WELL HERE WE GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

tonite is the nite that hyro is flippin the switch at one of their stations , which will cover an area of about 2-300 000 people - they are stoppin the train and streetcars so I will post this and go off the net in 2-3 minutes they are flippin the switch at 11:55pm. IF nothing happens then I will not believe the test was done. IF something does happen then we will KNOW how much hydro actually got DONE and whether they will TRULY be able to provide power. EVERYONE is SO confident in them except for hydro itsel

" HYRDO said on the NATION'S biggest radio station that they can't gurantee that they can provide power in the year 2000"

we'll find out truth in about 5-10 min

see you sunday? - hopefully

sean

-- sean (venturer@interlog.com), March 06, 1999

Answers

Is this Ontario Hydro?

Well? It's past 2 am EST...

-- Nightbird (yawning@home.com), March 07, 1999.

Nothing on the news here about 'massive power outage' so I presume it worked. Notice the 'doom' mindset though - if they test it and it doesn't fail I won't believe in the test! Why the h**l not?! It is bloody well NOT impossible to fix something that has problems! Get over it!!

-- Paul Davis (davisp1953@yahoo.com), March 07, 1999.

Paul, calm down. It's a game.

First, you assume that everything will fail. This is a given, not subject to rational debate. You gotta start somewhere, right?

Next, you evaluate all tests, reports, and opinions in this light. They either ratify your assumption, or they are fakes and lies. Simple so far, yes?

Now, you get to speculate as to why so many people and organizations are faking and lying. This is the fun part. How much is ignorance, how much is stupidity, how much is pure evil, how much is a devious plot toward a hidden agenda?

It's when we get to speculating about the nature of those hidden agendas that things get really interesting. Are they misinforming us in order to undermine our morality, or to take our guns away, or to control our minds and keep us docile? The neat thing is, you can take this in any direction you want.

Successful tests and progress reports based on actual repairs are so dull and mundane. Takes all the fun out of it.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), March 07, 1999.

CBC Newsworld is saying the test went okay.

-- Rachel Gibson (rgibson@hotmail.com), March 07, 1999.

Rachel, that link doesn't work for me, I get the message "Sorry! That file was not found." from Cadvision website. Can you doublecheck the address?

Paul and Flint, if there was no power failure it's AWESOME news! Quit trying to paint us all doomers as suicidal idiots. We're pessimist because so far everything looks rather bad, but WE ARE desperately looking for good REAL news!

Hopefully Sean will come back and confirm this.

-- Chris (catsy@pond.com), March 07, 1999.

Chris:

I wrote with tongue in cheek, honest I did. I'm not preparing for nothing.

But sean did say this:

"IF nothing happens then I will not believe the test was done."

OK, so he's following up, this is good. But consider the starting assumption. Using this assumption, is it possible that this 'test' is less than it seems? Of course this is possible. Perhaps the test was really done using simulation, or using a backup system, or had problems they're not telling us about? Would they really risk a blackout to 300,000 people? Would they really perform a "cross your fingers and throw the switch" test with no (or minimal) public warning or preparation?

See how easy this is?

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), March 07, 1999.

Flint, I agree Sean's assumptions are not well thought out.

It would be easy to believe the test went wrong if all the lights went out, but not as easy to believe if nothing happened. One is clear cut, the other needs research. Even if the lights went out, that's still good news, that means they're actively working on fixing the problem and not waiting until next year to fix on failure. Spring time is the time for those tests.

"Would they really perform a "cross your fingers and throw the switch" test with no (or minimal) public warning or preparation? "

Doing a real-life test would be the best way IMO, during spring weekends, but as you point out, without little warning to the public doesn't make sense. But then again, we're talking about Ontarians here...Quebec Hydro would never do that! >;-) *ducks flying objects from Ontarians*

"Perhaps the test was really done using simulation, or using a backup system, or had problems they're not telling us about?"

Yes I see your point. But if they used a backup system, that wouldn't be a true "real life" test and still leave some doubts as to how it would perform next winter on roll-over.

-- Chris (Catsy@pond.com), March 07, 1999.

Arrgh! That's twice in two days it's happened to me. Cadvision removed the story they had this a.m. and replaced it with a different version (and a different link) this afternoon. Unfortunately, I didn't copy the version of what they had earlier. The new link to CBC Newsworld is here, but it doesn't say much, and it could disappear just as easily. Digging around on the CBC site might yield better results!

-- Rachel Gibson (rgibson@hotmail.com), March 07, 1999.

Good observations up there Flint and Paul - if you were truly paranoid - that is, "nothing will ever get fixed" - you would use the "removal" of the reference as an indication that they "found something to hide" in the text - and so removed it so they could claim a valid test.

I agree with your observations here - the power ompany could have been doing eihter a valid full-up integrated test, or a partial, or a fake one designed to "test successfully" as a show and tell publicity stunt. It is fairly obvious, for exampl, that the April 9 communication drill in the US and Canada is only a limited, pre-scripted communication exercise with result designed in before the test is conceived. BUT IT WILL BE PORTRYED as a full-up intergated all over test of the grid - "see nothing will happen" results.

This April 9 "test" has the same validity as if a high school practice exam for the SAT were passed by a candidate instead of his CA Professional Engineer's exam - would you trust your life and your family's life in his building during the next earthquake - because "he passed the test"?

-- Robert A. Cook, P.E. (Kennesaw, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), March 07, 1999.

" HYRDO said on the NATION'S biggest radio station that they can't gurantee that they can provide power in the year 2000"

Ontario Hydro, along with every other hydro company in North America makes no gaurantees on power - at any time. They make no guarantee that the power will be on tomorrow. Why? Liability.

Mr. notparanoid

-- Mr. notparanoid (drluv73@hotmail.com), March 07, 1999.

I don't think anyone can make that kind of a guarantee, in any business. What if the Big One strikes? (Earthquake, asteroid, alien invasion, you name it).

I never guarantee that my code is bug-free either. I can guarantee to fix whatever goes wrong. I can't guarantee I made no mistakes at all.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), March 07, 1999.

Here is my response to paul and others of his ilk

ENJOY

Dearest paul ,

You may call my comments and my thoughts ' doom mind set ' but ; It appears I have educate you on a few things - namely asking the real tough investigative questions that people overlook out of their JOY to find something anything to justify that y2k is NOT serious.

1) NOone knows WHEN hydro

A) started fixing their code b) announced they were FINISHEd their code

2) YES IF absolutly NOTHING happens I DO find that suspect due to the fact that most companies, businesses and organizations weren't seriously attacking ( ha ha) y2k until around october or novermber of 1997[ I may be generous with that statement] so HOW is it they could fix ALL their code in less time than the SSA [ 10 years] , IRS [4 years ] ( non-compliant) , MICROSOFT ( NON- compliant)

3) THE biggest problem with testing is the fact that there is NO INTERNATIONAL STANDARD TESTING PROCEDURE !!

so WHAT did they test ( on their SUPPOSED fixed systems ) BEFORE they rolled over their computers ?! who was there to VERIFY that the system was fixed ? And if they rolled it cold-turkey( no pun intended) WHY would they do that and their systems are not yet FIXED?!

b) the senate report on y2k stated that information coming from companies about themselves regarding their progress is ' questionable '

ex - the Departm4ent of Defense said they were 80% [ figure may be higher] compliant only to find out that they LIED - yes companies LIE - about how far they were and have recieved a ' D ' for their progress on y2k to date. so please refer to point 2.

4) INDEPENDANT VERIFICATION ! - how DO WE know THEY ACTUALLY ROLLED THE COMPUTER OVER ?! NO system that is fixed and tested means - SHIT ( we will be in that next year) unless it is INDEPENDANTLY - verified and CERTIFIED! and based on point 2 - YOU are correct - I DO NOT BELIEVE IT !!

5) INTERCONNECTIVITY - LET'S say for arguments sake I am wrong ; there are 7800 power companies in the U.S. and 12-20( figure could be wrong) in canada -

IF this is the only company right NOW that has no problem for next january that is NOT a good sense of security with only 1 company on TRACK and the rest are still fixing code, budgeting, or ASSESSING their systems.

b) EVERYONE has to be compliant in this industry at the SAME time- must I remind you about the nuclear reactor in pennsylvania that lost their computers that monitor activity in the plant for 7 HOURS last month and was forcced by the NRC that they CANNOT do anymore testing until they find out the cause of the ' event'.

c) IF one power plant fails they ALL fail - SAN FRANCISO anyone? the ice storm in MONTREAL , quebec, parts of ONtario, connecticut, new hampshire , rhode island?! these states and provinces are all connected on an east coast grid and look what happened when a STORM hit.

d) WHAT is the progress of the INDUSTRY ? - I'll save you looking for it - they are STONEWALLING !! so nobody knows HOW far the industry is xcept what they tell us - refer to point 2

6) Sure it's not impossible to fix something BUT here is another fact you neglect to research - THERE IS NO MORE TIME. we have 9 months to go and testing on any large system with 10 million lines of code or mre takes at least 12 months. We don't have enough people NOW , we had a chance b 4 - 5 to 10 years now I llisten to the red cross and fema - who are saying esstially - food , money and guns - " you are on your OWN "

7) Dearest paul, could you please give me any DOCUMENTED evidence that supports that the power industry will STAY UP - please pretty please with sugar and sprinkles on top ! :)

8) embedded system - these 70 BILLION chips located in everything. Lord knows the power industry has their fair share of them. These are date sensitve so 99 [ which end or run or ,freeze , stop ] could these little timebombs be behind what is causing power stations lately to blowup?! who knows BUT they CAN shut a power station down and these things NEED to be found replaced and tested ONCE FOUND - oh and one thing the companies that MADE those chips no longer exist SO I expect a failure rate of only 1% of these chips to cause problems which will cascade into the systems - the domino effect which will bring anything connected with it down!!

In closing , paul it is obvious by your statements that you do not get the BIGGER PICTURE when it comes to y2k - this is more than an isolated incedent this affects everyone and it is apparent by your comments that you do not grasp the concept.Please do yourself a favour and be MORE informed about what goes on in regard to this and make EDUCATED statements based on FACTS not conjecture or ' I feel' or I think mind set.

Sincerly,

Sean

-- sean (venturer@interlog.com), March 07, 1999.

Wonder what the temperature is up there at midnight. Maybe 5 degrees? OK its cold in Toronto....thats a given. Hydro has to know that the power will not go off. Why you ask? They are not going to gamble with peoples lives like that. OK, maybe they would. They are not going to gamble with their own self interests though. People would die if the power went down for awhile. They would be sued for gambling with those lost lives. Why did they announce the tests? Read between the lines. I rest my case.

May GODS Will Be Done

Mike

-- flierdude (mkessler0101@sprynet.com), March 07, 1999.

sean:

The question is, what could they possibly do that would satisfy you? They could show you records, but the records might be faked. They could have you take a complete tour of the facilities explaining everything, but how could you tell if you really saw everything important or if the explanations were accurate?

Rick Cowles says its essentially impossible even to construct a comprehensive test. Each test is in some sense necessarily partial, focusing on specific parts of the entire operation. And of course those who create these tests themselves worry that they might have missed some crucial detail or decided that some device or operation was less important than it really is. Testing is forever.

At some point, you really do have to assume that the specialists who built and conducted the test know what they're doing and sincerely want to identify and fix problems, if only to keep their own power on. None of these tests are conducted for the purpose of tricking people into freezing later. These efforts are genuine.

Somewhere there is a line between healthy skepticism and blind paranoia. Assuming that all tests the pass are faked is way over that line. Sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting helps nothing.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), March 07, 1999.

Slow down and take a deep breath there -

The problem - given time, money, and resources, can be solved completely in each little scetion of each power plant (these are dominately hydro - so a little less than complex steam plants too). Once a compnay completes its section remediation - they should test, before going furhter. The company may have followed all appropriate steps, and really be in a full-up intergrated "date" operations test. Now, I haven't seen evidence of that yet - other than their press release, but it is certianly possible, and they may likely be running a real test - not a coverup or simple check.

The only problem (with your scepticism (-1 sp) and my feeling that they may have done it completely right - is that, based on what we know, either one of us could be right.

Don't get trapped into believing nothing will get fixed - the Y2K problem has a boundary on it - and if any given company has enough time and talent availble to fix things, they will get their own things fixed - perhaps as much as 80% of all companies will actually get everything completely fixed.

An argument can made that the 20% broken will screw everything up - but if a responsible plant engineer at the power company should be able (at this point in time) to be able to actually do a full-up test, I would be very surprised if they DID NOT do the test. And, if the they did their work corectly and professionaly, the test should pass - the problem will be with those who don't follow this level of remediate, test small, remediate, test big, remediate, test integrated.

-- Robert A. Cook, P.E. (Kennesaw, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), March 07, 1999.

"c) IF one power plant fails they ALL fail - SAN FRANCISO anyone? the ice storm in MONTREAL , quebec, parts of ONtario, connecticut, new hampshire , rhode island?! these states and provinces are all connected on an east coast grid and look what happened when a STORM hit."

Nonsense. During the ice storm of 1998, some power plants failed, others did not. Did they all go down? No, only those that were directly affected by the weather - all others were unaffected. So much for that theory...

Mr. notparanoid

-- Mr. notparanoid (drluv73@hotmail.com), March 07, 1999.

"May GODS Will Be Done"

Whose God? Yours? Mine? Some guy in Russia? Please be specific

-- Flanagan (terry@consultink.com), March 07, 1999.

OK Sean me boyo - ye had me a bit flabbergasted fer a while there. But, being the big-hearted fellow that I am, I waited till I cooled off a bit ta respond ta yer little missive.

Dearest paul ,

You may call my comments and my thoughts ' doom mind set ' but ; It appears I have educate you on a few things - namely asking the real tough investigative questions that people overlook out of their JOY to find something anything to justify that y2k is NOT serious.

(Definition of a 'doom mind set' - anyone who believes in some future impending doom, esp. at a set date, without rational (not rationalized) reasons for believing in such disaster. Examples:

I think I should prepare for an asteriod strike - it could happen. This is irrational as you are preparing for something much less likely to happen than dying from an airplane crashing onto your home!

I think I should prepare for floods - I live in the Mississippi River Valley. This is rational, as history shows that you could expect major floods at least 5 times in a century - very likely that one could cause you grief.)

1) NOone knows WHEN hydro

A) started fixing their code b) announced they were FINISHEd their code

(Have you asked them? I don't know which 'hydro' you mean, many utilities have posted starting dates and completion or projected completion dates. Locally, the MLGW plant has finished remediation and is in testing now.)

2) YES IF absolutly NOTHING happens I DO find that suspect due to the fact that most companies, businesses and organizations weren't seriously attacking ( ha ha) y2k until around october or novermber of 1997

(That is not a correct statment. Again, locally, Memphis' IS administrator began remediation in 1986 with the refusal to accept any code with 2 digit dating or not capable of performing correctly in the year 2000. Most local remediation was thus taken care of by replacement of older programs over the 10 years prior to start of final remediation in 1996. Many companies and IS outfits did similar things years ago. First businessman I knew of to make this a priority in his company was back in 85 or so, one of the outfits that first wrote software to keep grocery store inventory and barcodes in a complete warehouse tracking system.)

[ I may be generous with that statement] so HOW is it they could fix ALL their code in less time than the SSA [ 10 years] , IRS [4 years ] ( non-compliant) , MICROSOFT ( NON- compliant)

(SSA has a lot of code to fix. IRS has a lot of code to fix. As for MS, just which product are you talking about? Maybe you should spend a little time at http://support.microsoft.com before you make such blanket statments. Anyway, what you seem concerned about is a particular POWER PLANT. Power plants don't run a lot of code {shock shock}. They are concerned with generation, not Information Systems. So they must check embedded systems - since you finally got to that at the end of this amazing post, I will address that there.)

3) THE biggest problem with testing is the fact that there is NO INTERNATIONAL STANDARD TESTING PROCEDURE !!

(Why do you need such a thing? I see no point to this gripe.)

so WHAT did they test ( on their SUPPOSED fixed systems ) BEFORE they rolled over their computers ?! who was there to VERIFY that the system was fixed ? And if they rolled it cold-turkey( no pun intended) WHY would they do that and their systems are not yet FIXED?!

(Taking it one at a time - you test modules separately as they are fixed. Why would they waste money having someone from outside stand there and say "GEE IT WORKED" or "GEE IT FLOPPED". Generators aren't software - either the plant runs or it doesn't. Go work in real industry for 20 years and form some realistic opinions about how things are done.)

b) the senate report on y2k stated that information coming from companies about themselves regarding their progress is ' questionable '

(With all due respect to the Senate, they have been in Washington so long they would not know the difference between the truth and a lie if it bit them.)

ex - the Departm4ent of Defense said they were 80% [ figure may be higher] compliant only to find out that they LIED - yes companies LIE - about how far they were and have recieved a ' D ' for their progress on y2k to date. so please refer to point 2.

(And just how were they caught? Check it out, they told on themselves when they found out the figure was running high. Get a grip.)

4) INDEPENDANT VERIFICATION ! - how DO WE know THEY ACTUALLY ROLLED THE COMPUTER OVER ?! NO system that is fixed and tested means - SHIT ( we will be in that next year) unless it is INDEPENDANTLY - verified and CERTIFIED! and based on point 2 - YOU are correct - I DO NOT BELIEVE IT !!

(Companies do not have infinite money. They do not waste it hiring contractors to stand around saying "Yep, Yep, you did that". Someone has taken the verification and certification requirement for certain types of financial and accounting software and blown it out of all reason. )

5) INTERCONNECTIVITY - LET'S say for arguments sake I am wrong ; there are 7800 power companies in the U.S. and 12-20( figure could be wrong) in canada -

IF this is the only company right NOW that has no problem for next january that is NOT a good sense of security with only 1 company on TRACK and the rest are still fixing code, budgeting, or ASSESSING their systems.

b) EVERYONE has to be compliant in this industry at the SAME time- must I remind you about the nuclear reactor in pennsylvania that lost their computers that monitor activity in the plant for 7 HOURS last month and was forcced by the NRC that they CANNOT do anymore testing until they find out the cause of the ' event'.

(I see no apparent connection between your two statments above - one gripes about a nuclear plant - the other is about EVERYONE must be there at the same time. Either make yourself plain or don't say it.)

c) IF one power plant fails they ALL fail - SAN FRANCISO anyone? the ice storm in MONTREAL , quebec, parts of ONtario, connecticut, new hampshire , rhode island?! these states and provinces are all connected on an east coast grid and look what happened when a STORM hit.

(Funny, we lost power a couple months ago to 600,000 people just down the road - the grid stayed up. Major transmission lines go down from car wrecks, sabotage, forest fires, earthquakes and floods - the grid stays up. Are you saying that Y2K will be no worse that a major STORM? If not, make yourself clear!)

d) WHAT is the progress of the INDUSTRY ? - I'll save you looking for it - they are STONEWALLING !! so nobody knows HOW far the industry is xcept what they tell us - refer to point 2

(The industry has given out a heck of a lot of information. If you won't read it, that is not their fault. I will post a page of links after I get through answering this and save you the trouble of looking up stuff on your own hook.)

6) Sure it's not impossible to fix something BUT here is another fact you neglect to research - THERE IS NO MORE TIME.

(And why do you assume everyone started yesterday?)

we have 9 months to go and testing on any large system with 10 million lines of code or mre takes at least 12 months.

(Power plants don't run on code - I think I said that before.)

We don't have enough people NOW , we had a chance b 4 - 5 to 10 years now I llisten to the red cross and fema - who are saying esstially - food , money and guns - " you are on your OWN "

7) Dearest paul, could you please give me any DOCUMENTED evidence that supports that the power industry will STAY UP - please pretty please with sugar and sprinkles on top ! :)

(Later, and not in this post, it has gotten too big already.)

8) embedded system - these 70 BILLION chips located in everything. Lord knows the power industry has their fair share of them.

(SIGH. That silly myth again. If you are not talking about RTC chips, then the chip can't have a problem. RTC chips don't do 4 digit year dates, (except for a few produced by an outfit in Texas) so don't know or care about centuries - they just rollover and keep counting. The trouble can only lie in the design of a SYSTEM that uses RTC chips in some part of the SYSTEM. NOW, such systems are uncommon in any low level work, EXCEPT in Personal Computers. Most industrial control systems are built around PLC's. PLC's almost never include a RTC as part of the PLC - if you want one you have to add it to the circuit board you are building around the PLC. Clear so far? Actual examination of REAL WORLD control circuits gives an actual ratio of systems without problems to systems with problems at a level variously reported between .1% and .033%. The embedded system problem is very small - just hard to figure out which systems actually have problems.)

These are date sensitve so 99 [ which end or run or ,freeze , stop ] could these little timebombs be behind what is causing power stations lately to blowup?! who knows BUT they CAN shut a power station down and these things NEED to be found replaced and tested ONCE FOUND - oh and one thing the companies that MADE those chips no longer exist SO I expect a failure rate of only 1% of these chips to cause problems which will cascade into the systems - the domino effect which will bring anything connected with it down!!

(Domino effect - what drivel. If we had daily crashes of the banking system caused by clerks mistyping a figure, your argument might have some merit. The potential for a Domino effect is here all the time - you have to understand that there are protections built into every system to prevent it from happening. Otherwise, it would happen all the time.)

In closing , paul it is obvious by your statements that you do not get the BIGGER PICTURE when it comes to y2k - this is more than an isolated incedent this affects everyone and it is apparent by your comments that you do not grasp the concept.Please do yourself a favour and be MORE informed about what goes on in regard to this and make EDUCATED statements based on FACTS not conjecture or ' I feel' or I think mind set.

Sincerly,

Sean

(Finally, Sean, I feel quite educated enough to answer your arguments. You see, I have worked in the fuels/power industry in quality control for the largest coal operator in the free world. Part of that time (17 years total) I spent in and out of the Paradise steam plant in Paradise KY, collecting coal samples and so on for analysis in our lab. I have programmed PLC's, computers, Opto20 brain boards for machine control - have you? I have a BS in Computer Science from a college of engineering and currently work for a contractor who has me working for the Army Corps of Engineers, Memphis District. There are quite a number of PE's here, along with professionals from almost every field. I have seen none of them 'taking to the hills' as some claim is becoming common among such folks.

And as for your disbelief in the results reported by 'hydro', well I don't know what to tell you. You have a perfect right to your own ideas. But I wonder why you show such distrust for the same people who have delivered power to your area for many years.

CIAO

Paul Davis

-- Paul Davis (davisp1953@yahoo.com), March 09, 1999.

Heres a few off the top of my head - more later.

http://www.tva.gov/news/today/da021999.htm#1

ftp://ftp.nerc.com/pub/sys/all_updl/docs/y2k/secondfinalreporttodoe.pd f

http://www.fema.gov/y2k/pa0225.htm

http://www.johnsoncontrols.com/cg/y2k.htm

http://www.appanet.org/news/rel-9901-11_2.html

-- Paul Davis (davisp1953@yahoo.com), March 09, 1999.

I'm going to get both of you guys upset here.

I think Paul - (great answers, BTW), that Sean is jumping between the "big picture" and the "little picture" versions of the whole problem - seeing true statements at each point, and false statements (or problematic points - points that that indicate a great potential crisis) at both points. You're doing the same - on opposite points - and thus both of you are simultaneously right - and dead wrong.

However - he is connecting too many dots at both ends. Implying or extrapolating general "big picture" failures and malfeasance at the federal level to specific testing and legitimate public statements at the singular level is not *apparently* not valid - as ar as we know publically, in this particular case.

Break his comments into both parts - he is eactly right if the problem were analyzed "in the whole" as a writer or analyst must when discussing y2K from two nation's perspectives. The problems, the potential failures, the "bad testing" protocals and lack of time to remediate, etc. are all true when taken in total.

Your analysis - in this case - properly focues on the single test at the single transformer substation. Although every comment he made (in the national sense) is true, few can be applied to this test. One station, one ower plant, and one transformer station absolutely can be completely remediated, completely tested by local designers, and can be relied upon to transmit electrons next Jan. If the test is properly checked (by the supervisor engineer) there is no need for auditors or regulators - nuclear plants do require those extra steps because of the implications if things fail. Nuclear plants are more expensive too.

If the test were honestly done on properly remediated systems and componets - I'd expect 100% success too. (Why schedule a test if you're not finished fixing things?) Now, I'm always surprised when a test succeeds - not many do - but this is a simple single system on a single trial run under known conditions.

He his equally true that neither you, I, nor anybody else can extrapolate from one transformer test at one location to any degree of confidence that any part of the national grid will be reliable. That's were I strongly disagree with you. The potential for lies, false data, and false testing increase the higher in the administration you go - and the potential for bad test setup and over-eager simplified testing increases probably exponentially as the size of the test area increases, and even more as the scope of the test itself increases..

This single test wuold be good news if it occurred last year in March. That it happened this March - and was one of the first "grid" level distribution tests reported - is very, very ominous news.

For example -

-- Robert A. Cook, P.E. (Kennesaw, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), March 09, 1999.