Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

Return to index: [Subject] [Thread] [Date] [Author]

RE: Year 2000 computer problem!

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
I don't think the problem really affects current software or smaller (under
500 node) networks. The problem that most of the Internet Alert websites
report on are in government, insurance industry, healthcare and banking.
Personally, I might agree with Shafat, but there are too many conservative
talk shows on the air that keep the scare tactic flowing. I would think that
if the problem is not as bad as claimed, there would be more rhetoric
debating the issue.
I gave some links in my last post. I recommend that those interested follow
the links to get a better handle on the issues - it may be biased but it's
about the only information that is available and includes updates on
government sites adressing this issue.

Dennis Wish PE

-----Original Message-----
From: Shafat Qazi [mailto:seaint-ad(--nospam--at)]
Sent: Thursday, August 27, 1998 4:41 PM
To: seaint(--nospam--at)
Subject: RE: Year 2000 computer problem!

With all the due respect to the participants of this discussion, I find
that the problem has been blown out of proportion.

FYI, everything is fine. Most of the programs have already been updated. As
a matter of fact, there is no new work coming in this area (fixing of Y2k
bug). Which means that most of the software have been updated or are in
process of being updated.

p.s. Rumor is that IRS computers will crash (beyond recovery) on Jan 1,
2000. Amen

At 8/27/98 04:09 PM, you wrote:
>Thanks for comments.
>I am not computer programmer (by profession.)
>At the mean time I think if the problem as Art Bell (the U.S. talk show
>host) describes is going to be so dangerous that we will not even have food
>or water to drink, why are not we solving the problem?
>As structural engineers we trick the computer all the time. That is when we
>have to replace a formula, a database, a table, etc.. In various programs.
>For example, why do not consider a form of solution that Michael Davis
>suggested. Or at the worst scenario just change the "date" 100 years back!
>On December 31, 1999 at 11:59:59 p.m. let us change our "date" to 1900
>Exactly the same way we change the "time" for "Day Light Saving" process
>until we solve the problem properly.
>Comment appreciated.
>Kasey Hemmatyar, P. Eng. (structural)
>Vancouver, B.C.