Welcome to Panachallenge!
If you are already a member, Click Here to Log In.

 
     
t t rss cal
    Home   ·   Rules   ·   Mugshots   ·   Challenges   ·   Stats   ·   Forums   ·   Help Register    

Panachallenge #169 New Millennium Generation.
(You MUST log in to be able to make comments in the forum.)
      Panachallenge Forum -> PanaChallenge -> Challenge Talk
       Go to Page 
 Author        Message (72 posts) Next Page >>
A.N.Other

344 posts
     
  [1 of 72]  Posted: Thu Mar 3, 2016, 18:22 (1382 days ago)
Modified by Admin: Sun Mar 6, 2016, 09:17 (1379 days ago)

Panachallenge #169 The New Millennium is underway.
"Photograph people, places, things, or activities that did not exist until the 2000s. " (Winner of the Open Category gets to choose a subsequent theme. Created by AnthonyComyn.)

Entry period: Thu 3 Mar through Thu 24 Mar 23:59:59 UTC
Voting: Fri 25 Mar through Mon 28 Mar 23:59:59 UTC

You may submit entries taken with a Panasonic Lumix (and their Leica cousins) digital camera to the main category, and/or you may submit entries taken with any digital camera to the open category. The theme applies to both categories.

Your photo for either category must be taken during the entry period, starting Thu 3 Mar.

For more info, go to http://www.panachallenge.com/challenge?challenge=202&f=f
Rules: http://www.panachallenge.com/challenge/rules.php?f=f

Good luck!


SteveBee

561 posts
     
  [2 of 72]  Posted: Thu Mar 3, 2016, 19:56 (1382 days ago)

Let me be the first to nit pick. The challenge email announcement said "born in the year 2001 to date", but the challenge page says "born in the year 2000 to date." Perhaps this is meant to finesse the question of which millennia the year 2000 is part of. Is it the first year of the current millennium or the last year of the previous millennium on the Western calendar? I don't think there was a year numbered 0000, so I assume the year 2000 is the last year of the previous millennium. Either way I don't suppose anyone is checking birth certificates.

johncomyn

255 posts
     
  [3 of 72]  Posted: Thu Mar 3, 2016, 20:01 (1382 days ago)

So would that be any day after December 31 1999 for the lay person like me?

johncomyn

255 posts
     
  [4 of 72]  Posted: Thu Mar 3, 2016, 20:12 (1382 days ago)

Hate to start the controversy! This from Wikipedia.

Debate over millennium celebrations[edit]

The common Western calendar (the Gregorian calendar) has been defined with counting origin 1. Thus each period of 1,000 years concludes with a year number with three zeroes, e.g., the first thousand years in the Western calendar included the year 1000. However, there are two viewpoints about how millennia should be thought of in practice. One viewpoint relies on the formal operation of the calendar, while the other appeals to other notions that attract popular sentiment. Stephen Jay Gould argued that the choice is arbitrary, and since the question revolves around rules made by people, rather than a natural phenomenon that is subject to experimental measurement, the matter cannot be resolved.[1]

The ISO 8601, employed in a number of contexts, uses the astronomical calendar, in which year counting starts at 0. Thus, when using this calendar, the millennium starts at x000 and ends at x999. There was a popular debate leading up to the celebrations of the year 2000 as to whether the beginning of that year should be understood (and celebrated) as the beginning of a new millennium. Historically, there has been debate around the turn of previous decades, centuries, and millennia.

The issue is tied to the convention of using ordinal numbers to count millennia (as in "the third millennium"), as opposed to "the two thousands", which is unambiguous as it does not depend on which year counting starts. The first convention is common in English speaking countries, but the latter is favored in for example Sweden (tvåtusentalet, which translates literally as the two thousands period).


mrsawyer

1580 posts
     
  [5 of 72]  Posted: Thu Mar 3, 2016, 21:04 (1382 days ago)

Hi All, Sorry about the date. I did not give A.N.Other the corrected date I'd discussed with AnthonyComyn in time. I have since corrected the date as soon as I saw he'd posted the new challenge. Of course, who will be able to tell???
We should require a birth certificate for any questionable entries!!! LOL


mrsawyer

1580 posts
     
  [6 of 72]  Posted: Thu Mar 3, 2016, 21:06 (1382 days ago)

 SteveBee wrote:
Let me be the first to nit pick. The challenge email announcement said "born in the year 2001 to date", but the challenge page says... [/em]


Yes, I was able to correct the email before it was sent out, then corrected the site afterward.



johncomyn

255 posts
     
  [7 of 72]  Posted: Thu Mar 3, 2016, 21:33 (1382 days ago)
Modified: Thu Mar 3, 2016, 21:34 (1382 days ago)

I'm still confused? Does it include born with a date born for example 20 July 2000?

mrsawyer

1580 posts
     
  [8 of 72]  Posted: Fri Mar 4, 2016, 01:14 (1381 days ago)

 johncomyn wrote:
I'm still confused? Does it include born with a date born for example 20 July 2000?


nope! 2001 and later...


A.N.Other

344 posts
     
  [9 of 72]  Posted: Fri Mar 4, 2016, 03:13 (1381 days ago)

OK Now even I'm confused and I'm the challenge Admin LOL.

Anthony Comyn gave us the challenge description saying :-

The generation of the new millennium.
Photograph anyone born in the year 2000 to date. This could be a newly born baby or a teenager in their prime or age in-between.

Then after some discussion mrsawyer gave us the final wording of :-

New Millennium Generation.
Photograph anyone born in the year 2000 to date. This could be a newly born baby or a teenager in their prime or age in-between.

So where did 2001 come from all of a sudden? I get the bit about there never being a year '0' , but I also remember the mega millennium celebrations when the year 1999 clicked over to 2000 plus the naming and opening of millennium this and millennium that in different cities.

I do hope we will be able to settle on the year 2000 as originally proposed and agreed upon as I should be able to enter that. If it's 2001 I cannot think of anyone I could photograph so I will probably have to skip this challenge :-( .

P.S. I'm so sorry for not noticing the change to 2001 in the email. If I had I would have corrected it to 2000 and none of this confusion would have happened!

All the best,

Neil.


Peanut

12 posts
     
  [10 of 72]  Posted: Fri Mar 4, 2016, 05:02 (1381 days ago)

Difficulty is, there is no-one in that age group for me to photograph unless I ask a stranger.l
      Next Page >>
 
      Panachallenge Forum -> PanaChallenge -> Challenge Talk
       Go to Page 
    Comments? Suggestions? Problems? Click here!       Disclaimer