NetNews Offline 2/NetNews Offline Volume 2.iso/news/comp/lang/c-part1/8090

Text File | 1996-08-05 | 3.6 KB | 81 lines

Newsgroups: lobby,comp.lang.c,seattle.general,alt.folklore.computers
Path: peer-news.britain.eu.net!liv!lucs!news
From: [e-mail] (S.E. Morris)
Subject: Re: It's leap year day today!
Sender: [e-mail] (News Eater)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 1 Mar 1996 14:40:03 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>
Nntp-Posting-Host: [e-mail]
Organization: Computer Science, University of Liverpool, UK
X-Newsreader: knews 0.9.4

In article <[e-mail]>,
[e-mail] (Steve Summit) writes:
>[I'm posting this to several miscellaneous newsgroups, although
>it's not particularly relevant to any of them.  Please note that
>I've redirected followups.]
>
>On the occasion of February 29th, I thought I'd send a little
>message to anyone who believes, or who knows anyone who believes,
>or who might at some point run in to anyone who believes, that
>for some reason this is the last leap year day we'll have in
>eight years.
>
>If you know that 2000 will be a leap year and why, you don't need
>to read this message.
>
>If however, you have heard that every 100th year is not a leap
>year, read on.  If someone told you that every 100th year is not
>a leap year, and that's all they told you, they did you a grave
>disservice, and they probably didn't know what they were talking
>about.  Rather than go into the real rule, which is evidently a
>bit too complicated to understand, let me suggest that you ignore
>that someone, forget what they said, and pretend that the rule is
>"every four years is a leap year, period."  That simplified rule,
>though inaccurate, is very likely to be accurate for your
>lifetime.  In particular, it predicts that 2000 will be a leap
>year, which is in fact the case (that is, 2000 is also a leap
>year under the more complicated rules which are in fact currently
>in effect).
>
>If you have any questions about these curious rules, please send
>e-mail to me directly, as I've set the Followup-To: line to
>indicate.  Misperceptions about leap years are discussed ad
>nauseum all across Usenet, and my purpose here is *not* to start
>another such thread.  If you feel compelled to follow up anyway,
>I insist that you quote this entire message, not just part of it.
>(Also, if you're thinking of posting to warn everyone about the
>nonsense I'm spouting, and to tell them about this little-known
>rule you know of that every 100th year isn't a leap year, do
>yourself a favor and find out what the real rules really are
>first.  The 100-year rule is not little-known; it's all too well
>known.)
>
>                    Steve Summit
>                    [e-mail]
>
>P.S. The real rules under the Gregorian calendar, of course, are
>that a year is a leap year if it is divisible by 4 or 400, but
>not if it is divisible by 100 and not divisible by 400.  1900 was
>not a leap year; 2000 will be; 2100 will not be.  Rumors abound
>about a hypothetical 4000-year rule, and some references even
>suggest that one exists, but it exists in the imagination only;
>with the possible exception of a now-defunct Russian government,
>no one has yet formally adopted a 4000-year rule.

I hate to say this, but what a total waste of bandwidth!

The entire above posting can be reduced to this:
  If a year is divisible by 4, it's a leap year.... UNLESS...
  it's divisible by 100, in which case it isn't.... UNLESS...
  it's divisible by 400, in which case it is.
  So, 1984, 1996, etc *are*;  1800, 1900 etc *are not*; 1600, 2000 etc *are*.

For some reason Mr. Steve Summit seems to think this is a revelation worthy
of over 40 lines of dicussion.  Can't think why... maybe it's a troll(?)

-FISH-   ><>