1998-03-05 - Re: ed yourdon on Y2k armaggedon

Header Data

From: nobody@REPLAY.COM (Anonymous)
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Message Hash: 12461de26539202a19aed4c545b2dc7d0ff8cede654eacb4c6d2c60c1c68c462
Message ID: <199803050029.BAA15356@basement.replay.com>
Reply To: <199803022316.PAA18159@netcom16.netcom.com>
UTC Datetime: 1998-03-05 00:29:36 UTC
Raw Date: Wed, 4 Mar 1998 16:29:36 -0800 (PST)

Raw message

From: nobody@REPLAY.COM (Anonymous)
Date: Wed, 4 Mar 1998 16:29:36 -0800 (PST)
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: ed yourdon on Y2k armaggedon
In-Reply-To: <199803022316.PAA18159@netcom16.netcom.com>
Message-ID: <199803050029.BAA15356@basement.replay.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


>That said, I'll bet the first taker a dollar against a doughnut that 90%
>of U.S. nuke plants sail right through into the new millenium and don't
>even trip for any technical reason. (I won't bet against
>*political* reasons.)
>
>Why do I think so?
>
>Nuke plants are much less computerized than you might think.
>
>Many still use electromechanical relays to provide important logic
>functions.  Relays have a lot going for them - for instance you never have
>to worry about introduction of stupid software bugs.


What about real bugs introducing themselves into relays? :)

A few years ago a nuke plant wanted to build a computerized control system
and USNRC absolutely gave them hell, requiring them to document every damn
line of it and prove that it could handle all special cases.  But they did
finally approve it.





Thread