Hello mark,

On 09/Jun/07 at 17:20 you wrote:

 SH>   31 more years of computing! ;)  Then we're really screwed.
 ml> haha, yep... unless someone comes up with a way of fixing things... 

  I hope someone can!  I mean I'm sure by then we'll have moved on to 64
bit platforms and this won't be an issue, but I'd still like to know it
doesn't have to be an issue.

 ml> it seems easy enough... i've got 7 normal year charts and 7 leapyear 
 ml> charts... i've already looked at the 68 year cycle and 136 year cycles 
 ml> and they get tossed out of sync on a leapyear each time... i know the 
 ml> pattern is in there and it is just a matter of time to locate it and 
 ml> then figure out how to apply it ;)

  You'll go insane over this stuff man. :)  But your right there has to be
a pattern somewhere that would work.  I remember some postings from Gerry
Dannin back in 1998 or 1999 about the Y2K and some of his explainations of
time and calander's in general were just amazing.  It can keep you awake
nights studying that stuff. 

Cheers,
Shawn

---