Round 2 of Answers.
First off, I would like to say to you that if you ever think I am vague in my responses to you, then you should get off your ass and call the company and get the "clear" answers to your questions. It is easy to be lazy and have someone else do all your work for you, and then criticize them for not answering exactly as you wished. If you had done so during the "Trinidad Cranborne" incident, you would of saved yourself the embarrassment you faced. It is clear that you have no intent to do any work on your own behalf, and are only asking these questions so you can respond back to the answers in a critical manner.
However, for the sake of others who may gain some insight into this company and for the interest of providing factual information, I will continue to answer your questions to the best of my abilities.
I suggest to others who may feel that they need more specific answers during these rounds of questions and answers, to call the company directly --- ConSyGen Inc. 602-496-4545
I will try my best to answer your questions Al, and if there is something I do not know, I will ask people who do know and respond back to you.
I would also suggest to you Al, to write down the questions you felt I was vague in answering, call the company and get the kind of responses that would satisfy you, and then make a post on this thread listing the questions you asked and the responses you were given. If you are truly honorable in your intentions you would gladly do so.
Now to the Answers.
=====================================================================
Q
#1.Can you provide a list of environments that CSGI can support versus the list of environments they need to modify their toolset in order to work? What percent of the entire YR2K market can CSGI accommodate without having to modify their toolset? Isn't toolset modification labor intensive?
A
#1.(a)The environments that CSGI supports include: Unisys, DEC, BULL, NEC, IBM, and H.P. They may have added more since the last time I checked, but those are the ones I am aware of. I don't know exactly how many environments and languages there are out there, but from what I understand CSGI does address the major environments used. If you want specific ratios and a list of the most widely used environments, I suggest you contact CSGI and then post the answers on this thread. (b)I don't know if I fully understand what you mean by your question about tool modification being labor intensive. If you are asking that if it takes man hours to do it, then the answer is yes. I think the more important factor is that CSGI is capable of modifying their toolset to work on a given environment, and that this procedure only takes about 4 weeks to do. I don't know exactly how much is costs them in man hours to do the modification, but from reading the Westergaard transcripts, it doesn't seem to be that big of a deal. A good question would be, if other companies can modify their toolsets as easily as CSGI can?
==================================================================
==================================================================
Q
#2 I take it all of this is automatic and not labor intensive? The conversion uses artificial intelligence to determine in what order to convert because it "understands" the original code and can determine the proper sequence of events?
A
#2 (a)In no way is the entire year 2000 compliant procedure automated. NO ONE CLAIMS THAT! They procedure is made up of three parts,
1. initialization / upfront work - Involves setting up perimeters for taking code off of the clients system and systematically taking the code and sending it to be converted. Highly labor intensive, Very costly. CSGI DOES NOT do the upfront work. This is left up to the alliance partners. Some companies that have the capabilities, often prefer to do this step internally to save money
2. Conversion / Correction - Involves three main steps Identification, Confirmation, and Correction. This is the ONLY step that CSGI does. They are a Conversion House.
...............
Identification - Code is received and is run through an automated search engine to find the date occurrences that need to be corrected.
This step is fully automated by CSGI and other companies
...............
Confirmation - This step involves confirming that all the date code that was marked for correction is actually date code and it needs to be corrected.
This step in NOT automated by anyone and needs human intervention and is the most time consuming in the Conversion / Correction process. CSGI does NOT claim to do this automatically. In fact, NO ONE CAN
..............
Correction - This step involves actually correction the code. This is where CSGI differs from the others. While other companies claim to have an automated solution, they can only convert 80% to 90% of the code automatically. They have to hire programmers to assist with the extra 10% to 20% of the process. This need for "bodies" to assist in the correction phase adds to the overhead and becomes very expensive. That extra 10% to 20% taxes about 30% to 50% of the companies resources.
CSGI is the only company that has - 100% fully automated this step.
NO ONE ELSE has a toolset that can automatically IDENTIFY and CORRECT code. This is why CSGI has a advantage over other so called automated solution providers.
3. Testing - This step involves getting the code back from the Conversion / Correction phase and setting up test perameters and actually testing the code to see if it works as before, but only now compliant for year 2000. This step is also very costly and semi-labor intensive. CSGI DOES NOT provide testing. This phase is left up to the alliance partner or to the client, if they have the capabilities.
IF ANY OF THIS IS VAGUE PLEASE CONTACT THE COMPANY OR ASK A SPECIFIC QUESTION SO I CAN RESPOND.
==================================================================
==================================================================
Q
#3How do you add technology since technology exists or is improved? If you mean improving technology, then you are talking about more programming code. Or adding capacity is done by splitting out the code and let two independent "converters" run part of the code and then splice it back together? That would be dangerous. So please explain how adding technology makes the conversion faster?
A
#3 (a)This question is actually quite a good one. This is one of the hardest concepts for people to understand. For example, CSGI stated that they converted 1.5 million lines of code in a month. Most people think then that means if they want to convert 3 million lines it would take them 2 months and then 6 Million lines would take 4 months, so on and so on. THAT IS NOT HOW IT WORKS
ALYD for instance is now averaging about 1 million lines of code, per team, per month. One of ALYD's teams consists of about 5 programmers.
Now if they want to do a 2 million line project, then they would have 2 teams work on it and they would be done in a month. If they need 10 million lines done then they would have 10 teams work on it. Now there is a point at which the time frame becomes greater due to the increase in time needed for confirmation steps and due to the fact that they are working on several projects at a time and the entire company's resources can't be used just to do one conversion, but you can see that capacity is directly related to the amount of "bodies" added. At going rate programmers are getting paid, you can see how that would directly affect the bottom line.
Now CSGI has a fully automated correction. There capacity does not depend upon the number of bodies they add to the equation. If CSGI wants to add capacity, then they just add another box. It is true they have to add extra persons to deal with the confirmation steps, but you can see that with their automated toolset, capacity is NOT directly related to the amount of personal they add.
THIS IS WHAT I MEAN WHEN I SAY OTHERS THROW "PEOPLE" AT IT WHILE CSGI THROWS TECHNOLOGY AT IT"
(b) Code is almost always converted in different phases and then spliced back together. That is what is described above. ALYD has each team attack per 1 million lines of code. From what I understand, code is taken in phases, sent to be converted, corrected, and then sent back for testing. I don't know when it is exactly "spliced" back together, but I would guess it would be the last step. It doesn't make a difference if different "teams" do the segment or different "converters" do it. I would think that the boxes would have less likelihood for errors since there is no human intervention. <this is just my opinion>
I don't know exactly what steps are used to address the dangers of this procedure, but I am sure some backup procedures are used.
You may want to contact the company to get the specifics. I think Andrew was talking about this on the Swap thread the other day.
==================================================================
I don't have a problem with you Al, I just have a problem with all the accusations you make. You have called people criminals and crooks, but you have failed to provide any evidence. Your assumptions of when I or anyone else sells or buys is purely based on conjecture. I have NOT stated if I have sold any of my shares. If you buy or sell based on what someone says then that is you business, but you continue to fail to understand that NO ONE is being victimized by CSGI.
I have tired to explain to you before that for every buyer there has to be a seller, and for every seller there has to be a buyer. Everyone has a different valuation for a company and everyone speculates differently. If I think CSGI is worth $20 then that is my opinion if someone else thinks it is worth $2.00 then that is there opinion. If no one sold then no one could buy. If no one bought then you couldn't sell those shares you did. It is just hilarious that you consider selling a stock to someone who has a different valuation as a criminal offense. Or that you consider others on this thread and me as crooks.
PEOPLE BUY ON RUMORS AND SPECULATION AND SELL ON NEWS. That happens every day with thousands of stocks. Do you think that CSGI is the only stock that increases in volume and price before a news release is made? Do you think that insiders in all companies don't buy up shares before major news, or that they don't sell shares before major negative news?
You have just found ONE company that follows that pattern, and the limited float, approx. 3 million shares, only assists in the pattern.
<JMO> For those of you like all that hinge on every word I say.
I think that if the Millenium test results come back positive, we will see $16. I also feel that if we see upward movement in price and increase in volume, that it will point to the news coming very soon. Am I spilling the "beans". It should be obvious to anyone who has followed this stock that volume + price increase = news and then you see selling and taking profits after the news.
This time the price has hit resistance around $14.00, so people are still buying here. The question is where you will buy back in for the testing results, and who are you going to blame for helping you with that decision? :ANSWER - anyone you can, because that is what you do.
As far as Tina goes, I think it is obvious that she was deleted because she posted information given to her by S- That really sucks, because her last post was the 8-K filing, so now we can't reference it. I personally think that she was very helpful in posting factual information and that the CSGI news reference thread was a great idea and has helped keep a clear record of CSGI's history.
YOU BUY ON SPECULATION AND YOU SELL ON NEWS.
The only problem is that you consider the above "criminal" That is absurd. If that was the case then there would be no such thing as the stock market. You want to be selling when others are buying and you want to be buying at the bottom when people are done selling. That is the whole point of trading stocks.
The difference is that you considers the people that are buying when you are selling victims of some kind of scam, and I consider them people who are speculating that the price will go higher from where they are buying.
|
