Let's take a look at the PoleShift/PlanetX doomsayers, shall we?

page: 4
7
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 1 2012 @ 04:56 PM
link   
reply to post by cloaked4u
 


Yeah, not your personal PC.. Is your computer that old???? No, so you have the newer version where the program can recognize years later than 1999.




posted on Sep, 1 2012 @ 04:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by cloaked4u
reply to post by karen61057
 



Did i miss something. Since when did computers start thinking?



You know your avatar is a troll right?



posted on Sep, 1 2012 @ 04:59 PM
link   
reply to post by nancyliedersdeaddog
 


Except that none of those things were real. I was an adult already in 1999. I am 55 years old now. Maybe in some obscure places people were talking crazy crap like that but that was not what the real Y2K was about. The issue was the date thing. The issue was fixed.
We cannot do anything about the crazy folks we share the planet with. Its there place as much as ours.



posted on Sep, 1 2012 @ 05:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by karen61057

Originally posted by cloaked4u

Originally posted by cloaked4u
Don't forget the BUNKER people. More DOOOOOM there too.



Remember the Y2k Doooooom. People actually paid money to buy into the crap. Everywhere you look there is some kind of SCAM going on. Insert scam here.--------


Do you remember the year 2000? That Y2K threat was very real, not a made up hoax. It took countless man hours to get programs rewritten so that a crash didnt occur. It certainly could have. Y2K was not a HOAX. It was a very real computer issue. That the world would come crashing down around our heads when the computers crashed, that was the crap part but the change from 1999 to 2000 was a real issue. The theory was that the computer would not recognize a date like 01/01/00 or that the computer would "think" it was 1900 instead of 2000. Many experts later, the issue was fixed.


It was in all honestly only certain machines that were vulnerable to that bug anyhow, older *nix installations used by companies that hadn't upgraded, older Windows 95 OSR-A machines that weren't configured properly at no time were the OS'es that at the time most people using (Windows 98/98SE/NT/2000/ME, MacOS 8,9, FreeBSD3, et al) vulnerable to that bug.



posted on Sep, 1 2012 @ 05:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by cloaked4u
reply to post by karen61057
 



Thats funny, i don't remember paying anyone to fix my computer for that y2k thing. Looks like i'm still typing here on a.t.s.




I guess everyone on planet earth all got their computers fixed then.
I don't remember everyone going out and buying a new computer at the time.
edit on 1-9-2012 by cloaked4u because: (no reason given)



we all had calculators back then and they all could count. I guess we all had stupid computers that could not count past 1999.
edit on 1-9-2012 by cloaked4u because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 4 2012 @ 01:01 PM
link   
reply to post by cloaked4u
 
I seem to remember posting about this before:

Y2K Explanation

In short,

The Y2K bug... What was it? Was it the end of the world or a proposed end to mankind? No, but it was perceived as such. All that the Y2K bug encompassed was a programming error. Before computers were mainstream devices; before every house had at least one computer (or computer type device, i.e. - Smartphone, tablet, etc. etc.); before Microsoft held the market share; computers were expensive, large and slow. The amount of overall memory allotted to the running of a program really mattered.

As I have explained many, many times before, at the level of programming that we are discussing, saving space in memory was the ultimate aim because you saved space and affected overall system performance (programmers still try to save space in memory but not to the extent that they did back then; which is a loss because this leads to bloated code and inefficient methods, which are not the aim of this discussion).

So what was this programming error? Quite simply it was an error caused by the storage of a variable type, instead of storing 4 characters as either an int16 or uint16, I can save space and store the 2 characters needed for the year as an int8 or uint8. This will save space in memory and storage because an int8 or uint8 will only use 8bits or 1 byte to store the year. Whereas an int16 or uint16 will use 2 bytes.

Why does this matter? Well to you and I, differentiating between 76 and 1976 simply falls into the realm of contextual representation. The context is based upon the understanding about the century being discussed or represented as the year within the current century. For example, if I were to say, in 76 the Cubs will win the pennant, you will think I contextually mean 2076 vs. 1976 (by my usage of *will*, or future tense). A computer, however, will not know whether I mean 1976, 2076, 2176 or any number that ends in 76. By that same right, in 2000, will the computer think that the 2 year representation means 1900, 2000, 500, 100? That was the question that caused the Y2K bug or glitch. The glitch was very evident on things that did not bother to update (for example __javascript represented the year 2000 as 19100).

So what happened? Many nights were spent by many programmers (myself included) rewriting and fixing code to ensure that nothing happened. Testing, rewriting and more testing. Up to and beyond Y2K. This is why I really got a chuckle when Y2K-itis went rampant in advertising. For example, "You can buy this couch, which is Y2K compatible, for only 699.99". I mean it was a storm of this and that, which was not even affected by the Y2K glitch.

So in conclusion, Y2K was a computer programming bug/glitch but perceived as the end of the world. Y2K was never proposed as the end of the world. Would it have made life more difficult? Potentially yes, but thanks to the efforts of millions of individuals working countless long nights and days, it did not.

12/21/2012 on the other hand. Is only a perceived danger in some charlatans mind.

-saige-



posted on Sep, 4 2012 @ 04:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by karen61057
reply to post by nancyliedersdeaddog
 


Except that none of those things were real. I was an adult already in 1999. I am 55 years old now. Maybe in some obscure places people were talking crazy crap like that but that was not what the real Y2K was about. The issue was the date thing. The issue was fixed.
We cannot do anything about the crazy folks we share the planet with. Its there place as much as ours.

I never said they were real but you assumed that troll avatar guy was only talking about the y2k bug when he brought up the y2k hoax and that's why I brought up the other theories. There were a bunch of theory's and scams going on about something big happening In 2000 from Jesus comming back to ww3 and I'm sure other people on this site could tell you about them. The y2k bug was a huge topic and talked about in the msn but that didn't stop people from comming up with scams and crazy world ending prophecy for y2k just like 2012. You might of been an adult during 1999 but it still doesn't negate what I heard along with countless others.





new topics
top topics
 
7
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join