In article <[log in to unmask]>, Juliette Skeates
<[log in to unmask]> writes
>> >>Data manipulation - is the logic capable of handling 2000AD as a leap
>year
>> >>etc.
>> >
>> >The year 2000 is not a leap year.
>>
>> Sorry to be a pedant, but yes it is. Centuries divisible by 4 are not,
>> centuries divisible by 400 are. Of course I could really annoy everyone
>> by also pointing out that the year 2000 is not the start of the 21st
>> century! <grin>
>>
>I thought all centuries were not leap years but milleniums are. Are there
>other variations?
No. The divisibility by 400 rule gives a pretty good approximation to
the true length of the earth's orbit round the sun. Nowadays, they add
in occasional leap seconds whenever any further correction is needed,
rather than complicating the leap year formula.
--
Hilary Curtis, Executive Director, BMA Foundation for AIDS
http://www.bmaids.demon.co.uk
Tel: 0171 383 6315 Fax: 0171 388 2544
BMA House, Tavistock Square, London WC1H 9JP, UK
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|