Author: Keith Ian Price
Date: 18:21:29 12/24/99
Go up one level in this thread
On December 24, 1999 at 15:52:48, Albert Silver 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. > >I thought we were celebrating the beginning of the millenium which after >midnight. After midnight will commence the first second, first minute, and then >the first hour of the third millenium. Do we really need to wait a whole year >into the millenium to celebrate its commencement? >Does a baby's life start when they celebrate their first birthday? Or is it when >they are born? Well, A.D. stands for Anno Domino (Year of the Lord), and the year did start when he was born and it was the first year (1) not the zeroth year. If you add 2000 to 1 you get 2001. Perhaps the millenium could start on January 1, 2000 P.D. (Post Domino), where the first year after the Lord's birth would be 1 P.D., but then B.C. would become A.D., and people would really get confused! >Well, the argument about the calendar starting at zero or one due to the Romans >seems a bit strange, particularly as I seriously doubt the Romans decided to >create a new calendar based on the man they had just finished crucifying. It wasn't the Romans. It was a monk several centuries later. And his calculations were most likely inaccurate, so that Christ was actually born in 4 B.C., which would mean that we all missed the big party in 1997. But since the big party is really about a new millenium and not a particular time after Christ's birth, we should stick to the calendar we have and keep it 2001. Besides, the party won't be as expensive, or crowded, and you will be less likely to get blown up. >> 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? > >They can say their 99 year-old peers didn't know what they were talking about. Year-old peers seldom do, even if there are 99 of them. ;-) kp
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.