Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#42
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
NY
On Fri, 17 Jan 2020 08:34:32 -0800, Tobiah wrote:
On 1/17/20 1:38 AM, Don Pearce wrote: On Fri, 17 Jan 2020 09:10:38 GMT, (Don Pearce) wrote: On Thu, 16 Jan 2020 13:28:05 -0800, Tobiah wrote: So what was the first year of the first decade in our current CE reckoning? No need to bring mythical figures into it - straight question. The first year was year 1, making the first decade span the years 1 through 10, the second decade starting at year 11. Or is there a trick to your question? No trick. You make my point perfectly. Decades start on the year that ends in a 1, not a 0. So when I was 10 years old, I had not lived a decade, because "Decades start on the year that ends in a 1" whereas my first decade started with a year that ended in 6. I'm just saying that when someone refers to the 50's say, it's as arbitrary as saying "the evens". It's a description that we can use to group some of the past years together so we can easily agree on which ones we're talking about. I blame the schools lousy maths skills. When you were ten years old you had lived a decade. Just you were one year old you had lived a year. d And that is what happens when you post before you are awake. Let me try again... I blame the schools for lousy maths skills. When you were ten years old you had lived a decade, just as when you were one year old you had lived a year. You are reiterating my point. I may have failed to convey the irony in my earlier reply. The first decade of our current calendar may have ended on the first day of year 11, but a decade per se has an arbitrary start point. I'd even venture to say that it need not begin at the start of a calendar year. One popular dictionary's entry: 1) a period of ten years: the three decades from 1776 to 1806. 2) a period of ten years beginning with a year whose last digit is zero: the decade of the 1980s. 3) a group, set, or series of ten. Of course, decade is a word with many usages - those are just some of them. But in the context we were discussing we know which it was: A defined period of ten years beginning with a year that terminates with a one. The first decade is the years 1 to 10 - continue counting from there. And at no point do you get to slip in a nine year decade. d |
#43
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
NY
One popular dictionary's entry:
1) a period of ten years: the three decades from 1776 to 1806. 2) a period of ten years beginning with a year whose last digit is zero: the decade of the 1980s. 3) a group, set, or series of ten. Of course, decade is a word with many usages - those are just some of them. But in the context we were discussing we know which it was: A defined period of ten years beginning with a year that terminates with a one. The first decade is the years 1 to 10 - continue counting from there. And at no point do you get to slip in a nine year decade. The original post said: It's the next decade here already. This fits with all three of the definitions I pasted here. The only reason I can see to force a count from year one, is to highlight the fact that one understands a mathematical technicality. |
#44
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
NY
Don Pearce wrote:
On Fri, 17 Jan 2020 08:34:32 -0800, Tobiah wrote: On 1/17/20 1:38 AM, Don Pearce wrote: On Fri, 17 Jan 2020 09:10:38 GMT, (Don Pearce) wrote: On Thu, 16 Jan 2020 13:28:05 -0800, Tobiah wrote: So what was the first year of the first decade in our current CE reckoning? No need to bring mythical figures into it - straight question. The first year was year 1, making the first decade span the years 1 through 10, the second decade starting at year 11. Or is there a trick to your question? No trick. You make my point perfectly. Decades start on the year that ends in a 1, not a 0. So when I was 10 years old, I had not lived a decade, because "Decades start on the year that ends in a 1" whereas my first decade started with a year that ended in 6. I'm just saying that when someone refers to the 50's say, it's as arbitrary as saying "the evens". It's a description that we can use to group some of the past years together so we can easily agree on which ones we're talking about. I blame the schools lousy maths skills. When you were ten years old you had lived a decade. Just you were one year old you had lived a year. d And that is what happens when you post before you are awake. Let me try again... I blame the schools for lousy maths skills. When you were ten years old you had lived a decade, just as when you were one year old you had lived a year. You are reiterating my point. I may have failed to convey the irony in my earlier reply. The first decade of our current calendar may have ended on the first day of year 11, but a decade per se has an arbitrary start point. I'd even venture to say that it need not begin at the start of a calendar year. One popular dictionary's entry: 1) a period of ten years: the three decades from 1776 to 1806. 2) a period of ten years beginning with a year whose last digit is zero: the decade of the 1980s. 3) a group, set, or series of ten. Of course, decade is a word with many usages - those are just some of them. But in the context we were discussing we know which it was: A defined period of ten years beginning with a year that terminates with a one. The first decade is the years 1 to 10 - continue counting from there. And at no point do you get to slip in a nine year decade. d Considering how mankind has royally f$#*ed up calendars over the ages, including the estimation of when Jesus was born, I dont see why we couldnt slip a 9 year decade in there somewhere. After all, September, October, November and December arent the 7th, 8th, 9th and 10th months anymore. |
#45
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
NY
On 18/01/2020 6:17 am, Tobiah wrote:
One popular dictionary's entry: 1) a period of ten years: the three decades from 1776 to 1806. 2) a period of ten years beginning with a year whose last digit is zero: Â*Â*Â* the decade of the 1980s. 3) a group, set, or series of ten. Of course, decade is a word with many usages - those are just some of them. But in the context we were discussing we know which it was: A defined period of ten years beginning with a year that terminates with a one. The first decade is the years 1 to 10 - continue counting from there. And at no point do you get to slip in a nine year decade. The original post said: It's the next decade here already. This fits with all three of the definitions I pasted here. The only reason I can see to force a count from year one, is to highlight the fact that one understands a mathematical technicality. Maybe I should have said "It's the decade of '20s here already". Unless somebody wants to claim 2020 is really still in the decade of the '10s .... ;-O geoff |
#46
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
NY
On Fri, 17 Jan 2020 19:19:05 +0000 (UTC), Ralph Barone
wrote: Don Pearce wrote: On Fri, 17 Jan 2020 08:34:32 -0800, Tobiah wrote: On 1/17/20 1:38 AM, Don Pearce wrote: On Fri, 17 Jan 2020 09:10:38 GMT, (Don Pearce) wrote: On Thu, 16 Jan 2020 13:28:05 -0800, Tobiah wrote: So what was the first year of the first decade in our current CE reckoning? No need to bring mythical figures into it - straight question. The first year was year 1, making the first decade span the years 1 through 10, the second decade starting at year 11. Or is there a trick to your question? No trick. You make my point perfectly. Decades start on the year that ends in a 1, not a 0. So when I was 10 years old, I had not lived a decade, because "Decades start on the year that ends in a 1" whereas my first decade started with a year that ended in 6. I'm just saying that when someone refers to the 50's say, it's as arbitrary as saying "the evens". It's a description that we can use to group some of the past years together so we can easily agree on which ones we're talking about. I blame the schools lousy maths skills. When you were ten years old you had lived a decade. Just you were one year old you had lived a year. d And that is what happens when you post before you are awake. Let me try again... I blame the schools for lousy maths skills. When you were ten years old you had lived a decade, just as when you were one year old you had lived a year. You are reiterating my point. I may have failed to convey the irony in my earlier reply. The first decade of our current calendar may have ended on the first day of year 11, but a decade per se has an arbitrary start point. I'd even venture to say that it need not begin at the start of a calendar year. One popular dictionary's entry: 1) a period of ten years: the three decades from 1776 to 1806. 2) a period of ten years beginning with a year whose last digit is zero: the decade of the 1980s. 3) a group, set, or series of ten. Of course, decade is a word with many usages - those are just some of them. But in the context we were discussing we know which it was: A defined period of ten years beginning with a year that terminates with a one. The first decade is the years 1 to 10 - continue counting from there. And at no point do you get to slip in a nine year decade. d Considering how mankind has royally f$#*ed up calendars over the ages, including the estimation of when Jesus was born, I dont see why we couldnt slip a 9 year decade in there somewhere. After all, September, October, November and December arent the 7th, 8th, 9th and 10th months anymore. Jesus? Well if you are going to try to use the fictional birth of a mythological being, then yes, all bets are off. d |
#47
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
NY
"Don Pearce" wrote in message
... Of course, decade is a word with many usages - those are just some of them. But in the context we were discussing we know which it was: A defined period of ten years beginning with a year that terminates with a one. The first decade is the years 1 to 10 - continue counting from there. And at no point do you get to slip in a nine year decade. In the context we were discussing, the OP was clearly discussing the decade of the 2020's, which began on the first inst. In a year ending in zero. A decade whose start was marked and celebrated worldwide. In the context we were discussing, we know exactly which decade we were discussing. The one that began at the beginning of this year, which ends in zero. Nobody is slipping in a nine-year decade, although you seem to be trying, and reveling in your failure, having vanquished a straw man of your own device. It was you who promptly _changed_ the subject to decades beginning in years ending in one. Such decades have no practical use other than pedantic posturing. When such a decade begins next January 1, it will only be marked by the posturing pedants. Nobody else will care. |
#48
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
NY
On Sat, 18 Jan 2020 11:08:49 -0500, "None" wrote:
"Don Pearce" wrote in message ... Of course, decade is a word with many usages - those are just some of them. But in the context we were discussing we know which it was: A defined period of ten years beginning with a year that terminates with a one. The first decade is the years 1 to 10 - continue counting from there. And at no point do you get to slip in a nine year decade. In the context we were discussing, the OP was clearly discussing the decade of the 2020's, which began on the first inst. In a year ending in zero. A decade whose start was marked and celebrated worldwide. In the context we were discussing, we know exactly which decade we were discussing. The one that began at the beginning of this year, which ends in zero. Nobody is slipping in a nine-year decade, although you seem to be trying, and reveling in your failure, having vanquished a straw man of your own device. It was you who promptly _changed_ the subject to decades beginning in years ending in one. Such decades have no practical use other than pedantic posturing. When such a decade begins next January 1, it will only be marked by the posturing pedants. Nobody else will care. Too boring. d |
#49
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
NY
Don Pearce wrote:
On Fri, 17 Jan 2020 19:19:05 +0000 (UTC), Ralph Barone wrote: Don Pearce wrote: On Fri, 17 Jan 2020 08:34:32 -0800, Tobiah wrote: On 1/17/20 1:38 AM, Don Pearce wrote: On Fri, 17 Jan 2020 09:10:38 GMT, (Don Pearce) wrote: On Thu, 16 Jan 2020 13:28:05 -0800, Tobiah wrote: So what was the first year of the first decade in our current CE reckoning? No need to bring mythical figures into it - straight question. The first year was year 1, making the first decade span the years 1 through 10, the second decade starting at year 11. Or is there a trick to your question? No trick. You make my point perfectly. Decades start on the year that ends in a 1, not a 0. So when I was 10 years old, I had not lived a decade, because "Decades start on the year that ends in a 1" whereas my first decade started with a year that ended in 6. I'm just saying that when someone refers to the 50's say, it's as arbitrary as saying "the evens". It's a description that we can use to group some of the past years together so we can easily agree on which ones we're talking about. I blame the schools lousy maths skills. When you were ten years old you had lived a decade. Just you were one year old you had lived a year. d And that is what happens when you post before you are awake. Let me try again... I blame the schools for lousy maths skills. When you were ten years old you had lived a decade, just as when you were one year old you had lived a year. You are reiterating my point. I may have failed to convey the irony in my earlier reply. The first decade of our current calendar may have ended on the first day of year 11, but a decade per se has an arbitrary start point. I'd even venture to say that it need not begin at the start of a calendar year. One popular dictionary's entry: 1) a period of ten years: the three decades from 1776 to 1806. 2) a period of ten years beginning with a year whose last digit is zero: the decade of the 1980s. 3) a group, set, or series of ten. Of course, decade is a word with many usages - those are just some of them. But in the context we were discussing we know which it was: A defined period of ten years beginning with a year that terminates with a one. The first decade is the years 1 to 10 - continue counting from there. And at no point do you get to slip in a nine year decade. d Considering how mankind has royally f$#*ed up calendars over the ages, including the estimation of when Jesus was born, I dont see why we couldnt slip a 9 year decade in there somewhere. After all, September, October, November and December arent the 7th, 8th, 9th and 10th months anymore. Jesus? Well if you are going to try to use the fictional birth of a mythological being, then yes, all bets are off. d OK, so we all agree that the transition from BC to AD was so bolloxed up that starting decades on the zero is just fine now. |
#50
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
NY
On Sat, 18 Jan 2020 19:32:09 +0000 (UTC), Ralph Barone
wrote: Don Pearce wrote: On Fri, 17 Jan 2020 19:19:05 +0000 (UTC), Ralph Barone wrote: Don Pearce wrote: On Fri, 17 Jan 2020 08:34:32 -0800, Tobiah wrote: On 1/17/20 1:38 AM, Don Pearce wrote: On Fri, 17 Jan 2020 09:10:38 GMT, (Don Pearce) wrote: On Thu, 16 Jan 2020 13:28:05 -0800, Tobiah wrote: So what was the first year of the first decade in our current CE reckoning? No need to bring mythical figures into it - straight question. The first year was year 1, making the first decade span the years 1 through 10, the second decade starting at year 11. Or is there a trick to your question? No trick. You make my point perfectly. Decades start on the year that ends in a 1, not a 0. So when I was 10 years old, I had not lived a decade, because "Decades start on the year that ends in a 1" whereas my first decade started with a year that ended in 6. I'm just saying that when someone refers to the 50's say, it's as arbitrary as saying "the evens". It's a description that we can use to group some of the past years together so we can easily agree on which ones we're talking about. I blame the schools lousy maths skills. When you were ten years old you had lived a decade. Just you were one year old you had lived a year. d And that is what happens when you post before you are awake. Let me try again... I blame the schools for lousy maths skills. When you were ten years old you had lived a decade, just as when you were one year old you had lived a year. You are reiterating my point. I may have failed to convey the irony in my earlier reply. The first decade of our current calendar may have ended on the first day of year 11, but a decade per se has an arbitrary start point. I'd even venture to say that it need not begin at the start of a calendar year. One popular dictionary's entry: 1) a period of ten years: the three decades from 1776 to 1806. 2) a period of ten years beginning with a year whose last digit is zero: the decade of the 1980s. 3) a group, set, or series of ten. Of course, decade is a word with many usages - those are just some of them. But in the context we were discussing we know which it was: A defined period of ten years beginning with a year that terminates with a one. The first decade is the years 1 to 10 - continue counting from there. And at no point do you get to slip in a nine year decade. d Considering how mankind has royally f$#*ed up calendars over the ages, including the estimation of when Jesus was born, I dont see why we couldnt slip a 9 year decade in there somewhere. After all, September, October, November and December arent the 7th, 8th, 9th and 10th months anymore. Jesus? Well if you are going to try to use the fictional birth of a mythological being, then yes, all bets are off. d OK, so we all agree that the transition from BC to AD was so bolloxed up that starting decades on the zero is just fine now. However ********ed up it may have been, we still recognise it as starting at one, so no. d |
#51
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
NY
Don Pearce wrote:
On Sat, 18 Jan 2020 19:32:09 +0000 (UTC), Ralph Barone wrote: Don Pearce wrote: On Fri, 17 Jan 2020 19:19:05 +0000 (UTC), Ralph Barone wrote: Don Pearce wrote: On Fri, 17 Jan 2020 08:34:32 -0800, Tobiah wrote: On 1/17/20 1:38 AM, Don Pearce wrote: On Fri, 17 Jan 2020 09:10:38 GMT, (Don Pearce) wrote: On Thu, 16 Jan 2020 13:28:05 -0800, Tobiah wrote: So what was the first year of the first decade in our current CE reckoning? No need to bring mythical figures into it - straight question. The first year was year 1, making the first decade span the years 1 through 10, the second decade starting at year 11. Or is there a trick to your question? No trick. You make my point perfectly. Decades start on the year that ends in a 1, not a 0. So when I was 10 years old, I had not lived a decade, because "Decades start on the year that ends in a 1" whereas my first decade started with a year that ended in 6. I'm just saying that when someone refers to the 50's say, it's as arbitrary as saying "the evens". It's a description that we can use to group some of the past years together so we can easily agree on which ones we're talking about. I blame the schools lousy maths skills. When you were ten years old you had lived a decade. Just you were one year old you had lived a year. d And that is what happens when you post before you are awake. Let me try again... I blame the schools for lousy maths skills. When you were ten years old you had lived a decade, just as when you were one year old you had lived a year. You are reiterating my point. I may have failed to convey the irony in my earlier reply. The first decade of our current calendar may have ended on the first day of year 11, but a decade per se has an arbitrary start point. I'd even venture to say that it need not begin at the start of a calendar year. One popular dictionary's entry: 1) a period of ten years: the three decades from 1776 to 1806. 2) a period of ten years beginning with a year whose last digit is zero: the decade of the 1980s. 3) a group, set, or series of ten. Of course, decade is a word with many usages - those are just some of them. But in the context we were discussing we know which it was: A defined period of ten years beginning with a year that terminates with a one. The first decade is the years 1 to 10 - continue counting from there. And at no point do you get to slip in a nine year decade. d Considering how mankind has royally f$#*ed up calendars over the ages, including the estimation of when Jesus was born, I don’t see why we couldn’t slip a 9 year decade in there somewhere. After all, September, October, November and December aren’t the 7th, 8th, 9th and 10th months anymore. Jesus? Well if you are going to try to use the fictional birth of a mythological being, then yes, all bets are off. d OK, so we all agree that the transition from BC to AD was so bolloxed up that starting decades on the zero is just fine now. However ********ed up it may have been, we still recognise it as starting at one, so no. d For certain values of €śwe€ť, sure... |
#52
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
NY
"Don Pearce" wrote in message
... However ********ed up it may have been, we* still recognise it as starting at one, so no. * For extremely small values of "we." Nonetheless, we're in the 2020's, a decade that began less than three weeks ago. It's a real decade, as were the 1960's, the 1920's, and the 1890's. You can choose do deny that, of course. |
#53
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
NY
On Sun, 19 Jan 2020 00:36:08 -0500, "None" wrote:
"Don Pearce" wrote in message ... However ********ed up it may have been, we* still recognise it as starting at one, so no. * For extremely small values of "we." Nonetheless, we're in the 2020's, a decade that began less than three weeks ago. It's a real decade, as were the 1960's, the 1920's, and the 1890's. You can choose do deny that, of course. Now stop! I've already pointed out that the 1960s did not start until 1963. d |
#54
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
NY
On 19/01/2020 08:53, Don Pearce wrote:
On Sun, 19 Jan 2020 00:36:08 -0500, "None" wrote: Nonetheless, we're in the 2020's, a decade that began less than three weeks ago. It's a real decade, as were the 1960's, the 1920's, and the 1890's. You can choose do deny that, of course. Now stop! I've already pointed out that the 1960s did not start until 1963. (Sorry, politics. Feel free to ignore.) And in the UK, the great depression of the 2020s will start on the 31st of January at 23:00 GMT when we leave the EU. -- Tciao for Now! John. |
#55
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
NY
On Sun, 19 Jan 2020 11:21:43 +0000, John Williamson
wrote: On 19/01/2020 08:53, Don Pearce wrote: On Sun, 19 Jan 2020 00:36:08 -0500, "None" wrote: Nonetheless, we're in the 2020's, a decade that began less than three weeks ago. It's a real decade, as were the 1960's, the 1920's, and the 1890's. You can choose do deny that, of course. Now stop! I've already pointed out that the 1960s did not start until 1963. (Sorry, politics. Feel free to ignore.) And in the UK, the great depression of the 2020s will start on the 31st of January at 23:00 GMT when we leave the EU. Sadly true. But Johnson, Rees-Mogg, Farage and co can feel smug right up to the point where they file for bankruptcy. d |