Here's a logo I made in POV-Ray for my new web page...
(http://meltingpot.fortunecity.com/israel/351)
I've decided to start a crusade to remind everyone in the world that the
year 2000 does not signify the start of the new millennium.  The new
millenium doesn't start until January 1, 2001.  This millennium ends
December 31, 2000.

I used Chris Colefax's "galaxy.ing" and "lens.inc".  I've used his bend and
explode includes before but this is my first time using these particular
include files.  I was really pleased with the results.  What do you all
think?

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'millennium.jpg' (106 KB)

Preview of image 'millennium.jpg'

You might want to remove the reflected stars in the font, seems to make
it messy. Unless you were to heavily reflect the space in it, then maybe
go that way?
Yeah, I know, it really is 2001 not 2000, due to the simple fact no year
zero exists in the current Gregorian calendar; starts at 1, then 1001,
2001, 3001....
Try and convince the masses of it though. Forget it. Get your new years
party hat ready this year proclaiming the new millenium or your going to
be an oddball.

Dave Helfrich wrote:
> 
> Here's a logo I made in POV-Ray for my new web page...
> (http://meltingpot.fortunecity.com/israel/351)
> I've decided to start a crusade to remind everyone in the world that the
> year 2000 does not signify the start of the new millennium.  The new
> millenium doesn't start until January 1, 2001.  This millennium ends
> December 31, 2000.
> 
> I used Chris Colefax's "galaxy.ing" and "lens.inc".  I've used his bend and
> explode includes before but this is my first time using these particular
> include files.  I was really pleased with the results.  What do you all
> think?
> 
>  [Image]

-- 
 omniVERSE: beyond the universe
  http://members.aol.com/inversez/POVring.htm
 mailto:inv### [at] aolcom?PoV

Post a reply to this message

Dave Helfrich wrote in message <36e228a1.0@news.povray.org>...
[snip]
>What do you all think?
>


I think that you are technically correct, but if you seriously consider
"starting a crusade" about this, I also think that you have way too much
time on your hands!
Why not stick some aluminum-foil into your hat and walk to the nearest
police-office complaining about the "martians trying to steal your brain?"
There you will get as much positive response as you will get for your
"crusade" - or maybe more ;-)
Why don't you face it: People don't care about some technicallity, they are
simply looking for a good excuse to party, and the neat change of the fourth
(from the right) digit in our year-number is as good an excuse as any, in
any case a better one than celebrating the end of the 2000th year after the
birth of a certain jewish preacher (in my eyes, that is) - a date that was
quite arbitrarily decided on anyway. So if you want your crusade to be
something real good, why don't you find out when Jesus was *really* born (I
mean *exactly*) and then try to convince people that the new millenium
actually starts on January 18th, 2004 (or was it November 12th, 1998 and we
all missed it, or... 8-0 )

So long,
Johannes.

Post a reply to this message

Johannes Hubert wrote:
> 
> Dave Helfrich wrote in message <36e228a1.0@news.povray.org>...
> [snip]
> >What do you all think?

< snipped a bunch of the good stuff >

 and then try to convince people that the new millenium
> actually starts on January 18th, 2004 (or was it November 12th, 1998 and we
> all missed it, or... 8-0 )
> 
> So long,
> Johannes.

  Regardless of the technicalities (if they even have a basis in fact) when
the date changes one more time to January 1, 2000 years of human history
will have passed and that is a miracle unto itself. Rationalization enough
to warrant the celebration. Come to think of it 2000 years of human history
just passed while I was composing this message. It's party time right now.

-- 
Ken Tyler

mailto://tylereng@pacbell.net

Post a reply to this message

Ken wrote:
>> Regardless of the technicalities (if they even have a basis in fact) when
>> the date changes one more time to January 1, 2000 years of human history
>> will have passed...

  We've already got more than two thousand years of human history under our
belts, Ken. The clock started tickin' before the year 0 A.D.

  I hear that there may be a severe shortage of champagne on the store
shelves come the New Year. I guess I'll add a couple of bottles to my Y2K
stockpile of canned goods. I've also noticed that Price Club/Costco has a
huge supply of Coleman stoves, the two-burner type, normally used for
camping. Maybe I'll pick one of those babies up, too. Not that I'm expecting
a year-end catastrophe, mind you - I would've needed these items in the
future, anyway <s>.

- Alan
-----------------------------------------------------------------
"Judge me by my size, do you? As well you should not, for my ally
is the Force. And a powerful ally it is..."   - Yoda, Jedi master
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Post a reply to this message

What's to celebrate? It's all a load of nonsense.

-----------
Andy

Post a reply to this message

Andrew Cocker wrote:
> 
> What's to celebrate? It's all a load of nonsense.
> 
> -----------
> Andy

 It's human nature to do so. You can't take that away from us.

-- 
Ken Tyler

mailto://tylereng@pacbell.net

Post a reply to this message

Ken wrote in message <36E### [at] pacbellnet>...

> It's human nature to do so. You can't take that away from us.


Well then, I guess I'm inhuman. And I don't think that the human race has got a great
deal
to be proud of, except it's ability to paper over the cracks. Seriously though, I
realise
I have a particularly warped view when compared to that of the masses, but Y2K is
really
just another day like any other. Being totally non-religious also, I can't celebrate
for
those reasons either. Please don't think I begrudge anyone the right to have a good
time
and rejoice in being alive. You just dont need an excuse to do so.

Hope that cheered you all up.
------------
Andy

Post a reply to this message

Andrew Cocker wrote:
> Hope that cheered you all up.
> ------------
> Andy
 
 All is sunny and unruffled with me.

-- 
Ken Tyler

mailto://tylereng@pacbell.net

Post a reply to this message

Umm... there is no year 0 A.D. ;]
Reason the year 2001 is actually 2000 years since year 1. And no, second
1 of minute 1 of hour 1 of day 1 of year 1 does not have a whole zero
year hiding in there somewhere. Goes immediately to year 1 B.C.
according to Greg. Let's blame him if anyone.
You do realize that zeroes weren't even in use in the ancient
civilization, right? Invented by mathematicians I believe. Okay, let's
blame them instead.
Oh, and Happy New Year 2000! just in case I miss it later.


Alan Kong wrote:
> 
>   We've already got more than two thousand years of human history under our
> belts, Ken. The clock started tickin' before the year 0 A.D.
> 

-- 
 omniVERSE: beyond the universe
  http://members.aol.com/inversez/POVring.htm
 mailto:inv### [at] aolcom?PoV

Post a reply to this message

It's amazing that we still hold on to so many pagan celebrations. But, then
too, I enjoy them all! :)

Explain to me again, what bunnies have to do with Easter? :)

The partiers up on campus (from when I was in school) all went into
advertising, so let's blame it all on their literacy! heh

GrimDude
vos### [at] arkansasnet

Post a reply to this message

Didn't the ?Roman's? add in days to the calendar along the way when it
started to get abit out of whack(and didn't someone add in a whole month
somewhere along the line?) ? So isn't the whole idea of counting out exactly
2000 years somewhat flawed to start with? I'm sure I read somewhere that if
you take into account for the extra days etc that have been added in there's
about six years difference...

Stephen & Tara
ste### [at] lexiconnetnospam
"All that glitters has a high refractive index."



Bob Hughes wrote in message <36E32879.8E78F7AB@aol.com>...
>Umm... there is no year 0 A.D. ;]
>Reason the year 2001 is actually 2000 years since year 1. And no, second
>1 of minute 1 of hour 1 of day 1 of year 1 does not have a whole zero
>year hiding in there somewhere. Goes immediately to year 1 B.C.
>according to Greg. Let's blame him if anyone.
>You do realize that zeroes weren't even in use in the ancient
>civilization, right? Invented by mathematicians I believe. Okay, let's
>blame them instead.
>Oh, and Happy New Year 2000! just in case I miss it later.
>
>
>Alan Kong wrote:
>>
>>   We've already got more than two thousand years of human history under
our
>> belts, Ken. The clock started tickin' before the year 0 A.D.
>>
>
>--
> omniVERSE: beyond the universe
>  http://members.aol.com/inversez/POVring.htm
> mailto:inv### [at] aolcom?PoV

Post a reply to this message

GrimDude wrote in message <36e36363.0@news.povray.org>...
>It's amazing that we still hold on to so many pagan celebrations. But, then
>too, I enjoy them all! :)
>
>Explain to me again, what bunnies have to do with Easter? :)
>


Easter == christian replacement of old pagan "beginning of the year/coming
of spring" celebrations, everything becomes fertile again -> bunny ==
fertility symbol (same goes for eggs), tadaa!


oh hell, you most probably knew that and in answering I just showed myself
as the tongue-in-the-cheek type, so:


[COMMAND: delete previous message from memory]
[PROCESSING................... brz!]


:-)

Joh.

Post a reply to this message

Andrew Cocker wrote in message <36e304dc.0@news.povray.org>...
>
>Ken wrote in message <36E### [at] pacbellnet>...
>
>> It's human nature to do so. You can't take that away from us.
>
>
>Well then, I guess I'm inhuman. And I don't think that the human race has
got a great deal
>to be proud of, except it's ability to paper over the cracks. Seriously
though, I realise
>I have a particularly warped view when compared to that of the masses, but
Y2K is really
>just another day like any other. Being totally non-religious also, I can't
celebrate for
>those reasons either. Please don't think I begrudge anyone the right to
have a good time
>and rejoice in being alive. You just dont need an excuse to do so.
>


I agree that you don't need an excuse to party, rejoice, whatever.
The thing is: To do so, you need a certain state of mind (ever felt like
partying while standing in the rain, waiting for the bus at 7:00 am? hmmm,
probably, if you just spotted your new girlfriend coming your way ;-)
And for most people it is a lot easier to reach that "party-state" together
with many others: If everyone is in a festive mood, it's just simpler to
join.
And: For most people it is also a lot more fun to party together with as
many others as possible. The 2000-shift is just a very convenient signal to
coordinate the partying all over the globe :-)

Johannes.

Post a reply to this message

Stephen Brooker wrote in message <36e36973.0@news.povray.org>...
>Didn't the ?Roman's? add in days to the calendar along the way when it
>started to get abit out of whack

Yep, Julius Caesar (-> Julian Calendar)

(and didn't someone add in a whole month
>somewhere along the line?)

Yep, Pope Gregor (-> Gergorian Calendar)

>So isn't the whole idea of counting out exactly
>2000 years somewhat flawed to start with?

Nope, because:

The year is defined as the time the earth needs to complete one circle
around the sun (nowadays it is a bit more complicated though ;-)
It is *not* defined as being 365 days long (or whatever number).
The additional days were added for exactly this reason, because the time
around the sun is not 365 days but 365-point-something (go look it up
yourself ;-)

So, given that Jesus was really born on Dec. 24th, 1 A.D., and given that
the number of days added by first the Julian Calendar and then the Gergorian
Calendar was exact, then at New Year 2000, exactly 1999 years A.D. will have
passed: That means: 1999 complete circles of the earth around the sun, which
is not 1999*365 days, but 1999*365-point-something days.

Johannes.

Post a reply to this message

Johannes Hubert wrote in message <36e3a732.0@news.povray.org>...
>Stephen Brooker wrote in message <36e36973.0@news.povray.org>...
>>Didn't the ?Roman's? add in days to the calendar along the way when it
>>started to get abit out of whack
>
>Yep, Julius Caesar (-> Julian Calendar)
>

Accumulating inaccuracies of the Julian calendar meant that by 1582 the
vernal equinox was actually occuring on March 11.

>(and didn't someone add in a whole month
>>somewhere along the line?)
>
>Yep, Pope Gregor (-> Gergorian Calendar)
>


Yes, on October 4, 1582, Pope Gregory XIII ordained that the next day would
be October 15th. American colonists steadfastly refused to go along, simply
because the reform had come from Rome. Well, scholars and politicians got
together in 1752 and considered it time for the colonies to catch up. So,
when George Washington was just a wee lad, his birthday moved from February
11, 1731 (Old Calendar) to February 22, 1732 (New Calendar).

>>So isn't the whole idea of counting out exactly
>>2000 years somewhat flawed to start with?
>
>Nope, because:
>
>The year is defined as the time the earth needs to complete one circle
>around the sun (nowadays it is a bit more complicated though ;-)
>It is *not* defined as being 365 days long (or whatever number).
>The additional days were added for exactly this reason, because the time
>around the sun is not 365 days but 365-point-something (go look it up
>yourself ;-)
>

I think it is cyclical, and changes over time, so that the period of measure
would determine the result? I know that the orbital path changes in
dimension as a function of time, due to gyroscopic precession. Supposedly,
every 11,500 years the earth will experience severe weather imbalances and
mass extinctions. PANIC! :)

Please keep that out of the media (heh).

Well, these two points of change (Julian and Gregorian) do not begin to
describe the numerous corrections of the calendar overall. Regardless how
you look a it, the date of 'the birth' is best guess only. Even Eastern
Orthodox today still disagree with Rome, and have held onto the Julian
calendar. So, not even all Christians agree upon the date.

Unfortunately, the same can be said for Passover, which was purposely
'redefined' by Rome to fall always on a Sunday. Traditionally, the Jewish
method was to follow the lunar calendar, which gave no such assurance. The
passover was generally determined by calculations of the Jewish high council
known as "Sanhedrin."

And which day is it, precisely, that is the seventh day? :)

I say we party both years of the 'New Miliienium.'

The purpose of this post is intended as motivation/inspiration to the
calendar/clock themes so prevalent in 'images.binaries' these days. If
someone finds a way to tie all of these details into a single scene, I would
like to see it. ;)

GrimDude
vos### [at] arkansasnet

Post a reply to this message

Arrgg...

You just let worms out again :-(((


Dave Helfrich wrote:
> 
> Here's a logo I made in POV-Ray for my new web page...
> (http://meltingpot.fortunecity.com/israel/351)
> I've decided to start a crusade to remind everyone in the world that the
> year 2000 does not signify the start of the new millennium.  The new
> millenium doesn't start until January 1, 2001.  This millennium ends
> December 31, 2000.

Arrgg...
You just let worms out again :-(((

Please don't start again discussion about it! Don't You have enough from
povray.general thread "Happy Newyear"?

Post a reply to this message

Well, I guess I can happily say I learnt something new today :)...



Stephen Brooker
ste### [at] lexiconnetnospam

Post a reply to this message

>Arrgg...
>You just let worms out again :-(((
>
>Please don't start again discussion about it! Don't You have enough from
>povray.general thread "Happy Newyear"?

What worms?

Should I be ashamed of the fact that I don't read povray.general very much?
No I didn't see the thread.  Maybe I should go look?

Dave

Post a reply to this message

Dave Helfrich wrote:
> 
> >Arrgg...
> >You just let worms out again :-(((
> >
> >Please don't start again discussion about it! Don't You have enough from
> >povray.general thread "Happy Newyear"?
> 
> What worms?
>
> Should I be ashamed of the fact that I don't read povray.general very much?
> No I didn't see the thread.  Maybe I should go look?
> 
> Dave
Sorry, nothing personal, this prayer was addressed to whole group(I
should have written you instead of You, if You understand, what I mean).
I'd like to see more discussion about pictures, discussion about Y2K
seems to be quite OT.
Sorry again, if You feel offended, seems like I had tough day, when I
wrote it.

Post a reply to this message

I would like to add a little something to a thread, which, from my point of
view, is not in the right place :

To think that 01/01/2000 is a particular date (or 01/01/2001 or whatever),
you have to believe in Christ
you have to believe he was born on a particular date aso

but you also have to believe in the decimal system, personally i will party
all the night on the 0x1st January of the year 0x1000 (the hexadecimal
system is the one I prefer), and you're all invited, the drinks will be on
me!

Philippe

(sorry for my loosy english)

Post a reply to this message

Ph Gibone wrote in message <36e5714e.0@news.povray.org>...
>
>but you also have to believe in the decimal system, personally i will party
>all the night on the 0x1st January of the year 0x1000 (the hexadecimal
>system is the one I prefer)

I guess it all boils down to the number of fingers one possesses.
Binary, anyone?

Margus

Post a reply to this message

>I guess it all boils down to the number of fingers one possesses.
>
>Margus
>

In my particular case : you're right !

Philippe

Post a reply to this message

Ph Gibone wrote in message <36e5714e.0@news.povray.org>...
[snip]
>you're all invited, the drinks will be on me!


Easy for you to say, since you know quite well that none of us will be
around on 0x1000 A.D. (if medicine doesn't make some real progress *really*
soon)...
How about given a party at 0x0800 A.D. instead? Then at least some of us
would have a chance of attending...

Johannes.

Post a reply to this message

Johannes Hubert a écrit dans le message <36e7a5fc.0@news.povray.org>...
>Ph Gibone wrote in message <36e5714e.0@news.povray.org>...
>[snip]
>>you're all invited, the drinks will be on me!
>
>
>Easy for you to say, since you know quite well that none of us will be
>around on 0x1000 A.D. (if medicine doesn't make some real progress *really*
>soon)...
>How about given a party at 0x0800 A.D. instead? Then at least some of us
>would have a chance of attending...
>
>Johannes.
>


No problem Johannes,

Just keep the last dance for me (I'll be 98, and starting my third teen
crisis !), at that very moment nobody would mind two men dancing together (I
hope)

Philippe

Post a reply to this message