The following leads in to a new article by Peter de Jager on his www.year2000.com website.

On Friday, Dec. 11, 1998, I sat as a Canadian Delegate at the
back of the United Nations Trusteeship Chamber. In front of me, Y2K
coordinators from some 120 member states discussed Y2k regional and
international consequences from the floor. As I cycled through the
translator channels and listened to them discussing the problem in
the voices of the world, I could not help but heave a sigh of relief.
Awareness had finally arrived.

We are certainly not out of the woods yet. There is still much work to be done
in the coming months...

I find this both funny and pathetic at the same time. It is now December 15, 1998. Anyone who thinks that there is any time left, at any level other than a personal -- and, in the case of small communities, local -- to prepare for Y2K, is delusional. Here is the link to the Whole Thing:

An UNreal question

-- Jack (jsprat@eld.net), December 15, 1998

Answers

Agreed. Even personal time may be short.

-- curtis schalek (schale1@ibm.net), December 15, 1998.

Awareness had finally arrived.

Thats 1% of the project so we keep getting told. Now if this was 1994....

If this was 1994 they'd still be saying that the systems would not be around in 2000.

-- Richard Dale (rdale@figroup.co.uk), December 15, 1998.

"Awareness had finally arrived"? In December of 1998 with less than 13 months to go, Peter de Jager is relieved because awareness has arrived? I think the stress of this whole thing has gotten to him and he is having some kind of denial delusion. If the world is only at the awareness stage this late in the game, this is nothing to be relieved about.

-- cody varian (cody@y2ksurvive.com), December 15, 1998.

"I find this both funny and pathetic at the same time. It is now December 15, 1998. Anyone who thinks that there is any time left, at any level other than a personal..."

Maybe that's what he's relieved about?

-- Chris (catsy@pond.com), December 15, 1998.

Unfortunately, Chris, if that is indeed where de Jager is coming from (which I doubt, based on the rest of his dumb article), then that is ultra-delusional -- if everyone, everywhere, today, became completely knowledgeable of Y2K and what its impact will be, and decided to prepare on a personal level, then ... the disaster will have begun. Folks, we are on a sinking ship, and there are not enough lifeboats to go around. That is the sad reality, and if you don't get it, then you Don't Get It.

-- Jack (jsprat@eld.net), December 15, 1998.

There have been many skirmishes, many hand-to-hand altercations. This UN meeting was the final battle. We'd won. We could move on to higher ground ... All remaining time must be spent on fixing what is broken and working around what remains.  -- Peter de Jager

No Peter. The final battle is not won. Convincing the world leaders, at this late date, does NOT mean we have reached higher ground. Look lower. At all the unprepared people. Getting them aware and prepared, is the final battle. It is just beginning.

Diane

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), December 15, 1998.

Perhaps Jack. I didn't read his latest article yet. Diane quoted something that indeed makes me wonder what the heck is going on in his skull.

" -- if everyone, everywhere, today, became completely knowledgeable of Y2K and what its impact will be, and decided to prepare on a personal level, then ... the disaster will have begun."

Well, my stand on this is I'd rather see a panic right now, today, than next year, after the clock has struck. I'm willing to give up a whole year of my personal comfort and safety for this. Because I know in my guts that I have more chance of surviving if the Great Panic happened now while the web is still attached to the electric cord for a year, all around the world, and people are awake. If the cord snaps and the web comes crashing down on sleeping people, my guts tell me that I'll be trampled on by the blinded herd in the stempede.

-- Chris (catsy@pond.com), December 15, 1998.

Chris, you act as if you are completely powerless and dependent on everyone else "getting it" now or "getting it" later. You get it now. You can act now. After everyone else "gets it", you will not be able to act -- anymore than they will be able to.

-- Jack (jsprat@eld.net), December 15, 1998.

I think de Jager's point is that there are many aspects of the Y2K problem that can only be solved through action by world leaders. He is relieved that they are finally taking it seriously. Personal preparation is fine, but it is not enough. I don't think it is delusional to believe that many problems can be lessened through government action.

-- Buddy (DC) (buddy@bellatlantic.net), December 15, 1998.

Sorry if my tone is cynical but I come from an advertising and marketing perspective.

Peter de Jager is a businessman. He went full tilt way back when as he wrote "Doomsday". It was a great "positioning" and it's made him a lot of money and brought a lot of business.

Just as Madonna went through many incarnations and images to keep her message "fresh" so to is Peter de Jager.

This coming year marks a major problem for those who implement y2k fixes or speak about y2k. It's "cut your losses" time where decisions must be made as to if the business can be remediated, if bankraupcy is the only answer, if contingencies can be worked through, etc.

If those like Peter de Jager continue to go on about "doomsday" then business falls dramatically but also very quickly as those who would utilize his services find it is no longer a valid option. So, change the message.

"We're making great progress! We must keep up the work! If we do we will win! Don't panic!"

A 360 degree change in the message but marketing the same products and services. It's a great strategy.

After all, if he were to continue with a "doomsday" message then businesses would cut their losses now instead of months from now. This strategy buys him additional time before his clients or perspective clients "bug out". He may well be helping them with their work arounds and contingencies as well.

I believe that Mr. de Jager is a sincere man but he's seen the writing on the wall just like all we "GIs". Prior to this piece he wrote an open letter to the President.

Also, Mr. de Jager is a Canadian. Canada has 8 national banks and a much smaller population. He views this reality through a different perspective. Yet, Canada is openly preparing for military deployment, blackouts, food shortages, bank runs, etc.

What is our government doing? We don't know. It's a secret.

The bottom line is that people are preparing regardless of what our government currently says. That is their marketing strategy. There are NO big failures, NO disruptions, No problems that can be attributed to y2k at this time. Our government is reactionary and they wont act until they can fix on failure. It's their strategy right now, but they'll pull a Madonna sometime this year when their old message becomes obsolete. When that happens they'll turn 360 degrees and yell, "get everyone in the lifeboats!"

Mike ==========================================

-- Michael Taylor (mtdesign3@aol.com), December 15, 1998.

Jack, not at all. I'm preparing right now. I've made great progress. We have a "y2K" retreat in the mountains, both residences are being Y2K prepared at the same time because we can, and because it's safer that way. I don't depend on anyone to "get it now" to act now myself. In fact, I've achieved all this without my husband "getting it".

What I meant was that it would be much more bloody and dangerous for our safety if the masses woke-up and panicked in 2000, then if they did now.

-- Chris (catsy@pond.com), December 15, 1998.

Good points Mike. Although I differ with this:

"Also, Mr. de Jager is a Canadian. Canada has 8 national banks and a much smaller population. He views this reality through a different perspective."

I don't believe that his difference in perspective comes from the fact that he's Canadian and was born in a country with smaller population/economy. He's a worldly man, he's been around. He sees the global web the same as you and me. I'm sure he sees the implications for the U.S. banking as much different than that for Canada. If he didn't see it, how could he have seen the big picture and "get it" to wake us all to begin with?

-- Chris (catsy@pond.com), December 15, 1998.

Chris, sounds like if Y2K happened 1/1/1999, you would be prepared. For many of us, this is not the case, and our estimated timelines go into the first few months of next year. Hence, the preference for a late versus early panic. (I'm banking [pun] on John Q. Public going into Y2K mega-drive in April when all the rollovers to fiscal year 2000 occur.)

-- Jack (jsprat@eld.net), December 15, 1998.

sorry Chris, I should have been clearer.

What I meant to say was that since Mr. de Jager is representing Canada then he can report that Canada is ahead of the world curve and do so truthfully.

The fact that the state of world awareness now gives him some relief is humorous. I'm glad something has!

I can just see all the delegates sitting there looking at Mr. de Jager saying, "uh, ok, we got it now...so where do we go from here?"

Mike ==================================================================

-- Michael Taylor (mtdesign3@aol.com), December 15, 1998.

Jack,

I know you're fond of saying "Y2K cannot be fixed"--which may very well be true. But I think you're being unfair to de Jager. It's clear from the link that after years of denial when de Jager was trying to raise public awareness, he had some relief that Y2K is being discussed now as a global problem.

Can we stop Y2K from being a very bad situation? No. Contingency plans will help a little, though, and save some lives.

De Jager probably feels vindicated now. He's seeing the results of what he's been trying to accomplish since 1993. I don't his article as implying Y2K will pretty much be solved by January 1, 2000.

-- Kevin (mixesmusic@worldnet.att.net), December 15, 1998.

To Cody Varian....

You had the audacity to write --Peter de Jager is relieved because awareness has arrived? I think the stress of this whole thing has gotten to him and he is having some kind of denial delusion--

Cut out the crap Cody. de Jager has done more for Y2K awareness than 10 million little Cody's ever could. What's with this obsession to trash everyone and anyone who doesn't buy this "Road Warrior" fantasy that so many of you seem to be on. I'm sick of this overuse and unintelligent use of the word 'denial'. You've gone one step further and created an even stupider broadstroke called 'denial delusion'.

This forum has gone from a place of responsible balanced people sharing ideas about sensible preparation plans, to a place where trashing others is commonplace, depression is normal and Mel Gibson riding through a desert wearing body armor is the expected and almost desired scenario.

Sure, buying a wood stove, stocking some food and supplies and preparing for the inevitable disruptions to life makes perfect sense. However, it's becoming a place where schizo conspiracy theorists are king, technology is evil, a 'God is gonna get us' fundie mindset pervades and we're all gonna die seems to be slogan of choice.

What a waste of time!! If the one in a million GN scenario happens, do you think the masses will for one moment allow GN to relax in his rural retreat, merrily polishing his scores of solar panels while his wife makes rice and bean cakes to her hearts content?

No, we can't fix everything. But we sure as hell can and will do a lot better job of coping than you paranoid extremists give us credit for.

As for de Jager, he is one of the most respected authorities on Y2K there is. Give the guy a break. He's got ten times the brains of an Infomagic.

-- Craig (craig@ccinet.ab.ca), December 15, 1998.

Mike - all great points you made.

It's particularly pathetic that only 120 delegates turned up at the conference, what happened to all the other countries (60-80???). And don't say they are not computerised, they don't need to attend, I don't buy that at all.

The US is the most ahead of the game worldwide - that's the good news AND the bad news. The US is 700,000 programmers short at this point in time and what do we read every day??? Budgets skyrocketing, assessments finding more areas needing remediation, the problem becoming magnitudinally *more* complicated not less.

You all know the facts.

De Jager IMHO has either lost it completely, has been "gotten to", or is letting his greed take over his conscience as Michael postulated above.

I was talking about VISA and the Banking system yesterday. Now De Jager knows full well that compliance in Banking must be 100%, 99% will not cut it.

Bryan posted this on the Banking issue a little while ago - something De Jager seems conveniently to have forgotten about.......

"Wrong calculations beget wrong calculations ad nauseum. Within 24 hours of the turnover, the Global Finacial System will either A) be completely corrupt B) be completely shut down so as to avoid A. The result is the same in either case; even if we don't go Milne, you are going to see a mess bigger than you can imagine. Alan Greenspan was entirely correct when he stated that 99% is not good enough. We will be nowhere close--not even in the ballpark. The engines have shutdown; the plane is falling--we simply haven't hit the ground yet. Scoff if you must; as a professional working with professionals, I know the score. It's going down. This is why at least 61% of IT professionals are pulling their money out before it hits--of course, in 10 or 11 months, that number will rise to 100%; but then, it will be to late. We know for a fact that that 50% of all businesses in this, the best prepared of countries, will not perform real-time testing. As a Programmer/Test Engineer, I can therefore assure you that at least 50% of all businesses in this, the best prepared of countries, are going to experience mission-critical failures, Gartners new optimistic spin not withstanding. Remediation sans testing is not remediation. The code will still be broken, just in new and unknown ways.

Got wheat?" Well, at $1,000,000 a year salary, I'm sure De Jager has plenty of wheat, much of it stockpiled around his stomach it seems! The next time you see the "Incredible Bulk" pontificating on that ever so scrumptious lecture circuit, take a look at that stomach and remember, where there is wheat there is *chaff*... and Peter is spewing out a lot of y2k chaff at this point in time.......

Got *CHAFF* Peter???

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), December 15, 1998.

I like to give credit where credit is due. Peter de Jager deserves a lot of credit in bringing out awareness of Y2K. Indeed, I imagine that for him to be present at the United Nations while representatives of so many world governments discussed Y2K must have indeed been a rewarding personal experience, if not outright vindication for all the skepticism that he had to put up with all these years.

But: bad computer code does not care. It is still broken, it still needs fixing, and there is still not enough time to fix it. Whether the result will be "doomsday" (as Peter de Jager's 1993 article in Computerworld was titled) or not is, as always, open to speculation (which we do a lot of around here). I sure would not dismiss this as a one-in-a-million chance -- if anything, we have had so much verification lately of how interwoven complex systems can fail (San Francisco cascading power blackout; Galaxy satellite failure causing gas pumps, pagers, etc., to stop working), I would think that it would be a one-in-a-thousand chance if Y2K does not result in a complete collapse of our life- sustaining systems.

The bottom line is that de Jager has, suddenly, gotten very "comfy" (and fat) with his whole Y2K Awareness gig, seemingly seeing his role (like that of Koskinen) as simply the horn trumpeter, nothing more. Which is fine, quite frankly, as long as everyone recognizes this.

-- Jack (jsprat@eld.net), December 15, 1998.

Jack: 1 in 1000 that Y2K won't result in total collapse.

Craig: 1 in 1000000 that it will result in total collapse.

1:1000 = .001 --> 99.999% chance of total collapse

1:1000000 = .000001 --> 0.0001% chance of total collapse

Wow, that really points out the difference in views.

-- Buddy (DC) (buddy@bellatlantic.net), December 15, 1998.

I quote Mr. de Jager from his book "Managing 00: Surviving the Year 2000 Computing Crisis":

An enterprise starting in 1997 is likely to get through only about 80% of its applications; if it waits until 1999, only 30%. And even conceding that only 30% of the applications may be critical to the business of the enterprise, that 30% is probably attached by data to another 40% of the other applications that wont make the transition in time. At best, the organization will be crippled; at worst, it will no longer exist.

For Mr. de Jager to boast of how wonderful it is that the "awareness battle" has been "won", and still KNOW that anyone starting a Y2K project at this late date is at best "crippled" is the ultimate in hypocrisy. He and Koskinen appear to be performing the same goofy high-wire act: scare, but don't panic.

The battle has been lost. De Jager just doesn't have the balls to say so.

-- Steve Hartsman (hartsman@ticon.net), December 16, 1998.

Good grief, Steve ...

Awareness is a first step. de Jager wasn't declaring that the war is over. He was declaring that now some 120 member states know that there is a battle going on.

-- No Spam Please (anon@ymous.com), December 16, 1998.

Steve, (continued)

I see that my preceding use of battle/war does not parallel De Jager's, so let me restate.

de Jager>Awareness had finally arrived.

Awareness is the first step in the Y2K conflict. You can't reach the second step without it.

de Jager>We are certainly not out of the woods yet. There is still much work to be done ... but at least attention is being paid to the problem.

He's not saying it's all over. He's just relieved about reaching a certain milestone.

de Jager>reporters who still ask 'Is it Real?' This meeting ... would put an end to that question once and for all.

de Jager>Ultimately what is important is this: On Friday, Dec. 11, 1998 ... More than 120 countries attended to discuss the reality of Y2K.

He's relieved that they're discussing the reality, not doubting it.

-- No Spam Please (anon@ymous.com), December 16, 1998.

"The bottom line is that de Jager has, suddenly, gotten very "comfy" (and fat) with his whole Y2K Awareness gig"

Did I suddenly walk into first grade again? We are using someone's weight as an avenue of attack? While I am no string bean, I am not "fat" either, so don't think this is coming from someone protecting one of their "own". I have seen De Jager's weight mentioned elsewhere in attacks against him. Those of you who attack his weight have no idea just how much you are discrediting yourselves.

"Well...he's wrong...AND HE'S FAT!"

Dear lord, someone wake me when we reach an adult conversation would you?

Rick

-- Rick Tansun (ricktansun@hotmail.com), December 16, 1998.

Rick, my fat jibes were uncalled for I admit, it was a lame play on "Got Wheat?", wheat and chaff, chaff being spoken, living large on the lecture circuit, and another thread recently about a recipe for low fat bread post y2k. I apologise.

On to aonother point - Mr. De Jager has come up with some prediction specifics in Scientific Amrican - an interesting article, and up to date.

To quote Peter,

"I believe that severe disruptions will occur and that they will last perhaps about a month."

http://www.sciam.com/1999/0199issue/0199dejager.html

To give the guy a break, he does qualify, *** BIG TIME ***, the above quote.

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), December 16, 1998.

I too must admit that my comment (even though parenthetical) about de Jager's weight was a low blow. At the same time, I must ask everyone who believes that Y2K will be much more than a bump in the road: Are you in shape? Is this part of your Y2K preparation goals? If Y2K is as bad as some of us believe, to not be in shape yet suddenly be confronted with both a lot of stress as well as possible physical hardships could be literally putting your life in jeapordy. (And even if you think its just going to be a bump in the road, or biz as usual, it still pays to get in shape, Y2K or no.)

-- Jack (jsprat@eld.net), December 16, 1998.

Rick,

Excellent post. One of the most typical methods of disagreeing with someone is to attack them personally. You don't like what he says so you say he's fat. This group also loves to correct each other's spelling errors, grammar, etc.

Sure am glad I stumbled across this site. It's fun and you people are cute!

Higher IQ

-- Higher IQ (problemchild@usa.net), December 16, 1998.

Got a message back from Peter re:...

> >There have been many skirmishes, many hand-to-hand altercations. This > >UN meeting was the final battle. We'd won. We could move on to higher > >ground ... All remaining time must be spent on fixing what is broken and > >working around what remains.  -- Peter de Jager > > > >No Peter. The final battle is not won. Convincing the world leaders, > >at this late date, does NOT mean we have reached higher ground. Look > >lower. At all the unprepared people. Getting them aware and prepared, > >is the final battle. It is just beginning. > > Diane

I was referring to the media... not anyone else.

Peter > +-----------------------------------+ > / de Jager & Company Limited \ > / Peter de Jager - Speaker on Change & Year 2000 > / pdejager@year2000.com http://www.year2000.com > / Tel: (905) 792-8706 Fax: (905) 792-9818 > / also... www.newzletter.com \ >+------ To embrace the Future .... Let go of the Past ----+

(Sorry messed up his graphic!)

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), December 16, 1998.