99 decimal = 1100011 binary
Jeff Perry
computers don't use a decimal representation, they use a binary
representation? In binary, the numbers 99 and 100 contain the same
number of digits (1100011 and 1100100). All the numbers from 0 to 255
(00000000 to 11111111) fit in an 8 bit byte and pose no arithmetic
problem.
If 8 bits are used to encode the year, starting from the year 1900, then
the year 2156 (1900 + 256) might be a problem because the number 256
won't fit in 8 bits: 255 + 1 = 0, or, in binary, 11111111 + 00000001 =
00000000.
2028 may be a problem too because 128, 10000000 in binary, may be
considered a negative number in signed, 8 bit arithmetic, so 127 + 1 =
-1 (01111111 + 00000001 = 10000000).
Jeff
D. Scott Secor - Millennial Infarction Mitigator
news:380B5242...@mail.utexas.edu...
It's been tried.
Incidentally, do you believe that anyone could develop a useful tool to
implement such an algorithm, patch the target apps and data, and test the
resultant fixes in, let us say, about 74 days?
It is truly unfortunate that the hallowed halls of academia failed to
conjure such possibilities a decade or so back. Then we might not be in
this filthy mess!
Ciao,
--
D. Scott Secor, Year 2000 Institute Site Index -- http://y2k.board.org/
Defining Compliancy Down -- it "worked" so well in our government
education system. So why not go from 100% compliance to 100%
readiness to, as Sen. McClintock said, "we're at the average level"?
Tom Benjamin
D. Scott Secor - Millennial Infarction Mitigator wrote in message ...
>It is truly unfortunate that the hallowed halls of academia failed to
>conjure such possibilities a decade or so back. Then we might not be in
>this filthy mess!
I've beat up on software engineers and PHMs about Y2k, but this one hits
another one right on the button. Here we are 74 days from rollover and we
are still arguing about whether it is a hoax or not. Did we miss the
blizzard of research papers on the topic? As soon as deJager wrote his first
article, academia should have been all over this.
Tom
Steve Dover
>
> Concerning the Y2K problem, has no one pointed to the fact that
> computers don't use a decimal representation, they use a binary
> representation?
Has no one pointed out to you the fact that some computers
*do* use decimal representation?
--
Are you ready for year MM?
The Mother of all Messes.
74 Days to go before 'Ignorance is bliss' is obsolete.
news:comp.software.year-2000 Come for the signal, stay for the noise.
Dr John Stockton
13:04:10 in news:comp.software.year-2000.tech, Jeff Perry
<j...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
>Concerning the Y2K problem, has no one pointed to the fact that
>computers don't use a decimal representation, they use a binary
>number of digits (1100011 and 1100100). All the numbers from 0 to 255
>(00000000 to 11111111) fit in an 8 bit byte and pose no arithmetic
>problem.
Yes, but in this context they generally do not.
>If 8 bits are used to encode the year, starting from the year 1900, then
>the year 2156 (1900 + 256) might be a problem because the number 256
>won't fit in 8 bits: 255 + 1 = 0, or, in binary, 11111111 + 00000001 =
>00000000.
>
>2028 may be a problem too because 128, 10000000 in binary, may be
>considered a negative number in signed, 8 bit arithmetic, so 127 + 1 =
>-1 (01111111 + 00000001 = 10000000).
Only rarely will those two matter, though they are possibilities; they
are listed in critdate.htm (see Sig), with many others including 2048
(signed overflow on 12-bit machines), 2038-01-19 (UNIX time_t), etc.
--
© John Stockton, Surrey, UK. j...@merlyn.demon.co.uk Turnpike v4.00 MIME. ©
Web <URL: http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/> - w. FAQish topics, links, acronyms
Dates - miscdate.htm Year 2000 - date2000.htm Critical Dates - critdate.htm
Y2k for beginners - year2000.txt UK mini-FAQ - y2k-mfaq.txt Don't Mail News
Kirk Is
Why?
Computer Science Academia usually deals with matters that are interesting
in a theoretical and/or abstract sense- which Y2K is not, except maybe in
clever convulated ways to provide patches. Computer Engineering Academia
might have more to say, but what can they say except "use 4 digit years"
(or better yet, year fields or date/representations that can deal with
anytime from the big bang up to the heat death of the universe) Academia
might have more to say in the Business School sense, or the project
planning sense, or better yet the psychology of "why do we *do* this kind
of shortcut."
(Incidently, I'm writing from an .edu account for historical reasons, not
because I'm currently an academic.)
--
Kirk Israel - kis...@cs.tufts.edu - http://www.alienbill.com
PROCRASTINATION "Hard work often pays off after time,
but laziness always pays off now."
--Demotivators, http://www.despair.com
Tom Benjamin
>Why?
>Computer Science Academia usually deals with matters that are interesting
in a theoretical and/or abstract sense- which Y2K is not, except maybe in
clever convulated ways to provide patches.
I was not speaking of Computer Science Academia alone, although they have a
contribution to make. Rubin, Gordon, Griffiths, Kappelman and Landes are the
only academics who have written about Y2k as far as I know, and the Landes
"contribution" is really about the millennium not Y2k. Barnett at the Naval
War College may also qualify as an academic. The point is that there have
been very few academic papers written on Y2k.
I think this is one of the reasons we have a University system. We give
scholars tenure so that we can get advice, research, and opinions that are
not tainted by self interest. If Y2k is hype, let me see the research paper
that explains the hype.
If Alan Dechert is right on the technical issues, several dozen academic
papers would have sent deJager to the showers about 1995. More likely, the
dozens of academic papers would have set out the real risks and made Dechert
irrelevant from that point on, and we would have collectively faced the real
risks much earlier.
Where is the MIT research on the topic? Why do I have to depend on industry
research? Why didn't Professor Stephen Poole, MIT, take on Ed Yourdon years
ago? Why can't somebody real, without a stake, produce a realistic
assessment of Y2k risks that reflects the Pollyanna position?
If MIT can't dismiss Y2k with an Alan Dechert wave of the hand, Y2k goes
beyond being a computer issue. It then becomes a business issue, an economic
issue, a cultural issue, a media issue, a political issue, a psychological
issue a risk management issue. Considering the stakes it has certainly been
worthy of study from each of those perspectives.
Where is academia? Why didn't they either shut down the alarms, or turn up
the volume?
Tom
Tom Beckner
snip
>
>Where is academia? Why didn't they either shut down the alarms, or turn up
>the volume?
>
>Tom
>
You are on to something.
Some of the universities seemed to be in a small state of
alarm a couple weeks ago, something about new systems not
working, dates slipping.
Actually, universities are in the same license dillema as
the media, aren't they? They operate at the pleasure of
the state and fedgov.
In addition, if they were talking too much about Dec - Jan
problems, who would sign up for the fall - winter semester at
an out of town school?
Tom Beckner
RonKenyon
>Concerning the Y2K problem, has no one pointed to the fact that
>computers don't use a decimal representation, they use a binary
>representation?
<snip>
This fact has been pointed to any number of times, by others whose familiarity
with theory exceeds their familiarity with reality.
With one metaphorical leg shorter than the other, the mind may easily end up
running in circles.
--
RonKenyon
Kirk Is
> I think this is one of the reasons we have a University system. We give
> scholars tenure so that we can get advice, research, and opinions that are
> not tainted by self interest. If Y2k is hype, let me see the research paper
> that explains the hype.
Well, there was that one article applying meme theory to the hype. I
thought it was an important practical lesson, others seemed to think it
was bunk.
[snip]
> Where is the MIT research on the topic? Why do I have to depend on industry
> research? Why didn't Professor Stephen Poole, MIT, take on Ed Yourdon years
> ago? Why can't somebody real, without a stake, produce a realistic
> assessment of Y2k risks that reflects the Pollyanna position?
Well, I'm not positive there's not any research out there, though
obviously it hasn't been enough to get lots of media attention.
But of course, there's less incentive to write Pollyanna papers than
Doom+Gloom ones: it's more difficult to demonstrate a negative (that there
will be fe or no problems), and it's not as action packed as thinking
you're sounding the alarm.
> If MIT can't dismiss Y2k with an Alan Dechert wave of the hand, Y2k goes
> beyond being a computer issue. It then becomes a business issue, an economic
> issue, a cultural issue, a media issue, a political issue, a psychological
> issue a risk management issue. Considering the stakes it has certainly been
> worthy of study from each of those perspectives.
And we'll probably see more action *after* the fact, when there's data in,
not just conjecture about the current and future state of the system.
It'll be a useful case study in how "the system" handles widespread
simultaneous problems.
> Where is academia? Why didn't they either shut down the alarms, or turn up
> the volume?
--
Kirk Israel - kis...@cs.tufts.edu - http://www.alienbill.com
"[World War I] changed the language. It made patriotic words
sound hollow, unacceptable, ridiculous" --Stephen E. Ambrose
Tom Benjamin
>>Where is academia? Why didn't they either shut down the alarms, or turn up
>>the volume?
>You are on to something.
David Eddy made the point a few weeks back that there have been two Y2k
camps from the very beginning. The same opposing points have been made for
at least five years. We are 74 days from rollover and we really do not know
anything more than we did at the end of 1997.
My point is that we could know much more. We should know much more. If Alan
Dechert is correct, academia should have buried deJager, Yardeni and Bennett
years ago. Bill Clinton could kill all concern (among everyone except the
extreme doomsters) today by going on the tube and saying the Senate Report
is a crock, at least in the pessimistic aspects. He could have killed all
concern a year ago by dismissing Y2k.
Why didn't he? Why didn't the media insist that our leadership tell us that
Alan Dechert was right? Why didn't scholars force the media or the
leadership by deciding Y2k was worthy of study? Hundreds of far less
important (or interesting) business, economic, environmental, government,
mathematical and socialogical subjects are beaten to death. Why do we know
so little about Y2k?
I think the reason is that most academics are chickenshit. It takes courage
to publicly express concern about Y2k. This is the reason - not a
conspiracy - that the happyface is so successful. Human weakness. If you are
Ed Yardeni in 1997 and you study the subject, you can choose to become
alarmed or not. What are the possible outcomes for Yardeni?
1) If he is pessimistic and he is wrong, his reputation is shattered.
2) If he is pessimistic and he is right, no one will thank him for it.
Everybody will be angry and searching for someone to blame, not someone to
thank. Most people will resent him for being right.
3) If he is optimistic and he is right, no real loss, and no real gain.
There will be some satisfaction in rubbing the noses of the alarmists in the
dirt.
4) If he is optimistic and he is wrong, he will have plenty of company. Like
all the other optimists he will point fingers at those who misled him.
Is it any wonder that the vast majority of us choose to be optimistic? Is it
any wonder that most academics ran and hid from Y2k?
The media is quietly running conferences about how the Y2k story should be
managed, and no one from any of the journalism schools is interested? Is
there no one who studies the media wondering about this? The US passes an
unprecedented piece of legislation to limit Y2k liability, and legal
scholars aren't interested?
Why is Ed Yourdon alone on the issue of software metrics? He is wrong? Okay,
so where are the papers from people as qualified as he is, disputing his
findings? Why do we have to pretend Don Scott and Stephen Poole are credible
sources if we want to assess Ed Yourdon's work? I want somebody with a
reputation to put it on the line. Yourdon's is out there. Poole does not
have a reputation.
The idea that Universities serve some higher purpose as a storehouse of
independent knowledge and tenured research is all very well in the abstract,
but when push came to shove on Y2k, academics used their academic freedom to
run and hide from the issue.
They are a bunch of chickenshits who have left Bennett, Yardeni and Yourdon
out there twisting in the wind. Their role was to cut them down or to
support them. Bury them or turn up the heat. If I was one of the handful of
public alarmists, I would be very disappointed in academia. Yourdon would be
happy to argue the merits of his case on CNN against qualified people.
Instead he is attacked by anonymous nobodies and ignored.
Academics exercising academic freedom? (Snort derisively.) A bunch of
chickenshits.
Tom
Kirk Is
> My point is that we could know much more. We should know much more. If Alan
> Dechert is correct, academia should have buried deJager, Yardeni and Bennett
> years ago. Bill Clinton could kill all concern (among everyone except the
> extreme doomsters) today by going on the tube and saying the Senate Report
> is a crock, at least in the pessimistic aspects. He could have killed all
> concern a year ago by dismissing Y2k.
I like Bill Clinton, but don't see him as any kind of final word on Y2K.
Most people who dislike him or believe it will be bad would assume he's
lying or misinformed. It would make no difference.
> Why didn't he? Why didn't the media insist that our leadership tell us that
> Alan Dechert was right? Why didn't scholars force the media or the
> leadership by deciding Y2k was worthy of study? Hundreds of far less
> important (or interesting) business, economic, environmental, government,
> mathematical and socialogical subjects are beaten to death. Why do we know
> so little about Y2k?
Academia is better at studying the past than at prophesying. Y2K hasn't
happened yet. Afterwards, maybe we'll have learned something from it.
> I think the reason is that most academics are chickenshit. It takes courage
> to publicly express concern about Y2k. This is the reason - not a
> conspiracy - that the happyface is so successful. Human weakness. If you are
> Ed Yardeni in 1997 and you study the subject, you can choose to become
> alarmed or not. What are the possible outcomes for Yardeni?
> 1) If he is pessimistic and he is wrong, his reputation is shattered.
No, he can spin it by saying "it *would've* been bad, but luckily people
like me waved the red flag in time"
> 2) If he is pessimistic and he is right, no one will thank him for it.
> Everybody will be angry and searching for someone to blame, not someone to
> thank. Most people will resent him for being right.
Assuming a moderately bad situation made worse by people overpreparing
(and not following the typical patterns of behavior), People will
rightfully resent him for scaring people in the first place.
> 3) If he is optimistic and he is right, no real loss, and no real gain.
> There will be some satisfaction in rubbing the noses of the alarmists in the
> dirt.
This is true, which is why we don't really have a Pollyanna equivalent of
Gary North. (Though i like Poole's stuff a lot.)
> 4) If he is optimistic and he is wrong, he will have plenty of company. Like
> all the other optimists he will point fingers at those who misled him.
Yeah, but you have relatively few saying "absolutely no problem"- many
more saying "probably a little bumpy"
> Is it any wonder that the vast majority of us choose to be optimistic? Is it
> any wonder that most academics ran and hid from Y2k?
> The media is quietly running conferences about how the Y2k story should be
> managed, and no one from any of the journalism schools is interested? Is
> there no one who studies the media wondering about this? The US passes an
> unprecedented piece of legislation to limit Y2k liability, and legal
> scholars aren't interested?
Wo says they aren't interested? How knowledgable are you in legal
scholastic journals?
> The idea that Universities serve some higher purpose as a storehouse of
> independent knowledge and tenured research is all very well in the abstract,
> but when push came to shove on Y2k, academics used their academic freedom to
> run and hide from the issue.
You're not looking for knowledge, you're looking for prediction and
speculation. Few fields of study are involved in that. And economics is
far from an exact science. Yes, it would be nice if they had sufficiently
robust theories and theorems that could predict the results of an
unprecedented event, but the system defies such analysis. I suspect if
they were forced to make a prediction, once you boiled it down it would be
something like "well, nothing's crashed the system yet, so it seems
like as a whole it's pretty robust."
--
Kirk Israel - kis...@cs.tufts.edu - http://www.alienbill.com
"Sisyphus has a sense of playfulness [...]
you have to look at it from the rock's point of view."
--Pointy Haired Boss, Dilbert (TV)
Grrr
As usual, very intriguing questions, cogently expressed.
Sure to be ignored by the resident polly-shills, which is the highest compliment
to your eloquence 'round these parts...
< grrr >
merl...@my-deja.com
<benj...@prcn.org> wrote:
> We are 74 days from rollover and we really do not know
> anything more than we did at the end of 1997.
On the contrary, we know a *great* deal more. In particular, we know
for an absolute fact that industrial civilization has not come to an
end, despite predictions that lookahead failures would cause havoc as
pre-2000 trigger dates (1/1/1999, 4/1/1999, 7/1/1999, 9/9/1999,
10/1/1999, etc.) came and went. See Bradley Sherman's predictions list
(http://www.ironic.com/y2k/) for some examples.
We do not know enough to *prove* beyond a reasonable doubt what will
happen come 1/1/2000 (although I think it likely that various drunks
will try to drive through trees, with fatal consequences to the drunks
and/or the trees). OTOH, there's an awful lot of subjects in this world
where we don't know enough to make solid predictions.
--
Edmund Schweppe aka merl...@my-deja.com
Blissfully free of official positions
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Tom Benjamin
>On the contrary, we know a *great* deal more. In particular, we know
>for an absolute fact that industrial civilization has not come to an
>end, despite predictions that lookahead failures would cause havoc as
>pre-2000 trigger dates (1/1/1999, 4/1/1999, 7/1/1999, 9/9/1999,
>10/1/1999, etc.) came and went. See Bradley Sherman's predictions list
>(http://www.ironic.com/y2k/) for some examples.
Who cares? I don't know a single thing more. I did not think industrial
civilization was going to come to an end in 1999, and I did not expect
lookahead failures would cause havoc. What have I learned? Did you think
industrial civilization was going to come to an end in 1999? No? What did
you learn?
How did we learn a *great* deal about Y2k? Name one thing we learned.
Why do you think I can learn something from stupid predictions made by
people I don't know and or from stupid predictions I never believed? I
can't. That's why I think Bradley Sherman is a bore. He keeps trying to
convince people stupid predictions have something to do with reality. Who
cares?
Tom
Tom Benjamin
Bradley K. Sherman wrote in message
>Alas! How can I compete with someone who thinks that two ships
>can collide on the open seas because of GPS failures. If only
>reality were as fascinating as Tom Benjamin's fantasies, what
>a marvelous world this would be.
Boy, this was interesting. Like anyone cares. Got another trick, pony? I
didn't think so. How about explaining why anybody would think there is
anything significant in collecting Y2k predictions? No! wait! Don't! I can't
handle the excitement.
Tom
Bradley K. Sherman
Tom Benjamin <benj...@prcn.org> wrote:
>
>Why do you think I can learn something from stupid predictions made by
>people I don't know and or from stupid predictions I never believed? I
>can't. That's why I think Bradley Sherman is a bore. He keeps trying to
>convince people stupid predictions have something to do with reality. Who
>cares?
>
Alas! How can I compete with someone who thinks that two ships
can collide on the open seas because of GPS failures. If only
reality were as fascinating as Tom Benjamin's fantasies, what
a marvelous world this would be.
--bks
Gary L. Smith
: Jeff Perry j...@mail.utexas.edu wrote:
People who make statements of the form "computers don't do X" or
"computers do Y" are uneducable and best ignored.
--
Gary L. Smith g...@infinet.com
Columbus, Ohio
merl...@my-deja.com
> >On the contrary, we know a *great* deal more. In particular, we know
> >for an absolute fact that industrial civilization has not come to an
> >end, despite predictions that lookahead failures would cause havoc as
> >pre-2000 trigger dates (1/1/1999, 4/1/1999, 7/1/1999, 9/9/1999,
> >10/1/1999, etc.) came and went. See Bradley Sherman's predictions
> >list (http://www.ironic.com/y2k/) for some examples.
> Who cares? I don't know a single thing more. I did not think
> industrial civilization was going to come to an end in 1999, and I did
> not expect lookahead failures would cause havoc. What have I learned?
You've learned that your expectations regarding lookahead failures were
correct.
> Did you think industrial civilization was going to come to an end in
> 1999? No? What did you learn?
I did not expect the end of industrial civilization (thus I learned that
my expectations were correct, and the expectations of those who were
calling for a collapse by now were incorrect). OTOH, I also thought
that if unremediated Y2K code could kill a business, at least one such
*business* failure would have rather loudly occurred by now. Since I
haven't heard of one such loud business failure, I'm led to conclude
that either (a) my hypotheses is incorrect or (b) businesses can survive
Y2K.
> Why do you think I can learn something from stupid predictions made by
> people I don't know and or from stupid predictions I never believed?
I'm sorry that you don't consider either confirmation or disproof of a
hypotheses to be "learning something", but that's an integral part of
the scientific method. Observe the universe, make a prediction, and
observe some more to see if the prediction is true.
Tom Benjamin
>You've learned that your expectations regarding lookahead failures were
>correct.
Which is - like I said in the original post - not much.
>I did not expect the end of industrial civilization (thus I learned that
>my expectations were correct, and the expectations of those who were
>calling for a collapse by now were incorrect).
This is a *great* deal? Big whoopedoo.
>OTOH, I also thought
>that if unremediated Y2K code could kill a business, at least one such
>*business* failure would have rather loudly occurred by now.
I can easily imagine an unremediated code killing a business after January
1st, but I can't imagine a possible failure that can do this before. Unless
I can, I didn't learn anything, and unless you can come up with a
possibility, you didn't learn anything either.
>I'm sorry that you don't consider either confirmation or disproof of a
>hypotheses to be "learning something", but that's an integral part of
>the scientific method. Observe the universe, make a prediction, and
>observe some more to see if the prediction is true.
If I hypothesize pigs can fly and then I observe pigs for several years and
prove the hypothesis wrong, I learn a lot? Maybe you do, but I don't, and I
don't think many people would consider that learning a lot or feel sorry for
me because I don't understand the scientific method.
I suppose even learning is relative. Since we knew exactly the same thing
when the year started, either I was really smart before or you were really
stupid. Maybe you did learn a great deal. How is that for a compromise? I
stand corrected:
People with half a brain haven't learned much and stupid twits have learned
a *great* deal. Bradley Sherman's Y2k page for stupid twits? How's that?
Works for me.
Tom
merl...@my-deja.com
<benj...@prcn.org> wrote:
> I can easily imagine an unremediated code killing a business after
> January 1st, but I can't imagine a possible failure that can do this
> before. Unless I can, I didn't learn anything
Well, if you insist that you didn't learn anything, there's no point in
my trying to change your mind any further.
RonKenyon
<snip>
>I'm sorry that you don't consider either confirmation or disproof of a
>hypotheses to be "learning something", but that's an integral part of
>the scientific method. Observe the universe, make a prediction, and
>observe some more to see if the prediction is true.
Scientific method? How about:
Observe the universe
State a hypothesis
State an alternative hypothesis
Make a prediction, consistent with one hypothesis but not the other.
Observe the universe
Disconfirm one or both hypotheses.
Then one may have learned something.
As for 9/9/1999, I have not seen any associated predictions of TEOTWAWKI except
by Paul Milne (stuck-fault, predicting the downfall of everything since the
dawn of time) and tongue-in-cheek predictions by Pollyanna's.
Others have produced statements suggesting 9/9/1999 (among other special dates)
should receive close attention in remediation -- as indeed it should where
observed in code, data or habitual user practice.
--
RonKenyon