Date disaster in 30 year's time?
in [UK Mac]
|
Prev: iTunes - sync Gmail contacts ?
Next: Bookmark Syncing
From: Peter Ceresole on 4 Mar 2010 05:36 R <me32(a)privacy.net> wrote: > > Well, checking Palm desktop running (very nicely) under OS10.4.11, in > > mid-Feb 2040 it wraps round to 1904. > > That's true of real time, too. Physicists haven't noticed. They probably have- or they've seen it but not understood the significance... I absolutely love entanglement, for instance, which proves that we really haven't got a handle on what our universe is like. And quantum physics; superposition, which is real and observable, or rather not observable but viewable on the phenomenological level and can't be avoided. I love the fact that the more we discover, the more we see that, as creatures that evolved to survive on earth by hunting and finding shelter, and *nothing* more, we may not be capable of understanding our universe, ever. What could be more fascinating? -- Peter
From: Rowland McDonnell on 4 Mar 2010 13:20 David Kennedy <davidkennedy(a)nospamherethankyou.invalid> wrote: > Adrian Tuddenham wrote: [snip] > > Does this apply to all the other applications on OS8.6 which use the OS > > to calculate the date ? Is OSX any different? It might be even worse: <http://www.deepsky.com/~merovech/2038.html> - then again, why not use a 64 bit integer for the date? Apple seems to have thought of that one: "So far, the few operating systems that I haven't found susceptible to the 2038 bug include very new versions of Unix and Linux ported to 64-bit platforms. Recent versions of QNX seems to take the temporal transition in stride." Admittedly, this'll cause problems for software expecting a 32 bit integer to be returned by the date function (if not now, then when the rollover happens), but at least it's an easy enough mod to cope with if the software happens still to be in maintenance or development. > Are you still planning to be using Claris Works in 30 years time? Shows > a remarkable level of confidence in Apple products expecting your > machine to keep working on a daily basis for 40 years. Sheepshaver permits MacOS 8.6 to be run on Intel hardware. <http://sheepshaver.cebix.net/> Rowland. -- Remove the animal for email address: rowland.mcdonnell(a)dog.physics.org Sorry - the spam got to me http://www.mag-uk.org http://www.bmf.co.uk UK biker? Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking
From: Rowland McDonnell on 4 Mar 2010 13:43 Peter Ceresole <peter(a)cara.demon.co.uk> wrote: > R <me32(a)privacy.net> wrote: > > > > Well, checking Palm desktop running (very nicely) under OS10.4.11, in > > > mid-Feb 2040 it wraps round to 1904. > > > > That's true of real time, too. Physicists haven't noticed. > > They probably have- or they've seen it but not understood the > significance... No-one understands time, not yet. Hell, no-one understand gravity and it's a damned sight easier to investigate than time. > I absolutely love entanglement, for instance, which proves that we > really haven't got a handle on what our universe is like. I think you'll find that a lot of modern quantum mechanics are getting there these days, or at least, getting a handle on the next stage - none of them are daft enough to think that the next stage is the last one. Once upon a time, Richard Feynmann's point that anyone who thinks they understand quantum mechanics, doesn't - that was true. But since I left university in 1990, an awful lot of new thinking has turned up and I have an idea that the old cop-out Copenhagen interpretation (grossly simplified: `Stop talking and do the maths') isn't going to last much longer. The thing is, anyone who's thinks they're barking up the right tree in interpreting "what `reality' `really' `is'" sounds like a lunatic who's been at the LSD - when heard by normal people. Certainly, the ideas expressed by modern physicists does result in them meeting most of the tick-boxes for a diagnosis of psychotic. I can't follow the detail, but I do find the battles fascinating to read about. Einsteinian relativity is due to be shot down in flames any day now - but I'd not bet on what'll replace it. There's the string theorists and the Modified Newtonian Dynamics crowd both with a case that's looking more and more testable every day. .... which means it'll be something else that turns up and takes over, I'll bet. > And quantum > physics; superposition, which is real and observable, or rather not > observable but viewable on the phenomenological level and can't be > avoided. Some say it's just a projection of `what's really going on' onto `what we are capable of perceiving' - and what's really going on' is something deeper and /currently/ totally out of our capacity to investigate. > I love the fact that the more we discover, the more we see that, as > creatures that evolved to survive on earth by hunting and finding > shelter, and *nothing* more, <puzzled> At what stage of human evolution are you setting your measurement point? Because that does not apply to the first forms of life on planet Earth. They had no way of hunting or finding shelter. And before modern humans can into existence, our evolutionary ancestors had an interest in personal adornment - which indicates to me that they evolved to be creatures with interests other than the basics of survival that you note. >we may not be capable of understanding our > universe, ever. Physicists had mostly accepted that point before I was born - the idea that the universe was comprehensibly only turned up as mainstream European thought in the 18th century, you know. Come the end of the 19th century, various eminent physicists (notably Lord Kelvin) thought that physics was all over barring better measurements to nail down the constants and things like that. Einstein blew away *that* idea in 1905. btw, Albert's idea that `God does not play dice with the universe' - i.e., quantum mechanics is Certainly Wrong Because That's Not How It Works, I Just Know - might have something to it after all. There are interesting speculations that the apparently really strange QM stuff we observe isn't at all as random as we think and all of that QM strangeness wouldn't look at all weird if only we could work it out. > What could be more fascinating? Why do you think people go into physics? To explore something that'll never be fully explored, of course. There's no end to the possibilities - unless the wilder ideas of the avante-garde SF writers like H.G. Wells and Arthur C. Clarke turn out to have something to them. And in case you're wondering, I'm talking about the idea that we're going to evolve (or evolve ourselves, or be evolved) into something that you might as well call `gods'. Why? Well, maybe the point of universes is to be god incubators/eggs/whatnot - created by other gods so they could have someone else to talk to. No dafter than any other idea. Rowland. -- Remove the animal for email address: rowland.mcdonnell(a)dog.physics.org Sorry - the spam got to me http://www.mag-uk.org http://www.bmf.co.uk UK biker? Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking
From: Rowland McDonnell on 4 Mar 2010 13:45 Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote: > R <me32(a)privacy.net> wrote: > > > Richard Tobin <richard(a)cogsci.ed.ac.uk> wrote: > > > > > Unix uses the number of seconds since Jan 1 1970. It traditionally > > > stores this in a 32-bit signed integer, which will overflow in > > > 2038. Presumably this will have changed to a 64-bit integer long before > > > then. > > > > I'm running the 64-bit kernel. Would that use 64-bit time? > > The Project 2038 Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) > > <http://www.deepsky.com/~merovech/2038.html#What_operating_systems_and_p > latforms_are_affected_by_it> > > Has an answer. No, I'm stupid and mis-read it. It doesn't. Sorry. Rowland. -- Remove the animal for email address: rowland.mcdonnell(a)dog.physics.org Sorry - the spam got to me http://www.mag-uk.org http://www.bmf.co.uk UK biker? Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking
From: Rowland McDonnell on 4 Mar 2010 13:46
Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote: > David Kennedy <davidkennedy(a)nospamherethankyou.invalid> wrote: > > > Adrian Tuddenham wrote: > [snip] > > > > Does this apply to all the other applications on OS8.6 which use the OS > > > to calculate the date ? Is OSX any different? > > It might be even worse: > > <http://www.deepsky.com/~merovech/2038.html> > > - then again, why not use a 64 bit integer for the date? > > Apple seems to have thought of that one: > > "So far, the few operating systems that I haven't found susceptible to > the 2038 bug include very new versions of Unix and Linux ported to > 64-bit platforms. Recent versions of QNX seems to take the temporal > transition in stride." Not Apple. I read QNX as OSX due to a brain fart. Rowland. -- Remove the animal for email address: rowland.mcdonnell(a)dog.physics.org Sorry - the spam got to me http://www.mag-uk.org http://www.bmf.co.uk UK biker? Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking |