From - Tue Nov 11 08:53:51 1997 Path: news2.cais.com!out2.nntp.cais.net!in1.nntp.cais.net!news.abs.net!ddsw1!news.mcs.net!www.nntp.primenet.com!globalcenter1!news.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!news-peer.sprintlink.net!news-sea-19.sprintlink.net!news-in-west.sprintlink.net!news.sprintlink.net!Sprint!151.164.1.34!swbell!not-for-mail From: Rubywand Newsgroups: comp.sys.apple2 Subject: Re: Date 2000 a problem for Apple II? Date: Sun, 09 Nov 1997 23:13:26 -0600 Organization: Southwestern Bell Internet Services, Richardson, TX Lines: 68 Message-ID: <346697F6.3780C548@swbell.net> References: <19971103022401.VAA01091@ladder01.news.aol.com> <19971103192704210005@ts4-03.aug.com> <345F887C.3677@thorin.brooks.af.mil> <19971104183434175882@ts1-26.aug.com> <63oc2p$7i0$1@darla.visi.com> Reply-To: rubywand@swbell.net NNTP-Posting-Host: ppp-207-193-16-38.hstntx.swbell.net Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: nnrp3.rcsntx.swbell.net 879138751 13745 (None) 207.193.16.38 X-Complaints-To: usenet@nnrp3.rcsntx.swbell.net X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (Win95; I) Xref: news2.cais.com comp.sys.apple2:127732 Nathan Mates writes ... > > In article <19971104183434175882@ts1-26.aug.com>, > Rick Hatton wrote: > >> There is no year 0 in our calendar system. 1 AD is preceded by 1 BC not > >> zero. The century years mark the end of a century, not the beginning. > >> Also note that 2000 is the end of a 400 year cycle, > > >Lets see if I am understanding you. The century year, 2000, is the end > >of a century, and by implication a millenium (10 centuries). So, the new > >century, and milleium, would begin the next year, 2001? > > Correct. Though the larger parties will start 12/31 1999 (or a few > days earlier-- 12/31/1999 is a friday), the next milennium does not > begin until 1/1/2001. Just because the general public is uninformed > and wrong doesn't mean you have to listen to them. > Alas, you do. Any contemporary calendar is, essentially, a creature of conventions accepted by the society which uses it. One disregards these conventions at ones own risk. For example, suppose someone who claims that The Millenium begins in 2001 A.D. were in charge of marketing for a major auto maker. Were he/she to put belief into action, the company would miss out on "Millenium Year" promotions for the year 2000 and lose millions in potential sales. Then, assuming he/she had not been fired, the company would launch an expensive "Millenium" promo for the year 2001 which, of course, would fall flat. For all their blowing and carping, those who claim to believe that The Millenium begins in 2001 will, in fact, behave as though it begins in 2000. Every important decision they make which hinges upon placement of the Millenium Year will favor 2000, not 2001. Their actions will, thus, betray them. There is absolutely no question about it: the next Millenium _will_ begin in the year 2000. Well, then, _should_ the next Millenium begin in 2001? If one assumes that "millenium" equates exactly with "1000 years named 'A.D.'", then, 2001 would fit as the beginning of the next millenium. There was no 0 A.D.. On the other hand, there was no "1 A.D.", either, until it was so named many years afterwards. 1 A.D. is a convention. The question boils down to this: What specific year is the reference for time spans called "century" and "millenium" in the current era? What we discover is that, for many hundreds of years, calendar authorities and the general populace have celebrated the beginning of new centuries and new millenia during the 0th year of each century. This answers our question. The reference year for century and millenium spans is 1 B.C., not, as some might wish, 1 A.D. One may or may not choose to call 1 B.C. "Year Zero". It does not matter. That it is, in fact, the reference year for our "century" and "millenium" time spans is, literally, written in stone. 2000 is, as it _should_ be, the beginning of the next millenium. Rubywand