5th USENIX Conf on Object-Oriented Tech & Sys (COOTS'99) - CFP

5th USENIX Conf on Object-Oriented Tech & Sys (COOTS'99) - CFP

[Jackson Dodd]

5th USENIX Conference on Object-Oriented Technologies and Systems
(COOTS '99)

May 3-7, 1999
San Diego, California, USA

Sponsored by USENIX, the Advanced Computing Systems Association

-------------------------------------------------
Please find the Call for Submissions at
   http://www.usenix.org/events/coots99/
-------------------------------------------------

Program Chair:  Murthy Devarakonda, IBM T.J. Watson Research Center
Paper and Tutorial Submissions Due :  Nov. 6, 1998

As the last COOTS before the new millennium, COOTS '99 will focus 
on "The Object Lessons," our cumulative experiences in building and 
programming object-oriented systems. We invite you to submit high 
quality, previously unpublished, original papers on this theme as 
well as on all topics relating to object-oriented systems.

COOTS will begin with two days of tutorials. We expect tutorial topics 
to include: distributed object systems (CORBA, DCOM, RMI, etc.), Java 
and WWW programming languages, framework design, and object-oriented 
programming languages.  We invite you to propose a tutorial topic or 
presentation.

=====================================================================
USENIX is the Advanced Computing Systems Association.  Its members 
are the computer technologists responsible for many of the innovations 
in computing we enjoy today.  To find out more about USENIX, visit its 
Website: http://www.usenix.org.

Re: 5th USENIX Conf on Object-Oriented Tech & Sys (COOTS'99) - CFP

[Anonymous]

On Wed, 13 May 1998 20:21:02 GMT, jackson@usenix.org (Jackson Dodd)
wrote:

> ...
> As the last COOTS before the new millennium, COOTS '99 will focus 
> ...

Apparently there will be no COOTS in 2000, the last year of the 2nd
millenium.

Jeff Carter  PGP:1024/440FBE21
My real e-mail address: ( carter @ innocon . com )
"I unclog my nose towards you."
Monty Python & the Holy Grail

Posted with Spam Hater - see
http://www.compulink.co.uk/~net-services/spam/

Re: 5th USENIX Conf on Object-Oriented Tech & Sys (COOTS'99) - CFP

[Stephen.Leake]

nobody@REPLAY.COM (Anonymous) writes:

> On Wed, 13 May 1998 20:21:02 GMT, jackson@usenix.org (Jackson Dodd)
> wrote:
> 
> > ...
> > As the last COOTS before the new millennium, COOTS '99 will focus 
> > ...
> 
> Apparently there will be no COOTS in 2000, the last year of the 2nd
> millenium.

Ok, I'll bite (it's late Friday, and I haven't written any Ada today :).

Who says the next millenium can't start with 2000? That's when most of
the digits change. That's when the 21st century begins (the "century"
is the first two digits of the year, plus one). That's when all the
non-Y2K programs will break. The current millenium started in 1000 AD,
the one before that in 0 AD, the one before that in ... hmm, things
get tricky for BC, but I'll just ignore that.

-- Stephe

Re: 5th USENIX Conf on Object-Oriented Tech & Sys (COOTS'99) - CFP

[Markus Kuhn]

Stephen.Leake@gsfc.nasa.gov wrote:
> Who says the next millenium can't start with 2000? That's when most of
> the digits change. That's when the 21st century begins (the "century"
> is the first two digits of the year, plus one). That's when all the
> non-Y2K programs will break. The current millenium started in 1000 AD,
> the one before that in 0 AD, the one before that in ... hmm, things
> get tricky for BC, but I'll just ignore that.

The problem is that the Christian year numbering system was
invented before the integer numbers where invented. There is no
year 0 AD, the year before 1 AD is called 1 BC. Astronomers however
have agreed in their community to abandon this silly Christian
system of year numbers and to use integers instead: 1 AD -> 1,
1 BC -> 0, 2 BC -> -1, etc. Progress in astronomy was often
closely coupled to disagreeing with the Christian belief system, so
the negative year numbers became popular quickly in that community.
By the way, the media did not notice the start of a new century
in 1901-01-01. We have all become C programmers who start to count
with 0 long ago ...

Markus

-- 
Markus G. Kuhn, Security Group, Computer Lab, Cambridge University, UK
email: mkuhn at acm.org,  home page: <http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25/>

Re: 5th USENIX Conf on Object-Oriented Tech & Sys (COOTS'99) - CFP

[Corey Minyard]

Stephen.Leake@gsfc.nasa.gov writes:
> 
> Who says the next millenium can't start with 2000? That's when most of
> the digits change. That's when the 21st century begins (the "century"
> is the first two digits of the year, plus one). That's when all the
> non-Y2K programs will break. The current millenium started in 1000 AD,
> the one before that in 0 AD, the one before that in ... hmm, things
> get tricky for BC, but I'll just ignore that.
> 
> -- Stephe

There was no 0 AD.  We went straight from 1 BC to 1 AD.  Apparently,
not many C programmers were around to stress the importance of
zero :-).  Me, I don't really care when the millenium starts.  It's
fairly arbitrary (except for the Y2K problem, of course).

-- 
Corey Minyard               Internet:  minyard@acm.org
  Work: minyard@nortel.ca       UUCP:  minyard@wf-rch.cirr.com

Re: 5th USENIX Conf on Object-Oriented Tech & Sys (COOTS'99) - CFP

[Michael F Brenner]

    > ... we went straight from 1 BC to 1 AD

No. Both systems were invented quite a bit later. 
The year 1 BC is simply a different system representation for 0 AD.
Similarly, 1 AD is simply a different system representation for 0 BC.
It is arbitrary (and not mathematically useful) to hold that the
millenium began in 1 AD instead of 0 AD. The people who experienced
that millenial change did not change their calendars at all.

Re: 5th USENIX Conf on Object-Oriented Tech & Sys (COOTS'99) - CFP

[Anonymous]

<uwwbnqmby.fsf@ANARRES.i-did-not-set--mail-host-address--so-shoot-me>
<EswwJ2.EBG@usenix.org> <199805141444.QAA10968@basement.replay.com>

On 15 May 1998 17:02:41 -0400, Stephen.Leake@gsfc.nasa.gov wrote:

> nobody@REPLAY.COM (Anonymous) writes:
> 
> > On Wed, 13 May 1998 20:21:02 GMT, jackson@usenix.org (Jackson Dodd)
> > wrote:
> > 
> > > ...
> > > As the last COOTS before the new millennium, COOTS '99 will focus 
> > > ...
> > 
> > Apparently there will be no COOTS in 2000, the last year of the 2nd
> > millenium.
> 
> Ok, I'll bite (it's late Friday, and I haven't written any Ada today :).
> 
> Who says the next millenium can't start with 2000? That's when most of
> the digits change. That's when the 21st century begins (the "century"
> is the first two digits of the year, plus one). That's when all the
> non-Y2K programs will break. The current millenium started in 1000 AD,
> the one before that in 0 AD, the one before that in ... hmm, things
> get tricky for BC, but I'll just ignore that.
> ...

Thank you for biting :)

No one says the next millenium can't start with 2000. Invent your own
calendar and you can have it start wherever you want. However, the
calendar we use is the "Common Calendar," and the 3rd millenium and the
21st century both start in 2001 Common Era (CE).

I know of no calendar with a year 0 AD. According to the Gregorian
Calendar (which is very similar to the Common Calendar except for how
years are named), the current year is AD 1998, so perhaps that's the
calendar you're using. However, the Gregorian Calendar has no year "0
AD," nor AD 0. AD 1 was preceded by 1 BC.

Under the Common Calendar, the current year is 1998 CE. It was preceded
by 1997 CE, which was preceded by 1996 CE, ..., which was preceded by 2
CE, which was preceded by 1 CE, which was preceded by 1 Before Common
Era (BCE), which was preceded by 2 BCE, and so on. (I offer this
restatement of what we all know only so no one may claim that my
statements are incorrect according to some other calendar, such as the
Jewish Calendar.) This may not be a good way to number years, but it's
the way we do it.

A consequence of this numbering system is that the first year of both
the first century and the first millenium of the common era was 1 CE.
The last year of the first century was, therefore, 100 CE, and the last
year of the first millenium was 1000 CE. The last year of the 20th
century and the second millenium will be 2000 CE. The first year of the
21st century and the third millenium will be 2001 CE.

I note in passing that the century is not always the same as "the first
two digits of the year, plus one." Obviously this will never hold after
9999 CE (when an enormous quantity of legacy code from the late 20th
century will fail, the infamous Y10k problem), nor did it hold in 1900
CE, the last year of the 19th century.

Since we're dealing with numbers, we can also take a quasi-mathematical
approach to this. Prove that 2000 CE is not the first year of the third
millenium. We assume the opposite of that which we must prove and show
that it leads to a contradiction. Assume that 2000 CE is the first year
of the third millenium. Then the first year of the second millenium was
1000 CE and the first year of the first millenium was 0 CE. But there
was no year 0 CE; therefore, 2000 CE is not the first year of the third
millenium.

Everyone is entitled to his own opinions, but there is only one set of
facts. Knowing something that "ain't so" is ignorance. We are all
ignorant, so there is no shame attached to it. However, continuing to
know something after being informed that it "ain't so" is stupidity. I
doubt if anyone who contributes to this news group is stupid. (I can say
this because it's been many months since I've seen a posting by the Rev.
You-Know-Who.)

Thank you, and have a nice millenium.

Jeff Carter  PGP:1024/440FBE21
My real e-mail address: ( carter @ innocon . com )
"Monsieur Arthur King, who has the brain of a duck, you know."
Monty Python & the Holy Grail

Posted with Spam Hater - see
http://www.compulink.co.uk/~net-services/spam/

Re: 5th USENIX Conf on Object-Oriented Tech & Sys (COOTS'99) - CFP

[Anonymous]

<uwwbnqmby.fsf@ANARRES.i-did-not-set--mail-host-address--so-shoot-me>
<EswwJ2.EBG@usenix.org> <199805141444.QAA10968@basement.replay.com>

On 15 May 1998 17:02:41 -0400, Stephen.Leake@gsfc.nasa.gov wrote:

> nobody@REPLAY.COM (Anonymous) writes:
> 
> > On Wed, 13 May 1998 20:21:02 GMT, jackson@usenix.org (Jackson Dodd)
> > wrote:
> > 
> > > ...
> > > As the last COOTS before the new millennium, COOTS '99 will focus 
> > > ...
> > 
> > Apparently there will be no COOTS in 2000, the last year of the 2nd
> > millenium.
> 
> Ok, I'll bite (it's late Friday, and I haven't written any Ada today :).
> 
> Who says the next millenium can't start with 2000? That's when most of
> the digits change. That's when the 21st century begins (the "century"
> is the first two digits of the year, plus one). That's when all the
> non-Y2K programs will break. The current millenium started in 1000 AD,
> the one before that in 0 AD, the one before that in ... hmm, things
> get tricky for BC, but I'll just ignore that.
> ...

Thank you for biting :)

No one says the next millenium can't start with 2000. Invent your own
calendar and you can have it start wherever you want. However, the
calendar we use is the "Common Calendar," and the 3rd millenium and the
21st century both start in 2001 Common Era (CE).

I know of no calendar with a year 0 AD. According to the Gregorian
Calendar (which is very similar to the Common Calendar except for how
years are named), the current year is AD 1998, so perhaps that's the
calendar you're using. However, the Gregorian Calendar has no year "0
AD," nor AD 0. AD 1 was preceded by 1 BC.

Under the Common Calendar, the current year is 1998 CE. It was preceded
by 1997 CE, which was preceded by 1996 CE, ..., which was preceded by 2
CE, which was preceded by 1 CE, which was preceded by 1 Before Common
Era (BCE), which was preceded by 2 BCE, and so on. (I offer this
restatement of what we all know only so no one may claim that my
statements are incorrect according to some other calendar, such as the
Jewish Calendar.) This may not be a good way to number years, but it's
the way we do it.

A consequence of this numbering system is that the first year of both
the first century and the first millenium of the common era was 1 CE.
The last year of the first century was, therefore, 100 CE, and the last
year of the first millenium was 1000 CE. The last year of the 20th
century and the second millenium will be 2000 CE. The first year of the
21st century and the third millenium will be 2001 CE.

I note in passing that the century is not always the same as "the first
two digits of the year, plus one." Obviously this will never hold after
9999 CE (when an enormous quantity of legacy code from the late 20th
century will fail, the infamous Y10k problem), nor did it hold in 1900
CE, the last year of the 19th century.

Since we're dealing with numbers, we can also take a quasi-mathematical
approach to this. Prove that 2000 CE is not the first year of the third
millenium. We assume the opposite of that which we must prove and show
that it leads to a contradiction. Assume that 2000 CE is the first year
of the third millenium. Then the first year of the second millenium was
1000 CE and the first year of the first millenium was 0 CE. But there
was no year 0 CE; therefore, 2000 CE is not the first year of the third
millenium.

Everyone is entitled to his own opinions, but there is only one set of
facts. Knowing something that "ain't so" is ignorance. We are all
ignorant, so there is no shame attached to it. However, continuing to
know something after being informed that it "ain't so" is stupidity. I
doubt if anyone who contributes to this news group is stupid. (I can say
this because it's been many months since I've seen a posting by the Rev.
You-Know-Who.)

Thank you, and have a nice millenium.

Jeff Carter  PGP:1024/440FBE21
My real e-mail address: ( carter @ innocon . com )
"Monsieur Arthur King, who has the brain of a duck, you know."
Monty Python & the Holy Grail

Posted with Spam Hater - see
http://www.compulink.co.uk/~net-services/spam/

Re: 5th USENIX Conf on Object-Oriented Tech & Sys (COOTS'99) - CFP

[Larry Kilgallen]

In article <199805181500.RAA19306@basement.replay.com>, nobody@REPLAY.COM (Anonymous) writes:

> Everyone is entitled to his own opinions, but there is only one set of
> facts. Knowing something that "ain't so" is ignorance. We are all
> ignorant, so there is no shame attached to it. However, continuing to
> know something after being informed that it "ain't so" is stupidity. I
> doubt if anyone who contributes to this news group is stupid. (I can say
> this because it's been many months since I've seen a posting by the Rev.
> You-Know-Who.)

It seems to me that calendars, like language, are molded by usage.
I shall observe carefully on the two December 31 dates in dispute
to see which has the larger parties.

Larry Kilgallen

Re: 5th USENIX Conf on Object-Oriented Tech & Sys (COOTS'99) - CFP

[Scott Ingram]

Larry Kilgallen wrote:
> 
> In article <199805181500.RAA19306@basement.replay.com>, nobody@REPLAY.COM (Anonymous) writes:
> 
> > Everyone is entitled to his own opinions, but there is only one set of
> > facts. Knowing something that "ain't so" is ignorance. We are all
> > ignorant, so there is no shame attached to it. However, continuing to
> > know something after being informed that it "ain't so" is stupidity. I
> > doubt if anyone who contributes to this news group is stupid. (I can say
> > this because it's been many months since I've seen a posting by the Rev.
> > You-Know-Who.)
> 
> It seems to me that calendars, like language, are molded by usage.
> I shall observe carefully on the two December 31 dates in dispute
> to see which has the larger parties.
> 
> Larry Kilgallen

A very astute observation.  I note that Seattle's Space Needle was
reserved a couple of years ago for a "millenial" party to occur on
December 31, 1999.  They apparently have not had any success
marketing the 2001 date.

-- 
Scott Ingram

Re: 5th USENIX Conf on Object-Oriented Tech & Sys (COOTS'99) - CFP

[Anonymous]

<199805181500.RAA19306@basement.replay.com>

On Tue, 19 May 1998 02:10:38 GMT, kilgallen@eisner.decus.org (Larry
Kilgallen) wrote:

> In article <199805181500.RAA19306@basement.replay.com>, nobody@REPLAY.COM (Anonymous) writes:
> 
> > Everyone is entitled to his own opinions, but there is only one set of
> > facts. Knowing something that "ain't so" is ignorance. We are all
> > ignorant, so there is no shame attached to it. However, continuing to
> > know something after being informed that it "ain't so" is stupidity. I
> > doubt if anyone who contributes to this news group is stupid. (I can say
> > this because it's been many months since I've seen a posting by the Rev.
> > You-Know-Who.)
> 
> It seems to me that calendars, like language, are molded by usage.
> I shall observe carefully on the two December 31 dates in dispute
> to see which has the larger parties.
> ...

[The remailer seems to have posted my previous message twice. Hopefully
that will not happen with this one.]

This is an excellent argument. I propose the following argument along
similar lines, confident that you will accept it as well: If more people
think the sun travels around the earth than think the earth travels
around the sun, then the sun travels around the earth.

I knew you'd find that completely convincing. Calendars, unlike
languages, are fixed by their definitions. As I said, you can invent any
calendar you like, but if the centuries don't start on years that equal
1 mod 100, it's not the Common Calendar. (Even if the centuries start on
such years, it may not be the Common Calendar.) If you choose not to use
the Common Calendar, don't expect anyone else to understand you.

If you just want an excuse for a big party, Ada will be 20 on 2000 Dec
10.

36 Okmon 04 (Scarab Calendar).

Jeff Carter  PGP:1024/440FBE21
My real e-mail address: ( carter @ innocon . com )
"We burst our pimples at you."
Monty Python & the Holy Grail

Posted with Spam Hater - see
http://www.compulink.co.uk/~net-services/spam/

Re: 5th USENIX Conf on Object-Oriented Tech & Sys (COOTS'99) - CFP

[Stephen.Leake]

nobody@REPLAY.COM (Anonymous) writes:

> <uwwbnqmby.fsf@ANARRES.i-did-not-set--mail-host-address--so-shoot-me>
> <EswwJ2.EBG@usenix.org> <199805141444.QAA10968@basement.replay.com>
> 
> On 15 May 1998 17:02:41 -0400, Stephen.Leake@gsfc.nasa.gov wrote:
> 
> > nobody@REPLAY.COM (Anonymous) writes:
> > 
> > > On Wed, 13 May 1998 20:21:02 GMT, jackson@usenix.org (Jackson Dodd)
> > > wrote:
> > > 
> > > > ...
> > > > As the last COOTS before the new millennium, COOTS '99 will focus 
> > > > ...
> > > 
> > > Apparently there will be no COOTS in 2000, the last year of the 2nd
> > > millenium.
> > 
> > Ok, I'll bite (it's late Friday, and I haven't written any Ada today :).
> > 
> > Who says the next millenium can't start with 2000? That's when most of
> > the digits change. That's when the 21st century begins (the "century"
> > is the first two digits of the year, plus one). That's when all the
> > non-Y2K programs will break. The current millenium started in 1000 AD,
> > the one before that in 0 AD, the one before that in ... hmm, things
> > get tricky for BC, but I'll just ignore that.
> > ...
> 
> Thank you for biting :)
> 
> No one says the next millenium can't start with 2000. Invent your own
> calendar and you can have it start wherever you want. However, the
> calendar we use is the "Common Calendar," and the 3rd millenium and the
> 21st century both start in 2001 Common Era (CE).

I've heard many people say this, but can you quote an actual
reference? Say the Oxford English Dictionary or some such (being a
true engineer, I have no such reference handy at work :). There must
be an ISO calendar? I'm looking for something that actually DEFINES
"millenium" and "century" the way you do. Until that happens, I'll
stick to the ones I like.

<snip>

> I note in passing that the century is not always the same as "the first
> two digits of the year, plus one." Obviously this will never hold after
> 9999 CE (when an enormous quantity of legacy code from the late 20th
> century will fail, the infamous Y10k problem), nor did it hold in 1900
> CE, the last year of the 19th century.

Only if you choose not to accept my definition!

> Since we're dealing with numbers, we can also take a quasi-mathematical
> approach to this. Prove that 2000 CE is not the first year of the third
> millenium. We assume the opposite of that which we must prove and show
> that it leads to a contradiction. Assume that 2000 CE is the first year
> of the third millenium. Then the first year of the second millenium was
> 1000 CE and the first year of the first millenium was 0 CE. But there
> was no year 0 CE; therefore, 2000 CE is not the first year of the third
> millenium.

So you subtracted 1000 years from 1000 CE and got 0 CE. As you say,
this is wrong. Therefore, the "first century" started in 1 BCE. Simple
:).

> Everyone is entitled to his own opinions, but there is only one set of
> facts. Knowing something that "ain't so" is ignorance. We are all
> ignorant, so there is no shame attached to it. However, continuing to
> know something after being informed that it "ain't so" is stupidity. I
> doubt if anyone who contributes to this news group is stupid. (I can say
> this because it's been many months since I've seen a posting by the Rev.
> You-Know-Who.)

And the way to "prove" that something is a "fact" is to provide a
reference to something we all accept as a common authority. Simply
stating YOUR beliefs, as opposed to MY beliefs, gets us nowhere. Note
that I did NOT say my beliefs where "facts"; I simply suggested they
were more convenient.

> 
> Thank you, and have a nice millenium.

I intend to, starting 1 year and 7 months from now.

-- Stephe

Re: 5th USENIX Conf on Object-Oriented Tech & Sys (COOTS'99) - CFP

[Anonymous]

<un2carznh.fsf@ANARRES.i-did-not-set--mail-host-address--so-shoot-me>
<199805181500.RAA19306@basement.replay.com>

On 22 May 1998 13:20:02 -0400, Stephen.Leake@gsfc.nasa.gov wrote:

> ...
> > Thank you, and have a nice millenium.
> 
> I intend to, starting 1 year and 7 months from now.
> ...

Sorry about the next 1 7/12 yrs. I meant for you to have a nice
millenium starting now.

Jeff Carter  PGP:1024/440FBE21
My real e-mail address: ( carter @ innocon . com )
"Monsieur Arthur King, who has the brain of a duck, you know."
Monty Python & the Holy Grail

Posted with Spam Hater - see
http://www.compulink.co.uk/~net-services/spam/

Re: 5th USENIX Conf on Object-Oriented Tech & Sys (COOTS'99) - CFP

[Anonymous]

<un2carznh.fsf@ANARRES.i-did-not-set--mail-host-address--so-shoot-me>
<199805181500.RAA19306@basement.replay.com>

On 22 May 1998 13:20:02 -0400, Stephen.Leake@gsfc.nasa.gov wrote:

> ...> I've heard many people say this, but can you quote an actual
> reference? Say the Oxford English Dictionary or some such (being a
> true engineer, I have no such reference handy at work :). There must
> be an ISO calendar? I'm looking for something that actually DEFINES
> "millenium" and "century" the way you do. Until that happens, I'll
> stick to the ones I like.
> ...

Like Stephen Leake, I too must be a true engineer, since I have no such
reference handy at work. Now I've found a reference from an untrue
engineer colleague: _The World Almanac and Book of Facts 1995_, Funk &
Wagnalls, 1995 (with the motto, "The authority since 1868"), p 288:

[Quote : begin]
A century consists of 100 consecutive calendar years. The first century
AD consisted of the years 1 through 100. The 20th century consists of
the years 1901 through 2000 and will end Dec. 31, 2000. The 21st century
will begin Jan. 1, 2001.
[end Quote;]

Sorry, nary a word about millenium. Does this qualify as "an actual
reference"? I hope the calendar hasn't changed since 1995.

-- 
Jeff Carter  PGP:1024/440FBE21
My real e-mail address: ( carter @ innocon . com )"You tiny-brained
wipers of other people's bottoms!"
Monty Python & the Holy Grail