Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Introducing a Calendar System For the Information Age

timothy posted about 7 months ago | from the might-not-last-a-whole-week dept.

Earth 224

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

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

cancel ×

224 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Um no (5, Insightful)

slashmydots (2189826) | about 7 months ago | (#46595039)

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

Re:Um no (0, Flamebait)

pitchpipe (708843) | about 7 months ago | (#46595089)

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

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

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

Re:Um no (2)

Pope (17780) | about 7 months ago | (#46595121)

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

Re:Um no (1)

Archangel Michael (180766) | about 7 months ago | (#46595243)

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

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

Re:Um no (2)

omnichad (1198475) | about 7 months ago | (#46595401)

set their own schedules

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

Re:Um no (2)

omnichad (1198475) | about 7 months ago | (#46595367)

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

Re:Um no (1)

slashmydots (2189826) | about 7 months ago | (#46595481)

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

Re:Um no (1)

The Grim Reefer (1162755) | about 7 months ago | (#46595533)

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

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

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

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

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

Re:Um no (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46595613)

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

Re:Um no (1)

LoRdTAW (99712) | about 7 months ago | (#46595109)

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

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

Re:Um no (5, Interesting)

i kan reed (749298) | about 7 months ago | (#46595187)

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

Re:Um no (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46595445)

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

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

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

Re:Um no (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46595711)

> base-10 sucks

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

Re:Um no (1)

plopez (54068) | about 7 months ago | (#46595953)

What about 3?

Re:Um no (3, Insightful)

Aighearach (97333) | about 7 months ago | (#46595639)

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

Re:Um no (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46595331)

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

Re:Um no (5, Funny)

fizzer06 (1500649) | about 7 months ago | (#46595391)

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

Re:Um no (1)

RoknrolZombie (2504888) | about 7 months ago | (#46595801)

I wish I had mod points.

Re:Um no (1)

omnichad (1198475) | about 7 months ago | (#46595453)

anachronistic

I see what you did there.

Re:Um no (1)

omnichad (1198475) | about 7 months ago | (#46595407)

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

Re:Um no (1)

MondoGordo (2277808) | about 7 months ago | (#46595479)

um .. yes I have

http://www.ebay.com/itm/24-HOU... [ebay.com]

Re:Um no (1)

omnichad (1198475) | about 7 months ago | (#46595655)

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

Re:Um no (1)

Samantha Wright (1324923) | about 7 months ago | (#46595499)

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

Re:Um no (3, Insightful)

invid (163714) | about 7 months ago | (#46596067)

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

Re:Um no (2, Informative)

oodaloop (1229816) | about 7 months ago | (#46595135)

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

I assume you mean Daylight Saving Time [wikipedia.org] . Singular.

Re:Um no (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46595167)

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

You needlessly pedantic tard.

Re:Um no (-1, Offtopic)

Kemanorel (127835) | about 7 months ago | (#46595179)

Thanks for that info, Bean! [kevinandbean.com]

Re:Um no (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46595137)

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

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

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

Re:Um no (2)

Newander (255463) | about 7 months ago | (#46595239)

Planck length is the only rational measure of distance.

Re:Um no (1)

omnichad (1198475) | about 7 months ago | (#46595559)

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

Re:Um no (1)

Aighearach (97333) | about 7 months ago | (#46595675)

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

Re:Um no (1)

omnichad (1198475) | about 7 months ago | (#46595713)

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

Re:Um no (1)

oracleofbargth (16602) | about 7 months ago | (#46595819)

Base pi, of course.

Re:Um no (1)

omnichad (1198475) | about 7 months ago | (#46596075)

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

Re:Um no (1)

Utoxin (26011) | about 7 months ago | (#46595951)

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

Re:Um no (1)

omnichad (1198475) | about 7 months ago | (#46596085)

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

Re:Um no (1)

Hognoxious (631665) | about 7 months ago | (#46595531)

more ergonometric

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

Re:Um no (1)

Big Hairy Ian (1155547) | about 7 months ago | (#46595217)

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

Re:Um no (1)

Aighearach (97333) | about 7 months ago | (#46595771)

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

There are still lots of calendars in the world.

Re:Um no (1)

jythie (914043) | about 7 months ago | (#46595307)

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

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

and queue the religious outrage (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46595041)

this will be against god's will somehow

Human Calendar? (2)

RobinH (124750) | about 7 months ago | (#46595055)

I thought this was called the Human Calendar [amazon.com] .

Re:Human Calendar? (4, Funny)

Samantha Wright (1324923) | about 7 months ago | (#46595193)

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

Re:Human Calendar? (1)

elfprince13 (1521333) | about 7 months ago | (#46596057)

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

Oh great... (5, Insightful)

smithmc (451373) | about 7 months ago | (#46595065)

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

Re:Oh great... (5, Funny)

Cenan (1892902) | about 7 months ago | (#46595083)

Fail to convert back and forth between...

Re:Oh great... (1)

Talderas (1212466) | about 7 months ago | (#46596001)

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

Start at perihelion (1)

Geoffrey.landis (926948) | about 7 months ago | (#46595069)

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

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

Re:Start at perihelion (2)

xfade551 (2627499) | about 7 months ago | (#46596011)

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

Obligatory xkcd: Standards (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46595081)

https://xkcd.com/927/

Re:Obligatory xkcd: Standards (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46595101)

Shut up, fanboy.

Re:Obligatory xkcd: Standards (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46595241)

Shut up, fanboy.

You win: The Internet Tough Guy Award

Their website isn't in Esperanto? (5, Funny)

Garridan (597129) | about 7 months ago | (#46595095)

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

Nostalgia (1)

Tom Clowers (3595643) | about 7 months ago | (#46595147)

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

Re:Nostalgia (2)

wiggles (30088) | about 7 months ago | (#46595465)

Nostalgia ain't what it used to be.

Re:Nostalgia (1)

dubbayu_d_40 (622643) | about 7 months ago | (#46595867)

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

And time in .beats? (2)

oneiros27 (46144) | about 7 months ago | (#46595151)

Are we going to have to use Swatch Time [swatch.com] with this calendar?

All kidding aside, they mention:

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

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

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

Ob XKCD (1)

rk (6314) | about 7 months ago | (#46595155)

Standards [xkcd.com]

I am wiser than all gods and scientists. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46595163)

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

Sabbath (3, Interesting)

kurisuto (165784) | about 7 months ago | (#46595181)

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

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

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

Re:Sabbath (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46595371)

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

Re:Sabbath (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46595419)

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

For more information [hebcal.com]

Re:Sabbath (1)

LostOne (51301) | about 7 months ago | (#46595431)

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

Re:Sabbath (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46595487)

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

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

Re:Sabbath (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46595625)

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

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

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

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

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

Metric religion (1)

Sloppy (14984) | about 7 months ago | (#46595843)

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

Everything old is new again (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46595185)

This is nothing more than the ancient Lunar Calendar.

scientists and engineers don't want leap seconds (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46595189)

They screw everything up.

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

All I want to know is (1)

xednieht (1117791) | about 7 months ago | (#46595191)

Will I still get cake on my birthday?

Re:All I want to know is (1)

Archangel Michael (180766) | about 7 months ago | (#46595289)

The cake is a lie!

Re:All I want to know is (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46595413)

Only when cut into 13 equal slices...

When do we get the new Zodiac sign?

Re:All I want to know is (1)

gnick (1211984) | about 7 months ago | (#46595787)

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

Leo Frankowski's estate called (1)

Chas (5144) | about 7 months ago | (#46595287)

They want his calendaring system back.

WOW!!! Way to much time on their hands! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46595303)

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

Re:WOW!!! Way to much time on their hands! (1)

Aighearach (97333) | about 7 months ago | (#46595817)

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

Re:WOW!!! Way to much time on their hands! (1)

gnick (1211984) | about 7 months ago | (#46595907)

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

And this will happen... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46595305)

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

And people thought Y2K was expensive (1)

JimMcc (31079) | about 7 months ago | (#46595313)

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

Congratulation You've invented a Mideval Cal (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46595355)

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

Pay check (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46595423)

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

You know you are old when... (1)

stox (131684) | about 7 months ago | (#46595427)

you realize that you were born BEFORE the epoch.

Re:You know you are old when... (1)

Aighearach (97333) | about 7 months ago | (#46595841)

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

Not bad (2)

jdavidb (449077) | about 7 months ago | (#46595429)

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

I'm in (2)

Rich_Lather (925834) | about 7 months ago | (#46595449)

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

Re:I'm in (1)

Aighearach (97333) | about 7 months ago | (#46595855)

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

Re:I'm in (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46595871)

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

Terms should not refer to daylight (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46595521)

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

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

Interesting effort (1)

dskoll (99328) | about 7 months ago | (#46595553)

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

Re:Interesting effort (1)

gewalker (57809) | about 7 months ago | (#46595761)

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

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

Re:Interesting effort (1)

dskoll (99328) | about 7 months ago | (#46595827)

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

Re:Interesting effort (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46595813)

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

Einstein explained that space-time is relative (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46595605)

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

/sigh (4, Interesting)

Guppy06 (410832) | about 7 months ago | (#46595699)

13 identical months of 28 days each

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

and align with astronomical cycles and epochs.

Really?

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

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

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

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

Interesting, but irrelevant (5, Insightful)

jc42 (318812) | about 7 months ago | (#46595759)

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

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

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

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

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

Speaking of DST... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46595769)

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

Yay Fugue Feast! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46595805)

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

Let's go all the way (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46595853)

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

I've seen this somewhere before... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46595965)

Lousy Smarch Weather!

Five million years to Earth (1)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | about 7 months ago | (#46596027)

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

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

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?