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: Bill Ounce who wrote (1918)	5/26/1998 9:17:00 PM
From: David Eddy	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 9818

Bill - Perhaps we're just quibbling about details then Quibbling about details is precisely what computers are all about. Humans are hysterically content to deal with outragous amounts of imprecision & ambiguity. Computers only know precision. In my Lotus 1-2-3 spreadsheet, the time value is precisely 35941.8800578704, which equates to 26 May 1998 09:07:17 PM. Somehow I don't think the native time counting mode on this machine in is in years... I suspect it's in itty-bitty seconds that eventually add up to years. And that is the crux of the matter... when we define a two digit numbering system, there is no number AFTER 99. Therein lies the problem. Years is just a different unitary representation for nanoseconds. Sorry to be argumentative here, but I've been in plenty of battles where it is necessary to explain that Zip Code (02194) and Postal Code 4M6 H5J are the same thing. - David