Changing to a 10-month year would still give us a variable number of days in a month.
Retaining 12 months still recognizes the seasons and the fiscal quarters. Also, the only birthday and other anniversary celebrations it disrupts are for those currently falling on January 31, May 31, July 31, August 31 and October 31. As compensation for this, it makes those who were born on February 29 happy. I'm not sure why calculations wouldn't be decimally friendly. The last time I looked, 12 was a decimal number. It just doesn't happen to be the radix of the decimal system. But then, only one number does. Bill Potts, CMS Roseville, CA http://metric1.org [SI Navigator] > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On > Behalf Of Ma Be > Sent: Monday, August 12, 2002 09:33 > To: U.S. Metric Association > Subject: [USMA:21680] Re: calendar reform > > > This is the first time I've ever heard of this type of proposal > (30-30-31). Unfortunately, from a purely technical perspective > I'd say that it suffers from some serious flaws. Firstly, we'd > still tie ourselves to 12 months in a year. Secondly, it would > still not relate that well to the fact that there are 365 days in > a year (i.e. such "relationship" would not be directly/easily > determined). Evidently this comes from the fact that one would > still use 12 months, instead of 10, to a year. And finally, it > would still not make calcs decimally-friendly. > > Marcus
