Y2K and ACM?

greenspun.com : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread

Can anybody tell me what ACM (Association for Computing Machinery) is doing wrt Y2K? I visited their site (which is www.acm.org) and found basically nothing. One can search their on-line material, so I specified "Y2K" and got one hit so trivial it's not worth mentioning. I couldn't tell from their list of special interest groups, so I used the e-mail address for questions that they have, asking if one of these SIGs was involved with Y2K. An automatically generated response came back, saying that my question had been received and I'd get an answer shortly. No answer, and it's been a couple of weeks.

-- Peter Errington (petere@ricochet.net), March 26, 1999


I'd be surprised if ACM has much to say about y2k. They are cheerleaders for computing, and regard y2k as a bore, a cultural red herring for the great unwashed.

-- Blue Himalayan (bh@k2.y), March 26, 1999.

ACM has been behind on this for years. I think the reason is that the ACM is really a creature of academia, and academia doesn't deal with real systems. They build models and research structures and standards and so forth. the IEEE and even more IEE in the UK are associations of engineers working on real things, so they are deeply involved. I gave up my ACM membership years ago.

-- Noel Goyette (ngoyette@csc.com), March 26, 1999.

Agree with Blue. But I would add, the so-called tech media feels exactly the same way. Ditto Silicone Valley. This explains a lot about our current situation.

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), March 26, 1999.

Quotable quote that applies: "Y2K is not rocket science. Its barely computer science." If ACM ever had anything on Y2K, it would probably be some elegant proof of why some bit twiddling algorithm for date compression was more efficent than some other technique. These people think they are bold when they criticize the Administration's wish to control the Internet or limit non-Government use of encryption. (I'll bet that Paul Davis is a member.)

-- Jack (jsprat@eld.net), March 26, 1999.

Year 2000 is a solved problem for Computer Science, and therefore not interesting.

Computer Science does not, generally, deal with the consequences of the application of computing research, or business or other uses once it leaves the research context.

The standards that could have avoided Year 2000 issues already exist and have for some time. The application of those standards is well known by most technically competent people.

There is the odd (very, according to some of my colleagues) academic who sees Year 2000 as a systemic problem. Year 2000 seen in the framework of a technological hazard does have a readership among academics. See the Boulder Colorado papers on Hazards we face in the 21st Century.

URL later... must dash, got a life to lead.

-- Bob Barbour (rbarbour@waikato.ac.nz), March 26, 1999.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ