On 04/03/2011 12:35 PM, Kelly Clowers wrote:
On Sun, Apr 3, 2011 at 10:10, Ron Johnson wrote:
handwriting
What's that?
Something that some American schools still teach to children.
--
"Neither the wisest constitution nor the wisest laws will secure
the liberty and happiness of a people w
On Sun, Apr 3, 2011 at 10:10, Ron Johnson wrote:
>
> handwriting
What's that?
Cheers,
Kelly Clowers
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive:
http://lists.debian.org/banlktinfdxr+2w
On Sun, Apr 3, 2011 at 02:06, Scott Ferguson
wrote:
>
> Out of curiosity - I've attached a (tiny) screenscrape of how a post
> appears in Thunderbird (yeah I know, but the rest of things are Debian).
> I guess the date format on the left is from the list, and the one on the
> right is from my syst
On 04/03/2011 04:24 AM, Heddle Weaver wrote:
[snip]
The logical progression, in the English language and not the American
dialect, is 'day' of the 'month' of the specified 'year'. dd/mm/yy.
This is obvious.
Only obvious if you've grown up that way.
However, "3 Jan 2011" *slightly* reduces con
On Sunday 03 April 2011 10:06:39 Scott Ferguson wrote:
> On 03/04/11 16:54, Lisi wrote:
> > On Sunday 03 April 2011 01:20:10 Scott Ferguson wrote:
> >> I suspect Liam's response was made in jest :-)
> >
> > I'm sure it was - and a successful jest. But mine was not. In that
> > case, context made
On 3 April 2011 19:06, Scott Ferguson wrote:
> On 03/04/11 16:54, Lisi wrote:
> > On Sunday 03 April 2011 01:20:10 Scott Ferguson wrote:
> >> I suspect Liam's response was made in jest :-)
> >
> > I'm sure it was - and a successful jest. But mine was not. In that
> case,
> > context made the dat
On 03/04/11 16:54, Lisi wrote:
> On Sunday 03 April 2011 01:20:10 Scott Ferguson wrote:
>> I suspect Liam's response was made in jest :-)
>
> I'm sure it was - and a successful jest. But mine was not. In that case,
> context made the date's form redundant, but it _is_ a problem. Not major
>
On Sunday 03 April 2011 01:20:10 Scott Ferguson wrote:
> I suspect Liam's response was made in jest :-)
I'm sure it was - and a successful jest. But mine was not. In that case,
context made the date's form redundant, but it _is_ a problem. Not major
one, a very minor one. But a problem - an
On 02/04/11 23:35, Aaron Toponce wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 02, 2011 at 02:23:31PM +1100, Scott Ferguson wrote:
>> Why not use the Debian standard??
^ It *was* a question, and I *was* soliciting an answer.
>> Reasoning - it's already been extensively debated *and* voted on, it's a
>> system already
On 04/02/2011 06:31 PM, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
In<4d96a8c3.9080...@cox.net>, Ron Johnson wrote:
I've always thought that Unix Time is *incredibly stupid* (who the heck
says "Fri Apr 1 23:27:41 CDT 2011"?)
and *monumentally shortsighted*
(did nothing happen before 01-Jan-1970?).
What ma
In <4d96a8c3.9080...@cox.net>, Ron Johnson wrote:
>I've always thought that Unix Time is *incredibly stupid* (who the heck
>says "Fri Apr 1 23:27:41 CDT 2011"?)
>and *monumentally shortsighted*
>(did nothing happen before 01-Jan-1970?).
What makes you say this is UNIX time? The UNIX standard pro
On Sat, Apr 02, 2011 at 02:23:31PM +1100, Scott Ferguson wrote:
> Why not use the Debian standard??
> Reasoning - it's already been extensively debated *and* voted on, it's a
> system already in place, it's the "Debian" way.
>
> (Is there more than one (Debian standard)?)
>
> >From :-
> http://www.
On 04/02/2011 12:45 AM, Doug wrote:
On 04/02/2011 12:40 AM, Ron Johnson wrote:
I've always thought that Unix Time is *incredibly stupid* (who the
heck says "Fri Apr 1 23:27:41 CDT 2011"?) and *monumentally
shortsighted* (did nothing happen before 01-Jan-1970?).
OpenVMS does it one of the two R
On 04/02/2011 12:18 AM, Scott Ferguson wrote:
On 02/04/11 15:40, Ron Johnson wrote:
On 04/01/2011 11:17 PM, Scott Ferguson wrote:
On 02/04/11 14:57, Kelly Clowers wrote:
On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 20:23, Scott Ferguson
[snip]
Why not use the Debian standard??
day-of-week, dd month hh:mm:ss
On 04/02/2011 12:40 AM, Ron Johnson wrote:
I've always thought that Unix Time is *incredibly stupid* (who the
heck says "Fri Apr 1 23:27:41 CDT 2011"?) and *monumentally
shortsighted* (did nothing happen before 01-Jan-1970?).
OpenVMS does it one of the two Right Ways of displaying time
(01
On 02/04/11 15:40, Ron Johnson wrote:
> On 04/01/2011 11:17 PM, Scott Ferguson wrote:
>> On 02/04/11 14:57, Kelly Clowers wrote:
>>> On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 20:23, Scott Ferguson
> [snip]
Why not use the Debian standard??
day-of-week, dd month hh:mm:ss +
>>>
>>> Too verbose,
On 04/01/2011 11:17 PM, Scott Ferguson wrote:
On 02/04/11 14:57, Kelly Clowers wrote:
On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 20:23, Scott Ferguson
[snip]
Why not use the Debian standard??
day-of-week, dd month hh:mm:ss +
Too verbose, not sortable
Cheers,
Kelly Clowers
So...
the RFC standards
On 02/04/11 14:57, Kelly Clowers wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 20:23, Scott Ferguson
> wrote:
>> On 02/04/11 13:50, Kelly Clowers wrote:
>>> On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 07:12, green wrote:
Aaron Toponce wrote at 2011-04-01 08:11 -0500:
> For international mailing lists, if you stick with IS
On Sat, Apr 2, 2011 at 04:57, Kelly Clowers wrote:
>> Why not use the Debian standard??
>>day-of-week, dd month hh:mm:ss +
ISO format available.
--
Mars 2 Stay!
http://xkcd.com/801/
/etc
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe
On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 20:23, Scott Ferguson
wrote:
> On 02/04/11 13:50, Kelly Clowers wrote:
>> On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 07:12, green wrote:
>>> Aaron Toponce wrote at 2011-04-01 08:11 -0500:
For international mailing lists, if you stick with ISO 8601, there should
be no ambiguity in the
On 02/04/11 13:50, Kelly Clowers wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 07:12, green wrote:
>> Aaron Toponce wrote at 2011-04-01 08:11 -0500:
>>> For international mailing lists, if you stick with ISO 8601, there should
>>> be no ambiguity in the date:
>>>
>>> 2011-04-01 or 20110401 is defined as Apr
21 matches
Mail list logo
