Has anyone got any new evidence of Y2K related failures?

-- Gary (gnb@co.clark.nv.us), January 07, 1999

Answers

Yep...Shell station in Cleve Ohio area has experienced 3 computer failures in 2 weeks, totally shutting down gasoline distribution. Today they are manually ringing up store type items only. Cashier's stated "I cant believe this and it aint even rolled over yet (2000).

-- consumer (private@aol.com), January 07, 1999.

And what part of this has to do with Y2K?? 3 failures in 2 weeks takes it back to late December. Doesn't make sense that this could be Y2K related.

b

-- b (b@b.b), January 07, 1999.

Thanks B,

You are tooo sweeetttt. Figure it out

-- consumer (private@aol.com), January 07, 1999.

Is there a link to the shell problem in cleveland ohio s

-- Sharon Schultz (shalom100@aol.com), January 07, 1999.

"Computer date glitch locks workers out"

http://nt.excite.com/news/u/990105/21/tech-science-y2k

"GREAT NECK, N.Y. Jan. 5 (UPI) The head of a Long Island, N.Y. insurance company says a flaw in the hardware of his brand new card- access security system locked most of his workers out of their office building on Monday because the date had changed from 1998 to 1999.

David Sterling of Sterling and Sterling Insurance says the glitch ended his skepticism about the predicted widespread electronic havoc that will be caused by the date at the beginning of 2000."

and

"An employee at the security company used by Sterling confirmed to United Press International that one of their systems has a bug that took effect on New Year's Eve and needs to be fixed with a chip and new software."

-- Kevin (mixesmusic@worldnet.att.net), January 07, 1999.

consumer - I'm sorry dude, but this truly does not appear to be Y2K related at all. I can already tell you freaks are gonna blame EVERYTHING on Y2K. Gimme a break! And trust me hoss - I ain't sweet. I'm one of the most sour sonsabitches you would ever wanna meet.

b

-- b (b@b.b), January 07, 1999.

Kevin and all,

If you read the article about the security system failure you will find that the manufacturer has a web-site giving information about potential problems with some of their products. So in this case who is at fault? If a car manufacturer tells you inadvance about a problem with your car and your fail to bring it in for repairs don't blame the manufacturer.

If your going to pass on a story about problems pass on the complete story not just the part that suits spreading panic. Their are enough people spreading inaccurate and incomplete information out there.

-- MAP (M@M.com), January 07, 1999.

Consumer, it's answers like "You are tooo sweeetttt. Figure it out " that make you sound like a moron. Really try to answer the question. How does this relate to Y2K? Why would it only strike in one place?

Troll Maria

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), January 07, 1999.

Thank you Troll Maria. I can tell you and I are part of the solution. Too bad we can't say the same for some others on this forum.

b

-- b (b@b.b), January 07, 1999.

Oh, yes, and only people who are "part of the solution" can post on this forum! You gave a very good definition of yourself above.

-- You stink (bunch@of.trash), January 07, 1999.

Hey You Stink!! Too bad you don't read very well. I think the keyword was 'some'.......as in 'some people'......not all people. Either way it definitely applies to you......no go away - you stink!

b

-- b (b@b.b), January 07, 1999.

if anyone can help me with verifiable info and/or sources on these failures, please e-mail me at scojo@yahoo.com or sjohnson@idefense.com.

Thanks,
Scott Johnson
Editor, y2ktoday

-- Scott Johnson (scojo@yahoo.com), January 07, 1999.

Thank you, Mr. Scott Johnson, for the work you do.

-- Leska (allaha@earthlink.net), January 07, 1999.

MAP,

I'm not sure I understand your criticism of my posting. When January 1, 2000 comes, it won't matter whose fault Y2K is. The entire Y2K situation was preventible, but that doesn't change the fact that many sectors of the economy started too late. Does the fact our future Y2K problems were preventible mean that people shouldn't be concerned about embedded systems in electric and water utilities?

Someone asked if we had heard about any new Y99 glitches. I responded, and decided to use a news article showing that hardware can be a problem just as much as software.

Maybe the panic you're talking about would be if people suddenly decided to not do business with the manufacturer of the card entry system that had glitches. I did NOT quote the name of the manufacturer in my excerpt of the article.

-- Kevin (mixesmusic@worldnet.att.net), January 07, 1999.

This whole thing is stupid. How come all you people do is fight in here? Since when do people have to come up with links for isolated situations? I have heard there will be problems coming and going in different places. If that is true, why then do you all gang up on somebody because you dont belive it to be so? This place is a clickish and seems to me only certain people who are liked are now allowed to post without being ripped apart. That is wrong. Deal with yourselfs JBD is getting to be the best poster yet. Now what do you think of that?

-- Troller (anon@aol.com), January 08, 1999.

Troller's right yall! And I still haven't heard from Professor Consumer on how this is related to Y2K. Come'on boy - fess up!!

b

-- b (b@b.b), January 08, 1999.

A Y2K-related failure: The computer systems at the U of M and the University of Wisconsin are not working properly. These two institutions installed identical Y2K-compliant computer programs which, due to problems, has caused the time it takes to process applications to the universities to double. Now it is taking 12 weeks rather than 4-6 weeks to process applications and that is just an estimate. They have hired extra workers to fix the problems and have, for the first time, started a night shift. The story is at www.startribune.com click on "news" and scroll down to the story.

-- Diane (DDEsq2002@juno.com), January 08, 1999.

Wait! That was the wrong paper I gave! The article is at www.pioneerpress.com Lo siento!

-- Diane (DDEsq2002@juno.com), January 08, 1999.

The original questions was, "Has anyone got any new evidence of Y2K related failures?"

There's only 2 here. C'mon doomsayers, you can do better than that.

-- general pollyanna (general@pollyanna.com), January 08, 1999.

Yes the failure of this thread.

what a stramash!

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), January 08, 1999.

I'm not a "doomer", but here are four other failures:

http://detnews.com/1999/technology/9901/05/01050148.htm

-- Kevin (mixesmusic@worldnet.att.net), January 08, 1999.

# # # 19990108

general pollyanna:

You still don't get it, do you!

Generally speaking, ANY date computation failure ( regardless of the date on which it occurs ) that is generated due to the--not always apparent--processing of a date factor where the year ( "YY" ) is equal to zero ( "00" ) IS CONSIDERED A "YEAR 2000 PROBLEM," GLITCH, OR WHATEVER ELSE SOMEONE WANTS TO CALL IT!

The mortgage escrow system Y2K project that I worked on in the last half of *1997* involved THOUSANDS OF date computations that--IF LEFT UNTOUCHED--would render the system of 500 programs and modules TOTALLY USELESS when the value of "YY"="00". The absolute earliest FAILURE EVENT HORIZON ( EH ) for THIS PARTICULAR SYSTEM WAS JULY 1, 1998.

Is that simple enough?!

Ergo, every system that contains functions that perform date computations ( forward OR backward ) that fail due to one of the 2- digit year values becoming an illogical value ( e.g., "00", "01", etc. ) the manifestation is still referred to as being a Y2K FAILURE!

Okay?!

Regards, Bob Mangus # # #

-- Robert Mangus (rmangus@mail.netquest.com), January 08, 1999.

Take you ever so much for that definition of Y2K failure, Bob. But, the question was are there any NEW ones. Do you have any new information for us? I didn't think so.

Troll Maria

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), January 08, 1999.

# # # 19990108

Troll Maria:

The definition was addressed to "general pollyanna."

The point was, that the tip of the Y2K iceberg problems that have managed to appear in media reports since January 1, 1999, ARE IN FACT Y2K-RELATED! THOSE ARE THE NEW "Y2K PROBLEMS" to be found on the other ( i.e., 1999 ) threads.

IOW, "Any new Failures" is a redundant thread!

( BTW: No smarta** retort re rmangus@mail.netquest.com), January 08, 1999.

# # # 19990108

Hmmm ... left out a quotation at the end of the URL string ... Let's see if this works ...

Troll Maria:

The definition was addressed to "general pollyanna."

The point was, that the tip of the Y2K iceberg problems that have managed to appear in media reports since January 1, 1999, ARE IN FACT Y2K-RELATED! THOSE ARE THE NEW "Y2K PROBLEMS" to be found on the other ( i.e., 1999 ) threads.

IOW, "Any new Failures" is a redundant thread!

( BTW: No smarta** retort re quoted remarks by Vice Adm. Arthur Cebrowski, the Navys director of space, information warfare, command and control, about 99% fix is not good enough? I thought not! )

Regards, Bob Mangus # # #

-- Robert Mangus (rmangus@mail.netquest.com), January 08, 1999.

Here's a site that keeps track of Y2K failures. Add the 2 you already have, plus the one in Marseil-France on another thread.

Year 2000 Problem Sightings"

It's January 8th. We have 11+ months to go to hear of those reports, so breath deep.

-- Chris (catsy@pond.com), January 08, 1999.