Received: from sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.192] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1WWO1k-00038Q-GI for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Sat, 05 Apr 2014 10:40:44 +0000 X-ACL-Warn: Received: from qmta07.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.62.64]) by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) id 1WWO1h-0002jK-TT for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Sat, 05 Apr 2014 10:40:44 +0000 Received: from omta12.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.62.44]) by qmta07.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id mAgK1n0010xGWP857Agck8; Sat, 05 Apr 2014 10:40:36 +0000 Received: from crushinator.localnet ([IPv6:2601:6:4800:47f:219:d1ff:fe75:dc2f]) by omta12.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id mAga1n00W4VnV2P3YAgb6H; Sat, 05 Apr 2014 10:40:36 +0000 From: Matt Whitlock To: Jorge =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Tim=F3n?= Date: Sat, 05 Apr 2014 06:40:33 -0400 Message-ID: <1750679.2ZqEPETxMv@crushinator> User-Agent: KMail/4.12.4 (Linux/3.12.13-gentoo; KDE/4.12.4; x86_64; ; ) In-Reply-To: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. -0.0 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/, no trust [76.96.62.64 listed in list.dnswl.org] 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: 1WWO1h-0002jK-TT Cc: 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: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 05 Apr 2014 10:40:44 -0000 On Saturday, 5 April 2014, at 12:21 pm, Jorge Tim=F3n 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 dat= e format that is unambiguous across all cultures is YYYY-MM-DD. (No cul= ture uses YYYY-DD-MM, or at least the ISO seems to think so.)