Relax folks he's just playing us for the sake of creating an argument. I'm sure he knows better, he's just enjoying the fight.

Someone said it earlier that the yahoo's that invented the calendar way back are in an era where man didn't quite grasp the concept of zero. Modern man has grasped that concept and that's why it's pretty common that when you count out ten digits it start at 0 through to 9. If modern man invented the calender there would indeed be a 0AD. 2001 is defined as the first year of the 21st century but that's because the yahoo's back then fraked everything up from the beginning. Based on their frak up, I'm going to agree and continue to follow suit with 2001 being the beginning of the century but all other logical thinking dictates zero as being the start of any set of ten (decade or otherwise). Thinking otherwise is very antiquated and quite frankly (sorry to offend anyone), stupid. Why don't you guys get into 21st century with your thinking and logic and quit using "1AD" or "21 century starts at 2001" as a basis for your arguements. 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 is the way it goes for decades or whatever. It still floors me that any computer geek (especially programmers) thinks this way. My wife is no where near a computer geek and she even gets it right. :rolleyes:

He's been trying hard to, but failing miserably. ;)

Sure is amazing! You've proven it!

Before you flame me Richard... I'm just kidding. :)

nice. Kind of puts the nail in the coffin of 'ol Richard's argument. Now the question is, will he go on believing what he does, thus we continue to avoid his programming?

I can't believe there is even a debate on this. It's pretty common knowledge, and I didn't know there were people out there that believed this. How can anyone even be involved with computers, let alone programming and not know that when you count out ten digits you start with 0?! To put your own arguement to it: 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 That's how computers do it because that is what makes sense and what is logical. The whole 1BC and 1AD arguement is lame because each one took 365 days to complete. That passage of time was called 1AD but it did indeed start with zero. BTW - Arthur C. Clarke must have realized his folly calling it 2001 instead of 2000 because his sequel was called 2010 and not 2011.