Re: A83: (no subject)
[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: A83: (no subject)
But the thing is, the whole world uses the Gregorian calendar. :)
Why would most computer programmers think 2000 is not a leap year? Leap
years occur every 4 years, and the last one was in 1996. So naturally, 2000
should be a leap year. It's only when a year ending in 00 is NOT divisible
by 400 that it doesn't have a leap year, which would be years like 1900,
1800, 1700, etc.
And besides, what makes people think that God is on Earth's time table?
That is ridiculous.
--
Bryan Rabeler
rabelerb@pilot.msu.edu
http://www.msu.edu/~rabelerb/
"The first sign of corruption in a society that is still alive is that the
end justifies the means." - Georges Bernanos
----- Original Message -----
From: "Nathan Gaylinn" <NathanG@firstva.com>
To: "TI-ASM" <assembly-83@lists.ticalc.org>
Sent: Sunday, December 26, 1999 4:04 PM
Subject: RE: A83: (no subject)
>
> You know, the date 2000 and the millennium are so very arbitrary. I'd
> say about 30-40% of the world says that the next millennium is no where
> near now. By the Jewish calendar, it's 5060 or something, by some Muslim
> calendar it's like 1200, and by some calendars it's not even the FIRST
> millennium yet. It's all screwy. Anyway, 2000 is a leap year because
> it's divisible by 400. This causes another computer problem, because
> most people programming the computers didn't consider 2000 a leap year,
> so there's another time for panic.
>
> By the way, if the real millennium is 2001, and the millennium brings
> armageddon, do you think god, or whatever will bring the end of earth,
> will decide to do it a year earlier for effect? We'll see!
>
> (no I don't actually think there will be armageddon.)
>
> --
> "What, behind the rabbit?"-King Arthur
> The Heat Index Nathang@firstva.com
> http://users.firstva.com/Nathang
> (\\_
> o(_;
>
>
>
>
References: