SI
SI
discoversearch

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: flatsville who wrote (3461)1/28/1999 12:23:00 PM
From: david sosiak  Respond to of 9818
 
Dear Flatsville, Great find !!!! Thanks !

Regards,
Dave



To: flatsville who wrote (3461)1/28/1999 2:18:00 PM
From: John Mansfield  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 9818
 
'....You know, I've been interested in this Y2K crap for a while now, as a kind of fantasy "Doomsday" scenario. Planet of the apes, Conan the Barbarian, make a new go of it, all the good stuff. Being the instigator that I am, I liked to throw it out there it and see what kind of reaction I would get. Good study of people.


The wife and I were preparing for a disruption in services, like the ice storm we had here last year. Folks around here didn't have power for a month. No water. The local comminutes ran shelters, fuel and food rationing happened, restricted travel, National Guard, that kind of thing.

What goes around comes around.


At work I got tasked from on high with fixing the "Y2K Problem". No sweat. The only thing that I figured would be goofy would be some software, mostly in accounting, other-people interfaced stuff, and the older desktop computers. They needed to be replaced anyway. We and the World could muddle through.


The major portion of the plants controls, (remember? I work at a fairly new power plant) although computer operated, were a different breed of machine, and care nothing about the date, they merely control their specific machine and send info to the plants main control computer, which operates valves and various other support devices for the main processes. No big deal. Investigation into the plant's main control computers also showed that it was no big deal, the only thing that (reportedly) would go wrong was some trending functions, which allow us to "look in the past" ( I am the master of the run- on sentence... On a dark and stormy night...)

Checking some 40-odd control systems and over 400 circuit cards nothing showed. So far, so good. No indication of Y2K failures. Oh, I've got 2 systems, besides the trending thing, to software de-bug, but they only look to see if a pump has been running for a week straight, if so, the program shifts to the standby pump. Once again, no big deal.

I am now down to the "stuff you never think about " level. Embedded chips. Supposedly the real crux of the matter.


It seems to me that if the embedded chip doesn't have a people-to-machine interface, a readout of some sort, or operate on a calendar of some kind, such as : I haven't been serviced in 6 months so I will shut down function, then how could it know or even care, what today's date is ?

Silly boy.


I ran into a doosey of an "embedded chip". Three of them as a matter of fact. The only three I have looked at so far. This does not bode well...

Doosey #1: The plants phone system will not work. The manufacture of the chip says so. The rest of the system will, but if the brains of the systems don't, what part will ? The manufacturer doesn't support this system anymore even though it was built in 1992.


Doosey #2: The meter which reads the total power output of the plant will not work. Who would check a simple meter? Here is the good part: This meter masquerades as a simple output meter, but in reality it sends a signal to the supplementary firing system which controls the Steam Turbine portion of the plant. 36 million watts worth. For $95.00 we can get the meter upgraded to Y2K-OK status. Consider it done.


Doosey #3: The best one. The gas turbine's (the main source of power & heat for this plant and most power plants built in the last 15 years...) fire suppression system central processing unit will not work. The card manufacturer says "We never built anything like that", but I'm looking at the card...and they are sending me a test program for the "card we never built". I went to the manufacturer of the CPU's web site and by gosh, it ain't going to work. Once again, if the brains of the system are not going to work, what part will ? That's not the best part. If the fire suppression system is down, the Gas Turbine will not start. If the Gas Turbine is running on Y2K date roll- over, the Gas Turbine will shut down. Violently. If the Gas Turbine is not running, the rest of the plant will not be running. NO POWER to the grid. We could send a false signal to the Gas Turbine to indicate that the fire suppression system is OK, but what would our insurance carrier have to say about that ?

It appears that I will have to have a whole new fire suppression system installed, and that will take at least 6 months to do. On top of the pain in the ass factor of specifying the thing, I'll have to convince the Boss to spend the bucks to do it (at least $ 20,000 and 1-2 weeks that the plant will have to be shut down). That's after it fails its Y2k test, like the manufacturer says it will. Crap.


This Power plant is fairly new, and one would expect things like this to happen. On older plants, we've got no problem, you say? Wrong-oh. All plants are constantly being repaired, replaced, upgraded. The manufacturer of choice for the utilities, (company name withheld), has major Y2K problems. Not counting the embedded chip thing.


I called the local municipal utility, who supplies our back up power, to inquire about their Y2K status. They don't believe in Y2K, I was told... They are doing nothing. They won't have a problem. I was told this this by their Chief Engineer. He also said he was taking all his money out of the bank by December next year.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roleigh Martin ourworld.compuserve.com
( easy to remember alias is: webalias.com )
(A Web Site that focuses on Y2k threat to Utilities, Banks & more)
To subscribe to free e-letter, fill in the form at the bottom of the page: ourworld.compuserve.com
To unsubscribe, send "unsubscribe" message to
roleigh_for_web-unsubscribe@egroups.com
Print out this Y2K brochure to give to your neighbors, friends & relatives:
ourworld.compuserve.com





To: flatsville who wrote (3461)1/28/1999 7:53:00 PM
From: C.K. Houston  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 9818
 
American General has profitable year - Earnings up in all units,
though Y2K accounting muddles quarter
=========================================================
HOUSTON CHRONICLE 1/28/99 - By Pamela Yip, Staff Reporter

American General chalked up strong earnings in 1998, but how the company accounted for the costs associated with resolving its Y2K computer problem confused some analysts.

Net earnings in 1998 soared 41 percent to $764 million, compared with $542 million in 1997. That includes a $288 million after-tax charge associated with Year 2000 compliance costs and settlements of lawsuits that accused American General of using deceptive sales practices to sell life insurance ...

In the fourth quarter, American General's net earnings totaled $1 million, compared with $230 million in the same quarter in 1997. Operating earnings totaled $264 million in the quarter, compared with $219 million in the comparable quarter in 1997. Operating earnings per share in the fourth quarter were $1.02, up 16 percent from the fourth quarter of 1997.

Because American General excluded Y2K costs in its earnings per share calculations, the company "clearly did not beat" analysts earnings estimates, said Charles Hill, director of research at First Call in Boston, which compiles the earnings estimates.

Analysts were calling for American General to earn 96 cents operating earnings per share in the fourth quarter. If American General hadn't separated Y2K costs from its earnings-per-share calculations, it would have had operating earnings of 95 cents per share in the fourth quarter, Hill said.

"I certainly would not take the $1.02 and compare it to 96 and say they beat the estimates," he said. "That would be fallacious. They either met it or missed it by a penny." Hill said he was giving the company the benefit of the doubt because he didn't have the precise figures on which to base his calculations.

"It would appear that they came in at 95 (cents operating earnings per share) vs. expectations of 96," he said. "We don't know how the rounding works out."

American General officials said the company has met or exceeded earnings estimates throughout the year, regardless of how Y2K costs are accounted for.

"We have approached reporting earnings in a way that appropriately reflects our earnings progression," said spokesman John Pluhowski.

Other analysts said they were pleased with American General's earnings
performance and that Y2K costs are a short-term expense and the company is already in the testing phase of its Year 2000 efforts.

=========================================================

OFF TOPIC: I dated past president of American General back in late 80's. On Gold Monitor thread, I came across a press clipping regarding a congressman I dated back in 70's. In 60's I dated a multiple Grammy Award nominee. Throughout 90's I was travelling throughout the world with my wonderful ex-"signigicant other", who since sold his company to one listed on NYSE.

Now I'm in Oregon ... dateless ... pounding the keys ... researching Y2K

HOW BORING!!! Looking forward to spring, when I'll be cutting back on research, and doing some gardening.

Cheryl