[Closed] Holy crap where did that go?!

No, the decade finishes at the end of 2010, not 2009!

As in the FIRST YEAR of the 21st century was 2001! 🙂

Hmm, I am not sure you are right on that one.

As 1999 turned into 2000, 2000 was surely the start of a new decade (as well as millenium), so as 2009 turns into 2010 why is that not the start of the decade?

either way guy's i find it scary that its gone so quick 😯

I'm 100% sure I'm correct!!!

The 21st century is the current century of the Christian Era or Common Era in accordance with the Gregorian calendar. It began on January 1, 2001 and will end December 31, 2100.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/21st_Century

And therefore this decade ends on Dec 31st 2010, and the new one starts on 1st Jan 2011. Fact. I'm really not making this up. 🙂

PP speaks the troot

Holy crap where did that go

I want to know where the last 4 decades have gone

That would mean that we all celebrated the 'millennium' a year early then.

You all celebrated the millenium early - I waited until the right time.

PP is correct.

As someone at work pointed out yesterday, it's a bit scary when you realise the current crop of students were born in the 90's!
Oasis are like the pink floyd to them 🙂

Aye he is, when you think about it.

The problem is that people relate it all to their age, as when you pass your 10th birthday, that is one decade... but that's because we started counting at 0...

Whereas I believe there wasn't a year 0... we went straight from 1 BC to 1 AD and so all dates have to be taken from that starting point...

Or something like that anyway..

Whereas I believe there wasn't a year 0... we went straight from 1 BC to 1 AD and so all dates have to be taken from that starting point...

Well, no, we didn't. On the 24th of February, 1582 it was decided by a Pope that 1582 years ago the callendar went from 1BC to 1AD. Up untill that point people had been blissfully unaware.

For me the point of 21st becoming 22nd century etc. is irrelevant as it stems from a starting point before my memory. To me my perception is more important, so for me, having been born in the late 70's, 1990 was the first decade change I remember, and so 2000 and 2010 will have far more relevance for me. The fact that according to the Gregorian callendar 2011 is more important is irrlevant, seeing as it's based on a point in time that did not carry such a label (1AD).

The millenium roll-over was 1 year early, because people were more interested in the interesting looking date rather than counting 100 years from the start of the century.
1901-1999 inclusive comes to a 99 year "century" in the mathematical system that I was taught in primary school.
The current Millenium, Century and Decade all started in 2001 in my book.

1901-1999 inclusive comes to a 99 year "century"

Whereas 1900-1999 inclusive would make a perfectly valid century, as will 2000-2099

The way it works is like this -

A decade is 10 years. Easy. 10 whole years. Anything less is 9-and-a-bit, and not a decade! 🙂

If we started dates again, we wouldn't start with zero, would we? We'd start with 'one' because that would be the first year, yes?
And so therefore we'd start at the first day, of the first month, in the first year - 01/01/01.
With me so far?
(Because if we count anything (Bikes, chickens, money, miles etc) the first unit counted is 'one' 🙂 )

So, with a decade being 10 years the 10 years are - 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9 & 10
1 to 10 is ten units (Years) and if it's anything less than 10, it's 9 and a bit.
So a decade is from 1st Jan in the first year (the START of the year) to 31st Dec in the tenth year (The END of the year) Not the ninth!

And yes, we celebrated the ticking over the number 2000, not the start of a new Milennium. TJ is correct.
🙂

It's all to do with basic counting, nothing complicated.
But we get all excited by the ticking over of a big number, which is understandable I think 😀

Whereas 1900-1999 inclusive would make a perfectly valid century, as will 2000-2099

Because if we count anything (Bikes, chickens, money, miles etc) the first unit counted is 'one

If you were counting time in seconds or hours etc., you'd start at zero
The first word you'd utter would be one - but you'd have waited for it 😀

and money. You can have money before you get to a pound. The concept of zero as a qty of money is perfectly valid.

If you were counting time in seconds or hours etc., you'd start at zero
The first word you'd utter would be one - but you'd have waited for it

Yep!!! Egg-zakkly!!! WOO_HOO!!!

So you'd count 'one' at the _END_ of the first second, so TEN seconds would not have elapsed until you counted 'ten', not 'nine'!

It's nice to see someone understands! 😉

😀

In fact, looking in my wallet that precisely how much is usually in there 🙂

But, and this is the point I made that you've missed, we never started with one. It never happened. Year one was retrospective. In actuall fact, year one was 1582. So why get hung up on it? 2000 is a nice round number. As a species, we like things to be organised, and celebrating 2000, 2010 and 2100 are milestones to us. What were exactly counting [i]from[/i] bares little importance to the majority of us.

Also, your point that we count bikes chickens and money from 1 is irrelevant. We count time from less. If 30 seconds have passed, because it doesn't make 1 minute, does that mean no time has passed at all? Of course not. In time, you can have less than one unit.

It's nice to see someone understands!

Absolutely - I was just clarifying that you do use zero - you simply don't say it

You can have money before you get to a pound

Yes, but not a whole pound. As in months are not a whole year. 'Zero' when applied to money is the absence of money. You can only start counting it when you HAVE some to count. 1p, £1, etc.

The same principal applies.

You can all argue the toss as much as you like. But I'm right, I can proove it, and you all know it. 😉 😀

Absolutely - I was just clarifying that you do use zero - you simply don't say it

Sorry. I'll go beat myself. 🙂

Also, your point that we count bikes chickens and money from 1 is irrelevant. We count time from less. If 30 seconds have passed, because it doesn't make 1 minute, does that mean no time has passed at all? Of course not. In time, you can have less than one unit

No, a second is just a smaller unit!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 🙂

Also, your point that we count bikes chickens and money from 1 is irrelevant

And no it's not. It's 100% relevant. You can only count something when you have it. Right now I have no chickens. So I can't count them. If I had one chicken, I could count it. Like if I had counted one second (Or less) of one hour of one day of one month of the first year. It's all 'one' not 'zero'
😀

Yup, but we have 1 second and no minutes, so what's wrong with 1 day and no years?

I'm not arguing that what you say IS the case, I know that as fact. What I'm saying is that it's pretty much irrelevant, as it's built on a system that was retrospectivly put in place.

If there was no callendar, and it was put in place now, I'm pretty sure it would go 001/0 being January the 1st 1AD to 365/0 and then 001/1 being as we're all digital and such.

My point is, why get hung up on 2001 when it means no more in reality than 2000?

Sorry. I'm really enjoying this. It's great fun, do carry on. 😉

i was going to second-post with something much along the lines of peterpoddy,

but i assumed i'd be laughed at for being a pedant.

i am a pedant, and peterpoddy and tandem jeremy are correct.

TJ - i am now concerned about my cholesterol level, by my own definition i am now old.

doesn't time fly when you're having fun...

X

Remarkable that, that there's 10 [b]whole [/b]years in a decade 😆

I celebrated the turn of the millennium twice: In 2000 I enjoyed all the free fireworks, in 2001 I enjoyed all the odd looks.

All the experts knew we were celebrating the wrong year, which goes to prove that no-one in power listens to experts.

PeterPoddy - Member
Sorry. I'm really enjoying this. It's great fun, do carry on.

I've said my bit, you haven't refuted it yet.

I'm enjoying this as well, fwiw. In my mind, it's pedantry and tradition versus common usage, something I'm normally on the other side of.

My point is, why get hung up on 2001 when it means no more in reality than 2000?

Oh yes indeed, it's pretty much irrelevant other than a new number ticking over. 🙂

Astronomers use the year zero.

So the year 2000 is in the nineties?

Oh yes indeed, it's pretty much irrelevant other than a new number ticking over.

Bingo bango!!

We are agreed.

A decade is a period ten years, it's entirely up to you (or your religious/cultural leader) where you start counting from........

pol pot had year zero iirc - not that that is relevant to anything

Just for the record, AD and BC are not in common useage anymore. The current, secular terms are CE and BCE (common era and before common era).

Out pedant that if you can 😛

To be really pedantic, I think you'll find AD and BC are in common usage, just not the current PC terms 🙂

To be really really pedantic, I'm sure that you meant AD and not AC.

LOL!!!! 🙂