Washington Post Mon 3/22: Great and pertinent article on why y2k panic is a MUCH bigger deal than the problem itselfgreenspun.com : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread
www.washingtonpost.com read it and weep, weevils
-- Bio-hazard (email@example.com), March 22, 1999
-- bob (firstname.lastname@example.org), March 22, 1999.
Another "no... but yes" article. Are they hedging their bets?
-- Alison Tieman (email@example.com), March 22, 1999.
My two cents worth on this issue. Here's a quote from the Washington Post article:
The scarcity of generators and non-electrical products, however, does not overly worry industry and political leaders, who believe the demand for such items likely will be confined to a narrow group of people. Of greater concern is whether a larger slice of Americans decide to purchase sizable quantities of everyday products such as batteries, flashlights and canned food in the last few days of 1999.
Will we have this kind of panic? If you truly believe the soothing words of people like Peter de Jager, then the logical conclusion is no. So many businesses and government agencies will finish remediation within a few months that the public will see this and not panic.
On the other hand, if what John Koskinen and Peter de Jager are saying is not based on fact, then panic could be much worse. If our government and the business community destroy their own credibility by making optimistic compliance statements that don't pan out, watch out!
-- Linkmeister (firstname.lastname@example.org), March 22, 1999.
or if the public concerns itself with the facts...which, if we think about it..will not happen. People believe what they want to believe, and few would even have the temperament to look at this closely. I don't think the panic of Y2K will happen until the 3rd or 4th quarter. It will start with a run on the banks. Or when the market finally crashes..but that usually happens in October, soo...we have time...it may be "Y2K" blamed as well. One thing for sure, the government will NOT want panic..which is why they only "leak small truths".
-- rick shade (Rickoshade@aol.com), March 22, 1999.
I think the stock market would crash before there were bank runs. Stock market problems could begin when big companies start dumping non-compliant vendors and replacing them with compliant vendors. Who knows more about the compliance of other companies than companies themselves?
It's obvious that the government in its own way is already panicking about Y2K. The financial community would be next. The general public would be the last to know.
-- Linkmeister (email@example.com), March 22, 1999.
Can someone do a Russian translation? "Do not prepare. Bring us your guns, we will give you food.Sorry, no toilet paper. Vaccinations are mandatory. Don't worry, where you are going is much nicer."
-- KoFE (Comingsoon@your.town), March 22, 1999.
Point #1 - We don't know how big the y2k problem is actually going to play itself out - too many variables - but it looks bad worldwide
Point #2 - We don't know how big the public panic is going to be - too many variables worldwide
You cannot say:
#1 > #2 or #1 < #2
-- James Chancellor, P.E. (firstname.lastname@example.org), March 22, 1999.
Sent the WP and "e" on this one...
... For many businesses and government agencies, the technical challenge of finding occurrences of the glitch, rewriting software and testing those changes has turned out to be a manageable, albeit a costly and time-consuming, task that will be largely completed before the new year. The federal government, for instance, now reports that 79 percent of its systems are fully compliant. ...
The Washington Post should watch those inaccuracies which IMPLY things are better than they are.
They should have said ... The federal government, for instance, now reports that 79 percent of its MISSION-CRITICAL systems are fully compliant.
The governments self defined mission-critical systems total variously 6 to 10 % of the total government computer systems. In this article the WP has just been extremely misleading!
What about the fixing the non-mission critical systems? And how will non-compliant status on the bulk of those systems impact government services? What will that cost be?
Come on WP, you can do better than that!
-- Diane J. Squire (email@example.com), March 22, 1999.
-- Jack (firstname.lastname@example.org), March 22, 1999.
"The Washington Post should watch those inaccuracies which IMPLY things are better than they are...
You have got to be kidding. The Washington Post does not even attempt to separate news, opinion and spin. This is the same paper that a few days ago said that the Marines were training in Quantico "in case government workers with staplers and brief-cases storm the Treasury" (almost verbatim from the Post).
Personally, after seeing how the Post handles other issues, I don't think their treatment of Y2K is an accident. They have incredible financial resources to draw on - there is no reason to think that their articles are due to "sloppy journalism".
-- Anonymous99 (Anonymous99@anonymous.com), March 22, 1999.
Another 'those preparation loonies are the effect AND the cause'! My suggestion is to divide your preps. Don't keep everything in one place. We (the victims of incredible govt ineptitude) are going to get blamed. Think duck and cover.
-- RD. ->H (email@example.com), March 22, 1999.
someone actually *believes* that the washpost reports news? no, no, they report liberal political pseudorealities, and ignore the news.
if it were otherwise the rest of us wouldn't be forced to buy give the moonies money by buying the only newspaper in town...the Wash Times...
-- Arlin H. Adams (firstname.lastname@example.org), March 22, 1999.