 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 21/07/2012 8:33 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Sat, 21 Jul 2012 05:17:45 -0400, Stephen wrote:
>
>> >The VCR I had at the time lost, I think, a day or it might have been an
>> >hour that could not be fixed.
> Yeah, I probably had an item or two that had issues as well.
On the whole it was a non event after all the hype.
The next one will be 2049 and my life support will start playing up. ;-)
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 7/20/2012 14:38, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Jul 2012 16:11:39 -0700, Darren New wrote:
>
>> On 7/12/2012 7:25, Le_Forgeron wrote:
>>> Then Y2K failed to happen (as a catastroph)
>>
>> I've never been able to figure out whether this should be "Then Y2K
>> failed to happen" or "Thus Y2K failed to happen".
>
> Clearly Y2K happened, since it's 2012.
>
> The predicted Y2K computing technology disaster is what failed to
> happen. Planes failed to fall from the sky, the power grid failed to
> fail, the phones kept working.
I understand.
> Society failed to fall into a dark age due to technology failures.
Sure. But was it because everyone worried about it so much they were willing
to pay COBOL programmers $200K/year to fix it? Or was it just never really a
problem to start with?
Given the broadcast of the cheering from the FAA when the clocks rolled over
GMT and planes didn't fall out of the sky, I'm not totally inclined to
dismiss the first possibility.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"Oh no! We're out of code juice!"
"Don't panic. There's beans and filters
in the cabinet."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 7/20/2012 22:01, Jim Henderson wrote:
> There were predictions (whether or not they were /serious/ predictions is
> certainly debatable) of massive outages and a return to the dark ages or
> the stone ages.
Apparently, one of the most vocal was a (somewhat) closet fundamentalist who
was hoping to actually bring about the apocalypse by telling everyone that
the end of the world was nigh. Kind of weird.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"Oh no! We're out of code juice!"
"Don't panic. There's beans and filters
in the cabinet."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 7/21/2012 13:46, Stephen wrote:
> The next one will be 2049 and my life support will start playing up. ;-)
2038, I expect. Then 2059.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"Oh no! We're out of code juice!"
"Don't panic. There's beans and filters
in the cabinet."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 21 Jul 2012 15:54:07 -0700, Darren New wrote:
> On 7/20/2012 14:38, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Thu, 19 Jul 2012 16:11:39 -0700, Darren New wrote:
>>
>>> On 7/12/2012 7:25, Le_Forgeron wrote:
>>>> Then Y2K failed to happen (as a catastroph)
>>>
>>> I've never been able to figure out whether this should be "Then Y2K
>>> failed to happen" or "Thus Y2K failed to happen".
>>
>> Clearly Y2K happened, since it's 2012.
>>
>> The predicted Y2K computing technology disaster is what failed to
>> happen. Planes failed to fall from the sky, the power grid failed to
>> fail, the phones kept working.
>
> I understand.
Well, yeah, I figured you understood it. I was at that stage attempting
to be funny (Y2K didn't fail to happen - it's 2012, and Y2K came before
2012).
>> Society failed to fall into a dark age due to technology failures.
>
> Sure. But was it because everyone worried about it so much they were
> willing to pay COBOL programmers $200K/year to fix it? Or was it just
> never really a problem to start with?
>
> Given the broadcast of the cheering from the FAA when the clocks rolled
> over GMT and planes didn't fall out of the sky, I'm not totally inclined
> to dismiss the first possibility.
I'm not really inclined that way either. I had systems that needed to be
updated to deal with potential issues, but I don't know that anyone knows
for sure that if we'd done nothing if there would've been the chaos that
was predicted.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 21/07/2012 11:56 PM, Darren New wrote:
> On 7/21/2012 13:46, Stephen wrote:
>> The next one will be 2049 and my life support will start playing up. ;-)
>
> 2038, I expect. Then 2059.
>
You will have to explain that. :-(
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 22/07/2012 08:34, Stephen nous fit lire :
> On 21/07/2012 11:56 PM, Darren New wrote:
>> On 7/21/2012 13:46, Stephen wrote:
>>> The next one will be 2049 and my life support will start playing up. ;-)
>>
>> 2038, I expect. Then 2059.
>>
> You will have to explain that. :-(
>
2038 is the year the 32th bit of the integer counting the number of
second since the Epoch (1 Jan 1970 00:00 UTC) will change to 1.
Implied issue: time stored as 32 bits integer would get negative (as
opposed to unsigned integer). Comparing date code ( is A before B <=> A
< B ) would fails.
It will not happen the 1 Jan 2038 at 0:00 ... but on the 19 Jan 2039,
3:14:08 UTC.
No clue about 2059.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 22/07/2012 10:10 AM, Le_Forgeron wrote:
> 2038 is the year the 32th bit of the integer counting
Thanks. :-)
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 22/07/2012 11:10, Le_Forgeron nous fit lire :
> but on the 19 Jan 2039,
> 3:14:08 UTC
19 Jan 2038. Thta's 9 is a typo!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 21/07/2012 11:56 PM, Darren New wrote:
> On 7/20/2012 22:01, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> There were predictions (whether or not they were /serious/ predictions is
>> certainly debatable) of massive outages and a return to the dark ages or
>> the stone ages.
>
> Apparently, one of the most vocal was a (somewhat) closet fundamentalist
> who was hoping to actually bring about the apocalypse by telling
> everyone that the end of the world was nigh. Kind of weird.
Sounds crazy, but it's not implausible it might have actually worked...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
