Does anyone have any comments on the article Peter de Jager, Y2K, And the real threat to liberty shown in today's news?

I don't know what to think. He is saying that there is no technical threat anymore.

As a newbie I would like to hear any takes on this.

-- newbie (newbie@large.com), January 28, 1999

Answers

See pshannon's "EXTRA EXTRA" post five messages below.

-- Puddintame (dit@dot.com), January 28, 1999.

There is no threat, never was.

Go and get yourself a beer and laugh at the silliness you've read on this message board.

Y2k is a bogus scam and it's going to be over before it began.

The only danger is in your head

-- (argh@ackk.com), January 28, 1999.

newbie, I don't know why this NG is so strange today, hope you don't give up on it. This place has been the best source of information on the net that I have found so far. It seems that as time runs out, some of the "experts" are being bought out- or told to change their tune. Since no one can actually tell you what will happen, you must decide for yourself. Read and post FACTS that you find, and make the best educated guess that you can. Remember only you will be responsible for you, don't trust your future to anyone elses ideas.

-- sam (we're@theend.com), January 28, 1999.

This is from Peter's Article: Moving to Zero - September 1998 I will state again for the record that:

1. We are addressing this problem too late - due to the skepticism displayed by the media management and government.

2. We will not fix every system on time - we never have in the past, there's no reason we will this time.

3. We will not even fix all the mission critical systems in time - on time delivery has no relationship to the importance of a project.

4. We will see business failures directly related to Y2K failures - If business doesn't depend upon computers, why are companies using computers?

5. Government systems will fail at a higher rate than any other industry sector. - no comment is necessary... is it?

6. Small companies are in a better situation than large - They rely more on packaged software than customized software.

7. This is a defining moment for our reliance on technology - Projects will never again be implemented without remembering Y2K.

8. We will see, at the very least, a recession, - not just because of Y2K, but because it is happening at very, shall we say, uncertain times.

9. It will be ugly and was/is totally unnecessary. - That's the sad and frustrating part to me, we consciously chose to be where we are.

That's the bad news... here are some additional statements:

1. Planes will not fall out of the sky (no matter how many times the media repeats this nonsense).

2. The global telecommunications systems will not fail.

3. The oil industry will not grind to a halt.

4. The financial industry will be the most stable of all industries.

5. ATM's, Debit cards, credit cards and cheques will not fail.

6. The power grid will not collapse.

-- Reporter (foo@foo.bar), January 28, 1999.

<>

geeez guy ... are you for REAL????

i work in the public safety industry (police dept, fire dept, 911/ems depts) .. and these people are SCRAMBLING to replace their non-y2k-compliant mission-critical systems before the end of the year.

sorry to burst your bubble .. but there's not much silliness here.

lou

-- lou navarro (lanny1@ix.netcom.com), January 28, 1999.

Thank you for your replies.

My neighbor told me about Y2K and said I should look at sites on the net. She has been preparing since last November. When she told me about it I couldn't believe that there were actually people in my neighborhood taking this seriously. My husband isn't taking it very seriously. He doesn't seem to want to talk about it. I am very scared. I have shown him a few things and he just ignores me. When I saw that Peter de Jager thing I thought Great maybe there isn't anything to worry about. It is just so confusing. Another neighbor of mine doesn't think it's bad either. She said that no-one's said anything to her where she works and can't see how everything's going to crash next year.

I guess I shall have to figure it out somehow.

-- Newbie (newbie@large.com), January 28, 1999.

I think that he is afraid of panic. He also implys in the article at

www.civilliberty.miningco.com/library/weekly/aa012999.htm

that he is gunning for Gary North & co.

-- Sue (conibear@gateway.net), January 28, 1999.

The only way DeJager can claim, with any credibility, that there is no longer a "technical" risk with Y2K, is to come forward and admit that his understanding of the problem is, and always was severely limited.

Personally, I think North is a nut. But how about Peter's own predictions-

"This problem has to be fixed by the next time we see X-MAS lights." We've seen them. All the research shows that Europe is much further behind the US in their Y2K projects. What happened to all the problems DeJager predicted that would occur on 1/1/99.

DeJager needs to admit one of two possibilities-

1. "The days of awareness are over and I need a new platform- The Profit of Calm."

2. "I have taken a closer look at the problem and have come to realize that, for the last several years, I did not know what the heck I was talking about."

What is not a possibility-

"In the last couple of months, everyone heard my warnings and fixed the problem. Thanks to me, the world is now OK!"

I, personally, do not need DeJager to interpret existing data for me.

-- j nitsuj (j_nitsuj@hotmail.com), January 28, 1999.

Peter de Jager is giving Gary North too much credit. He apparently thinks Gary North has the power to start a panic. I don't believe that. The public won't panic until their local news tells them that area utilities have repeatedly missed deadlines.

Here's a video of a speech de Jager gave way back on June 2, 1998:

http://www.bog.frb.fed.us/y2k/CSPAN/19980602/deJager.ram

-- Kevin (mixesmusic@worldnet.att.net), January 28, 1999.

Not only does North not have enough power to insight panic, DeJager has even less to stop panic.

-- j nitsuj (j_nitsuj@hotmail.com), January 28, 1999.

This is what Peter the Pompous said in his over-priced, low-quality video (taped at a seminar in 1996): You cannot use 1999 to be changing your code. 1999 has to be used for testing, the likes of which youve never seen before. Because youve made hundreds of thousands of changes to your business process. You need all of 1999 to test. Funny, everything I've been reading lately indicates that virually ALL organization have not finished changing their code. They are not using all of '99 for testing. (They'll be freakin' lucky if they use the last quarter of '99 for testing.) So what's the deal, Pete? Are you wrong now, or were you wrong then?

-- xyz (x@y.z), January 28, 1999.

Always funny how black-and-white thinking always leads to something like 'he was either lying then or he's lying now'.

Is it possible that the problems weren't quite as bad as he originally feared (little data were available then), and that the consequences that now appear most likely to him have been held in check by remediation efforts?

Is it important to distinguish between nightmarish headaches for those organizations fighting the bugs (now and later), and livable inconveniences for Joe Sixpack? If the assembly lines go down where I work, my company is in real trouble, possibly fatal. YOU won't even notice. Frame of reference is important, yes?

de Jager may not have his finger on the pulse (while of course we do), but that doesn't mean he's lying or paid off or even repositioning himself to maintain his income (itself a strange suspicion -- if things are *that* bad, he'd be wasting his effort).

Compare Belasco today (we'll have power because the *equipment* works well enough, despite back-office problems, as shown by testing), and Gary North (Belasco is stupid because incomplete=failure, guaranteed). We *know* North has been making a living incorrectly predicting meltdown for decades. Who do you believe?

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), January 28, 1999.

I sure as hell don't believe Flint.

-- xyz (x@y.z), January 28, 1999.

Flint,

I believe my own research on the .gov and .mil and UN web-sites thanks. Plus the "word" on the Silicon Valley street, and about four solid months of study.

We've got global problems coming up, and it's not all Y2K. Be prepared.

Diane

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), January 28, 1999.

"Is it possible that the problems weren't quite as bad as he originally feared (little data were available then), and that the consequences that now appear most likely to him have been held in check by remediation efforts?"

Come ON Flint - get a grip man - de Jager has been backpeddling like crazy for a while now - there is ABSOLUTELY NO QUESTION - that, world-wide, we have very simply run out of time. There are less than 180 working days left - did you know this? We have re-hashed this over and over. de Jager knows this - it's patently obvious he has been leaned on or bought off. How do you account for his u-turn? the facts as Paul Milne reminds us are overwhelmingly bad - how can you possibly dispute this? How can de Jager?

The 19 largest Banks in Japan are spending the same as Citygroup below - how do you explain this - these Banks are Godzillas too - it is inevitable that they will tank.

Technically this is an absolutely OVERWHELMING PROJECT - the whole world is linked by computers - it IS one big mechanism at the macro level. Who is in charge of this project? No one. Who is integrating remediations standards? No one. Who has insisted that each entity even so much as begin remediation? No one. Whos is insisting on real- world testing? No one. What of all those entities that won't make it? What of those that will not complete testing and the new bugs that will be introduced.

And de Jager says "the year 2000 problem no longer exists, not in the technical sense"... give us all a freakin' break, does he think we are morons? This guy should be on medication, he has lost it completely.

I know Flint that you do your research and read and post on several fora as do I - so what is so difficult to comprehend?

de Jager, if you've been following his speeches, has done a complete u-turn. It's an insult to the likes of say for example, Citygroup, which is spending 950 million, and still has not come anywhere near finishing, that there is no technical threat anymore. That is complete and utter bullshit, pardon my French! What about Chevron? What about GM? What about those refineries in Venezuela which will be SHUT DOWN prior to rollover? What about West Germany - which relies for 40% of it's power from Russia? Would you like to depend on Russia for power? What about France - way way behind the curve - I worked there, I have friends working over there, they don't have a freakin clue... Seen many European y2k sites? The communist countries are going to fix-on-failure...

There was a thread recently where all this was hashed out about de Jager being leaned on - I can't be bothered to find it - Joe Bob says check it out.

Andy

Two digits. One mechanism. The smallest mistake.

"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)

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), January 28, 1999.

"We've gotten classified reports [on the Federal government and Y2K] that are so disturbing they had to be classified." - Fred Thompson (R-Tenn.)

hmmm...I wonder if this has anything to do with Peter changing his tune?

-- a (a@a.a), January 28, 1999.

I dunno, all I know is I feel that it is probable that the sun will rise and set as usual, however, I will still prepare as best I can. that means extra food, light, and heat. guns and ammo. basics. who the hell knows? I hope it will all pass,, but, I dunno.

-- ed (edrider007@aol.com), January 28, 1999.

Perhaps Gore got tired of Peter's comments and said- "If you want to continue working in the US, find someone else to blame for Y2K."

-- for real (for@real.com), January 28, 1999.

[Here we go again.]

de Jager has been backpeddling like crazy for a while now

[Several reasons for this are possible. I assume de Jager knows more than I do. His viewpoint may be colored by knowledge, or stupidity, or avarice, or fear. Until I have a long talk with him, how can I know the mix of motivations? How can you?]

- there is ABSOLUTELY NO QUESTION - that, world-wide, we have very simply run out of time.

[There is NO QUESTION that you have taken this position. I don't doubt you sincerely believe it. Indeed, I don't doubt that no matter *what* happens, you'll scrape together 'evidence' that it was really awful, honest, you outsiders might not have noticed it, but it was, really, honest! If in, say, 18 months, I can still find a job somewhere and a bank to put my pay in, but unemployment is 40% nationally, who's right, you or de Jager?]

There are less than 180 working days left - did you know this?

[I can count. I notice that you don't account for long work weeks, death march hours, ramp-ups where required. I guess adaptations to the situation don't fit your workweek model very well?]

We have re-hashed this over and over.

[and we'll continue to do so until we see the results. And even then, we'll interpret them differently.]

de Jager knows this - it's patently obvious he has been leaned on or bought off.

[This always bugs me -- it's a Milne stunt. When you don't know (and you damn well don't), you paper it over with 'patently obvious'. Right, Andy. Anyone who disagrees is stupid and blind. I'll bet you $100 you're wrong. Now, how are you going to prove you're right and win this bet? I'll accept a notarized letter from de Jager that he's been bought. Anything short of that, you're fabricating out your ass.]

How do you account for his u-turn?

[I tried to explain some possibilities. You rejected them. I reiterate: de Jager is calling it as he sees it. He may be way wrong, and the hundreds of billions of dollars spent fixing the problem have accomplished nothing significant at all. The geeks all fell stupid all of a sudden. Right.]

the facts (sic) as Paul Milne reminds us are overwhelmingly bad

[HAW HAW! I agree entirely! I could scream 1000 times a day on multiple forums that the moon is made of green cheese -- this is a FACT, dammit. Using Milne as support for 'bad' is like using the KKK as support for justice. What a joke.]

- how can you possibly dispute this? How can de Jager?

[I dispute it all the time. Milne says billions will die. OK, let's watch the delta in the death rate for a couple of years. Milne says the cities will burn to the ground. Let's watch. Milne says banking won't exist, blackouts will be everywhere long-term. Wanna bet?]

The 19 largest Banks in Japan are spending the same as Citygroup below - how do you explain this - these Banks are Godzillas too - it is inevitable that they will tank.

[For all I know, you may be right. What software are they using? When did they start? How much do Japanese programmers cost? What specific y2k problems are they facing? Haven't they *already* tanked?]

Technically this is an absolutely OVERWHELMING PROJECT - the whole world is linked by computers - it IS one big mechanism at the macro level.

[This is true of any sophisticated national economy. Econometrically, they're impossible in theory. Our best supercomputer models make lousy predictions. According to our models, big monkey wrenches should kill the machine. They don't. People adapt, they invent things, they reorganize, they patch and kludge and do without, they react and respond. This happens at every level from individual to government. By your argument, if the road I want to use is closed, I'll wait a few years for it to open and it'll never occur to me to try another. I'm expecting things to be far from smooth, but also far from impossible.]

Who is in charge of this project? No one.

[Who was in charge of getting us so computerized in the first place? No one. Yet it happened and it continues to happen. Planned economies have an abysmal track record. A project of this magnitude (and it's huge) is much the same. The invisible hand exists. You can't see it, so you deny it's there. But look around you.]

Who is integrating remediations standards? No one.

[Who did it the first time around? No one. Must have been impossible.]

Who has insisted that each entity even so much as begin remediation? No one.

[Who needs to tell you when you're hungry? How would you ever know if nobody told you, you'd starve? How has remediation begun, with nobody in charge? Could it be possible that those with a problem have realized it and done something? Do you think it's happened by magic? I think most started too late and underestimated the size of the task, yes. I think as a result, problems will be worse than they needed to be. This is different from better than they could have been - they could've been much worse. Progress *has* been made. Really.]

Whos is insisting on real- world testing? No one.

[Real-world testing is guaranteed to happen, just wait. Some damn near real testing will happen, just watch. Some of it is happening already. This will really accelerate through 1999.]

What of all those entities that won't make it?

[If by 'won't make it' you mean go out of business, this is a tough question I can't answer. Many will go broke, estimates vary. Many will struggle. Business will definitely shift to the better-prepared. Startups will strike it rich doing it right. There will be a huge number of startups. In normal times, 90% of them go broke within 2 years. Some will thrive.]

What of those that will not complete testing and the new bugs that will be introduced.

[Some will die, some will be very sick for a while, some will be replaced. You know I anticipate this process will take years. In the meantime, be prepared.]

And de Jager says "the year 2000 problem no longer exists, not in the technical sense"... give us all a freakin' break, does he think we are morons?

[de Jager has already dealt with those doomists who are willfully blind. Let's assume you aren't. What could he mean? That the effects of panic might be worse than the bugs themselves? Many hold this position; it's not unreasonable. Does de Jager mean that we've exterminated most of the real killers, and what remains can be dealt with more-or-less tolerably? Could all of those billions we've thrown at the problem have accomplished this? Time will tell, but holding that position isn't unreasonable either. You may not agree (and I may not either), but that doesn't mean he's mendacious.]

This guy should be on medication, he has lost it completely.

[This characterization is beneath you. I don't share your viewpoint, but I don't think you're either stupid or insane. I encourage you to prepare for more than you anticipate.]

I know Flint that you do your research and read and post on several fora as do I - so what is so difficult to comprehend?

[In a nutshell, I can't comprehend such irrational polarization of mind, especially about an extremely uncertain future. Many of us have put a lot of effort into studying this, given it our best assessment, follow it daily. The closest I can come is that no matter what happens, I'll be surprised. The future is like that.]

de Jager, if you've been following his speeches, has done a complete u-turn.

[Yes, I'm aware of that. He has considerably more faith in the efficacy of remediation than I do. I can hope that he's more informed, and that his expectations are more accurate. So far, I don't see it and I wish he'd give me some juicy details. As an engineer, I can't debug speculations or statistics or estimates.]

It's an insult to the likes of say for example, Citygroup, which is spending 950 million, and still has not come anywhere near finishing, that there is no technical threat anymore.

[OK, tell me more, I think I can understand it. What have they done, what do they have left, where do they really stand? When you say 'anywhere near finishing', are you talking about critical systems or all systems? Can Citygroup function at all with what they've done? Will they need to cut out some services? Which ones? Surely with all that spending they've got *something* working. Tell me what works and what doesn't and what won't. This helps my banking plans a lot.]

That is complete and utter bullshit, pardon my French!

[OK, what technical threat is Citigroup facing today? What will they be facing in a year? I'm NOT saying they'll have no technical threat. I just can't swallow unsupported assertions, however colorfully phrased.]

What about Chevron?

[I'm still looking for more details about Chevron. I know they've said they can't finish in time. I've looked for any description of where they'll fall short or what it will mean. Should I panic now?]

What about GM?

[Most of the same questions apply. I understand they had big big problems. I understand they've since thrown a lot of resources at those problems. I've heard nothing whatever about results. Do you have any? Are you panicking over obsolete new reports of undefined problems? Why? What's the latest you've heard since Szygenda's (sp?) original experience?]

What about those refineries in Venezuela which will be SHUT DOWN prior to rollover?

[As I understand it, this is often an effective one-time kludge (and I know of many systems where it works fine). If you're concerned about a short series of bad readings, skip that series and you're good for another 100 years. Is this Venezuela's stragegy? When do those refineries plan to reopen? I haven't heard.]

What about West Germany - which relies for 40% of it's power from Russia? Would you like to depend on Russia for power?

[No, I would not. But I've heard nothing about the status of Russian power plants, beyond the fact that they're mostly so old that they have no digital logic at all. Have you heard different, or are you just borrowing worries?]

What about France - way way behind the curve - I worked there, I have friends working over there, they don't have a freakin clue... Seen many European y2k sites? The communist countries are going to fix-on- failure...

[And how many failures do you expect, on what basis? I simply don't know what to make of statements like 'France hasn't a clue'. Who is France? Are all CEO's in France stupid? Do French organizations select for nothing but dumb geeks? I haven't been there, but I've worked with many here and they're all pretty sharp. Of course France will have problems.]

There was a thread recently where all this was hashed out about de Jager being leaned on - I can't be bothered to find it - Joe Bob says check it out.

[I saw it. A lot of knee-jerk doomists badmouthing de Jager, and no so much as a single wild-eyed conspiracy theory to back it up, to say nothing of supportable speculation. A joke. Why do you swallow this?]

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), January 28, 1999.

If you want to read the Chevron statements, they are documented (link to their site) in the y2knewswire alert from 11-15-98, (quite some time ago). -------------------- the Chevron excerpt-------

CHEVRON WON'T BE COMPLIANT Buried deep in a SEC statement, Chevron has now admitted they will not be Y2K-compliant in time. Don't expect their P.R. machine to issue a press release on this. They want to keep it hidden, of course, just like every other company that realizes they stand a zero chance of making it.

You can read Chevron's SEC filing at: http://sec.yahoo.com/e/l/c/ chv.html

Once you get there, scroll down near the bottom, to the Year 2000 section. You'll find the following:

"Because of the scope of Chevron's operations, the company believes it is impractical to seek to eliminate all potential Year 2000 problems before they arise."

So, if Chevron won't make it, they will at least have good contingency plans, right?

"The company is developing contingency plans, which it expects to complete by the end of the third quarter 1999..."

Read that again if you missed it the first time: "... by the end of the third quarter 1999." We're talking about October, 1999, basically. Isn't that a little too close for comfort? That leaves a whole 90 days of wiggle room, which isn't anywhere near enough for a company whose operations affect millions of lives.

But it gets even more interesting:

"However, contingency planning for Year 2000 issues is complicated by the possibility of multiple and simultaneous incidents, which could significantly impede efforts to respond to emergencies and resume normal business functions. Such incidents may be outside of the company's control..."

Translation: Don't blame us if our contingency plans fail. Here, they're ADMITTING their contingency plans will be inadequate. And remember, they don't even plan to have them done until about October of 1999 anyway. So they're not only inadequate, they're late.

To summarize: * Chevron says they won't be compliant * They working on contingency plans, to be done by October 1999 * They admit the contingency plans may not work anyway

That's not all. Chevron says their Y2K repair cost is estimated to be $200 to $300 million. How much have they spent so far? $40 million. Go look at a calendar and chart this out yourself: here we are at the end of 1998. Chevron wants to spend between $200 and $300 million to solve this problem. So far they've spent $40 million. If you do the math here, how far along are they into the repair process? Well, somewhere between 13% and 20%. So they have at least 80% of the repairs still remaining, and that's not counting the testing and implementation.

This is a company with revenues of $30 billion a year. This is a company facing a complete wipeout by the Millennium Bug, and they have so far spent less than one tenth of one percent of their annual revenues on repairs.

Most people would take this to mean that Chevron really doesn't give a hoot about Y2K. When you are facing a financial wipeout from some known event, you don't spend just 1/10 of 1% trying to fix it. You spend WHATEVER IT TAKES. Even if it's 10%, 20%, or 50%. You spend it all, if you have it, because to not spend it could mean bankruptcy. ------------end paste---------------

Now, the implications of this is buried in the understanding of what the flow of oil and fuel means to our economy. Whole 'nuther ball of wax. Do you really think the US risked our good soldiers to protect the people of the Middle East (Saudi Arabia, etc)? Couldn't have been our interests in the OIL.....could it?

Many people of national stature have been "compelled" to retract or tone down y2k related statements over the past few months by employers or government. Look at Wisconsin.

---------excerpt---------- WISCONSIN LEGISLATURE SACRIFICES Y2K PUBLIC SAFETY TO AVOID MEDIA COVERAGE

[news]

Fearing that talk of "troops" was attracting too much media attention, the Wisconsin legislature has dropped language from a package of Y2K bills that would have authorized deployment of the National Guard. Story at:

http://www.jsonl ine.com/bym/tech/0120guard.asp

[commentary]

By doing this, the Wisconsin legislature demonstrates a frustrating lack of backbone and a deep-set desire to "govern by media coverage." The deployment of National Guard troops was not only a good, practical idea, it probably would have saved lives and prevented problems.

But the legislature was too afraid of the media attention, and so has decided that keeping things quiet is more important than the potential public safety benefits resulting from troop deployment. It's no wonder that Y2K-awareness efforts continue to meet huge government obstacles. The people in charge really aren't in charge; they're reacting to the light of the media. Quick, run for cover. Forget the people, we've got an IMAGE to protect, by God. ------end excerpt----------

Plenty of verifiable events just like the one above show that de Jager is "strongly encouraged" to dance if they (the govt) want him to..... unless he is ready to give up the cooshy position up there in LaLa land.

-- Mr. Kennedy (y2kPCfixes@MotivatedSeller.com), January 28, 1999.

Flint,

Based on all your questions asked in the above post, you've got yourself quite a little research job.

Post back with verifiable answers, please. We're all interested in what you dig up to substantiate your comments.

Diane

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), January 31, 1999.