DOCSLIB.ORG

The Year 2000 Problem: Fourth Report by the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Year 2000 Problem: Fourth Report by the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight 1 Union Calendar No. 469 105th Congress, 2d Session ±±±±±±±±±± House Report 105±827 THE YEAR 2000 PROBLEM FOURTH REPORT BY THE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM AND OVERSIGHT TOGETHER WITH ADDITIONAL VIEWS OCTOBER 26, 1998.ÐCommitted to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union and ordered to be printed U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 51±352 WASHINGTON : 1998 COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM AND OVERSIGHT DAN BURTON, Indiana, Chairman BENJAMIN A. GILMAN, New York HENRY A. WAXMAN, California J. DENNIS HASTERT, Illinois TOM LANTOS, California CONSTANCE A. MORELLA, Maryland ROBERT E. WISE, JR., West Virginia CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut MAJOR R. OWENS, New York CHRISTOPHER COX, California EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania JOHN M. MCHUGH, New York GARY A. CONDIT, California STEPHEN HORN, California CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York JOHN L. MICA, Florida THOMAS M. BARRETT, Wisconsin THOMAS M. DAVIS, Virginia ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, Washington, DAVID M. MCINTOSH, Indiana DC MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana CHAKA FATTAH, Pennsylvania JOE SCARBOROUGH, Florida ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio ROD R. BLAGOJEVICH, Illinois MARSHALL ``MARK'' SANFORD, South DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois Carolina JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire JIM TURNER, Texas PETE SESSIONS, Texas THOMAS H. ALLEN, Maine MICHAEL PAPPAS, New Jersey HAROLD E. FORD, JR., Tennessee VINCE SNOWBARGER, Kansas ÐÐÐ BOB BARR, Georgia BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont DAN MILLER, Florida (Independent) RON LEWIS, Kentucky KEVIN BINGER, Staff Director DANIEL R. MOLL, Deputy Staff Director DAVID A. KASS, Deputy Counsel and Parliamentarian LISA SMITH ARAFUNE, Deputy Chief Clerk PHIL SCHILIRO, Minority Staff Director SUBCOMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT MANAGEMENT, INFORMATION, AND TECHNOLOGY STEPHEN HORN, California, Chairman PETE SESSIONS, Texas DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio THOMAS M. DAVIS, Virginia PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania JOE SCARBOROUGH, Florida MAJOR R. OWENS, New York MARSHALL ``MARK'' SANFORD, South CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York Carolina JIM TURNER, Texas JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire RON LEWIS, Kentucky EX OFFICIO DAN BURTON, Indiana HENRY A. WAXMAN, California J. RUSSELL GEORGE, Staff Director and Chief Counsel JOHN L. HYNES, Professional Staff Member RANDALL J. KAPLAN, Professional Staff Member and Counsel MATTHEW EBERT, Clerk MASON ALINGER, Staff Assistant BRIAN COHEN, Minority Professional Staff Member (II) LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Washington, DC, October 26, 1998. Hon. NEWT GINGRICH, Speaker of the House of Representatives, Washington, DC. DEAR MR. SPEAKER: By direction of the Committee on Govern- ment Reform and Oversight, I submit herewith the committee's fourth report to the 105th Congress. The committee's report is based on a study conducted by its Subcommittee on Government Management, Information, and Technology. DAN BURTON, Chairman. (III) C O N T E N T S Page I. Summary of Oversight Findings and Recommendations .............................. 1 A. Introduction .......................................................................................... 1 B. Overview of Investigation ................................................................... 3 C. Committee Findings ............................................................................ 4 D. Committee Recommendations ............................................................ 12 II. Report on the Committee's Oversight Review ............................................... 16 A. Background .......................................................................................... 16 B. Proceedings of the Subcommittee ....................................................... 17 1. 104th Congress ............................................................................ 17 2. February 24, 1997, Hearing ....................................................... 18 3. March 20, 1997, Hearing ............................................................ 19 4. July 10, 1997, Hearing ............................................................... 20 5. September 15, 1997, News Conference ..................................... 22 6. October 17, 1997, Hearing .......................................................... 23 7. December 11, 1997, News Conference ....................................... 23 8. February 4, 1998, Hearing ......................................................... 24 9. March 4, 1998, News Conference ............................................... 25 10. March 18, 1998, Hearing ............................................................ 27 11. June 2, 1998, News Conference ................................................. 29 12. June 10, 1998, Hearing ............................................................... 30 13. June 22, 1998, Hearing ............................................................... 31 14. August 13, 1998, Field Hearing (New York, NY) ..................... 32 15. August 17, 1998, Field Hearing (Mesquite, TX) ....................... 34 16. August 19, 1998, Field Hearing (New Orleans, LA) ................ 36 17. September 1, 1998, Field Hearing (Lakewood, OH) ................. 38 18. September 2, 1998, Field Hearing (Indianapolis, IN) .............. 39 19. September 3, 1998, Field Hearing (Palatine, IL) ..................... 41 20. September 9, 1998, News Conference ....................................... 42 21. September 24, 1998, Hearing ..................................................... 44 22. September 29, 1998, Hearing ..................................................... 46 23. October 2, 1998, Hearing ............................................................ 48 C. The Federal Level ................................................................................ 48 1. The Federal Year 2000 Problem .................................................. 48 2. The Federal Leadership Role ....................................................... 55 D. The State and Local Level .................................................................. 60 1. The State and Local Government Year 2000 Problem ............... 60 2. Basic Infrastructure: Electricity, Telecommunications, Water . 66 III. Conclusions ....................................................................................................... 70 APPENDIXES Appendix A.ÐCorrespondence ................................................................................ 71 Appendix B.ÐSubcommittee Report Cards ........................................................... 86 Appendix C.ÐExecutive Order ............................................................................... 101 Appendix D.ÐCitizen's Check Lists ....................................................................... 104 Appendix E.ÐCommittee Findings and Recommendations ................................. 110 VIEWS Additional views of Hon. Stephen Horn ................................................................ 111 (V) VI Page Additional views of Hon. Henry A. Waxman, Hon. Dennis J. Kucinich, Hon. Tom Lantos, Hon. Robert E. Wise, Jr., Hon. Major R. Owens, Hon. Edolphus Towns, Hon. Paul E. Kanjorski, Hon. Gary A. Condit, Hon. Caro- lyn B. Maloney, Hon. Thomas M. Barrett, Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton, Hon. Elijah E. Cummings, Hon. Rod R. Blagojevich, Hon. Danny K. Davis, Hon. John F. Tierney, Hon. Thomas H. Allen, and Hon. Harold E. Ford, Jr. .......................................................................................................................... 112 Union Calendar No. 469 105TH CONGRESS REPORT 2d Session HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 105±827 "! THE YEAR 2000 PROBLEM OCTOBER 26, 1998.ÐCommitted to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union and ordered to be printed Mr. BURTON of Indiana, from the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, submitted the following FOURTH REPORT On October 8, 1998, the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight approved and adopted a report entitled, ``The Year 2000 Problem.'' The chairman was directed to transmit a copy to the Speaker of the House. I. SUMMARY OF OVERSIGHT FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS A. INTRODUCTION The Committee on Government Reform and Oversight (the ``com- mittee'') has primary legislative and oversight jurisdiction with re- spect to the ``overall economy, efficiency and management of Gov- ernment operations and activities, including Federal procure- ment.'' 1 In addition: [T]he Committee on Government Reform and Oversight may at any time conduct investigations of any matter without regard to the provisions . conferring jurisdic- tion over such matter upon another standing committee. The committee's findings and recommendations in any such investigation shall be made available to the other standing committee or committees having jurisdiction over the matter involved.2 Pursuant to this authority, the Subcommittee on Government Management, Information, and Technology (the ``subcommittee'') convened an oversight hearing on April 16, 1996 to examine wheth- er computers throughout the Federal Government, the United 1 Rules of the House of Representatives, 105th Congress, X, 1(g)(6). 2 Rules of the House of Representatives, 105th Congress, X, 4(c)(2). 2 States, and the world would be able to handle the transition from the year 1999 to the year 2000. The subcommittee has continued this investigation throughout the 105th Congress. The potential problem, known as the Year 2000 problem or Y2K, is simple: In the 1960s, when large
Load more

Recommended publications
  • A Study of the Demand for Information Technology Professionals in Selected Internet Job Portals
    Journal of Information Systems Education, Vol 13(1) A Study of the Demand for Information Technology Professionals in Selected Internet Job Portals Kai S. Koong Lai C. Liu Computer Information Systems Southern University at New Orleans New Orleans, Louisiana 70126, USA Xia Liu FYI.Net, Incorporated Houston, Texas 77027, USA ABSTRACT The demand for information technology (IT) professionals has grown rapidly in the last decade. Parallel to this increasing need for IT personnel is the continuous change in the type of skills that are brought about by innovations in cutting edge technologies. However, the type of new IT skills and knowledge needed to keep companies competitive in the global market extend beyond the ability to apply the updated hardware and software to make business processes more efficient. Communication excellence and managerial expertise are just two of the other more commonly needed skills demanded by employers. This study identifies and classifies information technology related job listings that are disclosed in the databases of two leading e-recruiting services. Two secondary variables, written and oral communica- tions and experience, were also collected and examined in this study. The results of this research should be of interest to job seekers, human resources administrators, career counselors, corporate trainers, information systems consultants, labor attorneys, immigration and naturalization officers, and agency recruiters. Educators will find the outcomes of this study useful for the design and development of new curricula that can prepare students for the job market. Stu- dents will find this study particularly helpful since the trends identified in this research can have important implications for them in their selection of elective courses and in choosing a track for specialization.
    [Show full text]
  • Distributing Liability: the Legal and Political Battles of Y2K LSE Research Online URL for This Paper: Version: Accepted Version
    Distributing liability: the legal and political battles of Y2K LSE Research Online URL for this paper: http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/103330/ Version: Accepted Version Article: Mulvin, Dylan (2020) Distributing liability: the legal and political battles of Y2K. IEEE Annals of the History of Computing. ISSN 1058-6180 Reuse Items deposited in LSE Research Online are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved unless indicated otherwise. They may be downloaded and/or printed for private study, or other acts as permitted by national copyright laws. The publisher or other rights holders may allow further reproduction and re-use of the full text version. This is indicated by the licence information on the LSE Research Online record for the item. [email protected] https://eprints.lse.ac.uk/ Distributing Liability The legal and political battles of Y2K Dylan Mulvin* • Dylan Mulvin is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Media and Communications at the London School of Economics and Political Science – London, UK WC2A 2AE. E-mail: [email protected]. Abstract In 1999 the United States Congress passed the Y2K Act, a major—but temporary— effort at reshaping American tort law. The Act strictly limited the scope and applicability of lawsuits related to liability for the Year 2000 Problem. This paper excavates the process that led to the Act, including its unlikely signature by President Clinton. The history presented here is based on a reconsideration of the Y2K crisis as a major episode in the history of computing. The Act, and the Y2K crisis more broadly, expose the complex interconnections of software, code, and law at the end of the 20th century, and, taken seriously, argue for the appreciation of the role of liability in the history of technology.
    [Show full text]
  • The Year 2000 Problem
    Journal of International Information Management Volume 8 Issue 1 Article 9 1999 The year 2000 problem Marshal Whatley California State University, San Bernardino Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.lib.csusb.edu/jiim Part of the Management Information Systems Commons Recommended Citation Whatley, Marshal (1999) "The year 2000 problem," Journal of International Information Management: Vol. 8 : Iss. 1 , Article 9. Available at: https://scholarworks.lib.csusb.edu/jiim/vol8/iss1/9 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by CSUSB ScholarWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of International Information Management by an authorized editor of CSUSB ScholarWorks. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Whatley: The year 2000 problem The Year 2000 Problem Journal of International Infonnatioii^lanageme^ The year 2000 problem Marshal Whatley California State University, San Bernardino ABSTRACT The purpose of this article is to discuss the root causes of the Year 200 Problem, the effects of the problem and how a systematic approach can be used to solve this problem. INTRODUCTION The Year 2000 Problem (Y2K), also known as the 'millennium bug,' may well be one of the largest problems facing organizations as they enter the 21st century. Computers are an integral component of an organization, organically of equal importance as financial resources and human resources. An organization's information system is the base on which all strategic and informa­ tional processes are developed, defined, and redefined. Therefore, the Y2K problem is not just a computer problem, it is a systemic business problem. A systemic approach will be needed to solve this problem.
    [Show full text]
  • Social and Ethical Aspects of the Y2K Problem László Ropolyi
    Social and ethical aspects of the Y2K problem László Ropolyi [email protected] Originally presented at ETHICOMP 2001 Abstract It will be shown that the Year 2000 computer problem has three (a technical, a business related and a social) aspects. From the controversial tendencies of the independent and interconnected relationships of the problem a framework of the postmodern network society can be associated. The Year 2000 computer problem can be considered as a measurement of the postmodernity of the present societies. Introduction The Year 2000 computer problem (the Millennium Bug, Y2K Crisis, Time Bomb 2000, etc.) emerged from the common programmer's practice of the 1950s and 1960s that for representation of the year in computers they used two rather four digits. In that time this practice was reasonable and economic. [Fallows, 1999, Information] On the one hand according to the common opinion of the age the development and complete renew of computer software will be a very fast process, in this way within a few decades the two-digits representation of the year will be considered as the interplay of the forgotten past, on the other hand the computer memory and processing time was very expensive. However, if we compare these expectations to the real processes we will find the technological development run in a different way. The development of computer hardware was really very fast, but the relevant software changed and developed relatively slowly, and in many cases a version of the basically same, old software were used in the new computers even close to the Millennium, too.
    [Show full text]
  • Distributing Liability: the Legal and Political Battles of Y2K
    Theme Article: Computing and Capitalism Distributing Liability: The Legal and Political Battles of Y2K Dylan Mulvin London School of Economics and Political Science Abstract—In 1999 the United States Congress passed the Y2K Act, a major—but temporary—effort at reshaping American tort law. The Act strictly limited the scope and applicability of lawsuits related to liability for the Year 2000 Problem. This article excavates the process that led to the Act, including its unlikely signature by President Clinton. The history presented here is based on a reconsideration of the Y2K crisis as a major episode in the history of computing. The Act, and the Y2K crisis more broadly, expose the complex interconnections of software, code, and law at the end of the 20th century, and, taken seriously, argue for the appreciation of the role of liability in the history of technology. & It’s almost a betrayal. After being told for The United States’ “Y2K Act” of 1999 took years that technology is the path to a highly drastic steps to protect American companies evolved future, it’s come as something of a shock to discover that a computer system is from lawsuits related to the Year 2000 Problem not a shining city on a hill - perfect and ever (the “Y2K bug”).3 Among other changes, the new - but something more akin to an old Act gave all companies ninety days to solve any farmhouse built bit by bit over decades by Y2K malfunctions, capped punitive damages, and non-union carpenters.1 stipulated that legal and financial responsibility –– Ellen Ullman, “The Myth of Order” Wired, would have to be distributed proportionately April 1999 among any liable companies.
    [Show full text]
  • Is the Millennium Bug Really Just a Fly in the Ointment?
    Is the Millennium Bug Really Just a Fly in the Ointment? by G. Richard Fisher Y2K — only two letters and a with M. Kurt Goedelman mers will begin no later than 1999.’’2 number, but it has some churches, He also says that it is impossible to ministries and individual Christians make computers compliant. reeling with paranoia. This three- A FRIGHTENING PLOT LINE North has pressed his conspiracy character abbreviation simply stands Doomsday is just a few short theory ideas to the utmost degree. His for the year A.D. 2000. However, the months away, they say. This massive web site contains hundreds of articles fear and trepidation arise not so much shutdown will throw the world into warning of the impending dangers. from the ushering of a new millen- upheaval. Some have scenarios that He has further put his reputation on nium, but from what some say will be include the president declaring mar- the line: a computer apocalypse on Jan. 1, tial law or even the notion that these ‘‘I have been writing for over a 2000. failed computers will usher in Arma- year on this with all the skill I Due to enormous costs, at the ad- geddon, setting the stage for the have. I simply cannot get it vent of computers nearly 40 years Antichrist and the end. Most of the across to all of you or even to ago, software programmers conserved doomsday prognosticators have a most of you. I am never at a loss on memory and data storage by using book or program for sale on how to for words, but I am at a loss for only two digits for the year-date code.
    [Show full text]
  • Y2K Paranoia: Extremists Confront the Millenium
    Y2K Paranoia: Extremists Confront the Millenium This document is an archived copy of an older ADL report and may not reflect the most current facts or developments related to its subject matter. Y2K and the Apocalypse The year 2000, the start of a new millennium, is fast approaching. For certain religious groups that believe in an apocalyptic vision of the "End Times," this dramatic turn of the century signals tremendous upheaval in the world, a period when chaos will prevail. In particular, a small number of Christian evangelicals and fundamentalists believe that the Second Coming of Jesus will occur in 2000 and are thus looking for "signs" of the Last Days as prophesied in various books of the Old and New Testaments, including Revelation, Daniel, Ezekiel and Matthew. The year 2000 is also when many people expect the Y2K computer "bug" to cause worldwide problems, including the disruption of electricity, water services, food delivery, banking systems and transportation, leading to a complete breakdown in society. In the minds of certain Christian evangelicals, the Second Coming of Jesus and the upheaval related to the Y2K bug are inextricably linked -- the Y2K bug being a sure "sign" of the "Tribulation" predicted in the Christian Bible. The connection between the start of the millennium and the Y2K bug has led some far-right evangelicals to promote both anti-government and, in some cases, anti- Semitic theories and beliefs to support their vision of the End Times. It is important to note that the far-right Christian evangelicals who believe that the year 2000 signals the return of Jesus, and that the Federal Government and the Jews are somehow connected to the evil that will ensue at this time, are a small minority.
    [Show full text]
  • Full Report (PDF)
    Information Technology: The State Needs to Improve the Leadership and Management of Its Information Technology Efforts June 2001 BUREAU OF STATE AUDITS 2000-118 California State Auditor The first five copies of each California State Auditor report are free. Additional copies are $3 each, payable by check or money order. You can obtain reports by contacting the Bureau of State Audits at the following address: California State Auditor Bureau of State Audits 555 Capitol Mall, Suite 300 Sacramento, California 95814 (916) 445-0255 or TDD (916) 445-0255 x 216 OR This report may also be available on the World Wide Web http://www.bsa.ca.gov/bsa/ Alternate format reports available upon request. Permission is granted to reproduce reports. CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR ELAINE M. HOWLE STEVEN M. HENDRICKSON STATE AUDITOR CHIEF DEPUTY STATE AUDITOR June 27, 2001 2000-118 The Governor of California President pro Tempore of the Senate Speaker of the Assembly State Capitol Sacramento, California 95814 Dear Governor and Legislative Leaders: As requested by the Joint Legislative Audit Committee, the Bureau of State Audits presents its audit report concerning the State’s management of information technology (IT). This report concludes that the Department of Information Technology (DOIT), which is responsible for overseeing the State’s efforts to plan, develop, and manage IT, needs to provide stronger leadership and guidance to departments as they develop new IT projects. Additionally, DOIT has not sufficiently addressed other responsibilities such as completing a statewide inventory of projects to assist in the coordination of similar IT efforts and to enhance its oversight, releasing technical standards that establish common rules for IT projects, and consistently using state-mandated advisory councils to provide input on its operations.
    [Show full text]
  • Iipsinternational Conference
    助成 Institute for International Policy Studies ・Tokyo・ IIPS International Conference “The IT Revolution and Security Challenges” Tokyo December 10-11, 2002 “Dealing with Security Challenges of the Impact of IT” by Olivia Bosch Visiting Fellow (Information Technology) International Institute for Strategic Studies UK IIPS Conference on “The IT Revolution and Security Challenges” 10-11 December 2002, Tokyo, Japan Session 2: The Transformation of National Security and Cyber Terrorism “Dealing with Security Challenges of the Impact of IT by Olivia Bosch In examining the impact of a revolution, or evolution, a significant factor is the degree to which the resulting transformations become absorbed and institutionalised, whether in government, industry or other sectors of society. The focus here is to explore where such processes are taking place to deal with security challenges arising from the seemingly rapid developments that have occurred in information technology (IT) particularly in the last decade. An IT revolution was expected in the mid 1970s when there were calls for a “new world information and communication order”, but that appeared not to have resulted as expected. During the 1990s there have been renewed claims for another “IT revolution” yet it, too, remains unclear in its progress given recognition of a global “digital divide”. Technology is not always implemented as quickly as expectations or market projections suggest. Nevertheless, new IT has been implemented in economic and defence sectors as well as more widely throughout societies. These have occurred variably in different countries pending factors such as GNP, literacy and skills for learning about IT, and the industrial or economic infrastructure to facilitate new economies.
    [Show full text]
  • Message of the Secretary of Defense
    1999 ADR TABLE OF CONTENTS MESSAGE OF THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE PART I: Strategy CHAPTER 1 - THE DEFENSE STRATEGY CHAPTER 2 - THE MILITARY REQUIREMENTS OF THE DEFENSE STRATEGY PART II: Today’s Armed Forces CHAPTER 3 - STRUCTURING U.S. FORCES TO IMPLEMENT THE DEFENSE STRATEGY CHAPTER 4 - READINESS CHAPTER 5 - CONVENTIONAL FORCES CHAPTER 6 - STRATEGIC NUCLEAR FORCES AND MISSILE DEFENSES CHAPTER 7 - INFORMATION SUPERIORITY AND SPACE CHAPTER 8 - TOTAL FORCE INTEGRATION CHAPTER 9 - PERSONNEL AND QUALITY OF LIFE PART III: Transforming U.S. Armed Forces for the 21st Century CHAPTER 10 - THE REVOLUTION IN MILITARY AFFAIRS AND JOINT VISION 2010 CHAPTER 11 - NEW OPERATIONAL CONCEPTS CHAPTER 12 - TRANSFORMATION PART IV: Transforming the Department of Defense for the 21st Century CHAPTER 13 - DEFENSE REFORM INITIATIVE CHAPTER 14 - FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT REFORM CHAPTER 15 - ACQUISITION REFORM CHAPTER 16 - INFRASTRUCTURE CHAPTER 17 - INDUSTRIAL CAPABILITIES AND INTERNATIONAL PROGRAMS PART V: The FY 2000 Defense Budget and Future Years Defense Program CHAPTER 18 - THE FY 2000 DEFENSE BUDGET AND FUTURE YEARS DEFENSE PROGRAM PART VI: Statutory Reports Report of the Secretary of the Army Report of the Secretary of the Navy Report of the Secretary of the Air Force Report of the Chairman of the Reserve Forces Policy Board APPENDICES A. DoD Organizational Charts B. Budget Tables C. Personnel Tables D. Force Structure Tables E. Goldwater–Nichols Act Implementation Report F. Defense Acquisition Workforce Improvement Report G. Personnel Readiness Factors by Race and Gender H. National Security and the Law of the Sea Convention I. Freedom of Navigation J. Government Performance and Results Act K. Information Technology Management Goals L.
    [Show full text]
  • Use Style: Paper Title
    ASDF India Proceedings of the Intl. Conf. on Innovative trends in Electronics Communication and Applications 2014 211 Year 2038 Problem: Y2K38 S.N.Rawoof Ahamed, V.Saran Raj. Department of Information Technology, Dhanalakshmi College of Engineering, Tambaram,Manimangalam, Chennai Abstract Our world has been facing many problems but few seemed to be more dangerous. The most famous bug was Y2K. Then Y2K10 somehow, these two were resolved. Now we are going to face Y2K38 bug. This bug will affect most embedded systems and other systems also which use signed 32 bit format for representing the date and time. From 1,january,1970 the number of seconds represented as signed 32 bit format.Y2K38 problem occurs on 19,january,2038 at 03:14:07 UTC (Universal Coordinated Time).After this time all bits will be starts from first i.e. the date will change again to 1,january,1970. There are no proper solutions for this problem. Index Terms-signed 32 bit integer, time_t, Y2K, Y2K38. I. INTRODUCTION In the year2038,there may be a problem which causes all software and systems that both store system time as a signed 32-bit integer, and interpret this number as the number of seconds since 00:00:00 UTC on Thursday, 1 January 1970. The time is represented in this way 03:14:07 UTCedlib.asdf.res.in.On Tuesday, 19 January 2038 (2147483647 seconds after January 1st, 1970) the times beyond this moment will "wrap around" and be stored internally as a negative number, which these systems will interpret as a date in December 13, 1901 rather than January 19, 2038.
    [Show full text]
  • Bern Porter International: Volume 3 Number 1 (February ,1999)
    Colby College Digital Commons @ Colby Newsletters Bern Porter Collection of Contemporary Letters 2-1999 Bern Porter International: Volume 3 Number 1 (February ,1999) Bern Porter Sheila Holtz Natasha Bernstein Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.colby.edu/porter_newsletters Part of the American Literature Commons, Art Practice Commons, and the Poetry Commons Recommended Citation Porter, Bern; Holtz, Sheila; and Bernstein, Natasha, "Bern Porter International: Volume 3 Number 1 (February ,1999)" (1999). Newsletters. 9. https://digitalcommons.colby.edu/porter_newsletters/9 This Book is brought to you for free and open access by the Bern Porter Collection of Contemporary Letters at Digital Commons @ Colby. It has been accepted for inclusion in Newsletters by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ Colby. •t�tt f)o�tt� Jutt�uatioual A Literary Newsletter andBulletin of the Institute forAdvanced Thinking Volume 3, Number 1 February 1999 Cover Price: $2.50 .... ...... ...... ....... ....... ....... ...... ...... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ....... ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ , ....... ...•..•.• ..•.•..•. ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ..•...... ......... ...•..... ...•..... ..•.•...• ....•.•.. ......... ........ ........ ........ ........ ......... ......... , ........ ......... II ......... ......... ......... ......... ...•..... ......... .......
    [Show full text]