Just 8 weeks left of this decade!

[crofter]

So just to sum up:
Not long to go til the start of the new millenium then guys ... erm possibly (puts interstellar abacus back in the cupboard for another decade).

[Sam Slater]

I don't think you can comprehend the difference between counting, where zero isn't a number, and numbers on a scale that are just reference points.

10 numbers would be 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10.

Years on a calendar are just reference points on a scale. Think of a new born baby. They're in their 'first' year upon being born, but do not reach the age of one until the first day of their second year.

If Dionysius got Jesus' birthday correct (he didn't but I'm feeling generous), then Jesus would have had his first birthday in the year 2AD.

[Lizard]

No, only eight weeks to the start of a new DECADE Crofter, so you will need to borrow some money (again) and treat yourself to a half pint of tramps piss at your local Shabeen, nick some coal, and give yourself a big hug and a kiss.

[crofter]

Millenium ... Decade wtf is the difference you Southern Rentabummer ... still by my reckoning it is Eight Weeks and 1 Year (I am 54% Jewish).

[Sam Slater]

[quote]Yes, zero isn't a number,[/quote]

Neither are years. It's perfectly logical to have a year zero just like it's logical to have a zero degrees centigrade or a zero percent profit margin.

[quote]a decade starts with 1 and ends with 10.[/quote]

As I told Steve, a decade is just 10 years. It can start and end wherever you want as long as it's 10 years long.

[quote]If a baby is born on January 1st of year 1 it will be ten years old at the end of the tenth year.[/quote]

No it wouldn't, it would be at the end of the baby's tenth year but the beginning of year 10 (Jan 01 - Jan 10).

[quote]Zero means you have reached the value of 10 in base 10.[/quote]

So what? It makes no difference because if you start and include the 10 when counting years the tenth year will always fall on a number ending in 9.

[quote]Sorry, nobody takes any of that BC/AD nonsense seriously,[/quote]

Lol! Really? But your whole point about the millennium actually being on 01/01/2001 was purely based on Jesus' supposed birth dated 01/01/01. That, to me, says you take the BC/AD seriously enough to grumble about the celebrations being a year early and seriously enough to argue over it on here. Kinda contradicted yourself there, Keith.

Again, just for you:

01/01/2000 - 01/01/2001 = year one.
01/01/2001 - 01/01/2002 = year two.
01/01/2002 - 01/01/2003 = year three.
01/01/2003 - 01/01/2004 = year four.
01/01/2004 - 01/01/2005 = year five.
01/01/2005 - 01/01/2006 = year six.
01/01/2006 - 01/01/2007 = year seven.
01/01/2007 - 01/01/2008 = year eight.
01/01/2008 - 01/01/2009 = year nine.
01/01/2009 - 01/01/2010 = year ten.

We are currently in the tenth year of the 2000s.

[Sam Slater]

[quote]It looks like the noble Lords were tossing this subject around a few years back and the general consensus aside from the erudite discussion around the subject was that the 1/1/01 was the authentic & scientific start of the new century.[/quote]

Quite true. It WAS the authentic (and maybe scientific) start of a century at the time. Not so now.

[quote]Looks like Jesus was worn in 4-7 BC according to the C of E which means we should have been celebrating in 1996 at least.[/quote]

Again, true. This admission puts that supposed 'authenticity' in serious doubt then doesn't it?

[quote]Interesting to read that in 1900, the 1/1/1901 was seen as the first day of the 20th Century.[/quote]

And if we'd been having this debate 109 years ago you'd be right. Trouble is in 2000 most of the world changed it, so I'm right now. Lol. You need to get with the times man....tee-hee.

Some quotes from that article which go a little way to what I've been saying:

"The difference in dates is historic rather than scientific..." - what I've been saying.

"That was because the official date of Christendom should have been 0 AD not 1 AD" - again, what I've been saying.

[Deuce Bigolo]

cash in while you can