Skip to content
  • Categories
  • Recent
  • Tags
  • Popular
  • World
  • Users
  • Groups
Skins
  • Light
  • Cerulean
  • Cosmo
  • Flatly
  • Journal
  • Litera
  • Lumen
  • Lux
  • Materia
  • Minty
  • Morph
  • Pulse
  • Sandstone
  • Simplex
  • Sketchy
  • Spacelab
  • United
  • Yeti
  • Zephyr
  • Dark
  • Cyborg
  • Darkly
  • Quartz
  • Slate
  • Solar
  • Superhero
  • Vapor

  • Default (No Skin)
  • No Skin
Collapse
Code Project
  1. Home
  2. The Lounge
  3. The new decade

The new decade

Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved The Lounge
learning
148 Posts 45 Posters 423 Views 1 Watching
  • Oldest to Newest
  • Newest to Oldest
  • Most Votes
Reply
  • Reply as topic
Log in to reply
This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
  • E Ennis Ray Lynch Jr

    So what decade year 0 in?

    Need custom software developed? I do custom programming based primarily on MS tools with an emphasis on C# development and consulting. A man said to the universe: "Sir I exist!" "However," replied the universe, "The fact has not created in me A sense of obligation." --Stephen Crane

    S Offline
    S Offline
    Single Step Debugger
    wrote on last edited by
    #67

    Ennis Ray Lynch, Jr. wrote:

    So what decade year 0 in?

    None, there is no year 0, 0 is the start point for the first year. If you have a straight line with a several segments the segment 1 starts from zero to something, but you don’t have a zero segment.

    The narrow specialist in the broad sense of the word is a complete idiot in the narrow sense of the word. Advertise here – minimum three posts per day are guaranteed.

    E P 2 Replies Last reply
    0
    • Richard Andrew x64R Richard Andrew x64

      That literary dictionary is hardly a mathematical authority. :thumbsdown:

      R Offline
      R Offline
      RichardM1
      wrote on last edited by
      #68

      maybe not, but what authority do you show (my understanding agrees with yours, but I can't give a reference) Is it possible that the first decade only had 9 years? :wtf:

      Opacity, the new Transparency.

      Richard Andrew x64R E 2 Replies Last reply
      0
      • Richard Andrew x64R Richard Andrew x64

        That literary dictionary is hardly a mathematical authority. :thumbsdown:

        C Offline
        C Offline
        Colin Rae
        wrote on last edited by
        #69

        You are correct. It is, however, some sort of authority on the meaning of words. (Not quite the OED, I grant you!) The problem appears to be that decades are not usually counted or treated in the same way as centuries. Saying we are currently in the 21st century is entirely correct. Following that system, we may also say that we are in the 201st decade (which would run from 2001-2010). The thing is, nobody refers to decades by counting them from year 1. It's far more common to refer to the 70's or 80's etc. (And bear in mind that strictly speaking a decade may be ANY 10 year period e.g. 2006-2015) The dictionary merely lists the common usage of the word. I think the bottom line is that you are allowed to use whichever definition you want... :)

        1 Reply Last reply
        0
        • L Lost User

          Richard Andrew x64 wrote:

          Wrong.

          Right. 2010 - 2019 is a ten year period, hence it's a decade. It will probably be known as the 'tens', perhaps the 'teens' (though that would be a little harsh on 2010, 2011 and 2012). 2020 - 2029 will be a decade known as the 'twenties' and so it goes. Good luck convincing people otherwise! ;)

          Blogging about Qt Creator

          Richard Andrew x64R Offline
          Richard Andrew x64R Offline
          Richard Andrew x64
          wrote on last edited by
          #70

          Rob Caldecott wrote:

          Good luck convincing people otherwise!

          Thanks for the well wishes. But as Ghandi said, "If only one man knows the truth, it is still the truth." The world is filled with people who believe incorrect things. Their sheer numbers don't make them correct.

          1 Reply Last reply
          0
          • S Single Step Debugger

            Mladen Jankovic wrote:

            Not if you're a Real Programmer

            No! For example we/the real programmers :-D/ use zero index to access the FIRST element of some array, but it’s still the FIRST not the ZERO element.

            The narrow specialist in the broad sense of the word is a complete idiot in the narrow sense of the word. Advertise here – minimum three posts per day are guaranteed.

            M Offline
            M Offline
            Mladen Jankovic
            wrote on last edited by
            #71

            Nop, you're wrong. Look again. This is what he wrote: - Year 1 is the FIRST year of the decade He's using 1-based index, not 0-based and to us, Real Programmers and especially JSOP, that's wrong. ;)

            [Genetic Algorithm Library] [Wowd]

            S 1 Reply Last reply
            0
            • S Sean Cundiff

              Dirk Higbee wrote:

              And after 6 months the child will only be 1 1/2 still not 2

              CORRECT. They will have COMPLETED 1.5 years of life. They will not have COMPLETED 2 years of life. They will, however, still be in their SECOND year of life.

              -Sean ---- Fire Nuts

              D Offline
              D Offline
              Dirk Higbee
              wrote on last edited by
              #72

              You are forgetting that just because the 'Calendar' started with year 1 does not mean the clock did not start ticking at 0.0000000000000001

              My reality check bounced.

              1 Reply Last reply
              0
              • R ragnaroknrol

                In fact, everyone was using the Roman Calendar. That was not exactly a model of time keeping either. Not too many people like extra months thrown in as a necessity to keep a lunar calendar working with a solar one.

                R Offline
                R Offline
                RichardM1
                wrote on last edited by
                #73

                LOL! Yeah, they were all programmers and gave a crap about the details! I bet it didn't matter to most people. They were going to do something today, in a couple of days, next week, not at 2010.02.15 12:33:45 UTC.

                Opacity, the new Transparency.

                R 1 Reply Last reply
                0
                • Richard Andrew x64R Richard Andrew x64

                  Well, the first Christians walked around saying it was year 1.

                  D Offline
                  D Offline
                  Dirk Higbee
                  wrote on last edited by
                  #74

                  They needed a reference point. It does not, however, discount the pre-1 years.

                  My reality check bounced.

                  1 Reply Last reply
                  0
                  • D Distind

                    And when he makes the argument that people didn't count from a year that couldn't have occurred under a calender system which assumed it to be a few hundred years in the past they're what exactly? Simply put, 90-99, the 90s, a decade, and some basic sense of organization. That said, there are two decades difference between my sisters and myself, those two did not start on a 0 or a 1, and yet, they were still decades as it was two sets of ten distinct years between us. It's an arbitrary grouping of ten years, not something cast in stone set since the beginning of us bothering to measure time.

                    Richard Andrew x64R Offline
                    Richard Andrew x64R Offline
                    Richard Andrew x64
                    wrote on last edited by
                    #75

                    I give up. :sigh: :zzz:

                    1 Reply Last reply
                    0
                    • L Lost User

                      As far as I am concerned (and most other people it would seem), the 1980s ran from 1980 to 1989, the 90s ran from 1990 to 1999 and the noughties from 2000 to 2009. So Jan 1st 2010 is the start of a new decade (the tens?). Surely a 'decade' is just a period of ten years, so I think your argument is flawed - 1995 to 2005 was a decade for example. By your reasoning the decade of the 1990s ran from 1991 to 2000 which, let's face it, is just daft. As for your Arthur C. Clarke assertion, that was an argument about the start of 21st century, which should indeed of been celebrated on Jan 1st 2001 (I'm pretty sure the Victorians got it right and celebrated the start of the 20th century on Jan 1st 1901.)

                      Blogging about Qt Creator

                      R Offline
                      R Offline
                      RichardM1
                      wrote on last edited by
                      #76

                      The 60s ran from around 63 to around 73. The 70s from around 73 to around 82. Different parts of the country and got different mileage.

                      Opacity, the new Transparency.

                      P 1 Reply Last reply
                      0
                      • R realJSOP

                        Year 1 is the first year, but it starts at year 0. Therefore, 2010 is the BEGINNING of the next decade.

                        .45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly
                        -----
                        "Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
                        -----
                        "The staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - J. Jystad, 2001

                        D Offline
                        D Offline
                        Dirk Higbee
                        wrote on last edited by
                        #77

                        Correct. Everything starts at 0 or it wouldn't have a beginning.

                        My reality check bounced.

                        1 Reply Last reply
                        0
                        • M Mladen Jankovic

                          Nop, you're wrong. Look again. This is what he wrote: - Year 1 is the FIRST year of the decade He's using 1-based index, not 0-based and to us, Real Programmers and especially JSOP, that's wrong. ;)

                          [Genetic Algorithm Library] [Wowd]

                          S Offline
                          S Offline
                          Single Step Debugger
                          wrote on last edited by
                          #78

                          Try to use a simple graph to visualize your statement and you will fail.

                          The narrow specialist in the broad sense of the word is a complete idiot in the narrow sense of the word. Advertise here – minimum three posts per day are guaranteed.

                          M 1 Reply Last reply
                          0
                          • Richard Andrew x64R Richard Andrew x64

                            Please don't confuse figures of speech and idioms with mathematics. Just because we say things like "the seventies" or "the eighties" doesn't change the math of it all. Answer these questions: How many years in a decade? A. 10 Starting at 1, what are the years numbered as? A. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 See that 10 is the last year of the decade? See how the next decade doesn't begin until 11?

                            D Offline
                            D Offline
                            Dirk Higbee
                            wrote on last edited by
                            #79

                            Richard Andrew x64 wrote:

                            How many years in a decade? A. 10

                            Starting at 5 what are the years numbered as? 5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14 The decade begins and ends with your reference.

                            My reality check bounced.

                            Richard Andrew x64R T 2 Replies Last reply
                            0
                            • R RichardM1

                              maybe not, but what authority do you show (my understanding agrees with yours, but I can't give a reference) Is it possible that the first decade only had 9 years? :wtf:

                              Opacity, the new Transparency.

                              Richard Andrew x64R Offline
                              Richard Andrew x64R Offline
                              Richard Andrew x64
                              wrote on last edited by
                              #80

                              RichardM1 wrote:

                              Is it possible that the first decade only had 9 years?

                              I'm not sure what you mean. I appreciate you pointing out that you agree. Isn't it amazing how vehemently people will defend a position that's outright wrong?

                              R F 2 Replies Last reply
                              0
                              • S Single Step Debugger

                                Ennis Ray Lynch, Jr. wrote:

                                So what decade year 0 in?

                                None, there is no year 0, 0 is the start point for the first year. If you have a straight line with a several segments the segment 1 starts from zero to something, but you don’t have a zero segment.

                                The narrow specialist in the broad sense of the word is a complete idiot in the narrow sense of the word. Advertise here – minimum three posts per day are guaranteed.

                                E Offline
                                E Offline
                                Ennis Ray Lynch Jr
                                wrote on last edited by
                                #81

                                That depends on the scheme used for the year number. A.D. scheme may begin at 1 but I see no reason that other calenders must.

                                Need custom software developed? I do custom programming based primarily on MS tools with an emphasis on C# development and consulting. A man said to the universe: "Sir I exist!" "However," replied the universe, "The fact has not created in me A sense of obligation." --Stephen Crane

                                S 1 Reply Last reply
                                0
                                • R RichardM1

                                  LOL! Yeah, they were all programmers and gave a crap about the details! I bet it didn't matter to most people. They were going to do something today, in a couple of days, next week, not at 2010.02.15 12:33:45 UTC.

                                  Opacity, the new Transparency.

                                  R Offline
                                  R Offline
                                  ragnaroknrol
                                  wrote on last edited by
                                  #82

                                  Most people used the moon to mark time. The Pagans did. A lot of rituals involving the moon's passage are still in evidence today. Others involved the sun and so you get a weird mix of the two often. Heck, some hats have been found that are very accurate Lunar calendars even 3K+ years later. The Romans wanted the seasons to fall in with a calendar for businesses. Once again we can blame the Romans for screwing up something by incorporating it into their system.

                                  1 Reply Last reply
                                  0
                                  • E Ennis Ray Lynch Jr

                                    That depends on the scheme used for the year number. A.D. scheme may begin at 1 but I see no reason that other calenders must.

                                    Need custom software developed? I do custom programming based primarily on MS tools with an emphasis on C# development and consulting. A man said to the universe: "Sir I exist!" "However," replied the universe, "The fact has not created in me A sense of obligation." --Stephen Crane

                                    S Offline
                                    S Offline
                                    Single Step Debugger
                                    wrote on last edited by
                                    #83

                                    Then we need to start using them. This will instantly make all of us “Gregorians” one year younger.

                                    The narrow specialist in the broad sense of the word is a complete idiot in the narrow sense of the word. Advertise here – minimum three posts per day are guaranteed.

                                    1 Reply Last reply
                                    0
                                    • D Dirk Higbee

                                      Richard Andrew x64 wrote:

                                      How many years in a decade? A. 10

                                      Starting at 5 what are the years numbered as? 5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14 The decade begins and ends with your reference.

                                      My reality check bounced.

                                      Richard Andrew x64R Offline
                                      Richard Andrew x64R Offline
                                      Richard Andrew x64
                                      wrote on last edited by
                                      #84

                                      Dirk Higbee wrote:

                                      The decade begins and ends with your reference.

                                      Now you're beginning to get it!!!! And since the calendar starts with 1, the decades all start with 1!!!!!

                                      D 1 Reply Last reply
                                      0
                                      • S Single Step Debugger

                                        Try to use a simple graph to visualize your statement and you will fail.

                                        The narrow specialist in the broad sense of the word is a complete idiot in the narrow sense of the word. Advertise here – minimum three posts per day are guaranteed.

                                        M Offline
                                        M Offline
                                        Mladen Jankovic
                                        wrote on last edited by
                                        #85

                                        Obiously we're not arguing the same thing. I was saying that Dionysius Exiguus[^], wasn't a Real Programmer. If he was, he would name the first year AD 0 not AD 1.

                                        [Genetic Algorithm Library] [Wowd]

                                        1 Reply Last reply
                                        0
                                        • Richard Andrew x64R Richard Andrew x64

                                          RichardM1 wrote:

                                          Is it possible that the first decade only had 9 years?

                                          I'm not sure what you mean. I appreciate you pointing out that you agree. Isn't it amazing how vehemently people will defend a position that's outright wrong?

                                          R Offline
                                          R Offline
                                          RichardM1
                                          wrote on last edited by
                                          #86

                                          I understand that the first year was 1. I understand that 2001 was the start of a new century. I also see definitions of decade that reference x0-x9, but none that reference year 1-year 10 (other than as an arbitrary grouping). If the definition of decade is x0-x9, then it stands that the first decade was only 9 years, no? (as well as the last BC) To me that shows a problem with the x0-x9 argument.

                                          Opacity, the new Transparency.

                                          1 Reply Last reply
                                          0
                                          Reply
                                          • Reply as topic
                                          Log in to reply
                                          • Oldest to Newest
                                          • Newest to Oldest
                                          • Most Votes


                                          • Login

                                          • Don't have an account? Register

                                          • Login or register to search.
                                          • First post
                                            Last post
                                          0
                                          • Categories
                                          • Recent
                                          • Tags
                                          • Popular
                                          • World
                                          • Users
                                          • Groups