Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site rochester.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!genrad!teddy!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!rochester!bukys
From: bukys@rochester.UUCP (Liudvikas Bukys)
Newsgroups: net.bugs,net.flame,net.puzzle
Subject: Re: Computer bugs in the year 2000
Message-ID: <5565@rochester.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 21-Jan-85 19:09:44 EST
Article-I.D.: rocheste.5565
Posted: Mon Jan 21 19:09:44 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 23-Jan-85 06:06:36 EST
References: <820@reed.UUCP>
Followup-To: net.why-are-you-following-up-to-three-newsgroups.why-am-I?
Organization: U. of Rochester, CS Dept.
Lines: 22
Xref: watmath net.bugs:505 net.flame:7941 net.puzzle:508


	Spencer L. Bolles:
	"... 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? ..."

Hey!  No big deal!  So what if every piece of code that prints dates with
ctime[3] starts believing every year in the 21st century is Year 2, thanks to
a little parenthesization error?

		cp[2] = '0' + t->tm_year >= 200;

Or, as Joe Bob would say,

	"It could happen here."

					P.S.	I will leave unnamed the
					particular Unix version I pulled this
					source line from.  I don't know which
					of the popular factions introduced it
					first or fixed it first.  I don't want
					to know, and please don't tell me.