Asp Forum - Re: How to convert long/milliseconds to DateTime?

Gavin Kistner

10/24/2006 8:04:00 PM

From: khaines@enigo.com [mailto:khaines@enigo.com]
> irb(main):003:0> Time.at(1161275493444 / 1000.0)
> => Thu Oct 19 11:31:33 CDT 2006

That trailing ".0" is important (and I omitted it in my answer), if you
want to preserve the sub-second resolution present in your long value.
(Without it, Ruby will perform integer arithmetic and your resulting
Time instance will fall exactly on a second boundary.)

Good point, Kirk.

24 Answers

Mark

9/30/2010 10:58:00 AM

On Sep 30, 3:43 am, djhe...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote:
> In article <ANIM8Rfsk-E04A51.20322129092...@news.dc1.easynews.com>,
>
>
>
>
>
> Anim8rFSK <ANIM8R...@cox.net> wrote:
> >In article <i7qsk0$f8...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> > Suzanne Blom <bo...@sueblom.net> wrote:
>
> >> On 9/26/2010 2:36 PM, Joe Snod wrote:
> >> > On Sep 26, 12:19 pm, "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)"
> >> > <seaw...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
> >> >> Joe Snodgrass wrote:
> >> >>> How many movies can you think of a movie with allusions to the
> >> >>> stigmata, ie. any human physical imperfection representing an evil
> >> >>> nature? (Please, no sad horror movies named "Stigmata.")
>
> >> >> This is an interesting intepretation, you see, because I remember
> >> >> "stigmata" as being a HOLY mark. For instance, IIRC Padre Pio supposedly
> >> >> bore the stigmata -- the wounds equivalent to those borne by Christ.. His
> >> >> hands and feet were said to have wounds in them as though nails had been
> >> >> driven through them, he had a cut in his side as though from a spear,
> >> >> etc. They didn't symbolize that the Padre was supposedly evil but rather
> >> >> the opposite, that he was especially blessed.
>
> >> > You're right, so I revise my claim to be that a stigmata can be
> >> > either. Of course, in a scientific society, we know that wounds don't
> >> > suddenly appear on priests' hands, and if someone claims it happened
> >> > to him, we know that he made the wounds himself, and again the marks
> >> > represent sin, not salvation.
>
> >> Not at all. Humans can have stigmata without doing anything physical to
> >> cause it. We believe it falls into the same category as hysterical
> >> strength. But there is no reason to believe people with stigmata
> >> deliberately cause their wounds.
>
> >Uh, yeah, there is. Nobody actually spontaneously erupts with the marks
> >of Christ on their limbs.
>
> Oh, sure they do. Not often, and if you wish to say it's just a
> psychosomatic ailment instead of a sign of divine favor, go
> ahead. The mind can do strange things to the body, and vice
> occasionally versa.
>
> --
> Dorothy J. Heydt
> Vallejo, California
> djheydt at gmail dot com
> Should you wish to email me, you'd better use the gmail edress.
> Kithrup's all spammy and hotmail's been hacked.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

It actually happens, and it isn't the mind:

"There have been over 500 reported stigmatics who have displayed
wounds similar to those inflicted upon Jesus. The first recorded case
of these wounds was in the year 1222, by a man named Stephen Langton
of England. Saint Francis of Assisi first suffered the wounds in La
Verna, Italy, in 1224."

Sure, there have been imposters:

"There have been historical stigmatics that were known to have faked
wounds, such as Magdalena de la Cruz (1487-1560), who admitted the
fraud.Similarly self-inflicted wounds can be associated with certain
brain disorders. Some people who fake stigmata suffer from Munchausen
syndrome which is characterised by an intense desire for attention.
People with Munchausen hurt themselves or fake an illness hoping to
end up in a hospital where they can enjoy attention and care."

But here's the kicker...

"Also, according to experts, the blood seeping from the wounds of the
individual should be the blood of Christ, thus yielding two types of
blood from one wound."

Also:

" In supposed real Stigmata, the blood flows freely and cannot be
stopped with traditional medical care. Faked Stigmata are superficial
and heal quickly. Blood will appear fresh and of a bright, deep color.
The blood flow will often go against the laws of gravity. The stigmata
are usually received with states of extreme ecstasy."

http://www.crystalinks.com/sti...

In conclusion, I believe this to be real and of divine origin,
as per the scientific method of postulation. It fits.

---
Mark

Brian M. Scott

9/30/2010 4:25:00 PM

On Thu, 30 Sep 2010 03:57:34 -0700 (PDT), Mark
<blueriverday@yahoo.com> wrote in
<news:57884d3e-b6b1-432b-8b9e-2f5ccda42749@i21g2000yqg.googlegroups.com>
in
rec.arts.movies.past-films,rec.arts.comics.dc.universe,rec.arts.sf.composition,rec.arts.books,misc.writing:

> On Sep 30, 3:43 am, djhe...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote:

>> In article <ANIM8Rfsk-E04A51.20322129092...@news.dc1.easynews.com>,

[...]

>>> Uh, yeah, there is. Nobody actually spontaneously
>>> erupts with the marks of Christ on their limbs.

>> Oh, sure they do. Not often, and if you wish to say it's just a
>> psychosomatic ailment instead of a sign of divine favor, go
>> ahead. The mind can do strange things to the body, and vice
>> occasionally versa.

> It actually happens, and it isn't the mind:

True, but not in the way that you mean: sometimes the marks
are deliberately inflicted.

[...]

> But here's the kicker...

> "Also, according to experts, the blood seeping from the
> wounds of the individual should be the blood of Christ,
> thus yielding two types of blood from one wound."

So? There appears to be no evidence that such a phenomenon
has actually been observed.

[...]

> http://www.crystalinks.com/sti...

Hardly a reliable source.

> In conclusion, I believe this to be real and of divine origin,
> as per the scientific method of postulation. It fits.

You're free to believe what you please, but for real
scientific research I suggest starting with
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stigmata#Scientific_re...
and following the references cited there.

Brian

Dr. Zachary Smith

9/30/2010 6:53:00 PM

> "Also, according to experts, the blood seeping from the wounds of the
> individual should be the blood of Christ, thus yielding two types of
> blood from one wound."

Which raises the question, what blood type was Christ, and what if his
type is incompatible with the stigmatics? Do they suffer the symptoms
of blood incompatibility?

On Sep 30, 6:57 am, Mark <blueriver...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Sep 30, 3:43 am, djhe...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article <ANIM8Rfsk-E04A51.20322129092...@news.dc1.easynews.com>,
>
> > Anim8rFSK <ANIM8R...@cox.net> wrote:
> > >In article <i7qsk0$f8...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> > > Suzanne Blom <bo...@sueblom.net> wrote:
>
> > >> On 9/26/2010 2:36 PM, Joe Snod wrote:
> > >> > On Sep 26, 12:19 pm, "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)"
> > >> > <seaw...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
> > >> >> Joe Snodgrass wrote:
> > >> >>> How many movies can you think of a movie with allusions to the
> > >> >>> stigmata, ie. any human physical imperfection representing an evil
> > >> >>> nature? (Please, no sad horror movies named "Stigmata.")
>
> > >> >> This is an interesting intepretation, you see, because I remember
> > >> >> "stigmata" as being a HOLY mark. For instance, IIRC Padre Pio supposedly
> > >> >> bore the stigmata -- the wounds equivalent to those borne by Christ. His
> > >> >> hands and feet were said to have wounds in them as though nails had been
> > >> >> driven through them, he had a cut in his side as though from a spear,
> > >> >> etc. They didn't symbolize that the Padre was supposedly evil but rather
> > >> >> the opposite, that he was especially blessed.
>
> > >> > You're right, so I revise my claim to be that a stigmata can be
> > >> > either. Of course, in a scientific society, we know that wounds don't
> > >> > suddenly appear on priests' hands, and if someone claims it happened
> > >> > to him, we know that he made the wounds himself, and again the marks
> > >> > represent sin, not salvation.
>
> > >> Not at all. Humans can have stigmata without doing anything physical to
> > >> cause it. We believe it falls into the same category as hysterical
> > >> strength. But there is no reason to believe people with stigmata
> > >> deliberately cause their wounds.
>
> > >Uh, yeah, there is. Nobody actually spontaneously erupts with the marks
> > >of Christ on their limbs.
>
> > Oh, sure they do. Not often, and if you wish to say it's just a
> > psychosomatic ailment instead of a sign of divine favor, go
> > ahead. The mind can do strange things to the body, and vice
> > occasionally versa.
>
> > --
> > Dorothy J. Heydt
> > Vallejo, California
> > djheydt at gmail dot com
> > Should you wish to email me, you'd better use the gmail edress.
> > Kithrup's all spammy and hotmail's been hacked.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> It actually happens, and it isn't the mind:
>
> "There have been over 500 reported stigmatics who have displayed
> wounds similar to those inflicted upon Jesus. The first recorded case
> of these wounds was in the year 1222, by a man named Stephen Langton
> of England. Saint Francis of Assisi first suffered the wounds in La
> Verna, Italy, in 1224."
>
> Sure, there have been imposters:
>
> "There have been historical stigmatics that were known to have faked
> wounds, such as Magdalena de la Cruz (1487-1560), who admitted the
> fraud.Similarly self-inflicted wounds can be associated with certain
> brain disorders. Some people who fake stigmata suffer from Munchausen
> syndrome which is characterised by an intense desire for attention.
> People with Munchausen hurt themselves or fake an illness hoping to
> end up in a hospital where they can enjoy attention and care."
>
> But here's the kicker...
>
> "Also, according to experts, the blood seeping from the wounds of the
> individual should be the blood of Christ, thus yielding two types of
> blood from one wound."
>
> Also:
>
> " In supposed real Stigmata, the blood flows freely and cannot be
> stopped with traditional medical care. Faked Stigmata are superficial
> and heal quickly. Blood will appear fresh and of a bright, deep color.
> The blood flow will often go against the laws of gravity. The stigmata
> are usually received with states of extreme ecstasy."
>
> http://www.crystalinks.com/sti...
>
> In conclusion, I believe this to be real and of divine origin,
> as per the scientific method of postulation. It fits.
>
> ---
> Mark- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Mark

9/30/2010 9:39:00 PM

On Sep 30, 12:24 pm, "Brian M. Scott" <b.sc...@csuohio.edu> wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Sep 2010 03:57:34 -0700 (PDT), Mark
> <blueriver...@yahoo.com> wrote in
> <news:57884d3e-b6b1-432b-8b9e-2f5ccda42749@i21g2000yqg.googlegroups.com>
> in
> rec.arts.movies.past-films,rec.arts.comics.dc.universe,rec.arts.sf.composition,rec.arts.books,misc.writing:
>
> > On Sep 30, 3:43 am, djhe...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote:
> >> In article <ANIM8Rfsk-E04A51.20322129092...@news.dc1.easynews.com>,
>
> [...]
>
> >>> Uh, yeah, there is. Nobody actually spontaneously
> >>> erupts with the marks of Christ on their limbs.
> >> Oh, sure they do. Not often, and if you wish to say it's just a
> >> psychosomatic ailment instead of a sign of divine favor, go
> >> ahead. The mind can do strange things to the body, and vice
> >> occasionally versa.
> > It actually happens, and it isn't the mind:
>
> True, but not in the way that you mean: sometimes the marks
> are deliberately inflicted.

Excuse me sir, but I do believe that I just posted that
and you've chosen to snip it for some reason. It's
the part where Munchausen is mentioned? Yes,
that part, the part you snipped and say isn't addressed.

> [...]
>
> > But here's the kicker...
> > "Also, according to experts, the blood seeping from the
> > wounds of the individual should be the blood of Christ,
> > thus yielding two types of blood from one wound."
>
> So? There appears to be no evidence that such a phenomenon
> has actually been observed.

The phenomenon has been observed over, and over, and
over and over and over. There have been chemical
analyses done. The Vatican has examined this.

> [...]
>
> > http://www.crystalinks.com/sti...
>
> Hardly a reliable source.

Oh? Ok, I'm looking forward to your explanation as to
a valid reason why the source is incredulous. Please
be as specific as possible.

> > In conclusion, I believe this to be real and of divine origin,
> > as per the scientific method of postulation. It fits.
>
> You're free to believe what you please,

Yes, I'm well aware of that. I do.

> but for real
> scientific research I suggest starting with
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stigmata#Scientific_re...
> and following the references cited there.

It will lead to more sources, which should be examined.
But if you're trying to tell me that Wikipedia is a valid
source for information, then you are sadly, sadly
mistaken. Anyone can change or say anything there,
so I will quote you. Ok?

"Hardly a reliable source".

My proof of this?

Because anyone can edit or add anything there.

---
Mark

> Brian

Duggy

9/30/2010 9:47:00 PM

On Oct 1, 7:39 am, Mark <blueriver...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > but for real
> > scientific research I suggest starting with
> > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stigmata#Scientific_re...
> > and following the references cited there.

> It will lead to more sources, which should be examined.
> But if you're trying to tell me that Wikipedia is a valid
> source for information, then you are sadly, sadly
> mistaken.

Where did he say valid source of information? He said stating point.

Shesh.

And just because anyone can change it, doesn't mean it's as wrong as
that sounds. Sure, there are mistakes, but not enough to be "sadly,
sadly mistaken". Just mistaken.

> Because anyone can edit or add anything there.

Which means most vandalism and a lot of mistakes are quickly fixed.

===
= DUG.
===

Mark

9/30/2010 9:49:00 PM

On Sep 30, 2:52 pm, "Dr. Zachary Smith" <Dr.Sm...@rochester.rr.com>
wrote:
> > "Also, according to experts, the blood seeping from the wounds of the
> > individual should be the blood of Christ, thus yielding two types of
> > blood from one wound."
>
> Which raises the question, what blood type was Christ, and what if his
> type is incompatible with the stigmatics? Do they suffer the symptoms
> of blood incompatibility?
>
> On Sep 30, 6:57 am, Mark <blueriver...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Sep 30, 3:43 am, djhe...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote:
>
> > > In article <ANIM8Rfsk-E04A51.20322129092...@news.dc1.easynews.com>,
>
> > > Anim8rFSK <ANIM8R...@cox.net> wrote:
> > > >In article <i7qsk0$f8...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> > > > Suzanne Blom <bo...@sueblom.net> wrote:
>
> > > >> On 9/26/2010 2:36 PM, Joe Snod wrote:
> > > >> > On Sep 26, 12:19 pm, "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)"
> > > >> > <seaw...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
> > > >> >> Joe Snodgrass wrote:
> > > >> >>> How many movies can you think of a movie with allusions to the
> > > >> >>> stigmata, ie. any human physical imperfection representing an evil
> > > >> >>> nature? (Please, no sad horror movies named "Stigmata.")
>
> > > >> >> This is an interesting intepretation, you see, because I remember
> > > >> >> "stigmata" as being a HOLY mark. For instance, IIRC Padre Pio supposedly
> > > >> >> bore the stigmata -- the wounds equivalent to those borne by Christ. His
> > > >> >> hands and feet were said to have wounds in them as though nails had been
> > > >> >> driven through them, he had a cut in his side as though from a spear,
> > > >> >> etc. They didn't symbolize that the Padre was supposedly evil but rather
> > > >> >> the opposite, that he was especially blessed.
>
> > > >> > You're right, so I revise my claim to be that a stigmata can be
> > > >> > either. Of course, in a scientific society, we know that wounds don't
> > > >> > suddenly appear on priests' hands, and if someone claims it happened
> > > >> > to him, we know that he made the wounds himself, and again the marks
> > > >> > represent sin, not salvation.
>
> > > >> Not at all. Humans can have stigmata without doing anything physical to
> > > >> cause it. We believe it falls into the same category as hysterical
> > > >> strength. But there is no reason to believe people with stigmata
> > > >> deliberately cause their wounds.
>
> > > >Uh, yeah, there is. Nobody actually spontaneously erupts with the marks
> > > >of Christ on their limbs.
>
> > > Oh, sure they do. Not often, and if you wish to say it's just a
> > > psychosomatic ailment instead of a sign of divine favor, go
> > > ahead. The mind can do strange things to the body, and vice
> > > occasionally versa.
>
> > > --
> > > Dorothy J. Heydt
> > > Vallejo, California
> > > djheydt at gmail dot com
> > > Should you wish to email me, you'd better use the gmail edress.
> > > Kithrup's all spammy and hotmail's been hacked.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > It actually happens, and it isn't the mind:
>
> > "There have been over 500 reported stigmatics who have displayed
> > wounds similar to those inflicted upon Jesus. The first recorded case
> > of these wounds was in the year 1222, by a man named Stephen Langton
> > of England. Saint Francis of Assisi first suffered the wounds in La
> > Verna, Italy, in 1224."
>
> > Sure, there have been imposters:
>
> > "There have been historical stigmatics that were known to have faked
> > wounds, such as Magdalena de la Cruz (1487-1560), who admitted the
> > fraud.Similarly self-inflicted wounds can be associated with certain
> > brain disorders. Some people who fake stigmata suffer from Munchausen
> > syndrome which is characterised by an intense desire for attention.
> > People with Munchausen hurt themselves or fake an illness hoping to
> > end up in a hospital where they can enjoy attention and care."
>
> > But here's the kicker...
>
> > "Also, according to experts, the blood seeping from the wounds of the
> > individual should be the blood of Christ, thus yielding two types of
> > blood from one wound."
>
> > Also:
>
> > " In supposed real Stigmata, the blood flows freely and cannot be
> > stopped with traditional medical care. Faked Stigmata are superficial
> > and heal quickly. Blood will appear fresh and of a bright, deep color.
> > The blood flow will often go against the laws of gravity. The stigmata
> > are usually received with states of extreme ecstasy."
>
> > http://www.crystalinks.com/sti...
>
> > In conclusion, I believe this to be real and of divine origin,
> > as per the scientific method of postulation. It fits.
>
> > ---
> > Mark- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Jesus' blood type was AB positive. This is partially derived
from tests conducted by NASA.

I don't believe there to be an incompatibility issue, as most
likely the blood originates from the tear ducts.

---
Mark

Mark

10/1/2010 12:23:00 AM

On Sep 30, 5:46 pm, Duggy <Paul.Dug...@jcu.edu.au> wrote:
> On Oct 1, 7:39 am, Mark <blueriver...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > but for real
> > > scientific research I suggest starting with
> > > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stigmata#Scientific_re...
> > > and following the references cited there.
> > It will lead to more sources, which should be examined.
> > But if you're trying to tell me that Wikipedia is a valid
> > source for information, then you are sadly, sadly
> > mistaken.
>
> Where did he say valid source of information? He said stating point.
>
> Shesh.

Misallocated shesh. He offered up wiki as more valid. It isn't.

> And just because anyone can change it, doesn't mean it's as wrong as
> that sounds. Sure, there are mistakes, but not enough to be "sadly,
> sadly mistaken". Just mistaken.

Oh? Too many sadlys? Because I originally thought
4 would be commensurate. But...I guess just one will
please the court of public opinion. Ok.

You're sadly mistaken.

> > Because anyone can edit or add anything there.
>
> Which means most vandalism and a lot of mistakes are quickly fixed.

Yeah, by more amateurs.

HTH.

--
Mark

> ===
> = DUG.
> ===

Brian M. Scott

10/1/2010 1:04:00 AM

On Thu, 30 Sep 2010 14:39:03 -0700 (PDT), Mark
<blueriverday@yahoo.com> wrote in
<news:235bf973-0e09-4824-8f31-1368e175c03a@t20g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>
in
rec.arts.movies.past-films,rec.arts.comics.dc.universe,rec.arts.sf.composition,rec.arts.books,misc.writing:

> On Sep 30, 12:24 pm, "Brian M. Scott" <b.sc...@csuohio.edu> wrote:

>> On Thu, 30 Sep 2010 03:57:34 -0700 (PDT), Mark
>> <blueriver...@yahoo.com> wrote in
>> <news:57884d3e-b6b1-432b-8b9e-2f5ccda42749@i21g2000yqg.googlegroups.com>
>> in
>> rec.arts.movies.past-films,rec.arts.comics.dc.universe,rec.arts.sf.composition,rec.arts.books,misc.writing:

>>> On Sep 30, 3:43 am, djhe...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote:

>>>> In article <ANIM8Rfsk-E04A51.20322129092...@news.dc1.easynews.com>,

>> [...]

>>>>> Uh, yeah, there is. Nobody actually spontaneously
>>>>> erupts with the marks of Christ on their limbs.

>>>> Oh, sure they do. Not often, and if you wish to say it's just a
>>>> psychosomatic ailment instead of a sign of divine favor, go
>>>> ahead. The mind can do strange things to the body, and vice
>>>> occasionally versa.

>>> It actually happens, and it isn't the mind:

>> True, but not in the way that you mean: sometimes the
>> marks are deliberately inflicted.

> Excuse me sir, but I do believe that I just posted that
> and you've chosen to snip it for some reason. It's
> the part where Munchausen is mentioned? Yes,
> that part, the part you snipped and say isn't addressed.

I made no such statement.

>> [...]

>>> But here's the kicker...
>>> "Also, according to experts, the blood seeping from the
>>> wounds of the individual should be the blood of Christ,
>>> thus yielding two types of blood from one wound."

>> So? There appears to be no evidence that such a phenomenon
>> has actually been observed.

> The phenomenon has been observed over, and over, and
> over and over and over. There have been chemical
> analyses done.

You have offered no evidence for such analyses, let alone
any credible evidence. And frankly, what you've written so
far casts doubt on your ability to recognize credible
evidence.

> The Vatican has examined this.

It's quite possible, but I'm not about to accept your word
for it, or for their conclusions, if any. Moreover, the
Vatican is hardly a disinterested party.

>> [...]

>>> http://www.crystalinks.com/sti...

>> Hardly a reliable source.

> Oh? Ok, I'm looking forward to your explanation as to
> a valid reason why the source is incredulous. Please
> be as specific as possible.

It obviously isn't incredulous; I suggest that you look up
'incredulous' before you misuse it again. Presumably you
meant 'why the source lacks credibility'. One need only
look at its alphabetical directory: there are some
exceptions, but by and large it's a compendium of tired
crackpottery.

>>> In conclusion, I believe this to be real and of divine origin,
>>> as per the scientific method of postulation. It fits.

>> You're free to believe what you please,

> Yes, I'm well aware of that. I do.

>> but for real
>> scientific research I suggest starting with
>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stigmata#Scientific_re...
>> and following the references cited there.

> It will lead to more sources, which should be examined.
> But if you're trying to tell me that Wikipedia is a valid
> source for information, then you are sadly, sadly
> mistaken.

No, just better informed than you. Overall it's as good a
starting point as any other general encyclopaedia, albeit
with a different balance of strengths and weaknesses. Only
an idiot would use *any* encyclopaedia as more than a
starting point, and I did not suggest doing so, though it's
not clear that you read carefully enough to realize this.

> Anyone can change or say anything there, so I will quote
> you. Ok?

> "Hardly a reliable source".

> My proof of this?

> Because anyone can edit or add anything there.

Thereby demonstrating that you're almost as unfamiliar with
the realities of Wikipedia as you seem to be with science.

I'm done.

Brian

Duggy

10/1/2010 2:31:00 AM

On Oct 1, 10:23 am, Mark <blueriver...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Sep 30, 5:46 pm, Duggy <Paul.Dug...@jcu.edu.au> wrote:
> > Where did he say valid source of information? He said stating point.
> > Shesh.

> Misallocated shesh. He offered up wiki as more valid. It isn't.

Scientific research is more valid than mere postulation.

> > And just because anyone can change it, doesn't mean it's as wrong as
> > that sounds. Sure, there are mistakes, but not enough to be "sadly,
> > sadly mistaken". Just mistaken.
> Oh? Too many sadlys? Because I originally thought
> 4 would be commensurate. But...I guess just one will
> please the court of public opinion. Ok.

> You're sadly mistaken.

Too many sadlys.

> > > Because anyone can edit or add anything there.
> > Which means most vandalism and a lot of mistakes are quickly fixed.
> Yeah, by more amateurs.

Still be shown as being as accurate as a standard encyclopedia for
scientific articles.

===
= DUG.
===

Duggy

10/1/2010 2:33:00 AM

On Oct 1, 11:03 am, "Brian M. Scott" <b.sc...@csuohio.edu> wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Sep 2010 14:39:03 -0700 (PDT), Mark
> > The Vatican has examined this.
> It's quite possible, but I'm not about to accept your word
> for it, or for their conclusions, if any. Moreover, the
> Vatican is hardly a disinterested party.

True, but they are quick to dismiss obvious fakes... although even
miracles dismissed as fake by the Vatican can be worshipped by the
common man.

===
= DUG.
===

comp.lang.ruby

Re: How to convert long/milliseconds to DateTime?

Gavin Kistner

Mark

Brian M. Scott

Dr. Zachary Smith

Mark

Duggy

Mark

Mark

Brian M. Scott

Duggy

Duggy

x Login to ForumsZone