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.

Microcap & Penny Stocks : MCRR Refugees -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: WallStBum who wrote (374)	7/23/1998 10:22:00 AM
From: out_of_the_loop	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 582

Dax, hospitals are aware of the problems with y2k. In my hospital there is a committee "working on it". Time is short. In our pathology laboratory, the instruments all have to be y2k verified with each manufacturer. I do not know (or trust) the details of the verification process since I am not part of the committee. However, if it were up to me, I would just make sure there was adequate redundancy (more than one method or machine to run each test in the lab), then sequentially set the date to 12/31/99, stand back and see what happened. That should work for much of the machinery. This should work for a lot of non-laboratory equipment such as dialyzers. Problems include: 1. Big things you can't fo that with (the hospital's mainframe, for example. 2. Things that do not work with the above-described test. Anyway, yes, the problem is real, but the important thing that I do NOT have a handle on is to what extent this will translate into $ for CMED.