THIS IS THE FINAL MEMBER OF MXG VERSION 33.08 SOURCE LIBRARY.
As a bonus for looking at this last member in the MXG Source Library: From my Encyclopaedia Britannica (Ninth Edition), American Revisions and Additions, Volume XXVI, 1896, page 1193: PANAMA CANAL ...... "In February, 1893, M. de Lesseps, his son Charles, and other of their colleagues, were sentenced for fraud and bribery to various terms of imprisonment. The government itself trembled under the fierce reproaches of the people. The corrupt deputies and officials have not yet been punished -- in fact, the inquiry is not yet closed -- but the project of a Panama Canal seems to have faded away like a dream." and whereas the article on the Panama Canal was but two columns, the article on the Nicaragua Canal consumes pages 1134-1136, and even has the scale drawings of the canal elevations of the proposed route! So much for the accuracy of encyclopaedic texts! Thanks for reading to the end of MXG. Barry Merrill. Herbert W. “Barry” Merrill, PhD President-Programmer MXG Software Merrill Consultants 10717 Cromwell Drive Dallas, TX 75229-5112 [email protected] Fax: 214 350 3694 – Still works, received as email Tel: 214 351 1966 – Unreliable, please use email www.mxg.com HomePage: FAQ answers most questions [email protected] License Forms, Invoice, Payment, ftp information [email protected] Technical Issues MXG-L FREE ListServer http://www.mxg.com/mxg-l_listserver/ -----Original Message----- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Joel Ewing Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 2015 12:38 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: LOADING An AMODE64 Program One of the things that became obvious in the Y2K discussion groups by 1999 was that the general public is not very good at understanding leap year exception rules, especially ones that neither they, nor several generations of their ancestors, have ever witnessed. It ran all the way from some adamantly claiming 2000 should not and would not be a leap year to some insisting there would be two leap days in 2000! As noted, 2000 was indeed a leap year by the 400-year exception to the 100-year exception Encyclopedia Britannica is complicit in the confusion to this day by incorrectly implying in their "Leap Year" entry that in addition to the divisible by 4, 100, 400 rules there either is or should be a 4000-year exception rule: "...For still more precise reckoning, every year evenly divisible by 4,000 (i.e., 16,000, 24,000, etc.) may be a common (not leap) year", Over 18 years ago (Nov 1996) EB acknowledged that no such rule exists: it was an un-adopted and sub-optimal suggestion by Sir John Herschel around 1820. EB has apparently not yet followed their own internal recommendation in 1996 "to reword this statement in the future". Joel C. Ewing On 08/11/2015 10:31 AM, Mike Schwab wrote: > As a multiple of 400, 2000 was a leap year. 2100, 2200, and 2300 will not > be. > > On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 10:08 AM, Jon Butler <[email protected]> wrote: >> Did she realize 2000 was not a leap year? >> ... -- Joel C. Ewing, Bentonville, AR [email protected] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
