473,854 Members | 1,457 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
CBFalconer <cb********@yah oo.com> wrote in message news:<40******* *******@yahoo.c om>...
"Robert W. McAdams" wrote:

... snip ...

Technologies already exist for isolating nuclear wastes from the
biosphere for that period of time. (In fact, the best of these
technologies utilizes a layered approach, in which a number of
isolation techniques are used together, each of which, by itself,
is capable of isolating the waste from the biosphere for
substantially more than 10,000 years.)


All of which is experimentally verified, of course. I am
gratified to know that my public spirited ancestors of 8000 BC
prepared those test beds for you. </sarcasm>


Well, they had find something to do after spending 710,000,000 years
verifying that the halflife of Uranium 235 is 710,000,000 years!

Of course, I'm joking. It doesn't take 710,000,000 years to verify
that the halflife of Uranium 235 is 710,000,000 years any more than it
takes 10,000 years to verify the technology needed to isolate
radioactive waste for 10,000 years.

Let's look at the technology in more detail:

The first part of the plan is to store the waste in salt deposits
(e.g., in New Mexico) that are deep underground, and therefore
isolated from the biosphere. Geologists tell us that these deposits
have been stable for a long, long time, and will remain stable for a
long, long time.

But let's imagine that the geologists are wrong, and that groundwater
begins to seep in and erode the salt before the 10,000 years are up.
How long will it take for the water to get to the waste? The answer
is: approximately 1,000,000 years. How do we know that? Because we
know how thick the salt is, we know how much groundwater there is, and
we can measure how long it takes for a given amount of water to
dissolve a given amount of salt.

But let's imagine that that's somehow wrong, and that groundwater
reaches the area where the waste is stored. Well, then it encounters
a clay backfill that surrounds each container of waste. The clay
swells up when wet to form a tight seal keeping the water away from
the containers of waste.

But let's imagine that the water somehow breaks through the seal
created by the clay. Well, next it encounters the metal casing, which
is designed to be very resistant to corrosion. One of the favorite
materials for the casing is a titanium alloy. Tests conducted in a
abnormally corrosive solution kept at 450 degrees F indicate that it
would survive under those conditions for a thousand years, but in
normal groundwater at the expected repository temperature of 250
degrees F, the casings would retain their integrity for hundreds of
thousands of years.

But what if somehow the groundwater got past all these barriers and
actually reached the waste? That's bring us to the final barrier,
which is that the waste has been reprocessed into a glass which is not
readily dissolved. A Canadian experiment performed with waste glass
in the 1970s indicated that it dissolves in groundwater at a rate of
1/100,000,000 per year, meaning that it would take 100,000,000 years
to completely dissolve.
Bob
Nov 14 '05 #191
"Robert W. McAdams" <rw*@fambright. com> wrote in message
news:fe******** *************** ***@posting.goo gle.com...
But let's imagine that the water somehow breaks through the seal

created by the clay. Well, next it encounters the metal casing, which
is designed to be very resistant to corrosion. One of the favorite
materials for the casing is a titanium alloy. Tests conducted in a
abnormally corrosive solution kept at 450 degrees F indicate that it
would survive under those conditions for a thousand years, but in
normal groundwater at the expected repository temperature of 250
degrees F, the casings would retain their integrity for hundreds of
thousands of years.

But what if somehow the groundwater got past all these barriers and
actually reached the waste?


Let's imagine another scenario where humans tear apart the storage. I mean,
we are talking about 10,000 years minimum, aren't we?

I mean, have you heard the music they're playing today... ;-)

--
Mabden

Nov 14 '05 #192
Mabden wrote:
"Robert W. McAdams" <rw*@fambright. com> wrote in message
But let's imagine that the water somehow breaks through the seal
created by the clay. Well, next it encounters the metal casing, which
is designed to be very resistant to corrosion. One of the favorite
materials for the casing is a titanium alloy. Tests conducted in a
abnormally corrosive solution kept at 450 degrees F indicate that it
would survive under those conditions for a thousand years, but in
normal groundwater at the expected repository temperature of 250
degrees F, the casings would retain their integrity for hundreds of
thousands of years.

But what if somehow the groundwater got past all these barriers and
actually reached the waste?


Let's imagine another scenario where humans tear apart the storage. I mean,
we are talking about 10,000 years minimum, aren't we?

I mean, have you heard the music they're playing today... ;-)


[The above is about nuclear waste disposal]

Now consider the recently passed Y2K problems, which largely
revolved around software written and used for 25 years, with
source and documentation forgotten. Look at people trying to find
20 year old software on alt.folklore.co mputers and comp.os.cpm.
Do you really think that knowledge about care and treatment of
nuclear dump facilities is going to last for 10,000 years? Should
any posted signs survive, the language in which they are written
probably will not.

--
fix (vb.): 1. to paper over, obscure, hide from public view; 2.
to work around, in a way that produces unintended consequences
that are worse than the original problem. Usage: "Windows ME
fixes many of the shortcomings of Windows 98 SE". - Hutchison
Nov 14 '05 #193
In <tX************ *******@fe1.tex as.rr.com> LE****@JRLVAX.H OUSTON.RR.COM (leslie) writes:
http://makeashorterlink.com/?E14832678

The original link wrapped to 2 lines:

http://ftp.support.compaq.com.au/pub...admes/windows/
snsvaxeco03022. README


http://tinyurl.com provides even shorter alternatives to long URLs.

Dan
--
Dan Pop
DESY Zeuthen, RZ group
Email: Da*****@ifh.de
Nov 14 '05 #194
In article <c9***********@ sunnews.cern.ch >, Dan Pop <Da*****@cern.c h> wrote:
http://tinyurl.com provides even shorter alternatives to long URLs.


But TinyURL is EVIL. It provides no way to show the destination of a
TinyURL and give the following as a reason to use TinyURLs:

| Hide your affiliate URLs
|
| Are you posting something that you don't want people to know what the
| URL is because it might give away that it's an affiliate link. Then you
| can enter a URL into TinyURL, and your affiliate link will be hidden
| from the visitor, only the tinyurl.com address and the ending address
| will be visible to your visitors.

Using TinyURLs will just cause many readers not to follow the link.

--
Göran Larsson http://www.mitt-eget.com/
Nov 14 '05 #195
In <40************ ***@yahoo.com> CBFalconer <cb********@yah oo.com> writes:
Now consider the recently passed Y2K problems, which largely
revolved around software written and used for 25 years, with
source and documentation forgotten.
More likely, with source not available in the first place.
Look at people trying to find
20 year old software on alt.folklore.co mputers and comp.os.cpm.
I.e. software irrelevant to the current computing community. The one
that is relevant has been carefully kept and maintained. I don't know if
CERNLIB is still maintained, but its origins can be easily traced to about
40 years ago.
Do you really think that knowledge about care and treatment of
nuclear dump facilities is going to last for 10,000 years?
Why not, as long as the information is relevant to the people
responsible for environment protection?
Should
any posted signs survive, the language in which they are written
probably will not.


No one expects any posted signs to survive, merely to be carefully
maintained. This would also take care of the language issue.

Of course, one could imagine scenarios involving the catastrophic
destruction of the current civilisation and its replacement by the
descendants of a few tribes of bushmen that survived the catastrophe
by chance. But, barring such scenarios, we have the technology necessary
to preserve the information about nuclear waste dumps *and* the motivation
for preserving it, as long as needed by the radioactivity level of the
nuclear waste.

Dan
--
Dan Pop
DESY Zeuthen, RZ group
Email: Da*****@ifh.de
Nov 14 '05 #196
In <Hy********@app rove.se> ho*@invalid.inv alid (Goran Larsson) writes:
In article <c9***********@ sunnews.cern.ch >, Dan Pop <Da*****@cern.c h> wrote:
http://tinyurl.com provides even shorter alternatives to long URLs.


But TinyURL is EVIL. It provides no way to show the destination of a
TinyURL and give the following as a reason to use TinyURLs:

| Hide your affiliate URLs
|
| Are you posting something that you don't want people to know what the
| URL is because it might give away that it's an affiliate link. Then you
| can enter a URL into TinyURL, and your affiliate link will be hidden
| from the visitor, only the tinyurl.com address and the ending address
| will be visible to your visitors.

Using TinyURLs will just cause many readers not to follow the link.


Non-issue: you either trust the person posting the link or you don't.
And if you don't, you probably don't have much use for search engines,
either...

It doesn't matter if the URL is spelled in its full original format or
in its abbreviated format provided by TinyURL: you don't know what's
inside before actually going there.

Dan
--
Dan Pop
DESY Zeuthen, RZ group
Email: Da*****@ifh.de
Nov 14 '05 #197
In article <c9**********@s unnews.cern.ch> , Dan Pop <Da*****@cern.c h> wrote:
Non-issue: you either trust the person posting the link or you don't.
How do you know who to trust on the Internet? I do, however, know that
I shouldn't trust those who post links using TinyURL.

Why should I accept TinyURLs, something created to con and deceive
web surfers?
And if you don't, you probably don't have much use for search engines,
either...
With a search engine I can see the URL and perhaps make an educated guess
where the link will end up. With a TinyURL this information is deliberately
hidden from me.
It doesn't matter if the URL is spelled in its full original format or
in its abbreviated format provided by TinyURL: you don't know what's
inside before actually going there.


If a link is posted with the comment that an interesting article is
available on CNN, then the difference between a genuine cnn.com link
and a deceiving TinyURL link is obvious.

--
Göran Larsson http://www.mitt-eget.com/
Nov 14 '05 #198
On Thu, 3 Jun 2004 14:23:01 GMT, ho*@invalid.inv alid (Goran Larsson) wrote:
In article <c9***********@ sunnews.cern.ch >, Dan Pop <Da*****@cern.c h> wrote:
http://tinyurl.com provides even shorter alternatives to long URLs.
But TinyURL is EVIL


This must be new use of EVIL I'm not familiar with. I love TinyURL. If I
were a web designer, I'd be kicking myself for not having thought of it. I
couldn't care less whether anyone uses it to obfuscate affiliate links or
whatever; when I need it for personal use, it's great.
-leor
. It provides no way to show the destination of a
TinyURL and give the following as a reason to use TinyURLs:

| Hide your affiliate URLs
|
| Are you posting something that you don't want people to know what the
| URL is because it might give away that it's an affiliate link. Then you
| can enter a URL into TinyURL, and your affiliate link will be hidden
| from the visitor, only the tinyurl.com address and the ending address
| will be visible to your visitors.

Using TinyURLs will just cause many readers not to follow the link.


--
Leor Zolman --- BD Software --- www.bdsoft.com
On-Site Training in C/C++, Java, Perl and Unix
C++ users: download BD Software's free STL Error Message Decryptor at:
www.bdsoft.com/tools/stlfilt.html
Nov 14 '05 #199
ho*@invalid.inv alid (Goran Larsson) writes:
In article <c9***********@ sunnews.cern.ch >, Dan Pop <Da*****@cern.c h> wrote:
http://tinyurl.com provides even shorter alternatives to long URLs.


But TinyURL is EVIL. It provides no way to show the destination of
a TinyURL


If you really must know the redirection destination in advance, just
make a TCP connection to port 80 of tinyurl.com, type two lines of
HTTP protocol, and read the HTTP headers coming back from the server.
Easily implemented in few lines of script, if you need this
functionality often.

Martin
--
,--. Martin Dickopp, Dresden, Germany ,= ,-_-. =.
/ ,- ) http://www.zero-based.org/ ((_/)o o(\_))
\ `-' `-'(. .)`-'
`-. Debian, a variant of the GNU operating system. \_/
Nov 14 '05 #200

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.