|
|
Post by ck100 on Dec 1, 2019 7:46:01 GMT
Can you believe it? Do you all have anything special planned for this month outside of for Christmas/New Years?
|
|
|
|
Post by RiP, IMDb on Dec 1, 2019 7:55:24 GMT
Can you believe it? Do you all have anything special planned for this month outside of for Christmas/New Years?
|
|
|
|
Post by Johnny-Come-Lately on Dec 1, 2019 7:57:06 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by theravenking on Dec 1, 2019 14:31:52 GMT
Can you believe it? Do you all have anything special planned for this month outside of for Christmas/New Years?
People keep making this mistake, because they ignore that there was no year zero.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jep Gambardella on Dec 1, 2019 14:54:48 GMT
This IS the LAST month of the year and decade IF going by the 2010s (2010-9) of the 2000s (2000-2999 and 2000-99), BUT NOT IF going by the 2nd decade (2011-20) of the 21st century (2001-2100) OR of the 3rd millennium (2001-3000)!!
People keep making this mistake, because they ignore that there was no year zero.
It would only be a mistake if Year One were a definite historical moment, but since it is not (the birth of Jesus certainly did not happen on 25/December/0001, and the numbering only started hundreds of years afterwards anyway), it is all just a matter of convention. If it is just a convention, it makes far more sense to consider that the decades, centuries and millenia start with the years ending in 0, not in 1.
|
|
|
|
Post by twothousandonemark on Dec 1, 2019 14:54:57 GMT
Good, this decade has been a farce.
I've one plan already in the books - as a huge Beck fan, I'm waiting until the last week of Dec to order his new cd via amazon... I want myself a hard copy. It'll nicely arrive in the new year as a fresh start.
|
|
|
|
Post by gameboy on Dec 1, 2019 15:53:21 GMT
Cornholing Pablo.
|
|
|
|
Post by kls on Dec 1, 2019 15:57:25 GMT
People keep making this mistake, because they ignore that there was no year zero.
It would only be a mistake if Year One were a definite historical moment, but since it is not (the birth of Jesus certainly did not happen on 25/December/0001, and the numbering only started hundreds of years afterwards anyway), it is all just a matter of convention. If it is just a convention, it makes far more sense to consider that the decades, centuries and millenia start with the years ending in 0, not in 1. A decade is still 10 years, a century 100 and millennium 1000. That's the case no matter if the calendar we go by messed up when to place year 1 by several years.
|
|
|
|
Post by gameboy on Dec 1, 2019 16:27:31 GMT
People keep making this mistake, because they ignore that there was no year zero.
It would only be a mistake if Year One were a definite historical moment, but since it is not (the birth of Jesus certainly did not happen on 25/December/0001, and the numbering only started hundreds of years afterwards anyway), it is all just a matter of convention. If it is just a convention, it makes far more sense to consider that the decades, centuries and millenia start with the years ending in 0, not in 1. A decade is still 10 years, a century 100 and millennium 1000. That's the case no matter if the calendar we go by messed up when to place year 1 by several years. It doesn't matter when Jesus was born or if anyone ever actually considered the year they lived in to be Year 1. We use the Gregorian calendar. And the Gregorian calendar bases itself and it's record of history starting with a Year 1. There is no Year Zero in the Gregorian calendar. So whether you like it or not, the decade ends in 2020, not 2019.
|
|
|
|
Post by kls on Dec 1, 2019 16:35:34 GMT
It would only be a mistake if Year One were a definite historical moment, but since it is not (the birth of Jesus certainly did not happen on 25/December/0001, and the numbering only started hundreds of years afterwards anyway), it is all just a matter of convention. If it is just a convention, it makes far more sense to consider that the decades, centuries and millenia start with the years ending in 0, not in 1. A decade is still 10 years, a century 100 and millennium 1000. That's the case no matter if the calendar we go by messed up when to place year 1 by several years. It doesn't matter when Jesus was born or if anyone ever actually considered the year they lived in to be Year 1. We use the Gregorian calendar. And the Gregorian calendar bases itself and it's record of history starting with a Year 1. There is no Year Zero in the Gregorian calendar. So whether you like it or not, the decade ends in 2020, not 2019. Whether I like it or not? I made the same point.
|
|
|
|
Post by gameboy on Dec 1, 2019 16:57:07 GMT
It doesn't matter when Jesus was born or if anyone ever actually considered the year they lived in to be Year 1. We use the Gregorian calendar. And the Gregorian calendar bases itself and it's record of history starting with a Year 1. There is no Year Zero in the Gregorian calendar. So whether you like it or not, the decade ends in 2020, not 2019. Whether I like it or not? I made the same point. But we disagree on whether or not and I quote they "messed up when to place year 1 by several years." Nobody messed up. It's irrelevant when Christ was born. Even most theologians admit he wasn't born in Gregorian Year 1, just thereabouts. The Gregorian Calendar is the system we use and it starts on Year 1. Nobody messed up.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jayman on Dec 1, 2019 16:58:15 GMT
I don’t like New Year’s Eve. Last year I was taking a nap when it turned midnight and I plan on doing the same this time
|
|
|
|
Post by mslo79 on Dec 1, 2019 18:25:11 GMT
Yeah, it's like where did the decade go. time flies.
it's just weird though as when I think of the year 2020 it sounds all futuristic and it's damn near here already. because it almost seems like we are closer to the year 2000 than 2020 even though we are not.
but with that said... I just tend to look at the upcoming new year as a little more special since they only happen once every ten years (i.e. 2010/2020/2030 and so on) and it will be cool seeing "2020" on TV etc. hell, it's probably going to take a while getting used to writing down or typing 202x instead of 201x in terms of the year we are currently in.
p.s. on a side note... personally I am starting to think the days ahead of quality movies is going to start declining as it seems like that's happening, at least for me, lately as from 2016 on forward it seems it's getting harder to find movies that stand out from the pack and be among my favorites in general. basically the general volume of movies I score a 7/10 or higher in a given year is declining lately and I suspect it will stay this way for a while. but if that ends up being roughly true, then basically the all around peak for movies would be 1990-2019 for me in terms of a overall single biggest block of time for me looking at things on a decade to decade scale. I just wonder if I will ever find another movie I score a 10/10 as I have not had one since 2008 and even my most recent 9/10 is from 2012. the most recent year I gave out a SOLID 8/10 (i.e. excludes 7.5-8/10's) would be 2011. but at least I still am seeing an occasional 7.5-8/10 level of movie in a given year in recent memory as 2016 would be the only year of the entire decade (i.e. 2010-2019) that failed to give me at least one movie I score a 7.5-8/10 or higher. but even in terms of anything in the 7/10 range, looking at 2016 to date (so 2016 through 2019(2019 is not finished yet but I don't expect much if anything else to make it)) only a total of six movies managed to score a 7/10 or higher and for measure my average movies PER YEAR, just in the 2010-2015 time frame (so a total of 6 years of time), is 6.67 movies. so pretty much averaging nearly 7 PER YEAR and I only have a total of SIX movies I score a 7 or higher in the 2016-2019 time frame. so that puts things into perspective on how much things declined from 2016 to date overall which is why I am starting to think the peak of movies is starting to look like it's behind me now. but there is always a possibility I could be wrong, but if things don't start to noticeably improve (like in terms of volume of movies I score a 7/10 or higher in a year-to-year basis) by say 2025 or so I would imagine my prediction is likely to be accurate. because that would be roughly a full 10 years or so of things being a bit weak etc.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jep Gambardella on Dec 1, 2019 20:01:25 GMT
It would only be a mistake if Year One were a definite historical moment, but since it is not (the birth of Jesus certainly did not happen on 25/December/0001, and the numbering only started hundreds of years afterwards anyway), it is all just a matter of convention. If it is just a convention, it makes far more sense to consider that the decades, centuries and millenia start with the years ending in 0, not in 1. A decade is still 10 years, a century 100 and millennium 1000. That's the case no matter if the calendar we go by messed up when to place year 1 by several years. It doesn't matter when Jesus was born or if anyone ever actually considered the year they lived in to be Year 1. We use the Gregorian calendar. And the Gregorian calendar bases itself and it's record of history starting with a Year 1. There is no Year Zero in the Gregorian calendar. So whether you like it or not, the decade ends in 2020, not 2019. It matters because it highlights the undisputable fact that it is all just a convention. If it is just a convention, whether you like it or not it makes far more sense that the century changes when the number changes from xx99 to xx00, and not from xx00 to xx01. That is all there is to it. |
|
|
|
Post by kls on Dec 1, 2019 20:04:23 GMT
It doesn't matter when Jesus was born or if anyone ever actually considered the year they lived in to be Year 1. We use the Gregorian calendar. And the Gregorian calendar bases itself and it's record of history starting with a Year 1. There is no Year Zero in the Gregorian calendar. So whether you like it or not, the decade ends in 2020, not 2019. It matters because it establishes the undisputable fact that it is all just a convention. If it is just a convention, whether you like it or not it makes far more sense that the century changes when the number changes from xx99 to xx00, and not from xx00 to xx01. That is all there is to it. I don't see how. Count out 100 pennies. It's not until the 100th penny is counted out you have a full dollar.
|
|
|
|
Post by gameboy on Dec 1, 2019 20:55:46 GMT
It doesn't matter when Jesus was born or if anyone ever actually considered the year they lived in to be Year 1. We use the Gregorian calendar. And the Gregorian calendar bases itself and it's record of history starting with a Year 1. There is no Year Zero in the Gregorian calendar. So whether you like it or not, the decade ends in 2020, not 2019. It matters because it highlights the undisputable fact that it is all just a convention. If it is just a convention, whether you like it or not it makes far more sense that the century changes when the number changes from xx99 to xx00, and not from xx00 to xx01. That is all there is to it. We have what's called a base-10 decimal system. A decade is 10 years. Our entire numbering system is based on 10. On what planet does a set of 10 end with 9? The Gregorian Calendar starts with a 1. You even lose a decade if you try and start the system at 0, because there was no zero, there was a 1 BC. So you're telling me the first century AD only had 99 years? Mathematically your rationalization doesn't work. It's a colloquial error trying to defy science.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jep Gambardella on Dec 2, 2019 1:18:28 GMT
It matters because it highlights the undisputable fact that it is all just a convention. If it is just a convention, whether you like it or not it makes far more sense that the century changes when the number changes from xx99 to xx00, and not from xx00 to xx01. That is all there is to it. We have what's called a base-10 decimal system. A decade is 10 years. Our entire numbering system is based on 10. On what planet does a set of 10 end with 9? The Gregorian Calendar starts with a 1. You even lose a decade if you try and start the system at 0, because there was no zero, there was a 1 BC. So you're telling me the first century AD only had 99 years? Mathematically your rationalization doesn't work. It's a colloquial error trying to defy science. "Science"? What science? There is no science, there is only common sense, and common sense dictates that 2000 should be grouped with 2001, not with 1999. |
|
|
|
Post by gameboy on Dec 2, 2019 1:30:10 GMT
We have what's called a base-10 decimal system. A decade is 10 years. Our entire numbering system is based on 10. On what planet does a set of 10 end with 9? The Gregorian Calendar starts with a 1. You even lose a decade if you try and start the system at 0, because there was no zero, there was a 1 BC. So you're telling me the first century AD only had 99 years? Mathematically your rationalization doesn't work. It's a colloquial error trying to defy science. "Science"? What science? There is no science, there is only common sense, and common sense dictates that 2000 should be grouped with 2001, not with 1999. There are 20 centuries and 200 decades in 2000 years - not 19.9 centuries and 199.9 decades. So you're saying a century can consist of 99 years and a decade of 9 years? That makes no sense. This is just simple math, not rocket science. Please explain your math to me because it makes no sense.
|
|
|
|
Post by darkreviewer2013 on Dec 2, 2019 2:58:32 GMT
It'll be cool to be able to refer to the decade we're living in as the 20s. Sounds very retro. As for Christmas/New Year plans? Just the usual. Decorate the house, buy some gifts, have Christmas dinner. Maybe watch a few movies, if I happen to be in the mood.
|
|
|
|
Post by gameboy on Dec 2, 2019 5:28:00 GMT
It'll be cool to be able to refer to the decade we're living in as the 20s. Sounds very retro. As for Christmas/New Year plans? Just the usual. Decorate the house, buy some gifts, have Christmas dinner. Maybe watch a few movies, if I happen to be in the mood. You know damn well the next decade will be called "The Roaring 20's". We're in for a quite a ride. Society is ripe for rebellion against the same old same old of the last ten years.
|
|
