>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.:-)

Well, you are right, 2001 is indeed the first year of the next millenium. Arthur C Clarke knew that :-). What's happened is that the masses and the pollies (Aus. for politician) can't cope with the concept, after all 2000 has got the "20" in it. Anyway, all the big parties (including the official ones) are planned for 31/12/99! We who know better can celebrate twice!

The underlying current of mystical fear about such events isn't confined to organised religion (after all, argmageddon was supposed to be 1 AD or thereabouts - very disappointing for the prophets!); here where religion is much more "subdued" than in the USA many still believe something is going to happen. As if base 10 arithmetic is divine somehow (chuckle). Anyway enough said about that.

BTW, You may have noticed how extraordinarily hard it is to explain the "bug" to lay people. I can't even explain what I do for a living to my relatives and friends.