For Those Who Do Not Understand Whether Or Not This Is A New Decade...

It's like this:

Since there was no year zero, the time between 2001-2002 makes 1 year. people often get confused and think that the 2001 and 2002 periods are two years.

Also, since the new millenium did not start until 2001 that means that the time between 2001 and 2002 is one year.

2001--------------------1 year-----------------------2002

So, a better understanding would be that (starting from 2001) 2001 to 2002 makes one year, 2002 to 2003 makes 2 years, 2003 to 2004 makes 3 three years.

Go all the way up to 9, then that means:

2009-----------9 years-------------2010

So, that means that this new year is the 9th year in this decade of the new millenium.

Hope that helps :)

I am pretty sure there was a year 0...Agent-Zero

I am pretty sure there was a year 0...Agent-Zero

I am pretty sure there was a year 0...Agent-Zero

There was an album called Year Zero, but it wasn't actually a year.

[QUOTE="Agent-Zero"]I am pretty sure there was a year 0...super_mario_128

So it is the start of the new decade right?lol_haha_dead

[QUOTE="lol_haha_dead"]So it is the start of the new decade right?GreyskullPower

Oh my god these things are driving me nuts. I don't care what the math is, I don't care what the science is. The entire world accepts it as a new decade and that's just it.

No one honestly cares it's the technical 9th year of the decade.

[QUOTE="GreyskullPower"][QUOTE="lol_haha_dead"]So it is the start of the new decade right?super_mario_128

The general consensus is probably going to be the new decade anyway. I'm still going to call it that regardless.

Wait, 2000-2001 doesn't count? Since when? I always thought it went 00-01 01-02 02-03 03-04 04-05 05-06 06-07 07-08 08-09 09-10 That's 10 whole yearszbdyx

oi vay, these threads are getting real old real fast.

Is it TECHNICALLY a new decade . . . NO

will it be considered a new decade, in terms of events and entertainment . . . YES

ok, it's like this. do you really think, on December 31st, 1989, people were going "Oh wait, there's one more year to the 80's!" hell no.

just like the 80's "ended in 1989", so does the first decade of the the two-thousands. it's just no one has a good nickname for the first 9 years.

[QUOTE="super_mario_128"][QUOTE="GreyskullPower"] no.GreyskullPower

Oh my god these things are driving me nuts. I don't care what the math is, I don't care what the science is. The entire world accepts it as a new decade and that's just it. Maniacc1

[QUOTE="lol_haha_dead"]So it is the start of the new decade right?GreyskullPower

WTF? So 2000 wasn't the start of the millenium? I call shenanagins, the decade ends now.enterawesome

2000 WASN'T the start of the new millenium.

Look, there was no year 0. So the first decade contained the years 1-10. The second decade started at the year 11. Notice that using this numbering, each subsequent decade ALWAYS begins with a year ending in 1.

And since centuries and millenia are just stacks of decades, then the same applies for centuries and millenia. The third millenium AD (or CE, if you prefer) didn't begin until 2001.

If the last digit of the number of the year is a 1, then it's the first year of the decade. If the last digit of the number of the year is a 0, then it is the LAST year of the decade.

2000 wasn't the start of the new millenium. 2000 was the last year of the previous millenium.

oi vay, these threads are getting real old real fast.

Is it TECHNICALLY a new decade . . . NO

will it be considered a new decade, in terms of events and entertainment . . . YES

ok, it's like this. do you really think, on December 31st, 1989, people were going "Oh wait, there's one more year to the 80's!" hell no.

just like the 80's "ended in 1989", so does the first decade of the the two-thousands. it's just no one has a good nickname for the first 9 years.

hammerofcrom

im pretty sure we count decades 0-9 not 1-10

[QUOTE="super_mario_128"][QUOTE="GreyskullPower"] no.GreyskullPower

You want a cookie? I'll give you one, you're TECHNICALLY correct, counting from year one it is still part of the 01-10 decade. But for one that numbering systemmakes absolutely no sense, and two it's just easier this way. 70's, 80's, 90's, easy. 2000 being part of the 20th century, hard.

[QUOTE="GreyskullPower"][QUOTE="super_mario_128"] In the grand scheme of things though it doesn't really matter. At all.super_mario_128

im pretty sure we count decades 0-9 not 1-10

cornholio157

[QUOTE="hammerofcrom"]

oi vay, these threads are getting real old real fast.

Is it TECHNICALLY a new decade . . . NO

will it be considered a new decade, in terms of events and entertainment . . . YES

ok, it's like this. do you really think, on December 31st, 1989, people were going "Oh wait, there's one more year to the 80's!" hell no.

just like the 80's "ended in 1989", so does the first decade of the the two-thousands. it's just no one has a good nickname for the first 9 years.

GreyskullPower

You don't have to do anything you don't want to. this isn't Riyadh, we're not going to cut your hands off.

[QUOTE="zbdyx"]Wait, 2000-2001 doesn't count? Since when? I always thought it went 00-01 01-02 02-03 03-04 04-05 05-06 06-07 07-08 08-09 09-10 That's 10 whole yearsGreyskullPower

im pretty sure we count decades 0-9 not 1-10

cornholio157

oi vay, these threads are getting real old real fast.

Is it TECHNICALLY a new decade . . . NO

will it be considered a new decade, in terms of events and entertainment . . . YES

ok, it's like this. do you really think, on December 31st, 1989, people were going "Oh wait, there's one more year to the 80's!" hell no.

just like the 80's "ended in 1989", so does the first decade of the the two-thousands. it's just no one has a good nickname for the first 9 years.

hammerofcrom

Instead of calling it the 00s, we could call it "the 201st decade".

Why not just start naming decades the same way that we name centuries? Look at events in the 1900s, and no one has any particular objection to that period of time being labelled as "the 20th century".

[QUOTE="enterawesome"]WTF? So 2000 wasn't the start of the millenium? I call shenanagins, the decade ends now.MrGeezer

2000 WASN'T the start of the new millenium.

Look, there was no year 0. So the first decade contained the years 1-10. The second decade started at the year 11. Notice that using this numbering, each subsequent decade ALWAYS begins with a year ending in 1.

And since centuries and millenia are just stacks of decades, then the same applies for centuries and millenia. The third millenium AD (or CE, if you prefer) didn't begin until 2001.

If the last digit of the number of the year is a 1, then it's the first year of the decade. If the last digit of the number of the year is a 0, then it is the LAST year of the decade.

2000 wasn't the start of the new millenium. 2000 was the last year of the previous millenium.

It's just easier this way.

[QUOTE="GreyskullPower"][QUOTE="zbdyx"]Wait, 2000-2001 doesn't count? Since when? I always thought it went 00-01 01-02 02-03 03-04 04-05 05-06 06-07 07-08 08-09 09-10 That's 10 whole yearsdanjammer69

im pretty sure we count decades 0-9 not 1-10

cornholio157

We count centuries and millenia 1-10. So why not decades as well?

[QUOTE="hammerofcrom"]

oi vay, these threads are getting real old real fast.

Is it TECHNICALLY a new decade . . . NO

will it be considered a new decade, in terms of events and entertainment . . . YES

ok, it's like this. do you really think, on December 31st, 1989, people were going "Oh wait, there's one more year to the 80's!" hell no.

just like the 80's "ended in 1989", so does the first decade of the the two-thousands. it's just no one has a good nickname for the first 9 years.

MrGeezer

Instead of calling it the 00s, we could call it "the 201st decade".

Why not just start naming decades the same way that we name centuries? Look at events in the 1900s, and no one has any particular objection to that period of time being labelled as "the 20th century".

It makes sense with centuries. 0-100 is the first period of 100 years. The problem with years is that there should be a year zero. There's a 1 BC, there's a 1 AD, if they both indicate distance from an event then logically there should be a 0 or the year in which the event occurred. Plus I still say the centuries thing is less confusing, saying 100 is part of the first century is understandable, but saying 1980 isn't part of the 80's? That's slightly more confusing.

[QUOTE="MrGeezer"]

[QUOTE="enterawesome"]WTF? So 2000 wasn't the start of the millenium? I call shenanagins, the decade ends now.theone86

2000 WASN'T the start of the new millenium.

Look, there was no year 0. So the first decade contained the years 1-10. The second decade started at the year 11. Notice that using this numbering, each subsequent decade ALWAYS begins with a year ending in 1.

And since centuries and millenia are just stacks of decades, then the same applies for centuries and millenia. The third millenium AD (or CE, if you prefer) didn't begin until 2001.

If the last digit of the number of the year is a 1, then it's the first year of the decade. If the last digit of the number of the year is a 0, then it is the LAST year of the decade.

2000 wasn't the start of the new millenium. 2000 was the last year of the previous millenium.

It's just easier this way.

[QUOTE="cornholio157"]

im pretty sure we count decades 0-9 not 1-10

MrGeezer

We count centuries and millenia 1-10. So why not decades as well?

thats just how its always been, i didnt make them start counting on 1 instead of 0. the current system to keep it at 0-9 being a decade people have to except that the "first decade" was only 9 years and the first true decade(the way we count 0-9)actually started in year 10.

may not make alot of sence but thats what you get when trying to interject modern logic on a 2010 year old system. confusion and discrepensies.

[QUOTE="theone86"]

[QUOTE="MrGeezer"]

2000 WASN'T the start of the new millenium.

Look, there was no year 0. So the first decade contained the years 1-10. The second decade started at the year 11. Notice that using this numbering, each subsequent decade ALWAYS begins with a year ending in 1.

And since centuries and millenia are just stacks of decades, then the same applies for centuries and millenia. The third millenium AD (or CE, if you prefer) didn't begin until 2001.

If the last digit of the number of the year is a 1, then it's the first year of the decade. If the last digit of the number of the year is a 0, then it is the LAST year of the decade.

2000 wasn't the start of the new millenium. 2000 was the last year of the previous millenium.

GreyskullPower

It's just easier this way.

What does it matter? Will my house smell like crap if I call 2010 the start of the new decade? No. Calling 2010 the starrt of the decade makes things easier, in what way does it impact us negatively? Absolutely no way, no one's going to reprimand us for cheating. We're not even using the most accurate calender around, who cares if we shift classification to make labeling periods easier? And if we were really concerned about being, "right," we would go back and create a year zero, making this year 2009 instead of 2010, but that's a major pain in the ass so we just call 0-9 a, "decade." Is it technically correct? No, but who cares?

[QUOTE="GreyskullPower"][QUOTE="theone86"]

It's just easier this way.

theone86

What does it matter? Will my house smell like crap if I call 2010 the start of the new decade? No. Calling 2010 the starrt of the decade makes things easier, in what way does it impact us negatively? Absolutely no way, no one's going to reprimand us for cheating. We're not even using the most accurate calender around, who cares if we shift classification to make labeling periods easier? And if we were really concerned about being, "right," we would go back and create a year zero, making this year 2009 instead of 2010, but that's a major pain in the ass so we just call 0-9 a, "decade." Is it technically correct? No, but who cares?

exactly theres much more important things to be argueing about than what decade this is.

BTW im done replying.

[QUOTE="GreyskullPower"][QUOTE="super_mario_128"] In the grand scheme of things though it doesn't really matter. At all.theone86

You want a cookie? I'll give you one, you're TECHNICALLY correct, counting from year one it is still part of the 01-10 decade. But for one that numbering systemmakes absolutely no sense, and two it's just easier this way. 70's, 80's, 90's, easy. 2000 being part of the 20th century, hard.

How is that hard? It follows a simple formula. The 1st decade ended in the year 10. The 3rd century ended in the year 300. The 15th century ended in the year 1500. And the 197th decade ended with the year 1970.

Do you see a pattern?

The pattern is actually what's EASY about this. As long as you stick to the pattern, then everything is good.

The problem is that people are just sort of random about when they're going to apply this pattern. Which is why you'll get no confusion when you say that we're in the 21st century, even though this century takes the form of 20xx (whereas the 20th century took the form of 19xx). You'll get no disagreement that we're in the 3rd millenium, even though this millenium takes the form of 2xxx.

It's a simple pattern to follow. If we stuck to that pattern, everything would be peachy. But for some weird reason, people tend to number decades differently. And this inconsistency is what confuses people.

1987 shouldn't be thought of as part of the "80s". It should be thought of as part of the "199th decade".

Stick to the pattern, and everything's easy. There's nothing hard or counter-intuitive about it.

Ok, try this. When you play monopoly, and you have to move 5 spaces, don't you move the piece once? that makes one space. You are not staying on the same spot and counting that 1 space, and then moving the piece, now are you?GreyskullPower

There is a year 1 BC or before Christ, correct? That's the year before Christ was born, shouldn't next year be 0, or the year in which Christ was born? It's not about moving spaces, it's about having the right number of spaces in teh first place. The Gregorian calender is missing Go.

[QUOTE="GreyskullPower"][QUOTE="theone86"]

It's just easier this way.

theone86

What does it matter? Will my house smell like crap if I call 2010 the start of the new decade? No. Calling 2010 the starrt of the decade makes things easier, in what way does it impact us negatively? Absolutely no way, no one's going to reprimand us for cheating. We're not even using the most accurate calender around, who cares if we shift classification to make labeling periods easier? And if we were really concerned about being, "right," we would go back and create a year zero, making this year 2009 instead of 2010, but that's a major pain in the ass so we just call 0-9 a, "decade." Is it technically correct? No, but who cares?

I sense too much emotion in that post. I will type it once, I will type it again. Its not about whether it's easier, or confusing or any of that stuff. That stuff is meaningless. I don't care if the general public does not care, or does not understand. That does not mean that I am wrong. So, to end this little argument, I have trouble figuring out whether you agree but don't care, or if you disagree and don't care and just want things to stay the same.

[QUOTE="theone86"]

[QUOTE="GreyskullPower"] If it doesn't matter then why post in in this thread? It clearly means something to you because took the time to click on this thread, read my post (not sure if you did or not.), then post in the thread.MrGeezer

You want a cookie? I'll give you one, you're TECHNICALLY correct, counting from year one it is still part of the 01-10 decade. But for one that numbering systemmakes absolutely no sense, and two it's just easier this way. 70's, 80's, 90's, easy. 2000 being part of the 20th century, hard.

How is that hard? It follows a simple formula. The 1st decade ended in the year 10. The 3rd century ended in the year 300. The 15th century ended in the year 1500. And the 197th decade ended with the year 1970.

Do you see a pattern?

The pattern is actually what's EASY about this. As long as you stick to the pattern, then everything is good.

The problem is that people are just sort of random about when they're going to apply this pattern. Which is why you'll get no confusion when you say that we're in the 21st century, even though this century takes the form of 20xx (whereas the 20th century took the form of 19xx). You'll get no disagreement that we're in the 3rd millenium, even though this millenium takes the form of 2xxx.

It's a simple pattern to follow. If we stuck to that pattern, everything would be peachy. But for some weird reason, people tend to number decades differently. And this inconsistency is what confuses people.

1987 shouldn't be thought of as part of the "80s". It should be thought of as part of the "199th decade".

Stick to the pattern, and everything's easy. There's nothing hard or counter-intuitive about it.

Because it's easiER, or less hard than remembering which decade we're in chronologically. 80's, i.e. every year beginning with the number eight, or the 199th decade, i.e. every year starting with 1981 and ending with 1990. It's just simpler this way, and again who does it hurt? Who's going to correct us? What does it matter at all?