It's all anecdotal, folks. Here what I want to see: a comprehensive list of all the Y2K bugs so far. There must have been some on 1 January 1999. The futures and commodities business must have fixed some. So must the government securites people at banks and stock brokers.

Just because there will be a bunch of unfixed bugs on 1 January 2000 does not mean the end of the world. There's always unfixed bugs.

-- Paul C. Anagnostopoulos (paul@windfall.com), May 14, 1999

Answers

Paul, does "anecdotal" mean "therefore there will be no problems?"

Are you personally willing to risk the lives of your family on that "therefore?" What about the insurance analogy?

And on it goes...

-- . (.@...), May 14, 1999.

See Don't Chase the Y2K Red Herrings", especially the section, "It Won't Be The End Of The World As We Know It (TEOTWAWKI)".

-- Lane Core Jr. (elcore@sgi.net), May 14, 1999.

Of course there will be problems. But it's the difference between panic caused by a bunch of unsubstantiated anecdotes and mere inconvenience for a few months at the beginning of 1999.

Just look at the alternative medicine business. Anecdotes about the efficacy of nonsensical treatments are killing people.

-- Paul C. Anagnostopoulos (paul@windfall.com), May 14, 1999.

Paul, my friend, anecdotes cannot act, therefore cannot kill.

And about the efficacy of ALLOPATHIC medical treatments, they & the doctors who administer them kill people every day! Is allopathy effective with some conditions? You bet.

To which "nonsensical treatments" do you refer?

BTW, who is panicking? Do you have family members or friends going off the deep-end in fear of disaster? If so, I'm sorry to hear it. Truly.

-- Bingo1 (howe9@pop.shentel.net), May 14, 1999.

Paul,

if you go through this forum's archives you will find several long threads of accumulated news reports of y2k related problems. A little research is thus in order.

On the other hand, you're right to the extent that all of the claims that there will be no problems are not only anecdotal, but proven wrong by the contents of the archive...and those 'no problem' false anecdotes may very well result in death for those who believe them.

Arlin Adams

-- Arlin H. Adams (ahadams@ix.netcom.com), May 14, 1999.

Bingo1, my friend, you know what I meant.

The fact that "allopathic" treatments kill people has nothing to do with what I said. It is the unsubstantiated or refuted nature of many treatments (e.g., therapeutic touch, homeopathy, various alternative drugs, acupuncture), coupled with the hype (read, anecdotes), that causes people to steer away from conventional medicine that might save them. I'm waiting for the substantiated reports of the reverse problem. (I did not say or imply that conventional medicine is foolproof.)

All that notwithstanding, I simply want evidence of specific Y2K problems. Hell, we're all technical folk. We'd eat up real reports about real bugs and laugh at the stupid programmers who created them. Then we'd laugh even harder at the people who couldn't come up with a way to circumvent the problem. Here's one:

Fort Wayne radio station WOWO 1190 AM has reported today that Allen County Child Support system has failed and is inoperable since January 1, 1999. Recipients have not received any payments since January 1, 1999. Officials attribute the failure to inability of their Y2K compliant system (installed in December 1998) to communicate with the state system.

Why doesn't someone just write these people a check, for cripes sake?

-- Paul C. Anagnostopoulos (paul@windfall.com), May 14, 1999.

Arlin, I did some research. I believe it was the very archive of problems reports herein that annoyed me to begin with. I may be wrong, however. Give me some links.

Only fools are claiming there will be no problems. But there are always problems.

-- Paul C. Anagnostopoulos (paul@windfall.com), May 14, 1999.

Paul,

the link you cited in your email

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

is exactly what I was talking about.

I don't understand why factual information annoys you. If you're expecting technical bug reports, you're in the wrong forum. Please note the forum's mission statement:

"This forum is intended for people who are concerned about the impact of the Y2000 problem on their personal lives, and who want to discuss various fallback contingency plans with other like-minded people. It's not intended to provide advice/guidance for solving Y2000 problems within an IT organization."

as for your Ft. Wayne example, who is going to pay people to sit down and write the checks? Prima facie solutions don't wash very well in modern day bureaucracies. First you'd have to hire back the positions of folks who lost their jobs 15 years or so ago, when their positions were automated; of course you will need to get emergency funding from somewhere to be able to pay for those positions; then you would need to get them background checks to insure they could be trusted with the funding, so then you'd have to get them trained on the current bookkeeping system...except of course that the book keeping system will undoubtedly have serious problems since it's linked to the crashed system; so you will need to come up with an alternative that still maintains all federal and state accountability requirements, and then you just *may* be ready to have the people start writing the checks.

That's the way a bureaucracy works in real life.

The thing which concerns me the most about your posts, however, is your repetitive use of the word 'panic'. No one here is suggesting that anyone panic. Thoughtful and comprehensive preparation is not only the exact opposite of panic, it also insures that those who are prepared will not have any reason to panic when the problems start. Thoughtful, informed, and comprehensive preparation is what this forum is all about.

Arlin Adams

-- Arlin H. Adams (ahadams@ix.netcom.com), May 14, 1999.

Arlin, factual information does not annoy me. But most of the entries at that link are short, simplified, news-media-esque stories about some supposed problem. Why does that convince you of the magnitude of the problem? Why do you believe half of them? Why not assume that most of the problem were solved in short order?

For crying out loud, we're just talking about writing some checks for the people on welfare or whatever. I'll bet you dinner that's exactly what someone did, which is why there was no paragraph about a big fat lawsuit brought by the recipients. And if that solution did stymie the bureaucrats, then it is not the software bugs that will get us, but the stupidity of the people in a position to circumvent the problems. There are people in the loop!

Of course you are not going to say "The sky is falling! Panic! Panic!" But we are all contributing to possible panic if we do not *justify* our concerns on such a huge matter as this. It's too easy to say the electricity will fail. But how?

-- Paul C. Anagnostopoulos (paul@windfall.com), May 14, 1999.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/business/daily/feb99/y2k24.htm

[added bold emphasis mine]

[snip]

Senate Study: Y2K Risks Are Widespread

By Stephen Barr

Washington Post Staff Writer

Wednesday, February 24, 1999; Page A1

A report on the Year 2000 computer problem prepared by a special Senate panel warns that a number of foreign countries and U.S. economic sectors, especially the health care industry, appear at significant risk for technological failures and business disruptions.

The report, scheduled for release this week by Sens. Robert F. Bennett (R-Utah) and Christopher J. Dodd (D-Conn.), includes a letter to Senate colleagues describing the problem of computers' ability to recognize dates starting on Jan. 1, 2000, popularly known as Y2K, as a "worldwide crisis" and as "one of the most serious and potentially devastating events this nation has ever encountered."

The prospect of widespread computer glitches and lobbying by industry groups have galvanized bipartisan groups in the Senate and House to press for legislation protecting companies that fail to deliver goods and services on time because of Y2K problems.

Rep. David Dreier (R-Calif.) estimated yesterday there might be $1 trillion in lawsuits filed because of the glitch and urged adoption of an industry-backed House bill to allay "a great deal of fear regarding out-of-control litigation."

A draft copy of the Senate report, provided by staff aides to The Washington Post, describes in vivid detail the scope of the potential Y2K problem and the frustrations that Senate investigators encountered as they tried to gather information from industries reluctant to describe what progress they have made in fixing computer and telecommunication systems.

But the report represents the most comprehensive assessment of the Y2K problem to appear as companies and governments scramble to fix their computer systems. In addition to health care, the report portrays the oil, education, farming, food processing and construction sectors as seriously lagging on computer repairs.

[snip]

-- Kevin (mixesmusic@worldnet.att.net), May 14, 1999.

 Paul

You are looking for reasons why people are nervous then read the documents below and you might get an idea. The international, chemical industries, and water problems. Now one can then go the S&Ms, health and local state and provincial govs. and on and on and on. These three should keep you going for awhile. Ask agian and I am sure one of us will post more info.
 

GAO water report. Must read.
http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=000pM1

 ****Industrial Chemical Safety Report**** 
http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id= 000iNi

koskinen gets a little closer to being a doomsayer
http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=000ns9

-- Brian (imager@home.com), May 14, 1999.

If you need news from some "biggy" to help you get started the try this

Look particularly at the last two paragraphs re: small computer networks relying on GPS timing (risk of failure)

Next paragraph - They state that failures "are" expected....

They are easing us into the known truths about the risks ahead, if you like.

-- unspun@lright (mikeymac@uswest.net), May 14, 1999.

Paul - Let me reverse your question here a second - since you seem intent on persuading people that nothing will occur and we are intent on instigating panic.....

Suppose you tell me exactly where the failures will occur, and I'll make arrangements right now to go get them fixed. Immediately.

Now, why can you NOT tell me exactly where things will fail?

All I've ever predicted is that there will be irregular failures occurring at irregular intervals lasting for irregular and unpredictable lengths of time in various services in widely different ways in many different processes and industries affecting many different people in many different ways in many different areas of the country.

What in that prediction is wrong? What part of it scares you? You give me a more useful prediction, you tell me exactly what will fail when and I'll improve my preparations.

-- Robert A. Cook, PE (Kennesaw, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), May 14, 1999.

First of all, Robert, nowhere have I said that "nothing will occur." I've repeated that I expect problems, but there are always problems. Nor have I said that you are intentionally instigating panic.

I agree completely that no one can list all the failure points and fix them. The failures are, indeed, unpredictable to some degree. This is alarming.

I'm merely suggesting that a compendium of previous bugs, their effects, and their fixes would help us all to get an idea of the magnitude of the problem. There is a spectrum from complacency to concern to alarm to panic to insanity.

Also, folks, let's not play the "poor downtrodden masses" game. There are people in every loop involving a computer. They can make intelligent decisions when problems occur. They can cut a check, turn back on the power, hand out $100 even if the bank balances are all zero, agree that you probably don't owe $1M in interest, shut off the chemicals going into the water, or whatever. Let's agree that if we're in some loop somewhere, we'll not act like a mindless robot.

-- Paul C. Anagnostopoulos (paul@windfall.com), May 14, 1999.

Paul, you say,

"But we are all contributing to possible panic if we do not *justify* our concerns on such a huge matter as this. It's too easy to say the electricity will fail. But how? "

It's not our responsibility to prevent panic by justifying anything. We're merely ordinary citizens who are doing our best to prepare our families and communities: that is, we are ALREADY contributing to minimize panic.

Your "but how" has been answered voluminously over the past two years by a variety of sources, most recently the Senate report in February. Even the NERC report suggests ways the grid could fail, though it warrants that this is a vanishingly small possibility.

I'm not an engineer. It's not my responsibility to say "how". OTOH, as a citizen, I have a right to express any opinion I wish about the electric grid.

Yourdon's point, and I agree with it, is that it is not my/our responsibility to determine what will fail or won't fail. It is the responsibility of each country, its agencies and the business enterprises within them to assure US that they WON'T fail.

The burden of proof is emphatically on each entity that must fix, test and warrant its Y2K compliance.

In the absence of widespread reports of compliance (whatever the reasons for this, let's not debate them here), it is wise for individual citizens to assume the worst case and prepare, just as it is wise for each business (for instance, mine) to ALWAYS plan for the worst case, even if we expect the best case. MBA programs have courses to teach aspiring businessmen how to do that.

Why not citizens as well?

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), May 14, 1999.

You're not just a "merely ordinary citizen." You're an imporant link in some chain somewhere who has the potential to circumvent problems by making rational decisions in the face of Y2K problems.

"It is the responsibility of each country, its agencies and the business enterprises within them to assure US that they WON'T fail."

You're acting like the dupe of the modern world. If you assumed the worst case and reacted like this to every potential problem, you'd be a basket case. Aren't you a part of one of those agencies or business enterprises?

Anyway, I have no problem with folks preparing for Y2K. Just please don't clean out the grocery stores so I can't do my weekly shopping on 3 January 2000.

-- Paul C. Anagnostopoulos (paul@windfall.com), May 14, 1999.

Just please don't clean out the grocery store shelves so you can do shopping on 1-3-2000? That is one hell of an egocentric statement or expectation. I think you are asking the wrong people to keep the food on the shelf for you. We already have the food. Think, the previous posters already said, just as I'm wasting my time right now, that they are not in a panic because they have taken prudent measures. Why don't you go to the store right now and quit thinking that were telling you what to do. Save the blame for the idiots. Just don't become one of them.....Consumers insurance is the kind you get to eat later.

Sincerely, Feller

-- Feller (feller@wanna.help), May 14, 1999.

Paul,

I think you're missing a vital point here. It's the Y2K problem, not the 1999 problem. One big reason that you can't find a bunch of year 2000 computer problems in order to help you understand what will happen is...it's not 2000 yet and the glitches haven't happened yet.

I don't mean to be condescending, not at all. But use a little abstract thinking. See my threat on "Why I am Still Gloomy". Right now the problem is still largely a statistical/analytical abstraction. I'm convinced that's why a lot of people don't "Get It". But for your part, you'll have to explain to all of us why my top 8 points on the other thread lack substance. Otherwise your "there are always problems" dismissal is really an ostrich act.

-- David Palm (djpalm64@yahoo.com), May 14, 1999.

Another point to add is what if the embeddeds cannot get replaced in time. Pushing a pencil and showing bravery goes on only on a secondary tier while the primary one that controls the world ie..maritime, manufactoring, trains, DoD, refineries, desalinization plants, chemical plants...etc. Push your efforts in controlling these things with your super hero colleages all you want, if you really thing you have that kind of control. Personally, I don't stay in on every card game throught an evening of cards. From what you are saying is to stay in all hands and take yer losses, cuz if we all do it, someone will win and share their winnings with the rest. I'm afraid there are too many puppets and sheeple in the world to share. Remember that 99% of the population is not wealthy and the 1% is playing hide and seek with their numbers and remediation facts....I don't mean to be rude, however, you are playing a bullheaded game here only to get feedback with some rather simple premises to hold up your end of the arguement.

Last response and Sincerely, Feller.

-- Feller (feller@wanna.help), May 14, 1999.

Paul said [and I reply]

"You're not just a "merely ordinary citizen." You're an imporant link in some chain somewhere who has the potential to circumvent problems by making rational decisions in the face of Y2K problems."

[First, I am, precisely, just an ordinary citizen. I have no public position or role. That is what an "ordinary" citizen means. You're right about a link in the chain, though not an important one. That's why I have made the rational decision to prepare ahead of time for Y2K, so, first, I PERSONALLY am not a "problem" with respect to Y2K and so that, perhaps, I can help some others. Glad you approve of this course of action.]

"It is the responsibility of each country, its agencies and the business enterprises within them to assure US that they WON'T fail."

You're acting like the dupe of the modern world. If you assumed the worst case and reacted like this to every potential problem, you'd be a basket case.

[You don't know me well enough to assert anything about my mental state. However, I don't assume the worst case about everything, only those things that have the potential to drastically affect my life. Y2K qualifies. My statement above stands as written. It's not my responsibility but their responsibility to let me know they are compliant.]

Aren't you a part of one of those agencies or business enterprises?

[Nice try. I do run a very small Internet start-up (six people). We are preparing for Y2K, both corporately and personally. I'm sure you're glad I'm doing my part. BTW, I have not made a single penny selling anything about Y2K and contributed a bi-weekly column FOR FREE as a public service to our county newspaper for four months.]

Anyway, I have no problem with folks preparing for Y2K. Just please don't clean out the grocery stores so I can't do my weekly shopping on 3 January 2000.

[Big of you. Don't worry, it's your fellow DGIs who will clean out the stores. Paul, I suggest you put aside your weekly shopping for 3 January 2000 on, say, 28 December 1999. That should just about do it, don't cha think?]

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), May 14, 1999.

Paul,

You REALLY owe it to yourself to do a little research on this subject.

I don't think you've thought things through at all.

E-

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), May 14, 1999.

Some thought and replies....

..@.. said, "Are you personally willing to risk the lives of your family on that 'therefore?'" That's an assumption many of us aren't willing to make, sir, that this is an issue of 'risking the lives of our families'. That engenders to panic, no matter how thin you slice it. Erroneous assumptions lead to erroneous conclusions.

Bingo 1 said, "anecdotes cannot act, therefore cannot kill." For those who have been living in the caves of Borneo these past decades: people acting upon false anecdotes can take actions, or neglect to take needed actions, that definitely can kill. As in, acting upon anecdotes that engender panic reactions...

Arlin H. Adams said, "those 'no problem' false anecdotes may very well result in death for those who believe them." First off, not very many people at all who are aware of this problem say there will be 'no problem'. And as far as your 'death' assessment, see my comments to ..@... above.

Arlin H. Adams also said, "If you're expecting technical bug reports, you're in the wrong forum. Please note the forum's mission statement..." Well Mr. Adams, I don't expect to see a WHOLE lot of the fluff I see posted on this forum, that is completely off-topic, but it exists, ad infinitum....as posted by people who agree with you, as well as by those who do not. So your point is moot.

Arlin H. Adams also said, "No one here is suggesting that anyone panic." Well excuse me, but anytime someone suggests that a certain set of events could put many people at risk of losing their lives (thousands, millions, and billions are some estimates I've read on these pages), panic can certainly be the result for those reading such prognostications. No mystery there. I completely disagree with any such catastrophic scenario, as do most IT professionals worldwide; and so feel quite comfortable in categorizing many of you people as "panic-mongers", without apology.

Kevin quoted the well-known report on the latest Senate article; the operative word in his bold emphasis is the word "potential". I defy him to find any statement from anyone on the Senate Committee that would lend support to the Y2k Doomer position as it is espoused on this website, or that of Gary North, or Michael Hyatt, or Cory Hamasaki, or in the C.S.Y2k rantings of Paul Milne. You won't find it; you're trying to make the Senators say something they plainly have not said. I know how to read, too, Mr. Kevin.

Robert A. Cook, PE, said, "since you seem intent on persuading people that nothing will occur..." Mr. Cook, how many thousands of times must you be told that it is not our intent to show that "nothing" will occur? That's not our intent at all. Our intent is to show how you people are overrstating the case by a radical factor. There will be problems; just not as severe as you folks are trying to get people to believe. How much more plainly can it be said? How many more times does that need to be said, before you get it through your noggin?

BigDog said, "we are ALREADY contributing to minimize panic." I answer, I've never read anything in my life that was more patently false. As stated earlier, any philosophy that takes this Y2k event and morphs it into something that could supposedly kill millions or billions of people, is by its very essense a philosophy that engenders panic and overreaction. That's as plain as the nose on your face.

-- Chicken Little (panic@forthebirds.net), May 14, 1999.

Kentucky, You REALLY owe it to yourself to do a little research on this subject.

I don't think you've thought things through at all.

F-

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), May 14, 1999.

Chicken Little said [and I reply]

BigDog said, "we are ALREADY contributing to minimize panic." I answer, I've never read anything in my life that was more patently false.

[Preparation by individuals, families and communities, by definition, will reduce any prospective panic by lessening the competition for supplies at any point in the future. That is patently true. Whether panic will occur is another question, but OF COURSE our actions now minimize panic later. Because my small town, thanks to a GI mayor, has purchased 10K gallons of oil and refurbished all its generators for Y2K, there will OBVIOUSLY be less panic here than there would otherwise be.]

As stated earlier, any philosophy that takes this Y2k event and morphs it into something that could supposedly kill millions or billions of people, is by its very essense a philosophy that engenders panic and overreaction.

[What do you mean by "philosophy"? You can't "morph" Y2K as an "event" because it HASN'T HAPPENED YET. There is no "supposed" about it because we can't yet predict its impact. It might directly kill no one worldwide or one billion people. Interestingly, the only people on this forum who EVER panic are pollys like yourself. Why don't you just do some preparation and be done with it.]

That's as plain as the nose on your face.

[Get a life. Or at least an argument that makes some sense.]

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), May 14, 1999.

Golly Andy,

Now there's a novel idea. Maybe a little research. Knew there was something missing from my viewpoint! Haven't read not the first thing about the Year 2000 Problem.

Um....you gonna do some too? If you do, look into 'the psychology of doomsday movements', things like that, while you're at it....while I'm learning what this Y2k thing is. (KNEW I should have read more about that thing, before posting about it...)

-- Chicken Little (panic@forthebirds.net), May 14, 1999.

Oh dear Paul, I hardly know where to start on this one:

let's see, how about with this:

[Paul writes:Arlin, factual information does not annoy me. But most of the entries at that link are short, simplified, news-media-esque stories about some supposed problem. Why does that convince you of the magnitude of the problem? Why do you believe half of them? Why not assume that most of the problem were solved in short order? ]

The stories provide examples of predicted problems which are actually occurring. The magnitude of the problem was derived through logical analysis based on experience. Experience as a programmer long ago, and experience in military service after that. There is no reason to assume that most of the problems were resolved in short order, and every reason not to assume any such thing.

[Paul writes: For crying out loud, we're just talking about writing some checks for the people on welfare or whatever.]

ah well, no we're not *just* talking about that. We are talking about the requirments for managing money that comes from a number of different state and federal resources, all of which have their own accounting requirements, and all of whose requirements are codified in regulations which have the force of law. If anyone *did* attempt to just sit down and start writing checks, they'd be looking at multiple embezzlement and fraud charges with their own handwriting being used in evidence against them.

[ I'll bet you dinner that's exactly what someone did,]

and you would be wrong. - 'sokay though, I wont hold you to the bet, since it's an honest mistake by someone who just needs to do some more homework.

[which is why there was no paragraph about a big fat lawsuit brought by the recipients.]

the state would have to allow itself to be sued in this case, I believe...also most welfare recepients aren't in a position to sue much of anybody.

[And if that solution did stymie the bureaucrats, then it is not the software bugs that will get us, but the stupidity of the people in a position to circumvent the problems.]

How about this: it will be the effects of the software glitches MAGNIFIED by those in positions of authority who have not and will not make decisions and adopt workable contingency plans beforehand. Which is exactly what is happening now. If you agree with this statement, then guess what? so do I. So do most of the 'doomers' on this board.

The code is broken, but it *could* have all been fixed had the humans in the loop acted in time...BUT they did not.

Contingency plans and stockpiling by local and state governments could insure that any difficulties which do occur would have little or no negative effect on people's lives; BUT such stockpiling is NOT occurring and contingency plans are being put together on paper only, and then only for the most fundamental emergency services and THEN only for a short period (3 days to 2 weeks). Again, had the humans in the loop acted effectively things could have been different, but they did not and are not doing so.

[There are people in the loop!]

Of course you are not going to say "The sky is falling! Panic! Panic!" But we are all contributing to possible panic if we do not *justify* our concerns on such a huge matter as this. It's too easy to say the electricity will fail. But how?

Here's how (generally I dislike quoting myself, but since I just wrote this in another thread):

there is a need to sell power across the grid is because some local utilities *cannot* meet the needs of their own customer base under all circumstances. That means when islanding begins, so do the brownouts/blackouts. Just as importantly, your friends forgot to mention that there are a number of power companies out there which buy ALL of their power across the grid. Now you may be thinking that only occurs in rural areas - places you don't care about, but if you'd be wrong. You need to go ask your friends in the utility industry what's happening with deregulation. In some states, there is even a requirement that local utilities buy power from other sources. Guess what happens when the grid starts breaking up due to islanding? you got it - more blackouts.

Now who is going to start the islanding (i.e. isolating one of the larger utilities, that thinks it can make it on it's own, from the rest of the grid)? Why, believe it or not, the federal government, of course. Here in the DC metro area there's a very good chance that the local utilities will make it. Because this is the national capitol, word is already out on the street that the feds will require the local utilities to island prior to rollover. Of course this insures continuity of operations for the federal government, but it also insures that some of the smaller rural electrical cooperatives in the area will go down early and fairly hard. I expect we'll be seeing this elsewhere outside of the VA/MD area, as well.

Once again, because of the humans in the loop this *will* occur, in addition to any operational problems actually caused by bad code...and there is literally NO WAY of changing this outcome.

Ask any of the community activists who've tried to get straight answers, or even the NEED for logical planning acknowledged in their communities: Diane, Critt, and several others have dedicated hundreds and hundreds, maybe even thousands of hours to attempting to get local officials to listen and take action...with results which might charitably be described as 'mixed' at best.

In the end, you are right, it is the past and present decisions by bureaucrats and managers which are absolutely insuring that y2k will be worse than it already would be due simply to techinical glitches.

none the less - this whole discussion has nothing to do with the panic that you seem so concerned about. There is no panic here, only concern and knowledgable preparation. Panic is what will happen to those who fail to prepare either out of ignorance, or due to the fact that someone misinformed them as to the true depth of the potential problems.

Arlin

-- Arlin H. Adams (ahadams@ix.netcom.com), May 14, 1999.

BD,

Can't you do better than "get a life"? Get real. You know nothing about me, and vice versa.

What do I mean by "philosophy"? Do you have a dictionary? If you'd look at what I wrote, you'd see that I wasn't talking about Y2k as an event itself, but about the philosophy that people have about 'Y2k, the event'. It is that philosophy that you folks have morphed into a doomsday event. Plain and simple. Makes perfect sense. To those who have eyes to see, at any rate.

I am preparing. Just not at the insane levels you people recommend. There's a chance I could get shot when I leave the house tomorrow. But I'm not going to wear head-to-foot Kevlar just because that chance exists.

-- Chicken Little (panic@forthebirds.net), May 14, 1999.

Chicken said, "What do I mean by "philosophy"? Do you have a dictionary?"

[Sure, bub. "A logical and critical study of the source and nature of human knowledge." (Webster's) Now, would you care to answer the question with respect to your post and this forum, if you can?]

Chicken said, "I am preparing. Just not at the insane levels you people recommend."

[Glad to hear it! BTW, what are those "insane levels"? Also, I didn't know there was a monolithic group of "you people". Last I looked, there are MANY diverse opinions about how much preparation is enough. Unless you mean this statement which almost everyone makes, "it is up to each individual to decide for themselves." Gee, that's insane.

You still need to get a life. And an argument.]

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), May 14, 1999.

poor chicken little can't understand english and can't take responsibility for his own decisions either.

[chicken little writes: Arlin H. Adams said, "those 'no problem' false anecdotes may very well result in death for those who believe them." First off, not very many people at all who are aware of this problem say there will be 'no problem'. And as far as your 'death' assessment, see my comments to ..@... above. ]

ah yes, your blind and unwarranted assumption that everyone else will react as with as much emotion and as little mature thought as your have, and panic. I'm really sorry if the thought of death panics you chicken little - you shouldn't be pretending to be an adult if that's the case. Adults are aware that threats must be dealt with rationally, not out of blind emotion and panic. Sorry chickie, but you're just going to need to do a little growing up here, the rest of us aren't panicking, we're preparing - something you would do well to consider yourself.

[Arlin H. Adams also said, "If you're expecting technical bug reports, you're in the wrong forum. Please note the forum's mission statement..." Well Mr. Adams, I don't expect to see a WHOLE lot of the fluff I see posted on this forum, that is completely off-topic, but it exists, ad infinitum....as posted by people who agree with you, as well as by those who do not. So your point is moot. ]

no, my point is not moot, your expectations are merely groundless. You see kid, the expectations of most of the adult contributors to this forum are that the majority of the posts will revolve around the mission statement of the forum. Now I realize you still have some growing up to do, but please understand that most of the rest of us here are adults and if you intend to continue being a part of this forum it might be a good idea to cool your jets a bit on the self- justification routine...you just don't have the credibility to pull it off.

[Arlin H. Adams also said, "No one here is suggesting that anyone panic." Well excuse me, but anytime someone suggests that a certain set of events could put many people at risk of losing their lives (thousands, millions, and billions are some estimates I've read on these pages), panic can certainly be the result for those reading such prognostications. No mystery there.]

wrong again, kid. there is no panic engendered by proper preparation - which is what this forum stresses...but again, this forum *is* aimed at adults, so if it scared you, well, then next time you know better than to come here. You see we adults understand the concept of hypothetical scenarios, attempting to function without them insures that your contingency plans have no hope of validity...of course, that *also* is your problem kid.

[ I completely disagree with any such catastrophic scenario,]

LOL! kid, you've already proven you don't really have the background to have a meaningful opinion on this topic.

[ as do most IT professionals worldwide;]

no kid, the two or three IT professionals who talk to you may agree with you, but considering how emotional and immature you are, I'd bet they're just humoring you.

[ and so feel quite comfortable in categorizing many of you people as "panic-mongers", without apology. ]

gotta get away from that egocentric stuff kid, it shows your lack of experience, and lack of knowledge, and lack of maturity.

Arlin Adams

-- Arlin H. Adams (ahadams@ix.netcom.com), May 15, 1999.

Okay, one at a time.

BigDog, if you don't know what I mean by "those insane levels", I suppose you just haven't been reading the vast majority of the posts on this forum that deal with preparation issues these past 18 months or so (or however long). True, I agree with you that there is a multi-faceted opinion over what constitutes 'proper preparation'; I guess what I mean by 'you people' is those who take a view that is not shared by 95% of the public; or thereabouts. (Which would encompass over 90% of the 'doomer' posters on this forum...I didn't just start reading stuff on here last week, you know...) And please don't get into a hair-splitting argument with me about the 94% or the 96%...you know what I mean.

Arlin, some may be hoodwinked by your tired device of ignoring the message and attacking the messenger. Hopefully the more astute readers here are not deceived. Your condescending tone is quite adolescent in and of itself.

You make many unwarranted assumptions, namely that I have panicked; where did you read that? Nowhere on this forum, that's for sure. Nor on any other. What I'm talking about is the panic that the Doomer agenda tends toward causing in the public at large. That concern is shared by many of the leaders of our nation. People like Alan Greenspan have expressed concerns that people will panic; is he immature, as you say I am? He shares the same concern. Why don't you write him, and tell him how immature you believe he is, how much growing up he needs to do. He believes the same things I have expressed here.

All the rhetoric in the world doesn't change who you are, or who I am. You can say "kid" all you want. What that does, more than anything else, is demonstrate your ignorance. It's ignorant to assume that you know something about someone that in fact, you don't. You know not who I am, or from whence I come; you ASS-ume...not much more needs to be said there.

I could spend more time on all your assumptions, but won't; they aren't really worth it. When you want to talk about issues, instead of casting aspersions upon someone you know nothing about; let's talk. Until such time, what you're saying is just so much fluff.

-- Chicken Little (panic@forthebirds.net), May 15, 1999.

Kentucky Fried,

You don't really have an argument do you?

This is quite amusing to watch but a waste of everybody's time.

[Greenspan - gotta laugh at your take on him and his agenda...]

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), May 15, 1999.

Paul A., you wrote:

"The fact that 'allopathic' treatments kill people has nothing to do with what I said. It is the unsubstantiated or refuted nature of many treatments (e.g., therapeutic touch, homeopathy, various alternative drugs, acupuncture), coupled with the hype (read, anecdotes), that causes people to steer away from conventional medicine that might save them. I'm waiting for the substantiated reports of the reverse problem."

Here ya go,

According to the Journal of the American Medical Association, severe and known side effects of pharmaceutical drugs are the fourth leading cause of death in the US and other industrialized countries. (Classen D.C., Pestonik S.L., Evans R.S., Lloyd J.F, Burke J.P. Adverse drug events in hospitalized patients. Excess length of stay, extra costs, and attributable mortality. JAMA 1997; 277:301-306.)

-- Debbie (dbspence@usa.net), May 15, 1999.

Andy Earful Of Doom,

Thanks bud. I was beginning to think we wouldn't have a chance to spar this thread.

What is laughable is that you, or anybody else, on this or any other Y2k forum would act as though you know more about ANYthing than Alan Greenspan. I certainly wouldn't pretend to. Nor would most of the business/finance professors at Harvard/Yale/Stanford/Cambridge. Nor would 99% of the sane international bankers on the face of the planet.

Yet you would. HAH!

-- Chicken Little (panic@forthebirds.net), May 15, 1999.

Kentucky - you're up late :)

What I said WAS - you're take on him {Greenspan] and his agenda.

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), May 15, 1999.

Thanks Debbie. I'm sure Paul meant no harm, but using such a poorly thought-out analogy gave us all a glimpse of tunnel vision in action.

That this thread has generated so much activity is a reflection upon just how caring some of the forum participants really are towards their fellow man.

-- Bingo1 (howe9@pop.shentel.net), May 15, 1999.

Oh Andy,

Woops -- a little editorial correction.

Mr. Greenspan doesn't know computer programming as well as some of you folks do. Certainly not. But what he does possess that you do not have, and will never have, is world-class access to a wealth of knowledge about global computer programming which far outstrips anything that you, or Ed Yourdon, or Gary North, or Paul Milne, or Cory Hamasaki, or Roleigh Martin, or Michael Hyatt, or anybody else you might care to name, could ever hope to possess.

Name your 'computer expert', and Greenspan has better access to better information, on a global basis. Deny that fact, and brand yourself ignorant.

-- Chicken Little (panic@forthebirds.net), May 15, 1999.

Kentucky,

"Oh Andy, Woops -- a little editorial correction.

Mr. Greenspan doesn't know computer programming as well as some of you folks do. Certainly not. But what he does possess that you do not have, and will never have, is world-class access to a wealth of knowledge about global computer programming which far outstrips anything that you, or Ed Yourdon, or Gary North, or Paul Milne, or Cory Hamasaki, or Roleigh Martin, or Michael Hyatt, or anybody else you might care to name, could ever hope to possess.

Name your 'computer expert', and Greenspan has better access to better information, on a global basis. Deny that fact, and brand yourself ignorant."

You are a blithering fool.

Greenspan is treading on eggshells - he knows the game is up, all the money centre bankers know it too, it's just a matter of time and Greenspan has been tasked with putting off the collapse until the BITTER END.

That's what I'm getting at - I don't think you know just who is controlling this man...

Oh and BTW - Greenspan used to be a mainframe programmer and knows EXACTLY what is about to go DOWN - pun intended :)

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), May 15, 1999.

Andy --

How much do they pay you to put such a horrid spin on what any common-sense individual can see as plain fact?

-- Chicken Little (panic@forthebirds.net), May 15, 1999.

No spin - no dosh - I call it like I see it, Greenspan is going through the motions, it's a train wreck in slow motion.

Wait and see.

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), May 15, 1999.

I'll just do that. Enjoy your paycheck.

-- Chicken Little (panic@forthebirds.net), May 15, 1999.

What paycheck? What on earth are you talking about - I fear you've lost it Ken.

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), May 15, 1999.

A Greenspan story for Kenneth Tucky...

Date: Tue, 23 Jun 1998 23:24:02 -0400

From: Dan Gielan gielan@erols.com

To: Y2K discuss year2000-discuss@year2000.com

Subject: Sighting: Scary evasion

A week ago Thursday the Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board Alan Greenspan was honored as the recipient of the "Business Man of the Year Award" by the Washington chapter of the Harvard Business School Club.

Mr. Greenspan did not make a statement, but did entertain questions from the (small) audience. The 2nd question concerned Y2K, presumably by an investment broker. It ran like this: "My clients are asking me what the impact of Y2K on our economy will be, and what steps they should take to mitigate the effect."

The answer was probably the 2nd scariest thing I have heard concerning Y2K.

Mr. Greenspan proceeded to spend nearly 10 minutes explaining how and why he himself (mea culpa), and others, coded years in 2 digits in the early days in the 60s when machines had only 16k bytes, etc. etc. etc.

He TOTALLY evaded the question, and that was the frightening part:

1. He is undoubtedly a very astute and smart man.

2. He knows the Y2K problem and understands it fully.

3. He is, after all, a very successful and knowledgeable economist and

4. He would not express his views on the subject.

Unquestionably, he is afraid to tell the public the truth.

That is reason enough for me and you to start a run on the banks, and quit the stock market.

Ed Yardeni, you are pedaling with too soft a shoe...

Ed Yourdon, wait for me in New Mexico. I'll be your neighbor...

-- Dan Gielan

Chief Technical Officer

VAST Corporation

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), May 15, 1999.

This was published in USA TODAY (Feb. 26).

* * * * * *

WASHINGTON - Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan said Wednesday that the year 2000 computer bug is already hurting the economy and warned of bigger damage ahead.

"Inevitable difficulties are going to emerge," he said. "You could end up with . . . a very large problem."

He said the Fed was ready to lend banks tens of billions of dollars if the bug causes their computers to break down in the year 2000 and they can't make payments. . . .

"Before we reach the year 2000 there is economic loss," the central bank chief told the Senate Banking Committee.

Even if most firms fix the bug, it will only take a small number to trigger big problems, he added.

Greenspan also voiced worries about Europe, where technicians have been focused on retooling computers for the 1999 introduction of a new currency, and not on Y2K.

"The Y2K problem is a very serious threat to the U.S. economy," says Edward Yardeni, chief economist of Wall Street broker Deutsche Morgan Grenfell.

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), May 15, 1999.

Ex-Programmer Greenspan Admits: Y2K Is a Difficult Problem

Link: http://www.bog.frb.fed.us/boarddocs/hh/

Comment:

Alan Greenspan's Feb. 25 testimony to the Senate Banking Committee is posted on the Federal Reserve Board's site. It is dated Feb. 24. In it, there is no mention of the Year 2000 Problem.

When you go to the Senate's site and cllick his testimony, you wind up on the Board of Governors' site. You have no choice: you click the link for the Feb. 25 hearings, which takes you to a list of witnesses. Click "Greenspan," and the program automatically forces you off the Senate Banking Committee's site and onto the FED'S. Try it for yourself. The Senate Banking Committee's address is

http://www.senate.gov/~banking/hearings.htm

He referred to y2k only when questioned by committee members at the very end of his apprearance. I could not access the testimony from the Committee's page. It was sent to me by a diligent researcher on Feb. 28.

One interesting item: Greenspan was one of the original programmers who dropped the 1 and the 9 in order to save memory space. He talks about this. Here is what he said: they did not keep the documentation.

"It never entered our minds that those programs would have lasted more than a few years. And as a consequence, they are very poorly documented. If I were to go back and look at some of the programs I wrote 30 years ago, I mean, I would have one terribly difficult time working my way through step by step. And to try to infer how one reads a program when there are lots of alternate ways of doing things, and all you've got is the code in front of you, is not simple. It, therefore, is a very -- it's a very difficult problem to get your hands around."

When it was over, including Mr. Greenspan's report on Asian banking, Senator D'Amato told him, "I am very heartened by your presentation today. I think most of the members are."

I am not.

* * * * * * *

SEN. ROBERT BENNETT: (R-UT): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. . . .

I've been fascinated by your testimony, and more fascinated by your answers to some of the questions that we've received, and have written down a few comments that you have made because I want to go in a direction that I'm sure will not surprise you.

You said we haven't a phenomenon like this, as you were describing certain aspects of the economy. We have a phenomenon facing us that we've never seen before, that I want to pursue. And this is the year 2000 problem, or, in shorthand, that we've learned around here, the Y2K. My wife says to me, "What does Y2K stand for?" And I very knowledgeably say, "Year 2000." And she says, "Why do you use Y2K instead of Year 2000? You only say the single syllable." And, she's right, but we've managed to confuse people and I guess that's our goal.

Last week, Governor Kelley from the Federal Reserve said the Federal Reserve believes that certain countries -- I'm quoting -- "believes that certain countries around the world have not embarked on aggressive compliance, supervision and examination programs, so that there is a likelihood that banks in those countries have not yet begun to effectively address the problem and will now find it increasingly difficult to be ready." End quote.

Chairman Levitt, of the Securities and Exchange Commission has expressed both publicly and, more emphatically privately, to me, his concern about the inability of financial institutions and, particularly in his case, stock markets to comply with the Y2K requirement. We've had testimony before my subcommittee in which the chairman has been active, more active than I think he is on other subcommittees, because of his interest in this that have suggested that there is a significant chance that a worldwide recession could be triggered by the inability of companies to meet their supply deadlines, to meet their customer requirements because their computers are shut down because of the Y2K problems.

The first general question, as you look ahead for '98 and '99 do you factor in or have you started to factor in any concern about what might happen if there are banks or stock exchanges or large manufacturing companies, primarily outside of this country, that could fail to meet deadlines in the case of companies or fail to clear financial instruments in the case of banks and what effect that would have on the economy worldwide and in the United States?

MR. GREENSPAN: Senator, you're quite correct in saying this is really a unique event in that we have no precedential capabilities of evaluating it. We do know certain things. If the chairman is going to do a mea culpa, I'll do a mea culpa, too.

I'm one of the culprits who created this problem. I used to write those programs back in the '60s and '70s and was so proud of the fact that I was able to squeeze a few elements of space out of my program by not having to put 1-9 before the year. And back then it was very important. We used to spend a lot of time running through various mathematical exercises before we started to write our programs so that they could be very clearly delimited with respect to space and the use of capacity. It never entered our minds that those programs would have lasted more than a few years. And as a consequence, they are very poorly documented.

If I were to go back and look at some of the programs I wrote 30 years ago, I mean, I would have one terribly difficult time working my way through step by step. And to try to infer how one reads a program when there are lots of alternate ways of doing things, and all you've got is the code in front of you, is not simple. It, therefore, is a very -- it's a very difficult problem to get your hands around.

We do know that if every individual institution were separate and not interrelated, we wouldn't care all that much. The trouble is that there is a perversity of incentive in this type of problem in that you can be extremely scrupulous in going through every single line of code in all of your computer operations, make all the adjustments that are required, and get essentially a system, whether you're a bank or an industrial cooperation, and say, "We've solved the 2000 problem" and then find that when the date arrives, all of the interconnects that are now built-in start to break down.

So it's not an issue of getting -- I mean worry -- that there is a large number of non-compilers who haven't gone through the system. You can end up with a very small number of non-compilers and have a very large problem.

We know that a lot of the countries abroad have smaller problems than we do because they are buying -- or a substantial part of their systems are newer equipment which already embodied much larger capacities and didn't have to use two digit but could use four digits for purposes of defining what year it was. So it's conceivable that a lot of the newer equipment is without difficulty.

We, nonetheless, have such a large -- high degree of uncertainty about what actually is out there that we cannot but employ very substantial amount of resources to find means to reduce the probability of the inevitable difficulties that are going to emerge.

In measuring the impact on the economy, we first try to evaluate the amount of resources which are being diverted from otherwise productive endeavors, especially in information processing, which must go to the year 2000 problem, which means that productivity must be reduced. People are doing things which are no longer productive but merely a sort of maintenance. And so that you get output in a sense, but it's not increased productivity. It's not increased real standards of living.

In that sense, we can measure the degree of the several hundred billion dollars which are involved in trying to bring the year 2000 problem to -- to resolve the year 2000 problem. The difficulty is that we don't know what part of that several hundred billion dollars would have been spent anyway. And a lot of it is on new equipment merely because the simplest way to resolve a problem which seems to be insoluble with respect to programs is just rip out the whole business and stick in something new.

And so it's hard to know which part of this is real lost effort. A good part of it is. How much, we don't know.

So there is automatically, before we reach the year 2000, an economic loss in the sense of the diversion of resources to non- productive endeavors. We do not know or cannot really realistically make an evaluation of what the economic impact is as a consequence of the breakdowns that may occur. We do not know the size. We do not know the contagion and interaction within the system. And we do not know how rapidly we can resolve the problem. I mean, for example, one of the things that we at the Federal Reserve are very acutely aware of is there's a two-pronged issue here: One, try to prevent the problem from happening, and two, what do you do when it happens?

I mean, for example, we had a very major bank in the city of New York a number of years ago whose computer went out. And the New York Federal Reserve Bank had to lend them over $20 billion overnight. Now, if we weren't there, I can tell you that the system would have been in very serious difficulty.

So part of what we're trying to do is figure out what we can do to assuage whatever problems might arise. And it's a difficult exercise because there's such a huge element of uncertainty in the nature of the problem itself. But we're trying to come to grips with it as best we can.

SEN. BENNETT: Thank you. Mr. Chairman, if I could be allowed an additional observation -- The more I have gotten into this, the more I have realized that the uncertainty that you refer to is the devilish thing here. And by the way, you have summarized the issue as well as anybody I've ever heard, and I congratulate you for that.

Let me give you an example to disturb you at night when you're not thinking of anything else, and let this come around. The power grid in the United States is completely integrated through the whole country, and if one portion of power goes down someplace, then it can fall elsewhere. We've seen this before, and we see horror movies that are created on it, and so on.

What happens if, at some choke point in the power grid where there is a computer, somebody hasn't found the year 2000 problem that is there, and you begin to get major power outages spreading throughout the economy? You've talked about one bank whose computers went down, and you had to lend them $20 billion. What if there is a major manufacturer that slips delivery schedules because of a power outage? Not only does -- the bank can't crank up all of its computers, but General Motors can't meet an assignment, and the ripple effect through the suppliers, customers, and so on -- we've had testimony before my subcommittee that there is a 40 percent chance there will be a worldwide recession triggered by this. I don't know if that's a good percentage or a bad percentage, but if I were the Fed, I'd be really worried about it and paying attention to it.

Now, the one that I would like a comment on. You talked about the euro, and you made response to Senator Reed, where you said that there will be struggles to put it technically into place. The very resources that you described in your statement about the challenges here, are being devoted right now to converting computer capacity in Europe and elsewhere, to handle the switch to the euro. Every currency trader who has a computer is having it reprogrammed so that it can handle the euro, and every programmer available to deal with this year-2000 problem is busily dealing with euro conversion.

I know there are a number of people who have raised the issue that the conversion to the euro should be delayed until the Y2K problem has been taken care of. I am one of them. I think, if I were a CEO of a company that had these kinds of technical challenges, I would be saying to my MIS people: "Do not do the euro until you have done the year-2000 problem. The demand for your services and your capability is so great that you can't handle both problems imultaneously."

Could you comment on what would happen if, in fact, policy-makers were to decide to postpone the conversion to the euro simply because of this, as you put, "struggle technically"? or I'll turn it around, the technical struggle that they have with respect to this challenge?

MR. GREENSPAN: Yeah. I think they're now at a point where they've got a very major dilemma of exactly this nature; because if they postpone the January 1st, 1999, date, it creates a lot of technical problems not dissimilar to the year-2000 computer problems in the sense that a lot of their operations are gradually moving step by step, to encompass the changes in the system. And I suspect that if those were delayed, there would be some very major consequences within the payment system and within the way the European monetary system is evolving.

I do know that there are an awful lot of people in Europe who have the same concerns that you do for exactly the same reasons, and I am not sure how to come out of that. I do know that we at the Federal Reserve are aware of the fact that because of the tremendous amount of resources moving towards a single-currency implementation, that other resources to confront the computer issues are lacking. We don't know how significant that is, but it's a worrisome issue. And I'm not sure that there is at this point in time a very simple solution to that. I think it's a problem either way.

SEN. BENNETT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your awareness of the issue. That's where we start. And I just close with this comment. As you may know, I've had the GAO checking into the various regulators as to where they are with respect to both their own systems and the systems of the financial institutions that they oversee. We haven't yet heard from the GAO with respect to the Fed. But the pattern that is developing from the GAO reports that have come in so far is that virtually all of the regulatory agencies are behind schedule in terms of their internal systems, the assessment and remediation and contingency planning for their in-house computers. And then the external systems for which they have supervisory responsibility -- the banks or credit unions or whatever -- are also behind schedule with respect to corrective action and contingency planning. So we will look for the GAO report with respect to the Fed. The good news is that virtually everybody that has reported, has reported that as a result of the actions of this committee through our subcommittee the level of concerned activity and -- (laughs) -- awareness has gone up very dramatically. And so we're hoping in the time we have left we can get this on. But the general trend has been that virtually every regulator is behind the curve in their own computers, and they find that the institutions that they regulate are well behind the curve as well.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

SEC. COHEN: I want to thank the senator for not only his line of questioning but for his industriousness in, as you say, increasing the level of awareness. And I think you have contributed substantially to dealing with this problem. And I thank you for your efforts. You've done an outstanding job, Senator Bennett.

SEN. BENNETT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

SEN. D'AMATO: Mr. Chairman, let me thank you for your raciousness, for your incisiveness, for your responsiveness, not only today but the manner in which you have continually held yourself and those of your colleagues, made yourselves available to this committee and to its members and staff. We are deeply appreciative.

And I am very heartened by your presentation today. I think most of the members are. I think you've touched on those areas of concern that are important -- Southeast Asia, the economic consequences that may or may not unfold, the question of the quality of loans. I think there are a number of my colleagues that have talked to that issue. The necessity in terms of continuing a prudent policy as it relates to fiscal restraint in keeping the budget under control. All of those things.

So we are deeply appreciative. And again, we are well aware, as Senator Bennett has spelled out, that your stewardship has played a most significant role in the economic prosperity that we enjoy. And we want to commend you and again thank you for your leadership and for holding yourself available to this committee and to the American people in the manner in which you have. We are deeply appreciative.

MR. GREENSPAN: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

SEN. D'AMATO: We stand in adjournment.

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), May 15, 1999.

So Kentucky Frightened Chicken,

Do you begin to get the picture now about Greenspan? - he's no fool, he knows what is inevitably going to happen and he is tap dancing his way to the new millennium on boxes of eggs.

Ignore this thread at your peril Ken, you may be able to save some of your wealth (if you have any, I don't know), by listening to the folks on this board instead of whingeing at them all the time.

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), May 15, 1999.

My oh my. What was that word I used? Oh yeah, "panic."

Anyway, one last bit of advice. If you get a credit card bill that claims you haven't paid off any of your charges and includes interest of $1M: don't pay it. Fight the bureaucracy!

And to all you ordinary citizens who just happen to run an Internet business: don't send out any invoices with stupid things like that on them.

Y2K: The Grand Test of Common Sense

-- Paul C. Anagnostopoulos (paul@windfall.com), May 15, 1999.

Paul C. - seems like you have the same trouble with TEOTWAWKI that I do - too much soup made from a very small bone. Tracking down the rumors to their source has proven rather barren - many of the 'great names' in Y2K doom know little or nothing about computers. Every one of the rest (which comes down to about four verifible names) is a long time COBOL/IT person or a high level analyst. COBOL does not run SCADA or PLC's, but they talk as if it did. Bad information is rampant - on both sides of the equation. BUT - I can verify a lot more good news than I can bad news.

-- Paul Davis (davisp1953@yahoo.com), May 15, 1999.

there would be no panic if people took personel responsibility,but that's not going to happen.maybe a little panic would be a good thing,panic can't be maintained forever,and if the masses freaked now they could get it out of the system before problems start.I got all of my supplies that will dry up(water filters,guns,ammo,coleman fuel,camp stoves,wood matches)purchased before the dgi masses (you) decide to buy whatmost should have now for ANY unforseen disaster.you talk as if this problem is just subjective and bad code/chips don't play in.if the banks are that unstable it's best they fall so humanity can move on.....

-- zoobie (zoobiezoob@yahoo.com), May 16, 1999.