My last post of the decade
Keith F. Lynch
anyway?)
According to Google, this is my 29,912th rasff post of the decade.
That sounds like a lot, and it *is* more than anyone else, but it's
only about 8.2 posts per day on average, or about one post every
three hours.
I plan to continue posting here in the teens. But there will be some
changes. I plan to stop defending myself. People can decide for
themselves how much value to put on my messages, rather than taking
anyone else's word for it. Even sillier are debates about what I said
or didn't say, since anyone can see that for themselves.
I plan to concentrate on substantive discussions. And to make greater
use of my killfile when someone is clearly more interested in trolling
or attacking than in discussing actual issues. The only people
currently in my killfile are Mike Ash, Terry Austin, Kurt Busiek, Gary
Farber, Andre Lieven, and David Loewe. And I hope I never have to add
anyone else.
This will allow me to catch up on the many messages I have flagged
as needing replies -- currently 11 in this newsgroup, but over 200
elsehwere. Some of those are either not substantive or are replies
to people I've since killfiled, and I won't be bothering with those.
I wish everyone a happy, healthy, and prosperous teen decade.
--
Keith F. Lynch - http://keithlynch.net/
Please see http://keithlynch.net/email.html before emailing me.
Paul Dormer
Lynch) wrote:
>
> This is my last post of the decade. (What *is* this decade called,
> anyway?)
Over here, all the media have been calling it the noughties.
Andre Lieven
> In article <hhha01$eg...@reader1.panix.com>, k...@KeithLynch.net (Keith F.
And, "the decade" that we are still in, started on 1 Jan 2001, and
ends on 31 Dec 2010.
So, is Keith promising not to post for the next 365.3 days ? <g>
Andre
David V. Loewe, Jr
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decade
"Although any period of ten years is a decade, a convenient and
frequently referenced interval is based on the tens digit of the
calendar year, as in using 1960s to represent the decade from 1960 to
1969."
--
"I guess I wouldn't believe in anything anymore if it weren't
for my lucky astrology mood watch."
- Steve Martin
Andre Lieven
lips' got tired too quickly:
> On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 14:00:43 -0800 (PST), Andre Lieven
>
> >On Dec 31, 5:53 am, p...@pauldormer.cix.co.uk (Paul Dormer) wrote:
> >> k...@KeithLynch.net (Keith F. Lynch) wrote:
>
> >> > This is my last post of the decade. (What *is* this decade called,
> >> > anyway?)
>
> >> Over here, all the media have been calling it the noughties.
>
> >And, "the decade" that we are still in, started on 1 Jan 2001, and
> >ends on 31 Dec 2010.
>
> >So, is Keith promising not to post for the next 365.3 days ? <g>
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decade
>
> "Although any period of ten years is a decade, a convenient and
> frequently referenced interval is based on the tens digit of the
> calendar year, as in using 1960s to represent the decade from 1960 to
> 1969."
Stupid people stop before getting to the parts that they don't like...
"Some writers[5] like to point out that since the common calendar
starts from the year 1, its first full decade contained the years
from
1 to 10, the second decade from 11 to 20, and so on. The interval
from the year 2001 to 2010 could thus be called the 201st decade,
using ordinal numbers."
"[5] ^ Passim, i.a. Spencer, Donald D. 1989. Invitation to number
theory with Pascal. Ormond Beach: Camelot. 46: "The first decade
is from 1 to 10 inclusive, the second decade from 11 to 20 inclusive,
and so on." "
Same source, dumbass. And, when the common usage is at
variance with the EXACT usage, then an appeal to common
usage is an Own Goal: Yours.
"Assholes do vex me!" Robin Williams, standup philosopher.
Andre
David Loewe, Jr.
<andre...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>On Dec 31, 5:14�pm, "David V. Loewe, Jerkwad" <dum...@chatterbox.nut>
>lips' got tired too quickly:
You DO realize that doing this sort of juvenile thing causes more people
to dismiss you than any other reaction you get out of it, right?
Actually, "EXACT usage" is given earlier in the article - "A decade is a
period of ten years. The word is derived (via French) from the Late
Latin decadem, accusative of decas, from Greek decas, from deca. The
other words for spans of years also come from Latin: lustrum (5 years),
century (100 years), millennium (1000 years)."
>"Assholes do vex me!" Robin Williams, standup philosopher.
Attempting to badger Keith over the far more common usage is just
further proof of your inherent anal-retentiveness and general assholery.
--
"I would like to take you seriously, but to do so would affront
your intelligence."
- William F. Buckley, Jr.
cryptoguy
> On Dec 31, 5:14 pm, "David V. Loewe, Jerkwad" <dumb...@chatterbox.nut>
Just a side note:
DV Lowe is defending Keith. Check hell for signs of ice.
Main point.
1. You're right.
2. Nobody gives a damn that you're right.
The '1990s' were all the years with the first 3 digits '199', by
defintition So were 'the Nineties' except in contexts that make it
clear we're discussing a different millennium. The 'Noughties', or
what ever you want to call the decade that has just ended, were the
years starting in '200'.
This little bit of pedantry turns up every 10 years, and each time a
new bunch of calendar nerds think its fun to point it out. It came in
spades 10 years ago, when we had the trifecta of a new decade,
century, and millennium. Even then, No One Cared.
It's now a new decade, the Teens. Deal with it.
pt
Paul Dormer
<a867b367-913a-4ab4...@m3g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>,
treif...@gmail.com (cryptoguy) wrote:
>
> 1. You're right.
> 2. Nobody gives a damn that you're right.
Incidentally, in some circles, 1BC actually is the year zero. Some
scientific disciplines use a year zero to make the maths easier and
renumber all BC years, which they consider historians have got wrong.
David Loewe, Jr.
<treif...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Just a side note:
>DV Lowe is defending Keith. Check hell for signs of ice.
<shrug>
I have defended Keith in the past and will continue to do so in the
future when I think he is right.
--
"Choose your friends wisely."
Dr. Jerry Pournelle
cryptoguy
>
> treifam...@gmail.com (cryptoguy) wrote:
>
> > 1. You're right.
> > 2. Nobody gives a damn that you're right.
>
> Incidentally, in some circles, 1BC actually is the year zero. Some
> scientific disciplines use a year zero to make the maths easier and
> renumber all BC years, which they consider historians have got wrong.
In a nearby thread, I posed the question: What if Bede had gotten it
right, and started with the year zero? If so, what do you call the
year before that? -0? -1? Do you make year 0 part of both BC and AD,
part of one or the other, or part of neither?
Only having two year zeroes, or year zero counting for both, avoids
the 'which decade is 2010 (or 2010 BC) part of?' question.
pt
Andre Lieven
Kinda hard to find any here in Florida, outside of a bar
beverage...
> Main point.
>
> 1. You're right.
> 2. Nobody gives a damn that you're right.
Then, 3. those who can simultaneously hold 1 & 2 are morons.
HTH.
> The '1990s' were all the years with the first 3 digits '199', by
> defintition
No, by common MIS usage. Need I point out that the "common
use" of the word theory also gets it exactly wrong ? EG,
creationists.
> So were 'the Nineties' except in contexts that make it
> clear we're discussing a different millennium. The 'Noughties', or
> what ever you want to call the decade that has just ended, were the
> years starting in '200'.
Bollocks. Feel free to try to correct A. C. Clarke...
> This little bit of pedantry turns up every 10 years, and each time a
> new bunch of calendar nerds think its fun to point it out. It came in
> spades 10 years ago, when we had the trifecta of a new decade,
> century, and millennium. Even then, No One Cared.
You mis-spelled "No One Stupid Cared".
> It's now a new decade, the Teens. Deal with it.
Get over yourself. I'll deal with reality. Those who choose to deny
it in favour of their laziness, well, they have my undying and well
earned contempt.
Oh, and on that "big trifecta" of New Years', CNN twice ran a live
video feed from Ottawa. The first time, they labeled it as
"Cincinnati",
and the second time, "Toronto".
That was on top of their mistake over when the decade ends...
At least they were... consistent...
Andre
Alan Woodford
That doesn't avoid the question, only gives a relatively clear answer.
If I had a pound for every time I've heard the decade argument...
And I would be surprised if it isn't still being argued when people
are worrying about the Y1M problem :-)
Alan Woodford
The Greying Lensman!
Paul Dormer
<0d2b1f22-ef95-4b42...@r5g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
treif...@gmail.com (cryptoguy) wrote:
>
> In a nearby thread, I posed the question: What if Bede had gotten it
> right, and started with the year zero?
Didn't see that thread, but I have to ask, why Bede? According to The
Calendar by David Ewing Duncan, it was Dionysius Exiguus (whose name
means Dennis the Small, according to Duncan) who, in a letter to Bishop
Petronius, pointed out that the tables for calculating Easter used the
years anno Diocletiani. Diocletion was a persecutor of Christians, so
Dionysius suggested numbering years from the incarnation of Christ, which
he calculated to be 531 years previously. So 247 anno Diocletiani became
531 anno domini. Of course he didn't have a year zero, because zero
hadn't yet made it into western maths.
Curiously, that's the second reference I've seen to Bede today. The
Saturday paper contains a column analysing errors and solecisms in the
paper and today the writer takes a fellow columnist to task for the word
"bedability". He points out that it should be derived from "beddable"
(meaning sexually attractive) and should therefore be spelled
"beddability". Otherwise, it looks as if it is something to do with the
Venerable Bede.
Evelyn Leeper
Same here (on second reference to bede in a day)--the other for me was
Stephen Jay Gould talking about how Bede used Dennis's year numbers
(rather than "in the ninth year of the reign of So-and-So").
--
Evelyn C. Leeper
Man is the only animal for whom his own existence is a problem
which he has to solve. -Erich Fromm
cryptoguy
>
> treifam...@gmail.com (cryptoguy) wrote:
>
> > In a nearby thread, I posed the question: What if Bede had gotten it
> > right, and started with the year zero?
>
> Didn't see that thread, but I have to ask, why Bede? According to The
> Calendar by David Ewing Duncan, it was Dionysius Exiguus (whose name
> means Dennis the Small, according to Duncan) who, in a letter to Bishop
> Petronius, pointed out that the tables for calculating Easter used the
> years anno Diocletiani. Diocletion was a persecutor of Christians, so
> Dionysius suggested numbering years from the incarnation of Christ, which
> he calculated to be 531 years previously. So 247 anno Diocletiani became
> 531 anno domini. Of course he didn't have a year zero, because zero
> hadn't yet made it into western maths.
I mentioned Bede because he was alleged to be responsible in the other
thread. It sounds like you have a better source.
pt
cryptoguy
Not really, you're making the error of assuming that 'decades' have to
line up with the year 1. That's simply false.
> > The '1990s' were all the years with the first 3 digits '199', by
> > defintition
>
> No, by common MIS usage. Need I point out that the "common
> use" of the word theory also gets it exactly wrong ? EG,
> creationists.
>
> > So were 'the Nineties' except in contexts that make it
> > clear we're discussing a different millennium. The 'Noughties', or
> > what ever you want to call the decade that has just ended, were the
> > years starting in '200'.
>
> Bollocks. Feel free to try to correct A. C. Clarke...
Nerds are nerds. I've met Clarke, had lunch with him. Great guy. I
don't recall where he supported your position, but he's too smart to
think that anyone with a different opinion on this man-created time
interval was 'wrong', in the sense that a flat-earther, (or you) are.
> > This little bit of pedantry turns up every 10 years, and each time a
> > new bunch of calendar nerds think its fun to point it out. It came in
> > spades 10 years ago, when we had the trifecta of a new decade,
> > century, and millennium. Even then, No One Cared.
>
> You mis-spelled "No One Stupid Cared".
>
> > It's now a new decade, the Teens. Deal with it.
>
> Get over yourself. I'll deal with reality. Those who choose to deny
> it in favour of their laziness, well, they have my undying and well
> earned contempt.
We all twist and writhe in the glare of you contempt.
Actually, we don't. Your opinion is of no importance whatsoever.
pt
Andre Lieven
"That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without
evidence." Christopher Hitchens.
> > > The '1990s' were all the years with the first 3 digits '199', by
> > > defintition
>
> > No, by common MIS usage. Need I point out that the "common
> > use" of the word theory also gets it exactly wrong ? EG,
> > creationists.
No rebuttal to this even *attempted* ? Excellent, my view stands.
> > > So were 'the Nineties' except in contexts that make it
> > > clear we're discussing a different millennium. The 'Noughties', or
> > > what ever you want to call the decade that has just ended, were the
> > > years starting in '200'.
>
> > Bollocks. Feel free to try to correct A. C. Clarke...
>
> Nerds are nerds. I've met Clarke, had lunch with him. Great guy. I
> don't recall where he supported your position, but he's too smart to
> think that anyone with a different opinion on this man-created time
> interval was 'wrong', in the sense that a flat-earther, (or you) are.
IOW, he's wrong, because you say so.
Yes, one of the worst things of the last 20 years is the epidemic
of UNEARNED self esteem...
> > > This little bit of pedantry turns up every 10 years, and each time a
> > > new bunch of calendar nerds think its fun to point it out. It came in
> > > spades 10 years ago, when we had the trifecta of a new decade,
> > > century, and millennium. Even then, No One Cared.
>
> > You mis-spelled "No One Stupid Cared".
>
> > > It's now a new decade, the Teens. Deal with it.
>
> > Get over yourself. I'll deal with reality. Those who choose to deny
> > it in favour of their laziness, well, they have my undying and well
> > earned contempt.
>
> We all twist and writhe in the glare of you contempt.
"Ad Hominem Alone, the last refuge of the *whipped* scoundrel."
> Actually, we don't. Your opinion is of no importance whatsoever.
<Massive Loony Projection>
Thank you for conceding that you have NO actual rebuttal
argument.
Andre
David Loewe, Jr.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decade
"Although any period of ten years is a decade..."
Which was already cited.
William December Starr
Andre Lieven <andre...@yahoo.ca> said:
> cryptoguy <treifam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Main point.
>>
>> 1. You're right.
>> 2. Nobody gives a damn that you're right.
What he said.
> Then, 3. those who can simultaneously hold 1 & 2 are morons.
Please go away.
-- wds
Paul Dormer
(Evelyn Leeper) wrote:
>
> Same here (on second reference to bede in a day)--the other for me
> was Stephen Jay Gould talking about how Bede used Dennis's year
> numbers (rather than "in the ninth year of the reign of So-and-So").
Incidentally, since my post yesterday, I remembered that I was in Bede
House at school. The house system existed long before Hogwarts, even in
my state school in the sixties. Every pupil in the school was assigned a
"house" - not a physical building, just a device for intra-school
competition. The houses were named after four famous people from the
north east of England. I think the other three were Surtees (Robert
Surtees, a famous antiquarian), Stephenson (George Stephenson, the
engineer) and Browning (Elizabeth Barrett Browning, the poet).
cryptoguy
> In article <38181fe2-b7cf-4355-9f08-2e80b0452...@h9g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
> Andre Lieven <andrelie...@yahoo.ca> said:
>
> > cryptoguy <treifam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> Main point.
>
> >> 1. You're right.
> >> 2. Nobody gives a damn that you're right.
>
> What he said.
>
> > Then, 3. those who can simultaneously hold 1 & 2 are morons.
>
> Please go away.
Actually, I've worked out where Andre's screwed up. He's imagining
that decades are named using a enumerated count of decades. We
certainly do this for centuries, ie, the 21st Century. We don't do
that for decades - no one is calling this the '201st decade'.
If we were using a count, he'd be right. But we're not. The 'teens'
are the 10 years all of which have the '201' as the first three
digits: it's a descriptive title, rather than an enumeration. The
Noughties of the first millenium only had nine years, since there were
only 9 years starting with '000', while the first decade did indeed
run from 0001 to the end of 0010.
The 202nd decade will start Jan 1, 2011, and end Dec 31, 2020. On
that, he's correct. However, the 'teens' started Jan 1, 2010, and will
end Dec 31, 2019.
The Calendar Nerds are correct when the tell us that the 21st century
actually started Jan 1, 2001. But they're wrong for decades, because
we don't name them that way. However, recognizing that would allow
them to get snarky only once in 100 years, which isn't as much fun.
pt
Kevin J. Maroney
<treif...@gmail.com> wrote:
>The Calendar Nerds are correct when the tell us that the 21st century
>actually started Jan 1, 2001. But they're wrong for decades, because
>we don't name them that way. However, recognizing that would allow
>them to get snarky only once in 100 years, which isn't as much fun.
My habit, which is completely idiosyncratic but makes good emotional
sense to me, is that the Second Century is the years from 100-199 AD
and the First Century is 1-99 AD. The First Century gets shorted a
year as punishment for not thinking to pick up a year 0 before it
rushed onto the scene.
--
Kevin J. Maroney | k...@panix.com | www.maroney.org
Games are my entire waking life.
Andre Lieven
> On Sat, 2 Jan 2010 17:39:50 -0800 (PST), Andre Lieven
>
Citing a HALF of a *sentence* is grossly dishonest. Of you.
> Which was already cited.
And, which was already refuted.
Andre
David V. Loewe, Jr
<andre...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>On Jan 3, 3:17�am, "David Liar, Jerkwad." <li...@mindless.nut> lied:
Why do you insist on behaving like you are in the third grade?
It is cited in full above.
>> Which was already cited.
>
>And, which was already refuted.
You deny that ten years is a decade?
--
"It is a consolation to the wretched to have companions in misery."
- Publius Syrus
Andre Lieven
lied:
> On Sun, 3 Jan 2010 09:55:47 -0800 (PST), Andre Lieven
>
> >On Jan 3, 3:17 am, "David Liar, Jerkwad." <l...@mindless.nut> lied:
>
> Why do you insist on behaving like you are in the third grade?
Shut up, Keith.
Lie. Thank you for proving that you ARE a liar.
> >> Which was already cited.
>
> >And, which was already refuted.
>
> You deny that ten years is a decade?
I absolutely deny, because it is untrue, that when the word decade
is used to connote the passing of a decade, that what is being
described is NOT just any 10 years, but collections of 10 year
spans definable by the number of the decade, such as "the 60s".
The ONLY issue is whether such a defined decade starts in years
ending in zero, or in years ending in one.
Those who define by ending in zero are wrong, and those who define
by ending in one are right; period, end stop. As Arthur Clarke points
out.
Try to copy Keith less in this new year.
Andre
William December Starr
"David V. Loewe, Jr" <dave...@charter.net> said:
> Andre Lieven <andre...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
>> On Jan 3, 3:17�am, "David Liar, Jerkwad." <li...@mindless.nut> lied:
>
> Why do you insist on behaving like you are in the third grade?
Hmm. Is there a standard term for a question which contains its own
answer?
-- wds
Kip Williams
"Dealt and smelt"?
Kip W
D. Glenn Arthur Jr.
cryptoguy <treif...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Actually, I've worked out where Andre's screwed up. He's imagining
>that decades are named using a enumerated count of decades. We
>certainly do this for centuries, ie, the 21st Century. We don't do
>that for decades - no one is calling this the '201st decade'.
This. This is more or less what I was about to say (waiting
until I got to the end of the thread). The Naughties comprise
the final year of the XXth Century through the penultimate year
of the first Decade of the XXIst Century. That is, the first
decade of the XXIst C. (Gregorian) _does_ have another year
(minus a few days) left to run, but the decade we're calling
the Naughties has just ended (modulo historical perpective
on timing of social changes adjusting it later, as with "the
Sixties" running from 1963 to 1972), and the Teens has begun.
The ninth decade of the XXth C. ran from 1981-1990. "The
1980s" ran from 1980-1989. "The Eighties" is whatever span
of years starting around 1980 and ending around 1990 that
best encapsulate the social, economic, and historical trends
are being talked about at the time. (I'm thinkin' that
the Eighties were short, roughly 1982-1988, but I'm probably
thinking more about musical trends than socioeconomic ones.)
English is wonderful in the ways that it can clearly convey
what sort of ambiguity or precision is intended. Embrace this
power. (Regarding centuries, a convention I've seen and
found awfully convenient is to use "century" with a miniscule
'c' to refer to any arbitrary hundred-year period -- e.g.,
"Joe Schmoe, whose birthday was yesterday, is a hundred years
old. During the century he's been alive..." or, "In 2003 we
celebrated a century of powered heavier-than-air flight" --
and "Century" with a majuscule 'C' for consecutively numbered
centuries of a particular (usually Gregorian) calendar -- e.g.,
"The nineteenth Century, which is to say the years 1801-1900,
...". I have not seen a similar convention for "decade" vs.
"Decade" -- most likely because we say "the third Decade"
ever so less often than we say "the fourteenth Century" or
"the third Millenium". Even without such a convention,
clues like "the first decade of" vs. "the 00s" let us
clarify whether we're talking about the tenyear that
ends 2010-12-31 or the one that ended 2009-12-31.
Kinda like how in the US[*] a "Calorie" is a thousand
"calories", but with an offset instead of a scale factor.
Every so often somebody unwary will get tripped up, but
for the most part we manage to keep things straight.
>[...]
>The Calendar Nerds are correct when the tell us that the 21st century
>actually started Jan 1, 2001. But they're wrong for decades, because
>we don't name them that way.
_Some_ calendar nerds. Others intuit what you've enumerated
and get exasperated at the fuss over whether the Naughties ==
the First Decade because it makes the business about Centuries
being defined correctly sound silly by association.
([*] On imported foods, I often see "kcal" instead of "Cal"
on the nutrition labels. I don't know which places use
which convention, other than that the US uses "Cal". I'm
pretty sure I've seen a food label someplace that gave the
number in joules, as well.)
--
D. Glenn Arthur Jr./The Human Vibrator, dgl...@panix.com
Due to hand/wrist problems my newsreading time varies so I may miss followups.
"Being a _man_ means knowing that one has a choice not to act like a 'man'."
http://www.dglenn.org/ http://dglenn.dreamwidth.org
cryptoguy
> On Jan 3, 1:15 pm, "David The Liar, Jerk" <d...@clutter.nut> lied and
If you're going to wave Clarke around, please give a citation. Was he
talking about centuries (in which case you're right, but no one
cares), or decades (on which you're simply wrong, since we don't name
them for their sequence number)?
> Try to copy Keith less in this new year.
So you want people to make *more* response to criticism?
pt
David V. Loewe, Jr
<andre...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>On Jan 3, 1:15�pm, "David The Liar, Jerk" <da...@clutter.nut> lied and
>lied:
>> On Sun, 3 Jan 2010 09:55:47 -0800 (PST), Andre Lieven
>> <andrelie...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>> >On Jan 3, 3:17�am, "David Liar, Jerkwad." <l...@mindless.nut> lied:
>>
>> Why do you insist on behaving like you are in the third grade?
>
>Shut up, Keith.
I'm sorry, is it the *second* grade you're in emotionally?
>> >> On Sat, 2 Jan 2010 17:39:50 -0800 (PST), Andre Lieven
>> >> <andrelie...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>> >> >On Jan 2, 6:15�pm, cryptoguy <treifam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >> On Jan 2, 12:18�am, Andre Lieven <andrelie...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>> >> >> > On Jan 1, 11:46�am, cryptoguy <treifam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >> > > On Dec 31 2009, 9:38�pm, Andre Lieven <andrelie...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>> >> >> > > > On Dec 31, 5:14�pm, "David V. Loewe, Jerkwad" <dumb...@chatterbox.nut>
>> >> >> > > > lips' got tired too quickly:
>> >> >> > > > > On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 14:00:43 -0800 (PST), Andre Lieven
>> >> >> > > > > <andrelie...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>> >> >> > > > > >On Dec 31, 5:53�am, p...@pauldormer.cix.co.uk (Paul Dormer) wrote:
>> >> >> > > > > >> k...@KeithLynch.net (Keith F. Lynch) wrote:
>>
>> >> >> > > > > >> > This is my last post of the decade. �(What *is* this
>> >> >> > > > > >> > decade called, anyway?)
>>
>> >> >> > > > > >> Over here, all the media have been calling it the noughties.
>>
>> >> >> > > > > >And, "the decade" that we are still in, started on 1 Jan 2001,
>> >> >> > > > > >and ends on 31 Dec 2010.
>>
>> >> >> > > > > >So, is Keith promising not to post for the next 365.3 days ? <g>
>>
>> >> >> > > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decade
>>
>> >> >> > > > > "Although any period of ten years is a decade, a convenient and
>> >> >> > > > > frequently referenced interval is based on the tens digit of the
>> >> >> > > > > calendar year, as in using 1960s to represent the decade from
>> >> >> > > > > 1960 to 1969."
That IS the full sentence for the fragment I cited again below. That
you somehow think that it wasn't previously cited (it was also cited in
another recent thread to boot) is *stunning*.
Are you *BLIND*?
>> >> Which was already cited.
>>
>> >And, which was already refuted.
>>
>> You deny that ten years is a decade?
>
>I absolutely deny, because it is untrue, that when the word decade
>is used to connote the passing of a decade, that what is being
>described is NOT just any 10 years, but collections of 10 year
>spans definable by the number of the decade, such as "the 60s".
>
>The ONLY issue is whether such a defined decade starts in years
>ending in zero, or in years ending in one.
>
>Those who define by ending in zero are wrong, and those who define
>by ending in one are right; period, end stop.
"The majority is always sane, Louis Wu."
>As Arthur Clarke points out.
>
>Try to copy Keith less in this new year.
--
"No rational argument will have a rational effect on a man who
does not want to adopt a rational attitude."
Sir Karl Popper
Andre Lieven
It is Two Thousand AND ONE A Space Odyssey, not 2000...
> Was he
> talking about centuries (in which case you're right, but no one
> cares), or decades (on which you're simply wrong, since we don't name
> them for their sequence number)?
Absurd, decades and centuries don't have different start years by
one. If YOU wish to claim that they DO, that is YOUR claim
to support.
> > Try to copy Keith less in this new year.
>
> So you want people to make *more* response to criticism?
Straw Whore, fuck it on your own time.
Andre
Cryptoengineer
Oh, too bad. I thought you might actually have a citation, not a
baseless extrapolation. Yes, 2001 is a date. It specifies a year. I
don't see anything there that specifies what decade he thinks it was
in. '2001' is simply a more dramatic title than '2000'. Do you have a
cite where he actually says 'Decades start in the year ending in 1,
and people who think otherwise are wrong."?
> Absurd, decades and centuries don't have different start years by
> one. If YOU wish to claim that they DO, that is YOUR claim
> to support.
On what basis do you make this claim? I'm using the English language,
in which they do.
Yes, the 197th decade ran from 1961 to 1970 inclusive, and the 191st
decade started in 1901. Fine. But no one talks about decades like
that. The '60s' ran from 1960-1969, inclusive. The 1900s started in
(duh) 1900. I can't find a single citation, outside of calendar nerds
being snarky, where 1960 isn't part of the 60s. Can you?
This is simply how the overwhelming majority of English language
speakers use the terms. You may not like it, but you don't get to
define what words mean, Mr. Dumpty.
To cite an actually authoritative source:
"Although any period of ten years is a decade,[1][2] a convenient and
frequently referenced interval is based on the tens digit of the
calendar year, as in using 1960s to represent the decade from 1960 to
1969.[3][4]"
That's Wikipedia, which *is* a better source than you are.
Cites [1] and [2] are to the Oxford and Webster dictionaries,
respectively. [3] is to the Perdue University Online Writing Lab, and
[4] to Wordnet.
> > > Try to copy Keith less in this new year.
>
> > So you want people to make *more* response to criticism?
> Straw Whore, fuck it on your own time.
Vulgarity? Clearly, you're out of arguments.
Keith has promised not to make so many responses to criticism in the
coming year. I guess you missed that.
pt
Keith F. Lynch
> ([*] On imported foods, I often see "kcal" instead of "Cal" on the
> nutrition labels. I don't know which places use which convention,
> other than that the US uses "Cal". I'm pretty sure I've seen a food
> label someplace that gave the number in joules, as well.)
I thought that pretty much everywhere but the US used joules instead
of Calories for foods. Ironically, both are metric units.
Similarly, other countries use moles rather than grams to measure
various medical quantities, which is why blood sugars and blood
cholesterol numbers are so different between the US and elsewhere.
Once again, both moles and grams are metric units.
--
Keith F. Lynch - http://keithlynch.net/
Please see http://keithlynch.net/email.html before emailing me.
Keith F. Lynch
> In a nearby thread, I posed the question: What if Bede had gotten it
> right, and started with the year zero?
Not likely, since the concept of zero had not yet been invented. Or
at least had not yet spread to Europe.
> If so, what do you call the year before that? -0? -1?
The year before zero would be minus one. Thus 4000 years before the
year 2000 would be the year minus 2000. As it is, 4000 years before
the year AD 2000 is the year 2001 BC.
> Do you make year 0 part of both BC and AD, part of one or the other,
> or part of neither?
If you allow negative numbers, there's no need for "BC." If it's AD
2010, 4000 years ago it was AD minus 1990. Alternatively, we could do
away with AD, and call this year minus 2011 BC.
> Only having two year zeroes, or year zero counting for both, avoids
> the 'which decade is 2010 (or 2010 BC) part of?' question.
Good point. At least with the present system of numbering centuries,
BC and AD are symmetrical. The first century BC was years 100 through
1. The first century AD was years 1 through 100. And no years were
part of no century, no years were part of two centuries, and no
centuries were longer or shorter than 100 years. This would not all
be true if there was a single year zero. On the other hand, having
two years zero seems just wrong, since zero and minus zero are equal.
On the gripping hand, calling 100 BC through 1 BC the first century BC
also seems just wrong, since it was in fact not the first BC century,
but the *last* BC century.
There's inevitable tension between integers and real numbers, i.e.
between counting and measuring. Although I'm in my 50s, this is my
seventh decade ('50s, '60s, '70s, '80s, '90s, '00s, '10s).
Perhaps the best solution is to adopt a new calendar, one whose epoch
is 10,000 years earlier. So this year would be 12010 rather than
2010. This has the advantages that all of recorded history has
positive years, it's trivial to convert from AD, it isn't biased in
favor of Christianity, and once the initial conversion is done we
won't have to worry about the Y100K problem for a very long time.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_calendar
Cryptoengineer
As you'll find downthread, Andre doesn't understand this distinction.
> Perhaps the best solution is to adopt a new calendar, one whose epoch
> is 10,000 years earlier. So this year would be 12010 rather than
> 2010. This has the advantages that all of recorded history has
> positive years, it's trivial to convert from AD, it isn't biased in
> favor of Christianity, and once the initial conversion is done we
> won't have to worry about the Y100K problem for a very long time.
> Seehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_calendar
Nice response. I hope you and yours have a good new year.
pt
Paul Dormer
Lynch) wrote:
>
> I thought that pretty much everywhere but the US used joules instead
> of Calories for foods. Ironically, both are metric units.
You've mentioned this before and I've pointed out that in the UK, we use
both kilocalories and kilojoules on food labelling, often both on the
same label.
netcat
> D. Glenn Arthur Jr. <dgl...@panix.com> wrote:
> > ([*] On imported foods, I often see "kcal" instead of "Cal" on the
> > nutrition labels. I don't know which places use which convention,
> > other than that the US uses "Cal". I'm pretty sure I've seen a food
> > label someplace that gave the number in joules, as well.)
>
> I thought that pretty much everywhere but the US used joules instead
> of Calories for foods. Ironically, both are metric units.
In everyday life, kcal rules here, even if joules are also present on
packaging. I've never bothered figuring them out.
rgds,
netcat
D. Glenn Arthur Jr.
According to Wikipedia (if I'm remembering correctly what I
skimmed yesterday), joules are required in the EU with kcal
being optional and frequently appearing alongside. So most
likely, the foods I saw with kcal only came from non-EU
countries, and the ones where I saw joules listed came from
the EU. When I get a chance, I'll test this hypothesis by
paying more attention to the labels of the next few imported
food products I run across.
Andy Leighton
> Paul Dormer <p...@pauldormer.cix.co.uk> wrote:
>>In article <hhu367$s7f$2...@reader1.panix.com>, k...@KeithLynch.net (Keith F.
>>Lynch) wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> I thought that pretty much everywhere but the US used joules instead
>>> of Calories for foods. Ironically, both are metric units.
>>
>>You've mentioned this before and I've pointed out that in the UK, we use
>>both kilocalories and kilojoules on food labelling, often both on the
>>same label.
>
> According to Wikipedia (if I'm remembering correctly what I
> skimmed yesterday), joules are required in the EU with kcal
> being optional and frequently appearing alongside.
All the food (all from the EU as I am in the UK) I looked at - cheese,
tins of stuff, gravy powder had kJ and kcal only. Listing stuff in
joules is almost as bad as listing it in calories - you get big numbers
that frighten some people.
--
Andy Leighton => an...@azaal.plus.com
"The Lord is my shepherd, but we still lost the sheep dog trials"
- Robert Rankin, _They Came And Ate Us_
William December Starr
cryptoguy <treif...@gmail.com> said:
> Actually, I've worked out where Andre's screwed up.
If there was a Nobel prize in psychiatry, you could win one for that.
-- wds (okay, I'll stop now)
Alan Woodford
Starr) wrote:
Yes, I know it is cruel to mock the killfiled, but that is worth a
<laughed out loud> at the very least. Well played, Sir.
Alan Woodford
The Greying Lensman!