If you're thinking today is the start of a new decade, you are one year too early. The next decade doesn't start until January 1, 2011. It seems when it comes to the calendar, many people can't count. I remember when everyone thought Y2K was the start of the new millennium. Those are the same people who think the new decade starts on 1st Jan 2010
Simple logic and the ability to count will tell you when a new decade or millennium begins and end. A decade is ten years. Since there was no year zero, ten years is year 1 to 10 and a new decade starts at year 11. In other words, the last decade was 2001 to 2010. We are heading into the end of the decade, not the start of new one.
I guess this mistake isn't as a bad as the Y2K mistake when everyone though January 1, 2000 was the start of the 21st century and the new millennium. Way more people were talking about that as year 2000 approached. It’s a good thing I only have to deal with that once every 1000 years. However, enough people are calling 2010 the start of a new decade to irritate me enough to make this thread.
[quote=Ohim]See you guys really need to educate yourselves.
It’s not really 2010 or 2009, our date is just an arbitrary number it’s more like 13-14,000,000,000 somewhere in that range for the year, [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_Universe[/url]
The only reason we say 2010 is because we decided to start our calendar when Jesus was born. But reality is that if you measure humans then it’s been at least 200,000 years. But if your talking about modern civilization then in “Sumer” aka modern Iraq then the true date is more like 5010.
I know that the next decade begins officaly 2011. My argument is about a definition. I am mathematically right, but a lot of people (you guys) use their own definition.
So a definition is a definition and it is not right or wrong. I can't see that the difference between these two kinds of definitions of a decade has any serious effect on something.[/quote]
I love how you guys rate me dumb like the rest, for once in your lives don't follow the horde and go look it up yourselves.
6 Billion people can't be wrong.
There are 3 paragraphs.. Each one is stating basically the same exact thing..
No one cares, and 9 has 1 digit whereas 10 has 2
no.
Yes they can, the could all be idiots.
Saying they could, not that the OP is right
Actually, you are wrong OP.
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
That's ten years. The year 2000 wasn't part of the 90's.
-snip-
Double post
[QUOTE=Karmah;19353603]Yes they can, the could all be idiots.[/QUOTE]
Or maybe it's just you and OP ?
You been proven wrong why are you still continuing?
You are involving that year 0 isn't part of the very first decade ever.
Which is bullshit imo
Moar useful ratez
It is a new decade. Let us count for you.
2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009,
How many years is that?
OP is rating everyone dumb.
[QUOTE=scriptwanter;19353591]6 Billion people can't be wrong.[/QUOTE]
The entire works of mankind are wrong if a bunch of people on the internet say so.
Look
2000 > 1
2001 > 2
2003 > 3
2004 > 4
2005 > 5
2006 > 6
2007 > 7
2008 > 8
2009 > 9
2010 > 10
10 years a decade is 10 years,
EDIT: Revising my statement. OP is actually right and wrong as the year 0 isn't officialy accounted as a year in this situation. BUT: A decade is by definition 10 years. So for all you care people can say 2015 is a new decade if they started counting from 2005.
You don't count 2000 as part of the 90's, and you won't count 2010 as part of the naughts.
Troll of the decade.
[QUOTE=DarkWolf2;19353694]OP, there has been a year 0, and it is counted for.
So your logic is flawed and you're wrong.[/QUOTE]
No there isn't: [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_0[/url]
OP is actually right. I thought he was wrong at first too. However, we all consider it to be a new decade so OP should too. In a technical sense however, he is right. I don't know why he cares so much... For simplicity's sake, let's consider the start of a new decade.
[quote=wikipedia]The third millennium of the Gregorian calendar began on 1 January 2001, rather than the popularly-celebrated 1 January 2000. This is a direct consequence of the absence of a year zero in the anno Domini era. Had there been a year zero, which might be considered part of the first millennium, then 1 January 2000 would indeed mark 2000 years since the year numbering datum and be the start of the third millennium.
This also applies to centuries and decades. Thus, the 20th century began on 1 January 1901; and the 21st century began on 1 January 2001.[/quote]
looks like you are the one that can't count! :angel:
He's trying to be smart
He's really just an arrogant asshole
OP you're stupid. Were you born a 1 year old?
See you guys really need to educate yourselves.
It’s not really 2010 or 2009, our date is just an arbitrary number it’s more like 13-14,000,000,000 somewhere in that range for the year, [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_Universe[/url]
The only reason we say 2010 is because we decided to start our calendar when Jesus was born. But reality is that if you measure humans then it’s been at least 200,000 years. But if your talking about modern civilization then in “Sumer” aka modern Iraq then the true date is more like 5010.
I know that the next decade begins officaly 2011. My argument is about a definition. I am mathematically right, but a lot of people (you guys) use their own definition.
So a definition is a definition and it is not right or wrong. I can't see that the difference between these two kinds of definitions of a decade has any serious effect on something.
[QUOTE=RBM11;19353716]No there isn't: [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_0[/url][/QUOTE]
You are involving that Wikipedia is a trusted source
Which is bullshit imo
[QUOTE=RBM11;19353716]No there isn't: [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_0[/url][/QUOTE]
Already edited my response:
[QUOTE=DarkWolf2;19353694]EDIT: Revising my statement. OP is actually right and wrong as the year 0 isn't officialy accounted as a year in this situation. BUT: A decade is by definition 10 years. So for all you care people can say 2015 is a new decade if they started counting from 2005.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Ohim;19353582]If you're thinking today is the start of a new decade, you are one year too early. The next decade doesn't start until January 1, 2011. It seems when it comes to the calendar, many people can't count. I remember when everyone thought Y2K was the start of the new millennium. Those are the same people who think the new decade starts on 1st Jan 2010
Simple logic and the ability to count will tell you when a new decade or millennium begins and end. A decade is ten years. Since there was no year zero, ten years is year 1 to 10 and a new decade starts at year 11. In other words, the last decade was 2001 to 2010. We are heading into the end of the decade, not the start of new one.
I guess this mistake isn't as a bad as the Y2K mistake when everyone though January 1, 2000 was the start of the 21st century and the new millennium. Way more people were talking about that as year 2000 approached. It’s a good thing I only have to deal with that once every 1000 years. However, enough people are calling 2010 the start of a new decade to irritate me enough to make this thread.
That is all.[/QUOTE]
Everything in this thread seemed plausible (still bullshit) except this:
[QUOTE=Ohim;19353582]there was no year zero[/QUOTE]
Like I said, there is no reason that he should pretend he is smarter than everyone by knowing this. He is right, but since everyone else says it's the start of a new decade, he should too.
yeah it's a decade because it starts on 2000 like starting on zero
if it helps, notice when a month starts on the first, the next week starts on the eighth and a week is seven days because (1+7 = 8)
so if start on one, which is 2001, the next decade is 2011 (2001 + 10 = 2011)
but the mlimium started on 2000, and 2000 + 10 = 2010 last time I checked
if you wanna be all gay like that you could just say something like every single part of time is a new decade because it has to be 10 years from another point
[QUOTE=Ohim;19353750]See you guys really need to educate yourselves.
Actually, it’s not really 2010 or 2009, our date is just an arbitrary number it’s more like 13-14,000,000,000 somewhere in that range for the year, [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_Universe[/url]
The only reason we say 2010 is because we decided to start our calendar when Jesus was born. But reality is that if you measure humans then it’s been at least 200,000 years. But if your talking about modern civilization then in “Sumer” aka modern Iraq then the true date is more like 5010.
I know that the next decade begins officaly 2011. My argument is about a definition. I am is mathematically right, but a lot of people (you guys) use their own definition.
So a definition is a definition and it is not right or wrong. I can't see that the difference between these two kinds of definitions of a decade has any serious effect on something.[/QUOTE]
The earth's not actually 2010 years old?
:ohdear:
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.