Monday, April 26, 1999

ENTERPRISE

Serious Y2K risks in embedded systems - report NEWSBYTES

The green light on Year 2000 issues relating to embedded systems may have been given too early by many experts, according to a report just published by BSC Consulting.

The London-based IT consultancy firm says that it carried out its survey as part of its ongoing business continuity and risk management service.

The survey revealed that the problem of embedded chips could have a serious impact on vital services and buildings, says Patrick Moore, the director of the firm.

BSC says that its survey was in-depth, and covered a total of 38,361 systems involving telecommunications, medical equipment, air conditioning, lifts, heating, lighting and other utilities.

According to Moore, the dangers of the Y2K issue on IT systems generally have been well documented and, as a result, many organizations are spending millions of pounds to try and resolve the problem in time for the next century.

Concerns have also been raised about the potential risks to building systems and equipment, brought about by embedded chips and logic processors that could be affected by the Y2K problem.

In its report, BSC refers to these items as assets. Its report found that 6.8 per cent of these assets are not Y2K-compliant. While this percentage may seem low, the difficulty is that these systems may be the ones that are going to be vital in terms of running a building, according to Moore.

"It's very important that companies and organizations take steps to ensure that their embedded systems are millennium compliant, otherwise they could be faced with the prospect of not being able to operate their business at the beginning of 2000 because vital machinery or building systems are not operational," he said.

Copyright (c) Post-Newsweek Business Information, Inc. All rights reserved.

-- Gayla Dunbar (privacy@please.com), April 26, 1999

Answers

"The green light on Year 2000 issues relating to embedded systems may have been given too early by many experts, according to a report just published by BSC Consulting."

can you say "don't shoot the cash cow?"

"It's very important that companies and organizations take steps to ensure that their embedded systems are millennium compliant, otherwise they could be faced with the prospect of not being able to operate their business at the beginning of 2000 because vital machinery or building systems are not operational," he said.

Read: "you must pay us to verify you have no bugs. that'll be 50K, please."

More fluff.

-- Long Time Lurker (NOYB@TThis.time), April 26, 1999.

This has already been posted in another thread, and the comments there apply. This is a consulting group making money off investigating Y2K problems. They are hardly an objective source of information.

Y2K is RIFE with conflict of interest. Why anyone would believe that these companies, their engineers, and all other employees (except for the propeller-heads in the computer departments, of course) are LYING, and that only these consultants -- who ONLY profit in direct proportion to problems found! -- are telling the truth, is a compete mystery to me.

We're not talking about the fox guarding the henhouse. We're talking about foxes which are already IN the house, gorging themselves on plump poultry, with the approval of onlookers.

http://www.wwjd.net/smpoole

-- Stephen M. Poole, CET (smpoole7@bellsouth.net), April 26, 1999.

Another opinion on embedded systems...

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

-- Kevin (mixesmusic@worldnet.att.net), April 27, 1999.

And what is their definition of compliance? If the secretary has to cross out 80 on some reports and write in 00, that is not compliant. But it isn't very much trouble, either.

-- Paul Davis (davisp1953@yahoo.com), April 27, 1999.

Kevin,

The National Guard Web page is slick-looking, but basically repeats the old figures from last fall.

The National Guard wants increased funding. Nothing evil about that, but do keep it in mind.

-- Stephen M. Poole, CET (smpoole7@bellsouth.net), April 27, 1999.

Paul,

"Compliant" is whatever the $100-an-hour remediation consultants say it is.

I shouldn't have to tell you these things. I'm disappointed.

(g)

-- Stephen M. Poole, CET (smpoole7@bellsouth.net), April 27, 1999.

Stephen,

Aren't you the one that keeps jumping on people for speaking outside their area of expertise? Yet you keep bringing up the profit motive and these "Y2K consultants." Are you one? What do you know about them? How many of them are there? We have none at my company. None at any of our clients, as far as I know. I've never met one, and I know quite a few people in the business after 31 years.

I've got motive for working on Y2K. I'm trying to keep my company in business, so they can give me a pay check every week. And my company also has motive. We are trying to keep our clients in business, so they can pay our invoices every month. Profit motive? I guess you could call it that. <:)=

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), April 27, 1999.

Stephen,

If these are old figures fast fall...

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

...then please provide us a link to up-to-date figures.

When companies report their Y2K compliance efforts, they want their stock to go up. Nothing evil about that, but do keep it in mind.

-- Kevin (mixesmusic@worldnet.att.net), April 27, 1999.

What I meant to type was, if these are old figures from last fall...

-- Kevin (mixesmusic@worldnet.att.net), April 27, 1999.

Read the report for a global trading perspective, then spell J.I.T. ...

... Shipboard systems can have as many as 100 to 200 embedded microchips that control everything from navigation to refrigeration. In 1998, the U.S. Coast Guard surveyed marine manufacturers and discovered that over 20 percent of the embedded chips tested were not Y2K compliant.  ...

US Dept of Commerce: Y2k and the Global Trading System

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id= 000lL0

*Sigh*

Diane

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), April 27, 1999.

Diane,

"Sigh" indeed. Same old problem: define "Compliant." The definition seems to vary according to windspeed, hair count and caloric content (or more accurately, it varies from one Y2K Remediation Consultant to the next, and is generally configured to maximize the amount of work charged for).

Not to mention that the report indicated (from the Coast Guard) is from 1998 -- a plague which seems to infest Y2K (particularly government reports); the use of old information. More recent figures are considerably more optimistic. Ex: Gartner now says that only about .001% of all embedded systems are at risk.

You need to take a peek at the Debunking Y2K Webboard and the Gary North Is A Big Fat Idiot forum, where a great deal of very good information is posted on a regular basis.

Don't just get your info here, or you're getting a VERY slanted view. Trust me.

-- Stephen M. Poole, CET (smpoole7@bellsouth.net), April 28, 1999.

Diane,

I have seen other government reports which are not to this forum's liking, shrilly dismissed as "lies, more lies, and happy-face Klinton propaganda".

What is it about this particular report that gets it the official D&G seal of approval?

-- Morgan (morgan96@netscape.net), April 28, 1999.

More recent figures are considerably more optimistic. Ex: Gartner now says that only about .001% of all embedded systems are at risk.

Stephen,

Please provide a link for your claim. I've seen the GartnerGroup quote before that you're referring to, but it's in reference to stand-alone microprocessors--not embedded systems. You of all people should know the difference.

-- Kevin (mixesmusic@worldnet.att.net), April 28, 1999.

Morgan,

There are government reports that will be read mostly by other government officials, and then there's what's said in press conferences and reports likely to be picked up by the mainstream media.

There is a difference.

-- Kevin (mixesmusic@worldnet.att.net), April 28, 1999.

More recent figures are considerably more optimistic. Ex: Gartner now says that only about .001% of all embedded systems are at risk.

Stephen,

So are you going to provide a link to verify this claim of yours? I say it refers to stand-alone microprocessors--not embedded systems.

-- Kevin (mixesmusic@worldnet.att.net), April 28, 1999.

Stephen,

I ignore what you write. I also took a look at your web-site, and you qualify for the "idiot" category, IMHO.

Reading your fluff is a waste of good energy. I'd rather read what the Coast Guard has to say, thanks.

They have more credibility.

Diane

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), April 28, 1999.

Yes, I'm very interested in this one. I can't think of any reason why any nicroprocessor itself should have a problem. With the exception of things like the old Pentium floating-poing bug, they all do a good job at doing exactly what they are told. <:)=

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), April 28, 1999.

Morgan,

I'm NOT a D&G'er. Sorry to disappoint you.

I find the report useful in triggering people to "think" about global interconnectedness and supply chain implications.

Understand economics?

Diane, still a "5"

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), April 28, 1999.

Stephen, if Diane's calling you an idiot, you can believe you are irredeemable. Clock out now, before you spontaneously combust or something.

(am I seeing things?)

-- Lisa (just@whenyouthough.you'd_heard_it_all.), April 28, 1999.

Lisa,

Chuckles. Some daze the "twits" of the world just get to one. Other days, they're easy to ignore.

Clearly, it's time for a walk and a caffe latte! ;-D

Diane

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), April 28, 1999.

Diane is correct.

"I'm perfectly happy with "Y2K Ready" -- even if that means cutting the stupid computers off and doing it with paper and pencil, the way we used to. :)"

"[Y2K] has gained fame and notoriety SOLEY [sic] because it coincides with the Spooky and Mystical Dawn of the New Millennium"

"(Yeah. Right. All three (3) computers in Afghanistan and Zaire might fail. Yep, that could kill us. Great point.)"

-- dealing (with@n.idiot), April 28, 1999.

I ignore what you write. I also took a look at your web-site, and you qualify for the "idiot" category, IMHO. -- thus quoth "sacredspaces@yahoo.com (2797)" who is apparently such an expert she can spend all of her time playing queen bitch of the anthill (or dungheap ATCMB).

What is your area of expertize there again, oh great diane? Do you have any? or are you paid to poo-poo anybody that doesn't agree with at least a "5" on the rectum scale (y2k wise)?

-- (get@life.willya?), April 28, 1999.

No, Mutha, you get a life, dungbreath. Dunghead. Dungface. Dungtongue. Dunghair. Dungtoes.

-- Lisa (lisa@work.now), April 28, 1999.

WHOA here. From what you have posted in the above - it is somehow not proper to question the motive of someone who wants money to fix a problem that THEY get to define and THEY claim is much larger than virtually everyone else in their field? Now look, I KNOW that no one from the US is that naive about exaggerated advertising claims. Give me a break! Unless you are the kind of person who gets that fake check from the magazine ripoff centers and thinks they have won (with "not a valid check - bank do not accept" written all over it) you know better than that.

-- Paul Davis (davisp1953@yahoo.com), April 28, 1999.

Hey, where is Sysman? Diane called Stephen an idiot and a twit. That's not very mature, is it. Are you going to jump on her case like you did me and aaaahhh, and INVAR, and ... oh wait, you didn't jump on aaahhh and INVAR, did you? Just me...hmmmm...strange...I wonder if there is a pattern here?

BTW Sysman, speaking of embedded systems, I realize that you have been so busy that you have been unable to post here the last few days...what, you have posted? That's funny, I must have missed your quintessential response on embedded systems that you promised to post.

-- RMS (rms_200@hotmail.com), April 28, 1999.

And I'm still waiting for Stephen to provide a link for this claim he made:

More recent figures are considerably more optimistic. Ex: Gartner now says that only about .001% of all embedded systems are at risk.

I've seen the quote he's talking about, except it was in reference to stand-alone microprocessors.

-- Kevin (mixesmusic@worldnet.att.net), April 28, 1999.

RMS,

Idiot and twit are quite different from the expletives that you guys often use. My respnose to Beach is at home, about 3/4 done. I'm sure I won't get to it tonight since I've got to try and bail out a friend with a down Novell server after work. I have been busy, as I have explained in another thread. I have this Friday off and it is high on my list of things to do. <:)=

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), April 28, 1999.

Kevin:

The Gartner quote is actually "1 out of 100,000 freestanding microcontroller chips will fail due to Y2K (0.7 probability)". I'm not sure what a 'freestanding chip' would be -- a chip must be part of a system or it doesn't do anything. Nothing in the text of the Gartner presentation gives any more detail. I would tend to side with Stephen on this, since they use the term 'microcontroller', not microprocessor but it is sufficiently vague that it could mean a whole lot of things. Link

Sysman, I eagerly await. And, whether you admit it or not, you ARE hypocritical about tolerating vulgar language. If you want to criticize me for my opinion, that's fine. But don't jump on your soapbox about language that I use and imply that my opinion is somehow less valid because of it when you accept the very same (and much worse) from your fellow doomers with nary a comment.

-- RMS (rms_200@hotmail.com), April 28, 1999.

OK, it looks funny but the link works!

-- RMS (rms_200@hotmail.com), April 28, 1999.

Ok RMS, point noted. Besides, if you look at our earlier thread, I said I'll give you a break on the language, so we're beating a dead horse here. As for Diane, I can't argue with someone that I agree with (grin). <:)=

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), April 28, 1999.

worker dungbeetle 'Lisa (lisa@work.now)' pops out of the heap to to defend the queen. o.k., I'll play. Mutha this: Dung-ass, dung-eater, dung-fingers, dung-teeth;

are we dung yet?

-- (get@life.willya?), April 28, 1999.

RMS,

Thanks for the link.

http://www.senate.gov/~y2k/hearings/030599/gartner.html

-- Kevin (mixesmusic@worldnet.att.net), April 28, 1999.

There's also video of that same Senate hearing at:

http://www.senate.gov/~y2k/hearings/030599/030599.ram

-- Kevin (mixesmusic@worldnet.att.net), April 28, 1999.

Well, Diane "Chuckles" Squire, please don't sell yourself short, you're hardly disappointing.

As far as understanding economics, I understand enough about bottom lines and estimating, planning and running a project to see that it turns a profit. As far as classic economics theory, I'm afraid the dismal sciences dismay me.... I stayed awake long enough in class to pick up a couple of good economist jokes, which I've since lobbed at Mr. Decker...

Check in to the other thread, I've got something more to say on your swell report.

-- Morgan (morgan96@netscape.net), April 28, 1999.

On the topic of the Gartner report which claimed a 0.1% failure rate for stand alone chips, I seem to vaguely remember that that report also predicted a 31% failure rate for very complicated systems, i.e. the ones that are worth worrying about. Don't quote me on this. Maybe someone could find the original?

-- humptydumpty (no.6@thevillage.com), April 29, 1999.