[ARC5] Fascination, standards and human convention. (Topic re-named. Controversial, perhaps. Long)

[Leslie Smith]

On Tue, May 13, 2014, Mike Hanz wrote (in reply to Neil, in ZL)

> But don't you see, it *is* fascinating!  For example, I wrote dates as  22/4/2014 for forty years as a US Navy officer and later as a US Federal 
> civil servant.  It was and still is the convention in those American  micro-societies.  I still instinctively write dates that way most of the 
> time,  (OMG, you are a naughty boy, Mike.  Shame, shame, shame - Les)  to the consternation of others who seem to be confused by the  convention. 

Hello Mike,
In the mid 70's I studied physics under Ken Thompson.  Later Ken went to
USA and after that returned to Australia and, in a reversal for
circumstances, he worked for me.
This is a different fellow from Ken Thompson of Unix fame.   I don't
remember the detail but we had a discussion about date format, and Ken
sent an e-mail with reference to a standard - and that standard said
YYYY-MM-DD or maybe YYYY/MM/DD.   Ken won that round, and his e-m
settled the question.  More than that it makes no sense to have a
workable system for sorting dates on a computer and a separate system
apart from computers.  However, the topic has moved from date format to
fascination with the origin of standards and human conventions.

You wrote:
> The fact is that human beings are all a mess of  contradictions, 
errr .... surely you mean a mass of contradictions, Sir?   If
contradictions have a mass then they may also have weight.
A weight-less contradiction would be without consequence - simply stated
it would be a mess.

> and I have always been interested in the origins of such  things, especially if they are technically related somehow.  

Yes, because conventions and standards are generated in an effort to
resolve error (and thereby avoid accidents).  Witness the loss of the
Mars Rover.  I'm sure you know the spec for fuel capacity (or load) was
written in gallons and the Canadian contractor used Imperial gallons,
whereas the spec writer had US gallons in mind.  US gallons weight less
than Imperial gallons.  The Rover crashed, due to the additional weight,
as we all know.

An analogous confusion, but between gallons and liters (or maybe
litres?),  led to fuel shortage where the Glimli Glider ran out of fuel. 
The refeuler (in Canada) put in (approx) 1/4 of the expected fuel, since
the aircraft "expected" gallons, but it "got" litres.

Generally speaking I find the French and Germanic peoples pay close
attention to units and standards; the general US population is less
attentive.
Witness the small changes between US (nut & bolt) threads and Imperial
thread specs.

US military types understand the value of precision somewhat more, and
give accordingly them more attention.
I put the general down-playing of standards down to the (sometimes
useful) tendency in the US to distrust authority.
In line with your interest in origins of human convention I suspect many
US conventions come from the experience of the pilgrim fathers in 1620
etc.
We all know this history.  

Now I digress completely - and throw a hand grenade into the discussion.
The US constitution makes provision for an armed militia - a people's
army.
No doubt this comes from the experience I referred to previously, but
note the passage of 150 years between 1770 (actually 1776) and 1620.
Now, in the 21st century, a civilian militia means nothing. 
One Sherman tank (and even the more Abrams) can overcome 1,000 rifles,
but following the tendancy to "stick with the past" the US population
appeals to the constitution for a right to bear arms.
And I note the right to bear arms is given in the context of "MILITIA" -
presumably a collective right given to oppressed citizens, rather than
individuals.
As I read the constitution, this is to allow citizens to stand against
an oppressive government.  (The experience of 1620 lives on ...)
Again - this is a convention based on origin, and an origin no longer
relevant - as per my example of the Abrams.
Here, in Australia, where gun ownership is tightly regulated, most
regard the US attitude with bemusement.

In the same way the Brits cling to convention - and we here in Australia
follow that.
We have a copy of Magna Carta in our Parliament (or maybe even the
original) - but that document is mostly irrelevant in 2014.

(I intended no offense in my reference to the US constitution, but I
understand many will find what I wrote distasteful.  So - I apologize in
advance for this.  I'm simply giving the Australian experience about
guns and gun control.)

> To me, the stories are interesting.
Yes, Mike, to me also.  Very interesting.  Maybe even fascinating.

Thank you Mike, for a thought-provoking posting.
I'm away from radio, and if this posting is "cut", I don't mind.

Les

-- 
http://www.fastmail.fm - The way an email service should be