- Feature Articles
- CodeSOD
- Error'd
- Forums
-
Other Articles
- Random Article
- Other Series
- Alex's Soapbox
- Announcements
- Best of…
- Best of Email
- Best of the Sidebar
- Bring Your Own Code
- Coded Smorgasbord
- Mandatory Fun Day
- Off Topic
- Representative Line
- News Roundup
- Editor's Soapbox
- Software on the Rocks
- Souvenir Potpourri
- Sponsor Post
- Tales from the Interview
- The Daily WTF: Live
- Virtudyne
Admin
You try running website and get back to us.
kthxbai, Alex in Disguise.
Admin
Admin
Seems like you are one of them that can't get it right. Leap year is NOT every four years. We skip one every 100 years, but every 400 years we don't skip it.
Essentially, the year 2000 was a leap year for the following reason. Divisible by 4, yes it is a leap year. Divisible by 100, oops no it isn't a leap year. Divisible by 400, oh wait a minute, yes it is.
For that same reason the year 2100 will not be a leap year.
Admin
Admin
Admin
Admin
Admin
Not really; I'm talking comparatives here. Essentially, if we had 4 functionally identical clocks based on this "10,000,000,000 standard", and one was on Earth, one orbiting the Sun inside Mercury, one orbiting Jupiter, and one just in orbit around Earth: Then all the clocks would keep time at different rates and translating from one to another would ... hell.
Relativity truly is relative.
Admin
Yes, and you and I both understand that. This algorithm was set in 1582, more than 400 years ago, and everyone should be able to understand it, no problem. Trivial to get right.
So how come some idiot built a software program in 2009-2011 frame that can't handle the /4 leap year part in 2012? (WTF?) Well, the idiot probably tried, but didn't bother to test it because, well, 2012 was 1 or 2 or 3 whole years away.
So if we come up with a leap minute that will only happen every 30 years or so: Just how likely is it that all the programs will work right when the leap minute comes around?
Answer: Just about nil.
Admin
Nope...
Nope, I just don't see it.
There is definitely no situation where I give a shit about the year 2100 being a leap year.
Admin
Just do what I did and die and get it over with. You only die once in a lifetime and I was decalred dead almost 20 years ago, so with that out of the way, I plan on seeing the year 2100.
Admin
From 1972 to 2011, the UTC folks added 24 leap-seconds. That's an average of just over 1/2 second per year. So in 100 years we might add one minute. How many people would really notice that high noon now comes at 11:59 instead of 12:00? Which is more of a pain to deal with, "clock noon" being 1 minute different from "astronomical noon"? Or having to deal with time calculations that involve factoring in extra seconds that occur at (for all practical purposes) no predictable schedule?
Admin
Now taking applications!
Admin
Why don't they just claim Thomas Edison invented it, like everything else.
Admin
Admin
Admin
I exaggerated to make a point about the way we want time to correspond to things like the motion of our rock.
But the leap second thing has come up because, pretty soon, they're going to have to start using, occasionally, 2 leap seconds a year. Our rock continues to slow down.
Admin
For the benefit of the Mars Exploration Rover mission there are wristwatches which take an extra 100 seconds to count off each hour. http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/spotlight/spirit/a3_20040108.html
Admin
Gosh gosh the tone of this almost sounds like an American didn't invent/discover: -Electricty -Light Bulb -Telephone -Engines -Internet -PCs -Binary (Although Gottfried Wilhelm Liebniz discovered this, we'll consider him an Honorary American for all intents and purposes) -A billion other useful stuff
Sorry mates, the Yanks do have you guys licked pretty hard; esp. for a 236 year old country.
Admin
Not sure why you would want to pre-calculate an array of booleans from such a simple function on an array of integers (although it's not inconceivable).
A more likely line of code would seem to be:
Admin
Mhhh let me guess, Edison ? or was it H. Simpson ?
Admin
When is easy. WY? Now there's a tough one.