[OFFTOPIC] Re: Y2k compliance

J. S. Connell (ankh@canuck.gen.nz)
Sat, 5 Dec 1998 00:25:31 -0500 (EST)

On Fri, 4 Dec 1998, S. Shore wrote:

> In fact, the year 2000 isn't a leap year. A little-known rule of
> leapyears (iirc) is that any year divisible by 100 (i think) can't be a
> leapyear.

And an even less-well-known rule, obviously, is that years divisible by 400
*are* leap years. See http://www.amherst.edu/~atstarr/leapday.html, among
other calendrically-oriented sites.

Mr. Myréen asked whether 2000 being a leap year is a problem, since people
who know the /100 rule probably know the /400 rule as well. I neither wish
to single out Mr. Shore nor make an example out of him, but it appears that
Mr. Myréen's optimism is ill-founded.

(Another rarely-known fact is that the leap day is not the 29th of
February. It's actually the 24th. Inter Gravissimus (-mas?) can make for
interesting reading, when you're bored.)

Jeffrey Sean Connell | Networking/Telecommunications Engineer, GXC
ankh@canuck.gen.nz   | PGP key at http://www.canuck.gen.nz/~ankh/pgpkey.html

- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/