|
Re: Y2K...!
1998-06-17 10:39:05
|
Subject: |
Re: Y2K...! |
|
From: |
Richard Sims <rbs AT BU DOT EDU> |
|
Date: |
Wed, 17 Jun 1998 10:39:05 -0400 |
>Years divisible by 400 are not leapyears.
Wrong! Centenaries not divisible by 400 are not leap years.
Centenaries divisible by 400 are leap years.
Year 2000 is a leap year. See Random House dictionary,
among other sources.
|
| <Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread>
|
- Re: Y2K...!, (continued)
- Re: Y2K...!, Herwig Evenepoel
- Re: Y2K...!, Andreas Kossack
- Re: Y2K...!, Andreas Landhaeusser
- Re: Y2K...!, Herwig Evenepoel
- Re: Y2K...!, Richard Sims
- Re: Y2K...!, Fred Johanson
- Re: Y2K...!, Herwig Evenepoel
- Re: Y2K...!, Gretchen L. Thiele
- Re: Y2K...!, Bob Miller
- Re: Y2K...!, Andrew Raibeck
- Re: Y2K...!,
Richard Sims <=
- Re: Y2K...!, Fred Johanson
- Re: Y2K...!, Lambelet,Rene,VEVEY,FC-SIL/INF.
- Re: Y2K...!, Thomas R Rhodes
- Re: Y2K...!, Nicholas Cassimatis
- Re: Y2K...!, Andrew Raibeck
- Re: Y2K...!, Andrew Raibeck
- Re: Y2K...!, Weeks, Debbie
- Re: Y2K...!, Andrew Raibeck
- Re: Y2K...!, Riccardo Corona
- Re: Y2K...!, Jerry Lawson
|
|
|
