Why did Jerry say Newman's 1999 New Year's Eve party would be one year too late to celebrate the Millennium which begins in 2001? Writer's goof? A December 31, 1999 party would be one year early. Is it a trick to see how many on the net respond.
T-Roz
Roz & Tony Cundell wrote in article ...
I think what he meant was that most people are booking the big parties for 12/31/99. He asked Newman specifically if he booked for the millennium New Years Eve which would be 12/31/2000. Even though this would be technically right, most people are gearing up for big parties in 99 so Newman would be a year late and therefore have a lame Newmennium party.
"James A. Dirmeyer" wrote:
I believe you are correct, that the millenium New Year's Eve would be 12/31/2000. So Newman's party, if booked for the Millenium, would be a year later than when most people will be celebrating.
The 21st century doesn't start until 2001:
1st century = 1 - 100
2nd century - 101 -200
etc.
19th century 1801- 1900
20th century 1901-2000
21st century 2001-2100I think you guys are wrong. I don't think there was anything wrong with what jerry said. The next millenium starts on 01/01/2000. Therefore, people will celebrate on 12/31/99.
about the above 'chart'....what happened to years 0-1 ? this is how it really is:
1st century = 0 - 99
2nd century - 100 - 199
etc.
19th century 1800- 1899
20th century 1900-1999
21st century 2000-2099Now that's funny!!!! I know this was a joke because the Encyclopedia is available to everyone who can look under the entry "Calender" to see why there was no year zero.
Exactly. There is no year zero for the same reason that there is no day zero at the beginning of every month.
Tom
Devon Groen wrote:
No, because as Jerry said, there was no year 0.
Devon Groen wrote in article ...
One small error in your logic: THERE IS NO YEAR ZERO!!!!!!
2000. Go ahead and sit home and miss the best party ever only because you know when the real millenium is.
Lorenzo
debbie wrote:
Except that early on, Kramer specifically said his party was being held in 1999, and Kramer's and Newman's parties falling on the same night means Newman's party was also being held in 1999.
It seems Kramer just assumed that Newman's party was on the same night.
debbie wrote in article ...
What about the 15th century?
Think of this as birthdays...is a person non-existent because he/she is 0-1 year old? The EVE of his life would be the day before he or she was born, not the night before his or her first birthday. There is no year 0, but we are 0 for but a nanosecond of time...then we are working on our first year. ?:=)
In article , [email] says...
A person is not a year. We name them differently. The person is existent between the ages of 0 (birth) and one, and so is a year. However, although a year is complete until it is over, people name the year as if it were. A person who is between the ages of 0 (birth) and one is not called one years old. However, people living in that year who can talk, if that were the first year of recording time in years, WOULD call that year "1." That is why you are confused.
Newman was technically correct in booking the restaurant for the night of 12/31/2000 - 01/01/2001, because at midnite that's when 2000 years will have passed. Ask yourself this:
If time began at 00:00 (military time) January 01, 0000, what is the date after 10 years HAVE PASSED? After 1 year, it would be midnite on night of 12/31/0000 - 01/01/0001...and after 10 years HAVE PASSED, it would be midnite on the night of 12/31/0010 - 01/01/0011. Repeat until you get to the END of 2000 years. You will see the end of 2000 years and the beginning of the 2001st year occurs at midnite on the night of 12/31/2000 - 01/01/2001.
I think you just shot yourself in the foot. You must think more carefully before you talk next time. Follow...:
1) at time 0:00 01/01/0000 ---> 12/31/0000 - 01/01/0001 = 1 yr PASSED 2) 12/31/0000 - 01/01/0001 ---> 12/31/0001 - 01/01/0002 = 2 yrs PASSED 3) 12/31/0001 - 01/01/0002 ---> 12/31/0002 - 01/01/0003 = 3 yrs PASSED 4) 12/31/0002 - 01/01/0003 ---> 12/31/0003 - 01/01/0004 = 4 yrs PASSED 5) 12/31/0003 - 01/01/0004 ---> 12/31/0004 - 01/01/0005 = 5 yrs PASSED 6) 12/31/0004 - 01/01/0005 ---> 12/31/0005 - 01/01/0006 = 6 yrs PASSED 7) 12/31/0005 - 01/01/0006 ---> 12/31/0006 - 01/01/0007 = 7 yrs PASSED 8) 12/31/0006 - 01/01/0007 ---> 12/31/0007 - 01/01/0008 = 8 yrs PASSED 9) 12/31/0007 - 01/01/0008 ---> 12/31/0008 - 01/01/0009 = 9 yrs PASSED 10) 12/31/0008 - 01/01/0009 ---> 12/31/0009 - 01/01/0010 = 10 yrs PASSED 11) 12/31/0009 - 01/01/0010 ---> 12/31/0010 - 01/01/0011 = 11 yrs PASSED
Clearly 10 YEARS HAVE PASSED on the midnite of 12/31/0009 - 01/01/0010. Now what do you have to say?
Devon Groen wrote:
Devon,
PLEASE, PLEASE let this die....
THERE WAS NO YEAR ZERO!!!!!
You can not mathmatical prove a year zero, because this is a fact. The current convention credited to Dionysius Exiguus in 532 AD, started the Christian Era with the year 1. It was codified by Pope Gregory XIII and thats the way it is. We complete the second millenium Dec 31, 2000 by agreement.
You can start a rebel movement for a year zero. Hey, I don't want Prince to be wrong about that party in 1999.
Who cares? I plan on partying hard on 12/31/99 *and* 12/31/00. While all you fools are only going to one hype party, I get to hit two.
Give me a break. Granted in an EARLIER post I made an argument for a year zero, but, NO WHERE in this last post did I argue for a year zero. I was just pointing out that your math was very wrong.
Fuck I hate this juvenile bickering but I can't help myself. Look at the original post! I did not say these things {i.e 1) 2), 3), ...} I was showing THE PERSON WHO SAID THEM that their math was very wrong.
And even this person did not say that this is how it is. He was stating a hypothetical situation. You look stupid for not reading the fucking post.
Listen Devon, you "fuck." We will look at the original post. Very soon. First, the only way you're going to get your Bachelor's degree in Mathematics at "uwaterloo.ca" is cheat/lie, because that's what you're doing right now. If you didn't say these things, as you claim, then either you are lying or purposely altering your quoting engine's behavior in a manner that makes it appear that you *did* say those things, and that doesn't make much sense.
Your entire response to my post follows (relevant portions). Note how I (Huckleberry) was quoted first, indicating that this is your direct response to my words. The two ">" characters that start of my post indicate that _those_ words were quoted by me, not written. However, after the "?:=)" smiley, things get really clear. A single ">" starts each line, indicating that these lines are my words. (Since you replied directly to my *original* message, this is what would happen.) Continue until YOU start writing. Notice how each line just begins; no ">" character (as this is a copy of YOUR *original* response). Anyone who knows even the slightest detail about quoting will know that you are trying to worm your way out of responsibility for YOUR own words.
And, I would not have come down so hard on you if your attitude weren't so piss-poor and condescending in the first place. Two can play that game, and I can play it better than most. "You must think more carefully before you talk next time. Follow...:" & "Now what do you have to say?" are phrases best reserved for the occasions that you have some truth on your side. Twit.
-----------------ORIGINAL RESPONSE OF DEVON GROEN TO HUCKLEBERRY)------------ From: Devon Groen Subject: Re: Newmania is 1 year too soon! Sender: [email] (news spool owner) Message-ID: Date: Thu, 8 May 1997 22:06:55 GMT Nntp-Posting-Host: zeno14.math.uwaterloo.ca Organization: University of Waterloo, Ontario, Canada
a
first
have
midnite
I think you just shot yourself in the foot. You must think more carefully before you talk next time. Follow...:
1) at time 0:00 01/01/0000 ---> 12/31/0000 - 01/01/0001 = 1 yr PASSED 2) 12/31/0000 - 01/01/0001 ---> 12/31/0001 - 01/01/0002 = 2 yrs PASSED 3) 12/31/0001 - 01/01/0002 ---> 12/31/0002 - 01/01/0003 = 3 yrs PASSED 4) 12/31/0002 - 01/01/0003 ---> 12/31/0003 - 01/01/0004 = 4 yrs PASSED 5) 12/31/0003 - 01/01/0004 ---> 12/31/0004 - 01/01/0005 = 5 yrs PASSED 6) 12/31/0004 - 01/01/0005 ---> 12/31/0005 - 01/01/0006 = 6 yrs PASSED 7) 12/31/0005 - 01/01/0006 ---> 12/31/0006 - 01/01/0007 = 7 yrs PASSED 8) 12/31/0006 - 01/01/0007 ---> 12/31/0007 - 01/01/0008 = 8 yrs PASSED 9) 12/31/0007 - 01/01/0008 ---> 12/31/0008 - 01/01/0009 = 9 yrs PASSED 10) 12/31/0008 - 01/01/0009 ---> 12/31/0009 - 01/01/0010 = 10 yrs PASSED 11) 12/31/0009 - 01/01/0010 ---> 12/31/0010 - 01/01/0011 = 11 yrs PASSED
Clearly 10 YEARS HAVE PASSED on the midnite of 12/31/0009 - 01/01/0010. Now what do you have to say?
********************************************************* * Devon Groen. * * ==> [email] * * ==> http://www.undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca/~dwgroen * *********************************************************
The Hermit wrote in article ...
That's right, we are working on the first year, but it is not one complete year until a year has passed. Still with me? Let's make it a little simpler. It's midnight on a Saturday night. How many days will have to go by in order for one complete week to pass? That's right, seven. Sure on Wednesday you will be in your first week, but you still have to wait until Saturday ends to get that whole week. Likewise we have to complete the whole hundred years in order to complete the century. That means year 1-100 is the first century. Count them out on your fingers if you can't get your brain up to speed.
millions are starving, but The Hermit quipped: 8=> Think of this as birthdays...is a person non-existent because he/she is 8=> 0-1 year old? The EVE of his life would be the day before he or she was 8=> born, not the night before his or her first birthday. There is no year 8=> 0, but we are 0 for but a nanosecond of time...then we are working on 8=> our first year. ?:=)
The universe (or earth) did not come into existence at year 1, nor one year earlier. The year is not a measure of how old something is, it is a manner of counting. This is why all months start with 1 and not 0. You may object to this style of counting, but that doesn't really affect history. Year 0 is nonexistent. There wasn't a year 0. The Catholic church started counting (in AD) with 1. The year before 1 AD was 1 BC according to those that set up the calendar we use today.
todd.
[email] (Dave) wrote:
Jerry wasn't wrong.
The Hermit wrote:
You seem to be under the mistaken impression that my chart represented my opinion. However, let me assure you that the dates for when each century starts and ends are FACTS. Conclusions drawn from the facts may vary. However, the 1st century started on the first day of year 1 and the 21st century will start on the first day of year 2001.
In article , [email] (debbie) writes:
Lemme see if I understand this...You've got the rooster, the hen and the chicken. The rooster goes with the hen. So whose having sex with the chicken?
Scott Douglas
[email] (SDGOLF) wrote:
You have mis-snipped. I did not make that comment. I was replying to the person who made that comment.
In article , [email] says...
Yes. Not me, but there are many people who do insist/suggest this. Usually, they justify this by saying that a topic was being discussed in the newsgroup, and then the same topic is brought up in a later episode. This is their "proof," a classic example of a post hoc error in reason.
Kids fall for the same error until the age of 6 or so. "Well, I asked Santa Claus for a bike for Christmas and then I got a bike for Christmas. Guess Santa got me that bike!"
You oversimplify to prove a point, and thus fail to do so.
If a topic is discussed here, then 2 months later the same thread exists as a Seinfeld plot, there are 2 possibilities. 1. The writers got the idea, either directly, or indirectly, from the ng, or 2. It was a coincidence, which may be likely depending on how close they were to the posted topic, how bizarre the thread was, etc (many variables, but at some point, you can no longer call it coincidence). Now back to the 1st possibility:
I'm a Seinfeld writer who browses this ng, I follow a thread that interests me, I write an episode based on the thread. Not very likely.
I'm a Seinfeld writer who, in the course of a day, sees things and hears things, maybe gets a call from a buddy with the slightest hint of a great concept (or however they come up with the ideas anyway), not knowing where this nugget came from, and completely unaware that it was mentioned in the ng months earlier. Sounds kinda likely, I think.
In article , [email] says...
newsgroup?
is
idea,
If a Seinfeld writer gets an idea indirectly from the newsgroup and doesn't know that it is from the newsgroup, then it IS just coincidence. I was objecting to the notion that seeing a NG thread on Seinfeld is PROOF that the writer was influenced by the newsgroup. Possibility is different from proof. I am not saying that I have proof that the writers DON'T read the newsgroup, just that there is no proof that they do or are influenced indirectly by the NG.
The Hermit wrote in article ...
Bad analagy. people's lives have to start at 0 because we do not restructure the calander for every birth now do we? The first year of the common era was not 0 to 1. It was 1 to 2. Check it out in an encyclopedia.
Jerry also said to Kramer in "The Little Jerry," "That isn't a
I don't think that's what he said. It was more along the lines of it's not a hen it's a rooster.
Quoth The Hermit : :
When someone is born, that is the first day of the first year of their life. If you want to consider the "millenium" as being equivalent to the date of someone's birth, then you have to consider it as the first day of the first year of the new millenium, i.e., January 1, 2001. So, the "eve" party should be held on December 31, 2000. Just like a lot of other people have said.
Still wrong.
To reply by email, delete the *NO_SPAM* from my email address.
If you are counting the first year as "year zero" you are right, but there is no "year zero". The first year is year one. Look at it this way. Our current calendar started with 1/1/01. On 1/1/2001, two thousand years will have passed. No other way to look at it.
On 2 May 1997 02:45:36 GMT, "James A. Dirmeyer" wrote:
I don't think that's what he said. Randy Cryonics: Gateway to the Future? http://members.wbs.net/homepages/c/r/y/cryofan1.html ***********************************
In article , [email] says...
It was, though, regardless of what you think, Randy.
Hey, so we'll have two years to celebrate the millennium. One drunk, two drunk, three drunk, floor!!!
Dusty http://acs.tamu.edu/~dcm0027
In [email] (Roz & Tony Cundell) writes:
You got it all wrong. Newman's party is reserved for the "Millenium Eve", which is 12/31/00. Most will be celebrating in 1999, making Neumania "Really lame."
On Fri, 02 May 1997 01:42:37 GMT, [email] (Roz & Tony Cundell) wrote: