Re: Y2K -- A Broader Perspective

["Samuel M. Stilwell" <sstilwel@proto.protopower.com>]

This is "date masking" and it is a topic of debate at several 
electric utilites that I do work at. Some have also considered "1950" 
as the "new" year. The problem is that, as noted in Mr. Yourdon's 
letter,  different programs handle dates in different ways, and 
computer comparisons of archived data taken before and after the date 
reset would be impossible. For standalone components or systems, this 
may be a feasible approach, but for any system that stores/compares 
historical data or interacts with other computers or components, I 
believe that a new container of worms would result.

On the other hand, being a true New Englander, and believing strongly 
in Yankee ingenuity, I am not as doom'n'gloom as Mr. Yourdon.  
<insert tongue in cheek> Oh, yes. I'll be at home for New Year's Eve 
2000, food in the pantry and jerry cans full of gas for the 
generator.  <remove tongue from cheek>


> <insert tongue in cheek>  Considering the govenments acknowledgement
> that most of the federal agencies are way behind, maybe the
> solution is to revise the calendar to 1900 in the year 2000
> </insert tongue in cheek>
> 
> Dale Boyce
> dale@radpro.uchicago.edu
> 


Sam Stilwell
Project Engineer
Proto-Power Corporation
15 Thames Street
Groton, CT 06340
860-405-7208, ext. 3037
FAX 860-446-3096
Pager: 860-820-8495
sstilwel@proto.protopower.com