Re: [OFFTOPIC] Y2k compliance

Andre Couture (acouture@videotron.ca)
Fri, 11 Dec 1998 01:14:54 -0500

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------8C1AE7162A52F78C7DBD71D9
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

In regard to the discussion about those special years...

Here is what i found from the net;

Regarding year 2000

"Firstly, here is the rule. A year is a leap year (and so contains a
February 29) if it is divisible by 4. But if the year is also divisible
by 100 then it is not a leap
year, unless it is divisible by 400. This means that years such as 1992,
1996 are leap years because they are divisible by 4 and are not affected
by the rest of
the rule which applies to century years such as 1900 and 2000. Century
years are not leap years except where they are a multiple of 400. Hence,
the years
1700, 1800 and 1900 were not leap years and did not contain a February
29. But the year 2000 will be a leap year, the first such century leap
year since
1600. "

Regarding; "/usr/bin/cal 9 1752"

"The Julian calendar is named after Julius Caesar, and between its
introduction in Roman times and the middle ages in Europe there was an
appreciable drift
in the seasons. This forced a reform of the calendar by Pope Gregory in
1582, with 10 days were left out of October of that year (with some
anguish) to
bring the seasons back in phase. It took some time for this system to be
introduced in Britain from Europe and this did not occur until 1752.
Imagine the
confusion of not only a time change when travelling but also a different
date. "

http://www.ips.gov.au/papers/richard/leap.html

http://www.linuxhq.com/lnxlists/linux-kernel/lk_9812_02/msg00018.html

--


  ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Andre Couture
938934 Ontario Inc.
mailto:acouture@videotron.ca


mailto:search_n_find@yahoo.com






--------------8C1AE7162A52F78C7DBD71D9
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii;
 name="msg00018.html"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline;
 filename="msg00018.html"
Content-Base: "http://www.linuxhq.com/lnxlists/linux-
	kernel/lk_9812_02/msg00018.html"
Content-Location: "http://www.linuxhq.com/lnxlists/linux-
	kernel/lk_9812_02/msg00018.html"


<!-- MHonArc v2.1.0 -->
<!--X-Subject: Re: [OFFTOPIC] Y2k compliance -->
<!--X-From: Mike Sackton <mike@taelgar.org> -->
<!--X-Date: Mon, 7 Dec 1998 15:15:55 &#45;0500 (EST) -->
<!--X-Message-Id: Pine.LNX.4.04.9812071504330.15609&#45;100000@isaac.taelgar.org -->
<!--X-ContentType: text/plain -->
<!--X-Reference-Id: Pine.LNX.4.05.9812062250570.23519&#45;100000@tahallah.demon.co.uk -->
<!--X-Head-End-->
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML//EN">


Re: [OFFTOPIC] Y2k compliance









[Thread Prev][Thread Next][Thread Index]




Re: [OFFTOPIC] Y2k compliance











On Sun, 6 Dec 1998, Alex Buell wrote:

>Yes, if my memory serves me right (I'm too old I guess - shh, don't tell
>Highlander about me), they dropped quite a few days, with the result that
>6th (not sure) to the 13th were entirely lost, and so at midnight on the
>6th (not sure), they jumped forward to the 14th of September.


[108] isaac:~ % cal 9 1752

   September 1752
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa 
       1  2 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30


*grin*

Except cal also shows Feb 29, 1000 as existing

Mike Sackton
--
"I always try to make sure that I never spell the word typo wrong, because
  I think that would look really silly."   -- Laura Sackton


-
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/























--------------8C1AE7162A52F78C7DBD71D9--




-
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/