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: Alastair McIntosh who wrote (3518)	1/31/1999 7:07:00 PM
From: Eski	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 9818

""Another problem I have is trying to understand why so many seemingly intelligent people posting on this thread seem to filter out and discard the mounting evidence that the Y2K problem is being brought under control. When I found the following article it did help me to understand the phenomenon."" I keep asking myself the same question Al. Good point, that's why I stop posting.

To: Alastair McIntosh who wrote (3518)	1/31/1999 7:10:00 PM
From: Cheeky Kid	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 9818

Alastair, It is my opinion that people don't want to hear this. It seems to me, good news is bad news on these threads.

To: Alastair McIntosh who wrote (3518)	1/31/1999 7:46:00 PM
From: C.K. Houston	Respond to of 9818

<<C.K., from your post - BIG problem in the plants. Some chips have to change. Since plants were built, size of chip has changed. So, motherboard has to change too. Problem is, motherboard is affixed to valve ... so valves have to be replaced. Problem goes a few more levels beyond.>> < The above quote just does not pass the smell test. I spent 30 years constructing sewage and water treatment plants, pumping stations, etc. the largest of which were essentially fully automated and contained hundreds, if not thousands, of process control valves. I have never encountered an automated valve (nor can I envision one) where a problem with the controls of the valve actuator would require changing a valve. Although nothing is impossible this is one case where I would have to see it to believe it. If true, it is extremely rare.> AL: The problem is not as rare as you think. It was my bringing up the problems with oil refineries (See below letter to Alan Greenspan) which precipitated the chip/motherboard/valve discussion, as it related to Kraft. He explained that they've run into same problem at their plants but that there were even more problems several layers beyond that. Cheryl _______________________________________________________________ NEW PROBLEMS IN OIL REFINERIES "But while the company was testing some of the equipment that controlled oil valves in its refineries, engineers inadvertently discovered a host of new problems. Thousands of terminals that control the (dispensation) of oil have old chips with a Year 2000 problem. "The chips ALL need replacing - BUT the new chips won't fit on the old motherboards and the new motherboards don't fit the old valves. So all the valves have to be replaced too." Consider the implications of the oil company example extending throughout the economy and you'll have some idea of the unpredictability of the economic consequences of Y2K. December 9, 1997 - Letter to Alan Greenspan y2ktimebomb.com _______________________________________________________________ AL: If you spent 30 years constructing sewage and water treatment plants, pumping stations, etc. AND you weren't aware of this problem ... we're in deep doo-doo. Lots of things don't pass the "smell test" here. This isn't a new problem. It's been around for a while. Don't know if problem exists in those sewage plants of yours ... but problem has been verified and definitely does exist in oil refineries, chemical refineries and food processing plants. Cheryl

To: Alastair McIntosh who wrote (3518)	1/31/1999 7:58:00 PM
From: flatsville	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 9818

Alastair--The following is from the American Water Works Association web site. Apparently the industry association believes there is some cause for concern with embedded chips and valves. You may want to look at the site and associated links "embedded" in the text of the following discussion. Please let us know what you think. The integrity of sanitary systems has been a concern of mine. awwa.org Year 2000 - The Millennium Bug What Should Water Utilities Be Doing To Protect Their Public? By now, nearly everyone has heard of the Year 2000, or Y2K, problem. This issue stems from the old computer programming practice of using only the last two digits of the year in date information to save space in memory. The 19 (as in 1998) was just assumed and not stored as part of the date. As a consequence, when the date January 1, 2000, appears, those programs that use the 2-digit year will interpret the 00 from 2000 as 1900. Depending on the operation being performed, this can create significant problems, such as erroneous computations and the proliferation of bad data throughout an organization's databases. The problem is often identified with the computer hardware and software (Information Technology, or IT) of an organization. However, for water utilities, and probably for many other systems, a much larger problem lies sleeping in the multitude of process controllers, data loggers, and automated operating systems scattered throughout the water utility. Even a very small water system that can get by on one or two PCs is likely to be overwhelmed by the number of embedded systems (ES) that may be found in their system. Cars and trucks are said to have up to 50 processors throughout the vehicle. A package plant has flow controllers, chemical pacing controllers, level sensors, chemical monitors with feedback loops, etc. Each of these is operated by an embedded computer chip that likely has a real time processor, or clock, included. If these systems are not capable of handling the date January 1, 2000, the system may fail - and the failure mode may shut the plant down, or could cause unsafe water to be distributed to the system. Likewise, the distribution system is controlled by automatic valves, level or pressure sensors, etc., and all of these systems are potential sources of failure. WHAT DOES THIS MEAN FOR WATER UTILITIES Ian Lisk, on his WaterOnLine internet page, paints a scenario of failure in a community water and wastewater system. While he admits this scenario may be far fetched, and many utilities are working to meet the demands of Y2K, it is not entirely out of the question. And time is now very short. AMWA provides a good set of references to web pages that may be helpful to a utility just now beginning to meet this issue. They also provide a clock that lets you know just how many (or how few) days you have until the issue catches up with you. If your race has just started, you better run fast. <balance of page snipped> "flatsville"

To: Alastair McIntosh who wrote (3518)	2/2/1999 11:02:00 PM
From: Ken Salaets	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 9818

>> Another problem I have is trying to understand why so many seemingly intelligent people posting on this thread seem to filter out and discard the mounting evidence that the Y2K problem is being brought under control. Perhaps it's because some of us don't live in the nice little sandbox that you play in. Some of us have to live in the global village of international markets and national security, where we have to think bigger thoughts and contemplate graver scenarios than the armchair quarterbacks out in la-la land. Like whether the Port of San Francisco is going to be functional so our plants in Boise, ID, can maintain their real-times inventories and keep production lines running, or whether the telecom system in Italy is going to work and thereby ensure that we will be able to communicate with our European headquarters, which manages the sources and contracts that account for 23 percent of our worldwide revenue (measured in billions, mind you), and so on. Or how about this: whether the govt. folks were just jivin' us this morning when they talked in terms of "marshalling resources;" "voluntary" corps, i.e., the Feds asking IT companies to provide lists of key personnel that companies may want to make available for overseas assignments re Y2K emergencies (I can envision the following dialog: "excuse me, Mr. CEO from company X, but your company does how many millions of dollars of business with the Federal Government annually?"); the U.S. military (nope, not just the Army this time, but the Marines, Air Force, etc.) stepping out of its traditional domestic role of handing out blankets and helping with evacuations, etc., and actually being used to step in and take over the operation of critical infrastructure, including private resources if necessary (psssst! tell your soulmate Eski that they used municipal waters systems as an example!). The latter scenario will be triggered if it is determined (by whom? FEMA) that such takeovers are necessary to "minimize economic impacts" or for "public safety." The Feds are also drafting contingency plans to "perform" a similar role in areas of the world that are of economic importance. ["Be all you can be. By 7 in the morning on January 1, 2000, we have already taken over the XXX oil fields..."]. Hey, I realize this sounds alarmist, but don't blame me. It's those damn "seemingly intelligent" folks in your government! I could go on, but I doubt that any of this matters to you and your buddies. You know, for such a minor issue, as you guys are trying like hell to make this out to be, there sure are a lot of "seemingly intelligent people" spending incredible amounts of time and money worrying about Y2K. Go figure! K