>>>>A side note to this point. The next millenium starts Jan 1, 2001, not Jan 1, 2000.
>>>
>>>Hiya George.
>>>Well our government has decided (and I think every other) that despite the technical arguments and the scientific wisdom that has 1/1/2001 as the first day, that "officially" 1/1/2000 will now be the first day of the next millienium. Now you can't argue with politicians!
>>
>>G'Day David,
>>
>>I don't know about our government, it might be the same. However, the US Navy says that the 21st Century begins in 2001. Oh, I can see the confusion on the horizon.:-)
>
>LOL - so they don't have a milleniumn bug problem by definition. And you hate that, right.

ROFL! No, David, I don't hate that. It's just the confusion that can be caused by imprecise use of language. There is no "millenium" bug, it's Y2K. Technically, it's got nothing to do with the millenium, it's got to do with computers and how they store data.

Jen's introduction of religion into the discussion was what prompted this. Unfortunately, there are certain denominations that'll tell you that the year 2000 begins the new millenium, and the Y2K bug is part and parcel of the coming apocalypse in conjunction with it.

Sorry, that's flat out wrong. The Gregorian Calendar begins at the year 1 AD, not 0. Therefore the 1st Century ran from 1-100, 2nd was 101-200, etc.

There is a relationship here. They've run across an error that's very common and well known in computing circles: The "off by one" error.:-)