<blockquote id="quote" class="ffs">quote:Originally posted by florida4sun
Funny, my brother made a killing out of BA and RBS with the millennium bug nonsense. Of course there is basis but it is always overcome, to much money at stake. Anyways going way off topic [msnscared]

<blockquote id="quote" class="ffs">quote:Originally posted by Sniff
<blockquote id="quote" class="ffs">quote:Originally posted by florida4sun
It really is not an issue, there is no way they will not have this covered on time. Remember the year 2000 panic, all that passed quicker than a nats fart [msnwink]. Lots of companies jumping on the band wagon stirring up all sorts of nonsense and panic just to create some business.

<blockquote id="quote" class="ffs">quote:Originally posted by Sniff
It's amazing how much we have come to rely upon the internet.

But if you're shocked by loss of your internet connection for a few days, just wait until IPv4 addresses run out (current estimate mid 2012, but given the rate at which non-PC devices are becoming internet-connected that estimate is probably optimistic). Very few ISPs have even started the conversion to IPv6 and even use of NAT doesn't help much. Once IPv4 addresses are exhausted, new devices will only be allocated IPv6 addresses, and they won't be able to communicate with any IPv4 servers, without special translator gateway services.
[/quote]
[/quote]
It's already happening in the internal networks of many large organisations. It's true that many ISPs might get their act together and switch to IPv6 in time, but there will still be literally millions of IPv4 addresses out there, which will find themselves unreachable.

As for Y2K, I was working in BA's IT dept at the time, and that "nats fart" was a 2 year project to update all the code affected.

The media might spin these things up, but that doesn't mean there isn't a basis in fact behind it.
[/quote]
[/quote]
Off topic agreed. But nonsense? Not at all...