Re: Debian was hacked: The Canterbury Distribution (howto write the date)
On Sun, Apr 3, 2011 at 02:06, Scott Ferguson
<prettyfly.productions@gmail.com> 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 system... are my assumptions correct? Also - is that
> how others have their dates displayed?
The date in the email is created by the *senders* MUA. In some MUAs at
least, you can change how it gets written out. I think many MUAs default
this to the "long date" format from (sender's) locale. The other is set by
*your* MUA, and it is probably set to "time" or "short date" for your locale
by default.
On Sun, Apr 3, 2011 at 02:24, Heddle Weaver <weaver2world@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 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.
> Anything else is the calender equivalent of top-posting.
No, little-endian is always the equivalent of top posting (middle-endian
(American date style) is just madness). Is the month or the exact day
relevant if you are off by years? Just as numerical representation in
little-endian is backwards. If you write "one hundred forty five" as 541,
it makes no sense. 5 is not very important compared to one hundred,
so why put it at the beginning?
Oh, and the only possible excuse for "yy" instead of "yyyy" is if you where
writing before the year one hundred, although even then it should have
been clear that that wouldn't be useful for long. Actually, A.D./B.C. wasn't
created until 525, so that isn't possible in our calendar system. Hmm, I
wonder if any calendar system has been in use since it's own year one?
Probably only ones based on kings' reigns.
And while we are at it, we should probably give some thought to the future
and extend our years to at least yyyyy (e.g. 02011 for this year). That would
at least give us nearly ninety-eight thousand years instead of a mere eight
thousand.
Cheers,
Kelly Clowers
Reply to: