Is This Another Problem?

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Electric Utilities and Y2K : One Thread

From Jim Lord's site: www.y2ktimebomb.com/Tip/Lord/lord9912.htm
-- Anonymous, March 23, 1999

Answers

Lord has translated some boring-sounding figures into human lives. On first thought I saw it as an overly pessimistic translation that assumes all noncompliant water systems will be completely nonfunctional. On second thought, it could equally well be considered overly optimistic, since the percentage of water systems projected to be noncompliant probably represents the bare minimum; i.e., those that already have no hope of finishing.

-- Anonymous, March 23, 1999

I need to add something to give relevence to euy2k.com. The figures for noncompliant water systems will increase by the percentage of noncompliant electric utilities serving water systems that are compliant.

-- Anonymous, March 23, 1999

I think I am going to throw up. Here we are with so much more information on the nature of the y2k problem in embedded systems, and then along comes a "throwback" article like this. One more time - equating y2k non-compliance to system and equipment failures is a farce, misleading, and an outright lie. The hugh, vast, overwhelming majority of devices that are not Y2K compliant have minor date errors that do not prevent the device from performing its primary function. One example - an FDA database with thousands of different medical devices listed, quite a few which are not Y2K compliant, but ALL of which do not fail to function, and at the very worst will put the wrong date on a patients records. For higher level control systems, do you seriously think no one is looking at these? I give up....

Factfinder

-- Anonymous, March 24, 1999


FactFinder, are you saying you don't believe the government's assessment of possible water delivery problelms? If you have reliable information to the contrary I'm sure the government and y2k czar Kostinan would like to hear from you.

-- Anonymous, March 24, 1999

Dear FF:

Here are two more "throw-back" reports that you may be interested in. Check out the California Water Authority's Report on Embedded Systems, the url is: www.swrcb.ca.gov/html/y2ksumry.html . Also look at the Industrial Chemical Safety Board's report to Senator Bennett. One of their findings was the following regarding embedded systems: Some instrumentation and control vendors have un-documented products. Some have gone out of business. Some are not cooperative.

Both reports were very concerned about embedded systems and about electrical utilities being compliant in time. You could really help this nation if you would tell them what the answer is to the embeddeded systems problem.

I suggest you have a barf bag handy before you read the reports because I think you will need one.

-- Anonymous, March 25, 1999



Bill, Thanks for the link, but its just the same speculation, conjecture, and falsities that are all over the net. In no way is this a report on actual y2k findings. But it was worth the read for the amusment factor. Bill - there are no y2k problems that once identified, can't be either: Ignored if minor and irrelevant, fixed, replaced, or worked around. And finding Y2K bugs in embedded systems is a piece of cake. And finally, the assessment phase is done or almost done in large companies - they should already KNOW what the problems are, and take the appropriate steps outlined above.

Regards, FactFinder

Y2k - a widspread, manageable, way overhyped and exaggerated - bug. But if you ignore it, it just might get ya...;)

-- Anonymous, March 25, 1999


I have to agree with FF, just because a survey that looks at 1000 embedded systems and returns a finding that 60% are non Y2k compliant, does not mean that they wont work come the end of the year. Many systems that are not Y2k compliant simply need to be powered of before midnight and then restarted after midnight to avoid problems. This includes large IBM mainframe applications like CICS for example. I am not saying for one second nothing will go wrong, but after working in the IT industry for 16 years I am currently looking around at some of the work on Y2k and it is a complete waste of money. Testing minor systems, audit after audit, people cashing in on a major way. I read recently that a lot of new scams in America about people trying to get bank accounts and credit card details over the phone from poeple, all they need to do is start an Y2k audit company and it's legal fraud.

-- Anonymous, March 26, 1999

Factfinder, I also agree that just because a system is Y2K non-compliant it doesn't necessarily mean that the system will fail in a way which would cause a primary function failure. However, I don't think transferring what you see re embedded systems in the electric utility industry and then concluding the same situation exists everywhere else holds much scientific validity either. While non-compliancy may not mean the system will fail, it doesn't mean it won't either. Computer systems are too individualized to be sure of anything unless they're tested, and tested, and tested.

Actually you surprised me. It's not like you to make sweeping generalizations similar to the ones which you dislike from the other side of the fence. That nausea must have *really* gotten to you! *wink* The FDA database you mentioned contains only voluntary submissions. With the legalities in the medical industry of such serious import, it would it be reasonable to expect very much "voluntary" airing of any dirty laundry? The first part of the database deals with companies which have stated they have no Y2K problems OR you must see their website for Year 2000 information. A perusal of this section showed a whole lot of "Y2K issues do not apply to our products". Since those products were such things as velcro wrist splints, eyeglasses, non-electric wheelchairs, surgical instruments (scalpels and clamps) and soap products, this section becomes a "Duh". Of course a bottle of shampoo is compliant.

The second part of the FDA database deals with companies who volunteered info on products with problems OR products for which there is no information available, and like the first part there are many companies who only post their website address to go to for more information. I didn't find it a coincidence that the majority of products in this second part fall into the "product obsolete, no upgrade will be provided" category. Those are the safest to report on. I also think that when you stated, " ALL of which do not fail to function" you might have only been looking at the problem description lines. For instance, there is an incubator listed with "problem description not provided" but a "hardware upgrade will be provided at no cost". You really think the company is going to provide a hardware upgrade at no cost for an incubator which will function correctly regardless of the Y2K problem? There is a cardiac arrhythmia detector and alarm system for which the company will provide a hardware upgrade at cost. There is a digital mammography system about which it is only said, "the system does NOT allow century rollover to the 21st century" and "hardware upgrade will be provided at cost". There was a hypothermia device which will display an error if any date outside of 1985 to 1999 is entered and "will not allow the operator to proceed with any of the system programs". Sure, probably all the operator in this particular case has to do is enter an older date -- if said operator knows about this machine's Y2K problem. Since the medical industry is reported to be very late in addressing the Year 2000 problem, what is not known at this point is likely bigger than what is known. Which brings me to your question, "For higher level control systems, do you seriously think no one is looking at these?"

Hang on, take deep breaths and small sips of water. (Good for nausea.) Yep, I seriously think that no one is looking at a good portion of "these" or lots of systems in other infrastructure areas. Not only that, some of those who are "looking" don't have the will, or skill, or money or time to do any real assessing or fixing. My own town is an example, and my consultant friends all know major businesses that are doing virtually nothing regarding Y2K. Of course I can't prove this anymore than you can verify no embedded systems problems have been found anywhere in electric generation, but I don't think either of us are liars, either. That "middle ground" of Arnie Rimmer's is full of big potholes and I continue to think there will be serious problems in various areas, both in software and embeddeds.

And Rick, thank you for your indulgence on a topic that is only marginally related to electric utility issues. Mea culpa, and I will hereafter try very hard to stay within the Forum's parameters.

-- Anonymous, March 29, 1999


Moderation questions? read the FAQ