>>>>Is there a 2/29/2000? Or not. I seem to recall that there isn't because it's a leap century but I'm unclear on this.
>>>
>>>It is... The rule on leap years is the following.
>>>
>>>If the year is divisable by 4, it is, unless it's divisable by 100, it isn't. If it's divisable by 400, it is, unless it's by 4000.
>>>
>>>Hugo
>>
>>No such rule on 4000 that I know of.
>
>There is such a rule. The reason it's not well known (or barely) is that we've never had to use it, and only will in another 2000 years (plus a few months).
>
>I'll try to find a site that explains the rule, but I'm sure of it. I seen it on the boob-tube, so it must be true!!! Actually, it was on the Discovery Channel a while back (say a few years!)
>
>Hugo

Hugo, if you can find a site, I'd appreciate it. But I don't think it's going to have too much use for us (kind of like the Y10K problem), unless medical science makes some huge advancements!