NavList:
A Community Devoted to the Preservation and Practice of Celestial Navigation and Other Methods of Traditional Wayfinding
Re: millenium - 2000 or 2001?
From: Tony S
Date: 1999 Dec 28, 12:56 AM
From: Tony S
Date: 1999 Dec 28, 12:56 AM
Rodney Myrvaagnes wrote: > > This is the first suggestion I have seen that this has > anything to do with "precise scientific thinking." I hope > you can enlighten us on the connection. Huh? Is there a nit here?? It is simply an allusion to what is stated by USNO and RGO in their explanations ...which I consider more authoritative. Don't you? In any event, popular vs sci thinking rails in the press. If you want, persue some recent in San Francisco at these URLs. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/1999/12/27/MNC988.DTL http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/1999/12/13/MN92060.DTL Whatever, celebrate! It is the turn of the century ...or is it??? :-) Tony ps: it's been a long while since E.P. for me. (now retired) It must be a hugh challenge to keep up these days, eh? > > It was, til now, a discussion of what one might call > various time periods, whether one millenium is more equal > than others, etc. Nothing to do with science, which doesn't > really care if years are numbered decimally, binarily, > octally, or what, although individual scientists may have > preferences. > > We do expect scientific precision when it comes to the > insertion of leap seconds. Otherwise how would we know when > to pop the cork? > > Gentlemen, synchronize your cesium. :-) > > On Sun, 26 Dec 1999 20:36:29 -0800, Tony wrote: > > >To me it's just another case where "political" thinking is at odds with > >more precise scientific thinking. > > Rodney Myrvaagnes J36 Gjoa > Associate Editor Electronic Products > My oyster knife is Y2K compliant