Maestro, a little logic please....

greenspun.com : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread

According to all the happy go lucky types like Decker et all, I can only assume (not being a programmer) that most, if not all computers and mainframes have only a few lines of simple code, like: 1 + 1 = 2 then 00 = 2000, or something like that. And most embedded chips were oufitted with large neon signs that can be seen from 5 miles out. As well, the majority of computers can be operated manually, if the power does indeed go out (I believe all computers from 1974 on have a hidden abacus and tinly little wind up clock, but correct me if I'm wrong). This, I assume, is why we should all not worry and be happy as we approach the new millenium.

Saul

-- Saul (Layin@low.rightnow), November 05, 1999

Answers

Well, the problem IS simple. it just takes alot of hard work and man hours to fix all those many millions examples of a simple problem. So... the billions spent, the countless man hours spent...and yet you gusy still rely on the old "If it ain't 100% compliant then it's ALL going to fail". (What I'd like you non-techies to do for me is explain the term "compliant" in a way that could be used to describe any given system. Can't do it can ya?)

I have a midrange AS/400 sitting right here in my house. It's a very old version (v2r3). It's not Y2k "compliant". That just means that the dates are going to look a little screwy. Does it mean that it won't work at all? NO!

It'll probably take me all of a day to make it "compliant". I might not even do it, just to see what happens. Do some FOF, or just get a better understanding of WHY things went screwy. It helps me understand the whole process better.I've even gone as far as to infect my PC's with virii to gain more knowledge. Luckily for me I have the leeway to do this because I don't have anyone else that relies on my machine's functionality. Other companies area differnt story, and every company that I have been consulting with are long sicne done with their remediation and have moved on to bigger and better things.

-- (COBOL@code.head), November 05, 1999.


Delete

-- eyes_open (best@wishes.not), November 05, 1999.

Okee-Dokee. So if I apply your logic once more, then all computers are not really connected, that most computers actually communicate via extrasensory perception. So, therefore, the problem isn't really sytemic, but rather, the problem is that not enough computers are psychic. Am I following you?

Saul

-- Saul (wow@wow.again), November 05, 1999.


LOL!!!

ya..... right

-- (COBOL@code.head), November 05, 1999.


Delete yourself, buttboy.

-- Saul (well@well.again), November 05, 1999.


Saul,

Please, go take a C++ course, or an intro to BASIC. Just don't waste your time here postulating about things that you really don't know anything about.

(That little LOL was for eyes_open, who is obviously scared of anything that doesn't have TEOTW written on it).

-- (COBOL@code.head), November 05, 1999.


COBOL is a VERY simple language to learn and program....maybe one of the easiest. You have obviously done ZERO research on the century date problem.

-- bob (bob@bob.com), November 05, 1999.

WTF????

How do you know what I do bob? Is this how you approach any given topic? Assume you know something as fact until proved wrong? Well, consider yourself proved wrong. Why? Because I just told you so. I hope you have enough brain activiy to accept that.

If this is any indication as to how you guys think I might as well just leave and let you wallow in FUD.

-- (COBOL@code.head), November 05, 1999.


Colbalt brain, looky. You are a dolt OK. Its that simple. Your intellectual abilities are quite obvious. You live on planet Cobalt, which is far removed from our little ol earth. Do you vote for Clinton?

Saul

-- Saul (well@well.again), November 05, 1999.


Cobol, why don't you go over and flex your cobol knowledge muscle with the big boys at csy2k. When you're done and you're still in one piece, we'd like to chat with you.

-- Glober (globe-ular@bigfoot.com), November 05, 1999.


I'M THE DOLT???

Okay... bye kids. Have fun playing Quake on your Pentiums. You'll never learn a frigging thing.

-- (COBOL@code.head), November 05, 1999.


COBOL,

For a supposed tech type you are truly a doofus. You apparently don't read a damn thing or you would have seen several current posts on the definition of "compliant". It is the central theme in the Way (IEEE) vs. Yourdon debate. Gawd, are you dumb, or what?

TruthSeeker

-- TruthSeeker (truthseeker @ seek truth.always), November 05, 1999.


Yeah... and when I asked YOU GUYS for that definition you resort to name calling and belittling. (What exactly did I say that you little fuckheads can't understand???)

You insult My intellectual abilities?

Get Real.

-- (COBOL@code.head), November 05, 1999.


I mean god damn, I've heard the definition before... I just wanted to hear it from you guys. One simple thing, and you lose control of yourselves. I guess this is your way of proving that TEOTW is upon us huh? Gang up on someone and then high five each other when they leave.

What a mixed up bunch of pathetic, techno-phobic Doombrooders.

-- (COBOL@code.head), November 05, 1999.


I thought you were leaving, you stupid polly.

-- (brett@miklos.org), November 05, 1999.


Okay, I'm going to walk you through this:

(And glober I don't feel like flaxing my muscle anywhere, why do you think I do? CSy2k is full of buttheads like Milne anyway so I'd never post anything there. Considering the responses here it's all for the best).

I said "what I'd like for you non-techies to do for me is define "compliant" for me.". Saul said he wasn't a programmer so I wanted his definition, which I'm sure would be a laugh riot if he had the guts to post it. Of course, if he is a programmer, and that post is BS, then he a troll and why the fuck are you on MY case?

Anyway...

I also said....

"What a mixed up bunch of pathetic, techno-phobic Doombrooders."

No, after re-reading the entire thread and seeing it's obvious I didn't do anything wrong, I want to amend my statement.

"What a bunch of assholes!!!!"

Don't have a nice day, and don't look both ways before crossing busy streets. The sooner the world is rid you the better.

I'm out of this madhouse. Buuuuuuuuh-bye.

-- (COBOL@code.head), November 05, 1999.


COBOL,

Don't let the doorknob hit you in the ass on the way out!

TruthSeeker

-- TruthSeeker (truthseeker@seek truth.always), November 05, 1999.


Cobol will talk to a "mixed up bunch of pathetic, techno-phobic Doombrooders", but not the "buttheads like Milne". If this is not a major disconnect, it at least puts us above the 'buttheads'.

But now we are "a bunch of assholes", which puts us below the belt. Guess the belt is that line that should not be crossed....

-- ByeBye (For@Now.com), November 05, 1999.


You see Colbol, its like this. You represent the naive portion of the population that won't be ready for systemic failure. So, we who will, will have to keep one eye open for all the starving pollies. Anyway, not being a programmer doesn't shirk me about defining compliance. I'm going to use sheer common sense with what little I know about computers to suggest the following definition: compliance means that a computer's operating system recognizes 00 as 2000. Therefore, the operating system and software won't misinterpret any related date-sensitive functions (of which there are many). In other words, the hardware and software AND networking capabilities will not be reduced to gibberish by 'illogical' commands, like negative integers etc. How's that?

Saul

-- Saul (see@ya.cobalt), November 05, 1999.


He's probably not tall enough to hit his ass on the doorknob.

-- bob (bob@bob.com), November 05, 1999.

I mean god damn, I've heard the definition before... I just wanted to hear it from you guys.

It's a troll. Let it starve.

For anyone possessing both curiosity and integrity, a lot of discussion has produced some useful definitions of "compliant". Search the newsgroup via deja and enjoy.

-- Grrr (grrr@grrr.net), November 05, 1999.


ROFLMAO, bob.

-- (teehee@tee.hee), November 05, 1999.

btthpppppthththhththt!!!!!!!!

-- Bronx Cheer for all of you (COBOL@code.head), November 05, 1999.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ