Comments for en-gb 30 Wed 20 Aug 2014 13:19:07 GMT+1 A feed of user comments from the page found at AccurateChronometer mistryhThese facts remain:The FIRST Decade of the 21st Century runs from 2001-2010 inclusive.As soon as you were born your were living in your 1st Year.There is no year 'O' as 'O' contains, by definition, nothing,no thing,zero,zilch.In any case the year 2000 was the 100th year of the 20th Century and 1000th year of the 2nd Millennium and therefore impossible to describe as the 1st year of the 21st Century and 3rd Millennium.Have a Happy New Year and Prosperous and Accurate 10th and Last Year of the 1st Decade of the 21st Century in 2010. Mon 04 Jan 2010 14:45:49 GMT+1 Colin Ayres Hi Phil,I very much like the pictures, very evocative. My favourite is the one of the man in the blood-spattered suit. He seems, from the picture, to be trying to demonstrate that everthing's still normal (i.e. tie still fastened, jacket buttoned, still holding his newspaper) despite the fact that he's been patched up and with the terrible events of that day. This also contrasts with his facial expression which is telling a different story. Sun 03 Jan 2010 20:07:59 GMT+1 Colin Ayres Well put mistryh ... I fully agree and trust that finally puts the argument to bed. I do like, however, the following similar analysis from (written in 1998) which essentially says that the decade or century starts whenever people celebrate it!! & this is my last post on the subject too.Regards Sun 03 Jan 2010 19:42:29 GMT+1 mistryh Before i start i would just like to say...Amazing pictures..deserve all the credit you get!!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. Often, for brevity, only the tens part is mentioned (60s or sixties), although this may leave it uncertain which century is meant. These references are frequently used to encapsulate pop culture or other widespread phenomena that dominated such a decade, as in The Great Depression of the 1930s. For example, the decade commonly referred to as the "two thousands" ended on December 31, 2009.Some writers 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. However, contrary to practices in referencing centuries, ordinal references to decades are quite uncommon.Thus, an unqualified reference to, for example, "the decade" or "this decade" may strictly speaking have multiple interpretations, and one must consider whether the context is, for example, a cultural reference, an ordinal reference, or some other context.So technically everyones right, but it says "ordinal references to decades are quite uncommon" hence a decade should be classed as 2000-2009 therefore 31st Dec 2009 was the last day.Hope that settles it! Sun 03 Jan 2010 03:07:20 GMT+1 Trev This post has been Removed Sat 02 Jan 2010 22:58:17 GMT+1 Tim I think the decade truly began in 2001 but the "noughties" begun in 2000. Even so, as a measure of the time since Jesus' birth, He was born in roughly 4 B.C., so the time elapsed from then is beyond two millenia.There was no year0: let's just face it! Sat 02 Jan 2010 21:49:53 GMT+1 Alex The funny thing is that the same people who say that 2009 is the last year of the decade agree that we are on the 21st century. Hehehehe! Sat 02 Jan 2010 21:25:53 GMT+1 AccurateChronometer The comment below which has been deleted above by 'BBC moderator' more than once without explanation is in the PUBLIC INTEREST and is in full accord with the principles and guidelines of the BBC Royal Charter regarding fairness, openness and straight dealing. Please therefore, as our publicly funded broadcaster, do not censor it again.(If it is removed again the content and additional information will be referred to the appropriate regulatory body and other parties).Comment censored by the BBC earlier above:This poll (which created significant mobile phone income for the BBC) was based on a false proposition - that the first decade of the 21st Century could somehow incorrectly be declared by the BBC to end with the end of the year 2009.This is clearly not the case as the 1st year of the 21st Century was 2001 (the clue is in the number '1') and the 10th and last year of the first decade of the 21st Century is 2010(the clue is in the number '10') and it will end on December 31st 2010It is no good the BBC arguing that a 'decade' is merely a period of 10 years. It is clear that the BBC has been trying to pass off the specific ten years of 2000-2009 as being the 1st decade of the 21st Century which it clearly isn't (other than perhaps to the seriously innumerate). That specific '1st decade of the 21st Century' labelling of the period 2000-2009 intention is made clearer by the fact that no similar poll was organised for the periods 1998-2007 or 1999-2008 - also 10 year periods of time that can be generically described as 'decades'.By falsely and dishonestly declaring that the period 2000-2009 is the 1st decade of the 21st Century ending with the last day of 2009 and persuading people on the basis of those false grounds to incur costs by voting via mobile phones which have generated significant partner split profit income for the BBC, the BBC has been trading fraudulently on the back of a clear chronological lie.' Sat 02 Jan 2010 16:59:12 GMT+1 Colin Ayres I wish you a very Happy New Year too and hope you have great prosperity in this the first year of the 2nd decade of the 21st century (& now that the 1st decade is well and truly behind us) !!PS: Yes I did have a 0th birthday (& I think there was a party) & oddly it was called my "Birthday." My 10th birthday came along just when I was expecting it too ... i.e. when I stopped being 9 and had been around exactly 10 years! Sat 02 Jan 2010 16:08:42 GMT+1 AccurateChronometer ColinA birthday is an anniversary.A year is a unit of time.Years don't have anniversaries.Did you have a '0'th birthday party?A chronological guide for the year ahead - 2010 - the 10th and LAST year of the 1st Decade Of The 21st Century -Within our current daily, weekly, monthly, annual, centennial and millennial chronological conventions: Within our current daily, weekly, monthly, annual, centennial and millennial chronological conventions:1.The 100th year of the 20th Century and last year of the 2nd Millennium was definitely and indisputably 2000. 2.The 1st year of the first decade of the 21st Century and of the 3rd Millennium was definitely and indisputably 2001 - obviously. The clue is in the number ‘1′.3.The 10th and last year of the first decade of the 21st century will be 2010 - obviously. The clue is in the number ‘10′.4.The last day of the first decade of the 21st century and 3rd millennium will definitely and indisputably be December 31st 2010.There is a concerted effort by the BBC and other major media players to deny these facts for cynical commercial branding and packaging purposes. This is an abuse of their position of information stream control domination.Clear thinkers will ignore them and respect and express true and honest chronological facts and conventions.1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,one more to go!Clear Thinkers Concurring: you a Happy New Year and Prosperous and Accurate 10th and Last Year of the 1st Decade of the 21st Century in 2010. Sat 02 Jan 2010 09:36:49 GMT+1 AccurateChronometer This post has been Removed Sat 02 Jan 2010 01:41:14 GMT+1 Colin Ayres That poll just shows that most people simply don't know how to count in time. There are other polls that give opposing results too ... e.g. they are pretty meanigless really. When counting time you just don't start at 1 --- When a baby is born he's 0 years old (year 0) ... at the end of his 1st year of life he's 1 (year 1) etc until the end of his 10th year of life he turns 10 (year 10). That is at the beginning of year 10 NOT the end. So his 1st decade ends as soon as he stops being 9 on his 10 birthday. This of course equates to 2000 to 2009. Fri 01 Jan 2010 15:54:10 GMT+1 AccurateChronometer According to this poll the majority of people KNOW full well that the first decade of the 21st Century began with the 1st year - 2001 and ends with the 10th year - 2010 : BBC is clearly out of step not only with reality but with the majority who know the true score. Wed 30 Dec 2009 02:23:57 GMT+1 AccurateChronometer PatAnd who had a '0'th birthday? Wed 30 Dec 2009 02:17:59 GMT+1 AccurateChronometer '1' LOVE Wed 30 Dec 2009 02:16:08 GMT+1 wilf1172 What time is LOVE? wooooooo !! Mon 28 Dec 2009 01:39:41 GMT+1 Bannedforanopinion Can I just ask if anyone else finds its completely grinding that the media have 'drivelled' down this last decade by calling it the 'noughties'?It was the 'zeroes' not some 10 year sex embalmed fetish that the 'sun says' our life is all about.Shall we start off the next 10 years as the 'oneties'?We've got a new tory eton philosphy to look forward to - so yes lets get 'onetying' the 'noughties' back asap. Mon 28 Dec 2009 01:31:17 GMT+1 1voiceofreason I believe an attempt to put to rest the discrepancy over there not being a "year 0" and the associated pedantic wrangling was made by Pope Paul II when he decreed that there should be two successive years called 1466.Some unscrupulous calendar salesmen of the time duped innocent peasants into buying unsold copies of the first 1466 calendar for use in the second 1466, despite the days and dates not matching up.Pope Paul II deflected criticism of his decision by annulling the college of abbreviators in 1466 (the second one), but this was only partly successful and the decision was overturned by his successor, Pope Sixtus IV, in 1475.Nice pictures, though! Sun 27 Dec 2009 21:47:16 GMT+1 ChrisJ @18 (czerwonadupa)I think you mean 'truly'. More poor and sloppy standards? Must be catching. Sun 27 Dec 2009 20:24:40 GMT+1 Colin Ayres Pedants eh? ... Oh Dear Simon ... is there really no time in your life for frivolity ... how sad ... you probably don't even WANT to know what a "runcible" spoon is !! Oh well ... I bet even Phil is having a chuckle !! Sun 27 Dec 2009 00:29:08 GMT+1 Simon Bullock Phil, don't take any notice of the pedants (as if you are anyway) your pics are great, keep up the good work. On a seperate note, I do despair slightly when i read the ridiculous comments made, and i say slightly as i really don't think they represent reasonable people but rather the utterings of of an emotionally or intellectually stunted population. Sat 26 Dec 2009 02:12:13 GMT+1 Simon Bullock Sat 26 Dec 2009 02:06:28 GMT+1 Steve The first first minute of a football match isn't when the minutes count says 1; that tells you that the minute is COMPLETED. The first minute is actually the time up to 60 seconds. Similarly, the ten (2010) doesn't tell you that the tenth year of the decade is starting, it shows that it has been completed, and it is the first year of the next decade. That's the logic, however the absence of a year zero throws the whole calendar out. Fri 25 Dec 2009 23:51:35 GMT+1 Colin Ayres No AccurateChronometer the millenium started in 2000 not 2001. When you're counting time you just plain begin with 0 and time elapses before you get to 1 whether it's a minute or a day or a year. So the last millenium started 01/01/1000 (i.e. year zero) and one year elapsed by 31/12/1000, 2 years by 31/12/1001 & so on. Until by 31/12/1999 we'd had exactly 1000 years. So we had to start another 1000 years on 01/01/2000. Simple !! & I've had a drink or 2 ... Merry Xmas Fri 25 Dec 2009 22:57:32 GMT+1 Pat "1.The 1st year of the 21st century and of the first decade of the 21st century was 2001 - obviously. The clue is in the number '1'."Zero comes before one - obviously. The clue is in the number '0'. Fri 25 Dec 2009 22:01:50 GMT+1 Neil But the surely they're thinking the end of a decade as being 'when the third digit in the year changes' and not mathematically ! Fri 25 Dec 2009 21:17:07 GMT+1 AccurateChronometer Let us hear NO MORE LIES FROM THE BBC trying desperately to persuade us, contrary to the FACTS, that the first decade of the 21st Century can somehow be ended a year short and before 31.12.2010. Thu 24 Dec 2009 10:40:04 GMT+1 AccurateChronometer 1.The 1st year of the 21st century and of the first decade of the 21st century was 2001 - obviously. The clue is in the number '1'.2.The 10th and last year of the 1st decade of the 21st century will be 2010 - obviously. The clue is in the number '10'.3.The 100th year of the 20th Century and last year of the 2nd Millennium was definitely and indisputably 2000. 4.The 1st year of the first decade of the 21st Century and of the 3rd Millennium was definitely and indisputably 2001. 5.The last day of the first decade of the 21st century and 3rd millennium will definitely and indisputably be December 31st 2010.There is a concerted effort by the BBC and other major media players to deny these facts for commercial purposes.Clear thinkers will, of course, ignore them and respect true and honest chronological facts and conventions. Wed 23 Dec 2009 00:51:49 GMT+1 Sir Bruce Hall The level of pedantry here regarding what is or isn't the start of "the new millennium" is quite breathtaking. If the new millenium, pace Mr John Byng, began on Jan 1 2001, why did the whole world waste its time celebrating this event on Jan 1 2000?Incidentally, it would have been good to have seen that memorable photo of HM Queen celebrating the arrival of the new millennium by singing Auld Lang Syne with Mr and Mrs Blair at The Dome on Jan 1 2000. Judging by the Queen's somewhat sour expression, she clearly agrees with Mr Byng that she's doing all this a year too early.Bruce Hall Tue 22 Dec 2009 12:13:42 GMT+1 MSD The simple logic of 1-10 is too simple and is driven by some anomaly inadvertently conjured up by Bede and Dionysius Exiguus (it is said they didn't know the number zero as it wasn't introduced to Europe until the 11C). For the pedants can be driven by this, but the rest of society (whether British "Empire" or the rest of the Gregorian world) has moved on and recoginises the natural "clock-over" of the digits. This is a recognition of what is the de facto definition of Decade/Century/Millenium. If you want to try and change the majority good luck pedants.The whining is of course by the pedants trying to change common practise. The rest of us are quite happy with what's a Decade. Tue 22 Dec 2009 10:57:08 GMT+1 lfdavis No wonder the British empire is dying. Its media, wishing to be the first, dictates to the media's sycophantic followers that the end of a decade/millenia happens at the end of a year ending in "9". The government educated followers (or is it "foolerers") can't comprehend the simple logic of the first year being numbered "1", and the 10th year being numbered "10", and thus all decades and millenia end at the END of years whose number ends in a zero. And then they go about whining "why can't it be at the end of 2009", or "what does it matter?" The stupid have indeed inherited the earth... Tue 22 Dec 2009 01:44:37 GMT+1 Jeff Sorry to have hijacked the authors thread. Our discussion probably isn't as important as his job.But...I take exception to being accused of pedantry, you swines! As John Byng stated above - "Isn't it about time we took a bit of PRIDE in knowing these things?"Anyway, I'd say more, but I gotta go home... Mon 21 Dec 2009 17:28:05 GMT+1 Puddingsan Sorry the last post for John Byng. Mon 21 Dec 2009 17:04:37 GMT+1 Puddingsan @16:I thought the discussion was about years and not the economy and petrol prices? This thread already has too many tangents without introducing another one thank you! Mon 21 Dec 2009 16:27:19 GMT+1 Phil Coomes Thanks for the comments, guess I should have said the end of the Noughties. Either way, let me know what you think of the pictures. Tomorrow there will be a post looking at the work of the photographers at the Associated Press. Mon 21 Dec 2009 14:59:35 GMT+1 MSD Good Pictures, now let's get serious...A decade is ten years, could be 1995-2004, so far so good.There's also the Decade of e.g. the 60s - as a society we decide what it means (nothing to do with year 0) - it means all years that end 6x i.e. 1960-1969.Now the "first" decade didn't have a year 0, someone screwed up, get over it. There was a decade that ran from 1BC-9AD if that helps. Mon 21 Dec 2009 14:51:31 GMT+1 John Byng @16:Normally I wouldn't get involved in a continued discussion - but it's a slow day...You say "2000 or 2001, 2009 or 2010... does it REALLY matter?" Yes it REALLY matters. Would you accept it if the petrol pump you next use started at 1p instead of 0p ?! I think you would - and one could say arguing over 1p would be petty, but it adds up.I think we've seen enough dumbing down in the last decade - especially in science and maths. Isn't it about time we took a bit of PRIDE in knowing these things? Or do you think it's k00l to not understand how numerical and calendrical systems actually work?Sheesh. If that's the case then I give up. Mon 21 Dec 2009 14:45:40 GMT+1 czerwonadupa How do you get 10 out of 9 Mr Coomes? You should ask yourself what century you think your in, in the year 2009, the 20th or the 21st. But then again it could be down to poor & sloppy standards in Brown's Britain to-day. As for the photographs? It's like showing the 40s with no photographs from WW2. Irak and Afghanistan not memorable enough? Ask the parants and children of the hundred and more killed soldiers. Draped coffins emerging from RAF transport planes not memorable enough? Maybe not in this shallow country. We still have another year for some truely memorable photographs from the first decade of the 21st centuary. Mon 21 Dec 2009 14:34:07 GMT+1 MoonMonster Good grief! It's silly season at the Pedants' Paradise! Mon 21 Dec 2009 14:33:50 GMT+1 Puddingsan 2000 or 2001, 2009 or 2010... does it REALLY matter? Even though technically there was no year 0, our brains will logically start a block period with a year beginning with a zero. Maybe we could say that the first decade/century was actually a year short? I hope that will settle this petty squabbling! Mon 21 Dec 2009 14:27:34 GMT+1 Richard "FROM the Press Association Archives" not FORM!Not once but three times!Does no one at the BBC proof read their articles any more? Mon 21 Dec 2009 14:15:51 GMT+1 Alex I love how quickly this has descended into an argument about what defines a decade, instead of the pictures taken in the decade itself!I think people are getting confused because this decade overlaps in the 20th and 21st centuries. This millenium began in 2001 (with there being no 'year zero'), but this decade began in 2000 (again like the 70's began in 1970. Common sense). Nice pictures. Mon 21 Dec 2009 14:02:35 GMT+1 pablofreudianus For goodness sake - get a life people and enjoy the pictures! Mon 21 Dec 2009 13:41:24 GMT+1 John Byng @10 Jeff::-)Sorry, have to be picky...But (important "but"), "the 70s" is a shorthand name for those years that start with a 7. So 1970 is part of the 70s, not the 60s. It's only part of the 60s when refering to the 7th decade (i.e.: 61 to 70).Aside: quite why I put a ' in there I don't know. 70s, not 70's. Mea culpa.The whole thing would be a lot easier if there'd been a year 0! Mon 21 Dec 2009 13:23:40 GMT+1 TimmyNorfolk i think this is slightly off topic, but surely a decade is defined as 10 years. it could be from '98 to '07 - its still 10 years. Mon 21 Dec 2009 13:19:25 GMT+1 Jeff @9 (John Byng)"1970 was the last year of the 7th decade of the 20th century"Agreed, because the 7th decade was the 60s. Um... exactly what I said. :) Mon 21 Dec 2009 13:04:00 GMT+1 John Byng @8: not quite right! 1970 is not the last year of the "60's"! It's the first year of the "70's". 1970 was the last year of the 7th decade of the 20th century.BTW, getting back on topic - great photos. So what did happen with the pidgeon in the pelican? Mon 21 Dec 2009 12:43:32 GMT+1 Jeff timlenton is correct - decades DO 'go from 1 to 10'. There was no 'year zero' in our calendar. The first year was year 1.So, the first decade went from 1 to 10, the second decade went from 11 to 20. Extending this fact, the first decade of the 21st century is 2001 to 2010. This may seem crazy, but is definitely correct.I was born in 1971, which the first year of the 70s. You may not like the fact that 1970 is the last year of the 60s, but it is! Mon 21 Dec 2009 12:35:17 GMT+1 Matty Boy timlenton is correct. The first year of the new millenium was 2001 and not 2000 as the media would have you believe. The year 2000 was actually the last year of the 20th century. Therefore 2010 is the last year of the decade and not 2009, making the decade 2001 - 2010. Mon 21 Dec 2009 12:32:10 GMT+1 Rhodri Curnow In some areas of Maths, the first number is 0, second is 1 etc Mon 21 Dec 2009 12:27:52 GMT+1 John Byng @3: The Millennium started on January 1st 2001. There is no year 0. The first day of the 1st Millenium was January 1st 1AD. Thus, yes a decade is 10 years BUT the first year of this century was 2001, not 2000, so the first decade is 2001 to 2010. Mon 21 Dec 2009 12:27:16 GMT+1 Graphis Yui Mok seems a little over represented in the showbiz category... aren't there any other photographers covering this field? Mon 21 Dec 2009 12:22:15 GMT+1 Sir Bruce Hall I have to agree with MrBlueBurns. The decade started with the year 2000 and ends with the year 2009 (10 years). It was also the start of the new millennium of course.Bruce. Mon 21 Dec 2009 12:06:34 GMT+1 MrBlueBurns #1 timlentonThe year 2000 was not in the 90's. Therefore, a decade starts with a zero I think. Mon 21 Dec 2009 11:51:55 GMT+1 timlenton Great pictures, but doesn't a decade go from 1 to 10, rather than 0 to 9? Just wondered... Mon 21 Dec 2009 11:35:26 GMT+1