🚀 go-pugleaf

From article <189@dcs.UUCP>, by wnp@dcs.UUCP (Wolf N. Paul):
> In article <2896@hubcap.UUCP> wtwolfe@hubcap.clemson.edu writes:
>>     [...] familiarity does not imply that a system
>>     is in any sense optimal.  If that were true, there would be no
>>     point in converting to the metric system... 
> 
> There probably isn't, not for the little old lady shopping for groceries,
> and not in a lot of other situations. If and when we convert to the metric
> system, it won't be because it's optimal for every application, but because
> it's simpler to have just one system worldwide.

     Precisely.  When there is no need for 2 systems, one must be
     standardized upon.  Now we have a perfectly good system for
     odometers, and a standard exists for applying the same system
     to chronometers.  By virtue of simplicity, completeness, and
     consistency with similar situations, the YYYY MM DD standard
     is the obvious choice.  As for the little old lady, what she
     does is of relatively little significance.  What matters is
     that the next generation, and the ones beyond it, do not inherit
     the complex and inconsistent systems used by their ancestors.

>>> Besides, what are you trying to do to Henry? 
>>
>>      To point out that when an international standard exists which
>>      is clearly superior to the one currently in use, that standard
>>      should be ADOPTED and not opposed because "we've done it this
>>      way for the last 2 zillion years, and we haven't the sense to change".
> 
> "Clearly superior" depends on the situation and application. For much of human
> interaction, alpha-numeric dates are clearly superior to all-numeric dates,
> simply because human beings are not computers or calculators.

      When a single system possessing the above virtues covers all
      situations and applications, it should be adopted.  As for the
      contention that human beings are not computers of calculators,
      I submit that the form MM/DD/YY, an all-numeric form, is much 
      more widely used than all the alphabetic-month-representation
      forms put together.

      Since this newsgroup is written in English, let's consider 
      languages such as Hebrew, which are read from right to left,
      or Chinese, which is read from top to bottom.  To people
      whose native language is English, these forms appear unnatural;
      to those who are native speakers, nothing could be clearer.
      I submit that the standard we are discussing will be viewed
      as totally natural after adoption; if the verbal month-names
      are almost never encountered, they will come to be viewed as
      unnatural, and a waste of writing time and space. 

      It is quite obvious that Esperanto is superior to English;
      but where do we see Esperanto being taught?  It is precisely
      the dysfunctional human resistance to change that prevents 
      our descendants from realizing the benefits of a simple, clear, 
      consistent, and universal language, and which poses the greatest
      threat to standardization.


                                      Bill Wolfe