'New Decade'

greenprincess

Why have a seen/heard so many times that we have just stated a new decade?!?!

It isnt a new decade, the decade started last year!!

Really niggly I know but it is really annoying me! :rolleyes:

ejmaztec

Don't you spell it "dickhead"?

smk89

Serious Answer: No decades and centuries start in the xxx1 year according to the Gregorian Calendar as there is no year 0

AH answer: It doesn't matter as the world will end next year

James Forde

i think you're a month late

evercloserunion

Some people think that the decade starts at xxx1 and that xxx0 is part of the previous decade. They're mostly arseholes, I wouldn't worry about it.

wyndham

That would mean the Millenium ended on December 31 2000? Wtf was all the fuss about 1999 for then?

speedboatchase

evercloserunion wrote: »

Some people think that the decade starts at xxx1 and that xxx0 is part of the previous decade. They're mostly arseholes, I wouldn't worry about it.

Ya, hate those people. It's like if 1991 started today, they'd say 'woo, the 90s have begun!'

smk89

bryanjf wrote: »

i think you're a month late

You best do a test to be sure

dsmythy

Some say it starts with the 0, others with the 1. Let people think what they want. Time magazine seem to describe the last decade as 2000-2009 in their 'decade from hell' issue.

LighterGuy

Its stupid alright.
If the new decade started this year that means there was 11 years in the last decade.

Think of it this way:
Jan 1st - Dec 31st 2000 was 1 full year.
Apply the same for 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008 and 2009.

That means Jan 1st 2010 would of been ten years after jan 1st 2000. A decade (obvious I know) but then how can 2011 be the start of a new decade?!?! That means there was 11 years in the last? and no one celebrated the change of a millennium on dec 31st 2000 did they.

barbarians

Year 1- first year
Year 2-second year
Year 3-third year
Year 4-fourth year
Year 5-fifth year
Year 6-sixth year
Year 7-seven year
Year 8-eighth year
Year 9-ninth year
Year 10-tenth year FIRST DECADE

Year 11- eleventh year NEW DECADE BEGINS
*****************************************
Add 2000 years to above theory and this is what you get.

Year 2001- first year (of decade)
Year 2002-second year
Year 2003-third year
Year 2004-fourth year
Year 2005-fifth year
Year 2006-sixth year
Year 2007-seven year
Year 2008-eighth year
Year 2009-ninth year
Year 2010-tenth year FIRST DECADE

Year 2011- eleventh year NEW DECADE BEGINS

#############

For those who think we count from a year zero, you're wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/0_(year)

Only such thing as a year zero are the album,game and other wrong calendars.

Kajor

LighterGuy wrote: »

Its stupid alright.
If the new decade started this year that means there was 11 years in the last decade.

Lol, no it doesn't. It means the previous decade ran from 1991 to 2000...prior to that 1981 to 1990...and so on and so forth.

LighterGuy

then mr barbarians and mr Kajor
why on earth were people celebrating the new millennium on december 31st 1999?

barbarians

LighterGuy wrote: »

Its stupid alright.
If the new decade started this year that means there was 11 years in the last decade.

Think of it this way:
Jan 1st - Dec 31st 2000 was 1 full year.
Apply the same for 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008 and 2009.

That means Jan 1st 2010 would of been ten years after jan 1st 2000. A decade (obvious I know) but then how can 2011 be the start of a new decade?!?! That means there was 11 years in the last? and no one celebrated the change of a millennium on dec 31st 2000 did they.

But in your theory the very first year would be a year zero and that is wrong.

We started counting from B.C. downwards to A.D and it skipped from 1 B.C. to 1 A.D.
There wasn't a year zero in between. If there was is the year zero in B.C. or A.D. ? Or a mystical time in between?

barbarians

LighterGuy wrote: »

then mr barbarians and mr Kajor
why on earth were people celebrating the new millennium on december 31st 1999?

Because people are ignorant.

Kajor

LighterGuy wrote: »

then mr barbarians and mr Kajor
why on earth were people celebrating the new millennium on december 31st 1999?

Peer pressure. lol
(Plus they're awful gobsh*tes )



*Lady Kajor

Aldebaran

A decade is any period of ten years. Technically, every day is the start of a new decade.

/unnecessary pedantry

LighterGuy

barbarians wrote: »

Because people are ignorant.

Ignorant or a universal confusion that has gone around.

You have to admit its stupid. We wait until "1" of the "decade" to officially begin.

Kajor

Aldebaran wrote: »

A decade is any period of ten years. Technically, every day is the start of a new decade.

/unnecessary pedantry

Entirely correct

/mathematical lesson

barbarians

Well in that case is it stupid that the year 2011 is in the 21st century ?

It's not stupid, it's logical and right.

The 'noughties' decade went from 2001 to 2010 and this decade will go from 2011 to 2020.

Kajor

barbarians wrote: »

Well in that case is it stupid that the year 2011 is in the 21st century ?

It's nor stupid, it's logical and right.

The 'noughties' decade went from 2001 to 2010 and this decade will go from 2011 to 2020.

Technical and colloquial usage are entirely different things. To a point they are incomparable.

barbarians

Aldebaran wrote: »

A decade is any period of ten years. Technically, every day is the start of a new decade.

/unnecessary pedantry

You can use this if you want to be the ultimate pedantic pr!ck and really rub people up the wrong way.

Aldebaran

barbarians wrote: »

You can use this if you want to be the ultimate pedantic pr!ck and really rub people up the wrong way.

You can also use it if you want to be correct.

Fremen

This decade is as far from the 90's as the 90's were from the 70's.
As someone born in the 80's, I find that idea very disturbing.

ShooterSF

It depends what you mean by new decade. Some see XXX0 - XXX9 as a decade whereas others start counting from 1AD which would mean this year is the start of a new decade. 2000 was only a new millennium using the first approach where you pick a start point other that 1AD.

LighterGuy

It is stupid. Despite what you think. You are applying calculation.. which is logical. Not arguing with that. but you are forgetting one thing:

Do you think people waited until jan 1st 1991 to say "the 80s is over"

People count a decade by ten. By numerical order. Remember back to what you were doing in 2000. Have you ever referred to that as the 90s? I doubt it.

barbarians

Aldebaran wrote: »

You can also use it if you want to be correct.

I'm not saying you're wrong.

barbarians

LighterGuy wrote: »

It is stupid. Despite what you think. You are applying calculation.. which is logical. Not arguing with that. but you are forgetting one thing:

Do you think people waited until jan 1st 1991 to say "the 80s is over"

People count a decade by ten. By numerical order. Remember back to what you were doing in 2000. Have you ever referred to that as the 90s? I doubt it.

No, they'd probably wait and say "the '80s are over".

I'm not old enough to remember what I was doing in 2000 so i can't answer the last question.

It may seem stupid but maintaining that this is not a new decade actually is stupid.

nyarlothothep

Believe it or not the 90s didn't end until 2003, that was when the cultural effect of the 90s ran out of steam and was replaced by 00s culture. TV shows like Buffy the Vampire Slayer ended in 2003 and bands from the 90s disbanded in that year like Suede. Similarly the 80s can be classified as the genesis 80s, 1977-1983, when you had a kind of continuation of the 70s with punk and new wave, but separate from the 70s, and the high 80s, 1984-1989 with Wall Street and synth pop. The 70s lasted from 1968-1976, with heavy rock, long hair and liberalism. The new decade therefore hasn't begun yet, we're still in the 00s culturally but its a transitionary period. This could be called the genesis tens although what its genesising into is anyones guess.

greenprincess

barbarians wrote: »

Well in that case is it stupid that the year 2011 is in the 21st century ?

It's not stupid, it's logical and right.

The 'noughties' decade went from 2001 to 2010 and this decade will go from 2011 to 2020.

So would you call 1970 part of the 60's?

It is just a stupid little thing that annoyed me! I have seen a few sale signs over in various places over the past few weeks saying it was a new decade when clearly it isnt!

Johro

barbarians wrote: »

You can use this if you want to be the ultimate pedantic pr!ck and really rub people up the wrong way.

Yay!
'A decade is any period of ten years. Technically, every day is the start of a new decade.'
Woohoo! \o/

Pherekydes

People didn't start at year 1 because the current dating system was only invented in 525.

It's completely absurd to say that the twenties includes the year (19)30.

And to those who think we don't start at zero answer me this: What age are you on your second birthday?

barbarians

greenprincess wrote: »

So would you call 1970 part of the 60's?

Yes.

barbarians

Pherekydes wrote: »

People didn't start at year 1 because the current dating system was only invented in 525.

It's completely absurd to say that the twenties includes the year (19)30.

Not really.

Pherekydes wrote: »

And to those who think we don't start at zero answer me this: What age are you on your second birthday?

You're two.

You live full two years of your life so you're a full two years.
Decades are a period of ten full years (and in this case we're talking the set decades that everybody recognises rather Albedaran's theory which is also right) and since we count from year one we end the decade at year eleven and the new decade begins again at ---1 e.g. 2011.

PeakOutput

Pherekydes wrote: »

And to those who think we don't start at zero answer me this: What age are you on your second birthday?

how is that a like comparison?

a person starts at zero

the calendar started at 1

its fairly simple to understand really

technically the new decade started this year

we have generally decided to celebrate the decade as between the years with 0 at the end, its not a big deal but it is technically wrong

evercloserunion

barbarians wrote: »

For those who think we count from a year zero, you're wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/0_(year)

Only such thing as a year zero are the album,game and other wrong calendars.

Oh, I'm well aware that there are reasons for counting from year 1 instead of year 0 of a decade, they're just not good ones. Language transforms over time. Society today pretty much unanimously deems decades/centuries/millenniums* to start from 0, not 1. Hence celebrating the new millennium at the start of 01/01/2000. To insist otherwise is archaic and amounts to being contrary for the sake of it (or for the sake of feeling superior, maybe).


*Again, also an acceptable spelling.

barbarians

evercloserunion wrote: »

Oh, I'm well aware that there are reasons for counting from year 1 instead of year 0 of a decade, they're just not good ones.

Ehh, yes they are.

evercloserunion wrote: »

Language transforms over time. Society today pretty much unanimously deems decades/centuries/millenniums* to start from 0, not 1. Hence celebrating the new millennium at the start of 01/01/2000. To insist otherwise is archaic and amounts to being contrary for the sake of it (or for the sake of feeling superior, maybe).


*Again, also an acceptable spelling.

Well, it's just pointing out something which people are ignorant of.


I mean how hard is it to accept that this is a new decade ?
We're not going to kill you if you don't, you're just wrong if you don't.

evercloserunion

Ehh, yes they are.

Maybe "they're just not as good as the reasons for counting from year 0" would be more appropriate.

Well, it's just pointing out something which people are ignorant of.


I mean how hard is it to accept that this is a new decade ?
We're not going to kill you if you don't, you're just wrong if you don't.

And hardly anyone accepts it, therefore pretty much everyone except you is wrong, which makes you superior right?

Except that choosing when a decade starts is pretty much a matter of social convention, and society unanimously disagrees with you on this. You're wrong, sorry.

rubadub

greenprincess wrote: »

So would you call 1970 part of the 60's?

Exactly, if somebody said they were born in the 60's and it turned out they were born in 1970 they would sound like a pedantic arsehole. It is the naming of the decades like this which makes the majority of people say the new decade started on the 0, it obviously makes more sense to most.

It would be similar to a pedant saying "you do not weigh 80kg, the kilogram is a unit of mass"

barbarians wrote: »

Well, it's just pointing out something which people are ignorant of.


I mean how hard is it to accept that this is a new decade ?

Many are not ignorant about it, and they just accept that the majority of people will call 2010 the start of the new decade, it makes sense to most people -its not that hard to accept it or understand the reasoning why.

So there was no year zero, if they decided it started on year 7 then year 17 would be the start of the second decade. But only the pedants would be waiting until 2007 to celebrate the "real new millennium"

barbarians

evercloserunion wrote: »

Maybe "they're just not as good as the reasons for counting from year 0" would be more appropriate.

And hardly anyone accepts it, therefore pretty much everyone except you is wrong, which makes you superior right?

Except that choosing when a decade starts is pretty much a matter of social convention, and society unanimously disagrees with you on this. You're wrong, sorry.

Just because it's more convenient one way doesn't make that way right.
And I'm not alone as you suggest there at least another 10 people on this thread who agree with me and anyone who actually uses logic when talking about the subject come to the conclusion that we are in a new decade.I'm not trying to be superior, I'm just trying to be right.(Which I am)

It is more convenient for society to call the decades as it is, but it's wrong.

And you're wrong. Sorry.

Mr Benevolent

bryanjf wrote: »

i think you're a month late

The OP is pregnant? Somebody better tell them!

barbarians

rubadub wrote: »

Exactly, if somebody said they were born in the 60's and it turned out they were born in 1970 they would sound like a pedantic arsehole. It is the naming of the decades like this which makes the majority of people say the new decade started on the 0, it obviously makes more sense to most.

It would be similar to a pedant saying "you do not weigh 80kg, the kilogram is a unit of mass"

Many are not ignorant about it, and they just accept that the majority of people will call 2010 the start of the new decade, it makes sense to most people -its not that hard to accept it or understand the reasoning why.

So there was no year zero, if they decided it started on year 7 then year 17 would be the start of the second decade. But only the pedants would be waiting until 2007 to celebrate the "real new millennium"

Yes people like me would say that decades started with on ---7.
We're pedantic, we're right.
We are in a decade technically, socially that may not be true but technicalities are what matter.

evercloserunion

barbarians wrote: »

Just because it's more convenient one way doesn't make that way right.
And I'm not alone as you suggest there at least another 10 people on this thread who agree with me and anyone who actually uses logic when talking about the subject come to the conclusion that we are in a new decade.I'm not trying to be superior, I'm just trying to be right.(Which I am)

It is more convenient for society to call the decades as it is, but it's wrong.

And you're wrong. Sorry.

I appreciate that you think you are correct, but that does not make it so.

It's you vs society on the definition of a social convention. Society is, pretty much by definition, correct. You claim you are using logic, but I disagree. I acknowledge that you are using numbers, but that does not necessarily make your arguments logical. I do not see the logic in what you are saying.

I think Wikipedia may help clear up some of the confusion here:

Although any period of 10 years is a decade,[2][3] a convenient and frequently referenced interval is based on the tens digit of the calendar year, as in using "1960s" to represent the decade from 1960 to 1969.[4][5] Often, for brevity, only the tens part is mentioned (60s or sixties), although this may leave it uncertain which century is meant. These references are frequently used to encapsulate popular culture or other widespread phenomena that dominated such a decade, as in The Great Depression of the 1930s.
Since the common calendar starts from the year 1, its first full decade contained the years from 1 to 10, the second decade from 11 to 20, and so on.[6] So while the "1960s" comprises the years 1960 to 1969, the "197th decade" spans 1961 to 1970.

See also Wikipedia's List of decades, which uses the 0-9 method of categorising decades.

Now, if someone said that the nth decade began in 2010, they would be wrong. Your problem is that people don't say that. When people talk about "decades" (and are not referring to a generic period of any ten years) they are talking about, eg, the sixties or the seventies or the eighties, not the 197th decade or the 198th decade or the 199th decade.

Again: Choosing when a decade starts and ends is a matter of social convention. Society uses the 0-9 paradigm. You are free to use whatever paradigm you like, but society is not wrong by virtue of your decision to do so.

evercloserunion

We are in a decade technically, socially that may not be true but technicalities are what matter.

Perhaps you'd like to explain why.

dxhound2005

What about centuries? Was the year 1900 in the 19th century or the 20th? If you say 19th that means the first year/decade of the 20th century began on 1 January 1901 making 1 January 2011 the start of a new decade. If you say 20th that makes 1899 the last year of the 19th century. That couldn't be right if you accept that there must be 1900 years in 19 centuries.

barbarians

evercloserunion wrote: »

Perhaps you'd like to explain why.

For society it is neater and easier to say 2000-2009 was the 'noughties' decade.
Logically and in reality it was really from 2001-2010.

I'm willing to let people say the 'noughties' decade was from said years but trying to argue it logically doesn't wash.

And if society is right by everything in definition, does that mean smoking cigarettes is right ? If anything it's wrong, because of its the harm it causes.

And really it was when decades start was my problem not so much about the 1960s which was on a side note.

barbarians

dxhound2005 wrote: »

What about centuries? Was the year 1900 in the 19th century or the 20th? If you say 19th that means the first year/decade of the 20th century began on 1 January 1901 making 1 January 2011 the start of a new decade. If you say 20th that makes 1899 the last year of the 19th century. That couldn't be right if you accept that there must be 1900 years in 19 centuries.

Exactly.

LighterGuy

barbarians wrote: »

For society it is neater and easier to say 2000-2009 was the 'noughties' decade.
Logically and in reality it was really from 2001-2010.

I'm willing to let people say the 'noughties' decade was from said years but trying to argue it logically doesn't wash.

And if society is right by everything in definition, does that mean smoking cigarettes is right ? If anything it's wrong, because of its the harm it causes.

And really it was when decades start was my problem not so much about the 1960s which was on a side note.

barbarians, there is voicing your opinion and then going on and on wanting to prove to other people you are "right" :rolleyes:

evercloserunion

For society it is neater and easier to say 2000-2009 was the 'noughties' decade.
Logically and in reality it was really from 2001-2010.

There is nothing illogical about obeying social convention when referring to time periods. On the contrary, insisting on using phraseology that nobody else uses when communicating with others is illogical.

I'm willing to let people say the 'noughties' decade was from said years but trying to argue it logically doesn't wash.

Thank you so much for letting people say that, you are a kind and benevolent leader.

And if society is right by everything in definition, does that mean smoking cigarettes is right ? If anything it's wrong, because of its the harm it causes.

Morally right is not the same as being right in your description or definition of a social norm. The analogy is absurd and highly illogical.

And really it was when decades start was my problem not so much about the 1960s which was on a side note.

You have not answered the central question, which is, what decade? Technically, decades start any time, as we have seen. So why is it significant to say that "a new decade begins this year"? It is significant because when people say "a new decade begins" they are referring to the beginning of a time period which society deems significant.

It's not that nobody is grasping your logic, it's that you are missing the point. What people refer to when they say "this decade", "the last decade", "a new decade" etc is not the same decade you are referring to. There are several ways to look at when a decade starts and ends. You are choosing one which nobody else uses so that you can say that everyone else is "wrong" when in fact that simply have a different point of reference to you.

dxhound2005

evercloserunion wrote: »

There is nothing illogical about obeying social convention when referring to time periods. On the contrary, insisting on using phraseology that nobody else uses when communicating with others is illogical.


Thank you so much for letting people say that, you are a kind and benevolent leader.


Morally right is not the same as being right in your description or definition of a social norm. The analogy is absurd and highly illogical.


You have not answered the central question, which is, what decade? Technically, decades start any time, as we have seen. So why is it significant to say that "a new decade begins this year"? It is significant because when people say "a new decade begins" they are referring to the beginning of a time period which society deems significant.

It's not that nobody is grasping your logic, it's that you are missing the point. What people refer to when they say "this decade", "the last decade", "a new decade" etc is not the same decade you are referring to. There are several ways to look at when a decade starts and ends. You are choosing one which nobody else uses so that you can say that everyone else is "wrong" when in fact that simply have a different point of reference to you.

That doesn't match up with the OP:

Why have a seen/heard so many times that we have just stated a new decade?!?!

barbarians

evercloserunion wrote: »

There is nothing illogical about obeying social convention when referring to time periods. On the contrary, insisting on using phraseology that nobody else uses when communicating with others is illogical.


Thank you so much for letting people say that, you are a kind and benevolent leader.


Morally right is not the same as being right in your description or definition of a social norm. The analogy is absurd and highly illogical.


You have not answered the central question, which is, what decade? Technically, decades start any time, as we have seen. So why is it significant to say that "a new decade begins this year"? It is significant because when people say "a new decade begins" they are referring to the beginning of a time period which society deems significant.

It's not that nobody is grasping your logic, it's that you are missing the point. What people refer to when they say "this decade", "the last decade", "a new decade" etc is not the same decade you are referring to. There are several ways to look at when a decade starts and ends. You are choosing one which nobody else uses so that you can say that everyone else is "wrong" when in fact that simply have a different point of reference to you.

But see there are actually many people who agree with me.

Anyway if we're going to have this "different point of reference", does that not basically end the debate as "everyone is entitled to their opinion" ?