On Fri, 01 Oct 2010 12:27:21 -0700, Oren wrote:

On Fri, 1 Oct 2010 09:26:25 -0400, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:

As I remember, the major concern was subtracting dates. For example,
if an item was purchased in 1999, and returned to the store in 2000.
Lets see..... 99 minus 00.

Were there other things that were going to fail?

The nervous types thought that the Social Security Administration
would begin printing checks again, for folks that were already dead.

There was a 106 year-old woman who got a summoned for truancy. ...not exactly
Y2K, but the same principle.

" wrote:

On Fri, 01 Oct 2010 12:27:21 -0700, Oren wrote:

On Fri, 1 Oct 2010 09:26:25 -0400, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:

As I remember, the major concern was subtracting dates. For example,
if an item was purchased in 1999, and returned to the store in 2000.
Lets see..... 99 minus 00.

Were there other things that were going to fail?

The nervous types thought that the Social Security Administration
would begin printing checks again, for folks that were already dead.

There was a 106 year-old woman who got a summoned for truancy. ...not exactly
Y2K, but the same principle.


Was that Dimmie's mommy?


--
Politicians should only get paid if the budget is balanced, and there is
enough left over to pay them.

On Wed, 29 Sep 2010 08:42:10 -0700 (PDT), DerbyDad03
wrote:


Of course, I also wonder why everyone doesn't have an E-ZPass. Did you
know that some states have 65MPH E-ZPass lanes? Man, those are sweet!

The one on California's Hiway 91 was charging $10.95 yesterday at 4:00pm

Gunner


I am the Sword of my Family
and the Shield of my Nation.
If sent, I will crush everything you have built,
burn everything you love,
and kill every one of you.
(Hebrew quote)

In article ,
Stormin Mormon wrote:
http://hfreviews.com/reviews.php
If you have used a Harbor Freight item or considering buying one.
Write a reveiew, or read what others say. Might help others, or save
yourself some grief. I'm not the webmaster, and I didn't come up with
the idea.

Instead of any particular item causing grief, it's HF's pricing games
that have left a bitter aftertaste. I'll show up like a naive schoolboy
with my coupon in hand only to discover that a week later the item(s)
will be priced less, or priced the same but then eligible for the 20%
coupon. But since returning a week later would be a special 120 mile
drive, about $30 in fuel, it becomes a choice between getting ripped a
little, alot, or leaving empty handed. HF has become a place where I
hate the store but am okay with the merchandise.

m

I know that concept. The item I bought last week, is now ten bucks
less. That's irritating. Like the 3 galon compressor I thought was
good at $40 down from $70, and then next week it's $30.

On the other hand, I've caught good prices on tools. The 20% coupons
help.

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..


"Fake ID" wrote in message
...
http://hfreviews.com/reviews.php

Instead of any particular item causing grief, it's HF's pricing games
that have left a bitter aftertaste. I'll show up like a naive
schoolboy
with my coupon in hand only to discover that a week later the item(s)
will be priced less, or priced the same but then eligible for the 20%
coupon. But since returning a week later would be a special 120 mile
drive, about $30 in fuel, it becomes a choice between getting ripped a
little, alot, or leaving empty handed. HF has become a place where I
hate the store but am okay with the merchandise.

m

On Fri, 1 Oct 2010 09:26:25 -0400, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:
Were there other things that were going to fail?

As others have said, as of 1990 nearly everything would have failed in
2000. The percentage of programs which do not use dates in any way is
small. In 1970, Y2K was not even on the perceptual horizon for most
programmers, including me. (I wrote my first program in 1966, full
time starting in 1971.) A few businesses which project decades into
the future (such as life insurance) were mostly OK because they were
dealing with 21st century dates even in 1960.

In many cases, the errors would have been trivial, such as printing
1900 instead of 2000 on a report. Even those errors needed to be
corrected, though -- most programmers would not dream of releasing a
program into production which printed incorrect dates. If nothing
else, the result is that the users lose confidence in the program.

In a pretty good percentage of cases, programs would obviously crash
or give incorrect results in very serious situations.

The majority of cases, though, were the ones where analysis was
required even to determine what would happen and what fix was needed.
The actual fixes in most cases were much simpler than the analysis.
Software errors can ramify in complex and unexpected ways, so it was
essential to be thorough in the analysis.

So, your car would still have run -- the microcontroller there was not
date-dependent. Traffic signals might have worked, but many vary their
patterns on weekends -- they might have gotten the day of the week
wrong, or the software might have crashed and left all the lights
blinking. The Internet would have stayed up, but most web sites would
have gone down. And this is before we even start talking about
banking, all business systems (including point of sale), etc. Even
industrial control systems, airplane control systems, medical device
controllers, etc had the potential to fail -- many of these embedded
systems would have been OK, but nobody could tell until they were
analyzed. Again, Y2K just wasn't in the field of view when much of
this was written.

Realize that in general, even a minor error in a computer program can
make the entire program fail. It's as though omitting one nail from a
rafter might make an entire building collapse. Digital systems are far
more sensitive in this respect. Thus even minor date-related errors
had to be found and fixed because they had the potential to bring down
the entire edifice.

So, people who say "January 1, 2000 wasn't a big deal, why did we
spend all that money" are wrong. January 1, 2000 wasn't a big deal
*because* we spent all that money. Without the remediation effort, the
human world, the first world anyway, would pretty much have come to a
stop that day.

Edward

In article , Edward Reid wrote:

So, your car would still have run -- the microcontroller there was not
date-dependent.

Correct.

Traffic signals might have worked, but many vary their
patterns on weekends -- they might have gotten the day of the week
wrong, or the software might have crashed and left all the lights
blinking.

Nonsense. *What* software? Think mechanical timers.

The Internet would have stayed up,

Correct.

but most web sites would have gone down.

Absolute nonsense.

And this is before we even start talking about banking,

More nonsense. Nearly every bank in the world that didn't already know
about the Y2K problem became aware of it no later than the first business day
of 1970; that is, the first time they tried to write a 30-year mortgage that
terminated after 1999.

all business systems (including point of sale), etc.

Even industrial control systems,

Maybe.

airplane control systems,

Garbage. Aircraft control systems are no more date-aware than car computers
are. The only thing the system cares about is how much time has elapsed since
power-up. I used to work with that stuff back in the 80s when I worked for the
Navy; the systems don't even know what time of day it is, let alone what the
date is. They don't care. There's no need to know. Elapsed time is the *only*
thing they're concerned with.

medical device
controllers, etc had the potential to fail

Only in the sense that someone is capable of *imagining* ways in which they
could fail. The simple fact is that *no* device that was not date-aware had
*any* potential at all for failure.

You're doing nothing more than regurgitating some of the less ridiculous scare
stories that circulated in the y2k newsgroup in 1998 and 1999. The *more*
ridiculous ones included the notion that common kitchen appliances such as
microwave ovens and toasters would cease to function after 31 Dec 1999. No,
I'm not making that up.


-- many of these embedded
systems would have been OK, but nobody could tell until they were
analyzed.

Yes, and in most cases, the analysis consisted of asking "Does this device
know what day it is? Do we have to set the date as part of its startup
procedure?" If the answer is no -- as it is in the overwhelming majority of
cases -- then it won't be afffected.

Again, Y2K just wasn't in the field of view when much of
this was written.


Realize that in general, even a minor error in a computer program can
make the entire program fail.

Only if you write brittle, poorly constructed programs.

It's as though omitting one nail from a
rafter might make an entire building collapse. Digital systems are far
more sensitive in this respect. Thus even minor date-related errors
had to be found and fixed because they had the potential to bring down
the entire edifice.

So, people who say "January 1, 2000 wasn't a big deal, why did we
spend all that money" are wrong. January 1, 2000 wasn't a big deal
*because* we spent all that money. Without the remediation effort, the
human world, the first world anyway, would pretty much have come to a
stop that day.

Oh, bull****, it would not have.

On Sun, 03 Oct 2010 12:03:38 -0400, Edward Reid
wrote:

On Fri, 1 Oct 2010 09:26:25 -0400, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:
Were there other things that were going to fail?

As others have said, as of 1990 nearly everything would have failed in
2000. The percentage of programs which do not use dates in any way is
small. In 1970, Y2K was not even on the perceptual horizon for most
programmers, including me. (I wrote my first program in 1966, full
time starting in 1971.) A few businesses which project decades into
the future (such as life insurance) were mostly OK because they were
dealing with 21st century dates even in 1960.

In many cases, the errors would have been trivial, such as printing
1900 instead of 2000 on a report. Even those errors needed to be
corrected, though -- most programmers would not dream of releasing a
program into production which printed incorrect dates. If nothing
else, the result is that the users lose confidence in the program.

In a pretty good percentage of cases, programs would obviously crash
or give incorrect results in very serious situations.

The majority of cases, though, were the ones where analysis was
required even to determine what would happen and what fix was needed.
The actual fixes in most cases were much simpler than the analysis.
Software errors can ramify in complex and unexpected ways, so it was
essential to be thorough in the analysis.

So, your car would still have run -- the microcontroller there was not
date-dependent. Traffic signals might have worked, but many vary their
patterns on weekends -- they might have gotten the day of the week
wrong, or the software might have crashed and left all the lights
blinking. The Internet would have stayed up, but most web sites would
have gone down. And this is before we even start talking about
banking, all business systems (including point of sale), etc. Even
industrial control systems, airplane control systems, medical device
controllers, etc had the potential to fail -- many of these embedded
systems would have been OK, but nobody could tell until they were
analyzed. Again, Y2K just wasn't in the field of view when much of
this was written.

Realize that in general, even a minor error in a computer program can
make the entire program fail. It's as though omitting one nail from a
rafter might make an entire building collapse. Digital systems are far
more sensitive in this respect. Thus even minor date-related errors
had to be found and fixed because they had the potential to bring down
the entire edifice.

So, people who say "January 1, 2000 wasn't a big deal, why did we
spend all that money" are wrong. January 1, 2000 wasn't a big deal
*because* we spent all that money. Without the remediation effort, the
human world, the first world anyway, would pretty much have come to a
stop that day.

Edward


Very well stated.

Bravo!!


Gunner


I am the Sword of my Family
and the Shield of my Nation.
If sent, I will crush everything you have built,
burn everything you love,
and kill every one of you.
(Hebrew quote)

Edward Reid wrote in
:

On Fri, 1 Oct 2010 09:26:25 -0400, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:
Were there other things that were going to fail?

As others have said, as of 1990 nearly everything would have failed in
2000. The percentage of programs which do not use dates in any way is
small. In 1970, Y2K was not even on the perceptual horizon for most
programmers, including me. (I wrote my first program in 1966, full
time starting in 1971.) A few businesses which project decades into
the future (such as life insurance) were mostly OK because they were
dealing with 21st century dates even in 1960.

In many cases, the errors would have been trivial, such as printing
1900 instead of 2000 on a report. Even those errors needed to be
corrected, though -- most programmers would not dream of releasing a
program into production which printed incorrect dates. If nothing
else, the result is that the users lose confidence in the program.

In a pretty good percentage of cases, programs would obviously crash
or give incorrect results in very serious situations.

The majority of cases, though, were the ones where analysis was
required even to determine what would happen and what fix was needed.
The actual fixes in most cases were much simpler than the analysis.
Software errors can ramify in complex and unexpected ways, so it was
essential to be thorough in the analysis.

So, your car would still have run -- the microcontroller there was not
date-dependent. Traffic signals might have worked, but many vary their
patterns on weekends -- they might have gotten the day of the week
wrong, or the software might have crashed and left all the lights
blinking. The Internet would have stayed up, but most web sites would
have gone down. And this is before we even start talking about
banking, all business systems (including point of sale), etc. Even
industrial control systems, airplane control systems, medical device
controllers, etc had the potential to fail -- many of these embedded
systems would have been OK, but nobody could tell until they were
analyzed. Again, Y2K just wasn't in the field of view when much of
this was written.

Realize that in general, even a minor error in a computer program can
make the entire program fail. It's as though omitting one nail from a
rafter might make an entire building collapse. Digital systems are far
more sensitive in this respect. Thus even minor date-related errors
had to be found and fixed because they had the potential to bring down
the entire edifice.

So, people who say "January 1, 2000 wasn't a big deal, why did we
spend all that money" are wrong. January 1, 2000 wasn't a big deal
*because* we spent all that money. Without the remediation effort, the
human world, the first world anyway, would pretty much have come to a
stop that day.

Edward


I suppose I should just stop now and call for references. Your opinion
piece, being devoid of said references, is nothing more then that - your
opinion.

With all due respect, you do not know what you are talking about. I was
there. I was researching and documenting and in some cases fixing Y2K
"problems". And it was grossly over-stated and over-hyped.

Yes, there would have been some failures. And some would have been rather
dramatic, but "nearly everything would have failed" is simply not true
and demonstrates your lack of understanding of what was really going on
back then. And your final statement about the human world coming to a
stop...pulleeaasseee...

I was there. I researched and documented the Y2K compliance of computer
systems, big and small. And yes it was a problem, but no it wasn't
anywhere near as big of a problem as the public was led to believe.

And why are we rehashing this now anyhow? It's ancient history, at least
until the year 2100 rolls around. Then we are going to go through the
same thing all over again LOL.

In article ,
Stormin Mormon wrote:
I know that concept. The item I bought last week, is now ten bucks
less. That's irritating. Like the 3 galon compressor I thought was
good at $40 down from $70, and then next week it's $30.

Too funny. Sitting on the floor next to me this very second mocking me
is the 3 gallon compressor I bought a bit over a week ago. Forevermore
when I look at it I'll think "$8".

When poked through the pile of HF spam I noticed that the online version
of this weekend's sale ad included items not in the printed version.
One of them is a cylindrical tank 3 gallon oilless compressor which
includes hose and tire chuck, $40. Double D'Oh!

On the other hand, I've caught good prices on tools. The 20% coupons
help.

In August I rescheduled the errands in order to get that famous
multitool for $24. So, an occasional win. Had there been adequate
notice this time around it's likely that sitting next to me this very
second would also be a sliding compound miter saw.

m

Zootal wrote:

Edward Reid wrote in
:

On Fri, 1 Oct 2010 09:26:25 -0400, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:
Were there other things that were going to fail?

As others have said, as of 1990 nearly everything would have failed in
2000. The percentage of programs which do not use dates in any way is
small. In 1970, Y2K was not even on the perceptual horizon for most
programmers, including me. (I wrote my first program in 1966, full
time starting in 1971.) A few businesses which project decades into
the future (such as life insurance) were mostly OK because they were
dealing with 21st century dates even in 1960.

In many cases, the errors would have been trivial, such as printing
1900 instead of 2000 on a report. Even those errors needed to be
corrected, though -- most programmers would not dream of releasing a
program into production which printed incorrect dates. If nothing
else, the result is that the users lose confidence in the program.

In a pretty good percentage of cases, programs would obviously crash
or give incorrect results in very serious situations.

The majority of cases, though, were the ones where analysis was
required even to determine what would happen and what fix was needed.
The actual fixes in most cases were much simpler than the analysis.
Software errors can ramify in complex and unexpected ways, so it was
essential to be thorough in the analysis.

So, your car would still have run -- the microcontroller there was not
date-dependent. Traffic signals might have worked, but many vary their
patterns on weekends -- they might have gotten the day of the week
wrong, or the software might have crashed and left all the lights
blinking. The Internet would have stayed up, but most web sites would
have gone down. And this is before we even start talking about
banking, all business systems (including point of sale), etc. Even
industrial control systems, airplane control systems, medical device
controllers, etc had the potential to fail -- many of these embedded
systems would have been OK, but nobody could tell until they were
analyzed. Again, Y2K just wasn't in the field of view when much of
this was written.

Realize that in general, even a minor error in a computer program can
make the entire program fail. It's as though omitting one nail from a
rafter might make an entire building collapse. Digital systems are far
more sensitive in this respect. Thus even minor date-related errors
had to be found and fixed because they had the potential to bring down
the entire edifice.

So, people who say "January 1, 2000 wasn't a big deal, why did we
spend all that money" are wrong. January 1, 2000 wasn't a big deal
*because* we spent all that money. Without the remediation effort, the
human world, the first world anyway, would pretty much have come to a
stop that day.

Edward

I suppose I should just stop now and call for references. Your opinion
piece, being devoid of said references, is nothing more then that - your
opinion.

With all due respect, you do not know what you are talking about. I was
there. I was researching and documenting and in some cases fixing Y2K
"problems". And it was grossly over-stated and over-hyped.

Yes, there would have been some failures. And some would have been rather
dramatic, but "nearly everything would have failed" is simply not true
and demonstrates your lack of understanding of what was really going on
back then. And your final statement about the human world coming to a
stop...pulleeaasseee...

I was there. I researched and documented the Y2K compliance of computer
systems, big and small. And yes it was a problem, but no it wasn't
anywhere near as big of a problem as the public was led to believe.

And why are we rehashing this now anyhow? It's ancient history, at least
until the year 2100 rolls around. Then we are going to go through the
same thing all over again LOL.


WE? I don't think that I would care, at close to 150 years old.


--
Politicians should only get paid if the budget is balanced, and there is
enough left over to pay them.

On Sun, 03 Oct 2010 12:03:38 -0400, Edward Reid
wrote:

On Fri, 1 Oct 2010 09:26:25 -0400, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:
Were there other things that were going to fail?

As others have said, as of 1990 nearly everything would have failed in
2000. The percentage of programs which do not use dates in any way is
small. In 1970, Y2K was not even on the perceptual horizon for most
programmers, including me. (I wrote my first program in 1966, full
time starting in 1971.) A few businesses which project decades into
the future (such as life insurance) were mostly OK because they were
dealing with 21st century dates even in 1960.

The real problem was that much software had been in use *way* beyond when the
programmers assumed it would be. Other issues included the programmer's
stupidity (programming an exception to an exception, but not its exception .
In a lot of cases what was really scary part was that there was no source code
or tools to recreate the programs companies relied on for their business. Y2K
solved a lot of that as an aside.

...

On Oct 3, 12:33*pm, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article , Edward Reid wrote:

So, your car would still have run -- the microcontroller there was not
date-dependent.

Correct.

Traffic signals might have worked, but many vary their
patterns on weekends -- they might have gotten the day of the week
wrong, or the software might have crashed and left all the lights
blinking.

Nonsense. *What* software? Think mechanical timers.

The Internet would have stayed up,

Correct.

but most web sites would have gone down.

Absolute nonsense.

And this is before we even start talking about banking,

More nonsense. Nearly every bank in the world that didn't already know
about the Y2K problem became aware of it no later than the first business day
of 1970; that is, the first time they tried to write a 30-year mortgage that
terminated after 1999.

all business systems (including point of sale), etc.
Even industrial control systems,

Maybe.

airplane control systems,

Garbage. Aircraft control systems are no more date-aware than car computers
are. The only thing the system cares about is how much time has elapsed since
power-up. I used to work with that stuff back in the 80s when I worked for the
Navy; the systems don't even know what time of day it is, let alone what the
date is. They don't care. There's no need to know. Elapsed time is the *only*
thing they're concerned with.

medical device
controllers, etc had the potential to fail

Only in the sense that someone is capable of *imagining* ways in which they
could fail. The simple fact is that *no* device that was not date-aware had
*any* potential at all for failure.

You're doing nothing more than regurgitating some of the less ridiculous scare
stories that circulated in the y2k newsgroup in 1998 and 1999. The *more*
ridiculous ones included the notion that common kitchen appliances such as
microwave ovens and toasters would cease to function after 31 Dec 1999. No,
I'm not making that up.

-- many of these embedded
systems would have been OK, but nobody could tell until they were
analyzed.

Yes, and in most cases, the analysis consisted of asking "Does this device
know what day it is? Do we have to set the date as part of its startup
procedure?" If the answer is no -- as it is in the overwhelming majority of
cases -- then it won't be afffected.

Again, Y2K just wasn't in the field of view when much of
this was written.

Realize that in general, even a minor error in a computer program can
make the entire program fail.

Only if you write brittle, poorly constructed programs.

It's as though omitting one nail from a
rafter might make an entire building collapse. Digital systems are far
more sensitive in this respect. Thus even minor date-related errors
had to be found and fixed because they had the potential to bring down
the entire edifice.

So, people who say "January 1, 2000 wasn't a big deal, why did we
spend all that money" are wrong. January 1, 2000 wasn't a big deal
*because* we spent all that money. Without the remediation effort, the
human world, the first world anyway, would pretty much have come to a
stop that day.

Oh, bull****, it would not have.

Dude, I'm not going to take the time to go item by item, but your post
was pretty damned close to COMPLETELY wrong.

On Sun, 03 Oct 2010 12:03:38 -0400, Edward Reid
wrote:

On Fri, 1 Oct 2010 09:26:25 -0400, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:
Were there other things that were going to fail?

As others have said, as of 1990 nearly everything would have failed in
2000. The percentage of programs which do not use dates in any way is
small. In 1970, Y2K was not even on the perceptual horizon for most
programmers, including me. (I wrote my first program in 1966, full
time starting in 1971.) A few businesses which project decades into
the future (such as life insurance) were mostly OK because they were
dealing with 21st century dates even in 1960.

In many cases, the errors would have been trivial, such as printing
1900 instead of 2000 on a report. Even those errors needed to be
corrected, though -- most programmers would not dream of releasing a
program into production which printed incorrect dates. If nothing
else, the result is that the users lose confidence in the program.

In a pretty good percentage of cases, programs would obviously crash
or give incorrect results in very serious situations.

The majority of cases, though, were the ones where analysis was
required even to determine what would happen and what fix was needed.
The actual fixes in most cases were much simpler than the analysis.
Software errors can ramify in complex and unexpected ways, so it was
essential to be thorough in the analysis.

So, your car would still have run -- the microcontroller there was not
date-dependent. Traffic signals might have worked, but many vary their
patterns on weekends -- they might have gotten the day of the week
wrong, or the software might have crashed and left all the lights
blinking. The Internet would have stayed up, but most web sites would
have gone down. And this is before we even start talking about
banking, all business systems (including point of sale), etc. Even
industrial control systems, airplane control systems, medical device
controllers, etc had the potential to fail -- many of these embedded
systems would have been OK, but nobody could tell until they were
analyzed. Again, Y2K just wasn't in the field of view when much of
this was written.

Realize that in general, even a minor error in a computer program can
make the entire program fail. It's as though omitting one nail from a
rafter might make an entire building collapse. Digital systems are far
more sensitive in this respect. Thus even minor date-related errors
had to be found and fixed because they had the potential to bring down
the entire edifice.

So, people who say "January 1, 2000 wasn't a big deal, why did we
spend all that money" are wrong. January 1, 2000 wasn't a big deal
*because* we spent all that money. Without the remediation effort, the
human world, the first world anyway, would pretty much have come to a
stop that day.

Edward
I'd hate to dissagree - but Y2K was a lot of Hoopla - and extremely
low actual problems.

The trafic signal scenario? Extremely easy to get around. The calendar
repeats itself on a very predictable schedule - so for the rest of the
lifespan of the control system a simple reset of the date to a year
with the same calendar, in the same point of the schedule, is all that
was required. If that year, was, for instance, 1942, there was another
58 years to go without worrying about the weekend schedules being
thrown off.

There was a whole lot of money made by "y2k analysts" that was a pure
rip-off - call it fraud to be accurate - and a lot of fearmongering.

The only place it really ended up being any kind of an issue was on
mainframe actuarial systems (big insurance companies running large
databases on antiquated systems running Fortran, as an example)

Most of these systems had already oulived their design lifespan -
having been programmed in the '60s and '70s, with the expectation that
they would be replaced in the '80s or '90s.

For sure. I feel your pain. I just dropped a card, to join the inside
track club. I'm hoping that will get me some more coupons. Should
bring me multiples of the mailers.

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..


"Fake ID" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Stormin Mormon wrote:
I know that concept. The item I bought last week, is now ten bucks
less. That's irritating. Like the 3 galon compressor I thought was
good at $40 down from $70, and then next week it's $30.

Too funny. Sitting on the floor next to me this very second mocking
me
is the 3 gallon compressor I bought a bit over a week ago.
Forevermore
when I look at it I'll think "$8".

When poked through the pile of HF spam I noticed that the online
version
of this weekend's sale ad included items not in the printed version.
One of them is a cylindrical tank 3 gallon oilless compressor which
includes hose and tire chuck, $40. Double D'Oh!

On the other hand, I've caught good prices on tools. The 20% coupons
help.

In August I rescheduled the errands in order to get that famous
multitool for $24. So, an occasional win. Had there been adequate
notice this time around it's likely that sitting next to me this very
second would also be a sliding compound miter saw.

m

On Sun, 03 Oct 2010 16:33:22 GMT, (Doug Miller)
wrote:
More nonsense. Nearly every bank in the world that didn't already know
about the Y2K problem became aware of it no later than the first business day
of 1970; that is, the first time they tried to write a 30-year mortgage that
terminated after 1999.

Banks have to project more than 30 years. For example, 40-year
mortgages exist (even if it's a stupid thing to do). That doesn't mean
they paid attention. In 1970, saving two bytes several times in each
record was a big deal. The mind set was still 80-column cards -- not
surprising since banks used a lot of punched card equipment priori to
computers. Were they given a clue? Yes. Did they act on it? Seldom --
as is evidenced by the huge amount of work banks had to do for Y2K
remediation.

Only in the sense that someone is capable of *imagining* ways in which they
could fail. The simple fact is that *no* device that was not date-aware had
*any* potential at all for failure.

I'm surprised by your belief that software systems are so robust. Even
if one particular subsystem is sound, it can be brought down by the
subsystems around it. Flight control software may have been sound
(AFAIK the stories about an airplane inverting when it crossed the
equator are pure urban legend), but airplanes have several
computerized systems on board, and not all are so purely involved with
avionics.

You're doing nothing more than regurgitating some of the less ridiculous scare
stories that circulated in the y2k newsgroup in 1998 and 1999.

I never read any such newsgroup and I'm regurgitating nothing. My
opinions are based on my own experience, with perhaps a bit of input
from IEEE Spectrum -- not exactly the most alarmist publication on the
planet.

Yes, and in most cases, the analysis consisted of asking "Does this device
know what day it is? Do we have to set the date as part of its startup
procedure?" If the answer is no -- as it is in the overwhelming majority of
cases -- then it won't be afffected.

If the question is answered without analyzing the code, then the
answer is usually wrong. Dates are found in code which one would
think, based on externals, would not need dates. Or which doesn't
actually need dates but has them anyway.

Realize that in general, even a minor error in a computer program can
make the entire program fail.

Only if you write brittle, poorly constructed programs.

Which describes a frightening amount of production code, and even more
so in 1990 than in 2010. I hope ...

Edward

On Sun, 03 Oct 2010 13:20:37 -0500, Zootal
wrote:
I suppose I should just stop now and call for references. Your opinion
piece, being devoid of said references, is nothing more then that - your
opinion.

Since you were involved, I'm sure you know that most of the code
involved was custom and not available for public review. That makes
references difficult. You can find some in IEEE Spectrum though.

With all due respect, you do not know what you are talking about. I was
there. I was researching and documenting and in some cases fixing Y2K
"problems". And it was grossly over-stated and over-hyped.

I'm happy that the systems you were involved in were in relatively
good shape. That doesn't mean they all were. I could turn your request
for references back on you.

And why are we rehashing this now anyhow?

Because someone brought it up. Hey, how long you been around Usenet?
You tellin' me there needs to be a REASON to rehash something? Bah.

It's ancient history, at least
until the year 2100 rolls around. Then we are going to go through the
same thing all over again LOL.

Yes, I fear that's true. Oh, it won't be quite the same thing -- the
world of DP (excuse me, IT) will have changed enormously. It will get
new names about every 25 years, just to keep it fresh -- DP, IT, what
next? At present everyone is being careful about dates. There will
never again be the pressure to save two bytes, since storage is so
cheap now. But in 50 years, no one working will have gone through it.
Handwritten dates will always drop the century, and eventually this
will slip into data systems. Exactly how, I don't know, but somehow it
will. Have we fixed the 2039 problems yet? Not AFAIK.

(And apropos a response, I agree with "we". I won't be alive, but "we"
as a profession and the human race will go through it. Those ignorant
of history etc.)

Edward

On Sun, 03 Oct 2010 18:57:17 -0400, wrote:
The trafic signal scenario? Extremely easy to get around. The calendar
repeats itself on a very predictable schedule - so for the rest of the
lifespan of the control system a simple reset of the date to a year
with the same calendar, in the same point of the schedule, is all that
was required.

Sure, as I said, lots of times the fix was easy. It was the analysis
that was hard. And in your example, the analysis had to determine that
the kludge that you propose (and it's clearly a kludge, not a fix)
wouldn't cause any undesirable side effects. Kludges have a nasty
habit of causing unforeseen problems. In addition, it could not wait
until 2000-01-01, because too many systems would have needed attention
all at the same time. Many simple ones could have been repaired
quickly after they failed, but many failures appearing all at once
would have overwhelmed the capacity to fix them.

There was a whole lot of money made by "y2k analysts" that was a pure
rip-off - call it fraud to be accurate - and a lot of fearmongering.

No doubt. The DP/IT profession is as rife with opportunists and
incompetents as any other. That doesn't mean that everything done is
opportunistic or incompetent.

The only place it really ended up being any kind of an issue was on
mainframe actuarial systems (big insurance companies running large
databases on antiquated systems running Fortran, as an example)

That's an extremely limited view of what happened. And in any case,
ten years ago those systems ran an awful lot of what was important to
business. It's dropped a lot today but hasn't gone away. Oh, and
insurance companies seldom used Fortran. They mostly used COBOL. I
haven't heard any recent figures, but I suspect that there's still
more production code written in COBOL than in any other language.
Fortran code was generally less of a problem due to its emphasis on
numerical work.

Most of these systems had already oulived their design lifespan -
having been programmed in the '60s and '70s, with the expectation that
they would be replaced in the '80s or '90s.

But they hadn't been replaced. That's part of the point. The other
point that I make, though, is that they were not designed with any
such expectation. They weren't designed with a lifespan at all. In the
60s and 70s, programming on this scale was still so new that
programmers weren't thinking about how long their code would last at
all.

Edward

In article ,
HIS says...

On Sun, 03 Oct 2010 16:33:22 GMT, (Doug Miller)
wrote:
More nonsense. Nearly every bank in the world that didn't already know
about the Y2K problem became aware of it no later than the first business day
of 1970; that is, the first time they tried to write a 30-year mortgage that
terminated after 1999.

Banks have to project more than 30 years. For example, 40-year
mortgages exist (even if it's a stupid thing to do). That doesn't mean
they paid attention. In 1970, saving two bytes several times in each
record was a big deal. The mind set was still 80-column cards -- not
surprising since banks used a lot of punched card equipment priori to
computers. Were they given a clue? Yes. Did they act on it? Seldom --
as is evidenced by the huge amount of work banks had to do for Y2K
remediation.

Only in the sense that someone is capable of *imagining* ways in which they
could fail. The simple fact is that *no* device that was not date-aware had
*any* potential at all for failure.

I'm surprised by your belief that software systems are so robust. Even
if one particular subsystem is sound, it can be brought down by the
subsystems around it. Flight control software may have been sound
(AFAIK the stories about an airplane inverting when it crossed the
equator are pure urban legend), but airplanes have several
computerized systems on board, and not all are so purely involved with
avionics.

You're doing nothing more than regurgitating some of the less ridiculous scare
stories that circulated in the y2k newsgroup in 1998 and 1999.

I never read any such newsgroup and I'm regurgitating nothing. My
opinions are based on my own experience, with perhaps a bit of input
from IEEE Spectrum -- not exactly the most alarmist publication on the
planet.

Yes, and in most cases, the analysis consisted of asking "Does this device
know what day it is? Do we have to set the date as part of its startup
procedure?" If the answer is no -- as it is in the overwhelming majority of
cases -- then it won't be afffected.

If the question is answered without analyzing the code, then the
answer is usually wrong. Dates are found in code which one would
think, based on externals, would not need dates. Or which doesn't
actually need dates but has them anyway.

If the date is not input manually and there is no real time clock in the
system, then where does the code get the date?

Realize that in general, even a minor error in a computer program can
make the entire program fail.

Only if you write brittle, poorly constructed programs.

Which describes a frightening amount of production code, and even more
so in 1990 than in 2010. I hope ...

Edward

From what I know, the only problem was subtracting dates. I wonder how
much would have been a problem, even with no correction. Sounds like
more trouble than I would have expected.

I'm not enough of a computer guy to know for sure. My prediction in
1999 was that we'd have about a week of glitches and rolling black
outs and other problems. I'm glad we didn't have even that much
trouble.

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..


"Edward Reid" wrote in message
...

So, people who say "January 1, 2000 wasn't a big deal, why did we
spend all that money" are wrong. January 1, 2000 wasn't a big deal
*because* we spent all that money. Without the remediation effort, the
human world, the first world anyway, would pretty much have come to a
stop that day.

Edward

In article , Edward Reid wrote:
On Sun, 03 Oct 2010 16:33:22 GMT, (Doug Miller)
wrote:
More nonsense. Nearly every bank in the world that didn't already know
about the Y2K problem became aware of it no later than the first business day
of 1970; that is, the first time they tried to write a 30-year mortgage that
terminated after 1999.

Banks have to project more than 30 years. For example, 40-year
mortgages exist (even if it's a stupid thing to do). That doesn't mean
they paid attention. In 1970, saving two bytes several times in each
record was a big deal. The mind set was still 80-column cards -- not
surprising since banks used a lot of punched card equipment priori to
computers. Were they given a clue? Yes. Did they act on it? Seldom --
as is evidenced by the huge amount of work banks had to do for Y2K
remediation.

The people I know who were working in banking at the time don't seem to think
so. Oh, well.

Only in the sense that someone is capable of *imagining* ways in which they
could fail. The simple fact is that *no* device that was not date-aware had
*any* potential at all for failure.

I'm surprised by your belief that software systems are so robust. Even
if one particular subsystem is sound, it can be brought down by the
subsystems around it. Flight control software may have been sound
(AFAIK the stories about an airplane inverting when it crossed the
equator are pure urban legend), but airplanes have several
computerized systems on board, and not all are so purely involved with
avionics.

You're doing nothing more than regurgitating some of the less ridiculous scare
stories that circulated in the y2k newsgroup in 1998 and 1999.

I never read any such newsgroup and I'm regurgitating nothing. My
opinions are based on my own experience, with perhaps a bit of input
from IEEE Spectrum -- not exactly the most alarmist publication on the
planet.

You had actual experience with "most web sites" (your phrase, not mine) that
enables you to state with confidence that most of them would have gone down?

Yeah, riiiiiight.

Yes, and in most cases, the analysis consisted of asking "Does this device
know what day it is? Do we have to set the date as part of its startup
procedure?" If the answer is no -- as it is in the overwhelming majority of
cases -- then it won't be afffected.

If the question is answered without analyzing the code, then the
answer is usually wrong. Dates are found in code which one would
think, based on externals, would not need dates. Or which doesn't
actually need dates but has them anyway.

Utter nonsense. If there's no way of putting a date into the system, it has no
way of keeping track of the date and hence is unaffected by dates in any way.

Realize that in general, even a minor error in a computer program can
make the entire program fail.

Only if you write brittle, poorly constructed programs.

Which describes a frightening amount of production code, and even more
so in 1990 than in 2010. I hope ...

Edward

In article , Edward Reid wrote:
[...]
I never read any such newsgroup and I'm regurgitating nothing. My
opinions are based on my own experience, with perhaps a bit of input
from IEEE Spectrum -- not exactly the most alarmist publication on the
planet.

Not exactly the most informed publication, either, when it comes to IT issues,
I'd imagine. Most engineers I've worked with don't have the first clue about
computer software, and you obviously are no exception.

In article , rangerssuck wrote:
On Oct 3, 12:33=A0pm, (Doug Miller) wrote:
[snip]

Oh, bull****, it would not have.

Dude, I'm not going to take the time to go item by item, but your post
was pretty damned close to COMPLETELY wrong.

No, of course not -- because then you'd actually have to put some effort into
demonstrating that. Which of course you can't. You have no idea what you're
talking about.

On Sep 28, 11:38*pm, DerbyDad03 wrote:
On Sep 28, 11:32*pm, mm wrote:





On Tue, 28 Sep 2010 12:42:33 -0400, wrote:
On Tue, 28 Sep 2010 09:30:10 -0700 (PDT), "hr(bob) "
wrote:

On Sep 28, 11:16*am, LouB wrote:
Stormin Mormon wrote:
* *http://hfreviews.com/reviews.php
If you have used a Harbor Freight item or considering buying one.
Write a reveiew, or read what others say. Might help others, or save
yourself some grief. I'm not the webmaster, and I didn't come up with
the idea.

Probably will have a lot of complaints

Bought one of their wrist-mounted blood pressure gizmos a month ago,
on sale for $12.99 I think, we're very happy with the device, it works
great once you learn how to mount it properly on your wrist. *Other
small stuff I've purchased seems to be ok, not high quality, but great
for the price.

Anyone who expects a BMW for the price of a Yugo will be disappointed.
Harbor Freight has a LOT of loyal customers who buy with that
understanding. Meanwhile, I have many things from HF that turned out
to be MUCH better than I expected.

A few disappointments, too, but it was never a costly mistake. :-)

I bought a bunch of things and have never been disappointed that I
remember. *I bought one of the 4x8 trailers for 200 or 250, had it
delivered to my brother's in Texas, assembled it there, and drove back
with some of my old furniture on it. *Worked fine, still have it, but
have not much need for it. *Oh yeah, the wiring to the lights was
complete, but very flimsy, and the clips that clipped it to the frame
didn't work well, and the wires dropped out and got cut. *I bought a
new harness, from them, packaged seaprately. . I should tape it on or
better yet drlll holes and use wire holders. *Maybe I will.

"...have never been disappointed that I remember."

You mean you weren't disappointed that "the clips that clipped it to
the frame
didn't work well, and the wires dropped out and got cut"?

What would it have taken to disappoint you?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Well, to start with, expectations. They aren't too high with HF. I
buy stuff there with the expectation of short term and the hope of
long term.

On Tue, 28 Sep 2010 09:00:01 -0400, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:

http://hfreviews.com/reviews.php
If you have used a Harbor Freight item or considering buying one.
Write a reveiew, or read what others say. Might help others, or save
yourself some grief. I'm not the webmaster, and I didn't come up with
the idea.

It's good to write a review after using a product. I look at reviews
before I buy most stuff.
But you have to use some discrimination.
Toss out the,

"I just opened the box. It's beautiful. Color perfecty compliments
my other appliances. 5 Stars!"

"Man, this is one good drill. Used it for 2 weeks now and already
drilled 17 1/4" holes through the 2x4's for my new rabbit cages.
Definitely 5 Stars!"

"This buffer is junk. I used my last Acme buffer to sand 3 vanities
and a wardrobe. I can't even glue the sandpaper to this one.
It just won't stick to the pad they use. 0 Stars!"

You get the picture.
Besides, I got a couple of feelings about the reviews.
People are more likely to squawk than praise.
So the "rating" can be deceptive.
You get a hundred reviews with half complaining.
But maybe they sold 1000. That probably means the product is better
than the reviews indicate.
Then you got your $300 toaster.
The people that pay $300 for a f**king toaster are probably too stupid
to know what's making their bagels all black and real crunchy, but
can still manage to type out "5 Stars!"
Of course some have moments of sanity, and write a review saying
"I can't believe I paid $300 for this f**king toaster."
But most paying big bucks for junk will stand by their junk.

Having said all that, I bought a washing machine with pretty bad
reviews. But the reviews compelled me to pay almost 200 bucks for an
"instant replacement" warranty.
I hardly ever buy that kind of warranty.
Why did I buy that washer?
It's the one my wife wanted.
I figured 200 bucks was worth keeping her quiet.
It almost worked.
You are always rolling the dice.

--Vic

Neat. I've not seen washing machines at HF. Please post a link.

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..


"Vic Smith" wrote in message
...

Having said all that, I bought a washing machine with pretty bad
reviews. But the reviews compelled me to pay almost 200 bucks for an
"instant replacement" warranty.
I hardly ever buy that kind of warranty.
Why did I buy that washer?
It's the one my wife wanted.
I figured 200 bucks was worth keeping her quiet.
It almost worked.
You are always rolling the dice.

--Vic

On Oct 7, 5:51*pm, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:
Neat. I've not seen washing machines at HF. Please post a link.

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
*www.lds.org
.

"Vic Smith" wrote in message

...

Having said all that, I bought a washing machine with pretty bad
reviews. *But the reviews compelled me to pay almost 200 bucks for an
"instant replacement" warranty.
I hardly ever buy that kind of warranty.
Why did I buy that washer?
It's the one my wife wanted.
I figured 200 bucks was worth keeping her quiet.
It almost worked.
You are always rolling the dice.

--Vic

I clicked on the link followed by learn more about Jesus but it was
not working but I did find a link that was benificial!

Here it is if anyone wants to learn.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...5813330&hl=en#