Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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.

Pastimes : Double Zero -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TEDennis who wrote (671)	10/30/1997 12:52:00 AM
From: JDRogers	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 4295

TED, First, make sure nobody is looking over your shoulder when you read this. I would like to keep this under wraps for now... An idea came to me today to "solve" this darn year 2000 problem. My solution is a relatively simple concept based on the ever popular idea of "Don't do today what you can put off till tomorrow since tomorrow you may be doing something different and thus it will be somebody else's problem". Well, here goes, instead of actually fixing the problem by increasing the size of the year field from 2 digits to 4 digits lets just get the various World Standards organizations to change the Month and Day fields to go from 01 to 99. This simple fix will give everyone over 23 more years to work on the problem! (And by them I can retire also...) Just imagine the profit opportunities possible with a 23 year time line instead of just a couple more years! Sure there may be a few new problems as a result of this plan... Like we can gloss over the need to fix all the month and year roll over routines by touting the HUGE SAVINGS in DASD space by not having to change the size of the date field. And of course people will need some kind of "wallet card" to help them figure out what Gregorian date actually corresponds to the new FNB/Y2K date 41/82/99. But then these are just even more opportunities! What do you think? Best Regards, Jim