Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newsfeed2.uk.ibm.net!sackheads.org!ibm.net!news-feed.inet.tele.dk!bofh.vszbr.cz!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!203.97.37.6!clear.net.nz!auckland.ac.nz!p.kerr From: p.kerr@auckland.ac.nz (Peter Kerr) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.urban,alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Year 2000 bug and planes Date: Thu, 12 Mar 1998 08:06:22 +1200 Organization: School of Music University of Auckland Lines: 14 Message-ID: References: <6de5cq$4mi$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <3505390d.1982108@news.erols.com> <6e4ju2$qas@camel12.mindspring.com> <35061546.130917890@news1.Radix.Net> NNTP-Posting-Host: p.kerr.mus.auckland.ac.nz X-Newsreader: Yet Another NewsWatcher 2.2.0b6 johnl@Radix.Net (John A. Limpert) wrote: > The Department of Defense deploys a satellite navigation system and > intentionally degrades the accuracy of the system for civilian users. > The FAA plans to deploy a satellite navigation system that improves the > accuracy of GPS for civilian users. Wouldn't it be simpler (and much > cheaper) to remove the errors from the GPS signal? > Hey, and take away somebody's opportunity to build another empire? ;-) -- Peter Kerr bodger School of Music chandler University of Auckland NZ neo-Luddite ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news-fra1.dfn.de!bignews.mediaways.net!nyd.news.ans.net!newsfeeds.ans.net!news.idt.net!feed2.news.erols.com!erols!newsfeed.wli.net!news-feed.inet.tele.dk!bofh.vszbr.cz!intgwlon.nntp.telstra.net!news.telstra.net.nz!clear.net.nz!auckland.ac.nz!p.kerr From: p.kerr@auckland.ac.nz (Peter Kerr) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.urban,alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Year 2000 bug and planes Date: Thu, 12 Mar 1998 14:27:17 +1200 Organization: School of Music University of Auckland Lines: 19 Message-ID: References: <6de5cq$4mi$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <6e4ju2$qas@camel12.mindspring.com> <35061546.130917890@news1.Radix.Net> <6e7bq3$1nn@pyrtech.mis.pyramid.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: p.kerr.mus.auckland.ac.nz X-Newsreader: Yet Another NewsWatcher 2.2.0b6 lstowell@pyrtech.mis.pyramid.com (Lon Stowell) wrote: > The correction involved something about [mumble knowing where > you were and asking the GPS were you were or using multiple GPS > or something like that which I obviously can't recall.] See if there's an faq @ sci.geo.satellite-nav I think the procedure is to repeatedly ask several satellites where are you, and knowing already roughly where you are, you derive a dynamic correction factor which is given back to the satellites to transmit along with their regular data. There's no reason why a civilian agency shouldn't do this and transmit the correction factor on an independent channel, ie. not via those same satellites. I presume that is what WAAS and LAAS do, but as others asked, why reinvent the wheel? -- Peter Kerr bodger School of Music chandler University of Auckland NZ neo-Luddite ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newsfeed2.uk.ibm.net!sackheads.org!ibm.net!nntp.news.xara.net!xara.net!dispose.news.demon.net!demon!news.demon.co.uk!demon!mail2news.demon.co.uk!ibfs.hormeldemon.co.uk!nojay From: nojay@ibfs.hormeldemon.co.uk (Robert Sneddon) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.urban,alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Year 2000 bug and planes Date: Sat, 14 Mar 98 11:56:14 GMT Organization: Disorganisation Message-ID: <889876574snz@ibfs.hormeldemon.co.uk> References: <6de5cq$4mi$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <6e15do$js1@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net> <3505390d.1982108@news.erols.com> <6e4ju2$qas@camel12.mindspring.com> <6e97gb$rqc@crcnis3.unl.edu> Reply-To: nojay@ibfs.hormeldemon.co.uk X-Mail2News-User: nojay@ibfs.hormeldemon.co.uk X-Mail2News-Path: ibfs.demon.co.uk X-Trace: mail2news.demon.co.uk 889879761 4696 nojay ibfs.hormeldemon.co.uk X-Complaints-To: abuse@demon.net X-Newsreader: Demon Internet Simple News v1.30 Lines: 19 In article <6e97gb$rqc@crcnis3.unl.edu> romig@cse.unl.edu "Phil Romig" writes: > But, to get back where we started, I doubt that the big commercial carriers > will be able to use GPS for much more than a backup system until a formal > arangment is worked out for who gets to turn off the signal, and when. Given the cost of a hand-held receiver, though, I would expect most pilots to carry one in their flight cases for the billion-to-one chance their FAA/CAA certificated flight deck equipment goes belly up. Are there any restrictions on airline passengers using GPS locators during a flight? I assume the old "no use of walkmans, computers etc. until 10,000 feet" rule applies. -- To reply via email, remove the string "hormel" from my address. Web pages at http://members.xoom.com/nojay/ - con reports and links Robert (nojay) Sneddon ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newsfeed2.uk.ibm.net!sackheads.org!ibm.net!news-lond.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!dispose.news.demon.net!demon!news.demon.co.uk!demon!mail2news.demon.co.uk!tnglwood.demon.co.uk!unclebob From: Robert Billing Newsgroups: alt.folklore.urban,alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Year 2000 bug and planes Date: Sun, 15 Mar 98 07:49:29 GMT Message-ID: <889948169snz@tnglwood.demon.co.uk> References: <6de5cq$4mi$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <6e15do$js1@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net> <3505390d.1982108@news.erols.com> <6e4ju2$qas@camel12.mindspring.com> <6e97gb$rqc@crcnis3.unl.edu> Reply-To: unclebob@tnglwood.demon.co.uk X-Mail2News-User: unclebob@tnglwood.demon.co.uk X-Mail2News-Path: post-20.mail.demon.net!post.mail.demon.net!tnglwood.demon.co.uk X-Trace: mail2news.demon.co.uk 889953640 13746 unclebob tnglwood.demon.co.uk X-Complaints-To: abuse@demon.net X-Newsreader: Demon Internet Simple News v1.29 Lines: 16 In article <6e97gb$rqc@crcnis3.unl.edu> romig@cse.unl.edu "Phil Romig" writes: > lack of a better term, to turn off the signal. In a sense the military > invented and paid for the technology and "we the people" stole back from ...and we the British find it works very well, particularly as we have had road maps printed with a UTM grid for years. Why is it so hard to buy small scale gridded maps of other countries? -- I am Robert Billing, Christian, inventor, traveller, cook and animal lover, I live near 0:46W 51:22N. http://www.tnglwood.demon.co.uk/ "Bother," said Pooh, "Eeyore, ready two photon torpedoes and lock phasers on the Heffalump, Piglet, meet me in transporter room three" ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newsfeed2.uk.ibm.net!sackheads.org!ibm.net!nntp.news.xara.net!xara.net!dispose.news.demon.net!demon!news.demon.co.uk!demon!mail2news.demon.co.uk!tnglwood.demon.co.uk!unclebob From: Robert Billing Newsgroups: alt.folklore.urban,alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Year 2000 bug and planes Date: Sun, 15 Mar 98 07:52:04 GMT Message-ID: <889948324snz@tnglwood.demon.co.uk> References: <6de5cq$4mi$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <6e15do$js1@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net> <3505390d.1982108@news.erols.com> <6e4ju2$qas@camel12.mindspring.com> <6e97gb$rqc@crcnis3.unl.edu> <889876574snz@ibfs.hormeldemon.co.uk> Reply-To: unclebob@tnglwood.demon.co.uk X-Mail2News-User: unclebob@tnglwood.demon.co.uk X-Mail2News-Path: post-20.mail.demon.net!post.mail.demon.net!tnglwood.demon.co.uk X-Trace: mail2news.demon.co.uk 889953642 13767 unclebob tnglwood.demon.co.uk X-Complaints-To: abuse@demon.net X-Newsreader: Demon Internet Simple News v1.29 Lines: 22 In article <889876574snz@ibfs.hormeldemon.co.uk> nojay@ibfs.hormeldemon.co.uk "Robert Sneddon" writes: > Are there any restrictions on airline passengers using GPS locators > during a flight? I assume the old "no use of walkmans, computers etc. > until 10,000 feet" rule applies. 1) I've never heard of one. 2) I've never got mine (Garmin GPS38) to work inside all that aluminium. Curiously, however, it works perfectly well when clipped to the dash of my car (where it normally lives), or inside my wife's car despite hers having a conductive heated windscreen. -- I am Robert Billing, Christian, inventor, traveller, cook and animal lover, I live near 0:46W 51:22N. http://www.tnglwood.demon.co.uk/ "Bother," said Pooh, "Eeyore, ready two photon torpedoes and lock phasers on the Heffalump, Piglet, meet me in transporter room three" ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news-fra1.dfn.de!news-was.dfn.de!nntp-out.monmouth.com!newspeer.monmouth.com!howland.erols.net!feed2.news.erols.com!erols!news.ultranet.com!not-for-mail From: "Carl R. Friend" Newsgroups: alt.folklore.urban,alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Year 2000 bug and planes Date: Sun, 15 Mar 1998 08:27:43 -0500 Organization: as little as possible! Lines: 26 Message-ID: <350BD74F.65319397@stoneweb.com> References: <6de5cq$4mi$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <6e15do$js1@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net> <3505390d.1982108@news.erols.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: zephyr.ultranet.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: abuse@ultra.net X-Ultra-Time: 15 Mar 1998 13:27:47 GMT X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.0 (X11; I; Linux 2.0.29 i586) Paul Tomblin, in article nr. , wrote: > > [...] There are GPS recievers that are approved for IFR > non-precision approaches and en-route operations. A couple of hundred feet in any direction doesn't make too much difference while in the air. It makes a _big_ difference on approach. On landing, 300 feet in the direction of the runway isn't usually too much of a bother; 300 feet perpendicular to the runway, however... > You still have to have other IFR-approved navigation methods > in case the GPS system stops working. ^^^^^^^ ^ for when correctly > "It looks like I picked the wrong week to give up breathing" > - Lloyd Bridges Ouch. -- | Carl Richard Friend (UNIX Sysadmin) | West Boylston | | Minicomputer Collector / Enthusiast | Massachusetts, USA | | mailto:carl.friend@stoneweb.com | | | http://www.ultranet.com/~engelbrt/carl/museum | ICBM: N42:22 W71:47 | ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!ubnnews.unisource.ch!News.Amsterdam.UnisourceCS!cosy.sbg.ac.at!newsfeed.Austria.EU.net!EU.net!howland.erols.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!164.67.42.145!awabi.library.ucla.edu!137.82.194.1!unixg.ubc.ca!alph02.triumf.ca!shoppa From: shoppa@alph02.triumf.ca (Tim Shoppa) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.urban,alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Year 2000 bug and planes Date: 15 Mar 1998 16:11:21 GMT Organization: TRIUMF, Canada's National Meson Facility Lines: 44 Message-ID: <6eguj9$iqf$1@nntp.ucs.ubc.ca> References: <6de5cq$4mi$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <6e97gb$rqc@crcnis3.unl.edu> <889876574snz@ibfs.hormeldemon.co.uk> <889948324snz@tnglwood.demon.co.uk> NNTP-Posting-Host: alph02.triumf.ca In article <889948324snz@tnglwood.demon.co.uk>, Robert Billing wrote: >In article <889876574snz@ibfs.hormeldemon.co.uk> > nojay@ibfs.hormeldemon.co.uk "Robert Sneddon" writes: >> Are there any restrictions on airline passengers using GPS locators >> during a flight? I assume the old "no use of walkmans, computers etc. >> until 10,000 feet" rule applies. > > 1) I've never heard of one. Hmm - on my airline flights (usually United or Alaska Airlines) the announcement precludes the use of "all radio equipment". Now I know that not everyone realizes that a GPS box is a radio receiver - filled with local oscillators and mixers that reradiate all these frequencies into the outside world - but I personally think this obviously excludes GPS equipment. (It reminds me of a story about media coverage of a bomb scare, once. Because there was the possibility of explosives nearby, the police had announced that there would be no radio transmissions within a 300 foot radius. So a reporter shuts off her radio, pulls out her cellphone, and begins using that instead!) And don't forget the fact that your GPS has more computing power in it than a high-end desktop system did just 6 or 7 years ago. What makes people believe that because it doesn't say "radio" or "computer" on it that it doesn't have radio and computer circuitry inside? > 2) I've never got mine (Garmin GPS38) to work inside all that > aluminium. Non-aviation GPS's are supposed to "shut down" if moving faster than some determined-by-the-US-military velocity. It's not clear whether this is intended to be an anti-terrorist measure or if it's to sell the vastly more expensive aviation GPS boxes... > Curiously, however, it works perfectly well when clipped to the dash >of my car (where it normally lives), or inside my wife's car despite >hers having a conductive heated windscreen. Open a copy of Jackson's _Classical Electrodynamics_ and you'll quickly figure out why! Tim. (shoppa@triumf.ca) ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newsfeed2.uk.ibm.net!sackheads.org!ibm.net!newsfeed.ecrc.net!dca1-hub1.news.digex.net!digex!netnews.com!ix.netcom.com!news From: jmjacobs@jeffreyjacobs.com (Jeff Jacobs) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.urban,alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Year 2000 bug and planes Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1998 02:08:34 GMT Organization: Jeffrey Jacobs & Associates Lines: 209 Message-ID: <350c8714.30817834@nntp.ix.netcom.com> References: <6de5cq$4mi$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <6e15do$js1@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net> Reply-To: jmjacobs@jeffreyjacobs.com.com NNTP-Posting-Host: smx-ca16-59.ix.netcom.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-NETCOM-Date: Sun Mar 15 8:14:00 PM CST 1998 X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.5/32.451 Unfortunately, the problem *IS* in the microcode!!! Quoting from the Office of Management and Budget: "Of particular concern is the FAA's Host Computer System, which is the backbone of en route traffic control centers. The FAA is continuing its assesment of the system's micro-code with the intention of resolving and testing any identified date issues, while at the same time purchasing and implementing new hardware before Jan 1, 2000. The costs and relative risks of the dual strategy have yet to be clearly determined". Note that IBM has clearly stated and tests have shown that the hosts fail on 1/1/2000. "Rumor" is that there are only two engineers in the world who have worked on the micro-code, which was written in binary. Allegedly one of them has been located and recruited. (Does anybody besides myself remember binary micro-code? What an incredible nightmare!) Now, I don't think planes will fall out of the sky, but I am very interested in you assessment about the probability of reduction in air traffic. Also from the OMB: "The FAA continues to be at significant risk of system failure. Although FAA has completed its assessments, it identified 101 additional mission critical systems since the last reporting period. Considering its slow progress, the FAA needs to give significantly greater attention to contigency planning". I'm also very interested in what such contingency planning might entail, and again its affect on air traffic volume. jav-2@world.net.att.net (John Varela) wrote: >On Mon, 2 Mar 1998 11:33:08, illuminati@for-president.com wrote: > >> I work for a large computer company (AnonymousInc). Recently I heard a rather >> interesting story, and amn't sure whether it's true or a UL... >> >> This story would have it that the US Air control system is not year 2000 >> compatible. Currently, work is ongoing in order to make it compatible, however >> a standby plan was to ground all planes for the first 3 days of the year 2000. >> This plan has had to be shelved temporarily as, since 75% of the world's >> planes are in the air at any given time, there simply isn't enough room for >> them all in the hangars on the ground. > >I keep trying to kill this and similar silly stories on alt.folklore.computers >(to which I have crossposted, since it's more on-topic there than on >alt.folklore.urban) but it keeps coming back. > >After 35 years in the air traffic control automation business I think I know >something about the US ATC automation systems. The only thing in the >real-time >system that uses dates that I can think of is the airline flight plan bulk >store >program, through which the air carriers pre-file their flight plans. That, >however, only uses time of day and day of the week. Everything else in the >system works with time spans of 24 hours or less. Off-line support software >having to do with maintenance scheduling, inventories, problem tracking, and >so >forth would of course be susceptible to Y2K problems, but those programs are >not >going to cause aluminum to fall out of the sky. > >Since, however, I retired three years ago, I'm not current on what's happening >lately. So I asked some of my friends and these are the responses I got. The >first is from someone who is currently programming the en route ATC system, >the second is from someone who is a third-level manager working on ATC >automation systems, and the third person is a long-term real-time software >type >currently working on the Canadian ATC system. > >RESPONSE 1: > >The Host [1] application software is Y2K compliant. The A4E2.1 release >specified that there were a few lines of code changes necessary (less than >10) and there is not problem with the application. The SPB did not specify >what changes were made. > >I can't speak for the rest of the code but one of my sources at the Tech >Center says that there are lots of changes necessary in other systems. > >RESPONSE 2: > >You're mostly right. The day of week calculation actually is century >dependent, >(1/1/1900 is a different day of the week than 1/1/2000) so it would fail if >there were no patch to take care of that (patch already done, tested, >scheduled >to be delivered. That takes care of en-route, and oceanic). ARTS IIA and >IIIA >[2] don't even store a date or day of the week, so no problem by definition. >IIIE is still TBD. Lots of code in VSCS [3], ASR-9 [4], MODE-S [5], and some >other places that we don't really have a clue where it stands (but I can't >imagine it's much of a problem). > >The big unknown is firmware--there are time driven routines in the firmware >that may be problematic, but it seems that it shouldn't be a problem. But >again, other than maybe a reboot after 23:59 on 12/31/99, shouldn't be a >problem. > >Lots of cleanup in support software and administrative systems that >accounts for the big $$ numbers you see, but the mission critical stuff >doesn't seem to be a problem. Beats the tar out of us why the FAA is so >inept getting the message out. > >Please don't quote me by name! > >RESPONSE 3: > >What you say is right, but not the whole story. I'm doing >some Y2K work for NAV CANADA along with the Bedford Y2K >folks, so I can tell you a little bit. > >Relative to the Host, I've heard that probably the only >problem is with the microcode, which uses the time and date >to schedule periodic maintenance-type events, including >cooling, I believe. I don't know about the other on-line >systems (ARTS, EDARC, traffic management, oceanic, etc.). >If they use COTS software (including COTS operating systems) >that's a possible problem. Don't forget that there are >other critical systems that may be at risk, including >air-ground voice comm, and radars, not to mention really >scary things like on-board avionics systems that the FAA >should probably be issuing some kind of guidelines for. >Then there's the question of dependence on infrastructure >that the FAA doesn't control (commercial power, commercial >phone lines) and interfaces to external systems that might >have bugs. > >The Y2K problem is in some sense more of a management >problem than a computer science problem. Imagine something >like a certain type of faucet washer might go bad all over >the world on Jan 1 2000 (there are actually about a half >dozen dates that are candidates for the Y2K problem, but >forget that for now), leading to effects ranging from minor >drip to total flooding. Changing a faucet washer is just >barely a plumbing problem. What is a problem is that all >over the world every faucet has to be checked for that kind >of washer, and appropriate action taken. And you have to >worry about what you'll do to protect yourself from flooding >because your upstairs neighbor didn't pay attention,etc. - >you get the idea... > >By the way, one of the dates to worry about is the beginning >of 1999, because a lot of programmers (I might have done >this myself a long time ago) used things like 99 in a field >where it would never(!) be valid as a flag meaning something >else completely. So it will be interesting to get a preview >of coming attractions a year in advance. > >LASTLY, AN EXCERPT FROM: > >STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JANE F. GARVEY, FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATOR, >BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON >AVIATION, CONCERNING THE FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION'S PLAN TO MODERNIZE >THE >AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL SYSTEM. MARCH 5, 1998. > > Before closing, Mr. Chairman, I want to spend a moment updating the > Subcommittee on our Y2K efforts. Last month, I appointed Ray Long as > the FAA Y2K manager. Ray, with the help of our business partners > Coopers & Lybrand, is developing a stringent and disciplined > agency-wide plan to ensure that all of the FAA's computer systems are > Y2K compliant before the turn of the century. The plan will be ready > for my review on March 9th. Based on Ray's efforts and progress to > date, I am confident that the FAA will be Y2K compliant before the new > millenium. > > I also want to note that we are independently assessing the new > systems we acquire to certify that they are Y2K compliant. Systems > such as DSR, STARS, and WAAS will be fully assessed and certified as > Y2K compliant before they are commissioned. I am committed to this > effort, Mr. Chairman, and I want to assure you that safety and > integrity of the NAS will not be compromised. > > > >[1] The "Host" is the duplex 3083 mainframe used for real-time processing in >the >en route system. > >[2] Airport Approach Control systems > >[3] Voice Switching and Control System -- the new digital switch in en route >centers. > >[4] Airport Survellance Radar. I can't imagine why a radar would use dates >in real time but I suppose everything ought to be checked. > >[5] ATC radar beacon system; ditto. > >-- > John Varela > (delete . between world and net to e-mail me) > -JJ Visit our new website at http://www.jeffreyjacobs.com Jeffrey Jacobs & Associates Oracle Designer/2000 Consulting & Training 951-2 Old Country Road, Suite 119, Belmont, CA 94002 Voice: 650-571-1457, FAX: 800-665-1379 Email: jmjacobs@ix.netcom.com Web: http://www.jeffreyjacobs.com Don't miss ODTUG's Spring Conference, June 2-5, Palm Spring, CA. See http://www.odtug.com for more information! ###### Newsgroups: alt.folklore.urban,alt.folklore.computers Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newsfeed2.uk.ibm.net!sackheads.org!ibm.net!europa.clark.net!4.1.16.34!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!news.new-york.net!nntp.frontiernet.net!node17.frontiernet.net!xcski.com!ptomblin From: ptomblin@xcski.com (Paul Tomblin) Subject: Re: Year 2000 bug and planes Reply-To: ptomblin@xcski.com (Paul Tomblin) Sender: ptomblin@xcski.com (Paul Tomblin) Organization: Tomblin Computer Consulting, Rochester, New York and Ottawa, Ontario Message-ID: References: <6de5cq$4mi$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <350BD74F.65319397@stoneweb.com> Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1998 04:15:25 GMT Lines: 23 In a previous article, "Carl R. Friend" said: >Paul Tomblin, in article nr. , wrote: >> >> [...] There are GPS recievers that are approved for IFR >> non-precision approaches and en-route operations. > > A couple of hundred feet in any direction doesn't make too much >difference while in the air. It makes a _big_ difference on approach. >On landing, 300 feet in the direction of the runway isn't usually too >much of a bother; 300 feet perpendicular to the runway, however... That's why it's approved for non-precision approaches. Precision approaches are ones which provide vertical guidance as well as horizontal guidance. Non-precision approaches rely on the altimeter for vertical guidance. Currently the only precision approach method in common use is the ILS Instrument Landing System. There are a few MLS Microwave Landing System approaches in the US, but it didn't really catch on over here. -- Paul Tomblin (ptomblin@xcski.com) I don't buy from spammers. "It looks like I picked the wrong week to give up breathing" - Lloyd Bridges ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.belnet.be!newsgate.cistron.nl!het.net!newsfeed2.uk.ibm.net!sackheads.org!ibm.net!europa.clark.net!4.1.16.34!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!denver-news-feed1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!coop.net!world!blanket.mitre.org!news.mitre.org!mwunix!jcmorris From: jcmorris@mwunix.mitre.org (Joe Morris) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.urban,alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Year 2000 bug and planes Date: 16 Mar 1998 04:35:06 GMT Organization: The MITRE Corporation Lines: 66 Message-ID: <6eia5q$dlc@top.mitre.org> References: <6de5cq$4mi$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <6e15do$js1@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net> <3505390d.1982108@news.erols.com> <6e4ju2$qas@camel12.mindspring.com> <6e97gb$rqc@crcnis3.unl.edu> <889876574snz@ibfs.hormeldemon.co.uk> <889948324snz@tnglwood.demon.co.uk> NNTP-Posting-Host: mwunix.mitre.org Robert Billing writes: > nojay@ibfs.hormeldemon.co.uk "Robert Sneddon" writes: >> Are there any restrictions on airline passengers using GPS locators >> during a flight? I assume the old "no use of walkmans, computers etc. >> until 10,000 feet" rule applies. > 1) I've never heard of one. I can't speak for the regulations outside of the US but the answer here is as reasonably clear as any Govm'nt regulations usually get. The following is a lightly edited quote of the applicable rule: =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= begin lawyerspeak =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Code of Federal Regulations Federal Aviation Administration Part 91 ("General Operating and Flight Rules") 14CFR91.21 Portable Electronic Devices (a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, no person may operate, nor may any operator or pilot in command of an aircraft allow the operation of, any portable electronic device on any of the following US-registered civil aircraft: (1) [lots of words meaning "airline"] (2) Any other aircraft while it is operated under IFR (b) Paragraph (a) of this section does not apply to: (1,2,3,4) [voice recorders, hearing aids, heart pacemakers, electric shavers,] (5) Any other portable electronic device that the operator of the aircraft has determined will not cause interference with the navigation or communication system of the aircraft on which it is to be used. (c) [when an airline is involved] the determination required by paragraph (b)(5) of this section shall be made by the operator of the aircraft on which the particular device is to be used. [In other cases the pilot in command can make the determination] =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= end lawyerspeak =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= In this context, where an air carrier is involved the "operator" is the airline company; the captain is the "pilot in command". The regulations don't contain the word "computer"; they are a blanket restriction against "electronic devices," although as someone else in this thread has mentioned the general public usually has no idea whatever of what is under the covers of the stuff it buys these days. Much of the problem comes from the inability of the aviation community (regulators, operators, designers, pilots, and especially lawyers) to predict the consequences of allowing the use of equipment that was never designed for airborne use, has probably never been tested or maintained to minimize electromagnetic radiation, and may have been repaired or modified by who-knows-who. In most cases there would be no interference caused by the use of such devices -- but are you willing to take the chance that you might be on board the one flight in however many where someone is using a radio/computer/game/GPS/whatever that *is* causing problems? And yes, I *do* use non-aviation radios and computers aloft -- but only in environments where (a) I am the crew, and (b) I've tested them for interference with both communications and navigation equipment. Joe Morris ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.belnet.be!news-penn.gip.net!news-peer.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!news-peer.sprintlink.net!news-peer-west.sprintlink.net!news.sprintlink.net!Sprint!newsfeed.wli.net!Supernews73!supernews.com!Supernews69!not-for-mail From: genew@vip.net (Gene Wirchenko) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.urban,alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Year 2000 bug and planes Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 01:12:08 GMT Organization: All USENET -- http://www.Supernews.com Lines: 41 Message-ID: <350d5877.3021028@news.vip.net> References: <6de5cq$4mi$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <6e15do$js1@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net> <3505390d.1982108@news.erols.com> <6e4ju2$qas@camel12.mindspring.com> <6e97gb$rqc@crcnis3.unl.edu> <889876574snz@ibfs.hormeldemon.co.uk> <889948324snz@tnglwood.demon.co.uk> <6eia5q$dlc@top.mitre.org> Reply-To: genew@vip.net NNTP-Posting-Host: 10615@204.209.212.36 X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.1/32.230 jcmorris@mwunix.mitre.org (Joe Morris) wrote: [snip] >I can't speak for the regulations outside of the US but the answer here >is as reasonably clear as any Govm'nt regulations usually get. The >following is a lightly edited quote of the applicable rule: > >=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= begin lawyerspeak =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= > >Code of Federal Regulations >Federal Aviation Administration >Part 91 ("General Operating and Flight Rules") > >14CFR91.21 Portable Electronic Devices > >(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, no person may > operate, nor may any operator or pilot in command of an aircraft > allow the operation of, any portable electronic device on any of > the following US-registered civil aircraft: > (1) [lots of words meaning "airline"] > (2) Any other aircraft while it is operated under IFR >(b) Paragraph (a) of this section does not apply to: > (1,2,3,4) [voice recorders, hearing aids, heart pacemakers, > electric shavers,] I can understand voice recorders (the black box for one is one, no?) and hearing aids and heart pacemakers (especially the latter!), but electric shavers? What is the rationale for allowing them? What if an electric shaver did cause interference (since paragraph (a) doesn't apply to them)? [snip] Sincerely, Gene Wirchenko C Pronunciation Guide: y=x++; "wye equals ex plus plus semicolon" x=x++; "ex equals ex doublecross semicolon" ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newsfeed2.uk.ibm.net!sackheads.org!ibm.net!news-lond.gip.net!news-peer.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!news-peer.sprintlink.net!news.sprintlink.net!Sprint!worldnet.att.net!news.u.washington.edu!dpeschel From: dpeschel@u.washington.edu (D. Peschel) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.urban,alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Year 2000 bug and planes Date: 17 Mar 1998 02:59:52 GMT Organization: University of Washington, Seattle Lines: 26 Message-ID: <6ekov8$16q2$1@nntp1.u.washington.edu> References: <6de5cq$4mi$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <889948324snz@tnglwood.demon.co.uk> <6eia5q$dlc@top.mitre.org> <350d5877.3021028@news.vip.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: saul7.u.washington.edu X-Trace: nntp1.u.washington.edu 890103592 39746 (None) 140.142.64.7 X-Complaints-To: help@cac.washington.edu NNTP-Posting-User: dpeschel In article <350d5877.3021028@news.vip.net>, Gene Wirchenko wrote: > I can understand voice recorders (the black box for one is one, >no?) and hearing aids and heart pacemakers (especially the latter!), >but electric shavers? What is the rationale for allowing them? What >if an electric shaver did cause interference (since paragraph (a) >doesn't apply to them)? I suspect the answer is very simple -- people want to use shavers (because they want to look good for morning meetings after late flights, or just want to get rid of that grungy "on this plane too long" feeling) and they aren't dangerous (they're hardly advanced technology, and how many ways are there to build one?). The bathrooms have outlets for them (though that may be an effect of the law, not a cause or independent factor). Maybe the law specifically mentions them to forestall disagreement. Or maybe there was a court case. I can see it now: "Remington Incorporated v. Trans World Airlines"... As to what happens if they cause interference, either someone detects it and stops it, or the crash victims are all clean-shaven. (OK, I don't *really* know. Isn't this kind of interference not-well-understood and hard to pin down anyway? So the law is a guess, in some sense?) -- Derek ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.belnet.be!news-penn.gip.net!news-dc.gip.net!news-peer.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!news-peer.sprintlink.net!news.sprintlink.net!Sprint!newsfeed.internetmci.com!203.97.37.6!clear.net.nz!auckland.ac.nz!p.kerr From: p.kerr@auckland.ac.nz (Peter Kerr) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.urban,alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Year 2000 bug and planes Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 17:15:19 +1200 Organization: School of Music University of Auckland Lines: 15 Message-ID: References: <6de5cq$4mi$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <6e15do$js1@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net> <3505390d.1982108@news.erols.com> <6e4ju2$qas@camel12.mindspring.com> <6e97gb$rqc@crcnis3.unl.edu> <889876574snz@ibfs.hormeldemon.co.uk> <889948324snz@tnglwood.demon.co.uk> <6eia5q$dlc@top.mitre.org> <350d5877.3021028@news.vip.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: p.kerr.mus.auckland.ac.nz X-Newsreader: Yet Another NewsWatcher 2.2.0b6 In article <350d5877.3021028@news.vip.net>, genew@vip.net wrote: > I can understand voice recorders (the black box for one is one, > no?) and hearing aids and heart pacemakers (especially the latter!), > but electric shavers? What is the rationale for allowing them? Pilots are not usually allowed beards. A standard issue oxygen mask does not provide the required pressure seal over a full beard, and either custom fitted masks, or appropriately trimmed beards, are required. I guess an electric machine is safer at 30,000 feet than a hot water lather... -- Peter Kerr bodger School of Music chandler University of Auckland NZ neo-Luddite ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.belnet.be!news-penn.gip.net!news-peer.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!ix.netcom.com!news From: jmjacobs@jeffreyjacobs.com (Jeff Jacobs) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.urban,alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Year 2000 bug and planes Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 19:10:11 GMT Organization: Jeffrey Jacobs & Associates Lines: 209 Message-ID: <350eca81.4862973@nntp.ix.netcom.com> References: <6de5cq$4mi$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <6e15do$js1@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net> Reply-To: jmjacobs@jeffreyjacobs.com.com NNTP-Posting-Host: smx-ca16-12.ix.netcom.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-NETCOM-Date: Tue Mar 17 11:15:43 AM PST 1998 X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.5/32.451 Unfortunately, the problem *IS* in the microcode!!! Quoting from the Office of Management and Budget: "Of particular concern is the FAA's Host Computer System, which is the backbone of en route traffic control centers. The FAA is continuing its assesment of the system's micro-code with the intention of resolving and testing any identified date issues, while at the same time purchasing and implementing new hardware before Jan 1, 2000. The costs and relative risks of the dual strategy have yet to be clearly determined". Note that IBM has clearly stated and tests have shown that the hosts fail on 1/1/2000. "Rumor" is that there are only two engineers in the world who have worked on the micro-code, which was written in binary. Allegedly one of them has been located and recruited. (Does anybody besides myself remember binary micro-code? What an incredible nightmare!) Now, I don't think planes will fall out of the sky, but I am very interested in you assessment about the probability of reduction in air traffic. Also from the OMB: "The FAA continues to be at significant risk of system failure. Although FAA has completed its assessments, it identified 101 additional mission critical systems since the last reporting period. Considering its slow progress, the FAA needs to give significantly greater attention to contigency planning". I'm also very interested in what such contingency planning might entail, and again its affect on air traffic volume. jav-2@world.net.att.net (John Varela) wrote: >On Mon, 2 Mar 1998 11:33:08, illuminati@for-president.com wrote: > >> I work for a large computer company (AnonymousInc). Recently I heard a rather >> interesting story, and amn't sure whether it's true or a UL... >> >> This story would have it that the US Air control system is not year 2000 >> compatible. Currently, work is ongoing in order to make it compatible, however >> a standby plan was to ground all planes for the first 3 days of the year 2000. >> This plan has had to be shelved temporarily as, since 75% of the world's >> planes are in the air at any given time, there simply isn't enough room for >> them all in the hangars on the ground. > >I keep trying to kill this and similar silly stories on alt.folklore.computers >(to which I have crossposted, since it's more on-topic there than on >alt.folklore.urban) but it keeps coming back. > >After 35 years in the air traffic control automation business I think I know >something about the US ATC automation systems. The only thing in the >real-time >system that uses dates that I can think of is the airline flight plan bulk >store >program, through which the air carriers pre-file their flight plans. That, >however, only uses time of day and day of the week. Everything else in the >system works with time spans of 24 hours or less. Off-line support software >having to do with maintenance scheduling, inventories, problem tracking, and >so >forth would of course be susceptible to Y2K problems, but those programs are >not >going to cause aluminum to fall out of the sky. > >Since, however, I retired three years ago, I'm not current on what's happening >lately. So I asked some of my friends and these are the responses I got. The >first is from someone who is currently programming the en route ATC system, >the second is from someone who is a third-level manager working on ATC >automation systems, and the third person is a long-term real-time software >type >currently working on the Canadian ATC system. > >RESPONSE 1: > >The Host [1] application software is Y2K compliant. The A4E2.1 release >specified that there were a few lines of code changes necessary (less than >10) and there is not problem with the application. The SPB did not specify >what changes were made. > >I can't speak for the rest of the code but one of my sources at the Tech >Center says that there are lots of changes necessary in other systems. > >RESPONSE 2: > >You're mostly right. The day of week calculation actually is century >dependent, >(1/1/1900 is a different day of the week than 1/1/2000) so it would fail if >there were no patch to take care of that (patch already done, tested, >scheduled >to be delivered. That takes care of en-route, and oceanic). ARTS IIA and >IIIA >[2] don't even store a date or day of the week, so no problem by definition. >IIIE is still TBD. Lots of code in VSCS [3], ASR-9 [4], MODE-S [5], and some >other places that we don't really have a clue where it stands (but I can't >imagine it's much of a problem). > >The big unknown is firmware--there are time driven routines in the firmware >that may be problematic, but it seems that it shouldn't be a problem. But >again, other than maybe a reboot after 23:59 on 12/31/99, shouldn't be a >problem. > >Lots of cleanup in support software and administrative systems that >accounts for the big $$ numbers you see, but the mission critical stuff >doesn't seem to be a problem. Beats the tar out of us why the FAA is so >inept getting the message out. > >Please don't quote me by name! > >RESPONSE 3: > >What you say is right, but not the whole story. I'm doing >some Y2K work for NAV CANADA along with the Bedford Y2K >folks, so I can tell you a little bit. > >Relative to the Host, I've heard that probably the only >problem is with the microcode, which uses the time and date >to schedule periodic maintenance-type events, including >cooling, I believe. I don't know about the other on-line >systems (ARTS, EDARC, traffic management, oceanic, etc.). >If they use COTS software (including COTS operating systems) >that's a possible problem. Don't forget that there are >other critical systems that may be at risk, including >air-ground voice comm, and radars, not to mention really >scary things like on-board avionics systems that the FAA >should probably be issuing some kind of guidelines for. >Then there's the question of dependence on infrastructure >that the FAA doesn't control (commercial power, commercial >phone lines) and interfaces to external systems that might >have bugs. > >The Y2K problem is in some sense more of a management >problem than a computer science problem. Imagine something >like a certain type of faucet washer might go bad all over >the world on Jan 1 2000 (there are actually about a half >dozen dates that are candidates for the Y2K problem, but >forget that for now), leading to effects ranging from minor >drip to total flooding. Changing a faucet washer is just >barely a plumbing problem. What is a problem is that all >over the world every faucet has to be checked for that kind >of washer, and appropriate action taken. And you have to >worry about what you'll do to protect yourself from flooding >because your upstairs neighbor didn't pay attention,etc. - >you get the idea... > >By the way, one of the dates to worry about is the beginning >of 1999, because a lot of programmers (I might have done >this myself a long time ago) used things like 99 in a field >where it would never(!) be valid as a flag meaning something >else completely. So it will be interesting to get a preview >of coming attractions a year in advance. > >LASTLY, AN EXCERPT FROM: > >STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JANE F. GARVEY, FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATOR, >BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON >AVIATION, CONCERNING THE FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION'S PLAN TO MODERNIZE >THE >AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL SYSTEM. MARCH 5, 1998. > > Before closing, Mr. Chairman, I want to spend a moment updating the > Subcommittee on our Y2K efforts. Last month, I appointed Ray Long as > the FAA Y2K manager. Ray, with the help of our business partners > Coopers & Lybrand, is developing a stringent and disciplined > agency-wide plan to ensure that all of the FAA's computer systems are > Y2K compliant before the turn of the century. The plan will be ready > for my review on March 9th. Based on Ray's efforts and progress to > date, I am confident that the FAA will be Y2K compliant before the new > millenium. > > I also want to note that we are independently assessing the new > systems we acquire to certify that they are Y2K compliant. Systems > such as DSR, STARS, and WAAS will be fully assessed and certified as > Y2K compliant before they are commissioned. I am committed to this > effort, Mr. Chairman, and I want to assure you that safety and > integrity of the NAS will not be compromised. > > > >[1] The "Host" is the duplex 3083 mainframe used for real-time processing in >the >en route system. > >[2] Airport Approach Control systems > >[3] Voice Switching and Control System -- the new digital switch in en route >centers. > >[4] Airport Survellance Radar. I can't imagine why a radar would use dates >in real time but I suppose everything ought to be checked. > >[5] ATC radar beacon system; ditto. > >-- > John Varela > (delete . between world and net to e-mail me) > -JJ Visit our new website at http://www.jeffreyjacobs.com Jeffrey Jacobs & Associates Oracle Designer/2000 Consulting & Training 951-2 Old Country Road, Suite 119, Belmont, CA 94002 Voice: 650-571-1457, FAX: 800-665-1379 Email: jmjacobs@ix.netcom.com Web: http://www.jeffreyjacobs.com Don't miss ODTUG's Spring Conference, June 2-5, Palm Spring, CA. See http://www.odtug.com for more information! ###### From: ab528@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Heinz W. Wiggeshoff) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Year 2000 bug and planes Date: 17 Mar 1998 21:17:00 GMT Organization: The National Capital FreeNet Lines: 9 Message-ID: <6emp8c$din@freenet-news.carleton.ca> References: <6de5cq$4mi$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <6e15do$js1@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net> <350eca81.4862973@nntp.ix.netcom.com> Reply-To: ab528@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Heinz W. Wiggeshoff) NNTP-Posting-Host: freenet3.carleton.ca X-Given-Sender: ab528@freenet3.carleton.ca (Heinz W. Wiggeshoff) Path: ccw.ch!bali.dolphins.ch!news.planetc.com!leto.ou.edu!news.ecn.uoknor.edu!feed1.news.erols.com!feed2.news.erols.com!erols!europa.clark.net!209.130.129.214!nntp.frontiernet.net!node17.frontiernet.net!xcski.com!freenet-news.carleton.ca!FreeNet.Carleton.CA!ab528 I just got my April 98 issue of Flying magazine. There'a a fairly knowledgeable and somewhat scary article about Y2K problems. As a programmer who cut his fingers on punched card equipment starting 1968, I do take exception at some of the attitude in that item. "Legacy" systems are the ones that work, unlike much crap crafted in Redmond. ( "You mean your peecee ran 24 hours without a GPF? Wow!") ###### From: ab528@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Heinz W. Wiggeshoff) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Year 2000 bug and planes Date: 17 Mar 1998 21:17:00 GMT Organization: The National Capital FreeNet Lines: 9 Message-ID: <6emp8c$din@freenet-news.carleton.ca> References: <6de5cq$4mi$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <6e15do$js1@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net> <350eca81.4862973@nntp.ix.netcom.com> Reply-To: ab528@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Heinz W. Wiggeshoff) NNTP-Posting-Host: freenet3.carleton.ca X-Given-Sender: ab528@freenet3.carleton.ca (Heinz W. Wiggeshoff) Path: ccw.ch!bali.dolphins.ch!news.planetc.com!leto.ou.edu!news.ecn.uoknor.edu!feed1.news.erols.com!feed2.news.erols.com!erols!europa.clark.net!209.130.129.214!nntp.frontiernet.net!node17.frontiernet.net!xcski.com!freenet-news.carleton.ca!FreeNet.Carleton.CA!ab528 I just got my April 98 issue of Flying magazine. There'a a fairly knowledgeable and somewhat scary article about Y2K problems. As a programmer who cut his fingers on punched card equipment starting 1968, I do take exception at some of the attitude in that item. "Legacy" systems are the ones that work, unlike much crap crafted in Redmond. ( "You mean your peecee ran 24 hours without a GPF? Wow!") ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.belnet.be!news-penn.gip.net!news-peer.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!newshub1.home.com!news.home.com!news.rdc1.sfba.home.net!cypher.cagent.com!user From: tsw@cagent.com (Tom Watson) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers,alt.folklore.urban Subject: Re: Year 2000 bug and planes Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 16:33:30 -0800 Organization: CagEnt, Inc. Lines: 26 Message-ID: References: <6de5cq$4mi$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <6e15do$js1@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net> <3505390d.1982108@news.erols.com> <3508b55b.4615147@news.dhc.net> <6erqgt$86j@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net> <3511a820.1432907@news.innet.be> NNTP-Posting-Host: alfred.cagent.com Cache-Post-Path: alfred.cagent.com!unknown@cypher.cagent.com In article <3511a820.1432907@news.innet.be>, lucvdv@null.net (Luc Van der Veken) wrote: <<>> > > I don't know much about GPS, but don't you think they'd be smart > enough to use geostationary satellites? Please understand how GPS functions. While you may think that geostationary satellites are nice, they fail to provide "world wide" coverage. The obtain a "fix" you need time differences from at least 3 satellites (more is better). To have that many visable in geostationary orbit would require as many satellites as are now in the constellation (24 as I remember). In addition, there is an added cost to put things in geostationary orbit, and keep them "on station". Combine this with the fact that a good chunk of Russia (Siberia) is out of geostationary range (the satellites are below the horizon), makes the geostationary idea a bit outlandish. The present sats function well, and I doubt that DoD (or anyone else) is about to change anything. -- tsw@cagent.com (Home: tsw@johana.com) Please forward spam to: annagram@hr.house.gov (my Congressman), I do. ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.belnet.be!news-penn.gip.net!news-dc.gip.net!news-peer.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!205.139.56.103!news.pe.net!not-for-mail From: "Rush Strong" Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers,alt.folklore.urban Subject: Re: Year 2000 bug and planes Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 17:31:15 -0800 Organization: PE.net - Internet access from the Press-Enterprise Company Lines: 22 Message-ID: <6esgs0$2m6$1@lasierra.pe.net> References: <6de5cq$4mi$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <6e15do$js1@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net> <3505390d.1982108@news.erols.com> <3508b55b.4615147@news.dhc.net> <6erqgt$86j@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net> <3511a820.1432907@news.innet.be> NNTP-Posting-Host: idl01ppp33.pe.net NNTP-Posting-User: rps X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Luc Van der Veken wrote in message <3511a820.1432907@news.innet.be>... >jav-2@world.net.att.net (John Varela) told us >> >I don't know much about GPS, but don't you think they'd be smart >enough to use geostationary satellites? They seem to be smarter than that. Geostationary satellites orbit only in the plane of the equator, meaning that any signals derived from them would be insuficient for determining which hemisphere you were in. GPS birds fairly well cover the sky, allowing 3 dimensional positioning. More significant is that the extreme distance of the geostationary orbits (around 36,000 kilometers, as compared to 20 km for GPS) makes it very dicey to try and calculate time differences. - Rush "space-case" Strong ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.belnet.be!news-penn.gip.net!news-peer.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!205.139.56.103!news.pe.net!not-for-mail From: "Rush Strong" Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers,alt.folklore.urban Subject: Re: Year 2000 bug and planes Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 17:45:32 -0800 Organization: PE.net - Internet access from the Press-Enterprise Company Lines: 30 Message-ID: <6eshml$34r$1@lasierra.pe.net> References: <6de5cq$4mi$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <6e15do$js1@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net> <3505390d.1982108@news.erols.com> <3508b55b.4615147@news.dhc.net> <6erqgt$86j@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net> <3511a820.1432907@news.innet.be> <6esgs0$2m6$1@lasierra.pe.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: idl01ppp33.pe.net NNTP-Posting-User: rps X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Rush Strong wrote in message <6esgs0$2m6$1@lasierra.pe.net>... >Luc Van der Veken wrote in message <3511a820.1432907@news.innet.be>... >>jav-2@world.net.att.net (John Varela) told us >>> > > > >>I don't know much about GPS, but don't you think they'd be smart >>enough to use geostationary satellites? > > >They seem to be smarter than that. Geostationary satellites orbit only in >the plane of the equator, meaning that any signals derived from them would >be insuficient for determining which hemisphere you were in. GPS birds >fairly well cover the sky, allowing 3 dimensional positioning. > >More significant is that the extreme distance of the geostationary orbits >(around 36,000 kilometers, as compared to 20 km for GPS) makes it very dicey >to try and calculate time differences. Well strike that last paragraph - we're talking 36,000 km vs 20,000 km, not 20 km. Coulda sworn the geo-synchs were further out. But no matter - what counts is the global dispersion of hte GPS satellites as compared to the planar location of the geo-synchs. - Rush "back to remedial math" Strong ###### From: jav-2@world.net.att.net (John Varela) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers,alt.folklore.urban Subject: Re: Year 2000 bug and planes Date: 19 Mar 1998 19:09:17 GMT Organization: AT&T WorldNet Services Lines: 16 Message-ID: <6erqgt$86j@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net> References: <6de5cq$4mi$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <6e15do$js1@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net> <3505390d.1982108@news.erols.com> <3508b55b.4615147@news.dhc.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: 12.68.77.182 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Newsreader: ProNews/2 Version 1.00 Path: ccw.ch!bali.dolphins.ch!news.planetc.com!newsfeed.usit.net!newsfeed.wli.net!wnfeed!204.127.130.5!worldnet.att.net!newsadm On Fri, 13 Mar 1998 05:30:45, cmaurer@dhc.net (Chuck Maurer) wrote: > GPS calculates the position by comparing the time signals. After the rollover, > they may all say 1980, but their differences will be the same. GPS works by > making calculations that you are xxxxxxxxxxx meters closer to satellite A than > satellite B. It might have a slight hiccup for a moment right at the rollover, > but it would be brief (a second or so). That would tell the GPS where it is with respect to the satellites, but doesn't it need to know the relationship of the satellites to the surface of the earth? And for that doesn't it need a date and an almanac? -- John Varela (delete . between world and net to e-mail me) ###### From: jav-2@world.net.att.net (John Varela) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers,alt.folklore.urban Subject: Re: Year 2000 bug and planes Date: 19 Mar 1998 19:41:21 GMT Organization: AT&T WorldNet Services Lines: 59 Message-ID: <6ersd1$h3i@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net> References: <6de5cq$4mi$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <6e15do$js1@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net> <350eca81.4862973@nntp.ix.netcom.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 12.68.77.182 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Newsreader: ProNews/2 Version 1.00 Path: ccw.ch!bali.dolphins.ch!news.planetc.com!leto.ou.edu!hammer.uoregon.edu!newsfeed.wli.net!wnfeed!204.127.130.5!worldnet.att.net!newsadm On Tue, 17 Mar 1998 19:10:11, jmjacobs@jeffreyjacobs.com (Jeff Jacobs) wrote: > Unfortunately, the problem *IS* in the microcode!!! Quoting from the Office of > Management and Budget: > > "Of particular concern is the FAA's Host Computer System, which is the backbone > of en route traffic control centers. The FAA is continuing its assesment of the > system's micro-code with the intention of resolving and testing any identified > date issues, while at the same time purchasing and implementing new hardware > before Jan 1, 2000. The costs and relative risks of the dual strategy have yet > to be clearly determined". One suspects from the above that OMB doesn't know the difference between microcode and firmware. > Note that IBM has clearly stated and tests have shown that the hosts fail on > 1/1/2000. There are failures and failures. If your goal is to sell computers, you describe things one way. If your goal is to keep 'em flying, you describe things another way. > "Rumor" is that there are only two engineers in the world who have worked on the > micro-code, which was written in binary. Allegedly one of them has been located > and recruited. (Does anybody besides myself remember binary micro-code? What > an incredible nightmare!) Where did you hear that? > Now, I don't think planes will fall out of the sky, but I am very interested in > you assessment about the probability of reduction in air traffic. If maintenance gets delayed then there very well may be delays. That's the thing to remember about ATC: safety is a religion. They will always sacrifice efficiency for safety. > Also from the OMB: > > "The FAA continues to be at significant risk of system failure. Although FAA > has completed its assessments, it identified 101 additional mission critical > systems since the last reporting period. Considering its slow progress, the FAA > needs to give significantly greater attention to contigency planning". More scare terminology. Mission critical can mean a lot of things. If your mission is to license pilots and you can no longer access the data base, then that's a mission critical failure for you. But still no aluminum falling out of the sky. > I'm also very interested in what such contingency planning might entail, and > again its affect on air traffic volume. Me too. I wonder what the fault-finders suggested? Or is it just their job to find fault? (If it's your job to find fault, then if you don't find fault you must not be doing your job.) -- John Varela (delete . between world and net to e-mail me) ###### From: atbowler@thinkage.on.ca (Alan Bowler) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers,alt.folklore.urban Subject: Re: Year 2000 bug and planes Date: 19 Mar 1998 21:30:51 GMT Organization: Thinkage Ltd. Lines: 6 Message-ID: <6es2qb$ql1$1@nntp2.uunet.ca> References: <6e15do$js1@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net> <350eca81.4862973@nntp.ix.netcom.com> <6ersd1$h3i@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: 192.102.11.4 Path: ccw.ch!bali.dolphins.ch!news.planetc.com!newsfeed.usit.net!newsfeed.wli.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!news.uunet.ca!atbowler In article <6ersd1$h3i@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net> jav-2@world.net.att.net (John Varela) writes: > >One suspects from the above that OMB doesn't know the difference between >microcode and firmware. > Okay. I'll bite. What is the difference? ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.belnet.be!news-penn.gip.net!news-peer.gip.net!news-lond.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!rill.news.pipex.net!pipex!join.news.pipex.net!pipex!krypton.inbe.net!INbe.net!not-for-mail From: lucvdv@null.net (Luc Van der Veken) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers,alt.folklore.urban Subject: Re: Year 2000 bug and planes Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 23:59:53 GMT Organization: . Lines: 17 Message-ID: <3511a820.1432907@news.innet.be> References: <6de5cq$4mi$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <6e15do$js1@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net> <3505390d.1982108@news.erols.com> <3508b55b.4615147@news.dhc.net> <6erqgt$86j@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: pmpool053-49.innet.be Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.5/32.451 X-No-Archive: yes jav-2@world.net.att.net (John Varela) told us > On Fri, 13 Mar 1998 05:30:45, cmaurer@dhc.net (Chuck Maurer) wrote: > > > GPS calculates the position by comparing the time signals. After the rollover, > > they may all say 1980, but their differences will be the same. GPS works by > > making calculations that you are xxxxxxxxxxx meters closer to satellite A than > > satellite B. It might have a slight hiccup for a moment right at the rollover, > > but it would be brief (a second or so). > > That would tell the GPS where it is with respect to the satellites, but > doesn't it need to know the relationship of the satellites to the surface of > the earth? And for that doesn't it need a date and an almanac? I don't know much about GPS, but don't you think they'd be smart enough to use geostationary satellites? ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.belnet.be!news-penn.gip.net!news-peer.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!news1.bellglobal.com!bcarh189.bnr.ca!nott!cunews!freenet-news.carleton.ca!FreeNet.Carleton.CA!ab528 From: ab528@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Heinz W. Wiggeshoff) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Year 2000 bug and planes Date: 20 Mar 1998 01:14:14 GMT Organization: The National Capital FreeNet Lines: 9 Message-ID: <6esft6$q64@freenet-news.carleton.ca> References: <6de5cq$4mi$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <6e15do$js1@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net> <3505390d.1982108@news.erols.com> <3508b55b.4615147@news.dhc.net> <6erqgt$86j@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net> <3511a820.1432907@news.innet.be> Reply-To: ab528@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Heinz W. Wiggeshoff) NNTP-Posting-Host: freenet3.carleton.ca X-Given-Sender: ab528@freenet3.carleton.ca (Heinz W. Wiggeshoff) Luc Van der Veken (lucvdv@null.net) writes: > > I don't know much about GPS, but don't you think they'd be smart > enough to use geostationary satellites? Why don't you try this post again when you find out the difference in orbits for the two types of satellites? ###### Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers,alt.folklore.urban Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.belnet.be!news-penn.gip.net!news-fw.gip.net!news-peer.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!europa.clark.net!209.130.129.214!nntp.frontiernet.net!node17.frontiernet.net!xcski.com!ptomblin From: ptomblin@xcski.com (Paul Tomblin) Subject: Re: Year 2000 bug and planes Reply-To: ptomblin@xcski.com (Paul Tomblin) Sender: ptomblin@xcski.com (Paul Tomblin) Organization: Tomblin Computer Consulting, Rochester, New York and Ottawa, Ontario Message-ID: References: <6de5cq$4mi$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <6erqgt$86j@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net> <3511a820.1432907@news.innet.be> <6esgs0$2m6$1@lasierra.pe.net> Date: Fri, 20 Mar 1998 02:17:52 GMT Lines: 11 In a previous article, "Rush Strong" said: >More significant is that the extreme distance of the geostationary orbits >(around 36,000 kilometers, as compared to 20 km for GPS) makes it very dicey ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Are you sure about that? That would but the satellite about 65,000 feet up, which is BELOW where the SR-71 flies. -- Paul Tomblin, ptomblin@xcski.com. "You're one of those condescending Unix computer users!" "Here's a nickel, kid. Get yourself a better computer" - Dilbert. ###### Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers,alt.folklore.urban Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.belnet.be!news-penn.gip.net!news-stock.gip.net!news-peer.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!europa.clark.net!209.130.129.214!nntp.frontiernet.net!node17.frontiernet.net!xcski.com!ptomblin From: ptomblin@xcski.com (Paul Tomblin) Subject: Re: Year 2000 bug and planes Reply-To: ptomblin@xcski.com (Paul Tomblin) Sender: ptomblin@xcski.com (Paul Tomblin) Organization: Tomblin Computer Consulting, Rochester, New York and Ottawa, Ontario Message-ID: References: <6de5cq$4mi$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <6e15do$js1@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net> <350eca81.4862973@nntp.ix.netcom.com> <6ersd1$h3i@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net> Date: Fri, 20 Mar 1998 02:22:30 GMT Lines: 26 In a previous article, jav-2@world.net.att.net (John Varela) said: >On Tue, 17 Mar 1998 19:10:11, jmjacobs@jeffreyjacobs.com (Jeff Jacobs) wrote: > >> Unfortunately, the problem *IS* in the microcode!!! Quoting from the Office of >> Management and Budget: >> >> "Of particular concern is the FAA's Host Computer System, which is the backbone >> of en route traffic control centers. The FAA is continuing its assesment of the >> system's micro-code with the intention of resolving and testing any identified >> date issues, while at the same time purchasing and implementing new hardware >> before Jan 1, 2000. The costs and relative risks of the dual strategy have yet >> to be clearly determined". > >One suspects from the above that OMB doesn't know the difference between >microcode and firmware. Remember that on the IBM System/360 (upon which the FAA computers were based), the microcode is loadable from floppy disk. IBM *invented* the floppy disk soley for this purpose. The FAA computers use an instruction set which was customized for their purposes - there are very few computers that need an assembler instruction "Increment Weather Lines". -- Paul Tomblin, ptomblin@xcski.com. "You're one of those condescending Unix computer users!" "Here's a nickel, kid. Get yourself a better computer" - Dilbert. ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!feed1.news.luth.se!luth.se!fci-se!fci!news-out.internetmci.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!198.138.0.5!newshub.northeast.verio.net!uunet!in3.uu.net!ausnews.austin.ibm.com!not-for-mail From: glass2@glass2.cv.lexington.ibm.com Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers,alt.folklore.urban Subject: Re: Year 2000 bug and planes Date: 20 Mar 1998 14:17:52 GMT Organization: IBM Austin Lines: 51 Message-ID: <6ettqg$271g$1@ausnews.austin.ibm.com> References: <6de5cq$4mi$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <6e15do$js1@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net> <350eca81.4862973@nntp.ix.netcom.com> <6ersd1$h3i@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net> Reply-To: wa4qal@vnet.ibm.com NNTP-Posting-Host: glass2.cv.lexington.ibm.com X-Newsreader: IBM NewsReader/2 2.0 In , ptomblin@xcski.com (Paul Tomblin) writes: >In a previous article, jav-2@world.net.att.net (John Varela) said: >>On Tue, 17 Mar 1998 19:10:11, jmjacobs@jeffreyjacobs.com (Jeff Jacobs) wrote: >> >>> Unfortunately, the problem *IS* in the microcode!!! Quoting from the Office of >>> Management and Budget: >>> >>> "Of particular concern is the FAA's Host Computer System, which is the backbone >>> of en route traffic control centers. The FAA is continuing its assesment of the >>> system's micro-code with the intention of resolving and testing any identified >>> date issues, while at the same time purchasing and implementing new hardware >>> before Jan 1, 2000. The costs and relative risks of the dual strategy have yet >>> to be clearly determined". >> >>One suspects from the above that OMB doesn't know the difference between >>microcode and firmware. > >Remember that on the IBM System/360 (upon which the FAA computers were based), >the microcode is loadable from floppy disk. IBM *invented* the floppy disk >soley for this purpose. The FAA computers use an instruction set which was >customized for their purposes - there are very few computers that need an >assembler instruction "Increment Weather Lines". > >-- >Paul Tomblin, ptomblin@xcski.com. >"You're one of those condescending Unix computer users!" >"Here's a nickel, kid. Get yourself a better computer" - Dilbert. First, let me make it perfectly clear that I'm speaking for myself, and not for my company. It is my understanding that, while some of the S/360 machines were microprogrammable, the microcode control store on the S/360 machines was read-only memory. However, this memory could be altered/loaded by physically inserting a punched card into the physical memory space for the CCROS memory, or by inserting a transformer winding card in the TROS memory. Also, the S/360 machines were avilable in the 1960s (announced April 1965?), while the floppy disk wasn't available until the 1970s (1973?). I also seem to remember that, while the early FAA systems were based on IBM S/360 machines (model 50s or model 65s) with a model number of 9020 (Reference: IBM Systems Journal, Volume 6, Number 2, Page 80?), they were replaced by modified 3083 systems. The 3083 were more modern systems (post-370 era, and were XA capable, depending upon the micro-code that was loadable, from floppy). Dave P.S. I work for them, but I definitely do NOT speak for them. ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!sibyl.sunrise.ch!news.imp.ch!uni-erlangen.de!newsfeed1.telenordia.se!howland.erols.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!newsfeed.wli.net!su-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!su-news-feed1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!news.informix.com!news From: Tony Sweeney Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers,alt.folklore.urban Subject: Re: Year 2000 bug and planes Date: Fri, 20 Mar 1998 15:06:11 -0800 Organization: Informix. Lines: 13 Message-ID: <3512F663.14F74849@informix.com> References: <6ersd1$h3i@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net> <6es2qb$ql1$1@nntp2.uunet.ca> <6eu93b$52o$1@demon.uunet.ca> NNTP-Posting-Host: golem.illustra.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.02 [en] (X11; I; SunOS 5.5.1 sun4u) Alan Bowler wrote: > I As far as I can tell the difference between > microcode and firmware is whether the author thinks he is a programmer > writing code or an engineer building hardware control. There's a more critical distinction. Firmware consists of instructions from the instruction set of the CPU. Microcode consists of instructions to be loaded into the CPU which _determine_ its subsequent instruction set. Tony. ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.belnet.be!newsgate.cistron.nl!het.net!newsfeed2.uk.ibm.net!sackheads.org!ibm.net!arclight.uoregon.edu!news-out.internetmci.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!199.60.229.5!newsfeed.direct.ca!news.uunet.ca!atbowler From: atbowler@thinkage.on.ca (Alan Bowler) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers,alt.folklore.urban Subject: Re: Year 2000 bug and planes Date: 20 Mar 1998 17:30:19 GMT Organization: Thinkage Ltd. Lines: 12 Message-ID: <6eu93b$52o$1@demon.uunet.ca> References: <6ersd1$h3i@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net> <6es2qb$ql1$1@nntp2.uunet.ca> NNTP-Posting-Host: 192.102.11.4 In article p.kerr@auckland.ac.nz (Peter Kerr) writes: > >I'll bite too: I thought microcode was in the cpu chip mask, and firmware >was other rom that could be unplugged/reflashed/updated withouth a >soldering iron. The term microcode was used long before chips we big enough to hold the rom on board. The /360 40 was considered a microcoded machine, and it was SSI machine. Some of the control on a 1620 (diode matrix) was considered firmware. As far as I can tell the difference between microcode and firmware is whether the author thinks he is a programmer writing code or an engineer building hardware control. ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.belnet.be!news-penn.gip.net!news-peer.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!203.97.37.6!clear.net.nz!auckland.ac.nz!p.kerr From: p.kerr@auckland.ac.nz (Peter Kerr) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers,alt.folklore.urban Subject: Re: Year 2000 bug and planes Date: Fri, 20 Mar 1998 18:13:13 +1200 Organization: School of Music University of Auckland Lines: 19 Message-ID: References: <6e15do$js1@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net> <350eca81.4862973@nntp.ix.netcom.com> <6ersd1$h3i@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net> <6es2qb$ql1$1@nntp2.uunet.ca> NNTP-Posting-Host: p.kerr.mus.auckland.ac.nz X-Newsreader: Yet Another NewsWatcher 2.2.0b6 atbowler@thinkage.on.ca (Alan Bowler) wrote: > jav-2@world.net.att.net (John Varela) writes: > > > >One suspects from the above that OMB doesn't know the difference between > >microcode and firmware. > > > Okay. I'll bite. What is the difference? I'll bite too: I thought microcode was in the cpu chip mask, and firmware was other rom that could be unplugged/reflashed/updated withouth a soldering iron. Can't think of one off the top of my head, but it's conceivable the two could exist on one chip just to confuse us... -- Peter Kerr bodger School of Music chandler University of Auckland NZ neo-Luddite ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.belnet.be!news-penn.gip.net!news-peer.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!europa.clark.net!209.70.91.68!news.clark.net!not-for-mail From: jschmitz@qis.net (JoAnne Schmitz) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers,alt.folklore.urban Subject: Re: Year 2000 bug and planes Date: Fri, 20 Mar 1998 21:49:27 GMT Organization: Verio Mid-Atlantic Lines: 12 Message-ID: <3512db02.4932807@news.clark.net> References: <6de5cq$4mi$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <6e15do$js1@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net> <350eca81.4862973@nntp.ix.netcom.com> <6ersd1$h3i@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net> <6ettqg$271g$1@ausnews.austin.ibm.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: saturn.baltsun.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.5/32.451 On 20 Mar 1998 14:17:52 GMT, glass2@glass2.cv.lexington.ibm.com wrote: >It is my understanding that, while some of the S/360 machines were >microprogrammable, the microcode control store on the S/360 machines >was read-only memory. However, this memory could be altered/loaded >by physically inserting a punched card into the physical memory space >for the CCROS memory, or by inserting a transformer winding card in >the TROS memory. Wouldn't that hurt? JoAnne "taking things literally again" Schmitz ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.belnet.be!news-penn.gip.net!news-peer.gip.net!news-lond.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!btnet-peer!btnet!news.clara.net!peer.news.zetnet.net!zetnet.co.uk!not-for-mail From: lisard@zetnet.co.uk Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers,alt.folklore.urban Subject: Re: Year 2000 bug and planes Date: 21 Mar 1998 10:50:55 GMT Lines: 22 Message-ID: <6f062f$77$1@irk.zetnet.co.uk> References: NNTP-Posting-Host: man-041.dialup.zetnet.co.uk X-Everything: Net-Tamer V 1.08X On 1998-03-20 p.kerr@auckland.ac.nz(PeterKerr) said: :I'll bite too: I thought microcode was in the cpu chip mask, and :firmware was other rom that could be unplugged/reflashed/updated :withouth a soldering iron. ok, prise the top off a 70s mini, and look at the microcode within. chances are, it may not even be in rom... ;> firmware is in rom. microcode might be firmware, but the reverse is not necessarily true. :Can't think of one off the top of my head, but it's conceivable the :two could exist on one chip just to confuse us... hmm. erm... well, some of the hitachi microcontrollers probably have microcode and rom sitting on the same chip (did they ever do a 6309-based mc?) and the harris rtx4000 was intended to have both rom and ram on-chip for microcode - was that chip ever produced, and if so, does someone have a board going spare? ;> -- Communa (together) we remember... we'll see you falling you know soft spoken changes nothing to sing within her... ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!feed1.news.luth.se!luth.se!fci-se!fci!news-feed.inet.tele.dk!bofh.vszbr.cz!nntp.news.xara.net!xara.net!server5.netnews.ja.net!server3.netnews.ja.net!news.ox.ac.uk!engs0011 From: engs0011@sable.ox.ac.uk (Ian Johnston) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.urban,alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Year 2000 bug and planes Followup-To: alt.folklore.urban,alt.folklore.computers Date: 21 Mar 1998 12:33:04 GMT Organization: Oxford University, England Lines: 11 Message-ID: <6f0c20$cib$1@news.ox.ac.uk> References: <6de5cq$4mi$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <6e97gb$rqc@crcnis3.unl.edu> <889876574snz@ibfs.hormeldemon.co.uk> <889948324snz@tnglwood.demon.co.uk> <6eguj9$iqf$1@nntp.ucs.ubc.ca> NNTP-Posting-Host: sable.ox.ac.uk X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2] Tim Shoppa (shoppa@alph02.triumf.ca) wrote: : Non-aviation GPS's are supposed to "shut down" if moving faster than some : determined-by-the-US-military velocity. Non-aviation Garmin GPS receivers did have a speed limit of 100kt at one time, but they seem to have dropped that now. With other manufacturers the limit is much higher - 999kt for the one I have, which looks suspiciously display related. Ian ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.belnet.be!news-penn.gip.net!news-peer.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!news-peer.sprintlink.net!news.sprintlink.net!Sprint!worldnet.att.net!newsadm From: jav-2@world.net.att.net (John Varela) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.urban,alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Year 2000 bug and planes Date: 21 Mar 1998 20:44:35 GMT Organization: AT&T WorldNet Services Lines: 25 Message-ID: <6f18rj$r9h@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net> References: <6de5cq$4mi$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <6e15do$js1@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net> <350eca81.4862973@nntp.ix.netcom.com> <6ersd1$h3i@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: 12.68.77.34 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Newsreader: ProNews/2 Version 1.00 On Fri, 20 Mar 1998 02:22:30, ptomblin@xcski.com (Paul Tomblin) wrote: > Remember that on the IBM System/360 (upon which the FAA computers were based), Those were the 9020s, which as main processors were replaced with 3083s in the mid '80s. It's the 3083s that are referred to as "Host" computers, and that are mentioned in the OMB report that Jeff Jacobs quoted. A different model, the 9020E, remained in some ARTCC display systems but are in process of being replaced (have been replaced?) with some 370 compatible computer. > soley for this purpose. The FAA computers use an instruction set which was > customized for their purposes - there are very few computers that need an > assembler instruction "Increment Weather Lines". All 9020s had the complete 360 instruction set, plus special instructions to manage the multiprocessor configuration. The 9020Es, which served as great big display controllers, had additional special instructions such as the one you cite. -- John Varela (delete . between world and net to e-mail me) ###### Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers,alt.folklore.urban Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newscore.univie.ac.at!news-raspail.gip.net!news-peer.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!news-peer.sprintlink.net!news-peer-west.sprintlink.net!news.sprintlink.net!Sprint!newsfeed.wli.net!su-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!news.alt.net!ix.netcom.com!wb8foz From: wb8foz@netcom.com (David Lesher) Subject: Re: Year 2000 bug and planes Message-ID: Reply-To: wb8foz@netcom.com (David Lesher) Organization: NRK Clinic for habitual NetNews Abusers - Beltway Annex X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.1 (NOV) References: <6de5cq$4mi$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <6e15do$js1@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net> <3505390d.1982108@news.erols.com> <3508b55b.4615147@news.dhc.net> <6erqgt$86j@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net> <3511a820.1432907@news.innet.be> Date: Sat, 21 Mar 1998 22:17:11 GMT Lines: 20 Sender: wb8foz@netcom7.netcom.com lucvdv@null.net (Luc Van der Veken) writes: >I don't know much about GPS, but don't you think they'd be smart >enough to use geostationary satellites? Good thing you admitted it up front..... Hint: which is easier -- getting a signal from a bird oh 100 miles away, or one 10,000+ miles away? What is the difference in terms of path loss? -- A host is a host from coast to coast.................wb8foz@nrk.com & no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433 is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433 ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!sibyl.sunrise.ch!news.imp.ch!uni-erlangen.de!newsfeed.nacamar.de!newsfeed.ecrc.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!newsfeed.wli.net!su-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!news.pbi.net!nualain From: nualain@pacbell.net (Articulate Mandible) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers,alt.folklore.urban Subject: Re: Year 2000 bug and planes Date: Sat, 21 Mar 98 23:04:44 GMT Organization: Ecurie Ecosse Lines: 15 Message-ID: <6f1h2c$25o_010@news.pacbell.net> References: <6f062f$77$1@irk.zetnet.co.uk> NNTP-Posting-Host: ppp-206-170-32-82.snfc21.pacbell.net X-Newsreader: News Xpress 2.0 Beta #0 In article <6f062f$77$1@irk.zetnet.co.uk>, lisard@zetnet.co.uk wrote: >ok, prise the top off a 70s mini, and look at the microcode within. >chances are, it may not even be in rom... ;> firmware is in rom. >microcode might be firmware, but the reverse is not necessarily true. I happen to have a complete set of schematics and other documentation for a PDP-11/10[1*] at home. This set of docs includes a complete listing of the microcode for the machine, said microcode indeed living in ROM. The microengine is kinda cute, and definitely what one'd expect of something appropriate to the execution of the PDP-11 instruction set. [1*] Most definitely a '70s mini. ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!feed1.news.luth.se!luth.se!cam-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!rill.news.pipex.net!pipex!join.news.pipex.net!pipex!krypton.inbe.net!INbe.net!not-for-mail From: lucvdv@null.net (Luc Van der Veken) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers,alt.folklore.urban Subject: Re: Year 2000 bug and planes Date: Sun, 22 Mar 1998 13:22:24 GMT Organization: . Lines: 37 Message-ID: <3516ff39.3325650@news.innet.be> References: <6de5cq$4mi$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <6e15do$js1@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net> <3505390d.1982108@news.erols.com> <3508b55b.4615147@news.dhc.net> <6erqgt$86j@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net> <3511a820.1432907@news.innet.be> NNTP-Posting-Host: pool02a-194-7-46-74.uunet.be Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.5/32.451 X-No-Archive: yes wb8foz@netcom.com (David Lesher) told us > lucvdv@null.net (Luc Van der Veken) writes: > > > >I don't know much about GPS, but don't you think they'd be smart > >enough to use geostationary satellites? > > > Good thing you admitted it up front..... Thanks for noticing that (apparently, not everyone did :) > Hint: which is easier -- getting a signal from a bird > oh 100 miles away, or one 10,000+ miles away? What > is the difference in terms of path loss? From the other replies I got a little wiser. Actually the difference in altitude is said to be (see Rush Strong's posts) 20.000 km versus 36.000 km, so I think distance is not the main issue. As I understand it now, the real reason is that you wouldn't want the satellites hanging above the equator: they aren't visible from everywhere (horizon), and you wouldn't be able to tell on which half of the globe you are. BTW, my first post was stupid for another reason too: from the subject of this thread alone, I had already deduced that all GPS equipment includes a real time clock. Now what would they need one for, if the satellites were geostationary? Which means that the the suggestion Chuck Maurer made that they will only hiccup for a moment, becomes very doubtable (unless if at that precise moment all satellites are exactly at the spot the system thinks they would have been at time zero). ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.belnet.be!news-penn.gip.net!news-peer.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!news-peer.sprintlink.net!news-backup-east.sprintlink.net!news-in-east.sprintlink.net!news.sprintlink.net!Sprint!199.171.20.9!news.nkn.net!news.cybernews.net!news From: cmaurer@dhc.net (Chuck Maurer) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers,alt.folklore.urban Subject: Re: Year 2000 bug and planes Date: Sun, 22 Mar 1998 21:05:30 GMT Organization: CyberNews Network Lines: 49 Message-ID: <35157ad9.108078@news.dhc.net> References: <6de5cq$4mi$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <6e15do$js1@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net> <3505390d.1982108@news.erols.com> <3508b55b.4615147@news.dhc.net> <6erqgt$86j@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net> <3511a820.1432907@news.innet.be> <3516ff39.3325650@news.innet.be> NNTP-Posting-Host: 207-55-169-175.dhc.net X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.11/32.235 On Sun, 22 Mar 1998 13:22:24 GMT, lucvdv@null.net (Luc Van der Veken) wrote: >wb8foz@netcom.com (David Lesher) told us > >> lucvdv@null.net (Luc Van der Veken) writes: >> >> >> >I don't know much about GPS, but don't you think they'd be smart >> >enough to use geostationary satellites? >> >> >> Good thing you admitted it up front..... > >Thanks for noticing that (apparently, not everyone did :) > >> Hint: which is easier -- getting a signal from a bird >> oh 100 miles away, or one 10,000+ miles away? What >> is the difference in terms of path loss? > >From the other replies I got a little wiser. Actually the >difference in altitude is said to be (see Rush Strong's posts) >20.000 km versus 36.000 km, so I think distance is not the main >issue. > >As I understand it now, the real reason is that you wouldn't want >the satellites hanging above the equator: they aren't visible >from everywhere (horizon), and you wouldn't be able to tell on >which half of the globe you are. > >BTW, my first post was stupid for another reason too: from the >subject of this thread alone, I had already deduced that all GPS >equipment includes a real time clock. Now what would they need >one for, if the satellites were geostationary? > >Which means that the the suggestion Chuck Maurer made that they >will only hiccup for a moment, becomes very doubtable (unless if >at that precise moment all satellites are exactly at the spot the >system thinks they would have been at time zero). > The US Naval Observatory web site has a description of how GPS works. The site describes the satellites orbit by: The SPACE segment consists of 24 operational satellites in six orbital planes, (four satellites in each plane). The satellites operate in circular 20,200 km (10,900 nm) orbits at an inclination angle of 55 degrees and with a 12-hour period. The position is therefore the same at the same sidereal time each day, i.e. the satellites appear four minutes earlier each day. ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.belnet.be!news-penn.gip.net!news-peer.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!news.he.net!Supernews60!supernews.com!uunet!in5.uu.net!news.cadence.com!cds9172.Cadence.COM!daled From: daled@cds9172.Cadence.COM (Dale DePriest) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers,alt.folklore.urban Subject: Re: Year 2000 bug and planes Date: 23 Mar 1998 18:05:59 GMT Organization: Cadence Design Systems, Inc Lines: 81 Distribution: world Message-ID: <6f68a7$kdq$3@news.cadence.com> References: <6de5cq$4mi$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <6e15do$js1@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net> <3505390d.1982108@news.erols.com> <3508b55b.4615147@news.dhc.net> <6erqgt$86j@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net> <3511a820.1432907@news.innet.be> <3516ff39.3325650@news.innet.be> NNTP-Posting-Host: cds9172.cadence.com In article <3516ff39.3325650@news.innet.be>, lucvdv@null.net (Luc Van der Veken) writes: |> wb8foz@netcom.com (David Lesher) told us |> |> > lucvdv@null.net (Luc Van der Veken) writes: |> > |> > |> > >I don't know much about GPS, but don't you think they'd be smart |> > >enough to use geostationary satellites? |> > |> > |> > Good thing you admitted it up front..... |> |> Thanks for noticing that (apparently, not everyone did :) Actually there have been a lot of responses that proved they don't know much about gps. |> 20.000 km versus 36.000 km, so I think distance is not the main |> issue. |> |> As I understand it now, the real reason is that you wouldn't want |> the satellites hanging above the equator: they aren't visible |> from everywhere (horizon), and you wouldn't be able to tell on |> which half of the globe you are. It is much more than that. gps works by triangulating a fix. How would you triangulate from a bunch of birds all lined up in a row? |> BTW, my first post was stupid for another reason too: from the |> subject of this thread alone, I had already deduced that all GPS |> equipment includes a real time clock. Now what would they need |> one for, if the satellites were geostationary? A clock is a key component to a gps. The way a gps works is to compute the time taken for the signal to reach the unit which produces a radius vector. If you know where the bird is then you can use this vector to produce a sphere. Now if you have two more birds you can produce spheres that intersect at one of two points. Another bird will tell you which intersection. As long as the birds are not all lined up in a row and as long as your clock is accurate! Clock accuracy is a key component of a gps and you need a clock that is accurate to a couple of hundred nanoseconds. Since you probably don't have an atomic clock in a $100 unit some other method must be employed. If you compute all of the intersecting spheres as defined above (minimum 4) you will get an intersection that isn't quite a single point. Now if you assume the error is caused by your local clock you can begin to adjust the time in your local clock to minimize the error. Finally at a particular time setting the error will reduce to almost zero and you have a fix. (A by product is that you now have the correct time within 128 nanoseconds which is one of the most accurate clocks available to the consumer.) |> Which means that the the suggestion Chuck Maurer made that they |> will only hiccup for a moment, becomes very doubtable (unless if |> at that precise moment all satellites are exactly at the spot the |> system thinks they would have been at time zero). Here is another case of someone who doesn't know how they work. There is a large potential problem for gps equipment both at the year 2000 and at Sept 1999 when the internal week clock rolls over. Both problems are well understood by people who do understand gps technology and are claimed to be solved although there were some early units manufactured that had the week rollover problem. One of the problems in year 2000+ plus has to do with the need of a gps unit to already know the approximate location of the birds (called almanac data). A year 2000 problem _could_ cause the almanac to be reset to 1980 which would certainly confuse the unit and cause bad fixes. GPS units themselves are certainly expected to be ok for both rollovers. The output of a gps to a computer uses a format called NMEA. This format uses only 2 digit years so a program in an external computer will need to deal with this information which could be a problem if the programmer didn't compensate. Note that NMEA is an industry standard and may effect more than just gps units. -- _ _ Dale DePriest San Jose, California /`) _ // daled@Cadence.COM voice: (408) 428-5249 o/_/ (_(_X_(` ISO 9000 Program Manager fax: (408) 894-3484 ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.belnet.be!news-penn.gip.net!news-peer.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!158.43.192.17!rill.news.pipex.net!pipex!news.clara.net!peer.news.zetnet.net!zetnet.co.uk!not-for-mail From: lisard@zetnet.co.uk Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers,alt.folklore.urban Subject: Re: Year 2000 bug and planes Date: 23 Mar 1998 19:35:46 GMT Lines: 23 Message-ID: <6f6dii$bqi$1@irk.zetnet.co.uk> References: <6f1h2c$25o_010@news.pacbell.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: man-033.dialup.zetnet.co.uk X-Everything: Net-Tamer V 1.08X On 1998-03-21 nualain@pacbell.net(ArticulateMandible) said: :>ok, prise the top off a 70s mini, and look at the microcode within. :>chances are, it may not even be in rom... ;> firmware is in rom. :>microcode might be firmware, but the reverse is not necessarily :I happen to have a complete set of schematics and other :documentation for a PDP-11/10[1*] at home. This set of docs :includes a complete listing :of the microcode for the machine, said microcode indeed living in :ROM. The microengine is kinda cute, and definitely what one'd expect :of something appropriate to the execution of the PDP-11 instruction :set. :[1*] Most definitely a '70s mini. what's the width of the microcode? could you replace the ROM with EPROM? (is it socketed, or would that require de/resoldering?) just out of interest, you understand ;> -- Communa (together) we remember... we'll see you falling you know soft spoken changes nothing to sing within her... ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!surfnet.nl!news.belnet.be!news-penn.gip.net!news-peer.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!news-peer.sprintlink.net!news-backup-west.sprintlink.net!news-in-west.sprintlink.net!news.sprintlink.net!Sprint!199.171.20.9!news.nkn.net!news.cybernews.net!news From: cmaurer@dhc.net (Chuck Maurer) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers,alt.folklore.urban Subject: Re: Year 2000 bug and planes Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1998 05:07:24 GMT Organization: CyberNews Network Lines: 66 Message-ID: <3517304c.5255316@news.dhc.net> References: <6de5cq$4mi$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <6e15do$js1@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net> <3505390d.1982108@news.erols.com> <3508b55b.4615147@news.dhc.net> <6erqgt$86j@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net> <3511a820.1432907@news.innet.be> <3516ff39.3325650@news.innet.be> <6f68a7$kdq$3@news.cadence.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 207-55-169-29.dhc.net X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.11/32.235 On 23 Mar 1998 18:05:59 GMT, daled@cds9172.Cadence.COM (Dale DePriest) wrote: >A clock is a key component to a gps. The way a gps works is to compute >the time taken for the signal to reach the unit which produces a radius What a GPS unit does is compare two satellites' time signals and calculates how much closer one is than the other. Repeat this for all six pairings of 4 satellites and you rule out all but one position. The shape of the area (x) meters closer to one satellite than another is not a sphere but a hyperbola. >vector. If you know where the bird is then you can use this vector to >produce a sphere. Now if you have two more birds you can produce spheres >that intersect at one of two points. Another bird will tell you which >intersection. As long as the birds are not all lined up in a row and as >long as your clock is accurate! Clock accuracy is a key component of a >gps and you need a clock that is accurate to a couple of hundred nanoseconds. The clock has to be accurate only over a short period. You can have the unit turn on thinking it is January 1980 and not know any better until the satellite information arrives. It just has to accurately calculate the time differences. >Since you probably don't have an atomic clock in a $100 unit some other >method must be employed. If you compute all of the intersecting spheres >as defined above (minimum 4) you will get an intersection that isn't >quite a single point. Now if you assume the error is caused by your >local clock you can begin to adjust the time in your local clock to minimize >the error. Finally at a particular time setting the error will reduce to >almost zero and you have a fix. (A by product is that you now have the >correct time within 128 nanoseconds which is one of the most accurate >clocks available to the consumer.) The U.S. Naval Observatory says there is none better. > >|> Which means that the the suggestion Chuck Maurer made that they >|> will only hiccup for a moment, becomes very doubtable (unless if >|> at that precise moment all satellites are exactly at the spot the >|> system thinks they would have been at time zero). > >Here is another case of someone who doesn't know how they work. There >is a large potential problem for gps equipment both at the year 2000 and >at Sept 1999 when the internal week clock rolls over. Both problems are >well understood by people who do understand gps technology and are claimed >to be solved although there were some early units manufactured that had >the week rollover problem. If all we are trying to figure out is where we are at and don't care about the date, there should be no problem. > >One of the problems in year 2000+ plus has to do with the need of a gps >unit to already know the approximate location of the birds (called almanac >data). A year 2000 problem _could_ cause the almanac to be reset to 1980 >which would certainly confuse the unit and cause bad fixes. > >GPS units themselves are certainly expected to be ok for both rollovers. >The output of a gps to a computer uses a format called NMEA. This format >uses only 2 digit years so a program in an external computer will need to >deal with this information which could be a problem if the programmer >didn't compensate. Note that NMEA is an industry standard and may effect >more than just gps units. > >-- > _ _ Dale DePriest San Jose, California > /`) _ // daled@Cadence.COM voice: (408) 428-5249 > o/_/ (_(_X_(` ISO 9000 Program Manager fax: (408) 894-3484 ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!surfnet.nl!news.belnet.be!news-penn.gip.net!news-peer.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!news-peer.sprintlink.net!news-backup-west.sprintlink.net!news-in-west.sprintlink.net!news.sprintlink.net!Sprint!199.171.20.9!news.nkn.net!news.cybernews.net!news From: cmaurer@dhc.net (Chuck Maurer) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers,alt.folklore.urban Subject: Re: Year 2000 bug and planes Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1998 05:07:24 GMT Organization: CyberNews Network Lines: 66 Message-ID: <3517304c.5255316@news.dhc.net> References: <6de5cq$4mi$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <6e15do$js1@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net> <3505390d.1982108@news.erols.com> <3508b55b.4615147@news.dhc.net> <6erqgt$86j@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net> <3511a820.1432907@news.innet.be> <3516ff39.3325650@news.innet.be> <6f68a7$kdq$3@news.cadence.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 207-55-169-29.dhc.net X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.11/32.235 On 23 Mar 1998 18:05:59 GMT, daled@cds9172.Cadence.COM (Dale DePriest) wrote: >A clock is a key component to a gps. The way a gps works is to compute >the time taken for the signal to reach the unit which produces a radius What a GPS unit does is compare two satellites' time signals and calculates how much closer one is than the other. Repeat this for all six pairings of 4 satellites and you rule out all but one position. The shape of the area (x) meters closer to one satellite than another is not a sphere but a hyperbola. >vector. If you know where the bird is then you can use this vector to >produce a sphere. Now if you have two more birds you can produce spheres >that intersect at one of two points. Another bird will tell you which >intersection. As long as the birds are not all lined up in a row and as >long as your clock is accurate! Clock accuracy is a key component of a >gps and you need a clock that is accurate to a couple of hundred nanoseconds. The clock has to be accurate only over a short period. You can have the unit turn on thinking it is January 1980 and not know any better until the satellite information arrives. It just has to accurately calculate the time differences. >Since you probably don't have an atomic clock in a $100 unit some other >method must be employed. If you compute all of the intersecting spheres >as defined above (minimum 4) you will get an intersection that isn't >quite a single point. Now if you assume the error is caused by your >local clock you can begin to adjust the time in your local clock to minimize >the error. Finally at a particular time setting the error will reduce to >almost zero and you have a fix. (A by product is that you now have the >correct time within 128 nanoseconds which is one of the most accurate >clocks available to the consumer.) The U.S. Naval Observatory says there is none better. > >|> Which means that the the suggestion Chuck Maurer made that they >|> will only hiccup for a moment, becomes very doubtable (unless if >|> at that precise moment all satellites are exactly at the spot the >|> system thinks they would have been at time zero). > >Here is another case of someone who doesn't know how they work. There >is a large potential problem for gps equipment both at the year 2000 and >at Sept 1999 when the internal week clock rolls over. Both problems are >well understood by people who do understand gps technology and are claimed >to be solved although there were some early units manufactured that had >the week rollover problem. If all we are trying to figure out is where we are at and don't care about the date, there should be no problem. > >One of the problems in year 2000+ plus has to do with the need of a gps >unit to already know the approximate location of the birds (called almanac >data). A year 2000 problem _could_ cause the almanac to be reset to 1980 >which would certainly confuse the unit and cause bad fixes. > >GPS units themselves are certainly expected to be ok for both rollovers. >The output of a gps to a computer uses a format called NMEA. This format >uses only 2 digit years so a program in an external computer will need to >deal with this information which could be a problem if the programmer >didn't compensate. Note that NMEA is an industry standard and may effect >more than just gps units. > >-- > _ _ Dale DePriest San Jose, California > /`) _ // daled@Cadence.COM voice: (408) 428-5249 > o/_/ (_(_X_(` ISO 9000 Program Manager fax: (408) 894-3484 ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.belnet.be!news-penn.gip.net!news-peer.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!198.138.0.5!newshub.northeast.verio.net!newsfeeder.servtech.com!post.servtech.com!xcski.com!ptomblin From: ptomblin@xcski.com (Paul Tomblin) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers,alt.folklore.urban Subject: Re: Year 2000 bug and planes Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1998 23:07:55 GMT Organization: Tomblin Computer Consulting, Rochester, New York and Ottawa, Ontario Lines: 47 Sender: ptomblin@xcski.com (Paul Tomblin) Message-ID: References: <6de5cq$4mi$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <6f68a7$kdq$3@news.cadence.com> <3517304c.5255316@news.dhc.net> <6f8vi5$37a$4@news.cadence.com> Reply-To: ptomblin@xcski.com (Paul Tomblin) NNTP-Posting-Host: canoe.roc.servtech.com In a previous article, daled@cds9172.Cadence.COM (Dale DePriest) said: >|> turn on thinking it is January 1980 and not know any better until the >|> satellite >|> information arrives. It just has to accurately calculate the time >|> differences. > >This is true if you have about 15 minutes or so to obtain your first fix. >If you would like to start using the machine prior to that time then a >more accurate clock is more desirable. Been there, done that. The 15 minutes Dale is referring to is the time to download the ephemeris data from the sats. Without that data, you don't know where the satellites are, so knowing how far you are from them doesn't help much. The reason Dale talks about not having to wait is that GPS units take into account how long it's been since you last powered them on, and if it hasn't too long (a few weeks, I think) they start working with the ephemeris data they already have. If you've moved some distance since you last had the unit on, it also has to reload the ephemeris because its view of the sky is different than what it expected. The main GPS_Week rollover problem anticipated is with old GPSes that *may* react to the the rollover by thinking that the ephemeris data is out of date, and stop tracking your position for the 15 minutes it takes to download a new one. All manufacturers of GPSes will tell you that any GPSes still being sold today have this problem fixed. Another GPS related Y2K problem might occur with the NMEA output strings that they use to communicate with computers and autopilots and other equipment. The NMEA strings only have a 2 digit year on them, so it's possible that devices that interface with GPSes or other NMEA compatible hardware (like some (all?) LORAN units) might have a Y2K failure mode. I wouldn't be worried about using my handheld GPS when the GPS_Week rolls over in August 1999, or even using it when the century rolls over, but I wouldn't trust a GPS-linked autopilot or a moving map program running on a laptop. But then again, I think the whole FAA air traffic control system is going to go belly up so I plan to spend December 29 1999 through January 4th 2000 on the ground. Hmmm, I wonder if the flying club scheduling system is Y2K compliant? Considering it uses Javascript functionality that doesn't work on any operating system that isn't made by Microsoft, I doubt it. -- Paul Tomblin, ptomblin@xcski.com. "You're one of those condescending Unix computer users!" "Here's a nickel, kid. Get yourself a better computer" - Dilbert. ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newsfeed2.uk.ibm.net!sackheads.org!ibm.net!europa.clark.net!206.229.87.25!news-peer.sprintlink.net!news-backup-east.sprintlink.net!news-in-east.sprintlink.net!news.sprintlink.net!Sprint!195.173.173.151!woodstock.news.demon.net!demon!news.demon.co.uk!demon!mail2news.demon.co.uk!tnglwood.demon.co.uk!unclebob From: Robert Billing Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers,alt.folklore.urban Subject: Re: Year 2000 bug and planes Date: Wed, 25 Mar 98 07:24:56 GMT Message-ID: <890810696snz@tnglwood.demon.co.uk> References: <6de5cq$4mi$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <6f68a7$kdq$3@news.cadence.com> <3517304c.5255316@news.dhc.net> <6f8vi5$37a$4@news.cadence.com> Reply-To: unclebob@tnglwood.demon.co.uk X-Mail2News-User: unclebob@tnglwood.demon.co.uk X-Mail2News-Path: post-20.mail.demon.net!post.mail.demon.net!tnglwood.demon.co.uk X-Trace: mail2news.demon.co.uk 890866113 3758 unclebob tnglwood.demon.co.uk X-Complaints-To: abuse@demon.net X-Newsreader: Demon Internet Simple News v1.29 Lines: 48 In article ptomblin@xcski.com "Paul Tomblin" writes: > you've moved some distance since you last had the unit on, it also has to > reload the ephemeris because its view of the sky is different than what it > expected. This isn't quite true. The ephemeris, if you print it up, is a list of the orbital data of all the satellites, and is the same anywhere in the world. It looks like this... **** Week 879 almanac for PRN-01 ************ ID: 01 Health: 000 Eccentricity: 3.398895264E-003 Time of Applicability(s): 61440.00000 Orbital Inclination(rad): 9.540725350E-001 Rate of Right Ascen(r/s): -8.080336400E-009 SQRT(A) (m^1/2): 5153.597656 Right Ascen at TOA(rad): 1.998178840E+000 Argument of Perigee(rad): -1.516316772E+000 Mean Anom(rad): 2.098000288E+000 Af0(s): 6.675720215E-006 Af1(s/s): 0.000000000E+000 week: 879 according to an old file left on my disk. However the unit uses this, and the last position, to make a guess at which birds are in the sky. If the unit has been moved by more than 500 miles it will not see the satellites it is looking for, and won't get a fix. My unit (GPS 38) therefore has three options on power up: 1) Autolocate, look for any satellites in the sky. 2) Select country. Manually enter a first guess at position. 3) (Default) Use last position. When I went on holiday to Florida last year, I took the unit in cabin baggage, powered down. On the beach in Miami on the first morning of the holiday I selected 2, and chose USA/FL from the list. The unit got a lock in about two or three minutes. -- I am Robert Billing, Christian, inventor, traveller, cook and animal lover, I live near 0:46W 51:22N. http://www.tnglwood.demon.co.uk/ "Bother," said Pooh, "Eeyore, ready two photon torpedoes and lock phasers on the Heffalump, Piglet, meet me in transporter room three" ###### Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers,alt.folklore.urban Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newsfeed2.uk.ibm.net!sackheads.org!ibm.net!news-lond.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!nntp.news.xara.net!xara.net!newsxfer.visi.net!europa.clark.net!209.130.129.214!nntp.frontiernet.net!node17.frontiernet.net!xcski.com!ptomblin From: ptomblin@xcski.com (Paul Tomblin) Subject: Re: Year 2000 bug and planes Reply-To: ptomblin@xcski.com (Paul Tomblin) Sender: ptomblin@xcski.com (Paul Tomblin) Organization: Tomblin Computer Consulting, Rochester, New York and Ottawa, Ontario Message-ID: References: <6de5cq$4mi$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <6f8vi5$37a$4@news.cadence.com> <890810696snz@tnglwood.demon.co.uk> Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1998 01:56:12 GMT Lines: 23 In a previous article, unclebob@tnglwood.demon.co.uk said: >In article ptomblin@xcski.com "Paul Tomblin" writes: > >> you've moved some distance since you last had the unit on, it also has to >> reload the ephemeris because its view of the sky is different than what it >> expected. > > This isn't quite true. The ephemeris, if you print it up, is a list of > > However the unit uses this, and the last position, to make a guess at >which birds are in the sky. If the unit has been moved by more than 500 >miles it will not see the satellites it is looking for, and won't get a >fix. My unit (GPS 38) therefore has three options on power up: How is "it will not see the satellites it is looking for" different from "because its view of the sky is different from what it expected"? I don't see a difference. Therefore, how is what I wrote "[not] quite true"? -- Paul Tomblin, ptomblin@xcski.com. "You're one of those condescending Unix computer users!" "Here's a nickel, kid. Get yourself a better computer" - Dilbert. ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newsfeed2.uk.ibm.net!sackheads.org!ibm.net!europa.clark.net!205.252.116.205!howland.erols.net!psinntp!pubxfer.news.psi.net!abigail From: abigail@fnx.com (Abigail) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers,alt.folklore.urban Subject: Re: Year 2000 bug and planes Date: 26 Mar 1998 02:18:07 GMT Organization: FNX Ltd, Intelligent Risk Management Lines: 17 Message-ID: <6fcdsv$sfm$7@client2.news.psi.net> References: <6de5cq$4mi$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <6f68a7$kdq$3@news.cadence.com> <3517304c.5255316@news.dhc.net> <6f8vi5$37a$4@news.cadence.com> <890810696snz@tnglwood.demon.co.uk> Reply-To: abigail@fnx.com NNTP-Posting-Host: 38.220.93.3 X-Date: MDCLXVIII September MCMXCIII X-HTTP: http://cthulhu.mandrake.net/%7Eabigail/ X-Revision: $Revision: 1.2 $ X-PGP-Fingerprint: 76 2E 82 7A 69 93 5F 97 AE 01 80 75 67 F3 45 D0 X-Newsreader: slrn (0.9.3.2 UNIX) Robert Billing (unclebob@tnglwood.demon.co.uk) wrote on MDCLXVII September MCMXCIII in : ++ ++ [GPS] ++ ++ When I went on holiday to Florida last year, I took the unit in cabin ++ baggage, powered down. On the beach in Miami on the first morning of ++ the holiday I selected 2, and chose USA/FL from the list. The unit got ++ a lock in about two or three minutes. The beach in Florida? Now, I've seen some pretty huge beaches, but one where you need a GPS unit to navigate? Abigail ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!sibyl.sunrise.ch!news.imp.ch!nntp-out.monmouth.com!newspeer.monmouth.com!netnews.com!europa.clark.net!209.70.91.68!news.clark.net!not-for-mail From: jschmitz@qis.net (JoAnne Schmitz) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers,alt.folklore.urban Subject: Re: Year 2000 bug and planes Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1998 18:18:14 GMT Organization: Verio Mid-Atlantic Lines: 24 Message-ID: <35218903.176648297@news.clark.net> References: <6de5cq$4mi$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <6f8vi5$37a$4@news.cadence.com> <890810696snz@tnglwood.demon.co.uk> NNTP-Posting-Host: saturn.baltsun.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.5/32.451 On Thu, 26 Mar 1998 01:56:12 GMT, ptomblin@xcski.com (Paul Tomblin) wrote: >In a previous article, unclebob@tnglwood.demon.co.uk said: >>In article ptomblin@xcski.com "Paul Tomblin" writes: >> >>> you've moved some distance since you last had the unit on, it also has to >>> reload the ephemeris because its view of the sky is different than what it >>> expected. >> >> This isn't quite true. The ephemeris, if you print it up, is a list of >> >> However the unit uses this, and the last position, to make a guess at >>which birds are in the sky. If the unit has been moved by more than 500 >>miles it will not see the satellites it is looking for, and won't get a >>fix. My unit (GPS 38) therefore has three options on power up: > >How is "it will not see the satellites it is looking for" different from >"because its view of the sky is different from what it expected"? I don't see >a difference. Therefore, how is what I wrote "[not] quite true"? I think his argument is with your use of "because" in that first graph. Does reloading the ephemeris help it if it doesn't know where it is? JoAnne "disoriented" Schmitz ###### Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers,alt.folklore.urban Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newsfeed2.uk.ibm.net!sackheads.org!ibm.net!newsfeed.ecrc.net!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!europa.clark.net!209.130.129.214!nntp.frontiernet.net!node17.frontiernet.net!xcski.com!ptomblin From: ptomblin@xcski.com (Paul Tomblin) Subject: Re: Year 2000 bug and planes Reply-To: ptomblin@xcski.com (Paul Tomblin) Sender: ptomblin@xcski.com (Paul Tomblin) Organization: Tomblin Computer Consulting, Rochester, New York and Ottawa, Ontario Message-ID: References: <6de5cq$4mi$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <890810696snz@tnglwood.demon.co.uk> <35218903.176648297@news.clark.net> Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1998 19:53:52 GMT Lines: 30 In a previous article, jschmitz@qis.net (JoAnne Schmitz) said: >On Thu, 26 Mar 1998 01:56:12 GMT, ptomblin@xcski.com (Paul Tomblin) wrote: >>How is "it will not see the satellites it is looking for" different from >>"because its view of the sky is different from what it expected"? I don't see >>a difference. Therefore, how is what I wrote "[not] quite true"? > >I think his argument is with your use of "because" in that first graph. >Does reloading the ephemeris help it if it doesn't know where it is? There are other things it downloads as well, which I glossed over. But that's why there's this hard limit of "at least 15 minutes" when the GPS unit is very confused about where it is. If it was just a matter of searching the frequency band for every single satellite to see which ones were recievable and then building a position based on that, then obviously faster GPSes (like my 12 parallel channel GPSMAP-195) would be much, much faster than slow GPSes (like the single multiplexed channel GPS-90). But that's not the case - in the extreme case of a very confused GPS it takes 15 minutes+ to figure out where it is because it has to reload everything, and the GPS satellites take 15 minutes to transmit an entire ephemeris and the other stuff they transmit. There are less extreme cases where it doesn't know exactly where it is, and where it can get away with a sky-scan and in that case the 195 is a lot faster than the 90. But if we're talking about the GPS_Week rollover, it's likely that the unit will get *very* confused if it handles it wrong, and in that case it will take 15 minutes to download the whole sheebang. -- Paul Tomblin, ptomblin@xcski.com. "You're one of those condescending Unix computer users!" "Here's a nickel, kid. Get yourself a better computer" - Dilbert. ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news-fra1.dfn.de!news-was.dfn.de!nntp-out.monmouth.com!newspeer.monmouth.com!woodstock.news.demon.net!demon!news.demon.co.uk!demon!mail2news.demon.co.uk!tnglwood.demon.co.uk!unclebob From: unclebob@tnglwood.demon.co.uk (Robert Billing) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers,alt.folklore.urban Subject: Re: Year 2000 bug and planes Date: Sat, 28 Mar 98 08:49:53 GMT Message-ID: <891074993snz@tnglwood.demon.co.uk> References: <6de5cq$4mi$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <6f8vi5$37a$4@news.cadence.com> <890810696snz@tnglwood.demon.co.uk> Reply-To: unclebob@tnglwood.demon.co.uk X-Mail2News-User: unclebob@tnglwood.demon.co.uk X-Mail2News-Path: post-30.mail.demon.net X-Trace: mail2news.demon.co.uk 891164617 17187 unclebob tnglwood.demon.co.uk X-Complaints-To: abuse@demon.net X-Newsreader: Demon Internet Simple News v1.29 Lines: 21 In article ptomblin@xcski.com "Paul Tomblin" writes: > How is "it will not see the satellites it is looking for" different from > "because its view of the sky is different from what it expected"? I don't see > a difference. Therefore, how is what I wrote "[not] quite true"? No, the point I was trying to make (and would have done if I hadn't been so drun^W tired) was that the unit doesn't have to reload the ephermeris, the one it has will do quite well, but it does need a new starting position. In the example I gave the unit carried the ephemeris from home in England to the beach in Miami quite happily, but it then needed a hint that it was in Florida to know which birds were in the sky. -- I am Robert Billing, Christian, inventor, traveller, cook and animal lover, I live near 0:46W 51:22N. http://www.tnglwood.demon.co.uk/ "Bother," said Pooh, "Eeyore, ready two photon torpedoes and lock phasers on the Heffalump, Piglet, meet me in transporter room three" ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newsfeed.uk.ibm.net!sackheads.org!ibm.net!europa.clark.net!205.252.116.205!howland.erols.net!dca1-hub1.news.digex.net!digex!newsreader.digex.net!not-for-mail From: Steve Smith Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers,alt.folklore.urban Subject: Re: Year 2000 bug and planes Date: Sun, 10 May 1998 13:03:28 -0400 Organization: Agincourt Computing Lines: 26 Message-ID: <3555DDE0.55D96416@acm.org> References: <6de5cq$4mi$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <6e15do$js1@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net> <3505390d.1982108@news.erols.com> <3508b55b.4615147@news.dhc.net> <6erqgt$86j@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net> <3511a820.1432907@news.innet.be> <3516ff39.3325650@news.innet.be> <6f68a7$kdq$3@news.cadence.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: dyn001072.belt.digex.net Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; U) Dale DePriest wrote: > Here is another case of someone who doesn't know how they work. There > is a large potential problem for gps equipment both at the year 2000 and > at Sept 1999 when the internal week clock rolls over. Both problems are > well understood by people who do understand gps technology and are claimed > to be solved although there were some early units manufactured that had > the week rollover problem. The late Aug 1999 (August 20-something) problem is simple. The designers of the cheap GPS units used only a 10 bit counter for the week. Just what is going to happen when this counter rolls over is not easy to figure out, and will probably be different for different units. I have heard that *all* inexpensive consumer GPS units have this problem. Anybody have any real information? (Note -- assurances from the nice salesman at Circuit City don't count. :-) A quick dig through some of the technical literature a while back yielded only a quote from a DoD official in charge of some things GPS saying basically "Who cares?" -- Steve Smith sgsmith@acm.org Agincourt Computing +1 (301) 681 7395 "If I can't dance, I'm not joining your revolution." ###### Message-ID: <35591501.5516E78E@webslnger.com> Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 20:35:29 -0700 From: rcasady X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers,alt.folklore.urban Subject: Re: Year 2000 bug and planes References: <6de5cq$4mi$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <6e15do$js1@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net> <3505390d.1982108@news.erols.com> <3508b55b.4615147@news.dhc.net> <6erqgt$86j@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net> <3511a820.1432907@news.innet.be> <3516ff39.3325650@news.innet.be> <6f68a7$kdq$3@news.cadence.com> <3555DDE0.55D96416@acm.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit NNTP-Posting-Host: 207.48.52.63 Lines: 29 Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.belnet.be!news-penn.gip.net!news-peer.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!204.71.1.51!spamkiller.internetmci.com!pull-feed.internetmci.com!news.lh.net!207.48.52.63 Simon Slavin wrote: > In article <3555DDE0.55D96416@acm.org>, > Steve Smith wrote: > > > The late Aug 1999 (August 20-something) problem is simple. The > > designers of the cheap GPS units used only a 10 bit counter for the > > week. Just what is going to happen when this counter rolls over is not > > easy to figure out, and will probably be different for different units. > > > > I have heard that *all* inexpensive consumer GPS units have this > > problem. Anybody have any real information? (Note -- assurances from > > the nice salesman at Circuit City don't count. :-) > > There are at least five cheap GPS models on sale in the UK which > don't have this problem -- the three different manufacturers > each comment on it in their specification leaflets. > > Simon. > -- > Simon Slavin | [It] contains "vegetable stabilizer" > | which sounds ominous. How unstable > Junktrap deletes unread >4 UBEs/day.| are vegetables? > Check email address for junk-guard. | -- Jeff Zahn@pipeline.com I 'm not trying to put you on the spot, but I kinda like to know which ones. ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newscore.univie.ac.at!news-raspail.gip.net!news-peer.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!news-peer.sprintlink.net!news.sprintlink.net!howland.erols.net!woodstock.news.demon.net!demon!news.demon.co.uk!demon!hearsay.demon.co.uk!user From: slavins.at.hearsay.demon.co.uk@localhost (Simon Slavin) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers,alt.folklore.urban Subject: Re: Year 2000 bug and planes Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 22:26:03 +0100 Organization: First Sirian Bank Message-ID: References: <6de5cq$4mi$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <6e15do$js1@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net> <3505390d.1982108@news.erols.com> <3508b55b.4615147@news.dhc.net> <6erqgt$86j@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net> <3511a820.1432907@news.innet.be> <3516ff39.3325650@news.innet.be> <6f68a7$kdq$3@news.cadence.com> <3555DDE0.55D96416@acm.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: hearsay.demon.co.uk X-NNTP-Posting-Host: hearsay.demon.co.uk:194.222.24.177 X-Trace: news.demon.co.uk 895008349 nnrp-07:3211 NO-IDENT hearsay.demon.co.uk:194.222.24.177 X-Complaints-To: abuse@demon.net Followups-To: alt.folklore.computers Lines: 22 In article <3555DDE0.55D96416@acm.org>, Steve Smith wrote: > The late Aug 1999 (August 20-something) problem is simple. The > designers of the cheap GPS units used only a 10 bit counter for the > week. Just what is going to happen when this counter rolls over is not > easy to figure out, and will probably be different for different units. > > I have heard that *all* inexpensive consumer GPS units have this > problem. Anybody have any real information? (Note -- assurances from > the nice salesman at Circuit City don't count. :-) There are at least five cheap GPS models on sale in the UK which don't have this problem -- the three different manufacturers each comment on it in their specification leaflets. Simon. -- Simon Slavin | [It] contains "vegetable stabilizer" | which sounds ominous. How unstable Junktrap deletes unread >4 UBEs/day.| are vegetables? Check email address for junk-guard. | -- Jeff Zahn@pipeline.com ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.belnet.be!news-penn.gip.net!news-peer.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!newshub.northeast.verio.net!newsfeed.wli.net!su-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!su-news-feed2.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!news1.digital.com!pa.dec.com!nntpd.lkg.dec.com!not-for-mail From: nobody@zk3.dec.com (Eric Werme - replace nobody with werme) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers,alt.folklore.urban Subject: Re: Year 2000 bug and planes Date: 14 May 1998 01:15:18 GMT Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation Lines: 38 Message-ID: <6jdgj6$qlm$1@nntpd.lkg.dec.com> References: <6de5cq$4mi$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <6e15do$js1@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net> <3505390d.1982108@news.erols.com> <3508b55b.4615147@news.dhc.net> <6erqgt$86j@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net> <3511a820.1432907@news.innet.be> <3516ff39.3325650@news.innet.be> <6f68a7$kdq$3@news.cadence.com> <3555DDE0.55D96416@acm.org> Reply-To: (Replace nobody with werme) nobody@zk3.dec.com NNTP-Posting-Host: alingo.zk3.dec.com X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.0 CURRENT #60 Steve Smith writes: >Dale DePriest wrote: >The late Aug 1999 (August 20-something) problem is simple. The >designers of the cheap GPS units used only a 10 bit counter for the >week. Just what is going to happen when this counter rolls over is not >easy to figure out, and will probably be different for different units. The 10 bit counter is what comes down from the satellites. It's not hard to use that for keeping track of the real week as long you use your receiver once a decade or two. (The same can be said of 2 digit calendar years, but that's not the Y2K problem.) >I have heard that *all* inexpensive consumer GPS units have this >problem. Anybody have any real information? (Note -- assurances from >the nice salesman at Circuit City don't count. :-) Given that Garmin (or is it WalMart?) is selling the GPS-38 for $50, and that Garmin receivers should not have problems, I think *all* is too strong a word. >A quick dig through some of the technical literature a while back >yielded only a quote from a DoD official in charge of some things GPS >saying basically "Who cares?" The topic pops up all too often on sci.geo.satellite-nav. Subscribe, look at Deja News, or visit http://vancouver-webpages.com/pub/peter/index.html The bottom line is that very few receivers will have problems, and those that do have minor ones. (And are obsolete anyway.) I'm not even going to watch the week rollover. On the other hand, I'm not going to be flying on 2000 Jan 1. (I've heard two airlines won't be, so perhaps no will!) -- <> Eric (Ric) Werme <> The above is unlikely to contain <> <> ROT-13 addresses: <> official claims or policies of <> <> <> Digital Equipment Corp. <> <> <> http://www.cyberportal.net/werme <> ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newsfeed.uk.ibm.net!sackheads.org!ibm.net!europa.clark.net!209.130.129.214!nntp.frontiernet.net!node17.frontiernet.net!xcski.com!not-for-mail From: ptomblin@canoe.xcski.com (Paul Tomblin) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers,alt.folklore.urban Subject: Re: Year 2000 bug and planes Date: 14 May 1998 07:52:37 -0400 Organization: Tomblin Computer Consulting, Rochester, New York and Ottawa, Ontario Lines: 24 Sender: ptomblin@xcski.com Message-ID: <6jelu5$5m1$1@canoe.xcski.com> References: <6de5cq$4mi$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <3516ff39.3325650@news.innet.be> <6f68a7$kdq$3@news.cadence.com> <3555DDE0.55D96416@acm.org> Reply-To: ptomblin@xcski.com (Paul Tomblin) NNTP-Posting-Host: canoe.xcski.com In a previous article, Steve Smith said: >I have heard that *all* inexpensive consumer GPS units have this >problem. Anybody have any real information? (Note -- assurances from >the nice salesman at Circuit City don't count. :-) And I've heard that NO GPS units made in the last three or four years have this problem, because they all use the Rockwell or other modern chipsets that know which "week epoch" they're in as long as you turn it on more than once every 1024 weeks. Is the US Naval Observatory a real source in your books? How about the US Coast Guard? Check out: http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/gps_week.html http://www.navcen.uscg.mil/gps/geninfo/y2k/gpsweek.htm All it really says is "check with your GPS manufacturer", but I did, and Garmin says that all of their receivers, except some really old ones, are going to handle it just fine. -- Paul Tomblin, ptomblin@xcski.com. "The day Microsoft makes something that doesn't suck is probably the day they start making vacuum cleaners" - Ernst Jan Plugge ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news-fra1.dfn.de!news-koe1.dfn.de!news-han1.dfn.de!news.fh-hannover.de!newsfeed.nacamar.de!europa.clark.net!209.130.129.214!nntp.frontiernet.net!node17.frontiernet.net!xcski.com!not-for-mail From: ptomblin@canoe.xcski.com (Paul Tomblin) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers,alt.folklore.urban Subject: Re: Year 2000 bug and planes Date: 17 May 1998 00:08:32 -0400 Organization: Tomblin Computer Consulting, Rochester, New York and Ottawa, Ontario Lines: 21 Sender: ptomblin@xcski.com Message-ID: <6jlns0$h5$1@canoe.xcski.com> References: <6de5cq$4mi$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <3555DDE0.55D96416@acm.org> <6jdgj6$qlm$1@nntpd.lkg.dec.com> <355E493B.9A943C20@acm.org> Reply-To: ptomblin@xcski.com (Paul Tomblin) NNTP-Posting-Host: canoe.xcski.com In a previous article, Steve Smith said: >Since posting this, I have seen some more current information. Seems >that most manufacturers have fixed the problem in new units. Only >problem, what is "new"? >A lot of places kep stuff on the shelves until it sells .... Well, let me speak of Garmin, since that's what I own. The currently common units all hit the shelves *after* Garmin said that all their then current models were safe and it was only their really old ones that were possibly going to be affected. That would make the following units safe: Garmin GPS-38, GPS-45, GPS-89, GPS-90, GPSMAP-175, GPSCOMM-190, GPSMAP-195, GPS-II, GPS-III, GPS-III Pilot, and probably quite a few non-aviation and panel-mount ones I missed. I'm not so sure about the GPS-95 and GPS-95XL, since they were discontinued *before* I heard Garmin make that statement. I only know two people with the 95s, and both of them are considering getting newer units anyway. -- Paul Tomblin, ptomblin@xcski.com. "The day Microsoft makes something that doesn't suck is probably the day they start making vacuum cleaners" - Ernst Jan Plugge ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.belnet.be!news-penn.gip.net!news-peer.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!dca1-hub1.news.digex.net!digex!newsreader.digex.net!not-for-mail Message-ID: <355E493B.9A943C20@acm.org> From: Steve Smith Organization: Agincourt Computing X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers,alt.folklore.urban Subject: Re: Year 2000 bug and planes References: <6de5cq$4mi$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <6e15do$js1@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net> <3505390d.1982108@news.erols.com> <3508b55b.4615147@news.dhc.net> <6erqgt$86j@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net> <3511a820.1432907@news.innet.be> <3516ff39.3325650@news.innet.be> <6f68a7$kdq$3@news.cadence.com> <3555DDE0.55D96416@acm.org> <6jdgj6$qlm$1@nntpd.lkg.dec.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 41 Date: Sun, 17 May 1998 02:22:19 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: dyn001195.belt.digex.net NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 16 May 1998 22:22:19 EDT Eric Werme - replace nobody with werme wrote: > > Steve Smith writes: > > >Dale DePriest wrote: > > >The late Aug 1999 (August 20-something) problem is simple. The > >designers of the cheap GPS units used only a 10 bit counter for the > >week. Just what is going to happen when this counter rolls over is not > >easy to figure out, and will probably be different for different units. > > The 10 bit counter is what comes down from the satellites. It's not > hard to use that for keeping track of the real week as long you use > your receiver once a decade or two. (The same can be said of 2 digit > calendar years, but that's not the Y2K problem.) > > >I have heard that *all* inexpensive consumer GPS units have this > >problem. Anybody have any real information? (Note -- assurances from > >the nice salesman at Circuit City don't count. :-) >[snip] > The bottom line is that very few receivers will have problems, and those that > do have minor ones. (And are obsolete anyway.) I'm not even going > to watch the week rollover. On the other hand, I'm not going to be flying > on 2000 Jan 1. (I've heard two airlines won't be, so perhaps no will!) Since posting this, I have seen some more current information. Seems that most manufacturers have fixed the problem in new units. Only problem, what is "new"? A lot of places kep stuff on the shelves until it sells .... -- Steve Smith sgsmith@acm.org Agincourt Computing +1 (301) 681 7395 "If I can't dance, I'm not joining your revolution." ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.wli.net!su-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!su-news-feed1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!inet16.us.oracle.com!not-for-mail From: "Bill B." Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Year 2000 bug and planes.. Date: Fri, 20 Mar 1998 08:07:11 -0800 Organization: Trying, but not quite Lines: 33 Message-ID: <3512942F.167E@us.oracle.com> References: <6de5cq$4mi$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <6e15do$js1@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net> <350eca81.4862973@nntp.ix.netcom.com> <6ersd1$h3i@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: upsizeme.us.oracle.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (X11; I; AIX 2) RE: Many posts regarding microcode. Microcode is nothing more than a very low-level form of a program. It may be loaded into volatile memory which is lost on a power-down condition, it may be stored into ROS (Read Only Storage) as was the case for *most* 360's, it may be transferred from flash to ram at boot time as was the case for several dasd controllers I've worked on in the past. The actual source of microcode can come from anywhere. It is akin to assembly programming, but the instructions executed involve the use of a sequencer, an ALU, and related "Glue" logic. In other words, it much MUCH further down-and-dirty type of programming. Take, for example an instruction in x86 assembler: MOV AX,DS:[0] ;load first word from data seg. The micro-code to execute this would involve several steps: 1) put the contents of the DS register, shifted by 4 bits on the outbound address bus, 2) set the R/W tag line to indicate read, 3) wait for memory to return value 4) place the contents of the inbound data bus into AX I'm sure there's more to it then this, but you get the picture. Regards, Bill B. ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.belnet.be!news-penn.gip.net!news-peer.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!su-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!venus.sun.com!sunnews1.Eng.Sun.COM!engnews2.Eng.Sun.COM!not-for-mail From: scottdav@Eng.Sun.COM (Scott Davidson) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Year 2000 bug and planes.. Date: 23 Mar 1998 18:55:17 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems Inc. Lines: 45 Message-ID: <6f6b6l$bua$2@engnews2.Eng.Sun.COM> References: <3512942F.167E@us.oracle.com> Reply-To: scottdav@Eng.Sun.COM NNTP-Posting-Host: voyager2.eng.sun.com In article 167E@us.oracle.com, "Bill B." writes: >RE: Many posts regarding microcode. > >Microcode is nothing more than a very low-level form of >a program. It may be loaded into volatile memory which >is lost on a power-down condition, it may be stored into >ROS (Read Only Storage) as was the case for *most* 360's, >it may be transferred from flash to ram at boot time as >was the case for several dasd controllers I've worked >on in the past. The actual source of microcode can come >from anywhere. > No true. Microcode can reside in a writeable control store, which disappears when you turn the power off. There were some papers about swapping microcode into and out of WCs as needed. Now, I discovered that the official IBM definition of microcode was anything in a ROM, which might be where the definition above comes from, but the architectural definition of microcode is much different. >It is akin to assembly programming, but the instructions >executed involve the use of a sequencer, an ALU, and >related "Glue" logic. In other words, it much MUCH further >down-and-dirty type of programming. > I haven't had the pleasure of doing assembly language programming on modern machines, but I have a feeling that it is more dirty than a lot of machines I microprogrammed. When you microprogrammed reasonable horizontal machines you spent a lot of time worrying about latency. When you branched, there was a dead cycle between the conditional and the destination instruction. Thus you stuck a microinstruction to be executed in either path there. Sound familiar? A lot of microarchitectural concepts have migrated upwards to the instruction set architecture. >Bill B. --- Scott Davidson Sun Microsystems scott.davidson@eng.sun.com ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.belnet.be!news-penn.gip.net!news-peer.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!ix.netcom.com!news From: jmjacobs@ix.netcom.com (Jeff Jacobs) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Year 2000 bug and planes.. Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1998 04:22:44 GMT Organization: Jeffrey Jacobs & Associates Lines: 38 Message-ID: <35173228.11495114@nntp.ix.netcom.com> References: <6de5cq$4mi$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <6e15do$js1@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net> <350eca81.4862973@nntp.ix.netcom.com> <6ersd1$h3i@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net> <3512942F.167E@us.oracle.com> Reply-To: Jeff Jacobs 76702.456@compuserve.com NNTP-Posting-Host: grc-ny14-25.ix.netcom.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-NETCOM-Date: Mon Mar 23 8:22:35 PM PST 1998 X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.5/32.451 Plus most early microcode was written in binary... "Bill B." wrote: >RE: Many posts regarding microcode. > >Microcode is nothing more than a very low-level form of >a program. It may be loaded into volatile memory which >is lost on a power-down condition, it may be stored into >ROS (Read Only Storage) as was the case for *most* 360's, >it may be transferred from flash to ram at boot time as >was the case for several dasd controllers I've worked >on in the past. The actual source of microcode can come >from anywhere. > >It is akin to assembly programming, but the instructions >executed involve the use of a sequencer, an ALU, and >related "Glue" logic. In other words, it much MUCH further >down-and-dirty type of programming. > >Take, for example an instruction in x86 assembler: > > MOV AX,DS:[0] ;load first word from data seg. > >The micro-code to execute this would involve several >steps: >1) put the contents of the DS register, shifted by 4 bits > on the outbound address bus, >2) set the R/W tag line to indicate read, >3) wait for memory to return value >4) place the contents of the inbound data bus into AX > >I'm sure there's more to it then this, but you get the >picture. > >Regards, >Bill B. ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!su-news-feed1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!inet16.us.oracle.com!not-for-mail From: "Bill B." Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Year 2000 bug and planes.. Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1998 10:33:47 -0800 Organization: Trying, but not quite Lines: 48 Message-ID: <3517FC8B.167E@us.oracle.com> References: <3512942F.167E@us.oracle.com> <6f6b6l$bua$2@engnews2.Eng.Sun.COM> NNTP-Posting-Host: upsizeme.us.oracle.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (X11; I; AIX 2) Scott Davidson wrote: > > In article 167E@us.oracle.com, "Bill B." writes: > >RE: Many posts regarding microcode. > > > >Microcode is nothing more than a very low-level form of > >a program. It may be loaded into volatile memory which > >is lost on a power-down condition, it may be stored into > >ROS (Read Only Storage) as was the case for *most* 360's, > >it may be transferred from flash to ram at boot time as > >was the case for several dasd controllers I've worked > >on in the past. The actual source of microcode can come > >from anywhere. > > > No true. So Scott... Please elaborate on what you think is "not true" regarding what I said above? Note the fine print where I prefix each possible microcode loading source with "may." >Now, I discovered that the official IBM definition > of microcode was anything in a ROM, which might be where the definition above > comes from, but the architectural definition of microcode is much different. > That's just IBM's definition. The term itself is sufficiently nebulous so that if nits were to be picked, we could turn this thread into the longest ever. (Anyone remember that from a year or so ago in this NG?) >I haven't had the pleasure of doing assembly language programming on modern > machines, Pleasure?! Or pain. Depends on the environment and development tools. > but I have a feeling that it is more dirty than a lot of machines > I microprogrammed. It is nothing more than a perceived level of "Uncleanliness." > When you microprogrammed reasonable horizontal machines you > spent a lot of time worrying about latency. When you branched, there was a > dead cycle between the conditional and the destination instruction. Thus you stuck a > microinstruction to be executed in either path there. Sound familiar? I think the concept off the dead cycle was first introduced with the Sparc? If not introduced, then certainly it was where the general micro-coding populace first became aware of the advantages and pitfalls. ###### Path: ccw.ch!usenet From: Neil.Franklin.remove.this@ccw.ch Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Year 2000 bug and planes.. Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1998 15:44:03 +0100 Organization: My own Private Self Lines: 37 Message-ID: <3517C6B3.7EEADDB9@ccw.ch> References: <3512942F.167E@us.oracle.com> <6f6b6l$bua$2@engnews2.Eng.Sun.COM> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.0.27 i486) Scott Davidson wrote: > In article 167E@us.oracle.com, "Bill B." writes: > >It is akin to assembly programming, but the instructions > >executed involve the use of a sequencer, an ALU, and > >related "Glue" logic. In other words, it much MUCH further > >down-and-dirty type of programming. > > > I haven't had the pleasure of doing assembly language programming on modern > machines, but I have a feeling that it is more dirty than a lot of machines > I microprogrammed. When you microprogrammed reasonable horizontal machines you > spent a lot of time worrying about latency. When you branched, there was a > dead cycle between the conditional and the destination instruction. Thus you stuck a microinstruction to be executed in either path there. Sound familiar? > A lot of microarchitectural concepts have migrated upwards to the instruction > set architecture. > That is why some people call RISC architectures external microcode architectures, as they use no internal microcode and just drive the gates direct from the macrocode (external instruction set). The only difference is that RISC to fit its instructions into 32 (usually) bits* multiplexes some of the gate control lines to the same instruction bits and use a few (3 to 6) instruction formats to demultiplex (and set the not delivered bits to some constant value. (* microcode is usually wider and has no neat 2^n bit width) Actually modern RISCs (those that assumed superscalar and/or out of row execution when designing the architecture) have dropped the "filling the dead cycle" from the macroinstruction set because it may well be 2 or 3 cycles, varying on each generation or even implementation. -- private: Neil.Franklin.remove.this@ccw.ch http://www.ccw.ch/Neil.Franklin/ office: franklin.remove.this@arch.ethz.ch http://caad.arch.ethz.ch/~franklin/ Can a Microsoft allergy be claimed on job health insurence? ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.belnet.be!news-penn.gip.net!news-peer.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!news-peer.sprintlink.net!news-peer-west.sprintlink.net!news.sprintlink.net!Sprint!newsfeed.wli.net!su-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!venus.sun.com!sunnews1.Eng.Sun.COM!engnews2.Eng.Sun.COM!not-for-mail From: scottdav@Eng.nospam.COM (Scott Davidson) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Year 2000 bug and planes.. Date: 27 Mar 1998 20:59:54 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems Inc. Lines: 35 Message-ID: <6fh40a$ala$3@engnews2.Eng.Sun.COM> References: <35173228.11495114@nntp.ix.netcom.com> Reply-To: scottdav@Eng.nospam.COM NNTP-Posting-Host: voyager2.eng.sun.com In article 11495114@nntp.ix.netcom.com, jmjacobs@ix.netcom.com (Jeff Jacobs) writes: >Plus most early microcode was written in binary... > Not for that long (unless you mean real, early, like in the '50s.) In the 60's and '70s most companies used microassemblers. IBM had a need looking graphical microprogramming system, that consisted of flowchart like boxes you filled in with the microoperation fields. I never saw it in use, but it is described in Sam Husson's book on micproprogramming ("Microprogramming Principles and Practices," Prentice Hall, 1970.) Kind of Visual microcode. Scott >"Bill B." wrote: > >>RE: Many posts regarding microcode. >steps: . > --- Scott Davidson Sun Microsystems scott.davidson@eng.nospam.com Replace nospam with big light in sky to email me. ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news-fra1.dfn.de!news-was.dfn.de!nntp-out.monmouth.com!newspeer.monmouth.com!newsfeed.wli.net!su-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!venus.sun.com!ebaynews1.Ebay.Sun.COM!engnews2.Eng.Sun.COM!not-for-mail From: scottdav@Eng.nospam.COM (Scott Davidson) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Year 2000 bug and planes.. Date: 1 Apr 1998 21:48:29 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems Inc. Lines: 61 Message-ID: <6fucnd$lj5$1@engnews2.Eng.Sun.COM> References: <3517FC8B.167E@us.oracle.com> Reply-To: scottdav@Eng.nospam.COM NNTP-Posting-Host: voyager2.eng.sun.com In article 167E@us.oracle.com, "Bill B." writes: >Scott Davidson wrote: >> >> In article 167E@us.oracle.com, "Bill B." writes: >> >RE: Many posts regarding microcode. >> > >> >Microcode is nothing more than a very low-level form of >> >a program. It may be loaded into volatile memory which >> >is lost on a power-down condition, it may be stored into >> >ROS (Read Only Storage) as was the case for *most* 360's, >> >it may be transferred from flash to ram at boot time as >> >was the case for several dasd controllers I've worked >> >on in the past. The actual source of microcode can come >> >from anywhere. >> > >> No true. > >So Scott... Please elaborate on what you think is "not true" >regarding what I said above? Note the fine print where I >prefix each possible microcode loading source with "may." > Sorry for not being clear (and for sloppy typing.) What I didn't agree with is microcode being a very low level form of a program. It defines an instruction set architecture - even if it is used for "application" microprogramming. No argument about how it is stored etc. > >> When you microprogrammed reasonable horizontal machines you >> spent a lot of time worrying about latency. When you branched, there was a >> dead cycle between the conditional and the destination instruction. Thus you stuck a >> microinstruction to be executed in either path there. Sound familiar? > >I think the concept off the dead cycle was first introduced with the >Sparc? If not introduced, then certainly it was where the general >micro-coding populace first became aware of the advantages and pitfalls. If by microcoding populace you mean people who program microprocessors, you might be right. (I was into hardware test by the time the Sparc came out.) If, however, you mean people who defined an instruction set architecture by writing programs at one level below that level, then the dead cycle issue was old when I ran into it in 1973 - long before Sparcs and even Sun! My appeal - don't make microprogramming mean programming microprocessors (only a small percentage of programmers do anything else these days) to prevent an identity crisis for gray haired former microprogrammers like me. Scott --- Scott Davidson Sun Microsystems scott.davidson@eng.sun.com