Brian says there are a lot of Y2K remediation professionals here.

Could any of you produce the manufacturer's name, part number, and a specific procedure for duplicating the procedure to verify that an "embedded chip" failed a Y2K-compliance test? (My company will purchase the chip and verify those results...). Also, I would like to know the specific applications/platforms in which the tainted IC is currently operating, which I will also verify.

All in the interests of good science. Thank you in advance.

Regards, Andy Ray

-- Andy Ray (andyman633@hotmail.com), July 06, 1999

Answers

Okay, proof-read, then post! :)

I am attempting to locate one of the one hundred million embedded ICs that will not pass a Y2K compliance test. To do this, I need:

1. The IC manufacturer's name; 2. The IC's part number; 3. The procedure utilised to test the IC.

Again, thanks in advance, Andy Ray

-- Andy Ray (andyman633@hotmail.com), July 06, 1999.

Oh, and I would like a list of some of the applications and platforms on which the IC is operating currently, so as to obtain some sense of impact in case of failure.

Polly wants a...chip!

:)

Regards, Andy Ray

-- Andy Ray (andyman633@hotmail.com), July 06, 1999.

Go to the www--- find Delta T Probe--- follow the yellow brick road (24 carat golden path) ask them if their liars! Do your own research!

-- Michael (mikeymac@uswest.net), July 06, 1999.

My company is doing some buying too...fuel one of the jets boys, we is going for a ride!

-- BiGG (supersite@acronet.net), July 06, 1999.

Andy,

Every self respecting troll gave up on this attack at least a year ago. Shows us how much you respect yourself. You might even want to consult the IEE pages which are profuse with examples of embedded system failures.

[Oh, I see......you want to play the semantics game, eg, chip versus system. Andy, that's a sign of a sick mind. Stop playing games with serious subjects, Andy. Take your meds, fellow. The boys in the white coats will be by shortly.]

Regards,

-- Anti (Andy@notroll.day), July 06, 1999.

Embedded Systems Fault Casebook:

http://www.iee.org.uk/2000risk/Casebook/eg_index.htm#TopOfPage

-- Linkmeister (link@librarian.edu), July 06, 1999.

I visited the helpful links provided, and ignored the rash of expected gibberish by "true believers," sold out and locked down. I did not discover the information I seek.

Did all the "experts" follow Ed into hiding? Can someone please post the following information about only one of the ICs that are not Y2K compliant:

1. The manufacturer.

2. The IC part number.

3. A procedure to demostrate the failure.

4. A list of applications and/or platforms on which the IC is now operating.

If there truly are one hundred million of these ICs out there, how hard can it be to find one in use?

Patiently waiting - ignoring excuses, Andy Ray

-- Andy Ray (andyman633@hotmail.com), July 06, 1999.

Andy Ray,

You could try calling the Long Island, New York insurance company in this story and ask them for the manufacturer's name and part number:

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=000Mce

-- Linkmeister (link@librarian.edu), July 06, 1999.

If you're really interested, I'm told that there is a site that is a working group with lots of discussions by professionals. You have to register, but it's free. It's in the "Embedded System" section.

http://www.year2000.unt.edu/WCS/

-- Linkmeister (link@librarian.edu), July 06, 1999.

Mororola real time clocks that are not and WILL NOT be year 200 ready. <:)=

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), July 06, 1999.

Sorry, bad heat day here in NJ. That's Motorola, and year 2000! <:)=

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), July 06, 1999.

It is not the matter of a single chip producing failure. It is end to end testing at a chemical or refinery plant that is my primary interest. It is documented in the Senate Chemical Report (link below) that no one embedded system will fail. It is multiple failures that is the risk. That and the power utitlities and Chemical plants shutting down suddenly. Read and learn

a href="http://www.csb.gov/reports/1999/y2k_tech/">(HTML) Report to the Senate Special Committee on the Year 2000 Technology Problem
 

This site is the best collection of Chemical saftey links on the net.

Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board: ChemLinks

-- Brian (imager@home.com), July 06, 1999.

(HTML) Report to the Senate Special Committee on the Year 2000 Technology Problem

Blew a link

-- Brian (imager@home.com), July 06, 1999.

I appreciate all the links and the information found at them, however, none of them has provided the type of data I am seeking.

So, one more time, I will try to make myself clearer. First, (again breaking my standing rule to never engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed person - especially one with a demonstrated tendency to engage in assertion of wild premises...such as catastrophic Y2K theories...) I own the company. Actually it's a corporation, but that's really beside the point. And, I am willing to invest some of my hard-earned, after-tax capital (and some time) just to see a non- Y2K-compliant IC fail an authentic repeatable Y2K compliance test.

I thought you people actually knew what you were talking about - you respond as though you do. If you cannot produce the information, just admit it and we can all move on - I have some other requests and will not waste anyone else's time asking people to produce evidence to support their mythological beliefs about Y2K-related embedded chip failures.

Again (yet again!), I am seeking only four pieces of information about one of a (reported, assimilated, believed, and regurgitated - apparently all over the net) one hundred million ICs:

1. The manufacturer.

2. The IC part number.

3. A procedure to demostrate the failure.

4. A list of applications and/or platforms on which the IC is now operating.

How hard can this be? My gosh, the information - if it exists at all - could surely have been posted in the space wasted above. Are you making all these big numbers up just to scare people?

Regards, Andy Ray

-- Andy Ray (andyman633@hotmail.com), July 06, 1999.

Andy,

Do you really think you're smarter than all the electrical engineers at the IEE. Stick your semantics up your embedded process.

-- Phil McCracken (association@blind.com), July 06, 1999.

Okay, I accept your concession of defeat.

I expect to see retractions printed from everyone who posted to this thread stating "I/we cannot produce independently verifiable data to support our claims about the 'one hundred million embedded ICs' lie, for even a single IC." (Actually, I do not expect to read concessions. I expect more delusory drivel and continued artless dodging...)

I will post another question later, providing yet another opportunity to offer definitive evidence of any of the doomer claims. Not today, though, as I will spend the rest of it celebrating this victory!

Cheers! Andy Ray

-- Andy Ray (andyman633@hotmail.com), July 06, 1999.

Andy - you forgot your lesson in logic.

You have to prove that widespread Y2K problems in various and irregular areas affecting various numbers of people in various and unpredictable ways will not occur. I only have to train people that they should prepare for unforseen contingencies next year - JUST LIKE THE FEMA and RED CROSS SAY I SHOULD.

And you cannot prove a negative...I thought. So give up trying.

Or do you want to go tell Mr. K that he is wrong? That nobody should prepare? For anything? .....shame shame....thinking you are smarter than the entire federal government.

-- Robert A. Cook, PE (Kennesaw, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), July 06, 1999.

Dear Mr. Cook,

I am attempting to verify a positive.

Andy Ray

-- Andy Ray (andyman633@hotmail.com), July 06, 1999.

...more specifically, I was offering to validate one of your beliefs, at my expense.

Andy Ray

-- Andy Ray (andyman633@hotmail.com), July 06, 1999.

Andy'

I wonder if the information you are seeking could affect the stock value of the company that made the chip, or the companies currently using it?

-- BiGG (supersite@acronet.net), July 06, 1999.

You don't have to believe Motorola if you don't want to...

http://www.mot-sps.com/y2k/realtimeclocks.html

-- Linkmeister (link@librarian.edu), July 06, 1999.

BiGG,

I was referring to Andy Ray, of course, and not you.

-- Linkmeister (link@librarian.edu), July 06, 1999.

But Andy - you have not established that you are talking about any particular one of my beliefs. The process of any mechanism or company or agency that may be affected by unremediated or insifficiently tested program or mechanism is important, not any particular embedded chip that may affect any single part of any given process in any given industry.

To discredit any given one of my predictions, you only have to establish to my satisfaction that there will not be a significant political, social, economic or physical effect on this world's people next January, February and March. Should be simple - if y2k will have no effect on people, their jobs, or their economies.

-- Robert A. Cook, PE (Kennesaw, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), July 06, 1999.

...well, I was just trying to help. I admit I am disappointed - I really believed you people actually knew something about this stuff; the way you sound so cocksure about it. I suppose the drivelling responses will continue, but I don't suppose I will see a manufacturer, IC part number, test procedures, and application/platform list.

Stephen Poole was right about you all along - you are merely gossips with no facts.

Disappointed though proven correct, Andy Ray

-- Andy Ray (andyman633@hotmail.com), July 06, 1999.

This was all just a little game by Andy Ray. Here is what he posted on the Debunking forum:

They cannot produce the evidence

Tuesday, 06-Jul-1999 20:51:37

12.79.197.190 writes:

A thread I started at the Y2K Hysterium:

One Chip

I asked the people at the hysterium to supply some independently verifiable results.

Regards, Andy Ray

Andy Ray

-- thought (you@should.know), July 06, 1999.

Yes Andy, you annoying twerp, because no one here is holding a defective chip in their hand for the purposes of your show and tell, you can logically conclude that no embeds will fail.

That's why the IEEE just published a treatise on litigation of expected embedded problems which will provide part of an estimated trillion dollars in damages

That's why the American Petroleum Institute has put out dire warnings for the chemical industry

That's why Chinese officials are panicking and saying that plants and refineries are going to explode.

That's why a serious worldwide oil crisis is being predicted by the CIA

That's why a recession AT LEAST and a probable major depression are being forecast by prominent economists and y2k experts.

That's why electric industry consultant Tava/Beck is predicting power outages of several weeks this winter after inspecting many shoddily repaired systems

That's why computer problems have spilled gasoline that burned children to death and dumped millions of gallons of raw sewage on the streets

Now go suck up to your brother Stephen Poole on the deBuggery site you flaming asshole.

-- a (a@a.a), July 06, 1999.

*smile*

-- Andy Ray (andyman633@hotmail.com), July 06, 1999.

Andy, I almost feel sorry for ya' - Now :) Next year I'll feel no remorse about turning those like you away. Could you send me a picture of yourself. I'd like to watch you starve ; definetly a good object lesson. Stupidity should *ALWAYS* be rewarded IMHO.

Next year "survival of the fittest" takes on a whole new aspect, wouldn't you agree??

-- Brent James Bushardt (brentj@webt.com), July 07, 1999.

B J Bushhardt,

When someone writes (or speaks) of gleefully rubbing their palms together and salivating while watching another human being die, I always think, "Troll". Unless you care to find yourself starring in the latest "This proves the Doomers are sociopathic psychos" saga, you might want to give this some thought...

-- RUOK (RUOK@yesiam.com), July 07, 1999.