Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 15th Jun 2012 16:24 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 523375
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Features
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/13/13 14:35 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/11/13 17:07 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/10/13 23:13 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/08/13 14:57 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/07/13 11:40 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/04/13 12:45 UTC
Linked by nfeske on 05/31/13 10:12 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/29/13 16:59 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 17:26 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 21:38 UTC
More Features »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2005-07-06
http://www.forbes.com/sites/scottdecarlo/2012/04/18/the-worlds-bigg...
You what's most telling WRT the sensibility (or lack) of mm/dd/yyyy format? That Forbes, one of the premier US publishing houses (so, in most general terms, presumably striving to provide clear information) uses... yyyy/mm/dd (conceptually basically equivalent to dd/mm/yyyy) where it matters, in their URLs
BTW, 18 IV 2012 should do OK in the period of transition.
Edited 2012-06-22 19:35 UTC