From pycyn@aol.com Fri Sep 14 13:00:00 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_2_2); 14 Sep 2001 20:00:00 -0000 Received: (qmail 95015 invoked from network); 14 Sep 2001 18:15:42 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 14 Sep 2001 18:15:42 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-m02.mx.aol.com) (64.12.136.5) by mta1 with SMTP; 14 Sep 2001 18:15:42 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-m02.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v31_r1.7.) id r.8c.c91db6e (18255) for ; Fri, 14 Sep 2001 14:15:29 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <8c.c91db6e.28d3a340@aol.com> Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2001 14:15:28 EDT Subject: Re: [lojban] (from lojban-beginners) pi'e To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_8c.c91db6e.28d3a340_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10535 From: pycyn@aol.com --part1_8c.c91db6e.28d3a340_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In a message dated 9/14/2001 12:03:42 PM Central Daylight Time,=20 jimc@math.ucla.edu writes: > Here at UCLA we have to live with and deal with the fact that a "major > organization with quasi-governmental clout", Microsoft, refuses to make a > standard for document interchange and stick with it. We have four mutual= ly > incompatible versions of Microsoft Office: 95, 97, 2000 and XP. Numerous > other breakdowns of the standards process can be cited. >=20 Of course, Lojban HAS a standard for dates and times and has not changed it= =20 in donkey years. It just is that every nine months or so, someone wants to= =20 come along and change it, so that we sneak up on MS in confusions. All=20 because, according to some groups off somewhere, we have the WRONG standard= .=20=20 There is no such thing as a wrong standard, there are just different one fo= r=20 different purposes. For Lojban, it happens that the standard is=20 dd(ww)mmccyy. For someone else, ti may be ccyymmdd and for us in the outsi= de=20 it is mmdd(cc)yy. they all work, convey the same information in the same=20 code and are easily transformable, by mere string manipulation, into one=20 another. Why even bother to mention the issue, then? I haven't complained about standards, I have complained about assuming that= =20 one peripheral standard-setting organization has the right (or any reason) = to=20 set a standard for things outside it bailiwick (if it has one, Lojban sure= =20 ain't in it). In Lojban, I'm delighted to see standards set within Lojban a= nd=20 tend to react negatively to people who violate them and then claim to be=20 setting new standards (rather than just doing a bad job of meeting old ones= ).=20 So far as I can see, moving to a new way to write dates is just another=20 case writing bad Lojban -- with a rationale different from "creativity" thi= s=20 time. Well, I was talking specifically about time in that case, for there are ver= y=20 few natural units in space -- all the astronomical ones are variable at bes= t=20 and there aren't any terrestrial ones but the diameters and circumferences = of=20 the planet, which vary all over the place as well, depending on where you=20 measure. And, of course, at the human level, nothing works either -- hands= =20 and feet and "thumbs at the root of the nail" vary considerably. So, any=20 unit you pick is bound to be arbitrary. But some obscure multiple of the=20 wavelength of an obscure line in the spectrum on an obscure element! I=20 prefer King David (of Scotland)'s thumb. Unless the point is to be=20 arbitrary, in which case, the meter does a wonderful job (even though it=20 started as a "natural" measure, by people who weren't very good at=20 measuring).=20=20 And yes, if you have to communicate across cultures, it is nice to have a=20 single system and use it. And within a culture it is nice to have a single= =20 system and use it (I was in India while it was going through the shift from= =20 rupee-anna-pice to rupee -nayapice, and trying to make change and even get= =20 currency accepted from one town -- even one shop in a town -- to the next w= as=20 murder, especially for a gringo, who regualrly got stiffed with annas). = =20 Notice, Lojban has both systems available. And, of course, if you want wor= ld=20 standardizations, the date is now 2452167.252. --part1_8c.c91db6e.28d3a340_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In a message dated 9/14/2001 12:03:42 PM Central Daylight Time, jimc@math= .ucla.edu writes:


Here at UCLA we have to l= ive with and deal with the fact that a "major
organization with quasi-governmental clout", Microsoft, refuses to make= a
standard for document interchange and stick with it.  We have four= mutually
incompatible versions of Microsoft Office: 95, 97, 2000 and XP.  N= umerous
other breakdowns of the standards process can be cited.


Of course, Lojban HAS a standard for dates and times and has not change= d it in donkey years.  It just is that every nine months or so, someon= e wants to come along and change it, so that we sneak up on MS in confusion= s.  All because, according to some groups off somewhere, we have the W= RONG standard.  There is no such thing as a wrong standard, there are = just different one for different purposes.  For Lojban, it happens tha= t the standard is dd(ww)mmccyy.  For someone else, ti may be ccyymmdd = and for us in the outside it is mmdd(cc)yy.  they all work, convey the= same information in the same code and are easily transformable, by mere st= ring manipulation, into one another.  Why even bother to mention the i= ssue, then?

<I'm surprised that you specifically are expressing such negative vi= ews
about standards, having been embroiled in the failure of JCB to pick a
standard for Loglan and get it into use, and Lojban Central's decision = to
impose a procrustean baseline for five years.=A0 There were very good r= easons
to do that, of which I'm sure you're well aware, and similar considerat= ions
apply in a lot of technical areas.>
I haven't complained about standards, I have complained about assuming = that one peripheral standard-setting organization has the right (or any rea= son) to set a standard for things outside it bailiwick (if it has one, Lojb= an sure ain't in it). In Lojban, I'm delighted to see standards set within = Lojban and tend to react negatively to people who violate them and then cla= im to be setting new standards (rather than just doing a bad job of meeting= old ones).  So far as I can see,  moving to a new way to write d= ates is just another case writing bad Lojban -- with a rationale different = from "creativity" this time.

<If you're referring to units in general, you're misunderstanding th= eir
nature.=A0 Someone who has to work with these things daily quickly lear= ns
that the right procedure is to pick a basis of units, stick with it, an= d
convert everyone else's fortnights and furlongs into the standard basis= ,
which for worldwide data exchange is meters, kilograms, seconds, coulom= bs
and degrees Kelvin.=A0 Wierd units such as tuns, Gunter's chains, leagu= es or
petagrams just get in the way and need to be multiplied out at the star= t of
the work.

If you're referring to time units in particular, you're right: the spin= and
orbital rates for Terra are not commensurate and aren't going to be wit= hin
the survival time of our species.=A0>

Well, I was talking specifically about time in that case, for there are= very few natural units in space -- all the astronomical ones are variable = at best and there aren't any terrestrial ones but the diameters and circumf= erences of the planet, which vary all over the place as well, depending on = where you measure.  And, of course, at the human level, nothing works = either -- hands and feet and "thumbs at the root of the nail" vary consider= ably.  So, any unit you pick is bound to be arbitrary.  But some = obscure multiple of the wavelength of an obscure line in the spectrum on an= obscure element!  I prefer King David (of Scotland)'s thumb.  Un= less the point is to be arbitrary, in which case, the meter does a wonderfu= l job (even though it started as a "natural" measure, by people who weren't= very good at measuring).  
And yes, if you have to communicate across cultures, it is nice to have= a single system and use it.  And within a culture it is nice to have = a single system and use it (I was in India while it was going through the s= hift from rupee-anna-pice to rupee -nayapice, and trying to make change and= even get currency accepted from one town -- even one shop in a town -- to = the next was murder, especially for a gringo, who regualrly got stiffed wit= h annas).  Notice, Lojban has both systems available.  And, of co= urse, if you want world standardizations, the date is now 2452167.252.

--part1_8c.c91db6e.28d3a340_boundary--