Stewart Stremler wrote: > begin quoting James G. Sack (jim) as of Thu, Aug 23, 2007 at 03:23:56PM > -0700: >> Stewart Stremler wrote: > [snip] >>> Superior for _what_? Timestamps suck. How do you find anything by timestamp? >>> Sure, the computer loves it, and it provides a nice sort order, but I've >>> rarely ever successfully found anything by _time_. >> Superior for my purposes :-) . > > Can't argue with that. > >> Would it be better if I said time rather than timestamp? > > Nah. > >> I didn't mean to emphasize any technical term. I just meant that however >> else I might sort and group and regroup things, I wish that I may always >> go look for things by date and strict sequence. > > Fair 'nuff. > > Me, I can't remember dates worth beans. If I have to testify and they > ask me "What were you doing the night of april seventh, 2005", I'm > doomed. "Haven't the faintest" would be the best I could do. > >> I may be obsessed with a ledger mentality, but I really do think it's >> important -- and I do search for things from that viewpoint. Mail is in >> fact one place where I do that a lot. > > How do you /find/ anything that way? > > My eyes glaze over by about the fifth screen. >
Yeah, a linear search is tedious! it gets worse with passing time! ;-) Lots of times I remember something related that is /findable/ by other (efficient) means - ie, I know some other search key. Then if I can look around in the time-vicinity, I stumble onto an "oh yeah, that's who that was" discovery. Regards, ..jim -- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
