Not to sound "alarmist", but based on this paragraph from the OMB report, is this figure correct???

"The Districts embedded processors or chips, non-IT assets, include equipment as varied as traffic control signals, utility meters, copiers, metal detectors and defibrillators. Over 63,000 assets have been inventoried. A total of 25,000 have been designated as mission-critical and requiring replacement."

-- Roland (nottelling@nowhere.com), December 15, 1999

Answers

Please tell me I'm wrong, because I feel a panic attack coming on...

R.

-- Roland (nottelling@nowhere.com), December 15, 1999.

No problem. It's a milli-hair under 40%

-- quick, where are the diapers? (here@there.everywhere), December 15, 1999.

Could you provide a link or URL to the source document.

Thanks.

-- Interested Spectator (is@the_ring.side), December 15, 1999.

It's in the OMB 11th quarterly report, page 46/47.

www.cio.gov/files/1299quartreport.doc#_Toc469724378

R.

-- Roland (nottelling@nowhere.com), December 15, 1999.

Don't worry, the "embedded chip" thing was nothing more than a "guess" from Dave Hall who worked for a Y2K remediation company who wanted to drum up business after they weren't getting jobs on mainframes. He now admits it was a guess, claiming no-one had the ability to know how much of a problem they would be. He didn't bother to ask anyone who knew anything about them, he just found out how many chips were made in a year and esimated how many were out there and decided x % might have problems. He has backtracked considerably, but not with the spamming he put out his origional "guess" at. If you ask him directly he whines excusses, doesn't have the guts to admit he was wrong.

So, no, don't worry about embedded chips, just your BIOS chips on your PC's

-- Cherri (sams@brigadoon.com), December 15, 1999.

"So, no, don't worry about embedded chips, just your BIOS chips on your PC's"

Jeepers Cherri! I hope they don't engrave this on your headstone...

-- Choirboy (choirboy@hellzchoir.edu), December 15, 1999.

A quailified consultant, even if rushed or simply making guesses, should be closer than 40% - especially if the real value (from remediating other systems - has usually come up with12%-18% (or so) that are suspicious (or affected, or could cause problems if they are affected by a date change-over.

Remember, best we've been told is that actually only 2-3% of all those surveyed must be replaced/reprpgrammed/or would have failed if the system were not remediated. For example, the chip could be okay - it reads exactly just like it is supposed to, but the system might have failed (if not remediated) and sends the wrong date. Once the system is fixed (good date being sent, or the system not failing after 2000), the specific embedded processor merely continues on its way - fat, dumb and happy.

Highest value I've seen before about number of "affected" process controllers/sensors is 28% for the enginerooms of merchant ships - almost all of which are run with automated controllers and have no crewmen in the engine compartment at all. Of those, 7% needed to be replaced - based on data from last fall from an American company that had finished remediation.

I heard of nothing since then that ANY other country has forced its merchantmen to be remediated, nor of any other shipping company that has said "We are ready" or "We are compliant."

A few ports have said they are compliant.

---...---...

I cannot justify this estiamte of 40% non-compliant - if this consultant was accurately quoted (which doesn't seem to be the case) then he needs to correct his statement, retract it - errors do happen! - or justify it bettter.

-- Robert A. Cook, PE (Marietta, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), December 15, 1999.

Cherri - how can anyone believe what you say now after all the crap you've come out with over the last year.

Including the Corey WRP report - NOT!

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), December 15, 1999.

Andy,

I am going to tell you this ONE time and one time only...Considering it is none of your business, but I am sick of you bringing up that stupid question cory asked.

First I said I was not working on the answer because my Mother had cancer.

Which someone claimed I was lying about. Corys question became so unimportant to me as to be forgotten. It still is unimportant. I will not answer it and if that is the only thing you can keep bringing up to "hold against" me then tuff teetee. Not writing that reply to Cory in no way disproves anything I have ever written.

Why does it stick in your mind? Why do you want it so badly? Or are you just being childish?

-- Cherri (sams@brigadoon.com), December 15, 1999.

A classic by the one and only Cherri !!

How To Argue And Win Every Time

Ray

-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), December 15, 1999.

Hey Andy,

Would you please do me a favor and ask Paul Milne to provide the data for all of the Ericsson Telecomm equipment that is supposedly failing. By now Ericsson should be in Chapter 11 by his accounts, see the link below:

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=001App

It would bookmark quite well with the above request made of Cherri...

-- william (w_holst@hotmail.com), December 15, 1999.

Yeah Cherri. I'll bet you feel flattered that a grizzled old computer verteran like Andy is calling you on the carpet about 'your' mistakes. I've read a lot of his threads, and like to print them out occasionally to line my cat's litter box.

Andy, you'll be delighted that he is amused, too.

One quick question for Roland: since Peter DeJager was one of the first to speak about embedded chips and actually gave me a doomer mindset with the belief that many embedded systems were not reachable (in things like offshore oil rigs, and the like), I have come to put some stock in what he says. His estimates of problem chips back in early 1998 was disturbing. This past summer, he labeled the problem chips as being .1% of all chips.

I have changed my views almost along with deJager. My question would be: how can you continually discount the views of a Peter DeJager in favor of one-off articles or 'beliefs' like this? This certainly puts everyone on the fence, as well.

Oh, and Andy.....my cat says hello.

-- Bad Company (johnny@shootingstar.com), December 15, 1999.

Say william, why don't you ask him yourself, that way you would have it first hand.

Here is a link to simplify things for you: Paul Milne

Your Pal, Ray

-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), December 15, 1999.

Thanks Ray for the link...Shown below is the message sent to Mr. Milne - perhaps he can shed some light on this issue.

Hey Mr. Milne,

What about some evidence/proof to back up those claims that you made so long ago with regards to E/// Telecomm systems (see the url below):

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=001App

According to your statement, Ericsson should be in the throes of Chapter 11...Some of the posters at TB2000 suggested that I post the question directly to you as evidenced in this url:

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=0021Dk

Regards,

william holst

Regards,

-- william holst (w_holst@hotmail.com), December 15, 1999.

I put de jagers expertise up their along with Cherri's...

And if you are on a ventilator in intensive care and that .01% chip goes awol, you will have had your chips, literally.

Remember, there are 10,000 embedded chips on every oil platform...

God knows how many in evry refinery and nuclear facility - a PROPORTION are going to fail and cause untold damage... this is a no- brainer...

PS

Cherri - sorry about your mother, I had forgotten - my apologies.

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), December 15, 1999.

William, I have NEVER seen Paul Milne duck a question yet. Be patient.

Ray

-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), December 15, 1999.

Andy,

Apology accepted.

Please understand that I now have no interest and no intention of answering Cory's hypothetical question.

-- Cherri (sams@brigadoon.com), December 16, 1999.