SI
SI
discoversearch

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.
Microcap & Penny Stocks : TPII - Year 2000 (Y2K); Groupware; Client Server Migration -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TEDennis who wrote (9460)11/30/1998 11:25:00 PM
From: JDRogers  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 10903
 
I agree with the 28 years...

Which is also why most "windowing" code uses 56 as the cutoff year.

I suppose you thought they picked 56 since that was the year in which one very talented programmer type you know was born!

JDR



To: TEDennis who wrote (9460)12/1/1998
From: Jeffrey S. Mitchell  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 10903
 
28 is correct! As for 2000 being a leap year, every 4 years is a leap year, but every 100 years is not, but every 400 years is. So 19,00, 1800, and 1700 were not leap years.

Now, for extra credit: had 2000 not been a leap year, what past year would it have mirrored?

- Jeff



To: TEDennis who wrote (9460)12/1/1998 1:19:00 AM
From: tom rusnak  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 10903
 
Remember, those of us using 28 year date shifts are going to "Party like it's 1971". But that Zegar and Evans hit just doen't quite sound the same: "In the year 2497".

tom

mmmm "phase shift". Something I like about that term. perhaps one word Phaseshift....mmmm....I am seeing a Vision:


HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2026 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News