> So Joe Blow's log of office supply purchases
> gets sorted incorrectly. Not the end of the world.

I had hoped that I wasn't giving that impression... :-)

>
> > I've never programmed an OS before in my life, so I can't speak for what it would take to repair one. Nevertheless, the OS isn't the only part of a computer that can be non-compliant. (see link)

What are we going to do if the FAA isn't compliant in time? Flying a 747 is definately out of that picture...
>
> Why? Planes don't use the date to calculate their
> altitude. I'd be surprised if plane computers even
> *store* the date, let alone use it for any purpose
> other than possibly displaying it on a digital screen.
> That won't mess anybody up.

To the best of my knowledge, the FAA uses 20 IBM mainframes, model 3083 (IBM stopped shipping them 10 years ago), which would refuse landing or take-off of an airplane with a 99 year old flight plan. They also have a faulty monthly cooling pump transfer routine (due to Y2k), which could cause the machines to overheat. These machines handle all the high-altitude, long-distance traffic in the country... I guess it would be a shame to see them die. Even tho IBM warned FAA to replace all of the machines, FAA's trying to force them to work, which is probably why they're so far behind.

>
> > and I'm sure that would have serious consequences for our economy if shipping gets all kinked up.
>
> Nah. This, though, is at least a situation that
> might be affected. But what can happen? Miami
> port authorities say, "Hmmm, our shipment of sugar
> cane from Brazil hasn't shown up yet," so they
> make a phone call, and Brazil says, "Oops," and
> sends the ship out, and the incident is over.

Of course, if a non-compliant communications sattallite bugs out, you might have to tell them in person... and from what I hear, Brazil's a long walk. :-)

> > Yeah, just a "few" instances... you know, like 15% of American businesses
> >9% of UK's businesses
> > the nation of Australia
> > ...nothing much, really.
>
> But how many of those instances of non-compliance
> are actually going to lead to significant problems?

Idunno. I honestly don't know. And I honestly don't think anybody knows (hate to get all post-modern all of a sudden, but I just don't think anybody can accurately predict the future.)

Australia's not even in the race any more... they're doing something called "work-arounds", whatever that means. Paper, I guess.

> What, are companies going to announce ZERO earnings
> for 1st quarter 2000 before it occurs to them that
> perhaps the computer screwed up?

I doubt it, but what would they report, if their records are either corrupted or unreliable?


> Again, 99% if not more of the unresolved Y2k issues
> are NOT going to screw anything up on a global scale.

In themselves, you are (most likely) absolutely right. If there's enough small problems, tho, it's possible that they could snowball synergetically, especially when almost everything is interconnected on a global scale.

> Anyway, to sum up. The instances of Y2k
> non-compliance that will actually affect anybody
> on a global scale to a significant degree are
> few in number.

That sounds reasonable.

>
> I'm a software engineer. I don't know everything,
> but I am in the business. And you have my opinion:
> there's going to be some incidents when 2000 hits,
> but I'd be very surprised if they were incidents
> that caused any lasting global problems. More
> likely, it will cause temporary headaches for
> some accountants and clerks who will have upgrade
> their obsolete systems in a hurry and "make do"
> in the meantime.

Thanks, I appreciate the input. Now, I have to prepare a 10 page book review (on a difficult academic book that I have yet to read), so I'm probably going to drop out of the Rink for a few days. Thanks again for the conversation, and take care.

-John W.