Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: "David E. Smith" <dave@********.ML.ORG>
Subject: The 2059 Calendar (was Re: dumb question)
Date: Sat, 21 Feb 1998 19:29:55 +0000
> Is sixty-one years 'in synch' with 1998? Or if not, which year is it
> closest to? (Be handy if I could use a 1997 calendar for the campaign,
> especially since I barely wrote in it.)

I just pulled out the handy 'cal' utility (yay, Linux!) and checked that.
(For the curious, 2059 looks an awful lot like 1997 to me.) The calendars
will stay in sync for a couple of years, until we get to the leap years in
2000 and/or 2060.


2059

January February March
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
1 2 3 4 1 1
5 6 7 8 9 10 11 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
19 20 21 22 23 24 25 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
26 27 28 29 30 31 23 24 25 26 27 28 23 24 25 26 27 28 29
30 31
April May June
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
6 7 8 9 10 11 12 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
13 14 15 16 17 18 19 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
20 21 22 23 24 25 26 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
27 28 29 30 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 29 30

July August September
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
1 2 3 4 5 1 2 1 2 3 4 5 6
6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
13 14 15 16 17 18 19 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
20 21 22 23 24 25 26 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
27 28 29 30 31 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 28 29 30
31
October November December
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
1 2 3 4 1 1 2 3 4 5 6
5 6 7 8 9 10 11 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
19 20 21 22 23 24 25 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
26 27 28 29 30 31 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 28 29 30 31
30


dave

----- David E. Smith, P O Box 324, Cape Girardeau MO 63702
http://bureau42.base.org/people/dave/ dave@********.ml.org

Random KMFDM Quote:
"Like everything else, it's completely inane" -- Inane
Message no. 2
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: The 2059 Calendar (was Re: dumb question)
Date: Sun, 22 Feb 1998 11:03:31 +0100
David E. Smith said on 19:29/21 Feb 98...

> I just pulled out the handy 'cal' utility (yay, Linux!) and checked that.
> (For the curious, 2059 looks an awful lot like 1997 to me.) The calendars
> will stay in sync for a couple of years, until we get to the leap years in
> 2000 and/or 2060.

2000 is not a leap year, as it can be divided by 400. 2060 is a leap year,
though. Not sure if things go out of sync then, but it's easy enough to
use some kind of calendar printing tool (like cal if you have access to a
Unix system, or one of the hundreds of utils available for Windows) to
print a calendar for the year your SR campaign is set in.

<GridSec>
BTW, you have a reply-to field set in your mailer which overrides that of
the list. Please remove it, it won't affect the way people or this list
send mail to you, but will make things easier for others on the list when
replying to your posts.
</GridSec>

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html - UIN5044116
This ain't no holiday, but it always turns out this way
-> NERPS Project Leader * ShadowRN GridSec * Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/plastic.html <-
-> The New Character Mortuary: http://www.electricferret.com/mortuary/ <-

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version 3.1:
GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ U P L E? W(++) N o? K- w+ O V? PS+ PE
Y PGP- t(+) 5++ X++ R+++>$ tv+(++) b++@ DI? D+ G(++) e h! !r(---) y?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Message no. 3
From: "J. Keith Henry" <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject: Re: The 2059 Calendar (was Re: dumb question)
Date: Sun, 22 Feb 1998 13:09:23 EST
In a message dated 98-02-22 12:14:38 EST, gurth@******.NL writes:

> 2000 is not a leap year, as it can be divided by 400. 2060 is a leap year,
> though. Not sure if things go out of sync then, but it's easy enough to
> use some kind of calendar printing tool (like cal if you have access to a
> Unix system, or one of the hundreds of utils available for Windows) to
> print a calendar for the year your SR campaign is set in.
>
Sadly, the Corel Wordperfect and Presentations Calendar producers do NOT go
that far ahead. They freeze up at about 2017 if IIRC...

-K
Message no. 4
From: Lucas Wagner <cricket@********.NET>
Subject: Re: The 2059 Calendar (was Re: dumb question)
Date: Sun, 22 Feb 1998 13:57:28 -0500
Gurth wrote:
>
> David E. Smith said on 19:29/21 Feb 98...
>
>
> 2000 is not a leap year, as it can be divided by 400. 2060 is a leap year,
> though. Not sure if things go out of sync then, but it's easy enough to
> use some kind of calendar printing tool (like cal if you have access to a
> Unix system, or one of the hundreds of utils available for Windows) to
> print a calendar for the year your SR campaign is set in.
>
I'm pretty sure that 2000 IS a leap year, because it can be divided by
400. If it were divisable by 100, but not 400, then it wouldn't be a
leap year. Hope that helps..

Lucas
Message no. 5
From: Avenger <Avenger@*******.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject: Re: The 2059 Calendar (was Re: dumb question)
Date: Sun, 22 Feb 1998 19:34:42 +0000
In article <4cee70ae.34f069d6@***.com>, J. Keith Henry
<Ereskanti@***.COM> waffled & burbled about The 2059 Calendar (was Re:
dumb question)
>In a message dated 98-02-22 12:14:38 EST, gurth@******.NL writes:
>
>> 2000 is not a leap year, as it can be divided by 400. 2060 is a leap year,
>> though. Not sure if things go out of sync then, but it's easy enough to
>> use some kind of calendar printing tool (like cal if you have access to a
>> Unix system, or one of the hundreds of utils available for Windows) to
>> print a calendar for the year your SR campaign is set in.
>>
>Sadly, the Corel Wordperfect and Presentations Calendar producers do NOT go
>that far ahead. They freeze up at about 2017 if IIRC...

Microsoft Word, Publisher, Frontpage all allow calendars up to some
obscene year like 9999 or something. There are a pile of utilities at
Winsite and half a dozen other places for calendars. It's just a matter
of finding one. As for Corel - well....

--
Dark Avenger -:- http://www.shalako.demon.co.uk/index.htm -
Unofficial Shadowtk Newbies Guide, Edgerunners Datastore &
Beginnings of the Underseas Sourcebook.
http://freespace.virgin.net/pete.sims/index.htm - Alternative UK Sourcebook
(U/C)
Message no. 6
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: The 2059 Calendar (was Re: dumb question)
Date: Sun, 22 Feb 1998 21:34:53 +0100
Lucas Wagner said on 13:57/22 Feb 98...

> I'm pretty sure that 2000 IS a leap year, because it can be divided by
> 400. If it were divisable by 100, but not 400, then it wouldn't be a
> leap year. Hope that helps..

Then I must have had the two mixed up... I knew it was something to do
with dividing by 400 :)

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html - UIN5044116
This ain't no holiday, but it always turns out this way
-> NERPS Project Leader * ShadowRN GridSec * Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/plastic.html <-
-> The New Character Mortuary: http://www.electricferret.com/mortuary/ <-

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version 3.1:
GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ U P L E? W(++) N o? K- w+ O V? PS+ PE
Y PGP- t(+) 5++ X++ R+++>$ tv+(++) b++@ DI? D+ G(++) e h! !r(---) y?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Message no. 7
From: Phil Ames <Philaims@***.COM>
Subject: Re: The 2059 Calendar (was Re: dumb question)
Date: Sun, 22 Feb 1998 16:52:44 EST
In a message dated 98-02-22 12:14:38 EST, you write:

> 2000 is not a leap year, as it can be divided by 400. 2060 is a leap year,
> though. Not sure if things go out of sync then, but it's easy enough to
> use some kind of calendar printing tool (like cal if you have access to a
> Unix system, or one of the hundreds of utils available for Windows) to
> print a calendar for the year your SR campaign is set in.
>

Are you sure on that? I just saw a report that said, although most years
divided by 400 are not a leap year, 2000 will be in order to catch up on some
missing minutes, etc.
Message no. 8
From: Spike <u5a77@*****.CS.KEELE.AC.UK>
Subject: Re: The 2059 Calendar (was Re: dumb question)
Date: Sun, 22 Feb 1998 23:20:58 +0000
And verily, did Lucas Wagner hastily scribble thusly...
|I'm pretty sure that 2000 IS a leap year, because it can be divided by
|400.

It is.

If it were divisable by 100, but not 400, then it wouldn't be a
|leap year. Hope that helps..

And those are exactly the correct rules for knowing why...
(I don't know why everyone appears so confused about the leapyearedness of
2000...)

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|u5a77@*****.cs.keele.ac.uk| Windows95 (noun): 32 bit extensions and a |
| | graphical shell for a 16 bit patch to an 8 bit |
|Andrew Halliwell | operating system originally coded for a 4 bit |
|Principal Subjects in:- |microprocessor, written by a 2 bit company, that|
|Comp Sci & Electronics | can't stand 1 bit of competition. |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|GCv3.1 GCS/EL>$ d---(dpu) s+/- a- C++ U N++ o+ K- w-- M+/++ PS+++ PE- Y t+ |
|5++ X+/++ R+ tv+ b+ D G e>PhD h/h+ !r! !y-|I can't say F**K either now! :( |
Message no. 9
From: Lady Jestyr <jestyr@*******.DIALIX.COM.AU>
Subject: Re: The 2059 Calendar (was Re: dumb question)
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 1998 09:39:07 +1000
> > I'm pretty sure that 2000 IS a leap year, because it can be divided by
> > 400. If it were divisable by 100, but not 400, then it wouldn't be a
> > leap year. Hope that helps..
>
> Then I must have had the two mixed up... I knew it was something to do
> with dividing by 400 :)

The *really* easy way of remembering is that every Summer Olympics year
is a leap year. :)

Lady Jestyr

- I'm in touch with my Inner Klingon... -
| Elle Holmes | jestyr@**********.com | http://jestyr.home.ml.org |
| Shadowrun Webring Ringmaster | GeoCities Leader | RPGA Reviewer |
Message no. 10
From: Bull MacCallister <bull_22@*******.COM>
Subject: Re: The 2059 Calendar (was Re: dumb question)
Date: Sun, 22 Feb 1998 16:36:36 PST
>I'm pretty sure that 2000 IS a leap year, because it can be divided by
>400. If it were divisable by 100, but not 400, then it wouldn't be a
>leap year. Hope that helps..
>
>Lucas
>
Well, since 1996 was a leap year (as well as a US Presidential Election
and the Summer Oplympic year), it stands to reason that 2000 would also
be one. :]

FYI, that means that 2060 will be one as well <grin>

Bull

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
Message no. 11
From: James Lindsay <jlindsay@******.CA>
Subject: Re: The 2059 Calendar (was Re: dumb question)
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 1998 03:52:42 GMT
On Sun, 22 Feb 1998 19:34:42 +0000, Avenger wrote:

> In article <4cee70ae.34f069d6@***.com>, J. Keith Henry
> <Ereskanti@***.COM> waffled & burbled about The 2059 Calendar (was Re:
> dumb question)
> >In a message dated 98-02-22 12:14:38 EST, gurth@******.NL writes:
> >
> >> 2000 is not a leap year, as it can be divided by 400. 2060 is a leap year,
> >> though. Not sure if things go out of sync then, but it's easy enough to
> >> use some kind of calendar printing tool (like cal if you have access to a
> >> Unix system, or one of the hundreds of utils available for Windows) to
> >> print a calendar for the year your SR campaign is set in.
> >>
> >Sadly, the Corel Wordperfect and Presentations Calendar producers do NOT go
> >that far ahead. They freeze up at about 2017 if IIRC...
>
> Microsoft Word, Publisher, Frontpage all allow calendars up to some
> obscene year like 9999 or something.

Microsoft still around by the tenth millennium? You think so? :)



James W. Lindsay Vancouver, British Columbia
"http://www.prosperoimaging.com/ground_zero";
ICQ: 7521644 (Sharkey)

Mano au mano, the "Professor"
would kick MacGyver's ass.
Message no. 12
From: Avenger <Avenger@*******.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject: Re: The 2059 Calendar (was Re: dumb question)
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 1998 04:40:25 +0000
In article <34f3e9fa.29806519@****.direct.ca>, James Lindsay
<jlindsay@******.CA> waffled & burbled about The 2059 Calendar (was Re:
dumb question)
>On Sun, 22 Feb 1998 19:34:42 +0000, Avenger wrote:
>> Microsoft Word, Publisher, Frontpage all allow calendars up to some
>> obscene year like 9999 or something.
>
>Microsoft still around by the tenth millennium? You think so? :)

hehe. /They/ might not be, but there blasted calendars will. :)

--
Dark Avenger -:- http://www.shalako.demon.co.uk/index.htm -
Unofficial Shadowtk Newbies Guide, Edgerunners Datastore &
Beginnings of the Underseas Sourcebook.
http://freespace.virgin.net/pete.sims/index.htm - Alternative UK Sourcebook
(U/C)
Message no. 13
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: The 2059 Calendar (was Re: dumb question)
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 1998 11:19:49 +0100
Lady Jestyr said on 9:39/23 Feb 98...

> The *really* easy way of remembering is that every Summer Olympics year
> is a leap year. :)

That doesn't work either... 2100 isn't a leap year, but it will have
summer olympics :)

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html - UIN5044116
This ain't no holiday, but it always turns out this way
-> NERPS Project Leader * ShadowRN GridSec * Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/plastic.html <-
-> The New Character Mortuary: http://www.electricferret.com/mortuary/ <-

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version 3.1:
GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ U P L E? W(++) N o? K- w+ O V? PS+ PE
Y PGP- t(+) 5++ X++ R+++>$ tv+(++) b++@ DI? D+ G(++) e h! !r(---) y?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Message no. 14
From: Robert Watkins <robert.watkins@******.COM>
Subject: Re: The 2059 Calendar (was Re: dumb question)
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 1998 08:47:44 +1000
>And those are exactly the correct rules for knowing why...
>(I don't know why everyone appears so confused about the leapyearedness of
>2000...)


Because they look at a calendar and see that 1600 AD was not a leap year?

(Weren't leap years and stuff codified around 1612?)

--
.sig deleted to conserve electrons. robert.watkins@******.com

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about The 2059 Calendar (was Re: dumb question), you may also be interested in:

Disclaimer

These messages were posted a long time ago on a mailing list far, far away. The copyright to their contents probably lies with the original authors of the individual messages, but since they were published in an electronic forum that anyone could subscribe to, and the logs were available to subscribers and most likely non-subscribers as well, it's felt that re-publishing them here is a kind of public service.

Thwap!