Gary North: most significant document that I have postedgreenspun.com : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread |
GN writes:I am posting only this link today. The author of this report is a former computer science professor and the holder of microprocessor patents. I regard this report as the most significant document that I have posted on this site since I began this project. Click through. Print it out. Read it. Mark it with a highlighter. Read it again.
Find at:
http://www.garynorth.com/y2k/detail_.cfm/4399
-- rick blaine (y2kazoo@hotmail.com), April 13, 1999
http://www.garynorth.com/y2k/detail_.cfm/4399...or you can go directly to:
http://www.webpal.org/Gas.htm
-- Kevin (mixesmusic@worldnet.att.net), April 13, 1999.
Great article.THANKS RICK.
Rickjohn
-- rickjohn (rickjohn1@yahoo.com), April 13, 1999.
Before this thread gets any longer, though, see these three earlier threads on the same subject:http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=000hbh
http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=000hgB
http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=000i5D
-- Kevin (mixesmusic@worldnet.att.net), April 13, 1999.
If this is the most significant thing that North has ever posted, I know why the GNIABFI forum got started. This Bruce Beach article is a complete joke!His description of PLC's and ladder logic is hilarious (Bruce: take a look at a 'ladder diagram' used to program PLC's and then see if you can guess where the term 'ladder logic comes from). The whole concept of secondary clocks that cannot be set externally is complete BS. He even uses VCR's and microwave clocks as examples of secondary clocks and refutes his own statement that they cannot be accessed! There is not a control system in the world that has an internal absolute clock that was set based on its manufacturing date and unable to be changed by any outside source. The whole concept is laughable.
He even makes the erroneous statement that the Three Mile Island was a 'similar timing effect'! TMI was a combination of human error and mechanical failures which prevented the control system from doing its job properly and had nothing to do with any kind of timing effect.
I found it very interesting that he used lots of references to appear as if everything in his report was independently verified. But none of the published references support any of his claims -- they are all miscellaneous statements that he then tries to poke holes in with unsubstantiated guesses. His so-called "proof" is all from unnamed sources or from anonymous engineers at an anonymous refinery which were interviewed for an anonymous TV program -- absolutely nothing which can be checked or verified.
After laughing my way through it, I decided to see what sort of "expert" Mr. Beach really was. I became suspicious right off when he claimed to hold "both U.S. and Canadian microprocessor patents" but had to spend "five days reviewing all of the microprocessor information that [he] could find in two libraries and on the Internet" to prepare himself for an interview.
I'm not sure what type of books he has written but none of them are available through any of the Internet book sources -- must be out of print. As far as patents, I found that his host (webpal.org) is indeed operated by one Bruce M. Beach of Horning Mills, Ontario. A search of the US and Canadian patent databases does in fact turn up a Bruce M. Beach who happens to live in Horning Mills, Ontario and does have a (note "a" as in singular) valid patent in each country by the same name: Pocket-sized Electronic Device for Playing Chess (US Patent 4,073,067 Canada 01087314). It is NOT a microprocessor patent, it is listed as an educational or gaming device. I am sure that his device includes microprocessors and he may have even written some of the firmware but this hardly gives him credentials as an expert in microprocessor design as he implies.
So, in summary, his report contains internal contradictions, factual errors, ridiculous and unsubstantiated assumptions, mysterious anonymous sources, and intentionally misleading and fundamentally false biographical details. Like I said at the beginning, if this is the most significant thing that Gary North has ever published, I feel sorry for all those that blindly follow his every word!
-- RMS (rms_200@hotmail.com), April 13, 1999.
If he holds patents on microprocessors and is such an expert on microprocessors (BTW teaching computer science does not necessarily mean you have a degree in electronices, which is the degree required to design chips), why did he spend 5 days researching the topics at libraries and on the internet? Just be skeptical.
-- @ (@@@.@), April 13, 1999.
So the "computer experts" can't even agree on who's a computer expert. Do you guys realize how annoying this is to us non-techies? We have NO idea which of you smart guys knows what he's talking about, & which one is full of crap.In fact, this whole situation reminds me of ... of all things.... Theology.
-- let (the@listener.beware), April 13, 1999.
Friend "Let," as in "let the listener beware," let me make it easier for you. If the so-called "expert" has to take five days to research the topic in which he is supposedly an "expert," and if they hold only one patent when they claim to hold many, and if they are promoting a specific Y2K strategy (i.e., rental space in their "bunker" to ride out the apocalypse), then you can be reasonably sure that they are NOT an expert, or at least one worth listening to. Those of us -- myself included -- who have written about the subject (my book, "Y2K -- Apocalypse or Opportunity?" (Shaw, 1999; details at www.kellner2000.com) and are trying to be responsible will list our credentials AND OUR SOURCES (I have over 100 footnotes in my book) so you can verify what I'm saying.Does that make it easier for you? I hope it does, and I welcome your response here or via e-mail.
-- Mark A. Kellner (mark@kellner2000.com), April 13, 1999.
Mark,So what is your informed opinion on Mr. Beach's report?
http://www.webpal.org/Gas.htm
-- Kevin (mixesmusic@worldnet.att.net), April 13, 1999.
before anyone else embare-asses themself, do think this guy is an expert?Mole digs in(has been at Chittum's site for several months)
p...pssssspppsps...ba HAH HAH HAH!
Yep, I'd sure take him seriously!
-- Mutha Nachu (---@beenthere,done.that), April 13, 1999.
Gary North is shown to be as clueless as I suspected!LOL!
Question for all:
Who is more clueless, Gary North or Bruce Beach?
-- Doomslayer (1@2.3), April 13, 1999.
Mutha,I'd like to hear at least one other expert opinion on Mr. Beach's report in addition to the one made by Paul Davis. If you feel qualified, I'd be happy to hear your comments as well.
-- Kevin (mixesmusic@worldnet.att.net), April 13, 1999.
Well hot dog, some people on this forum actually have their bullshit detectors in working order. RMS, you have a keen sense of the obvious, many thanks for explaining this to the technically illiterate.As for Ed's pal, Gary North calling this the "most significant document that I have posted", well it's all relative. Given Mr. North's dross, which has a value of zero, you can multiply by any factor of "significance" you like, the product is still zero.
-- Computer Pro (first_minister@hotmail.com), April 13, 1999.
Sorry Computer Pro, didn't mean to offend you with my "keen sense of the obvious". I'll try to do better next time.
-- RMS (rms_200@hotmail.com), April 13, 1999.
RMS, no offense taken, and certainly none meant. It is exasperating to see the propensity for these Y2K fish stories to be swallowed whole, regardless of how ridiculous or banal they are. It is the intellectual equivalent of people overseas who think that Jerry Springer's pathetic geek show is a realistic portrayal of life in America. Then again, maybe some of the folks on this forum believe that too.
-- Computer Pro (first_minister@hotmail.com), April 13, 1999.
The fun continues here <:)=
-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), April 13, 1999.
Doomslayer: While both clueless, gotta go w/Beach as a winner. At least GN is getting rich off y2k hype.Kev-bo: How does it feel to want? LOL! If you can actually read past the first few paragraphs and NOT see that this guy's title for his page (GAS) is apropriate, there is nothing I, or anyone else can say to convince you.
"Let us look at a simple problem. A very highly placed railroad official was explaining on TV that railroad crossing gates will all work because they are EVENT controlled (the approach of a train) NOT time controlled. This is the conventional viewpoint and conclusion. It may NOT be true, that they won't have a problem and if it just does happen to be true, then that is coincidental and not for the reason given by the official." HUH? I don't think his 'train' is "on schedule" (i.e. Gates are down, the lights are flashing, but the train isn't coming)
Besides, what's left to 'undo' after Paul and RMS fully dismantled him? Other than the fact he's got the MEME real bad, and it's struggling to buy time. Not worth my time OR effort....
ta-ta!
-- Mutha Nachu (---@sluginfestedtulipfields.org), April 13, 1999.
Mutha - why not post your comments after you read the thread that I linked? <:)=
-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), April 13, 1999.
BTDT,GTTS!Typical doomer nonsense. Attack what Paul said and make it seem like his expertize is in question. Baffoon tactics. Paul won't play his game.
-- Mutha Nachu (---@beenthere,done.that), April 13, 1999.
I guess we'll just have to wait and see who gets dismantled. <:)=
-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), April 13, 1999.
"let" said...So the "computer experts" can't even agree on who's a computer expert. Do you guys realize how annoying this is to us non-techies? We have NO idea which of you smart guys knows what he's talking about, & which one is full of crap.
Computer Pro said...
It is exasperating to see the propensity for these Y2K fish stories to be swallowed whole, regardless of how ridiculous or banal they are.
Just who has swallowed this story whole? I have no opinion on it.
-- Kevin (mixesmusic@worldnet.att.net), April 13, 1999.
yep. here we go. could have predicted this from the start. Paul posts his stuff...mostly silence. suddenly, up from the meme pool rises...'david'! spouts out alot of Q's for Paul (to discredit him). Then, from out of the woodwork, the doomlets and gloomlets come running, crying "get him,GET him! poke'm ina eye! yeah, YEAH!" what nonsense. (a thanks to Stephen Poole from a previous thread for that line!)The Meme at work: watch carefully now; Rumminate whilst I Illuminate...
Paul said:
If you have any disagreement with the above principles, please provide me with a reference. I am always eager to increase my knowledge of basic chip technology, and would really like to find an exception to these rules that is in use somewhere outside of the more advanced labs that deal with such things as optical computing technologies - which can, of course, transfer information via light pulses and fiber rather than electronically.
Did David do as Paul requested? NO. He just launched a flurry of questions (as previosly stated) THIS IS A DEFENSE MECHANIZM OF THE MEME! It has been disturbed, and doesn't like that.
Further more David said later:
I have the answers. But I want to hear it from him. Its easy to spout off and project limited knowledge into all cases. It is also not valid to argue that way.
He says he's got the answers...and nobody questions him??? but note all the memes spewing "its a draw", and whatnot. can you not see the pattern here????
Why is it O.K. to just accept what David says and not Paul? ANSWER: David is a pessimist, Paul is not!
Why is it O.K. for David to break his own rules of debate ("its not valid to argue that way")? ANSWER: David is a pessimist, Paul is not!
David even stated that he didn't agree with everything Beach said, technically...does he bother to point it out? Does he bother to point out where Paul is "wrong"? NO. But he gets cheers from the thought police and other memes...BECAUSE HE IS A PESSIMIST.
BAIT AND SWITCH AT ITS FINEST! (and the meme lives to fight another day!)
Sysman, did you read the 'mole digs in' thread I supplied earlier? Do you HONESTLY think this guy has both oars in the water??
-- Mutha Nachu (---@aquaflavoredseaspray.com), April 13, 1999.
You go ahead and wait, sissyman. Davis already wonyou just won't admit it.
-- Hip Hypocrite Hater (egads!@nospammers.thanx), April 13, 1999.
Never wrestle with pigs. All will get dirty and the pigs will love it.
-- (old@macdonald.farm), April 13, 1999.
Well, since you seem not to be able to keep this on an adult level, HIPO-POT-HEAD, the way I see the thread so far is:Beach+David+Dean = 3
Davis = 1
Where's all your polly-tech support? Why do you guys always run when someone in the know shows up? Hit and run idiots. <:)=
-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), April 13, 1999.
Only a jackass would quote from an article (MEME) that references evolution as fact, spend hours arguing with others that there IS NO problem, and ASSumes they have won an argument that can't be settled.
-- KoFE (Your@town.USA), April 13, 1999.
I didn't actually think the article in question was ALL that significant, but considering how many trolls it has attracted, maybe it is .....
-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), April 13, 1999.
Sysman says: >Well, since you seem not to be able to keep this on an adult level, HIPO-POT-HEAD, the way I see the thread so far is Beach+David+Dean = 3 ... Davis = 1<God have mercy on us. Technical issues are now being decided by popular vote, or even better yet, by sheer volume (the loudest side wins).
2+2 is always = 4, regardless of how many people think otherwise. Likewise, the hardware logic gates in microprocessors don't care about dates, regardless of how many ill-informed programmers think so.
Did it ever occur to you that maybe some of us hardware types saw no need to add to what Paul said, because it should have been clear enough?
Beach has got his head crammed in a very dark place. I have no doubt that many Doom and Gloom programmer-only types (who aren't familiar with hardware issues) will think that it makes sense (because they're grasping at straws now, in hopes of avoiding an almost-certain embarassment next January).
Gary North will think it makes sense (because it sells newsletters).
Survival suppliers will think it makes sense (because it sells nitrogen-packed wheat and generators).
But people who actually know how the electrons flow through processor chips will think: ROFL.
Anyone who says that Bruce Beach knows what he's talking about instantly drops about 1,000 points on my 1-10 credibility meter.
-- Stephen (I'm taking names now ...) http://www.wwjd.net/smpoole
-- Stephen Poole (smpoole7@bellsouth.net), April 13, 1999.
Stephen Poole,You are correct. Most programmers don't know much about logic gates, myself included. However, if you had bothered to read the thread referenced above, you would have noticed that David does know about such things, and David agrees with most of what Bruce is saying, not all but most. Now, if you want to discuss logic, I must tell you that I have 31 years of assembly programming experience on the IBM 360/370/390, and 13 years of assembly on the Intel x86. You do know about assembly language, don't you? Otherwise known as machine language. So, why don't you go read the other thread, then post your know-it-all answers here. I'll be waiting.
By the way, what is your hardware experience, since you refer to yourself as one of the "us hardware types"???
<:)=
-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), April 13, 1999.
Never mind Stephen. I didn't recognize you. You're the same guy that I tried to talk to last week, and then you vanished. Another believer in "Gary North Is A Big Fat Idiot", and the new "Y2K debunkers site". That explains why you're on this thread, is starts with "Gary North". Sorry Mr. Genius, I don't have enough time to waste on you. Have a nice life. <:)=
-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), April 13, 1999.
The recent ITAA poll results reveals 87% of programmers polled believe y2k will be a crisis for the nation and the world. As a non-geek that about settles it for me.
-- BB (peace2u@bellatlantic.net), April 13, 1999.
Forgetting everything else about the article, does anyone know if the numbers quoted for the Water Supply problem in Sydney Australia are correct? (90,000 chips with about 1,000 needing work)
-- Richard Martin Wooward (RichardWoodward@hotmail.com), April 13, 1999.
DAMN! I haven't gone back today to see if there's anything new, because I figured that there couldn't be anything new after Paul's cogent, well reasoned and nicely factoided evaluation. It would appear that either:1) I have a problem with wool and eyesight
2) Some others have a problem with wool and eyesight
3) As a non-techie (well, maybe a non-techie wannabe) I didn't understand the discussion.
I STRONGLY suspect it is # 2. My GENERAL knowledge level suggested to me that Paul Davis had covered the article really well, and had filled a HUGE gap in my understanding.
Does this change my preparation posture?? NO!!
Why not?? Because i had ALWAYS considered the subject of internal processors as a crapshoot, and had NOT allowed the subject to influence the scenario set that I used to prepare from.
Back off, folks. You are providing WAY more HEAT than LIGHT. From BOTH sides.
SHEESH, no wonder nobody wants to suggest an alternative explanation/theory.
Chuck
-- chuck, a Night Driver (rienzoo@en.com), April 13, 1999.
I don't know crap about computers or microprocessors or embedded chips, but this is obviously of extreme importance reguarding the threat level of Y2K. I had pretty much come to the conclusion that the biggest part of the Y2k Problem was being handled until I read Bruce"s article, now I'm right back to square one. If he is correct then the power is going out, and staying out for quite a while. Can we please get someone who is an absolute expert in this field to ADDRESS THIS PROBLEM AND GIVE A FINAL ANSWER ONE WAY OR THE OTHER?
-- Nikoli Krushev (doomsday@y2000.com), April 14, 1999.
*UH-hummm....* SYSMAN:you seem to have gotten sidetracked by H3.
I asked: did you read the 'mole digs in' thread I supplied earlier? Do you HONESTLY think this guy has both oars in the water??
Does anyone here?!?
-- Mutha Nachu (---@crimsonsunset.comm), April 14, 1999.
Mutha, please give me a link (I know you can do it). I just checked for a new post from "mutha" and couldn't find any. I'll be happy to answer if I could just find what you're talking about... <:)=
-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), April 14, 1999.
Never mind Mutha, I just found your link in this thread. I'll get back to you... <:)=
-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), April 14, 1999.
From My Buddy Sysman: >>I have 31 years of assembly programming experience on the IBM 360/370/390, and 13 years of assembly on the Intel x86. You do know about assembly language, don't you?<<Try this dynamically-loadable VxD.
.486p .model flat, c _LDATA SEGMENT DWORD PUBLIC FLAT 'LCODE' public VSYSMAN_DDB VSYSMAN_DDB: DD 0 DW 400h DW 0 DB 4 DB 0 DW 0 DB "VSYSMAN " DD 80000000h DD offset flat:Control DD 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 DB "verPP1vsR2vsR3vsR" Caption db "The Truth!",0 SysmanString db "Sysman assumes too much!",0 _LDATA ENDS _LTEXT SEGMENT DWORD PUBLIC FLAT 'LCODE' ASSUME cs:FLAT, ds:FLAT, es:FLAT, ss:FLAT Control proc near cmp eax, 1Bh jnz c_end int 20h dd 00010001h mov edi, offset flat:Caption mov ecx, offset flat:SysmanString xor eax, eax int 20h dd 00170003h c_end: xor eax, eax ret Control endp _LTEXT ENDS end
-- Stephen http://www.wwjd.net/smpoole
-- Stephen M. Poole, CET (smpoole7@bellsouth.net), April 14, 1999.
Mutha,So what is your point? Mr. Beach is lucky enough to have a fall-out shelter, a result of the nuclear threat from the 60's. Big deal. What does this have to do with his technical knowledge? You guys really are too much. Do you feel threatened because he is more prepared than you? Show us some REAL FACTS, you know, show us why we should not be concerned! I really do want to see some good news. Not the "FAA passes Y2K test" or "NERC Y2K test successful" ... this is public relations bullshit spin, and you know it as well as I do. Come on Mutha, I'm waiting.......... <:)=
-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), April 14, 1999.
Gee Stephen, I've got MASM on this machine. Care to get the BASIC FORMATING down first, you know, so I can read it, and I'll be happy to assemble it for you! On second thought, never mind. Like I said, you're beyond help. Go on back home to GNIABFI, and stop bothering us, please. <:)=
-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), April 14, 1999.
By the way Stephen, now that I took a close look at your "code", I could do the same with about 1/4 of the effort, Mr. Expert. <:)=
-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), April 14, 1999.
Sorry, I take that back. About 1/3 the effort. <:)=
-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), April 14, 1999.
Mutha,If you would knock off the fancy HTML colors and fonts, your links would be much easier to find! <:)=
-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), April 14, 1999.
Building a fallout shelter is a bit unusual, Mom Natural. However I would submit the Chittum fellow you got that link from is unusual too.Got oars?
-- a GI (-----@both.oars), April 14, 1999.
You asked if I was familiar with assembler, so I gave you an example.As for the formatting, if you're familiar with VxDs at the assembler level, you should be able to do that. Provide comments, too.
Or, you could realize that I was humoring a stupid question and let it lie. I'm not into chest-hair contests. The fact remains: Mr. Beach doesn't know what he's talking about.
-- Stephen
http://www.wwjd.net/smpoole
-- Stephen M. Poole, CET (smpoole7@bellsouth.net), April 14, 1999.
>> Sysman: Sorry, I take that back. About 1/3 the effort. <:)=In 1/3 eh? I'd like to see that. Okay, smart ass, let's see you put it up for everyone to marvel at. And if not, you prove once and for all that you are just another feeble techno-wannabe.
-- Computer Pro (first_minister@hotmail.com), April 14, 1999.
Y2k is an ENORMOUS shit sandwich and we're all going to have to take a bite.I hope the WWW will still be up, so "Doomslayer," "Mutha Natchu" and co. can eat the first serving. Publically.
Dano
-- Dano (bookem@blacksand.srf), April 14, 1999.
Hey, Computerpro:>>> Sysman: Sorry, I take that back. About 1/3 the effort. <:)=
You: >>>In 1/3 eh? I'd like to see that ...
Sure, he could do it in 1/3 of the effort, using the DDK macros. I don't use then because they obscure what's going on.
Now for the extra credit question: there's a bug in the code that I posted. Can Sysman find it?
-- Stephen(heh) http://www.wwjd.net/smpoole
-- Stephen M. Poole, CET (smpoole7@bellsouth.net), April 14, 1999.
Hey Sissyman, what happened to your truce? Are you still up to your tricks? You be careful now, sonny, or I'll have to come back out and box your ears agin.
-- BigBadTrolls (gnbfi@gnbfi.bfi), April 14, 1999.
Stephen,I asked what your hardware experience was, before I realized who you were, and that we had a discussuion last week. I was pointing out that my experience is in software, not hardware. As for Mr. Beach, we have several threads on the topic and many opionions. I think the jury is still out. <:)=
-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), April 14, 1999.
come on sissyman. wheres the beef? whats the matter you scared?or just full of hotair?
you love to taunt everybody, call names and go on you own little ego trips
I don't think sissy/hypocrite/man is up to it. he can dish it out, but not take it!
wheres the code?
-- Hip Hypocrite Hater (egads!@nospammers.thanx), April 14, 1999.
Never wrestle with a pig. You'll both get dirty and the pig will love it.
-- (old@macdonald.farm), April 14, 1999.
Here's a nice easy DOS EXE, using MASM 5.1, so maybe even you can understand it, Hip:$DATA SEGMENT USE16
BYEBYE DB 'Bye now, Hip Hyprcrite Hater$'
$DATA ENDS
$CODE SEGMENT USE16
ASSUME CS:$CODE,DS:$DATA
BEGIN: MOV AX,$DATA
MOV DS,AX
MOV AH,09H
MOV DX,OFFSET BYEBYE
INT 21H
MOV AX,4C00H
INT 21H
$CODE ENDS
$STAK SEGMENT STACK USE16
DB 32 DUP ('STACKSEG')
$STAK ENDS
END BEGIN
Now, please stop wasting my time! <:)=
-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), April 14, 1999.
Sysman,Actually, I prefer C/C++ for that sort of thing. printf() or cout is a lot easier. :)
Whether you agree with me or not, I hope that you (and everyone else who is following the Y2K thing) will learn what I did years ago as a young curmudgeon-in-training: You should _instantly_ suspect any article which begins with, "here are my qualifications ..."
You can generally tell whether someone's got their head up granny's dress from what they say and how they say it. The shortened CV Header should be unnecessary.
Further, the "expert" designation is almost useless nowdays. Expert in _what_? Post something in ADA or COBOL or FORTH, and my eyes will glaze over. But come into my radio facility and ask about some of the equipment there, and you'll probably think I'm talking Greek sometimes. See?
The "expert" designation, in today's highly-specialized society, is almost WORTHLESS.
About 99.44% of the insanity surrounding Y2K comes from _experts _speculating _outside _of _their _specialty. They dazzle the laycreaters with, "I have 20 years experience in IS at WallaBalla Corporation, I've testified to Congress, and [insert additional boasting here]." This works because the laycritter doesn't realize that an IS degree DOES NOT necessarily make one an expert on, say, embedded systems. (There are zillions of vice-versas, too.)
Bruce Beach was trained as an institutional economist. He taught some classes in Computer Science curricula. His (singular, not plural) patent is listed under "Game Devices" for a chess game. He's blowing smoke, talking over his head, and trying to sell space in his Doomsday bunker.
That last thing is the biggie. One other thing that we young curmudgeons-in-training learn is to ALWAYS suspect ANYONE who is trying to sell you something, period. No matter how honest they sound, no matter how sincere; you should _ALWAYS_ take what they say with a grain of salt.
(I cannot believe that I find myself repeating something so obvious nowdays ... but I do.)
Oh, well. Back to work. I've been playing too long as it is.
-- Stephen http://www.wwjd.net/smpoole
-- Stephen M. Poole, CET (smpoole7@bellsouth.net), April 14, 1999.
Stephen,A printf would generate code similar to the above.
I've said before that I don't think you're a bad guy. I just think you're not looking at the big picture. There are no Y2K experts. The implications are far and wide, way too much for any one person to understand. At least you are spending some time here, looking at the other side, rather than just hanging at the debunkers site.
Embedded systems are not my area. I still haven't made up my mind on Beach. We are getting alot of different views, some from people that do seem to know what they are talking about. So I'm off to read the continuing debate. Later. <:)=
-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), April 14, 1999.
Sysman:If you think that code you wrote is "machine language" I've got a bridge to sell you. Hee hee hee. All you're doing is passing a pointer to DOS, which in turn passes it to the BIOS, which in turn accesses the video controller. NOW you're starting to get close to the machine. At the level you're using, it's like claiming you're an auto mechanic because you know how to put the key in the ignition.
Good message, though.
-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), April 14, 1999.
No Flint, it's assembly language, one step above machine language. I've written code that is very close to the metal, like part of the IBM DOS/VSE operating system, and a "device driver" for the III VideoComp. I just wanted to give BBT a simple example that even he could maybe understand. See ya. <:)=
-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), April 14, 1999.
One other thing that we young curmudgeons-in-training learn is to ALWAYS suspect ANYONE who is trying to sell you something, period.Stephen,
A second opinion is never a bad idea. Still, I hope this isn't the way you treat your doctor when he says you need an operation.
Besides, nobody is trying to sell me anything here.
-- Kevin (mixesmusic@worldnet.att.net), April 14, 1999.
Sissyman sez: "I just think you're not looking at the big picture". We are sooooooooo glad that you are though, Sissyman. And who's being a condenscending twit? would it be you, by any chance?
-- BigBadTrolls (gnbfi@gnbfi.bfi), April 14, 1999.
BigBadTroll,I said I didn't think Stephen was a bad guy. You on the other hand, I think are a first grade moron wearing a dunce cap. Even more so since you refuse to honor our truce after saying that you would. I gave your "code" now get lost, idiot's lover. <:)=
-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), April 14, 1999.