Patriots dominance this decade is otherworldly

[VegasGuy]

I'm so confused! Lol

All I know is that the Pats have been kicking ass for quite awhile now. And no one else is even close.

 

[Bradyking12]

Seems like we are gonna close this decade out with a bang, and hopefully keep the train rolling throughout the 2020s

 

[SammyBlueCat]

Yes we have had an incredible run.

 

[VegasGuy]

Seems like we are gonna close this decade out with a bang, and hopefully keep the train rolling throughout the 2020s

I'd like to see them keep it going till I die at least.

 

[Bradyking12]

I'd like to see them keep it going till I die at least.

I hope BB coaches the sh*t out of Steve Belichick, perfect scenario in the future BB retires and hands the keys over to Steve (I think thats the plan) hes only a year younger than Mcvay who is 31 and I'm sure by the time BB retires which will be a long time from now Steve should be well over ready

 

[pheenix11]

In my mind, first year of a decade is the zero year. Including 1970 as part of the sixties just looks weird.

I know it’s not mathematically correct but it doesn’t look right the other way.

2001-2010 and 2011-2020 would probably actually be better for us since 2000 was a stinker.

 

[Ring 6]

In my mind, first year of a decade is the zero year. Including 1970 as part of the sixties just looks weird.

I know it’s not mathematically correct but it doesn’t look right the other way.

2001-2010 and 2011-2020 would probably actually be better for us since 2000 was a stinker.

Right. Technically decades would run 1-10 because there was no year zero but since that was over 2000 years ago, no one cares and we name the decades accordingly, there correct way to view a decade is 0-9.

 

[n6249c]

technically they are miscalculating the decade win counts. the "00, or 10" years are technically the last year of the previous decade. In other words year 2001 through 2010 is a decade, and 2011-2020 is a decade. (I.e. its "1-10", not "0-9")

Anyways...

So 2000 was the last year in the decade of the 1990s? That makes no sense at all.

 

[Satchboogie3]

technically they are miscalculating the decade win counts. the "00, or 10" years are technically the last year of the previous decade. In other words year 2001 through 2010 is a decade, and 2011-2020 is a decade. (I.e. its "1-10", not "0-9")

Anyways...

That's simply not right. The decimal system, which everything we are talking about is based on, is derived from 10 digits... 0-9. 10 is not a digit. 0 really is the starting point, not 1. You are born at 0, not at 1 years old... Just as such, 10 is the start of a next 'decade'. The decimal system works just like the binary system, just it's base 10 instead of base 2. So 20 is just 2 x (10^1) + 0 x (10 ^ 0) . 21 would be 2 x (10^1) + 1 x (10^0). 312 is 3 x (10^2) + 1 x (10^1) + 2x(10^0). and so on. The next power always starts at "0" therefore. 0,10,20,30,300, etc etc. Basic number theory.

 

[n6249c]

Just to clarify things...

A decade is just ten years.

So, yesterday ended the decade that began 1/1/2007.

Next New Year's Eve will end the decade that began 1/1/2008.

You are all welcome for that clarification.

 

[Ring 6]

Just to clarify things...

A decade is just ten years.

So, yesterday ended the decade that began 1/1/2007.

Next New Year's Eve will end the decade that began 1/1/2008.

You are all welcome for that clarification.

No yesterday 12/31/17 ended the decade that began 1/1/08. (12/31/07-12/31/17 is ten years not 12/31/06-12/31/17)
1/1/08 was ten years ago today and will be 11 years ago by next New Years

 

[n6249c]

No yesterday 12/31/17 ended the decade that began 1/1/08. (12/31/07-12/31/17 is ten years not 12/31/06-12/31/17)
1/1/08 was ten years ago today and will be 11 years ago by next New Years

Good catch. Premise is still the same, a decade is just a ten year period that can begin anytime.

 

[Ring 6]

That's simply not right. The decimal system, which everything we are talking about is based on, is derived from 10 digits... 0-9. 10 is not a digit. 0 really is the starting point, not 1. You are born at 0, not at 1 years old... Just as such, 10 is the start of a next 'decade'. The decimal system works just like the binary system, just it's base 10 instead of base 2. So 20 is just 2 x (10^1) + 0 x (10 ^ 0) . 21 would be 2 x (10^1) + 1 x (10^0). 312 is 3 x (10^2) + 1 x (10^1) + 2x(10^0). and so on. The next power always starts at "0" therefore. 0,10,20,30,300, etc etc. Basic number theory.

It’s not based upon any theory of anything. It’s based (the argument of those who feel the decade 0-9) on there not being a year 0, so year 10 was the end of the first decade AD and therefore each subsequent decade end at the “10 year”.

 

[Ring 6]

Good catch. Premise is still the same, a decade is just a ten year period that can begin anytime.

agreed

 

[Ring 6]

So 2000 was the last year in the decade of the 1990s? That makes no sense at all.

Because someone chooses to call it the decade of the 90s doesn’t solve the question

Again I disagree with the argument that delineating a decade should be based upon this fact, but the fact is there was no year zero so the argument that decades go 1-10 has a logic to it and really doesn’t change because people call it the 90s.

That said I’m done with this.

 

[Satchboogie3]

It’s not based upon any theory of anything. It’s based (the argument of those who feel the decade 0-9) on there not being a year 0, so year 10 was the end of the first decade AD and therefore each subsequent decade end at the “10 year”.

A decade is based on the decimal system... Hello, decade, decimal, it's in the damned name. Decade - Wikipedia

I think you are getting confused with the convention of the start of the calendar itself and how decades themselves are represented. Sure, the calendar starts at year 1, so decade 200, with respect to the start of the Gregorian calendar, starts at 2001, a decade itself, is regarded as 0-9, ie, the decade of the 90s is 1990-1999, not 1991-2000. 1991-2000 would be the 191 decade of the Gregorian calendar, but not the decade of the 90s. This is generally only used for centuries though. The common practice is to start a new century in year 201, 2001, etc, but a decade is defined as starting at 200, 2000, etc.

2000s (decade) - Wikipedia

Just read the damned wiki pages...

 

[Off The Grid]

This is some intensely funny stuff.

We need to have "Andy Johnson" and Alleged Pats Fan argue every night!!

 

[Off The Grid]

Again I disagree with the argument that delineating a decade should be based upon this fact, but the fact is there was no year zero...

How do you know? Were you there?? Hmm??

 

[Off The Grid]

Ya mean, "stupid"

"Year One" is 0000

"Year One" is 0000???

Start early tonight, did ya?

 

[Off The Grid]

Very amusing that people get in a twist when you challenge their goofy assertion that a decade has to be 1-10, when the very easily accessed definition of a decade clearly states that a decade can be any period of 10 years. Hence, the convention of characterizing decades as 0-9 perfectly adheres to that.

And the 2nd definition acknowledges the common usage.

Here it is:

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.