danny burstein <dannyb@panix.com> schrieb:
> In <tl0k9m$3cde4$1@newsreader4.netcologne.de> Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> writes:
>
> [snip]
>
>>> Not a regular reader of the Risks digest, then.
>
>>There hasn't been an issue of RISKS for quite some time.
>>(I'm a reader, and very occasionally a contributor).
>
> Just got one last night. PGN is most certainly
> still distributing it.

Ah, seems I accidentally unsubscribed.

Thanks for helping me out!

Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> schrieb:
> On 11/15/2022 6:09 PM, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
>> In article <tkmbd3$uc0u$2@dont-email.me>,
>> Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> xkcd: Y2K and 2038
>>> https://xkcd.com/2697/
>>>
>>> It shouldn't cost more than a trillion dollars or two to investigate this.
>>>
>>> Explained at:
>>> https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/2697:_Y2K_and_2038
>>
>> (Hal Heydt)
>> The *nix world is well into the shift to 64-bit date variables.
>
> Yup. But has the client software been upgraded ?

Recompile and you're done, unless your code made some seriously
bad assumptions about pointers. With the 64-bit Unices which are
used today, sizeof(long) == sizeof(void *) still holds, same as
in the day of the VAX.

Apparently, some people thought that sizeof(int) == sizeof(void *)
would be guaranteed for all times in the future. That turned out
not to be the case.

And as for big-endian vs. little-endian - that has been won by
little-endian.

On Tue, 15 Nov 2022 11:40:46 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
<taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:

>Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote in
>news:r7i7nhdctpodl8os23hmft381i7tv0iobo@4ax.com:
>
>> On Mon, 14 Nov 2022 15:09:09 -0800, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>On 2022-11-14 15:04, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>>>> On 11/14/2022 10:02 AM, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> pyotr filipivich <phamp@mindspring.com> wrote in
>>>>> news:51g3nh1d7ovl4ae65869ugav22sbeoqhp8@4ax.com:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> on Mon, 14 Nov 2022
>>>>>> 16:50:19 +1300 typed in rec.arts.sf.written  the following:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Things these days simply aren't made to last, and in many
>>>>>>> cases they're difficult or impossible to even fix.  :-(
>>>>>>
>>>>>>       Things are designed with (at best) ease of assembly /
>>>>>>       installation
>>>>>> in mind.  Remember the Manza 2+2 which had access to one of
>>>>>> the spark plugs blocked by an engine mount?
>>>>>
>>>>> Wasn't there a Cadillac that required lifting the block off
>>>>> the motor mounts to access the spark plugs?
>>>>
>>>> My Dad's 1977 Ford F-350 required laying on top of the air
>>>> cleaner to get to the back two plugs in the 460 in3 V8.  When
>>>> I changed the plugs at 30,000+ miles, it was obvious that the
>>>> back two plugs had never been changed as the electrodes were
>>>> totally burnt off.
>>>
>>>A buddy of mine was working on Ford pickup for his son to
>>>replace some broken exhaust manifold studs...
>>>
>>>(A KNOWN problem with this particular truck)
>>>
>>>...because the official Ford repair procedure involved...
>>>
>>>...REMOVING THE ENTIRE CAB!
>>
>> Well, if it's under warranty so Ford is paying for it, that
>> /might/ be OK.
>>
>> If not, then a known problem combined with a perhaps
>> overly-elaborate repair procedure doesn't speak well for Ford.
>>
>> But then, my dad, not a Ford fan, gave two "explanations" for
>> the name:
>> Found On Road Dead
>> Fix Or Replace Daily
>> and who can say he was wrong?
>
>The other old saw is, of course, First On Race Day, which has about
>as much basis in history (which is to say, a tiny bit, but not
>much.)

I don't recall every hearing that one.

Perhaps, not being a Fan of Ford, my dad ... ignored it.
--
"In this connexion, unquestionably the most significant
development was the disintegration, under Christian
influence, of classical conceptions of the family and
of family right."

On Tue, 15 Nov 2022 14:00:18 -0600, Lynn McGuire
<lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 11/15/2022 11:14 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
>> On Mon, 14 Nov 2022 17:04:52 -0600, Lynn McGuire
>> <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 11/14/2022 10:02 AM, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
>>>> pyotr filipivich <phamp@mindspring.com> wrote in
>>>> news:51g3nh1d7ovl4ae65869ugav22sbeoqhp8@4ax.com:
>>>>
>>>>> Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> on Mon, 14 Nov 2022 16:50:19
>>>>> +1300 typed in rec.arts.sf.written the following:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Things these days simply aren't made to last, and in many cases
>>>>>> they're difficult or impossible to even fix. :-(
>>>>>
>>>>> Things are designed with (at best) ease of assembly /
>>>>> installation
>>>>> in mind. Remember the Manza 2+2 which had access to one of the
>>>>> spark plugs blocked by an engine mount?
>>>>
>>>> Wasn't there a Cadillac that required lifting the block off the motor
>>>> mounts to access the spark plugs?
>>>
>>> My Dad's 1977 Ford F-350 required laying on top of the air cleaner to
>>> get to the back two plugs in the 460 in3 V8. When I changed the plugs
>>> at 30,000+ miles, it was obvious that the back two plugs had never been
>>> changed as the electrodes were totally burnt off.
>>
>> Did that improve it's performance or did they turn out to be
>> superfluous?
>
>Gas mileage changed from 5 mpg to 6 mpg.

A 20% improvement!

But rather low by today's standards, surely?

(I haven't owned a vehicle since 1982 -- and that was in Germany.)
--
"In this connexion, unquestionably the most significant
development was the disintegration, under Christian
influence, of classical conceptions of the family and
of family right."

Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote in
news:to4anh16bn9cfni93p2lbupal23jedkg62@4ax.com:

> On Tue, 15 Nov 2022 11:40:46 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili
> Kujisalimisha <taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote in
>>news:r7i7nhdctpodl8os23hmft381i7tv0iobo@4ax.com:
>>
>>> On Mon, 14 Nov 2022 15:09:09 -0800, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On 2022-11-14 15:04, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>>>>> On 11/14/2022 10:02 AM, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> pyotr filipivich <phamp@mindspring.com> wrote in
>>>>>> news:51g3nh1d7ovl4ae65869ugav22sbeoqhp8@4ax.com:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> on Mon, 14 Nov 2022
>>>>>>> 16:50:19 +1300 typed in rec.arts.sf.written� the
>>>>>>> following:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Things these days simply aren't made to last, and in many
>>>>>>>> cases they're difficult or impossible to even fix.� :-(
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ����� Things are designed with (at best) ease of assembly
>>>>>>> / ����� installation
>>>>>>> in mind.� Remember the Manza 2+2 which had access to one
>>>>>>> of the spark plugs blocked by an engine mount?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Wasn't there a Cadillac that required lifting the block off
>>>>>> the motor mounts to access the spark plugs?
>>>>>
>>>>> My Dad's 1977 Ford F-350 required laying on top of the air
>>>>> cleaner to get to the back two plugs in the 460 in3 V8.�
>>>>> When I changed the plugs at 30,000+ miles, it was obvious
>>>>> that the back two plugs had never been changed as the
>>>>> electrodes were totally burnt off.
>>>>
>>>>A buddy of mine was working on Ford pickup for his son to
>>>>replace some broken exhaust manifold studs...
>>>>
>>>>(A KNOWN problem with this particular truck)
>>>>
>>>>...because the official Ford repair procedure involved...
>>>>
>>>>...REMOVING THE ENTIRE CAB!
>>>
>>> Well, if it's under warranty so Ford is paying for it, that
>>> /might/ be OK.
>>>
>>> If not, then a known problem combined with a perhaps
>>> overly-elaborate repair procedure doesn't speak well for Ford.
>>>
>>> But then, my dad, not a Ford fan, gave two "explanations" for
>>> the name:
>>> Found On Road Dead
>>> Fix Or Replace Daily
>>> and who can say he was wrong?
>>
>>The other old saw is, of course, First On Race Day, which has
>>about as much basis in history (which is to say, a tiny bit, but
>>not much.)
>
> I don't recall every hearing that one.
>
> Perhaps, not being a Fan of Ford, my dad ... ignored it.

Quite likely. All of the above were common enough among the
gearheads I hung out with in high school. (The most popular
vehicle, however was the GTO.)

--
Terry Austin

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote in
news:oq4anh5ba5kckv8drksm23dncivs8p4cqh@4ax.com:

> On Tue, 15 Nov 2022 14:00:18 -0600, Lynn McGuire
> <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On 11/15/2022 11:14 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
>>> On Mon, 14 Nov 2022 17:04:52 -0600, Lynn McGuire
>>> <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 11/14/2022 10:02 AM, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> pyotr filipivich <phamp@mindspring.com> wrote in
>>>>> news:51g3nh1d7ovl4ae65869ugav22sbeoqhp8@4ax.com:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> on Mon, 14 Nov 2022
>>>>>> 16:50:19 +1300 typed in rec.arts.sf.written the following:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Things these days simply aren't made to last, and in many
>>>>>>> cases they're difficult or impossible to even fix. :-(
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Things are designed with (at best) ease of assembly
>>>>>> / installation
>>>>>> in mind. Remember the Manza 2+2 which had access to one of
>>>>>> the spark plugs blocked by an engine mount?
>>>>>
>>>>> Wasn't there a Cadillac that required lifting the block off
>>>>> the motor mounts to access the spark plugs?
>>>>
>>>> My Dad's 1977 Ford F-350 required laying on top of the air
>>>> cleaner to get to the back two plugs in the 460 in3 V8. When
>>>> I changed the plugs at 30,000+ miles, it was obvious that the
>>>> back two plugs had never been changed as the electrodes were
>>>> totally burnt off.
>>>
>>> Did that improve it's performance or did they turn out to be
>>> superfluous?
>>
>>Gas mileage changed from 5 mpg to 6 mpg.
>
> A 20% improvement!
>
> But rather low by today's standards, surely?
>
A bit.

Friend of mine had a Dodge Super Bee (of the 68-71 year models, not
the modern revival) with whatever the biggest motor they put in it.
He said he could watch the gas gauge visibly drop when he floored
it. (And not because the sensor was in the front of the tank.)

But hey, it's still better mileage than a 747 gets!

--
Terry Austin

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

On 2022-11-16 10:06, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
> Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote in
> news:oq4anh5ba5kckv8drksm23dncivs8p4cqh@4ax.com:
>
>> On Tue, 15 Nov 2022 14:00:18 -0600, Lynn McGuire
>> <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 11/15/2022 11:14 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 14 Nov 2022 17:04:52 -0600, Lynn McGuire
>>>> <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 11/14/2022 10:02 AM, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> pyotr filipivich <phamp@mindspring.com> wrote in
>>>>>> news:51g3nh1d7ovl4ae65869ugav22sbeoqhp8@4ax.com:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> on Mon, 14 Nov 2022
>>>>>>> 16:50:19 +1300 typed in rec.arts.sf.written the following:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Things these days simply aren't made to last, and in many
>>>>>>>> cases they're difficult or impossible to even fix. :-(
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Things are designed with (at best) ease of assembly
>>>>>>> / installation
>>>>>>> in mind. Remember the Manza 2+2 which had access to one of
>>>>>>> the spark plugs blocked by an engine mount?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Wasn't there a Cadillac that required lifting the block off
>>>>>> the motor mounts to access the spark plugs?
>>>>>
>>>>> My Dad's 1977 Ford F-350 required laying on top of the air
>>>>> cleaner to get to the back two plugs in the 460 in3 V8. When
>>>>> I changed the plugs at 30,000+ miles, it was obvious that the
>>>>> back two plugs had never been changed as the electrodes were
>>>>> totally burnt off.
>>>>
>>>> Did that improve it's performance or did they turn out to be
>>>> superfluous?
>>>
>>> Gas mileage changed from 5 mpg to 6 mpg.
>>
>> A 20% improvement!
>>
>> But rather low by today's standards, surely?
>>
> A bit.
>
> Friend of mine had a Dodge Super Bee (of the 68-71 year models, not
> the modern revival) with whatever the biggest motor they put in it.
> He said he could watch the gas gauge visibly drop when he floored
> it. (And not because the sensor was in the front of the tank.)

He might have said...

....or more likely you're making it up...

....either way, it's bullshit.

Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> writes:
>On 2022-11-16 10:06, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
>> Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote in
>> news:oq4anh5ba5kckv8drksm23dncivs8p4cqh@4ax.com:

>>
>> Friend of mine had a Dodge Super Bee (of the 68-71 year models, not
>> the modern revival) with whatever the biggest motor they put in it.
>> He said he could watch the gas gauge visibly drop when he floored
>> it. (And not because the sensor was in the front of the tank.)
>
>He might have said...
>
>...or more likely you're making it up...
>
>...either way, it's bullshit.

It is more likely the gas sloshing to the back of the
tank under acceleration causing the needle to move.

On 2022-11-16 12:16, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> writes:
>> On 2022-11-16 10:06, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
>>> Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote in
>>> news:oq4anh5ba5kckv8drksm23dncivs8p4cqh@4ax.com:
>
>>>
>>> Friend of mine had a Dodge Super Bee (of the 68-71 year models, not
>>> the modern revival) with whatever the biggest motor they put in it.
>>> He said he could watch the gas gauge visibly drop when he floored
>>> it. (And not because the sensor was in the front of the tank.)
>>
>> He might have said...
>>
>> ...or more likely you're making it up...
>>
>> ...either way, it's bullshit.
>
> It is more likely the gas sloshing to the back of the
> tank under acceleration causing the needle to move.

Essentially certain.

Assuming an absolute worst case scenario:

Instantaneous fuel consumption of 1 mpg.

At 1 mph = 1 gallon per hour usage.

A 1 gallon tank

Means a needle the moves from full to empty...

in ONE HOUR!

If the needle is the typical quarter of a circle sweep (90 degrees),
then that means it moves 1.5 degrees per minute. The minute hand on a
clock moves at 6 degrees per minute.

Does anyone want to claim they can see the minute hand on a clock
"visibly move"?

:-)

scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) wrote in
news:FybdL.139383$U709.109142@fx16.iad:

> Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> writes:
>>On 2022-11-16 10:06, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
>>> Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote in
>>> news:oq4anh5ba5kckv8drksm23dncivs8p4cqh@4ax.com:
>
>>>
>>> Friend of mine had a Dodge Super Bee (of the 68-71 year
>>> models, not the modern revival) with whatever the biggest
>>> motor they put in it. He said he could watch the gas gauge
>>> visibly drop when he floored it. (And not because the sensor
>>> was in the front of the tank.)
>>
>>He might have said...
>>
>>...or more likely you're making it up...
>>
>>...either way, it's bullshit.
>
> It is more likely the gas sloshing to the back of the
> tank under acceleration causing the needle to move.
>
That does happen, but this was more than that.

--
Terry Austin

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

On 2022-11-16 12:40, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
> scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) wrote in
> news:FybdL.139383$U709.109142@fx16.iad:
>
>> Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> writes:
>>> On 2022-11-16 10:06, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
>>>> Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote in
>>>> news:oq4anh5ba5kckv8drksm23dncivs8p4cqh@4ax.com:
>>
>>>>
>>>> Friend of mine had a Dodge Super Bee (of the 68-71 year
>>>> models, not the modern revival) with whatever the biggest
>>>> motor they put in it. He said he could watch the gas gauge
>>>> visibly drop when he floored it. (And not because the sensor
>>>> was in the front of the tank.)
>>>
>>> He might have said...
>>>
>>> ...or more likely you're making it up...
>>>
>>> ...either way, it's bullshit.
>>
>> It is more likely the gas sloshing to the back of the
>> tank under acceleration causing the needle to move.
>>
> That does happen, but this was more than that.

No... ...it really, really wasn't.

DO THE MATH.

On 2022-11-16, Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> wrote:
> Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> schrieb:
>> On 11/15/2022 6:09 PM, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
>>> In article <tkmbd3$uc0u$2@dont-email.me>,
>>> Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> xkcd: Y2K and 2038
>>>> https://xkcd.com/2697/
>>>>
>>>> It shouldn't cost more than a trillion dollars or two to investigate this.
>>>>
>>>> Explained at:
>>>> https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/2697:_Y2K_and_2038
>>>
>>> (Hal Heydt)
>>> The *nix world is well into the shift to 64-bit date variables.
>>
>> Yup. But has the client software been upgraded ?
>
> Recompile and you're done, unless your code made some seriously
> bad assumptions about pointers. With the 64-bit Unices which are
> used today, sizeof(long) == sizeof(void *) still holds, same as
> in the day of the VAX.
>
> Apparently, some people thought that sizeof(int) == sizeof(void *)
> would be guaranteed for all times in the future. That turned out
> not to be the case.
>
> And as for big-endian vs. little-endian - that has been won by
> little-endian.

There are other possible gotchas as well; it's not that simple. Bit
masks and encoding/decoding routines could have problems. The big
problem, though, is that the language standards may have changed.
Include file names and standard constant names change. The old client
software may very well not recompile easily on a modern 32-bit
setup, even if the change to 64-bits wouldn't cause additional problems.
I've shepherded my major C program through many such changes over the past
40 years!

Minor niggle: The start of the day of the VAX predates the definition
of (void *) by quite a few years (5+?)

Chris

In article <l9PbL.74464$1449.32517@fx14.iad>,
Slcott Lurndal <slp53@pacbell.net> wrote:
>Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha <taustinca@gmail.com> writes:
>>Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote in
>>news:tkmbd3$uc0u$2@dont-email.me:
>>
>>> xkcd: Y2K and 2038
>>> https://xkcd.com/2697/
>>>
>>> It shouldn't cost more than a trillion dollars or two to
>>> investigate this.
>>
>>I'll start doing so as soon as the check clears.
>>
>>Or it could end up being as big a nothingburger as y2k was, because
>>the people who run such systems aren't idiots.
>
>We (Burroughs) started preparing for 2000 in 1987. None of our customers
>were affected by the rollover (and most customer software on those mainframes
>used two-digit year fields in 1987).
>
>And, on the vast majority of unix/linux servers/desktops currently running,
>
>sizeof(time_t)=8 (64 bits)
>
>Which pushes the "2038" date out to December 4th, in the year 292,277,026,596.
>
>For the most part, a nothingburger. However, there are likely lots of
>small embedded 32-bit processors in devices like routers which may exhibit
>issues, if they're still running 16 years from now.

(Hal Heydt)
And just because the hardware uses 32-bit words doesn't prevent it
from having 64-bit numeric variables.

All the programmers I knew in the 1970s were well aware of the
Y2K issue then. One shop I was in in the mid-70s had a program
to print 30 year amortization tables. Even then it was written
to handle post-2000 end dates.

For a long time, businesses usually replaced application systems
about every 5 to 7 years. As a result, most IT people assumed
that sometime from the late 1980s to early 1990s, the
replacement cycle would shift everything to date routines that
handled the century rollover. Then companies quit *replacing*
systems and it became apparent (years before panic set in among
the MBAs) that Something Needed to be Done. The bean counters
weren't willing to spend the money to fix things until the panic
struck in the late 1990s. At that point, it cost a lot more, of
course.

On 11/16/22 4:31 PM, Alan wrote:
> On 2022-11-16 12:16, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>> Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> writes:
>>> On 2022-11-16 10:06, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
>>>> Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote in
>>>> news:oq4anh5ba5kckv8drksm23dncivs8p4cqh@4ax.com:
>>
>>>>
>>>> Friend of mine had a Dodge Super Bee (of the 68-71 year models, not
>>>> the modern revival) with whatever the biggest motor they put in it.
>>>> He said he could watch the gas gauge visibly drop when he floored
>>>> it. (And not because the sensor was in the front of the tank.)
>>>
>>> He might have said...
>>>
>>> ...or more likely you're making it up...
>>>
>>> ...either way, it's bullshit.
>>
>> It is more likely the gas sloshing to the back of the
>> tank under acceleration causing the needle to move.
>
> Essentially certain.
>
> Assuming an absolute worst case scenario:
>
> Instantaneous fuel consumption of 1 mpg.
>
> At 1 mph = 1 gallon per hour usage.
>
> A 1 gallon tank
>
> Means a needle the moves from full to empty...
>
> in ONE HOUR!
>
> If the needle is the typical quarter of a circle sweep (90 degrees),
> then that means it moves 1.5 degrees per minute. The minute hand on a
> clock moves at 6 degrees per minute.
>
> Does anyone want to claim they can see the minute hand on a clock
> "visibly move"?

I can, on an antique grandfather clock.

--
John W. Kennedy
Algernon Burbage, Lord Roderick, Father Martin, Bishop Baldwin,
King Pellinore, Captain Bailey, Merlin -- A Kingdom for a Stage!

John W Kennedy <john.w.kennedy@gmail.com> writes:
>On 11/16/22 4:31 PM, Alan wrote:
>> On 2022-11-16 12:16, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>> Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> writes:
>>>> On 2022-11-16 10:06, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
>>>>> Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote in
>>>>> news:oq4anh5ba5kckv8drksm23dncivs8p4cqh@4ax.com:
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Friend of mine had a Dodge Super Bee (of the 68-71 year models, not
>>>>> the modern revival) with whatever the biggest motor they put in it.
>>>>> He said he could watch the gas gauge visibly drop when he floored
>>>>> it. (And not because the sensor was in the front of the tank.)
>>>>
>>>> He might have said...
>>>>
>>>> ...or more likely you're making it up...
>>>>
>>>> ...either way, it's bullshit.
>>>
>>> It is more likely the gas sloshing to the back of the
>>> tank under acceleration causing the needle to move.
>>
>> Essentially certain.
>>
>> Assuming an absolute worst case scenario:
>>
>> Instantaneous fuel consumption of 1 mpg.
>>
>> At 1 mph = 1 gallon per hour usage.
>>
>> A 1 gallon tank
>>
>> Means a needle the moves from full to empty...
>>
>> in ONE HOUR!
>>
>> If the needle is the typical quarter of a circle sweep (90 degrees),
>> then that means it moves 1.5 degrees per minute. The minute hand on a
>> clock moves at 6 degrees per minute.
>>
>> Does anyone want to claim they can see the minute hand on a clock
>> "visibly move"?
>
>I can, on an antique grandfather clock.

On pretty much any mechanical clock, even electric clocks.

In article <XnsAF4D56F32F62Dtaustincagmailcom@85.12.62.232>,
Ninapenda Jibini <taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:
>scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) wrote in
>news:l9PbL.74464$1449.32517@fx14.iad:
>
>> For the most part, a nothingburger. However, there are likely
>> lots of small embedded 32-bit processors in devices like routers
>> which may exhibit issues, if they're still running 16 years from
>> now.
>>
>You sound just like the doom criers ("Give me money or you'll
>DIE!!!") in the run up to y2k.
>
>How many appliances with embedded processors running today do you
>actually believe will still be functional in another 16 years?
>
>https://www.wired.com/2000/01/y2k-alarmist-wha-happened/

(Hal Heydt)
Actually, more to the point... How many appliances with embedded
processors "care" what the date is? (As for longevity, if I go
out to buy a new refrigerator now, I sure as heck expect it to
still be functioning in 2038. Same for other major appliances.)

In article <hekvmhh5jjbjnmefu2sjoecpkqla6pmmg3@4ax.com>,
Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>On Fri, 11 Nov 2022 14:30:25 -0600, Lynn McGuire
><lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>xkcd: Y2K and 2038
>> https://xkcd.com/2697/
>>
>>It shouldn't cost more than a trillion dollars or two to investigate this.
>>
>>Explained at:
>> https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/2697:_Y2K_and_2038
>
>So, two questions occur:
>
>1. This appears to be a Unix problem. Apart of Unix and Linux and
>friends, will anyone /else/ be affected?
>
>2. Why go to 33 bits? If the problem is that 32 is too few, why not
>just jump to 64 and save the future some problems? Is doing things in
>the clearly least optimal way (you are going to end up with 40 bits
>anyway, since they come in 8-bit groups called "bytes") a Unix/Linux
>tradition? Do Real Programmers always to things the Most Difficult Way
>Possible?

(Hal Heydt)
A Real Programmer can write a FORTRAN program in *any* language.

In article <rLIGpu.1J38@kithrup.com>,
Dorothy J Heydt <djheydt@kithrup.com> wrote:
>In article <XnsAF4D56F32F62Dtaustincagmailcom@85.12.62.232>,
>Ninapenda Jibini <taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:
>>scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) wrote in
>>news:l9PbL.74464$1449.32517@fx14.iad:
>>
>>> For the most part, a nothingburger. However, there are likely
>>> lots of small embedded 32-bit processors in devices like routers
>>> which may exhibit issues, if they're still running 16 years from
>>> now.
>>>
>>You sound just like the doom criers ("Give me money or you'll
>>DIE!!!") in the run up to y2k.
>>
>>How many appliances with embedded processors running today do you
>>actually believe will still be functional in another 16 years?
>>
>>https://www.wired.com/2000/01/y2k-alarmist-wha-happened/
>
>(Hal Heydt)
>Actually, more to the point... How many appliances with embedded
>processors "care" what the date is? (As for longevity, if I go
>out to buy a new refrigerator now, I sure as heck expect it to
>still be functioning in 2038. Same for other major appliances.)

(Hal Heydt)
I should have added... *I* may not still be operational in 2038.

djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) writes:
>In article <XnsAF4D56F32F62Dtaustincagmailcom@85.12.62.232>,
>Ninapenda Jibini <taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:
>>scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) wrote in
>>news:l9PbL.74464$1449.32517@fx14.iad:
>>
>>> For the most part, a nothingburger. However, there are likely
>>> lots of small embedded 32-bit processors in devices like routers
>>> which may exhibit issues, if they're still running 16 years from
>>> now.
>>>
>>You sound just like the doom criers ("Give me money or you'll
>>DIE!!!") in the run up to y2k.
>>
>>How many appliances with embedded processors running today do you
>>actually believe will still be functional in another 16 years?
>>
>>https://www.wired.com/2000/01/y2k-alarmist-wha-happened/
>
>(Hal Heydt)
>Actually, more to the point... How many appliances with embedded
>processors "care" what the date is?

SOHO Routers, for instance, may use the current time for log timestamps
and for time-based web-site blocking.

I wish smoke detectors knew the time, so the damned low-battery beeps
would never occur at 0130 :-)

scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) wrote in
news:wUxdL.10$cVTf.2@fx16.iad:

> djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) writes:
>>In article <XnsAF4D56F32F62Dtaustincagmailcom@85.12.62.232>,
>>Ninapenda Jibini <taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) wrote in
>>>news:l9PbL.74464$1449.32517@fx14.iad:
>>>
>>>> For the most part, a nothingburger. However, there are
>>>> likely lots of small embedded 32-bit processors in devices
>>>> like routers which may exhibit issues, if they're still
>>>> running 16 years from now.
>>>>
>>>You sound just like the doom criers ("Give me money or you'll
>>>DIE!!!") in the run up to y2k.
>>>
>>>How many appliances with embedded processors running today do
>>>you actually believe will still be functional in another 16
>>>years?
>>>
>>>https://www.wired.com/2000/01/y2k-alarmist-wha-happened/
>>
>>(Hal Heydt)
>>Actually, more to the point... How many appliances with embedded
>>processors "care" what the date is?
>
> SOHO Routers, for instance, may use the current time for log
> timestamps and for time-based web-site blocking.

Anything that keeps logs of any kind should care about the date.
Whether or not an appliance of that sort needs to keep logs that no
one will *ever* look at is another question.
>
> I wish smoke detectors knew the time, so the damned low-battery
> beeps would never occur at 0130 :-)
>
That would probably violate some regulation about why it beeps in
the first place. (But then, so does removing the batter to make the
damn thing stop so you can sleep, technically.)

--
Terry Austin

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

On 11/17/22 4:41 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) writes:
>> In article <XnsAF4D56F32F62Dtaustincagmailcom@85.12.62.232>,
>> Ninapenda Jibini <taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) wrote in
>>> news:l9PbL.74464$1449.32517@fx14.iad:
>>>
>>>> For the most part, a nothingburger. However, there are likely
>>>> lots of small embedded 32-bit processors in devices like routers
>>>> which may exhibit issues, if they're still running 16 years from
>>>> now.
>>>>
>>> You sound just like the doom criers ("Give me money or you'll
>>> DIE!!!") in the run up to y2k.
>>>
>>> How many appliances with embedded processors running today do you
>>> actually believe will still be functional in another 16 years?
>>>
>>> https://www.wired.com/2000/01/y2k-alarmist-wha-happened/
>>
>> (Hal Heydt)
>> Actually, more to the point... How many appliances with embedded
>> processors "care" what the date is?
>
> SOHO Routers, for instance, may use the current time for log timestamps
> and for time-based web-site blocking.
>
> I wish smoke detectors knew the time, so the damned low-battery beeps
> would never occur at 0130 :-)
>

One might note, however, that IBM’s DB2 (SQL database) “timestamps” the
main log with the number of bytes thus far written in the log.

--
John W. Kennedy
Algernon Burbage, Lord Roderick, Father Martin, Bishop Baldwin,
King Pellinore, Captain Bailey, Merlin -- A Kingdom for a Stage!

Dorothy J Heydt <djheydt@kithrup.com> schrieb:

> (Hal Heydt)
> And just because the hardware uses 32-bit words doesn't prevent it
> from having 64-bit numeric variables.
>
> All the programmers I knew in the 1970s were well aware of the
> Y2K issue then. One shop I was in in the mid-70s had a program
> to print 30 year amortization tables. Even then it was written
> to handle post-2000 end dates.
>
> For a long time, businesses usually replaced application systems
> about every 5 to 7 years. As a result, most IT people assumed
> that sometime from the late 1980s to early 1990s, the
> replacement cycle would shift everything to date routines that
> handled the century rollover. Then companies quit *replacing*
> systems and it became apparent (years before panic set in among
> the MBAs) that Something Needed to be Done. The bean counters
> weren't willing to spend the money to fix things until the panic
> struck in the late 1990s. At that point, it cost a lot more, of
> course.

I always thought that the Y2K problem was one reason to move away
from legacy mainframe systems. If you have to redo the system
anyway, you might as well move to a different system.

On 18/11/2022 22:56, Thomas Koenig wrote:
> Dorothy J Heydt <djheydt@kithrup.com> schrieb:
>
>> (Hal Heydt)
>> And just because the hardware uses 32-bit words doesn't prevent it
>> from having 64-bit numeric variables.
>>
>> All the programmers I knew in the 1970s were well aware of the
>> Y2K issue then. One shop I was in in the mid-70s had a program
>> to print 30 year amortization tables. Even then it was written
>> to handle post-2000 end dates.
>>
>> For a long time, businesses usually replaced application systems
>> about every 5 to 7 years. As a result, most IT people assumed
>> that sometime from the late 1980s to early 1990s, the
>> replacement cycle would shift everything to date routines that
>> handled the century rollover. Then companies quit *replacing*
>> systems and it became apparent (years before panic set in among
>> the MBAs) that Something Needed to be Done. The bean counters
>> weren't willing to spend the money to fix things until the panic
>> struck in the late 1990s. At that point, it cost a lot more, of
>> course.
>
> I always thought that the Y2K problem was one reason to move away
> from legacy mainframe systems. If you have to redo the system
> anyway, you might as well move to a different system.

Replacing a mainframe with anything else is not trivial.

Which is why most large mainframe sites still use mainframes.

Nothing moves data about whilst transforming it as fast as a
mainframe[1], which is where most, "We can move you to <insert
Relational Database and x64 box> in six months", attempts hit the wall.

Banks really don't like the idea of waiting 36 hours for the end-of-day
processing to complete.

Lots of people what think they're really shmott guys come a cropper on this.

Cheers,
Gary B-)

1 - No, massively parallel Linux boxes don't do the same job[2]. I was
in storage at SGI, they're really good at applying the *same* transform
to a lot of data, not things like, "Here's a set of payroll rules, apply
them to the records on this DASD, and write the resulting records on
that DASD over there".

2 - Those big Linux systems are really, really good at recording and
processing telephone calls looking for "interesting" content. For some
reason the NSA buys them and installs them near large routing hubs in
the USA, I can't think why...

"Gary R. Schmidt" <grschmidt@acm.org> writes:
>On 18/11/2022 22:56, Thomas Koenig wrote:
>> Dorothy J Heydt <djheydt@kithrup.com> schrieb:
>>
>>> (Hal Heydt)
>>> And just because the hardware uses 32-bit words doesn't prevent it
>>> from having 64-bit numeric variables.
>>>
>>> All the programmers I knew in the 1970s were well aware of the
>>> Y2K issue then. One shop I was in in the mid-70s had a program
>>> to print 30 year amortization tables. Even then it was written
>>> to handle post-2000 end dates.
>>>
>>> For a long time, businesses usually replaced application systems
>>> about every 5 to 7 years. As a result, most IT people assumed
>>> that sometime from the late 1980s to early 1990s, the
>>> replacement cycle would shift everything to date routines that
>>> handled the century rollover. Then companies quit *replacing*
>>> systems and it became apparent (years before panic set in among
>>> the MBAs) that Something Needed to be Done. The bean counters
>>> weren't willing to spend the money to fix things until the panic
>>> struck in the late 1990s. At that point, it cost a lot more, of
>>> course.
>>
>> I always thought that the Y2K problem was one reason to move away
>> from legacy mainframe systems. If you have to redo the system
>> anyway, you might as well move to a different system.
>
>Replacing a mainframe with anything else is not trivial.
>
>Which is why most large mainframe sites still use mainframes.
>
>Nothing moves data about whilst transforming it as fast as a
>mainframe[1], which is where most, "We can move you to <insert
>Relational Database and x64 box> in six months", attempts hit the wall.

Back in 2010, the last of the Burroughs medium systems was retired
by the City of Santa Ana. They replaced it (and it was 25 years
old at the time) with 25 windows boxen.

>1 - No, massively parallel Linux boxes don't do the same job[2]. I was
>in storage at SGI, they're really good at applying the *same* transform
>to a lot of data, not things like, "Here's a set of payroll rules, apply
>them to the records on this DASD, and write the resulting records on
>that DASD over there".

The Unisys OPUS MPP (SVr4+Chorus uKernel) boxes were mainly decision
support, running OPS (aka RAC) and/or RedBrick data warehousing
software.

On Thu, 17 Nov 2022 21:22:42 GMT, djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J
Heydt) wrote:

>In article <XnsAF4D56F32F62Dtaustincagmailcom@85.12.62.232>,
>Ninapenda Jibini <taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:
>>scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) wrote in
>>news:l9PbL.74464$1449.32517@fx14.iad:
>>
>>> For the most part, a nothingburger. However, there are likely
>>> lots of small embedded 32-bit processors in devices like routers
>>> which may exhibit issues, if they're still running 16 years from
>>> now.
>>>
>>You sound just like the doom criers ("Give me money or you'll
>>DIE!!!") in the run up to y2k.
>>
>>How many appliances with embedded processors running today do you
>>actually believe will still be functional in another 16 years?
>>
>>https://www.wired.com/2000/01/y2k-alarmist-wha-happened/
>
>(Hal Heydt)
>Actually, more to the point... How many appliances with embedded
>processors "care" what the date is? (As for longevity, if I go
>out to buy a new refrigerator now, I sure as heck expect it to
>still be functioning in 2038. Same for other major appliances.)

Just make sure it is /not/ part of the "smart house/internet of
things" nonsense.
--
"In this connexion, unquestionably the most significant
development was the disintegration, under Christian
influence, of classical conceptions of the family and
of family right."