You forget about stopping aging after 25 years :-) Op 10 sep. 2015 15:34 schreef "James Rankin" <[email protected]>:
> Glorious....unfortunately, I shall be long dead before those 40 years are > up, sadly > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto: > [email protected]] On Behalf Of Melvin Backus > Sent: 10 September 2015 14:10 > To: [email protected] > Subject: RE: [NTSysADM] OT-ish: date calculation in Excel > > I read an article a couple of years ago which predicted that medical > technology would be able to halt the effects of aging within 25 years, and > would be able to reverse the effects within 40 years. I'm personally > counting on them being right. Hey, if I've got to work, IT isn't the worst > job I can think of. :) > > > -- > There are 10 kinds of people in the world... > those who understand binary and those who don't. > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto: > [email protected]] On Behalf Of Maglinger, Paul > Sent: Thursday, September 10, 2015 9:06 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: RE: [NTSysADM] OT-ish: date calculation in Excel > > I'm not sure about everyone else on this list, but I don't plan on being > in IT quite that long. > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto: > [email protected]] On Behalf Of Freddy Grande > Sent: Thursday, September 10, 2015 1:56 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: RE: [NTSysADM] OT-ish: date calculation in Excel > > If you factor in leap years don't forget that the common simplistic rule > of "every year divisible by 4 is a leap year" is wrong > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leap_year#Algorithm > > Not that it matters until 2100 :P > > Regards, > Freddy > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto: > [email protected]] On Behalf Of Kurt Buff > Sent: Thursday, 10 September 2015 1:38 PM > To: ntsysadm <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [NTSysADM] OT-ish: date calculation in Excel > > On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 6:46 PM, Brian Desmond <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Kurt- > > > > Is there a reason you don't always want the tapes retained for four > > weeks? Is it that your retention is defined as "a month" rather than say > 28 days? > > First - thanks for this. I appreciate it. > > But that's basically it - it's stated as 3 months. I could have just put > it at 28 days (or 31 days, and corrected for the length of the month), but > that still doesn't correct for the Wednesday delivery. > > > I assume your retention on the monthly tapes is "3 years" rather than > 1,095 days? > > Yep. > > > Anyway, I think I got what you laid out. I borrowed the formula from > > here > > http://www.mrexcel.com/forum/excel-questions/523063-number-weeks-month > > .html for part of it. There's probably an easier way to do it but it > > was an interesting problem for my short flight this afternoon. I didn't > figure out how to factor in leap years so your annual retention is > potentially off by a couple days. > > I can certainly live with that. > > > If you simplify to retention in days rather than months it's way > > easier. I posted it here if anyone wants to look. > > http://1drv.ms/1KFouIY > > Actually, I'm going to raise the possibility to management of putting it > to being 42 days, rather than a month, or 28 days. I think that covers long > months and holidays better. > > Until then, I'll work with your example. > > Unfortunately, the link you sent says it's empty, and there's no > attachment to your email. > > Kurt > > >
