greenspun.com : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) Deleted Thread : One Thread


(Why wait for it to be deleated?)

greenspun.com : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread

London, The Times:

Micheal Hyatt (www.michaelhyatt.com) on his "glichlist", links to today's story in the London Times, reporting that the English registry computer system is recording "thousands" of infants born since the rollover as born in 1900' but 17 days later remains unable to print birth certificates for the current year. Problem does not affect Wales or Scotland, but if uncorrected could affect actuarial tables and mortality rates nationwide.

-- Squirrel Hunter (nuts@upina.tree), January 17, 2000


Squirrel Hunter,

How long would it take to screw up the actuarial tables?

Obviously, this has turned out to be a problem requiring more than the proverbial "three day snowstorm" to fix ... but I have this image of actuaries producing their tables on an annual basis, rather than some kind of on- line, real-time activity...


-- Ed Yourdon (ed@yourdon.com), January 17, 2000.

Squirrel Hunter, Thanks for the post! Very interesting.

Dee =)

-- Dee (T1Colt556@aol.com), January 17, 2000.

Poor little babies--100 years old, yet whatt have they seen of life?

-- Mara (MaraWayne@aol.com), January 17, 2000.

I thought they resided at 1600 Penn. Blvd. ?

-- Squid (ItsDark@down.here), January 17, 2000.

Govt pension checks should start showing up soon. Maybe they can save 'em for college.

-- Carlos (riffraff1@cybertime.net), January 17, 2000.

The Queen must be wondering why she's so busy sending out telegrams. (You receive one from her if you make it to 100 yrs.)

-- Gia (laureltree7@hotmail.com), January 18, 2000.

Wow -- Ed Yourdon to Squirrel Hunter! This is like being addresse by God, Creator of All Things (on the forum). My knees quaketh. Appreciate your efforts Ed, even if we all do get it wrong in the end. Ed, I was speaking tongue-in-nut-filled-cheek on the tables and mortality rates. In any case, according to the Times, evidently the internal birth records at the registry are accurate; it's only the printing feature that's dropped a century.

Best wishes for the Ew Year


-- Squirrel Hunter (nuts@upina.tree), January 18, 2000.

Thousands of newborn babies have been listed officially as 100 years old. Computers at English register offices are refusing to recognise the year as 2000 and are printing 1900 on birth certificates.

The millennium bug in computer software has meant that staff are writing birth certificates by hand with a promise to parents that a printed certificate will be sent later. New software is being sent to all 382 register offices.

A spokesman for the Office for National Statistics said last night: "We have found a problem with the software which was affecting the date. It has meant that printed birth certificates have not been available. Births are still being collated in each register office's main records book, but a copy cannot be printed on the computer."

The problem has not affected offices in Wales and Scotland, which have different systems. With an average of more than 600,000 births in England a year, the problem could have affected registrations of 25,000 babies in the first two weeks of this month.

(London Times)

-- Risteard Mac Thomais (uachtaran@ireland.com), January 18, 2000.

Geeze Ed, better have this removed, you jumped on it like a thirsty man on water, just to have your "big words" turn around and bite you, once again.

-- Cherri (sams@brigadoon.com), January 18, 2000.

-- Cherri (sams@brigadoon.com), January 18, 2000

Moderation questions? read the FAQ