Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.php > #15716 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Derek Turner <frderek@suremail.je> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-10-20 18:57 +0000 |
| Last post | 2015-11-01 08:31 -0500 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 128 — 22 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.php
Check for military time Derek Turner <frderek@suremail.je> - 2015-10-20 18:57 +0000
Re: Check for military time Derek Turner <frderek@suremail.je> - 2015-10-20 19:00 +0000
Re: Check for military time Richard Yates <richard@yatesguitar.com> - 2015-10-20 21:35 -0700
Re: Check for military time Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> - 2015-10-21 16:12 -0400
Re: Check for military time Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-10-21 22:38 -0400
Re: Check for military time Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> - 2015-10-22 10:43 -0400
Re: Check for military time Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> - 2015-10-22 10:48 -0400
Re: Check for military time Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-10-22 17:20 +0200
Re: Check for military time Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-10-22 12:19 -0400
Re: Check for military time "Peter H. Coffin" <hellsop@ninehells.com> - 2015-10-22 15:32 -0500
Re: Check for military time Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-10-22 23:08 +0200
Re: Check for military time Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-10-22 20:19 -0400
Re: Check for military time Matthew Carter <m@ahungry.com> - 2015-10-22 22:07 -0400
Re: Check for military time "Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <a.nony.mous@example.invalid> - 2015-10-23 02:26 +0000
Re: Check for military time Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> - 2015-10-22 17:13 -0400
Re: Check for military time Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2015-10-22 22:57 +0100
Re: Check for military time Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-10-22 20:22 -0400
Re: Check for military time Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2015-10-23 09:19 +0100
Re: Check for military time Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-10-23 09:32 -0400
Re: Check for military time Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2015-10-23 15:43 +0100
Re: Check for military time Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-10-23 11:11 -0400
Re: Check for military time gordonb.nwjln@burditt.org (Gordon Burditt) - 2015-10-23 12:36 -0500
Re: Check for military time Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-10-23 13:40 -0400
Re: Check for military time Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2015-10-23 18:54 +0100
Re: Check for military time Norman Peelman <npeelman@cfl.rr.com> - 2015-10-23 22:44 -0400
Re: Check for military time Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2015-10-24 10:32 +0100
Re: Check for military time Derek Turner <frderek@suremail.je> - 2015-10-24 11:41 +0000
Re: Check for military time Norman Peelman <npeelman@cfl.rr.com> - 2015-10-24 15:15 -0400
Re: Check for military time Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-10-22 20:21 -0400
Re: Check for military time Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> - 2015-10-22 20:38 -0400
Re: Check for military time Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-10-22 20:47 -0400
Re: Check for military time gordonb.90ylr@burditt.org (Gordon Burditt) - 2015-10-22 18:21 -0500
Re: Check for military time Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-10-22 20:23 -0400
Re: Check for military time gordonb.c5zx1@burditt.org (Gordon Burditt) - 2015-10-22 17:40 -0500
Re: Check for military time Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-10-22 11:12 +0200
Re: Check for military time Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> - 2015-10-22 11:06 -0400
Re: Check for military time Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-10-22 17:18 +0200
Re: Check for military time Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-10-22 13:17 -0400
Re: Check for military time Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-10-21 13:55 +0200
Re: Check for military time "M. Strobel" <strobel@example.com> - 2015-10-21 20:56 +0200
Re: Check for military time Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-10-21 16:48 -0400
Re: Check for military time Stephan Elinghaus <221015.6.seli@spamgourmet.com> - 2015-10-22 13:16 +0200
Re: Check for military time Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-10-22 15:11 +0200
Re: Check for military time Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-10-22 10:23 -0400
Re: Check for military time Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2015-10-27 14:10 +0100
Re: Check for military time Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-10-27 09:25 -0400
Re: Check for military time Jørn Andersen <jorn@jorna.dk> - 2015-10-27 15:19 +0100
Re: Check for military time Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-10-27 10:41 -0400
Re: Check for military time Matthew Carter <m@ahungry.com> - 2015-10-27 23:03 -0400
Re: Check for military time Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-10-27 23:29 -0400
Re: Check for military time Erwin Moller <erwinmollerusenet@xs4all.nl> - 2015-10-29 10:08 +0100
Re: Check for military time Matthew Carter <m@ahungry.com> - 2015-10-29 21:44 -0400
Re: Check for military time Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-10-29 22:35 -0400
Re: Check for military time Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2015-10-30 20:08 +0100
Re: Check for military time Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-10-30 16:22 -0400
Re: Check for military time Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2015-11-01 11:58 +0100
Re: Check for military time Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-11-01 08:27 -0500
Re: Check for military time Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2015-11-01 14:36 +0100
Re: Check for military time Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-11-01 09:05 -0500
Re: Check for military time Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2015-11-01 16:51 +0100
Re: Check for military time Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-11-01 11:09 -0500
Re: Check for military time Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-10-30 22:33 +0100
Re: Check for military time Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-10-30 20:01 -0400
Re: Check for military time Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-11-03 19:51 +0100
Re: Check for military time Erwin Moller <erwinmollerusenet@xs4all.nl> - 2015-11-02 13:51 +0100
Re: Check for military time Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2015-11-02 18:57 +0100
Re: Check for military time Erwin Moller <erwinmollerusenet@xs4all.nl> - 2015-11-04 15:18 +0100
Re: Check for military time Matthew Carter <m@ahungry.com> - 2015-11-04 21:18 -0500
Re: Check for military time Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2015-11-05 07:51 +0100
Re: Check for military time Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2015-10-30 20:04 +0100
Re: Check for military time Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-10-30 16:24 -0400
Re: Check for military time Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2015-11-01 12:06 +0100
Re: Check for military time Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-11-01 08:30 -0500
Re: Check for military time Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2015-11-01 14:39 +0100
Re: Check for military time Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-11-01 09:07 -0500
Re: Check for military time Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2015-11-01 16:58 +0100
Re: Check for military time Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-11-01 11:05 -0500
Re: Check for military time Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2015-11-02 08:14 +0100
Re: Check for military time Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-11-02 10:01 -0500
Re: Check for military time Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2015-11-02 17:54 +0100
Re: Check for military time Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-11-02 12:50 -0500
Re: Check for military time Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2015-11-02 19:05 +0100
Re: Check for military time Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2015-11-02 18:23 +0000
Re: Check for military time Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-11-02 15:23 -0500
Re: Check for military time Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-11-02 15:16 -0500
Re: Check for military time Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2015-11-03 05:47 +0100
Re: Check for military time Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-11-03 08:47 -0500
Re: Check for military time Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2015-11-04 03:55 +0100
Re: Check for military time Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-11-03 22:09 -0500
Re: Check for military time Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2015-11-04 08:49 +0100
Re: Check for military time Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-11-04 08:29 -0500
Re: Check for military time Paul Herber <paul@pherber.com> - 2015-11-04 14:14 +0000
Re: Check for military time Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-11-04 10:00 -0500
Re: Check for military time Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-11-06 13:11 +0100
Re: Check for military time Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-11-06 09:45 -0500
Re: Check for military time Matthew Carter <m@ahungry.com> - 2015-11-07 21:50 -0500
Re: Check for military time Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-11-07 22:05 -0500
Re: Check for military time gordonb.2zzss@burditt.org (Gordon Burditt) - 2015-11-08 20:50 -0600
Re: Check for military time Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2015-11-09 10:29 +0100
Re: Check for military time gordonb.00syf@burditt.org (Gordon Burditt) - 2015-11-10 23:42 -0600
Re: Check for military time Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2015-11-11 07:46 +0100
Re: Check for military time Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2015-11-11 07:50 +0100
Re: Check for military time Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-11-11 08:06 -0500
Re: Check for military time Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2015-11-11 15:15 +0100
Re: Check for military time Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-11-11 09:21 -0500
Re: Check for military time Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2015-11-11 17:46 +0100
Re: Check for military time Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-11-11 15:12 -0500
Re: Check for military time Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2015-11-11 22:23 +0100
Re: Check for military time Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-11-11 17:17 -0500
Re: Check for military time Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-11-11 08:05 -0500
OT: Munging addresses (was: Re: Check for military time) Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2015-11-11 19:18 +0100
Re: OT: Munging addresses Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-11-11 15:16 -0500
Re: OT: Munging addresses Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2015-11-11 22:29 +0100
Re: OT: Munging addresses Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-11-11 17:20 -0500
Re: OT: Munging addresses Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2015-11-12 07:47 +0100
Re: OT: Munging addresses Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-11-12 10:15 -0500
Re: OT: Munging addresses Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2015-11-12 17:17 +0100
Re: OT: Munging addresses Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-11-12 11:59 -0500
Re: OT: Munging addresses Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2015-11-12 18:51 +0100
Re: OT: Munging addresses Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-11-12 14:20 -0500
Re: OT: Munging addresses Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2015-11-12 20:59 +0100
Re: OT: Munging addresses Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-11-12 16:54 -0500
Re: OT: Munging addresses Jim Higgins <ILikeMy@Privacy.invalid> - 2015-11-18 16:24 +0000
PHP code section end marker (was: Check for military time) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-10-27 22:58 +0100
Re: Check for military time Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2015-10-30 20:01 +0100
Re: Check for military time Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-10-30 16:27 -0400
Re: Check for military time Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2015-11-01 12:12 +0100
Re: Check for military time Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-11-01 08:31 -0500
Page 2 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 Next page →
| From | Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-23 11:11 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <n0dijj$osm$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #15755 |
On 10/23/2015 10:43 AM, Tim Streater wrote: > In article <n0dcpa$uns$1@dont-email.me>, Jerry Stuckle > <jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote: > >> On 10/23/2015 4:19 AM, Tim Streater wrote: > >>> I'll believe you, thousands wouldn't, as my old Dad used to say. I >>> doubt if any civilian here would have heard of it, and the phrase never >>> appears in the media, either. >> >> Well, it's used by amateur radio operators and short wave listeners >> around the world, not to mention the TV and radio stations themselves, >> internally. It's also used by astronomers, physicists and other >> scientists. UTC, for instance, is almost always specified in 24 hour >> format. > > Plenty of people use the 24-hour clock, it's used also by railways, and > it's never referred to as anything other than the 24-hour clock. > >> While more commonly called "24 hour time", people who use it >> generally understand the term "military time". > > Unlikely here. > You haven't been watching enough war movies :) -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle jstucklex@attglobal.net ==================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | gordonb.nwjln@burditt.org (Gordon Burditt) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-23 12:36 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <_b2dnYnWIYaE7bfLnZ2dnUU7-UudnZ2d@posted.internetamerica> |
| In reply to | #15754 |
If you're going to use times past 2400 for time ranges, what limits the range? For example, it's perfectly reasonable to say "a sleep study at the sleep clinic typically runs from 2100 to 2930". (I'm thinking of a specific clinic that has those hours.) It makes just as much sense as "the bar is open from 0800 to 2430". I'm sure I could come up with some excuse for needing 12733 as a time (say, in the arrival time of an oil tanker or cruise ship relative to the departure time). How do I know that 3506400 (the length of a presidential term in the USA, give or take for century leap years and leap seconds) is not also valid? I note that the Wikipedia article says that 2559 is as valid as 2459. Why do you think one is valid and the other is not? > Well, it's used by amateur radio operators and short wave listeners > around the world, not to mention the TV and radio stations themselves, > internally. Do amateur radio operators and short wave listeners use times in the range 2401 - 2459, but *NOT* anything beyond that? Why? > It's also used by astronomers, physicists and other > scientists. Do they use times 2401 thru 2459, and *NOT* anything beyond that? For what? The duration of lunar eclipses? I think they last way longer than an hour. > UTC, for instance, is almost always specified in 24 hour > format. While more commonly called "24 hour time", people who use it > generally understand the term "military time". I don't think most people who use 24 hour time because they want 24 hour time, not because the military says so, expect it to have 25 hours. Even 0000 vs. 2400 is somewhat controversial. > And BTW - it does go from 00:00 to 24:59:59. 24:00:00 is generally > considered the end of the day and 00:00:00 the beginning of the day, but > 24:00:00 - 24:59:59 is sometimes used when something goes just past the > end of the day. Less common now than it was back in the 60's, but you You do like proof by repetitive assertion, don't you? Authoritative cite, please, that states that 2459 is a valid time and 2500 isn't. Preferably in a standard or military training manual (any military, although it would help if it were in a language that someone (Google?) could translate to English). I note that the Wikipedia article quoted in this thread says that 2459 and 2559 are equally valid (although Wikipedia is rarely considered authoritative for anything) and that article claims that such use is not listed in standards. > still see it occasionally. I bet you still see @!00 (typed on a computer keyboard with a USA layout) or 22300 occasionally. It's called a typographical error. I'm hoping to get an answer better than "It's used by Jerry Stuckle in his schedule to feed his goats."
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-23 13:40 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <n0draa$vq8$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #15757 |
On 10/23/2015 1:36 PM, Gordon Burditt wrote: > If you're going to use times past 2400 for time ranges, what limits > the range? For example, it's perfectly reasonable to say "a sleep > study at the sleep clinic typically runs from 2100 to 2930". (I'm > thinking of a specific clinic that has those hours.) It makes just > as much sense as "the bar is open from 0800 to 2430". > > I'm sure I could come up with some excuse for needing 12733 as a > time (say, in the arrival time of an oil tanker or cruise ship > relative to the departure time). How do I know that 3506400 (the > length of a presidential term in the USA, give or take for century > leap years and leap seconds) is not also valid? > > I note that the Wikipedia article says that 2559 is as valid > as 2459. Why do you think one is valid and the other is not? > I didn't say 2559 wasn't valid. All I said was the times from 2400 to 2459 are commonly used to indicate the same day. The rest of your post is just plain argument and personal insults. Just what you expect from a troll. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle jstucklex@attglobal.net ==================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-23 18:54 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <231020151854172218%timstreater@greenbee.net> |
| In reply to | #15757 |
In article <_b2dnYnWIYaE7bfLnZ2dnUU7-UudnZ2d@posted.internetamerica>, Gordon Burditt <gordonb.nwjln@burditt.org> wrote: >I don't think most people who use 24 hour time because they want 24 >hour time, not because the military says so, expect it to have >25 hours. Even 0000 vs. 2400 is somewhat controversial. Exactly. Personally, I don't believe in this 24:37 nonsense. I only happened to even hear of "military time" because I lived in Palo Alto for 12 years. -- "Freedom is sloppy. But since tyranny's the only guaranteed byproduct of those who insist on a perfect world, freedom will have to do." -- Bigby Wolf
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Norman Peelman <npeelman@cfl.rr.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-23 22:44 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <n0er58$nrl$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #15754 |
On 10/23/2015 09:32 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> On 10/23/2015 4:19 AM, Tim Streater wrote:
>> In article <n0bufg$kmh$3@dont-email.me>, Jerry Stuckle
>> <jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On 10/22/2015 5:57 PM, Tim Streater wrote:
>>>> In article <RjcWx.106396$DK7.88540@fx02.iad>, Lew Pitcher
>>>> <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Thursday October 22 2015 16:32, in comp.lang.php, "Peter H. Coffin"
>>>>> <hellsop@ninehells.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, 22 Oct 2015 10:43:58 -0400, Lew Pitcher wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But, in the military clock, there are 25 hours (00 through 24) and 60
>>>>>>> minutes per hour (00 through 59). Thus, in 2600 test cases, ranging
>>>>>>> sequentially from 0000 through 2599, there should be 25x60
>>>>>>> successes 25
>>>>>>> hours, with 60 values inside of the 00-59 range). That means 1500
>>>>>>> successes
>>>>>>> in 2600 test cases.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I am pretty sure that this is not the case. I have never seen "24:xx".
>>>>>
>>>>> Agreed that 2400 through 2459 are unusual cases. Wikipedia (always the
>>>>> authoritative source :-) says
>>>>> Times after 24:00
>>>>> Time-of-day notations beyond 24:00 (such as 24:01 or 25:59
>>>>> instead of
>>>>> 00:01 or 01:59) are not commonly used and not covered by the
>>>>> relevant
>>>>> standards. However, they have been used occasionally in some special
>>>>> contexts in the UK, ...
>>>>
>>>> I've never heard of this in any context. Mind you "military time" is
>>>> also generally unknown here; I've always assumed it to be a peculiarity
>>>> of the US military.
>>
>>> Military time is common to militaries throughout the world - not just
>>> the U.S.
>>
>> I'll believe you, thousands wouldn't, as my old Dad used to say. I
>> doubt if any civilian here would have heard of it, and the phrase never
>> appears in the media, either.
>>
It is common around the world (maybe just not to you) and isn't peculiar
at all. ie: there's only one 15:00 a day, there are however two 3:00
o'clocks. If I told you to meet me in the parking lot at 3, what time
would you show up, AM or PM?
>
> Well, it's used by amateur radio operators and short wave listeners
> around the world, not to mention the TV and radio stations themselves,
> internally. It's also used by astronomers, physicists and other
> scientists. UTC, for instance, is almost always specified in 24 hour
> format. While more commonly called "24 hour time", people who use it
> generally understand the term "military time".
>
> And BTW - it does go from 00:00 to 24:59:59. 24:00:00 is generally
> considered the end of the day and 00:00:00 the beginning of the day, but
> 24:00:00 - 24:59:59 is sometimes used when something goes just past the
> end of the day. Less common now than it was back in the 60's, but you
> still see it occasionally.
>
I'm ex-NAVY and have never seen, used or heard of times beyond 24:00.
What time is 27:45? It serves as an attempt to represent a dual role,
time and duration. In the NAVY, if we had the last watch of the day we
referred to it as the 20:00 - 24:00 ("twenty to twenty-four"), the first
watch of the day was 00:00 - 04:00 (we called this "balls to 4".) I'll
give another great NAVY example; The Bars close at 02:00 (not 26:00).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-24 10:32 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <241020151032131304%timstreater@greenbee.net> |
| In reply to | #15764 |
In article <n0er58$nrl$1@dont-email.me>, Norman Peelman
<npeelman@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
>On 10/23/2015 09:32 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>> On 10/23/2015 4:19 AM, Tim Streater wrote:
>>> In article <n0bufg$kmh$3@dont-email.me>, Jerry Stuckle
>>> <jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 10/22/2015 5:57 PM, Tim Streater wrote:
>>>>> In article <RjcWx.106396$DK7.88540@fx02.iad>, Lew Pitcher
>>>>> <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thursday October 22 2015 16:32, in comp.lang.php, "Peter H. Coffin"
>>>>>> <hellsop@ninehells.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Thu, 22 Oct 2015 10:43:58 -0400, Lew Pitcher wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But, in the military clock, there are 25 hours (00 through 24) and 60
>>>>>>>> minutes per hour (00 through 59). Thus, in 2600 test cases, ranging
>>>>>>>> sequentially from 0000 through 2599, there should be 25x60
>>>>>>>> successes 25
>>>>>>>> hours, with 60 values inside of the 00-59 range). That means 1500
>>>>>>>> successes
>>>>>>>> in 2600 test cases.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I am pretty sure that this is not the case. I have never seen "24:xx".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Agreed that 2400 through 2459 are unusual cases. Wikipedia (always the
>>>>>> authoritative source :-) says
>>>>>> Times after 24:00
>>>>>> Time-of-day notations beyond 24:00 (such as 24:01 or 25:59
>>>>>> instead of
>>>>>> 00:01 or 01:59) are not commonly used and not covered by the
>>>>>> relevant
>>>>>> standards. However, they have been used occasionally in some special
>>>>>> contexts in the UK, ...
>>>>>
>>>>> I've never heard of this in any context. Mind you "military time" is
>>>>> also generally unknown here; I've always assumed it to be a peculiarity
>>>>> of the US military.
>>>
>>>> Military time is common to militaries throughout the world - not just
>>>> the U.S.
>>>
>>> I'll believe you, thousands wouldn't, as my old Dad used to say. I
>>> doubt if any civilian here would have heard of it, and the phrase never
>>> appears in the media, either.
>
>It is common around the world (maybe just not to you) and isn't peculiar
>at all. ie: there's only one 15:00 a day, there are however two 3:00
>o'clocks. If I told you to meet me in the parking lot at 3, what time
>would you show up, AM or PM?
Yes, I know that, thank you, and I use it all the time myself. It's
just never referred to as military time.
--
"I love the way that Microsoft follows standards.
In much the same manner as fish follow migrating caribou."
- Paul Tomblin, ASR
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Derek Turner <frderek@suremail.je> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-24 11:41 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <d9193gFts4oU3@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #15764 |
On Fri, 23 Oct 2015 22:44:15 -0400, Norman Peelman wrote: > It is common around the world (maybe just not to you) and isn't peculiar > at all. ie: there's only one 15:00 a day, there are however two 3:00 > o'clocks. If I told you to meet me in the parking lot at 3, what time > would you show up, AM or PM? I think we all understand that. Just to be clear when I (the OP) used the term 'military time' I meant to indicate that NO PUNCTUATION/SEPARATOR was being used e.g. 0900, pronounced oh-nine-hundred as opposed to 9.30 09.30 or 09:30. This is the form used by the military (world-wide AFAIK) and at sea by radio operators and in Nautical Almanacs (tide-tables) etc. Hope this helps.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Norman Peelman <npeelman@cfl.rr.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-24 15:15 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <n0gl8b$itm$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #15772 |
On 10/24/2015 07:41 AM, Derek Turner wrote: > On Fri, 23 Oct 2015 22:44:15 -0400, Norman Peelman wrote: > >> It is common around the world (maybe just not to you) and isn't peculiar >> at all. ie: there's only one 15:00 a day, there are however two 3:00 >> o'clocks. If I told you to meet me in the parking lot at 3, what time >> would you show up, AM or PM? > > I think we all understand that. Just to be clear when I (the OP) used the > term 'military time' I meant to indicate that NO PUNCTUATION/SEPARATOR > was being used e.g. 0900, pronounced oh-nine-hundred as opposed to 9.30 > 09.30 or 09:30. This is the form used by the military (world-wide AFAIK) > and at sea by radio operators and in Nautical Almanacs (tide-tables) etc. > > Hope this helps. > Correct, when referenced that way those in the know assume the 24 hour clock is being used.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-22 20:21 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <n0budi$kmh$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #15741 |
On 10/22/2015 5:13 PM, Lew Pitcher wrote: > On Thursday October 22 2015 16:32, in comp.lang.php, "Peter H. Coffin" > <hellsop@ninehells.com> wrote: > >> On Thu, 22 Oct 2015 10:43:58 -0400, Lew Pitcher wrote: >>> >>> But, in the military clock, there are 25 hours (00 through 24) and 60 >>> minutes per hour (00 through 59). Thus, in 2600 test cases, ranging >>> sequentially from 0000 through 2599, there should be 25x60 successes 25 >>> hours, with 60 values inside of the 00-59 range). That means 1500 successes >>> in 2600 test cases. >> >> I am pretty sure that this is not the case. I have never seen "24:xx". > > Agreed that 2400 through 2459 are unusual cases. Wikipedia (always the > authoritative source :-) says > Times after 24:00 > Time-of-day notations beyond 24:00 (such as 24:01 or 25:59 instead of > 00:01 or 01:59) are not commonly used and not covered by the relevant > standards. However, they have been used occasionally in some special > contexts in the UK, Japan, Hong Kong and China where business hours extend > beyond midnight, such as broadcast television production and scheduling. > They also appear in some public transport applications, such as Google's > General Transit Feed Specification file format and some ticketing systems > (e.g. in Copenhagen). This usage prevents a time period reported without > dates from appearing to end before its beginning, e.g. 21:00–01:00. > I've sometimes had to use this timestamp range in applications, so I included > it in my test case. It looks like PHP's strtotime() function considers it to > be a valid timestamp, no matter what my (or your) opinion of it is. > You think Wikipedia is authoritative? ROFLMAO! All that is is a collection of personal opinions. I've seen more incorrect entries on Wikipedia than I can count. >> I have, however, seen "03:60". Leapseconds are rare, but happen often >> enough that code looking for valid times should account for it. > > Maybe so. To me, 03:60 is as unusual as 24:30. PHP's strtotime(), however, > considers 03:60 (in any format) as "not a time value". So, perhaps > strtotime() isn't as reliable a validator for "military time" as it might > have been. > > Which is also not authoritative. Just the opinion of one programmer. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle jstucklex@attglobal.net ==================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-22 20:38 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <ykfWx.58569$Iq2.33016@fx08.iad> |
| In reply to | #15746 |
On Thursday October 22 2015 20:21, in comp.lang.php, "Jerry Stuckle" <jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote: > On 10/22/2015 5:13 PM, Lew Pitcher wrote: >> On Thursday October 22 2015 16:32, in comp.lang.php, "Peter H. Coffin" >> <hellsop@ninehells.com> wrote: >> >>> On Thu, 22 Oct 2015 10:43:58 -0400, Lew Pitcher wrote: >>>> >>>> But, in the military clock, there are 25 hours (00 through 24) and 60 >>>> minutes per hour (00 through 59). Thus, in 2600 test cases, ranging >>>> sequentially from 0000 through 2599, there should be 25x60 successes 25 >>>> hours, with 60 values inside of the 00-59 range). That means 1500 >>>> successes in 2600 test cases. >>> >>> I am pretty sure that this is not the case. I have never seen "24:xx". >> >> Agreed that 2400 through 2459 are unusual cases. Wikipedia (always the >> authoritative source :-) says [snip] > You think Wikipedia is authoritative? ROFLMAO! You missed the smiley. /Of course/ I don't think that Wikipedia is authoritative. It is /far/ from authoritative. But, it'll do in a pinch. [snip] -- Lew Pitcher "In Skills, We Trust" PGP public key available upon request
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-22 20:47 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <n0bvua$p44$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #15749 |
On 10/22/2015 8:38 PM, Lew Pitcher wrote: > On Thursday October 22 2015 20:21, in comp.lang.php, "Jerry Stuckle" > <jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote: > >> On 10/22/2015 5:13 PM, Lew Pitcher wrote: >>> On Thursday October 22 2015 16:32, in comp.lang.php, "Peter H. Coffin" >>> <hellsop@ninehells.com> wrote: >>> >>>> On Thu, 22 Oct 2015 10:43:58 -0400, Lew Pitcher wrote: >>>>> >>>>> But, in the military clock, there are 25 hours (00 through 24) and 60 >>>>> minutes per hour (00 through 59). Thus, in 2600 test cases, ranging >>>>> sequentially from 0000 through 2599, there should be 25x60 successes 25 >>>>> hours, with 60 values inside of the 00-59 range). That means 1500 >>>>> successes in 2600 test cases. >>>> >>>> I am pretty sure that this is not the case. I have never seen "24:xx". >>> >>> Agreed that 2400 through 2459 are unusual cases. Wikipedia (always the >>> authoritative source :-) says > [snip] >> You think Wikipedia is authoritative? ROFLMAO! > > You missed the smiley. > Not really. > /Of course/ I don't think that Wikipedia is authoritative. It is /far/ from > authoritative. But, it'll do in a pinch. > > [snip] > It doesn't even do "in a pinch"... -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle jstucklex@attglobal.net ==================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | gordonb.90ylr@burditt.org (Gordon Burditt) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-22 18:21 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <8t2dnQyYiaQU8rTLnZ2dnUU7-R-dnZ2d@posted.internetamerica> |
| In reply to | #15739 |
>> But, in the military clock, there are 25 hours (00 through 24) and 60 minutes >> per hour (00 through 59). Thus, in 2600 test cases, ranging sequentially from >> 0000 through 2599, there should be 25x60 successes 25 hours, with 60 values >> inside of the 00-59 range). That means 1500 successes in 2600 test cases. > > I am pretty sure that this is not the case. I have never seen "24:xx". I > have, however, seen "03:60". What does that mean? Leap *minutes*? Where would you see that? Someplace other than Earth? > Leapseconds are rare, but happen often > enough that code looking for valid times should account for it. A leap second would occur at 23:59:60 UTC. The hour would be different in other time zones. Military time does not generally include seconds, so you don't see anything different when a leap second happen..
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-22 20:23 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <n0bui8$kmh$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #15744 |
On 10/22/2015 7:21 PM, Gordon Burditt wrote: >>> But, in the military clock, there are 25 hours (00 through 24) and 60 minutes >>> per hour (00 through 59). Thus, in 2600 test cases, ranging sequentially from >>> 0000 through 2599, there should be 25x60 successes 25 hours, with 60 values >>> inside of the 00-59 range). That means 1500 successes in 2600 test cases. >> >> I am pretty sure that this is not the case. I have never seen "24:xx". I >> have, however, seen "03:60". > > What does that mean? Leap *minutes*? Where would you see that? > Someplace other than Earth? > >> Leapseconds are rare, but happen often >> enough that code looking for valid times should account for it. > > A leap second would occur at 23:59:60 UTC. The hour would be > different in other time zones. Military time does not generally > include seconds, so you don't see anything different when a leap > second happen.. > Military time definitely includes seconds.. And in many cases, even hundredths of seconds or even more specific. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle jstucklex@attglobal.net ==================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | gordonb.c5zx1@burditt.org (Gordon Burditt) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-22 17:40 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <3--dnXsls-RJ-LTLnZ2dnUU7-dmdnZ2d@posted.internetamerica> |
| In reply to | #15732 |
> But, in the military clock, there are 25 hours (00 through 24) and 60 minutes > per hour (00 through 59). Could you post a reference for this statement? Most references only refer to 0000 - 2359 as valid times, making no reference to 2400. A few refer to 2400 as being for "end of the day" when used in a time range. (e.g. "This bar is open 0800 - 2400") Leap seconds don't affect this, as seconds aren't represented; there are no leap minutes until a big asteroid hits and makes a big change in the Earth's rotation. I can see a use for 2400 but when is 2401 a valid military time? Much less 2459 or 2559 (unless you're only using these as test cases to verify detection of bad times)? (I also see a claim on www.leatherneck.com under a thread "what is military time for midnight", posted to by ex-Marines (or possibly current Marines), that 0000 is meaningless and the correct time is 2400. A similar claim was made for compass readings: 0 is meaningless and 360 is North, possibly because a particular digital compass reads 0 until it acquires a reading.) > Thus, in 2600 test cases, ranging sequentially from > 0000 through 2599, there should be 25x60 successes 25 hours, with 60 values > inside of the 00-59 range). That means 1500 successes in 2600 test cases. > > But, your logic came up with 1540 successes. Apparently, your code got > 40 "wrong" timestamps wrong. Now, Jerry, *which* 40 were wrong? I think the cases really need to be divided into 4 groups, such as correctly flagged successes, correctly flagged failures, false positives, and false negatives. Otherwise an equal number of false positives and false negatives don't show up in the totals. > FWIW, my code reported that, in the same 2600 test cases, 2560 test cases > resulted in the expected results (strtotime() reporting a valid value for > valid time, or reporting false for an invalid time), and 40 anomalous results > (strtotime() gave a valid value for an invalid time, or returned false for a > valid time).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-22 11:12 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <2052274.t68nZ4G7dp@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #15725 |
Lew Pitcher wrote: > […] "Richard Yates" […] wrote: >> On 20 Oct 2015 19:00:19 GMT, Derek Turner <frderek@suremail.je> wrote: >>> On Tue, 20 Oct 2015 18:57:34 +0000, Derek Turner wrote: >>>> Is there a quick and dirty way to check that >>>> >>>> substr($string, 0 ,3) is a valid military time, ie. 0000-2359? >>> sorry, that should, of course, read ($string, 0, 4) >> >> This seems to work, but I did not test all cases: >> >> echo (strtotime($time)) ? 'Pass' : 'Fail'; > > PHP Version 5.4.45 > > I tried all integer test cases between 0000 and 2599, and found that this > test seems to fail on the range "1960" to "1999". On the off chance that > the strtotime() call interpreted its argument as a date, […] Both of you are overthinking the problem. Compared to this, a solution based on string comparison (left as an exercise for the reader) is a one-or- two-liner (after all, the request said “quick and dirty”). For another approach, consider <http://php.net/date_parse_from_format>, which can serve as a substitute on Windows where, according to the PHP manual, <http://php.net/strptime> is unavailable. -- PointedEars Zend Certified PHP Engineer Twitter: @PointedEars2 Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-22 11:06 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <nY6Wx.99188$Bl2.21135@fx27.iad> |
| In reply to | #15728 |
On Thursday October 22 2015 05:12, in comp.lang.php, "Thomas 'PointedEars'
Lahn" <PointedEars@web.de> wrote:
> Lew Pitcher wrote:
>
>> […] "Richard Yates" […] wrote:
>>> On 20 Oct 2015 19:00:19 GMT, Derek Turner <frderek@suremail.je> wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 20 Oct 2015 18:57:34 +0000, Derek Turner wrote:
>>>>> Is there a quick and dirty way to check that
>>>>>
>>>>> substr($string, 0 ,3) is a valid military time, ie. 0000-2359?
>>>> sorry, that should, of course, read ($string, 0, 4)
>>>
>>> This seems to work, but I did not test all cases:
>>>
>>> echo (strtotime($time)) ? 'Pass' : 'Fail';
>>
>> PHP Version 5.4.45
>>
>> I tried all integer test cases between 0000 and 2599, and found that this
>> test seems to fail on the range "1960" to "1999". On the off chance that
>> the strtotime() call interpreted its argument as a date, […]
>
> Both of you are overthinking the problem. Compared to this, a solution
> based on string comparison (left as an exercise for the reader) is a one-or-
> two-liner (after all, the request said “quick and dirty”).
Nope. Not overthinking. Just testing strtotime().
And, if you are thinking of using a regex, you know what they say about
regular expressions:
Some people, when confronted with a problem, think "I know, I'll use regular
expressions." Now they have two problems.
My preferred solution would be the single line in my test code:
$expect = ((floor($ts/100) <= 24) && ($ts % 100 < 60)) ? 'Pass' : 'Fail';
which tests the hour for validity (00 through 24) and the minute for validity
(00 through 59).
--
Lew Pitcher
"In Skills, We Trust"
PGP public key available upon request
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-22 17:18 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <1460533.A9YEP6SfSI@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #15734 |
Lew Pitcher wrote: > On Thursday October 22 2015 05:12, in comp.lang.php, "Thomas 'PointedEars' > Lahn" <PointedEars@web.de> wrote: It’s attribution line, not attribution novel. >> Lew Pitcher wrote: >>> […] "Richard Yates" […] wrote: >>>> On 20 Oct 2015 19:00:19 GMT, Derek Turner <frderek@suremail.je> wrote: >>>>> On Tue, 20 Oct 2015 18:57:34 +0000, Derek Turner wrote: >>>>>> Is there a quick and dirty way to check that >>>>>> >>>>>> substr($string, 0 ,3) is a valid military time, ie. 0000-2359? >>>>> sorry, that should, of course, read ($string, 0, 4) >>>> This seems to work, but I did not test all cases: >>>> >>>> echo (strtotime($time)) ? 'Pass' : 'Fail'; >>> PHP Version 5.4.45 >>> >>> I tried all integer test cases between 0000 and 2599, and found that >>> this test seems to fail on the range "1960" to "1999". On the off chance >>> that the strtotime() call interpreted its argument as a date, […] >> Both of you are overthinking the problem. Compared to this, a solution >> based on string comparison (left as an exercise for the reader) is a ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >> one-or- two-liner (after all, the request said “quick and dirty”). > > Nope. Not overthinking. Just testing strtotime(). Given that strtotime() is error-prone overkill *here* (one could see that before doing any tests, just by reading the manual carefully), there is not much point in testing it *here*. > And, if you are thinking of using a regex, […] Iff. I did not. But I found it necessary to point out that the solution presented using regular expressions was too complicated and too inefficient even for that approach. > […] Ex falso quodlibet. > My preferred solution would be the single line in my test code: > $expect = ((floor($ts/100) <= 24) && ($ts % 100 < 60)) ? 'Pass' : > 'Fail'; > which tests the hour for validity (00 through 24) and the minute for > validity (00 through 59). You are very close to my actual suggestion. Considering the cost of the floor() call and “%” operation (in general: any floating-point operation) will lead you to the probably most simple, efficient solution. -- PointedEars Zend Certified PHP Engineer Twitter: @PointedEars2 Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-22 13:17 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <n0b5jr$k1n$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #15725 |
On 10/21/2015 4:12 PM, Lew Pitcher wrote:
> <?php
> $success = 0;
> $failed = 0;
>
> for ($ts = 0; $ts < 2600; ++$ts)
> {
> $time = sprintf("t%04.4u",$ts);
> $expect = ((floor($ts/100) <= 24) && ($ts % 100 < 60)) ? 'Pass' : 'Fail';
> $result = (strtotime($time)) ? 'Pass' : 'Fail';
> $matched = ($expect == $result) ? 'Success' : 'Failed';
> printf("<li>%s - %s: expected %s, got %s</li>\n",
> $time,$matched,$expect,$result);
> if ($matched == 'Success')
> ++$success;
> else
> ++$failed;
> }
> ?>
> </ul>
> <?php
> printf("%u Successful cases, %u failures\n",$success,$failed);
> ?>
And BTW - changing your code to:
$time = sprintf("t%02.2u:%02.2u",$ts/100, $ts%100);
Also prints the correct result - it tells strtotime() that this is a
time, and not something else. Just the number by itself with no
punctuation marks makes strtotime() guess as to what it represents.
--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-21 13:55 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <42517420.OYx1mYAWxs@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #15716 |
Derek Turner wrote: > Is there a quick and dirty way to check that > > substr($string, 0 ,3) is a valid military time, ie. 0000-2359? Yes. -- PointedEars Zend Certified PHP Engineer Twitter: @PointedEars2 Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "M. Strobel" <strobel@example.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-21 20:56 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <d8q5e9F6a7uU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #15723 |
On 21.10.2015 13:55, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > Derek Turner wrote: > >> Is there a quick and dirty way to check that >> >> substr($string, 0 ,3) is a valid military time, ie. 0000-2359? > > Yes. > "Can you tell me what time it is?" "Yes." Kindergarten. /Str.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.php
csiph-web