home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: uk.misc
- From: malcolm@muir.demon.co.uk ("Malcolm S. Muir")
- Path: sparky!uunet!newsgate.watson.ibm.com!news.ans.net!europa.asd.contel.com!darwin.sura.net!spool.mu.edu!agate!netsys!ibmpcug!pipex!demon!muir.demon.co.uk!malcolm
- Subject: Re: 29 Feb 2000?
- Distribution: world
- References: <BxtIyL.LG2@cck.coventry.ac.uk>
- Organization: Muir
- Reply-To: malcolm@muir.demon.co.uk
- X-Mailer: Simple NEWS 1.90 (ka9q DIS 1.18)
- Lines: 28
- Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 21:26:48 +0000
- Message-ID: <721949208snz@muir.demon.co.uk>
- Sender: usenet@gate.demon.co.uk
-
-
- In article <BxtIyL.LG2@cck.coventry.ac.uk> gdg019@cch.coventry.ac.uk writes:
-
- >In article <6434@sersun1.essex.ac.uk> peter@serv2.essex.ac.uk (Peter Allott)
- > writes:
- >>Will there be a 29 Feb 2000?
- >>
- >>The cal program thinks so!
- >
- >Your cal program has it right. Think. This year's a leap year. So's 1996.
- >Therefore, so's 2000. If I'm utterly blind to the way our adopted calendar
- >has worked for centuries, then please correct me.
-
- Ahha but 1896 was a leap yeat 1900 was *not*
-
- If a year is divisable by 100, it is only a leap year if it is divisable
- by 400.
-
- Next argument - I say the first year of the 21st. century is 2001, not 2000
- which is the last year of the 20th. century.
-
-
- --
- =============================================================================
- Malcolm S. Muir EMAIL: malcolm@muir.demon.co.uk
- Sunderland CIX: mmuir BIX: mmuir
- England CSERVE: 100012,31
- ======================= PGP 2.0 Public Key Available ========================
-