Slashdot Mirror


Leap Days May Be Going Away In the Not Too Distant Future

StartsWithABang writes: The need for a February 29th, once every four years, doesn't just give us an extra day this year, but it keeps the calendar from drifting and failing to align with the seasons. Even so, the scheme we have worked out today, where years divisible by 4 but not those divisible by 100 unless also divisible by 400 get an extra day, isn't perfect, and will get worse as time goes on. The current misalignment between our calendar and the actual Earth's orbit is big enough that we'll be off by a day every 3,200 years, but bigger news is that the Earth's rotation rate is changing, as our day lengthens and our spin slows down. In another 4 million years, we won't need leap days at all, and if we extrapolate backwards, we can find that early Earth had a day that lasted just 6.5 hours.

165 comments

  1. 4 million years == 'not too distant' by Ann+O'Nymous-Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    SINCE WHEN?

    1. Re:4 million years == 'not too distant' by Okian+Warrior · · Score: 5, Funny

      SINCE WHEN?

      We're just about to discover a cure for aging.

      Didn't you get the memo?

    2. Re:4 million years == 'not too distant' by neminem · · Score: 3, Funny

      Since about 4 million years ago, clearly.

    3. Re:4 million years == 'not too distant' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      When all your friends are geologists.

    4. Re:4 million years == 'not too distant' by alvinrod · · Score: 1

      Are you a laboratory mouse? If not, I'd wait for more trials lest something go horribly wrong.

      If you go by the news we've been five years away from curing cancer for the last twenty years and twenty years away from cold fusion for the last fifty years.

    5. Re:4 million years == 'not too distant' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      4 million years == 'not too distant'
      SINCE WHEN?

      Since Ethan "Spamswithablog" Siegel wanted to clickbait you into going to Forbes by making you think the IEEE date and time standards had changed, when instead it's the same dreck he usually peddles in order to get clicks.

      Thanks, Slashdot management, for linking to the actual content instead of Ethan's Forbes-hosted malware vector!

    6. Re:4 million years == 'not too distant' by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

      It all depends on scale.

      To that granite uplift in Utah, 4 million years is the blink of an eye!

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    7. Re:4 million years == 'not too distant' by darthsilun · · Score: 1

      Never mind cold fusion, we've been 20 years from hot fusion for the last 50 years.

    8. Re:4 million years == 'not too distant' by Mad+Bad+Rabbit · · Score: 1

      "In the not-too-distant future, next SundayXXX 4 million AD ... (la la la)"

      --
      >;k
    9. Re:4 million years == 'not too distant' by BitterOak · · Score: 1

      Given that the earth is about 5 billion years old, 4 million years is nothing.

      --
      If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
    10. Re:4 million years == 'not too distant' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since the trolls at Forbes.com took over.

    11. Re:4 million years == 'not too distant' by JoeMerchant · · Score: 2

      1% of the life of the Earth, or ~80x the time since homo sapiens speciated...

    12. Re:4 million years == 'not too distant' by fisted · · Score: 1

      given that our calendar and timekeeping that requires leap days is a little bit less than 5 billion years old, 4 million years is a bit.

    13. Re:4 million years == 'not too distant' by penguinoid · · Score: 2

      I wouldn't worry about it. Not in a million years.

      --
      Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
    14. Re:4 million years == 'not too distant' by ChunderDownunder · · Score: 1

      Yeah, there are more pressing concerns such as fixing the Y2K38 bug.

    15. Re: 4 million years == 'not too distant' by johnsnails · · Score: 2

      My friends are young earth geologist you insensitive clod!

    16. Re:4 million years == 'not too distant' by AchilleTalon · · Score: 1

      From TFA: “So 3,000 years from now, people may decide to tweak it," Lowe says. "We'll just have to wait and see.”

      --
      Achille Talon
      Hop!
    17. Re:4 million years == 'not too distant' by Anne+Thwacks · · Score: 1
      SINCE WHEN?

      Your job responsibilities obviously do not include change management. There are a great many organisations (mainly Government entities) for whom 4 Million years is "short term".

      It is, for example, far to short a period to remove all the bugs from a popular Operating System (which shall remain nameless for obvious reasons).

      --
      Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
    18. Re: 4 million years == 'not too distant' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Technically it would be the Y38K bug.

    19. Re:4 million years == 'not too distant' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, but how about 4 million years?

    20. Re:4 million years == 'not too distant' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since typical Slashdot headlines.

    21. Re:4 million years == 'not too distant' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      5 billion years old? Tell that in Texas schools.

    22. Re:4 million years == 'not too distant' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It'll be the same year and the year of Linux on the desktop...

    23. Re: 4 million years == 'not too distant' by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      I think you mean that your friends are Young Earth Creationists. In which case, they're the clods. The phrase "Liars For Jesus" is often used, though a small number are "Liars For Mohammed" instead (though they copy the same errors of logic and fact, and often of spelling).

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    24. Re:4 million years == 'not too distant' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It has eyes?

  2. Not too distant future.... by raftpeople · · Score: 4, Funny

    1 day difference in 3,200 years? Better bump this up to high priority

    1. Re:Not too distant future.... by Rinisari · · Score: 1

      It'll take that long to get through a Republican Congress if a Democrat authors the bill!

    2. Re:Not too distant future.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It'll take that long for me to care about the Star...Bang...dude.

    3. Re: Not too distant future.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good thing we have 4,000,000 years to come up with the acronym (read: Y2K) where small retentive knowledgeless IT managers can do useful things like make sure their fax machine, HVAC systems, and pocket protectors are compatible with the change in time.

    4. Re:Not too distant future.... by Austerity+Empowers · · Score: 4, Funny

      If it exceeds my expected lifespan, it is "the distant future".

      I eat a lot of red meat. Tuesday is the distant future.

    5. Re:Not too distant future.... by tnk1 · · Score: 0

      I eat a lot of red meat. Tuesday is the distant future.

      Perhaps so, but at least you're going to enjoy your remaining time.

      Animals... yum.

    6. Re:Not too distant future.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yep, exactly. I'm a proud member of PETA - People Eating Tasty Animals.

    7. Re:Not too distant future.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1 day difference in 3,200 years? Better bump this up to high priority

      Put it up on bugzilla. That's a guarantee you'll end up waiting more than 3200 years to have the problem fixed.

    8. Re:Not too distant future.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Make this a STICKY post!

    9. Re:Not too distant future.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yea, if Democrats author the bill, they would mess it up somehow as they always do. Would get passed anyway, then Republicans get the blame when the bill ends in disaster. Seems to be the normal way things go.

    10. Re:Not too distant future.... by Bengie · · Score: 1

      Leap millennial will fix that.

    11. Re:Not too distant future.... by RockDoctor · · Score: 1
      Well, it's 12 hours difference in 1600 years, and the substitution of mid-day for mid-night might possibly be slightly more noticeable than one midnight for another.

      There is no reason to expect that the orbital motion of a planet and it's rotational motion to be related in a simple ratio. (Except in the case of tidal locking, where the ratio is 1:1). So, unless you're going to go around adjusting rotation rates or orbits, then the slip between the two measures of time is just something you're going to have to deal with.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  3. Not too distant? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Four years is "not too distant." Four Million is at least a little bit "distant."

  4. God must have been pretty amazing by turning+in+circles · · Score: 4, Funny

    To build the world and everything in it in 6.5 hour days. Wow.

    --
    Might as well face it I'm addicted to data.
    1. Re:God must have been pretty amazing by xxxJonBoyxxx · · Score: 5, Funny

      Kind of explains the platypus, though, doesn't it?

    2. Re:God must have been pretty amazing by killkillkill · · Score: 4, Funny

      I ran the math and the early Earth, 6000 years ago, did not have 6.5 hours days. Nice try, Science.

    3. Re: God must have been pretty amazing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Man 6.5 hour days would kick ass! Imagine wind surfing in 500MPH winds! Bitchin! Your skin would be ripped off and the sail wouldn't last for more than a millisecond but that would be cool!

    4. Re: God must have been pretty amazing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Man 6.5 hour days would kick ass! Imagine wind surfing in 500MPH winds! Bitchin! Your skin would be ripped off and the sail wouldn't last for more than a millisecond but that would be cool!

      Jupiter has what a 9.5 hour rotation? As big as it is, that would have to be an E-ticket ride for sure!!!

    5. Re:God must have been pretty amazing by wbr1 · · Score: 1

      Kind of explains the platypus, though, doesn't it?

      No, he was testing cannabis when that happened.

      --
      Silence is a state of mime.
    6. Re:God must have been pretty amazing by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      We'll get a hotfix for that after it ships.

    7. Re: God must have been pretty amazing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm pretty sure you wouldn't feel any different if the earth was rotating on a 6.5 day schedule. You do realize that we are zipping around the center of the galaxy at 250km/sec -- can't feel that.

    8. Re: God must have been pretty amazing by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      I think it might influence the coriolis effect a bit, which is suspected to have some influence on the weather.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    9. Re:God must have been pretty amazing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Alright, so now I'll make the drug-plants...

      Shit shit shit. I forgot to make some of the animals... Giraffe (can't forget those horns!), striped-horse-Zebra, half-striped-horse-Okapi, Dumbo Octopus, Narwal, what else have I got here?

    10. Re:God must have been pretty amazing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The early Earth is not 6000 ya. Rather ~5 billion years ago.

  5. Not too distant future? by nwaack · · Score: 5, Insightful

    False. I feel like I just got click-baited.

    1. Re:Not too distant future? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You did; this "StartsWithABang" contentless dreck gets posted to Slashdot about once a week. Someone must be paying to have these "articles" mixed in with the actual content here.

    2. Re:Not too distant future? by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 2

      You did - look at the submitter.

      Also, since we don't know when we got the moon (we're not even sure how we got it), we can't just extrapolate backwards to a day of 6.5 hours.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    3. Re:Not too distant future? by NormalVisual · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You did - look at the submitter.

      A submitter that has had dozens of articles accepted, but has posted exactly one comment, and that was merely to make a correction to his/her submission. I frankly would not be too upset to see a rule implemented that says if you're not an active participant on the site, you don't get to submit articles. It might help to curb some of the unabashed clickbaiting.

      --
      Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
    4. Re:Not too distant future? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      False. I feel like I just got click-baited.

      Sometimes not RTFA is a boon.

    5. Re:Not too distant future? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As soon as I see StartsWithABang, I know not to bother reading the article.

    6. Re:Not too distant future? by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      You did - look at the submitter.

      A submitter that has had dozens of articles accepted, but has posted exactly one comment, and that was merely to make a correction to his/her submission. I frankly would not be too upset to see a rule implemented that says if you're not an active participant on the site, you don't get to submit articles. It might help to curb some of the unabashed clickbaiting.

      Great idea - hopefully whipslash is running a script to see whenever their nym pops up and will consider your idea.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    7. Re:Not too distant future? by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      Also, since we don't know when we got the moon (we're not even sure how we got it), we can't just extrapolate backwards to a day of 6.5 hours.

      Correct answer (we can't simple extrapolate backwards) but for the wrong reasons (it's not uncertainty about the date of formation of the Moon that's the issue, it's the variable torque between the oceans and the seabed).

      I didn't bother to follow Ethan-ends-With-A-Whimper's links, but I welcom his movement from Forbes.com to the Torygraph and Nat.Geo (both Murdoch rags, IIRC), so one expects the former to get the science wrong, and the latter to over-simplify it.

      The actual science is that for some decades, geologists have been examining rock deposits which contain both daily and more-than-daily cycles of deposition. (For example, twice-daily cycles of tidal sand/ mud alternations and 21-day cycles that appear to represent the spring/ neap tidal cycle, in the same rock sequences.) There had been three reasonable quality measurements of this sort of data when I was a student (and wrote an essay on the topic) in the 1980s, and the number of measurements (in different formations at different eras) has increased since, with the noise reducing.

      The data is not consistent with a simple linear change, and therefore with any simple extrapolation.

      Further study of the interactions of the Moon-Earth system elucidates what is happening. The evolution of the Earth-Moon system is dominated by the drag between the oceans and the seabed. The rotation of the Earth drags the bulge of the ocean's high tides ahead of the line joining Earth-centre and Moon centre, so the bulge exerts a torque on the Moon, increasing it's orbital speed and therefore resulting in the Moon moving further away from the Earth. That much is well known and understood. What is less-well understood is that the drag between the seabed and the oceans is a very complex function of the shape of the seabed, the nature of the seabed (mud, boulders, seaweed, coral) and of course, the viscosity of the water. Just for entertainment, every such calculation for a deep ocena has to have a measure of the temperature profile between surface and seabed. The last time I did such a profile, the seabed was at 3.6 centigrade and the surface at nearly 30 centigrade ; the previous profile, the range was 9.6 to 15-20 centigrade (it varied with season, as did the isolation suits we were required to wear during transit). Even if you simplify the shape of the continents and the nature of the seabed, just the temperature variations is going to make it very hard to predict the efficiency of that torque transfer from the Earth's rotation to the Moon's orbit.

      And that is why a simple extrapolation doesn't work.

      We can be pretty sure that the Moon was closer to the Earth in the past, and there still is no better model for the formation of the Moon than the "Giant Impact" (not that that is without issues; but fewer issues than other models proposed to date). But we don't know exactly when, for example, the oceans formed (before 4300Myr ago, probably - but were they party evaporated by impacts later?).

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    8. Re:Not too distant future? by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      If we accept the impact model, then we should expect that the chunks that ended up forming the moon were outside Roche's limit. Still, with the center of gravity of the earth-moon system being more than 4,000 km beneath the surface even today, I would expect gravity-induced compression and expansion of the crust, mantle, and outer core to come into play when it comes to bleeding off energy. The problem gets really interesting :-)

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    9. Re:Not too distant future? by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      I would expect gravity-induced compression and expansion of the crust, mantle, and outer core to come into play when it comes to bleeding off energy.

      That is an effect. But rock is so much stiffer than water (and for that matter air) that the integral of force versus distance moved results in there being more work done by the hydrosphere (and atmosphere) than by the lithosphere. (The work also scales by mass moved as well as distance, so the contribution of the atmosphere is matched by the top 15m of the oceans, and the remaining approximately 4.985 km of the average ocean's depth is not matched by an atmospheric contribution.)

      Still, with the center of gravity of the earth-moon system being more than 4,000 km beneath the surface even today,

      1700km according to Wiki, and "a thousand miles" according to my memory. The point stands, though most of the effect is from movement rather than compression/ decompression. Typically on the continental crust the diurnal solid-body tide is on the order of a metre. People like LIGO and gravimetric surveys (e.g. for mineral prospecting) need to take this into account - it's a routine correction factor.

      If we accept the impact model, then we should expect that the chunks that ended up forming the moon were outside Roche's limit

      Roche's limit isn't a razor-edge dividing line, even in a system approaching equilibrium. The post-impact state of the Earth-Moon system as decidedly not near equilibrium, which is why modelling of the system has to be by running numerical integrations rather than attempting analytical solution. Well, so far anyway.

      What we do know (from the status of Pluto-Charon, Uranus, and Venus) with a fair degree of confidence is that large collisions were common in the late stages of the construction of the Solar system. (Unless you have a better way of accounting for the structure and orientation of these objects. Which would be a new piece of planetary science deserving of publication.)

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  6. Re:But since Republicans hate science... by nwaack · · Score: 1

    Go away, troll.

  7. Tell me more... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    About stuff that won't happen in my lifetime... or really for the next however many more generations.

    1. Re:Tell me more... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's even sillier because with global climate change affecting the oceans and the glaciers and the distribution of mass, their predictions probably are going to be wrong anyway.

  8. let's abandon DST first by turkeydance · · Score: 4, Insightful

    or make DST permanent. just stop changing the clocks. each US state can make that choice. it's not a federal thing.

    1. Re:let's abandon DST first by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

      I don't know, it's kind of fun to think of Arizona as cranky old curmudgeons that just refuse to get with the program. If everyone started doing that, it would be far less special.

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    2. Re:let's abandon DST first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only problem is that we have to change the clocks anyway. I've got a bunch of "atomic" clocks that insist on changing their times. So, twice a year, I have to do the same clock dance that the rest of the country does, but undoing an unwanted change rather than doing an unwanted change.

    3. Re:let's abandon DST first by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      Why do you think this is a question that affects the USA more or less than any other country? Issues of time management affect anyone who has to operate outside the borders of their parochial little country. (Which goes for any country with less than 1/5 of the Earth's land surface, e.g. Russia, at 1/8th and 10 time zones.)

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  9. meh, we had a good run. by Notorious+G · · Score: 2

    That's it, game over.

  10. Bang by Longjmp · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Can someone make StartsWithABang end with a bang please?

    He's getting really annoying and any of his post isn't news nor relevant.
    No leap days soon? In 4 million years. Right.
    And I'm saying that as someone who is interested in astronomy.

    --
    There are fewer illiterates than people who can't read.
    1. Re:Bang by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      at least there is no forbes link so stop complaining and count your blessings.

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

      I just assume this is paid content...

    3. Re:Bang by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The original submissin did contain a forbes link

    4. Re:Bang by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How much does Ethan pay?

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

      Did you get sand in your vagina again?

    6. Re:Bang by mishehu · · Score: 1

      They could always bring back Bennett Hasselton...

    7. Re:Bang by NormalVisual · · Score: 1

      At least Bennett actually interacted with the Slashdot crowd, and posted stuff of personal interest to himself (but often no one else). StartsWithABang does nothing but submit articles and doesn't contribute anything to the site otherwise.

      --
      Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
    8. Re:Bang by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Makes him smarter than us.

    9. Re:Bang by Alumoi · · Score: 1

      You mean US.

    10. Re:Bang by WallyL · · Score: 1

      Maybe we could use him to SWAB the deck?

  11. There are easy short-term fixes. by eddy · · Score: 1

    There are fixes that simply updates the leap-year conditional and bumps the problem 32k years or so. See also Leap Years: we can do better (standupmaths) or google Adam Goucher.

    --
    Belief is the currency of delusion.
  12. Silly Calendar - Make it metric(ish) by pubwvj · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Why have months be uneven? Why add the extra leap year day to February of all the worst of months? I wish they would do 13 moon phase months and then we get a little extra at the end of the year at Summer Solstice and every four years we could have an extra day then.

    1. Re:Silly Calendar - Make it metric(ish) by blue9steel · · Score: 2

      Damn it, we don't have time for rational solutions!

    2. Re:Silly Calendar - Make it metric(ish) by RDW · · Score: 1

      Personally, I always observe the Shire Reckoning:
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    3. Re:Silly Calendar - Make it metric(ish) by Obfuscant · · Score: 4, Funny

      Why add the extra leap year day to February of all the worst of months?

      This! Yeah, adding another day of winter is just so depressing. They should add the day in July, maybe next to July 4 so we could have a four or five day weekend in the summer when it is nice and sunny and warm out.

      But don't worry, in a few years it will be warm and sunny in February, and you won't want another day in July when it will be unbearably hot.

      and then we get a little extra at the end of the year

      I think there ought to be a system where we can bank extra days if we don't want to use them and let them roll over into the next year or maybe two years later. That way, if we're having a good year we can extend it by a week or two, and if we're having a bad year we can end it early.

    4. Re:Silly Calendar - Make it metric(ish) by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      then we get a little extra at the end of the year at Summer Solstice

      Nice try south-of-the-equator-er!

      Just say no to pushing Christmas back once every 4 years, and when it's so damn close.

      As a purely objective solution, it should be after a floating holiday, so that extra weekend day. Or better yet, repeat the day. Who wouldn't want Oct 31 (v1) and Oct 31 (v2) on the calendar every four years?

      You might say, non-Americans who don't celebrate Halloween. But Christmas is only for Christians, and July 4th and Thanksgiving aren't succeeding nearly as well at achieving global hegemony as Halloween is. By the time this proposal passes, it'll be a worldwide phenomenon.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    5. Re:Silly Calendar - Make it metric(ish) by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      There are so many different ideas for re-doing our time system that we have to categorize them to keep track of them all.

      Some are better than others, but none is enough of an improvement to make it worth the switch.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    6. Re:Silly Calendar - Make it metric(ish) by Mal-2 · · Score: 1

      But don't worry, in a few years it will be warm and sunny in February, and you won't want another day in July when it will be unbearably hot.

      You mean like it has been practically all month here, except for the occasional (quite welcome) rain days? It has been an incredibly mild winter, even by Southern California standards.

      --
      How is the Riemann zeta function like Trump rallies? Both have an endless number of trivial zeros.
    7. Re:Silly Calendar - Make it metric(ish) by AthanasiusKircher · · Score: 4, Informative

      I think there ought to be a system where we can bank extra days if we don't want to use them and let them roll over into the next year or maybe two years later. That way, if we're having a good year we can extend it by a week or two, and if we're having a bad year we can end it early.

      Yeah, the Ancient Romans tried that system. Originally, months began with the new moon, and the high priest was tasked with declaring when that happened. (The day was the Kalends of the month, meaning "called out," since it was the day the new month was announced by the priest -- it's where we get our word "calendar.)

      Anyhow, calling out the new moon was a bit of an imprecise business, since when is that last sliver gone and when does the new one begin? It's a bit of a judgment call. High priests were known to take bribes to delay the Kalends or move it up a day.

      In the later Republic, the various month lengths were more standardized and no longer depended on the moon. But they didn't add up to a year exactly (355 days), so every so often they'd need an intercalation to introduce an extra month, named Terminalia, which happened after the 23rd of February. (Why did it happen then? Probably because that was toward the end of winter and not much tended to be going on business-wise, so it wasn't disruptive to commerce or other cycles to have the calendar messed up then.)

      Anyhow, the priest could get a bigger bribe for inserting or not inserting the intercalation MONTH in a particular year. If your friends are in office, they get a longer year; if your enemies are in office, they get a shorter year. You get the picture. (Also, the Romans had a lot of superstitions around particular days and months of the calendar; doing an intercalation in a pivotal year of war or something could be problematic from a luck perspective.)

      Anyhow, this crap got the calendar so messed up that eventually Caesar came in and had to create the so-called "Year of Confusion" (46 BC), which was 445 days long, just to get the seasons aligned correctly again.

      So, yeah -- I'd advise against this sort of calendar tampering. Bad stuff happens. Heck, Caesar died only a couple years later, which maybe goes to show the Roman superstitions on intercalation were right. (or not...)

    8. Re:Silly Calendar - Make it metric(ish) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On the north half of the planet, where most people live, February is before the start of the farming season. This keeps the calendar regular when it matters most. The calendar doesn't change the weather, so you get just as many cold and warm days as you would with the leap day moved to the summer. Moon phases aren't synced with the Earth's movement around the Sun, so moon phase months would not evenly divide the year. So, thirteen 28-day months, plus one extra day, plus leap day, would also be arbitrary, and changing one arbitrary system for another arbitrary system is rarely worth it.

    9. Re:Silly Calendar - Make it metric(ish) by virx · · Score: 1

      Because February was last month of the year.

    10. Re:Silly Calendar - Make it metric(ish) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, everyone knows he only did that so they'd name a month after him (which is still there to this day). Months, days, years, and seasons don't really matter unless you're a warmongering bag of crap, which also fits Julius pretty darned well.

    11. Re:Silly Calendar - Make it metric(ish) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The best calendar reform schemes seem to involve a year made up of four quarters, with months of 30, 30 and 31 days. The months start on Monday, Wednesday and Friday within each quarter. But to make it all balance out we add a New Year's day at the front, and on the regularly peer cycle a leap year Day between the second and third quarter. The advantage we have over the Romans is the zero we can simply have a "YYYY-01–00" for New Year's Day and a "YYYY-07–00" for the extra days.

      Read this cartoon to see how the ISO 8601 date display standards work (https://xkcd.com/1179/). The MySQL convention of using "yyyy-00-00" for the whole year and "yyyy-nn-00" for the whole month within a year works well with the ISO date format.

      If we can get some of this done, will have to start slow. And that means getting rid of the leap second! I am one of the few people I know who is so nerdy that I have actually waited to see my radio synchronized clock do a leap second one year. My wife is right; I do not get out of.

    12. Re:Silly Calendar - Make it metric(ish) by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      The best calendar reform schemes seem to involve a year made up of four quarters, with months of 30, 30 and 31 days. The months start on Monday, Wednesday and Friday within each quarter. But to make it all balance out we add a New Year's day at the front, and on the regularly peer cycle a leap year Day between the second and third quarter.

      What is the point of that system? It's easier to remember which months have how many days?

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    13. Re:Silly Calendar - Make it metric(ish) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For half the world, February is summer and July is winter.

      We've been having 38C days for much of the last 2 weeks.

    14. Re:Silly Calendar - Make it metric(ish) by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      What would be the problem about pushing Christmas back to once every four years? Isn't that about the number of practising Christians in your country (it's certainly too high an estimate for mine)?

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    15. Re:Silly Calendar - Make it metric(ish) by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Because until recently we had 12 zodiac signs, it feels convenient to have one per month.

      Older cultures indeed had 13 months each 28 days long and a festival period for the other days. Christians destroyed those cultures, at least in Europe, no idea about other continents/areas.

      This might be interesting for you: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      Also interesting is the use of two overlapping calendars simultaneously: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      Or if your life is centered a bit around poetry and zen: http://www.kurashikata.com/72s... or http://www.nippon.com/en/featu...

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    16. Re:Silly Calendar - Make it metric(ish) by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      to introduce an extra month, named Terminalia, which happened after the 23rd of February. (Why did it happen then? Probably because that was toward the end of winter and not much tended to be going on business-wise, so it wasn't disruptive to commerce or other cycles to have the calendar messed up then.)
      The roman year ended in February and started in March, hence they added the extra days at the end of the year.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    17. Re:Silly Calendar - Make it metric(ish) by pubwvj · · Score: 1

      February? Start of the farming season? Not here. We have deep snows, often 4' of snow pack the end of February. Farming season is still months away. I know, I am a farmer.

  13. In another 4 million years by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Just so we're clear, is the last year with a leap day the year 4,000,000 or 4,002,016? Asking for a friend...

  14. And then it turns around by Teun · · Score: 2

    And then it turns around so we need to take a day out every once in a while.
    In less than 8 million years it'll be one day per year!

    --
    "The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
  15. Re: But since Republicans hate science... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just look at how much their kind whined last June about the leap second. Even Google did respect it. They did a leap smear instead.

  16. Who forgot to wind the earth? by gurps_npc · · Score: 1

    Was it you Jehovah? Don't look at Allah like that. Zeus did it last time, which mean's it is your turn.

    --
    excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
  17. Re: But since Republicans hate science... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Even Amazon is anti science. They made each second 1/86400 longer last June 30th.

  18. Some people have too much time on their hands by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seriously. Surely there is something more pressing that needs doing that figuring out the problems that we will (not[1]) be having in 4 million years.

    [1] By which time if some natural disaster has not wiped us out, we will have handily have done ourselves.

  19. Re: But since Republicans hate science... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    If it wasn't for JFK standing up to the republicans, we should have never gone to the moon. Never gone to the moon.

  20. Feb.30th by CrashNBrn · · Score: 1

    Here's to February 30th, 3200. Should be a blast.

  21. YAY!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In the tradition of technology companies everywhere, let's have a beer bash in anticipation of the imminent ship event!

  22. Well when is it? by Thraxy · · Score: 2

    Can you give us a date? I need to set a notification on my phone to when we won't be using leap days anymore.

    1. Re:Well when is it? by KGIII · · Score: 1

      Thursday, August 2nd.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
  23. Leap days are programming tests by WaffleMonster · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Those of you who didn't cut corners or use the wrong functions for manipulating date and time pass the test. Your reward is the lingering possibility of being fucked over by vendors who have failed the test.

    https://azure.microsoft.com/en...

    --
    https://technet.microsoft.com/...

    1. Re:Leap days are programming tests by Trogre · · Score: 2

      I'll just leave this here.

      --
      "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
  24. Honest by no-body · · Score: 1

    Who gives a F... ?
    insert what you like better: uck, art, lick etc....

  25. Re: But since Republicans hate science... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now, now... Stick with your script. Space is corporate spending and makes children starve, starve to death! Those xian rethuglicans give money to corporations to waste in space while children starve! They hate us and want us to die, to die!

  26. Dear Whipslash by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Keep it up! silly summary, for sure. I'm glad to see new submitters and content coming in here.

  27. Extrapolate! by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 2

    if we extrapolate backwards, we can find that early Earth had a day that lasted just 6.5 hours.

    How simplistic is such a backwards extrapolation?

    https://xkcd.com/605/ (most of you won't even need to click the link, I'm sure)

    --
    systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    1. Re:Extrapolate! by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      How simplistic is such a backwards extrapolation?

      Excessively simplistic, for the reasons I gave in a post somewhere up thread.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  28. Re: But since Republicans hate science... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think you meant "space."

  29. Re: But since Republicans hate science... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But if JFK wanted to get elected today, he'd have to be a republican. That is their hypocracy.

  30. Re: But since Republicans hate science... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Corporate welfare is all about making sure children starve.

  31. Time is running out by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

    There are only a few thousand years left to replace our Christian-Roman calendar with a more accurate one before we accidentally celebrate Easter on the wrong day.

    --
    “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
  32. The cost last time was $$$$$$$$$ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The last time the Federal Government changes the "time" and "date" (to extend Daylight "Savings" Time) it cost USA businesses $Billion.
    That's a terrible waste.
    That's a terrible move in the midst of a sputtering economy.
    That's a human tragedy in the making.

    Whisky-Tango-Foxtrot?
    Some one or ones have absolutely too much free time!

  33. If a day is 6.5h... by walkermc20 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...then dinosaurs would "weigh" around 4.5% less than they should at today's gravity. Totally explains why they all died...as the earth started slowing, they eventually became too heavy to survive and all sank into the earth to become fossils. Quick! Get me some paper! I'm publishing a new textbook!

  34. More interesting things about early Earth... by GPS+Pilot · · Score: 0

    - For most of Earth's history it had no polar icecaps whatsoever. That is the most common state of this planet. The only reason we currently have polar icecaps is because we are still emerging from the most recent glaciation (i.e., ice age).

    - Only 50 million years ago, there were thousands of ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere, and Antarctica was covered with lush beech forests. The subsequent decrease in CO2 caused the continent to become a barren wasteland of ice; it was not good for life. The current level is 403 ppm, and no scenario of fossil fuel usage is consistent with a return to thousands of ppm.

    - The fossil record shows that polar bears have survived the comings and goings of multiple glaciations -- each one accompanied by a change in sea level that was about 120 times greater than climate models are predicting will occur in the next century.

    --
    That that is is that that that that is not is not.
    1. Re:More interesting things about early Earth... by Oligonicella · · Score: 1

      Hush... You're dicking with the hysteria narrative.

    2. Re:More interesting things about early Earth... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The big change to Antarctica was the separation from Australia about 40 mya that allowed circumpolar currents to isolate the Antarctic climate from subtropical climates. And by then it wasn't cover completely as such, but had varying climate with latitude still.

      And you can find a factor of two variation of oxygen levels in either direction since the Cambrian explosion, but that doesn't mean things will be okay if oxygen levels suddenly change on ka instead of Ma timescales. It is kind of pointless to compare conditions from tens of millions years apart, since life evolves plenty on that timescale, e.g. you end up with past animals that wouldn't survive now due to lack of diaphragms. Humans are still heavily dependent on working ecosystems, and changing things too fast for them to adapt will cause large scale problems, even if it doesn't kill 100% of life.

    3. Re:More interesting things about early Earth... by GPS+Pilot · · Score: 1

      What I found is even worse than that: "the rate of oxygen production by photosynthesis was slower in the Precambrian, and the concentrations of O2 attained were less than 10% of today's".

      But the current hysteria is not about oxygen levels changing from 2% to 21% over any timescale; it's about CO2 levels changing from 0.028% to 0.045% -- while much larger changes have occurred naturally, over much shorter timescales than billions of years.

      Humans are eminently adaptable. Even prehistoric humans found ways to survive in an incredibly diverse spectrum of environments, from the Sahara to the high Arctic.

      I could get into how none of the climate models have proved correct, and none of the predictions made my climate doomsayers have come true. How many times do you have to hear a "climate expert" say something like "all the glaciers in region X will have melted by 2007" -- when in reality, nine years after that prediction's expiration date, all the glaciers in region X look pretty much like they always have -- before you begin to question the legitimacy of climate experts? Quoting David French,

      In January, 2006 -- when promoting his Oscar-winning (yes, Oscar-winning) documentary, An Inconvenient Truth -- Gore declared that unless we took "drastic measures" to reduce greenhouse gasses, the world would reach a "point of no return" in a mere ten years. He called it a "true planetary emergency." Well, the ten years passed today, we're still here, and the climate activists have postponed the apocalypse. Again.

      Gore's prediction fits right in with the rest of his comrades in the wild-eyed environmentalist movement. There's a veritable online cottage industry cataloging hysterical, failed predictions of environmentalist catastrophe. Over at the American Enterprise Institute, Mark Perry keeps his list of "18 spectacularly wrong apocalyptic predictions" made around the original Earth Day in 1970. Robert Tracinski at The Federalist has a nice list of "Seven big failed environmentalist predictions." The Daily Caller's "25 years of predicting the global warming 'tipping point'" makes for amusing reading, including one declaration that we had mere "hours to act" to "avert a slow-motion tsunami."

      But for sheer vivid lunacy, nothing matches this Good Morning America report from 2008. The images show Manhattan shrinking against the onslaught of the rising seas -- in 2015. Last year. Gasoline was supposed to be $9 per gallon. Milk would cost almost $13 per gallon. Wildfires would rage, hurricanes would strike with ever-greater intensity. By the end of the clip I was expecting to see the esteemed doctors Peter Venkman, Egon Spengler, and Ray Stantz step forward to predict, "Rivers and Seas boiling!" "Forty years of darkness!" And of course the ultimate disasters: "Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together . . . Mass hysteria!"

      Can we ignore them yet? Apparently not. Being a climate hysteric means never having to say you're sorry. Simply change the cataclysm -- Overpopulation! No, global cooling! No, global warming! No, climate change! -- push the apocalypse back just a few more years, and you're in business, big business.

      In reality, I respect the wild-eyed rapture-pastors far more than the climate hysterics. They merely ask me to believe, they don't use the power of government to dictate how I live. Pastors aren't circumventing the democratic process to impose dangerous and job-killing environmental regulations.

      --
      That that is is that that that that is not is not.
    4. Re:More interesting things about early Earth... by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Humans are eminently adaptable. Even prehistoric humans found ways to survive in an incredibly diverse spectrum of environments, from the Sahara to the high Arctic.
      Humans as a species, yes.
      Individual humans, not so much or not at all.

      Also you mix things up, I would not count selling my beach front in Florida before it is unsellable and buying some slightly higher house in Brittany "adaption". Nor would I call entering a plane and flying over there "adaption".

      90% of mankind won't "adapt" they die either to starvation, thirst or kill each other. The rest are "survivors" not "adaptors".

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    5. Re:More interesting things about early Earth... by dave420 · · Score: 1

      "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing" - you are pretty close, but the conclusions you've drawn are lacking substantiation and seem to gloss over an incredible number of factors as if they don't exist. If you are trying to demolish AGW, you have to not only show why the evidence we have is wrong, but show the world how you re-worked basic physics to make it so. You also need to show how prehistoric humanity barely living in inhospitable environments means modern humanity (with its cities and infrastructure) can relocate without costing anyone a single penny. The list goes on and on and on. You started well, then ignored logic to reach your desired conclusions. You are not very good at this whole "science" thing, it appears.

    6. Re:More interesting things about early Earth... by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      To giver Gore his due, I think we may have hit a point of no return in the past ten years. We're going to get more than two kelvins (why they always call it degrees Celsius I don't know) warmer than we were, and 2k is the amount people were really really hoping we wouldn't exceed. You can pass a point of no return quietly. You can cross the event horizon of a sufficiently massive black hole without noticing what you're doing. Caesar's crossing of the Rubicon was peaceful in execution.

      If you're saying we shouldn't take Good Morning America seriously, I'd be inclined to agree. Read the IPCC reports instead.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  35. Deal with it in 4 MIllion years than!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If this will happen in 4 million years than I can wait. Can you? Nope. You're a dumb arse generation X'r.

  36. Thanks Global Warming! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    n/t

  37. What species by FrozenGeek · · Score: 1

    are the slashdot editors? For humans, 4 million years is a rather long time. Even 3200 years is a long time.

    --
    linquendum tondere
    1. Re:What species by PhilHibbs · · Score: 1

      A lecturer was saying, "...and in about a billion years, the sun will expand and engulf the Earth..." when a student stood up and raised his hand. "Excuse me sir, what did you just say?" The lecturer repeated, "about a billion years." "Phew", said the student, sitting down, "I thought you said million."

  38. The fate of the hoax by GPS+Pilot · · Score: 1

    Lol, I'm not trying to dick with it, I'm trying to utterly demolish it, as should be done to all hoaxes, especially the misanthropic ones like AGW. So mod me up! Some kool-aid drinker has already modded me down.

    --
    That that is is that that that that is not is not.
    1. Re:The fate of the hoax by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, what is it like to have such a small mind? You must be angry a lot. Then again, you don't mind the thought of 500 billion people learning to live together in Antarctica for millions of years, so I'm guessing you've learned to cope with anger in a very interesting way.

    2. Re:The fate of the hoax by GPS+Pilot · · Score: 1

      Pointing out that the hysteria over the fate of the polar bears is completely unfounded equals having a small mind? Umm, ok.

      --
      That that is is that that that that is not is not.
  39. That poster again... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So. Any chance we can get rid of the poster of this drivel at some not too distant point in the future? Preferably sooner than in 4 million years. How about right now? The submissions are ... worthless drivel. Consistently.

  40. Re: But since Republicans hate science... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ronald Reagan would be considered left-leaning by current Republicans.

  41. Whiplash by thegarbz · · Score: 5, Informative

    I was just thinking that the new owners cleaned up a bit, and we hadn't seen this abusive clickbaiter in a while. Alas, not so.

    Whiplash please check out StartsWithABang's stats.
    0 posts on Slashdot
    500+ attempted submissions.
    125 submissions actually made it to the front page.
    100% of submissions are links to his own blog on forbes and previously medium.
    Nearly all of his slashdot submissions have comments that are primarily complaints about his garbage posts, clickbait summaries, incorrect science, and the fact he uses slashdot as a personal advertising platform.

    I'm not asking you to do anything about it other than read his previous submission comments and draw your own conclusions.

    1. Re:Whiplash by RockDoctor · · Score: 1
      500+ attempted submissions. 125 submissions actually made it to the front page.

      That's a pretty good rate, actually. I wonder what mine is.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    2. Re:Whiplash by RockDoctor · · Score: 1
      99 total, 20.20% accepted)

      Surprising that our rates are so similar.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    3. Re:Whiplash by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Are each of your submissions to articles you wrote yourself, sometimes with multiple submission? (Yes I've seen some of his crap posted more than once for the same article in the firehose).

      But there's another nice comparison, a stat I left out:
      In this thread alone you RockDoctor have double the amount of comments ever contributed by StartsWithABang. In this thread alone you have shown to be twice the community member he is (and his first and last comment was in 2014).

      I've seen your stuff. Lots of things from the guardian and from the BBC, but littered with plenty of variety and links to multiple sources in summaries. Don't compare yourself to a blogger who uses Slashdot as a personal advertisement service.

    4. Re:Whiplash by RockDoctor · · Score: 1
      I don't feel any need to compare my contributions to this site over the 20-ish years I've been posting here with "Bang's." I don't feel a need to commercially exploit my online activities ; Bang clearly does. If you do your research on him, you'll find that he was an "adjunct professor" (whatever one of those is) in astrophysics at some minor college somewhere in America, but hasn't had any apparent position since. My guess is that this is how he puts some food on the table. Unless you're sure you won't find yourself in his shoes, I'd temper the criticism from some of the more rabid critics.

      Sucks to be American, I see.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    5. Re:Whiplash by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Unless you're sure you won't find yourself in his shoes, I'd temper the criticism from some of the more rabid critics.

      He has a right to put food on his table as much as I have a right to complain about how he does it. Switching to a real world example: would you still feel the same way if someone was busking outside your bedroom window at 1am? That was real world because the city I lived in a few years ago had just that drama. They banned busking in the streets after a certain time due to resident complaints and the argument was exactly the same.

      Now if you'll excuse me I need to put some food on my table and these ransdsomeware malware won't write and send out themselves.

    6. Re:Whiplash by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      I'm starting to feel nostalgic for Bennett Haselton.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    7. Re:Whiplash by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The editor's name is "whipslash" as in slash-dot. Sorry to single you out, but why does everyone get this wrong?

  42. Now 3200 years... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...may not be "distant" time from Terra's perspective...
    ...but our current calendar is only about 300 years old and the one it replaced was about 1500 years old.

  43. Blue hipster fixietard by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

    Perhaps Ethan should follow their example?

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  44. Need more than just aging. by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 1

    We're just about to discover a cure for aging. Didn't you get the memo?

    Four million years will take a bit more than just a cure for ageing.

    A couple decades back a Cryonics organization ran the numbers on expected lifespan if ageing and disease were eliminated, but other causes of death remained about like the then-current catastrophic accident rate of people in the prime years of life. As I recall that came out to something like 850 years.

    Of course trauma repair is also subject to (and has been experiencing) rapid technological improvement. But even so, some accidents (like getting crushed to a pulp or burned to a crips) will no doublt remain unsurvivable. Meanwhile, diseases keep evolving to evade the currently deployed treatments. And then there's "enemy action" - like wars, assaults with a suitably deadly weapon, designer personalized diseases, etc.

    So I expect that, even with a perfect cure for ageing, being still active to take advantage to the earth's rotation averaging out to an integer multiple of turns per orbit, is a "solution" only available to a lucky few.

    Also not all that practical - because day duration s an AVERAGE. Like a spinning skater pulling arms in to speed up the spin,, the Earth's rotational rate varies with the amount the atmosphere is expanded or contracted by weather. It's enough to measure, and it adds up over time.

    --
    Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
    1. Re:Need more than just aging. by Talderas · · Score: 1

      So I expect that, even with a perfect cure for ageing, being still active to take advantage to the earth's rotation averaging out to an integer multiple of turns per orbit, is a "solution" only available to a lucky few.

      I'm not sure I would call those people lucky. The psychological toll would be immense.

      --
      "Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
  45. 128 year system by PhilHibbs · · Score: 1

    We should switch over to skipping one leap day every 128 years, which is much closer to fixing the discrepancy than the not-by-100-unless-by-400 rule.

  46. Am I doing this right? by r2rknot · · Score: 1
    --
    "...whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive...it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it..."
  47. ISO Weeks and be done with it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_week_date

  48. Bad Extrapolations by kenwd0elq · · Score: 1

    Given that the Human race is arguably somewhere between 500,000 and one million years old, it doesn't seem likely that we humans will ever need to worry about that before our race ends, or we leave this planet. Ben Franklin's Poor Richard's Almanac had an excellent analysis of the "new" Gregorian calendar system; it will, most likely, be accurate as is for another 24,000 years. And all we'll need to do to fix it for the NEXT 24,000 years will be to add an extra leap day.

    Worry about IMPORTANT things, not this.

  49. But without a Feb 29... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How would we know when to vote?

  50. And was this info a part of climate change models? by PortHaven · · Score: 1

    Just saying....

    Casts out his lines behind his boat trolling his lures.

  51. Very poor topic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It takes Earth 365.25 days to orbit the sun. So a full year has a quarter of a day. To counter the calendar drifting through the the wobble of our planet (which account for the seasons and length of day,) we add 1 day every 4 years. So it takes 1461 days to completely orbit the sun 4 times.

    Dinosaurs (if you believe they existed) experienced much shorter days and data suggested due to being slightly closer to the sun and the faster speed of the rotation and orbit, it was warmer back then.

    Due to green house gases and chain reactions with volcanic activity when a certain amount of land is covered by ashy clouds, Earth would experience a cooling. Once it cooled and a certian amount of land mass was covered by snow, the white surface reflected solar radiation and heat back into space. Earth was brighter back then if you stood on Mars. This explains the multiple ice ages aka multi snowball/partial snowball Earth theory. In case you assholes were wondering.

    As the Earth and our solar system age, I'd expect Earth eventually freezing permanently as the Dynamo of our core cools and solidifies. Our atmosphere will be stripped off our planet and we will be the new Mars.