1179: "ISO 8601"

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

Moderators: Moderators General, Prelates, Magistrates

Antior
Posts: 61
Joined: Wed Jan 18, 2012 10:34 pm UTC

Re: 1179: "ISO 8601"

Postby Antior » Wed Feb 27, 2013 9:27 am UTC

Jean2 wrote:
Showsni wrote:"It's the 20th second of the 47th minute of the sixth hour of the 27th day of the second month of the 2013th year since the birth of Christ."


Actually it's the 2012th year SINCE the (assumed) birth date of the Christ(1-01-01). Since years start on Year 1, it would be 1 year since birth by year 2.

Edit: Well, it's likely 1-12-25(Christmas day), although historians say Christ was born some 30 years before Christ.


Now, that last line is nonsense. First of all, theologians are quite certain that Jesus was born in spring. The description of the bible hints to that. Christmas day was chosen because it nicely overlapped with a bunch of old "(re)birth of the light/sun god" solstice festivals, easier to convert people that way.

Secondly, the year of Jesus' birth is simply not certain. It may be 30BCE, something like 5BCE or even a few years into the CE. There's also quite a lot of historians who conclude from the evidence (we know that the Roman leaders etc. in that time wrote down important things that happened, yet the first written source about Jesus is dated about a century after his death) that Christianity was first formed, with them believing in a Christ that did all his miracles in heaven, he was never born on earth. Then due to misinterpretations when writing the gospels, the story changed into one where Jesus walked the earth. Afterwards, they tried to fit this story into known history, which of course proved difficult.

So basically, we certainly don't know when he was born. We are not even completely certain if he ever was born on earth at all. The start of the calendar is a completely arbitrary date. Then again, the archaeologic time scale 'before present (BP)' uses 1950-01-01 as the 'present date' (apparently, because they won't be able to do C-14 dating for events that happened since then, as nuclear testing altered the isotope composition of the air, but I think they just don't want to change their dates every few years.)

Adacore wrote:Any format that has years, then months, then days is preferable to any other format - both for consistency and sorting purposes, as others have noted. Why don't we also do this with addresses (I know some countries do, but it's not standard in English)?

From less precise to more precise? Do you mean something like this on a letter?

Country
City - Postal Code
Street - Number
Name

Meh, it would work, but it doesn't really matter. I know that the post sorting machines used over here can usually do their thing whenever they find something that resembles a postal code anywhere on the letter.

Eutychus
Posts: 448
Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2010 6:01 am UTC
Location: France

Re: 1179: "ISO 8601"

Postby Eutychus » Wed Feb 27, 2013 9:29 am UTC

Jean2 wrote:
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.


If you ask someone in the street what the date is. They'll say: the 27th. If you ask then: Of? They'll answer: February! If you really forgot the year and then ask: Of? They'll answer: Are you serious? 2013! Well sometimes people now the date but forget which year it is as years aren't always written in a date.


I have a car which, by default, proclaims the year, month and date in preference to the time - visible briefly only when you switch on the ignition. I'm sure ISO must have had a hand in the design of this component.
Be very careful about rectilinear assumptions. Raptors could be hiding there - ucim

teelo
Posts: 783
Joined: Thu Apr 08, 2010 11:50 pm UTC

Re: 1179: "ISO 8601"

Postby teelo » Wed Feb 27, 2013 9:39 am UTC

Brainstorming ways to make a parody of this for the SW thread. Thinking maybe IPv6, does that have an ISO code for it?
Or maybe even something simpler, like the metrics system.

User avatar
Steve the Pocket
Posts: 707
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2007 4:02 am UTC
Location: Going downtuuu in a Luleelurah!

Re: 1179: "ISO 8601"

Postby Steve the Pocket » Wed Feb 27, 2013 9:45 am UTC

Of course, I would argue that unless you're actually interacting with a machine or making dates that are printed by something that only outputs digits and hyphens, you should probably just go ahead and write out the month's name. Not only does it echo how literally everyone outside of maybe the military talks, it's unambiguous no matter what order you put things in and at worst will just bait Brits into complaining that Americans don't do everything their way. ;)

cwolves wrote:As great as standards are, this is the wrong way to way to write a date.

Why?

because some implementations of common languages (such as JavaScript) won't parse `2013-02-26` whereas _every_ date parser will parse `2013/02/26` to today.

Counterpoint: Hyphens can be used within filenames; slashes cannot. That's where I first saw this format used: the URLs of individual strips in a webcomic's archive. I mean, sure, modern systems with custom rewrite rules can be coded to accept pretty much anything, but I like to keep the slashes that mean (virtual) folder structure separate from the symbols that indicate a date. Plus, I'm sure there are other cases where integrating dates into filenames is useful or even necessary. I just can't think of any at the moment.

Diadem wrote:He convenient that this 'one international standard' just happens to be the American one. If only Americans were so eager to conform to international standards in other areas!

Actually, it's not. The American format is MM-DD-YYYY. Or "[name of month] DD, YYYY." Starting with the year is liable to be a foreign concept to just about everyone. Which is why it's ideal as an international standard! Just like Esperanto!

(I'm actually only half-joking; I imagine that not being able to argue that you're favoring someone's "normal" way of doing things actually is a good thing when you're creating international standards.)
cephalopod9 wrote:Only on Xkcd can you start a topic involving Hitler and people spend the better part of half a dozen pages arguing about the quality of Operating Systems.

Baige.

spag85
Posts: 1
Joined: Wed Feb 27, 2013 9:43 am UTC

Re: 1179: "ISO 8601"

Postby spag85 » Wed Feb 27, 2013 9:47 am UTC

I couldn't help noticing that if you look for a date of an xkcd comic, and that is "in the mouseover text on the archive page", you get the non-ISO YYYY-M-D, i.e. without the leading zeros :)

chayanin
Posts: 5
Joined: Wed Feb 27, 2013 9:17 am UTC

Re: 1179: "ISO 8601"

Postby chayanin » Wed Feb 27, 2013 10:10 am UTC

I must attack this ISO standard. It is obvious why we do not use this format (YYYY-MM-DD). We have ordered the date by quantity of information it imparts. For example, if you ask me the date, and I tell you it is 2013, you would probably be taken aback by my apparent idiocy. Obviously you wanted more information than that. If you needed to know when to plant your crops (assuming you didn't just guess by the weather), being told the year will be of almost no use to you. The day is similarly uninformative. It is nice to know that it is the 26th, but the month is unknown. However it is still better than knowing the year. After all, you can rule some things out automatically. For example, it is unlikely to be December 26th because I did not receive presents yesterday for Christmas. Of course it is possible that I am unpopular, but let us think positive. The month is by far the most informative. I know about when the school year will start by the month (August), when to start planting (March for some plants, as late as May for others), and when I will likely need hospitalization (July for fireworks). Hence the dates are listed MM/DD/YYYY (or MM/DD/YY for short if it is in the same century).

As for those complaining about the necessity of sorting information correctly, programming is about solving problems, and not creating arbitrary guidelines to save you from having to do so. 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. After all, we all know how long it takes to write fifty lines of code to convert a password into a sanitized 128 character array. Actually, I am being unfair to the security community as I am sure someone has already created a library to do this for you. I am sure that the security community at large are smart enough to not repeat redundant code when a call would suffice.

So to you guys, I say suck it up. </rant>

Edit: someone posted this point before me. However, as I felt like ranting, I posted this anyway.


I must attack this argument. Seriously, you selective gave examples that you find the month as the most significant. From your first example, if I ask you the date, and you simply answer February, that in most cases wouldn't help me either. (Really, when people ask you the date, you simply answer the month?)

The scale of context is important. If we usually have a monthly meeting, saying the next meeting will be in March is not informative, but saying it will be on 7th is. If we are talking about the expiration date of preserved food, saying 2015 is probably more informative than simply January. And of course, it's much better to tell my date that our tonight's dinner reservation is at 18:00, than to say it's on 27 February. Your examples are exclusively in annual cycles. On the other hand, I remember when to pay my rent by the day, when to eat my lunch by the hour, when I was born by the year. (And the month and the day, of course. :D)

I agree that YYYY-MM-DD is probably not the most convenient format in every spoken life. I personally use DD-MM-([YY]YY) orally. However, I think simplicity and consistency are observable. I hardly find YYYY-MM-DD an "arbitrary guideline". If anything, it's much less arbitrary than MM-DD-YYYY.

User avatar
BAReFOOt
Posts: 179
Joined: Mon Jul 19, 2010 7:48 am UTC

Re: 1179: "ISO 8601"

Postby BAReFOOt » Wed Feb 27, 2013 10:15 am UTC

I prefer the much more natural:

8.946,667 @ 0.635,616,4 ☉ 27.727,184


The first number is the sun’s rotation around the galaxy (@) as x/1000000.
The second one is the earth’s rotation around the sun (☉) as y/4 (seasons).
The last one is earth’s rotation around itself, as x/60 (divisible by 3, 4, 6 and 12, like we’re used to.)
Every smaller unit is arbitrary and hence nonsensical and pointless. Just use something like micro-days.

All of which unfortunately still since the arbitrary but established “year 0” we all think in.

For efficiency reasons, digits behind the comma should only be displayed as much as they are needed. So in daily life, there’s no point in having more than e.g. 3 digits for the year and 4 digits for the day. Grouping them in groups of two or three digits is highly recommended to improve efficiency even further.
Last edited by BAReFOOt on Wed Feb 27, 2013 10:19 am UTC, edited 3 times in total.

User avatar
Nix_Seb
Posts: 17
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 9:38 am UTC

Re: 1179: "ISO 8601"

Postby Nix_Seb » Wed Feb 27, 2013 10:18 am UTC

Area Man wrote:I can't tell you how often I rage about this.
(from three+ years ago): viewtopic.php?f=40&t=41156&p=1745253&hilit=8601#p1745253

Quicksilver wrote:it should just be DD/MM/YYYY. Makes the most sense.

No! Would you seriously write time as ss:mm:hh? or mm:ss:hh? No. The date is just an extension of that. L-R is big to small (more precision further right, like normal numbers).



Is the main purpose of the time and date as graphical output to aid our understanding of where we are in time relative to previous and future time.

It seems natural that our sleep/wake cycles and general activity speed would mean that seconds are generally irrelevant and hours and minutes are critical for daily timing and activity, hence hh:mm:ss. Likewise we regularly check the changing day on the month with most people knowing what month we're in and if you are checking the year regularly then oh lord! Hence dd:mm:yyyy

I personally regard the calendar as a march through the year, looking at dd:mm:yyyy is like seeing a progress bar. Whereas the hh:mm:ss clock face to me is an immediate tool to represent the now and let me know I need to stop writing this and do some work.

So the majority of our existence is in the realm of YYYY : [MM:DD:HH:MM] : SS which would clearly be reversed meaning I would maybe accept a digital clock that read MM:HH but NO seconds!
Last edited by Nix_Seb on Wed Feb 27, 2013 10:27 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.
A man of five words

User avatar
Bernkastel
Posts: 13
Joined: Fri Nov 30, 2012 9:04 am UTC

Re: 1179: "ISO 8601"

Postby Bernkastel » Wed Feb 27, 2013 10:19 am UTC

I like how Randall is subtly suggesting in the alt-text that they changed the date standard 24 years after first publishing it. This would be a huge irony because dates are used everywhere and changing the standard would be very difficult, even moreso if you wait two decades to change it.

Ekaros
Posts: 32
Joined: Fri Jan 13, 2012 8:37 am UTC

Re: 1179: "ISO 8601"

Postby Ekaros » Wed Feb 27, 2013 10:21 am UTC

I hope the standard will be expanded in the future like https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2550 describes. It's all good and well for next 8986 years and a bit. But after that? Really we should move to standards that take arbitary time lengths in account.

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 10:42 am UTC

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?

rmsgrey
Posts: 3655
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 6:35 pm UTC

Re: 1179: "ISO 8601"

Postby rmsgrey » Wed Feb 27, 2013 10:46 am 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?


The robots don't care, but people who store things on a computer like to have their files automatically sort themselves without needing a custom sorter that would probably break other contexts...

elminster
Posts: 1560
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2007 1:56 pm UTC
Location: London, UK, Dimensions 1 to 42.
Contact:

Re: 1179: "ISO 8601"

Postby elminster » Wed Feb 27, 2013 10:46 am UTC

For a practical purpose DD/MM/YYYY is my favourite. Typically people tend not to ask "this year?" when given a day/month because the time scale of a lot of things of interest at any one point is short.
YYYY/MM/DD works as well, but also allows you to more naturally extend to hours:minutes:seconds. Could be done as above I guess, but anything requiring date and time precision is probably a historical reference where year will more likely be important.

At least after 2031 we won't need to worry about about 2 digit year usage for another 68 years.
Image

dratini
Posts: 1
Joined: Wed Feb 27, 2013 10:48 am UTC

Re: 1179: "ISO 8601"

Postby dratini » Wed Feb 27, 2013 10:54 am UTC

See, Chinese people always write YYYY MM DD, and they do a similar thing for addresses: country (when required), city, suburb, street, and house/flat number. Because we are so sensible and everyone is able to conform to the same standards.

kansas360
Posts: 1
Joined: Wed Feb 27, 2013 10:52 am UTC

Re: 1179: "ISO 8601"

Postby kansas360 » Wed Feb 27, 2013 10:58 am UTC

From the wikipedia page:
"The first edition of the ISO 8601 standard was published in 1988. It unified and replaced a number of older ISO standards on various aspects of date and time notation: ISO 2014, ISO 2015, ISO 2711, ISO 3307, and ISO 4031.[2] "

It replaced 5 other standards. Why were there ever 5 different standards relating to writing the date and time?

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 11:15 am UTC

rmsgrey wrote: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?


The robots don't care, but people who store things on a computer like to have their files automatically sort themselves without needing a custom sorter that would probably break other contexts...[/quote]

Czech alphabet has, besides common letters, letter CH which belongs between H and I. And computers sort it just fine, so i'm not worried about dates.

Besides, as has been pointed out several times, DD.MM.YYYY makes much more sense when talking, which should IMO take precedence. If need to name your files so that they sort OK, you can do it with YYYY MM.DD., no problem, but to make it a standard for all dating purposes is a bit excessive.

moofly
Posts: 1
Joined: Wed Feb 27, 2013 11:17 am UTC

Re: 1179: "ISO 8601"

Postby moofly » Wed Feb 27, 2013 11:20 am UTC

Who do I contact to get the comic corrected? I feel my people have been overlooked. Today's date is 13.0.0.3.8

ribbonsofnight
Posts: 8
Joined: Wed Apr 06, 2011 1:26 pm UTC

Re: 1179: "ISO 8601"

Postby ribbonsofnight » Wed Feb 27, 2013 11:40 am UTC

Antior wrote:
Jean2 wrote:
Showsni wrote:"It's the 20th second of the 47th minute of the sixth hour of the 27th day of the second month of the 2013th year since the birth of Christ."


Actually it's the 2012th year SINCE the (assumed) birth date of the Christ(1-01-01). Since years start on Year 1, it would be 1 year since birth by year 2.

Edit: Well, it's likely 1-12-25(Christmas day), although historians say Christ was born some 30 years before Christ.


Now, that last line is nonsense. First of all, theologians are quite certain that Jesus was born in spring. The description of the bible hints to that. Christmas day was chosen because it nicely overlapped with a bunch of old "(re)birth of the light/sun god" solstice festivals, easier to convert people that way.

Secondly, the year of Jesus' birth is simply not certain. It may be 30BCE, something like 5BCE or even a few years into the CE. There's also quite a lot of historians who conclude from the evidence (we know that the Roman leaders etc. in that time wrote down important things that happened, yet the first written source about Jesus is dated about a century after his death) that Christianity was first formed, with them believing in a Christ that did all his miracles in heaven, he was never born on earth. Then due to misinterpretations when writing the gospels, the story changed into one where Jesus walked the earth. Afterwards, they tried to fit this story into known history, which of course proved difficult.

So basically, we certainly don't know when he was born. We are not even completely certain if he ever was born on earth at all. The start of the calendar is a completely arbitrary date. Then again, the archaeologic time scale 'before present (BP)' uses 1950-01-01 as the 'present date' (apparently, because they won't be able to do C-14 dating for events that happened since then, as nuclear testing altered the isotope composition of the air, but I think they just don't want to change their dates every few years.)

Why troll christians with rubbish like this.
If you can find 1 history professor who is an expert in this area who believes Jesus didn't live and teach and die on the cross I believe the challenge is out there from John Dickson (a christian history professor) that if you can find this expert or become this expert he will eat a page of his bible. to quote John Dickson
"if anyone can find a full professor of Classics, Ancient History or New Testament in any accredited university in the world who thinks Jesus never lived, I will eat a page of my Bible, probably Matthew chapter 1. It's been a year since I first tweeted the challenge and religious critic John Safran retweeted it to his 60,000 followers. My Bible remains safe."

User avatar
C'tol
Posts: 10
Joined: Mon Aug 20, 2012 6:26 pm UTC

Re: 1179: "ISO 8601"

Postby C'tol » Wed Feb 27, 2013 11:45 am UTC

What about 58/01/3179? Or is it 3179/01/58?

... I think 01/58/3179 is much better...

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 11:46 am UTC

Oh Em Gee.. it's been like a few hours. How did you fill up 3 pages?


:shock:
"Vowels have trouble getting married in Canada. They can’t pronounce their O’s."

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

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

Re: 1179: "ISO 8601"

Postby Gargravarr » Wed Feb 27, 2013 11:55 am UTC

peewee_RotA wrote:Oh Em Gee.. it's been like a few hours. How did you fill up 3 pages?
:shock:

It's a sensitive subject, but I believe that little-endians and big-endians can learn to live together in relative peace and harmony.

The real enemy are, of course, the irrational mixed-endians, advocates of chaos and disorder and unsortable spreadsheets :wink:

hicksbw
Posts: 8
Joined: Tue Feb 02, 2010 11:38 am UTC

Re: 1179: "ISO 8601"

Postby hicksbw » Wed Feb 27, 2013 12:11 pm UTC

Steeler wrote:To hell with numerical dates. I write DD<three letter month abbreviation>YYYY on anything I have any control over. Completely unambiguous. Web forms generally tell you explicitly what they want, so they're not a big issue either.


This depends on your choice of natural language. It appears to work for Western European languages.

Not so much for Finnish, Polish, Chinese, Hebrew, Urdu, and such.

rmsgrey
Posts: 3655
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 6:35 pm UTC

Re: 1179: "ISO 8601"

Postby rmsgrey » Wed Feb 27, 2013 12:18 pm UTC

What's wrong with 6016-02-27?

Jean2
Posts: 6
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 6:06 am UTC

Re: 1179: "ISO 8601"

Postby Jean2 » Wed Feb 27, 2013 12:19 pm UTC

Bernkastel wrote:I like how Randall is subtly suggesting in the alt-text that they changed the date standard 24 years after first publishing it. This would be a huge irony because dates are used everywhere and changing the standard would be very difficult, even moreso if you wait two decades to change it.


I thought it suggested that the standard was never adopted internally and it was last changed in 2004 instead of 2012, although I think the fun part was that the dates were ambiguous.

ribbonsofnight wrote:Why troll christians with rubbish like this.
If you can find 1 history professor who is an expert in this area who believes Jesus didn't live and teach and die on the cross I believe the challenge is out there from John Dickson (a christian history professor) that if you can find this expert or become this expert he will eat a page of his bible. to quote John Dickson
"if anyone can find a full professor of Classics, Ancient History or New Testament in any accredited university in the world who thinks Jesus never lived, I will eat a page of my Bible, probably Matthew chapter 1. It's been a year since I first tweeted the challenge and religious critic John Safran retweeted it to his 60,000 followers. My Bible remains safe."

I'm atheist actually, and I currently think that he was invented by emperor Augustus to keep the population under control(a single religion in the empire), but I don't have any evidence of that. But our Gregorian calendar system is based on a fixed date that starts on Year one when was believed a certain person was born. This system was good because at least there was a consistent date system, that didn't reset to year one every time a new king was crowned (like before), so Napoleon couldn't just declare it to be Year One again.

pgimeno
Posts: 7
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2011 4:36 pm UTC

Re: 1179: "ISO 8601"

Postby pgimeno » Wed Feb 27, 2013 12:28 pm UTC

millionmice wrote:Glorious. This format reduces errors (you can assume it's not YYYYDDMM as that's rarely used),

Maybe I am not the only one in this planet who has run into some idiot using that, after all (actually YYYY-DD-MM).

Obviously Randall hasn't found it or he would have included it in his list of discouraged formats (if he survived from stabbing himself in the eye, which I didn't).

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 12:31 pm UTC

Gargravarr wrote:
peewee_RotA wrote:Oh Em Gee.. it's been like a few hours. How did you fill up 3 pages?
:shock:

It's a sensitive subject, but I believe that little-endians and big-endians can learn to live together in relative peace and harmony.

The real enemy are, of course, the irrational mixed-endians, advocates of chaos and disorder and unsortable spreadsheets :wink:


Shh.. I'm pretty sure they prefer to be call Native-Lilliputans now.
"Vowels have trouble getting married in Canada. They can’t pronounce their O’s."

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

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

Re: 1179: "ISO 8601"

Postby Gargravarr » Wed Feb 27, 2013 12:51 pm UTC

Jean2 wrote:I'm atheist actually, and I currently think that he was invented by emperor Augustus to keep the population under control(a single religion in the empire), but I don't have any evidence of that.

I'm not a christian either, but that's just wrong. Augustus was long dead before Christianity became a major force (or even existed). Maybe you're confusing him with emperor Constantine, but he didn't invent the Jesus character either. By Constantine's time the legend was already centuries old.
Last edited by Gargravarr on Wed Feb 27, 2013 1:00 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: 1179: "ISO 8601"

Postby Gargravarr » Wed Feb 27, 2013 12:59 pm UTC

Arg, doublepost
Last edited by Gargravarr on Wed Feb 27, 2013 12:59 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Diadem
Posts: 5654
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 11:03 am UTC
Location: The Netherlands

Re: 1179: "ISO 8601"

Postby Diadem » Wed Feb 27, 2013 12:59 pm UTC

ribbonsofnight wrote:If you can find 1 history professor who is an expert in this area who believes Jesus didn't live and teach and die on the cross I believe the challenge is out there from John Dickson (a christian history professor) that if you can find this expert or become this expert he will eat a page of his bible. to quote John Dickson
"if anyone can find a full professor of Classics, Ancient History or New Testament in any accredited university in the world who thinks Jesus never lived, I will eat a page of my Bible, probably Matthew chapter 1. It's been a year since I first tweeted the challenge and religious critic John Safran retweeted it to his 60,000 followers. My Bible remains safe."

Define 'jesus'.

Many people lived and taught and died on the cross. Most of them weren't Jesus, but some might have been, depending on your definition.
- Is merely being the source of some of the stories commonly associated with Jesus enough to classify?
- Does the person need to actually be called Jesus?
- Does he need to be born in Nazareth?
- Does this person need to have actually performed actual miracles?
It's one of those irregular verbs, isn't it? I have an independent mind, you are an eccentric, he is round the twist
- Bernard Woolley in Yes, Prime Minister

Habermasgolfclap
Posts: 1
Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2012 1:55 pm UTC

Re: 1179: "ISO 8601"

Postby Habermasgolfclap » Wed Feb 27, 2013 1:01 pm UTC

My brain says YYYY-MM-DD. My heart says (D)D.Name of Month (YY)YY.

zae
Posts: 7
Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2011 9:30 am UTC

Re: 1179: "ISO 8601"

Postby zae » Wed Feb 27, 2013 1:05 pm UTC

Antior wrote:
Adacore wrote:Any format that has years, then months, then days is preferable to any other format - both for consistency and sorting purposes, as others have noted. Why don't we also do this with addresses (I know some countries do, but it's not standard in English)?

From less precise to more precise? Do you mean something like this on a letter?

Country
City - Postal Code
Street - Number
Name

Meh, it would work, but it doesn't really matter. I know that the post sorting machines used over here can usually do their thing whenever they find something that resembles a postal code anywhere on the letter.


This is pretty much how it works here in Japan:

Postal Code
Prefecture, City, Area/Neighborhood, Block number - building number
Name

One example:
〒182-0012
東京都調布市深大寺東町7丁目44-1
(182-0012 Tokyo Prefecture, Chofu City, Jindaiji Higashimachi 7th District, 44-1)

Note that Japan does not have street names, and block numbers/building numbers can be quite haphazard, sometimes assigned in the order of construction.
It can be difficult to find your way around in this country without a map.

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 1:08 pm UTC

Diadem wrote:Define 'jesus'.

[...]

- Is merely being the source of some of the stories commonly associated with Jesus enough to classify?


Yes. The other stuff is a bonus.

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

Re: 1179: "ISO 8601"

Postby Gargravarr » Wed Feb 27, 2013 1:12 pm UTC

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?

rmsgrey
Posts: 3655
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 6:35 pm UTC

Re: 1179: "ISO 8601"

Postby rmsgrey » Wed Feb 27, 2013 1:13 pm UTC

According to Wikipedia (in one of the most densely referencing Wikipedia articles I've seen) there is broad consensus that there was a man called Jesus who was baptised by John the Baptist and crucified on the orders of Pontius Pilate, with other purported facts of his life becoming increasingly controversial - it's generally accepted, for example, that, despite folk traditions to the contrary, the historical Jesus never set foot in England...

Apparently the consensus is that Jesus' birth was probably 4-6BC; plausibly 2-7BC. His crucifixion is likewise uncertain, but probably 30-35AD.

Jean2
Posts: 6
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 6:06 am UTC

Re: 1179: "ISO 8601"

Postby Jean2 » Wed Feb 27, 2013 1:15 pm UTC

Gargravarr wrote:I'm not a christian either, but that's just wrong. Augustus was long dead before Christianity became a major force (or even existed). Maybe you're confusing him with emperor Constantine, but he didn't invent the Jesus character either. By Constantine's time the legend was already centuries old.

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. But it might be any of the other emperors as well. Augustus was emperor from 27 BC to AD 14. The question might be how much resources would it take to create a legend that happened x years ago that would be somewhat verifiable by the means of that century.

SF
Posts: 4
Joined: Sat Jun 16, 2007 9:13 am UTC

Re: 1179: "ISO 8601"

Postby SF » Wed Feb 27, 2013 1:16 pm UTC

Hey guys,

I frequently need to append the current date to various documents and filenames, and so I wrote an AutoHotkey key bind for it.

Code: Select all

#N::SendInput %A_YYYY%-%A_MM%-%A_DD%


If you put this in an .ahk file and run it (if you have installed AHK), it will output the current date when you press the combination Winkey+N (N as in "Now").

Example: 2013-02-27

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 1:18 pm UTC

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:

essle
Posts: 2
Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2011 9:36 am UTC

Re: 1179: "ISO 8601"

Postby essle » Wed Feb 27, 2013 1:19 pm UTC

As far as I know Sweden is the only country that actually follows ISO 8601 and has done for many years.
Maybe we invented it?

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

Re: 1179: "ISO 8601"

Postby marcgaston » Wed Feb 27, 2013 1:28 pm UTC

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

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 1:31 pm UTC

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


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


Return to “Individual XKCD Comic Threads”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 79 guests