Y2K
THE YEAR 2000
FACT,
FOOLISHNESS
OR SATANIC
PLOT?
A DISCOURSE
BASED ON PERSONAL EXPERIENCE AS
AN INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
MANAGEMENT CONSULTANT,
SYSTEMS ARCHITECT AND ANALYST
AND COMPUTER
PROGRAMMER
An Analysis of Technical
and Spiritual Factors Behind
"The Year 2000"
of
RELEVANCE TO THE CHURCH
OF JESUS CHRIST
An End Time Issues
Publication
Produced by
James Robertson
COPYRIGHT
This document may be
copied in part or in full for the benefit of all
believers provided it is not copied for commercial gain. It is only
required that authorship and contact information be supplied.
PREFACE
A significant part of my professional time during my
career as an engineer specializing in the
effective application of computer systems in support of business
strategy has been taken up
with seeking to understand "The Real Issues in Information Technology".
As a consequence
of this, I have spoken at over fifty conferences internationally and
was recently listed in the
Marquis "Who's Who in Science and Engineering" and subsequently
approached for listing
in "Who's Who in the World" for 1999.
Throughout my professional career, which I started
by obtaining an honours degree in Civil
Engineering, I have been actively involved with computers. In the early
eighties I studied a
number of University Text's on software design and programming and
wrote my own computer
software. Subsequently I became involved in the effective application
of computers in business. As time progressed I became increasingly
aware of the extent to which computers failed to meet
managements expectations and became more involved in the diagnosis and
rectification of
these failures and at the same time became more involved in the
development and implementation of business strategy. This knowledge and
experience gave rise to the publications and
conference appearances referred to above.
Following a major life experience which caused me to
return to The Lord Jesus Christ having
literally stared death in the face, I have been seeking to serve Him
with all my heart, with all
my soul, with all my strength and particularly with ALL MY MIND. As I
have sought to know
Him more and to serve Him better, I have increasingly come to know of
other developments
in the world which are of greater spiritual significance than that
which is seen. I have also
sought to understand the things of God in a way that will enable me to
answer the questions
of so-called intellectuals, those with great academic achievement, in
order to bring them to a
saving knowledge of The Lord Jesus Christ.
At the same time, I have increasingly become aware
of the activities of secret societies and
other Satanic agencies in business, government and elsewhere and come
to know something
about the "New Age" and the "New World Order".
For several years now I have been puzzled by the
hype over the year 2000 or "Y2K" as it is
now commonly referred to. I was unable to identify very many REAL
technical reasons why
it should be such a problem. I am still unable to identify many REAL
reasons. Accordingly,
in this document I seek to address certain issues which I hope will
assist Christians to better
understand what the Y2K debate is really about and therefore to assist
them to better prepare
for the year 2000. I will also endeavour to offer Christian business
people some suggestions
on how to deal with the "threat" which I feel confident will work for
many of them.
HOW
TO USE THIS DOCUMENT
This document is not intended to be an authoritative reference
work. It is intended to be, in a
sense, a conversation with the reader, sharing
thoughts and experiences as they come to mind
rather than presenting some form of structured management document or
formal teaching.
For this reason, thoughts have been recorded largely as they
occur. It is almost certain that what
is an important focus in my experience is not necessarily important in
yours and vice versa and
that the order of importance will also differ.
It is also not presented as a teaching with copious scripture
references or technical references. Were I to have done that, this
document would be many times longer and would not provide, as
I currently hope it does, a relatively concise report of a diversity of
sometimes seemingly
unconnected thoughts all of which, I believe, have some bearing on
understanding what is
necessary to formulate an approach to the Y2K situation.
By virtue of the objectives set out above, there will never be
enough information in this document
to answer all your questions, that is not the intention. Jesus, through
His Holy Spirit is the only
teacher that you can truly rely on. As you identify passages that
awaken your interest or are
quickened to your attention, pray about them.
In faith, trust God to reveal to you what YOU need to know
through His Word, through books,
teaching tapes, videos, TV and Radio Programmes, teaching at churches
and conferences that
he may lead you to, prophets, teachers and other believers that He may
bring across your path. Be diligent to seek the truth. Be constantly in
His Word and in fellowship with other believers. Be always alert for
His leading to buy a book or tape, listen to a radio programme, visit a
church,
attend a conference, help or talk to a stranger or do anything else
contrary to your routine that
will lead you to a source of knowledge.
Remember that only God knows your thoughts so don't keep
talking about what He is showing
you and, as far as possible, NEVER tell anyone your questions. Satan's
cohorts (demons and
angels) infest the atmosphere and those around you and are constantly
listening for useful
information to use against you. Pray silently within your heart,
believing in Faith that He hears
you and that He will answer your questions. If the answer rattles your
paradigm and does not
seem as though it could possibly be of God, ask Him in faith for
confirmation. He loves you and
He wants to prepare you for what lies ahead. He has great patience and
He recognizes our
difficulty in hearing and believing Him. If you walk in faith without
doubting HE WILL LEAD
YOU TO THE TRUTH YOU NEED TO BE APPROPRIATELY PREPARED.
Be prepared for a challenging and exciting ride! Recognize
that God is no respecter of persons
and no respecter of our traditions and doctrines. Expect Him to show
you things that you will
have great difficulty accepting. Expect Him to require you to do things
and deal with things
which are sometimes VERY challenging and uncomfortable.
If you truly want to serve HIM and you truly want to walk in
His will and His blessings, then
I encourage you to take up the challenge. By faith, hold onto your hat
and enjoy the ride and His
blessings!
God Bless You
James Robertson
A
PRAYER TO START WITH
This document is not intended to be a rigorous teaching, it is
intended to open up a treasure chest
of topics for you to PRAY and SEEK GOD about in order to determine what
is applicable to
your life TODAY in order to redefine your paradigm of the "Year 2000
Problem", effective
application of computers in business and business management in
general. Different parts will
apply at different times. Some may never apply. Some you may revisit
again and again. Others
may not be covered in this document. As you learn to trust God to lead
you into the truth you
need day by day, you will find that the walk becomes spiritually easier
although it may become
more demanding in terms of what you can see in the natural. Ultimately,
it is all part of learning
to be Spirit Led that you may one day justly claim to be a true Son of
God (Romans 8:14).
The following prayer is offered to assist you get started,
trust God to lead you in prayer day by
day. Pray it IN FAITH WITHOUT DOUBTING AND HE WILL
ANSWER YOU:
Father God, I come to you in the name of Jesus. I
thank you that you know the parts of this
document that apply to me and that are correct for me. I thank you
that, as I start to read,
you will quicken to my spirit that which is immediately relevant and
that you will conceal
from me that which is chaff or of no relevance right now.
I thank you that, as you open this document to me,
you will teach me what to pray and you
will give me utterance in my spirit in order that I may pray your will
over my life and those
that you have given me to lead.
I thank you that, as I bring sections, paragraphs,
concepts and thoughts before you and lay
my questions at your Holy throne, you will answer me.
I ask you, in the name of Jesus, to speak to me
through Your Word, to lead me to the
passages that apply to me and that will answer my questions. I thank
you that Your Word
contains all the answers that I will ever need to live my life
according to your will and to
achieve the impact that you have purposed for me at this time.
I thank you that you will speak to me through
books, conferences, teaching tapes and videos,
fellow business people, consultants, apostles, prophets, evangelists,
pastors and preachers,
teachers and other people whom you will bring across my path. I thank
you that you will lead
me wherever I need to go to receive the answers to my questions and
that your Holy Spirit
is with me always to lead me into ALL TRUTH.
Help me Father to hear your voice clearly and close
my ears and eyes to all that is not of you.
Satan, I bind you and your cohorts from blinding or
confusing me in receiving anything that
God has provided for me in this document. In Jesus Name.
I thank you Father that your Angels are encamped
around me to protect me and to keep the
enemy from interfering in my studies and I ask you to cover me, my
family and all that I own,
with the Blood of Jesus from the top of our heads to the soles of our
feet.
I thank you Father that Your Word states that as a
born again believer, I have the Mind of
Christ. I thank you for leading me to victory.
In Jesus Name
TABLE OF
CONTENTS
PREFACE
-
i
HOW
TO USE THIS DOCUMENT
- ii
A PRAYER TO START WITH
-
iii
CHAPTER 1
BACKGROUND AND CONCEPTS
- 1
1. INTRODUCTION
- 1
2. CONTEXT
- 1
3. DISCLAIMER
- 3
4. A PRESSING QUESTION : IS Y2K REALLY SUCH A
PROBLEM? -
3
5. DOES THE YEAR 2000 HAVE SOME FUNDAMENTAL
BIBLICAL SIGNIFICANCE? -
3
6. DOES 1 JANUARY HAVE ANY SPIRITUAL
SIGNIFICANCE -
4
7. IS THERE SOME SCRIPTURAL AND SPIRITUAL
SIGNIFICANCE ATTACHING TO THE YEAR 2000
- 4
8. THE REAL QUESTIONS CONCERNING Y2K
- 4
9. WHAT IS THE Y2K PROBLEM?
- 5
10. CAN STATEMENTS MADE BY I.T. GURU'S BE
REGARDED AS RELIABLE? -
5
11. DOES THE I.T. INDUSTRY DELIVER AND IS
MUCH
OF WHAT IT DOES RELEVANT?
- 5
12. WHY IS THE YEAR IMPORTANT ANYWAY?
- 6
13. HOW THE Y2K PROBLEM MANIFESTS IN PRACTICE
- 6
14. WHAT IS DATA?
- 7
15. DATA REPLACEMENT
- 7
16. WHY DOES MOST COMPUTER SOFTWARE AND
EQUIPMENT CONTAIN THE YEAR ANYWAY
- 8
a. Cellphone
- 8
b. Word
Processing Software -
8
c. Spreadsheet
Software -
9
17. SOFTWARE AND HARDWARE THAT REALLY DOES
NEED
THE YEAR -
9
a. Accounting
Software -
9
b. Other
General Business Systems
- 10
18. IS IT ACTUALLY AN ISSUE?
- 10
19. IS THE TWO DIGIT YEAR ACTUALLY NECESSARY
TO
SAVE COMPUTER STORAGE -
11
20. BINARY VERSUS CHARACTER
- 12
21. AN ALTERNATIVE TO DATA REPLACEMENT :
RESTART YOUR SYSTEMS -
13
22. CONCLUSION PART 1
- 13
CHAPTER 2
THE SECRET SOCIETY FACTOR
THE NEW WORLD ORDER AND Y2K
- 14
1. INTRODUCTION
- 14
2. HARDWARE DATES
- 14
3. Y2K : FACT, FOOLISHNESS OR SATANIC PLOT
- 15
4. ON WHAT BASIS DOES Y2K ALIGN WITH "THE NEW
WORLD ORDER" -
15
5. CONCLUSION
- 16
Y2K
THE YEAR 2000
FACT,
FOOLISHNESS OR SATANIC PLOT?
An Analysis of Technical and Spiritual Factors Behind
"The Year 2000"
of
RELEVANCE TO THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST
CHAPTER 1
BACKGROUND AND CONCEPTS
1. INTRODUCTION
The try.
2. CONTEXT
I am a Civil Engineer and Analyst by training with strong
grounding in Mathematics, Science and applied problem solving. God has
blessed me with a mind that constantly seeks to understand the
underlying fundamentals of any situation whether
physical or spiritual. I have learnt to use the gifts that I have
developed in dealing with physical problems to dealing with
spiritual issues as well.
Having served the Lord in the Anglican Church in my youth,
turned away because of religion and other factors in my early
twenties and been radically saved from the very brink of death
(literally) in my late thirties, I found myself faced with a
major intellectual problem in accepting that the Bible as the "Living
Word of God". Having heard the voice of God and
having experienced the presence and power of God enough to have
complete certainty that He was real, by faith I chose
to accept the Bible as the Word of God and embarked on a voyage of
discovery, sometimes into uncharted or little known
Spiritual waters.
After obtaining my Bachelors degree in Civil Engineering in
1976 I went on to undertake research towards my PhD. Having accumulated
thousands of pages of laboratory results I found that the mainframe
computer at the University where
I was studying was totally overloaded and did not even have the storage
available for one page of data. Accordingly, I
purchased one of the first desk top personal computers in the days of
the Apple II, CP/M (Control Program for
Microcomputers) and similar technologies now largely forgotten. This
was before the advent of the IBM PC XT. I rapidly
discovered that getting the computer to do what the salesman had told
me it could do was not a trivial matter and ended
up studying a range of prescribed computer science text books in order
to teach myself to write the computer software that
I required. In the process the distributor of my computer went out of
business and shortly afterwards the manufacturer
in the United States went out of business. I also discovered that my
"industry standard" computer did not conform to the
standards as claimed. As a consequence, I was forced to learn a
significant amount about hardware and communications
and developed a network of contacts around the world with people who
could assist me to solve my problems. Eventually,
after a number of years I completed by PhD and received a major
National award for it.
At the same time, I worked for my father's international Gold
Share investment consultancy for four years and gained
considerable exposure to the international stock and commodity markets
and gained some insight into the global economy,
travelling overseas a number of times as we consulted to major Swiss
Banks, London Stock Brokers and other major
players in the Gold investment market.
Subsequently, I returned to Civil Engineering in the field of
Mining Geotechnics and over a period of four years was
involved in a number of projects involving the use of computers in Ore
Body Modelling, Mine Design, Slope Stability
analysis and probabilistic risk management. I also managed the
transition of the company I was with from a mini-computer system to one
of the first Novell PC networks in Johannesburg and designed and
project managed the
development of a fully integrated suite of database software to provide
comprehensive operational and financial
management information and transaction processing for the business. I
also managed the introduction of what
subsequently came to be called "end user computing", putting a PC on
every users desk and addressing the relevant training
and support needs.
In 1989 I left my employer and started consulting on my own
as a "Computerization Consultant", assisting clients to
undertake needs analyses, specifying systems and project managing and
contract managing the implementation. For four
years I was involved in this type of consulting, primarily with regard
to integrated operational, financial and management
information systems for medium to large professional service companies
using a combination of custom written software
and off-the-shelf packages. Repeatedly I encountered non-technical
reasons why projects did not initially meet
expectations and started to publish on this topic.
In 1994 I started a multi-disciplinary company which included
my I.T. consulting capability merged with a number of
small computer software development companies. For the next four years
we developed large integrated systems as well
as smaller systems and executive information systems. I continued to
publish widely on the factors giving rise to failure
and to identify more and more factors giving rise to failure. Over time
we developed techniques to address and overcome
these factors. At the same time, as an avowedly Christian company, with
a cross in our logo and "Jesus Christ is Lord"
on the bottom of our letterhead, we started to encounter situations in
our business environment which could only be
understood spiritually. In May 1997, God told me to close down the
business and took me through a serious of short
assignments from which I gained certain insights into what was going on
behind the scenes which would otherwise never
have come to my attention.
Earlier this year I was led to start writing a series of
"discourses" on various topics, of which this is the fourth.
This discourse came to the fore in the space of a few days as
a series of incidents brought years of knowledge and
experience into sharp focus in what I believe to be a revelation of
what is ACTUALLY going on behind the scenes with
regard to Y2K. The first release of this document will be incomplete
because of the urgency that I sense and also because
I realize that there is still much to learn which you, the reader, may
be able to help me with.
I do not present any of what I have written above as a boast.
My intention is simply to position and contextualize what
I am about to write with a view to appealing to you, THE READER, to
consider the possibility that there may be a
paradigm in your spiritual walk and business experience that is outside
the realms of what you have previously considered
to be the only valid understanding and interpretation. In doing this, I
will endeavour to avoid criticising what others
believe, my hope is that I will build on truths that others have in
order to draw out more of the truth as we all sincerely
seek to draw closer to God, to be more like Jesus and to seek ALL TRUTH.
3. DISCLAIMER
If I offend you, I ask you to forgive me, that is not my
intention, I fully realize that, if you are offended you will have
difficulty changing your paradigm and my objective is to lay a
foundation that I believe will assist the reader to reassess
certain issues that may be having a profound influence in their lives.
Please set aside anything that offends you and pray
over it as you seek to extract what may be wheat and not chaff for you
in this document.
This draft of this document, has been produced specifically
to be read by people with whom I am in personal contact
although it is my expectation that, in time, it will be published more
widely and more formally, under the heading of "End
Time Issues". At this stage, in particular, I hope to obtain comment,
insight and testimonies from as many readers as
possible with a view to presenting as comprehensive a picture as
possible as I have no doubt that there are others whose
experience differs drastically from my own who will place different
emphasis on various aspects and will have revelation
in different areas. Having said this, I must stress that this document
in no way claims to be comprehensive, you may have
unique issues and challenges in your life that no person other than the
Holy Spirit of the Living God can assist you with,
in all things LOOK TO JESUS NOT to men.
At this stage, I do not intend to present endless scripture
and technical references. Right now I am not seeking to hard sell
you anything, I am seeking to raise some issues for consideration and
hopefully discussion leading to prayerful action in
the expectation that where something applies to your particular
situation, The Holy Spirit will quicken this to your
attention and show you how to respond.
I look forward to receiving your comments and to discussing
what follows with you.
4. A PRESSING QUESTION : IS Y2K REALLY SUCH A
PROBLEM?
At the time of writing, there are less than seventeen months
to 1 January 2000 and there is nothing that anyone can do to
delay the deadline.
Increasingly, business people and computer users generally
are seeking to assess the extent of "the problem" and how to
overcome it. Various reports indicate that auditors may qualify
financial statements if companies have not solved the Y2K
problem and there are suggestions of banks refusing finance to
companies who cannot supply a certificate demonstrating
a clean bill of health. Numerous other horror projections of aircraft
falling out of the sky, etc are being reported. It is
suggested that numerous businesses and even banks could go out of
business. There is great uncertainty and yet many
people do not have a clear idea as to exactly what they must do. The
whole thing seems scary but to a point, perhaps?
unreal.
The question has to be posed : "Is
Y2K really such a problem?"
In this document I will endeavour to present information
which I consider to be critical with a view to answering the
question from the point of view of:
Is the Y2K problem
FACT
or
FOOLISHNESS
or
SOMETHING ELSE?
In the sections that follow I will discuss some factors
behind my interpretation of the situation and seek to assist you to
draw your own interpretation and conclusions. These sections are based
on limited observation of material in various
books and articles to do with the Y2K phenomenon.
5. DOES THE YEAR 2000 HAVE SOME FUNDAMENTAL
BIBLICAL SIGNIFICANCE?
Perhaps the first question that needs to be addressed in
understanding the year 2000 is the question of whether 2000 has
some deep spiritual significance which means that our normal paradigm
of understanding must be set aside. The answer
simply is no. In biblical terms the year 2000 is NOT the year 2000 it
is actually the year 2004 and 1996 was actually the
year 2000. In biblical terms we are ALREADY in the new millennium.
Marvyn Byers in the second edition of his book "The
Final Victory : The Year 2000" published by
Treasure House as
an imprint of Destiny Image, P O Box 310, Shippensburg, PA 17257, USA
in 1994 presents a robust argument on this
issue in appendix D, page 299 and chapter 29, page 169.
Jesus was born during the reign of Herod who, according to
Josephus, died just before the Feast of Passover and a few
days after a complete lunar eclipse. The eclipse took place on the
night of March 13 of 4 BC. Accordingly, Jesus has to
have been born before March of 4 BC.
Other information is presented to the effect that Jesus was born during
either 5
BC or 4 BC and it is noted that this interpretation is supported by
other knowledgeable history books, encyclopedias and
studies which confirm the timing of Jesus's birth as taking place in
this period.
There is therefore no scriptural reason for 1 January 2000 of
our current calendar to have any particular significance.
Referring again to Byers, our current, calendar was devised
by Pope Gregory XIII and introduced in the year 1582 at a
time when precise dating of events was, at best problematic. It is
therefore easy to understand how an error of a few years
could occur. Insofar as the year number is simply a counter for human
consumption whether the year 2000 is labelled
2000 or any other number is of little significance if it has no
scriptural significance.
6. DOES 1 JANUARY HAVE ANY SPIRITUAL
SIGNIFICANCE
Clearly, even if the year 2000 is not spiritually
significant, 1 January, coming a week after Christmas, the traditional
time
of Jesus birth, could have significance. Referring again to Byers, we
discover that there is strong scriptural evidence that
Jesus was born during the Feast of Tabernacles which is in September or
October each year. There is strong scriptural
evidence that Jesus would NOT have been born around December.
We can therefore almost completely discount the possibility
that 1 January 2000 has any direct scriptural significance and
therefore that anything that happens or is projected to happen on 1
January 2000 will be the result of the actions of man,
possibly assisted by the "God of this world" Satan.
7. IS THERE SOME SCRIPTURAL AND SPIRITUAL
SIGNIFICANCE ATTACHING TO THE YEAR 2000
Referring again to Byers, there does, however, appear to be
strong grounds to believe that something of great spiritual and
biblical significance could happen at Passover (Easter) 2000.
There would
therefore seem to be good grounds for the enemy to seek to cause great
instability
and great falling away of believers before Easter 2000!
8. THE REAL QUESTIONS CONCERNING Y2K
At this point, it must be stressed that I am not stating that
there is not a Y2K problem.
The problem is real but the real questions are
1. HOW GREAT is the problem?
2. How does one deal with it?
3. Could it have been avoided and, if so, why was it not
avoided?
I will seek to answer these questions based on my own
experience with computers over more than twenty years in the
sections that follow.
9. WHAT IS THE Y2K PROBLEM?
According to reports, the Y2K problem has a number of
distinct components:
1. Computer software which makes use of dates for calculating
interest, debtors and creditors ageing, pensions and other
calculations which are based on elapsed time calculated using the year
number as a counter of years. Suggestions of
organizations finding that stock control systems cease to work, that
pension calculations become nonsense and other
issues are raised in order to indicate the level of disruption that
faulty computer and software could cause to businesses.
2. Computer software which displays the date for the
convenience of users and readers of output and for operators making
entries to computers. For example, the date - time stamp attached to
all files stored on a computer disk. There is some
implication in talk about Y2K that this will have major implications
for a wide variety of computer users.
3. Allegedly microprocessors and other electronic circuitry
in
which the year of manufacture or other date related
information is encoded onto the chip and which supposedly will cease
working, malfunction or "melt-down" at one
minute past midnight on 1 January 2000. Examples offered include
critical hospital equipment and elevators in buildings
ceasing to work, aircraft dropping out of the sky and numerous other
alarming suggestions.
All the above sounds alarming, particularly references to
"melt-downs" and aircraft falling out of the sky, what is the basis
of these fears and are they justified.
10. CAN STATEMENTS MADE BY I.T. GURU'S BE
REGARDED AS RELIABLE?
Before the more detailed technical issues are addressed, the
question must be posed "Can statements made by I.T. guru's
be regarded as reliable"?
In considering this question consider that the I.T. industry
is probably the most under regulated and unstructured industry
in the world today. In other professional disciplines, such as
engineering, high levels of educational qualification and
apprenticeship are required before a person can practice unsupervised.
Serious disciplinary sanctions are enforced by
professional controlling bodies which seek to regulate standards and
ensure that buildings do not fall down and trains do
not crash. Failure of an engineering system, including computer
hardware, is a relatively uncommon event, so much so
that it makes headline news.
No such comparable professional certification, let alone
professional regulation exists in the computer industry,
particularly in the computer software industry. Organizations like
Microsoft proclaim "standards" like Windows and
within months change and break the standards. There is no meaningful
protest or objection form consumers who, locked
into marketing hype chase the latest version of products they do not
have any business case to upgrade in order to avoid
being left behind with "outdated and incompatible software". There is
no sound technical reason for this incompatibility.
I.T. people are also prone to using terms from the real world
with scant regard for their true meaning. In the process, they
disregard the fact that the words mean something else to other people.
In broad terms, I have to suggest that it is unlikely
that any computer chip will physically "melt down" on 1 January 2000.
At worst, it will stop working, it might get into
a closed loop that it cannot get out of. As best I can determine, the
only way that a chip could physically self destruct at
that point would be if it had been pre-programmed to do just that and
the necessary energy sources and circuitry do cause
such self-destruction had been carefully designed and tested in order
to ensure that this one off behaviour would occur.
11. DOES THE I.T. INDUSTRY DELIVER AND IS MUCH
OF WHAT IT DOES RELEVANT?
Consider also that statistics indicate that over 70% of
corporations are dissatisfied with their I.T. investment and do not
believe that they are getting value for money and that 70% of I.T.
projects fail to reach completion. Statistics indicate that
approximately 70% of all money spent on computers and computer related
matters in the history of computers has been
totally wasted and scrapped without achieving ANYTHING that was
envisaged when the investment was first mooted. Can an industry with
such a shocking record of under delivery be regarded as a reliable
barometer of it's likely future
performance?
My own experience over many years has shown me that people
involved with computers very seldom understand "The Real
Issues" with regard to the practical and profitable application of
computers in business. They tend to get carried with
"features" and "functionality" at the expense of solving the business
problem. As a result, many, if not most I.T. decisions
are based more on technology "nice to haves" than on real issues.
Accordingly, much of what I.T. people regard as vital
is, in fact, irrelevant. This leads me to conclude that a fair amount
of the hype around year 2000 falls into this category. For example, if
your cellphone cannot display the year correctly, does it affect your
ability to use the phone? If your word
processing software or spreadsheet cannot automatically display the
year correctly, does it materially impact on your
document? At worst in a spreadsheet you can apply a simple off-set type
adjustment in order to get around the problem.
12. WHY IS THE YEAR IMPORTANT ANYWAY?
Before we go much further, we need to understand why the year
is important to us.
Basically, the year number if just a counter. It counts the
number of years since some arbitrary and, as we have seen in
section 1..7, incorrectly determined base date. In terms of the
currently accepted Jewish calendar, the year 2000 is the year
5760-5761 although according to Byers interpretation it could
conceivably actually be 6004. In terms of our day to day
life, the exact number if insignificant, it is the existence of a
universally understood standard that matters. The fact that
every nation on earth at the very least recognizes that the year which
we label 2000 is labelled 2000 is only important
insofar as it enables all nations to know the year that is being talked
about.
If one person talked about 2000 and another 5761 we would
find it confusing. If on one day I entered a date on a computer
as being in 2000 and on another occasion entered the same date as being
5761 any other user of that data would be
confused and the computer would make some serious computation errors in
computing any calculation which compared
the dates of the two entries. The problem would not be with the
computer but with my failure to apply a consistent
standard.
Thus the year 2000 is just a numeric counter or label that
has been applied to all data relating to dates.
Since the year 2000 is such an arbitrary number, there is no
real reason why it cannot be changed other than the amount
of disruption that it would cause and the years that it would take
everyone to get used to calling 2000 some other number. However, this
results only from the difficulty of getting billions of people around
the world to change a standard that they
have come to regard as inviolate.
However, this does not stop your business from deciding to
introduce a new local standard in order to minimize the impact
of the Y2K problem. If you chose to set your computers back to 1
January 1990 or 1 January 1988 (if you have a need
to accommodate the leap year) your Y2K problems will look completely
different to those that you will experience if you
elect to allow all your computers to tick over to 1 January 2000.
If you were to do this, you could do it at any time in the
next seventeen (at time of writing) months, financial year end
would probably be a good time, and you could probably do it with
minimum disruption to your business. You would
certainly be able to manage the impact through planned over time. I
will discuss this option in more detail later, suffice
it to stress now that 2000 is an entirely arbitrary, man made number
which has no real relevance to any self respecting
computer chip.
13. HOW THE Y2K PROBLEM MANIFESTS IN PRACTICE
The actual manifestation of Y2K non-compliance is as follows:
1. The year counter 1998 contains four digits.
2. It has been customary since the 19 prefix is taken for
granted by most users to write 98 rather than 1998 in order to save
effort, save space and save ink.
3. On computer, doing away with the 19 prefix has happened to
a point by accident because the manual systems that the
computer systems were designed to replace did not worry about the 19.
4. In part, the 19 was omitted to save disk space. It is
currently being alleged that this is the real reason for Y2K. Fancy
graphs demonstrating hardware and disk storage costs have been
published to show why Y2K is a necessary
consequence of informed cost containment decisions in the past. My
experience indicates that this is not the case and,
in a later section I will explain why any person who claims to have
taken an informed decision to contain disk usage by
limiting the year to two digits is either incompetent or lying.
Insofar as the correct calculation of the age of someone born
in 1998, calculated in 2000 requires that the computer
calculates 2000 - 1998 = 2 whilst 00 - 99 = -99 there will be a real
error in any calculation of this nature after 1 January
1999 for any computer system or software WHICH DOES NOT INTERNALLY
RECORD the 19. This will affect
debtor and creditor age calculations, interest calculations, leave
calculations, age next birthday, pension, etc, etc, etc. The
impact is NOT insignificant and cannot be ignored IN SOME CASES.
However, there are some good technical reasons why well
designed software and hardware may not necessarily manifest
the problem in the way that it is described and there are some simple
ways of overcoming the problem in a large number
of cases. These are briefly discussed in sections that follow.
14. WHAT IS DATA?
Hopefully, by now, you are beginning to realize that the real
issue with the Y2K is a numeric value that represents a
counter relative to an arbitrarily set reference point and which is
entered into a computer by keyboard or other entry device,
stored on a computer disk and output on a screen or report and / or
used in various calculations.
The only way that a computer remembers the date is either if
it is written in magnetic or magneto-optical form as a binary
pattern of zeroes and ones on a computer disk or tape or in the
computers memory which may include so-called non-volatile memory which
retains the pattern when power is switched off from the computer. In
all cases, this is in practical
terms no different to writing the same information on a piece of paper.
The type, quality and colour of the paper and the
nature of the writing instrument does not in any way alter the fact
that the item of data is the year number "2000". In the
same, way, replacing 2000 with 2001 in the same location involves
overwriting the data on disk, it involves either erasing
or obliterating with "Tippex" the image on paper. The concept is the
same, the technique is different.
In computer terms, the manner in which the date is
represented may differ from technology to technology but the principle
is the same and the reality is that there are very few different
representations used in practise. There really is not a great
need for diversity since the date, an particularly the year, represents
a small proportion of the data recorded in virtually
every computer solution.
15. DATA REPLACEMENT
Having realized that data is really no different from writing
on a piece of paper, it is apparent that to write over it is not
particularly difficult, certainly not when it is in magnetic form.
Given that computers are very good at automatic repetitive
processing, it becomes apparent that to either manually, using
a data replace function in a database editor, or automatically using a
small application written for the purpose, it is almost
a trivial matter to search and replace the date fields in an entire
database and systematically replace 1998 with 1986, and
so forth. Once this has been done it is done, there is basically not
very much that can go wrong other than for users to
enter the wrong date, so we are back to the people problem.
However, this approach is potentially much easier to do
reliably and has far fewer unforseen problems than some of the
other Y2K solutions which require looking for parts of the software to
change in pieces of source code which have possibly
not been edited for decades and which are badly documented and where
version control problems could be insurmountable. Trying to change
someone else's computer program years after it was written and when
proper configuration management
has not been implemented, which is in almost every case, is fraught
with difficulty and makes the Y2K very real and
practically insurmountable for many organizations if they seek to
change their software.
Data replacement is a much more reliable and much lower risk
solution with almost 100% probability of low cost success
provided it is planned properly and certain aesthetic issues are
addressed.
As a second phase, the aesthetic issues can be addressed by
relatively minor changes to the data entry programs in order
to subtract the chosen offset, such as twelve years, from every date
entered, before it is stored. This will overcome the
problem of operators inadvertently typing in the wrong date.
As a third phase, those reports which are widely distributed
and particularly those that are distributed to clients, can be
modified to add the offset back onto the date after the data has been
retrieved from disk and before it is printed.
The remaining input, processing and reporting which is for
internal use and only used by a limited number of sophisticated
users in-house can remain with the date with the twelve year offset.
People are remarkably adaptable, they will easily
accommodate this anomaly.
It is my expectation that this approach will eliminate in
excess of 99% of the risk, reduce the cost of Y2K conversion by
a similar amount and eliminate most of the hassle. It will also cause
the business to focus on the 20% of the issues that
will deliver 80% of the benefit in terms of practical and cost
effective Y2K compliance. This is the approach advocated
in the sections that follow.
16. WHY DOES MOST COMPUTER SOFTWARE AND
EQUIPMENT CONTAIN THE YEAR ANYWAY
A question that needs to be answered before we go much
further is why a lot of equipment needs to know the year and,
for that matter, why a lot of software needs the year.
As indicated above, the year is a counter, in reality it is
only meaningful to the people that use computers, the computer
has no need to know the year other than as a counter to which the
software can apply any off-set it wishes in order to
display a year that the user understands. Let us consider a few
examples:
1. Cellphone
If we take the cellphone example referred to earlier. The
only reason that I know of for a cell phone to know what year
it is is in order to display the date, including the year, on the
display as a matter of convenience to the user. If the year
were not displayed or were inaccurate, what difference would it make?
Only that a minor convenience feature is no
longer available. The same applies to many other pieces of equipment
that display the year. We are faced with a
situation where, because the appliance or item of equipment had the
internal clock necessary to drive a clock and because
the display technology necessary to display the date was present, we
now have innumerable pieces of equipment which
display the date. If the date is wrong, so what? In many cases you will
find that the date is not set or is set incorrectly,
ipso facto the year 2000 is unlikely to be a problem.
If it really worries you, why not set the date back ten years
now and then you will know that the year 2000 will not be
a problem with that item of equipment. If the date is manually
programmable then, to the best of my knowledge there
cannot be any possible technical reason to prevent you doing this and,
therefore, any possible technical reason why that
piece of equipment should even know that the year 2000 has happened.
Unless, of course, something else has been
programmed in which you have no knowledge of.
2. Word
Processing Software
If we take the example of word processing software referred
to earlier. Typically it will use the date to date stamp files
when they are written to disk but this may be a function of the
operating system so it is possible that the software does
not actually need to know the date in order to do this. It will also
have a date function and various related features to
enable you to date stamp documents and have the current date
automatically included in the document you are working
on. If you never use that function it is highly unlikely that the
software will ever detect that it has a problem. Software
bugs only manifest when the software executes the particular function
concerned.
Again, you should be able to eliminate your concern for the
year 2000 today by setting the system clock on your PC's
back by ten or twelve years and telling users not to use the date
function. You may have some problems with date stamp
incompatibility of data files but that there are reasonably simple ways
of dealing with that problem if it disrupts your
automatic back up procedures. Certainly, you should have little
difficulty creating an environment where Y2K does not
disrupt your word processing, your presentations and most of your other
office automation.
3. Spreadsheet
Software
The spreadsheet example is slightly more complex since you
are likely to use the date and do date calculations somewhat
more frequently. However, you are likely to find that in most cases the
date is still a date stamp or, at most a counter. If you enter the date
in one or more a separate cells as numeric values of Y2K and then minus
ten or minus 12, convert
the data to a date and do all calculations with Y2K-12 and then add on
the offset at the end, you will get the correct
answer ALL the time. In some places you may need to get a bit more
elegant but the problems are unlikely to be
insurmountable. Accordingly, a large portion of your apparent Y2K
problems can potentially be overcome simply by
putting the clock back on the equipment by any arbitrary offset that
suits you. Just evaluate the merits of different
offsets and prototype them first.
The remaining computer hardware and software actually does
need the date for some purpose beyond what has been set
out above. If you conduct an audit of all the equipment and software
that you have been told is at risk from Y2K you may
now receive a pleasant surprise.
By this time you should be starting to ask yourself why on
earth Y2K has any significance for elevators in buildings, traffic
lights and numerous other devices that are allegedly going to fall over
on 1 January 2000. The answer is simply that,
provided the clock on that device is reprogrammed at the next service
to set it back by a specified number of years, there
is unlikely to be any reason at all why these devices should even know
that they are supposed to give problems. Unless,
of course, someone has deliberately programmed them to know about the
year 2000 and to break anyway. But no one
would dream of doing something like that. Would they?
17. SOFTWARE AND HARDWARE THAT REALLY DOES
NEED
THE YEAR
This leaves us with some software and hardware applications
that really do need to know the year, however, by this time,
we have probably reduced the scope of the problem to the 20% (or less)
of applications that really are significantly affected
by Y2K and which therefore constitute 80% of the real problem. Let us
consider a few examples.
1. Accounting
Software
Accounting software needs the date in order to record the
financial period and also for calculation of interest, debtors
and creditors age analysis and similar calculations. The date is also
required for invoice and statement dates, transaction
dates, etc.
In the light of previous sections, by now you should be
starting to realize that, in reality, if you tell your computer that
the year is 1988 or 1990 and not 2000 or any other year that comes
before 2000, THE COMPUTER should not know
the difference, only the users will be slightly confused. However, if
you make the change over financial year end, the
inconvenience will be less.
You can overcome the problem of visible dates by some fancy
footwork with the way you print your stationery. For
example, print a dark shaded block where the computer is going to print
"88" and print "2000" on the line above or
below or beside. People outside your organization will NOT be confused,
they will simply think that you could have
done a better job designing your stationery. At the worst, you may have
to put a red sticker or red block on your
stationery telling people to read 1988 as 2000. Your software will
still work.
In many cases, you will be able to edit the report
specification in the report writer for your accounting software and
could quite possibly define the report to print the current year plus
12 if that is your offset so the outside world would
in fact see 00 instead of 88 and all the internal calculations would
work.
There are some implementation problems with this approach but
they are VERY unlikely to be anything like as serious
as the problems of the Y2K upgrade to new software which has only
recently been released as Y2K compliant and which
any way is likely to contain some disclaimer for unforseen developments
as part of the hype referred to in section 1..10. The principal
implementation in setting the date back relates to existing data which
has the old date counter attached
to it. In other words, if in 1998 you set your clock back to 1986 (in
order to accommodate the leap year and give
yourself a reasonable time frame for further correction and to avoid
confusion) you will find that all your historical data
on disc still says 1998 and sequential preceding years.
This is NOT as serious as it first seems. Virtually any
database today can be edited with a variety of tools on the market
and relatively simple software routines can be written to
systematically search the database and replace one data value
with another. With careful planning and pilot testing, most small and
medium size organizations should be able to roll
their accounting data back 12 years over a long weekend. All that is
required is some software to systematically go
through the database and, starting with the oldest date replace the
number with a number that is exactly twelve years
older. Thus 1990 becomes 1978, etc. Since most systems probably do not
have more than about five years of historical
data, most of which is seldom, if ever, used, this in no big deal.
Keep in mind that if you convert to new software you will
have to do at least as much work to convert the data and, in
most cases, will decide that the conversion is not worth the effort. If
this is the case, you might just restart in the new
year with your clock set back twelve years, almost painless relative to
what most people are postulating. In fact, you
might decided that it is easier to re-key the year end figures rather
than to rely on any I.T. techie at R200 per hour plus.
2. Other
General Business Systems
The same principles will apply to your inventory, stock
control and numerous other business systems.
Combining this approach with that set out in section 1..16
most small and medium size enterprises should find that the
Y2K problem has been largely dealt with.
Taking account of the comments in section 1..15, we have now
reduced the Y2K problem to the 20% of the parts of the
systems that represent the 20% of the systems that have a real problem,
in other words, we
have reduced the
scale of the problem to probably LESS than 4% of what it appeared to be
at
the start!
18. IS IT ACTUALLY AN ISSUE?
At this point, you may wonder whether it is even necessary to
set the clock back. After all, there is a possibility that, since
the year is in fact only used in so few places your software might
handle it anyway. After all, if you do a debtors age and
it gives 00 - 99 = -99 instead of 1, will it actually make much
difference? Within a few months the data will have sorted
itself out. The only concern is if the software will crash in a manner
that destroys your data or your hardware and you
are unable to restart it.
I would venture to suggest that there is a lot of software
that might hiccough slightly but once restarted will carry on
working after Y2K as though very little has happened. In my opinion, it
will require quite a lot of unnecessary code to
cause it to do anything else. It is just the users who will be slightly
inconvenienced and, with all the hype, if your date
calculations are wrong I doubt that they will really get upset with
you. In fact my experience suggests that those
companies which are frantically replacing non-compliant systems and
software will cause their customers and suppliers
orders of magnitude more grief than you will so you will probably be
the "good boys".
In any event, this is not too difficult to prototype and try
out, any time that suits you between the day you read this and
1 January 2000. Please just make sure that you plan the test carefully
and make the necessary backups so that you can
roll back and reassess if something does go wrong. My life experience
tells me that most people underestimate the
complexity of anything to do with I.T. and then rush in without proper
planning. This has nothing to do with Y2K, it is
a fact of life. If you analyze it and plan it carefully, you have a
better than 99% probability that you will get it right.
I am planning to do something along these lines in my own
business. In fact, my only concern is that someone might have
deliberately programmed something to cause something to break,
otherwise I doubt I would be giving the matter any
thought at all.
19. IS THE TWO DIGIT YEAR ACTUALLY NECESSARY
TO
SAVE COMPUTER STORAGE
The reason advanced for the two digit year as opposed to the
four digit year, that is 98 versus 1998 is supposed to be
related to historical cost of storage.
This assumes that a date requires 8 character spaces on disk
to store and that two character spaces can be saved by cutting
out the century and millennium digits. In other words 1 January 1998
would be stored as 01 01 98 (typically designated
dd mm yy) instead of 01 01 1998 (dd mm yyyy) thus saving 25% of disk
space. This ignores the fact that this date can
be converted to a so-called Julian date which is a date number either
starting from the beginning of the Julian calendar or
with an offset to a more recent date in order to reduce the number of
characters required for storage. The formula would
be something like the following:
JULIAN DAY NUMBER = INTEGER(365.25 * YEAR) + INTEGER(30.6001
* MONTH) + DAY - OFFSET
This will compute a numeric value in terms of number of days
since the start of the offset year which might be 1 January
1980 if the software was written in the 80's. I used this algorithm in
a suite of programs that I wrote in the early 80's
where I was concerned about storage space on a very restricted
computer. The algorithm for calculating the Julian
Number is widely known and widely published and I would imagine was
taught as part of most computer science and other
degrees at most Universities. It is an efficient means of doing any
form of date arithmetic and it is likely that most software
that does date arithmetic internally makes use of the Julian day number
principle in order to do those calculations. In fact,
any software or hardware that does date arithmetic is almost certain to
use the Julian date or a similar numeric value for
calculations as the only efficient approach.
Even on the computer that I purchased in 1980, it was
possible to store the Julian day number as a four digit double
precision data value, thus using only half the storage space required
to store the date in the human friendly manner. Using
this algorithm it is highly unlikely that the software would even
notice the passing of the year 2000 unless the "19" prefix
was added by the software on date entry screens, in which case only a
very small modification would be required in order
to achieve year 2000 compliance on input and output and all internal
calculations, data storage, etc would be unaffected.
Given that I had access to this information and this
algorithm when I was in my early twenties and a relative novice in the
computer field, I have great difficulty in understanding why there is
now a problem with regard to the year 2000 which
is being blamed on computer storage costs. It seems to me that any
major corporation that has produced hardware or
software in the last twenty years which does not make use of the Julian
date approach or a similar approach and which
claims to have been focused on saving disk space, is not being entirely
honest or is incompetent. They could have reduced
disk storage requirements by 50% instead of 25% and avoided the Y2K
problem at the same time! You might try asking
a few Y2K experts to explain this and see if the answers make any sense
at all, particularly if they were to be required to
present those answers in a court of law in response to a claim for
negligence giving rise to liability to make good your Y2K
costs.
Please understand, I am not saying that data has not been
stored in this format for other legitimate reasons, I am only
saying that anyone who alleges that disk storage was the consideration
is either not well informed, trying to cover up a lack
of foresight or negligence or is deliberately using an explanation that
has no technical grounds.
To elaborate, many of those databases which store the date in
the dd/mm/yy format, also store the "/" or equivalent divider. In other
words, they store 8 characters. To have stored 10 characters represents
a 25% increase in field width. The reason
for storing the date data in this way is purely to make it easy on
retrieval to do the necessary manipulation, it also makes
it easy to use any third party query and reporting tool to examine the
data and report on it. If the data was stored in Julian
form, requiring only four characters for a double precision binary
numeric value, it would require a decode algorithm to
be run against the data before a human being could make sense of it. It
is NOT necessary to decode the data for the
computer to use the data for any form of ageing or other calculation
since it is likely to convert the date into Julian form
in order to do that calculation. The driving force is ONLY ease of use
for humans.
When it is recognized that any database application contains
much more information than the date and that typically it will
include a transaction description of anything from 30 to 60 characters
plus at least one numeric value of at least four to
ten characters against most types of date, then it becomes apparent
that an extra two characters for the date represents of
the order of 4% maximum increase in disk space. If disk space was
really a concern then, given the obvious critical impact
of the year truncation, it would be much better to reduce the
description field by two characters than to reduce the date
field.
Every way you look at it, this aspect of the Y2K problem must
be the result of an entirely short sighted myopia bordering
on gross negligence. While my experience of the I.T. industry suggests
that this is not beyond the bounds of possibility,
the scale of the problem makes one wonder how so many major
corporations at the cutting edge of technology could have
overlooked this factor. Or, are there companies that have dealt with it
that we do not know about and others that realize
that it is not nearly as big issue as at first appears? Surely it is
not possible that there has been widespread collusion to
cause Y2K to happen? Why would anyone want to do that? Does any
organization have the level of influence to make
it happen? It couldn't be! Could it??????
20. BINARY VERSUS CHARACTER
In the previous section, reference was made to storing the
Julian date as a binary numeric since this required less space. By way
of explanation, most computers make use of a computer alphabet known as
ASCII, older IBM computers made
use of EBCDC. The ASCII alphabet includes 256 possible characters that
can be stored in a single character value on
a disk or in memory. This number is a result of the 8 binary digits or
bits that can be stored in a character or "byte". For
most purposes, the ASCII code gives great versatility for text fields
since it permits storing of letters, numbers, text
formatting characters like carriage returns and control codes, as well
as non-standard characters required for many
European languages. The ASCII code list, developed, as best I recall,
by the American Society of Electrical Engineers
in the early days of computers is a robust code which has served the
computer fraternity well in respect of storing much
of the data that it has required to store.
However, when it comes to numeric data, it is very
inefficient. There are only ten possible numeric characters plus the
sign, therefore to store a numeric value in a character position which
is capable of storing 256 different values is very
inefficient. Accordingly, most computer software offers the capability
to make use of a so called binary numeric form
which fills the available space much more efficiently. In essence, this
permits a value which would otherwise require four
character spaces to store to be stored in two and a numeric value which
would require eight digits to be stored in four. In other words, if
space was really a major constraint this technique, together with the
Julian date value would have taken
much less disk space.
Surely, in an industry with the level of technical expertise
that it claims to have, someone saw this coming and catered for
it? Don't you think that the only other way something like this could
have happened was with very careful coordinated
planning? Surely that is not possible! Is it? Why on earth would they
want to do it? Who has the resources to make it
happen if they did?
21. AN ALTERNATIVE TO DATA REPLACEMENT :
RESTART YOUR SYSTEMS
By now you may have realized that, in reality many business
systems, particularly financial systems, make very little use
of historical data. The data may be used for a few months after year
end for ageing and interest calculation purposes but
in most cases that is all.
After years of advising companies on how to cut over to new
systems I have found it far easier to leave the old system
running on the old data for historical enquiries and even to let debtor
and creditor ageing run out naturally than to transport
the data. After a few months the volume of data to convert has reduced
drastically.
It will be the same with Y2K. If you convert over your
upcoming year end, you will have the luxury of simply reinstalling
your software with a new database, a relatively painless exercise with
many but not all systems and running the new
system with an offset of say 12 years. In this case you will not even
have to do the data replacement!
Since my objective in this document is not to provide a
comprehensive technical treatise, I will not dwell on this point,
however, I am available to assist you to investigate this option.
22. CONCLUSION PART 1
Hopefully, by now you are wondering what the Y2K hysteria is
all about and whether you actually need to be concerned. In fact you
may now be beginning to understand why you have been experiencing
difficulty getting excited about Y2K in
your business. After all, if the problem is only 4% of what it is made
out to be that is not really such a big deal.
I must stress that Y2K is a real problem, however, it's
impact on many businesses will be much smaller than anticipated.
Provided you take what has been written here to heart and recognize
that there are a whole lot of systems which do not
need to be touched, let alone replaced or tampered with, you will be
well on the way to undertaking a sensible, rational
risk assessment.
Once you realize that the bulk of the problem can be resolved
by data replacement and a date offset or reinstalling systems
with a date offset you should be able to breathe easier. Or can you?
The joker in the pack is repeated assertions about things
like traffic lights stopping working, the impossibility of accurately
determining the magnitude of the problem, etc. Talk about melt downs,
etc is also cause for concern. There are reports
of the USA preparing the National Guard for riots in January 2000 and
the possible introduction of martial law. There
are suggestions that Military tanks may not work. Airlines are talking
of not flying, etc. Something does not gel with what
I have written above. Have I missed something? Technically, I am pretty
sure not! Unless, of course someone has
deliberately programmed a whole lot of hardware and software to KNOW
ABOUT THE YEAR 2000 AND DO
SOMETHING SPECIAL ABOUT IT?
Surely that is not possible, is it? In the next section I
will begin to examine this possibility.
CHAPTER 2
THE SECRET SOCIETY FACTOR
THE NEW WORLD ORDER AND Y2K
1. INTRODUCTION
In the previous section we evaluated a variety of issues
relating to business systems and established that the level of the
Y2K problem appeared to be far less that it is made out to be. In this
section we will seek to evaluate whether there could
be more to Y2K than meets the eye.
2. HARDWARE DATES
There has been a lot of talk about Y2K affecting traffic
lights, cars, aircraft, military tanks, etc. The first question that
needs to be addressed is why would a traffic light controller need to
know about the year. Even if the controller is
programmed for seven day traffic synchronization it does not need to
know the month, let alone the year. If it is
programmed for 365 day synchronization then the year is important
insofar as leap years are concerned, I doubt that any
traffic synchronization system in the world is that sophisticated. It
would be almost impossible to evaluate different
synchronization patterns for individual days of the year. Apart from
anything else, one would need years worth of data
to develop any sort of statistically significant model and there would
be no material benefit. The same applies to all the
other systems referred to above.
It has been stated that certain systems keep track of the
date last serviced, this may be so but someone has to program the
date into the system in the first place, therefore it seems likely that
in such cases it should be possible to restart the system
with a date offset as previously described. So why is there a problem.
Certain reports concerning this issue suggest that the date
is hard coded into the chip at manufacture. If this is the case,
a number of factors must be considered.
Most microprocessor and other computer chips are completely
inactive until they are connected into electronic circuitry
and energized with the necessary electric current, etc. There is no
need for them to retain memory until they are installed. Once
installed, provision is made for so-called non-volatile memory to
record system dates and similar information,
however, this information is initially entered into the chip by some
form of user interface software which obtains the date
either from a keyboard or some other source. This same source should be
able to change the date in future.
Secondly, if as seems to be implied, the chip has the year of
manufacture hard coded in as a two digit year then there are
some fairly serious technical implications. If this date is to be used
to record service intervals, then it must include month,
day and minute as well, presumably, otherwise a simple counter which
records clock tics from manufacture would suffice. Remember that the
human date reference is of absolutely no relevance to the computer, it
only requires to store the number
of time periods in order to keep track of maintenance intervals.
Remember also the comments in section 1..19 with regard
to the Julian date. Given that the processor will need to use the
Julian date calculation in order to track maintenance
intervals, why is the data not stored on the chip in Julian numeric
format, it involves an unnecessary series of processes
to store the date in date format so that human beings can read it. If
it is stored in this format then there is NO Y2K
problem!
Furthermore, considering the millions or billions of circuits
included on these chips, there is absolutely no reason to limit
the year to two digits. To do so would be petty in the extreme and
would demonstrate a total lack of foresight and even
the most basic technical risk assessment which I have great difficulty
in believing that any registered professional
electronics engineer would be guilty of. Furthermore, in the case of
Military tanks, it is well known that the US Army
Milspec is amongst the most stringent in the world. It defies the
imagination to consider that the US Army did not take
account of this issue. According to my understanding all US Milspec
requires equipment to remain serviceable for a
minimum of something like twenty years. In other words, if the rumours
are true, all major military equipment
manufacturers in the USA have been in breach of contract for nearly 20
years. This includes Boeing who are the
manufacturers of a large proportion of the worlds aircraft both
civilian and military and who craft must be included
amongst those expected to fall from the sky. The level of negligence
implicit in these assertions is beyond comprehension.
Surely if these rumours are true, by now there should be a
witch hunt of the most incredible proportions with the Pentagon
suing every major arms manufacturer who is guilty of this crime (there
is no other word to describe it). But it is apparently
not happening. Therefore we must conclude that either there IS NO
PROBLEM or there is something else afoot.
3. Y2K : FACT, FOOLISHNESS OR SATANIC PLOT
By now I hope that I have established that, to a point Y2K is
a fact and a reality but that there is no sound technical reason
for it to give rise to anything like the magnitude of problem that is
being portrayed. Therefore, one could easily conclude
that most of the Y2K hype is just ill-informed hysteria and this it may
well be.
However, when there is talk of mobilizing the US National
Guard, declaring states of emergency and possibly introducing
martial law, we need to look more carefully. When reports indicate that
the major credit card companies, Mastercard and
Visa have decided not to issue any credit cards with renewal dates
after December 1999 and that there are comments that
Y2K failure of "even 10%" of banks could give rise to a greater
economic crash than the 1920's Wall Street crash, then
someone is either overreacting to the hysteria, or there is something
going to happen that has been planned or someone is
planning to make it look like something happened.
At this time, I have to state that I am of the opinion that
this is the case. The Bible talks of "great tribulation", there is talk
in some quarters of the US State of Emergency including provision for
all significant Christian leaders to be locked in
concentration camps. The camps are allegedly already built and the
computer to issue the arrest warrants allegedly already
exists and is programmed with the necessary information. Bill Clinton
allegedly already has the authority to declare a
State of Emergency without consulting congress and Clinton is allegedly
a member of the "Order of the Skull and Bones",
"The Bilderberg Group" and other organizations associated with the
Illuminati, Mafia and other secret societies all of
whom have links with Freemasonry, all of whom take blood oaths and all
of them therefore serve Satan / Lucifer as god
and are heavily demon possessed and, therefore largely demon
controlled. The ultimate manifestation of Satan's plan to
complete what he started in the Garden of Eden is "The New World Order"
and the "New Age" religion. I submit to you
today that Y2K is a critical component in Satan's plans to take over
the world and put his people in power around the
world while at the same time seeking to finally stamp out God's people
from the earth. However, God has a different plan
and, if you are reading this, you are likely to find that you are
called to play a critical role.
4. ON WHAT BASIS DOES Y2K ALIGN WITH "THE NEW
WORLD ORDER"
Reports over several years have indicated that the
protagonists of the New World Order are following an overall strategy,
which is well summed up by much of Mao's doctrines on infiltration,
destabilization, etc. In particular, they are seeking
to reach a point where countries become ungovernable through crime or
other means in a manner which allows a small
group to declare a state of emergency, introduce martial law and take
over the country, in the process removing opponents
to concentration camps in numbers that will make Germany and Russia in
the 40's and 50's look like Sunday school
picnics. The underlying talk around the "problems" associated with Y2K
are laying the foundations for this to happen.
Another aspect of the New World Order is a strategy to
eliminate the current asset position of private individuals by
eliminating all physical money and forcing all people to use electronic
financial units. Y2K creates an environment in
which the collapse of the entire world's banking system can be
contrived to appear to happen associated with loss of all
computer records of all bank accounts as a result of "unforseen Y2K
problems". A beneficent world Government,
composed of dictators who have imposed states of emergency will then be
able to issue "new financial units" electronically
which will enable all people to make a new start in life, write of all
existing debt and "sadly" also wealth and take what
government, through the banks, gives them. Of course, since all
computer records will "unfortunately" have been lost,
a new form of identification will be called for. This new form of
identification is likely to take the form of a microchip
injected under the skin of the right hand or forehead
refer Revelation 13:16 in the King James Translation, all other
translations are incorrect, they indicate that the Mark of The Beast
will be on the wrist or on the forehead. Indications
are that this micro chip will be capable of containing your entire
history, sensors in buildings will be able to track you as
you enter and leave and the chip will contain a full record of your
movements. It is alleged that the chip will be capable
of being tracked by satellite and that it will be possible to energize
the chip in some way to alter your behaviour giving
rise to severe depression, submissiveness or violent anger. Thus the
act of accepting the micro chip may not, as such be
an conscious act of submission to Satan but the consequences of
receiving the chip will be behaviour which will cause you
to sin and turn against God as Satan's agents on earth manipulate you
against your free will and control your every
movement.
If we did not serve the God of All the Earth, the Creator of
the Heavens and the Earth who sent His Son Jesus Christ to
die on the Cross of Calvary to take our sins upon himself and to gain
victory over Satan, this last paragraph would be
frightening indeed. However, greater who is He who is in us than he
that is in the world and those who endure to the end
shall be saved. The challenge right now is to ensure that you are in
the right place spiritually to be able to endure to the
end.
Right now, if you have not made a quality decision to serve
the Lord Jesus Christ with all your heart, with all your soul,
with all your mind and with all your strength, do not delay another
second. Get hold of the Christian who gave you this
document and ask them to help you. Otherwise call
...........................
If you have made a decision to serve Jesus Christ, now is the
time to recognize that there IS a day of Judgement and that
you will be called to account for everything that you do in your life,
even every idle word. Make a decision right now to
repent of all lukewarmness and half hearted commitment, repent of all
dalliance with the world and carnality and take up
your cross and follow Him. If you are not where you realize that you
need to be spiritually right now get hold of the
Christian who gave you this document and ask them to help you.
Otherwise call ...........................
Now we have our priorities right, rejoice that you are
serving the Lord Jesus Christ, that He has seen fit to warn you of
what is ahead and start praying fervently and humbly for Him to reveal
to you your part in His plan. Make this
information to other Christians that you know and to others whom the
Lord may lead you to share this information with. Start networking with
other Christians who are aware of what is happening, share what God is
showing you and take steps
to make the necessary preparation.
God is preparing areas of light in the world in a sea of
darkness, you need to find one near you and make plans to move
there. There is much to be done and much to be learned. Contact us on
................... in order to make contact with others
who are seeking to serve God.
5. CONCLUSION
We have presented the information that we believe is relevant
to you gaining an understanding of what is REALLY
HAPPENING with regard to Y2K.
As long as you are serving the Lord Jesus Christ you are on
the right track, if you are not you do not have time to waste. There is
much to be done.
God bless you,
JAMES ROBERTSON