The exclusion of 0 is normal. 0 represents nothingness. In order to have 1 year, you must *complete* one year. You cannot count one year at 10 months. The start of the enumeration is arbitary, so, if the ones keeping the calendar started counting from year 0 as the first year, this would make 2000-2009(first and last year included fully) as the decade. If they started from year 1(as Victor says) then 2001-2010(first and last year included fully) would make the decate. Since things are much more complicated than that, I do not think it is trully significant, and the officialy adopted convention(2000-2009) is as acceptable as any, IMHO.
The arithmetics issue is exactly the same as the one arising after the question “How old are you?”. If you are born on May 1st 2003 and now it is February 3rd 2006, you are 2 or 3 years old?
Obviously, although 2006-2003 makes 3 years, you are 2 years old, because the third year will be completed on May 1st. So, while 2009-2000 gives us 9 as a result, it is 10 years, because we count from Jan 1st 2000 to December 31st 2009

First…I like the web author’s list. Second, I like this commenter because he actually has a list AS criticism…vs: “This is a shitty list…why isn’t Avatard listed???” I might ask the original author about Galactica as well. But I would say by including Serenity, Battlestar is at least given a nod, since Zoic did the space/special effects for both…and in similar style.

War of the Worlds had its moments…as did Monority Report…but they had so many other moments that were too, well, Micheal Bay-ey…personally, I’d nix the confusion of what should be syfy and what shouldn’t and add Eternal Sunshine and 2046, make it a Top 12 and there it is.

Fantasy Junky? More like Apartheid Junky. You really are a one trick pony.

Kieth, read the article…2000-2009. Matrix, Inception are not in range. She made real clear why she didn’t like Avatar. Equilibrium was indeed a goody. Star Trek…decent for big budget blockbuster, and good compared to franchise…but not great.

Your organic tomatoes are ready to be picked…and the mailman just delivered your weekly letter from your adopted African child…and you still haven’t put that “Eracism” bumper sticker on your car that you bought at the herbal cafe…and you haven’t decided on the slogan you’ll be using on your sign at your next SAVE THE TRIPPLE-SPOTTED SLAMANDER-BEETLE-CRICKET protest….and you still haven’t finished that article you’ve been writing for “Self Righteous” magazine…don’t you have better things to do than troll a sci-fi list? The world isn’t getting better while your wasting your time in here, ya know!

matrix was in the 90’s…this list is 2000-2009…and the sequels DO NOT belong!

Ah…the same was said of Blade Runner. And it did not get cult status until several years after it’s open. As far as world creation, dystopian mood, and competence in direction and production, Children Of Men is the only true cladistic relative of Blade Runner. And it is almost as good.

hi baby

“Donny Darko somehow just doesn’t feel like a Science fiction TO ME (this is my opinion) and when watching it didn’t really make any sense to me either, but did make me wonder whether or not this movie wouldn’t have been better suited as a thriller of somekind, any way my naive take on the movie is probably the reason why i didn’t understand it and will prolly need to watch it again to make up my mind.”

You seem to have a hard time understanding movies, which is probably why you have an idiotic take on D9.

Even if it does have anything to do with aparthied, theyre still aliens. Aliens in a science fiction movie. Stop being ignorant.

You already trashed this movie, and someone already shut you up.

stop posting.

I’ve never understood the exclusion of zero. If you run 10 meters you start at 0 meters. You don’t say the first 10 meters ends at 10.99.

You have to get to 1 to be at one. Starting there seems intuitively incorrect. When your counting non progressive things like apples, and objects, ok. If time is indeed linear, such as distance, shouldn’t it start at 0? 2000-2009 would be the first 10 years of the 2000’s.

Hey e, forgot you man. Count again. Paul R said “…the very first decade was year 1 to 10 including all of year 10”. You said “…years 1 to and including 10 only spans 9 years”.

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10. If you don’t count 10 years you should’ve paid more attention in kindergarten.

“… 2001 doesn’t end in ’10′ as his rock solid millennium argument implies.” That’s just weird, you should really read the alphabetic characters since the numbers failed you so horribly. Paul R said “… each decade ends with & includes 10.” He is absolutely right. The first decade ended in year 10, the tenth in year 100, the 201st in 2010 etc.

Hey Mr. Arrogant, easy on the “check your facts”. The Gregorian calendar is the de facto for the whole world. The concept of zero was not known at the time of its construction thus the year AD 1 followed 1 BC. Yes it took some time to be adopted (some 300 years) but it started in the 16th century. Most people are not astronomers and thus do not use the astronomical year numbering (yeah, with year zero). Even NASA knows this:
http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEhelp/dates.html

Here is more detail for you boy:
http://astro.nmsu.edu/~lhuber/leaphist.html

Well said Braiden, very concise! Although some thought on Paul R’s part would have proven himself wrong without any outside influence considering years 1 to and including 10 only spans 9 years. Not to mention the fact that 2001 doesn’t end in ’10’ as his rock solid millennium argument implies! lol