 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Ronald L. Parker wrote:
>
> On Sun, 03 Jan 1999 23:24:06 -0800, Ken <tyl### [at] pacbell net> wrote:
>
> >Apples are neon blue in color.
>
> Only the iMac variety.
I wish I'd said that first...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Yes, but now they come in more than just good ole' Bondi Blue... they
come in five colors now.
"Ronald L. Parker" wrote:
> On Sun, 03 Jan 1999 23:24:06 -0800, Ken <tyl### [at] pacbellnet> wrote:
>
> >Apples are neon blue in color.
>
> Only the iMac variety.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I changed the system date to Jan 6 2000 yesterday and good ole pov went on
rendering as usual. I have some pov file dated 2000 now. The first pov files of
the third millenium (sorry Lance) ?
BTW, it reminds me of one strange problem I had once, when my computer
automatically changed the system hour ("winter" to "summer" hour automatic
change) while pov was doing an overnight rendering: it somehow stopped the
render with a bizarre message and a beep that woke me up at 3 am. I was not in a
state to remember the message, though.
Gilles
Ken wrote:
> Boy I hope Pov is Y2K compliant.
>
> --
> Ken Tyler
>
> tyl### [at] pacbellnet
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Gilles Tran wrote:
>
> I changed the system date to Jan 6 2000 yesterday and good ole pov went on
> rendering as usual. I have some pov file dated 2000 now. The first pov files of
> the third millenium (sorry Lance) ?
> Gilles
I'm glad to hear that Pov is y2k compliant. I am
surprised that when you reset your system clock that
it didn't hang on you, the worlds economy didn't collapsed,
fires did not spread through every city in the world,
aircraft did not go spinning out of the sky, and my
electricitry is still running at 60 cycles per second,
but I guess you can't believe EVERYTHING you hear.
--
Ken Tyler
tyl### [at] pacbellnet
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Yeah, you're right there Mr Tyler!!!
(Lucky my comp is Y2K compliant!)
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Good to hear!!!
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>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.
What does the christian religion say? (I don't know anything
about religious stuff)
Was good old Christ born in the year 0 or 1? And why wasn't
he born on january the 1st? If we weren't even able to get
the /year/ right (cause some people believe he was born in 4
BC, well not BC, because he wasn't born before he was
born.... never mind :) then why are we so precise on the
/day/? It would be much simpler to start counting the years
from his birth on jan. 1st.
Maybe we should make comprimise.... let's say the birth took
a while... like 4 years from 4 BC to 0 (that's when his head
popped out) and he was all the way through in 1 AD...
...... pfff ...........
interesting discussion... :)
Julius
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Ronald L. Parker wrote:
> On Sun, 03 Jan 1999 05:42:59 -0800, Ken <tyl### [at] pacbellnet> 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!)
Hmm, considering that no one is really sure how much time passed for
sure after Christ's birth until the year one and that the calendar
wasn't started for quite a number of years after his death anyway, who
is to say for sure that there wasn't a year zero. For that matter, who
is to say for sure that there were years 1 through whatever year the
calendar was started. So lets just say that the years 000 - 999 were
the millennium of years that didn't have a fourth column and that 1999
is the last of the millennium of years that started with a 1 in the
fourth column, and now we can confidently say that the year 2000 is
the beginning of the millennium of years that start with a 2 in the
fourth column. :)
George
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Julius Klatte wrote:
...
> Was good old Christ born in the year 0 or 1? And why wasn't
> he born on january the 1st?
...
> It would be much simpler to start counting the years
> from his birth on jan. 1st.
...
This is an incomplete response, but here goes: Christ wasn't born on January
first because months were around, more or less, before the Christian calendar.
The Romans had a calendar where the years were referred to by the tribunes in
power at the time (kinda like if we were to referr to 1998 as "the sixth year
of Clinton's time in office" or something like that). It's because of the
Romans that we get months with names like September, October, etc., which mean
'seventh month,' 'eighth month,' and so on. ...Yes, September is the ninth
month: when Julius Caesar came along, some 50 years before Christ, (whenever
that was), he noticed that there was some part of the calendar which wasn't
split into months like the rest of the year, so he created the month we know
of as "July", and because he wanted his month to be special, stole a day from
February so that July could have 31 days. After he was killed, the next
emperor, named Octavian, or Augustus Caesar (can you see where this is going?)
took the remaining 30 days and named it "August", and he too stole a day from
February for his month. (Augustus, by the way, is a Latin word for venerable,
majestic, or first -- so that the eighth month means first, and the ninth
month means seventh... oh well.)
-Mark R.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Julius Klatte <jku### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
: What does the christian religion say? (I don't know anything
: about religious stuff)
: Was good old Christ born in the year 0 or 1? And why wasn't
: he born on january the 1st?
1) There's no such a thing as "year 0". There is only year 1 BC and after
that year 1 AD.
2) The Gregorian calendar was created hundreds of years after Christ.
Some researches estimate that Christ was born several decades BC (I know
this statement may sound a bit silly :) ).
3) Carefully studying the Bible shows that Christ was very improbably
born in Dec 25, but more probably in the autumn (actually Dec 25 was the
birthday of the Sun god in the Roman religion).
--
main(i){char*_="BdsyFBThhHFBThhHFRz]NFTITQF|DJIFHQhhF";while(i=
*_++)for(;i>1;printf("%s",i-70?i&1?"[]":" ":(i=0,"\n")),i/=2);} /*- Warp. -*/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
