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 (2367)	8/5/1998 10:39:00 AM
From: C.K. Houston	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 9818

SEC Warns Companies On Y2K Disclosure - Aug 4 '98 By John Borland, TechWeb =========================================================== Securities and Exchange Commission is sending letters this week to executives at more than 9,000 public companies, warning them to start disclosing more details about their year 2000 computer preparations. The request is part of the SEC's effort to give investors more information on industry's readiness when the dates of computer systems turn over for the millennium. The hope is that it will ward off a stock market free fall. The SEC letter follows last week's release of guidelines spelling out how much year 2000 information must be included in quarterly financial statements. "Time is short," said SEC chairman Arthur Levitt in his letter. "Because the lack of information regarding your preparations for the year 2000 could seriously undermine the confidence investors place in your company, it is imperative that you provide thorough, meaningful disclosure on this topic." Although a majority of public companies have begun including year 2000 issues in their financial reports, most fail to discuss specific plans, timetables, or costs, said a recent SEC report. Regulators, along with a growing number of market analysts, are worried anxious investors will pull out of the stock market in droves next year if they don't have more information on companies' preparation. SEC officials said companies could face fines if they deliberately conceal a lack of preparation. But few cases are likely to go that far, a commission spokesman said. "What's more likely to happen is we would send a report back and ask them to address these issues," said SEC spokesman Duncan King. "It would depend on the egregiousness of the act." The new guidelines take effect Tuesday, and will be applied to financial documents for fiscal quarters that ended in late July.

To: John Mansfield who wrote (2367)	8/5/1998 11:45:00 AM
From: John Mansfield	Respond to of 9818

'It's the Jo Anne Effect!!!!! ____ 'From: kiyoinc@ibm.XOUT.net (cory hamasaki) 2:46 Subject: Re: Jan 1 1999: Systems Failure Begins On Tue, 4 Aug 1998 22:43:18, Big Don <bigdon@eskimo.com> wrote: > fedinfo@halifax.com wrote: > > > > The computer system that issues $56 million in checks annually will start to > > fail on Jan. 1, 1999, unless repairs are made to its software, according to > > Joan Salim, It's the Jo Anne Effect!!!!! > Nearly all states began fiscal 99 on July 1, 1998, right? Processing > fiscal 99 data was understood to involve projections into 2000, just > like the Maryland's women agency situation described above. So why > haven't we yet heard of all the accounting chaos from unremediated > software which should be presently "enscrewing" state books? > > Big Don > No LOOTers ~~~ Here's how it works.... Ignore the fiscal year 98, 99, fiscal year 00 stuff. That's just the name. What's important is the end of the time period... the last day of the time period, and the logic used in the compare. Basic to Fiscal year processing is deciding whether the transaction falls into last year, this year or next year. 'Sorting' in the non-DP sense of the word. Sorting means 'put into bins' not 'arrange in a sequence'. In December 1998, a few systems will start tapping on the year 2000; in January 1999, more systems will ask the question, is this January 5, 1999 transaction in the fiscal year? How will it ask the question? is 1999 = 1999 is 99 = 99 is 99 < 100 is 99 < 00 is 1999 < 2000 is 1999 < 19100 Hey! this works. Nobody knows the answer.... Given that I've seen the equivalent of is 1999 < 199A .. I'm expecting the worse. cory hamasaki 514 days.... beware the Jo Anne Effect.

To: John Mansfield who wrote (2367)	8/5/1998 11:50:00 AM
From: John Mansfield	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 9818

'In my neighborhood (Seattle area), the I-90 tunnel is non-compliant, but schedule to be remediated in time. Big tunnels have lotsa control systems - not just lights and signals, but ventilation, fire suppression, even reversible lane controls ... malfunction effects range from traffic stoppage to lethal effects. Another local tunnel had automated control systems malfunction when first opened, routing buses out onto I-5 against the flow of traffic. A couple years back, one of our draw bridge control systems failed during a routine test sequence - should have gone through all the control panel displays, but not actually lowered the gates and raised the bridge. This failure (not Y2K-related) did not flash the alarms or lower the gates, but did raise the span, with lethal results. Oh, yes, control systems (massively digital, surprisingly complex) on two of our Puget Sound car ferries - a major component of the local highway system - are noncompliant. One goes out of service for major maintenance (and remediation) real soon now, the other is conveniently scheduled for overhaul January 2000. Glad our DOT is on the ball. -- RonKenyon ____ 'From: ronkenyon@aol.com (RonKenyon) di 7:53 Subject: Re: You are all crazy tj1234567@aol.com (TJ1234567) wrote: >Joshua, > >As a student of computer science, can you tell me more about your research >into >these non-compliant bridges and tunnels that may be paralyzed? The bridges I >drive over seem relatively date-insensitive, but then again, I am not a >computer science student.