If I recall correctly, isnt tomorrow the day the new fiscal year begins in Japan and New York State? Anyone willing to prognosticate on the possibilities! Are the bank runs and store shelf emptying going to be precipitated by these evnts as the world realizes all at once that this is a very real problem? Or will it all be "just a bump in the road". Should be interesting!!! Over- Charlie P.

-- Charlie P. (nospamforme@maybelater.com), March 31, 1999

Answers

Is NoT DIeTER To revEAL hIS trUE IdenTItY To tHE tHREE peOpLe haVEn't guESSeD?????? tHE OnES thaT CarE??????

alSO!!!!! pNg haS PostED 56,980,274 TImeS!!!!!! apRiL firST Is fiSCaL YeAR 1999 fOr japAn!!!!!! paY ATtenTIoN!!!!!!

pS, noTHinG WiLL HappEN!!!!!! Y2k iS aLL a buNCh oF HypE!!!!!! AsK Any IdiOt!!!!!!!

-- Dieter (questions@toask.com), March 31, 1999.

Hi Dieter. What time is your coming-out party? <:)=

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), March 31, 1999.

Once again, Deiter is close!! PNG has ALSO posted, about half as many times, that th efiscal year roll-overs are not likely to show problems outside the barnyards. Noone is going to trumpet the fact that 19 reports don't seem to work this week, etc. Unless the failure is in a system like Medicaid or state Welfare payments, we may never know, until it is WAY too late.

CR

-- Chuck, a night driver (reinzoo@en.com), March 31, 1999.

The joke is that NOTHING noticeable will happen. The .gov is SOOOOO freaked about the herd getting whiff that it is spinning and covering up at an amazing silkworm rate. Any potentially unremediated "booking" systems have been jerryrigged with "cramped-windowing" runarounds to *not* have to look ahead to anything 2000, but to loop it into 1999. That buys time for more "we're working hard and expect to have ..."

xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxx

-- Leska (allaha@earthlink.net), March 31, 1999.

Leska,

You do, of course, have proof of the alledged "cramped windowing" runarounds...

??? or is this another assumption?

-- Mutha Nachu (---@cherryblossomharbor.com), March 31, 1999.

C'mon, Mutha, even Y2K Pro acknowledges that the "cramped window" approach has been and continues to be taken by folks like those State unemployment agencies who needed a quick-n-dirty fix back in December. It seems to have worked for now, but it's still a kludge...

-- Mac (sneak@lurk.com), March 31, 1999.

that...was not the question, Mac. I don't play "bait and switch" with the pessimists...since the burden of proof is on those that make the claims, I asked for proof of what Leska claimed....just like the firetruck fiction.

Still no takers on that one.

-- Mutha Nachu (---@windymountainpass.com), March 31, 1999.

[sorry but the link to this article is now dead]

[snip]

13 States, District Face Y2K Problems

Unemployment Checks May be Slowed

By Stephen Barr

Washington Post Staff Writer

Wednesday, December 23, 1998; Page A03

Thirteen states and the District will have to put electronic bandages on their computers next month so they can pay new unemployment insurance claims into the year 2000, Clinton administration officials said yesterday.

The federal-state unemployment program provides one of the first large-scale examples of the problems caused by the "Y2K bug." Computer experts have warned that payments for billions of dollars in Medicaid, food stamps, child welfare and other federal-state benefits could be at risk because surveys have shown that states are moving slowly on the Y2K problem.

Many of the computer systems in the unemployment insurance program, which processes claims, makes payments to the jobless and collects taxes from employers, are more than 30 years old. The systems processed more than $20 billion in state unemployment benefits in fiscal 1998 and provide crucial data on economic trends.

Persons filing claims for jobless benefits are assigned a "benefit year," which means that -- starting Jan. 4, 1999 -- unemployment insurance systems will have to be able to process dates and calculations that extend into 2000. Y2K problems may occur when computers next month try to process a first-time claim with a benefit year that covers both 1999 and 2000, officials said.

Some states that have not solved their Y2K problems will use a simple temporary fix, such as ending all benefit years on Dec. 31, 1999, while other states will use different techniques that essentially trick the computers so they will perform accurate date calculations, officials said.

If the computers are still not ready to operate on Jan. 1, 2000, states then will rely on emergency backup plans, including the writing of benefit checks by hand, officials said.

John A. Koskinen, the president's adviser on Y2K issues, and Deputy Labor Secretary Kathryn Higgins yesterday stressed that the nation's unemployment insurance system would not suffer serious disruptions.

"A year out, we know where our problems are. . . . It's an enormous help to have that information," Higgins said.

Koskinen pointed to the contingency planning for jobless benefits as a clear sign that the government will be able to maintain important services and programs, even if computer systems encounter Y2K problems.

[snip]

Labor Department officials listed Arizona, Connecticut, Delaware, the District, Hawaii, Illinois, Kansas, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Missouri, Montana, New Hampshire, New Mexico and Vermont as lagging on Y2K repairs. Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands also are running behind schedule, the officials said.

Delaware, according to the Labor Department, will not have all computer systems converted until the last possible moment: Jan. 1, 2000. But state officials said the most critical systems have been fixed and suggested that even experts can disagree on how to assess Y2K readiness.

The District should have its unemployment system fixed by March 31, the Labor Department said.

Overall, the repair bill could run to $490 million for the unemployment insurance systems, according to preliminary estimates.

[snip]

-- Kevin (mixesmusic@worldnet.att.net), March 31, 1999.

Ed Yourdon gave his opinion about April 1, 1999 on this thread...

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=000f20

...and comments by other people about April 1 can be seen on this thread:

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=000add

Tomorrow is the beginning of fiscal year 1999 for Japan.

-- Kevin (mixesmusic@worldnet.att.net), March 31, 1999.

any more questions Mutha?

-- a (a@a.a), March 31, 1999.

Knight Kevin, the link facts guardian angel, thank you!

Of course I have proof, and of course I will not reveal my sources.

It is possible to generalize the proof to alert Forum denizens, without blowing all my future opportunities to learn more from the sources. The .gov .mil +++ is determined now to "contain" and "shape" public perception of Y2K to buy time and "prevent panic," and they are increasingly "alarm-shy" and extremely cautious of wordings. If I were to publicly reveal the truth and name specifics, I would certainly no longer be welcome in the high-level closed-door meetings. Why would I risk that to semi-momentarily-NOT-satisfy an anonymous troll? Very stooopid.

The .establishment is winging its way thru Y2K minefields, falling back on previous procedures, terrified, scared to be seen admitting there is anything "outside the box." They *are* trying, but it won't be enough. Prepare yourself and don't count on any outside help.

Ed Yourdon has it totally right when he notices that successful grassroots efforts are, in patches, rendering the .gov et al irrelevant on the Y2K outcome issue, the post--> deal-with-it portion. They simply cannot fathom/contend/respond to Y2K possibilities. I have seen absolute fear and cross-garlic-ward-off denial in the eyes of the most courageous .gov "leaders." They are not bad people. Y2K's implied interconnectedness just overwhelms them. Its effects cannot be compartmentalized & delegated and report-deadened away.

Y2K is a new creature, and their efforts now are to stuff it back into Pandora's box and sit on the lid and not let the public see that box jumping and bulging and straining and cracking and the muffled growling, roar & shriek coming from within.

xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx

-- Leska (allaha@earthlink.net), March 31, 1999.

Folks, they call it the Y2K problem for a good reason, not the various dates in 1999 problem. I dare to say that the number of programs that do look-ahead is very small compared to the big picture. How many embedded systems do look-ahead processing? <:)=

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), March 31, 1999.

"The .gov is . . . . spinning . . . at an amazing silkworm rate."

Can you imagine what conditions would be like if this statement were true about positive things, pro-citizen, pro-freedom, anti-war type things? If they worked even half as hard at those things, just think of what good shape we'd be in!

-- linda (smitmom@hotmail.com), March 31, 1999.

*sigh* I'll guess I'll hafta pull a 'link meme' kevin in reverse...since he only highlights what fits his agenda...

"Wednesday, December 23, 1998; Page A03 notice the date?

Thirteen states and the District will have to put electronic bandages on their computers next month so they can pay new unemployment insurance claims into the year 2000, Clinton administration officials said yesterday."

"Persons filing claims for jobless benefits are assigned a "benefit year," which means that -- starting Jan. 4, 1999 -- unemployment insurance systems will have to be able to process dates and calculations that extend into 2000. Y2K problems may occur when computers next month try to process a first-time claim with a benefit year that covers both 1999 and 2000, officials said." notice it's across the date problems? can any of you think of an extremely simple fix for this.... hmmmm...?

"Some states that have not solved their Y2K problems will use a simple temporary fix, such as ending all benefit years on Dec. 31, 1999, while other states will use different techniques that essentially trick the computers so they will perform accurate date calculations, officials said."

"If the computers are still not ready to operate on Jan. 1, 2000, states then will rely on emergency backup plans, including the writing of benefit checks by hand, officials said."

"A year out, we know where our problems are. . . . It's an enormous help to have that information," Higgins said.

Koskinen pointed to the contingency planning for jobless benefits as a clear sign that the government will be able to maintain important services and programs, even if computer systems encounter Y2K problems.

"Delaware, according to the Labor Department, will not have all computer systems converted until the last possible moment: Jan. 1, 2000. But state officials said the most critical systems have been fixed and suggested that even experts can disagree on how to assess Y2K readiness."

"The District should have its unemployment system fixed by March 31, the Labor Department said. " This is the reason I noted the date. If the system wasn't ready, of course they had to patch it! This was written in Dec.!

I could go on, but why bother?

---

a: Nope. It's impossible to get a straight answer from anybody on this forum anyway....there are sooooo many assumptions.

As for Leska's "Of course I have proof, and of course I will not reveal my sources." rhetoric, what a bunch of BS!

Just like the fantasy powerplant operator that claimed 1,000's were at risk from cover-up...when asked to whistle-blow....stutter, sputter, uhhhhhhh.... nothin'! (turned out to be a liar) If anyone has inside information and proof of a cover-up that could potentially harm the public that person is a coward for not revealing what they know! (there are so many ways to anon. get info out, its not even funny).

Besides, if everything goes south, what "high-level closed-door meetings" will still be going on? How selfish for someone to withhold info like this, and hide behind not wanting to satisfy a 'troll'...it has ZERO to do with satisfying any one person... I, like most intelligent people adjust with the FACTS... If you are withholding facts because you wish to maintain an 'insider' status, you do EVERYONE a disservice! And put lives at potential risk! YOU... need a values check!

Posts these FACTS that you are privy to, for all to view and I (along with everyone else) will evaluate them...otherwise you just add to the NOISE and paranoia of the poor tech illit's that are scared spitless by the extremists like North and such...

Simply Said:
Put up or Shut up.


-- Mutha Nachu (---@frogandtoadgohoppin'.com), March 31, 1999.

here ya go mutha wutha:

just for mutha

-- ha ha (muth@s.nervous), March 31, 1999.

Mutha, what an idiot. I'm sure you are not working, without pay, many hours behind the scenes to try to force the .gov to help prepare the people, as we are. We have completely succeeded with one city, and will succeed with the other, although time is getting short.

I have many times posted the facts, but do not name names; that would be a disservice to the cityzzzzns of the locales we are working to save. Your comments show how far from the truth and workings of .gov, .mil, .biz, .establishment, etc. you could ever hope to influence. You also have a complete lack of knowledge of psychology and compassion. Ah, but karma works with exactitude, and I will leave your fate in God's hands :-D

Ashton & I and many many others have posted fact after fact after fact for months. All it takes is reading to see.

Your taunts reveal only ignorance and bad manners and do nothing to help people understand Y2K or how to prepare to survive and thrive through it and beyond. You are a disgrace to Mother Nature.

xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxx

-- Leska (allaha@earthlink.net), March 31, 1999.

Just what I figured... hopeless, clueless, memes.

-- Mutha Nachu (---@justwhatIexpected.com), March 31, 1999.

Whats the point,Mutha? I wonder what motivates you, outside of the obvious character flaws, to invest the time and energy to distract GIs like mosquitos distract trackers. MJ

-- MJ (MJ@discerning.mind), March 31, 1999.

Or as I just said on another thread...why is it so important to someone that we accept Y2K as a 4, rather than an 8?

-- Kevin (mixesmusic@worldnet.att.net), March 31, 1999.