9999 a purposeful govt deception to deceive the public on the seriousness of the y2k problem

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

through the countless number of govt hearing documents I read time and time again it was alluded to that sept 9 was a very special case for concern. I believe now this was intentionally promoted by the govt early to discredit researchers who were doing their due diligence in checking out the y2k problem story.

They peppered the web with this even though they knew from there top scientist that 9999 was no problemo, a non issue, While y2k being the real problem. This systemic use of misinformation is a character flaw of our leadership. Instead of dealing with the y2k responsibly they chose to put deceptive info out so that they could discredit serious researchers with this stuff to show that y2k is no big deal to the republic, see they had it wrong about 9999 so they must have it wrong about y2k.

Well that lie will only fly until dec 31 then an angry giant republic will awaken once the utilities go down and the intentional deception is made very clear. To all those politicans that are standing behind the lie that y2k wont shut off the utilities hard, come clean now for the record while you still have time. Never underestimate what the masses can and will do if they figure out that homie politician just put all the homeboy's in the hood and military's families in life safety danger for not standing on the truth with integrity. The masses will realize that they were played for the big fool and will seek expediate change via the old fashion y2k compient method the tree. these lies will not go unpunished like the impeachment cherade. To all the politicians reading this thread it's time to do the right thing. If y2k is going to be half as bad as my research indicates make sure our communities get the preps it needs by emergency decree. take action now to provide the leadership necessary to help moblize the local communities to preposition the resources so our elderly and infirm are provided for. Remember your families will suffer too if y2k goes 10 and there are no resources in the community to draw from.

-- y2k aware mike (y2k aware mike@ conservation . com), September 10, 1999

Answers

I may be mistaken, but I think this is the first time I've seen a doomer (or pessimist, or G.I., or whatever terms offends you least or pleases you best) make a definite statement about what will happen come Y2K:

To all those politicans that are standing behind the lie that y2k wont shut off the utilities hard...

So, while I can't give y2k aware mike any more than about 0/10 for probable accuracy (in my opinion, that is), I can give him 10/10 for courage in his convictions.

-- Richard Dymond (rjdymond@hotmail.com), September 10, 1999.


extremists like mike need to go read his own archives! This silly place is littered with doom predictions of jan 1 99, april 1 99 july 1 99, sept 9 99, ad infinitum.

its ok to BE a fool, just keep your mouth shut so noone but YOU knows it!

-- Oh, MAN! (but the extremists @re.funny!), September 10, 1999.


I never understood why 09/09/99 was a big deal. I have heard rumors of a few systems that had problems, but it seemed stupid. In storing a date, there is typically one "byte", "word" or "nibble" (depending on the computer) to store each of the day, month, year.

The 1st/second bytes would have the capacity to store 2-digits months/years. Thus 99/99/99 would be a more likely termination code - not 09/09/99.

Now, about that 3rd byte (year)...

-- Anonymous99 (Anonymous99@Anonymous99.xxx), September 10, 1999.


I always thought it was nybble, not nibble, for the same reason as it's byte, not bite.

Anyhow...if the year were always stored in a byte, then I'd be wondering why this is a Year-2000 problem and not a Year-2156 problem (since 0 would presumably represent 1900, and a byte can only hold values between 0 and 255)...

-- Richard Dymond (rjdymond@hotmail.com), September 10, 1999.


I've seen 4-bit blocks spelled "nibbles", but that was years ago...

Anyway, yes an 8-bit byte can store numbers 0-255. So incrementing the year 99 gives you 100. 1/1/20100 or 1/1/100.

More significantly, comparing two dates (VERY common) also breaks.

-- Anonymous99 (Anonymous99@Anonymous99.xxx), September 10, 1999.



"1/1/20100"

Make that 1/1/19100.

-- Anonymous99 (Anonymous99@Anonymous99.xxx), September 10, 1999.


Two bytes for year, two bytes for month, two bytes for day: I have never seen any COBOL or BASIC program that stores 6-digit dates in any other fashion. I'm talking character strings.

-- Lane Core Jr. (elcore@sgi.net), September 10, 1999.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ