Re: A83: (no subject)


Re: A83: (no subject)

But the thing is, the whole world uses the Gregorian calendar. :)

Why would most computer programmers think 2000 is not a leap year?  Leap
years occur every 4 years, and the last one was in 1996.  So naturally, 2000
should be a leap year.  It's only when a year ending in 00 is NOT divisible
by 400 that it doesn't have a leap year, which would be years like 1900,
1800, 1700, etc.

And besides, what makes people think that God is on Earth's time table?
That is ridiculous.

Bryan Rabeler

"The first sign of corruption in a society that is still alive is that the
end justifies the means." - Georges Bernanos

----- Original Message -----
From: "Nathan Gaylinn" <>
To: "TI-ASM" <>
Sent: Sunday, December 26, 1999 4:04 PM
Subject: RE: A83: (no subject)

> You know, the date 2000 and the millennium are so very arbitrary. I'd
> say about 30-40% of the world says that the next millennium is no where
> near now. By the Jewish calendar, it's 5060 or something, by some Muslim
> calendar it's like 1200, and by some calendars it's not even the FIRST
> millennium yet. It's all screwy. Anyway, 2000 is a leap year because
> it's divisible by 400. This causes another computer problem, because
> most people programming the computers didn't consider 2000 a leap year,
> so there's another time for panic.
> By the way, if the real millennium is 2001, and the millennium brings
> armageddon, do you think god, or whatever will bring the end of earth,
> will decide to do it a year earlier for effect? We'll see!
> (no I don't actually think there will be armageddon.)
> --
> "What, behind the rabbit?"-King Arthur
> The Heat Index
>  (\\_
> o(_;