Slashdot Mirror


Introducing a Calendar System For the Information Age

First time accepted submitter chimeraha (3594169) writes "Synchronized with the northern winter solstice and the UNIX Epoch, the terran computational calendar contains 13 identical months of 28 days each in addition to a short Month Zero containing only new year's day and a single leap year day every four years (with the exception of every 128 years). The beginning of this zero-based numbering calendar, denoted as 0.0.0.0.0.0 TC, is on the solstice, exactly 10 days before the UNIX Epoch (effectively, December 22nd, 1969 00:00:00 UTC in the Gregorian Calendar). It's "terran" inception and unit durations reflect the human biological clock and align with astronomical cycles and epochs. Its "computational" notation, start date, and algorithm are tailored towards the mathematicians & scientists tasked with calendrical programming and precise time calculation.

There's a lot more information at terrancalendar.com including a date conversion form and a handfull of code-snipits & apps for implementing the terran computational calendar."

224 comments

  1. Um no by slashmydots · · Score: 5, Insightful

    We can't even get people to agree on daylight savings time. This will never happen. Anyone using this probably is going to type an angry reply on their DVORAK keyboard from a location directly in the center of their own little fake reality.

    1. Re:Um no by pitchpipe · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      We can't even get people to agree on daylight savings time.

      DST is an anachronism. Only old people (esp. those in congress) oppose getting rid of it. I suspect that when they die off we'll be able to relegate it to the dust bin of history.

      Reminds me of an old joke: if the opposite of pro is con, the opposite of progress is ...

      --
      Look where all this talking got us, baby.
    2. Re:Um no by LoRdTAW · · Score: 1

      I want to redefine the second and do away with the awkward 24/60/60 nonsense that is time. 10 hour days, 100 minute hours and 100 second minutes for a total of 100,000 seconds in a day.

      Also the US needs to kill AM/PM, its simply unnecessary and redundant.

    3. Re:Um no by Pope · · Score: 2

      Hey, why don't you go re-invent Railroad Time, since that's what these stupid DST discussions always devolve into.

      --
      It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
    4. Re:Um no by oodaloop · · Score: 2, Informative

      We can't even get people to agree on daylight savings time.

      I assume you mean Daylight Saving Time. Singular.

      --
      Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
    5. Re:Um no by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anyone using this probably is going to type an angry reply on their DVORAK keyboard from a location directly in the center of their own little fake reality.

      I use my own customized version of DVORAK that my pilot studies have shown is more ergonometric by 0.001%. Seriously, once you try it, you'll never go back to regular DVORAK, let alone QWERTY.

      Also, I am not located in the center of my own little fake reality, you insensitive clod. I'm actually 30 light-nanoseconds off to the left. (By the way, I don't know why some people still insist on using artificial units like meters and feet. Once you try light-nanoseconds you'll never go back.)

    6. Re:Um no by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, he means daylight savings time, something completely different.

      You needlessly pedantic tard.

    7. Re:Um no by i+kan+reed · · Score: 5, Interesting

      We can't even get our damned weights and measures base 10.

    8. Re:Um no by Big+Hairy+Ian · · Score: 1

      Never mind that the Indian & Islamic worlds each have their own Calender! Pol Pot anyone?

      --

      Build a Man a Fire, and He'll Be Warm for a Day. Set a Man on Fire, and He'll Be Warm for the Rest of His Life.

    9. Re:Um no by Newander · · Score: 2

      Planck length is the only rational measure of distance.

      --

      Jesus saves and takes half damage.

    10. Re:Um no by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      DST was first used as an insult to the French by Benjamin Franklin. It isn't an anachronism, it is that the joke is on those that continue to cater to it, namely the US House and Senate and Previous Presidents (though I have no doubt Obama would follow their suit).

      The ONLY thing we can do is simply laugh at those that cannot figure out how to set their own schedules and need the Federal and State Governments to help them.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    11. Re:Um no by jythie · · Score: 1

      I agree it is highly unlikely, but calendars have been switched before, though there was a lot less time keeping done then. I guess there is an off chance that it could find some niche in scientific or military uses and then bleed into the general population, but yeah, that does not seem likely either.

      Still, I imagine the people who came up with it had a lot of fun in the process.

    12. Re:Um no by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Don't you mean decidays, millidays, and centidays? Hours, minutes, and seconds are so anachronistic.

    13. Re:Um no by omnichad · · Score: 2

      I don't know about that. Maybe it's my E-W position within my timeline, but I find daylight time to be preferable to standard time. I'd even prefer the whole year to fit that. In the depths of winter, it's sunset when I get done with work. I could have at least an hour of daylight to myself every day of the year.

    14. Re:Um no by fizzer06 · · Score: 5, Funny

      Urine volume should go metric so that last drop that comes out after you zip up would be centipeed.

    15. Re:Um no by omnichad · · Score: 2

      set their own schedules

      I'd love to set my own schedule - but I have a job. And they follow the state/federal mandated time schedule. We all saw what happen when Seinfeld's neighbor Kramer set his watch an hour ahead of everyone else and set his own schedule. Nothing but chaos.

    16. Re:Um no by omnichad · · Score: 1

      AM/PM redundant? Have you ever seen a 24-hour analog wall clock?

    17. Re:Um no by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's because base-10 sucks. Take your low-minded metric system tyranny elsewhere.

      Time's fine just as it is in base-12. 50 seconds per minute, 50 minutes per hour, 20 hours per day. Perhaps one day you'll understand it, and non-Metric units will make more sense as a bonus.

      Also, in reponse to TFA/TFS, this idea isn't new. The "year and a day calendar" has been around for hundreds, if not thousands, of years. Fun fact: Eastman-Kodak used one as their official company calendar for a number of years, back when they were a relevant technology company. It changed nothing. Everyone else limped along on their same-old crappy Gregorian calendar. Inertia is a bitch.

    18. Re:Um no by omnichad · · Score: 1

      anachronistic

      I see what you did there.

    19. Re:Um no by MondoGordo · · Score: 1
    20. Re:Um no by slashmydots · · Score: 1

      Hey, some of us still want to save money on candles and kerosene damn it.

    21. Re:Um no by Samantha+Wright · · Score: 1

      I don't think they're very concerned with easily-divisible numbers—4*7-day months and 13-month years! At least the crazy Soviet calendar reform from the thirties prioritized getting rid of 7-day weeks.

      --
      Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
    22. Re:Um no by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      more ergonometric

      Even if that word existed, it wouldn't mean what you think it does.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    23. Re:Um no by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 1

      We can't even get people to agree on daylight savings time.

      DST is an anachronism. Only old people (esp. those in congress) oppose getting rid of it. I suspect that when they die off we'll be able to relegate it to the dust bin of history.

      I'm guessing you are either fairly young, or have a disorder that affects your long term memory. We had a pretty major push for the metric system in the mid-1970's. But "the old people" were too resistant then too. Here we are almost 40 years later. I guess those tough old bastards just keep hanging on. There hasn't been a push like that since. But it wasn't even the first time. Andrew Johnson signed the bill in 1866 to make the usage of the metric system legal in the US. There was a group of scientists in the early 1920's who pushed for this too.

      When I was a kid I thought the metric system was great because of it's simplicity. But I don't need to use my fingers to count anymore, so I'm indifferent now. I can convert any units I need in my head and am comfortable with either system. It would probably be easier to deal with other countries if the US went metric though. Plus I hate when some NASA probe doesn't work because someone forgot which units were being used. Problems like that should be enough to require the government agencies to switch. I think that would go a long way toward switching.

      I still find it amazing that we can purchase soda by 1, 2. or 3 liter bottles. But milk comes in gallon, half gallon, quart, and pint sizes. The imperial units have the advantage of making it pretty easy to figure out if someone is either from another country or very stupid though.

    24. Re:Um no by omnichad · · Score: 1

      That really can't even be determined. At least if you're calculating that by using the Planck Constant - which may or may not be rational.

    25. Re:Um no by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can also purchase soda in 8 ounce, 12 ounce, 20 ounce, and I think even 32 ounce containers.

    26. Re:Um no by Aighearach · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yeah, but luckily when it comes to calendars we can be saved by people that implement 13 equal months with 14 unequal months that are claimed to be 13, except when you have to talk about the 14th, which they think they can hide by numbering it 0.

    27. Re:Um no by omnichad · · Score: 1

      That was a rhetorical question, shorthand for "Have you seen them? They're awfully hard to read." Of course they exist. But your linked one is especially awful for not having any tick lines at all.

    28. Re:Um no by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      The constant is certainly rational. It is the human numbering system which is irrational, proven by how awful it is at describing any known constants... even easily calculated ratios like pi

    29. Re:Um no by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > base-10 sucks

      Exactly. And base-2 is eminently practical for many purposes. As system based on halves, quarters, eighths, sixteenths, etc. is extremely easy to work with. Want to divide something into 8 equal pieces? Easy. How about 10 pieces? Not so easy.

    30. Re:Um no by omnichad · · Score: 1

      What numbering system and what ratio gives you a rational pi?

    31. Re:Um no by Tokolosh · · Score: 1

      The French Republican Calendar (can be improved?

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F...)

      --
      Prove anything by multiplying Huge Number times Tiny Number
    32. Re:Um no by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      My wife is Thai, and thinks using the Buddhist calendar. So 2014 is 2557.
      But Thais use a modified version that is otherwise a renumbered Gregorian, so at least the New Years Day on the calendar is the same, even if the party is in April.

      There are still lots of calendars in the world.

    33. Re:Um no by RoknrolZombie · · Score: 1

      I wish I had mod points.

    34. Re:Um no by oracleofbargth · · Score: 1

      Base pi, of course.

    35. Re:Um no by Utoxin · · Score: 1

      Base pi, obviously. Then the ratio works out to 1.

      --
      Matthew Walker
      http://www.tweeterdiet.com/ - My Diet Tracking Tool
    36. Re:Um no by plopez · · Score: 1

      What about 3?

      --
      putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
    37. Re:Um no by invid · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I want to do away with this base 10 nonsense and institute a base 12 numbering system. Try evenly dividing your primitive base 10 system into thirds!

      --
      The Moore-Murphy Law: The number of things that will go wrong will double every 2 years.
    38. Re:Um no by omnichad · · Score: 1

      OK. Let's imagine that there's a base pi. The numbers still would not be rational without changing the definition of rational. How many digits would a base pi numbering system have? You certainly wouldn't want to use integer digit symbols to represent them (they wouldn't, by definition, be integers), no matter how much that would help you convince yourself you came up with a rational number.

    39. Re:Um no by omnichad · · Score: 1

      Ratio of integers is what makes it rational. Since those digits wouldn't be integers, it wouldn't be rational.

    40. Re:Um no by almitydave · · Score: 5, Funny

      Planck length is the only rational measure of distance.

      Indeed, unfortunately SI prefixes run out before we can really do anything useful with it (unless you're into particle physics). Therefore, I suggest we standardize on the yotta-planck-length (YPL, pronounced "yoople") as our base unit, utilizing SI prefixes on top of that:

      -Intel's new Haswell architecture utilizes a 1361-yoople process.
      -I am 117 gigayooples tall.
      -The Earth is approximately 2.4 exayooples around.
      -The Earth is 9.26 zettayooples from the sun.

      As you can see, we run out of SI prefixes again for astronomical scales, so we should use the yottayoople (YYP, pronounced "yippee") for that:

      -The Milky Way galaxy is about 59 megayippees across
      -The size of the observable universe is about 26.9 terayippees.

      I'm sure everyone can get behind these new units. Time to rewrite the textbooks!

      -almity "I can't drive 8.2e-7 yooples per yoopit" dave

      --
      my, your, his/her/its, our, your, their
      I'm, you're, he's/she's/it's, we're, you're, they're
    41. Re:Um no by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To be fair Kramer was kinda just a big waling chaotic mess.
      remember when he removed the lines from the road?
      or when he explained his sleep pattern of 10 minutes every hour?
      or how he just burst in to Jerry's apartment all the time?

    42. Re:Um no by CreatureComfort · · Score: 1

      If a King rules a Kingdom, and an Emperor rules an Empire, who rules our Country?

      --
      "Unheard of means only it's undreamed of yet,
      Impossible means not yet done." ~~ Julia Ecklar
    43. Re:Um no by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 2

      If we all just used Galois fields of order 2^p, we could divide anything into anything and get a result in the field.

      --
      I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
    44. Re:Um no by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All Hail the Smoot, the one true unit of measurement.

    45. Re:Um no by careysub · · Score: 2, Informative

      I want to redefine the second and do away with the awkward 24/60/60 nonsense that is time. 10 hour days, 100 minute hours and 100 second minutes for a total of 100,000 seconds in a day.

      Also the US needs to kill AM/PM, its simply unnecessary and redundant.

      Good luck with that. The division of the day into 24 hours originates in Egypt 130 BC years ago, and was adopted in China by 900 AD so that this is a shared ancient system of time measurement in both West and East. The division of the day into twelve "double hours" is even more ancient in both places originating by the Ur III period of Sumerian civilization (2100 BC).

      The division of hours into minutes and seconds uses the sexigisimal number system was also invented by Sumerians and used by them for angular measurement (the passage of daily time corresponding to angular motion the the sky/Earth). It was adapted for small time unit measurement (minutes, seconds) by Claudios Ptolemaious in 130 AD, then spread throughout the Old World by Islam (and later by Europeans). We have had these units as a common nearly world-wide standard for a long, long time.

      --
      Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
    46. Re:Um no by erichill · · Score: 1

      The angry reply will be in Esperanto.

      --
      Credo sim. - I think I am.
    47. Re:Um no by LoRdTAW · · Score: 1

      http://staticfree.info/projects/24h_clock/

      Those face design looks perfectly readable. Two sets of numbers and the little hand points perfectly to the hours and the big hand points perfectly to the minutes. along with the seconds hand. True the minute numbers are quite small but at a glance you can guess it pretty easily.

      He even made a real clock: http://staticfree.info/projects/24h_clock/target_clock_mod

    48. Re:Um no by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      So you want the sun to rise at 2:50 in the morning to be over your head at noon at 5:00 and to settle at night at 7:50 ...
      What is the point of that?
      You defend your inches and your feet to the blood, because they are so easy divideable *cough*
      Now you want to switch from 24 hours to 10 ... to 20 I had understood, but to 10?
      So most movies will be 0:75 hours long?

      You even want to change the second?

      Good luck with that ... redifining every existing physic/scientific formular involving 'seconds' will be interesting.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    49. Re:Um no by sconeu · · Score: 2

      Of course AM/PM is redundant. We already have 7-11.

      --
      General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
    50. Re:Um no by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Usually a Count, hence the name county.
      However like kings and emporers and other titles of nobility ... Counts no longer exist (in. the US).

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    51. Re:Um no by NeoNormal · · Score: 1

      If a King rules a Kingdom, and an Emperor rules an Empire, who rules our Country?

      Big money??

    52. Re:Um no by omnichad · · Score: 1

      It's all too small - requires a much bigger clock to make it easily readable, but mentally 24 divisions just isn't convenient.

    53. Re:Um no by Thud457 · · Score: 1

      pshaw!
      Try dividing something into equal fifths in your base 12.
      Any rational being will use a number base based upon the product of prime numbers 6, 30, 210, or someuch, Babylonians be damned.

      Or you could just use e as a base and get on with real work.

      --

      the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

    54. Re:Um no by pitchpipe · · Score: 1

      Cunts?

      --
      Look where all this talking got us, baby.
    55. Re:Um no by boristdog · · Score: 1

      NO.

      Potrzebie is the ONLY sensible system.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P...

    56. Re:Um no by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      For all that Ben Franklin suggested DST, it made no headway whatsoever until WW1.

      Then, the unthinkable happened - blackouts were required in England, and the pubs had to close at sunset.

      Even worse, the pubs were closing before people got off work...

      So, political pressure was applied, and they changed the clock so that the pubs could stay open an hour after people got off work (but still in daylight - couldn't get around that blackout).

      The rest, as they say, is history.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    57. Re:Um no by jonbryce · · Score: 1

      All the calendars I've looked at seem to agree that there should be 12 months in a year of approximately equal length, and apart from the Muslim calendar, a year is approximately the length of time it takes for the earth to rotate around the sun and the Muslim calendar is only about 11 days shorter than that.

    58. Re:Um no by Gryle · · Score: 1

      I, for one, am in favor of an 8-day week; a 5-day work week, followed by a 3-day weekend. I doubt it will ever catch on (too much downtime between work-weeks, the business gods will not stand for it!), but hey, a guy can dream.

      --
      Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not entirely sure about the universe - Einstein
    59. Re:Um no by lennier · · Score: 2

      I don't think they're very concerned with easily-divisible numbers—4*7-day months and 13-month years!

      13 months is a little annoying, yes; you have to split the months on week boundaries to make quarters. But we actually do have 13 lunar cycles in a year, so this naturally aligns the months with the real moon. And we keep 7 day weeks, which is a win both because we're used to our week, and because 7 days is a natural quarter-moon. And no more "30 days hath December..."

      Thing is, a workable Earth calendar never is going to be evenly divisible by powers of 10, because it has to stay aligned with astronomical cycles which are subtly varying; even the Sun and Moon don't strictly align. So everything's going to be a bit of a juggle. Frankly, I think this is the best alternate calendar design I've seen in a long while.

      --
      You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
    60. Re:Um no by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why do the months need to align with the Moon? The western calendar we have now doesn't align with the moon in any way. The only astronomical cycle it has to align with is the Sun.

      How about ten months, with January having 36 days, February 37, March 36, and so on. In a leap year January would have 37 days.

    61. Re:Um no by ultranova · · Score: 2

      Anyone using this probably is going to type an angry reply on their DVORAK keyboard from a location directly in the center of their own little fake reality.

      But unlike DVORAK, there's not even a theoretical basis here: the whole point of Information Age is that computers do data conversions of arbitrary complexity, so why would everyone need to be on the same calendar? You write the timestamp on whatever format you prefer and I read it on whatever I prefer.

      Besides, the whole need to keep everyone on the same schedule was an artifact of Industrial Age, where it took a lot of coordinated labour to run a factory. As Information Age finishes automating those and the shift towards desktop manufacture accelerates, why would my sleep-wake cycle need to be linked to yours? I wrote this message on my convenience, you read it on yours.

      With any luck, the whole concept of employment - in the form of current coercion-based power structures, at least - will die out, and future belongs to truly voluntary cooperation - and that means sleeping when you're tired, not when a clock says you should.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    62. Re:Um no by AthanasiusKircher · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but luckily when it comes to calendars we can be saved by people that implement 13 equal months with 14 unequal months that are claimed to be 13, except when you have to talk about the 14th, which they think they can hide by numbering it 0.

      Yes, exactly! Every four years I always celebrate that special month called FebruArch, which falls on one day between February and March. Most of those idiots in the world think they can hide the 13th true month, but we of the secret Bissextile Society know there aren't really 12 months in the Gregorian calendar. Obviously there are 13 months, but those calendar people in charge don't want to talk about it. [/sarcasm]

    63. Re:Um no by Miamicanes · · Score: 1

      DST is an anachronism. Only old people (esp. those in congress) oppose getting rid of it.

      I know plenty of people -- young AND old -- who'll happily support a proposal to abolish DST, as long as "abolish DST" means "stay in summer time all year".

      40 years from now, DST will begin in early February, end the weekend after Thanksgiving, people will bitch about the stupidity of changing clocks for just 9 or 10 weeks, and the DST-abolitionists will be trying to abolish summer time and turn 9 weeks of winter time into 52, and wondering why everybody opposes them.

    64. Re:Um no by RabidReindeer · · Score: 1

      If you prefer daylight time to standard time, your working hours are screwed up. At least with standard time, the sun and clock are more or less in sync. My working hours are generally flex time, so when they meddle with the clocks, I simply change my "clock times" and keep my "sun time" the same.

    65. Re:Um no by Polarised+Bear · · Score: 1

      You have Counts?

      --
      Or, you know, that's just like my opinion.
    66. Re:Um no by RabidReindeer · · Score: 1

      I agree it is highly unlikely, but calendars have been switched before, though there was a lot less time keeping done then. I guess there is an off chance that it could find some niche in scientific or military uses and then bleed into the general population, but yeah, that does not seem likely either.

      Still, I imagine the people who came up with it had a lot of fun in the process.

      It's obviously time to move to Star Dates. DST is bad enough. Why wait for Einstein error correction factors to become a problem as well?

    67. Re:Um no by 517714 · · Score: 1

      Depends on whether we have a republic or a democracy.

      --
      The US government have made it clear that we have no inalienable rights; any we do not defend vigorously will be taken.
    68. Re:Um no by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      As funny as this is, I'd totally be for it.

      We already technically do it in some areas simply BY using things like scientific notation.
      Why not just get rid of it entirely and have some maximum for prefixes, where it becomes a prefix-prefix, and create some systemic naming system similar to the one used for temporary element names?
      When we get down to it, even 9 layers of prefixes would be more than enough for anyone. MORE THAN ENOUGH FOR ANYONE. And this time it actually is an educated statement unlike Bill Gates. (not taking in to consideration infinite universes)

      There comes a point where prefixes are meaningless and wasteful. Doubly Systemic Prefixing should be the new norm.
      It's not like it'd change much anyway. Entire country is still using imperial, entire world is still not using decimal times despite there being a few DECENT implementations that could be used, no universal calender agreement either.
      Unix time is honestly about the only universally agreed on time system, the rest of time is a mess, filled with wibbly wobbly bits and other nasty stuff.

    69. Re:Um no by Polarised+Bear · · Score: 1

      If a genie were to ever give me any wishes I'm wishing for this to be made standard, right after trying to trick the genie into giving me more wishes.

      --
      Or, you know, that's just like my opinion.
    70. Re:Um no by Miamicanes · · Score: 1

      The biggest roadblock to metric adoption in the US was the insane idea that anything expressed in metric units had to be some whole multiple of 10 or 100. We weren't allowed to have 5mL and 15mL measuring spoons... they had to be 1mL and 10mL, bundled with an equally-useless 100mL measuring cup. Or at least, that was what you'd think if you saw the useless set of baking utensils my mom & grandmother got for Christmas at some point in the late 70s. It was like there was some unwritten rule banning 250mL measuring cups, because it wasn't a "proper" metric size.

      The sole exception to the "whole multiple of 10" rule was speed limits. Without exception, the speed limit in km/h was always less than the speed limit in miles per hour -- sometimes, a lot. Hence, signs that listed metric speed limits for 55mph and 30mph as 88km/h and 40km/h. I specifically remember the news reports on TV about how the 30mph/40km/h signs were vandalized at an abnormally-high rate (in rural areas, they were usually shot full of bullet holes). Had the government given drivers a freebie, and listed the metric speed limits for 55 and 30mph as 90km/h and 50km/h respectively, I *guarantee* American drivers would have LOVED the metric system. At least, in that specific context.

    71. Re:Um no by omnichad · · Score: 0

      On the shortest day of the year, sunset is just after 4:30 PM here. Sunrise is 7:15. I see maybe 30 minutes of sunlight in a given day during that time of the year. I work in a basement office with no windows.

    72. Re:Um no by HatofPig · · Score: 1

      Double-plus good idea, bro!

      --
      Silicon & Charybdis McLuhan Kildall Papert Kay
    73. Re:Um no by jc42 · · Score: 1

      Ratio of integers is what makes it rational. Since those digits wouldn't be integers, it wouldn't be rational.

      Oh, c'mon; any first-year math student can tell you how to set up a base-pi system so that the digits represent integers. You start by using the usual Greek letter pi (which /. can't display, right? ;-). Then you simply observe that, being the usual real-number field, we can divide our base number pi by itself, and define the shorthand symbol "1" to represent the result. After defining addition in the usual way, we define the shorthand symbol "2" to represent 1+1. And so on. Similarly, we subtract the base from itself, and define "0" as the shorthand symbol for the result. A couple of our earliest theorems demonstrate that 0 is the identity number for addition, and when we've defined multiplication, we also prove that 1 is the identity for that operation.

      Actually, the only difference between this and our usual system is that we no longer call 10 our base; that term is reserved for pi.

      Some years ago, I read an even more abstruse definition of the real numbers. It started with the numbers e and pi, and had a couple of axioms (which I've forgotten) defining their basic properties. From these, the writer derived two numbers that were called "0" and "1", and everything else followed from that.

      Mathematicians often like to come up with abstruse examples like these, just for the fun of it. But such exercises can come in handy at times, when you are dealing with people who are arguing for an "improved" scheme for something. If you can show that it's equivalent to the usual scheme, you can produce the same sort of argument showing how to derive the usual symbols and axioms, and from then on you're home free.

      The same approach has been used to explain why the US has in fact been "on the metric system" since the 1880s. Back then, the US Standards Bureau (whatever it was called that year) redefined all the usual "English" units of measurement in metric terms, on the grounds that at the time, the repository in Paris had the most precise system of measurements available. Thus, the inch was redefined as 2.54 cm exactly, and similarly for all the others. Since then, the legal basis of all units of measurement in the US has been the metric units. We just have an "extended" metric system that has a lot of other units that aren't mentioned in the ISO's standards documents.

      And the metric system has been legal in the US for all purposes since some time in the 1840s, by an edict of Congress. So we don't need to "go metric"; we did that long ago. We just need to use the basic metric units more, rather than those goofy (2.54x? WTF??) units that some of us like so much.

      --
      Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
    74. Re:Um no by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wouldn't a Count rule a County?

    75. Re: Um no by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Everything Kramer did was perfectly logical. It was only through the lens of the universe around him that it looked chaotic.

    76. Re:Um no by dryeo · · Score: 1

      The biggest roadblock to metric adoption in the US was the insane idea that anything expressed in metric units had to be some whole multiple of 10 or 100. We weren't allowed to have 5mL and 15mL measuring spoons... they had to be 1mL and 10mL, bundled with an equally-useless 100mL measuring cup. Or at least, that was what you'd think if you saw the useless set of baking utensils my mom & grandmother got for Christmas at some point in the late 70s. It was like there was some unwritten rule banning 250mL measuring cups, because it wasn't a "proper" metric size.

      That seems weird. I remember the switch in Canada in the early '70's and measuring stuff just got rounded as you suggest, 5ml and 15ml spoons being the most popular and cups with metric on one side and imperial on the other, occasionally with some American to screw your mind. Same with purchasing stuff, a Quart shrunk to a litre, a gallon likewise shrinking to 4l. It still happening as many containers are 3.78 litres so almost a pint and a half shaved off the old gallon.

      The sole exception to the "whole multiple of 10" rule was speed limits. Without exception, the speed limit in km/h was always less than the speed limit in miles per hour -- sometimes, a lot. Hence, signs that listed metric speed limits for 55mph and 30mph as 88km/h and 40km/h. I specifically remember the news reports on TV about how the 30mph/40km/h signs were vandalized at an abnormally-high rate (in rural areas, they were usually shot full of bullet holes). Had the government given drivers a freebie, and listed the metric speed limits for 55 and 30mph as 90km/h and 50km/h respectively, I *guarantee* American drivers would have LOVED the metric system. At least, in that specific context.

      In Canada the shift was the logical 20=30 30=50 40=60 50=80 55=90 60=100 70=110 with the only real loses being 60km/h and 110km/h. They had commercials with jingles focusing on the first 3 or four.

      40 odd years later, we drive mostly in metric with most people being bilingual, weather is in metric. Groceries are in litres and pounds, hardware is mostly in standard. So go out and buy a litre of milk, a pound of hamburger then half a kilo of 1/2 in nails, some 8ft 2x4s and 3/8 plywood. Probably varies across the country.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    77. Re:Um no by dryeo · · Score: 1

      A republic like N. Korea which firmly follows the one man one vote rule and we all know who that one man is or a republic like Switzerland which practices direct democracy?

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    78. Re:Um no by tqk · · Score: 1

      This will never happen.

      Yes, it will, and it should. Will, in the sense that some will, and maybe more eventually will. If it gains traction, it's a new standard. Those using it in the meantime won't mind the wait. It's kind of like Linux vs. Windows 3.1: "Jump, or ... !@#$ yeah, jump!" for those who could tell the difference between the two. Canada went SI by gov't fiat, and it was a good thing (as much as it hurts to admit it). I don't much use it, but I know that SI makes a !@#$ of a lot easier calculations than that monstrosity, The Imperial System, with its arcane pints, quarts, inches, feet, furlongs, acre, ...

      Time ought to be easy to calculate. Sixty seconds in a minute, sixty minutes to an hour, twenty-four hours per day, twenty-eight to thirty-one days per month, ... Gaahhd! That mess needs cleaning up. It's as silly as Latin still being used in law, Greek in math, etc. Reboot and speak a common tongue! Don't listen to those old farts mumbling about tradition. They're just trying to keep new people out of their bailliwick.

      I've not read the article, btw, but the proposal in the summary is appealing. Sell it to the kids as *easier*. They'll go for that.

      --
      "Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit ..." -- Pink Floyd.
    79. Re:Um no by omnichad · · Score: 1

      so that the digits represent integers

      No. In that case, the integers represent non-integer "digits." And if you're going to have a standard positional representation for your base-pi system, pi would be the 2nd digit from the right. In integer bases (n), the rightmost digit is n^0, next is n^1, n^2, and so on. The rightmost digit in a base pi system would similarly be units of pi^0 - which doesn't really make sense. Maybe you'd have to come up with a different positional notation to work in base-pi. But the rightmost digit in that system would actually be a baseless rational integer. And really, I'd argue that all integers are baseless (that is, in the inherent quantity in distance from zero) - but they can be represented in any rational base.

      Just because you decide to use an integer to represent the number, means nothing. No matter what base -- even in base pi -- pi or its base pi representation is not rational.

      Not sure where your metric rant comes from. Just because you wanted to double the size of your post?

    80. Re:Um no by flargleblarg · · Score: 1

      Daylight Saving Time (DST) is a Good Thing. What is terrible and awful is anti-DST (the wintertime schedule). We should be on DST all year around and never switch our clocks forward or backward. Nobody needs extra light in the morning; extra light in the evening is what is good.

    81. Re:Um no by dryeo · · Score: 1

      Most of these types of calendars have days that aren't in a month or sometimes even a week, Saturday, New Years Day, Sunday kind of thing.
      Of course the simple thing to do would be to adjust the orbits of the Moon and the Earth along with the rotation period of the Earth to make the numbers come out better.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    82. Re:Um no by dryeo · · Score: 1

      The inch was defined (in America) as 2.54 mm in 1959 when you signed a treaty to use the Canadian inch. You're thinking of 1866 when the definition was defined as 1 metre = 39.37 inches. A few millionths difference there.
      The pound was defined in 1893 and even more accurately in 1894 as 2.20462234 to the kilo and it was still different from the UK pound by a couple of 10 millionths.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    83. Re:Um no by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We can't even get our damned weights and measures base 10.

      That's not what metric means. Metric means you have a single measure for each property. Metre for distance, for example. Rather than having one measure for depth and another for height, another for land distance, another for sea distance, and another for building materials...

      The base-ten thing is just for abbreviated short-hand. Millions/millionths. You could use any base and still be metric.

    84. Re:Um no by FatLittleMonkey · · Score: 1

      Frankly, I think this is the best alternate calendar design I've seen in a long while.

      You haven't seen 13 month calendars before?

      --
      Science is all about firing a drunk pig out of a cannon just to see what happens.
    85. Re:Um no by FatLittleMonkey · · Score: 1

      10 hour days, 100 minute hours and 100 second minutes for a total of 100,000 seconds in a day.

      [sigh] That's not what metric means. You're still using an imperial-type system, with hours, minutes and seconds as separately defined units. Using ten instead of twelve or sixty doesn't make it "metric".

      Clearly the unit you are basing your system around is the day. So logically, that would be your metric, in place of the second. Thus the divisions would be decimal fractions of a Standard Day. Using SI units (which you are confusing "metric" with), you'd use millidays, microdays, etc, for convenience to describe parts of a day. The time is simply then the decimal part of the date. Since it is roughly 670mD local time, the full time/date is 2014.3.28.670. But if you're going to change the entire system, eliminating time-zones seems obvious, so it would be 235mD GMT. And combined with a 13 month calendar, but not the one in TFA, it is 2014.4.2.235 Universal Metric Time. And ignoring months entirely, it is 87.235 Days, in the current year.

      Actually it's a bit later, but my watch is slow.

      --
      Science is all about firing a drunk pig out of a cannon just to see what happens.
    86. Re:Um no by FatLittleMonkey · · Score: 1

      We have had these units as a common nearly world-wide standard for a long, long time.

      And the key is that they are standard.

      There isn't surveyors time, ship time, milliners time, etc. Which was the reason linear and volume units were so obnoxious.

      --
      Science is all about firing a drunk pig out of a cannon just to see what happens.
    87. Re:Um no by FatLittleMonkey · · Score: 1

      right after trying to trick the genie into giving me more wishes.

      Idiot. Wishing for more wishes is how you become a trapped genie, until the next idiot makes the same mistake and thus takes your place.

      --
      Science is all about firing a drunk pig out of a cannon just to see what happens.
    88. Re:Um no by aethelrick · · Score: 1

      no doubt the reply will be in esperanto :D

    89. Re:Um no by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also the US needs to kill AM/PM, its simply unnecessary and redundant.

      And Fahrenheit!

    90. Re:Um no by butalearner · · Score: 1

      ...a Quart shrunk to a litre, a gallon likewise shrinking to 4l. It still happening as many containers are 3.78 litres so almost a pint and a half shaved off the old gallon.

      The quart and gallon you referred to at first are UK measures (I had to read that again to understand, but thankfully a couple posts above you had the conversion), and 3.78 L is a US gallon.

      40 odd years later, we drive mostly in metric with most people being bilingual, weather is in metric. Groceries are in litres and pounds, hardware is mostly in standard. So go out and buy a litre of milk, a pound of hamburger then half a kilo of 1/2 in nails, some 8ft 2x4s and 3/8 plywood. Probably varies across the country.

      Wow, I never thought I'd say this, but you've just convinced me that "switching" the US to metric (or, more realistically, a horrendous hybrid of the two) would be a disaster.

    91. Re:Um no by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who cares? Our picture calendars can have more pictures of whatever things we like to have picture calendars of..... yeah, I said that right... I think.

      Anyway: this = good thing

    92. Re:Um no by Enter+the+Shoggoth · · Score: 1

      On the shortest day of the year, sunset is just after 4:30 PM here. Sunrise is 7:15. I see maybe 30 minutes of sunlight in a given day during that time of the year. I work in a basement office with no windows.

      Just wait! Any day now they're going to remove you from the payroll.

      --
      Andy Warhol got it right / Everybody gets the limelight
      Andy Warhol got it wrong / Fifteen minutes is too long.
    93. Re:Um no by CozmicCharlie · · Score: 1

      On the shortest day of the year, sunset is just after 4:30 PM here. Sunrise is 7:15. I see maybe 30 minutes of sunlight in a given day during that time of the year. I work in a basement office with no windows.

      Just wait! Any day now they're going to remove you from the payroll.

      They're just waiting for someone to fix the glitch. Remeber to take the red stapler with you as a parting gift.

    94. Re:Um no by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, but luckily when it comes to calendars we can be saved by people that implement 13 equal months with 14 unequal months that are claimed to be 13, except when you have to talk about the 14th, which they think they can hide by numbering it 0.

      Check out this awesome almost symmetrical honeycomb depiction of the calendar: http://terrancalendar.com/terran_computational_calendar_depiction.png
      I notice they also make a point of numbering everything from zero. So the second day of the month you actually live will be the first of the month. *FACE**PALM**INJURY*

    95. Re:Um no by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      that's my only requirement - if it omits dst, i'm on board

    96. Re:Um no by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm surprised you still remember how to translate from Esperanto back into English.

    97. Re:Um no by markhb · · Score: 1

      After all the 70's-era metric indoctrination I received (including weekly showings of "The Metric System" on PBS), I happily recognize that there are legitimate reasons in science and trade for the use of SI. However, beyond that, the fact is that there is no actual advantage in daily life between US standard and metric units. There's no functional difference between km and miles, and the decimalization of km doesn't mean a whole lot when you really think about how often you need to use the fact that there's 1760 yards in a mile (i.e., yes, it's easier to convert, but how often do you need to convert?) For scientific use the 100 degrees between the freezing and boiling points of water in Celsius makes sense, but Fahrenheit serves its intended purpose admirably: the range 0 to 100 is a reasonable coverage of the weather in the temperate zones of the world. There's no overwhelming advantage to making the switch, particularly in the USA where "because the rest of the world does it that way" is typically considered a misfeature.

      --
      Save Maine's economy: write stuff down. All comments are exclusively my own, not my employer.
    98. Re:Um no by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      Saturday, Sunday, New Years Day, even Leap Day, are all fairly normal days, that fall inside a normal week and month.

      I guess by "these types of calendars" you must mean, batshit crazy ones "nobody" is going to use...

    99. Re:Um no by bkcallahan · · Score: 1

      It's Daylight Saving Time -- you know the difference between a verb and a noun, right?

    100. Re:Um no by nobodie · · Score: 1

      the problem was that he was alone. 40 Years ago I lived together with 15-20 other people on a small utopian farm (based on Walden II by BF Skinner). We were part of a larger group of communities and we all set our clocks one hour "ahead of the rest of the world" and called it utopian standard time. UST was fun, a controlled kind of anarchy if you like. Not difficult to implement at all really.

      --
      Subversion of spatial scale luxury decoration ideas.
  2. and queue the religious outrage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    this will be against god's will somehow

  3. Human Calendar? by RobinH · · Score: 2

    I thought this was called the Human Calendar.

    --
    "I have never let my schooling interfere with my education." - Mark Twain
    1. Re:Human Calendar? by Samantha+Wright · · Score: 4, Funny

      After the humans rejected it, they had to rebrand to reach a wider audience.

      --
      Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
    2. Re:Human Calendar? by elfprince13 · · Score: 1

      I didn't know it had a name, but I thought this thirteen-month thing with extra days crammed on at the beginning or end was the system that basically anyone came up with the first time they tried to design a calendar that made sense.

    3. Re:Human Calendar? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It should be called Occam's Calendar.

  4. Oh great... by smithmc · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So now every software developer will have another calendar to have to convert back and forth between...

    --
    Downmodding is the refuge of the weak. Don't downmod, make a better argument!
    1. Re:Oh great... by Cenan · · Score: 5, Funny

      Fail to convert back and forth between...

      --
      ... whatever ...
    2. Re:Oh great... by Talderas · · Score: 1

      Great Scott! I've discovered tithe way to travel to the future!

      --
      "Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
    3. Re:Oh great... by pr0t0 · · Score: 1

      To be fair, a calendar like this probably would simplify date-based calculations.

      --
      I'm sorry, but your opinion seems to be wrong.
    4. Re:Oh great... by bob_super · · Score: 1

      It's flawed from the first second.

      Really...

      1969 is before the fractional second correction at the end of 1971, so the moment you try to convert, you're off.
      How far are you? I don't know, because they also changed the definition of a second, so you don't get the same time if you count seconds up from 1969 than if you count down from 1970 or 1972...

    5. Re:Oh great... by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Certainly it would not.
      How many "Zero days" do you have in a period of 100 days?

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    6. Re:Oh great... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No one here is in danger of going on a date.

  5. Start at perihelion by Geoffrey.landis · · Score: 1

    Might make sense to start the year at Earth's perihelion, and hence reference it to the orbit, and not to the axial tilt.

    Perihelion is, coincidentally, also very close to when the current year starts (Jan 4, this year).

    --
    http://www.geoffreylandis.com
    1. Re:Start at perihelion by xfade551 · · Score: 2

      The actual perihelion point isn't a good choice because the earth wobbles a bit in it's orbit due both the gravitation of the other planets and especially our own moon, making for slightly inconsistent times between perihelions.

  6. Obligatory xkcd: Standards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    https://xkcd.com/927/

    1. Re:Obligatory xkcd: Standards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shut up, fanboy.

      You win: The Internet Tough Guy Award

  7. Their website isn't in Esperanto? by Garridan · · Score: 5, Funny

    What the hell guys, if you're going to try and design something to replaced an entrenched convention, you might as well go whole hog. Oh wait, no, I know... their website isn't in Esperanto because such projects always fail.

    1. Re:Their website isn't in Esperanto? by lennier · · Score: 1

      Esperanto? le mi varkiclaflo'i cu culno lo angila! You mean Lojban, I presume.

      --
      You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
    2. Re:Their website isn't in Esperanto? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tre amuzas. Supre modu gepatro.

  8. Nostalgia by TomClowers · · Score: 1

    This really takes me back to the olden days of the web, when people used simple html-based sites to spread their ideas for an artificial language, or an improvement on the metric system.

    1. Re:Nostalgia by wiggles · · Score: 2

      Nostalgia ain't what it used to be.

    2. Re:Nostalgia by dubbayu_d_40 · · Score: 1

      Ha, me too. This is oddly reminiscent of the time cube.

  9. And time in .beats? by oneiros27 · · Score: 2

    Are we going to have to use Swatch Time with this calendar?

    All kidding aside, they mention:

    MINUTES, SECONDS, & FRACTIONS OF A SECOND
    Both minutes and seconds have a range from 0 to 59. If including a fraction of a second, write it as a decimal at the end: 41.13.27.23.59.59.999 TC .

    ... so no handling of leap seconds. I know some people would be happy about this, but if you're not going to care about solar noon, why deal with leap days and such, too?

    (and for those who complain that UTC shouldn't have leap seconds ... I say go and use TAI or GPS, but don't change UTC because you don't want to deal with the complexity)

    --
    Build it, and they will come^Hplain.
  10. Ob XKCD by rk · · Score: 1
  11. I am wiser than all gods and scientists. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I have created 4 simultaneous Worlds with 4 simultaneous days within a single rotation of Earth and have created 4 simultaneous years in a single orbit of the Earth around the Sun and I have created 4 corner stages of 'human metamorphosis'.

  12. Sabbath by kurisuto · · Score: 3, Interesting

    There have been various alternative calendars proposed, and some of them have the property that there's a special day in the yearly calendar which doesn't count as part of the regular seven-day-per-week cycle (such as the "month zero" proposed here).

    A significant objection is that some religions require that every seventh day be kept as a holy day. If the calendar contains a day which isn't part of the regular week, then there are sometimes more than seven days between one weekly holy day and the next.

    It's not a consideration for me personally. However, I'm sure that this feature would lead to significant resistance to the adoption of such a calendar.

    1. Re:Sabbath by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think the system described uses weeks. With this system calendars would still need to be printed every year to find out if you were working on a given day.

    2. Re:Sabbath by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hebrews already have their own calendar. The more stringent sects use it as their primary and only convert to Gregorian for dealing with gentiles, while the least stringent just keep it for holiday accuracy. It works very nicely and keeps specific dates in a month on the same day of the week every year, the only awkward part is that it has a leap-month every few years.

      For more information

    3. Re:Sabbath by LostOne · · Score: 1

      I don't know which FA you read, but I saw nothing that suggested that this calendar had anything to say about days of the week. In fact, one part of TFA specifically mentions that it does not start on the same day of the week every year which obviously means that month zero counts in the day of the week progression.

      --

      If it works in theory, try something else in practice.
    4. Re:Sabbath by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The terran computational calendar is not a true permanent calendar (where every year begins on the same day of the week). Every full month in a given year will start on the same day of the week Each full month contains exactly 4 weeks and thus 28 days

      Basically the first day of the month would change each year. But it would be the same for each month in that year. (because the months are exactly 4 weeks)

    5. Re:Sabbath by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sabbath was far more complex than just "every 7 days".

      A sabbath day was held on "the 7th day" of each week. So technically, if one special week contained 8 days, the sabbath would still only occur once during that week. It just wouldn't be the last day of the week. (The sabbath would be at the point where 7 days had elapsed since the beginning-of-week epoch, instead of a 7-days-since-last-sabbath interval.)

      A sabbath year was held every 7th year (interval, not elapsed count, so no skipping extras here).

      As a special bonus a "Jubilee year" was to be held as a second sabbath year every 7th sabbath year. (So years 7, 14, 21, 28, 35, 42, and 49 are all sabbaths, but year 50 is a "jubilee" and is also considered a sabbath. Then the cycle starts over with year 51.) This sets a precedent for doubling up sabbaths back-to-back, if you believe it to always be an interval and not an elapsed count from an epoch.

      Personally, none of this affects me directly, but it's still rather interesting to see how it worked (aside from the well-known no-work-on-sabbath traditions, jubilee years "reset" the land ownership of the nation of Israel back to its original inheritance rights and gave indentured servants a chance to become free again), and why it was instituted in the first place (because God required His people to take a day off from work and focus on serving Him and being a united community, periodically let the fields lie fallow to recover nutrients, and to show kindness and mercy to each other).

    6. Re:Sabbath by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People should use a religious/ceremonial calendar for religious/ceremonial purposes. People only ever try to propose new civilian calenders; inventing a new religious calendar only works when you're inventing a whole new religion for it.

      Similar to how (almost) all Muslims use their Hijri calendar for observances, but will use the Gregorian calendar for civilian purposes because it makes the dates predictable (in Hijri the months depend upon being able to see the moon) and interoperable with the rest of the world.

    7. Re:Sabbath by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There have been various alternative calendars proposed, and some of them have the property that there's a special day in the yearly calendar which doesn't count as part of the regular seven-day-per-week cycle (such as the "month zero" proposed here).

      A significant objection is that some religions require that every seventh day be kept as a holy day. If the calendar contains a day which isn't part of the regular week, then there are sometimes more than seven days between one weekly holy day and the next.

      It's not a consideration for me personally. However, I'm sure that this feature would lead to significant resistance to the adoption of such a calendar.

      I would hope we could convince people the extra days simply didn't count. Of course, that's assuming there were a good reason to implement this calendar in the first place.

  13. Everything old is new again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is nothing more than the ancient Lunar Calendar.

  14. scientists and engineers don't want leap seconds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They screw everything up.

    We already have TAI and GPS (somewhat) to solve these problems.

  15. All I want to know is by xednieht · · Score: 1

    Will I still get cake on my birthday?

    --

    Hope is the currency of fools
    1. Re:All I want to know is by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      The cake is a lie!

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    2. Re:All I want to know is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only when cut into 13 equal slices...

      When do we get the new Zodiac sign?

    3. Re:All I want to know is by gnick · · Score: 1

      Sorry - If your birthday falls after the 28th of the month, your birthday is being revoked. That's OK though - We can toss our names in the pool for birthday reassignment sometime during Smarch.

      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
  16. Leo Frankowski's estate called by Chas · · Score: 1

    They want his calendaring system back.

    --


    Chas - The one, the only.
    THANK GOD!!!
  17. WOW!!! Way to much time on their hands! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Somebody who can take the time to try and invent a new calendar system...and bases it around the UNIX epoch...has WAY to much time on their hands...what next - should we use the Klingon calendar? - LOL!!!

    1. Re:WOW!!! Way to much time on their hands! by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      Just as long as they don't mess up the next Y2K programming bonanza when 0x7fffffff gets here. You can change the wall calendar, but please don't screw up, or fix, the UNIX Epoch until a year after it ends. :P

    2. Re:WOW!!! Way to much time on their hands! by gnick · · Score: 1

      Based on the birth of UNIX is at least agreed upon. The birth of Jesus is up for debate and an odd choice to try and promote as a global "Year Zero". We need to devote our resources to determining the exact moment of the big bang and start counting from there. At least writing the date would give people some idea of perspective. "Wow - I can't believe it's 13.805.624.212.04.27.14.21.12 already... Seems like just yesterday it was just 13.805.624.211.04.27.14.21.12!" "Lord... It's only 13.805.624.212.04.27.14.21.12... I don't get off work until 13.805.624.212.04.27.15.30.00 today. I've been here since 13.805.624.212.04.27.06.05.33!"

      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
    3. Re:WOW!!! Way to much time on their hands! by jonbryce · · Score: 2

      The birth of Jesus is "year one", not "year zero". We go from 1BC (or BCE if you prefer) to 1AD (or CE) with no year zero.

      We do know for a fact that we got year one wrong in our calculations. The Bible says Jesus was born during the reign of King Herod, and King Herod died in 4BC.

    4. Re:WOW!!! Way to much time on their hands! by gnick · · Score: 1

      Which means it's up for debate. All we really know is that it's "not too far off" and likely in the wrong season.

      Anyway it was meant mostly facetiously in case that wasn't apparent from the post. All I was trying to get across is that the calendar start time is arbitrary. Even if the gods descend and tell us the exact place, time, and date of the birth, that doesn't mean we have to change the year, or Christmas, or anything else. We've been rolling with it this long, why lift the whole train onto an identical set of parallel tracks? For the sake of accuracy? My guesstimate of the big bang wasn't far off from accepted theory. And, as a calendar start date, my big bang guess is as useful as the commonly used year 1 or Unix epoch or really any other metric.

      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
  18. And this will happen... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...a month after Linux takes over the desktop/laptop market.

  19. And people thought Y2K was expensive by JimMcc · · Score: 1

    The conversion to this system would make all the Y2K mitigation costs seem like peanuts. Oh yeah, and a beer to go with the peanuts.

  20. Congratulation You've invented a Mideval Cal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It sucked, btw that is why we don't use it anymore.

  21. Pay check by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Companies will be able to pay their employees only on the mid month days and pocket more interest by holding up their last of month paychecks until the next mid month. It will be great for the economy! Everyone in favor say 'I'.

  22. You know you are old when... by stox · · Score: 1

    you realize that you were born BEFORE the epoch.

    --
    "To those who are overly cautious, everything is impossible. "
    1. Re:You know you are old when... by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      Wow, man, I knew you were older than water but I didn't realize you were older than time!

    2. Re:You know you are old when... by D2Deek · · Score: 1

      that's 'older than time_t.'

  23. Not bad by jdavidb · · Score: 2

    As far as calendars go, this is not a bad effort. I don't think I would personally use it, but I've seen (and created) far, far worse. It is very regular; the rules have few exceptions, and the exceptions are well-defined. There aren't too many decisions in it that stand out as glaringly unjustified or confusing, other than of course by definition, when you create a new calendar, the very decision to do so stands out as glaringly unjustified. :)

  24. I'm in by Rich_Lather · · Score: 2

    As long as the months are named after Jesus and the twelve disciples.

    1. Re:I'm in by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      Naw, the Christians would all freak out unless you exclude the ones they don't like.

    2. Re:I'm in by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No problem concidering there were 13 if you count the replacement for Judas. I just wouldn't want to be born in Judas.

    3. Re:I'm in by operagost · · Score: 1

      You gotta be reasonable about Judas, man. Make him Month 0.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    4. Re:I'm in by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      So that only Judas comes before Jesus? I don't think you're reducing the debate there. ;)

      But truly being reasonable about Judas is a lot to ask. http://news.nationalgeographic...

  25. Terms should not refer to daylight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I object to the use the 'midnight' as a way of describing the change from 0.23.59.59TC to 1.23.59.59TC as I happen to live in UTC-7hr time zone. I suggest the term 'roll-hour'.

    Also there should be a different delimiter between days and hours, maybe a slash (ie 0/23.59.59TC).

  26. Interesting effort by dskoll · · Score: 1

    ... but I predict that the US will switch to SI units for everyday measurements before this new calendar is adopted. :)

    1. Re:Interesting effort by gewalker · · Score: 1

      And I predict the US will cease to exist, and be long forgotten before this new calendar is adopted.

      The Morlocks might be early adopters of the this new-fangled calendar system.

    2. Re:Interesting effort by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Will that be before or after the heath-death of the universe?

    3. Re:Interesting effort by dskoll · · Score: 1

      But by then, the Earth's rotation will have slowed so a day is longer and a year is no longer 365 days and the Morlocks will need their own calendar reform.

    4. Re:Interesting effort by gewalker · · Score: 1

      Due to tidal drag the Earth's day is lengthening around 2 ms/day per century. Morlocks are about 8000 centuries in the future. Changing the mean solar day from 86400 seconds to 86416 will not dramatically affect the design of a calendar -- you just tweak how often leap years occur.

      As a troglodytic race Morlocks really don't have to do anything about calendars or clocks.

  27. Einstein explained that space-time is relative by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Einstein explained that space-time is relative. Yet there is no shortage of people attempting to standardize them, which is to say make them absolute. The best we can ever do is to convert from somebody else's frame of reference into ours. There is no intrinsic standard, no absolute. Your pet measurement system is no better than mine; but at least the current one goes for a walk every day. Yours just sits there and licks itself.

  28. /sigh by Guppy06 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    13 identical months of 28 days each

    365 is semiprime and neither of those factors is either 13 or 28.

    in addition to a short Month Zero containing only new year's day

    Epagomenal days wreak havoc on "monthly" billing cycles (see: Coptic calendar, Mayan calendar, et al.). This is why the Julian and Gregorian bissextile day is explicitly a part of February.

    and a single leap year day every four years (with the exception of every 128 years).

    The Gregorian calendar design explicitly rejected more precise intercalation cycles in favor of numbers that were easier to remember (i.e. more user friendly). Hell, the quadrennial bissextile cycle introduced by the Julian calendar got screwed up in Augustus Caesar's own lifetime. Never underestimate the need for simplicity.

    The beginning of this zero-based numbering calendar, denoted as 0.0.0.0.0.0 TC

    We can't even get all programming languages to start their arrays at 0. What makes you think it'll be easier for non-programmers to accept this?

    is on the solstice, exactly 10 days before the UNIX Epoch (effectively, December 22nd, 1969 00:00:00 UTC in the Gregorian Calendar).

    The solstice is an instant; the date it occurs on depends entirely on your meridian/time zone (e.g. the Chinese calendar explicitly specifies Beijing time). So "exactly ten days" is a meaningless descriptor.

    Besides, since you're adopting a quadrennial intercalation cycle, that instant will drift back about six hours every year, further screwing up your "exactness."

    Last but not least: the solstice is a fundamentally difficult astronomical phenomena to measure. The instant it occurs is somewhere in the window where the sun's north-south motion is too small to measure. Equinoxes have historically been measured with far greater precision.

    It's "terran" inception and unit durations reflect the human biological clock

    Then where the heck are your 28-day months coming from? The billions of people who live under a lunar or luni-solar calendar already know that the average synodic month is about 29.5 days, and that's the "month" that affects tides and human fertility cycles.

    and align with astronomical cycles and epochs.

    Really?

    • There is no integer number or integer ratio of days (mean solar or otherwise) in a tropical year
    • There is no integer number or integer ratio of days (mean solar or otherwise) in a synodic month
    • There is no integer number or integer ratio of months (synodic or otherwise) in a tropical year

    Days, months and years have nothing to do with each other; there is nothing to "align" to.

    Its "computational" notation, start date, and algorithm are tailored towards the mathematicians & scientists tasked with calendrical programming and precise time calculation.

    Days, months and years aren't SI units, and the one true SI unit of time has jack shit to do with any of them.

    1. Re:/sigh by AthanasiusKircher · · Score: 1

      in addition to a short Month Zero containing only new year's day

      Epagomenal days wreak havoc on "monthly" billing cycles (see: Coptic calendar, Mayan calendar, et al.). This is why the Julian and Gregorian bissextile day is explicitly a part of February.

      In other words, we can't have something simple, but need to adopt a stupid very complex system (which requires us to memorize a freakin' poem to remember how long months are) to accommodate the fiction of a standard "billing month." (Why exactly?)

      and a single leap year day every four years (with the exception of every 128 years).

      The Gregorian calendar design explicitly rejected more precise intercalation cycles in favor of numbers that were easier to remember (i.e. more user friendly). Hell, the quadrennial bissextile cycle introduced by the Julian calendar got screwed up in Augustus Caesar's own lifetime. Never underestimate the need for simplicity.

      In other words, we need to accept the fiction of an inaccurate placement of bissextile days which will ultimately cause the calendar to drift, because we need a simple system.

      In case you haven't noticed, you are offering completely inconsistent justifications, using whatever logic is necessary to maintain the status quo.

      By the way, I'm pretty sure your billing software would work just as easily with 13 standard month lengths, and a day grafted on (as a fiction) to a neighboring month for billing or whatever, just as we already do with leap day. And the reason the Julian calendar got screwed up has to do with an ambiguity in Roman counting about whether to count "inclusively" (i.e., including the starting and ending points) or not. We don't have that problem nowadays, and with modern technology and advance notice, it would be easy to implement non-leap-day years whenever necessary to be more accurate, just as we deal with leap seconds.

      The real reason for many of your quibbles is simply because we have a standard time system and nobody wants to change it.

    2. Re:/sigh by Guppy06 · · Score: 1

      (which requires us to memorize a freakin' poem to remember how long months are)

      It's a system that affords an easy division of the year into "quarters" (12 is highly composite, contrasted with prime 13), based on tropical seasons of unequal lengths (thanks to our elliptical orbit), seasons on which agriculture (the basis of all civilization) depends. By gaining ease of use in one area you're losing it in another.

      In other words, we need to accept the fiction of an inaccurate placement of bissextile days which will ultimately cause the calendar to drift, because we need a simple system.

      When asked if AD 4000 should be a bissextile or common year, the best that modern astronomy in 2014 can say is "maybe." Changing the intercalation cycle from one based on 400 years to one based on 128 years does not add appreciable precision or meaningful longevity into the calendar, but does increase the complexity in implementing it.

      Don't think Clavius didn't know that 400 years was less precise than other options.

      In case you haven't noticed, you are offering completely inconsistent justifications, using whatever logic is necessary to maintain the status quo.

      Even if I am, the status quo is already in place and has a lot of social inertia behind it. To paraphrase Carl Sagan, the extraordinary change of implementing this calendar will require extraordinary justification. All I'm seeing here is a different arrangement of trade-offs, and we'd have nothing to gain from changing but entropy.

      By the way, I'm pretty sure your billing software would work just as easily with 13 standard month lengths, and a day grafted on (as a fiction) to a neighboring month for billing or whatever

      Which neighboring month? What's to stop the water company from appending it to month 1 and the power company from appending it to month 13? Hell, it only took 1800 years for everyone to agree that the new year started in January rather than March.

      And if/when we do ever reach an agreed-upon standard for which month to append the epagomenal day to, why then treat it as its own month to begin with?

      Again: epagomenal days aren't new, but aren't popular and are currently only used in religious practice (where "God Himself told them to"). I don't see how this new proposal addresses this old problem.

      just as we already do with leap day

      Because everyone agrees the intercalary day is a part of February, because that's a part of the defined standard.

      And the reason the Julian calendar got screwed up has to do with an ambiguity in Roman counting about whether to count "inclusively" (i.e., including the starting and ending points) or not. We don't have that problem nowadays

      Again: do arrays start with 0 or 1?

      Regardless, it highlights the need for ease-of-use when communicating a concept to the general public, especially when transitioning between counting systems, which this proposal with its "month 0" does.

      We don't have that problem nowadays, and with modern technology and advance notice, it would be easy to implement non-leap-day years whenever necessary to be more accurate

      We already have that with the Chinese calendar. The PRC's national observatory communicates exactly when the first lunar conjunction east of ecliptic longitude 300 degrees occurs (Beijing Time) and the duration of every true lunation thereafter (also Beijing Time) until the next new year. It is as precise as modern astronomy allows, because that's exactly what it is. Why aren't you using it?

      The real reason for many of your quibbles is simply because we have a standard time system and nobody wants to change it.

      ... and?

    3. Re:/sigh by Aleph_Zarro · · Score: 1

      Even the creators of this system are having problems counting months in a 0 based system.

      "MONTH NAMES It may be easiest to name each month by its month number. By doing so, we end up with Month 0, Month 1, Month 2, Month 3, Month 4, Month 5, Month 6, Month 7, Month 8, Month 9, Month 10, Month 11, Month 12, and Month 13. In order for this calendar to remain neutral, the use of actual names for months is highly discouraged. "

      If the months are zero based, and there are 13 identical months, there should only be months numbered 0-12. Month 13 would actually be the 14th month.

      Fer cryin' out loud.

    4. Re:/sigh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Epagomenal days wreak havoc on "monthly" billing cycles (see: Coptic calendar, Mayan calendar, et al.).

      The Mayas had problems with their billing cycles? Anyway, billing cycles could simply ignore these days, just as they now ignore that our months are not equal in length.

      and a single leap year day every four years (with the exception of every 128 years).

      The Gregorian calendar design explicitly rejected more precise intercalation cycles in favor of numbers that were easier to remember (i.e. more user friendly).

      I don't find a combination of 4, 100 and 400 easier to remember than 2^2 and 2^7.

    5. Re:/sigh by Guppy06 · · Score: 1

      Anyway, billing cycles could simply ignore these days, just as they now ignore that our months are not equal in length.

      If you start service on an epagomenal day, are you expected to pay for all of month 13? If you stop it on that day, are you excpected to pay for all of month 1?

      I don't find a combination of 4, 100 and 400 easier to remember than 2^2 and 2^7.

      The last skipped bissextile year was 1900. List all the skipped years from now until 3000 if we start using the 128-year cycle from that date, using only your head.

      Now do the same for the Gregorian system.

  29. Interesting, but irrelevant by jc42 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    We already have a calendar system "For the Information Age": the second counter. Actually, of course, we have a whole series of them, but they differ only in the zero "epoch" second, so translation between them is trivial. The most widely-used such counter is the unix/POSIX time() value, perhaps augmented with a decimal point and a fractional second value.

    This "calendar system" has a property that all the others lack: simple arithmetic operations work with it. And once you have the second for some event, there are library routines that can translate it to a human-readable form in any other calendar that you like.

    So feel free to invent other interesting calendars; we software types won't be offended. We'll just ask you to be very precise in how you define your calendar, so we can write the routines to produce your calendar from ours. Of course, we'll expect you to pay us for this unnecessary labor, but it only has to be done once for each calendar. And maybe one of your calendars can be the human-readable calendar that supplants the silly Christian calendar, relegating it to use in scheduling your religious holidays.

    Just don't ask us to use your calendar (or any other that's not a single number that can be used to any precision) inside our OSs or libraries. The "Information Age" needs a calendar system that works using ordinary real numbers, and aside from the question of when the zero was, we have that already.

    (Actually, there's also the slowly-growing problem of different clock speeds caused by relativistic effects, but that's probably a discussion for a much more technical forum than this one. ;-)

    --
    Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
  30. Speaking of DST... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why can we not, when time change comes around next, not agree to change one-half hour and stop. Can 30 minutes mean that much to schoolkids, farmers, etc,? One last change of a half hour then done, forever.

  31. Yay Fugue Feast! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Someone's been playing a lot of Dishonored.
    http://dishonored.wikia.com/wiki/Calendar

  32. Metric religion by Sloppy · · Score: 1

    People should switch to metric religion. The sabbaths are every ten days, there are ten super-holy days per year (each with one special rite and ten minor cultural flavorings) which are always guaranteed to never also land on a sabbath so you get an extra day off from work, there are ten gods, the tenth son of a tenth son gets a magic power (among a choice of ten possibe powers, and balanced by one of ten disadvantages), each priest gets immunity from prosecution for one of ten different crimes (yes, rape is one of the choices, but they don't all have to choose rape!), the holy book that you're expected to be familiar with is only a hundred pages long and contains ten myths, and the kilochurches (there are no "megachurches") are only allowed to have one thousand members apiece before they're required to fission into hectochurches, so there's plenty of parking and they don't antagonize their surrounding community so much, thereby limiting the amount that you're hated and loathed in residential areas.

    --
    As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
  33. Let's go all the way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Since time and space are the same anyway, let's come up with a truly computational measure of time that reflects that couples with distance, not some rehash of our existing calendar that really isn't much different.

  34. I've seen this somewhere before... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Lousy Smarch Weather!

  35. Five million years to Earth by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

    It's all seconds, or fractions of a second to your heart's desire, for calculations and deltas.

    The rest is human-usable representation, a "pretty print". Making the pretty print be more useful to computers rather than people is less than helpful.

    --
    (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
  36. Zero is fine for indexing an array by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So, the months are 28 days long ...
    How many days is it from 0:00 at 28th of month one till 24:00 1st of month two?
    Wow it is not two days? Just because you idiot decided the first day is named ZERO?
    There is no 0st element in anything, there is a first, a last and an n'th and if you want your 'thing' may contain zero elements and be empty!
    There is no zero'th wheel on your car, nor is the first beer you drink in the evening your zero'th beer, it is the first ... try to get that.

    --
    Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    1. Re:Zero is fine for indexing an array by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only most people celebrated the millennium in 2000, implying they all thought the first year was 0.

  37. Because one shoe does not fit all. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Every time I hear somebody say all weights and measures should use base 10 I think to myself "that guy should be forced to wear the same size shoes as every body else, so he might become enlightened."

  38. A different obligatory xkcd by in10se · · Score: 1
    --
    Popisms.com - Connecting pop culture
  39. Do it the perl way by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 1

    Right now, here in western Washington state, it's day 27 of month 2 in the year 114.

    Hey it's exactly 6 months until Wall-mas!

    --
    #DeleteChrome
    1. Re:Do it the perl way by JustNiz · · Score: 2

      Here in Phoenix its ALWAYS 10 minutes to Wal-Mart.

  40. Form: Why your new calendar system won't work by in10se · · Score: 2

    You advocate a ________ approach to calendar reform. Your idea will not work. Here is why:

    Standard Reply Form for Your New Calendar System Idea

    --
    Popisms.com - Connecting pop culture
    1. Re:Form: Why your new calendar system won't work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      awesome, thanks for sharing!

  41. Re: Not really imperial units by xfade551 · · Score: 2

    It's a common misconception that the U.S. uses Imperial Units. Sure, we use the same unit names as Imperial, but really, ours are just a bit off, except for liquid measures, which are off by a fairly large amount.

    Modern U.S. standard units are also set to be fixed values of the metric system:

    1 pound-mass = 0.45359237 kg (exactly)
    1 inch (US Standard)= 2.54 cm (exactly)
    1 gallon (US liquid) = 231 cubic inches (exactly) = 3.785 L (approx.)

    But, compare:
    1 gallon (UK "Imperial") = 4.54609 L (exactly)

    There's also the quirk that, for land surveys, the older definition of 1 foot = (1200/3937) meter is still used. The difference between the standard foot and the survey foot is at the fifth decimal place, so most of the time, it's an insignificant difference.

  42. Grammar Nazi turns Calendar Nazi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    From the second paragraph on the landing page: "The terran computational calendar utilizes integers [...] and all it's units use 0 as their initial position."

    I'd hate to use a time keeping system designed by someone who doesn't understand the difference between "its" and "it's".

  43. UN Visionary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I can recall hearing about this in 2004, so I don't know what is meant by introducing. The report at the time described the inventor (whose name I wish I could remember) who saw himself as a visionary, which he realised he was when he started taking acid. Furthermore as an acid user he discovered paganism which lead to the need for 13 month years for magical reasons.

    1. Re:UN Visionary by FatLittleMonkey · · Score: 1

      13 month calendars go back to the 18th century at least. So pre-date LSD.

      --
      Science is all about firing a drunk pig out of a cannon just to see what happens.
  44. looks vaguely familiar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    like theabysmal calendar, the aquarian calendar, the Kluznickian calendar, and a whole host of others.

    new calendars require kings, popes, or dictators to impose them, and even then they might add 80 days (Julius Caesar, I'm looking at you), or remove 11 days (King George II).

    Maybe Pope Francis (P-Frank to his friends) has something up his sleeve.

  45. WATCH OUT! SECRET SNAAAAKE! by Thud457 · · Score: 1

    We already got one

    --

    the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

  46. MOD PARENT UP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    At your AM-PM Mini Market,
    You can drive right up in your car and park it!
    You can shop around the clock all right;
    We're open morning, noon and night!
    You can shop around the clock all day and night!

  47. Asimov by jlv · · Score: 1

    I do remember reading a similar proposal in one of Isaac Asimov's non-fiction books.

    His proposal included having January 1 start on a Sunday. This meant there were 13 months each with a Friday the 13th. He considered this appropriate, as I recall.

    1. Re:Asimov by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My proposal is better: the calendar has renamed all days to Friday, months have a length of 1 and start on the 13th. There are 365 months each year. Naming the months is going to be awesome, like a .sex dns race I will sell the rigths for each month to celebrities (e.g. today is Friday the 13th of Lady Gaga).

  48. Sounds like Ethiopian Calendar by mspohr · · Score: 2

    The Ethiopian calendar has 12 months of 30 days plus a thirteenth month of five or six days (leap year every four years).
    Their national travel motto is "Thirteen months of sunshine".
    They also start their clock at (our) 6am which can be a bit confusing when making appointments to meet people (our 10am is their 4am).
    They also missed the Gregorian calendar correction so it's now 2006!
    From Wikipedia:
    Like the Coptic calendar, the Ethiopic or Ge'ez calendar has twelve months of exactly 30 days each plus five or six pagome days, which comprise a thirteenth month. The Ethiopian months begin on the same days as those of the Coptic calendar, but their names are in Ge'ez. The sixth epagomenal day is added every four years without exception on August 29 of the Julian calendar, six months before the Julian leap day. Thus the first day of the Ethiopian year, 1 Mäskäräm, for years between 1901 and 2099 (inclusive), is usually September 11 (Gregorian). It, however, falls on September 12 in years before the Gregorian leap year.

    The current year according to the Ethiopian calendar is 2006, which began on September 11, 2013 AD of the Gregorian calendar.

    --
    I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
  49. Re:scientists and engineers don't want leap second by Alain+Williams · · Score: 1

    They screw everything up.

    Ignoring leap seconds just pushes the problem to our great-geat grandchilren. By the time that they have to deal with it the problem will be even worse. Far better to fix your program to cope with leap seconds than leave future generations a problem as your legacy. Don't be lazy.

  50. I can't believe... by rmckeethen · · Score: 1

    ...that no one has even considered how this stacks-up to the Time Cube.

  51. Darn it by Trogre · · Score: 1

    Here I was hoping this was going to be about a calendar system to replace davical + lightning, Outlook or Google Calendar.

    Not so, it seems...

    --
    "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
  52. April Fools? by metoc · · Score: 1

    I guess April Fools came early with the new calendar. Or is the timing of the announcement off?

  53. Can it Joda? by janvo · · Score: 1

    Unless Joda Time supports it ... I'm not interested!

  54. whaaaa :-) ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    1. Re:whaaaa :-) ? by jc42 · · Score: 1

      Is the parenthesis part of the emoticon?!!! or is your EMOTICON MOUTHLESS?!?!?!

      Heh. I've noticed that both are quite common, and depending on aesthetic ideals about such things, one or the other is likely to offend most readers. So I try to use both of them, preferably close together.

      In any case, the ";-)" one isn't mouthless, since if you lean your head to the left, you can clearly see that the paren is the mouth. Adding the left paren not only gives balanced parens, but also gives the emoticon a forehead. Apparently it's bald, but what can ya do?

      One fun part of all this agonizing is that if you include both parens (perhaps in a misguided sense to satisfy picky editing software ;-), the rendering software often converts the ";-)" to an image, but leaves the "(" as is, producing an unclosed open paren.

      Ya can't win at such games; the only winning move is to refuse to play. Or maybe to throw a monkey wrench into both attitudes.

      --
      Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
  55. Big money by smittyoneeach · · Score: 1

    goes around the world

    --
    Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
  56. That's the smell by smittyoneeach · · Score: 2

    scentipeed

    --
    Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
  57. Better Solution by fyngyrz · · Score: 1

    Try this solution on for size (also something that will never be implemented, but...):

    --
    I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
  58. Long Now Foundation: The 10,000 Year Clock by handy_vandal · · Score: 1

    The Long Now Foundation was established in 01996* to develop the Clock and Library projects, as well as to become the seed of a very long-term cultural institution. The Long Now Foundation hopes to provide a counterpoint to today's accelerating culture and help make long-term thinking more common. We hope to creatively foster responsibility in the framework of the next 10,000 years.

    About

    --
    -kgj
  59. For mathematicians and scientists... ? by Ashtead · · Score: 1

    What advantage does this offer over traditional Julian Day numbering. where each day is sequentially numbered and their number is divisible by 7 on Mondays? As long as it is necessary to refer to civil or traditional time that can be easily converted.

    --
    SIGBUS @ NO-07.308
  60. Wrong language by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This article would have been much better if it was written in Esparanto.

    1. Re:Wrong language by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lojban, surely?

  61. Tranquility calendar by Tekoneiric · · Score: 1

    Reminds me of the Tranquility calendar published in Omni magazine back in July 1989. http://www.mithrandir.com/Tran...

    --
    *It's not what you can do for the Dark Side but what the Dark Side can do for you!*
  62. Qeng Ho proverb by DoctorFrog · · Score: 1

    "You know you've stayed too long when you start using the customer's calendar system." - Qeng Ho proverb

  63. Frowny face. by FatLittleMonkey · · Score: 1

    That's decimal, not metric.

    --
    Science is all about firing a drunk pig out of a cannon just to see what happens.
  64. Boring and irrelevant by shrewdsheep · · Score: 1

    The next calendar system is as boring and irrelevant as the next programming language. Time is defined and measured by the passing of base unit (say a second) which can be counted. A calendar system is a surface on top of that unit. Make your pick but please do not bother others with your *better* new system.

  65. Can we start by making UTC a thing? by AC-x · · Score: 1

    How about we start by making UTC a thing? Seriously last summer there was an online live stream advertised in PST and GMT. This is while the UK was on BST. So, did they mean UK local time (BST) or GMT (which is one hour behind)?

  66. Awesome Quote by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I love a quote I read about someone explainging to a native american about daylight savings. "Only a white man would believe that you could cut a foot off the top of a blanket and sew it to the bottom of a blanket and have a longer blanket." I happen to agree daylight savings time is a farce, and it really messes with peoples biological clocks. It takes me three months to get over the damage it does to my sleep cycle.

  67. this terran calendar... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Will NEVER replace the Discordian calendar!

  68. Oh slashdot by allo · · Score: 1

    > First time accepted submitter chimeraha (3594169)
    Wayne?

    1. Re: Oh slashdot by chimeraha · · Score: 1

      nope

  69. 360 + 4 or 5? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why not go back to the old 12 months of 30 days then add in 5 or 6 sync-days depending if it is a leap year.

    I can see having 4 weeks of 7 days in a month being useful but I don't think this will fly. What would we name the 13th month?