|
|
Department of Computing Science
With all the media hype, it’s hard to ignore the dreaded year 2000 problem. We’re barraged with updates, few (if any) of them positive. And we can expect this (mis)information to accelerate as we count down towards midnight, Dec. 31, 1999.
If you have been listening to these stories (and my hope is that you have not), you might be worried. After all, some of these stories portray an apocalyptic future. Should you be afraid? What is fact? What is fiction?
The year 2000 problem (often referred to by the acronym Y2K) is deceptively simple. Thirty to 40 years ago computer programmers took shortcuts with dates: they represented them with the last two digits of the year instead of the full four digits. Hence, 1999 became "99" and 2000 becomes "00." And, since many software packages used the date to sort data, the year 2000 now looks like the year 1900. Suddenly, payments owed in the year 2000 look like they haven’t been paid in 100 years.
What caused this problem? It seems silly to have taken a shortcut when the real solution (using four digit dates) is so obvious. But not so long ago computer memory was very expensive. Instead of the few dollars one pays for a megabyte (millions of bytes) today, a megabyte cost thousands, even hundreds of thousands of dollars, only a few decades ago. Many systems were limited by memory, so programmers took shortcuts to make everything work. Second, no one imagined software written 30-40 years ago would still be around today. At the dawn of the computer age, machines were the expensive component and software was "cheap." The industry quickly realized that it was, in fact, the other way around. People resources were (and still are) very expensive, so one did not rewrite a million-lines-of-code program on a whim.
Finally, because some of this code is so old, most of the people who designed and implemented these programs are gone, the documentation is scant, the programming tools used are obsolete (if they even still exist), and everyone is afraid to touch the program. If it’s not broken, then don’t fix it. That worked well for a long time, but not any more. You have two programming choices: fix it or rewrite it.
Most organizations and business have been aware of the problem for many years and are spending a small fortune addressing the problem well in advance of the deadline. If they do not fix it, the consequences to them could be fatal. Imagine being a bank in Jan. 2000 if none of your customers can access their money because of a Y2K bug. I suspect most customers would switch their accounts to another bank pretty quickly after they’d stormed the doors to get their money out.
Despite many responsible people working on this problem, over the span of a few weeks I heard the following media reports:
- The U.S. military worries the Y2K bug could result in false information that could lead to the launch of a nuclear missile.
- An "expert" predicts the financial markets will collapse triggering a prolonged global depression.
- The Canadian military and local police plan to mobilize and cancel all leaves for the first quarter of the year 2000.
- Citizens fear there will be no electrical power on Jan. 1, 2000, and for months after.
- Alberta considers closing schools for the first few weeks of Jan. 2000 as a precaution against possible problems.
So, why are we hearing all these stories that, deliberately or not, are scaring the average person? It is a sad commentary on society that bad news is news. Reassurance is not. Hence many media outlets have bombarded us with the latest dire predictions on the Y2K problem. None of them report on the reality that most things will work, come the next millennium.
In my opinion, the media hype about the year 2000 problem borders on fear-mongering. The media have a responsibility to present a balanced picture of the situation. To date, alas, this is not happening. Lots of responsible people are working on the Y2K problem and, undoubtedly, most will succeed well in advance of the deadline. When the clock strikes midnight on Dec. 31, 1999, a few systems will fail. But it is too early to know which ones and how serious that will be. So, until the picture clears, relax.
Do not misinterpret my words: the Y2K problem is very serious. However, I believe most government and business organizations are responsibly addressing it.
So, what are my plans for midnight on Dec. 31, 1999? No, I am not stockpiling supplies. Nor am I buying a power generator or looking for space in a nuclear bomb shelter. I plan to enjoy one helluva party at the stroke of midnight, without any fear of what the future might hold.
Folio front page |
Office of Public Affairs |
University of Alberta |