Navy Denies It Expects Y2K Failuresgreenspun.com : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread
Here you have it from the horses mouth or do you?
By ROBERT BURNS AP Military Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) - The Navy is denying reports it expects widespread failures in power, water and other utility services in the United States because of the Year 2000 computer bug.
The Navy acknowledged Friday it has not verified that all cities and communities near its installations are fully prepared for the Y2K problem, but its survey of utilities is showing a steady improvement, said Rear Adm. Louis M. Smith.
``I don't think we have a problem with utilities,'' Smith, commander of the Naval Facilities Engineering Command, told reporters at the Pentagon.
The Navy also issued a statement saying, ``There are no indications of likely widespread failures of water, electricity, gas or sewers.''
The Navy is compiling a database to track the probability of Y2K problems with electric power, water, natural gas and sewer services in communities near Navy and Marine Corps installations. A recent version of the report said partial failures in electric utilities were probable or likely in communities that serve about 60 Navy and Marine Corps installations.
Smith said that reflected a ``worst-case scenario'' in which those utilities whose Y2K preparedness was unknown to the Navy were assumed to be likely problems. The most recent version of the database, dated Aug. 19 and including more complete data, showed about 20 likely problem utilities, he said.
In its own assessment of Y2K readiness, the White House concluded recently that national electrical failures are ``highly unlikely.'' It also called disruptions in water service ``increasingly unlikely.''
Smith said the Navy's assessment is ``right in sync'' with the White House's.
The Y2K problem may occur because some computer programs, especially older ones, might fail when the date changes to 2000. Because the programs were written to recognize only the last two digits of a year, such programs could read the digits ``00'' as 1900. The could potentially cause problems with financial transactions, airline schedules and electrical grids.
-- y2k dave (firstname.lastname@example.org), August 21, 1999
This is just Bull crap.
Someone needs to own up over this or heads are gonna roll. The thing is, it could be yours....
-- Thomas G. Hale (email@example.com), August 21, 1999.
Commissioned to give Naval leaders a clear understanding of their potential Y2K exposures, the report examined the Y2K readiness of utility companies that serve US Navy bases.
I guess it did not give them the clear picture that they wanted so they changed it. Kind of like changing the definition of compliant.
-- Mike Lang (firstname.lastname@example.org), August 21, 1999.
From: Y2K, ` la Carte by Dancr near Monterey, California
[The Navy's] survey of utilities is showing a steady improvement
Is this what they mean when they say they're now in synch with the White House? They both think things are getting more and more fixed, and not more and more broken?
-- (email@example.com), August 21, 1999.
Geez, how do some of these reporters ever get their degrees and jobs in journalism!? This reporter writes:
"The most recent version of the database, dated Aug. 19 and including more complete data, showed about 20 likely problem utilities, he said."
And they are ......!!? Think the reader might like to know if their city is or isn't on that list? Think this "updated and more complete data" might be worth a little copy space? There wasn't some fluff piece that could have been saved for another day, so that this story could have been done more completely?
Does anyone have a link for the actual survey, the "new" one ? I keep hearing about this updated August version, but haven't seen it firsthand anywhere. These reporters keep talking about something they all seem to have been provided with, to replace that mess of "inaccuracy" they claim J. Lord got a hold of... so where can we peruse this NEW survey for ourselves?
I am totally frustrated with the way these reporters are covering this because it IS as if they aren't actually looking at/analyzing the survey itself, but simply repeating some pat-phrases from a govt. press release. Since when are they that easily mollified? Has any paper or thread actually printed the survey intact? Sorry if I let too much frustration into this posting; but let me say that it has Nothing to do with political affiliation, or seeing any way-out- there conspiracy underway. I just am amazed at how incurious the media are on this topic, especially when it is their customary behavior to be so relentless and aggressive over the most trivial and fleeting stories. The 4th Estate, huh? Is somebody slipping prozac (sp?) into the watercoolers of every press room in America?
-- Kristi (KsaintA@aol.com), August 22, 1999.