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 : 2000 Date-Change Problem: Scam, Hype, Hoax, Fraud -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Cheeky Kid who wrote (1287)	3/23/1999 9:46:00 PM
From: Jeff Redman	Respond to of 1361

"Remember, Jan.01/99 was the date this havoc would begin. Then we had the airport reservation date. Both these passed with VERY minor issues. Very interested what happens in the first week of April. Can't wait to see what the doomers say." They will say something like: "the first week of April 99 really means later in 99", just like massive problems beginning 1/1/99 really means later in 99.

To: Cheeky Kid who wrote (1287)	3/31/1999 4:23:00 PM
From: Contra Guy	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1361

April 1 is an important milestone. What this article does not make clear is that fiscal dates are actually far MORE likely to cause Y2K problems than calendar dates, though the reason may not be obvious to non-programmers. Calendar dates are usually stored in an internal format which has nothing to do with their external format. So whether it is "01 APR 99", "April 1, 1999", "99-04-01", or whatever on the output, internally it will be typically stored as something like 11414, i.e. the number of days after January 1, 1968. As long at the program is using internal dates for processing, as is usually the case, the century is completely irrelevant. Not so with fiscal dates. Fiscal periods are abstract concepts created by accountants, that may have a complex relationship with the normal calendar. I recall trying to do a financial analysis of a large multi-national holding company, that had several divisions, each with differing and overlapping fiscal years. Trying to make sense of the holding company's report for the "last quarter" when all of the supporting financial statements where for different fiscal periods, just about sent me around the bend. So for an accountant, the fiscal period starting tomorrow may be defined as "00-01", not "2000-01" or anything else. Making "00-01" sort ahead of "99-12" requires coding tricks that would never be necessary for simple calendar dates. Strictly speaking, the doomers who predict that the wheels SHOULD start falling off tomorrow are absolutely correct. If they don't, we will have yet another confirmation that next January is going to be a big yawn.