Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Discuss Year 2000 Issues -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jeff Redman who wrote (6525)	7/13/1999 2:49:00 PM
From: Cheeky Kid	Respond to of 9818

Great article Jeff!!! Below is once source for Y too Kay articles, notice most of them are doom and gloom. Watch the evening news, after all the stories about people dying in accidents, natural disaters, etc... They throw in a "warm and fuzzy" story at the end of the broadcast. Why do the media dwell on doom and gloom? year2000.com

To: Jeff Redman who wrote (6525)	7/13/1999 2:53:00 PM
From: Cheeky Kid	Respond to of 9818

Former hacker warns of Y2K work rip-offs www2.idg.com.au >>How well do you know the contractor who went through your system line by line looking for year 2000 problems? Do you know which coders worked on your system in particular?<<<

To: Jeff Redman who wrote (6525)	7/13/1999 4:46:00 PM
From: Ken	Respond to of 9818

Jeff: read John's articles 6532,4-THOSE are informative, factual, well-referenced articles that you or anyone can gleen important information from! Or, do you want to call them freaks or idiots also?

To: Jeff Redman who wrote (6525)	7/19/1999 10:35:00 PM
From: C.K. Houston	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 9818

<Computerworld is a far more reliable source then many of the other articles being posted by some of the freaks on this thread.> Jeff, Still think Computerworld is a reliable source? ======================================================= U.S. NUKES LAG IN Y2K SECURITY, MONITORING Report: 68 of 103 plants compliant COMPUTERWORLD - 07/19/99 - By Thomas Hoffman The U.S. nuclear power industry says that most of the nation's 103 plants are year 2000-ready and that any remaining issues to be resolved won't affect plant safety. Its critics aren't so sure. For example, security and plant monitoring systems still need to be fixed at about a dozen plants across the U.S. Those are the same types of systems that caused the infamous accident at Pennsylvania's Three Mile Island facility in 1979, according to Dave Lochbaum, a nuclear safety engineer at the Union of Concerned Scientists, a Washington based watchdog group. Most nuclear plants "are doing an incredible amount of work" on the year 2000 problem, Lochbaum said. However, there's still a plant or two "that hasn't gotten the message," he added. He said he's also concerned that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), which oversees the nation's 103 nuclear power plants and has been auditing their year 2000-readiness, hasn't set minimum Y2K acceptance criteria for the plants to meet. As such, the Y2K-readiness of the 68 plants that have received a green light from the NRC "is too vague to ensure the public that nuclear plants will run safely," said Congressman Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.). A spokesman for the NRC declined to comment on the issue, pointing instead to the organization's Web site (http://www.nrc.gov). A press release on that site related to a year 2000-readiness report the agency issued July 7 states that none of the remaining year 2000 project work "affects the ability of a plant to shut down safely." However, the report goes on to state that if, by the end of September, it appears that a plant won't be able to complete its year 2000 work by year's end, the NRC will take "appropriate" actions, including shutting down a plant if necessary. Of the 35 nuclear plants that the NRC says still have year 2000 issues to resolve, most will wait until this fall -- when demand ebbs -- to make repairs, said a spokesman for the Nuclear Energy Institute, a Washington-based industry group. "It just doesn't make a lot of economic sense to pull a plant off-line" during peak usage periods, the spokesman said. computerworld.com Cheryl 165 Days until 2000 P.S. I don't anticipate melt-downs. I just anticipate more nukes shutting down than some expect. Some of these plants aren't scheduled for remediation until November. I think that's cutting it too close. Then again, maybe I'm wrong. Who knows? We'll find out soon enough, won't we.