Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: Airwasp <Airwasp@***.COM>
Subject: Real-Life Computing ...
Date: Tue, 26 May 1998 17:24:39 EDT
For anyone wanting grins and giggles ... consider the following ...

Intel is going to begin selling chips to the consumer market sometime in the
year 2000 ...

Their speed .... 800 MHz ...

(Drool)

Mike
Message no. 2
From: BigDaddy <bigdaddy@*****.COM>
Subject: Re: Real-Life Computing ...
Date: Tue, 26 May 1998 17:38:05 -0400
Airwasp wrote:
>
> For anyone wanting grins and giggles ... consider the following ...
>
> Intel is going to begin selling chips to the consumer market sometime in the
> year 2000 ...
>
> Their speed .... 800 MHz ...
>
That's if and a big IF they get the 2k bug squashed. Hell wont that be
funny. "we'll sell ya a chip that might work in the year 2000." But i
wonder what happened in SR to cope with the year 2k bug? any ideas?
--
Napalm Sticks to Kidz,
BigDaddy
Message no. 3
From: Justin Bell <justin@******.NET>
Subject: Re: Real-Life Computing ...
Date: Tue, 26 May 1998 16:49:32 -0500
At 05:38 PM 5/26/98 -0400, BigDaddy wrote:
# Airwasp wrote:
# >
# > For anyone wanting grins and giggles ... consider the following ...
# >
# > Intel is going to begin selling chips to the consumer market sometime
in the
# > year 2000 ...
# >
# > Their speed .... 800 MHz ...
# >
# That's if and a big IF they get the 2k bug squashed. Hell wont that be
# funny. "we'll sell ya a chip that might work in the year 2000." But i
# wonder what happened in SR to cope with the year 2k bug? any ideas?

you realise the 2029 bug was when the 32 bit time bug in UNIX hit
;)
--
/- justin@****.mcp.com -------------------- justin@******.net -\
|Justin Bell NIC:JB3084| Time and rules are changing. |
|Simon & Schuster | Attention span is quickening. |
|Programmer | Welcome to the Information Age. |
\------------ http://www.mcp.com/people/justin/ ---------------/
Message no. 4
From: Mike Loseke <mike@*******.COM>
Subject: Re: Real-Life Computing ...
Date: Tue, 26 May 1998 15:58:07 -0600
Thus spake Airwasp:
>
> For anyone wanting grins and giggles ... consider the following ...
>
> Intel is going to begin selling chips to the consumer market sometime in the
> year 2000 ...
>
> Their speed .... 800 MHz ...

They're still a bit behind the competition. IBM, earlier this year,
announced that they have demonstrated the first procesor that can operate
beyond 1GHz. Digital Alpha processors have been over 600MHz (and higher)
for some time now.

http://www.ibm.com/News/1998/02/ls980204.html

However, Intel shipping speeds like this to mass market consumers for
somewhat reasonable prices, is important. The more power on distributed
systems, whatever the processor, will only bring us nearer to the
Matrix-like netowrks of the future. I'm already saving up for a datajack
and an encephalon. :-)

--
| Even Einstein objected to the idea of
Mike Loseke | wave-function collapse, calling it
mike@*******.com | "spooky action-at-a-distance."
Message no. 5
From: BigDaddy <bigdaddy@*****.COM>
Subject: Re: Real-Life Computing ...
Date: Tue, 26 May 1998 18:09:14 -0400
Mike Loseke wrote:
>
> Thus spake Airwasp:
> >
> > For anyone wanting grins and giggles ... consider the following ...
> >
> > Intel is going to begin selling chips to the consumer market sometime in the
> > year 2000 ...
> >
> > Their speed .... 800 MHz ...
>
> They're still a bit behind the competition. IBM, earlier this year,
> announced that they have demonstrated the first procesor that can operate
> beyond 1GHz. Digital Alpha processors have been over 600MHz (and higher)
> for some time now.
but the 1ghz chip is only soooo stable at sooo low of a temp. as soon as
they invent microcooled, and minaturized NO machines (hehehe i want one)
then the speed will FLY! until they find a way to decrease that heat
that all us engineers out there hate, we will be slowly increasing in
speed.
>
> http://www.ibm.com/News/1998/02/ls980204.html
Message no. 6
From: Robert Watkins <robert.watkins@******.COM>
Subject: Re: Real-Life Computing ...
Date: Wed, 27 May 1998 08:57:56 +1000
BigDaddy writes:
>That's if and a big IF they get the 2k bug squashed. Hell wont that be
>funny. "we'll sell ya a chip that might work in the year 2000." But i
>wonder what happened in SR to cope with the year 2k bug? any ideas?


The crash of '29 was just an extended version of the Y2K bug. :)

(Actually, one of the MS Office products does have a problem with 2028 as
its last year, I think... and I succesfully campaigned to have the rollover
year for 2-digit date entry be 2028 for a product we have here. :)

--
.sig deleted to conserve electrons. robert.watkins@******.com
Message no. 7
From: Erik Jameson <erikj@****.COM>
Subject: Re: Real-Life Computing ...
Date: Tue, 26 May 1998 19:02:49 -0400
At 03:58 PM 5/26/98 -0600, you wrote:
>Thus spake Airwasp:
>>
>> For anyone wanting grins and giggles ... consider the following ...
>>
>> Intel is going to begin selling chips to the consumer market sometime in
the
>> year 2000 ...
>>
>> Their speed .... 800 MHz ...
>
> They're still a bit behind the competition. IBM, earlier this year,
>announced that they have demonstrated the first procesor that can operate
>beyond 1GHz. Digital Alpha processors have been over 600MHz (and higher)
>for some time now.

Motorola's RISC chipsets should also be in the same ballpark, since I have
little doubt they will still be in production in 2000. Actually, they may
be even faster, since Exponential Computing (which has since gone BIG
bankrupt) was announcing over a year ago that they could do 500Mhz by the
end of 97 and could push over a 1000MHz by 2000 for their Mac-based RISC
chips.

Of course, I would ask what the hell is the consumer going to do with
800Mhz of processing speed (hey, the system bus had better be whole frag of
a lot faster than it is now!), but then again, they always find new ways to
chew up a computer and make it seem slow...

Anyone remember the days when 10Mhz and a few hundred K of memory was all
anyone could ever possibly want?


> However, Intel shipping speeds like this to mass market consumers for
>somewhat reasonable prices, is important. The more power on distributed
>systems, whatever the processor, will only bring us nearer to the
>Matrix-like netowrks of the future. I'm already saving up for a datajack
>and an encephalon. :-)

Heh. Me too. But I'm also saving up for the cybereyes and the smartgun
link...

Erik J.

Who really is bent enough to actually be willing to have his perfect 20/20
eyes replaced with cybernetics...when they become good enough that is...
Message no. 8
From: Ereskanti <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Real-Life Computing ...
Date: Tue, 26 May 1998 19:10:55 EDT
In a message dated 5/26/98 4:36:56 PM US Eastern Standard Time,
bigdaddy@*****.COM writes:

> > Intel is going to begin selling chips to the consumer market sometime in
> the
> > year 2000 ...
> >
> > Their speed .... 800 MHz ...
> >
> That's if and a big IF they get the 2k bug squashed. Hell wont that be
> funny. "we'll sell ya a chip that might work in the year 2000." But i
> wonder what happened in SR to cope with the year 2k bug? any ideas?
> --
The solution to the 2K bug already exists and all Intel chips above the 200
MHZ speeds are resolved beyond the problem already. Software that is before
the year 97 is also in need of checking. Beyond that, I don't know if I care.

I already know that the stuff I have is "2K Proof"...
-K
Message no. 9
From: Ereskanti <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Real-Life Computing ...
Date: Tue, 26 May 1998 19:13:05 EDT
In a message dated 5/26/98 4:58:36 PM US Eastern Standard Time,
mike@*******.COM writes:

> However, Intel shipping speeds like this to mass market consumers for
> somewhat reasonable prices, is important. The more power on distributed
> systems, whatever the processor, will only bring us nearer to the
> Matrix-like netowrks of the future. I'm already saving up for a datajack
> and an encephalon. :-)
>
funny, I always thought one of the things in our way was connection speeds,
not processor speeds at this point....

-K (who would love to save up for an Encephalon, but isn't going to be able to
do that for some time yet)
Message no. 10
From: NEWSHADOW <NEWSHADOW@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Real-Life Computing ...
Date: Tue, 26 May 1998 19:27:23 EDT
In a message dated 98-05-26 19:13:33 EDT, you write:

> The solution to the 2K bug already exists and all Intel chips above the 200
> MHZ speeds are resolved beyond the problem already. Software that is
before
> the year 97 is also in need of checking. Beyond that, I don't know if I
> care.

Does that mean that any computer that we buy now won't be affected by the Y2K
bug?

Shadow
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/Arena/6852/index.html
Message no. 11
From: Mike Loseke <mike@*******.COM>
Subject: Re: Real-Life Computing ...
Date: Tue, 26 May 1998 17:31:50 -0600
Thus spake Ereskanti:
>
> In a message dated 5/26/98 4:58:36 PM US Eastern Standard Time,
> mike@*******.com writes:
>
> > However, Intel shipping speeds like this to mass market consumers for
> > somewhat reasonable prices, is important. The more power on distributed
> > systems, whatever the processor, will only bring us nearer to the
> > Matrix-like netowrks of the future. I'm already saving up for a datajack
> > and an encephalon. :-)
> >
> funny, I always thought one of the things in our way was connection speeds,
> not processor speeds at this point....

That point of distinction is becoming more and more blurred as of
late. New switches and routers (and switching routers and routing
switches) are doing less in software and more in hardware. Have you
heard the phrase "wire speed?" This term is being thrown around by router
and switch manufacturers to describe the flow of traffic through their
devices. Basically, these devices, which have traditionaly been choke
points for network traffic, are capable of becoming almost transparent
to the flow of traffic across the wire between connection points. They
do this by making routing and switching decisions at the hardware level
instead of going through multiple layers of software.

With the increase in use of ATM, and gigabit ethernet basically here now,
the network will become less of a bottleneck than storage devices and
CPU's, especially when you take into consideration that you can bond
multiple pipes into much larger pipes which can handle more traffic
than any one computer can throw at them, for both backbone and single
connection use.

Of course, these high-speed networks still don't do anything for the
home user behind an analog switch on crappy phone lines being served by
US West. But with newer housing developments having fiber run out to
the slick instead of copper this is becoming more of a moot point. The
telco's are actually doing quite alot to improve the network as a whole
in some areas.

--
| Even Einstein objected to the idea of
Mike Loseke | wave-function collapse, calling it
mike@*******.com | "spooky action-at-a-distance."
Message no. 12
From: Robert Watkins <robert.watkins@******.COM>
Subject: Re: Real-Life Computing ...
Date: Wed, 27 May 1998 09:40:18 +1000
NEWSHADOW writes:
>Does that mean that any computer that we buy now won't be affected by the
Y2K
>bug?


Actually, if any electronic equipment (including, say, your VCR or
microwave) that you purchased new in the last 2-3 years (since the Y2K
problem became big news) is affected by the Y2K problem, then you have a
strong legal case that they sold you defective equipment/software. Go see a
lawyer. Some consumer organisations are already organising similar cases, so
maybe you should go talk to Ralph Nader.

Which means that if Intel has a Y2K problem (mind you, I wasn't aware of
it... where could I get more info), you could sue them. :) Or at least ask
for a fix.

Oh, and it's not a bug, it's a feature. Seriously. It's a feature of the
hardware/software that it has a problem with the year 00, in that it was
invariably a design decision. Built-in limitations aren't bugs. That's why
it's correctly called the Y2K _problem_ (or Millennium Problem).

--
.sig deleted to conserve electrons. robert.watkins@******.com
Message no. 13
From: Ereskanti <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Real-Life Computing ...
Date: Tue, 26 May 1998 22:59:11 EDT
In a message dated 5/26/98 6:37:57 PM US Eastern Standard Time,
NEWSHADOW@***.COM writes:

> > The solution to the 2K bug already exists and all Intel chips above the
200
> > MHZ speeds are resolved beyond the problem already. Software that is
> before
> > the year 97 is also in need of checking. Beyond that, I don't know if I
> > care.
>
> Does that mean that any computer that we buy now won't be affected by the
> Y2K
> bug?
>
It means that any -NEW- computer purchased now -SHOULD- be free and clear of
the year 2K virus. It is always a wise thing to ask about this. IF the
salesman does not know if the machine/product is clear of the problem, then DO
NOT purchase it. If the salesman doesn't even know about the Year 2K Problem,
leave the store...

-K
Message no. 14
From: Ereskanti <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Real-Life Computing ...
Date: Tue, 26 May 1998 23:03:18 EDT
In a message dated 5/26/98 6:48:40 PM US Eastern Standard Time,
mike@*******.COM writes:

> With the increase in use of ATM, and gigabit ethernet basically here now,
> the network will become less of a bottleneck than storage devices and
> CPU's, especially when you take into consideration that you can bond
> multiple pipes into much larger pipes which can handle more traffic
> than any one computer can throw at them, for both backbone and single
> connection use.
>
> Of course, these high-speed networks still don't do anything for the
> home user behind an analog switch on crappy phone lines being served by
> US West. But with newer housing developments having fiber run out to
> the slick instead of copper this is becoming more of a moot point. The
> telco's are actually doing quite alot to improve the network as a whole
> in some areas.
>
And of course with the terminology you are mentioning, this is still NOT
focused upon the "At Home User" (AHU). Ethernet is NOT a big thing for the at
home user, and thus "Modems" are going to remain a restriction until "Cable
Linkups" become more common, OR we get two-way satellite feeds (I LIKE the 400
Mhz downloads I saw on the one).

Service providers are something else that SR doesn't go into greatly. Major
coverage and the like and how "crowded" are the bandwidths at any given time.
This could possibly effect a decker while doing their job.

-K
Message no. 15
From: Robert Watkins <robert.watkins@******.COM>
Subject: Re: Real-Life Computing ...
Date: Wed, 27 May 1998 13:06:51 +1000
Ereskanti writes:
>It means that any -NEW- computer purchased now -SHOULD- be free and clear
of
>the year 2K virus. It is always a wise thing to ask about this. IF the
>salesman does not know if the machine/product is clear of the problem, then
DO
>NOT purchase it. If the salesman doesn't even know about the Year 2K
Problem,
>leave the store...


There are two lessons in life you should have learnt by now, Ereskanti...
a) Never, EVER, ask the salesman something. They will NEVER know the answer,
and if they give you one, they just made it up on the spot.
b) Never, EVER, believe what the salesman tells you. Ask to speak to the
tech guy who fixes the stuff under warranty, and get him to tell you which
machines don't come back a lot.

Oh, and I'm sure that there are babies still in the womb that know about the
Y2K problem, so intensive is the media coverage. And they're probably as
well informed as the average salesperson.

Seriously, though, do ask, and get them to give you an answer, in writing,
signed by the manager of the store. If they are unwilling to give you said
document, then take your business elsewhere. Then keep the document in a
nice safe place so that you can submit it for evidence in the court case.

--
.sig deleted to conserve electrons. robert.watkins@******.com
Message no. 16
From: Ereskanti <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Real-Life Computing ...
Date: Tue, 26 May 1998 23:35:58 EDT
In a message dated 5/26/98 10:11:15 PM US Eastern Standard Time,
robert.watkins@******.COM writes:

> There are two lessons in life you should have learnt by now, Ereskanti...
> a) Never, EVER, ask the salesman something. They will NEVER know the
answer,
> and if they give you one, they just made it up on the spot.
> b) Never, EVER, believe what the salesman tells you. Ask to speak to the
> tech guy who fixes the stuff under warranty, and get him to tell you which
> machines don't come back a lot.
>
Talk about this brings up a heller of a question to me. When
pawning/bargaining/trading in the SR realm, what kind of guarantees are viable
options to ask for from a Fixer concerning stuff like this. Sure, I know, you
should probably go to a Deckmeister, but for the samurai who just wants a
code-breaker for a maglock or something similar, that option may not be an
option.

Basically, has anyone -really- thought out the Negotiations/Etiquette role-
playing impact this could have?

-K
Message no. 17
From: Robert Watkins <robert.watkins@******.COM>
Subject: Re: Real-Life Computing ...
Date: Wed, 27 May 1998 13:43:16 +1000
Ereksanti writes:
>Talk about this brings up a heller of a question to me. When
>pawning/bargaining/trading in the SR realm, what kind of guarantees are
viable
>options to ask for from a Fixer concerning stuff like this. Sure, I know,
you
>should probably go to a Deckmeister, but for the samurai who just wants a
>code-breaker for a maglock or something similar, that option may not be an
>option.


Well, you can assume that any competent fixer has knowledge bases to draw on
for helping him to evaluate gear. So the Fixer would presumably have at
least a part of a clue, or he probably wouldn't touch the stuff.

As for wether or not the fixer wants to pull a swifty or not... it would
depend largely, I think, on how likely it is for the fixer to get caught. A
fixer who is known for screwing his customers wouldn't last long, I feel.

In general, if a fixer doesn't have immediate access to something like a hot
one-shot icepick on a regular basis, he would probably know where to go to
get it. This level of indirection would probably increase the street index,
though.

--
sig deleted to conserve electrons. robert.watkins@******.com
Message no. 18
From: Spike <u5a77@*****.CS.KEELE.AC.UK>
Subject: Re: Real-Life Computing ...
Date: Wed, 27 May 1998 11:36:09 +0100
And verily, did Ereskanti hastily scribble thusly...
|It means that any -NEW- computer purchased now -SHOULD- be free and clear of
|the year 2K virus.

Y2K Virus?
Something tells me you've been reading too many tabloid papers.
Even if there is a virus set to go off on the year 2000, that's not what all
the current media panic is all about....

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|u5a77@*****.cs.keele.ac.uk| Windows95 (noun): 32 bit extensions and a |
| | graphical shell for a 16 bit patch to an 8 bit |
|Andrew Halliwell | operating system originally coded for a 4 bit |
|Principal Subjects in:- |microprocessor, written by a 2 bit company, that|
|Comp Sci & Electronics | can't stand 1 bit of competition. |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|GCv3.1 GCS/EL>$ d---(dpu) s+/- a- C++ U N++ o+ K- w-- M+/++ PS+++ PE- Y t+ |
|5++ X+/++ R+ tv+ b+ D G e>PhD h/h+ !r! !y-|I can't say F**K either now! :( |
Message no. 19
From: Lehlan Decker <decker@****.FSU.EDU>
Subject: Re: Real-Life Computing ...
Date: Wed, 27 May 1998 09:36:00 -0500
>
> Airwasp wrote:
> >
> > For anyone wanting grins and giggles ... consider the following ...
> >
> > Intel is going to begin selling chips to the consumer market sometime in the
> > year 2000 ...
> >
> > Their speed .... 800 MHz ...
> >
> That's if and a big IF they get the 2k bug squashed. Hell wont that be
> funny. "we'll sell ya a chip that might work in the year 2000." But i
> wonder what happened in SR to cope with the year 2k bug? any ideas?
> --
Heh..I could mention something here about Dec-Alpha's processors but
I won't. :)
Most likley the 2k bug caused some chaos for awhile, and things went on.
Besides with the Crash of '29, I'm guessing it wasn't relevant. :)



--
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Lehlan Decker 644-4534 Systems Development
decker@****.fsu.edu http://www.scri.fsu.edu/~decker
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The universe doesn't have laws, it has habits. And habits can be broken.
Message no. 20
From: Lehlan Decker <decker@****.FSU.EDU>
Subject: Re: Real-Life Computing ...
Date: Wed, 27 May 1998 09:43:47 -0500
>
> In a message dated 5/26/98 4:36:56 PM US Eastern Standard Time,
> bigdaddy@*****.COM writes:
>
> > > Intel is going to begin selling chips to the consumer market sometime in
> > the
> > > year 2000 ...
> > >
> > > Their speed .... 800 MHz ...
> > >
> > That's if and a big IF they get the 2k bug squashed. Hell wont that be
> > funny. "we'll sell ya a chip that might work in the year 2000." But i
> > wonder what happened in SR to cope with the year 2k bug? any ideas?
> > --
> The solution to the 2K bug already exists and all Intel chips above the 200
> MHZ speeds are resolved beyond the problem already. Software that is before
> the year 97 is also in need of checking. Beyond that, I don't know if I care.
>
> I already know that the stuff I have is "2K Proof"...

Heh..would this comment translate as if your behind SOTA you've
earned your problems. :)
Hmm...to keep this on task. This could definently be some good
material for a run. Some companies latest chip design has a flaw
and the competitor wants to expose it, or delay it. :)
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Lehlan Decker 644-4534 Systems Development
decker@****.fsu.edu http://www.scri.fsu.edu/~decker
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The universe doesn't have laws, it has habits. And habits can be broken.
Message no. 21
From: Lehlan Decker <decker@****.FSU.EDU>
Subject: Re: Real-Life Computing ...
Date: Wed, 27 May 1998 09:52:46 -0500
>
> In a message dated 5/26/98 10:11:15 PM US Eastern Standard Time,
> robert.watkins@******.COM writes:
>

> Talk about this brings up a heller of a question to me. When
> pawning/bargaining/trading in the SR realm, what kind of guarantees are viable
> options to ask for from a Fixer concerning stuff like this. Sure, I know, you
> should probably go to a Deckmeister, but for the samurai who just wants a
> code-breaker for a maglock or something similar, that option may not be an
> option.
>
> Basically, has anyone -really- thought out the Negotiations/Etiquette role-
> playing impact this could have?
>
Usually I handle this case by case, depending on the dice and if
the person actually role plays it worth a damn. :)
Usually I let better rolls lower the price, or throw in several small
things for free. I don't think any of my fixers would warranty anything
to the players. (They know better. :))


--
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Lehlan Decker 644-4534 Systems Development
decker@****.fsu.edu http://www.scri.fsu.edu/~decker
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The universe doesn't have laws, it has habits. And habits can be broken.
Message no. 22
From: "Ojaste,James [NCR]" <James.Ojaste@**.GC.CA>
Subject: Re: Real-Life Computing ...
Date: Wed, 27 May 1998 10:18:50 -0400
Ereskanti wrote:
>> > Intel is going to begin selling chips to the consumer market sometime in
>> the
>> > year 2000 ...
>> >
>> That's if and a big IF they get the 2k bug squashed. Hell wont that be
>> funny. "we'll sell ya a chip that might work in the year 2000." But i
>> wonder what happened in SR to cope with the year 2k bug? any ideas?
>> --
>The solution to the 2K bug already exists and all Intel chips above the 200
>MHZ speeds are resolved beyond the problem already. Software that is before
>the year 97 is also in need of checking. Beyond that, I don't know if I
>care.

There's nothing 2k specific in the CPUs - CPUs don't deal with dates.
CPUs deal with data. The BIOS in the machine deals with dates, so old
machines may have incompliant BIOSes. The OS also deals with dates,
so they can be flawed.

Personally, I don't care. Y2K doesn't bother me one bit - sure, one or
two of my electronic appliances may stop working, but there's usually
a feature to set the date...

>I already know that the stuff I have is "2K Proof"...

The whole problem has been blown *way* out of proportion. I expect
that the most interesting thing happening on Jan 1, 2000 will be lots
of people getting drunk and watching the big apple drop. :-/

James Ojaste
Message no. 23
From: "Ojaste,James [NCR]" <James.Ojaste@**.GC.CA>
Subject: Re: Real-Life Computing ...
Date: Wed, 27 May 1998 10:23:59 -0400
Justin Bell wrote:
># That's if and a big IF they get the 2k bug squashed. Hell wont that be
># funny. "we'll sell ya a chip that might work in the year 2000." But i
># wonder what happened in SR to cope with the year 2k bug? any ideas?
>
>you realise the 2029 bug was when the 32 bit time bug in UNIX hit

You mean 2038. By which time all *nix vendors will have switched to
64 bit times (yes, they're starting now). And it's not a 32 bit time
"bug", it's a 31 bit time limitation (they defined a time data structure
as a signed integer, instead of an unsigned long or something similar).

James Ojaste
Message no. 24
From: Brett Borger <bxb121@***.EDU>
Subject: Re: Real-Life Computing ...
Date: Wed, 27 May 1998 10:48:43 +0000
> >I already know that the stuff I have is "2K Proof"...
>
> The whole problem has been blown *way* out of proportion. I expect
> that the most interesting thing happening on Jan 1, 2000 will be lots
> of people getting drunk and watching the big apple drop. :-/

For the individual the problem has been blown out of proportion, but
corporations are panicing. a LOT of corporate Db's are
OLD....written in COBOL or proprietary languages, running on PDP-11's
or something older, held together with ducktape...They can't just
"change the date", and their DB's start dying left and right when
inventories etc. are screwed.

To bring this On-topic, here is my question: How much information,
assuming it was protected from the crash of '29, could be transfered
to the matrix?

Here's why: For most Y2K fixes, they can't change the Database, so
they cheat...they modify the program that interprets the database to
regard dates "before" a trigger date as 20xx, and after as 19xx.
(where I work, this is 39, but I imagine different places have
different dates). What if someone, say....BMW, had a huge database
of information regarding their design research over the last hundred
years...and when they "fixed" it, they chose a date of...."60".
Thus, in 2060, the bloody thing crashes again. And likely, only a
few people remember that this was built into their system. Anything
that nails S-K where it hurts sounds like great material for a run.

Potential Problems with this thought:
1) The info would have been trashed in the Crash
-Lots of companies didn't lose EVERYTHING...and if this was an old
database, I'm willing to bet it wasn't "connected". Since BMW was
still powerful after the crash, I'll assume this survived.

2) They couldn't transfer it to the Matrix
-Your guess is as good as mine. I say they did. Perhaps they hired
a special programming/hardware team to transfer it, because this
database was so important to them.

3) They would have fixed the problem when they transferred it
-No problem. Maybe they had too much trouble trying to get through
the spaghetti code of the Y2K fix on top of the original spaghetti
code. Maybe they only had executables that they didn't bother to
disassemble and examine in great detail beyond doing their job. This
is the kind of stuff that the players have to learn.

4) It would be easy to fix once it was on the Matrix.
-I'm GM, I say it wouldn't be. Complaints? (sound of a distant
"mooing" and whistling sound)

Comments?

-=SwiftOne=-
Brett Borger
SwiftOne@***.edu
AAP Techie
Message no. 25
From: Nexx3 <Nexx3@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Real-Life Computing ...
Date: Wed, 27 May 1998 11:57:23 EDT
In a message dated 98-05-27 10:15:22 EDT, you write:

> I expect
> that the most interesting thing happening on Jan 1, 2000 will be lots
> of people getting drunk and watching the big apple drop. :-/

And celebrating the millenium a year early...

Nexx
Message no. 26
From: Ereskanti <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Real-Life Computing ...
Date: Wed, 27 May 1998 12:24:56 EDT
In a message dated 5/27/98 6:46:16 AM US Eastern Standard Time,
u5a77@*****.CS.KEELE.AC.UK writes:

> And verily, did Ereskanti hastily scribble thusly...
> |It means that any -NEW- computer purchased now -SHOULD- be free and clear
> of
> |the year 2K virus.
>
> Y2K Virus?
> Something tells me you've been reading too many tabloid papers.
> Even if there is a virus set to go off on the year 2000, that's not what
all
> the current media panic is all about....
>
I know that, but I am using Media terminology, not truthsayers tongue okay???
-K
Message no. 27
From: "Ubiratan P. Alberton" <ubiratan@**.HOMESHOPPING.COM.BR>
Subject: Re: Real-Life Computing ...
Date: Wed, 27 May 1998 23:15:05 -0300
Ereskanti escreveu:

> Service providers are something else that SR doesn't go into greatly. Major
> coverage and the like and how "crowded" are the bandwidths at any given
time.
> This could possibly effect a decker while doing their job.
>
> -K

Maybe there aren't any service providers... The Matrix just
integrates everything that used to be
a bunch of separate nets. You acess it from a legal jackpoint, you pay
to the corp who owns the
jackpoint, and, it you're a legitimate user, you might pay to the guys
whose servers you're acessing
also. No "monthly Matriz bill", Matrix use would be just like any phone
call (wich also would use the
Matrix), and charged as such. You could even acess the 'trix from a soda
machine, of all things... :)

Bira
Message no. 28
From: Alfredo B Alves <dghost@****.COM>
Subject: Re: Real-Life Computing ...
Date: Thu, 28 May 1998 00:42:46 -0500
On Wed, 27 May 1998 23:15:05 -0300 "Ubiratan P. Alberton"
<ubiratan@**.HOMESHOPPING.COM.BR> writes:
>Ereskanti escreveu:
>> Service providers are something else that SR doesn't go into
>greatly. Major
>> coverage and the like and how "crowded" are the bandwidths at any
>given time.
>> This could possibly effect a decker while doing their job.
>>
>> -K

> Maybe there aren't any service providers... The Matrix just
>integrates everything that used to be
>a bunch of separate nets. You acess it from a legal jackpoint, you pay
>to the corp who owns the
>jackpoint, and, it you're a legitimate user, you might pay to the guys
>whose servers you're acessing
>also. No "monthly Matriz bill", Matrix use would be just like any phone
>call (wich also would use the
>Matrix), and charged as such. You could even acess the 'trix from a soda
>machine, of all things... :)
>
> Bira

It was my understanding that Matrix Access was included in certain
lifestyles (low and up) accessable with purchase of a telcomm unit
(Middle & up include this in their costs) other wise it works as Bira
described :)

_____________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
Message no. 29
From: Fade <runefo@***.UIO.NO>
Subject: Re: Real-Life Computing ...
Date: Thu, 28 May 1998 14:16:10 +0000
*SNIP 800MHZ chip by Intel year 2000*

This is on schedule with expected speed growth - about 60% P.A.
That means other server/heavy duty chips will be in the 2.5GHZ
range, same with experimental versions of the same chip.
(Intel ran a pentium chip at 600MHZ two years ago, water cooled.).

Memory and I/O is allready a bigger bottleneck to computing speed
than the chip's MHZ rating, and it increases at a slovenly 7% P.A.
(As Ereskanti pointed out, it's not the chips that keeps the Matrix
in the future, it's the WAN's.. and interface, of course.).

As for the 2K 'bug' (It's an undocumented feature! :) it should not
be a problem for any newer applications - an easy way to check wether
you'll be affected is to play around with the system clock. The most
likely errors is for programs where you supply only the last two
digits of the year - 98, 99, etc - and considers 00 as 'earlier' than
99. It's not system - halting errors, and should be possible to work
around, but it might be annoying and lead to extra work... ). Most of
the system problems should be fixable by a patch - database updating
might be a problem, depending on who made the base.

That's my take on it.
--
Fade

And the Prince of Lies said:
"To reign is worth ambition, though in Hell:
Better to reign in hell than to serve in heaven."
-John Milton, Paradise Lost
Message no. 30
From: Grahamdrew <grahamdrew@***.NET>
Subject: Re: Real-Life Computing ...
Date: Thu, 28 May 1998 16:07:45 -0400
> Personally, I don't care. Y2K doesn't bother me one bit - sure, one or
> two of my electronic appliances may stop working, but there's usually
> a feature to set the date...
>

<rant>
I whole heatedly agree. I don't know if there is some huge
earth-shaking concept I'm missing here but WHY IS THIS SUCH A BIG
PROBELM!?

Ok, so my computer thinks it's 1AD, I'm not sur about you guys but I
have one of those rip-off 365 days of duct tape a year calenders, I
don't know if I've ever actually checked the date on my computer...

I can see a few small problems with acounting records and such, but
nothing that would cause a "crash," and NOWHERE near the kind of
problems to define it as a virus (who ever coined that term for Y2K
should take some check thier medication)

CPUs don't deal with time and date anyway, that's a BIOS or an OS
function based on the kind of scomputer your looking at. A little
software patch or flash BIOS upgrade and your cleared, no problem.

Oh yea, and I wouldn't expect you would have trouble with most
apliances, as they don't usually keep track of the date, just time (my
microwave and oven don't, and my VCR is still flashing 12:00 12:00
12:00)

</rant>
--
DISCLAIMER: All grammatical and spelling errors are inserted
deliberately to test the software I am developing. In fact,
that is the only reason I am posting. Yeah, that's the ticket!
All my postings are just test data! Yeah!!
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/Maze/1673/
Message no. 31
From: Adam J <fro@***.AB.CA>
Subject: Re: Real-Life Computing ...
Date: Thu, 28 May 1998 14:22:29 -0600
At 16:07 28/05/98 -0400, you wrote:

><rant>
>I whole heatedly agree. I don't know if there is some huge
>earth-shaking concept I'm missing here but WHY IS THIS SUCH A BIG
>PROBELM!?

ERr... let's say your bank suddenly decides it's 1900 all over again.
Whoops! You don't exist then! Whoops! All your money in the bank is gone!

Whoops! Your house belongs to some guy that's been dead for 50 years.
Whoop! Your employer has no record of ever paying you, you can't claim your
tax returns!

I could go on and on -- your social insurance number, health care, etc,
etc, etc.

A bios upgrade won't do jack for a 20 year old program written in COBOL
that's passed through 3 generations of IT managers, all of whom have a
decreasing amount of skill in COBOL and more in Solitaire and WWW surfing.

It probably won't be as big as the media makes it out to be -- but it is a
problem.

-Adam J
Who remembers "Michoangelo"
-
http://www.interware.it/users/adamj \ fro@***.ab.ca \ ICQ# 2350330
ShadowRN Assistant Fearless Leader \ FreeRPG Webring \ TSS Productions
The Shadowrun Supplemental \ SR Archive Co-Maintainer \ RPGA Reviwer
"So Marilyn Manson is a criticism of gimmickry while being itself a gimmick."
--- Marilyn Manson
Message no. 32
From: Spike <u5a77@*****.CS.KEELE.AC.UK>
Subject: Re: Real-Life Computing ...
Date: Thu, 28 May 1998 21:23:55 +0100
And verily, did Grahamdrew hastily scribble thusly...
|Ok, so my computer thinks it's 1AD,

1900 actually.

One small problem with old BIOSes is the datestamp on files however.
Sometimes, the computer will look for the most recent file to use,
(especially if you're using a C compiler or something like that), and when
the date clocks over, all your new files will suddenly appear to be 100
years old...

:)

Not a problem for me. I deliberately speeded up my system clock once, just
to see how far it'd go before resetting, and I believe the date was
somewhere about 2036(ish). Then it reset to 1972.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|u5a77@*****.cs.keele.ac.uk| Windows95 (noun): 32 bit extensions and a |
| | graphical shell for a 16 bit patch to an 8 bit |
|Andrew Halliwell | operating system originally coded for a 4 bit |
|Principal Subjects in:- |microprocessor, written by a 2 bit company, that|
|Comp Sci & Electronics | can't stand 1 bit of competition. |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|GCv3.1 GCS/EL>$ d---(dpu) s+/- a- C++ U N++ o+ K- w-- M+/++ PS+++ PE- Y t+ |
|5++ X+/++ R+ tv+ b+ D G e>PhD h/h+ !r! !y-|I can't say F**K either now! :( |
Message no. 33
From: Erik Jameson <erikj@****.COM>
Subject: Re: Real-Life Computing ...
Date: Thu, 28 May 1998 17:19:52 -0400
At 02:22 PM 5/28/98 -0600, you wrote:

<stuff snipped>

>
>><rant>
>>I whole heatedly agree. I don't know if there is some huge
>>earth-shaking concept I'm missing here but WHY IS THIS SUCH A BIG
>>PROBELM!?

Okay, so for the average person's PC, Y2K probably isn't a big deal. And
if your VCR still works, who cares if it thinks it's taping Dharma & Greg
in the year 1900? As long as it works, right?

But you have to remember what's really at stake, and that's corporate and
governmental databases and enterprises. As Adam pointed out, stuff like
your bank account, your Social Security Number (or equivalent), all sorts
of vital information is in danger. And as Adam pointed out, much of this
was written in some language or other that there is a decreasing
familiarity with (like COBOL). And what about those huge ERP systems set
up by SAP or Baan or PeopleSoft? Those are nearly custom-written code for
each friggin' installation (which is why a SAP install can take months,
even with plug-ins and modules). Those sorts of program, which run major
corporations like IBM for example, have a serious problem with Y2K. A
simple BIOS upgrade won't do a damn thing for a SAP enterprise installation.

Can you imagine if all the Western governments and the Fortune 1000 all
shut down, because their enterprises and their databases glitch up?
Serious fraggin' problem, and that's a worst-case scenario for Y2K.

Will that happen? Not likely. But I can guarantee you that there will be
some fairly significant companies and governmental agencies that screw the
pooch on Jan 1, 2000, because they didn't implement a solution of some sort
fast enough. A recent study was released stating that many Department of
Defense and similar government agencies are behind on their Y2K fixes are
in major danger of not having an adequate solution in place in time.

So I'm not worried about my own computer (and my old one is a Mac, which
doesn't have the problem anyway), but I am worried about what'll happen
when I go to the ATM for money or when I file my tax return.

Yes, the media is guilty of a bit of hype here, but it doesn't bother me.
I can stand hype if it helps get the fraggin' problem solved.

Erik J.


"Ladies & Gentleman, the newest member of the band, the one and only Spice
Boy, GRUMPY SPICE!!!" <and the crowd goes wild!!!>
Message no. 34
From: JD <germany@*****************.COM>
Subject: Re: Real-Life Computing ...
Date: Thu, 28 May 1998 16:21:42 -0600
>So I'm not worried about my own computer (and my old one is a Mac,
which
>doesn't have the problem anyway), but I am worried about what'll happen
>when I go to the ATM for money or when I file my tax return.


I read a scenerio of what would happen at this time, based on problems
not associated with Y2K bug.

Dec. 31, 1999 is a Friday, making it Payday for approximately half of
the nation. It is arguably going to be the biggest party night of this
century and everyone will be going to the bank to cash checks that they
would have normally deposited and to remove extra money from their
accounts. With the media hype about the bug, someone will start a run
on the banks because an ATM just ran out of money. Nothing is wrong
with the ATM (it being made in the "safe" years), just a normal instance
of the ATM not having as much money as the people want it to.

Bringing this back On-Topic, the riots described in New York which lead
to the arming of corporations started because of such a simple
mistake -- the people did not understand what really was going on.

My opinion is that the media is to blame. There is a POTENTIAL problem
at hand. The vast majority of mission-critical enterprises, including
Social Security are safe from theis problem. Yes, some companies will
bite the dust, but that is the American way -- keep up with the SOTA or
you fail in the big leagues.

As for the DoD stating that they may have some problems... doesn't
everyone know that the DoD has problems? Will it change them to be more
efficient or more prepared in the future? Probably not. And this is
not just some half-baked opinion. I have relatives in each branch of
the military. The DoD will just wake up after the crash and declare
that it was a training exercise for terrorist insurgency against the
countries computer framework -- just another day at the office.

Jon Doud
germany@*****************.com
Message no. 35
From: Robert Nesius <nesius@******.COM>
Subject: Re: Real-Life Computing ...
Date: Thu, 28 May 1998 20:34:20 -0700
>At 16:07 28/05/98 -0400, you wrote:
>
>><rant>
>>I whole heatedly agree. I don't know if there is some huge
>>earth-shaking concept I'm missing here but WHY IS THIS SUCH A BIG
>>PROBELM!?
>

When production systems work - systems such as transaction databases -
the trend is to let the box/software doing the work to sit in the corner
of a computing room and quietly suck bits off the network. These old
software packages have been proven to operate CORRECTLY. When faced
with the risk of rolling out a new system that may have bugs when you
all ready have a system that you KNOW doesn't screw things up, people
whose data represents other people's money tend to want to let the old
stuff sit there.

So what's the problem? The problem is this stuff is old. Even if a
corporate entity resopnsible for the code is around, the programmers
who WROTE it are long gone in most cases, and that knowledge base is
usually not documented. So, y2k (that term, btw, has been trademarked
by someone :/ ) - the problem is not hard to understand. But in some
cases, it's damn hard to fix. And the systems that need to be fixed
have exacting standards - transaction databases are one example.
In otherwords, it's not the nodes (like personal computers ) that are
at risk - it's the *infrastructure.*

-Rob
Message no. 36
From: Stefan <casanova@******.PASSAGEN.SE>
Subject: Re: Real-Life Computing ...
Date: Fri, 29 May 1998 19:04:39 +0000
> For anyone wanting grins and giggles ... consider the following ...
>
> Intel is going to begin selling chips to the consumer market sometime in the
> year 2000 ...
>
> Their speed .... 800 MHz ...
>
> (Drool)

BUHU! IBMs PowerPC is going to be 1 GHz at that time ... And that CPU
can calucate right ... :)

/Stefan

------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Frag you and the datastream you came on!" - Sinjin the decker
------------------------------------------------------------------------
... E-Mail .............................. casanova@***.passagen.se ...
... HomePage .............................. http://hsl.home.ml.org ...
... HomePage ................... http://www.bugsoft.hik.se/sl11ls/ ...
... ICQ .................................................. 1403212 ...
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Real-Life Computing ..., you may also be interested in:

Disclaimer

These messages were posted a long time ago on a mailing list far, far away. The copyright to their contents probably lies with the original authors of the individual messages, but since they were published in an electronic forum that anyone could subscribe to, and the logs were available to subscribers and most likely non-subscribers as well, it's felt that re-publishing them here is a kind of public service.

Thwap!