On Thu, 3 Jan 2002 07:12:42 M R wrote: >Marcus wrote "In Startrek's star date, it will be >2001.10.37.9.99.99 changing to 2002.01.01.0.00.00". > >Its actually >"2001.9.37.9.99.99 changing to 2002.0.01.0.0.00" >where 2001 is year >9 is last month (0 is first month)
Thanks, Madan, for your input. However, I'm afraid that this is not exactly like that. There is no such a thing as month "0", just like there has never been such a thing as year 0, or day 0. I do realize that this time recknoning component is somewhat at odds with how we keep track of time itself, which does start with 0. But that's how it is, I'm not the one who came up with this system of reckoning for days, months and years, I'm just reporting it as it is. >37 is last day (we need not start with 0, since there > are 37 days and not 10 days) >9 is hours >99 is minutes >last 99 is seconds > >Where ever 10 is there, it can >start from 0 and end with 9, that way we save 1 digit. > Now, if all you're doing here is perhaps launching a proposal like the above, then, please allow me to amend your proposal to make everything consistently the same and extend this "principle" of 0 inclusion to *every* aspect of time reckoning then. >I like Marcus' star trek idea. >A second tourist is about to go to space through >Russian agency. >... Thanks, Madan. I sure hope that when planet traveling becomes more frequent that we do introduce some star date system that would be simple and easy to follow. Marcus Is your boss reading your email? ....Probably Keep your messages private by using Lycos Mail. Sign up today at http://mail.lycos.com
