 | | Re: new millenium bugs me
|
|
(...) Of course, another thing people forget is that the gregorian calander was created several hundred years late and grandfathered a lot. And of course, by the opinions of (most) biblical scholars and historians, the whole thing is off by *at (...) (26 years ago, 29-Nov-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: new millenium bugs me
|
|
(...) Unfortunately, YES (see below) (...) with (...) then (...) 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 (...) (26 years ago, 29-Nov-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: new millenium bugs me
|
|
(...) with (...) then (...) I just had this argument at work. There is no year zero! At midnight on dec31st is the year 1 BC it became 1 AD (though they didn't think of it as such at the time) so the first decade would look like: (...) (26 years ago, 29-Nov-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | 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 (...) (26 years ago, 29-Nov-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: new millenium bugs me
|
|
(...) Dunno about you but *I'm* partying like it's 1999 already, just like what's his name. So ya.... *knowing why* the millenium starts in 2001 is a sign of intelligence. Refusing to party this year anyway is a sign of stupidity (or (...) (26 years ago, 29-Nov-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
