Utilities
fed...@halifax.com
By JENNIFER BROOKS
WASHINGTON, May 14 (UPI) - Other millennium catastrophes pale in comparison
with the chaos that could result if year2000 computer glitches disable the
public utilities.
Subcommittee chairwoman Rep. Constance Morella, R-Md., said, ``If power shuts
down, the rest of our society will shut down in its wake.''
The biggest headache for utilities will not be rewriting their software
programs, but dismantling their hardware to find the millions of imbedded
microchips that are also vulnerable to the year 2000 bug. The microchips
control not only critical systems, but lessobvious devices like thermostats,
elevators and phone networks.
------
All along I have said that as far as utilities are concerned regular IT
systems are virtually meaningless as compared to embedded systems. For all
intents and purposes, nothing has been done. Morella rightly says that society
would shut down in the wake of non-compliant utilities.
So, name ONE compliant utility? Oh, you can? Name ten more. Can you? So
what? Drop in the bucket. Meaningless. There are about 9,000 all together in
the US. If the vast majority are not ready, you can forget the whole shebang.
Then there is water, and sewage, and food distribution. Oh, and banking and
telecommunications and manufacturing and transportation and......
Paul Milne
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/headlines/upi/story.html?s=n/upi/98/05/14/washingto
n_dateline_general_news/usyear200_1.html
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
Tim May
>
> All along I have said that as far as utilities are concerned regular IT
> systems are virtually meaningless as compared to embedded systems. For all
> intents and purposes, nothing has been done. Morella rightly says that society
> would shut down in the wake of non-compliant utilities.
Oh, nonsense!
These utilities are beginning to put together comittees to investigate the
need for forming working groups to assess the significance of remediation
scenarios and to establish strategic long range directions for better
understanding the ramifications of the alleged problem which some systems
may have. They expect to have preliminary plans completed within 2 years.
Meanwhile, like the government official in "Deep Impact" who quit his
goverment job and prepared his boat for a long trip with his family, lots
of folks are leaving. Or figuring out how to pin the blame on others. And
a lot of them are more worried about the lawsuits than about actually
fixing these millions of embedded systems.
The Mother of All CYAs is coming.
By the way, I worked for 12 years for Intel. Many of the embedded systems
are using Intel chips, built in the 1970s and 80s. Whether the chips are
Y2K compliant is neither here nor there, as it's the software that's
generally not. (I don't know if 8048s or 8051s or other microcontrollers
had any internal date format, and whether this constrained software
developers. But I know that many programmers were working with extremely
tight memory constraints, as programs were burned into PROM and ROM and
EPROM.)
The equipment that uses these old microcontrollers and PROMs and
whatnot...well, good luck on finding replacements, or PROM programmers, or
anything usable to look at these old systems. That old pump or furnace
controller or whatever that was designed in 1976 and installed along the
Alaskan oil pipeline in 1977 just won't be field-retrofittable. Better
hope the programmer didn't put date calculations in. (This is just one
example...I don't have any knowledge about the Alaskan oil pipeline,
except what I've read at www.garynorth.com.)
Even taking these thousands or millions of systems out of service to
fiddle with the internal programs will likely be disruptive. My strong
hunch is that most of these items will be ignored..."out of sight, out of
mind," until the day comes that they actually start failing.
It's not the systems that _are_ compliant that will get us, it's the
systems that _aren't_ compliant. An obvious point, but sometimes lost when
people talk about how much progress is being made in some particular
sector, while entire business sectors and industries are blithely waiting
for the government to fix their systems.
It's probably too late to do anything significant. Too many ripples.
--Tim May
--
Just Say No to "Big Brother Inside"
---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:----
Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,
ComSec 3DES: 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets,
Higher Power: 2^3,021,377 | black markets, collapse of governments.
Tim May
In article <tcmay-15059...@santacruz-x2-3-36.got.net>,
tc...@got.net (Tim May) wrote:
> By the way, I worked for 12 years for Intel. Many of the embedded systems
> are using Intel chips, built in the 1970s and 80s. Whether the chips are
> Y2K compliant is neither here nor there, as it's the software that's
> generally not. (I don't know if 8048s or 8051s or other microcontrollers
> had any internal date format, and whether this constrained software
> developers. But I know that many programmers were working with extremely
> tight memory constraints, as programs were burned into PROM and ROM and
> EPROM.)
>
> The equipment that uses these old microcontrollers and PROMs and
> whatnot...well, good luck on finding replacements, or PROM programmers, or
> anything usable to look at these old systems. That old pump or furnace
> controller or whatever that was designed in 1976 and installed along the
> Alaskan oil pipeline in 1977 just won't be field-retrofittable.
Something I should elaborate here: where will the replacement chips come from?
There is a limited supply of "really old" chips out there...stuff sitting
in inventories at vendors, at distributors, and in parts salvage outfits.
This is the supply traditionally used to "repair" old units which fail.
Thus, if a 1979 piece of equipment fails, it can sometimes be repaired by
finding an old chip to swap in.
(I'm not talking about old computers...nobody bothers to repair old 1979
"Exidy Sorcerer" or "TRS-80" PCs. Or even old VAXes. No, I'm talking about
industrial controllers and various machines which keep factories running.)
OK, so a limited number of old chips from the 70s and 80s can be found in
various places.
Here's the kicker: But not enough to repair or upgrade tens of thousands
or more systems. (To the quibblers: sure, some vendors will manage to
obtain chips. Some will even convince semiconductor manufactures to
(somehow) get old production lines restarted. (This is much harder than it
sounds...trust me.) Most will not.)
If a utility or oil refinery discovers that it's going to need 1400 new
3604 bipolar PROMs (as these were what were designed in, and newer devices
just won't fit the sockets or the circuits), it is doubtful they'll be
able to find this quantity ANYWHERE. Another company will need 7000
replacement Fairchild F8s and ROMs...not manufactured since 1981, and
Fairchild long ago was absorbed into National Semiconductor, and so on.
And they can't just call up Intel or Motorola or Mostek (long gone) or
whatever and ask if some more can be made. The designs are gone, the
process used to make the chips is long gone, and not even "obsolete parts
makers" in Taiwan or Korea are capable of making these old chips. Even
tooling up to make a pin-compatible replacement on a modern technology
would take a _long_ time.
I don't think this aspect of the Y2K problem has been discussed. I surmise
most folks with such controllers haven't identified their problems, and
certainly haven't realized that their systems will need replacement
chips...which no longer exist and which can't be built in the limited
amount of time remaining.
Obviously many companies will choose to upgrade their systems completely,
scrapping the older systems. This is a different issue, and has its own
time constraints...I don't believe most factory controllers can be
upgraded in even several years, given the usual constraints on engineering
talent, let alone in 594 days. And of course they're not starting such
replacement today, either. I figure the real panic will begin about a year
from now, with absolutely no hope of replacing or fixing these systems.
Jeffrey Schwartz
Tim May wrote:
Warning: the Usenet General has determined that the following post has an
impact of over "10 Milnes".
If you can read this without getting a very sick feeling deep inside,
you haven't read it carefully.
I've seen unloved 8051's hitting the surplus market for hobbiest, and
even though they are now VERY cheap, even hobbiests aren't buying them
because of the chip limitations.
Those suckers are just not going to be available when needed.
Fairchild.... Now there's a name that takes me back --
(visual flash back sequence, insert movie clip)
"Fairchild Kenobi.. Now there's a name I've not heard
in many a year. "
(end flashback/ movie clip)
My local power company is 1% along on embedded chip remediation - 14% complete
on assesment. I suspect they don't even have a list of what they need to go look
for yet.
Bradley K. Sherman
In article <tcmay-15059...@santacruz-x2-3-36.got.net>,
Tim May <tc...@got.net> wrote:
>> The equipment that uses these old microcontrollers and PROMs and
>> whatnot...well, good luck on finding replacements, or PROM programmers, or
>> anything usable to look at these old systems. That old pump or furnace
>> controller or whatever that was designed in 1976 and installed along the
>> Alaskan oil pipeline in 1977 just won't be field-retrofittable.
Okay, but have you seen any examples of this phenomenon? Surely
by now at least one story should have leaked naming a part and
with enough details for us to check it. Your scenario is entirely
plausible, just like all the other ghost stories posted
to csy2k, but if there are tens of thousands or millions of
such instances, shouldn't there be, say, ten thoroughly
documented reports?
I know that absence of evidence isn't the same as evidence of
absence but ...
--bks
Bradley K. Sherman
Tim, you're obviously a smart guy. A scientist perhaps? Which
link or article at www.garynorth.com would you point to as
the most convincing evidence for a real problem with embedded
components? Every time I follow a lead there I reach dead
cyberspace or an ambiguous story.
--bks
Tim May
In article <bksEt0...@netcom.com>, b...@netcom.com (Bradley K. Sherman)
wrote:
> In article <tcmay-15059...@santacruz-x2-3-36.got.net>,
> Tim May <tc...@got.net> wrote:
> >> The equipment that uses these old microcontrollers and PROMs and
> >> whatnot...well, good luck on finding replacements, or PROM programmers, or
> >> anything usable to look at these old systems. That old pump or furnace
> >> controller or whatever that was designed in 1976 and installed along the
> >> Alaskan oil pipeline in 1977 just won't be field-retrofittable.
>
>
> Okay, but have you seen any examples of this phenomenon? Surely
> by now at least one story should have leaked naming a part and
> with enough details for us to check it. Your scenario is entirely
> plausible, just like all the other ghost stories posted
> to csy2k, but if there are tens of thousands or millions of
> such instances, shouldn't there be, say, ten thoroughly
> documented reports?
A couple of points:
* I was using reasoning from first principles, logic, not based on reports.
* The reports may be there, if one knows what to look for.
* I'm not being paid to conduct polls like this, so I'm not looking.
* Finally, "yes" to the general issue. There have been orphan chips and
systems which had to be upgraded because of the "orphan chip" problem.
When I was at Intel we often sent out announcements to our major customers
that we were taking orders for a "final build" of a product, plus we built
some number over and above these final orders.
(More recently, speed has been an issue. One government agency purchased
133-MHz or somesuch Pentiums...the vendor offered the government a free
upgrade to 200 MHz machines, as Intel was no longer making 133-MHz
parts...the bureaucrats refused.)
But the orphan chip problem is made drastically worse here for a couple of
reasons:
1. Much more time has elapsed.
2. The engineers are probably just beginning to realize they need to look
into how they're going to replace the chips that need replacing when the
chips haven't been made in 5 years, or 10 years, or even 20 years.
3. Instead of being spread over many years, with various companies facing
orphan chip problems at various times, they'll all be coming to the same
realization over the next year or so. (Or later, if the expected delays
and stalls happen.)
So, in the best spirit of science, first principles arguments suggest that
I am right in my prediction. Now we need to keep our ears open for reports
that this is happening.
I'm betting it will.
fed...@halifax.com
In article <tcmay-15059...@santacruz-x2-3-36.got.net>,
>
> > By the way, I worked for 12 years for Intel. Many of the embedded systems
> > are using Intel chips, built in the 1970s and 80s. Whether the chips are
> > Y2K compliant is neither here nor there, as it's the software that's
> > generally not. (I don't know if 8048s or 8051s or other microcontrollers
> > had any internal date format, and whether this constrained software
> > developers. But I know that many programmers were working with extremely
> > tight memory constraints, as programs were burned into PROM and ROM and
> > EPROM.)
> >
> > whatnot...well, good luck on finding replacements, or PROM programmers,
or
> > anything usable to look at these old systems. That old pump or furnace
> > controller or whatever that was designed in 1976 and installed along the
> > Alaskan oil pipeline in 1977 just won't be field-retrofittable.
>
Balderdash, Tim.
Everyone knows that dedicated engineers are taking this problem seriously and
are working very hard to solve the problem. Everyone knows that chips that are
no longer manufactured can easily be replaced with up-grades. Takes a couple
of weeks at most. And everyone knows that while all systems may not be
repaired in time, those that are not will be worked around to minimize
inconvenience and disruptions.
(This parenthetic note is for the sarcasm impaired who do not recognize the
true nature of the paragraph above.)
Paul Milne
> --
> Just Say No to "Big Brother Inside"
> ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:----
> Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,
> ComSec 3DES: 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
> W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets,
> Higher Power: 2^3,021,377 | black markets, collapse of governments.
>
RonKenyon
Tim May wrote:
>* Finally, "yes" to the general issue. There have been orphan chips and
>systems which had to be upgraded because of the "orphan chip" problem.
I fought an "orphan chip" problem barehanded back in '82 or thereabouts. (I'm
basically a s/w guy, you really don't want me pulling off tricks like this.)
T'warn't PROM's or anything Y2K-ish, just an Op-Amp critical to the function of
the only tape drive available to back up a small-enterprise MRP system. The
singleton built into the original circuit was no longer available, the
comparable spec was only found in 4's or 8's etc, though the drive was old, it
was not *that* old, and the client - an electronics mfgr - had excellent
buyers, beggars and scroungers. The original could not be matched, and the fix
required wiring up a goofy, spidery-looking thingamajig, and luckily the
tolerances were loose enough to get by.
Replacing orphan PROM blanks would be 2^N harder, where N is uncomfortably
large. [Maybe somebody could cook up generic replacer daughterboards, using
current high-speed high-volume ROM componentry to mimic/match/patch a variety
of older packagings and protocols.]
Note to bks, I'm not clear what issue you're raising ... do you question
whether *any* problems will afflict embedded systems? Or, (assuming that
common-mode failure downs an entire line of systems) do you disbelieve that
requirements will outrun service stock, or that finding replacement PROMs for a
"simple" fix will constitute a formidable problem?
-- RonKenyon
Ivan.S...@snet.net
>>Note to bks, I'm not clear what issue you're raising ... do you question
>>whether *any* problems will afflict embedded systems? Or, (assuming that
>>common-mode failure downs an entire line of systems) do you disbelieve that
>>requirements will outrun service stock, or that finding replacement PROMs for a
>>"simple" fix will constitute a formidable problem?
>No I'm not disputing the concept. I've dealt with orphaned
>components as well. But is there a Y2K connection? I guess that if one
>has to replace thousands of systems because of
>Y2k there could be lack-of-inventory problems, but when are
>we going to hear about these? Surely with all the different industries,
>with all the various systems there should be
>very concrete examples, not just speculation.
> --bks
Ok. With Indonesia in the toilet. South Korea the same. China and Japan
without a clue as to the alpha-numeric y2k, who is going to produce the
quantity of replacement parts?
--
-----------------------------------------------------------
Ivan.S...@snet.net
-----------------------------------------------------------
fed...@halifax.com
In article <bksEt0...@netcom.com>,
b...@netcom.com (Bradley K. Sherman) wrote:
>
> In article <tcmay-15059...@santacruz-x2-3-36.got.net>,
> >> The equipment that uses these old microcontrollers and PROMs and
> >> whatnot...well, good luck on finding replacements, or PROM programmers,
or
> >> anything usable to look at these old systems. That old pump or furnace
> >> controller or whatever that was designed in 1976 and installed along the
> >> Alaskan oil pipeline in 1977 just won't be field-retrofittable.
>
> by now at least one story should have leaked naming a part and
> with enough details for us to check it. Your scenario is entirely
> plausible, just like all the other ghost stories posted
> to csy2k, but if there are tens of thousands or millions of
> such instances, shouldn't there be, say, ten thoroughly
> documented reports?
>
> absence but ...
>
You still insist on being an idiot. Name the company who can not replace it's
embedded systems who will come out an admit same, causing it's share price to
fall out of bed. You really take the cake in your calculated stupidity.
I will continue to educate you.
Paul Milne
> --bks
Bradley K. Sherman
Bradley K. Sherman
In article <355cfe61$1$vina.fpunssry$mr2...@news.javanet.com>,
<Ivan.S...@snet.net> wrote:
>
>Ok. With Indonesia in the toilet. South Korea the same. China and Japan
>without a clue as to the alpha-numeric y2k, who is going to produce the
>quantity of replacement parts?
>
Ireland and Malaysia. Now which parts are you talking about,
the ones for the Caterpillar Diesel?
--bks
Jim Abel
>Bradley K. Sherman wrote...
>Tim, you're obviously a smart guy. A scientist perhaps?
>Which link or article at www.garynorth.com would you
>point to as the most convincing evidence for a real
>problem with embedded components? Every time I
>follow a lead there I reach dead cyberspace or an
>ambiguous story.
Gee, Bradley, I just checked all Gary's embedded systems stuff dating back
to the 1st of March. I found 1 bad link (to a weekly emag) and 1 link that
said the article had been moved to an archive. Every other link was intact.
I guess ambiguity is unavoidable, for now, but the fan is spinning and there
are clumps of unknown brown matter flying through the air. Are you going to
let the fact that the composition of the brown stuff is unknown stop you
from noticing that it's heading straight for the fan?
Jim Abel
Ivan.S...@snet.net
In <bksEt1...@netcom.com>, on 05/16/98
> --bks
Surely you jest.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------
Ivan.S...@snet.net
-----------------------------------------------------------
Bradley K. Sherman
In article <SG771.2128$X91.3...@news3.atl.bellsouth.net>,
Jim Abel <evolutio...@usa.net> wrote:
>I guess ambiguity is unavoidable, for now, but the fan is spinning and there
>are clumps of unknown brown matter flying through the air. Are you going to
>let the fact that the composition of the brown stuff is unknown stop you
>from noticing that it's heading straight for the fan?
So which is your selection for the most convincing article or
link with respect to embedded systems?
--bks
Fred Swirbul
>All along I have said that as far as utilities are concerned regular IT
>systems are virtually meaningless as compared to embedded systems. For all
>intents and purposes, nothing has been done. Morella rightly says that society
>would shut down in the wake of non-compliant utilities.
>
>So, name ONE compliant utility? Oh, you can? Name ten more. Can you? So
>what? Drop in the bucket. Meaningless. There are about 9,000 all together in
>the US. If the vast majority are not ready, you can forget the whole shebang.
Paul, Paul, Paul - Why do you continue to miss state facts that support your
view, even after you have been corrected. Yes, there are probably 9000 utilities
in the US, but a very few control the vast amount of generation and distribution.
Just going off the numbers from the EPRI Y2K conference, a mere 29 utilities
control 78.2% of all nuclear plant generation. These are the big guys who also
control a lot of the fossil generation, but I need to do some more fact compilation
before I can give you those numbers.
And of course no one can say they are compliant right now, there is still plenty
of work to do. But the work is getting done.
Just as a gut check, one person at the EPRI Y2K conference asked the entire
group if anyone thought their lights would be out on 1/1/2000. Before anyone
could answer, I spoke up and stated that question can't be answered with
certainty because Y2K testing is not complete at any utility (I know Paul, that
wasn't very pollyannish of me). That fact was understood by all, but the question
was repeated, just to see what peoples best guess was. Not a single person raised
their hands. Is this a guarentee? No. But it has to be an indication that a great
deal of people directly involved in the problem think that it is solvable.
Fred Swirbul
The Goobers
Fred Swirbul wrote:
>
[snippage]
> Just as a gut check, one person at the EPRI Y2K conference asked the entire
> group if anyone thought their lights would be out on 1/1/2000. Before anyone
> could answer, I spoke up and stated that question can't be answered with
> certainty because Y2K testing is not complete at any utility (I know Paul, that
> wasn't very pollyannish of me). That fact was understood by all, but the question
> was repeated, just to see what peoples best guess was. Not a single person raised
> their hands. Is this a guarentee? No. But it has to be an indication that a great
> deal of people directly involved in the problem think that it is solvable.
Mr Swirbul, I must e'er-so-respectfully disagree with your conclusion
that the lack of hand-raising indicated 'that a great deal of people
directly involved in the problem think that it is solvable'; I would say
that it indicated that all attendees had no desire to raise their hands
at such a time. On what do I base my conclusion? Why... on A Story, of
course... apochryphal, perhaps, but Eminently Plausible:
A corporate seminar on drug-abuse in the workplace was being addressed
by a speaker. He began by asking 'How many of you think that drug abuse
is a problem in your community?'
The audience, suits, corner-office-dwellers and their sycophants,
dutifully raised hands... this is something Everyone Knows, right?
The speaker continued, quackity quack, woof woof... and then asked 'Now,
how many of you think that your workforce accurately reflects the
composition of your community?'
Again hands went up... as they'd damned well *better*, otherwise a
hurkin' great EEO lawsuit comes down the pike. Anyhow, the speaker then
drones on, blurbity blurble, honk honk wheet... and then asks 'Now, how
many of you think that drug abuse is a problem in your workforce?'
No hands go up.
DD
Mickey
fed...@halifax.com wrote:
>
[snip]
> what? Drop in the bucket. Meaningless.
As it does not support Mr. Milnes POV.
In the past 5 years, I have remediated 7 utilities. All but the one I am
currently on are now compliant. Yes Mr. Milne, just 7. I am, however, 6
for 7 so far. I will be 7 for 7 soon.
> There are about 9,000 all together in
> the US. If the vast majority are not ready, you can forget the whole shebang.
More BS. Of these 9,000, many are teeny weeny locals with little or no
impact on the whole. If the big ones make, alles gute.
mickey
fed...@halifax.com
In article <6jje9d$k...@dfw-ixnews5.ix.netcom.com>,
Fred Swirbul <fswi...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> In article <6ji20m$pkh$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> fed...@halifax.com wrote:
>
> >All along I have said that as far as utilities are concerned regular IT
> >systems are virtually meaningless as compared to embedded systems. For
all
> >intents and purposes, nothing has been done. Morella rightly says that
society
> >would shut down in the wake of non-compliant utilities.
> >
in
> >the US. If the vast majority are not ready, you can forget the whole
shebang.
>
your
> view, even after you have been corrected.
I have misstated nothing. There are approximately 9000 utilities in the US. I
said NOTHING about who or who did not control generation.
Yes, there are probably 9000
utilities
> in the US, but a very few control the vast amount of generation and
distribution.
>
> Just going off the numbers from the EPRI Y2K conference, a mere 29 utilities
> control 78.2% of all nuclear plant generation. These are the big guys who
also
> control a lot of the fossil generation, but I need to do some more fact
compilation
> before I can give you those numbers.
>
> And of course no one can say they are compliant right now, there is still
plenty
> of work to do. But the work is getting done.
>
> Just as a gut check, one person at the EPRI Y2K conference asked the entire
> group if anyone thought their lights would be out on 1/1/2000. Before anyone
> could answer, I spoke up and stated that question can't be answered with
> certainty because Y2K testing is not complete at any utility (I know Paul,
that
> wasn't very pollyannish of me). That fact was understood by all, but the
question
> was repeated, just to see what peoples best guess was. Not a single person
raised
> their hands. Is this a guarentee? No. But it has to be an indication that a
great
> deal of people directly involved in the problem think that it is solvable.
>
That is precisely why it is not solvable.
Paul Milne
> Fred Swirbul
Jim Abel
>Bradley K. Sherman...
>
>So which is your selection for the most convincing article or
>link with respect to embedded systems?
This article scared the he** out of me.
http://www.pathfinder.com/fortune/1998/980427/imt.html
I'm not sure where (or whether) Gary has a link to it.
The thing I find most disquieting is the implication that manufacturers who
have worked the most assiduously to modernize their equipment are the most
at risk.
Don't get me wrong, Bradley. I don't think that all automated systems are
going to go up in a puff of blue smoke on 2000/1/1. I think the rate (and
severity) of failures is going to briefly skyrocket from some tiny
(0.0001%?) percentage several orders of magnitude (0.1%?). Nobody knows the
effect this will have. Some companies will find work arounds, some will fix
things and keep right on going. Some will declare bankruptcy and some will
die six months later after a valiant struggle.
The overall systemic effects of so many individual events is impossible to
predict. My feeling is that the Glitch may well act as an evolutionary
force, selecting for success companies (and individuals and governments)
that are adaptable, independent of outside resources and adept at spotting
changing circumstance. Things may well end up better. Eventually.
Jim Abel
"Or Humpty Dumpty might fall off the wall, but I hope not."
Harlan Smith
The Goobers <docd...@erols.com> wrote in article
<355D84...@erols.com>...
> Fred Swirbul wrote:
> Mr Swirbul, I must e'er-so-respectfully disagree with your conclusion
> that the lack of hand-raising indicated that a great deal of people
> directly involved in the problem think that it is solvable'; I would say
> that it indicated that all attendees had no desire to raise their hands
> at such a time.
VERY GOOD! DD!
I believe Fred is asking us to make an insupportable inference.
Instead of merely injecting the comment that incomplete investigation
prevents anyone from really knowing the answer, I think that Fred should
have suggested a "Secret Ballot".
A "Secret Ballot" might have yielded a more accurate response, but even
then people would have held back due to mere association with the EPRI
group. That is, they would have held back so as to not stigmatize the EPRI
effort by displaying negative attitudes on the part of the participants. In
my view it would be more important to the participants to make the
conference productively attack the technical problems than publicize the
truth.
If a "Secret Ballot" could be taken from the same individuals, without
linking the results to the EPRI group, the accuracy of the results might be
even further improved.
Harlan
Harlan Smith
Mickey <mic...@nospam.home.com> wrote in article
<355EE13F...@nospam.home.com>...
> fed...@halifax.com wrote:
> In the past 5 years, I have remediated 7 utilities. All but the one I am
> currently on are now compliant. Yes Mr. Milne, just 7. I am, however, 6
> for 7 so far. I will be 7 for 7 soon.
Well this is very interesting, but far too vague to provide any useful
information.
a) Did you function as a contributor to various remediation teams?
b) Were you a team leader?
c) Did your company contract for the entire remediation job on turnkey
basis?
d) What were the sizes of this utilities?
e) Were these utilities Investor Owned, Municipal or Cooperative?
f) What size (in terms of number of meters or generating capacity) are
these utilities?
g) How many total substations and switchyards do the 7 utilities operate?
h) Did you work on distribution systems?
i) Did you work on generating stations?
j) Did you work on billing and/or other administrative systems?
k) Did you test and remediate "embedded systems" at generating stations?
l) What were your findings with respect to the Y2K compliance of the
"embedded systems" encountered?
m) What remediation actions were completed for "embedded systems".
n) Are any repair actions identified for "embedded systems" now complete?
It is entirely unproductive to make sweeping assertions without any factual
content. If you supply some facts, as Fred Swirbul, Rick Cowles and others
do, then perhaps will assign some credibility to your statements.
> More BS. Of these 9,000, many are teeny weeny locals with little or no
> impact on the whole. If the big ones make, alles gute.
I believe that Rick Cowles now uses the figure of 7815, per recent
testimony to Congress. Yes, it would be appropriate to discuss the small
coops separately from the investor owned and municipal utilities.
Similarly, you should identify what types of systems you have worked with.
Harlan
Ivan.S...@snet.net
>fed...@halifax.com wrote:
>>
>[snip]
>> what? Drop in the bucket. Meaningless.
> As it does not support Mr. Milnes POV.
>In the past 5 years, I have remediated 7 utilities. All but the one I am
>currently on are now compliant. Yes Mr. Milne, just 7. I am, however, 6
>for 7 so far. I will be 7 for 7 soon.
>mickey
Would you care to share with us the names of the Utilities that are
compliant. Not that I disbelieve you, but it seems odd that you were able
to make 6 compliant when all I hear is thousands upon thousands of
embedded controls need to be check, PC's need remediation, and the Cobol
programs need a re-write, as well as making sure that each utility
interacts with each other. Even with a massive crew, it seems to me that
it would not be possible for you to have completed 6 projects.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------
Ivan.S...@snet.net
-----------------------------------------------------------
Richard Brennan
Harlan Smith wrote:
>
> The Goobers wrote:
>
> > Mr Swirbul, I must e'er-so-respectfully disagree with your conclusion
> > that the lack of hand-raising indicated that a great deal of people
> > directly involved in the problem think that it is solvable'; I would
say
> > that it indicated that all attendees had no desire to raise their hands
> > at such a time.
>
> VERY GOOD! DD!
>
> I believe Fred is asking us to make an insupportable inference.
>
> Instead of merely injecting the comment that incomplete investigation
> prevents anyone from really knowing the answer, I think that Fred should
> have suggested a "Secret Ballot".
>
> [parsnip]
Another possibility spring to mind. The initial question could be reversed
to something like:
"Do you think the lights will stay on at rollover?"
I'm mightily persuaded that the audience would raise their hands, possibly
to a person.
This would then be a Good Thing as we all know that "many hands make
light work".
RB
(I'm most *awfully* sorry - don't know what came over me!)
fed...@halifax.com
In article <355EE13F...@nospam.home.com>,
Mickey <mic...@nospam.home.com> wrote:
>
> fed...@halifax.com wrote:
> >
> [snip]
> > So, name ONE compliant utility? Oh, you can? Name ten more. Can you? So
> > what? Drop in the bucket. Meaningless.
>
> As it does not support Mr. Milnes POV.
>
> In the past 5 years, I have remediated 7 utilities. All but the one I am
> currently on are now compliant. Yes Mr. Milne, just 7. I am, however, 6
> for 7 so far. I will be 7 for 7 soon.
Oh, Goody. As of this point in time I am not aware of ANY that are compliant.
Which means 100% good to go.
Name Them. As I wish to contact them to ascertain their compliance.
'Compliant' would also include embedded systems. I will check that as well.
So, if those six were ready that would be a whopping total of what? less than
1%. WOW!!!!! I'm impressed! Boy, if we could only get another 1% remediated
we'd be where? In the same sh*tcan?
Paul Milne
>
> > There are about 9,000 all together in
> > the US. If the vast majority are not ready, you can forget the whole
shebang.
>
> More BS. Of these 9,000, many are teeny weeny locals with little or no
> impact on the whole. If the big ones make, alles gute.
>
> mickey
Harlan Smith
Richard Brennan <richard...@lineone.net> wrote in article
<01bd80df$f588fda0$4ae4...@allsystems.demon.co.uk>...
> This would then be a Good Thing as we all know that "many hands make
> light work".
ROFL. Good One
Harlan
RonKenyon
Fred Swirbul wrote:
>Just as a gut check, one person at the EPRI Y2K conference asked the entire
>group if anyone thought their lights would be out on 1/1/2000.
<snip>
>Not a single person raised
>their hands. Is this a guarentee? No. But it has to be an indication that a
>great
>deal of people directly involved in the problem think that it is solvable.
At least two other interpretations come to mind. First, a fallacy of
statistical composition. "Will *your* lights go out" might mean "is the
likelihood of failure where you live > 50/50?" ... not the same as asking "will
anybody's lights go out" or "will 20% of the lights go out" etc.
Another from social dynamics. Rarely will a work group admitt their task will
fall behind stated schedule, but commonly they will opine that (real or
hypothetical) similarly-situated teams on similarly-described tasks will not
meet similar schedules.
In either case, there's some mighty big sigma surrounding whatever X we're
playing with. My gut feel (grounded in large systems behavior and large
organization information processes) is less optimistic than Fred's (grounded in
piece-part observations and workarounds). We won't know for a while who's
closer to the mark.
Incidentally, my guess is the biggest threat to utilities is neither the big
accounsting and billing systems nor the myriad embedded instrumentation and
control systems.
-- RonKenyon
Bradley K. Sherman
In article <1Mg71.1143$Pd.14...@news4.atl.bellsouth.net>,
Jim Abel <evolutio...@usa.net> wrote:
> ...
>http://www.pathfinder.com/fortune/1998/980427/imt.html
>I'm not sure where (or whether) Gary has a link to it.
That's just a catalogue of puffery. Direct question nicely
dodged, Jim. I reiterate: http://www.garynorth.com is empty
of real evidence of problems with embedded systems.
--bks
Harlan Smith
RonKenyon <ronk...@aol.com> wrote in article
<199805161703...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
> In either case, there's some mighty big sigma surrounding whatever X
we're
> playing with. My gut feel (grounded in large systems behavior and large
> organization information processes) is less optimistic than Fred's
(grounded in
> piece-part observations and workarounds). We won't know for a while
who's
> closer to the mark.
Not for a _long while according to Fred, because the utilities are just
going along as business per usual, without letting the Y2K problem
influence their outage schedules at all. This is deplorable. The 1999
repair environment will be terrible. What a hell of a bad time to start
ordering parts. Are they crazy!!!!!!!
> Incidentally, my guess is the biggest threat to utilities is neither the
big
> accounting and billing systems nor the myriad embedded instrumentation
and
> control systems.
OK. What is it that's bothering you Ron? Drop the other shoe! Is it perhaps
that the customers that fund their operations are expected to become
insolvent?
Harlan
David
On Sat, 16 May 1998 17:04:30 GMT, b...@netcom.com (Bradley K. Sherman)
wrote:
>In article <1Mg71.1143$Pd.14...@news4.atl.bellsouth.net>,
"Catalogue of puffery"??!!
Okay, I'm convinced. You are a pollyana.
David
Tim May
In article <01bd80f7$d7be6ae0$3d96...@CRC3.concentric.net>, "Harlan
Smith" <hwsmith...@cris.com> wrote:
> Not for a _long while according to Fred, because the utilities are just
> going along as business per usual, without letting the Y2K problem
> influence their outage schedules at all. This is deplorable. The 1999
> repair environment will be terrible. What a hell of a bad time to start
> ordering parts. Are they crazy!!!!!!!
"What a bad time to start ordering parts" indeed!
I explored some of these issues in another thread (in
comp.software.year-2000), about orphan chips and the impossibility of
finding many spare parts in a short amount of time.
I worked from 1974 to 1986 as a device physicist at Intel, so my comments
here reflect my Intel perspective. (I retired in '86, but still follow
Intel.) I expect the same general points to apply to other chip companies
as well.
Can any "orphan chips" (chips not made by the manufacturer for some time)
be obtained? (For the sake of this discussion, I'm concentrating on the
_program storage_ chips, e.g., the ROMs, PROMs, and EPROMs, as these will
be the chips which Y2K programming upgrades will have to have new storage
for. The processors themselves usually don't contain program storage
permanently burned in. (Some microcontrollers do, and these will have to
replaced, presumably.)
If some business or factory or utility just needs a handful of parts, they
may be able to scrounge them (depending on how early they get started, how
many others are also seeking the parts, etc.) If they need hundreds or
thousands, forget it. The inventories don't exist, of orphaned chips, and
they'll very likely have to beg the chip maker to make more.
(In many of the cases I'm talking about, it's the "nonvolatile" memory
chips--the ROMs, PROMs, and EPROMs--that will need replacing. Replacing or
reprogramming, which of course is not possible for ROMs and PROMs. EPROMs
can be reprogrammed provided the necessary tools are available.)
But can these old products be produced? In most cases, for chips older
than 5 years, absolutely not. It would require going back to an obsolete
process, or redesigning and relaying out the chip on a current technology.
In some cases, the technology is absolutely incompatible with the design.
And these companies have the intellectual property rights to these
designs, until patents and copyrights expire. Thus, the "Intel 1702A,"
last made in the late 70s but used in a _lot_ of industrial controllers
and microprocessor-based automation systems, is not available from Intel
nor from anyone else.
The costs to restart an old product line would be enormous. This works
against any such thing happening. Unless a _lot_ of customers clamor and
offer to pay outrageous prices, it just ain't gonna happen. (Intel would
not commit valuable resources and spend a couple of million in NRE
(Nonrecurring Engineering) expenses and such to make "only" 10,000 1702As,
but they might for a million of them. But of course the needs will not be
known until, probably, 1/1/2000.
(And the 1702A is only one such chip. Extend this to the 2316, the 3604,
the 8048, and so on. And extend it to Texas Instruments, National,
Motorola, and the scads of former chip makers which no longer exist or are
in completely different businesses. Hopeless.)
How long might it take, if it is possible, to restart a line? Assuming a
company _knows_ they will be willing to restart the line, figure on some
very rough estimates:
-- 2-4 months to even find the original mask layouts, if they still exist,
or the CAD data base (which only came into being after about 1980)
-- 3-6 months to convert the design, if possible, to a current process
-- 2-3 months to get the initial runs of silicon out of the fabs
-- 1-4 months to debug, get read to ramp production
-- 2-4 months to get volume production
So, anywhere from 10 to 22 months to get an old product redesigned and
out. Assuming it starts NOW.
(What we used to call a "Blue Flame" special could be whizzed through fab
in less time, and a crash program to convert old designs, etc. might be
feasible. Extremely expensive, though. And unless there was a clearly
defined, compelling need, it just won't happen. Period.)
Conclusions:
1. Companies haven't even identified the fixes they need, though there are
already some signs of scrounging (reported here and to me in e-mail).
2. Even if they identified a need to replace X, Y, and Z devices, in
various quantities, there is little chance the chip companies even _could_
make 10- or 20-year old designs in modern chip-making plants.
3. Or would want to, given limited resources (and their own Y2K problems).
4. But assuming all of the above can be ignored, it will take at least a
year and maybe two years to get these chips built.
5. It ain't gonna happen.
--Tim May
Bradley K. Sherman
In article <355de1df...@news.earthlink.net>,
Okay you took your shot. Now answer the question: what article
or link at http://www.garynorth.com is best evidence for a
problem with embedded systems? Can't answer it can you?
Okay, what paragraph in the referenced article is best
evidence for a problem with embedded systems? Can't
answer that one either, I wager.
I remember scores of articles just like this circa 1990-1994
about the hackers and crackers and how the information
infrastructure was going to come tumbling down. Catalogues
of plausible scenarios and anecdotes.
You think I'd be wasting my time trading barbs with half-wit
parrots like Milne if I didn't think that Y2K was real?
--bks
fed...@halifax.com
In article <bksEt2...@netcom.com>,
Brought to you by:
Bradley "Dead Men Bleed" Sherman
Paul Milne
> --bks
Harlan Smith
Tim May <tc...@got.net> wrote in article
<tcmay-16059...@santacruz-x2-37.got.net>...
> Conclusions:
>
> 1. Companies haven't even identified the fixes they need, though there
are
> already some signs of scrounging (reported here and to me in e-mail).
>
> 2. Even if they identified a need to replace X, Y, and Z devices, in
> various quantities, there is little chance the chip companies even
_could_
> make 10- or 20-year old designs in modern chip-making plants.
>
> 3. Or would want to, given limited resources (and their own Y2K
problems).
>
> 4. But assuming all of the above can be ignored, it will take at least a
> year and maybe two years to get these chips built.
>
> 5. It ain't gonna happen.
>
> --Tim May
Exactly, so what _might have been fixed by a simple part subsitution may
have be fixed by significant redesign to use current parts, all the more
reason why adhering to their silly outage schedules is absurd. We're big
boys, if they tell us we'll have some "service interruptions" from time to
time while they really "work the problem", we can handle that. But to just
let us run off the edge of the cliff is despicable.
Harlan
David
On Sat, 16 May 1998 19:26:13 GMT, b...@netcom.com (Bradley K. Sherman)
wrote:
>Okay, what paragraph in the referenced article is best
>evidence for a problem with embedded systems? Can't
>answer that one either, I wager.
>
Selected paragraphs from:
http://www.pathfinder.com/fortune/1998/980427/imt.html
April 27, 1998
Industry Wakes Up to the Year 2000 Menace
Unfounded gloom and doom? Not if you
listen to Ralph J. Szygenda, chief information
officer at General Motors, whose staff is
now feverishly correcting what he calls
"catastrophic problems" in every GM plant.
In March the automaker disclosed that it
expects to spend $400 million to $550
million to fix year 2000 problems in factories
as well as engineering labs and offices. Or
consider the words of Rob Baxter,
Honeywell's vice president in charge of
making his company's line of industrial
control products "year 2000 compliant," to use computer industry
jargon. From what he has seen among Honeywell customers, Baxter
fears that "some plants will have trouble operating and will have to
shut down. Some will run at a reduced scope. I expect considerable
system outages during December 1999 through February 2000."
...
So for a long time manufacturing companies snoozed, including GM.
When he arrived at the automotive giant a year and a half ago to take
over the CIO job, recalls Ralph Szygenda, he was amazed "that
most people assumed that the factory floor didn't have year 2000
problems." Szygenda, with experience in manufacturing at Texas
Instruments, didn't settle for assumptions. He shook GM out of its
slumber by turning to outside companies such as Deloitte & Touche
and Raytheon Engineers & Constructors, specialists in solving the
problem, which sent in 91 experts to assess the automaker's
situation. Supplemented by squads of GM technicians and
programmers, these experts fanned out through GM's 117 facilities in
35 countries. What they found shocked even the factory-wise
Szygenda.
"At each one of our factories there are catastrophic problems," says
the blunt-talking executive. "Amazingly enough, machines on the
factory floor are far more sensitive to incorrect dates than we ever
anticipated. When we tested robotic devices for transition into the
year 2000, for example, they just froze and stopped operating."
Szygenda quickly placed manufacturing facilities at the top of the
list of the three "most dangerous" year 2000 areas at GM, followed by
the company's supply base and the portion of businesswide software
systems that supports production controls and logistic processes.
Now, says Szygenda, "we're working feverishly and fast" to get the
problem under control. All by itself, GM has two billion lines of
software to check. The company is also retiring 1,700 obsolete
computer systems.
...
Leap-year snafus damaged production lines when programmers
failed to account for the extra day in February 1996. At a small U.S.
manufacturer of industrial solutions that prefers to remain unnamed,
production ground to a halt on Jan. 1, 1997. Before workers could
remedy the situation, the liquids hardened in the pipelines, which had
to be replaced at a cost of $1 million. That caused late deliveries
and the loss of three customers. A similar leap-year oversight caused
$1million of damage at Comalco's aluminum refinery in Tasmania, when
controls at all smelting-pot lines shut down, damaging five pot cells
beyond repair.
David
ET
Bradley K. Sherman wrote:
<snip>
> You think I'd be wasting my time trading barbs with half-wit
> parrots like Milne if I didn't think that Y2K was real?
>
> --bks
Hey Bradley. I've read your stuff for some time now and you've made
some excellent points. When you say you know y2k is real, what does
that mean? What do you expect the outcome of all this will be?
--
ET
Bradley K. Sherman
In article <355e0acf...@news.earthlink.net>,
David <techi...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> ...
>now feverishly correcting what he calls
>"catastrophic problems" in every GM plant.
>In March the automaker disclosed that it
>expects to spend $400 million to $550
>million to fix year 2000 problems in factories
Or in other words about 1/3 of one per cent of
their sales last year.
>the blunt-talking executive. "Amazingly enough, machines on the
>factory floor are far more sensitive to incorrect dates than we ever
>anticipated. When we tested robotic devices for transition into the
>year 2000, for example, they just froze and stopped operating."
Yes we've been over this before. During a test they froze.
After the test they started working again. Probably a
bad test harness.
As usual I ask for best evidence of a serious problem
with embedded systems and the response is a hodgepodge
of anecdotes. When will the plant be named, the components
identified and a report of the actual causes filed?
Heck, Cory H. is still top of the list with his 197A
report.
--bks
Jim Abel
>Bradley K. Sherman wrote...
>
>That's just a catalogue of puffery. Direct question nicely
>dodged, Jim. I reiterate: http://www.garynorth.com is empty
>of real evidence of problems with embedded systems.
>
Dr. North is not an embedded expert, Bradley, and I haven't (and don't
intend to) read every page in his site looking for something that will
satisfy your desire for proof. I pointed you at an article (in a
non-technical venue) that described pervasive failures of embedded systems.
If that doesn't at least worry you then <shrug>, you're entitled to your
opinion.
I'm not an embedded expert either, but I have written a lot of C and
debugged quite a bit written by other people. My sense of the situation is
that we can expect relatively rare "product line" type failures with simpler
embedded gear. Maybe overall only one in a thousand of the simple systems
will fail in any significant way. It appears, however, that the more
sophisticated a system is, the more likely it is to include fail-safe,
logging and/or synchronization code that MAY have glitches. The Fortune
article suggests to me that the most sophisticated embedded systems have
failure rates close to those of PC software. That is bad news, Bradley.
You appear to have moderated your views about the Glitch somewhat since
first posting here. Apparently, you (now) agree that there will be problems.
Are you just trying to nail down a meaningful measure of embedded failure
rates? Or do you think that there will be no embedded problems. I know there
will be at least one, because I wrote a C program and burned a prom in 1983
(two years before I started paying attention to century issues) that will
surely die on 2000/1/1. Maybe I could get the owner of that system to dump
the prom in hex (the source is long gone) and mail you a copy. :-)
Jim Abel
RonKenyon
(me)>> Incidentally, my guess is the biggest threat to utilities is neither the
>big
>> accounting and billing systems nor the myriad embedded instrumentation
>and
>> control systems.
>
>OK. What is it that's bothering you Ron? Drop the other shoe! Is it perhaps
>that the customers that fund their operations are expected to become
>insolvent?
>
>Harlan
Not a bad guess, but wrong imho, I assume that even with severe financial
problems we'd find ways to keep basic utilities operating - or attempting to
operate - through expedited reorgs, long-term RTC-style protection, asset-only
auctions, up to and including emininent domain takeovers or "emergency powers".
Where would we draw the line? Not sure. Airlines are highly leveraged, a
relatively small but sustained drop in aggregate traffic capacity would tank
almost all of 'em as solvent business ventures. Would we save 'em if it meant
abrogating current consensus "hands off" principles? I dunno. Are they
necessities or luxuries? How fast can real markets adapt and restructure
around huge, unanticipated, unrealized losses? But I digress ...
Think I'll hold the other shoe a couple days, problem-solving is good exercise
for problem-solvers, whereas premature closure mitigates against group
effectiveness.
-- "Shoeless Ron" Kenyon
Bradley K. Sherman
>Hey Bradley. I've read your stuff for some time now and you've made
>some excellent points. When you say you know y2k is real, what does
>that mean? What do you expect the outcome of all this will be?
>
I don't know. That's why I'm here. I have seen the code;
there are problems. In the two volume set _Professional
Software_, Ledgard and Tauer, Vol. II, 1987, ISBN 0-201-12232-4,
p.112 & 113, there is a sample program with a fixed string
'19' prepended to the date. This is an book dedicated to
professional software engineering. I have many database
books in my library, including 'classics' by people
like Date (!) and Stonebraker, and the Asimov of D.P.,
James Martin. None of them talk about date routines.
I spent some time in the Mainframe world in the 80's
(though I was doing Unix work) and I was impressed by
how compartmentalized it was. Programmers who had
never seen the CPU, Systems Analysts who had never
written code. These are incredible systems, running
7 x 24, but I believe that they could be susceptible,
because they may be too big and too monolithic for
the programmers to understand. When these systems
go down they make big splashes.
I presently have purview over 4 big servers and about 30
assorted Unix Workstations, NT's, MessyDos boxes and
Mac's. I absolutely guarantee that if there is power
to my building on 1 Jan 00, those machines will be up.
Take it to the bank.
I do not believe the claptrap about embedded systems.
When I was burning PROM's we barely had room for
multiplication, let alone routines that cared about
the date.
I am not in the business of predicting the future. I
cannot tell you the scope of Y2K, nor can anyone else
in this newsgroup. Stay tuned, draw your own conclusions.
Thanks for asking.
--bks
fed...@halifax.com
In article <01bd811d$23775620$1e96...@CRC3.concentric.net>,
"Harlan Smith" <hwsmith...@cris.com> wrote:
>
>
> Tim May <tc...@got.net> wrote in article
> <tcmay-16059...@santacruz-x2-37.got.net>...
>
> >
> > 1. Companies haven't even identified the fixes they need, though there
> are
> > already some signs of scrounging (reported here and to me in e-mail).
> >
> > 2. Even if they identified a need to replace X, Y, and Z devices, in
> > various quantities, there is little chance the chip companies even
> _could_
> > make 10- or 20-year old designs in modern chip-making plants.
> >
> > 3. Or would want to, given limited resources (and their own Y2K
> problems).
> >
> > 4. But assuming all of the above can be ignored, it will take at least a
> > year and maybe two years to get these chips built.
> >
> > 5. It ain't gonna happen.
> >
> > --Tim May
>
> have be fixed by significant redesign to use current parts, all the more
> reason why adhering to their silly outage schedules is absurd. We're big
> boys, if they tell us we'll have some "service interruptions" from time to
> time while they really "work the problem", we can handle that. But to just
> let us run off the edge of the cliff is despicable.
>
Grow up Harlan. Quit being a child. They will never say that there will be
'service disruptions' until it is way too late to do any good and they will
definitely let you run off a cliff. They will not say anything that will
jeopardize their financial position. If you can not figure it out, it is about
money. Their stinking money is more important to them than people are. They
are a 'business' Harlan. They are not in the 'business' of producing
electricity; they are in the business of 'producing revenue' and electricity
has little to do with it. It would be no different if they were manufacturing
oven mitts.
Maybe you will outgrow your naivte. I doubt it.
Paul Milne
> Harlan
fed...@halifax.com
In article <bksEt2...@netcom.com>,
Yeah, you're right. The CIO of General Motors says they have CATASTROPHIC
PROBLEMS and you chalk it up to what? A bad test harness?
You have done a pretty good job fooling the naive Pollyannas in this news
group but now most of them are coming around to see what a real *jackass* you
are.
There is no evidence of any major manufacturer anywhere on earth compliant.
Nor, airline, nor OIl Co, nor Utility, not Bank, nor government, nor telecom
nor anything at all.
Years and years, they have had to remediate. Utilities are not even out of
assessment of embedded systems. No one signifigant is compliant. 18 months to
go. Less than 450 working days to go. Somehow you think that is a lot of time.
It is a flash in the pan. It is the blink of an eye.
A year from now you will be sitting there saying "I can't believe my eyes. A
whole year gone by and still no one is compliant". You will be flabergasted.
Why? because you are a dolt. Not an ordinary run-of-the-mill dolt. A self
deceived dolt.
Even kozierok had more sense than you.
Paul Milne
> --bks
Richard Brennan
"Guess who" wrote:
>
> You have done a pretty good job fooling the naive Pollyannas in this news
> group but now most of them are coming around to see what a real *jackass*
you
> are.
>
> Paul Milne
>
>
This is a new one, Paul. Not only do you present yourself as *the*
authority on how we should interpret the facts about Y2K, but now you
*know* the minds of most of this ng.
You really should stop tilting at windmills!
Richard Brennan
ET
Bradley K. Sherman wrote:
<snip>
> I do not believe the claptrap about embedded systems.
> When I was burning PROM's we barely had room for
> multiplication, let alone routines that cared about
> the date.
This is what I'm trying to discern myself. From the start, this embedded
systems discussion has not yielded many facts to hang your hat on. There
have been many excellent posts, including Tim May's recently, but the
assumption is always that these systems 'will' fail and need to be
replaced. I'm still trying to understand why 'most' will fail. I can
understand that 'some' will fail. The question seems to be, 'where' are the
systems located that pose the largest threat to downstream processes,
whether they are likely to fail or not? The world economy revolves around
electricity, oil production and refining. Would you say these industries
are highly subject to risk by embedded systems?
> I am not in the business of predicting the future. I
> cannot tell you the scope of Y2K, nor can anyone else
> in this newsgroup. Stay tuned, draw your own conclusions.
I think we're all in the business of predicting the future. <g> My
conclusion thus far is that an economic depression is at hand. I haven't
seen enough evidence to draw a conclusion that embedded systems in electric
and oil industries will stop the flow of either commodity. Of course, I
haven't seen enough evidence to support the fact that both will work either,
other than the fact they work today. What have you concluded at this time
concerning these two industries?
--
ET
Bradley K. Sherman
In article <355EF410...@idir.net>, ET <gear...@idir.net> wrote:
>electricity, oil production and refining.
If the former is okay the latter will take care of itself.
--bks
Harlan Smith
Bradley K. Sherman <b...@netcom.com> wrote in article
<bksEt3...@netcom.com>...
> In article <355EF410...@idir.net>, ET <gear...@idir.net> wrote:
> >electricity, oil production and refining.
>
> If the former is okay the latter will take care of itself.
No.
You are making an unsupported assertion.
Please provide references to facts that support this erroneous assertion.
Information has been presented here that refutes what you have said.
You may have a short memory:
http://www5.yahoo.com/headlines/971029/tech/stories/oil_1.html
[snip]
Wednesday October 29 4:51 PM EST
Millennium Computer Bug Could Shut N.Sea Platforms
By Hans De Jongh
ABERDEEN, Scotland (Reuters) - Major oil companies today rang the alarm
bell, warning the so-called millennium computer bug could paralyze the
offshore industry in the North Sea -- one of the world's biggest oil
production areas.
In a worst case scenario, oil platforms would be forced to shut down just
over two years from now simply because automated systems fail to recognize
the year 2000, industry experts told a conference here.
The problem stems from short cuts taken by computer programmers in the
past. To save memory space, they abbreviated dates to their last two
digits, so that 1999 becomes 99. But unfortunately, computers will read
2000 as a meaningless 00 and may crash at the turn of the millennium.
Companies such as Royal Dutch/Shell and British Petroleum said they realize
they are sitting on a time bomb and are racing against the clock to check
millions of microprocessors. But, they fear smaller firms have not yet
fully grasped the threat to the oil industry.
At the "Project 2000 in Oil and Gas" conference, industry suppliers and
service providers were warned that time is running out and urged to act
soon to prevent major upheaval.
"Stop talking about it, but do it," said Ian Smailes, automation project
engineer at Total Oil Marine.
The oil industry faces a gargantuan task to fight the millennium bug,
illustrated by the fact a single offshore oil platform may contain over
10,000 microprocessors. Some are deep below sea level, but all need to be
checked.
To put this into further perspective, there are over a 100 platforms in the
North Sea alone.
A taste of what might happen if computer systems fail to recognize a date
came from New Zealand last year. There an aluminum smelter ground to a halt
for several months because its production system could not deal with a leap
year, said David Trim of Shell's year 2000 team.
He told the conference that a worldwide "commercial meltdown" and "economic
hardship" were real risks if worst came to worst.
"We're talking about something akin to the aftermath of a war," Trim said.
The total costs of getting rid of the millennium bug in Britain have been
estimated at 31 billion pounds, while it might be $1.5 trillion for the
world as whole.
But Trim said these could be small sums compared with the far bigger
investments needed to prop up economies if the problem was not addressed
now.
[end snip]
http://www.computerweekly.co.uk/news/11_12_97/08598503239/C19.html
[snip]
Energy industry must act fast to fix millennium bug
Results issued by the Energy Industry Special Interest Group have suggested
a significant number of control systems will fail come the millennium. The
survey, posted by a representative of oil firm Texaco in the US on a year
2000 newsgroup run by Peter de Jager, concentrates on inventory and
assessment at four Alcoa steel-making plants, a North Sea oil platform, and
BP's refinery at Grangemouth, Scotland.
According to the results:
• 50% of control systems are at risk at the Alcoa plants;
• 1,200 systems have a 12% failure rate at North Sea Expro,
operated by Shell and Exxon; and
• of 94 systems at Grangemouth, 74 have been assessed, with
no supplier found for the other 20. Three systems are expected
to fail, with a possibility of two causing a shutdown.
A spokesman for BP at Grangemouth said the plant, which is used by all
three of BP's businesses - oil, chemicals and exploration - had volunteered
to undertake a pilot study on year 2000 on behalf of the rest of the
company. The study, on one part of the refinery as well as petrochemicals,
complements a "first pass" on inventory at the rest of the refinery, the
spokesman said.
BP expects to spend up to $100m (£61m) in solving its date bug problems,
the company said. US year 2000 expert Leon Kappelman said the control
system test reflected "just the tip of the iceberg".
[snip]
On the following server, April articles have been replaced with May
articles, so the link is no longer valid
http://www.gulfpub.com/wo/features/98-04_bug-shemwell/bug-shemwell.html
[snip]
April 1998 Vol. 219 No. 4
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Will the millennium bug give your operations the flu?
Don't take the head-in-the-sand approach toward potential computer
strangling of production operations. Time-contingent process controllers
must be evaluated for year 2000 date stamp limitations and their
implications for safety, the environment and operations
..
PROCESS CONTROLLER CONCERNS
Unlike the software of a marketing system, the embedded logic on a silicon
chip is entombed deep in the system and not easily ascertained. Any given
Distributed Control System (DCS) or Process Logic Controller (PLC) computer
board has many chips, and their interdependencies on each other, and on
other system components, make them difficult to analyze and repair.
Methods for analyzing this equipment are only now emerging. Compliance
information coming from manufacturers has been sketchy and sometimes
inaccurate. In some cases, the chips are no longer made. In others, the
controller is manufactured in such a way that the entire unit must be
replaced. Upgraded chips and new controllers also would have to be tested
to ensure that their insertion will not impact drilling and production
processes negatively. Some studies suggest that there may not be enough
manufacturing capacity to just replace all affected chips in less than two
years.
Few organizations have recognized the full potential for possible failure
in embedded systems. Moreover, the supply of talent qualified to identify
and correct these problems is being consumed quickly by other year 2000
projects. The longer that production managers wait, the less the likelihood
that they will be able to affect the outcome pragmatically.
It is estimated that the average oil and gas firm, starting today, can
expect to remediate less than 30% of the overall potential failure points
in the production environment. This reality shifts the focus of the
solution away from trying to fix the problem, to planning strategies that
would minimize potential damage and mitigate potential safety hazards.
..
On a Friday night less than two years from now, a tsunami will build in the
Pacific and roll westward through all major hydrocarbon producing fields
before reaching Prudhoe Bay, Alaska. We know the exact date, not to mention
the hour, minute and second. We do not know its size. As with all tidal
waves, it is safer to take precautions and move out to sea, where its
arrival may not even be noticed. Disaster strikes those who are unprepared
and caught
near shore. There is little time left to mobilize, so to speak, and move
the world's huge oil and gas fleet to the safety of the sea.
[end snip]
... MORE TO FOLLOW
Bradley K. Sherman
In article <01bd81c2$6d84cc20$1c96...@CRC3.concentric.net>,
Yes, I agree. I was asked for a personal opinion.
>Companies such as Royal Dutch/Shell and British Petroleum said they realize
>they are sitting on a time bomb and are racing against the clock to check
>millions of microprocessors. But, they fear smaller firms have not yet
>fully grasped the threat to the oil industry.
Once again, not a single actual device, chip, system or vendor
identified, but even if there are such, the gist of the article
is that in October 97, the major North Sea oil companies were
on the problem, had y2k groups and were notifying smaller
players. To you a portent of doom. To me, one more sector
of industry that is doing what it can to plan for contingencies.
--bks
p.s. The problem with being a fatalist is that there's nothing
you can do about it.
D. Scott Secor - Millennial Infarction Mitigator
Why Mr. Sherman, I do believe that you are in serious need of one ton of
bricks. Where might would you like them delivered? Short ton or long?
Ciao,
Scott "not in need of said ton, thank you" Secor
Bradley K. Sherman wrote in message ...
>In article <1Mg71.1143$Pd.14...@news4.atl.bellsouth.net>,
>Jim Abel <evolutio...@usa.net> wrote:
>> ...
>>http://www.pathfinder.com/fortune/1998/980427/imt.html
>>I'm not sure where (or whether) Gary has a link to it.
>> ...
>
D. Scott Secor - Millennial Infarction Mitigator
I do believe that I have read a sufficient quantity of your doltish blather
regarding embedded systems. Not to be confused with embedded chips --
that's Cory's department (it's an old c.s.y2k joke of mine that doesn't
deserve explanation).
Nevertheless, might I suggest that you take a more that a few peeks at GE
Fanuc, Rockwell Automation (includes Allen-Bradley), Schneider Groupe
(includes Square D and a number of other acquisitions), and one or two other
embedded sites before you soil yourself any further. Most have web-based
Year 2000 Compliance Statements or supportive documentation that clearly
indicates which "mature" models of componentry or software _WILL FAIL_ and
should be retired or replaced.
Guess what happens when you don't replace said items? Mini-catastrophes.
Guess what happens when several billion mini-catastrophes occur all at once?
TEOTWAWKI.
Time to resume searching haystacks for needles ...
Ciao,
Scott Secor
Bradley K. Sherman wrote in message ...
>In article <355EF410...@idir.net>, ET <gear...@idir.net> wrote:
>>electricity, oil production and refining.
>
>If the former is okay the latter will take care of itself.
>
> --bks
>
Bradley K. Sherman
In article <355f9...@news3.uswest.net>,
D. Scott Secor - Millennial Infarction Mitigator <y...@uswest.net.NO$PAM> wrote:
...
>Guess what happens when several billion mini-catastrophes occur all at once?
Speaking of blather.
--bks
D. Scott Secor - Millennial Infarction Mitigator
You've apparently ignored a little light reading. Tsk, tsk.
Do I have to give you the URLs too? Or are YOU going to accuse ME of being
lazy?
Ciao,
Scott
David A Thomas
Tim May (tc...@got.net) wrote:
> 2. Even if they identified a need to replace X, Y, and Z devices, in
> various quantities, there is little chance the chip companies even _could_
> make 10- or 20-year old designs in modern chip-making plants.
I know of many 15-year-old designs being manufactured in the most
modern fabrication facilities. Quite profitably, I might add.
The important factor is that those designs have never fallen *out*
of production. Once production on a device is discontinued, it
doesn't take long for the tooling (masks or reticles) to become
out of date for the current production equipment. Resurrecting
an obsolete, discontinued design can be difficult to impossible.
The situation is similar for revising ROM code. If a microcontroller
device, even one that is 15 years old, goes into many different
applications and on-chip ROM code for *any* of those applications
have been changed in recent years, then generating a new mask or
reticle to revise the on-chip ROM is generally not a problem.
If none of the ROM programmations for the device have been revised
in the last ten years, however, the lead-time to get a new program
into production may be a lot longer.
--
David Thomas (david-at-micro-dot-ti-dot-com)
Speaking via, but not for, Texas Instruments, Houston (281)-274-2347
Fred Swirbul
In article <355f9...@news3.uswest.net>,
"D. Scott Secor - Millennial Infarction Mitigator" <y...@uswest.net.NO$PAM> wrote:
>I do believe that I have read a sufficient quantity of your doltish blather
>regarding embedded systems. Not to be confused with embedded chips --
>that's Cory's department (it's an old c.s.y2k joke of mine that doesn't
>deserve explanation).
>
>Nevertheless, might I suggest that you take a more that a few peeks at GE
>Fanuc, Rockwell Automation (includes Allen-Bradley), Schneider Groupe
>(includes Square D and a number of other acquisitions), and one or two other
>embedded sites before you soil yourself any further. Most have web-based
>Year 2000 Compliance Statements or supportive documentation that clearly
>indicates which "mature" models of componentry or software _WILL FAIL_ and
>should be retired or replaced.
Just a point of order. There is a difference between the devices that fail,
and those that fail and have to be replaced. The vendor will always want you
spend money (with them), and buy the replacement. Some Y2K failures (no good
numbers yet), aren't compliant, but will still perform their primary
intended function. That means replacements are not always required (I can
give you an example from one of the obove vendors if you like).
Preliminary test data is starting to show that only the higher level embedded
systems fail in such a way that remediation of some sort is needed. Lower level
embedded systems (I sometimes call them embedded components/devices/chips),
seem to fail with a wrong data, but the device still works.
Fred Swirbul
>Guess what happens when you don't replace said items? Mini-catastrophes.
>
>Guess what happens when several billion mini-catastrophes occur all at once?
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
Mickey wrote:
> More BS. Of these 9,000, many are teeny weeny locals with little or no
> impact on the whole. If the big ones make, alles gute.
However, what will the impact be on their own customers? Even if the
national grid doesn't crash, "unimportant" local failures during a bad
winter could cause a lot of casualties. "Alles gute" seems a bit
cavalier.
Tom Wheeler
On Sun, 17 May 1998 05:56:58, fed...@halifax.com wrote:
> Grow up Harlan. Quit being a child. They will never say that there will be
> 'service disruptions' until it is way too late to do any good and they will
> definitely let you run off a cliff. They will not say anything that will
> jeopardize their financial position. If you can not figure it out, it is about
> money. Their stinking money is more important to them than people are. They
> are a 'business' Harlan. They are not in the 'business' of producing
> electricity; they are in the business of 'producing revenue' and electricity
> has little to do with it. It would be no different if they were manufacturing
> oven mitts.
Paul, from what I've seen you are a very pessimistic, self-centered and
selfish, distrustful, rude, and offensive man. I truly hope that something
really good happens someday that causes you to have a change of heart. Your
continuous "the-sky-is-falling" braying here is perhaps understandable given
your view of people and the world, but most people have a little more faith in
the goodness of people. Yes, there are an awful lot of people who have their
heads buried in the sand; who are not handling their Y2K problems well; who
are saying it'll be alright while hoping for a miracle. But you and the rest
of the doomsayers will find that as 01/01/0000 approaches (and isn't that a
funny-looking date to see written) more and more people will knuckle down and
work their butts off to get things fixed. Of course, in many situations it
will be too little, too late. But fixes and workarounds for most - or
perhaps, with some luck, nearly all - critical cases will be made. So unless
some sort of "century fever" strikes, causing massive social unrest and
disorder, we'll muddle through alright. The world will wobble a bit, and
there'll certainly be some trouble, but we're not going to revert back to the
Dark Ages.
> Maybe you will outgrow your naivte. I doubt it.
I do hope you learn to see the good in people and to be more optimistic.
Pessimism is attention-getting, true, and occasionally you will have the
vicarious and cheap thrill of being able to say, "See I told you so". But
it's so much better to be kind, polite, and positive.
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
+ Tom Wheeler twh...@hotmail.com | Keywords: Queensryche, OS/2, NRA +
+ | C++, Linux, Artemis, Bovine-RC5 +
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
fed...@halifax.com
In article <355f9...@news3.uswest.net>,
"D. Scott Secor - Millennial Infarction Mitigator" <y...@uswest.net.NO$PAM>
wrote:
>
> I do believe that I have read a sufficient quantity of your doltish blather
> regarding embedded systems.
What's that. Someone else actually recognizes Pee Wee Sherman as a purveyor of
'doltish Blather'. Gee, what took you so long to clue in, Scott : )
Paul Milne
Not to be confused with embedded chips --
> that's Cory's department (it's an old c.s.y2k joke of mine that doesn't
> deserve explanation).
>
> Nevertheless, might I suggest that you take a more that a few peeks at GE
> Fanuc, Rockwell Automation (includes Allen-Bradley), Schneider Groupe
> (includes Square D and a number of other acquisitions), and one or two other
> embedded sites before you soil yourself any further. Most have web-based
> Year 2000 Compliance Statements or supportive documentation that clearly
> indicates which "mature" models of componentry or software _WILL FAIL_ and
> should be retired or replaced.
>
> Guess what happens when you don't replace said items? Mini-catastrophes.
>
> Guess what happens when several billion mini-catastrophes occur all at once?
> TEOTWAWKI.
>
> Time to resume searching haystacks for needles ...
>
> Ciao,
>
> Scott Secor
>
> Bradley K. Sherman wrote in message ...
> >In article <355EF410...@idir.net>, ET <gear...@idir.net> wrote:
> >>electricity, oil production and refining.
> >
> >If the former is okay the latter will take care of itself.
> >
> > --bks
> >
>
>
Francis A. Ney, Jr
> From: tc...@got.net (Tim May)
> Date: Fri, 15 May 1998 14:55:28 -0700
>
> (More recently, speed has been an issue. One government agency purchased
> 133-MHz or somesuch Pentiums...the vendor offered the government a free
> upgrade to 200 MHz machines, as Intel was no longer making 133-MHz
> parts...the bureaucrats refused.)
Which agency? Bureaucrats like this should be taken out and shot.
And the bill for the bullet sent to the family.
Frank Ney N4ZHG WV/EMT-B VA/EMT-A LPWV NRA(L) GOA CCRKBA JPFO
Are you ready for the Big Glitch? http://millennia-bcs.com/cassief.htm#top
Abuses by the BATF http://www.access.digex.net/~croaker/batfabus.html
More Year2000 sites http://www.y2ktimebomb.com/ http://www.euy2k.com/
Francis A. Ney, Jr
> From: fed...@halifax.com
> Date: Fri, 15 May 1998 23:12:05 GMT
>
> > Obviously many companies will choose to upgrade their systems completely,
> > scrapping the older systems. This is a different issue, and has its own
> > time constraints...I don't believe most factory controllers can be
> > upgraded in even several years, given the usual constraints on engineering
> > talent, let alone in 594 days. And of course they're not starting such
> > replacement today, either. I figure the real panic will begin about a year
> > from now, with absolutely no hope of replacing or fixing these systems.
>
>
> Balderdash, Tim.
> Everyone knows that dedicated engineers are taking this problem seriously and
> are working very hard to solve the problem. Everyone knows that chips that are
> no longer manufactured can easily be replaced with up-grades. Takes a couple
> of weeks at most. And everyone knows that while all systems may not be
> repaired in time, those that are not will be worked around to minimize
> inconvenience and disruptions.
>
> (This parenthetic note is for the sarcasm impaired who do not recognize the
> true nature of the paragraph above.)
Whew! You had me worried there for a minute, Paul. B-)=
Francis A. Ney, Jr
> From: "Jim Abel" <evolutio...@usa.net>
> Date: Sat, 16 May 1998 13:45:33 GMT
>
> Don't get me wrong, Bradley. I don't think that all automated systems are
> going to go up in a puff of blue smoke on 2000/1/1. I think the rate (and
> severity) of failures is going to briefly skyrocket from some tiny
> (0.0001%?) percentage several orders of magnitude (0.1%?). Nobody knows the
> effect this will have. Some companies will find work arounds, some will fix
> things and keep right on going. Some will declare bankruptcy and some will
> die six months later after a valiant struggle.
All of the above will be as ripples in a pond after you drop several rocks in
it.
Do people know the definition of a "rogue wave"?
Francis A. Ney, Jr
> From: "Richard Brennan" <richard...@lineone.net>
> Date: Sat, 16 May 1998 15:33:25 GMT
>
> Another possibility spring to mind. The initial question could be reversed
> to something like:
> "Do you think the lights will stay on at rollover?"
>
> I'm mightily persuaded that the audience would raise their hands, possibly
> to a person.
> This would then be a Good Thing as we all know that "many hands make
> light work".
If this were alt.callahans, you'd be buried in peanuts. 88888888888888
If this were alt.books.david-weber, you'd be buried in frogs. FROG
What is the appropriate punishment for punning in csy2k?
Bastinado?
The Goobers
Francis, A., Ney, Jr wrote:
>
> > From: tc...@got.net (Tim May)
> > Date: Fri, 15 May 1998 14:55:28 -0700
> >
> > (More recently, speed has been an issue. One government agency purchased
> > 133-MHz or somesuch Pentiums...the vendor offered the government a free
> > upgrade to 200 MHz machines, as Intel was no longer making 133-MHz
> > parts...the bureaucrats refused.)
>
> Which agency? Bureaucrats like this should be taken out and shot.
>
> And the bill for the bullet sent to the family.
Really, Mr Ney... emulating the Communists *again*? I would think that
it could easily be rationalised that the Public Purse would
appropriately bear the burden of paying for a Public Good.
... sorry, could *not* resist!
DD
The Goobers
Francis, A., Ney, Jr wrote:
>
> > Date: Sat, 16 May 1998 15:33:25 GMT
> >
> > Another possibility spring to mind. The initial question could be reversed
> > to something like:
> > "Do you think the lights will stay on at rollover?"
> >
> > I'm mightily persuaded that the audience would raise their hands, possibly
> > to a person.
> > This would then be a Good Thing as we all know that "many hands make
> > light work".
>
> If this were alt.callahans, you'd be buried in peanuts. 88888888888888
>
> If this were alt.books.david-weber, you'd be buried in frogs. FROG
>
> What is the appropriate punishment for punning in csy2k?
>
> Bastinado?
A week in Philadelphia... second prize, anyone?
DD
Bill McClain
<Francis> wrote:
> Which agency?
Newsgroups: rec.humor.funny
From: thomas...@unn.unisys.com (Thomas K. Cooper)
Subject: It's our govt. - doesn't it make you proud?
> Goverment Computer News (http://www.gcn.com) for March 16 reported that
> there is a problem with a contract the Social Security Administration
> has with Unisys Corporation.
>
> The contract is a multi-year contract for 100 MHZ Pentium computers.
> However, Intel no longer makes 100MHZ chips. So Unisys offered to
> install 233 MHZ computers AT THE SAME PRICE.
>
> The Social Security Administration refused. An SSA official reported to
> Congress that "100 MHZ computers meet our current needs."
-Bill
Lmmd
The Goobers <docd...@erols.com> wrote:
>>
>> If this were alt.books.david-weber, you'd be buried in frogs. FROG
>>
>> What is the appropriate punishment for punning in csy2k?
>>
>> Bastinado?
>
>A week in Philadelphia... second prize, anyone?
>
>DD
2 weeks in Philly.
Leo.
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
Francis, A., Ney, Jr wrote:
> What is the appropriate punishment for punning in csy2k?
>
> Bastinado?
Ogden Nash used to claim that people who make puns should be drawn and
quoted.
docd...@clark.net
In article <35618327...@news.netcom.ca>, Lmmd <lm...@netcom.ca> wrote:
>The Goobers <docd...@erols.com> wrote:
>
>
>>>
>>> If this were alt.books.david-weber, you'd be buried in frogs. FROG
>>>
>>>
>>> Bastinado?
>>
>>
>>DD
>
>2 weeks in Philly.
Neatly remembered.
DD
Howard Belasco
docd...@clark.net wrote in message <6jsfi6$ovm$1...@clarknet.clark.net>...
I spent a week in Philadelphia one night.
Richard Brennan
Francis A. Ney; Jr wrote:
>
> > Richard Brennan wrote:
> >
> > [El snipolado]
>
> What is the appropriate punishment for punning in csy2k?
>
> Bastinado?
>
> Frank Ney
>
Que? You donta lika da soul o' ma feat?
RB
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
Tim May wrote:
> (More recently, speed has been an issue. One government agency purchased
> 133-MHz or somesuch Pentiums...the vendor offered the government a free
> upgrade to 200 MHz machines, as Intel was no longer making 133-MHz
> parts...the bureaucrats refused.)
Ah, procurement! I was once on a facilities management contract for an
Amdahl 470V/6 with a Memorex 1270 front end. One of our users was a
university in New York, and they were racking up large phone bills. The
1270 required physically diffent adapters for binary synchronous
communications on a leased line as opposed to a dial line. The
university put in paper work for a tie line and we said that we could
use the existing dial port, since a call over a tie line looks like any
other call at the receiving end.
Well, someone in procurement decided that a leased line was more cost
effective than a tie line; he didn't bother asking anyone whether it
would work. Our COTR was royally ticked when he found out. Fortunately
we had a spare port of the right type, but I was ready to dump the
procurement guy in the Potomac without bothering with an environmental
impact statement.
A PHM is a pain forever!
N.R.H. Black
FrancisA.Ney (N4ZHG) wrote:
: > upgrade to 200 MHz machines, as Intel was no longer making 133-MHz
: > parts...the bureaucrats refused.)
: Which agency? Bureaucrats like this should be taken out and shot.
: And the bill for the bullet sent to the family.
As a ham you should know better. What if the buyer has paid an
enormous sum for EMC compliance testing of a unique Class A board
of his own design? He needs the goods he contracted for and not
some purported equivalent that may or may not meet his need. Is
the buyer supposed to recreate all his acceptance tests at the
seller's whim? Caveat emptor, caveat vendor.
Been there, done that.
Henry Black G4NOC, KK6JR, Registered Engineer (California).
Limited recognition under 37CFR10.9 to prosecute patents.
D. Scott Secor - Millennial Infarction Mitigator
The Goobers wrote in message <35615B...@erols.com>...
>A week in Philadelphia... second prize, anyone?
Two weeks?
Ciao,
Scott
The Goobers
Francis, A., Ney, Jr wrote:
>
> > Date: Tue, 19 May 1998 06:13:48 -0400
> >
> > > > Another possibility spring to mind. The initial question could be reversed
> > > > to something like:
> > > > "Do you think the lights will stay on at rollover?"
> > > >
> > > > I'm mightily persuaded that the audience would raise their hands, possibly
> > > > to a person.
> > > > This would then be a Good Thing as we all know that "many hands make
> > > > light work".
> > >
> > >
> > > If this were alt.books.david-weber, you'd be buried in frogs. FROG
> > >
> >
>
>
> At least the NRA convention is there next month. . .
Yeeesssssss... and what, pray tell, are the 'good' points?
DD
The Goobers
Howard Belasco wrote:
>
> docd...@clark.net wrote in message <6jsfi6$ovm$1...@clarknet.clark.net>...
> >In article <35618327...@news.netcom.ca>, Lmmd <lm...@netcom.ca>
> wrote:
> >>The Goobers <docd...@erols.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> What is the appropriate punishment for punning in csy2k?
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>A week in Philadelphia... second prize, anyone?
> >>>
> >>
> >>2 weeks in Philly.
> >
> >Neatly remembered.
>
> I spent a week in Philadelphia one night.
I remember John Prine singing that about Toledo, Ohio... or is this case
similar to Dylan Thomas stealing that poem about Richard Corey from
Simon and Garfunkel, or Steve Goodman nailing 'City of New Orleans' from
Arlo Guthrie?
DD
Francis A. Ney, Jr
> From: The Goobers <docd...@erols.com>
> Date: Tue, 19 May 1998 06:12:20 -0400
>
> > Which agency? Bureaucrats like this should be taken out and shot.
> >
> > And the bill for the bullet sent to the family.
>
> it could easily be rationalised that the Public Purse would
> appropriately bear the burden of paying for a Public Good.
>
Yes you could. You just didn't want to.
Francis A. Ney, Jr
> From: The Goobers <docd...@erols.com>
> Date: Tue, 19 May 1998 06:13:48 -0400
>
> > > Another possibility spring to mind. The initial question could be reversed
> > > to something like:
> > > "Do you think the lights will stay on at rollover?"
> > >
> > > I'm mightily persuaded that the audience would raise their hands, possibly
> > > to a person.
> > > This would then be a Good Thing as we all know that "many hands make
> > > light work".
> >
> >
> > If this were alt.books.david-weber, you'd be buried in frogs. FROG
> >
> > What is the appropriate punishment for punning in csy2k?
>
Hey! Keep yer grubby mitts off my home town!
At least the NRA convention is there next month. . .
Frank Ney N4ZHG WV/EMT-B VA/EMT-A LPWV NRA(L) GOA CCRKBA JPFO
Francis A. Ney, Jr
D. Scott Secor - Millennial Infarction Mitigator
I've designed a few PCs/servers for a couple of local OEMs, and taken a few
dozen incarnations through EMC testing at Amadore's local labs. I speak
only for my efforts when I say that my clients were pleased to have paid an
average of about $1300 per configuration -- hardly an "enormous sum" when
amortized over thousands of systems. My design royalties cost them far more
than that.
I doubt seriously that EMC compliance was the issue. I do disagree with Mr.
Ney on shooting the clueless bureaucrats -- a well-placed brick to the
forehead should suffice. ;-)
Ciao,
Scott Secor
N.R.H. Black wrote in message <6jt0s1$7i8$1...@news.goodnet.com>...
>FrancisA.Ney (N4ZHG) wrote:
>: > upgrade to 200 MHz machines, as Intel was no longer making 133-MHz
>: > parts...the bureaucrats refused.)
>
>: Which agency? Bureaucrats like this should be taken out and shot.
>: And the bill for the bullet sent to the family.
>
Francis A. Ney, Jr
> From: nrhb...@datatamers.com (N.R.H. Black)
> Date: 19 May 1998 22:25:05 GMT
>
> : > upgrade to 200 MHz machines, as Intel was no longer making 133-MHz
> : > parts...the bureaucrats refused.)
>
> : Which agency? Bureaucrats like this should be taken out and shot.
> : And the bill for the bullet sent to the family.
>
> As a ham you should know better. What if the buyer has paid an
> enormous sum for EMC compliance testing of a unique Class A board
> of his own design?
I did not see any indication that Tempest had anything to do with this item.
That was one of the reason why I asked which agency.
Francis A. Ney, Jr
> From: "Richard Brennan" <richard...@lineone.net>
> Date: Tue, 19 May 1998 21:06:47 GMT
>
> > What is the appropriate punishment for punning in csy2k?
> >
>
> Que? You donta lika da soul o' ma feat?
Nor that, either.
cory hamasaki
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
cory hamasaki wrote:
> If I'm supporting a large number of machines, I want them to be all exactly the
> same, not some P133s, some P200s, and others P200MMX. I don't want to stock
> different boards, have to wonder... will this PCI video card work with that
> graphics program in those systems?
If the only differences among the "identical" machines are the CPU and
the clock, you're doing well. Most of these bozos ship a MB populated
with the "chipset du jour", selected solely on the basis of the
spot-market price. Your lucky if any two of them are compatible, much
less the same. I've seen problems because someone shipped bad RAM, a
different graphics adapter or a different IDE controller, but how many
problems have you seen due to a faster processor in the same family? The
only one that I can think of was the infamous "Intel insane" arithmetic
fiasco.
D. Scott Secor - Millennial Infarction Mitigator
Okay, let's talk practicality here. Let's talk fantasy. You own, let's
say, eight hundred XYZ computers in one or more networks scattered across
one or more sites. Aside from the servers (which are also identical) the
workstations are all exactly the same in every respect. See, I told you it
was a fantasy!
A year passes. You need to add two hundred more workstations. Do you
expect to be able to find 200 one-year old computers at any price when the
CPU and motherboard have been obsolete for six months? Dream on!
So the salesman offers you 200 systems that are otherwise "nearly" identical
(same keyboards, monitors, sheetmetal, etc.) except with a CPU that is twice
as fast and the motherboard may contain twice as much memory ... oh yes, the
disk drives are probably four times as large ... but the price is less than
your original unit cost. You are going to turn it down? Very foolish move.
If you are so intent on keeping things uniform (I have NEVER seen such a
network), it would be more practical to scrap the eight hundred workstations
that you now own and buy one thousand new units. That method I could
condone.
What fools these mortal be. ;-)
Ciao,
Scott Secor
G Moore
On 18 May 1998 21:56:40 GMT, twh...@hotmail.com (Tom Wheeler) wrote:
>The world will wobble a bit, and
>there'll certainly be some trouble, but we're not going to revert back to the
>Dark Ages.
yeah, my guess is that the worlds technology will fall back
a decade, as far as software is concerned. remember the 80s
where they had 1 ISP that cost $12 an hour or you use a
local BBS ? thats the view i see. all the local producers
will be fine. its BIG business which is gonna lose its
shirt.
gvwm...@ix.spam.netcom.com to reply remove the spam
G Moore
>Tim May (tc...@got.net) wrote:
>> 2. Even if they identified a need to replace X, Y, and Z devices, in
>> various quantities, there is little chance the chip companies even _could_
>> make 10- or 20-year old designs in modern chip-making plants.
hmm. just a point to make:
most chips dont last 15 years. those that do
already have service technicians, who probably
could write the ROMS, EPROMS, and PROMS specs on a piece
of paper, to be handed to a computer programmer to duplicate
the chip and all its functions.
the main problem with the chip would be that the systems
around the chip would have to be compatible.
how? either the new chip would have control over its own
voltage/electrics, OR the systems are replaced.
even if the factory which used to produce the chip cannot,
if enough money is thrown beforehand, another factory
will produce it.
Tim May
In article <356ca7f6...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>, gvwm...@ix.netcom.com
(G Moore) wrote:
> >Tim May (tc...@got.net) wrote:
> >> 2. Even if they identified a need to replace X, Y, and Z devices, in
> >> various quantities, there is little chance the chip companies even _could_
> >> make 10- or 20-year old designs in modern chip-making plants.
>
> hmm. just a point to make:
> most chips dont last 15 years. those that do
> already have service technicians, who probably
> could write the ROMS, EPROMS, and PROMS specs on a piece
> of paper, to be handed to a computer programmer to duplicate
> the chip and all its functions.
>
This paragraph has a couple of major errors:
1. Certainly the chips "last" for far longer than 15 years, if by "don't
last" you mean the chips wear out or otherwise fail. They don't. Whether
the _systems_ are still in use, for various reasons, is clearly a
separable issue.
(And it is these older systems which we're mostly talking about. Those who
work in power plants, refineries, factories, etc., know that _many_ such
older systems remain in operation.)
2. It is nonsense (sorry) to say that a computer programmer could
duplicate the chip and all of its functions.
> the main problem with the chip would be that the systems
> around the chip would have to be compatible.
>
> how? either the new chip would have control over its own
> voltage/electrics, OR the systems are replaced.
This analysis is just too far off to comment on.
> even if the factory which used to produce the chip cannot,
> if enough money is thrown beforehand, another factory
> will produce it.
Yes, in addition to Paul Milne's "COBOL fairy," maybe the "chip fairy"
will come visiting.
--Tim May
--
Just Say No to "Big Brother Inside"
---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:----
Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,
ComSec 3DES: 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets,
Higher Power: 2^3,021,377 | black markets, collapse of governments.
G Moore
On Thu, 21 May 1998 10:11:27 -0700, tc...@got.net (Tim May) wrote:
>1. Certainly the chips "last" for far longer than 15 years, if by "don't
>last" you mean the chips wear out or otherwise fail. They don't. Whether
>the _systems_ are still in use, for various reasons, is clearly a
>separable issue.
>(And it is these older systems which we're mostly talking about. Those who
>work in power plants, refineries, factories, etc., know that _many_ such
>older systems remain in operation.)
well, the chips used in PCs dont last more than 5 years.
>2. It is nonsense (sorry) to say that a computer programmer could
>duplicate the chip and all of its functions.
emulation, given the correct technical documents, is possible
on todays chips, given todays chip speeds.
Dave Eastabrook
on Thu, 21 May 1998 G Moore <gvwm...@ix.netcom.com> wrote
>
>well, the chips used in PCs dont last more than 5 years.
Oh shhhhh, I'm gone. Past it. Imagining things and my brains's dead.
That 7 year old 386 of mine isn't working perfectly after all, and so I
daresay it won't rollover past 1999-12-31 like I tested it would. Darn.
Hint - use a stiff half-inch brush. Works wonders with all dead chips.
You can even use it to paint those fiddly bits around the door-frame.
Of course, a real pro like me uses a one-inch :)
:Dave
Ron Martell
gvwm...@ix.netcom.com (G Moore) wrote:
>
>well, the chips used in PCs dont last more than 5 years.
>
Balderdash.
Just a few months ago I had the pleasure of doing a general cleaning
and tuneup of the first PC my former employer ever purchased.
It was a Zenith Z150 circa 1984 and cost approx $11,000 when new
including a special hard drive, printer, digitizer, and plotter.
Still working fine and in regular use for the same mapping related
functions, although it is now on hard drive $3.
Ron Martell Duncan B.C. Canada
--
Microsoft MVP
On-Line Help Computer Service
http://www.islandnet.com/~rmartell/online.htm
D. Scott Secor - Millennial Infarction Mitigator
Tim May wrote in message ...
>Yes, in addition to Paul Milne's "COBOL fairy," maybe the "chip fairy"
>will come visiting.
I don't know if I am comfortable with the notion of hanging around with a
bunch of fairies. Not that there's anything wrong with that (to reprise my
theft of the classic Seinfeld line).
Can't we conjure up a couple of superheroes such as COBOLman and The
Chipster? My wrist is feeling less limp already. And yours?
Ciao,
Scott Secor
Tiberius
>Paul, from what I've seen you are a very pessimistic, self-centered and
>selfish, distrustful, rude...
Yet, there's a method to his madness...
The Goobers
D. Scott Secor - Millennial Infarction Mitigator wrote:
>
[snip]
>
> Can't we conjure up a couple of superheroes such as COBOLman and The
> Chipster?
Durned Space Aliens, must've left this idea of mine in the warehouse
someplace and only recently implanted it into your brain... years 'n
years ago I thought of Captain COBOL (voice in echo chamber:
'CAAAAPPPPPTTTTAAAIIIIINNNN COBOL...OBOL...OBol... obol!') and his
arch-nemesis, Meeting Man.
DD
phy...@computerpro.com
In article <3567c0b5.30000148@news>,
And poppycock, too! My dad's 14-yr-old IBM PC is in daily use. It came
equipped with two 5.25 floppy drives; the 20-Mb hard drive he added later is
going bad, so he usually runs Word (probably v2?) from floppies. Original
(tiny) monitor and keyboard. No mouse. He was a little upset last month when
his Panasonic 9-pin dot-matrix printer, only 10 yrs old, started acting up,
but it's okay now. He does have a pentium, that's what he plays games on B^>
My 5-yr-old 486 is in fine shape, practically mint; it's been in time-warp
mode since last August and I use it for testing stuff.
"the chips used in PCs dont last more than 5 years" ?? Horse-feathers!
--
Pam
Unofficial c.s.y2k smallish FAQ
http://www.computerpro.com/~phystad/csy2kfaq.html
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
D. Scott Secor - Millennial Infarction Mitigator
The Goobers wrote in message <35654B...@erols.com>...
You HAVE been listening to entirely too much Art Bell. Have you not?
Ciao,
Scott
P.S. - You planning on calling into his show next Monday when Gary North is
on?
The Goobers
D. Scott Secor - Millennial Infarction Mitigator wrote:
>
> The Goobers wrote in message <35654B...@erols.com>...
> >D. Scott Secor - Millennial Infarction Mitigator wrote:
> >>
> >
> >[snip]
> >
> >>
> >> Can't we conjure up a couple of superheroes such as COBOLman and The
> >> Chipster?
> >
> >Durned Space Aliens, must've left this idea of mine in the warehouse
> >someplace and only recently implanted it into your brain... years 'n
> >years ago I thought of Captain COBOL (voice in echo chamber:
> >'CAAAAPPPPPTTTTAAAIIIIINNNN COBOL...OBOL...OBol... obol!') and his
> >arch-nemesis, Meeting Man.
> >
> >DD
>
> You HAVE been listening to entirely too much Art Bell. Have you not?
Nope... Mr Bell's name has been mentioned before but I've not researched
it any further... are the Space Aliens putting my brainwaves into *his*
head, too?
>
> Ciao,
>
> Scott
>
> P.S. - You planning on calling into his show next Monday when Gary North is
> on?
Nope... I never put a telephone next to my ear, the Space Aliens can...
oh, I won't go on, it is *too* horrid!
DD
Mickey
The Goobers wrote:
>
> D. Scott Secor - Millennial Infarction Mitigator wrote:
> >
>
> [snip]
>
> >
> > Can't we conjure up a couple of superheroes such as COBOLman and The
> > Chipster?
>
> Durned Space Aliens, must've left this idea of mine in the warehouse
> someplace and only recently implanted it into your brain... years 'n
> years ago I thought of Captain COBOL (voice in echo chamber:
> 'CAAAAPPPPPTTTTAAAIIIIINNNN COBOL...OBOL...OBol... obol!') and his
> arch-nemesis, Meeting Man.
>
mickey
Robert Sturgeon
You left out my favorite- POWER POINT MAN!
--
Robert Sturgeon-
"Tax and tax, spend and spend, elect and elect."
After 65 years, it's still working.
The Goobers
Robert Sturgeon wrote:
>
> Mickey wrote:
> >
> > The Goobers wrote:
> > >
> > > D. Scott Secor - Millennial Infarction Mitigator wrote:
> > > >
> > >
> > > [snip]
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Can't we conjure up a couple of superheroes such as COBOLman and The
> > > > Chipster?
> > >
> > > Durned Space Aliens, must've left this idea of mine in the warehouse
> > > someplace and only recently implanted it into your brain... years 'n
> > > years ago I thought of Captain COBOL (voice in echo chamber:
> > > 'CAAAAPPPPPTTTTAAAIIIIINNNN COBOL...OBOL...OBol... obol!') and his
> > > arch-nemesis, Meeting Man.
> > >
> > And his cohorts VoiceMailMan and ProfsMan (For the IBMers out there)
>
> You left out my favorite- POWER POINT MAN!
Hmmmm... didn't think of that but perhaps you've got something there
(quick, wipe it off!)... Meeting Man's diabolical sidekick, PowerPoint
Boy!
DD
Shek Borkowski
Unfortunately, people cannot be convinced of anything unless they have an open mind.
It is my opinion that your detractors quietly, in private agree with you but publicly want to convince themselves with their posts that it ain't so. For whatever reason: security, financial career. I feel sorry for them because they know not what they are doing to themselves or their families.
You can bet that all of them have life insurance, home insurance or disability insurance. Yet, the possibility of any of them dying, their house burning down or becoming disabled within 18 months is almost zero. They however take the precaution and prepare themselves for that eventuality by paying money on premiums.
However, when it comes to y2k because the possible outcome is so frightning, they prefer to ignore it, to hide behind government pronouncements and assurances, and try to prove to themselves that it will not happen.
How can otherwise prudent people take that risk is beyond me. They are clinging to an ever decreasing glim of hope. Eventually, all will come to same conclussions as you. For many it will be too late.
I bet that each day your posts and links convince more and more people to prepare.
Best regards
Shek
Mickey
Robert Sturgeon wrote:
>
> Mickey wrote:
> >
> > The Goobers wrote:
> > >
> > > D. Scott Secor - Millennial Infarction Mitigator wrote:
> > > >
> > >
> > > [snip]
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Can't we conjure up a couple of superheroes such as COBOLman and The
> > > > Chipster?
> > >
> > > Durned Space Aliens, must've left this idea of mine in the warehouse
> > > someplace and only recently implanted it into your brain... years 'n
> > > years ago I thought of Captain COBOL (voice in echo chamber:
> > > 'CAAAAPPPPPTTTTAAAIIIIINNNN COBOL...OBOL...OBol... obol!') and his
> > > arch-nemesis, Meeting Man.
> > >
> > And his cohorts VoiceMailMan and ProfsMan (For the IBMers out there)
>
> You left out my favorite- POWER POINT MAN!
>
mickey