 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Not mine :-) Besides, if that happened, I wouldn't be able to run MAX any
more and that would kill me :-)
--
Lance.
---
For the latest MAX plug-ins, images and much more, go to:
The Zone - http://come.to/the.zone
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I'm sure it is.
--
Lance.
---
For the latest MAX plug-ins, images and much more, go to:
The Zone - http://come.to/the.zone
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Dan Connelly wrote:
>
> Lance Birch wrote:
> >
> > No, it's this kind of thing that gets everyone confused. There was no year
> > 0, so the year 2000 must be completed before 2000 years would have passed.
> > So the new millennium doesn't start until 1 January 2001...
>
> The Christian calendar is arbitrary -- so what? The big digit is changing
> from 1 to 2. Meanwhile, our Gates-infested technology will grind to
> a violent halt.... these are reasons enough to celebrate :).
>
> 2001 is just another LSD shift.
>
> Dan
I'm sure there will be quite a bit of LSD shifted around that time ;)
PoD.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 03 Jan 1999 05:42:59 -0800, Ken <tyl### [at] pacbell net> wrote:
>I don't get it. When new years day rolls around won't 2000 years
>of human history have passed or not. Of course it will have.
>Give it a rest and party on dude.
Nope. Even assuming human history began anywhere close to 2000 years
ago, which we're pretty sure it hasn't, one year from now we will be
just beginning the 2000th year AD. 1-1000 were the first thousand,
and 1001-2000 will be the second thousand. The third thousand begins
on January 1, 2001 (disregarding a few calendar changes throughout the
preceding centuries, which the pedants among us will refuse to do...
hey, three parties!)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Yey!!! Someone beleives me!!!
--
Lance.
---
For the latest MAX plug-ins, images and much more, go to:
The Zone - http://come.to/the.zone
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Lance Birch wrote:
>
> Ok ok, but I'm sick of everyone else saying that the year 2000 is the
> starting point for the second millennium AD.
...
A.D.: an abbreviation for anno Domine, Latin for 'in the year of our Lord'. In
theory, this calendar counts the years since the birth of Christ, but most
scholars believe that Christ was born in 4 B.C.
So, the third millennium, if the Christian calendar were to be appropriately
adjusted, has been with us for a few years already. (Of course, it won't be adjusted.)
The Christian calendar has been adapted for the rest of the world by replacing
A.D. with C.E., or common era, presumably by those who wondered if they were
offending non-believers by adding 'A.D.' every time they wrote down the date.
I'm not sure when the abbreviation C.E. was first used, but it must have been
after A.D., which well after Christ [is said to have] died, anyway. If there
was no 0 A.D., there was probably no 1 A.D., 2 A.D., etc... And as Dan
Connelly pointed out, the whole calendar is arbitrary anyway; we are
celebrating a coincidence of numbers, which sounds like math to me, and
definitely worthy of a party.
As for me, I think the big party will be in just under a year, regardless of
any sort of public awareness campaign, because we just like to watch all of
those digits change. (Who cares when their car's milage changes from 10,000 to
10,001?)
(A[nother] completely irrelevant side note: others have tried to calculate the
date of the creation of the world according to religious texts, but these
differ by as much as a quarter of a millenium...)
-Mark R.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I just don't want people to call 2000 the first year of the new millennium
when it isn't...
--
Lance.
---
For the latest MAX plug-ins, images and much more, go to:
The Zone - http://come.to/the.zone
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Lance Birch wrote:
> I just don't want people to call 2000 the first year of the new millennium
> when it isn't...
>
> --
> Lance.
Apples are neon blue in color.
--
Ken Tyler
tyl### [at] pacbellnet
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Lance Birch wrote:
>
> I just don't want people to call 2000 the first year of the new millennium
> when it isn't...
>
But it is the new millenium -- the new millenium of "2's in the 4th digit".
Who cares if the millenium of "0's in the 4th digit" got shortchanged?
It wasn't my problem. Non-leap-years get shortchanged, but nobody complains.
Not even all centuries have the same number of days.
The Christian calendar has been adopted to secular purposes... it's
the digit that is being celebrated, not some obscure, arbitrary anniversary.
Dan
--
http://www.flash.net/~djconnel/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
If only that stupid moon would rotate around the earth in sync with the
rotation of the earth around it's axis and the sun! Who designed this
solar system anyway?
Maybe if we protest to God he'll go metric!
Heh heh,
Mike
Dan Connelly wrote:
>
> Lance Birch wrote:
> >
> > I just don't want people to call 2000 the first year of the new millennium
> > when it isn't...
> >
>
> But it is the new millenium -- the new millenium of "2's in the 4th digit".
> Who cares if the millenium of "0's in the 4th digit" got shortchanged?
> It wasn't my problem. Non-leap-years get shortchanged, but nobody complains.
> Not even all centuries have the same number of days.
>
> The Christian calendar has been adopted to secular purposes... it's
> the digit that is being celebrated, not some obscure, arbitrary anniversary.
>
> Dan
>
> --
> http://www.flash.net/~djconnel/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
