Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?
Unix Operating Systems Software

date +%s Turning 1111111111 574

initsix writes "Break out your party hats. According to , Unix time is supposed reach 1111111111 on Fri, 18 Mar 2005 01:58:31 GMT That's only 1036372537 seconds from 2^31 (ie Tue, 19 Jan 2038 03:14:08 GMT)!!"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

date +%s Turning 1111111111

Comments Filter:
  • by Faust7 ( 314817 ) on Thursday March 17, 2005 @02:42PM (#11967375) Homepage
    1) Bored Unix programmer visits the Unix time conversion website and enters in "1111111111" for shits and giggles.

    2) Bored Unix programmer sees that this is equivalent to just a little while from now.

    3) Bored Unix programmer tosses around a few more numbers and submits the story to Slashdot.

    4) Story becomes Slashdot front-page news.
  • Fake Nerds (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Doc Ruby ( 173196 ) on Thursday March 17, 2005 @02:48PM (#11967447) Homepage Journal
    Geeks are "fake freaks": freaks by choice, not by nature. Now we've got a horde of Slashdotters talking about how this timestamp story is interesting only if you're really "bored", or have "too much time ;) on your hands". Of course this story is interesting to nerds, who are preternaturally aware that we've got a "Y2K38" event coming up, when all the 32bit timestamps roll over to another epoch. But all these high-numbered posers, whining about how irrelevant or how hard it is to to understand this timeframe, are fake nerds. What is the word for that?
  • by noidentity ( 188756 ) on Thursday March 17, 2005 @03:36PM (#11968178)
    (by that time, we will all have at least 64-bit systems, but still a cause for concern, read the link)

    The number of bits a CPU can natively operate on data has little relevance on the problems due to representing dates with too few bits. It all depends on the programming interface and storage format. If you use an outdated (hah) API on a 256-bit CPU, you'll still have a YnK problem.
  • by noidentity ( 188756 ) on Thursday March 17, 2005 @03:40PM (#11968252)
    Whatever makes 1111111111 interesting is probably the same thing that makes people think that the series of random bits 111111 is less random than 101001 or 011001 etc.
  • Re:Eh... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Just Some Guy ( 3352 ) <> on Thursday March 17, 2005 @03:42PM (#11968281) Homepage Journal
    After reading further down in the article and seeing about 15 variations on my witty and original comment that were posted before I wrote it, I wish to officially withdraw my previous post.


  • by TheAwfulTruth ( 325623 ) on Thursday March 17, 2005 @03:44PM (#11968305) Homepage
    Actually, My prediction is the opposite:


    The only reason that the y2k computer problem was such a media event is because the year 2000 was such a media event. People were expecting the world to end, the y2k computer bug fit neatly into that hysteria.

    There is nothing about 2038 that will grab media attention. So no boob tube watchers will ever know anything about the date rollover problem.

    Then, because there will be no public panic about it, it won't be taken seriously by the PHBs and no matter how much the coders scream about it, no money will be given to the project and it will end up being a much bigger problem than y2k turned out to be.


  • by narcc ( 412956 ) on Thursday March 17, 2005 @04:26PM (#11968814) Journal
    People attach meaning to numbers -- perhaps technical people make more of a habbit out of it, but I digress -- what makes 1111111111 interesting? Possibly its aesthetic appeal. It's got nothing to do with randomness. Don't you get excited when your car rolls over to 100000 miles? It's somthing simple and nice -- and well worth taking pleasure in.

    I like the number 219. There isn't anything special about it -- It's just happens to be one of my favorite ascii characters. (The solid block one.) I stayed in hotel room 219 just yesterday and felt good about having that room number.

    Lot's of people attach meaning to the number 42. There isn't anything wrong with that.

    Some people find powers of 2 appealing -- imagine driving route 256 -- how cool would that be?

    Gamblers may have some attraction or aversion to the numbers 7 and 13 -- some might get a good feeling seeing hte number 21.

    Finding an old girlfriends phone number can be nice -- it let's you remember.

    I don't know if you have any numbers that are significant in your life -- But I know I do! I don't think I'd want it any other way.

    You have to learn to enjoy those small meaningful things -- or you'll miss the whole point of living -- I don't mean the meaning of life, mind you, but the meaning in life.
  • Re:Eh... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by letxa2000 ( 215841 ) on Thursday March 17, 2005 @06:30PM (#11970078)
    "1111111111" is cool and all, but won't it be even more cool when we get to "2222222222?" :)
  • by FangVT ( 144970 ) on Thursday March 17, 2005 @07:08PM (#11970375) Homepage
    I like the number 219. There isn't anything special about it -- It's just happens to be one of my favorite ascii characters.
    ASCII only goes to 127.

    At this point I'd like to make some witty rejoinder about embrace and extend, but it's just not worth the effort.

  • Re:Next Party (Score:3, Insightful)

    by jc42 ( 318812 ) on Thursday March 17, 2005 @07:24PM (#11970519) Homepage Journal
    It will, just not on the computer you're using right now :-)

    One place the unix timestamp has made it into literature is in Vernor Vinge's "Deep" books: A Fire Upon the Deep, and A Deepness in the Sky. In the latter, there are a number of uses of a "day" onboard their starship that is 100,000 seconds long, and was based on a semi-mythical OS on early computers 8,000 years earlier, back before humans left their original planet and spread out into the galaxy. They routinely use kiloseconds as the main division of the day.

    The size of the second count isn't a problem, of course, because nobody builds 32-bit computers then. If fact, we probably won't be making them by the time the second count reaches 2^32. I wonder how many old 32-bit machines will still be operational by then?

    (Probably a lot of them, and they'll all still be running Fortran and Cobol programs. ;-)

  • by Dolda2000 ( 759023 ) <fredrik@dol d a 2 0 0 0 . c om> on Thursday March 17, 2005 @10:46PM (#11971964) Homepage
    Grandparent post:
    At this point I'd like to make some witty rejoinder about embrace and extend, but it's just not worth the effort.
    ASCII Extended Character Set -- Also known as IBM codepage 437. Sure, IBM != Microsoft, but since IBM PC == Microsoft (at least almost), that point is rather moot.
  • by Random832 ( 694525 ) on Friday March 18, 2005 @01:50AM (#11973045)
    No such thing. ASCII is iso 646 - neither 8859-1, nor cp1252, nor cp437 hold the right to the title "ascii".

"It takes all sorts of in & out-door schooling to get adapted to my kind of fooling" - R. Frost