473,838 Members | 1,654 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 10592
"Corey Murtagh" <em***@slingsho t.no.uce> wrote in message
news:10******** *******@radsrv1 .tranzpeer.net. ..
Programmer Dude wrote:
Corey Murtagh writes:
So having established some scope limits on the infestation, can we be
absolutely certain that the situation hasn't arisen somewhere in the
universe?


Yes, I think so. :-|


All we can say with any authority is "we haven't observed it yet". That
doesn't mean it hasn't happened. I'd rather admit to the possibility
that I'm ignorant of the facts than to arrogantly assume that since I
can't see it then it doesn't exist :>


It might have already happened, and we may even be watching that location,
but it may take a few million years for the evidence to reach us. Or it
might have happened at some point long enough ago that the evidence is no
longer there.

S

--
Stephen Sprunk "Those people who think they know everything
CCIE #3723 are a great annoyance to those of us who do."
K5SSS --Isaac Asimov

Nov 14 '05 #241
Programmer Dude wrote:
Corey Murtagh writes:
So having established some scope limits on the infestation, can we be
absolutel y certain that the situation hasn't arisen somewhere in the
universe?

Yes, I think so. :-|
All we can say with any authority is "we haven't observed it yet".


I realize it's a non-standard usage, but you do realize my "straight
face" emoticon means I'm totally kidding (with a straight face, yet)?


Ah, ok... will interpret that as your 'deadpan' smiley in future :>
Anyway,... I agree. Basically.
That doesn't mean it hasn't happened. I'd rather admit to the possibility
that I'm ignorant of the facts than to arrogantly assume that since I
can't see it then it doesn't exist :>


No arrogance. Here's the thing, we are not completely ignorant of the
facts. Certain physical specifications obtain, and that, plus that it
hasn't happened (even close) on earth, simple **suggests** it may be
very unlikely. (To me, and this was my original point, is simply
suggests it's not worth worrying about when disease or asteroids are
far, far greater dangers.)


Certainly there are far more interesting, and likely, dangers to be
concerned about. A lethal virus with a very long incubation and
contagion period before it hits the symptomatic phase for example.

Myself, I'm not too worried about it. I know there are a lot of people
better suited to the task who are worrying about it for me :>
If there's even the slightest possibility of it happening, then
somewhere, somewhen, it /will/ happen.


So,.... somewhere I'm dating Michelle Pfeiffer? Lucky me!!


Nah, still needs to have a slight possibility :>
"Space is big. /Really/ big. You have no idea just how mind-bogglingly
big space really is."


"You might think's it a far walk down to the chemist's, but that's just
peanuts compared to space." (That's from memory...wonder how close I
got it.)


Mine too. I don't have my Guide handy to check on at the moment.

--
Corey Murtagh
The Electric Monk
"Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur!"
Nov 14 '05 #242
In article <0q************ ********@telcov e.net>,
T.M. Sommers <tm*@nj.net> wrote:
Dan Pop wrote:

So, what's the next massive problem we have to worry about, now that we
have just solved this one?


The Y10K problem, when all those 4-digit years everyone is so
proud of become obsolete. If it took several years to fix just
40 years worth of software for the Y2K problem, just think how
long it will take to fix 8000 years worth of software for the
Y10K problem. We had better get started right away. There is no
time to lose.


It's still better than the Y1K problem. The world went into the
'dark ages' and didn't emerge for about 500 years :-)

--
Bill Vermillion - bv @ wjv . com
Nov 14 '05 #243
In article <Ny************ *******@newssvr 29.news.prodigy .com>,
Mabden <ma****@sbcglob al.net> wrote:
"Mark McIntyre" <ma**********@s pamcop.net> wrote in message
news:t2******* *************** **********@4ax. com...
On Sat, 29 May 2004 09:48:24 GMT, in comp.lang.c , "Mabden"
<ma****@sbcglob al.net> wrote:
>"Stephen Sprunk" <st*****@sprunk .org> wrote in message
>news:22******* *************** ********@news.t eranews.com...
>
>> Transporting large masses of H2 isn't nearly as safe as petrol, for
>obvious
>> reasons
>
>I'm sorry, but what are the reason Hydrogen is less safe than petrol or
>natural gas?
Think "Hindenberg "

The Hindenberg didn't burn because of the hydrogen. You can't see
hydrogen burn (perhaps a little bluish glow). The Hindenburg burned the cloth coating which was treated with
the same stuff we now use in rocket fuel. It went up because of
static discharge that was supposed to be mitigated by using wire
to attach the cloth panels (to ground it), but because they used
rope instead the charge was allowed to build until a flammable
condition occured. It was a case of compounded errors.


My impression of the fabirc on the Hindenberg is that base
coating [undercoat] had some sort of iron oxide in it - reddish
looking primer - and then coated with the aluminum paint.

Those are two ingredients of thermite. And if you've ever
used or seen thermite burn you know how hot that is. It was once
used to well railroad tracks into long continuous pieces. Put
thermite between the ends of the rail and light it.

There is part of a girder and a piece of fabric at the EAA
museum. The museum has been moved to Oshkosh but I saw it when it
was in another city.
--
Bill Vermillion - bv @ wjv . com
Nov 14 '05 #244
Bill Vermillion wrote:
In article <0q************ ********@telcov e.net>,
T.M. Sommers <tm*@nj.net> wrote:
Dan Pop wrote:
So, what's the next massive problem we have to worry about, now that we
have just solved this one?


The Y10K problem, when all those 4-digit years everyone is so
proud of become obsolete. If it took several years to fix just
40 years worth of software for the Y2K problem, just think how
long it will take to fix 8000 years worth of software for the
Y10K problem. We had better get started right away. There is no
time to lose.

It's still better than the Y1K problem. The world went into the
'dark ages' and didn't emerge for about 500 years :-)


I think we have 7996 years to think about it!

Regards,
Stan Milam.
Nov 14 '05 #245
In article <40************ ***@yahoo.com>,
CBFalconer <cb********@wor ldnet.att.net> wrote:
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.


Or 10,000 years from now future archaeologists are excavating
sites to find out what happened to what appeared to be a burgeoning
population 5000 years ago - similar to how we try to figure out
things about ancient Egypt and how the pyramids were built.

They find the sealed concrete bunker and think "something important
must be sealed in there". They open it up, get exposed to
radiation, and it's like the stories you hear of the curse of the
ancient pharohs put upon those who disturb the graves.

Read "A Canticle For Liebowitz" to get another view of discovering
things from the past in the future.

Bill
--
Bill Vermillion - bv @ wjv . com
Nov 14 '05 #246
At Monday 2004-08-09 18:35 "Bill Vermillion" <bv@wjv.com> posted
<I2********@wjv .com> to comp.unix.misc:

This entire discussion is OFF TOPIC in each and EVERY one of the
newsgroups to which it is crossposted. Cease and Desist.

--
Copyright 2004 Angela Kahealani. All rights reserved without prejudice;
UCC1-207. All information and transactions are non negotiable and are
private between the parties. http://www.kahealani.com/
Nov 14 '05 #247
bv@wjv.com (Bill Vermillion) wrote in message news:<I2******* *@wjv.com>...
In article <40************ ***@yahoo.com>,
CBFalconer <cb********@wor ldnet.att.net> wrote:
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.


Or 10,000 years from now future archaeologists are excavating
sites to find out what happened to what appeared to be a burgeoning
population 5000 years ago - similar to how we try to figure out
things about ancient Egypt and how the pyramids were built.

They find the sealed concrete bunker and think "something important
must be sealed in there". They open it up, get exposed to
radiation, and it's like the stories you hear of the curse of the
ancient pharohs put upon those who disturb the graves.

Read "A Canticle For Liebowitz" to get another view of discovering
things from the past in the future.

Bill


After doing two years of study on the effects of nuclear waste and
management, and also coming from a town that was known all over the
world for its mass Uranium Production from the early 1950's to the
late 1990's, I can say with all confidence that there is no technology
developed yet that can protect the environment, nor us from the deadly
effects of nuclear radiation and poisoning. My Home Town - Elliot Lake
Ontario, Canada, was formerly known as the Uranium Capital of the
World - and we had over 2 dozen mines operational at one point or
another - drudging up uranium Ore, refining it to its proper weight,
then shipping it off to the US government R and D dept for development
into your chemical weapons and nuclear bombs - and the waste is still
on site, sitting in tailings ponds to this day. Even though the Pure
Ore has been shipped off, studies have shown that 6/7th of the
radioactive material still exists in the tailings, which are outside,
sitting around the old reclaimed mine sites, waiting for someone to
come and clean it up. Which means that the area is still very
radioactive, and there is runoff to deal with as well. The Point is,
if anyone tells you we have the technology to contain radioactive
material 'SAFELY', you can laugh in their face - cuz its BS - if that
was the case, hundreds of federal governments around the world would
already have forked over the BILLIONS of dollars needed to develop and
maintain the technology, and be using it to store and maintain all
their nuclear weapons, nuclear reactors, and more importantly, the
waste created after using the pure Uranium Ore - isotopes 235 and 238.

I hope this has shed some light on the subject - it really opened my
eyes when I did the study for my undergrad, and to think this was all
happening in my backyard all these years....

Manny
Nov 14 '05 #248
In article <9f************ **************@ posting.google. com>, manuel188
@hotmail.com says...
After doing two years of study on the effects of nuclear waste and
management, and also coming from a town that was known all over the
world for its mass Uranium Production from the early 1950's to the
late 1990's, I can say with all confidence that there is no technology
developed yet that can protect the environment, nor us from the deadly
effects of nuclear radiation and poisoning. My Home Town - Elliot Lake
Ontario, Canada, was formerly known as the Uranium Capital of the
World - and we had over 2 dozen mines operational at one point or
another - drudging up uranium Ore, refining it to its proper weight,
then shipping it off to the US government R and D dept for development
into your chemical weapons and nuclear bombs - and the waste is still
on site, sitting in tailings ponds to this day. Even though the Pure
Ore has been shipped off, studies have shown that 6/7th of the
radioactive material still exists in the tailings, which are outside,
sitting around the old reclaimed mine sites, waiting for someone to
come and clean it up. Which means that the area is still very
radioactive, and there is runoff to deal with as well. The Point is,
if anyone tells you we have the technology to contain radioactive
material 'SAFELY', you can laugh in their face - cuz its BS -


<QUOTE>
Headlines in literally hundreds of newspapers across Canada and
bordering States acclaim Elliot Lake as "A Wilderness Wonderland", "A
delight in winter" and "A little piece of paradise."

Elliot Lake attracts tens of thousands of visitors each year to enjoy
its ancient forests, rivers and 4,000 lakes, which lie just north of
some of the world's best fresh-water sailing on the northern shores of
Lake Huron.

Elliot Lake is a four season destination for affordable, outdoor
recreational activities and quality experiences. We invite you to pick
your favourite season, recreational activity, or special event, and
explore the possibilities.
<END QUOTE>

Granted, that's from the tourism website, and I wouldn't expect them to
harp on about the varied actinide options for the visitor who wants to
get irradiated. But it can't be all *that* bad, now, can it?

- Gerry Quinn

Nov 14 '05 #249

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.