BTW, this "incrementing as an unsigned integer, but treating as a signed integer" was the cause of some electronic voting machines counting up to 32767 votes, and the next vote cast set the count back to -32768. Since there was no paper ballot as a backup, there was no way to recount. Wonderful, eh?
Using a 16 bit integer to count votes where voters can be above 65k? What kind of intelligence created this system today where they really, really, really needed to save the 2 whole bytes? Maybe they were using a 16 bit cpu & didn't know how to add, or subtract any larger integers? Did they store the results on audio tape just like the old Atari or Commodore 8 bit systems? This was the last time I remember seeing a video game's score counter wrap around from 65K - 0 because with 16 Kb ram, maybe the 2 bytes would make a difference, or, the fewer CPU clock cycles used adding up the 16 bit score, and displaying it, would make the game a little faster...
________ Brian G.
----- Original Message ----- From: "Bagotronix Tech Support" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Protel EDA Discussion List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, December 03, 2004 4:15 PM
Subject: Re: [PEDA] Cannot locate server initialization file:, Answer2053
Y2K was not the only time bomb in software. There is the Y2.038K problem that many OS's have, due to keeping the time as a 32-bit signed integer, where 0 started on Jan 1, 1970. That takes us to 2038, after which the seconds count jumps back to negative numbers. Counting sequence: 1970, 1971,...,2037, 2038, 1902, 1903,... Hey, it will be year 1902 all over again!
The Protel s/w may be regarding any date beyond 2038 as being in the past.
2053 would be interpreted as 1917. Even if the program had smarts enough to
clip the time value if it was out of bounds, the nearest valid date would be
1970, before the s/w even existed.
BTW, this "incrementing as an unsigned integer, but treating as a signed integer" was the cause of some electronic voting machines counting up to 32767 votes, and the next vote cast set the count back to -32768. Since there was no paper ballot as a backup, there was no way to recount. Wonderful, eh?
Best regards, Ivan Baggett Bagotronix Inc. website: www.bagotronix.com
----- Original Message ----- From: "Harry Selfridge" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Protel EDA Discussion List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, December 03, 2004 3:50 PM Subject: Re: [PEDA] Cannot locate server initialization file:, Answer2053
Protel99SEFor crying out loud people! Give it a rest.
I just ran the system year out to 2040 for a quick test, and thesoftware starts and runs just fine. I don't have the time to do ainterstate
year-by-year test, but it isn't rocket science. I might add that a well
known email program crashed with the 2040 date, and a couple of other
business programs wouldn't start - but the Protel software fired right up.
I've run Protel software since the DOS days, and I've had every version they've published - including beta versions. NONE have ever had a time bomb. IF there is a date that the software doesn't work, I'm very sure that it will be found to be Microsoft related, and not Protel related.
If there are people running cracked copies of the time limited demo software - there might be an issue that stops them at some time in the future. I haven't bothered to see how the time limited code checks dates. I also have no sympathy for them if the crack fails and the software locks them out - perhaps they should get lawyers...
At 11:06 AM 12/3/04, you wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >>Don't get your proverbial panties in a twist, boys... >> >>If 2005 (as suggested below) is not a tested, confirmed cutoff date for >>Protel, my suggestion is this: Perform a date test yourself. >> >The fact is, if Altium has placed a time bomb in the software, so that >it will not run at some reasonable time in the near future, it is>fraud, and quite prosecutable. I would hope we (99 users) don't have toband>together and hire a lawyer, but that is a possibility. So, has anyonedone a>date test to find out when D-day is? > >Jon snip
____________________________________________________________ You are subscribed to the PEDA discussion forum
To Post messages: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Unsubscribe and Other Options: http://techservinc.com/mailman/listinfo/peda_techservinc.com
Browse or Search Old Archives (2001-2004): http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]
Browse or Search Current Archives (2004-Current): http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]
____________________________________________________________ You are subscribed to the PEDA discussion forum
To Post messages: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Unsubscribe and Other Options: http://techservinc.com/mailman/listinfo/peda_techservinc.com
Browse or Search Old Archives (2001-2004): http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]
Browse or Search Current Archives (2004-Current): http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]
____________________________________________________________ You are subscribed to the PEDA discussion forum
To Post messages: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Unsubscribe and Other Options: http://techservinc.com/mailman/listinfo/peda_techservinc.com
Browse or Search Old Archives (2001-2004): http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]
Browse or Search Current Archives (2004-Current): http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]
