Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.c > #100032 > unrolled thread

'Leap Second' to Be Added on New Year's Eve This Year

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c

Contents

  'Leap Second' to Be Added on New Year's Eve This Year "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2016-12-22 21:43 +0800
    Re: 'Leap Second' to Be Added on New Year's Eve This Year Siri Cruise <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2016-12-22 05:48 -0800
      Re: 'Leap Second' to Be Added on New Year's Eve This Year "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2016-12-22 22:09 +0800
      Re: 'Leap Second' to Be Added on New Year's Eve This Year Krzysztof Mitko <invalid@kmitko.at.list.dot.pl> - 2016-12-24 13:47 +0100
        Re: 'Leap Second' to Be Added on New Year's Eve This Year Siri Cruise <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2016-12-24 05:39 -0800
    Re: 'Leap Second' to Be Added on New Year's Eve This Year Mark Lloyd <not@mail.invalid> - 2016-12-22 14:31 -0600
      Re: 'Leap Second' to Be Added on New Year's Eve This Year Mark Storkamp <mstorkamp@yahoo.com> - 2016-12-23 08:34 -0600
        Re: 'Leap Second' to Be Added on New Year's Eve This Year "J-P. Rosen" <rosen@adalog.fr> - 2016-12-23 16:55 +0100
        Re: 'Leap Second' to Be Added on New Year's Eve This Year Ken Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2016-12-30 11:17 -0500
          Re: 'Leap Second' to Be Added on New Year's Eve This Year Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-12-30 09:38 -0800
            Re: 'Leap Second' to Be Added on New Year's Eve This Year hah <hah@no.email.stupid.invalid> - 2016-12-30 15:59 -0600
          Re: 'Leap Second' to Be Added on New Year's Eve This Year Mark Lloyd <not@mail.invalid> - 2016-12-30 15:47 -0600
          Re: 'Leap Second' to Be Added on New Year's Eve This Year Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com> - 2016-12-30 15:14 -0700
            Re: 'Leap Second' to Be Added on New Year's Eve This Year Kaz Kylheku <221-501-9011@kylheku.com> - 2016-12-30 23:26 +0000
      Re: 'Leap Second' to Be Added on New Year's Eve This Year "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2017-01-03 20:46 -0500
    Re: 'Leap Second' to Be Added on New Year's Eve This Year Jason <jason_warren@ieee.DELETE.org> - 2016-12-22 17:14 -0500
      Re: 'Leap Second' to Be Added on New Year's Eve This Year "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-12-22 14:38 -0800
      Re: 'Leap Second' to Be Added on New Year's Eve This Year "Jonathan N. Little" <lws4art@gmail.com> - 2016-12-22 17:40 -0500
        Re: 'Leap Second' to Be Added on New Year's Eve This Year Jason <jason_warren@ieee.org> - 2016-12-23 19:57 -0500
          Re: 'Leap Second' to Be Added on New Year's Eve This Year Char Jackson <none@none.invalid> - 2016-12-23 21:44 -0600
            Re: 'Leap Second' to Be Added on New Year's Eve This Year "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2016-12-31 23:42 +0000
      Re: 'Leap Second' to Be Added on New Year's Eve This Year Ken Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2016-12-30 11:16 -0500
        Re: 'Leap Second' to Be Added on New Year's Eve This Year Mark Lloyd <not@mail.invalid> - 2016-12-30 15:58 -0600
          Re: 'Leap Second' to Be Added on New Year's Eve This Year Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-12-30 14:37 -0800
            Re: 'Leap Second' to Be Added on New Year's Eve This Year Mark Lloyd <not@mail.invalid> - 2016-12-30 19:16 -0600
              Re: 'Leap Second' to Be Added on New Year's Eve This Year Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-12-30 17:48 -0800
                Re: 'Leap Second' to Be Added on New Year's Eve This Year Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2016-12-31 10:08 +0000
                Re: 'Leap Second' to Be Added on New Year's Eve This Year Mark Lloyd <not@mail.invalid> - 2016-12-31 14:20 -0600
                Re: 'Leap Second' to Be Added on New Year's Eve This Year Mark Lloyd <not@mail.invalid> - 2016-12-31 14:34 -0600
                  Re: 'Leap Second' to Be Added on New Year's Eve This Year Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2016-12-31 16:45 -0500
                    Re: 'Leap Second' to Be Added on New Year's Eve This Year Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com> - 2016-12-31 16:34 -0700
                      Re: 'Leap Second' to Be Added on New Year's Eve This Year "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-12-31 17:15 -0800
                      Re: 'Leap Second' to Be Added on New Year's Eve This Year Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2016-12-31 20:52 -0500
                      Re: 'Leap Second' to Be Added on New Year's Eve This Year Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-01-01 12:22 +0000
                      Re: 'Leap Second' to Be Added on New Year's Eve This Year Mark Lloyd <not@mail.invalid> - 2017-01-01 15:47 -0600
                  Re: 'Leap Second' to Be Added on New Year's Eve This Year Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-12-31 13:59 -0800
                Re: 'Leap Second' to Be Added on New Year's Eve This Year Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2017-01-01 13:46 -0500
                  Re: 'Leap Second' to Be Added on New Year's Eve This Year Mark Lloyd <not@mail.invalid> - 2017-01-01 16:12 -0600
                    Re: 'Leap Second' to Be Added on New Year's Eve This Year Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2017-01-01 19:44 -0500
                      Re: 'Leap Second' to Be Added on New Year's Eve This Year Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2017-01-01 22:31 -0500
                    Re: 'Leap Second' to Be Added on New Year's Eve This Year Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com> - 2017-01-02 11:23 -0700
                      Re: 'Leap Second' to Be Added on New Year's Eve This Year Mark Lloyd <not@mail.invalid> - 2017-01-02 19:03 -0600
                    Re: 'Leap Second' to Be Added on New Year's Eve This Year Mark Storkamp <mstorkamp@yahoo.com> - 2017-01-02 13:46 -0600
                      Re: 'Leap Second' to Be Added on New Year's Eve This Year Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2017-01-02 14:55 -0500
                        Re: 'Leap Second' to Be Added on New Year's Eve This Year Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2017-01-02 20:00 +0000
                          Re: 'Leap Second' to Be Added on New Year's Eve This Year Sam E <why.should.this@be.email.invalid> - 2017-01-02 19:07 -0600
                            Re: 'Leap Second' to Be Added on New Year's Eve This Year Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2017-01-03 06:45 +0000
                              Re: 'Leap Second' to Be Added on New Year's Eve This Year Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2017-01-03 09:42 -0500
                              Re: 'Leap Second' to Be Added on New Year's Eve This Year "Cybe R. Wizard" <cybe_r_wizard@WizardsTower.invalid> - 2017-01-03 11:27 -0600
                                Re: 'Leap Second' to Be Added on New Year's Eve This Year Caver1 <caver1@inthemud.org> - 2017-01-03 14:25 -0500
                              Re: 'Leap Second' to Be Added on New Year's Eve This Year "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2017-01-03 17:34 -0500
                        Re: 'Leap Second' to Be Added on New Year's Eve This Year Mark Storkamp <mstorkamp@yahoo.com> - 2017-01-02 14:20 -0600
                          Re: 'Leap Second' to Be Added on New Year's Eve This Year Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2017-01-02 15:36 -0500
                          Re: 'Leap Second' to Be Added on New Year's Eve This Year "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2017-01-04 12:09 -0500
                            Re: 'Leap Second' to Be Added on New Year's Eve This Year Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2017-01-04 19:12 -0500
                      Re: 'Leap Second' to Be Added on New Year's Eve This Year Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2017-01-02 15:06 -0500
                        Re: 'Leap Second' to Be Added on New Year's Eve This Year Mark Lloyd <not@mail.invalid> - 2017-01-02 19:10 -0600
                          Re: 'Leap Second' to Be Added on New Year's Eve This Year Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2017-01-02 22:56 -0500
                        Re: 'Leap Second' to Be Added on New Year's Eve This Year "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2017-01-04 12:34 -0500
                          Re: 'Leap Second' to Be Added on New Year's Eve This Year Mark Lloyd <not@mail.invalid> - 2017-01-04 15:32 -0600
                            Re: 'Leap Second' to Be Added on New Year's Eve This Year Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-01-04 13:51 -0800
                              Re: 'Leap Second' to Be Added on New Year's Eve This Year Real Troll <real.troll@trolls.com> - 2017-01-04 19:02 -0400
                              Re: 'Leap Second' to Be Added on New Year's Eve This Year Mark Lloyd <not@mail.invalid> - 2017-01-04 22:37 -0600
                            Re: 'Leap Second' to Be Added on New Year's Eve This Year "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2017-01-04 17:21 -0500
                              Re: 'Leap Second' to Be Added on New Year's Eve This Year "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2017-01-04 16:35 -0800
                                Re: 'Leap Second' to Be Added on New Year's Eve This Year asetofsymbols@gmail.com - 2017-01-06 01:53 -0800
                                  Re: 'Leap Second' to Be Added on New Year's Eve This Year asetofsymbols@gmail.com - 2017-01-06 01:58 -0800
                            Re: 'Leap Second' to Be Added on New Year's Eve This Year Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2017-01-05 09:20 -0800
                              Re: 'Leap Second' to Be Added on New Year's Eve This Year "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2017-01-05 10:23 -0800
                              [OT] Meaning and truth (Was Re: 'Leap Second' to Be Added on New Year's Eve This Year) Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2017-01-05 13:34 -0500
                            Re: 'Leap Second' to Be Added on New Year's Eve This Year Caver1 <caver1@inthemud.org> - 2017-01-07 17:20 -0500
                              Re: 'Leap Second' to Be Added on New Year's Eve This Year Kaz Kylheku <221-501-9011@kylheku.com> - 2017-01-07 22:57 +0000
                                Re: 'Leap Second' to Be Added on New Year's Eve This Year "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2017-01-07 19:06 -0500
                                  Re: 'Leap Second' to Be Added on New Year's Eve This Year Kaz Kylheku <221-501-9011@kylheku.com> - 2017-01-08 06:16 +0000
                                    Re: 'Leap Second' to Be Added on New Year's Eve This Year "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2017-01-08 11:19 -0500
                      Re: 'Leap Second' to Be Added on New Year's Eve This Year Mark Lloyd <not@mail.invalid> - 2017-01-02 19:05 -0600
                      Re: 'Leap Second' to Be Added on New Year's Eve This Year "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-01-04 00:28 +0000
              Re: 'Leap Second' to Be Added on New Year's Eve This Year raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2017-01-01 10:01 +0000
            Re: 'Leap Second' to Be Added on New Year's Eve This Year Mark Lloyd <not@mail.invalid> - 2016-12-31 14:29 -0600
    Re: 'Leap Second' to Be Added on New Year's Eve This Year "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2016-12-31 21:57 +0000
      Re: 'Leap Second' to Be Added on New Year's Eve This Year "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2017-01-03 20:06 -0500
        Re: 'Leap Second' to Be Added on New Year's Eve This Year "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-01-04 15:44 +0000
          Re: 'Leap Second' to Be Added on New Year's Eve This Year "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2017-01-04 14:11 -0500
            Re: 'Leap Second' to Be Added on New Year's Eve This Year "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-01-04 19:58 +0000
        Re: 'Leap Second' to Be Added on New Year's Eve This Year Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-01-04 16:17 +0000
          Re: 'Leap Second' to Be Added on New Year's Eve This Year "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-01-04 21:03 +0000
            Re: 'Leap Second' to Be Added on New Year's Eve This Year "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2017-01-05 14:15 -0600
              Re: 'Leap Second' to Be Added on New Year's Eve This Year "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-01-06 01:26 +0000
        Re: 'Leap Second' to Be Added on New Year's Eve This Year antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl - 2017-01-05 19:28 +0000
          Re: 'Leap Second' to Be Added on New Year's Eve This Year "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-01-05 21:41 +0000
    Re: 'Leap Second' to Be Added on New Year's Eve This Year Dänk 42Ø <dank@nugget.org> - 2017-01-02 07:08 +0000
      Re: 'Leap Second' to Be Added on New Year's Eve This Year Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-01-01 23:46 -0800
        Re: 'Leap Second' to Be Added on New Year's Eve This Year Dänk 42Ø <dank@nugget.org> - 2017-01-02 21:56 +0000
          Re: 'Leap Second' to Be Added on New Year's Eve This Year Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-01-02 15:38 -0800
      Re: 'Leap Second' to Be Added on New Year's Eve This Year "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2017-01-03 20:26 -0500

Page 3 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5  Next page →

#100887

On Sun, 1 Jan 2017 16:12:27 -0600, Mark Lloyd <not@mail.invalid>
wrote:


>** - I try to use CE / BCE instead of AD / BC. The numbers are the same, 
>and it avoids a particular assumption.


And I try to use AD / BC instead of CE /BCE. CE and BCE don't avoid
the assumption; as much as I would also like to avoid the assumption,
since the numbers are the same, it still remains, just with different
names.

Giving something a different name doesn't really fix the problem, and
I greatly dislike the pretense that it does.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#100943

On 01/02/2017 12:23 PM, Ken Blake wrote:
> On Sun, 1 Jan 2017 16:12:27 -0600, Mark Lloyd <not@mail.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>
>> ** - I try to use CE / BCE instead of AD / BC. The numbers are the same,
>> and it avoids a particular assumption.
>
>
> And I try to use AD / BC instead of CE /BCE. CE and BCE don't avoid
> the assumption; as much as I would also like to avoid the assumption,
> since the numbers are the same, it still remains, just with different
> names.
>
> Giving something a different name doesn't really fix the problem, and
> I greatly dislike the pretense that it does.
>

I was only concerned about if fixing one particular problem, which was a 
problem with the names. I was not objecting to that particular time (1 
CE 00:00:00) as a starting point for timekeeping.

-- 
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.us/

"Definitions are the guardians of rationality, the first line of defense
against the chaos of mental disintegration." Ayn Rand

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#100896

In article <g9faA.342110$dF2.340169@fx44.iad>,
 Mark Lloyd <not@mail.invalid> wrote:


> ** - I try to use CE / BCE instead of AD / BC. The numbers are the same, 
> and it avoids a particular assumption.
> 
> [snip]

And it's easy to remember too. Christian Era and Before Christian Era.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#100897

On 2017-01-02 14:46, Mark Storkamp wrote:
> In article <g9faA.342110$dF2.340169@fx44.iad>,
>  Mark Lloyd <not@mail.invalid> wrote:
>
>
>> ** - I try to use CE / BCE instead of AD / BC. The numbers are the same,
>> and it avoids a particular assumption.
>>
>> [snip]
>
> And it's easy to remember too. Christian Era and Before Christian Era.

CE = Church of England BCE = Before Church of England. You'll need a 
calculator.

Heh heh.

Actually, it's "Common Era" and "Before Common Era". Paleontologists and 
such use YBP = Years Before Present.

-- 
Best,
Wolf K
https://kirkwood40.blogspot.com
It's called "opinion" because it's not knowledge.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#100899

Wolf K wrote:

> Paleontologists and such use YBP = Years Before Present.

That's only so they can sell a re-print of their books every ten million 
or so years.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#100945

On 01/02/2017 02:00 PM, Andy Burns wrote:
> Wolf K wrote:
>
>> Paleontologists and such use YBP = Years Before Present.
>
> That's only so they can sell a re-print of their books every ten million
> or so years.

What if we could determine the exact time of the big bang, and use that? 
Then time would mean something.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#100951

Sam E <why.should.this@be.email.invalid> writes:

> On 01/02/2017 02:00 PM, Andy Burns wrote:
>> Wolf K wrote:
>>
>>> Paleontologists and such use YBP = Years Before Present.
>>
>> That's only so they can sell a re-print of their books every ten million
>> or so years.
>
> What if we could determine the exact time of the big bang, and use
> that?

In what frame of reference?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#100985

On 2017-01-03 01:45, Gareth Owen wrote:
> Sam E <why.should.this@be.email.invalid> writes:
>
>> On 01/02/2017 02:00 PM, Andy Burns wrote:
>>> Wolf K wrote:
>>>
>>>> Paleontologists and such use YBP = Years Before Present.
>>>
>>> That's only so they can sell a re-print of their books every ten million
>>> or so years.
>>
>> What if we could determine the exact time of the big bang, and use
>> that?
>
> In what frame of reference?

Impossible in principle, anyhow, because of measurement error at that 
order of magnitude (biyyuns and biyyuns of years).

-- 
Best,
Wolf K
https://kirkwood40.blogspot.com
It's called "opinion" because it's not knowledge.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#101017

On Tue, 03 Jan 2017 06:45:07 +0000
Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> wrote:

> Sam E <why.should.this@be.email.invalid> writes:
> 
> > On 01/02/2017 02:00 PM, Andy Burns wrote:  
> >> Wolf K wrote:
> >>  
> >>> Paleontologists and such use YBP = Years Before Present.  
> >>
> >> That's only so they can sell a re-print of their books every ten
> >> million or so years.  
> >
> > What if we could determine the exact time of the big bang, and use
> > that?  
> 
> In what frame of reference?

I'm just still getting a big kick out of, "...time of the Big Bang."

Cybe R. Wizard
-- 
"When will, "then," be, "now"?"
	Dark Helmet
"Soon"
	Colonel Sandurz
		Spaceballs

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#101020

On 01/03/2017 12:27 PM, Cybe R. Wizard wrote:
> On Tue, 03 Jan 2017 06:45:07 +0000
> Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Sam E <why.should.this@be.email.invalid> writes:
>>
>>> On 01/02/2017 02:00 PM, Andy Burns wrote:
>>>> Wolf K wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Paleontologists and such use YBP = Years Before Present.
>>>>
>>>> That's only so they can sell a re-print of their books every ten
>>>> million or so years.
>>>
>>> What if we could determine the exact time of the big bang, and use
>>> that?
>>
>> In what frame of reference?
>
> I'm just still getting a big kick out of, "...time of the Big Bang."
>
> Cybe R. Wizard
>

Would that be 00:00 or 
00:000000000000000000000000000000000000000001

-- 
Caver1

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#101048

On 01/03/2017 01:45 AM, Gareth Owen wrote:
> Sam E <why.should.this@be.email.invalid> writes:
...
>> What if we could determine the exact time of the big bang, and use
>> that?
>
> In what frame of reference?

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comoving_distance#Comoving_coordinates>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#100901

In article <6fyaA.93321$%J2.54228@fx20.iad>,
 Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> wrote:

> On 2017-01-02 14:46, Mark Storkamp wrote:
> > In article <g9faA.342110$dF2.340169@fx44.iad>,
> >  Mark Lloyd <not@mail.invalid> wrote:
> >
> >
> >> ** - I try to use CE / BCE instead of AD / BC. The numbers are the same,
> >> and it avoids a particular assumption.
> >>
> >> [snip]
> >
> > And it's easy to remember too. Christian Era and Before Christian Era.
> 
> CE = Church of England BCE = Before Church of England. You'll need a 
> calculator.
> 
> Heh heh.
> 
> Actually, it's "Common Era" and "Before Common Era". Paleontologists and 
> such use YBP = Years Before Present.

What was it that happened 2018 years ago that made that year uncommon, 
as opposed to the year 2017 years ago that was more in common with 
todays year? I'd think anything before about AD 1900 is rather uncommon 
by todays standards. In general, I think anything over 100 years old is 
always uncommon to the modern generation, so we should use a sliding 
scale for years and it will always be 100 ME (modern era).

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#100903

On 2017-01-02 15:20, Mark Storkamp wrote:
> In article <6fyaA.93321$%J2.54228@fx20.iad>,
>  Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>> On 2017-01-02 14:46, Mark Storkamp wrote:
>>> In article <g9faA.342110$dF2.340169@fx44.iad>,
>>>  Mark Lloyd <not@mail.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> ** - I try to use CE / BCE instead of AD / BC. The numbers are the same,
>>>> and it avoids a particular assumption.
>>>>
>>>> [snip]
>>>
>>> And it's easy to remember too. Christian Era and Before Christian Era.
>>
>> CE = Church of England BCE = Before Church of England. You'll need a
>> calculator.
>>
>> Heh heh.
>>
>> Actually, it's "Common Era" and "Before Common Era". Paleontologists and
>> such use YBP = Years Before Present.
>
> What was it that happened 2018 years ago that made that year uncommon,
> as opposed to the year 2017 years ago that was more in common with
> todays year? I'd think anything before about AD 1900 is rather uncommon
> by todays standards. In general, I think anything over 100 years old is
> always uncommon to the modern generation, so we should use a sliding
> scale for years and it will always be 100 ME (modern era).

Nicely argued pedantry. I like it. :-)

You'll find 6 meanings for "common" in the Concise Oxford English 
Dictionary, and more in the big one.

-- 
Best,
Wolf K
https://kirkwood40.blogspot.com
It's called "opinion" because it's not knowledge.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#101111

On 01/02/2017 03:20 PM, Mark Storkamp wrote:
> In article <6fyaA.93321$%J2.54228@fx20.iad>,
>  Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> wrote:
...
>> Actually, it's "Common Era" and "Before Common Era". Paleontologists and
>> such use YBP = Years Before Present.
>
> What was it that happened 2018 years ago that made that year uncommon,
> as opposed to the year 2017 years ago that was more in common with
> todays year?

It's not a matter of "common" vs. "uncommon":

'The term "Common Era" is traced back in English to its appearance as 
"Vulgar Era"[e] to distinguish it from the regnal dating systems 
typically used in national law.'
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Era#Use_of_the_term_.22vulgar_era.22>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#101148

On 2017-01-04 12:09, James R. Kuyper wrote:
> On 01/02/2017 03:20 PM, Mark Storkamp wrote:
>> In article <6fyaA.93321$%J2.54228@fx20.iad>,
>>  Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> ...
>>> Actually, it's "Common Era" and "Before Common Era". Paleontologists and
>>> such use YBP = Years Before Present.
>>
>> What was it that happened 2018 years ago that made that year uncommon,
>> as opposed to the year 2017 years ago that was more in common with
>> todays year?
>
> It's not a matter of "common" vs. "uncommon":
>
> 'The term "Common Era" is traced back in English to its appearance as
> "Vulgar Era"[e] to distinguish it from the regnal dating systems
> typically used in national law.'
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Era#Use_of_the_term_.22vulgar_era.22>

... where "vulgar" means "of the ordinary  (ie non-aristocratic) folk". 
As in the Vulgate, the translation of the Bible into Latin, since the 
common people didn't know Hebrew or Greek.

I didn't know how far back "Common Era" originated, thanks for that. 
Another example of the dictum, that it's what we think we know, but 
which ain't so, that leads us astray.

-- 
Best,
Wolf K
https://kirkwood40.blogspot.com
It's called "opinion" because it's not knowledge.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#100900

On Mon, 02 Jan 2017 13:46:04 -0600, Mark Storkamp wrote:

>In article <g9faA.342110$dF2.340169@fx44.iad>,
> Mark Lloyd <not@mail.invalid> wrote:
>
>
>> ** - I try to use CE / BCE instead of AD / BC. The numbers are the same, 
>> and it avoids a particular assumption.
>> 
>> [snip]
>
>And it's easy to remember too. Christian Era and Before Christian Era.

Actually, the "C" in the politically correct, denialist version is
"Common."

If liberalism is so tolerant, what is the objection to centuries of
use in millions of publications?

http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2015/11/difference-bce-ce-bc-ad-come/
BCE (Before Common Era) and BC (Before Christ) mean the same thing-
previous to year 1 CE (Common Era). This is the same as the year AD 1
(Anno Domini); the latter means "in the year of the lord," often
translated as "in the year of our lord."

What part of "mean the same thing" is lost on the politically correct
revisionists?

It is an irrational focus to work on obliterating reference to someone
whom denialists claim died and rotted millennia ago.

'What gets us into trouble is not what we don't know. It's what we
know for sure that just ain't so.' -- Mark Twain

Do the same denialist want to erase Mark Twain from history?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#100946

On 01/02/2017 02:06 PM, Wally W. wrote:

[snip]

> BCE (Before Common Era) and BC (Before Christ) mean the same thing-
> previous to year 1 CE (Common Era). This is the same as the year AD 1
> (Anno Domini); the latter means "in the year of the lord," often
> translated as "in the year of our lord."

They mean the same thing. They don't SAY in in the same way. AD/BC is 
assuming something (which Christians believe in, buy many don't believe 
happened THEN) that is unknown.

-- 
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.us/

"Definitions are the guardians of rationality, the first line of defense
against the chaos of mental disintegration." Ayn Rand

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#100949

On Mon, 2 Jan 2017 19:10:33 -0600, Mark Lloyd wrote:

>On 01/02/2017 02:06 PM, Wally W. wrote:
>
>[snip]
>
>> BCE (Before Common Era) and BC (Before Christ) mean the same thing-
>> previous to year 1 CE (Common Era). This is the same as the year AD 1
>> (Anno Domini); the latter means "in the year of the lord," often
>> translated as "in the year of our lord."
>
>They mean the same thing. They don't SAY in in the same way. AD/BC is 
>assuming something (which Christians believe in, buy many don't believe 
>happened THEN) that is unknown.

So what?

Do you pray to Thor on Thursdays?

https://www.timeanddate.com/calendar/days/thursday.html
"Thursday – Thor's day

Thursday is the fourth day of the week between Wednesday and Friday,
and is named after Thor, the hammer-wielding Norse god of thunder."

Should we change the names of days because everyone doesn't believe in
Thor, etc.?

How about changing the names of planets, such as Mars?

http://www.universetoday.com/61088/why-mars-is-called-the-red-planet/
The planet Mars is named after the Roman god of war.

Why does BC/AD get singled out as something that should change to
avoid disturbing a narrow brand of anti-religious bias?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#101114

On 01/02/2017 03:06 PM, Wally W. wrote:
> On Mon, 02 Jan 2017 13:46:04 -0600, Mark Storkamp wrote:
>
>> In article <g9faA.342110$dF2.340169@fx44.iad>,
>> Mark Lloyd <not@mail.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> ** - I try to use CE / BCE instead of AD / BC. The numbers are the same,
>>> and it avoids a particular assumption.
>>>
>>> [snip]
>>
>> And it's easy to remember too. Christian Era and Before Christian Era.
>
> Actually, the "C" in the politically correct, denialist version is
> "Common."

I'm curious: what does "denialist" mean to you in this context? As an 
atheist, I certainly deny that Christ was divine, or even divinely 
inspired - many of my fellow atheists go further, and deny that Christ 
even existed. You can expect similar denials from anyone who isn't 
Christian - which is a LOT of people worldwide, and a fair number of 
people even in most of the countries that are predominately Christian. 
Does it bother you that much that we deny those things? Would you prefer 
us to lie about our denials, so you don't have to think about whether or 
not we might be right to deny those things? Do you worship a God who 
would prefer us to lie about such things? Would such a God be worthy of 
worship?

> If liberalism is so tolerant, what is the objection to centuries of
> use in millions of publications?
>
> http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2015/11/difference-bce-ce-bc-ad-come/
> BCE (Before Common Era) and BC (Before Christ) mean the same thing-
> previous to year 1 CE (Common Era). This is the same as the year AD 1
> (Anno Domini); the latter means "in the year of the lord," often
> translated as "in the year of our lord."
>
> What part of "mean the same thing" is lost on the politically correct
> revisionists?

"Before Christ" refers to a person who many believe does not exist, and 
many others, while accepting that he existed, deny that he was 
sufficiently special to justify restarting the calendar for him. "Anno 
Domini" explicitly acknowledges that person as Lord, a bit of a problem 
for people who don't so acknowledge him. "Christian Era" refers to 
something that only the most insane people deny: the existence and 
dominance of Christianity in the modern world.

I almost never have any reason to use any of those terms, and on the 
rare occasions when I have had a reason to use them, I've generally used 
AD/BC, because my primary purpose is communication, and it's unlikely 
that my target audience is even aware of the CE/BCE terminology. It 
doesn't bother me any more than the fact that Thursday means "Thor's 
Day", referring to another being that I also deny the divinity of. But I 
can fully sympathize with those who prefer using the CE/BCE notation.

> It is an irrational focus to work on obliterating reference to someone
> whom denialists claim died and rotted millennia ago.

It's not about obliterating those references, it's about not wanting to 
add to those references in a way that implies approval of the concept of 
Christ's existence and divinity.

> 'What gets us into trouble is not what we don't know. It's what we
> know for sure that just ain't so.' -- Mark Twain
>
> Do the same denialist want to erase Mark Twain from history?

Some people do (generally, not the same people) - because of his 
accurate depiction of racist attitudes during the pre-Civil War era. 
That's a remarkably short-sighted attitude, which ignores the fact that 
he was depicting it accurately for the purpose of criticizing it.
Others want to erase him because of his openly avowed atheism.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#101135

On 01/04/2017 11:34 AM, James R. Kuyper wrote:

> As an
> atheist, I certainly deny that Christ was divine, or even divinely
> inspired.

I don't deny that Christ was divine. I can't, considering that both 
"Christ" and "divine" are only religious words which have no meaning 
outside that belief system. The words would have to MEAN SOMETHING for 
that to be denied.

-- 
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.us/

"I have never seen the slightest scientific proof of the religious
theories of heaven and hell, of future life for individuals, or of a
personal God." -- Thomas Alva Edison

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 3 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c

csiph-web