This story makes a claim that the electricity industry hasn't found a single problem... From the knowledge I have of your work, this sounds like nothing more than a lie... For the record, have you found any Y2K problems in the electric industry in North America that were dangerous to the generation, transmission, or delivery of power?

see: http://www.ottawacitizen.com/national/990213/2273979.html

-- Anonymous, February 14, 1999

Answers

Of course it isn't true. I can't believe de Jager has turned into an government mouthpiece, spouting the party line, given what he was saying only three months ago, but it sure is starting to look that way.

He is simply repeating what the "idiot summary" of the latest NERC report said, which has already been shown to be an outright lie (reference the NRC's audit of the Seabrook nuclear plant).

It really bothers me that because of one stupid sentence in that report, everyone in any kind of official capacity has gone from saying "we're not positive the lights will stay on" to "the lights will definitely stay on". Now they're shifting the blame to people who are preparing, calling us fear-mongers and worse. Anybody with half a brain and an internet connection can do a little background research and realize that NERC is either:

1) outright lying, if they've read the NRC audits, or 2) not to be trusted, if they haven't

Take your pick...

Jon

-- Anonymous, February 14, 1999

This above referenced story is in need of SERIOUS comment from Rick Cowles. 'Bet he could contact De Jager (sp?) and find out if he believed he was misquoted. One way or another, we sure need to hear from Rick on this. I am stunned.

-- Anonymous, February 14, 1999

I have followed deJager's written work for about a year. About five months ago, he changed. He went from concern about utilities, banks, and government, to no problem for utilities, banks, and government. I never read any stats from him as to why these segments suddenly got better. He was in San Antonio and a lady friend of mine sent me the clip from the paper. She commented, "I certainly hope he's right!." That was my first notice that he had changed. His stance was so different I thought the paper must have misquoted him. I did some searching of his latest writing at that time and saw he had indeed changed his opinion. He now seems to think those segments, utilities, banks, and government are doing a good job and we don't have to prepare for loss of electricity, loss of the ability to get money, and loss of government services. Since I can't find facts to back that up I now discount his remarks. He and Gary North had a run-in several months ago. According to North, deJager threatened to sue him for posting direct quotes from deJager. That was strange. You might go to deJager's site, do some reading and make up your own mind.

-- Anonymous, February 14, 1999

de jager to fly 12/31/99. one toke over the line...

i stumbled across this at y2knewswire. i really believe that he speaks with 'forked tongue.' i remeber reading somewhere[?] that a canadian newspaper reported he had purchased a 'vacation home.'

now that he has made some major money and runs with the 'big dogs' i feel he has been 'advised' to tone down his act...m Sanger's Review - http://www.y2kreview.com/

Y2K Bill Gets Business Backing (Margaret Kane, ZDNet News) Full text of "news burst": "A coalition of 80 businesses and trade Good News for Y2K (DCI IT News) More about Y2K "guru" Peter de Jager's current views. He "staunchly believes good news needs to be told about the world's Y2K efforts."

-- Anonymous, February 14, 1999

god, i hate when this happens.

my previous post regarding de jager was from sanger's review. i read the article at the website as the maillist was down wednesday thru thursday. i got the belated maillists today from 2/10 thru 2/12.

when i responded to this thread i did not check to make sure that the article was, in fact, there. i just copied the url from 2/10 and posted it.

sorry about that...here is the correct url. i went straight to the main article this time, without sanger's commentary.

http://year2000.dci.com/Articles/990210dejager.htm

-- Anonymous, February 14, 1999

Paging Rick Cowles! Paging Rick Cowles! Rick, where ARE YOU ON THIS? Please! (Do you think de Jager's right? Is he including supply sources? What's happeing here?) Paging Rick Cowles! :)

-- Anonymous, February 14, 1999

The statement in the article was:

"I believe, personally, there will be no power disruptions in North America because (no problems) have been found," Peter de Jager said yesterday, referring to the so-called Y2K bug, the computer glitch that analysts fear will hit at the turn of the millennium.

FWIW, the (no problems) part, i.e. the fact that it is in parentheses, indicates that it is not a word for word quote of that part of whatever the original statement was. This may not help much, since a word for word quote may have been just as misleading. :-)

Jerry

-- Anonymous, February 14, 1999

Oh, my.

I can see that this is going to be a long year. One person posts a de Jager quote (or misquote) asking for Rick's interpretation, another cries out that he needs Rick's take on things. "Rick, where are you?"

In more than one post I've read a comment from Rick urging you to do your own research and to draw your own conclusions. If you are not capable of thinking for yourselves, and if you insist on setting up a guru, and the guru must speak before you turn your brain on, you are in trouble. Most people don't want to be put in the position of leading other people's lives.

Rick does a great job. Bonnie Camp has been invaluable providing analysis and comment. But, come on, fellows, if anything this whole Y2K thing should have taught you to think for yourselves.

What are you going to do, run to Rick with every piece of news that comes out. Today is Sunday, and it's Valentine's day. Give him a break.......

-- Anonymous, February 14, 1999

It really does not matter what de Jager believes. What matters to me are the facts. Name one compliant utility.

Who said he didn't inhale?

-- Anonymous, February 14, 1999

Maybe it will be a long year of discrediting "gurus." Sigh. Still interested, though, in Rick's opinion.

Take care, y'all

-- Anonymous, February 14, 1999

I think that Rick's opinion about this is important. Or at least someone who is one of the key people involved in distributing Y2K info. Someone should address this who might have some knowledge about what Mr. DeJager's basis for making these statements were. He doesn't give any statistics...

Unfortunately, those of us who are dependent upon "experts" to give us info based on their own first hand knowledge must use this to make our decisions. No one has all the answers, but when error is put out to the public, I think it is reasonable for other experts to confront it.

I believe at some point (which is why many are eager to hear counter points from other experts) we all expect that maybe the tide will turn in this Y2K mess and the news will get better. Maybe lots better.

In the meantime, I'll just keep reading posts from the experts and gauge my preparations accordingly. I cannot figure it out for myself.

-- Anonymous, February 14, 1999

Keep your eyes on the broad picture, folks. Were there Y2K debates and contradictory statements of opinion made two years ago? Yes. Last year? Yes. Why should this year be any different? People also change their opinions frequently for various reasons. Anybody been watching the political news for the last year? *grin*

Mr. de Jager is expressing an opinion in this article:

"I believe, personally, there will be no power disruptions in North America because (no problems) have been found," Peter de Jager said yesterday, referring to the so-called Y2K bug, the computer glitch that analysts fear will hit at the turn of the millennium"

The only basis given in the same article as to why Mr. de Jager thinks his opinion is not common knowledge is:

"The utility companies are not making that statement because they fear the legal ramifications" if they are proven wrong.

This reasoning apparently promulgates the assumption that all the North American utilities KNOW there's no Y2K problems, but don't say so because of the legalities if they are mistaken. Now, since Mr. de Jager is Canadian, and his focus has been primarily on his own country, let's take another statement from a Canadian business concerning their utility. This is from Canadian Business magazine at:

http://www.profitguide.com/profitmagazine/stories.asp?ID=113

"Getting assurances wasn't always easy. Among others, the electronic palm-sized organizers used by staff are "still unknown." The toughest problem, though, was dealing with utilities. Water and sewage assurances eventually came, along with the phone company's, but Scully is still waiting for the local electric company to send its Y2K-compliance statement. "That one does bother us," says ISG CFO Rob Dietrich. "To my knowledge, they're still not stating categorically that there won't be a power-grid problem." (Many hydro companies claim they're waiting in turn for a Y2K review by Ontario Hydro.)"

The fact that this major business hasn't been able to get an assurance from their electric utility might at first glance appear to back up Mr. de Jager's statement about not saying anything. However, I personally know two business owners who, in phone conversations with their electric utility, were given information which was stated would not be put in writing, but was for major utility customers only. (One gave an assessment of "confidence" disruptions would be minimal, the other said they weren't sure they would complete their remediation in time and the business should make whatever contingency plans they felt appropriate for disruptions.) And before anyone asks, no, I cannot give out specifics on this. For confirmation that at least some utilities are giving verbal info to business customers, ask some business people in your own area if they've spoken privately with the local utility. You might be surprised what you'll find out.

The point is, if it's true that utilities had found NO Y2K problems, then they'd certainly be passing on a very optimistic message to their customers, even if it was only a non legally binding verbal one. And this doesn't even count the utility workers who would, of course, know there was no reason to buy a generator for their homes, even if they couldn't say why they knew. Unfortunately, it didn't make the local news article, but according to the reporter notes on questions put to a local utility rep at a recent meeting with legislators in my town, when the rep was asked if he had recently purchased a generator for himself, the reply was simply, "Yes."

Now let's look at the obvious. Unless the Nuclear Regulatory Agency and NERC, as well as the utilities which give them info, are playing some kind of scam on the American Public, and just out of perversity are having utilities spend millions of dollars on remediation and contingency planning, then of course there have been Y2K problems reported and documented. Or do you think that the utilities are upgrading and replacing systems for absolutely no reason? Just throwing their money away? Please, let's get real. Are there as many problems as were initially feared? No, fortunately, and that's something we can all be grateful for. But the idea that vendors are backlogged with replacement orders on some systems just because utilities decided, "What the heck, we've got more money than we need, let's fool everybody and replace perfectly good systems, " is ludicrous.

I don't know about anybody else, but even IF there were no Y2k problems found in generation or transmission or distribution, I'll still be preparing for disruptions. As Marcella cogently stated in another thread, there are so many potential interconnection problems NOTHING can be a "sure thing". The vast majority of businesses are dealing with critical systems only. Is it possible for non-critical systems to cause major problems? Did everyone properly delineate between what is critical and non-critical? If you can't get fuel does that impact the delivery of your product? If major power user's assembly lines suddenly shut down does that create problems for a utility? If they missed problems in their billing systems and can't bill accurately for a long time will that impact the utility's financial stability? If their bank has problems will that impact a utility? If the local telecom goes down? If they can't get water? And on and on....round and round we go.

I have no idea if Mr. de Jager was mis-quoted or not. I do know the Year 2000 problem is real, the potential trouble spots are legion, and many fixes were begun too late, or are not being properly done. I knew this last year. I know it now. The broad picture presents so many potential threats it's doubtful we've even thought of them all. Governments are making contingency plans for disruptions, the military is making contingency plans for disruptions, businesses are making contingency plans for disruptions, utilities are making contingency plans for disruptions and by golly, my family has made contingency plans, too.

-- Anonymous, February 14, 1999

Bonnie,

Thanks, once again, for bringing some perspective to my thinking. I slept with that post I made yesterday on my mind. And I think the reason it hit some of us so hard was that, at least for me, I have to think: This guy must know more than I do about the situation; and maybe according to his info he has reason to believe we have fixed enough so that it will minimize the problems to a simple "headache".

He has been making similar statements for the past few weeks or months. I would hope that he was making them based on very concrete assessments of the situation. However, as you pointed out, after thinking it through I believe they (the statements) are based mainly on his "opinion" of what has been accomplished.

Because I can't devote much time to researching this, and really good research takes many, many hours as I'm sure you know; perhaps I have come to rely to strongly on the expert opinions out there. However, for me, right now, that's all I can do.

My husband and I are making extensive preparations, but sometimes you do stop and think, am I nuts??

-- Anonymous, February 15, 1999

Linda O., I do not think you are nuts, but I certainly think you are being mislead. I work in the utility industry, and am actively involved in Y2K. I have first hand knowledge of a half dozen power plants Y2K efforts, and have industry information on dozens of other utilities work on this problem from EPRI conferences, seminars, and peer reviews at other utilities. Most assessments of embedded systems and software are complete, so we already have enough of the facts to see just what kind of problem we have on our hands. The findings? Most embedded system Y2K problems are minor in nature - the few that are not are being fixed (actually, even the minor ones are being fixed). In the vast majority of cases with embedded systems, dates are not used for critical functions - thats the real story here, and unfortuately many of those who purport to be Y2K "experts" fail to pass these findings along for obvious reasons. Unfortunately, the smoke and mirrors Y2K Catestrophe crowd makes money spreading fear. Its a very widespread programming problem that can and is being dealt with, it's not the end of the world, nor will will the year 2000 rollover bring any signficant problems from a computer and embedded systems point of view. However for the possible panic the "experts" may cause, stay informed. Good Day :)

"We have nothing to fear, exept fear itself". W. Churchill

-- Anonymous, February 15, 1999

Worth reading in conjunction with the whole topic of this thread (and some of the responses)...

Twenty-Five Ways To Suppress Truth: The Rules of Disinformation

-- Anonymous, February 15, 1999

factfinder,

Welcome. Trying to persuade with reasoned debate is most frustrating here. There seems to be no room for a utility to make a correct decision in any given situation, all choices are seen as flawed. This has been difficult when trying to get some to apply critical reasoning equally when considering possible meanings of reports of Y2K. Reports that cause readers to infer doom and gloom are in high regard. Any possibility of inferring positive from same are discounted and given little credence. Same with reports that naturally imply positive results. It is not surprising that the logic referenced in the above post (to refute your post) is derived from a Kennedy assasination conspiracy proponent.

-- Anonymous, February 15, 1999

Interesting exchange. From the above referenced website:

>1) They never actually discuss issues head on or provide constructive >input, generally avoiding citation of references or credentials. >Rather, they merely imply this, that, and the other. Virtually >everything about their presentation implies their authority and expert >knowledge in the matter without any further justification for >credibility. > >2) They tend to pick and choose their opponents carefully, either >applying the hit-and-run approach against mere commentators supportive >of opponents, or focusing heavier attacks on key opponents who are >known to directly address issues. Should a commentator become >argumentative with any success, the focus will shift to include the >commentator as well. > >3) They tend to surface suddenly and somewhat coincidentally with a >controversial topic with no clear prior record of participation in >general discussion in the particular public arena. They likewise tend >to vanish once the topic is no longer of general concern. They were >likely directed or elected to be there for a reason, and vanish with >the reason. > >4) They tend to operate in self-congratulatory and complementary packs >or teams. Of course, this can happen naturally in any public forum, >but there will likely be an ongoing pattern of frequent exchanges of >this sort where professionals are involved. Sometimes one of the >players will infiltrate the opponent camp to become a source for straw >man or other tactics designed to dilute opponent presentation >strength. > >5) Their disdain for "conspiracy theorists" and, usually, for those >who in any way believe JFK was not killed by LHO. Ask yourself why, if >they hold such disdain for conspiracy theorists, do they focus on >defending a single topic discussed in a NG focusing on conspiracies? >One might think they would either be trying to make fools of everyone >on every topic, or simply ignore the group they hold in such disdain. >Or, one might more rightly conclude they have an ulterior motive for >their actions in going out of their way to focus as they do. > >6) An odd kind of "artificial" emotionalism and an unusually thick >skin -- an ability to persevere and persist even in the face of >overwhelming criticism and non-acceptance. This likely stems from >intelligence community training that, no matter how condemning the >evidence, deny everything, and never become emotionally involved or >reactive. The net result for a disinfo artist is that emotions can >seem artificial. Most people, if responding in anger, for instance, >will express their animosity throughout their presentation. But >disinfo types usually have trouble maintaining the "image" and are hot >and cold with respect to emotions they pretend to have and the more >calm or normal communications which are not emotional. It's just a >job, and they often seem unable to "act their role in type" as well in >a communications medium as they might be able in a real face-to-face >conversation/confrontation. You might have outright rage and >indignation one moment, ho-hum the next, and more anger later -- an >emotional yo-yo. With respect to being thick-skinned, no amount of >criticism will deter them from doing their job, and they will >generally continue their old disinfo patterns without any adjustments >to criticisms of how obvious it is that they play that game -- where a >more rational individual who truly cares what others think might seek >to improve their communications style, substance, and so forth.

-- Anonymous, February 15, 1999

Boy, I go away from the forum for a few days, and look at the fun we're having. ;-)

I think most of Reporter's questions have been answered adequately in this particular thread, so I won't add to the noise level.

With regards to PdJ's comments to the Ottawa Citizen, about all I can say is that Peter is a programmer - not an expert on the utility industry. He's taking industry and government assurances on faith, which is about all that anyone who doesn't have the time (or interest) in conducting the research can do.

I'm not saying that he's wrong, I'm not saying that he's right, and far be it from me to question his motivation for whatever statements he makes. His is one (albeit high profile) opinion. A wise person tries to collect all of the information available, and make some intelligent decisions based on the total body of credible knowledge, not one person's opinion - mine, PdJ's or anyone else.

As much as some folks would like to think otherwise, there are no Y2k guru's. The word "guru" implies some higher source of knowledge and omnipotence on the subject material. I claim neither. I am as scared and confused about this issue as anyone else, because I don't have the answers.

And for goodness sakes, given what I'm doing for a living and the number of companies I'm currently working with, you'd think I'd have a clue about what the impact of this thing might be. But I don't. I see good things happening with some utility companies, I see others just scratching the surface and going through the motions. What does this mean in the big picture? Again, I don't know. More to the point, I don't know how to gain the comfort level that I personally need.

I will tell you what I do need - less arrogance and assumption on the part of the electric industry that the "regular folk" are too stupid to understand the operations of the electric industry, and thus, the potential Y2k impact. I copied the following from another post in the forum today:

Hope this helps. I try not to do things behind closed doors. Also a big point of discussion during the conference was how to get the word out to the many requests for Y2k information. It is difficult because the public generally and surely the media do not understand how power works. They just want simple answers when it doesn't work. Did you ever stop and think "the lights are on and the turkey is cooking". Nope, just when the lights are out do you notice. Me too, and I hope to keep it that way.

(Underlining in the above is mine; this is from an "industry insider" and posted in the thread "What goes on behind closed doors?".)

The assumption in the above, if that's the prevailing industry attitude, is that John and Jane Q. Public are too stupid (or disinterested) in understanding why Y2k will, at this point, according to the electric industry, have minimal impact.

I said it before in an earlier posting - if this is the case, give it to John and Jane in technical terms, and I'll interpret if necessary. At this point in time, a geographically broad and techincal basis for optimism is absolutely essential. Is there even a remote chance that such a basis will be forthcoming in the next 319 days? I doubt it - I hope I'm wrong, but I doubt it, simply because of the legal liabilities and ultimate uncertainties involved.

-- Anonymous, February 15, 1999

Factfinder, I'm not familiar with that quote as by Winston Churchill, unless he was restating Franklin D. Roosevelt's "..the only thing we have to fear is fear itself.." (from his first inaugural address March 4, 1933) Francis Bacon and Thoreau are also credited with earlier very similar statements from which President Roosevelt might have borrowed.

An interesting historical context to that quote is that there was actually a great deal for the average citizen to be afraid of then. Many people had lost their homes, their jobs, their savings, and some were literally starving. On that same inauguration day the nation's two greatest financial centers were closed and almost every commercial bank in the country was shut. Anger at the collapse of many systems was rife and troops had been bivouacked near big cities.

It's also interesting to note the prefacing words to Roosevelt's famous "calming" quote: "I am certain that my fellow American's expect that on my induction into the Presidency I will address them with a candor and a decision which the present situation of our nation impels. This is preeminently the time to speak the truth, the whole truth, frankly and boldly. Nor need we shrink from honestly facing conditions in our country today."

The electric utilities were working fine, albeit they had the same financial problems everyone else did. It still took another eight years and a world war before "fear" no longer had to be calmed.

As you said about the Year 2000 date problem, "it is a widespread programming problem" and can be addressed. However, there is ample evidence, including admissions from our own government, that it is NOT being addressed in many places both here and abroad, and that in some areas where it is being addressed, time may be too short to complete an adequate job.

The article at: http://www.midrangesystems.com/article.asp?ID=2599104608AM

references the latest Cap Gemini survey about how time-pressed some companies are and the serious implications of that. In the thread on this forum titled, "What goes on behind closed doors" is a good comment from Chuck, who attended the recent Y2K electric industry conference. He did report that few problems were being found in the industry and that is good news. He also said, "There was a discussion on pressure NERC will bring against utilities that appear to be tardy in their Y2k efforts" which indicates that not everyone is on the same level of proficiency in their projects, and this could create problems.

I am as skeptical of statements which promulgate everything will fail as I am of statements similar to your "nor will will the year 2000 rollover bring any signficant problems from a computer and embedded systems point of view." I agree with a quote from Voltaire: "Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is an absurd one." I believe it's much more likely that a scenario between the two extremes has more veracity. In the 1800's, John Stuart Mill wrote, "..since the general or prevailing opinion on any subject is rarely or never the whole truth, it is only by the collision of adverse opinions that the remainder of the truth has any chance of being supplied."

-- Anonymous, February 15, 1999

Bonnie, et. al., Thanks for correcting my misquote, and for offering several other historical quotes on the subject of certainty, doubt, and truth - all most appropriate for a discussion on the Y2K problem and it's affect on society. In fact, my area of expertise is in electrical and instrumentation and controls, not history.

Having worked on the Y2K problem in software and embedded systems, I do believe that I am qualified to offer the facts (as I see them) and my predictions of the effects of Y2K on the utility industry. My goal is to further the pursuit of truth by presenting first hand knowledge about what the utility industry is finding in regards to Y2K, not to make claim to the ultimate truth. You and anyone are free to accept, reject, question, doubt, or ignore any information I present.

Concerning the subject of truth, I am in awe of how Y2K myths are spread, not only on the internet but on television, in newspapers, and by many other organizations, including religious groups. It is my observation that predictions and warnings regarding Y2K are readily accepted if the information is negative (doom and gloom, fear and doubt) and presented forcefully as fact. No direct evidence is even required, however if the work is presented in an intelligent and scholarly manner with many references, it is grasped with glee since it "must be true". An example of such a work, often cited in this forum, is "Embedded Systems and the Year 2000 Problem" by Mark A. Frautschi, Ph.D. (located at http://www.tmn.com/~frautsch/y2k2.html). A work in progress, this document is, in my opinion, one of the the best documented pieces of misinformation ever written about the Y2K problem in embedded systems. The abstract has the following passage:

"According to a recent study, the firmware (permanently loaded instructions) that enables these systems to run is date sensitive and not Year-2000-compliant in less than 1 percent of the fifty billion integrated circuits (chips) used in embedded systems installed worldwide by the end of the twentieth century. This small fraction will fail, causing the systems they control to begin failing around 1 January 2000 and for the first few years of the next century."

The statement that "this small fraction will fail, causing the systems they control to begin failing...." is totally without basis. Based on my experience and failure reports I have read, rarely will a y2k bug actually stop a device or firmware/software from performing its intended function. The date is wrong, yes, but most of the time the control system or device or software could care less - it keeps on doing its primary function, and the date is an incidental piece of data (albeit incorrect data). The reason for this low rate of actual failure is, I believe, is due to the fact that it is not typical for dates to be used for anything other than information, i.e., no critical functions are performed using the date. The exceptions to this is when dates are used to initiate control actions, or are used in calculations (such as financial software and algorithms in component firmware) and where date errors are not well handled, etc.

This report goes on to warn of problems that have already been found and fixed such as the credit card "00" problem, and repeats several Y2K myths including the elevator "maintenance date shutdown" myth and even the "cars will not work" myth. I could go on, but my point is that the search for truth does not accept the bad and reject the good out of hand, without some good old common sense and a bit of "finding out for yourself".

All the information you could ever want to read on the real nature of Y2K bugs is on the Web - just go straight to the manufacturers and find out for yourself. Go to Ford, Boeing, Otis , and read the type of Y2K problems that are really out there - primarily "bugs, with an occasional true "failure".

Now to venture back to my unqualified territory, history and quotations. I looked up the quote in question and the full sentence is given as:

"So, first of all, let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself - nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance." Franklin D. Roosevelt, Inaugural Address, March 4, 1933, as published in Samuel Rosenman, ed., The Public Papers of Franklin D. Roosevelt, Volume Two: The Year of Crisis, 1933 (New York: Random House, 1938), 11-16.

I really believe that the last part of this quotation aptly expresses the nature of the Y2K falsehoods and exaggerations that abound - "nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance". Y2K - the answer is to fix it, not head for the hills, stock up on goat cheese, chew on our fingernails while frantically reading SEC reports for the latest y2k status, and the like. Save your staples for an emergency that can really happen - floods, hurricanes, tornadoes, etc. Armageddon may come soon, but the Y2K bug just ain't gonna be it.

As far as Voltaire, you made the following statement: "I agree with a quote from Voltaire: "Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is an absurd one." I believe it's much more likely that a scenario between the two extremes has more veracity."

I will trust you on this quote, i.e, that Voltaire said it, however while I appreciate his work in electricity, this little tidbit is one of those cutesy saying that sounds good, but when examined makes no sense. Death - "unpleasant" doubt, or "absurd" certainty? We kind of count on air to be there when planes fly, we know that water will float a boat. Basically we learn, we become more knowledgeable, we dismiss the untrue. Based on knowledge, we become....gasp....certain!

And tsk, tsk Bonnie- you claim the middle of the road, between Armageddon (they) and I Smell Nothing But Roses Today on January 1, 2000 (me). Actually, I expect minor problems that get a little press, but no real significant effects on society. Most of the effects will have occurred in 1999 with the spending of tons of money to fix software and components, problems caused by y2k TESTING, etc. Of course, not being a perfect world, there will be some companies who experience some y2k problems, mostly minor, and these will get a little press, but no real horror stories, no widespread failures, pretty much of a letdown for some survivalist. Wait - I would like to predict one significant year 2000 occurrence- the availability of a lot of stand-by electrical generators, at a really cheap price!

I have also noticed that the closer one looks at the Y2K terror, the further way from us it gets - software gurus see a manageable problem but are concerned about the y2k horror stories concerning embedded systems, embedded systems people are doing ok but worry about all those COBOL problems that they read can't be fixed in time. Our systems are fixed, but hey, what about those supplier problems the consultants are warning us about??? Now that more and more good news is coming out, the Y2K monster has moved off-shore (last I heard it was headed for Nepal. Nepal can't possibly be ready in time. If Nepal falls, can we be far behind?).

In summary, On January 1 2000 the doomsayers will wake up, the electricity will be on, the birds will be chirping, and a new meaning in life, a new cause, will have to be found.

In closing, I wish all of you (the et. al., in Bonnie et.al.) success in finding the truth - not mine, nor yours, but the truth. Don't forget to write, and tell the family I said hi.

Regards, FactFinder

And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free. John 8:32 (see 8:31 for the actual truth)

-- Anonymous, February 16, 1999

factfinder,

YES and AMEN! Glad there are some who are more articulate than I, and less easily frustrated!

-- Anonymous, February 16, 1999

Factfinder:

You said:

"In summary, On January 1 2000 the doomsayers will wake up, the electricity will be on, the birds will be chirping, and a new meaning in life, a new cause, will have to be found."

Are you absolutely 100% sure of this? Are you willing to bet your life on it? Are you willing to bet other people's lives on it?

If that is your stance, then I'm not even going to bother to get into a debate with you. Most people that are preparing for disruptions are doing so for one very simple reason: insurance.

Do you have fire insurance on your house? Why? Do you wear a seatbelt when you're in a car? Why?

You remind me of all those news commentators who say "Nobody knows what will happen, but we know it won't be TEOTWAWKI". I'm of the belief that those kind of people are so scared silly when they sit down and think about it, they shut the possibility out of their minds completely, and then go on to ridicule others who think that preparation for that possibility is something worth doing.

Jon

-- Anonymous, February 16, 1999

Jon, I am quite the opposite of the news commentators who say "Nobody knows what will happen, but we know it won't be TEOTWAWKI", since I know what will NOT happen in the power industry on Jan.1 2000 based on working on Y2K problems directly and by comparison with the findings of other utilities. What will NOT happen is any signficant power outages because of Y2K bugs - the failure mechanisms to cause this just aren't there, since most Y2K bugs will not stop a device from performing its intended function. This statement is based on first hand assessments of both embedded systems and software, and in comparisons with findings at other utilities. There are exeptions to everything of course, but I have not found or heard of a single component failure due to Y2K that could directly bring a power plant down. Nothing is ever this simple however, and there are other issues such as loss of certain non-control functions such as plant monitoring computers that I do not have enough information to say that there have been no Y2K problems found that could have lead to a regulatory required shutdown. I do know that all plant systems are being assessed and fixed if needed, so in any case, the net effect is the same - no major power outages. Actually, I do not expect the loss of any major power plant that is DIRECTLY caused by Y2K bugs (I won't even get into the grid, because this is really where the myths fly). I wouldn't be suprised however at minor power outages caused by the "contingency plans" that over-react to the hazards of Y2K such as power reductions, since every time a plant changes power level, the risks of a problem that could cause a shutdown increases.

As far as insurance goes, I'm all for it. But I wouldn't buy flood insurance if I lived on a mountain top, and I have the same philosophy for Y2K. I want to prepare for reality, not Armegeddon.

Would I bet my life, or others lives on my faith in the stability of the electric grid at the turn of the millennium? Good question. I believe that my life and the lives of others is best served by presenting the facts to the best of my ability. To let the exagerations go on and the myths prevail can lead to real panic and result in real tragedy. Thats the real danger of Y2K.

Best Regards, FactFinder

-- Anonymous, February 16, 1999

After carefully re-reading this thread, did Rick ever answer the original question regarding wheter he has "found any Y2K problems in the electric industry in North America that were dangerous to the generation, transmission, or delivery of power?"?

-- Anonymous, February 16, 1999

CL (and others),

I refer you again to the NRC Seabrook audit...

-- Anonymous, February 16, 1999

CL, Fact Finder, et. al.

I appreciate your experience I am glad to hear it.

Here is the basic problem. Our society and economic system is built on mutual accountability. We trust the banks to manage our money (the experts know more than we), but we have the right to audit our bank statements for correctness. I'm a software systems architect who has designed large software systems and even one simple controller using embedded components, but I am not qualified to second guess your work. I do know enough about complex systems of engineering and of business to realize that third party independent audits are necessary to establish the truth. Our whole criminal and civil legal system, our stock market, and our contract law precepts are built on accountability ... public third-party audited accountability. If you want to establish credibility for the industry, follow the time honored judicial means of determining truth ... public third party audited accountability.

CL, you could silence this whole forum in minutes with this kind of evidence that is required in every publicly traded corporation's financial statement. It isn't that we don't believe you, it's just that you are not using the right means to establish truth.

Best to you.

-- Anonymous, February 16, 1999

Factfinder, I was very interested in your statements about the Frautschi paper on embedded systems. I havent encountered much rebuttal to that assessment and an opposing view is refreshing. Since the paper is a work in progress, if you havent already, you should send your data to Mr. Frautschi for inclusion in the documentation. He would have to reassess part of his position or provide definitive examples in his or others experience which contradict your own data and experience.

I agree that "the answer is to fix it", but I havent actually met anyone who is expressing "nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance". The average person I encounter could care less about Y2K, and since they do not have the expertise and are not in any position to do any remediation themselves, whether they are placid or fearful doesnt paralyze any efforts to get the fixes done. Many of those who are in a position to "fix" the problem are at work doing just that, and I dont have any evidence theyre experiencing any paralysis in their efforts either.

I do have evidence that these fixes were begun later than they should have been. If any industry was as competent as they claim, then none of us would have any reason to be here with questions because all the repairs and testing for every industry and agency would have been completed, thoroughly tested, and validated by now. The fact that some businesses arent doing any remediation at all, some have admitted they dont have time to finish, and some will go right down to the wire in a race to get critical systems done, isnt a confidence-inspiring precedent in corporate capabilities. Or am I mistaken in what you and CL are saying? Are you claiming that even if all Y2K projects in the utility industry were stopped right now, that there would still be no Year 2000 problems in the generation, transmission and distribution of electricity because no problems have been found anywhere?

Im also in agreement that there is no evidence of any problems with cars, and there are fewer and fewer reports of credit card problems. There is some confirmation that the maintenance problem with elevators is not a myth, however. The usia government site at:

http://www.usia.gov/current/news/topic/global/99020211.tgi.html?/products/washfile/newsitem.shtml

has a January 21, interview with the Montgomery County Chief Administrative Office Bruce Romer. As the article states, "Montgomery County, Maryland, which borders Washington, D.C., has developed one of the leading local government programs in the United States for dealing with the Year 2000 computer problem.." This countys Y2K project is considered farther along than almost any other, and Mr. Romer speaks about what they discovered during the project. In part of the section about embedded systems Mr. Romer states, "We have hundreds of buildings in our government. Each building has its own set of heating, ventilating and air conditioning controls. Almost all have embedded chips in the thermostats and in the control equipment. Almost every elevator system has embedded chips, and many of them already have been demonstrated to be capable of failing." He also addresses some problems with embedded systems in fire and rescue operations and medical devices.

As for "Save your staples for an emergency that can really happen - floods, hurricanes, tornadoes, etc.", thats the point isnt it? If you dont have any preparations for an emergency, *whatever* it is, then youre not as well off as when you do. I dont see anything radical in emergency preparedness. Utilities certainly have emergency routines and drills, even if they dont expect to need them. What is threatening about individuals or communities doing the same?

-- Anonymous, February 17, 1999

First things first.

David, I agree totally with your call for a public third party audit, this is the only way to gain the public confidence in y2k readiness.

Bonnie, I agree with your observation that Y2k fixes were begun later than they should have been. I have no disagreements with you on the tardiness of government and industry in addressing Y2k. As a matter of fact, I believe we have to give thanks to many of those who have exaggerated the severity of the effects of Y2K for "kick-starting" these late efforts. As far as emergency preparedness goes, I see nothing wrong with being prepared. My point is to find out the facts and know what the real possibilities are that you should prepare for. Based on the realities of the Y2k problem in embedded systems, I just do not believe that encouraging people to take drastic actions such as hording mass quantities of food, removing money from the banks, etc is appropriate and can lead to unnecessary panic.

Concerning the Frautschi paper, I started making a list of the discrepancies and unsubstantiated claims in the paper and gave up, there are way too many, and I believe it's a lost cause. Even the cited references don't support statements in the paper in some cases. From the body of the paper: "GartnerGroup [5] estimates that there will be fifty billion integrated circuits (chips) used in embedded systems worldwide and that under 1 percent of these chips will have Year-2000 (Y2K) related failures leading to shutdowns, erroneous results or chaotic behavior. Of this, a fraction are in mission critical systems, leaving on the order of 25 million chips (deployed in systems) which must be repaired world wide. This, in turn, causes the devices in which they are incorporated to fail or behave unpredictably. The implications for society are widespread."

Yet in the cited reference in note 5, Frautschi provides the following information:: "5. http://www.gartner.com In a December 1997 report, GartnerGroup gave a world wide failure rate of between 1 and 3 percent. This was substantially updated in October 1998 where the figure was reduced to 0.001 percent for "freestanding microcontroller chips":"

So where in the world does the "under 1 percent" used in the body of the paper come from? While it is mathematically correct that 0.001 percent is under 1 percent, If Gartner is now reporting 0.001 percent, why overstate their current quantification of the problem by using "under 1 percent" ? [By the way, Gartner's earlier figures were widely disputed, and if anything what we should gather from this is its very hard to quantify Y2K embedded systems.] Also as I pointed out in an earlier post, utility industry findings are that most Y2k bugs do not cause components to actually fail, instead they continue their intended functions with a minor date problem (there are exceptions as I pointed out earlier).

Now for the elevator follow-up, this is a bit lengthy, so I will make a separate post. I know it's off topic, but since it fits into the category of how Y2K myths are spread which is quasi-pertinent, I hope it will be tolerated.

Suggested Topic For Another Day: Jon Hyland's oft cited and favorite "NRC Seabrook Audit"

Regards, FactFinder

-- Anonymous, February 17, 1999

Jon,

Look at the detailed decriptions under the tables of the Seabrook audit. I do not know, and I don't think anyone but the author of the document would be able to tell for sure - - - BUT, notice how the references to testing in the descriptions are all future tense. I think (blatant, unadulterated speculation) that this document refers to an initial indication based on vendor responses and that the worst case was assumed in order to determine which items to test.

I do not think you can infer anything regarding testing status from the audit report. When time permits, I will verify this by trying to find testing reports for the equipment in question (I don't recall if brand names and models were listed).

-- Anonymous, February 18, 1999

factfinder:

Welcome. It is always good to have input from someone with knowledge and experience in the power industry, specially from someone who displays more patience and tolerance and can articulate his/her views without being easily frustrated.

I echo Bonnie's comments regarding a lack of criticism and rebuttal of Frautschi's paper on embedded systems. I have a technical (engineering) and legal background, but I must confess I came out of engineering school about the time these pesky microprocessors began to reproduce like, well... shall we say bugs? So, I do not claim any expertise on the subject. However, I did find Frautschi's paper informative and better suppported than anything I have seen out there on embedded chips. The lack of criticism of this much-often quoted paper fuels the belief that it makes a sound analysis of the subject. Nevertheless, in the vein of quoting famous people, remember Reagan's quote about the evil empire: "Trust, but verify"?

Since you have made "a list of the discrepancies and unsubstantiated claims in the paper and gave up, there are way too many ..." I encourage you to start a thread with your list. I do hope that your list contains better criticisms that the one about footnote 5 of Frautschi's paper. Quite frankly, I see absolutely nothing wrong, misleading, or inappropriate about Frautschi's verbage of "under 1 percent" and his cite to footnote 5. I do not see how there is a discrepancy or unsubstantiated claim there, particularly since Frautschi provided the actual number in his supporting footnote. The purpose of footnotes is to provide a source, clarification or further information without cluttering the body of the text.

Based on my reading of Frautschi's paper, a while back I posted a thread with the question, "Are power companies (and others) testing applications or the microporcessors themselves for y2k problems?" which you can find under the Embedded Controls index. Some other people have raised that question from time to time throughout this board. I am afraid that I did not get answers directly on point. Perhaps with a thread on your criticisms on Frautschi's paper we can start to shed more light on the subject.

Regards.

-- Anonymous, February 18, 1999

Roleigh Martin brought this thread to my attention on 16 February. I welcome comments on my paper "Embedded Systems and the Year-2000 Problem". Since I am very much in a learning mode on the issue of embedded systems and Y2k, I correct and update the article frequently. I have certainly learned the most from my critics, and I welcome constructive criticism from persons willing to identify themselves and their sources. I ask that you cite the draft revision of the article you refer to (please cite the date) and that if possible you use the most recent version at http://www.tmn.com/~frautsch/

I am not a regular reader of this forum, so I ask that you submit any questions, criticisms or comments to me directly by e-mail.

Thank you,

Mark Frautschi

-- Anonymous, February 18, 1999

Factfinder:

I have heard reports that some plants have failed to delver power when tested. I have also heard the opposite. Why should I believe you?

-- Anonymous, February 18, 1999

David Smith:

I agree. I would very much appreciate third-party audited accountability. Then I could get back to more interesting things.

-- Anonymous, February 18, 1999

FactFinder:

Have you found it common that people are "hording mass quantities of food?" I haven't. What does it have to do with anything let alone electricity?

-- Anonymous, February 18, 1999

Wait one minute...

I asked: "...story makes a claim that the electricity industry hasn't found a single problem..."

Jon later said: " I refer you again to the NRC Seabrook audit... "

In referrence to the Seabrook Audit, cl says: "I think (blatant, unadulterated speculation) that this document refers to an initial indication based on vendor responses.."

The question now is are they even checking for problems? Of coarse you won't have any problems if you don't check! (sheesh)

I still don't know which "professionals" to listen to. The ones who say that all their tests have failed or the ones who say none have been a problem. At this point I think I would still have to assume that we are at risk.

-- Anonymous, February 18, 1999

Reporter, You asked "why should I believe you?". Answer, don't. Do like I do - get the facts about y2k from those who know the most about the hardware or software you want to know about - the manufacturers (and for control systems, the system integrators). And don't stop at "it has a y2k problem", find out the nature of the y2k problem - will it stop the device from operating (catastrophic failure) or performing critical functions, or is it a minor problem? Please do not overlook this important but mostly ignored fact - you will see many references to "y2k failures" or declarations of "non-compliant" which may only mean that the device or software fails at least one part of testing for date compliance. This does not mean that the device will fail to perform its intended functions (in fact, the vast majority of y2k problems I have found during testing or that were identified by the vendors are minor). Although you may not be able to test, you will find out a lot by reading vendor Y2k information on the Internet and by emailing your questions to them.

Ralph, We have an honest difference of opinion here concerning the failure rate cited in the Frautschi paper at http://www.tmn.com/y2k/. If the failure rate of embedded chips is really close to 0.001% as cited in the footnote, then using the value of "less than 1%" is, in my opinion, misleading by a factor of 1000 (1 in 100 vs. 1 in 100,000). How many people read footnotes closely, and how many actually read the sources cited in the footnotes? With this paper, you really, really, should.

Regarding your suggestion that I start a thread with a list of the problems I found in Frautshi's paper, yesterday I posted a lengthy refutation of the "elevator maintenance interval" y2k failure, however the post was deleted from the forum within an hour, hopefully because it was off topic and not because "positive" y2k news on embedded systems is not allowed here or because Rick allows no one to take exception to this paper that he frequently cites (although I must say that "good news" certainly does seems to be discouraged here).

Since you specifically ask for further evidence of the erroneous assertions concerning failures of embedded systems in the Frautchi paper, here are a few listed under the section entitled "External Factors":

* "The elevators could return to the basement and shut down - they might now "think" that it's been one hundred years since their last regular maintenance. "

Facts: Untrue. The "maintenance interval" or "maintenance date" elevator shut-down is pure speculation that is untrue. Automatically shutting something down because a maintenance interval has been exceeded is not a common design practice (in fact, I will say that it would be rare to non-existent for common equipment controls). As far as elevators go, I cannot find ANY type of Y2k bug that will shut down an elevator due to a problem in the manufacturers controls - but please review the manufactures information and form your own opinion. Here's where you can start: http://www.elevator-world.com/magazine/bugpg.html-ssi http://www.nao.otis.com/ http://www.mitsubishi-elevator.com/recept/y2000/index.htm

Please note that the manufacturers information does not preclude a possible y2k bug in a 3rd party system integrators control schemes that could interface with the elevator controls and potentially affect elevator operation (fire detection systems, building control systems). While I would not be surprised to find that somewhere, someone indeed has a system that would fail on y2k in such a manner as to shut down an elevator, I do not believe that this would be very common, and I absolutely do not believe that a system integrator would for some strange reason decide to program in shut-downs for "elevator maintenance intervals" - the manufacturer doesn't even do that.

*"Some fraction of the employees may not get to work because their cars (each of which contain about fifty embedded systems on average) will not work or because they cannot buy gasoline; the pumps won't work and their credit cards are not recognized."

Fact: Cars will not fail to run due to y2k bugs. There have been numerous articles in newspapers and magazines stating this - I thought this myth had died a long time ago. Do a search and you will find many of the articles on the Internet. Fact: Cards with "00" and above dates are already out there and working just fine. This problem did occur - last year and perhaps earlier when "00" and above expiration dated cards started coming out. Hey, this is old news, it was NOT widespread but mostly due to a few vendors credit card readers (at least one of whom was sued). In the year 2000 this will not be a problem. *"Another fraction remain at home because they are resolving issues there, for example preparing food with an electronically controlled stove (that has no manual override)." Facts: Untrue. As far as I can find, no conventional stoves, from electronic to wood burning, sold in the US for home use will fail to work due to a y2K bug. If you find one, please post the manufacturer and model number. I will not hold my breath.

Now I do not truly believe that everyone will accept the above information as having full/some/partial validity, so feel free to do your own research (ie., real technology research, not reading rehashed myths on the "y2k" sites), or otherwise continue to dwell in the land of misinformation that makes you feel oh so alive :)

Regards, FactFinder

Hey folks, this is really tongue in cheek baiting, I smile as I write it--- really:)

-- Anonymous, February 19, 1999

PS: A very *morbid* sense of humour -here-....laughingdeep T-ears.

(are real zenbeat-poetic-Metaphysics -kosher- in this forum??)

ticktockticktocktick tock... debate on...whilst...????

-- Anonymous, February 19, 1999

FactFinder:

Unfortunately, I don't have enough time to research everything for myself. I actually have to take the risk of taking others at their word. I believe it is actually impossible for me to prove everything scientifically for myself in the time that remains. Unless you can come up with some more information about yourself and provide me some kind of audit information concerning your findings in the industry, I will have to go with information provided by others such as Rick Cowles, Roleigh Martin, Dr. Mark Frautschi, Bonnie Camp and others. They have equally convincing arguments to me. They also out number you. It would be foolish for me to trust you and cl when I know so little about your background. Some questions for you might be: How many computer projects have you managed in the past? How long have you researched the Y2K embedded systems problem? Do you have any historical evidence to back claims that the Y2K

-- Anonymous, February 22, 1999