Microsoft Invents The Y2K10 Bug

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Jan 6, 2010.

  1. Hard to believe anyone could stuff up a simple change of decade
    <http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9595_22-378427.html>.
     
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Jan 6, 2010
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    EMB Guest

    On 6/01/2010 8:51 p.m., Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
    > Hard to believe anyone could stuff up a simple change of decade
    > <http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9595_22-378427.html>.


    As opposed to linux which completely loses the plot recording uptime
    after 497 days.

    Glass houses, stones and all that stuff.
     
    EMB, Jan 6, 2010
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. In message <hi1n99$ml6$>, EMB wrote:

    > On 6/01/2010 8:51 p.m., Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
    >> Hard to believe anyone could stuff up a simple change of decade
    >> <http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9595_22-378427.html>.

    >
    > As opposed to linux which completely loses the plot recording uptime
    > after 497 days.


    root@theon:~ # ssh mink uptime
    12:03am up 1150 days 4:32, 0 users, load average: 0.00, 0.00, 0.00
    ^^^^^^^^^
     
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Jan 6, 2010
    #3
  4. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    EMB Guest

    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.
     
    EMB, Jan 6, 2010
    #4
  5. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Richard Guest

    Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
    > Hard to believe anyone could stuff up a simple change of decade
    > <http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9595_22-378427.html>.


    Decade changes next year
     
    Richard, Jan 6, 2010
    #5
  6. In message <hi1tmo$7qp$>, Richard wrote:

    > Decade changes next year


    Not according to the usual convention.
     
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Jan 6, 2010
    #6
  7. In message <hi1rmb$as3$>, 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.
     
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Jan 6, 2010
    #7
  8. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Matty F Guest

    On Jan 6, 8:51 pm, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l...@geek-
    central.gen.new_zealand> wrote:
    > Hard to believe anyone could stuff up a simple change of decade
    > <http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9595_22-378427.html>.


    Lack of testing.
    I tested my date subroutines for every day in thousands of years by
    calling them with consecutive day numbers (and dates) and checking
    that the answers were still one day apart.
     
    Matty F, Jan 7, 2010
    #8
  9. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Gordon Guest

    On 2010-01-06, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <_zealand> wrote:
    > In message <hi1tmo$7qp$>, Richard wrote:
    >
    >> Decade changes next year

    >
    > Not according to the usual convention.


    Nope Ms Windows does not do 0 for the first device.

    I like to use 0, meaning the first in a conversation. That gets some brains
    working. Under the radar for the rest
     
    Gordon, Jan 7, 2010
    #9
  10. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Gordon Guest

    On 2010-01-06, Allistar <> wrote:
    > EMB wrote:
    >
    >> On 6/01/2010 8:51 p.m., Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
    >>> Hard to believe anyone could stuff up a simple change of decade
    >>> <http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9595_22-378427.html>.

    >>
    >> As opposed to linux which completely loses the plot recording uptime
    >> after 497 days.

    >
    > On 2.4 version kernels running 32bit.


    Let it go. The kernel has moved on.

    Now tell us all about the 2038 problem Linux faces
     
    Gordon, Jan 7, 2010
    #10
  11. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Richard Guest

    Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
    > In message <hi1tmo$7qp$>, 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...
     
    Richard, Jan 7, 2010
    #11
  12. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    EMB Guest

    On 7/01/2010 12:00 p.m., Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
    > In message<hi1rmb$as3$>, 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.
     
    EMB, Jan 7, 2010
    #12
  13. In message <hi3rgj$clh$>, Richard wrote:

    > First decade was 1-10 ...


    There was never a year 1 AD. The Gregorian Calendar wasn’t introduced until
    1582.
     
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Jan 8, 2010
    #13
  14. In message <>, Gordon wrote:

    > Now tell us all about the 2038 problem Linux faces


    What 2038 problem?
     
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Jan 8, 2010
    #14
  15. In message <hi41j6$pl3$>, EMB wrote:

    > On 7/01/2010 12:00 p.m., Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
    >
    >> In message<hi1rmb$as3$>, 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.
     
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Jan 8, 2010
    #15
  16. On Fri, 08 Jan 2010 15:05:56 +1300, Lawrence D'Oliveiro
    <_zealand> wrote:

    >In message <hi3rgj$clh$>, Richard wrote:
    >
    >> First decade was 1-10 ...

    >
    >There was never a year 1 AD. The Gregorian Calendar wasn’t 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.
     
    Stephen Worthington, Jan 8, 2010
    #16
  17. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Matty F Guest

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

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

    >
    > >There was never a year 1 AD. The Gregorian Calendar wasn’t 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.
     
    Matty F, Jan 8, 2010
    #17
  18. On Fri, 8 Jan 2010 03:28:22 -0800 (PST), Matty F
    <> wrote:

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

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

    >>
    >> >There was never a year 1 AD. The Gregorian Calendar wasn’t 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.
     
    Stephen Worthington, Jan 8, 2010
    #18
  19. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Matty F Guest

    On Jan 9, 3:27 am, Stephen Worthington
    <34.nz56.remove_numbers> wrote:
    > On Fri, 8 Jan 2010 03:28:22 -0800 (PST), Matty F
    >
    >
    >
    > <> wrote:
    > >On Jan 8, 9:57 pm, Stephen Worthington
    > ><34.nz56.remove_numbers> wrote:
    > >> On Fri, 08 Jan 2010 15:05:56 +1300, Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    >
    > >> <_zealand> wrote:
    > >> >In message <hi3rgj$>, Richard wrote:

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

    >
    > >> >There was never a year 1 AD. The Gregorian Calendar wasn’t 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.
     
    Matty F, Jan 8, 2010
    #19
  20. In message <>, 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...
     
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Jan 8, 2010
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. janet_princess_2k
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    532
    janet_princess_2k
    Aug 9, 2006
  2. Replies:
    2
    Views:
    431
    Travis
    Oct 12, 2006
  3. A bug catalogue for bug lovers!

    , Sep 16, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    576
  4. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    SpamAssassin Y2K10 Bug

    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Jan 3, 2010, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    399
  5. RichA

    Panasonic re-invents the Sony NEX-7

    RichA, Jul 31, 2013, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    19
    Views:
    271
    PeterN
    Aug 2, 2013
Loading...

Share This Page