common era vs anno domini FIGHT

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

something I learned this week: like the catholic church sometimes used to build their catedrals over ancient pagan sites, 0 c.e. is set to be the same as 0 a.d.
It's a customary way to refer to the dates in the Western (solar) calendar without referring to the birth of Jesus as the defining date.
ex: the life span of epicurus = 341 to 271 BCE. (BCE=before common era)

― Sébastien Chikara (Sébastien Chikara), Wednesday, 12 November 2003 15:38 (twenty-two years ago)

The defining date is still the same, no matter what you call it, so B.C.E. and C.E. are still dud.

― Citizen Kate (kate), Wednesday, 12 November 2003 15:42 (twenty-two years ago)

at least it kicks jebus out of the equation

― Sébastien Chikara (Sébastien Chikara), Wednesday, 12 November 2003 15:44 (twenty-two years ago)

in jewish day school they always made a big point of using CE and BCE.

― s1utsky (slutsky), Wednesday, 12 November 2003 15:44 (twenty-two years ago)

It doesn't kick Jesus out of the equation. Jesus is still the basis for the date of his supposed birth being the year 0. It's a silly and patronising whitewash.

― Citizen Kate (kate), Wednesday, 12 November 2003 15:45 (twenty-two years ago)

Well not really, its still tied to his life. I'm not that bothered really its a convention, we might as well stick with it. It'd be just as arbitrary if we used the Jewish or Islamic calendars or any other date for that matter.

― Ed (dali), Wednesday, 12 November 2003 15:45 (twenty-two years ago)

I think, just to be fair, we should switch every five years between different world calendars.

― Huckleberry Mann (Horace Mann), Wednesday, 12 November 2003 15:51 (twenty-two years ago)

or we could just start counting from the big bang

― robster (robster), Wednesday, 12 November 2003 15:56 (twenty-two years ago)

or call 2000 0 and start over.

― MarkH (MarkH), Wednesday, 12 November 2003 15:57 (twenty-two years ago)

But then we'd have to have Carl Sagan popping up every time we want to write a date, saying "the year 500 million billion trillion gazillion A.M.B." (Anno Majorus Bangus)

― Citizen Kate (kate), Wednesday, 12 November 2003 15:58 (twenty-two years ago)

Every year can be year zero!

― cis (cis), Wednesday, 12 November 2003 15:59 (twenty-two years ago)

There is no year zero!

― Huckleberry Mann (Horace Mann), Wednesday, 12 November 2003 16:01 (twenty-two years ago)

Sorry, I meant the Year Dot.

― Citizen Kate (kate), Wednesday, 12 November 2003 16:01 (twenty-two years ago)

There could, of course, be a problem with reprogramming all the computers to accept 32-digit years.

― robster (robster), Wednesday, 12 November 2003 16:02 (twenty-two years ago)

(Speaking of which, because I have a friend called Dot, how about we just give years names instead of numbers? 2004 will now be called the Year Kate.)

― Citizen Kate (kate), Wednesday, 12 November 2003 16:02 (twenty-two years ago)

"the year 500 million billion trillion gazillion A.M.B."

how many googol is this? It might be more appropriate to take a year closer to our current proportions, like a date in relation to the planet earth.

― Sébastien Chikara (Sébastien Chikara), Wednesday, 12 November 2003 16:05 (twenty-two years ago)

Googol or googolplex?

― Citizen Kate (kate), Wednesday, 12 November 2003 16:06 (twenty-two years ago)

On a morning from a Bogart movie
In a country where they turn back time
You go strolling through the crowd like Peter Lorre
Contemplating a crime
She comes out of the sun in a silk dress running
Like a watercolour in the rain
Don't bother asking for explanations
She'll just tell you that she came
In the year of the Kate

― MarkH (MarkH), Wednesday, 12 November 2003 16:06 (twenty-two years ago)

EXCELLENT!!! BEST POST EVAH!!!!

― Citizen Kate (kate), Wednesday, 12 November 2003 16:07 (twenty-two years ago)

can every year be Year One, like a comic series or something?

― Jay Dee Sah Mon (Kingfish), Wednesday, 12 November 2003 16:08 (twenty-two years ago)

I like the idea of giving years names, because dammit, they're more than just a number. Like 1994, for example, Kurt Cobain died and I lost my virginity (same day). We should call that year Susanne Leavitt--for no particular reason.

― Huckleberry Mann (Horace Mann), Wednesday, 12 November 2003 16:09 (twenty-two years ago)

when i was in uni, this issue came up in lecture one afternoon. it was in a women's studies class, and i can't remember the topic. some guy stood up and basically flipped out about why we should bother saying BCE/CE rather that BC/AD, all this PC bullshit, etc etc. that it was such a waste of time to add the extra letter to the BCE. it was actually kind of funny, because he'd obviously just been pushed over the edge by UM's PC attitude.

because i'm a smartass, i then stood up and pointed out that if he was so concerned about wasting time by adding a 'B', why the hell had he wasted the whole lecture's time with his silly little man rant? that i didn't particularly care either way, but if BCE/CE is less offensive to some people, fine by me.

i got a round of applause.

― colette (a2lette), Wednesday, 12 November 2003 16:10 (twenty-two years ago)

and such was life at the University of Michigan in the 90's

― Jay Dee Sah Mon (Kingfish), Wednesday, 12 November 2003 16:11 (twenty-two years ago)

I think I approve of BCE/CE because it IS offensive to certain people

― Huckleberry Mann (Horace Mann), Wednesday, 12 November 2003 16:14 (twenty-two years ago)

people who deserve to be offended, that is.

― Huckleberry Mann (Horace Mann), Wednesday, 12 November 2003 16:14 (twenty-two years ago)

why don;t we use ABCDE? then everyone will be satisfied...

― mark s (mark s), Wednesday, 12 November 2003 16:16 (twenty-two years ago)

I like the idea of giving years names, because dammit, they're more than just a number.

if the next century live to my expectation and be defined as the communications century, information technology could permit such largess while maintaining coherence between systems. ex: I automaticaly cross-reference your calendar with mine so I instantly know that your year Susanne Leavitt is the year 45 of the birth of my father. etc

― Sébastien Chikara (Sébastien Chikara), Wednesday, 12 November 2003 16:17 (twenty-two years ago)

but seb, it'll mean borders will have to stock 98372346289736 different versions of their fluffy alsation calendar alone to cope with everyone's different dating system, i don't think you've thought this through ;)

isn't it accepted that jebus was probably born (ignoring the whole "was he born anyway" argument) in 6AD anyway? so BCE/CE is, y'know, just this thing so us heathens know which year the other is talking about.

― CarsmileSteve (CarsmileSteve), Wednesday, 12 November 2003 16:31 (twenty-two years ago)

Hrmm, I thought it was 4BC, but that might be a Catholic/Protestant difference.

― Citizen Kate (kate), Wednesday, 12 November 2003 16:33 (twenty-two years ago)

Look, I told you like Steve-Guttenburg years ago that it will take Steve-Soderbergh years for this system to be up and running, but we should try to at least have a prototype ready by the year Steve-0.

― Huckleberry Mann (Horace Mann), Wednesday, 12 November 2003 16:34 (twenty-two years ago)

wait a minute, Jesus was born six years old? That's like some kind of miracle!

― Huckleberry Mann (Horace Mann), Wednesday, 12 November 2003 16:34 (twenty-two years ago)

haha year steve-o, sam to thread.

― teeny (teeny), Wednesday, 12 November 2003 16:35 (twenty-two years ago)

No, Jesus was actually already 4 when he was born.

― Citizen Kate (kate), Wednesday, 12 November 2003 16:35 (twenty-two years ago)

Poor Mary!

― MarkH (MarkH), Wednesday, 12 November 2003 16:36 (twenty-two years ago)

if the next century lives up to MY expectation, then the ordinals will secede from the fascist oppression of the cardinals

― mark s (mark s), Wednesday, 12 November 2003 16:37 (twenty-two years ago)

The Star of Nazareth's assumed to be a comet that passed by in September 4BC, which would date Jesus' birth to then. And get rid of that bleak midwinter Rosetti nonsense.

― cis (cis), Wednesday, 12 November 2003 16:39 (twenty-two years ago)

I always preferred Little Donkey.

― MarkH (MarkH), Wednesday, 12 November 2003 16:40 (twenty-two years ago)

(OK, 6AD was a partially remembered factoid...)

― CarsmileSteve (CarsmileSteve), Wednesday, 12 November 2003 16:43 (twenty-two years ago)

We should just be done with is and go with In the Year of Our Ford.

― Ed (dali), Wednesday, 12 November 2003 16:44 (twenty-two years ago)

or we could finally switch to Stardates...

― Jay Dee Sah Mon (Kingfish), Wednesday, 12 November 2003 16:48 (twenty-two years ago)

stadate is based on the AD system I believe

― Ed (dali), Wednesday, 12 November 2003 16:49 (twenty-two years ago)

I thought it was based on the number of rolls of gaffer tape it took to get Shatner into the tight pants!

― Huckleberry Mann (Horace Mann), Wednesday, 12 November 2003 17:00 (twenty-two years ago)

(because he's a little tubby)

― Huckleberry Mann (Horace Mann), Wednesday, 12 November 2003 17:01 (twenty-two years ago)

zounds!

― Jay Dee Sah Mon (Kingfish), Wednesday, 12 November 2003 18:42 (twenty-two years ago)

I've heard a great idea for a new "year zero": use the beginning of the Space Age - which started with Sputnik.

― Sébastien Chikara (Sébastien Chikara), Friday, 14 November 2003 09:41 (twenty-two years ago)

I prefer the "year zero" starting with the information age - which would start with the day that Alan Turing switched his machine on!

― Citizen Kate (kate), Friday, 14 November 2003 09:43 (twenty-two years ago)

Great idea Kate.
Like, what will have the biggest impact on humanity between space exploration, genetic engineering, computing advances (etc?).
It's kind of moot to say we are living in the "atomic age", when most of the plants are getting closed if possible. We are too closed to the action... but .. right now I would bet like you said, Turing's machine will be the key-est.

― Sébastien Chikara (Sébastien Chikara), Friday, 14 November 2003 09:53 (twenty-two years ago)

Changing calendar is hardly a top priority "mission" but still it is not the least important thing to do. I'll ask the folks of the Long Now Foundation what they think about it when they'll get their forum back online. (funny I totally had forgotten about them)
http://www.longnow.org/about/about.htm

THE FOUNDATION

The Long Now Foundation was established in 01996** to develop Clock and "Library" projects as well as to become the seed of a very long term cultural institution. It has been nearly 10,000 years since the end of the last ice age and the beginnings of civilization. Progress lately is often measured on a "faster/cheaper" scale. The Long Now Foundation seeks to promote "slower/better" thinking and to foster creativity in the framework of the next 10,000 years.

― Sébastien Chikara (Sébastien Chikara), Friday, 14 November 2003 14:08 (twenty-two years ago)

it's still 1996 here so get to have a whole other millenium bash in a cpl years.

― H (Heruy), Friday, 14 November 2003 14:10 (twenty-two years ago)

Turing? Screw that, the day Babbage turned the crank on his first working engine.

― Mr Noodles (Mr Noodles), Friday, 14 November 2003 14:56 (twenty-two years ago)

the day Star Trek Voyager first aired!

― Huckleberry Mann (Horace Mann), Friday, 14 November 2003 15:02 (twenty-two years ago)

As the end of times?

― Mr Noodles (Mr Noodles), Friday, 14 November 2003 15:21 (twenty-two years ago)

The day I decided I wasn't going to take this bullshit anymore.

― Huckleberry Mann (Horace Mann), Friday, 14 November 2003 15:22 (twenty-two years ago)

Then the New Year would perpetually start "tomorrow."

― NA (Nick A.), Friday, 14 November 2003 15:24 (twenty-two years ago)

NA sadly JOTO

― Huckleberry Mann (Horace Mann), Friday, 14 November 2003 15:29 (twenty-two years ago)

Another proposition from the computational side of things: UNIX standard epoch (1/1/1970).

― Sébastien Chikara (Sébastien Chikara), Friday, 14 November 2003 15:56 (twenty-two years ago)

You need to adjust UNIX forward by three whole months and ten days, and then I'd be happy with that as the year dot!

― Citizen Kate (kate), Friday, 14 November 2003 15:59 (twenty-two years ago)

(Anno Majorus Bangus)

I think Anno Majorus Bangbus would be more memorable

― DG (D_To_The_G), Friday, 14 November 2003 22:16 (twenty-two years ago)

oh here we go again...

― Jay Dee Sah Mon (Kingfish), Friday, 14 November 2003 22:18 (twenty-two years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.