|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
I am actually a Y2K optimist. I think the worst scenario is the slow death
scenario, compliant units get hindered by uncompliant units.
However, this piece is disconcerting. It is outside my knowledge set.
Any EE person who can comment on its factualness?
http://www.garynorth.com/y2k/detail_.cfm/4399
"You must come to grips with the information in this report. It confirms what
David Hall has been saying about the necessity of testing embedded systems. But
it goes beyond Hall. It shows that it is impossible to test large numbers of
them without removing them from the boards in which they are embedded. To test
them while they are installed and on line is to risk shutting down whole
systems permanently. The problem is the secondary clock, as you will learn. The
logic of the chips is like the logic in legacy software: layers of forgotten
code, all reaching back to the original starting date of the chip.
In a TV interview with engineers in a chemical plant, the author learned that
they estimated a 25% systems failure rate. This is close to the average that
the SIM found in 1997: 5% to 50%.
Unless he is completely wrong, this means that the typical testing that gets
reported by the media is useless and misleading. To turn a clock forward to
2000 and not have it shut down the system is not a valid test for a programmed
chip, if this is the only test, which confirms what IBM has said. "
"The conveniences and comforts of humanity in general
will be linked up by one mechanism, which will produce
comforts and conveniences beyond human imagination.
But the smallest mistake will bring the whole mechanism
to a certain collapse. In this way the end of the world
will be brought about."
Pir-o-Murshid Inayat Khan, 1922 (Sufi Prophet)
|