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 : Year 2000 (Y2K) Embedded Systems & Infrastructure Problem -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: John Mansfield who wrote (449)	6/1/1998 9:52:00 PM
From: foobert	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 618

Start with 25 billion embedded chips Subtract total number of digital clocks, wristwatches, etc. Of the remaining chips, subtract the number that have no date functionality. We now have work to do to determine if the remaining chips do any date calculations involving a year value. (Many embedded chips track day of week only: they cycle through days from Sunday to Saturday, and reset to Sunday again) These remaining chips become the focus of the embedded chip problem. That should cut the problem down somewhat.

To: John Mansfield who wrote (449)	6/7/1998 3:20:00 PM
From: John Mansfield	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 618

'You will recall Ralph Syzgenda's comments (CIO of GM) that the embedded systems problem in GM plants was a catastrophe? Now Rolls Royce is saying exactly the opposite. ************************************************* Rolls-Royce told shareholders at its annual general meeting last week that the threat of millennium bugs on Britain factory floors is "a myth"........ Robbins dismissed claims that manufacturers faced an uphill task tracing and correcting millennium problems in embedded systems, or so called 'black box' controllers. "It's completely untrue. The problem is not with the machines, it is with the shop floor systems," he said. *********************** I think what the above means is that somebody must've claimed that Rolls would have to trace every single circuit of every single chip on its shop floors. Rolls then explained that, no, that is not necessary - the problems reside in the embedded systems, not the shop floor chips. Is this a correct interpretation of what he said? But he says much more than that in the article. He uses debunker terminology like "myth" and seems to brush aside the whole problem as miniscule. That's doing more than defining the location of the problems - system level vs. chip or machine level. Is it reasonable to say that he is wrong in his assessment? If you think he's correct, then why is he saying the exact opposite of Ralph Syzgenda? - pl webserv.vnunet.com ____ Subject: Rolls Royce disputes GM on embedded systems problem From: paul leblanc <pleblan9@pop3x.idt.net> Date: 1998/06/04 Message-ID: <3576C843.575B@pop3x.idt.net> Newsgroups: comp.software.year-2000 [More Headers] [Subscribe to comp.software.year-2000]