SI
SI
discoversearch

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 : Y2k Why the stock-market will collapse within days/week -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: John Mansfield who wrote (55)5/20/1998 12:34:00 AM
From: John Mansfield  Respond to of 185
 
[1980] 'Around 1978, a desperate cry began to be heard: "Oh my God, 1980 is coming.'

' Before Y2K: The 1980 Problem
twenty years ago, they had to find a solution

by Dominic Gates

It sounds unbelievable; but it's true. Many computer
systems written in the 1970s represented the year using a
single digit. That is, dated records were entered as a 5-digit,
YMMDD date field. As the New Year of 1980 dawned at
midnight on December 31, 1979, those year fields were set
to click back to zero. As far as the computer could tell, it
would be 1970 again.

Around 1978, a desperate cry began to be heard: "Oh my
God, 1980 is coming. These systems have to be rewritten."
Many major corporations realized they had to face the 1980
problem.

Among these were the big auto companies. Robert
Moskowitz is now a senior Technical Director at the
International Computer Security Association. Back in '79, he
was a 28-year-old computer systems analyst with the
American Motors Corporation (AMC) in Detroit, Michigan. He
was doing database work on mainframes. The language was
COBOL. The drives were 9-inch reel-to-reel tape drives.
Moskowitz worked on rewriting the affected systems to avoid
serious failures.

How could they have used single digits for years?
Moskowitz explains that pretty well all of the 1960s era
systems had been rewritten in the '70s, as hardware
architecture changed. It was assumed that more
architecture changes would inevitably happen and require
that things be rewritten again. In the short term, though,
programmers were counting every byte.

"The most expensive things were disk capacity and tapes,"
says Moskowitz. "Our criterion was, will it fit on the tape?
We were counting half bytes." In COBOL, decimal numbers
are not usually expressed in their binary equivalent. Instead
numbers and letters are represented character by character:
one digit or letter per byte. That could be compressed to
produce what was called a "packed" date field. Compression
yielded 2 digits per byte.

The immediate requirement was to move from the 5-digit
[YMMDD] to a 6-digit [YYMMDD] representation. Of course
the question arose: could one switch to an 8-digit
[YYYYMMDD] representation and avoid the same problem
arising twenty years down the road -- the Y2K problem? But
a long term fix was rejected. A 6-digit field would take 3
bytes. With 8 digits, it would have been a 4-byte field. That
extra byte was considered too expensive.

Moskowitz explains that, to improve performance, the
lumbering mainframes of that time read a block of database
records at a time. "One did one's best to get records to fit
within the best performing block sizes. We spent a lot of
time designing records," says Moskowitz. "Adding one byte
could break things." Furthermore, other changes had to be
made to the systems at the same time. The federal
government was requiring the Vehicle Identification Number
be changed from 11 digits to 17. (The VIN introduced in the
seventies had originally included only one digit for the model
year.) This legally-required extra information had to be
squeezed into the database. "We were counting every single
byte," says Moskowitz.

Besides, the year 2000 was twenty years away. Moskowitz
characterizes the corporate attitude as: "We can't afford it
now. Sometime in the next twenty years it'll get dealt with."

So corporations went ahead with their twenty-year fixes. In
AMC a handful of systems were still not fully converted by
the deadline of January 1, 1980. As an interim measure,
Moskowitz and his colleagues changed the programs in
those systems to allow them to work with character bytes,
so that 1980 was designated year "A". (Variations of that
temporary hack are being considered now for Y2K. For
some systems such a temporary fix can work, for others
not. It depends on the nature of the data in the records.) By
the time January 1, 1981 rolled around there was still one
single unconverted system, which had to run as year "B"
until the middle of 1981. Then the job was complete. There
had been no major breakdowns.

Of course, the longer-term fix never did get dealt with. The
adjustments everyone was sure must happen before 2000,
never did. "Where the logic went wrong," says Moskowitz, "
is that the systems started getting interlocked." In the 1970s
you could change one system, say the sales system or the
accounting system, relatively easily. One had to amend
perhaps a dozen programs. Later, as systems became
interdependent, changing one meant changing all. When 200
programs had to be worked on, the task became all the
more daunting and expensive.

"This should have been on our horizon," says Moskowitz
with hindsight. "It should have been a corporate directive:
every time you go into a system, change for the year 2000."
But it never got on the project list. Why not? Moskowitz has
a one-word answer: "Myopia."

That interdependence of computer systems is what makes
the outcome of Y2K so unpredictable. In 1979 no one was
concerned about a general systems failure. There was an
awareness that certain systems were going to fail. Provision
was made. In contrast, last December, when the Chrysler
Corporation did a Y2K compliance test at its Sterling
Heights Assembly Plant during the Christmas closing
period, the company was shocked by some of the
unpredicted results. When the computer clocks were turned
forward to 2000, the plant security system shut down and no
one could get in or out of the factory. It was a wake-up call;
Chrysler set aside $55 million for 1998 to work on fixing the
problems.

Moskowitz survived 1980 unruffled. So what does he think
will happen when 2000 dawns? The answer from such a
technical expert is frankly worrying. "We're going to have
failures," he says somberly, "There'll be people for whom
there's no point coming in to work because their work
doesn't work any more -- till things get fixed." Toward the
end of December 1999, he intends to take out enough cash
to go for a month on a cash basis, in case banks have
problems. He'll store some foodstuffs to get by. He identifies
elevators, fire control systems, and burglar alarms as
problematic areas. "I won't switch to a totally digital lifestyle
until we get past that magic date."

Too late to reassure this listener, he adds: "I don't see a
general collapse. I'm not going off into the mountains.

pretext.com



To: John Mansfield who wrote (55)5/20/1998 12:43:00 AM
From: John Mansfield  Respond to of 185
 
[WAVES]

'In article <6jscqt$8ek$1@its.hooked.net>, declan@well.com (Declan
McCullagh) wrote:

> There's hardly a "wall of silence" in mainstream media. Washington Post
> last week was running one Y2K article a day. Recently I've been writing a
> bunch of articles. Reports about G8 included Y2K mention. NYT/CyberTimes
> has covered Y2K hearings recently. This is all in the last week.
>
> One reason it's slowed down a little since then is Microsoft. Technology
> reporters are generally those who cover Y2K. They also cover Microsoft
> and antitrust. Blame Janet Reno and the Department of Justice for slowing
> the flow of Y2K articles and public awareness.

Besides which, things go in waves. (Perhaps escalating waves, but still
waves. Like a staircase.))

For example, there was the Original Wave of Y2K interest, a long-cycle
wave that begain building 20 or even 30 years ago as programmers realized
their 2-digit date shortcut would eventually cause their programs to bomb
or screw up.

Then there was what I'd call the Second Wave about 10 years ago, when
companies and utilities and whatnot sort of woke up to the fact that
they'd better start converting, or upgrading, or thinking about using
4-digit datecodes and modern programming practices.

The Third Wave was the acceleration of "millenium problem" interest
beginning a couple of years ago. The formation of this newsgroup,
comp.software.year-2000, A few popular articles, squibs in newspapers, and
jokes about the whole thing. I confess that this is when I began to think
it was more serious than just a minor, boring, obscure programming
joke...but even then I thought the effects would be minor. Someone said
"We know the exact date the mainframe will die: January 1st, 2000." I told
this to friends, and thought it was a Good Thing (would help my Intel
stock, etc.).

The Fourth Wave. About a year ago, more sobering, scary, catastrophic
reports began to surface. The Gary North and Ed Yardeni sites came to the
attention of many. It became clear to a lot of folks that the IRS would
not fix their 60 million lines of code, that various utilities and
factories would glitch and shut down, and that their was basically no way
to fix the millions of embedded controllers, hundreds of thousands of
mainframes, and major infrastructure systems.

The Fifth Wave. In the last few months, media and government attention has
escalated dramatically.
(I think I helped to get Declan alerted to the
true significance, and now he's one of the savviest of the Y2K reporters.
His rag, "Time," has yet to do a major cover story on Y2K...but I expect
it will. And this will lead us to the Sixth Wave.

The Sixth Wave will be where locker room conversations are about Y2K
issues instead of Monica Lewinsky and Viagra. And where ordinary people
are talking to their friends about getting their money out of the banks

and maybe stocking up on canned goods. This is the "Pre-2000 Collapse," as
the publicity about the Y2K problems triggers the very problems being
forecast.

Personally, I expect this Sixth Wave to hit around late summer or early
fall, triggered by major news reporting or by some barely-aniticpated
major glitch in a financial or factory system. Or by the realization that
the IRS cannot fix its massive problems in time.

(Though it may only be a recession, a 2000-point drop in the Dow, and and
worse problems in the Third World. A la Djakarta, raised to the third
power.)

After this next major wave of interest, the succeeding waves will crest
faster and faster and are almost impossible to predict, Whether the
Seventh Wave is martial law or a run on banks or the Fiscal Year glitch,
and whether the Eighth Wave is rioting in the streets, opportunistic
military actions around the globe, terrorist attacks...well, "hard to
predict."

For myself, I'm making prudent preparations NOW, before the next wave
hits. I'm not yet convinced that a total meltdown will occur (Paul M. is
free to call me a "butthead"), but it seems prudent to spend a few
thousand bucks stocking up on provisions, water, guns, etc. After all,
most of these provisions will still hold their value if the Collapse is
somehow avoided.

I'm not prepared to give up my way of life, to make major financial
sarifices, and to move to a remote location, at least not yet. But buying
rice and beans and gold and guns and water containers and solar
panels...well, it's relatively cheap for the peace of mind it buys me.

Your mileage may vary.

--Tim May

--
Just Say No to "Big Brother Inside"
---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:----
Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,
ComSec 3DES: 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets,
Higher Power: 2^3,021,377 | black markets, collapse of governments.

___

Subject:
The Sixth Wave...and other waves in the Year 2000 Problem
Date:
Tue, 19 May 1998 17:43:24 -0700
From:
tcmay@got.net (Tim May)
Organization:
Cypherpunks
Newsgroups:
comp.software.year-2000, misc.survivalism, scruz.general
References:
1 , 2



To: John Mansfield who wrote (55)5/20/1998 12:50:00 AM
From: John Mansfield  Respond to of 185
 
[BYTE-MAGAZINE] 'The computer book of the month is by Edward and
Jennifer Yourdon, Timebomb 2000'


'Jerry Pournelle, Byte Magazine columnist, has this to
say about Timebomb 2000 by the Yourdons:

Byte Magazine
June 1998

The computer book of the month is by Edward and
Jennifer Yourdon, Timebomb 2000. I tend to think
of the great Year 2000 Scare as hysteria. The
Yourdans have another opinion, which they calmly
and soberly present, along with precautions you
can take in case they're right. They frankly scare
the hell out of me.

----

David

___

Subject:
Jerry Pournelle is scared by Timebomb 2000
Date:
Wed, 20 May 1998 02:29:36 GMT
From:
techindexer@earthlink.net (David)
Organization:
EarthLink Network, Inc.
Newsgroups:
comp.software.year-2000