Re: Y2K [was: Re: Gravity and pi]

[paul o johnson <pojhome@FLASH.NET>]

Larry Smith wrote:
> At 8:14 AM -0700 11/17/98, Paul Johnson wrote:
>
> > My contribution to the consensus is that it depends on the context.
> > The phrase signified by Y2K is an adjective and requires a noun such
> > as 'problem' or 'bug'. Using Y2K as a noun (as in, 'How will you
> > avoid the Y2K?') is worse than using an upper case K.
> >
> > We could, of course, avoid both problems by the simple expedient of
> > using MB (millennium bug) rather than Y2K.
>
> Ah, but that brings me to _my_ pet peeve about this bug.  It isn't really a
> millennium bug at all, but a century bug.  It is pure coincidence that
> computers took off in a century just before the end of the millenium, but
> we'd still have the same problems had it happened a hundred years earlier.
> The bug is due to the _century_ rolling over, not specifically the
> millennium.  (And, as you're all aware, the next century (and the
> millennium) don't start until 2001.)
>
> And would computer scientists really call it a bug if it was intentional?
> Maybe "century virus" is better.
>
> Larry

You are 100% correct re century/millennium but you are only 50% correct
re 2001. All us digital types know that the ten digits in our numbering
system range from 0 to 9. Every time we cycle from 9 to 0 we increment
the digit to its left by 1.

The numbering of the years/centuries/mellinnia follows the same pattern.
The 20th century is from 1900 to 1999. The 21st century begins on 01 Jan
00.

Too many folks get hung up on this because the good friar who numbered
the years beginning with what he thought was Jesus' birth year was under
the great handicap of having to use Roman numerals, in which there is no
0, so he began counting with the year 1. The 1st century, therefore, had
only 99 years.

Leave us not perpetuate this mistake. (See Gould's book on the subject).

poj