1179: "ISO 8601"

This forum is for the individual discussion thread that goes with each new comic.

Moderators: Moderators General, Prelates, Magistrates

Gargravarr
Posts: 74
Joined: Mon Dec 21, 2009 8:34 am UTC

Re: 1179: "ISO 8601"

Postby Gargravarr » Wed Feb 27, 2013 1:34 pm UTC

Klear wrote:
Gargravarr wrote:I'd like to propose the following Internet law:
Any sufficiently long forum thread, regardless of original topic, will culminate in a debate about the existence of God.

Or is there already a law like that?

God wins law? :wink:

:D

Vir4030
Posts: 51
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 10:56 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: 1179: "ISO 8601"

Postby Vir4030 » Wed Feb 27, 2013 1:38 pm UTC

Xantix wrote:The digit 0 occurs in position two and five.
The digit 1 occurs in position three.
The digit 2 occurs in position one, six, and seven.
The digit 3 occurs in position four.
The digit 7 occurs in position eight.


Wow, this is exactly the opposite way I would have explained it. The first four digits are the year, and the numbers 1 through 4 are written above these values. The final four digits are the month and day, and the numbers 5 through 8 are written below these values.

Liggliluff
Posts: 7
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2012 8:10 am UTC

Re: 1179: "ISO 8601"

Postby Liggliluff » Wed Feb 27, 2013 1:43 pm UTC

No, not, never. I will never ever ever ever ever write the day between the month and year.
I'll go with what that Area Man-guy wrote in his post.
Just like how you write hour:minute:second, you should write year-month-day.
But if you wanna make it confusing to read... well, this post was posted: 2013-27-02 14:15:43 (yyyy-dd-mm hh:ss:mm)

Vir4030
Posts: 51
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 10:56 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: 1179: "ISO 8601"

Postby Vir4030 » Wed Feb 27, 2013 1:51 pm UTC

Antior wrote:Country
City - Postal Code
Street - Number
Name


Three Dimensional Space - Local Universe
Virgo Supercluster - Local Group
Milky Way Galaxy - Orion Arm - Sol System
Earth - North America - United States
Illinois - Chicago - 60618
Lincoln Avenue - North - 4257
Half Acre Beer Company

(I don't work here - merely drink here)

User avatar
Camahueto
Posts: 8
Joined: Wed Dec 24, 2008 1:28 pm UTC

Re: 1179: "ISO 8601"

Postby Camahueto » Wed Feb 27, 2013 1:53 pm UTC

JohnTheWysard wrote:Some traditionalists will still insist on V Calends Mars anno conditae urbis MMDCCLXI.


Is it my idea or the correct year is MMDCCLXVI A.U.C.?

(and February the 27th is two days before the Calendas of Mars, so that would be "II ante Calends Mars").

Regards,

rmsgrey
Posts: 3616
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 6:35 pm UTC

Re: 1179: "ISO 8601"

Postby rmsgrey » Wed Feb 27, 2013 1:56 pm UTC

Camahueto wrote:
JohnTheWysard wrote:Some traditionalists will still insist on V Calends Mars anno conditae urbis MMDCCLXI.


Is it my idea or the correct year is MMDCCLXVI A.U.C.?

(and February the 27th is two days before the Calendas of Mars, so that would be "II ante Calends Mars").

Regards,


I can't speak as to the year, but the day should surely be Julian rather than Gregorian...

dp2
Posts: 346
Joined: Wed Aug 18, 2010 3:06 pm UTC

Re: 1179: "ISO 8601"

Postby dp2 » Wed Feb 27, 2013 1:57 pm UTC

Klear wrote:
Gargravarr wrote:To summarize, ISO 8601 is
- Unambiguous
- Sortable
- Understandable (unlike eg Stardate or "seconds since reference date")
- Language independant
- Context independant
- Scalable (need more precision? Just add a number at the end)

If that's not a check mate, I don't know what would be.


You know, most of these are true for DD.MM.YYYY. as well and there are other considerations where ISO 8601 fails, so it's a stalemate at best.

Edit: I don't see why everybody things the stortability is such a big deal, btw. Do we want a format that's convenient for people or for robots?

Log files alone are enough reason to want sortability. As a programmer, sortability might well be the TOP priority of all those.

Well, no, there's one higher, and ironically, the ISO format doesn't allow for it: differentiation. Easily telling the difference between any two dates or times. Only "time units since reference date" provides that.

ISO also falls short on non-modern dates (e.g. pre-11th century and BC dates).

So, no checkmate.

User avatar
Klear
Posts: 1965
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 8:43 am UTC
Location: Prague

Re: 1179: "ISO 8601"

Postby Klear » Wed Feb 27, 2013 2:01 pm UTC

dp2 wrote:Log files alone are enough reason to want sortability. As a programmer, sortability might well be the TOP priority of all those.

Well, no, there's one higher, and ironically, the ISO format doesn't allow for it: differentiation. Easily telling the difference between any two dates or times. Only "time units since reference date" provides that.

ISO also falls short on non-modern dates (e.g. pre-11th century and BC dates).

So, no checkmate.


Yeah, but contrary to popular belief majority of people are not programmers. I understand that it of a very high priority to some people, but to enforce that on general population and in the process make it different from spoken word, or even change the way people say dates despite its convenience is silly.

RobFreundlich
Posts: 13
Joined: Mon Apr 11, 2011 12:17 pm UTC

Re: 1179: "ISO 8601"

Postby RobFreundlich » Wed Feb 27, 2013 2:08 pm UTC

He left out 62880,32854

Blake
Posts: 13
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2013 11:58 pm UTC

Re: 1179: "ISO 8601"

Postby Blake » Wed Feb 27, 2013 2:16 pm UTC

Clearly the best way to present the date is 13.0.0.3.8. Clear, unambiguous, and reminds us all that the world has yet to be destroyed.

User avatar
mathmannix
Posts: 1445
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2012 2:12 pm UTC
Location: Washington, DC

Re: 1179: "ISO 8601"

Postby mathmannix » Wed Feb 27, 2013 2:19 pm UTC

ijuin wrote:
CardcaptorRLH85 wrote:
JohnTheWysard wrote:Some traditionalists will still insist on V Calends Mars anno conditae urbis MMDCCLXI.


When I run this latin through Google Translate I get '5 years from the founding of the new moon, Mars 2761'. Is that what was meant here?


Roman dating system. "Anno Conditae Urbis" means years since the founding of the City (of Rome). "Mars" in this context means the month of Mars (March to us). "5 Calends" means that it is the 5th day counting from the Calends (i.e. beginning of the month). Thus, the date given is 5 March of the 2761st year since the founding of Rome.

Incidentally, the "Calends" is specified in this date because the Romans only counted from the start of the month during the early part of the month. During the second half of the month, they counted from the Ides of the month (15th of a 31-day month, but 13th of a 30-or-less-day month). We all remember the line in Shakespeare's "Julius Caesar"--"Beware the Ides of March", right?


On a different note (maybe I should put this in science or ficitional science), has anybody ever worked out a working Martian calendar? Using (I presume) Martian days, Martian months (based on orbital periods of Phobos and/or Deimos), and Martian solar days (which are 24:39:35 long; no need to redefine hour/minute/second!)

EDIT: OK, probably have to scratch the concept of "month" - I didn't realize that the two moons orbit Mars in roughly 8 and 30 hours, respectively.)
Last edited by mathmannix on Wed Feb 27, 2013 2:24 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
I hear velociraptor tastes like chicken.

marcgaston
Posts: 12
Joined: Fri Feb 18, 2011 8:18 am UTC

Re: 1179: "ISO 8601"

Postby marcgaston » Wed Feb 27, 2013 2:22 pm UTC

Klear wrote:
marcgaston wrote:I miss the Excel format: 2013-02-27 = 41332.


How does that work? I only get 2013 - 02 - 27 = 1984


1. put in the number 41332 in a cell
2. change cell formatting to date (choose your favorite date format)

or alternatively

1. enter a date into a cell, using your favorite format ( do not put an "=" in front or you will end up with 1984 :-) )
2. change cell formatting to number

davidkazuhiro
Posts: 1
Joined: Wed Feb 27, 2013 2:09 pm UTC

Re: 1179: "ISO 8601"

Postby davidkazuhiro » Wed Feb 27, 2013 2:23 pm UTC

All of the arguments so far defending common formats such as
[list=]
MM/DD/YYYY
DD/MM/YYYY
DD MMM YYYY
[/list]
all use practicality as their reason.

The problem with that is the practical use varies from region to region around the world. MM/DD/YYYY makes sense in the U.S. because people say February 27th in American English, but they don't elsewhere. The converse problem is true for DD/MM/YYYY. The problem with DD MMM YYYY (e.g. 27 Feb 2013) is that not all citizens of earth understand "Feb" to mean February, despite the fact that English is the lingua franca in most fields. Besides, English is not the only Lingua Franca. Arabic, Chinese, Russian, French, & Spanish are common tongues in various parts of the world, and 3/5 of these languages don't use the western European script.

As many have posted above, big to small order works perfectly fine in common use in China and Japan (2013年2月27日).

So anyways, point is that the common use /practicality argument doesn't hold up against a global standard, because common use and what is practical varies.

User avatar
cellocgw
Posts: 2043
Joined: Sat Jun 21, 2008 7:40 pm UTC

posix, anyone?

Postby cellocgw » Wed Feb 27, 2013 2:24 pm UTC

To quote from the base R help on conversions tofrom Posix:

format
A character string. The default for the format methods is "%Y-%m-%d %H:%M:%S" if any component has a time component which is not midnight, and "%Y-%m-%d" otherwise. If options("digits.secs") is set, up to the specified number of digits will be printed for seconds.
https://app.box.com/witthoftresume
Former OTTer
Vote cellocgw for President 2020. #ScienceintheWhiteHouse http://cellocgw.wordpress.com
"The Planck length is 3.81779e-33 picas." -- keithl
" Earth weighs almost exactly π milliJupiters" -- what-if #146, note 7

User avatar
akacat
Posts: 114
Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2011 1:39 pm UTC

Re: 1179: "ISO 8601"

Postby akacat » Wed Feb 27, 2013 2:24 pm UTC

RobFreundlich wrote:He left out 62880,32854


Which reminds me, I'm glad I won't still be working in 101 years!

Snax
Posts: 2
Joined: Wed Feb 27, 2013 6:40 am UTC

Re: 1179: "ISO 8601"

Postby Snax » Wed Feb 27, 2013 2:32 pm UTC

ysth wrote:
EvanED wrote:I've told my friends I'm coming to visit on 3/15 for example.

Beware...


Heh. Nicely played.

jb17kx
Posts: 14
Joined: Sun Sep 07, 2008 6:49 am UTC
Location: Melbourne

Re: 1179: "ISO 8601"

Postby jb17kx » Wed Feb 27, 2013 2:33 pm UTC

Klear wrote:
marcgaston wrote:I miss the Excel format: 2013-02-27 = 41332.


How does that work? I only get 2013 - 02 - 27 = 1984


Excel counts in elapsed days since 0 Jan 1900, making 1 Jan 1900 "Day 1". 31 Dec 1899 will not be accepted in place of 0 Jan 1900.

Excel also includes in this system a deliberate "feature": the year 1900 is incorrectly considered to be a leap year. It was a legitimate bug in Lotus 1-2-3, but Microsoft chose consciously to build it in so as to make migration away from Lotus (and by extension IBM) easier.
How often do you walk up to a bar and say "I'll have two of your finest boobs, thanks"?

Mutex
Posts: 1459
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2008 10:32 pm UTC

Re: 1179: "ISO 8601"

Postby Mutex » Wed Feb 27, 2013 2:38 pm UTC

marcgaston wrote:
Klear wrote:
marcgaston wrote:I miss the Excel format: 2013-02-27 = 41332.


How does that work? I only get 2013 - 02 - 27 = 1984


1. put in the number 41332 in a cell
2. change cell formatting to date (choose your favorite date format)

or alternatively

1. enter a date into a cell, using your favorite format ( do not put an "=" in front or you will end up with 1984 :-) )
2. change cell formatting to number


So I take it Excel stores dates as the number of days since 1900-01-01. Seeing as how 41332/365 is a little over 113.

EDIT: Ninja'd. And slightly wrong.

User avatar
Klear
Posts: 1965
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 8:43 am UTC
Location: Prague

Re: 1179: "ISO 8601"

Postby Klear » Wed Feb 27, 2013 2:43 pm UTC

Blake wrote:Clearly the best way to present the date is 13.0.0.3.8. Clear, unambiguous, and reminds us all that the world has yet to be destroyed.


I beg to differ:

International Earth-Destruction Advisory Board

mathmannix wrote:On a different note (maybe I should put this in science or ficitional science), has anybody ever worked out a working Martian calendar? Using (I presume) Martian days, Martian months (based on orbital periods of Phobos and/or Deimos), and Martian solar days (which are 24:39:35 long; no need to redefine hour/minute/second!)

EDIT: OK, probably have to scratch the concept of "month" - I didn't realize that the two moons orbit Mars in roughly 8 and 30 hours, respectively.)


We could either divide martian year into 12 martian months roughly twice as long and standard months, or into 24 months roughly the same length as Earth months.

Also, yeah, somebody already worked it out.

Edit: @marcgaston and @jb17kx: Thanks

User avatar
CatCube
Posts: 38
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 5:28 pm UTC

Re: 1179: "ISO 8601"

Postby CatCube » Wed Feb 27, 2013 2:51 pm UTC

All of you are crazy. The best date format is military Date-Time Group (DTG), where the DTG of this post is 270951RFEB13. Hell, this is the format used for the METAR in aviation, too, which has been passing information worldwide every hour since they were using telegraphs for that.

Lensos
Posts: 1
Joined: Wed Feb 27, 2013 2:34 pm UTC

Re: 1179: "ISO 8601"

Postby Lensos » Wed Feb 27, 2013 2:53 pm UTC

I prefer DD/MM/YYYY

Some argue that the order should be big to small, as in hh:mm:ss

I don't agree.

I feel a combination DD/MM/YYYY and hh:mm:ss is natural and can be justified in terms of information content/entropy.
To humans, the most relevant time scales are days and hours. More than years or seconds. More than centuries and more than nanoseconds. That is why we omit the latter very often. The same goes for addresses, where we omit in which galaxy we live etc.

Days and hours contains the most information to humans in a day to day situation. As western civilization has grown custom to reading left-to-right, it is most practical and most natural to put the most informative characters in front. And thus, DD/MM/YYYY and hh:mm:ss

:)

endolith
Posts: 229
Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2008 2:14 am UTC
Location: New York, NY
Contact:

Re: 1179: "ISO 8601"

Postby endolith » Wed Feb 27, 2013 3:01 pm UTC

maxmaxmaxmax wrote:and how could he not follow his own damn rule in the title text?


That's called a "joke": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joke

dp2
Posts: 346
Joined: Wed Aug 18, 2010 3:06 pm UTC

Re: 1179: "ISO 8601"

Postby dp2 » Wed Feb 27, 2013 3:10 pm UTC

Klear wrote:
dp2 wrote:Log files alone are enough reason to want sortability. As a programmer, sortability might well be the TOP priority of all those.

Well, no, there's one higher, and ironically, the ISO format doesn't allow for it: differentiation. Easily telling the difference between any two dates or times. Only "time units since reference date" provides that.

ISO also falls short on non-modern dates (e.g. pre-11th century and BC dates).

So, no checkmate.


Yeah, but contrary to popular belief majority of people are not programmers. I understand that it of a very high priority to some people, but to enforce that on general population and in the process make it different from spoken word, or even change the way people say dates despite its convenience is silly.

While true, this particular standard is one that pertains largely to programmers.

Do you really want to standardize to spoken word? Most people can't even spell "February".

User avatar
Camahueto
Posts: 8
Joined: Wed Dec 24, 2008 1:28 pm UTC

Re: 1179: "ISO 8601"

Postby Camahueto » Wed Feb 27, 2013 3:12 pm UTC

rmsgrey wrote:
Camahueto wrote:
JohnTheWysard wrote:Some traditionalists will still insist on V Calends Mars anno conditae urbis MMDCCLXI.


Is it my idea or the correct year is MMDCCLXVI A.U.C.?

(and February the 27th is two days before the Calendas of Mars, so that would be "II ante Calends Mars").

Regards,


I can't speak as to the year, but the day should surely be Julian rather than Gregorian...


That would be a.d. XV Calends Mars.

dp2
Posts: 346
Joined: Wed Aug 18, 2010 3:06 pm UTC

Re: 1179: "ISO 8601"

Postby dp2 » Wed Feb 27, 2013 3:16 pm UTC

endolith wrote:
maxmaxmaxmax wrote:and how could he not follow his own damn rule in the title text?


That's called a "joke": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joke

Or possibly a case in point or example

TimS
Posts: 6
Joined: Wed Feb 27, 2013 3:15 pm UTC

Re: 1179: "ISO 8601"

Postby TimS » Wed Feb 27, 2013 3:17 pm UTC

These are all examples of valid ways to state today's date:
2013-02-27
20130227
2013-W09-3
2013-058

turtle42
Posts: 1
Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2013 2:08 pm UTC

Re: 1179: "ISO 8601"

Postby turtle42 » Wed Feb 27, 2013 3:20 pm UTC

4 pages of comments and no one has yet ranted about people in the US using multiple timezones and expecting everyone else in the world to understand EST, PST, PDT, PMT, ETC. This is just as bad as some people from the US using MM/DD/YYYY to an international audience.

We really need to standardise on a consistent timezone - may I suggest defining standard noon as 4hrs:54m:50s after noon in Greenwich London England (or is it England London Greenwich?)?

User avatar
Camahueto
Posts: 8
Joined: Wed Dec 24, 2008 1:28 pm UTC

Re: 1179: "ISO 8601"

Postby Camahueto » Wed Feb 27, 2013 3:21 pm UTC

mathmannix wrote:
ijuin wrote:
CardcaptorRLH85 wrote:
JohnTheWysard wrote:Some traditionalists will still insist on V Calends Mars anno conditae urbis MMDCCLXI.


When I run this latin through Google Translate I get '5 years from the founding of the new moon, Mars 2761'. Is that what was meant here?


Roman dating system. "Anno Conditae Urbis" means years since the founding of the City (of Rome). "Mars" in this context means the month of Mars (March to us). "5 Calends" means that it is the 5th day counting from the Calends (i.e. beginning of the month). Thus, the date given is 5 March of the 2761st year since the founding of Rome.

Incidentally, the "Calends" is specified in this date because the Romans only counted from the start of the month during the early part of the month. During the second half of the month, they counted from the Ides of the month (15th of a 31-day month, but 13th of a 30-or-less-day month). We all remember the line in Shakespeare's "Julius Caesar"--"Beware the Ides of March", right?


On a different note (maybe I should put this in science or ficitional science), has anybody ever worked out a working Martian calendar? Using (I presume) Martian days, Martian months (based on orbital periods of Phobos and/or Deimos), and Martian solar days (which are 24:39:35 long; no need to redefine hour/minute/second!)

EDIT: OK, probably have to scratch the concept of "month" - I didn't realize that the two moons orbit Mars in roughly 8 and 30 hours, respectively.)


There are some examples of that:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timekeeping_on_Mars and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darian_calendar

DR6
Posts: 171
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 1:44 pm UTC

Re: 1179: "ISO 8601"

Postby DR6 » Wed Feb 27, 2013 3:25 pm UTC

I think the best one is dd-mm-yy... using roman numbers for the month to avoid ambiguity(I mean, who would write the day in roman numbers?). I also find it more appealing and easy to process, avoiding that the eye tries to clump day and month together, and 2-II-13 is just neater anyway.

It seems that roman numbers are useful for something.

jpvlsmv
Posts: 85
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 9:43 pm UTC

Re: 1179: "ISO 8601"

Postby jpvlsmv » Wed Feb 27, 2013 3:43 pm UTC

piton wrote:This might be in closer relation to spoken languages:
In English you say d-th of m, evening in June, summer of 68.

Unless, of course, the d is 1, 2, 3, 21, 22, 23, or 31, in which case it's ${d}st, ${d}nd or ${d}rd.

Personally, I use [YY]YYMMDD[HHMM[SS.sss]] for anything digital, and dd MON yyyy for anything that must be human-interpreted. Let the mechanical turk take an unambiguous date indication and put it into the required format.

henotyrse
Posts: 1
Joined: Wed Feb 27, 2013 3:46 pm UTC

Re: 1179: "ISO 8601"

Postby henotyrse » Wed Feb 27, 2013 3:49 pm UTC

simcop2387 wrote:Is anyone else mildly upset that he got the roman numerals wrong? MMXII, come on! It's not like he's writing a check.

absolutelly.
it dates 2013...

User avatar
Jackpot777
Posts: 328
Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2011 1:19 pm UTC

Re: 1179: "ISO 8601"

Postby Jackpot777 » Wed Feb 27, 2013 4:00 pm UTC

paulrowe wrote:The ones who'd probably have to make the least adjustment would be the Chinese, Japanese, and others like them. They already write the date as 2012年2月27日. The elements are already in the correct order, now it's just a matter of taking out the placeholder characters, right?


It's hard adjusting to the Chinese system. I've still been writing 'Dragon' on all my paperwork and it has been 'Snake' for a few weeks now.

atypicaltexan
Posts: 7
Joined: Sat Apr 16, 2011 6:01 am UTC

Re: 1179: "ISO 8601"

Postby atypicaltexan » Wed Feb 27, 2013 4:03 pm UTC

turtle42 wrote:We really need to standardise on a consistent timezone


If the "we" here refers to the US, then no--all we need to do is to use something that is understandable internationally, i.e. UTC (or GMT) offsets.

Any time I'm writing a time that will be seen by an international audience in a medium that will be stored indefinitely, I will put it in the form "February 27, 2013 at 6:30 PM CST/UTC-6". This may be horribly nonstandard, but it is (at least as far as I've seen) unambiguous to anyone who may be reading it.

The level of specificity needed, of course, varies on the target audience and the medium of communication. In an e-mail specifying a meeting of immediate importance to a colleague in the same town as me, I could simply say that we need to meet "tonight at 6:30" and my point will be made.

riddler
Posts: 27
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2009 8:12 pm UTC

Re: 1179: "ISO 8601"

Postby riddler » Wed Feb 27, 2013 4:03 pm UTC

Thank you Randall! I have been writing dates like this for the last 13 years, after reading about the standard, and no one gets it.

<redneck voice>
Errr, why you all put that ther' year first??
</redneck voice>

Sadly, the people that I interact with to write checks to probably don't read XKCD. :(

Spoe
Posts: 23
Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2009 4:28 pm UTC

Re: 1179: "ISO 8601"

Postby Spoe » Wed Feb 27, 2013 4:05 pm UTC

LFenske wrote:ISO 8601 is my very favorite ISO!

BTW, IIRC, 20130227 is also valid in ISO 8601.


As are:
2013-W09-3 (3rd day (Wednesday) of the 9th week of 2013)
2013W093
2013-058 (58th day of 2013)
2013058

All are equivalent ISO 8601 representations of 2013-02-27. The first two, week dates, have some oddities, such as 2010-01-01 being the same day as 2009-W53-5 (5th day of the 53rd week of 2009) or 2008-12-31 being the same as 2009-W01-3 (3rd day of the 1st week of 2009).

User avatar
peewee_RotA
Posts: 504
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 1:19 pm UTC

Re: 1179: "ISO 8601"

Postby peewee_RotA » Wed Feb 27, 2013 4:19 pm UTC

I find it funny that a comic on dates brings up talk of religion. It's something I was told is a terrible idea. More of a topic to save for the 3rd or 4th date.
"Vowels have trouble getting married in Canada. They can’t pronounce their O’s."

http://timelesstherpg.wordpress.com/about/

Kristopher
Posts: 10
Joined: Fri Sep 09, 2011 4:18 pm UTC

Re: 1179: "ISO 8601"

Postby Kristopher » Wed Feb 27, 2013 4:27 pm UTC

So I take it the Mayan long count is completely off the table?

Long Count: 13.0.0.3.8

13 Baktuns ( 144000 days each ) ( we just finished the 13th Baktun, which had a bunch of new age millennialists freaked out )
0 Katuns ( 7200 days each )
0 Tuns ( 360 days each )
3 Uinals ( 20 days each )
8 Kins ( 1 day each )

Tzolkin Date: 7 Lamat
Haab Date: 11 Kayab

Oh, and Lord of the Night is G5.
Last edited by Kristopher on Wed Feb 27, 2013 4:29 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

Daneel
Posts: 5
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 12:25 am UTC

Re: 1179: "ISO 8601"

Postby Daneel » Wed Feb 27, 2013 4:28 pm UTC

Jean2 wrote:Well he might have been able to lay the foundation of Christianity in order to restore order in the Empire, even while that goal wasn't achieved during his life time.


It is a well-kept secret that the real name of Jesus was Hari Seldon.

Oktalist
Posts: 79
Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2010 10:13 pm UTC

Re: 1179: "ISO 8601"

Postby Oktalist » Wed Feb 27, 2013 4:35 pm UTC

sotanaht wrote:That's also the problem with Year/Month/Day and the reason why many would prefer Day/Month/Year. The year shouldn't be first because it is the least important bit of information for day to day use.

Then you should write the year as 3102 (3rd year of the 1st decade of the 0th century of the 2nd millennium). And also drop any leading zeroes in the day and month.

You have confused importance with significance. Importance is a subjective concept imposed by humans, which differs with context.

The comic is discussing systems of date representation that use only decimal digits and, optionally, punctuation. If you are using such a system, it's reasonable to assume that human readability is not your primary concern.

Which is the 10th month of the year? I'd have to count them out on my fingers to answer that question.

nowhereman wrote:Whenever I hear the argument from laziness, I am reminded of websites that require my password be exactly 10 characters long, and contain only certain valid characters. Sure, I would rather use a 22 character password made up of random letters, numbers, etc... but security is secondary to simplicity.

A strange argument. Imposing an arbitrary limit on password length is the opposite of laziness. It is just creating more work for the programmer.
philip1201 wrote:Not everything which maps countable infinities onto finite areas is a Lovecraft reference.

User avatar
boothby171
Posts: 11
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2011 8:56 pm UTC

Re: 1179: "ISO 8601"

Postby boothby171 » Wed Feb 27, 2013 4:35 pm UTC

Interesting how his Alt-Text dates FAIL.

Also interesting: the forum-applied dates are not to Spec.

We'll see how far things progress in the next 30 years....


Return to “Individual XKCD Comic Threads”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Raidri and 80 guests