Is 2010 the start of a new decade?


JLM
#1
I've heard that being mentioned on the radio lately. I was of the understanding 2011 is. Anyone know for sure?
 
TenPenny
#2
We never had a 'year 0', so 2011 is the start of a new decade.

Similarly, the year 2000 was the last year of the previous century.

But as with many things, the 'popular culture' version generally takes over from the 'technically correct' version.
 
JLM
#3
Quote: Originally Posted by TenPennyView Post

We never had a 'year 0', so 2011 is the start of a new decade.

Similarly, the year 2000 was the last year of the previous century.

But as with many things, the 'popular culture' version generally takes over from the 'technically correct' version.

Makes sense to me.
 
Tonington
#4
Technically we haven't been using this calendar system since there was a year zero, and time didn't start at year 0. Even more technically, a decade is ten years with no defined start date, and can start whenever you like.

The common practice is to refer to decades like the 90's, because that's just way easier than saying the 90's minus 1990 plus 2000.
 
Dexter Sinister
#5
The master speaks. (external - login to view)
And so do a couple of dipsticks.
 
Blackleaf
#6
People are getting confused.

2010 IS the first year of the next decade. The next decade is the 2010s, therefore 2010 is the start of the next decade. That's self-explanatory.

2000 was not the start of the 21st century or the 3rd millennium AD.

There was no Year 0 (though there was in the Hindu and Buddhist calendars. To Hindus, this year is 3102 and to Buddhists it is 2547) so the first millennium AD was from 1 to 1000. So the third millennium AD is from 2001 to 3000 and the 21st century is from 2001 to 2100.

But popular culture does consider 2000 to be the start of the next century and millennium and, looking at it from that point of view, it was the first year of a century to be a leap year since 1600.
Last edited by Blackleaf; Dec 30th, 2009 at 11:27 AM..
 
TenPenny
#7
Quote: Originally Posted by BlackleafView Post

People are getting confused.

2010 IS the first year of the next decade. The next decade is the 2010s, therefore 2010 is the start of the next decade. That's self-explanatory.

For that to be true, the first decade would have to start with the year 0, and end with the year 9.
 
Dexter Sinister
#8
A decade is just any ten year period, you can start counting on any day you want, but for those who insist on talking about decades as if they were specific ten year periods within a century that we label the 80s and the 90s and so on, there's a certain logic. Given that the start of the 21st century was 1 January 2001 (and it was, because of the no year zero thing), consistency requires that the first decade of the 21st century start on the same day. Therefore the second decade begins after 2010 is over, on 1 January 2011, and the answer to the question in the thread title is no.
 
YukonJack
#9
Of course not! 2011 is the start of the new decade.
 
gumpscheck
#10
There may not have been a year zero, however when a person turns 1, aren't they truly "starting" their 2nd year? Therefore we are truly starting our 2011th year. From January 1, 2000 to January 1, 2010 is exactly 10 years, thus after midnight starts the 2011th year...another decade, or 10 years.
 
Dexter Sinister
#11
But a person starts out at age 0, the calendar didn't; the appropriate comparison would be saying someone is 1 at the moment of birth. The third millennium, the 21st century, and the first decade of the 21st century, all started 1 January 2001, not 2000.
 
Francis2004
#12
Quote: Originally Posted by Dexter SinisterView Post

But a person starts out at age 0, the calendar didn't; the appropriate comparison would be saying someone is 1 at the moment of birth. The third millennium, the 21st century, and the first decade of the 21st century, all started 1 January 2001, not 2000.

Dexter, IMO I think many people get confused because the Millennium problem occurred in 1999 at midnight for 2000 due to electronics chips issue..

To many the new Millennium started that night I guess right or wrong.. I remember our flight from England was moved up due to IATA on any flight that could not land prior to midnight 1999..
 
Nuggler
#13
Quote: Originally Posted by YukonJackView Post

Of course not! 2011 is the start of the new decade.

Shyte Jack, a decade is ten years............

c'mon.

You REALLY don't think that.................

Aw ****, Jack, You've been listenin to Raygun agun.............it's gonna F u up. He's dead. Those voices you hear ain't really there. For ****'s sake, get some help.

Ever really LOOK at Maggie. Check out them chompers.....She's bite it off, Jack; just for spite...........really.

Awww, ****, believe what you will..............

happy new year
 
YukonJack
#14
Nuggler, your most intelligent remarks/comment were your asterisks.

Not to mention the words you were too chickenish to spell correctly.

Please do me the favour and NOT respond to my posts.
 
kimbo
#15
A decade isn't over until ten full years have past. Ten years will not have passed until 31st Dec 2010. January 1, 2011 is the first day of the new decade.

Some people claimed the new millenium started on Jan 1, 2000 but it wasn't until Jan 1, 2001.

Get a grip people. Ten years is a decade.

Jan 1 2001 - Dec 31 2010 is one decade.
Jan 1 2011 - Dec 31 2020 is the next decade.
 
kimbo
#16
Count it this way

years 1-10, 11-20, 21-30 etc etc 91-2000, 2001-2010, 2011-2020 inclusive.
New decade starts Jan 1st 2011 and ends Dec 31st 2020
 
kimbo
#17
The first year wasn't "0". It was 1. Ten FULL years must pass so therefore 31st Dec 2010 is the last day of the first decade of the 2000's. January 1 2011 is therefore the first day of the next 10 years, ending on 31st Dec 2020.
 
SirJosephPorter
#18
Quote: Originally Posted by kimboView Post

The first year wasn't "0". It was 1. Ten FULL years must pass so therefore 31st Dec 2010 is the last day of the first decade of the 2000's. January 1 2011 is therefore the first day of the next 10 years, ending on 31st Dec 2020.


A lot of posters have made this argument here; I don’t think that holds water. The first year wasn’t 0 or 1 or 2 or 3 or anything like that. We did not adopt the current calendar from year 0 or year 1, 2, 3 etc. we adopted it much later. The Gregorian calendar was introduced by Pope Gregory in a decree in 1582. So the first year was really 1582.

So how do we know that the calendar didn't start at year 0? We don’t. The reason average person thinks that it is the start of the new decade is simple. The second digit changes. Going form 2009 to 2010, the second digit changes from 0 to 1. Simple, and end of story.

Indeed, that is why 1 Jan 2000 heralded the new millennium, nobody paid much attention to 1 Jan 2001.

Sometimes common wisdom goes against scientific wisdom, and this is one such instance. And since it is not a significant matter, it is an unimportant subject; common wisdom prevails here, and tomorrow is indeed regarded as the start of the new decade.
 
Francis2004
#19
I love this clip by Seinfield.. Says it all about the Millennium..

YouTube - The Newmennium

 
JLM
#20
Quote: Originally Posted by SirJosephPorterView Post

A lot of posters have made this argument here; I donít think that holds water. The first year wasnít 0 or 1 or 2 or 3 or anything like that. We did not adopt the current calendar from year 0 or year 1, 2, 3 etc. we adopted it much later. The Gregorian calendar was introduced by Pope Gregory in a decree in 1582. So the first year was really 1582.

So how do we know that the calendar didn't start at year 0? We donít. The reason average person thinks that it is the start of the new decade is simple. The second digit changes. Going form 2009 to 2010, the second digit changes from 0 to 1. Simple, and end of story.

Indeed, that is why 1 Jan 2000 heralded the new millennium, nobody paid much attention to 1 Jan 2001.



Sometimes common wisdom goes against scientific wisdom, and this is one such instance. And since it is not a significant matter, it is an unimportant subject; common wisdom prevails here, and tomorrow is indeed regarded as the start of the new decade.

I'm inclined to propose the opposite argument. When we count we go from one to ten (0), in all other instances, so why change it for the date? What the years were called 2000 years ago is irrelevent (if you want to correct for that, then the current year probably isn't "2009"). I think the second decade starts Jan.1 2011.
 
Domkop
#21
Actually, for Buddhists it's 2553, not 2547.
 
gerryh
#22
only the anally retentive have their bowels in a knot over this subject and object to when the century and decade beginings are celebrated.
 
lone wolf
#23
CNR started at 0

CPR started at 1

You figure it out....
 
YukonJack
#24
Let your fingers do the counting:

One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten!

Voila! We completed a DECADE. Or we will at 12:00 December 31st, 2010.

And then we will begen a new decade.

Hopefully, counting on your fingers will convince even the most obstinate ones that the new decade will begin at 00:00 hors, January 1st, 2011.
 
#juan
#25
Quoting TenPenny We never had a 'year 0', so 2011 is the start of a new decade.

Similarly, the year 2000 was the last year of the previous century.

But as with many things, the 'popular culture' version generally takes over from the 'technically correct' version.

Surely we did have a year 2000. Add ten years to that and we get 2010. Where are you people getting this stuff???
 
SirJosephPorter
#26
Quote: Originally Posted by JLMView Post

I'm inclined to propose the opposite argument. When we count we go from one to ten (0), in all other instances, so why change it for the date? What the years were called 2000 years ago is irrelevent (if you want to correct for that, then the current year probably isn't "2009"). I think the second decade starts Jan.1 2011.


Technically that may be correct, JLM. But in popular mind, the digit changes from 0 to1, so it is a new decade. That is why the news media is heralding the coming of the new decade. I already posted a thread comparing stock market performances in this decade (the worst ever) to the previous decade (the best ever).

But the point is, that was not my study, CNN carried out that study. So as far as CNN is concerned, tomorrow is a new decade. And that is how most people think as well, you will find many articles, commentaries as to how things were in the past decade.

So again, what science thinks and what popular opinion is are not one and the same. The same argument was used in 2000, that was considered the advent of the new millennium, not 2001.
 
TenPenny
#27
Quote: Originally Posted by SirJosephPorterView Post

So again, what science thinks and what popular opinion is are not one and the same. The same argument was used in 2000, that was considered the advent of the new millennium, not 2001.

You're simply paraphrasing what I said earlier.
 
SirJosephPorter
#28
Quote: Originally Posted by TenPennyView Post

You're simply paraphrasing what I said earlier.


Really? I donít recall you pointing out that the reason people think this is a different decade is that the second digit changes form 0 to 1. I donít recall you mentioning the CNN study of how stocks performed in this decade compared to the previous decade. I donít recall you mentioning that there are numerous articles as to how things were in the past decade (the one that is just ending).

All of these things were in the same post that you quoted, you conveniently erased them. So I agree with you as far as that one sentence is concerned, so what is your point? Do you own copyright on the sentence, just because you wrote it first?
 
Tonington
#29
We don't measure decades, centuries, and millenniums in the same way. The standard convention for decades has always been by the second digit, the tens place, ie. 10's, 20's, 30's. We measure centuries from a specified point going forward, so yes, the last day in the 20th century was December 31, 2000. The 90's are not a specified decade in some series, they just refer to the decade that holds all years from 1990-1999. If you want to refer to an event from 1890's, then we wouldn't use decades, but centuries to describe what period it took place in.

They're not measured in the same fashion. That's all there is to it. It's not a paradox of time, or inconsistant. They're not the same thing, and they're not measured in the same fashion.
 
SirJosephPorter
#30
Quite so Tonington. One could say that 90s really encompass 1990 – 1999, since all these years contain a ‘9’. After all, 2000 does not contain a ‘9’, so how can it be a part of the 90s decade?

So if 90s were from 1990 to 1999, it follows that the next decade would be 2000 to 2009.
 

Similar Threads

4
The fear decade
by JBeee | Jan 6th, 2010
1
0
15
TOP FIVE of (your) DECADE
by Haggis McBagpipe | Dec 31st, 2004
no new posts