2010 begins a new decade??

[Thunder]

I keep hearing this on the news. 2010 begins a new decade.

But doesn't 2010 simply end the current decade..and 2011 starts the new one???

oy vey.

[John Jones]

yes

[bynmdsue]

"Nobody likes a math geek,Scully."

[lionking]

2010 is the end of the decade, but 2000 was the end of the millenium, not the start of a new one. This was ignored by almost everyone.

[Vic Vega]

Wrong. A decade is any 10 year period. It is also a 10 year period starting with a year that has a zero. The Sixties, from 1960 to 1969 is a decade.

[Thunder]

Wrong. A decade is any 10 year period. It is also a 10 year period starting with a year that has a zero. The Sixties, from 1960 to 1969 is a decade.

interesting point. though one could argue that the last year of the "Sixties", was 1970.

:)

but i get what you're sayin.

[Vic Vega]

interesting point. though one could argue that the last year of the "Sixties", was 1970.

:)

but i get what you're sayin.


Ha!

You'd be wrong, but you could argue it.

[TragicMonkey]

Ha!

You'd be wrong, but you could argue it.

There was no year 0 A.D. That made the first decade in this system of reckoning 1 A.D. - 10 A.D., including 10 A.D. The second decade was 11 A.D. - 20 A.D. And so on. 2000 was the last year of the second millenium as well as the last year in the decade that started in 1991. The third millenium began midnight, January 1st, 2001.

However, it is generally regarded as unnecessarily pedantic to stick to this strict definition of decades or millenia, because it really doesn't matter. It's simply easier to let the digits define the decades, and generally when one is discussing things by the decade it's not required to be entirely precise anyway.

[Vic Vega]

That is all well and good, but not relevant to the definition of the word decade.

[shadron]

In the beginning...

When Dionysius Exiguus, in about 532 CE decided that they needed to locate Christ's birth in time, zero was not an option, so the presumed date of his birth (for PR purposes determined to be around the winter solstice) started the year 1 AD (anno domini, or year of our lord, aka CE, or common era), whichalso was 753 AUC (ab urbe condita, from the founding of the city, i.e., Rome), and the year before that was 1 BC (before Christ, which tells you that when anyone started worrying about it, Latin was no longer in the picture). If you count decades from this origin, then the first decade was from the start of year 1 to the start of year 11. If the origin point is important, then the decades start on New Years day of the year xxx1, and end on the last day of (xxx1+9). Same for centuries and millenia.

[Vic Vega]

Here is the definition of decade from dictionary.com:

1 result for: Decade

dec·ade [dek-eyd; Brit. also duh-keyd]
–noun
1. a period of ten years: the three decades from 1776 to 1806.
2. a period of ten years beginning with a year whose last digit is zero: the decade of the 1980s.
3. a group, set, or series of ten.

[TragicMonkey]

Here is the definition of decade from dictionary.com:

1 result for: Decade

dec·ade [dek-eyd; Brit. also duh-keyd]
–noun
1. a period of ten years: the three decades from 1776 to 1806.
2. a period of ten years beginning with a year whose last digit is zero: the decade of the 1980s.
3. a group, set, or series of ten.


Oh, well, that proves it, then, because dictionaries control the meaning of words. They are the authoritative source, because they cannot be published without the sanction of the English Language Academy...oh wait. English doesn't have bodies controlling it.

[I Ratant]

Oh, well, that proves it, then, because dictionaries control the meaning of words. They are the authoritative source, because they cannot be published without the sanction of the English Language Academy...oh wait. English doesn't have bodies controlling it.
.
That's fer shure!

[Eyeron]

Why haven't we found that slab on the moon yet? MAybe we have found it and that's the real reason we aren't going back.

[TragicMonkey]

And also, it's consistent. Years start at 1, as do months and days. Just as there was no year zero, there is no month zero--you know, the first month of the year, before January. Or day zero, either. 0/0/2010, the first day of the new decade? My mom's birthday, August 0th. Doesn't seem right, somehow.

[Dats]

Are they explicitly saying it's the end of the 201st decade of the current system or are they saying it's the end of the decade from 2000 as a starting point?

[Soapy Sam]

I warned them this would happen.
"Go hexadecimal" I said." Nobody will be able to figure it out."
But did they listen?

[Vic Vega]

Oh, well, that proves it, then, because dictionaries control the meaning of words. They are the authoritative source, because they cannot be published without the sanction of the English Language Academy...oh wait. English doesn't have bodies controlling it.

It's much easier just to admit that you were wrong. Try it sometime. You might find it liberating.

[shadron]

And also, it's consistent. Years start at 1, as do months and days. Just as there was no year zero, there is no month zero--you know, the first month of the year, before January. Or day zero, either. 0/0/2010, the first day of the new decade? My mom's birthday, August 0th. Doesn't seem right, somehow.

The only thing wrong with it is that if you attempt to get the number of years between an event AD and one BC in the usual straightforward manner (by adding the two year numbers together), you'll get one too many years. Astronomers go bats over this; they number 1 BC as 0, 2 BC as -1 and so on.

[shadron]

I warned them this would happen.
"Go hexadecimal" I said." Nobody will be able to figure it out."
But did they listen?

Count yourself lucky. If the Sumerians, Babylonians and others, including certain near-eastern wannabes had their way, you'd be using sexagesimal. :)

[FreshHat]

Count yourself lucky. If the Sumerians, Babylonians and others, including certain near-eastern wannabes had their way, you'd be using sexagesimal :)

"Oh, behave !"

(Yeah, I know it's about 1.5 decades too late.)

[Delvo]

And also, it's consistent.Consistent with what, though? Not with the years' "names". For example, 1980 has an "eighty" in it, just like 1981-1989 do, and 1860 has a "sixty" in it, just like 1861-1869 do. 1980 has no "7" in it like 1970-1979 have, and 1860 has no "5" in it like 1850-1859 have.

[SezMe]

What? It's 1999 and Y2K all over again. It got boring then and is no better upon resurrection.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

I keep hearing this on the news. 2010 begins a new decade.

But doesn't 2010 simply end the current decade..and 2011 starts the new one???

oy vey.

2010 is the start of a new decade. Period. End of discussion.

Mods, you may close the thread.

[BenBurch]

Count yourself lucky. If the Sumerians, Babylonians and others, including certain near-eastern wannabes had their way, you'd be using sexagesimal. :)

We DO!

At least we do if you have looked at a clock or a compass lately...

[Little 10 Toes]

I'm still working on my stardate to centons converter.

(Bonus credits if you know where centons come from)

[Madalch]

(Bonus credits if you know where centons come from)
Weren't they the bad guys in that cheap Dr. Who/Battlestar Galactica rip-off?

[shadron]

"Oh, behave !

(Yeah, I know it's about 1.5 decades too late.)

I'd say, "Speak for yourself", but that avatar so so intimidating...

[shadron]

We DO!

At least we do if you have looked at a clock or a compass lately...

Compass? Naw - I'm a comp-sci; we think in radians. And as pointed out above, I gave up clocks two years ago.

[Undesired Walrus]

Seriously, who cares?

[lionking]

2010 is the start of a new decade. Period. End of discussion.

Mods, you may close the thread.
Only if you want to be wrong.

[dafydd]

There was no year zero,2010 is the last year of the first decade.

[lionking]

There was no year zero,2010 is the last year of the first decade.
If you want to be precise, astronomers count a year zero, but historians don't. And I think we are talking history here.

[Aepervius]

If you want to be precise, astronomers count a year zero, but historians don't. And I think we are talking history here.

We aren't. We are speaking of two concept.

the decade concept in the vox-populi and the decade concept for a historians (or at least a pedantic definition of it).

Vox populi DEFINITIVELY define decade as starting with the 0 year : 1980-1989 are the eighties. And Vox populi decided that the millenia ended with 2000. Vox populi do not care a bit that there was no year zero. Vox populi probably do not realize the world existed beyond their birth anyway.

[lionking]

We aren't. We are speaking of two concept.

the decade concept in the vox-populi and the decade concept for a historians (or at least a pedantic definition of it).

Vox populi DEFINITIVELY define decade as starting with the 0 year : 1980-1989 are the eighties. And Vox populi decided that the millenia ended with 2000. Vox populi do not care a bit that there was no year zero. Vox populi probably do not realize the world existed beyond their birth anyway.
Don't you mean that the vox populi decided it started at 2000.

[TragicMonkey]

It's much easier just to admit that you were wrong. Try it sometime. You might find it liberating.

Yeah, that must be it. I must be wrong because I disagree with you. And it must be some sort of personality defect on my part. It's so obvious.

[lionking]

Wow, something of such non-importance leads to such vitriol.

[AvalonXQ]

2010 starts the decade that is "the 10s". Any ten-year period can be a decade, regardless of what the first digit of the starting year is. For nearly a century (maybe more) we've defined decades according to their tens digits with "the 20s", "the 60s", the 80s, etc.

[TragicMonkey]

The only thing wrong with it is that if you attempt to get the number of years between an event AD and one BC in the usual straightforward manner (by adding the two year numbers together), you'll get one too many years. Astronomers go bats over this; they number 1 BC as 0, 2 BC as -1 and so on.

You'll always have that problem with time, as computer programmers have known forever. Best example: "Read pages 11-24". Most people would read page 24. Programmers would be tempted to stop after finishing page 23, thinking the set runs up through the end of 23. However, in this case the conventional thinking is usually correct because people giving assignments are using the page numbers as names of the pages, not as mathematical sets. But if need to do math with those numbers, you have to think like the programmers do.

Same thing with hours and time, especially. A class that runs from 11:00-1:00 stops at 1:00. But if the course runs from Dec 1 - Feb 14, won't most people show up on Feb 14th, thinking it's the last day? And they'd be right! Because we all adjust to the cultural conventions of when we're using numbers as numbers, and when we're using numbers as names of specific instances in time. Measurement of time is complex. We mostly don't think about it, until you have to write a program or figure out when the millenium actually started.

[Vic Vega]

Yeah, that must be it. I must be wrong because I disagree with you. And it must be some sort of personality defect on my part. It's so obvious.

The fact that you disagree is irrelevant. The word means what it means. You can argue it all you want, but that doesn't change anything.

Here is another word you probably need to know the meaning of:

dic⋅tion⋅ar⋅y  /ˈdɪkʃəˌnɛri/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [dik-shuh-ner-ee] Show IPA
Use dictionary in a Sentence
See web results for dictionary
See images of dictionary
–noun, plural -ar⋅ies. 1. a book containing a selection of the words of a language, usually arranged alphabetically, giving information about their meanings, pronunciations, etymologies, inflected forms, etc., expressed in either the same or another language; lexicon; glossary: a dictionary of English; a Japanese-English dictionary.
2. a book giving information on particular subjects or on a particular class of words, names, or facts, usually arranged alphabetically: a biographical dictionary; a dictionary of mathematics.

:rolleyes:

[I Ratant]

2010 starts the decade that is "the 10s". Any ten-year period can be a decade, regardless of what the first digit of the starting year is. For nearly a century (maybe more) we've defined decades according to their tens digits with "the 20s", "the 60s", the 80s, etc.
.
The "Eighties" began Jan 1, 1980.
The "Nineties", Jan 1, 1990, not Jan 1, 1991.
Etc and so forth.
Whatever the first decade after Jan 1, 2000 can be called, it began Jan. 1, 2000.
The tenth year from that point is 2009.
Who knows what the first decades of the 20th Century were called?
The earliest that comes to mind is the "Twenties", with the first 2 decades apparently unnicknamed.

[GreyArea]

The Aughts run from January 1, 2000 to December 31, 2009.

The first decade of the 21st century runs from January 1, 2001 to December 31, 2010.

They are not exactly the same thing. Why is this controversial?

[GreyArea]

Who knows what the first decades of the 20th Century were called?
The Aughts and the Teens, respectively.

(Yes, I know, but most of them did, so that's what I use. And I'll do it again next week.)

[rsaavedra]

Yes, interestingly 2010 is the start of a new decade, the same way 2000 was.

However, 2001 (and not 2000) was the first year of the new century (the 21st), and of the new millenium (the third millenium).

[TragicMonkey]

The fact that you disagree is irrelevant. The word means what it means. You can argue it all you want, but that doesn't change anything.

Here is another word you probably need to know the meaning of:

dic⋅tion⋅ar⋅y  /ˈdɪkʃəˌnɛri/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [dik-shuh-ner-ee] Show IPA
Use dictionary in a Sentence
See web results for dictionary
See images of dictionary
–noun, plural -ar⋅ies. 1. a book containing a selection of the words of a language, usually arranged alphabetically, giving information about their meanings, pronunciations, etymologies, inflected forms, etc., expressed in either the same or another language; lexicon; glossary: a dictionary of English; a Japanese-English dictionary.
2. a book giving information on particular subjects or on a particular class of words, names, or facts, usually arranged alphabetically: a biographical dictionary; a dictionary of mathematics.

:rolleyes:

My point, which has apparently eluded you, is that dictionaries are not authoritative sources on what a word really means. They simply report what the author of the dictionary believes is the most conventional usage. There is no body that controls the English language, there is nothing or nobody to dispense approval. Anybody can produce and publish a dictionary. Appeal to authority, to a dictionary, is useless. All the rolleyes smileys in the world will not convince people otherwise--particularly here.

I notice that twice you have responded to my posts without responding to the statements within my posts. Would you be willing to answer two questions?

1. Was there a year 0 A.D.?
2. Was the first decade in the A.D. system nine years long, or ten?

If you're willing to think about it, you'll notice that these questions are related.

[Earthborn]

Best example: "Read pages 11-24". Most people would read page 24. Programmers would be tempted to stop after finishing page 23,Really? I would rather have guessed that they would just read page "-13", that is to say the 13th page counted from the back of the book.

[Vic Vega]

My point, which has apparently eluded you, is that dictionaries are not authoritative sources on what a word really means. They simply report what the author of the dictionary believes is the most conventional usage. There is no body that controls the English language, there is nothing or nobody to dispense approval. Anybody can produce and publish a dictionary. Appeal to authority, to a dictionary, is useless.

It didn't elude me. This is an absolutely absurd argument.


1. Was there a year 0 A.D.?
2. Was the first decade in the A.D. system nine years long, or ten?

If you're willing to think about it, you'll notice that these questions are related.

1. No, but irrelevant. The calendar we use now didn't exist at the time.

2. Totally irrelevant to the question at hand, but all decades are 10 years long.

[TragicMonkey]

It didn't elude me. This is an absolutely absurd argument.



As your opinion statement about my argument doesn't address the argument, we cannot discuss it further. If you're tracking points, I presume you will chalk that up as a win.



1. No, but irrelevant. The calendar we use now didn't exist at the time.

2. Totally irrelevant to the question at hand, but all decades are 10 years long.


Oh, dear. Your answers contradict each other. If there was no year 0 A.D., and every decade is 10 years long, then the first decade would run from 1 A.D. through and including 10 A.D., making the second decade start at 11 A.D. and end at 21 A.D., and so on up through modern times. The only way the current decades can begin in years ending in zero and still remain 10 years long is if the first decade was from 1 A.D. - 9 A.D.....or there were a 0 A.D. Or, I suppose, you could count 1 B.C. as the first year of the first decade of A.D., but that seems quite silly.

If you were keeping track of points, I believe that would count as an own goal.

[Darth Rotor]

... but all decades are 10 years long.
Relieved to know that this hasn't changed.

The remainder of this thread is ... slightly amusing, but also a reminder of how bizarre the calculations are that give us "the world will end in 2012" ...

DR

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Only if you want to be wrong.

When you turn 30, are you still in your twenties?

Case closed.

[dudalb]

Wow, something of such non-importance leads to such vitriol.


And we have this debate every ten years, like clockwork.
It's a case of technically those who say it is not are right, but in terms of general usage they are wrong. General usage wins in this case.

[Darth Rotor]

And we have this debate every ten years, like clockwork.
Like calendarwork, methinks ...

It's a case of technically those who say it is not are right, but in terms of general usage they are wrong. General usage wins in this case.
I thought he retired last year, after missing promotion to four star.

[Cleon]

What I've learned from this thread:

Some people will argue about anything.

[TragicMonkey]

When you turn 30, are you still in your twenties?

Case closed.

Your first birthday is the anniversary of your birth. It marks not the start of your first year, but the completion of it. On your thirtieth birthday, you've actually been alive 31 years. (eta: more precisely, you're beginning your 31st year.)

(Unless you're from one of the cultures that counts people as being older than zero at birth. Some count you as 9 months old at birth, and I think there are a couple that go ahead and set you at 1.)

Which way you chop time up into named bits depends on what you're doing it for. If you're discussing musical trends, then "the Eighties" is fine with including 1980--it's not like people think the clock struck midnight on New Year's in 1980 (or 1981) and suddenly it everyone had goofy hair and parachute pants and jelly shoes. But if you're using time to try to figure out how old something is, then remembering to measure from zero and not one does matter. Ages of things count zero. Dates do not. So if you need to get ages from dates, you have to remember the zero. If you just need to refer to popular hairstyles, you don't.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

And we have this debate every ten years, like clockwork.
It's a case of technically those who say it is not are right, but in terms of general usage they are wrong. General usage wins in this case.

This is the correct answer.

[rsaavedra]

Some people will argue about anything.
Well, aren't you wrong. I strongly disagree. ;)

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Your first birthday is the anniversary of your birth. It marks not the start of your first year, but the completion of it. On your thirtieth birthday, you've actually been alive 31 years. (eta: more precisely, you're beginning your 31st year.)

(Unless you're from one of the cultures that counts people as being older than zero at birth. Some count you as 9 months old at birth, and I think there are a couple that go ahead and set you at 1.)

Which way you chop time up into named bits depends on what you're doing it for. If you're discussing musical trends, then "the Eighties" is fine with including 1980--it's not like people think the clock struck midnight on New Year's in 1980 (or 1981) and suddenly it everyone had goofy hair and parachute pants and jelly shoes. But if you're using time to try to figure out how old something is, then remembering to measure from zero and not one does matter. Ages of things count zero. Dates do not. So if you need to get ages from dates, you have to remember the zero. If you just need to refer to popular hairstyles, you don't.

See post #55

[AvalonXQ]

Oh, dear. Your answers contradict each other. If there was no year 0 A.D., and every decade is 10 years long, then the first decade would run from 1 A.D. through and including 10 A.D., making the second decade start at 11 A.D. and end at 21 A.D.,

Yes. And if anyone were asserting that the 202nd decade A.D. started in 2010 rather than 2011, they would be wrong.
But no one is asserting that. Instead, we're asserting that "the 2010s" starts in 2010. It runs from the beginning of 2010 to the end of 2019. That's ten years long, which means that "the 2010s" is a decade.
And since those are the decades we recognize, the decade known (hopefully) as "the Teens" starts in less than a week.

[KingMerv00]

You know I love you guys, but is this even slightly important?

[TragicMonkey]

See post #55

Oh, I'm sorry. I forgot that saying something was so made it so.

Look, everyone's entitled to their opinion. I've stated mine, and the reasoning behind it. If you're content with bald assertions and the mighty dictionary, fine, that's your lookout. But don't, for the love of skepticism, try to make out like I'm being unreasonable because I think about things.

And for all of those contributing "does this matter?" and "ha ha ha silly!", why are you reading this thread, much less posting to it, if you feel it's so unimportant? When I'm bored by a topic, I don't bother opening the thread. I guess that's another symptom of how crazy I am, eh? That I think about things, explain my reasoning, and respond only to things I'm interested about? Madness!

[crackers]

You know I love you guys, but is this even slightly important?


Well, of course it is!

Surely, you're not insinuating that people will argue on the Internet over something that isn't important? :eek:

[Whiplash]

2010 is the end of the decade, but 2000 was the end of the millenium, not the start of a new one. This was ignored by almost everyone.


I'm not sure I agree that it was "ignored" by everyone. At least in the manner you seem to suggest.

I think it was simply misunderstood by everyone, but ultimately they didn't care because the excitement is in the idea of the 1999 rolling over to 2000. Like when an odometer rolls over to 100,000 miles, or you hit 1,000,000 points in a video game.

Prince said it best in that people wanted to party like it was 1999.

They misidentified it as the Millennium, sure. I can't deny that. But the excitement was in the rollover of the date. Not that it was specifically the start of a new "Millennium". That was an improper use of the term, but it wasn't ever about that.

It wasn't a case where people were excited to celebrate the new millennium, and then attributed it wrongly to 2000. It was about people being excited for the roll-over to 2000, and then attributing that as the new millennium incorrectly. It's understandable they didn't care about the "but that's not the new millennium" complaints because they were more interested in the date rollover.

Sorry, pet peeve of mine I guess, I got a little frustrated with the pedantic manner in which some people were beating people up over this back in 1999-2000. It missed the entire point.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Oh, I'm sorry. I forgot that saying something was so made it so.

Look, everyone's entitled to their opinion. I've stated mine, and the reasoning behind it. If you're content with bald assertions and the mighty dictionary, fine, that's your lookout. But don't, for the love of skepticism, try to make out like I'm being unreasonable because I think about things.

And for all of those contributing "does this matter?" and "ha ha ha silly!", why are you reading this thread, much less posting to it, if you feel it's so unimportant? When I'm bored by a topic, I don't bother opening the thread. I guess that's another symptom of how crazy I am, eh? That I think about things, explain my reasoning, and respond only to things I'm interested about? Madness!

Great! Then you can go through the coming year being "right", while everyone rolls their eyes and/or laughs at you.

Tip: You may not want to hold an "end of the decade" party next year. I suspect attendance will be rather low.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Yes. And if anyone were asserting that the 202nd decade A.D. started in 2010 rather than 2011, they would be wrong.
But no one is asserting that. Instead, we're asserting that "the 2010s" starts in 2010. It runs from the beginning of 2010 to the end of 2019. That's ten years long, which means that "the 2010s" is a decade.
And since those are the decades we recognize, the decade known (hopefully) as "the Teens" starts in less than a week.

This is the best explanation yet.

2010 is the start of a new decade. Those who disagree need to get over it.

[TragicMonkey]

Great! Then you can go through the coming year being "right", while everyone rolls their eyes and/or laughs at you.

Tip: You may not want to hold an "end of the decade" party next year. I suspect attendance will be rather low.

It's not like I go around yelling at people about it. I thought that in a thread asking for opinions on the topic it would be an appropriate time and place to discuss the matter. Apparently I was wrong, though. So sorry to shove my evil opinions down your innocent throat, when you were all innocently minding your own business while reading this thread about the topic. How bizarre of me!

[TragicMonkey]

This is the best explanation yet.

2010 is the start of a new decade. Those who disagree need to get over it.

Perhaps you need to get over the fact that others don't always agree with you, and feel they have every right to discuss the matter in a thread inviting discussion of the matter?

[KingMerv00]

Well, of course it is!

Surely, you're not insinuating that people will argue on the Internet over something that isn't important? :eek:

I'm definitely not insinuating. :D

[kittynh]

wow, so like he EXPLAINED it to you and you can't go "hmm that's a good point and I can see where you got your belief on that, here is my take and who knows we may both be wrong... or even both right".

And really WHICH calendar, and Gregorian or whatever? I go with the Mayan one as I don't have to buy a new one after 2012 (though they had THREE calendars which must have made Hallmark stores in Mayan times pretty wealthy)

[Terry]

When you turn 30, are you still in your twenties?

Case closed.

you have a zero'th birthday though.

[Brainster]

Jeopardy! has used this problem of whether decades and centuries close at the end of the 9th/99th or 0th/00th year on many occasion and their assumption has always been the latter. Since Alex Trebek is the smartest man in America (he knows the proper question every time), I'm going with him.

[I Ratant]

Originally Posted by Cleon "
Some people will argue about anything.
Well, aren't you wrong. I strongly disagree.
Well, aren't you wrong. I strongly disagree. ;)
.
You're wrong, both of you!

[Delvo]

It's not like I go around yelling at people about it.Yes, it is just like that.

I thought that in a thread asking for opinions on the topic it would be an appropriate time and place to discuss the matter.You didn't discuss. You huffed and puffed with a bunch of bombastic bellicose bluster.

[epix]

How is the past decade called? There were the eighties, nineties -- a description based on the last two digit of the years. What are these: 00, 01, 02, 03, ... ,08, 09? Preteens?

[The Central Scrutinizer]

It's not like I go around yelling at people about it. I thought that in a thread asking for opinions on the topic it would be an appropriate time and place to discuss the matter. Apparently I was wrong, though. So sorry to shove my evil opinions down your innocent throat, when you were all innocently minding your own business while reading this thread about the topic. How bizarre of me!

Who said you couldn't give your opinion? Certainly not me.

You offered your opinion and it was wrong.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Perhaps you need to get over the fact that others don't always agree with you, and feel they have every right to discuss the matter in a thread inviting discussion of the matter?

Of course they have the right to discuss it. But they're still wrong and they still need to get over it.

[novaphile]

How is the past decade called?

I've noticed a commonly stated preference for calling the past decade the noughties, (pronounced like naughties).

BTW. I'm particularly intrigued that no one cares that the 17th Century (1601 - 1700), or 18th Century (1701 - 1800), or 19th Century (1801 - 1900) or 20th Century (1901 - 2000) don't match the numbers in the date.

If you're ever in a newspaper reading room that has papers that go back for hundreds of years, it's quite amusing to read editorials that lament the unwashed masses desire to celebrate the new century a year too early.

After all, if it's just about making things easy, and keeping things in line with the general public, the centuries should be the same as the first two numbers shouldn't it?

And Pi should be equal to 3.

And the spelling of words like centre should be changed to center so that Americans can spell them like they mispronounce them. ;)

(OK that last one was being deliberately rude - it was a cheap shot - and I retract it forthwith.)

[epix]

Of course they have the right to discuss it. But they're still wrong and they still need to get over it.
The idea that someone can be wrong on the issue raised is hopelessly wrong, as the final paragraph of a related article explains:

So in the end, it really depends on what your purpose is. The real truth, as I said, is that a new decade starts whenever you want it to. The time starting exactly now and ending in exactly 10 years is a decade. So pick your frame of reference. If you want to refer to a decade such as we usually think of them in our culture, the ’20s, ’40s, ’70s, etc., then 2010 starts a new decade. If you want to play little gotcha-games, you can say, “Oh, no, the first decade of the third millennium isn’t over until the end of 2010!” Both are true.
http://sesquiotic.wordpress.com/2009/12/18/when-does-the-new-decade-begin/

[Whiplash]

If you want to play little gotcha-games, you can say, “Oh, no, the first decade of the third millennium isn’t over until the end of 2010!” Both are true.


I think that sentence really sums up the entire argument pretty well. I think some are too pedantic about this issue.

[TragicMonkey]

Whatever. I've made my case and explained my reasoning. It's Parky's thread, he asked a question, I gave my answer. I even tried to engage in honest discussion with the people who simply post "you're wrong", but clearly that was a waste of time. And I lost my temper with the people who cluttered the thread with "this is too boring to post about" posts, and the people who accuse others of being pedantic for discussing the matter in a thread devoted to it. There's a time and place when pedantry is acceptable, and technical discussions and educational settings are those times and places. I assumed that Parky was interested in even, god forfend, pedantic takes on the matter since he opened a whole thread just for it. So please, everybody, accept my apology for taking this thread too seriously, and actually thinking about and attempting to discuss the matter. I didn't realize the point of the JREF was to exchange posts reading only "you're wrong! Get over it!"

Oh, and you're wrong, and need to get over it.

[AvalonXQ]

How is the past decade called? There were the eighties, nineties -- a description based on the last two digit of the years. What are these: 00, 01, 02, 03, ... ,08, 09? Preteens?

As was mentioned earlier, it's usually called "the aughts". I've also heard some people say "the zeroes".

[AvalonXQ]

After all, if it's just about making things easy, and keeping things in line with the general public, the centuries should be the same as the first two numbers shouldn't it?


And they are. It depends on what you're talking about.
"The 20th Century AD" was from 1901 to 2000. "The 1900s" was from 1900 to 1999. Both represent a century.
So, again, it depends on how you say it. Since we usually say "19th Century" but we usually say "the 80s", the dates don't line up.
But if you want to be pedantic, a new century and a new decade starts every year. You can draw each line wherever you choose, as long as your description is clear and consistent.

[Travis]

I was in college back in 1999 and make a huge stink in every class I could about how it wasn't really the "last year of the millennium." Then I didn't get invited to any New Years parties. There's probably a life lesson to be learned from that but since I oppose, on principle, any form of self improvement I refuse to figure out what it is.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Whatever. I've made my case and explained my reasoning. It's Parky's thread, he asked a question, I gave my answer. I even tried to engage in honest discussion with the people who simply post "you're wrong", but clearly that was a waste of time. And I lost my temper with the people who cluttered the thread with "this is too boring to post about" posts, and the people who accuse others of being pedantic for discussing the matter in a thread devoted to it. There's a time and place when pedantry is acceptable, and technical discussions and educational settings are those times and places. I assumed that Parky was interested in even, god forfend, pedantic takes on the matter since he opened a whole thread just for it. So please, everybody, accept my apology for taking this thread too seriously, and actually thinking about and attempting to discuss the matter. I didn't realize the point of the JREF was to exchange posts reading only "you're wrong! Get over it!"

Oh, and you're wrong, and need to get over it.

I win this thread.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

And they are. It depends on what you're talking about.
"The 20th Century AD" was from 1901 to 2000. "The 1900s" was from 1900 to 1999. Both represent a century.
So, again, it depends on how you say it. Since we usually say "19th Century" but we usually say "the 80s", the dates don't line up.
But if you want to be pedantic, a new century and a new decade starts every year. You can draw each line wherever you choose, as long as your description is clear and consistent.

If you want to be super pedantic, a new decade starts every second.

[Darth Rotor]

You didn't discuss. You huffed and puffed with a bunch of bombastic bellicose bluster.
The above pair of sentences, fused to form a statement, is what some of us call "wrong" in English.

Posts 8, 12, and 15 are hardly "bombastic bellicose bluster" no matter which language you tend to speak.

DR

[Vic Vega]

What I've learned from this thread:

Some people will argue about anything.


I think Cleon wins.


The next big thread will be: Why Dictionaries don't really contain the definition of words.

:(

[AvalonXQ]

The above pair of sentences, fused to form a statement, is what some of us call "wrong" in English.

And how do you know what "wrong" means? Remember, no dictionaries!

[paiute]

2010 is the end of the decade, but 2000 was the end of the millenium, not the start of a new one. This was ignored by almost everyone.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/13330493/Double-Naught-A-Play-in-One-Act

Mr. Smith Junior is upset with his fellow man for miscalculating when the century begins - the 20th century. On the eve of the false centennial, he spends his time trying to fix an heirloom clock while his young and hugely pregnant bride is the audience for revelations about her new family.

[Darth Rotor]

And how do you know what "wrong" means? Remember, no dictionaries!
I simply look at what is right, and consider the opposite. Easy, when you know how! :D

[ZirconBlue]

We aren't. We are speaking of two concept.

the decade concept in the vox-populi and the decade concept for a historians (or at least a pedantic definition of it).

Vox populi DEFINITIVELY define decade as starting with the 0 year : 1980-1989 are the eighties. And Vox populi decided that the millenia ended with 2000. Vox populi do not care a bit that there was no year zero. Vox populi probably do not realize the world existed beyond their birth anyway.

Vox populi do not even know what words like "vox" or "populi" mean.