Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: dragonsniper on March 24, 2010, 09:33:04 pm
-
Ok, while looking in the oddest of places, I stumbled on this... can anyone make heads or tails of this? ;) If you can, discuss if you have any pointers to make.
New Decade? I don’t think so.
PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT FOR THE GOOD OF MANKIND
I swear if I see or hear one more person make a fool of themselves on national radio or TV by saying that 2010 is the start of a new decade, I’ll just lose it.
People, there was no year 0. And in principle (forget about science, programming etc) you start counting from 1, not from 0.
So the 1st decade of the 1st century is 1 AD to 10 AD.
Subsequently, the 1st decade of the 20th century is 2001 AD to 2010 AD (12-31-2010 to be exact).
Which means that the new UPCOMING decade – which just so happens to be the 2nd decade of the 21st century – doesn’t START until 01-01-2011.
So please save your jubilation for 01-01-2011. And while you’re at it, stay OFF the damn airwaves with this crap!!!
It is bad enough that we’re all screwing around celebrating 12-25 as the birth of Christ when in fact the date has more in common with those crazy partying Romans than it does with anything Holy.
None of this matters now anyway, since according to the scholastic loons who are *gasp* [mis]interpreting the Mayans, the world is going to end in 2012 anyway. So I guess it does make sense to speed things along with fuzzy math because after all, thats what history is all about.
-Derek Smart
-
I dunno about all this crap, but it sure makes me want to sue somebody...
-
There is too a year zero, we just don't know exactly what year B.C. it was. Seriously, just count back from one, it's not hard.
I mean, hell, why does it even matter? The entire calender is just a measure of time from an arbitrarily chosen point. Why does it even matter how far from that point we are?
-
Why does it even matter how far from that point we are?
If you're really christian, or any other religion that claims to take significance in year 0. :rolleyes:
-
SUE THEM! SUE THEM UNTIL THEY RECANT!
:lol:
-
Why does it even matter how far from that point we are?
If you're really christian, or any other religion that claims to take significance in year 0. :rolleyes:
Que? Christ's birth is generally regarded to be approximately 4 B.C., not 0/1, because that's when King Herod is recorded as dying, and he was born just before then.
I reiterate: Why does it matter?
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/0 (year) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/0_%28year%29)
Now I'm thinking someone wasn't thinking clearly when he made -1 + 1 = 1.
-
Que? Christ's birth is generally regarded to be approximately 4 B.C., not 0/1, because that's when King Herod is recorded as dying, and he was born just before then.
I reiterate: Why does it matter?
Really? I thought 0 was Christ's death...
Sorry for the mistake, I'm actually not Christian.
-
SUE THEM! SUE THEM UNTIL THEY RECANT!
:lol:
I SUE YOU JESUS
-
Que? Christ's birth is generally regarded to be approximately 4 B.C., not 0/1, because that's when King Herod is recorded as dying, and he was born just before then.
I reiterate: Why does it matter?
Really? I thought 0 was Christ's death...
Sorry for the mistake, I'm actually not Christian.
Actually, Jesus is supposed to have died around 30 AD. Yes, the system makes loads of sense.
-
Oh, it's a quote from Derek Smart. Of course it doesn't make sense. ;)
But seriously, year zero is relevant mainly only if you're an astronomer. Otherwise, you go from -1 to +1, which makes no sense really, but whatever floats humanity's boat.
And I agree with Scotty. Why does it matter so much? I mean... OH MY GAWD, ITS NOT THE NEW DECADE YET BECAUSE OF SOME ARBITRARY YEAR NUMBERING CONVENTION. STOP CALLING IT WRONG YOU MORONS... RAGERAGERAGESUE!
I agree about 2012 though, it's friggin stupid.
-
In a way, it does make sense, as there wasn't a year zero unless you're into astronomy. On the other hand, it's not worth getting all uppity about, because you could also argue that the first decade was actually from 1 BCE (year zero if you're in astronomy) through 9 CE because a decade starts when the tens digit increases by one (e.g. 2009 to 2010).
BTW, haloboy and IronBeer, "AD" stands for "Anno Domini" (Latin for "in the time of our lord"), not "after death" as so many falsely believe.
To the non-Christians who are offended by the point of time we reference eras in relation to: there's nothing we can do about it. It was established a long time ago and would be harder to change now than it would be to change the US to SI units. If you're offended by the terms "Before Christ" and "Anno Domini", you can use BCE and CE (Before Current Era and Current Era).
To those who weren't offended, I'm sorry for misinterpreting and wasting your time. You may now return to your previous pleasant discussion.
-
Ok, while looking in the oddest of places, I stumbled on this... can anyone make heads or tails of this? ;) If you can, discuss if you have any pointers to make.
stupidstupidstupid stupid stupidstupid stupid stupidstupidstupid stupid stupidstupidstupidstupidstupid stupid stupidstupidstupid stupid stupidstupidstupid stupid stupidstupid stupid stupidstupid stupid stupidstupidstupidstupid stupid stupid stupid stupidstupidstupidstupidstupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupidstupidstupidstupid stupid stupidstupid stupid stupidstupid stupidstupid stupid stupid stupidstupidstupidstupid stupidstupidstupidstupid stupidv stupid stupid stupidstupidstupidstupidstupidstupid
-Derek Smart
yes makes perfect sense
-
Ok, while looking in the oddest of places, I stumbled on this... can anyone make heads or tails of this? ;) If you can, discuss if you have any pointers to make.
stupidstupidstupid stupid stupidstupid stupid stupidstupidstupid stupid stupidstupidstupidstupidstupid stupid stupidstupidstupid stupid stupidstupidstupid stupid stupidstupid stupid stupidstupid stupid stupidstupidstupidstupid stupid stupid stupid stupidstupidstupidstupidstupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupidstupidstupidstupid stupid stupidstupid stupid stupidstupid stupidstupid stupid stupid stupidstupidstupidstupid stupidstupidstupidstupid stupidv stupid stupid stupidstupidstupidstupidstupidstupid
-Derek Stupidface McStupid Stupidton Stupid
yes makes perfect sense
Immaturized even further. :p
-
So 1980 was the last year of the 70's?
-
Ok, while looking in the oddest of places, I stumbled on this... can anyone make heads or tails of this? ;) If you can, discuss if you have any pointers to make.
New Decade? I don’t think so.
PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT FOR THE GOOD OF MANKIND
I swear if I see or hear one more person make a fool of themselves on national radio or TV by saying that 2010 is the start of a new decade, I’ll just lose it.
People, there was no year 0. And in principle (forget about science, programming etc) you start counting from 1, not from 0.
So the 1st decade of the 1st century is 1 AD to 10 AD.
Subsequently, the 1st decade of the 20th century is 2001 AD to 2010 AD (12-31-2010 to be exact).
Which means that the new UPCOMING decade – which just so happens to be the 2nd decade of the 21st century – doesn’t START until 01-01-2011.
So please save your jubilation for 01-01-2011. And while you’re at it, stay OFF the damn airwaves with this crap!!!
It is bad enough that we’re all screwing around celebrating 12-25 as the birth of Christ when in fact the date has more in common with those crazy partying Romans than it does with anything Holy.
None of this matters now anyway, since according to the scholastic loons who are *gasp* [mis]interpreting the Mayans, the world is going to end in 2012 anyway. So I guess it does make sense to speed things along with fuzzy math because after all, thats what history is all about.
-Derek Smart
no wonder his games are full of bugs, he initialized all his for loops at 1 instead of 0, moron!
and everyone knows that jesus was charles manson from a parallel universe who used hitler's time machine to **** with history.
-
So 1980 was the last year of the 70's?
Yes, and February 1st was the last day of January.
Duhurr derhurrnadurrr
-
So 1980 was the last year of the 70's?
Why would it be? They're completely orthogonal concepts.
-
Technicly, he's right ya know.
01.01.2010 is not the beginning of a new decade, since you're still in the 2010. You should look at years as closed, singular entities.
you got 2010 and 2011. Until 2010 ends, 2011 can't start.
-
Yes, and February 1st was the last day of January.
That might have made some sense if months had a 0th day.
-
Yes, and February 1st was the last day of January.
That might have made some sense if months had a 0th day.
They don't, but his point still remains. The fact that we officially ignore natural numerical separations in favor of some arbitrary declaration of "no year 0" will never make any sense to me. As Solatar pointed out, the phrase "the 70s" naturally implies "years with a 7 in the tens position," not "years with a 7 in the tens position, except for 1970, because it's too old, but also including 1980, for some ill-defined reason." The entire human calendar system is just an arbitrary grouping of regular planetary movements. Ten consecutive years will always be a decade, no matter where you start counting...so why not start where the count looks nicer?
Seriously, let's be done with this nonsense and just declare that there was a Year 0. Or if you can't swallow that, just declare that the first century A.D. consisted of only 99 years, or included 1 B.C. as well. That way, the centuries and millennia end when they naturally should, when the year count "rolls over" to a brand-new set of numbers. Saying that 2000 was part of the 1900s is fundamentally counter-intuitive and messy.
-
Mongoose: Exactly. :)
"The 70's" is considered to range from 1970 to 1979 (inclusive). Not 1971 to 1980. Stating otherwise because of how "decades" is defined is like doing the same thing for months, hence the February 1st statement.
"Seriously, let's be done with this nonsense and just declare that there was a Year 0."
Let's make 2012 the new year zero. :D
-
They don't, but his point still remains. The fact that we officially ignore natural numerical separations in favor of some arbitrary declaration of "no year 0" will never make any sense to me. As Solatar pointed out, the phrase "the 70s" naturally implies "years with a 7 in the tens position," not "years with a 7 in the tens position, except for 1970, because it's too old, but also including 1980, for some ill-defined reason."
This argument fails to hold up in light of the counter-example that the xth century refers to the period of time from (x-1) hundred and one to (x) hundred while the x00s refers to the period of time from x hundred to x hundred and ninety nine thus demonstrating the disconnect between the xth something and the "x0s". Your need to make the two ideas line up ends up with the first year being an infinite sequence of ones as it would dictate that the first decade line up with the 10s, first century with the 100s and so on.
-
They don't, but his point still remains. The fact that we officially ignore natural numerical separations in favor of some arbitrary declaration of "no year 0" will never make any sense to me. As Solatar pointed out, the phrase "the 70s" naturally implies "years with a 7 in the tens position," not "years with a 7 in the tens position, except for 1970, because it's too old, but also including 1980, for some ill-defined reason."
This argument fails to hold up in light of the counter-example that the xth century refers to the period of time from (x-1) hundred and one to (x) hundred while the x00s refers to the period of time from x hundred to x hundred and ninety nine thus demonstrating the disconnect between the xth something and the "x0s". Your need to make the two ideas line up ends up with the first year being an infinite sequence of ones as it would dictate that the first decade line up with the 10s, first century with the 100s and so on.
...huh? Under my argument, the 20th century would also incorporate 1900 to 1999, not 1901 to 2000. That's kind of the whole point, as it's how most people already refer to said century anyway. As I said, whatever you do with the "first year" doesn't even necessarily have to conform with the same pattern we'd use now; it can be the lone exception so that everything else fits together neatly. As it stands, there's a fundamental disconnect between the formal calendar system and the everyday intuition of the vast majority of the population using it, because the former is fundamentally unintuitive.
-
This falls somewhere in my "Top 10 Stupid Things To Argue About" List.
-
Is the literary analysis of The Cat in The Hat above it?
-
Fortunately the world is STILL big enough for all of us, when we are left with no freespace, then we'll see what we do about our differences... maybe we'll be beaming ourselves to death in a near future. :nod:
-
This falls somewhere in my "Top 10 Stupid Things To Argue About" List.
Well 0th order years would make life easier for us coders. :p
I don't know why we can't say 1 BC = 0 AD and be done with it to be honest.
-
I'm amazed at how many people actually took this topic seriously.
Seriously.
Really. I mean it. Stop this seriousness or you might be sued... by not-not Derek Smart.
Really. :p
-
I'm amazed at how many people actually took this topic seriously.
Seriously.
Really. I mean it. Stop this seriousness or you might be sued... by not-not Derek Smart.
Really. :p
I demand a fight.
Pistols at dawn!!!!
-
In dealing with European history, generally when I speak about the 19th century I'm talking about 1789 to 1914 anyway. :P
It's incorrect, but it's how it makes sense to divide the time period. Especially if you're doing a 19th century European history class, where leaving out the French Revolution and stopping at 1900 would be nonsensical.
-
...huh? Under my argument, the 20th century would also incorporate 1900 to 1999, not 1901 to 2000. That's kind of the whole point, as it's how most people already refer to said century anyway.
Your changes are purely about making things match up the way people expect them to; the logical next step is to force the 19th century to be the 1900s. Otherwise your change ends up being pointless.
I'm amazed at how many people actually took this topic seriously.
Seriously.
Really. I mean it. Stop this seriousness or you might be sued... by not-not Derek Smart.
Really. :p
Was bored. And people seem to have adopted a "most people think it's this way so we all should" premise.
-
...huh? Under my argument, the 20th century would also incorporate 1900 to 1999, not 1901 to 2000. That's kind of the whole point, as it's how most people already refer to said century anyway.
Your changes are purely about making things match up the way people expect them to; the logical next step is to force the 19th century to be the 1900s. Otherwise your change ends up being pointless.
Unfortunately, we don't call centuries "century n," or we could actually do that. You can't have a zeroth century (it's the first century, which throws things off), but you can have a "century zero," which makes slightly more sense. Personally, I think "nth century" sounds better than "century n." YMMV.
-
...huh? Under my argument, the 20th century would also incorporate 1900 to 1999, not 1901 to 2000. That's kind of the whole point, as it's how most people already refer to said century anyway.
Your changes are purely about making things match up the way people expect them to; the logical next step is to force the 19th century to be the 1900s. Otherwise your change ends up being pointless.
People as a whole are generally familiar with the concept of the Nth century referring to the N-1 set of years; I haven't come across too many reasonably-educated adults who didn't know that we were living in the 20th century until 2000 (or 2001, if you absolutely must), or that we're living in the 21st century now. It's essentially the same concept of your age: after you turn 20, you're in your 21st year of life, because you were in your first year of life before you turned 1. But those same reasonably-educated people were the ones who celebrated the "new millennium" on January 1, 2000, not a year later; that's the common expectation of how decades and centuries work. I don't see why changing this part of the official nomenclature would necessarily entail changing the other.
-
I'm amazed at how many people actually took this topic seriously.
Seriously.
Really. I mean it. Stop this seriousness or you might be sued... by not-not Derek Smart.
Really. :p
I demand a fight.
Pistols at dawn!!!!
Meet by the old Oak tree by Sir Hayworth von Trebenshire's estate. Last man standing! :p
-
Guys, I'm pretty sure duels are illegal. Don't kill each other, or I'll have to sue your asses.
-
Guys, I'm pretty sure duels are illegal. Don't kill each other, or I'll have to sue your asses.
Sue my ass! Ha! I give you one last chance to rescind your insult of calling me a common dandy! :p
-
HAY NUCLEAR
sue sue sue sue sue
-
I had an idea for the perfect YouTube video to go with the topic of this thread, but unfortunately I can't find a good video of Johnnie Cochran's Chewbacca Defense from South Park on YouTube.
-
Ah ha!
Prepare for returned fire!
-
Nuclear is in the Air Force. You should make sure an A-10 with laser guided bombs isn't anywhere near you when you duel.