473,854 Members | 1,453 Online
Bytes | Software Development & Data Engineering Community
+ Post

Home Posts Topics Members FAQ

The Year 2038 Problem

As per Google's Usenet archives
[http://groups.google.com/googlegroup...ounce_20.html], the
first discussion of the Y2K problem on the Usenet was on January 18
1985 [http://groups.google.com/groups?thre...0%40reed.UUCP]. That
is a good 15 years before the problem manifested. Even then, it
turned out, we were scrambling for cover when the D-day was
approaching.

Although the Y2K scare turned out to be vastly overblown, we do have a
massive problem ahead of us ------ the Year 2038 problem. On Mon Jan
18 21:14:07 2038, the Unix seconds-since-epoch count will "roll-over".
After that, the time on the Unix systems will read as Fri Dec 13
14:45:52 1901.

IMHO, if we want to avoid the last minute panic that we witnessed
towards the end of the last millennium (while pursuing the Y2K
problem), we should begin the process of debating the viable solutions
to this problem NOW. It will take a long time for the consensus to be
built, and to come up with a solution that most (if not all) people
find acceptable. We also need considerable time to test out all
possible solutions in the real world, to decide if the solutions
really work as expected. We may also need to develop a suite of
recovery strategies should the problem manifest in some system on that
fateful Monday morning. All this takes time. So, as the late Todd
Beamer would have said: Let's roll.

Bhat
Nov 14 '05
248 10608
q


Stephen Sprunk wrote:
<q@q.com> wrote in message news:40******** ******@q.com...
Stephen Sprunk wrote:
Ethanol is mainly interesting because it has almost the same energy
density
as petrol, has about the same price, runs in the same engines without
modificati on (though the fuel system needs anti-corrosion protection),
uses
the same transport and fueling infrastructure, and can be produced
nearly
anywhere in the world. While ethanol is far cleaner than petrol, it's
nowhere near as clean as hydrogen even if you consider waste generated
in
producing the latter.
I am not sure hyow hydrogen would be ditributed,
either to the resellers (filling stations)
or regionally (to terminals).
Gasoline is distributed to terminals via pipelines.
MTBE is also distributed via pipelines. But MTBE
pollutes ground water.
Ethanol is shipped via trucks, no pipelines.

Any thoughts on hydrogen distribution?


Once oil is refined into gasoline (aka petrol), it is shipped to filling
stations nearly exclusively via rail and truck tankers, at least in the US.


Gasoline, one of the main products refined from crude oil, accounts for
just about 16 percent of the energy consumed in the United States. The
primary use for gasoline is in automobiles and light trucks. Gasoline
also fuels boats, recreational vehicles, and various farm and other
equipment. While gasoline is produced year-round, extra volumes are made
in time for the summer driving season. Gasoline is delivered from oil
refineries mainly through pipelines to a massive distribution chain
serving 168,000 retail gasoline stations throughout the United States.1
There are three main grades of gasoline: regular, mid-grade, and
premium. Each grade has a different octane level. Price levels vary by
grade, but the price differential between grades is generally constant.

The cost to produce and deliver gasoline to consumers includes the cost
of crude oil to refiners, refinery processing costs, marketing and
distribution costs, and finally the retail station costs and taxes. The
prices paid by consumers at the pump reflect these costs, as well as the
profits (and sometimes losses) of refiners, marketers, distributors, and
retail station owners.

In 2002, the price of crude oil averaged $24.09 per barrel, and crude
oil accounted for about 43% of the cost of a gallon of regular grade
gasoline (Figure 1). In comparison, the average price for crude oil in
2001 was $22.95 per barrel, and it composed 38% of the cost of a gallon
of regular gasoline. The share of the retail price of regular grade
gasoline that crude oil costs represent varies somewhat over time and
among regions.

Federal, State, and local taxes are a large component of the retail
price of gasoline. Taxes (not including county and local taxes) account
for approximately 31 percent of the cost of a gallon of gasoline. Within
this national average, Federal excise taxes are 18.4 cents per gallon
and State excise taxes average about 20 cents per gallon.2Also, eleven
States levy additional State sales and other taxes, some of which are
applied to the Federal and State excise taxes. Additional local county
and city taxes can have a significant impact on the price of gasoline.

Refining costs and profits comprise about 13% of the retail price of
gasoline. This component varies from region to region due to the
different formulations required in different parts of the country.

Distribution, marketing and retail dealer costs and profits combined
make up 13% of the cost of a gallon of gasoline. From the refinery, most
gasoline is shipped first by pipeline to terminals near consuming areas,
then loaded into trucks for delivery to individual stations. Some retail
outlets are owned and operated by refiners, while others are independent
businesses that purchase gasoline for resale to the public. The price on
the pump reflects both the retailer's purchase cost for the product and
the other costs of operating the service station. It also reflects local
market conditions and factors, such as the desirability of the location
and the marketing strategy of the owner.
Hydrogen would be distributed the same way. Natural Gas is the only fuel
commonly transported via pipeline to consumers, and that makes it attractive
in the near term, but CNG and LNG aren't long-term solutions for clean
energy.

Transporting large masses of H2 isn't nearly as safe as petrol, for obvious
reasons, but this is mostly offset because hydrogen can be produced anywhere
electricity is available, removing the need to ship it long distances around
the world or even around a state/province. In theory, every filling station
could produce their own, removing transport from the picture entirely, but I
doubt that's cost-effective.

S


Nov 14 '05 #111
In article <40************ ***@yahoo.com>, cb********@yaho o.com says...
"Thomas G. Marshall" wrote:
CBFalconer <cb********@yah oo.com> coughed up the following:
And where does the power to extract that hydrogen come from?


Nuclear power plants.


Now you are really trying to pull my chain. Better known as a
silly way to boil water. If you could propose a way of nullifying
the waste products, that would be one thing. Hiding them under
the rug for future generations does not count. Take a look at the
chart of the nuclides, and the products of uranium fission,
sometime.


Then do an assay of the amount of natural radionucleides that are hidden
'under the rug'. I've heard there's stuff called uranium with a half-
life of 4000 million years, just hidden in rocks in unmarked locations
all over the planet. If you have a granite fireplace, there's even some
in your house, oozing radioactive radon gas into the air you breathe.

- Gerry Quinn
Nov 14 '05 #112
In article <3D************ *****@nwrdny03. gnilink.net>,
tg************* ***@replacetext wi....hotm ail.com says...
jpd <re**********@d o.not.spam.it> coughed up the following:
Anyway. Whatever we do, we'll pay for it sooner or later. If
sufficiently late we'll just be cursed by our ancestors. Which would
you prefer?

I'm thinking they're gonna hate us for one thing for another. If not
for environmental reasons then perhaps social. Heck, we might as well
give'm something to cry about. Let's go melt them polar caps good.


"Those bastards in the twenty-first century could have prevented the ice
age, but they insisted on reducing CO2 emissions..."

- Gerry Quinn
Nov 14 '05 #113
In article <c9*********@ne ws4.newsguy.com >, mw*****@newsguy .com says...

[Snipped most of the newsgroups, as this troll thread was ridiculously
crossposted.]

In article <MP************ ************@ne ws.indigo.ie>, Gerry Quinn <ge****@DELETET HISindigo.ie> writes:
"Gerry Quinn" <ge****@DELETET HISindigo.ie> wrote in message

> In countries where little or no effort was put into preventing it, no
> significant problems occurred either.
There was a Feb 29 bug in 2000 that wasn't hyped at all, and little
enough went wrong that day either.


I personally saw numerous major projects that identified and corrected
Y2K bugs (including Feb 29 2000 bugs, and other variants) in in-use
production code that would have caused major difficulty and expense
for its users, and I wasn't even involved in Micro Focus' Y2K remediation
business.

Do you have any evidence for either of the claims above?


I remember it well. No hype. No disaster. A few incorrect bills, I
think.
Truth is the Millenium Bug Disaster was a '60s science fiction scenario,


The truth is that you're making unsubstantiated claims about a subject
you've demonstrated no actual knowledge of.
based on the assumption that all the operations that keep the industrial
world turning are done by technicians blindly obeying the orders on
punched cards that some big old computer spits out.


No, the actual assessment of the problem - not the myth reported by
an ignorant news industry - was based on actual examination of actual
running code.


Nobody's disputing that there were necessary millenium-related bug
fixes. What is clear is that it was ridiculously over-hyped (you admit
this yourself) and that much money was wasted (another poster gives
clear examples. [Of course some of the money spent was just an excuse
to re-advertise various products without the need to actually improve
them.]
The real world is
considerably more fault tolerant.


The real world runs a great deal of very fragile code. I've seen
quite a bit of it running at customer sites, and again that's just
incidental to my actual job. I rarely look at customer code, but
the bits I do see are not, in fact, particularly tolerant of faults.


That's precisely why faulty software tends not to cause disasters.
People are aware that it is often faulty. If in fact a lot of computers
had gone down at once, I doubt that the inconvenience would have been
greatly multiplied compared to the random software collapses that occur
daily around the world.
A great deal of effort went into fixing real bugs in real code before
the rollover. It was a problem and it was handled. Those who claim
there was no problem are just as misinformed as those who hyped it
beforehand.


Perhaps I did over-egg the cake a little. But face it, the hype was
monstrous.

- Gerry Quinn
Nov 14 '05 #114
In comp.programmin g Gerry Quinn <ge****@deletet hisindigo.ie> wrote:
In article <40************ ***@yahoo.com>, cb********@yaho o.com says...
"Thomas G. Marshall" wrote:
> CBFalconer <cb********@yah oo.com> coughed up the following:
>> And where does the power to extract that hydrogen come from?
>
> Nuclear power plants.
Now you are really trying to pull my chain. Better known as a
silly way to boil water. If you could propose a way of nullifying
the waste products, that would be one thing. Hiding them under
the rug for future generations does not count. Take a look at the
chart of the nuclides, and the products of uranium fission,
sometime.

Then do an assay of the amount of natural radionucleides that are hidden
'under the rug'. I've heard there's stuff called uranium with a half-
life of 4000 million years, just hidden in rocks in unmarked locations
all over the planet. If you have a granite fireplace, there's even some
in your house, oozing radioactive radon gas into the air you breathe.


Well, if I am not completely mistaken, there's quite a bit of a
difference in the _concentration_ the stuff has been hidden 'under
the rug' by nature (plus stuff like plutonium doesn't seem to be very
common there) and the one the waste products are going to be stashed
away in. Or did they come upt with a way to distribute that stuff
evenly over a volume of a small mountain range and nobody told me?

Regards, Jens
--
\ Jens Thoms Toerring ___ Je***********@p hysik.fu-berlin.de
\______________ ____________ http://www.toerring.de
Nov 14 '05 #115
jpd
On 2004-05-29, Mabden <ma****@sbcglob al.net> wrote:

I'm sorry, but what are the reason Hydrogen is less safe than petrol or
natural gas?


Apart from the nasty tendency of those awfully small molecules to
slip through almost everything else (the main effort in creating
storage solutions for it is in storing it in a form where it's bound to
something else), it's mostly fear factor I guess.

It's a pity, really. It has such a simple cycle and in itself is about
as `clean' as you could wish for. It's just that handling it is hard.
--
j p d (at) d s b (dot) t u d e l f t (dot) n l .
Nov 14 '05 #116

"Thomas G. Marshall" <tg************ ****@replacetex twithnumber.hot mail.com>
wrote in message news:UI******** *********@nwrdn y03.gnilink.net ...
Roger Willcocks <rk**@rops.or g> coughed up the following:
"Gordon Burditt" <go***********@ burditt.org> wrote in message
news:c9******** @library2.airne ws.net...
My personal preference would be for a 256-bit number of picoseconds
since the creation of the universe. It gives better precision than
1 second. It won't run out during the life of this universe. The
only trouble is, we don't know accurately when that was.


Given we want to represent times in the past as well as the future,
it would be reasonable to fix 'now' (give or take) as midpoint in the
range, so why not arbitrarily pick

00:00:00.000 on the morning of January First 0001 as
1-followed-by-255-zeroes (256-bit unsigned value).

Without doing the math....Does that leave it possible to have years
/before/ the begining of time?


I reckon so... 2^255 / (10^12 * 86400 * 365) = 1.8x10^57 years

or about 10^47 times the age of the universe.

To put it another way, the universe is apparently somewhere between 2^98 and
2^99 picoseconds old (10 - 20 thousand million years.)

--
Roger
Nov 14 '05 #117
In article <2h************ @uni-berlin.de>, Je***********@p hysik.fu-
berlin.de says...
Then do an assay of the amount of natural radionucleides that are hidden
'under the rug'. I've heard there's stuff called uranium with a half-
life of 4000 million years, just hidden in rocks in unmarked locations
all over the planet. If you have a granite fireplace, there's even some
in your house, oozing radioactive radon gas into the air you breathe.


Well, if I am not completely mistaken, there's quite a bit of a
difference in the _concentration_ the stuff has been hidden 'under
the rug' by nature (plus stuff like plutonium doesn't seem to be very
common there) and the one the waste products are going to be stashed
away in. Or did they come upt with a way to distribute that stuff
evenly over a volume of a small mountain range and nobody told me?


The irony is that that (dispersion) is precisely the sort of thing that
people object to! The result is that radioactive waste is held in
concentrated form and everyone is afraid of it. If it were diluted, the
environmentalis ts would protest that where there were once a thousand
tons of nuclear waste, there are now a million.

Note how frequently you see a casually implied estimate of the threat
from nuclear materials in terms of the mass of material multiplied by
the halflife.

And people complain about quite insignificant amounts of radionucleides
in seawater.

- Gerry Quinn

Nov 14 '05 #118
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Stephen Sprunk" <st*****@sprunk .org> wrote in message
news:22******** *************** *******@news.te ranews.com...

Once oil is refined into gasoline (aka petrol), it is shipped to filling
stations nearly exclusively via rail and truck tankers, at least in the

US.

Nope. There's been more than one explosion of gasoline pipelines.
---------
RENTON, Wash. (AP) - The operator of a 400-mile fuel pipeline system that
was shut down after an explosion plans to complete necessary repairs and
restart the line late Tuesday.

The repair and restart plan has been approved by coordinators for both the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the state Ecology Department,
Olympic Pipe Line Co. spokesman Michael Abendhoff said Monday night.

The pipeline moves 12 million gallons of gasoline, diesel and jet fuel every
day. The explosion and subsequent fire disrupted fuel deliveries throughout
the system.
http://islandpacket.com/24hour/natio...-8654812c.html

Seattle - July 28, 1999 -The families of two 10-year-old boys killed in a
gasoline pipeline explosion last month filed suit Wednesday, seeking
punitive damages and to ban the pipeline operator from continuing to do
business in the State of Washington.
http://www.voiceoftheinjured.com/a-wd-pipe.html

Pipeline Accident Report: Rupture of Piney Point Oil Pipeline and Release
of Fuel Oil Near Chalk Point, Maryland

Pipeline Rupture and Release of Fuel Oil in the Reedy River at Fork Shoals,
South Carolina June 26, 1996

Williams Pipeline Company, Gasoline Explosion and Fire, Roseville,
Minnesota, April 16, 1981.
http://www.ntsb.gov/publictn/P_Acc.htm
Nov 14 '05 #119
In article <Hy********@cwi .nl>, "Dik T. Winter" <Di********@cwi .nl>
wrote:
In article <ch************ *************** ******@slb-newsm1.svr.pol. co.uk>
Christian Bau <ch***********@ cbau.freeserve. co.uk> writes:
> There is one company that proudly produces a very VERY expensive
> non-Y2100 compatible watch. It is a mechanical watch, and displays year,
> month, day and weekday correctly until March 1st 2100. At that time,
> some part has to be replaced, but the replacement is already included in
> the price when you buy it today.


What will it do in 2800 (or 2700, i disremember), when the Greek Orthodox
church and the Gregorian calendar will disagree?

I think they invested 1 dollar in a bank account at four percent
interest per year, and when the day comes they will buy either the Greek
Orthodox church or whoever else they need to buy :-)
Nov 14 '05 #120

This thread has been closed and replies have been disabled. Please start a new discussion.

By using Bytes.com and it's services, you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

To disable or enable advertisements and analytics tracking please visit the manage ads & tracking page.