LYT (Leap Year Topic) >> Leap Day - Y2K Redux Minus Fearsgreenspun.com : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread |
[Fair Use: For Education and Research Purpose Only]Title: Leap Day - Y2K Redux Minus Big Fears Summary: Trouble-shooters around the world are gearing up for the Leap Day Tuesday that occurs once in 400 years, the last big gasp of the Year 2000 technology problem.
Source: Reuters Online Date: 02/25/2000 01:12
LINK TO FULL STORY
-- Dee (T1Colt556@aol.com), February 25, 2000
I still don't get it. Since all computer programming came into existence AFTER 1900 why is leap year a concern? Was it a problem in '96?
-- canthappen (n@ysayer.com), February 25, 2000.
I would like to get some input on this issue too, canthappen.
-- Dee (T1Colt556@aol.com), February 25, 2000.
One of our esteemed contributors has stated it very clearly in a previous post:http://hv.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=002bZM
LYT (Leap Year Topic) >> After Y2K, Brace For Leap Year (Phillipines
Every year since 1904 has been a leap year. The year 2000 is a leap year. (All years divided by 400 with no remainder are leap years.)
All computers since 1953 have been programmed to assume any year evenly divisable by 4 is a leap year. This will be valid until the year 2100, which is NOT a leap year.
So, any worries about leap years are about 99 years and 2 month away.
-- (.@...), February 19, 2000.
-- Flash (flash@flash.flash), February 25, 2000.
From the linked article:
"But the U.S. Navy, in a recent message to commanders, said that
``during the rampup for Y2K, more failures were noted during the
Leap Year tests than the end of year tests.''
``However, in light of the minimal impact worldwide during the Y2K
transition, it is not expected that the Leap Year transition will
produce any significant infrastructural failures,'' the Navy
message said.
I wonder if the author read it here at TB2K?: FYI - The Navy plans for Leap Year
-- (looked@familiar.tome), February 25, 2000.
Thanks for the posts Flash and Looked.
-- Dee (T1Colt556@aol.com), February 25, 2000.
Flash, I remember that post. What I don't get is why Koskinen, Navy, etc. think it to be a possible problem. Looked, I tried to read that incomprehensible mess from the Navy. I didn't catch if they actually tested for the 29th and found problems. If so, why? since all years divisible by four should include the 29th.
-- canthappen (n@ysayer.com), February 25, 2000.