|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
I think I read the solution in a mail earlier.
The answer is simple and lies in the fact that BMI read and understood that
year 2000 is to be called year 100 by all Omega traders from now on. This is
a convention introduced by Omega and well documented as _THE_ way to write
year 2000 in all Omega applications.
Unfortunately, Omega expect all others but their customers to write year
2000 as year 2000, or maybe 00. They were not at all prepared for BMI to
have understood and followed the convention, sending data as year 100.
To me it sounds confusing enough to be causing real misunderstandings. Now,
if Microsoft who is strong enough to set new standards could convince
everybody that the usage of year 200 as the uniform way of calling year 2000
should be introduced, all these problems would soon enough go away, and
would at the same time easily distinguish trading customers from computer
users from non computer users, just by the way they write the current year.
Of course, there could also be the other solution, that Omega decides that
2000 is a better way to write 2000 than by writing 100. Somebody should make
a translation table of this: year 2000 is written as ??? depending if it is
to be written in easy language, in an ascii file to Omega, in an ascii file
to metastock, in a program response to a question asked by windows, in a
program response asked by ...
Have I misunderstood?
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark Brown [mailto:markbrown@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Sunday, January 02, 2000 12:14 AM
> To: officeofthepresident@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Cc: Melody Blais; Omega List
> Subject: SCREWED by CRUZ?
>
>
> Hello received THIS PRIVATELY,
>
> Am I REALLY being asked to believe that all this happened
> simply because
> two companies were too stupid to talk to each other about what is the
> most obviously-significant issue effecting their mutual customers???
>
> Am I REALLY being asked to believe that we're facing this situation
> simply because Omega was too stupid to be able to solve the
> problem even
> though it's been a recognized, on-going point of discussion
> between them
> and their customers for several years???
>
> Am I correct in thinking that all BMI had to do was transmit
> a 4-digit,
> yyyy-formatted date and that all Omega had to do was modify
> their server
> software to accept that newly-formatted information???
>
> Am I correct in thinking that Omega and BMI had several years
> to come up
> with a solution to the problem and that they had more than
> ample time to
> test their solution to insure it's validity???
>
> If so, then it appears to me that we're either dealing with a company
> dumber than a bag of hair or we're dealing with a company doing
> everything it can, in the most under-handed of fashions, to force it's
> customers into a new product line (which it apparently is
> also planning
> to abandon in the near future as well).
>
> Am I missing something here or shall I expect to find a jar
> of Petroleum
> Jelly included with that new software Omega is apparently
> wanting me to
> purchase???
>
> XXXXXXXXXX
>
>
> -------------------------
>
>
> I STATATED BEFORE AND I STATE AGAIN - It's my belief that Omega is
> purposely doing this to force old TS4 out of commission! And they have
> done a dam fine job of it so far.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> .o©º°¨¨°º©[ WWW.MARKBROWN.COM ]©º°¨¨°º©o.
>
> <(©¿©)>
>
>
|