 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>>1. The new millennium *technically* starts on 01/01/2001 ;-) I just had to say it!
hehe!<<
Are you taking in to account of the fact they hadn't been counting leap
years for quite some time?
Graham.
P.S. No need to reply, this could drag on for too long.
Lance Birch wrote:
>
> >"I think you should post this in povray.general or
> >povray.binaries.animations
> >because we are really only here for the Internet Movie Project and the
> >themes have already been decided for it.
> >
> >--
> >Lance Birch
> >Remove the smiley to e-mail.
> >http://www1.tpgi.com.au/users/ambient/lance"
> >
> >He was quickly corrected and apologized and all went on OK. I had another
> >skirmish with him later on, but all was quickly settled. I have actually
> had
> >several 'battles' here, but the people are wonderful, intelligent people
> and
> >know how to end disputes quickly and in a civilized manner. I like that. =)
>
> but I've learnt my lesson now. :) No hard feelings? (I will openly admit
> I'm very arrogant at times by the way, I'm just too young and naive I guess)
>
> In my little conclusionary statement to this whole thing (that seems to
> really be dragging out now):
>
> 1. The new millennium *technically* starts on 01/01/2001 ;-) I just had to
> say it! hehe!
> 2. Well it's nice to see that everyone's calmed down and got back to work.
> :)
> 3. Thanks to everyone here that has helped me out.
> 4. Thanks to the POV-Team for providing such a wonderful program and
> server!!!
> 5. I hope that in my time here so far I've been of some help to all you
> wonderful people!
>
> "Keep on tracing!"
>
> --
> Lance.
>
> ---
> For the latest 3D Studio MAX plug-ins, images and much more, go to:
> The Zone - http://come.to/the.zone
> For a totally different experience, visit my Chroma Key Website:
> Colorblind - http://listen.to/colorblind
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
No, all I was saying is that in our current date system, according to the
date it will start on 01/01/2001 not 01/01/2000 (because there was no year
0).
I'm not saying the actual date we're using is valid. After all some people
don't beleive in God and so that kinda wipes out the whole date structure
we've got anyway (starting from a point 0 I mean). And of those that do
beleive in Christ, some say now that the date is out a few years anyway etc
etc. And then there's the leap years. It goes on and on :)
My only point was that because everyone seems to run by the current date
system (even if it is out a few years, which it probably is), the new
millennium technically, by mathematics, starts on 01/01/2001. (and thus the
point about Y2K not being the new millennium and thus making the term
millennium bug wrong etc etc)
Anyway, this is way OT, I'm sorry I brought this up again. I should know by
now to keep my mouth shut!!! :)
Let's get back to raytracing!!! 8-)
--
Lance.
---
For the latest 3D Studio MAX plug-ins, images and much more, go to:
The Zone - http://come.to/the.zone
For a totally different experience, visit my Chroma Key Website:
Colorblind - http://listen.to/colorblind
GRedway wrote in message <37B30DCD.288B33BC@Totalise.co.uk>...
>>>1. The new millennium *technically* starts on 01/01/2001 ;-) I just had
to say it! hehe!<<
>
>Are you taking in to account of the fact they hadn't been counting leap
>years for quite some time?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Lance Birch wrote:
>
>
> No, all I was saying is that in our current date system, according to the
> date it will start on 01/01/2001 not 01/01/2000 (because there was no year
> 0).
Why would you need a year zero ? Going by the historical accounts the moment
that Christ was born would have been the first second of the first minute of
the first hour of the first day of year one. That is the only reference point
you need to validate the beginning of a period of time.
On a side note: The Romans had no mathmatical concept for the term zero.
--
Ken Tyler
See my 700+ Povray and 3D Rendering and Raytracing Links at:
http://home.pacbell.net/tylereng/index.html
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Why would you need a year zero ? Going by the historical accounts the
moment
EXACTLY!!! That's my EXACT point, there is no 0. It's just the beginning.
You're in the 1st year, not the 0th (o-th?) yeah.
So on the year marked 1, you're in the 1st year (and 1 year has gone by when
you reach the END of that year)
So on the year marked 100, you're in the 100th year (and 100 years have gone
by when you reach the END of that year)
So on the year marked 1000, you're in the 1000th year (and 1000 years have
gone by when you reach the END of that year)
So on the year marked 2000, you're in the 2000th year (and 2000 years have
gone by when you reach the ***END*** of that year)
So when you get to 01/01/2000, 2000 years have not passed until the year has
ended, thus 01/01/2001 is the completion of 2000 years and the start of the
new millennium :)
Did anyone follow that?
--
Lance.
>On a side note: The Romans had no mathmatical concept for the term zero.
Hmm... I always wondered why I couldn't write 0 in Roman Numerals.
---
For the latest 3D Studio MAX plug-ins, images and much more, go to:
The Zone - http://come.to/the.zone
For a totally different experience, visit my Chroma Key Website:
Colorblind - http://listen.to/colorblind
Ken wrote in message <37B3CC2E.67A1B966@pacbell.net>...
>
>
>Lance Birch wrote:
>>
>>
>> No, all I was saying is that in our current date system, according to the
>> date it will start on 01/01/2001 not 01/01/2000 (because there was no
year
>> 0).
>
> Why would you need a year zero ? Going by the historical accounts the
moment
>that Christ was born would have been the first second of the first minute
of
>the first hour of the first day of year one. That is the only reference
point
>you need to validate the beginning of a period of time.
>
>On a side note: The Romans had no mathmatical concept for the term zero.
>
>--
>Ken Tyler
>
>See my 700+ Povray and 3D Rendering and Raytracing Links at:
>http://home.pacbell.net/tylereng/index.html
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Ken <tyl### [at] pacbell net> wrote:
: Why would you need a year zero ?
If this millenium started at year 1000 and ends at year 1999, that would
mean that this millenium has 1000 years but the previous millenium had only
999 years (since it started from year 1, not year 0).
--
main(i,_){for(_?--i,main(i+2,"FhhQHFIJD|FQTITFN]zRFHhhTBFHhhTBFysdB"[i]
):5;i&&_>1;printf("%s",_-70?_&1?"[]":" ":(_=0,"\n")),_/=2);} /*- Warp -*/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> If this millenium started at year 1000 and ends at year 1999, that would
>mean that this millenium has 1000 years but the previous millenium had only
>999 years (since it started from year 1, not year 0).
But it DOES start at 1, that's the point of this.
>1000 and ends at year 1999
That's incorrect, that means it has 999 years.
That's why the current millennium ends at the END of the year 2000 and the
new millennium starts at the start of the year 2001.
If you don't get it, explain to me this, if the first year is 1, which is
what you're suggesting, when you HIT the year 10, have you experience 10
years? I think not... you must complete year 10 before you have had 10 full
years.
Get it?
--
Lance.
---
For the latest 3D Studio MAX plug-ins, images and much more, go to:
The Zone - http://come.to/the.zone
For a totally different experience, visit my Chroma Key Website:
Colorblind - http://listen.to/colorblind
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>Get it?
I can draw a diagram if you want... It might explain it better.
--
Lance.
---
For the latest 3D Studio MAX plug-ins, images and much more, go to:
The Zone - http://come.to/the.zone
For a totally different experience, visit my Chroma Key Website:
Colorblind - http://listen.to/colorblind
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Lance Birch <lan### [at] usanet> wrote:
:>1000 and ends at year 1999
: That's incorrect, that means it has 999 years.
Nope.
If it starts at year 1000, then the year 1000 is the first year, year 1001
is the second year, 1002 is the third year, ..., year 1999 is the 1000th year.
If we count from the beginning of year 1000 to the end of year 1999 that's
full 1000 years.
However, if we count from the beginning of year 1 to the end of year 999,
that's 999 years.
Since a millenium is by definition 1000 years and not 999, that means that
the first millenium is from the beginning of year 1 to the end of year 1000;
the second millenium is from the beginning of year 1001 to the end of year
2000; the third millenium is from the beginning of year 2001 to the end of
year 3000. And so on.
--
main(i,_){for(_?--i,main(i+2,"FhhQHFIJD|FQTITFN]zRFHhhTBFHhhTBFysdB"[i]
):5;i&&_>1;printf("%s",_-70?_&1?"[]":" ":(_=0,"\n")),_/=2);} /*- Warp -*/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nieminen Mika wrote in message <37b40be5@news.povray.org>...
>Lance Birch <lan### [at] usanet> wrote:
>:>1000 and ends at year 1999
>
>: That's incorrect, that means it has 999 years.
>
> Nope.
Get your quotes correct please, I was quoting you!!! LOL
In the last message you posted (which I'm now replying to) you're in total
agreence with what I've been saying! But in the one before that you said
that it was the oppossite! (I think that's what you meant anyway, sorry if
I'm wrong in my interpretation of what you wrote)
In any case, the points I was making were:
1. There is no year 0, the first year was year 1.
2. The new millennium STARTS IN THE YEAR ***2001***!!! ***NOT 2000***!!!
Right? That's what you were saying wasn't it Nieminen? (I just got
confused about what you meant I think, sorry about that, if you mean
something else please tell me)
--
Lance.
---
For the latest 3D Studio MAX plug-ins, images and much more, go to:
The Zone - http://come.to/the.zone
For a totally different experience, visit my Chroma Key Website:
Colorblind - http://listen.to/colorblind
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Lance Birch <lan### [at] usanet> wrote in message
news:37b3c7bb@news.povray.org...
>
> No, all I was saying is that in our current date system, according to the
> date it will start on 01/01/2001 not 01/01/2000 (because there was no year
> 0).
>
I don't really think there are many who don't get this concept... there
are some who argue over whether it is important. The big party is going to
be at the end of 1999. That will certainly be 1000 years (or a reasonable
facilities thereof) since the last big party. That one was certainly on the
wrong date (a year early, but talk to -them- about that) but ours will be
reasonably correct (ie: one millennium later).
Of course on 12/31/200 a few disgruntled die-hards (who didn't go to
the -big- party) will put on pointed hats, hoist a glass of imported Ginger
Beer and mutter about the failure of the school system to teach the basics
of mathematics... 8-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
