The Keynesian system of economics fails to model reality well because it's seriously flawed. The Austrian school of economics, which is similar to what was used in the United States pre-Keynes and whose economists did accurately predict the current economic crisis, is an entirely different matter. Look at Peter Schiff, Ron Paul, and a number of others -- they have been debunking Keynes for years. They've also been pointing out that the artificial "stimuation" of spending and the idea that your house is an investment rather than a liability or at best an item whose value is controlled by supply and demand and with the retirement of the baby boomers was bound to experience a slump in demand. With the addition of government interference in backing unrealistic loans for those who couldn't afford them, the writing was on the wall. We need to ditch the idea of a "centrally planned" economy and Keynesian economics generally if we want to have any kind of realistic understanding of how markets really work, and before we shoot ourselves in the foot yet again.
Online poker where the server is run outside the United States, may not be illegal in the US. At least the wire act used to prosecute people sending money to sports books and the like does not appear to apply to poker specifically, nor has anyone in the US been successfully prosecuted for online poker.
What *is* illegal as of the recent UIGEA act is for banks to provide you the ability to send your money to / receive money from these online gaming sites. Regardless of the facts, many state and federal officials persist in calling online poker illegal, despite it not apparently breaking any laws.
See this quote:
The indictment sets up a complicated global legal battle between the Department of Justice and the online poker entrepreneurs who have long argued that their operations in the U.S. do not violate U.S. law. Indeed, in recent days, one of the nation’s most prominent casino billionaires, Steve Wynn, announced a strategic relationship with PokerStars and said “in the United States of America the Justice Department has an opinion but several states have ruled and courts have agreed that poker is a game of skill, it’s not gambling. PokerStars rests their argument on that.”
Online poker where the server is run outside the United States, does *not* appear to be illegal in the US. At least the wire act used to prosecute people sending money to sports books and the like does not appear to apply to poker specifically, nor has anyone in the US been successfully prosecuted for online poker. What *is* illegal as of the recent UIGEA act is for banks to provide you the ability to send your money to / receive money from these online gaming sites. Regardless of the facts, many state and federal officials persist in calling online poker illegal, despite it not apparently breaking any laws.
Totally agree. I'm amazed to hear people calling for the censorship / restraint of the free exchange of tools and information by people who want to make them available to people who want to use them, when they violate no law. Just because something is controversial does not mean it should be banned. (I would think that we in the US would understand that more than most)
I know it's cool to hate Apple these days, but seriously, get the facts first...
The people who had 1.1.1 phones "bricked" were people who had unlocked their phones with the original (buggy) version of AnySIM that subtly corrupted the seczone where phone locks and IMEI were stored. It was corrupted in such a way that it wasn't obvious until the baseband was upgraded to the next version (which occurred in 1.1.1) where things totally stopped working.
Apple never deliberately tried to break anyone with an unlock, it just so happens that the unlockers had damaged their seczones and prevented the update from being applied cleanly.
So I read this post (which, as others have said, is more a threadbare and unconvincing synopsis than a review) and I thought, what the hell, the book looks halfway interesting. I followed the link, and noticed that this was a free ebook in HTML format.
The teaser (written in the classic dust-jacket tradition) reads:
"Lawrence had ordained that Prime Intellect could not, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm. But he had not realized how much harm his super-intelligent creation could perceive, or what kind of action might be necessary to prevent it. Caroline has been pulled from her deathbed into a brave new immortal Paradise where she can have anything she wants, except the sense that her life has meaning.
Now these two souls are headed for a confrontation which will force them to weigh matters of life and death before a machine that can remake -- or destroy -- the entire Universe. "
I read a couple of pages.
"Hmmm.." I think, "I have a few hours this afternoon in which some light reading might be nice." So I put on a pot of coffee, download the ebook to my Palm, and start reading.
Overall the novel has a fairly bleak feel to it. I found the main characters to be morose or morbid much of the time, though still compelling and believable. The book does have the feel of something that should have been a short story bloated into the length of a short novel.
Prime Intellect is the name of an AI supercomputer which suddenly and unforseeably attains super-human intelligence and vast quantum-mechanical control of the physical universe at the same time. In so doing, it attains a kind of godhood wherein it cures all of mankind's ills (including death), puts and end to all war and crime (including suicide), and sets out to grant every man's every whim.
In telling the story of Caroline, post-Prime-Intellect, (a large chunk of the novel), the book delves at length into an immortal orgy of death, sex, and authentic torture that seem gratuitious or placed for shock value. The prose invokes the lurid atmosphere of a snuff film or the feeling of watching a car wreck in slow-motion, at once disgusted and enthralled with what your mind is processing. The dynamic, driven, and intense nature of Caroline's character keep the reader intrigued throughout all of this, but it seems to provoke only for the sake of being provocative. On the positive side, experiencing these empty diversions firsthand, one does strongly identify with the sheer pointlessness of Caroline's life after she (and others) have had the aforementioned immortality thrust upon them.
Of greater fascination to me were the characters of Lawrence (the engineer who created Prime Intellect) and Prime Intellect itself. After the machine's apotheosis, the question that the book truly seeks to explore here is what happens when the three laws of robotics are used to rule not simply a robot, but a god, of our own creation.
When Caroline goes hunting down the other two main characters, either to finally end it all, or to break the monotony of her endless sensate flailings, take your pick, she threatens to set off a conflict which could plunge the entire universe into chaos.
I liked this novel, and had a good time reading it. I wouldn't quite rank it alongside Asimov, but it I found it enjoyable, well worth the time spent downloading and reading it. If you have a few extra hours (and preferably a good PDA or ebook reader), I'd recommend grabbing a copy.
One thing that nobody seems to have considered yet is the possibility that, not only might this new XML Word Document format not be "open" as currently being assumed and touted, but it might be less open than the binary junk that Word spits out now.
It seems from the context of the quotes in the article, Microsoft is very much concerned about how interoperable Word documents are now that they have been reverse-engineered and implemented from scratch in OpenOffice / StarOffice, WordPerfect, etc..DOC is too open (meaning well-understood with a large base of source code to process it). They have stated as much in the article. MS Office is now becoming "just another Office Suite, same as the rest." They want Word to be "less of a commodity".
Here's my theory:
Besides value-added features, such as the internet calandar and workgroup features that have been dropped, the best way to achieve this differentiation would be to engineer an incompatible default format (an obfuscated XML DTD or binary encoding format) for new Word documents, leverage their massive installed base of desktop users, and fire up the good-ole FUD-o-matic 9000...
Boom! Office 11 Ships, creating new, incompatible format with new, incompatible documents floating around the LAN, marginalizing the use of Open Source / "fringe" Office software.
MS FUD: "But Open Source / Free Software Word Processors just don't work properly with the cutting-edge features of Office 11!". "They don't have the new whiz-bang features like 'Enhanced' XML, which Office depends on."
No, Mr. Hacker, you can't use Open Office. The company policy is for everyone to use Microsoft Word, because we want everyone to be able to read everyone's documents. By the time the OSS hackers completely reverse engineer the file format, the damage will have been done. And the few glitches in compatibility in engineering compatibility into OSS Office Software will be more fuel for the FUD fire, emphasising how buggy open source software is, and Microsoft is the best choice for 100% correct display and authoring of Word Documents for your MS Office-Run Business.
And until Office 11 ships and they're ready to roll with this new spin, they can take advantage of the hype regarding XML and how wonderful their new file-format will be, see, this Open Office package isn't so special! We can do you one better! XML is designed to be Open, see?
Then, in reality, the new document format will be more closed to us, because we don't know how to read it. Trust me, they won't make it easy. They gain too much by closing up the new format and throwing away the key, profiting from the time it takes to pick and chisel away at the locks.
It seems that it supports standard ethernet out of the box, with 802.11 supported by swapping the ethernet PCMCIA card with an equivilent wireless PCMCIA card.
It plays MPEG1 and MPEG2 video and MP3 and WMA audio over the network. (presumably via SMB fileshare) Not too bad for the price point ($249 MSRP). No mention of anything MPEG-4 based ala DivX/Xvid, so it's highly doubtful.
For my money, I think I'll get a modded Xbox for roughly the same price and run Linux and mplayer or XBMP, which is based on the mplayer code anyway. I don't need 802.11 for this application. If I did, an ethernet to 802.11 wireless bridge (such as the Linksys WET11) would serve quite nicely.
For the not-hackers out there, however, this isn't at all a bad deal, and a bunch of MPEG-2 (ala SVCD, or ripped DVD's) on today's large hard drives, combined with multiple cheap "media terminals" like this one, plugged into your TV's / Home Theatre, is a decent solution. Consider that network mp3 stereo components are going for about this price already, and you get the ability to archive and play your DVDs across your network, too, for the same price.
The DMCA does make (not an exact quote) "circumvention of an effective access control mechanism" illegal, but only if the mechanism controls access to copyrighted material. Pretend that instead, this thing had a copyrighted song or picture built in, and you could only access it in a controlled way (decrypting base64, or performing a binary rot13, or anything considered "effective"). Decrypting the stream yourself to get at that data would violate the anti-circumvention provisions of the law.
The DMCA also prohibits even giving out information on how to perform such a circumvention, so if I gave you source code to do it or even discussed reversing the rot13 with you, I am a criminal according to the DMCA.
Of course, the DMCA is copyright law. Copyright doesn't apply to this case, beacuse you can't copyright hardware or devices, only forms of expression.
Considering that apples would make a horrible soup, their corporate name does not seem like a good omen. Of course, one could wonder what kind of a name "Napster" would make for a file-sharing service.. NetShadow
Andover's lawyer is missing the point. As technically relevant as the issues over the protocol and Microsoft's strongarm tactics are, they simply do not dispute (or even address) Microsoft's (seemingly valid) request that Slashdot remove copyright infringing material, in the form of large chunks of a Microsoft authored document, posted as comments. If he had argued for possible common carrier status of Slashdot, user responsibility for posts, etc. he may or may not have been correct in his legal arguments, but he would at least have been on-topic.
Copyright seems pretty black and white in this regard. It appears that copyright infringing material has been posted, and unless Andover can show otherwise, or that Slashdot is not responsible for its posting and, in turn, its removal (showing that someone else should be held legally responsible for both) Andover should comply with the request.
The lawyer's response in this case shows none of this, but instead seems to say that Slashdot should be allowed to infringe because Microsoft's trade secret claim is unsupportable. It's not relevant. Whether or not the document can be claimed to be a trade secret, (which very much seems like an absurd claim) it is a copyrighted work. If it has been posted without permission from the holder of said copyright, the copyright has been infringed. The appropriate thing to do would be for Andover to argue the actual issue, or comply with the request.
Okay, scratch that. I wasn't paying attention to detail. I discovered that there was one important detail in the man page for mktime that I missed.
int tm_year;/* years since 1900 */
In the above post, I assumed that tm_year was an absolute year number. That's what I get for not double-checking the man page. I should have remembered that UNIX system time starts in 1970, so year 0100 dates are an impossibility.
So yes, this is a y2k easter egg.
My post should have read like this:
What daliclock is doing is comparing the current system date/time to January 1st, 2000. It checks this each iteration through the main clock function. If the clock is set to a date earlier to this, it flags it. The next time through the loop, if the clock becomes set to a date equal to or greater than this (The y2k rollover), then it reverses the digit images.
So, if daliclock is running when your clock switches from Dec 31, 1999 to Jan 1 2000, it will flip. (literally). By design, so it doesn't actually "fail y2k".
To return to normal, just quit daliclock and restart it.
Looking at the source, the interesting code is in digital.c, starting on line 1261.
What daliclock is doing is comparing the current system date/time to Day 1, Year 100. It checks this each iteration through the main clock function. If the clock is set to this date or earlier, it flags it. The next time through the loop, if the clock becomes set to a date greater than this (day 1, year 100), then it reverses the digit images.
This is interesting.. Presumably it was used for debugging purposes during development at a point there were problems with the date being read into daliclock.
As a bonus, this causes daliclock to flip the image around if your clock ever gets set to a very early date (year 0, for example) and then set to something saner. This seems to be the "y2k failure" that has been observed, really just a symptom of the fact that your system clock is doing some strange thing, and not a bug in daliclock.
It would be trivial to comment out the aforementioned code and recompile, but if you clock is going back and forth between pre-y100 dates, then you have a bigger problem.
Slashdot Mirror
The Keynesian system of economics fails to model reality well because it's seriously flawed. The Austrian school of economics, which is similar to what was used in the United States pre-Keynes and whose economists did accurately predict the current economic crisis, is an entirely different matter. Look at Peter Schiff, Ron Paul, and a number of others -- they have been debunking Keynes for years. They've also been pointing out that the artificial "stimuation" of spending and the idea that your house is an investment rather than a liability or at best an item whose value is controlled by supply and demand and with the retirement of the baby boomers was bound to experience a slump in demand. With the addition of government interference in backing unrealistic loans for those who couldn't afford them, the writing was on the wall. We need to ditch the idea of a "centrally planned" economy and Keynesian economics generally if we want to have any kind of realistic understanding of how markets really work, and before we shoot ourselves in the foot yet again.
Online poker where the server is run outside the United States, may not be illegal in the US. At least the wire act used to prosecute people sending money to sports books and the like does not appear to apply to poker specifically, nor has anyone in the US been successfully prosecuted for online poker.
What *is* illegal as of the recent UIGEA act is for banks to provide you the ability to send your money to / receive money from these online gaming sites. Regardless of the facts, many state and federal officials persist in calling online poker illegal, despite it not apparently breaking any laws.
See this quote:
The indictment sets up a complicated global legal battle between the Department of Justice and the online poker entrepreneurs who have long argued that their operations in the U.S. do not violate U.S. law. Indeed, in recent days, one of the nation’s most prominent casino billionaires, Steve Wynn, announced a strategic relationship with PokerStars and said “in the United States of America the Justice Department has an opinion but several states have ruled and courts have agreed that poker is a game of skill, it’s not gambling. PokerStars rests their argument on that.”
Online poker where the server is run outside the United States, does *not* appear to be illegal in the US. At least the wire act used to prosecute people sending money to sports books and the like does not appear to apply to poker specifically, nor has anyone in the US been successfully prosecuted for online poker. What *is* illegal as of the recent UIGEA act is for banks to provide you the ability to send your money to / receive money from these online gaming sites. Regardless of the facts, many state and federal officials persist in calling online poker illegal, despite it not apparently breaking any laws.
Totally agree. I'm amazed to hear people calling for the censorship / restraint of the free exchange of tools and information by people who want to make them available to people who want to use them, when they violate no law. Just because something is controversial does not mean it should be banned. (I would think that we in the US would understand that more than most)
I know it's cool to hate Apple these days, but seriously, get the facts first...
The people who had 1.1.1 phones "bricked" were people who had unlocked their phones with the original (buggy) version of AnySIM that subtly corrupted the seczone where phone locks and IMEI were stored. It was corrupted in such a way that it wasn't obvious until the baseband was upgraded to the next version (which occurred in 1.1.1) where things totally stopped working.
Apple never deliberately tried to break anyone with an unlock, it just so happens that the unlockers had damaged their seczones and prevented the update from being applied cleanly.
So I read this post (which, as others have said, is more a threadbare and unconvincing synopsis than a review) and I thought, what the hell, the book looks halfway interesting. I followed the link, and noticed that this was a free ebook in HTML format.
The teaser (written in the classic dust-jacket tradition) reads:
"Lawrence had ordained that Prime Intellect could not, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm. But he had not realized how much harm his super-intelligent creation could perceive, or what kind of action might be necessary to prevent it.
Caroline has been pulled from her deathbed into a brave new immortal Paradise where she can have anything she wants, except the sense that her life has meaning.
Now these two souls are headed for a confrontation which will force them to weigh matters of life and death before a machine that can remake -- or destroy -- the entire Universe. "
I read a couple of pages.
"Hmmm.." I think, "I have a few hours this afternoon in which some light reading might be nice." So I put on a pot of coffee, download the ebook to my Palm, and start reading.
Overall the novel has a fairly bleak feel to it. I found the main characters to be morose or morbid much of the time, though still compelling and believable. The book does have the feel of something that should have been a short story bloated into the length of a short novel.
Prime Intellect is the name of an AI supercomputer which suddenly and unforseeably attains super-human intelligence and vast quantum-mechanical control of the physical universe at the same time. In so doing, it attains a kind of godhood wherein it cures all of mankind's ills (including death), puts and end to all war and crime (including suicide), and sets out to grant every man's every whim.
In telling the story of Caroline, post-Prime-Intellect, (a large chunk of the novel), the book delves at length into an immortal orgy of death, sex, and authentic torture that seem gratuitious or placed for shock value. The prose invokes the lurid atmosphere of a snuff film or the feeling of watching a car wreck in slow-motion, at once disgusted and enthralled with what your mind is processing. The dynamic, driven, and intense nature of Caroline's character keep the reader intrigued throughout all of this, but it seems to provoke only for the sake of being provocative. On the positive side, experiencing these empty diversions firsthand, one does strongly identify with the sheer pointlessness of Caroline's life after she (and others) have had the aforementioned immortality thrust upon them.
Of greater fascination to me were the characters of Lawrence (the engineer who created Prime Intellect) and Prime Intellect itself. After the machine's apotheosis, the question that the book truly seeks to explore here is what happens when the three laws of robotics are used to rule not simply a robot, but a god, of our own creation.
When Caroline goes hunting down the other two main characters, either to finally end it all, or to break the monotony of her endless sensate flailings, take your pick, she threatens to set off a conflict which could plunge the entire universe into chaos.
I liked this novel, and had a good time reading it. I wouldn't quite rank it alongside Asimov, but it I found it enjoyable, well worth the time spent downloading and reading it. If you have a few extra hours (and preferably a good PDA or ebook reader), I'd recommend grabbing a copy.
One thing that nobody seems to have considered yet is the possibility that, not only might this new XML Word Document format not be "open" as currently being assumed and touted, but it might be less open than the binary junk that Word spits out now.
.DOC is too open (meaning well-understood with a large base of source code to process it). They have stated as much in the article. MS Office is now becoming "just another Office Suite, same as the rest." They want Word to be "less of a commodity".
It seems from the context of the quotes in the article, Microsoft is very much concerned about how interoperable Word documents are now that they have been reverse-engineered and implemented from scratch in OpenOffice / StarOffice, WordPerfect, etc.
Here's my theory:
Besides value-added features, such as the internet calandar and workgroup features that have been dropped, the best way to achieve this differentiation would be to engineer an incompatible default format (an obfuscated XML DTD or binary encoding format) for new Word documents, leverage their massive installed base of desktop users, and fire up the good-ole FUD-o-matic 9000...
Boom! Office 11 Ships, creating new, incompatible format with new, incompatible documents floating around the LAN, marginalizing the use of Open Source / "fringe" Office software.
MS FUD: "But Open Source / Free Software Word Processors just don't work properly with the cutting-edge features of Office 11!". "They don't have the new whiz-bang features like 'Enhanced' XML, which Office depends on."
No, Mr. Hacker, you can't use Open Office. The company policy is for everyone to use Microsoft Word, because we want everyone to be able to read everyone's documents. By the time the OSS hackers completely reverse engineer the file format, the damage will have been done. And the few glitches in compatibility in engineering compatibility into OSS Office Software will be more fuel for the FUD fire, emphasising how buggy open source software is, and Microsoft is the best choice for 100% correct display and authoring of Word Documents for your MS Office-Run Business.
And until Office 11 ships and they're ready to roll with this new spin, they can take advantage of the hype regarding XML and how wonderful their new file-format will be, see, this Open Office package isn't so special! We can do you one better! XML is designed to be Open, see?
Then, in reality, the new document format will be more closed to us, because we don't know how to read it. Trust me, they won't make it easy. They gain too much by closing up the new format and throwing away the key, profiting from the time it takes to pick and chisel away at the locks.
It seems that it supports standard ethernet out of the box, with 802.11 supported by swapping the ethernet PCMCIA card with an equivilent wireless PCMCIA card.
It plays MPEG1 and MPEG2 video and MP3 and WMA audio over the network. (presumably via SMB fileshare) Not too bad for the price point ($249 MSRP). No mention of anything MPEG-4 based ala DivX/Xvid, so it's highly doubtful.
For my money, I think I'll get a modded Xbox for roughly the same price and run Linux and mplayer or XBMP, which is based on the mplayer code anyway. I don't need 802.11 for this application. If I did, an ethernet to 802.11 wireless bridge (such as the Linksys WET11) would serve quite nicely.
For the not-hackers out there, however, this isn't at all a bad deal, and a bunch of MPEG-2 (ala SVCD, or ripped DVD's) on today's large hard drives, combined with multiple cheap "media terminals" like this one, plugged into your TV's / Home Theatre, is a decent solution. Consider that network mp3 stereo components are going for about this price already, and you get the ability to archive and play your DVDs across your network, too, for the same price.
Not too shabby.
The DMCA does make (not an exact quote) "circumvention of an effective access control mechanism" illegal, but only if the mechanism controls access to copyrighted material. Pretend that instead, this thing had a copyrighted song or picture built in, and you could only access it in a controlled way (decrypting base64, or performing a binary rot13, or anything considered "effective"). Decrypting the stream yourself to get at that data would violate the anti-circumvention provisions of the law.
The DMCA also prohibits even giving out information on how to perform such a circumvention, so if I gave you source code to do it or even discussed reversing the rot13 with you, I am a criminal according to the DMCA.
Of course, the DMCA is copyright law. Copyright doesn't apply to this case, beacuse you can't copyright hardware or devices, only forms of expression.
Considering that apples would make a horrible soup, their corporate name does not seem like a good omen. Of course, one could wonder what kind of a name "Napster" would make for a file-sharing service.. NetShadow
Andover's lawyer is missing the point. As technically relevant as the issues over the protocol and Microsoft's strongarm tactics are, they simply do not dispute (or even address) Microsoft's (seemingly valid) request that Slashdot remove copyright infringing material, in the form of large chunks of a Microsoft authored document, posted as comments. If he had argued for possible common carrier status of Slashdot, user responsibility for posts, etc. he may or may not have been correct in his legal arguments, but he would at least have been on-topic.
Copyright seems pretty black and white in this regard. It appears that copyright infringing material has been posted, and unless Andover can show otherwise, or that Slashdot is not responsible for its posting and, in turn, its removal (showing that someone else should be held legally responsible for both) Andover should comply with the request.
The lawyer's response in this case shows none of this, but instead seems to say that Slashdot should be allowed to infringe because Microsoft's trade secret claim is unsupportable. It's not relevant. Whether or not the document can be claimed to be a trade secret, (which very much seems like an absurd claim) it is a copyrighted work. If it has been posted without permission from the holder of said copyright, the copyright has been infringed. The appropriate thing to do would be for Andover to argue the actual issue, or comply with the request.
NetShadow
http://live.altavista.com/scripts/editorial.dll?ca tegoryid=&only=y&bfromind=980&eetype=art icle&render=y&eeid=1461716&avr=1
Jryy vg ybbxf yvxr gur l2x oht qvqa'g erne vg'f htyl urnq.
Lrc, gur qbbzfnlref unir orra cebira jebat lrg ntnva.
Qvq lbh frr gung gbb?
Ubhfgba, jr unir n ceboyrz.
For the translation see Urer'f gur genafyngvba....
Okay, scratch that. I wasn't paying attention to detail. I discovered that there was one important detail in the man page for mktime that I missed.
/* years since 1900 */
int tm_year;
In the above post, I assumed that tm_year was an absolute year number. That's what I get for not double-checking the man page. I should have remembered that UNIX system time starts in 1970, so year 0100 dates are an impossibility.
So yes, this is a y2k easter egg.
My post should have read like this:
What daliclock is doing is comparing the current system date/time to January 1st, 2000. It checks this each iteration through the main clock function. If the clock is set to a date earlier to this, it flags it. The next time through the loop, if the clock becomes set to a date equal to or greater than this (The y2k rollover), then it reverses the digit images.
So, if daliclock is running when your clock switches from Dec 31, 1999 to Jan 1 2000, it will flip. (literally). By design, so it doesn't actually "fail y2k".
To return to normal, just quit daliclock and restart it.
Busily extracting foot from mouth (keyboard?),
Eric
Looking at the source, the interesting code is in digital.c, starting on line 1261.
What daliclock is doing is comparing the current system date/time to Day 1, Year 100. It checks this each iteration through the main clock function. If the clock is set to this date or earlier, it flags it. The next time through the loop, if the clock becomes set to a date greater than this (day 1, year 100), then it reverses the digit images.
This is interesting.. Presumably it was used for debugging purposes during development at a point there were problems with the date being read into daliclock.
As a bonus, this causes daliclock to flip the image around if your clock ever gets set to a very early date (year 0, for example) and then set to something saner. This seems to be the "y2k failure" that has been observed, really just a symptom of the fact that your system clock is doing some strange thing, and not a bug in daliclock.
It would be trivial to comment out the aforementioned code and recompile, but if you clock is going back and forth between pre-y100 dates, then you have a bigger problem.
Eric