John Titor and the IBM 5100
- Thread starter d28_2012
- Start date
Poster: ruthzine
Subject: Re: John Titor and the IBM 5100
Don't you guys use google http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_2038_problem the 2038 problem is a problem with the clock on 32bit unix systems,
"on Tuesday, January 19, 2038. Times beyond this moment will "wrap around" and be represented internally as a negative number and cause programs to fail, since they will see these times not as being in 2038 but rather in 1901. Erroneous calculations and decisions may therefore result"
The IBM 5100 would not be used to fix anything but to translate UNIX based languages into something a old IBM mainframe could run. Old IBM mainframes don't have the 2038 date problem.
---
Why are you people still thinking that the "2038 problem" is the clock on 32 bit unix machines? Actually, from my point of view, its not the clock which is going to cause a problem.
For a example...
On a windows machine... You download a free software program that has a "30 day trial" attached to it. Pending on the program itself, the program will expire after being used for 30 days, and it will give out a popup dialog stating that you have to purchase the program in order to continue using it or uninstall it.
When you turn the clock back to a couple days after you first installed the program, the program takes recognizance of the clock mechanism and integrates it to its programming. This will then allow you to continue using the program after the 30 day expiration date. Keep note, that not all software programs do this, but the majority of them do. Try this experiment, you will see what I am talking about.
This is a similiar mechanism on a unix machine. Therefore its not the clock because if the internal problem appears, a person can adjust the clock to make it functionable until a patch is developed and is inserted. Once the patch is developed then the IBM 5100 emulation design is useless and is not needed in this situation. (remember the Y2K fears? This is how they did it)
From my point of view, the "Unix 2038 problem" is not the clock mechanism but rather the internal binarial structure which ends or becomes "full" to its destination. Even I still disagree regarding the year 2038, because of certain circumstances regarding time flux and the size of processors being manufactured.
Subject: Re: John Titor and the IBM 5100
Don't you guys use google http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_2038_problem the 2038 problem is a problem with the clock on 32bit unix systems,
"on Tuesday, January 19, 2038. Times beyond this moment will "wrap around" and be represented internally as a negative number and cause programs to fail, since they will see these times not as being in 2038 but rather in 1901. Erroneous calculations and decisions may therefore result"
The IBM 5100 would not be used to fix anything but to translate UNIX based languages into something a old IBM mainframe could run. Old IBM mainframes don't have the 2038 date problem.
---
Why are you people still thinking that the "2038 problem" is the clock on 32 bit unix machines? Actually, from my point of view, its not the clock which is going to cause a problem.
For a example...
On a windows machine... You download a free software program that has a "30 day trial" attached to it. Pending on the program itself, the program will expire after being used for 30 days, and it will give out a popup dialog stating that you have to purchase the program in order to continue using it or uninstall it.
When you turn the clock back to a couple days after you first installed the program, the program takes recognizance of the clock mechanism and integrates it to its programming. This will then allow you to continue using the program after the 30 day expiration date. Keep note, that not all software programs do this, but the majority of them do. Try this experiment, you will see what I am talking about.
This is a similiar mechanism on a unix machine. Therefore its not the clock because if the internal problem appears, a person can adjust the clock to make it functionable until a patch is developed and is inserted. Once the patch is developed then the IBM 5100 emulation design is useless and is not needed in this situation. (remember the Y2K fears? This is how they did it)
From my point of view, the "Unix 2038 problem" is not the clock mechanism but rather the internal binarial structure which ends or becomes "full" to its destination. Even I still disagree regarding the year 2038, because of certain circumstances regarding time flux and the size of processors being manufactured.
recall15
Timekeeper
Pro7 wrote:
Hmmmmm.....
Please read:
Quoted John regarding IBM machine:
"JOHN: On my worldline, it is known that the 5100 series is capable of
reading all the IBM code written before the widespread use of APL and Basic.
JOHN: In 2036, it was discovered (or at least known after testing) that the
5100 computer was capable of reading and changing all of the legacy code
written by IBM before the release of that system and still be able to create
new code in APL and basic. That is the reason we need it in 2036. However,
IBM never published that information because it would have probably
destroyed a large part of their business infrastructure in the early 70s. In
fact, I would bet the engineers were probably told to keep their mouths
shut.
JOHN: Therefore, if I were not here now telling you this, that information
would not be discovered for another 36 years. Yet, I would bet there is
someone out there who can do the research and discover I am telling the
truth. There must be an old IBM engineer out there someplace that worked on
the 5100. They just might not have ever asked if I hadn't pointed it out.
JOHN: The 5100 has the ability to easily translate between the old IBM code,
APL, BASIC and (with a few tweaks in 1975) UNIX. This may seem insignificant but the fact that the 5100 is portable means I can easily take it back to 2036. I do expect they will create some sort of emulation system to use in multiple locations."
end quoted John Titor
Then, we already know about the "Friday the Thirteenth Bug", and because the end bit indicating positive/negative integer may flip over, some systems may revert the date to 20:45:52, Friday, December 13 others could even result in a system time of December 32, 1969
Some code to quick check the computers...
#!/usr/bin/perl
#
# I've seen a few versions of this algorithm
# online, I don't know who to credit. I assume
# this code to by GPL unless proven otherwise.
# Comments provided by William Porquet, February 2004.
# You may need to change the line above to
# reflect the location of your Perl binary
# (e.g. "#!/usr/local/bin/perl").
# Also change this file's name to '2038.pl'.
# Don't forget to make this file +x with "chmod".
# On Linux, you can run this from a command line like this:
# ./2038.pl
use POSIX;
# Use POSIX (Portable Operating System Interface),
# a set of standard operating system interfaces.
$ENV{'TZ'} = "GMT";
# Set the Time Zone to GMT (Greenwich Mean Time) for date calculations.
for ($clock = 2147483641; $clock < 2147483651; $clock++)
{
print ctime($clock);
}
# Count up in seconds of Epoch time just before and after the critical event.
# Print out the corresponding date in Gregorian calendar for each result.
# Are the date and time outputs correct after the critical event second?
Quoted:
"Windows 2000 Professional with ActivePerl 5.8.3.809 fails in such a manner that it stops displaying the date after the critical second:
C:\>perl 2038.pl
Mon Jan 18 22:14:01 2038
Mon Jan 18 22:14:02 2038
Mon Jan 18 22:14:03 2038
Mon Jan 18 22:14:04 2038
Mon Jan 18 22:14:05 2038
Mon Jan 18 22:14:06 2038
Mon Jan 18 22:14:07 2038
-crunch-
Many Intel x86 platforms have BIOS date issues as well. The Linux BIOS time utility hwclock has issues around the critical second in 2038 too (DO NOT try this on a production system unless you REALLY know what you're doing):
[root@alouette root]# hwclock --set --date="1/18/2038 22:14:06"
[root@alouette root]# hwclock --set --date="1/18/2038 22:14:07"
RTC_SET_TIME: Invalid argument
ioctl() to /dev/rtc to set the time failed.
[root@alouette root]# hwclock --set --date="1/18/2038 22:14:08"
date: invalid date `1/18/2038 22:14:08'
The date command issued by hwclock returned unexpected results.
The command was:
date --date="1/18/2038 22:14:08" +seconds-into-epoch=%s
"
More at:
Project 2038 FAQ
then imagine a world whitout Java Applets...thanks to the bug...
--
Regards
Comet 17p Holmes Online Petition
Hmmmmm.....
Please read:
Quoted John regarding IBM machine:
"JOHN: On my worldline, it is known that the 5100 series is capable of
reading all the IBM code written before the widespread use of APL and Basic.
JOHN: In 2036, it was discovered (or at least known after testing) that the
5100 computer was capable of reading and changing all of the legacy code
written by IBM before the release of that system and still be able to create
new code in APL and basic. That is the reason we need it in 2036. However,
IBM never published that information because it would have probably
destroyed a large part of their business infrastructure in the early 70s. In
fact, I would bet the engineers were probably told to keep their mouths
shut.
JOHN: Therefore, if I were not here now telling you this, that information
would not be discovered for another 36 years. Yet, I would bet there is
someone out there who can do the research and discover I am telling the
truth. There must be an old IBM engineer out there someplace that worked on
the 5100. They just might not have ever asked if I hadn't pointed it out.
JOHN: The 5100 has the ability to easily translate between the old IBM code,
APL, BASIC and (with a few tweaks in 1975) UNIX. This may seem insignificant but the fact that the 5100 is portable means I can easily take it back to 2036. I do expect they will create some sort of emulation system to use in multiple locations."
end quoted John Titor
Then, we already know about the "Friday the Thirteenth Bug", and because the end bit indicating positive/negative integer may flip over, some systems may revert the date to 20:45:52, Friday, December 13 others could even result in a system time of December 32, 1969
Some code to quick check the computers...
#!/usr/bin/perl
#
# I've seen a few versions of this algorithm
# online, I don't know who to credit. I assume
# this code to by GPL unless proven otherwise.
# Comments provided by William Porquet, February 2004.
# You may need to change the line above to
# reflect the location of your Perl binary
# (e.g. "#!/usr/local/bin/perl").
# Also change this file's name to '2038.pl'.
# Don't forget to make this file +x with "chmod".
# On Linux, you can run this from a command line like this:
# ./2038.pl
use POSIX;
# Use POSIX (Portable Operating System Interface),
# a set of standard operating system interfaces.
$ENV{'TZ'} = "GMT";
# Set the Time Zone to GMT (Greenwich Mean Time) for date calculations.
for ($clock = 2147483641; $clock < 2147483651; $clock++)
{
print ctime($clock);
}
# Count up in seconds of Epoch time just before and after the critical event.
# Print out the corresponding date in Gregorian calendar for each result.
# Are the date and time outputs correct after the critical event second?
Quoted:
"Windows 2000 Professional with ActivePerl 5.8.3.809 fails in such a manner that it stops displaying the date after the critical second:
C:\>perl 2038.pl
Mon Jan 18 22:14:01 2038
Mon Jan 18 22:14:02 2038
Mon Jan 18 22:14:03 2038
Mon Jan 18 22:14:04 2038
Mon Jan 18 22:14:05 2038
Mon Jan 18 22:14:06 2038
Mon Jan 18 22:14:07 2038
-crunch-
Many Intel x86 platforms have BIOS date issues as well. The Linux BIOS time utility hwclock has issues around the critical second in 2038 too (DO NOT try this on a production system unless you REALLY know what you're doing):
[root@alouette root]# hwclock --set --date="1/18/2038 22:14:06"
[root@alouette root]# hwclock --set --date="1/18/2038 22:14:07"
RTC_SET_TIME: Invalid argument
ioctl() to /dev/rtc to set the time failed.
[root@alouette root]# hwclock --set --date="1/18/2038 22:14:08"
date: invalid date `1/18/2038 22:14:08'
The date command issued by hwclock returned unexpected results.
The command was:
date --date="1/18/2038 22:14:08" +seconds-into-epoch=%s
"
More at:
Project 2038 FAQ
then imagine a world whitout Java Applets...thanks to the bug...
--
Regards
Comet 17p Holmes Online Petition
Darby
Timekeeper
qflux,
Technically you're correct. On Post-2-Post (Art Bell's site - "I Am From 2036") Titor never directly stated the purpose for obtaining the 5100/5110. People have assumed that the intent was related to the Y2K38 issue based on the context of the following post that he made on 8-FEB-2001:
But on this site in the original "Time-Travel Paradoxes" he said:
So on this site he was more specific. Again, the context indicates that the "bug" in the legacy code relates to the Y2K38 problem even though his post didn't directly say that the "bug" was Y2K38.
On 3-JAN-2001 on "Topic Limited to 11 Pages?" (P2P) he said:
Again it's indirect but in the context of the post the 5100/5110 is related to Y2K38. The "information experiment" that he refers to was the challenge to verify the undocumented "tweak" in the 5100/5110.
On 11-JAN-2001, again on "Topic Limited to 11 Pages?" he said:
Which is what you originally stated. And he was correct, as the above quoted posts indicate. He never actually said that he needed the computer to fix UNIX. The context seemed to indicate that that was his meaning, he just never said it directly.
Technically you're correct. On Post-2-Post (Art Bell's site - "I Am From 2036") Titor never directly stated the purpose for obtaining the 5100/5110. People have assumed that the intent was related to the Y2K38 issue based on the context of the following post that he made on 8-FEB-2001:
But on this site in the original "Time-Travel Paradoxes" he said:
So on this site he was more specific. Again, the context indicates that the "bug" in the legacy code relates to the Y2K38 problem even though his post didn't directly say that the "bug" was Y2K38.
On 3-JAN-2001 on "Topic Limited to 11 Pages?" (P2P) he said:
Again it's indirect but in the context of the post the 5100/5110 is related to Y2K38. The "information experiment" that he refers to was the challenge to verify the undocumented "tweak" in the 5100/5110.
On 11-JAN-2001, again on "Topic Limited to 11 Pages?" he said:
Which is what you originally stated. And he was correct, as the above quoted posts indicate. He never actually said that he needed the computer to fix UNIX. The context seemed to indicate that that was his meaning, he just never said it directly.
im pretty convinced that john titor knew what he was talking about. From what i have seen, its pretty darn accurate according to titor's claims. What he didnt say was the real reason why "he has to take the portable computer back with him" without considering "hardware code ripping" from the IBM 5100. Its quite easy to rip codes from a old machine like that, however specific code wouldnt function on our modern computers, according to what i have seen, the old emulations does work on modern machines but not the original coding which is hardware based alone, not in software design.
you see where im getting at? The only reason that a person would need to bring that machine with him is because it is hardware wired. Otherwise our modern computers do not have that specific original hardware compatitability.
What I would lovvvveeeee to know.. is just how in the heck he knew about this. If he is a true time traveller, that would definetely make sense, but in most cases we are hardnosed skeptics who do not believe in time travel because its not possible today. If he isnt a real time traveller, then how did he get that info? .. he did say he was a relative of a programmer who worked on it. Maybe, just maybe he found notes on this machine hidden somewhere in his grampa's basement?
you see where im getting at? The only reason that a person would need to bring that machine with him is because it is hardware wired. Otherwise our modern computers do not have that specific original hardware compatitability.
What I would lovvvveeeee to know.. is just how in the heck he knew about this. If he is a true time traveller, that would definetely make sense, but in most cases we are hardnosed skeptics who do not believe in time travel because its not possible today. If he isnt a real time traveller, then how did he get that info? .. he did say he was a relative of a programmer who worked on it. Maybe, just maybe he found notes on this machine hidden somewhere in his grampa's basement?
Darby,
there you go! ... specific "tweak" is the answer. /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif
" undocumented "tweak" in the 5100/5110."
update:
sigh.. i just got word that i am to be terminated from position sometimes this morning. The company wants me to sign some papers regarding the 5100 project. If I see a non-disclosure agreement I dont know what I am going to do because I just already posted infos and emailed infos regarding it.
The only way is to run and hide I guess... These guys are being forced by the government to sign certain paperwork. I asked one of my friends working there about the 5100 machine, they have already shipped the entire machine to some air force lab...
aww well this is probably the last you will hear from me on this forum.
there you go! ... specific "tweak" is the answer. /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif
" undocumented "tweak" in the 5100/5110."
update:
sigh.. i just got word that i am to be terminated from position sometimes this morning. The company wants me to sign some papers regarding the 5100 project. If I see a non-disclosure agreement I dont know what I am going to do because I just already posted infos and emailed infos regarding it.
The only way is to run and hide I guess... These guys are being forced by the government to sign certain paperwork. I asked one of my friends working there about the 5100 machine, they have already shipped the entire machine to some air force lab...
aww well this is probably the last you will hear from me on this forum.
RainmanTime
Timekeeper
Pro7,
This is not true. Hardware emulation is a fairly trivial problem, especially for an older (and MUCH slower) target hardware system. Since today's processors run so much (blazingly!) faster than systems like the old IBM 5100, it is simple to program a dedicated hardware emulator that simply takes the old machine code instructions and remaps them to the new (expanded) instruction set. The software in the modern computer is fast enough to be able to fool any old hardware into thinking it is installed in its old system.
Nope. See above. All you would need is a drawing of the hardware, not the hardware itself, and you could adequately emulate it to run the native software. In fact, this is how IBM made money in the early 80s with terminal emulation programs that ran on PCs... they could emulate the mainframe HW so the SW would run on the PC.
RMT
This is not true. Hardware emulation is a fairly trivial problem, especially for an older (and MUCH slower) target hardware system. Since today's processors run so much (blazingly!) faster than systems like the old IBM 5100, it is simple to program a dedicated hardware emulator that simply takes the old machine code instructions and remaps them to the new (expanded) instruction set. The software in the modern computer is fast enough to be able to fool any old hardware into thinking it is installed in its old system.
Nope. See above. All you would need is a drawing of the hardware, not the hardware itself, and you could adequately emulate it to run the native software. In fact, this is how IBM made money in the early 80s with terminal emulation programs that ran on PCs... they could emulate the mainframe HW so the SW would run on the PC.
RMT
TheCigSmokingMan
Timekeeper
Darby and Pro,
I saw this post regarding "Winux"...
There is a "MISCONCEPTION" about Windows, Windows NT and Windows XP...
People believe it to be an "operating system"
It is not really...
It's a Graphical User Interface... A GUI... On top of various version of DOS and "Unix"... I believe "NT" was a "microsoft secret unix" project... /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif
"Windows Programming" is ONLY ACHIEVED via "C" calls to a "DLL LIBRARY"...
And Linux is an open source version of Unix.. as I understand it.
Or so I'm told...
What is the context of this message? Curious... I wasn't following the thread...
TheCigMan
I saw this post regarding "Winux"...
There is a "MISCONCEPTION" about Windows, Windows NT and Windows XP...
People believe it to be an "operating system"
It is not really...
It's a Graphical User Interface... A GUI... On top of various version of DOS and "Unix"... I believe "NT" was a "microsoft secret unix" project... /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif
"Windows Programming" is ONLY ACHIEVED via "C" calls to a "DLL LIBRARY"...
And Linux is an open source version of Unix.. as I understand it.
Or so I'm told...
What is the context of this message? Curious... I wasn't following the thread...
TheCigMan
I don’t get what all the fuss is about the old IBM 5100 is all about.
Don’t you think by now the government and private sector would
have already by 2000 have upgraded all there active databases by now
to Linux, Unix or Windows and obsolete the IBM 5100. And
for the files that were not upgraded would probably have no useful use
anyhow so this issue should be really dead. To my view of things these
critical program should all have been rewritten by now if they desired
to continue using them.
Don’t you think by now the government and private sector would
have already by 2000 have upgraded all there active databases by now
to Linux, Unix or Windows and obsolete the IBM 5100. And
for the files that were not upgraded would probably have no useful use
anyhow so this issue should be really dead. To my view of things these
critical program should all have been rewritten by now if they desired
to continue using them.
ruthless
Timekeeper
im here to tell you that the 5100 had alot more oomph than you guys seem to think.
dont believe me? then watch this video. :D
warning! not for the faint of heart!
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5885351342753379583&q=ibm+5150&total=6&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=1
dont believe me? then watch this video. :D
warning! not for the faint of heart!
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5885351342753379583&q=ibm+5150&total=6&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=1
Darby
Timekeeper
Designer,
Exactly.
The Y2K38 "issue" won't jump up and bite everyone in the butt on 19-JAN-2038 all at once (again assuming that it is an issue).
If there are date rollover issues some would have already been evident. Many would become evident on 19-JAN-2008...three months from now.
Billions of dollars in mortgages, bonds and other 30-year debt instruments that have maturity dayes "over the Y2K38 horizon" will have date rollover problems on that date as future values and interest payments are computed.
So far I haven't seen any mad dash out to the programming world for people to rush in and "fix" the problem during the next 12 weeks.
Exactly.
The Y2K38 "issue" won't jump up and bite everyone in the butt on 19-JAN-2038 all at once (again assuming that it is an issue).
If there are date rollover issues some would have already been evident. Many would become evident on 19-JAN-2008...three months from now.
Billions of dollars in mortgages, bonds and other 30-year debt instruments that have maturity dayes "over the Y2K38 horizon" will have date rollover problems on that date as future values and interest payments are computed.
So far I haven't seen any mad dash out to the programming world for people to rush in and "fix" the problem during the next 12 weeks.
RainTime,
Yes you are correct about the "Hardware Emulation" issue from that point of view. We can endlessly debate over this because there are two sides to it.
However when the original coding were to be put on a modernized machine, it fails to function. (Im talking about the code itself) In this case, it does not matter how fast the central processing unit are in modern machines. When I worked on the 5100 at the time, i realized that it does not matter what the speed is in a modern machine. The only reason we have fast machines nowadays is to increase the speed of "installation" parameters of softwares and to run graphicing units to match higher frequencies of such graphic user interface.
John Titor called it the "legacy code". I call it "Binarial programming". There is a significant difference between a Hardware Emulator and a Hardware Emulation. We have to be very careful how we define "legacy code". "Legacy code" means "no longer supported".
What code is on the IBM 5100? That is my point. I call it "RBP" as in Reversable Binary Programming because it has the capability to reverse binary input. In fact, it doesnt matter what name I use for it, but it just does that. This is why its being sent to a air force laboratory because our modern computers simply do not have the technical ability to do a such thing.
As we were all taught in school or universities about computer science, we all learned about binary programming. right? ... as computer scientists, we all know by heart, that binary CANNOT be reversed
as it has to be in proper order to define code. (dont misunderstand this part)
Well guess what.. the IBM 5100 has the capability to reverse binary programming. Yea I know that some of you will think this is BS!, because of your experience and knowledge in everything there is about computer science. All of us has never been taught in school about reversing the very fundamental universal computer language. (as in actual reality to do it)
"Legacy Code"--"Source Code"--"Binarial Programming" what ever name we use for this code, there is no misunderstanding that this IBM 5100 machine is unique. I wish I could prove this technology to the world, however the company that I used to work for, got it shipped out and hidden, perhaps to be buried in the bunkers under the pentagon. I am quite sure they will probably develop new computers, starting from stratch (new mainboard parts, new cpu, etc) to support that "reversable binary programming"..
Do you know why the military got this machine in their hands? do you know what "reversable binary programming" does to modern computers? Think about it.. to give you a hint, hackers would loovvveeee this machine. I didnt believe this crap coming from the company. They then turned the 5100 project around into a possible national security threat.
Now.... I dont really care what people think of what I just wrote here. I know that some of you will rebel against this because you had many years of computing and science experience, perhaps more experience than I do. At least I am no longer employed by the stupid company and am no longer under their idiotic control regarding non disclosures, I am moving away to another state as fast as I can. I have to hide for a while.
This is my last post here, luckily I still got internet connection until it gets disconnected tommorrow, good luck guys..
Think about what i have said on here in general.. please.. really think about it.. you will find out that I am right.
Here is a link that may help you understand about this alittle.. even though it gives out examples but make a general view of it... (just to get an idea what i went through)
http://www.objectmentor.com/resources/articles/WorkingEffectivelyWithLegacyCode.pdf
Yes you are correct about the "Hardware Emulation" issue from that point of view. We can endlessly debate over this because there are two sides to it.
However when the original coding were to be put on a modernized machine, it fails to function. (Im talking about the code itself) In this case, it does not matter how fast the central processing unit are in modern machines. When I worked on the 5100 at the time, i realized that it does not matter what the speed is in a modern machine. The only reason we have fast machines nowadays is to increase the speed of "installation" parameters of softwares and to run graphicing units to match higher frequencies of such graphic user interface.
John Titor called it the "legacy code". I call it "Binarial programming". There is a significant difference between a Hardware Emulator and a Hardware Emulation. We have to be very careful how we define "legacy code". "Legacy code" means "no longer supported".
What code is on the IBM 5100? That is my point. I call it "RBP" as in Reversable Binary Programming because it has the capability to reverse binary input. In fact, it doesnt matter what name I use for it, but it just does that. This is why its being sent to a air force laboratory because our modern computers simply do not have the technical ability to do a such thing.
As we were all taught in school or universities about computer science, we all learned about binary programming. right? ... as computer scientists, we all know by heart, that binary CANNOT be reversed
as it has to be in proper order to define code. (dont misunderstand this part)
Well guess what.. the IBM 5100 has the capability to reverse binary programming. Yea I know that some of you will think this is BS!, because of your experience and knowledge in everything there is about computer science. All of us has never been taught in school about reversing the very fundamental universal computer language. (as in actual reality to do it)
"Legacy Code"--"Source Code"--"Binarial Programming" what ever name we use for this code, there is no misunderstanding that this IBM 5100 machine is unique. I wish I could prove this technology to the world, however the company that I used to work for, got it shipped out and hidden, perhaps to be buried in the bunkers under the pentagon. I am quite sure they will probably develop new computers, starting from stratch (new mainboard parts, new cpu, etc) to support that "reversable binary programming"..
Do you know why the military got this machine in their hands? do you know what "reversable binary programming" does to modern computers? Think about it.. to give you a hint, hackers would loovvveeee this machine. I didnt believe this crap coming from the company. They then turned the 5100 project around into a possible national security threat.
Now.... I dont really care what people think of what I just wrote here. I know that some of you will rebel against this because you had many years of computing and science experience, perhaps more experience than I do. At least I am no longer employed by the stupid company and am no longer under their idiotic control regarding non disclosures, I am moving away to another state as fast as I can. I have to hide for a while.
This is my last post here, luckily I still got internet connection until it gets disconnected tommorrow, good luck guys..
Think about what i have said on here in general.. please.. really think about it.. you will find out that I am right.
Here is a link that may help you understand about this alittle.. even though it gives out examples but make a general view of it... (just to get an idea what i went through)
http://www.objectmentor.com/resources/articles/WorkingEffectivelyWithLegacyCode.pdf
by the way
just a note not intended to the users of this forum:
to the some of u who are reading this forum about this, I know damm well that some of you are from either the company or the military, you will not be able to track me down. I have used another IP address, user name and background computer infos that isnt real in some sense. Dont even try to find me because you will not be able to find me. I am smarter than you think I am.
bye.
(again, please do not take this seriously, as it is not directed at the users of the time travel institute, it is directed to the anonymous users.. thanks)
just a note not intended to the users of this forum:
to the some of u who are reading this forum about this, I know damm well that some of you are from either the company or the military, you will not be able to track me down. I have used another IP address, user name and background computer infos that isnt real in some sense. Dont even try to find me because you will not be able to find me. I am smarter than you think I am.
bye.
(again, please do not take this seriously, as it is not directed at the users of the time travel institute, it is directed to the anonymous users.. thanks)
RainmanTime
Timekeeper
Oh boy... (shakes his head)... I think I may let my friend bogz have some fun with this one. But let me at least have one go at it:
I am trying not to misunderstand. But perhaps you need to explain it a little better so we can understand, before we have the possibility to misunderstand.
Are you, perhaps, talking about "Endianness"... as in:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endianness
It sure sounds like that is what you are talking about (if not, please clarify). And you should note one of the entries in this wiki:
In fact, I have worked on an embedded flight control system where the flight control computer had to be bi-endian because it used two different network interface standards which were implemented with opposite endianness. Big Endian and Little Endian.
Too many chiefs and not enough endians??? :D
RMT
I am trying not to misunderstand. But perhaps you need to explain it a little better so we can understand, before we have the possibility to misunderstand.
Are you, perhaps, talking about "Endianness"... as in:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endianness
It sure sounds like that is what you are talking about (if not, please clarify). And you should note one of the entries in this wiki:
In fact, I have worked on an embedded flight control system where the flight control computer had to be bi-endian because it used two different network interface standards which were implemented with opposite endianness. Big Endian and Little Endian.
Too many chiefs and not enough endians??? :D
RMT
Similar threads
