"Martin Underwood" wrote in message
...

Yes, I've never understood the logic of the American convention of not
putting the DMY in ascending (or decending) order of significance: either
DMY or YMD. The latter, while much less common, has the advantage that a
date stored as a text string in this format will sort into ascending order
of date.

Since I'm aware of the potential for confusion, I never write a date as
1/2/2005 because I know it could be interpreted as 1 Feb or Jan 2. Instead
I
always write it as 1 Jan 2005 to avoid ambiguity. I suspect that more
Europeans know about the American convention being different (and the need
to avoid ambiguity) than the converse.

Exactly. Working in IT I started to reorganise the company database that I
had inherited into yyyymmdd order in about 1989/1990, with all
displayed/printed dates in the format dd mmm yyyy, long before the whole Y2K
issue had been seriously raised. As a result we had virtually nothing to do
when Y2K arrived!

Mrs Redboots ) gurgled happily, sounding much
like they were saying :

IF they live in East London.

True, but there will be improved transport links to East London!

Woo. A tube between Reality and Stratford without crack smoking slappers
fighting on it. That'll certainly be an improvement.

On 6 Jul 2005 08:21:43 -0700, "Boltar" wrote:



Mrs Redboots wrote:
umpston wrote to uk.transport.london on Wed, 6 Jul 2005:

And it was bloody brilliant!! Bring it on!

AMEN!! I, for one, am utterly delighted. Whether we actually enjoy
living here while it's happening is one thing - but I do think it will,
overall, be an excellent thing for London, and contribute enormously to
quality of life in that part of the capital after the event.

Can't wait. Hope all the extra tax I'll pay for this pointless waste
of money will mean the athletes and the locals in stratford have a
whale
of a time.

IIRC, you don't live in London, so essentially _you_ won't be "paying"
unless you choose to play the Lottery.

--
Nick Cooper

[Carefully remove the detonators from my e-mail address to reply!]

The London Underground at War:
http://www.cwgcuser.org.uk/personal/...ra/lu/tuaw.htm
625-Online - classic British television:
http://www.625.org.uk
'Things to Come' - An Incomplete Classic:
http://www.thingstocome.org.uk

On 07 Jul 2005 12:31:20 GMT, Adrian wrote:

Mrs Redboots ) gurgled happily, sounding
much like they were saying :

Because they will have the sports facilities on their doorsteps, not
2.5 hours away by Eurostar.

IF they live in East London.

As a nation we are desperately short of world-class sport facilities,
not just for holding events, but for training. It's five weeks from
the Commonwealth Games trials, and British swimmers are having to fly
out to Slovenia, because there aren't enough decent places to train
here, FFS! There are only twenty 50-metre swimming pools on nineteen
sites in the entire country - Berlin alone has more than that.
Australia had 1,600 in total, 45 of which are full Olympic standard.
--
Nick Cooper

[Carefully remove the detonators from my e-mail address to reply!]

The London Underground at War:
http://www.cwgcuser.org.uk/personal/...ra/lu/tuaw.htm
625-Online - classic British television:
http://www.625.org.uk
'Things to Come' - An Incomplete Classic:
http://www.thingstocome.org.uk

Nick Cooper ) gurgled happily,
sounding much like they were saying :

As a nation we are desperately short of world-class sport facilities,
not just for holding events, but for training. It's five weeks from
the Commonwealth Games trials, and British swimmers are having to fly
out to Slovenia, because there aren't enough decent places to train
here, FFS! There are only twenty 50-metre swimming pools on nineteen
sites in the entire country - Berlin alone has more than that.
Australia had 1,600 in total, 45 of which are full Olympic standard.

Why do we need to host the Olympics in order to build more swimming pools?

And wouldn't it make more sense if we were putting more facilities in to
spread 'em about a bit rather than cram 'em all in one corner of one city
in one corner of the country?

On Wed, 6 Jul 2005, General Von Clinkerhoffen wrote:

Nice to see you looking on the bright side as usual Boltar, the glass is
definatly half empty with you.

I always thought the glass was *completely* empty with Boltar.

tom

--
They travel the world in their ice cream van ...

On 07 Jul 2005 15:47:53 GMT, Adrian wrote:

Nick Cooper ) gurgled happily,
sounding much like they were saying :

As a nation we are desperately short of world-class sport facilities,
not just for holding events, but for training. It's five weeks from
the Commonwealth Games trials, and British swimmers are having to fly
out to Slovenia, because there aren't enough decent places to train
here, FFS! There are only twenty 50-metre swimming pools on nineteen
sites in the entire country - Berlin alone has more than that.
Australia had 1,600 in total, 45 of which are full Olympic standard.

Why do we need to host the Olympics in order to build more swimming pools?

And wouldn't it make more sense if we were putting more facilities in to
spread 'em about a bit rather than cram 'em all in one corner of one city
in one corner of the country?

I can't speak for other sports, but certainly in population terms
London is not an illogical choice for the new Aquatic Centre. The
existing pools - at least the ones that are open to the public - are
fairly evenly spread across England & Scotland, with the only real gap
being the south coast and Birmingham, although there is a pool in
Coventry. London only has Ealing and Crystal Palace, which aren't
really _in_ London. Considering the population of London and the
surrounding commuter towns, even to maintain the average balance
across the country, the capital should have four 50m pools.
--
Nick Cooper

[Carefully remove the detonators from my e-mail address to reply!]

The London Underground at War:
http://www.cwgcuser.org.uk/personal/...ra/lu/tuaw.htm
625-Online - classic British television:
http://www.625.org.uk
'Things to Come' - An Incomplete Classic:
http://www.thingstocome.org.uk

On Thu, 7 Jul 2005 19:01:38 +0100, Tom Anderson
wrote:

On Wed, 6 Jul 2005, General Von Clinkerhoffen wrote:

Nice to see you looking on the bright side as usual Boltar, the glass is
definatly half empty with you.

I always thought the glass was *completely* empty with Boltar.

Or filled with ****.
--
Nick Cooper

[Carefully remove the detonators from my e-mail address to reply!]

The London Underground at War:
http://www.cwgcuser.org.uk/personal/...ra/lu/tuaw.htm
625-Online - classic British television:
http://www.625.org.uk
'Things to Come' - An Incomplete Classic:
http://www.thingstocome.org.uk

On Thu, 7 Jul 2005, Nick Cooper wrote:

On Thu, 7 Jul 2005 19:01:38 +0100, Tom Anderson
wrote:

On Wed, 6 Jul 2005, General Von Clinkerhoffen wrote:

Nice to see you looking on the bright side as usual Boltar, the glass is
definatly half empty with you.

I always thought the glass was *completely* empty with Boltar.

Or filled with ****.

Sometimes it's bile.

tom

--
3364147 Complete space vehicles (excluding propulsion systems)

On Thu, 07 Jul 2005 18:04:42 GMT,
(Nick Cooper) wrote:

I can't speak for other sports, but certainly in population terms
London is not an illogical choice for the new Aquatic Centre. The
existing pools - at least the ones that are open to the public - are
fairly evenly spread across England & Scotland, with the only real gap
being the south coast and Birmingham, although there is a pool in
Coventry. London only has Ealing and Crystal Palace, which aren't
really _in_ London. Considering the population of London and the
surrounding commuter towns, even to maintain the average balance
across the country, the capital should have four 50m pools.

Despite being a 50m pool, the Manchester pool is (was, I haven't used
it in a few years) normally only half-open (allowing a 25m swimming
length). This is apparently because they need two lifeguards to
patrol a 50m pool, and the Council are too cheap.

No idea if this applies to the others, mind!

Neil

--
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
When replying please use neil at the above domain
'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read.