Just out of curiosty, do you guys think the
new millenium is now? (2000) or next year
(2001)?
Printable View
Just out of curiosty, do you guys think the
new millenium is now? (2000) or next year
(2001)?
definitely 2000
------------------
Visual Basic Programmer
------------------
PolComSoft
You will hear a lot about it.
[This message has been edited by QWERTY (edited 12-25-1999).]
The millenium starts in 2001, because there is no year 0
Well, it's a hairy issue. I'd say it's whatever we want. There's no use saying it should be 2001. Nobody who was alive back in 0, or 1, could complain (they're all dead). Why not make it 2000 and keep it nice and even? The whole calendar thing is completely arbitrary anyway. We could have chosen the Gregorian or the Chinese, or some stupid metric thing or whatever. It really doesn't matter as long as it's consistent. Since it's a general concensus anyway, let's not be argumentative; the new century starts in 2000.
bob
Yes, you were right da_silvy about no 0 year but the 2000 means that its the first year of the next millenium and 2001 means that we have past the first year of the 3th millenium. Well Correct me if I'm wrong. This is just a comment and it's what i think...
What about other?
------------------
ngphuocthinh
If a millennium lasts 1000 years, and we start counting at 1, it's obvious the new millennium starts in 2001. But there were several date corrections in the middle ages, and it appears that Jesus was about 4 years old in the year 1, so who can be certain about this anyway?
ok, let's put it this way...
if you are starting to live, and i mean live, are you gonna say that you live from then or 1hr, 1month, or 1yr later....
and the time when you start to is considered as year 0 to you... so i think it starts @ 2000....
but Who knows Maybe the guy who came up with calendor did or did not included the year 0 in the calendor..
This is a completely useless discussion.
The century (and the millenium) start in years beginnig with "1" just because the authority that manages it (Greenwich Observatory) stated so. All others observatories agree.
However, nothing will stop us from celebrating twice, 2000 and 2001!
Suppose you are reading a book that is 200 pages long. When you reach the top of page 200 you have just finished reading 199 pages, with on more page to read. You will not complete the book until you come to the end of page 200.
So in essence, 2001 is the New Mellenium. There was no year 0.
And since when has this forum changed from VB to the theological hour? LOL
Knight
I was reading an article about this and its true. The new millenium in 2001 but who cares?
Even if 2001 is really the start of the new millenium, the computers don't care: they're still going to get confused at the start of 2000. :(
------------------
John Percival
Editor, VB-World.net
[email protected]
[This message has been edited by John (edited 12-26-1999).]
If you want to get really technical it started in October of 99' .. bibically.
WEll 2000 is it cause the earth 100 years behind
I've read that the US official timekeeping authority recognise it as 2001 but the Queen of Britian in her address to the nation heavily implied it was 2000?!?!?!
;)
What the hell does this have to do with programming
(unless you bring the mellenium bug into this, thanks john)
otherwise post this on some
general-who-gives-a-**** board
ok
[This message has been edited by death (edited 12-26-1999).]
Just to complicate this discussion even more i'm saying that the new millenium starts at 2:nd January of year 2000 (if we say it's 2000) and not at the 1:st.
Why? Because each year is 1 year and 6 hours long (astronomically seen). That's why we have something called leap years. Last was 1996 and next is 2000. This means when we celebrated 1997, we were 6 hours to early. And in 1998 12 hours early. 1999 18 hours early. And year 2000 would be 24 hours to early. This day i usually put in february, but when the earth completes it's circle around the sun for the 2000:th time since "Jesus was born" is not the 1:th but the 2:nd (again astronomically seen).
I've read that the Vatikan are going to hold the whole year 2000 as a celebrating year so they wouldn't have to mind if it's 2000 or 2001.
Oh well, never mind. :-)
------------------
_______________________
Rodik
I'm agree with da_silvy. There wasn't Year 0.
If you count beginig from 0, you end in 9, and next 0 is the beginig of next count. But, if you count beginig from 1 (our case)you end in 0, and then the next count begins in next 1.
So, year 2000 is just the end fo this century and the next century really begins in 2001. All the rest y just for sale.
I agree with some of the other people who are saying that the new millenium starts in 2000. Because, as someone else mentioned, when you are born, your life has begun (I'm sure everyone will agree on that) so if your life has begun then does that mean you are considered to be the age of 1??? No, your age is measured from the time you pop out of your mommy and enter what we call the "Real World". At that very instant when you are free of your mother's womb, you are exactly 0 years, 0 months, 0 days, 0 hours, 0 minutes, and 0 seconds old. So, as you can see, you do not start living at the time when you become 1 year old. The same should apply to the year 2000, because it is the "birth" of a new millenium. Personally, I don't really care what the "officials" say on the matter, I never asked them to decide for me, I'm perfectly capable of deciding on my own. And besides, who says they really know what they're talking about, they're humans just like us, and they make just as many (if not more) mistakes as we do. So, I'm saying, that if you agree with my logic, then the "officials" are wrong. And if you follow the logic of the post above, then why didn't we celebrate the last new decade (the change from the 1980's to the 1990's) on New Year's Eve of 1990, rather than when we really did celebrate it, which was on the New Year's Eve of 1989.
------------------
Ryan
[email protected]
ICQ# 47799046
[This message has been edited by Gimpster (edited 12-27-1999).]
Technically, y2k is 2001, but, if you want to get technical... we're talkin 2000 ad, 2000 years after the birth of christ, right? Well, he wasn't born 2000 years ago, the bible says so. It says that the king died around 4bc, which pushes y2k back to dec 31. 1997. BUT.... scientists say that the star that the wise men followed was created by a large supernova which was created around 6bc, which pushes y2k back to 1994 except... lets not forget that in 1582, Pope Gregory XIII had oct. 5 - oct. 14 excised from the calendar to make a leap year and keep all the holidays in their seasons. SO... if you want to get technical, your y2k celebration should have been 10 days after new years 6 years ago. :)
So THAT'S why my watch reset itself to 12:00 AM 01/01/1994 !!!
------------------
Yonatan
Teenage Programmer
E-Mail: [email protected]
ICQ: 19552879
AIM: RYoni69
that would be assuming that the wisemen followed the star on the day of Jesus birth. They could have followed the star years later.
Zorro, you couldn't be more wrong! Y2K is a shortened expression for the year 2000. The "Y" stands for "Year" and the "K" is a very common expression for 1000, so when you combine the 2 with the K, you get 2000. So when you combine them all together, you get *drum roll, please*... Year 2000!!!
------------------
Ryan
[email protected]
ICQ# 47799046
[This message has been edited by Gimpster (edited 12-29-1999).]
I am sorry, i should have been more clear. I am just too lazy. :) By y2k, i ment the turn into the millenium. sorry.
There are 3 answers to this question - the main answer being Death's above!!!!
However, just to be topical I won't be so angst-ridden as Death.
Historically, the calendar has been messed around with so much over the centuries that we are now running about 4 years behind. If you look in a lot of history books then you will see the birth of Christ marked as 4BC!!!
This means that the true millenium was in 1996!!!
However, if we accept the modern calendar for what it is, then the next millenium starts on Jan 1st 2001 (shades of Arthur C Clarke?)
Hope I've not bored you - I just wanted to get that off my chest!!!
(No offence Death!!)
Addendum: Just to be picky and provocative - I think a lot of people use the expression "Y2K" because they can't spell "millenium"
[This message has been edited by Michael (edited 12-29-1999).]
although this post is a little late considering the time of the topic post, I'd just like to say that I love the people who think they're cool and go ahead and say something along the lines of "who the hell cares?" Appearently, my friend, people do care, or are atleast interested in the topic, otherwise I don't think this post would've gotten as many replies as it has now. So who's cool now? HUH?
:)
To add yet another point to the discussion, I heard something about this on TV a few days ago. It seems that the Romans didn't have a number zero, so they started counting with year 1 at the birth of Jesus.
Who knows when Y2K really starts. I've heard
the a day is 23.??? hours and not 24 hours.
That means that over a long period of time
who really know's what time it is!!
Oh by the way, another issue we should
realize is that a year is dertermind by how
long it takes for the Earth to go around the
sun.
It wasn't until the 1500's or 1600's that we
actually found out that it takes 365 days to
go around the sun, thus, how could we have
kept track of the years before 1600 without
even knowing if the time was correct???
You might be right on that, it seems as though I remember something like that as well. However, it's kind of a mute point, because we don't use the Roman calendar.
------------------
Ryan
there was a year 0!
because in year 1, 1 year has passed. and in 2000, 2000 years has passed!
this thread is 2 years old :rolleyes:
i know! :)
new millenium = 2371
it's beginning to smell:(Quote:
Originally posted by Aerials
this thread is 2 years old :rolleyes:
This thread is an antique.
I guess it is next year.Quote:
Just out of curiosty, do you guys think the
new millenium is now? (2000) or next year
(2001)?
Perfect question for a poll!
I guess they didn't have polls in those days.
When Something Else reaches 100 posts, we can all have a pastry :D.
This thread has been resurrected so many times it's in danger of starting its own calendar system.
Yea, but still.. we've all agreed the correct answer is 2001.. cause the years starts counting at 1. Just as the first month is 1, and not 0, and the first day is the 1st and not the 0th.