In the words of John Cleese, whenever two or three are gathered together in one place, then they shall perform the Parrot Sketch - Not the Nine O'Clock News (not a movie, but close enough, surely)

Jeremy Falcon wrote:

Then who would MS copy off of?

They could cut out the middle man and just copy off the guys that Apple copy from now.

"And by the way, the beginning of time did start at zero or we wouldn't count time the way we do today. The beginning of time was the first year but it was not a whole year until a year had past. At six months it would have been year .5" You are making a fairly fundamental error here and confusing ordinal numbers and cardinal numbers. This is pretty common because the way we refer to years is actually based on ordinal numbers, but we say them as we would cardinal numbers, i.e. we just say 2009 instead of saying the 2009th year. We also count time in different ways depending on the context. For example, when we are timing a race, we start at zero and count elapsed time, but when counting days in a month, we start at one and label each day with an ordinal number. The latter method is what we use for counting years. We started at 1 AD and applied an ordinal number to each year from there on. So, 1 AD was year number one, the first year, not when one year had elapsed. In short, the original poster is correct and 2010 is the last year of the 201st decade AD, not the first year of the 202nd decade AD. Having said that, I find it easier to refer to decades in the way most people do, ie. the 80s, 90s, noughties, etc. It just seems right in the case of decades, but when it comes to centuries I will scream as loud as the next pedant.

I looked at shipping to the moon, but found it was easier and cheaper to ship to a film set in the Nevada desert.