Why No Sign of Failures from Albany?

1 view
Skip to first unread message

Tim Burke

unread,
Apr 12, 1998, 3:00:00 AM4/12/98
to

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


Bryan Cowan

unread,
Apr 13, 1998, 3:00:00 AM4/13/98
to

In article <6grko9$4uq$1...@news10.ispnews.com>, asci...@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.


Duncan Lynskey

unread,
Apr 13, 1998, 3:00:00 AM4/13/98
to

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$77o$6...@usenet85.supernews.com>...

Arthur Bouchard

unread,
Apr 13, 1998, 3:00:00 AM4/13/98
to

I'm no programmer, but from what I have read here its sounds like
perhaps they are using "mirroring" techniques, I found this at thier
page:

http://www.irm.state.ny.us/yr2000/imdates.htm

"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.

-Art-


Bryan Cowan wrote:
>
> In article <6grko9$4uq$1...@news10.ispnews.com>, asci...@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.

--
To Email remove nospam from address
Arthur Bouchard
Contributing Editor
Suite 101 Internet Help and Tips
http://www.suite101.com/articles/page.cfm/362

paul leblanc

unread,
Apr 13, 1998, 3:00:00 AM4/13/98
to

Tim Burke 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, 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)

D. Scott Secor - Millennial Infaction Mitigator

unread,
Apr 13, 1998, 3:00:00 AM4/13/98
to

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.

Ciao,


Scott "Let's Get Fiscal" Secor


Duncan Lynskey wrote in message <6gsi00$a...@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$77o$6...@usenet85.supernews.com>...

>>In article <6grko9$4uq$1...@news10.ispnews.com>, asci...@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.
>>

Steve Dover

unread,
Apr 13, 1998, 3:00:00 AM4/13/98
to

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.

Allen Comstock

unread,
Apr 13, 1998, 3:00:00 AM4/13/98
to

In article <35324...@news2.uswest.net>, "D. Scott Secor - Millennial
Infaction Mitigator" <y...@uswest.net.NO$PAM> 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.
>

> 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?

Allen Comstock

Mail: Y2000 infomagic com

unread,
Apr 13, 1998, 3:00:00 AM4/13/98
to

On Sun, 12 Apr 1998 20:09:15 -0400, "Tim Burke" <asci...@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.'

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!

Murray Spork

unread,
Apr 14, 1998, 3:00:00 AM4/14/98
to


paul leblanc <pleb...@idt.net> wrote in article <353214...@idt.net>...


> Tim Burke 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, 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.

Murray Spork.

Tim Oxler

unread,
Apr 14, 1998, 3:00:00 AM4/14/98
to

"Tim Burke" <asci...@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.


Tim Oxler
TEO Computer Technologies Inc.
http://www.teo-computer.com

Jo Anne Slaven

unread,
Apr 14, 1998, 3:00:00 AM4/14/98
to

Murray Spork wrote:
>
> paul leblanc <pleb...@idt.net> wrote in article <353214...@idt.net>...

> > 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)

Being an accountant who has worked with many mainframe and PC accounting
systems, I can tell you that when a new fiscal year starts, the system
has to know what the last day of the fiscal year will be. For a fiscal
year beginning on, say, April 1, 1999, there will be 12 monthly
accounting periods it will have to recognize. April 30, 1999 up to March
31, 2000.

In my mind, I can see the computer thinking that the months are out of
order just as soon as fiscal 1999 is closed and fiscal 2000 is opened
up. Then what happens? Will it show Jan 1 00 as the first day of the
fiscal year by accident? Or will the software simply decide that the
whole thing is just too ridiculous for words, and shut down completely?

> 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.

As you should be able to tell from my comments above, budgeting probably
won't be the important issue here. Getting the system to recognize the
fiscal year will be the issue.

Jo Anne

Jo Anne Slaven

unread,
Apr 14, 1998, 3:00:00 AM4/14/98
to

Jo Anne Slaven wrote:

> Being an accountant who has worked with many mainframe and PC accounting
> systems, I can tell you that when a new fiscal year starts, the system
> has to know what the last day of the fiscal year will be. For a fiscal
> year beginning on, say, April 1, 1999, there will be 12 monthly
> accounting periods it will have to recognize. April 30, 1999 up to March
> 31, 2000.
>
> In my mind, I can see the computer thinking that the months are out of
> order just as soon as fiscal 1999 is closed and fiscal 2000 is opened
> up. Then what happens? Will it show Jan 1 00 as the first day of the
> fiscal year by accident? Or will the software simply decide that the
> whole thing is just too ridiculous for words, and shut down completely?

> As you should be able to tell from my comments above, budgeting probably
> won't be the important issue here. Getting the system to recognize the
> fiscal year will be the issue.

I realize that it's tacky to follow up to my own post, but if what I've
said above is the case, there are only 8 1/2 months to fix it.

Jo Anne

D. Scott Secor - Millennial Infarction Mitigator

unread,
Apr 14, 1998, 3:00:00 AM4/14/98
to

Allen Comstock wrote in message ...

>In article <35324...@news2.uswest.net>, "D. Scott Secor - Millennial
>Infarction Mitigator" <y...@uswest.net.NO$PAM> 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.
>>
>> 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?
>
>Allen Comstock


That's precisely where my "somewhat larger than" fudge factor comes in.
Allow me to illustrate: 8000 is larger than 46.

cory hamasaki

unread,
Apr 15, 1998, 3:00:00 AM4/15/98
to
On Tue, 14 Apr 1998 22:19:40, Jo Anne Slaven <sla...@rogerswave.ca> wrote: > Jo Anne Slaven wrote: > > Being an accountant who has worked with many mainframe and PC accounting > > systems, I can tell you that when a new fiscal year starts, the system > > has to know what the last day of the fiscal year will be. For a fiscal > > year beginning on, say, April 1, 1999, there will be 12 monthly > > accounting periods it will have to recognize. April 30, 1999 up to March > > 31, 2000. > > > > In my mind, I can see the computer thinking that the months are out of > > order just as soon as fiscal 1999 is closed and fiscal 2000 is opened > > up. Then what happens? Will it show Jan 1 00 as the first day of the > > fiscal year by accident? Or will the software simply decide that the > > whole thing is just too ridiculous for words, and shut down completely? > > As you should be able to tell from my comments above, budgeting probably > > won't be the important issue here. Getting the system to recognize the > > fiscal year will be the issue. > I realize that it's tacky to follow up to my own post, but if what I've > said above is the case, there are only 8 1/2 months to fix it. > Jo Anne Makes sense, FY98, FY99 is not issue. As you point out it's the actual date of the end of the period. If FY99 ends in September 1999, no obvious problem. Stop me if you heard this one before.... nah, like any old fogger, I'll tell the same tired story again... 000197AF, it's on the webpage. The failure happened on December 1, 1979. The software was trying to figure out what the last day, hour, minute, second of the month was... Ah-ha, it said, it's the second before 00:01.00 January 1, 197A. It happened as the first jobstep ended and the SMF and billing was being calculated in the early morning of December 1, 1979. So our new pal, Jo Anne (of Jo Anne's Bed and Back stores?) has solved the question of where the New York FY problems have gone. The nest of problems occur 1 year before the first second of 2000. It's too early. FY98, FY99, are just names, they don't mean anything. It's the actual bounding datetimes that matter. Good going, Jo Anne, you win this week's c.s.y2k technical breakthrough award. .and this proves the value of c.s.y2k over all those other venues. Amazing, it's so clear now. Aren't the rest of you embarrassed? cory hamasaki 00197AF <----<<<< I was first.

David Husband

unread,
Apr 15, 1998, 3:00:00 AM4/15/98
to

In article <3533E0...@rogerswave.ca>, Jo Anne Slaven
<sla...@rogerswave.ca> writes

>I realize that it's tacky to follow up to my own post, but if what I've
>said above is the case, there are only 8 1/2 months to fix it.
>
>Jo Anne

Thankyou, Jo Anne, I hope you will stick around here...
--
David Husband, Portland, Dorset, United Kingdom

Murray Spork

unread,
Apr 15, 1998, 3:00:00 AM4/15/98
to


Jo Anne Slaven <sla...@rogerswave.ca> wrote in article
<3533E0...@rogerswave.ca>...


> Jo Anne Slaven wrote:
>
> > Being an accountant who has worked with many mainframe and PC accounting
> > systems, I can tell you that when a new fiscal year starts, the system
> > has to know what the last day of the fiscal year will be. For a fiscal
> > year beginning on, say, April 1, 1999, there will be 12 monthly
> > accounting periods it will have to recognize. April 30, 1999 up to March
> > 31, 2000.
> >
> > In my mind, I can see the computer thinking that the months are out of
> > order just as soon as fiscal 1999 is closed and fiscal 2000 is opened
> > up. Then what happens? Will it show Jan 1 00 as the first day of the
> > fiscal year by accident? Or will the software simply decide that the
> > whole thing is just too ridiculous for words, and shut down completely?
>
> > As you should be able to tell from my comments above, budgeting probably
> > won't be the important issue here. Getting the system to recognize the
> > fiscal year will be the issue.
>

> I realize that it's tacky to follow up to my own post, but if what I've
> said above is the case, there are only 8 1/2 months to fix it.

I agree Jo. I think I've gotten confused between FY99 and FY98. NY just rolled
over into FY98 did they not?

The point I was trying to make that the only reason we are going to have
problems in the FY 1 April 1998 to 30 April 1999 is if there are "look-ahead"
functions such as budgeting. IMO these look-ahead functions are unlikely to
significantly impact critical operations in the current financial year. It
might make next years budgets a complete mess but is unlikely to disrupt
day-to-day operations this year.

As you say - the crunch time will be the roll-over on 1 April 1999.

Murray

Jo Anne Slaven

unread,
Apr 15, 1998, 3:00:00 AM4/15/98
to

cory hamasaki wrote:

>
> On Tue, 14 Apr 1998 22:19:40, Jo Anne Slaven <sla...@rogerswave.ca> wrote:

> So our new pal, Jo Anne (of Jo Anne's Bed and Back stores?) has solved the
> question of where the New York FY problems have gone. The nest of problems
> occur 1 year before the first second of 2000. It's too early.

> FY98, FY99, are just names, they don't mean anything. It's the actual
> bounding datetimes that matter.
>
> Good going, Jo Anne, you win this week's c.s.y2k technical breakthrough award.

<blushing> Thank you! I'm honoured!

> .and this proves the value of c.s.y2k over all those other venues.
>
> Amazing, it's so clear now. Aren't the rest of you embarrassed?

The thought just popped into my head when I saw what was written about
budgets for FY2000. It shocked me so much that I attempted to do a Deja
News search to see if it had been mentioned before. I am *very*
surprized that none of you have thought about this, but then, you aren't
accountants, so your thought processes don't work that way.

A couple of years ago, I was teaching intro accounting and business
systems to programming students. They hated it. They couldn't see what
possible relevance accounting had, or what use it would be to them. Now
we know.

Jo Anne

Murray Spork

unread,
Apr 16, 1998, 3:00:00 AM4/16/98
to


Jo Anne Slaven <sla...@rogerswave.ca> wrote in article
<3534D1...@rogerswave.ca>...


> cory hamasaki wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 14 Apr 1998 22:19:40, Jo Anne Slaven <sla...@rogerswave.ca> wrote:
>
> > So our new pal, Jo Anne (of Jo Anne's Bed and Back stores?) has solved the
> > question of where the New York FY problems have gone. The nest of problems
> > occur 1 year before the first second of 2000. It's too early.
>
> > FY98, FY99, are just names, they don't mean anything. It's the actual
> > bounding datetimes that matter.
> >
> > Good going, Jo Anne, you win this week's c.s.y2k technical breakthrough
award.
>
> <blushing> Thank you! I'm honoured!
>
> > .and this proves the value of c.s.y2k over all those other venues.
> >
> > Amazing, it's so clear now. Aren't the rest of you embarrassed?

Well it was what I was trying to say. Admittedly she expressed it far more
clearly than I.

<envious smirk>

Murray.


Harlan Smith

unread,
Apr 17, 1998, 3:00:00 AM4/17/98
to

Jo Anne Slaven <sla...@rogerswave.ca> wrote in article

<3533E0...@rogerswave.ca>...

> Being an accountant who has worked with many mainframe and PC accounting
> systems, I can tell you that when a new fiscal year starts, the system
> has to know what the last day of the fiscal year will be. For a fiscal
> year beginning on, say, April 1, 1999, there will be 12 monthly
> accounting periods it will have to recognize. April 30, 1999 up to March
> 31, 2000.
>
> In my mind, I can see the computer thinking that the months are out of
> order just as soon as fiscal 1999 is closed and fiscal 2000 is opened
> up. Then what happens? Will it show Jan 1 00 as the first day of the
> fiscal year by accident? Or will the software simply decide that the
> whole thing is just too ridiculous for words, and shut down completely?

I suppose that would be a function of the specific unremediated software
application.

In any case, I don't think it will be the graceful acceptance of the new
fiscal year, like you would want to see.

So I gather that you think the start of FY 2000 will force the Y2K problems
to the surface.

That would be April Fools Day for the UK and NY State and then a bunch of
states in June.

I guess those dates are on some of the critical date lists.

Thanks for clarifying our thinking.

Harlan

Roger Barnett

unread,
Apr 18, 1998, 3:00:00 AM4/18/98
to

In article: <01bd6a36$ae793840$1096...@CRC3.concentric.net> "Harlan Smith"
<hwsmith...@cris.com> writes:
>
> So I gather that you think the start of FY 2000 will force the Y2K problems
> to the surface.
>
> That would be April Fools Day for the UK and NY State and then a bunch of
> states in June.
>
> I guess those dates are on some of the critical date lists.


The financial year in the UK starts on April 6th.

--
Roger Barnett

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages