RIP Violet Brown

The forum for general posting. Come join the madness. :)
Message
Author
User avatar
jarnon
Posts: 6264
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 9:52 pm
Location: Merion, Pa.

RIP Violet Brown

#1 Post by jarnon » Mon Sep 18, 2017 1:15 pm

The world's oldest person died Friday in Jamaica at age 117.

The current oldest person, and the last link to the 19th century, is Nabi Tajima of Japan.
Слава Україні!
עם ישראל חי

User avatar
ghostjmf
Posts: 7420
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 11:09 am

Re: RIP Violet Brown

#2 Post by ghostjmf » Mon Sep 18, 2017 1:20 pm

I hope it wasn't recent storms that did her in.

User avatar
Bob78164
Bored Moderator
Posts: 21626
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:02 pm
Location: By the phone

Re: RIP Violet Brown

#3 Post by Bob78164 » Mon Sep 18, 2017 1:54 pm

jarnon wrote:The world's oldest person died Friday in Jamaica at age 117.

The current oldest person, and the last link to the 19th century, is Nabi Tajima of Japan.
In common usage, Ms. Brown was our last living link to the 19th century. There is now no one left alive who was born in the 1800s. --Bob
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson

User avatar
Estonut
Evil Genius
Posts: 10495
Joined: Sat Oct 13, 2007 1:16 am
Location: Garden Grove, CA

Re: RIP Violet Brown

#4 Post by Estonut » Mon Sep 18, 2017 2:44 pm

Bob78164 wrote:
jarnon wrote:The world's oldest person died Friday in Jamaica at age 117.

The current oldest person, and the last link to the 19th century, is Nabi Tajima of Japan.
In common usage, Ms. Brown was our last living link to the 19th century. There is now no one left alive who was born in the 1800s.
Nope. In common usage, the 19th century ran from Jan 1, 1801 – Dec 31, 1900. Nabi Tajima was born August 4, 1900, at the end of the 19th century.
A child of five would understand this. Send someone to fetch a child of five.
Groucho Marx

User avatar
Bob78164
Bored Moderator
Posts: 21626
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:02 pm
Location: By the phone

Re: RIP Violet Brown

#5 Post by Bob78164 » Mon Sep 18, 2017 2:55 pm

Estonut wrote:
Bob78164 wrote:
jarnon wrote:The world's oldest person died Friday in Jamaica at age 117.

The current oldest person, and the last link to the 19th century, is Nabi Tajima of Japan.
In common usage, Ms. Brown was our last living link to the 19th century. There is now no one left alive who was born in the 1800s.
Nope. In common usage, the 19th century ran from Jan 1, 1801 – Dec 31, 1900. Nabi Tajima was born August 4, 1900, at the end of the 19th century.
So the year 2000 wasn't commonly referred to as the start of the 21st century? Perhaps we know different commoners. --Bob
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson

User avatar
silverscreenselect
Posts: 23174
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:21 pm
Contact:

Re: RIP Violet Brown

#6 Post by silverscreenselect » Mon Sep 18, 2017 4:10 pm

Estonut wrote:
Bob78164 wrote:
jarnon wrote:The world's oldest person died Friday in Jamaica at age 117.

The current oldest person, and the last link to the 19th century, is Nabi Tajima of Japan.
In common usage, Ms. Brown was our last living link to the 19th century. There is now no one left alive who was born in the 1800s.
Nope. In common usage, the 19th century ran from Jan 1, 1801 – Dec 31, 1900. Nabi Tajima was born August 4, 1900, at the end of the 19th century.
And we should add that Brown is the last person alive believed to have been born in the 1800's. Birth records in many parts of the world were incomplete or inaccurate at the end of the 19th century so mistakes one way or the other were not uncommon.
Check out our website: http://www.silverscreenvideos.com

User avatar
littlebeast13
Dumbass
Posts: 31103
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 7:20 pm
Location: Between the Sterilite and the Farberware
Contact:

Re: RIP Violet Brown

#7 Post by littlebeast13 » Mon Sep 18, 2017 4:50 pm

Bob78164 wrote:
Estonut wrote:
Bob78164 wrote:In common usage, Ms. Brown was our last living link to the 19th century. There is now no one left alive who was born in the 1800s.
Nope. In common usage, the 19th century ran from Jan 1, 1801 – Dec 31, 1900. Nabi Tajima was born August 4, 1900, at the end of the 19th century.
So the year 2000 wasn't commonly referred to as the start of the 21st century? Perhaps we know different commoners. --Bob
I agree with Bob on this one. Common usage refers to decades/centuries/millenniums, etc. as running from years ending in 0 to years ending in 9. That irritates me a bit, but not for the same reasons it irritates those who adhere to the technical understanding of what defines a power of ten block of time...

lb13
Thursday comics! Squirrel pictures! The link to my CafePress store! All kinds of fun stuff!!!!

Visit my Evil Squirrel blog here: http://evilsquirrelsnest.com

User avatar
Estonut
Evil Genius
Posts: 10495
Joined: Sat Oct 13, 2007 1:16 am
Location: Garden Grove, CA

Re: RIP Violet Brown

#8 Post by Estonut » Tue Sep 19, 2017 12:18 am

littlebeast13 wrote:
Bob78164 wrote:
Estonut wrote:Nope. In common usage, the 19th century ran from Jan 1, 1801 – Dec 31, 1900. Nabi Tajima was born August 4, 1900, at the end of the 19th century.
So the year 2000 wasn't commonly referred to as the start of the 21st century? Perhaps we know different commoners.
I agree with Bob on this one. Common usage refers to decades/centuries/millenniums, etc. as running from years ending in 0 to years ending in 9. That irritates me a bit, but not for the same reasons it irritates those who adhere to the technical understanding of what defines a power of ten block of time...
In that scenario, you are cheating the first century out of a year (0 - 99).
A child of five would understand this. Send someone to fetch a child of five.
Groucho Marx

User avatar
Estonut
Evil Genius
Posts: 10495
Joined: Sat Oct 13, 2007 1:16 am
Location: Garden Grove, CA

Re: RIP Violet Brown

#9 Post by Estonut » Tue Sep 19, 2017 12:20 am

Bob78164 wrote:
Estonut wrote:
Bob78164 wrote:In common usage, Ms. Brown was our last living link to the 19th century. There is now no one left alive who was born in the 1800s.
Nope. In common usage, the 19th century ran from Jan 1, 1801 – Dec 31, 1900. Nabi Tajima was born August 4, 1900, at the end of the 19th century.
So the year 2000 wasn't commonly referred to as the start of the 21st century? Perhaps we know different commoners.
I guess I hang out with smarter people.
A child of five would understand this. Send someone to fetch a child of five.
Groucho Marx

User avatar
Bob78164
Bored Moderator
Posts: 21626
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:02 pm
Location: By the phone

Re: RIP Violet Brown

#10 Post by Bob78164 » Tue Sep 19, 2017 1:20 am

Estonut wrote:
littlebeast13 wrote:
Bob78164 wrote:So the year 2000 wasn't commonly referred to as the start of the 21st century? Perhaps we know different commoners.
I agree with Bob on this one. Common usage refers to decades/centuries/millenniums, etc. as running from years ending in 0 to years ending in 9. That irritates me a bit, but not for the same reasons it irritates those who adhere to the technical understanding of what defines a power of ten block of time...
In that scenario, you are cheating the first century out of a year (0 - 99).
Technical accuracy has little if anything to do with whether the usage is, in fact, common. People commonly refer to the Lower 48 as the continental United States, even though 49 of the states are (for the most part) actually on the North American continent. --Bob
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson

User avatar
Estonut
Evil Genius
Posts: 10495
Joined: Sat Oct 13, 2007 1:16 am
Location: Garden Grove, CA

Re: RIP Violet Brown

#11 Post by Estonut » Tue Sep 19, 2017 2:03 am

Bob78164 wrote:
Estonut wrote:
littlebeast13 wrote:I agree with Bob on this one. Common usage refers to decades/centuries/millenniums, etc. as running from years ending in 0 to years ending in 9. That irritates me a bit, but not for the same reasons it irritates those who adhere to the technical understanding of what defines a power of ten block of time...
In that scenario, you are cheating the first century out of a year (0 - 99).
Technical accuracy has little if anything to do with whether the usage is, in fact, common. People commonly refer to the Lower 48 as the continental United States, even though 49 of the states are (for the most part) actually on the North American continent.
Common people that I know who aren't sure about centuries say "1900's," etc. That is both correct and clear.

If someone is claiming that a person is the last person born in a century, then "common usage" has no business there. They've got to be technically correct. I'm pretty sure you'd argue my way if you were asked such a question on Millionaire.

Please cite your best reference on "common usage" here. I don't think the general population is as unsophisticated as do you.
A child of five would understand this. Send someone to fetch a child of five.
Groucho Marx

User avatar
BackInTex
Posts: 12780
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:43 pm
Location: In Texas of course!

Re: RIP Violet Brown

#12 Post by BackInTex » Tue Sep 19, 2017 7:08 am

Estonut wrote:
littlebeast13 wrote:
Bob78164 wrote:So the year 2000 wasn't commonly referred to as the start of the 21st century? Perhaps we know different commoners.
I agree with Bob on this one. Common usage refers to decades/centuries/millenniums, etc. as running from years ending in 0 to years ending in 9. That irritates me a bit, but not for the same reasons it irritates those who adhere to the technical understanding of what defines a power of ten block of time...
In that scenario, you are cheating the first century out of a year (0 - 99).
How so, using 0-99? That is 100 numbers. Was the first year 1 or 0? I know no one at the time used the current calendar but if I were to do a time line going back 2019 years, would the years be:

2 BC, 1 BC, 0, 1 AD, 2 AD

or

2 BC, 1 BC, 1 AD, 2 AD, 3 AD

Is the day following the day considered Dec. 31, 1 BC considered Jan. 1, 1 AD?
..what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? let them take arms.
~~ Thomas Jefferson

User avatar
littlebeast13
Dumbass
Posts: 31103
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 7:20 pm
Location: Between the Sterilite and the Farberware
Contact:

Re: RIP Violet Brown

#13 Post by littlebeast13 » Tue Sep 19, 2017 7:17 am

Estonut wrote:
Bob78164 wrote:Common people that I know who aren't sure about centuries say "1900's," etc. That is both correct and clear.

If someone is claiming that a person is the last person born in a century, then "common usage" has no business there. They've got to be technically correct. I'm pretty sure you'd argue my way if you were asked such a question on Millionaire.
Please cite your best reference on "common usage" here. I don't think the general population is as unsophisticated as do you.

Maybe the OC is different than the GC, but if I asked 100 random people around here which century they thought the year 2000 was a part of, I doubt more than a small handful would say it was actually the final year of the 20th century. And if I asked those same people what years they thought I was referring to when I said "last century," again I'd imagine the answer would almost exclusively be "1900-1999" since the generic term century would be assumed to be the common 100 year period of all years beginning with "19." I would doubt many "common people" know, or would even care that there was no Year 0... because our minds are conditioned early on to recognize blocks of ten years as all years starting with the same three digits (actually numbers since, again, most common people wouldn't or can't distinguish between a "number" and a "digit."), blocks of 100 years as all years starting with the same two digits, and millennia as all year starting with the same first digit. Try telling a common baseball fan that George Brett only won batting titles in two different decades (1976, 1980 and 1990), and you'll have an argument that you'll never, ever win....

lb13
Thursday comics! Squirrel pictures! The link to my CafePress store! All kinds of fun stuff!!!!

Visit my Evil Squirrel blog here: http://evilsquirrelsnest.com

User avatar
littlebeast13
Dumbass
Posts: 31103
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 7:20 pm
Location: Between the Sterilite and the Farberware
Contact:

Re: RIP Violet Brown

#14 Post by littlebeast13 » Tue Sep 19, 2017 7:22 am

BackInTex wrote:
Estonut wrote:
littlebeast13 wrote:I agree with Bob on this one. Common usage refers to decades/centuries/millenniums, etc. as running from years ending in 0 to years ending in 9. That irritates me a bit, but not for the same reasons it irritates those who adhere to the technical understanding of what defines a power of ten block of time...
In that scenario, you are cheating the first century out of a year (0 - 99).
How so, using 0-99? That is 100 numbers. Was the first year 1 or 0? I know no one at the time used the current calendar but if I were to do a time line going back 2019 years, would the years be:

2 BC, 1 BC, 0, 1 AD, 2 AD

or

2 BC, 1 BC, 1 AD, 2 AD, 3 AD

Is the day following the day considered Dec. 31, 1 BC considered Jan. 1, 1 AD?

I think Esto meant (1-99) since the very reason decades/centuries technically end in xxx0 years is because there was no year 0, and that made the first true decade the years 1 through 10.... which doesn't seem that weird, but it would also mean that the current decade is 2011-2020, which just goes against the way we're conditioned to look at power-of-ten blocks of time. If there was a Year 0, this thread would have stopped after the RIP post...

lb13
Thursday comics! Squirrel pictures! The link to my CafePress store! All kinds of fun stuff!!!!

Visit my Evil Squirrel blog here: http://evilsquirrelsnest.com

User avatar
silverscreenselect
Posts: 23174
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:21 pm
Contact:

Re: RIP Violet Brown

#15 Post by silverscreenselect » Tue Sep 19, 2017 7:32 am

BackInTex wrote:Is the day following the day considered Dec. 31, 1 BC considered Jan. 1, 1 AD?
I'm surprised there weren't riots by people wanting to get their missing year back.
Check out our website: http://www.silverscreenvideos.com

User avatar
littlebeast13
Dumbass
Posts: 31103
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 7:20 pm
Location: Between the Sterilite and the Farberware
Contact:

Re: RIP Violet Brown

#16 Post by littlebeast13 » Tue Sep 19, 2017 7:44 am

silverscreenselect wrote:
BackInTex wrote:Is the day following the day considered Dec. 31, 1 BC considered Jan. 1, 1 AD?
I'm surprised there weren't riots by people wanting to get their missing year back.

I was about to make a smartass comment about how short the year 1752 must have been (and whether the "missing" 1752 leap day was even accounted for), but then I found this and realized that the wheels to convert from Julian to Gregorian in England were actually put in motion a few years earlier....

And this cracked me up, because it cuts right to the heart of what this argument is about in the first place...
The ever reliable Wikipedia wrote:Reasons for change

The Parliament held that the Julian calendar then in use, and the start of the year on 25 March, were
“ attended with divers inconveniences, not only as it differs from the usage of neighbouring nations, but also from the legal method of computation in Scotland, and from the common usage throughout the whole kingdom, and thereby frequent mistakes are occasioned in the dates of deeds and other writings, and disputes arise therefrom.[1]
I would seriously doubt commoners have changed much in relation to the technical people over the past three centuries...

lb13
Thursday comics! Squirrel pictures! The link to my CafePress store! All kinds of fun stuff!!!!

Visit my Evil Squirrel blog here: http://evilsquirrelsnest.com

User avatar
BackInTex
Posts: 12780
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:43 pm
Location: In Texas of course!

Re: RIP Violet Brown

#17 Post by BackInTex » Tue Sep 19, 2017 7:48 am

littlebeast13 wrote:If there was a Year 0, this thread would have stopped after the RIP post...

lb13
If only Pope Gregory XIII had been a programmer.....
..what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? let them take arms.
~~ Thomas Jefferson

User avatar
I Love Decades!
Posts: 203
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 6:05 pm

Re: RIP Violet Brown

#18 Post by I Love Decades! » Tue Sep 19, 2017 8:17 am

littlebeast13 wrote:
I think Esto meant (1-99) since the very reason decades/centuries technically end in xxx0 years is because there was no year 0, and that made the first true decade the years 1 through 10.... which doesn't seem that weird, but it would also mean that the current decade is 2011-2020, which just goes against the way we're conditioned to look at power-of-ten blocks of time. If there was a Year 0, this thread would have stopped after the RIP post...

lb13

Stop messing with Decades!

User avatar
Bob78164
Bored Moderator
Posts: 21626
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:02 pm
Location: By the phone

Re: RIP Violet Brown

#19 Post by Bob78164 » Tue Sep 19, 2017 12:27 pm

Estonut wrote:
Bob78164 wrote:
Estonut wrote:In that scenario, you are cheating the first century out of a year (0 - 99).
Technical accuracy has little if anything to do with whether the usage is, in fact, common. People commonly refer to the Lower 48 as the continental United States, even though 49 of the states are (for the most part) actually on the North American continent.
Common people that I know who aren't sure about centuries say "1900's," etc. That is both correct and clear.

If someone is claiming that a person is the last person born in a century, then "common usage" has no business there. They've got to be technically correct. I'm pretty sure you'd argue my way if you were asked such a question on Millionaire.

Please cite your best reference on "common usage" here. I don't think the general population is as unsophisticated as do you.
You might take a quick look at the Wikipedia entry for "century."

As for your "no business" comment, I don't think this discussion raises technical issues of such grave import that precision of language is essential. Or even fun. --Bob
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson

User avatar
jarnon
Posts: 6264
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 9:52 pm
Location: Merion, Pa.

Re: RIP Violet Brown

#20 Post by jarnon » Tue Sep 19, 2017 1:06 pm

Bob78164 wrote:You might take a quick look at the Wikipedia entry for "century."
The Wikipedia article is short, but the booklet it refers to, The Battle of the Centuries, is enlightening. This dispute has been going on for at least four centuries. Here's one entry:
The text of Lalande's letter as published in Le Bien-informé, 23 nivose, an 8 (Jan. 13, 1800), clearly stating that the year 1800 belongs
to the 18th century, is included. The refutation (by François L. Darragon) consists more of abuse than argument.
Darragon would fit right in today's social media.
Слава Україні!
עם ישראל חי

User avatar
T_Bone0806
FNGD Forum Moderator
Posts: 6928
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 4:24 pm
Location: State of Confusion

Re: RIP Violet Brown

#21 Post by T_Bone0806 » Tue Sep 19, 2017 1:19 pm

This just in, a message delivered by medium from Ms. Brown:


"I don't give a rat's ass about this. I'm still dead either way."

:wink:
"#$%&@*&"-Donald F. Duck

User avatar
earendel
Posts: 13588
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 5:25 am
Location: mired in the bureaucracy

Re: RIP Violet Brown

#22 Post by earendel » Tue Sep 19, 2017 1:29 pm

I Love Decades! wrote:
littlebeast13 wrote:
I think Esto meant (1-99) since the very reason decades/centuries technically end in xxx0 years is because there was no year 0, and that made the first true decade the years 1 through 10.... which doesn't seem that weird, but it would also mean that the current decade is 2011-2020, which just goes against the way we're conditioned to look at power-of-ten blocks of time. If there was a Year 0, this thread would have stopped after the RIP post...

lb13

Stop messing with Decades!
Interestingly, a question on today's first-run Millionaire touches on this issue.

[Paraphrasing] The 1900s consisted of how many days?
A - 3,650
B - 3,652
C - 3,654
D - 3,656
Spoiler
The contestant, after recognizing that years have 365 days, also knew that he had to count leap days, so he had to decide how many there were. IIRC he used his 50:50, which left B and D, and knew that 6 leap days was too many.
"Elen sila lumenn omentielvo...A star shines on the hour of our meeting."

User avatar
littlebeast13
Dumbass
Posts: 31103
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 7:20 pm
Location: Between the Sterilite and the Farberware
Contact:

Re: RIP Violet Brown

#23 Post by littlebeast13 » Tue Sep 19, 2017 1:40 pm

earendel wrote:Interestingly, a question on today's first-run Millionaire touches on this issue.

[Paraphrasing] The 1900s consisted of how many days?
A - 3,650
B - 3,652
C - 3,654
D - 3,656
Spoiler
The contestant, after recognizing that years have 365 days, also knew that he had to count leap days, so he had to decide how many there were. IIRC he used his 50:50, which left B and D, and knew that 6 leap days was too many.

Your paraphrasing turned what I hope was a more detailed question into one that is extremely misleading. I was wondering how so few days could possibly be found in a century...

lb13
Thursday comics! Squirrel pictures! The link to my CafePress store! All kinds of fun stuff!!!!

Visit my Evil Squirrel blog here: http://evilsquirrelsnest.com

User avatar
earendel
Posts: 13588
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 5:25 am
Location: mired in the bureaucracy

Re: RIP Violet Brown

#24 Post by earendel » Tue Sep 19, 2017 2:00 pm

littlebeast13 wrote:
earendel wrote:Interestingly, a question on today's first-run Millionaire touches on this issue.

[Paraphrasing] The 1900s consisted of how many days?
A - 3,650
B - 3,652
C - 3,654
D - 3,656
Spoiler
The contestant, after recognizing that years have 365 days, also knew that he had to count leap days, so he had to decide how many there were. IIRC he used his 50:50, which left B and D, and knew that 6 leap days was too many.
Your paraphrasing turned what I hope was a more detailed question into one that is extremely misleading. I was wondering how so few days could possibly be found in a century...

lb13
Sorry, it was "The 1990s".
"Elen sila lumenn omentielvo...A star shines on the hour of our meeting."

User avatar
mrkelley23
Posts: 6260
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 6:48 pm
Location: Somewhere between Bureaucracy and Despair

Re: RIP Violet Brown

#25 Post by mrkelley23 » Tue Sep 19, 2017 7:48 pm

It would have been really interesting if they had asked how many days were in the decade from 1900-1909. Especially if they had included 3652 and 3653 as possible answers.
For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled. -- Richard Feynman

Post Reply