Directions: This paper shows evidence of a lot of research and some good critical thinking in analyzing the material. But the paper lacks a clear focus. Rewrite the paper so each paragraph supports a clearly stated thesis statement. Make sure each paragraph has a claim which is supported and a clear conclusion.
Research Paper
Final Copy
4/5/99
Unless you have been hiding under a rock for the past couple of years, you have probably heard of the so-called “Y2K bug.” As the controversy surrounding the Y2K bug heats up, phrases such as “Y2K bug,” “Y2K crisis,” and “Y2K glitch” are fast becoming common household words. Although many people use these words, few people truly comprehend them. In fact, most people have only a vague and rudimentary understanding of just what these phrases really mean.
Here it is in a nutshell. The Y2K (Year 2000) bug is a term adopted by the acronym-happy computer industry to describe a computer problem that may render a large portion of the world’s computers incapable of properly recognizing the rollover from 1999 to 2000. Many computer systems will falsely interpret the double zeroes at the end of the year 2000 to represent the double zeroes at the end of the year 1900 (Cnet, 1998). This misunderstanding creates huge “headaches” for computers. Computers depend on having the correct date for millions of intricate calculations. When the wrong date is supplied, serious and sometimes almost comical complications may occur.Systems may fail altogether or they may begin to spew out incomprehensible rubbish (Techweb, 1997). Imagine the following scenario. You decide you want to share the moment with good old granny so you give her a ring shortly before midnight on New Year’s Eve 1999. Grandma and you talk for a little while as she tells you about her troubles with her false teeth. The total length of the actual call was less than 20 minutes, but the phone company’s computer bills you for a 999 year conversation (Cnet, 1998)! Considering the implications of the preceding example and other similar situations, it is easy to understand why the Y2K bug has many people apprehensive about the future.
It is impossible to ignore he disruptive implications of Y2K. However, as the tension mounts and the pivotal moment of New Year’s Eve 1999 draws near, I believe that it is very important to view this problem from a positive perspective. There are many aspects about the Y2K bug that, with an open mind and attitude, may be construed not quite as funny or hilarious, but certainly as ironic and whimsical.
The first ironic aspect is time itself. Time is a central theme of the Y2K crisis. Einstein’s general theory of relativity states that time is a relative concept. A very simplistic interpretation of this idea is that the passage of time depends only on what is used as the starting point for the calendar. In modern times the life of Christ has been used as the benchmark for counting the years. According to the present calendar we are nearing the end of the second millennium since the time of Christ. Or are we? New evidence suggests that the current calendar is based upon a lie. Or perhaps more precisely a miscalculation. Historians and religious leaders can no longer agree on the exact date of the nativity, although most place the miraculous birth several years earlier than the accepted date.
The credit (or the blame) for this “misunderstanding” falls squarely upon the shoulders of one man. A monk from the 6th century named “Dennis the Short” made an educated guess while laying the foundation of the calendar. Apparently the guess was not educated enough. The irony in all of this is incredible. The world is fretting and worrying about a date which has, in reality, actually already come and gone (Lacayo, 1999).
Another source of irony in the Y2K problem is the word “millennium.” These last few months I have literally visited hundreds of web pages that deal with the Y2K bug. Dozens of these sites mention or imply that the year 2000 (whenever it actually is or was) is the beginning of the third millennium, AD. Many of these sites have gone so far as to call the Y2K bug the “millennium bug.” In fact, using the popular Internet search engine Hotbot to conduct a keyword search with the phrase “millennium bug” yielded 530 matches. What this means is that 530 different sites used the term “millennium bug” to describe the Y2K crisis. The majority of the population takes for granted the coming of the next millennium. They presume that when the year changes from 1999 to 2000 the new millenium has officially begun. This is, of course, faulty logic and poor reasoning. Since there was no actual year 0 AD, it follow that the new millennium does not really begin until 2001. Therefore, given the true definition of a millennium, the Y2K bug does not deserve the label “millennium bug.” Also, the Y2K bug is not technically a year 2000 problem. A more accurate description would be "century problem” (Web Alley, 1999). It is simply a coincidence that the end of the current century coincides with the end of the millennium.
Another aspect of the Y2K crisis that someone with a sardonic sense of humor would appreciate is the root of the current difficulty. In order to fully understand the cause of the Y2K bug, several major points concerning the history of computers must be understood. First of all, the evolution of computers was really rather slow. Eniac, the machine with being the first true computer, was introduced in 1946 (Sankaran, 1995). However, it wasn’t until the late 50’s and early 60’s that researchers developed computers that contained the type of memory we use today. At that point, memory was very expensive and it was not uncommon for a computer to have only 48 kilobytes of storage space. With such little room in which to write all the necessary programs and commands, programmers were forced to make compromises and cut corners. In the interest of being economical, they chose to represent the date with only two digits (i.e., 97=1997). Many people have come to think that this was a ludicrous oversight. In reality, it was more of a gamble than an oversight. Programmers worked under the assumption that by the time the turn of the century came around, the hardware and software that they had peioneered would be replaced by "Y2K compliant” systems (Burbank & Kratofil, 1999). This was a big mistake on their part. They did not take into account that most “new software that is developed is based on older software” and that “Y2K problems are simply reproduced in the process” (WebAlley, 1999).
It is hard to believe that the Y2K bug is based entirely on an assumption involving something so mundane as the two seemingly inconsequential bytes that comprise the date function in a computer. Furthermore, it is astounding that experts did not become aware of a conflict until the beginning of this decade.
With all the negative publicity and attention the Y2K bug has recently been receiving, it is sometimes hard to believe that the Y2K bug might actually have some positive side effects. Ironically, though, the Y2K bug has several beneficial aspects that are slowly becoming apparent. For example, businesses that offer survival items and getaways are capitalizing on the Y2K crisis. As the market for survival-related products expands, the economy gets a shot in the arm. A typical example of an emerging Y2K industry is the dehydrated food trade. A Utah based company called Preparedness Resources Incorporated has seen its revenues grow from $300,000 in December of 1997 to $4,000,000 last November (Lacayo, 1999). The computer programming industry has also received a boost from Y2K. Companies are scrambling to hire thousands of programmers to fix the problem. The increased demand for trained professionals has created many valuable jobs and allowed people who would not normally be able to afford the cost of computer training the opportunity to become skilled programmers (Brennan, 1997). Another secondary benefit of the Y2K problem is less evident. Many of the systems that require attention are decades old. The Y2K bug is forcing companies to replace obsolete equipment. This, in turn, strengthens our ability to cope with the increasing demands of the burgeoning computer age.
The moment of reckoning is fast approaching. Whether Y2K turns out to be a bomb or a bust will soon be determined. In the meantime, I believe that it is essential that we take a moment to chuckle at the situation and pause to recognize the often subtle humor that is deeply intertwined in this complex situation.
Brennan, M. (1997, June 19). Experts race to fix year 2000 glitch. Detroit Free Press. Retrieved January 31, 1999 from the World Wide Web: URL unknown
Burbank, K. & Kratofil, B. (1999, January) The impact of the Y2k bug. Business Economics, p. 39. Retrieved February 4, 1999 from the World Wide Web. URL unknown
CNET On-Line Features. (1998, December). Apocalypse Explained. Retrieved January 31, 1999 from the World Wide Web:http://www.cnet.com/Content/Features/Dlife/Apocalypse/ss01a.html
Lacayo, R. (1999, January 18). The end of the world as we know it? Time Magazine , p. 60
Sankaran, N. (1995, August) Looking back at eniac: computers hit half-century mark. University of Pennsylvania. Retrieved April 5, 1999 from the World Wide Web: http://www.the-scientist.library.upenn.edu/
Tech Web. (1997, September 15). Us Agencies in trouble on year 2000 glitch. Retrieved January 31, 1999 from the World Wide Web: http://www.techweb.com:3030/wire/news/1997/09/0915year2000.html
WEBalley. (1999, February 2). Y2k issues. Retrieved March 21, 1999 from the World Wide Web: http://www.weballey.net/y2k.html
| back |