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: C.K. Houston who wrote (411)	11/12/1997 8:05:00 AM
From: Steve Rubakh	Respond to of 9818

Millennium bug "poses factory safety threat" By Giles Turnbull, New Media Correspondent, PA News Factory workers could be at risk because of the year 2000 computer date problem, it has emerged. Concerns about possible dangers posed to workers if computer-controlled equipment in factories does not recognise the year 2000 have been raised by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE), which has commissioned a research project to find out more about the possible effects on computer-controlled machinery. The year 2000 problem is a bug affecting many computer programs and microprocessors, which means they may not recognise 2000 as a valid date, and will instead take it to be 1900. The predicted consequences, ranging from expensive annoyance to global catastrophe, are creating headaches for companies and governments. The HSE's fears demonstrate the far-reaching legal implications of the problem. The law says that "manufacturers must tell their customers if they know there is anything in their product which could cause a risk to health and safety" said Ron Bell, head of the HSE's Control Systems Unit. That could mean that companies providing all sorts of computer-assisted services which may not be year 2000 compliant, and therefore a possible risk to health and safety, could face legal actions. "The implications are far reaching many basic computer functions could fail," said Mr Bell. "HSE knows that there has been a lot of publicity aimed at users of commercial and business computer systems but so far information has not been targeted at computer systems which are used for safety. "We are particularly concerned about small and medium-sized firms which do not have in-house IT expertise to deal with potential problems these firms may be unaware that their computer-controlled safety systems could be affected by the Y2K problem. "Companies which rely on computers in systems where safety is an issue should start work immediately." The kind of systems the HSE is worried about are computerised machines, production lines and factory equipment. Although most of these are designed to fail safe, the year 2000 problem brings about an element of unpredictability that needs to be resolved. The research project, to be undertaken by Glasgow-based Real Time Engineering, will be published by HSE in December. Its aim is to show users how to identify vulnerable safety-related systems and develop a method for tackling the problem. Although the focus of the research is primarily on the Year 2000 issue, the HSE has also asked for some work on the potential for the systems to fail to recognise leap years.

To: C.K. Houston who wrote (411)	11/12/1997 12:54:00 PM
From: Bill Ounce	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 9818

Re: Executive Order #11490 (lots of controversy here) This is a tangent. Y2K is very real and (potentially) devastating. I have many more doubts on the Executive Order conspiracy stuff. How can one *substantiate* it? There are alot of books out there. Some say you do not have to pay taxes. These books neglect to mention that the author has lost against the IRS and any profit from the book is sent to the IRS. :-) It's common sense to conclude that the federal government will (at least try to) respond to Y2K induced major catastrophies. It makes sense for the Fed to distribute food via the National Guard if people are starving. Martial Law makes some sense if the power grid fails. Don't need a conspiracy theory for this :-). I looked into this Execitive Order stuff a bit and could conclude nothing. But I did find another opinion from an ultra conservative publication. So, here are some excerpts to balance what was earlier presented. constitution.org Danger of Rumors The rumor of a suspended Constitution represents only the latest in what has become a labyrinth of false trails and dead-ends, all with the potential to confuse and neutralize well-meaning conservatives. Mysterious executive orders prohibiting food hoarding, undue concern about yellow fringes around the American flag, and tales of Russian weather modification all damage the credibility of otherwise effective conservative activists. But the rumor that the Constitution has already been suspended delivers a double blow to the conservative movement since it is not only patently false, but is infecting good Americans with a sense of hopelessness. [...] Fortunately, as long as the Constitution still stands, any government action that is based on extra-constitutional powers is ipso facto unconstitutional. [...] In addition, the people must learn to resist the distractions of the rumor mill and, instead, generate constant and informed vigilance lest their freedoms disappear [...]. jbs.org (skip down to the Patriot Beware article debunking common myths) [Myth:]Under the terms of Executive Order 11490, the President of the United States can declare that a National Emergency exists and the Executive Branch can ... put the entire country under TOTAL MARTIAL LAW AND A MILITARY DICTATORSHIP. (Unsourced photocopied circular, Kosmos Computer BBS cited as originator) [Debunking:] This statement describes fairly accurately what the practical effect of Executive Order 11490 would have been had it been implemented. It never was, and it was eventually repealed (as it should have been) as a result of the National Emergencies Termination Act of 1976. The Presidents power to issue executive orders arises under his authority as chief executive of the federal government (Article II, Section One, Clause One of the U.S. Constitution) and Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces (Article II, Section Two, Clause One). But that authority is limited solely to administering the law as passed by Congress and repelling surprise invasions, respectively. During the 20th century, however, many Presidents have improperly issued executive orders to create entirely new government agencies, such as the Food Administration during World War I, the Office of Censorship during World War II, and the Commission on Critical Infrastructure Protection during the Clinton Administration. Mr. Clinton has also issued executive orders to bail out the economies of foreign nations and to place U.S. soldiers under United Nations control. Clearly there is no authority under the Constitution for the President to create entire federal agencies by sheer edict, and there certainly is a constitutional prohibition upon any rights protected under the Constitution from being infringed during even a time of national emergency (except for the suspension of habeas corpus). [my emphasis] But the practical limitations on the power of presidential executive orders have historically been defined by what the other two branches of government are willing to tolerate. Executive orders, whether called Executive Orders or Presidential Decision Directives, continue to function in the United States as de facto legislation. The Supreme Court has overturned several executive orders as unconstitutional, most notably in the case of Youngstown Co. v. Sawyer. In Youngstown, the High Court overturned Harry Trumans Executive Order 10340, which was an attempt to seize the entire steel industry. Congress has also overturned numerous executive orders by legislation over the years, but has more often than not let de facto presidential law-making through executive decree continue unhindered. Worse still, Congress has exhibited an increasing tendency to write legislation that allows presidential flexibility to proclaim executive orders in a variety of matters. My personal conclusion, for what it's worth This source says that the President can make his arbitrary executive orders, but Congress and the Supreme Court may overturn them. Seems to make some sense. The Executive Order scenerio may be bad, but is far from hopeless.