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 1.1k 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.
  • Richard Andrew x64R Richard Andrew x64

    Since so many otherwise intelligent people made snarky remarks about my assertion that the decade begins in 2011, not 2010, I will explain it quite simply as follows: Premise: There are TEN years in a decade Year 1 is the FIRST year of the decade Year 2 is the SECOND year of the decade Year 3 is the THIRD year of the decade . . . Year 9 is the NINTH year of the decade and here's the important part: Year 10 is the TENTH year of the decade, meaning that the new decade doesn't begin until Year 11. That means that 2010 is the TENTH year of the FIRST decade of the 2000's. The second decade will not begin until 2011. Arthur C. Clarke knew the truth, and that is why he named his book 2001 A Space Odyssey, not 2000 A Space Odyssey

    B Offline
    B Offline
    BillWoodruff
    wrote on last edited by
    #141

    "Listen now to a further point : No mortal thing has a beginning, nor does it end in death and obliteration : There is only a mixing, and then a separating, of what was mixed. But, by mortal men, these processes are named : 'beginnings' " Empedocles

    "Many : not conversant with mathematical studies, imagine that because it [the Analytical Engine] is to give results in numerical notation, its processes must consequently be arithmetical, numerical, rather than algebraical and analytical. This is an error. The engine can arrange and combine numerical quantities as if they were letters or any other general symbols; and it fact it might bring out its results in algebraical notation, were provisions made accordingly." Ada, Countess Lovelace, 1844

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

      Since so many otherwise intelligent people made snarky remarks about my assertion that the decade begins in 2011, not 2010, I will explain it quite simply as follows: Premise: There are TEN years in a decade Year 1 is the FIRST year of the decade Year 2 is the SECOND year of the decade Year 3 is the THIRD year of the decade . . . Year 9 is the NINTH year of the decade and here's the important part: Year 10 is the TENTH year of the decade, meaning that the new decade doesn't begin until Year 11. That means that 2010 is the TENTH year of the FIRST decade of the 2000's. The second decade will not begin until 2011. Arthur C. Clarke knew the truth, and that is why he named his book 2001 A Space Odyssey, not 2000 A Space Odyssey

      J Offline
      J Offline
      John Stewien
      wrote on last edited by
      #142

      So you welcomed in the new Millenium on New Years Eve 2000/2001? that would've been a year later than everyone else did it. Most people don't care what is correct, they just care about what makes sense to them.

      R 1 Reply Last reply
      0
      • D Dirk Higbee

        The last year of the 19th century was 1899. The first year of the 20th century was 1900. When runners are all lined up to race the clock is set at zero. When you were born the minutes of your life started ticking, from zero.

        My reality check bounced.

        K Offline
        K Offline
        Kenneth Kasajian
        wrote on last edited by
        #143

        In that case, the last year of the 1st century was 99 A.D. And the first year of the 1st century was what? 0 A.D.? That year didn't exist. So then you're saying the first year of the first century was 1 B.C. The reason people disagree with you is because they're position is that the first year of the first century was 1 A.D., therefore the last year of the first century is 100 A.D.

        ken@kasajian.com / www.kasajian.com

        1 Reply Last reply
        0
        • N Nemanja Trifunovic

          ChrisBraum wrote:

          But 1BC to 1AD is two years

          Nope, one year. After Dec 31st 1 BC comes January 1st 1 AD. There is 1 year between i.e. Jun 1st 1 BC and Jun 1st 1 AD

          utf8-cpp

          G Offline
          G Offline
          GStrad
          wrote on last edited by
          #144

          Which of course makes no sense at all BC = Before Christ, AD = After Death (i.e. Christs Death) so there must have been some 30years+ in there, which just goes to show that our calender is meaningless, it's just some easy way for us all to create a time to talk in Outlook.... So there you have it, I blame it on Microsoft.... :) (should I actually have said "time is meaningless, lunch time doubly so...")

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

            Since so many otherwise intelligent people made snarky remarks about my assertion that the decade begins in 2011, not 2010, I will explain it quite simply as follows: Premise: There are TEN years in a decade Year 1 is the FIRST year of the decade Year 2 is the SECOND year of the decade Year 3 is the THIRD year of the decade . . . Year 9 is the NINTH year of the decade and here's the important part: Year 10 is the TENTH year of the decade, meaning that the new decade doesn't begin until Year 11. That means that 2010 is the TENTH year of the FIRST decade of the 2000's. The second decade will not begin until 2011. Arthur C. Clarke knew the truth, and that is why he named his book 2001 A Space Odyssey, not 2000 A Space Odyssey

            P Offline
            P Offline
            Plamen Dragiyski
            wrote on last edited by
            #145

            And you program with one-based indexes instead of zero-based? :laugh: No offence but your logic fails on two levels: 1. If you are right, 1 is the first digit, 2 is the second digit... 9 is the nine digit, so we use 9-based numeric system. So what the hell is that oval-looking thing after the 1 in number 10? 2. Our calendar is Jesus Christ born based. If he was born in year 0, by your logic, he doesn't start the new era, he was born in old era, he spend a whole year of his life to setup a new era. :laugh: Whatever you people will say, we love rounded-numbers! :)

            1 Reply Last reply
            0
            • G GStrad

              Which of course makes no sense at all BC = Before Christ, AD = After Death (i.e. Christs Death) so there must have been some 30years+ in there, which just goes to show that our calender is meaningless, it's just some easy way for us all to create a time to talk in Outlook.... So there you have it, I blame it on Microsoft.... :) (should I actually have said "time is meaningless, lunch time doubly so...")

              J Offline
              J Offline
              Jonathan Black
              wrote on last edited by
              #146

              Actually, A.D. stands for the Latin phrase, Anno Domini[^] ("In the year of our Lord"), not "After Death".

              G 1 Reply Last reply
              0
              • J Jonathan Black

                Actually, A.D. stands for the Latin phrase, Anno Domini[^] ("In the year of our Lord"), not "After Death".

                G Offline
                G Offline
                GStrad
                wrote on last edited by
                #147

                D'oh!

                1 Reply Last reply
                0
                • J John Stewien

                  So you welcomed in the new Millenium on New Years Eve 2000/2001? that would've been a year later than everyone else did it. Most people don't care what is correct, they just care about what makes sense to them.

                  R Offline
                  R Offline
                  redbones
                  wrote on last edited by
                  #148

                  you know all these arguments are so funny, they remind me of the fights that you always have in the Asterix comics where you see Aterix and Getafix on the side watching all the villagers bashing themselves over the head. I'm not even going to put in my opinion, just reading this discussion almost made my head spin

                  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