daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) (12/31/89)
Wow! I just noticed that it's the last day of both the year and the
decade. So I figured it would be a good time to wish everyone out
there a Happy One. Hope you get what you want for the next year,
whether safety, danger, or possibly even a simple rest.
-Dave
--
Dave Haynie Commodore-Amiga (Systems Engineering) "The Crew That Never Rests"
{uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!daveh PLINK: hazy BIX: hazy
Too much of everything is just enoughbralick@cs.psu.edu (Will Bralick) (01/01/90)
In article <9178@cbmvax.commodore.com> daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) writes: >Wow! I just noticed that it's the last day of both the year and the >decade. I hate to contradict anyone :-), especially Dave, but ... Much to the chagrin of C programmers everywhere, there was no year 0 A.D., so we will have to wait 366 days to reread this message. Happy New Year, anyway! Regards, -- Will Bralick | ... when princes think more of bralick@psuvax1.cs.psu.edu | luxury than of arms, they lose bralick@gondor.cs.psu.edu | their state. with disclaimer; use disclaimer; | - Niccolo Machiavelli
ckp@grebyn.com (Checkpoint Technologies) (01/02/90)
In article <B$gsry@cs.psu.edu> bralick@cs.psu.edu (Will Bralick) writes: >In article <9178@cbmvax.commodore.com> daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) writes: > >I hate to contradict anyone :-), [then don't] >especially Dave, but ... >Much to the chagrin of C programmers everywhere, there was no >year 0 A.D., so we will have to wait 366 days to reread this >message. Ya know, I don't think that matters one bit. The last digit turned over; it's a decade. When it turns from 1999 to 2000 it'll be a millenium; ask *anybody*. Since the starting point for measurement was pretty arbitrary anyway (based on a social event and not a natural one), I think we can ignore these details safely. Oh.. why 366, and not 365? 1990's not a leap year.
fnf@estinc.UUCP (Fred Fish) (01/02/90)
In article <B$gsry@cs.psu.edu> bralick@cs.psu.edu (Will Bralick) writes: >In article <9178@cbmvax.commodore.com> daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) writes: >>Wow! I just noticed that it's the last day of both the year and the >>decade. > >I hate to contradict anyone :-), especially Dave, but ... >Much to the chagrin of C programmers everywhere, there was no >year 0 A.D., so we will have to wait 366 days to reread this >message. Well, my dictionary defines a decade as "a period of ten years" without saying anything about alignment restrictions. Thus I guess you could argue that every second marks the end of SOME decade. The ones that end at midnight on Dec 31st, of years ending in 9 are probably the most celebrated ones. :-) Happy New Year everyone! (sorry about prolonging a nonamiga topic) -Fred -- # Fred Fish, 1835 E. Belmont Drive, Tempe, AZ 85284, USA # 1-602-491-0048 asuvax!{nud,mcdphx}!estinc!fnf
johnf@stew.ssl.berkeley.edu (John Flanagan) (01/02/90)
In article <B$gsry@cs.psu.edu> bralick@cs.psu.edu (Will Bralick) writes: >In article <9178@cbmvax.commodore.com> daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) writes: >>Wow! I just noticed that it's the last day of both the year and the >>decade. > >I hate to contradict anyone :-), especially Dave, but ... >Much to the chagrin of C programmers everywhere, there was no >year 0 A.D., so we will have to wait 366 days to reread this >message. > As William Safire points out, this kind of argument may be technically correct, but it goes against such strong common usage that those who insist that the next Millenium does not begin until 1 January 2001 are going to miss all the good parties. Happy Nineties! John Flanagan Space Sciences Laboratory johnf@sag4.ssl.berkeley.edu University of California (...!ucbvax!sag4.ssl!johnf) Berkeley, CA 94720 Manners Maketh Man. (415) 643-6308
claudio@forty2.UUCP (Claudio Nieder) (01/02/90)
In article <14114@grebyn.com> ckp@grebyn.UUCP (Checkpoint Technologies) writes: >turned over; it's a decade. When it turns from 1999 to 2000 it'll be a >millenium; ask *anybody*. Since the starting point for measurement Probably the one who wrote '2001, Odysee in space' would disagree with you... claudio
cosell@bbn.com (Bernie Cosell) (01/02/90)
johnf@stew.ssl.berkeley.edu (John Flanagan) writes: }In article <B$gsry@cs.psu.edu> bralick@cs.psu.edu (Will Bralick) writes: }>In article <9178@cbmvax.commodore.com> daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) writes: }>>Wow! I just noticed that it's the last day of both the year and the }>>decade. }> }>I hate to contradict anyone :-), especially Dave, but ... }>Much to the chagrin of C programmers everywhere, there was no }>year 0 A.D., so we will have to wait 366 days to reread this }>message. }> }As William Safire points out, this kind of argument may be technically }correct, but it goes against such strong common usage that those who insist }that the next Millenium does not begin until 1 January 2001 are going to miss }all the good parties. This doesn't belong on c.s.a, but.... Millennia and decades are *different*. People use two different methods of numbering things, ordinally and cardinally, with no real rhyme or reason as to which is used where. We happen to use ordinal names for centuries (millennia, too) but we use *cardinal* names for decades. So it is not the "eighth decade of the twentieth century", but it is the "80's".... that is, all years of the form 198?. To be sure, the "eighth decade ..." ran from jan 1 1981 through dec 31 1990, but "decade of the eighties" is quite a different matter. We can engage in debate on common vs precise usage for when the twentieth century will end, but I think that you just can't make a case for the decade-naming being anything other than the typical usage. /Bernie\
king@cell.mot.COM (Steven King) (01/02/90)
In article <1990Jan1.225809.13097@agate.berkeley.edu> johnf@stew.ssl.berkeley.edu (John Flanagan) writes: >[...] but it goes against such strong common usage that those who insist >that the next Millenium does not begin until 1 January 2001 are going to miss >all the good parties. Except for the several of us who know a good thing when we see one, and plan on having TWO good parties! :-) -- ---------------------------------------------------+--------------------------- It's only impossible until it's done. | Steve King (708) 991-8056 | ...uunet!motcid!king | ...ddsw1!palnet!stevek
bralick@cs.psu.edu (Will Bralick) (01/02/90)
In article <254@estinc.UUCP> fnf@estinc.UUCP (Fred Fish) writes: | In article <B$gsry@cs.psu.edu> bralick@cs.psu.edu (Will Bralick) writes: | >In article <9178@cbmvax.commodore.com> daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) writes: | >>Wow! I just noticed that it's the last day of both the year and the | >>decade. | > | >I hate to contradict anyone :-), especially Dave, but ... | >Much to the chagrin of C programmers everywhere, there was no | >year 0 A.D., so we will have to wait 366 days to reread this ^^^^^^^^ Duh... make that 365. | Well, my dictionary defines a decade as "a period of ten years" without | saying anything about alignment restrictions. Thus I guess you could | argue that every second marks the end of SOME decade. The ones that | end at midnight on Dec 31st, of years ending in 9 are probably the | most celebrated ones. :-) Ouch! Ouch! Ok, OK, I give up!!! Happy New Decade everybody! That'll teach me to shoot my fingers off! Now back to your regularly scheduled program :-) Regards, -- Will Bralick | ... when princes think more of bralick@psuvax1.cs.psu.edu | luxury than of arms, they lose bralick@gondor.cs.psu.edu | their state. with disclaimer; use disclaimer; | - Niccolo Machiavelli
jmc@inesc.UUCP (Miguel Casteleiro) (01/02/90)
In article <1990Jan1.225809.13097@agate.berkeley.edu>, johnf@stew.ssl.berkeley.edu (John Flanagan) writes: > [...] those who insist > that the next Millenium does not begin until 1 January 2001 are going to miss > all the good parties. Yes, but are going to attend all the right ones. > Happy Nineties! Yes, happy nineties, but not yet happy 200th decade! > > John Flanagan Space Sciences Laboratory P.S.: Followup to rec.games.trivia, because this is not amiga related and there is a similar discussion there. -- __ Miguel Casteleiro at __ /// INESC, Lisboa, Portugal. "I know exactly what I'm doing." \\\/// Only UUCP: ...!mcsun!inesc!jmc -- Famous last words \XX/ Amiga
unhd (Nicholas C Fitanides) (01/03/90)
In article <B$gsry@cs.psu.edu> bralick@cs.psu.edu (Will Bralick) writes: >In article <9178@cbmvax.commodore.com> daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) writes: >>Wow! I just noticed that it's the last day of both the year and the >>decade. > >I hate to contradict anyone :-), especially Dave, but ... >Much to the chagrin of C programmers everywhere, there was no >year 0 A.D., so we will have to wait 366 days to reread this >message. > >Happy New Year, anyway! > > >Regards, > >-- >Will Bralick | ... when princes think more of I've seen this argument before--and if you're not well-versed in discrete mathematics, this can be a confusing issue. It does not matter if there WAS a year 0 A.D. The calendar has been changed so many times since then, it does not really matter. The 80's can be said to end with the last year of the 80's. 1980 can be seen as the first year in the 80's. Furthermore, how do YOU know that there wasn't a year 0? Numeration systems are arbitrary, and our calendar system is even more arbitrary (redundant). If someone wants do declare the end of the 80's with the last of the 80's (i.e.: 1989), then so be it. It is 99% probable that there hasn't even been one thousand, nine hundred and eighty-nine years Anno Domini, so this argument is MOOT. I DO like to contradict others, and often myself--so if you've more to say, we'll take this off-line. -Nick (a.k.a. Superclam)
tlimonce@drunivac.uucp (01/03/90)
In article <254@estinc.UUCP>, fnf@estinc.UUCP (Fred Fish) writes: > Well, my dictionary defines a decade as "a period of ten years" without > saying anything about alignment restrictions. Thus I guess you could I heard that the 68040 removes all alignment restrictions. :-) Does that mean that Moto can say, "It'll be released within the decade" and keep changing their definition? > argue that every second marks the end of SOME decade. The ones that > end at midnight on Dec 31st, of years ending in 9 are probably the > most celebrated ones. :-) -Tom --- Tom Limoncelli The computer industry should spend more time in front of tlimonce@drew.uucp their computers. Remember when "Look & Feel" tlimonce@drew.Bitnet was what you tried to do on a date? limonce@pilot.njin.net
robert@madnix.UUCP (Robert Moldenhauer) (01/03/90)
In article <14114@grebyn.com>, ckp@grebyn.com (Checkpoint Technologies) writes: > In article <B$gsry@cs.psu.edu> bralick@cs.psu.edu (Will Bralick) writes: > >In article <9178@cbmvax.commodore.com> daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) writes: > > > >I hate to contradict anyone :-), > >especially Dave, but ... > >Much to the chagrin of C programmers everywhere, there was no > >year 0 A.D., so we will have to wait 366 days to reread this > >message. It's really very simple, the ninties will end on 31 Dec 1999 but the 20th Century won't end until 31 Dec 2000. Given the fact that people are very nine oriented there will undoubtly be many parties welcoming in the last year of the millenium (2000) but that doesn't make it the first year of anything but the 0's decade. I personally would like to see the whole last year of the mellenium (2000) declared a holiday. -- Robert Moldenhauer One People U.S. Snail: 30 Lathrop St., One Planet Madison, Wis 53705 USA Please! BITNET: rmoldenhauer@WISCMACC INTERNET: rmoldenhauer@VMS.MACC.WISC.EDU
farren@well.UUCP (Mike Farren) (01/04/90)
In article <254@estinc.UUCP> fnf@estinc.UUCP (Fred Fish) writes: >Well, my dictionary defines a decade as "a period of ten years" without >saying anything about alignment restrictions. That's because this is an Intel decade. If it were a Motorola decade, it couldn't start until 1991 without producing an exception... -- Mike Farren farren@well.sf.ca.usa