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: C.K. Houston who wrote (4693)	3/15/1999 9:47:00 PM
From: C.K. Houston	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 9818

<When are you going to talk to your lunch partner from Shell to see how they are doing with embedded systems a year later?> CHEEKY KID Here's my lunch partner from a Process Control meeting last March. I don't know why Cheeky likes to bring him up so much. Ron Quiggins of Shell, who served on the American Petroleum Institute's year-2000 task force, said he was unaware of the problems in Venezuela. Other companies declined to respond to inquiries. washtimes.com Cheryl BACKGROUND: Message 8291583 Cheryl

To: C.K. Houston who wrote (4693)	3/15/1999 10:00:00 PM
From: Christine Traut	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 9818

Cheryl: Your 'cookies file' is attached to your browser. It is a storage area that is generally not seen, or even thought about, by the user. When you visit a Web site, and then come back to it, there is a need to track the fact that you were there before. In the simplest incarnation, the cookies file is how the WSJ site or Amazon 'knows' who you are when you return, without requiring you to sign in. Think of it as Hansel and Gretl and the trail of crumbs. Cookie files are actually somewhat controversial, since they leave a trail of information which some think is an invasion of privacy. I gave Cheeky the detail on the Y2K problem with the cookies file to get him to investigate further. Microsoft is behaving as though their Y2K problems are no big deal to the user. I believe that this is intentionally misleading. For those who missed John's earlier post, I recommend reading Robert Cringely's piece on Microsoft's problems with Y2K. pbs.org Please read this knowing that Cringely is an old-time insider, and he knows even more than he is telling. If Microsoft is spinning the truth to minimize their Y2K issues - who else might be doing the same thing?