My Christmas present, Canon PowerShot SX120 IS is the first on the list of a decade of Great things.    And it Rocks!!

I'm glad that you got something that really makes you happy.  My ex-wife (my first missus) has one (yeah, we're talking again after 20 years of not) and she reckons it's totally the best camera she has ever had... and she's had a few decent ones in the past.

Exactly... Fred doesn't say, when his hands are empty: "Oh look, I have zero apples in my hand!", does he?

Zero is a vacant number, in fact, and occupies a space in the mathematics table purely to add units of 10, 100, 1000 when 9,99, 9999, etc, have accrued. 

So, by using that logic, the fact that a decade is 10 full years... not a moment less, we can count the 2000's as a decade as being over only when 2010 is concluded.  This is calculation is reached purely by virtue of the mathematical fact that the first complete year of the decade hadn't elasped until 31 December 2000 at 12.00am.   Prior to that point in time, 2000 qualified only as a collection of 11 months, plus 30 days 23 houra 59 minutes and 59 seconds.

Sigh....wrong, Starkers....

Orright, have it your way.

The concept of 0 is the basis of all higher mathematics.

I challenge you to count digitally without using 0

Edit: Wiki

is Wiki a gadget? or Google?

As I stated in an earlier post, 0 exists to count from 9 to 10, 19 to 20, etc.... so yes, it is integral if we are to count beyond 9.

However, 2000 is the zero year when counting down the decade...we count from 2001 (when a full year has elapsed) to 2010 to complete a full 10 year period... which IS a decade. 

So, using your fingers (so as not to get lost/confused along the way) count 31 December 2001, 31 December 2002, 31 December 2003 and so on until you get to 31 December 2009... um, that's the one that's just gone by.  Anyway, it's at that point you will notice that you have a tenth digit sticking up and unaccounted for... that digit, and you don't need to hold it up 'til midnight on December 31 2010, by all means use it in the meantime, is to count the tenth and final year of the decade.

Yeah, I know, sarcasm is the lowest form of wit...but I was being facetious.   

He is correct.

Our calender, whether you use the Gregorian or still adhere to the Julian was given to us by the Romans who did not have a symbol for zero.  So, from the start of AD:

1st Year     I

2nd Year    II

3rd Year     III

4th Year     IV

5th Year     V

6th Year     VI

7th Year     VII

8th Year     VIII

9th Year     IX

10th Year    X

Extending this, the first century, did not finish until the end of the 100th Year, ie C.

The year 2000 was the last year of the 20th Century and 2001 the start of the 21st Century and the start of the the 1st decade of it.

You silly bugger...the first finger you stick up is for 31 December 2000.

You WILL run out of fingers at December 31 2009....exactly where you are supposed to....unless you have extraneous digits.....

....[and keep THAT one in yer pants]....

0 to 1

1 to 2

2 to 3

3 to 4

4 to 5

5 to 6

6 to 7

7 to 8

8 to 9

9 to 10

That's ten [10]

BTW....we just left the 20th [twentieth] century....second millennium.....

...and are now hanging out in the second decade of the 21st [third millennium].....

And that Twentieth century was the one I was born in...had a date of '1954' ....

Only if you were born in the 19th century....

Who's on first....? No...Who's on decade.    What is it with you people?  

Just making an academic point after being encased with relatives over Christmas and the New Year.

Two thirds of respondants here say the decade ends on 31 December 2010

Most people here agree... in fact, the best answer is 2010.

This writer suggests both 'camps' have a case in point

Here the poll says 56% for 2009, 44% for 2010... yet the comments area suggest the opposite.

And the consensus here is 2010.

starkers...counting starts FROM zero....WITH one as the first whole integer.  Ten becomes the tenth integer ARRIVED AT, not passed.

I don't think you can rely on 'majority rules' as the majority can often still be wrong.

As already stated...1954 occurs in the Twentieth century, not the Nineteenth....and the same applies with all instances of counting.  The year 54 AD similarly occurs within the First century and the year 154 will be within the Second century, etc., ad nauseum....

Lantec is right...I think I almost single-handedly hijacked Brad's thread well and truly....so back on topic....[with tongue firmly in cheek]....The first decade of the third millennium HAS ended, so Brad's thread IS correctly timed....

Like when everyone believed the Earth was flat.  Anyway, as far as the dacade thing goes, there are two camps and we obviously aren't in the same one, so we'll agree to disagree.

Not without considerable assistance from me.  Sorry Brad.