Isn't all time regardless of scale arbitrary> :)<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 1:28 PM, Kenneth Brody <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:kenbrody@spamcop.net">kenbrody@spamcop.net</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;"><div class="im">On 1/31/2011 9:26 PM, Brian K. White wrote:<br>
> On 1/31/2011 5:57 PM, Ken Cole wrote:<br>
>> Since we regularly talk about dates and maths here:<br>
>><br>
>> This is freaky! This year we will experience 4 unusual dates....<br>
>> 1/1/11, 11/1/11, 1/11/11, 11/11/11 .....<br>
><br>
</div>> I dislike the ones that leave out the century, and dislike the arbitrary<br>
> and somewhat nonsensical arranging of month and day before year etc, so<br>
> I like 20111102<br>
> or add in the time 20111111111102<br>
><br>
> (Although I loved Heinlein centennial being 777, and just as was pointed<br>
> out when time_t rolled over, these are ALL just arbitrary numbers of<br>
> arbitrary units within arbitrary scales.)<br>
<br>
I hear that some other arbitrary scale will reach the end of its arbitrary<br>
units, and wrap its arbitrary numbers back to the "beginning" sometime late<br>
next year as measured by our arbitrary scale. :-)<br>
<font color="#888888"><br>
--<br>
Kenneth Brody<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Filepro-list mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Filepro-list@lists.celestial.com">Filepro-list@lists.celestial.com</a><br>
Subscribe/Unsubscribe/Subscription Changes<br>
<a href="http://mailman.celestial.com/mailman/listinfo/filepro-list" target="_blank">http://mailman.celestial.com/mailman/listinfo/filepro-list</a><br>
</font></blockquote></div><br>