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.

Strategies & Market Trends : Bob Brinker: Market Savant & Radio Host -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ken Brown who wrote (4831)	5/4/1998 1:50:00 AM
From: Dave Kahn	Respond to of 42834

Yes you are correct I started coboling it in the 1970 time frame and I do remember it coming up but every system I put in as lead took care of it inside if not on entry. I did work on lots of others that d not. some kepted ccyymmdd for everything and inputted yymmdd and assumed 19. If any of these older systems are around simple change. I dont think any are. For the last few yeas I worked on bank systems and on those we took into account 30 year loans etc so 1970 started our y2k thinking. It still is going to be a mess. lots of small box stuff out there whos systems were done on the cheap and fast that lack y2k. I know people think Y2k is a big box problem not true any box is more the truth. at least DB2 has only y2k dateing. Dave

To: Ken Brown who wrote (4831)	5/4/1998 4:25:00 PM
From: wooden ships	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 42834

Ken: The ongoing discussion regarding the year 2000 glitch is most illuminating. With respect to the reference to leap year 2000, the following might be deemed worthy of note: Julius Caesar established a new calendar system based on a 365.25 day solar year in 46. B.C. Caesar's calendar allowed for a 365 day year for three years, followed by a fourth "leap" year of 366 days to allow for the perceived .25 day per year discrepancy. The "Julian" calendar persisted in the West until annum Domini 1582 when a reformed calendar was introduced by Pope Gregory XIII. The necessity for a new calendar was based on the discrepancy be- tween Caesar's perceived 365.250 day year and the actual solar year of 365.24219 days. By A.D. 1582, this discrepancy had caused a calendar 10 days ahead of itself. Hence, in A.D. 1582, the day following October 4 was reckoned to be October 15. That being said, the first "correct" Julian leap year apparently was inserted for annum Domini 8. Thus, leap years are always evenly divisible four. The Gregorian calendar fine tuned this rule by allowing that only century years evenly divisible by 400 would qualify as true leap years of 366 days. As a consequence, A.D. 1900, whilst a leap year under the Julian standard(evenly divisible by 4), contained only 365 days since 1900 is not evenly divisible by 400. Annum Domini 2000- on the other hand, being a multiple of 400- mathematically qualifies as a Gregorian leap year. As a foot- note, the Gregorian calendar will reportedly result in a deviation of three days over a period of 10,000 years, should the human race survive that long.