Help me with this rather annoying question that I have been having an on-going argument with a friend. The Question: When is the end of the millenium? Sounds simple but it's not. Is it the 31.12.99 or is it 31.12.00. Did we start counting the years "ac" from the year 00 or from the year 01? All answers appreciated.

-- Yosi Sasson (yosis@comex.co.il), December 09, 1999

Answers

31.12.00 Milleniums ALWAYS start with year1, not year 0.

-- Hokie (nn@va.com), December 09, 1999.

Technically, our current calendar started with the Year 1 not a Year 0. In the 600's AD a latin monk, Dyonious (sp?) did not have an understanding of the concept of zero as a place holder. So sci-fi author Arthur C. Clarke and others logically define the new millenium based on our current calendar to begin on January 1, 2001 - hence the name of his book 2001 Space Odyssey.

However, this same monk made another mistake in reading his archives: namely that he misdated the birth of Christ by about three years. So, many Biblical scholars that consider the beginning of the third 'millennium' as 2000 years from the birth of Jesus to have begun in 1997.

This has very little to do with Y2K which was firstly a rollover phenomena. became a managemnet problem and is developing into interdependent social issues.

-- Bill P (porterwn@one.net), December 09, 1999.

Do you beep the horn on your car when it rolls from 999 to 1000 or when it rolls from 1000 to 1001? I figure you should get more excited when all the digits change than when just one changes...

But Y2K is actually related to the century ending. If computers had been in widespread use in 1899, then they'd have had this bug in 1900. Who knows what they'd have called it.

I've also always wondered who made up "Y2K" for year 2000? It sounds techie, but programmers know that 1K is 1024 (two to the tenth power) and 2K is 2048. So I don't think a programmer came up with this. Sounds more like some marketing nitwit to me...

By the way, I seem to remember a movie back a few years ago which had people recording and downloading each others experiences. Called something like "Strange Days". I remember it was set at the end of 1999, and someone in a crowd was yelling "Y2K!" I'm not sure, but I think this is the first place I ever saw the phrase. Can anyone confirm that?

-- You Know... (notme@nothere.junk), December 09, 1999.

Ahhh... But your car's odometer starts at 0, wheras the calendar years start with 1...

-- muggsy_monroe (where@am.i), December 09, 1999.

The Y2K acronym came from someone familiar with government acronyms. We use FY98 CY98 FY99 CY99 FY00 CY00 (FY = fiscal year, CY = calander year) for accounting purposes. The Y2K acronym was an obvious extension of that usage.

-- just wondering (what.it.is@about.com), December 09, 1999.

Last day of the millennium: Dec. 31, 2000 First day of the next millennium: Jan. 1, 2001

Since this calendar IS based on the birth of Jesus, and information that has come to light after its inception has proven it flawed. The date of His death in 33 A.D. is not in dispute, as it is substantiated by contemporary documents and comparative documents of the time. Many scholars believe evidence shows his birth year was in error, and that Jesus was 40 when he died, putting his birth at 7 or 6 B.C. So right now we'd be in 2006 or so (it's hard to count backwards this early in the a.m.!) and the millennium would have come and gone without notice.

By the way, even Peter Jennings said that although they knew the millennium started in 2001, they would go along with the "popular" conception that it began Jan. 1, 2000, and continue to refer to it as such in their broadcasts.

-- Jill D. (jdance@mindspring.com), December 09, 1999.

Apparently it's all in the mind. See thread above on government spin!

-- Mark Hillyard (foster@inreach.com), December 09, 1999.

I happen to claim (I've even got the message) to have inadvertantly coined the "Y2K" acronym on 12 Jun 1995 in a conversation on the Peter da Jager year 2000 maillist.

I'm lazy... it's a human trait.. why continually type "year 2000" when Y2K is quicker?

There were other contendors (CDC - centruy date change, FADL - faulty date logic are the only ones I can remembe nowr), but Y2K stuck.

AND I was only using it in the context of the long standing (long before computers) to use only the last two digits. Period. Nothing more.

- David

-- David Eddy (deddy@davideddy.com), December 09, 1999.

Two wrongs do not make a right. Anyone can see that the number one is made up of the total of fractions therein. The mistake of starting at year 1 instead of 0 was made long ago and the consequences of that mistake should not be perpetuated into infinity, but assigned to the makers of the origional sin. The mindset that would have us continue celebrating century rollovers on the 1 instead of 0 is the same as that which got us into the Y2K mess, perpetuating an error instead of correcting it. The only true solution to this dilema is to subtract a year from the lives of the ones who made the mistake in the first place. 2000 is indeed the start of the new millenium.

-- Nikoli Krushev (doomsday@y2000.com), December 09, 1999.

Greenspan (I believe) uses CDC (century date change) - and it really "sounds" like "techno babble gone crazy by breeding with government ..."

People now recognize Y2K - but unfortunately the media has associated it so thoroughly with the "kooks and black helicopter" crowd that the impression is lost.

-- Robert A. Cook, PE (Marietta, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), December 09, 1999.

It is 2000-12-31. Note the year, use of 4 digits for the year, and the date format (YYYY-MM-DD). You people have GOT to start using the standard format, not the U.S. format, not the German format, not the wogland format. (Unless of course, you enjoy the babble/confusion.)

-- A (A@AisA.com), December 09, 1999.

The year 2000 AD does not mean 2000 years since the (incorrectly dated) birth of Christ, but is a shortened version of saying "in the 2000th year of our lord". Therefore it can only be after the end of the year 2000 that the new millenium begins.

Malcolm

-- Malcolm Taylor (taylorm@es.co.nz), December 09, 1999.

Malcolm,

If you're referring to my post....I know A.D. means anno domini... but this calendar is reckoned from the birth of Christ, albeit incorrectly. It's preceded by the year 1 B.C. and if you know the definition of A.D. you'll know what THAT means! :o)

-- Jill D. (jdance@mindspring.com), December 09, 1999.

Jill D:

Surely you know that there is no incontrovertable evidence of the existence of Jesus, no real evidence outside the Bible that he ever was crucified at any date, let alone 33 A.D.

The only thing we can be sure of is that there was no year 0000.

-- secular humanist (skeptic@nowhere.com), December 09, 1999.

Secular humanist,

Uh oh, you didn't do your research! Surely you know there are documents written contemporaneously with the New Testament events that exist today in Greece and Turkey - two of which physically describe Jesus. His activities were also mentioned in a report to Rome by the Roman authorities in Jerusalem. But regardless of what you or I think or believe or have or haven't researched, the calendar of the western world has its roots in Christianity. Just a fact.

-- Jill D. (jdance@mindspring.com), December 10, 1999.