|
|
Back to UserFriendly Strip Comments Index
|
Interesting idea for calendar reform | by toysbfun | 2009-03-31 08:54:32 |
|
Doesn't that simply move the "weird dates" | by MatthewDBA | 2009-03-31 08:56:44 |
| The imprecision and the numbering are different is |
by werehatrack |
2009-03-31 10:13:18 |
sues [sslr]
As long as we stay with the CE dating, we're stuck with a mathematically annoying bug in dealing with a multitude of events whose dates *are precisely known*. The fact that the exact date of the birth of Christ is factually impossible to establish from current records and evidence is irrelevant to the fact that the math bug is troublesome[1]. Yes, the math bug is only troublesome to a relatively small group of scholars, but *this is something that can be fixed* by simply shifting the dating scale as proposed; since shorthands already are widely used in date expression, it would cause no *practical* problems to let the archaeologists adopt the Holocene calendar and simply drop the leading 1 from "common calendar" expressions. The rest of the world can have their Daybooks continue to slog on unaffected while the scientific community can have a more easily manipulated scale.
Of course, the hysteric screams of terrified outrage from the Literal Bible fanatics would be deafening were such a move formally made; they're *certain* that the whole universe is only have the age of the Holocene Epoch, and their indignance would know no bounds.
[1] and should that date ever be possible to formally prove from actual records and evidence, it would simply fall on an HE date close enough to 10000HE that not even high school math would be required to know when century/millennial anniversaries were occurring. |
|
[ Reply ] |
|
Hmm. Interesting. | by MatthewDBA | 2009-03-31 10:21:33 |
|
No need. | by werehatrack | 2009-03-31 10:31:37 |
|
We're already doing this. | by Peace_man | 2009-03-31 10:43:42 |
|
|
[Todays Cartoon Discussion]
[News Index]
|
|
