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: flatsville who wrote (8340)	8/23/1999 11:14:00 PM
From: Cheeky Kid	Respond to of 9818

zdnet.com Perspective on the news: The Navy tests Occam's Razor August 23, 1999 An eruption of concern about the U.S. Navy's perspective on Y2K has ignited a lot of doomer traffic on the Web and, unfortunately, some poorly researched Associated Press articles. Based on the conclusion that, unless a community or utility produced proof of total Y2K readiness they were destined to experience a catastrophic failure, the Navy has assembled a contingency plan that is drastically out of line with the real risk of Y2K failures. This is, I suppose, reasonable, if you are the Navy, because they believe that they need to have backup plans in place to ensure they can perform their national security duties. But, because a doomsday agitator, Jim Lord, published the Navy's findings under the headline "secret document" the Navy's overly pessimistic conclusions have caused a small wave of panic. My colleagues at the Associated Press seized upon Lord's postings as evidence of a cover-up and published a story about how the Navy was keeping its concerns secret. Unfortunately, there was nothing secret about it - until recently, the very document Lord referred to as "secret" was posted on the Web for all to see. I read it in April and commented on it here, for example. Compounding the idiocy was the fact that Lord and the AP did nothing more than publish stories about the document's being "revealed." Rather than treating the Navy's views as another perspective on Y2K, one that needs to be checked, Lord has declared this is proof that the U.S. government has systematically lied to the American people about the real risks of Y2K. Neither Lord nor the AP went to any of the cities or utilities identified by the Navy as being at high risk of Y2K failures to find out if the Navy was wrong. This next step is the critical one, which would add some real value to the debate about Y2K. But, don't expect it from Jim Lord, who used the story to escalate his profile among doom-speakers. Nor, I expect, will the AP be publishing a follow-up that demonstrates it was suckered by Lord's "revelation." What's really at issue? It's a question of methodology. The Navy applied an extreme standard to its assessment of Y2K readiness. Any community or utility that did not respond with a comprehensive answer to the Navy's questions was deemed at high risk. Is this reasonable? No, not even when it's the Navy asking. Consider the comment in the recent North American Electric Reliability Council report for the U.S. Department of Energy that utilities that previously reported they were compliant were even bothering to answer NERC questionnaires anymore. There is survey fatigue. It's also to be expected that there would be differing outcomes in Y2K surveys by U.S. agencies. This difference of opinions is not proof that the rest of government is lying. Yet, that's exactly what Mr. Lord and a legion of doomers are now claiming. And, here, we come to the issue of Occam's Razor, the scientific precept that, all things being equal the simplest explanation is probably correct. There are two places that Occam's Razor cuts the current panic to shreds: Recognizing the reality of survey fatigue, the categorization of communities and firms that did not respond comprehensively to the Navy survey does not prove these entities are at a high risk of Y2K failures. The Navy's opinion does not give lie to the rest of the government's opinion that Y2K risks are slight. Which makes more sense, that only the Navy, apart from the rest of the U.S. federal, state and city governments polled by the Navy, along with many utilities (which have filed preparedness plans with public utilities and regulatory agencies), is telling "the truth" or that there is a simple difference of opinion. The divergent opinions should be examined instead of throwing out all the less pessimistic findings as unreliable. Mr. Lord did not do his homework when he received the Navy document, or he would not have advertised it as a "secret" report withheld from the public. The Associated Press compounded this misleading story when it told readers the document was newly available. And these facts, not the difference between the Navy's reading of Y2K versus the rest of the entities and agencies involved, have become the issue.

To: flatsville who wrote (8340)	8/23/1999 11:29:00 PM
From: C.K. Houston	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 9818

flatsville, I didn't know this ... "But the Scada system is the heart of Texaco's embedded-system network. If it can't collect data from the field devices, the company has no idea what's going on in its operations, can't analyze its production, can't bill customers - can't function as a company. By law, if Texaco loses contact with its field devices, it shuts down in four hours." wired.com Texaco's been working on this for a looooong time. Started sooner than most oil companies. So, I imagine theyre pretty far along on remediation. Just hope they catch everything. There sure are a lot of devices to check. Jay Abshier was one of the first to come public in early 97, with actual embedded systems and process control problems encountered in oil industry. His office was 3 miles from my home in Houston. I thought it was pretty ballsy for Texaco to be so forthright about potential problems in this Wired article. Good for them. Cheryl

To: flatsville who wrote (8340)	8/24/1999 6:19:00 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 9818

That was a very interesting article about Texaco. If you are looking for more sources on the oil industry as it relates to Y2K, you might want to post a query on the Strictly Drilling thread. I lurked there for a year or so and found some posters who really seem to know the oil biz and have good contacts. I didn't read every post--they're a very prolific bunch--but I don't recall any discussion of Y2K other than its effect on the price of oil due to stockpiling. If they think this is an issue, it sure isn't obvious. They seem to be more interested in OPEC holding to its quotas. Perhaps you or someone else who understands the issues might want to ask them a pointed question or two. Karen