Re: 5th USENIX Conf on Object-Oriented Tech & Sys (COOTS'99) - CFP

[Stephen.Leake@gsfc.nasa.gov]

nobody@REPLAY.COM (Anonymous) writes:

> <uwwbnqmby.fsf@ANARRES.i-did-not-set--mail-host-address--so-shoot-me>
> <EswwJ2.EBG@usenix.org> <199805141444.QAA10968@basement.replay.com>
> 
> On 15 May 1998 17:02:41 -0400, Stephen.Leake@gsfc.nasa.gov wrote:
> 
> > nobody@REPLAY.COM (Anonymous) writes:
> > 
> > > On Wed, 13 May 1998 20:21:02 GMT, jackson@usenix.org (Jackson Dodd)
> > > wrote:
> > > 
> > > > ...
> > > > As the last COOTS before the new millennium, COOTS '99 will focus 
> > > > ...
> > > 
> > > Apparently there will be no COOTS in 2000, the last year of the 2nd
> > > millenium.
> > 
> > Ok, I'll bite (it's late Friday, and I haven't written any Ada today :).
> > 
> > Who says the next millenium can't start with 2000? That's when most of
> > the digits change. That's when the 21st century begins (the "century"
> > is the first two digits of the year, plus one). That's when all the
> > non-Y2K programs will break. The current millenium started in 1000 AD,
> > the one before that in 0 AD, the one before that in ... hmm, things
> > get tricky for BC, but I'll just ignore that.
> > ...
> 
> Thank you for biting :)
> 
> No one says the next millenium can't start with 2000. Invent your own
> calendar and you can have it start wherever you want. However, the
> calendar we use is the "Common Calendar," and the 3rd millenium and the
> 21st century both start in 2001 Common Era (CE).

I've heard many people say this, but can you quote an actual
reference? Say the Oxford English Dictionary or some such (being a
true engineer, I have no such reference handy at work :). There must
be an ISO calendar? I'm looking for something that actually DEFINES
"millenium" and "century" the way you do. Until that happens, I'll
stick to the ones I like.

<snip>

> I note in passing that the century is not always the same as "the first
> two digits of the year, plus one." Obviously this will never hold after
> 9999 CE (when an enormous quantity of legacy code from the late 20th
> century will fail, the infamous Y10k problem), nor did it hold in 1900
> CE, the last year of the 19th century.

Only if you choose not to accept my definition!

> Since we're dealing with numbers, we can also take a quasi-mathematical
> approach to this. Prove that 2000 CE is not the first year of the third
> millenium. We assume the opposite of that which we must prove and show
> that it leads to a contradiction. Assume that 2000 CE is the first year
> of the third millenium. Then the first year of the second millenium was
> 1000 CE and the first year of the first millenium was 0 CE. But there
> was no year 0 CE; therefore, 2000 CE is not the first year of the third
> millenium.

So you subtracted 1000 years from 1000 CE and got 0 CE. As you say,
this is wrong. Therefore, the "first century" started in 1 BCE. Simple
:).

> Everyone is entitled to his own opinions, but there is only one set of
> facts. Knowing something that "ain't so" is ignorance. We are all
> ignorant, so there is no shame attached to it. However, continuing to
> know something after being informed that it "ain't so" is stupidity. I
> doubt if anyone who contributes to this news group is stupid. (I can say
> this because it's been many months since I've seen a posting by the Rev.
> You-Know-Who.)

And the way to "prove" that something is a "fact" is to provide a
reference to something we all accept as a common authority. Simply
stating YOUR beliefs, as opposed to MY beliefs, gets us nowhere. Note
that I did NOT say my beliefs where "facts"; I simply suggested they
were more convenient.

> 
> Thank you, and have a nice millenium.

I intend to, starting 1 year and 7 months from now.

-- Stephe