Gary North is Back On-line

greenspun.com : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread

Says he was hacked on Jan. 1

-- Think It (Through@Pollies.Duh), January 03, 2000

Answers

Yes, and his latest and greatest contribution to the discussion is that banks are the next hurdle.

Please, if anything is going to be compliant its the banks. Doesnt gary know that banks are constantly looking ahead, they have been working with year 2000 and beyond dates for a very long time now.

Minor glitches, sure, but if anyone is biting their nails about how banking is going to turn out you are wasting your time.

-- hamster (hamster@mycage.com), January 03, 2000.


you you please hot link gary's site as i have tried and cannot get on thanks best wishes

-- bob (bOB@ghoward-oxley .demon.uk), January 03, 2000.

Unless, Hamster, you consider we're biting our nails because we know that banking is an international system. Russia, China, Italy, Venzeula, Brazil, Indonesia, Japan, etc. got lucky on the embedded chip problem (there basically wasn't one). I'll be shocked if they get lucky a second time - code isn't lucky or flukey, it does whatever it's been programmed to do. American, Canadian, British, Australian, German (hopefully) banks are in great shape. After that, it gets pretty sketchy.

-- Think It (Through@Pollies.Duh), January 03, 2000.

http://www.garynorth.com/y2k/latest_.cfm

-- Think It (Through@Pollies.Duh), January 03, 2000.

Sorry hamster but you don't know what you're talking about.

The problem with banking is imported corrupt data sloshing around the system of systems.

All will be revealed in the banking archives.

This one is a biggie and is by no means a done deal whatsoever.

Look what happened to DeutscheBank last month - out for just 24 hours and it had a major impact on the system.

Think Herstatt risk/imported corrupt data.

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), January 03, 2000.



Andy, I work for "suits" at some banks. They have been exchanging year 2000 and beyond international data for more than 6 months.

Right now, as we speak, Asia is crunching fresh year 2000 data and has been for several days. Same holds true for us. Do you have any idea how many millions of transactions went through since the rollover ?. Its not even sunrise on the east coast as I write this and I called my banks automated system and the credit cards we processed last thursday have fully cleared this AM.

Corruption of any type will be limited, please stop trying to find a trigger.

-- hamster (hamster@mycage.com), January 03, 2000.


Unless, Hamster, you consider we're biting our nails because we know that banking is an international system. Russia, China, Italy, Venzeula, Brazil, Indonesia, Japan, etc. got lucky on the embedded chip problem (there basically wasn't one). I'll be shocked if they get lucky a second time - code isn't lucky or flukey, it does whatever it's been programmed to do. American, Canadian, British, Australian, German (hopefully) banks are in great shape. After that, it gets pretty sketchy.

ThinkIt,

Didnt we just go through this with power, water, telecomm and datacomm. That is we said all the backwards countries are toast for all of these things and they are functioning quite well.

The embedded chip thing was talked to death, mostly by people who really dont understand them and what happened ?. Nothing.

I am not a polly, but what makes you think "they" cant get lucky again?. What makes you think that banks would permit themselves to fall into y2k-chaos while everything else wouldnt.

-- hamster (hamster@mycage.com), January 03, 2000.


Andy, I work for "suits" at some banks. They have been exchanging year 2000 and beyond international data for more than 6 months. Right now, as we speak, Asia is crunching fresh year 2000 data and has been for several days. Same holds true for us. Do you have any idea how many millions of transactions went through since the rollover ?. Its not even sunrise on the east coast as I write this and I called my banks automated system and the credit cards we processed last thursday have fully cleared this AM.

Corruption of any type will be limited, please stop trying to find a trigger.

-- hamster (hamster@mycage.com), January 03, 2000.

======================================================================

Hamster I ***was*** a suit at VISA for 6 years in realtime TPF programming and coverage. Our section kept all VISA systems running at all data centres - part of our job was investigating transaction exceptions as data and/or txs. were corrupted or whatever going through the systems.

There are over 100,000 banks and financial entities hooked into the system of systems. Each interchanges data with any one of the others.

You work out the statistics on that one.

Why do I have to go through this all over again for you hamster?

Do you know what corrupt imported data is? If you did you wouldn't be asking such dumb questions.

The fact that some banks are clearing and settling now is immaterial.

How do you know that some of this data has not been corrupted due to faulty date-arithmetic code? How do you know that this apparently accurate data which gets past all the edits through the round trip transaction process is not being further processed ***in error***.

The simple answer is you don't.

Indeed some faulty data may be caught immediately. However some may not.

What are the consequences of the corrupt data - that is not immediately noticed - sloshing around the system of systems???

You need to re-think this scenario and stop spouting the banks PR line my son.

Go back and do your homework hamster.

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), January 03, 2000.


Asia is crunching fresh year 2000 data and has been for several days.

======================================================================

Let's hope they have been processing data ***accurately*** with all date-arithmetic code performing seamlessly.

Let's hope that for the last several days no ***corrupt data*** has been generated and passed on to compliant entities for further processing.

Lets hope that these asian tigers have not been ***crunching*** the data in the way I have suggested is possible.

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), January 03, 2000.


Andy, you have been blowing off your loud mouth now for months. Everything is going smoothly around the world, including the stock markets and banks. The infrastructure is now a non-issue, as far as Y2K is concerned.

Buying gold was also a non-issue, and I'm sorry for those who got suckered. Silver is also expexted to nose-dive again, according to the real experts. Time for you to go back into your cage.

You were wrong, admit it.

-- (Beans@makeyou.fart), January 03, 2000.



Beanfarter - watch the Banks over the next few weeks. This one is just playing out you numbskull - this is the first online realtime end to end test of banking.

Sorry to spoil your party farty.

Duh.

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), January 03, 2000.


Well, there you go Hamster, Andy has spoken. Why take this subject any further, eh? When an expert like Andy speaks, we all should listen.

-- Look (at@the.facts), January 03, 2000.

The problem in a nutshell...

======================================================================

Several respondents, including Bill Moquin on July 27, have challenged your statement that non-compliant data can infect a Y2k compliant computer. However, their reasoning always seems to be that the non-compliant data would appear in the form of a date that will be edited by the receiving computer and found to be erroneous and thus rejected.

They are failing to consider that the non-compliant data may be in the form of the result of date arithmetic done on a non-compliant computer and an erroneous answer that appears to be compliant transmitted to the compliant computer.

For example, if a non-compliant system determines in error that some payment should be made or some product should be shipped, and forwards that information to a Y2k compliant computer system in error, the receiving system (bank?) may merely edit for accurate account number, valid amount, valid item number, etc, and perform debits and credits of the amount or issue a shipping manifest, thus compounding the error. The compliant receiving system would thus have participated in an erroneous, non-compliant transaction, and its accounts would not be correct.

======================================================================

Bill and other programmers have talked about how the program they're working on can be made "bullet-proof" against corrupt data. This is theoretically true. A programmer, given the time, could write a subroutine that will detect the date type or format and either reject the data or reformat it to match his/her program. However, their statements haven't addressed some other issues:

1. Under intense pressure, programmers make errors. They might make an error in the corrupt data-rejection routine or the conversion routine.

2. A conversion routine will have to take into account that there are at least 5 different strategies for date/data conversion. One would need to detect the format in order to convert it correctly.

3. Then when you send your data to a partner, you need to know what format they're using. If you have 3,000 partners, you're going to have a tracking nightmare trying to keep them all straight.

4. They might not anticipate every single form of corrupt data that could attempt to enter their system. Or, as another programmer has pointed out, they could be receiving not a date but the *result* of a faulty date calculation.

5. Finally, and this is the biggest issue: The whole point of EDI is to do business with people. If your system keeps rejecting data from one or more of your business partners, pretty soon you'll be out of business. The fact that your system will reject corrupt data doesn't eliminate the problem that if you consistently reject a partner's data, pretty soon they won't be a partner any more and you'll be in trouble anyway.

======================================================================

If corrupt data ***IS*** detected by an edit routine then it will be rejected or declined. Fine. But if you have a system that is declining too much then you don't have a system to speak of.

======================================================================

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), January 03, 2000.


Look,

Listen or don't, no skin off my nose.

Broken code is broken code man.

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), January 03, 2000.


Andy,

ROTFLMAO! Go back into your hole you little pipsqueak. How is your gold doing Andy? We'll see who is right in the next few months. It won't be you as usual.

-- (Beans@makeyou.fart), January 03, 2000.



Fartman,

I hope I'm wrong. Banking going down will do no one any good. It's a real pleasure to discuss this issue sensibly with folks like yourself that know the ins and outs of the problem.

Feel free to address the issue if you have anything useful to add.

We're waiting.

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), January 03, 2000.


Andy,

I'll address the issues when you tell everyone how gold has done and why you were wrong about it. I asked you first.

-- (Beans@makeyou.fart), January 03, 2000.


Last year gold went up $80 dollars from approx $250 to $330+.

On an annualised basis this is a 60% rise.

In contrast the Dow in 1999 went up 20%.

I rest my case.

By the way anyone who bought gold all the time I was recommending that they do so will be currently up about $40 per ounce. I know I am.

Furthermore Gold is now the bargain of the new millennium. It's last peak was $850 many many years ago. When it runs again it will far surpass this figure. And run again it will following the Washington Agreement. Once bubble.com bursts all that paper profit will try to find hard assets like gold and silver.

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), January 03, 2000.


Andy, re-writing history to make your point is pretty lame. If you look at the charts gold is at the same exact point it was one year ago.

Many times you told people to buy just before the POG plunged. The only reason you talk about gold going from 250 to 330 is that it PLUNGED to 250 and then rose to 330 and then went back down to 270 or so and now sits around 288.

People lost tons of money buying gold if they followed some of the "goldbugs" in this forum.

But of course if the POG drops, people are being told that gold is not for profit making, rather for physical wealth. That excuse gets dusted off and spouted out when the POG drops and the "goldbugs" need a out for their mis-reads of the markets.

-- hamster (hamster@mycage.com), January 03, 2000.


As I said rodent, a 60% annualised return.

You can't dispute that fact.

Now give us some more pearls of wisdom on Banking....

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), January 03, 2000.


Andy,

Lets see:

Annualized: to calculate or adjust to reflect a rate based on a full year.

One year ago gold was around 288. Today gold is around 288.

What am I missing? Or are you taking the best case scenario only and modifying the rules again. Andy you didnt call the lows and highs, stop kidding yourself. Too many witnesses.

-- hamster (hamster@mycage.com), January 03, 2000.


Hamster, you're missing the year

1999

Now if you want to compare the Dow for the year 2000, come back in a year's time.

We can then compare the Dows' performance for the year 2000 compared to Gold's performance for the year 2000.

Now - you and some of your buddies were going to discuss, one hopes sensibly, the ramifications of imported corrupt data on the world's banking systems.

I'm still waiting for something coherent from any of you troglodytes.

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), January 03, 2000.


Andy, you dont even know what your saying.

Its pointless to debate someone who refuses to look at the numbers but instead tries to find the highlights to support their theories.

I got other threads to deal with now, this is going nowhere.

ps - pull up a year chart on gold.

-- hamster (hamster@mycage.com), January 03, 2000.


Andy.......

The FACT is, overall, your record here is likely the worst of anyone that is a regular here.....

There is precious little that you have predicted correctly.....that in itself is nothing to be ashamed of, we're all only human. However your complete denial of the truth is something to be ashamed of....

In your world, it doesn't matter what goes right.....because you will keep on saying that the worst is just around the corner.

-- Craig (craig@ccinet.ab.ca), January 03, 2000.


Craig.

Remind me - just what exactly did I predict???????

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), January 03, 2000.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ