Kuro5hin.org: technology and culture, from the trenches
create account | help/FAQ | contact | links | search | IRC | site news
[ Everything | Diaries | Technology | Science | Culture | Politics | Media | News | Internet | Op-Ed | Fiction | Meta | MLP ]
We need your support: buy an ad | premium membership

[P]
Name the Decade!

By Philipp in Culture
Mon Dec 18, 2000 at 10:54:58 AM EST
Tags: Culture (all tags)
Culture

It's now already the 12th month of the decade after the nineties. Astonishingly, still nobody came up with a catchy name for the 2000-2009 time period. How will we contemporaries be able to carve out our own identity, if we cannot even easily refer to the first decade of the 21th century? It's time for kuro5hin readers to save the world!


So, step up, and find an apt name for the first decade of the third millennium. Ok, I go ahead:
  • The Preteens (the teens, the twenties, get it?)
  • The Millennium Decade (somehow, currently everything has to do with the Millennium)
  • The Zeros (the feel-good name)

Did any other language/culture come up with a good name for the 201st decade so far? (This is the time for the French to step up to prove their cultural superiority).

And what happened to smart-ass discussion about the third millennium actually just starting in two weeks? Haven't heard about that for a while.

Sponsors

Voxel dot net
o Managed Hosting
o VoxCAST Content Delivery
o Raw Infrastructure

Login

Poll
The 2000-2009 time period is
o full of zeros 21%
o the future 3%
o the beginning of the end 7%
o the end of the beginning 10%
o cause for celebration 3%
o the best decade so far 3%
o one more step downhill 14%
o an evil Christian artifact 36%

Votes: 165
Results | Other Polls

Related Links
o Kuro5hin
o Also by Philipp


Display: Sort:
Name the Decade! | 60 comments (60 topical, editorial, 0 hidden)
My suggestion (3.58 / 12) (#1)
by theboz on Sun Dec 17, 2000 at 12:16:51 AM EST

Well, from how bad of a year I have had so far, I would say to call it the apocalypse. It's been a hell of a year, and if 2001 is anywhere near this bad, I'm going postal...

Stuff.

Best one (4.12 / 24) (#2)
by sugarman on Sun Dec 17, 2000 at 12:18:14 AM EST

So far, the best one I've heard has been the 'Naughties'. (0 = Naught, get it?)

Anyhoo, I think I'm gonna use that one from now on. Nothing else has really jumped out at me.

--sugarman--

I second the motion (2.66 / 3) (#8)
by fluffy grue on Sun Dec 17, 2000 at 02:07:04 AM EST

I first saw it called that in Goats: The Comic, and yeah, it's my personal favorite.
--
"Is not a quine" is not a quine.
I have a master's degree in science!

[ Hug Your Trikuare ]
[ Parent ]

I third the motion! (2.33 / 3) (#9)
by pb on Sun Dec 17, 2000 at 02:24:06 AM EST

I think I saw it first in User Friendly, but either way, it's a great idea.

Very funny, pretty correct, and a little subversive, and that sounds good to me...
---
"See what the drooling, ravening, flesh-eating hordes^W^W^W^WKuro5hin.org readers have to say."
-- pwhysall
[ Parent ]
The Naughties (3.25 / 4) (#24)
by Maclir on Sun Dec 17, 2000 at 03:31:46 PM EST

Here in Australia, the most common term for the current decade is "The Naughties". I like it - it pokes a finger up at the socially (and morally) conservative.

[ Parent ]
Wrong! (2.44 / 18) (#3)
by the Epopt on Sun Dec 17, 2000 at 12:53:45 AM EST

We are in the twelfth month of the nineties. The next year, decade, century, and millennium do not start for another couple of weeks.


-- 
Most people who need to be shot need to be shot soon and a lot.
Very few people need to be shot later or just a little.

K5_Arguing_HOWTO
You got to ask yourself one question... (2.64 / 14) (#4)
by Philipp on Sun Dec 17, 2000 at 12:56:28 AM EST

... do you see any nines in 2000?

alias kn 'killall -9 netscape-communicator'
[ Parent ]
you have to ask just one question... (2.44 / 9) (#5)
by boxed on Sun Dec 17, 2000 at 01:21:14 AM EST

...what are you talking about? year 0 was the first year, not the zeroth year, i.e. the millenium ends in a couple of weeks.

[ Parent ]
decades and millennia (3.70 / 10) (#11)
by Delirium on Sun Dec 17, 2000 at 02:41:49 AM EST

That's incorrect as well. There *was* no year 0. Year 1 was the first year, so counting starts from there. 1000 years after Year 1 is Year 1001, and 2000 years later is Year 2001, which is why the millennium ends in a couple of weeks, as you correctly noted (but for the wrong reasons).

But that's irrelevant to "the nineties." 2000 is most definitely not part of the "nineties" - that term refers to 1990-1999 (regardless of the fact that if you count decades from the year 1 they'd be 1-10, 11-20, ... 1981-1990, 1991-2000, etc.).

[ Parent ]

yup (2.80 / 10) (#13)
by bradenmcg on Sun Dec 17, 2000 at 03:44:20 AM EST

I'm going with Delirium on this one...

I too feel that people who think 2000 was the dawn of the new millennium should be shot, but that's irrelavent to the question at hand.

Come to think of it, maybe THAT'S how we solve all the world's problems... Kill everyone who thinks 2000 = new millennium. Sure would weed out a large portion of the speds...

<leonphelps>Yeah, now, uh, "sig," what is that?</leonphelps>
[ Parent ]

Decades are Subjective (3.40 / 5) (#34)
by eskimo on Mon Dec 18, 2000 at 01:47:44 AM EST

Many argue that the 80s ended when the market crashed. That was four years before the real decade of the nineties started, in 1991. The 60s didn't end until the Beattles broke up, Morrison, Hendrix and Joplin died. The 70s ended when the hostages were freed from Iran. Decades are much more subjective to historic mile markers than a millenium, because we remember these. Furthermore, mine are completely biased. Yours can be too. The key is that the decade you guys are talking about doesn't have to be ten years.

I am my own home. - Banana Yoshimoto
[ Parent ]

humor? (2.50 / 4) (#35)
by bradenmcg on Mon Dec 18, 2000 at 01:55:55 AM EST

well, either 3 people hate me or 3 people don't have humor...

I love mindless "1" ratings without replies.

there IS a K5C.... or at least a bunch of anal people who don't know the meaning of a joke...

<leonphelps>Yeah, now, uh, "sig," what is that?</leonphelps>
[ Parent ]

Remarkable ... (2.00 / 7) (#18)
by Simon Kinahan on Sun Dec 17, 2000 at 12:04:27 PM EST

.. how the smart people who keep telling me that 3rd millenium does not start till next month always make the mistakes.

Simon

If you disagree, post, don't moderate
[ Parent ]
No. (3.81 / 11) (#6)
by atom on Sun Dec 17, 2000 at 01:22:46 AM EST

The twelfth month of the nineties would have been December, 1990.

Now, I get pissed off about 2000 being called the milllennium as much as the next k5 reader, but it's pushing it to call this the nineties. Those names for decades aren't determined by science mathematics, they're determined by society. We didn't call 1970 the last year of the sixties, because it WASN'T. If it's not a new decade, that's okay - but the name for the group of ten years refers to XXX0 to XXX9.
dotcomma.org - Resource for programmers
[ Parent ]
twelfth month of the nineties (2.75 / 4) (#33)
by Maclir on Sun Dec 17, 2000 at 11:40:59 PM EST

Sorry, my friend, we are talking about names for decades, not millenia. The nineties ran from 1990 to 1999. The twenties ran from 1920 to 1929, the seventies from 1970 to 1979.

[ Parent ]
Date labels are totally arbitrary (4.50 / 4) (#42)
by kallisti on Mon Dec 18, 2000 at 01:05:28 PM EST

AS far as I can tell, what is referred to by each decade bears little resemblance to the years at all:

the 60's: JFK assassination to early 70's

the 70's: 1975 to 1981

the 80's: 1981 to 1985

the 90's: reply hazy, ask later

This is subjective, of course, but I've never heard anything recorded in, say, 1989 referred to as 80's music.

[ Parent ]

What did they call 1900-1909? (2.42 / 7) (#7)
by Global-Lightning on Sun Dec 17, 2000 at 01:31:21 AM EST

The closest I could think of is "Turn of the Century"
So for 2000-2009, "Turn of the Millenium"? Or is that to verbose?

Even Cecil Adams was a but put off by this one ... (3.40 / 10) (#10)
by tetsuo on Sun Dec 17, 2000 at 02:27:43 AM EST

His answer? Find it Here



historical reference? (3.30 / 10) (#12)
by Delirium on Sun Dec 17, 2000 at 02:44:09 AM EST

Since this naming problem only concerns the last two digits of the year, I'd imagine the exact same problem applied to 1800-1809 and 1900-1909 (after all, the term "nineties" wasn't first used to refer to 1990-1999). Anyone have any historical references for what terms were used (or are currently used in historical literature) for those time periods?

Not sure but... (3.00 / 3) (#14)
by titus-g on Sun Dec 17, 2000 at 04:06:54 AM EST

I'd guess that the habit of refering to decades as such is fairly recent. Especially as it is generally used to suggest that there is some homogenised zeitgeist during those periods of time, probably started with the 20's - funny hats and the charleston. Could even be a reaction to WWI.

Probably completely wrong about this though.

hmm will the first real cyber war be WWWWI ?

--"Essentially madness is like charity, it begins at home" --
[ Parent ]

Re: Not sure but... (3.00 / 3) (#27)
by weber on Sun Dec 17, 2000 at 07:15:24 PM EST

it dates back further than that... i have sheet music called 'music of the eighties' or some such, referring to the 1880s and dated 1895.



[ Parent ]
the (2.66 / 3) (#19)
by DoorFrame on Sun Dec 17, 2000 at 01:01:59 PM EST

it's the turn of the century, that's what they called the older 0 decades. but i suppose that's more when they're looking back at it, not sure about contemporary names.

[ Parent ]
Oughts (2.00 / 2) (#43)
by paulerdos on Mon Dec 18, 2000 at 02:16:33 PM EST

I don't have the link on me, but I read that they referred to the 1900-1910's as the "oughts". I prefer naughties, but I suppose there is something to be said for consistency...

[ Parent ]
The Oughts! (3.63 / 11) (#15)
by Electric Angst on Sun Dec 17, 2000 at 04:49:47 AM EST

I don't know about the rest of you, but for me, this decade will be known as the oughts. I know that whe I'm an old man, I'll be talking about ought-one, or the summer of ought-five.

It just feels right.
--
"Hell, at least [Mailbox Pipebombing suspect Lucas Helder's] argument makes sense, which is more than I can say for the vast majority of people." - trhurler
i thought that's what it was (3.00 / 3) (#16)
by Defect on Sun Dec 17, 2000 at 11:04:55 AM EST

I didn't know there was a problem with having a name for this decade, i assumed we'd follow suit with every other century and just refer to the years as ought-number. Maybe it's just that the people who think there's a lack of naming convention for these years just aren't old enough to have heard people refer to ought-six, etc, or they just didn't pick up on it when reading old novels or watching movies.
defect - jso - joseth || a link
[ Parent ]
Ought? (3.50 / 2) (#40)
by YvRich on Mon Dec 18, 2000 at 12:16:02 PM EST

Maybe I'm just young, but "ought" doesn't feel right to me. It seems easier to refer to the year as oh-one, or oh-five.

I'm also stubbornly referring to next year as "twenty-oh-one," not "two-thousand-and-one," Arthur C. Clarke notwithstanding. It just flows better.

I haven't heard anyone call the next decade by anything in particular, except maybe "the decade." As in, "next year's release will set a trend for the upcoming decade." As amusing as "naughties" is, I don't see it entering widespread use.

[ Parent ]

Zeros and Naughts seem to be the terms currently (2.22 / 22) (#17)
by Sheepdot on Sun Dec 17, 2000 at 11:09:44 AM EST

I've heard "Zeros" and "Naughts" and "Turn of the Century" being used to describe this decade.

Oh, and for those of you smart-asses that keep talking about how it isn't the 3rd millennium and 21st centry haven't started yet, GET A FUCKING LIFE.

I swear I saw about 20 news stories in 1999 all saying the exact damn thing about how everyone was wrong and it really wasn't the turn of the century yet and all that BS.

This brings me back to the days of high school where jerks would be so admant about the spelling or definition of some scientific term that they would debate the teacher and any other students on it.

In reality folks, we JUST DON'T CARE. Don't be spouting off your great knowledge about when the next millenium really starts, cause all you are doing is telling us something we've heard umpteen times already. And you're not impressing anyone by now, trust me.

*Sorry about blowing up like that, but it is the geek community that is perpetuating this "I art holier than thou" BS about when things start and when they don't, and it is a sorry geek that doesn't realize we haven't already been told what they are about to say.


Not the new millennium yet... (3.50 / 10) (#23)
by iCEBaLM on Sun Dec 17, 2000 at 02:53:24 PM EST

"Oh, and for those of you smart-asses that keep talking about how it isn't the 3rd millennium and 21st centry haven't started yet, GET A FUCKING LIFE."

It's not about being holier-than-thou, it's about when the new millennium actually starts, period. Your seemingly contemp for people who actually speak out against "the norm" to "set the record straight" suggests that this isn't the 21st century at all, but perhaps the 12th...

-- iCEBaLM

[ Parent ]
Did you read the whole thing? (1.12 / 8) (#41)
by Sheepdot on Mon Dec 18, 2000 at 12:52:45 PM EST

We've fucking heard it already. You're not speaking out against any norm. I know the truth. The truth has already set me free.

I don't know a single person who hasn't heard the whole "millienium doesn't start till.." thing yet, which leads me to believe we got the point.

So GIVE IT UP already!


[ Parent ]
The period when we gave birth to AI (1.33 / 9) (#20)
by maketo on Sun Dec 17, 2000 at 01:03:12 PM EST

So, the "AI decade". How? Simple. I am going to invent it. Duh.
agents, bugs, nanites....see the connection?
Look at the precedent. (3.00 / 6) (#21)
by skeezix on Sun Dec 17, 2000 at 01:22:54 PM EST

When 1900 rolled around, they had the same problem, if indeed it's really a problem. I've seen that decade most often referred to as "the turn of the century."

How about the (3.50 / 10) (#22)
by BonzoESC on Sun Dec 17, 2000 at 02:11:48 PM EST

0-0s (pronounced like uh-oh)

--

Normally, my sig is an image.

dust puppy already named it... (2.50 / 8) (#25)
by UrLord on Sun Dec 17, 2000 at 03:38:43 PM EST

the naughties. I don't remember the link but look around the beginning of the year in the archives. :)

As for the other discussion, in a couple weeks it will be the new millenium for EVERYONE so why bring it up now?

We can't change society in a day, we have to change ourselves first from the inside out.

No name, no identity (3.80 / 10) (#26)
by Philipp on Sun Dec 17, 2000 at 05:50:03 PM EST

Think about it: The Twenties are the first decade with a clear image. I'm not entirely sure about the American image of the Twenties, but in Germany they are called the "wild twenties", associated with nightlife in Berlin, Marlene Dietrich, political chaos as backdrop. Perhaps the American image has more to do with Charly Chaplin and funny hats. All the following decades have identities, too.

There is no image of the 1900s and 1910s that springs to mind. Maybe that is because cultural historians could never easily refer to it, so it got lost as a cultural concept.

alias kn 'killall -9 netscape-communicator'

1920s, 1890s (4.33 / 3) (#31)
by kjeldar on Sun Dec 17, 2000 at 10:06:28 PM EST

I'm not entirely sure about the American image of the Twenties, but in Germany they are called the "wild twenties", associated with nightlife in Berlin, Marlene Dietrich, political chaos as backdrop.

In the States, the 1920s have been commonly referred to as the "Roaring Twenties," for semisimilar reasons: widespread economic prosperity, vivacious nightlife in spite of Prohibition, Mafia warfare in the major cities; political turmoil, societal change, all that good stuff.

Unrelated: The 1890s were referred to as the "Gay Nineties." Happy gay, you giggling snotnosed kids. =)



[ Parent ]
1900-1909 1800-1809 (4.00 / 2) (#39)
by codemonkey_uk on Mon Dec 18, 2000 at 11:27:45 AM EST

In the US the 1900's were known as "The Progressive Era" while the 1800's were called "The Jeffersonian Era" (according to Paul Boyer, an American cultural history professor at the University of Wisconsin-Madison)

1910-1919 where know as the teens.

This would lead me to conclude that the obviouse name would be "The Millennium/Millennial Era", but I don't think that'll be it. I think it'll be "The Naughtys" 'cos its so damn cheeky...
---
Thad
"The most savage controversies are those about matters as to which there is no good evidence either way." - Bertrand Russell
[ Parent ]

Who cares? (1.50 / 14) (#28)
by buzzbomb on Sun Dec 17, 2000 at 08:20:08 PM EST

Who really gives a shit? It's 2000-2009...it doesn't need some cutesy name.

re: Who cares? (3.33 / 3) (#32)
by ignatiusst on Sun Dec 17, 2000 at 11:21:04 PM EST

I guess there are always cynical people, and the gods know we need them to keep the rest of us grounded in reality. But, is it really necessary to be so abrasive in the pursuit of cynicism?

Your right. In the end, we don't need a catchy name to delineate the years 2000 - 2009.. And, in the end it doesn't matter a rat's ass if it's the aughties, naughties, or any other "cutesy" name. Still, When I look back 15-20 years from now, I'd like some way of identifying this time. For example, I look back now and say, "God! The music in the 80's really sucked!" Or, "The 90's was a good decade for literature." It just doesn't sound right to say, "The internet really hit its stride in the years between 2000 - 2009."

When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him. -- Jonathan Swift
[ Parent ]

(2.00 / 1) (#58)
by buzzbomb on Wed Dec 20, 2000 at 12:10:48 PM EST

I'm an abrasive person. Big fucking deal.

[ Parent ]
Colon Zero (3.83 / 12) (#29)
by Farq Q. Fenderson on Sun Dec 17, 2000 at 09:00:34 PM EST

There are a number of good names that apply, my favourite that counts "officially" is the noughts. But my favourite possibility is the Colons.

There's a reason for this, so listen up ;)

When I got my TRS-80 Model III in 1999, I decided to see what it would do when it changed to Jan 1, 2000. I remember it well, I was on the phone with Gavin, and we both had a blast when we learned how the time was rendered into human readable form.

It said, simply, ":0" and I figured out why. If you add 1 to the ascii value of the number 9, you get the ascii value for a colon. So, it can easily be deduced that while the rightmost digit cycles, the leftmost does not, and in fact it's more of a character than a digit.

It is the year "colon zero" and next year will be "colon one."

farq will not be coming back
What comes next? (3.33 / 3) (#46)
by vasi on Tue Dec 19, 2000 at 04:47:43 AM EST

I'm just dreading having to call the 2030's the "left angle-brackets". Ack!

vasi

[ Parent ]
Re: What comes next? (4.00 / 2) (#54)
by Farq Q. Fenderson on Wed Dec 20, 2000 at 07:51:37 AM EST

That's true, but at least the 2060's can be called the "questionables."

It can be deduced that the end of the world is in 2690, since that's the first nonprintable to come up (being "DEL" of all things.) I think there's some irony in it being 69 decades after the supposed end of the world in 2000. Would have been more interesting to encounter "EOT" as the first nonprintable, though.

farq will not be coming back
[ Parent ]
Chuck D's input (3.80 / 10) (#30)
by vaguely_aware on Sun Dec 17, 2000 at 09:47:28 PM EST

I read an article by Chuck D (about online music, but that's irrelevant) where he suggested using the term 0-Dec. Pronounced Oh-Deck, it's short for 'oh' as in the alternate pronunciation for zero and decade. I don't know if he made it up or stole it from someone but I thought it was about as good as any.

I suppose usage would be along the lines of "Throughout the 0-Dec, Kuro5hin continued to spark both stimulating debate as well as extended discussion about such trivial topics as labels for arbitrary blocks of time!"



"...there are lots of shades of brown, but not too many shades of balls. - Kwil
I perfer... (2.90 / 10) (#36)
by einstein on Mon Dec 18, 2000 at 06:52:54 AM EST

The Naughties!

The Naughties (3.00 / 4) (#37)
by beebware on Mon Dec 18, 2000 at 10:31:51 AM EST

I believe that an major online news agency had a vote on this at the start of the year and 'the naughties' actually won. I can't rememeber which site it was though...
-- Blog: http://blog.beebware.co.uk
[ Parent ]
The Naughties! (1.00 / 2) (#45)
by osswid on Tue Dec 19, 2000 at 04:13:33 AM EST

Yes. Yes!

[ Parent ]
How about (2.85 / 7) (#38)
by jabber on Mon Dec 18, 2000 at 10:34:06 AM EST

"The oh-oh's?"

It's got that 'seat of the pants' feeling to it.

[TINK5C] |"Is K5 my kapusta intellectual teddy bear?"| "Yes"

I'm stealing this, but it seems good... (3.33 / 6) (#44)
by xrayspx on Mon Dec 18, 2000 at 05:22:41 PM EST

EA, I think, has NFL 2K1, that seems to work, just 2k1, 2k2...

It seemed really cheesy when I saw the ad for the game, but it's easy to say, same number of syllables as Ninety Nine for instance.
"I see one maggot, it all gets thrown away" -- My Wife
Y2K Fallout (3.00 / 2) (#47)
by jfpoole on Tue Dec 19, 2000 at 11:22:55 AM EST

Perhaps we need a name to commemorate the fear of Y2K that was prevalent throughout the latter half of the nineties. I say we call the next (current?) decade the hundreds.

-j

the DreadNaughts :) (3.50 / 2) (#50)
by gauntlet on Tue Dec 19, 2000 at 04:01:42 PM EST

There you go. Fear of Y2K, and one of the most popular names for the 200?s currently available. Perfect.

Into Canadian Politics?
[ Parent ]

Why it's the oughts of course (3.00 / 2) (#48)
by Lothar on Tue Dec 19, 2000 at 01:44:44 PM EST

Behold! The source of all knowledge... The Simpsons.

"The year is 19 ought 6, and people everywhere were doing a dance called the Funky Grampa!"

Perhaps not an exact quote, but you get the idea... Though I do like the sound of the Naughties.

Dude...no name...ever (5.00 / 2) (#49)
by 3than on Tue Dec 19, 2000 at 03:52:52 PM EST

Dude, this decade doesn't need a name, dude, I mean like in a few years we won't even be talking about it anymore, because we'll be dead, from the nukes or viruses or just mass insanity and hysteria, where everybody just can't even think because they've developed such a huge hunger for human flesh. Dude, there's no way we're going to make it out of this decade alive...maybe the aliens will call it 'the last decade after they find us. Dude.

2000 to 2015 is the "sevendies" (3.75 / 4) (#51)
by gauntlet on Tue Dec 19, 2000 at 04:06:23 PM EST

Dec: Hex:
2000 7D0
2001 7D1
2002 7D2
...
Therefore, the 7D's, "sevendies".

Of course, this will include up to 2015, but who cares?

Into Canadian Politics?

There's only one possible name. (3.00 / 3) (#52)
by pornking on Tue Dec 19, 2000 at 07:00:02 PM EST

The ninety-tens.
pornking

The 2Ks (3.00 / 2) (#53)
by yojimbo-san on Wed Dec 20, 2000 at 04:51:44 AM EST

xrayspx mentioned the NFL talking about 2K1, 2K2 ... this perhaps sounds a little contrived, but it's not that bad an idea.

With Microsoft still being extremely widely influential (I won't tempt /. trolls further :-) and pushing the abbreviation win2k for Windows 2000, I think there is certainly scope at the beginning of this decade for the phrase "2k" to translate to "2000" pretty effortlessly.

As computing technology has spread throughout the population, so the -M and -K suffixes have been more prevalent. I'd still defy "most" PC users to be quite sure they know what an -M or a -K actually is, but I think they recognise K as a multiplier.

Of course, by the end of the 2Ks virtually no-one will be using K in computing terms, as pretty much no-one is using bits or bytes these days (yes, I do, and always will - that's because of the segment of the industry I'm in, but the other 80%?)

So, I think that the 2Ks may be a strong contender :-)
Quick wafting zephyrs vex bold Jim

00 (2.00 / 1) (#55)
by htom on Wed Dec 20, 2000 at 08:26:34 AM EST

Twenties,
Thirties,
Forties,
Fifties,
Sixties,
Seventies,
Eighties,
Ninties,
and
Oughties! (The "Teenies" is probably a non-starter, though.)

Col. Jeff Cooper's First Rule of firearm safety: Always treat every firearm as if it's loaded. Always.
The Naughties (3.33 / 3) (#56)
by Foul_Irony on Wed Dec 20, 2000 at 08:49:06 AM EST

Seems to me the rest of the world have decided it is the Naughties!

I know that in the UK it hasn't been a debaiting issue for a good year or so!!


Why I don't want it called the "Aughts" (2.00 / 2) (#57)
by Karmakaze on Wed Dec 20, 2000 at 11:48:35 AM EST

It's clear even from the (theoretically) educated persons posting to this discussion that people can't tell these two words apart:

aught
nothing (very similar to Naught)
ought
a verb meaning, basically, "should"

The general public is going to mangle it even worse. It's bad enough to see "would have" and "would of" used interchangeably; I think this one would make my head implode. It's already starting to annoy me.


--
Karmakaze
dictionary & cultural clash (none / 0) (#59)
by htom on Wed Dec 20, 2000 at 02:26:06 PM EST

Your complaint depends on which dictionary you use (and I suspect, which version of the English language you were taught.)

Webster's New World Dictionary, Third College Edition, lists:

ought ^3 (n.) : || < (a n)ought || a naught; the figure zero (0)

Given how the American government is expending its powers of snooping into the lives of its citizens, "oughties" is also a comment on the forthcoming behaviour standards that will be enforced.

Although I must say that I think that the government will probably think that we're part of the "naughties"!




Col. Jeff Cooper's First Rule of firearm safety: Always treat every firearm as if it's loaded. Always.
[ Parent ]
New millennium (none / 0) (#60)
by SIGFPE on Wed Dec 20, 2000 at 03:10:52 PM EST

And what happened to smart-ass discussion about the third millennium actually just starting in two weeks? Haven't heard about that for a while.
I think that for millennia to come historians will be wondering why every century started at the beginning of year 100n+1 up to the case n=20 when the scheme switched to 100n. Will we be remembered as the generation that couldn't count? Or maybe history will be redefined so that 1900 will be interpreted as being in the 20th century. I wouldn't be surprised if by time the next century arrives people will be so ignorant that the period 2100-2199 will be defined as the 21st century because these years start with 21.

In fact I'm pretty surprised that no companies are trying to create hype about 2001 being the start of a new millennium for marketing purposes. But nobody even seems to be trying.

Well I'll be celebrating the new millennium in two weeks.
SIGFPE

Name the Decade! | 60 comments (60 topical, 0 editorial, 0 hidden)
Display: Sort:

kuro5hin.org

[XML]
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. The Rest 2000 - Present Kuro5hin.org Inc.
See our legalese page for copyright policies. Please also read our Privacy Policy.
Kuro5hin.org is powered by Free Software, including Apache, Perl, and Linux, The Scoop Engine that runs this site is freely available, under the terms of the GPL.
Need some help? Email help@kuro5hin.org.
My heart's the long stairs.

Powered by Scoop create account | help/FAQ | mission | links | search | IRC | YOU choose the stories!