Comments on: End of Decade Question – 2009 or 2010? http://www.phillauterjung.com/end-of-decade-question-2009-or-2010/ Conversations Re: Sales | Marketing | Social Media | Etc. Sat, 17 Jul 2010 04:55:01 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0 By: Will http://www.phillauterjung.com/end-of-decade-question-2009-or-2010/comment-page-1/#comment-173 Will Sat, 13 Feb 2010 05:53:31 +0000 http://www.phillauterjung.com/?p=787#comment-173 Did the 80s go from 1981-1990? No? Then why should 2001-2010 be any different. Why do we do we count it this way? I don't know, we just do. Fine, there was no Year 0. Whatever. We're not interested in that, it's what we call the decades today. Maybe it's technically supposed to be 2001-2010, 1911-1920, but that's not how we usually think of it. We've started a new decade, the 10s. Did the 80s go from 1981-1990? No? Then why should 2001-2010 be any different. Why do we do we count it this way? I don't know, we just do. Fine, there was no Year 0. Whatever. We're not interested in that, it's what we call the decades today. Maybe it's technically supposed to be 2001-2010, 1911-1920, but that's not how we usually think of it. We've started a new decade, the 10s.

]]> By: Ian Chadwick http://www.phillauterjung.com/end-of-decade-question-2009-or-2010/comment-page-1/#comment-161 Ian Chadwick Mon, 11 Jan 2010 21:08:38 +0000 http://www.phillauterjung.com/?p=787#comment-161 "... the ISO 8601 timeline uses astronomical year and starts with year 0, thus implying 2000-2009 for the decade (and so just past). Does this make sense?"<br>Only if you assume that from 2000 on is the FIRST millennium, not the second) which started with a 1, so therefore only has 999 years in it! Otherwise it's just bad math. “… the ISO 8601 timeline uses astronomical year and starts with year 0, thus implying 2000-2009 for the decade (and so just past). Does this make sense?”
Only if you assume that from 2000 on is the FIRST millennium, not the second) which started with a 1, so therefore only has 999 years in it! Otherwise it's just bad math.

]]> By: Ian Chadwick http://www.phillauterjung.com/end-of-decade-question-2009-or-2010/comment-page-1/#comment-162 Ian Chadwick Mon, 11 Jan 2010 20:53:38 +0000 http://www.phillauterjung.com/?p=787#comment-162 A decade begins with year 1 (there is no year 0 in the western calendar) and ends with a year with zero. <br>The first decade was year 1 to year 10, the second year 11 to 20, and so on. The first century was 1-100, the first millennium 1-1000. The second millennium started year 2001, and the first decade of that millennium ends Dec 31, 2010.<br>See my blog post:<br><a href="http://www.ianchadwick.com/forum/index.php?/blog/1/entry-772-2010-is-not-the-start-of-the-decade-its-the-end/" rel="nofollow">http://www.ianchadwick.com/forum/index.php?/blo...</a> A decade begins with year 1 (there is no year 0 in the western calendar) and ends with a year with zero.
The first decade was year 1 to year 10, the second year 11 to 20, and so on. The first century was 1-100, the first millennium 1-1000. The second millennium started year 2001, and the first decade of that millennium ends Dec 31, 2010.
See my blog post:
http://www.ianchadwick.com/forum/index.php?/blo…

]]> By: Phil Lauterjung http://www.phillauterjung.com/end-of-decade-question-2009-or-2010/comment-page-1/#comment-159 Phil Lauterjung Sat, 02 Jan 2010 07:21:57 +0000 http://www.phillauterjung.com/?p=787#comment-159 Szilard,<br>I follow your logic, however I think that what is needed is a common agreement as to which method is commonly to be used and then stick with it. It appears that a lot of writers, both professional and otherwise, seem to use whatever they feel good about rather than a clear understanding as to why they use the standard they use.<br><br>Any other readers like to chime in on this? Or am I beating a dead horse? It is 2010 now and perhaps time to move on and not worry about it. But, it still bugs me that we can't seem to agree on something so simple.<br><br>Phil Szilard,
I follow your logic, however I think that what is needed is a common agreement as to which method is commonly to be used and then stick with it. It appears that a lot of writers, both professional and otherwise, seem to use whatever they feel good about rather than a clear understanding as to why they use the standard they use.

Any other readers like to chime in on this? Or am I beating a dead horse? It is 2010 now and perhaps time to move on and not worry about it. But, it still bugs me that we can't seem to agree on something so simple.

Phil

]]> By: szilardmihalydeak http://www.phillauterjung.com/end-of-decade-question-2009-or-2010/comment-page-1/#comment-158 szilardmihalydeak Fri, 01 Jan 2010 11:24:10 +0000 http://www.phillauterjung.com/?p=787#comment-158 Phil, I've also seen this question around in many places. What I found is that although officially decade would be defined as eg. 2001-2010, in common use it is referred to as 2000-2009. On the other hand, by definition decade means a group of ten years. So in that sense also years 1995-2004 are a decade, right? So it is just a matter of convention (or calendar system) which ten years we define as a decade.<br><br>It is true that as Mike pointed out, the Gregorian calendar starts with year AD 1, and thus 2001-2010 is the current decade (so still 1 year to go).<br><br>However the ISO 8601 timeline uses astronomical year and starts with year 0, thus implying 2000-2009 for the decade (and so just past).<br><br>Does this make sense? Phil, I've also seen this question around in many places. What I found is that although officially decade would be defined as eg. 2001-2010, in common use it is referred to as 2000-2009. On the other hand, by definition decade means a group of ten years. So in that sense also years 1995-2004 are a decade, right? So it is just a matter of convention (or calendar system) which ten years we define as a decade.

It is true that as Mike pointed out, the Gregorian calendar starts with year AD 1, and thus 2001-2010 is the current decade (so still 1 year to go).

However the ISO 8601 timeline uses astronomical year and starts with year 0, thus implying 2000-2009 for the decade (and so just past).

Does this make sense?

]]> By: Phil Lauterjung http://www.phillauterjung.com/end-of-decade-question-2009-or-2010/comment-page-1/#comment-155 Phil Lauterjung Wed, 30 Dec 2009 04:05:02 +0000 http://www.phillauterjung.com/?p=787#comment-155 Doug, thanks for your comment. You might want to check out the link that Mike posted. It does a good job of reinforcing what you said. Doug, thanks for your comment. You might want to check out the link that Mike posted. It does a good job of reinforcing what you said.

]]>