You know you are getting old when:

[scottyrocks]

I've never been able to tolerate coffee -- it upsets my stomach. I do, however, enjoy smelling coffee, and will often sniff an open can or bag of it. This was a childhood habit that was not encouraged, along with the habit of eating raw macaroni, both of which habits, I was warned, would eventually kill me.

I remember being in the kitchen when my Mom was making meatballs and spaghetti, and always asking for a 'stick' of uncooked spaghetti to chew on. Looking back, I don't see the attraction now. It was a thin, tasteless, brittle, almost impossible to eat thing. Maybe it as just a fun thing to do (?)

 

[scottyrocks]

I like instantcoffee, but the problem on this stuff is, that the most seem to lack coffeine, whatever the reason is. Maybe, there's a basic difference between "spray-dried" and better "freeze-dried", but I don't know really. I'm happy, to have this bio-fairtrade-stuff, which is tasty, aromatic and out of the mainstream. Many Germans wouldn't believe, that instantcoffee can taste that good!

My parents drank instant coffee when I was a kid. When company came over, out came the percolator.

Then, in my early adulthood, we discovered drip coffee makers, and that was that. After drinking many different brands of coffee over the years, my label of choice to brew at home (and at my desk at work) is Dunkin' Donuts. I buy three bags at a time at DD for $20. Such a deal!

 

[Fading Fast]

I've never been able to tolerate coffee -- it upsets my stomach. I do, however, enjoy smelling coffee, and will often sniff an open can or bag of it. This was a childhood habit that was not encouraged, along with the habit of eating raw macaroni, both of which habits, I was warned, would eventually kill me.

I'll be doing fine with coffee for awhile (I'm an infrequent drinker - a few times a month) and, then, one day it will make my stomach go all kerflooey. A less risky way to enjoy coffee are chocolate covered expresso beans (or one of the billion new chocolate bars that have coffee flavor, from real beans, in them) - gives me the flavor without the risk.

 

[ChrisB]

The turn of the century was indeed the year 2000, by 2001 the 21st century was already a year old.

The usual explanation is that there was no year 0, but I what I meant was 2001 as opposed to 1901!

 

[Trenchfriend]

11.9.2001, the end of the 90s...

 

[scottyrocks]

Yeah, that pesky zero year. We should get rid of it altogether.

 

[Zombie_61]

The turn of the century was indeed the year 2000, by 2001 the 21st century was already a year old.

You've helped to illustrate the point I was trying to make in post #3438. 2000 isn't the first year of the 21st century, it's the last year of the 20th century (according to our modern calendar, that is). There was no "year zero", so the first decade was "Year One" to "Year Ten", the second decade was "Year 11" to "Year 20", and so on. As such, the first century was "Year One" to "Year 100", the second century was "Year 101" to "Year 200", and so on. Carry this forward, and the 20th century was "Year 1901" to "Year 2000", and the 21st century begins with "Year 2001". It's simple math.

 

[LizzieMaine]

And most historians agree that Jesus could not have been born any later than 4 BC and possibly as early as 8 BC. So maybe we should say the 21st century REALLY began in 1997.

 

[Lean'n'mean]

We are in fact in the year 13.8 billion post big bang & everything else is irrelevant.

 

[Lean'n'mean]

And most historians agree that Jesus could not have been born any later than 4 BC and possibly as early as 8 BC. So maybe we should say the 21st century REALLY began in 1997.

Historians or theologians ? although I'm not a fan of historians I like to believe that even they, wouldn't waste their time trying to work out the date of birth of a ficticious character.

 

[tonyb]

We are in fact in the year 13.8 billion post big bang & everything else is irrelevant.

Burn in Hell, apostate!

 

[Zombie_61]

Historians or theologians ? although I'm not a fan of historians I like to believe that even they, wouldn't waste their time trying to work out the date of birth of a ficticious character.

Given that our current use of seconds/minutes/hours/days/weeks/months/years/decades/centuries/millennia to measure the passage of time is a rather complicated system, I'm perfectly content to let wiser fellers than myself sort it all out regardless of what they use/used as a starting point; it's all rather arbitrary anyway. This is one of the reasons I'm an agnostic in many ways--I might not be convinced that something existed or happened, but I'm not so arrogant that I can definitively say it didn't.

 

[BlueTrain]

Seems pretty simple to me. A day is a day. But the hours now are fixed. But in the days when Quirinius was governor of Syria, the hours varied with the season. But since there were no watches or clocks or smart phones, it did not matter. They rose and set to work when it was light enough to see and it was good. But now, we get up even earlier and that is not good.

 

[GHT]

And most historians agree that Jesus could not have been born any later than 4 BC and possibly as early as 8 BC. So maybe we should say the 21st century REALLY began in 1997.

Given that is true, should the acronym BC become known as Birth of Christ instead of Before Christ?

 

[2jakes]

Reading excerpts from Amelia Earhart’s diary, “Last Flight”,
I paused and wondered how nice it would’ve been to meet her.
But realized that she was gone before my time.

Then I thought about all the folks in films, music, sports,
politics or loved ones that were alive in my time, but
now are gone.

If you were to ask me, how do you know you are getting old?

This would probably be my answer.

 

[2jakes]

Burn in Hell, apostate!

If Mr. apostate has no credence for one, he probably won’t have it
for that other “warm" place below.

Most likely, he’ll be dancing to the tune of “Limbo Rock”
by Chubby Checker somewhere in space!

 

[Zombie_61]

Seems pretty simple to me. A day is a day...

Sure, now that all of the calculations have been done to determine how long a second should be, how many seconds should comprise a minute, how many minutes should comprise an hour, and so on. I realize our current measurement of time was developed over centuries, but it must surely have been painstaking work to even begin to figure it all out, and most of it based on a vague understanding of astronomy and a "best guess" at the birth date of a historical figure that may not have actually existed.

Given that is true, should the acronym BC become known as Birth of Christ instead of Before Christ?

Well, no, because the "birth of Christ" is the beginning of A.D./Anno Domini/"Year of our Lord", even though the "experts" can't even agree on exactly when that might have been. But, hey, I suppose it's as good a starting point as any other, and at this point we're kinda' stuck with it.

 

[ChrisB]

Sure, now that all of the calculations have been done to determine how long a second should be, how many seconds should comprise a minute, how many minutes should comprise an hour, and so on. I realize our current measurement of time was developed over centuries, but it must surely have been painstaking work to even begin to figure it all out, and most of it based on a vague understanding of astronomy and a "best guess" at the birth date of a historical figure that may not have actually existed.

Well, no, because the "birth of Christ" is the beginning of A.D./Anno Domini/"Year of our Lord", even though the "experts" can't even agree on exactly when that might have been. But, hey, I suppose it's as good a starting point as any other, and at this point we're kinda' stuck with it.

The current terminology is "CE" and "BCE"; common era and before common era. This sidesteps any questions of exact dates or historicity.

 

[LizzieMaine]

The best way to deal with that particular probelm is to simply replace "AD" and "BC" with "CE" and "BCE," meaning "Common Era" and "Before Common Era." And before anyone rises up to accuse me of waging a PC War On Calendars, I'll point out that these terms date to the eighteenth century, and have long been in use among academic writers.

 

[Stearmen]

Let me settle once and for all when the new century started, it was 2000. How do I know this for a fact, that's when all the great parties were held. 2001 was when all the sad little parties were held, with a lot of Dr. Sheldon cooper's in attendance!