As requested, growing evidence

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

As yet another ranted-about day passes without societal impact, I renew my earlier challenges posted in One chip and One system, with an example

For those who would respond, I am attempting to gather independently verifiable evidence that there is actually a problem in the first place. I seek:

There is no need to rant, only produce some evidence. If it meets the criteria above, feel free to cut and paste it from any source you choose. I will perform the procedure and report the results here.

There is no evidence that Y2K date-related application glitches would impact society past a very slight "bump in the road." I have yet to find any evidence for any of this...aside from "funny feelings." And, as the critical date list grows shorter and shorter without incident, while the rhetoric at this and other forums increases in vehemence, is it any wonder that companies have identified doomer programmers as the threat to be reckoned with - instead of the minor to non-existent date-related issues?

Regards,
Andy Ray



-- Andy Ray (andyman633@hotmail.com), September 10, 1999

Answers

U still have those 'funny feelings' for me Andy Ray?

-- Porky (Porky@in.cellblockD), September 10, 1999.

I suspect that you won't accept SAP R-3 as a product? It's affect would be fairly serious as it is used to basically run companies. How about PeopleSoft, with HR impacts? George

-- curious (George@jun.gle), September 10, 1999.

Precisely Andy Ray. Would you hire someone like Hamasaki to renovate your system? Given the amount he has invested in seeing the world go boom? Hardly. Fortunately, the vast majority of programmers doing remediation view Tinfoils the way you and I do - they laugh at them...

"I have seen the face of the enemy. The enemy is our government".-- Ray Shuster

September 09, 1999.

"As long as "diversity" (3rd-world immigration) and "multi- culturalism" (anything goes) continues the USA will continue to drift from being a Christian (like it or not) cohesive nation to New World Odor"

Anonymous99 (Anonymous99@Anonymous99.xxx), September 09, 1999.



-- Y2K Pro (y2kpro1@hotmail.com), September 10, 1999.


Porky,

Yes.

Regards,
Andy Ray



-- Andy Ray (andyman633@hotmail.com), September 10, 1999.

Andy,

Wow! How can you keep asking the same question when you have been provided with the answer many times?

-- BiGG (supersite@acronet.net), September 10, 1999.



Please, others chime in if you feel I am way off base. Since most medium to large business choose not to, or can not put their systems "through/into" a true y2k testing invironment (like will be experienced Jan 1 99' onward), it is very difficult to answer your question in any detail. I think the corporate culture for many companies, based on what I've gleamed here off the net, is such that even if they found out there was a problem that would impact their operations in Jan. 99', that they would not be able to keep it secret from their competitors (who would use it against them), or investors (who would take out their money/stock!). So, your damned if you do and your damned if you don't. Many companies have or are trying to fix the problem. (just see their y2k expenses as shown at various times here in this forum), so don't think that they don't realize there is a lurking problem out there. Still, I believe, that even when a fix has been attempted, as I said before, they won't/can't put their system through a live system check. So....truly, I believe, your question, which is legitimate, can't be answered. This does not mean there will not be a serious problem. The gov't's answer seems to be "let things happen, and we'll deal with the problem after it happens. Bad approach. The reason being, What if it is bad? If you are not pro-active in mitigating the effects of a potentially bad situation (as described above), ie, have the populus prepare for at least the middle ground arena of adverse effects (level 5-7 out of a scale of 10 in terms of severity), then, in my eyes, at least in terms of a family situation, you are being irresponsible. Why couldn't that line of thinking have been used for this situation. The real statement is that it should have been used here. You know.....even if, even if this ends up being just a bump in the road, heads should role at the vary top. Common sense, like is used when preparing for a known event like an approaching hurricane, just was not used. And if ends up being a disasterous event, people need to REMEMBER those in Leadership who did not use their common sense in dealing with this problem. God help us. Tom

-- thomas.saul@yale.edu (thomas.saul@yale.edu), September 10, 1999.

Porky,

You're a troll, but you're a funny troll. Ummm....I didn't mean "funny", in the way you were using it...you know, just in case you ever get out of prison....

Hi, Andy! Like my font? Does that mean I are a big time 'puter expert, too? Knowledge of basic HTML shore do impress everybody, don't it?

Andy, I've never burned myself from putting my hand directly on a stove burner, nor do I know anyone who carries a scar from such a mistake. I've never even bothered to verify the stories I've read about others, who have made such a tragic error. Somehow though, it just seems like a bad idea to use a stove burner to lean on.

And yes, I do regard it as a bit of an imposition that there is a place in my house that I can't feel free to flop my butt on, when I'm feeling tired, but life is full of these little trade offs, you know?

There are people who have miraculously walked away, after falling from great heights. Does that make it smart to go sky-diving, without a chute?

I used to work in a fiberglass fabrication plant (stop me, before I analogize again). There was a fellow there, who used to get a kick out of freaking everyone out, by putting out his cigaretts in small containers of highly flammable acetone. Lord knows what kind of twisted mind this guy had, that he had practiced this trick so often, as to be able to do it with such complete confidence. One day, due to perhaps some flaw in the angle of descent in the cig, or maybe it was something atmospheric, the acetone caught fire.

Do I really need to say more, Andy Ray? Some things in life you just have to prepare for, not because they WILL happen, but because they CAN happen.

-- Bokonon (bok0non@my-Deja.com), September 10, 1999.


Face it people, most of us have never prepared for a single disaster, what ifs, etc., in our entire life until Y2K came along. The only people I know of who prepare for anything remotely possible are Mormons and militia. Y2K comes along and people jump on the bandwagon giving advice and talking it up and THEY have no pipeline to what truly is going to happen. Y2K is nothing more than a bunch of scenarios and a money maker for entrepreneurs. Really can't blame them for wanting to make a buck, it's the American way. There are some people who want it to come crashing down for whatever reason, but it's highly unlikely that it will. Everything can be fixed, we are such clever human beings.

-- ~~~~ (~~~~@~~~.com), September 10, 1999.

by this time next year, i think we,ll HEAR. prophecy 101

-- tick-tock. (dogs@zianet.com), September 10, 1999.

Y2K Pro,

I think I know why you hate Cory so much. He has spotlighted you and those like you. He has mentioned that some companies have made the horrible mistake of hiring an IT "fake" from the Polly pool. Of course those who you fakes associate with will feel the same about tinfoils and all other matters that threaten their status quo. I guess the majority of those who frequent this forum spotted the fact that you are Y2K-No-Pro a long time ago. Nice ego boosting name though. Just can't really cut it if you were to stick to something basic, like Sysman, for instance. Then you would have fish or cut bait. Since you are virtually always "baiting" people, looks like we know where you ended up. Hmmmm?

-- Gordon (gpconnolly@aol.com), September 10, 1999.



I can't answer your question since I am not a techie. However, I just posted an account of an outage at DMV from admittedly second hand info.

As I understand it, the problem is not individual failures but the combined effect of so many at once- the 'death of a thousand cuts'.

A hundred billion dollrs is a lot of 'road work'. Buisnesses and governments don't spend that type of money for nothing.

Some bumps in the road are big enough to break your axle.

-- Forrest Covington (theforrest@mindspring.com), September 10, 1999.


I can't answer your question since I am not a techie. However, I just posted an account of an outage at DMV from admittedly second hand info.

As I understand it, the problem is not individual failures but the combined effect of so many at once- the 'death of a thousand cuts'.

A hundred billion dollars is a lot of 'road work'. Buisnesses and governments don't spend that type of money for nothing.

Some bumps in the road are big enough to break your axle.

-- Forrest Covington (theforrest@mindspring.com), September 10, 1999.


Squiggle Person,

Wrong. We have various types of insurance, we've always had kerosene lamps, candles and battery powered lanterns, and a camping stove. These were kept as emergency items for the occasional power outage that any area is prone to, at any time. The degree of preps are always in line with the expected magnitude of the problem.

Yes, there are some people who never seem to prepare for anything, and my question has always been "Why?".

As far as additional preps go, we have always intended to keep a food pantry, as my wife's mother always did, but we were frankly a little lazy in that department. We also have always wanted a propane back-up space heater, ever since a mid-winter power outage, 5 years ago. Y2K just helped us to sharpen our focus a little.

-- Bokonon (bok0non@my-Deja.com), September 10, 1999.


DDDUUUUUUUHHHHHHH!!! geesh, an ostrich with his head in the sand could keep saying, "see i told you, nothing's happening" and yet there is a truck heading for him at 60 miles an hour because all he is seeing is the sand. TAKE YOUR HEAD OUT OF THE SAND AND LOOK AROUND AND SEE THE TRUCK COMING AT YOU!!! i WAS looking and i saw at least 10 significant incidences reported in the media and boards re: the nines. trust me--this is only a drop in the bucket and these are only the ones that slipped through.

YOUR REAL PROBLEM IS THAT UNLESS SOMETHING AFFECTS YOU PERSONALLY AND DISRUPTS YOUR WAY OF LIFE, YOU WON'T BELIEVE. Never mind the fact that it has already affected thousands or millions before you. Problem is for an ostrich--by the time you are affected, 1) things may be very bad, and 2)it is likely too late to change anything so you are stuck with the total consequences of your non-belief.

There is plenty of information out there but you seem to be an "unteachable" person. Woe to you and your loved ones.

-- tt (cuddluppy@yahoo.com), September 10, 1999.


Y2k-No-Pro,

Just one more observation for you. Based on so many of your past baiting comments, as well as your passion for the pounding pud business, I would expect that you have moved from being an apprentice- baiter all the way up to master-baiter. Hmmmmm?

-- Gordon (gpconnolly@aol.com), September 10, 1999.



Andy Ray,

You were already provided with these links on another thread...

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=0013zI

...but since you apparently missed them, here is the embeddeds information you've been looking for:

http://www.ti.com/corp/docs/year2000/dspsds.htm

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

http://domino.automation.rockwell.com/webstuff/y2k.nsf

Also see the "Embedded systems fault casebook":

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

An all-around basic article about embeddeds is at this link:

http://www.jsonline.com/bym/tech/0214chips.asp

About the pre-Year 2000 "spike dates"...you can find a list containing of some of Y2K-related glitches that have already happened at the following link:

"Year 2000 Problem Sightings"

http://info.cv.nrao.edu/y2k/sighting.htm

Before February 1st, I didn't know one way or another if the Jo Anne Effect was going to cause noticeable problems that would end up being reported. After February 1st, when Wal-Mart and some other companies entered their fiscal year 2000 with no reported problems, I realized that what PNG had been saying on this forum was true...that problems in accounting software aren't nearly as noticeable to outsiders as problems in manufacturing or distribution would be.

We won't hear that much about Y2K-related manufacturing or distribution problems until January 2000. It was clear to me in February that we weren't going to hear much about fiscal year rollover problems in accounting software on April 1st and July 1st. Most people on this forum weren't expecting "show-stoppers" on April 1st and July 1st either, but yet the issue of few reported problems does continue to get raised from time to time here.

Anyone who'd like to learn more about the significance and non- significance of fiscal year rollovers in accounting software, as well as find examples problems that have occured so far can find quite a few relevant links on the following thread:

"Significance of States Fiscal Start"

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=00122f

Almost all non-accounting software problems, PC BIOS chip and PC operating system problems, and embedded system/process control system problems are still ahead of us. Those are the ones with the potential of being "show-stoppers."

I might also add that the GPS rollover and 9/9/99 are unique types of glitches and are not a subset of the "99" and "00" problem that we usually refer to as Y2K.

Other helpful threads about "spike dates":

"GPS rollover - August 21/22"

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=001A9s

...and this thread...

"***Submit any GPS failures***"

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=001HTg

As for September 9, 1999, most felt that any problems that might occur due to a "9999" glitch would be negligible, but U.S. officials at the new $40 million Y2K Information Coordination Center and the United Nations backed International Y2K Cooperation Center decided to monitor 9/9/99 anyway:

"September 9, 1999 and the groups monitoring it"

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=001Mjr

...and...

"Y2K Chiefs Prepare For Dry Run On 9/9/99"

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=001J6V



-- Linkmeister (link@librarian.edu), September 10, 1999.


Linkmeister,

I sure gotta hand it to you. I went to the first post Andy Ray refers to in this thread, and saw where you had painstakingly given him link after link to sights and information on embedded chips. Your patience when dealing with immaturity is truly amazing, bet you're a wonder with 2 year olds!

You would think that anyone with half a brain would realize that the bios chip in PCs are an example, not to mention those silly VCR chips another.So what was really the point of Andy's question? Maybe he's one of those people who think that those are the only Y2k embedded chips around.

What would be more interesting to figure out, is if Andy is as "simple" as he portends, or if he's just really that stupid.

-- Cary Mc from Tx (Caretha@compuserve.com), September 10, 1999.


Gordon, I am rocking in my chair with LOL...your answer to Y2K-No-Pro is the absolutely funniest (and quite appropriate) one I have yet seen to this nuisance!

-- Elaine Seavey (Gods1sheep@aol.com), September 10, 1999.

Linkmeister,

In the earlier thread you did indeed post all of those links. And, I believe I thanked you for your efforts, and explained that they did not provide the information necessary (and clearly requested precise information) to independently verify the results, which I have also restated here. It is okay to admit you cannot locate the information, and (in my opinion) that alone does not mean the information does not exist. It does, however, call into question every claim made by doomers on this forum. Upon what do you base your beliefs, if not in independently verifiable facts?

It's simple, actually: Produce, or stop whining about it.

Y2KPro,

Your arguments must remain unmatched if your opponents have stooped to sandbox tactics. And, I see you are being accused of "baiting" as well - did you present facts and then question the meme? You should know better! :)

Doomers (in general),

Sorry the last few critical dates have gone awry for you - there's still the first of January, right? :) But then what? When nothing happens then, what is the fall-back position - January 1, 10000? Y10K?

You have been reversing stands so fast on the Jo Anne Effect that one could sustain neck trauma attempting to keep up. It's sad, really.

Regards,
Andy Ray



-- Andy Ray (andyman633@hotmail.com), September 10, 1999.

Andy Ray,

What's your opinion about these actions by the Coast Guard? Should they have waited until they provided you with information before they proceeded?

http://www.govexec.com/tech/articles/0199mantech2.htm

[Fair Use: For Educational/Research Purposes Only]

[snip]

Beyond IT

That focus on operational readiness also may explain how the Coast Guard was able to move beyond information systems remediation to assess the broader potential impacts of the century rollover. The agency has 15,000 facilities nationwide, 190 aircraft and thousands of ships and boats that it must keep operating.

A single ship can have hundreds of microprocessors ("chips" to most of us) working unseen in systems that control functions such as ventilation, ballast, navigation, communications, detection of fires and other hazards, and so on. Operators of one cruise ship thought they had brought it into full Y2K compliance, Naccara says, but when they turned the ship's clocks forward to Jan. 1, 2000, in a test, the stateroom doors all locked automatically and stayed that way, because of an overlooked chip.

Moreover, the Coast Guard is responsible for U.S. port safety, so it must concern itself with items such as fuel depots and pumping systems, cranes and other cargo-handling equipment, and shoreside utilities. In today's automated ports, a systems failure could lead to a major environmental disaster or loss of precious energy resources. "According to the Energy Information Administration, more than 50 percent of the oil consumed in this country comes to us from foreign sources through our ports," Naccara told the House committee, "Any disruption of the cargo and especially oil flow, for even a few days, would have a discernable effect on our economy, particularly during the winter heating season."

Considerations such as these prompted the Coast Guard to look at Y2K as much more than an IT challenge. But dealing with the embedded chips and the systems over which the agency has little control, such as oil pipelines or municipal telephone systems, requires different strategies than fixing the agency's own computer hardware and software.

The external systems issues, often labeled "external interfaces," are complex because the working environment for businesses and government today is highly networked, and few organizations have kept track of all the ways they are connected to the outside world. Federal agencies reported to the General Accounting Office earlier this year that they have more than 180,000 data exchanges with outside parties.

The true number may be much greater. People who think they have tracked down all those with whom their agency exchanges data keep uncovering new and unsuspected links. Once they've inventoried the connections, they may need to gather information about the other party's technical approach to Y2K and the timing of repairs so that the two efforts can be synchronized. Where mission-critical federal systems exchange data with others, formal, written agreements between the parties are needed.

The multiplicity of networks may mean wireless, telephone, cable television and several kinds of data networks must be checked out. In short, Naccara says, the complexity of the external interfaces "in itself assures us of some failures."

The chips are proving troublesome for everyone, inside the Coast Guard and outside, Naccara says, because even though they are ubiquitous, information about them is difficult or impossible to obtain. A single chip may perform a few known functions in a machine, but it may have dozens of unused functions built in by the chip manufacturer, he says. If just one of those dormant functions recognizes date-related information that reaches it, the chip can perform unpredictably.

Manufacturers don't always know precisely what chips they included in a product, and sometimes the chip manufacturer cannot be located to answer inquiries about whether the chip has date-related functions. Some makers of chips and products that use chips aren't responding to queries about Y2K, on advice of their lawyers who are worried about liability. Although a recent federal law reduces this exposure, not everyone believes candor is advisable. Moreover, definitions of Y2K compliance are elastic, despite efforts to make them more precise.

Furthermore, seemingly identical pieces of factory-made equipment can have different versions of the same chip. That means that if a Coast Guard office has five of the same fax machines, for example, testing one of them isn't enough. All five must be tested. More complex machinery tends to have more chips. A single huge crane in a port could have 150 chips, federal Y2K czar John Koskinen told an audience last year. Some organizations reportedly have been pleasantly surprised to find that their embedded-chip problems were less serious than had been feared, but the chips still need to be checked.

[snip]



-- Linkmeister (link@librarian.edu), September 10, 1999.


Andy Ray

I am a Canadian and just finished watching REP. Steve Horn's broadcast on Cspan1. I would recommend you show an interest in your own country and get a grip.

It is wierd that FAA get most of the attention yet poor people and the common folk rarely rely on it's services. It is the services to the poor and sick folk in the US that may end up feeling the Y2K bug the worst.

-- Brian (imager@home.com), September 10, 1999.


Andy Ray,

You ask Y2k-No-Pro, "did you produce facts?" (the answer is NO). Then you say "you should know better!", and I agree. So you see, there are some things you observe, and comment on, that I agree with. Imagine that!

-- Gordon (gpconnolly@aol.com), September 10, 1999.


Linkmeister,

re: the coast guard article, I'm going to start a new thread on it's contents.

-- Cherri (sams@brigadoon.com), September 12, 1999.


Cherri,

When you post your comments about the Coast Guard article, be sure to comment on the National Guard's page about embeddeds as well:

http://www.ngb.dtic.mil/y2k/closer.htm



-- Linkmeister (link@librarian.edu), September 12, 1999.


-- Forrest: you said: "Some bumps in the road are big enough to break your axle"

That great. I'll have to remember that one.

sdb

-- S. David Bays (SDBAYS@prodigy.net), September 12, 1999.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ