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.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Gold Price Monitor -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: IngotWeTrust who wrote (28865)	2/24/1999 6:57:00 AM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 116954

"IBM patch of the 1969-1970 rollover problem that is part of the can't fix Y2K mess we're in? Ole 49r, I'm not a cobol or assembler language programmer, but I'm suspicious of this "patch". To break down the origins of Y2K, you need only look so far as punch cards. Remember those?? You take a card, punch a bunch 'o holes in it representing computer input instructions, and voila', you have a machine that could be outperformed by a modern day $6 calculator. Well, those cards were 80 characters across and anywhere you could save a couple of characters meant that you could save time, effort, and most importantly, HUGELY EXPENSIVE electronic memory storage. So where do you think they cut a couple of needless characters from?? By turning 8 character dates (01/01/1969) to 6 digit by omitting the 119. Apparently, over the course of years, ommitting those two little characters saved (EARNED??) the IT industry, by some estimates, close to a trillion dollars in saved storage space, which again was quite expensive then. (remember when files were saved on tape, not disk?) So basically, I can't see any reason why there would be a need for a 69 to 70 patch, unless some idiot programmer only provided for a 5 digit, or 10 year time span (ommitted the 199-). For a claim like that, I would have to see some valid documentation. Regards, Ron