Re: RE:DML Y2K (non-Dak)

From: JT McBride (mcbride@abac.com)
Date: Thu Jan 07 1999 - 03:42:10 EST


>> Instead, we have some folks who think they know math telling us that "Year
>>1" was the start and therefore 2001 is the new millenium. Excuse me, they're
>>saying that we went from 1 BC to 1 AD overnight at some time in the past? No
>>year zero? What kind of math is that?
>
>It's not math, it's time keeping. It's the same kind of "math" that goes
>from 12:59 to 1:00. What, no hour zero?? When somebody asks you to count
>to ten, do you start with zero? You're right about the calendar being an
>abstract and being whatever we say it is, BUT, it also has to be
>standardized. We can't have everyone going around keeping time and date
>however they please (I know there are a few exceptions, but most of the
>world is standardized). The powers that be have decided that the first year
>of the first millennium was year one and therefore, the last year of this
>millennium is year 2000. It's more confusing, not as intuitive and not as
>easy to manage, but that's the way it is. No debate about it. Those who say
>the new millennium starts on 1-1-2000 are wrong.

Check out:
http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/asiapcf/9901/06/BC-MILLENNIUM-CLARKE.reut/

Jim
´93 4x4 CC V8



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jun 20 2003 - 12:11:53 EDT