Subject:
|
Re: new millenium bugs me
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.fun
|
Date:
|
Mon, 29 Nov 1999 22:38:19 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
833 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.fun, Frank Buiting writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.fun, Christopher Lannan writes:
> > In lugnet.general, Paul Davidson writes:
> > > Of course, since the new millennium doesn't start until 2001, we have a year
> > > to discuss it. :)
> >
> > YES!
>
> NO! (see below)
Unfortunately, YES (see below)
>
> > This has really gotten to me of late- how come it's so simple to sit down • with
> > someone and explain to them that if you have 10 things, and you count them ,
> > then the last one is 10, and if you have 2000 things, and you count them, • then
> > the last one is 2000!
>
> It's a matter of what you take as 'the first year'... The first year starts at
> 0 lasts to 1, second year 1-2, third year 2-3, tenth year 9-10 (since a year
> is a time-span it starts and ends, that is the thing you count...)
If it were only so (as a coder... I feel that all things should start at zero).
Turns out that long ago there was this monk named Denny the Runt who was
commisioned by the Pope to determine the exact year of Easter. He did a pretty
good job considering, but he was off by 3 or 4 years and didn't start at zero
(dang roman numeral system). BTW, if you run into any millenium end-time
nutso's, by all means point out that the "real" 2000 years most likely happened
in 1997 or 1998...
Regardless of the facts (heh), to me at least, when all the digits change in
the year, it's a very big deal. (And btw, if you want to follow the screwy
A.D. calendar numbering system further, then all you 30 year olds out there
will be glad to hear that you are still in your twenties...)
(There's a nice article on washingotonpost.com that explains all this in more
detail if you'd like to hunt it down)
>
> > The first year of the 21st century is 2001! Simple.
>
> So the first year of the new millenium starts at 2000 and ENDS at 2001, you
> are correct if you say 2001 is the first 'whole' year of the millenium.
>
> > I don't mind celebrating the year 2000, it IS a milestone, but IS NOT the
> > start of a new millenium!!!
>
> Oh well, any occasion to party is a good one!
>
> cheers,
> Frank
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: new millenium bugs me
|
| In lugnet.off-topic.fun, Mark Sullivan writes: [snipped part about counting to 10] (...) zero). Hmm, that must be it. It must be my programmer's instinct that took over... -Frank (25 years ago, 30-Nov-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
| | | Re: new millenium bugs me
|
| (...) Actually not. Age really does start at 0. You aren't 1 until you have been out of your mother's womb (or the petri dish for those reading this post in the far distant future) for 365 or so days. (25 years ago, 30-Nov-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: new millenium bugs me
|
| (...) NO! (see below) (...) It's a matter of what you take as 'the first year'... The first year starts at 0 lasts to 1, second year 1-2, third year 2-3, tenth year 9-10 (since a year is a time-span it starts and ends, that is the thing you (...) (25 years ago, 29-Nov-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
34 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
|
|
|
|
