Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > alt.comp.os.windows-10 > #181163 > unrolled thread

E-S

Back to article view | Back to alt.comp.os.windows-10

Contents

  E-S Jim the Geordie <jim@jimXscott.co.uk> - 2025-01-07 12:15 +0000
    Re: E-S Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> - 2025-01-07 12:48 +0000
    Re: E-S Newyana2 <newyana@invalid.nospam> - 2025-01-07 08:02 -0500
      Re: E-S "s|b" <me@privacy.invalid> - 2025-01-08 16:27 +0100
        Re: E-S Newyana2 <newyana@invalid.nospam> - 2025-01-08 11:17 -0500
          Re: E-S Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2025-01-08 17:38 +0000
            Re: E-S "Alan K." <alan@invalid.com> - 2025-01-08 13:35 -0500
            Re: E-S Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-01-08 14:46 -0500
              Re: E-S "s|b" <me@privacy.invalid> - 2025-01-10 20:28 +0100
            Re: E-S Newyana2 <newyana@invalid.nospam> - 2025-01-08 14:52 -0500
          Re: E-S "John C." <r9jmg0@yahoo.com> - 2025-01-09 04:11 -0800
            Re: E-S "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-01-09 14:47 +0100
              Re: E-S Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2025-01-09 17:41 +0000
                Re: E-S John <Man@the.keyboard> - 2025-01-10 12:13 +0000
                  Re: E-S John <Man@the.keyboard> - 2025-01-10 12:17 +0000
                  Re: E-S Newyana2 <newyana@invalid.nospam> - 2025-01-10 09:08 -0500
                    Re: E-S Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2025-01-10 16:29 +0000
                      Re: E-S Newyana2 <newyana@invalid.nospam> - 2025-01-10 11:58 -0500
                        Re: E-S Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2025-01-10 18:34 +0000
                  Re: E-S Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2025-01-10 19:08 +0000
                    Re: E-S Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com> - 2025-01-11 08:57 -0700
                      Re: E-S Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2025-01-11 16:38 +0000
                        Re: E-S Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com> - 2025-01-12 10:45 -0700
                          Re: E-S Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-01-12 15:06 -0500
                            Re: E-S Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com> - 2025-01-13 09:39 -0700
                            Re: E-S Daniel70 <daniel47@eternal-september.org> - 2025-03-28 22:34 +1100
                      Re: E-S Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-01-11 12:11 -0500
                        Re: E-S Daniel70 <daniel47@eternal-september.org> - 2025-03-30 21:17 +1100
                        Re: E-S Rink <rink.hof.haalditmaarweg@planet.nl> - 2025-04-06 20:23 +0200
                    Re: E-S Daniel70 <daniel47@eternal-september.org> - 2025-03-28 22:21 +1100
                      Re: E-S Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2025-03-28 16:51 +0000
                        Re: E-S Daniel70 <daniel47@eternal-september.org> - 2025-03-30 21:18 +1100
                          Re: E-S Rink <rink.hof.haalditmaarweg@planet.nl> - 2025-04-06 20:07 +0200
                      Re: E-S Mark Lloyd <not.email@all.invalid> - 2025-03-28 21:12 +0000
                  Re: E-S Daniel70 <daniel47@eternal-september.org> - 2025-03-28 22:04 +1100
                    Re: E-S Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-03-28 09:24 -0400
                      Re: E-S jerryab <jerryab@juno.com> - 2025-03-28 10:19 -0500
                      Re: E-S Daniel70 <daniel47@eternal-september.org> - 2025-03-30 21:21 +1100
                Re: E-S "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-01-10 14:42 +0100
                Re: E-S "s|b" <me@privacy.invalid> - 2025-01-10 20:29 +0100
              Re: E-S "John C." <r9jmg0@yahoo.com> - 2025-01-11 06:37 -0800
        Re: E-S Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> - 2025-01-08 16:29 -0600
          Re: E-S "s|b" <me@privacy.invalid> - 2025-01-10 20:31 +0100
    Re: E-S Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2025-01-07 13:42 +0000
      Re: E-S "Alan K." <alan@invalid.com> - 2025-01-07 08:49 -0500
    Re: E-S "John C." <r9jmg0@yahoo.com> - 2025-01-07 06:08 -0800
      Re: E-S Jim the Geordie <jim@jimXscott.co.uk> - 2025-01-07 14:28 +0000
      Re: E-S Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-01-10 10:43 -0500
    Re: E-S "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2025-01-09 01:24 +0800
      Re: E-S Jim the Geordie <jim@jimXscott.co.uk> - 2025-01-14 13:32 +0000

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

#181269

On 10 Jan 2025 19:08:56 GMT, Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid>
wrote:

>  Isn't the Internet, etc. supposed to die first, because of all the
>Unix servers going down, on January 19, 2038!? :-) And the *next*
>disaster in 2486!


I don't know and I don't care. I won't be alive in 1938 or 2486.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#181272

Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com> wrote:
> On 10 Jan 2025 19:08:56 GMT, Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid>
> wrote:
> 
> >  Isn't the Internet, etc. supposed to die first, because of all the
> >Unix servers going down, on January 19, 2038!? :-) And the *next*
> >disaster in 2486!
> 
> I don't know and I don't care. I won't be alive in 1938 or 2486.

  Well, my mum lived to 102, so if you manage that, you'll be looking
*back* on 2038.

  And what about your (grand)kids, if any?

  Anyway, as the smiley indicates, it's a joke, and, like with Y2K, it's
no so much the systems, but the software/programs/applications/
<whatever> running *on* those systems, which are the problem.

  BTW, your '1938' typo was quite funny, in this context!

-- 
Frank Slootweg, did Unix (HP-UX) support before, during and after Y2K.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#181285

On 11 Jan 2025 16:38:56 GMT, Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid>
wrote:

>Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com> wrote:
>> On 10 Jan 2025 19:08:56 GMT, Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid>
>> wrote:
>> 
>> >  Isn't the Internet, etc. supposed to die first, because of all the
>> >Unix servers going down, on January 19, 2038!? :-) And the *next*
>> >disaster in 2486!
>> 
>> I don't know and I don't care. I won't be alive in 1938 or 2486.
>
>  Well, my mum lived to 102, so if you manage that, you'll be looking
>*back* on 2038.


Highly unlikely. I have metastatic prostate cancer.

>
>  And what about your (grand)kids, if any?

One.


>  Anyway, as the smiley indicates, it's a joke, and, like with Y2K, it's
>no so much the systems, but the software/programs/applications/
><whatever> running *on* those systems, which are the problem.
>
>  BTW, your '1938' typo was quite funny, in this context!


Oops!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#181289

On Sun, 1/12/2025 12:45 PM, Ken Blake wrote:
> On 11 Jan 2025 16:38:56 GMT, Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid>
> wrote:
> 
>> Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com> wrote:
>>> On 10 Jan 2025 19:08:56 GMT, Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>  Isn't the Internet, etc. supposed to die first, because of all the
>>>> Unix servers going down, on January 19, 2038!? :-) And the *next*
>>>> disaster in 2486!
>>>
>>> I don't know and I don't care. I won't be alive in 1938 or 2486.
>>
>>  Well, my mum lived to 102, so if you manage that, you'll be looking
>> *back* on 2038.
> 
> 
> Highly unlikely. I have metastatic prostate cancer.
> 

That doesn't sound good.

https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/conditions-and-diseases/prostate-cancer/prostate-cancer-prognosis

And that's why there is an entire wing on the small hospital near
my place, given over to cancer. And nothing for heart disease
(which is downtown). Every hospital seems to have a cancer wing.

   Paul

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#181304

On Sun, 12 Jan 2025 15:06:22 -0500, Paul <nospam@needed.invalid>
wrote:

>On Sun, 1/12/2025 12:45 PM, Ken Blake wrote:
>> On 11 Jan 2025 16:38:56 GMT, Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid>
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com> wrote:
>>>> On 10 Jan 2025 19:08:56 GMT, Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>  Isn't the Internet, etc. supposed to die first, because of all the
>>>>> Unix servers going down, on January 19, 2038!? :-) And the *next*
>>>>> disaster in 2486!
>>>>
>>>> I don't know and I don't care. I won't be alive in 1938 or 2486.
>>>
>>>  Well, my mum lived to 102, so if you manage that, you'll be looking
>>> *back* on 2038.
>> 
>> 
>> Highly unlikely. I have metastatic prostate cancer.
>> 
>
>That doesn't sound good.
>
>https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/conditions-and-diseases/prostate-cancer/prostate-cancer-prognosis
>
>And that's why there is an entire wing on the small hospital near
>my place, given over to cancer. And nothing for heart disease
>(which is downtown). Every hospital seems to have a cancer wing.



Fortunately, my PSA level has gone way down, and I'm feeling pretty
good. I'm 87, but I don't know how much longer I have to live. Fifteen
years, to 102? Highly unlikely.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#183053

On 13/01/2025 7:06 am, Paul wrote:
> On Sun, 1/12/2025 12:45 PM, Ken Blake wrote:
>> On 11 Jan 2025 16:38:56 GMT, Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid>
>> wrote:
>>> Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com> wrote:
>>>> On 10 Jan 2025 19:08:56 GMT, Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>   Isn't the Internet, etc. supposed to die first, because of all the
>>>>> Unix servers going down, on January 19, 2038!? :-) And the *next*
>>>>> disaster in 2486!
>>>>
>>>> I don't know and I don't care. I won't be alive in 1938 or 2486.
>>>
>>>   Well, my mum lived to 102, so if you manage that, you'll be looking
>>> *back* on 2038.
>>
>> Highly unlikely. I have metastatic prostate cancer.
> 
> That doesn't sound good.
> 
> https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/conditions-and-diseases/prostate-cancer/prostate-cancer-prognosis
> 
> And that's why there is an entire wing on the small hospital near
> my place, given over to cancer. And nothing for heart disease
> (which is downtown). Every hospital seems to have a cancer wing.
> 
>     Paul
> 
My father was diagnosed with Prostate cancer about a fortnight before he 
died of old Age (81yo in 2001) anyway. I've been getting my 
Prostate=Specific Antigen (PSA) check done twice a year since then.

A couple of my Second Cousins (similar ages to me) have had Prostrate 
Cancer treatments in the last five years or so.

Old Age .... it's not meant for everyone! ;-P
-- 
Daniel70

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#181273

On Sat, 1/11/2025 10:57 AM, Ken Blake wrote:
> On 10 Jan 2025 19:08:56 GMT, Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid>
> wrote:
> 
>>  Isn't the Internet, etc. supposed to die first, because of all the
>> Unix servers going down, on January 19, 2038!? :-) And the *next*
>> disaster in 2486!
> 
> 
> I don't know and I don't care. I won't be alive in 1938 or 2486.
> 

You could be placed in suspended animation tomorrow, and
re-animated in 2485, just so you can "party, like it is 2485" :-)

"Prince -- Party Like It's 1999"  [Balance still isn't very good, hard to hear vocals clearly]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iI2fRPmEZ6A

*******
...
I was dreamin' when I wrote this
Forgive me if it goes astray
But when I woke up this morning
Could have sworn it was judgement day
The sky was all purple
There were people runnin' everywhere
Tryin' to run from the destruction
You know I didn't even care

[Chorus: Prince and All]
'Cause they say
2000, zero-zero, party over, oops, out of time
So tonight, I'm gonna party like it's 1999
...
*******

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1999_%28Prince_song%29

   "In the film, he predicted that a terror would fall upon the world in 1999.

    The next day at rehearsals, Prince discussed the documentary with his
    bandmates, where they imagined a huge party would be thrown knowing
    this terror was about to happen.
   "

  Paul

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#183077

On 12/01/2025 4:11 am, Paul wrote:
> On Sat, 1/11/2025 10:57 AM, Ken Blake wrote:
>> On 10 Jan 2025 19:08:56 GMT, Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>   Isn't the Internet, etc. supposed to die first, because of all the
>>> Unix servers going down, on January 19, 2038!? :-) And the *next*
>>> disaster in 2486!
>>
>>
>> I don't know and I don't care. I won't be alive in 1938 or 2486.
>>
> 
> You could be placed in suspended animation tomorrow, and
> re-animated in 2485, just so you can "party, like it is 2485" :-)
> 
> "Prince -- Party Like It's 1999"  [Balance still isn't very good, hard to hear vocals clearly]
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iI2fRPmEZ6A
> 
> *******
> ...
> I was dreamin' when I wrote this
> Forgive me if it goes astray
> But when I woke up this morning
> Could have sworn it was judgement day
> The sky was all purple
> There were people runnin' everywhere
> Tryin' to run from the destruction
> You know I didn't even care
> 
> [Chorus: Prince and All]
> 'Cause they say
> 2000, zero-zero, party over, oops, out of time
> So tonight, I'm gonna party like it's 1999
> ...
> *******
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1999_%28Prince_song%29
> 
>     "In the film, he predicted that a terror would fall upon the world in 1999.
> 
>      The next day at rehearsals, Prince discussed the documentary with his
>      bandmates, where they imagined a huge party would be thrown knowing
>      this terror was about to happen.
>     "
> 
>    Paul
> 
> 
Films!! Not very good at predicting the Future .... I mean look at '1984'!!

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0048918/?ref_=fn_all_ttl_3

or the 1984 version of "1984"!!

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0087803/?ref_=fn_all_ttl_1
-- 
Daniel70

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#183285

Op 11-1-2025 om 18:11 schreef Paul:

> 
> "Prince -- Party Like It's 1999"  [Balance still isn't very good, hard to hear vocals clearly]
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iI2fRPmEZ6A
> 


That version sounds very strange to me, Paul.

Try this one:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rblt2EtFfC4

comes from Prince (his royalty himself)
1982, already 43 years old.....

Rink

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#183052

On 11/01/2025 6:08 am, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> John <Man@the.keyboard> wrote:
> [...]
> 
>>   And, in a couple of years, that is going to be Y2000'ed.
>>
>>   "The CHILDREN, THE CHILDREN, Won't *anyone* ever think of THE
>> *C*H*IIIIIIII*LLLLLLLL*DD*RRRR*EEEEEEEEE*NNNNNNNNNN???!!!!"
>>
>> Addendum: the day after the 31st of December, 9999, in case you're
>> still coffee deprived.
> 
>    Isn't the Internet, etc. supposed to die first, because of all the
> Unix servers going down, on January 19, 2038!? :-) And the *next*
> disaster in 2486!
> 
> 'Year 2038 problem'
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_2038_problem>
> 
I might make it to 2038 (only 13 years after all!) .... but 2486 is 
probably out of the question.

What's the problem or the root of the problem anticipated in 2486??
-- 
Daniel70

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#183056

Daniel70 <daniel47@eternal-september.org> wrote:
> On 11/01/2025 6:08 am, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> > John <Man@the.keyboard> wrote:
> > [...]
> > 
> >>   And, in a couple of years, that is going to be Y2000'ed.
> >>
> >>   "The CHILDREN, THE CHILDREN, Won't *anyone* ever think of THE
> >> *C*H*IIIIIIII*LLLLLLLL*DD*RRRR*EEEEEEEEE*NNNNNNNNNN???!!!!"
> >>
> >> Addendum: the day after the 31st of December, 9999, in case you're
> >> still coffee deprived.
> > 
> >    Isn't the Internet, etc. supposed to die first, because of all the
> > Unix servers going down, on January 19, 2038!? :-) And the *next*
> > disaster in 2486!
> > 
> > 'Year 2038 problem'
> > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_2038_problem>
> > 
> I might make it to 2038 (only 13 years after all!) .... but 2486 is 
> probably out of the question.
> 
> What's the problem or the root of the problem anticipated in 2486??

  The XFS filesystem. See the 'Implemented solutions' section of the
above Wikipedia page for details.

  I failed to notice that the ext4 filesystem problem comes even sooner,
2446! And 2106 (OpenVMS and MariaDB) is also right around the corner!

  And watch out for the year 30,828 problem (Windows)! That's the real
killer!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#183078

On 29/03/2025 3:51 am, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> Daniel70 <daniel47@eternal-september.org> wrote:
>> On 11/01/2025 6:08 am, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>>> John <Man@the.keyboard> wrote:
>>> [...]
>>>
>>>>    And, in a couple of years, that is going to be Y2000'ed.
>>>>
>>>>    "The CHILDREN, THE CHILDREN, Won't *anyone* ever think of THE
>>>> *C*H*IIIIIIII*LLLLLLLL*DD*RRRR*EEEEEEEEE*NNNNNNNNNN???!!!!"
>>>>
>>>> Addendum: the day after the 31st of December, 9999, in case you're
>>>> still coffee deprived.
>>>
>>>     Isn't the Internet, etc. supposed to die first, because of all the
>>> Unix servers going down, on January 19, 2038!? :-) And the *next*
>>> disaster in 2486!
>>>
>>> 'Year 2038 problem'
>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_2038_problem>
>>>
>> I might make it to 2038 (only 13 years after all!) .... but 2486 is
>> probably out of the question.
>>
>> What's the problem or the root of the problem anticipated in 2486??
> 
>    The XFS filesystem. See the 'Implemented solutions' section of the
> above Wikipedia page for details.
> 
>    I failed to notice that the ext4 filesystem problem comes even sooner,
> 2446! And 2106 (OpenVMS and MariaDB) is also right around the corner!
> 
>    And watch out for the year 30,828 problem (Windows)! That's the real
> killer!
> 
COMPUTERS!! Are they really of assistance to US Humans??
-- 
Daniel70

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#183284

Op 30-3-2025 om 12:18 schreef Daniel70:
> On 29/03/2025 3:51 am, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>> Daniel70 <daniel47@eternal-september.org> wrote:
>>> On 11/01/2025 6:08 am, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>>>> John <Man@the.keyboard> wrote:
>>>> [...]
>>>>
>>>>>    And, in a couple of years, that is going to be Y2000'ed.
>>>>>
>>>>>    "The CHILDREN, THE CHILDREN, Won't *anyone* ever think of THE
>>>>> *C*H*IIIIIIII*LLLLLLLL*DD*RRRR*EEEEEEEEE*NNNNNNNNNN???!!!!"
>>>>>
>>>>> Addendum: the day after the 31st of December, 9999, in case you're
>>>>> still coffee deprived.
>>>>
>>>>     Isn't the Internet, etc. supposed to die first, because of all the
>>>> Unix servers going down, on January 19, 2038!? :-) And the *next*
>>>> disaster in 2486!
>>>>
>>>> 'Year 2038 problem'
>>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_2038_problem>
>>>>
>>> I might make it to 2038 (only 13 years after all!) .... but 2486 is
>>> probably out of the question.

No problem!
Just let yourself freeze until 2485.....

I will be quite a shock when you awake.
Think about 460 years ago = 1565.


>>>
>>> What's the problem or the root of the problem anticipated in 2486??
>>
>>    The XFS filesystem. See the 'Implemented solutions' section of the
>> above Wikipedia page for details.
>>
>>    I failed to notice that the ext4 filesystem problem comes even sooner,
>> 2446! And 2106 (OpenVMS and MariaDB) is also right around the corner!
>>
>>    And watch out for the year 30,828 problem (Windows)! That's the real
>> killer!
>>
> COMPUTERS!! Are they really of assistance to US Humans??


Only for United States Humans?

How about the rest of the world?

O yeh, you've got a new president....

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#183058

On Fri, 28 Mar 2025 22:21:32 +1100, Daniel70 wrote:


[snip]

>> 'Year 2038 problem' <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_2038_problem>
>> 
> I might make it to 2038 (only 13 years after all!) .... but 2486 is
> probably out of the question.

From the web:

4680 days until The End of Time (Monday, January 18, 2038 at 9:14:07 PM).

The local time there is for America/Chicago (US Central) time zone. That's 
Jan 19, 2038 3:14:07 UTC.

> What's the problem or the root of the problem anticipated in 2486??

-- 
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.us/

God is real, unless declared integer.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#183051

On 10/01/2025 11:13 pm, John wrote:
> On Thu, 9 Jan 2025 17:41:31 -0000 (UTC), Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:

<Snip>

>>> Better if you do YYYY. It makes easier for other people to recognize it
>>> is a year. Once you know the first figure is the year, it is easy to
>>> guess the rest.
>>
>> Fortunately there's an ISO standard for all of this: 8601
>>
>> The valid format is YYYY-MM-DD or, optionally, YYYYMMDD.
> 
>   And, in a couple of years, that is going to be Y2000'ed.
> 
>   "The CHILDREN, THE CHILDREN, Won't *anyone* ever think of THE
> *C*H*IIIIIIII*LLLLLLLL*DD*RRRR*EEEEEEEEE*NNNNNNNNNN???!!!!"
> 
> Addendum: the day after the 31st of December, 9999, in case you're
> still coffee deprived.

"Y2000'ed" .... "9999"!!

I have sever doubts about YOUR definition of "in a couple of years"!! ;-P
-- 
Daniel70

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#183054

On Fri, 3/28/2025 7:04 AM, Daniel70 wrote:
> On 10/01/2025 11:13 pm, John wrote:
>> On Thu, 9 Jan 2025 17:41:31 -0000 (UTC), Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>> Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
> 
> <Snip>
> 
>>>> Better if you do YYYY. It makes easier for other people to recognize it
>>>> is a year. Once you know the first figure is the year, it is easy to
>>>> guess the rest.
>>>
>>> Fortunately there's an ISO standard for all of this: 8601
>>>
>>> The valid format is YYYY-MM-DD or, optionally, YYYYMMDD.
>>
>>   And, in a couple of years, that is going to be Y2000'ed.
>>
>>   "The CHILDREN, THE CHILDREN, Won't *anyone* ever think of THE
>> *C*H*IIIIIIII*LLLLLLLL*DD*RRRR*EEEEEEEEE*NNNNNNNNNN???!!!!"
>>
>> Addendum: the day after the 31st of December, 9999, in case you're
>> still coffee deprived.
> 
> "Y2000'ed" .... "9999"!!
> 
> I have sever doubts about YOUR definition of "in a couple of years"!! ;-P

That exceeds the "Best Before" date on the package.

Even Dr.Pepper soda pop beverage does not last that long.

   Paul

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#183055

On Fri, 28 Mar 2025 09:24:52 -0400, Paul <nospam@needed.invalid>
wrote:

>Even Dr.Pepper soda pop beverage does not last that long.

No surprise. The contents dissolve the aluminum can--which is made as
thin as possible to save $$$.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#183079

On 29/03/2025 12:24 am, Paul wrote:
> On Fri, 3/28/2025 7:04 AM, Daniel70 wrote:
>> On 10/01/2025 11:13 pm, John wrote:
>>> On Thu, 9 Jan 2025 17:41:31 -0000 (UTC), Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>> Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> <Snip>
>>
>>>>> Better if you do YYYY. It makes easier for other people to recognize it
>>>>> is a year. Once you know the first figure is the year, it is easy to
>>>>> guess the rest.
>>>>
>>>> Fortunately there's an ISO standard for all of this: 8601
>>>>
>>>> The valid format is YYYY-MM-DD or, optionally, YYYYMMDD.
>>>
>>>    And, in a couple of years, that is going to be Y2000'ed.
>>>
>>>    "The CHILDREN, THE CHILDREN, Won't *anyone* ever think of THE
>>> *C*H*IIIIIIII*LLLLLLLL*DD*RRRR*EEEEEEEEE*NNNNNNNNNN???!!!!"
>>>
>>> Addendum: the day after the 31st of December, 9999, in case you're
>>> still coffee deprived.
>>
>> "Y2000'ed" .... "9999"!!
>>
>> I have sever doubts about YOUR definition of "in a couple of years"!! ;-P
> 
> That exceeds the "Best Before" date on the package.
> 
> Even Dr.Pepper soda pop beverage does not last that long.
> 
>     Paul
> 
How do you know, Paul?? Is there a warning on the "Dr Pepper" saying 
something like "Best Before 9999"?? ;-P
-- 
Daniel70

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#181225

On 2025-01-09 18:41, Chris wrote:
> Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>> On 2025-01-09 13:11, John C. wrote:
>>> Newyana2 wrote:
>>>> s|b wrote:
>>>>> Newyana2 wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Anyone seen posts on Eternal-September this morning? 7/1/25
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'll let you know in July. :)
>>>>>
>>>>> Nobody's laughing.
>>>>
>>>>    Just a gentle reminder to avoid ambiguous notation in an
>>>> international forum. Perhaps Jim didn't realize that M/D/Y
>>>> notation and D/M/Y notation are both widely used.
>>>>
>>>>    No date was necessary at all, since newsreaders generally
>>>> show the date. Not a big deal, but it is confusing, especially
>>>> when the date is 1-12.
>>>
>>> I know that's common usage, but on my system I went to a more logical
>>> way years ago.
>>>
>>> YYMMDDHHMMSS
>>>
>>> It makes sorting files in File Manager a lot easier. And if I put it at
>>> the start of a file's name, I can easily sort by name. Really helpful
>>> with photos.
>>
>> Better if you do YYYY. It makes easier for other people to recognize it
>> is a year. Once you know the first figure is the year, it is easy to
>> guess the rest.
> 
> Fortunately there's an ISO standard for all of this: 8601
> 
> The valid format is YYYY-MM-DD or, optionally, YYYYMMDD.

Which you can see in my "reply" line ;-)

> 


-- 
Cheers, Carlos.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#181248

On Thu, 9 Jan 2025 17:41:31 -0000 (UTC), Chris wrote:

> Fortunately there's an ISO standard for all of this: 8601
> 
> The valid format is YYYY-MM-DD or, optionally, YYYYMMDD. 

+1

-- 
s|b

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | alt.comp.os.windows-10

csiph-web