Re: Year 2000 Issue

[Dick King <king@reasoning.com>]

> Contents:
> Re: Year 2000 Issue (Les Fraley <les@lamar.ColoState.EDU>)
> Re: Computerised Golw Curve Deconvolution (Orville & Dianne Cypret <ocypret@apex.net>)
> Re: Year 2000 Issue ("Otto G. Raabe" <ograabe@ucdavis.edu>)
> Abstracts for Mobile HPS Meeting ("Otto G. Raabe" <ograabe@ucdavis.edu>)
> Re: Soil Sample Analysis (Jim Williams <NARM@Worldnet.att.com>)
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Date: Sat, 7 Jun 1997 09:17:25 -0600 (MDT)
> From: Les Fraley <les@lamar.ColoState.EDU>
> Subject: Re: Year 2000 Issue
> 
> 
> 
> On Thu, 5 Jun 1997, Don Haes wrote:
>  
> > What's "illegal" about Feb 29?
> > 
> > Donald Haes, Jr., CHP
> > MIT Radiation Protection Office
> > MIT Room 20C-207
> > 77 Massachusetts Avenue
> > Cambridge, MA  02139
> > (W)    617-258-5640
> > (FAX) 617-258-6831
> > haes@mit.edu
> > 
> There is no 29 Feb in 2000.

Yes there is.

Although most multiples of 100 do not number leap years, multiples of 400 do.

>			  Leap year, which assumes there are 365.25 d/y
> but there are really closer to 365.24 d/y, is skipped every 100 y to
> (partially) make up the difference.  Incidentally, one second will be
> added to 30 June 97 to account for a small accumulation of time error.
> Les Fraley
> les@lamar.colostate.edu
> 
>