Once upon a time, of course maybe my memory's gotten really bad, I think trains.com fora would list a topic as "posted on" with the month, day and year. Since a format change a while ago they now say "posted ... ago", and will say the number of minutes, hours, or days before now on which the someone created, or replied to, the thread.
I prefer the old mon/dd/yyyy method. Can I get a few votes supporting me?
Patrick Boylan
Free yacht rides, 27' sailboat, zip code 19114 Delaware River, get great Delair bridge photos from the river. Send me a private message
potato - potatoe
tomato - tomatoe
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
gardendanceI prefer the old mon/dd/yyyy method. Can I get a few votes supporting me?
+1. But not 'either-or' -- I'd like to see both displayed.
Depends. Maybe for $20?
It's been fun. But it isn't much fun anymore. Signing off for now.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.t fun any
Is Roman Numerals an option?
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
Murphy Siding Is Roman Numerals an option?
I second Roman Numerals....and I would also like it displayed in Latin.
credo erit "ego II numeri romani"
I'm with gardendance. Specific is always better.
I'd vote for displaying it both way... specific date/time and an "... ago" phrase.
But then, I'd like it if it would be in Binary...
You know there are 10 kinds of people in the world...
Those that understand binary and those that don't.
Semper Vaporo
Pkgs.
Let's hear it for Hexadecimal.
I've come up with a little system to get over this monumental bump in the road of life. At the lower right hand of my computer screen, is a clock. Right now it reads 10:03. I look at the Thread title on the front page. For this example, it reads something like "last post 4 hours ago". Then, I use the math skills I learned in third grade, and conclude that the last post was about 5:36 p.m. today. Then, I simply open the thread. The exact posting time is listed. That way, I know the exact time of the post, and won't lose any sleep tonight.
AW! Gee... if'n ya cain't lose sleep over this, what can you lose sleep over?
How about Unix time, i.e. number of seconds since midnite Januray 1, 1970 UTC?? It can be expressed in hexadecimal for the truly nerdy.
I forget the name of the language, but in an IBM mainframe system in order to sort in reverse date order they stored the date as some large number, I think 100,000 minus today's date. Once in a while I joked that it would be a Y2K type problem in 98,000 years.
Back in late 1999 (Oct.?) Trains had a photo of a Shay (a type of geared steam locomotive, mostly used for logging) - in the front, like the Letters section - with a crude sign on the tender that said "Y2K Compliant". I laugh every time I think of that - and wish I could get a print of it !
- Paul North.
2 of my brother's contributions:
Imagine ancient Rome, worrying about what would happen as their calendars counted down and encountered the Y0 problem.
And the Chinese, whose abaci wouldn't be Y2K compliant.
erikem How about Unix time, i.e. number of seconds since midnite January 1, 1970 UTC?? It can be expressed in hexadecimal for the truly nerdy.
How about Unix time, i.e. number of seconds since midnite January 1, 1970 UTC?? It can be expressed in hexadecimal for the truly nerdy.
gardendance I forget the name of the language, but in an IBM mainframe system in order to sort in reverse date order they stored the date as some large number, I think 100,000 minus today's date. Once in a while I joked that it would be a Y2K type problem in 98,000 years.
"Y2K"-type problem for UNIX comes sooner than you think - January 19, 2038. (And when it does, it's instantly December 13, 1901. This is one demonstration of how 'to F things up thoroughly requires a computer'.)
gardendance 2 of my brother's contributions: Imagine ancient Rome, worrying about what would happen as their calendars counted down and encountered the Y0 problem. And the Chinese, whose abaci wouldn't be Y2K compliant.
Johnny
DeggestyPatrick, I'm sure your brother knew that the Romans dated from a certain date; I believe it was the founding of Rome. However, it is an amusing idea, especailly since there was no year zero--the year before A.D. 1 was 1 B.C.--therefore the last year of the first century was the 100th year--A.D. 100.
It was no problem for the Romans as the use of AD and BC (ca 525AD) didn't begin until near the end of the Roman Empire, with wide use of the system not occurring until what we now refer to as 800AD. By then the Roman Empire was toast.
Thus any reference to a year using AD or BC (BCE) before 800 AD is a calculated reference. There are no historical records from that time that would refer to a date in that way.
The Jewish calendar does not use BC/AD. For them this year is 5775...
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
Deggesty, they did indeed start AUD, Ab Urbe Condita, From the City's Founding.
Tree68, you apparently don't know about 2 important things:
although the western empire probably could make only toast around 800AD, the eastern empire continued to make many fine dishes and delicacies for more than another 500 years.
And you might want to familiarize yourself with that wonderful comedian Dave Allen, and his show "Dave Allen at Large", one skit featured 2 Roman soldiers in a close 2 shot "How long has it been since you've served in Britain"? "Since 40BC with Julius Ceasar". "You'll find things have changed since you were last here". Camera pulls back to reveal they're in the middle of modern London.
Meanwhile we've had a few funny comments, and the funny ones I appreciate. A few folks have said they support my notion to go back to displaying the date and time, some would like both that and the 'time ago', and some have said they don't care. Is there anyone who prefers 'time ago' over the actual date and time? Can we get any moderator input on why they thought there was an incredible demand for 'time ago', which I suspect takes more computer effort than the date and time?
What are you trying to do, get back to the original subject? If so, my preference is for the actual time. I remember that the last time I was on line was, say, mid-morning yesterday, not 23 hours ago.
Speaking of Roman times, I remember in high school that a student actually asked the teacher how the Romans knew what year BC they were in. And he was serious!
_____________
"A stranger's just a friend you ain't met yet." --- Dave Gardner
There is not that much logic ...
"wanswheel replied to this thread 1 hours ago"
rdamon, you're not answering the question: which do you prefer?
Paul of Covington Speaking of Roman times, I remember in high school that a student actually asked the teacher how the Romans knew what year BC they were in. And he was serious!
gardendance rdamon, you're not answering the question: which do you prefer?
Sorry, I actually perfer the time since last post. It is quicker to see what threads are fresh.
On the page listing the threads, it shows how long since the latest post was made. If you open and read the threads, it shows at the top of each posting the actual time and date it was made.
Since all I really need to know is if a new posting has been made to a thread on that index page, and that is signified on my machine by a change in color of the title, I don't really care one way or the other.
I'm not even sure why I would need to know the exact time and date each post was made. It's not like I'm keeping tabs on other people's (or my own) Kalmbach forum usage habits.
Jeff
jeffhergert On the page listing the threads, it shows how long since the latest post was made. If you open and read the threads, it shows at the top of each posting the actual time and date it was made. Since all I really need to know is if a new posting has been made to a thread on that index page, and that is signified on my machine by a change in color of the title, I don't really care one way or the other. I'm not even sure why I would need to know the exact time and date each post was made. It's not like I'm keeping tabs on other people's (or my own) Kalmbach forum usage habits. Jeff
It depends on the situation. I usually find it easier to tell people how many years ago I was born instead of the date I was born, but my wife often appreciates it more for me to remember what date we were married than how long we've been married.
jeffhergert On the page listing the threads, it shows how long since the latest post was made. If you open and read the threads, it shows at the top of each posting the actual time and date it was made.
Actually, you don't even need to open any of the threads to see the exact time the post was made. All you need to do is to pause the mouse over the "an hour ago" or the "4 hours ago", etc displayed in the thread listing and magically the time and date of the post will be displayed!
The highly technical term for this effect is called mouseover.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.