Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site watdaisy.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!watdaisy!ndiamond
From: ndiamond@watdaisy.UUCP (Norman Diamond)
Newsgroups: net.bugs,net.flame,net.puzzle
Subject: Re: Computer bugs in the year 2000
Message-ID: <6876@watdaisy.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 22-Jan-85 16:31:10 EST
Article-I.D.: watdaisy.6876
Posted: Tue Jan 22 16:31:10 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 23-Jan-85 05:12:55 EST
References: <820@reed.UUCP> <20381@arizona.UUCP>
Organization: U of Waterloo, Ontario
Lines: 25
Xref: watmath net.bugs:503 net.flame:7934 net.puzzle:506

> >       I have a friend that raised an interesting question that I immediately
> > tried to prove wrong.  He is a programmer and has this notion that when we
> > reach the year 2000, computers will not accept the new date.  Will the
> > computers assume that it is 1900, or will it even cause a problem?
> >  ...
> > Spencer L. Bolles
> 
> The problem won't be the computers, but the software.  Some software is
> bound to be wrong, only considering the last two digits of the year.
> but the problem won't come up until 2100.
> ...
> Gary Levin / Dept of CS / U of AZ / Tucson, AZ 85721 / (602) 621-4231

Leap years are not the only problem, and some software already is wrong.
There was some 105-year-old lady who hadn't registered for school, and
the truant officers came after her.  I think this happened in the
U.S. midwest, around 8 years ago.

-- Norman Diamond

UUCP:  {decvax|utzoo|ihnp4|allegra|clyde}!watmath!watdaisy!ndiamond
CSNET: ndiamond%watdaisy@waterloo.csnet
ARPA:  ndiamond%watdaisy%waterloo.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa

"Opinions are those of the keyboard, and do not reflect on me or higher-ups."