Slashdot Mirror


Audi Pulls Website Because Of Y2K

pinhead writes "Audi (USA) has voluntarily pulled their site because of the Y2K scare." What, are they afraid that the website will suddenly start displaying pictures of Volvos? The funniest notice we've seen today is this memo from the Auckland Airport issued 1900 years ago. Y2K has appeared mostly harmless thus far, but we may die of laughter. Update: 12/31 04:30 by E : The Auckland Airport page has been fixed.

139 comments

  1. Re:Shutting down the site by phil+reed · · Score: 2

    Hey, I said talking about. I'm not planning on doing anything.


    ...phil

    --

    ...phil
    "For a list of the ways which technology has failed to improve our quality of life, press 3."
  2. That's a really stupid reason! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Do you shutdown your servers every weeks just because it's Friday in some parts of the world and Saturday in others? Why would it make any difference at 1999-2000?

  3. Re:They may have a good reason?? by treat · · Score: 1

    Is this standard procedure on every new year? Seems like pretty fragile software.

  4. Re:*sigh*... Stupid Perl Programmers Strike Again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    cos perl is used in CGI and not C dimwit ?

  5. Ebay, Audi, Y2K, and execuses by smart2000 · · Score: 2
    This is on eBays site today. The eBay site will be unavailable for Y2K verification from 15:30 PST to 18:00 PST on Friday, December 31 and from 23:00 PST, Friday, December 31 to 03:00 PST, Saturday, January 1. If you try to connect to eBay during these times, you may receive a "Failed to connect" error message.

    What's the point of Y2K verification if you aren't going to be around on Y2K?

    --
    To purchase it is not like spending money but rather it is an investment in the future in a blow against the empire
    1. Re:Ebay, Audi, Y2K, and execuses by mihalis · · Score: 1

      What's the point of Y2K verification if you aren't going to be around on Y2K?

      Well I would guess they want to check that nothing they control failed when the time came and then go on-line with confidence. I don't think all this effort was spent to make sure everything in the world was working precisely at midnight, more that things are all back to normal as soon as possible afterwards.


      Chris Morgan


      They made me turn my Ultra10 workstation off as a precaution. Pah!

  6. die laughing is right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The other half of the world could have just been blown up by nukes, hey, who knows...

  7. Re:VW.com also! by fooey · · Score: 1

    interstingly, http://www.vw.dk/ is up.

  8. Re:*sigh*... Stupid Perl Programmers Strike Again by jbudde · · Score: 1

    They just fixed it...it's now reading the correct year of 2000. Maybe they realized all the traffic must be for some reason, and took a look at it. Oh well, at least I got to see it while it was still 100.

  9. Re:its the same as any other time! by treat · · Score: 4
    Who's to say they didn't just pop another box in here right now on that IP so that if there is any exploits, they won't harm their real content?

    Are the people who took down their website because it's a new year -really- going to be intelligent enough to even think of that?

    Besides, www.audiusa.com/anything gives you a very nice not found page, with links to their entire site. It's still up. They just changed the main page.

  10. the auckland airport site has been updated by fooey · · Score: 1

    the auckland airport notice that all has dandy has since been updated. it no longer has the year 100, but year 2000, in the date.

  11. script kiddies: come back tomorrow! by ActionListener · · Score: 1
    >>Sorry, we have temporarily disabled this module. While Audiusa.com is fully prepared for Y2K and beyond, we wanted to keep our databases clear of the millennium madness everyone seems to be talking about. Full service will be restored on January 1st.

    Or, translated into plain English:

    Sorry, we have temporarily disabled this module. We at Audi don't know how to run a secure web site. We keep our database records on our web server. Full service will be restored on January 1st, 1900.

  12. Polaroid has withdrawn their site... by MadAhab · · Score: 1

    The polaroid site has been stripped to the homepage, which has a notice that is is being "upgraded" and will be available again on New Year's day.

    I would suppose this to be an example of hacker fears - I would assume that they figured without server scripts they'd be that much less hackable...

    --
    Expanding a vast wasteland since 1996.
  13. Re:But air cooled engines were nifty... by somnambule · · Score: 1

    I agree, and they are still "nifty." I own a 1968 VW Type III fastback, which is a rare beast here in Philadelphia, PA. How I long for the days when I didn't live on a steep incline, when I could get underneath it and work without the fear that the crummy emergency brake would give out, killing me. Ferdinand Porsche was a brilliant man. "Volkswagens don't leak oil, they MARK THEIR TERRITORY."

    --
    -somnambule
  14. Also: power grid fear & cost-benefit calculations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Yeah, our CTO is a little worried about the local electric and telecomm utilities. Our Web site is on a multi-million dollar Sun Starfire box. If that baby fries, we can't just cash in the warranty from our server room power supply vendor and be back online the next day; we're talking lawyers and months before we could fully restore services.

    So the Web site comes down for half a day. Big deal. Many sites, like ours, get most of their traffic during workdays. Weekends and holdays (and, especially, holidays that fall on weekends) see much less traffic. We have very little to gain by staying online, and a lot to lose. So the site comes down.

  15. Shutting down the site by phil+reed · · Score: 3

    We're talking about shutting down our site, but more because of script kiddies taking the opportunity to mess with sites than because of a Y2K problem.


    ...phil

    --

    ...phil
    "For a list of the ways which technology has failed to improve our quality of life, press 3."
    1. Re:Shutting down the site by FFFish · · Score: 1

      Then why mention it? It added absolutely nothing to the discussions. Same as this post, save that perhaps it'll clue a few people in that "speech is silver, silence is gold."

      --

      --
      Don't like it? Respond with words, not karma.
    2. Re:Shutting down the site by phil+reed · · Score: 2

      Because, your opinion to the contrary, I believe it does contribute, if only to show a certain position. Your mileage may vary.


      ...phil

      --

      ...phil
      "For a list of the ways which technology has failed to improve our quality of life, press 3."
    3. Re:Shutting down the site by pi_rules · · Score: 1

      If you're seriously afraid of a group of script kiddies wouldn't it be much more prudent (and look better in the eyes of the public) If you secured your site rather than just take it down? Seriously here... script kiddies are just that: script kiddies. They shouldn't pose a serious threat no matter how many of them there are. The only realistic "damage" they could do would be to run a DoS attack; rendering the site inoperable. Apparently however you've done that that much for them :)

  16. O.K. Moderate that one down as flamebait... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sorry guys, I got all political there for a second, and one thing most know is that fist doesn't ever get political and stuff. I guess it's the millenium thing got me all angsty. To be ontopic for a change, does anyone know of a mirror of the darn thing? I know at least one other AC is keeping a list on his webpage (the y2k bug article) and would probably like it for posterity...

    fist prost
    The friendly first poster

  17. slight problem with the airport by jlb · · Score: 2

    Any Y2K problems are not going to make ANYTHING think it's 100AD. More likely 1900AD. It's funny, but I guess I'm just picky.

    1. Re:slight problem with the airport by MarcoAtWork · · Score: 1

      No, I don't agree, from the localtime manpage:

      tm_year
      The number of years since 1900.

      which starting 1/1/2000, is going to be in fact 100

      --
      -- the cake is a lie
    2. Re:slight problem with the airport by mazeone · · Score: 1

      Any Y2K problems are not going to make ANYTHING think it's 100AD. More likely 1900AD. It's funny, but I guess I'm just picky.

      actually, this is a perl-ism. Perl returns the year as the actual year -1900. Therefore, a lot of perl scripts will show 100 for the date if the programmer doesn't add the 1900 back to it.

      --
      When in danger or in doubt, run in circles scream and shout.
    3. Re:slight problem with the airport by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Worng ;) Check out the memo in the story.

    4. Re:slight problem with the airport by mce · · Score: 1
      Well, it doesn't matter who is at fault, it's a Y2K bug anyway. Having said that: it's actually always a coder. If not the one of the application, it's the one of the library, the compiler, the OS, the cpu (yes), ...

      --

    5. Re:slight problem with the airport by mce · · Score: 1
      Sorry about getting the comparison wrong. Does the time of year count as an excuse? :-)

      Having said that, in 1999, it displayed 99. This is generally correct in a human-computer interface context, since leaving out the century is a well accepted convention (and has been for much longer then we've had computers). It may be a silly or in some contexts even dangerous convention and all that, but that in itself doesn't make it incorrect.

      In 2000 it displays 100, which is incorrect except if the spec says something like "display tm_year". So, the question then becomes: does anyone have the spec for this thing written down and approved by management? :-)

      --

    6. Re:slight problem with the airport by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My Quicken gives the year 100 for transactions in 2000. Fortunately, I never really use it... :)

    7. Re:slight problem with the airport by jlb · · Score: 1
      Eek..you're right. I actually thought about localtime before I made that post but I think I was in a bit of a hurry. I guess since I've always preferred that the full date be displayed the thought never crossed my mind.

      Why was the standard this way? Seems counter-intuitive. Is it just another throwback from when everyone had to conserve as much memory as possible?

    8. Re:slight problem with the airport by MarcoAtWork · · Score: 1

      It's not a perl-ism, but a simple *nix-ism, check the ctime(3) manpage (or, if you have it, the localtime one)

      --
      -- the cake is a lie
    9. Re:slight problem with the airport by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nothing wrong with that...the problem seems to be the way the dates are being displayed, like the swiss page that has "19%d",date making it 19100 and the like. It just means we should have to come up with a slightly different way of displaying the date. A pain in the arse, true, but that's the way the sundial crumbles. As for making things think it's 100 AD that isn't happening either. That's our perception based on the way the date is displayed. The computer knows that it is, as you stated, 100 years since 1900. A back asswards way of saying 2000 but a pain in the arse by any other name is still a hemerhoid...

    10. Re:slight problem with the airport by ddstreet · · Score: 2

      Well, it doesn't matter who is at fault, it's a Y2K bug anyway. Having said that: it's actually always a coder.

      No, it's not a Y2K bug. The code(r) didn't either add 1900 or prepend 19 to the string. So in 1999, it would appear as the year 99. A Y2K bug is one that works before 2000, but not after. Clearly, this would not work at any time. So it IS the coders fault (not a Y2K bug - that was the comparison I was making, coder vs. Y2K, not between the code and coder.)

    11. Re:slight problem with the airport by fishbowl · · Score: 1



      "actually, this is a perl-ism. Perl returns the year as the actual year -1900. "


      Don't make it sound like perl is to blame here.
      It's the ANSI C library's method of storing time.
      Perl, in order to be portable, uses ANSI C, so it
      inherits this from C.

      At least perl scalars are able to hold the five
      digits of "19100" without causing a segfault.
      If a char pointer in C has been alloc'd 4 bytes
      for the year, and gets 5 bytes copied into it,
      unpredictable behavior follows.

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    12. Re:slight problem with the airport by ddstreet · · Score: 2

      which starting 1/1/2000, is going to be in fact 100

      Yeah, and before that would be 0-99, so I guess if this page was up yesterday the date would have read Dec 31, 99? Obviously if the method of generating this year generates 100 now, it wouldn't have added a '19' previously. The coder (if this date is truly generated and not hardcoded) is at fault, not the software; if a 0-99 was expected before, a 100 should be expected now. That's what they got.

    13. Re:slight problem with the airport by toriver · · Score: 1
      My Quicken gives the year 100 for transactions in 2000. Fortunately, I never really use it... :)

      Known bug in NT SP 4 and unpatched Win95's MFC short date format. (Notice: For NT 4, the bug was introduced with that service pack, and fixed in SP 5.

    14. Re:slight problem with the airport by treat · · Score: 1

      Despite what you saw on the news, 100 or 19100 is extremely likely. The only reasonable explanation I've seen for 1900 is COBOL programs where 99+1 can wrap to 0.

    15. Re:slight problem with the airport by treat · · Score: 1
      like the swiss page that has "19%d",date making it 19100 and the like. It just means we should have to come up with a slightly different way of displaying the date. A pain in the arse, true, but that's the way the sundial crumbles.

      19%d is the different way of displaying the date. tm.tm_year is the number of years since 1900. "19%d", tm->tm_year saves a couple keystrokes over "%d", tm->tm_year+1900, that's why people do it. It's very easy to add 1900 to a number, and it's very well known that this is how localtime() works. No pain.

  18. Why do that? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'd simply keep a working backup somewhere to re-upload (images and all). Or do what that one guy with the bike shop did, make a fake hacked page with a link at the bottom to the real thing. If you check the attrition mirrors a lot of the 'nicer' crackers are at least saving the original somewhere nowadays...

    fist

  19. Dynamic HTML or something? by Fesh · · Score: 1
    I got a look at the page source on the Aukland Airport site... Looked to me like the year was hardcoded. Is that necessarily the case? I don't know enough about DHTML or CGI to tell if the page source had been automatically generated or not.

    Anyways, if it was hardcoded, then it isn't a Y2K issue... Sorry to spoil the fun, guys.


    --Fesh

    --
    --Fesh
    Kill -9 'em all, let root@localhost sort 'em out.
    1. Re:Dynamic HTML or something? by TummyX · · Score: 1

      It would be server side (CGI, ASP etc)
      Dynamic HTML is done client side, all the text would be downloaded but then the text would dynamically change from what's already been downloaded.
      And you'd need IE to do it properly anyway.

    2. Re:Dynamic HTML or something? by Our+Man+In+Redmond · · Score: 1

      Most likely it was something like a server-side include. If they're working properly you never see the HTML code that inserts the text into your page -- just the result.
      --

      --
      Someone you trust is one of us.
  20. Cool! Just in time! by KlomDark · · Score: 1

    I went to the site, hit Print. It seemed to get stuck in the print queue, so I refreshed and hit Print again. I walked over to the printer and found two copies - one that said 1 Jan 100 and another that said 1 Jan 2000. I must have refreshed just as they were fixing it. Wheeheee! :)

  21. Re:I have an idea! by aqua · · Score: 3

    Anyone thinking about Y10k? -- Me Dan Bernstein. He was the one that lobbied the Usenet committees to make date formats survive y10k, and proposed the TAI64 time format, which helpfully lasts from the big bang to the big crunch. Add another 64 bits and you can individually address every attosecond in the whole span.

  22. Hoping Y2K goes well by Wacko · · Score: 1
    One of the funnies quotes so far has to be on the BBC news site where is says
    The US-Russian effort to ensure no nuclear missiles are launched in error because of the bug reported a good start to the rollover.

    "There's been no glitches, everything is working smoothly," said US Air Force Col Mike Therrien at the Center for Year 2000 Strategic Stability at Peterson Air Force Base in Colorado Springs, Colorado.

    I just hope the "good start" continues!
  23. No It Was A Joke by Hubec · · Score: 1

    Most likely it was a little inside joke. Which unfortunatly got seen by too many people who thought it was real and it had to be removed (if you look now it says 2000).

  24. possible reason for the closedown by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Some sites, as I understand it, are shutting down because they are worried about certain weak pieces of software being exploited (such as MS Exchange Server).

  25. Re:Script kiddies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    nmap -sS 198.137.240.92 -O -F -o oops.log

    i think i speak for most of the windows users on slashdot as i say:

    huh?

  26. Re:Script kiddies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think i speak for most of the windows users on slashdot as i say:

    You mean all 3 of them?
  27. Volvo... by Oscarfish · · Score: 2

    I can understand why they pulled the site...I mean, "What, are they afraid that the website will suddenly start displaying pictures of Volvos?" might sound trivial for most people, but not if you're stuck driving one. 240DL stationwagon, 10 years old, 200,000 miles, beat up to hell (many small pieces are broken off, in various parking lots and highway shoulder rails).

    --

    --------

    Oscarfish.com: tropical fish with attitude. Way t

  28. Re:Script kiddies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    i think i speak for most of the windows users on slashdot as i say: huh?

    Why should special accomidations be made for you, when most Windows-only software, hardware, file formats, and protocols are designed to make life as difficult as possible for non-Windows users?

  29. Pfffft. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    That's why I drive a subie.

    http://www.netcraft.com/whats/?host=www.subaru.com

    www.subaru.com is running Apache/1.3.9 (Unix) mod_perl/1.21 PHP/3.0.12 on Linux

    A nice car! Eats A4's for lunch, without a single mod. Throw an Eaton or a Garett on there, with a bilstien/wrx suspension, and S4/M3's would fall just as quickly, for a hell of a lot less money too.

    :)

    1. Re:Pfffft. by VB · · Score: 1

      Ford Festiva, here. Unfortunately, no more made, so you'll all just have to wait until I die and mine goes back on the market. >:)

      --
      www.dedserius.com
      VB != VisualBasic
    2. Re:Pfffft. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://www.tntracing.ca/. They'll drop a stock WRX engine into your RS. With some further tweaks 400+ hp should be within range.

    3. Re:Pfffft. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      http://www.spdusa.com/engine.htm:

      The 2.5 DOHC engine is a "stretched" design engine and is not recommended for more than 235hp.

      http://www.goapr.com/Products/S4/S4.HTM:

      • Stage 1: 307hp (375lb-ft) $599
      • Stage 2: 319hp $1550
      • Stage 3: ~400hp $???

      There are a lot of great performing Subarus, unfortunately none of them are available in the US.

    4. Re:Pfffft. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      As I said, the stock motor isn't a very useful base for tuning :)

      Back to reality: how many people who spend $17K on an Impreza RS are likely to spend half as much again ($8400) for a reconditioned 40,000km motor that voids most of their warranty and will probably destroy much of their drivetrain? (Is the clutch rated for almost twice the stock horsepower? Unlikely.) So don't forget to shell out more $$$ for an additional catalytic converter, STI brakes, diffs, clutch, and suspension. You may also want to buy some spares while you're there since your friendly neighborhood US Subaru dealer doesn't stock STI parts. Finally, buy this car for the long haul, because you won't see much return on this investment at resale time.

      Assuming that such extreme modification was practical, the S4 owner would select items from the RS4 parts bin to upgrade the S4 bi-turbo to RS4 spec. That's 380 hp in stock form. Using similar further tweaks that you used to get an extra 100+hp for the WRX motor, 500hp should be within range :)

  30. Re:Also: power grid fear & cost-benefit calculatio by treat · · Score: 1

    What reasonably likely to occur power problem could cause hardware damage to your Starfire?

  31. Re:*sigh*... Stupid Perl Programmers Strike Again by stevied · · Score: 1

    The page is more than likely a bad Perl program. The localtime function (what most people use to get the date), returns a list with the hour, minute, day, month, etc. It returns the year as the number of years since 1900, hence in 1999 it would have returned 99 and now it would 100.

    Erm, localtime in Perl is based on the C library function of the same name and behaviour. So I don't see why Perl programmes are more likely to be b0rked than C programmes.

  32. Re:*sigh*... Stupid Perl Programmers Strike Again by Kozz · · Score: 1

    Indeed, this could be the root of a y2k bug in many Perl scripts. I'm self-taught in Perl, and discovered many things (the hard way) on my own. This was one of them. But you gotta admit, returning "the number of years since 1900" seems pretty lame.

    You'd think that the localtime function could be rewritten to simply return the full year in a 4-digit format. Aside from messing up scripts that do $year+=1900, why not?

    For those out there more knowledgeable than I, why hasn't this been done?


    Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur.

    --
    I only post comments when someone on the internet is wrong.
  33. Re:Also: power grid fear & cost-benefit calculatio by DoninIN · · Score: 1

    Okay, I can follow that. Except for the whole idiotic notion that the power is going to go out. What have you done to prepare for the unicorn stampede that I've predicted for Jan 2? (Hint, nothing, nothing nothing.) Most of these y2K "preparations" are nothing more than some sort of odd hedging your bets against an apocalypse that isn't coming. Don's bottom line if you're afraid of the end of the world, then turning off the web server doesn't matter.

  34. Re:*sigh*... Stupid Perl Programmers Strike Again by mce · · Score: 1
    I saved a postscript copy for use at work on monday. I'd put it up somewhere on the web if I could, but I don't have a suitable place to do so.

    --

  35. Re:Script kiddies by stevied · · Score: 2

    i think i speak for most of the windows users on slashdot as i say:

    huh?

    Yeah, Windows users seem to say that a lot..

    :-)

  36. Re:Also: power grid fear & cost-benefit calculatio by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    are you running an e10k without UPS ??? or general power conditioning ??? bad bad bad bad bad And if you got a starfire I am SURE u have a service contract....SUN to the rescue :)

  37. Copyright is still 1999 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I guess URL Masters haven't scrubbed their templates yet.

  38. Re:*sigh*... Stupid Perl Programmers Strike Again by mce · · Score: 3
    Speaking of being lame, in JavaScript, things are even lamer. In versions prior to 1.2, if the year is less than 2000, you get the number of years since 1900, but after that you get the full year. To make matters worse, this has been changed in later versions. See http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/Ken_North /y2k_web.htm for more details.

    I really wonder who came up with all these wonderful ideas and what stuff they have been smoking at the time.

    --

  39. First New Zealand flight of the millenium by timjones · · Score: 2
    Am I the only one to notice that the first plane to take off in the new millenium was headed from NZ to California?

    Hmmm, they take off at 1/1/2000 00:04, go east, cross the date line, where it is still 12/31/1999 and about 16-18 hours later, experience the millenium rollover AGAIN?

    Three cheers for getting back to work!

    Tim

    LinuxLocal.com for full-time 100% Linux Consultants

    1. Re:First New Zealand flight of the millenium by rjamestaylor · · Score: 1
      Sorry, the flight, like 99.999% of aviation (this excludes John Denver-type flyers) are on UTC time. Every critical service runs on UTC (military, etc.) and so far as I've heard there have been no problems (UTC 00:00 was 1.38 hours ago).

      So the plane only experienced rollover once. (Facts mess up fun...)

      :-only kona in my cup-:
      :-robert taylor-:

      :-only kona in my cup-:
      :-robert taylor-:
      --
      -- @rjamestaylor on Ello
    2. Re:First New Zealand flight of the millenium by toriver · · Score: 1
      So the plane only experienced rollover once. (Facts mess up fun...)

      Irrelevant: The passengers got to celebrate the new year twice. That's the important bit.

  40. Re:VW.com also! by mikeylebeau · · Score: 1

    As is audi.com. (Not the USA site.)

  41. Re:*sigh*... Stupid Perl Programmers Strike Again by treat · · Score: 1
    You'd think that the localtime function could be rewritten to simply return the full year in a 4-digit format.

    Besides breaking existing software, as you said, it would also add needless confusion. Right now Perl's localtime function is identical to C's. C's can't be changed because it would also break a lot of existing software. It would just be a huge, huge mess, for no real benefit.

  42. Site not disabled! Only main page is. Look here! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Click here to get to the site map. Only the main index.htm page was disabled. The entire rest of the site is up and running. Just more proof that "webmasters" who took their 2 week course on Frontpage are experts at nothing.

  43. Well, so much for my Audi by mavik · · Score: 1

    Anyone out there want a 1992 Audi 100S?

    While I've been a loyal Audi fan/owner for over 15 years, I'm affraid that when my co-workers hear about Audi's "millennium madness" over Y2k, I'm toast. So much for my plans to buy an A8 and TT this year.

    1. Re:Well, so much for my Audi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A TT? Why would you want a flattened Volkswagen Beetle? Audi really messed up with THAT one!

    2. Re:Well, so much for my Audi by mihalis · · Score: 1

      While I've been a loyal Audi fan/owner for over 15 years, I'm affraid that when my co-workers hear about Audi's "millennium madness" over Y2k, I'm toast. So much for my plans to buy an A8 and TT this year.

      Then it seems to me you're buying cars for the wrong reasons. Why on earth would you change your opinion about what car to own because of the manufacturers website? I can well imagine Porsche not having a great website (I don't actually know) but if I had the right amount of money it wouldn't hold me back, let alone what my coworkers thought. Hell if I went by my coworkers opinions I'd have a Ford Truck and a Cadillac.

  44. Any mirrors? by Uberdog · · Score: 2

    Can someone put up a mirror of the Auckland Airport page before it got fixed. Picturing the "100" there is almost funny enough.

    1. Re:Any mirrors? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1
    2. Re:Any mirrors? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      BTW:
      Hi guys!

      Visit:
      http://go.to/y2kmistakes
      To see screenshots of websites affected by Y2K.

      PLS send screenshots or URLs to:
      y2kmistakes@mail.com

      Thanx!

    3. Re:Any mirrors? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Very nice effort. But the "other" NZ airport page was a lot funnier than the one included there. Does anybody have a screenshot of that? If so, please submit it for posterity, so they can get a laugh too,

    4. Re:Any mirrors? by daveb · · Score: 1
  45. pointing fingers vs. playing it safe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    By "server room power supply vendor" I meant "the company we bought the *huge* server-room power-supply conditioner / UPS from". Sure, it's supposed to take care of things, and there must be some kind of warranty, but 1) you'd have to get them to pay up, and for a multi-million dollar claim there's gonna be serious paperwork, to say the least, 2) then you have to find the hardware, and you can't just buy a Starfire at CompUSA, 3) you have to rebuild the whole cluster

    As for the Sun service contract, yeah, we have software and hardware support, but if there was a major problem in this large city, Sun's support crews would be swamped.

    Like I say, it's cost-benefit. The likelihood of something like a line spike over the power line or telecomm link getting through the conditioner/UPS and/or the relatively cheap telecomm hardware and frying the Starfire and/or its storage array is tiny. But the cost of dealing with such damage is HUGE, and the expected Web traffic for our planned downtime is so small that the benefits of taking the small risk are so much less than the costs of the worst-case-scenario damage, that it's a reasonable decision to shut down.

    Think about the whole PHB anti-Free Software argument "who can we sue?". In this case, we could sue the conditioner / UPS vendor if a monster power spike made it through the UPS and toasted our system. But we're being more realistic: the conditions under which we'd be able to sue for any relief are so bad that it's better to take prudent measures to avoid the finger-pointing, lawyer-requiring post-disaster scenario.

    Personally, I think we ought to be running lots of cheap servers behind LocalDirectors (or similar) instead of using one big Starfire box, so we could do something like take a couple boxes offline, but keep the site up, and replace any damaged hardware quickly, easily, and cheaply. Alas, with a Starfire downtime may be rare, but it's very expensive when/if it happens.

    1. Re:pointing fingers vs. playing it safe by jguthrie · · Score: 1
      Anonymous Coward Wrote:
      By "server room power supply vendor" I meant "the company we bought the *huge* server-room power-supply conditioner / UPS from". Sure, it's supposed to take care of things, and there must be some kind of warranty, but 1) you'd have to get them to pay up, and for a multi-million dollar claim there's gonna be serious paperwork, to say the least, 2) then you have to find the hardware, and you can't just buy a Starfire at CompUSA, 3) you have to rebuild the whole cluster
      This is, in a word, stupid. If you have to worry about power problems destroying your power conditioner, then you've bought the wrong power conditioner. The setups I've seen (and I run a wimpy one-lung little ISP so I don't have any of that kind of serious hardware, oh and if you go, be sure to check out our y2k policy it's at the bottom of the page) the only danger the power system can be to the protected computer is if a power pole is driven through it by a tornado or something.

      From my perspective, either what you've got works, or it doesn't. If it works, then you've got no reason to go off-line, and every reason not to. If it doesn't work, then you shouldn't be up at all if you're afraid of the risks because the risks tonight aren't going to be any greater than the risks any other night.

      Tomorrow, on the other hand, is a different story. Think about it: 90% of all the cops of the face of the earth will be sleeping off the 36 hours of duty they have tonight, but why would anybody worry? After all it's not Y2K.

    2. Re:pointing fingers vs. playing it safe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wouldn't it have made a lot more sense to pull the system down to test the UPS under dummy load and make sure you could count on it during Armageddon? I mean, why pay for power conditioning and backup in the first place if you're going to 'bypass' it if you get a whiff that it might need to DO something?

  46. not audi, but down nonetheless by javamon · · Score: 1

    West Virginia's educational system relies on a computer network called wvnet. When my sister tried to check her mail on West Virginia U's pop account, no dice. It appears wvnet has taken down all sites (universities, colleges) but their main portal. I'm not sure if this caution is so prudent. Unless all the techies stuck at work want the bandwidth for themselves to play massive quake areans...

    ---

    --
    "if there is any doubt, there is no doubt."
    1. Re:not audi, but down nonetheless by asherlev · · Score: 1

      The high school I graduated from in West Virginia rolled back everything to 1997. Those of us that live here, however, realize that once you cross the border it's really 1946.

  47. Re:*sigh*... Stupid Perl Programmers Strike Again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Indeed, this could be the root of a y2k bug in many Perl scripts. I'm self-taught in Perl, and discovered many things (the hard way) on my own. This was one of them.

    How did you teach yourself Perl without reading the documentation? Or at least, how did you learn about localtime without reading the documentation?

  48. vw.com NOT down. Look here! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Click here to get to vw.com. As usual "We've taken down the site." really means "We renamed index.html".

    Clueless.

    Idiots.

    Whenever a site clims to be down I trie all sorts of URLs. index2.htm[l] index-old.htm[l] welcome.htm[l] help/ images/ main/ english/ etc. Just keep porbing until you hit on something. Is this "cracking"? Hardly.

  49. cowards... by buffy · · Score: 1

    Grr...If you didn't prepare for y2k by checking your code, and that of your vendors, then have the guts to leave it up and watch what happens! Putting your head in the sand, then saying "just in case, we're taking our site down..." is worthless, and does nothing to inspire consumer confidence.

    Now, if you _did_ prepare, then you should KNOW that you're fine, and again...there is no reason to take your site down.

    Personally, the malfunctions that we're going to see are going to be few and far between, and probably 90+% of them are not going to show up on the roll over anyways!

    People are sad. I'm glad I'm only going to see one of these stupid things.

    -Buffy

  50. Re:Pfffft (more off subject) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Bullshit performance numbers, you seem to be quoting manufacturers claimed numbers. Have you actually driven the two cars (RS and A4)? I have. The stock A4 is heavier and less agile than the stock RS, and slower off the line. The Audi does do better at top speed, though. For the price difference between the two, though, there are some simple and cheap mods that will push the sub even further past the A4 for both handling and power. I am not as familiar with the Audi aftermarket so I cannot quote the existence of suspension and engine parts.

    You wanna quote more expensive cars? How's this (from a C&D road test):

    SUBARU IMPREZA 22B STi
    Vehicle type: front-engine, 4-wheel-drive,
    5-passenger, 2-door sedan
    Price as tested (Japan): $41,600
    Engine type: turbocharged and intercooled DOHC
    16-valve flat-4, aluminum block and heads,
    Subaru engine-control
    system with port fuel injection

    Displacement..........135 cu in, 2212cc
    Power (C/D est)..........300 bhp @ 6300 rpm
    Torque (SAE net)..........267 lb-ft @ 3200 rpm
    Transmission..........5-speed manual
    Wheelbase..........99.2 in
    Length..........171.9 in
    Curb weight..........2857 lb
    Zero to 60 mph..........4.7 sec
    Zero to 100 mph..........13.1 sec
    Zero to 130 mph..........28.2 sec
    Street start, 5-60 mph..........6.3 sec
    Standing 1/4-mile..........13.5 sec @ 101 mph
    Top speed (drag limited)..........144 mph
    Braking, 70-0 mph..........164 ft
    Roadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad..........0.96 g

  51. See above for vw.com too. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    .

  52. Screenshots of websites affected by Y2K by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hi guys!

    Visit:
    http://go.to/y2kmistakes
    To see screenshots of websites affected by Y2K.

    PLS send screenshots or URLs to:
    y2kmistakes@mail.com

    Thanx!

    1. Re:Screenshots of websites affected by Y2K by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I saw an army website a few months back where it had new field manuals that said on the front: "active January 15th, 1900" Can't find it now though.

    2. Re:Screenshots of websites affected by Y2K by gewalker · · Score: 1

      I went through all of the screenshots there. As expected some the same bad programming shows up over and over.

      1) Many were of the variety 19100 because of the lousy years since 1900 design of unix/C/Perl, etc.

      2) A number of site demonstrate the even bigger kludge of Java returning 2 digit year, unless it is 2000+, in which case it is a four digit year, thus 192000 (only some versions of java)

      3) Jan 1 1900 was popular as well -- of course, this was the failure mode that was always reported by the news media. A pretty obvious programming error.

      4) Dec 32 1999 was a lot more common than I would have guessed. Is there a simple algorithmic flaw that would allow this? I know that if you clock reports a julian date, and you convert this to a plaintext equivalent and you start by getting the year wrong, it would be possible to end up with December 32. But why would you have gotten the year wrong in the first place?

      5) There were a couple of bizarre ones, like the year 3700. I can't image the coding errors needed to produce this.

  53. Re:Sub? NOT even! by Hunahpu · · Score: 1

    While I am not a Sub. hater, and am not a loyal Audi owner, I tend to think you are way off base claiming "eat for lunch". One is four door, one is two door. There's a price difference. Not leather in onw, leather in the other; and ofcourse Coilovers, chips, and brake upgrades make them about equal for the same upgrade cost. From Edmunds.com new car guide. Keep in mind, I am not bashing/hailing either of these; just being objective.

    Impreza Coupe 2.5 RS 2-Dr 5-Speed
    Invoice = $17,686
    Performance Data
    Acceleration (0-60 mph): 8.2 sec.
    Braking Distance (60-0 mph): 128 ft.
    Roadholding Index: 0.80
    Base Number of Cylinders: 4
    Base Engine Size: 2.5 liters
    Horsepower: 165 hp @ 5600 rpm
    Torque: 166 ft-lbs. @ 4000 rpm

    A4 Sedan 1.8T 4-Dr 5-Speed
    Invoice = $21,356
    Performance Data
    Acceleration (0-60 mph): 8.0 sec.
    Braking Distance (60-0 mph): 139 ft.
    Roadholding Index: 0.79
    Base Number of Cylinders: 4
    Base Engine Size: 1.8 liters
    Horsepower: 150 hp @ 5700 rpm
    Torque: 155 ft-lbs. @ 1750 rpm

  54. Re:*sigh*... Stupid Perl Programmers Strike Again by Kozz · · Score: 1

    Ah -- if it's identical to C's, then I understand why it would cause such a ruckus to change it. I agree that it would cause more mess than benefit. Still makes me wonder why it wasn't 4-digit year from the start. ;)

    Thanks!


    Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur.

    --
    I only post comments when someone on the internet is wrong.
  55. My school by pnevares · · Score: 1

    Yeah, I've been affected by this stuff too. My school (www.mc.maricopa.edu) decided to shut down THE ENTIRE NETWORK from Noon (our time) today until Jan 2. Huh?

    No e-mail, no Netscape roaming access, no web pages, no FTP, no Telnet.

    Do they really want me to get drunk and party? Cuz that's the only thing left. =)


    Pablo Nevares, "the freshmaker".

    --

    Pablo Nevares, "the freshmaker".
  56. Re:Script kiddies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It initiates a fast stealth scan against the whitehouse.

    duh!

  57. Re:*sigh*... Stupid Perl Programmers Strike Again by Kozz · · Score: 1

    How did you teach yourself Perl without reading the documentation?

    By reading lots of FAQ's, tutorials, etc on multitudes of webpages... and reading other people's code. It was certainly a messy way to go about it, I'll give you that!
    I wouldn't encourage anybody else to learn it the way I did. Certainly my investments in Perl books have been completely worth it!


    Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur.

    --
    I only post comments when someone on the internet is wrong.
  58. Re:Pfffft (more off subject) by javamon · · Score: 1

    and more data... (from other post) Impreza Coupe 2.5 RS 2-Dr 5-Speed Invoice = $17,686 Performance Data Acceleration (0-60 mph): 8.2 sec. Braking Distance (60-0 mph): 128 ft. Roadholding Index: 0.80 Base Number of Cylinders: 4 Base Engine Size: 2.5 liters Horsepower: 165 hp @ 5600 rpm Torque: 166 ft-lbs. @ 4000 rpm S4-Same specs as A4 2.8T, however, add a biturbo (that's 2 turbos) 250 bhp engine with about the same ft-lbs of torque, knock a few seconds off the 0-60 time and add quattro standard. (therego matching the 4wd of the sub) M3-Dream on, 250 bhp, handling superior to every car i've driven, and from its reviews, most ever car but another german, porsche. OK, no 4wd, and the impending nuclear winter impending with the *y2k crisis* it may not be the best. But the audi will still clean up, reguardless of subaru leaving their site up while audi erred on the side of caution and did not.

    --
    "if there is any doubt, there is no doubt."
  59. Re:Script kiddies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why should special accomidations be made for you, when most Windows-only software, hardware, file formats, and protocols are designed to make life as difficult as possible for non-Windows users?

    and why should computer game designers make special accomodations for the relatively small community of linux users?

    you make the linux community look bad by saying that kind of thing.

  60. You make me laugh. I shall keep you. by father_guido · · Score: 1

    Subaru Impreza RS toasting an A4? Laughable. The build quality differences alone make an Audi customer != a Subaru customer.

    For starters, they aren't even in the same class. The Audi, at best, is a competitor with the Legacy.

    With the 1.8T, the A4 is barely behind the 2.5 in the RS. With the 2.8 (what most quattro drivers choose), all the Impreza driver will see is taillights. And the A4 1.8T is only $2500 more, btw.

  61. Re:Pfffft (more off subject) by javamon · · Score: 1

    Haven't driven that model of subaru, but i have an A4 1.8t and other subaru's. All i can say is build/ride quality. There's a reason for paying higher prices, it's not always performance oriented. In this price range, it wouldn't even be a 1.8, it'd be the S4 with a 250bhp biturbo 2.8l v-6. Still not as fast as the one you quoted above, but...

    1: (opinion, so don't scream) the audi is styled classier. it flows better. it's also what might be called a sleeper. you wouldn't expect it to have a twin turbo engine...but...
    2: saftey. i remember that sub mention in c&d. the audi has head and side airbags. sub doesn't. (of course it is made to rally race, but i hate racing harnesses when i'm dressed for a night out)
    3: that's a special subaru. the S4 isn't. audi dealers have them in stock.

    All opinion of course. Some like German, some like Japan. I prefer the bavarian. Now, back to preparing for doomsday, EST. Let's save the car talk for a non-tech news/forum site.

    --
    "if there is any doubt, there is no doubt."
  62. Re:*sigh*... Stupid Perl Programmers Strike Again by Mike+Monett · · Score: 1

    Trying to store the date as a byte doesn't save memory.

    If you use the word alignment option in your compiler, it still takes up 2 or 4 bytes depending on the definition of a word.

    If you don't use alignment, you pay a severe penalty in accessing variables.

  63. its the same as any other time! by Mo+B.+Dick · · Score: 3

    Do they not realize that their security problems will be the same during Jan. 1 as any other time! Do backdoors and exploits magically show up on Jan. 1 2000? wow thats news to me if they do!

    1. Re:its the same as any other time! by jcroft · · Score: 1

      Who's to say they didn't just pop another box in here right now on that IP so that if there is any exploits, they won't harm their real content?

      --
      ----------
      Jeff Croft
      http://jeffcroft.com
  64. WORNG! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The sound of the new 'millenium' [sic] being worng in...

    ;-)

  65. Laugh all you want MonkeyBoy ! by GW+Hayduke · · Score: 0

    It is because the Y2K bug was only invoked in the U.S. versions of Software... You may be laughing now, but watch come 12:00 EST as our wonderful plan comes together to overthrow the imperialist U.S. :)
    *side note: So that means that all my luser/customers should be safe, I mean they DO buy all the cheapest hardware/software at the trade shows, and don't they all have those !Not for Sale in the U.S.! and !Educational Purposes Only! Stickers on them???*

    Remember folks this is but a lame attempt at humour!!! ok REALLY Lame attempt

    --
    -- Life: Hate the Game... Love the cereal
  66. They may have a good reason?? by vanguard · · Score: 3

    We turned off an application or two for 24 hours on our website. I guess they/we didn't want any change orders created while it was 2000 in some parts of the world and 1999 in others.

    --
    That which does not kill me only makes me whinier
  67. But air cooled engines were nifty... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... at least in some environments. Not having coolant to pump around encourages GOOD heat dissipation design rather than designing a furnace and figuring out how to cool it to tolerable levels later. CPU makers have descended into a similar bad design mode. Stop assuming fans will be needed as an axiom.

    1. Re:But air cooled engines were nifty... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is true. I'm the proud owner of an '84 bunny now (audi 1.8L block), formerly had a 72 Camper-van with a type-IV porsche engine. The only problems I had with the engine was an oil-leak, and then right after I rebuilt it the damn thing dropped a valve seat in #2. Never once overheated though...

      fist

  68. Umm shouldn't you be securing the site? by Colin+Smith · · Score: 1

    So does that mean that you're running an insecure site?

    --
    Deleted
  69. AllAdvantage also did this... by pen · · Score: 2
    Here's an excerpt from the email...

    Y2K is nearly here! That means we can finally stop guessing about what Y2K is going to do to the world's computers - and get on with our lives. As a precautionary measure, AllAdvantage.com is going to disconnect its servers from the Internet and watch the millennial date change from the sidelines.

    We will be disconnected from 23:59 PST (GMT -0800) on December 30 through 12:00 PST (GMT -0800) on January 1.

    You will be UNABLE TO ACCRUE PAID SURFING TIME DURING THIS 36-HOUR PERIOD.

    We value your privacy and the security of your data, and this temporary suspension of service is designed to protect our community from any unanticipated effects from the date changeover.

    I don't think any comments are needed from my end...

    --

  70. Audi site is misleading by reflector · · Score: 1

    From Audi's site:

    Sorry, we have temporarily disabled this module.

    Clearly, they're not telling the truth. If they HAD disabled that module, we wouldn't be getting a web page saying "Sorry, we have temporarily disabled this module.".

  71. No shit... Its just the point by Kancer · · Score: 1

    No shit... Its just the point that these sites are adding hype to y2k bull.

  72. Re:*sigh*... Stupid Perl Programmers Strike Again by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

    You'd think that the localtime function could be rewritten to simply return the full year in a 4-digit format.

    No good. This would cause Y10K bugs 8000 years from today.

  73. I guess I'm one of those *stupid* programmers.... by Shoden · · Score: 1

    I thought it simply returned a 2-digit value for the year. At least I had it set up to append '20' to the year once it rolled over to '00'... guess I'll have some code to fix Monday morning.

  74. Well, it's 7:30am here and I'm still getting spam by Kris_J · · Score: 2
    So that's a let down. But I'm using Yahoo as my e-mail server and it's still in the last millennium, so there's hope yet.

    I do, however, enjoy the fact that "there have been no major events", oh, except for two reported false alarms in Japanese power stations. I'm sorry, but a false alarm in a power station does just fall into my "major" category - there doesn't have to be a mushroom cloud for it to be of concern.

    What I am particularly concerned about is the immediate "The geeks were wrong and we wasted all that money" attitude that's been expressed on the TV things I've been watching. Um, people, there was a problem. If it doesn't manifest itself that's because we fixed it, not because it went away by itself. But I'm preaching to the converted here.

  75. Can you spell D-U-M-B? by Nicolas+MONNET · · Score: 1

    The only thing that could damage your site as badly as you fear it would be a major nuclear catastrophe. And in that case, I believe that you and your PHBs will have other worries than your fuckin' website.

  76. Not smart enough of an ass by Nicolas+MONNET · · Score: 2

    If you have a processor that needs to have bytes aligned on a 4 bytes boundary, then you probably have lots of memory to spare. Hint: the C library dates back from a few years ago. At that time, there was no such need for alignment ... and much less memory available.

  77. Re:*sigh*... Stupid Perl Programmers Strike Again by toast0 · · Score: 1

    because as years from 1900, it can be a byte up till 2155 or thereabouts and save memory (so theres a y2.155k problem due to ppl saving memory, but i doubt it couldn't be changed to a (small) int in another century or so, with no adverse effects, if its still a byte)

  78. Re:*sigh*... Stupid Perl Programmers Strike Again by julest · · Score: 1

    I'm assuming (having not seen the problem in question), that like a number of site I've seen today, people have really not been paying attention when they've been writing their perl code.

    Specifically, and as Tom Christiansen states in his Y2k essay, the value for the year returned by the time functions is _NOT_ a two digit year... it merely _USED_ to be the case.... If you try to calcluate the year by "19".$year, you're going to be in trouble, but 1900+$year is entirely fine.

    In keeping with the whole Y2k issue in general... fixing the base behaviour of the system (if necessary) is easy... fixing the behaviour of the cluefully-challenged coder, or (worse still) the end user, is a far tougher job.

    Personally... as somebody who's just survived the whole roll-ever thing with nothing worse than a feeling that he shouldn't have hit the scotch _QUITE_ so hard, and a crashed MS Exchange server that he'll fix tomorrow, I'd just like to say that I feel pretty damned good about the whole damned thing. Now... if only I'd have been on paid overtime for posting comments at >5am the following day ;)


    -- Jules

  79. Hey, we switched our entire company off by Kris_J · · Score: 2
    That's right, I spent yesterday afternoon backing up the servers then shutting the entire company down. We left up the PABX, an answering machine, a couple of faxes and the fridge - but everything else was turned off.

    See, while our major telecommunications giant stood up and said that ther would be no Y2k problems, our power utility only ever went as far as to say "the disruption should be minimal". Since the quality of the power in our building is crappy at the best of times (the UPS for one server trips every morning when the air conditioning is switched on) we decided that we should turn off and un-plug everything we cared about.

    Anyway, it's just a moderately sized local real estate agent - it's not like the computer systems will be needed until Tuesday anyway. Better safe than trying to source parts in January.

  80. Re:Script kiddies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Me, That AC from your parent comment.. .Who else?

  81. Blocked ICMP by Inoshiro · · Score: 2

    Those stupids blocked ICMP packets, including ping and MTU discovery. I'm guessing it was Al Gore's fault.
    ---

    --
    --
    Internet Explorer (n): Another bug -- that is, a feature that can't be turned off -- in Windows.
  82. Re:*sigh*... Stupid Perl Programmers Strike Again by JBReynolds · · Score: 1
    I wonder if Perl will get a bad wrap (sic) as these programs start to break and die.

    Here's one example of this, where someone posted a message to a mailing list claiming that Y2K errors in his Perl scripts are due to a "bug" in Perl.

  83. Re:Also: power grid fear & cost-benefit calculatio by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    what a dumbass cto/company. you've got a multi-million dollar machine sitting there and you don't have your own genny? assuming that you do, which you must unless you are really, really stupid, you must realize that you could just pull the plug yourself, right? Jeez. give me a fucking break.

  84. We did some email blocking by psychophil.com · · Score: 1
    My concern was more about viruses than y2k. Because of the holidays, we have been flooded with this animated greeting card crap. No matter how many times we tell our users not to run 'em, they never listen. We decided to deny all attachments that came in though our firewall. Standard email worked just fine.

    Several of our clients/vendors likes the idea and decided they would do the same. Problem is, they don't run linux firewalls/servers... they are all MS shops. They could not find a way to just remove the attachments. They had to either deny all email or let everything through. I have no experience with MS exchange so I don't know if it's a limitation of the software or of the admins... regardless... I still find it pretty funny.

  85. launches by jimmypop · · Score: 1

    It would be on CNN. Nukes traveled more than 500 km would be reported. Any warheads not travelling that far have not been reported. I.E. the scud missles that were actually launched to test radar.

    --
    (`._(`._( , , . JimmyPop[nL] . , , )_.)_.)
  86. *sigh*... Stupid Perl Programmers Strike Again by wdr1 · · Score: 4

    The page is more than likely a bad Perl program. The localtime function (what most people use to get the date), returns a list with the hour, minute, day, month, etc. It returns the year as the number of years since 1900, hence in 1999 it would have returned 99 and now it would 100.

    Some Perl programmers (use the last part loosely), have been concatingating "19" to the front of the year instead of adding 1900. I wonder if Perl will get a bad wrap as these programs start to break and die. I hope not; I Perl.

    --
    SlashSig Karma: Excellent (mostly affected by moderatio
    1. Re:*sigh*... Stupid Perl Programmers Strike Again by Dahan · · Score: 1
      Heh, is he serious?
      I've just fixed the code to display date correctly at the top of the page whcih is a perl script by adding the command:
      $year = 2100 - $year;
      That's just too stupid... He'll be showing 1999 when 2001 comes around :)
  87. Script kiddies by Signal+11 · · Score: 2
    nmap -sS 198.137.240.92 -O -F -o oops.log

    What was that about script kiddies now? =)

  88. VW.com also! by Kancer · · Score: 1

    audi is owned by VW and vw.com is also down!!

    1. Re:VW.com also! by jcroft · · Score: 1

      I came here to post that vw.com is also down, and that audi is part of the volkswagen motor group... since that's already been mentioned, I'll just say this: The is just a preventive measue. I think we can all feel comfortable that VW and Audi's servers are probably Y2K compliant. But, as has been mentioned, there's an undeniably higer probability for cracking, etc. on this day, and they're just covering their ass. What's the big deal? Seems to me that they're just being prudent, not being pussies... Jeff Croft http://newbeetle.org

      --
      ----------
      Jeff Croft
      http://jeffcroft.com
    2. Re:VW.com also! by jcroft · · Score: 2

      For the record, the Volkswagen Motors Group owns all of these: VW, Audi, Seat, Skoda, Rolls Royce, Bently, Bugatti, and Lambroghini.

      --
      ----------
      Jeff Croft
      http://jeffcroft.com
  89. Re:Shutting down the site==Y2K problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Shutting down the siteis the Y2K problem.

  90. I have an idea! by Loath · · Score: 0

    If everyone pulls off their site, the internet may be less used, which means /. will load several times faster.

    --

    .sig not found...formatting hard drive.

  91. Must be a joke by Craig+Davison · · Score: 1

    I laughed my ass off. I think the page (complete with "NEWS FLASH" in big red letters) was intended as a joke.

  92. but rolls isn't by Kancer · · Score: 1

    http://www.rolls-royceandbentley.co.uk/
    The web guys at rools must have some brains -they all run netscape enterprise 3.6

  93. Systems dated 1996 with no y2k fixes working! by MS · · Score: 1
    We use older systems dated 1995/1996 (running Linux and FreeBSD), which weren't checked/fixed against possible y2k problems. They run webservers, databases, home-made programs (C, shell-scripts, PHP/FI) and everything still works fine.

    So was all this Y2K-panic-making really necessary? Everything works - no extra checks were necessary.

    :-)
    ms

  94. Re:Pfffft (more off subject) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Limited edition road-going rally cars have different design goals than a readily available luxury sport sedan. Most Audi customers aren't interested in a bone-jarring ride and a lack of ABS. Similarly, customers of performance Subarus aren't usually interested in luxury and smooth power delivery.

    If you want to compare specialty cars, there are two Audis which spring to mind:

    • RS4: Think Subaru Legacy with 380hp.
    • Sport Quattro: This was Audi's 22B 16 years ago. BTW, Audi started the 4WD turbo rally car phenomenon 20 years ago.
    Note: Audi's quoted performance figures have historically been pessimistic. Brochures for the S4, for example, list 0-60 as 6.5(!!) and 5.9 seconds. C/D tests reveal an actual time of 5.5. No non-Audi data is known about the RS4 yet, but the Sport Quattro is said to do 0-60 in 4.5 seconds (from "The Audi Quattro Book" ISBN 185960403X).
  95. From a Racer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Allright, this is not /. material, but, from someone who races (ok, I race Audis), I can tell you bar none, without mods the Audi's will eat up the rice burning Subies. To add to it, the Audi's have a true AWD system, not a POS viscous coupled devices which spins the slipping wheels (ok, subaru's awd system ONLY available in the automatic models is computer controlled as is quite good). BTW, my '89, 140k mile I-5 20V Audi chews up the latest subarus in any weather, but, in the fun stuff let's them know they were built by a xenophobic island society.