It was done on The Simpsons as a joke (when Lisa joined MENSA), but is it really a good idea? I personally find the 60 seconds, 60 minutes, 24 hours, 7 days, 365/366 days, 52 weeks thing retarded.
Printable View
It was done on The Simpsons as a joke (when Lisa joined MENSA), but is it really a good idea? I personally find the 60 seconds, 60 minutes, 24 hours, 7 days, 365/366 days, 52 weeks thing retarded.
well you're not exactly gonna be able to change the number of days in a year :rolleyes: but it does seem more sensible to have like 100 minutes in an hour, 10 hours in a day or something. i think i once worked out that the second would have to change to be like 0.8 current seconds (i was bored ;)) to do this. or something
I reckon that we should remove all turtles from their shells to make a giant sail. This will be attached to the North Pole to slow down the Earth's rotation around the sun until there are exactly 1000 days in a year. At this moment George W Bush will be sent to the North Pole with an explosive device on his back, the explosion will mark "New World One Thousand Day" and everyone will drink Green Chateaus and eat Haddock.
Well, I think metric for hours, minutes and seconds would be a good idea but you can't change the number of days in a year. That's how many times the earth rotates in one orbit of the sun. What can you do about that?
As for seven days a week, I think it would be a good idea to change it to 10 days a week with a 3 day weekend! The religous minded amoung us might have something to say about it though, what will they do with their sabath? :rolleyes:
They can take it and shove it right up **** *** ****** ***** :Eek:
Who's "they", Parksie?
The religious minded :)
Well, I'm human in real life, so I guess that's okay. :pQuote:
Originally posted by Bonker Gudd
I reckon that we should remove all turtles from their shells to make a giant sail.
True. :( Stupid solar system. :DQuote:
Originally posted by nullus
well you're not exactly gonna be able to change the number of days in a year :rolleyes:
Well, we could help anybody out who wants a metric year
by making them live underground, cut off from the surface.
After a while, they'll forget they're orbiting the sun, forget about seasons and days, and THEN the can have their metric time system.
:D
-Lou
Of course, we'll be sure to slowly deprive them of oxygen, so they learn to adapt to the hostile environment. :D
And don't get me started on the English system of measurements (does Britian only use Metric now?). Us Americans are stupid (ssh!) in that we STILL use that dumbass non-metric measurement system. :mad:Quote:
Originally posted by filburt1
It was done on The Simpsons as a joke (when Lisa joined MENSA), but is it really a good idea? I personally find the 60 seconds, 60 minutes, 24 hours, 7 days, 365/366 days, 52 weeks thing retarded.
:confused:Quote:
Originally posted by filburt1
And don't get me started on the English system of measurements (does Britian only use Metric now?).
Do you mean feet and inches, that kind of thing? We call that the Imperial system, and yes, we still mostly use it.
There's a furore at the moment because we've adopted EC legislation that says we must use the metric system in shops, and people are going a bit bonkers and saying that it's un-British. Well, so's decimal coinage, and we seem to have coped with that OK.
Hmm,
Well, when it comes to the measurement of Temperature,
I like Fahrenheit. Just think of it. He out of his way to
relate degrees of heat with the degrees used to measure
angles.
Heres why I say that.
32 degrees F is the temp water freezes and ice melts.
212 degrees F is the temp steam condensis and water evaporates.
going thru the whole cycle,
ice {melts} -> Water {Evaporates} = 180 degrees
and then
Steam {condenses} -> Water {Freezes} = 180 degrees
The total to go full circle = 360 degrees.
I like it!
And its nice to have things different from each other.
I'd hate it if the answer to everything was 1, 10, or 100!
BORING!
-Lou
One more thing!
Its great that the number of days in a month can be expressed
within the range of 1 to 2^5 - 1.
Very Binary!
Yaa, thats it, lets have systems of measurement based on powers of 2!
That'd be great!
-Lou
We still use miles, but they prosecuted someone for selling groceries using ounces (bastards). I still prefer stone and miles, but centimetres and things like that.Quote:
Originally posted by filburt1
And don't get me started on the English system of measurements (does Britian only use Metric now?). Us Americans are stupid (ssh!) in that we STILL use that dumbass non-metric measurement system. :mad:
It depends what you're used to - imperial for large amounts, metric for small.
PS: NotLKH - I heard something about 0 farenheit being the freezing point of saturated salt water...is this true?
About the salt water thing: http://www.school-for-champions.com/...emperature.htm
Hmm,
I'm not sure if its true that you heard it.
Perhaps you did!
:D
But as to if saturated salt water freezes at that temp,
Again, I don't know, and I have no Idea where to look that up.
But, if I had all the knowledge that I had in 11th grade, I could
propably figure it out.
For some reason, 28 degrees is sticking in my mind.
Of course, thats it.
Thats the freezing temperature of water when you have a water-
alcohol solution!
Take a gallon of vodka, put it in a metal basin,
place in a fridge at 27 or 28 degrees or colder, wait until it cools
down about 6 hours, drop an ice cube in it, all the water then
extracts itself from the vodka and freezes on the ice cube.
Nifty way to bump up the alcohol content of vodka to just about
100%
I'd rather research that instead of salt-water.
-Lou
You do this often, Lou? :DQuote:
Originally posted by NotLKH
Take a gallon of vodka, put it in a metal basin,
place in a fridge at 27 or 28 degrees or colder, wait until it cools
down about 6 hours, drop an ice cube in it, all the water then
extracts itself from the vodka and freezes on the ice cube.
Nifty way to bump up the alcohol content of vodka to just about
100%
A friend and I went over this to find a way to change the calendar. We were looking for something that was not only accurate, but socially acceptable. I wanted something that borrowed from nature as much as possible so it could be recreated.
There are a couple of problems. The solar year is not an even number of solar days. The lunar month is also not an even number of solar days.
We did atleast figure out this much.
The year will have four seasons. The first season, just out of habit, it winter in the northern hemisphere. The calendar will start on the winter solstice (currently Dec 22). This is actually fixing the calendar, since when it was instituted Jan 1 was the winter solstice. Now we have the procession of the equinoxes, but no one bothered to update the calendar.
Each season will be 90 days long. There will be three months of 30 days in each season. That gives you 360 days. You have five more. Four of these days are holidays built on to the end of each season as the eve of the next season. They don't belong to a month, they are labeled with their function.
So you have:
Winter First Month (30 days): you can call this January if you want
Winter Second Month (30 days): Feburary?
Winter Third Month (30 days): March?
Spring Eve (1 day): This is the eve of the Spring Equinox
Spring First Month (30 days): April?
This continues for the whole year. You have one last day and your every-four-years leap day. I say you put them at the first day of Winter and the first day of Summer. And as we need to push the calendar up a day to keep up with the stellar procession, we drop one of those days.
What sucks about this calendar is we have 7 day weeks in 30 day months. You can have 3 10 day weeks or 5 6 day weeks, but no one wants to make that change. Also, the word month is derived from the same word for moon, but a 30 day month is in no way related to a nearly 28 day moon.
Anyway... I think our calendar is broke, but I can't come up with a good way to fix it.
filburt1,
Actually, Never have!
Been meaning to though!
Extract out the alcohol, mix with jello, mmmmm.
Jello Shots AnyBody?
BTW,
Fahrenheit used his body temperature as 100 degrees and the freezing temperature of saturated salt water as 0 degrees. He marked those levels on his thermometer and divided the scale into 100 parts for each degree.
Isn't that TOO coincidental to end up with the 360 degree
relationship that I pointed out?
Think he mislead somebody just to have a larf?
What does everybody think?
-Lou
I think you run 12 firewalls at home you're so paranoid. ;)
Hehe. Even I only run one :D
I have one in my router. It is fun seeing all of the losers trying to scan my ports. @Home tends to do a lot of port scanning :eek:. Most of them are from 24.x.x.x, which is all @Home.
Is @Home doing the scanning, or other @Home users? In the last week I've seen a change in my cable MODEM's (RoadRunner) activity light, but no change in my connections. I imagine there is a lot of port-scanning with Code Red and the ilk.Quote:
Originally posted by filburt1
I have one in my router. It is fun seeing all of the losers trying to scan my ports. @Home tends to do a lot of port scanning :eek:. Most of them are from 24.x.x.x, which is all @Home.
@Home is doing it. Either way, I don't really care, the firewall is blocking it and I have a virus checker with the latest definitions on each computer.
In Canada we changed from Imperial to Metric in the 70's I believe. Thanks Mr. Trudeau. It's going to cost billions to get everyone educated about metric system, and companies to change all their labels and everything, but the whole world is doing it so we'll save money in the long run, right? Our biggest trading partner is the US. The metric system is the biggest curse ever to hit our country (well, second to communist health care and gun control). You people make me sick.
The only problem you're saying is the CHANGE. If you (or anyone else, no offense) had started with metric in the first place, this wouldn't be a problem. :rolleyes:
Don't mess with what works...it'll take a miracle to institude an entirely new time system. We might as well put up with what we have and insert an extra day every 2 millenia to get rid of the deficiencies in the current system...:rolleyes:
-C
There have been intersting proposals for calendar reform whihc never got anywhere.
They all take advantage of 364 being evenly divisible by 7.
One proposal that did not have a chance suggested 13 months at 28 days each, resulting in 364 days.
A good proposal is 4 quarters at 91 days, giving 364 days. Each quarter would have 2 months with 30 days and one with 31 days.
Both of the above calendars have a world day as day 365. World day would not be given a day of the week like Monday, Tuesday, et cetera. It would simply be called World Day. For leap years, there would be an extra day called Leap Day (6 months after World Day), which would also not be considered a day of the week.
This allows each year (even Leap years) to start on a Monday and end on a Sunday. Every date of the year would fall on the same day of the week. With a little juggling, every holiday could be a Monday or a Friday. BTW: Each quarter would atart on a Monday and end on a Sunday.
The idea had a lot of merit. Religious groups lobbied against the idea. If it occurred even seven days, The Sabbath could not fall on the same day of the week due to World Day & Leap Day not being a day of the week. The first year, the Jewish Sabbath would fall on Friday nights & Saturdays, while the Christian Sabbath would be Sundays. The second year, the Christian Sabbath would be on Saturdays and the Jewish Sabbath would be Thursday nights and Fridays.
But who would want their birthday to be on the same day of the week every year? Fine if it's a Friday or Saturday, but Monday or Tuesday? No thanks.
Parksie
All he had to do was label everything in metric as well as imperial and he would have been alright.Quote:
We still use miles, but they prosecuted someone for selling groceries using ounces (bastards).
Guv
Didn't the Vikings have 13 months?Quote:
One proposal that did not have a chance suggested 13 months at 28 days each, resulting in 364 days.
Eric the Red and Harold the Accountant have something in common??? Now that is a strange thought. :pQuote:
Didn't the Vikings have 13 months?
but do you actually fully understand things like stones? i mean, people in the UK haven't been taught imperial crap for about 20 years, so most young people's understanding of things like stones are that they know roughly what a person weighing 10 stones would look like. but if i were to give you a box with a bunch of weights in it, would you be able to tell me how many stones it is? or would you, like most other young people, measure that in kilograms?Quote:
Originally posted by parksie
We still use miles, but they prosecuted someone for selling groceries using ounces (bastards). I still prefer stone and miles, but centimetres and things like that.
the only imperial unit i have a good understanding of is the mile. i have a very basic understanding of feet and inches, but i can only picture distances given in those units up to quite small distances like 10 feet or 12 inches (length of a 30cm ruler, as well as a certain apendage on my person :p). things like 75 feet or 60 inches lose me. :)
Thank you for reminding me why I am glad I live in the UK.Quote:
The metric system is the biggest curse ever to hit our country (well, second to communist health care and gun control). You people make me sick.
I'm a (relatively) young person, and I don't have much problem with Imperial measurements. Feet and inches are fine, miles are okay (I know them better than Km), stones, pounds and ounces are fine, the only things I have problems with are gallons and fluid ounces. I have no idea what a fluid ounce is like. I just guess gallons based on there being 4.546 litres in an Imperial gallon, but I prefer litres.
For general use I don't have any problem with either system. For scientific purposes, though, metric has to be the preferred standard.
Yep.
Science definetely needs a universal standard of measurement,
since scientific research builds off of each other worldwide, and sharing
a common reference facilitates understanding and implimentation.
But world-wide society doesn't need a single method of measurement, {well, perhaps there should be a world-wide industrial standard}
Each country that has used a system of measurement for a long
period of time has encountered problems when they decide to switch it.
People aren't used to the new system is one problem. Of course they'll get used to it, many proponents of the new system would say.
I say, Why should they be forced to do so? What advantage to
an individual is there to change?
ALL systems of measurements are relative, there is no "BETTER"
system, {only more consistent, ie.. the metric, with everything
measured in tenths and tens}.
All systems of measurements are based on "The Wild Assignment"
method, where someone says, "Hmmm, The world seems to
be a good thing to base a system of measurement on. Lets make
a system where the width of the world = 1 m.w.u. {mega world unit} and base everything on w.u.'s. It certainly is one wayto do things, but is it better than doing a wild assigment using a light second?
My point is, as filburt1 pointed out, problems arise when one group forces their system as a standard, replaceing an old one with a new. If a car company is building cars that are 12.57 feet long, and the system of measurement changes, their cars are not going to change in length. BUT they are going to have to spend billions of dollars adapting their machines to the new system of measurement, $$$ changing all documents with the new system,
$$$ dealing with all the gripes their employees are going to have dealing with this pointless changeover, $$$ in loss of production, and so on.
IMHO, Why Change if what you have works?
-Lou
Hence my Vic 20 purring along here...oops colour fade on the TV monitor... will have to finish this post later :pQuote:
IMHO, Why Change if what you have works?
Well, you may have a point. Especially for people who don't travel much. But, if you go abroad, not only is there a language barrier but also a unit of measurement barrier. If signs are in kilometres, weights are in kilos etc. then to an englishman abroard (or an American), it is an additional barrier to communication and understanding. At least we have a vague understanding of metric measurement (in the UK) but imaging what it must be like for a european comming to the UK. Total confusion, that's what.Quote:
Why Change if what you have works
I even think there is a good case for changing the side of the road we drive on here (not applicable to America I know but Australia?) so that we are the same as most of the rest of the world. Production lines that make cars have to be adjusted to cope with making cars for British roads which itself is an extra cost.
I think we should just have everything labelled in metric and imperial so that eventually, with time, imperial can be phased out as the older generations (who only understand imperial) won't have to adapt.
Hmm,
especially if you don't travel much
So, your point is to force change over time to prevent confusion
in the very few who DO travel alot internationally.
Changeing something for 100% of a group of people to benefit
less than a tenth of a percent of that groups population who
traval, is not logical.
Is there any benefit to changing a system of measurement that you can cite that would apply to more than .1 % of a population?
-Lou
BTW, since the topic is metric TIME, which in the last couple of posts I've ignored, There's this:
The system that is used to track days, months, years, IS the most accepted system of measurement ever established. EVERYBODY uses it. And those who don't, won't change what they do use to a new method anyway.
If we all effectively use ONE calander, imagine the confusion if EVERYBODY has to change to a different "metric calander"!
Again, what is the advantage, especially when there is no difference right now between a "Tuesday, August 7th, 2001" in the states, england, germany, japan, australia, mozambique, puru, antarctica, paraguay, mexico, canada, france, austria,
and so on.
-Lou
NotLKH, in the UK we have to use metric units for trading within the EU. therefore, products have to be measured/weighed in metric units (although you can still put imperial units on it too). it doesn't make sense to use 2 totally different measuring systems alongside eachother forever. firstly, it causes confusion (i doubt many people here fully understand either system because the two have been used alongside eachother for decades now). secondly, it costs too much for companies to use both systems (it's also been proven that using metric has saved businesses money).
OK, I see your point. It is not the only reason though. In this day an age of global communication (on the increase) then everyone using the same unit of measurements makes sense as well.Quote:
Is there any benefit to changing a system of measurement that you can cite that would apply to more than .1 % of a population?
Not only that but I think it is easier to work with metric units. If it could be shown (And I'm not necessarilly saying it is) that children could learn metric units faster than imperial ones (and work more effectively with them) then it would be a case for forcing change.
Yes, everyone does use the same basis for measuring time but time calculations would still be easier if it was decimalised. For example, If I asked you, how many seconds in four and a half hours, I'm sure you could work it out but it's a lot harder than it needs to be.Quote:
The system that is used to track days, months, years, IS the most accepted system of measurement ever established. EVERYBODY uses it. And those who don't, won't change what they do use to a new method anyway.
nullus,
I didn't say use two different systems in a country. that was simonm:
Quote:
I think we should just have everything labelled in metric and imperial
My position is Against forcing change in societies where they have succesfully used a standard system for generations, unless
that society predominantly agrees with that change.
So, I agree with you, that there should be a single system of measurement as a standard for an individual society.
AND, that society can choose anything it wants.
-Lou
I love it when I start a controversial thread. :D But at least this is a good debate we have going. My views:
- Metric is better than Imperial or any other common system
- We ARE the outcast countries: I think it is something like 90% of the world's countries use Metric
- Changing will be next to impossible, unfortunately, mostly just for making people learn and adapt
but simonm also said that imperial should be phased out once the majority understands metric (which i agree with). what i was saying though, is that we have to have metric over here, and seeing as it's the most common system in the world, we might as well end up converting to it fully. besides, in a few decades, most people here will probably only understand metric, so it wouldn't be forced upon them.Quote:
Originally posted by NotLKH
nullus,
I didn't say use two different systems in a country. that was simonm:
Quote:
I think we should just have everything labelled in metric and imperial
My position is Against forcing change in societies where they have succesfully used a standard system for generations, unless
that society predominantly agrees with that change.
So, I agree with you, that there should be a single system of measurement as a standard for an individual society.
AND, that society can choose anything it wants.
-Lou
OK, I shall clarify what I mean:Quote:
I didn't say use two different systems in a country. that was simonm:
Quote:
I think we should just have everything labelled in metric and imperial
Everyone should be forced to use metric and may optionally display imperial in addition to metric if they so choose. Therefore the cost would be self incurred.
I disagree with this. I know it sounds like the democratic thing to do but if that rule had been rigidly followed from the beginning of time, we wouldn't be using the sophisticated and (relatively) easy to use numbering system that we have now. We'd still be stuck in the stone ages I think. That's because society will always resist such changes and like what they're familiar with.Quote:
AND, that society can choose anything it wants.
Er, no I'm not. I'm saying people don't want to change because they are lazy, not that they don't want to change because they prefer a more complex system. Learning a new system requires effort, but it's effort that pays off.Quote:
You are equating the preference of using a more complex system with laziness, and the use of a simpler method to a superior society.
I tell you what, since you say complex is for the superior among us and simple is apprently for the simple minded, why don't you just go ahead make your own little society of geniuses and use a base-19 (heptadecimal?) numbering system for currency, base-17 (septadecimal?) for weights, and whatever else you can think of that would make your life more complicated, just because your big brains can manage it, while the rest of us get on with making life easy for ourselves in the long run.
Really?Quote:
Originally posted by simonm
A more complex system of measurement is a barrier to a greater understanding of what we are measuring. :)
Exactly what things would we understand better if we changed
the system of measurement?
Certainly, an inch or centimeter is inadequate to measure the
width of a subatomic particle. But that is due to the scale of the object in relation to the observer. No system of measurement
gives us a better understanding of such things, since we really cannot comprehend the really small.
Similarly, no system of measurement is adequate to convey a better understanding of the really immense.
Now, specifically, how do we understand a cow better when we
describe it in metrics vrs. imperial?
-Lou
We don't, but we can learn new things quicker because the scientific constructs involved in mathematical modelling using measurable quantities are far simpler.
If we used Decainches, Kiloinches and Megainches (you get the idea there) instead of feet and miles it wouldn't matter because the scales between measurements would be simple. Unfortunately with the Imperial (or American Standard) system, they're not.
Alrighty then.Quote:
Originally posted by HarryW
I tell you what, since you say complex is for the superior among us and simple is apprently for the simple minded, why don't you just go ahead make your own little society of geniuses and use a base-19 (heptadecimal?) numbering system for currency, base-17 (septadecimal?) for weights, and whatever else you can think of that would make your life more complicated, just because your big brains can manage it, while the rest of us get on with making life easy for ourselves in the long run.
My first change:
Certainly we can't change the measurement of bits, since computers aren't up to quantum operations yet, so I shall still
use the measuerement of 0 and 1 for a bit.
Now, as to the measurement "Byte", = 8 bits, THAT is certainly complex and results in overly complex calculations.
How big is a MegaByte? 1 Million Bytes? Nope!
THIS could be metricized!~
Henceforth, In My society, we will endeaver to design computers
around the Decibit. 10 bits per decibit!
The Decibit will replace the Byte.
Certainly its better and heres a couple of reasons:
1) It contains 4 times as much information
2) A MegaDecibit is easier to calculate than a MegaByte.
What do you think?
-Lou
Uh, dude? Remember that all computer numbers are exponents of 2, like 2 ^ 15, 2 ^ 20, etc.
But, thats not as simple as Base 10.
And its artificial. Why is a Byte 8 bits?
It doesn't have to be.
The fact that a bit is binary doesn't mean we have to Group Bits in Base 2 units. Base 10 is just as valid a grouping method.
-Lou
Obviously, there is a reason for the 8-bit-1-byte thing, but I don't know what.
An ASCII char is 8 bits...
True,
But a decibit could handle ALL of the ASCII Chars, and 3 times More!
-Lou
Um, what has this got to do with anything?
The reason to have 8 bits and not 10 is, as mentioned by filburt, that 8 is an exponent of 2. The reason for that is simply for simplicity in electronic engineering. Fundamentally, logic gates take 2 inputs (although you can get more complex ones that take more but they're just made of smaller logic gates). If you want to deal with more than one bit at a time, you chain the logic gates into a binary tree of logic gates, which ends up with 2^x leaf nodes.
From a numbering point of view I don't think it matters. The point is that the scale from a byte to a kilobyte is the same as the scale from a kilobyte to a megabyte. You can't say the same about the scale from an inch to a foot and the scale from a foot to a yard, and the scale from a yard to a mile.
). If you want to deal with more than one bit at a time, you chain the logic gates into a binary tree of logic gates, which ends up with 2^x leaf nodes
Where x = the number you chain together, right?
does x HAVE to be = 2^n, ie, you can only chain 8, 16, 64,...
or can you chain, lets say 9, 10, 33, any number your design needs?
And, of course, if you can chain 10 together, in your terminology,
you'd end up with 2^10 leaf nodes.
BTW, could you explain the phrase Binary Tree. Just curious.
-Lou
OOPS, Let me insert this:
Yes, the ratio between a kilobyte and a byte {1024}
is the same as that between a megabyte and a kilobyte,
BUT, the usage of kilo and mega is misleading, since those
are more commonly referencing factors of 10.
Isn't there a better way to refer to 1024?
-Lou
OOOOPS, One more:
And, there IS an inconsistency, going from 1 bit to 1 byte, you have to multiply by 8, instead of 1024.
-Lou
These people are retarded, it doesn't have to deal with databases. But the rest seems fine: http://whatis.techtarget.com/definit...509290,00.html
Thanks, filburt1.
Just nitpicking, but as it appears in filburts link, if you chain x logic gates together in a binary tree, you don't get 2^x leafs.
it appears more like you get x+1 leafs, just as long as x = 2^n - 1,
where n = depth of the tree.
(3 logic gates, if treed together, produces 4 leafs, whose depth is 2. 7 gives 8 leafs, depth is 3. It seems.)
Something like that.
Alright, I can see that the reason a Byte = 8 bits is due to the binary aspects of the output of a chain of logic gates.
-lou
The 2^x bit wasn't really meant to have x as the number of gates, it was just representative of the binary exponents. It's not that important anyway, as you said.
The inconsistency of scale is not as inconsistent as it seems. It's just another exponent of 2, which is what all the scaling multiples/divisors are. I'm not sure if you still thought this was an inconsistency, just mentioning it in case.
The problem with Imperial is that the ratio of , for instance, ounces to pounds (16:1) has very little in common with the ratio of pounds to stone (14:1) and doesn't lend itself kindly to simple conversions between scales.
The problem here is.... One in Six people on this planet are Chinese (politically, not geneticly). If I'm not mistaken, the PRC has its own calendar.Quote:
Originally posted by NotLKH
The system that is used to track days, months, years, IS the most accepted system of measurement ever established. EVERYBODY uses it. And those who don't, won't change what they do use to a new method anyway.
If we all effectively use ONE calander, imagine the confusion if EVERYBODY has to change to a different "metric calander"!
Again, what is the advantage, especially when there is no difference right now between a "Tuesday, August 7th, 2001" in the states, england, germany, japan, australia, mozambique, puru, antarctica, paraguay, mexico, canada, france, austria,
and so on.
-Lou
I think the Muslims have their own calendar, too.
My complaints with the (Roman Catholic/Gregorian/Julian/Western) calendar are:
- Months are not equal. There are 7 with 31 days, 4 with 30 days, and one with 28 days. This is further complicated by the fact that months are not a measurement of the lunar cycle, from which the word month is derived.
- The calendar is not updated to keep pace with the procession of the equinoxes. When the calendar was introduced, the winter soltice was the new year. But now it has crept forward as expected. The calendar was never updated, so now winter starts on December 21? In the next 60 to 80 years winter will start on December 20. But out calendar will still not be updated. NOTE: This complaint is oriented for the northern hemisphere, though it is applicable to the southern as well, if you replace winter with summer ($complaint =~ s/winter/summer/g if $isSouthern)
Just thought I would mention this. This may be a bit long winded, so bare with me.
Ever wonder why there are 52 cards in a poker deck? Well, a poker deck comes from the simpliest tarot deck. Tarot comes from nature. There are 52 cards because there are 52 weeks. There are four suits because there are four seasons. The pagan calendar has 13 months. That just makes sense. As a result there are 13 signs in the Zodiac. The Tropic of Cancer is named such because it is the moment of the Cancer (Summer) Soltice. The Tropic of Capricorn is the Capricorn (Winter) Soltice. It is the first day of the month of Cancer and the month of Capricorn.
The pagan calendar has 28 day months. Regretably the 365th day of the solar year doesn't let you keep the lunar cycle in step with the calendar month.
Anyway... a deck of cards is a very simple calendar, but it is north-hemisphere oriented. Spades, the winter suit, comes first. Then Hearts (spring), Diamonds (summer), and Clubs (fall). Those in the southern hemisphere should re-orient their decks and play a game of Diamonds instead of a game of Spades. :)