PLEASE READ - New forum information

[Kenneth Wuepper]

Happy New Year to Mexico and all of the World.

This new Forum will take some learning.

Thanks Brad for keeping the community alive and well.

Sincerely
KEN

[Steve Moore]

Happy New Forum/Year to everyone.
Hopefully we will all get to grips with it, once the hangovers wear off!

Adding photos appears to be easier, as i discovered whilst clicking on things. Here is a photo of our vacuums getting ready for their new year party.
Hope everyone has a good one?
Steve

[Mitchell Dvoskin]

The question of whether a new decade started on the first day of the year 00 or 01 will determine when you believe that decades begin and end. If you believe the decades began on 1/1/0001, then you are saying that the first year was not part of any decade. Personally I don’t agree. Decades started 1/1/0000 and this is the start of the roaring 20’s.

[Peter Foyster]

This where people get unstuck. The 1st January 0001 AD to 31st December 0010 AD is the first decade (exactly 10 years). Remember also, calendar years are celebrated at their beginning. Birthdays are celebrated at the end of each year.
As Marcel alludes to, 1 BC ended on the 31st December 1 BC and 1 AD started the next day on the 1st January. There is no year "0". It is a contrived year to justify starting a new decade at 0. There is absolutely no logic to it whatsoever and no requirement for it to be in any calculation. Unfortunately, that logic is something that many people have difficulty coming to grips with.

[John Thomas]

To the decade question:

https://xkcd.com/2249/

[Marcel Birgelen]

The question of whether a new decade started on the first day of the year 00 or 01 will determine when you believe that decades begin and end. If you believe the decades began on 1/1/0001, then you are saying that the first year was not part of any decade. Personally I don’t agree. Decades started 1/1/0000 and this is the start of the roaring 20’s.

Well, to add a bit of extra confusion... According to the "Anno Domini" (AD/BC) way of counting years, there is no year "0". Something like "Year Zero" would translate to 1 BC...

[Brad Miller]

Hi John, please don't link offsite to content that will go away sooner or later. Instead please make sure to upload a copy here so as not to break the archives for future people reading and wondering what it was you were referencing. Thanks.

Here is the image:
i_love_the_20s.png

[Mike Blakesley]

The Latest Activity tab only shows the first post in a given thread -- it would be better if it showed the first un-read post, or maybe the latest post, or at least gave an option to jump to those posts.

[Gordon McLeod]

Is there a next or previous button so one doesn't have to go back to the index page after reading a post?

[Mitchell Dvoskin]

> Remember also, calendar years are celebrated at their beginning. Birthdays are celebrated at the end of each year.

True, but since the Gregorian calendar officially starts counting upward from the birth of JC, the first 365 counted only months and days since there was no full year yet, the first decade started at JC's birth, not his first birthday. Yes, their was no actual year zero, but the first 365 days are part of the first decade. Including those first 365 days after JC was born as the last year BC makes no sense.

[Peter Foyster]

Exactly what I was saying. So you agree with me. There was no year 0. "AD" or " the year of our Lord" commenced at the 1st January 1 AD At the 1st January in the year of the birth of JC (1AD), the first decade started. The actual birth date is irrelevant, assuming that logic dictates that it was in that first year somewhere. Yes, it was only months and days until the end of the year but, as I said, calendar years are celebrated at their commencement. Therefore from the start of 1 AD to the end of the year 10 AD is exactly one decade.
We are not dealing with mathematics here where we would count from say -100 to 0 and then +1 to 100. 1BC was not -1 as such. It began on the 1st January and ended on 31st December 1 BC. It follows that 1 AD would commence the next day.

The second decade, therefore, could not have commenced (been celebrated) until the 1st January 11 AD.

[Frank Cox]

Gordon: Just click on the title of the thread (example: "PLEASE READ - New forum information") and it will show you all of the posts several at a time with a "previous" and "next" at the bottom.

[Marcel Birgelen]

True, but since the Gregorian calendar officially starts counting upward from the birth of JC, the first 365 counted only months and days since there was no full year yet, the first decade started at JC's birth, not his first birthday. Yes, their was no actual year zero, but the first 365 days are part of the first decade. Including those first 365 days after JC was born as the last year BC makes no sense.

It's a bit backward, trying to apply something like a mathematical definition to something that's being used in general speech. You can easily define an exception and count 1 AD to be part of the first decade and 1 BC not to be part of it. The first decade would end up with 9 years this way. But you seldomly talk about this period in the context of a decade, so it's probably not really all that relevant. But, it's actually simpler than that...

Technically speaking, a decade is nothing more than just a period of 10 years. You can claim a new decade starts every day and give it a new name. We usually don't count decades the way we count centuries. If we say something like the 1990s, we explicitly don't count the number of decades since 1 AD, but we give a time indication based on the starting year.

So, in the end, for most people, a decade is the periodic cycle of the last digit of the year, starting at 0 and ending at 9. If you say the 1990s, it doesn't really make sense to most people to explicitly exclude 1990 and include the year 2000.

[Van Dalton]

CINEMA: Film-Tech Forum
AUDITORIUM: Ground Level
PRESENTATION: Vbulletin 5.5.5 with time-tested-tried-and-true baby-blue color scheme
PRESENTATION PROBLEMS: Default font seems a little small...maybe it's my glasses.
RATING: Eight and a half stars (out of four)

THE PLOT: A Web forum gets an upgrade and a very long-time lurker finally joins in. Wackiness ensues.

Well, I was on the Cinematour forum if that even counts or matters. I'm the one who contributed a lot of the newer (meaning: almost 10 years ago) pictures of Vancouver, WA cinemas to accompany Mr. Neff's.

I already miss Evil Mr. Graham. And whatever happened to Joe Redifer and his biting wit which sometimes had me rolling in the aisles?

Thanks for keeping it going all these years, Brad. I've never been involved in the cinema business but have always found it fascinating, particularly the projection aspect. My grandad was a projectionist at the historic Roseway theatre in Portland just before he was drafted and did a lot with recording and film, so there's that. I had thought about going into it in high school but the fact that almost all the cinemas around my side of the river at the time were a virtual monopoly owned by Regal, that kind of put a damper on it. I sure wish I could have gotten into the one at OMSI when it was still 15/70 on a dome before they trashed it all, but that would also mean paying Oregon income tax without representation.

[Mark Strube]

I don't suppose we can get our old titles back? I miss being a "Master Film Handler."

[Leo Enticknap]

As a former "film god," I got even more of a demotion! Like being busted from four-star general to private...

Brad - would it be possible to reinstate the writer's location on the left sidebar for each post? I found this very useful in responding to queries. For example, an answer to "Where can I buy spare parts for a Barco?" is not going to be the same if the enquirer is in Nigeria, to that if (s)he is in LA.

[Marcel Birgelen]

New Decade, New Apprentices! You can't rest on your laurels, you need to earn your title again.

I've had all kinds of certifications over the years, most if not all of them have since expired... I think my driver's license is still valid though. :P