Poll: Are we in a new decade now?

[LeonLethality]

Nope as mentioned in the second response we are one year short of a new decade.

 

[Nouw]

A decade is ten years.

The year counter (not including BC) starts at zero. Zero to nine is ten years; 2000 to 2009 is ten years, 2010 is a new decade.

Well at least someone showed their logic.

OT: It is a New Decade otherwise they wouldn't have all those T.V shows that have "New Decade" in them.

 

[The Shade]

2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009

There's yer decade.

2010 - New game!

 

[DemonicVixen]

2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009

There's yer decade.

2010 - New game!

Oh great. The start of another Decade as well as another year. Why does this day get better? Why am i feeling old considering im only 18 (nearly 19 in April)? I hate new years.

 

[Ocelot GT]

Yes... or no if you think about it...

I mean, a decade is 10 years, and the first year was year 1, therefor the first decade would end at year 11, and so forth...

So no.

No.

For example, what are the 1920's

20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29

the 1920s didnt start at 1921 (as you said it starts with 1)

it all starts with 0. we dont think this because we dont count 0, but 0 years do exist. 2000 for eg.

we are in fact in a new decade, the tens/tennies/teens

It just confuses some people

 

[ReincarnatedFTP]

2010 will be the start of a new decade.
Everything counts from zero.
0-1=year 1
1-2=year 2
and so on.
Basically Midnight Dec 31/Jan 1 2010 is exact 0. Then you start counting decimals until you're at 1 (year 2011).

 

[Maze1125]

It depends purely on definition. In society definitions depend on consensus and the majority of people consider new decades to start on 0 numbers. Therefore I would argue that 2010 is a new decade.

And it's true that our calender started at year 1, but that doesn't matter. There's no rule that says a definition of decade can't cause it to be out of sync with the start of our calender.

 

[manaman]

Basically you are confusing two ways of talking about it. A decade is a period of ten years. So May 10, 1996- May 9, 2005 is a ten year period this is a decade. It starts getting sticking when you start talking about the specific numbered decades.

Better then I can say it, and lifted from a site:

The first decade AD started in the year 1; the second began in year 11. Time marched on. People acknowledged that the 5th century, the fifth set of 100 years since 1 AD, began in 401 AD, the 11th century in 1001, etcetera. But one day somebody started talking about, oh, the "1300s." Linguistically, this is a very different term from "14th century." It refers to the set of a hundred years designated 1300 to 1399. The 1300s include the year 1300, even though 1300 is the last year of the 13th century. Complicated, but I'm sure you can understand the foolishness of trying to claim 1300 isn't in the 1300s. -John Cork, Los Angeles

Now the 202 decade will not begin until 2011, but the teens begins in a little under five hours for me.

 

[SantoUno]

YES, and I'm already tired of people questioning it.

The decade official started in 2000, so 2000-2009 = 10 years, a god damn decade. We are now in the 2nd decade of the 21st century.

 

[Maze1125]

Better then I can say it, and lifted from a site:

The first decade AD started in the year 1; the second began in year 11. Time marched on. People acknowledged that the 5th century, the fifth set of 100 years since 1 AD, began in 401 AD, the 11th century in 1001, etcetera. But one day somebody started talking about, oh, the "1300s." Linguistically, this is a very different term from "14th century." It refers to the set of a hundred years designated 1300 to 1399. The 1300s include the year 1300, even though 1300 is the last year of the 13th century. Complicated, but I'm sure you can understand the foolishness of trying to claim 1300 isn't in the 1300s. -John Cork, Los Angeles

I'd like to see you prove the claim that everyone considered centuries to start at the 1 year rather than the 0 year before anyone considered it to be the other way around.

Now the 202 decade will not begin until 2011, but the teens begins in a little under five hours for me.

No, the teens won't start until 2013.

 

[manaman]

Better then I can say it, and lifted from a site:

The first decade AD started in the year 1; the second began in year 11. Time marched on. People acknowledged that the 5th century, the fifth set of 100 years since 1 AD, began in 401 AD, the 11th century in 1001, etcetera. But one day somebody started talking about, oh, the "1300s." Linguistically, this is a very different term from "14th century." It refers to the set of a hundred years designated 1300 to 1399. The 1300s include the year 1300, even though 1300 is the last year of the 13th century. Complicated, but I'm sure you can understand the foolishness of trying to claim 1300 isn't in the 1300s. -John Cork, Los Angeles

I'd like to see you prove the claim that everyone considered centuries to start at the 1 year rather than the 0 year before anyone considered it to be the other way around.

Now the 202 decade will not begin until 2011, but the teens begins in a little under five hours for me.

No, the teens won't start until 2013.

Well this discusssion is going to go nowhere unless I can verify that you understand a few things.

1st: That the name of the decade is just a name, and they have named it the teens. They could have named it the red wholly years and it wouldn't have mattered because it is just a name. You don't actually think Maze1125 describes your whole and utter being down to crossing all the "t"s and dotting all the "i"s do you?

2nd: That the on the current calendar their was no zero year.

Years 1-1000 Where the first thousand years, so until midnight rolled around and we hit January 1st, 1001 it was still the first millennium. Then we started on the second millennium, and are currently in the third millennium.

Still with me?

So we can break it down to centuries. 1-100 was the First century. An on and on, and you know what around 1400 AD and on until about the 1900's people actually did refer to it by the numbered century like they refered to their cycles before. Around the 1890's-1920's when progress was catching up with everyone and nostalgia changed from a word that synonymous to homesickness to what it means now people started giving the decades cute names. You saw the change pick up like wild fire in news print, and eventually everyone started referring to the century as the 1900's rather then the 20th century. You can see that it was not always this way as some usage of 20th century still occurred until around the 60's when it was fully overshadowed by decade and century names. So yes, the 21st century began on the Jan 1st, 2001, but the year two thousand was the end of the 1900s. I mean you wouldn't tell someone you lived on the 60th block in your city if you actually lived on 70th street now would you? Provided you where trying to be truthful of course.

The current calender was was created in 525 AD by a monk named Dionysius Exiguus, until then most used a roman numbering system that dated from the founding of Rome, or they used a cyclic 15 year calendar, then slowly adopted among the rest of Europe until about 1450 when pretty much everyone was using the calender).

 

[Mozared]

I'm voting 'yes' purely to piss off the annoying people who go "NOOOO ITSNOTANEWDEDACEYET!!!!" everytime it's mentioned.

 

[ayahtzeefan]

we are in a new decade, a decade is 10 years (as you probably already know) but if it started in 2011 that would be 11 years. like how the millennium ended in the year 2000

 

[Fathoms]

YES, and I'm already tired of people questioning it.

The decade official started in 2000, so 2000-2009 = 10 years, a god damn decade. We are now in the 2nd decade of the 21st century.

2009 minus 2000 is 9, not 10. simple math, really... the last day of 1999 was the last day of that decade, and as such, the last day in the year 2010 is the last day of the decade, being that it will have been 10 years since that day.

 

[scnj]

I don't think we are, but the number of people who do is pretty huge, so I'm willing to just roll with it.

 

[Motti]

I think the people who argue that it starts in 2011 are forgetting that the year with a 0 on the end is still on whole year (count how many numbers there are in this sequence: 0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9. Yes, the numbers only go up to nine, but there are ten of them overall). In other words yes, we are in a new decade already.

 

[TOGSolid]

It was once a Jeopardy question as to what the start of the new millenium was: 2000 or 2001. The answer was 2001.

The reason why the 3rd Millennium / 21st Century starts in 2001 is because there was no year 0 (or AD 0, 0 BC). The year before 1 A.D. is defined as year 1 B.C., so year 0 was skipped. (See below. Therefore, January 1st, year 1 is defined to be the start of the 1st century and the 1st Millennium.

Because one Millennium is 1000 years, the first Millennium ends with year 1000. The next (2nd) Millennium starts 1000 years after the first, that is in year 1+1000 = 1001. And the 3rd one starts 1000 years later than the 2nd: 1001+1000 = 2001. The same procedure could be followed for centuries. See the tables below for more information.

Following this logically, since there was no year 0 and the count started one 1 AD, then 2011 is the true start of the next decade.

The only reason 2000/2010 are celebrated as the milestone years is because they're nice, round numbers.

http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/980902d.html
http://www.timeanddate.com/counters/mil2000.html

I'm pretty sure astrophysicists are smarter than us about this.

/thread

 

[Maze1125]

Better then I can say it, and lifted from a site:

The first decade AD started in the year 1; the second began in year 11. Time marched on. People acknowledged that the 5th century, the fifth set of 100 years since 1 AD, began in 401 AD, the 11th century in 1001, etcetera. But one day somebody started talking about, oh, the "1300s." Linguistically, this is a very different term from "14th century." It refers to the set of a hundred years designated 1300 to 1399. The 1300s include the year 1300, even though 1300 is the last year of the 13th century. Complicated, but I'm sure you can understand the foolishness of trying to claim 1300 isn't in the 1300s. -John Cork, Los Angeles

I'd like to see you prove the claim that everyone considered centuries to start at the 1 year rather than the 0 year before anyone considered it to be the other way around.

Now the 202 decade will not begin until 2011, but the teens begins in a little under five hours for me.

No, the teens won't start until 2013.

Well this discusssion is going to go nowhere unless I can verify that you understand a few things.

1st: That the name of the decade is just a name, and they have named it the teens. They could have named it the red wholly years and it wouldn't have mattered because it is just a name. You don't actually think Maze1125 describes your whole and utter being down to crossing all the "t"s and dotting all the "i"s do you?

2nd: That the on the current calendar their was no zero year.

Years 1-1000 Where the first thousand years, so until midnight rolled around and we hit January 1st, 1001 it was still the first millennium. Then we started on the second millennium, and are currently in the third millennium.

Still with me?

So we can break it down to centuries. 1-100 was the First century. An on and on, and you know what around 1400 AD and on until about the 1900's people actually did refer to it by the numbered century like they refered to their cycles before. Around the 1890's-1920's when progress was catching up with everyone and nostalgia changed from a word that synonymous to homesickness to what it means now people started giving the decades cute names. You saw the change pick up like wild fire in news print, and eventually everyone started referring to the century as the 1900's rather then the 20th century. You can see that it was not always this way as some usage of 20th century still occurred until around the 60's when it was fully overshadowed by decade and century names. So yes, the 21st century began on the Jan 1st, 2001, but the year two thousand was the end of the 1900s. I mean you wouldn't tell someone you lived on the 60th block in your city if you actually lived on 70th street now would you? Provided you where trying to be truthful of course.

The current calender was was created in 525 AD by a monk named Dionysius Exiguus, until then most used a roman numbering system that dated from the founding of Rome, or they used a cyclic 15 year calendar, then slowly adopted among the rest of Europe until about 1450 when pretty much everyone was using the calender).

You didn't prove anything. You just said exactly what you'd already said only in a longer winded way with absolutely nothing to back it up.

You have no proof that before the "cute" names, everyone started centuries on the 01 year rather than the 00 year. You're just claiming it.

But you did make one bit of sense, the names are just names. Decades only exist as we define them. So, if the general consensus is to define a decade as 0-9, rather than 1-0, that is what a decade is.

Again, there's no rule that says our definition of a decade can't be out of sync with the start of our calender.

 

[traceur_]

Yes. Because no living person on this planet gives a flying fuck about the first year. We categorize decades starting with a "0 year"

2000 <----- that's the fucking 0 year, that's the start of the fucking decade!
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009

That's 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9 10, ten years, ah! ah!

It is the new decade.