|
I like the idea of Era Sputnik type dating but I wouldn't want to start a date system now on such a recent event.
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 12:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 13:22 |
|
|
Common UNiversal Time 
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 12:21
|
|
|
You could start the calendar off the birth of some massively important historical figure. Like Jesus or something.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 12:47
|
|
|
I feel like the desire to change naming conventions for the calendar is more whining about the presence of religion in Western culture and less an actual desire to use a more useful system. You don't see people whining about the ridiculous timekeeping system that's become standard, even though it's also a ~~ icon of Western imperialism ~~. Or maybe there's a whole lot of Clock Truthers out there who just can't wrap their heads around 60 seconds to a minute
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 12:50
|
|
|
Speaking of measurements, have any of you figured out how long a stadium is yet?
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 12:56
|
|
|
I posted to point and laugh about people having a meltdown. Look where we are now... Anyway, people should look up the Roman Calendar aarticle on Wikipedia since it is a clusterfuck of similar proportion to the Danish counting system. Larry Parrish posted:I feel like the desire to change naming conventions for the calendar is more whining about the presence of religion in Western culture and less an actual desire to use a more useful system. You don't see people whining about the ridiculous timekeeping system that's become standard, even though it's also a ~~ icon of Western imperialism ~~. Or maybe there's a whole lot of Clock Truthers out there who just can't wrap their heads around 60 seconds to a minute There have been repeated attempts in a wide range of countries to introduce a more "rational" timekeeping system. Mostly well after the Roman period though, it kicked off at the age of railways where timekeeping down to minutes across large geographic areas became a thing. Munin fucked around with this message at 13:26 on Nov 30, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 13:23
|
|
|
I personally only use the French revolutionary calendar.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 14:02
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:I personally only use the French revolutionary calendar. Enjoy your one day off every ten days that you spend contemplating farm equipment, citizen.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 14:06
|
|
|
I use a script that converts every date into unix timestamps, personally. In other news, anyone want to chime in on the 'secret chambers in Tutankhamun's tomb' story? How reputable are the people who did those radar scans that were reported on
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 14:19
|
|
|
Agean90 posted:well you see the current system is the best one because gently caress you im not memorizing a new set of dates Speaking as a rabid secularist, 
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 16:12
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
Tomn posted:Where would a purely agnostic, universal dating system begin, actually? Like, if you claim that BC/AD is bad because it's too Christian, OK, but where do you stick the starting date? What would actually make sense, be accepted by everyone in the world, and still be remembered thousands of years into the future? Start at the beginning of the universe. The Kelvin solution.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 16:23
|
|
|
Tunicate posted:Start at the beginning of the universe. But which frame of reference would you use?
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 17:26
|
|
|
Mygna posted:I use a script that converts every date into unix timestamps, personally. It seems to be fairly legitimate as far as extra chambers goes as the whole thing comes from radar scans the Antiquities ministry did for mapping the tomb. What is in the chambers is basically unknown at this point and is just people trying collect hits. I would be more worried that the Antiquities ministry would ruin the tomb trying to get some sweet treasure from it, as they are kind of assholes.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 17:30
|
|
|
Tunicate posted:You'd think historians would be the people least likely to be scandalized by historical artifacts baked into our language and terminology. Plus our whole dating system already has explicitly religious roots. Should we change the name of January because it was named after Janus? Or Thursday because it was named after Thor?
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 17:56
|
|
|
Ynglaur posted:But which frame of reference would you use? Obviously the cosmic background radiation.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 18:04
|
|
|
quote:Should we change the name of January because it was named after Janus? Or Thursday because it was named after Thor? If current world politics was heavily influenced by conflicts between, say, Thor worshipers and Janus worshipers, then we might think differently about those names. Conversely, if Christianity was a mostly forgotten historical artifact or etymological footnote, then AD would feel like much less of a divisive term. This, uh.. seems pretty clear how this is different. CE seems like a reasonably clean solution to a "certainly not world ending but still significant" problem. I found it confusing for about 3 seconds the first time I encountered it, and until this discussion I had no idea some people were seriously against it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 18:16
|
|
|
This is the year 13.824.2??.???. On ???? Year of the ?? Century terrorists attacked the world Trade Center killing thousands. This was ?? years ago.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 18:32
|
|
|
Tunicate posted:Obviously the cosmic background radiation. "You see Frederick all of human history is encompassed by the experimental error here." One of my favourite childhood memories is when we set up a huge timeline from the beginning of the universe to the present across the length of the extensive attic in our house and the entirety of human history was more than covered by a single felt tip mark at the end. Rome's thousand year empire is nothing before the scale of the cosmos! 
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 18:34
|
|
|
It's only secularists trying to promote CE though. It's in no way a concession to any other parts of the world, it's just trying to continue to assert western superiority while plugging their fingers in their ears and trying to ignore the fact that Christianity was instrumental in the formation of western society today. It's the most pointless change. The real system we should be using is ABY and BBY.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 18:43
|
|
|
Terrible Opinions posted:Doesn't referring to AD as CE just reinforce the idea that Christianity is synonymous with modernity and the current world. What current era is being referred to, the era of Christianity. During the French Revolution the imperial system of measurement was abandoned for promoting monarchy, and was replaced with the metric system. If they decided to use the model of BCE and CE instead they'd just change foot to numel and call it a day. It just cements Christian conventions to claim its dating system as the "current" or normal one. Same reason one doesn't refer to people who are hetrosexual as "normal". Especially given that there are fairly large sections of the human population that don't use BCE/CE, or BC/AD for everyday use. This might be true, but while some people have legitimate reasons to avoid using the term BC/AD far fewer care enough to bother converting everything. As Americans or Europeans of a Christian background I know its hard to wrap our heads around this stuff, but this isn't a speculative argument. Many non-Christians are uncomfortable using AD/BC, and some even feel using it violates their religious precepts. Thai people for example, who are predominately Buddhist, do not like using BC/AD. They officially use a renumbered Gregorian calendar dated from the birth of Buddha, so 2015 = 2558. However often for practical reasons they have to use western notation, maybe because they are doing scholarly work or because they are writing for western tourists. In these cases I always saw them use CE/BCE. That's their preference and it's fine by me. Some Jews feel very strongly that they should never say or reference the name of God, even in an abbreviated form. You can see their preference yourself, just google "Jewish History," none of the sites clearly made by and for Jews will use BC/AD. I understand the reasoning perfectly well, and if I were a publication that might have Jewish or Muslim writers I would not want to use a style guide that might conflict with their faith. Incidentally Thailand traditionally uses a million calendars, the Christian/Buddhist calendar, a Hindu Indian derived lunar calendar, the Chinese calendar, and I think I remember seeing a Regnal dating system too. Most are only really used to determine the date of holidays and in numeromancy and astrology.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 18:49
|
|
|
BC is not so bad but AD is a literal affirmation of Christianity so I don't see why this is complicated.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 19:04
|
|
|
euphronius posted:BC is not so bad but AD is a literal affirmation of Christianity so I don't see why this is complicated. The best thing about AD is the number of Christians who think it means "After Death". When told it actually stands for "Anno Domini" they give me a funny look of "what they gently caress does that mean?"
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 19:19
|
|
|
When you're in Italy, and specifically in Rome, look for buildings and inscriptions with Roman numbers and an E. F. at the end. It means "made in the year xy of the fascist era". Note: this stopped in 1943. About the calendar, as everyone knows, the days of the week and the months already have religious meaning. The whole debate is pretty pointless, but what's important is that the person you're talking with understands what you say. Getting angry one way or another makes you a baby.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 19:23
|
|
|
Still though, BCE remains silly. Just make it CE/BC (before common). Switching the length of the Era name is untidy.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 19:26
|
|
|
I think we should keep using AD/BC because Bede was a cool guy
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 19:35
|
|
|
While you guys have been arguing nomenclature I've read half the book. It's fun and Mary Beard is my dream girl.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 19:43
|
|
|
Actually basing the 'common era' around a historical European event is ethnocentric and offensive. What exactly makes it common for China? To be honest I feel that I am betraying my country (Northumbria (NOT fascist-Ecgberhtist england)) by referring to things as BCE. I can't even celebrate the new year without suffering globalist colonial microaggressions.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 19:48
|
|
|
SlothfulCobra posted:It's only secularists trying to promote CE though. It's in no way a concession to any other parts of the world, it's just trying to continue to assert western superiority while plugging their fingers in their ears and trying to ignore the fact that Christianity was instrumental in the formation of western society today. It's the most pointless change. Unfortunately, all of human history and pre-history can only be spoken of as "a long, long time" ABY.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 20:12
|
|
|
Strategic Tea posted:Actually basing the 'common era' around a historical European event is ethnocentric and offensive. What exactly makes it common for China? To be honest I feel that I am betraying my country (Northumbria (NOT fascist-Ecgberhtist england)) by referring to things as BCE. I can't even celebrate the new year without suffering globalist colonial microaggressions. Northumbria before or after the Saxon conquest. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 20:59
|
|
|
July 16th, 1945 BA/AE Did none of you people read any Asimov, geez.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 21:22
|
|
|
Ras Het posted:You could start the calendar off the birth of some massively important historical figure. Like Jesus or something. Too bad the current one is 4 years off! Grand Fromage posted:Well, the first thought would be to start with the earliest dated writing, but the obvious issue there is it's entirely possible we will find earlier writing. Why does it need to be a precisely datable event? What's wrong with 1HE/10000BC? Basically you want to pick an epoch which captures all of the time from what you want to describe until the future. Basically any system where, during a long conversation or within a single book, you have to work on both sides of the 0, is a poorly designed system.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 23:08
|
|
|
Keldoclock posted:Too bad the current one is 4 years off! Yeah but having to call the year as anything other than a 4 digit thing sounds like a mouthful. Two-thousand and fifteen is already long enough, but they pretty much stay this length or get shorter for the next 8,000 years or so. edit: I mean, except for Seven-Thousand Seven Hundred and Seventy Seven, but gently caress that year anyways.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 23:11
|
|
|
Twenty seventy wyvern you nut. Edit: not gon fix that
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 23:13
|
|
|
Strategic Tea posted:Actually basing the 'common era' around a historical European event is ethnocentric and offensive. Surely it is even more ethnocentric to consider the Levant part of Europe? Anyway, each sovereign state should have its own calendar starting with the year it was founded in its current form. For the US this would be 1789 (when the Constitution came into force), for Britain 1707 (the Act of Union with Scotland), France 1958 (founding of the 5th republic) and so on. Kopijeger fucked around with this message at 23:31 on Nov 30, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 23:26
|
|
|
Kopijeger posted:Surely it is even more ethnocentric to consider the Levant part of Europe? Anyway, each sovereign state should have its own calendar starting with the year it was founded in its current form. For the US this would be 1789 (when the Constitution came into), for Britain 1707 (the Act of Union with Scotland), France 1958 (founding of the 5th republic) and so on. No, the best way is to date everything based on the reign of the current head of state. For the US, this would be the year 6, month 10 of the administration of Barack Obama. It'll get those lazy school kids to learn the names of their presidents in a hurry, I tell ya.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 23:29
|
|
|
The consulship of Barack and Obama, am I right, fellows?
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 23:31
|
|
|
Thump! posted:Yeah but having to call the year as anything other than a 4 digit thing sounds like a mouthful. Two-thousand and fifteen is already long enough, but they pretty much stay this length or get shorter for the next 8,000 years or so. Who pronounces it as anything other than twenty-fifteen (I mean, other than apparently you)? You don't have to pronounce the extra 1 there in speech, just in writing. I think that's a great solution. Plus, you know, you can just refer to the current year in casual speech as quote:'15 Deteriorata posted:No, the best way is to date everything based on the reign of the current head of state. For the US, this would be the year 6, month 10 of the administration of Barack Obama. It'll get those lazy school kids to learn the names of their presidents in a hurry, I tell ya. Someday soon, making comments like this will cause time travelers to show up and kick you in the balls. The point of the Holocene Calendar is to not to change the AD side of the Gregorian Calendar. Its main fault is that the epoch is too recent, which this addresses. It's absolutely retarded to have to use 2 different dating schemes for human history. Keldoclock fucked around with this message at 00:01 on Dec 1, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 23:58
|
|
|
MikeCrotch posted:Enjoy your one day off every ten days that you spend contemplating farm equipment, citizen.  someone make a version of that except in red and have the mii guy wearing a mao jumpsuit
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2015 00:14
|
|
|
Ras Het posted:You could start the calendar off the birth of some massively important historical figure. Like Jesus or something. What about Julius Caesar? He was a God too, right? Augustus said so and I'm not gonna gently caress with that dude.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2015 04:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 13:22 |
|
|
Kopijeger posted:Surely it is even more ethnocentric to consider the Levant part of Europe? Anyway, each sovereign state should have its own calendar starting with the year it was founded in its current form. For the US this would be 1789 (when the Constitution came into force), for Britain 1707 (the Act of Union with Scotland), France 1958 (founding of the 5th republic) and so on. Wow. so for China it would start like 5,000 years ago?
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2015 04:03
|
|
