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: Jim who wrote (5249)	4/4/1999 7:46:00 PM
From: David Eddy	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 9818

Jim - Fortunately, the computer software we sell uses the PICK Operating system, which stores all dates as the number of days from 31Dec67. For example, to-day is 11417 and 01Jan2000 is 11689. It's a bit hard to tell if you only use the PICK OS or if you sell applications that use the OS. From this statement, are you stating that someone using the PICK OS never has to deal with any sort of event (like a human birthday) that happened before 31Dec67? What feature in the PICK OS requires either the specifications or the coding to use the OS provided date features? What happens if date data is imported from the outside world? What forces the application to convert that date data to the PICK modified Lillian (Lilian?) form? - David

To: Jim who wrote (5249)	4/4/1999 8:01:00 PM
From: Ken	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 9818

The last straw is when I read a post on one of the threads questioning whether pace-makers would fail Jim: I hope this is not your 'last straw', but... This is a confirmed story. Last year, one of the largest hospitals here sent notices to patients that had received pace-makers there that they should immediately come in to have them replaced, at no cost. Ken

To: Jim who wrote (5249)	4/5/1999 1:10:00 AM
From: C.K. Houston	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 9818

<The last straw is when I read a post on one of the threads questioning whether pace-makers would fail!> Here are some excerpts from a report [Code Blue] I put together for the medical community on medical devices last yeat. PACEMAKERS: Many pacemakers use an embedded computer chip to collect and store information about the patient's heart. The cardiologist employs diagnostic laboratory equipment to capture and analyze this stored information. Most of this laboratory equipment is computer based and is, therefore, susceptible to the Year 2000 Problem. This means that medical decisions could possibly be based on incorrect or faulty data. There are probably no life-threatening factors involving the implanted pacemakers themselves. PACEMAKERS & IMPLANTABLE DEFIBRILLATORS: "Medtronic is the largest company here. Have potential problems, not in their proper working, but in the interface with the machinery that interrogates them regarding proper functioning and when they may have discharged. It is suspected that some of these devices corrupt the analyzers, thus rendering them non-interpretable or non-functioning. The pacemaker keeps working but we have no way of telling whether they are working PROPERLY." Dr. Moore MILLENNIUM BUG MIGHT AFFECT PACEMAKERS Excerpt Knight Tribune News Service – Florida Times Union – April 22, 1998 "It could be a huge problem for us" said Jennifer Darr, a cardiac nursing manager for the Orlando Regional Medical Center. “We couldn't program the pacemaker properly, and we couldn't look at historical data to find out exactly what has happened to the patient". FYI - I'm not a medical device expert. I only gathered information from worldwide medical practicioners involved with testing and compiled info which was available, at that time, from manufacturers on specific medical devices. I did no editorializing whatsoever in my report. I haven't kept up with specific medical devices. But initial testing appeared to show that there is a potential, and in some cases, verified - problem. Not all devices. But, which ones ... is the BIG question. Following does not refer to pacemakers, but gives you an idea of some of the medical professionals referenced in my report. Bo C. Hojdefors - Excellent Contact Principal Administration Officer - Certified Clinical Engineer SWEDEN'S NATIONAL BOARD OF HEALTH & WELFARE: MEDICAL DEVICE SECTION In some simple tests we have seen that maintenance records systems for medical devices did not work and that an interpretive ECG recorder displayed the wrong age of the patient. Some radiation therapy software, defibrillator, patient booking system and patient monitors stopped working when tested. NZ Infotech Weekly, issue of November 24, 1997, states that according to a recently completed audit by Canterbury Health, dialysis patients are at risk from Y2K problems. Dialysis units, which use electronics to monitor cycles and blood flow, are time-dependent. They also note that Y2K will have a big effect on all analyser machines which use dates in reporting test results. Critical devices are not always defibrillators but could also be found in the generating plant in a hospital, in a sterilizer and in the invoicing systems or processor controlled machinery at a manufacturers premises. We have electro-medical equipment in use, which is more than 9 years old. Why the vendor's statement [no plans to modify since products no longer produced] is confusing and disappointing. Some devices are around 10 years old and when it comes to large installations, a life-time of up to 15 years can be found. Cheryl P.S. Last year, Nepean District Hospital (Australia) began initial medical device testing. At that time, of 46 items tested - 6 failed. I have all of the documentation and specifics. But this was a pretty lengthy report and doubt most on this thread would be interested to read all.

To: Jim who wrote (5249)	4/5/1999 1:16:00 AM
From: B.K.Myers	Respond to of 9818

Jim, Thank you for your kind comments. I agree that ” both of us seem to have a "middle of the road" feeling about the problem ie. there will be problems, but not catastrophic”. However, I only have this feeling about the U.S., Canada, Great Britain and Australia. I don't have the same feeling about Russia, China, Thailand, South America, Africa and the Middle East… at least not at this time (and time is getting late!). The way things have been shaping up over the past year, if there are going to be catastrophic effects, it looks like they are more likely to occur overseas. I not sure that I agree that ” most computer "bugs" are caused by design flaws ie. not allowing for negative numbers, missing component fields, or inadequate data entry edits?”. I view two of these examples, “not allowing for negative numbers” and “inadequate data entry edits” as coding errors, not design errors (depending on what the design specifications called for). “Missing component fields” could indeed be a design flaw, but it could also simply be a coding error. Generally, I find more minor programming errors than actual design flaws, although I do find my share of both. Regarding, ”I read that the average computer software is in use for seven years. I wonder how many programs written in the past 10 years do not allow for the year 2000. If they do not, the system analysts (designers) were especially negligent. It might surprise you how many of these new programs still do not allow for the year 2000. Many of the systems that I work on were originally designed more than 10 years ago. These systems were always (with one exception in my experience) designed with two digit year fields. The original systems were not designed for the year 2000. As these systems evolved, some were modified for the year 2000. But, in many cases, the two-digit year was so deeply involved in the entire system design that it was not fixed. I have worked on systems that have used as many as three different formats for the year (2 digits, 3 digits and 4 digits, even alphabetic in some cases). The reason that the two digit dates remain in these systems is that they are deeply engrained in the systems. The reason this is frightening is that these systems are kept around because they are mission critical systems. The news on this front is not all bad. Over the past 10 years I have come across more and more clients that have chosen to install entirely new systems rather than repair their old systems. In most of these cases, it appears that the organization did take the year 2000 into consideration. Although these organizations might experience minor Y2K problems, I believe these problems will be more of the “bug” nature, and can be “fixed on failure”. ”In fact WE are being considered negligent even though we did it right the first time!”. That's a shame! I wonder if this has to do with the fact that so many people are screaming for 100% Y2K compliance and guarantees. Based on my experience, I don't believe that 100% compliance is necessary, only 100% functionality. ”This would seem to limit the number of chips or embedded systems that could be a problem, and to quickly identify those that must be tested”. Indeed, the embedded system problem does seem to be limited, but limited to what devices? And where are these devices located? One other very important point here. Even if a device is using chips that are Y2K compliant, it is possible to design the device in such a way that it does not function properly on the roll over to 00. If embedded systems evolved along the same lines as application software, then a two digit year could be deeply engrained in the system design and could cause problems. Since I have seen this happen in application software, I assume that some of these devices evolved along the same path. I probably won't feel comfortable until more embedded systems are tested. I have been very pleased with some of the recent tests (Ontario Hydro's “live” Y2K test went off without a hitch) and the independent audit recently conducted at Virginia Power's North Anna Nuclear Generating Station Units 1 and 2 (http://www.nrc.gov/NRC/Y2K/Audit/Y2K50338.html). This was an “independent” audit, not an overly optimistic statements from management. I live in Virginia and have been following Virginia Power's Y2K effort for the past year. They seem to be “ahead of the pack” as far as the electric industry's Y2K effort is concerned. I was also very pleased that Ontario Hydro's “live” Y2K went off without a hitch. I don't see how I could expect better news than this. However, I would like to know what, if any, problems they found and fixed before executing the test. But, what systems aren't being tested? I seem to remember reading somewhere that one of the major oil companies (Chevron?) was going to “fix on failure”. I also seem to recall that another major oil company (Phillips?) had found embedded system problems in many of their systems (drilling platforms, refineries and distribution systems). If these two pieces of information are correct (sorry, don't have the links but I believe they were posted on this thread), then the effects could be severe. My experience has shown me that not all mission critical systems are being identified. At my current client's site, we use a terminal emulation program, “Rumba” to access the mainframe through our LAN. Out of curiosity, I check the manufacturer's Web site and noticed that our version of their product was not listed as being Y2K compliant, it was no long supported. I then checked the client's Y2K Web site to see how this piece of software was evaluated for Y2K compliance. This critical piece of software wasn't even on their inventory list. I notified my supervisor of this situation last month and just this past week we were notified that all users would be updated to the Y2K compliant version immediately. But, what are we missing? We also had an unexpected surprise when we were time machine testing our system. The UPS (Uninterruptible Power Supply) shut down the system when the date rolled over the 2000. We had to apply a patch from the UPS vendor. Not a big problem, but another one of those little unexpected Y2K occurrences. Ps. I you feel so inclined, would you PM me with your view of the PICK operating system. I have only spoken with one other person that used it, but they really liked it. I have also read a couple of favorable reviews of the operating system, but that was several years ago. Thank, B.K.