Some of my friends just call it the Y2K decade, since Y2K was a big way to say the year 2000 a decade ago, and it's short and sweet.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Decade Slips Away With No Name
- Thread starter rdowns
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Just heard this on All Things Considered, and thought it was apropos.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=122072138
"The Big Zero" works well for me.
BL.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=122072138
"The Big Zero" works well for me.
BL.
That's what I hear it most commonly called in the states. I don't know if there is a world standard as to what this 2000-2009 period was called. But the tens will be here in about six hours in the vicinity near Kiritimati in the Pacific Ocean, and then an hour later in New Zealand.
So a few hours premature, but to you Kiwis and all neighbors out there, Happy New Year and Happy New Decade, and Happy "tens".
If you can count 2000-2009 is ten years.
It's okay, with the American education system I can see how you never learned to properly count to ten. (Ten is how many toes you have)
Yeah, and 2009 is the tenth year of the 201st Decade A.D. if you start on your 0th toe. Which one is that???
Probably "the First Decade of the 20th Century" even though 1900 was part of the 19th.
And there's the "proof" for all the naysayers who insist the above is false. Why do you think the 1900's (technically, excluding 1900 and including 2000) was the 20th Century? Why wasn't it the 19th Century? Why isn't the current year part of the 20th Century and not the 21st?
Well, see 0th toe, above.
Works for me as well...a decade full of ****. hopefully the 10s
will be less s***ty.Bless
The main point is naming this past decade as it is currently for most of the world.
Human convention has decided to pay special attention to our current 12 month system we call a year. The Arabic numerals have seem to have become a common standard, too. But no differently, there is special attention to dates like jan 1, 2000 and jan 1, 2010 as a date that symbolizes a new beginning, or a way to mark a "new" decade.
I really don't care if jan 1, 2010 is the first year of the decade or if it's jan 1, 2011. The generally accepted attitude, and general understanding of the vast majority of people is that we are starting a new decade right now. I am no fan of cell phones, and even though there is a lot of evidence that people on cell phones increased their chance of a car accident while using them while driving with one hand, there isn't going to be any change as to its usage by people driving around on this planet any time soon with cell phone in hand. So if the world erroneously thinks that 2010 is the new decade, and the consensus seems to show this, people need to recognize this, good or bad.
You haven't read all of my posts in this thread?
There are parallel discussions going on here, in case you haven't noticed.
We are always starting a new decade, now, and right now, and now...
When you say "the decade", you need to specify which one you're referring to. Like, that's the whole point of this thread: What do we call the decade from 2000-2009?
I'm not sure what the cell phone thing has to do with anything else.
There are parallel discussions going on here, in case you haven't noticed.
We are always starting a new decade, now, and right now, and now...
When you say "the decade", you need to specify which one you're referring to. Like, that's the whole point of this thread: What do we call the decade from 2000-2009?
I'm not sure what the cell phone thing has to do with anything else.
I didn't read all your posts, but you obviously failed to read my one post.
When I have time, I will read all of your posts. Sorry in advance.
Are you really suggesting that the year 2000 is part of the 90s and that the 90s started 91? What decade was 1990 part of? Or are you saying the year 2000 never happened? Which delusion are you under?
I think he's not a logical thinker (based on my post to him and his response) or numbers guy (based on that 0 toe statement). Many people are weak at math and that's OK. Maybe he can dunk a basketball, or maybe he's a she and is a Victoria's Secret model. Maybe this person has climbed Everest or has been a part of a World Series team.
He/she is not delusional though and that person's type of argument would be perfect for being an attorney, but not a mathematics teacher, programmer, or even the Sesame Street counting puppet.
When does attention to minor details become excessive? Who defines that for the world, you? Or you do so just for people you've never met except on an internet forum?
And I'm not sure what "evidence" you think you have that I failed to read your first(?) post. I acknowledged your main point by referring to 2000-2009 as a decade.
You're missing the whole parallel discussion thing, obviously. But to answer the one meaningful question there, 1990 was the final year of the 199th Decade, A.D. and the first year of the 1990s. It, or parts of it, is/are also a part of a possibly infinite number of decades that you could define somewhat arbitrarily.
You also were ignoring the parallel discussions in your reply to me. The 0th toe statement was sarcastic. The math weakness is the inability to realize that one starts counting something with the number 1, not 0, as those who can't see that the year 10 A.D. was the final year of the 1st Decade, A.D. do. The rest of that post is stupid.
And I'm not sure what "evidence" you think you have that I failed to read your first(?) post. I acknowledged your main point by referring to 2000-2009 as a decade.
Wait! You're arguing on both sides! Can you do that?
And, by the way, I never suggested that 2000 was part of the 1990s. I defined which decade I was referring to. You obviously get the distinction, but seem to be ignoring it for the sake of having some fun.
Heh. The iPodies!
...or perhaps given the prevalence of financial scams in that decade it might more fittingly be called the iPhonies...
I just like to argue.Wait! You're arguing on both sides! Can you do that?
And, by the way, I never suggested that 2000 was part of the 1990s. I defined which decade I was referring to. You obviously get the distinction, but seem to be ignoring it for the sake of having some fun.
However, there is a subtle distinction with my two argument. The 200th decade is not quite over, but the decade since January 1, 2000 is just hours from being over.
Yeah, I guess in the American education system we never learned to count. In yours you obviously start counting with Toe Zero and end with Toe Nine.If you can count 2000-2009 is ten years.
It's okay, with the American education system I can see how you never learned to properly count to ten. (Ten is how many toes you have)
The difference being that year 2000 is real, toe zero is not. I never said anything about toe zero, I said you have ten toes and there have been ten years since 2000.
Yeah, I've been saying the same thing all along. I guess that's why we're "arguing".I just like to argue.
However, there is a subtle distinction with my two argument. The 200th decade is not quite over, but the decade since January 1, 2000 is just hours from being over.
But, it's the 201st Decade A.D. that we're in right now. You get that by dividing the final year by ten. For proof, go back to the first one. The 200th Decade A.D. ended with 2000.You're not supposed to take sarcasm literally.
why can we just call 2010
"two-zero-one-zero"
or the one decades.....
then 2020 wil be the
the two decades
then 2030 will be the
the three decades
then the 2040 will be the
the fourth decade
"two-zero-one-zero"
or the one decades.....
then 2020 wil be the
the two decades
then 2030 will be the
the three decades
then the 2040 will be the
the fourth decade