On Mon, 12 Aug 2002 09:53:23 Bill Potts wrote: >Changing to a 10-month year would still give us a variable number of days >in a month. > Of course, and that's due to the fact that we do not have a rounded number of days in a year, but rather some 365.25. On the other hand, remembering how many days in a month would be a no-brainer. Odd month, odd number of days (37), even month, even number of days (36). Now, compare that with this lunacy of 31, 30, 28, 31, etc...
The only real issue would be how to tackle the leap year problem. I'd be happy to consider proposals for this. So far we only have Brij's to deal with (an addition of a whole week every so often). One idea is to simply add an extra day at the end of the year, or beginning (I'd favor more the end since it would be an even month and an extra day would bring it to 37, a minor "disruption" of the 36/37 proposal). >Retaining 12 months still recognizes the seasons and the fiscal quarters. Big deal. Seasons start in the middle of months anyhow! (And I seriously doubt the ordinary citizen knows on what days they fall on!...) So what if it would now be every 2.5 months instead? As for fiscal quarters, either you increase it to 5, or continue to do it every 2.5 months. Fiscal reports would then follow the following schedule: 18th of 3rd month, 37th of 5th month, 18th of 8th month and 36th of 10th month. I'd favor the increase to 5 months though as it would be a divisor of 10 and make some calcs/estimates pretty simple and straightforward. Plus the added benefit that the number of days of each "quarter" would be exactly the same, unlike the present system! One more report a year, granted, but honestly not a big deal in today's day of technology and automation. >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. Again, big deal, people's birthday would be "reassigned" accordingly. The leap year situation is something that would be impossible to address (as it already is!), so the "fix" would continue to be the same, celebrate it the "next day". True, birth certificates, documents, etc, would have to be reissued. But then again, we could significantly decrease these costs to almost nill by doing it when time for renewal comes! ... > >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. > Simple, Bill. Take salaries, for instance. You'd continue to earn, say, 50 k a year, but now figuring out your monthly salary is a matter of just moving the decimal point, i.e. 5 k a month! Please remember, Bill, the advantage of using a decimal calendar would be just as obvious as for any other measurement of any physical quantity, like I just gave you a taste of above! Marcus >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 > > Is your boss reading your email? ....Probably Keep your messages private by using Lycos Mail. Sign up today at http://mail.lycos.com
