 | | First (was Re: Ultimate castle theme..)
|
|
(...) Congratulations Mark on being the first post of the new millennium. :-) (Of course some would argue for the odometer turn over a year ago.) SRC (23 years ago, 1-Jan-01, to lugnet.castle, lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: First (was Re: Ultimate castle theme..)
|
|
(...) Tee Hee. Yay Me! ~Mark "Muffin Head" Sandlin (23 years ago, 2-Jan-01, to lugnet.castle, lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: First (was Re: Ultimate castle theme..)
|
|
(...) Others would point out that 2001/01/01 00:00:01 GMT is not the start of the new millenium even if you subscribe to the incorrect notion (1) that 2001 is the start of the new millenium, not 2000. GMT is 12 hours behind the international date (...) (23 years ago, 2-Jan-01, to lugnet.castle, lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | When did the 3rd millennium start?
|
|
(...) But if you're talking about the 9th decade of the 20th century, aren't you referring to 1981/01/01 to 1990/12/31? --Todd (23 years ago, 2-Jan-01, to lugnet.castle, lugnet.off-topic.fun, lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: When did the 3rd millennium start?
|
|
(...) in (...) 1989/12/31 (...) Well, my point would be that the 20th century most sensibly (to me) starts 1900/01/01 so the 9th decade would still start at 1980/01/01. But really its all pretty irrelevant. The 20th century isn't the 20th century of (...) (23 years ago, 2-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: When did the 3rd millennium start?
|
|
(...) That's when the *1900s* start -- just as the 80s start at 1980. (...) Sure. But for whatever reason, we do say that we are currently in the year 2001. Note that it doesn't work like birthdays, which count the number of years *completed*. (...) (23 years ago, 2-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: When did the 3rd millennium start?
|
|
(...) You're totally ignoring my point. My point is that the relevancy of how we call things is so little, that what makes the most sense to me is to say that decades start when the last digit of the year turns 0, centuries start when the last two (...) (23 years ago, 2-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: When did the 3rd millennium start?
|
|
(...) You act as if what people did for all the centuries when our system WAS in use do not matter. In 1901 this was not an issue; they treated just as people did in 1801, and 1701. It is only our century that decided not to. (23 years ago, 2-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | there ain't no such thing as "year zero"...
|
|
Frank, There was *not* a "year zero". The year after "1 BC" was the year "AD 1". The Christian Calendar (and that *is* what it is, whether or not people want to accept it as such) is *not* a number line; IT DOESN'T HAVE A "ZERO"! Thus, the FIRST (...) (23 years ago, 2-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: When did the 3rd millennium start?
|
|
(...) Bah, it's all irrelevant. The universe was created last Tuesday, already in its present form. J (23 years ago, 2-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: First (was Re: Ultimate castle theme..)
|
|
When did the first brick pop out of LEGOs molds? I'll dub that year zero my-self. (23 years ago, 2-Jan-01, to lugnet.castle, lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: When did the 3rd millennium start?
|
|
(...) Doesn't matter. It's the *2001st* year since we started counting. Not 2000th: I think that's what you're missing. *Last* year was the 2000th year; that's why it was called "2000". (...) Well, as I said in my post, you are *in* your 38th year. (...) (23 years ago, 2-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: there ain't no such thing as "year zero"...
|
|
(...) You're missing my point. There wasn't a year 1 AD either. There is a year which we now call 1 AD. My point is that the relevance of when the bleep the calendar started is about zero. Therefore I find more relevance in the last digits turning (...) (23 years ago, 2-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: there ain't no such thing as "year zero"...
|
|
(*Sound of dead horse being savagely beaten*) That's all right, it deserves it. Keeps our minds off of more important but far more depressing matters [1]. (...) I'm in full agreement with Franklin, but my evidence is in the term "Anno Domini" (...) (23 years ago, 2-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: When did the 3rd millennium start?
|
|
(...) No we don't need to renumber all the previous years. We just need to give the year 1 BC two names. Or we can be non-anal about it and accept that to the average person, it makes more sense that the millenium starts in 2000 not 2001. On the (...) (23 years ago, 2-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: No "year zero", but if there was, we STILL just started new millenia!
|
|
(...) If that's the case, my computer that reads 2001 is wrong. If there was no year 1, then how is there a year 2001? Any numbering system for years starts at an arbitrary date - you are correct that there wasn't a year 1 in the sense that the (...) (23 years ago, 2-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: 3rd millennium
|
|
(...) I figured if it was to be the first LUGNet post that Todd's computer's clock would have to be the reference standard for our little LEGO world. If it ceases to function our world ceases to exist. :-) (...) Interesting. I agree it's rather (...) (23 years ago, 2-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
