| |
In lugnet.castle, Steve Chapple writes:
> In lugnet.castle, Mark Sandlin writes:
> > > Thoughts? Ideas? Comments?
> > I'd sure like to see a dragon that was bigger than 2 minifigs tall.
> > Maybe it could come in its own set or something.
> > my 2 copper pieces
> > ~Mark "Muffin Head" Sandlin
>
> Congratulations Mark on being the first post of the new millennium. :-)
> (Of course some would argue for the odometer turn over a year ago.)
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 line. Of course others would point out that GMT is also UT (Universal
Time), but still, the folks over there by the date line got to see their date
roll over to 2000 12 hours before the folks in Greenwich.
Of course all of this just points out how silly the whole idea is. However,
silliness is always the best reason to party, so on that token, I propose that
we live for the minute and celebrate every new minute to the utmost! (and hey,
at least all of us who know how to set a clock correctly can agree that a new
minute starts at the same time, no matter what particular combination of funny
marks you would use to record that particular instant in time - well ok, so
probably not all of us set our clocks to the exact same time as the most
universally accepted reference clock but what they hey, I doubt any
generally accepted reference clocks are off by much more than a second or two).
(1) I used to be a "the new millenium starts in 2001" person until I decided
that ultimately, there is very little which is relevant about the year. One
problem is that it is almost certain that Jesus was not born in the year which
is numbered 0 AD. Another problem is that the system of AD dates started much
after that time, so it is irrelevant to talk about starting counting from 0 or
from 1. What we end up with is the only really relevant thing is what happens
to the digits, and for some reason, we have a liking to numbers which end in
lots of 0s, so with that perspective in mind, the millenium clearly starts in
2000, after all, when we talk about the 80s, we mean 1980/01/01 to 1989/12/31
not 1981/01/01 to 1990/12/31.
Frank
|
|
Message has 5 Replies:
 | | 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: 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: 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)
|
Message is in Reply To:
57 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
