Terran Computational Calendar Introduces Minimonths, Year Bases, and Datemods

Still not a StarCraft reference... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-30 12:39 · Score: 1

Every time /. mentions the Terran calendar I get my hopes up.

Re:Still not a StarCraft reference... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-30 14:47 · Score: 0, Troll

Oh, you big fibber: you've gotten exactly nothing up since the operation.
Re:Still not a StarCraft reference... by flyneye · 2014-05-30 23:28 · Score: 1

This concept is not entirely new, in fact it is very old. Is this not what we have Rabbis for?
This software probably has it all arbitrarily wrong. Maybe not, was this written by a Rabbi? Many of them are off too. This has been a point of some discussion over the years, but the calendar remains, perhaps not the seconds in all cases, but it is not unheard of.
Now there is a secular calendar having a crack at it, good luck with that, let me know how it all turns out. Starting with the solstice is going to be a popular FAIL and the wrong foot to get off on. The REAL challenge is to straighten out the Hebrew Calendar, sync it with the weather service and dept. of agriculture to predict when a 13 month (leap month) should fall.

--
*Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
Re:Still not a StarCraft reference... by TC+0 · 2014-05-31 17:42 · Score: 1

What do you think would be a good epoch for a calendar and why?
Do you like the gregorian's January 1st? starting 2013+ years ago? Why?
northern vernal equniox? and if so, why not the southern vernal equinox?
What would you want from a calendar?
Re:Still not a StarCraft reference... by flyneye · 2014-06-01 23:17 · Score: 1

acceptance.

--
*Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!

yeah, this is an improvement by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-30 12:42 · Score: 0

Offsets from unix epoch, arbitrary delimiters...we already have this: it's know as status quo, and in regards to dates, it sucks.

Re:yeah, this is an improvement by TC+0 · 2014-05-30 14:19 · Score: 1

True, but at least any terran computational date configuration is an unambiguous instant in time. And what makes the terran computational calendar unique is its ability to either include or exclude leap seconds with 'year bases' and/or jump forward or backwards a certain number of quarters/months/days/hours/minutes/seconds with 'datemods'.
Re:yeah, this is an improvement by camperdave · 2014-05-30 17:43 · Score: 1

True, but at least any terran computational date configuration is an unambiguous instant in time.
While that may be true, the converse isn't: An unambiguous instant in time can have an number terran date configurations. now= yesterday with a datemod of 86400, for example.

TC is cute and all, but it's just another way of writing UTC. I'll stick to ISO 8601, thanks.

--
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
Re:yeah, this is an improvement by TC+0 · 2014-05-30 19:13 · Score: 2

Yeah, I love ISO 8601 too: it's easy to use because it's standardized. But extremely strict standards arent always the best in every situation.

Besides the fact that the terran computational calendar's time of day is often in sync with UTC and that TC can account for UTC's IERS issued leap seconds, it has little else to do with UTC and a lot to do with the 1977 TAI redefinition (TAI = International Atomic Clock). UTC works well for dates after 1977, but exact dates before that are iffy especially before 1972 when leap seconds were treated differently. In addition to that, UTC makes it a little hard to work with leap seconds when it comes to UTC. I haven't created an complete implementation of UTC myself, and I wouldn't want to. The terran computational algorithm is relatively simple to implement, even with it's dynamics.

Standardizing the terran computational calendar would be much easier than standardizing UTC, but we all know that's it's adoption on any grand scale any time soon is unrealistic. But... I'm not convinced that grandscale adoption is really it's true purpose.
Re: yeah, this is an improvement by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-31 03:25 · Score: 0

This is why POSIX time is nice. There are no leap seconds. Date calculations are comparatively trivial considering that the leap year formula hasn't changed in over 400 years.
Of course in POSIX a second might be longer or shorter when synchronizing with TAI on a day that had a leap second. But 99% of software shouldn't care. The other 0.9% should be using the system monotonic clock. And the remaining 0.1% can just use TAI.
Re: yeah, this is an improvement by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-31 05:01 · Score: 0

I suspect that you can't have it both ways--that is, it's possible that there isn't a date format that produces a precisely defined point in time in one and only one way.
There are multiple mathematical concepts that turn out in similar ways: you have a few different properties that you'd like to have in conjunction, but it turns out that they can't all coexist. For example, a measure (which may be thought of as a generalization of the integral) cannot have all four properties of universalness, countable additivity, length agreement, and translational invariance, but can have up to 3 of any of them.
Furthermore, I could see this calendar having applications moreso in science and industry, not everyday life (for it is a slightly complicated format!). Using it in programming applications (which I suspect is the primary motivation) further increases the ease of application; once you have a Boolean isEqual() function written, one wouldn't have to worry about the different ways of representing a time.
Re:yeah, this is an improvement by camperdave · 2014-05-31 06:48 · Score: 1

Besides the fact that the terran computational calendar's time of day is often in sync with UTC and that TC can account for UTC's IERS issued leap seconds, it has little else to do with UTC and a lot to do with the 1977 TAI redefinition (TAI = International Atomic Clock).

Yes and no. TC timekeeping is kept in sync with the Earth's rotation, as evidenced by its use of leap days, thus it is kept in sync with UTC (which is also synced to Earth's rotation). The difference is that leap seconds are held until the 13th Luna, rather than dispersed throughout the year.

... but we all know that's it's adoption on any grand scale any time soon is unrealistic. But... I'm not convinced that grandscale adoption is really it's true purpose.
The more I look at it, the more I like it. However, I do see a few issues:
- The terms month and mini-month should be abandoned in favour of the Luna. "Month" has too much cultural baggage. Lunas should not be named.
- Choosing the winter solstice as the start of the year. I can understand wanting to sync with an orbital event, but astronomy (and astrology before that) settled on the vernal equinox as the zero point long ago.
- Choosing a start point of the year that is not aligned with Jan 01. Most civic calendars start with this date. The 1977 TAI/UTC redefinition was coordinated with this instant.
- Nothing new, really. We already have accumulated seconds time standards. We already have time standards adjusted for the Earth's rotation. We already have notations of a base instant plus offset. The only advantages I see to TC is fixed length Lunas, and the seconds field never exceeding 59.

By the way, the TC website is broken. Try entering 2014-01-01 0:0:0 into the converter. It flips to 2013.

--
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
Re:yeah, this is an improvement by TC+0 · 2014-05-31 11:45 · Score: 1

Oops! My bad. The converter is fixed now . Had to use javascript's getUTCFullYear instead of getFullYear. It apparently makes a difference when months and days are at their origin like your 2014-01-01 0:0:0 example. Thanks for reporting the bug! Here's a jsfiddle to demonstrate the difference.

Lunas: Yeah, that might be a good idea. However, I think naming them 'Lunas' might give people the impression that this is a lunar calendar, and that would be bad because it definitely doesn't accurately tract the cycles of the moon in any way shape or form. The calendar currently only uses the term Luna in the datemod section in order to define L = 28 days because M = 60 seconds. Hmmm... Good thought though.

Choice of year schronization:
seasons: I've heard people say that the equinox is a more stable constant so it definitely has that going for it. The solstice was chosen because it is the darkest point (but only in the northern hemisphere). The new moon is at the darkest point and so is the day. I'm not completely convinced that the terran computational calendar should break with that standard, but maybe, the equinox would definitely be a more neutral location. But if we are staying on the side of neutrality then which equinox?
january 1: If you're going to create a whole new calendar, I feel like keeping with a January 1st start date would be very confusing because you might expect the date to be a UTC date when it's totally not at all the same. But there'd be lots of confusion in ANY case. I know that TAI/UTC/UNIX uses January 1st, but besides that, do you know of any good reason to use January 1st as a start date other than convention?

Thanks again.
Re: yeah, this is an improvement by TC+0 · 2014-05-31 11:54 · Score: 1

Yes, it could applications in science and industry for sure.
It has the option of being a little complicated if you need it to be, but it definitely doesn't have to be. Would you say that 44-5-21 16:51:5 TC+7H is complicated? Or just that it would be hard for people in general to get used to because we're so used to our current system. And in that case, that's true about switching bewteen any calendar (which is still always a valid point).
Re:yeah, this is an improvement by camperdave · 2014-05-31 19:24 · Score: 1

Choice of year schronization: seasons: I've heard people say that the equinox is a more stable constant so it definitely has that going for it. The solstice was chosen because it is the darkest point (but only in the northern hemisphere). The new moon is at the darkest point and so is the day. I'm not completely convinced that the terran computational calendar should break with that standard, but maybe, the equinox would definitely be a more neutral location. But if we are staying on the side of neutrality then which equinox?
Well, I would argue for the spring equinox. It has long been used as the start of the year. The Romans used it as such (which is why September, October, November, and December are numbered so. They are the 7th to 10th month reckoning from a March start). It was used by the Celts, the Babylonians, Mayans, Germanic tribes, and a host of others. Stonehenge, Woodhenge, various "medicine wheels", even the Polynesians and Australian Aboriginal People had stone circles to kept track of the Equinoxes and the path the Sun made through the constellations.

By the way, the reason that the equinox is easier to determine than the solstice is this: On the equinox days, the sunrise is exactly due East and sunset is exactly due West. For the solstice, you have to measure the apparent altitude of the Sun, which varies by only a 60th of its apparent diameter from one day to the next near solstice time, and watch for the maximum (or minimum) altitude.

As far as starting at the darkest point, that's also not entirely true. I've already covered years, though I will mention that the Mayans used the winter solstice as their starting point. Lunar calendars generally start with either a full moon, or with the earliest visible crescent (consider the flags of the nations where lunar calendars predominate). This is because the new moon is nearly impossible to see, due to the Sun. As far as days, it has for the longest time been considered to be two step cycle, a twelve "hour" day and a twelve "hour" night (the hours were not of equal length). The day started at sunrise, and ended at sunset, though some cultures started the day at sunset rather than sunrise. In the early days, Roman timekeeping also started at sunrise. Time was kept using sundials and water clocks. Due to a quirk of Roman law, petitions before the courts needed to be made before midday (ante meredium), As the Roman empire spread across Europe and the near east, two things happened. Clocks became better, and noon became more important than sunrise. By the 4th century BC, Roman timekeeping had evolved to the current 12 hour day/12 hour night cycle with noon and midnight being 12:00.

january 1: If you're going to create a whole new calendar, I feel like keeping with a January 1st start date would be very confusing because you might expect the date to be a UTC date when it's totally not at all the same. But there'd be lots of confusion in ANY case. I know that TAI/UTC/UNIX uses January 1st, but besides that, do you know of any good reason to use January 1st as a start date other than convention?
Other than widespread convention, supported by numerous standards bodies and government decrees... well, no. However, I will throw this suggestion to you: If you're going to create a whole new calendar, and if keeping a Jan 1 start date is going to cause confusion anyways, then why not capitalize on that and use the spring equinox as your start point. I'm confident it will cause a lot less questions.

--
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
Re:yeah, this is an improvement by TC+0 · 2014-05-31 21:21 · Score: 1

Very interesting, thank you. You seem to be well versed in calendrics.

This source seems to suggest that the January 1st was a 'political compromise':

According to Kevin Tobin Julius Caesar wanted to start the year on the vernal equinox or the winter solstice, but the Senate, which traditionally took office on January 1st, the start of the Roman civil calendar year, wanted to keep January 1st as the start of the year, and Caesar yielded in a political compromise.
So our current calendar isn't really synchronized with anything: just when some ancient Roman big whigs got together every year. So, that's definitely not fit for the terran computational calendar start date.

As for the equinox, what year do you think we should sync that to? I'll see how that might work with terran computational algorithm....:
vernal equinox 1970: 6825600 seconds (79 days) after the UNIX Epoch.
Hmmm... not as round as -10 days, but maybe... What about 1977?
vernal equinox 1977: 228528000 TAI seconds (2645 TAI days) after the UNIX Epoch & 88 days after the 1977 TAI redefinition... easy to remember I guess. But then, how would leap seconds be handled? If they aren't handled then the day slowly drifts from midnight losing a full hour after about 4-5000 years (which is a pretty long time, so maybe leap seconds shouldn't really be accounted for). And maybe the terran computational calendar should simply keep in sync with TAI and then define year bases in some other way to handle leap seconds?

Calendar Epochs, in my opinion, are the most difficult things to pick when designing a calendar. I've had tons of trouble with it over the years.

And, as far as the beginning of units goes, I still like the thought of them changing when everything is in it's most dormant state.

Can you or anyone think of any other neutral accurately measurable Epochs?
Re:yeah, this is an improvement by camperdave · 2014-06-01 13:41 · Score: 1

Calendar Epochs, in my opinion, are the most difficult things to pick when designing a calendar. I've had tons of trouble with it over the years.

And, as far as the beginning of units goes, I still like the thought of them changing when everything is in it's most dormant state.

Can you or anyone think of any other neutral accurately measurable Epochs?
You've got basically four choices for setting an epoch:
- an astronomic event, like a conjunction or stellar alignment
- a politically/culturally convenient moment
- an arbitrary fiat declaration
- or a compromise.

Considering that the apparent point of the Terran Computational Calendar is to measure the motion of the Earth, an astronomic event is probably your best bet.

However, I think the more important question is the one raised by Peter on the website: "What is missing from the site is motivation, what advantage is there to this calendar when compared to the well known ones?" People have proposed 13 months of 28 days before. What problem are you trying to solve?

To me, the primary advantage of the Terran Computational Calendar is the system of basetime+datemod. The basetime is always in the UTC/Zulu time zone, whereas in ISO8601, the base is in local time unless designated otherwise. Sadly, the fact that it is not in phase with the normal calendar makes it unusable to me from a practicality standpoint.

Good luck with it though. I've learned a ton doing the research for my comments.

--
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!

Umm .... by gstoddart · 2014-05-30 12:42 · Score: 4, Insightful

OK, sure, you're invented your own calendar. I'm sure it's awesome.

But nobody will use it.

But, hey, some people speak Klingon at parties in the hopes it will impress their friends.

Seriously, do you expect people to use this? Or is it purely an intellectual exercise?

I'm afraid I don't see the point.

--
Lost at C:>. Found at C.

Re:Umm .... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · 2014-05-30 13:05 · Score: 1

The state of timekeeping is...not pretty... at present, so an improvement would be nice; but it's somewhat hard to argue for something really radical when you could file down some of the really pointy bits by just keeping the deterministic parts of the current time/date setup, and ignoring leap seconds(which will eventually become an issue; but that'll take a least a couple of centuries, so it will be somebody else's problem.) UTC sucks, TIA FTW!
Re:Umm .... by 14erCleaner · 2014-05-30 13:10 · Score: 4, Funny

It's simple; you just need to change the motions of the heavenly bodies so that Earth orbits the sun exactly 13 times per year, the Earth rotates exactly 28 times per month, and the Moon orbits the Earth exactly once per month. If you can arrange that, I'll gladly switch to your new calendar.

--
Have you read my blog lately?
Re:Umm .... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-30 13:25 · Score: 2, Interesting

Our sysadmin proudly showed off his latest scripts to log system and network load balances. Only problem, a single typing mistake made them use ddate instead of date, which made for interesting logs:
Date: Today is Sweetmorn, the 5th day of Confusion in the YOLD 3180
Celebrate Syaday
Re:Umm .... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-30 13:32 · Score: 0

Especially since we already have stardate and the federation has made it clear, consistent galactic time system....
Re:Umm .... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-30 13:33 · Score: 1

It's simple; you just need to change the motions of the heavenly bodies so that Earth orbits the sun exactly 13 times per year.
Disregarding that a year is one orbit around the sun, if you consider a year that is 1/13th of the current one, we would all fry.
Re:Umm .... by 14erCleaner · 2014-05-30 13:38 · Score: 2

Disregarding that a year is one orbit around the sun, if you consider a year that is 1/13th of the current one, we would all fry.
This redistribution of orbital motions is trickier than I thought.

--
Have you read my blog lately?
Re:Umm .... by TsuruchiBrian · 2014-05-30 13:50 · Score: 1

This is what people probably said to Gene Roddenberry: "OK sure you invented a language for the fictional race of people in your fictional TV show. I'm sure it's awesome. But nobody will use it."
1. Some people will use it and like it.
2. Widespread adoption is not the only redeeming quality a creative endeavor can have.

Seriously, do you expect people to use this? Or is it purely an intellectual exercise?
3. You're probably one of those people that doesn't get the point of philosophy also.

I'm afraid I don't see the point.
4. Then don't use it.
Re:Umm .... by rahvin112 · 2014-05-30 13:52 · Score: 2

Basing a calendar on the orbit of a planet when you might not be around the planet would be sort of silly. The calendar is created to standardize time such that when someone eventually leaves this solar system they have some time to use that isn't based on something they can no longer measure.
Earth time is handy if you are on earth but it's terribly inconvenient off it, partially because they are constantly applying corrections to that time to compensate for things like the planets rotation changing. You might not be aware of this but even thing like earthquakes that shift the planets mass around can and do changes the planets rotation. IIRC they have to apply "corrections" to the time every couple years to correct for these changes. These corrections would be meaningless to someone not on earth.
They may be a bit premature but eventually we'll need something like this for the people that (hopefully before we destroy ourselves) leave the solar system.
Re:Umm .... by gstoddart · 2014-05-30 13:58 · Score: 4, Interesting

1. Some people will use it and like it.
Sure, but let's be honest ... it's like speaking Klingon. It's cool, and maybe a fun intellectual exercise, but in the grand scheme of things more of a hobby than anything.

2. Widespread adoption is not the only redeeming quality a creative endeavor can have.
Sure, I get that ... but I'm desperately trying to see the point. It's like building a framework for building calendars. OK, does this come up much? (Hell, maybe it has applications in converting between calendars for all I know)

3. You're probably one of those people that doesn't get the point of philosophy also.
Now you're just being an ass. I may be a cynical old man, but I'm a well read cynical old man.

4. Then don't use it.
Oddly enough, not a problem.
That doesn't change the fact that the practical applications of this, on the surface at least, seem rather limited.
Feel free to use it. Have your own secret handshake with the 12 other guys who will. You can have annual conventions and everything. :-P

--
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
Re:Umm .... by FatdogHaiku · 2014-05-30 14:21 · Score: 3, Funny

On a venn diagram there is no intersection between "speak Klingon at parties" and "friends"...

--
You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office
Re:Umm .... by Greyfox · 2014-05-30 14:29 · Score: 1

It's not pretty because it evolved from an astronomical model. When timekeeping was being invented, we weren't entirely aware that's what we were modeling. This shit goes back thousands of years (Stonehenge, bitches!) and is organized that way for a reason. Like clockwork people come around and decide that the current system isn't elegant and should be redesigned. Inevitably their new design is shit and doesn't take into account all the stuff the current system does. This happens so regularly I'm thinking of building a timekeeping system around it.
The last big advance was redefining the second from one 86400th of a day to a set number of vibrations of an cesium atom, but they still worked it so it was as long as a second that was 1/86400th of a day. The only possible way to wrestle time into something other would be to completely remove the astronomical context so you just have a linear scale, but even then we'd still need 24 hour cycles because that's what the dirtball our species grew up on had. The UNIX epoch system works as reasonably well as anything else that's a linear scale, though Julian dates rub me the wrong way for some reason. Probably because they're floating point and I have to just convert the damn things to a UNIX epoch to do anything with them anyway. If you have an epoch using seconds or milliseconds, you can always just modulo by 86400 to get the time of day (in seconds) for any number you have, so that seems pretty reasonable to me. Personally I always just work in GMT and don't mess with time zones.
Really my only gripe is that at the moment there are like three different time APIs for UNIX that you're forced to use, and you always end up having to convert to a different one because you need to know what day it is and there's not an API call for the representation you're using. We seem to be setting down around gettimeofday, though, so maybe we'll just build up a bunch of functions around struct timevals and call it good.

--
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Re:Umm .... by TC+0 · 2014-05-30 14:49 · Score: 3, Informative

One of the practical applications is for realtime proactive dating purposes. By default, the Terran Computational Calendar accounts for IERS issued leap seconds. But, by appending a 'year base', only leap seconds before that year will be accounted for.
So say a little over 10 years ago at 34TC you wanted to schedule a task for EXACTLY 10 years in the future, you can write that date as 44TC34 and not have to worry about the 3 additional leap seconds that have occured during that time.

Another nice thing about the calendar is that it's easy to calculate the amount of time that occured since the beginning of the year. So basically 44.5.20,19.40.4 TC means that 5*(28*24*60*60)+20*(24*60*60)+19*(60*60)+40*(60)+4 = 13894804 seconds have past since the beginning of the year. The equivalent being 44TC+13894804. Most other calendars aren't too keen on this amount of simplicity.
Re:Umm .... by AthanasiusKircher · 2014-05-30 14:54 · Score: 2

Basing a calendar on the orbit of a planet when you might not be around the planet would be sort of silly.
Then why are we using base 28 and base 13 to organize the days into larger units? If we're trying to be independent of Earth's natural periods, why not make it all base 10 or base 2 or whatever you want, and be done with it?

The calendar is created to standardize time such that when someone eventually leaves this solar system they have some time to use that isn't based on something they can no longer measure.
Except it's fundamentally based on trying to reconstruct a 365-day-ish year with something close to a lunar cycle month -- otherwise, why use these stupid groupings?

They may be a bit premature but eventually we'll need something like this for the people that (hopefully before we destroy ourselves) leave the solar system.
Just a bit. Ya think?
Look -- in case you are unfamiliar with the long history of calendar reform, there are plenty of VERY similar calendar reform proposals going back hundreds of years. This one is barely different from a number of common ones that have been suggested before, since 13 and 28 are perhaps the easiest way to preserve something close to solar years, lunar months, and also have the cool side-benefit of lining up months with 7-day weeks. Other than the start date, which is just as arbitrary as anything else, it isn't new at all.
This is fun and all, but we're going to be serious about calendar reform and making something simpler and not tied to the Earth, you'd be better off scrapping the whole thing and starting new with something like the metric system. (The French Revolutionary calendar came closest to this.) Otherwise, it's definitely not about independence from Earth -- it's about making a slightly more regular system that still uses weird bases and doesn't actually line up with natural cycles exactly anyway.
Re:Umm .... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-30 14:58 · Score: 0

Then why are we using base 28
Because women aren't going to bleed at a different rate on a different planet.
Re:Umm .... by camperdave · 2014-05-30 15:00 · Score: 1

On a venn diagram there is no intersection between "speak Klingon at parties" and "friends"...
Ah! So that's why none of my friends can speak Klingon. It's mathematically impossible for them!

--
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
Re:Umm .... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-30 15:14 · Score: 0

Our sysadmin proudly showed off his latest scripts to log system and network load balances. Only problem, a single typing mistake made them use ddate instead of date, which made for interesting logs:
Date: Today is Sweetmorn, the 5th day of Confusion in the YOLD 3180
Celebrate Syaday
YOLD = You Only Live Deux
Re:Umm .... by AthanasiusKircher · 2014-05-30 15:31 · Score: 1

Because women aren't going to bleed at a different rate on a different planet.
I'm guessing you were probably making a joke, but this is actually a serious question, with (so far) little evidence to suggest what may happen.
Most spaceflight missions with women have had lengths less than one menstrual cycle. The few women who have spent longer periods on the space station have not been the subject of detailed studies on their cycles, due to privacy concerns. Given that various body chemistry changes take place in space (and possibly in environments with other differences in gravity), it's difficult to predict whether there might be an effect or not. Length of cycles is already known to vary significantly from woman to woman and from cycle to cycle. Variation of up to 8 days in length is considered normal, and only if cycles vary by over 20 days are they considered highly irregular.
So, in case you weren't joking, it seems that designing a calendar off of something with such potential to be irregular would be rather useless... even if we knew for certain that there would be no change in a microgravity environment or on another planet (which we don't).
Re:Umm .... by Bite+The+Pillow · 2014-05-30 15:57 · Score: 3, Insightful

Every novel idea was once just some crazy man's dream.
What I don't see the point of is not just announcing you don't see the point, but returning to defend your lack of insight.
It's obviously easier to calculate date offsets, and the consistent zero based counting reduces the chances of having the idiocy of JavaScript's zero based month. If you wanted to see a point, its right there.
At some time in the future, we will replace the irregular system we have now, with something reasonable. Like metric. And there will be holdouts who refuse to change.
But what gets adopted does so because people use it, and people use it because it makes sense. First to one, then two, and then People magazine.
Of course it could be some crazy asshole's stupid idea, in which case you could just ask the crazy asshole, or read his web page, and learn the point.
To dismiss the idea, and actively avoid the point, while announcing your ignorance is a waste of typing. Especially while claiming to be well read. I guess that just stopped before this summary hit the front page?
I don't see this changing anything, and it is statistically unlikely to be the next timekeeping solution, so I'm not defending its worth nor utility. But butting into a conversation with, "I really don't see the point" is just the kind of smarmy, closed minded nonsense that gets your opinion discarded. No need to thank me for reminding you.
Re:Umm .... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-30 16:17 · Score: 0

This is what people probably said to Gene Roddenberry: "OK sure you invented a language for the fictional race of people in your fictional TV show. I'm sure it's awesome. But nobody will use it."
Clearly you missed the point of "intellectual exercise".

3. You're probably one of those people that doesn't get the point of philosophy also.
False equivalency police are coming for you. Philosophy is useful to everyone whether they know it or not. The dorky calendar is only useful to the dorks that think it is useful while the rest of the world could care less, if it is not a purely intellectual exercise. If it were an intellectual exercise wtf does the creator care if people use it or not, which is probably what Roddenberry would say to someone about Klingon if he were still alive to be asked the question. Plus, Roddenberry didn't invent the language, nunce.
From Klingon language: External History:

Though mentioned in the original Star Trek series episode "The Trouble With Tribbles", the Klingon language first appeared on-screen in Star Trek: The Motion Picture (1979). According to the actor who spoke the lines, Mark Lenard, James Doohan recorded the lines he had written on a tape, and Lenard transcribed the recorded lines in a way he found useful in learning them.[2]
For Star Trek III: The Search for Spock (1984) director Leonard Nimoy and writer-producer Harve Bennett wanted the Klingons to speak a proper language instead of made-up gibberish and so commissioned a full language based on the phrases Doohan had come up from Marc Okrand, who had earlier devised four lines of Vulcan dialogue for Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan.[2][3] Okrand enlarged the lexicon and developed grammar based on the original dozen words Doohan had created. The language appeared intermittently in later films featuring the original cast—for example, in Star Trek V: The Final Frontier (1989) and in Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country (1991), where translation difficulties served as a plot device.
Re:Umm .... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-30 16:43 · Score: 0

You haven't noticed tons of people using seconds since linux epoch for programming? Something similar that wasn't just in seconds could prove useful in scientific/technical fields.
Re:Umm .... by Mantrid42 · 2014-05-30 17:10 · Score: 1

It's obviously easier to calculate date offsets, and the consistent zero based counting reduces the chances of having the idiocy of JavaScript's zero based month. If you wanted to see a point, its right there.
At some time in the future, we will replace the irregular system we have now, with something reasonable. Like metric.
It didn't work during the French Revolution, and it won't work now.
Re:Umm .... by phantomfive · 2014-05-30 18:13 · Score: 1

Another nice thing about the calendar is that it's easy to calculate the amount of time that occured since the beginning of the year. So basically 44.5.20,19.40.4 TC [terrancalendar.com] means that 5*(28*24*60*60)+20*(24*60*60)+19*(60*60)+40*(60)+4 = 13894804 seconds have past since the beginning of the year.
Is that really the case you want to optimize for?

--
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Re:Umm .... by SuricouRaven · 2014-05-30 20:28 · Score: 1

If we wait long enough, the earth will eventually tide-lock to the moon anyway. That'd help.
Re:Umm .... by SuricouRaven · 2014-05-30 20:31 · Score: 1

Almost the entire world has now switched to metric. The US is the only holdout of any importance.
Re:Umm .... by TapeCutter · 2014-05-30 20:42 · Score: 2

There's a video somewhere where a guy talks about teaching his infant son to speak Klingon. The kid loved it up until about the age of three, then suddenly the kid no longer wanted to "talk klingon". The guy himself explains why - it was no use to the child because there were so many everyday things that had no Klingon name, like fridge, lollies, bath, etc. The exact opposite happens when an infant is exposed to two natural languages like (say) English and Japanese because combining those two languages gives more ways for the toddler to take in the world around him and express himself to adults. In other words his 3yr old son had worked out Klingon was pointless, learning it was jamming up his language buffer with irrelevant words related to a sci-fi series he was too young to understand even if he had watched it.

--
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Re:Umm .... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-30 21:45 · Score: 0

But nobody will use it.
But, hey, some people speak Klingon at parties in the hopes it will impress their friends.
Ok, let's use stardates. They're a lot simpler to remember.
Re:Umm .... by TC+0 · 2014-05-30 22:31 · Score: 1

Yeah, when converting between the terran computational calendar and other calendars, it's all about converting them into eachother's timestamps, and that generally works, although UNIX timestamps are a little tricky since they loop back on the same second during a leap second, which can become annoying. So unless you know the corresponding UTC date, it's impossible to know which second the UNIX timestamp refers to during the leap second and the one following it, because the timestamp remains the same for two seconds.
Re:Umm .... by TC+0 · 2014-05-30 22:50 · Score: 1

Well, it's definitely convenient, right?
In my own opinion, the most important things to do in an all encompassing timekeeping system for the earth are to synchronize years to an initial point, synchronize days to an initial point, and a to define a constant unit that will enable you to maintain these snychronizations.
Since TAI SI seconds are the constant unit used in the computational calendar, I'd have to say, YES, being able to "calculate the amount of time that occured since the beginning of the year" is very important for anyone interested in using the calendar.
Re:Umm .... by TC+0 · 2014-05-30 22:58 · Score: 2

Just in case you didn't realize it for some reason or other, when I wrote: 5*(28*24*60*60)+20*(24*60*60)+19*(60*60)+40*(60)+4 = 13894804
(28*24*60*60) = 1 month
(24*60*60) = 1 day
(60*60) = 1 hour
(60) = 1 minute
This is easy to remember and makes sense, right?
Re:Umm .... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-30 23:21 · Score: 0

Ah, so that's why esperanto never took off...
Re:Umm .... by Oligonicella · 2014-05-30 23:24 · Score: 1

"calculate the amount of time that occured since the beginning of the year"
We can already do that.
Re:Umm .... by AmiMoJo · 2014-05-31 01:12 · Score: 1

Many systems have already adopted metric time. Time is stored as the seconds since some epoch, with decimal fractions.

--
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Re:Umm .... by Richy_T · 2014-05-31 03:46 · Score: 1

Privacy concerns? I can't see that being an issue, somehow.
Re:Umm .... by Greyfox · 2014-05-31 03:46 · Score: 1

The POSIX standard specifies that leap seconds aren't tracked, so that shouldn't be a problem. The POSIX standard shouldn't say it's UTC if leap seconds aren't tracked, but that's a different problem.

--
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Re:Umm .... by TsuruchiBrian · 2014-05-31 05:32 · Score: 1

And yet the Klingon language was not a failure because it's goal was never to achieve widespread adoption among the general public. The fact that there even were people trying to teach their kids a fictional language is remarkable.
Re:Umm .... by camperdave · 2014-05-31 07:15 · Score: 1

It's not pretty because it evolved from an astronomical model. When timekeeping was being invented, we weren't entirely aware that's what we were modeling.
Um... no. We knew exactly what we were modelling - the apparent motion of the heavenly bodies.

--
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
Re:Umm .... by Greyfox · 2014-05-31 11:32 · Score: 1

True, but all our timekeeping math works great if you're thinking in angles and degrees, and a lot of it came about long before geometry was invented or anyone realized that the earth was round and went around the sun. Time makes a lot more sense if you realize that and think Pi instead of nice round numbers.

--
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Re:Umm .... by TC+0 · 2014-05-31 16:24 · Score: 1

Sure, and not to confuse the point, from POSIX Time aka UNIX Time:
"Due to its handling of leap seconds, it is neither a linear representation of time nor a true representation of UTC"
Re:Umm .... by TC+0 · 2014-05-31 16:29 · Score: 1

calculate the amount of time that occured since the beginning of the year
We can already do that.
Yes, of course you can, but the algorithm to do so is definitely much more complex than that of the terran computational calendar's.
Re:Umm .... by lsatenstein · 2014-06-01 04:32 · Score: 1

It's simple; you just need to change the motions of the heavenly bodies so that Earth orbits the sun exactly 13 times per year, the Earth rotates exactly 28 times per month, and the Moon orbits the Earth exactly once per month. If you can arrange that, I'll gladly switch to your new calendar.
Are you describing the Jewish and Chinese calendars?

--
Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada
Re:Umm .... by camperdave · 2014-06-01 11:46 · Score: 1

True, but all our timekeeping math works great if you're thinking in angles and degrees, and a lot of it came about long before geometry was invented or anyone realized that the earth was round and went around the sun. Time makes a lot more sense if you realize that and think Pi instead of nice round numbers.
Um... no. We're measuring angles and ratios of angles, not circumferences. Pi has nothing to do with it.

--
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
Re:Umm .... by david_thornley · 2014-06-02 04:23 · Score: 1

The metric system caught on. The Revolutionary Calendar didn't.

--
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes

Beta Sucks, Join Soylent by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-30 12:42 · Score: 0

http://soylentnews.org/

Now, as always, with less beta!

Re:Beta Sucks, Join Soylent by Jmc23 · 2014-05-30 13:27 · Score: 1

Now with more temporal delays than slashdot and less comments!

--
Don't complain about syntax, grammar, or spelling. There is no.hell like input on android.
Re:Beta Sucks, Join Soylent by deniable · 2014-05-30 14:21 · Score: 1

But it's all about the people.
Re:Beta Sucks, Join Soylent by umghhh · 2014-05-30 21:46 · Score: 1

So there is a chance to get a low id number. I thought this site was a prank but if it still exists I may consider moving. OC the asshats that make any discussion impossible (like the ones discussing their dirty visions and Linus's weight gain here) may be tempted too, which is unfortunate.

It's like Swatch .beat Internet time all over by mysidia · 2014-05-30 12:42 · Score: 1

Complicated totally unfamiliar representation of date and time for the "information age"? I think i'll take flawwed, but understood and good enough over that any time.

rfc 1925 2.11 is reaffirmed

(11) Every old idea will be proposed again with a different name and a different presentation, regardless of whether it works.

Re:It's like Swatch .beat Internet time all over by buchner.johannes · 2014-05-30 13:28 · Score: 1

Complicated totally unfamiliar representation of date and time for the "information age"?
Why is it unfamiliar, it is almost the same as current representation:
YY.MM.DD,HH.MM.SS TC+7H
RFC3339 is
YYYY-MM-DD HH:MM:SS+07:00
And that May 31st corresponds to 5.20. is logical, as there are fewer days in their month.

--
NB: The message above might reflect my opinion right now, but not necessarily tomorrow or next year.
Re:It's like Swatch .beat Internet time all over by AK+Marc · 2014-05-30 13:44 · Score: 1

So http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D... all over again?

--
Learn to love Alaska
Re:It's like Swatch .beat Internet time all over by TC+0 · 2014-05-30 15:36 · Score: 1

So true. But people like using their own delimiters for different tasks and situations. Therefore the terran computational calendar restricts acceptable delimiters to only the most popular ones:
From terrancalendar.com#Delimiters: "The only 8 acceptable delimiters are space, plus, comma, minus, dot, slash, colon, underscore ( +,-./:_) (UTF8 hex codes 20, 2b, 2c, 2d, 2e, 2f, 3a, 5f)."

As long as you stay with a few rules, you can use any combination of delimiters you want, so:
±YY-MM-DD HH:MM:SS TC±DM is totally valid as is ±YY,MM/DD HH_MM:SS.TC±DM
Re:It's like Swatch .beat Internet time all over by TC+0 · 2014-05-30 15:43 · Score: 1

Nice. But terran computational years, month, days, hours, minutes and seconds are not decimals. Only fractions of a second are decimals.

From the site: "In order, these fields are year, month, day, hour, minute, second, fraction, designator, datemod and their ranges are roughly: ±*.[0-13].[0-27].[0-23].[0-59].[0-59].*.TC*±*, where * is any acceptable range."
Re:It's like Swatch .beat Internet time all over by AK+Marc · 2014-05-30 17:49 · Score: 1

Combine the worst of both. It'll be amazing.

--
Learn to love Alaska
Re:It's like Swatch .beat Internet time all over by mysidia · 2014-05-30 19:40 · Score: 1

You do realize... this means there are now /multiple/ ways to represent the same date?
I'll agree it's not decimal time, but it's still a repeat of the same crazed idea of a time representation without support for the local timezones.
Computers can process it, but the average human is n't going to accept "datemod, designator."
Not to mention; Y.M.D ... is itself is irregular... most people expect and insist on the standardized date notation: MM/DD/YY.
Re:It's like Swatch .beat Internet time all over by SuricouRaven · 2014-05-30 20:34 · Score: 1

The conventional calender it stupid, but it is well-established stupid that everyone understands. Mostly. I don't think most people could tell you the rules for leap years in full.
Re:It's like Swatch .beat Internet time all over by TC+0 · 2014-05-30 23:56 · Score: 1

'designator' just means things like UTC (which you should be familiar with). The terran computational calendar designator is generally TC (unless you're using a year base, but I'll keep it simple in this reply).

'datemods' might take a little used to, but they DEFINITELY can be used to represent local timezones as well as daylight savings time. They can even represent timezone offsets that are defined in a number of minutes instead of hours.
PST (Pacific Standard Time), an offset of -8:00 in UTC is a +8H datemod in TC
PDT (Pacific DaylightSaving Time), an offset of -7:00 in UTC is a +7H datemod
NPT (Nepal Time), an offset of +5:45 in UTC is both a -345M and a -5H45M datemod
And while timezone abbreviation can be useful for know where dates originate from, they are often confusing. Would you ever want to memorize the offset of all the above timezone abbreviations? With offsets and datemods, you don't have to do that, you just have to realize how far away from greenwich someone is.

In terms of delimiters, the acceptable delimiters are space, plus, comma, minus, dot, slash, colon, underscore ( +,-./:_) (UTF8 hex codes 20, 2b, 2c, 2d, 2e, 2f, 3a, 5f) So please feel to write the terran computational date in which ever way you're most comfortable with using those delimiters: 44/5/21 4:46:17 TC+7H, 44-5-21 4:46:17 TC+7H, 44.5.21,4.46.17 TC+7H.
Re:It's like Swatch .beat Internet time all over by Richy_T · 2014-05-31 03:55 · Score: 1

m/d/y is by no means internationally accepted. It seems to be mostly an american thing. The UK (and I think most of Europe) uses d/m/y and I'm sure it varies around the world. I much prefer YYYY-MM-DD anyway. It squares with how we do time and is an ISO standard. m/d/y is just nonsense whichever way you slice it.
Re:It's like Swatch .beat Internet time all over by Richy_T · 2014-05-31 03:58 · Score: 1

Yup, it looks like it is only the USA that uses m/d/y exclusively
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D...
Re:It's like Swatch .beat Internet time all over by mysidia · 2014-05-31 10:25 · Score: 1

'designator' just means things like UTC (which you should be familiar with).
People don't even use UTC. When converted into seconds; UTC is useful for an internal storage representation, that is it, nothing more.
Nobody says they'll meet me at such and such tomorrow at 18:46 UTC.
Re:It's like Swatch .beat Internet time all over by TC+0 · 2014-05-31 18:37 · Score: 1

Nope. I see what you're saying, but the whole world uses UTC for basically everything whether you like it or not. Maybe you meant ISO 8601, which is a standardization of UTC? Leap seconds are issued for UTC, nothing else, so if you look down at your cellphone and it says 03:10:30 PM : That's UTC time, not TAI time, not UNIX time: UTC time. If it were TAI it would read: 03:10:55 PM, but TAI is not used for most everyday purposes. Just informing you....

The point I was attempting to make earlier was that the terran computational calendar is easy to understand and adopt (It's algorithm for standard dating is much simpler than most), it can be further standardized if need be for specific purposes (it even has a public domain mark), it has dynamic support for timezones through the use of datemods (PST is a UTC -08:00 offset and a +8H datemod), and all calendars have a designator associated with them: AD & BC, CE & BCE, UTC & TAI, and TC (which stands for terran computational). Through the use of acceptable delimiters:
space, plus, comma, minus, dot, slash, colon, underscore ( +,-./:_)
you can write dates however you see fit or would like to standardize them further as long as you use those delimiter and follow some basic parsing rules:
44-5-22 6:23:57 TC == 44.5.22,6.23.57 TC == 44.5.22_TC.6H23M57 == 44.5.21,23.23.57 TC+7H == 44/5/21 23:23:57 TC+7H

The thirteenth month by Ginger+Unicorn · 2014-05-30 12:54 · Score: 1

Lousy Smarch weather...

--
(1.21 gigawatts) / (88 miles per hour) = 30 757 874 newtons

Re:The thirteenth month by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-30 13:01 · Score: 0

Maypril is pretty nice, though.

Ethiopian Calendar by mspohr · 2014-05-30 12:57 · Score: 1

Sounds like the Ethiopian calendar.
12 months of 30 days plus a 13th month of 5 or 6 days (which are all holidays!).

--
I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?

Re:Ethiopian Calendar by Charliemopps · 2014-05-30 13:06 · Score: 2

Sounds like the Ethiopian calendar.
12 months of 30 days plus a 13th month of 5 or 6 days (which are all holidays!).
Yea, my kids Ethiopian. Trying to keep track of the holidays is a nightmare. They're on a different day every year. Yet I have to honor his culture or something so I have to get out a slide rule to figure out when Christmas is every year.
Re:Ethiopian Calendar by Hypotensive · 2014-05-31 00:25 · Score: 1

This is basically what the ancient Germanic peoples had as well, at least as recently as the Anglo-Saxons. Tolkien used it as the basis for his Elvish calendar.
12 months of 30 days each, 2 extra days for midwinter (Yule) and three or four extra days at midsummer (Litha).

Backup rotation by BaronM · 2014-05-30 12:58 · Score: 2

That is remarkably similar to what I used to use for a backup tape rotation once upon a time:

27 daily tapes labeled d1-d27
13 'monthly' tapes labeled m1-m13
1 year-end tape labeled appropriately

It was easy to manage since there was never any question which tape was 'next' or safe to reuse. Robotic tape libraries, software with better tape management, and eventually disk-to-disk backup make it obsolete, but I always did think that a 28x13+1(or2) calendar would be much more sensible than what we have now.

Not that I was ever silly enough to think that the world would adopt just because it makes more sense :)

Re:Backup rotation by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-30 13:28 · Score: 0

you heathen....they should be d0-d26, m0-m12
Re:Backup rotation by Jmc23 · 2014-05-30 13:31 · Score: 1

More sense?
Do you know how many gods you will anger by reducing their days of worship?!?!

--
Don't complain about syntax, grammar, or spelling. There is no.hell like input on android.

Given a choice... by mbone · 2014-05-30 12:58 · Score: 3, Funny

... I'ld rather go back to Thermidor.

Re:Given a choice... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-30 15:10 · Score: 0

... I'ld rather go back to Thermidor.
LOVE their lobster!
Re:Given a choice... by KingOfBLASH · 2014-05-30 18:17 · Score: 1

It's curious that the metric system took over while the metric calendar didn't.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F...
Re:Given a choice... by Richy_T · 2014-05-31 04:03 · Score: 1

The metric system rationalizes and reforms a whole bunch of physical phenomena.
You cant do that with dates & times. They're intrinsically arbitrary and irrational. The current system is set up to account for human needs so it likely the best compromise that's possible. Even the metric system had to bend a little and have centimeters for common use.
Re:Given a choice... by camperdave · 2014-05-31 07:51 · Score: 1

The metric system typically uses millimetres, metres, and kilometres. Centimetres are used, and are perfectly valid, but they're old fashioned.

--
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
Re:Given a choice... by KingOfBLASH · 2014-05-31 17:35 · Score: 1

The definition of a kilogram or a meter is irrational as well. It's just a lump of platinum someone decided was 1. The benefit of metric is the fact that it's a base 10 measurement, and everything is easily convertible.
Re:Given a choice... by eric_harris_76 · 2014-06-01 04:53 · Score: 1

You're not a lobster, then?

--
There's no time like the present. Well, the past used to be.
Re:Given a choice... by pablo.cl · 2014-06-02 08:08 · Score: 1

Are you joking? Search for ruler in Google images and most of them are in centimeters. The rest are in inches.
Re:Given a choice... by pablo.cl · 2014-06-02 08:17 · Score: 1

The real benefit of the meter is that the British yard (0.9144 m) was different form the Spanish vara (0.836 m), and they were different from the French verge (1.045 m). Hours, minutes and seconds are all the same in most (or all) of the world.

Thirteen months, who's on crack? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-30 13:08 · Score: 0

I like 10 months. December can be the tenth month again.

The even numbered months have 36 days, the old months have 37.

In a leap year December has 37.

Re:Thirteen months, who's on crack? by Travis+Mansbridge · 2014-05-30 13:27 · Score: 1

Plus you don't have to pay bills as often.
Re:Thirteen months, who's on crack? by camperdave · 2014-05-30 15:09 · Score: 1

I like 10 months. December can be the tenth month again.
The even numbered months have 36 days, the old months have 37.
In a leap year December has 37.
36 or 37 days? Are you crazy? I've already got too much month at the end of my money.

--
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
Re:Thirteen months, who's on crack? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-30 15:18 · Score: 0

June and July are the hottest months. I say we eliminate them!
Re:Thirteen months, who's on crack? by TC+0 · 2014-05-30 15:50 · Score: 1

Pagans, apparently. Actually, back in the pagan days, there WERE 13 months. The year started in spring, and December was the 10th out of 13 months.
Re:Thirteen months, who's on crack? by Guppy06 · 2014-05-30 15:54 · Score: 1

the old months have 37
Because if there's one thing we need more of in calendar math, it's prime numbers.
Re:Thirteen months, who's on crack? by Guppy06 · 2014-05-30 16:19 · Score: 5, Informative

Actually, back in the pagan days, there WERE 13 months
Embolismic months are not constant, but are inserted because there is a difference of about 11 days between 12 synodic months (~354 days) and one tropical year (~365 days). An embolismic month ends up being added approximately 7 years out of 19, by different algorithms according to different cultures. And even if you were intended to include Jews (and their occasional "Adar II") among your categorization of "pagans," even Christians keep track of embolismic lunations in reckoning the date of that faith's holiest day (in the Gregorian Calendar, May 30 is the first day of the seventh lunation out of thirteen in AD 2014). The only major religion that absolutely, positively insists on a year of 12 months for all purposes is Islam.

The year started in spring, and December was the 10th out of 13 months.
It was the tenth of ten months; the early Romans likely reckoned winter as extracalary. January and February (and Mercedonius/Intercalaris) were added later, probably when what passed for Roman astronomy became relatively more sophisticated. And it wasn't only "pagans" that insisted that March was the first month. The last major hold-out, the United Kingdom of Great Britain, didn't change until AD 1752 (AUC 2505). And not all "pagans" were or are Roman.
Re:Thirteen months, who's on crack? by AthanasiusKircher · 2014-05-30 19:05 · Score: 2

It was the tenth of ten months; the early Romans likely reckoned winter as extracalary.
Yes, the very early Romans. Roman legend has the first king after Romulus added in January and February. While it may not have been that early, it likely predated the Republic. The 10-month calendar was probably obsolete long before 500 BCE.

January and February (and Mercedonius/Intercalaris) were added later, probably when what passed for Roman astronomy became relatively more sophisticated.
Yep -- though, contrary to popular belief, it probably wasn't Julius Caesar who moved the beginning of the year to January. The official year (which was named by the two consuls) was moved to January at least a century before Caesar's calendar reform. And January was basically treated as the first month of the civil year at least a few centuries before that (hence the name January, after Janus, who looked both ways toward the old and new years).
So, we're talking about a VERY old tradition here that was basically obsolete through almost all of historic Rome.

And it wasn't only "pagans" that insisted that March was the first month. The last major hold-out, the United Kingdom of Great Britain, didn't change until AD 1752 (AUC 2505).
It's a bit strange to equate the medieval dating technique putting New Year's on March 25th with the prehistoric Roman New Year's date of March 1st. Basically, after the old Roman tradition had been obsolete for a thousand years or more, some Christians decided that March 25th should be New Year's, since it was the day of the Annunciation, i.e., the conception of Jesus (9 months before Christmas). This kept in line with the idea of "The Year of Our Lord" (anno Domini), where we would date the years back to the time Christ was conceived -- a tradition which was first used at some point in medieval times.
So yeah, while some European countries through the medieval period and renaissance put New Year's at March 25, it wasn't really for anything related to the rationale for the original Roman practice. In fact, England didn't adopt this practice widely UNTIL the 12th century CE or so, which it then kept until the 1700s.
Oh, and by the way, even in countries (like England) where March 25th marked the beginning of some "year," there were often still other civil years that began on January 1st, depending on the legal or religious application involved. At the same time, and in the same country, there could be different "years" numbered beginning on January 1st, March 25th, December 25th, Easter, various points in September or November, and other times. (For some details on the situation in medieval England in this regard, see here.)
Re:Thirteen months, who's on crack? by SuricouRaven · 2014-05-30 20:37 · Score: 1

There still are diffent start points. People talk about the financial year, and the school year, as these follow cycles offset from the regular year.
Re:Thirteen months, who's on crack? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-31 01:02 · Score: 0

It was the tenth of ten months; the early Romans likely reckoned winter as extracalary.
Yes, the very early Romans. Roman legend has the first king after Romulus added in January and February. While it may not have been that early, it likely predated the Republic. The 10-month calendar was probably obsolete long before 500 BCE.
January and February were added, converting a "8 month + winter" calendar to a "10 months of 30 days + 5 (or 6) extra days" calendar. This was during the time of the kingdom of Rome. Then was the republic of Rome. Then, several centuries later during the empire of Rome, Emperor Julius added July. Followed a couple of decades later by Emperor Augustus with August. Giving us the current 12 month calendar, with the twelfth month being called "tenth".
Re:Thirteen months, who's on crack? by AthanasiusKircher · 2014-05-31 01:06 · Score: 1

Then was the republic of Rome. Then, several centuries later during the empire of Rome, Emperor Julius added July. Followed a couple of decades later by Emperor Augustus with August. Giving us the current 12 month calendar, with the twelfth month being called "tenth".
Nope. July used to be called Quintilis (the 5th month) and August used to be called Sextilis (the 6th month). The numbering was always from March as the 1st month, even though that numbering became obsolete before the Republic. Julius and Augustus didn't ADD any months -- but the months were renamed in their honor. There was never an "8 month + winter" Roman calendar.
Re:Thirteen months, who's on crack? by AthanasiusKircher · 2014-05-31 01:21 · Score: 1

There still are diffent start points. People talk about the financial year, and the school year, as these follow cycles offset from the regular year.
This is a good point, and it highlights something I should have made clear in my earlier post.
There's a difference between when we celebrate the "new year" (i.e., have a party, and consider a new year to begin) vs. when we increment the "year counter" based on some arbitrary starting point.
Today, these are basically always taken to be the same thing -- we increment the year counter on January 1st, and there is no alternative (unless you don't use the Gregorian calendar). When you have your company's "fiscal year" that might begin in September, for example, you'd say "Fiscal Year 2013/2014" on a report. You wouldn't say "the 37th Fiscal Year since the founding of our company on September 1st" and intend it to span multiple civil calendar years.
But the fusion of the concept of the "new year" holiday with some particular "year counter" is relative modern. It didn't take place in most European countries until the 1500s (and, as previously discussed, not in England until the 1700s, though there were plenty of people who adopted it partially earlier, labeling periods from January through March with two different year dates).
Basically, January 1st has been the date the "new year" begins since very early Roman history. Even in countries that we claim adopted a different date for "new year," we don't really mean that for the most part -- they just had a different date for incrementing the "year counter" (particularly the "anno Domini" year counter). Most countries in Europe still referred to January 1st as the first day of the new year, and if they ever had a calendar or table of dates for the year, it would begin with January, not some other month.
The date when you incremented your "year counter" varied, generally depending on the date you were using as a reference. Prior to the last 500 years or so, chronicles often used regnal years for dating, for example, saying something like "June 6th in the 3rd year of our king Henry," where the "3rd year" would be incremented on the date of Henry's coronation or acceptance of the throne.
The "anno Domini" dating was similar -- it dated to the "year of our Lord," which began when Christ began... generally either on his birthdate Christmas (December 25th) or on the date of his conception (March 25th). Similarly, A.U.C. dating for ancient Rome (which was not often used in ancient times) often incremented the year beginning on April 21st, which was taken to be the legendary date of the founding of Rome.
In any case, none of these different dates for incrementing the "year counter" changed the fact that for the last 2500 years or so, January 1st has been "New Year's Day" in almost all circumstances.
Re:Thirteen months, who's on crack? by Guppy06 · 2014-05-31 08:48 · Score: 1

This was during the time of the kingdom of Rome.
We have essentially zero contemporary sources of information about pre-republican Rome and its calendar. The best we have are comments essentially made in passing by people writing in the late republic and early empire (e.g. Virgil), centuries after the fact, and these observations often contradict each other. Anybody speaking of chronology much before the middle of the republican period literally doesn't know what they're talking about.
Even with the republican calendar itself, probably the best source of information we have is Macrobius, writing centuries after Julius Caesar and the beginning of the empire.
To put things into perspective, even the Julian calendar is discontinuous before AD 12 or so, decades after the death of Julius Caesar.
(Romans didn't do math, they conquered other people to do the math for them.)
Re:Thirteen months, who's on crack? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-31 15:06 · Score: 0

The Jewish calendar changed in 1513 BCE. Prior to that year, fall was the beginning of the year, and the new year roll-over was around the first week of October. At Sinai in 1513, the Jews agreed to follow God's direction that Abib (later called Nisan), which corresponds to late March or early April, was the first of the year, and thus the "sacred" calendar began. (Actually, it began about 3 months before, when they left Egypt.) It also marked a break with common regional tradition and a start of calculations based on national and cultural identity.
I know of no reason for Christians to keep track of any intercalary months, as Veadar (literally "and Adar [again]") ends by the time of any point of calculation for Easter (or more accurately, the memorial of Christ's sacrificial death). That calculation is simple: Christ was executed near the end (late afternoon) of Nisan 14. Nisan begins on the new moon closest to (not necessarily after) the spring equinox. 14 days later, there will be a full moon, and it will be the first one after the spring equinox. This is the start of Jewish Passover. Many prominent Christian religions don't bother their worshipers to show up to church on that night after sundown, however. So they just call the next Sunday after that date "Easter Sunday".
It's not so much about precise intervals as it is about validating triggers.
But all timekeeping could be reduced to that, really.
Re:Thirteen months, who's on crack? by Guppy06 · 2014-05-31 17:26 · Score: 1

The Jewish calendar changed in 1513 BCE.
"It was a Tuesday."
From what I've seen on the subject, you're well away from evidence-based archaeology and deep into the realm of Biblical literalism.

It also marked a break with common regional tradition and a start of calculations based on national and cultural identity
There were no "calculations," or even any need for calculations, before the Babylonian Captivity and Diaspora. The Israelites were among several cultures that relied instead on terrestrial, ecological indicators for the start of spring (e.g. "seeing if a groundhog sees its shadow"). The Hebrew name of the Paschal month literally refers to the barley crop that was to be inspected (as per Exodus). The beginnings of months were reckoned empirically, as per current Islamic practice.
It was only after a non-negligible number of Jews lived too far away from the Temple (when there was a Temple) that the need for a computational calendar to maintain social cohesion (i.e. celebrating the same holidays on the same day) among the Diaspora presented itself. The modern Hebrew calendar relies on some decidedly Chaldean math that they likely picked up during the Captivity.

I know of no reason for Christians to keep track of any intercalary months, as Veadar (literally "and Adar [again]") ends by the time of any point of calculation for Easter (or more accurately, the memorial of Christ's sacrificial death)
If for no other reason than because Christians must be able to reckon the date of Easter months in advance in order to set the beginning of Lent, etc. Predicting the first full moon of spring (which defines the Paschal moon) requires some means of keeping track of lunations to know which new moon thirteen days preceding marks the proper start and to be able to count backwards the requisite numbers of days and weeks for the related movable feasts.
Predicting and setting the date of Easter requires knowing how many lunations pass between one Paschal moon and the next and how long each of them are. The Alexandrian computus settled upon by the early Church has always, necessarily, acted as a perpetual lunar almanac for the entire year (e.g. the Paschal moon is always the fourth of the year, and always 29 days long). The Gregorian method simply maintained as much of the tradition as Clavius saw feasible.

So they just call the next Sunday after that date "Easter Sunday"
The Ecumenical Councils determined that the theology of Easter demanded that it fall on a Sunday moreso than insisting that it be on Nissan 16, maintaining the symbolism of Jesus remaining dead through Saturday ("resting on the Sabbath") and rendering Sunday an "eighth day." Sunday is "the Lord's Day" (literally, in most European languages) specifically because it is the day of the week of the Resurrection.

It's not so much about precise intervals as it is about validating triggers.
On the contrary: for both the Jewish and Christian calendars it is more about the intervals than the triggers.
The defining astronomical events for the respective calendars and holiday schedules are necessarily instants (e.g. lunar opposition in Libra), and any given instant will fall on a different calendar date depending on the observer's longitude. The result would be, for example, Christians in Asia and the Americas observing Easter one week apart from each other, fragmenting the community.
There are two ways around this: declare a favored meridian ("lunar conjunction in Aquarius, Beijing standard time"), or to measure the intervening time with a standardized integer count of whole days. After all, lunar opposition doesn't actually occur the same amount of time after lunar conjunction, let alone exactly 1 123 200 s later. (Jews and Christians count mean lunations)
Re:Thirteen months, who's on crack? by TC+0 · 2014-05-31 20:06 · Score: 1

Interesting, thank you. This source suggests, however, that ancient calendars may have tracked the position of the moon in the sky instead of it's phases, which would mean that there would have been 13+ moons per year:

However, besides keeping track of time through the phases of the Moon, one can also keep track of time by the path the Moon takes through the sky. Using the course of the Moon to keep track of time results in using what modern astronomers call a sideral month, which is 27 days 7 hours and 43 minutes long. Every 27 days the moon returns to the same position in the sky it was 27 days before. The scholar Vaster Guðmundsson believed that this was the form of month the Norse used, and used it in his theoretical reconstruction of the ancient Scandinavian calendar (Guðmundsson 1924, p.88). It is possible then that the Anglo-Saxons also did the same. However, as Bede draws a comparison to the Greek and Hebrew calendars, we may want to assume that the Anglo-Saxons used a synodic month (a month measured from a phase of the Moon to the next time that phase of the Moon occurs). There are other clues in Bede's account, that indicate this was so, and I will touch on those later. Bede then goes on to name the months of the old Anglo-Saxon calendar and further gives the corresponding Roman month.

I didn't think it would be possible by phantomfive · 2014-05-30 13:16 · Score: 0

I didn't think it would be possible to remake the calendar and end up with something more complicated, but they've done it. Jim Raynor would be proud.

--
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."

Re:I didn't think it would be possible by gstoddart · 2014-05-30 13:41 · Score: 1

I didn't think it would be possible to remake the calendar and end up with something more complicated, but they've done it.
Our calendar is complicated because it's based on actual astronomy and real things like how long it takes us to go around the sun and stuff like that.
It's the culmination of thousands of years of real time keeping. Noon means more than 12pm ... it means when the sun crosses the meridian.
The Gregorian Calendar has its awkward bits. But they're based in a large number of years of observations of the actual physical thing.
And, besides, no matter how elegant this new calendar purports to be ... nobody is going to realistically give a damn about it. Ten days before the UNIX epoch as a calendar start epoch? Wow, a calendar which starts out as a hack to work with legacy software. How apropos.
And how, pray tell, does one refer to previous dates? Do we have the super elegant solution of negative numbers? 'Cause nobody is gonna say "'I was born back in -20, lo those many years ago' just because some guy made up a new calendar.
Maybe we could call it 'Pre New Fangled' and 'After New Fangled'? Apparently that Jesus feller was born way back in 1970PNF.
You're not going to be able to use it for anything, because you'll be perpetually converting it back to something everybody already understands.
No matter how much of a confusing mess the Gregorian calendar is, a new calendar more or less solves no practical purpose. That's not to say it might not be cool. But nobody will ever actually use this for anything other than showing off to other geeks -- and even they might roll their eyes.

--
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
Re:I didn't think it would be possible by gstoddart · 2014-05-30 14:49 · Score: 1

You're old, why should I care about you?
You're stupid, why should I care about you?

--
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
Re:I didn't think it would be possible by TC+0 · 2014-05-30 16:08 · Score: 1

I use it. There's a nice date converter on the website. And if you want to use it more often, there's currently a py based ubuntu app indicator if you roll like that.
Re:I didn't think it would be possible by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-30 16:26 · Score: 0

You should be modded 'Insightful', because he truly is if you look at some of the dumb shite that he's posted.
Re:I didn't think it would be possible by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-30 16:44 · Score: 0

'I was born back in -20, lo those many years ago'
You're old, why should I care about you?
So much for your philosophy reading then, huh? Unless you're reading current authors and thinking that's philosophy. Plato, Socrates, Hume, etc. are so old they're dead! You should care about them and what they said and wrote if you are at all concerned about philosophy, or are you just a little poseur?
Re:I didn't think it would be possible by phantomfive · 2014-05-30 18:33 · Score: 1

Maybe we could call it 'Pre New Fangled' and 'After New Fangled'? Apparently that Jesus feller was born way back in 1970PNF.
Oh yeah, that's a good point. I know when Bach was born, and I know when the hundred years war ended, so I can kind of relate those two events in history. I sure don't want to memorize all those dates again in another calendar system.

For that matter, it was a pain to learn the month names the first time. Is it really necessary to do it over again?

--
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Re:I didn't think it would be possible by SuricouRaven · 2014-05-30 20:39 · Score: 1

The Jesus date is somewhat vague. If he even existed at all. Accepting for the sake of argument that the biblical account of his birth is true (If not, the only reason to use him is tradition), we can be sure that he wasn't born at the start of 1CE - because Herod the Great, of baby-slaughtering fame, died in 4BCE.
Re:I didn't think it would be possible by TsuruchiBrian · 2014-05-31 05:27 · Score: 1

It doesn't matter what you care about, you'll be dead soon.
Re:I didn't think it would be possible by TsuruchiBrian · 2014-05-31 05:33 · Score: 1

says the anonymous coward....
Re:I didn't think it would be possible by phantomfive · 2014-05-31 06:44 · Score: 1

True it's vague but it's easy to remember!

--
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."

Does anyone really know what time it is? by DaveAtFraud · 2014-05-30 13:26 · Score: 1

Does anyone really care?

Cheers,
Dave

--
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty.
Ben

Re:Does anyone really know what time it is? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-30 15:12 · Score: 0

And though I can't imagine why, we've all got time enough to die.

The beauty of year bases... by TC+0 · 2014-05-30 13:31 · Score: 2

By default, the Terran Computational Calendar accounts for IERS issued leap seconds. But, Leap seconds can actually be ignored by applying a year base of 0. Therefore, the following two dates are the same instant in time: 44-05-20 22:16:41 TC (includes leap seconds), 44-05-20 22:17:06 TC0 (excludes all leap seconds)

Re:The beauty of year bases... by dnavid · 2014-05-30 13:50 · Score: 3, Funny

By default, the Terran Computational Calendar accounts for IERS issued leap seconds. But, Leap seconds can actually be ignored by applying a year base of 0. Therefore, the following two dates are the same instant in time: 44-05-20 22:16:41 TC (includes leap seconds), 44-05-20 22:17:06 TC0 (excludes all leap seconds)
And if you use Steven Wright's calendar, you can ignore sevens.

Meh by Dave+Emami · 2014-05-30 13:35 · Score: 2

I prefer the Unix-based method from Vernor Vinge's A Deepness In the Sky. Everything is seconds based on the Unix epoch, with SI prefixes for longer periods -- ksecs (00:16:40), msecs (about 11.6 days), gsec (about 31.7 years), etc. With processing power as ubiquitous as it is, converting back and forth when planetary/celestial timing really matters is trivial. Most of our non-analog timing devices already work this way already, and those that don't (LED alarm clocks) are being phased out by devices that do work that way (smartphones). Granted this isn't any more likely to be used than the TCC, but at least it's cleaner.

--

"The Greens lynched a hacker in Chicago. Last month, but I think the body's still hanging from the old Water Tower."

Re:Meh by TC+0 · 2014-05-30 16:26 · Score: 1

A good candidate for an intersteller calendar. So to make the current date (1401510007 UNIX) more readable you could write it as 1:401:510:007

I like it a lot! That's the new stardate by the way.
Re:Meh by camperdave · 2014-05-31 07:56 · Score: 1

A good candidate for an intersteller calendar. So to make the current date (1401510007 UNIX) more readable you could write it as 1:401:510:007.
Shouldn't that be ::1:401:510:7?

--
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!

Yet another calendar by manu0601 · 2014-05-30 13:39 · Score: 1

Why anyone should use it?

And I thought daylight savings was complex by turp182 · 2014-05-30 13:53 · Score: 2

Jesus (I believe the man existed, but not that he was a deity), do we have to complicate the Earth date system more???

Systems already break because it's complicated enough, and I have to set the times on microwave ovens and regular ovens often enough. We understand 12 months of varying lengths with a base 24 day cycle, isn't that enough. 221788790 seconds from the winter solstice???

A minimonth??? Seriously.

Time and dates are already defined for the inhabitants of the planet. And it works. Don't mess with it.

Next thing you know there will be pressure on the US to accept a non-English measurement system...

--
BlameBillCosby.com

Re:And I thought daylight savings was complex by TC+0 · 2014-05-30 16:42 · Score: 1

"221788790 SI seconds (measured at the geoid) before 1977-01-01 00:00:00 TAI" is just the official definition of the start of the calendar (to coincide with basically 10 days before the unix epoch, the northern winter solstice, and the redefinition of TAI in 1977).

Most time keeping systems now a days (including the beloved UTC) are based on the 1977-01-01 00:00:00 TAI definition because TAI is International Atomic Time (Temps atomique international) which basically runs everything when it comes precise time measurements.

You advocate a ________ approach to calendar refor by billyswong · 2014-05-30 13:55 · Score: 2

http://qntm.org/calendar

You advocate a

( ) overly simplistic

approach to calendar reform. Your idea will not work. Here is why:

( ) having months of different lengths is irritating
( ) having one or two days per year which are part of no month is stupid

Specifically, your plan fails to account for:

( ) humans
( ) rational hatred for arbitrary change
( ) unpopularity of weird new month and day names

and the following philosophical objections may also apply:

( ) nobody is about to renumber every event in history
( ) good luck trying to move the Fourth of July
(x) the history of calendar reform is horrifically complicated and no amount of further calendar reform can make it simpler

Furthermore, this is what I think about you:

( ) sorry, but I don't think it would work
( ) this is a stupid idea, and you're a stupid person for suggesting it

It will catch on... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-30 14:05 · Score: 0

... the day Americans start using metric units and farenheit temperatures...

Re:It will catch on... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-30 14:32 · Score: 0

We're halfway there – we already use Fahrenheit.
Then again, in England speed limits are still in MPH and beer is still sold in pints.
So what exactly was your point?

intricacy can allow for simplicity by TC+0 · 2014-05-30 14:08 · Score: 1

It's actually simpler is some respects. Writing two quarters into the current year can be achieved with a datemod: 44TC+2Q. This is equivalent to 44.6.14TC, and to its TC timestamp (an implied year zero and a datemod that use seconds): TC+1404172825

Re:intricacy can allow for simplicity by retchdog · 2014-05-30 14:50 · Score: 1

that's nice, dear. go back to bed.

--
"They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
Re:intricacy can allow for simplicity by TC+0 · 2014-05-30 16:12 · Score: 1

I revel in my beta tier.
Re:intricacy can allow for simplicity by phantomfive · 2014-05-30 18:20 · Score: 1

I can agree that is shorter, but I'm not sure it is simpler.

--
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Re:intricacy can allow for simplicity by TC+0 · 2014-05-31 00:09 · Score: 1

Writing dates like 44TC+2Q are good for things like refering to quarterly statements, and what not. So instead of saying "By 1Q of 44" like we do today, you can just write it as the actual date that's unambiguous and easily parsed.
Re:intricacy can allow for simplicity by phantomfive · 2014-05-31 06:41 · Score: 1

That's not even shorter!

--
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Re:intricacy can allow for simplicity by TC+0 · 2014-05-31 16:49 · Score: 1

True, but 44TC+2Q can be easily parsed and it's definitely shorter than "by 2Q of 44 UTC"
Re:intricacy can allow for simplicity by phantomfive · 2014-05-31 16:55 · Score: 1

How will you deal with the fact that the second quarter doesn't begin and end on the same day for every company?

--
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Re:intricacy can allow for simplicity by TC+0 · 2014-05-31 17:54 · Score: 1

I wrote this in a different comment:

Quarters and Weeks within a terran computational date are not officially defined or supported, they are only accomodated through datemods. It's up to individuals/groups to create any further definitions of what a quarter or week may be for their own purposes.

This calendar does not track the moon, or all seasons, it only tracks days and the year (which always falls within a day or two of the n. winter solstice). As for quarters, these are useful for business and industry and it's pretty easy to remember their dates since they're all 3 months and 1 week:
44TC+0Q = 44.0.0 TC
44TC+1Q = 44.3.7 TC
44TC+2Q = 44.6.14 TC
44TC+3Q = 44.9.21 TC
44TC+4Q = 44.13.0 TC

+4Q probably shouldn't be used for businesses [but they should just instead] include 'minimonth' in the last quarter, but that's not in the scope of the terran computational algorithm.
Re:intricacy can allow for simplicity by phantomfive · 2014-05-31 19:02 · Score: 1

ok, back to being complicated lol

--
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."

ISO 8601 by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-30 14:08 · Score: 0

I'd settle for YYYY-MM-DD instead of that stupid 10/01/12 crappy ass system.

Is that the 10th of January 2012? 1912?
Or maybe 1st of October 2012? 1912?
Or 12 January 2010? 1910?

Re:ISO 8601 by mattr · 2014-05-30 16:48 · Score: 1

I use 2014-0531 on everything. Backups are always name.2014-0531-1530JST.bak
Re:ISO 8601 by Richy_T · 2014-05-31 04:13 · Score: 1

Why not either add or remove a dash and be ISO compliant?

I also have an alternate calendar by deniable · 2014-05-30 14:23 · Score: 2

How about we have a meeting? I'll send you a request in Outlook.

Re:I also have an alternate calendar by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-30 19:53 · Score: 0

Yes.
We shall meet in Red Sector at the Hour of Scampering.

How about... by Areyoukiddingme · 2014-05-30 14:26 · Score: 1

Let's go with Tolkein's Shire Calendar instead. Twelve 30 day months and the leftover days are split evenly between summer and winter, with leap days coming after Mid-summer's Day. It has the added bonus of new and strange month and weekday names. What more could you ask for?

Re:How about... by drinkypoo · 2014-05-30 16:34 · Score: 2

What more could you ask for?
I could ask for a calendar based on the moon, and years based on the solstices. At least that would make sense.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"

Forever Tuesday by koseighty · 2014-05-30 14:33 · Score: 2

One problem with having all months evenly divisible by 7 day weeks is that your birthday will always land on the same day of the week. Born on Tuesday, your birthday will ALWAYS be on Tuesday. No hope of ever having a weekend birthday. Never ever. You think people will stand for that?!?

Re:Forever Tuesday by TC+0 · 2014-05-30 16:54 · Score: 1

Thats not true for ther terran computational calendar though. That's only the case with things like perpertual calendars that implement leap weeks instead of leap days.

The terran computational calendar implements leap days not leap weeks. So depending on how you define weeks.....

But here's an interesting thought: your terran computational birthday won't always be on the same day as your gregorian one! Adopt two calendars and get two birthdays: It's a win win.
Re:Forever Tuesday by SuricouRaven · 2014-05-30 20:42 · Score: 1

And what of those people born on the Febuary leap? They have to make do with celebrating on a nearby but incorrect date as a consolation birthday.
Re:Forever Tuesday by TC+0 · 2014-05-31 00:39 · Score: 1

Well, if it's any consolation to you the terran computational calendar would ensure that if you're born on a leap day, it's still always ends at the beginning of the year, And in general, if you are born on a leap day, then in most years you will only have birth moments... which is pretty cool. You could stay up til the end of the previous day and then at precisely midnight you (and whoever you're celebrating with) can scream at the top of your lungs and be silent the moment after.....because it's not your birth moment anymore.

Hah! Your solution fails! by TrollstonButterbeans · 2014-05-30 15:10 · Score: 2

>"7 day weeks is that your birthday will always land on the same day of the week. Born on Tuesday, your birthday will ALWAYS be on Tuesday"

I devised my own calendar and the main feature is every day is 84 hours long, and all of them are Tuesdays!

My new calendar solution > yours!

--
Priest: "Universe from nothing, no laws of physics, sped up time"+ huge discrepancies. Creationism? No. Big Bang Theory

TAI SI seconds and gravitational time dialation... by TC+0 · 2014-05-30 15:24 · Score: 2

This was considered, but ultimately, the terran computational calendar chose to define itself in terms of the 1977 definition of a TAI second:
"the duration of 9192631770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom" measured at the geoid (mean sea level)
Therefore, for the terran computational calendar, we actually know how much relativistic gravitational time dialation to account for, even if you are way out somewhere in a different star system, because it is the amount of relativistic gravitational time dialation that exists at mean sea level. So converting terran computational dates into future interstellar ones should be relatively (lol) easy. But, by it's name alone you've already realized that the Terran Computational Calendar is an earth based calendar and not generally expected to be used for interstellar travel.

Talking about a space travel, Barycentric Coordinate Time (TCB) and Geocentric Coordinate Time (TCG) are currently used. The former "performs exactly the same movements as the Solar system but is outside the system's gravity well" and the later "performs exactly the same movements as the Earth but is outside the Earth's gravity well".

Name is WAY too Earth-Centric by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-30 15:24 · Score: 0

Terran, really? That just smacks of Earth-centric attitude. What about all the other planets, like KOI-3284.01? Did they really have to name it in a way biased against non-Earthlings?

Re:Name is WAY too Earth-Centric by TC+0 · 2014-05-30 23:22 · Score: 1

Well, if a calendar from KOI-3284.01 works their own orbital periods into their calendar, I would definitely hope they'd name it something like 'The KOI Pond Calendar'.

Obligatory griping by Guppy06 · 2014-05-30 15:33 · Score: 3, Interesting

Synchronized with the northern winter solstice,

By their nature, solstices are notoriously difficult to determine empirically. Theoretically there is an instant when the the sun's declination reaches its minimum, but practically you'll have hours or even days of a change in declination that is too small to measure. Popular surviving calendars either rely on an equinox instead (Christian, Jewish), or pad several lunations after the solstice just to make sure (Chinese).

the terran computational calendar began roughly* 10 days before

Whose ephemeris?

Each year is composed of 13 identical 28-day months

Two figures that generally have nothing to do with natural phenomena. While it's true that a little more than one-third of all tropical years contain 13 synodic months, those months average to around 29.5 days each. There are cultures that care about the synodic month exclusively, and there are those that care about both the synodic month and the hebdomadal week, but I know of no major religion or regionally dominant culture that cares about only the hebdomadal week.

followed by a 'minimonth' that houses leap days (one most years and two every 4th but not 128th year)

We limit calendars to arithmetical processes because accuracy must be balanced with ease-of-use for human beings, and we tend to prefer powers of ten because that makes the arithmetic easier for humans. If you're going to insist on powers of two in your calendar, you're effectively requiring people to reach for some sort of computer to perform the algorithm for them (except for those rare few who enjoy performing long division). And if you're already doing that, there's no longer a reason to limit your calendar algorithm to arithmetical (or even algebraic) processes to begin with; just have a computer chew on the transcendental functions directly rather than limiting it to an arithmetical approximation to begin with. Shoehorning in a power of 2 is a compromise that satisfies nobody.

and leap seconds (issued by the IERS during that year). Each date is an unambiguous instant in time

Coordinated Universal Time and it's system of coordinated leap seconds is older than POSIX, and yet even today POSIX still can't get leap seconds right, insisting that each and every day is exactly 86 400 s long (which is a big part of why we're having our current Leap Second Holy War to begin with). IT has been kicking that can down the road for about 40 years. Why will an adoption of your calendar suddenly change that?

that exploits zero-based numbering

Programming languages can't agree where to start an array, but to my knowledge nobdoy is currently using a calendar with a "day 0" or "month 0" (let alone a "zeroth day" or "zeroth month"). Insisting on "zero-based numbering" doesn't solve anything, but rather dumps IT's own internal issues with counting onto the rest of the world.

Re:Obligatory griping by TC+0 · 2014-05-30 17:59 · Score: 1

Solstice:
The first day of the terran computational calendar contains the northern winter solstice. But you're correct, it makes no claims of "always being synchronized exactly"...in order to do that for this calendar, it would take some heavy erratic leap duration modification, so: not an option. However, the seasons do seem fall on specific days plus or minus. There's a section on the website explaining how the seasons won't always occur at the same time and it provides a comparison table between proximal gregorian dates and terran computational dates for the four seasons.

Whose ephemeris?
My apologies : http://terrancalendar.com/#roughly: basically this is there to make people aware that TAI was redefined in 1977 (and UTC too in 1972 AFTER the UNIX Epoch!), and since the calendar is defined in terms of this definition, the UNIX Epoch is off by certain number certain number of milliseconds. Hence the term 'roughly;. And depending on how it's implemented and who you talk to about how it's defined, the UNIX Epoch has all sorts of definitions, which is why it would be silly to base an official calendar definition on it.

Months:
That's cool. Personally I like the simplicity of standardized units and I'm still happy that the 28 day month is still in between the sideral (~27.3) and synodic (~29.5) periods of the moon.

leap days (one most years and two every 4th but not 128th year)
The only reason for this is that it works. Omitting a leap day every 128 years was not chosen because it was a power of 2, but because it is literally THE MOST EFFICIENT METHOD that exists to keep a year synchronized with the same point, and also the most simplistic when it comes to working it into an algorithm. Having a simple, accurate, efficient "computational" algorthim is what this calendar is all about.

Leap Seconds: The terran computational calendar kicks ass when it comes to leap seconds and leap duration.
* All leap duration is stardardized by being put at the end of the year into a 'minimonth'
* Don't want to account for ANY leap seconds? Apply a year base of 0
* Only want to account for leap seconds before a year n? Apply a year base of n
* Want to write a future date without knowledge of future erratic leap duration (like leap seconds)? Apply a year base less than or equal to the current year to your future date.

zero-based numbering:
Insisting on "zero-based numbering" solves many things. Ease of calculation for starters. What's 2 months 20 days plus 3 months 18 days? 6 months 10 days. Much simpler than ohter methods. Zero-based numbering doesn't do all that much for some calendars but it definitely thrives with this one.
Besides, everybody is familiar with our current system's zero-based (24hour clock) hours, minutes, and seconds any ways, so why not the rest of the date units, right?
Re:Obligatory griping by Guppy06 · 2014-05-30 20:55 · Score: 1

Personally I like the simplicity of standardized units and I'm still happy that the 28 day month is still in between the sideral (~27.3) and synodic (~29.5) periods of the moon.
True, but the synodic is far and away the most influential on human affairs, including factors such as natural nighttime illumination, tides, and our reproductive cycle. The synodic month is the one that can be determined even with overcast skies.

Omitting a leap day every 128 years was not chosen because it was a power of 2, but because it is literally THE MOST EFFICIENT METHOD that exists to keep a year synchronized with the same point,
I'll grant that it's probably more precise than the Gregorian algorithm for the next few centuries (though I'm going by the numbers for the northward equinox rather than the southern solstice specifically), but it's not more efficient in decimal math. Determining divisibility will require inspecting more than two significant figures, unlike the case with 4*10^n.
It's also the kind of obscure number liable to be forgotten in the intervening time. After all, it would be even more efficient to use a strictly quadrennial, Julian arrangement and assume that your particular piece of code won't still be in use by the time the difference matters, a la Y2K.

Having a simple, accurate, efficient "computational" algorthim is what this calendar is all about.

Have you considered the accuracy versus efficiency of table lookups? Chinese New Year is a rigorously defined astronomical phenomenon, but most people just rely on a published calendar and don't ask questions. I'd even wager that even most Jews have no idea how their calendar works.
Historically speaking, having a calendar mathematically simple enough for the average person to reproduce has been a European cultural artifact reflecting European values and experiences (e.g. a distrust or lack of a central authoritative source), and there need not be any objective advantage to such ease of reproducibility.

Besides, everybody is familiar with our current system's zero-based (24hour clock) hours, minutes, and seconds any ways, so why not the rest of the date units, right?
That's actually a bad example, as the date of any given midnight is currently ambiguous. Does it belong to the prior day, the later day, to both, or to neither? Statutes and contracts in the US (at least) typically specify "23:59" or "0:01" specifically to avoid that problem.
Re:Obligatory griping by TC+0 · 2014-05-31 01:11 · Score: 1

Yup omitting leap years every 128 is more difficult for people to calculate in their heads when it gets up to bigger years 640, 768, 896.... but they'll only have to do that 128, and a computer will probably do it for them automatically, and a lot of people won't even have to worry about it at all during their lifetime...unless they're calculating dates, and if they are, then they're hopefully using a calculator in which case, this algorithm is much easier.

I think the terran computational calendar is extremely easy to memorize and reproduce. And you don't need tables to do it either. I'll just quote the website:
Level of Permanency
The terran computational calendar maintains a very high level of conformity and permanency:
* Each full month, day, hour, minute, second, week, and quarter are of constant length
* Each time measurement unit begins at 0
* Years, decades, centuries, etc. are integer based
* Each year begins near the northern winter solstice
* Each quarter lasts for 3¼ months or 13 weeks
* Calendrical drift is suspended by including leap days in years that are a multiple of 4 but not of 128
* All written dates are unambiguous.
* Any date tells you explicitly how many years, months, days, hours, minutes, and seconds have past since the terran computational epoch.

zero-basing: Most standards (like ISO 8601, UTC, TAI) today define 00:00:00 to be the equivalent of midnight and therefore occuring on the next day...and the same goes for the terran computational calendar. And the the beauty of zero-based numbering and precise dating is that you can define instances in time like that. But if you can prove that .9999... is equal to 1, then you could write midnight as 23:59:59.999..... and also have midnight be on the previous day. It's just a lot harder to write. I had a middle school substitute teacher back in the day that told me that midnight occurs on neither side, but simply in between the two, so, technically, it's in neither day.
Re:Obligatory griping by Guppy06 · 2014-05-31 03:29 · Score: 1

and a computer will probably do it for them automatically, and a lot of people won't even have to worry about it at all during their lifetime
Which is why I raised doubts that a computer would be programmed to do it correctly to begin with (it will only be on the minds of programmers near that 128-year threshold), and doubts that it would be remembered at all ("Just let the machine do it").

Each... quarter are of constant length
Of dubious value, as tropical seasons are not of equal (or uniform) length, and the beginning and ending dates of your quarters will be non-obvious.

Each time measurement unit begins at 0
Every single law and contract mentioning "the first of the month" will need to be rewritten to be unambiguous, since "1st day of the month" and "day 1" will be two different days.

Each quarter lasts for 3Â¼ months or 13 weeks

Only if you ignore your epagomenal days. Food and fuel must still be consumed, rent must still be paid, and interest must still be accrued. Your perpetual quarters are actually 91.310 546 875 days exactly.
This brings us to the general problem of epagomenal days to begin with: for trade and commerce, are they to be treated as being part of the 1st week/month/quarter (not to be confused with "week/month/quarter 1") or the last? And if that question can and will be answered for all purposes, why insist on epagomenal days to begin with instead of explicitly appending them to the prior or following week/month/quarter? Leaving them epagomenal will only breed ambiguity, which will breed lawsuits.
Note that, in the current system, bissextile days are explicitly part of February and additive leap seconds are explicitly part of 23:59 UTC.

Calendrical drift is suspended by including leap days in years that are a multiple of 4 but not of 128
There is no such thing as a perpetual calendar. Comparisons between algorithms of intercalary days can only be valid for about one millennium from now. Even the current standard of leap seconds itself (which allows for up to 12 adjustments per year) will break down around then.

All written dates are unambiguous.
But the relationship between cardinal and ordinal dates will become ambiguous.

zero-basing: Most standards (like ISO 8601, UTC, TAI) today define 00:00:00 to be the equivalent of midnight and therefore occuring on the next day
Not everyone within industry is compliant with those standards (I again raise the example of POSIX). You're presuming that, along with your calendar itself, not only all of industry will finally properly adopt and abide by these standards, but the general populace as well.
Consider that the general populace can't even agree on the starting point of a new day for all purposes. As an example, meteorology generally treats dawn/sunrise as the beginning of a new date, as demonstrated by the timing of low temperatures predicted for a particular date.

I had a middle school substitute teacher back in the day that told me that midnight occurs on neither side, but simply in between the two, so, technically, it's in neither day.
Your substitute teacher was expressing a personal opinion, one of several. And we haven't even gotten into the definition of midnight itself.
Re:Obligatory griping by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-31 14:44 · Score: 0

Everyone uses a 0-based calendar.
When did you turn 1 year old?
I didn't turn 1 year old on my first day breathing, that's for damned sure. That was "0-day". Thus is the way of calendars that aren't backwards pieces of crap foisted upon us by centuries-old religions that hang on the words of someone claiming to be in charge of that religion fifteen-hundred years after the religion's holy man died. (That's about Pope Gregory XIII, if you wondered. His calendar was fully adopted by around 200 years after his death, and we still suffer from its inaccuracies today.)
Have you ever considered why there's so much confusion about "BC" and "AD"? have you ever noticed that "BC" has the ridiculous tendency to count backwards? And then when 1 BC ends, 1 AD starts? Why was the switch-over 6 months away at 1.5 BC? Does that make sense to anyone at all? No? Then stop bitching that zero-indexing is an "IT only problem" and start bitching that the calendar system we're all used to needs improvement or replacement.
Re:Obligatory griping by TC+0 · 2014-05-31 15:00 · Score: 1

Which is why I raised doubts that a computer would be programmed to do it correctly to begin with (it will only be on the minds of programmers near that 128-year threshold), and doubts that it would be remembered at all ("Just let the machine do it").
True, but I would hope that future programmers would realize (somehow) that a year isn't exactly 365.25 days.

Only if you ignore your epagomenal days. Food and fuel must still be consumed, rent must still be paid, and interest must still be accrued. Your perpetual quarters are actually 91.310 546 875 days exactly.
Quarters and Weeks within a terran computational date are not officially defined or supported, they are only accomodated through datemods. It's up to individuals/groups to create any further definitions of what a quarter or week may be.

Of dubious value, as tropical seasons are not of equal (or uniform) length, and the beginning and ending dates of your quarters will be non-obvious.
Correct. This calendar does not track the moon, or all seasons, it only tracks the year (n. winter solstice) and the day. As for quarters, these are useful for business and industry and it's pretty easy to remember their dates since they're all 3 months and 1 week:
44TC+0Q = 44.0.0 TC
44TC+1Q = 44.3.7 TC
44TC+2Q = 44.6.14 TC
44TC+3Q = 44.9.21 TC
44TC+4Q = 44.13.0 TC

+4Q probably shouldn't be used for businesses though which should probably just include 'minimonth' in the last quarter, but that's not in the scope of the terran computational algorithm.

But the relationship between cardinal and ordinal dates will become ambiguous.
Ordinal numbering is not recommended for the terran computational calendar. Also ever verbose language that doesn't use the TC designator is discouraged. I talk about further:

Every single law and contract mentioning "the first of the month" will need to be rewritten to be unambiguous, since "1st day of the month" and "day 1" will be two different days.
Not exactly, if there isn't a TC designator appended to it, then it isn't a terran computational date. Ordinal numbering is not recommended for the terran computational calendar. So just treat years, months, and days as you would hours minutes and seconds in a 24-hour clock. I've also been doing some thinking about how to represent specific durations and placement like "month 2 day 3 of each year" could be written by appending an M to the designator meaning that the first unit represents months and the duration is equal to the last unit (in each unit equal to the one about the first unit, in this case 'each year'). So "month 2 day 3 of each year" becomes 2.3TCM. And as for your example "1st day of the month" would be "day 0 of each month" becomes 0TCD

There is no such thing as a perpetual calendar. Comparisons between algorithms of intercalary days can only be valid for about one millennium from now. Even the current standard of leap seconds itself (which allows for up to 12 adjustments per year) will break down around then.
True. But omitting leap days every 128 is extremely efficient. Also the current 'minimonth' offers support for up to 27 leap days plus 24*60*60 = 86400 leap seconds per year.

midnight:
The terran computational calendar does not define midnight. That's up to the philosophers I guess. However midnight between years 43 and 44 may be expressed as 44TC, 44.0.0TC, or 44-0-0 0:0:0TC, because all terran computational dates represent precise instances in time.
Re:Obligatory griping by Guppy06 · 2014-05-31 18:20 · Score: 1

Then stop bitching that zero-indexing is an "IT only problem" and start bitching that the calendar system we're all used to needs improvement or replacement.
Your "solution" is to define 7/3 as the fourth day of July. I fail to see the advantage.
Re:Obligatory griping by Guppy06 · 2014-05-31 18:26 · Score: 1

True, but I would hope that future programmers would realize (somehow) that a year isn't exactly 365.25 days.
The programmer sees a discrepancy happening over a century into the future as "Somebody Else's Problem," and there would be little reason for users a century in the future to be aware of this presumption. Even if the users know about the proper algorithm, they may not know that the code they're relying on doesn't. Consider how long it was before Excel stopped rendering AD 1900 as bissextile.
Y2K, UNIX time overflow, etc. Only this time the original coders will be long dead. Best hope they commented better than they coded.

Correct. This calendar does not track the moon, or all seasons, it only tracks the year (n. winter solstice) and the day.
Keeping track of and predicting seasons is the entire point of a calendar.

+4Q probably shouldn't be used for businesses though which should probably just include 'minimonth' in the last quarter, but that's not in the scope of the terran computational algorithm.
A calendar that can't unambiguously reckon the Christmas shopping season doesn't seem to lend much utility to business.

Not exactly, if there isn't a TC designator appended to it, then it isn't a terran computational date.

Then you're seeking to have this implemented alongside the Gregorian Calendar (et al). Then what are you actually hoping to replace? Julian dates?

Ordinal numbering is not recommended for the terran computational calendar.
The attendant cultural shifts you're asking users to adopt alongside this system are steep barriers to entry that will not exactly aid adoption.
Re:Obligatory griping by Guppy06 · 2014-05-31 19:02 · Score: 1

The terran computational calendar does not define midnight.
Then you will run into another long-term problem: Universal Time (Coordinated and otherwise) is wholly independent of solar time and the concept of "day." While Universal Time's definition was intended for it to resemble solar (i.e. civil) time at its adoption, that approximation will eventually fail, rendering any system that uses Universal Time to demark and count days ambiguous.
Re:Obligatory griping by TC+0 · 2014-05-31 19:27 · Score: 1

Yeah, as I got more into it, I realized that zero-based time keeping is really the way to go. The initial archaic descendant of the terran computational calendar (which I named the 13 moons calendar) only used zero bases for years, hours, minutes, seconds, and it eventually dawned on me that so many things on multiple levels would be so much easier if every unit was zero-based, hence it's current inception. The only (but still very valid) reasons not to use zero-basing is convention and ordinal numbering (0th, 1st, 2nd, 3rd), which can be confusing, which is why I like to stress that using ordinal numbering is discouraged when dealing with zero-based calendars. Quote from an above comment #47139161:

So just treat years, months, and days as you would hours minutes and seconds in a 24-hour clock. I've also been doing some thinking about how to represent specific durations and placement like "month 2 day 3 of each year" could be written by appending an M to the designator meaning that the first unit represents months and the duration is equal to the last unit (in each unit equal to the one [that general precedes] the first unit, in this case 'each year'). So "month 2 day 3 of each year" becomes 2.3TCM. And as for [another example,] "day 0 of each month" becomes 0TCD
Oh!, and you asked:

When did you turn 1 year old?
I have a vietnmese friend who said that his culture accepts that you're already 1 year old when you're born because of the (general) amount of time spent in the womb.

One more reason to get off this rock by I'm+New+Around+Here · 2014-05-30 15:57 · Score: 0

Then scientists can work on a timekeeping method that makes sense. No 'leap seconds' or any thing else tied to the Earth's rotational speed or distance from the sun. Base it on a scientific constant, whether nuclear decay or specific EM wavelength or anything else that is precise and easily measurable.

--
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.

Re:One more reason to get off this rock by VanGarrett · 2014-05-30 17:07 · Score: 4, Interesting

Seasons and duration of day are logical and meaningful things to base your units of time on. Nuclear decay and EM wavelengths are a rather illogical basis, as these things don't have a practical use or observation in the common life of humans in general. Days and seasons, on the other hand, have an apparent and obvious cycle, which can be observed without need of special equipment. Furthermore, they have an immediate and profound affect on our environment. This is the difference between light and dark, between heat and cold, between growth and recess. These cycles dictate when we can grow food, and how long we have to complete tasks. It therefore makes a great deal of sense that we would want to keep track of these things. The only failing, is that the larger units aren't always comprised of a whole number of the smaller units, as they are based on difference cycles, which are not actually related to eachother.
Now, on the other hand, if we lived on a starship or perhaps a space station unassociated with any particular planet, your timekeeping method could reasonably be arbitrary. You might choose to base it on the crew's mode average circadian rhythm, perhaps. In those circumstances, you would have eliminated the conditions that have inspired our current timekeeping system.

--
Learning about brewing beer, by brewing beer.
Re:One more reason to get off this rock by TapeCutter · 2014-05-30 20:11 · Score: 1

Sigh and which constant do you suggest? - The second that all clocks defer to, is an SI unit. It IS based on a scientific constant, something to do with a particular cesium isotope. That "constant" is not an absolute constant in the same way the rotation of the Earth is not an absolute constant. We know that because we have recently built scientific clocks that keep time more accurately than a cesium atom. As I understand it, it appears we have now run out of natural time-ticks that are more constant than our "artificial" time-ticks.

Hours, minutes, days and years are not SI units, they are convenient units derived from measuring time in SI seconds. Personally I'd much rather have an alarm clock that may vary by a second either way in the morning but doesn't require a maths degree to setup at night.

--
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Re:One more reason to get off this rock by TC+0 · 2014-05-30 21:55 · Score: 1

Barycentric Coordinate Time (TCB) and Geocentric Coordinate Time (TCG) are currentlly in use for space travel purposes. And each is tied to the 1977 definition of a TAI second
"the duration of 9192631770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom" measured at the geoid (mean sea level), however, the former TCB "performs exactly the same movements as the Solar system but is outside the system's gravity well" and the later TCG "performs exactly the same movements as the Earth but is outside the Earth's gravity well". And since the second is about the length of a single heartbeat, I say we should stick with that definition....as long as we're still human...for artifical intelligence: yeah I don't know...maybe they'll still use the caesium atom since it's orbital period is so stable. Oh, and TAI also doesn't account for leap seconds. And by applying a year base of 0, the terran computational calendar doesn't account for them either.

So there you go sir, the scientists beat you to it 37 years ago.

I found this comment to be interesting. It describes how a timestamp could be separated metrically into secs, ksecs (00:16:40), msecs (about 11.6 days), gsec (about 31.7 years). So a UNIX timestamp of 1401510007 could be written as 1:401:510:007 and you'd have a close idea of what time it is...if you're used to it, I guess.
Re: One more reason to get off this rock by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-31 08:48 · Score: 0

I don't see how this can possibly work, if time dilation actually exists. Multiple instances of those clocks would tick at different rates depending on minute differences in speed and gravity at different parts of the globe
Re: One more reason to get off this rock by TC+0 · 2014-05-31 12:03 · Score: 1

So are you saying that you don't believe in relativity and, therefore, gravometric distortion? Those cleaver little scientists do there best to average the atomic clocks out ( by taking into account their altitudes and what not) resulting in an algorithm that spits out the number of SI caesium seconds measured at mean sea level.
Re:One more reason to get off this rock by I'm+New+Around+Here · 2014-06-01 04:37 · Score: 1

Sigh, and why is the second the only thing you can think of?
Are all future generations required to use a base time unit that is a throwback to our ancient past? We might as well keep using miles, ounces, and degrees Fahrenheit as well. They are all as equally scientifically valid as is the second.

--
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
Re:One more reason to get off this rock by I'm+New+Around+Here · 2014-06-01 04:43 · Score: 1

No, they did not beat me to it. They found a way to define the second, based on Earth conditions. I am asking for something that is actually not "the second", and based on some specific scientific point. I'm not a scientist, so don't know what could be used as that basis, but I'm sure there would be a lot of ideas if the question was put to the scientific community.

--
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
Re:One more reason to get off this rock by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-01 07:58 · Score: 0

The foot and finger are logical and meaningful things to base your units of measure on. Arbitrary divisions of the circumference of the Earth are a rather illogical basis, as this doesn't have a practical use or observation in the common life of humans in general. Inches, feet and miles, on the other hand, have an apparent and obvious source, which can be observed without need of special equipment. Furthermore, they have an immediate and profound affect on our ability to understand the world. This is the difference between jogging 1000 paces (a mile), between how many fingers or arm's length a thing is, and having to memorize abstract units just because they can be manipulated by adding or subtracting zeros (also a significant opportunity for simple errors). It therefore makes a great deal of sense that we would want to keep track of measurements via a standardization of familiar body parts. The only failing, is that the larger units aren't always comprised of even round numbers of the smaller units, as they are based on difference sources, but which are actually still related to each other.
Re:One more reason to get off this rock by perih60 · 2014-06-02 22:48 · Score: 1

i totally agree with you , i have spent a lot of time , thinking about time . and learning about it , books , artikles , and unfortunetly talked to people about time ! i found that a relative large % of people believe that TIME is something manmade , i kid you not ! when i countered their believe by stating that iv never seen a seed grow into a tree intantly , or a baby grow ( become ) an adult without any passing of time , it was suggested that i am crazy . maybe so . but how many people take time into consideration ? ie , did some overtime shifting stock , from A to B , after a month was told to take to take it about twice as far ! a week later was ordered to see the manager , he wanted to know why it is taking me longer , i was unable to explain to that uni educated fool of a manager that it takes more time cos of the greater distance . he on the other hand used the brocken record technique , ever 5 or so minutes , he would say i do not care about that , why are you slower ! over the years i have learned that he was not an exaption , but the rule . time after time different managers , have proven to me that TIME does not enter their thoughts . nor does a geodisic , that word means the shortest possible distance beetwen two points . ie the shortest distance from A to B is a straight line , but if there is a wall between a and b one has to go around it if one wants to get to b . this takes longer as well . for the most part i now work on this very interesting subject alone . finally to the people who believe you were beaten , someone else thought of it before you . CARL SAGEN in his great book COSMOS wrote about ( his term ) spontanious discovery , he is of the opinion that provided a person on their own discover something , nothing should diminish that persons achivement !! food for thought :)
9

--
the power of men in charge of words over men in charge of machines surpasses all wondering S WEIL

Re:This is the gayest thing I have read all day by TC+0 · 2014-05-30 16:15 · Score: 1

"If by gay you mean the old English definition of 'fun, enjoyable and carefree,' then yes, it's extremely gay." - from the movie Role Models

they had their chance... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-30 16:41 · Score: 0

Calendars should not have a leap anything!

Re:Hah! Your solution fails! by TC+0 · 2014-05-30 16:56 · Score: 1

And every week is a TwoDays

I devised a remarkably similar calendar. by VanGarrett · 2014-05-30 17:29 · Score: 1

What I came up with was almost identical; the year started and ended with the Winter Solstice, and consists of 13 months of 28 days. Where mine differs, though, is that instead of a "minimonth", I choose to exclude the extra day or two from any week, month or year; a period of time I call "Offset". These days being excluded from a week means that any given day on the calendar will always be the same day of the week from one year to the next. That is to say, under this calendar, if the first day of the first month this year is Monday, then next year and every year, it will or has been Monday (as is the first day of every month, in point of fact). In fact, the 1st, 8th, 15th and 21st would always be Monday, and Friday would always be the 5th, 12th, 19th and 26th.

I've only ever used this system in unpublished works of fiction, though I find it interesting that this same idea has been explored by others.

--
Learning about brewing beer, by brewing beer.

Re:I devised a remarkably similar calendar. by Dixie_Flatline · 2014-06-02 07:47 · Score: 1

I also came up with this on my own; it's not a terribly complicated concept once you divide 365 by 7 and realise that you've only got a 1 (or 2) remainder.
The solution is also incredibly simple. The extra day is always New Years. It has no 'day of the week' name associated with it. If there's a leap year, you've got 2 days for holidays.
Done.

Re:TAI SI seconds and gravitational time dialation by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-30 17:39 · Score: 0

It doesn't even make sense to have an "interstellar" timescale. There's time on the mean surface of the earth, and there's time on your starship. It will be interesting and useful to know what values those two clocks will have when they next meet at the end of your round trip, but they're still two different clocks in two different frames of references, and the spaceship one is probably not very predictable relative to the earth one if you had to make course corrections or conserve fuel.

And the benefit is... by aussersterne · 2014-05-30 17:57 · Score: 1

what, exactly? Calendars are synthetic tools used to synchronize human activity. That is their one and only value. They do not exist in nature; nature synchronizes with itself without our intervention.

But we need a shared, common way to refer to particular dates in time so that we can refer to records and events retrospectively and arrange for future events prospectively—together, in a coordinated fashion.

So your proposal replaces one time measurement system on which everyone is more or less on the same page, in which the representation of a particular moment in time is broadly accepted across a large swath of humanity...by another system in which across that very same swath of humanity, a moment in time can be represented in multiple ways.

This would seem to reduce, not increase, the value of a calendar for all practical intents and purposes.

This proposal is most likely to catch (well, let's be honest, it's never likely to catch) but it's most likely to catch in advanced industrial/post-industrial societies where the resources and level of education to make use of it are in place. So you're proposing to introduce extensive new ambiguity in timekeeping into the population in which there is currently the least ambiguity in timekeeping.

Again, seems ass-backward to me.

--
STOP . AMERICA . NOW

Re:And the benefit is... by TC+0 · 2014-05-30 22:23 · Score: 1

I see your point, different date notation may get confusing, but all dates represent unambiguous instants in time. In general, the extra components for the terran computational calendar would only ever be used in specific domains for specific purposes. Year bases are useful in real time applications. Quarter datemods like 44TC+2Q are useful for business, so you don't actual have to use verbose language to descibe quarters. Week datemods like TC+2318W6D (2318Weks 6Days after the terran computational epoch) could be useful in civil/government agencies who use weeks not months in their dating processes.

But, in general, any further stadardization of this calender would probably just look like this: 44-5-21 3:18:54 TC+7H and that should be familiar to pretty much anyone once you get use to the idea of a datemod being somewhat the opposite of a timezone offset.

Ecclesiastes 1:9 (NIV) by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-30 18:04 · Score: 0

What has been will be again,
what has been done will be done again;
there is nothing new under the sun.

Obvious reason by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-30 18:15 · Score: 0

I hope that the author of this calendar finally came. After all, this was the only reason to invent it.

But Does It Support Subsidized Time? by l0ungeb0y · 2014-05-30 18:38 · Score: 2

I don't care about Mini Months or Year Bases as much as the ability to have Year of the Depend Adult Undergarment, TrialSized Dove Bar or Perdue Wonderchicken. I want opportunistic branding to penetrate every orifice of my life.

Re:But Does It Support Subsidized Time? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-31 04:33 · Score: 0

two cheers for DFW.
Re:But Does It Support Subsidized Time? by Gavagai80 · 2014-05-31 07:54 · Score: 1

Try the Chinese system, then. It's the year of the horse, brought to you by a consortium of horse racing interests, breeders and horseshoe companies.

--
This space intentionally left blank

Discordian Calendar others by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-30 18:43 · Score: 0

Honestly, out of all the calendars I know, the Discordian is the most sensible. And that is sad.

Re:TAI SI seconds and gravitational time dialation by TC+0 · 2014-05-30 23:14 · Score: 1

Maybe, unless you have some sort of machine to detect your own change in relitivistic mass due to your speed and the amount of gravometric distortion caused by nearby stars and planets, in which case, you could probably do pretty well in syncing up your clocks, or at least you'll know what time it will be if you ever decide to return to earth.

Lets have a real time measurement. by Gonoff · 2014-05-31 01:31 · Score: 1

If we can identify a zero point, we should just calculate all technical time in seconds past that date. There is already a Julian Day. I would call it the Julian Second. It is now 212,268,345,960. That is not much good for daily activities but perfect;y fine for any electronic system Trivial to write for phone, computer or whatever.

--
I'll see your Constitution and raise you a Queen.

13 brings bad luck by jsim · 2014-05-31 03:10 · Score: 1

13 months per year? 13 brings bad luck

Re:13 brings bad luck by TC+0 · 2014-05-31 16:48 · Score: 1

Well, if you count 'minimonth', then there's actually 14.

No one wants to date mods by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · 2014-05-31 04:06 · Score: 1

Go on. Make time. All year bases are belong to us.

--
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.

Re:This is the gayest thing I have read all day by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-31 04:57 · Score: 0

Arrrrghhhh!!! This is the SECOND gayest thing I've read all day!!!!

Damn you, Slashdot! The homosexuality just keeps on a-comin'!!!!

Re:This is the gayest thing I have read all day by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-31 05:37 · Score: 0

Only on Slashdot could "PENISES!!!! INSIDE MY MOUTH! RAPING MY MOUTH!!!!" be mistaken for "fun, enjoyable and carefree,"

No one cares about your shitty dissertation by BitZtream · 2014-05-31 09:58 · Score: 1

This wreaks of silly dissertation for a PhD student who didn't have anything actually useful to write about. Either way, just keep it, you've provided nothing useful other than change 'because you think we should all change'

--
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager

Re:No one cares about your shitty dissertation by TC+0 · 2014-05-31 17:07 · Score: 1

Wow, I'm definitely taking that as a compliment. I'm honored that you thought I was a doctoral candidate, but I actually consider myself an organic gardener who has a computer science degree and some interest in calendrics, but hey, if you want to try and brand me as a doctoral student, then please, go right ahead....

I offer ideas, nothing more. The terran computaional calendar contains a public domain mark, which basically means that it's completely free of copyright. This means that, any person or group has the option to use or modify its ideas as they see fit for their own implementation without worrying about copyright or referencing where those ideas came from.

I wish... by fyngyrz · 2014-05-31 10:42 · Score: 1

...someone would come up with a calendar standard that measures fractions of a second from approximately the big bang, and on into the heat death of the universe. It's not like bits are expensive, or an add with carry is only an instruction found with some CPUs.

Be nice to have something we don't have to replace over and over again, and which could be used in all manner of scientific and historical endeavors.

--
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.

How a programmer views time by Duggeek · 2014-06-01 08:49 · Score: 1

That's what this 'calendar' essentially says. Let's just call it what it is, a simple algorithm for a few celestial body movements. It's rail-minded development applied to the solar system, with only a nod to the Gregorian lunar-based system. (28-day months, or approximately one lunar rotation) Also, and let's be honest here, the whole "timemods" idea is just a gadget. It's not practical outside of the inner-workings model. I mean c'mon... calendars are supposed to work for everyone.

All that doesn't mean it's a bad idea.

On the contrary, it's a great start. But if it's to become a great system, worthy of usurping the Gregorian calendar, then it has to embrace the natural marks of celestial time frames... not just one solstice per year.

First improvement would be to include both solstices in measurements. This already doubles the accuracy of the system.
Take it one step further and include both equinoxes for additional reliability.
The previous two suggestions annihilate the 13th "mini month" idea, (which BTW is horrible) so tack those on to the quarterly ends as 'meta months'. See? Quarters are now built-in!
The whole point of a standard calendar is to be predictable, so making corrections four times every year means the next cycle is always more reliable than the last. (though it will never be perfect, because entropy)
We also open up the possibility that sub-diurnal adjustments can now be quarterly, semi-annual or annual. Another leap-second in June, why not?

This system then retains the single greatest advantage of the Gregorian calendar; division by the most factorials. (!12=1,2,3,4,6,12 -vs- !13=1,13) And now it has more frequent course corrections. Consider this programmatically with the above suggestions, and the system is still computationally simpler than our legacy Gregorian system. So there it is, an accessible system that everyone can use.

Better calendar schemes by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-01 14:10 · Score: 0

The Gregorian Calender worked because it is an incremental improvement on the Julian Calender which was an improvement on the Ad Urba Roman calendar. I happen to like the Edwards Calendar (four quarters of three month; the months are 30, 30 and 31 days; They start on Monday, Wednesday and Friday respectively You add an inter-calendaral New Year day every year and a leap year day in the middle as needed).

Slashdot Mirror

Terran Computational Calendar Introduces Minimonths, Year Bases, and Datemods

209 comments