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

or if you disagree and don't care and just want things to stay the same.GreyskullPower

Cool story, bro. Go ahead and keep on preaching if it makes you feel superior like so many of these other charming folk. The truth is the majority does not give a rat's ass whether it's technically correct or not.

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.GreyskullPower

[QUOTE="GreyskullPower"]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?theone86

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="theone86"]

[QUOTE="GreyskullPower"] It's not about being easy. It's about what's right. If you're told to take out the trash, it'd be easier to toss them out on someone else's lawn. but obviously that's not right. Is it?GreyskullPower

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.

No emotion, you compared taking out the garbage to counting decades by years ending in zero. All I'm saying is that while the former has negative effects if I take the easy way out, the latter has none. Path of least resistance, dude. Personally I'm not concerned about being right, that's my whole point is that being right doesn't matter, but you seem to be concerned about it and all I'm saying is that if you really want to be technically correct there should be a year zero, so you should be complaining about that also.

[QUOTE="GreyskullPower"]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.MoonMarvel

[QUOTE="GreyskullPower"]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?theone86

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.

No, the year before Christ is 1 BC. The year in which Christ was born is 1 AD.

AD means "anno domini", which is latin for "in the year of our lord". A year 0 wouldn't even make sense, given the BC and AD system. If the "AD" era is marked by the year in which Christ was born, then 1 AD would be the first year of the era including the birth of Christ.

[QUOTE="theone86"]

[QUOTE="GreyskullPower"]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.

The gauge we use to measure our years is Christ's birth, that's a fact. If 1 BC is the ist year before Christ's birth then the next year should be the year of Christ's birth, ignoring the fact that he was born in like 4 AD or something like that. According to that numbering the next year should be the year of Christ's birth, zero, the year in which the event in question happened, and the year after that the first year after said event. I know 1 AD does come after 1 BC, I'm saying if you want to get into technicalities it shouldn't.

[QUOTE="GreyskullPower"]

[QUOTE="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?

theone86

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.

No emotion, you compared taking out the garbage to counting decades by years ending in zero. All I'm saying is that while the former has negative effects if I take the easy way out, the latter has none. Path of least resistance, dude. Personally I'm not concerned about being right, that's my whole point is that being right doesn't matter, but you seem to be concerned about it and all I'm saying is that if you really want to be technically correct there should be a year zero, so you should be complaining about that also.

[QUOTE="theone86"]

[QUOTE="GreyskullPower"]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?MrGeezer

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.

No, the year before Christ is 1 BC. The year in which Christ was born is 1 AD.

AD means "anno domini", which is latin for "in the year of our lord". A year 0 wouldn't even make sense, given the BC and AD system. If the "AD" era is marked by the year in which Christ was born, then 1 AD would be the first year of the era including the birth of Christ.

It's inconsistent counting then, why would you count years before but then count the year that it happened as 1? It makes no sense, you should count zero as 0 years before and after, not say 1 is 1 year before and 1 is the year of.

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?

theone86

But that's just it...you don't HAVE to remember which decade we're in. All you have to know is which year it is. If you know which year it is, then you can easily determine that it's still the 201st decade just by knowing that it's the year 2010.

And frankly, if you DON'T know what year it currently is, then ANY sort of numbering system is going to leave you in the dark.

I don't care. All I know is having the new decade start in 2011 doesn't feel right, I and about the entire rest of the population of Earth, therefore the new decade starts in 5 minutes.

Dick Clark says it is a new decade. End of thread.

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

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.

theone86

The gauge we use to measure our years is Christ's birth, that's a fact. If 1 BC is the ist year before Christ's birth then the next year should be the year of Christ's birth, ignoring the fact that he was born in like 4 AD or something like that. According to that numbering the next year should be the year of Christ's birth, zero, the year in which the event in question happened, and the year after that the first year after said event. I know 1 AD does come after 1 BC, I'm saying if you want to get into technicalities it shouldn't.

[QUOTE="theone86"]

[QUOTE="GreyskullPower"]

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.

GreyskullPower

No emotion, you compared taking out the garbage to counting decades by years ending in zero. All I'm saying is that while the former has negative effects if I take the easy way out, the latter has none. Path of least resistance, dude. Personally I'm not concerned about being right, that's my whole point is that being right doesn't matter, but you seem to be concerned about it and all I'm saying is that if you really want to be technically correct there should be a year zero, so you should be complaining about that also.

"Dichotomies are especially problematicin thatthey posit exclusionary constructs, not completmentary or interdependent ones that could shde into one another or function as, 'mixed modes,' rather than absolutes. In dichotomous thinking the opposed terms are like Aristotelian contradictories, which must conform to the principle of the excluded middle. Everything has to be either A or not A, for A and not A exhaust all possibilities. Continuity between the terms is a logical impossibility. Not A is the privation or abscence of A; Everything must be either one or the other, for the rigid either/or distinctions marked by the dichotomies cover the entire universe of discourse."

It's inconsistent counting then, why would you count years before but then count the year that it happened as 1? It makes no sense, you should count zero as 0 years before and after, not say 1 is 1 year before and 1 is the year of.

theone86

Is today's date January 0?

:|

It's the 1st day of the month of January, so it's January 1.

Likewise, the 1st year in which christ existed is 1 AD. It's the 1st year of the common era.

There's no year 0, just like there's no March 0.

I don't care. All I know is having the new decade start in 2011 doesn't feel right, I and about the entire rest of the population of Earth, therefore the new decade starts in 5 minutes.

789shadow

And if everyone in the world assumes that 1+1=3 then that also makes it right, correct?

I don't care. All I know is having the new decade start in 2011 doesn't feel right, I and about the entire rest of the population of Earth, therefore the new decade starts in 5 minutes.

789shadow

Do you have a problem with the number 1?

Does it feel weird or wrong to start the month on January 1 instead of on January 0?

[QUOTE="theone86"]

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?

MrGeezer

But that's just it...you don't HAVE to remember which decade we're in. All you have to know is which year it is. If you know which year it is, then you can easily determine that it's still the 201st decade just by knowing that it's the year 2010.

And frankly, if you DON'T know what year it currently is, then ANY sort of numbering system is going to leave you in the dark.

So you're arguing that how we number decades makes no real difference, which is what I've been saying all along.

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

No emotion, you compared taking out the garbage to counting decades by years ending in zero. All I'm saying is that while the former has negative effects if I take the easy way out, the latter has none. Path of least resistance, dude. Personally I'm not concerned about being right, that's my whole point is that being right doesn't matter, but you seem to be concerned about it and all I'm saying is that if you really want to be technically correct there should be a year zero, so you should be complaining about that also.

theone86

"Dichotomies are especially problematicin thatthey posit exclusionary constructs, not completmentary or interdependent ones that could shde into one another or function as, 'mixed modes,' rather than absolutes. In dichotomous thinking the opposed terms are like Aristotelian contradictories, which must conform to the principle of the excluded middle. Everything has to be either A or not A, for A and not A exhaust all possibilities. Continuity between the terms is a logical impossibility. Not A is the privation or abscence of A; Everything must be either one or the other, for the rigid either/or distinctions marked by the dichotomies cover the entire universe of discourse."

[QUOTE="theone86"]

It's inconsistent counting then, why would you count years before but then count the year that it happened as 1? It makes no sense, you should count zero as 0 years before and after, not say 1 is 1 year before and 1 is the year of.

MrGeezer

Is today's date January 0?

:|

It's the 1st day of the month of January, so it's January 1.

Likewise, the 1st year in which christ existed is 1 AD. It's the 1st year of the common era.

There's no year 0, just like there's no March 0.

Janurary 1st is the 1st day of the month, 1 BC is the first year before Christ was born, logically 1 AD would be the first year after Christ was born.

this topic has so much failweezyfb

[QUOTE="theone86"]

[QUOTE="GreyskullPower"] Ok, I lol'ed at the first sentence. But back to the topic, If you like the path of least resistance, more power to ya. But, there is no such thing as technically. It is, or it isn't.GreyskullPower

"Dichotomies are especially problematicin thatthey posit exclusionary constructs, not completmentary or interdependent ones that could shde into one another or function as, 'mixed modes,' rather than absolutes. In dichotomous thinking the opposed terms are like Aristotelian contradictories, which must conform to the principle of the excluded middle. Everything has to be either A or not A, for A and not A exhaust all possibilities. Continuity between the terms is a logical impossibility. Not A is the privation or abscence of A; Everything must be either one or the other, for the rigid either/or distinctions marked by the dichotomies cover the entire universe of discourse."

Well, if there was better context you could see that she was arguing against exclusionary constructs, but I'm too lazy to transcribe the entire writing right now. Anyways no, the argument she was making was against exclusionary constructs.

[QUOTE="MoonMarvel"][QUOTE="GreyskullPower"]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.GreyskullPower

So you're arguing that how we number decades makes no real difference, which is what I've been saying all along.

theone86

If your teacher assigns your class to do an essay on 19th century historic events, are you going to gripe and whine when she gives you an automatic F because you did your essay on something that happened in 1937?

It "doesn't matter" only to the extent to which people can agree that it doesn't matter.

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 :)

GreyskullPower

So, there's only 1 year between 2001 and 2002, but there's 9 years between 2009 and 2010? And all that adds up to 9? No wonder I'm failing math, I've been doing it wrong the entire time... :?

[QUOTE="weezyfb"]this topic has so much failGreyskullPower

[QUOTE="theone86"]

So you're arguing that how we number decades makes no real difference, which is what I've been saying all along.

MrGeezer

If your teacher assigns your class to do an essay on 19th century historic events, are you going to gripe and whine when she gives you an automatic F because you did your essay on something that happened in 1937?

It "doesn't matter" only to the extent to which people can agree that it doesn't matter.

And if my teacher assings me a project on the 90's and I hand in a report on what happened in 2000 I'll get an F also. Besides, I already said the century count was different than the decade count.

[QUOTE="theone86"]

So you're arguing that how we number decades makes no real difference, which is what I've been saying all along.

MrGeezer

If your teacher assigns your class to do an essay on 19th century historic events, are you going to gripe and whine when she gives you an automatic F because you did your essay on something that happened in 1937?

It "doesn't matter" only to the extent to which people can agree that it doesn't matter.

[QUOTE="MrGeezer"]

[QUOTE="theone86"]

It's inconsistent counting then, why would you count years before but then count the year that it happened as 1? It makes no sense, you should count zero as 0 years before and after, not say 1 is 1 year before and 1 is the year of.

theone86

Is today's date January 0?

:|

It's the 1st day of the month of January, so it's January 1.

Likewise, the 1st year in which christ existed is 1 AD. It's the 1st year of the common era.

There's no year 0, just like there's no March 0.

Janurary 1st is the 1st day of the month, 1 BC is the first year before Christ was born, logically 1 AD would be the first year after Christ was born.

Uh, no. Absolutely hell no.

As I already said, "AD" is an acronym for "anno domini", which means "in the year of our lord".

Why would a year be classified as the first year AD, if christ was born the previous year?

1 AD wouldn't be the first year after Christ was born, it would be the first year in which Christ existed.

[QUOTE="GreyskullPower"][QUOTE="weezyfb"]this topic has so much failweezyfb

[QUOTE="MrGeezer"]

[QUOTE="theone86"]

So you're arguing that how we number decades makes no real difference, which is what I've been saying all along.

theone86

If your teacher assigns your class to do an essay on 19th century historic events, are you going to gripe and whine when she gives you an automatic F because you did your essay on something that happened in 1937?

It "doesn't matter" only to the extent to which people can agree that it doesn't matter.

And if my teacher assings me a project on the 90's and I hand in a report on what happened in 2000 I'll get an F also. Besides, I already said the century count was different than the decade count.

Which only goes to show that even intelligent and respected authority figures drink the poisoned Kool-Aid.

I also hope that your teacher would specify the 1990s, rather than just the 90s. You know, seeing as how "the 90s" has occurred quite a few times.

[QUOTE="theone86"]

[QUOTE="MrGeezer"]

[QUOTE="theone86"]

So you're arguing that how we number decades makes no real difference, which is what I've been saying all along.

MrGeezer

If your teacher assigns your class to do an essay on 19th century historic events, are you going to gripe and whine when she gives you an automatic F because you did your essay on something that happened in 1937?

It "doesn't matter" only to the extent to which people can agree that it doesn't matter.

And if my teacher assings me a project on the 90's and I hand in a report on what happened in 2000 I'll get an F also. Besides, I already said the century count was different than the decade count.

[QUOTE="theone86"]

[QUOTE="MrGeezer"]

Is today's date January 0?

:|

It's the 1st day of the month of January, so it's January 1.

Likewise, the 1st year in which christ existed is 1 AD. It's the 1st year of the common era.

There's no year 0, just like there's no March 0.

MrGeezer

Janurary 1st is the 1st day of the month, 1 BC is the first year before Christ was born, logically 1 AD would be the first year after Christ was born.

Uh, no. Absolutely hell no.

As I already said, "AD" is an acronym for "anno domini", which means "in the year of our lord".

Why would a year be classified as the first year AD, if christ was born the previous year?

1 AD wouldn't be the first year after Christ was born, it would be the first year in which Christ existed.

And I'm saying that doesn't make sense, if you're counting based around an even there should be a year zero, the whole AD thing is just a result of religious jubilation not of consistency in counting/

And I'm saying that doesn't make sense, if you're counting based around an even there should be a year zero, the whole AD thing is just a result of religious jubilation not of consistency in counting/

theone86

How does it make sense to designate a year 0 in order to signify Jesus Christ's 0th year?

Again, is today the 1st day of January, or the 0th day?

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 :)

GreyskullPower

Uhh... pretty sure its a new decade boss

Urgh... why can't people just realize that a decade is nothing more than a period of 10 years, and that the 1AD-9AD period is simply not a proper decade.chessmaster1989

[QUOTE="theone86"]

And I'm saying that doesn't make sense, if you're counting based around an even there should be a year zero, the whole AD thing is just a result of religious jubilation not of consistency in counting/

MrGeezer

How does it make sense to designate a year 0 in order to signify Jesus Christ's 0th year?

Again, is today the 1st day of January, or the 0th day?

Yes, it makes sense in that it's the year in which he was born. If we did it that way 1 BC would be the year before he was borna and 1 AD the year after he was born, 0 being the year he was born. Every other calender that bases itself around an event in the same before/after manner does it that way.

[QUOTE="GreyskullPower"]

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 :)

ConBro

Uhh... pretty sure its a new decade boss

[QUOTE="ConBro"]

[QUOTE="GreyskullPower"]

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 :)

GreyskullPower

Uhh... pretty sure its a new decade boss

Yes, it is a new decade, and that's that. Your argument is worthless because it does not adhere to the calendar measure for decades. :|

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.

Maniacc1

[QUOTE="MrGeezer"]

[QUOTE="theone86"]

And I'm saying that doesn't make sense, if you're counting based around an even there should be a year zero, the whole AD thing is just a result of religious jubilation not of consistency in counting/

theone86

How does it make sense to designate a year 0 in order to signify Jesus Christ's 0th year?

Again, is today the 1st day of January, or the 0th day?

Yes, it makes sense in that it's the year in which he was born. If we did it that way 1 BC would be the year before he was borna and 1 AD the year after he was born, 0 being the year he was born. Every other calender that bases itself around an event in the same before/after manner does it that way.

Ugh...

Are youm evn listening?

Why would 1 AD be the year AFTER the one in which Christ was born, when the "AD" classification by its very nature includes the year in which Christ was born?

If the era based around Christ BEGINS with Christ's birth, then why would one designate the first year of that era in a year FOLLOWING Christ's birth?

[QUOTE="theone86"]

[QUOTE="MrGeezer"]

How does it make sense to designate a year 0 in order to signify Jesus Christ's 0th year?

Again, is today the 1st day of January, or the 0th day?

MrGeezer

Yes, it makes sense in that it's the year in which he was born. If we did it that way 1 BC would be the year before he was borna and 1 AD the year after he was born, 0 being the year he was born. Every other calender that bases itself around an event in the same before/after manner does it that way.

Ugh...

Are youm evn listening?

Why would 1 AD be the year AFTER the one in which Christ was born, when the "AD" classification by its very nature includes the year in which Christ was born?

If the era based around Christ BEGINS with Christ's birth, then why would one designate the first year of that era in a year FOLLOWING Christ's birth?

Yeah, and I'm just saying that makes no sense. You're counting years before, why would you not go from counting years before to counting years after? As I said, it was just an act of religious jubilation.

This makes no sense. If that were true, since I was born in 1990, I would have been born in the 80s. Liar.

[QUOTE="ConBro"]

[QUOTE="GreyskullPower"]

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 :)

GreyskullPower

Uhh... pretty sure its a new decade boss

No.... YOU'RE fired.