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: B.K.Myers who wrote (8682)	9/15/1999 3:02:00 PM
From: flatsville	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 9818

B.K.-- You wrote: >>>So what's going on here. For the past 2-3 years we have been talking about "mission critical" system. Then a couple of months ago the executive branch started talking about "high impact" systems. Now they are talking about their "most important" systems.<< Yeah...I've been wondering the same thing myself. I assume the next category will be "those systems without which we can kiss our @sses goodbye." You also wrote: >>>According to this report, only 7 of the 43 high impact programs are now Y2K compliant. This is NOT the 97 percent that the White House says are complete. This 97 percent is NOT reflected in the September 1999 Report Card. Nor does it agree with the 95% complete reported in the September 1999 scorecard.<<< Now B.K., if you're going to apply this kind of rigorous analysis to the data David is going to start ranting about software measurement again when the real issues is these morons have not learned how to fabricate and execute a consistent lie. <ggg> and: >>>("It depends on how you define "is"").<<< ROTFLMAO Please excuse me (and you too David) for being flip. I am feeling evil today. I am disgusted that the report on state Medicaid systems had to be obtained under a FOIA request rather than published as a matter or course in a timely fashion. >>>It is awful late to be asking these core questions. I guess only time will tell.<<< Appently you're right in that "only time will tell" since we can't trust some agencies to provide "data that will tell."

To: B.K.Myers who wrote (8682)	9/15/1999 6:20:00 PM
From: JBTFD	Respond to of 9818

B.K., Isn't that what they call "creative terminology"? <ggg> On a more somber note, your point is very valid, and I bet only caught by a small minority of the populace. Regards, Mark

To: B.K.Myers who wrote (8682)	9/15/1999 6:53:00 PM
From: Howard Clark	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 9818

According to the Horn report, "Again this quarter, the Defense Department revised its number of mission-critical systems, this time adding 333 systems to its total count" So at least as far as DOD is concerned, the number of most important systems seems to be rising not falling. To my knowlege, the term "high impact" has been applied to programs not systems. Also, the discrepancy between the high-impact program readiness and the 95% overall federal systems readiness (or 97%, what's a couple of percent between friends) is explained by the fact that a different criteria was used for determining readiness. The latter number refers to the readiness of the Federal systems alone, the former takes into account the readiness of all state, local and private organizations the Federal program must coordinate with. If a handful of state Medicaid agencies are non-compliant, for example, the whole program could have a not-ready status.

To: B.K.Myers who wrote (8682)	9/16/1999 1:25:00 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Respond to of 9818

Actually BK, One of the reasons that Joel Willemssen stated for Congressman Horn's B- rating for the Federal government is that he had originally stated a compliancy deadline of March 31st, so that 9 months could be dedicated to end to end testing of all systems and their interfaces. However, since may state based systems are still be remediated, with some having a target for compliancy in the 4th quarter, there won't be much opporunity to test and debug any glitches that may have been inserted. That does not mean the systems will abend... but just that data cannot have the full measure of trust as he expects they should have. He especially is concerned about DOD systems.. So the topic was discussed the other night (sorry you couldn't make it), but it was not necessarily reflective of expected system failure. Another question that was brought referenced how even though mission critical systems might be operational, what would be the cost, in money and reduced efficiency, of not having the non-mission critical systems fully remediated. The answer was not anything I could call concrete, except that no one has incorporated such costs into their equations as to the total Federal outlay for fixing the Y2K issue. Regards, Ron