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 : CSGI ...READY FOR TAKE-OFF! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: tech who wrote (2353)	2/5/1998 11:42:00 AM
From: tech	Respond to of 3391

U.S. Lawmakers Doubt FAA Can Fix 2000 Glitch __________________(news) link: yahoo.com WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Federal Aviation Administration is far behind schedule in fixing year 2000 problems in computers that include those used to control air traffic, a congressional panel has been told. FAA Administrator Jane Garvey vowed to fix the problem in time, but lawmakers and other witnesses at the hearing were skeptical. "How can I believe today's FAA schedules when previous FAA schedules have been so far off?" asked Steve Horn, the California Republican who chairs the House Government Reform subcommittee on technology. "Time is running out," the General Accounting Office agreed in a report. "FAA's progress in making its systems ready for the year 2000 has been too slow. At its current pace, it will not make it in time." The GAO, Congress' investigative arm, said the consequences could include degraded safety, grounded or delayed flights, increased airline costs and passenger inconvenience. Because older computers allocate just two digits for the year in recognizing dates, many are expected to read the year 2000 as 1900 and may fail or provide wrong information. Some FAA computers, like the ones that help controllers keep track of high-altitude traffic, are 25 years old. International Business Machines told the GAO it no longer had the skills or tools to evaluate the code in some of the computers managing this traffic. The implications are huge for both domestic and international air travel. The FAA's authority stretches from the western Atlantic to within 500 miles of Tokyo -- 55 percent of the world's air traffic. Garvey, who has been on the job just six months, did not play down the problems. She said the air traffic computers alone have more than 23 million lines of code -- the programming that tells computers what to do -- in 50 computer languages, distributed among 250 different systems. "We are behind and that is unacceptable," Garvey told the joint hearing of the House Government Reform and House Science subcommittees. "Ensuring that we meet this challenge is one of my top priorities." Garvey said the FAA was taking a two-track approach of making existing computers able to deal with the year 2000 while selecting replacement equipment. She said reports that air traffic could be cut by 50 percent if the fixes were not made in time were "a slight exaggeration." But Garvey said if necessary, air traffic would be either rerouted or deliberately delayed to maintain safety. "Obviously, our goal is to ensure that these problems and the delays that could result do not happen," she said. Rep. Bart Gordon warned Garvey that failure would be a black mark on her life and devastating to the country. "It's very important that you know that," the Tennessee Democrat said. Even without the 2000 problem, the FAA is in a race against time to upgrade its aging air traffic control system, which is handling an ever increasing number of flights. Several missteps in recent years in simply defining the replacement equipment have delayed upgrades and wasted billions of dollars. A report last year by the National Civil Aviation Review Commission warned of aviation gridlock that could set in soon after 2000 and damage the U.S. economy. Transportation Inspector General Kenneth Mead told the hearing it was not until about six months ago that FAA began tackling the 2000 issue with a sense of urgency. "The challenge to FAA is great because its on-time track record for completing computer- and software-intensive programs has been poor," Mead said. The FAA's date of November 1999 for implementing a solution to the 2000 problem was too close for comfort, and the date should be be no later than June 1999, Mead said. "While money is important, the real issue is time," he said. The administration's Office of Management and Budget has set a March 1999 target date for full implementation by all agencies.

To: tech who wrote (2353)	2/5/1998 12:01:00 PM
From: tech	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 3391

Nuclear Power Industry Is Not Being Forthright, Says Y2K Programmer ___(news) Link: y2ktimebomb.com Don Taylor is concerned that the nuclear power industry is not telling the public the whole truth regarding the industry's noncompliance. The industry pooh-poohs critics, yet it does not provide evidence of the actual risks. It even implies that some plants have become compliant, but none is named. * * * * * * * Example: The Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) and Nuclear Utilities Software Management Group (NUSMG) issued a Y2K strategy document last fall for the industry. Wermiel called it "a FAIRLY (emphasis supplied) effective program...covering everything a licensee needs to be concerned about." He WANTS to see a Y2K plan at least as good in place at every nuclear power facility. Where are the teeth in wanting? Example: The NEI Director of Operations, Jim Davis, compared the century rollover to the exercise nuclear power plants must run through for conversion to Daylight Savings Time. "Not a big deal," he said. Comparing an event that is happening for the first time in the history of nuclear power plants to one that has happened twice yearly for the twenty years or so they have been in operation is too big a stretch to be taken seriously. Example: Davis objected to what he called "myths, confusion and misstatements" about the true state of Y2K affairs within his industry, saying that it is difficult to "sort stories from facts." But in his next breath he admitted that until enterprises perform their inventory and assessment, the magnitude of the situation remains unknown. In spite of this admitted lack of facts, in spite of the fact that there are less than two years remaining to resolve a problem of unknown size, he told the public that everything was in good order. Mr. Davis topped all that off with "But those that have done it say (the conversion) is a manageable problem." If one or more nuclear power plants have completed the conversion, why aren't they spreading the news? . . . Assurances such as these are the reasons why everyone should be extremely concerned with the upcoming Year 2000 Crisis. It is disturbing to imagine that such a major part of the power industry, the one industry that absolutely must stay in operation during the date change, is so lackadaisical about their plans to meet this crisis. Instead of trying to reassure the public that they are ready, the Nuclear Energy Institute should concentrate on finding any and all possible problems that could occur in their domain.