On 22 Dec 2009 at 9:08pm Long Distance Whelker wrote:
So what is the next decade to be called?
On 22 Dec 2009 at 9:15pm Terry F.Witt wrote:
On 22 Dec 2009 at 10:43pm Digga wrote:
On 23 Dec 2009 at 3:47am Mr Terry Tibbles wrote:
Here we go again.
On 23 Dec 2009 at 9:20am Paganess wrote:
On 23 Dec 2009 at 9:23am ere be monsters wrote:
The next decade doesn't start until 1st January 2011, worry about it then.
On 23 Dec 2009 at 9:35am Paganess wrote:
thicko...of course it doesn't..... a decade e.g the 90's began in 1990 not 1991.....go back to school
On 23 Dec 2009 at 9:36am MonkeySeeMonkeyDo wrote:
Not Teenies but TWEENIES... Twenty and teens.
On 23 Dec 2009 at 9:54am Paganess BSc DPhil wrote:
There are no 20's in the next decade. It runs from 2010 to 2019. Shocking state of basic numeracy (or lack of ) in this country.
On 23 Dec 2009 at 10:21am Bunter wrote:
Historians will probably call it something like 'the Dark Decade'. If you think the 00s have been bad just wait and see.
On 23 Dec 2009 at 1:34pm Penguin wrote:
Think you need to go back to school Paganess and have another look at basic numeracy! Ere Be Monsters is completely correct. A decade has not passed until ten whole years have passed. Go back to the beginning of numbered years. The first year would have been year 1, so at the end of year 1, then 1 year would have passed. Carry this on to the end of year 10 when ten years would have passed- ie. a decade. The beginning of the following decade therefore would have begun on 1st January of the year 11. This applies all the way through to the present day. We are currently in the 201st decade which will not finish until the end of 2010. The beginning of the new decade therefore will be 1st January 2011. Quite simple really! Nothing can be 10 years old until 10 full years have passed.
The same applies to the millenium which everyone went crazy about quite incorrectly at the end of 1999 / beginning of 2000. The second millenium of course did not finish until the end of the year 2000, and the new on did not begin untill 1st January 2001.
I rest my case!
On 23 Dec 2009 at 1:51pm PAGANESS wrote:
You are an uneducated arse! I expect you believe the world is flat and that humans have no impact on climate change...
What a numbskull! We are not born age 1, we start at 0...same for decades.....what a thick twat you are!!!
2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009=10 YEARS
On 23 Dec 2009 at 3:38pm Shaymus wrote:
Brilliant Paganess. Don't you just love it when pomposity is shown up and ridiculed? Let him "rest my case" on that.
On 23 Dec 2009 at 3:43pm numberjack wrote:
Paganess, I know Penguin to be quite well educated. You are the tw@.
Read Penguins post again............now do you understand? No, Ok lets try another tack.
Do you dring beer? Yes, OK, you should understand this one.
Go to the pub and order eight pints.
You have in front of you eight pints of beer, a gallon!.
Drink seven of the pints. This will be pints numbers 1-7 (note, not 0-6)
You now have 1 pint left. Take one small sip from the last pint. Have you drunk a gallon yet? No. Only when you have finished drinking the eighth pint will you have drunk a gallon.
So now go back and read penguins post again. Do you understand yet?
I hope so. If not, I understand that most of the primary schools in town teach mathematics.........perhaps you should contact one of them.
On 23 Dec 2009 at 4:08pm Penguin wrote:
Exactly, we are not born at 1, that is precisely my point Paganess (and Shaymus), and you are just showing yourselves up I may say so !!
OK, lets explain it slowly and in easy numbers that you will understand. So, say you are born on 1st january in the year 1 (the first day of the first year). Your 1st birthday is on 1st January year 2 - correct ? Thought so. So when is your tenth birthday ? It is not 1st January in year 10 is it!, No, it is on 1st January in the year 11 !! Exactly one decade later !! Nothing pompous about it. It is just a fact, historically, mathematically, and in whatever other way you want to look at it. You have listed 10 year numbers its true, but if you have not started at the beginning of a decade, then obviously you have not finished at the end of one. If you are going to do that then you could say that the decade starts any year you feel like. Feel free to explain to me how I am wrong in the above, just calling me a twat is not really much of an explanation !
Similarly, two millenia were not over until 2000 years had passed, ie. the END of the year 2000 and not the end of 1999 years.
I continue to rest my case.
On 23 Dec 2009 at 5:10pm OMG wrote:
So the Y2K millennium bug was misnamed - it should have been called the Y2K-1 bug instead!
Obviously someone didn't wake up one day and say, right, we'll start the calendar from today as 1st Jan 0001 - they (in theory 'cos the video is lost) stated one day that as it's, say, 50 years since JC was born then this can be year 50. So JC would have been 51 on Dec 25th 0050. Carry that on and the millennium ended correctly at midnight 1999 and the decade ends in a week or two.
Mind you, I like the beer analogy - not at all patronising!
On 23 Dec 2009 at 7:52pm Penguin wrote:
The Y2K millennium bug was not necessarily named incorrectly, as it did not at any point refer to the beginning of the next millenium. 2000 years is two millennia, and 2000 was the year in which the bug was expected to happen. The NEW millennium started after the first 2000 years had FINISHED, not after 1999 years had finished. This was widely accepted as the case back in 2000. Also, your birth of Jesus explanation is flawed. If it was 50 years since JC was born, then he would have been 50 that year, and not 51. He could only have been 51 if it was 51 years since he was born. It doesn't matter how retrospectively the years were numbered, they still started at year 1, and a decade is still 10 years.
How much easier do you need me to make it, lets have a go. Look at the following groups of 10 numbers :-
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
You may have noticed that they are in groups of ten (you can use your fingers and thumbs if you need to). Now then, the first group of ten (call it a decade for the sake of argument) ends with the number 10. The second group of ten (or the second decade) starts with the number 11. If the second one started with 10, then there would have only been 9 in the first group, and therefore it could not be described as a decade, which is what you are trying to do.
On 23 Dec 2009 at 8:52pm nah wrote:
On 23 Dec 2009 at 9:49pm MonkeySeeMonkeyDo wrote:
Dear Paganess BSc DPhil.
The year 2010... Starts with the number 20, 10 is the second part. What a daft piece of criticism.
I love numbers so you are mocking the wrong person.
On 24 Dec 2009 at 8:24am numberjack wrote:
So you don't agree with the way that we count to 10, starting at 1 and finishing at 10? how do you do it? Please tell as I am intrigued.
Paganess, Do you understand yet? You have gone very quiet on this. Perhaps you are still struggling to count up all of your fingers and can't type at the same time!
On 24 Dec 2009 at 9:16am Wizard wrote:
So the BBC, all national newspapers, government etc are all wrong in referring to 2010 as the end of the decade?? And the whole world was wrong in celebrating 2000 as the start of the new millenium???
Now who shall I believe them or a bunch of thick twats on a forum.....
Paganess is correct. IDIOTS!
On 24 Dec 2009 at 9:18am Wizard wrote:
So the BBC, all national newspapers, government etc are all wrong in referring to 2009 as the end of the decade?? And the whole world was wrong in celebrating 2000 as the start of the new millenium???
Now who shall I believe them or a bunch of thick twats on a forum.....
Paganess is correct. IDIOTS!
On 24 Dec 2009 at 9:23am Shaymus wrote:
I'm confused and I'm NOT PLAYING anymore (sorry I called Penguin Pompous though).
On 24 Dec 2009 at 10:02am Paganess wrote:
Pengiun and Ere be monsters are uneducated oafs....ask them anything and they will spout on and think they are experts...
It's not worth engaging with these types...see ya
On 24 Dec 2009 at 10:14am numberjack wrote:
Paganess, you still have not managed to grasp how to count to ten then? Which bit of Penguins explination do you disagree with, please do tell. I really would like to know.
.........or are you taking your ball and going off home to mummy, 'coz the big boys are picking on you?
P.S. Merry Christmas, as by your counting system, I guess today is Christmas day!
On 24 Dec 2009 at 10:26am ere be monsters wrote:
Paganess,I can't vouch for Penquin, although I doubt very much if he is either uneducated or an oaf, myself however I can say I had a reasonable education, oafish at times maybe but at least I don't rely entirely on insults to try and win a debate.
Wizard, not sure where you conjured your argument from! It was obvious that we were all going to celebrate the year 2000's arrival and by doing so celebrated the end of the second millenium, for a whole year. There were 2000 years in the last 2 millenia not 1999. How you can call us idiots, at least we can count to 10, and beyond.
On 24 Dec 2009 at 10:26am numb wrote:
Oh, and anoyther thing, please see the extract from the Royal Greenwich Observatory website for their thoughts on this. After all they are the world recognised authority on timekeeping. Or has Paganess taken over this role?
When did the new Millennium start?
The first day of the new Millennium was 1 January 2001. The year 2000 was actually the final year of the previous Millennium. So, despite the fact that it was the year 2000, it was officially the 20th century for one more year.
Told you so ner ner ner ner ner!
On 24 Dec 2009 at 11:02am Penguin wrote:
I don't consider myself an expert, I just consider that I can count to ten, and that I can remember things from ten years ago. And yes, in general the world did celebrate the new millenium in the wrong year, that is exactly the point I am trying to get over! Cast your mind back to 1999 when this whole debate came up the first time. It was generally accepted that the year 2000 was not actually the true start of the new millennium, but in peoples minds it was the change from a number starting in 1 to one starting in 2 that was felt to be significant. A similar change in numbers also leads to what most people commonly think of as the end/beginning of decades. Just because people 'think' or 'feel' that however, doesn't make it a fact, and neither does you calling me a thick twat or an uneducated oaf (that is more a reflection on you). 1st January 2000 was the start of the 2000th year, but 2000 years were not over of course until 31st December 2000. The third thousand year period then started on 1st January 2001
Don't worry Numberjack, Paganess cannot explain why she disagrees, because her position is simply based on a common misinterpretation and not on mathematical fact. If she (or wizard) want to change the number of years in a millennium to 999, or a decade to 9, or whatever, just because it sounds right, then that is fine. I am not going to let their ignorance spoil my christmas (which is also celebrated at the wrong time of course - but hey, who am I to argue!)
ps. Thanks for the apology Shaymus - have a nice Christmas.
On 24 Dec 2009 at 11:45am Penguin wrote:
Its all gone very quiet on the Paganess and Wizard direction !!!
On 24 Dec 2009 at 11:55am Chav wrote:
I didnt get any of this stuff till my gran showed me. Now even I get it. Paganess is wrong haha. What gran told me to do was hold up both hands and count me fingers and fums starting wiv me left fum as 1. That made my righrt little finger number 10 and thats a decade. She then told my chick Chantelle to hold up her hands next to me and count them as the next decade. Trouble is her left fum is missing so I got a bit confussed still but I have the idea.
On 24 Dec 2009 at 12:19pm numberjack wrote:
Come on then Paganess, what's your resoponse to that?
On 24 Dec 2009 at 2:29pm Mathematician wrote:
I thought I had it till I read Chav's post, now I'm confused!
ps. fums! lol