new year day

[madmax12]

this is were I should have post this . On new year day morning walk out set up and take the new years and decade image and post it here . Just thought it would be cool to see .

[Marko]

this is were I should have post this . On new year day morning walk out set up and take the new years and decade image and post it here . Just thought it would be cool to see .

It's a year too early for the decade image. 2010 is the last year of the first decade.

But it would be cool anyway. :)

[percepts]

It's a year too early for the decade image. 2010 is the last year of the first decade.

But it would be cool anyway. :)

On that basis then everyone got it wrong when the millenium changed as the year 2000 began. I guess that means you've got some catching up to do.

[SW Rick]

On that basis then everyone got it wrong when the millenium changed as the year 2000 began. I guess that means you've got some catching up to do.

So you are saying, in effect, "The Fifties", et al were 1950-59, "The Sixties" were 1960-69, etc? Not 1951-1960, or 1961-70, as so many seem to think? Someone 20 years old cannot be described as a teenager? The Earth is not square? Amazing how many are confused about this :)

[Marko]

On that basis then everyone got it wrong when the millenium changed as the year 2000 began. I guess that means you've got some catching up to do.

Not everyone got it wrong, only those who thought that the millennium started with the year 2000. :)

Which is the first year of the decade? Of the millennium?

First year A.D.? Year 0 or year 1?

[percepts]

So you are saying, in effect, "The Fifties", et al were 1950-59, "The Sixties" were 1960-69, etc? Not 1951-1960, or 1961-70, as so many seem to think? Someone 20 years old cannot be described as a teenager? The Earth is not square? Amazing how many are confused about this :)

Seems pretty obvious. Some people just think numbers start at one and not zero.
I guess they learnt to count from one and didn't realise one meant a whole one and not a part of one.
When you are ten you are 10 complete years and in your eleventh year and not in your tenth year.
I know decimal is complex (for some) but not that complex. i.e. 0 to 9 and not 1 to 10. :D

[Marko]

Seems pretty obvious. Some people just think numbers start at one and not zero.
I guess they learnt to count from one and didn't realise one meant a whole one and not a part of one.
When you are ten you are 10 complete years and in your eleventh year and not in your tenth year.
I know decimal is complex (for some) but not that complex. i.e. 0 to 9 and not 1 to 10. :D

When you are born, you begin year 1 of your life. When you complete that year, you turn 1. We are about a year away from beginning the year 2011.

Decimal is indeed not all that complex, all it takes is a little logic. And you can always use your fingers when the going gets tough... ;)

[BrianShaw]

I know how many fingers to hold up to get "1" through "10", but how many fingers do I hold up to get "zero"? That has always confused me when I'm told that numbers go from 0 - 9 not 1 - 10. ;)

[BrianShaw]

p.s. I'm easily confused. It all started after I held my thumb straight up one day in Germany to order "ein bier bitte"; the waiter slugged me. Only after that I realized that I was being impolite and should have held up just half of my thumb. But I wanted a full pint, not a half-pint. As I said... I'm easily confused.

[Vaughn]

All depends how one wants to look at it, I suppose. Logic seems to lead me to the decade starting at 2010, not 2011. Someone born on 1-1-2000 would have lived a decade plus a year by 1-1-2011. So the first decade (or ten years) of his/her life ends at the end of the day on 12-31-2009, with 1-1-2010 marking the start of his/her second decade.

But what the hell -- why is January 1 the start of a "new" year? Why not on a soltise (sp?) or an equinox?

But I hope to take a photo of my boys in the Redwoods on 1-1-2010 with the 8x10, weather permitting. And if it does not permit (heavy rain, for example), we'll just hike through the redwoods anyway, enjoy the light and sounds, and check out the salmon and steelhead running up Prairie Creek.

Vaughn

[Vaughn]

...but how many fingers do I hold up to get "zero"?

It is called a fist -- right on, brother!

[percepts]

I really don't beleive this...

Lets make it simple for the binary boy...

when the units column is full we put a 1 in the tens column so we have 10. The fact that units column is full means we have used all 10 digits which means it is a complete 10. So that means at the end of year 9 we have completed the decade. How would it be possible to have something in tens column if the decade wasn't complete.

Logic obviously isn't your strong point. Stick to binary as you only have 2 digits to worry about. When you've worked that one out you can progress decimal.

[bobwysiwyg]

OMG, Y2K all over again. :eek:!

[sanking]

When you are born, you begin year 1 of your life. When you complete that year, you turn 1.



So what is the problem? Even by your own logic the beginning of the new millenium was on January 1, 2000, and will end on December 31, 2999, and the beginning of the next decade will be on January 1, 2010 and end on December 31, 2019.

You seem to be making this a lot harder on yourself than it should be.

Sandy King

[Vick Vickery]

Funny how this discussion comes up every 10 or 100 years over and over again!!! :)

[percepts]

Funny how this discussion comes up every 10 or 100 years over and over again!!! :)

Blimey! Are you telling me you remember this coming up a hundred years ago. Your memory must be better than mine.;)

[Marko]

I really don't beleive this...

Lets make it simple for the binary boy...

when the units column is full we put a 1 in the tens column so we have 10. The fact that units column is full means we have used all 10 digits which means it is a complete 10. So that means at the end of year 9 we have completed the decade. How would it be possible to have something in tens column if the decade wasn't complete.

Logic obviously isn't your strong point. Stick to binary as you only have 2 digits to worry about. When you've worked that one out you can progress decimal.

If you are just pretending to be stupid for the sake of an argument, I have to say you are doing an awfully good job of it... ;)

I asked you a very simple question which you ignored and went on with these idiotic diatribes instead.

Here is the question again, a very simple one:

Which was the first year A.D., year 0 or year 1?

Once you figure that one out, we can maybe progress further.

Hint: we are talking about calendars (http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/980902d.html) here, not about numeral systems.

[Marko]

So what is the problem? Even by your own logic the beginning of the new millenium was on January 1, 2000, and will end on December 31, 2999, and the beginning of the next decade will be on January 1, 2010 and end on December 31, 2019.

You seem to be making this a lot harder on yourself than it should be.

Sandy King

Not really. By the logic I'm using, January 1, 2000 was the beginning of the last year of the previous millennium.

The calendar we are using began with 01/01/01 Not 01/01/00 (mm/dd/yy). Year 1, in other words, was the first year of the first millennium and therefore, Year 10 was the last year of the first decade and year 1000 was the last year of the first millennium, and so on.

A man born on January 1, Year 1 A.D. would celebrate his first birthday at the end of the first year of his life and then turn 1 year old at the start the second year of his life. That person would officially be 1 year old throughout the second year of his life, and so on.

There is no problem really, I just made a factual remark and the things started rolling when the usual trolls started pitching in. You are right, this IS unnecessary - I really don't need to prove the obvious to those who can't or won't see it.

[percepts]

If you are just pretending to be stupid for the sake of an argument, I have to say you are doing an awfully good job of it... ;)

I asked you a very simple question which you ignored and went on with these idiotic diatribes instead.

Here is the question again, a very simple one:

Which was the first year A.D., year 0 or year 1?

Once you figure that one out, we can maybe progress further.

Hint: we are talking about calendars (http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/980902d.html) here, not about numeral systems.

You'd be wrong about that as well because the current international date system we all use does have a zero in it. You are making a foolish attempt to try and tie our current date system to AD 1. You just can't do that because it suits you to do it. It is not tied to BC/AD in the way it used to be a long time ago,

[Marko]

Ok, so you are not pretending, after all. Whatever, this is dragging way to far, I have better things to do than keep trying to prove the obvious to the blind.

Out.

[percepts]

Ok, so you are not pretending, after all. Whatever, this is dragging way to far, I have better things to do than keep trying to prove the obvious to the blind.

Out.

You are wrong and not man enough to admit it. The current international standard for dates (ISO 8601) has year zero. Since you stated that we are talking about calendar systems that is exactly what I am doing, talking about the currently accepted and used calendar system which has year zero. We are not talking about Anno Domini. There's none so blind as them that won't see...

[Vaughn]

The calendar we are using began with 01/01/01 Not 01/01/00 (mm/dd/yy)...

Any definitive references to this? Not saying it was one way or the other -- it just makes more sense to me to start on the year 00. Year 1 of the new era (AD), would then be from 00 to 01.

By saying the calender starts on 1-1-01, then the year 1BC would then start on 1-1-00, which seems a bit odd. To base the calender on the birth of Jesus, it seems to be logical to have that date be 00 like any other number line. A year before Jesus' birth would then be 1BC and a year after his birth would be 1AD. Of course, this would be the logical way to do it, but as with things religious, and man in general, the logical is often ignored

It is easy to see how things become so confusing, with the calender being such an arbitrary thing in the first place.

[pocketfulladoubles]

Marko, you are technically correct that world authorities have established 1/1/xxx1 00:00:01 as the start of each new year, decade, centure, etc. The US Navy agrees with you, NASA agrees with you, all the worlds computers agree with you. However, popular culture does not agree with you and if you ask 100 people, 99 of them will tell you that we're on the verge of a new decade, because it how we typically count numbers. Hence, the 80's, 90's etc. The argument is really who gets to decide: Standards bureaus or the populace?

[percepts]

Any definitive references to this? Not saying it was one way or the other -- it just makes more sense to me to start on the year 00. Year 1 of the new era (AD), would then be from 00 to 01.

By saying the calender starts on 1-1-01, then the year 1BC would then start on 1-1-00, which seems a bit odd. To base the calender on the birth of Jesus, it seems to be logical to have that date be 00 like any other number line. A year before Jesus' birth would then be 1BC and a year after his birth would be 1AD. Of course, this would be the logical way to do it, but as with things religious, and man in general, the logical is often ignored

It is easy to see how things become so confusing, with the calender being such an arbitrary thing in the first place.

the history of calendar systems is massively complicated and the BC/AD calendar did infact go from 1BC to 1AD without a zero inbetween. But that is not what is now used as the international date standard. It now uses zero but zero is equivalent to what 1BC used to be. So counting from zero, the end of the first decade is equivalent to the old AD 9. But that is totally irrelevant because we are not using the BC/AD calendar for international date systems, we are using the ISO 8601 standard which runs from zero. In his ignorance Marko seems to think the calendar is attached to the Birth of Jesus. It isn't. It is loosely alligned with it but not tightly aligned to be able to claim that the calendar in use runs from year 1. So he is wrong and anyone else who thinks the internationally accepted calendar runs from 1/1/1 is also wrong.

[pocketfulladoubles]

My understanding of ISO 8601 is that it defines year zero as a positive value for computing, but not as a definition in establishing the start of a millenium. Reread the standard, I haven't looked at it in a bit.

[Vaughn]

Damn the logic! Full speed ahead!

Who else is planning on photographing on the first day of the coming year?

[Brian Ellis]

Damn logic! Full speed ahead!

Who else is planning on photographing on the first day of the coming year?

I was going to but after reading this thread I'm confused about what exactly "first day" means. I used to think it was January 1 but now I think maybe it's actually January 0.

[BrianShaw]

OMG, Y2K all over again. :eek:!

It's worse than you think: Y2.1K :D

[Vaughn]

I was going to but after reading this thread I'm confused about what exactly "first day" means. I used to think it was January 1 but now I think maybe it's actually January 0.

Just don't forget to one-out your camera movements! :D

Jan 1 weather forecast calls for light rain and 11 mph winds, while the next day is just cloudy and 2 mph winds. So by all logical considerations I should wait until the 2nd. But the hell with it, if I can't photograph much on the 1/1, I'll go back up to the redwoods again on 1/2!

Vaughn

[Marko]

Any definitive references to this? Not saying it was one way or the other -- it just makes more sense to me to start on the year 00. Year 1 of the new era (AD), would then be from 00 to 01.

By saying the calender starts on 1-1-01, then the year 1BC would then start on 1-1-00, which seems a bit odd. To base the calender on the birth of Jesus, it seems to be logical to have that date be 00 like any other number line. A year before Jesus' birth would then be 1BC and a year after his birth would be 1AD. Of course, this would be the logical way to do it, but as with things religious, and man in general, the logical is often ignored

It is easy to see how things become so confusing, with the calender being such an arbitrary thing in the first place.

I provided a link from a authoritative (enough) source (NASA).

It is both arbitrary (regarding the starting point) and relative (to that point), but once we adopt it, then it starts making sense. The pivotal and determinant event was singular in nature and did not take nowhere near full year to complete, so in that context, it is perfectly logical to to have both year one before it and year one after. Not to mention that year 00 is an abstraction invented much later in the course of history to better organize computer data...

We are, of course, talking about officially and popularly accepted calendar based first on Julian and then Gregorian calendar.

And as far as I know, it is NOT based on Jesus' birth but on vernal equinox and, by extension, the date of Easter. So the year before Jesus' birth would actually be 2 B.C., while 1 B.C. would be the year of his birth and 1 A.D. the year of his alleged resurrection. Or something along those lines, I am not religious enough to bother with those kinds of details. ;)


Marko, you are technically correct that world authorities have established 1/1/xxx1 00:00:01 as the start of each new year, decade, centure, etc. The US Navy agrees with you, NASA agrees with you, all the worlds computers agree with you. However, popular culture does not agree with you and if you ask 100 people, 99 of them will tell you that we're on the verge of a new decade, because it how we typically count numbers. Hence, the 80's, 90's etc. The argument is really who gets to decide: Standards bureaus or the populace?

I do not think of myself as a consumer and never cared much about the oxymoron called "popular culture" so I am quite happy to have the likes of NASA, standards bureaus and the computer science agree with me. The "populace" can have all the sales events they want whenever they want them, for all I'm concerned... :D

[Vaughn]

Don't know how a yearly occurance (vernal equinox) can determine when Year 1 was. You lost me there. The birth of Jesus is definitely the event that determines Year 1 (AD and BC and all that). The alleged resurrection would have been in 34AD -- give or take a few years.

I agree that it does make it easier to have everyone on the same calender...or at least have the various calenders sync'ed. I don't think NASA, the US Navy, etc., care much about when decades and/or milliniums start and end, so it might as well be the popular usage that determines that.

[jnantz]

Don't know how a yearly occurance (vernal equinox) can determine when Year 1 was. You lost me there. The birth of Jesus is definitely the event that determines Year 1 (AD and BC and all that). The alleged resurrection would have been in 34AD -- give or take a few years.

I agree that it does make it easier to have everyone on the same calender...or at least have the various calenders sync'ed. I don't think NASA, the US Navy, etc., care much about when decades and/or milliniums start and end, so it might as well be the popular usage that determines that.

as long as you remember to convert back from metric ...

[Vaughn]

as long as you remember to convert back from metric ...

Dang...I keep forgetting about that! The last time I forgot I tried to drive to Yosemite, but I ended up crashing into Mars.

[Tiziano]

It is easy to see how things become so confusing, with the calender being such an arbitrary thing in the first place.

The calendar is everything but arbitrary. It took the best brains and knowledge of their era, to come up with the Julian calendar in 46 BC, and the Gregorian calendar in 1582.
You may want to read about the history and logic of both, it's quite interesting.

[BrianShaw]

The birth of Jesus is definitely the event that determines Year 1 (AD and BC and all that). The alleged resurrection would have been in 34AD -- give or take a few years.

I think you are corect, Vaughn, but Marko's version is the funniest thing I've read in a long time. I need to repeat that to my Pastor so he can use it in a sermon... at the liturgy for the Feast Day of the Nerdy Engineer. :eek:

What I wonder, though, is if "AD" started at Jesus' birth... or conception. :D

[aduncanson]

Just a point of information since so many seem to not be aware, the attempted basing of our calender on the birth of Jesus was seriously flawed. Scholars now date the birth of Jesus to between 4 and 6 BC.

[Vaughn]

Thanks, Tiziano, you are correct. "Arbitary" was a poor choice of a word, I did not like it when I wrote it, but could not think of another way to put it. An "artificial construct" might fit more, but still is not quite right.

The history of calenders would be an interesting study. They do help us keep track of when things happen, but I can't get rid of the feeling that they are a bit of a cheat. While not a Christian, I do like the the way Easter is determined -- it is so organic (first Sunday after the first full moon after the Spring Equinox, or something like that).

Vaughn

[Marko]

I think you are corect, Vaughn, but Marko's version is the funniest thing I've read in a long time. I need to repeat that to my Pastor so he can use it in a sermon... at the liturgy for the Feast Day of the Nerdy Engineer. :eek:

What I wonder, though, is if "AD" started at Jesus' birth... or conception. :D

Well, I did put a proper disclaimer, didn't I?


Or something along those lines, I am not religious enough to bother with those kinds of details.

Knowing that most calendars throughout history were based on some sort of religious fairy tale or the other is all that really matters, and even that mostly as a trivia point. ;)

[pocketfulladoubles]

I do not think of myself as a consumer and never cared much about the oxymoron called "popular culture" so I am quite happy to have the likes of NASA, standards bureaus and the computer science agree with me. The "populace" can have all the sales events they want whenever they want them, for all I'm concerned... :D

That's fine, but should global catastrophe ever strike and your scientific theories and international standards become as worthless as paper currency, just remember that you'll still be a very small speck in the populace.

[Marko]

That's fine, but should global catastrophe ever strike and your scientific theories and international standards become as worthless as paper currency, just remember that you'll still be a very small speck in the populace.

That's fine too, but should global catastrophe ever strike, the calendar will be the least of my worries. Knowing a little about human behaviour, the biggest worry will be keeping all those other specks far enough away from me. Every holiday/sales season provide a pretty realistic annual exercise. ;)