|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
I understand there is a whitewash going on by the govt but
I suspose a panic will just make it worse.
All this while, I've basically made plans on the basis of that
infrastructure will be hindered somewhat but remain intact,
initial disruptions that will last for a couple of days. ie. to
stockpile only for a couple of days with regards to food cos
the tap will still work, along with the flush and switch. Where
the utility will get the oil is their business but they will solve it.
The remaining bugs will be worked out over the months that
follow. (I know my local utility has 100% spare capacity as
they have a second duplicate site for IT hardware so repair
and testing should not be a problem)
My perception of how those chips work is limited (not an
electrical engineer) and can be describe as analogical
reasoning. Hey, they can modularise codes and not all modules
ask or even need a date right?.
Now, this guy says otherwise.
What I like to know is, is there such a secondary clock in a chip
or most chips and is it's functioning as described in the link?
Yes, I have read that MIT have effected contingency plans for
disruptions.
http://www.garynorth.com/y2k/detail_.cfm/4399
At 07:49 PM 12/18/99 -0500, Bob Fulks wrote:
>At 7:46 AM +0800 12/19/99, Andrew wrote:
>>
>>"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.
>
>
>Clinton's Y2K czar, Senator Bennett, now estimates that only 0.2% of
>the 50 billion embedded chips will fail because of the Y2K bug.
>
>That is only 100 million chips that will fail. Whew! That's a relief!
>
>Bob Fulks
>
>----
>
>>From a TV Interview:
>
>NOVAK: Senator Bennett, there are an estimated 50 billion embedded
>chips in the world, at -- I've read that six percent of them may be
>defective, but because of the Y2K, but if only one percent are
>bolluxed up, how much of a problem would that be for a variety of
>things not working?
>
>BENNETT: Yes, one percent would be an enormous disaster. And when I
>first got into this the most responsible estimates I had were two to
>three percent failure. There are some folks that have said as six
>percent. But I don't really think it was ever that high.
>
>We are now being told by the chip makers, and I've spent a lot of
>time on this, that -- two things: Number one the figure is too high.
>The real figure for failure is going to be something like two-tenths
>of one percent, instead of one percent or two percent.
>
>And secondly, that there's a very real difference between failure and
>failure. In other words the chip can fail, but the device that it's
>connected to can continue to operate because many times the date
>function is non-essential. So, we've spent a lot of time worrying
>about that, checking on it.
>
>I can give you some horror stories because we know the horror
>stories. But it now appears that this is not going to be as bad a
>problem as we first thought.
"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)
|