Clicking through to their web site:
http://henry.pha.jhu.edu/calendar.html
one finds that discarding four centuries of the Gregorian calendar is given the
same amount of planning as discarding a similarly long investment in Greenwich
Mean Time, namely five years and you're on your own.
In both cases this is pitifully insufficient - whatever one thinks of the two
utopian proposals. As a data point here, consider that after a dozen years the
level of awareness and understanding of even the fact of a proposal to redefine
UTC is in the single digits - and that's among professionals in related fields.
To accomplish such a transition, much more time as well as some sort of
semi-permanent clearing-house would be needed to provide vetted information.
Rob
--
On Dec 28, 2011, at 12:06 AM, mike cook wrote:
> Le 28/12/2011 01:20, Warner Losh a écrit :
>> http://releases.jhu.edu/2011/12/27/time-for-a-change-johns-hopkins-scholars-say-calendar-needs-serious-overhaul/
>>
>>
>> Every year has 364 days, except leap years that add a week every 5 or 6
>> years (which also makes up for the 364 vs 365 thing).
>>
>> At least it wouldn't be an observational calendar...
>>
> My two brothers will be severely miffed about having no more birthdays.
> Will the watch makers provide firmware upgrades for their perpetual calendar
> models?
> Did he get paid for this?
_______________________________________________
LEAPSECS mailing list
[email protected]
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/leapsecs
