BBC go with BCE and not BC.

[altus]

mmm. You reckon we could smoothly handle a jump of 2000 years into the future? Instead of 2012 next year would be, say, 5127?

Following this scheme would mean 1970 became year zero.

 

You are an optimist, I will give you that. Today's modern systems would have no bother, but any 32 bit effort is likely to run into difficulties.

Systems using 32 bit dates have had this a problem for a long while - they'll run out of values in 2038. That has already been causing problems for things like pension calculations, so most systems have already been updated. It then becomes an issue of how dates are displayed rather than how systems work. It would probably take until 2050 to get people to agree to it in any case.

[Phanerothyme]

It would probably take until 2050 to get people to agree to it in any case.

 

Don't you mean 2.524.666.837?

 

It's almost a Captain's Log star date (or a beast date, possibly both).

[truman]

Meh, the story's in the Daily Fail, therefore it's prolly made up.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/bbc/8788038/Stars-attack-BBC-over-politically-correct-drivel.html

 

you need to read more

[algy]

No great feelings either way for BC or BCE, the one that I do disagree with is BP (Before Present), as this doesn't fix a point in time as the others do.

[sccsux]

If the BBC had said that they were doing this to fit with the modern world then it would not be so ridiculous.

 

That's Ok then:

 

In line with modern practice, BCE/CE (Before Common Era/Common Era) are used as a religiously neutral alternative to BC/AD.' - direct from the article in the OP.

[nickycheese]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/bbc/8788038/Stars-attack-BBC-over-politically-correct-drivel.html

 

you need to read more

 

A different view...

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/reality-check-with-polly-curtis/2011/sep/26/1

[algy]

It does - 1950 is "the present" in radiocarbon dating terms (which is where BP is mainly used).

 

Unfortunately it's bandied about freely by people who don't know that, or fail to explain the term, including some academics I know.

[Jeffrey Shaw]

there's no proof the man even existed.

Oh, yes, there is. Oddly, this comes from the Mishna (a collection of discussions of Jewish Oral Law, followed by the Gemara which records discussions about the Misha). Jesus is mentioned in the Mishna but the full text was suppressed by the prevalent Roman Empire authorities once their Empire espoused Christianity.

[Tony Erikson]

Oh, yes, there is. Oddly, this comes from the Mishna (a collection of discussions of Jewish Oral Law, followed by the Gemara which records discussions about the Misha). Jesus is mentioned in the Mishna but the full text was suppressed by the prevalent Roman Empire authorities once their Empire espoused Christianity.

 

The bogeyman is mentioned in many books too.

[Jeffrey Shaw]

From the historicity wiki page:

 

"The evidence for the existence of Jesus all comes from after his lifetime"

 

Correct me if I'm wrong but that would mean that would mean that there is 0 contemporary evidence for Jesus.

 

I've never been entirely convinced he ever existed either to be honest.

Yes, you're wrong- and so is the sickipaedia entry.