Do you wear a watch regularly?

[Ayatollah So]

I always use watch, its much easier than taking your phone out of your pocket.

Also, setting an alarm on my watch is much quicker than doing so on my phone. And without an alarm, I'd miss pretty much every appointment.

 

[Miles Teg]

I have a watch that I wear on occasions when I can't politely pull out my phone to check the time. Other than that, I wear one indifferently.

 

[Oruc]

I wear one all the time, I attempted to just use my mobile phone to tell the time, but its a hassle. So I use a cheap Casio watch, my current one I actually got from my father at christmas.

 

[Mivo]

I used to wear one, but with the advent of smartphones, tablets and (before that) organizers, I completely dropped the habit. When I did wear watches, it was only analogous/mechanical ones.

 

[MagisterCultuum]

I've been wearing a watch like this since the summer of 2005. It is a solar powered atomic watch which my mom bought and mailed to me at the governor's honors program after my old watch stopped and made me late for class. (Mine says 20Bar instead of 200M, and has grey instead of red lettering. Also, the chrome portions have started to wear off, and the strap holder broke last year and was replaced only with tape.)

I used to wear it every day, but now I mostly leave it under the lamp in my bedroom. Keeping it in a convenient place to put on just before I leave the house didn't seem to be giving it enough light to stay charged since I don't go out all that much now that I have graduated and not yet found a job.

I got a watch like this one on my birthday last year. I wear it to church every Sunday, and occasionally when I leave the house to go somewhere else and don't want to go upstairs to get my digital watch first.

 

[Skwink]

Spoiler :

I find it less embarrassing to post that than the falling apart phone I have that I more regularly use as a time-keeper

I thought four was IV not IIII.

 

[Arakhor]

Either will do in a pinch, but IV is much more common. Mediaeval Latin numerals were much more varied than Classical Latin.

 

[Flying Pig]

I thought four was IV not IIII.

IV is technically correct, but you see IIII; I assume it came about because it's easier for people brought up on Arabic numerals to cope with

 

[Loppan Torkel]

It's a Chinese fake

 

[MagisterCultuum]

I vaguely recall reading somewhere that the Romans actually used IIII more than they used IV, although both were common at the time and IV is more generally accepted today.

 

[Cutlass]

IV is technically correct, but you see IIII; I assume it came about because it's easier for people brought up on Arabic numerals to cope with

Also doesn't get confused with VI at a quick glance..

 

[Arakhor]

Only dyslexics and people completely unused to Roman numerals should get the two mixed up. That's like confusing 19 and 91.

 

[muhtesem insan]

AFAIK substractions added roman numerals later. So initally IIII was the symbol used for 4.

 

[Kan' Sharuminar]

It's a Chinese fake

Dammit, that's the third time this week they've tricked me