tired of hearing that the next century 
Author Message
 tired of hearing that the next century

Quote:

(snip)

> I do not have to guess.  I can think for myself, and I can read.

Any possibility we could agree to adopt the Chinese or Jewish calendar?
They passed 2000 millennia ago.

Bill {*filter*}

Who does not believe that the 1980's ran from 1981 thru 1990, etc. This
NG is starting to sound like comp.software.year-2000, which I junked a
year or so ago.



Wed, 18 Jul 2001 03:00:00 GMT  
 tired of hearing that the next century

Quote:

> Bill Bershinger says

From Webster's (the CD version):

century (sence re, -se-) pl. -ries n. 1 any period of 100 years, as from
1620 to 1720, 2 a period of 100 years reckoned from a certain time, esp.
from the beginning of the Christian Era: in common usage, a century
begins with a year ending in 00 and runs through 99, as 1800-1899,
1900-1999, etc. [a.d. 1801 through a.d. 1900 is the 19th century a.d.;
400 b.c. through 301 b.c. is the 4th century b.c.] 3    in ancient Rome a)
a military unit, originally made up of 100 men b) a subdivision of the
people made for voting purposes 4 a series, group, or amount of a
hundred centurial adj. Etymology [L centuria < centum, hundred]  (C)1995
Zane Publishing, Inc.   (C)1994, 1991, 1988 Simon & Schuster, Inc.

(snip)

Quote:

> So, let's examine what the word "century" means.  Stated simply, it is
> a consecutive period of 100 years. Now, is that ANY 100 year period or
> does the 100 year period have to start on a certain "boundary?" Do you
> consider the 100 years that  start with the year 1900 and end with the
> year 1999 to be a "century?"  What about the 100 years that start with
> 1898 and end with 1997? Are they a century? 1861-1960? Well, I know of
> a man that was born in 1898, and newspaper articles that appeared just
> before his birthday in 1998 spoke of a "century" of life: clearly this
> was expected to be taken to mean the 100 years he had just about lived
> out. I remember reading articles in the newspapers and magazines about
> the "century" that had elapsed since the Civil War started.

You probably insist that Clinton is guilty of *something*, too.

Bill {*filter*}



Wed, 18 Jul 2001 03:00:00 GMT  
 tired of hearing that the next century


+If you are saying that the 20th century runs from 1901 to 2000, I think you
+are wrong.  That is what I am saying.  Whether there was or wasn't a year
+zero is irrelevant.  Let's just say if there was not, then the first century
+was a year short.  And you don't know, you weren't there.  You are just
+guessing like the rest of us.
+
You have, unfortunately, completely missed the point.

Whether or not there was a year zero, far from being irrelevant, is crucial
to a correct understanding of the resolution of this question.

By definition there was not a year zero. This is a fact, easily confirmed by
a few moments' research in a library (which minimal effort you have clearly
failed to expend) and is not contingent upon the presence of any particular
observer to verify it.

By definition a century is one hundred years, and so by definition the first
century could not have been "a year short". Anything a year short of 100 is
not a century. By definition the first century began at the beginning of the
year 1, and ended at the end of the year 100. The second century began at the
beginning of the year 101, and ended at the end of the year 200. By extension,
it's fairly plain that the 20th century must end at the end of the year 2000.

By definition a millennium is one thousand years. The first millennium began
at the beginning of the year 1, and ended at the end of the year 1000. The
second millennium began at the beginning of the year 1001, and will end at
the conclusion of the year 2000 -- not 1999.

--
dlmiller/at/netdirect/dot/net



Wed, 18 Jul 2001 03:00:00 GMT  
 tired of hearing that the next century
[snip]
+Bill {*filter*}
+
+Who does not believe that the 1980's ran from 1981 thru 1990, etc.

Obviously the 1980s ran from 1 Jan 1980 thru 31 Dec 1989. Nobody has argued
otherwise. However, the ninth decade of the 20th century ran from 1 Jan 1981
thru 31 Dec 1990.

--
dlmiller/at/netdirect/dot/net



Wed, 18 Jul 2001 03:00:00 GMT  
 tired of hearing that the next century
whatever


Wed, 18 Jul 2001 03:00:00 GMT  
 tired of hearing that the next century
That's all well and good except for one small problem.  It doesn't make any
sense to have a century start 1 year after the leftmost part of the equation
changes.

Why don't we just decide that there was a year zero and base all our notions
on that.  Who's gonna argue.  God?  I doubt it.  He, she or it, has let the
present nonsense go on forever, so what the heck, let's rewrite the rules as
we see fit, or at least in such a way that we can all agree.

Then everything will be wonderful.



Wed, 18 Jul 2001 03:00:00 GMT  
 tired of hearing that the next century

Quote:

> begins Jan 1 2001.  If that is the case, then the 1990's actually started
> Jan 1 1991.  To be consistent what works for decades must also work for
> centuries.

> No?

If the next (21st) century begins on Jan. 1, 2000, then the first
century only contained 99 years since it did not begin on Jan. 1, 0000.
I.e., there wasn't a "year zero".

Therefore, to be consistent ("normalizing" to current calendar
terminology):

The first decade was Jan. 1, 0001 thru Dec. 31, 0010;
the second decade began Jan. 1, 0011;
the first century was Jan. 1, 0001 thru Dec. 31, 0100;
the second century began Jan. 1, 0101;
etc.

    -jc-



Thu, 19 Jul 2001 03:00:00 GMT  
 tired of hearing that the next century

Quote:

>By definition there was not a year zero. This is a fact, easily confirmed
by
>a few moments' research in a library (which minimal effort you have clearly
>failed to expend) and is not contingent upon the presence of any particular
>observer to verify it.

>By definition a century is one hundred years, and so by definition the
first
>century could not have been "a year short". Anything a year short of 100 is
>not a century. By definition the first century began at the beginning of
the
>year 1, and ended at the end of the year 100. The second century began at
the
>beginning of the year 101, and ended at the end of the year 200. By
extension,
>it's fairly plain that the 20th century must end at the end of the year
2000.

>By definition a millennium is one thousand years. The first millennium
began
>at the beginning of the year 1, and ended at the end of the year 1000. The
>second millennium began at the beginning of the year 1001, and will end at
>the conclusion of the year 2000 -- not 1999.

Er, by whose definition was there not a year zero?

Dates are an arbitrarily set up medium to make it easier to know how old
things are. They do not have much purpose otherwise.

The dating of the beginning of the first millenium was made in the middle of
the millenium somewhere, and was supposed to start from the birth (or was it
death?) of Christ. Sadly, it is now thought that they got it wrong by a few
years. (Four seems to be the common number mentioned). So, from the
arbitrary point that the current dating system we use was established,
incorrectly in AD 4. So, the first millenium is, basically, wrong.

However, we do know when the last millenium was celebrated. 31 December 999.
Which kind of makes it logical to celebrate the next one in, wait for it,
1999.

Whose idea was it to bring up this stupid topic anyway ;-)



Thu, 19 Jul 2001 03:00:00 GMT  
 tired of hearing that the next century


Quote:
>Whose idea was it to bring up this stupid topic anyway ;-)

The same stupid guy who insisted on converting S/390 architecture from
EBCDIC to ASCII a few weeks ago.




Thu, 19 Jul 2001 03:00:00 GMT  
 tired of hearing that the next century
Gilbert, that's great!

And for Mr. Bershinger, I apologize for implicating you as a usenet troll,
but bear
this in mind: The group is not called ALT.lang.asm370 (meaning alternative).
It is called COMP.lang.asm370 and the topics should (generally) be reserved
for
serious (or humourous) discussions of assembler in the IBM mainframe world.

That said, I will now sit back, relax, and watch the superbowl. (I got
10.USD on
the Bronco's, anyone want a piece of that action?) You can email by 16:00EST
(GMT -5) with your counter. Today is Sunday, of course. Any solicitations
received
with a time-stamp after 18:00 will of course be discarded... I use 16:00
because I'm
leaving for a party at that time... GO ELWAY! DO IT ! ! ! Kick some dirty-
bird butt!

I will then email you back my snail maail address so you can send me your
money!
HAHAHAHAHA!!!

Bill Becker.

*** Posted from RemarQ - http://www.remarq.com - Discussions Start Here (tm) ***



Thu, 19 Jul 2001 03:00:00 GMT  
 tired of hearing that the next century
I hope you win tons.  You didn't tell us how may points you gave or gave up.


Thu, 19 Jul 2001 03:00:00 GMT  
 tired of hearing that the next century


+That's all well and good except for one small problem.  It doesn't make any
+sense to have a century start 1 year after the leftmost part of the equation
+changes.
+
+Why don't we just decide that there was a year zero and base all our notions

Because there wasn't a year zero. You might as well suggest that we all agree
that 99 = 100. You'd still be wrong.

+on that.  Who's gonna argue.  God?  I doubt it.  He, she or it, has let the
+present nonsense go on forever, so what the heck, let's rewrite the rules as
+we see fit, or at least in such a way that we can all agree.

It would be much easier for the rest of the world (although more difficult
for you) if you were to accept the idea that you're wrong about this, learn
the facts, and conform your thinking to reality.

+Then everything will be wonderful.
+
Indeed.

--
dlmiller/at/netdirect/dot/net



Thu, 19 Jul 2001 03:00:00 GMT  
 tired of hearing that the next century
: That's all well and good except for one small problem.  It doesn't make any
: sense to have a century start 1 year after the leftmost part of the equation
: changes.

: Why don't we just decide that there was a year zero and base all our notions
: on that.  Who's gonna argue.  God?  I doubt it.  He, she or it, has let the
: present nonsense go on forever, so what the heck, let's rewrite the rules as
: we see fit, or at least in such a way that we can all agree.

: Then everything will be wonderful.

Reminds me of the argument by the fools in a state legislature (Iowa?)
last century -- that PI be redefined, by law, as 3.000000.
"Then everything will be wonderful."

On balance, hydrogen is outstripping its competition.

Jonesy
--
334 days to go until the Year 2000
699 days to go until the 3rd Millennium of the C.E.



Thu, 19 Jul 2001 03:00:00 GMT  
 
 [ 46 post ]  Go to page: [1] [2] [3] [4]

 Relevant Pages 
 

 
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software