Exact match. Not showing close matches.
'[OT] May the 4th ...'
No, not a case of mistaken date.
Just thought I'd get in early for those who want to stand on hilltops
etc. If this 'fact' doesn't interest you, you may have a friend with a
warped sense of humour who finds it fascinating.
This May the 4th will be a once in a century event, at least
for those who use the Julian Calendar.
At 1:02:03 (just after 1 am) on that day many would write the date
and time as
This is, of course, due to sloppy non systematic nomenclature. The
time's MS digit is at left (01) while the date's is at right (06).
I understand that Swedish practice is to write the date "correctly" as
I am wont to do (as computers then sort dates properly), with year at
left and day at right eg 06:05:04.
Similarly, writing the time to the right of the date (as it is just a
subdivision of a day) yields
ie the real occurrence of descending date time occurs at 1 second past
2 minutes past 3am. Those standing on hilltops who have short
attention spans may have left by then (a whole 1:59:58 later) and miss
the event. Whatever it may be.
USAites who write their date in the form MM:DD:YY (for reasons,
perhaps, better known to themselves) will have had the
experience on April 5th this year. Anyone who know please tell us what
happened on that day at just after either 1:02 or 3:02.
Two friends independently advised me of this coming event.
One said that as soon as he saw this useless information he thought of
"It is a very sad thing that nowadays there is so little
useless information" *
* Also the frontispiece to my Masters Thesis.
|part 1 2556 bytes content-type:text/plain; charset="big5" (decoded quoted-printable)
Russell McMahon wrote:
> I understand that Swedish practice is to write the date "correctly" as
> I am wont to do (as computers then sort dates properly), with year at
> left and day at right eg 06:05:04.
> Similarly, writing the time to the right of the date (as it is just a
> subdivision of a day) yields
> > 06:05:04 03:02:01
Regarding a date format that points into the future of successful
international communication, see also ISO 8601 (adopted by the W3C, much of
Europe and two major US standard bodies, the ANSI and NIST, even though not
yet much in daily use). Basically it's the format YYYY-MM-DD HH:MM:SS.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_8601 - The (almost) always helpful
http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25/iso-time.html - A good introduction. It
mentions the following advantages of the ISO standard (copied verbatim from
the page, by Markus Kuhn):
* easily readable and writeable by software (no ．JAN・, ．FEB・, ... table
* easily comparable and sortable with a trivial string comparison
* language independent
* can not be confused with other popular date notations
* consistency with the common 24h time notation system, where the larger
units (hours) are also written in front of the smaller ones (minutes and
* strings containing a date followed by a time are also easily comparable
and sortable (e.g. write ：1995-02-04 22:45:00；)
* the notation is short and has constant length, which makes both keyboard
data entry and table layout easier
* identical to the Chinese date notation, so the largest cultural group
(>25%) on this planet is already familiar with it :-)
* date notations with the order ：year, month, day； are in addition already
widely used e.g. in Japan, Korea, Hungary, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, and a
few other countries and people in the U.S. are already used to at least the
：month, day； order
* a 4-digit year representation avoids overflow problems after 2099-12-31
http://www.qsl.net/g1smd/isoimp.htm - List of existing compliant
implementations of the ISO standard
http://www.w3.org/TR/NOTE-datetime - The W3C view of date and time
- A list of freely downloadable drafts of the ISO standard. The standard
itself costs money -- as someone pointed out, not a particularly effective
measure if the objective is to make this standard being adopted worldwide
part 2 35 bytes content-type:text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
On 2006-May 01, at 4:04 AM, Bob Axtell wrote:
Russell McMahon wrote:
Just turned over in bed, thanks.
Could not say for sure what I was doing. I was distracted by the
that struck my house causing a sonic boom. Unable to hear I stumbled
of a police car while watching my house burn down. While writhing on
with my hands cuffed behind me, I tried to look at my watch. I
managed to tear
off my arm ( which was hanging by some tendons as a result of the
crash ). Before
I could focus on the watch face properly ( blood kept getting in my
eyes from the
arterial fountain coming from mangled leg ) , a billy club ended my
I see fuzzy shapes now. My friend has advised me that I am homeless,
and my wife has left me. He promised to keep me up to date on what
I am waiting to see what my nurse looks like. Maybe she is a former
James Newtons Massmind
> USAites who write their date in the form MM:DD:YY (for
> reasons, perhaps, better known to themselves) will have had
> the experience on April 5th this year. Anyone who know please
> tell us what happened on that day at just after either 1:02 or 3:02.
I believe that there was a bright beam of light that shown through my
ceiling and struck my forehead filling my mind with every answer to every
question mankind is want to know. And then our cat, Tigger, woke up from her
usual place on the pillow above my wife's head, yawned, walked over and
sucked all that information out of my head and in to hers where it will be
safe from every being used to save our world.
But I have no actual memory of that.
And at his trial for diddling little boys, when asked if he had anything to
say in his defense, he answered "I have NEVER abbreviated." Nowadays: A
contraction of "Now These Days"
> * Also the frontispiece to my Masters Thesis.
It is wonderful to know that we can take the good from people and leave the
> This May the 4th will be a once in a century event, at least
> for those who use the Julian Calendar.
That should have been "Gregorian Calendar" - but, wisely, nobody
And, FWIW, it occurs again this afternoon.
> At 1:02:03 (just after 1 am) on that day many would write the date
> and time as
> 01:02:03 04:05:06
For what it's worth, and it must be very close to nothing, here's an
immortalised snapshot of the event.
As both files are the same, the wise thing to do would be to look at
Clock was as accurate as I could easily make it.
It seemed like the clock 'hung' for about an extra second at 1:2:2 -
about 99.999% liable to have been an illusion.
Back to work.
May the 4th be with you.
I was really, REALLY hoping to beat Russell to the "May the 4th be
with you" bit this year. Alas.
On 5/3/06, Russell McMahon <paradise.net.nz> wrote: apptech
>I was really, REALLY hoping to beat Russell to the "May the 4th be
> with you" bit this year. Alas.
You'd need to live in NZ :-)
FWIW (~~~~~~ 0) there have been 50 accesses to 123456.jpg and 25 to
654321.jpg (which, as I said, is the same picture), and neither are
worth looking at unless you are deeply obsessed with such things. in
fact, neither was worth making nless ... ;-).
>> As both files are the same, the wise thing to do would be to look
Carlos A. Marcano V.
Russell McMahon escribió:
>> I was really, REALLY hoping to beat Russell to the "May the 4th be
>> with you" bit this year. Alas.
> You'd need to live in NZ :-)
> FWIW (~~~~~~ 0) there have been 50 accesses to 123456.jpg and 25 to
> 654321.jpg (which, as I said, is the same picture), and neither are
> worth looking at unless you are deeply obsessed with such things. in
> fact, neither was worth making nless ... ;-).
There is no better way to make people look at something than telling
them to NOT look at it! ("don´t look down..." , etc..)
More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 2006
, 2007 only
- New search...