[Mongoose]

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.

[watsisname]

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. 

[Spicious]

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.

[Mongoose]

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.

[Sushi]

This falls somewhere in my "Top 10 Stupid Things To Argue About" List.

[BloodEagle]

Is the literary analysis of The Cat in The Hat above it?

[Rodo]

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. 

[karajorma]

This falls somewhere in my "Top 10 Stupid Things To Argue About" List.

Well 0th order years would make life easier for us coders.

I don't know why we can't say 1 BC = 0 AD and be done with it to be honest.

[Thaeris]

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. 

[TESLA]

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. 

I demand a fight.

Pistols at dawn!!!!

[Solatar]

In dealing with European history, generally when I speak about the 19th century I'm talking about 1789 to 1914 anyway. 

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.

[Spicious]

...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. 

Was bored. And people seem to have adopted a "most people think it's this way so we all should" premise.

[Scotty]

...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.

[Mongoose]

...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.

[Nuclear1]

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. 

I demand a fight.

Pistols at dawn!!!!

Meet by the old Oak tree by Sir Hayworth von Trebenshire's estate.  Last man standing!

[watsisname]

Guys, I'm pretty sure duels are illegal.  Don't kill each other, or I'll have to sue your asses.

[Nuclear1]

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!

[watsisname]

HAY NUCLEAR

sue sue sue sue sue

[SpardaSon21]

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.

[Nuclear1]

Ah ha!

Prepare for returned fire!