Is 2010 the start of a new decade?
- Thread starter JLM
- Start date
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.
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.
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???
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???
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.
Really? I don’t 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 don’t recall you mentioning the CNN study of how stocks performed in this decade compared to the previous decade. I don’t 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?
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.
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.
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.
So if 90s were from 1990 to 1999, it follows that the next decade would be 2000 to 2009.
No, actually, it was a psychology test, and you've done exactly what we predicted.
Things are looking up Y.J. I was having a hard time deciding who is the star debater between you and S.J. but with this latest revelation I think you may have him by a nose. :smile::smile::smile: All the best for the last year of the decade...............:lol::lol:
There is just one slight eensy problem- somewhere back in time there was a "decade" that was one year short.
And when was that, JLM? The current calendar started in the year 1582. I really cannot see where that would have occurred, can you? Thus in the 16th century, 90s would have been 1590 – 1599 and so on.
What you say may hold true if the calendar started from year 1, but it didn’t, it started from year 1582.
I'm ready to concede by "majority rules" that we will be calling years from x0 to x9 a decade, but a "lump of time" would be more accurate. Wasn't Magna Carta 1066 on a calendar? I know back in the 16th century someone did a 9 day adjustment because the seasons were starting to get out of whack.
AwwwwJack, happy new year, again........blow me.;-)
The forum is censored. :idea::idea: Yes, I know it's a surprise. So if one writes ****, it prints out ****...............not my fault. My spelling, poor though it may be, is not at fault.
you cheeky devil.............
A lump of time...called a decade. A decade is only a lump of ten years. Zero to nine can be a decade. The problem we have is that the A.D. measurements began with a one and not a zero. I know you were arguing basically what I am at this point, but the part that I quoted was really bothering me.
In addition, could we stop using the term "scientific" to describe counting from one to ten, implying that zero to nine is not as "scientific"? We should simply avoid using the word scientific in this case, anyway. It is the context that matters. BC follows into AD, and arguments of equal validity can be made about when to measure a lump of ten years--a decade. We could even begin arguing in the context of leap years, but for most of us that feels excessively "correct."