Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

SI - Site Forums : Silicon Investor - Welcome New SI Members! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: SIer formerly known as Joe B. who wrote (7385)	8/9/1999 12:21:00 PM
From: accountclosed	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 32911

i would think so, but it seems to me that there is a funny leap year somewhere. an exception to the every fourth year. bwdik?

To: SIer formerly known as Joe B. who wrote (7385)	8/9/1999 12:24:00 PM
From: accountclosed	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 32911

i'm now getting a headache <g> There seems to be some confusion regarding whether the year 2000 will be a leap year. Can you clarify? The year 2000 will be a leap year. The confusion is quite understandable. Adding a leap day every four years does not quite correct our calendar to match the astronomical year. To make-up for this, we add a leap day to century years that are divisible by the number 400, of which 2000 is one. We also occasionally reverse the procedure, making every year that is evenly divisible by the number 4000 a common year instead of a leap year. softsett.com If the year is divisible by 100, it's not a leap year UNLESS it is also divisible by 400. More recently, proposals for fixes have gotten even better than that. One suggested change is to add on "if the year is also divisible by 4000, it's not a leap year." dfarber.com