Slashdot Mirror


Today In Year-based Computer Errors: Draft Notices Sent To Men Born In the 1800s

sandbagger (654585) writes with word of a Y2K-style bug showing up in Y2K14: "The glitch originated with the Pennsylvania Department of Motor Vehicles during an automated data transfer of nearly 400,000 records. The records of males born between 1993 and 1997 were mixed with those of men born a century earlier. The federal agency didn't know it because the state uses a two-digit code to indicate birth year." I wonder where else two-digit years are causing problems; I still see lots of paper forms that haven't made the leap yet to four digits.

43 of 205 comments (clear)

  1. Y10K Compliant by darkain · · Score: 3, Funny

    Get with the times! Switch to Y10K compliance already.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y...

    1. Re:Y10K Compliant by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 3, Funny

      Something I'm looking forward to in my retirement years to make a few extra bucks.

    2. Re:Y10K Compliant by davester666 · · Score: 2

      are you sure? our records say you made that claim only 14 years ago.

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
  2. Good Luck, I'm Behind 14,000 Skeletons by timrod · · Score: 4, Funny

    It's clear that Pennsylvania was taking a cue from Heroes of Might and Magic 3 and attempting to build an unstoppable army of 14,000 skeletons. I wonder what the Pennsylvania governor's necromancy score is?

    1. Re:Good Luck, I'm Behind 14,000 Skeletons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Pennsylvania, Transylvania, it's all the same.

    2. Re:Good Luck, I'm Behind 14,000 Skeletons by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 4, Funny

      I tried to build an unstoppable army of 14,000 vampires until I realized that they suck in battle.

    3. Re:Good Luck, I'm Behind 14,000 Skeletons by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 2

      The dead buried at Gettysburg would make a fine army.

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
  3. Resurrection by ColdWetDog · · Score: 5, Funny

    I see the plot of a new Micheal Bay (or maybe J.J. Abrams) movie: The US military, unable to get qualified recruits to fight the new Zombie wars, takes a cue from the Zombie playbook and develops the technology to bring life old soldiers. After a bit of a difficult start, the program exceeds all expectations until the previously dead soldiers revolt at being put back in the grave and bring Washington to it's knees by filing for Social Security benefits.

    --
    Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    1. Re:Resurrection by SailorSpork · · Score: 2

      I see the plot of a new Micheal Bay (or maybe J.J. Abrams) movie: The US military, unable to get qualified recruits to fight the new Zombie wars, takes a cue from the Zombie playbook and develops the technology to bring life old soldiers. After a bit of a difficult start, the program exceeds all expectations until the previously dead soldiers revolt at being put back in the grave and bring Washington to it's knees by filing for Social Security benefits.

      Hmm. Nice twist at the end, but too much plot, needs more explosions.

    2. Re:Resurrection by CanHasDIY · · Score: 2

      Sounds like it's right up M. Night's alley, though, save the fact it's actually a half-decent idea for a film.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    3. Re:Resurrection by chuckugly · · Score: 2

      and lens flare.

    4. Re:Resurrection by ThatsDrDangerToYou · · Score: 2

      I see the plot of a new Micheal Bay (or maybe J.J. Abrams) movie: The US military, unable to get qualified recruits to fight the new Zombie wars, takes a cue from the Zombie playbook and develops the technology to bring life old soldiers. After a bit of a difficult start, the program exceeds all expectations until the previously dead soldiers revolt at being put back in the grave and bring Washington to it's knees by filing for Social Security benefits.

      Well, as long as they vote Democrat I'm cool with it.

  4. Re: dmv by kootsoop · · Score: 5, Funny

    It did! It was called the Department of Manure Vehicles (AKA horses) then.

    --
    "Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get" - Jerry Avins
  5. mislabeled by roc97007 · · Score: 2

    Seems to me this would be more accurately described as a Century-based computer error.

    At first I was amazed that we're still running into these things. But I shouldn't be surprised -- often problems like this aren't fixed until they cause some inconvenience for the people responsible for fixing them.

    --
    Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
  6. Re:Excessive Data Retention by gunner_von_diamond · · Score: 3, Insightful

    All of them.

  7. Technically, it's not a "draft notice" by Zontar_Thing_From_Ve · · Score: 5, Informative

    While the linked to article, a US TV station news site, does call it a "draft notice", I suppose I should explain to the non-US people here that this is not technically correct. There has been no draft in the US since the end of the Vietnam War. For roughly 40 years now, the US has had an all volunteer army. What Selective Service is required to do is to contact US citizen males on their 18th birthday and advise them that for the next 10 years they need to let Selective Service know their new address every time they move because in theory, in a national emergency Congress could pass a law reinstating the military draft and Selective Service is required to maintain accurate records of those who might theoretically be subject to such a draft. Whether such a draft would ever be done again is a great question, given how Congress currently seems incapable of passing anything non-controversial, let alone something as controversial as reinstating the draft. A crackpot Congressman or two has tried to get the draft reinstated and it's never had enough support to even get a vote on the floor of the House of Representatives. Whatever this is, technically speaking it's not a "draft notice".

    Not to digress, but for those who don't know, the draft was very controversial during the Vietnam War, with the rich and powerful were able to get their sons exceptions to the draft or get them plum assignments in the National Guard that wouldn't require them to actually go to Vietnam. Listen to Credence Clearwater Revival's "Fortunate Son", which was written about the practice. There was so much animosity about the unfairness of the draft and the compulsion to fight in a war that nobody but a small number of politicians seemed to want that the US switched to a voluntary system, but one of the deals cut to move to this system was that Selective Service had to know where to get young men should the draft ever get reinstated. And yes, female US citizens are not subject to this at all.

    1. Re:Technically, it's not a "draft notice" by jeffmflanagan · · Score: 2

      I just ran across my Selective Service packet from the 80s. I had thought they discontinued it, but I guess I was incorrect.

      >And yes, female US citizens are not subject to this at all.
      Clearly sexism, but it doesn't really matter because they won't reinstate the draft. The government couldn't get away with insane crap like the Iraq invasion if anyone's kids could wind up there.

    2. Re:Technically, it's not a "draft notice" by OzPeter · · Score: 2

      You forgot the carrot .. While registering for Selective service is not compulsory:

      Registration for Selective Service is also required for various federal programs and benefits, including student loans (such as FAFSA), job training, federal employment, and naturalization.

      Selective service

      --
      I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
    3. Re:Technically, it's not a "draft notice" by xfade551 · · Score: 3, Funny

      Technically, the notice is called a "Failure to Register with the Selective Service Notice". I had one forwarded to me after I had already been in the Army 4 years (I enlisted a little before my 18th birthday), and was already serving in Afghanistan. I called the contact number, and the exchange went something like - Me: "Hi,this is Specialist [MyRealName], U.S. Army. I received one of your Failure to Register notices. I'm kinda in Afghanistan right now, what am I supposed to do with it?" Helpdesk person: "Er, umm... our apologies... umm, Soldier. Uh... thanks for serving. We'll update your record. What's your Social?"

    4. Re:Technically, it's not a "draft notice" by ProzacPatient · · Score: 2

      The Selective Service System had discontinued it during Nixon's administration but during Jimmy Carter's administration the President got the draft re-instated as a chest pounding measure to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.

      Outlooks for economic prosperity and peace were positive for 1914 up until the day World War I broke out so until the Selective Service System is once again repealed (perhaps with a constitutional amendment as one of the replies suggests) I wouldn't put it past the government to activate the Selective Service System and start drafting kids due to the instability of this world and the possibility of total war at a moment's notice.

    5. Re:Technically, it's not a "draft notice" by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Informative

      a war that nobody but a small number of politicians seemed to want

      This is revisionist nonsense. Vietnam was the most popular war in US history. At the time of the Tonkin Gulf Resolution, 90% of American's supported deeper involvement. No other war has ever had so much support. For instance, only 70% of Americans thought the 2003 invasion of Iraq was a good idea. Of course, support for any war declines as it drags on, especially if we appear to be losing. But it is a lot easier to get into a war than out, so it is only the support at the beginning that matters.

      The Gulf of Tonkin Resolution passed the Senate with 98 votes. The two senators that opposed it were both voted out of office at the next election. It is silly to say that this war was forced on the American people by the politicians, when the truth is that it was fear of the voters that pushed the politicians into supporting the war.

    6. Re:Technically, it's not a "draft notice" by DerekLyons · · Score: 2

      And the system has been more-or-less broken for a very long time. In the mid 1980's I got back from a SSBN patrol to find waiting for me in the mail a notice from Selective Service warning me that having failed to register I was ineligible for all manner of Federal programs. (I hadn't registered because I enlisted in the Navy shortly after my 17th birthday.) Of course being on active duty or a veterans trumps Selective Service registration for eligibility, and it took a letter from my command along with a copy of my (IIRC) Page 2 to finally get them to go away.

      For an organization that basically has one job, they aren't very good at it. (Even by the usual low standards applicable to government organizations.)

    7. Re:Technically, it's not a "draft notice" by mwehle · · Score: 2

      Modern US draft registration stems from Jimmy Carter's 1980 response to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Wikipedia has a reasonable synopsis. Those interested in reading about the draft may also be interested in using their favorite Internet search engine to query for terms like "draft resistance". There's a fair body of literature out there.

      --
      Wir sind geboren, um frei zu sein - Rio Reiser
    8. Re:Technically, it's not a "draft notice" by mwehle · · Score: 3, Informative

      Phrases like "revisionist nonsense" and "it is silly to say" should likely be used sparingly unless you have a very deep grasp of your subject matter.

      Conflating the Tonkin Gulf Resolution with America's war in Vietnam would be a mistake. In bringing Tonkin into an argument you may wish to acquaint yourself with records detailing the Johnson Administration's orchestration of the resolution. See Michael Beschloss's work for instance, or the Pentagon Papers, either portions of the full set or the single volume if your time is short. With Tonkin Johnson was reacting from fear of voters, but the documentary record shows clearly that the Administration wished to expand the war despite public sentiment, not because of it.

      In arguing that the war in Vietnam was popular you will likely want to look at some actual polling data, http://www.gallup.com/poll/119... for instance. Anecdotal evidence such as Nixon's 1968 platform may also prove useful to you.

      --
      Wir sind geboren, um frei zu sein - Rio Reiser
    9. Re:Technically, it's not a "draft notice" by Darinbob · · Score: 2

      Only 70% supported invasion of Iraq? I'm amazed it is that high. I meet so few people who through (before or after) that it was a good idea.

      Vietnam started popular but it got very unpopular over time. Unlike Dubya's insistence that Americans should do things normally and forget that there was an ongoing war, in the Vietnam era there was an omnipresent reminder that there was a war and that it had been going to for a very long time and that people were dying with no discernable change in the militaryh positions. Also, unlike Dubya's version of embedded journalists, the Vietnam era journalists had more realistic coverage of the war. But similar to Iraq, everyone naively assumed it would be a quick and easy war rather than the messy quagmires they turned out to be.

      Even today some extremists still like to call Walter Cronkite a traitor, blaming him for turning the middle class against the war.

    10. Re:Technically, it's not a "draft notice" by plopez · · Score: 2

      It's not called a draft. It's called a 'stop loss' order. During the worst years of Iraq-Afghanistan people at the end of their original service requirements were not allowed to leave. It was mostly for critical specialties but a draft by any other name is still a draft.

      --
      putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
    11. Re:Technically, it's not a "draft notice" by plopez · · Score: 2

      See my other post. 'Stop loss' orders were issued, which amounted to a draft.

      --
      putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
    12. Re:Technically, it's not a "draft notice" by Darinbob · · Score: 2

      Yes there was the feeling that pulling out would cause the deaths to be in vain, however it was pretty clear to many that there was no practical hope of "winning" and that it would just kill more people (of which the Americans were just a small fraction).

      The draft is really what got us out of it. People did not like that their children were dying because of a unlucky draw at the draft office, and yes there were a lot of rich kids unable to get out of service. Today it's different because most of those volunteer soldiers are poor (or not even citizens) and so don't register very high on the concern list of politicians.

    13. Re:Technically, it's not a "draft notice" by NotSanguine · · Score: 2

      The Selective Service System had discontinued it during Nixon's administration but during Jimmy Carter's administration the President got the draft registration re-instated as a chest pounding measure to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.

      There. FTFY. As I recall, I had to register with the Selective Service System when I turned 18. There was no draft. However, the law did have some teeth, as those who did not register were deemed ineligible for Federal college financial aid programs.

      --
      No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
    14. Re:Technically, it's not a "draft notice" by jfengel · · Score: 2

      Yes, though not a general draft. Still a rather shocking thing to have happened, since it disguised the need for a general draft, that might have altered people's perceptions of the war.

  8. Re:dmv by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The DMV existed in the 1800's?

    People don't get driver's licenses when they are born. Thousands of people born in the 1890s were still driving in the 1990s, and a few were still driving in the 2000s.

  9. Re:dmv by Dragonslicer · · Score: 4, Insightful

    A quick search on Google showed that California's DMV was established in 1915, at which point they would definitely be working with people born in the 1890's.

  10. Re:Excessive Data Retention by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2

    Vision and competence are also requirements ...

    I live in California, and I can assure you that competence is not a requirement here.

  11. Year-10,000 updates? by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 3, Funny

    Our programs use 4-digit years. We tell our customers that they must notify us by the year 9,995 if they want year-10,000 updates. And, if we are expected to go to a different galaxy, they must pay for travel.

  12. Re:I'm sure both of the affected are rather flatte by Austerity+Empowers · · Score: 3, Funny

    But with the usual mess in government records, quite a number of dead souls.

    The dead are often a pivotal election demographic.

  13. What might have happened. by wcrowe · · Score: 3

    One scenario: some systems have tables that use a separate field for storing the century. Whoever wrote the query, sql statement, or whatever, left out the century, and there you have it. Probably not a Y2K problem, but more like a dumbass programmer problem.

    --
    Proverbs 21:19
  14. Not necessarily "crack pot" by Mysticeti · · Score: 2

    During George W. Bush's first term, prior to the invasion of Iraq, Charles Rangel introduced a bill to reinstate the draft. While Rangel probably should have retired a few years ago I think this was a good move even if it amounted to nothing...


    The New York Democrat told reporters his goal is two-fold: to jolt Americans into realizing the import of a possible unilateral strike against Iraq, which he opposes, and "to make it clear that if there were a war, there would be more equitable representation of people making sacrifices."


    "I truly believe that those who make the decision and those who support the United States going into war would feel more readily the pain that's involved, the sacrifice that's involved, if they thought that the fighting force would include the affluent and those who historically have avoided this great responsibility," Rangel said.

  15. Re:any responses by Austerity+Empowers · · Score: 4, Funny

    "Ulysses you old rat bastard, I'm not fallin' for that trick again. Let 'em secede."

  16. Re:I'm sure both of the affected are rather flatte by idontgno · · Score: 2

    Good point. I suppose in Pennsylvania this could be perceived as a problem, but in New York or Illinois draft eligiblity would just be the dead's civic duty, right alongside voting and jury participation.

    Don't disenfranchise our patriotic dead!

    --
    Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
  17. Re:YMCXXIV by Jason+Levine · · Score: 2

    Which is why we should write out "2014" as "000000000000002014". That should last us long enough.

    --
    My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
  18. Re:I'm sure both of the affected are rather flatte by CurryCamel · · Score: 3, Funny

    I think any election a century or so ago qualifies now.

  19. Re:Dont repeat by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 2

    We're missing BC/AD, BCE/CE and AC/DC.

  20. No faith in scientific progress? by Bruce66423 · · Score: 2

    Given the rate at which life expectancy is rising, a lot of people are going to be alive a lot longer than they expect.