dave@viper.Lynx.MN.Org (David Messer) (12/18/89)
In article <1642.258926e7@cc.helsinki.fi> sundius@cc.helsinki.fi writes: >In article <48@kiere.ericsson.se>, tp_asr@kiere.ericsson.se writes: >> When (western civilisation) enters the next millenium why not celebrate > --------- >> with the BIGGEST fireworks ever. In the last hour of 1999 all MX:s, > > According to what I have read, the coming of the next millenium should > be celebrated towards the end of the year 2000, since there was no year > 0 according to our calendar ... Thus it would more appropriate > to postpone the celebration until new year's eve 2000, but I wonder if > anybody (except for chronology fans) have thought of it? I vote we celebrate BOTH new years. That way we don't have to worry about it. -- Remember Tiananmen Square. | David Messer dave@Lynx.MN.Org -or- | Lynx Data Systems ...!bungia!viper!dave
shafer@elxsi.dfrf.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer (OFV)) (12/19/89)
In article <5974@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> acu@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Floyd McWilliams) writes: In article <3959@convex.UUCP> dodson@convex.COM (Dave Dodson) writes: >this millenium ends at the end of December in the year 2000... >Hint: There was no year 0, so the first millenium was year 1 _through_ year >1000, the second from 1001 through 2000, and the third from 2001 through 3000. Nope. The first millenium was year 1 through 999. The second millenium is 1000 through 1999. The trick is, the first millenium got shafted out of a year. It's not very fair, of course, and anybody who was around during the first millenium is invited to sue The Calendar People at the court of law most convenient for them. Actually, since a millenium is a thousand years, one ended last night at midnight, too. How are you defining _this_ millenium? I define it as 1000 to 1999, personally. -- Mary Shafer shafer@skipper.dfrf.nasa.gov or ames!skipper.dfrf.nasa.gov!shafer NASA Ames Dryden Flight Research Facility, Edwards, CA Of course I don't speak for NASA
michaelb@wshb.UUCP ( WSHB employee) (12/20/89)
In article <5805@cps3xx.UUCP>, usenet@cps3xx.UUCP (Usenet file owner) writes: > The decade from 1 AD to 9 AD was defective, as it was only 9 years long. > For the past year I have been trying to teach my five year old daughter to start counting at zero, not one. My wife and her teachers think I'm nuts. -- Michael Batchelor -- Systems/Operations Engineer WSHB - An International Broadcast Station of The Christian Science Monitor Syndicate, Inc. uunet!wshb!michaelb 803/625-4880
sm5y+@andrew.cmu.edu (Samuel Antonio Minter) (12/20/89)
1988:11:19:03:07 SFT
The real problem, as several have mentioned before is that we are
confusing two different ways of counting when we say that it is 1989. The
original usage would be that this is the one thousand nine hundred eighty-ninth
year Anno Domini (sp?) not that 1,989 years have elapsed since we started
counting. When we say it is 1:17 we mean that 17 minutes have elapsed since
the beginning of the hour. Similarly almost all of our modern measuring
systems start at 0. A stick is a meter and a half long, we do not refer to
the end being at the end of end of the 50th centimeter in the second meter.
Time keeping seems to be one of the few areas where this is not the convention
thus the confusion. If you are not using 24 hour time the way we represent
hours is *very* strange: AM or PM indicates which half of the day you are
currently in, not what has been completed. Also 2 minutes after noon is
conventionally considered to be PM, meaning that the first hour of PM is not
labeled 0 or 1, but 12!!! Then the rest of the hours refer to how many
hours have passed since it changed from AM to PM. Not to mention the
continuing contriversy of which of noon and midnight is 12 AM and which 12 PM.
Twenty four hour notation solves these problems and puts hours on the same
0 starting system as minutes, seconds, and practically every other measuring
system. Moving on to larger time units: We start our months with the 1st
day of the month and we refer to it as such on occation but for the most part
we ignore that when writing dates. Its Jan 1, not the first day of January.
Once again we are opening the doors to confuse the two systems. Similarly
when we number dates the 1st month is January the 2nd Febuary, etc. But
yet once again we just write 1, 2, 3 ... This along with the fact that
we also number years this way means we get dates like 1989-12-20 (or
12-20-1989 or 20-12-1989 for those who prefer those orders) These
type of numerically written dates lead us to the false conclution that
we can read and interpret dates the same way we can read and interpret times
on our digital watches. That is 3:32 means 3 hours and 32 minutes have
passed since the begining of the day (assumming AM or 24 hour) so 12-20-1989
must mean that 1989 years 12 months and 20 days have passed since whenever
the counting was started. Most of us (hopefully) have enough everyday
experiance with the passing of days and months to know that if the date is
1-1-1990, one day and one month have not already passed, but the case
becomes ambiguous when we refer to the year. This type of confusion is
entirely due to the conflict of the two systems of measuring things. The
first is the older one, dealing with discreete units of time that are
seperated and counted as one would count apples. Years, months, and days
are counted as 1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc. instead of measured (xxxx years have
elapsed) because that is how we incounter them in daily life. We treat each
day as a seperate identity, independant of the days around it. We want a
way to identify IT as an entity as seperate from those around it. Very few
of us care how many days have elapsed since the begining of the month, we
only need to know what day our appointment with Mr. Jones is. Hours and
smaller units of time are not encountered as discreetely as days and longer
units are. Since these time periods are so short they seem to slide right
into each other. There is nothing like a period of sleep to psycologically
seperate hours from each other. Because of this all these smaller units are
psycologically ameniable (sp?) to being treated in the same way as we measure
things...amount elapsed since the start.
So we have two seperate systems for indicating time. Each adapted to
its use. The new century and millenium do begin at the midnight between
Dec. 31, 2000 and Jan 1, 2001, but as many people have pointed out it won't
matter one bit. The distinction between the two systems has been blurred
since before we started abbriveiating "the one thousand nine hundred eighty-
ninth year of our lord as 1989 AD. (This also leads to the mistaken assumption
that AD and BC are like positive and negitive with a zero in between.) The
significant event to the masses is that good 'ol 2 rolling over. The actual
passing of the millenia is something that those of us who care can remember,
or perhaps a comment during the the New Year's Celebration Telecasts from
times square in either 2000 or 2001, but is really not something which will
have too much significance. The year is simply not psycologically identified
with a measure of how many years, decades, or whatever have passed ... it
is simply a label to identify when you are talking about. And on Jan 1, 2000
*EVERYONE* (and I think I can say that truthfully) will have to do something
they have never done before. Not put 19 at the beginning of years on forms,
letters, etc. That is the event which will be celebrated.
It is important to *KNOW* though that those agonizing that the millenia
starts at 2001 and not 2000 are RIGHT. The statement that the year 2000
will be in the 21st century because the 1st century only had 999 years is
simply wrong. No one forgot a year or anything of that sort. There
is simply a discrepency between how we write years and dates (1989) and
the origin of that number (the one thousand .....th year AD.) and how
different people interpret dates. Many of us math/science people tend to
like everything to be like a measurement, a system we are very familiar with.
Too bad. The way society writes the date is simply not that way.
I, being the revisionist that I am, write the time and date like
yyyy:mm:dd:hh:mm, subtracting 1 from year, month, and day to make those
more like measurements. Of course very few people understand what I mean
when I say it is 1988:11:19:04:14 SFT. I only regret it is too inconvienient
to put everything in base 10 using only seconds. Imagine talking about
86.4 ks (kilo-seconds) instead of a day!! We could base our "daily" routine
on a 100 ks cycle and get that 27 hour day we all need to get things done!!
Oh well, I guess if I cand get anyone to celebrate on Jan 1 2001 I'll never
succeed in getting people to measure time in seconds past some standard.
Darn!!! I guess I'll stick with SFT for myself. Bye.
1988:11:19:04:20 SFT
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~ |\ You have just read a message from Abulsme Noibatno Itramne! ~
~ | \ ~
~ | /\ E-Mail@CMU: sm5y+@andrew.cmu.edu <Fixed Width Fonts!> ~
~ |/ \ S-Mail@CMU: Sam Minter First the person ~
~ |\ /| 4730 Centre Ave., #102 next ~
~ | \/ | Pittsburgh, PA 15213 the function!! ~
~ | / | ~
~ |/ | <-----An approximation of the Abulsme symbol ~
~ ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~deg@druwy.ATT.COM (Donald E. Gillespie) (12/20/89)
In article <3959@convex.UUCP>, dodson@mozart.uucp (Dave Dodson) writes: > One obvious problem is that this millenium ends at the end of December in > the year 2000 and the next millenium begins at the beginning of January > in the year 2001. If you carried out your plan as above, you would be > celebrating one year early. Damn scientists. Looks like you'll be one year too late for the party! -- Don Gillespie att!druwy!deg
dancey@milton.acs.washington.edu (Mikel Stromberg) (12/21/89)
You are right that a millenium ends every year, but the CENTURY ends with the final second of the 00 year. See, we're in the 20th century, derived from the year 2000, the final year of this century. Thus, Jan 1, 2001, will be the first year of the 21st Century, and also the 3rd Millenia.
wiml@blake.acs.washington.edu (William Lewis) (12/22/89)
In article <2925@munnari.oz.au> dnk@munmurra.UUCP (David Kinny) writes: >Again the same stupid claims are being advanced that the end of the >century/millenium is at the end of the year 2000. This is ludicrous ! [...] >that differ only in the last 1/2/3 digits. I know when I'll be >celebrating the New Year's Eve party of the millenium. Hands up all >those clods who are going to be a year late. Well, there is an obvious solution to this. I'm going to be celebrating on the boundary between this millennium and the next... to avoid confusion, I will get the best of both worlds, and simply celebrate all year long in the year 2000. A little impractical, perhaps, but... hmmm... --- phelliax the celebrant -- wiml@blake.acs.washington.edu (206)526-5885 Seattle, Washington