think so.
> Andrew Poulos <ap_...@hotmail.com> wrote on 26 Jan 2018 in
> comp.lang.javascript:
>
>> Ad hominem is not an argument it is a form of rebuttal.
>
> Wrong.
> 1 A rebuttal is a form of argument, as it is a form of evidence that is
> presented to contradict or nullify other evidence that has been presented by
> an adverse party.
>
> 2 Ad-hominem is an adjective, so it cannot be "a rebuttal".
> "An ad-hominem" can only be a shortcut for "An ad-hominem something",
> like an "An ad-hominem rebuttal", which is a form of fallacious argument.
>
> 3 An ad-hominem argument is a pseudo-argument,
> as the argument is not about the subject of the discussion,
> but fallaciously attacks the opponent.
>
> Such fallacy is called "the ad-hominem fallacy".
>
> "argumentum ad hominem" <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem>:
>
> "Ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"[1]), short for
> argumentum ad hominem, is a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby an
> argument is rebutted by attacking the character, motive, or other attribute
> of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument,
> rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.[2]"
which seems to me to say that an argument is a rebutted using ad hominem!
Andrew Poulos
Evertjan.
Jan 26, 2018, 5:22:17 PM1/26/18
to
Andrew Poulos <ap_...@hotmail.com> wrote on 26 Jan 2018 in
comp.lang.javascript:
> On 26/01/2018 9:19 PM, Evertjan. wrote:
>> Andrew Poulos <ap_...@hotmail.com> wrote on 26 Jan 2018 in
>> comp.lang.javascript:
>>
>>> Ad hominem is not an argument it is a form of rebuttal.
>>
>> Wrong.
>
> I don't think so.
Well, my below arguments speak for themselves.
comp.lang.javascript:
> On 26/01/2018 9:19 PM, Evertjan. wrote:
>> Andrew Poulos <ap_...@hotmail.com> wrote on 26 Jan 2018 in
>> comp.lang.javascript:
>>
>>> Ad hominem is not an argument it is a form of rebuttal.
>>
>> Wrong.
>
> I don't think so.
>> 1 A rebuttal is a form of argument, as it is a form of evidence that is
>> presented to contradict or nullify other evidence that has been
>> presented by an adverse party.
>>
>> 2 Ad-hominem is an adjective, so it cannot be "a rebuttal".
>> "An ad-hominem" can only be a shortcut for "An ad-hominem something",
>> like an "An ad-hominem rebuttal", which is a form of fallacious
>> argument.
>>
>> 3 An ad-hominem argument is a pseudo-argument,
>> as the argument is not about the subject of the discussion,
>> but fallaciously attacks the opponent.
>>
>> Such fallacy is called "the ad-hominem fallacy".
>>
>> "argumentum ad hominem" <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem>:
>>
>> "Ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"[1]), short for
>> argumentum ad hominem, is a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby
>> an argument is rebutted by attacking the character, motive, or other
>> attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with
>> the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument
>> itself.[2]"
>
> "argumentum ad hominem, is a... whereby an argument is rebutted..."
>
> which seems to me to say that an argument is a rebutted using ad
> hominem!
> which seems to me to say that an argument is a rebutted using ad
> hominem!
Andrew Poulos
Jan 26, 2018, 6:33:45 PM1/26/18
to
rebut an argument. How do you read the wikipedia quote?
>> which seems to me to say that an argument is a rebutted using ad
>> hominem!
>
> No, it is not, because "ad-hominem" is an adjective.
meaning that it cannot be used to rebut an argument.
Andrew Poulos
Evertjan.
Jan 27, 2018, 5:31:07 AM1/27/18
to
Andrew Poulos <ap_...@hotmail.com> wrote on 27 Jan 2018 in
comp.lang.javascript:
>> No, it is fallacious so it is not.
>
> To me it reads: argumentum ad hominem [a strategy and a noun] used to
> rebut an argument. How do you read the wikipedia quote?
I read the Latin.
>>> which seems to me to say that an argument is a rebutted using ad
>>> hominem!
>>
>> No, it is not, because "ad-hominem" is an adjective.
>
> I don't see the point of claiming it a specific grammatical element as
> meaning that it cannot be used to rebut an argument.
I was only claiming your sentence stinks.
You cannot rebut anything with a fallacy.
And, to speak with Stephan Fry: 'It is not nice, not nice at all'.
comp.lang.javascript:
>> No, it is fallacious so it is not.
>
> To me it reads: argumentum ad hominem [a strategy and a noun] used to
> rebut an argument. How do you read the wikipedia quote?
>>> which seems to me to say that an argument is a rebutted using ad
>>> hominem!
>>
>> No, it is not, because "ad-hominem" is an adjective.
>
> I don't see the point of claiming it a specific grammatical element as
> meaning that it cannot be used to rebut an argument.
You cannot rebut anything with a fallacy.
And, to speak with Stephan Fry: 'It is not nice, not nice at all'.
Andrew Poulos
Jan 27, 2018, 3:38:24 PM1/27/18
to
On 27/01/2018 9:30 PM, Evertjan. wrote:
> You cannot rebut anything with a fallacy.
Yet I read posters here doing it "all the time".
> You cannot rebut anything with a fallacy.
Andrew Poulos
Evertjan.
Jan 27, 2018, 5:47:56 PM1/27/18
to
> On 27/01/2018 9:30 PM, Evertjan. wrote:
>
>> You cannot rebut anything with a fallacy.
>
> Yet I read posters here doing it "all the time".
Wrong.
>
>> You cannot rebut anything with a fallacy.
>
> Yet I read posters here doing it "all the time".
A rebuttal that does not work out is not a rebuttal.
> "all the time"
Bigly?
Andrew Poulos
Jan 27, 2018, 6:07:18 PM1/27/18
to
On 28/01/2018 9:47 AM, Evertjan. wrote:
> Andrew Poulos <ap_...@hotmail.com> wrote on 27 Jan 2018 in
> comp.lang.javascript:
>
>> On 27/01/2018 9:30 PM, Evertjan. wrote:
>>
>>> You cannot rebut anything with a fallacy.
>>
>> Yet I read posters here doing it "all the time".
>
> Wrong.
Not wrong!
> Andrew Poulos <ap_...@hotmail.com> wrote on 27 Jan 2018 in
> comp.lang.javascript:
>
>> On 27/01/2018 9:30 PM, Evertjan. wrote:
>>
>>> You cannot rebut anything with a fallacy.
>>
>> Yet I read posters here doing it "all the time".
>
> Wrong.
And I used to wonder why this NG is all but dead.
Andrew Poulos
Mark-
Jan 27, 2018, 8:14:30 PM1/27/18
to
began when I said, I forget his identity, was not a congenial person.
And what I said was true. IIRC he said a portion of a fellow’s post was
a "pointless rant". His pointless rant comment had no value, except to
make himself feel better/superior/above/disdainful/smarter/etc. than
the other fellow. Uncivil.
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
Jan 27, 2018, 11:25:42 PM1/27/18
to
Andrew Poulos wrote:
> Ad hominem is not an argument
Wrong. It is a *fallacious* argument, constituting a *fallacy*.
> Ad hominem is not an argument
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies#Red_herring_fallacies>
> it is a form of rebuttal.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counterargument>
Andrew Poulos
Jan 28, 2018, 12:07:19 AM1/28/18
to
On 28/01/2018 3:25 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> Andrew Poulos wrote:
>
>> Ad hominem is not an argument
>
> Wrong. It is a *fallacious* argument, constituting a *fallacy*.
A fallacy is something which renders an argument invalid. Whereas a
> Andrew Poulos wrote:
>
>> Ad hominem is not an argument
>
> Wrong. It is a *fallacious* argument, constituting a *fallacy*.
fallacious argument would be an argument based on a mistaken belief but
might not necessarily mean the argument to be invalid ("Cats will push
everything off flat surfaces. There are still things on Earth therefore
the Earth is not flat.")
Anyhow it's been asserted that "Ad hominem" is an adjective: now it's a
noun.
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies#Red_herring_fallacies>
>
>> it is a form of rebuttal.
>
> Every rebuttal is a counterargument, therefore it is also an argument.
>
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counterargument>
"To take their job and shove it" would not, by me at least, be
considered a counter-argument.
Anyhow I half-expected someone to quote the relevant Monty Python skit.
No one has yet so here's the link:
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lvcnx6-0GhA>
Andrew Poulos
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
Jan 28, 2018, 1:18:32 AM1/28/18
to
Andrew Poulos wrote:
> On 28/01/2018 3:25 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> Andrew Poulos wrote:
>>> Ad hominem is not an argument
>> Wrong. It is a *fallacious* argument, constituting a *fallacy*.
>
> A fallacy is something which renders an argument invalid. Whereas a
> fallacious argument would be an argument based on a mistaken belief but
> might not necessarily mean the argument to be invalid ("Cats will push
> everything off flat surfaces. There are still things on Earth therefore
> the Earth is not flat.")
No, the words “fallacy” and “fallacious” have several meanings; you are
> On 28/01/2018 3:25 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> Andrew Poulos wrote:
>>> Ad hominem is not an argument
>> Wrong. It is a *fallacious* argument, constituting a *fallacy*.
>
> A fallacy is something which renders an argument invalid. Whereas a
> fallacious argument would be an argument based on a mistaken belief but
> might not necessarily mean the argument to be invalid ("Cats will push
> everything off flat surfaces. There are still things on Earth therefore
> the Earth is not flat.")
referring to one in the second part, while the another one (that you are
referring to in the first part) applies in this context: “fallacious” is
simply the adjective to “fallacy” there. (This curious approach of yours
to definitions could be seen as a kind of equivocation, another fallacy.)
<https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/fallacy>
<https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/fallacy>
<https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fallacy>
<https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fallacious>
See also, *in addition to the Wikipedia article I already referred you to*:
<https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/>
<https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem>
> Anyhow it's been asserted that "Ad hominem" is an adjective: now it's a
> noun.
referred you to, and you had quoted from earlier), /ad hominem/ is short
for /*argumentum* ad hominem/ which means “argument towards/against the
(hu)man/person”. This refutes¹ your argument (see below) regarding its
meaning and renders this follow-up discussion moot.
<https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/argumentum#Latin>
<https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ad#Preposition_4>
<https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/hominem#Latin>
> Anyhow I half-expected someone to quote the relevant Monty Python skit.
> No one has yet so here's the link:
> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lvcnx6-0GhA>
However, it should be noted that the meaning of “argument” as used in that
skit is different than in “/ad hominem/ argument”. The word has adopted a
second meaning in English to refer to a whole, rather heated exchange of
words since it had been imported from Latin:
<https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/argument>
<https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/argument>
<https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/argument>
Regarding /*ad* hominem/, this one is also very nice:
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XbI-fDzUJXI>
HTH.
F’up2 poster
_______
¹ Interestingly, “refute” and “rebut” are synonyms, with the former
being from Latin /refūtō/ (literally: “I beat back”) directly, while
the latter apparently took a detour via Old French /rebouter/ (same
meaning, and probably from the same Proto-Indoeuropean root).
<https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/refute> pp.
0 new messages