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 : Discuss Year 2000 Issues -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: John Mansfield who wrote (943)	1/21/1998 8:54:00 PM
From: Todd J.	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 9818

Anyone catch Tony Keyes on Oprah Winfrey today? He did a good job especially considering that he only had 10 short minutes to tell everyone everything about Y2K. Believe it or not, he did cover practically everything...government and bank's best interest to keep the issue hidden, mainframes and chips, possible recession in 2000. He got more serious when he mentioned the painful decisions he and his family made to get ready for this, such as selling certain vacation properties that he felt there would certainly be no market for after 2000 with people out of work, etc. Nobody was laughing. Then someone in the audience lightened it up when she suggested that credit card debt might be wiped out when the computers crash. He didn't comment on that one. Not bad for 10 minutes. It's a start. Todd

To: John Mansfield who wrote (943)	1/22/1998 11:59:00 AM
From: John Mansfield	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 9818

C.S.Y2K 1/21/1998 - 1/22/1998: FAA, MVS, Lotus Notes ------- 'In <885419263.238813190@dejanews.com>, fedinfo@halifax.com writes: >http://www.computerweekly.co.uk/news/22_01_98/08598503239/C21.html ... > >Their screens went blank! The FAA says that it needs another 90 >days to figure out if they have a problem with their 3083's. We only >need two seconds to see that there is a problem with the FAA. > >Paul Milne Oh Paul, now YOU'RE wasting your ink. ...or maybe you're trolling to restart the thread about how commercial airlines will fly under visual rules. This is simply incredible. It's obvious that there will be a problem but still, yet, even now with 709 days to go, lots of people are in solid denial. Come on, denial-heads out there. There is nothing to discuss or reason out. The systems are in bad shape. This is not a test. The computers that run the civilized world are heading for big crash. This is not subject to debate. They can't be fixed in the 709 days left and they sure can't be fixed in the first 180 days after Y2K. I believe that some things can still be done. Some of this is prepping to be in a position to turn civilization back on in the 2-3 years after Y2K. Make your plans people. cory hamasaki' ----- 'All versions of IBM's MVS operating system except the current release of OS/390. VSE, VM/370. VSAM catalogs die. The blue world will be an ugly sight on 1/1/2000.' Cory Hamasaki ---- Paul Grayson: 'Lotus have published many documents on Notes being in their words Year 2000 Ready (well they are owned by IBM after all), but I have just noticed a problem with year 2000 with Notes Version 4.6. When creating a new user, that user's certified ID is added to the addressbook to allow a client workstation to pick it up on login. A user IDs default expiry date is 2 years. If an ID that expires in 2000 is created, 4.6 Win95 clients cannot pick it up, giving an errorneous message stating that the address book cannot be read. Deleting the user ID and recreating it with a 1999 expiry date resolves the problem. Whoops!'

To: John Mansfield who wrote (943)	1/23/1998 3:57:00 PM
From: John Mansfield	Respond to of 9818

C.S.Y2K Fulltext search on 'y2k': y2k-48, GPS, Nortel, tm_year Y2K is appearing on much more different news groups than 2-3 months ago. Here are some interesting picks. John ------ x2.dejanews.com <snip> 'One last thing.. about this "Y2K" .. it has to be a MIS team catch word.. any unix admin would have called it ((Y2K)-48).. hmmmm... maybe that's the problem.. they thought 2K = 2000 and not 2048. Yes, I have too much free time this morning.' . thanks to Robert L. Bailey. ------ x2.dejanews.com GPS Garmen Users, Does anyone know why Garmen are maybe any other GPS Mfrs. will not address the Y2K and rollover problem? Does anyone know more about this? If I buy one now and there is a problem do we all get the honors of trashing them. I am currently looking at a Garmen GPSII Plus (SW 2.04). It certainly appears that they are do not have enough confidence to state so in writing. They do say on phone that Y2K is not a problem. Ron Cheek L-Mag ----- x2.dejanews.com 'As far as the Meridian famility of telecom systems, Nortel has a web page dedicated to Y2K compliance: nortel.com; thanks to GHTROUT_ ----- x2.dejanews.com 'In struct tm there is a field called tm_year. According to POSIX this field is supposed to contain year - 1900. However, in very old Unixes this field was interpreted as "last two digits of the date". If you have a Unix system which is broken in this way there is nothing GNU can do about it (I don't know of any systems that are broken in that way. >4- I am convinced if someone has looked at the source code and makes > an analytical conclusion ("This line of code goes wrong in the > following case: blabla.") sh-utils was thoroughly studied to eliminate Y2K problems; this is the package that deals most with dates. I don't know about other GNUware. sh-utils-1.12 and earlier has lots of Y2K bugs; newer versions appear to be Y2K-safe. ' thanks to Joe Buck

To: John Mansfield who wrote (943)	1/24/1998 4:12:00 AM
From: John Mansfield	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 9818

C.S.Y2K - 'CAA (UK's FAA equivalent) also in trouble?' Thanks to Harlan Smith. The following was on the back of my mind for some time now: 'One good contingency plan would be to focus on enhancements to Internet capabilities so that electronic conferences and communications can substitute for business travel.' Is this realistic? I do think that with high-bandwidth communication up to the house door, video conferencing could really replace lots of business travelling. Think of internet over the Cable; ADSL etc. This might be a lasting change on the way people work/commute etc after let's say 2002. Any thoughts? John ------- > telegraph.co.uk:80/et?ac=000169077506927&rtmo=Qzk9QOHR&atmo=99 I found this paragraph quite interesting. [snip] "We can expect several capacity-critical systems to fail every day. For many months we might have only a third to a half as many flights as we have at present," he said. "Even assuming these systems are all fixed on time - a big if - then by March 2000 we will be depending on over 200 systems which have been running for a thousand odd hours," he said. "The time taken for complex systems to fail is always less than the time spent testing them." snip] "capacity critical" is an interesting term. That can probably be used throughout the Y2K world. It seems to me that. "capacity critical" -> "slowing of economy" -> "recession" But, what is not said is that businesses will likely slow down to the point where profit becomes strongly negative and that is part of the concern about disaster. I also found interesting: "The time taken for complex systems to fail is always less than the time spent testing them." I hadn't seen it stated that way before but it sounds a huge warning. People like Bud Hamilton have commented about the FAA predicament but have not answered my queries about the "testing time" dilemma that the FAA faces. How about it Bud? How can the test time dilemma for US air traffic supporting systems be any different than it is for the European systems. 'One good contingency plan would be to focus on enhancements to Internet capabilities so that electronic conferences and communications can substitute for business travel.' Harlan