Date: Sun, 05 Dec 1999 00:49:32 -0600 From: "G. Adam Stanislav" <adam@whizkidtech.net> To: "Kenneth D. Merry" <ken@kdm.org> Cc: freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: So, what do we call the 00's? Message-ID: <3.0.6.32.19991205004932.0098e6c0@mail85.pair.com> In-Reply-To: <199912040725.AAA62727@panzer.kdm.org> References: <3.0.6.32.19991204010420.00967810@mail85.pair.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At 00:25 04-12-1999 -0700, Kenneth D. Merry wrote: >Just as the new millennium starts in 2001 because the years were numbered >starting at 1 (1 + 2000 == 2001), 1 + 2048 == 2049. So? I'm talking about a specific year (Y2K), not about centuries or millenia here. 2K = 2048. By your logic the expression "year 2000" would really be describing the year 2001. That's Space Odyssey. The year 2049 would be Y2K1, or perhaps Y2K[1], or even 1[Y2K]. Besides, if it were to refer to an overflow bug, an unsigned 10-bit year would overflow in 2048, not 2049. As a matter of fact, I would not be a bit surprised if some software did experience the Y2K bug in 2048 since some programs do pack a date into "sufficiently large" bit fields, and a 10-bit field was sufficiently large for many years (and will be for almost half a century). Come to think of it, I probably *would* be surprised, not about the bug, but about me still being around at the ripe old age of 94. :) Cheers, Adam To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3.0.6.32.19991205004932.0098e6c0>