| |||||||||||
Date formatsDate formatsPosted Dec 25, 2005 12:53 UTC (Sun) by dps (subscriber, #5725)In reply to: Date formats by mattdm Parent article: SCO's 4Q and Fiscal 2005 Results: Down, down, down they go... (Groklaw)
Here in the UK, where English was invented, we still say "the thirteenth of decmeber" and write 13th December 2005 (and variations thereof). Our dates are DD/MM/YYYY when they appear as numbers only and this applies to purely electronic ones in things like call detial records too. We also have discs, cheques, colours, 24OV wall sockets, earthed touchable metal surfaces, etc.
Decemeber 13th, MM/DD/YYYY, etc, even in speech, are all americanisms. While the language is freely abused both sides of the pond dates with the month first are limited to america (and some digital watches, due to their display limitations). I guess "december thirteenth" was invented *after* the more logical LSD first version.
If mattdm does ever find himself in the UK he should also know that pants are undergarments here and running off the change them might be badly misinterpreted. (Given he is apparently american he might not have a passport or a plausable reason for using one. I personally have lived in
If there is a risk of confusion unambigous dates which some letters in them are preferable.
(Log in to post comments)
Date formats Posted Dec 25, 2005 15:45 UTC (Sun) by drag (subscriber, #31333) [Link] Yep. It's a americanism.
We say "I'll see you on December 29th", but it's not uncommon to do it the other way.
But 12/22 isn't realy ambiguous either.. not unless Europe has 22 months or something like that. :)
(oh, and btw, your health care isn't free. It's just different. You still pay for it, except that payments for you are more of the involuntary nature. (you pay for it weither or not you use it))
Date formats Posted Dec 25, 2005 21:02 UTC (Sun) by dw (subscriber, #12017) [Link] From what I've heard of the US system, I'd much rather have the NHS any day of the week. The NHS treats all, jobless or not, regardless of cost, with no associated 'your personal policy' that dictates what level of treatment you receive.
Here you can still opt for relatively inexpensive medical insurance, that can reduce waiting times and suchlike, but the state system that treats vagabonds normally suffices in 9 cases out of 10 for the wealthy middle class too.
National health Posted Dec 28, 2005 4:54 UTC (Wed) by xoddam (subscriber, #2322) [Link] The degree of excessive bureaucracy involved in collecting insurance premiums and discriminating between the insured and the uninsured does not justify the 'voluntariness' of insurance. Medical care is not an optional extra, it's a necessity of life. *Public* health -- the general state of health of the population -- is a *public* good (do you really want your pauper neigbours left to their own devices when they catch cholera?), and is as justifiable a use of tax funds as are police, roads, military defence or sewers.
I find it quite sickening that people can complain about taxation ('They only get my money because they're pointing a gun at my head') when (a) the alternative to public goods is public squalor, and (b) the same people cheer loudest and ask no questions when their money is used for *real* guns which are *literally* pointed at foreigners' heads.
Present company excepted, of course. I hope.
Date formats Posted Dec 28, 2005 8:49 UTC (Wed) by Wol (guest, #4433) [Link] Actually, we don't have 240V wall sockets.
It's 230V, and it's been that way a LOOONNNGG time.
About 20 years ago if not more they changed the rules so that 230V was within tolerance. Then they changed them again so that the standard was 230V and 240 was within tolerance.
I'm not sure what the rules are now, but the European standard is now 230V everywhere, but it's something like +-10% which means anything made to European standard is quite happy on 220V or 240V for any places (outside Europe ...) that still use those voltages.
Cheers,
|
|||||||||||