Message 1
01:47am Apr 30, 1998 EST
I'd like to have a penny for every EMail sent on January 1, 2000 ... possibly January 2 ... assuming it's a business day. Ideally, the first Wednesday after January 1. Two things will happen: 1) people will want to know if they still have money, 2) people will want to find out how to get it back.
Whether it's tobacco, the millennium bug, alien invasion, or black helicopters, America is in a tiff about something. Why does it seem like everybody out there is mad about something? That there is some super-secret conspiracy going on out there? Why is everybody so anxious?
The answer: we have nothing else better to do. You see my friends, liberals may have a point in saying that things were easier back in the Cold War when everything was clear. It was the United States versus the Soviet Union. Democracy versus Communism. Free Markets versus Command Economy. Evil versus Good . . . oh wait, that's the liberal mentality, let me get it straight, Good versus Evil.
However, after the evil Ronald Reagan wiped out communism, we have not been able to direct our energy towards anything truly meaningful. Liberals like to say that conservatives need to create a bad guy in order to justify their positions in international relations and military spending. Like about most things, liberals are wrong. Instead, we just need something to focus our attention on. We need something important to do.
Sticking it to BIG tobacco is hardly significant. Getting into a conniption fit over the millennium bug isn't going to do it either - for what do we do after 2000 comes and we've solved the problem? No my friends, we need to get hysterical about something else.
Sadly, I have no idea what to get hysterical about. Bill Clinton and his bridge to the 21st century hasn't really amounted to much. Sure, we can get mad about all his illegal activities, but when he's gone, what are we going to get all worked up about then?
If you have suggestions, please feel free to e-mail me, because without meaningful hysteria, what am I to do? What are you to do? What is America to do? What is the world to do? Oh no, I'm starting to get hysterical! Aaaahhhh!
petergsam:
There are many more forums at this site that would be far more appropriate for you to launch into a vague and pointless anti-liberal rant.
(pre-post-postmodern)
I'm less worried about the Y2K computer thing than I was fifteen years ago. I guess that puts me in the minority on both counts.
But I've been to the future -- every system I use had its clock bumped to various dates in 2000 -- and the majority of problems are cosmetic. In other words, the important, elapsed-time calculations are usually correct, and it's the screen display of the resulting data that messes up.
Also, I've seen that our financial institutions handle minor computer glitches every day. People simply get on the phone and iron out what the data should look like, and the files are manually tweaked to fit. So 1/1/2000 and the surrounding dates will just be a major version of that process.
One more thing that hasn't been covered to death: 2000 AD is a leap year. Don't forget to check your programs for that. (Some leap year algorithms are incorrect.)
The true state of computer power is the FACT that computer systems are ONLY as good as the PEOPLE that use them. The Year 2000 problem will be problem only to people that DO NOT know how to use computer systems. RLD
The reports of how Y2K will erase computer records, stop elevators, make traffic lights go funny and so fourth sounds like a load of crap. Unless the traffic lights and elevators are programmed to respond to what year it is (I don't know why they would be programmed to keep track of the year in the first place), and computers are programmed to automaticly erase records (and the companies don't keep backups and hard copies), I don't see much to be worried about. True, the Y2K bug may cause some problems with record keeping, and slow things down a bit, but I think reporters are hyping it, just so they can boost ratings.
Optimism pays, so do Pessimists
anime43 :
I am sure you have not programmed firmware (duh ?) in the eighties. Many time controlled appliances keeps track of time with a date component (to handle midnight and beyond). A lot of such programs written in languages like Fortran, C, BASIC and Assembler have used two digit years. So, when the time is 9912312359, what follows it is anybody's guess.
In fact, least of the problems will be in the record keeping industry, where software is scrutinizable and correctable. More problems will be in Firmware in a range of appliances from Electric ovens, Elevators, Traffic signals and a whole bunch of medical equipments (even critical cardiac equipments like pacemakers embedded in human body). Nobody has a clue as to how to rectify the programs and replace the chips in these appliances which will beat the number of automotive recalls of the entire auto industry from the beginning of this century.
If I were you, I would remain home on 1 Jan, 2000 and never travel in a plane or get admitted in a hospital (if I can help it).
(pre-post-postmodern)
Nobody has a clue as to how to rectify the programs and replace the chips in these appliances which will beat the number of automotive recalls of the entire auto industry from the beginning of this century.
"Nobody has a clue"?? Puh-leeeeze! I hope you're the only one in such awe of the powers of the designers of yesteryear.
The immediate workaround is simply to set the clock back. Do you or I care if a traffic light system thinks it's fourteen years ago?
(pre-post-postmodern)
(For those of you who may be wondering, 1972 had the same date-to-day-of-week layout as 2000. So set those hardwired devices back to 1972. If 2028 rolls around before they're fixed, set 'em back to 1972 again.)
Optimism pays, so do Pessimists
just-john :
Problem is not in correcting the code or changing the date in the internal clock. It is accessing the individual appliances, removing the specific chip and replacing it with a new one or changing the settings in the internal clock. Problem is, no one has got desktop access to these. You have to go to the field and do it and considering the number of such appliances and the budgets of municipalities and hospitals they just can't afford the kind of man-power to do it.
Take your puh-leeze and stuff it up ....
nhsrikanth-
:: in fact, least of the problems will be in :: the record keeping industry, where software :: is scrutinizable and correctable. More problems :: will be in Firmware in a range of appliances :: from Electric ovens, Elevators, Traffic signals :: and a whole bunch of medical equipments (even :: critical cardiac equipments like pacemakers :: embedded in human body).
Why would a pacemaker need to keep track of the year? It's simply a device that monitors, regulates, and sends signals to the heart. I don't think anyone would make a pacemaker that is designed to automaticly shut down at some specified time.
Optimism pays, so do Pessimists
just-john and anime43 :
If you don't understand firmware software, I haven't the time and interest to educate you. If you think everything will work like clock work on 1 Jan, 2000, GOOD LUCK...
(pre-post-postmodern)
If you don't understand firmware software, I haven't the time and interest to educate you. If you think everything will work like clock work on 1 Jan, 2000, GOOD LUCK...
In other words, you don't know enough to be able to back up your assertions in the face of intelligent questioning.
And, since you're going to be huddling in your cave for that day, how 'bout forwarding us your New Year's party invitations? (If you get any.)
Optimism pays, so do Pessimists
just-john:
I have been on firmwares more than five years and don't have to prove anything to anybody. If you think I am an ignorant moron, so be it.
I have no time to educate a somewhat layman anime43 or the willingness to counter a hostile and repulsive just-john.
BYE.
Optimism pays, so do Pessimists
OK, I will just put in this one post for anime43.
I agree with your question why a pace maker needs a date. Same question applies to a whole lot of appliances I've mentioned. The problem is not debating if dates are needed but in understanding that dates were used for convenient timing functions by a whole lot of firmware programmers who thought they would never live to see (or at least work in the same company) 2000. Note that, there were many conscientious programmers who avoided dates and went for clock cycles to write timing functions. But there were many reckless programmers who used the date where it was really not necessary.
Part of my company business is in handling corrections of firmware for many reputed appliance company and don't be surprised even if your electric shaver (which may have about 2000 lines of C++ code) flunks on 1 Jan, 2000 - if you happen to have bought it a couple of years back.
(pre-post-postmodern)
So, you're claiming that there's somebody to synchronize each and every shaver's clock to wall clock date/time as it marches off the production line, as opposed to having it default to some arbitraty date?
I find that rather hard to believe.
And without such synchronization, it just means each such device has an artificially limited life span, NOT that they'll all fail at once.
(Tho the "all fail at once" scare tactic is great for job security, eh?)
Optimism pays, so do Pessimists
just-john :
When something is in a production line things are automatic and mostly managed by robotic machines. What is incredible about synchronizing the time (nobody needs to set jumpers or twist knobs). When things were coming out of shop floor the date could have been set to 1 Jan, 1901 for all you care. BUT WERE THEY ? The logical choice was the then date and time (may be stupid in retrospect). And tell me, where you find a switch in your oven (even the microwave ones) that you can use to change its date (you can change time in microwaves) ? You can change the date only by changing or re-programming the clock chip. For a normal user that amounts to, If it flunks throw it away or file a claim with the manufacturer. That is about it.
I have more than thirty people in *my company* and Y2K is a small pie (only done for our existing customers). It is a small fry for us or may be we are small fries in the Y2K ocean. I don't have to whip up any paronia to get business (a whole lot of MIS gurus are doing a heck of a good job, though a bit late). When you finally decide to get a job (other than beta testing NYT forums) may be you can contact me. I will look at your resume without prejudice.
(pre-post-postmodern)
When something is in a production line things are automatic and mostly managed by robotic machines.
Wow! What hi-tech termonology! My ears may start bleeding.
What is incredible about synchronizing the time
Because that task has to be planned ahead of time, and somebody in design would ask "Why are we bothering to set a system clock? That's just one more thing Quality Assurance can ding us on if it doesn't work right."
When you finally decide to get a job (other than beta testing NYT forums) may be you can contact me. I will look at your resume without prejudice.
You probably can't afford me. As a rule, I don't talk about my job online -- that's one of the reasons I use this handle -- but suffice it to say I've already spent plenty of time in 2000 and 2001.
Optimism pays, so do Pessimists
just-john:
Use some ear drops.
If only people were that diligent in design, we would'nt be talking about Y2K bug on the first place. QA may not catch it because it will work fine until 1999.
Affordability is more a question of whether you are worth it.
Optimism pays, so do Pessimists
Well, it is kind of getting monotonous. If all you are interested is in trading barbs you can find posters of like interest in the Clinton forums.
BYE (This time it is final).
(pre-post-postmodern)
QA may not catch it because it will work fine until 1999.
If part of the manufacturing process includes setting the time, then any good QA shop will check if the time has been set correctly. The people designing the manufacturing process, in a sensible effort to reduce the number of possible failure points that QA can spot, will ask why the heck anybody needs to set a clock on a shaver.
The whole thing would be amusing if it weren't so serious. It underlies the whole attitude of the human race towards the future. Live for today, your paycheck, and don't worry about the future. Now our collective chickens are coming home to roost.
The absurdity of a system that ever allowed two digits for a year implies that at best, the captains of industry can't think beyond 99 years (or even 5 as some Microsoft products that are vulnerable were only written a few years ago) , and the fact that both government and the private sector permitted such reasoning and paid for it says volumes about out attitude towards future. generations.
The same attitude explains global warming, deforestation, and every other aspect of lack of foresight.
Optimism pays, so do Pessimists
Just-john :
I will oblige you just once more.
You are talking about an "ideal" QA as against actual QA - we have come across a whole bunch of defective appliances and no "argument" of yours can beat the "reality" I have encountered.
You are in the QA testing a electric shaver. What would you do ? You sample a few, press the on button, test it against variety of simulated beard surfaces, make sure it gives a smooth shave, neither damages the "face" nor is damaged itself, run it for a length of time, drop it on the floor et. al. (durability test) and finally pass the batch if its meets the specified tolerance. Where in the hell would you, a QA person, get the opportunity to open up the piece, analyze the circuitry and reset the date ? You may not even know there is a clock chip inside the shaver. So, a design error that was made can and will escape QA unless it causes a visible defect at the time of QA. That is the whole problem with firm ware.
In an ideal world of software development there would not be a Y2K bug but Designers and Testers are human too (noflik hits the nail on the head).
I'm having some difficulty understanding the purpose of discussing the millennium bug in a forum like this. If participants can't get beyond debating the existence of the problem, then the forum serves only to further alienate the generalized individual with specialized skills. Those who recognize the diffuse and, therefore, intractable nature of the Y2K bug can't communicate their perspective to people outside the bug resolution sphere.
Take, for example, the back and forth between NHRIKANTH and JUST JOHN concerning the effect of 1/1/2000 on an electric razor. NH says an imbedded timing chip may disrupt the razor's functionality. JJ says that a quality assurance entity within the razor company would prevent such a faulty razor from leaving the plant.
What JJ needs to realize is that someone like NH is the quality assurance entity, that the razor company must expend resources that might have been applied elsewhere to retain NH, and that there are a million razors that went to market before NH got there. Those razors will have to be replaced at cost to somebody. And if it isn't razors, then its automobiles; if not automobiles, then its mutual fund trading accounts.
I guess my point is that correcting the Y2K bug will eat tons of money, resources that might have saved or invested for future return. I think a more interesting discussion is whether or not resources spent on bug correction are a deadweight societal loss. Are doomsayers neglecting the potential return of correcting the bug e.g. human capital gains?
(pre-post-postmodern)
I will oblige you just once more.
Oh, gee. You come in and start by insulting the people already here, and then promise several times to leave. No wonder I love you so much.
You are in the QA testing a electric shaver.
No, I'm in the QA testing the production line process for manufacturing an electric shaver. Big difference. I see step N: "Set clock". I either make sure that a process is in place to verify that the clock has been set, or I save the company some cash by realizing the setting of the clock is not needed.
(pre-post-postmodern)
As far as fixing software goes, I bet I'm not telling you anything new when I say that both off-the-shelf software makers and service providers with their own development shops are constantly changing their products. (For example, the forum software we're using right now.) In these environments, folding in Y2K fixes is not a difficult or wildly time-consuming thing.
Finding the bugs and then later verifying that they've been fixed -- those are the bigger challenges.
But then again, I'm not one of the doomsayers. In my view, the first few months of 2000 AD will feel like half the business you deal with have re-arranged their office furniture and temporary misplaced some files.
Optimism pays, so do Pessimists
just-john:
You can argue all you want, but,
We have come across a whole bunch of defective appliances (from some reputed manufacturers) and no "argument" of yours can beat the "reality" we have encountered and experienced.
(pre-post-postmodern)
Let's see... First you claim they'll break on 1/1/2000, but then you say:
When things were coming out of shop floor the date could have been set to 1 Jan, 1901 for all you care. BUT WERE THEY ?
That's the difference between two unique situations -- if the clocks aren't in synch, then each product has the same interval to the problematic internal date. If not, the problem date is a specific wall-clock date. That makes a huge difference in how to deal with the problem.
In the first scenario, since the possible problem happens over a span of wall-clock time, you might save money in repairs with those products built modularly enough to permit a board swap. Take the board bearing the problem chip and ship it off to have the chip replaced. But meanwhile, you replace the board with one whose chip has already been replaced. (If the product's out of warranty, you can make some money doing this as a third-party operation.)
That's a whole lot different from having to cope with the whole product line screwing up at the same time, which is why knowing how (or if) the clocks were set in the first place is important.
So if you're in such a vital place in the operation, why don't you know? You have access to the manufacturer, right? The manufacturer knows how they make things, right? You should be able to say, one way or the other. And they should be able to shape their public information and/or recall operations accordingly.
If the chip maker isn't willing to fess up to the manufacturer, that's another matter. If it's a real case of that sort of perfidy, then you're obligated to aim your boldfaced type in the direction of someone who needs to know -- somebody specific.
Optimism pays, so do Pessimists
just-john:
What is your point ?
Is it that the ALL appliances won't fail in the mid-night of 31-DEC-1999 ? Agreed. But most stand a chance of failing in the vicinity of 1-JAN-2000 and if you think of the failure rate as a normal (bell) curve, the peak will be around 1-JAN-2000.
My advice was, "it is better to be safe than sorry". Don't want to take it ? Of course, It is a free world.
(pre-post-postmodern)
Is it that the ALL appliances won't fail in the mid-night of 31-DEC-1999 ? Agreed.
(Of course, I assume you mean "ALL appliances afflicted with this chip problem." (Most of my major appliances were made in the sixties and seventies, or in the mid-to-late nineties. The ones from the eighties broke already. Hmmmm.))
and if you think of the failure rate as a normal (bell) curve,
For the individual products that weren't synchronized at birth, the failure would tend to parallel the rate of production.
But anyway, the notion of an increase in failures around a specific point in time is psychologically a lot different from a mass failure within a one day period. I've had months where three appliances died, and I've survived. Stuff breaks. (Especially stuff manufactured in the eighties, it seems. I hadn't realized the eighties bit until I gave it some thought in the past few days. Pow! One VCR after another! Perhaps none of the products in question will even survive to experience a Y2K screwup?)
So, is anybody going to publish a list of the doomed products?
for more information on this topic I have foundthese sites useful:http://www.year2000.com (especially the newspaperarticle links)http://www.garynorth.com (possible worst case scenarios)http://www.y2kchaos.com (just what it says) there are many more, but that's a good start
tkight:
Just subscribed to NYT and since I'm just learning about Y2K in depth (unfortunately), I appreciated your low-key, but powerful, introduction of some VERY informative sites (after scanning the somewhat pedantic dialogue here over whose microwave oven or shaver will or won't work!)
Give me a break! The 'experts' are already online reporting that we will no DOUBT be without POWER -- so who cares about an appliance! And it won't be for just a day (a month? a year?) A generator might not be a bad option, guys--and while we're at it, might be a good idea to stock up on some cornflakes and powdered milk -- don't know what we'll do for water though. At least not in the 'city'.
There are some pret-ty knowledgeable people out there who are hoping for the best but preparing for the worst -- apparently it could be a LOT worse than anyone has imagined.
When economists speak of the costs of resolving the Y2K bug, to what exactly are they referring? I've heard quotes of $300 billion, $500 billion, 5% GDP, and approximately equal to the Asian financial market fall out. Are these figures representative of costs incurred by firms and gov't agencies in their efforts to resolve the bug? Or are they estimations of losses due to system failures as a result of the bug? Or are they a combination of the two?
(pre-post-postmodern)
Give me a break! The 'experts' are already online reporting that we will no DOUBT be without POWER
Well, putting "experts" within quotation marks is a good start.
Do you think the power industry isn't checking their stuff, to see if there are any built-in problems, and to correct these problems ahead of time? Why not call your power company directly and ask them about their readiness?
The people who are panicking are professional panickers. The people in the trenches working on solutions make for less sensational reading, but sensationalism isn't their job.
"What does the Y2K bug say about our increasing reliance on technology?"
Looking at this question, I realize why this forum has so few participants. Indeed, contemporary society is utterly dependent on technology. It consumes goods and services at levels attainable only with the automation and efficiency allowed by current technology. So what? Are we anymore dependent on computers than the earliest humans on fire, than stone-agers on the wheel? Technological advance is inevitable and unstoppable. It is to be expected that some percentage of computer systems and electric gadgetry will fail on 1/1/00. To analogize, a rain extinguishes those cook fires that were not covered. The world will incur a sizeable, but one-time charge to sort out the mess. Then, it will be business as usual. Humans are just too darn crafty for it to be anyway else.
SAVE A LOT OF TIME AND MONEY. When the clock ticks to 2000 tick it up to 2001 and we'll all just pretend the y2k was a great year and move on!
Buy a Mac and stop worrying.
Anyone who thinks Computer People are smart should consider the lack of forethought that created this topic. And the greed of CEOs like Gates et al that perhaps knowingly encouraged this built in flaw knowing it would further require their services.
It may seem incomprehensible to the public but the y2k problem just happened. It was not greed, or Machevialian cunning, mostly it was just management ignorance. You say how could anyone be that stupid. Simple. The priority of the day in most companies is to resolve current issues. That is how you survive as an executive. How could they possibly understand that a two digit date could be the biggest computer virus of all time? They couldn't given their focus and background.
It is clear from comments here and elsewhere that some still do not believe y2k to be the ultimate show stopper. We still have 19 months to ameliorate the most critical consequences of this problem.
wend5 5/14/98 8:09am
Y2K can't be much of a problem. Steven Speilberg hasn't made a movie about it.
(pre-post-postmodern)
It is clear from comments here and elsewhere that some still do not believe y2k to be the ultimate show stopper. We still have 19 months to ameliorate the most critical consequences of this problem.
And that's in addition to the years we spent on it before the press finally understood it and made it a trendy story.
Michael Silverton
SMART Letter #6 - May 10, 1998 For Friends and Enemies of the Stupid Network Copyright 1998 by David S. Isenberg This document may be redistributed provided that the 11 lines containing this notice accompany it. isen@isen.com -- http://www.isen.com/ -- 1-888-isen-com It takes SMART people to design a Stupid Network
The Viagra economy of 1998 makes it easy to ignore the Year 2000 Problem. Yet there is reason to surmise that we have passed the point of no return -- that we are likely to have serious systems failures as we transition to the Year 2000. How serious? We don't know.
Some of these are likely to be of the expected, first order variety -- bank screw-ups, supply chain problems, air traffic control delays, etc. -- but we might also experience emergent, higher-order unravelings, with consequences that could be economic, social, medical, geopolitical.
On the other hand, we might *not* experience such emergent, society-shaking consequences -- and I *hope* not -- but contingency thinking today beats being surprised and unprepared tomorrow.
Complex adaptive systems - such as ecologies or markets - rarely progress in a smooth linear fashion for long. The space folds. If there are too many rabbits, suddenly coyotes appear. Virulent strains of disease course through populations, decimating their host until resistant individuals meet weaker strains of disease to establish a new dynamic balance. Markets feed on their own enthusiasm, bubble and burst, then "correct" and regain temporary, perhaps illusory stability.
Yet we have progressed, apparently smoothly, from a world of isolated 8 kilobyte machines to a gigalink society, a network of pervasively networked networks, whose methods and meanings are emerging faster than we can discover them - let alone understand their implications.
Moore's Law was a wild card. Nobody planned how the individually hand-crafted computer programs of the 1970s would acrete to form the Just-in-Time Economy that supports today's industrialized world. We who wrote Fortran in that era are surprised that our morsels of kludgey code, painstakingly crafted to use expensive memory with utmost efficiency, would still be running today.
The Year 2000 Problem is born of well understood, widely accepted, once omnipresent programming practices that were established when memory was expensive. (Remember how we named a variable D instead of DAY, or S rather than SUM, to save memory? I do.)
Memory got cheap, but the code we wrote is still running. Thus, the Y2K problem is widely sown in older code. Often it appears in mutated, hard to recognize patterns. Or in systems that are three miles under the ocean or 300 miles out in space.
It is easy to overlook, ignore, and minimize the disruptive potential of the Y2K Problem. I was reminded how easy Y2K is to deny when the May 4, 1998 issue of the new, otherwise technologically savvy webzine, The Industry Standard (http://www.industrystandard.net/) scoffed that Y2K was being over-hyped by greedy, scare-mongering consultants.
Why so easy? A few reasons. In isolation, it is supremely boring whether the year is a 2-digit or 4-digit field. And nobody likes to dwell on bad news, especially in good times. And facts about Y2K, when you can find them, are either boring and technical, or overly dramatized and, indeed, over-hyped. And good observations on the emergent, systemic nature of the problem are difficult to find. And sometimes known facts are actively suppressed by good people who fear litigation.
So here are some observations:
Observation #1: PEOPLE WHO KNOW MORE BECOME
(pre-post-postmodern)
Observation #1: PEOPLE WHO KNOW MORE BECOME
Gee, that's a very spiritual message of transcendence you're hinting at there, but don't forget, knowledge is not wisdom (just as information isn't knowledge.)
just_john:
I didn't know you were a Zappa fan.
(pre-post-postmodern)
I am -- I even have a tape of me covering "Let's Make the Water Turn Black" -- but I'm not sure what I paraphrased originated with him.
for just_john and anyone else who's wondering:
"Information is not knowledge, Knowledge is not wisdom, Wisdom is not truth, Truth is not beauty, Beauty is not love, Love is not music, Music is the best...."
- Frank Zappa (from the song "Packard Goose" - Joe's Garage Act III - 1979)
Whether these words originated somewhere else, I don't know.
Sorry for the waste of bandwidth, folks, but then again this forum is pretty dead, anyway.
The year 2000 will be less determined by the failure of technology than by the deteministic nature of man. I think we are all indulging in magical thinking that will prove to be more destructive than any two-bit computer chip, or whatever number of bits the chip happens to consist of. For example it is inevitable that there will be, from my point of view, a morbid push to a 10,000 dow with all the accompanying hoopla. This will ultimately prove to be more devastating to our economy than the faultering computer systems. We already survive major screw-ups in this area everyday. A number of companies like ATT are engaging in de-techology, limited though it may be at this time, because of the waste and arrogance inherent in some of these applications. Perhaps in the end if the computers do fail, it won't be so much the fault of the computer as the underlying wish of humanity to come up with a convincing argument to finally purge it from the face of the earth. As we once again sing, "Let the good times roll". Tell me, is anyone more boring than Bill Gates? That's it, I've had it, I'm switching to the Yankee game. This is driving me mad!
Optimism pays, so do Pessimists
The failed satellite (bringing down the Pagers) should have given a taste of what could be in store on Year 2000.
(pre-post-postmodern)
Yikes. We agree on something.
Note how the business and social worlds rose to work around the problem.
"The failed satellite (bringing down the Pagers) should have given a taste of what could be in store on Year 2000. "
And yet, we all still survived, in fact, it didn't bother me one bit. So much for Armageddon.
just-john,
You are,
(a) Really dumb
(b) Trial Lawyer
(c) Both
Choose one.
(pre-post-postmodern)
How informative!
(Hmmm.. Is this billable?)
da millenium is commin dats when its time fo da new Wu Order Grab yo steel its gonna get nasty
You know, those 13 Communist China nuclear-tipped ICBM's that are aimed at the U.S.
Our own DoD is urgently reviewing the software systems that manage our launch-capable nuclear ICBM's, but are you confident about the Chinese efforts with their 18 missiles, 13 of which are targeted at America's children, minorities, women, and other vulnerable groups?
Optimism pays, so do Pessimists
Ask just-john.
In reference to the New York Times editorial of May 28, 1998 ("The Millennium Bug"), they should be reminded that, almost exactly ten years ago, they ran an article (May 7, 1988) entitled: "For Computers, the Year 2000 May Prove a Bit Traumatic," by Barnaby J. Feder.
How can they now say that "...no one saw the millennium coming until it was just this close? [which is the last line of their editorial]"
Mark I. Wolk, CPA ASA 130 Seventh Street Pittsburgh, PA 15222
It's too late for full remediation now and time for a fallback position.
See http://2000.jbaworld.com/harlan/smcp.htm
Not wonderful, but perhaps the best we can do at this late date.
Harlan Smith
A number of promising techniques for fixing the date fields have been developed. Many cannot cope within the complexity of large legacy systems. Wholesale reengineering is needed and few techniques work for that.
One technique that seems to work better than most (if not all) others in a legacy system is applied by a subsidiary of the Zitel Company. It has been adopted for the National Institutes for Health by Frank Carlucci's company Federal Data Corp. NIH is one of the federal agencies with a good info system track record. Can anyone recommend any services besides Zitel?
If old systems are not to be reengineered but, instead, new systems are to replace them, we will face a different sort of difficulty. New systems rarely produce exactly the same results as the big old system: customer bills will change in inexplicable ways, product and service deliveries may differ, new management reports won't be comparable with old reports, archive data may be totally lost, etc. Customers won't be happy, managers will be at sea and the regulators will be stirred up. The year 2000 will probably force us to tolerate such disruption because the alternative will be a stop to day-to-day business in general.
Maybe this is too alarmist, but a little planning (a food and water stockpile, portable radio, etc., just like earthquake preparation) won't hurt and it might help a lot. History never exactly repeats itself, so this millenium will be different from the last one. It may still be a hum-dinger.
If Y2K becomes a media sensation like El Nino, we can be sure that the general public will be scared out of their wits and panic. There are solutions out there, but solutions won't make the media establishments any money. I bet none of them would cover a small software company with a fast, inexpensive and reliable Y2K Cobol solution even if they were giving a demo away! The company in question is called NetVital. The product is called Year2000.exe, and they have an excellent white paper as well as a fully functional demo for download at http://www.netvital.com/products/2000_index.html/
jabaram....forget media hype...forget year2000.exe PC's don't run banks, utilities, and the DoD. Contingency planning is a must consider for both individuals and communities. How many days can your public water works operate under emergency power?? Tg
(pre-post-postmodern)
.. and banks and public utilities and other infrastructure institutions are quietly working on (or have already solved) the problem. The reason you don't hear the people in the trenches talking about this much is that they're contractually required to let their public information departments do the talking.
A friend's wife is terribly distraught because she thinks civilization will crumble and we will have to grow our own food or die. I figure that most of us would die. I can't grow weeds. But apparently many people are deathly afraid of some sort of Y2K disaster. Personally I don't think so.
Have you heard of any of these catastrophes?
(pre-post-postmodern)
There are some whose panic is based upon a fear of "The Millenium" that predated public discussion of this computer thing. They're talking literally Biblical stuff -- Antichrist(s), Second Comings, etc.
There's a "Talk-2000" discussion list and Web site (I wish I had the URL handy, because "talk" and "2000" are such common things to search on.) Anyway, they act as a clearinghouse for a lot of Millenium stories, including discussions of that happened around 1000 AD.
One of the governments biggest and most susceptible agency's, the IRS missed a golden opportunity to solve two problems. The year 2000 and the complex IRS code. If we had any compentent leadership in this country, they should of considered a simpler tax code along with purchasing all new computers. Then starting January 1st. 1999 all tax returns could of went on the new computers. With a simplified tax code, the programing would of been minimum. Not with government thinking though. They spent $6 billion trying to upgrade the current monstrosity,and acheived nothing.The IRS lost $20 billion from fraud when they came out with the rapid refund, because they had no way to verify the return. All the $millions/billions spent by the IRS/government to solve 2000 in the current tax code is lost money. If they would of bought new computers and programed them with a simpler tax code, billinos of $ could of been saved. Just leave the unresolved stuff on the existing system. The current approach is what you get when your not spending your money and you can't be fired.Congress shows absoulty no leadership.
The Y2K scare is the biggest hoax of the decade.
Not only is it the biggest hoax of the decade, but why are we still using twenty year old systems to run our lives? COBOL has been a DEAD language for years because of its obfuscated code. Why do so many places still run old programs designed under it? This also presents a good case for the open source code people (like me ;). If the sources were available, conversion would be a simple matter. I personally think this is a good time to start getting up to date software.
Is the 2k year the last year of the XX century or the first one of XXI?
My opinion is that the first statement is the correct; there wasn't any year "0", the first year of the first millenium was the year "1", so, the year 2000 is just the last to complete the second millenium.
Is this correct? Many people arround the world is happy waiting for year 2000 as the new millenium; for me, they're whrong.
Alex, Costa Rica
linux5:
Not only is it the biggest hoax of the decade, but why are we still using twenty year old systems to run our lives? COBOL has been a DEAD language for years
Back around the early 1980s, the IRS had replace their computer systems. All code was written in assembly on Burroughs or Sperry machines. The decision was to purchase new machines of the same manufacturer, and recode all programs. A major Japanese company (Hitachi?) submitted the best bid. But since the nonsense called "Buy American" was so entrenched, the IRS purchased Sperry computers (before Unisys was created). The IRS's own consultants said that the Sperry equipment would require a additional 50% of the original purchase. The consultants were correct.
So the IRS started reprogramming. The rule was that all new code must work exactly as the old machine coded programs did (any doubt as to why a Year 2000 problem would continue?). This was an easy decision for management who did not come from where the work gets done. All machine code programmers were retaught a new high level language - COBOL.
Of course we know that COBOL requires more memory and creates larger programs. No problem. The IRS management solved that problem by purchasing more hardware from Sperry. No matter that Cobol was a terrible language to build new programs with in 1980s. The IRS proceded on.
85% of all problems are directly traceable to top management. The standard procedure is to enter 100 returns in a batch job. That was how the old programs ran. If the program discovered any errors in any of those 100 returns, then all 100 returns were rejected - a human had to study the pile of 100 to locate the failure - a typo or a taxpayer created problem.
As returns backed up, management then blamed employees. Many returns were discovered in the dumpsters - one way to report that all forms were being processed on schedule. This way the real source of the problem - top management - could not attack employees for the problems.
With top management this myopic, you then want them to plan for a Year 2000 problem? Wherever the Year 2000 problem occurs, the top management should be fired for incompetance. That is why the problem exists in isolated situations. If top management rewrites all their code in COBOL, then you know where the enemy of the operation is entrenched - probably with big salaries because they have Masters of Business Degrees.
Hoax or Hype? Check out www.garynorth.com That is the center of the cyclone on the web for info on Y2K. Also, new book by Jason Kelly called Y2K-It Already is too late. just came out. Hoax or Hype, Fact or fiction? I don't know, but if I have to trust the government, I am getting increasingly worried about it, and only 560+ days to go.
I can't believe there is nothing in today's NY Times about the Senate hearings on y2k and the power grid! This probem could be one of the largest we'll ever face in our life time and its not on the front page; its not even burried in the back pages. What's going on? RAP
From beyond the grave: "Turning and turning in the widening gyre the falcon cannot hear the falconer; Things fall apart; the center cannot hold; Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world. Surely some revelation or fix is at hand..... The Irish poet Yeats recognized it a half century ago and gave us this foreboding vision. The y2k will yield to the 666!!
Ya heard it from this old Georgia boy! They ain't gonna be able to "Fix It " without Bill Gates hep ! I can hardly wait for Janet Reno to call him 4 "HEP" -- Y'all come, Heah .-LOL
The year 2000 bug is a programming problem nothing else. It is not the end of the world and it is not a vast conspiracy. Unfortunatly solving it is one of the dullest things one can do with a computer and so to get good programmers to work on it companies will have to pay them a lot of money.
In computer programing the digits start with zero. Ten digits are 0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9. The zero is indeed a digit and the first item of ten items. How can zero be the last item in a decimal based counting system? Are you a republican?
hifries 6/13/98 3:57pm What in the hell does bill gates have to with y2k? What does gates have to do with desktop computers real time clocks? With the clocks in imbedded systems? What does gates have to do with a motherboards cmos bios? All gates does is refine other people's software. I don't doubt that you are from georgia, you people elected newt gingrich.
to woosleyPaddington: the one who started his or her life in year cero of his or her own calendar, the one who after living 12 months was just cero years old. I was talking in general, or the life is limited to computer programing? In that case lets talk about year 11010000. No I'm not republican, are you?
Brooklyn Girl
Don't forget that sometimes mere pc users cause their own Y2K gliches. Before the turn, make sure that yourselves and any employees or employers you might have check their spreadsheets and databases to make sure that the dates in them are specified with 4 digits (e.g. dd/mm/yyyy) or if they are not, that it won't cause any problems. Simple example, does your access database tell you when to send Birthday Cards? If your Windows clock flips to 2000 and your database says that a card should be sent in January of 1900, your life will be affected! Check it out.
>Ya heard it from this old Georgia boy! They ain't gonna be able to "Fix It " without Bill Gates hep ! I can hardly wait for Janet Reno to call him 4 "HEP" -- Y'all come, Heah .-LOL<<
Bill knows the answer is to BUY MACINTOSH maybe thats one reason Office 98 has been available for Mac for a few months, but the Winblows version isn't even on the radar screen. Maybe even Bill doesn't expect Winblows to last past 2K
> All gates does is refine other people's software.<<
What dictionary defines "refining" as stealing ideas and implementing them in a buggy and inefficient fashion?
The y2k phenomenon scares.
I recently watched CSPAN on presentation at American Enterprise Institute.
Senator Robert Bennett of Utah and others' speeches are quite alarmist.
I am aware of what Gary North is doomsdayly saying. He is advocating survivalist stuff.
Ed Yardeni, respected Wall Street prognosticator, predicts recession at a minimum.
Supposedly the Asian countries aren't doing much.
The interconnectedness or interdependencies of systems makes nearly everything vulnerable.
TIME Magazine has a relatively upbeat anti-fear of y2k article. But TIME writes the U.S. govt--most of its agencies--is the least prepared.
A scenario from TIME is that at the stroke of midnite, some computers would be over-rode.
TIME says utility companies are particularly adaptive.
For me, TIME is not as persuasive as is Gary North.
Y2k ought to become an openly discussed public issue. Maximal attention is warranted.
The very fact that this forum is so-far so-small, seems to be proof that the mainstream media isn't giving it doesn't want to talk about it .....or they don't realize the far-reaching implications. Yes, Gary North's website is the best.<www.garynorth.com>. vandelay, though he y2k bug may not have been a NWO conspiacy(though I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss it as such), you can bet your boots that they will surley take full advantage of it. This is no small problem.
Dear Folks
If you want to see upwards of a hundred postings a day go to comp.software.year-2000 and misc.survivalism. Please note that there are lot of highly caffeinated opinions there but the more I read the more I concede that something big will probably happen in 2000.
Gene Kimzey
The Y2k problem is a fake problem, it is a conspiracy of computer industry and programming professionals to create fear in this contry and the world so that they can get extra investment and employment and boost their income.
The truth is, most of system's working does not depend on which year they are in, and most systems aren't entirely automated now anyway (at least with human supervision), the only major system that is affected is the bank and financial system because these depends on interest rates. However, the banks computer system is actually constantly changing, there are actually not so many old hardware and software in use anyway. So the only thing need to be changed is the data, but changing them is not difficult.
Don't be scared, the world will live on.
The only organization in serious year 2000 trouble is the IRS and that may not be a bad thing.
I saw that show on c-span2. It was absurd. Some nutso right wing republican senator prediciting the end of the known galaxy, if the senate didn't approve a plan of letting a vast migration of indian and pakastani programmers flood the market, working for one-third the wages of US programmers to fix the end of the universe y2k bug. These guys will do anything to lower wages of american workers and make more profit. The american enterprise institute is the equivalent of a right wing advocacy group. This is the most overblown non-crisis is world history. The only problem is with some 4 and 8bit imbeded chips that might shut down if they periodically test themselves for recent diagnostics and decide that they haven't been checked for 99 years. How many power grids depend on a 4bit chip? If they do, you should find out the company who uses them, march the managers outside, blindfold them..............
Each of us could name dozens of problems and potential problems about various phenomena.
If one truly contemplates all of one's fears, one would feel ennui, helplessness & hopelessness, and post pessimistic scenarios on nytimes forum.
The sky is eventually going to fall. Eventually a deliberate or errant act of war or terrorism will occur.
Eventually a natural astronomical, climatological, biological, ecological, geological et cetera catasrophe(s) is inevitable.
New viruses and mutating bugs aren't going away: Flu, Mad Cow, ebola, AIDS, hepatitis, e coli, et cetera ad morte tout le monde fini. Everybody dies in the end.
Speilberg movie could be made about any of above, including destruction of Florida from fires. Harrisson Ford & Helen Hunt won't be there to save us in real life, however.
Why can't they rig instant above-ground piping or many hoses, pump H2O from the ocean and Gulf of Mexico, and massively spray the wild fires?
Wait: there's a point to this: Jay Barbary on MSNBC says the fires are Mother Nature's way to deal with the ecological balance, like the Yellowstone fires rationale of a coupla years ago, which appears to have proven-out.
Is there any comparative assertion to be made about the ominous y2k?
There have got to be some side effect benefits.
Re: Excuse for importing of more Pakistini and Indian programmers.
I would not deny y2k provides a convenient reason, though cannot thus slough-off y2k. The Bennett speech seemed to me to be prudent, moderate, convincing, reasonable, responsible, in the public interest, and in good faith--as were the other speakers.
Easy Prediction: There will be many more people posting to nyt forum topic about y2k. The headlines are not yet bold enuff, and the public is still relatively uninformed.
I recently had the opportunity to ask a high level programer and cryptologist at a large Connecticut insurance company if this whole Y2K thing wasn't being blown out of proportion by the paranoid, technophobic, general public and crisis-hungry media.
Her reply was "Long before the stroke of midnight I'll have all my assets in cash and diamonds".....spooky.
Sam Dushkin
About a week before the millenium change, withdraw cash from your atm, if you live in the north get a kerosene heater with fuel for about a week or so, and most importantly GET ALL of your prescription medicine refilled. DO NOT wait until the last day. It also wouldn't be a bad idea to stock up on two weeks worth of groceries. If your local pharmacy and/or supermarket doesn't experience problems (which is very unlikely), it won't make any difference, but if they DO, it might save you a lot of misery.
I now bring to your attention an opinion article that was in the editorial pages of the WALL STREET JOURNAL a week or so ago by a Mr. Bernstein. He says that puter-savy terrorists may opportunistically saboutage & wreak havoc deliberately: The downfall of civilization by-way-of insidious viruses and traps. Programmers whom despise whatever they may despise might be fowling (fouling?) even as I write this paranoiac note.
The Millenium could become a self-fulfilling prophecy of doom. There are fanatics & nuts, religious & secular, who have varied scores to settle.
Tragically: Mankind is the Balkans Peoples. Revengefulness and neo-barbarianism can be meted-out via labor-saving contraptions. Ahhh. Perhaps neo-Luddite programmers a la the Unibomber ... .
Big Bad Bug......... The Y2K bug is mean. And ugly. And one mother of a problem.Do this do that and what have you got? Jan. 1 2000 will tell the story(if there's one to tell). Oh what a mess!!!...... Help me Mr. Wizard,help me Mr. Wizard........"
Somehow this year 2000 bug has played into the hands of all kinds of assorted nuts, none of whom knows anything about computers or computer programming. The fear simply plays into their preconceived fears paranoia and hatred.
(pre-post-postmodern)
... and meanwhile, the people actually working on the problem (such as it is) are prevented from talking publicly about the specifics by their companies' non-disclosure agreements ...
You don't have to be a computer programmer to be able to discuss the Y2K bug.Research the various websites pertaining to this issue and you'll soon see that there are many concerned people.Nobody really knows the end result ramifications of this bug but you can bet that its starting to become a top priority issue in the business world.Its too bad this bug wasn't disposed of years ago because now with this looming sense of urgency it just makes the future seem a bit more complicated.
Even had we not invented computers we would still have the Y2K problem (although we would not call it that). Because I am in the business I have begun to notice all of the other places this "bug" has been embedded in our lives. I just filled out the NJ required health insurance form which has no place for 4 digit years even in the birthdays (which of course have extended across the 1900 boundary since insurance forms were invented). This one, at least, is not the fault of us programmers - just normal bureaucrats "saving" paper. Of course I can force the NJ form by writting "1983" real tiny in the space for the year of my son's birth. Equivalent programming tricks which are being applied today will work just about as well.
The most frightening thing about the Y2K bug is that it has the potential to infiltrate into nearly every aspect of our daily lives, damaging every industry in our world from shipping to electrical power generation.
The fact is, our world has become so technology reliant that we have built ourself into a corner. If the technology fails, then there is no plan B. Every industry is reliant on another industry to provide needed resources. For example, the electric power industry is reliant on the rail and shipping industries to provide shipments of coal and other natural resources for energy production. Due to Just-In-Time thinking, most power generating stations only have a few weeks worth of needed supplies on hand. On the other hand, the rail and shipping insdustries rely on the electrical power they receive to power their scheduling systems and their warehouse inventory control systems. If one industry fails, the dominoes will begin to fall.
The GM strike is a perfect example of how Y2K may affect businesses on a global scale. The walkout in Flint, MI, has affected all but 3 (last I heard) production facilities in Northern America - 2 in Nashville and 1 in Canada, putting close to 300,000 GM employees out of work.
The potential for the impact of Y2K is tremendous.
Randy Guidry
Managing Editor, Y2K News Magazine
randy@y2knews.com
http://www.y2knews.com
There is a cure for the 2000 bug. It is called "2000 Compliance Pro!" I recently found out about a small company in Florida who has developed this piece of software which not only fixes the software problem but the hardware problem too. Visit thier web site www.computer-people.com! They have entire page dedicated to telling how the software works and how much it costs!
(pre-post-postmodern)
Well, gosh! I guess we can close the forum and replace it with that announcement!
If everyone panics, withdraws their money, and holes up, we are going to have a real big mess. But if we stop thinking about ourselves, and make a consious effort to help, we won't have a hard time at all. However, I doubt that most people will bother to help anyone else. This is because human nature is greedy and selfcentered. We are not going to live in the same world after 2000. Hopefully it will still be livable, but most likely, the world will be reduced to a chaos that it will not rise from for quite some time.
nfgaida@csbsju.edu
"We are not going to live in the same world after 2000. Hopefully it will still be livable, but most likely, the world will be reduced to a chaos that it will not rise from for quite some time."
Y2K - potentially damaging technological problem OR convenient platform on which to project crackpot fin-de-siecle Doomday predictions? You decide.
After much studying of the Y2K problem from a wide variety of sources I am quite convinced we are headed for drastic difficulties ahead. But unlike most people who believe that in the face of this dilemma all the worst aspects of society will instantly come to the surface and humankind will turn in on itself and self-destruct, I tend to believe that our society and other societies will pull together to persevere. For every catastrophy, disaster, plague, war, crises and hardship to have befallen societies, those same societies have shown the ability to pull together and rise above it. Life goes on, often changed for the better after such an event. My only wish is that public awareness would be greatly increased now to lessen the psychological impact later.
(pre-post-postmodern)
Perhaps a public weaned on a steady diet of disaster movies craves an opportunity to panic on a really grand scale?
Does anyone know which *embedded* systems might be affected in the office or home? Refrigerators? Microwaves? Telephones? Are there any steps the average consumer can take to minimize the problem?
(pre-post-postmodern)
Regarding microprocessors and firmware -- or, as nhsrikanth so quaintly terms it, "firmwares" -- what was bothering me at the back of my mind has finally made its way to the front.
The Y2k problem is only a problem when we consider the date in decimal. Processors don't naturally do that -- they think of the date as a number of ticks from an arbitrary point in time (which varies, depending on manufacturer). This is kept internally, and not in decimal -- 1:00 1/1/2000 probably takes up exactly the same room as 1:00 12/31/1999.
(To get a look at something similar, check out MS Excel's way of storing timestamps. You can do this by changing the format of a field that has a calculated date to "General.")
The Y2k problem doesn't happen except when expressing the date in decimal, so if there's no reason to do that (as with electric shavers and half the other stuff nhsrikanth was going on about), there's NO Y2K PROBLEM WITH THAT DEVICE.
And for microprocessors with limited memory, converting to decimal would be the LAST thing a programmer would do, if she didn't have to. If something requires a real-world interval to be expressed, the programmer figures out the number of ticks in that interval and hard codes it in.
(And by the way, nhsrikanth has yet to come up with that list of specific products he/she thinks will fail.)
There is no Millennium bug where I reside...a Mac world does not have such stupidities nor the expenses of updating antique applications and computers. Why in the world the business community fell for lousy technology is beyond me...or is it? Maybe it is because they misinterpreted ease of use for a lack of sophistication? Alas, for your businesses as mine is up and running and will be without additional expenses due to Y2K. Go Macintosh and really use a computer for what it is intended...productivity.
The y2k bug will not bring the apocalypse, as expessed in may of the posts. It will most likely affect banks and government agencies more than anything else. Social Security might not get checks out on time. Your bank might produce a blank statement. How many of us have had their clock or calendar incorrect on their PC? many I'm sure.
scoobie-we recently went through a major storm here in the midwest, cutting power to everyone in the area. although some stores closed, many stayed open recording sales with pen and paper. this is not the answer to the problem, but an example that the quest for profit will always find a way. life goes on without computers, maybe just not as easily.
The Y2K PC bug is pure speculation in relation to stand alone personal computing. I agreed it will be critical for accounting purposes, mortgages and loans.
At the present time when I am typing this message, my PC clock shows 12:03 AM of January 1st, 2000 and it still running ! ! !
Hasta la vista,
Otto Neumann - Canada
(pre-post-postmodern)
Yup, a friend became a lot less paranoid about it when I sent him email from April of 2000.
Some people seem to be confusing the desktop computer world with the larger computers that actually run our society. Most of these large antiquated systems were developed decades before Mac's or PC's.Any PC manufactured after 1996 is Y2K compliant. But the 1.5 million computers the Department of Defense, or those used by the FAA, or the utility companies, the phone companies, the major corporations, are not PC's and are not Y2K compliant. If you do not believe it, look at the General Accounting Office website of the Federal government to see the current state of the Y2K situation. Even the government says it looks bleak and are making contingency plans for when their systems shut down. The same goes for state governments. The official Massachusettes Y2K government website estimates less than 40% of their systems will be operational on 1-1-00. If there is no problem, why are large corporations spending hundreds of millions of dollars trying to fix it? These corporations have never been known to throw away money needlessly, they are convinced of the necessity. The FAA is considering grounding all flights the 1st week of 2000. A recent news article showed that 3M corp had their main computer system freeze up when they tried to enter their material orders up through 2000. The prove is out there for the public to see, not just on the "extremists" sites but on the government sites, the utilities and business reporting sites. Check "http://pw2.netcom.com/~helliott/00.htm" the Mother of All Y2K Link Centers for links to all these sites. Do not be lulled into thinking your desktop computer is indicative of the world at large. And check with General Motors to see if they can go back to working by pen and paper.
(pre-post-postmodern)
That's a far cry from claiming that electric shavers and heart pacemakers will all seize up on 1/1/2000, as some people are doing.
A recent news article showed that 3M corp had their main computer system freeze up when they tried to enter their material orders up through 2000.
... and you'll note that 3M is still in business. They found a glitch, they fixed it, they moved on ...
Having worked on year 2000 assessment and testing for the last 2 years, some things must be noted: (1) Not all PCs after 1996 can be guaranteed compliant. Compaq only guarantees its PCs after Oct. 1997. For most people, the problem with a PC BIOS may only require that the clock is reset after 1/1/2000.
(2) Year 2000 problems may exist in ANY program. For example, older versions of some spreadsheets (Lotus 1-2-3) interpret a 2 digit year as 19xx. Thus a spreadsheet with date calculations can be wrong. This can also apply to a MAC (though the MAC OS is OK).
(3) Embedded chips with problems are most likely to cause problems with manufacturing and infrastructure (utilities) if not identified and corrected in time.
The problem is bigger than most people think.
(pre-post-postmodern)
Year 2000 problems may exist in ANY program.
No, only in programs that do something involving dates. Or can you provide a counterexample?
Good day to you,
My organization has been researching the global business implications of the Year 2000 for the past two years. We have now completed infra-structures studies in eight major cities including New York, where we started the first User Group back in Nov 1996.
For information on how the Year 2000 crisis could impact our community please refer to www.corp2000.com/urbanville.htm
Kind regards
Martyn Emery President Corporation 2000 & New York 2000
#100
Regarding embedded processors and consumers, I recommend the article "Embedded Chips - Dispelling Some Myths" in the May/June 1998 issue of The Year 2000 Journal. This article discusses a process of assessing risk pertaining to embedded systems. This publication is available online at www.y2kjournal.com - this particular issue is not yet posted online (as of July 2, 1998).
For folks intending to purchase products such as PCs, software, and other products that use processors, I recommend checking prospective vendor's internet sites for relevant year 2000 "readiness" indormation as a starting point. Look for a vendor's definition of year 2000 "compliance" or "readiness" as there is no U.S. standard definition. Both computer hardware and software may have date issues. The site www.nstl.com has a download for testing PC (so-called IBM compatable) hardware and a white paper explaining the date issues and risks in performing date tests. Microsoft has also published warnings on the risks of advancing dates on PCs.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has posted vendors' responses regarding medical equipment to their site at www.fda.gov. (Then search "year 2000"). Note that the FDA "cannot and does not make any independent assurances or guarantees as to the accuracy or completeness of this data."
In general, consumers need to educate themselves on the issues. The site http://www.itpolicy.gsa.gov/mks/yr2000/y2khome.htm has links to many relevant internet sites. There is a lot for consumers to learn to reduce their year 2000 date risks.
Hey!!! Good Afternoon. Glad to make your acquaintance,electronically speaking. Our dependence on electronic "gadgets" is here to stay and it will become more pervasive as we zoom past the year 2000.
Why wouldn't a universally agreeded upon arbitrary letter or number work ? 20L1...
>>... and you'll note that 3M is still in business. They found a glitch, they fixed it, they moved on ...<<<<
Who said they fixed it? While the company is not out of business yet, they also had to rush out and hire dozens of IT people they hadn't known they needed and had to cancel the order inputs. This was just the first glitch to pop up, what about when all the others surface. And this is happening to many more companies now also, according to Business Weekly, Fortune Magazine, Investor Magazine, The Wall Street Journal, and other trade magazines. It is starting to snowball and there simply are not enough IT people to go around. Please check the URL site in my previous post for a directory of these magazine articles.
how good is zitel's y2k solution?
GM has 2 billion lines of code and 100,000 suppliers that must be 100% compliant by 01/01/2000. Is this feasible?
RE: For GM it's not just Y2k compliance. It is worth noting that the year 2000 will lead to one of the greatest wealth and market transfer periods since the industrial revolution. GM will be hit by the fact that during periods of systemic failure, such as those experience in the Canadian ice storms auto sells slump.
Perhaps the year 2000 will herald the age of the industrial devolution where smaller knowledge based units will thrive.
Kind regards
Martyn Emery Corporation 2000
Just a note to people who advance their system clock past 2000 to see if it is compliant. This is not an accurate indicator...your BIOS chips must coordinate the date with your system clock. To do an actual test, set your system clock to Dec 31, 1999 11:57 PM, then completely shut down your system. Wait about 5 minutes then restart your system. Your BIOS chip will coordinate the time with the system and the BIOS will now think it's past the 2000 date. WARNING - on non-compliant systems you could develop major problems. Do a system backup first! Also on all systems be prepared for lots of warning windows from applications telling you this or that has expired. When you reset your clock they should disappear. Most but not all 1996 and later systems should be OK.
someone made the suggestion: Why wouldn't a universally agreeded upon arbitrary letter or number work ? 20L1...
While this is a nice idea it will not work. Most computers store the 2 digit year as a number not a character and it will not work. It is like putting a square plug in a round hole. The computer can not store it unless the year is converted to a alphanumeric field which will work but then you will have to do some creative subtraction to find the difference in someone's age. 20L1 - 1945 would come out strange unless you say if the year is L1 replace it with 00 and do the subtraction. Still would have to be reprogrammed either way. It should be changed the correct way which is to store the year as 2000.
OK, I just found out that the before mentioned method of date checking may not reveal a true BIOS problem. There is a definitive BIOS checking program that can be downloaded for free from www.rightime.com. In case you are wondering if it will always read a failure in order to sell their corrective program, my system passed the two tests it ran. (whew!)
Seems there is a lot of cheap "talk" about the obvious perils of Y2K, yet so few are doing any real individual "planning" to confront what many now agree is the inevitable collapse of the stock market by late 1999, probable widespread electrical blackouts, massive bank runs, and that is just for starters. Wait 'til 50 million welfare & Social Security checks fail to arrive -- then you will have a serious societal meltdown which will make the Great Depression look like a time of Great Prosperity in comparison.
To those rare and prescient few who want to begin their own serious contingency planning, we may be able to help each other. I am currently constructing my own Y2K Sanctuary on 1 of my 2 contiguous 35 acre parcels set in the most serene, secluded and beautiful area of the southern Colorado Rockies. The property functions perfectly on solar & wind power although traditional electric power is readily available. The property adjoins more than 2,000,000+ acres of federal land, including the San Isabel National Forest, the Sangre de Cristo National Wilderness Area and the Greenhorn National Wilderness Area. It is located in the Sangre de Cristo Mountains about 90 miles north of Taos, New Mexico and 80 miles southwest of Colorado Springs. Wildlife proliferates, including elk, mule deer, wild turkey, eagles & lots of hummingbirds. Aspen trees are everywhere, water is cold & clear, sun shines 320+ days of the year and gardening is good.
I am looking to sell my other 35 acre parcel to a well educated and prudent individual or family that is very "Y2K Aware" and who would make a good steward of this land as well as a good neighbor thru Y2K & Beyond. I can forward to you by email a detailed 6 page informational letter as well as color photos if your email system can handle "attachments".
Serious inquiries only. Please contact me at:
koivulaw@mci2000.com
This may well save your Life . . .
This forum caught my eye because I have been performing consulting work for the past nine months to "fix" the Y2K problem. FWIW, I have recently come to the realization that most, if not all, of our efforts (nobody but us COBOL dinosaurs here...) is a case of too little, too late. The two major corporations (insurance and banking) that I was working for are beginning to (internally) panic -- i.e., many executive-level clients are beginning to snap at employees and raise their voices, argue very loudly (almost hysterically) in meetings, and point fingers at everyone in sight... As well they should! Not only their jobs but also their companies are part of the "dominoe chain" in danger of total or partial collapse.
Me? I am considering moving my family back to the mid-west and working for my Uncle on the farm.
It appears many have been reading Gary North. Not to appear superficially naive, but has anyone considered the ability of the human spirit to perservere through advirsity? So what if the world's computers crash? Did civilization not exist prior to 1953? Maybe some opportunists can cash in on the "mop-up", but I fail to see how the Human Species will crash along with their networks...
Of course we'll survive--the problem is that economic downturn, if not slowed, tends to bring on more economic downturn, which leads to depression. The *spirit* may survive, but some of us aren't looking forward to losing those creature comforts we love so much...for instance, who knows if I will have the extra cash to spend on an ISP so I can communcate with others without having to know their phone number first? I'm not expecting an apocalypse, but there is certainly room in society now for things to get much, much worse than they are now. And, considering the recent riots in South Asia and the less recent riots in California, it's possible that anything could happen when we find we need someone to blame.
WE WILL SURVIVE OF COURSE!
We survived the depression and WWII (most of us) and we will survive the Y2k bug. But it's my guess that it will be an experience that we will not cherish.
EZ 2 see the roots of Y2K
Question: How is it that 5 or 10 years ago the world's managers were unable to foresee a huge risk to their operations when virtually every entry level programmer in their employ understood it perfectly.
As Winston Churchill's once said after a major disaster:
"I ought to have known, my advisors ought to have known, and I ought to have been told and I ought to have asked."
Anyone who seeks understanding of how we could find ourselves in a situation where countless computers in the world could malfunction simultaneously need go no farther than the morning's Dilbert cartoon.
The depiction of the relationship of the manager and his technical staff is a quite accurate description of - if not the world of today - certainly the world of management from the 50's to the 80's when the old COBOL programs were being written.
Back then there was probably not one senior manager in a thousand who could have grasped this problem if it was explained to him and it is even less likely that any of his programmers would have wanted to explain it, - or been able to if they did. Back then it was the common lament that we could never get programmers to document their programs for love or money. They just refused. So programmers in the next cubicle let alone managers in the upstairs offices were usually clueless about what was going on within those programs, for dates or anything else.
Having been involved in several large attempts to reconcile systems and programs across department lines I well remember how difficult it was when everyone programmed in COBOL for fellow programmers to figure out some program written the next cubicle.
That was why it was normal for programmers to be on call 24 hours a day and to rush in in the middle of the night when one of their routines hung up. Nobody else had a clue as to how to fix someone else's program. Why do you think that the first employees to stop wearing ties were programmers, they always had management over a barrel and they knew it. I even knew of situations where programmers literally punched out a boss and got away with it. Management was always afraid of programmers and management ignorance was the primary way they maintained their freedom. It is not well understood that computer shops are the last bastions of absolute freedom in large corporations and maybe the world, because management never ever really knew what those employees were were actually doing all day long.
So for decades we have allowed a situation to develop where the daily performance and design of key operational management functions and the duties of some of their key staff are essentially incomprehensible and unknowable to top staff. A recent study showed only a small percent of top management even could explain what a modem does. How could they possibly understand the problems within the coding of programs. The problem was never really that Y2K was a problem far, far, off in the distant future so they overlooked it. Managers worry all the time about problems far off in the future. It is commonplace for senior management to plan for and carefully calculate for risks and for opportunities 5, 10 or 20 years out into the future. In fact these future value/risk calculations are the basis of all investment decisions and of course insurance and actuarial science itself.
We are simply going to reap the fruits of 40 years of management incompetence.
Well, here are a few insights and recommendations.
1. On the magic hour, the problem may not just be computers that crash, - everyone will be on guard for blank screens and error messages, - but rather computers that don't. Many computers will have serious Y2K problems but just keep on working and simply pass their badly computed data to other systems that depend on them for an input.
Computers with Y2K problems today that create anecdotes
To dbbishop: civilization certainly did exist before 1953 and will afterwards also, but we could be talking a shift more to the level of 1853 if the utilities are as much in danger as even some conservative sources estimate. While civilization will go on, you must be able to imagine the upheaval process as being dramatic in turning society back 100 years in one night. I have read Dr Norths website but also every other available Y2K website I could to have as balanced a view as possible. I must say that the information in "official" sites such as the General Accounting Office of the federal government and my own state's site (Ma.) are starting to become as alarming as Gary North's. The same goes for "respectable" sites such as CNN, ABC, NYTimes, etc. At first many of the news stories were of the line of "could Y2K be as bad as..." or "Some analysts warn of..." but lately more stories are appearing in the mainstream media of actual failures of systems and dire results of industry testing. I started following this issue quite awhile ago with a skeptical view towards the "crackpot gloom & doom" crowd. Now I have a hand pump on my well, bought a wood burning cookstove, and am storing food. To follow the mainstream press clippings related to Y2K for yourself, got to http://www.year2000.com/articles/NFarticles.html
foerch-0930PM 5July98-I'm sure a good part of my audience is much better educated than I am but this whole Y2K problem is just a natural for the old go-sub routines we used back when we programmed in basic. First we write one common routine to correct the problem. Then we go over all our programs and throw in a go-sub every time a date is mentioned. Isn't there some merit in that?
f12345
It would be nice if it were that easy. In the real world the statement might look like 'calculate (date2 - date1) * principal * rate'. Where do you put the gosub?
Even if it worked, someone would still have to go through all of the program code to figure out which lines need to be changed -- and that of course, is the essense of the problem.
In theory, you could write a computer program to examine each program and determine what lines have to be changed. In practice, I could come up with a couple of dozen coding tricks that programmers used to save memory and time back in the bad old days. Any of these tricks would deceive the program that is searching for problems.
Some old programming languages had built in limits on how large a particular piece of a program could be. In rare cases, ANY change to the program might make it non-functional. Unfortunately, one non-functional program can make a system of 200 programs useless.
However you look at it it's a mess. A good programmer can find any number of interesting and challenging projects that pay anywhere from 60 to 120 dollars per hour.
It takes a lot more than this to motivate those who still have the skills. Hardly anyone wants to work on a tedious, boring conversion project.
Excellent analysis. I agree with you as far as you go.
I would take it a few steps deeper...Why is it that we have an economic/legal/political system that reward$ people mightily for doing things that engender short term profits at the expense of loooong term efficiency/benefits? ...that rewards people for "creating" little fiefdoms of "expertise" thay can leverage into dollars or power? ...that punishes people for caring about the future, or for seeing a more wholistic perspective that goes beyond their personal career, or department, or ("heaven" forbid) their company or nation???
I invite your responses to the above questions.
I have my own answers (and they go far beyond blaming programmers, or even "management") but they go against the grain of what most people "want to hear", and am reluctant to waste my cyber-"breath". <g>
Ciao
Ref. Sharpeagle # 120 ( #114 ) Some " creative subtraction " may be necessary. I agree with you about fixing the hardware properly , but a software solution for obsolite systems before they are phased out or repaired is a task that should be presented to the pros that "designed in " this " obsolescence " I assume after everything Crashes we can revive The Pony express and start over.
Question? Y2K Problem:
Can a programmer"Upgrade" the existing Software in the CPs to: "READ THE LAST TWO DIGITS OF DATES TO FOUR DIGITS OF DATES"? If not, Why?
Regards, RJ
The great irony in the Y2K problem is that countries that are the least reliant on technology have the least exposure to whatever doomsday scenario may develop.
When one stops to think that power generation, transportation, food production, etc., etc., may be gravely affected, s/he may ask: when did this "infiltration" of computers into the most minute aspects of our existence occur? If this rug is suddenly pulled out from under us, what will happen?
Optimism pays, so do Pessimists
Well, it is a long time since I visited this forum and the activity level seems to have picked up.
Just-john:
I don't know what is it I promised you that I did not deliver (if you just asked me a question and expected an answer, tough luck, it is my prerogative to answer).
I don't know how a person who projects to be "intelligent" could be so bone headed. You keep harping about the "right way" to have designed firmware and expect everyone to have followed that way. It is the same as expecting every COBOL programmer to have used 4 digits year on the first place. All that I am saying is, my field experience indicate that numerous firmware (that go into appliances) were not programmed the right way. If you choose not to believe, be my guest. I and my company are under various non-disclosure agreements that prohibit me from naming any manufacturer/make/model of potentially defective appliances.
(pre-post-postmodern)
All that I am saying is, my field experience indicate that numerous firmware (that go into appliances) were not programmed the right way.
But to have a Y2k "bug" in anything that doesn't translate internal timestamp formats into decimal text isn't just bad programming -- it's deliberate sabotage.
Optimism pays, so do Pessimists
Just-John:
May be you can go to court with that argument when your appliance fails.
I am part of a Y2K team, and I have been reading these posts with interest. I agree with those who say the Y2K problem is not much of a technical challenge. The real challenge is to the management staff. The deadline can't be moved, and in an industry where over half the projects are delivered late, that's a real problem. Moreover, nearly every company in the world (at least, those that use computers) has the same deadline, so they're all trying to hire the same people at the same time. There aren't enough good people to go around (now there's a truism for you), so costs go sky high. Finally, if the program crashes (or worse, pumps out bad data that looks good), someone is going to sue you - the legal costs are predicted to be more than than the conversion costs! If there ever was a disincentive to move into management, this must be it.
As the lead member of our Y2K team, I have to comment on this. From my perspective, it is more a matter of tracking down the paper-trail to prove that current software, firmware or hardware is or is not comliant that is the real labor eater. Once you have determined compliancy, it is usually a simple matter to make a decision. In our company, for instance, minimum necessity to bring us into compliance will be just under $10,000 for the hardware, software and firmware--but almost double that number in the labor costs to determine what needed to be done. So, for $30,000 we know that we're safe. But, is the customer we connect to investing this amount to make sure they are safe? Are our suppliers investing enough to verify that they are safe? Is our ISP making sure that they are safe?
I think the Y2K issue leads quickly into a licensing question as well as warranty and support questions. Personally, I believe that if you purchase a license to use a company's software, that holds them liable to guarantee that the product will perform properly until the license is no longer active. In the future, I'm sure you will see licensing which is only valid for X years. We already see support handled in this way.
Let me point out one thing to mull over--the only people who are screaming that this Y2K issue is of such tantamount importance are those who make the big bucks consulting with governments and companies to "verify compliance". The only people who scream about it are those who are making a living based upon everyone's paranoia. Yes, there will be some bumps. No, society as we know it will not come to a crashing halt.
Next time you see "chicken-little" screaming about the "Millenium Bug", ask yourself what that person does for a living. If they make money fixing the problem they're complaining about, then take what they say not with a grain of salt--rather, use the whole salt-shaker.
As a student in a Y2K COBOL programming course, I am very converned at the lack of Y2K training facilities available. By the time the governments decide that there is a real problem, their efforts at subsidizing programmer training will come too late. To my knowledge, there are only three colleges in all of Canada providing specific Y2K training today, and one or two private institutions, with little or no govt subsidies. While I might benefit from the Y2K problem in the short term as a programmer, I think that there is a real concern that the situation will turn into a full-blown crisis of global proportions, and people and governments had better wake up fast. In the long run, we will all be losers.
From a writer's perspective -- what a smashing conclusion to this millennium to have everything simply wind down and stop -- with aboriginal people being the least impacted by the Y2K bug. It's back to the caves, folks! Anyone got some budget class links for B&B's among the non-digital tribes starting 12/31/99 to at least 11:59 PM on 01/01/2000???
It has come to my understanding that a lot of people don't really care about the Y2k bug.They feel that statements from their banks reassuring them that every thing is under control is proof enough.They feel that just because they've recently been issued a credit card with a 2000 expiry date that every thing is being blown out of proportion.They feel that the hydro companies couldn't afford to lose great deals of money due to a blackout and are not going to let that happen.I call this surface knowlege.The deeper you go into Y2k the more knowledge you will acquire.But the the problem with this is that you might not like this type of knowledge.Some of it tastes sweet but most of it has an uncertain questionable taste that may leave you a bit nauseous.And the remaining parts, well, keep a barf bag handy.Sure ,I can see that the centrifical force of their thinking relating to their perception of the world and their world is not one to be easily swayed.Nobody likes to be told that their future might be taking an unexpected detour to which they have no control over.But the truth is that Y2k will first give us warning signs beginning Jan.1/1999.Some computer programs interpret 99 or 9/99 or 9/9/99 to execute the command to delete files,end the program,return to start of program or mean infinity.Should be interesting.Then on April 1/99 New York State begins programming for fiscal 2000 along with the IRS doing the same on July 1/99.On Aug.22/99 the GPS satellite system will rollback its tracking programs to 1980.The magnitude of the problems this will cause is unknown and still hotly debated.In conclusion,all I can say is that time will tell whether Y2k is just an overblown,overhyped computer problem or that you should get ready to fasten your seatbelt.
>>Next time you see "chicken-little" screaming about the "Millenium Bug", ask yourself what that person does for a living. If they make money fixing the problem they're complaining about, then take what they say not with a grain of salt--rather, use the whole salt-shaker.<<<
This was my original thoughts on Y2K also, that it was an exploitation scheme by analysts and programmers. As I read more and more reports, though, the "chicken-littles" started to become high ranking CEO's, engineers, critical systems operators, utility heads, defense department heads, high ranking military personelle, respected analysts, respected scientists, the GAO, entire foreign governments, our own senate and house members, top level engineers from such corporations as the major car companies, heads of national and international banking, etc... soon enough those warning of the dire consequences of Y2K stopped sounding like the proverbial "chicken-little" and those denying the tantamount importance of Y2K started sounding more like the proverbial "ostrich with it's head in the sand."
In a society that touts itself as being so technologically advanced, it is interesting to note:
1. How IGNORANT people (even those presumably technically knowledgeable) are about the extent of the remediation effort required or how extensive the damage will be. Reading the 10K reports for May 1998 for Exxon, Amoco, and other major refineries, along with Sprint doesn’t give any reassurance. They all admit to possible major disruptions, especially because of third party software.
2. Utter chaos reigns in most software production environments. Software is often produced under factory-like conditions with the dictum of get it out the door to beat the competitor. Patches are afterthoughts. My experiences doing technical documentation are riddled with disaster scenarios. For example, AT&T canned its $26 million ASOS OA&M program upon which Pacific Bell of California was to depend because of this mentality. Professional staff fled Cary, NC’s Advanced Software Construction Center in 1996 because of the blow-up. AMEX’s Information Processing Center in Phoenix, AZ in 1996 was constantly getting junk user manuals because of an outright refusal on the part of management to pay attention to documentation standards. One of their economic "solutions" was to cram six operations managers and documentation staff into a 13 x 26 foot room. In another job I, knowing little about programming, crashed Nortel’s DMS-100 switch GUI TWICE just by dinking on the keyboard. Ask these organizations whether they will guarantee Y2K compliance.
3. There is very little long range planning in this country, and we fail to learn from our mistakes. Witness the oil/gas crisis of 1974 with no current energy policy. We saw the Y2K problem long ago and in enough time to start remediation, as evidenced by the Social Security Administrations efforts to implement fixes.
4. Never once have I seen ANY software package shipped on time or without serious defects. I am aware of UNIX bugs that allow a complete stranger to get super user status by appropriate buffer overloads. One software trouble report at a major computer manufacture rated this as a medium problem with an admission that the problem could not be resolved.
These are situations in a normal production environment. Add the stress of mandatory Y2K deadline and the lack of immediate profit incentive, plus the CYA syndrome of managers, does one seriously expect that all of even the MAJOR pieces of this huge interdependent system will interoperate without utter collapse? Neural network and automata theorists might argue that enough erratically acting nodes of such a large net as is the computer network we have today could create very chaotic interactions within the system. With 80-90% of the net running satisfactorily, even a 10% breakdown could wreak havoc. Note the downed nuclear reactor (ONE node) a week or so ago that caused the whole power grid in the midwest to switch to a rationing mode. Everyone was advised to conserve power. Remember the West in 1996? The East Coast power grid in 1965? All were automata-type problems.
...and I havent even talked about embedded chips.
If youd like to communicate with me, I am reachable at: jhorne1@cris.com.
My website is http://www.concentric.net/~jhorne1.
Enjoy now peoples while you’re fat.
Jeremy Horne, Ph.D.
Chris, you think unix is bad, windows NT servers have holes the size of wyoming in their root. It would be so damn easy to get into a windows nt server that it isn't even worth the effort. Whatever happens, one thing that is absolutely undenial - there WILL definitely be a severe recession caused by y2k, not to mention a flurry of lawsuits - "Your software was supposed to prevent this" etc. If any embedded chips have self-diagnosis software, they WILL shut down. Personally I don't really care - I will withdraw ALL of my money from the banks way before Dec 31, 1999, and also plan to stock up on kerosene and get my prescriptions refilled.
(pre-post-postmodern)
When you first showed up here, you said:
More problems will be in Firmware in a range of appliances from Electric ovens, Elevators, Traffic signals and a whole bunch of medical equipments (even critical cardiac equipments like pacemakers embedded in human body). Nobody has a clue as to how to rectify the programs
In other words, you pretty much said you know of a direct and specific threat to human life.
And now you say:
I and my company are under various non-disclosure agreements that prohibit me from naming any manufacturer/make/model of potentially defective appliances.
Well, there are things known as whistleblower laws for just such a situation (among others), where you know of direct and specific threats to human life and a non-disclosure agreement prevents you from revealing it. (Of course, anybody who's not morally tonedeaf would speak up, regardless of legal repercussions.)
So if you're not forthcoming about these threats to life, that's contemptible. If on the other hand, you were just puffing up the problem to make yourself sound important, that's contemptible.
After reading the "posted messages the past few day., I have come up with this: "Why not make a law stating that you can not fix the Y2K bug, that way the "Hackers" will have the problem solved by Friday." Might just be time to:"Stop and smell the flowers".
What say ye?
While we in the USA have the Y2K bug to worry about, Europeans have another situation of epic proportions--conversion to the Euro over the next four years. It seems that this distraction will have the effect of slowing down their progress on fixing Y2K problems, making the world-wide situation even more troubling in these global times of ours.
Any comments or hard information to share on this aspect of the situation?
Jon (jplant@artech-house.com)
(pre-post-postmodern)
I'd say offhand that combining the Y2k fixes with the new currency symbol implementation makes for a smaller project than doing them separately.
(Speaking of which, what character is the Euro symbol replacing? I vote for the smiley face.)
Optimism pays, so do Pessimists
Just-john:
Nice attempt to lay a guilt trip on me. I am old enough to fall for that. I did not create the problem. I and my company do our best in minimizing the problem (for those who pay, of course). I have provided warnings to the extent I can based on my experience. Fvck your talks about morality and I care a damn for your contempt. If you find my efforts inadequate go sell cookies for boy scouts.
ErisX Web Design
You think maybe rjb is on to something? <G>
>>>I'd say offhand that combining the Y2k fixes with the new currency symbol implementation makes for a smaller project than doing them separately.<<<<<
The idea of introducing the euro now when europe and the rest of the world is so far behind in their approach to the Y2K fixes is ludicrous and highlites the lack of understanding of the problem in most countries. The euro will also drag down Y2K efforts in this country as our financial institutions will have to do euro conversions to do business with europe. As far as addressing both problems at once as a time saver, it's a matter of what is critical and what isn't. Triage is the latest buzz word in businesses as they realize they won't have time to address all of their Y2K issues, so think of these two problems in a medical triage sense. A man comes into an emergency room needing immediate open heart surgery (Y2K) and has a painful but not life threatening ulcer (euro). The triage staff is not going to say, "Well, let's do both surgeries simultaneously to save time." They are going to fix the heart to keep him alive, then address the ulcer. Unfortunately, most european countries are more concerned with the ulcer than the heart failure, and this is typical of the shortsightedness that created this mess in the first place.
Optimism pays, so do Pessimists
The nature of Euro and Y2K are different in nature.
And to what degree should we consider that every epoch to face a major change in dating convention has not had it's equivalent of doomsday predictions? The "Millenium Bug" fits nicely into this schemata.
Recession? Bah. The only recession that might be caused is from the paranoids who drain the economy of their funds to "save themselves" and thereby create a self-fulfilling prophecy. It happened in the seventies with the "gas shortage".
You really think that your cash money will have any value if your dire predictions are realized? What is paper? You better buy gold and silver. Lots of it. And just before you do, I'm going to load up on it so I can sell it to you at a tidy profit and buy it from you dirt cheap in January of 2000 when we hit our little bump, rearrange the cargo in our lives and move on.
And I stand by my comment about "chicken-littles". I have seen few competent IS professionals predicting anything catestrophic--and those I HAVE seen making these predictions are the CEOs and Directors of organizations severely in need of the influx of cash that believers in this paranoia will funnel in their direction out of nothing more than fear.
We have nothing to fear except fear itself.
It was true then--it is true now.
He does have a point. It is literally impossible for elevators that have any microprocessors to become a safety hazard with the millenium bug - they have a resident program of fail/pass. The elevators may not move on black saturday but they sure as hell won't lock up. The same is true for cardiac equipment. Your nondisclosure story sounds like a lot of hot air. Explain how an imbedded chip will fail. It won't, the real time clock in the chip might and it is really important whether the clock is for self-diagnosis or just a counter. The story about the cardiac equipment is equally absurd.
"I have seen few competent IS professionals predicting anything catestrophic" - You are right there. It is damn near impossible to find any IS professionals who are competent. Some yuppie with an mba who knows how to flip a computer on/off switch is your source of confidence. God help us.
Y2K & Euro: Why not do as single project?
A posting above by Just_John suggests that it might be cheaper to do the Y2K and euro currency projects at once instead of as two separate projects. I've heard that cannot work because compliance testing can only be univariate in order to be certain. Simultaneous changes confound the testing process. Furthermore, the date fields and the amount or currency fields are wholly distinct in most programs and may arise in the code in quite different contexts. It would be hectic to fiddle with both at the same time. Better to change one item, prove compliance, and then proceed to the other.
At least, this is what I hear. These same voices are skeptical of Europeans who boast otherwise. Does anyone know of organizations or firms that are attacking both problems in a parallel and simultaneous fashion? What is the experience?
Following is a link to an Australian Newspaper called "The Age" describing Australia's 4 largest banks and their conversion to the euro and Y2K compliance efforts. Note that the banks describe the euro conversion as both a business and technical issue. http://www.theage.com.au/daily/980709/bus/bus4.html
The y2k problem can be solved. The proper method is simply being overlooked
Optimism pays, so do Pessimists
ronald_raygun:
This is getting repetitious. I have mentioned how some firmware were written using date and time (where time alone could have been used) and this may cause problems. I have told (to the extent I can) about what I have observed in the area of firmware. If you don't want to believe it it is your right.
I am under no obligation to discus any contractual issues between my company and my clients in this forum. If you don't want to take my word for it (the non-disclosure agreement) I don't have anything more to discuss. If you think it is "hot air", so be it.
Finally, I don't have to answer anyone who can't request it in a polite manner. If you use your insulting tone this will be the last you will hear from me.
Here is a link to one of the best discussions I have read yet on the effect of Y2K on embedded systems. It explains why some elevators will not have a problem, and why some will, etc.... http://www.bluemarble.net/~storageu/y2k-a152.htm
This is a continuation (part 2) of the post below which was an overview of the Y2K problem - it continues with some recommendations
jbrit1 - 05:39pm Jul 5, 1998 EST (#127 of 161)
EZ 2 see the roots of Y2K (part 2)
Insights and recommendations.
1. On the magic hour the problem may not just be computers that crash, -everyone will be on guard for blank screens and error messages, - but rather computers that don't. Many computers will have serious Y2K problems but just keep on working and simply pass their badly computed data to other systems that