|
|
|
|
|||||
|
||||||
Subject: Re: millenium - 2000 or 2001?
From: Tony (anthonys@XXX.XXX)
Date: Tue Dec 28 1999 - 02:55:50 EST
Rodney Myrvaagnes wrote:
>
> This is the first suggestion I have seen that this has
> anything to do with "precise scientific thinking." I hope
> you can enlighten us on the connection.
Huh? Is there a nit here?? It is simply an allusion to what is
stated by USNO and RGO in their explanations ...which I consider
more authoritative. Don't you?
In any event, popular vs sci thinking rails in the press. If you
want, persue some recent in San Francisco at these URLs.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/1999/12/27/MNC988.DTL
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/1999/12/13/MN92060.DTL
Whatever, celebrate! It is the turn of the century ...or is it??? :-)
Tony
ps: it's been a long while since E.P. for me. (now retired) It must be a hugh
challenge to keep up these days, eh?
>
> It was, til now, a discussion of what one might call
> various time periods, whether one millenium is more equal
> than others, etc. Nothing to do with science, which doesn't
> really care if years are numbered decimally, binarily,
> octally, or what, although individual scientists may have
> preferences.
>
> We do expect scientific precision when it comes to the
> insertion of leap seconds. Otherwise how would we know when
> to pop the cork?
>
> Gentlemen, synchronize your cesium. :-)
>
> On Sun, 26 Dec 1999 20:36:29 -0800, Tony wrote:
>
> >To me it's just another case where "political" thinking is at odds with
> >more precise scientific thinking.
>
> Rodney Myrvaagnes J36 Gjoa
> Associate Editor Electronic Products
> My oyster knife is Y2K compliant
|