From pycyn@aol.com Fri Sep 14 07:06:39 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_2_2); 14 Sep 2001 14:06:38 -0000 Received: (qmail 40243 invoked from network); 14 Sep 2001 13:15:04 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 14 Sep 2001 13:15:04 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-d07.mx.aol.com) (205.188.157.39) by mta1 with SMTP; 14 Sep 2001 13:15:03 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-d07.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v31_r1.7.) id r.34.1adb724d (3960) for ; Thu, 13 Sep 2001 21:52:11 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <34.1adb724d.28d2bcca@aol.com> Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2001 21:52:10 EDT Subject: Re: [lojban] (from lojban-beginners) pi'e To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_34.1adb724d.28d2bcca_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10535 From: pycyn@aol.com X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 10697 --part1_34.1adb724d.28d2bcca_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 9/13/2001 8:29:28 PM Central Daylight Time, nicholas@uci.edu writes: > (After all, if it wasn't for the braindamage of MM-DD-YY, do you think the > ISO would have even bothered mandating YY-MM-DD? It's the only reason > there's any ambiguity to dates at all.) > Probably true, which makes me wonder when the Brits and their pups switched, since they were clearly still using the one we inherited from them in the 19th century. As yes, engineers probably do use it -- its a nice geeky thing. What I meant, of course, was that no national government or major organization with similar clout has officially adopted it, so far as I can find (Burkina Faso and the Society of Civil Engineers (possible a double oxymoron) don't count). And I do resent "libertarian," a good term ruined by bad people, as most are. As for the joys of the metric system, it is odd to see it raised in that area where will not and never can be applied. If God had meant us to have neat ways of numbering things, he would have made a couple of natural measures fit together. None do. (I wouldn't mind a nice rational metric system, but so long as we remain decimal rather than duodecimal, that ain't gonna happen either.) --part1_34.1adb724d.28d2bcca_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 9/13/2001 8:29:28 PM Central Daylight Time, nicholas@uci.edu writes:


(After all, if it wasn't for the braindamage of MM-DD-YY, do you think the
ISO would have even bothered mandating YY-MM-DD? It's the only reason
there's any ambiguity to dates at all.)


Probably true, which makes me wonder when the Brits and their pups switched, since they were clearly still using the one we inherited from them in the 19th century.

<The YY-MM-DD format which the ISO has prescribes is what I've been using
for the past ten years; I was taught it as an engineering student. There's
a lot of it about. The kind of "noone else
is doing it, quasigovernmental whim" stuff pc brings up is (a) bogus
(though characteristically libertarian :-) ), and
(b) the reason why the metric system will never happen in the States.
It's nonsense, but it's you guys' loss.>

As yes, engineers probably do use it -- its a nice geeky thing.  What I meant, of course, was that no national government or major organization with similar clout has officially adopted it, so far as I can find (Burkina Faso and the Society of Civil Engineers (possible a double oxymoron) don't count). And I do resent "libertarian," a good term ruined by bad people, as most are.  As for the joys of the metric system, it is odd to see it raised in that area where will not and never can be applied.  If God had meant us to have neat ways of numbering things, he would have made a couple of natural measures fit together.  None do. (I wouldn't mind a nice rational metric system, but so long as we remain decimal rather than duodecimal, that ain't gonna happen either.)
--part1_34.1adb724d.28d2bcca_boundary--