Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Uh oh

Expand Messages
  • piebaldconsult
    This was posted to another group I read: On Wednesday of this coming week, at two minutes and three seconds after 1:00 o clock in the morning, the time and
    Message 1 of 9 , Apr 4, 2006
      This was posted to another group I read:

      On Wednesday of this coming week, at two minutes and three seconds after
      1:00 o'clock in the morning, the time and date will be:

      01:02:03 04/05/06.
    • NGUYEN Ivy
      Wow. Just shows ISO 8601 or a very similar unambiguous needs to be adapted. Will the current nonsense continue past the end of this decade, where dates like
      Message 2 of 9 , Apr 4, 2006
        Wow. Just shows ISO 8601 or a very similar unambiguous needs to be
        adapted. Will the current nonsense continue past the end of this
        decade, where dates like 12/11/10 be common?

        On 04/04/06, piebaldconsult <PIEBALDconsult@...> wrote:
        > This was posted to another group I read:
        >
        > On Wednesday of this coming week, at two minutes and three seconds after
        > 1:00 o'clock in the morning, the time and date will be:
        >
        > 01:02:03 04/05/06.
      • John Bogie
        How about 06/05/04 03:02:01 at two minutes and one second past 3 a.m. on the fourth of May? ... From: ISO8601@yahoogroups.com
        Message 3 of 9 , Apr 4, 2006
          How about 06/05/04 03:02:01
          at two minutes and one second past 3 a.m. on the fourth of May?


          -----Original Message-----
          From: ISO8601@yahoogroups.com [mailto:ISO8601@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf
          Of piebaldconsult
          Sent: 2006 April 04 14:12
          To: ISO8601@yahoogroups.com
          Subject: [ISO8601] Uh oh


          This was posted to another group I read:

          On Wednesday of this coming week, at two minutes and three seconds after
          1:00 o'clock in the morning, the time and date will be:

          01:02:03 04/05/06.
        • BUDAI A. Endre
          ... From: NGUYEN Ivy To: ISO8601@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, April 04, 2006 9:44 PM Subject: Re: [ISO8601] Uh oh Wow. Just shows ISO 8601 or a very similar
          Message 4 of 9 , Apr 4, 2006
             
            ----- Original Message -----
            Sent: Tuesday, April 04, 2006 9:44 PM
            Subject: Re: [ISO8601] Uh oh

            Wow. Just shows ISO 8601 or a very similar unambiguous needs to be
            adapted. Will the current nonsense continue past the end of this
            decade, where dates like 12/11/10 be common?

            On 04/04/06, piebaldconsult <PIEBALDconsult@...> wrote:
            > This was posted to another group I read:
            >
            > On Wednesday of this coming week, at two minutes and three seconds after
            > 1:00 o'clock in the morning, the time and date will be:
            >
            > 01:02:03    04/05/06.

            I don't get it.  Are we back to 2004 May 6th ? 
            Somehow this time warp was not meant to be part of ISO 8601. 
            Or was it ?   
            B., Andrew
            Xinzhu City    Taiwan    China    2006-04-05    00:13



             
            Yahoo! Groups Links

            <*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
                http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ISO8601/

            <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                ISO8601-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

            <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
                http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
             

          • NGUYEN Ivy
            Google s Gmail service automatically inserts the date (in an ambiguous format) to replied messages. It should say 4 April 2006, 2006-04-04, or similar, but it
            Message 5 of 9 , Apr 4, 2006
              Google's Gmail service automatically inserts the date (in an ambiguous
              format) to replied messages. It should say 4 April 2006, 2006-04-04,
              or similar, but it doesn't. :-(

              On 04/04/06, BUDAI A. Endre <bandi@...> wrote:
              >
              >
              >
              > > I don't get it. Are we back to 2004 May 6th ?
              > Somehow this time warp was not meant to be part of ISO 8601.
              > Or was it ?
              > B., Andrew
              > Xinzhu City Taiwan China 2006-04-05 00:13
            • John Hynes
              You mean, -06-05-04T03:02:01+00 or -060504T030201Z. (pre :2004, of course)
              Message 6 of 9 , Apr 4, 2006
                You mean, -06-05-04T03:02:01+00 or -060504T030201Z. (pre :2004, of course)

                --- In ISO8601@yahoogroups.com, "piebaldconsult" <PIEBALDconsult@...>
                wrote:
                >
                > This was posted to another group I read:
                >
                > On Wednesday of this coming week, at two minutes and three seconds after
                > 1:00 o'clock in the morning, the time and date will be:
                >
                > 01:02:03 04/05/06.
                >
              • Fred Bone
                ... So the end of the world really IS nigh? ;-
                Message 7 of 9 , Apr 5, 2006
                  piebaldconsult said:

                  > This was posted to another group I read:
                  >
                  > On Wednesday of this coming week, at two minutes and three seconds after
                  > 1:00 o'clock in the morning, the time and date will be:
                  >
                  > 01:02:03 04/05/06.

                  Someone sent me a similar note, to which had been appended:

                  > That will not ever happen again.

                  So the end of the world really IS nigh?

                  ;->
                • piebaldconsult
                  ... Only twice every hundred years. (Once if you use a 24-hour clock, but then you would use that silly ordering.)
                  Message 8 of 9 , Apr 6, 2006
                    > > That will not ever happen again.

                    Only twice every hundred years. (Once if you use a 24-hour clock, but
                    then you would use that silly ordering.)
                  • piebaldconsult
                    ... Dang, _wouldn t_ .
                    Message 9 of 9 , Apr 6, 2006
                      --- In ISO8601@yahoogroups.com, "piebaldconsult" <PIEBALDconsult@...>
                      wrote:
                      >
                      > > > That will not ever happen again.
                      >
                      > Only twice every hundred years. (Once if you use a 24-hour clock, but
                      > then you would use that silly ordering.)
                      >

                      Dang, _wouldn't_ .
                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.