On Sun, 15 Feb 2009 19:28:45 -0800
Marc Shapiro wrote:
> Celejar wrote:
> > On Sat, 14 Feb 2009 10:13:15 -0800
> > Marc Shapiro wrote:
> >
> >>> On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 03:16:49PM +, Avi Greenbury wrote:
> Marc Shapiro wrote:
> > Jack Schneider wrote:
> > We are probably the o
Celejar wrote:
On Sat, 14 Feb 2009 10:13:15 -0800
Marc Shapiro wrote:
On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 03:16:49PM +, Avi Greenbury wrote:
Marc Shapiro wrote:
Jack Schneider wrote:
We are probably the only entities in the universe who spend so much
energy keeping track of the number of times our
On Sat, 14 Feb 2009 10:13:15 -0800
Marc Shapiro wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 03:16:49PM +, Avi Greenbury wrote:
> >> Marc Shapiro wrote:
> >>> Jack Schneider wrote:
> >>> We are probably the only entities in the universe who spend so much
> energy keeping track of the number of ti
On 02/14/2009 04:21 AM, Chris Bannister wrote:
On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 08:16:49AM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote:
On 02/10/2009 07:30 AM, Thierry Chatelet wrote:
How srange:
$ date -...@1234567890
Sat Feb 14 00:31:30 CET 2009
What's so strange about people in different time zones getting different
r
On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 03:16:49PM +, Avi Greenbury wrote:
Marc Shapiro wrote:
Jack Schneider wrote:
We are probably the only entities in the universe who spend so much
energy keeping track of the number of times our planet spins.
How bazaar!
Or, "how bizarre." "Bazaar" goes with 'The Ca
> And how about Finnish version:
>
>tiistaina 10. helmikuuta 2009 kello 19.24
>
"And how about a final version"
There, fixed that for you.
(Sorry, I couldn't resist)
--
Dotan Cohen
http://what-is-what.com
http://gibberish.co.il
א-ב-ג-ד-ה-ו-ז-ח-ט-י-ך-כ-ל-ם-מ-ן-נ-ס-ע-ף-פ-ץ-צ-ק-ר-ש-ת
ا-ب-ت-ث
* Chris Bannister [2009 Feb 14 04:05 -0600]:
> On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 03:16:49PM +, Avi Greenbury wrote:
> > Marc Shapiro wrote:
> >> Jack Schneider wrote:
> >> We are probably the only entities in the universe who spend so much
> >>> energy keeping track of the number of times our planet sp
On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 03:16:49PM +, Avi Greenbury wrote:
> Marc Shapiro wrote:
>> Jack Schneider wrote:
>> We are probably the only entities in the universe who spend so much
>>> energy keeping track of the number of times our planet spins.
>>> How bazaar!
>>
>> Or, "how bizarre." "Bazaar"
On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 08:16:49AM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote:
> On 02/10/2009 07:30 AM, Thierry Chatelet wrote:
>> How srange:
>> $ date -...@1234567890
>> Sat Feb 14 00:31:30 CET 2009
>
> What's so strange about people in different time zones getting different
> results?
>
> $ date -...@1234567890
On 02/11/2009 07:32 PM, Dave Sherohman wrote:
On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 08:23:25AM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote:
On 02/11/2009 05:17 AM, Dave Sherohman wrote:
No, I think the much better idea would be to ditch timezones and put the
whole world on UTC. Get rid of DST and 12-hour clocks, too, while
yo
On 02/11/2009 07:37 PM, Dave Sherohman wrote:
On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 09:12:21AM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote:
On 02/11/2009 08:32 AM, Jack Schneider wrote:
On Wed, 11 Feb 2009 08:06:36 -0600
Ron Johnson wrote:
On 02/11/2009 07:47 AM, Jack Schneider wrote:
[snip]
We are probably the only entitie
On Wed February 11 2009, Douglas A. Tutty wrote:
> > 2nd star to the left, and straight on til..
> > oh.. wait.. wrong story!
>
> Paul, I've forgotton that reference. I've always loved it. Do you
> remember (other than Star Trek, of course).
>
> Doug.
that would be Peter Pan..
--
Paul Cartwri
"Douglas A. Tutty" said:
> On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 12:32:12PM -0500, Paul Cartwright wrote:
> > 2nd star to the left, and straight on til..
> > oh.. wait.. wrong story!
>
> Paul, I've forgotton that reference. I've always loved it. Do you
> remember (other than Star Trek, of course).
>
> Do
On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 09:12:21AM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote:
> On 02/11/2009 08:32 AM, Jack Schneider wrote:
> >On Wed, 11 Feb 2009 08:06:36 -0600
> >Ron Johnson wrote:
> >>On 02/11/2009 07:47 AM, Jack Schneider wrote:
> >>[snip]
> >>>We are probably the only entities in the universe who spend so
On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 08:23:25AM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote:
> On 02/11/2009 05:17 AM, Dave Sherohman wrote:
> >No, I think the much better idea would be to ditch timezones and put the
> >whole world on UTC. Get rid of DST and 12-hour clocks, too, while
> >you're at it. There is absolutely no rea
On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 12:32:12PM -0500, Paul Cartwright wrote:
> 2nd star to the left, and straight on til..
> oh.. wait.. wrong story!
Paul, I've forgotton that reference. I've always loved it. Do you
remember (other than Star Trek, of course).
Doug.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-u
On 02/11/2009 10:11 AM, Douglas A. Tutty wrote:
On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 09:29:03AM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote:
On 02/11/2009 09:18 AM, Hal Vaughan wrote:
On Wednesday 11 February 2009, Peter Hugosson-Miller wrote:
[snip]
I think Bill Watterson put it best: "The surest sign that intelligent
life
On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 09:29:03AM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote:
> On 02/11/2009 09:18 AM, Hal Vaughan wrote:
> >On Wednesday 11 February 2009, Peter Hugosson-Miller wrote:
> [snip]
> >>I think Bill Watterson put it best: "The surest sign that intelligent
> >>life exists elsewhere in the universe is th
On 02/11/2009 03:27 PM, Hal Vaughan wrote:
On Wednesday 11 February 2009, Ron Johnson wrote:
On 02/11/2009 10:24 AM, Hal Vaughan wrote:
...
about Smurfs never made it out of the local region.
If, of course, what I read is accurate...
Where'd you read it?
Some science-related web site.
Ron
On Wednesday 11 February 2009, Ron Johnson wrote:
> On 02/11/2009 10:24 AM, Hal Vaughan wrote:
...
> >>> about Smurfs never made it out of the local region.
> >>
> >> If, of course, what I read is accurate...
> >
> > Where'd you read it?
>
> Some science-related web site.
Ron, we've told you MANY
On 02/11/2009 10:24 AM, Hal Vaughan wrote:
On Wednesday 11 February 2009, Ron Johnson wrote:
On 02/11/2009 09:33 AM, Hal Vaughan wrote:
[snip]
Hey, the /DoH/ was a great show!
Uh, yeah. Right. I forgot who I'm talking to. Sorry to offend you,
Mr. Bodine.
Sigh.
about Smurfs never made
* Ron Johnson [2009 Feb 11 09:31 -0600]:
> On 02/11/2009 09:18 AM, Hal Vaughan wrote:
>> On Wednesday 11 February 2009, Peter Hugosson-Miller wrote:
> [snip]
>>> I think Bill Watterson put it best: "The surest sign that intelligent
>>> life exists elsewhere in the universe is that it has never tri
On Wed February 11 2009, Ron Johnson wrote:
> I *remember* him saying "billions and billions" back on /Cosmos/.
>
> Going to IMDB, I see that what he really said was the quite similar
> "billions upon billions".
do I need to get out my boxed set of Cosmos VHS tapes for you?? yes, I
remember that
On Wednesday 11 February 2009, Ron Johnson wrote:
> On 02/11/2009 09:33 AM, Hal Vaughan wrote:
> > On Wednesday 11 February 2009, Ron Johnson wrote:
> >> On 02/11/2009 09:18 AM, Hal Vaughan wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday 11 February 2009, Peter Hugosson-Miller wrote:
> >>
> >> [snip]
> >>
> I think
On Wed, 11 Feb 2009 15:16:49 +
Avi Greenbury wrote:
Hello Avi,
> What's the name of that law that states that any post pointing out
> someone's mistake will always include a typo of its own?
It one of the applications of Murphy's (Sod's) Law, I reckon.
--
Regards _
/ )
On 02/11/2009 09:16 AM, Avi Greenbury wrote:
Marc Shapiro wrote:
Jack Schneider wrote:
We are probably the only entities in the universe who spend so much
energy keeping track of the number of times our planet spins.
How bazaar!
Or, "how bizarre." "Bazaar" goes with 'The Cathedral and the."
On 02/11/2009 09:33 AM, Hal Vaughan wrote:
On Wednesday 11 February 2009, Ron Johnson wrote:
On 02/11/2009 09:18 AM, Hal Vaughan wrote:
On Wednesday 11 February 2009, Peter Hugosson-Miller wrote:
[snip]
I think Bill Watterson put it best: "The surest sign that
intelligent life exists elsewhe
On 02/11/2009 09:30 AM, Hal Vaughan wrote:
On Wednesday 11 February 2009, Ron Johnson wrote:
On 02/11/2009 09:10 AM, Hal Vaughan wrote:
On Wednesday 11 February 2009, Douglas A. Tutty wrote:
On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 08:32:22AM -0600, Jack Schneider wrote:
On Wed, 11 Feb 2009 08:06:36 -0600
Ro
On Wednesday 11 February 2009, Ron Johnson wrote:
> On 02/11/2009 09:18 AM, Hal Vaughan wrote:
> > On Wednesday 11 February 2009, Peter Hugosson-Miller wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> >> I think Bill Watterson put it best: "The surest sign that
> >> intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that i
On Wednesday 11 February 2009, Ron Johnson wrote:
> On 02/11/2009 09:10 AM, Hal Vaughan wrote:
> > On Wednesday 11 February 2009, Douglas A. Tutty wrote:
> >> On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 08:32:22AM -0600, Jack Schneider wrote:
> >>> On Wed, 11 Feb 2009 08:06:36 -0600
> >>>
> >>> Ron Johnson wrote:
> >
On 02/11/2009 09:18 AM, Hal Vaughan wrote:
On Wednesday 11 February 2009, Peter Hugosson-Miller wrote:
[snip]
I think Bill Watterson put it best: "The surest sign that intelligent
life exists elsewhere in the universe is that it has never tried to
contact us."
How far out would broadcasts of
On 02/11/2009 09:10 AM, Hal Vaughan wrote:
On Wednesday 11 February 2009, Douglas A. Tutty wrote:
On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 08:32:22AM -0600, Jack Schneider wrote:
On Wed, 11 Feb 2009 08:06:36 -0600
Ron Johnson wrote:
On 02/11/2009 07:47 AM, Jack Schneider wrote:
[snip]
We are probably the o
On Wed, 11 Feb 2009 09:12:21 -0600
Ron Johnson wrote:
> On 02/11/2009 08:32 AM, Jack Schneider wrote:
> > On Wed, 11 Feb 2009 08:06:36 -0600
> > Ron Johnson wrote:
> >
> >> On 02/11/2009 07:47 AM, Jack Schneider wrote:
> >> [snip]
> >>> We are probably the only entities in the universe who spen
On 02/11/2009 08:54 AM, Douglas A. Tutty wrote:
On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 08:23:25AM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote:
On 02/11/2009 05:17 AM, Dave Sherohman wrote:
On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 01:11:06PM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote:
Extremes are, by definition, outliers. Like all outliers, they'll
have to m
On Wednesday 11 February 2009, Peter Hugosson-Miller wrote:
> Douglas A. Tutty wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 08:32:22AM -0600, Jack Schneider wrote:
> >> On Wed, 11 Feb 2009 08:06:36 -0600
> >>
> >> Ron Johnson wrote:
> >>> On 02/11/2009 07:47 AM, Jack Schneider wrote:
> >>> [snip]
> >>>
> >>
Marc Shapiro wrote:
Jack Schneider wrote:
We are probably the only entities in the universe who spend so much
energy keeping track of the number of times our planet spins.
How bazaar!
Or, "how bizarre." "Bazaar" goes with 'The Cathedral and the."
Sorry to nitpick, but I could resist.
Wha
On Wed, 11 Feb 2009 07:05:10 -0800
Marc Shapiro wrote:
> Jack Schneider wrote:
> We are probably the only entities in the universe who spend so much
> > energy keeping track of the number of times our planet spins.
> > How bazaar!
>
> Or, "how bizarre." "Bazaar" goes with 'The Cathedral and t
On 02/11/2009 08:32 AM, Jack Schneider wrote:
On Wed, 11 Feb 2009 08:06:36 -0600
Ron Johnson wrote:
On 02/11/2009 07:47 AM, Jack Schneider wrote:
[snip]
We are probably the only entities in the universe who spend so much
energy keeping track of the number of times our planet spins.
How bazaar
Douglas A. Tutty wrote:
On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 08:32:22AM -0600, Jack Schneider wrote:
On Wed, 11 Feb 2009 08:06:36 -0600
Ron Johnson wrote:
On 02/11/2009 07:47 AM, Jack Schneider wrote:
[snip]
We are probably the only entities in the universe who spend so much
energy keeping track of the n
On Wednesday 11 February 2009, Douglas A. Tutty wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 08:32:22AM -0600, Jack Schneider wrote:
> > On Wed, 11 Feb 2009 08:06:36 -0600
> >
> > Ron Johnson wrote:
> > > On 02/11/2009 07:47 AM, Jack Schneider wrote:
> > > [snip]
> > >
> > > > We are probably the only entitie
Jack Schneider wrote:
We are probably the only entities in the universe who spend so much
energy keeping track of the number of times our planet spins.
How bazaar!
Or, "how bizarre." "Bazaar" goes with 'The Cathedral and the."
Sorry to nitpick, but I could resist.
--
Marc Shapiro
mshapiro..
On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 08:23:25AM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote:
> On 02/11/2009 05:17 AM, Dave Sherohman wrote:
> >On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 01:11:06PM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote:
> Extremes are, by definition, outliers. Like all outliers, they'll
> have to make do with something designed for the majo
On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 08:32:22AM -0600, Jack Schneider wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Feb 2009 08:06:36 -0600
> Ron Johnson wrote:
>
> > On 02/11/2009 07:47 AM, Jack Schneider wrote:
> > [snip]
> > >
> > > We are probably the only entities in the universe who spend so much
> > > energy keeping track of t
On 02/11/2009 05:17 AM, Dave Sherohman wrote:
On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 01:11:06PM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote:
Days beginning (near) daybreak, and years beginning on a seasonal
boundary and having 13 each 28 day months are also good ideas that
won't get implemented. Too much inertia.
How would "
On Wed, 11 Feb 2009 08:06:36 -0600
Ron Johnson wrote:
> On 02/11/2009 07:47 AM, Jack Schneider wrote:
> [snip]
> >
> > We are probably the only entities in the universe who spend so much
> > energy keeping track of the number of times our planet spins.
> > How bazaar!
>
> How can you make such
On 02/11/2009 07:59 AM, Christopher Judd wrote:
On Tuesday 10 February 2009, Ron Johnson wrote:
On 02/10/2009 02:34 PM, Paul E Condon wrote:
[snip]
problem? No. Nobody runs a computer connected to the internet
without connecting to an NTP server regularly. These servers simply
change
Except
On 02/11/2009 07:47 AM, Jack Schneider wrote:
[snip]
We are probably the only entities in the universe who spend so much
energy keeping track of the number of times our planet spins.
How bazaar!
How can you make such a comment when you have *no clue* as to what
any other entity does?
--
Ron
On Tuesday 10 February 2009, Ron Johnson wrote:
> On 02/10/2009 02:34 PM, Paul E Condon wrote:
> [snip]
>
> > problem? No. Nobody runs a computer connected to the internet
> > without connecting to an NTP server regularly. These servers simply
> > change
>
> Except 95% of Windows users.
>
On Wed, 11 Feb 2009 11:29:37 +
David Jardine wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 05:17:47AM -0600, Dave Sherohman wrote:
> > [...]
> > No, I think the much better idea would be to ditch timezones and
> > put the whole world on UTC. Get rid of DST and 12-hour clocks,
> > too, while you're at it
On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 05:17:47AM -0600, Dave Sherohman wrote:
> [...]
> No, I think the much better idea would be to ditch timezones and put the
> whole world on UTC. Get rid of DST and 12-hour clocks, too, while
> you're at it. There is absolutely no real benefit to having the clock
> say "7a
On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 01:11:06PM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote:
> Days beginning (near) daybreak, and years beginning on a seasonal
> boundary and having 13 each 28 day months are also good ideas that
> won't get implemented. Too much inertia.
How would "days beginning (near) daybreak" cope with e
* Ron Johnson [2009 Feb 10 13:12 -0600]:
> On 02/10/2009 12:49 PM, Eric Gerlach wrote:
>> On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 12:02:21PM -0600, John Hasler wrote:
>>> Teemu Likonen writes:
But in international communication timezone information is sometimes
important.
>>> There is no hope of it ever
Hugo Vanwoerkom wrote:
Hi,
Try this:
date -...@1234567890
Hugo
st...@lenny1:~$ date -...@1234567890
za feb 14 00:31:30 CET 2009
that 's making a difference, or not?
s.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact l
On 02/10/2009 02:34 PM, Paul E Condon wrote:
[snip]
problem? No. Nobody runs a computer connected to the internet without
connecting to an NTP server regularly. These servers simply change
Except 95% of Windows users.
--
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson LA USA
Supporting World Peace Through Nuclea
On 02/10/2009 02:09 PM, Paul E Condon wrote:
On 2009-02-10_13:11:06, Ron Johnson wrote:
On 02/10/2009 12:49 PM, Eric Gerlach wrote:
On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 12:02:21PM -0600, John Hasler wrote:
Teemu Likonen writes:
But in international communication timezone information is sometimes
important
On 2009-02-10_12:02:21, John Hasler wrote:
> Teemu Likonen writes:
> > But in international communication timezone information is sometimes
> > important.
>
> There is no hope of it ever being implemented of course, but what would
> really be useful would be a standard whereby dates and times (eve
On 2009-02-10_10:20:03, John Hasler wrote:
> Mark Allums writes:
> > Totally irrelevant, but: Isn't the Linux epoch 64 bits?
>
> Only with a 64 bit kernel.
> --
> John Hasler
I think you are mistaken. The current _standard_ is 64 bits for unix
time. Most actual computers don't yet carry the ex
On 2009-02-10_13:11:06, Ron Johnson wrote:
> On 02/10/2009 12:49 PM, Eric Gerlach wrote:
>> On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 12:02:21PM -0600, John Hasler wrote:
>>> Teemu Likonen writes:
But in international communication timezone information is sometimes
important.
>>> There is no hope of it eve
On 02/10/2009 12:49 PM, Eric Gerlach wrote:
On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 12:02:21PM -0600, John Hasler wrote:
Teemu Likonen writes:
But in international communication timezone information is sometimes
important.
There is no hope of it ever being implemented of course, but what would
really be usefu
On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 12:02:21PM -0600, John Hasler wrote:
> Teemu Likonen writes:
> > But in international communication timezone information is sometimes
> > important.
>
> There is no hope of it ever being implemented of course, but what would
> really be useful would be a standard whereby da
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ron Johnson wrote:
> Besides, wouldn't changing size_t would break binary compatibility when
> moving data files from an older machine to a newer machine?
FWIW, I copy data files between my amd64 system and my x86_64 or i386 on
a daily basis without a
On 02/10/2009 12:02 PM, John Hasler wrote:
Teemu Likonen writes:
But in international communication timezone information is sometimes
important.
There is no hope of it ever being implemented of course, but what would
really be useful would be a standard whereby dates and times (even when
embed
Ron Johnson wrote:
> Besides, wouldn't changing size_t would break binary compatibility
> when moving data files from an older machine to a newer machine
Sure, just as changing long or int. (At least long is 64-bit on amd64,
not sure about int, and too lazy to check right now). That's why they're
Teemu Likonen writes:
> But in international communication timezone information is sometimes
> important.
There is no hope of it ever being implemented of course, but what would
really be useful would be a standard whereby dates and times (even when
embedded in text) would transmitted and stored i
On 02/10/2009 10:20 AM, John Hasler wrote:
Mark Allums writes:
Totally irrelevant, but: Isn't the Linux epoch 64 bits?
Only with a 64 bit kernel.
And 64-bit userland.
$ date -...@9876543210
date: invalid date `...@9876543210'
$ uname -m
x86_64
$ dpkg-architecture
DEB_BUILD_ARCH=i386
DEB_
On 2009-02-10 14:47 (+0100), Thomas Flaig wrote:
> Acctually this is a good reason to introduce the use of UTC not only
> for the BIOS but also for the user interface! ;)
Maybe not. :-)
But in international communication timezone information is sometimes
important. Below are two attribution line
Am Dienstag, 10. Februar 2009 14:30 schrieb Thierry Chatelet:
> On Tuesday 10 February 2009 13:32:59 Nate Bargmann wrote:
> > * Hugo Vanwoerkom [2009 Feb 10 06:27 -0600]:
> > > Try this:
> > > date -...@1234567890
> > $ date -...@1234567890
> > Fri Feb 13 17:31:30 CST 2009
> How srange:
> $ date -
Mark Allums writes:
> Totally irrelevant, but: Isn't the Linux epoch 64 bits?
Only with a 64 bit kernel.
--
John Hasler
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
On Tuesday 10 February 2009, Mark Allums wrote:
> Hugo Vanwoerkom wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Try this:
> >
> > date -...@1234567890
> >
> > Hugo
>
> Totally irrelevant, but: Isn't the Linux epoch 64 bits? Thus, what?
> Anything? Aside from the sun becoming a white dwarf before it rolls
> over.
Bett
Hugo Vanwoerkom wrote:
Hi,
Try this:
date -...@1234567890
Hugo
Totally irrelevant, but: Isn't the Linux epoch 64 bits? Thus, what?
Anything? Aside from the sun becoming a white dwarf before it rolls over.
$date -...@9876543210
Fri Dec 22 14:13:30 CST 2282
Mark Allums
--
To UNSUB
On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 03:35:35PM +0100, Thierry Chatelet wrote:
> Because according to man date:
>-d, --date=STRING
> display time described by STRING, not ???now???
>
> my guess was that string is not time zone related. Maybe I am wrong. But I
> change my time zone to Pac
On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 14:30:20 +0100
Thierry Chatelet wrote:
Hello Thierry,
> $ date -...@1234567890
> Sat Feb 14 00:31:30 CET 2009
And;
Fri Feb 13 23:31:30 GMT 2009
So, TZ dependant, then.
--
Regards _
/ ) "The blindingly obvious is
/ _)radnever immediate
On Tuesday 10 February 2009 15:16:49 Ron Johnson wrote:
> On 02/10/2009 07:30 AM, Thierry Chatelet wrote:
> > On Tuesday 10 February 2009 13:32:59 Nate Bargmann wrote:
> >> * Hugo Vanwoerkom [2009 Feb 10 06:27 -0600]:
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> >>> Try this:
> >>>
> >>> date -...@1234567890
> >> $ date -.
On 02/10/2009 07:30 AM, Thierry Chatelet wrote:
On Tuesday 10 February 2009 13:32:59 Nate Bargmann wrote:
* Hugo Vanwoerkom [2009 Feb 10 06:27 -0600]:
Hi,
Try this:
date -...@1234567890
$ date -...@1234567890
Fri Feb 13 17:31:30 CST 2009
I'd read about this on Linux Today a day or two back
On Tuesday 10 February 2009 13:32:59 Nate Bargmann wrote:
> * Hugo Vanwoerkom [2009 Feb 10 06:27 -0600]:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Try this:
> >
> > date -...@1234567890
>
> $ date -...@1234567890
> Fri Feb 13 17:31:30 CST 2009
>
> I'd read about this on Linux Today a day or two back. Another
> interesting
* Hugo Vanwoerkom [2009 Feb 10 06:27 -0600]:
> Hi,
>
> Try this:
>
> date -...@1234567890
$ date -...@1234567890
Fri Feb 13 17:31:30 CST 2009
I'd read about this on Linux Today a day or two back. Another
interesting time milestone.
- Nate >>
--
"The optimist proclaims that we live in the be
En/na Peter Hugosson-Miller ha escrit:
Hugo Vanwoerkom wrote:
Hi,
Try this:
date -...@1234567890
Hugo
p...@linux624:~$ date -...@1234567890
date: invalid date `...@1234567890'
p...@linux624:~$
Woohoo!
??? That's not the answer you are supposed to get.
This is:
ds feb 14
Hugo Vanwoerkom wrote:
Hi,
Try this:
date -...@1234567890
Hugo
p...@linux624:~$ date -...@1234567890
date: invalid date `...@1234567890'
p...@linux624:~$
Woohoo!
--
Best Regards
Peter Hugosson-Miller
This email has been scanned by the DefenderSoft Email Threat Protection.
For more informa
Hi,
Try this:
date -...@1234567890
Hugo
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
79 matches
Mail list logo
