simple logic reveals the truth about y2k : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread

Simple logic tells the story about y2k for all the DGI's out there:

1. If a y2k problem didn't exist, you can be sure that business wouldn't spend a dime on it. So the problem exists.

2. The problem is a 'Problem', not a nuisance. The problem creates some negative, operational results, otherwise, they wouldn't be trying to fix it. THEY WOULDN'T BE TRYING TO FIX SOMETHING IF IT WASN'T MESSING THINGS UP.

3. The only solution is absolute compliance, there is no grey solution to this. To date, no major institution has claimed compliance. Based on 1 and 2 above, we can now safely? assume that just about every facet of our society has unremediated, operational computer problems, AND IT IS WAAAY TOO LATE TO FIX AND TEST.


-- shadow (, February 03, 1999


C'mon Shadow! Logic?? Logic doesn't exist in this fantasyland anymore! The priciples of feelings, polls and perceptions is the new reality.

You cannot win an argument today with logic. The American people (by- in-large) don't possess the ability to use it. They're too busy watching Jerry Springer. They don't want to hear any bad news. They only want to hear the things they want to hear. So shut up and go along with the sheople to the slaughterhouse or they might turn you in to the food and panic police for making waves in their reality pools.

-- INVAR (, February 04, 1999.

Shadow: I agree with points 1 & 2 but must take exception to point 3.

For some highly mission-critical software, this may be the case (certain banking-related applications come to mind). But the solutions will depend upon the size and scope of the problem the error causes. A huge number of problems will be trivial and easily worked around. But not all problems will be trivial. A somewhat lessor number will have significant impact on the organization. And in some cases, the answer/solution is simply throwing in the towel as was the case last week with Cheap Foods in Wisconsin. They were apparently already experiencing financial difficulty and for them, Y2K became the straw that broke the camel's back.

But let's not sweat the small stuff here. Let's talk about the big rocks. (No insult intended to Cheap Foods)

Absolute compliance is still not the only solution - contingency planning on several levels (business, personal, local govt) can dramatically help us reduce the impact of any eventual disruptions. For example, my electric utility is working hard to ensure continuity of service through the rollover. Will they make it? I'm not sure, they started late and underestimated the size of the task. And they've made it abundantly clear that they're not entirely confident either. Make no mistake, electricity is is a big rock. So it makes sense for me to prepare to live for a period of time without electricity. Hopefully, I won't need to do so, but if I do, I'm prepared to cooperate by giving my electric utility the time they need to address the truly critical issues. I'll be able to do it without panicing or starving or freezing or complaining.

That seems to me to be a workable solution as well.

-- Arnie Rimmer (, February 04, 1999.

If Union Pacific RR is not a major institution in your eyes, what on earth is?

-- Paul Davis (, February 04, 1999.

Yeah, Union Pacific is pretty "major", alright. (Let's hope that was an oversight on Shadow's part ? It doesn't gut or invalidate his point.)

I too would balk at point #3 (and at the last sentence in #2). Some things are getting fixed for appearance's sake. Some "mess-ups" are cosmetic and are more than a nuisance, but less than a full-on failure.

Where I work we're not bringing some older PCs into "absolute compliance" because management found out the LAN software forces date synchronization on each PC, right before login.
Absolutely compliant? I don't think so - without the network, the PC's BIOS will always revert to 1900 on power-up. But "it'll do, pig" - so long as the file servers are compliant, and (duh!) they have AC power...
Some workarounds/circumventions that test out acceptably. (To the bosses' satisfaction, anyway.)

Don't forget business is spending (or, at least they did spend) some money remediating non-mission critical apps and systems. There is some PR-motivated spending; some me-too spending (or should that be "our-firm-too" ?); some inexplicable priorities. Believe me, the mere fact that a business is spending money on something isn't proof positive that the money needs to be spent. (A whole industry, though - or many industries - now there you have something...)

As was said in another thread (and I'm paraphrasing it horribly): if all this spending is unnecessary, then someone really ought to tell the Red Cross to quit wasting so much moola on Y2K prep.
And I'd hope all of us stockholders would be horrified at the gullibility of these career CIO's and directors, squandering million$...

-- Grrr (, February 04, 1999.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ