Please note that the alternative calendar proposal is just for discussion. Any attempt to implement it will result in costs much bigger than the Y2K. It can be implemented only if there is any significant benefit.
May be after 20 years if the World is ready for some more metrication, then we can propose this. Bill Potts wrote that "four quarters, consisting of months of 30, 30 and 31 days will be ideal". There is no quarter in metric concept. We have only 1, 2, 3 & 5 as divisibles and this applies in currency coins, packet of eggs, etc. As Marcus wrote Odd months will have 37 days and even months will have 36 days. Leap year will be an exception. Madan --- Ma Be <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Tue, 01 Jan 2002 11:53:30 -0800 > From: "Ma Be" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Reply-to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [USMA:17090] Re: Alternative Calendar > Organization: Angelfire > (http://email.angelfire.mailcity.lycos.com:80) > > On Tue, 1 Jan 2002 10:54:28 > Joseph B. Reid wrote: > >Bill Potts wrote in USMA 17027: > > > >>The least disruptive proposal I've seen for that > has four quarters, > >>consisting of months of 30, 30 and 31 days each. > >>... > >I am afraid that in addition to the general > population's inertia with > >regard to change, the fundamentalist Jews, > Christians and Moslems would > >object because it would upset the seven-day week > established by God at the > >time of Creation. > >... > I strongly object to the above on the following > grounds. First of all, what was being discussed > here was NOT the change in the WEEK cycle AT ALL, > but rather on the MONTHLY cycle. My personal > preference would be for a pure decimal setting for > this, just like vehicled by one of our colleagues > here, with alternating 36/37-day months, the odd > number evidently being the odd month, too, for > consistency, i.e. Jan:37, Mar:37, May:37, etc. > > While there might be merits on choosing 13 months, > the major hurdle with that is that it would not be > divisible in any rational form as 13 is a prime > number, thus upsetting businesses organizational > "habits" and whatnot. > > To conclude, I'd like to say that EVEN if one comes > up with a 10-day weekly WORK cycle proposal that > would not *necessarily* have the opposition of > "fundamentalists" (as you chose to put it), **as > long as companies would respect people's religious > practices of resting on their TRUE Sabbath day** > (whatever that day will happen to be for his faith). > Work habits could continue to be the way they've > always been. But then again, this would stifle the > benefit of the change itself. Therefore, why change > this cycle anyway? We don't need to change that. > That would be much more important "battles" to > fight. > > Marcus > > > Is your boss reading your email? ....Probably > Keep your messages private by using Lycos Mail. > Sign up today at http://mail.lycos.com > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Send your FREE holiday greetings online! http://greetings.yahoo.com
