Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Technology

China's innovative solution to y2k problems! 36

Posted by sengan from the ok-to-fly-but-what-about-landing??? dept.
marcus writes "China has given its airline bosses the ultimate incentive to solve the "Millennium bomb" computer problem by ordering them to take a flight on New Year's day 2000. Update: 01/15 07:11 by S : Well apparently this was a joke which got misreported: Markus Peter writes "Zhang Qi, responsible for y2k problems in China, told the news that an employee of CAAC (chinese airlines) suggested this as a joke to her working group and it somehow leaked to the news" (translation of the german link above). Well, I don't know about you, but I thought that was a good example of really assuming full responsability... they can't chicken out now can they ? ;-)
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

China's innovative solution to y2k problems! More

China's innovative solution to y2k problems!

Comments Filter:

  • an interesting idea (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Crazy? It's great! If the problem is indeed solved, then the execs should have nothing to fear, and so they should think nothing of it. The should only fear the flight if they have reason to believe their lives are in danger.

    Too bad I already know I won't have the day off on NYD. I'll be at work, making sure s**t stays up and running.
  • No, that's the lunar calendar that has the weird date - for all practical purposes they're using the same calendar as the rest of the world. Its just that they have a holiday (kinda like thanksgiving, but not) where they celebrate the _other_ new year.

  • I thought china had a different calander and was on 4273 or something like that (the number above was made up, though I think the 4 is right)

    Not that it particularrly matters, the average US plane is 20 years old or something like that. Pilots are trained to fly them without engines, (Yes, they fly without engines, If you can't find an airport within gliding distance you buy some farmers crops for the year, or ditch in the water. All of the above recovery techniques have been used by real pilots in real plans, and with most or all of the passangers living. SO long as the plane doesn't explode, which it shouldn't they will be fine. There also exist uncontrolled airports where pilots decide without a tower who lands/takes off when, carry a hand held radio (most pilots have them, at least in small aircraft) though there are enough backups on most planes that I wouldn't worry.

    2000 won't come in without comptuer porblems. However the ones that people really worry about were unlikely even without any fixes. (Nuclear bombs for instance probably wouldn't launch becuase the comptuers that control the launch can also be affected - command a crashed comptuer to launch a bomb and no bomb is launched.

  • RE point 2: That was my point. the airplane will work, or at least there is no reason to belive it won't.

  • I would think that the *safety* of air travel on
    Jan 1, 2000 would be 'safer' than being on the
    ground. (Let's ignore the logistics of flight
    scheduling, seating, luggage, etc, that are affected
    by the economic side of y2k). The key thing here
    is the air traffic control system - I know that
    the US system is either due or recently loops on
    it's internal clock, and while not on Y2K, it's a similar
    problem with digit placeholders. Secondly, unless
    they are stupid, i'd think that if there are any time-based chips or operators in a plane, they would be ignorant of the date, and thus, not y2k affected. Of course, this part I'm not sure about, but reportly, plane safety is a non-y2k concern. (Just getting to your plane, on the other hand...)
  • Compulsion. "You must do this". If my government told me to do that, I'd tell them where to go. But then, I live in a democracy (...at the moment).
  • The reason being, there isn't room for all the aeroplanes in the world to be grounded at the same time. There have to be a large number airborne all the time.
  • That reminds me of a conversation I had with a Russian programmer. I said if we built bridges like we build software I'd never cross a river. He had been trained at first as a civil engineer, and said in Russia when they built a bridge they made the heads of the construction company stand underneath it - while they rolled tanks and trucks overhead! NO bad concrete in those babies!
  • Admiral Rickover, mastermind behind the US nuclear submarine program, used to require the head engineers for a sub to go on it's first dive. Same theory behind QA. If their life *is* put on the line, they'll be a little more careful.
  • I appreciate all of the training and planning that the courageous pilots go through for my safety and well being but I'd prefer that all landings that I am involved in use engines and runways.
    As a matter of fact I insist.

  • We'll all be flying along on Earth when the year rolls. What about all those 1800 or so nuclear ICBMs that are on hair-trigger alert to blast off for Russia, or thence hither? What about all the nuclear generators? Or any number of other local hazards. Not the least of which would be if people get the idea that military and police will be on holiday, so they can sack any city they like. I think I'll plan a little holiday to Antarctica, or maybe just be in an airplane on New Year's Eve, just to be safe!

    :)
  • ...the emperor is not as forgiving as I.

  • Not that it particularrly matters, the average US plane is 20 years old or something like that. Pilots are trained to fly them without engines,

    I thought jet (not propellor) planes can't fly/glide w/o at least one engine on.

  • (another example of that lack of thought in china)

    Lack of thought? Sounds prefectly logical to me. I love it. Sometimes I wish the US government would have streight forward answers such at this.

  • In the government/military when you say that you are "reasonably sure" of something it means that you have every reason to be sure and that the prediction will be correct barring an extremely unlikely alignment of extremely unlikely coincidences that you could not possibly hope to consider.

    Geoff

  • Commies (Score:1)

    by chexc ( 9687 )
    They provides ample evidence that voting Communist is the only way to a sane society
  • All you can be assured of by this, is that the flights which these 'bosses' are going to be on, are not going to fail.
    Communists, and all their stupid-ass ideas piss me off!
  • They will not be able to find the airports when there are no lights on, no electricity to power the radios on the ground, or any of these things that electricity provides both in and out of the free world.

  • China may have problems, but I'll be damned if thats not a way to get results! ;P
  • Mebbe China should get those hackers they wanna sentenced to death to ride the airplane in Y2K....yeeehaaaa!!!
  • Why is it crazy? If those people intend on letting other people fly on New Year's day 2000, they either are confident that it's safe, or they are cynical assholes that deserve whatever they get.

    Of course, if they still force them to fly if they come back late '99 and admit that it may be insecure to fly, then it will be crazy...

    But this way they're at least sure that if the bosses considers it insecure to fly on New Year's day 2000, they'll admit it, and not just hope everything works out ok.

  • Why do you think this idea is stupid? And why do you think the people in power in China are communists?

Slashdot Top Deals

Perfection is acheived only on the point of collapse. - C. N. Parkinson

Close