 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Well, I think it's about time to end this thread, I'm sorry I ever brought
up the 2001 thing... But, there is a lot of interesting information here, I
know I've learnt a lot of stuff in the past few days!!!
Oh, and thanks, you pointed out there was no year 0, which solves the issue
more or less (yeah yeah, apart from all the "christ wasn't born then" thing)
:-)
--
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 hate to tell you this, but you're still wrong. It would make no sense to
have a year 0 because the "first" year is 1st, meaning, you can't have a 0th
year... Otherwise the year wouldn't exist. 0 is just the point in time,
not a whole year.
So, when you were first born, were you instantly 1 year old? Or more to the
point, during your 1st year of life, were you still 0 years old? Of course
you weren't (well, at least I don't think so...). 0 is the point you were
born, and from there on you're in your 1st year of existance, so, if we
based a calendar on you, 0 would be the point at which you were born, and
the first year would be 1. So, 2000 years later, the 2000th year has to
finish completely before 2000 years have passed, otherwise it's like saying
that when you were born you were already one year old.
See?
Well, personally, I've had enough fun here and this thread is getting way
too long, so I'm shutting up now.
--
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:
>
> Well, I think it's about time to end this thread, I'm sorry I ever brought
> up the 2001 thing... But, there is a lot of interesting information here, I
> know I've learnt a lot of stuff in the past few days!!!
>
> Oh, and thanks, you pointed out there was no year 0, which solves the issue
> more or less (yeah yeah, apart from all the "christ wasn't born then" thing)
> :-)
...
and Lance Birch also wrote:
...
> Well, personally, I've had enough fun here and this thread is getting way
> too long, so I'm shutting up now.
...
Thanks -- I'm glad someone appreciated the irrelevant info.
Yes, it is getting long... it happens, strangely, to threads that don't have
much to do with POV-Ray.
-Mark R.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Ken wrote:
> 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.
One of my friends tested his old Amstrad 386 a while back for y2k compliancy, he
loaded the BIOS config program (a weird Amstrad way of working) and watched as it
turned from 1999->2000, a message popped up saying: 'I didn't expect to see you
here'. Those were the days.
Graham Redway.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nieminen Mika wrote:
>
> Julius Klatte <jku### [at] hotmail com> 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).
Sorry to prolong this thread so much, but I just saw this, and had to reply...
In Scandinavia (Sweden,Norge, Island, Denmark) there was a great party at the winter
solstice, and since the priest couldn't stand this, they also had to add a religious
holiday around the same time. This is one other reason to put the holiday at that
time.
//Spider
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
