IEE's embedded chip problems -scary-

greenspun.com : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread

All these problems are listed here. http://www.iee.org.uk/2000risk/Casebook/eg_index.htm Here are some of the more scary cases ============ EXAMPLE NO EG-84

Equipment Type Stand alone instrument Industry Sector Manufacturing PC or Computer based Yes System Age 10 Application Level and flow monitoring of waste acid treatment plant Description of the Problem Problem experience with some versions of firmware. If the unit rolls over any year (i.e. not Y2K specific) with the power supply off, on power up, the display is blank and the keyboard locked so that the device will not operate. How was it Identified During off line testing in the workshop. What was the Solution A known compliant version of the firmware has been installed. Long term, the unit will be replaced.

Consequences for the SYSTEM System Stops Consequences of failure to the BUSINESS Inability to treat acid, resulting in shutdown of plant. Other Users of these instruments would need to test compliancy of all versions of firmware. In this case, it was the latest version that exhibited the problem.

-- John Ainsworth (ainsje@cstone.net), June 25, 1999

Answers

And now the circle is closed! This proves that the doom sect that regularly uses this forum has decided that ANY AND ALL informtion that is released PROVES that Y2K is TEOTWAWKI.

How - because this is exactly what the average poster has been asking for - descriptions of problems that are found and solutions for them. This type of information, it was said, would quiet the worries of those who were scared. Now you have it, and what happens? DOOOMMMM rings from the bell tower. (This was posted earlier, and I expect it will get the same responses this time.)

Tell me people, is there ANYTHING, short of a personal visit from GOD, that would convince you that TEOTW is NOT at hand.

-- Paul Davis (davisp1953@yahoo.com), June 25, 1999.


Paul, this report is bad news. It is scary. In light of the recent reported spill of 4 million gallons of raw sewage during a Y2K test, it takes on a very real meaning.

Your passionate, heart rendering pleas are a waste of everyone's time, quite frankly. The evidence is overwhelmingly bad. And extrapolating this evidence to conclude that the world a year from now may be vastly different -- and vastly worse -- than the one that we have always known, is certainly not unreasonable.

Y2K CANNOT BE FIXED!

-- Jack (jsprat@eld.net), June 25, 1999.

To the smug, smarmy asswipe called Paul Davis--

Would you care to address ONE POINT made by the IEEE report excerpt posted above instead of bashing the messenger and making general evaluations of the so-called "doom sect"?

Of course not, you can't.

This is why you resort to bashing, name calling, and labelling.

Go away moron. No one is listening to your crap anymore.

-- Incred-Ulous (not@nidiotlike.paul), June 25, 1999.


Incred-

I know violence begets violence, but I cannot let this slide. You are a jackass. First, this is from an IEE, the Institute of Electrical Engineers, an UK based organization that has nothing to do with the IEEE, which has been geting a lot of press here lately because they are supporting a Cover Your Ass legislation. Please research a little more, and know what you are talking about.

As for the original post: This is an embedded chip problem. A very serious one, in fact. There is a description of the chip, the problem AND THE SOLUTION. This is what Paul is saying. Here is a case where there are very serious problem (not directly as a result of Y2K, but rather any year rollover), and a very succinct way to fix the problem. I'm thrilled that this is on the Internet, and hopefully some information sharing is going on within the industry.

2 cents.

-- newlurker (bcobur@yahoo.com), June 25, 1999.


Paul is not an idiot, he is just mislead. Much like Flint, who said that "yes of course the power grid can fail, but it's not a question of wether it *can* fail but wehter it *will* fail".

YOu can admit the system CAN be brought to a halt, but when someone says, hey this Y2K thing *might* bring the system to a halt you automatically say "No, Y2K can't do this...something can, I admit that, but Y2K cannot".

So, you admit that many systems are in danger from failing from something. But when someone says that we think that one of those things *might* happen next January you shake your head in disbelief and mutter something like "oh those doomer, always looking for the cloud in the silver lining".

Paul, Flint, Y2K pro, Poole...

I just don't get you guys. On one hand you admit that TEOTW is possible under some circumstances and nothing is infallible. But on the other hand you say that when faced with a "show stopper" event that TEOTW just CANNOT happen.

Forgive me guys, I really don't mean to sound insulting, but that sounds like classical denial. If you admit it CAN happen, and then turn around and say that it CANNOT happen, who is ever going to believe you? All anybody around this BB is saying is that it *might* happeb as a reslut of Y2K and we try to prove it with facts, figures, and yes even gut instincts. Maybe some people go overboard. Maybe there are truly Pollyannas who will never admit there is anything ever wrong, but I suspect they are all politicians. But the fact is all we are trying to accomplish here is preparation for what *might* be... which all you anti-yourdonites have already said is possible one way or another. Why is it so far fetched to think that Y2K is "one way or another".

-- (tedjennings@business.net), June 25, 1999.



Paulyanna Davis wrote:

"Tell me people, is there ANYTHING, short of a personal visit from GOD, that would convince you that TEOTW is NOT at hand."

Paul, apparently you still don't know the difference between The End Of The World (TEOTW) and The End Of The World As We Know It (TEOTWAWKI).

But having read your comments on Y2K for a long while now, this comment serves to further illustrate that YOU are just as far on the fringe of this issue as any flaming death train doomer out there.

-- Nabi Davidson (nabi7@yahoo.com), June 25, 1999.


Where do I mail the check, Ted? What an excellent shot.

-- Lisa (lisa@work.now), June 25, 1999.

Lisa, you can send the check to Denial Anonymous, my new non-profit organization. (lol)

Sometimes I think our "Pollys" should be ministers and preachers because their motto is: "It CAN happen, it just WON'T happen".

Talk about Faith!

-- (tedjennings@business.net), June 25, 1999.


Or, "It could happen, but it's never happened before, so it probably won't happen this time around.

-- Lisa (lisa@work.now), June 25, 1999.

Jackass?? Naw, just one too many e's on the end. Simple typo. Am thankful my typo won't cause millions of gallons of sewage to pour into our drinking water.

In other words....no harm done. But my point remains, PD didn't address the points made in the post, he once again smeared and ridiculed. Simple deflection and evasion that politicians have honed to an art-form. You pollyannas have learned that art well.

But since you were kind enough to address the post, I'll address your point. YES the post offered the solution: Replacement. THAT IS NOT what Paul Davis was saying. Davis was intent on pointing out: "This proves that the doom sect that regularly uses this forum has decided that ANY AND ALL informtion that is released PROVES that Y2K is TEOTWAWKI. " He didn't address any point in the post at all.

But the solution offered; replacement - is that feasable with a myriad of such chips BEFORE or AFTER there is a disaster??

Are they replacing them all now, or are they going to wait until the plant has to shut down because of some unforseen failure?

IF this problem is typical with thousands and perhaps millions of other chips running waste treatment plants worldwide -- WHEN will they all be replaced? Before or after failure?

If before, are they done? If after, have they stocked-up on chips and do they know where all of the ones that will need to be replaced are?

That is the question.

-- Incred-Ulous (paulstillwrong@evry.thing), June 25, 1999.



Ted,

I stand ready to be convinced... but I continue to be disappointed. My problem: I keep finding the "end of the world" argument paper thin. Of course there will be problems. We have problems every day. So where's the evidence these problems will be so pervasive as to effectively end economic activity in the United States? The real "faith" is held by the pessimists who cannot be convinced Y2K will be anything but the end of civilization.

Regards,

-- Mr. Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), June 25, 1999.


This post was just a slip ([Tab] [Enter] Dammit!) More examples are posted above under the same title.

A couple of pollies have said that this is an example of 'doomer disconnect'. Sure, a problem has been identified, but there is also a solution. So the problem found isn't really a problem right?

Not exactly. What this, and other problems posted above are, are proof by example. These are concrete examples of systems that can fail with catostrophic results. Thankfully, they have been identified and a solution has been found. The scary thing IMHO is that they demonstrate conclusively that catostrophic results are possible based on embedded chip failures. And this prompts the question

Have all (most even) of the embedded systems that cause catostrophic failures been found and fixed? Keep in mind that there are a huge number of embedded chips out there; no one is sure how many.

>Tell me people, is there ANYTHING, short of a personal visit from GOD, that would convince you that TEOTW is NOT at hand. <

Yes. Unambiguous statements from half of the money center banks and Fortune 500 saying that they have fixed (not will fix, are currently fixing)their systems to the best of there ability and should not have any abnormal problems come Y2K. A statement by some body of professional engineers saying 'We have examined some large number of embedded chips and discovered Y2K problems in some small percentage of them. Some very small percentage of that small percentage do cause catostrophic errors, but these have been found and fixed.' Earning that justified high stock prices. A 'Run it Manually' Day where computers are taken offline and things are run manually. Stuff like that would convince me that Y2K is just a 'bump in the road'. John Ainsworth

-- John Ainsworth (ainsje@cstone.net), June 25, 1999.


Ted wrote:

-----

Paul is not an idiot, he is just mislead. Much like Flint, who said that "yes of course the power grid can fail, but it's not a question of wether it *can* fail but wehter it *will* fail".

YOu can admit the system CAN be brought to a halt, but when someone says, hey this Y2K thing *might* bring the system to a halt you automatically say "No, Y2K can't do this...something can, I admit that, but Y2K cannot".

-----

Ted, you made a good start, and then somehow made the "doomer leap". Please try to understand what's being said here, and quit reading what was NOT said.

Let's try the following representation, to see if it helps you any.

The power grid can fail. Parts of it have failed in the past. y2k does indeed represent a danger to the grid. IF the grid fails, we have the worst possible problems out our hands. This is very very serious. Clearly, it behooves us to examine the danger that y2k represents to electrical power in as much detail as we possibly can. To the degree that our research reveals that a grid failure is likely, we must (at the very least) bend our efforts toward surviving such an event with suitable preparations.

Now, what *are* the y2k threats to the grid? These fall into several categories:

1) Failure of generation or distribution equipment. Most such failures lie in the area of embedded systems, such as SCADA systems.

2) Business failures of the utilities due to failures in their business software. These may not be immediate threats, but the utilites must have some effective way to send and collect bills, pay their employees, purchase fuel, parts and other supplies, etc.

3) Ancillary problems impacting the utilities. These include inability of railroads to deliver coal, failures in natural gas supplies, inability of employees to get to work, etc. In other words, problems beyond the control of utilities.

OK, now what's the status of these threats?

1) The news from the hardware remediators has been uniformly positive. Very few embedded systems use dates at all. Of those that do, not all use them wrong. Of those few that use them wrong, few of *them* pose any immediate threat to the functionality of the utilities. And those that do pose such threats (in reality, almost none) are being found and repaired or replaced. Some of them are on order, and some can't be implemented until scheduled shutdowns.

Yes, I'm aware that somepeople have posted that they know someone who knows someone who heard that the problems are being covered up by the remediators, and by the utilities themselves, and by NERC, and even by the engineers who are doing the testing. But someone is *always* posting such rumors here, and that's the nature of such a forum. Nothing backs up the rumors.

2) Business systems might still have a ways to go yet, for a variety of reasons. It's quite likely that many utilities will have worse business problems than usual for a while. But power availability isn't directly affected by such problems. And BIG business problems can be handled administratively without interrupting actual power.

3) External threats remain speculative. So far, I haven't seen any specific problem with railroads that will prevent them from delivering *any* coal under any circumstances. Such external problems for specific utilities wouldn't surprise me at all. But the likelihood that such problems will be both sufficiently severe, widespread and long lasting to bring down the grid seems very small. Not impossible, but small.

OK, so sum it all up. Can y2k bring down the grid? Yes it can. What's the probability that this will actually happen? Apparently very small. Will this small likelihood actuall come to pass? *Any* possibility *might* come to pass.

I think the probability of a y2k-induced grid failure is low. The probability of y2k-induced local outages is high. If you can protect yourself from such a failure, you'd be a fool not to. But nobody is saying a grid failure can't happen. It's just that the currently available evidence suggests that such a grid failure is a long shot.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), June 25, 1999.


Well, I was just going to point out to tedjennings the difference between the verbs can and will, but I see Flint's already done the job. Thanks, Flint.

So, er, yes, well...I'll get my coat, shall I?

-- Richard Dymond (rdymond@healey-baker.com), June 25, 1999.


Good grief Decker...you ARE a babbling bafoon. First of all...stop 'dropping' the 'As We Know It' portion of that phrase (fart). Secondly, I'm *really* leaning towards a 10 and DO NOT for one second believe it would mean 'the END of civilization'. Hopefully, just the end of lug nuts like you! Is your underwear too tight? Maybe your brain is soooo full of brilliance, it just keeps dribbling out of one side....who knows?

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), June 25, 1999.


Now here's an idea with true merit. When asked what it would take to convince him of the "She'll be 'right, mate!" nature of Y2K, Mr. John Ainsworth answered (in part):

"A 'Run it Manually' Day where computers are taken offline and things are run manually. Stuff like that would convince me that Y2K is just a 'bump in the road'." (presumably he meant that such a test would be successful and that things would actually "work" manually on such a day)

I have to tell you all, it would convince me too. Perhaps more astonishing though, I know it would convince Mr. Decker that some of the beliefs that he holds about "economic activity" would not apply to "doing it manually".

Since you've become so fond of simplicity in reasoning and writing of late, Mr. Decker, how about a simple, straightforward answer to a simple question? The question is: How many shares of stock would you expect to be traded on the NYSE in a single day using only "pencil and paper"?

And if you're feeling really generous, Mr. Decker, you might answer a second question. Would that number of shares represent the world as you know it, or not?

-- Hardliner (searcher@internet.com), June 25, 1999.


Hardliner:

Many systems, including almost all of our key systems, simply cannot be done manually. We've lost the infrastructure, the skills, the tools, the organization. Manual operation is not an option, short of rebuilding from a total collapse, massive dieback and other improbabilities.

What we have must work far better than manual substitutes, even if not perfectly. And if they don't work that well, we either fix them or face real doom.

I think Mr. Decker realizes this. He certainly should.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), June 25, 1999.


Flint,

As is frequently the case, we are in total agreement.

That said, Mr. Decker's answer (or the lack thereof) will be illustrative.

-- Hardliner (searcher@internet.com), June 25, 1999.


Flint,

I have serious doubts about

(1) your wishfull thinking process and conclusions

(2) your outright denial of reliable y2k "bad news" (IEEE, US Dept. of Commerce Report on y2k world trade, Gallup polls on bank runs, Basle Committee Report on y2k international banking, BankBoston y2k acknowledgements, Chevron y2k acknowledgements, etc.)

Flint, your analyses are most thoughtfull, but you just can't be both sides of the fence at the same time.

I will address our philosophical y2k differences and burden of proof considerations in my thread

"Y2K vis-a-vis AIDS vis-a-vis FLINT"

Please take a look.

Furthermore guys, you can't approach y2k as if we all lived inside a peanut butter and jelly sandwich. For Crisssake, the rest of the world DOES exist, the world's economy IS globalized and foreign y2k non-compliance would heavily affect the US economy, whether you know it or not, whether you like it or not, trade-wise, financially, etc.

Have you guys even thought of the fact that the US needs to import 10 million barrels of oil per day, every day, from y2k non-compliant Venezuela, Nigeria, and Saudia Arabia??

What about the international banking system ?

And what about people's EXPECTATIONS !!! Do you guys believe for one minute that people at large, everywhere, are anywhere close to be ready for the type of shock that even yourselves admit will probably take place?

-- George (jvilches@sminter.com.ar), June 25, 1999.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ