Originally posted by ~Wålshy~
why is 2029 doomsday?
It's 2038, not 2029. And it's due to a computer programming error that will cause the internal clocks of all computers with 32-bit internal clocks (i.e. all computers other than supercomputers) to overflow and cause erroneous calculations, or simply crash.
Originally posted by Agent Whiteshock
It's 2038, not 2029. And it's due to a computer programming error that will cause the internal clocks of all computers with 32-bit internal clocks (i.e. all computers other than supercomputers) to overflow and cause erroneous calculations, or simply crash.
or is that just something from the matrix?
It's caused by the amount of memory assigned to the internal clock, which measures time as seconds that have passed since January 1, 1970. These seconds are counted in the binary decimal system.
For example:
00000000 00000000 00000000 00000001 = January 1, 1970, 00:00:01
00000000 00000000 00000000 00000010 = January 1, 1970, 00:00:02
00000000 00000000 00000000 00000011 = January 1, 1970, 00:00:03
Originally posted by Agent White
It's 2038, not 2029. And it's due to a computer programming error that will cause the internal clocks of all computers with 32-bit internal clocks (i.e. all computers other than supercomputers) to overflow and cause erroneous calculations, or simply crash.
Now, the problem is, on January 19, 2038, at 3:14:08 (Greenwich Mean Time), the binary counting will roll over from a zero followed by 31 ones to a one followed by 31 zeroes.
I.e.:
01111111 11111111 11111111 11111110 = January 19, 2038, 03:14:06
01111111 11111111 11111111 11111111 = January 19, 2038, 03:14:07
10000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 = January 19, 2038, 03:14:08
Originally posted by Slay
Doesn't matter though. By that time I'm 51, my life will be over anyway.
Well, that's slightly pessimistic.
Now, the problem with the binary becoming 10000000 00000000 00000000 0000000 is that the first digit in the binary (i.e., what until 2038 had been a zero, and only suddenly becomes a one) is a digit that controls whether the rest of the number is positive or negative (i.e. positive=seconds after 1970, negative=seconds before 1970). Since the zero (representing positive) becomes a one (representing negative), the computer interprets the time not as 2038, which it actually is, but rather the same number of seconds that would, after 1970, equal 2038, but instead before 1970, equaling 1901.
So suddenly, computers believe the time is December 13, 1901, 20:45:52. This can mean one of two things:
A: Everything automated and controlled by computers will think the time is different than it actually is, resulting in incorrect calculations on automated systems' parts.
B: All the computers simply crash as a result of the incorrect date.
Originally posted by Agent White
So suddenly, computers believe the time is December 13, 1901, 20:45:52. This can mean one of two things:A: Everything automated and controlled by computers will think the time is different than it actually is, resulting in incorrect calculations on automated systems' parts.
B: All the computers simply crash as a result of the incorrect date.
Originally posted by Slay
Sounds comparable to Y2K though. Like back then, this problem is probably just overstated and won't make for much trouble. And even if it will, there's no use worrying about it now. For us at least.
It actually is quite similar to Y2K, though there's no easy fix for this short of replacing all 32-bit clocks with 64-bit clocks, meaning fixing every computer in the world.
And unlike Y2K, which was a "maybe" situation, this problem is a "yes or no" situation. There's no "maybe" in mathematical representations of memory. The time will go from:
01111111 11111111 11111111 11111111
to
10000000 00000000 00000000 00000000
Though there's no telling what trouble this may cause.
Originally posted by Agent White
And unlike Y2K, which was a "maybe" situation, this problem is a "yes or no" situation. There's no "maybe" in mathematical representations of memory.
Also, what Ax3l said.
Originally posted by Agent WhiteI think we should have a fix in 30 years, don't you? I mean, it seems like more than enough time to fix something as major as that. I don't know about you but I get a new computer ever 4 years just to keep up with the constantly growing technology. If someone has a computer for 30 years, damn, that's insanely old technology.
Yes, but current embedded systems (such as mainframes, etc.) may still survive to then. Plus, if our new computers keep building upon older legacy systems, we may still have 32-bit clocks by then.
This is all my opinion, though. I don't know what you all do with your computers and shit.
Originally posted by Ax3lBut yeah, if this came to more peoples attention, I think they'd be more aware of it and would find a higher drive to fix it and to select a new system and not just build off the old ones.
I think we should have a fix in 30 years, don't you? I mean, it seems like more than enough time to fix something as major as that. I don't know about you but I get a new computer ever 4 years just to keep up with the constantly growing technology. If someone has a computer for 30 years, damn, that's insanely old technology.This is all my opinion, though. I don't know what you all do with your computers and shit.
Originally posted by Ax3l
I think we should have a fix in 30 years, don't you? I mean, it seems like more than enough time to fix something as major as that. I don't know about you but I get a new computer ever 4 years just to keep up with the constantly growing technology. If someone has a computer for 30 years, damn, that's insanely old technology.This is all my opinion, though. I don't know what you all do with your computers and shit.
The difference that you speak of is between personal computers and mainframe computers/embedded systems. Personal computers are the ones replaced every few years, but mainframes and large computer systems are not.