Re: 1999 !

New Message Reply Date view Thread view Subject view Author view

Allan Schaffer (allan++at++southpark.engr.sgi.com)
Mon, 4 Jan 1999 15:49:52 -0800 (PST)

On Jan 4, 5:40pm, Bob Cowling wrote:
> The bigger question is what will we in the English speaking
> world (verbally) call the years
> 2000-2009? Someone said the "oughts" - as in "ought one". I'm
> already tired of saying "in the year two thousand". From now on,
> I'm going to say "ought ought" or perhaps "double ought".

I've heard "naught" suggested. That would make those years "the
naughties". Has a certain ring to it.

Finally -- bending this topic back around to something possibly
relevant to info-performer:

Jukka Vaisanen <vaizki++at++iscape.fi> wrote:
> P.S. Is Performer Y2K certified? ;)

Yes. Actually, the word "certified" may have an official or legal
connotation that I don't mean to imply. So perhaps I should just say
it's been tested on a system with the date set to Feb 29 2000 and
appeared to work fine. :-)

Allan
ps. Happy new year everyone!
pps. Let's all agree not to get into a discussion of leap years now.

-- 
Allan Schaffer                                                allan++at++sgi.com
Silicon Graphics                               http://reality.sgi.com/allan

New Message Reply Date view Thread view Subject view Author view

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b2 on Mon Jan 04 1999 - 15:49:57 PST

This message has been cleansed for anti-spam protection. Replace '++at++' in any mail addresses with the '@' symbol.