Embedded chips~embedded systemsgreenspun.com : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) Rollover/Back-Up Forum : One Thread
Embedded "chips" are NOT going to cause Y2K failures. The posibility of an individual chip causing a failure is minute, contrary to anything you have heard. The person, Dave Hall, who started this urban legend now admits he guessed when he came out saying 40 billion chips would have a 5-10% chance of failing.
He now denies chips will be a problem, he speaks of embedded "systems"(systems now being defined as a device that is not a computer but does digital processing). There are not 40 billion of any kind of systems in existance, much less embedded ones. Even on those he says they will be impacted as apposed to failing due to Y2K date functions.
He states that even those have less than .001% of those being impacted.
Most industries that depend on safety measures have taken the possibilities of these devices failing in normal daily life and either have backup systems in place for safety, or only used these digital devices for cosmetic or as a secondary system to ease the difficulty of doing it the old, hard way. Such as monitoring nuclear power plants. The computers allow the workers to see the information on a computer screen rather than having to walk around their huge room and look at individual guages.
There have been found Y2K problems in "embedded systems". The majority of the problems have been traced back to a monitoring or control PC which had to be made Y2K compliant.
Yes, had they not been looked for and allowed to go on as they were they would have caused many problems, maybe even lives.
They were searched searched out and found and fixed.
A lot of overkill went ointo looking for and finding potential problems, I doubt anyone can think of an area that has not been checked.
Contingency plans were already in place where safety is an issue, and has been re-enforced for Y2K.
This is being posted as a quick bit of information for those new to Y2K so they can understand the basic steps that have been taken in this area.
I am not stating that none have been overlooked, it would be impossible to find every one. That is why contingency plans are in place in the first place.
Be aware that some people who do not work on and never studied embedded chips and embedded systems feel they will be a big problem. It is easy to become frightened of something you do not understand. But the fact is that there are those who do understand them and have worked on them (some for many decades) and they are the ones who believe there will be little or no problem with them.
-- Cherri (email@example.com), December 29, 1999
Thanks, Cherri. Peter deJager---you know, the 'toad' who is now working for the NWO---stated as much a year ago. At that point, the doomer morons began to look at deJager as more of a Benedict Arnold than as someone who was doing ongoing research.
I find it laughable that with the finish wire in sight, the doom cult is drudging up this 'concern' and at the same time, pushing back their flashpoint dates, just like 1999's flashpoints...that all came and went without incident.
The new question needs to be...how long can the cult keep the anxiety going?
-- Bad Company (firstname.lastname@example.org), December 29, 1999.
"Be aware that some people who do not work on and never studied embedded chips and embedded systems feel they will be a big problem. It is easy to become frightened of something you do not understand."
Yep. Truer words never spoken.
-- Simpleminded (email@example.com), December 29, 1999.
I cant stand it. Thank God only two more days of this speculative imbed crapola.
yes,no,yes,no,they do,they dont,they will, they wont,we know,we dont know.
-- d----- (firstname.lastname@example.org), December 29, 1999.
Is this information based on written proof or is this your assumption? We all hear that embedded chips will cause problems and now you come along and say it won't. I don't mean any disrespect and I do appreciate your input but, how did you come across this info or are you familiar with this subject?
-- Familyman (email@example.com), December 29, 1999.
If your kid sleeps in and doesn't take the SAT's, he doesn't get a score.
The solid state controls that haven't been tested can't be scored, either.
That is the deal in a nutshell, this is not rocket science.
Listening to CSPAN on the car radio the speaker addressing the telephone industry patiently explaining reasons for confidence in the system was also patiently explaining the reasons end to end testing has not been done. Bottom line in my book, no score, no matter how much happy talk rationalization is floating through the ether.
-- Tom Beckner (Becknert@xout.erols.com), December 29, 1999.
Uh, Familyman? Fellow Pennsylvanian? Let's reiterate the doomer line of logic here via a brief albeit 'factual' recap of embeddeds and debate. A year and a half ago, the number of 'possible faulty embedded chips' was said to number around 25% of ALL embeddeds. DeJager wrote something that talked about his concern along this line.
After myriad programmers and systems pros debunked this number, it was downplayed to somewhere around 4%. DeJager...and others...were still concerned as it still involved literally millions of chips.
Last spring, the number was further donplayed to .1% of all chips. Look, the point is, .1% is still not good enough, but the idea is noteworthy because the doom cult let this issue die for a few motnhs---because it was debunked--and now, in an 11th hour attempt to dredge up more panic, have resurrected the 'concerns'.
This is laughable and all-too-predictable.
And please, spare me the diatribe about deJager and others having 'sold out'.
-- Bad Company (firstname.lastname@example.org), December 29, 1999.
Tom, I would agree with your comments but would add a caveat there: how many systems need date-relaint chips anyway? In many cases, date reliant chips and embeddeds are not applicable to the maintenance of the system. This is the bottom line some pros have resorted to, and one which cannot be proven or disproven, or so it seems.
-- Bad Company (email@example.com), December 29, 1999.
Read the NIST report on embedded chips issued on November 9th.
It brought us full circle to the original, "worst case" worries of the original people. Hidden Clocks, different lots of chips in the same production runs. You name it.
Now, the Commerce department is telling companies they should do end to end testing of everything..............
I don't give a rat's ass about De Jager, if he "sold out", moved up, or whatever. His business.
Our fine government, the same ones who are telling us all is fine, are also telling us that the embedded chips are as big a worry as we ever thought they were.
We will start to know in TWO days. Opinions, at this point, are irrelevent. Deal with it.
-- mushroom (firstname.lastname@example.org), December 29, 1999.
I didn't know you were in the field! So how long have you been running y2k tests on embeddeds? What protocols for your application? I can't believe you're lucky enough to have found an oasis with limited failures! What kind of plant are you in? How old is your equip? Vendors, or did you design the embeddeds? If you designed them, then did you put them in a y2k compliant system, or did you design the entire system, with your embedded PLC's? So I assume you're not a ChemiE cause I've never heard of a valve embedded doing better than a 10% failure (or 4 mill raw sewage in your street, but don't tell the ChemE's that, huh!). Please respond, and would you also post a link to your company's Y2K Project web site; I am sure I could learn so much from you!
-- Hokie (email@example.com), December 29, 1999.
"Yes, had they not been looked for and allowed to go on as they were they would have caused many problems, maybe even lives."
Lessee, this would include Russia, China, Italy, goodly chunks of all those underdeveloped, unimportant places like Japan, Middle East, Asia...ahh, who needs all them funny foreigners anyways.
Fix on Failure: the favored strategy of the oil industry, small businesses, and polly households everywhere. Hey, hey, who cares, we'll just run it all on manual for the 3 days it takes to fix everything.
"If you toast a 7-11, all the pollies within 5 miles are nuclear families" -favorite phrase of Piotyr Milneski
-- singing (firstname.lastname@example.org), December 29, 1999.
Hey Polly-wolly, nice that you place Milne's name in Russian with that quote. Perfect.
-- BC (always @ontherun.com), December 29, 1999.
Uh..Bad Company? Mr Pittsburg? I was looking for some proof. In writting. A link to her assessment. Telling me that everything is just going to be fine is not good enough. Try telling Debunking Y2K that embeds are going to be a catastrophy and they'll want proof, right?
"They were searched searched out and found and fixed". Says who?
-- Familyman (email@example.com), December 29, 1999.
Embedded devices; PLCs, SBCs and embedded computer systems have been overlooked during remediation and will cause problems, no "ifs", "ands" or "buts" about it.
These systems do not fall under the control of the IT side of the house in most organizations and have fallen by the wayside. The owning organizations (engineering, facilities, manufacturing) don't have a clue that what these things are is Y2K problem bait and has pressed on fat dumb and happy.
They're Y2K confident because IT blessed their desktop pcs and programs on the corporate system. But they're blind to the systems they own running Windows 3.1, or the 286 and 386 based single board computers in their process control equipment. And it will kill their business.
I've seen it as recently as last week. And when I've asked I've been told IT doesn't consider it a problem. Of course, it's not going to be IT's a** on the line when that stuff fails and production stops either.
Call 'em embedded chip, embedded devices, embedded systems or built- in computers. An awful lot aren't considered the baliwick of the corporate computer systems folks and they've been left out of their Y2K remediation equation.
But they're gonna figure very large in the near future when they tally into the Y2K equipment failure equation.
-- Wildweasel (firstname.lastname@example.org), December 29, 1999.
I base what I wrote on over 30 year of hands on experience. Hardware and software.
While working for Boeing, 19 years ago I wrote Y2K compliant software with the full knowledge that when the year 2000 hit the software would work.
Although the boom in the information industry in the last 10-15 years has brought a multitude of non-compliant programs, there were some of us who had a deeper understanding of how software works and took that into account when writing it.
And Yes I do have an intimate knowledge of embedded chips and embedded systems. I can troubleshoot and repair a mainframe down to chip leval - actually the pin on the chip, and ptobably tell you what went wrong in the chip. I was trained and worked hands on with these systems for decades. Hydraulic, pneumatic, electric electronic, electro-mechanical, digital, heating and air-conditioning, visual systems, radar, instrumentation, onterfacing. Operate, maintain, troubleshoot, repair, program, run, numerous mainframe computers starting with analog mainframes with tube technology on up to and including todays micro-technology standards. Run and interpret diagnostic software, developed tracking and inventory systems, data processing, can use with ease and experience sophisticated diagnostic test equipment. I even changed the brake shoes on a train car once. Lifelong experience in carpentry, plumbing, sewing, building airconditioning heating knitting, chrochet, needlepoint etc, can cook from scratch, (now that is a hard work), extensive parenting skills, years of foster care, vehecle maintenance, small and large appliance repair.
These are just the some of the things I enjoy doing.
Now please tell me how the multitude of information posted by self proclaimed experts on the web such as Paula Gordon compares to my background?
I wrote her and offered to explain the embedded area to her and she told me she was not interested in details. Reading websites containing speculation by other "self-proclaimed" embedded experts appears to be all the information she feels is necessary to form her own "self-proclaimed" expertness.
I do not feel the need to prove I am right, time will do that, I just want people to have the benefit of my experience so they can use it along with the other information they read to decide for themselves who and what to believe. I believe it morally irresponsible for me not to provide the information I have so people could make up their minds for themselves how bwd they feel the situation will be. I do not believe it is right for people to be needlessly frightened by misinformation.I have been doing this for almost two years, and although you do not know it, you have used information I have provided to determine for yourself what areas you believe will be impacted by Y2K. I have a mail-list which has provided information and sources for information on embedded.
Now we wait.
-- Cherri (email@example.com), December 29, 1999.
Is there anyone more or at least as knowledgeable (sounding) as Cherri who can rebut this posting? Is she(he?) correct? Is there another side? I have been reading about embeddeds for a year, I am a nontechnical ignoramous as far as computers or anything resembling them goes. In fact today I can't even get anything posted ionto this board. I'll see if this one works. Pramada
-- Pramada (firstname.lastname@example.org), December 29, 1999.
Yes there is another side. Unfortunatly TB2000 is not geared toward showing that other side. Fortunatly what I have posted at Tb2000 disputing the embedded hype has not been removed from the board, but usually got spammed by huge repeat downloads that in effect turned readers away from reading what I wrote.
That is the problem with TB2000, only bad news or negitive information is wanted.
Had they allowed discussion of both sides of the embedded or any other problems then you and others would have had a choice as to what to believe. When only one side is allowed then you are in effect, being brainwashed. Many discussions and a lot of information has come to light about embedded and other subjects that have not been welcomed at tb2k.
This is the problem between the doomers and pollies. The pollies do not believe nothing is wrong or nothing would happen. They have been fighting to have the "other side" posted so you and others who come here looking for facts get unbiased facts.
This is true for utilities, nuclear power plants oil and other areas of concern.
I can understand censering people with disruptive behavior, but do not understand censering information.
I believe a person who has become aware of the Y2K situation and is searching the web for information should be allowed to get all views from all sides wheather I agree with them or not. Not allowing or not directing people to other information is unfair and can and has caused people unnecessary concern. My embedded mail-list was geared toward providing directions to areas where people could find information for themselves.
This site is geared toward preparing for Y2K failures, not toward giving out factual information on areas of concern.
If you would like to find out other information let me know.
Unfortunatly cescership or flaming of good news is a common practice TB2000.
-- Cherri (email@example.com), December 29, 1999.
Thanks, Cherri. I do appreciate the time you've spent here and the information you have shared. I'm still stuck between 5-7,though and I am prepared for just that. I guess we'll all know in about 48 hrs who is right or wrong. Thanks, again.
-- Familyman (firstname.lastname@example.org), December 29, 1999.
Speaking of making sure the record is straight for any new people who may have just started reading the forum...
Cherri starts out okay....prviding some basic data that is, like any other data, subject to interpretation. Your best bet, is to make note of it and see if you can find any corroborating data. That's ALWAYS a good rule to follow, whether your reading Ms Sams, or your reading INFOMAGIC.
So far so good...
In her last post however, when she starts boo-hooing about how the sysops of TB2000 have censored ANY good news, the good lady Cherri, to put it politely, is so full of horse-droppings, that her eyes shine a deep lusturous shade of chocolate brown. The individuals who have been deleted sat out to deliberately disrupt the forum. They were tying up the board by repeating the same inane posts over and over and over (I didn't make a count myself, but I've heard numbers in the 50's). If TB2000 becomes operational again, I suggest you look up old posts by such well known pollies as Hoffmeister ,Ken Decker and well...Ms. Sams. You will see that no attempt was made to silence opposing view points, by the sysops. As to the flames from forum regulars, well that's to be expected. It's a forum primarily focused on the more pessimistic view, and never pretended to be anything else. The implied assertion, by Ms. Sams that other forums, such as Debunking Y2K, are offering a more "balanced" view, is more of the afformentioned horse droppings. Try going over there and raising even the possibility of Y2K disruptions, and see if you can get out of there without a well toasted pair of buns. If you come here and laugh at the possibility of Y2K problems or go there and say you accept the fact that Y2K could have serious, if not dire implications, there will be those who will flame you. Life's like that sometimes, and if Ms. Sam's weak diatribe convinces you otherwise, I have a bridge and some swamp land in Florida I'd like to sell you.
-- Bokonon (bok0non@my-Deja.com), December 29, 1999.
You are showing a good example of how what people say gets twisted around to mean something else which is not uncommon at TB2000.
In her last post however, when she starts boo-hooing about how the sysops of TB2000 have censored ANY good news,
Read again what I said;
Yes there is another side. Unfortunatly TB2000 is not geared toward showing that other side.
Saying, exactly what you said. It's a forum primarily focused on the more pessimistic view, and never pretended to be anything else.
Fortunatly what I have posted at Tb2000 disputing the embedded hype has not been removed from the board,
Where do you get she starts boo-hooing about how the sysops of TB2000 have censored ANY good news from that?
To which you politly say I am full of shit?
If TB2000 becomes operational again, I suggest you look up old posts by such well known pollies as Hoffmeister ,Ken Decker and well...Ms. Sams. You will see that no attempt was made to silence opposing view points, by the sysops.Where did I state the sysops were doing it?
You agree with me about the flames
As to the flames from forum regulars, well that's to be expected.Then you put more words into my mouth;
The implied assertion, by Ms. Sams that other forums, such as Debunking Y2K, are offering a more "balanced" view, is more of the afformentioned horse droppings. What I really said was;
My embedded mail-list was geared toward providing directions to areas where people could find information for themselves.
I made no mention of "Debunking Y2K" (or Debunkers as it is fondly called).
The your point, about other forums, are offering a more "balanced" view, is more of the afformentioned horse droppings. was written right after you said;It's a forum primarily focused on the more pessimistic view, and never pretended to be anything else.Make up your mind, which one is it? You say TB2000 is biased, then turn around and say that the idea that any other forum is more "balanced" is horse shit.
You go on to say; Life's like that sometimes, and if Ms. Sam's weak diatribe convinces you otherwise, I have a bridge and some swamp land in Florida I'd like to sell you. Which tells the reader that if they were to believe what I wrote then they would be gullable enough to buy swampland.
You say that what I wrote is full of shit, then turn around and say the exact same thing yourself.
As usual, I will not tell the reader what to believe and insult them in the process, I respect the fact that they can use their own minds and decide for themselves what to believe.
-- Bokonon (bok0non@my-Deja.com), December 29, 1999.
-- Cherri (email@example.com), December 31, 1999.