Here's a good New Year's quote, from the first season of The West Wing:
Toby: It's not the new millennium, but I'll just let it drop.
Sam: It is.
Toby: It is not the new millennium. The year 2000 is the last year of the millennium, it's not the first year of the next one.
Sam: But the common sensibility, to quote Stephen Jay Gould--
Toby: Stephen Jay Gould needs to look at a calendar.
Sam: Gould says this is a largely un-resolveable issue.
Toby: Yeah, it's tough to resolve. You have to look at a calendar.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
Another gem from the West Wing - this time from the season finale from Season 3:
TOBY: He's at the Yankee game right now?
SAM: Local news covered it. He said this was how ordinary Americans got their entertainment.
TOBY: I've been to 441 baseball games in Yankee Stadium. There's not a single…
Sam: Toby, do you really think it's a good idea to invite people to dinner and then tell them exactly what they're doing wrong with their lives?
Toby: Absolutely. Otherwise it's just a waste of food.
The West Wing
Season 1, Episode 7, The State Dinner
Jon Stewart understands better than anyone…
The Discovery Institute is spinning wildly to make excuses for West's performance on Friday, and to declare him the "winner".
I got two calls last night about Dr. John West's presentation at the University of Minnesota on Darwinism's fathership of eugenics. It appears that the scholarly and well-…
The West Wing Version:
Josh, Toby, Leo, and Donna are in Leo's office. They have just gotten word that a major auto manufacturer plans to build a plant in Mexico, and will likely close a corresponding plant in Michigan. Josh is pacing, Leo is behind his desk, Donna is standing near the door, and…
Sorry, Professor Gould, but I was always inclined to agree with Toby. Just as I thought it would be a pity to deny the year 2000 (twenty-hundred) to the 20th century, it seemed to me that a millennium deserved its nice round-number cap. But Y2K was too exciting and people couldn't wait. Gould probably cared more for the "common sensibility" than I do.
So that means that I, born in 1960, was born in the 50's.
Cool. Grease is the Word.
"So that means that I, born in 1960, was born in the 50's."
... And I won't be in my '40s' until I'm 41? I'm sold!
Ick, no the first decade was only 9 years, long. OK, I gues you could make a argument, but do you really want to sound older than you are?
GMH, nope you were not one year old until you have lived for 365.2425 days.
The problem stems fron the Romans, they did not have a concept of zero as a number. So, we went from 1 BC to 1 AD, skipping year aero. Please don't anyone start they, "Yea, but surely they understood having nothing". It is two very different concepts, and I don't want to get into explaining how much more zero is then nothing.
GMH, the difference being that a child is in its first year until the day of its first birthday (anniversary of birth, celebrating the completion of 1 year). Then it is in its second year of life. It is also in its first decade, first century and for what it is worth, first millenium. If you are in your first year, then you are zero years old..
This is not the case for the definition of our era. It goes -2,-1,1,2. In its favour, this is symmetrical around a zero point.
Unfortunately, you were in your 40th year as soon as you had your 39th birthday and are now already in your 41st year.
That's true for the first six months, after which you are 1 year old, to the nearest year.
Try using the rounding argument for any situation like voting, driver's licence, or buying cigarettes or alcohol.
Cop: You're 19, eh? When did you turn 19?
Kid: Oh, in about 5 months from now. You understand rounding up, don't you?
:-{}
How is "Look at the Calender" an answer? How many calenders listed the millenium? Just looking at the date is the problem, not the solution!
I agree with Keith, not the solution.