The new decade
-
That literary dictionary is hardly a mathematical authority. :thumbsdown:
-
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! ;)
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.
-
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.
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. ;)
-
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
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.
-
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.
-
Well, the first Christians walked around saying it was year 1.
They needed a reference point. It does not, however, discount the pre-1 years.
My reality check bounced.
-
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.
I give up. :sigh: :zzz:
-
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, 2001Correct. Everything starts at 0 or it wouldn't have a beginning.
My reality check bounced.
-
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.)
-
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. ;)
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.
-
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?
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.
-
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.
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?
-
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.
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
-
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.
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.
-
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
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.
-
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.
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!!!!!
-
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.
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.
-
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?
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.
-
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!!!!!
The calendar started at one but time did not. Time started at zero. That is why we don't count decades your way.
My reality check bounced.
-
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
Year 1 is the first year, but it starts at year 0.
What?
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
Therefore, 2010 is the BEGINNING of the next decade.
Wrong.
In 2010, you'll be in the first year of the new decade. The reason is the same as for centuries. Year 0 was the 1st year, and that's why we're in the 21st century. right now. In other words, year counting is 0-based, just like arrays in real programming languages. The only people that really have a problem with this concept is people who started their programming careers with a VB job.
.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
