Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > NZ Computing > Microsoft Invents The Y2K10 Bug

Reply
Thread Tools

Microsoft Invents The Y2K10 Bug

 
 
Richard
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-07-2010
Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> In message <hi1tmo$7qp$(E-Mail Removed)>, Richard wrote:
>
>> Decade changes next year

>
> Not according to the usual convention.


What convention is that?

First decade was 1-10, second 11-20, keep going and its 2001-2010, then
2011-2020.

Same discussion happened at the incorrect change of millenium 10 years
ago...
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
EMB
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-07-2010
On 7/01/2010 12:00 p.m., Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> In message<hi1rmb$as3$(E-Mail Removed)>, EMB wrote:
>
>> On 6/01/2010 11:46 p.m., Allistar wrote:
>>
>>> EMB wrote:

>>
>>>> As opposed to linux which completely loses the plot recording uptime
>>>> after 497 days.
>>>
>>> On 2.4 version kernels running 32bit.

>>
>> Of which there are a LOT around - including several hundred in a penguin
>> colony in which I have a professional interest.

>
> Yet your “professional” interest doesn’t extend to keeping them up-to-date.


It extends to recommending that something be done, however it does not
extend to having the ability to authorise something being done. There
are also issues involving certification of the whole OS and app package,
and I understand nothing newer has been certified to the satisfaction of
the auditors.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-08-2010
In message <hi3rgj$clh$(E-Mail Removed)>, Richard wrote:

> First decade was 1-10 ...


There was never a year 1 AD. The Gregorian Calendar wasn’t introduced until
1582.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-08-2010
In message <(E-Mail Removed)>, Gordon wrote:

> Now tell us all about the 2038 problem Linux faces


What 2038 problem?
 
Reply With Quote
 
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-08-2010
In message <hi41j6$pl3$(E-Mail Removed)>, EMB wrote:

> On 7/01/2010 12:00 p.m., Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>
>> In message<hi1rmb$as3$(E-Mail Removed)>, EMB wrote:
>>
>>> On 6/01/2010 11:46 p.m., Allistar wrote:
>>>
>>>> EMB wrote:
>>>
>>>>> As opposed to linux which completely loses the plot recording uptime
>>>>> after 497 days.
>>>>
>>>> On 2.4 version kernels running 32bit.
>>>
>>> Of which there are a LOT around - including several hundred in a penguin
>>> colony in which I have a professional interest.

>>
>> Yet your “professional” interest doesn’t extend to keeping them
>> up-to-date.

>
> It extends to recommending that something be done, however it does not
> extend to having the ability to authorise something being done. There
> are also issues involving certification of the whole OS and app package,
> and I understand nothing newer has been certified to the satisfaction of
> the auditors.


You’re talking about a kernel which was obsoleted 6 years ago.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Stephen Worthington
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-08-2010
On Fri, 08 Jan 2010 15:05:56 +1300, Lawrence D'Oliveiro
<(E-Mail Removed)_zealand> wrote:

>In message <hi3rgj$clh$(E-Mail Removed)>, Richard wrote:
>
>> First decade was 1-10 ...

>
>There was never a year 1 AD. The Gregorian Calendar wasnt introduced until
>1582.


But the Gregorian calendar system, as updated over the centuries, has
renumbered the prior years. So now we have 1 BCE and 1 CE and no year
0. So decades, centuries and millennia actually start at 1, not 0.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Matty F
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-08-2010
On Jan 8, 9:57 pm, Stephen Worthington
<(E-Mail Removed)34.nz56.remove_numbers> wrote:
> On Fri, 08 Jan 2010 15:05:56 +1300, Lawrence D'Oliveiro
>
> <(E-Mail Removed)_zealand> wrote:
> >In message <hi3rgj$(E-Mail Removed)>, Richard wrote:

>
> >> First decade was 1-10 ...

>
> >There was never a year 1 AD. The Gregorian Calendar wasnt introduced until
> >1582.

>
> But the Gregorian calendar system, as updated over the centuries, has
> renumbered the prior years. So now we have 1 BCE and 1 CE and no year
> 0. So decades, centuries and millennia actually start at 1, not 0.


But AD and BC refer to the birth of Jesus, who was age 4 (at least) in
1AD. King Herod was the ruler during the time of the Nativity, and
Herod died in 4BC. So we may as well say the millennium started in the
year 0. Just because some moron got it wrong a couple of thousand
years ago doesn't meran we have to keep it that way.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Stephen Worthington
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-08-2010
On Fri, 8 Jan 2010 03:28:22 -0800 (PST), Matty F
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>On Jan 8, 9:57 pm, Stephen Worthington
><(E-Mail Removed)34.nz56.remove_numbers> wrote:
>> On Fri, 08 Jan 2010 15:05:56 +1300, Lawrence D'Oliveiro
>>
>> <(E-Mail Removed)_zealand> wrote:
>> >In message <hi3rgj$(E-Mail Removed)>, Richard wrote:

>>
>> >> First decade was 1-10 ...

>>
>> >There was never a year 1 AD. The Gregorian Calendar wasnt introduced until
>> >1582.

>>
>> But the Gregorian calendar system, as updated over the centuries, has
>> renumbered the prior years. So now we have 1 BCE and 1 CE and no year
>> 0. So decades, centuries and millennia actually start at 1, not 0.

>
>But AD and BC refer to the birth of Jesus, who was age 4 (at least) in
>1AD. King Herod was the ruler during the time of the Nativity, and
>Herod died in 4BC. So we may as well say the millennium started in the
>year 0. Just because some moron got it wrong a couple of thousand
>years ago doesn't meran we have to keep it that way.


Wrong, AD and BC are not the designations used for calendars any more.
The correct usage is CE = Common Era and BCE = Before the Common Era.
The birth date or not of Jesus Christ is completely irrelevant to the
calendar system, as it is not based on his supposed birth date any
more (or even on his existence or not). The current definition of how
the calendar system works says that there is 1 BCE and 1 CE and no
year 0 in between. So, by definition, there is no year 0. There is
nothing clearer than that - year 0 does not exist, by definition.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Matty F
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-08-2010
On Jan 9, 3:27 am, Stephen Worthington
<(E-Mail Removed)34.nz56.remove_numbers> wrote:
> On Fri, 8 Jan 2010 03:28:22 -0800 (PST), Matty F
>
>
>
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >On Jan 8, 9:57 pm, Stephen Worthington
> ><(E-Mail Removed)34.nz56.remove_numbers> wrote:
> >> On Fri, 08 Jan 2010 15:05:56 +1300, Lawrence D'Oliveiro

>
> >> <(E-Mail Removed)_zealand> wrote:
> >> >In message <hi3rgj$(E-Mail Removed)>, Richard wrote:

>
> >> >> First decade was 1-10 ...

>
> >> >There was never a year 1 AD. The Gregorian Calendar wasnt introduced until
> >> >1582.

>
> >> But the Gregorian calendar system, as updated over the centuries, has
> >> renumbered the prior years. So now we have 1 BCE and 1 CE and no year
> >> 0. So decades, centuries and millennia actually start at 1, not 0.

>
> >But AD and BC refer to the birth of Jesus, who was age 4 (at least) in
> >1AD. King Herod was the ruler during the time of the Nativity, and
> >Herod died in 4BC. So we may as well say the millennium started in the
> >year 0. Just because some moron got it wrong a couple of thousand
> >years ago doesn't meran we have to keep it that way.

>
> Wrong, AD and BC are not the designations used for calendars any more.
> The correct usage is CE = Common Era and BCE = Before the Common Era.
> The birth date or not of Jesus Christ is completely irrelevant to the
> calendar system, as it is not based on his supposed birth date any
> more (or even on his existence or not). The current definition of how
> the calendar system works says that there is 1 BCE and 1 CE and no
> year 0 in between. So, by definition, there is no year 0. There is
> nothing clearer than that - year 0 does not exist, by definition.


Why should we follow a definition decided by morons?
When measuring time it is necessary to starting timing from zero.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-08-2010
In message <(E-Mail Removed)>, Stephen Worthington
wrote:

> But the Gregorian calendar system, as updated over the centuries, has
> renumbered the prior years. So now we have 1 BCE and 1 CE and no year
> 0.


That convention was from the days when Europeans didn’t understand the
concept of 0. I would hope they’ve made some progress since then...

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
SpamAssassin Y2K10 Bug Lawrence D'Oliveiro NZ Computing 1 01-04-2010 02:08 PM
microsoft.public.certification, microsoft.public.cert.exam.mcsa, microsoft.public.cert.exam.mcad, microsoft.public.cert.exam.mcse, microsoft.public.cert.exam.mcsd loyola Microsoft Certification 3 11-14-2006 05:18 PM
Nigerian Physicist invents 100+ Years Advanced Video Game System newstips6706@yahoo.com Computer Information 2 10-12-2006 02:34 AM
microsoft.public.certification, microsoft.public.cert.exam.mcsa, microsoft.public.cert.exam.mcad, microsoft.public.cert.exam.mcse, microsoft.public.cert.exam.mcsd realexxams@yahoo.com Microsoft Certification 0 05-10-2006 02:35 PM
microsoft.public.dotnet.faqs,microsoft.public.dotnet.framework,microsoft.public.dotnet.framework.windowsforms,microsoft.public.dotnet.general,microsoft.public.dotnet.languages.vb Charles A. Lackman ASP .Net 1 12-08-2004 07:08 PM



Advertisments