 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Hi everybody,
I wanted to make a nice "happy-newyear"-image and post in binaries.images,
but I didn't have enough time. You'll have to do without an image (maybe
next year ;-).
Anyway:
HAPPY NEWYEAR to everyone (well, actually it's 33 minutes to early here, but
that's just a detail ;-)
ZK
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Actually, I was just watching the new-year's fireworks :)
A happy New Year to y'all!!!
Margus
Hendrik Knaepen wrote:
>
> HAPPY NEWYEAR to everyone (well, actually it's 33 minutes to early here, but
> that's just a detail ;-)
>
> ZK
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Hendrik Knaepen wrote:
>
> I wanted to make a nice "happy-newyear"-image and post in binaries.images,
> but I didn't have enough time....
Much more time to make something really amazing for 2000!
Hey, that would make a nice little contest - images for "Happy Year
2000", the deadline of course being 1999 Dec 31.
--
Daren Scot Wilson
dar### [at] pipeline com
www.newcolor.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Why 2000? It's not the start of the new millennium... You should make it
for 2001, so the deadline will be 2000 Dec 31.
Let's all get this right this time, the new millennium DOES NOT start on the
year 2000!!! It starts on the year 2001, 2000 is the last year of the
current millennium not the first year of the new one. If the world gets
this wrong, we'll be the first generation of people in history to short
change time by a year...
Or did you mean Happy Year 2000 as being the last year of the current
millennium, so that's why we should celebrate it?
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
You realize of course your quest for correctness is doomed to failure.
I cannot imagine that anyone will care about that technicality when 2000
rolls around. The symmetry of the number makes it too good to pass
up... oh well...
Steve
Lance Birch wrote:
>
> Why 2000? It's not the start of the new millennium... You should make it
> for 2001, so the deadline will be 2000 Dec 31.
>
> Let's all get this right this time, the new millennium DOES NOT start on the
> year 2000!!! It starts on the year 2001, 2000 is the last year of the
> current millennium not the first year of the new one. If the world gets
> this wrong, we'll be the first generation of people in history to short
> change time by a year...
>
> Or did you mean Happy Year 2000 as being the last year of the current
> millennium, so that's why we should celebrate it?
>
> --
> 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Yeah, I know, but hey, it was worth a try wasn't it? :-)
The so called "millennium" bug (Y2K) doesn't help my cause either...
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 3 Jan 1999 09:52:09 +1000, "Lance Birch"
<zon### [at] satcomnetau> wrote:
>Why 2000? It's not the start of the new millennium... You should make it
>for 2001, so the deadline will be 2000 Dec 31.
>
>Let's all get this right this time, the new millennium DOES NOT start on the
>year 2000!!! It starts on the year 2001, 2000 is the last year of the
>current millennium not the first year of the new one.
Hear, hear! But you know, nobody will listen to reason on this, so I
propose that we join the rest of the mathematically challenged in
celebrating 2000, then have a big millenium bash a year later for
2001. That way everybody wins, twice.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I have a feeling the first party may be more fun.. just a hunch:)
Steve
"Ronald L. Parker" wrote:
>
> On Sun, 3 Jan 1999 09:52:09 +1000, "Lance Birch"
> <zon### [at] satcomnetau> wrote:
>
> >Why 2000? It's not the start of the new millennium... You should make it
> >for 2001, so the deadline will be 2000 Dec 31.
> >
> >Let's all get this right this time, the new millennium DOES NOT start on the
> >year 2000!!! It starts on the year 2001, 2000 is the last year of the
> >current millennium not the first year of the new one.
>
> Hear, hear! But you know, nobody will listen to reason on this, so I
> propose that we join the rest of the mathematically challenged in
> celebrating 2000, then have a big millenium bash a year later for
> 2001. That way everybody wins, twice.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I'm staring a bit of a campaign about the whole thing now. I've written to
Seiko and complained about their misinformation on the subject... (they have
a "millennium" counter that counts to 2000).
I think that the Olympic Committee made a big mistake saying that the 2000
Sydney Olympics were the first of the new millennium! Gee, you'd think
they'd get it right!
Oh well, two parties 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Lance Birch wrote:
> I'm staring a bit of a campaign about the whole thing now. I've written to
> Seiko and complained about their misinformation on the subject... (they have
> a "millennium" counter that counts to 2000).
>
> I think that the Olympic Committee made a big mistake saying that the 2000
> Sydney Olympics were the first of the new millennium! Gee, you'd think
> they'd get it right!
>
> Oh well, two parties it is... :)
>
> --
> Lance.
>
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.
--
Ken Tyler
tyl### [at] pacbellnet
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>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.
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...
--
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 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.
>
> 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...
>
> --
> Lance.
I'm not confused sonny boy. I said 2000 years will have passed
regardless of the starting point. Got ya !
--
Ken Tyler
tyl### [at] pacbellnet
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Dan Connelly wrote:
> 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
:)
Boy I hope Pov is Y2K compliant.
--
Ken Tyler
tyl### [at] pacbellnet
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Ok ok, but I'm sick of everyone else saying that the year 2000 is the
starting point for the second millennium AD.
(oh, and the century too)
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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] 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!)
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Good idea.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>Apples are neon blue in color.
Well, I'll admit I didn't expect that as a response...
--
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:
> >Apples are neon blue in color.
>
> Well, I'll admit I didn't expect that as a response...
>
> --
> Lance.
I was just testing you to see if you are naturaly argumentative
or if this is just a pet peev. <grinnnnn>
--
Ken Tyler
tyl### [at] pacbellnet
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Just a pet peev :)
--
Lance.
---
For the latest MAX plug-ins, images and much more, go to:
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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.
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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] 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).
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
