Re: measuring systems (was: Selenites)

J.A. Mills wrote:
> Interesting.  Don't refute the idea without further exploration, however.
> Logically, it wouldn't be a "day" of 10 "hours"; rather, a "day" of 20
> "hours"--daytime and nighttime.  Don't settle for a labor-oppressing 8-hour
> day, but a 6 or 7 hour day.  Imagine a utopian and technologically permissable
> 5 hour day over 4 shifts.  Go-getters could have two different jobs of 5 hours
> each.
Actually, logically it *would* be a 10-hour day, if you're going to
decimalize, decimalize all the way, don't break the day into 20
sections.

Anyways, such a change would fundamentally alter the economy.  Changing
the work day from 1/3 of the day to 1/4 of the day would reduce the
hours worked by 25%.  Unless wages were increased by 33%, people would
no longer make as much money.  Hey, I'm all for a 6 or 7 hour day.  And
maybe we'll get one, one day, but only by changes in the economy, and in
people's wants.  Not by changing the day itself.  I still stand by the
idea that time-measurements benefits from being easily divided into
sections.  The day can be easily divided into 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 12, or 24
sections without fractions.  One-fifth also isn't difficult - 4 hours,
48 minutes.

Besides, four work shifts would easily fit into our system as it is -
6-hour shifts.

--
"A silent mouth is sweet to hear" - Irish proverb
ICQ: 18656696
AOL: NikTailor
http://members.tripod.com/~Nik_Taylor/X-Files/