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.

Technology Stocks : Discuss Year 2000 Issues -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: David Eddy who wrote (1917)	5/26/1998 7:03:00 PM
From: Bill Ounce	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 9818

Perhaps we're just quibbling about details then... You said: >>>Y2K is not strictly about DATES, it is about how the silicone machines we depend upon count TIME. Dates are just one form of time.<<< Yes, but if the YEAR has no part in the silicon machine counting of time, there is no possible direct year 2000 induced problem. I believe this to be the very definition of Y2K. In an automated system, a DATE consists of YEAR, MONTH and DAY. You know, something like February 29, 2000. The fact that automated systems tend to confuse their dates after 1999 is what Y2K is all about. Other forms of time are used that do not include YYYYMMDD exist in automated systems, and they can and do get confused from time-to-time, but there is no reason to expect that any more than usual will get confused around the turn of the centrury than anytime else. For example, a microseond counter will just keep counting until it gets reset. Overflow conditions could lead to potential problems, but this is completely independent of the calendar year 2000.