Time elapsed.

[ozwinner]

My father in law left Melbourne yesterday after living with us for 10 days. That was relatively unpleasent.

Time is an elephant.

so thats why you have been quiet on here, ya dad in law banned you.......

Al

[jow104]

My father in law left Melbourne yesterday after living with us for 10 days. That was relatively unpleasent.

Time is an elephant.

Lovely daughter tho Grunt.

[ozwinner]

Back to the time issue.....

I have enough good stuff happening in my life right now that I really dont know what day it is, never mind what hour it is, I dont want to look at a time/hour/day thing and have to work out what/where/when?

Just give me the time elasped.........please.

Al

[Skew ChiDAMN!!]

Wot Al said. Not all of us have clocks & calendars regulating every aspect of our lives. Some of us are quite content to leave it at "day," "night," "cold season" and "hot season." If I need more precision I use "early in the...", "late in the..." or "middle of the..."

When I see "X Y ago" I know at a glance it's relatively recent. Half the time, when asked my age I gotta ask what year it is first and do the maths.

Needing to check actual date/time to know whether a post is current or archive fodder is a right PITA.

[silentC]

At last! Some sort of a rationale. Tenuous at best, but at least it has some logic to it. Well done, Skewy, it has taken, let's see, 12 hours? to get that answer. Damn, if I had elapsed time instead of a date, I could have worked that out so much more easily.

But, does that mean if a post you haven't read is older than, what? 2 days? A week? 5 minutes? it's archive fodder? What if it is really, really interesting? How will you know unless you read it? And then, it wont matter how old it is, it is either good stuff or archive fodder, by which time you've already read it and it's too late.

Jeez, I dunno, I just can't make any sense out of all this. Think I need another glass...

[HappyHammer]

So why do we still have date and time ? :confused:

HH.

[silentC]

Because all right-minded people know it's the right way to go

[HappyHammer]

Because all right-minded people know it's the right way to go

Is that right-minded in the de bono sense?

HH.

[silentC]

Right-minded, not right-brained

[HappyHammer]

Touche

HH.

[baxter]

But, does that mean if a post you haven't read is older than, what? 2 days? A week? 5 minutes? it's archive fodder? What if it is really, really interesting? How will you know unless you read it? And then, it wont matter how old it is, it is either good stuff or archive fodder, by which time you've already read it and it's too late. ...

If you haven't read a news item until you get your fish and chips wraped in an old newspaper, then it is still news when you read it - days, weeks or months later. Information is never archive fodder.

On the other hand, how many have noticed that if you come onto the forum as a guest the posting time is shown as GMT +11 however if you log in then in my case (Eastern Standard Time) it is GMT +10. Therefore, as a guest HappyHammer's last posting was at 1.49pm and not 12.49pm. Does this mean that our UK friends (GMT) think that we sit up until 4.00am so that they can read our post at 6.00pm the previous day if they log on but only 3.00am if they are a guest.

Elapsed time makes sense. We all can see at a glance how long ago the post was actually submitted without wasting our time clock watching:mad: .

To those forumites in the UK, I think it is now 5.20am your time:confused: . Have a nice day

[silentC]

Now hang on a minute, in your opening paragraph, you say that "it is still news when you read it - days, weeks or months later", which implies that you don't think it is important how old a topic is. Then you go on to suggest in your second last paragraph that it is important to know how long ago the post was made. You can't have it both ways, so which is it? C'mon, you elapsed time people don't have a lot of logic to your arguments

I, on the other hand, have a lot of arguments to my logic.

[Lignum]

take no notice of the sh!tstiring rantings and ravings of Silent and just hurry up and go back to elapsed time

[craigb]

I'm with you Darren. That's why I voted for the timestamp.

I like the precision of it.

Trouble is, we timestamp people are heavily outnumbered it would appear.

[Sturdee]

Trouble is, we timestamp people are heavily outnumbered it would appear.

Yes, we are outnumbered by those misguided people suffering from Con the Fruiterer syndrome.

Doesn't matter it was a couple of minutes ago or a couple of hours ago or a couple of days ago. Never precise, never correct.


Peter.