New Years Eve, Times Square...from 14 floors up

[BLeafe]

So it's not about Hackensack - sue me.


My old agency was on the 14th floor of 1501 Broadway, by 43rd St. Twenty years ago tonight, they had a New Years Eve party for the dawn of a new decade - the 90s. I brought my clunky camcorder so I could tape the ball drop.

Since it was too crowded in their office to get sole window access, I found a building security guy who located a vacant office nearby and opened it up for me and my date.

Perfect!

After partaking of a little party food and a lot of party drink, we went to our office to hang out of the window for the next few hours. I felt bad for the loud crowd outside when it started raining, but it was good for the video because Broadway's lights were now reflected in the wet street.

What I had never seen before was the "after" stuff - the police marching in on foot and on horseback, the street sweeper vehicles, etc.

Since I used my cellphone off a TV screen VHS playback to create this 2-part file, the image is small and not even on the same planet as HD, but maybe you can get a feel for what it was like.

It sure beat being in that mob (and I've been there a couple of times).

So, as we go into another decade (I know.........it doesn't really start until 1/1/11), I wish you all a Happy (and much better) New Year!



.

[just watching]

We heard that same claim 10 years ago, that the new decade/new century doesn't start until Jan 1, 2001, not Jan 1, 2000.  And now you say Jan 1, 2011 is the start of the next decade.

The way I look at it, calendars come and go with different religions. The mistake was made once in the first century, which had only 99 years, because there was no year zero (0).  So why continue that mistake, century after century.  WHy not just state that the first century had 99 years, and that the most recent new century began Jan 1, 2000. And the next decade Jan 1, 2010  

[BLeafe]

you say Jan 1, 2011 is the start of the next decade.
The mistake was made once in the first century, which had only 99 years

Actually, I first said, "as we go into another decade" and then said the other thing in an effort to forestall posts by those who know better. If I had just picked one position, people on the other side were bound to reply. I thought I had my bases covered.

The only mistake made was to think that ANY century had only 99 years. By definition, a century is 100 years in length. BECAUSE there was no year 0 (zero), the first year had to be 1. That century ended at the end of year 100 - the completion of 100 years - so the next century HAD to begin at year 101. Therefore, EVERY century has to end in a year ending with 0 and begin in a year ending with a 1.

Cosmetically, I agree that it looks better to begin a century with a year that ends in 0, especially at the turn of millennia, but realistically/mathematically, it's just not true.

Here's the difference:

1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9-10

10-1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9


How do YOU count?



.

[Homer Jones]

Ah ha!!  Did it ever occur to anybody that the problems with the bells at the Middle Shool are caused by the fact that the Bd. of Ed. works on a different calendar than the rest of the City and that they are a century off due to an error by their Y2K consultant ten years ago?

[Editor]

Just to complicate things:  Jesus was born in 4BCE or 6AD, not year 0.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronology_of_Jesus

Happy New Year! (It's really 2014 or 2004).   

[BLeafe]

He also wasn't born on December 25. The consensus seems to be March. I don't know if that changes anything by a year or not, but it really wasn't a topic of discussion 14th floors above Times Square 20 years ago (as he tries to unhijack his thread)



.

[BLeafe]

Did it ever occur to anybody that the problems with the bells at the Middle Shool are caused by the fact that the Bd. of Ed. works on a different calendar...

Homer, the word "planet" is not spelled c-a-l-e-n-d-a-r. 

(he says, ignoring "Shool")



.

[Homer Jones]

Mork calling Orson. Nanu nanu.