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: C.K. Houston who wrote (4698)	3/15/1999 10:15:00 PM
From: Cheeky Kid	Respond to of 9818

That's why I asked you last week to call up your lunch partner and find out his opinion today (March 99)

To: C.K. Houston who wrote (4698)	3/16/1999 12:31:00 AM
From: Cheeky Kid	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 9818

Common Y2K fix only temporary usatoday.com

To: C.K. Houston who wrote (4698)	3/16/1999 12:59:00 AM
From: Cheeky Kid	Respond to of 9818

That link I posted changed, here is the new link: Awareness Is Helping Cool the Y2K Fever latimes.com; >>They have examined, or are examining, their embedded system* problems. We are, for the most part, no longer ignoring Y2K."<<<* >>The year 2000 problem is a simple technical issue that stems from the long tradition in computer programming of abbreviating years to two digits. In 2000, computers could become confused because of the ambiguity of two-digit years. For example, "00" could mean either "2000" or "1900." Some parts of the Y2K problem, such as its effect on embedded microprocessors --critical components that control automated processes in power plants and hospital equipment--have turned out to be far less pervasive than previously believed.<<< >>>Alistair Stewart, a senior advisor for Giga on embedded systems, said that only about 3% of chips have been found to have minor problems, typically requiring resetting the date or restarting a device. The percentage of chips that experience outright failures is "so small as to be statistically insignificant," he said.<<<

To: C.K. Houston who wrote (4698)	3/16/1999 7:55:00 AM
From: flatsville	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 9818

There are some real gems in this article: civic.com -------------------------------------- Week of Monday, March 8, 1999 State/federal interfaces to have Y2K backup plan March 8, 1999 The Clinton administration announced that it will develop contingency plans to keep federal/state social programs operational in case state-owned computers fail because of the Year 2000 computer problem. John Koskinen, chairman of the President's Council on Year 2000 Conversion, told a group of state technology leaders attending a National Governors' Association meeting in Washington, D.C., that a committee will develop the backup plans so that members of the public can continue to receive food stamps and health care payments if interfaces between federal and state computer systems malfunction at the turn of the century. *Federal and state leaders say they expect all federal interfaces at the state level to function properly before and do not anticipate major problems. But they agreed to create a contingency plan.* (Read two paragraphs below for the reason.) *"The public doesn't care if the computer systems are compliant or not,'' Koskinen said. "What the people want to know is if they will receive their benefits, Medicaid and child care assistance.''* (Did he really say this? Oh, Big John I beg to differ...I care about both.) Koskinen said about 165 federal interfaces with state systems have been identified, although the number could slightly increase as more systems are discovered. Emphasis is on 40 mission-critical services such as food stamps, Medicaid and job training, most of which are administered at the state level and tracked by the federal government through computer interfaces with states, Koskinen said. (No wonder they agreed to contingency planning...even though all systems will be ready.) In addition to developing contingency plans, Koskinen said comprehensive end-to-end testing will be conducted at the federal and state levels to make certain that interface systems are able to sustain the 40 major welfare assistance programs from the first time data is keyed into a state or local system to the point where it is manipulated and stored for the last time in a federal system. Michael Benzen, the chief information officer of Missouri, said planning for disruptions is appropriate, particularly if it will protect from failure programs that could dramatically affect people's lives. Benzen, who also is president of the National Association of State Information Resources Executives, said more than 65 percent of the mission-critical federal interfaces are compliant and all should be fixed by year-end. He said some states are behind others, but he is confident all will be compliant by Dec. 31. "States don't get a cookie if they finish in April or if they finish in December,'' Benzen said. "The bottom line is that they finish by deadline. This is not a race.'' Benzen said many of the federal services can be delivered in a timely manner only by electronic means. In Missouri, for example, Benzen said his state could not run the Medicaid program manually if the systems broke down, which adds to the importance of backup plans. (Well...so much for "manual work-a-rounds"...at least in some cases.) "We would have to hire 500 to 1,000 clerks, and I don't think the work force can offer us that kind of support,'' Benzen said. "We fixed our Medicaid systems last year to make certain they are running.... It would be better to fix the systems rather than run the program manually.'' John Kelly, chief information officer of Arizona, said a backup plan is needed even if states are confident that 100 percent of their federal interfaces are compliant. Kelly said federal and state officials need to make certain that their contingency plans are congruent. "This is less about technology and more about management," Kelly said. "No one cares about those interface systems. The public is concerned with what services those interfaces have. The social service programs totally depend on consistent flow of federal funds.'' In its quarterly report to be released this week, the Office of Management and Budget is expected to include information on the 165 state systems that interface with federal programs. In its final quarterly report due out in June, OMB will include an overall status report of the federal mission-critical services administered by state systems, Koskinen said. Koskinen wants the public to know exactly how federal and state governments are progressing with their Year 2000 efforts. Koskinen said his biggest concern is that the public will put a strain on the infrastructure because of misinformation. He told state leaders to inform the public about their Year 2000 progress whenever there is an opportunity. "Our remaining challenge is to get the public to understand that there are some things we don't need to worry about,'' Koskinen said. "There are going to be some glitches that are manageable. But the world will not end as we know it.'' -- Orlando DeBruce (orlando_debruce@fcw.com)

To: C.K. Houston who wrote (4698)	3/16/1999 8:00:00 AM
From: flatsville	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 9818

From the same issue: Starting to get the picture regarding where the trouble may be? civic.com -------------------------------------------------------- Congress Considers $40 Million in Y2K Relief for States March 3, 1999 State and local governments hurting for funds to pay for Year 2000 contingency plans could see some relief from the federal government should Congress enact the "Y2K State and Local Government Assistance Programs (GAP) Act of 1999 introduced March 2 in the U.S. House of Representative. The GAP bill would direct up to $40 million out of the Y2K Emergency Supplemental Funds designated as part of the fiscal 1999 Omnibus Act. Rep. Diana DeGette (D-Colo.)" introduced the measure to establish a relief program to fund no more than 75 grants and give priority to state systems processing federal welfare programs. This new bill (H.R. 909) mirrors legislation introduced this year by U.S. Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan (D-N.Y.) that would set up a matching grant program to provide $2 in federal money for every $1 a state spends to remediate systems. Under the proposed House legislation, state governors' offices would submit applications for funding and include proposed plans for remediation, proposed budgets and a specific funding amount. No state would receive more than two grants, and the program would be managed by the secretary of the U.S. Commerce Department. H.R. 909 has been referred to the House Committee on Government Reform To read full text of the bill, search thomas.loc.gov for H.R. 909. -- Jennifer Jones (jennifer_jones@fcw.com)

To: C.K. Houston who wrote (4698)	3/16/1999 11:39:00 AM
From: C.K. Houston	Read Replies (7) \| Respond to of 9818

CHEEKY KID: This is so, so silly ... you're really groping on this CHIPS deal. Alistair Stewart, a senior advisor for Giga on embedded systems, said that ONLY ABOUT 3% OF CHIPS have been found to have minor problems, typically requiring resetting the date or restarting a device. The PERCENTAGE OF CHIPS that experience outright failures is "so small as to be statistically insignificant," he said. Stewart's an expert on embedded systems, but his comment was about CHIPS. Maybe this will help you understand:-) BLACK BOXES: EMBEDDED SYSTEMS A piece of equipment may appear as a black box to an end-user, but contains upon inspection a multitude of "black boxes" (smaller embedded systems) from different vendors inside it. Furthermore, inside some of those smaller "black boxes," they may contain themselves a multitude of tinier "black boxes" from still different vendors and so on. Each "black box" can have up to ten layers of technology: Chips & microcode; pre-manufacture custom functionality; post-manufacture custom functionality; interfacing of devices; drivers; operating system; vendor-supplied application library; user-defined functionality; user integration of systems and devices; and business process associated with system use. From a design standpoint, to find out if a suspect device is Y2K compliant, many people have to be consulted for EACH "black box" component in order to cover these layers of technology. These consultants include microprocessor architecture specialists, firmware engineers, operating system engineers, device vendors, and end-users who oversaw the installation and/or modifications of the "black box" in the next larger "black box." The TransAlta document [see below] covers these points in depth and visually. ourworld.compuserve.com Vendor statements are seldom available or reliable, either because of ignorance or falsehoods. In addition, the available engineering information is not always pertinent to Y2K compliance requirements or noot available for all vintages (variations) of the equipment over the years (decades). Also, vendor statements can rarely address end-user implementation compliance issues. That is, a multitude of made-Y2K compliant devices might not be able to work in sync because they were made compliant in different, incompatible ways. Consequently end-user testing is required. See the GM DOCUMENT, Figures 5.2.4 Year--2000 Component Test Report Form and Figure 5.2.7 -- Year 2000 Combined Component Test Report Form. ourworld.compuserve.com The first has up to 48 TESTS to report on for individual component Y2K testing, also called by others "stand-alone component compliance testing." *The second has up to 43 TESTS to report on for combined* component Y2K testing, also called by others "implementation compliance testing." Yet, the GM document cautions: "This limited set of tests CANNOT prove a Component/System to be Year 2000 compliant, but using them will help identify several frequently observed problems. These test procedures are written as general instructions. Specific knowledge of the systems or components under test is required in addition to apply these test cases." Repeated testing is required to rule out fluke successes or fluke failures. Even in less rigorous Y2K embedded systems testing environments, the number of 30 TESTS per device is commonly recommended. ENTIRE SERIES ON EMBEDDED SYSTEMS [by R. Martin] AVAILABLE: y2ktimebomb.com CHEEKY: Alistair Stewart, a senior advisor for Giga on embedded systems, said that ONLY ABOUT 3% OF CHIPS have been found to have minor problems, typically requiring resetting the date or restarting a device. The PERCENTAGE OF CHIPS that experience outright failures is "so small as to be statistically insignificant," he said. A multitude of customized CHIPS are found in each of these "black boxes".** Only 3% have problems? Where are they? Which black box? Who's the vendor? Where's the documentation? How easy is this to fix? Remember, while people/companies have been aware of Y2K software problems for many, many years. And, major corporations have been working on software for many years. Awareness of Y2K embedded system problems first came up in early '97. Only 2 years ago. Cheryl FORTUNE Magazine Article - MUST READ! “Catastrophic on every plant Floor” – General Motors CIO pathfinder.com In March '98 the automaker disclosed that it expects to spend $400 million to $550 million to fix year 2000 problems in factories as well as engineering labs and offices. Figure has now increased to $700+ million. Almost a billion bucks.