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: Yogizuna who wrote (8123)	8/20/1999 12:57:00 PM
From: Edwarda	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 9818

No, no. It's the other way around: Only 5% are not "date compliant" and most don't even need to be to continue to function regardless of what year it happens to be. Paper machines, for example, are loaded with embedded systems that could care less about what year it happens to be. I hear that all the key executives of Southwest Airlines are committed to being in the air at the turn of the year, so it looks to me as though they are not worried about Y2K compliance. Even Ed Yardeni, whom I've known for years, has expressed far less concern than he did previously. I suspect that we are going to run into some glitches here and there, but hysteria--except for the fear that some of the "gloom and doomers" will go berserk and turn violent when the world doesn't end--strikes me as totally out of place. We've all dealt with power outages that had nothing to do with Y2K, yet the issue is being treated as some sort of special event. We've (many of us) dealt with food shortages during blizzards that had nothing whatever to do with Y2K. IMO, Y2K is being used by too many people and companies as a tool rather than a real issue.

To: Yogizuna who wrote (8123)	8/20/1999 7:53:00 PM
From: flatsville	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 9818

Yogi-- Re: Embedded systems compliance-- See the following industrial sector studies based on case studies of IEE members: iee.org.uk I was most surprised by this example in this sector: Processing industries (G2.17.8) One company reported having found that of its embedded systems 25% had date functionality 25% of these were non-compliant 6% were complex supervisory systems The 25% non-compliance figure was confirmed by another report. There was also agreement that this figure is typical of those reported at conferences and in private conversations. It was also noted that those reporting a 25% failure rate have evidence of a sufficient number of specific individual failures to explain that number. A number of examples are given in w-85.htm Statistics Table 1. (The above bolded section was the most revealing part of the report.)