Menu
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New profile posts
Latest activity
Vault
Time Travel Schematics
T.E.C. Time Archive
The Why Files
Have You Seen...?
Chronovisor
TimeTravelForum.tk
TimeTravelForum.net
ParanormalNetwork.net
Paranormalis.com
ConspiracyCafe.net
Streams
Live streams
Featured streams
Multi-Viewer
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More options
Contact us
Close Menu
Forums
Time Travel Forum
Time Travel Discussion
A interesting twist
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Timescholar" data-source="post: 14680" data-attributes="member: 49"><p><strong>A interesting twist</strong></p><p></p><p>Actually, the problem was more that old computers used a 2 digit date for the year. (80, 90, 99) So, "03" would "look like" 1903, only because "19" was already put into the system. I'm not familar with old software, operating systems, and computers, since the 40s, 50s and 60s were before my time (errm, no pun intended). AFAIK, operating systems and mainframes aren't date dependant. The timeclock is independant so that it still runs even when the computer is turned off. As mentioned above, the time is read as a series of 1s and 0s. Even if the time field reaches: 111111111111111111, the next 1 added makes it all 0s. It would appear to be whatever start date 0000000000000 was programmed to be -- whether it's Jan. 1st, 1960 12:00:00am, or Jan. 1st, 1980 12:00:00am (as it was on computers during the 80s).</p><p></p><p>I've heard stories like "If Y2K happens, trucks carrying food will stop in their tracks!". :lol: Vehicles don't need a time clock like that to run. Even at that, it would most likely be a counter. </p><p></p><p>However, there is one thing I think might happen:</p><p></p><p>False banking information. Sure people could catch it, but the only thing that would happen would be a huge backlog and waiting time. However, I'm pretty sure banks would have a solid paper trail to fall back on. </p><p></p><p>Y2K, IMHO, was overhyped. The worse that could have happened was longer lines at the bank while bankers did everything by hand. Granted, I don't know everything about banking software and how it works. However, I'm a database programmer/analyst, and the only thing that uses a clock is 1 datafield. A few typos in MS Access made some dates look like "1931", "1932". That's because in MS Access, anything past 2030 becomes 1930. Still, no crashes even occured. <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite38" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /> It was perfectly valid data.</p><p></p><p>Y2K was simply the last hurrah of the "IT Bubble".</p><p></p><p></p><p>I just did a google search on "Y2K Simulations"</p><p></p><p><a href="http://cwidc.com/JP/EN/news_events/media_center/1999/jp_09_30_1999_87.html" target="_blank">Phonelines still worked.</a></p><p></p><p><a href="http://www.fnal.gov/docs/TN/TN0087.html" target="_blank">Only 1 bug relating to files being "checked out" (currently being worked on). There were work-arounds to the problem.</a></p><p></p><p><a href="http://vancouver-webpages.com/vanlug/1998-7/0047.html" target="_blank">Netscape seemed fine.</a></p><p></p><p><a href="http://64.233.179.104/search?q=cache:I1Tv5Rg8pxoJ:[url=http://www.invertir.com/news/apr99.doc+%22Y2K+simulation%22&hl=en" target="_blank">Banks]www.invertir.com/news/apr99.doc+%22Y2K+simulation%22&hl=en]Banks</a> seemed fine.[/url]</p><p></p><p>Those are just some of them. Only 1 minor problem seemed to be with locking files for use. Even that had a work-around.</p><p></p><p>Personally, I think Y2K was hyped by some really bored Quality Assurance testers and leads that just wanted to watch everyone run like crazy.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Some other reasons Y2K wasn't really big --</p><p></p><p>Many systems (like banks) used more modern software and operating systems, like Windows. The hardware was different too.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Timescholar, post: 14680, member: 49"] [b]A interesting twist[/b] Actually, the problem was more that old computers used a 2 digit date for the year. (80, 90, 99) So, "03" would "look like" 1903, only because "19" was already put into the system. I'm not familar with old software, operating systems, and computers, since the 40s, 50s and 60s were before my time (errm, no pun intended). AFAIK, operating systems and mainframes aren't date dependant. The timeclock is independant so that it still runs even when the computer is turned off. As mentioned above, the time is read as a series of 1s and 0s. Even if the time field reaches: 111111111111111111, the next 1 added makes it all 0s. It would appear to be whatever start date 0000000000000 was programmed to be -- whether it's Jan. 1st, 1960 12:00:00am, or Jan. 1st, 1980 12:00:00am (as it was on computers during the 80s). I've heard stories like "If Y2K happens, trucks carrying food will stop in their tracks!". :lol: Vehicles don't need a time clock like that to run. Even at that, it would most likely be a counter. However, there is one thing I think might happen: False banking information. Sure people could catch it, but the only thing that would happen would be a huge backlog and waiting time. However, I'm pretty sure banks would have a solid paper trail to fall back on. Y2K, IMHO, was overhyped. The worse that could have happened was longer lines at the bank while bankers did everything by hand. Granted, I don't know everything about banking software and how it works. However, I'm a database programmer/analyst, and the only thing that uses a clock is 1 datafield. A few typos in MS Access made some dates look like "1931", "1932". That's because in MS Access, anything past 2030 becomes 1930. Still, no crashes even occured. :) It was perfectly valid data. Y2K was simply the last hurrah of the "IT Bubble". I just did a google search on "Y2K Simulations" [url=http://cwidc.com/JP/EN/news_events/media_center/1999/jp_09_30_1999_87.html]Phonelines still worked.[/url] [url='http://www.fnal.gov/docs/TN/TN0087.html']Only 1 bug relating to files being "checked out" (currently being worked on). There were work-arounds to the problem.[/url] [url=http://vancouver-webpages.com/vanlug/1998-7/0047.html]Netscape seemed fine.[/url] [url=http://64.233.179.104/search?q=cache:I1Tv5Rg8pxoJ:[url=http://www.invertir.com/news/apr99.doc+%22Y2K+simulation%22&hl=en]Banks]www.invertir.com/news/apr99.doc+%22Y2K+simulation%22&hl=en]Banks[/url] seemed fine.[/url] Those are just some of them. Only 1 minor problem seemed to be with locking files for use. Even that had a work-around. Personally, I think Y2K was hyped by some really bored Quality Assurance testers and leads that just wanted to watch everyone run like crazy. Some other reasons Y2K wasn't really big -- Many systems (like banks) used more modern software and operating systems, like Windows. The hardware was different too. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Time Travel Forum
Time Travel Discussion
A interesting twist
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top