Article View: alt.folklore.computers
Article #339Re: An answer to what is the first year of the next century.
From: Dave Dodson
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 1989 00:10
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 1989 00:10
15 lines
1412 bytes
1412 bytes
In article <1989Dec18....@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> mrch...@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Matt Richards ) writes: >Why is everyone tinkering with the end years? Can't we >just define 1 _BC_ to be the first year, since there >was no 0? That would put everything in sync (for AD >at least :-). Why do you think having 2000 as the last year of the second second millennium AD is out of sync? It seems perfectly reasonable to me. And why mess things for BC up when there is no need? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Dave Dodson dod...@convex.COM Convex Computer Corporation Richardson, Texas (214) 497-4234
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<4079@convex.UUCP>Path:
mbox-mo1.pugleaf.net!gmdzi!unido!mcsun!uunet!snorkelwacker!apple!sun-barr!newstop!texsun!convex!mozart!dodsonReferences:
<18494@bellcore.bellcore.com> <552@enea.se> <8483@ttidca.TTI.COM> <1468@skye.ed.ac.uk> <49878@bbn.COM> <1989Dec18.214254.9231@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Path: mbox-mo1.pugleaf.net!gmdzi!unido!mcsun!uunet!snorkelwacker!apple!sun-barr!newstop!texsun!convex!mozart!dodson From: dodson@mozart.uucp (Dave Dodson) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: An answer to what is the first year of the next century. Message-ID: <4079@convex.UUCP> Date: 19 Dec 89 00:10:15 GMT References: <18494@bellcore.bellcore.com> <552@enea.se> <8483@ttidca.TTI.COM> <1468@skye.ed.ac.uk> <49878@bbn.COM> <1989Dec18.214254.9231@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> Sender: news@convex.UUCP Reply-To: dod...@convex.COM (Dave Dodson) Organization: Convex Computer Corporation, Richardson, Tx. Lines: 15 Posted: Tue Dec 19 01:10:15 1989 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit