# Don't ask Cecil for directions.
**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-ask-cecil-for-directions/449028
**Category:** Cecil's Columns/Staff Reports
**Created:** [May 12, 2008, 3:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-ask-cecil-for-directions/449028 "2008-05-12T15:02:02Z")
**Posts on this page:** 20
**Page:** 2
### Author:  [@John\_W.Kennedy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_W.Kennedy)
#### Post date: [May 27, 2008, 8:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-ask-cecil-for-directions/449028/21 "2008-05-27T20:48:39Z")
I believe there is some precedent for “the oughts”.
---
### Author:  [@DSYoungEsq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSYoungEsq)
#### Post date: [May 27, 2008, 9:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-ask-cecil-for-directions/449028/22 "2008-05-27T21:06:22Z")
[QUOTE=John W. Kennedy]
I believe there is some precedent for “the oughts”.
[/QUOTE]
I thought that was the “aughts?”
---
### Author:  [@Colophon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colophon)
#### Post date: [May 27, 2008, 9:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-ask-cecil-for-directions/449028/23 "2008-05-27T21:34:00Z")
[QUOTE=DSYoungEsq]
I thought that was the “aughts?”
[/QUOTE]
If it wasn’t then it ought to have been.
---
### Author:  [@Giles](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Giles)
#### Post date: [May 27, 2008, 9:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-ask-cecil-for-directions/449028/24 "2008-05-27T21:43:13Z")
[QUOTE=DSYoungEsq]
I thought that was the “aughts?”
[/QUOTE]
My vote is for the “naughty noughties”.
---
### Author:  [@DSYoungEsq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSYoungEsq)
#### Post date: [May 28, 2008, 2:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-ask-cecil-for-directions/449028/25 "2008-05-28T02:03:32Z")
[QUOTE=Colophon]
If it wasn’t then it ought to have been.
[/QUOTE]
[Merriam-Webster Online: Aught](http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/aught).
You will have to look at definition 3, the one for “aught” as a noun.
---
### Author:  [@Alex\_Dubinsky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alex_Dubinsky)
#### Post date: [May 28, 2008, 3:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-ask-cecil-for-directions/449028/26 "2008-05-28T03:25:45Z")
No one will call this decade the “oughts.” Whatever fruitcakes entertained that term a century ago are all dead. This decade will either be called “the first decade” or will not be talked about at all in its own right (just like 1900-9). However, given the many historical events that occured (both political and technological), I’ll bet the former scenario is more likely than the latter.
Besides, “the first decade” has an awesome ring to it, and that matters a lot in such situations. I’ll bet with anyone that that’s what the media will say.
OTOH… the media loves to talk about the current decade (or at least, they couldn’t stop saying “the 90s”) and it hasn’t used any name yet. So I guess chances are also pretty good that the period of my youth will go nameless. ☹
---
### Author:  [@John\_W.Kennedy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_W.Kennedy)
#### Post date: [May 28, 2008, 4:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-ask-cecil-for-directions/449028/27 "2008-05-28T16:17:18Z")
[QUOTE=DSYoungEsq]
I thought that was the “aughts?”
[/QUOTE]
Except for the "ought’ in “ought to”, ought/aught and nought/naught are found both ways.
---
### Author:  [@DSYoungEsq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSYoungEsq)
#### Post date: [May 28, 2008, 4:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-ask-cecil-for-directions/449028/28 "2008-05-28T16:59:49Z")
[QUOTE=John W. Kennedy]
Except for the "ought’ in “ought to”, ought/aught and nought/naught are found both ways.
[/QUOTE]
Only if you use what Merriam-Webster Online calls the “archaic” form of “aught.”
---
### Author:  [@AskNott](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AskNott)
#### Post date: [May 28, 2008, 7:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-ask-cecil-for-directions/449028/29 "2008-05-28T19:33:21Z")
Let’s just call them “the Neds.” We are now in May of Twenty Ned Eight. “Back in the early twenty-neds, things were different. You could get a 400k mortgage, and use a rabbit for a credit reference.”
“After twenty ned eight, it was all over for John Hagee and Lil’ Wayne.”
---
### Author:  [@Rucksinator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rucksinator)
#### Post date: [May 29, 2008, 3:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-ask-cecil-for-directions/449028/30 "2008-05-29T03:27:56Z")
This is a debate that I’ve been waiting to fight again for 9 years.
I’m with **Alex**. The first century got slighted a year because of the idiocy of the people who made this calendar with a missing year. (Sometimes I wonder which birthday that they thought someone born in 5 BC would be celebrating in AD5.) There should be a year zero, but there’s not. We can either…
A.) Say that the first century had only 99 years in it, or
B.) Take one year from every century (and decade, millennium, etc.) and give it to the previous one.
Option A. seems most logical to me.
What if they had decided that the first century started with the year 9 AD? Which decade would you say we were in now? Would you be revving up for a big Millennium party later this year?
---
### Author:  [@Rucksinator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rucksinator)
#### Post date: [May 29, 2008, 3:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-ask-cecil-for-directions/449028/31 "2008-05-29T03:40:38Z")
[QUOTE=Colophon]
I think a more pertinent conclusion would be “Don’t ask **Will Repair** what century it is.”
**Will** , try this one. You have a big pile of pennies and you want to count them and sort them into smaller piles of $1.
Should the 100th penny be the last coin in the first pile, or the first coin in the second pile?
[/QUOTE]
The first penny in the first pile (pile #0) would be penny #0. The second would be penny #1… The 100th would be penny #99, and the last one in the first pile.
Penny #100 would, naturally, be in pile #1, the second pile.
Now, let’s say that someone comes along and steals a penny from the first pile. We can…
A.) say “pile zero only has 99 pennies”
b.) take a penny from the stack and put it in pile zero. (But that doesn’t really work for this analogy, so let’s just scratch that.)
C.) Take a penny from the second stack (stack #1) and give it to the first stack (stack #0). Then take a penny from the third stack and give it to the second. Then take a penny from the third stack… [continuing forever]
Option C.) seems kinda silly, doesn’t it?
---
### Author:  [@Rucksinator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rucksinator)
#### Post date: [May 29, 2008, 3:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-ask-cecil-for-directions/449028/32 "2008-05-29T03:45:18Z")
For those who believe that the 90’s didn’t start until 1991, I have to ask this: Did they start at 12:00:00 midnight on January 1, 1991? Or 12:01:01, or 1:01:01?
---
### Author:  [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)
#### Post date: [May 29, 2008, 10:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-ask-cecil-for-directions/449028/33 "2008-05-29T10:50:32Z")
[QUOTE=Rucksinator]
The first penny in the first pile (pile #0) would be penny #0. The second would be penny #1… The 100th would be penny #99, and the last one in the first pile.
[/QUOTE]
That’s wrong. Zero does not represent a quantity, and is therefore not a counting number. There is no penny #0, or pile #0, or year #0.
If I put a penny in your hand and asked how many pennies you had, would you answer “zero”?
---
### Author:  [@Baldwin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Baldwin)
#### Post date: [May 29, 2008, 11:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-ask-cecil-for-directions/449028/34 "2008-05-29T11:33:33Z")
[QUOTE=Rucksinator]
For those who believe that the 90’s didn’t start until 1991, I have to ask this: Did they start at 12:00:00 midnight on January 1, 1991? Or 12:01:01, or 1:01:01?
[/QUOTE]
12 midnight exactly. (Why in the world would you start 61 seconds later?) That’s when the tenth decade of the twentieth century started. “The '90s” is an informal designation that may refer to either that decade of the century, or to the years 1990-'99.
---
### Author:  [@BJMoose](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BJMoose)
#### Post date: [May 29, 2008, 2:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-ask-cecil-for-directions/449028/35 "2008-05-29T14:00:12Z")
[QUOTE=Contrapuntal]
That’s wrong. Zero does not represent a quantity, and is therefore not a counting number. There is no penny #0, or pile #0, or year #0.
If I put a penny in your hand and asked how many pennies you had, would you answer “zero”?
[/QUOTE]
Right. People didn’t start counting from zero until computers came along, and calendars were in use long before computers. So it’s no surprise the convention is what it is.
There’s a similar “contradiction” in one’s age. If you are, say, forty-four years old, you are in your forty-fifth year. (But note that we never say an infant is zero years old. We give an age in days, weeks or months.)
---
### Author:  [@John\_W.Kennedy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_W.Kennedy)
#### Post date: [May 29, 2008, 2:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-ask-cecil-for-directions/449028/36 "2008-05-29T14:24:46Z")
> [@DSYoungEsq](#):
>
> Only if you use what Merriam-Webster Online calls the “archaic” form of “aught.”
…or that half a dozen other dictionaries simply list as alternate spellings.
> [@Rucksinator](#):
>
> Say that the first century had only 99 years in it
…which is as completely and utterly nonsensical as saying that the first dozen has only eleven doughnuts in it.
[QUOTE=BJMoose]
Right. People didn’t start counting from zero until computers came along, and calendars were in use long before computers.
[/QUOTE]
Actually, the English word “zeroth” is attested back to the 1890s. But computer-science use is neither here nor there; the real explanation of the calendar is that the A.D. epoch (and most other epochs) is conceptually an ordinal. A.D. 1 is the first “year of our Lord”.
---
### Author:  [@Rucksinator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rucksinator)
#### Post date: [May 29, 2008, 3:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-ask-cecil-for-directions/449028/37 "2008-05-29T15:09:19Z")
[QUOTE=Contrapuntal]
That’s wrong. Zero does not represent a quantity, and is therefore not a counting number. There is no penny #0, or pile #0, or year #0.
If I put a penny in your hand and asked how many pennies you had, would you answer “zero”?
[/QUOTE]
I would say that I have one penny in that hand and zero in the other. Zero does represent a quantity.
If you had a penny in your hand, and I took it away, how many pennies would you now say you have? Negative one? That’s bad math, bad logic, and bad calendar design. Unfortunately we have to live with the last one; but not the first 2.
(I’ll be back after work)
---
### Author:  [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)
#### Post date: [May 29, 2008, 5:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-ask-cecil-for-directions/449028/38 "2008-05-29T17:04:38Z")
[QUOTE=Rucksinator]
I would say that I have one penny in that hand and zero in the other.
[/QUOTE]
What does the other hand have to do with it?
> [@](#):
>
> Zero does represent a quantity.
No, I’m sorry, it doesn’t. The quantity “zero” is meaningless. There is no zero quantity.
> [@](#):
>
> If you had a penny in your hand, and I took it away, how many pennies would you now say you have? Negative one?
No. I would have no pennies in my hand. If you have one penny in your hand, and I add zero pennies, how many would you have? One, obviously. The quantity would be unchanged. So zero has no quantity.
> [@](#):
>
> That’s bad math, bad logic, and bad calendar design.
Show me where I said that 1 minus 1 = -1.
Any calender design that has variable values for “century” is bad calender design.
---
### Author:  [@Sparky812](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sparky812)
#### Post date: [May 29, 2008, 5:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-ask-cecil-for-directions/449028/39 "2008-05-29T17:45:18Z")
Not sure why people have such a hard time understanding a timeline but here’s a diagram to simplify it.
If we all agree that Jan 1, 1AD = Jan.1, 754AUD then the millenium ends Dec. 31, 2753 AUD or Jan. 30. 2000.
Therefore, the new millenium starts Jan.1, 2754 AUD or…
drum roll please… Jan. 1, 2001 !!!
```
752AUD 753AUD 754AUD 755AUD ....
/ \ / \ / \ / \
```
2BC 1BC 1AD 2AD 3AD …
\ / \ / \ / \ /
Year 1 Year 0 Year 1 Year 2 …
```
2752AUD 2753AUD 2754AUD ....
/ \ / \ / \
```
1999AD 2000AD 2001AD 2002AD …
\ / \ / \ /
Year 1999 Year 2000 Year 2001 …
---
### Author:  [@Sparky812](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sparky812)
#### Post date: [May 29, 2008, 6:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-ask-cecil-for-directions/449028/40 "2008-05-29T18:01:47Z")
Sorry, Can’t get spacing right
```auto
752AUD 753AUD 754AUD 755AUD ....
| ______| |______ | | ______| |______ |
2BC 1BC 1AD 2AD 3AD ....
| ______| |______ | | ______| |______ |
Year 1 Year 0 Year 1 Year 2 ....
2752AUD 2753AUD 2754AUD ....
| ________| |________ | | ________ |
1999AD 2000AD 2001AD 2002AD ....
| ________| |________ | | ________ |
Year 1999 Year 2000 Year 2001 ....
```
[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-ask-cecil-for-directions/449028.md?page=1)
[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-ask-cecil-for-directions/449028.md?page=3)