While watching the "new answers page" I noticed a new post to this thread from last week. Very interesting I think. <:)=

North Carolina Dept. of Transportation Found Massive 6% Failure Rate in Embedded Chips

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), April 03, 1999

Answers

Interesting post. Thanks for the heads up Sysman.

-- Puddintame (achillesg@hotmail.com), April 03, 1999.

I strongly recommend that you all bookmark Mark Frautschi's now-297K of Y2k Bookmarks at http://www.tmn.com/~frautsch/y2k.html.

Yes. His Y2k bookmark file is currently 297K bytes. Yes, I mean Y2k-only.

-- No Spam Please (No_Spam_Please@anon_ymous.com), April 03, 1999.

Hi All,

Here's an addition to that thread from c.s.y2k. ------------------------------------ >>>Asked in the TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) Q&A Forum >>At the Cary, NC, y2k summit this week, the y2k >consultant for the State of NC Department >of Transportation stated that their embedded chip >testing revealed a failure rate of 6%. That's >six percent, not point six percent.

There's a difference between equipment failure and embedded chip failure. A robotic arm may not fail even if some of its's embedded chips are non-compliant. The reverse can also be true, incompatible compliant date formats. My hands-on testing experience is 4 - 6% device failure resulting in 20 - 100% assembly line degradation.

M. Cherry --------------------------------------

-- Dean -- from (almost) Duh Moines (dtmiller@nevia.net), April 04, 1999.