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.

Technology Stocks : Y2K (Year 2000) Stocks: An Investment Discussion -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TEDennis who wrote (11282)	4/29/1998 2:51:00 PM
From: Bobby Yellin	Respond to of 13949

that part of my memory is foggy but I think depending on how we used the dates we didn't necessarily wanted them to be formatted that way..we weren't locked into Julian..especially if they were to be printed.. I remember using routines to check for leap year and to double check for turn of century where I think the rule(dividing by four didn't work).. will try to resurrect another dinosaur or two to join this debate.. you might be right.. appreciate your input a relative I guess(just the dinosaur part) :>

To: TEDennis who wrote (11282)	4/29/1998 9:51:00 PM
From: Jim Keohane	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13949

Unfortunately, though understandably, there is code out there where "00" could mean not 1900, not 2000, but instead mean no date or no year supplied. I would also not be surprised to see "99" or high-values used in some code to indicate much the same thing. No date or no year or invalid date/year. Hi Bobby! Nice running into you again. - Jim Keohane