|
Happy New Year!
Posted by Nathan on 1 January 2001, 01:00 GMT
We here at ticalc.org would like to welcome you into anno Domini 2001, the twenty-first century, and the third millennium! For your reading pleasure, I would link to last year's news article, which deals with the millennium. We had a lot of reasonable and irrational people give feedback on both points of view. Let the memories flow! And, as usual, the January 2001 newsletter has been posted to the Newsletter archives. Okay...these statistics aren't exact, but I thought I'd annoy Magnus and post them anyhow. Maybe someone will update these. :) Magnus says: I was just poking around a bit at statistics.
Yearly stats so far (note, figures are not exact :-) I typed them off the web..):
1997: 12,058,640 hits (not a full year, though)
1998: 29,015,076 hits (up 141%, but extrapolating 1997 to 12 months gives 60.4%)
1999: 48,342,747 hits (up 66.6%)
2000: 84,767,923 hits (up 75.3%)
So basically, we have grown more this year than ever before when it comes to
hits! A great work by everybody! We've taken 48.6% of our all time hits this
year. Also, I'm noticing that we are approaching a new record - we now have 14,515
files in our archives, closing fast on 15,000. We also have a total of
17,924 screenshots for these files. This only amounts to about 57% of our
files, though, but it's a huge step up from last year.
Taking a look at our news system, we have:
1997: 21 posted articles (ok, so the system wasn't there back then)
1998: 193 posted articles
1999: 242 posted articles
2000: 219 posted articles
So we have a slight decline there, probably due to the fact that we no
longer have Nick doing an obscene amount of news articles :-) We're still
averaging more than one article every two days. (Standalone articles, like
surveys, not included)
As for comments to these articles:
1998: 4,758 comments
1999: 14,975 comments
2000: 19,333 comments
So it seems our users are writing more :-)
Umm. That ends todays statistics. Well, that's all for this time around. Please remember that those statistics are raw and meaningless, and are for your entertainment pleasure, only.
|
|
|
|
|
The comments below are written by ticalc.org visitors. Their views are not necessarily those of ticalc.org, and ticalc.org takes no responsibility for their content.
|
|
|
Re: Happy New Year!
|
Ryan Schleich 
(Web Page)
|
|
Okay is it just me, or has the year in some of the posts changed to 2002?? I could just be extremely tired from New Years, but who knows.
|
|
|
1 January 2001, 06:26 GMT
|
|
|
Back At The Studio...
|
Pandrogas
(Web Page)
|
|
"It's the millenium! Woohooo!!! Party!!!", Yells part of my mind in triumph. Unfortunatly the rest of my mind blanks out a couple of seconds and remembers, "Oh, thats right, I'm only on room five for Tomb and I have to get my @&& in gear if I'm gonnan get it done in the next two months." Slowly with a deep breath, I berate myself. "Back to work, moron!"
|
|
|
3 January 2001, 13:51 GMT
|
|
|
Re: Happy New Year!
|
Ian Bui
(Web Page)
|
|
For those of you who still maintain 2000 was the start of the millennium, here is the full reasoning of the contrary:
It all started when the early Christians began converting Pagans. At that time, no date was established as Jesus' birthday because there were no records for this kind of thing. With many difficulties already present, the Christians decided to have the celebration of the Birth of Christ on December 25 to make the conversion easier for the Pagans who celebrated the Winter Solstice on the very same day (We now know the solstice is actually days earlier).
Later on when the designation of the years were being devised, people saw how close December 25 was to January 1 where the solstice was thought to be an even longer time ago (That's how January 1 became the start of each year. Besides, they knew it would be quite silly to start the new year in the middle of a month). Because these were Christians making the calendar, they wanted to base it on the Birth of Christ, but they didn't know exactly how many years prior it was or even that it wasn't on December 25. They studied many historical texts and eventually made an educated guess. Then they needed to determine how to assign the years their numbers. First they decided that years leading up to Jesus' birth would count down and years following would count up. They then determined that the January 1 following Jesus' birth would be Year 1 in the second Era which they called "Anno Domini" or "In the year of our Lord". The reason was that would be (almost) the first full year of Jesus' life. The year just prior to that would be the Year 1 in the first Era which they called "Before Christ" which was (almost) the last full year before Jesus' life began.
Today, our calendar has been proven to be quite inaccurate. Scientists have determined that Jesus' was probably not born on December 25, 1 BC, but sometime in March a few years before (I've heard 4, 5, and even 6 BC). Because of that, BC has changed to BCE or "Before the Common Era" and AD has changed to CE or "Common Era".
This is how 2001 is the real start of the 3rd Millennium CE, the 21st Century, and the 201st Decade. I'm sorry if I've offended anyone; that certainly is not my intent. Either way, both New Years' celebration were quite enjoyable.
|
|
|
8 January 2001, 07:22 GMT
|
|
1 2 3 4
You can change the number of comments per page in Account Preferences.
|
