What's up with de Jager?greenspun.com : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread
I was just reading an article in the San Antonio Express (October 9, 1998) that quoted Peter de Jager as saying "...that serious computer problems will last through the first four to six weeks of 2000." "...I believe we will be able to get through this one month or month and one half of anguish ." He also stated that as far as paying employees go, employers should, "...Tell employees you will be able to duplicate the last check of 1999 for three months if needed..." Another opinion of his: ...Minor power failures may occur on a local basis...but since the Northeast was blacked out from the failure of one switch in 1965, the power utility industry has made great strides to prevent localized problems from spreading, he said. Am I the only one who thinks this is garbage- I mean, am I brainwashed by doomsayers or being snowed by people with alterior motives? To read this for yourself, check out www.y2knews.net/ Oct. 9,1998 titled,"Y2k expert predicts brief anguish, then smooth sailing"
-- madeline (email@example.com), October 09, 1998
He has gotten only a short distance with the scenarios he has used up to now, so why would you be surprised he sugar coats the messager to get it read????
He is still asking for preparedness, just at a different level.
-- Chuck a Night Driver (firstname.lastname@example.org), October 09, 1998.
I think that once we get past the panic and fear, which can be immobilizing, we need to adopt Peter's can-do attitude. Not because he is right or wrong, but because life is always full of risk, but to go around thinking about it all the time will prevent you from living. If you thought about all the people who died in car accidents, you'd never get in your car. Then again, if you never thought about it, you wouldn't wear your seat belt. Take any precautions that you feel are sensible and necessary, but knowing that you have to keep on driving.
-- Amy Leone (email@example.com), October 09, 1998.
Peter de Jager's original Y2K alert, which he wrote under the title of "Doomsday", said: We need to drop everything and get real busy quick and fix this things, because if we don't it will be doomsday. This was circa 1993, I believe. Now it is October 1998, which would seemingly imply that it is too late. But, like the energizer bunny, de Jager just keeps giving the same message. The reality is that bad computer code does not care about "can-do" attitudes, the code is broken, and it is indeed too late to fix it.
-- Joe (firstname.lastname@example.org), October 09, 1998.
de Jager has lost all credibility for me. He is apparantly ignoring all of the available evidence. My guess is he needs to temper his message in order to keep his exhorbitant speaking fees coming in.
-- Steve Hartsman (email@example.com), October 09, 1998.
de Jager has lost all credibility for me. He is apparantly ignoring all of the available evidence. My guess is he needs to temper his message in order to keep his exhorbitant speaking fees coming in...
-- Steve Hartsman (firstname.lastname@example.org), October 09, 1998.
deJager is aware that work is progressing, things are being done and in many cases the situation is in fact improving. Rather than looking only at data from last year (or before), he is considering the work that has been done during the interveneing period. In other words, he takes into account not only that time has gone by but that work has gone by as well. He also takes into account that 100% remediation is not necessary to keep most systems functioning at some level.
Is he right? I believe so, but can't say with anymore (or less) certainty than anyone else. What I do know is that I would much rather deal with "can-do" attitudes than "it's impossible" attitudes. I have yet to meet anyone with an "it's impossible" attitude that ever really accomplished anything worthwhile. Not all "can-doer's" suceed, but they have the only real shot at it.
-- Paul Neuhardt (email@example.com), October 09, 1998.
The fact of the matter is that the experts don't agree, so all we are left with is speculation by all of them. You can't be too sure about any conclusions on Y2K, good or bad.
-- Buddy (DC) (firstname.lastname@example.org), October 09, 1998.
Let's not forget this is the same guy who told us to have men with lanterns at the railroad switches. Anyone care to volunteer for northern Minnesota on January 1,2000? This guy is making lots of money on the speaking circuit. People want to hear happy news. I really don't care what he says. I'm preparing for several weeks of disruptions.
-- Dave (email@example.com), October 09, 1998.
I'm not sure. It might be a planned 'disaster-lite' scenario calculated to get the masses thinking 'in that general direction' rather than asking them to swallow the whole bitter pill at once. I just hope it's not delusion of reprieve.
-- David Hume (firstname.lastname@example.org), October 09, 1998.
You may have hit upon something with your disaster lite train of thought. Although it can backfire, I know I've had better luck with convincing people if I "ease" them into it, rather than laying the whole thing out at once. It seems most people (myself included) tend to believe more quickly if they think at least part of the idea was their own.
-- Greg Sugg (email@example.com), October 09, 1998.
I agree with the idea of going with the "can do" attitude. If you follow the "it's too late" attitude...well I really wonder why you even bother to come on the net. All your blathering is doing no good by your own definition, so why not leave those of us who would like to try to do our part to solve this problem alone.
By the way...as for De Jager collecting speaking fees...so? Like North, The Ed's and Rick Cowles aren't making money off of this? Or did you forget that Yourdon has a book to sell? So does Cowles. Have you sent in your $129.00 for a one year subscription to North's newsletter yet? I have no proof of Yardeni is making money, but I wouldn't be suprised. But none of this matters because De Jager is collecting speaking fees so he must be wrong.
-- Rick Tansun (firstname.lastname@example.org), October 09, 1998.
The "can do" attitude is good but where you apply it also matters.I think people that are preparing for the worst are still "can do" people there just thinking "can survive it" instead of "Can fix it".
-- S.E.Carlson (email@example.com), October 09, 1998.
There's one more aspect of the "can do" attitude that is important. How are you applying it?
de Jager says "We can do."
"Survivalist" says "I can do."
Of course, North says "Nobody can do."
I think "we can do" is better than "I can do."
-- Buddy (DC) (firstname.lastname@example.org), October 09, 1998.
100% remediation IS necessary to keep a system functioning at a level that can be TRUSTED. Anything less, the trust is not there and the confidence is not there! Take, for example, electronic banking: If you believed that there was a significant chance that your direct deposit would get lost or short changed, would you continue to use it or instead want to deposit directly via paper? Now, extend this further: If you did not trust your bank at all, would you leave your money there, or demand paper (cash)? Computers have to do more than work, they have to work reliably, so that they can be trusted, so that we will have confidence in our systems. Y2K will change all that ....
-- Joe (email@example.com), October 09, 1998.
"Computers have to do more than work, they have to work reliably, so that they can be trusted, so that we will have confidence in our systems. Y2K will change all that .... "
Maybe this is where some of my views come from. I have *zero* confidence in computers. I use them every day for any number of tasks, but there is also a reason why once a week I run a paper back up of all my important documents. (I also run a disk backup of all my documents.) Not a week goes by that I don't have at least some form of crash, corrupted file and so on. I may be more prone to this as I spend on average 15 - 17 hours a day at a computer. I run two web sites, do my magazine articles on it, keep my banking on it and so on, so I am a little bit more of a power user than most.
I already have a love/hate relationship with technolgy and that is why I have never used an ATM in my life (I believe tellers should earn their money), I do not believe in direct deposit and so on.
Maybe this thread finally led me to figure out why I don't get as paniced as some others do over Y2K as in I am still a *big* believer in pencil/pen and paper.
-- Rick Tansun (firstname.lastname@example.org), October 09, 1998.
If you read the article that was in the Wall Street Journal "Finacial Community leads the Y2K Pace" and compare it to even some of his most recent articles it is clear that this article was not written by de Jager and de Jager alone. It has been cleansed and watered down.
What we are seeing is the move toward curbing panic. Soon, I would assume, we will all be getting statement stuffers in our bank statements and direct mail assurances from our utilities. The awareness campaign is beginning, but it isn't the one we are looking for. It's clear that there is fear in the public, what they don't want you and I to see is their fear.
I think de Jager has the best of intentions. After all, if there are a bank runs then it will assure a collapse. I really think there is a deep fear of a self fulfilling prophecy occuring even before any large y2k failures. After all, if there is a loss in confidence then every sector of the economy will suffer.
What I wish would happen is that those in power and control would just be honest. They need to come out and start preparing the masses for disruptions based on a worse case scenario. Not doomsday, but a scenario of wide spread disruptions at ever level. I think if this were handled more like preparing for a war than a day or two of minor disruptions then panic would be keep to a minimum. It would be better to prepare the public and give us all some insurance.
It wont happen in time. Too many chiefs, too many personalities and too many still in denial. They'll wait until the last possible minute to give us the bad news and then the panic will be severe.
By the time failures occur there may be only a few weeks of disruptions. But, that few weeks will feel like a lifetime to the unprepared or the unaware. And that is the tragedy that will lead to catasrophe for many.
Not too long ago, the streets not far from me blew up with tension. The tension had been there for years and the powers that be went along with there duties, making deals with the rich and the powerful players of the city. The problems were there but they went unaddressed.
Not too far from where I live there were the disinfranchised. Hope was lacking, police worked their will at random and made a criminal out of the lawful because they had a different color of skin or they "looked" suspicious. No one payed attention to the problems of the disinfranchised because the problems were far away from city hall and the power elite.
How do you start a riot? Those that are in power disconnect themselves from the people. They know all about the problems but the kids dying on the street every night aren't their kids.
How do you start a riot? Information is power, and you keep the information to yourself. Back room deals that let the bad police work their "justice" and punish the good police for speaking out. Secrets create a riot and the disinfranchised were like L.A.'s little secret.
On the night L.A. burst into violence I sat in shock and dispair and I cried. I could see the fires outside my balcony window and hear the sirens in the distance. The city was shaken to it's knees.
If y2k problems aren't addressed the cities will meltdown. I see graphs and charts and percentages with vague perceptions of civil unrest put into some abstract number. The problem is that those numbers represent the possibility of death and destruction.
The riots in L.A. went on for a few DAYS. de Jager casually writes about a month to a month and a half. If this is true then the unrest will be widespread and a catasrophe of epic proportions.
If this occurs, it will because of fear which leads to panic which leads to dispair and it could have all been avoided if someone would have had the intestinal fortitude to speak the truth and prepare the public.
Right now, in L.A., not one public official has even spoke a word about y2k. The Governor and the State government have been quiet about y2k.
If chaos ike this happens it is because men and women in power put their best interests above those of the people. They are protecting their investments and the money they have in the bank and they decided it was in their best interests to keep the truth about y2k their little secret.
God help us all if just one person dies because of y2k.
It's the first man made disaster and it seems to continually perpetuate itself in the failings of man. What a vicious and ironic cycle.
-- Michael Taylor (email@example.com), October 09, 1998.
When quoted out of context, in bits and pieces, anyone can be made to say almost anything. Journalists have been know to put their own spin on stories. Just because de Jager isn't talking about blood flowing in the streets, does it mean he's not to be trusted? The effects of Y2K, like most things in life, will be somewhere between two extremes.
-- Mike (firstname.lastname@example.org), October 09, 1998.
My dear, you have possibly been "brainwashed by doomsayers" if you can't accept de Jager's predictions. The clowns that continue to promote the doomsday scenario on this forum refuse to accept the fact that progress on the Y2k problem is exceeding the expectations of just a few months ago. They attack any and everyone who reports progress and they site the doom and gloom mantra without any evidence to support their paronoid predictions. You don't have to work hard to discover the emptiness of their arguments. Simply review the archives of this forum and look at the dire predictions these clowns have made which have not come to pass. Do you want more proof of the hyperbolic nature of Y2k discussions on the Internet? OK, then go to Dr. North's site and search the archives and look at the predictions that were made in early 1997 versus where we are today. Darlin, if you have a deep-seated desire to self-destruct then there are plenty of fatalist on this forum to stoke that fire, but if you want to follow Y2k progress and contribute to the solutions then you better learn to take alot of the crap here with a grain of salt. There is some good information available here regarding the preparation for the possible short term interrutions we may encounter in 2000 but you have to access that information by wading thru a lot of paranoid, defeatest, mindless dribble from people who just love to be miserable. Y2k is not the end of the world as we know it. The clowns that would have you believe that tripe will counter by asking that we prove it, yet that they offer no proof of their paranoid position beyond the words of prophets with track records of failed prophecy. Should we prepare? Yes. Should we expect the end of the world as we know it? Not if we are up to speed on the facts and intelligent enough to separate the bullshit from reality.
-- Woe is Me (email@example.com), October 09, 1998.
There is no unwritten law that says this will end up in the middle of two extremes. The very inter-relatedness and connectivity of our system says to me that it is much more likely for one of the extremes to occur, than the middle.
Remember, it is the exceptions that prove the rule. This whole situation has very bad kharma.
-- Uncle Deedah (firstname.lastname@example.org), October 09, 1998.
"The effects of Y2K, like most things in life, will be somewhere between two extremes. " Well what a profound statement! I guess we could just as easily say that "the more things change, the more they stay the same", and apply this to y2k and conclude that things are gonna "stay the same" more than they have at any one time in recorded history, so there's nothing to worry about. How about "We should face this problem one day at a time", or ""We'll cross that bridge when we come to it". (Sorry, I can't think of any more footy-coach cliches.) ...two extremes, ay?....ok, let's then make an assessment of what those two extremes really are. On the extremely good front we have most of the world economy paralysed and then dead, with 90% of people meeting a fast, relatively painless death, with relatively few major environmental disasters occuring, without any major wars breaking out, with the evil exploiters of the world meeting their deserved fate, and with survivors being people of greater strength and character than most of those gone away. Australia would remain physically unscathed but our governments and banks and corporations would wither away, me and my friends live happily ever after. On the extremely bad front we have unrepaired defective chips sending russian nuke subs critical, Indian nuclear power plants going Chernobylesque, Chemical plants malfunctioning on a Bhopal scale, serious terrorist attacks on major cities (because the timing is so right, unfortunately), serious wars erupting over water, food, money, use of biological weapons by whoever?, 120 million japanese turning to cannibalism!, nuclear war. Oh and the economy collapses etc. I think it will fall somewhere between these two extremes! But as our friend implies, everything levels out, nothing exceptional ever happens, somewhere between two extremes, nothing much to worry about. "Go back to bed, America. Your government is in control. Go back to bed America. Your government is in control. Here. Watch American Gladiators....." bh
-- humpty dumpty (email@example.com), October 10, 1998.
I lost a lot of respect for Mr. de Jager when he said only cowards would remove their money from the bank.
-- Gayla Dunbar (firstname.lastname@example.org), October 10, 1998.
I find it fascinating how the Doomers always resort to insulting the intelliagence of those who do not agree with them. They also tend to mention TV alot. Maybe an interesting commentary on the themselves?
As I have talked to "grunt" workers working on Y2K (phone linemen, shift supervisors in utilities and so on...people with nothing to gain or lose except the fact they are parents of friends, friends of mine and so on.) they tend to say that a lot of fear is being brought about by people who have done nothing but read twisted journalistic reports.
One of my many jobs is that of a journalist, you would be amazed how easy it is for us to taint an article when we aren't even thinking about it. I have done this on a few occasions, and when reading it later I ask myself how in the world I came up with that sentance that changes the entire tone of the piece. (For the record, I have never written about Y2K, nor do I plan to accept any assignments involving it due to a fear of my personal bias coming through) Was it intentional? No. Subconcious...probably.
-- Rick Tansun (email@example.com), October 10, 1998.
Uncle Deedah has positted (and not for the first time) that, "The very inter-relatedness and connectivity of our system says to me that it is much more likely for one of the extremes to occur, than the middle."
One does not need a deep background in systems theory to understand this: One of the characteristics of a complex system under stress is a propensity to shift quickly and dramatically to another state when subjected to just enough additional disturbance.
Do we know of any complex systems under stress?
Do I have to continue this post?
"Ignorance is bliss and people sometimes resent being made to think." --- R G Dery
-- Hallyx (Hallyx@aol.com), October 10, 1998.
Good question, Madeline. It brought everyone into the discussion. This is a long post. Sorry.
After Peter de Jager wrote one of his 'coward' articles I engaged him in e-mail discussion. In that discussion, he told me of his fears that unwarranted panic will be generated. He mentioned two major concerns:
1. Bank runs generated by public panic.
2. Advice to leave the cities, which he feels may cause panic among those who aren't able to do this.
In essence, de Jager is now looking at the breakdowns in society that he sees coming, and is trying to wash HIS hands of the entire matter, lest he be found guilty of persuading anyone to take money out of the bank or to move to a safer location, and thereby contributing to this aspect of the problem. He's doing this by repeating the mantra, "We'll get through this, we'll get through this." He's right....we will get through this, but he discounts pain and suffering.
His fears of societal breakdown are valid.
It's my personal opinion that all the debate over the severity of the problem is actually related to the reaction of the general public. TEOTWAWKI doesn't occur without public disorder. The lights could go out for many months without a "major problem" if the sheeple would just sit in their caves and be nice, and if we don't tally up the number of dead and dying. Of course, if you're one of the dying, your definition of dying may not be the same as his.
There are 3 factors that I feel can either cause or prevent TEOTWAWKI. They deal with the reaction of the population when the actual problems begin to impact our infrastructure and our daily lives.
The first of these is the degree of individual/family preparedness. If a large number of families are prepared they will mute problems that will come up by simply not being a part of the problem. If people aren't prepared, then the situation will be worse. By the way, even de Jager admits that he doesn't discourage personal preparedness (food stores, generators, etc.) Nice of him, eh? If he wants to prevent problems with public reaction he should vocally encourage preparedness.......including establishing plans for relocation IF THESE ARE WARRANTED at the time.
The second factor is community preparedness -- and quite frankly, even though I work to prepare my own community I am discouraged about this. Some communities are 'getting it.' Most aren't. Again, this is a case where those who aren't involved -- providing they've first seen to individual preparedness -- are a part of the problem
The third aspect is the honesty with which sectors, governments, and companies are perceived. If people know what is coming and have a chance to prepare for it and adjust to it they will do very well, and all those who sing the praise of human spirit will have a chance to be proven right.
Conversely, if people perceive that they've been lied to or dissuaded from making preparations by self-serving propaganda from their government, from utility companies, from banks, or from their employer, they will be irate. Many will adopt a 'we' versus 'they' attitude, and the trouble has begun.
Each of us can remember the process we went through as we began to deal with possible problems. It didn't happen overnight. It is a process that took some of us months. If the lights go out on January 1, 2000, and telephones don't work and the grocer's shelves are bare, people who are not prepared simply won't have the time to work their way through it. They're in it. Will they panic? You better believe they will.
Unfortunately, no one is telling people what we are facing, now, when they have time to react and transition their family from 'unprepared and in panic' to 'prepared and calm.' Families won't be prepared. Communities won't be prepared.
An example is the recent statement by the attorney for Alliant power in Wisconsin that the company was urging customers to investigate alternate sources of electricity. This statement was overturned by other attorneys the following day (and probable there is a lady in Wisconsin in need of a job as an attorney). The original statement was a warning that could be used to prepare people. The retraction serves to put people back to sleep.
Governments (state and federal, including Canadian, UK, Australian) are making preparations for military 'assistance' in December, 1999.......yet these same governments are stating that their own work is going quite nicely, thank you. When they're schizophrenic, which half are we to believe?
Mr. de Jager was less than intelligent about his approach to the social problem. Calling people who look at the banking system and decide to withdraw their money "cowards" does more harm than good, as Carla will attest. A lot of people got their backs up over that one, because this approach offered NO alternatives except to withdraw money (and be called a coward by de Jager) or leave the money in the banking system to be eaten by panic withdrawals by others. Is there an alternative? If not, then most of us would shrug off de Jager's invective.
Likewise, de Jager's cries to not abandon American cities seem rather odd.......since he doesn't live in one. Again, he offers no alternative, except his well used epitaph, "Coward!"
Until he can provide alternatives he's become a part of the problem. I can sympathize with Buddy and with those who argue that the only way to beat the problem is to work together. True......but which problem are we talking about here? The generally accepted line (even de Jager's) is that the code is broken. That leaves the problem of personal and community contingency.
Crying "Coward" at the top of one's lungs doesn't help solve that problem.
-- rocky knolls (firstname.lastname@example.org), October 10, 1998.
I love the image: De Jager as Pontius the Pilot....."I wash my hands....."
-- Donna Barthuley (email@example.com), October 10, 1998.
I think at least some of you miss the point.
If you are in the computer business, the "we can do it" attitude is a fine message.
If you are not in the computer field, what use is it? People not in the computer field don't need a pep talk, they need to know what the problems are, an estimate as to how likely it is to fail, and some idea how much it could affect critical infrastructure. It seems that De Jager is wobbling on both sides of the message and is getting less clear.
What the users of technology (all of us) need to know bottom line is that we are working on it, not everything will be fixed, and we don't or can't know how badly this will cause failures, so please prepare early and don't be in line 12/31/1999 or just after as part of the problem.
-- Brad Waddell (firstname.lastname@example.org), October 10, 1998.
OK, "Woe Is Me", maybe you would like to share with us just what amazing Y2K progress has been made these last few months that exceeds our expectations? LIKE, IS ANYBODY "THERE" YET. No: "working hard", "spending money", "ahead of the curve", etc. Its Oct 1998, and no one is there yet. Aren't you just a little worried that maybe the Y2K problem has been woe-fully underestimated, and we are going to pay for it big time???
-- Jack (email@example.com), October 11, 1998.
Individuals working on the Y2K problem have had a difficult time seeing the impact the problem would have on areas they are not currently responsible for. This is because they are TOO close to the situation or they don't allow themselves to get beyond their own perceptions.
Currently I am trying to persuade three very intelligent computer professionals to look BEYOND their own perceptions and think GLOBALLY and in other areas besides their own niche. It aint easy, it's basically impossible.
-- Michael Taylor (firstname.lastname@example.org), October 12, 1998.
There are no pat answers, I guess.
I gained a lot of respect for Mr. de Jager when he said only cowards would remove their money from the banks.
And where riots are concerned: we had them here in this little town in 1968 when Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was assassinated, and they had nothing whatsoever to do with secrets in a back room.....they had to do with Walter Cronkite reporting the assassination at 6:30 PM, and senseless violence at the high school here the next day that made the national news that night.
Riots are caused by inflammatory news events. Public perceptions. And they will be caused by Y2K events if we blow them up larger than they need to be. As will bank runs. If my bank fails due to Y2k bank runs, I will blame folks such as those on this forum who have told people they need to pull all of their money out of the banks. Not Y2K itself.
-- John Howard (Greenville, NC) (email@example.com), October 12, 1998.
His tactics are probably thus: Start off by being extreme, goad companies into action, monitor progress, take credit for such progress (you took my advice), then soften original stance (you can't go on ranting and raving constantly without losing credibility), If y2k turns out to be a non-event he can say events more or less followed my prediction, he will still have some credibility in y2k. If y2k turns out to be a disaster, no-one will care anyway.
-- Richard Dale (firstname.lastname@example.org), October 12, 1998.
Fellow Alarmists, No one has to be fully compliant in 1998. Few organizations have to be fully compliant in 2000. Recent reports show that there has been more progress this year than some of the leading experts were projecting six months ago. People like de Jager and Yardenni have the analytical skills to constantly re-evaluate the situation and the courage to alter their positions as needed. People who reject the evidence supporting accelerated remediation efforts have gotten so caught up in their new-found doom and gloom cult that they resent anyone who challenges their naive views of the unfolding events. No major problems from fiscal '99 rollovers. Gold prices depressed. Programmers still available for Y2k assignments. Embedded systems threat a fraction of last years projections. So many failed doom and gloom predictions already and yet some fatalist cannot see the obvious overstatement of the Y2k problem which continues to cause all sincere alarmist to have credibility problems right along with the extremist. Good post Rocky. Your position seems to have moderated some in the past few months. However, the ad hominum attacks on de Jager were uncalled for. The contribution of all of us anonymous forum posters pales by comparison to that of people like de Jager whose early alerts may have created self-defeating prophecies to the benefit of us all. My own correspondence with de Jager does not lead me to the same conclusions of ulterior motives that you have drawn but rather points to the fact that he remains a man with the courage to call 'em as he sees 'em.
-- Woe Is Me (WIM@doom.gloom), October 12, 1998.
John Howard, I think your statement about the people on this forum being responsible for a bank run is ridiculous! The people who are preparing ahead of time are NOT the ones who are going to cause the problems. If I am taking my money out of the bank at say $100 a week and setting it aside, who am I hurting? The people who will panic next fall and make a run on the banks, are the ones who have done NOTHING to prepare.
-- Gayla Dunbar (email@example.com), October 12, 1998.
Why should I even pay attention to an annonymous poster with a fictional address, who spits condescendent "my dear" and "honeys" as he (has to be a he the way he addressed Madeline, tipical of an insecure man) accuse this forum of a dark agenda of gloom and doom with no facts to back anything up? That's blatent projection, as he himself can't produce any facts that adequate progress is being made. I could speculate on his problem: 1. He's attempting to split this forum into chaos, in order to take credence and respectability away from it. His annonynimity would further suggest that revealing himself could prove the theory that some experts and officials such as deJager want to lull the public back to sleep to "prevent panics". or 2. He's really that insecure, and in deep deep denial (a mental defense mechanism that shields oneself of the terror of being helpless in the face of danger) because he somehow can't do anything about his personal situation and safety. Or any number of reasons, but certainly non-productive. Woe, here's some of MY facts: International Y2K Conference Read through those links as long as I have, then you have hard facts. Whichever way you interpret those facts is up to you. I've got my own interpretation, and that's all that matters to me. Chris (newest clown addition to Woe's circus)
-- Chris (firstname.lastname@example.org), October 12, 1998.
This link didn't make it on my previous post, which is more important than the other IMO, it's the email@example.com), October 12, 1998.
http://www.doncio.navy.mil/y2k/year2000.htm (DoD Management Plan, as of September 15.)
...I'll get the hang of posting on this forum yet.
-- Chris (firstname.lastname@example.org), October 12, 1998.
<< 100% remediation IS necessary to keep a system functioning at a level that can be TRUSTED. >>
Joe, there are very few systems (computer or otherwise) in this world that run at 100% correctness now. What you are asking for is not just remediation but perfection, a state which does not exist in the technical world.
-- Paul Neuhardt (email@example.com), October 13, 1998.
EXTRA! EXTRA! READ ALL ABOUT IT: Y2K DENIAL COMES FULL-CIRCLE!!! .... "Woe Is Me", I just feel so much better now. Virtually everything that I was worried about, you have, in one fell post, put to rest. After getting over my own Y2K denial some months ago, and arguing with people as to whether our technology would be fixed -- i.e., made Y2K compliant -- in time, you have shown me the fallacy of my arguments. It doesn't matter whether things get fixed in time -- because THEY DON'T HAVE TO BE! Of course!! Yes, Y2K is a problem -- but the good news is that it is a problem that will have no effect! Boy, am I relieved... My eternal thanks. --OH, WAIT A MINUTE ... Hey, just thought of something, if things don't actually have to be fixed, then why are people wasting all this time and money trying to fix a non-problem? -- Uh, I mean a problem that is a problem, but won't be a problem. WHATEVER, you know what I mean....
-- Jack (firstname.lastname@example.org), October 13, 1998.