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.

Technology Stocks : 2000 Date-Change Problem: Scam, Hype, Hoax, Fraud -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bill Wexler who wrote (429)	1/4/1998 2:22:00 AM
From: Josef Svejk	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1361

Message 3084446

To: Bill Wexler who wrote (429)	1/4/1998 3:01:00 PM
From: David Eddy	Respond to of 1361

Bill - That's because there is zero evidence that the so-called "Y2K" problem is as widespread or disastrous as the hypesters make it out to be. Thanks for coming back... Let me come at this from several angles. Firstly... have you ever spoken to or heard of someone in a company who carries the title of "Senior Vice President, Software Maintenance"? You'll find plenty of folks carry titles such as "Architect", or "Development", but maintenance is an orphan. Do I need to elaborate on this point? Secondly... computers are stupid (to call them stupid is actually granting them more intelligence then they possess). What they do is count. They're really good with mathematical numbers. They're spectactular with integers. Mathematics has very simply rules... integers march in increments from negative infinity to positive infinity. Dates, despite looking like numbers (980104 or 98/01/04 for readibility) really aren't mathematical numbers. They're date numbers. What sort of numbers rotates from 1 to 28, 29, 30 or 31 and then back to 1? What sort or number rotates from 1 thru 12 and back to 1? Where's the zero? If you take 971231 (a date, stored in yymmdd form) and add 1 (day), suddenly you get 980101. Where did the other 8870 numbers go? If you haven't noticed, this is really screwy math. Aside from the fact that it is very, very easy to mess up the logic for handling date "math" properly, dates are used in lots & lots of places for sequencing transactions... like you want to make sure the money goes into an account before it comes out So... when we're marching along in a sequence of 97, 98, 99... guess what there's no number AFTER 99!! When you add 1 to 99, the answer is 00 (remember, we're dealing with two digit numbers by explicit definition!)... which is BEFORE 99. If the computer "knew" it was dealing with dates that might help... but computers don't know anything. They're just pushing bits around. Humans look at 'numbers' like 971231 or 97365 & instantly know (from the context that these are dates & need to be treated specially... computers bring no such intelligence to the game. Finally... have you ever viewed Capers Jones site (http://www.spr.com) and downloaded his Y2K document? Bottom line there is that the bigger the projects, the greater the chances are the project will fail. - David

To: Bill Wexler who wrote (429)	1/4/1998 5:43:00 PM
From: David Eddy	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1361

Bill - That's because there is zero evidence that the so-called "Y2K" problem is as widespread or disastrous as the hypesters make it out to be. Here's a single data point on the scale of what a company is dealing with in it's systems: --------- these are real numbers taken from about 1990 ------ Size of the Problem Over 5 year period a medium sized oil company developed a directory of their systems: 3,200 systems and subsystems 250,000 tasks (batch and on-line) 180,000 program segments (4GL) 40,000 subject databases (views) 60,000 mainframe datasets 45,000 copybooks, screen maps 250,000 intersection records Directory has approx. 1,000,000 entries! NO data element level or logical structure definitions. NO client/server or desktop included in these counts. ----------------------------------------------------------- I don't know if you've ever tinkered with taking apart things like clocks & engines & stuff... but when you start dealing with mechanisims with lots of moving pieces (particularly when there's no plan or schematic to tell you precisely how all the parts fit together or what their purpose is), the chances of you taking it apart & then getting it back together again in healthy working trim is very slim. And by-the-way, please not to forget that the 'engine' you're working on runs 24x7x365 (24 hours per day, 7 days per week, 365 days per year)... you don't get to turn it off! - David