Fair use for educational purposes, etc....

Non-Y2K glitches costing billions

Tuesday, 7 December 1999 17:40 (GMT)

(UPI Focus) Non-Y2K glitches costing billions

WASHINGTON, Dec. 7 (UPI) - Computer failures not related to Y2K problems are becoming an everyday occurrence in many major industries, costing companies upwards of $100 billion a year, USA Today said Tuesday.

The Nasdaq, home of many high tech companies, Hershey's the candy maker, the Pentagon, Intel and several state governments are among those who have found that their computer systems, instead of solving problems, have added to them.

According to the newspaper the Pentagon has been unable to provide security clearances to 600,000 employees because its $100 million effort to computerize security investigations has failed to work. Hershey took a hit at Halloween, typically its busiest time of the year, because its $115 million computer system came on line late and largely untested, and glitches crippled supply lines.

Nasdaq found its computer system down for 20 minutes shortly before it closed Nov. 16, halting price and trading information. W.L.Gore, the maker of Gore-Tex fabrics, has filed suit against Deloitte & Touche and the software provider Peoplesoft. It said that its $3.5 million system to link payroll, personnel and other departments was unable to function because the consultants who tested the software were inexperienced and poorly trained. The team logged Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck into the payroll system and were unable to remove them.

Procter & Gamble tried to link managers in 140 countries to a database to improve production, sales and inventory control, under its $2 billion reorganization. Managers complained data was flawed and retrieval slow.

Several states, the newspaper said, have found computer glitches delaying or deleting payments to residents for a variety of items, from Alaska's $1,769 Permanent Fund annual checks to child support payments in more than half a dozen states. Nevada has had to spend $100 million to fix glitches in its $22.6 million computer system designed to process support checks for single-parent families.

The reason for the problems are many, the newspaper said. Jim Woodward, senior vice president for Cap Gemini Group, a tech support company, said, "The typical big computer systems that companies use are constantly being changed. Over the course of changing, they're more difficult to understand, so it's easier to change things without understanding the ramifications on the system."

Testing and checking for problems is expensive, he said, so many companies don't make the investment. And it's likely to get worse. "This stuff is becoming more critical to big businesses," said consultant Howard Rubin, "yet some of it is built like Lego sets and Tinker toys."

"As things get more complex, we'll be prone to more errors," he said.

-- Copyright 1999 by United Press International. All rights reserved.

Oh, I get it. It's just that those big 'ole computers just break a lot. Oh...and it's going to get much worse? But it has nothing to do with you-know-what.

-- Casey DeFranco (caseyd@silcom.com), December 07, 1999

Answers

It is true that software is known to be fragile, but I don't think that they can expect the Y2K lawsuits to stop coming by convincing us that it isn't Y2K. It may be the only way find out the truth. Sounds worth it to me.

It is my understanding, that the Hersheys issue is one of an ERP system that was rolled out in place of a non-compliant mainframe. Would they have rushed it into production if Y2K wasn't coming? I don't think so.

-- Reporter (reporter_atlarge@hotmail.com), December 07, 1999.

Oh I think I get it, the reported graduated from the Klington School of Public Relations, so he as well is doing the revisionist history thang?

I did not have sex with that woman...

I did not have a y2k related error...

-- Hokie (nn@va.com), December 07, 1999.

Talk about a fanatic, singleminded, anal retentive thought process. So now Clinton getting his jollies in the white house is now responsible for every computer crash and mismanaged software project in existance.

What would you be moaning about if he never had met Monica?

It is becoming clear NOW where the REAL problem lies.

Newly degreed IT's are not capable of handling all of the jobs they have bveen over paid and underworked on.

Time to go back to how it was done right, with PROGRAMMERS writing and implimenting software instead of those 90 day wonders the schools of higher learning have been churning out for the last 10 years.

It has been a costly and dangerous lesson and those who have been sucked into believing "IT equals brilliant" had better pay attention to the lesson they have just been taught or it will not be long before they will be paying for it again.

-- Cherri (sams@brigadoon.com), December 08, 1999.

Newly degreed IT's..welfare Cobol programmers...all the more reason to anticipate a serious problem in the weeks and months to come.

To say that these glitches are not related is somewhat of a joke, seeing as though the work wouldn't have been necessary without y2k in the first place.

-- OR (orwelliator@biosys.net), December 09, 1999.

Each and every failure mentioned above - as NOT being y2k-related - was specifically and directly introduced BECAUSE the various companies, and several hundred other examples he did NOT mention, including Social Security, Medicare, and the IRS tried to remediate and repair/prevent Y2K-induced catastrophies.

The statements are a blatant and obvious LIE, are designed specifically to get people NOT to prepare for uncertainity. This spokeman is LYING. And has been contracted to do by the federal government.

---

Cherri: You're incorrect.

Clinton is directly and personally responsible because he

(1) knew about the problem early enough to prevent it and did nothing to get the federal government completely fixed, tested and reinstalled.

(2) knew about the problem early enough to get the country - and the rest of the world to get moving to get it fixed: even if only by the simple order that no business could do business with the federal government unless it and its suppliers were remediated by Dec 1998. Clinton, instead, did nothing.

(3) Knew about the problem and did nothing to get local, state, and other critical government agencies ready to fix their own problems, and to prepare for uncertainities. Clinton, instead, did nothing.

(4) knew about the problem early enough to get people mentally and emotionally pepared for uncertainity, all the while working to fix things to minimize the impact. This time, Clinton did something: exactly the thing that would make him and his supporters in the press and establishment "feel good" and superior in their New York and Hollywood ivory towers of ignorance and superiority.

Instead, he continued his campaign of lies, deceit, false assumptions, blantant coverups, and a press campaign to denigrate and demonize those who advocate prudence and caution. He (his administration) actively worked to reduce awareness, to minimize the level of the event - to preserve the banks, perhaps at the expense of lives of Americans and others, and to push his agenda of government dominence and dependency.

---

Clinton could not program, nor did he start the problem. He cannot solve it - directly.

He did, however, directly and deliberately cause it to be much, much worse because of his actions and (deliberate) inactions. the only people benefitting from administration are those who bought him and his administration the elections through bribery and extortion: principally, the Communiist Chinese, the Russia mobsters, the international and national banking and finance/investment companies, the liberal extremists whose policies he slavishly pushes depsite the laws and the constituion, the trial lawyers, and the national media.

Each has benefited in turn commercially from their investment in his presidency. How they will benefit from his deliberate mismanagement of the potential year 2000 troubles remains unknown.

However, we now know what the Chinese got for their bribery money in his election: and we have found out what John Glenn got for his part in the Democratic coverup of that bribery and treason.

-- Robert A. Cook, PE (Marietta, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), December 09, 1999.

Robert:

Riiight! There have been thousands, perhaps tens of thousands of major upgrades in large companies for decades. But every one of them that happened during the last (how long did you mean again?) was motivated SOLELY by y2k concerns, and anyone who says different is a LIAR! Uh, earth to Robert, care to *think* about that a moment?

Sure, y2k was probably a primary motivation in more than half of these cases, and may even have been the SOLE motivation in a few. And probably quite a few decided to accelerate their schedule due to y2k, but the change would have happened anyway, just a bit later.

Once you switch from LIARS to politics, you act like a teenager deeply offended by his first zit. So Clinton is directly and personally responsible for NOT doing what he probably never needed to do in the first place (your justifications for disaster have become more strident and less rational all the time, a sign of desperation).

Robert, where are you getting so much bile and hatred? Perhaps you need to take a break for a bit? When I met you, you were quite thoughtful. What has happened to you?

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), December 09, 1999.

Ah, good Sir Flint of the Hardnosed:

Your comments are appreciated, thank you.

The "liar" bit was appropriate here: the specific incidents quoted (Hershey's, etc.) were specifically and directly caused by a conversion to systems intended to be compatible with year 2000 issues. No example cited was a common glitch, none were everyday, and no change was needed (of those cited) if year 2000 were not approaching. (The existing systems were adequate.)

The entire premis of this article was completelyfalse. The original reporter, worse than just reporting a printed sheet telling him what to say, actually had to work hard to find facts and create a false report.

---

My comments were strict - in replying to Cherri, and I concur with your observation. Frustration with continual lies from the top must be admitted. However, I stand by my statements regarding his importance in this issue.

The Clintons obviously are not programmmers, managers, nor business operators. They are in a far worse position, far more critical to the resolution of this thing. If anybody else were in power, no matter how incompetent, I'd be much less worried.

-- Robert A. Cook, PE (Marietta, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), December 10, 1999.

Robert:

Sad to say, I think you'd be equally disappointed with almost anybody else. Politicians know better than to take ownership of lose-lose propositions like y2k. If things go bad, their name is associated with bad things. If things don't go bad, they end up looking like kooks. Politically speaking, y2k has "avoid" written all over it.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), December 10, 1999.

Mr. Flint, The wash post had a piece today by a very liberal columnist harkening back to Clinton's being referred to as Pander bear in 92. The essence of the article was that in any given moment he will do the expedient and say the popular things to say. Y2k problems would not be a popular thing to talk about. Unfortunately for mr. clinton and for us not talking about them will not make any problems go away. I believe behavior has cosequences.9Do you-or will they fix it?) Lets hope they are minor for y2. I hope, but I do not believe they will be. I think we elected the lowest common denominator possible and we will now find it was a poor choice. anyway, 22 days and we will fid out.

-- Noone (noone@none.com), December 10, 1999.