At 02:56 AM 1/5/99 -0500, Ward wrote:
Tony Duell wrote:
> > > And if I hear one more person who claims
the Millennium is the 31/12/1999
> >
> > > - 01/01/2000 (as opposed to the correct date of 1 year later), I am
> > > liable to get out a very large LART..
(Forget the argument when the 2nd millennium starts --
yes, there was
no Year Zero, but the majority of voters are impressed by the row of
zeroes in the coming year number -- democratically, we lose. Let them
celebrate their millennium, nick the booze from their parties, then we
can have a proper party a year later. Inviting those who can count.)
--
These conversations have made me think about time. The key word above, IMO,
is the last one, _count_.
Does one count or measure time?
In an analog clock, a minute starts at 60 = 00 seconds, not one. It is measured.
Once you get to hours, it is mixed. They are numbered 1 to 12, but the
morning/evening starts at 12:00. I used to always be confused when, for
example, 12:30 AM was.
In early digital clocks, one had to somehow "adjust" the hours display as a
mod 12 counter typically counts 0 ..11.
Suppose an analog computer is made as a clock. Say using voltage ramps. If
seconds were mV, the sawtooth would be reset at 60mV. Same for an index mark
on revolving disks. This could also be for hours, months, years, etc.
So for an counting computer it is 2001, but maybe for a measuring computer,
it is 2000??
End of rambling.
The issue I guess isn't the millenniun, but how computers handle the year 2000.
Don't be surprised if next year my messages are dated 1980.
-Dave