I apologize if this has been brought up in a previous NERC thread, but this just hit me today, and it hit me hard!! I think this is critical to ALL GI's!!!!!!!!

NERC knows where Murphy's hiding!! And Murphy's going to win if we don't "GET IT" re: April 9, 1999 & September 9, 1999.

I suddenly realized today that our major problems might be Y1K NOT Y2K!!! We mentioned in a previous thread that NERC is "drilling" on those critical dates!! This was very, very bothersome to me--It just smelled like a huge pile of dead fish. There just had to be something sneaky about this. Who would logically schedule drills on THOSE dates? Why not the 1st or last day of the months? This isn't just coincidence!!!!!!!!!

It finally hit me like a ton of bricks today! It occurred to me that NERC has "chosen" those dates because they really DO EXPECT the utility companies to have MAJOR problems with the sequence of 9999 on those dates . . . They didn't want to publicly announce their concerns so they covered it up with scheduling "drills"! (And, by scheduling drills, they know they will have employees on hand to help solve problems!)

Why didn't they want to say it publicly? To avoid panic? Would that leave us vulnerable to attack from Russia or even in-country terrorists attacks? No one would have time to plan anything!

This seems to make a whole lot of sense logically!!

I don't know about everyone else here, but my "contingency plans" have changed. I plan to be Y1K compliant by April 9, 1999!!!!!! I hope you all agree to do the same!! I've come to care about the serious GI's here just like family!!

[Murphy needs to learn: you can fool some of the people some of the time, but you can't fool the GI's!!!!!!!]

-- Can't Fool this GI (ja4you@aol.com), March 18, 1999

Answers

Yeah. I got that as soon as I heard the dates of the tests. Things could be interesting in a few weeks.

-- (got-that@longtime.ago), March 18, 1999.

Y1K??? Maybe Y1.999K.

-- Buddy (buddydc@go.com), March 18, 1999.

Hello ja. I'm a power company engineer working on Y2k, and I'm the "Drill leader" for my company. My understanding is that NERC wanted to perform two drills in 1999, and chose the dates rather arbitrarily (April 9 is the 99th day of 99). In the testing I've performed on over 100 devices, I've yet to find an embedded system that has any problems with 4/9 or 9/9/1999, so I don't expect any glitches. Besides, the April 9 drill is merely a SIMULATED partial loss of communications and EMS functionality, so we won't be totally focused on that date expecting problems. Check out www.nerc.com for more information.

Dan.

-- Dan (dgman19938@aol.com), March 18, 1999.

Thanks for the info Dan.

-- James Chancellor, P.E. (publicworks1@bluebonnet.net), March 18, 1999.

Dan,

Do you honestly believe that NERC picked April 9 just because it is the 99th day of 99?! And, Sept. 9 just because it is 9/9 of 99?! Why?!?! Because it was "neat" or "cute"?!!! Get real!!! You are horribly naive if you can't see that there has to be an obvious reason for those choice of dates!!

Also, the systems that will be affected on April 9 are different from those that will be affected on Sept. 9. The systems that will have problems on April 9 are those systems that use the Julian calendar (i.e., 99th day of 99-->9999 as opposed to 4/9/99-->040999).

By the way, I had already checked out www.nerc.com! That's the problem! None of it makes any sense! Common sense would tell anyone, you don't "schedule drills" on the 2 most critical days of the year! I use quotes because I believe it is a bogus plan. I don't buy it for a second!!!!!!

Now . . . the truth and nothing but the truth, PLE-E-E-E-E-ASE!!!!!

-- Can't Fool this GI (ja4you@aol.com), March 18, 1999.

Hello again ja4you.

Here's exactly what a NERC drill report says (from the latest draft version of the September 8 drill, section 1, page 1): "NERC initially proposed in a September 1998 report to DOE and the public that the electric industry should conduct two Y2K drills on April 9, 1999 and September 8-9, 1999. These dates have been selected to coincide with two common Y2K test dates (99th day of 1999 and 9/9/99) for which there are no apparent increased risks to electric operations."

So, the operative word here is "coincide". I take things at face value unless I see good reason to think otherwise. NERC had to choose dates, so why not choose those? I attended the last NERC Y2K conference in Dallas, Texas, and there wasn't any discussion of these dates being of major concern (then again, maybe there was, and I can't tell you :-) ). By the way, did you know a more critical date already occurred (January 1, 1999), with no glitches whatsoever?

However, I see you are still worried about NERC's motives. How about, just for fun, you and I make a little wager? If nothing significant occurs on the power grid April 9, you admit on this forum that your fears were unfounded. If bad things happen, and I'm keeping anything secret (you seem to think NERC is hiding something), I will openly in this forum say whether I, as a utility person who was at the conference, received private communication on this matter. Do we have a deal?

By the way, what is a "GI"?

-- Dan (dgman19938@aol.com), March 19, 1999.

ja4you:

FYI, the standard Julian date format is YYDDD. April 9, 1999 would be represented as 99099, not 9999.

-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-dejanews.com), March 19, 1999.

Dan,

A GI is a person who "gets it" or understands the seriousness of y2k, DGI is someone who "doesn't get it," and DWGI is someone who "doesn't want to get it."

You know, after what this country has just been thru with "slick Willy," is it any wonder people don't trust the "big boys"? Now YOU'RE suggesting that you're not telling the truth about what you heard at the TX conference! BUT, if I come forward with the "blue" dress, you'll have to tell the truth!!! :>)

I have to get some work done--I'll post again later!!

ja

-- Can't Fool this GI (ja4you@aol.com), March 19, 1999.

Based on my own experience with computer systems at all levels from mainframes to embedded systems over a 30+ year period and confirmed by all opinions and conclusions I have received from sources that I judge technically relevant, I do not believe it likely that the practice of using multiple "9s" as EOF (End Of File) indicators or for any other special meaning will have a significant effect on most computer systems, and almost none on embedded systems.

If I were responsible for scheduling "drills" or "tests" of the power grid or associated communications facilities, and my motive was to bolster or provide confidence in those mechanisms, I would schedule them when I was as sure as I could be that there would be no problems. If I could point out afterward that those tests were not only "successful" but had occurred on days when the "hype" had predicted problems, I would count myself very fortunate.

There is ample reason to speculate that NERC is devious or even outright dishonest, but none, that I know of, to suggest that they are stupid. Considering the stakes and the odds, it's a bet that I would bet, they would make.

Of course, that's just my opinion; I could be wrong. . .

-- Hardliner (searcher@internet.com), March 19, 1999.

Hoffmeister,

Thank you for respectfully correcting me. Please pardon my error.

ja

-- Can't Fool this GI (ja4you@aol.com), March 20, 1999.

Hardliner,

You say:

"There is ample reason to speculate that NERC is devious or even outright dishonest, but none, that I know of, to suggest that they are stupid."

But, I say:

If someone is devious or dishonest, that's really stupid. (i.e., "slick Willy") Dishonesty is never worth the risks involved.

ja

-- Can't Fool this GI (ja4you@aol.com), March 20, 1999.

Dan,

NERC's report just doesn't convince me that they're being truthful. I still say something stinks!

As far as your offer for a wager, I have no problem with that. I pray to God that I am wrong!! However, as far as your part, I'm inclined to think that you're not keeping any secrects. So, your admittion would have to be that you were wrong for trusting NERC. You also have to agree that when the power does come back (a week?, a month?, six months later?) that you'll be back to this b.b. with the same screen name. Deal? [If the power does go out, what makes us think it will be a fast fix if it couldn't be fixed before this?]

Honestly, Dan, I don't know what to believe will happen. Obviously, by the looks of another thread, other GI's don't share my opinion about this date. (See this thread: Why is 09-09-99 a problem?) But, that still won't stop me from being prepared. You see, when everyone here turns off their computers at the end of each day, all I have is me to depend on with a child who counts on me for food, shelter & protection. If I don't prepare now and something should happen, then I would have only myself to blame for putting us both in harm's way.

ja

-- Can't Fool this GI (ja4you@aol.com), March 20, 1999.

ja4you: We have a deal on our wager. I've had this e-mail address for two years, and I won't "change hats" if things go wrong. Keep in mind, those of us working on this thing full time do take it very seriously, and if we are wrong, our professional reputations are on the line, and trust me, I'll have a lot of explaining to do to my management and to any customer's lawyers in a court room.

We'll discuss this further after April 9.

Dan.

-- Dan (dgman19938@aol.com), March 20, 1999.