End of the decade Dec 31, 2009 or Dec 31, 2010?

[HeadCone 0]

Quote

Before my first jump, I had 0, then I jumped, so I had 1... but the count still started at 0

Good. The first instance of something is labeled as 1. That's what we've been saying. You don't call your first skydive 'Jump 0'; you call it 'Jump 1'. Likewise, you don't call the first year 'Year 0'; it's 'Year 1'. From there it's a simple counting operation to go from decade to decade (or century to century, or millennium to millennium).

--
Turn off the internet! Join Citizens United Negating Technology For Life And People's Safety!

http://www.citizensunitednegatingtechnology.org/

[HeadCone 0]

Quote

Dec 31, 2009 23:59:59 is the end of the decade.

Jan 1, 2010 0:00:00 is the start of the new.

You might call that the end of the 'oughts' and the beginning of the 'tens'. That is not, however, the end of the 201st decade and the beginning of the 202nd decade.

--
Turn off the internet! Join Citizens United Negating Technology For Life And People's Safety!

http://www.citizensunitednegatingtechnology.org/

[theonlyski 3]

Quote

Quote

Before my first jump, I had 0, then I jumped, so I had 1... but the count still started at 0

Good. The first instance of something is labeled as 1. That's what we've been saying. You don't call your first skydive 'Jump 0'; you call it 'Jump 1'. Likewise, you don't call the first year 'Year 0'; it's 'Year 1'. From there it's a simple counting operation to go from decade to decade (or century to century, or millennium to millennium).

But its not a year, until the year is done... a year is 365 days, not one... so up until the 365th day, its not one year yet.

Not getting into leap years here...

"I may be a dirty pirate hooker...but I'm not about to go stand on the corner." iluvtofly
DPH -7, TDS 578, Muff 5153, SCR 14890
I'm an asshole, and I approve this message

[HeadCone 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Before my first jump, I had 0, then I jumped, so I had 1... but the count still started at 0

Good. The first instance of something is labeled as 1. That's what we've been saying. You don't call your first skydive 'Jump 0'; you call it 'Jump 1'. Likewise, you don't call the first year 'Year 0'; it's 'Year 1'. From there it's a simple counting operation to go from decade to decade (or century to century, or millennium to millennium).

But its not a year, until the year is done... a year is 365 days, not one... so up until the 365th day, its not one year yet.

Not getting into leap years here...

Year 1 wasn't over until 12/31/0001. So what?

Prior to making your first skydive, did you tell people you were going to make your first jump or your zeroth jump?

--
Turn off the internet! Join Citizens United Negating Technology For Life And People's Safety!

http://www.citizensunitednegatingtechnology.org/

[theonlyski 3]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Before my first jump, I had 0, then I jumped, so I had 1... but the count still started at 0

Good. The first instance of something is labeled as 1. That's what we've been saying. You don't call your first skydive 'Jump 0'; you call it 'Jump 1'. Likewise, you don't call the first year 'Year 0'; it's 'Year 1'. From there it's a simple counting operation to go from decade to decade (or century to century, or millennium to millennium).

But its not a year, until the year is done... a year is 365 days, not one... so up until the 365th day, its not one year yet.

Not getting into leap years here...

Year 1 wasn't over until 12/31/0001. So what?

Prior to making your first skydive, did you tell people you were going to make your first jump or your zeroth jump?

The first year wasnt over till 1/1/0001... which is when year 1 started, which was the second year.

"I may be a dirty pirate hooker...but I'm not about to go stand on the corner." iluvtofly
DPH -7, TDS 578, Muff 5153, SCR 14890
I'm an asshole, and I approve this message

[warpedskydiver 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Before my first jump, I had 0, then I jumped, so I had 1... but the count still started at 0

Good. The first instance of something is labeled as 1. That's what we've been saying. You don't call your first skydive 'Jump 0'; you call it 'Jump 1'. Likewise, you don't call the first year 'Year 0'; it's 'Year 1'. From there it's a simple counting operation to go from decade to decade (or century to century, or millennium to millennium).

But its not a year, until the year is done... a year is 365 days, not one... so up until the 365th day, its not one year yet.

Not getting into leap years here...

Year 1 wasn't over until 12/31/0001. So what?

Prior to making your first skydive, did you tell people you were going to make your first jump or your zeroth jump?

The first year wasnt over till 1/1/0001... which is when year 1 started, which was the second year.

Correct, this is the only example of this phenomenon that cannot be disputed.

What someone calls something and what is represented numerically is two different things.

[HeadCone 0]

Quote

The first year wasnt over till 1/1/0001... which is when year 1 started, which was the second year.

Nope. The calendar currently in use is the Gregorian one. According to that calendar, the current year is 2010 AD. Prior to that was 2009 AD. On and on until 1 AD. Prior to that was 1 BC. Prior to that was 2 BC and so on. I didn't make that up. Some dude long ago did. Believe it or not, like it or not, that's the way it works.

Given that, it's a simple count to know that we're currently in the 3 millennium, 21st century, 201st decade (which ends this year), and 2,010th year.

If a year zero is really that important to you, then by all means, switch to a different calendar that uses one.

--
Turn off the internet! Join Citizens United Negating Technology For Life And People's Safety!

http://www.citizensunitednegatingtechnology.org/

[Squeak 17]

Quote

The first year wasnt over till 1/1/0001... which is when year 1 started, which was the second year.

Correct, this is the only example of this phenomenon that cannot be disputed.

What someone calls something and what is represented numerically is two different things.
it's like talking to masonry
from Jan 1 AD until Dec 31st AD you are IN YEAR 1, year one is not complete until the end of Jan 31 but you are still IN your 1st year,
NOT FUCKING YEAR ZERO

You are not now, nor will you ever be, good enough to not die in this sport (Sparky)
My Life ROCKS!
How's yours doing?

[warpedskydiver 0]

A year did not even exist at that point, don't be a dork.


All that was occurring was the passing of time, the actual year did not arrive for some time.

Earth did not exist, therefore there was not a year to be had.

Want some citations to choke on??

A year only come from the orbit of the earth around the sun, so if the earth did not exist how the hell was there a year?

I guess if I call my professor who is an astrophysicist that worked at the Smithsonian and NASA and get her to tell you you will still say you are right.

I mean what would she know anyways compared to an Aussie?

[Squeak 17]

Quote

A year did not even exist at that point, don't be a dork.


All that was occurring was the passing of time, the actual year did not arrive for some time.

Earth did not exist, therefore there was not a year to be had.

Want some citations to choke on??

A year only come from the orbit of the earth around the sun, so if the earth did not exist how the hell was there a year?

Read my post again, dont be a clown, AD

You are not now, nor will you ever be, good enough to not die in this sport (Sparky)
My Life ROCKS!
How's yours doing?

[HeadCone 0]

Quote

A year did not even exist at that point, don't be a dork.


All that was occurring was the passing of time, the actual year did not arrive for some time.

Earth did not exist, therefore there was not a year to be had.

Want some citations to choke on??

A year only come from the orbit of the earth around the sun, so if the earth did not exist how the hell was there a year?

I guess if I call my professor who is an astrophysicist that worked at the Smithsonian and NASA and get her to tell you you will still say you are right.

I mean what would she know anyways compared to an Aussie?

Your astrophysicist buddy will tell you that there are different ways to measure years. One is how long it takes the earth to revolve around the sun called a Tropical Year:

"tropical year
(NASA SP-7, 1965)
The period of one revolution of the earth around the sun, with respect to the vernal equinox. Because of precession of the equinoxes, the tropical year is not 360 degrees with respect to the stars, but 50 minutes 0.3 seconds less. A tropical year is about 20 minutes shorter than a sidereal year, averaging 365 days 5 hours 48 minutes 45.68 seconds in 1955 and is increasing at the rate of 0.005305 second annually. Also called astronomical, equinoctial, natural, or solar year."

Source: http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/hqlibrary/aerospacedictionary/aerodictall/t.html#tropical%20year

She'll also tell you that there's a Calendar Year:

"calendar year
(NASA SP-7, 1965)
The year of the Gregorian calendar, common years having 365 days and leap years 366 days.
Each year exactly divisible by 4 is a leap year, except century years (1800, 1900, etc.), which must be exactly divisible by 400 (2000, 2400, etc.) to be leap years. The calendar year is based on the tropical year. Also called civil year."

Source: http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/hqlibrary/aerospacedictionary/aerodictall/c.html#calendar%20year

Clearly, the OP is giving dates on the Gregorian calendar. That's the normal thing to do and doesn't need to be explicitly spelled out.

And finally, your astrophysicist buddy will tell you that there is no year zero:

http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/980902d.html

--
Turn off the internet! Join Citizens United Negating Technology For Life And People's Safety!

http://www.citizensunitednegatingtechnology.org/

[rhys 0]

Quote

The Zero is important if you want to go to negative numbers, it's not important in dates and calenders .

Now stop adding to this thread, you aren't helping and you are digging deeper

We need a bonafide historian that knows about the shift from roman numerals to the hindu arabic system that happened just over 1000 years ago.

The answer to this debate really depends on whether or not the people that were resposasble for the 'changover' allowed for this factor.

I believe the zero was so important to them at the time, that they would have. But that is just a guess.

A queston for you skittles, if the year 'zero' was not allowed for, when a scientist talks about BP (before present) what happens to that year?

You were not 1 year old until you had lived for a year, we use that numbering system for dates, the symbols 2010 are hindu arabic, so wouldn't the symbols be consistent when counting backawards from now until a point before christ?

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix

[warpedskydiver 0]

Your post is nit picking and using Gregorian dates.

So stop while you are ahead, she is far more qualified to speak on the topic than the PA official who posted that.

Year ZERO was the time following the big bang, a year had not come into existance.

I am speaking about timelines and have not strayed, yet you want to apply some sort of ridiculous date to that chunk of elapsed time.

We are talking about 15 Billion years back in earth time.

If we use this fact to measure back to the center of the universe we can locate where the big bang occurred.

Using your method of measurement would not only result in an error but would confuse things so horribly it would make everything pointless.

[Squeak 17]

Quote

Your post is nit picking and using Gregorian dates.

So stop while you are ahead, she is far more qualified to speak on the topic than the PA official who posted that.

Year ZERO was the time following the big bang, a year had not come into existance.

I am speaking about timelines and have not strayed, yet you want to apply some sort of ridiculous date to that chunk of elapsed time.

We are talking about 15 Billion years back in earth time.

If we use this fact to measure back to the center of the universe we can locate where the big bang occurred.

Using your method of measurement would not only result in an error but would confuse things so horribly it would make everything pointless.

That's a hell of a lot of words to say practically nothing. and year Zero NEVER EXISTED.
Think about it dude you are trying to say that zero (a nothing) is a something
From the moment that space and time (they are linked) came into existence we started the first year, using our current method of time measurement.
Year Zero is a nonsense. it didn't and can't ever exist

You are not now, nor will you ever be, good enough to not die in this sport (Sparky)
My Life ROCKS!
How's yours doing?

[warpedskydiver 0]

You fail to concede that while time had existed a year had not even occurred.

So in other words you would fail by a light year or 0.306391546 Parsecs, it is a good thing you don't have to walk that distance.

[Squeak 17]

Quote

You fail to concede that while time had existed a year had not even occurred.

So in other words you would fail by a light year or 0.306391546 Parsecs, it is a good thing you don't have to walk that distance.

we can not measure time by anything BUT the time units we currently have (including parsecs).
THEREFORE once Time HAS begun we are IN year one, regardless of how much into it we are we are still IN it.

So again there is NO YEAR ZERO


Only Zero comprehension

You are not now, nor will you ever be, good enough to not die in this sport (Sparky)
My Life ROCKS!
How's yours doing?

[Bolas 5]

Quote

Quote

You fail to concede that while time had existed a year had not even occurred.

So in other words you would fail by a light year or 0.306391546 Parsecs, it is a good thing you don't have to walk that distance.

we can not measure time by anything BUT the time units we currently have (including parsecs).
THEREFORE once Time HAS begun we are IN year one, regardless of how much into it we are we are still IN it.

So again there is NO YEAR ZERO


Only Zero comprehension

In that first year, we are in heading towards year 1, but years elaspsed is still 0.

Sorta like we are now 6 days into this decade,

My head hurts.

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

[warpedskydiver 0]

At least you get it, it may get called year one but the year was not even in existence, year zero would be mathematically correct.

[Squeak 17]

Quote

At least you get it, it may get called year one but the year was not even in existence, year zero would be mathematically correct.

See that's my whole point MATHEMATICALLY it is INCORRECT, there is NO YEAR ZERO


Look at it this way, we are in the 1st week (week one) of 2010 we are not in week Zero of 2010.
We have yet to complete week one but we are still in it. Chronologically mathematically everywayically

You are not now, nor will you ever be, good enough to not die in this sport (Sparky)
My Life ROCKS!
How's yours doing?

[The_Don 0]

Time for the glue factory...

This horse is BEYOND dead.

I am NOT being loud.
I'm being enthusiastic!

[Bolas 5]

Quote

Time for the glue factory...

This horse is BEYOND dead.

Irrelevant...

Quote

The tribal wisdom of the Dakota Indians, passed on from generation to generation, says that, “When you discover that you are riding a dead horse, the best strategy is to dismount.”

However, in government, in corporate America, more advanced strategies are often employed, such as:

1. Buying a stronger whip.
2. Changing riders.
3. Appointing a committee to study the horse.
4. Arranging to visit other countries to see how other cultures ride horses.
5. Lowering the standards so that dead horses can be more productive.
6. Reclassifying the dead horse as “living-impaired.”
7. Hiring outside contractors to lift the dead horse and move its legs.
8. Harnessing several dead horses together to increase speed.
9. Providing additional funding and/or training to increase the dead horse’s performance.
10. Doing a productivity study to see if lighter riders would improve the dead horse’s performance.
11. Declaring that as the dead horse does not have to be fed, it is less costly, carries lower overhead, and therefore, contributes substantially more to the bottom line of the economy than do some other horses.
12. Rewriting the expected performance requirements for all horses.
And of course…
13. Promoting the dead horse to a supervisory position…

Quote

Dakota tribal wisdom says that when you discover you are riding a dead horse, the best strategy is to dismount. In business, however, it seems that we often try other strategies with dead horses, including the following:


1. Buying a stronger whip.
2. Changing riders.
3. Saying things like "This is the way we always have ridden this horse."
4. Appointing a committee to study the horse.
5. Arranging to visit other sites to see how they ride dead horses.
6. Increasing the standards to ride dead horses.
7. Appointing a tiger team to revive the dead horse.
8. Creating a training session to increase our riding ability.
9. Comparing the state of dead horses in today's environment.
10. Change the requirements declaring that "This horse is not dead."
11. Hire contractors to ride the dead horse.
12. Harnessing several dead horses together for increased speed.
13. Declaring that "No horse is too dead to beat."
14. Providing additional funding to increase the horse's performance.
15. Do a CA Study to see if contractors can ride it cheaper.
16. Purchase a product to make dead horses run faster.
17. Declare the horse is "better, faster and cheaper" dead.
18. Form a quality circle to find uses for dead horses.
19. Revisit the performance requirements for horses.
20. Say this horse was procured with cost as an independent variable.
21. Promote the dead horse to a supervisory position.

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

Quote

I'm sittin' LMAO at the bozos.

Let me ask them..

If you are counting Jan 1, 2000 as the start of the decade, how can you count Jan 1, 2010 as the end? What date starts the next decade? Jan 2?

ROTFLMAO

Except that those of us in the know don't count Jan 1, 2000 as the beginning of the decade. Jan 1, 2000 is the start of the final year of the decade. Jan 1, 2001 was the start of the decade (and century and millenium) therefore the end of the current decade is Dec 31, 2010.

Poor guy. Still don't get it, eh?
Why do you insist on NOT counting the first year?
Where does Jan1-Dec31 fit into your scheme?


Jan1, 1900-Dec31, 1900 = 1 year completed.
Jan 1901 starts the next year.

Jan1, 1900-Dec31, 1909 = 10 years completed.
Jan 1910 starts the next decade.

Jan1, 1900-Dec31, 1999 = 100 years completed.
Jan 1, 2000 starts the next century.

Jan1, 1000-Dec31 1999 = 1 millennium completed.
Jan 1, 2000 starts the next millennium.

"The majority popular approach was to treat the end of 1999 as the end of a millennium, and to hold millennium celebrations at midnight between December 31, 1999 and January 1, 2000".

You're a minority group.

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

Time for the glue factory...

This horse is BEYOND dead.

Don't be a spoil-sport.

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[HeadCone 0]

Quote

Your post is nit picking and using Gregorian dates.

So stop while you are ahead, she is far more qualified to speak on the topic than the PA official who posted that.

Year ZERO was the time following the big bang, a year had not come into existance.

I am speaking about timelines and have not strayed, yet you want to apply some sort of ridiculous date to that chunk of elapsed time.

We are talking about 15 Billion years back in earth time.

If we use this fact to measure back to the center of the universe we can locate where the big bang occurred.

Using your method of measurement would not only result in an error but would confuse things so horribly it would make everything pointless.

1. Your astrophysicist buddy will tell you the same thing I did.

2. We are talking about the Gregorian calendar because that's what the OP is about. Even so, if you want to enumerate the years starting at the Big Bang, it makes perfect sense to call the first year 'Year 1'. That's what people do when they count things. The first one is 1. The second one is 2. etc...

3. The Gregorian calendar goes back to 1 AD with the year prior to that being 1 BC. Love it or hate it, that's the way that it is.

4. There's this argument that goes something like: "You can't say there's a year 1 until the first year is over with." This is nonsense. There's a difference between enumerating/labelling the years versus measuring time. For example, from the time a person is born until their first birthday, yes, they would be 0 years old (if you were giving their age in years instead of the more normal days/months). On their first birthday, they turn 1. On their second birthday, they turn 2. That's age - a measure of time duration. That's not the same thing as enumerating the years. When a person is born, they enter into the first year (Year 1) of their life. Once Year 1 is overwith, they enter into Year 2. etc...

--
Turn off the internet! Join Citizens United Negating Technology For Life And People's Safety!

http://www.citizensunitednegatingtechnology.org/

[Squeak 17]

Quote

For example, from the time a person is born until their first birthday, yes, they would be 0 years old (if you were giving their age in years instead of the more normal days/months). On their first birthday, they turn 1.

They're not ZERO years old in any respect there IS NO zero years

You are not now, nor will you ever be, good enough to not die in this sport (Sparky)
My Life ROCKS!
How's yours doing?