You know what really burns my britches? Well, all kinds of things do. Too numerous to mention in one article anyway. For instance, I don't like when I use odd phrases that make no sense to me, like "burns my britches." What the heck does that mean? Actually, I know what it means. I means, "makes me mad," but what I don't know is why. When I ponder the phrase, "burns my britches" I get two thoughts back. One is the phrase, "liar, liar, pants on fire" and the other is the word "hotpants." Neither seem to shed any light on my interpretation of the phrase "burns my britches." Yet I use the phrase anyway, and that really burns my britches, if you know what I mean.
But what's got my panties in a bunch(I'm not even going to examine "panties in a bunch," you can do that on your own time) is the so-called Millennium Bug, not to be confused with the Y2K Bug.
"But," I hear you protest, "aren't they the same thing?"
Well, yes and no. Yes, because they are, in fact, the exact same thing.
"I thought so." you say.
But no, because the Millennium Bug is actually 500 times stupider than the Y2K Bug(no, really, 500 times. I did the math. Actually it's 512 times, but I rounded for convenience).
"But how can that be?" you ask with a perplexed look on your face.
Well quit asking me all these questions, and I'll explain already. Boy, you all sure know how to get my goat(I don't actually have a goat, so once again I don't know what I'm talking about).
The Y2K Bug is stupid enough. I've already ranted and raved about it elsewhere, but I'll do it again just so you know how stupid I think it is. The whole thing is the fault of the computer designers, programmers, and builders. Think about someone you know from this category. Now I'm not going to stereotype and say that they all look like those pocket protector-wearing, bespectacled, styleless nerds that come to mind when anyone says, "computer programmer." They do all look like that, but that's beside the point. I don't want to promote that kind of stereotyping just because in this one case it's right on the money(what money? I don't know.). I mean look at Bill Gates. He just screams computer geek when you see him. Even if he wasn't recognizable as the man who owns half the world, you could pick him out of any line up as a computer guy, and he's their leader. Sure they all hate him, but he's still their leader. I mean, if you're an American, who's your leader? And how do you feel about him? Same thing with those computer people. Anyway, regardless of whether or not any computer-oriented person you know is the quintessential computer geek, regardless of whether or not you know what quintessential means(I don't), there is one quality that all these people seem to share: These people, almost without exception, are as smart as a whip. Once again, I don't know what makes a whip particularly smart. Still, smart as these people are, they failed to see the year 2000 on the horizon. I mean, if a weatherman tells you there's sixty percent chance of rain, you grab the umbrella on the way out, right(you forget it at the office and get soaked on the way home anyway, but that's not relevant)? Well the odds of eventually running out of years in 1900-1999 range were considerably higher(inevitable, in fact), and yet no one prepared. But, as I said, I ranted about that earlier, and today's rant is about an entirely different problem which is also the exact same thing: The Millennium Bug.
Okay, bear with me. I need your help. We're going to start to count to one thousand. Don't worry, we won't go all the way. I know you've got better things to do. For that matter, so do I. Ready? Okay, begin. ... Okay, stop. Now we're going to count to one hundred. Ready? Okay, begin. ... Okay, stop. This time just to ten. Begin. ... Stop. And now to one. Ready? Go. Hopefully you're done counting to one by now. So here's the point(yep, I even have a point.): I'm betting that if you learned to count on this planet, each time you started to count, you began with the same number: 1. Had I let you go all the way to one hundred, or one thousand, then those are the numbers you would have ended on: 100 or 1000. Now here's the tricky part: If I asked you to count an additional thousand beyond the first thousand, then you'd start with your second set with 1001 and stop when you got to 2000, and if I asked you to count a third set, most of you would just throw up your hands and go home, saying you can't take any more of this, but those of you that stayed would begin the new count with 2001. See how that works? The third millennium(or set of one thousand) starts with 2001. The year 2000 is when all the computer's will go bonkers("bonkers" is a technical computer term, find someone with a pocket protector and ask them to explain it.). But the new millennium won't begin for another year. And yet it's still being called the Millennium Bug, which is exactly same as the Year Two Thousand Bug except that it's 512 times stupider. I won't bore you with the math, just trust me, 512 times.
Nope, sorry, nothing. The year 2000 is still part of the 2nd millennium. It's still a part of the 20th century. It's no more significant than when your car goes from 49,999 miles to 50,000 miles. It looks cool with all those zeros lined up, but then the "Check Engine Soon" light comes on, and you realize that it's going to cost you thirty dollars to have someone turn it off. At that point the novelty is gone. This is almost exactly what happens when the world's "odometer" flips from 1999 year to 2000 years. Except that in this case, the "Check Engine Soon" light, along with just about everything else, will not be working.
Well of course you can, but in the interest of correctness, you may want to wait an extra year. Heck, we've been waiting for 999 years, what's one more? It will probably be even be better to wait until 2001. By then, all the computers still suffering from the Millennium Bug will most likely be rounded up and shot. The only conflicts likely to arise with the beginning of the actual millennium will be with fans of Arthur C. Clark. They may find the new millennium somewhat dissimilar to 2001:A Space Odyssey. Not even the merest inkling of a manned mission to Jupiter. No, I think the best thing to do would be to simply stop calling the year 2000 the millennium. You'd think it'd be easy, but it's not because everyone is doing it. People on streets, sure. Joe Shmoe at work, sure. You can set those people straight, but it's not just them. It's newscasters and politicians. People to whom we go for information(foolishly, I admit) are still talking about 2000 as the new millennium. I'm doing it! I'm sitting here preaching against it, but on my web site are at least two instances of me referring to 2000 as the new millennium, probably even more. It's infectious, and what's more, it's fun. It's fun to make predictions about next year, and for the first time in my life have something else to call it besides "next year." Instead it's the "new millennium." How exciting is that? It's just more fun to talk about it that way, and since I'm not really forward thinking enough to start talking about what's going to happen two years from now, it's more convenient. It actually gives me twice the opportunity to use it. For one year I can talk about the false "new millennium," and then next year I can change gears and start talking about the true "new millennium." I actually like that idea, except that it kind of denounces everything I've just written. Well, maybe I just need to get this Millennium Bug out of my butt, pull out my smart whip, and wait for someone to come try to take my goat or set fire to my hotpants. Or something like that.