Talk:Year 2038 problem
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 Archives |
|---|
[edit] zip?!
I thought zip used dos dates/times and pkwares spec seems to say the same "The date and time are encoded in standard MS-DOS format.", I don't rememeber the details of this format offhand but i don't think its rollover comes in 2038 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Plugwash (talk • contribs).
- MSDOS format is a bit-encoding that simply packs the bits holding the year-since-1980, month, day, hour, minute, second (in two second resolution) in to 2x16bits. AFAIK, its rollover date is 2108-01-01.
- I've removed the bit about Zip. In fact: The use of 32-bit time_t has also been encoded into file formats, which means it can live on for a long time beyond the life of the machines involved. Are there many examples of this? It appears to me that file formats change much more rapidly than operating systems; isn't this sentence just stating the obvious? squell 20:36, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] lol
"Using a (signed) 64-bit value introduces a new wraparound date in about 290 billion years, on Sunday, December 4, 292,277,026,596. However, this problem is not widely regarded as a pressing issue." - I think that sentence is the funniest thing I've read on wikipedia. Kudos. (Granted, that says something about the type of prose most articles have, but still.) 165.123.166.240 03:01, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
- that remark really should be removed, as it is wholly unverifiable. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 02:21, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
- It's one of the very few phrases I've seen on wikipedia that's a harmless attempt at humor. On the other hand, it's been a horrible point of disagreement. Maybe it's not worth it. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 03:39, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
- What exactly is unverifiable about it? —Pengo 07:57, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
- It's impossible to prove a negative. You could say anything isn't a pressing issue, but it doesn't mean it's worth saying. I came here to ask about taking it out, but you convinced me. Superm401 - Talk 09:42, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
- I think we should take it out - even if it is humorous, it's not in an encyclopedic tone. -- stillnotelf is invisible 23:13, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
- I strongly disagree. This is a factual statement that can be verified (at least the date). That some date that is several times the length of time since the Big Bang in the future is not a pressing problem, I suppose this is also analogous to the Y10K problem. If you insist on a compromise here, I would suggest wording somewhat similar to how the Y10K problem is also presented. --Robert Horning 21:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- I think we should take it out - even if it is humorous, it's not in an encyclopedic tone. -- stillnotelf is invisible 23:13, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
- It's impossible to prove a negative. You could say anything isn't a pressing issue, but it doesn't mean it's worth saying. I came here to ask about taking it out, but you convinced me. Superm401 - Talk 09:42, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Example Changed?
I could have sworn that the example used to be animated, stepping up the seconds to the fateful moment in question. Has it changed? Have I lost my mind? Jouster (whisper) 10:07, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
