Author |
Message |
Weber_gregston (Weber_gregston) Username: Weber_gregston
Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 194.176.105.56
| Posted on Monday, February 01, 2010 - 12:32 pm: | |
Today we have a palindromic date (unless you live in the states and write the date the wrong way round.) 02/10/2010 On the 11 and the 22 of this month we'll have palindromic date/times at 2 minutes twenty seconds past 1am. 01:02:20 11/02/2010. This is of course entirely meaningless but looks good. |
Joel (Joel) Username: Joel
Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 217.37.199.45
| Posted on Monday, February 01, 2010 - 12:39 pm: | |
I initially read the title of this thread as 'Palin drones'... "This is of course entirely meaningless but looks good." So true. |
Gary Fry (Gary_fry)
Username: Gary_fry
Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 129.11.76.229
| Posted on Monday, February 01, 2010 - 02:07 pm: | |
>>>02/10/2010 Shouldn't it be "01/02/2010" ? |
Gary Fry (Gary_fry)
Username: Gary_fry
Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 129.11.76.229
| Posted on Monday, February 01, 2010 - 02:08 pm: | |
I've never been able to work out the logic of the US system: isn't it more intuitive to write 'day...month...year' ? |
Weber_gregston (Weber_gregston) Username: Weber_gregston
Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 194.176.105.56
| Posted on Monday, February 01, 2010 - 02:15 pm: | |
I think you've edited my original post too maik mee look lyke I cant tipe. 01/02/2010 |
Gary Fry (Gary_fry)
Username: Gary_fry
Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 129.11.76.229
| Posted on Monday, February 01, 2010 - 02:17 pm: | |
You're joking, of course. |
Chris_morris (Chris_morris) Username: Chris_morris
Registered: 04-2008 Posted From: 12.165.240.116
| Posted on Monday, February 01, 2010 - 03:57 pm: | |
>> I've never been able to work out the logic of the US system: isn't it more intuitive to write 'day...month...year' ? Logic has nothing to do with it: we're just writing it the way we say it. No one in America says "tenth January." We'd say "January tenth." Thus: 1/10. I'm not saying it's right or better, btw. Just the way it is. |
Gary Fry (Gary_fry)
Username: Gary_fry
Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 129.11.77.197
| Posted on Monday, February 01, 2010 - 04:00 pm: | |
Right-o. |
Craig (Craig) Username: Craig
Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 75.4.249.163
| Posted on Monday, February 01, 2010 - 04:00 pm: | |
No, it's right, and it's better. And the decimal system sucks, too. And so do roundabouts. And tea over coffee. |
Gary Fry (Gary_fry)
Username: Gary_fry
Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 129.11.77.198
| Posted on Monday, February 01, 2010 - 04:14 pm: | |
Right-o. Ya redneck hayseed. |
Weber_gregston (Weber_gregston) Username: Weber_gregston
Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 194.176.105.56
| Posted on Monday, February 01, 2010 - 04:27 pm: | |
Logic has nothing to do with it: we're just writing it the way we say it. No one in America says "tenth January." We'd say "January tenth." Thus: 1/10. You also say Twenty past five when telling someone th e time - so why don't you write the time as 20:5 instead of 5:20? |
Chris_morris (Chris_morris) Username: Chris_morris
Registered: 04-2008 Posted From: 12.165.240.116
| Posted on Monday, February 01, 2010 - 05:18 pm: | |
Weber, is that a serious question? People say "twenty past five" or "noon" or "ten fifteen" or "a quarter of two" or "half past ten." There are lots of ways to describe the hands on a clock. The formal "hour-minute" -- "five twenty" -- is probably the least confusing way of putting it, so: "5:20." Besides, times are rarely written anyway. |
Weber_gregston (Weber_gregston) Username: Weber_gregston
Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 194.176.105.56
| Posted on Monday, February 01, 2010 - 05:21 pm: | |
I didn't think I needed to put the smiley... Bloody yanks. sarcasm is lost on them. |
Weber_gregston (Weber_gregston) Username: Weber_gregston
Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 194.176.105.56
| Posted on Monday, February 01, 2010 - 05:21 pm: | |
Did I need the smiley on that? |
Chris_morris (Chris_morris) Username: Chris_morris
Registered: 04-2008 Posted From: 12.165.240.116
| Posted on Monday, February 01, 2010 - 05:54 pm: | |
Yes, please. Sorry. I'm distracted at work today. And I thought -- well, Gary didn't know why we put the month first ... so maybe Weber was being honest. I'm ridiculous today. Sorry. Got one for you, though: Nouns. I've never understood why UKers use plural verbs with certain collective nouns. "Arsenal are the champions," you might say. Americans would never say that. (And not only because we don't care for soccer.) We'd say "Arsenal is the champion." Or UKers might say "U2 are a band," whereas we'd say "U2 is a band." (Here I recall my friend Travis's confusion when he noticed a quote on the cover of a 90s UK music magazine. Beneath a picture of Noel Gallagher's scowling face were the words "Blur Are Shite!" Travis asked me about it. To him the cover made no sense. (He had never heard the term "shite," which added to the confusion.) All my attempts to explain it were useless. "But Blur is a band, only one band," he kept saying. "So wouldn't it be 'Blur is shite'?") My question is: why? Do you also say "the goverment are corrupt"? Or "McDonald's are a bad company to work for"? How do you know which collective nouns take the plural form? Please keep in mind that I'm not asking this to suggest one way is better than another or to make fun. I'm asking it because I'm a drooling moron and simply don't know the answer. |
Carolinec (Carolinec) Username: Carolinec
Registered: 06-2009 Posted From: 82.38.75.85
| Posted on Monday, February 01, 2010 - 05:56 pm: | |
Never mind, Weber, here's a smiley for you ... |
Carolinec (Carolinec) Username: Carolinec
Registered: 06-2009 Posted From: 82.38.75.85
| Posted on Monday, February 01, 2010 - 05:58 pm: | |
Oooops, we were posting at the same time, Chris - sorry! |
Weber_gregston (Weber_gregston) Username: Weber_gregston
Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 194.176.105.56
| Posted on Monday, February 01, 2010 - 06:04 pm: | |
I suppose it's because when you're talking about a football team you're talking about all the players hence 'Arsenal ARE the champs'. I'm a burbling idiot today as well though so I'm probably wrong. |
Des (Des)
Username: Des
Registered: 06-2008 Posted From: 86.159.146.233
| Posted on Monday, February 01, 2010 - 06:12 pm: | |
I think Weber starts some of the best threads. |
Gary Fry (Gary_fry)
Username: Gary_fry
Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 129.11.77.198
| Posted on Monday, February 01, 2010 - 06:17 pm: | |
I'm afraid the phrase "Arsenal are the champs" simply doesn't make sense. It will never happen. |
Gary Fry (Gary_fry)
Username: Gary_fry
Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 129.11.77.198
| Posted on Monday, February 01, 2010 - 06:19 pm: | |
It might be to do with how we conceptualise teams or groups, however. The Brits seeing such a collectivity as a group of individuals while the Yanks see them as a fused bunch. Or maybe not. Good question, tho. |