Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Don Hurst who wrote (172535)	10/15/2005 11:42:13 AM
From: jttmab	Respond to of 281500

You will have to wait for an answer while Carl consults all those "microcircuitry design engineers" he knows. The ones that will go..."COBOL, what's a COBOL?" You are confusing him with those "legacy COBOL programs" and please don't mention assembler and all those old emulation programs that were still out there undocumented. I came across COBOL programmer before 2000! Stubborn sob, wouldn't learn the new languages because they were inefficient. He did nicely for the Y2K problem [not so well lately], but it was an interesting discussion about the all the legacy programs that were still floating around. Many weren't even replaced for 2000. The companies found it cheaper to stick with the fixed legacy programs rather than get new systems. In some cases the Y2K problems were not critical. One company I talked to said they had some older PCs that the BIOS didn't support the year 2000. [Bless those micro-circuitry engineers], but as they were old PCs, they tossed them ahead of time. And wouldn't have if they didn't check them before hand. A lot of needed positive changes were made in a very short time because of the Y2K scare. Worked out just fine. Just like the plan said. jttmab