hort.net Seasonal photo, (c) 2006 Christopher P. Lindsey, All Rights Reserved: do not copy
articles | gallery of plants | blog | tech blog | plant profiles | patents | mailing lists | top stories | links | shorturl service | tom clothier's archive0
 Navigation
Articles
Gallery of Plants
Blog
Tech Blog
Plant Profiles
Patents
Mailing Lists
    FAQ
    Netiquette
    Search ALL lists
    Search help
    Subscription info
Top Stories
Links
sHORTurl service
Tom Clothier's Archive
 Top Stories
Disease could hit Britain's trees hard

Ten of the best snowdrop cultivars

Plant protein database helps identify plant gene functions

Dendroclimatologists record history through trees

Potato beetle could be thwarted through gene manipulation

Hawaii expands coffee farm quarantine

Study explains flower petal loss

Unauthorized use of a plant doesn't invalidate it's patent

RSS story archive

Re: OT:CHAT: Millennium Celebration


From: Pat Bass <bpbass@gj.net>

John, Jeff, and Carolyn,

Wow!  I didn't mean to stir up a "tempest in a teapot!"  This thing of the year
2000 or the year 2001 being the beginning of the millenium has been debated for
over 20 years in my recollection, and still there is no consensus of opinion.
As far as I'm concerned, it will just mean I'm a year older either way!  Hope
the Y2K bug doesn't really affect us as much as some think it will.  Perhaps
we'll have to don our Victorian clothes and pretend we're in the 1900's!  :>)

Pat in CO

Jeff and Carolyn Walters wrote:

> John Jones writes:
>
> > Well, NIST sez:
> >
> > When does the next millenium begin?
> > Which begs the question: was the first year yr 0 or yr 1. In the
> transition
> > from BC to AD was there a year zero? Did it belong to BC or AD. I am sure
> some
> > scholarly types somewhere have figured this out already, but it would
> seem
> > from the NIST position that the first year was year 1. However I seem to
> > remember refences to year 0 in various places.
>
> John,
>
> There never was a year Zero. According to the calendar system in current
> use, the day after December 31, 1 BC was January 1, 1 AD. Therefore, the
> number of years between the present (1999 AD) and an event that happened BC
> is one less than the sum of the two numbers (for example, Rome was founded
> in 756 BC, which is 2,754 years ago).
>
> Prior to the beginning of the present century, Britain's Astronomer Royal
> decreed that 1900 was the 100th year of the 19th Century and that the 20th
> Century began on January 1, 1901 (which is quite correct, technically
> speaking). No one in this country paid much attention to him. I read in an
> article earlier this year that his successor issued the same decree
> regarding the millenium, but that no one, even in Britain, is paying much
> attention this time around. Commonsense feels that there is a bigger
> difference between 1999 and 2000 than there is between 2000 and 2001, and
> in this case commonsense is going to prevail, even though its perception
> does not accurately reflect the reality of the calendar.
>
> Jeff Walters



> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, or to change your subscription
> to digest, go to the ONElist web site, at http://www.onelist.com and
> select the User Center link from the menu bar on the left.




------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, or to change your subscription
to digest, go to the ONElist web site, at http://www.onelist.com and
select the User Center link from the menu bar on the left.





 © 1995-2015 Mallorn Computing, Inc.All Rights Reserved.
Our Privacy Statement
Other Mailing lists | Author Index | Date Index | Subject Index | Thread Index