Times

**Unknown** · August 9th 10, 02:52 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general

At exactly 06 minutes and 07 seconds after 5 o'clock on August 9th of this
year it will be 05:06:07 08/09/10 ~ This will not happen again until the
year 3010.

**Bob I** · August 9th 10, 03:07 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general

Actually it depends on how your calendar is set. In Europe it will be
September 8th

Unknown wrote:

At exactly 06 minutes and 07 seconds after 5 o'clock on August 9th of this
year it will be 05:06:07 08/09/10 ~ This will not happen again until the
year 3010.

**Bob I** · August 9th 10, 03:07 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general

Actually it depends on how your calendar is set. In Europe it will be
September 8th

Unknown wrote:

At exactly 06 minutes and 07 seconds after 5 o'clock on August 9th of this
year it will be 05:06:07 08/09/10 ~ This will not happen again until the
year 3010.

**Antares 531[_2_]** · August 9th 10, 03:07 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general

On Mon, 9 Aug 2010 08:52:21 -0500, "Unknown"
wrote:

At exactly 06 minutes and 07 seconds after 5 o'clock on August 9th of this
year it will be 05:06:07 08/09/10 ~ This will not happen again until the
year 3010.

How about 06:07:08 09/10/11, or are you saying the sequence must start
with 05:06:07

**Antares 531[_2_]** · August 9th 10, 03:07 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general

On Mon, 9 Aug 2010 08:52:21 -0500, "Unknown"
wrote:

At exactly 06 minutes and 07 seconds after 5 o'clock on August 9th of this
year it will be 05:06:07 08/09/10 ~ This will not happen again until the
year 3010.

How about 06:07:08 09/10/11, or are you saying the sequence must start
with 05:06:07

**Clan D. Estin** · August 9th 10, 03:38 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general

And, at that time, and in the year 3010, you will still be a HoopleHead.

"Unknown" wrote in message
...

At exactly 06 minutes and 07 seconds after 5 o'clock on August 9th of this
year it will be 05:06:07 08/09/10 ~ This will not happen again until the
year 3010.

**Clan D. Estin** · August 9th 10, 03:38 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general

And, at that time, and in the year 3010, you will still be a HoopleHead.

"Unknown" wrote in message
...

At exactly 06 minutes and 07 seconds after 5 o'clock on August 9th of this
year it will be 05:06:07 08/09/10 ~ This will not happen again until the
year 3010.

**Twayne[_3_]** · August 9th 10, 09:15 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general

In news

Antares 531 typed:
On Mon, 9 Aug 2010 08:52:21 -0500, "Unknown"
wrote:

At exactly 06 minutes and 07 seconds after 5 o'clock on
August 9th of this year it will be 05:06:07 08/09/10 ~
This will not happen again until the year 3010.

How about 06:07:08 09/10/11, or are you saying the sequence
must start with 05:06:07

He said
05:06:07 08/09/10 ~
will not happen again until the year 3010.

Read it.

**Twayne[_3_]** · August 9th 10, 09:15 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general

In news

Antares 531 typed:
On Mon, 9 Aug 2010 08:52:21 -0500, "Unknown"
wrote:

At exactly 06 minutes and 07 seconds after 5 o'clock on
August 9th of this year it will be 05:06:07 08/09/10 ~
This will not happen again until the year 3010.

How about 06:07:08 09/10/11, or are you saying the sequence
must start with 05:06:07

He said
05:06:07 08/09/10 ~
will not happen again until the year 3010.

Read it.

**VanguardLH[_2_]** · August 9th 10, 09:33 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general

Unknown wrote:

At exactly 06 minutes and 07 seconds after 5 o'clock on August 9th of this
year it will be 05:06:07 08/09/10 ~ This will not happen again until the
year 3010.

Only if you use mm/dd/yy (and only 2 digits for yy) for the datestamp
format. Of course, sorting on that format means sorting by month
instead of by day. Obviously a bad sorting format. I'm sure other
nonsensical or historical formats could come up with another sequence.
The logical format would be yy/mm/dd (to also match the hh:mm:ss format
you used) for sorting. That means it won't be until 10/11/12 (Nov 12,
2010) at either at 07:08:09 (hh:mm:ss) AM or PM when the sequence you
infer will occur. As for not reoccuring until 3010, well, that
obviously reoccurs every 1000 years when using only 2 digits for the
year.

Of course, in another thousand years, we'll still be using Windows XP
for your post to be on-topic here assuming newsgroups are still around
then, too. Uh huh.

**VanguardLH[_2_]** · August 9th 10, 09:33 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general

Unknown wrote:

At exactly 06 minutes and 07 seconds after 5 o'clock on August 9th of this
year it will be 05:06:07 08/09/10 ~ This will not happen again until the
year 3010.

Only if you use mm/dd/yy (and only 2 digits for yy) for the datestamp
format. Of course, sorting on that format means sorting by month
instead of by day. Obviously a bad sorting format. I'm sure other
nonsensical or historical formats could come up with another sequence.
The logical format would be yy/mm/dd (to also match the hh:mm:ss format
you used) for sorting. That means it won't be until 10/11/12 (Nov 12,
2010) at either at 07:08:09 (hh:mm:ss) AM or PM when the sequence you
infer will occur. As for not reoccuring until 3010, well, that
obviously reoccurs every 1000 years when using only 2 digits for the
year.

Of course, in another thousand years, we'll still be using Windows XP
for your post to be on-topic here assuming newsgroups are still around
then, too. Uh huh.

**Antares 531[_2_]** · August 9th 10, 09:39 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general

On Mon, 9 Aug 2010 16:15:04 -0400, "Twayne"
wrote:

In news Antares 531 typed:
On Mon, 9 Aug 2010 08:52:21 -0500, "Unknown"
wrote:

At exactly 06 minutes and 07 seconds after 5 o'clock on
August 9th of this year it will be 05:06:07 08/09/10 ~
This will not happen again until the year 3010.

How about 06:07:08 09/10/11, or are you saying the sequence
must start with 05:06:07

He said
05:06:07 08/09/10 ~
will not happen again until the year 3010.

Read it.

Thanks, but I read it and still wasn't sure if he meant the exact
number sequence or a similar number sequence. He said "it" and "this"
which could mean "this exact number system" or it could mean "a number
sequence such as this."

**Antares 531[_2_]** · August 9th 10, 09:39 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general

On Mon, 9 Aug 2010 16:15:04 -0400, "Twayne"
wrote:

In news Antares 531 typed:
On Mon, 9 Aug 2010 08:52:21 -0500, "Unknown"
wrote:

At exactly 06 minutes and 07 seconds after 5 o'clock on
August 9th of this year it will be 05:06:07 08/09/10 ~
This will not happen again until the year 3010.

How about 06:07:08 09/10/11, or are you saying the sequence
must start with 05:06:07

He said
05:06:07 08/09/10 ~
will not happen again until the year 3010.

Read it.

Thanks, but I read it and still wasn't sure if he meant the exact
number sequence or a similar number sequence. He said "it" and "this"
which could mean "this exact number system" or it could mean "a number
sequence such as this."

**Barry Schwarz[_2_]** · August 10th 10, 05:40 AM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general

On Mon, 9 Aug 2010 08:52:21 -0500, "Unknown"
wrote:

At exactly 06 minutes and 07 seconds after 5 o'clock on August 9th of this
year it will be 05:06:07 08/09/10 ~ This will not happen again until the
year 3010.

Why wouldn't the same date and time in 2110 produce the same result?

--
Remove del for email

**Barry Schwarz[_2_]** · August 10th 10, 05:40 AM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general

On Mon, 9 Aug 2010 08:52:21 -0500, "Unknown"
wrote:

At exactly 06 minutes and 07 seconds after 5 o'clock on August 9th of this
year it will be 05:06:07 08/09/10 ~ This will not happen again until the
year 3010.

Why wouldn't the same date and time in 2110 produce the same result?

--
Remove del for email

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode