Why some people still doubt the problem(disaster) is real? Myself work on microprocessor designs for 14 years now. Technically I am fully convinced millions of chips will have problems and won't (can't) be fixed. The only unknown is how many will be inconvenient, how many will be life threatening...

go to http://www.iee.org.uk/2000risk/Casebook/eg_index.htm

for all sorts of fault cases reported from fields.

-- dajen huang (dajen@yahoo.xxxcom), November 05, 1999

Answers

Thanks Dajen. As a fencesitter (but prudently prepared), I look at this site for information and opinions like yours!

-- DGBennett (bennett1@peachnet.net), November 05, 1999.

This same example has been brought up over and over and over. It means nothing. The fixes were given and should have been put in place long ago.

It may be your opinion about the millions failing, but you must be new here and to Y2K awareness to think like that.

Do some research into the archives to see what the responce has been to your opinion and that "casebook".

-- Cherri (sams@brigadoon.com), November 05, 1999.

Whoever Mr. Huang is, he should be more concerned about using his correct email address, since dajen@yahoo.com does not belong to him. Even worse than using a fake email address, is to use one that belongs to someone who receives the unwanted mail, and is fed up with all the hoopala about Y2K and the funds it generates for engineers.

-- Don Jengo (dajen@yahoo.com), November 05, 1999.

Cherri is right about this having been cited numerous times before, but is completely wrong about claiming it to be insignificant. It is a great case study of what can happen with embedded systems, and supports both the work of Paula Gordon as well as Dale Way's recent paper.

-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.cum), November 05, 1999.

Cherri --

So what if they found a fix and actually did make the repairs. Good for them. What's your point?

There could be other systems out there just like the ones we're reading that aren't being fixed. I think that's the point here. Besides, couldn't there be other embedded systems not mentioned in the case book that haven't been found? Do you actually believe that all embedded systems have been tested and fixed?

What this proves (or doesn't according to your tone. I guess you know more than these guys.) is that some embedded systems are date sensitive. As with anything like this, systems will be missed and some will be found, but not fixed in time.

-- Larry (cobol.programmer@usa.net), November 05, 1999.

Cheri,

I have to agree with Larry. Just because some broken chips have been replaced does not therefore imply that all broken chips have been replaced. It does not imply that some chips will not malfunction in critical applications.

You are a bit pushy, yes?

You are a bit condescending, yes?

Pete

-- Doubter (asceptic@home.com), November 06, 1999.

Yes Cherri -

It is called "YEAR 2000", in case you've forgotten what the date is! So maybe one in 500,000,000 chips is looking forward already. So does this give you cause for comfort, security, a happy face?

-- Michael (mikeymac@uswest.net), November 06, 1999.

The "work of Paula Gordon"! Wha`t a joke!!!

Paula Gordon has gone to websites and copied what was written there and stirred it all up and written about it. She does not appear to have an origional thought in her head. She even thinks Bruce Beack is for real. The only thing she is an expert in is cut and paste.

She is NOT an embedded chip/system expert! Ask her the simplist thing about them, such as how an and (or) an or gate works~ she is clueless, yet because what she writes goes along with the idea of Y2K being bad, people here think she is an expert.

Please use your brains and think through who you believe.

-- Cherri (sams@brigadoon.com), November 06, 1999.

http://www.gwu.edu/~y2k/keypeople/gordon/a.html

Paula Gordon's SELECTED LIST OF Y2K REFERENCES AND RESOURCES

-- (hot@link.Guru), November 06, 1999.

We certainly don't believe you and your myopic drivel, Cherri.

-- Pinkrock (aphotonboy@aol.com), November 06, 1999.

we have cherri, dear. that's why we disregard most anything you say, you sweet little troll (or is that an oxymoron?)

-- using (my@brain.now), November 06, 1999.

Well, damn, Cherri, at least she can SPELL. And put together COHERENT SENTENCES that actually MAKE SENSE. And she always CITES HER SOURCES. And clearly has enough of a professional reputation to be able to directly speak to a variety of EXPERTS.

You, on the other hand .... Naww, forget it. Have a nice day.

-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.cum), November 06, 1999.

We have solid evidence that Dr. Paula Gordon is a uniquely intelligent, courteous, free-thinking individual whose absorption, processing, discerning, and analytical skills go far far beyond cutting and pasting. There is nobody else like her. Can't be one-of-a-kind thru cut 'n paste. Paula Gordon is no carbon copy!

-- Ashton & Leska in Cascadia (allaha@earthlink.net), November 06, 1999.

I guess so far no body here has figured out that THIS POST IS FAKE! IT WAS PLANTED HERE, just like stephen poole's thead about the electric industry....

And not ONE of you could figure it out (except the owner of the REAL e-mail address....apologies to have to fill your mail box with this nonesense).

GET A GRIP you LUNATICS!

-- (anon@anon.com), November 06, 1999.

So... you think its humorous to plant a fake comment and a pretend iee.org.uk link... not so anon?

Well all remember that about you.

BTW, please dont use someone elses real e-mail. Very poor form.

Diane

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), November 06, 1999.