On 11-11-18 12:40 AM, Robert Cummings wrote:
On 11-11-17 06:24 PM, Fredric L. Rice wrote:
Consider this -- do you think the second before
the "Big Bang" was negative or null?
I don't know. There's no point concerning ourselves
with unanswerable questions.
The question itself is a logical absu
On 11-11-17 06:24 PM, Fredric L. Rice wrote:
Consider this -- do you think the second before
the "Big Bang" was negative or null?
I don't know. There's no point concerning ourselves
with unanswerable questions.
The question itself is a logical absurdity since there was no time prior
to the Big
On 17 Nov 2011, at 20:17, Tedd Sperling wrote:
> On Nov 17, 2011, at 11:58 AM, Stuart Dallas wrote:
>> The epoch specifies the exact time that 0 represents. It makes no claims as
>> far as that being the start of anything...
>>
>> "defined as the number of seconds elapsed since midnight Coordinat
>
>> It's another nail in the coffin of deity constructors.
-
And just as this thread was getting boringly OT! ;-{)]
George Langley
Interactive Developer
www.georgelangley.ca
On 17 Nov 2011, at 23:24, Fredric L. Rice wrote:
>>> Consider this -- do you think the second before
>>> the "Big Bang" was negative or null?
>> I don't know. There's no point concerning ourselves
>> with unanswerable questions.
>
> The question itself is a logical absurdity since there was no ti
>> Consider this -- do you think the second before
>> the "Big Bang" was negative or null?
> I don't know. There's no point concerning ourselves
> with unanswerable questions.
The question itself is a logical absurdity since there was no time prior
to the Big Bang. The advent of time began when th
> What if we were to throw in quantum duality in here?
> Null and !Null at the same time
Please no, our company is trying to outsource to India and they're
constantly trying to shove things through narrow slits and the effect has
been costly.
--
PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
T
On Thu, 17 Nov 2011, Tedd Sperling wrote:
On Nov 17, 2011, at 11:58 AM, Stuart Dallas wrote:
The epoch specifies the exact time that 0 represents. It makes no claims as far
as that being the start of anything...
"defined as the number of seconds elapsed since midnight Coordinated Universal Ti
On Nov 17, 2011, at 11:58 AM, Stuart Dallas wrote:
> The epoch specifies the exact time that 0 represents. It makes no claims as
> far as that being the start of anything...
>
> "defined as the number of seconds elapsed since midnight Coordinated
> Universal Time (UTC) of Thursday, January 1, 19
On Nov 17, 2011, at 14:03, Tim Streater wrote:
> I'm playing around with web sockets and have found a couple of simple servers
> written in PHP. They both appear to perform the initial handshake with a
> client but then just give up because socket_recv reports that there is no
> data. I'm conf
I'm playing around with web sockets and have found a couple of simple servers
written in PHP. They both appear to perform the initial handshake with a client
but then just give up because socket_recv reports that there is no data. I'm
confused by this as, the handshake being complete, I wouldn't
On Nov 17, 2011, at 10:01 AM, Tedd Sperling
wrote:
On Nov 15, 2011, at 2:54 PM, Steven Staples wrote:
sent:
wrote:
PS: I know it's not Friday, but this question came up in class
yesterday and I thought maybe all of you might like to guess why
null is Wednesday?
Wait.. What??
$ php
On Nov 17, 2011, at 10:33 AM, Tedd Sperling
wrote:
On Nov 17, 2011, at 11:07 AM, Stuart Dallas wrote:
On 17 Nov 2011, at 16:01, Tedd Sperling wrote:
To all:
Okay, so now that we have had people reply, here's my take.
The Unix timestamp started on 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 + -- and
tha
On 11-11-17 11:33 AM, HallMarc Websites wrote:
To all:
Okay, so now that we have had people reply, here's my take.
The Unix timestamp started on 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 + -- and that was
a
Thursday.
The second before (i.e., 31 December, 1969 23:59:59:59 + ) was null,
which was Wedne
On 17 Nov 2011, at 16:33, Tedd Sperling wrote:
> On Nov 17, 2011, at 11:07 AM, Stuart Dallas wrote:
>> On 17 Nov 2011, at 16:01, Tedd Sperling wrote:
>> To all:
>>>
>>> Okay, so now that we have had people reply, here's my take.
>>>
>>> The Unix timestamp started on 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 + --
On 16 Nov 2011 at 16:30, Geoff Shang wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Nov 2011, Tim Streater wrote:
>
>> I find I need to do this:
>>
>> date_default_timezone_set (@date_default_timezone_get ());
>>
>> in all my scripts since 5.x.x to avoid rude messages.
>
> Apart from the fact that I've not seen the rude
>
> > To all:
> >
> > Okay, so now that we have had people reply, here's my take.
> >
> > The Unix timestamp started on 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 + -- and that was
a
> Thursday.
> >
> > The second before (i.e., 31 December, 1969 23:59:59:59 + ) was null,
> which was Wednesday.
>
> I take issue
On Nov 17, 2011, at 11:07 AM, Stuart Dallas wrote:
> On 17 Nov 2011, at 16:01, Tedd Sperling wrote:
> To all:
>>
>> Okay, so now that we have had people reply, here's my take.
>>
>> The Unix timestamp started on 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 + -- and that was a
>> Thursday.
>>
>> The second before (
On 17 Nov 2011, at 16:01, Tedd Sperling wrote:
> To all:
>
> Okay, so now that we have had people reply, here's my take.
>
> The Unix timestamp started on 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 + -- and that was a
> Thursday.
>
> The second before (i.e., 31 December, 1969 23:59:59:59 + ) was null,
> w
On Nov 15, 2011, at 2:54 PM, Steven Staples wrote:
>> sent:
>>> wrote:
PS: I know it's not Friday, but this question came up in class
yesterday and I thought maybe all of you might like to guess why
null is Wednesday?
>>>
>>> Wait.. What??
>>>
>>> $ php -r 'echo date("l",NULL),"\
> Hi Friend!I knew things couldnt get any worse I consider myself lucky
> to have found this now im in this for the long run you should consider trying
> it href="http://lacadenasport.es/profile/31AlanWalsh/";>http://lacadenasport.es/profile/31AlanWalsh/see
> you.
>
This list is for PHP discuss
21 matches
Mail list logo
