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

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?



Mon, 16 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.

I'm tired of hearing that Nixon said, "I am not a crook." What he said
was "Your president is not a crook." But it entered into the folklore
thus.

Perhaps Pyrrhus didn't actually say, "One more victory like this and
I am ruined," after all?

Vox populi vox dei. The people have spoken. We enter the millenium
on Jan. 1, 2000 ... :-)

--
Jack J. Woehr                 # The Drug War is Race War
PO Box 51, Golden, CO 80402   # The Drug War is Class War.

http://www.*-*-*.com/ ~jax/rcfb # Arrest the War on {*filter*}.



Mon, 16 Jul 2001 03:00:00 GMT  
 tired of hearing that the next century
Bill,

Strictly speaking the *new* millenium really does not start until 2001.
(This does not mean
we have another year to fix the problem (-; ) In the biblical sense, there
was no year zero. So
this means that centuries, millenia, etc, run from 1 to 100, to 1000
inclusive.

I don't know if your little tirade was meant to define you as a usenet
troll, or you were just
trying to stir up mud...

BillB

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



Mon, 16 Jul 2001 03:00:00 GMT  
 tired of hearing that the next century

Quote:
>I'm tired of hearing that Nixon said, "I am not a crook." What he said
>was "Your president is not a crook." But it entered into the folklore
>thus.

I thought he said "The President of the United States is not a crook."

Judy Anderson
Product Development
Advanced Software Technologies Company, Ltd.



Mon, 16 Jul 2001 03:00:00 GMT  
 tired of hearing that the next century
Bill Bershinger says

Quote:
> [I am] tired of hearing that the next century 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?

No.

Words mean what they are defined to mean (their denotation). Sometimes
their connotation (what people believe them to mean) is different, but
when the difference is due merely to ignorance of the correct meaning,
the connotation usually does not replace the denotation as time passes
(remember Shakespeare?). Whether mass communication media and computer
technology is affecting this "drift" -- and how -- is much debated (by
people who write newspaper columns and those that get paid to debate).

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.

My point is that, while you and others take the 100 year periods which
begin with years numbered in a multiple of 100 (e.g., 1800-1899) to be
a "century," there are OTHER definitions, equally valid, for this word
and they need to be understood, if not accepted.   Yes, 1900-1999 is a
"century," as is ANY 100 year period, but those years DON'T constitute
the "twentieth century." And, THAT (the 20th century) is the "century"
that is just about to end (next year, on Dec. 31, 2000, in fact).  Why
is 1900-1999 not the "20th century?"            

I am sure you must have heard all this explained several times but the
current Western year-numbering scheme just happened to start at year 1
(not the year zero). This was no big deal at the time this was done --
long after the fact, in fact -- few people were educated, and probably
less than 1% of the population of the Western world could tell you the
year, anyway. By the time people got around to thinking about time, in
the sense of the passage thereof, what happened in the past, numbering
the centuries, etc., math was better understood (the zero had been re-  
discovered), and the style of writing years in Arabic numerals was the
hot thing.  But, nobody thought much about saying that the years 1-100
were the "first" century -- they were!  Obviously, this made the years
101-200 the "second" century. Big deal!  In fact, it was so much not a
"big deal" that folks all over the world went to bed on Dec. 31, 1899,
with absolutely no thought whatsoever that something special was about
to happen at midnight.  If you look at old newspapers, you'll discover
that the 20th century was not celebrated as arriving until the evening
of 12/31/1900 (and starting, of course, with/on 01/01/1901).  

1900-1999 is NOT the 20th century because the first one was 1-100. And
this means that the 20th "century of years" -- in our Western calendar
at least -- is the years 1901-2000. Now, does that mean that 1900-1999
are not a "century?"  Of course not!  They *ARE* _A_ century (a period
of 100 years).  But, they are *NOT* _THE_ (twentieth) century!!  It is
this "calendrical" century according to the Western/Christian calendar
that our computers have their dates set to that we are celebrating the
passage of.  

So while it is true that that 1900's started in 1900, the 20th century
did not start until 1901. You may celebrate the passage of the century
of years that was the 1900's on Dec. 31, 1999 if you wish -- please be
my guest -- but I'll ignore that and celebrate the passage of the 20th
century of Western calendrical years on Dec. 31, 2000. Not that either
of our celebrations will mean anything significant -- they won't.

Here are some facts that you should accept:

1. that, by definition, the 1990's started in 1990.

If you accept that (the "by definition" part), then you must (unless
you choose to be either illogical or insist on making up definitions
of your own) also accept two other facts:

2. that, by definition, the 1900's started in the year 1900
   [I doubt you have any problems with this fact]

3. that, by definition, the "20th century" started in the year 1901.

If you accept the first two, then why do you have trouble with the
third?

I suspect that most people have trouble with this because they assume
that the 20th century began with 1900 and that (at least if they were
to think about it) the 1st century (obviously) began with 0000.  When
they realize that there was no year "0000" and that it was denoted to
be year 1 B.C., then they get really confused by the realization that
their "1st" century would have to have been the years  1 B.C. through
99 A.D. (by their definition of "century" remember). It's really very
much easier to remember and think of the first century as 1 A.D. thru
100 A.D. (and therefore obviously, the first century B.C. as 100 B.C.
thru 1 B.C.); that makes it easy. Before computers, thinking of years
in groups numbered 1-100, 101-200, 1801-1900, 1901-2000, etc. was the
natural thing to do.  Remember pre-numbered forms for the answers for
quiz questions in school?  They were numbered on one page from 1-100,
and then the back side started at 101 (thru 200).  You didn't think a
thing about it, did you?   So, why do you have problems with grouping
years by their cardinal numbers in groups of 100 starting with 1?

William Blair
--
==================== Opinions above, facts below =======================
Never argue with a fool, it makes it hard to tell the difference. [anon]
The two most common elements in the universe are Hydrogen and stupidity.
[Harlan Ellison]   The difference between  genius and stupidity  is that
genius has its limits. [Robert Byrne]  Unfortunately, the observed level

======= And now, back to our regularly scheduled programming ... =======



Mon, 16 Jul 2001 03:00:00 GMT  
 tired of hearing that the next century

Quote:

> The people have spoken. We enter the millenium on Jan. 1, 2000 ...

The people may speak, but they are just as capable of uttering
illogical and nonsensical trash as my demented mother now does.

"If I call a tail a leg, how many legs does a dog have?" asked
President Lincoln (of his Cabinet during the Civil War). "Five"
was the answer concurred upon in response. "No, a dog still has
only four legs. If I call a tail a leg, that does not make it a
leg" responded Mr. Lincoln.

CALLING the years 1000-1999 the second millenium of years does
NOT make them the second millenium of calendrical years.  They
may call things to be other things as they wish, but dogs will
still have four legs and the last year of the second millenium
of calendrical years will still be the year 2000.

William Blair
--
==================== Opinions above, facts below =======================
Never argue with a fool, it makes it hard to tell the difference. [anon]
The two most common elements in the universe are Hydrogen and stupidity.
[Harlan Ellison]   The difference between  genius and stupidity  is that
genius has its limits. [Robert Byrne]  Unfortunately, the observed level

======= And now, back to our regularly scheduled programming ... =======



Mon, 16 Jul 2001 03:00:00 GMT  
 tired of hearing that the next century

Quote:

>> The people have spoken. We enter the millenium on Jan. 1, 2000 ...
>The people may speak, but they are just as capable of uttering
>illogical and nonsensical trash as my demented mother now does.

I'm not sure what all the fuss is.  Jan 1 2000 starts the millenium
of the 2000s.  Jan 1, 2001 starts the 3rd millenium.  We can have
super big parties two years in a row.  Why complain?


Mon, 16 Jul 2001 03:00:00 GMT  
 tired of hearing that the next century

Quote:

> We can have super big parties two years in a row.

And I most certainly plan to!  The one on Dec. 31, 2000, of course, will
be a celebration of the end of the second and the beginning of the third
millennium.  But the one on Dec. 31, 1999 will center around the showing
of movies such as The Time Machine. (I wonder if anybody knows why ... )

William Blair
--
==================== Opinions above, facts below =======================
Never argue with a fool, it makes it hard to tell the difference. [anon]
The two most common elements in the universe are Hydrogen and stupidity.
[Harlan Ellison]   The difference between  genius and stupidity  is that
genius has its limits. [Robert Byrne]  Unfortunately, the observed level

======= And now, back to our regularly scheduled programming ... =======



Mon, 16 Jul 2001 03:00:00 GMT  
 tired of hearing that the next century

Quote:
William H. Blair wrote...

>> We can have super big parties two years in a row.

>And I most certainly plan to!  The one on Dec. 31, 2000, of course,
>will be a celebration of the end of the second and the beginning of the
>third millennium.  But the one on Dec. 31, 1999 will center around the
>showing of movies such as The Time Machine. (I wonder if anybody knows
>why ... )

The beginning of the "third" millennium?  Every fraction of a second
that passes, another millennium finishes.  Surely 12/31/2000 will be far
past the end of the third one.


Tue, 17 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.

Quote:
>I don't know if your little tirade was meant to define you as a usenet
>troll, or you were just
>trying to stir up mud...

I don't know that it was a tirade, but as long as people keep telling me
things that I think wrong I will continue to question it.

You have  a problem with that?



Tue, 17 Jul 2001 03:00:00 GMT  
 tired of hearing that the next century

Quote:

>The truth as far as y2k goes is that it's a {*filter*}.

What eloquence.

Quote:

>The truth as far as the century goes is that a century is 100 years,
>and a new century begins only after 100 years have elapsed.  Therefore,
>century starting years all end in one.  Similarly all decade starting
>years end in one.

Says who?

Quote:

>Stay tire of hearing it if you want to.  You seem to be pretty far in the
dark
>anyway.

Oh yes, I'm a complete idiot.
Quote:

>George



Tue, 17 Jul 2001 03:00:00 GMT  
 tired of hearing that the next century
Quote:

> begins Jan 1 2001.

To quote the current owner of the christian (gregorian => Pope Gregory)
calender,

"For Christians then, the Jubilee of the year 2000 is especially
important because it will be a celebration of the 2000th anniversary of
the birth of Christ (apart from differences of exact chronological
count.) What is more, it will be the first Holy Year which marks the
turn of a millennium, since the first Jubilee was proclaimed by Pope
Boniface VIII in 1300."

I'm not entirely sure whether the "turn of a millennium" is a beginning
or an end, Y2K has been named the "Tertio Millennio adveniente".

You can check for yourself:

http://www.vatican.va/jubilee_2000/documents/ju_documents_17-feb-1997...

--
My opinions are not necessarily | "I'm in a phone booth at the
held by the fine people at EDS  | corner of walk and don't walk"

Ralph De Carli                  | Dead silence is the best flame.



Tue, 17 Jul 2001 03:00:00 GMT  
 tired of hearing that the next century

Quote:

> I don't know that it was a tirade, but as long as people
> keep telling me things that I think wrong I will continue
> to question it.

By golly, then!  You just might learn something if you don't
watch out. Maybe I will learn something also. Only time will
tell, right?

Quote:
> If you are saying that the 20th century runs from 1901 to 2000,
> I think you are wrong.  That is what I am saying.  

I perfectly well realize that you think I (and others) are wrong.
Nonetheless, that is a fact due to many reasons which have both
a historical and mathematical basis.

Quote:
> Whether there was or wasn't a year zero is irrelevant.

It may be irrelevant to you, but it is certainly not to historians,
and to astronomers, and other people who are concerned with what
happened exactly when.

Quote:
> Let's just say if there was not, then the first century
> was a year short.

The first century can be defined that way if you like by yourself
and by any others that so please. Then, all of you can talk among
yourselves and you will each know and understand what the others
are talking about. However, you won't find any historian or any
astronomer (who are the folks who concern themselves with dates,
time, calendars, etc., among others) that will understand you, or
agree with you. Historical, scientific, academic documents and
research, including books, all must have a consistent "frame of
reference" and hence agreement on dates and things like that are
as much by convention and agreement as anything else, so as to
avoid confusion.  Certain (civil) dates never existed because of
the change to the Gregorian calendar (from the Julian calendar).
If you claim that a certain event happened on one of those dates,
then you will either confuse people (who might not be aware that
the dates never existed) or confirm your own ignorance (to those
who know they never existed). The year 1 A.D. did exist, and the
things that are known to have happened in it did happen to real
people. The year before is by academic agreement and convention
designated 1 B.C. (the official, politically correct designation
for these years today is 1 C.E. and the year before is 1 B.C.E.,
by the way -- I continue to use A.D. and B.C. since I make every
effort NOT to be politically correct).

You can SAY that the "first century" was a year short, but that
does not MAKE it a year short. Since by definition the numbering
of "centuries" in the Western/Christian calendar started with
the first century, and the first century started with the first
year therein, and the first year therein was the year designated
1 A.D., then the first 100 years were the years numbered 1 thru
100, inclusive (by definition of the word "century"). That makes
the 20th "century" be the years numbered 1901-2000. Deal with it.

Quote:
> And you don't know, you weren't there.  You are just guessing
> like the rest of us.

I did not have to be there when Julius Ceasar was killed or when
Alexander died, but I know that it happened. I was not around for
World War II, but I also know that it happened.  I did not have
to be around when the Western/Christian calendar was devised and
the years assigned and numbered.  The folks that did it left real
paper (actual primary historical written records) that later day
historians have studied and seen with their own eyes, and then
wrote about. Books in libraries. A chain of knowledge, from ages
past, from them, to others, to me ... and to you.  

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

William Blair
--
==================== Opinions above, facts below =======================
Never argue with a fool, it makes it hard to tell the difference. [anon]
The two most common elements in the universe are Hydrogen and stupidity.
[Harlan Ellison]   The difference between  genius and stupidity  is that
genius has its limits. [Robert Byrne]  Unfortunately, the observed level

======= And now, back to our regularly scheduled programming ... =======



Tue, 17 Jul 2001 03:00:00 GMT  
 tired of hearing that the next century

Quote:

> From Webster's (the CD version):
> [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.]

Which means, of course, that a.d. 1901 through a.d. 2000 is
the 20th century a.d.

Quote:
> in common usage, a century begins with a year ending
> in 00 and runs through 99, as 1800-1899, 1900-1999, etc.

This is true, as I indicated originally ... this is what most people
THINK. And since 1900-1999 is a consecutive group of 100 years, they
DO constitute _A_ century.  They're just NOT _the_ "20th century [of
years since the current era's epoch date]."

Quote:
> does not believe that the 1980's ran from 1981 thru 1990, etc.

I do not believe that, either ... and have never said it.  The 1980s
were the years 1980 thru 1989.  But, this has absolutely nothing to
do with which year (numbers) constitute the 20th (ordinal) century
of years since the Western/Christian calendar's epoch.

William Blair
--
==================== Opinions above, facts below =======================
Never argue with a fool, it makes it hard to tell the difference. [anon]
The two most common elements in the universe are Hydrogen and stupidity.
[Harlan Ellison]   The difference between  genius and stupidity  is that
genius has its limits. [Robert Byrne]  Unfortunately, the observed level

======= And now, back to our regularly scheduled programming ... =======



Tue, 17 Jul 2001 03:00:00 GMT  
 
 [ 46 post ]  Go to page: [1] [2] [3] [4]

 Relevant Pages 

1. The Clipper of the next century...

2. Next vs. Access.fliename.Next()

3. NeXT/NeXT STEP Oberon?

4. Array#next - Enumerable#next ?

5. call-next-next-method

6. Art and all that Jazz: the tired hat rarely nibbles Priscilla, it calls Mohammed instead

7. I'm tired

8. US-MA: VSE/VA - Tired of being managed?

9. Tired of the old look?

10. Tired of spam!

11. Art and all that Jazz: many tyrants will be tired urban jugs

12. Computer clock gets tired ?

 

 
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software