Jan 1st.99, April 1st, 9/9/99-How come nothing has occurred

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

The date of 1-1-99 was supposed to bring in some y2k related dificulties. Then 4-1-99 was supposed to bring in some eventful y2k happenings in Japan, New York and Canada. Nothing of any magnitude happened on these dates in those places. Then I read that the GPS rolling back in August was to be a preview of what y2k would be like, and again there were no reports of computer problems. Now, another significant date, 9-9-99 is near, and again I've been told that date would indicate the severity of what can be expected with y2k. Since nothing has happened with the first three dates, if nothing happens on 9-9-99, can we lean towards a minor impact of y2k is more likely at the rollover. Shouldn't there have been some somewhat severe instances concerning y2k up to now, which couldn't be hidden? Please, clear up this confusion. I'm praying that y2k won't be that bad, but it may.

-- Alan Mostert (alan@flasuncoast.net), September 07, 1999


It's still a Y2k or year 2000 problem, these other glitches were minor in comparison. Also, any companies that had problems- and many did- weren't about to say they were y2k or glitch-related failures.

The 9999 thing will also pass without much hoopla. Certainly these things were handled quietly and seemingly effectively, which is a good sign as far as the Big One goes, but the scale isn't comparable.

Many of the bad effects of y2k problems will show up throughout next year, not all on Jan. 1st.

-- Forrest Covington (theforrest@mindspring.com), September 07, 1999.


09/09/99 appears to be a red hering, however some take it a bit more....FWIW....


9/9/99 To Unleash Chaos - Britain Could Face Mayhem On Thursday

News/Current Events News Source: The Observer Published: 9/7/99 Posted on 09/07/1999 15:57:17 PDT by SamAdams76

BRITAIN could face mayhem on Thursday. Emergency services are on alert amid warnings that computers could be hit by a bug triggered on the ninth of the ninth 1999.

While computer users have been alerted to confusion when the year changes to 2000, 9/9/99 is also critical because it was used as a code by programmers in older systems to shut them down. The Maritime and Coastguard Agency is on standby for accidents in British waters caused by failure of navigational or safety equipment with outdated computer chips inside. Emergency tugs will pull damaged ships from the shore.

Bill Smith, senior operations manager at the agency, said: `We are most worried about older ships and those from Third World countries which are unlikely to have had their computer systems checked for millennium compliance. We are taking the potential risks of the 9/9/99 bug very seriously and in the event of an accident we want to protect the coastline.'

Ambulance and fire services will operate millennium contingency procedures at midnight on Wednesday in close contact with police. Earlier this month Britain's nuclear watchdog warned atomic power stations about the 9/9/99 bug. The Nuclear Installations Inspectorate demanded they prepare contingency plans in case a shutdown caused havoc to electricity supplies.

The Observer has learnt that in July the NHS executive warned hospitals their medical equipment could fail. Medical equipment is thought to be more vulnerable to the bug because of the way machines are callibrated. Testing of computers by Action 2000, the Government task force on the millennium bug, found an example of a hospital machine malfunctioning. It also found that a critical piece of rail safety equipment switched off on the date 9/9/99. Railtrack uses the machine to alert engineers if a train is potentially causing rails to crack.

Elsewhere the Financial Services Authority has told banks and other City institutions to expect problems on Thursday and guard against fraud from hackers. The authority warned customers to beware of con artists who might use bug fears to persuade them to divulge banking information, as has happened in the US. Insurance policies which exclude paying out for damage from computer failures on 31 December 1999 will also not pay claims from computer faults this Thursday. Action 2000 stressed that the chances of major problems on Thursday are remote but glitches are expected.

Operations director Tony Stock said: `We are not saying nothing will happen but from all the evidence we have amassed internationally we believe any problems will be minimal. All of us will be keeping a close eye on what goes on but we would urge organisations not to let up on their efforts to deal with the real millennium bug.'

Experts believe the most likely problem on Thursday will be data loss or rogue information entering databases. The danger is that when operators inputting information do not include a specific date some systems default to 9/9/99.

Paul Barry-Walsh, of disaster recovery specialists Safetynet said: `All sorts of things could happen this Thursday but while serious difficulties can't be ruled out most of the problems are likely to cause inconvenience more than anything else.'

-- helium (heliumavid@yahoo.com), September 07, 1999.


I'm in a bit of a rush, and don't have time to go dig in the archive, but myself, since I came to this forum in February, and many, if not most others here, have been saying all along that these "dates" would cause minor problems. Here's the short version of my rubber stamp:

They call it the Y2K problem for a very good reason, not the various dates in 1999 problem.

Tick... Tock... <:)=

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), September 07, 1999.

There were many problems in Jan. Ask Japan how the GPS went. y2k=year2000. AND>>>>>>>>>>> don't get tied up in your shorts over 09/09/99! GET IT ?

-- FLAME AWAY (BLehman202@aol.com), September 07, 1999.

Although there were some minor problems on these dates, they have nothing whatsoever to do with Y2K. The only valuable information we could have received from them would have been if they caused a lot of difficulty, which would have confirmed that Y2K is likely to be a lot worse than people are hoping. This confirmation is due solely to the fact that these are computer problems, which would demonstrate the vulnerability of computer systems but they would in themselves have absolutely nothing to do with Y2K.

-- cody (cody@y2ksurvive.com), September 07, 1999.

Dear Alan,

The reason nothing has happened is because nothing is going to happen.

Doomers truly want something bad to happen, so they can point to it and rant about how they were correct - they need catastrophy as an ego balm. You have correctly applied logic, and will suffer here for it - prepare.

For this same reason (the fact that doomers require ego balms), IT firms have started asking questions regarding prospective hires' views on Y2K. If they turn out to ascribe to the doomer meme, they are quietly dismissed - why should a firm take a chance on hiring someone who could, for the sake of ego, shut down the company's network(s)? Enough of that occurs now when someone's contract is terminated prematurely or fired for some reason.

Kudos on critical thinking, but it is unwelcome here in any form. You might try the Y2K De-Bunkers forum. It is accurate about the coming non-event, while maintaining a light and humorous atmoshpere.

Andy Ray

-- Andy Ray (andyman633@hotmail.com), September 07, 1999.

Although there were some minor problems on these dates, they have nothing whatsoever to do with Y2K. The only valuable information we could have received from them would have been if they caused a lot of difficulty, which would have confirmed that Y2K is likely to be a lot worse than people are hoping. This confirmation is due solely to the fact that these are computer problems, which would demonstrate the vulnerability of computer systems but they themselves have absolutely nothing to do with Y2K.

-- cody (cody@y2ksurvive.com), September 07, 1999.

Though it is true that only 2000/01/01 counts as gametime, it is also true that Gartner has estimated only 8% of y2k failures will occur on that data. Majority of problems (other 92%) said to occur before and after.

-- Count Vronsky (vronsky@anna.com), September 07, 1999.

On Saturday my husband witnessed a 9/9/99 "inconvenience". He went to Lowes to buy 1000 pickets for his fence business. When the checker asked when he would like to have them delivered, he said "Anytime next week". She typed 9/9/99 into her computer and he joked "That delivery date will probably shut down your computer". She looked at him like he was nuts. He said as soon as she hit the return key, the computers in the whole store went down and also the phones that they send credit card verifications through. She called a computer guy and in a couple of minutes he restarted the system. She got back to her computer screen, typed in 9/9/99 again, and the same thing happened again. Dave said "See, I told you it would shut your computer down." She still looked at him like he was stupid. When the computer guy got the system running again, she was going to type in 9/9/99 again and Dave said "Why don't you deliver them on Friday?" She typed in 9/10/99 and had no problems.

It's not the end of the world, but I will be double checking the automatic deposit that is supposed to be credited to my checking account on Thursday.

-- kelly (kellyraef@aol.com), September 07, 1999.

Ah yes, Andy Ray, one of our trolls.

He says that he's writing a "post Y2K" book.

He has also been caught, using IP tracking, in discussions on how to use HTML to cause serious disruptions to this forum.

And I do believe, that he agreed with Chuck, one of the Sysops, not to post here. True or not, Addy Ray?

The doomers here include at least 875 man-years of programming experience. It's in the archive.

Tick... Tock... <:00=

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), September 07, 1999.

The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc.


June 9, 1999

An Open Letter To:

To: Members, Senate Commerce, Science And Transportation Committee;

Members, Special Senate Committee On The Year 2000 Technology Problem

Members, House of Representatives, Com. on Science, Subcom. on Technology

Members, Committee on Government Reform, Subcommittee on Government Management, Information, and Technology

Sponsors, "Year 2000 Readiness and Responsibility Act of 1999" (H.R. 775)

CC: Mr. John Koskinen

RE: Year 2000 Liability Legislation

FROM: The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), Technical Activities Board, Year 2000 Technical Information Focus Group

Dear Honorable Senators, Congressmen and Congresswomen,

As leaders of the Y2K effort of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), the oldest and largest international non-profit association of engineers and computer scientists in the world, we would like to offer some thoughts on the pending legislation involving Y2K liability obtained from our years of work and collective wisdom spent studying Y2K. The IEEE has drafted an Institute position on Y2K Legal Liability regarding United States federal law, to which our committee greatly contributed. We offer these additional thoughts in hopes that they may further assist your understanding as you attempt to reconcile two very valid but conflicting underlying public policy goals in structuring and passing the Year 2000 Liability Legislation currently under consideration.

* MINIMIZE DAMAGE TO THE ECONOMY AND QUALITY OF LIFE: minimize the overall damage to the nations economy and quality of life by reducing the need of organizations to redirect their limited resources away from the task of maintaining their operations in the face of Y2K in order to defend themselves from lawsuits arising from alleged Y2K failures.

* MAXIMIZE INCENTIVE FOR Y2K FAILURE PREVENTION: maximize the incentive of every organization to prevent Y2K failures as well as preserve the legal rights and remedies available for those seeking legitimate redress for wrongs they may suffer resulting from Y2K failures.

In addressing public policy issues we have no more expertise than the literate public. However, we do possess expertise in the technical issues underlying the situation that should be considered as you weigh the conflicting public policy goals in formulating appropriate Year 2000 Liability Legislation. In particular, for your consideration we offer the following points pertaining to the technical realities of Y2K.

1. PREVENTION OF ALL Y2K FAILURES WAS NEVER POSSIBLE: For many large and important organizations, technical prevention of all Y2K failures has never been possible in any practical way for these reasons:

1.1 "Y2K COMPLIANT" DOES NOT EQUAL "NO Y2K FAILURES." If an organization makes all of its systems "Y2K compliant", it does not mean that that same organization will not experience Y2K failures causing harm to itself and other organizations. In fact, efforts to become "Y2K compliant" in one place could be the direct cause of such failures in others. If interconnected systems are made compliant in different ways, they will be incompatible with each other. Many systems in government and industry are mistakenly being treated as if they were independent and fixed in the most expedient way for each of them. When this "Humpty Dumpty" is put back together again, it will not work as expected without complete testing, which is unlikely (see COMPLEXITY KILLS below).

1.2 ALL PROBLEMS ARE NOT VISIBLE OR CONTROLLABLE. In the best case organizations can only address those things they can see and those things they have control over. Given this reality, many Y2K failures are inevitable because some technical problems will not be discernible prior to a failure, and others, while discernible, may not be within an organizations jurisdictional control to correct. This is especially true in large complex organizations with large amounts of richly interconnected software involved in long and complex information chains and in systems containing a high degree of embedded devices or systems purchased in whole from external parties. (The temporary lifting of certain copyright and reverse engineering restrictions for specific Y2K protection efforts should also be considered as long as copyright holders are not unduly harmed.)

1.3 INCOMING DATA MAY BE BAD OR MISSING. To maintain their operations many organizations require data imported from other organizations over which they have no control. Such data may have unknowingly been corrupted, made incompatible by misguided compliance efforts or simply missing due to the upstream organizations lawful business decisions. 1.4 COMPLEXITY KILLS. The internal complexity of large systems, the further complexity due to the rich interconnections between systems, the diversity of the technical environments in type and vintage of most large organizations and the need to make even small changes in most systems will overwhelm the testing infrastructure that was never designed to test "everything at once." Hence, much software will have to be put back into use without complete testing, a recipe, almost a commandment, for widespread failures.

2. DETERMINING LEGAL LIABILITY WILL BE VERY DIFFICULT. Traditionally the makers of products that underlie customer operations are liable if those products are "defective" enough to unreasonably interfere with those operations resulting in damage. Y2K is different in that those customers themselves are also at risk for legal action if they fail to fulfill contractual obligations or fail to maintain their stock values and their failure to "fix" their Y2K problems can be shown as the cause. This customer base of technology producers cannot be overlooked in this issue. As it constitutes most of the organizations in the world, its needs and the implications of legislative actions on it being considered now should not be overshadowed by undue focus on the much smaller technology producer sector. (They are also customers/users of technology products.) Nonetheless, even there product liability is not as clear as tradition might indicate. Several factors make liability determination difficult, expensive, time consuming and not at all certain.

2.1 THERE IS A SHARED RESPONSIBILITY BETWEEN BUYERS, SELLERS AND USERS OF TECHNOLOGY. Computer products themselves have only clocks that have dates in them. Application software products usually offer optional ways of handling dates. The customer/user organizations, especially larger, older ones, have created much of their application software in-house. When new products are introduced into the buying organization, the customer/user usually has vast amounts of data already in place that have date formats and meaning already established. These formats and meanings cannot be changed as a practical matter. The majority of, and the longest-lasting, potential system problems lay in application software and the data they process, not in clock functions. (Clock-based failures, those likely to happen early in January 2000, while potentially troublesome, will be for the most part localized and of short duration.) Various service providers can be optionally called in to help plan and apply technology for business purposes. But it is only when these are all merged together and put to actual use that failures can emerge. It is very rare that one of them alone can cause a failure that carries legal consequences.

2.2 MANY THINGS ARE OUTSIDE THE CONTROL OF ANY DEFENDANT. Incoming data from external sources outside its control may be corrupted, incompatible or missing. Devices and systems embedded in critical purchased equipment may be beyond the defendants knowledge or legal access. Non-technical goods and services the defendant depends upon may not be available due to Y2K problems within their source organizations or distribution channel.

2.3 THERE WILL BE A STRONG DEFENSE OF IMPRACTICABILITY. Existing large-scale systems were not made safe from Y2K long ago for good reasons. Many systems resist large-scale modernization (e.g., IRS, FAA Air Traffic Control, Medicare) for the same reasons. Wide-spread, coordinated modifications across entrenched, diverse, interconnected systems is technically difficult if not impossible at the current level of transformational technology. New products must be made to operate within the established environment, especially date data formats. Technology producers will claim, with reason, that the determining factor in any Y2K failures lay in the way the customer chose to integrate their products into its environment. It will be asserted, perhaps successfully, by user organizations that economic impracticability prevented the prevention of Y2K failures. Regardless of the judicial outcome, it will take a long time and many resources to finally resolve. And that resolution may have to come in thousands of separate cases.

3. COMPLEXITY AND TIME NEGATES ANY LEGAL LIABILITY INCENTIVE. Even if making all of an organization's systems "Y2K compliant" would render an organization immune from Y2K failures (it will not), the size and complexity of the undertaking is such that if any but the smallest organization is not already well into the work, there is not enough time for the incentive of legal liability to have any discernible positive effect on the outcome. As a analogy, providing any kind of incentive to land a man on Mars within one year would have no effect on anyones efforts to achieve that unless they had been already working to that end for many years. A negative effect will result from management diverting resources from prevention into legal protection.

4. THE THREAT OF LEGAL ACTION IS A DANGEROUS DISTRACTION AT A CRITICAL TIME. There will be system failures, especially in large, old, richly interconnected "systems of systems" as exist in the financial services and government sector. The question is how to keep such technical failures from becoming business or organizational failures. We should be asking ourselves how we as a society can best keep the flow of goods and services going until the technical problems and failures can be overcome. The following points bear on these questions.

4.1 Y2K IS A LONG TERM, NOT SHORT TERM, PROBLEM. Irrespective of the notion of Y2K being about time, a point in time, or the fixation on the rollover event at midnight December 31, 1999, or even the name Year 2000 itself, Y2K computer problems will be causing computer system malfunctions and failures for years into the next decade. Y2K is much more about the dates that can span the century boundary represented in data that must be processed by software than it is about any calendar time or clock issues. Because of the vast amounts of these, the complex intertwining among them and our less than complete understanding of the whole, it will take years for the infrastructure to "calm down" after Y2K impacts themselves AND the impacts of the sometimes frantic and misguided changes we have made to it. The current prevention phase is only the beginning.

4.2 RAPID AND EFFECTIVE ORGANIZATIONAL ADAPTABILITY WILL BE A PRIME NECESSITY. The key to an organizations ability to continue to provide the goods and services other organizations and individuals need to continue their operations will be determined by an organizations ability to adapt its practices and policies quickly and effectively in the face of potentially numerous, rapid and unexpected events.

4.3 LAWSUITS, ACTUAL OR THREATENED, WILL DIVERT REQUISITE RESOURCES. Preventing and minimizing harm to society from Y2K disruption is different than, and at times opposed to, protecting ones organization from legal liability. Addressing lawsuits, and even the threat of a lawsuit, will divert requisite resources, particularly management attention, from an organizations rapid and effective adaptation. This is already happening regarding technical prevention and will get worse the longer such legal threats remain. Organizational management has much more experience dealing with legal threats than they do addressing something as unique and unprecedented as Y2K. Their tendency is to address the familiar at the expense of the novel. They must be allowed to focus on the greater good.

4.4 JUDICIAL SYSTEM OVERLOAD IS ANOTHER DANGER. Given the great interactive and interdependent complexity of Y2Ks impact on the operations of our institutions on a national and global scale, the effort to determine exactly what happened, why it happened and who is legally responsible for each micro-event is itself a huge undertaking requiring the resolution of many questions. For the legal and judicial system to attempt to resolve the legal rights and remedies of affected parties while Y2K impacts are still unfolding will, in any case, threaten to overwhelm the legal and judicial systems capacity to assure justice in the matter, let alone its ability to continue to do its other necessary work.

For all of the reasons discussed above, we support limitations on Y2K-related legal liability. Minimizing harm and assessing blame are each formidable and important tasks, but they cannot be done simultaneously without sacrificing one for the other. Minimizing harm is more important and there is an increased threat to our welfare if assessing blame adversely interferes with our ability to minimize harm. The value of incentives at this late date is very small. We trust that the collective wisdom of Congress will find ways to reduce these threats. We have additional background material available. Please contact IEEE staff contact Paula Dunne if you are interested in this material. We have other ideas beyond the scope of this legislation of what the U.S. federal government can do to help minimize harm throughout this crisis. We are ready to help in any way you may deem appropriate.


The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE)

Technical Activities Board

Year 2000 Technical Information Focus Group

Dale W. Way

Chairman and Letter Author


Alan, it's up to you to draw your own conclusions regarding what may be at stake for you. I have decided to prepare because it is prudent, especially when information such as this provided by the IEEE suggests that, based upon their wealth of professional knowledge, they consider Y2k

-- Michael Taylor (mtdesign3@aol.com), September 07, 1999.

...they consider Y2k to be dangerous on many levels and for period of time much longer than simply the beginning of 2000.

Best of luck.



-- Michael Taylor (mtdesign3@aol.com), September 07, 1999.

Alan, I'm waiting to see what happens as well. If it goes by without problem, I think the only thing that can be said is that the predictions of the y2k honchos about these redflag dates has not been accurate. It will be interesting to see the reactions of the forum populace.

-- Barb (awaltrip@telepath.com), September 07, 1999.

Doomers truly want something bad to happen, so they can point to it and rant about how they were correct

I'm a Doomer Andy, but if I'm wrong and nothing happens come roll over, I'll be the first one on this forum kissing your ass, while saying over and over..."I'm not worthy"

If nothing happens I'll be more than happy to do that.

-- Mabel Dodge (cynical@me.net), September 07, 1999.


We already know what's going to happen on 9/9 - NOTHING! We're talking about such a tiny percentage of programs that could even possibly do this, that it's not even worth typing about. There may well be a wacky problem here or there. I doubt any of it will make the headlines. I'll bet that the power grid "test" will though, among other "no problem" NEWS...

Tick... Tock... <:)=

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), September 07, 1999.

Andy Ray says:

"You might try the Y2K De-Bunkers forum. It is accurate about the coming non-event, while maintaining a light and humorous atmoshpere."

This is a pure and simple manifestation of your unconcious denial, and the denial of anyone who makes a point of labeling themselves a "Y2K debunker". What other motive could there be? Admit it Andy!..you're just as worried as any of us.

People attempt to reduce their anxieties in different fashions. Some of us go out to the store and buy what we think we might need, others become involved in a "debunking" forum, making jokes and ridiculing those who have a different perception of the problem. This is your way of trying to convince yourselves that everything will be alright.

This is a very risky game you play Andy, unless of course like many you are just putting up a front, while you yourself are secretly stocking up. The evidence is on our side. We have already seen thousands of cases of computer failures, but we have NEVER seen computers that NEVER fail!

YOU could be mostly correct but partially wrong, or you could be 100% wrong, but you will never be 100% right.

I could be mostly wrong but partially right, or I could be 100% right, but I will never be 100% wrong - THAT is already proven!

It's a stupid gamble, Andy.

-- @ (@@@.@), September 07, 1999.

I'ld say that everyone should visit Debunky, and Biffy, and GarySouth. I doubt many will stay for long...

Tick... Tock... <:00=

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), September 07, 1999.

1) I ain't real sure where this "Agreement" stuff came from, but there war'n't no agreement for Andy not to post here anymore. As a matter of fact more or less the OPPOSITE is true. PLEASE stop tossing this agreement crap@@@t around!!!! Wasn't any such thing.

2) If it's such a problem, since he posts in such a distinctive color (I happen to like the teal better than some others he's tried), and you have major problems with reading where the mind set is on the other side of the fence, just skip the teal posts. It'll keep your blood pressure down and you can be less informed about the other viewpoints. Or, you can be something that aproaches adult, read and accept or discard as you please (kinda like suicide in the M*A*S*H series, except we don't have the requisite overly hung dentist...).

Chuck, a Night Driver

-- Chuck, a night driver (rienzoo@en.com), September 07, 1999.

Ugly little troll aren't you ??? LOL I checked out the debunker's forum today...many small minded, critical people obviously incapable of reading and making their own calculations and forming their own opinions. Why don't all you little trolls stick to you little debunker forum, stop quoting our board and develop a mind of your own, if possible.

-- Tiara (sorceress5@hotmail.com), September 07, 1999.

Andy Ray,

I have no investment in the world coming to a screeching halt. However, if the power goes out just long enough for you to mess your pink little panties, I'll think that's pretty funny.


You're right. I visited and left. For a buncha "computer experts" they sure have themselves a forum that's a pain in the ass to navigate. Slow, too. But then, maybe they haven't gotten that little bug that shut them down for a while quite worked out yet.

For a real laugh, do a search for the "Y2K is OK" site. Their logo is a smiley face, so that gives you some clue as to what you'll find (I thought they outlawed lobotomies?). I don't have the link, because it was too much drivel to even bother recording, but I found it off Yahoo.

-- Bokonon (bok0non@my-Deja.com), September 07, 1999.

Mabel, sell tickets! I'll buy one! :-)

-- Gayla (privacy@please.com), September 07, 1999.

"1) I ain't real sure where this "Agreement" stuff came from, but there war'n't no agreement for Andy not to post here anymore. As a matter of fact more or less the OPPOSITE is true. PLEASE stop tossing this agreement crap@@@t around!!!! Wasn't any such thing."

Sorry Chuck, if I'm wrong, I'm very sorry, and stand corrected. However, I'ld swear that Diane made that statement. I don't remember the thread, but I'll go take a look in the archive.

I'll be back. (Help, Diane???)...
-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), September 07, 1999.

Alan - some thoughts on your question but along the way I have a question and I realize this is late game musing, but I'm just more and more astonished by the ignorance that abounds. Someone said to me yesterday "I don't believe in Y2k" huh? what does that mean?

so....maybe you good people can splain...whilst I meander to 9/9/99

I'm still not clear on what the polly's are really saying here - 1)that there is no y2k problem or 2) that y2k will not be a problem - as for 2 see the chaos discussion elsewhere in this forum - summary: no one can predict save God Himself.

as for #1 how they could actually deny the existence is beyond comprehension. this is a fact and how I came to know 9/9/99: when I was a young CS sprout back in the late 70's, the pdp-11's we did Pascal on had an upper date field limit ( maybe in the compiler even didn't care at the time ) of 12/31/99, we were TAUGHT to always write code such that that date was always screened for in our code and to use it to terminate a program during debug so we had some way of ending a loop we might get stuck in. since 12/31/99 is harder to type the 1000's of times you have to interupt a program you're debugging, everybody quickly switched to 9/9/99. Hence the focus on that date now. It doesn't sound like a big time saver, but after hours or days of coding, test run, see bug, interupt& terminate changing date to end, try to fix bug, recompile repeat until done. So no one practiced that clever trick when they graduated? not. Maybe other dates derived from different needs were common in cobol or fortran - I don't know. But 9/9/99 (with 2 fingers)?... that I know. further it was great sport to deliberately enter dates beyond the boundary to see what happened and usually drove looking for all dates between say 9/9/99 and 12/31/99 - we were graded on ability to control our code and the prof alway tried to break it - especially our control flow.

so I really do expect more fails - reported or not - on 9/9/99, but not as many as 00. But anyone who thinks this is all just talk is as ignorant as ignorant can ever be.

used2prog (ok... call me a hasbeen if you want although I favor oncewas)

-- used2b (used2prog@pdp11.com), September 08, 1999.


There were some Y2K related difficulties connected with the date 1-1-99. You can find a list containing of some of them at the following link, which also has a list of more recent problems as well:

"Year 2000 Problem Sightings"


Before February 1st, I didn't know one way or another if the Jo Anne Effect was going to cause noticeable problems that would end up being reported. After February 1st, when Wal-Mart and some other companies entered their fiscal year 2000 with no reported problems, I realized that what PNG had been saying on this forum was true...that problems in accounting software aren't nearly as noticeable to outsiders as problems in manufacturing or distribution would be.

We won't hear that much about Y2K-related manufacturing or distribution problems until January 2000. It was clear to me in February that we weren't going to hear much about fiscal year rollover problems in accounting software on April 1st and July 1st. Most people on this forum weren't expecting "show-stoppers" on April 1st and July 1st either, but yet the issue of few reported problems does continue to get raised from time to time here.

Anyone who'd like to learn more about the significance and non- significance of fiscal year rollovers in accounting software, as well as find examples problems that have occured so far can find quite a few relevant links on the following thread:

"Significance of States Fiscal Start"


Almost all non-accounting software problems, PC BIOS chip and PC operating system problems, and embedded system/process control system problems are still ahead of us. Those are the ones with the potential of being "show-stoppers."

I might also add that the GPS rollover and 9/9/99 are unique types of glitches and are not a subset of the "99" and "00" problem that is we usually refer to as Y2K.

Other helpful threads related to your question...

"GPS rollover - August 21/22"


...and this thread...

"***Submit any GPS failures***"


As for September 9, 1999, most feel that any problems that may occur due to a "9999" glitch will be negligible, but U.S. officials at the new $40 million Y2K Information Coordination Center and the United Nations backed International Y2K Cooperation Center have decided to monitor 9/9/99 anyway:

"September 9, 1999 and the groups monitoring it"



"Y2K Chiefs Prepare For Dry Run On 9/9/99"


-- Linkmeister (link@librarian.edu), September 08, 1999.

There were a lot of problems on those dates, but they were covered up by polly spin. If you assumed that they would bring an "exact" preview of what would happen in Y2K, then you read it wrong. So far, the predictions have been right on target, which indicates that Y2K itself will be much worse.

-- (jeff@my.house), September 08, 1999.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ