Link

Read it and weep...

-- Don (whytocay@hotmail.com), April 16, 1999

Answers

Same old same old. No surprises because there ... are ... no ... more ... surprises at this point. Taken nationally, we are about 6 months or MORE behind where we should have been. Taken globally, we are (???) two years of MORE behind. Meaning:

"It's, yes, really, honestly, STILL Y2K stupid."

Nothing more. Regrettably, nothing less. Any fool (me) can hope and pray the grip will stay up, the supply chain will function worldwide, the nukes won't fly accidentally and I'll still be able to use a bank account. May happen.

But any fool who listens to Pollys on this forum or elsewhere with their endless whining about Y2K as a scam (let's face it, that's what they are basically saying in the end) is a double fool.

Keep preparing.

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), April 16, 1999.

Oh, do you think there might be a problem given that the GAO says 46% of utilities won't even be Y2K "ready" by the industry's own deadline of June, 1999 ..... a deadline moved several times already and 16% will complete (yeah, right) in 4Q?

Nahhhh.

Fortunately, everything in all OTHER industries in U.S. and around the world will be done, so no problemo. Like telecom. Post office. Airports. Manufacturing. Military. And banking.

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), April 16, 1999.

Oh, and we're not even talking about the business side. That's just a minor little thingie. This is only about the grid's functionality. Gee, haven't heard much about whether the utilities will still be able to bill, right?

And those poor dumb bas$$%6eds who serve my community with a rural coop but can't get NYSEG to give THEM an honest answer about anything are idiots for recommending to my community that folks get generators, right?

Because it's all just panic and hype on our part. Doesn't have anything to do with the sloth, arrogance, delay and semi-competence of the utility industry. Or banks. Post office. Telecom.

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), April 16, 1999.

Talking to myself, you say?

So what if I am? The good news boys and girls have been having their day on this forum for the past couple of months (yeah, I know, they'll be flaming me and the GAO shortly on this thread), but there is still a FAR TOO HIGH chance that millions of people around the world are going to DIE because of this asinine problem that my industry created and government/my industry have criminally failed to address properly.

You bet I'm torqued. This forum needs little dose of Milne, IMO.

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), April 16, 1999.

Maybe the non-compliant things are just the vending machines in the employee lounge.

I'm sure the lights won't go out because *they* would never let that happen, my brother-in-law said so.

-- rick blaine (y2kazoo@hotmail.com), April 16, 1999.

Big Dog, calm down. Go out and hit a bucket of balls. (Then buy a few more sacks of rice and cases of ammo when you're done.)

-- rick blaine (y2kazoo@hotmail.com), April 16, 1999.

Thanks, Rick. BTW, the golf superintendent's association is BIG-TIME into making sprinkler systems compliant around the country (I kid you not). At least someone has their head screwed on right. Now, with all the cows and sheep where I live, the fairways should be okay next year.

But you know, just occasionally, there really is reason to be mad. And, yeah, I am. It's not burn-out, either, it's burn-UP.

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), April 16, 1999.

I have said it before, and I will say it again. We do know what will happen! Why do we keep looking for the answers?

-- SCOTTY (BLehman202@aol.com), April 16, 1999.

Oddly enough, the 44% completion rate referenced in the article mirrors that of the 44% completion rate referenced in the January 11 report of the NERC, based upon information through November 30, 1998.

I highly doubt that the GAO undertook their own investigation of the nation's utilities. My guess is that they are using the old NERC numbers.

This appears to be old news.

However, it is curious to note how many of you have taken it at face value without any question. As usual, bad news on this forum is taken without question, even if it comes from the same government that you accuse of portraying lies and inaccuracies.

-- CJS (onandon@onandon.com), April 16, 1999.

CJS: "As usual, bad news on this forum is taken without question, even if it comes from the same government that you accuse of portraying lies and inaccuracies."

Tired, CJS, not wired. Very tired. Yes, and as usual, people like you refuse to focus on reality. Sucker.

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), April 16, 1999.

You said:

This is only about the grid's functionality. Gee, haven't heard much about whether the utilities will still be able to bill, right?

I say:

Don't you think that was the MOST critical system and that they fixed that first?

It wouldn't surprise me in the least!

-- J (jart5@bellsouth.net), April 16, 1999.

CJS--

The GAO is the *one* gummint outfit that's not spinning y2k. What they say is infinitely more credible than anything coming from Koskinen, FAA, HCFA, etc.

-- rick blaine (y2kazoo@hotmail.com), April 16, 1999.

BigDog -

You ever get out San Diego way? Golf capital of the US and all that. Bet the owners of La Costa and Torrey are sweating this BIG time.

-- Mac (sneak@lurk.hid), April 16, 1999.

Related link (and links within) along with Rick Cowles response (today) to reading the Army's powerpoint presentation on Y2K and potential for trouble with the electric grid.

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=000j63

-- FM (vidprof@aol.com), April 16, 1999.

CJS commented:

"This appears to be old news."

You only have a FEW more months of this BS left CJS ..........

Ray

-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), April 16, 1999.

FM: A fragment of Rick's comments about the army presentation:

"There's enough shreds of evidence, however, to lead anyone to believe that someone else in high places knows something you don't. This document regarding the electric industry and Y2k is just one of many bits and pieces of such datum." Translate (read the rest of it and correspond with Rick sometime): the army stuff and GAO are closer to the straight dope than NERC's PR nonsense.

Mac: Lived in Santa Cruz for a bunch of years (where I learned about the war between Northern and Southern California). Actually, my quite elderly parents, against my advice, are moving to San Diego area in May and are expecting me to come visit. Will keep you posted. Maybe we can hit a few. Maybe it's time for a poll on the correlation between golfers and GIs? Nahhhhh....

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), April 16, 1999.

And I'm still waiting for the GOOD NEWS hidden in 46% missing their own endlessly late deadline for something called Y2K readiness (yeah, I know, I've heard all the reasons for that term) and 16% of that group "predicting" 4Q 1999.

Here's a prediction: at least 10% of that 46% (how many thousand is that?) WON'T be ready before 1/1/2000.

Oh, I forgot. It's an immovable deadline so they "have" to make it. Hey, Joe, call the PR department and get the press releases ready for 4Q now, OK?

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), April 16, 1999.

Will have to see the GAO report for further comment.

But, a few minor points.

BigDog, you said 46%, where the story lists 46 as an actual figure.

Also, where in the story do you infer they are not talking about business systems as well?

It is strange the 44% matches the NERC results; however, the 46 (actual) is pretty close to the latest (March) survey. I also don't think the GAO has conducted an independant survey. So, again, let's see what the actual report says.

-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-dejanews.com), April 16, 1999.

Hoff - Torqued though I am, you're quite right about that and it's more than minor, perhaps, whatever "46 organizations" mean. Thanks for pointing it out. I'm really angry, though, and without meaning to inflict it on the forum TO NO REASON, I still stand by these posts. Unquestionably, the combination of the army presentation and the GAO article are fueling me .....

My real fury is at my own industry (and, no, I still love techie stuff: anyone who hangs on the Net and doesn't understand the 2+2 relationship between the Net and tech should be dismissed instantly) and, to bring it home, the necessity for small businessmen and small farmers and small homeowners where I live to have to even consider spending big bucks because of NERC/NYSEG, etc. I APPRECIATE the few folks, esp. on Rick's forum (including Rick), who have been real enough to concede that the util industries' historic paternalism and "engineers know best" mentality has been unconscionable over the Y2K process.

Frankly, the banks are running a very close second. Counter to what the idiots accuse me of, at least, I feel the government has been modestly open and honest by comparison, Koskinen excepted.

Anyway, Hoff, thanks for the catch. Throw me a beer, would you, before I explode.

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), April 16, 1999.

Link to GAO Acrobat file for the report

Well, since I started this thread, I thought I'd go look for the GAO report. CJS is correct--the GAO report, dated April 6, 1999, is a summary of a February 22, 1999 government briefing that featured numbers from the November 1998 survey. cnn.com reported this today because it appeared on the GAO Web site yesterday, but just reported the percentages without noting that these numbers were from the November survey (which is mentioned in a one-paragraph "Result in Brief" section at the beginning of the report).

So, shame on cnn.com, and shame on me. Sorry about reporting old news. I'll try to do better next time...

-- Don (whytocay@hotmail.com), April 16, 1999.

Thanks, Don.

Mind if I ask how you found it? I looked through the GAO site, but didn't see the reference.

-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-dejanews.com), April 16, 1999.

Further to Hoff's post:

Let us assume that the the "46" in the article refers to number of companies rather than percentage of all companies. If it does, it matters as to the size of these companies relative to the industry. If a few in that 46 are companies like ConEd then there could be real cause for concern. If they are all the "small fry" then their overall effect is somewhat diluted. No?

Also, remember that missing the June 30th deadline is not, in and of itself, indicative that that utility's Y2K project is seriously behind. Look at Sanger's Review today for an article in the London (Ont.) Free Press about a utility in Canada that won't meet the deadline because they don't want to take down a generator for testing now when they have a scheduled shut down coming in July. Also, some utilities will not meet the deadline because they will not have delivery of replacement Y2K compliant parts until later in the summer. They've done all the rest of the work, but can't claim true readiness until the part(s) comes in.

Read this quote from the article:

Because power utilities are dependent on embedded computer control systems -- that is, chips that are built into a computer's architecture and can't be replaced with different chips - the industry is particularly susceptible to Y2K-related failures. "All phases of operations in the electric power industry, from generation to distribution, use control systems and equipment that are subject to Year 2000 failures," the GAO report said. "The industry's analysis of its embedded systems has shown that the Year 2000 problem places the nation's electric power systems at risk."

The GAO says that the embedded system issue puts the electric power systems at "risk". The vast majority of the posts that I have seen from utility engineers (on this site and at www.euy2k.com) indicate that real testing of the embedded systems has revealed very few problems that would have shut down generation, transmission or distribution of electricity. Is the GAO guilty of sloppy writing? Are they looking at older data and test results? We'll know better when we see the report.

Incidentally, anyone know if the report is online? I went to the GAO web site but couldn't find it - they don't exactly make it easy to search for things.

Johnny Canuck

Johnny Canuck

-- (nospam@eh.com), April 16, 1999.

I'm still just as MAD, though ALWAYS glad for accuracy, but onto other threads.

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), April 16, 1999.

Wow! You guys post quickly! From reading Hoff's post to typing and posting my own, an answer appears.

Johnny Canuck

-- (nospam@eh.com), April 16, 1999.

Hoff,

Never having tried to find a GAO site, I used Webcrawler to search on "General Accounting Office." From the list of Webcrawler hits, here's the chain of links I clicked on...

GAO Home Page GAO Reports and Testimony GAO Daybook Reports and Testimony issued on: (followed by a list of dates) April 15, 1999 It's the first report listed.

-- Don (whytocay@hotmail.com), April 16, 1999.

Well, that didn't work very well. Here's another attempt to list the chain of links I clicked on. Each new link starts with "***", so even if the formatting is lost at least you'll be able to tell where each link begins.

*** GAO Home Page *** GAO Reports and Testimony *** GAO Daybook Reports and Testimony issued on: (followed by a list of dates) *** April 15, 1999 *** It's the first report listed.

-- Don (whytocay@hotmail.com), April 16, 1999.

Thanks, Don. Got to it from the Daybook links.

-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-dejanews.com), April 16, 1999.

OK, I'm dense, but somebody answer this: Say there's a hardware system using numerous embedded chips. They can't be replaced with different chips because they're specific, so you have to replace them with the same kind. But if you replace them with the same kind, wouldn't that leave you with a bunch of brand new, still-uncompliant chips? Aren't we talking about going into manufacturing and re-making, but differently, tons of chips, many of which haven't been manufactured in a decade or more? (Considering the rate of change in the industry.) I'm no IT person, but I did project and executive management for well over a decade, and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that this will be problematic, at the very least. Compounded by difficulties in travel, shipping and supply line transport, and multiple problems all over at once, it could be worse than just 'problematic.'

I'm glad I'm not responsible for guaranteeing a fix on any of this.

PJ in TX

-- PJ Gaenir (fire@firedocs.com), April 16, 1999.

BigDog, you crack me up, because you remind me of me, except I tend to rant in private. I consider every "Pollyvangelist" a direct threat to life and property. (I call them that, because as much as they whine about people here not having a life, they are allegedly not even interested/worried about the topic yet THEY spend time here)...

If the time comes that infants dependent on formula are wailing and people are hungry and in despair and death and destruction is everywhere and terror fills everyone, if history repeats itself, these people may be dragged into killed and hung on a wall or something.

And if it were my children starving because some (a) moron or (b) liar misled us, I'm afraid I might be the one wanting to do the shooting.

Maybe it's because I have a young child, but I would happily pick up a pencil and destroy anybody threatening the life of my child. These people doing the spin are threatening the live of infants, children, men and women to the tune of MILLIONS.

So, if they had just killed them outright, they would be hitlers, it would be a holocaust. There are 285 million people in this country. I arbitrarily estimate maybe a million people have a real clue about Y2K. If even ONE HALF OF ONE PERCENT of 284 million people were injured or killed or even just put in misery as a result of any given Y2K issue (and even the medical field as it stands could cover that, as the senate report says a total of 23.something million people PER DAY are in as out or inpatients), that's 2.84 MILLION people. That is a LOT of "victims."

Just thinking about it makes me feel merciless, impatient and violent. People can put all the semantics and philosophy on it they want, but deliberately not telling a person they're about to walk in front of a train you know is coming is nothing short of intent to kill. And having that intent to kill directed at not only my family as a mere stastistic but toward the citizens of my country, is not something I'm willing to give -- whether it is stupidity or disingenuity or what. If it were an enemy attempting to force on us the same type of results that the gov't is almost ensuring we'll get thanks to lack of prep, I would don a soldier's uniform. Do you suppose people will respond that way toward the current government, if it turns out our people die for their "spin control?"

PJ in TX

-- PJ Gaenir (fire@firedocs.com), April 16, 1999.

For some reason this thread has me laughing, perhaps it was your initial post Big Dog where you said "No surprises because there ... are ... no ... more ... surprises at this point." Ain't that the truth. Even the Army post didn't really have anything new. "Just another Brick in the Wall." - Pink Floyd

-- Mitchell Barnes (spanda@inreach.com), April 16, 1999.

Where's Dan the Power Man now? The impostor NERC spinmeister posing undercover as a "power company engineer" never did tell us which company he works for did he? Where is all his optimism now, in the wake of this report?

-- @ (@@@.@), April 16, 1999.

Umm, @, read through the thread. It's been established that the report is based on the NERC November, 1998 data. The current percentage complete is 75%. It's old news.

-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-dejanews.com), April 16, 1999.

Big Dog, Rick, Ray, etc.

You may want to read the GAO report again (or for the first time). The 44% completion rate, as I alluded to earlier, IS based upon the 1998 NERC numbers.

Please re-read your posts again, if you get the chance.

-- CJS (onandon@onandon.com), April 17, 1999.

"As usual, bad news on this forum is taken without question, even if it comes from the same government that you accuse of portraying lies and inaccuracies."

And Big Dog Replies:

Tired, CJS, not wired. Very tired. Yes, and as usual, people like you refuse to focus on reality. Sucker _____________________

Apparently, your reality has nothing to do with looking for the truth, only for those things that are congruent with your beliefs. Next time, Big Dog, sniff the ground that you are about to crap on before taking a dump.

-- CJS (onandon@andon.com), April 17, 1999.

CJS --- You didn't notice I immediately thanked Hoff for the correction? I'm sure others did. Doesn't change the basic facts about Y2K though and you're still a sucker.

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), April 17, 1999.

What a lovely person you are CJS.

Whattaguy!

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), April 17, 1999.

CJS commented:

"You may want to read the GAO report again (or for the first time). The 44% completion rate, as I alluded to earlier, IS based upon the 1998 NERC numbers."

Here is an article you SHOULD read daily. It MAY awaken you from your DEEP COMA, then again I doubt it!!

Bogus Numbers

Ray

-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), April 17, 1999.

Related URL from the world of "cross-posting."

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=000jOn

:)

-- FM (vidprof@aol.com), April 17, 1999.

Big Dog-

By calling me a sucker, I assume that you think that I am not preparing. If that is your assumption, you are incorrect. I just get weary of the arrogance on this forum, with so many purporting to be keepers of the truth.

This whole Y2K thing has POTENTIAL for widespread problems. There is very little hard evidence of failure at this point. There isn't a lot of clear-cut 100% success either. The situation is clouded by a complete lack of clarity, with plenty of misinformation(on both sides) to convolute the situation further. Then throw in some rampant conjecture. Very few, if anyone knows the truth or has a strong basis for what will happen. I know I don't. I don't think that you do either.

-- CJS (onandon@onandon.com), April 17, 1999.

Ray-

Read the article a while ago. I don't hold David Eddy in very high esteem, especially since I saw a really weak response from some questions that were e-mailed to him by someone else. (If I can get permission to show it, I will).

It's one man's opinion, and he cites a couple of examples. Big Deal. Someone could write the same article showing examples where numbers haven't lied. Either article wouldn't be worth a shit, and would prove nothing.

Try to have the same critical eye towards both negative and positive articles. A little objectivity doesn't hurt.

-- CJS (onandon@onandon.com), April 17, 1999.

Hoffmeister,

What the hell are you talking about?? Perhaps you didn't read the article. It is dated April 16 of this year, 1999! And it says:

"The General Accounting Office (GAO) also reported that 46 of the participating organizations said they don't expect to be Y2K ready by the industry's June target date.

Furthermore, 16 percent of those organizations said they don't expect to be Y2K-compliant until the fourth quarter of 1999.

So can you explain why Dan is making statements like this?:

"I ask you for the third time: have you Y2K tested a single device or system used in a power plant or T&D system? I have personally tested over 100, and I've found that the systems are Y2K Ready. The few systems that need upgrades are widely known in the industry and are (or have already been)replaced."

-- @ (@@@.@), April 17, 1999.

@, what am I talking about?

First, the report is dated April 6, not April 16th.

From Page 3:

On February 22, 1999, we briefed your office on the results of our work. The briefing slides are included in appendix I.

This report provides a high-level summary of the information presented at that briefing....

Obviously, the data is and report is from February 22.

Further, still on Page 3:

In response to a November 1998 industry-wide survey, the nations electric power utilities reported that, on average, they were 44 percent complete with remediation and testing....

Again, pretty obvious the report is based on data from the November NERC survey.

Do you want more? It's pretty well documented throughout the report.

Did you read it?

-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-dejanews.com), April 17, 1999.

Relax folks, the utilities are in great shape! You don't have a thing to worry about. The great Hoffmeister has spoken!

-- Everything will be fine (fedup@ivehadit.com), April 17, 1999.

Having returned from the weekend, it seems as though the original 46 DID represent "percent" after all?

Considering how critical utils are, their current status is OUTRAGEOUSLY behind where they should be at this point. Where should they be?

100% Y2K "ready" with EVERYTHING that was ordered for replacement RECEIVED and ready for final tests.

I see no reason not to be as coldly angry as I was when I first posted to this thread .... and as I consider the real people I know locally (starting with our competent electric coop and THEIR professional anxiety in the face of NERC/NYSEG), I fail to see why I shouldn't be on April 19, 1999. Not 1997. Not 1998. 1999.

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), April 19, 1999.