RIP Violet Brown
- jarnon
- Posts: 6264
- Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 9:52 pm
- Location: Merion, Pa.
RIP Violet Brown
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.
The current oldest person, and the last link to the 19th century, is Nabi Tajima of Japan.
Слава Україні!
עם ישראל חי
עם ישראל חי
- ghostjmf
- Posts: 7420
- Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 11:09 am
Re: RIP Violet Brown
I hope it wasn't recent storms that did her in.
- Bob78164
- Bored Moderator
- Posts: 21626
- Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:02 pm
- Location: By the phone
Re: RIP Violet Brown
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. --Bobjarnon 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.
"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
- Estonut
- Evil Genius
- Posts: 10495
- Joined: Sat Oct 13, 2007 1:16 am
- Location: Garden Grove, CA
Re: RIP Violet Brown
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.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.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.
A child of five would understand this. Send someone to fetch a child of five.
Groucho Marx
Groucho Marx
- Bob78164
- Bored Moderator
- Posts: 21626
- Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:02 pm
- Location: By the phone
Re: RIP Violet Brown
So the year 2000 wasn't commonly referred to as the start of the 21st century? Perhaps we know different commoners. --BobEstonut 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.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.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.
"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
- silverscreenselect
- Posts: 23174
- Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:21 pm
- Contact:
Re: RIP Violet Brown
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.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.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.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.
Check out our website: http://www.silverscreenvideos.com
- littlebeast13
- Dumbass
- Posts: 31103
- Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 7:20 pm
- Location: Between the Sterilite and the Farberware
- Contact:
Re: RIP Violet Brown
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...Bob78164 wrote:So the year 2000 wasn't commonly referred to as the start of the 21st century? Perhaps we know different commoners. --BobEstonut 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.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.
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
Visit my Evil Squirrel blog here: http://evilsquirrelsnest.com
- Estonut
- Evil Genius
- Posts: 10495
- Joined: Sat Oct 13, 2007 1:16 am
- Location: Garden Grove, CA
Re: RIP Violet Brown
In that scenario, you are cheating the first century out of a year (0 - 99).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...Bob78164 wrote:So the year 2000 wasn't commonly referred to as the start of the 21st century? Perhaps we know different commoners.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.
A child of five would understand this. Send someone to fetch a child of five.
Groucho Marx
Groucho Marx
- Estonut
- Evil Genius
- Posts: 10495
- Joined: Sat Oct 13, 2007 1:16 am
- Location: Garden Grove, CA
Re: RIP Violet Brown
I guess I hang out with smarter people.Bob78164 wrote:So the year 2000 wasn't commonly referred to as the start of the 21st century? Perhaps we know different commoners.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.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.
A child of five would understand this. Send someone to fetch a child of five.
Groucho Marx
Groucho Marx
- Bob78164
- Bored Moderator
- Posts: 21626
- Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:02 pm
- Location: By the phone
Re: RIP Violet Brown
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. --BobEstonut wrote:In that scenario, you are cheating the first century out of a year (0 - 99).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...Bob78164 wrote:So the year 2000 wasn't commonly referred to as the start of the 21st century? Perhaps we know different commoners.
"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
- Estonut
- Evil Genius
- Posts: 10495
- Joined: Sat Oct 13, 2007 1:16 am
- Location: Garden Grove, CA
Re: RIP Violet Brown
Common people that I know who aren't sure about centuries say "1900's," etc. That is both correct and clear.Bob78164 wrote: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.Estonut wrote:In that scenario, you are cheating the first century out of a year (0 - 99).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...
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
Groucho Marx
- BackInTex
- Posts: 12780
- Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:43 pm
- Location: In Texas of course!
Re: RIP Violet Brown
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:Estonut wrote:In that scenario, you are cheating the first century out of a year (0 - 99).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...Bob78164 wrote:So the year 2000 wasn't commonly referred to as the start of the 21st century? Perhaps we know different commoners.
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
~~ Thomas Jefferson
- littlebeast13
- Dumbass
- Posts: 31103
- Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 7:20 pm
- Location: Between the Sterilite and the Farberware
- Contact:
Re: RIP Violet Brown
Estonut wrote:Please cite your best reference on "common usage" here. I don't think the general population is as unsophisticated as do you.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.
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
Visit my Evil Squirrel blog here: http://evilsquirrelsnest.com
- littlebeast13
- Dumbass
- Posts: 31103
- Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 7:20 pm
- Location: Between the Sterilite and the Farberware
- Contact:
Re: RIP Violet Brown
BackInTex wrote: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:Estonut wrote:In that scenario, you are cheating the first century out of a year (0 - 99).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...
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
Visit my Evil Squirrel blog here: http://evilsquirrelsnest.com
- silverscreenselect
- Posts: 23174
- Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:21 pm
- Contact:
Re: RIP Violet Brown
I'm surprised there weren't riots by people wanting to get their missing year back.BackInTex wrote:Is the day following the day considered Dec. 31, 1 BC considered Jan. 1, 1 AD?
Check out our website: http://www.silverscreenvideos.com
- littlebeast13
- Dumbass
- Posts: 31103
- Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 7:20 pm
- Location: Between the Sterilite and the Farberware
- Contact:
Re: RIP Violet Brown
silverscreenselect wrote:I'm surprised there weren't riots by people wanting to get their missing year back.BackInTex wrote:Is the day following the day considered Dec. 31, 1 BC considered Jan. 1, 1 AD?
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...
I would seriously doubt commoners have changed much in relation to the technical people over the past three centuries...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]
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
Visit my Evil Squirrel blog here: http://evilsquirrelsnest.com
- BackInTex
- Posts: 12780
- Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:43 pm
- Location: In Texas of course!
Re: RIP Violet Brown
If only Pope Gregory XIII had been a programmer.....littlebeast13 wrote:If there was a Year 0, this thread would have stopped after the RIP post...
lb13
..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
~~ Thomas Jefferson
- I Love Decades!
- Posts: 203
- Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 6:05 pm
Re: RIP Violet Brown
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!
- Bob78164
- Bored Moderator
- Posts: 21626
- Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:02 pm
- Location: By the phone
Re: RIP Violet Brown
You might take a quick look at the Wikipedia entry for "century."Estonut wrote:Common people that I know who aren't sure about centuries say "1900's," etc. That is both correct and clear.Bob78164 wrote: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.Estonut wrote:In that scenario, you are cheating the first century out of a year (0 - 99).
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.
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
- jarnon
- Posts: 6264
- Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 9:52 pm
- Location: Merion, Pa.
Re: RIP Violet Brown
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:Bob78164 wrote:You might take a quick look at the Wikipedia entry for "century."
Darragon would fit right in today's social media.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.
Слава Україні!
עם ישראל חי
עם ישראל חי
- T_Bone0806
- FNGD Forum Moderator
- Posts: 6928
- Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 4:24 pm
- Location: State of Confusion
Re: RIP Violet Brown
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."
"I don't give a rat's ass about this. I'm still dead either way."
"#$%&@*&"-Donald F. Duck
- earendel
- Posts: 13588
- Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 5:25 am
- Location: mired in the bureaucracy
Re: RIP Violet Brown
Interestingly, a question on today's first-run Millionaire touches on this issue.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!
[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."
- littlebeast13
- Dumbass
- Posts: 31103
- Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 7:20 pm
- Location: Between the Sterilite and the Farberware
- Contact:
Re: RIP Violet Brown
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
Visit my Evil Squirrel blog here: http://evilsquirrelsnest.com
- earendel
- Posts: 13588
- Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 5:25 am
- Location: mired in the bureaucracy
Re: RIP Violet Brown
Sorry, it was "The 1990s".littlebeast13 wrote: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...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.
lb13
"Elen sila lumenn omentielvo...A star shines on the hour of our meeting."
- mrkelley23
- Posts: 6260
- Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 6:48 pm
- Location: Somewhere between Bureaucracy and Despair
Re: RIP Violet Brown
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