 Check out the bookstore at IRBS.com |
|
|
|
|||||
|
||||||
Subject: Re: millenium - 2000 or 2001?
From: Rodney Myrvaagnes (rodneym@XXX.XXX)
Date: Tue Dec 28 1999 - 09:20:01 EST
On Mon, 27 Dec 1999 23:55:50 -0800, Tony wrote:
>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?
As I said before, I regard them as authoritative with
respect to time keeping. This includes leap second
insertions and the like. It is important to keep date/time
designations consistent for the use of almanacs, etc. So,
for consistency, we agree to call this year 1999, so
everyone will know which volume of the almanac to use for
sight reductions, etc.
If almanacs were labeled something like "Almanac for the
third year of the fourth century" we would need the
timekeeping authority to publish clearly what that meant.
Since they are never so labeled, what century or millennium
you call this is a scientific and practical "don't care."
If you, or anyone else, wishes to say that the year 19xx
belongs to a different century than other years beginning
with 19, I say that is your priviledge, because it has no
consequences. The same for a year 1xxx being in a different
millennium from other years 1xxx.
The digit-flipping of Y2K has, as others have pointed out,
the same significance as the odometer rolling over in a
car. Celebrating a the millennium shift that occurs at a
new year without a millennium-digit shift, is like
celebrating 100,001 miles, which is, at least, palindromic.
How about 2002? :-)
Rodney Myrvaagnes J36 Gjoa
Associate Editor Electronic Products
My oyster knife is Y2K compliant
|