ie8 fix

Lessons from the last decade

By | January 2, 2010, 12:15am PST

Summary: This blog entry summarizes what I’ve learnt over the last ten years - and sets the agenda for the next ten as learning to express it better.

One of the more widely honored end of project traditions involves holding a lessons learned meeting and then burying results critical of the seniors who made the major mistakes driving the project to rack to ruin.

In that context what I’ve learnt over the last ten years comes down to two blindingly obvious -in retrospect- general laws of human behavior with broad applicability to both public policy and IT.

The easier of these to understand is something I’ve previously described as the real “Murphy’s law” and now formulate as:

The consequences of actions in the real world align with expectations to exactly the extent to which the beliefs underlying those expectations align with reality.

Thus both the normal formulation in technological or engineering contexts: viz, that anything which can go wrong will go wrong; and the social analog known as the law of unintended consequences (claiming that public policy and/or legislation usually has consequences opposite to those intended) are really just domain specific observations illustrating the working out of Murphy’s law.

To cite a simple public policy example - and I don’t have to cite IT examples, do I? - it’s obvious that newspaper recycling is a good idea. Right? Well, wrong, it turns out that this does far more harm than good - and in two ways:

  • First, a ton of new newsprint in North American costs very roughly what a ton of recycled newsprint does, but the price of the new stuff contains about $200 in taxes paid, while the price for the recycled stuff contains about $200 in public subsidies for an actual difference in economic cost of about $400. Since that additional money relative to new production goes mostly for collections (fuel and labor intensive), de-inking (chemical and infrastructure intensive) and sludge disposal (about 30% by weight of the collected newspaper ends up as dense, low digestibility, and marginally toxic sludge that has to be disposed of) the net effect on both the economy and the environment is negative; and,
  • not only does the reduction in pulp production mean more fires and thus fewer trees (illustrating yet again that the cutest victim of efforts to save the spotted owl has been the spotted owl), but the reduction in long fiber cellulose (paper can be recycled about six times before the cellulose fibers break down) in municipal trash significantly retards natural digestion processes in buried waste dumps - meaning that the half life of dump sites (the time needed for about half the material to become grossly indistinguishable from soil) gets extended from under 200 years to over 500 (for areas with 26″ or more in annual precipitation).

The harder one to understand involves something I think of as the law of temporal spreading - the reality that we don’t all operate in the same temporal zone in personal, political, or technological contexts.

At the IT level this shows up in many different ways - two of the most obvious being:

  • the widespread force fitting of control ideas evolved in response to the explosion in data processing during the 1920s to the (largely unrelated) technologies evolving from the development of science based computing in the 1940s and 50s; and,
  • the general pattern in technology adoption under which new ideas first get reviled and rejected before gradually becoming mainstream when copies made by the majority vendors get treated as exciting innovations - witness, for example, all the companies which declared the iPhone a joke, a mistake, a horror -and are now promoting their copies as somehow magically better, newer, and more innovative.

At the public policy level this shows up most clearly when you consider that large swathes of the world are dominated by 11th century societies cheerfully equipping their crusaders with AK47s, jet aircraft, and modern bio-labs.

It’s when you combine these two laws - meaning, of course, the predictions the two allow you make about the behavior of groups you have to deal with - that the real challenges for the next decade become clear because the job is to succeed despite both temporal spreading and the operation of Murphy’s law.

Consider, for example, the current crisis in air travel security - on the surface this is a situation in which a few nut cases successfully imposed new economic costs on airlines, airports, police, and about two million passengers a day at the world’s airports. Look more deeply, however, and blame ultimately adheres to the people who made this kind of thing inevitable by blindly and stupidly insisting on applying 18th century ideas about personal identity verification to 21st century problems - themselves compounded by mixing 11th century social and religious behaviors with 20th century technology.

So, bottom line, what’s the personal lesson learnt from the last decade? That I’ve only begun to understand this stuff, that both IT and social policy successes depend on testing every assumption against reality first, and that manipulating some self righteous idiot living in the 1920s DP world into doing something right, requires first understanding that the problem is the temporal and social boundary, not the person living inside it.

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily e-mail newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

More from “Managing L'unix”

Topics

Paul Murphy (a pseudonym) is an IT consultant specializing in Unix and related technologies.

Disclosure

Paul Murphy

I do not work for, or otherwise receive anything from, any of the companies I write about. I have some money in a number of funds that bet on the markets, including the technology market, but have no direct control over how these funds are administered or what investments are made. I use Sun and Apple technology both at home and at work.

Biography

Paul Murphy

Originally a Math/Physics graduate who couldn't cut it in his own field, Paul Murphy (a pseudonym) became an IT consultant specializing in Unix and related technologies after a stint working for a DARPA contractor programming in Fortran and APL. Since then he's worked in both systems management and consulting for a range of employers including KPMG, the government of Alberta, and his own firm. In those roles he's "been there and done that" for just about every aspect of systems management and operation.

54
Comments

Join the conversation!

Just In

RE: Lessons from the last decade
adamjones342 1st Oct
Basically, logging leaves small stuff and occurs across relatively homework help small areas each year with 10 - 20 year recovery horizons. Don't log, and you eventually get fires covering big areas with 20- 40 year recovery horizons and those fires leave large logs. academic writing The small stuff is great habitat, the big dead stumps very poor habitat.
0 Votes
+ -
Shallow and misleading?
Economister Updated - 2nd Jan 2010
You said:

"and sludge disposal (about 30% by weight of the collected newspaper ends up as dense, low digestibility, and marginally toxic sludge that has to be disposed of) the net effect on both the economy and the environment is negative"

If we do not recycle, 100% has to be disposed of. Last time I checked, 100% is a LOT more than 30%.

You also said:

"not only does the reduction in pulp production mean more fires and thus fewer trees (illustrating yet again that the cutest victim of efforts to save the spotted owl has been the spotted owl)"

So before the white man arrived in North America and started to log, there must have been a LOT of fires leading to an overall reduction in the number of trees. Therefore there are now more trees available after a couple of centuries of logging. In other words the more we log, the fewer fires, therefore more trees. If we cut down all the trees, we will have no fires and therefore an infinite supply of trees. (I have to stop, my head is hurting.)

Finally you said:

"meaning that the half life of dump sites (the time needed for about half the material to become grossly indistinguishable from soil) gets extended from under 200 years to over 500 (for areas with 26? or more in annual precipitation)"

I am not at all sure that this is a bad thing. Rotting sludge gives off CO2, so a longer half life would actually reduce the CO2 emissions, in addition to the disposed volume being only one third or so (which incidentally would make the decompositions much more equal, since after 600 years with no recycling you would be down to 12.5% while with recycling you would be down to 15% (half of 30%) after 500 years - seems like a wash to me).
0 Votes
+ -
I know it was too complicated for you to grasp (nt)
Economister Updated - 2nd Jan 2010
nt
0 Votes
+ -
Do yourself a favor and...
The Mentalist 2nd Jan 2010
get a brain.
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Lessons from the last decade
adamjones342 1st Oct
Basically, logging leaves small stuff and occurs across relatively homework help small areas each year with 10 - 20 year recovery horizons. Don't log, and you eventually get fires covering big areas with 20- 40 year recovery horizons and those fires leave large logs. academic writing The small stuff is great habitat, the big dead stumps very poor habitat.
1) newsprint decays nicely - the ink isn't a big deal. Sludge, on the other hand, has lots of nasty stuff in it and apparently decays quite poorly.

I have my info on this from a guy who's working on the general problem of waste decay -and I'm told nobody yet knows the consequences of practices like using this sludge in land reclamation and/or farming (mixed with sewage yet .. umm wink ).

Kind of a nice problem, figuring out which is really worse - but my use of the example wasn't meant to do anything beyond point out that self evidently good policies like those favoring paper recycling can have surprisingly negative consequences.

2) as for your comments about trees - I think your logic impecable, but you should think about what really happens. Basically, logging leaves small stuff and occurs across relatively small areas each year with 10 - 20 year recovery horizons. Don't log, and you eventually get fires covering big areas with 20- 40 year recovery horizons and those fires leave large logs. The small stuff is great habitat, the big dead stumps very poor habitat. The joke about the spotted owl is for real: the areas where logging won have the most owls - and large areas where the environmentalists won have neither owls nor living trees. On net it's just about true that every time the owl won in court, in lost in real life - and vice versa.

3 - and, of course, CO2 isn't a pollutant so that part of your comment is just nonsense. Do some research, please, before reguritating silly PC opinion. Nice math tho happy
0 Votes
+ -
Thinking and nonsense
Economister 3rd Jan 2010
My point that your analysis was shallow and misleading stands. You draw general conclusions from a partial analysis, which is intellectually dishonest, deliberate or not.

As far as the spotted owl is concerned, again your comments lead to the conclusion that there were no spotted owls before man and logging, which is probably false. Hence your analysis is probably flawed/incomplete and/or your facts incorrect.

Finally you make a general statement that CO2 is not a pollutant and call my comment nonsense (thank you). I know full well the role of CO2 in the carbon cycle. The fact is however that CO2, when dissolved in sea water, is deadly to shell-building microorganisms that form an important part of the food chain in some ocean regions. The extra CO2 lowers the pH and make the water too acidic for these organisms to build their shells. Just because a chemical is largely beneficial or even essential in nature, does not mean that excessive quantities of that chemical is not polluting that same environment.

Next time you want to make general points, it would be nice if you provided a more complete and balanced supporting discussion.
0 Votes
+ -
Shallow and misleading
murph_z Updated - 3rd Jan 2010
I understand why it appears that way - but bear in mind I'm illustrating a general point about behavior here by citing examples of counter-intuitive consequences, not arguing the science for predicting those consequences.

On Co2 - you might want to consider the science - see:

http://www.whoi.edu/page.do pid=7545&tid=282&cid=63809&ct=162 for one counter-example.

(Woods hole press release on CO2 building shells)

Note too, that your own reductio ad absurdum strategy applies because we know CO2 concentrations everywhere have fluctuated. So no Oceon life when it was high/low? Want to argue too that the polar bear evolved in 300 years? (From the Medieval warming period to the first polar expeditions)?

Basically your major complaints here are reasonable although vastly exaggerated, but both miss the point and mistate the research in conformance with agenda driven opinion.
0 Votes
+ -
Not possible
Economister 3rd Jan 2010
My point is that one should not draw sweeping and general conclusions from incomplete or partial analyses. That CANNOT be "vastly exaggerated". There is far too much of that already in debates about the environment and that is precisely what the AGW deniers accuse the AGW proponents of doing.

In addition, given the fact that you appear to have done precisely that (by your own admission), your comment about "agenda driven opinion" rings rather hollow. I guess you have a mirror in your house......

I believe this debate has run its course and I have made my point.
0 Votes
+ -
nt
0 Votes
+ -
Coward.
JerryZ9 3rd Jan 2010
"I believe this debate has run its course and I have made my point"

Economister is known for that. He comes running from a distance, drops some nonsense, and at the first sight of any resistance he flees to his mummy.

What a joker.
0 Votes
+ -
Bad biology
JJ Brannon 4th Jan 2010
The CO2-seawater illustration drawn is overly simplistic.

What occurs in nature, instead, is that CO2 promotes algae and plankton growth, which is consumed by diatoms, corals, and molluscs, eventually incorporated into calcium carbonate, which is deposited on the seafloor.

Most of the Earth's carbon is locked into these future "white cliffs of Dover".

JJB
0 Votes
+ -
Economister. Here are some facts:
Sammystech 2nd Jan 2010
1. Climate change is normal.
2. There is no evidence that mankind changes climate.
3. There is evidence that 'scientists' fudge data to make it look like man-made.
4. You need to chill out. You're boring.

And here's a nice one for you:

Prediction 2000:
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/snowfalls-are-now-just-a-thing-of-the-past-724017.html

Reality 2010:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/topics/weather/6921281/Britain-facing-one-of-the-coldest-winters-in-100-years-experts-predict.html
0 Votes
+ -
Sad
rynning 2nd Jan 2010
It's sad when people, especially scientists, get so caught up in their beliefs that
they become like chearleaders rooting for a team rather than looking at the
evidence. Worse is when they look at the evidence and try to cover it up.
Worse still is when others ignore the coverup.
0 Votes
+ -
May I suggest...
civikminded 3rd Jan 2010
Broadening the scope of your research on the topic beyond wattsupwiththat. At least don't read it and vomit it back verbatim, because Anthony Watts has no credentials other than being a meterologist on the radio.

I won't even bother trying to argue your points because its apparent your mind is made up. Or more likely made up for you.
0 Votes
+ -
That's because you can't. They're facts.
0 Votes
+ -
SORRY SAMMYTECH
PreachJohn 3rd Jan 2010
Both Murph AND Economister have sharp minds. Above the norm, I have no doubt.
I don't have to agree with every niggling, or even sometimes major points to respect and appreciate this too rare quality.
What they both did by postulating is made me Think. Most blogs and their talkbacks don't begin to do that for me.
So there is room for Economister, and even the occasional troll thrown into the mix, for any entertainment value that may accrue.
My two cents worth! lol
0 Votes
+ -
"made me Think."
JohnMarr 3rd Jan 2010
So? And?
NT
0 Votes
+ -
Agree about the temporal perspectives. Small businesses can have a shorter term view than large ones (unless the latter are on the brink of going bust). Big business in some countries has a longer view than in some others. Beaurocrats can have a longer view (career) than politicians (next election).

As for testing against every assumption, this is a sound approach. But several factors limit
the ability to. The financial cost of doing a thorough job. If you can afford that, can you do it quickly enough? And the impossibility of testing something that will change things a lot because you can't fully model the hypothetical situation you propose, especially psychologically. Nor what the economy / market your system will be running in will be doing (or even the weather but let's not go there just now) when the brave new system is up and running.

So one of our major beliefs has to be that we will never have more than an imperfect view of reality (especially future reality) to try to align with.

But you're right, just because it's difficult and uncertain doesn't mean we shouldn't try. We should try all the harder, and also as wisely as we can.

Doesn't this take us back to the previously-covered importance of: good scoping; constant testing and consultation of users (as per rapid app development); and the point made by some that it is good to limit the size of a project and get it finished quickly?

And are some of us in the West not completely out of the 11th century - fundamentalists in our own way? Is crusading a bit of a two-way street?
0 Votes
+ -
Yes.
murph_z 2nd Jan 2010
I agree with what you say here - in particular with the notion that project risk inherits from faulty forecasts (themselves the result of fooling ourselves about something) with respect to markets, technologies and/or political climates.
0 Votes
+ -
Gee how about the weather on Saturn???
tonymcs@... 3rd Jan 2010
or whatever else you want to bring up.

Show me your climate science qualifications and no, Fox News doesn't count wink

I do suspect there's an IQ lowering plague about though...
0 Votes
+ -
I thought this was a technology blog
civikminded Updated - 3rd Jan 2010
Can we quit now with the political diatribes loosely wrapped up in a technological analogy?

Lets get back to talking about how Sun sucks, and virtualization is a necessary part of IT strategy, and how SANs are a valuable piece of the datacenter puzzle.

For gods sake TonyMCS has even forsaken you!
0 Votes
+ -
LOL -
murph_z 3rd Jan 2010
Agreed - however, please bear in mind that blogs about which buttons to click on presuppose that you have a button... and really managing Unix is more about getting it in place, then figuring out how to make it do whatever it is you want to do with it when it is in place.

Seriously: the big issue isn't whether L'unix can do X or how, it's getting people to recognize that L'unix starts with the right button collection. You know it, I know it.. but most executives don't, and what they're most concerned about is the economy, what the guy on the next bar stool thinks, and avoiding those who know they're better than him because they learned some science in school.

THat's what this crap is supposed to be about: not running Unix in a data center, but running a Unix data center in a corporate environment.
0 Votes
+ -
Here is some fodder
civikminded 5th Jan 2010
MySQL founders & 14,000 others hate Oracle, urge EU to block Sun merger.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSLDE6030W720100104
0 Votes
+ -
Weird isn't it?
murph_z 5th Jan 2010
It's open source -even if some of the key players have non compete agreements there's no way Sun/Oracle could stop them supplying moral support to a fork run by one of their friends.

Clearly there are some nasty under currents here, but what they are I don't know. Nothing really to do with Oracle, tho'; I'd bet.
0 Votes
+ -
I'm afraid all this demonstrates Rudy..
tonymcs@... 3rd Jan 2010
Is that you've learnt nothing from the past 10 years.

Since you are entirely based on ideology rather than fact or empiricism, it sort of makes sense wink
When you said you wouldn't waste anymore time on Murph's blog?

Shhhhh!
0 Votes
+ -
By the way, the decade isn't over yet!
Mr. Slate Updated - 4th Jan 2010
When you count, do you count zero to nine? Or do you count one to ten? The CURRENT decade runs from 2001 thru 2010. Why do so many people have a problem grasping that?
0 Votes
+ -
Why do people have a problem "grasping" a decade
dragosani Updated - 4th Jan 2010
We count decades starting with the zero.

That is why we call the decades the 50's (1950-1959), 60's (1960-1969), 70's (1970-1979), and so on.

A decade by definition is any period of ten years.

You are correct with your version of the decade but it isn't the one that we follow.

We could call a decade 2005-2014 and that would be a proper and correct decade.

Edit: Listing of decades for your enjoyment

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_decades
0 Votes
+ -
If you start with the zeroes, then ...
RationalGuy 4th Jan 2010
... the last decade BC and the first decade AD would only have had nine years (9BC-1BC and 1AD-9AD). There is no year 0.

The first decade was January 1, 1 - December 31, 10. The second decade started January 1, 11. The two-hundred-second decade will start on January 1, 2011.
0 Votes
+ -
Yes, just 9 years
dragosani 4th Jan 2010
... the last decade BC and the first decade AD would only have had nine years (9BC-1BC and 1AD-9AD). There is no year 0.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/0s_BC

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/0s

I wouldn't call either a proper decade by definition but they are the decades we follow.

Remember the decades that we follow is when something starts and not whether we count from one number to another.
0 Votes
+ -
Wikipedia is wrong. [nt]
RationalGuy 4th Jan 2010
[nt]
0 Votes
+ -
Would be nice for an explanation
dragosani 4th Jan 2010
Saying it is wrong is nice and all but please explain why? Exactly what part is wrong?

It would be nice to see a link to something that proves it wrong as well.

I think I will go over this one more time in detail

Decades are about time. Specifically a time scale of consecutive ten years. Time always starts from 0 and moves forward. When a baby is born you don't say he is 1 year old. The baby becomes a year old only after 1 full year has passed.

- We count decades by grouping by the tens place. 1960 and 1969 have the same tens place of 6. Thus they make up the decade just as 2000 and 2009 share tens place of 0.

- You count time starting at 0 not at 1. When we say 1 minute that means 1 minute of time has passed. When the clock strikes midnight on December 31 one full year is complete and we started a new year. Thus we have a complete decade finished starting January 1, 2000 through December 31, 2009.

- The 9 years of ending B.C. and beginning of A.D. on our calendar is the design problem of our calendar.
0 Votes
+ -
I'll explain how the Gregorian calendar works ...
RationalGuy Updated - 4th Jan 2010
When you say "(d)ecades are about time" you're
only partially correct. Decades are about time
as measured with a calendar.

There is no year 0 in the Gregorian calendar.
The first year AD/CE is the year 1. Your
assertion that "(t)ime always starts from 0" is
thus completely wrong. In this case,
time starts at 1. January 1, 1 to be exact.

Count forward ten years, and it's clear that
the first decade ends December 31, 10. The
second decade naturally starts the day after,
on January 1, 11.

The analogy to measuring the age of a child
doesn't hold. The Gregorian calendar simply
doesn't work like a stop watch. To explain yet
again, there is no "year 0" as there is with a
child's age.

You may "count decades by grouping by the tens
place" but people do things incorrectly out of
convenience all the time. They even get passed
into common usage, but it doesn't make them
correct. Maybe "The Sixties" can be easily
thought of as being 1960-1969, but that in no
way changes the fact that the 197th decade of
the Gregorian calendar began on January 1,
1961.

There is no "design problem" with the calendar.
There is a usage problem with people who
want things to work in a way that they are not
meant to work.
0 Votes
+ -
Gregorian Calendar is flawed
dragosani 5th Jan 2010
Got busy yesterday so couldn't finish this up.

There is no year 0 in the Gregorian calendar.
The first year AD/CE is the year 1. Your
assertion that "(t)ime always starts from 0" is
thus completely wrong. In this case,
time starts at 1. January 1, 1 to be exact.


That is exactly what is wrong with the calendar. In every aspect of our lives we count time from the starting point of 0 and the the elapsed period. In everything that we do except for the Gregorian Calendar.

NASA doesn't do a launch by 5..4..3..2..Blastoff. They go 5..4..3..2..1..Blastoff. Then it is Blastoff..1..2..3..4..5 for the mission time. Blastoff being the 0 or starting point of time.

It doesn't count time correctly. That is exactly why everyone gets confused. It has a countdown of time to 1 and then starts time at 1. It should like every other time scale we use show the elapsed time from 0.

That is why everyone gets confused about when a new century or millennia starts because we always start time at 0 and not at 1 except with the Gregorian Calendar.

but people do things incorrectly out of
convenience all the time.


That is so true for the Gregorian Calendar.

There is no "design problem" with the calendar.

It counts time incorrectly. That is a major design problem.

At least with the definition of a decade we can get them grouped correctly.
0 Votes
+ -
Calendars do not count elapsed time.
RationalGuy Updated - 5th Jan 2010
You don't say, "the year is one day old"; you say, "this is the first day of the year." The year turns "one day old" on the first second of its second day. Similarly, an infant turns "one year old" on the first day of its second year of life.

If someone asked you how old a one-year-old is, you would rightly answer one. If someone asked you what year of life a one-year-old was in, you would rightly answer two. Calendars measure time in the latter way.

Should the first day of this year have been 0/0/2010? Does the first day not count because it hasn't happened yet? No, the first day of this year was 1/1/2010, because it was the first day of the first month. By the same sound logic, the first year is correctly called year 1.

Even if we followed your scheme and called the first day AD 0/0/0, you'd still have a problem in that the last decade BC would only have nine years. The year 0 couldn't be both in the first decade AD and the last decade BC. You would have to create an absurd construct (i.e., a year "-0" or 0BC) to make it work.

The problem is not with the calendar, it's with you. The last year of a decade has a different numeral in the tens column than the other nine years. Get over it.

I don't think there's anything wrong with referring to the period from 2000-2009 as "The Two-Thousands" (or "The Aughts" or the "Ohs" or whatever). However, saying that January 1, 2010 was "the start of a new decade" simply because a ten-year period had passed is nonsense. By the same logic, every passing second could be called "the start of a new decade" because it's been ten years since, for example, 3:14:34PM Eastern on Janurary 5, 2000.
0 Votes
+ -
It isn't me
dragosani 5th Jan 2010
You don't say, "the year is one day old"; you say, "this is the first day of the year."

We say that only because our calendar is counting time wrong!

Even if we followed your scheme and called the first day AD 0/0/0, you'd still have a problem in that the last decade BC would only have nine years. The year 0 couldn't be both in the first decade AD and the last decade BC. You would have to create an absurd construct (i.e., a year "-0" or 0BC) to make it work.

That is just a plain incorrect thought process. You don't loose a second on a countdown from 1 to 0 then when counting down to an event then count up after an event.

5..4..3..2..1..0..1..2..3..4..5

That second from 1 to 0 is the exact same as measurement of time as 0 to 1. You wouldn't loose a year counting because it would be designated by B.C. for the countdown and A.C. for the count up. Just like you don't get confused by 1 B.C. vs. 1 A.D. Obviously since they are both 1 years they get confused a lot. You would have to create an absurd construct (i.e., a year "-1" or 1BC) to make it work.

The problem is not with the calendar, it's with you. The last year of a decade has a different numeral in the tens column than the other nine years. Get over it.

And all the other people that get the decade, century, and other beginning times incorrect because our calendar is so idiotic in its time format.

If you don't want to see my posts just stop looking at them. Seems like you just can't grasp the logic of counting time. Thus you can't understand how illogical the Gregorian Calendar is.

By the same logic, every passing second could be called "the start of a new decade" because it's been ten years since, for example, 3:14:34PM Eastern on Janurary 5, 2000.

Which is exactly correct by definition of a decade. Look it up in a dictionary if you don't believe it.

However, as a society we group them by the tens place using the logical format of counting time starting by 0 to further breakdown the time of a century.
0 Votes
+ -
It's not me either ...
RationalGuy 5th Jan 2010
That is just a plain incorrect thought process. You don't loose a second on a countdown from 1 to 0 then when counting down to an event then count up after an event.

5..4..3..2..1..0..1..2..3..4..5

That second from 1 to 0 is the exact same as measurement of time as 0 to 1.


In your countdown example, the numbers represent non-temporal transition points (zero-dimensional points on a one-dimensional timeline) between intervals of time. The zero marks a point where an interval begins. The one marks a point where the first interval ends and the next interval begins. At the one second mark, one second has elapsed.

The numbers of the years on a calendar represent the intervals of time. Do you see the difference in what you and I are counting? Calendar years count the dots in your example.

So, the year 0 would have to represent a 365-day long interval of time, which could only be part of one decade (which is a collection of ten year-long intervals). Thus, the year 0 could not count both as the last year in the last decade BC and the first year in the first decade AD.

If you don't want to see my posts just stop looking at them.

I like reading your posts, I just don't agree with them. I'm having fun.

Seems like you just can't grasp the logic of counting time.

It seems to me like you think there is only one way to count time.

Thus you can't understand how illogical the Gregorian Calendar is.

I never said it wasn't illogical. I only explained how it works. Since we use the Gregorian calendar, it only makes sense to use it correctly, not the way we want it to work.

An elapsed-time calendar might make more sense than the one we have. So might a base-10 metric system of time. Or a global clock that has no time zones. The sun would just rise at all hours of the day depending on where you lived.

The only problem is we use a calendar that starts with the year 1 AD, and it's just how it works. You can claim there are two nine-year-long decades if you want (and it might even be a more practical way to consider things) but that doesn't mean it's correct.
0 Votes
+ -
I understand how it works
dragosani Updated - 6th Jan 2010
In your countdown example, the numbers represent non-temporal transition points (zero-dimensional points on a one-dimensional timeline) between intervals of time.

Yes, Yes, Yes, just like a clock and just like any system we measure time should do.

The numbers of the years on a calendar represent the intervals of time. Do you see the difference in what you and I are counting?

I completely understand that is what the calendar does. I have been saying that it should not do that. Like all of our other measurements of time it should show elapsed.

I like reading your posts, I just don't agree with them. I'm having fun.

Good! You comment just made it sound like it was a frustration. I have been grinning ear to ear reading yours. My frustration has come from not having enough time to properly bring my thoughts together and improve my arguments. Time limitations have had me doing off the cuff thinking for the discussion. I have been enjoying the time that I have had doing this.

It seems to me like you think there is only one way to count time.

It is more like I am looking for consistency with counting time.

I never said it wasn't illogical. I only explained how it works. Since we use the Gregorian calendar, it only makes sense to use it correctly, not the way we want it to work.

Same could be said for the English language were every rule is broken. When the rules do not work the way they need to work we end up breaking them. We do use the calendar not represent intervals of time but we also use it for elapsed time.

How many times have you pointed your finger at the calendar boxes counting how many days/months have passed since an event? If an event happened on the 5th day of the month and it is now the 10th day do you count the 5th day as part of the elapsed time?

An elapsed-time calendar might make more sense than the one we have. So might a base-10 metric system of time. Or a global clock that has no time zones. The sun would just rise at all hours of the day depending on where you lived.

I think you said it best...

but people do things incorrectly out of
convenience all the time.


On a side note we do use a 10 based system (SI) of time measurement once the time scales become less than a second. We are just stuck with an old archaic measurements for everything greater than a second. I guess time scales greater than a year are 10 based as well.

The only problem is we use a calendar that starts with the year 1 AD, and it's just how it works.

Unfortunately, our technological advances will mean that we cannot change our calendar or unit measurements of time to a superior system without causing huge problems. It is just more convenient the way it is.

Happy new decade to you! grin
0 Votes
+ -
So it looks like we agree ...
RationalGuy 7th Jan 2010
... on how the calendar works and that you're using it not how it was intended to be used. I say misused, you say used more sensibly and that's just going have to be a quibble we agree to disagree about.

On a side note we do use a 10 based system (SI) of time measurement once the time scales become less than a second. We are just stuck with an old archaic measurements for everything greater than a second ...

Unfortunately, some of the "archaic measuremetns" were decided for us. I doubt people would go for more than one sunrise per day. Maybe we could just alter the length of the second to get 10 hours of 10 minutes each.

Even then, you can't make 365 into 100 or 1000 no matter how hard you try. 10 months per year wouldn't work for accountants. They like fiscal quarters to end at the end of a month. And people like the same seasons to show up in the same months every year.

Alas, a metric time system may be impossible. Stupid solar system!
0 Votes
+ -
Lessons on calculating a decade!
PreachJohn 4th Jan 2010
Murph, do you want to weigh in on this critical divergence of decade calculation? Someone else who believes themselves to be knowledgeable on the subject?
It raises an interesting point, that frankly, I had no reason to think on till now.
0 Votes
+ -
ok
murph_z 5th Jan 2010
I think this discussion is partially a result of practice not being the same as theory.

In number theory we start counting at zero - it's a no brainer - but most people don't and that leads to part of the conflict these guys are on about.

The actual starting data for the western Calendar isn't known - most "experts" think Christ was born in 6 BC - and, of course, the various groups that set this thing up didn't start counting at zero either.

Thus history suggests that the missing year zero combines with the common mistake of counting from 1 to justify one side of this, but common practice says decades start with 0 and end with 9 and this justifies the other side.

Personally, I go with common practice on this one, ignoring the year 0 issue in favor counting each decade out from 0 to 9 - but I wouldn't argue that this is either historically or technically correct.
0 Votes
+ -
Yes
dragosani 5th Jan 2010
We start from 0 and show our elapsed time except with the Gregorian Calendar.

The reason most "Biblical Experts" believe Christ was born in the 6 B.C. is because of all of the "adjustments" that the Gregorian Calendar has gone through. Thus the original 1 A.D. is thought to be off by 5-6 years.

Personally, I go with common practice on this one, ignoring the year 0 issue in favor counting each decade out from 0 to 9 - but I wouldn't argue that this is either historically or technically correct.

It only matters because society as a whole counts it 0 through 9 for decades. Grouping decades by the tens place. But by definition of the word decade you can start it at any point including 5 through 4 if you want.

If you want to follow the literal of the Gregorian Calendar you can use 1 through 0 but it confuses everyone because we expect time to start at 0.
0 Votes
+ -
Do you really want to start the year ...
RationalGuy 5th Jan 2010
... on 0/0/2010 because no days or months have elapsed yet? If you answer no, then you have no reason to want the years to start at 0 either (or to consider the decades to start on the 0s).

If you want to follow the literal of the Gregorian Calendar you can use 1 through 0 ...

No, you use 1 through 10, which is how you count to ten. How many fingers do you have? Do you start at zero or one? Which day of the year is it? Why would you start at zero?
0 Votes
+ -
You count funny
dragosani 5th Jan 2010
You really just don't like using elapsed time.

No, you use 1 through 10, which is how you count to ten. How many fingers do you have? Do you start at zero or one? Which day of the year is it? Why would you start at zero?

Ok, I start with no fingers first. That would be a zero. Then I raise my first finger and say "ONE".

That is how you count you start from nothing then you move to one.

So, I sat down a half of an apple you would just call that one by your counting method. You have to start at one to count by your method. Then the next whole apple sat down would be 2. You would then have 2 apples. Which is not true.

Or

You would start with no apples (0) then see the half apple and call that .5 apple. The next whole apple would make that 1.5. This would give you an accurate measure of apples.
0 Votes
+ -
[nt]
0 Votes
+ -
alas
dragosani 5th Jan 2010
I don't drink beer or any other alcohol.

Even if my posts prove otherwise.

happy

Join the conversation!

Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]
ie8 fix

The best of ZDNet, delivered

ZDNet Newsletters

Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox

Facebook Activity

White Papers, Webcasts, & Resources
ie8 fix