Joining list. Calendar reforms.

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
414 messages Options
1234 ... 21
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Joining list. Calendar reforms.

MIKE OSSIPOFF
 
I've just joined this mailing list. To start with, I have a question: How do I look at the list-archives? The information when I joined said to check at ?AO=CALNDR-L   I tried going to that as a URL, but that didn't work. So how do I look at the archives of this mailing list? The archives will give me an idea of what has been discussed recently, as a guide to what I should or shouldn't post. For the moment, lacking that guide, I'll just post what I was intending to post:
 
From the posts today, I can tell that listmembers here are technically knowledgable, and certainly don't need to learn from a newcomer :-)  
 
Still, when joining the list, it seems to me the natural thing to state my take on calendar reform, just to introduce myself, but not to inform people who surely already know about everything that I discuss, and more.
 
When I say or hear reference to changing the "calendar", to me that means the month-system. So, though it's often said that we use the Gregorian Calendar, to me we're using the Roman Calendar, with the Gregorian leapyear-system. The Roman calendar, in its final form, adopted in 8 B.C.  I find it impressive that we're using a calendar from over 2000 years ago, without any changes. Because of tradition. But of course, to the Romans, with their calendar, change _was_ the tradition. During Roman times, the calendar was continually being changed and churned, for all sorts of reasons, some reasons better than others. I agree with those who say we should change the calendar to a more rational month-system.
 
Of course there are several things that could be changed: Month-system; year-starting-time (with respect to the equinoxes & solstices); leapyear-system; fixed vs un-fixed calendar.
 
I want to comment on all those things.
 
Leapyear system:
 
The Gregorian leapyear system is accurate enough. Its drift, with respect to equinoxes and solstices, awar from its average position (I'll call that "drift-from-center" if I refer to it again) isn't a problem. The temperature, averaged over the years for each day, changes so little over the Gregorian drift-from-center, that it is completely swamped by the day-to-day and year-to-year change in actual temperatures. So nothing more accurate is needed. But I'd like to be a perfectionist and a purist, and have the  most accurate possible.
 
We sometimes hear that the Mayan calendar was more accurate than our own. That's true of their leapyear-system. As I understood what I read, they merely included a leapyear whenever one was needed. A simple rule. I'd like us to adopt it. Almanacs, newspapers, broadcast media, etc. would announce when the next leapyear will be.
 
As I said, though, we don't really need a new leapyear system. Just something optional that I'd like.
 
Fixed vs Unfixed calendar:
 
I understand that most calendar-reform advocates want a fixed calendar. There may be some convenience in having the calendar months' days of the week exactly the same each year. I don't know how great that convenience-increase would be. I don't know how much money it would save. But I'd like calendar-reform, and I have nothing against a fixed calendar, and if a fixed calendar proposal ever had a chance, I'd help to promote it, even though I personally don't know if it's needed. Even though I personally _like_ the natural and wild variation in the relation of the week with the month and the year.
 
But one thing I don't like: Blank days ("intercalery days"). A fixed calendar is ok, but there's no need to get one by falsifying the day of the week. Aside from the fact that that falsification is aesthetically unappealing to me, it has, and always will be, opposed by religious groups. As you all know, that's why the World Calendar was rejected. If its advocates had been more flexible about the blank days, we might be using the World Calendar now.
 
Of course the other way to have a fixed calendar is via a "leap-week". That's acceptable to me. It would cause a drift-from-center of about half a week. Again, the change in the temperataure, averaged over the years, over the range of that drift-from-center, is swamped by changes in the actual temperature day-to-day and year-to-year.
 
Though, personally, I feel that a fixed calendar is an unnecessary complication, and though I'd rather pursue the perfectinist quest for the lowest drift-from-center possible, I understand that most calendar reform advocates want a fixed calendar, and so I would help promote a fixed calendar that uses a "leap-week".
 
One thing: If you're going to go to all the trouble of a fixed calendar, then I claim that you should make the months (or whatever year-divisions you use) have a whole number of weeks, so that each can start on the same day of the week that the year always starts on. That would make it easier to determine the day of the week for any particular date. For that reason, for example, I don't think that a fixed World Calendar would be a good choice, because it passes up that chance to get easy day-of-week determination. I know of 3 types of systems that would meet that goal: a 28 day month; a 14-day year-division; and Isaac Asimov's 91 day seasonal year-division. So, with a fixed calendar, I'd use one of those year-divisions.
 
This posting is already long, so maybe I should save year-starting time and month-system for a 2nd posting.
 
Mike Ossipoff
 
 
 
 
 
 
_________________________________________________________________
Hotmail® goes with you.
http://windowslive.com/Tutorial/Hotmail/Mobile?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_HM_Tutorial_Mobile1_052009
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Joining list. Calendar reforms.

John Dalziel
Hi Mike,

The easiest way to browse the archives is on Nabble: http://www.nabble.com/Calndr-L-f13605.html



John Dalziel
www.crashposition.com  |  www.computus.org  |  www.flashmagazine.com


On 20 May 2009, at 20:38, MIKE OSSIPOFF wrote:


I've just joined this mailing list. To start with, I have a question: How do I look at the list-archives? The information when I joined said to check at ?AO=CALNDR-L   I tried going to that as a URL, but that didn't work. So how do I look at the archives of this mailing list? The archives will give me an idea of what has been discussed recently, as a guide to what I should or shouldn't post. For the moment, lacking that guide, I'll just post what I was intending to post:

From the posts today, I can tell that listmembers here are technically knowledgable, and certainly don't need to learn from a newcomer :-)  

Still, when joining the list, it seems to me the natural thing to state my take on calendar reform, just to introduce myself, but not to inform people who surely already know about everything that I discuss, and more.

When I say or hear reference to changing the "calendar", to me that means the month-system. So, though it's often said that we use the Gregorian Calendar, to me we're using the Roman Calendar, with the Gregorian leapyear-system. The Roman calendar, in its final form, adopted in 8 B.C.  I find it impressive that we're using a calendar from over 2000 years ago, without any changes. Because of tradition. But of course, to the Romans, with their calendar, change _was_ the tradition. During Roman times, the calendar was continually being changed and churned, for all sorts of reasons, some reasons better than others. I agree with those who say we should change the calendar to a more rational month-system.

Of course there are several things that could be changed: Month-system; year-starting-time (with respect to the equinoxes & solstices); leapyear-system; fixed vs un-fixed calendar.

I want to comment on all those things.

Leapyear system:

The Gregorian leapyear system is accurate enough. Its drift, with respect to equinoxes and solstices, awar from its average position (I'll call that "drift-from-center" if I refer to it again) isn't a problem. The temperature, averaged over the years for each day, changes so little over the Gregorian drift-from-center, that it is completely swamped by the day-to-day and year-to-year change in actual temperatures. So nothing more accurate is needed. But I'd like to be a perfectionist and a purist, and have the  most accurate possible.

We sometimes hear that the Mayan calendar was more accurate than our own. That's true of their leapyear-system. As I understood what I read, they merely included a leapyear whenever one was needed. A simple rule. I'd like us to adopt it. Almanacs, newspapers, broadcast media, etc. would announce when the next leapyear will be.

As I said, though, we don't really need a new leapyear system. Just something optional that I'd like.

Fixed vs Unfixed calendar:

I understand that most calendar-reform advocates want a fixed calendar. There may be some convenience in having the calendar months' days of the week exactly the same each year. I don't know how great that convenience-increase would be. I don't know how much money it would save. But I'd like calendar-reform, and I have nothing against a fixed calendar, and if a fixed calendar proposal ever had a chance, I'd help to promote it, even though I personally don't know if it's needed. Even though I personally _like_ the natural and wild variation in the relation of the week with the month and the year.

But one thing I don't like: Blank days ("intercalery days"). A fixed calendar is ok, but there's no need to get one by falsifying the day of the week. Aside from the fact that that falsification is aesthetically unappealing to me, it has, and always will be, opposed by religious groups. As you all know, that's why the World Calendar was rejected. If its advocates had been more flexible about the blank days, we might be using the World Calendar now.

Of course the other way to have a fixed calendar is via a "leap-week". That's acceptable to me. It would cause a drift-from-center of about half a week. Again, the change in the temperataure, averaged over the years, over the range of that drift-from-center, is swamped by changes in the actual temperature day-to-day and year-to-year. 

Though, personally, I feel that a fixed calendar is an unnecessary complication, and though I'd rather pursue the perfectinist quest for the lowest drift-from-center possible, I understand that most calendar reform advocates want a fixed calendar, and so I would help promote a fixed calendar that uses a "leap-week".

One thing: If you're going to go to all the trouble of a fixed calendar, then I claim that you should make the months (or whatever year-divisions you use) have a whole number of weeks, so that each can start on the same day of the week that the year always starts on. That would make it easier to determine the day of the week for any particular date. For that reason, for example, I don't think that a fixed World Calendar would be a good choice, because it passes up that chance to get easy day-of-week determination. I know of 3 types of systems that would meet that goal: a 28 day month; a 14-day year-division; and Isaac Asimov's 91 day seasonal year-division. So, with a fixed calendar, I'd use one of those year-divisions.

This posting is already long, so maybe I should save year-starting time and month-system for a 2nd posting.

Mike Ossipoff






_________________________________________________________________
Hotmail® goes with you. 





Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Joining list. Calendar reforms.

Irv Bromberg
In reply to this post by MIKE OSSIPOFF
On 2009 May 20, at 15:38 , MIKE OSSIPOFF wrote:
I've just joined this mailing list.

Welcome!


The Gregorian leapyear system is accurate enough. Its drift, with respect to equinoxes and solstices, awar from its average position (I'll call that "drift-from-center" if I refer to it again) isn't a problem.


The Gregorian calendar reform stated objective was to keep the vernal (northward) equinox on March 21st.  Therefore the timing of the other equinox and the solstices are irrelevant to it, and so is the "tropical" year.  The Gregorian mean year is almost 12 seconds too long, relative to the mean northward equinoctial year in the present era, and its leap years are non-uniformly spread, increasing the medium-term "equinox wobble".  A fixed cycle with a slightly shorter mean year and a leap rule that spreads the leap years as uniformly as possible would reduce the long-term equinox drift as well as reducing the medium term wobble.  Distributing the leap years in a symmetrical pattern simplifies choice of epoch with respect to the astronomy and simplifies astronomical evaluations of the leap cycle, because the first year of each cycle will always fall at the average for the cycle.  It is possible to do all this with a simple leap rule (single step) than the Gregorian calendar employs (3 steps:  if divisible by 100 then check if divisible by 400 otherwise check if divisible by 4).

Please see the general discussion and especially the symmetrical leap rules discussion at <http://www.sym454.org/leap/> as well as the discussion of the lengths of the seasons at <http://www.sym454.org/seasons/> and discussion of the equinox and March 21st at <http://www.sym454.org/mar21/>.


Of course the other way to have a fixed calendar is via a "leap-week". That's acceptable to me. It would cause a drift-from-center of about half a week.
Though, personally, I feel that a fixed calendar is an unnecessary complication, and though I'd rather pursue the perfectinist quest for the lowest drift-from-center possible, I understand that most calendar reform advocates want a fixed calendar, and so I would help promote a fixed calendar that uses a "leap-week".

One thing: If you're going to go to all the trouble of a fixed calendar, then I claim that you should make the months (or whatever year-divisions you use) have a whole number of weeks, so that each can start on the same day of the week that the year always starts on. That would make it easier to determine the day of the week for any particular date.


OK, Mike, it sounds like my Symmetry454 calendar is just what you want, if I dare say so myself!



-- Irv Bromberg, Toronto, Canada


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Welcome List RE: Joining list. Calendar reforms.

Brij Bhushan Vij
In reply to this post by John Dalziel
I am otherwise a non-professional BUT contributed to calendar reform since 1970-71. Please see my Home Page: http://www.brijvij.com/  and my profile at: http://www.brijvij.com/bbv_2col-vipBrief.pdf
 You might like to go through gist of my contributions: http://www.brijvij.com/bb_metro-contrbn.2007.pdf
Thanks for your time,
Brij Bhushan Vij
(MJD 2454973)/1361+D-150W21-03 (G. Wednesday, 2009 May 20H16:67 (decimal) EST
Aa Nau Bhadra Kritvo Yantu Vishwatah -Rg Veda
Jan:31; Feb:29; Mar:31; Apr:30; May:31; Jun:30
Jul:30; Aug:31; Sep:30; Oct:31; Nov:30; Dec:30
(365th day of Year is World Day)
My Profile:http://www.brijvij.com/bbv_2col-vipBrief.pdf
HOME PAGE: http://www.brijvij.com/
******As per Kali V-GRhymeCalendaar*****
"Koi bhi cheshtha vayarth nahin hoti, purshaarth karne mein hai"
Contact # 001 (201) 675-8548


 

Date: Wed, 20 May 2009 20:55:47 +0100
From: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: Joining list. Calendar reforms.
To: [hidden email]

Hi Mike,

The easiest way to browse the archives is on Nabble: http://www.nabble.com/Calndr-L-f13605.html



John Dalziel
www.crashposition.com  |  www.computus.org  |  www.flashmagazine.com


On 20 May 2009, at 20:38, MIKE OSSIPOFF wrote:


I've just joined this mailing list. To start with, I have a question: How do I look at the list-archives? The information when I joined said to check at ?AO=CALNDR-L   I tried going to that as a URL, but that didn't work. So how do I look at the archives of this mailing list? The archives will give me an idea of what has been discussed recently, as a guide to what I should or shouldn't post. For the moment, lacking that guide, I'll just post what I was intending to post:

From the posts today, I can tell that listmembers here are technically knowledgable, and certainly don't need to learn from a newcomer :-)  

Still, when joining the list, it seems to me the natural thing to state my take on calendar reform, just to introduce myself, but not to inform people who surely already know about everything that I discuss, and more.

When I say or hear reference to changing the "calendar", to me that means the month-system. So, though it's often said that we use the Gregorian Calendar, to me we're using the Roman Calendar, with the Gregorian leapyear-system. The Roman calendar, in its final form, adopted in 8 B.C.  I find it impressive that we're using a calendar from over 2000 years ago, without any changes. Because of tradition. But of course, to the Romans, with their calendar, change _was_ the tradition. During Roman times, the calendar was continually being changed and churned, for all sorts of reasons, some reasons better than others. I agree with those who say we should change the calendar to a more rational month-system.

Of course there are several things that could be changed: Month-system; year-starting-time (with respect to the equinoxes & solstices); leapyear-system; fixed vs un-fixed calendar.

I want to comment on all those things.

Leapyear system:

The Gregorian leapyear system is accurate enough. Its drift, with respect to equinoxes and solstices, awar from its average position (I'll call that "drift-from-center" if I refer to it again) isn't a problem. The temperature, averaged over the years for each day, changes so little over the Gregorian drift-from-center, that it is completely swamped by the day-to-day and year-to-year change in actual temperatures. So nothing more accurate is needed. But I'd like to be a perfectionist and a purist, and have the  most accurate possible.

We sometimes hear that the Mayan calendar was more accurate than our own. That's true of their leapyear-system. As I understood what I read, they merely included a leapyear whenever one was needed. A simple rule. I'd like us to adopt it. Almanacs, newspapers, broadcast media, etc. would announce when the next leapyear will be.

As I said, though, we don't really need a new leapyear system. Just something optional that I'd like.

Fixed vs Unfixed calendar:

I understand that most calendar-reform advocates want a fixed calendar. There may be some convenience in having the calendar months' days of the week exactly the same each year. I don't know how great that convenience-increase would be. I don't know how much money it would save. But I'd like calendar-reform, and I have nothing against a fixed calendar, and if a fixed calendar proposal ever had a chance, I'd help to promote it, even though I personally don't know if it's needed. Even though I personally _like_ the natural and wild variation in the relation of the week with the month and the year.

But one thing I don't like: Blank days ("intercalery days"). A fixed calendar is ok, but there's no need to get one by falsifying the day of the week. Aside from the fact that that falsification is aesthetically unappealing to me, it has, and always will be, opposed by religious groups. As you all know, that's why the World Calendar was rejected. If its advocates had been more flexible about the blank days, we might be using the World Calendar now.

Of course the other way to have a fixed calendar is via a "leap-week". That's acceptable to me. It would cause a drift-from-center of about half a week. Again, the change in the temperataure, averaged over the years, over the range of that drift-from-center, is swamped by changes in the actual temperature day-to-day and year-to-year. 

Though, personally, I feel that a fixed calendar is an unnecessary complication, and though I'd rather pursue the perfectinist quest for the lowest drift-from-center possible, I understand that most calendar reform advocates want a fixed calendar, and so I would help promote a fixed calendar that uses a "leap-week".

One thing: If you're going to go to all the trouble of a fixed calendar, then I claim that you should make the months (or whatever year-divisions you use) have a whole number of weeks, so that each can start on the same day of the week that the year always starts on. That would make it easier to determine the day of the week for any particular date. For that reason, for example, I don't think that a fixed World Calendar would be a good choice, because it passes up that chance to get easy day-of-week determination. I know of 3 types of systems that would meet that goal: a 28 day month; a 14-day year-division; and Isaac Asimov's 91 day seasonal year-division. So, with a fixed calendar, I'd use one of those year-divisions.

This posting is already long, so maybe I should save year-starting time and month-system for a 2nd posting.

Mike Ossipoff






_________________________________________________________________
Hotmail® goes with you. 







Hotmail® has a new way to see what's up with your friends. Check it out.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Joining list. Calendar reforms.

MIKE OSSIPOFF
In reply to this post by Irv Bromberg
 
Irv--
 
Thanks for your reply, and for the links to information.
 
Yes, that symmetrical leapyear system sounds like what I'd prefer, and what I was getting at in my posting. Thanks for the links to it. I'll read more about it. And yes I'm curious to check out the discussion about the lengths of the seasons.
 
Having a leapyear whenever needed could minimize the cyclical drift-from-center, and eliminate secular drift.
 
Yes, the Symmetry454 proposal used to by my favorite. But then I decided that having months whose length differed by an entire week would be inconvenient, business-wise, because the months are used as payment periods for rent and billing.
 
So now my favorite fixed calendar month-systems are the ones with equal months or year-divisions:
 
The one with 13 28-day months
 
One with 26 14-day year-divisions
 
and Asimov's 91-day seasonal year-divisions
 
(The 91-day divisions are my favorite)
 
 
Mike Ossipoff
 
_________________________________________________________________
Windows Live™: Keep your life in sync.
http://windowslive.com/explore?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_BR_life_in_synch_052009
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Joining list. Calendar reforms.

Irv Bromberg
On 2009 May 20, at 17:22 , MIKE OSSIPOFF wrote:
Yes, the Symmetry454 proposal used to by my favorite. But then I decided that having months whose length differed by an entire week would be inconvenient, business-wise, because the months are used as payment periods for rent and billing.


For those who hold that concern there is the less radical Symmetry010 proposal, just follow the links from the Symmetry454 web page.

30+31+30 days per quarter, starts each quarter on Monday, otherwise the same as Symmetry454.


-- Irv Bromberg, Toronto, Canada


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Just shift Jul.31 as Feb.29 RE: Joining list. Calendar reforms.

Brij Bhushan Vij
In reply to this post by MIKE OSSIPOFF
Mike, sir:
>.....(The 91-day divisions are my favorite)
Shifting the date July 31st as February 29th, and keeping Dec. 31st OUTSIDE of calendar fromat shall fit this, making FOUR equal quarters; and Leap Day (if preferred) gets inserted between June 30 & July 01 once every FOUR years but my suggestion to SKIP Leap Day once every 128th year gives: Mean Year =365+31/128 =365.2421875 days [as also, 7*(52+159/896)] to give the same Mean Year, when using my plan of dividing YEAR by six(6) with addition of some 'symmetrically placed' Leap Weeks. Please see:
http://www.brijvij.com/bb_IndianContri..pdf
Number of days in each month can be known as in our child-hood RHYME...30 days hath..(see my: http://www.brijvij.com/bb_Wikia-calendar.pdf
 Additionally, I aim 'decimalisaion of Time of the HOUR linked with arc-Angle Pi/180', that you shall finde in my work
Comments, welcome!
Brij Bhushan Vij
(MJD 2454973)/1361+D-150W21-03 (G. Wednesday, 2009 May 20H17:83 (decimal) EST
Aa Nau Bhadra Kritvo Yantu Vishwatah -Rg Veda
Jan:31; Feb:29; Mar:31; Apr:30; May:31; Jun:30
Jul:30; Aug:31; Sep:30; Oct:31; Nov:30; Dec:30
(365th day of Year is World Day)
My Profile:http://www.brijvij.com/bbv_2col-vipBrief.pdf
HOME PAGE: http://www.brijvij.com/
******As per Kali V-GRhymeCalendaar*****
"Koi bhi cheshtha vayarth nahin hoti, purshaarth karne mein hai"
Contact # 001 (201) 675-8548


 

> Date: Wed, 20 May 2009 21:22:14 +0000
> From: [hidden email]
> Subject: Re: Joining list. Calendar reforms.
> To: [hidden email]
>
>
> Irv--
>
> Thanks for your reply, and for the links to information.
>
> Yes, that symmetrical leapyear system sounds like what I'd prefer, and what I was getting at in my posting. Thanks for the links to it. I'll read more about it. And yes I'm curious to check out the discussion about the lengths of the seasons.
>
> Having a leapyear whenever needed could minimize the cyclical drift-from-center, and eliminate secular drift.
>
> Yes, the Symmetry454 proposal used to by my favorite. But then I decided that having months whose length differed by an entire week would be inconvenient, business-wise, because the months are used as payment periods for rent and billing.
>
> So now my favorite fixed calendar month-systems are the ones with equal months or year-divisions:
>
> The one with 13 28-day months
>
> One with 26 14-day year-divisions
>
> and Asimov's 91-day seasonal year-divisions
>
> (The 91-day divisions are my favorite)
>
>
> Mike Ossipoff
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Windows Live™: Keep your life in sync.
> http://windowslive.com/explore?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_BR_life_in_synch_052009


Hotmail® has ever-growing storage! Don’t worry about storage limits. Check it out.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Joining list. Calendar reforms.

MIKE OSSIPOFF
In reply to this post by Irv Bromberg
Irv--
 
Yes, but the 30,31,30 quarters don't give us the easy day-of-the-week determination that we get when the year-divisions each have a whole number of weeks, with a fixed calendar.
 
Besides, any orderly and symmetrical year with 30-day and 31-day months is going to displeasingly demote some of the Roman 31-day months. Here's what I mean:
 
December is an important month, the month of Christmas and the winter solstice. How would it look to demote it to 30 days?
 
October 31st is a holiday important to many people. Would people stand for it if we tried to take away October 31st?
 
Sure, I'd be in favor of making August give its extra day back to February--but that wouldn't be enough to bring February up to 30 days.
 
Demoting July to 30 days would mean that both of Rome's calendar emperors would be demoted. That doesn't feel fair to the Romans, if we're going to use their months.
 
May is an important month, being the full springtime month. So I wouldn't want to demote it either.
 
March is an important month, becasuse it has the vernal equinox, an astromically very important day.
 
And so it seems to me that, for me, there's no acceptable way to change the Roman months to rational 31 & 30 day lengths. It seems to me that, when we change the calendar, we should change it thoroughly, and not even try to represent or resemble the Roman months, or uses their names.
 
For instance, starting the calendar on what we now call January 1st amounts to just copying the Romans. There's nothing special or appealing about that starting-day. Julius Caesar started his calendar there because he wanted to start it on the first new moon (in 46  B.C.) after the winter solstice. I'd rather choose a year-starting date on a solstice or equinox, preferably the winter solstice--Or, much better yet, based on the actual seasons. For instance, my proposed Improved Seasonal Calendar has the middle of its Winter year-division chosen as an attempt to put it where the actual middle of winter is, on the average, based on an average seasonal time-lag of 38 days.
 
For all other month-systems other than the 91-day seasonal year-division, I'd start the year on the estimated average middle of winter. My estimate for that day is 38 days after the December equinox, but I'm open to hearing other suggeted estimates. A good 2nd choice would be the December solstice.
 
So, in regards to the year's starting-day, I'd depart completely from the Roman calendar, with any month-system.
 
Mike Ossipoff
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
_________________________________________________________________
Hotmail® has ever-growing storage! Don’t worry about storage limits.
http://windowslive.com/Tutorial/Hotmail/Storage?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_HM_Tutorial_Storage1_052009
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Joining list. Calendar reforms.

Irv Bromberg
On 2009 May 20, at 18:05 , MIKE OSSIPOFF wrote:
So, in regards to the year's starting-day, I'd depart completely from the Roman calendar, with any month-system.

Well, with the Gregorian mean year of 365+97/400 days a good place to start a New Year would be at the beginning of March, or a couple of days later, because that is where the stable "calendar season" is (mean year of solar cycle equal to the Gregorian mean year).  See the discussion of calendar seasons at:


... and also see the chart of the 400-year cycle's calendar seasons at:



-- Irv Bromberg, Toronto, Canada


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Joining list. Calendar reforms.

Karl Palmen - UKRI STFC
In reply to this post by Irv Bromberg

Dear Irv, Mike and Calendar People

 

Alternatively, one could have 454 months with financial days on the 1st Monday of the 1st month, 1st Wednesday of the 2nd month and 5th Saturday of the 2nd month and so on every three months. This would create financial months of 30:31:30 days overlaying the 454 months.

 

If you want every financial month to begin during the working day, the 3rd financial day can be moved to the 5th Friday of the 2nd month, to create  30:30:31. Also the three financial month would have an equal number (26) of non-Sundays as for World Calendar Month.

 

But there is a BIG drawback with all such systems, they are all disrupted by the leap week!

This is the main reason for favouring 454 to 010.

 

Perhaps for a quarter containing the leap week we could have financial month begin on the 1st Monday of the 1st month, 1st Friday of the 2nd month and 1st Wednesday of the 3rd month, which would give financial months of 32:33:33 days and a different equal number (28) of non-Sundays each month.

 

There was a proposal called the Pragmatic Civil Calendar, which spread the leap week through the whole year rather than just one quarter as suggested then. In this calendar a leap year had all months had 31 days, except one with 30 days. Such a calendar would have radically different leap years, so wiping out much of the benefit of reform.

 

Karl

 

10(08(26 till noon

 

 

 

From: East Carolina University Calendar discussion List [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Irv Bromberg
Sent: 20 May 2009 22:28
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: Joining list. Calendar reforms.

 

On 2009 May 20, at 17:22 , MIKE OSSIPOFF wrote:

Yes, the Symmetry454 proposal used to by my favorite. But then I decided that having months whose length differed by an entire week would be inconvenient, business-wise, because the months are used as payment periods for rent and billing.

 

 

For those who hold that concern there is the less radical Symmetry010 proposal, just follow the links from the Symmetry454 web page.

 

30+31+30 days per quarter, starts each quarter on Monday, otherwise the same as Symmetry454.

 

-- Irv Bromberg, Toronto, Canada

 

 




Scanned by iCritical.


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Joining list. Calendar reforms.

MIKE OSSIPOFF
Dear Karl & others--

 
One good thing is that the monthly billing-dates are between business and customer, and so that, while the calendar proposal makes them possible, it doesn't have to take responsibility for them.
 
I can see that you've looked into this more than I have.  I always assumed that  the leapweek would be billed separately,  as its own short "month",  but yes, now that you mention it, 454 can absorb the leapweek in a month in a more natural way.  There, its unequal months becomes an advantage, a good case for the 454  month-system in a leapweek calendar.
 
Of course this all applies also to months that are divisions of the 91-day seasons of a seasonal calendar, the only difference being that the 91-day periods start at the beginning of seasons defined as quarters of the year (or the ecliptic) that do their best to coincide with the four conventional seasons. The other difference is that the months are named for their place in a particular season ("Autumn2", or, internationally, "3,2").  I'd like for any new calendar to be a seasonal calendar, one that explicitly names  its time-periods according to the seasons. "We'll make the appointment for Autumn2, 27th." That seems to give more concrete Earth-related meaning to the calendar's dates.
 
Speaking of billing arrangements between customers and businesses: When a seasonal calendar doesn't subdivide the seasons into months, but just numbers the seasons' days, it's easy to bill on the 30th, the 60th and the 90th of each month,  for example.  If the seasonal calendar is a fixed calendar, then one might not want to use separately day-numbered months, so as to avoid any subdivision not divisible by 7, in order to make easy the determination of days of the week. So "Autumn2,27th" (with the 454 month-system) would just be "Autumn 55th".  That's one less than a multiple of 7, making it a Friday, if years start on Sundays.
 
By the way, of course there's no need for fixed calendar advocates to debate whether it's better to start the year on Monday, to avoid all the Friday the 13th days, or whether it's better to start it on Sunday, to avoid objection from religious groups--The year will start on whatever day its pre-chosen seasonal starting-day, according to equnox or solstice,  happens to falls on, in the particular year that the calendar starts.
 
And of course, if people have agreed, right now, to adopt your new calendar proposal, and are willing to start it right away, then you're not going to say, "No, let's wait two years, so that we can start each year on a Monday." :-)  You start the new calendar as soon as people are willing to.
 
Mike Ossipoff
 
 
 
 
 
 






Scanned by iCritical.
_________________________________________________________________
Insert movie times and more without leaving Hotmail®.
http://windowslive.com/Tutorial/Hotmail/QuickAdd?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_HM_Tutorial_QuickAdd1_052009
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Joining list. Calendar reforms.

Karl Palmen - UKRI STFC
Dear Mike and Calendar People

MIKE SAID:
I can see that you've looked into this more than I have.  I always
assumed that  the leapweek would be billed separately,  as its own short
"month",  but yes, now that you mention it, 454 can absorb the leapweek
in a month in a more natural way.  There, its unequal months becomes an
advantage, a good case for the 454  month-system in a leapweek calendar.

KARL REPLIES: But billing of the leapweek separately would eliminate the
advantage of (near) equal months.

Karl

10(08(27 till noon

--
Scanned by iCritical.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Joining list. Calendar reforms.

MIKE OSSIPOFF

 
Dear Karl & company--
 
True, separately billing the leapweak would spoil the billing-period uniformity, but it would only happen once in a while. Still, I agree that it's better with 454, where the extra week fits right into a month, though it would change the rule for making billing-periods equal. Same is true if the 91-day season is undivided by months.
 
To all listmembers in general:
 
Calendar reform interests me because we use calendars so much. We use clocks & watches more, but our time-of-day system is already rational and unarbitrary enough. The idiosyncratic, irrational, arbitrary Roman Calendar cries out for replacement.
 
The Romans could continually change their calendar because it was only for a city--with unaccountable rulers who could do what they wanted. Very different now, when the whole world must agree on a calendar-change. Maybe impossible; maybe we're stuck with the Roman Calendar for the remainder of the time that humans are on the Earth. The Romans must be having a good laugh.
 
Is there now a calendar-reform proposal underway or about to be started? What do listmembers propose for civil use?
 
In particular, let me know if these assumptions are wrong: I assume that most calendar-reform advocates want a fixed calendar. I assume that most agree that blank days won't gain acceptance, and therefore propose a leapweek, as do I (for aesthetic reasons too).
 
I assume that most want a leapweek fixed calendar with subunits (like months) divisible by 7, so each subunit begins with the same day of the week, for easy day-of-week determination.
 
I only know of a few ways to do that:
 
1. 13 28-day months. But people won't want 13 months. Am I mistaken about that?
 
2. 26 14-day periods. Too unaccostomedly short, right?
 
3. 454, as a way to divide the 91 day quarters..
 
4. Undivided-91, by which I mean 91-day quarters numbered from 1 to 91.
 
Are not #3 & #4 the only feasible ways of achieving the above-listed goals?
 
Whether you propose #3 or #4, my suggestion and request is that you put one of the 91-day quarters so that its middle is at the estimated middle of temperature-based winter (or, less preferable, at the winter solstice), and that you name the quarters for the seasons, and that you name the months (if any) for their position in the seasons.
 
In other words, I claim that the new calendar should be seasonal, to get us the full benefit of a new calendar. I promise not to repeat any more that advocacy and promotion of seasonal calendars, because you've already heard me on the subject more than once.
 
454 is better if we need months, or if we want calendar-provided billing periods and they needn't be equal.
 
Uninterruptd-91 is better if we don't need months, and we can let billers & customers decide the billing dates, and if we want to be able to make the billing periods equal in the most transparent and obvious way: 30th, 60th and 90th; or 1st, 30th and 60th; etc.
 
Mike Ossipoff
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
> KARL REPLIES: But billing of the leapweek separately would eliminate the
> advantage of (near) equal months.
>
> Karl
>
> 10(08(27 till noon
>
> --
> Scanned by iCritical.
>



Insert movie times and more without leaving Hotmail®. See how.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Joining list. Calendar reforms.

Irv Bromberg
On 2009 May 22, at 13:03 , MIKE OSSIPOFF wrote:
Is there now a calendar-reform proposal underway or about to be started? What do listmembers propose for civil use?

Mike, I think it's fair to say that each member of this list has at least one calendar reform proposal, in fact most of us have developed numerous such proposals.

Pretty much any time that a proposal is presented to anybody, they like some aspects but want to change other aspects.

-- Irv Bromberg, Toronto, Canada

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Brief addendum and reply

MIKE OSSIPOFF
If someone proposes a year-starting-day based on the winter solstice, they most likely would start the year on the solstice. That would mean that the calendar was effectively a seasonal calendar with a seasonal time-lag of 1.5 month. That's within the typical range, though the worldwide average is probably a little less.
 
So, for a year-starting-time based on solstice instead of being based directly on estimated temperature-seasons, I realize that it's better to start the year on the winter solstice, rather than put the middle of a quarter at the solstice.
 
And if, for example, the time-lag where you reside is only 1.25 month, instead of 1.5, then of course, for you the seasons begin and end about a week before the winter-solstice-starting calendar would suggest. So one can easily interpret such a calendar in terms of his/her own local seasonal time-lag.
 
So, though I'd most like to have the middle of the winter quarter following the winter solstice by the estimated average seasonal time-lag (1.25 months?), the next best thing would be to just start the year on the winter solstice, resulting in a seasonal calendar with a time-lag of 1.5 months.
 
That's what Isaac Asimov did, with his World Season Calendar. Of course there's ample historical precedent for starting the year at a solstice or equinox.
 
(In fact, our quirky Roman calendar seems to be almost unique in not doing that)
 
Irv--
 
First, I want to thank you for taking the time to answer a newcomer and a member of the "larger public".
 
You wrote:
 
Mike, I think it's fair to say that each member of this list has at least one calendar reform proposal, in fact most of us have developed numerous such proposals.
 
I reply:
 
Sure, I have lots of proposals too, because any calendar with a rational, un-arbitrary month-system would be an improvement over the Roman Calendar. And, better yet, any seasonal calendar  (which broadly includes any calendar divisible into 91-day quarters, starting on a solstice or equinox, or having the middle of a quarter following a solstice or equinox by a duration equal to the estimated seasonal time-lag) would be an excellent new calendar in my opinion.
 
You continued:
 
Pretty much any time that a proposal is presented to anybody, they like some aspects but want to change other aspects.
 
I reply:
 
I'm very flexible--any seasonal calendar, by the broad definition above, would be excellent as far as I'm concerned.
 
Mike Ossipoff
 




Windows Live™: Keep your life in sync. Check it out.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Brief addendum and reply

Mark J. Reed
A seasonal calendar tends to lead to hemispherist language.  Which
"winter solstice"?  If you mean the December one, that's better termed
the southern solstice, and for folks south of the equator it marks the
summer.




On 5/22/09, MIKE OSSIPOFF <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> If someone proposes a year-starting-day based on the winter solstice, they
> most likely would start the year on the solstice. That would mean that the
> calendar was effectively a seasonal calendar with a seasonal time-lag of 1.5
> month. That's within the typical range, though the worldwide average is
> probably a little less.
>
>
>
> So, for a year-starting-time based on solstice instead of being based
> directly on estimated temperature-seasons, I realize that it's better to
> start the year on the winter solstice, rather than put the middle of a
> quarter at the solstice.
>
>
>
> And if, for example, the time-lag where you reside is only 1.25 month,
> instead of 1.5, then of course, for you the seasons begin and end about a
> week before the winter-solstice-starting calendar would suggest. So one can
> easily interpret such a calendar in terms of his/her own local seasonal
> time-lag.
>
>
>
> So, though I'd most like to have the middle of the winter quarter following
> the winter solstice by the estimated average seasonal time-lag (1.25
> months?), the next best thing would be to just start the year on the winter
> solstice, resulting in a seasonal calendar with a time-lag of 1.5 months.
>
>
>
> That's what Isaac Asimov did, with his World Season Calendar. Of course
> there's ample historical precedent for starting the year at a solstice or
> equinox.
>
>
>
> (In fact, our quirky Roman calendar seems to be almost unique in not doing
> that)
>
>
>
> Irv--
>
>
>
> First, I want to thank you for taking the time to answer a newcomer and a
> member of the "larger public".
>
>
>
> You wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Mike, I think it's fair to say that each member of this list has at least
> one calendar reform proposal, in fact most of us have developed numerous
> such proposals.
>
>
>
> I reply:
>
>
>
> Sure, I have lots of proposals too, because any calendar with a rational,
> un-arbitrary month-system would be an improvement over the Roman Calendar.
> And, better yet, any seasonal calendar  (which broadly includes any calendar
> divisible into 91-day quarters, starting on a solstice or equinox, or having
> the middle of a quarter following a solstice or equinox by a duration equal
> to the estimated seasonal time-lag) would be an excellent new calendar in my
> opinion.
>
>
>
> You continued:
>
>
>
> Pretty much any time that a proposal is presented to anybody, they like some
> aspects but want to change other aspects.
>
> I reply:
>
> I'm very flexible--any seasonal calendar, by the broad definition above,
> would be excellent as far as I'm concerned.
>
> Mike Ossipoff
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Windows Live™: Keep your life in sync.
> http://windowslive.com/explore?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_BR_life_in_synch_052009

--
Sent from my mobile device

Mark J. Reed <[hidden email]>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Brief addendum and reply

Victor Engel
In reply to this post by MIKE OSSIPOFF
Dear Mike and Calendar People,

The months aren't quite so random as they first appear. The Gregorian calendar is based upon the Julian calendar, which, in turn, is based upon the Roman calendar, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_calendar . In the Roman calendar, the first month contained the spring equinox. I'm guessing that it didn't start ON the spring equinox because it was originally a lunar calendar, so the start of the month was originally in sync with the moon, not the sun.

Victor

On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 2:39 PM, MIKE OSSIPOFF <[hidden email]> wrote:
If someone proposes a year-starting-day based on the winter solstice, they most likely would start the year on the solstice. That would mean that the calendar was effectively a seasonal calendar with a seasonal time-lag of 1.5 month. That's within the typical range, though the worldwide average is probably a little less.
 
So, for a year-starting-time based on solstice instead of being based directly on estimated temperature-seasons, I realize that it's better to start the year on the winter solstice, rather than put the middle of a quarter at the solstice.
 
And if, for example, the time-lag where you reside is only 1.25 month, instead of 1.5, then of course, for you the seasons begin and end about a week before the winter-solstice-starting calendar would suggest. So one can easily interpret such a calendar in terms of his/her own local seasonal time-lag.
 
So, though I'd most like to have the middle of the winter quarter following the winter solstice by the estimated average seasonal time-lag (1.25 months?), the next best thing would be to just start the year on the winter solstice, resulting in a seasonal calendar with a time-lag of 1.5 months.
 
That's what Isaac Asimov did, with his World Season Calendar. Of course there's ample historical precedent for starting the year at a solstice or equinox.
 
(In fact, our quirky Roman calendar seems to be almost unique in not doing that)
 
Irv--
 
First, I want to thank you for taking the time to answer a newcomer and a member of the "larger public".
 
You wrote:
 
Mike, I think it's fair to say that each member of this list has at least one calendar reform proposal, in fact most of us have developed numerous such proposals.
 
I reply:
 
Sure, I have lots of proposals too, because any calendar with a rational, un-arbitrary month-system would be an improvement over the Roman Calendar. And, better yet, any seasonal calendar  (which broadly includes any calendar divisible into 91-day quarters, starting on a solstice or equinox, or having the middle of a quarter following a solstice or equinox by a duration equal to the estimated seasonal time-lag) would be an excellent new calendar in my opinion.
 
You continued:
 
Pretty much any time that a proposal is presented to anybody, they like some aspects but want to change other aspects.
 
I reply:
 
I'm very flexible--any seasonal calendar, by the broad definition above, would be excellent as far as I'm concerned.
 
Mike Ossipoff
 




Windows Live™: Keep your life in sync. Check it out.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Brief addendum and reply

MIKE OSSIPOFF
In reply to this post by Mark J. Reed

 
Thanks for your reply.
 
You wrote:
 
> A seasonal calendar tends to lead to hemispherist language. Which
> "winter solstice"? If you mean the December one, that's better termed
> the southern solstice, and for folks south of the equator it marks the
> summer.

I reply:
 
Of course I agree. Asimov, in his World Season Calendar, suggested naming the seasons by 1,2,3,4 or A,B,C,D (I don't remember which)
 
My suggestion is the same, for international use. But, for local use, in town, in one's home country, people might just call them Winter, Spring, Summer and Autumn. As long as what you say is only being heard by people in your own north or south hemisphere--which is usually the case when making appointments or posting school schedules, etc.
 
Anytime someone wants to translate that into 1,2,3,4 or A,B,C,D, they need only take into account the hemisphere in which it was written.
 


Windows Live™: Keep your life in sync. Check it out.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Brief addendum and reply

MIKE OSSIPOFF
In reply to this post by Victor Engel
 
Victorr--
 
Thanks for your reply.
 
Yes, Julius Caesar began the latest Roman calendar on the first new moon after the winter solstice in 46 A.D.

 The months aren't quite so random as they first appear. The Gregorian calendar is based upon the Julian calendar, which, in turn, is based upon the Roman calendar, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_calendar . In the Roman calendar, the first month contained the spring equinox. I'm guessing that it didn't start ON the spring equinox because it was originally a lunar calendar, so the start of the month was originally in sync with the moon, not the sun.

Victor


On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 2:39 PM, MIKE OSSIPOFF <[hidden email]> wrote:
If someone proposes a year-starting-day based on the winter solstice, they most likely would start the year on the solstice. That would mean that the calendar was effectively a seasonal calendar with a seasonal time-lag of 1.5 month. That's within the typical range, though the worldwide average is probably a little less.
 
So, for a year-starting-time based on solstice instead of being based directly on estimated temperature-seasons, I realize that it's better to start the year on the winter solstice, rather than put the middle of a quarter at the solstice.
 
And if, for example, the time-lag where you reside is only 1.25 month, instead of 1.5, then of course, for you the seasons begin and end about a week before the winter-solstice-starting calendar would suggest. So one can easily interpret such a calendar in terms of his/her own local seasonal time-lag.
 
So, though I'd most like to have the middle of the winter quarter following the winter solstice by the estimated average seasonal time-lag (1.25 months?), the next best thing would be to just start the year on the winter solstice, resulting in a seasonal calendar with a time-lag of 1.5 months.
 
That's what Isaac Asimov did, with his World Season Calendar. Of course there's ample historical precedent for starting the year at a solstice or equinox.
 
(In fact, our quirky Roman calendar seems to be almost unique in not doing that)
 
Irv--
 
First, I want to thank you for taking the time to answer a newcomer and a member of the "larger public".
 
You wrote:
 
Mike, I think it's fair to say that each member of this list has at least one calendar reform proposal, in fact most of us have developed numerous such proposals.
 
I reply:
 
Sure, I have lots of proposals too, because any calendar with a rational, un-arbitrary month-system would be an improvement over the Roman Calendar. And, better yet, any seasonal calendar  (which broadly includes any calendar divisible into 91-day quarters, starting on a solstice or equinox, or having the middle of a quarter following a solstice or equinox by a duration equal to the estimated seasonal time-lag) would be an excellent new calendar in my opinion.
 
You continued:
 
Pretty much any time that a proposal is presented to anybody, they like some aspects but want to change other aspects.
 
I reply:
 
I'm very flexible--any seasonal calendar, by the broad definition above, would be excellent as far as I'm concerned.
 
Mike Ossipoff
 




Windows Live™: Keep your life in sync. Check it out.



Insert movie times and more without leaving Hotmail®. See how.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Brief addendum and reply

Mark J. Reed
No, he didn't. First, it was 46 BC, not AD. Second, we don't know for
sure exactly what the correspondence was, since the leap year
observance between then and 8 AD was erratic.  But none of the
accepted correspondences has a New Moon on Jan 1st of the first year
of the calendar.

On 5/22/09, MIKE OSSIPOFF <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
>
>
> Victorr--
>
>
>
> Thanks for your reply.
>
>
>
> Yes, Julius Caesar began the latest Roman calendar on the first new moon
> after the winter solstice in 46 A.D.
>
>
>  The months aren't quite so random as they first appear. The Gregorian
> calendar is based upon the Julian calendar, which, in turn, is based upon
> the Roman calendar, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_calendar . In the
> Roman calendar, the first month contained the spring equinox. I'm guessing
> that it didn't start ON the spring equinox because it was originally a lunar
> calendar, so the start of the month was originally in sync with the moon,
> not the sun.
>
> Victor
>
>
>
> On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 2:39 PM, MIKE OSSIPOFF <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>
> If someone proposes a year-starting-day based on the winter solstice, they
> most likely would start the year on the solstice. That would mean that the
> calendar was effectively a seasonal calendar with a seasonal time-lag of 1.5
> month. That's within the typical range, though the worldwide average is
> probably a little less.
>
> So, for a year-starting-time based on solstice instead of being based
> directly on estimated temperature-seasons, I realize that it's better to
> start the year on the winter solstice, rather than put the middle of a
> quarter at the solstice.
>
> And if, for example, the time-lag where you reside is only 1.25 month,
> instead of 1.5, then of course, for you the seasons begin and end about a
> week before the winter-solstice-starting calendar would suggest. So one can
> easily interpret such a calendar in terms of his/her own local seasonal
> time-lag.
>
> So, though I'd most like to have the middle of the winter quarter following
> the winter solstice by the estimated average seasonal time-lag (1.25
> months?), the next best thing would be to just start the year on the winter
> solstice, resulting in a seasonal calendar with a time-lag of 1.5 months.
>
> That's what Isaac Asimov did, with his World Season Calendar. Of course
> there's ample historical precedent for starting the year at a solstice or
> equinox.
>
> (In fact, our quirky Roman calendar seems to be almost unique in not doing
> that)
>
> Irv--
>
> First, I want to thank you for taking the time to answer a newcomer and a
> member of the "larger public".
>
> You wrote:
>
>
> Mike, I think it's fair to say that each member of this list has at least
> one calendar reform proposal, in fact most of us have developed numerous
> such proposals.
>
> I reply:
>
> Sure, I have lots of proposals too, because any calendar with a rational,
> un-arbitrary month-system would be an improvement over the Roman Calendar.
> And, better yet, any seasonal calendar  (which broadly includes any calendar
> divisible into 91-day quarters, starting on a solstice or equinox, or having
> the middle of a quarter following a solstice or equinox by a duration equal
> to the estimated seasonal time-lag) would be an excellent new calendar in my
> opinion.
>
> You continued:
>
>
> Pretty much any time that a proposal is presented to anybody, they like some
> aspects but want to change other aspects.
>
> I reply:
>
> I'm very flexible--any seasonal calendar, by the broad definition above,
> would be excellent as far as I'm concerned.
>
> Mike Ossipoff
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Windows Live™: Keep your life in sync. Check it out.
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Insert movie times and more without leaving Hotmail®.
> http://windowslive.com/Tutorial/Hotmail/QuickAdd?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_HM_Tutorial_QuickAdd1_052009

--
Sent from my mobile device

Mark J. Reed <[hidden email]>

1234 ... 21