That is the day I moved into my last apartment. :shock:Quote:
Originally Posted by Seeker
Printable View
That is the day I moved into my last apartment. :shock:Quote:
Originally Posted by Seeker
The point is to change all the factor to numbers like 1, 10 100 and so on.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seismosaur
This way, it is easier to calculate with, although it might be confusing. I don't need it myself, and it was more like a joke on the entire thread, about changing such a major thing.
Rather than decimalizing everything we should use a base-12 number system. 12 has many more factors than 10 which would make basic math alot easier.
Since our calendar is based on astronomical cycles in the first place we could maybe move the starting date back to the maximum or minimum of some astronomical cycle like one of the Milankovitch cycles.
So if a thing is too big you don't change it, because it's big, right? (even if it's wrong?). Humm - a world in which only small things can be changed. Is that really the kind of world you want?Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvo
I have no problem with such a world. We have some great laws in Denmark, that require a lot of work to change, and we have it like that for a reason. If the core laws were changed all the time, the country would fuck up. That's why we don't change the way we count years either.
If the western world argues, that we should change the "start of time" to 507 "BC", then some other group of people would argue some other time. If we eventually manage to change it, maybe in 100 years, we'll find another signifiant date, and change to that instead. It will become stupid and useless. I have no idea why you want this, it will only cause problems. It's pointless anyway, democracy is but a human creation, just like Jesus is.
You REALLY want to live in a world where nothing important ever changes?? Wow, I thought only my Grandmother (may she rest in peace) thought like that. She'd be really happy to hear you!Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvo
Er, actually we DID change the way we count. It used to be like this: I, II, III, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII (or is it IIX?), IX, X. Weird, huh? (I guess the Romans never made it up as far as Denmark, right?). Also, for a long time there was no 0 (zero). Do some anthropology and you'll find that some jungle tribes even today don't have a numbers much beyond 2 (two).Quote:
That's why we don't change the way we count years either.
Lucky you were not in charge of the Number Police when someone suggested we should change and use 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, etc...
Also lucky you weren't in charge of the Ministry of Maps when someone at last pointed out that the world was in fact not flat and that there was a very big piece of land where the previous end of the world was thought to have been... (Must have been a lot of work though, correcting all those dusty old scrolls).
Humm, maybe we should have kept the old flat-world maps after all then. (I like the image of a cliff of water falling off a flat world into empty space (but then again... the US and Canada (and a few others) would probably prefer to be part of today's world maps, don't you think?)).Quote:
I have no idea why you want this, it will only cause problems.
Denmark is also a human creation. Does that mean it's pointless?Quote:
It's pointless anyway, democracy is but a human creation, just like Jesus is.
That's not what I said, and you know. You're just taking my sentences out of context, to anoy me, and you know it.Quote:
Originally Posted by three and four
I said that changing something, that is so big, but really doesn't mean anything. 2007 and 2514 are merely human-made numbers, that we made as milestones. They have no actual purpose, except for an easy way, to date the years passing.
If you read my post again, you'll see that I wouldn't want something huge and important, like core/ground laws to be changed. They're essential, and have no "stupidity" in them. I read through the danish groundlaw, and it has no flaws, except for the entire "king/queen" part. It is not a problem, though it is kinda weird, in a modern society like this.
As you and me both know, I'm not talking about the way we count, but the time we're counting from, ie. birth of democracy and Jesus.Quote:
Originally Posted by three and four
You're just nitpicking, because you can't counter my arguments, which you so far have proven me right in.
We can scientifically prove, that the earth is round, and it plays a big role, whether it is round, and whether the entire world considers it round. The date, from which we count years, is, however, not.Quote:
Originally Posted by three and four
If you read what I wrote, you might notice I said, that to change something as big and complicated as the year count, because of a human creation is pointless. Not at any time, did I say the birth of democracy/Jesus was pointless.Quote:
Originally Posted by three and four
Marvo is merely pointing out the arbitrary labelling of events and variables in the universe by humans. Then the following obscure attached emotional connotations with these labels.
The fact is that humans invented the scaling of time. Some philosophers would argue that time would not even exist if it were not for conscious beings to facilitate it. Thus, there should be no mistakenly added worry or concern over dates as it is an example and testament to the human tendency to attach sentimentality, via gestalt psychology, to human developed concepts.
~
You know you could just use one of the many other existing alternatives.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_calendars
Democracy sucks; but then, so does any system in a world so insolubly overpopulated.
Really... Why....
...... OK. You make this happen, and I'll join you.
The world is not overpopulated, distribution is just fucked up, and industrialization reliant on insustainable resources will cause a population to collapse to its original preindustrialized state once these resources are depleted. No population of any living creature in the plant or animal kingdom grows to a point where its environment cannot sustain itself. Of course, the invention of credit kind of made it so individuals no longer had any idea what could be sustained, hence the baby boom.
But that's another topic, I still say the new astrological age did begin around Jesus' birth, but that's mostly coincidence. It's just random that we hit another "great month" around the same time he was born, if he was born at all of course.
That was not my point. Overpopulation is the cause of many more problems than merely the environment; quality of life and choice for the individual being only one of those.Quote:
No population of any living creature in the plant or animal kingdom grows to a point where its environment cannot sustain itself.
Metric Clocks are odd..Would be hard to get used to.Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvo
http://www.carlofet.com/images/clock.jpg
better than communism, thats for sure
oops... didn't know there was multiple pages. Scratch that last post!
That's a 28 hour day. You know, if the rotation of the planet was such that we could have 28 hour days, it would suit me a lot better. I mean, that extra 2 hours of sleep + 2 hours of daytime would be nice, and fit my normal pattern better. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by grasshoppa
I'm not just making this up on the spot - I've had a long discussion about the wonder that would be the 28 hour day with a friend about 2 years ago haha.
No, that's a ten hour day... Which is the same length as our 24 hour days are...Quote:
Originally Posted by Replicon
Doesn't it go around twice, for a 20 hour day?
Why are there 24 hours in a day anyway?
I had assumed that if it were metric, it'd be 10 or 100 hours per day, making it work like other measurement units (1 day = 10 hours = 100 minutes = 1,000 seconds = 10,000 milliseconds). But then again, calling hours "decidays" might seem weird.
We could get used to it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark75
There's probably some organization in the world advocating this. What do you want to bet? I bet there is.
Why would we need to change the name? They could still be hours.
Hahaha. Metric time. :D
"1 day = 10 hours = 100 minutes = 1,000 seconds = 10,000 milliseconds"
That means that theres 10 minutes in an hour. And with 10 hours in a day, that would make one minute about as long as 15 of our current minutes. And that's also ten seconds in a minute and 10 milliseconds in a second.
And there's no way it would all add up to one day. Unless we're lucky. :P
That doesn't make sense. Every unit of time scales accordingly so that there are 10 hours a day. 10 metric hours = 24 regular hours. 1 metric day = 1 regular day. A metric minute would be 0.1 metric hours. A metric second would be 0.1 metric minutes. A metric second wouldn't be the same duration as a regular second. There's no "adding up" involved.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephent91
A close (or way off, depending on perspective) measure of our rotation, which is actually 23.93 hours. It gets more complex than that, but there is the simple explanation.Quote:
Why are there 24 hours in a day anyway?
Duh oh yea now I remember, it has to do with like the earth turning and stuff like that.:imslow: Thanks.Quote:
Originally Posted by Never
Sometimes I'm not very smart on Friday night. :wino:
I guess people could have done the decimal system for the hours anyway tho, making them a little bit longer.
Why 60 minutes in an hour and 60 seconds in a minute? I guess because there are 360 degrees in a circle, but why? Was this all explained in some long ago math class that I've since forgotten?:hrm: Or just based on some old Egyptian thing or something like that? I know some people liked the number 12 better than 10--must have been those 6-fingered people.
Think of all the clocks we'll have to get rid of. We'll have to use regular time and metric time for a long time before it's all changed over. It's going to be very confusing, but we'll always have an excuse for being late now.
And I still blame Ronald Reagan for the fact that I can't think in metric.