Milne on AT&T's announcement that it may go "Chevron"greenspun.com : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread
Issue date: 7 January 1999 Article source: Computer Weekly News US corporates bow to inevitable Y2K failures David Bicknell
Most blue-chip US companies are resigned to some form of Y2K-related failures this year.
Some, such as telecoms firm AT&T and oil group Chevron, have even warned that services to the public may be disrupted.
This attitude - which emerged in two US surveys over the New Year holiday - contrasts with bullish statements made earlier in 1998 and suggests that companies are making these frank statements to cover themselves against possible shareholder litigation.
According to a survey by Cap Gemini America of 110 of the US's blue-chip corporations, 55% have already experienced a year 2000 computer error, which caused processing disruptions or financial miscalculations.
Although they remain optimistic about being ready for the date change - 74% expected that more than half their systems would be tested and compliant by now - 92% admit to having missed deadlines in their Y2K plans.
Business relationships, too, are being affected: 69% of companies have said they are likely to stop doing business with non-compliant suppliers.
Another survey by research group Triaxsys suggested that companies had vastly underestimated their likely budgets for millennium work, and were now doubling or tripling their outlay to ensure vital systems will be compliant.
AT&T has acknowledged there is a potential for failure and has ramped up its spending. But two other US giants, McDonald's and Du Pont, have expressed hopes that they will survive largely unscathed.
Who did not know this a year ago? Oh, yeah. The Pollyannas led by the deliciously ignorant Pee Wee Sherman.
I love the part about their continued expectations. LOL Oh yeah and how McDonalds will still be around. Big mac's for Everyone!! LOL
Now, they are resigned to 'some form ' of failures. resigned. i thought these guys were serious IT professionals? You mean that they were this flaming STUPID to only realize now that they were in big trouble?
Perhaps Pee Wee can help you out. Manually. Like with a mop at Mcdonalds.
http://www.computerweekly.co.uk/cwarchive/news/19990107/cwcontainer.asp?name=C10 .html -- Paul Milne If you live within five miles of a 7-11, you're toast.
-- a (firstname.lastname@example.org), January 07, 1999
I visit this forum just to read the responses and almost never put in my own comments or questions. I am curious though...what is ROTFLMAO?
-- klh (email@example.com), January 07, 1999.
Here's a short list of acronyms: http://ww w.computechnv.com/support/mail/acronyms.html. After ROTFL, MAO means "... my [your choice of body-part slang name that begins with the letter 'a'] off".
-- No Spam Please (firstname.lastname@example.org), January 07, 1999.
rolling on the floor laughing .....fill in the rest
-- Moore Dinty moore (email@example.com), January 07, 1999.
I can't help but notice that Milne's 'contribution' to this article consists entirely of name-calling and non-sequiturs. Perhaps 'a' considers this behavior to be a public service?
Hey 'a', if 55% of 110 blue chip corporations have had FAILURES already, where's your precious domino effect? Why didn't their stock prices tank? How have we managed to get through all those 2-year lookaheads, all those FY99 problems, the Jo Anne effect, the Euro, the widely predicted market crash
, and the Leonids, without more than tiny ripples you need to look real hard to see?
Is calling other people names the best you can do?
-- Flint (firstname.lastname@example.org), January 07, 1999.
Flint: The Y2K failures that have occurred to date for most companies are in the budgeting/forecasting areas -- i.e., software that looks ahead to the year 2000. This is not something that affects anyone except the company's management and internal computer types.
a: I like your style! Keep the good info coming! (May get through to a few hardnose DGIs yet!)
-- Jack (email@example.com), January 07, 1999.
flint: for the record, the insults were Milne's. I am trying my best not to start calling anyone on this forum a moron, but I'm not sure how much longer I can hold out. :)
-- a (firstname.lastname@example.org), January 08, 1999.
Jack: Yes, most of these lookaheads are backoffice problems, and all effort is being made to sweep them under the rug, apparently with some success.
But: The prediction was made that these would become so numerous as to swamp those efforts, causing noticeable (to you and me) processing problems. For example, insurance companies were supposed to have problems creating policies with 1-year durations (their bread and butter), and we haven't heard about them. Many public and private organizations were supposed to have problems determining if a transaction belonged in FY00 during their FY99 processing, and we haven't heard about them. And so on. There are an awful lot of 1, 1 1/2, and 2 year lookaheads out there. I personally expected a *lot* more problems to show up than we've seen so far, and I'm not considered the gloomiest around here, I don't think. Does this mean that the concentration of genuine difficulties hasn't really started yet, or is it possible that in practice we're better able to deal with those problems as they arise than some of us expected? I wish I knew.
a: Sorry, you're right. Milne wrote the insults, but you posted them here. I'm reminded of the child who said 'I'm not pulling the cat's tail, I'm just holding it. The *cat* is doing all the pulling.' And *you're* not insulting anyone, you're just posting others' insults. Right. With suitably careful selection of material, you could insult almost everyone individually, without actually having created a single word of it. Has it occurred to you that reasoning like this might have led you to the conclusions you are now so devoutly married to?
To both of you: There seems to be a new species of DGI here -- those who will not or cannot accept that y2k might *not* lead to TEOTWAWKI, even though it undoubtedly has that potential. Some of you can't seem to understand that just because something is possible, or even likely, doesn't mean it's guaranteed. You need to make an effort to understand what each little bit of information really means, as opposed to what you so desperately *want* it to mean. It seems likely that we haven't seen many problems yet, not because there aren't any problems, but because noncompliance doesn't automatically mean guaranteed catastrophic failure.
-- Flint (email@example.com), January 08, 1999.
So Flint, that would make me a 1-2 on the Polyanna scale? ;-)
-- Chris (firstname.lastname@example.org), January 08, 1999.