Y3K Bug?

2007-05-20 01:36:26

#26

HeavyMetalDave: Metal Godz; +107|7105|California

How bout this...

What was life like 1000 yrs ago...

Thats 1007... good year for... what?

so in another 1000... there probably wont be computers.

It will be something else.

As for the EARTH...

It will be here in 10 million yrs.... easy... thats like a blink of an eye.

2007-05-20 01:42:49

#27

psH: Banned; +217|6831|Sydney

Havok wrote:
Ryan wrote:
Do you think they will be a hype about this in the year 3000?
How do you think it will affect the computer industry?

Will people even worry about it if it happens?
Computers will be far obsolete by then.

they will b in our hedz, techin our mindz

2007-05-20 01:55:58

#28

Spark: liquid fluoride thorium reactor; +874|7122|Canberra, AUS

Shem wrote:
Bubbalo wrote:
Shem wrote:
You do realise that Ice has a larger mass than water right?

Meaning that the icecaps being gone makes pretty much.. no effect?
Other than drowning parts of the globe............................
Do you have selective reading skills?

If ICE is LARGER.

and WATER is SMALLER

Ill put it this way:

100g of water takes up 100ml

100g of ice takes up 108.7ml

Therefore, if anything, the sea levels should drop.

Understand now? what random people on the news say isnt always true

That is a very poor interpretation of physics. Very, very poor.

Ice takes up more space than water, yes. But ice DISPLACES water - when you put an icecube into a glass of water, the water level rises - duh. Therefore, when you slide a chunk of ice into the sea, the water level rises (by a infestimal amount, but it rises nonetheless). It's not the melting that raises levels, it's the adding of ice which wasn't in the water previously.

What explanation do you have for historically huge variations in sea level then? I mean... duh.

Last edited by Spark (2007-05-20 01:56:43)

The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
^{~ Richard Feynman}

2007-05-20 02:15:17

#29

Shem: sɥǝɯ; +152|6974|London (At Heart)

Spark wrote:
Shem wrote:
Bubbalo wrote:

Other than drowning parts of the globe............................
Do you have selective reading skills?

If ICE is LARGER.

and WATER is SMALLER

Ill put it this way:

100g of water takes up 100ml

100g of ice takes up 108.7ml

Therefore, if anything, the sea levels should drop.

Understand now? what random people on the news say isnt always true
That is a very poor interpretation of physics. Very, very poor.

Ice takes up more space than water, yes. But ice DISPLACES water - when you put an icecube into a glass of water, the water level rises - duh. Therefore, when you slide a chunk of ice into the sea, the water level rises (by a infestimal amount, but it rises nonetheless). It's not the melting that raises levels, it's the adding of ice which wasn't in the water previously.

What explanation do you have for historically huge variations in sea level then? I mean... duh.

What you are arguing is that something from somewhere is slipping NEW water (ice) into the ocean, that simply isnt true, of course when you drop an icecube into a completely full glass it will over spill, however, there is no giant galactic hand dropping new ice onto our polar caps...

You notice how if you get a glass milk bottle for example, and fill it completely with water, and stopper it up, it was crack and break, as the water freezes, it takes up more space, that is an example more appropriate to the situation at hand.

2007-05-20 03:07:03

#30

Bubbalo: The Lizzard; +541|7008

Shem wrote:
Bubbalo wrote:
Shem wrote:
You do realise that Ice has a larger mass than water right?

Meaning that the icecaps being gone makes pretty much.. no effect?
Other than drowning parts of the globe............................
Do you have selective reading skills?

If ICE is LARGER.

and WATER is SMALLER

Ill put it this way:

100g of water takes up 100ml

100g of ice takes up 108.7ml

Therefore, if anything, the sea levels should drop.

Understand now? what random people on the news say isnt always true

Mass isn't a measure of size but weight, genius. Further, the reason that melting ice causes rising sea levels is because much of the ice is above sea level, meaning it isn't contributing to water levels currently.

2007-05-20 03:14:27

#31

R3v4n: We shall beat to quarters!; +433|6934|Melbourne

If we have no polar caps, wont the temperature of the water rise eventfully killing all the fish etc?

~ Do you not know that in the service … one must always choose the lesser of two weevils?

2007-05-20 03:18:19

#32

De_Jappe: Triarii; +432|6974|Belgium

Wraith wrote:
Major_Spittle wrote:
De_Jappe wrote:

Lol at the maths! Who cares about another 900 years anyway!
Can't fool you
Yes we can, 3000 is 990 years after 2010, not 900

Dude he said add 90, I said ANOTHER 900 years.
90+900 = 990 so of course I was correct

2007-05-20 03:19:46

#33

RDMC: Enemy Wheelbarrow Spotted..!!; +736|7012|Area 51

Y3K Bug? Could some one enlighten me on this?

2007-05-20 03:27:35

#34

De_Jappe: Triarii; +432|6974|Belgium

RDMC(2) wrote:
Y3K Bug? Could some one enlighten me on this?

Y2K bug was a problem because computers kept the year with only two digits. 96 for example was 1996. Ofcourse in 2000 it would recognize it as 1900, which would give some serious problems.

Therefor they solved it by using 4 digits now, so the next same problem will be in the year 10.000.

But the Y2K bug was totally overreacted, there are other examples in which the limit because of amount of bits exist.

For example:
The 2038 problem, if you programmed in languages like C and java you know that the date is stored by the amount of seconds since january 1st 1970. On a 32 bit computer the max amount of stored seconds is 2^32. Which means that in 2038 that limit is reached. (easy to solve, use 64 bit computer, which gives 2^64 seconds which adds another 290 billion years).

Oh and the question is now, will there be a similar problem in the year 3000, the answer is of course: No

Last edited by De_Jappe (2007-05-20 03:28:02)

2007-05-20 04:37:03

#35

psH: Banned; +217|6831|Sydney

R3v4n wrote:
If we have no polar caps, wont the temperature of the water rise eventfully killing all the fish etc?

so no matter how or what we argue, we still lose.

2007-05-20 12:45:56

#36

blisteringsilence: I'd rather hunt with Cheney than ride with Kennedy; +83|7149|Little Rock, Arkansas

leetkyle wrote:
I doubt the world will be here in a thousand years. Global Warming, Ice Caps, O-Zone Layer, The Sun Imploding, The Universe Imploding..

Even if the imploding doesn't happen, the world will not be able to survive all that!

Buddy, just because something is happening on a galactic time scale doesn't mean we can observe it. Yes, one day the sun will implode. Most folks think that's about another 4 billion years or so. The universe is so vast that we can't even estimate when it will implode.

Ice caps that are melting will be offset by those that are growing, the ozone layer problem has been solved.

For crying out loud, relax.

2007-05-20 12:48:59

#37

Schwarzelungen: drunklenglungen; +133|6743|Bloomington Indiana

blowing ourselves back to the stone age FTW

2007-05-20 13:04:12

#38

SEREMAKER: BABYMAKIN EXPERT √; +2,187|7015|Mountains of NC

y3k ------ BF 1,250 in this one, YOU live the game to survive in real life

https://static.bf2s.com/files/user/17445/carhartt.jpg

2007-05-20 16:06:26

#39

dsouth: Member; +5|6833

Shem wrote:
Bubbalo wrote:
Shem wrote:
You do realise that Ice has a larger mass than water right?

Meaning that the icecaps being gone makes pretty much.. no effect?
Other than drowning parts of the globe............................
Do you have selective reading skills?

If ICE is LARGER.

and WATER is SMALLER

Ill put it this way:

100g of water takes up 100ml

100g of ice takes up 108.7ml

Therefore, if anything, the sea levels should drop.

Understand now? what random people on the news say isnt always true

Shem would almost be correct IF all the ice was floating in water. Unfortunately, most of the ice on earth exists over land (antarctica). As this ice melts, it will draing into the oceans which will then rise.

I say "almost" becuase, even if the ice was all floating in water, the sea levels wouldn't drop. The ice "floats" because the it displaces the more dense liquid water, causing part of the ice to rise above the water. If you work out the bouyancy equations, you'll find that the volume of ice above the water line is exactly equal to the "extra" volume of ice that Shem's talking about above.

2007-05-20 16:07:14

#40

unnamednewbie13: Moderator; +2,073|7219|PNW

Havok wrote:
Ryan wrote:
Do you think they will be a hype about this in the year 3000?
How do you think it will affect the computer industry?

Will people even worry about it if it happens?
Computers will be far obsolete by then.

Like wheels have become obsolete within 1k years of their invention?

2007-05-20 16:13:20

#41

Surgeons: U shud proabbly f off u fat prik; +3,097|6937|Gogledd Cymru

unnamednewbie13 wrote:
Havok wrote:
Ryan wrote:
Do you think they will be a hype about this in the year 3000?
How do you think it will affect the computer industry?

Will people even worry about it if it happens?
Computers will be far obsolete by then.
Like wheels have become obsolete within 1k years of their invention?

i bet my dick that wheels will be long gone in under 100 years

2007-05-20 16:19:24

#42

Brasso: member; +1,549|7077

I love how the Y3K bug thread turned into another Global Warming thread.

surgeon_bond wrote:
i bet my dick that wheels will be long gone in under 100 years

Suck your dick goodbye.

Last edited by haffeysucks (2007-05-20 16:19:49)

"people in ny have a general idea of how to drive. one of the pedals goes forward the other one prevents you from dying"

2007-05-20 16:22:54

#43

Hurricane: Banned; +1,153|7077|Washington, DC

surgeon_bond wrote:
unnamednewbie13 wrote:
Havok wrote:

Computers will be far obsolete by then.
Like wheels have become obsolete within 1k years of their invention?
i bet my dick that wheels will be long gone in under 100 years

They said that about the year 2000! Off with your penis!

BF2S Forums Y3K Bug?

Havok wrote:

Ryan wrote:

Shem wrote:

Bubbalo wrote:

Shem wrote:

Spark wrote:

Shem wrote:

Bubbalo wrote:

Shem wrote:

Bubbalo wrote:

Shem wrote:

Wraith wrote:

Major_Spittle wrote:

De_Jappe wrote:

RDMC(2) wrote:

R3v4n wrote:

leetkyle wrote:

Shem wrote:

Bubbalo wrote:

Shem wrote:

Havok wrote:

Ryan wrote:

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

Havok wrote:

Ryan wrote:

surgeon_bond wrote:

surgeon_bond wrote:

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

Havok wrote:

Board footer