Minutes ago, tuned into SiriusXM Classic Car Talk program originally broadcast 1/1/2000. Along with the worst cars of the preceding millenium, another program topic looked to predict which car brand would have the greatest improvement in the coming decade, to the year 2010 and beyond.
Tom and Ray agreed on Fiat, amid a few chortles, since they were already at the bottom they could only go up. What predictive power did they draw upon to intuit that by 2013, Fiat would own Chrysler, have one model in U.S. showrooms with others, possibly Alfa-Romeo, to come?
The gods on Olympus, through their mouthpieces at Delphi, could not have performed more admirably. I’m in awe of your power, guys!!
Like they said at the time, the only way possible was up! lol …
I like the looks of that new little Fiat. There’s lots of them on the road out here in Calif. I think the jury is still out. But I hope it will prove to be a fun, safe, economical car to drive and post good reliability marks.
@Hawkeye- This was discussed at length at the turn of the last century. A millenium is a thousand years and can start any year. The millenium called the 2000’s started on 1/1/2000. The argument about it being the second thousand years since some specific time is fairly moot, since there were several changes and adjustments made at different times during that “first thousand” years.
Sorry, David, but that is not completely correct. As a Professor of History, I must point out that the “Third Millennium” covers a specific period of time, just as the “21st Century” does. Both began on January 1, 2001. Although you could say, refer to the period of April 23, 1847 - April 22, 1947 as a “century,” because it is one hundred years long, it is not a century in the context of any accepted calendar. By the same token, I imagine you could take any arbitrary period of 1,000 years and call it a millennium, as you have validly done. But there are universally accepted periods (even in non-Christian societies) based on the Gregorian calendar. I believe that to ignore these conventions can lead to confusion. This explains why so many uninformed people mistake the year 2000 as the first year of the 21st Century and Third Millennium A.D.
@hawkeye- if universal acceptance is your criteria, I would say more people would say this century started in 2000. By your argument (which I understand, by the way) 1985 and 1990 would be considered to be in the same decade: 1981-1990. Again, most people would probably not agree. As a history professor, you must realize that the calendar was changed several times, notably by Pope Gregory. The sum of all these changes must be included to say when the “third millennium” actually started. It wouldn’t fall on ANY January 1st.
Let’s break it down the way Click and Clack would.
The first year of the current calendar was the year 1 (Jesus’ actual birth regarded as 4-6 BC).
The first decade, ten years, ran from the year 1 to the year 10. The second decade started year 11 and went to year 20. The third decade did not start until 21. And so on.
The first century, one hundred years, ran from 1 to 100, and the second century from 101 to 200. Etc. The year 100 was the last year of the first century, and the year 200 was the last year of the second century.
Thus the first millennium went from 1 to 1000 (one thousand years), and the second millennium went from 1001 to 2000 (the second thousand years), making 2001 the first year (the “oneth” year) of the third millennium.
@Hokiedad- That is one way to name them, which I fully comprehend (what part of :“which I understand, by the way” do YOU not understand?). What I’m trying to say is that there is an alternative way of naming decades, etc. If you say “the third decade”, your system works. If you say “the Thirties”, then the other system works.
No one here has yet to address the issue of the ten days missing from 1582. By your reckoning, the third millenium actually started January 11, 2001.
January 11th? Oh, no, I can’t agree with that rationale at all. A year is, technically, based neither on history or custom, but on science. The term “year” was designed to reflect the amount of time it takes for the earth to revolve around the sun. A century is meant to mark 100 revolutions of the sun, and a millennium 1,000 of them. The change from the Julian to the Gregorian Calendar and the corresponding ten-day adjustment in 1582 was made to put the western calendar system closer to the correct astronomical criterion. It was done for the same reason we have leap days on February 29 and sometimes, even, leap seconds. (The most recent one-second adjustment was made on June 30, 2012.) Since the A.D. calendar began with the start of the first day of the historical year we call 1, two thousand revolutions of the sun beyond that point in time were completed at the end of December 31, 2000. That is the basis for the universal acceptance I was referring to; there is no respected scientific authority I know of which disputes this. Thus, I maintain that the third millennium began on January 1, 2001, as did the 21st Century.
Okay, Okay, I admit I brought up the missing 10 years just to stir the pot. Obviously, years can vary to reflect reality, just like months.
That doesn’t alter the fact that we describe time in different ways depending on context, semantics, and convention. The “20th Century” includes the years 1901-2000. The “1900s” includes the years 1900-1999. Both are equally valid descriptions of ALMOST the same time frame. The phrase “the last century” can refer to EITHER. (Actually, “the last century” is incorrect. Since we’ve made it to 2013, it wasn’t the LAST century, just the prior one.) This discussion began because the OP was needlessly “corrected” in their use of the phrase “preceding millenium”.
Similarly, since you are born on your birthday, a child turns one year old on their SECOND birthday. But by convention, we call that their FIRST birthday. (It’s actually the first anniversary of their birth, but nobody says that.)
Hawkeye28, I actually am a respected scientific authority. Just not on the topic of the calendar.
But David L, I understand your point and do not disagree at all. We do as a society get hung up on numbers, ESPECIALLY even numbers. The tenth anniversary, the 25th anniversary, and so forth.
Thank you, Hokiedad and Hawkeye…I learned something from your posts. BTW, I think David may have some anger management issues. We should be able to have civil disagreements here without taking a nasty tone. (Serenity now!)
@ dagosa-"@davidL
Interesting, but everyone I know says they are celebrating their first birthday after year one. "
I thought that’s what i said.
@Judy A-sorry if I sounded nasty, although I guess I don’t know exactly how i did. You are the one who made this personel, esp. talking as if I wasn’t here, which is a particularly demeaning tactic.
David L, I thought when you condescendingly responded to an earlier comment by saying “what part of…do YOU not understand?” that was making things unnecessarily personal. It was definately not being civil, whether you realize it or not, sir.
@davidL
Just agreeing that people often misstate math concepts. As a 37 year math teacher with a masters in Math, I just delt with it in class but now, l accept it as another accepted deviation. It really isn’t a big deal if everyone knows what you mean. My pet gripe is…how many people use " less" when they should be using the word “fewer”. That has math relevancy too. But, I was voted out on that as well with common usage now usurping the preferred use.
Walmart fast lane says “15 items or less” which is incorrect IMO, while Hannaford Bros. Fast lane says " 15 items or fewer " Which I feel is more correct. Now, I’m not making a big deal of this or any other possible mistakes people make as I am a champ myself at screw ups. Now that I have retired from teaching, I just go with the flow as my grandchildren celebrate their first birthday a year after they are born…if you can’t beat them, join them.
