Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 5 Dec 1998 16:32:56 +0100 (CET) | From | Rik van Riel <> | Subject | RE: Y2k compliance |
| |
On Fri, 4 Dec 1998, Chris Chiapusio wrote: > On Fri, 4 Dec 1998, Myreen Johan wrote: > > >>So how does it cope with 2000 being a leep year? > > > >I don't understand the fuzz about year 2000 being > >a leap year. The simplistic formula for finding > >out if a year is a leap year is to check if it is > >divisible by four. That formula is valid from the > [snip] > > because the formula you consider valid isn't the complete formula. > from an altavista search for "leap year":
[SNIP]
> now, if we were to 'spin down the earth' we wouldn't have to worry > about all this leap year mumbo-jumbo.
Actually, you'd need to spin UP the earth by about 0.068%, so you'd better start pushing :)
cheers,
Rik -- the flu hits, the flu hits, the flu hits -- MORE +-------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Linux memory management tour guide. H.H.vanRiel@phys.uu.nl | | Scouting Vries cubscout leader. http://www.phys.uu.nl/~riel/ | +-------------------------------------------------------------------+
- 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/
| |