Subject:
|
Re: CLSOTW - Thanks
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.fun
|
Date:
|
Tue, 4 Jan 2000 08:50:42 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
126 times
|
| |
|
|
Tony Priestman wrote:
> 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.
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, he
based it on the idea that there was no year zero. Since we use his system, we're
therefore beholden to operate by his presumptions where years are concerned.
> You can start the new millennium whenever you want, and most people want
> to start it now.
Recent research suggests that if we reckon from the birth of Jesus (AD=Anno Domini,
after all), the millennium passed in 1993. I don't think it would have been nearly
as catchy if Prince had sung "Tonight we're gonna party like it's 1992"...
> 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 :-)
Computers do not equal calendars. That's why the millennium starts *next* year, and
the computer problem was *this* year--ten in machine language would read nine when
converted from the binary, but before computers that wasn't the case. The old
system has been around longer, and this argument came up *last* fin-de-siécle with a
decisive victory in favour of 1901 instead of 1900.
> 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.
On this, we agree 100%. What's more, they'll do it without a Y2K bug looming over
them--be afraid, be very afraid.
LFB
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: CLSOTW - Thanks
|
| (...) _And_ the one before that, and presumably before that as well, except that the newspaper/magazine hadn't been invented yet so we have no documentation. Jasper (24 years ago, 4-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: CLSOTW - Thanks
|
| On Mon, 3 Jan 2000, Dave Schuler (<Fnrwno.43A@lugnet.com>) wrote at 18:57:24 (...) 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, (...) (24 years ago, 3-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
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
