Author: Charles Unruh
Date: 17:43:24 12/24/99
Go up one level in this thread
On December 24, 1999 at 12:52:39, John R. Menke, Sr. wrote: >On December 24, 1999 at 12:40:55, Dave Gomboc wrote: > >>On December 24, 1999 at 12:00:44, Keith Ian Price wrote: >> >>>On December 24, 1999 at 10:38:33, Albert Silver wrote: >>> >>>>On December 24, 1999 at 10:09:34, Charles Unruh wrote: >>>> >>>>>The millenium does not start till 2001!! 2000 is last year of this millenium. >>>>> >>>>>2000 is just the cap, 2001 is the beggining man i want to blow up the world i'm >>>>>tired of people refusing to acknowledge the obvious ughhh! Merry X-mas >>>>>>MERRY CHRISTMAS AND HAPPY NEW YEAR! >>>> >>>>Only if the calendar started with a 1. If on the other hand Year 1 represented >>>>the first year to pass (like a baby's first birthday), 2000 is indeed the >>>>beginning of the second millenium. The debate is in fact all based on this. I >>>>for one believe that Year 1 was the first year to pass, therefore the year 2000 >>>>is the beginning of the third millenium after Christ. >>>> >>>> Albert Silver >>> >>>I must admit I am rather surprised at this statement, Albert. You are normally >>>quite logical in your premises. Of course the calendar started with 1. People >>>didn't have computers back then, so starting with 0 didn't make sense to them. >>>And equally, of course year 1 represented the first year to pass (like a baby's >>>first birthday), so, of course the millenium starts with 2001. If year 1 was the >>>first year to pass in the 1st millenium, year 2001 will be the first year to >>>pass in the third millenium. The New York Times editorial staff is having a >>>battle over this right now. Their headline on January 1, 1901 was "Welcome to >>>The 20th Century". Some of the editors want to have a similar "Welcome to the >>>New Millenium" headline on January 1, 2000. But the others ask how will they >>>explain the 99-year century? >>> >>>kp >> >>Maybe the other editors you mention would be good at software development, where >>details matter. "When to party?" is about as deep as this issue gets, so >>whatever the answer, it's not going to matter too much. >> >>Dave > >I tend to concur with Albert and Dave, for no other reason than that's the way I >like it. Such things are by mutual agreement, or not, and obviously the nots >have it! Is 10-5=5? That's by mutual agreement too. We could equally well say >that 10-5=6 because we want it to indicate "inclusiveness", although that would >upset many mathematical applecarts, require recalculation of the date of the big >bang, etc. Not that logic matters very much here, it's all for fun, as I see it. >Cheers! >--JRM The dark ages have returned!
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.