A date we can all agree on.

Stories

Diaries

Polls

Users

Web Adequacy.org

Home

About

Topics

Rejects

Abortions

This is an unofficial archive site only. It is no longer maintained. You can not post comments. You can not make an account. Your email will not be read. Please read this page or the footnote if you have questions.

Poll

Votes: 8

A date we can all agree on.

Author:

gcsb

Topic:

Diaries

Posted:

Feb 01, 2002

Comments:

Today is the 2nd of February 2002. (at least, it is on this part of the planet, some of you may have to wait a bit longer).

More diaries by gcsb

	IP-Tokens. The truth revealed!
	FreeBSD 4.5 Released!

No matter what country you live in or how you write the date, it is 02/02/02.

There is often much confusion between Americans and British over dates. The Americans prefer to put the month first, where as in Commonwealth countries we prefer to put the day first.

Well, today we can all join hands and be one. For today only, it does not matter at all. 02/02/02 brings all Christian nations together as one.

Oh happy day indeed!

(As a bonus for Commonwealth people we can also look forward to the exciting looking 20/02/2002 as well! What an exciting month!)

	This is not slashdot. (5.00 / 2) (#1)
	by dmg on Fri Feb 1st, 2002 at 07:59:19 PM PST

	Please take your stupid geek obsessions elsewhere. Adequacy is a controversial news and discussion site, not a den of poorly socialized sweaty geeks. 02/02/02 is just another day like any other. And why do you assume everyone follows the Christian calendar ? Seems as though you are a vile racist in addition to being a no-life nerd! time to give a Newtonian demonstration - of a bullet, its mass and its acceleration. -- MC Hawking

	Sir, (none / 0) (#7)
	by gcsb on Fri Feb 1st, 2002 at 10:53:33 PM PST

	I did no such thing as to assume anyones religion or otherwise. Please stop this sort of knee-jerk, red-neck reaction everytime someone mentions Christ. Regards, gcsb. Sig is under re-construction...do not panic.

	What about... (5.00 / 1) (#2)
	by The Mad Scientist on Fri Feb 1st, 2002 at 08:05:10 PM PST

	...to agree on a standard way to write dates? Ie, Feb 02 2002, 02-Feb-2002, 2002-02-02 (preferable for sorting), or anything similar, where the day-month-year order is either fixed by design (year-month-day) and sorting-friendly, or the format of individual fields automatically characterizes the field type (day = 1-2 digits, month = 3-letter shortcut, year = 4 digits)? Would it really hurt to get used to format that is universally comprehensible, unambiguous by design, and both human- and machine-readable?

	what about... (none / 0) (#4)
	by PotatoError on Fri Feb 1st, 2002 at 09:25:07 PM PST

	Why cant we just use the number of seconds since 1970 as the date? <<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

	because i dont remember what i had for lunch (none / 0) (#5)
	by Anonymous Reader on Fri Feb 1st, 2002 at 09:34:07 PM PST

	Do you expect me to remember what day of the week 2374382362304 seconds was? What if I ask "what time is it?" and some guy answers, "87 seconds past Friday." Murder is what happens. "When is this due?" "It's due 4367340458754739." Oh yeah? Well wat 436734923473 lead pellets!

	ummm it was a joke [nt] (none / 0) (#6)
	by PotatoError on Fri Feb 1st, 2002 at 09:36:27 PM PST

	<<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

	no it wasn't... (none / 0) (#10)
	by gcsb on Fri Feb 1st, 2002 at 11:58:16 PM PST

	...was it? Admit it! Come on... Sig is under re-construction...do not panic.

	aw shit (none / 0) (#11)
	by PotatoError on Sat Feb 2nd, 2002 at 01:42:15 PM PST

	yea ok i admit it! i was serious. I thought everyone would jump on the idea like "yea! lets all base time on the number of seconds since 1970!". But alas, the opposite happened so I ran away screaming "IT WAS ONLY A JOKE!!!" <<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

	somewhat bratty (none / 0) (#13)
	by nathan on Sat Feb 2nd, 2002 at 07:17:58 PM PST

	Would it really hurt to get used to format that is universally comprehensible, unambiguous by design, and both human- and machine-readable? Well, in principle, I am bothered by asking humans to behave for the convenience of machines. Isn't any format machine-readable and parsable, by definition, as long as it follows consistent rules? I say make the machines learn natural language. Nathan -- Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

	OT: Machines learning natural language. (none / 0) (#14)
	by tkatchev on Sun Feb 3rd, 2002 at 12:39:13 AM PST

	As any serious researcher in artificial intelligence will tell you, parsing natural language is physically impossible. The best we can do is to parse some sort of very limited subset, and without analysing the semantic component, at that. The problem is that to parse natural language we need to model the human being in all aspects -- everything from logical capabilities to reproductive instincts. This is not only impossible in any short- or long-term perspective, it is also very impractical. (It's much easier to just teach a human being a limited machine-readable language.) P.S. There is an interesting aphorism floating around in CS circles -- A year spent in artifical intelligence is enough to make one believe in God. Despite the facetious tone, it makes a good point -- when you are working intimately with such matters, it becomes obvious that "intelligence" or "rationality" have nothing to do with it. We can model "intelligence" and "rationality" to any degree, but modeling self-awareness is so incredibly difficult that we don't even know where to start. I won't even go into the issue of free will. -- Peace and much love...

	Oh, nonsense. (none / 0) (#16)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Feb 3rd, 2002 at 02:54:51 AM PST

	The current difficulties in parsing natural language have nothing to do with the "physical" aspect that you immaturely allude to. The problem is not that human language is inherently immune to objective analysis. Any thinking person can tell you that the real problem is that the discipline (I hesitate to call it a "science") currently known as "psychology" is in a state less evolved than that enjoyed by the "alchemists" when they were searching for the "philosopher's stone." This will change. The chemistry of the individual, and the chemical causality of the interactions of human groups, will eventually be diagrammed, graphed, understood, and acted upon. Your notions of "god" and "free will" will be rendered despicable, laughable, or simply childish. The resultant problems revealed will be far beyond the grasp of anyone willing to accept such simplistic dogmatic explanations as those that you, in your bourgois ignorance, adhere to, and put forth. You think you're smart? Just wait. We all know this will happen. If it does not happen before I die, I will die with the serene knowledge that the greater human truth will be understood, and render your currently fashionable Goddist beliefs indefensible. Welcome to the larger world. Welcome to the world of conflicting faith. Welcome to the world in which your belief is laughable in the face of all existing beliefs. Welcome to the world in which the "unbelievers" outnumber you, and are, therefore, statisticly smarter than you. Welcome to the tiny, isolated, lonely existence that your dogmatic belief confines you to. Enjoy your stay.

	Are you a professional in the field? (none / 0) (#17)
	by tkatchev on Sun Feb 3rd, 2002 at 03:38:31 AM PST

	If not, I suggest you shut up or put up. I'm a professional in the field of AI, so I think I know what I'm talking about. I don't have a problem with you expressing your liberalist faith, but I really resent you muddying up the water as far as artifical intelligence is concerned. Please don't talk hot air about sciences you have absolutely no knowledge about. As far as the field of AI is concerned, the inability to construct a full-fledged linguistic processor is a given, one of the axioms of the science at this given point in time. -- Peace and much love...

	There were times... (none / 0) (#18)
	by The Mad Scientist on Sun Feb 3rd, 2002 at 06:55:06 AM PST

	As far as the field of AI is concerned, the inability to construct a full-fledged linguistic processor is a given, one of the axioms of the science at this given point in time. There were times when the Earth was flat. There were times when it was commonly known that rocks can't fall from the sky, because there are no rocks there. There were times when it was sure that objects heavier than air can't fly. Now we have times when we apparently know with axiomatical certainity that full-fledged linguistic processor is impossible to construct.

	Are you a genius or simply a complete moron? (none / 0) (#19)
	by tkatchev on Sun Feb 3rd, 2002 at 07:23:47 AM PST

	Clue for morons: AT THIS GIVEN POINT IN TIME. Learn to fucking read. (I wish I could write that in fucking 48 point type...) What is your problem? Reading comprehension? Or are you just too eager to show off your brilliant scientific knowledge? I repeat: AT THIS GIVEN POINT IN TIME, it is universally held that constructing a complete linguistic processor is impossible. If you are a researcher in the AI field, and you can prove this wrong, please go ahead and publish your findings. Not only will you completely overturn the whole field of CS as we know it, you'll also recieve several Nobel prizes for your innovative findings in the fields of medicine, psychology and sociology. Do you realize how stupid you sound? It's as if a physicist said that "at this point in time, it's impossible to build a warp drive", and a raging trekkie started to spew bullshit about warp-drives and the genius of Gene Rodenberry. That is the kind of idiocy we are talking about here. Please don't make an ass of yourself, it hurts. -- Peace and much love...

	Do you know the difference... (none / 0) (#20)
	by The Mad Scientist on Sun Feb 3rd, 2002 at 07:41:43 AM PST

	...between the expressions "it is impossible to do" and "we don't know yet how to do that"? The first one implies impossibility on the level of the principles of physical reality itself. This condition stays constant throughout the history. The second one implies that despite of potential possibility, we don't know how to do so. This condition tends to have limited timespan. The first expression is often mistakenly used instead of the second one, as you proved by example. Yawn.

	Don't squirm. (none / 0) (#21)
	by tkatchev on Sun Feb 3rd, 2002 at 07:47:03 AM PST

	I said "at this point in time", and I meant it. Don't try to evade it, you only make yourself look dumber. I can say, for example, "at this point in time, it is impossible for me to climb a three-meter-high wall." Everybody knows full well what I mean. Just admit that you have a reading comprehension problem and I'll let you go in peace. -- Peace and much love...

	You forgot to mention (none / 0) (#25)
	by Anonymous Reader on Mon Feb 4th, 2002 at 08:17:17 AM PST

	As far as the field of AI is concerned, the inability to construct a full-fledged linguistic processor is a given, one of the axioms of the science at this given point in time. There are also no fully-fledged linguistic processors present in nature. Not all communications strive for perfect clarity. There are many other issues, which as an NLP expert I'm sure you are aware of. The main problem, as Patrick McGoohan revealed, is that writing "WHY?" on a piece of paper and feeding it into the machine causes it to blow up.

	forget to log in again? (nt) (none / 0) (#24)
	by nathan on Sun Feb 3rd, 2002 at 11:16:41 AM PST

	-- Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

	No, not me... (none / 0) (#26)
	by Anonymous Reader on Mon Feb 4th, 2002 at 09:42:14 AM PST

	If you're referring to Mr Unreformed Aristotlean. Looks like there's more than one of us.

	What're you still doing here? (none / 0) (#3)
	by Anonymous Reader on Fri Feb 1st, 2002 at 09:08:51 PM PST

	Don't you have your own weblog to attend to?

	Indeed (none / 0) (#8)
	by gcsb on Fri Feb 1st, 2002 at 10:55:03 PM PST

	But with my current commitments to the Church, I have been rather to busy to right an in-depth article for it. Perhaps you could help? Regards, gcsb. Sig is under re-construction...do not panic.

	s/right/write (none / 0) (#9)
	by gcsb on Fri Feb 1st, 2002 at 10:55:56 PM PST

	sorry bout that Sig is under re-construction...do not panic.

	Are you insane? (none / 0) (#12)
	by etherdust on Sat Feb 2nd, 2002 at 07:03:49 PM PST

	Have you learned nothing from Y2K? Using only two digits to represent the year is wrongheaded. It's the Devil's handy work! Four digit years are the only way a right thinking individual would list the date. -- That is all.

	Oh come on. (none / 0) (#15)
	by tkatchev on Sun Feb 3rd, 2002 at 12:46:18 AM PST

	Who cares? We won't have to worry about it for another one hundred years now. Who knows what will happen in a century? Maybe we'll all be annihilated in a nuclear holocaust, and then software obsolescence will be the last thing on our minds. Lighted up. -- Peace and much love...

	Why beg for problems? (none / 0) (#22)
	by The Mad Scientist on Sun Feb 3rd, 2002 at 07:57:17 AM PST

	We won't have to worry about it for another one hundred years now. Time runs faster than we think. Our descendants will then have to cope with problems that wouldn't have to be. Maybe we'll all be annihilated in a nuclear holocaust, and then software obsolescence will be the last thing on our minds. Maybe not. Then there will be a problem, Houston. What worries me more, though, is the Y2.038K problem. Just hope that 64 bit integers will become a norm for timers soon; I will be shortly before retirement by then (if I will still be), and with my luck I'll get assigned the juiciest ones of the problems. Remember Y2K and COBOL veterans. Also, don't underestimate the number format factor. If you have a date like 02/03/04, you're screwed. If you have a date like 2002/03/04, you're still screwed, but you know at least a part of it for sure - only 2 possibilities remain, with year/month/day being the more probable one. So - please - don't attract problems where they don't have to be, and write the year as 4 digits. Pretty please.

	Year 2038. (none / 0) (#23)
	by tkatchev on Sun Feb 3rd, 2002 at 08:02:12 AM PST

	I hope that by that time we'll all finally standardize on time_t. 35 years is certainly time enough to. Or better yet, finally get rid of Unix. I can dream, can't I? -- Peace and much love...

	Best of all... (none / 0) (#27)
	by Anonymous Reader on Mon Feb 4th, 2002 at 11:05:57 AM PST

	Why not store dates as dates, and leave the ticking seconds to clocks and timers?

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest ® 2001, 2002, 2003 Adequacy.org. The Adequacy.org name, logo, symbol, and taglines "News for Grown-Ups", "Most Controversial Site on the Internet", "Linux Zealot", and "He just loves Open Source Software", and the RGB color value: D7D7D7 are trademarks of Adequacy.org. No part of this site may be republished or reproduced in whatever form without prior written permission by Adequacy.org and, if and when applicable, prior written permission by the contributing author(s), artist(s), or user(s). Any inquiries are directed to legal@adequacy.org.