> Speaking of the Millenium, does it surprise anyone just how easily 2000 has been accepted? I mean logic and common sense dictate that 2000 cannot be the new Millenium and yet everyone I know who I thought possessed such qualities vigoriously defends the position that it *must* be.
>
> Drac "Just thought I'd ask" imas

A millennium simply means a thousand years. It doesn't mean "a thousand years starting from year 1000". If you'd like, call 1972 the beginning of the next millennium and you'd be just as right as the people saying it's 2000 or 2001. It boils down to what you are counting from. From the year 1 AD? Then (ignoring the mistakes made when converting to the Julian calendar), year 2001 will be the start of the new millennium. From year 0 BC/AD? Ignoring the fact that there was no year numbered 0, then 2000 will be your next one. From when Jesus Christ was born? Either 1994, 1995, 2002, or 2003 would be your first year. When Jesus was crucified and ascended into heaven? 33 years after those dates. Or if you're Jewish, it's really 5760 and you don't have to worry about this for forty (or thirty-nine) years.

With how easily it's been accepted, all you have to do is remember that people are stupid. An individual person is smart, but put them together in a large enough group... The year will change from 1999 to 2000 -- this is the first time in a millennium that the first digit in the year notation changes. Couple that with the y2k computer problem that's been a news story buzzword for the past two years and you've got people concerned with how the year 2000 is going to bring in major changes/have a major effect right at the beginning of the year. You didn't see this in 1986 or 1993, nope -- right at the first day of the new year, (apparent) major things will happen. That's why everyone's keyed up about the year 2000. And because people are stupid, they associate the beginning of the next millenium with this coming New Year's Day.

-Faux "People are rude, too." Pas