It's SYSTEMIC!!! All computers will crash!

How do you begin to address this type of statement.

Yes, this problem is world-wide and we don't live in an isolated world. Systemic problems due to being interconnected - well let's just say that networks are interconnected, but almost all systems and networks (notice I said almost) have got fail-safe modes built into their software, firmware and topology (linkages) which will stop the failure from propogating like the lights on an old Christmas tree.

Much of the fray has been about either the power grid (which is a network and interconnected) and the banking industry. I have a number of friends (software/hardware folks) that work in the energy industry and their job has been (for many more years than there has been a Y2K scare) to allow both the interconnection, yet independance of hubs and sub-stations on the grid. Understand that the reason for the grid in the first place was not so much to act as a back-up for a failed hub or substation, but to allow the sale of excess energy from one hub to the grid. The use of the grid as a back-up energy source was a secondary reason for it's existance. When the outbound flow of a singular hub to the grid causes the reserve energy for the hub's own substations to fall below a specific level, that hub will basically disconnect itself (if left unattended) from the grid and continue to supply it's substations with the normal level of energy.

Banking industry - This is something that I have many years of personal experience in. BTW, I have been part of the computer industry since 1971 and carry all the credentials of someone who you would trust your bank to. Additionally I have done a lot of work in the PC and embedded processor industry from both a hobby as well as professionally. The network in the banking industry works in an asynchronous fashion. In other words, it is like the old telephone system party-line. Banks and their hubs can drop in on an existing conversation between other hubs/banks and make their presence known. When it is their turn, they will transmit/receive the data they are responsible for and drop out of the conversation. The data in the "bundles" is protected via encryption so one bank cannot decode another bank's bundle (if for some reason it should receive a bundle not meant for it) and it is automatically sent back to the originator in the next conversation. The conversations are ongoing, but the number of participants varies. The content of the bundles is packets, and within those packets are interface files. Those files contain records which ascribe to an international standard in regard to their format and content. This standard was basically setup by the Federal Reserve system which has required the use of century in the year for as many years as I can remember. In other words, generally speaking, we in the USA will be alright. I cannot speak for the international transfer of data to/from the FRS except to the degree that any transfers taking place today must ascribe to the standard set by the FRS.

There are many indicators which point to a less than catastrophic "bump in the night" with mild repercussions resounding for the following year.

As I said before, I do not know what will be the long-term or short-term implications of the Y2K problem. I do, however, have a higher degree of comfort in regard to Y2K issues along with others in the same profession as myself.

Yours in COBOL... Dino!

-- COBOL Dinosaur (COBOL_Dinosaur@yahoo.com), May 14, 1999

Answers

BULLSHIT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!BULLSHIT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!BULLSHIT !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!BULLSHIT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!BULLSHIT!!!!!!!!!!

-- Dr. Albert Estivez (alvez@aol.com), May 14, 1999.

Well, Dr. Albert, obviously you are one of those people who can't stand to hear someone say anything good. As far as I am concerned, Cobol Dinosaur has a lot of good points. My gut feeling is, though, it will be worse than what he says but of course we are all entitled to our opinions,

However, to use abusive language in a post is neither constructive nor proves you have any intelligence. Let's keep everything as naer the facts as possible okay?

-- Laura (no@answer.com), May 14, 1999.

Bump in the night?

-- Sheesh (Mal@prop.com), May 14, 1999.

Hi Dino,

I think we're all glad you're comfortable with your position, though from the general tone of your comments, and lack of factual support to back up your statements, it's difficult to determine where that comfort originates. Some points you've missed along the way, which you might want to check out further:

1. almost no one is saying that all of the computers are going to crash. What is being said is that complex systems will become increasingly corrupted and unreliable to the point of becoming unusable. All of your safeguards are predicated on the concept that the safeguards themselves are not corrupted or corruptible...an unproven concept in a y2k environment in which the very systems the safeguards depend upon for accuracy may themselves be corrupt.

2. Your friends in the utility industry forgot to mention a couple of things to you, most importantly that the reason there is a need to sell power across the grid is because some local utilities *cannot* meet the needs of their own customer base under all circumstances. That means when islanding begins, so do the brownouts/blackouts. Just as importantly, your friends forgot to mention that there are a number of power companies out there which buy ALL of their power across the grid. Now you may be thinking that only occurs in rural areas - places you don't care about, but if you'd be wrong. You need to go ask your friends in the utility industry what's happening with deregulation. In some states, there is even a requirement that local utilities buy power from other sources. Guess what happens when the grid starts breaking up due to islanding? you got it - more blackouts.

3. if you are certain that the financial institution you claim to work for is y2k compliant, then you should have no problem providing us with it's name, or yours for that matter. To borrow from another thread - your information on your claimed successes in the financial industry is entirely anecdotal. It would also be helpful if you could provide a little more factual evidence to support your claim that you know that the entire financial complex in the US is y2k compliant. I say this, because your use of 'standards' does nothing to disprove that corrupt data will not be passed, as long as that data meets the format required by the standard. We've certainly seen no evidence to support that claim from anywhere else.

Arlin Adams

-- Arlin H. Adams (ahadams@ix.netcom.com), May 14, 1999.

While I agree that the good Doctor's post is redundant with his four BULL SHITS and multiple (too many to count) exclamation marks, I do not agree that his language denotes a lack, or abundance, of intelligence. I am not offended by swearing, I swear rather creatively myself, and I know many intelligent people that swear. But I, and they try for more interesting variety than the Doctor. I think one should know when it is appropriate to swear, and not to swear. A forum where strong opinions abound, seems an acceptable stage to me.

But of course, the point is that we think he is wrong. And his swearing, while not that vulgar, certainly didn't add any new information concerning why he thought the post was BS.

Ever since I heard Bill Buckley blare out on "Firing Line," a few years ago, and say, "I'm beginning to sound like a God-damned Liberal," and everyone just howled, I've felt better about swearing. This forum is notorious for focusing on people's language.

-- gilda (jess@listbot.com), May 14, 1999.

Swearing shows a great lack of manners. Just 'cause someone else does it doesn't mean you have to jump off that bridge too.

Anyway, regardless of the language, the messages each of us send is only a reflection of our OPINIONS. There is nothing here that is based on hard cold facts. So it seems rather pointless to waste our time discussing if or if not it will be TEOTWAWKI. For the lousy 3 hours some people spend surfing could be put to better use in shoring up the food shelves, or digging the outdoor latrine, or something constructive....Prepare as YOU feel, other's OPINIONS are no concern.

(This in only a generic post to all peoples, not directed at anyone specific.)

-- Laura (dont@ask.com), May 14, 1999.

OK, fuck off, Gilda.

-- Mr. Four-Letters (You@Asked.For.Shit), May 14, 1999.

[snip]This standard was basically setup by the Federal Reserve system which has required the use of century in the year [snip]

Did anybody see this quote in the original post? If it is true, does it mean anything?? Can anybody here prove it is wrong??? If this is true, it would practically put Gary North out of business overnight, at least on his banking comments. If this data has beeen compliant for who knows how many years, how are non-complinat banks going to "corrupt" the compliant ones??

-- walt (Walt@lcs.k12.ne.us), May 14, 1999.

Bite me, Mr. Four Letter Jackass.

-- gilda (jess@listbot.com), May 14, 1999.

Walt,

check out the Banking archives for details on imported data and related information.

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), May 14, 1999.

Knock it off guys, what a way to welcome someone to the forum!

COBOL Dinosaur,

Welcome, and it's always nice to have an "insider" join us. For me, the banking industry isn't one of my personal concerns at this point. I will have enough "liquid assets" to hold me off for quite a while, at the loss of a few % in interest. I do have some faith in the bank/FDIC. I still have a few long term CDs. I figure that if we're not out of the woods in a year, it ain't gonna matter much. A few here think I'm nuts for leaving any money in the bank. Personal choice I guess.

My concerns are power, oil, transportation, imports, communications, you know, the big ticket items. Fortune-500 for example. Being a fellow old-timer, do you know when the CENTURY field first showed up in IBM Cobol CURRENT-DATE? I'm missing about 5 years of manuals, and can't find an exact date. Also, do you know of any Fortune-500 company that does not have at least one mainframe? Just wondering, since some of our fellow old-times aren't sure. See ya. <:)=

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), May 14, 1999.

one of your better posts sysman - LOL! remind me never to go along with you if you say 'hand me that knife'! :-)

Arlin

-- Arlin H. Adams (ahadams@ix.netcom.com), May 14, 1999.

The only poster I have ever seen use the phrase F*-off here is.....

"We're doomed I tell you, doomed!" Pvt. Frazier, Dad's Army, Wallington on the sea. (Did I remember the quote right?)

Cheers,

-- Unc D (unkeed@yahoo.com), May 15, 1999.

This is in response to the COBOL Dinosaur.

I've been involved in mainframe work for perhaps as long as you have, and I don't see any credence in this 9/9/99 scare either. The date would be stored as 090999. This is a FAR cry from ALL nines....not to mention this being a far cry from this particular field being used to delineate end of file.

Anita

-- Anita Spooner (spoonera@msn.com), May 16, 1999.

Walt,

Regardless of the existence or absence of this standard in the US, the non-compliant banks,(US and overseas) will still be able to corrupt the compliant banks. NOT because the data coming in has serious date errors, as the input data edits should catch them, but because the DATA that is a RESULT of date calculations may be incorrect. Being within range and incorrect are not mutually exclusive.

Chuck

-- chuck, a Night Driver (rienzoo@en.com), May 16, 1999.

Anita;

(gotta learn to go to the bottom before answerring so's I can batch em LOL)

I know of at LEAST 3 systems that my fingerprints as an analyst are on where our programmers used a record of "999999" in the DATE-REC to indicate the last record in the file. (A Juvenile Court Tracking System, a Welfare System and a Bureau of Support System) As well as most of the systems done to "standards" (you should pardon the expression) at a large Pre-paid Hospitalization Company.

Chuck

PS the fact remains that NO coomputer is going to read 09/09/99 or 090999 as 999999.

-- chuck, a Night Driver (rienzoo@en.com), May 16, 1999.

Yeah, and there are no COMputers that'll read it that way either.

OY VEY Chuck

-- chuck, a Night Driver (rienzoo@en.com), May 16, 1999.

Not that Dino is a troll or anythin', y'unnerstan'.

From the index of the Gary North is a Big Fat Idiot forum:

1242. 9/9/99 to bring a preview of armageddon? - Take a look! by COBOL Dinosaur, May 14, 08:19 1. Might I persuade you [to post this at the Yourdon Swamp] by Paul Davis, May 14, 10:09

(_ I just tossed it into the swamp - run for cover! by COBOL Dinosaur, May 14, 11:26

(_ Thanks Dino by Paul Davis, May 14, 11:41

So, Dino pup, what's it feel like to be patted on the head by Sayn't Paul?

(Quoted by)

-- OutingsR (us@here.yar), May 16, 1999.

Arlin,

Cut me a break! About the only time I would ask you for the knife, would be to cut the rope from which you were hanging. Jeez man, I'm just trying to welcome a newbie! <:)=

PS - Don't ever give me the gun...

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), May 16, 1999.

Thanks for reminding me Unc, yeah you got the quote right :)

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), May 17, 1999.

Arlin Adams said "I think we're all glad you're comfortable with your position, though from the general tone of your comments, and lack of factual support to back up your statements, it's difficult to determine where that comfort originates."

While I appreciate your concern for the origin of my "comfort", I am also realizing that the more time I spend in this forum and read plausible answers to sometimes ludicrous questions, that the respondent is shot down many times over with innuendo and crass comments. It is not my position to provide absolutely convincing evidence to you or anyone in this forum. On the contrary - you feel that I am lying, I feel the burden of proof is upon you!

I function as a Systems Analyst in the Consultant industry. I cannot, under contract, reveal the names of my clients in a public forum or any other place. If I do not abide by my contracts I am held liable. It does not take a rocket scientist to understand this.

Arlin Adams said "1. almost no one is saying that all of the computers are going to crash. What is being said is that complex systems will become increasingly corrupted and unreliable to the point of becoming unusable. All of your safeguards are predicated on the concept that the safeguards themselves are not corrupted or corruptible...an unproven concept in a y2k environment in which the very systems the safeguards depend upon for accuracy may themselves be corrupt. "

Arlin, at what point did I say that the safeguards (fallbacks - redundant links) were not already tested or not related to any date driven processes? In regard to network topology the redundancy is built in on a multi-tiered basis consisting of hardware, software and firmware.

Arlin Adams said; "2. Your friends in the utility industry forgot to mention a couple of things to you, most importantly that the reason there is a need to sell power across the grid is because some local utilities *cannot* meet the needs of their own customer base under all circumstances. That means when islanding begins, so do the brownouts/blackouts. Just as importantly, your friends forgot to mention that there are a number of power companies out there which buy ALL of their power across the grid. Now you may be thinking that only occurs in rural areas - places you don't care about, but if you'd be wrong. You need to go ask your friends in the utility industry what's happening with deregulation. In some states, there is even a requirement that local utilities buy power from other sources. Guess what happens when the grid starts breaking up due to islanding? you got it - more blackouts."

See my post above concerning network topology. This is also true of the energy industry. The most common topology is the "Star" topology, which consists of 3 to 6 points all, connected with each other (hardwired). Any one of the points can go down without causing a loss to the remaining points. In this topology scenario, each power station is a point which has it's own substations interconnected to it in it's own star topology. Can "islanding" happen? Sure it is within the realm of possibility. It is not, however, within the realm of probability.

Arlin Adams said "3. if you are certain that the financial institution you claim to work for is y2k compliant, then you should have no problem providing us with it's name, or yours for that matter. To borrow from another thread - your information on your claimed successes in the financial industry is entirely anecdotal. It would also be helpful if you could provide a little more factual evidence to support your claim that you know that the entire financial complex in the US is y2k compliant. I say this, because your use of 'standards' does nothing to disprove that corrupt data will not be passed, as long as that data meets the format required by the standard. We've certainly seen no evidence to support that claim from anywhere else. "

See my post above concerning confidentiality of the client. My name is Randy Van de Loo and you can reach me at COBOL_Dinosaur@yahoo.com. Suppose you tell me what evidence I would be able to supply you with that you would not consider to be "anecdotal" ? I could post COBOL Logic (code) if you like. Would you be able to read and understand it? You seem to think that standards prepared by multinational organizations were done haphazardly or with little forethought. I suppose you are in a position to advise us all when a standard is "bogus" or insufficient for the application? Certainly the data coming in via a standardized interface could be corrupt or non- compliant to the standard. This is why all front-end programs edit the inbound data for compliance and prepare a "rejection" packet for re-transmission to the originating source. In other words if the date field is 8 bytes long and is MMDDCCYY in format and the data comes in 01010000 - it will be rejected. The data should have been 01012000. Now as to whether or not the data is correct even though it is in the correct format, there are other edits that can and are used. Reasonability edits for instance. If the current data being processed is for the last week in December of 1999 and the inbound transaction date shows a deposit being made 01052000, we will reject it. Why? Because it was batched wrong - it is returned to the origin point as a reject. What more do you want Arlin - the blinkity- blanken layout for the interface? Couldn't give it to you anyway as it is protected by - you guessed it - confidentiality agreements and contracts.

============================

walt (Walt@lcs.k12.ne.us), May 14, 1999. said "Did anybody see this quote in the original post? If it is true, does it mean anything?? Can anybody here prove it is wrong??? If this is true, it would practically put Gary North out of business overnight, at least on his banking comments. If this data has beeen compliant for who knows how many years, how are non-complinat banks going to "corrupt" the compliant ones?? "

Good point Walt. Whether you choose to believe it or not, it *is* true. The "Systemic" collapse of the FRS and FRB cannot happen due to data related or topology related failures.. We made darned sure of it.

============================

Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), May 14, 1999. said "Welcome, and it's always nice to have an "insider" join us. "

Thank you Sysman.

Sysman said "Being a fellow old-timer, do you know when the CENTURY field first showed up in IBM Cobol CURRENT-DATE? I'm missing about 5 years of manuals, and can't find an exact date. Also, do you know of any Fortune-500 company that does not have at least one mainframe? Just wondering, since some of our fellow old-times aren't sure. "

COBOL/390, COBOL/370, COBOL-II (Also known as COBOL-85 with a "twist") have the capability of using Intrinsic functions - There is one known as CURRENT-DATE code to follow:

01 YYYYMMDD PIC 9(8). . . .

MOVE FUNCTION CURRENT-DATE(1:8) TO YYYMMDD

In this scenario the current date will be placed in the field known as YYYYMMDD.

=============================

Anita said "I've been involved in mainframe work for perhaps as long as you have, and I don't see any credence in this 9/9/99 scare either. The date would be stored as 090999. This is a FAR cry from ALL nines....not to mention this being a far cry from this particular field being used to delineate end of file. "

Thank you Anita. Good to hear from another fellow Dinosaur.

=============================

Chuck said "Regardless of the existence or absence of this standard in the US, the non-compliant banks,(US and overseas) will still be able to corrupt the compliant banks. NOT because the data coming in has serious date errors, as the input data edits should catch them, but because the DATA that is a RESULT of date calculations may be incorrect. Being within range and incorrect are not mutually exclusive. "

I appreciate your response and concern over this issue. Certainly it is within the realm of possibility for corrupt (incorrect) data to enter the system - BUT - as you have probably read earlier within this post, it is unlikely that this could / would happen. Regardless, your statement that non-compliant banks would "still be able to corrupt the compliant banks" is totally unfounded and without merit. Unless, of course, you would like to supply proof to the contrary.

I do appreciate your other comments on this forum - you seem to have a fair understanding of the industry in general and I hope that I am able to bolster that knowledge, even if slightly, through my posts.

=============================

OutingsR (us@here.yar said "Not that Dino is a troll or anythin', y'unnerstan'. From the index of the Gary North is a Big Fat Idiot forum:

1242. 9/9/99 to bring a preview of armageddon? - Take a look! by COBOL Dinosaur, May 14, 08:19 1. Might I persuade you [to post this at the Yourdon Swamp] by Paul Davis, May 14, 10:09

(_ I just tossed it into the swamp - run for cover! by COBOL Dinosaur, May 14, 11:26

(_ Thanks Dino by Paul Davis, May 14, 11:41

So, Dino pup, what's it feel like to be patted on the head by Sayn't Paul? "

Thank you for your concern as to my whereabouts in other forums. Since I have not seen your postings on the BFI forum, may I take it that it is *YOU* that may very well be a troll?

And as you can see by some of the comments leveled at me in this forum, I was indeed pounced upon as I had predicted.

=============================

To any and all - I appreciate your time that you invest in these forums. Logical minds and cool heads shall prevail over the Y2K and any resultant issues.

Yours in COBOL... Dino!

-- COBOL Dinosaur (COBOL_Dinosaur@yahoo.com), May 17, 1999.