Subject:
|
Re: CLSOTW - Thanks
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.fun
|
Date:
|
Mon, 3 Jan 2000 22:03:11 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
926 times
|
| |
|
|
On Mon, 3 Jan 2000, Dave Schuler (<Fnrwno.43A@lugnet.com>) wrote at
18:57:24
> In lugnet.pirates, Christopher Lannan writes:
> > Nitpick- there IS NO year zero. There are 10 years in a decade, so the last
> > year of the first decade was 10, the first year of the next decade was 11.
> > Taking this to today- there are 1000 years in a millenium, so the last year of
> > the first millenium was 1000, and the last year of this one is 2000. The first
> > year of the new millenium (and the 21st century) is 2001. Simple as counting
> > to ten. Millions of people saying that it's the new millenium doesn't make it
> > so.
>
> I think everyone here knows this, in much the same way that April 30 does
> not equal May 1. However, there's no point in complaining about it, because
> even if it's not "so," no one really seems to care. Besides which, it's not
> going to matter, really for at least another 100 years, and I'll be happy to
> resume this debate with anyone at that time.
>
> Dave!
>
> follow-ups to lugnet.off-topic.fun
Well, I've bitten my tongue so far, but here goes:
The current system for numbering years was only invented some time in
the fifth or sixth century, IIRC. Therefore, there never was a year zero
*or* a year one.
You can start the new millennium whenever you want, and most people want
to start it now.
And if you have to work with IBM mainframes, as I have in the past, you
know that zero is significant anyway, so the last year of a decade *is*
nine :-)
But I'm sure a large number of entertainment and sales organisations
will realise during this year that 2001 is the *real* start of the next
millennium, just so that they can sell *even more* junk to gullible,
mathematically challenged punters.
--
Tony Priestman
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
 | | Re: CLSOTW - Thanks
|
| (...) See: (URL) my rebuttal of the "well the dating system is wrong, arbitrary, etc" idea. (...) No, you can't. If we take as a given that we are accepting the current dating system, and if we take as a given the currently accepted definition of a (...) (27 years ago, 3-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
| | | Re: CLSOTW - Thanks
|
| (...) I don't think that's at issue. The thing is, we don't count what year we've completed, we count what year we're IN. (AD = "in the year of our Lord".) So we're currently IN the 2000th year; therefore, we've not finished the current millennium (...) (27 years ago, 4-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
| | | Re: CLSOTW - Thanks
|
| (...) Technically, there was, even if it was only defined 525 years later (I think the system was generated in 526). Y'see, when Dionysus Exuugus [sp, it's late and my Latin sucks] generated the "compiled, authoritative" Christian annular calendar, (...) (27 years ago, 4-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
6 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
