Doomsday Avoided

by Peter de Jager

"We've finally broken the back of the Y2K problem." I've been making that statement now for about 6 months. Naturally, it has generated some interest and a handful of e-mail. The comments range from polite requests for me to state, in my own words, what exactly I mean by 'broken the back of Y2K' to the outraged rants from folks intent on selling the world panic, gold coins and plots of otherwise worthless real estate. Naturally, any good news about Y2K spoils the fun and intentions of those trying to incite panic and runs on the bank.

So? What do I mean when I state confidently we've broken the back of Y2K? In short, I mean we've overcome the largest Y2K hurdle. The Y2K problem was never the actual act of fixing the code (or the embedded systems more on that later), it was the inaction and denial regarding a problem so easily demonstrated as real and pressing, and possessing consequences far exceeding it's humble beginnings. Overcoming denial was always a larger, more complicated, difficult and frustrating task, than actually fixing broken code.

To support this perspective we have to step backwards in time a bit. It must also become very much a personal perspective and commentary.

I find it curious in the extreme that, for a long time, I was labeled with the slurs of doomsayer, fear mongerer, dread merchant and chicken little. I was labeled as an idiot, someone who didn't understand how systems were maintained and, on several occasions, my mental health was questioned. My message was always a simple one. The code is broken, I can prove it. If we don't fix it, then we face unpleasant consequences.

The key phrase here, the whole reason for my involvement with Y2K, was "IF we don't fix it."

If you actually read my articles and listen to my presentations (There are several transcripts available on the internet and on tapes both audio and video, so we do have a reliable record of my statements), rather than rely on the sometimes incredibly inaccurate quotes of the media, then you will hear that message repeated time and time again. It was repeated ad nauseum over a period of 8 years. The core message never changed. Fix this or face consequences.

The reporters who did attempt some investigative reporting in these early days were stonewalled. They asked banks if such a problem existed and were told it was either a result of a fevered imagination or was a trivial problem not worth discussing.

Was it an unnecessary message as some have suggested? Did we, myself and many many others, really have to make so much noise about Y2K? Or would people have taken care of this anyway? Good question. In a perfect experiment, we'd roll the clock back 8 years and watch what happens as myself and others say and do nothing to raise the alarm. We can't do that but we can open our eyes a bit and examine our current situation.

The most widely recognized best practice on Y2K projects is 'Triage', a concept I introduced to the Y2K lexicon in an early article published in 'The American Programmer' magazine.

Consider, with no attempt at saving face, what exactly 'triage' is it's an admission we were so incompetent as an industry and we started a project so late that we didn't leave ourselves enough time to fix all the applications we were responsible for maintaining. The practice of triage is an embarrassment. It's the ultimate proof, for me at least, that raising the warning was necessary. Without our warning, the IT industry would still be asleep at the wheel.

All of the above relates to the known provable software problem. The embedded system problem was very different. The severity of this problem was a total unknown. Nobody, until fairly recently, had any real idea how big a problem it was. There was certainly no proof that the problem was either pervasive or rare, but there was sufficient evidence to suggest it was crucial, even a matter of life or death, to find out if it was real.

The proof of its existence was sitting on millions of desktops. PCs did not, for the most part, automatically roll from 1999 to 2000 without incident. Another bit of evidence was flying above our heads. The GPS satellites had a known date problem, not exactly a Y2K problem, but close enough. If we had problems both on the ground and in the heavens then the chances were pretty good we'd find them elsewhere as well. It turns out we were right.

The challenge? To get people to examine everything that might have a problem. How to do that? By creating reasonable scenarios for failure in an attempt to get people to examine embedded chips of all shapes and sizes. The result? Problems were found in medical devices, navigational aids, assembly equipment and retail equipment, to mention only a few. The good news? In some areas, very little was identified as posing problems. The bad news? The problem was real and we have to address it at great expense.

Did everything we speculated about prove to cause problems? Nope. But until we checked, nobody could say it was an unnecessary activity.

Here's a summary. Until we started to fix our code and examine the embedded system problem, then practically any doomsday scenario was a legitimate possibility.

Here's where we are today. Most, not all companies are working on this issue. They are fixing, or have fixed, their systems. They have examined, or are examining, their embedded systems problems. We are, for the most part, no longer ignoring Y2K.

Throughout all of this, my primary concern was with the Iron Triangle. The three industries which must operate daily, or very quickly society begins to unravel at the seams. They are, in no particular order; Finance, Telecommunications and Power companies.

I stopped worrying about the finance industry in 1997. The level of activity was high, the regulators were beginning to wake up, and attention was finally being paid to the problem at all levels.

None of this is meant to suggest that the finance industry is not going to have problems. There will be problems. Many of them. Each one will be handled in turn by an industry which, more than any other, understands their dependence on technology.

For the record, my money will remain in the bank. For the record, anyone who is suggesting that we take all our money out of the banks is deliberately attempting to bring about a run on the bank and can only be classified by any reasonable person as an enemy of the people.

More to the point. The finance industry is nearing completion of their task. Again, this statement does not apply to every bank. There are exceptions, exceptions which the regulators are getting ready to act upon. Nor are all countries at the same level. Those who are most dependent are further ahead; those who are less dependent, further behind. (An exception to this is Japan a country whose actions on Y2K still astound and confound me.)

Next, the telecommunications industry. My concern began to diminish about a year ago. The word back from the industry is simple enough. That which they expected to fail, fails. That which should not have failed, doesn't. It means that there have been no surprises. They do have problems. Mainly in the administrative functions of the network. Problems they can cope with by implementing workarounds. Bottom line? Dial tone is secure, but don't expect your bills on time. Any complaints?

Finally? The big bugaboo, the power industry. I wish I was as confident here as I am with the other two points of the triangle. The statements, reports and press releases from this industry are wishy washy, confusing and misleading.

On one hand, we have dozens of power stations already working in the Year 2000 by advancing their clocks. On the other hand, we have statements offering little assurance e.g. from the Canadian Electrical Association "Most entities report nothing which would have opened a circuit (cut off power)." Implying obliquely, I think, that "Some entities reported problems which did cut off power?????"

Which is it? Are there problems or aren't there? The answer may be hidden in some of the off-the-record conversations which go something like this "Peter, we didn't find ANYTHING which would have cut off power but the lawyers won't let us say that since it comes across as a guarantee that we'll have power that day! So we have to suggest we did find problems!"

This obstacle of lawyers is evident in all industries. I know of banks, payroll companies, government agencies, insurance companies, water companies, etc., etc., etc. who have told me privately that they're done, complete, finished but cannot announce this good news because of the lawyers.

And then there is the media for whom (and this is an admitted generalization) good news is not good copy.

It is this private information, more than anything which is available in the public press, which compels me to state "we've broken the back of Y2K."

Of course, the Iron Triangle does not make up the sum total of our computer dependence. There are other industries, there are global interdependencies, and there are market issues, etc.

I haven't ignored these in my analysis. I'd like to suggest we're a bit more resilient than some would have us believe. I'd like to suggest that production processes with a long lead time, like the production of chemicals, pharmaceuticals, and food, are little affected by isolated outages of a week or even a month, especially when we have ten months to go and are smart enough to increase production levels to take into account any production hiccups.

In addition I'd like to point out that there is nothing which is shipped from overseas, which could not be stockpiled for a month, in anticipation of a one month shipping delay. I'd go even further, with the exception of some pharmaceuticals, that there is nothing shipped to any country which we could not do without for a month.

Have we 'solved' Y2K? No, not entirely, but we have avoided the doomsday scenarios. The next 12 months or so are going to be fascinating to watch. But it will not, contrary to the ravings found in some of the media reports and in many places on the internet, it is not TEOTWAWKI. Through hard work and effort, we've broken the back of Y2K.

Yours truly, Peter de Jager March 1, 1999

)1999, Peter de Jager

http://www.year2000.com/archive/y2ky2kdoomsday.html

-- Anon (Anon@anon._), March 02, 1999

Answers

I have not seen the term "enemy of the people" used by anyone but communist leaders to describe citizens doing what they believe is right. If free speech, acting legally in one's own financial interest, and a passion to live whether others PREPARE TO LIVE or not become the actual casualties of the Y2K problem we will truly face the end of the world as we know it even if nothing goes wrong with ANY computers!

-- Ann Fisher (zyax55b@prodigy.com), March 02, 1999.

I so hope Peter is right.

I have asked several people to dump buckets of raw eggs over my head if no major disasters happen after the appointed time. They can do this in public whenever and whereever they want.

I'll be so gooey and happy that I'll do cartwheels and dance on tables.

-- Not Again! (seenit@ww2.com), March 02, 1999.

In "Doomsday Avoided" Peter de Jager says, "We've finally broken the back of the Y2K problem." I've been making that statement now for about 6 months."

Actually, here is what de Jager was saying 3 1/2 months ago...

http://www.year2000.com/archive/y2kclinton.html

"Open Letter to President Clinton" (November 17, 1998)

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Open Letter to President Clinton

by Peter de Jager

On Sept. 9, 1998, U.S. Rep. Stephen Horn released his latest summary of your government's Y2K activity. The summary, if accurate, should raise an outcry of concern. It hasn't. This document, and its implications, has received little if any serious coverage by the media. And, to the best of my knowledge, little attention by your office.

The report focuses on the progress made towards fixing the mission- critical computer applications at risk due to the well-documented Y2K problem.

"Mission-critical" is a term used to describe those systems which, if allowed to fail, would cause an organization to lose the ability to deliver services 'critical' to their stated 'mission.'

It is important to note that Rep. Horn did not receive the raw data from consultants or other third parties who we could accuse of having a bias towards delivering bad news. There are no vested interests being served here. His summary is based upon information provided to him directly by the administrations themselves.

Here are some of the items extracted from the report, which cause others and myself some serious concern:

The Department of Defense, by its own count, has some 2,965 mission- critical systems. All of these will not be fixed until sometime in 2001. This means that during the entire year of 2000, they will be incapable of performing all the functions described in their mission statement. I am sure there are many individuals who are eagerly anticipating the failure of the DOD to perform its duties. Department of Labor, 61 mission-critical systems, not 100% ready until 2001.

Department of Interior, 91 mission-critical systems, not 100% ready until 2001.

Department of Health and Human Services, 298 mission-critical systems, not 100% ready until 2002.

Department of Energy, 411 mission-critical systems, not 100% ready until 2002.

Department of State, 59 mission-critical systems, not 100% ready until 2027 (this is not a typographical error, The Department of State estimates they will not be able to provide you their full services for the next 27 years.)

Department of Justice, 207 systems, not 100% ready until 2030+ (the 'plus' sign indicates they have no idea when they will be ready.)

Department of Education, 14 systems, not 100% ready until 2030+.

Agency for International Development, 7 systems, not 100% ready until 2023.

If an agency's response to you is that the above summary is not an accurate statement, then its officials should remove from their list of mission-critical those applications which are not mission- critical, and/or they should provide more accurate delivery dates.

Agencies' predicted objections aside, these are the precise estimates they provided to Rep. Horn.

What exactly does this report mean? Nobody knows, because the mission- critical systems counted have not been identified. I think it would be useful to have some idea of which of the many services will not be available to the American people.

If this report is accurate, then action must be taken by you to correct it. It is not acceptable to anyone that the Department of Defense, who's mission is to defend the interests of the United States at home and abroad, knowingly, and apparently willingly, fails in that endeavor.

If they are short of resources, make those resources available, or announce publicly that the DOD is not really a critical service to the United States and shut it down.

The same goes for every other department listed above. Either they are fully operational on Jan. 1, 2000, or declare their contribution to the American people non-critical and shut them down and save your taxpayers the unnecessary expense.

If this report is not accurate, then action must be taken by you to correct it. It describes a totally unacceptable situation. As it is reported, it raises unnecessary concern, uncertainty and even fear. Three emotions no political party should be fostering as it heads into an election year.

Either way, action, real action, not soothing words and platitudes, is required at the highest levels either to correct an unacceptable situation or to correct the notion that your administrators are incapable of executing their mandated mission statements.

You might respond that you have taken action. That the Year 2000 office headed up by John Koskinen is charged with the responsibility of fixing this problem.

With respect, I suggest that more is called for, I suggest that the administrators who appear, by their own account, incapable of handling this problem be either replaced or supported by those who can get the job done.

We have about 13 months left; congressional hearings in year 2000 to figure out who dropped the ball will be too late.

We have 13 months left; the ball is in your court today, do something with it.

With respect, Peter de Jager Nov. 17, 1998

)1998, Peter de Jager - Waived

---------------------------------------------------------------------

-- Kevin (mixesmusic@worldnet.att.net), March 02, 1999.

AnD DIeTER is cALLed a bI-PoLar sCHizopHRenic?????

-- Dieter (questions@toask.com), March 02, 1999.

Great going, Kevin. Meanwhile, today, we have the release of the Senate report that will state categorically that we are to expect power blackouts due to Y2K not being fixed. With all the other Y2K news abounding in all directions, it will be interesting to see how John Q. Public reacts to all the conflicting info. GIs as well as DGIs will have all kinds of supporting info to back up their positions.

-- Jack (jsprat@eld.net), March 02, 1999.

And, read this article from the Toronto Star from less than 3 1/2 months ago. At the end, it describes de Jager's personal prep plans...

http://www2.thestar.com/thestar/back_issues/ED19981122/money/981122BUS 01_FI-DEJAGER22.html

[snip]

Seated in the shadow of the towering Mormon temple near his Brampton home, de Jager smiles at the irony.

The Mormon church teaches its faithful to stockpile food - a practice that has become vogue among the growing ranks of Y2K survivalists, who are buying cabins in the woods and withdrawing their life savings from banks.

De Jager, a father of two teens, scoffs at such ``overreaction.'' He bought a cottage north of Orangeville recently, but it had nothing to do with Y2K, he insists.

Still, he does plan to stock up on groceries and supplies, keep a generator in his home and cash handy in case bank doors stay closed.

[snip]

The Toronto Star article is from November 22, 1998.

-- Kevin (mixesmusic@worldnet.att.net), March 02, 1999.

The REPORT may state catagoricly "X" but the REPORTERS are busy even as we post at 0955EST, trying to make sure that the best foot comes out first, with the hard facts coming out maybe next week. It is truly AMAZING what the 5sec sound bites are in this town and on the networks today.

Another sad day for reality, facts, and ALL OF US.

Chuck, a night driver

-- Chuck, night driver (rienzoo@en.com), March 02, 1999.

yEs DIeteR yoUrE LoOkiNg bETter eVEry dAy.

Relatively.

-- Tom Carey (tomcarey@mindspring.com), March 02, 1999.

I would be interested in hearing Mr. Yourdon's response to this letter.

-- kay (y2kay@hmm.com), March 02, 1999.

Posting old data and old quotes doesn't change the fact that things are looking good. Businesses are making progress towards fixing Y2K. Yeah there will be problems, blackouts and other failures, but not the end of the world. As problems occur, workers will fix them and businesses will recover. The computer will live; technology will advance.

The doomers continue to put a negative spin on this no matter what positive reports say. The iron triangle will function and the embedded problem seems to diminish in size.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), March 02, 1999.

"For the record, my money will remain in the bank. For the record, anyone who is suggesting that we take all our money out of the banks is deliberately attempting to bring about a run on the bank and can only be classified by any reasonable person as an enemy of the people."

- Peter de Jager

For the record, my money has not been in the bank since 1996.

For the record, anyone who is suggesting that you take all of your money out of the bank is telling you the simple truth that if you don't, you may not ever get it at all.

For the record, if bank runs occur, it will be because the bankers do not have the money that you entrusted to their care to give back to you.

For the record, the collapse of the banking system, should it occur, will be the fault of those who conceived and who operate the system--those same bankers who charge what would, save for the greed of political allies, be usurious rates to keep and use your money, not those who (mis)placed their trust in "the system".

For the record, banks tell you that your money is safe with them, until you want it and then they tell you that it isn't.

For the record, my attorney advised me as follows, "Never trust a banker."

For the record, de Jager is a turncoat who is looking to avoid the consequences of his own actions.

For the record, I do not consider de Jager to be a reasonable man and his classification of me as an enemy of the people is slanderous, libelous and offensive in the extreme.

-- Hardliner (searcher@internet.com), March 02, 1999.

Peter de Jager said, "For the record, my money will remain in the bank. For the record, anyone who is suggesting that we take all our money out of the banks is deliberately attempting to bring about a run on the bank and can only be classified by any reasonable person as an enemy of the people.". You know full well Hardliner that you could cause the collapse of the banks by telling people to take all their money out. Dont give me this crap about its there money. Sure it is. But the result will still be the same. As de Jager accurately says, this makes you an enemy of the people. All evidence shows that the money will still be there in 2000 as long as people dont panic stupidly. You tell people to panic. Just wait, they will come and lock you up before long. God bless America.

-- face-it-bubba (hardliner@yournuts.aol), March 02, 1999.

As Kevin's post above makes clear, de Jager is guilty of saying two opposite things in public.

Does that make him a public liar?

He says he's been saying that Y2K's back is broken for "about 6 months". Why did he send all those lies to "Slick" 3 1/2 months ago?

Would you buy a used car from this man?

-- Hardliner (searcher@internet.com), March 02, 1999.

"They will come and lock you up before long"

What's wrong with this statement? Is this Nazi Germany or America? Getting harder to tell everyday isn't it.

-- Nikoli Krushev (doomsday@y2000.com), March 02, 1999.

Ms. Maria, and Mr. de Jager - as you stated "The doomers continue to put a negative spin on this no matter what positive reports say. The iron triangle will function and the embedded problem seems to diminish in size. "

You are entitled to your opinion - but your opinion will do nothing to change whether power or heat will be available - and everything I had read seen and heard indicates that service will down over widespread areas nationally for a significant time - and if, as you state, your sole justification for your coments, as implied, is to keep people's money in the banks - then please tell me how they can get access to their money if there is no power, heat, and lights? In an engineering system, one can only say "it has not failed yet" because "we have not tested it that way yet."

The Tacoma Narrows Bridge fell catastrophically - but was perfectly safe if driven across on a calm day. It was stable for years as they built it - because the roadway was incomplete, and so did not catch th ewind and begin twisting. The trusses and roadway were built to be far stronger than needed to carry the weight of the traffic, but were not tested under the twists that came from windy conditions. It didn't matter what the designer intended or hoped for or wanted or what the results of the latest public opinion poll were - the bridge was built, the wind blew, and the bridge twisted, and then the bridge fell down.

To address just one issue about the Iron Triangle you two raised.

-- Robert A. Cook, P.E. (Kennesaw, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), March 02, 1999.

"You tell people to panic. Just wait, they will come and lock you up before long. God bless America."

I've been saying for a couple months now that De Jager must have been aproached by the CIA. Maybe refering to those who suggest to take some money out of the bank to prepare as "enemy of the people" is a message he's sending us. Really, this sounds SO BLATANTLY communistic! I am not into conspiracy theories, but this use of words is so off the wall, since he himself stated he would take out some cash, and GTE made a public advisory to do so and were lambasted as being irresponsible by the gov.

"Which is it? Are there problems or aren't there? The answer may be hidden in some of the off-the-record conversations which go something like this "Peter, we didn't find ANYTHING which would have cut off power but the lawyers won't let us say that since it comes across as a guarantee that we'll have power that day! So we have to suggest we did find problems!""

This just doesn't hold water. He's trying to make me swallow that my electric company, PECO, could not state something like this because of their lawyers: "We have not found any embedded systems that will not be able to handle the year 2000 roll-over, but as with any day during the year, we cannot garantee 100% that the power will be on on Jan. 1, 2000, but we are 95% sure it will be, as with any other day"(or whatever percentage they are sure the power to stay on on any given day.)

-- Chris (catsy@pond.com), March 02, 1999.

Great posts Kevin and Hardliner. I also do not consider myself an "enemy of the people" for warning people about the precarious banking situation - if anything, I would think myself morally irresponsible if I did not do this. And how can he be comfortable about two out of three of the Iron Triangle - without Power it is moot. Did I miss something or is the whole concept of cascading failure, interdependency, and the systemic nature conspicous by its absence?

-- Rob Michaels (sonofdust@net.com), March 02, 1999.

Seems that millenium madness is working overtime.

deJager proclaims that the Y2K problem's back has been broken, not be cause of physical fixes, just of awareness. Pixey dust and happy thoughts? Awareness is nice, fixes are better. The unasked question is, can enough be fixed in time? [insert silence here]

deJager proclaims that people that want banks to fullfill their obligations are "an enemy of the people". This statement is so bizarre it shouldn't need commenting. The king isn't wearing any clothes, and hasn't for decades.

Hey Bubba! Was your "God bless America" intended as a benediction? Whatever. In any case I hope you'll keep as much of your money in the bank as you can. While you're at it, be sure to move all of your pension fund over to internet stocks, you deserve it.

-- Fractional Reserve Banking is the true (enemy@thepeo.ple), March 02, 1999.

"face-it-bubba",

It is clear who is ignorant (or practicing disinformation) here.

You haven't a clue what a chain of causation is, do you?

The idea that lawful transactions will bring about the collapse of "the system" is prima facie evidence that "the system" is flawed. You are apparently so ignorant that you don't realize that the money isn't there right now, let alone after 1/1/00.

I tell no one to panic. Panic is counterproductive to survival.

If I, "could cause the collapse of the banks by telling people to take all their money out", that would make me a pretty influential speaker, wouldn't it? Well, you ignoramus, if I had that sort of influence, I'd tell people to put government officials in place who had the best interests of this society in their hearts instead of the greedy, amoral pigs that currently occupy those offices. I'd tell them to get out and vote instead of watching the garbage that passes for TV programming these days. I'd tell the truth about a lot of things, but first, I'd teach them to read!

You've got the reasoning facility of a common slug! For starters, how about explaining how it is that you fear the collapse of the banking system so badly and see it coming about so easily, yet you miss entirely the ramifications of ill conceived computer code and are sucked in so readily by the "don't worry, be happy" pablum of the government and the media?

On second thought, never mind. I know better than to ask such a question of an intellect such as yours. I retract the question.

-- Hardliner (searcher@internet.com), March 02, 1999.

Maria,

Old data and old quotes are very relevant when Peter de Jager tries hiding how quickly he did an about face on Y2K. He hasn't been optimistic for six months; he's been saying this for less than 3 1/2 months.

You said:

"Businesses are making progress towards fixing Y2K."

Of course they are! But, how quickly? Unfortunately, so far only 11 companies out of the Fortune 500 have stated to the SEC that they are already internally remediated...

http://www.flybyday.com/y2k/remediation.htm

...and most had promised to complete remediation by December 31, 1998. There's progress towards fixing, but that's not the same thing as being close to completion. 11 out of 500?

You also said...

"Yeah there will be problems, blackouts and other failures, but not the end of the world."

Don't misrepresent our position here. I believe the end of the world AS I'VE KNOWN IT in my lifetime could easily end next year. Myself anyway, I'm not predicting the end of the world. No one knows when that's going to happen except God. I do believe the chance of problems and failures is great enough to warrant personal preparation. Don't you agree that blackouts in the winter are a good enough reason for prep?

And finally, you said:

"...and the embedded problem seems to diminish in size." OK, so there's "only" millions of date-sensitive chips out there instead of billions. That still sounds like a problem to me. Read a good basic article on embedded chips, such as...

http://www.jsonline.com/bym/tech/0214chips.asp

"Problems lurk in more than just computers"

-- Kevin (mixesmusic@worldnet.att.net), March 02, 1999.

Hardliner, me thinks Bubba wuz bein' sarcastic. Exibit A:"Just wait, they will come and lock you up before long. God bless America."

Whether he is or not don't matter, when you get that adrenaline pumping you shine ;-)

-- Chris (catsy@pond.com), March 02, 1999.

Hardliner, you're not as smart as de Jager or as well known. You're an arrogant dough-brained squid-faced spawny-eyed pussed-infested maggot who thinks he knows it all. De Jager has spendt more time than you studying the y2k problem. The only difference is he can digest all the facts not just the bad ones. He has reasoning power and balanced mind but you have just a manic lemming-like jump-off-the- cliff sick and twisted mind. You shouldn't be called hardliner. Maybe oneliner because you're incapable of digesting more than one thing at a time. In your fickle little tormented brain which has the consistency of blue cheese and twice as much mold, you have stopped being objective. You wouldn't know objective if it smacked you in the teeth with a bag of hammers. You are dumber than a sack of hammers too. Your breath reeks of putrid rats flesh. Frogs loath you. WHen frogs dream about you they are having a nightmare.

Your just mad because you are going to jail.

-- face-it-bubba (hardliner@yournuts.aol), March 02, 1999.

"face-it-bubba",

I'm quoting here what you said to Hardliner...

"You know full well Hardliner that you could cause the collapse of the banks by telling people to take all their money out. Dont give me this crap about its there money."

If there's financial panic in 1999 or 2000, it will be because:

A) Many businesses, utilities and government agencies waited until after 1996 to start working on Y2K, and...

B) Y2K remediation was not finished by the end of 1998 as generally promised.

If there's going to be financial panic, then it's a fait accompli.

-- Kevin (mixesmusic@worldnet.att.net), March 02, 1999.

Oh before I forget - "Doomsday" has not been avoided - his prediction has been changed to avoid the word "doomsday" - and, by narrowly discussing a single set of specific solutions unique to specific parts of the banking system - he has been able to avoid that word.

However, he has not addressed the very real problems of people trying to get access to their own money under conditions of power, water, heat, telephone, computer, and transportation losses. I will grant that their money might be safe in some bank somewhere - and will even grant that somebody might know how much money is actually present in any given account.

It just won't do anybody any good - because they can't get to it.

-- Robert A. Cook, P.E. (Kennesaw, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), March 02, 1999.

who was it that wrote:

when treason doth prosper, then what be the reason? why when treason doth prosper, none dare call it treason!

fits the current administration. fits de Jager

-- Arlin H. Adams (ahadams@ix.netcom.com), March 02, 1999.

Kevin:

Maybe I'm misinterpreting you comments in regards to the Fortune 500 list. But you seem to be implying that this list substantiates the claim that most missed the 12/31/98 deadline.

Just to clear things up, the list uses data based almost entirely on SEC filings made by the companies for 3rd Quarter 1998. Most were filed in the November timeframe, last year.

Now, they may or may not have made the 12/31/98 deadline. But this list provides no way of ascertaining that fact.

Hoffmeister

-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-dejanews.com), March 02, 1999.

but first, I'd teach them to read!

AMEN BROTHER HARDLINER

-- Blue Himalayan (bh@k2.y), March 02, 1999.

hardliner don't let him bait you - he's just another little dwgi - not worth the effort.

to the "face it bubba" person: yes, we are going to continue to encourage people to take their money out of the bank. Here's the trick: since the vast majority of American 'money' is in electronic, rather than paper form, bank runs will be caused by simply suggesting that each person take out funds two or three month's worth of income...do the math - people *are* going to continue to prepare, they *are* going to continue to withdraw enough money to live on for two or three months, and so the fractional reserve banking system *is* going down for the count...and there is absolutely nothing you can do to stop it.

Arlin Adams

-- Arlin H. Adams (ahadams@ix.netcom.com), March 02, 1999.

But Kevin how do you know that Y2K wasn't finished by Dec 1998? I know most of you don't buy the lawyers keeping a tight lid on this but it's a fact in my company. We still won't know what will happen on 1/1/00 because of the unknown unknowns. But I'm not going to ignore the "happy face" reports.

Robert, I didn't say and didn't mean to imply that you shouldn't take your money out of the bank. You do whatever you please with your money, keep it under the matress for all I care. Banks and telecomm have backup power supply in case of power failures. (New Zealand seemed to survive months without power). I have heard positive reports on power plants' Y2K remediation. (My home town reported their completion last year). Yes, prepare for a winter storm but I'm not preparing for TEOTWAWKI.

Panic is a big concern of mine, much more than any Y2K failures. Panic will lead to riots and that leads to crazy people with guns (including the doomers) who will use them on innocent people getting caught in the crossfire. But that's a whole other thread.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), March 02, 1999.

"face-it-bubba",

It really turns me on when you talk dirty!

-- Hardliner (searcher@internet.com), March 02, 1999.

Maria and Hoffmeister,

How do the two of you know that most Y2K remediation WAS finished by December 1998? If there isn't new information, how can Maria confidently claim that "businesses are making progress towards fixing Y2K"?

Do you remember the Federal Government's September 30, 1998 deadline...

http://www.fcw.com/pubs/fcw/1998/1005/fcw-newsy2kshort-10-5-98.html

Don't worry, Hoffmeister and Maria--if most businesses finished their Y2K remediation in December 1998, then there won't be panic in 1999.

Simple, isn't it?

-- Kevin (mixesmusic@worldnet.att.net), March 02, 1999.

Kevin:

I truly don't know. Neither do you, although your statements seemed to imply only 11 of the 500 made it. The point was, the data in the link is as of 3rd Qtr '98, which sheds no light on whether those companies with a 12/31/98 target made it or not.

As for panic, no, I don't expect it. Though it's fairly obvious from some posts on this thread, that is the intention of some people here.

Hoffmeister

-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-dejanews.com), March 02, 1999.

Bubba-Precisely which law is it that allows people to be locked up for withdrawing cash from their bank? See if you can keep your response civil, just for the novelty of it if nothing else.

Hardliner-"The idea that lawful transactions will bring about the collapse of "the system" is prima facie evidence that "the system" is flawed." Somewhat of a corollary to Y2K isn't it?, the idea that a 00 year field will bring about the collapse of the system is prima facie evidence that the system if flawed. I think Gary North made the point that if a middle-aged sedentary newsletter writer (him) can collapse the banking system, it's not much of a system is it?

-- Ken Seger (kenseger@earthlink.net), March 02, 1999.

Give de Jager a little credit. His contingency plans are working just fine.

PdJ Client, "Is there or isn't there a Y2k problem with my system?"

PdJ, "Oh, absolutely, you must remain vigilant and continue to remediate your systems right up to the drop dead date. Also, can you sign my check?"

PdJ Client, "But, there doesn't seem to be enough time for me to fix my systems and continue my business into the next century. Perhaps I should cut my losses now and get out without spending more money. We're still not making enough progress to succeed!"

PdJ, "There is plenty of time. You can get by without testing your systems and even if you have a high error rate in your code it can be fixed in the few days after the roll over. At that time, one of my associates will be happy to help you as I'll be on an extended vacation. Did you sign my check?"

PdJ Client, "But, I rely heavily on other vendors and suppliers and I'm not sure I continue to do business if they fail. Also, what about their systems interacting with my systems? Can't that do damage to me as well?"

PdJ, "Eh, there are plenty of fish in the sea and a whole lot of tuna in the supermarket ... on sale right now too so I gotta get over there. The banks all use the $ symbol so you don't need to worry about data. Besides, you don't wanna be an enemy to the people do you? You could do damage to others if you don't continue to pay me to tell you everything is fine and dandy. By the way, did you sign my next check?"

This man is without credibility. He sold it to keep his checks coming in.

The self fulfilling prophecy issue doesn't matter. My thought from the beginning was that with Y2k perception IS reality. It is a given based upon the nature of the banking system itself that bank runs would occur. Every financial transaction is backed by confidence. If there is a lack of confidence then the game is up. Anyone who says a person does damage to a system by taking what is rightfully theirs is either insane or dimwitted. If the system is sound then it will survive. If it is flawed it will fail.

When I put my money into a bank it is for safe keeping and convenience. If the safety of the money is in question it is the fault of the financial institutions NOT the owner of the money. If everyone in the country pulled out $505 out of the bank at this very moment the system would fail. The people that would be left without didn't actively participate in this so called self-fulfilling prophecy yet their lives were impacted. There was no self fulfilling prophecy for them.

You can make a better argument that the financial institutions themselves have created a self fulfilling prophecy by creating a system that relies so heavily on confidence and the thought of money. By this system not being backed by actual, tangible assets the financial institutions have set themselves up for such reaction when there is a loss of confidence.

We're in the blame shifting portion of "the show" and "the show" hasen't even started yet. Amazing what fear and greed can do to sell a message. de Jager isn't a communist he's a capitalist to the extreme and his current message has shifted from fear about the y2k problem to greed and his own survival.

What client would continue to pay de Jager if all de Jager did was tell them they are bound to fail? Sure, time is running out and much of the code is still broken but the client's bank account isn't, yet.

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

-- Michael Taylor (mtdesign3@aol.com), March 02, 1999.

Hoffmeister,

What is the intention of some people here?

-- Kevin (mixesmusic@worldnet.att.net), March 02, 1999.

Robert,

I was in a store last year when the power went out. Couldn't checkout because the computerized registers didn't work and noone knew how to operate manually. So there is no power, no heat, no light I suspect commerce comes to a virtual standstill. What good does money do me when commerce simply isn't. What good does gold do me when commerce resumes and the merchant doesn't know what to do with it. My thesis is that ultimately trust must remain intact (or be reestablished) or we let the Gary Norths of the world revel in our failure. The system doesn't know how to function any other way.

jh

-- john hebert (jt_hebert@hotmail.com), March 02, 1999.

Well, Kevin, I think Arlin's post was pretty self-explanatory.

-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-dejanews.com), March 02, 1999.

And don't forget the illustrious Alan Greenspan, who last week cautioned us about "walking around with lots of $100 dollar bills in their pockets, because their's an awful lot of people out there who'd be very interested in that." Such wisdom from the head of our central bank: what, me worry? And "enemy of the people" has such a carefully nuanced, Trotskyite ring to it: penned by a True Believer in the cult of fractional reserve banking. But look at what their munificent expansion of the money supply has brought us: androids like Maria, who know in their heart of hearts that computers will thrive, and that eventually all the inefficient squawbling people will be eliminated, leaving only the Elite, the Adepts, the CEOs, those true Friends of the People. Yes, fellow heretics, do not annoy the money god, or his temple guards will come for you in the night. Bow ye down before Mammon, and eat ye of the credit expansion, interest without end, amen.

-- Spidey (in@jam.com), March 02, 1999.

I just listened again to an tape of a speech that Peter de Jager made in 1995. In it, he said that any large organization that had not begun its Y2K program by then would not be able to survive. Most large corporations and government agencies did not really get moving until 1996 or even 1997.

I think that Mr. de Jager's primary reason for turning so pollyannish is that he does not want to be blamed for a bank run or other form of mass hysteria. The truth is that he does not have the power to create such a situation. It is our governmental and business leaders, particularly His Slickness, that will cause them. Their procrastination and spinning have led us to this sad predicament.

-- Incredulous (ytt000@aol.com), March 02, 1999.

Cook said: "everything I had read seen and heard indicates that service will down over widespread areas nationally for a significant time "

You haven't read much lately have you? Do you people read anything other than what's here on Yourdon's forum?

-- Buddy (buddy@bellatlantic.net), March 02, 1999.

We also discussed on this forum about 4 months ago (look in the archives) how Peter's lawyers told him that he would spend the rest of his life in court if he didn't quit some of the "practices" he was participating in. The information came off of his own site when he pulled the Damocles project. It seems like that was about the time his "tune" started changing.

-- Gayla Dunbar (privacy@please.com), March 02, 1999.

John (and Maria too)- your point is very correct under certain cases. However, we must postulate (yeah - again, make guesses from an unknown starting point about unknown events about unknown people reacting to unknown circumstances when we can't even agree on (see the spin comments above) what is happening today) ....

to resume ... we must postulate what specific good cash will be to a user after two days of no power, no light, no heat, no water, no phones, (no police ?) or National Guard only. Look at each transaction twice: once after power is out, then again after the goods are sold from the retailor. Cash is essential in the first case - because electronic transactions are useless, not trusted (would you accept credit cards under those circumstances ... swapping a "promise to get paid" from VISA for goods the next person might pay with cash ?). In the second, there is nothing to buy - hence, as you pointed out, no need for cash. after the second case, cash is the second economy - because nothing else is available. The rate of inflation and deflation may have changed slightly (imagine a liberal New York fashion type swapping her 5000.00 Christine Dior dress for a bottle of water!) as things become realtively less valuable.....but the exchange will be dollars here.

In either case, a person who has prepared for a short but finite time is NOT contributing to the cause of the problem: either the money (lack of cash or cash withdrawal) or the supply side (no goods available, or requiring goods be paid for with cash.) A person who has prepared is standing by looking at all these hysterical reactions from people who have listened to the government and NOT prepared.

To show what I mean by looking at transactions twice: No gasoline because of no power means no way to pay (but use cash early on? or only until the gas is already siphoned out?); but a person who has prepared isn't planning on driving their car at all, and already has gas for the generator.

no food (if shelves were originally full, use cash, then if they can't readily be restocked with useful (non-refrigerated, non-cooking, non-heating) items, what do you do? No need to use cash. In either case, Maria, the person who had prepared is out-of-the-loop, they aren't looking for food from the grocery store.

There is a thord use for money - paying legitimate debts that accumulate each month. In that case, why take money out at all? Let it sit there, write checks for the regular stuff, then wonder if/when/where the post office will deliver them, who will cash thme, and how will they be posted. But don't - under any circumstances, use cash for transactions you want recorded - like paying bills.

So we have (I hope) established that by getting people preparing ahead of time, there will be no run on the banks. Hence, no panic, no hysterics. Cover your self, allow for two weeks of small transactions, 50.00 (to little) -100.00 (maybe) - 200.00 (probably better, your choice) 500.00 (probably too much, again your choice) but otherwise, prepare now.

-- Robert A. Cook, P.E. (Kennesaw, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), March 02, 1999.

What if I never had money in the bank? If I am a good American am I now obligated to put some money there for the next 14 months?

A question for Peter de Jager, "How much money do you have in the bank and which banks is it in?" Do you have 100% of your assets in a bank like many (not most, but still, many) working Americans might?

-- Puddintame (dit@dot.com), March 02, 1999.

Hoffmeister,

Do you think Arlin can start bank runs in the U.S.? Guess what...according to John Koslinen, bank runs aren't even possible!

http://enquirer.com/editions/1999/02/14/fin_lights_out_y2k.html

[snip]

As for the money supply, banks are the most heavily regulated industry in the country, said John Koskinen, chairman of the President's Council on Year 2000 Conversion in Washington, D.C. They get ratings of 97 percent to 98 percent compliance in every survey he's seen.

I joke with bankers that it's a testimony to the joys of federal regulation, Mr. Koskinen said.

The Federal Reserve is prepared to put $50 billion more into circulation just in case people want a couple of dollars. We can print more bills faster than they can take them out.

[snip]

``We can print more bills faster than they can take them out.

ROTFLMAO!

-- Kevin (mixesmusic@worldnet.att.net), March 02, 1999.

From above: << You haven't read much lately have you? Do you people read anything other than what's here on Yourdon's forum? >>

I firmly disagree - I have read, and will continue to read every item that is the national press (figure TIME, NEWSWEEK, RD, Discover, Pop Science, Pop. Mechanics, Scientific American, Science will cover most new items) covering this subject, and every article I can find in the following specific fields: gas refining, oil production, offshore technology, shipping, ship building, steel production, major project construction, major civil construction, nuclear power, physics, electric power production and distribution, CAD, PLC's and instrumentation, control and HVAC design, paper production, chemical production, steel fabrication and erection, government computing, and piping, and pumps and systems - (I'm hoping the latter will get sewage too - but nothing yet.). Also, all available from ASQ and their testing branches. Are there any technical sources I'm overlooking that you know of?

So far, as stated above, I have found nothing that indicates any level of "loss prevention" has occurred: that is, my summary of widespread regional outages of power, leading to wide areas of utilities and services lost for frequent but intermittant periods of time for a period probably not exceeding three weeks in most areas cannot be refuted by the actual progress to date nationally.

I am always looking for further information - but have found none to contradict the technical facts - much progress, but too little, too isolated, in too few industrial areas to support the whole system of support people now are used too. Further, government cover-up is widespread, and national reporting is biased and inaccurate - once analyzed by looking at numbers.

For example - look at my analysis of the real numbers behind Mr K's the widely reported "the petrochemical industry is ready" headlines. It turns out only 75% of the industry is actually in remediation. None have finished testing. None have reliable suppliers or distributors yet from the pump to the railcar to the consuming plant. And 1/4 of the *industry* are apparently even in their remediation phase yet!

The food processing industry was given glowing response headlines - after 3 companies out of 500 gave positive responses to a self-reported survey to the dept of Agriculture. And those three companies began three years ago. What about the rest? When did they start? No body knows - and nobody is asking.

-- Robert A. Cook, P.E. (Kennesaw, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), March 02, 1999.

Do I think Arlin can cause bank runs? No. I don't think Gary North can, either. Which doesn't mean he won't try. Neither opinion, however, changes the intent, which is what I said.

Hoffmeister

-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-dejanews.com), March 02, 1999.

Hoff,

So let me get this straight: Arlin and Gary North want bank runs to happen, but you know they can't. So, knowing that, you call a Y2K preparedness forum to change the minds of people who can't even cause bank runs.

Why do you call here if Y2K is only going to be a "bump-in-the road"? I'm not a racist, for example, but I would never bother calling a Neo- Nazi forum to persuade those folks they're mistaken.

Again, again, again...if there is panic in 1999 or 2000, it will be due to many businesses, utilities and government agencies not starting their Y2K work by 1996 and not finishing remediation by the end of 1998.

-- Kevin (mixesmusic@worldnet.att.net), March 02, 1999.

Maria, you need to tell your lawyers all about the Year 2000 Readiness Disclosure Act -- any company that honestly believes that it is Y2K compliant can say so, without fear of litigation if it turns out to be wrong. This has only been the law since Oct 19, so there is no excuse for continuing to use this excuse.

Hoffmeister, I am glad to see you posting on many threads, and appreciate your excellent points. Folks, let me be up front here: we don't get many good pollyannas, the ones we normally have tend to be airheads, quite frankly. I think that Hoffmeister presents excellent points, that should be well considered, as he will point out weaknesses in Doomer arguments that need to be thought about. (I sorta think of him as a Johnny Cochran type, showing that no matter how conclusive that I personally think Y2K is going to be TEOTWAWKI, there is always that element of certainty lacking.)

-- Jack (jsprat@eld.net), March 02, 1999.

Jack,

I will pay attention to what you said about Hoffmeister. Still, preparing for Y2K, to me anyway, isn't any more unusual than buying auto insurance when I don't have proof that I'll be in an accident in the next six or 12 months.

-- Kevin (mixesmusic@worldnet.att.net), March 02, 1999.

If this board is just to be a "Y2k Preparedness" forum, then I agree with you, Kevin. I know that is the stated goal, which is the reason I hadn't posted here, but just lurked.

I'm not trying to change anyone's mind. I followed up on a discussion with Andy, which began on c.s.y2k. Admittedly, I have since posted more often, on other threads.

By and large, I enter discussions to test my own thoughts and opinions. It has been my experience that arriving at the truth, or getting as close as possible to it, is typically not served by only finding like-minded people, with which to self-reinforce opinions.

I'm not here to troll for arguments. But, if I see something posted that I consider wrong, I'll respond.

And without getting to melodramatic, your comparison to Neo-Nazi groups is misguided. Not challenging those types of ideas and beliefs can be more dangerous than ignoring them.

You aren't an advocate of censorship, are you?

Hoffmeister

-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-dejanews.com), March 02, 1999.

de Jager:

"So? What do I mean when I state confidently we've broken the back of Y2K? In short, I mean we've overcome the largest Y2K hurdle. The Y2K problem was never the actual act of fixing the code (or the embedded systems more on that later), it was the inaction and denial regarding a problem so easily demonstrated as real and pressing, and possessing consequences far exceeding it's humble beginnings. Overcoming denial was always a larger, more complicated, difficult and frustrating task, than actually fixing broken code."

Wrong. Dead wrong. Contrasting denial with fixing the code is a boneheaded way to conduct the argument. They don't equate, they're apples and oranges. The Y2K problem is precisely about fixing the code and testing it. Period. Our systems aren't going to say, next year, "Gee, we're so glad that you became aware of the problem." Nonsense.

Sorry to sound torqued but between de Jager and Hoffmeister, it's hard to tell who is dumber. I'm sorry, Jack, I respect a number of pollyannas (for instance, Senator Bennett, to name a sincere, thoughtful, pollyanna), but not this one. I said on the banking thread that Hoffmeister gives an appearance of being rational but he isn't. That's exactly the case. This is why I won't let his posts pass.

Just as with the banking thread, if you look at what he has actually said on this thread, it is devoid of helpful content and is mainly contradictory. To wit, his last query, "are you in favor of censorship." That's nonsense and a determined misreading of what Kevin has been saying here.

I will say it again, and I'm not embarrassed to say it, "Hoffmeister, you are an idiot."

Does that he mean he can't/shouldn't post. How inane. Post on every thread you feel like, you bozo.

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), March 02, 1999.

Dear Mr. DeJager,

If you do not cease your loose talk about possible failure of the financial industry, bank runs and a collapse of the stock market is not out of the question. If this does occur, Mr. DeJager, rest assured that my client will hold you responsible and seek an extensive damage claim against you personally. Consider yourself forewarned, Mr. DeJager. Cease and desist

Signed-

-- SCUM (SUCKING@LAWYER.com), March 02, 1999.

My comments in [brackets].

1.--"it's an admission we were so incompetent as an industry and we started a project so late that we didn't leave ourselves enough time to fix all the applications we were responsible for maintaining. The practice of triage is an embarrassment. It's the ultimate proof, for me at least, that raising the warning was necessary. Without our warning, the IT industry would still be asleep at the wheel."

2.---"...especially when we have ten months to go and are smart enough to increase production levels to take into account any production hiccups."

[ ??? Please read 1. again...]

3.---"Here's where we are today. Most, not all companies are working on this issue. "

[ This is not globally correct. Most business are small and medium size businesses and they employ the most people. I would venture to say that most people on this informed forum have yet to check the very computer they are using with right now...]

-- PNG (png@gol.com), March 02, 1999.

Nice to see you again, BigDog.

Demonstrating once again it's easier to call someone names than make an argument.

Sort of like declaring a collapse will happen without any backup.

Hoffmeister

-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-dejanews.com), March 02, 1999.

BigDog said: "Wrong. Dead wrong. Contrasting denial with fixing the code is a boneheaded way to conduct the argument. They don't equate, they're apples and oranges. The Y2K problem is precisely about fixing the code and testing it. Period. Our systems aren't going to say, next year, "Gee, we're so glad that you became aware of the problem." Nonsense. "

I think you are wrong about this. In many cases, contingency planning is more important than fixing the code, especially now that there is no time left to fix all of the code. As de Jager said, getting people to examine all of the possible problems has been a bigger task than actually fixing the code.

-- Buddy (buddy@bellatlantic.net), March 02, 1999.

PNG --- ouch, you got me, yes, exactly so. I haven't checked nary a one of my PCs (I will, I promise, I will, I must, I will). Or, more likely, a combination of test and replace a bit later in the year (but not too much, it really is on my calendar for April-May).

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), March 02, 1999.

Buddy --- I agree that, NOW, contingency plans are crucial. But de Jager gives the impression that somehow this has been an awareness game for the most part and that fixing stuff would somehow fall out magically from that and this is wrong. Awareness is only step one. I stand by my statement. There is an awful lot of loose talk these days that overlooks the sheer amount of code that has yet to be remediated, not to mention non-critical, embedded, etc. Even with contingency plans, that will remain the nastiest possible post-Y2K task. It can't be punted, avoided or ignored. Only suffered.

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), March 02, 1999.

de Jager cites absolutely no measurable progress towards fixing Y2K, or even developing contingency plans (example of a contingency plan: "Lets hire back everybody we layed off back when we replaced them with computers, and see if they can even remember how it used to be done, much less even have the resources to do it"), just fuzzy wuzzy vibes because now everyone is Aware and Working Real Hard, Spending Lots Of Money.

de Jager's main gig always was Awareness. He has got that now. I wish he would just retire. In fact, he reminds me of somebody who retires, but then keeps coming back to where he used to work, hanging around, just being a nuisance.

-- Jack (jsprat@eld.net), March 02, 1999.

Buddy - if awareness were the only thing needed - if it were the most significant thing needed (as de Jager states) so that, with awareness at relatively high levels, we have "broken the back" of the Y2K threat - then there would be no sense of problem from consistent, repeatable reports like those in the thread about execuitve officers "not getting it" after reports were formally made to them.

Awareness is a fundamental first step - right. We are now at the awareness stage we should have been in March, 1995. However, fixing things is easy, straightforward and simple only if remediation then began in April, 1995 in all companies and all governments across America - thus leading to resolution in all international suppliers to American companies.

Now, in March 1999 - we are at a stage of needing emergency preparedness - because those previous steps have not been carried out. It is almost now to the point of not successfully completely triage in companies not yet started..

-- Robert A. Cook, P.E. (Kennesaw, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), March 02, 1999.

Jack, Yes, you're insightful about de Jager. He is a terrific marketeer and he was invaluable in the early days of Y2K. But, he is not technical (despite what he'd like everyone to believe) and doesn't understand the systemic character of Y2K. At this stage of the game, he is a grave liability to what has to be done, namely, the work!

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), March 02, 1999.

From my reading, what de Jager is trying to say is this:

"We are no longer facing the end of the world in any catastrophic sense, because those failures which could have caused it have been pretty well circumvented. Not completely, mind you, since electricity is still imponderable to some extent, Japan looks bad, and nobody on Earth is or ever can be in a position to rule out a death of a thousand cuts. But hundreds of billions are being spent on millions of remediation projects. My reading, combined with a large number of off-the-record conversations with knowledgeable people, leads me to believe that the whole concoction is no longer poisonous, even if it's still pretty vile."

By and large, this isn't an unreasonable position. The middle ground is very hard to hold in such a polarized issue, yet some sort of middle ground is what's almost sure to happen here. How can someone say that we will get very unpleasantly sick but we'll recover without permanent trauma or scars, and so reasonably quickly?

So de Jager is stockpiling stuff just in case, but trusts the banking system? OK, I wish him well, and I suppose if your stockpiles are sufficient you can do without your bank account for a week or two. Maybe things will only be mildly bad for some of us. But each of us could be among those things are bad for.

Meanwhile, the TV just told me that whatever I do, I better not get real sick around rollover.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), March 02, 1999.

Peter de Jager is a big fat idiot!

-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.com), March 02, 1999.

PNG got me, too! But let me say in self-defence:

1) I don't use my computer for business.

2) If Y2K is a bump not a mountain, I will get it fixed then; I have more important things to spend my money on now.

3) If Y2K is a mountain, having a compliant computer is moot.

If not 1), 2) might not hold; if 3), everything but preps are moot.

(I did well in my logics course :-)

-- Tricia the Canuck (jayles@telusplanet.net), March 02, 1999.

Hoffman you missed my point. The point is that you trust the system and are therefore willing to give it the benefit of the doubt. Many of us however, including those of us with indepth experience inside the system, distrust it in it's entirity and therefore will not give it one blinking inch, much less the benefit of the doubt. Since we do not trust it, our only sane option is to continue to prepare and to continue to urge others to prepare. The logical outcome of succeeding at that option is that the system, or at least the part of it centered around fractional reserve banking will crash.

It looks like this:

If we don't prepare there is a significant chance that the system will crash.

If we DO prepare there is an even more significant chance that the system will crash.

ergo, the only sane response is to prepare as though the system crash were a certainty. If it's not, then Praise God, and we get to eat a whole lot of whole wheat bread and corn bread next year. If so, then Praise God and we get to eat a whole lot of whole wheat bread and corn bread next year.

the only insane thing to do is to listen to obvious liars like koskinen and de jager, and then pretend they're telling the truth.

Arlin Adams [who is honored to be mentioned as being in the same category as GN, even if our theological perspectives differ significantly.]

-- Arlin H. Adams (ahadams@ix.netcom.com), March 02, 1999.

Kevin - Thank you for reminding all of us (IF ANYBODY NOTICED!) that the [begin trumpet flourish] US Federal Y2K CZAR! [end trumpet flourish] has proclaimed that bank runs are impossible since "We can print more bills faster than they can take them out."

Somehow ROTFLMAO doesn't quite cover that one enough. :)

Tricia the Canuck - Thank you for reminding all of us (DITTO!) that it really doesn't matter that the wagon axle needs greasing if the horse is dead.

-- Ken Seger (kenseger@earthlink.net), March 03, 1999.

Just because we don't see $500, $1000, $10,000 bills around does not mean that they are not stashed away in a warehouse someplace.

"OK sir, you wanted to withdraw $18,500, here is one ten thousand dollar bill, 8 thousand dollar bills, and one five hundred dollar bill."

WHAT THE HELL AM I GONNA DO WITH THESE?

"You wanted all of your money, you got it, move along or that nice policeman over there will arrest you. NEXT!"

-- What Makes You so Sure (someone@youknow.com), March 03, 1999.

De Jager in February 1999

"Have we 'solved' Y2K? No, not entirely, but we have avoided the doomsday scenarios. The next 12 months or so are going to be fascinating to watch. But it will not, contrary to the ravings found in some of the media reports and in many places on the internet, it is not TEOTWAWKI. Through hard work and effort, we've broken the back of Y2K."

De Jager, September 1998 http://www.year2 000.com/archive/timeflies.html

"So the sense of urgency is accelerating and we are now doing what we can do at this late date.

This does not mean that we'll get through this easily... but we will get through it.

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.

Why? How can I make these statements? I make them for two reasons. The first reason I've already mentioned. The sense of urgency and related activities is rapidly accelerating.

But our best efforts and a growing sense of urgency alone will not bring us through this. Remember, (as if we could ever forget) we left it until too late."

-- Chris (catsy@pond.com), March 03, 1999.

Chris - knowing that you just quoted de Jager there:

Look at what he just said - there is no technical justification for any remark listed, every one is nothing more than an opinion based on his hope (perhaps, based on his judgement): but there is no evidence present to justify any of these statements.

Even the absurd one "planes falling from skies" - the media repeats this stupidity all the time, but nobody has predicted this will happen since early 1998 - and I'd to even see an actual "predictive quote" saying this after mid-1996 from any reliable source. It's pure urban legend spread repeatedly by the news media that demonstrates the media's stupidity and unwillingness to learn. And to illustrate the media's bias and favoritism.

-- Robert A. Cook, P.E. (Kennesaw, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), March 03, 1999.

BTW, remember that touted "Promises kept" webpage on De Jager's site? All those companies that said that they'd be mostly done by dec. 1998?

31 companies responded as of Feb. 1999, 3/4 of which are Canadian.

http://ww w.year2000.com/promises/NFpromises_kept.html

-- Chris (catsy@pond.com), March 03, 1999.

Robert, agreed.

I just posted the quotes from September to point out that he said then it was too late and he had made good arguments to justify this, to contrast to this article which is mistakenly taken as too obtimist by De Jager. All I see from this current article is that he is afraid, as the gov is, that the masses will take too much cash out and collapse the banks. He doesn't really contradict himself. I'd expand more, but I must run to an apointment, will try later.

-- Chris (catsy@pond.com), March 03, 1999.