Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

2016 Bug Hits Text Messages, Payment Processing

Soulskill posted more than 4 years ago | from the y2k16-has-more-characters-than-2016 dept.

Bug 340

An anonymous reader writes "It seems some systems are suffering from a Y2K16 bug. When 2009 ticked over to 2010, some Australian EFTPOS machines skipped to the year 2016. Coincidentally, some Windows Mobile users are also having issues with their new year SMSes coming from 2016. What function could cause this kind of error?"

cancel ×

340 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Why (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30631388)

Uncle Bill decided to do some coding. That's why.

Re:Why (2, Interesting)

TheLink (130905) | more than 4 years ago | (#30631608)

Nah, it's more likely the same bunch that did excel 2007... Anyone remember the infamous 77.1 * 850 = 100000 Excel 2007 bug? :)

WHY DO PEOPLE INSIST UPON REPLACING THE FIRST ZERO (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30631940)

It is 2016, not 2k16. Is there something cool about replacing a zero with a k now?
 
Any EE will tell you that 2k16 means 2.16k or 2160. How does this garbage continue making it to the front page?

Re:WHY DO PEOPLE INSIST UPON REPLACING THE FIRST Z (3, Interesting)

Chabil Ha' (875116) | more than 4 years ago | (#30631986)

No to mention Y2K was a pun of sorts for shortening 2000 to three bytes from four. Now we're taking more space than the original; Y2K16 vs 2016. Those COBOL programmers would be rolling in their graves.

Some kind of... (5, Insightful)

msauve (701917) | more than 4 years ago | (#30631394)

BCD/binary mismatch?

0x09 = 9 decimal when interpreted as either binary or BCD.

0x10 = 10 decimal when interpreted as BCD, as 16 when interpreted as binary.

Re:Some kind of... (1, Informative)

GrumpySteen (1250194) | more than 4 years ago | (#30631428)

I think you mean hexadecimal. When 10 is interpreted as binary, it's 3 not 16.

Re:Some kind of... (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30631442)

I don't think you quite have the hang of binary (10 would be 2, not 3).

Re:Some kind of... (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30631464)

he meant binary coded decimal you clod

Re:Some kind of... (2, Interesting)

kalidasa (577403) | more than 4 years ago | (#30631480)

Do *you* often work with years as floats?

Re:Some kind of... (4, Funny)

kalidasa (577403) | more than 4 years ago | (#30631504)

Facepalm. I'm gonna get mauled for this one.

Re:Some kind of... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30631528)

It's almost as if you're supposed to have some idea about what you're talking about before you publish.

Still, at least people like you subsidize Twitter and blogger.com.

Re:Some kind of... (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30631658)

Give him a break. This whole thread is made of such epic fail that it could only be unforged in Mount Doom.

10 is 3 in binary indeed...

Re:Some kind of... (4, Informative)

clone53421 (1310749) | more than 4 years ago | (#30631794)

Let me see if I can straighten it out, then.

0x10 is a hexadecimal number, 0001 0000 binary, 16 decimal.
0x10 is a BCD number, 0001 0000 binary, 10 decimal.

(BCD is an encoding system, not a base system. In hex or binary it’s given in encoded form, but in decimal it’s given in decoded form.)

Let me see if I can straighten it out, then. (-1, Offtopic)

patiodragon (920102) | more than 4 years ago | (#30631886)

Y2K = 1 less character than 2000. Spiffy.

Y2K16 = 1 MORE character than 2016.

WTF?

Re:Let me see if I can straighten it out, then. (1)

clone53421 (1310749) | more than 4 years ago | (#30632000)

WTF indeed... who were you replying to?

Re:Some kind of... (1)

jonbryce (703250) | more than 4 years ago | (#30631728)

Excel stores its date/time as floats. The fractional component is for time of day, and the whole number is for the number of days since the relevant epoch, either 1st January 1900 or 4th January 1904 depending on the platform used.

Re:Some kind of... (1)

zippthorne (748122) | more than 4 years ago | (#30632028)

It displays them as decimals, Do you have any reason to believe that the actual storage is floating point rather than fixed point decimal?

Re:Some kind of... (0)

ta bu shi da yu (687699) | more than 4 years ago | (#30631524)

0x10 is 16 in hexadecimal, not binary.
10 in binary is 2, not 3.

Re:Some kind of... (1)

kesuki (321456) | more than 4 years ago | (#30631602)

agreed,
"It is possible to perform addition in BCD by first adding in binary, and then converting to BCD afterwards. Conversion of the simple sum of two digits can be done by adding 6 (that is, 16 - 10) when the result has a value greater than 9. For example:
1001 + 1000 = 10001 = 0001 0001
      9 + 8 = 17 = 1 1"

if 17 in BCD is 10001.... he meant hexadecimal

Re:Some kind of... (3, Insightful)

clone53421 (1310749) | more than 4 years ago | (#30631694)

0x10 is 16 in hexadecimal, not binary

0x10 is still 16 in binary.

(0x10 always means 0001 0000 in binary. The question is whether that number is interpreted in BCD, i.e. 10, or as a binary integer, i.e. 16.)

Re:Some kind of... (0, Redundant)

ta bu shi da yu (687699) | more than 4 years ago | (#30631782)

Uh? No, traditionally appending a 0x denotes that the value is in hexadecimal. Ask any C programmer.

Re:Some kind of... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30631836)

0x10 is '16' in binary. It's '16' in dec. It's '16' in any number system you want... the op is talking about the value 16 not a particular representation of it.

Re:Some kind of... (3, Informative)

xaxa (988988) | more than 4 years ago | (#30631866)

0x10 means 0001 0000.

0001 0000, if that's a binary number, means decimal 16
0001 0000, if that's binary coded decimal (BCD), i.e. decimal 0-9 represented as 0000 to 1001, means decimal 10.

(If 0001 0000 was little endian (with 4-bit groupings) it would mean binary 1)

1234 in binary (4D2 in hexadecimal) is 0000 0100 1110 0010
1234 in BCD is 0001 0010 0011 0100

Re:Some kind of... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30631894)

Except c programmers prepend the 0x; I know of no language in which it is appended.

Re:Some kind of... (1)

clone53421 (1310749) | more than 4 years ago | (#30631928)

traditionally appending a 0x denotes that the value is in hexadecimal

Yes, which is why it is 16 (decimal) in binary. It’s 16 (decimal) in ANY base number system, because you have to convert it out of hex, and done so properly it will always still be 16 in decimal.

You’re confusing the number’s base system (10 hexadecimal, 0001 0000 binary, 16 decimal) with its encoding system (0x10 / 0001 0000 / 16 binary, or 0x10 / 0001 0000 / 10 BCD).

Re:Some kind of... (1)

calzakk (1455889) | more than 4 years ago | (#30631968)

appending a 0x

would give 100x. You mean 'prepending'.

Re:Some kind of... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30631806)

0x10 is 16 in hexadecimal, not binary

0x10 is still 16 in binary.

(0x10 always means 0001 0000 in binary. The question is whether that number is interpreted in BCD, i.e. 10, or as a binary integer, i.e. 16.)

No. clon53421... 0x10 is 10000 in binary which is 16 in DECIMAL
the "0x" part means hexadecimal. You cannot have "16 in binary" because binary only has ones and zeros.

Re:Some kind of... (1)

clone53421 (1310749) | more than 4 years ago | (#30631970)

You’re confusing its base with its encoding. Binary is both a base system and an encoding system. If I was talking about the binary base system, then yes, 0x10 is always 0001 0000 in the binary base system. I was talking about the encoding system.

0x10 can be either binary encoded (bits representing powers of 2) or it can be BCD (nibbles representing powers of 10).

0x10 is 16 in the binary encoding system:
0x10 = 0001 0000 = 16.
All three representations are binary encoded.

0x10 is 10 in BCD:
0x10 = 0001 0000 = 10.
All three representations are BCD.

Re:Some kind of... (1)

Mr Z (6791) | more than 4 years ago | (#30631920)

10 hexadecimal is 16 decimal is 10000 binary.

The phrase "0x10 is still 16 in binary" could be interpreted two ways that make absolutely no sense. Consider these two sentences as models: "Rojo means 'red' in Spanish," and "Red is 'rojo' in Spanish." In both cases, "in Spanish" indicates to the reader that "rojo" is a Spanish word. No number in the sentence "0x10 is still 16 in binary" is in binary. 0x10 is a hexadecimal number, and 16 is a decimal number. Your sentence can't be interpreted in either way--as saying "0x10 is ... in binary" or "16 [is] in binary"--and be anywhere near correct.

At any rate, I agree with many of the other Slashdotters that there seems to be a BCD vs. normal integer disagreement issue in the software here.

Re:Some kind of... (1)

clone53421 (1310749) | more than 4 years ago | (#30631996)

“Binary” refers to its internal number representation (encoding system), not its base system.

You have two types of integer in computing: binary and BCD. The base system it’s written in is independent of the encoding system used.

Re:Some kind of... (3, Funny)

oskard (715652) | more than 4 years ago | (#30631566)

Take it easy on him. After all, there are only 10 kinds of people in this world.

Re:Some kind of... (2, Funny)

ta bu shi da yu (687699) | more than 4 years ago | (#30631680)

You know, only yesterday on slashdot did I read a comment that said (in all seriousness) that there "are 11 kinds of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't". Facepalm indeed!

Re:Some kind of... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30631738)

The third (11 in binary, or III in Roman Numerals, 3 in standard numeric) kind of person is he who thinks he understands binary, but really doesn't.

Re:Some kind of... (1)

pipatron (966506) | more than 4 years ago | (#30631752)

You know, that quote is sort of correct if the person who said it belongs to the last group of people.

Re:Some kind of... (2, Insightful)

Mikkeles (698461) | more than 4 years ago | (#30631904)

Er, the "11" was in unary!

Re:Some kind of... (1)

kybred (795293) | more than 4 years ago | (#30631958)

You know, only yesterday on slashdot did I read a comment that said (in all seriousness) that there "are 11 kinds of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't". Facepalm indeed!

The quote I like is:

There are 3 kinds of people in the world; those that can count and those that can't.

Re:Some kind of... (1)

clone53421 (1310749) | more than 4 years ago | (#30632030)

I seem to remember it being somewhat to the effect of “there are 11 types of people in the world... people who think binary is the base system everyone should be using, and people who don’t”.

The implication is that the person saying that thinks that unary (base-1) should be used, which is a degenerate “tally” counting system where every place value is equal to 1^n. (Degenerate because 1^n = 1^(n+1), which destroys the whole notion of place value in unary.)

11 in unary = 1x1^1 + 1x1^0 = 1 + 1 = 2
11 in binary = 1x2^1 + 1x2^0 = 2 + 1 = 3

Re:Some kind of... (1)

ae1294 (1547521) | more than 4 years ago | (#30631708)

I don't think you quite have the hang of binary (10 would be 2, not 3).

Mommy, what's binary???

Re:Some kind of... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30631482)

What "16 when interpreted as binary" means is that you take the bits and interpret them as a binary encoding of a number (as opposed to interpreting them as a BCD encoded number). Programmer parlance.

Re:Some kind of... (2, Informative)

RichardJenkins (1362463) | more than 4 years ago | (#30631526)

  • The decimal number '10' would be encoded in BCD as '1010 0000'
  • '10' is not a valid BCD bitstring
  • When writing in base 2 (binary), '10' is the same number as '2' when writing in base 10
  • putting '0x' before a number indicates that it is written base 16 (hexadecimal)
  • '0x10' is 16 in decimal

Re:Some kind of... (1)

RichardJenkins (1362463) | more than 4 years ago | (#30631542)

D'oh!
  • The decimal number '10' would be encoded in BCD as '0001 0000'

Re:Some kind of... (1)

Mr Z (6791) | more than 4 years ago | (#30631972)

Some more observations:

  • The decimal number 10 would be encoded in BCD as 0001 0000, which would be written in hexadecimal as 0x10
  • The decimal number 16 would be encoded in standard 2s complement integer format in binary as 0001 0000, which would be written in hexadecimal as 0x10

Before you argue that 00010000 is somehow different from 0001 0000, the space is just there for readability. If you pop open a memory viewer and look at a hex dump of RAM, you'll see that 10 decimal stored in BCD in a byte of RAM looks like 16 decimal stored in standard integer representation in a byte of RAM, which is more than likely strongly related to the source of the "2016 error."

(Note that I say "standard 2s complement integer format" to distinguish from other possible representations, such as floating point, etc.)

Re:Some kind of... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30631620)

  • The decimal number '10' would be encoded in BCD as '1010 0000'
  • '10' is not a valid BCD bitstring
  • When writing in base 2 (binary), '10' is the same number as '2' when writing in base 10
  • putting '0x' before a number indicates that it is written base 16 (hexadecimal)
  • '0x10' is 16 in decimal

The decimal number '10' would be encoded in BCD as "0001 0000', not '1010 0000'.
'1010' is not a valid BCD bitstring.

Re:Some kind of... (1)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 4 years ago | (#30631536)

I wish I could mod this funny.

Re:Some kind of... (5, Informative)

msauve (701917) | more than 4 years ago | (#30631544)

No, I meant exactly what I said. I didn't say 0b01. 0x10 is the hexadecimal notation for "00010000" binary, which is 16 decimal.

I used 0x10 because that's standard ANSI C (and ECMA-334 C#), and C is what seems to be spoken on /.. 0b00010000 is non-standard (but allowed by some compilers).

Just shows... (1)

Kupfernigk (1190345) | more than 4 years ago | (#30631766)

The younger generation don't know what it was like coding for packed BCD. It's getting so bad I'm fixing an alarm to stop them getting onto my lawn in the first place.

Kids, when you've written code to drive 40-character HP 7 by 5 LED displays, with the data and the buffers having to fit into 256 bytes of memory, then you can argue with msuave.

Re:Some kind of... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30631546)

Where's a "-1:Wrong" tag when you need it?

Re:Some kind of... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30631962)

Why on earth was this modded 'Insightful'? Funny maybe, but insightful? The standards are really slipping around here.

Re:Some kind of... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30631462)

Yes, this seems likely, doesn't it? And it means the idiots didn't learn the lesson of Y2K: a year is a 2-byte value (yeah, yeah, the odds of that code being around in 2100, let alone 2256, are really, really low; but still ...).

Re:Some kind of... (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 4 years ago | (#30631508)

Guess that makes the most sense. Although I have a hard time imagining how to do this ... but considering how complex the code probably is, and in what hurry that Y2K fix was probably done, it's the most likely scenario.

Re:Some kind of... (2, Interesting)

mrslacker (1122161) | more than 4 years ago | (#30631960)

Well, certainly BCD confusion caused a similar problem for RISC OS. Machines have been skipping to 2012. More here:

http://www.riscository.com/ [riscository.com]

4-bit years? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30631398)

A 4-bit year field? Wrapping from 9 to 0 (16) ?

What's ES-EM-ES? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30631400)

I heard it's what the ancients used before Instant messaging over 3G.

Microsoft (5, Informative)

sopssa (1498795) | more than 4 years ago | (#30631402)

Seems Microsoft is supplying some code [microsoft.com] for EFTPOS machines that is common with Windows Mobile, so it's most likely the same bug in both.

Re:Microsoft (1)

mspohr (589790) | more than 4 years ago | (#30631764)

People run Microsoft software on EFTPOS / ATM machines?

Re:Microsoft (3, Informative)

sopssa (1498795) | more than 4 years ago | (#30631792)

Yes they do [google.com] (almost in every atm actually).

My wireless landline phones all failed 1/1/2010 (4, Interesting)

Gorobei (127755) | more than 4 years ago | (#30631410)

No dial tone, no incoming calls.

Had to reset the internal datetimes back to 2007, then they started working again. Nice job, Panasonic.

Text messaging from the future (3, Funny)

nurhussein (864532) | more than 4 years ago | (#30631414)

Imagine that, the ability to text to the past. We could get warnings about impending events! New Text Message From Marty McFly: I HV TO TELL U ABT TEH FUTURE Reply from Doc Brown: WHAT? New Text Message From Marty McFly ON THE NIGHT YOU GO BACK, YOU GET SH*message text missing*

Worse: Re:Text messaging from the future (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30631510)

Imagine that we now have to suffer a lame Sci-Fi show based on the lame premise that the hero/ine send sms from the future to prevent two trains from colliding because s/he saw it all in a newspaper and the name of the machinist was there and a friend that was once part of the geek squad was able to find the machinist's cell number and now that they know that 0x10 is 16 in HEX all they had to do is change the year on their cell phone and send an SMS: " your about to crash. alot more in next MSG"

Re:Worse: Re:Text messaging from the future (1)

ae1294 (1547521) | more than 4 years ago | (#30631756)

Imagine that we now have to suffer a lame Sci-Fi show based on the lame premise that the hero/ine send sms from the future to.....

Text Messages from the FUTURE!! BRILLIANT!! It's just like phone calls, ham radio signals, and that movie about dreams from the future! All of those grossed huge sums!!! I have no idea what all the rest you where trying to get at but expect to see this movie in 2012!

Your Friends,
New Line Cinema

Re:Text messaging from the future (1)

sirkha (1015441) | more than 4 years ago | (#30631716)

Hmm, I guess that means the world doesn't end in 2012, then. Or maybe it does end in 2012, and it took them 4 years to devise their time-traveling SMS, and are now desperately trying to let us know.

and they can bill you the future rate as well (2, Funny)

Joe The Dragon (967727) | more than 4 years ago | (#30631888)

and they can bill you the future rate as well. In the Year 2016 texts are $2 each way. and your bill in 6 years past due.

10 hex is 16 decimal (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30631416)

Could be botched string parsing. Could be binary coded decimals interpreted as binary numbers: BCD encodes two decimal digits in the high and low nibbles of a byte. Therefore BCD 10 is 0001 0000 in binary, which is 16 in decimal.

Re:10 hex is 16 decimal (5, Informative)

nycguy (892403) | more than 4 years ago | (#30631456)

This is almost certainly what it is. The year is stored in an SMS message as a two-digit BCD value, according to this spec [dreamfabric.com] . (Click on the link [dreamfabric.com] for the "timestamp" field.) Some phones must be treating it as a hex field. (Note that most other fields in the SMS message are in hex.)

Re:10 hex is 16 decimal (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30631516)

nycguy gets 100 points. Thread closed.

Re:10 hex is 16 decimal (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30631578)

Second that

Re:10 hex is 16 decimal (1)

camperdave (969942) | more than 4 years ago | (#30631532)

I thought the whole Y2K fiasco taught people not to use two digits to represent years. Am I the only one who learned that lesson?

Re:10 hex is 16 decimal (1)

Skapare (16644) | more than 4 years ago | (#30631562)

Two digits is fine, now ... until we approach 2100. I plan to be retired by then, so I don't care. Fear those who are using ONE digit (that has happened). But in this case I can believe that someone used the wrong conversion like maybe: strtol(year_str,NULL,0x10).

Re:10 hex is 16 decimal (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30631610)

>I plan to be retired by then, so I don't care.

Quitter!

Re:10 hex is 16 decimal (1)

camperdave (969942) | more than 4 years ago | (#30631722)

Two digits is fine, now

Apparently not.

why even ONE digit? (1)

r00t (33219) | more than 4 years ago | (#30631730)

These messages had better not be spending years getting routed around the phone company network. The phone can infer what year it is.

You don't need a month even. I'm not sure you need a day, and you could probably skip the rest as well. This is a stupid waste of bytes, and thus air-time. It eats away at space that could go to the message or anything else useful.

Suppose we really do want sender-side time. OK, let's use an 8-bit count of minutes. That covers over 4 hours. We take UNIX time (UTC seconds since 1970), divide by 60, and throw away all but the low 8 bits. The receiver assumes this is in the recent past, unless it could fall within the future 5 minutes.

Re:why even ONE digit? (1)

pipatron (966506) | more than 4 years ago | (#30631796)

Too bad if your recipient turned off the phone during the night, ran out of batteries during a hike, or changed number temporary due to a trip abroad (roaming costs fucking sucks).

Re:10 hex is 16 decimal (1)

clone53421 (1310749) | more than 4 years ago | (#30631846)

I thought the whole Y2K fiasco taught people not to use two digits to represent years.

Correct. However, you’re ignoring a significant piece of data that can be used to reconstruct the full year from only the last two digits.

Context.

Your cellphone already knows the current full year, and nobody will keep records of SMS messages for 100 years (and if they did, it would be in a summary form that showed the full year of its creation).

In other words, use the first two digits of the current year (which you know), and if that creates a date in the future, subtract 100. The only time this method breaks down is when you’re calculating the date of an SMS that’s over 100 years old.

Re:10 hex is 16 decimal (4, Informative)

Pembers (250842) | more than 4 years ago | (#30631862)

The specification for the SMS message format pre-dates Y2K by about 15 years. I came across it in 1995 (and thought it was useless - what sort of idiot would try to fit a message into 160 characters? And who would want to type it on a 12-button keyboard?). Where I worked, nobody worried about Y2K until about 1998.

Re:10 hex is 16 decimal (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30631696)

Wow, close one with the string parsing. Some people actually use string parsing to convert an integer to BCD. From an SMS handling project on Google Code:

octets[type] = Integer.parseInt("" + value, 16);

Ouch.

Re:10 hex is 16 decimal (3, Interesting)

Posting=!Working (197779) | more than 4 years ago | (#30631798)

Can someone tell me what the advantage of swapped nibble encoding are? Other than just being annoying as fuck when you're trying to decode it?
For those too lazy to read the link , swapped nibble encoding is
"BCD code where nibbles within octet is swapped. E.g.: 0x31 Represents value of 13"

So for the format YY MM DD HH MM SS TZ (Time zone in 15 minute increments from GMT) instead of 10 01 03 10 11 43 24 for 2010 Jan 3 10:11:43 time zone 24 (GMT +6) you get the identical data but in the less readable form of 01 10 30 10 11 34 42 (and now it can be confused for 2001 Oct 30 10:11:34 AM. Bonus!)

It's just complete idiocy to me. Is there some reason you'd want the date/time stamp slightly harder to read?

Re:10 hex is 16 decimal (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30631842)

That may be an attempt to distinguish the BCD values from normal binary numbers. The only value for which swapped nibble encoding equals binary encoding is 0, so a test-case would catch a misinterpretation easily. I've seen a unit test which tests the algorithms with 2005 for the year. That test will not catch an error in a single-byte-year algorithm which mistakes non-swapped BCD for binary or vice versa.

Future SMS (0)

fireflake (1375551) | more than 4 years ago | (#30631424)

Quick, someone send an sms to the future and ask if they solved the climate change problem.

Re:Future SMS (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30631438)

The future replied back saying that climate change was a hoax and that Al Gore is now broke holding worthless carbon credits.

Re:Future SMS (1)

ae1294 (1547521) | more than 4 years ago | (#30631790)

The future replied back saying that climate change was a hoax and that Al Gore is now broke holding worthless carbon credits.

The second message said Apophis took care of any warming and humans where being so smart by pre-emotively dumping trillions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere.

Re:Future SMS (4, Funny)

CharlyFoxtrot (1607527) | more than 4 years ago | (#30631474)

I did but all they told me was that I talk like a fag and my shit's all retarded.

Re:Future SMS (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30631664)

I TOLD you to stop acting like a retarded faggot! If I told you once, I told you a million times! Did you listen? HELL NO! You went whining to Mama all the time, and she coddled her retarded faggot baby!!

Love,
your brother,

BravoFoxtrot

Re:Future SMS (1)

kesuki (321456) | more than 4 years ago | (#30631514)

greetings earthling the good news is PEOPLE are tasty, when the motherships get here it's like thanksgiving on steroids.
(for the simple minded ones this is a joke)

Re:Future SMS (4, Funny)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | more than 4 years ago | (#30631698)

Should have fed them a politician. Al Gore comes to mind.

Msge to fleet command: Avoid the 3rd rock, the inhabitants taste like shit!

Y2K16-Bug? (1)

kju (327) | more than 4 years ago | (#30631434)

It's a Y2K10-Bug. The Y2K-Bug was not titled Y1900-Bug (to name one of the bug types) as well.

Re:Y2K16-Bug? (1)

Simon (S2) (600188) | more than 4 years ago | (#30631452)

Y2K10 would be 200010. Silly contractions...

Re:Y2K16-Bug? (1)

TeknoHog (164938) | more than 4 years ago | (#30631484)

Y2K10 would be 200010. Silly contractions...

Then again, in electronics 2K10 would be parsed as 2.10 thousand, or 2100.

Re:Y2K16-Bug? (1)

MZeora (1707054) | more than 4 years ago | (#30631486)

So... Y2K+10 would be more correct?

Re:Y2K16-Bug? (1)

Simon (S2) (600188) | more than 4 years ago | (#30631506)

So... Y2K+10 would be more correct?

Sure. But 2010 is shorter anyway (same for Y2K10), so why? Just write 2010...

Re:Y2K16-Bug? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30632002)

you could just call it an MMX bug.

(1000+1000+10 = 2010)

Re:Y2K16-Bug? (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 4 years ago | (#30631548)

I was actually considering that something like this might happen, due to the Y2K craze. People are scrambling to "fix" that hyped problem, testing being done haphazardly and only to make sure that it works "for now" because we have "more time later".

Then later, nobody cared about it anymore and nobody cared about the next decade. I'm actually quite happy that the biggest problem seems to be that text messages come from the future. Hey, I didn't care about those coming from the past either, so I'm fine with it!

Official explanation (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30631448)

It's to avoid the world ending in 2012 by skipping straight to 2016. We've left a few years either side of the fateful date as a safety buffer.

Its the LHC! (2, Funny)

rescendent (870007) | more than 4 years ago | (#30631454)

The beam collisions have opened a portal into the future...

Re:Its the LHC! (1)

mewshi_nya (1394329) | more than 4 years ago | (#30631472)

Huh, I always thought the LHC would cause a resonance cascade.

Re:Its the LHC! (1)

camperdave (969942) | more than 4 years ago | (#30631704)

I always thought the LHC would cause a resonance cascade.

Yes, but a temporal resonance cascade. It can send people forward to 2016, or backwards to 1620, depending on your cell phone's software.

Function? (1)

gmuslera (3436) | more than 4 years ago | (#30631512)

Start worrying about SMSs that warns about future events. The "avoid seeing that movie" sms could have been because a limited preview somewhere, but im still a bit worried about the "the alien landing on Jan 8 will be real" sms.

* points finger at Duct Tape Programmers (5, Funny)

amn108 (1231606) | more than 4 years ago | (#30631684)

Time to quote Joel (from www.joelonsoftware.com):

Jamie Zawinski is what I would call a duct-tape programmer. And I say that with a great deal of respect. He is the kind of programmer who is hard at work building the future, and making useful things so that people can do stuff. He is the guy you want on your team building go-carts, because he has two favorite tools: duct tape and WD-40. And he will wield them elegantly even as your go-cart is careening down the hill at a mile a minute. This will happen while other programmers are still at the starting line arguing over whether to use titanium or some kind of space-age composite material that Boeing is using in the 787 Dreamliner.

When you are done, you might have a messy go-cart, but it’ll sure as hell fly.

Hey, Jamie! Your proprietary date datatype didn't fly! Would you please turn around and fix it?

You could mess with people! (3, Funny)

olsmeister (1488789) | more than 4 years ago | (#30631688)

Bob- Happy Nw Yr! What a decade so far. Cubs winning the series, and who would have predicted that the Mayan calendar was really right? Glad I loaded up on all the MSFT back in '10. Are you going to visit your wife's grave next week for the 6th anniversary? kthx!

Re:You could mess with people! (1)

nextekcarl (1402899) | more than 4 years ago | (#30631988)

You sir, are an evil, evil person. Also, your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

Y2K vs. Y2K10 (1)

phil42 (24711) | more than 4 years ago | (#30631964)

Are the negative effects of the Y2K10 bug worse than those of the Y2K bug ?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?