Y2k - 9/9/1999 anticipated glitches Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Y2k - 9/9/1999 anticipated glitches

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: John Mansfield who wrote ()	1/1/1999 10:33:00 PM
From: TEDennis	Read Replies (1) of 6

9/9/1999 is a phantom Y2K bug ... it doesn't exist. When those moldy-oldy programmers (including yours truly) used all 9's as an "End-Of-File" marker or as an invalid date ... they used all 9's ("999999"). The 9th day of September, 1999 could be stored in the following ways (among many others, but let's restrict this discussion to the most likely collision points): Gregorian formats YYMMDD: 990909 MMDDYY: 090999 DDMMYY: 090999 Julian format: YYDDD: 99252 (Sept 9 is the 252nd day of the year) None of the above formats would compare to the "End-Of-File" all-9's ("999999"). I've read many articles that claim that "some computers have failed" when using 9/9/99. (see #reply-7061705) I'd like to see a specific example of that actually occurring. So far, it's only been hearsay evidence. Not admissible in court. Or to me. I'm a firm believer that there will be many Y2K software failures, but none will be appropriately attributed to "all-9's". Regards, TED

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next