In article <6grko9$4u...@news10.ispnews.com>, ascii...@hotmail.com says...
>After all, New York State is now in fiscal '99 --- you'd think that systems >would be failing left & right as they project ahead a year to '00.'
I've wondered the same thing. People were predicting that NY State's meltdown would be a preview of Y2K attractions. So far, no news of calamity out of NY, no riots in NYC.
>I think this y2k stuff is all a bunch of hype so programmers can get more >money.
It's real enough, but no news from Albany may be good news for the rest of us-maybe civilization won't end after all.
Bryan Cowan wrote in message <6gs251$77...@usenet85.supernews.com>... >In article <6grko9$4u...@news10.ispnews.com>, ascii...@hotmail.com >says...
>>After all, New York State is now in fiscal '99 --- you'd think that >systems >>would be failing left & right as they project ahead a year to '00.'
>I've wondered the same thing. People were predicting that NY State's >meltdown would be a preview of Y2K attractions. So far, no news of >calamity out of NY, no riots in NYC.
>>I think this y2k stuff is all a bunch of hype so programmers can get >more >>money.
>It's real enough, but no news from Albany may be good news for the rest >of us-maybe civilization won't end after all.
"NOTE: To verify accurate results, dates four years prior could be used. For example, to verify the number of days between 12/31/1999 and March 3, 2000, use 12/31/1995 and March 3, 1996 as control dates. To verify correct day of week, use dates exactly 28 years prior."
Also they are not using 2000, at the same page:
April 1,1999 New York state government rolls over to FY00
I have sent an email for clarification, however, if they are using these techniques we know they are only bandaids and not permanent fixes.
> In article <6grko9$4u...@news10.ispnews.com>, ascii...@hotmail.com > says...
> >After all, New York State is now in fiscal '99 --- you'd think that > systems > >would be failing left & right as they project ahead a year to '00.'
> I've wondered the same thing. People were predicting that NY State's > meltdown would be a preview of Y2K attractions. So far, no news of > calamity out of NY, no riots in NYC.
> >I think this y2k stuff is all a bunch of hype so programmers can get > more > >money.
> It's real enough, but no news from Albany may be good news for the rest > of us-maybe civilization won't end after all.
> After all, New York State is now in fiscal '99 --- you'd think that systems > would be failing left & right as they project ahead a year to '00.'
> I think this y2k stuff is all a bunch of hype so programmers can get more > money. > _____ > Tim Burke
Tim, yo, you little troll. My take on it is that 99 problems are either system dependent (meaning certain legacy systems interpret "99" as an exit command) or application dependent (meaning only those apps that calculate look-aheads). Of the latter, only calcs that are actually doing their routines would fail. Who really knows when these routines are executed? Maybe a CPA could tell us that certain accounting functions kick off to end an accounting period, for instance. Dunno. Wish somebody would throw more light on this. But 99 is a look-ahead issue only, not a general 00 issue. - pl (hope this helps confuse you a little more)
Big hairy deal! Albany is not in meltdown mode. So what? I have always said that New York's FY99 is likely to set the tenor for all other State's "99" triggers. Perhaps they had their excrement together moreso than that for which we have given them credit.
Did I throw money away on my S&P index puts? No more than the dollars that I toss at any _other_ insurance policy.
But don't get smug so fast, slick! New York has not yet performed a month end close! I anticipate a few glitches to crop up within the next month, nothing major, mind you. Just a few "interesting" glitches.
NEXT STOP JULY! (FY99 for forty-six the fifty States) Actually, the problems won't show up until mid August, but let us not split hairs. Whatever New York experienced in May is likely to be magnified in August by a factor somewhat larger than 46!
The feces will not strike the impeller until the Feds start tripping over their privates in late autumn (FY99 starts in October). Then the REAL fun begins! Damn, it's difficult to keep these discussions relatively "clean"!
Those waiting for bigger, faster, more frequent pay rate increases only have a couple of more months before EVERYBODY gets religion! The Fortune article discussed elsewhere in this NG is a good sign -- film at 11.
Duncan Lynskey wrote in message <6gsi00$...@argentina.earthlink.net>... >And don't forget the UK which has been in fiscal 99 since April 6. There's >about 52 million of us.
>Duncan
>phlegmatic by instinct
>Bryan Cowan wrote in message <6gs251$77...@usenet85.supernews.com>... >>In article <6grko9$4u...@news10.ispnews.com>, ascii...@hotmail.com >>says...
>>>After all, New York State is now in fiscal '99 --- you'd think that >>systems >>>would be failing left & right as they project ahead a year to '00.'
>>I've wondered the same thing. People were predicting that NY State's >>meltdown would be a preview of Y2K attractions. So far, no news of >>calamity out of NY, no riots in NYC.
>>>I think this y2k stuff is all a bunch of hype so programmers can get >>more >>>money.
>>It's real enough, but no news from Albany may be good news for the rest >>of us-maybe civilization won't end after all.
D. Scott Secor - Millennial Infaction Mitigator wrote:
[snip] > But don't get smug so fast, slick! New York has not yet performed a month > end close! I anticipate a few glitches to crop up within the next month, > nothing major, mind you. Just a few "interesting" glitches.
Agreed. Just because there is no news, doesn't mean it's good news. Their data may already be screwed up and they don't know it yet.
> But don't get smug so fast, slick! New York has not yet performed a month > end close! I anticipate a few glitches to crop up within the next month, > nothing major, mind you. Just a few "interesting" glitches.
> NEXT STOP JULY! (FY99 for forty-six the fifty States) Actually, the > problems won't show up until mid August, but let us not split hairs. > Whatever New York experienced in May is likely to be magnified in August by > a factor somewhat larger than 46!
How about when New York enters July and does month end and quarter end?
> The feces will not strike the impeller until the Feds start tripping over > their privates in late autumn (FY99 starts in October). Then the REAL fun > begins! Damn, it's difficult to keep these discussions relatively "clean"!
> Those waiting for bigger, faster, more frequent pay rate increases only have > a couple of more months before EVERYBODY gets religion! The Fortune article > discussed elsewhere in this NG is a good sign -- film at 11.
> Ciao,
> Scott "Let's Get Fiscal" Secor
> Duncan Lynskey wrote in message <6gsi00$...@argentina.earthlink.net>... > >And don't forget the UK which has been in fiscal 99 since April 6. There's > >about 52 million of us.
> >Duncan
> >phlegmatic by instinct
> >Bryan Cowan wrote in message <6gs251$77...@usenet85.supernews.com>... > >>In article <6grko9$4u...@news10.ispnews.com>, ascii...@hotmail.com > >>says...
> >>>After all, New York State is now in fiscal '99 --- you'd think that > >>systems > >>>would be failing left & right as they project ahead a year to '00.'
> >>I've wondered the same thing. People were predicting that NY State's > >>meltdown would be a preview of Y2K attractions. So far, no news of > >>calamity out of NY, no riots in NYC.
> >>>I think this y2k stuff is all a bunch of hype so programmers can get > >>more > >>>money.
> >>It's real enough, but no news from Albany may be good news for the rest > >>of us-maybe civilization won't end after all.
>After all, New York State is now in fiscal '99 --- you'd think that systems >would be failing left & right as they project ahead a year to '00.'
No, *I* wouldn't. April 15, 1998 may be in NY's '99 fiscal year, but it is still in the '98 *chronological* year. The date stored in files, and used in calculations and comparisons, would still be 04/15/98.
Fiscal years are, for the most part, a non-issue.
>I think this y2k stuff is all a bunch of hype so programmers can get more >money.
Clearly, you understand neither the problem, nor the wonderful, intelligent, honest and highly experienced programmers who *would* have been able to solve this problem if only pollyannas like you had offered them much more money, much, much sooner.
*YOU* are the *PROBLEM*, Tim Burke. *I COULD* have been the *SOLUTION*. But now, it's just too damn late!
===================================== y 2 0 0 0 @ i n f o m a g i c . c o m ===================================== Nobody is compliant until we are all compliant!
> > After all, New York State is now in fiscal '99 --- you'd think that systems > > would be failing left & right as they project ahead a year to '00.'
> > I think this y2k stuff is all a bunch of hype so programmers can get more > > money. > > _____ > > Tim Burke
> Tim, yo, you little troll. My take on it is that 99 problems are either > system dependent (meaning certain legacy systems interpret "99" as an > exit command) or application dependent (meaning only those apps that > calculate look-aheads). Of the latter, only calcs that are actually > doing their routines would fail. Who really knows when these routines > are executed? Maybe a CPA could tell us that certain accounting > functions kick off to end an accounting period, for instance. Dunno. > Wish somebody would throw more light on this. But 99 is a look-ahead > issue only, not a general 00 issue. - pl (hope this helps confuse you > a little more)
Well Paul - you kinda nailed the reason for my confusion over this thing. I could not understand why everyone was thinking the roll over to FY 99 would cause problems (the 99 exit code issue aside).
How early in FY99 do State governments start doing budgeting for FY00? And even if they have already started budgeting, any glitches in budgeting are not likely to cause disruptions to day to day operations. I guess problems in budgeting functions *may* cause problems in other areas but IMO these are likely to be fairly minor.
"Tim Burke" <ascii...@hotmail.com> wrote: >After all, New York State is now in fiscal '99 --- you'd think that systems >would be failing left & right as they project ahead a year to '00.'
>I think this y2k stuff is all a bunch of hype so programmers can get more >money. >_____ >Tim Burke
Tim!! I don't know what you look like Tim, but I'm picturing a tennis ball. First, you came in here, saying Y2k was all a bunch of BS. Then you became a doomsdaysayer. Now, you're back to being a naysayer.
Tim, the answer lies some where in the middle.
First off, keep this in mind more than anything else: Most of the Y2k problem is/will be processing data incorrectly, NOT systems crashing and coming to a complete halt. (Of course that assumes no electrical problems). In fact, almost all system failures will be attributed to the date rollover on 01/01/00. And we are still more than 600 days away from then.
If NY is having Y2k problems, they are just beginning. If problems reach the residents of the state, it will take time for feedback (ie irate complaints) AND state employees astute enough to realize that the state made an error and not the irate resident.
A perfect example of this is the woman who got a bill from the IRS for $298 Billion. When she called, she was told the amount was correct, and they were willing to accept installment payments!!! It wasn't until she went to the media before the IRS would even consider the possibility that they were wrong.
