Gee, thanks for the warm welcome. You are just so open to the opinions of others with different perspectives. It must be tough being omniscient, but you seem to handle it with grace and dignity.
To answer one of your substantive questions, before you went off on your rude rant, our contingency planning is not because we anticipate any problems with our own systems (which do include many embedded systems, btw), but because it's prudent to prepare for other entities, with whom we interface, not being as prepared as us. We have had disaster plans for years, and our contingencies are modifications of those plans.
To clarify, 95% of our systems are completely compliant and tested. The remaining 5% will be so by the end of next month. You misunderstand a basic concept here--we have many largely independent systems, each of which require their own remediation, not one system that is 95% done. In fact, we have over 400 systems that are done being remediated and fewer than 20 that remain to be finished, but are, themselves, over 90% done being fixed and tested.
One thing we do agree on--fire all the lawyers. |
