You accused me of "inventing figures" when I said that Y2K would cost 1.5 trillion to fix, and that legal costs would be another 2 trillion. Have a look at this $4,000,000,000,000.00 estimate. You asked me to show you so here it is. Now, do you have anything to SHOW US, except for more HOT AIR? <:)=

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), May 03, 1999

Answers

Why bother. We are all getting very tired of this. You mentioned this in the post below, why start a new one?

-- (tired@of.it), May 03, 1999.

Hey tired, in case you haven't noticed this is a Y2K discussion forum, so I think you might be in the wrong place.

-- jp (im@still.lurking), May 03, 1999.

Because I'm tired of it too. Tired of the same stuff over and over. Computers fail now, we've seen this one at least a hundred times from Mr. Poole. It's always the same stuff, they're working on it, almost done, any day now, no problem. More clueless OPINIONS, no FACTS to back it up. These guys are right and know it all. We and the published reports are wrong and know nothing. I say it's time to put up or shut up. <:)=

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), May 03, 1999.

So? Anyone can claim umpty jillion anythings for anything. You can't claim every penny spent on computers for the last 4 years is for Y2K. Get a grip. Outside of a very few companies that are totally data centric, most IS depts are reporting the equivalent of a years budget spread out over 4 or 5 years. How about where YOU work?

-- Paul Davis (davisp1953@yahoo.com), May 03, 1999.

Sysman:

What is the point? The majority of those that this is directed to have already stated that we have no desire to tell you or any other doomer how to live your life or how to prepare for Y2K. You have also made it fairly clear that you don't care what we have to say about things so why do you insist on these calling out posts? It's not like you actually pay attention to them or respond to them. You did it with your "Enlighten Me" thread and then again with your "Hit me With Your Best Shot". Once the facts were presented and you could no longer respond, you just dropped the thread and moved on.

So, maybe you didn't invent the $4 trillion estimate, somebody else did. The way this whole thing got started was you demanding 'facts' from all of us pollys to convince you of our point of view which is a pointless exercise. Then, you post numbers like this which are nothing more than one man's guesstimate. Just becasue someone get's their opinion published does not make it a fact.

Face it Sysman, very little of the information posted here can be called fact, whether it is positive or negative. Anytime you take raw data and summarize it into report or a news release, it will have some amount of spin, not necessarily intentional but spin nonetheless. People can not write like robots -- their own values and opinions will always have some factor in how information is reported, what is emphasized, what is omitted, etc. That doesn't mean it is bad, it just means that you need to read it carefully and decide for yourself if there is anything significant in what is said or left unsaid. Complete, unfettered objectivity does not exist anywhere, especially not on this forum.

Finally, 'facts' do not exist in a vaccuum. A new fact only has meaning as it relates to all of the other facts that you have accumulated over the years that have formed the basis for your opinions and beliefs. The same statement will not affect two people the same way as is fairly obvious by the varied reactions to simple press releases about compliance or lack therof. Bottom line:your beliefs and values change when you feel that there is sufficient evidence that they should. It doesn't matter how much you try to convince me or I try to convince you.

So, why not enjoy the free expression of different opinions and see what gems you might glean from those with opposing viewpoints? I know I have picked up some interesting points-of-view from some of your fellow doomers. While I am far from being convinced, I at least have a somewhat better appreciation of why you and others feel the way you do.

-- RMS (rms_200@hotmail.com), May 03, 1999.

RMS wrote:

"[V]ery little of the information posted here can be called fact."

Perhaps you are right. There is a lot of clutter here. However, there is much information posted that can indeed be called "facts".

Examples (dispute them with referenced "counter-facts" if you have them):

-Much of the world has done nothing about Y2k. Many nations are just now starting to look at it seriously.

-Every survey reveals that roughly half of all SME's have done nothing about Y2k. Many will "fix on failure".

-Regardless of the amount spent, Y2k is the most expensive business problem in history.

-Many companies are nearing some definition of compliance, and some are now claiming same.

Now, what these "facts" ultimately will mean is, of course, unknown. The "facts" I, and many others here, would like to see more of fit the last category. Sadly, there is far too little of those. Please post them when you find them. I welcome good news, as do most here.

-- regular (zzz@z.z), May 03, 1999.

heh,heh,heh! YOU better go take a look at the "bullshit", errr.....FACT machine on that other thread there, Sysman!

"what?!? Is that the stupid idea train, coming around the bend?"

-- (.`.`@.`.`), May 03, 1999.

I told you to not make me do it. Now, what do you guys have to SHOW US, except for more HOT AIR? <:)=

I bet he is REALLY sorry he said THAT, right about now!

-- Hip Hypocrite Hater (lkhjsdoue@l;kdshg.piwe), May 03, 1999.

Sysman, you're getting your numbers from the Gartner Group??? Now that's funny! Let's take a look at how these bandits operate: Naples Daily News Nov. 10
Naples Daily News Feb. 24
Naples Daily News March 17
So there you have it folks, the "wizard" from Gartner Group figures a job that actually cost $700,000 should have come in at $14 million. So Sysman, what do you think of the $590/hour that the consultant from Gartner charged for that piece of enlightenment? Let me take a wild guess, it is a bit more than what you are making. For that kind of dough, the least they could do is send you a nice cheque for so obediently posting their propaganda. Or maybe you should talk to Kevin Schick. He was one of the first of the Gartner gang to do a Carl Sagan imitation when talking about Y2K estimates. He ended up as a VP at Viasoft (VIAS on the Nasdaq) - one of a group of Y2K upstarts who made a lot more money from fleecing investors than from fixing code. 18 months ago this stock was trading at well over 50 bucks a share and the company had a market cap of $1 billion. Now let's do a little reality check. You can buy the shares today for $4.40 and the company is worth less than $80 million. No doubt Gartner Group would put the $920 million that went bye-bye in this scam into their "lost business opportunities" category mentioned in your link. Like they say, a billion here, a billion there, pretty soon you're beginning to talk real money! Sysman, are you really that incredibly gullible? If so, let me sell you some wheat - good wheat, just 5 bucks a pound, lasts forever 

-- Computer Pro (first_minister@hotmail.com), May 03, 1999.

I'd have to say this is worth reposting to this thread..."put up or shut up" says Sysman. hah. looks like you better shut up. or as Gary North says "when your in a hole, stop digging"

__________________________________________________

http://www.kcstar.com:80/item/pages/business.pat,business/30daf2cd.430 ,.html

snip>>>>> Anderson's point was aimed at Y2K spending. He believes information technology professionals at major U.S. corporations have been on a financial sugar high, chalking up all kinds of spending to Y2K. Does the sales department need new marketing software? Put it in the Y2K budget.

"If you give a 2-year-old a hammer, everything becomes a nail," Anderson said. "If you give an I.T. professional extra funding for Y2K, everything looks like Y2K."

That type of hand-in-the-cookie-jar thinking has led to unprecedented overstatement about Y2K, Anderson said.

"Y2K is easily the most overhyped issue of the last five years," Anderson said. "Everybody swore to each other that it was a bigger and bigger and bigger problem."

Anderson believes the capper came when other research firms projected that 1 trillion lines of computer code in the U.S., and another trillion lines overseas, had to be examined and fixed. He took a slap at projections that Y2K would cost $600 billion worldwide.

His projection? Because most Yankee Group clients are spending about 15 to 20 percent of their technology budgets on Y2K, and a total of $706 billion is spent yearly by government and corporations worldwide on technology, Anderson said about $100 billion a year was spent on Y2K. "Maybe $300 billion over the last three years," he said. <<<<<<<<<<

there are other links in this one, I won't add them so as to keep the thread size down.

http://www.smu.edu/cgi-bin/Nova/get/gn/837.html

this last one may not count, but it does give the numbers for crunching

http://www.smu.edu/cgi-bin/Nova/get/gn/972.html

And what is the big deal with the big numbers? IBM earned more profits in ONE quarter than their entire remediation tab!

http://dailynews.yahoo.com/headlines/bs/story.html?s=v/nm/19990421/bs/ earns_ibm_3.html

-- Mild Mannered Reporter (y2khypeisafraud@don't.buyit), May 03, 1999.

What Sissyman didn't say about his snip is this;

"In case studies of three companies" 3. there are other studies that show companies are getting it done for much less.

-- Hip Hypocite Hater (poiwert@;lasdg.f;lkh), May 03, 1999.

Hippie,

If you're going to post a quote, post the whole thing. You wouldn't want it taken out of context, now would you? <:)=

"In case studies of three companies, Gartner Group found the extent and costs of year 2000 problems in distributed computing environments had been seriously underestimated. The cost of repairing distributed code can be as high as $8.50 per line, compared with only $1.10 for Cobol, Gartner reports."

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), May 03, 1999.

here's a snip from ComputerWorld:

By Gary H. Anthes

Rick Flagler, information systems manager at Miniature Precision Bearings Corp., says he originally "freaked out" at his year 2000 problem. He also freaked out over a consulting firm's $2 million estimate to fix the problem  for just one of the Keene, N.H., company's divisions. Instead, Flagler's group developed its own methodology and conversion software. He now estimates he'll do the whole job  on millions of lines of IBM AS/400 Cobol, RPG and C code  for less than $200,000.

Flagler is one of a growing number of IS managers who are finding that Jan. 1, 2000, won't end the world as they know it. Vendor and press hyperbole notwithstanding, there are ways to approach the problem  and some lucky circumstances  that allow them to sleep nights.

Indeed, some companies and federal agencies are spending millions on pound-foolish projects when penny-wise patches might do, says Thomas Giammo, the former head of IS at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. In many cases, year 2000 projects are driven more by fear than by rigorous analysis of need, he says.

"The alarmists have seized the field, and the burden of proof seems to be on those who say it's not that critical," Giammo says.

"I can see where some companies are in trouble, but vendors are really playing on the emotions of companies that are not in trouble," says Chuck Meehan, director of management information services at Insituform Technologies, Inc. in Memphis. "Some companies are spending huge amounts to change out their total software, which is asinine."

-- Mild Mannered Reporter (y2khypeisafraud@don't.buyit), May 03, 1999.

"If you're going to post a quote, post the whole thing. You wouldn't want it taken out of context, now would you? <:)= -- Sissyman"

No, I wouldn't...I was simply posting what YOU left out of your 'snip', hypocrite!

"Gartner Group's well-known estimate of $300 billion to $600 billion in year 2000 costs covers only the expense of repairing Cobol code ... Estimates for total costs related to the year 2000, including lost business opportunities, litigation, and the cost of making desktop computers, networks, and embedded technology compliant, range as high as $4 trillion"

-- Hip Hypocrite Hater (owefkszdg@l.skdgpios.nerg), May 03, 1999.

Sysman, you're getting your numbers from the Gartner Group??? Now that's funny! Let's take a look at how these bandits operate:

Naples Daily News Nov. 10 Naples Daily News March 17

So there you have it folks, the "wizard" from Gartner Group figures a job that actually cost $700,000 should have come in at $14 million. So Sysman, what do you think of the $590/hour that the consultant from Gartner charged for that piece of enlightenment? Let me take a wild guess, it is a bit more than what you are making. For that kind of dough, the least they could do is send you a nice cheque for so obediently posting their propaganda.

Or maybe you should talk to Kevin Schick. He was one of the first of the Gartner gang to do a Carl Sagan imitation when talking about Y2K estimates. He ended up as a VP at Viasoft (VIAS on the Nasdaq) - one of a group of Y2K upstarts who made a lot more money from fleecing investors than from fixing code. 18 months ago this stock was trading at well over 50 bucks a share and the company had a market cap of $1 billion. Now let's do a little reality check. You can buy the shares today for $4.40 and the company is worth less than $80 million. No doubt Gartner Group would put the $920 million that went bye-bye in this scam into their "lost business opportunities" category mentioned in your link. Like they say, a billion here, a billion there, pretty soon you beginning to talk real money!

Sysman, are you really that incredibly gullible? If so, let me sell you some wheat - good wheat, just 5 bucks a pound, lasts forever 

-- Computer Pro (first_minister@hotmail.com), May 03, 1999.

-- @ (@@@.@@@), May 03, 1999.

Yup, more opinions. All I want from you guys is your source of information on the cost of Y2K. You'right RMS, very little here can be considered fact. At least I a have a reference, and it's not the one I went out looking for, which was only 3.5 trillion. Where are your references guys? Let's forget the term fact. SHOW US a published report that agrees with your opinion. What's so hard about this? <:)=

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), May 03, 1999.

Thanks @, at least you've got the idea. Now keep 'em coming if you want us to pay any attention to you! <:)=

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), May 03, 1999.

Regular:

That is exactly my point. Look at your so called 'facts':

-Much of the world has done nothing about Y2k. Many nations are just now starting to look at it seriously.

What does "much" mean? One third? One half? More? Less? Just becasue they are just now starting to look at it, what does that imply? Will it take them the same amount of time to solve problems or will they benefit from the results from around the world so far?

-Every survey reveals that roughly half of all SME's have done nothing about Y2k. Many will "fix on failure".

Again, a vague and imprecise statement, not a fact. Who did the survey, what questions were asked, how many will continue to do nothing, how critical are these SME's in the overall scheme, what does 'many' mean?

-Regardless of the amount spent, Y2k is the most expensive business problem in history.

How can the determination of how expensive it is be 'regardless of the amount spent'? If you are talking about intangible expenses, who quantified them and how does that make this statement a 'fact'?

-Many companies are nearing some definition of compliance, and some are now claiming same.

"Many", "some", etc. are sufficiently vague that this statement has little meaning in and of itself.

The "facts" I, and many others here, would like to see more of fit the last category.

This pretty much sums up my point above. Your opinion is that Y2K is going to be bad so you want to see these stories to convince yourself otherwise. I am of the opposite opinion so I spend my time looking for negative reports on Y2K and determining their veracity. I don't seek out the good news reports because they would have little bearing on my personal views.

-- RMS (rms_200@hotmail.com), May 03, 1999.

Wow, here's another reference, this one says $6,000,000,000,000.00 in legal costs alone... <:)=

"Naturally (for those of you who have been playing computer games and not following the litigation news), there already been many lawsuits filed, and the pundits have predicted trillions (6 trillion actually, but of course, this is a guess) in legal fees being generated by these lawsuits over the life of the Y2K journey."

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), May 03, 1999.

RMS:

"Will it take them the same amount of time to solve problems or will they benefit from the results from around the world so far?"

While they may benefit, they won't finish in time. Any argument which is based on a premise other than this is fatally flawed.

"Your opinion is that Y2K is going to be bad so you want to see these stories to convince yourself otherwise. I am of the opposite opinion so I spend my time looking for negative reports on Y2K and determining their veracity. I don't seek out the good news reports because they would have little bearing on my personal views."

My opinion is that Y2k may be bad. I follow the story closely, determine the veracity of both the good and the bad, and prepare for possible resultant problems.

-- regular (zzz@z.z), May 03, 1999.

Here's another good snip from this article... <:)=

"European programmers have been doing Euro conversions, and one bank there, when problems cropped up, said "But we had 33,000 programs to convert." (Wall Street Journal, January 1999.) Well, the globe will soon have 33k2. The Economist states that this will be "the most expensive problem of all time.""

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), May 03, 1999.

I for one have had enough of Sysman's Bullshit Antics. Can you believe the arrogance of some people? After a dozen good links [I read them and clicked through] this joker has the balls to say "yup. more opinions". So like, what is the 6 trillion statement from above? a fact to you? It says right in the damn quote "this is only a guess"

And, what the hell does the Euro have to do with anything?

I suggest to all that you let this self-deluded pip think he is something, and quit play his game.

-- A REAL Systems man (gdwhal@2i2tcX.net), May 03, 1999.

FACT: Y2K affects everyone, in every walk of life, to some degree.

FACT: We can do something to minimize its impact

FACT: This forum offers a vehicle to help each other do so, if we use it wisely

-- Debbie (dbspence@usa.net), May 03, 1999.

REAL,

The dozen links popped up while I was posting. Did you read the next post genius? I don't like being called a liar and "manufacturing numbers." Let me ask you once again, WHERE IS YOUR REFERENCE FOR THE COST OF Y2K! I've got a few more in the 3-5 trillion range. Want to see 'em? <:)=

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), May 03, 1999.

Debbie, I agree.

ahh, and as for the uh...computer "pros"...maybe one of you can make the darn italics go away.

Also, why don't you provide your version of the facts instead of attacking what is publicly given as and taken as fact by the Gartner Group? There are governments and corporations worldwide that are paying them big money for their research.

Don't attack the poster, attack the facts.

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

-- Michael Taylor (mtdesign3@aol.com), May 03, 1999.

While I unashamedly stand with Sysman in knocking down the "Y2K is trivial" or "will undoubtedly be fixed" stuff, I tend to agree with the naysayers on this thread. AS IS THE CASE with the compliancy percentages, estimating Y2K budgeting is the craziest kind of science fiction.

No worldwide standards, no agreement on which things should counted in the budget as well as the wacky way that countries, enterprises and SMEs budget TO BEGIN WITH.

Any single organization MAY have superbly professional budgeting, planning, remediation, testing, auditing and metrics to measure it with. Worldwide? Don't put me on.

What we can say is, "Y2K is very, very expensive." We can also say that it is quite bizarre that reputable US corporations are spending as much ON THEIR OWN as some advanced countries are spending across entire industry sectors. In some cases, they're spending more. That is probably more germane and alarming than tacking (or subtracting) zeros from the global budget estimates.

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), May 03, 1999.

Michael:

You answered your own question when you said "version of the facts". There is no such thing as my version of the facts or your version of the facts -- A fact is a fact is a fact (with apologies to Gertrude Stein). Without putting words in BigDogs mouth, he basically said that there are no facts regarding Y2K budgets, just surveys, opinions, estimates, rough ideas, etc.

So, Sysman has done the same thing he did before by posting someones opinion, calling it a fact, and then challenging Stephen et. al. to provide counter-facts. One more time: you cannot prove an opinion wrong, with facts or without facts.

If you truly believe what you wrote Michael, then I assume that since Richard Branson said that Y2K had nothing to do with Virgin Air not flying on 12/31/99, you accept that as a fact because there are no counter-facts to that statement. An when the NERC or any other company makes a statement of compliance, then you will accept those as well because you have no counter-facts. And when Lee County completes its Y2K complaince work for $700,000, is that a fact or is the $14 million that Gartner Group said it would take a fact?

-- RMS (rms_200@hotmail.com), May 03, 1999.

Sysman,

The fact that you can find several different estimates -- none of which agree!!! -- is supposed to prove something? And you then crow like a rooster when no one else is interested in posting their own meaningless estimates? ROFL! Get a life.

You're very good at bamboozling the clueless, but all you're doing is demonstrating to me that you're desperate.

-- Stephen M. Poole, CET (smpoole7@bellsouth.net), May 03, 1999.

Computer Pro said "One and half trillion eh? Why stop there?" in the other thread. So I figured OK, why? I took one of the low-ball estimates of 600 billion, times 10, went over to dogpile, and found documentation that says Y2K will cost 10 times other estimates. This is why Gary North is a 10, and the polly crowd is a 1.

So Stephen, "The fact that you can find several different estimates -- none of which agree!!!" is part of my problem. Not seeing more banks, and more utilities, and more everything say that they are compliant on the news wires, is also part of my problem. I'm not a 10, but I'm not a 1 either. Nothing that you, or RMS, or Computer Pro, or Norm, or Y2K Pro says to me will make me change my opinion. I need to see more facts.

The polly crowd says this won't be a big deal. Why do they put so much time and effort into trying to change the mind of those that don't agree, if it's no big deal? If I wasn't worried about something, I sure wouldn't give it so much time. What are you guys trying to prove here? <:)=

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), May 03, 1999.

How many companies are there in the World?

How many companies are there just in the US?

How long have most companies known about Y2K?

Now how many have announced their compliance?

Count them.

Whats the percentage? How many are fixing on failure?

Regardles of the amount of money we have and will see spent, we have not seen the massive rush of companies announcing they are compliant that we would like to see to feel comfortable that the job is getting done or is done.

3-5 trillion?

No. How many companies are done?

Heck! How many Countries are done? Not a single f-ing one. Right?

I thought so.

Sysman,

I like you.

Mabey you should ask pollys how much food it takes to feed a family of four for a month. How much water? How many rolls of toilet papper? How much sanitary equipment for an infant? Hmm..

Argue those FACTS.

Wake the F up (Polly).

Father

-- Thomas G. Hale (hale.t@att.net), May 03, 1999.

perhaps if you would post some FACTS to aurgue, father(?)![such language] instead of assumptions????????????

talk about wake "F" up, 'pops'

-- Got Logic? (kissmy@ss.y2kfreaks), May 03, 1999.

Thomas (father):

Almost, I suspect you of being a bit dense. Y2K is basically a maintenance project. When is maintenance 'done'? When you've found and fixed the very last bug, of course. And when does that happen? Well, it never has. 'Compliance' is something you might get closer to each day, but can never reach. You must always assume that the *next* test will uncover something important. Testing never ends.

Knowing this, do you announce compliance? You are *guaranteed* to miss a few. You must make a tradeoff between customer reassurance and legal liability. Keep silent, people might think you're hopelessly behind. Announce compliance, and you might be find liable for any unknown problem (which might not even be yours). What do you say?

Most companies try to be as reassuring as they can under the circumstances. They talk about 'substantial' compliance. They discuss their procedures. They release testing results. They attempt to estimate their current status. And of course people like Sysman properly point out that such statements are too hazy to be relied on.

The optimists tend to argue that absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. Failure to announce compliance doesn't mean failure to achieve very near-compliance (the best we can do in theory).

Almost without exception, the pessimists invoke Rule Of Disinformation #19: ignore proofs presented and demand impossible proofs. Is it any wonder that Sysman has come right out and announced that nothing anyone says will change his mind, he is open only to 'facts' that meet his satisfaction. He knows these do not and *cannot* exist. It's a game. Don't fall for it.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), May 03, 1999.

Another valuable contribution from Flint-boy...

-- Pollyslayer (pollys@are.everywhere), May 03, 1999.

Pollyslayer:

If you wish to 'slay' anyone, you need to address an issue with something resembling thought. Empty personal attacks merely make you look foolish.

Interesting that you attempted to copy Doomslayer in selecting your handle, and misunderstood his message. He didn't call himself 'doomist-slayer', since he addresses the issues rather than trying to mock those addressing those issues. Try to think about this. You may succeed, who knows?

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), May 03, 1999.

RMS --

"You answered your own question when you said "version of the facts". There is no such thing as my version of the facts or your version of the facts -- A fact is a fact is a fact (with apologies to Gertrude Stein). Without putting words in BigDogs mouth, he basically said that there are no facts regarding Y2K budgets, just surveys, opinions, estimates, rough ideas, etc.

So, Sysman has done the same thing he did before by posting someones opinion, calling it a fact, and then challenging Stephen et. al. to provide counter-facts. One more time: you cannot prove an opinion wrong, with facts or without facts."

I wouldn't say there are "no facts", unless you're referring to my comments in the sense of "globally rational facts" about Y2K (ie, based on common yardsticks, etc). Then, indeed, yes. Of course, this doesn't mean that all opinions are equal. Poole's opinion, for instance, is truly without value on this thread as on all threads. The "fact" (here is one, after all) that estimates differ doesn't alter the huge expense of Y2K and the growing expense as reported in the aggregate. What's wrong with this guy? You're learning, I'm learning, Flint is learning, Decker is learning, most of us are learning. Poole seems unable to learn.

To be more precise, I certainly accept (and I think Sysman does too) numerous facts cited about individual enterprises, positive and negative, though I 'spose a reductionist could call them opinion too. Is SSA ready? I don't know for sure, but I'll accept their word for it, based on simple analysis of the details. GM? Looks good. Northwest Airlines? Looks good. Others of course.

By the same token, the Post Office? Looks bad. HCFA? Likewise. Germany and France? The same. Russia? Don't ask. Japan? Hard to say.

Where it gets dicey, as Flint points out, are the vast numbers of enterprises that ain't saying much. This isn't necessarily negative, not at all, but it isn't necessarily positive, not at all.

It's the fundamental uncertainty of the situation (which, frankly, I didn't expect to persist this long, alas) against the worldwide dynamics and risks to the supply chain that undergird my preparation.

I can only repeat, I would love to see 450 of the Fortune 500 saying they are Y2K OK or ready or near-compliant or ..... wouldn't make them right (because the systemic interdependencies would remain a question mark as well as embeddeds) but these guys dare not lightly claim anything at this stage of the game (1997 was different and all sorts of spin was permitted) and I would be much reassured. I doubt we're going to see that in 1999.

-- Bigdog (BigDog@duffer.com), May 03, 1999.

Flint,

I hardly consider this a game. Let's look at the top 10 Y2K stories on Infoseek news today. Pick Excite, Yahoo, they're all pretty much the same.

BANKING - Same old story about the Fed printing more money. No banks saying "we're ready." We have seen good banking news in the past (mostly from Norm), but none today. Some lawyers just nervous I guess.

BANKING, sorta. ADP had a successful test. Good news, no doubt. Better news after I see my direct deposit in my account.

UTILITIES - FPL has a successful test. Good news. Another good test. Any bad news? They started in 1995, before most. Still at 95% done. Not quite finished yet, but don't worry.

UTILITIES - Wisconsin Electric at 94%. Same as above. We'll be ready, we promise.

UTILITIES - CON ED handing out brochures. No real details. Letting customers know we're working on it.

SOFTWARE - VisualCafe passes ZD Y2K test. Good news for Cafe users.

SOFTWARE - Another Y2K tool announced. Isn't it getting a little late for new tools?

SEMINAR - In Detroit. Great news. They need all the help they can get.

ECONOMY - New Zealand estimate $300 million hit next year because or problems. After Y2K.

GUNS - Y2K gun locks. Damned good idea.

I guess we can consider it a good news day. More successful tests. More promises. More talk in Detroit. No one saying "we're ready," and another day has passed... VisualCafe should work next year though. <:)=

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), May 03, 1999.

Sysman --- ROFL. Yes, I too consider the news extremely soft and scary, given the seriousness of the problem (gee, the Senate called it a crisis just two months ago but I guess we're not allowed to use that word any more) AND THE LATENESS of the date. I continue to grant that silence cannot be made an argument for failure, but it's sure a good simulation for failure.

If the Senate was correct and not itself lying, the paucity of hard news (that is, given that 80% remediated of the World Fortune 2000 should be 1600 and they've got to finish in the next four months to allow for freeze and final production) can rightly be called "eerie".

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), May 03, 1999.

BigDog,

Isn't it interesting how the polly crowd avoids the Senate report? I guess they consider it old news. FPL has been working on the problem since 1995, and they aren't done yet, but another month or two is going to make all the difference. One thing is for sure, we have less than eight months to go. <:)=

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), May 04, 1999.

Flint,

Dense or not it seem that the systems that are critical to the operation and survival of the citizenry has been SLOWLY announcing their successfull tests. GREAT!!!!! The Nuclear Power Plant down in FL. had a comprehensive test! GREAT!

That is one out of 700+ Electric power plants nationwide. How do the citizens feel that the other 699 power plants are not announcing a successfull full scale test?

I mean come on!!!!!! So you will say that the rest of the pack is 80% done with remediation and expects to complete on Aug-Sept? 1st? or whatever date? How many PLANTS started with remediation and testing in 1995? NOT ALL OF THEM!!!!!! In truth I think it is a handfull. Out of 700+ power plants. A handfull, Flint.

And I might add in regards to your Maintenance comment that maintenance is done on a daily-weekly-monthly basis. Rarely is it done just for the end of a millenium. It makes it sound as if the whole world understood the importance of cleaning up their computer programs and testing all their chips just to make sure that they were working. Sorry Flint that is laughable.

The reports that we have collectively heard are indicative that business did not understand the problem til it was upon them.

Please let me know if you dispute any part of this.

It make scary sense to me. Esspecially when I need to err on the side of caution to insure that my family can make it thru anything that may occur. And Flint I really don't want that to happen. Sincerly. I am honestly torn up about the whole scenario.

As a side bar, I see how Big Business patronizes the populace and playes to government to do what it wants it to. This is how we find ourself with a government that refuses to require full scale disclosure.

I fail to see how you find a lack of information, OK. In light of the manipulation of information in today's society that is a common practice by government and business, I truely fail to see how withholding potentially material information to the survival of individuals accross the nation can be good.

Put your feet in the shoes of a CEO of a medical supply company that manufactures kidney dialisis machines or ventilators. Yeah let's let the lawyers manage this legal snafu. This is just one of the reasons congress brought to the floor litigation limits. Who is liable? Is the manufacturer liable if the machine doesn't work? The Hospital? or the Doctor? or the electric company? Who was negligent?

HOW MUCH IS THE DEATH OF A LOVED ONE WORTH, FLINT?

4 trillion doesn't sound like such a big number, now does it?

Father

-- Thomas G. Hale (hale.t@att.net), May 04, 1999.

Flint,

You seem to answer the question yourself.

If you understand that legaly it is a dangerous situation, why argue?

Why is silence good? What is it that you believe that I don't? (Go ahead be subjective...)

Looking, like everyone else, for an answer.

Father

-- Thomas G. Hale (hale.t@att.net), May 04, 1999.

Thomas,

I found the following snip a few days ago on one of the newswires:

"business groups representing IBM, Microsoft, AT&T and other high-tech companies asked Congress to set limits."

The big boys are so nervous that they need to ask congress for special legal protection. This is another area that the polly crowd avoids. If Y2K is going to be fixed and is no big deal, why are the big computer companies so scared? <:)=

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), May 04, 1999.

Sorry, Father, but a little while ago I posted links to well over 100 such tests.

The tired old lines that "this is just one" are starting to wear thin.

-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-dejanews.com), May 04, 1999.

Hoff,

What's really happening here is a bunch of smoke and handwaving to distract attention from the real issue:

- that the Y2K prophets CLEARLY stated that we would be seeing major problems by now -IF- there really were "too many lines of code and not enough time/programmers ..."

- that nothing really bad has happened yet. They've picked out a few exceptional cases (which MAY or MAY NOT be due to Y2K bugs -- and BTW, I see that Cory has started a new thread about the Colorado payroll thing[g]) ... and use these to attempt to prove that there ARE Y2K failures, but they're being covered up by a Vast Virtual Y2K Conspiracy.

-- Stephen M. Poole, CET (smpoole7@bellsouth.net), May 04, 1999.

Stephen,

Why do you continue to post the failed prophets stuff, especially in my threads? I thought that you had accepted my opinion on this. You're starting to sound like a broken record, The prophets are wrong, computers fail now, over and over, always the same thing. You need a new act. You'll have one in eight months, like it or not. <:)=

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), May 04, 1999.

The year 2000 will be the year of DESTRUCTION. The world will be laid waste. Destruction will rain down upon humanity from all sides. Prepare now or suffer then.

-- Prophet (prophet@y.2k), May 04, 1999.