Re: 1999 !

New Message Reply Date view Thread view Subject view Author view

tesmith (tesmith++at++milliways.jsc.nasa.gov)
Mon, 04 Jan 1999 15:17:35 -0600

Why not just leave year 1 where it is, and call the year before
that 0. That way we can all call 2000 the new millennium. It doesn't
sound like many people want to carry Dionysius Exiguss's (the monk
who started this mess in 525 because they didn't know about 0s back
then) mistake any further.

As long as we accept that either method starts after the birth of
Christ there will be no change other than people won't have to go
around explaining why 2001 is really the start of the new millennium.

To fix the problem about when the birth of Christ really was and adding
at least 5 years to the calendar would be quite expensive; way beyond
the Y2K problem, and causing many more man years of needless explanations.
Our descendants in 2999 will thank us when planning millennium parties.
They'd never give it a 2nd thought that the 4th millennium will begin
in 3000.

Happy New Year,
Tom

Angus Dorbie wrote:
>
> > Intrinsic Graphics Inc. wrote:
> >
> > Happy new year, the last before the new millennium.
>
> No it's not. This is a date, think Fortran not C, 1 is the first
> index in the array.
>
> Cheers,Angus.
>
> --
> "Only the mediocre are always at their best." -- Jean Giraudoux
>
> For advanced 3D graphics Performer + OpenGL based examples and tutors:
> http://www.dorbie.com/
> =======================================================================
> List Archives, FAQ, FTP: http://www.sgi.com/software/performer/
> Submissions: info-performer++at++sgi.com
> Admin. requests: info-performer-request++at++sgi.com

New Message Reply Date view Thread view Subject view Author view

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b2 on Mon Jan 04 1999 - 13:17:44 PST

This message has been cleansed for anti-spam protection. Replace '++at++' in any mail addresses with the '@' symbol.