home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: uk.misc
- Path: sparky!uunet!newsgate.watson.ibm.com!news.ans.net!europa.asd.contel.com!darwin.sura.net!spool.mu.edu!agate!netsys!ibmpcug!pipex!cam-cl!pavo.csi.cam.ac.uk!bemj1
- From: bemj1@cl.cam.ac.uk (Bernie Jones)
- Subject: Re: Was: Re: 29 Feb 2000?, Now: 2000/2001
- Message-ID: <1992Nov17.145205.18974@infodev.cam.ac.uk>
- Sender: news@infodev.cam.ac.uk (USENET news)
- Nntp-Posting-Host: ely.cl.cam.ac.uk
- Reply-To: Bernie.Jones@cl.cam.ac.uk (Bernie Jones)
- Organization: U of Cambridge Comp Lab, UK
- References: <BxtIyL.LG2@cck.coventry.ac.uk> <721949208snz@muir.demon.co.uk> <28248@castle.ed.ac.uk> <JRG.92Nov17115110@oak22.doc.ic.ac.uk>
- Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 14:52:05 GMT
- Lines: 19
-
- In <721949208snz@muir.demon.co.uk> malcolm@muir.demon.co.uk ("Malcolm S. Muir") writes:
-
- > Next argument - I say the first year of the 21st. century is
- > 2001, not 2000 which is the last year of the 20th. century.
-
- ...and lots of people wrote about TV companies etc celebrating it at
- the end of 1999. The point is that regardless of what mathematics and
- chronology say, the psychological decade/century start when you see a
- different number at the front of the date - personally, I'd feel a bit
- stupid celebrating when 2000 turns into 2001 (mind you, there's some
- that say I'm a bit stupid anyway). Maybe we should draw distinctions
- between chronological and psychological decades/centuries/millenia :-)
-
- On a slightly different note, I want to know what the banks are going to
- do with chequebooks they issue in 1999 - will they leave the whole 'date'
- line blank, or will they put 19/20 half-way along it (unlikely, and tacky).
- More importantly, will we get re-runs of Space-1999?
-
- Bernie
-
