Stupid american date format

zworqy · Post by **zworqy** » 14 Nov 2002, 22:47

OK, I've had enough of this. Why do English / Americans have the stupid date formats MM-DD-YYYY or YYYY-DD-MM?

It's so illogical. It's like saying: Hey, why count 1, 2, 3 or 3, 2, 1? Let's count 2, 1, 3 or 3, 1, 2 instead.

If there is an explanation (I doubt it...) i would really like to know it!

(note: D = day, M = month, Y = year)

devin · Post by **devin** » 14 Nov 2002, 23:53

It is not illogical it is just you are not used to it, when I first learned about the rest of the countries date arrangment, I was like "what the fuck is this shit, why cant they just do it normal" (such as you are doing it now)

Well Im used to doing it mm,dd,yyyy

Im so sorry we are so stupid

edit: I made it so you people can understand it

dz · Post by dz » 15 Nov 2002, 00:06

devin wrote:why cant they just do it normal (such as you are doing it now)

so why do you do it not normal as if we're doing it normal ?

Juish · Post by **Juish** » 15 Nov 2002, 03:49

canada uses ===> mm,dd,yyyy. too

does it really matter that much?

Juish · Post by **Juish** » 15 Nov 2002, 03:50

as long as you know the date, and understand it, its alright.

djacosmo · Post by **djacosmo** » 15 Nov 2002, 04:09

Being an Aussie, I use the dd-mm-yyyy format, but have no problems with the American format except when its ambiguous. for example:
03-04-2002
is that 3rd April 2002 or 4th March 2002?

Another couple to ponder:
Why do we drive on left side of road?
Why do Americans say one hundred-fifty, not one hundred AND fifty?
Why do Americans say "write me" instead of "write TO me?

(Yanks don't any of this personally

)

Post by **Abula** » 15 Nov 2002, 13:55

That's why Moposite use 1 Jan 2002 format, it was 01.01.2002 earlier.

For me DD MM YYYY is more logical. Months contain days, years contain months (and days). One day is shorter perion that one month and one month is shorter than one year.

dz · Post by dz » 15 Nov 2002, 14:44

yea the main problem is it's logic - it doesn't have any that i could understand. as abu just said, dd-mm-yyyy has very clear and simply logic. days, months, years - from small to large.

JAMES · Post by **JAMES** » 15 Nov 2002, 17:07

zworqy wrote:

Why do English / Americans have the stupid date formats MM-DD-YYYY or YYYY-DD-MM?

i agree that is a very stupid date format, but fortunatly for me i live in Engalnd where we dont use that date format. so next time please get you facts straight before insulting us.

dz · Post by dz » 15 Nov 2002, 17:17

well zworqy didn't really insult english/americans, he only said their date system is stupid.. on the other hand someone could say the ppl who make stupid things must be stupid themselves, but i'm not saying that, nor is zworqy i think

zworqy · Post by **zworqy** » 16 Nov 2002, 00:20

dz wrote:well zworqy didn't really insult english/americans, he only said their date system is stupid.. on the other hand someone could say the ppl who make stupid things must be stupid themselves, but i'm not saying that, nor is zworqy i think

Correct, I did NOT insult any americans/englishmen, except for the ONE person who invented it.

BTW, sorry for being wrong about the english. Since you share miles, yards and stuff like that with the americans, I assumed it applied to date formats as well.

PS. Thank you dz, you're like the first one who spelled my nick right...

Antz · Post by **Antz** » 16 Nov 2002, 11:12

ye month b4 day is just weird. when telling time you don't say 2h 14sec 7min but 2h 7min 14sec. arranging things according to their relative lenght&size is logical and any other way is odd and impractical as well.

insane guy · Post by **insane guy** » 16 Nov 2002, 13:58

hmmm..
in america they still count distances and heights in feet....
they dont want to join (almost) the rest of the world but want to be the great super-power....
i dont like americas politics.....

chux · Post by **chux** » 16 Nov 2002, 15:27

Its true, English use dd/mm/yyyy! The 'right' way!
I agree mm/dd/yyyy is stooooopid, but thats they way they do it, cant try and convince americans theyre wrong!
And James, too harsh on our temmate, Zworqy? Nah, he was wrong

JAMES · Post by **JAMES** » 16 Nov 2002, 18:02

ok i admit maybe i was a little too harsh on zworqy but i just dont like England being too heavily linked with America. (sorry USA)

chux · Post by **chux** » 16 Nov 2002, 20:40

lol, nor do I, but youre half American!
Off topicing, I know, sorry

MagnusB · Post by **MagnusB** » 19 Nov 2002, 21:36

The American date form is useful for sorting.
For example: with our system today is 19/11 2002, while for americans it's 11/19 2002.

If you had the dates 21/4, 14/7 and 16/12, and wanted them sorted both alphabetically and chronologically...

2104
1407
1612

...wouldn't work.
But...

0421
0714
1216

...would.

Apart from that, I agree that our system is more logical, from small to large.

Post by **Abula** » 19 Nov 2002, 22:07

MagnusB wrote:The American date form is useful for sorting.
For example: with our system today is 19/11 2002, while for americans it's 11/19 2002.

If you had the dates 21/4, 14/7 and 16/12, and wanted them sorted both alphabetically and chronologically...

2104
1407
1612

...wouldn't work.
But...

0421
0714
1216

...would.

Apart from that, I agree that our system is more logical, from small to large.

In this case the year should be first.

20010421 (or maybe just 010421)
20020421

So actually it works only to same year's December because after that the month is again 01.

MagnusB · Post by **MagnusB** » 19 Nov 2002, 23:03

I know. I didn't include years in my example, because....hmmm. Well, because I didn't.

Let's say our dates were 21/4 2001, 14/7 2002 and 5/12 2002.

20012104
20021407
20020512

...does not work. Right?

20010421
20020714
20021205

..does. Do we agree?

(or maybe just 010421)

I think we've learned by now that 2 digits for dates is a big no-no. =)

>>

Z1 · Post by Z1 » 19 Nov 2002, 23:34

YYYY-MM-DD is the scientific way (the logical one). The most significant figures are always on the left (look at numbers).
DD-MM-YYYY is the handy (intuitive?) way (you often want to know the day first, because you often already know the month or the year).

MM-DD-YYYY is the logical way but in an handier version, because the year is often not interesting, and it can be taken apart because you cannot confound it with the month or the day (>12 and >31 until recently, and usually written with 4 figures).

Many illogical things in languages are due to an evolution. That hybrid format is due to an evolution.

MM-DD-YYYY sucks, but the USA are too powerful to get rid of it

Post by **Abula** » 20 Nov 2002, 00:29

MagnusB wrote: Let's say our dates were 21/4 2001, 14/7 2002 and 5/12 2002.

20012104
20021407
20020512

...does not work. Right?

20010421
20020714
20021205

..does. Do we agree?

Yes but USA doesn't use YYYYMMDD format but MMDDYYYY.

MagnusB wrote:
Abula wrote:(or maybe just 010421)
I think we've learned by now that 2 digits for dates is a big no-no. =)

>> :)

Hey come on, 97 years left, it won't be our problem ;].

insane guy · Post by **insane guy** » 20 Nov 2002, 17:49

ahh maybe...
i dont want to bet that old.......

MagnusB · Post by **MagnusB** » 20 Nov 2002, 18:08

Yes but USA doesn't use YYYYMMDD format but MMDDYYYY.

Right. That's why I didn't include the years. =D
Let me rephrase then, the American system is better for sorting. Are you all happy now?

Hey come on, 97 years left, it won't be our problem ;].

You're making a good point! In fact, let's mess up the entire planet for future generations! {>=oD}-|-<

Post by **Abula** » 20 Nov 2002, 18:38

MagnusB wrote:
Yes but USA doesn't use YYYYMMDD format but MMDDYYYY.
Right. That's why I didn't include the years. =D
Let me rephrase then, the American system is better for sorting. Are you all happy now? :)

Well, if you think (1 Jan 2000, 30 Dec 2001, 12 Mar 2002)

01012000
03122002
12301001

is better than

01012000
12032002
30122001.

MagnusB wrote:
Hey come on, 97 years left, it won't be our problem ;].
You're making a good point! In fact, let's mess up the entire planet for future generations! {>=oD}-|-<

Aren't we doing it already?

MagnusB · Post by **MagnusB** » 20 Nov 2002, 19:39

Actually, I take back what I said about it being better. My fault. Because there's no point in sorting this way if it isn't perfect. Both of those examples you said were wrong, so there isn't really a point in saying that one is less wrong.

Aren't we doing it already?

Yes, we're well underway already. But this is just the start....

Post by **Abula** » 20 Nov 2002, 20:16

MagnusB wrote:Actually, I take back what I said about it being better. My fault. Because there's no point in sorting this way if it isn't perfect. Both of those examples you said were wrong, so there isn't really a point in saying that one is less wrong.

Now I agree :].

MopoGirl · Post by **MopoGirl** » 23 Apr 2003, 15:16

this is an old topic but i had to say smth-

(i think) the reason USA uses MMDDYYYY is because that's the way they say it... like if the date is 30.4.2003 in "normal" format, you would say in proper english --> April 30, 2003. so in their format you would write it 4.30.2002 so that when they look at it it would be easier for them to say it, otherwise their silly little american brain will get all confused

chux · Post by **chux** » 23 Apr 2003, 19:17

Hmm, its a good point, but people say "30th of April" too

MopoGirl · Post by **MopoGirl** » 24 Apr 2003, 00:36

well umm.. they're wrong, ok?

Ragnar · Post by **Ragnar** » 24 Apr 2003, 18:02

Like MopoGirl said, in America, people tend to say the date like
"April 24, 2003"

So we write it MM-DD-YY

I think it's dumb. I have my watch set to DD-MM-YY

MagnusB · Post by **MagnusB** » 24 Apr 2003, 18:51

It's so obvious that DD-MM-YY(YY) is better than MM-DD-YY. The first one is like High - Higher - Highest, the second is High - Lower - Highest. It makes no sense.

zworqy · Post by **zworqy** » 24 Apr 2003, 19:45

MagnusB wrote:It's so obvious that DD-MM-YY(YY) is better than MM-DD-YY. The first one is like High - Higher - Highest, the second is High - Lower - Highest. It makes no sense.

Just like i said in the first post...

MagnusB · Post by **MagnusB** » 24 Apr 2003, 20:10

Some times you need to really pound a point into someone's brain again and again before it sinks in.

MopoGirl · Post by **MopoGirl** » 25 Apr 2003, 00:42

to who's brain? i think everyone agree that DDMMYY is best.. ok?

Epsilon · Post by **Epsilon** » 25 Apr 2003, 01:56

I agree

Stupid Americans...Also the inches system sucks... 12 inches = 1 feet ... what's wrong with 10??? let's make it like...hmm...17.318! why not?

zworqy · Post by **zworqy** » 25 Apr 2003, 09:33

Don't get me started on the #"&% feet and inch system... it sure is weird.
I've seen on a measure tape with feet and inches that e.g. 4 ft and 4 in is more than double of 2' 2", because inches as part of feet get bigger and bigger with the feets... or something.

But 46 inches is twice as much as 23 inches 'cause a "real" inch is always 2.54 cm.

It's kinda like the Fahrenheit temperatures. The difference between 10 and 11 F is larger than the difference between 200-201 F

Bonobo · Post by **Bonobo** » 25 Apr 2003, 11:07

damn this was a long topic about a small thing... and it keeps getting longer. I think DDMMYY is tha best - DD/MM-YY they're familiar...

chux · Post by **chux** » 25 Apr 2003, 13:09

a foot at 12 inches because 12 can be divided into 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 and 12 exactly, whereas 10 can only be divided into 1, 2, 5 and 10.
Temperature, C into F is ?C x 1.8 + 32 = ?F
eg: 20C x 1.8 = 36, 36 + 32 = 68F so 20C = 36F, easy...right...?
Anything else?

Post by **SveinR** » 25 Apr 2003, 15:28

ChuckleS wrote: Temperature, C into F is ?C x 1.8 + 32 = ?F
eg: 20C x 1.8 = 36, 36 + 32 = 68F so 20C = 36F, easy...right...?

Yeah...but it's 68 though, not 36

MopoGirl · Post by **MopoGirl** » 25 Apr 2003, 17:07

ChuckleS wrote:a foot at 12 inches because 12 can be divided into 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 and 12 exactly, whereas 10 can only be divided into 1, 2, 5 and 10.
Temperature, C into F is ?C x 1.8 + 32 = ?F
eg: 20C x 1.8 = 36, 36 + 32 = 68F so 20C = 36F, easy...right...?
Anything else?

holy shit

MagnusB · Post by **MagnusB** » 25 Apr 2003, 17:29

Fahrenheit and Celsius is the same thing. It doesn't matter much which one you use.
However, The metric system is soooo much better than the feet/inches/miles etc system. I don't understand why that's so hard to see for some people.

Antz · Post by **Antz** » 25 Apr 2003, 19:16

yep, 12-phazed system would be better if ppl had lived with it for a few millenia, but with 10 fingers and the simplicity of calculations with 10-system no wonder it got popular.

but omg about f<->c what about when it's -40? u just can't tell then

Ragnar · Post by **Ragnar** » 25 Apr 2003, 20:15

Definitely, metric sysem is better than "feet and inches"
I mean, come on, people have been counting in tens for years, then it's like: "lets have 12 inches in a foot, and 3 feet in a meter!"

I also think that time should be measured in tens. you can read about it at this guy's site: http://zapatopi.net/metrictime.html
may take a while to load.

MagnusB · Post by **MagnusB** » 25 Apr 2003, 20:57

Or we could convert the rest of the world to hexadecimal. That would be cool.

Post by **Abula** » 25 Apr 2003, 21:26

Hex- or binary-watch would be so coal to have.

I got hooked to this URL and the binary clock there. Soon it's all white!

Post by **SveinR** » 25 Apr 2003, 23:15

12-based system probably came because of the fingers. They have 3 joints (don't count the thumb), and there are 4 fingers with 3 joints. 4*3=12.

zworqy · Post by **zworqy** » 26 Apr 2003, 22:59

MagnusB wrote:Fahrenheit and Celsius is the same thing. It doesn't matter much which one you use.

No it's not the same thing! 1 Celsius degree is always the same but 1 Fahrenheit degree varies. Also Celsius follows the real temeratur scale, Kelvin, you just have to add 273.15 degrees to get Kelvin degrees.

SveinR wrote:12-based system probably came because of the fingers. They have 3 joints (don't count the thumb), and there are 4 fingers with 3 joints. 4*3=12.

That was very far-fetched!

Another thing, with metric system you can easily measure very small distances like 0.000 000 1 m = 1 μm. I don't know if it's even possible with the English system...

Post by **SveinR** » 26 Apr 2003, 23:13

Far-fetched?! Omg I've read it in a book!

zworqy · Post by **zworqy** » 27 Apr 2003, 00:01

Well, the theory itself looks rather far-fetched to me...

Antz · Post by **Antz** » 27 Apr 2003, 07:47

yep what kind of a four fingered guy invented it?! some carpenter who cut of his other hand and a thumb?...