Received: from sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.194] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from <laanwj@gmail.com>) id 1WWOmG-0001Tt-6F for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Sat, 05 Apr 2014 11:28:48 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.223.171 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.223.171; envelope-from=laanwj@gmail.com; helo=mail-ie0-f171.google.com; Received: from mail-ie0-f171.google.com ([209.85.223.171]) by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1WWOmF-0004Je-8y for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Sat, 05 Apr 2014 11:28:48 +0000 Received: by mail-ie0-f171.google.com with SMTP id ar20so4463715iec.2 for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>; Sat, 05 Apr 2014 04:28:42 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.50.43.170 with SMTP id x10mr9077432igl.20.1396697322008; Sat, 05 Apr 2014 04:28:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.64.70.131 with HTTP; Sat, 5 Apr 2014 04:28:41 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <1750679.2ZqEPETxMv@crushinator> References: <CAPg+sBh1_mYH4JNv1xTFnLsoC=qzmgi0QaLAyd7YeQ=wZQBDSQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAJHLa0P9SmynBfJ94A1js30j2OsC0PeEhEy-n+6Wa2Sogo+TNw@mail.gmail.com> <CAC1+kJPUxNn0iSz=c3OTCFS26sg2jxS-goUdE7LSKphtE9owKw@mail.gmail.com> <1750679.2ZqEPETxMv@crushinator> Date: Sat, 5 Apr 2014 13:28:41 +0200 Message-ID: <CA+s+GJBm_0AX3MTWFvbNw1_GxXFTf_7wHv0GvkATUtz0v6wpsQ@mail.gmail.com> From: Wladimir <laanwj@gmail.com> To: Matt Whitlock <bip@mattwhitlock.name> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e01176cadbcba5804f649effc X-Spam-Score: -0.6 (/) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. -1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for sender-domain 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider (laanwj[at]gmail.com) -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message -0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from author's domain 0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid -0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature X-Headers-End: 1WWOmF-0004Je-8y Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net> Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Finite monetary supply for Bitcoin X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: <bitcoin-development.lists.sourceforge.net> List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>, <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development> List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net> List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>, <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe> X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 05 Apr 2014 11:28:48 -0000 --089e01176cadbcba5804f649effc Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sat, Apr 5, 2014 at 12:40 PM, Matt Whitlock <bip@mattwhitlock.name>wrote= : > On Saturday, 5 April 2014, at 12:21 pm, Jorge Tim=C3=B3n wrote: > > I like both DD-MM-YYYY and YYYY-MM-DD. I just dislike MM-DD-YYYY and > YYYY-DD-MM. > > Your preferences reflect a cultural bias. The only entirely numeric date > format that is unambiguous across all cultures is YYYY-MM-DD. (No culture > uses YYYY-DD-MM, or at least the ISO seems to think so.) > Let's not waste any time shed-painting this. I'd like to finish this discussion at once: https://xkcd.com/1179/ Wladimir --089e01176cadbcba5804f649effc Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">= On Sat, Apr 5, 2014 at 12:40 PM, Matt Whitlock <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a hre= f=3D"mailto:bip@mattwhitlock.name" target=3D"_blank">bip@mattwhitlock.name<= /a>></span> wrote:<br> <blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-= left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div class=3D"">On Saturd= ay, 5 April 2014, at 12:21 pm, Jorge Tim=C3=B3n wrote:<br> > I like both DD-MM-YYYY and YYYY-MM-DD. I just dislike MM-DD-YYYY and Y= YYY-DD-MM.<br> <br> </div>Your preferences reflect a cultural bias. The only entirely numeric d= ate format that is unambiguous across all cultures is YYYY-MM-DD. (No cultu= re uses YYYY-DD-MM, or at least the ISO seems to think so.)<br></blockquote= > <div><br>Let's not waste any time shed-painting this. I'd like to f= inish this discussion at once:<br><br><a href=3D"https://xkcd.com/1179/">ht= tps://xkcd.com/1179/</a><br><br></div><div>Wladimir<br></div></div><br><br> </div></div> --089e01176cadbcba5804f649effc--