Re: Discussion: rmgroup comp.software.year-2000
From: Richard Heathfield (invalid_at_address.co.uk.invalid)
Date: 02/26/04
- Next message: JerryMouse: "Re: Discussion: rmgroup comp.software.year-2000"
- Previous message: docdwarf_at_panix.com: "Re: Discussion: rmgroup comp.software.year-2000"
- In reply to: Jamie Andrews; real address _at_ bottom of message: "Discussion: rmgroup comp.software.year-2000"
- Next in thread: ru.igarashi_at_usask.ca: "Re: Discussion: rmgroup comp.software.year-2000"
- Reply: ru.igarashi_at_usask.ca: "Re: Discussion: rmgroup comp.software.year-2000"
- Reply: LX-i: "Re: Discussion: rmgroup comp.software.year-2000"
- Reply: berlutte_at_sympatico.ca: "Re: Discussion: rmgroup comp.software.year-2000"
- Reply: Peter Lacey: "Re: Discussion: rmgroup comp.software.year-2000"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2004 20:09:13 +0000
Jamie Andrews[...] wrote:
> This is a discussion concerning the removal (rmgrouping)
> of the newsgroup "comp.software.year-2000". This is not a
> formal call for votes, nor is it a threat of rmgrouping the
> newsgroup without a vote.
I have no opinion on the continued existence or otherwise of the named
group, but I would just like to take the opportunity to point out that the
root cause of the Year 2000 problem - i.e. the belief that storing the last
two digits of the year is sufficient - /remains/ an issue. It's as if
people have said "okay, the Y2K thing is over, we can get back to normal
again" (where 'normal' means 'the same lame, broken way we did things
before').
What's worse, some Y2K "solutions" involved the use of a fixed century
window, which simply delays some of the kinds of problems that we faced
just over four years ago. (By "fixed century window" I mean, basically, if
yy < WINDOW then cc = 20 else cc = 19. Lame, or what?)
Even if this were not the case (which it most certainly is, alas), our
descendants are nevertheless going to have precisely the same problem as we
did, in only 90 years or so. And they won't thank us for it.
<snip>
-- Richard Heathfield : binary@eton.powernet.co.uk "Usenet is a strange place." - Dennis M Ritchie, 29 July 1999. C FAQ: http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html K&R answers, C books, etc: http://users.powernet.co.uk/eton
- Next message: JerryMouse: "Re: Discussion: rmgroup comp.software.year-2000"
- Previous message: docdwarf_at_panix.com: "Re: Discussion: rmgroup comp.software.year-2000"
- In reply to: Jamie Andrews; real address _at_ bottom of message: "Discussion: rmgroup comp.software.year-2000"
- Next in thread: ru.igarashi_at_usask.ca: "Re: Discussion: rmgroup comp.software.year-2000"
- Reply: ru.igarashi_at_usask.ca: "Re: Discussion: rmgroup comp.software.year-2000"
- Reply: LX-i: "Re: Discussion: rmgroup comp.software.year-2000"
- Reply: berlutte_at_sympatico.ca: "Re: Discussion: rmgroup comp.software.year-2000"
- Reply: Peter Lacey: "Re: Discussion: rmgroup comp.software.year-2000"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|