Is it me, or did someone flip the "Uh oh, Y2K is serious" switch in the last week? : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread

Suddenly with 60 Minutes and the stock market selloff (banks and Y2K) and maybe I'm just looking for things, but it seems that things just took a serious turn. Anyone else think this too?

-- Brett (, May 26, 1999



I think you are right. It's now getting harder and harder to pretend that the "emporer" has clothes on.

-- Gordon (, May 26, 1999.

I agree there was a differnt tone the last week or so. But the spin- meisters are already hard at work to bury any "problems" again. They may well be successful---for a while.

When y2K awarenes or fear really takes hold and stays is still anybodys guess.

-- Jon Johnson (, May 26, 1999.


-- Leska (, May 26, 1999.

Is it possible that the Spin-Meisters overspun and realized that they were MORE successful than they had planned to be??

More probably it is just that the chickens have finally come home to roast.


-- Ray (, May 26, 1999.

No, it's just that the debate that has been taking place here and other places is now moving into the media spotlight. Everyone who examines Y2K goes through a "doomer" stage before they wise up. The media is going through this stage now.

-- former doomer (recovered@doomers.anonymous), May 26, 1999.


An analyst placed a sell recommendation on some major money-center banks. Those with serious money are getting a wake-up call. It may take a little while, but the seed has been planted.

Reality is beginning to burn away optomistic perceptions.

-- Mike Lang (, May 26, 1999.

60 Minutes or no 60 Minutes, I still don't believe the "Man in the Street" gets it yet. On Monday I spoke with my neighbor (half mile away) and asked her if she had seen the program. She did. Asked her if she was going to take some precautions. She said no. Why, I asked? Well, she responded, you have plenty of food put away...I'll just come up and eat at your place. Then she laughed and that was that. There won't be any public panic until BurgerKing closes and MacDonalds closes their drive-throughs. Then there'll be panic!

-- Richard Westerlind (, May 26, 1999.

I can only speak for myself, but in addition to being very busy over the past several days, I have seen no urgent need to keep reposting the same responses over and over -- to the same arguments over and over.

Y2K as an issue is dying. The 60 Minutes report was several months old, but was pretty balanced in its presentation of that old information. From my correspondence, it appears that the only ones who think it significant are those who are already convinced that Y2K is going to Be Bad. Those of you who were hoping that it would serve as a "wakeup call" for the general population are going to be disappointed.

The GAO report -- like most government reports -- is also based on old information.

Most of the recent information indicates that the job is getting done. Of course all Y2K bugs won't be fixed by New Years, but that was never a requirement to forestall disaster. Awareness couldn't be higher among those who count -- the people who keep the machines running in industry, business, and government.

See? I'm repeating myself again. :)

-- Stephen M. Poole, CET (, May 26, 1999.

Does that also mean you'll stop posting here, over and over Stephen?

Y2K as an "issue" is only just getting started. Wait 'til the United Nations holds the world-wide contingency planning gathering in late June.

We are NOT an island.


-- Diane J. Squire (, May 26, 1999.

What she is saying Stephen is: "Stop infecting our Bad News Forum with facts, logic and rational thought. They are not wanted."

-- Y2K Pro (, May 26, 1999.


Re: reposting ... talk about the pot calling the kettle "black." I enjoyed that one. :)

As for your other comments, governments consistently run several months behind in their release of information. Do keep that in mind.

-- Stephen M. Poole, CET (, May 26, 1999.

Gosh, Y2K Profiterole (that's a sickly sweet french donut-hole-type of dessert) must be really starting to regret his life. Before, he could project his anger over this whole Y2K thing on to the Yourdonites - nobody else was worrying about it - now, the nation's starting to wake up. I wonder if he's spamming CBS over their coverage...and the Senate...for their panic-mongering... naw, he can only take shots at good people who are too polite to give him the ugly feedback he's really trying to generate.

He's the kind of guy that took fun in pulling the legs off grasshoppers. Also the kinda guy who will be reincarned as a grasshopper.

-- Lisa (, May 26, 1999.

No Y2KPro,

I do NOT say "Stop infecting our Bad News Forum with facts, logic and rational thought. They are not wanted." Your words, not mine.

You'll notice, I don't go over and post in your "pool." (Pun intended, Stephen). If I thought there were facts, logic and rational thought going on there, that "might" be different. But, there's not, IMHO.

So, I post here, where there is a greater diversity of thinking an assessment going on.

"As for your other comments, governments consistently run several months behind in their release of information. Do keep that in mind." -- Stephen Poole

What I DO keep in mind, is they also lie, uh, side-step the truth fairly consistently too. It is well known.

Prudent skeptics tend to live longer, especially when they are inately optimistic.


-- Diane J. Squire (, May 26, 1999.

Bad news, good news, informed opinions, uninformed opinions -- we get 'em all here. Does anyone read any of this as Absolute Certainty?

I don't think so. Uncertainty is the name of this game.

This is old news:

"Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd." (Voltaire)

"Seek simplicity, and distrust it." (A. N. Whitehead)

For this reason I am not sufficiently soothed by nervous pats on the head, and "Don't worry, be happy." I've no quarrel with those who are convinced that nothing serious will happen; I can't be certain myself that anything serious will happen. Everyone has their own individual appraisal of the probabilities, and obviously there's considerable room for disagreement. How anyone responds to this is a personal matter.

-- Tom Carey (, May 26, 1999.

And this is always the stock polly response: "Well, that 'bad news' report/broadcast/data is based on OLD news. It doesn't matter that the OLD deadline slipped, there is a NEW deadline ahead, and the NEW report/broadcast/data is 'good news'." And the pollys will keep playing this game through December.

Its the old "carrot on a stick" routine, nothing more.

-- King of Spain (, May 26, 1999.

BTW, the line about "the 60 Minutes story was OLD..." is pure bullshit. At the very beginning of the piece, Kroft stated clearly "This is an update to a story we did last November. Back then, everyone was laughing about Y2K. Well, they're not laughing now..."

As long as you pollys don't show up at MY door for a handout, I'm cool with you. (You and your loved ones can eat/drink off the back of "emergency services" trucks for however long it takes, and I won't mind a bit). I just choose to accept a different world-view, one that I feel is more realistic (IMHO).

219 days remain.

-- Dennis (, May 26, 1999.


Regarding that comment from your neighbor about "I'll just come to your place to eat." We have had the exact same thing at our place. And the comment is made with a grin! Yet, I get a knot in my stomach when I hear it. Suppose it was said about something else, like are you putting in a bit more firewood for the forecasted hard winter? Would that answer, "no I'll just come over to your place and get some of yours" be made the same way, with a grin? I don't like that attitude one bit. It's a grossly selfish statement, at best, and I find it hard to believe that some people think that way, talk that way, so far in advance of the problem itself. Of course, it may be that they think we are just fools for doing what we are doing, and the comment is a disrespectful poke at us. But when I ask these same people what they personally know about the whole situation, they just shrug and say that there isn't much *to* know and "they would never let something that stupid happen to this country."

In a way, it's like Stephen Poole's statements. Nothing major has happened yet. Problems are routinely happening in computer technology and routinely fixed. Therefore, there won't be any major problems ahead.

-- Gordon (, May 26, 1999.

Courtesy of Old Git...

A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject. -- Winston Churchill

Wise men don't need advice. Fools won't take it. -- Benjamin Franklin

And I add...

These are some signs a pollyanna lives in the '90s:

You check your blow dryer to see if it's Y2K compliant. -- San Jose Mercury News. (Then declare every dryer will be Y2K Okay, globally).

Think. Or not. Your choice.


-- Diane J. Squire (, May 26, 1999.

The world became much more aware of Y2K last month...places like Germany, Italy and Japan. It's now being taken seriously overseas. The few months behind Stephen Poole is talking about doesn't help companies and countries that starting working on Y2K in 1998 instead of 1996.

It's well known that companies like GM will be shutting out non- compliant vendors, probably this summer. The stock market is already rotating from tech to cyclical stocks.

I think the handwriting is on the wall.

-- Kevin (, May 26, 1999.

It's now being taken seriously overseas.

Yep, about 2 years too late to make any difference. The wheels are going to fall off, and as more people come to that realization, the crazier this is going to get.

-- Doug (, May 26, 1999.

Isn't it interesting how we haven't seen anything from Y2KPro in quite a while, and Poole has been quiet for a few days, and then suddenly we hear from them both, one right after the other, in the same thread? I think they are both Poole.

-- DMH (, May 26, 1999.


I'm not saying you're wrong about Poole/Y2kPro, but I have another scenario. It's the "good ole boy" culture. You know, where a bunch of good ole boys (and girls) get to talking together (over beers or whatever) and decide to go over to some place and heckle the residents. Lots of fun, especially when they are bored, or worse, threatened.

-- Gordon (, May 26, 1999.

Its a different world.

Anti-Yourdon reaction. . . 000s5e

-- Diane J. Squire (, May 26, 1999.

"This, too, shall pass."

We should take this up in mid-October. The real visible panic won't happen until very late if even before the rollover.

-- Jim the Window Washer (, May 26, 1999.

Not a switch, just a flicker. It will take much more than 15 of 60 minutes to renew the Y2K awareness movement. Why, in the midst of a major media spin to ignore Y2K issues, would CBS air such a segment. Maybe 60 minutes is assuring their role as truth tellers. Yes,yes I know they have had some minor set-backs in that area but compared to the media in general, their reporting is to be believed. Time for the Fourth Estate to step-up and be counted.

-- Barry Jaynes (, May 26, 1999.

Oh my god! The Fourth Estate!??? Is that like the NWO?

Do they have black helicopters? I saw one with a 4 on it, is that them?

Oh, goodness. One more thing to worry about.

-- scared (worried@y2k.nwo), May 26, 1999.

scared ,

Calm down. You can connect with the black helicopter crowd directly.

Night Stalkers web-site:

Go ahead... its an adventure!

And, say hi to the webmaster, Joe, for me. Hes a nice guy.


-- Diane J. Squire (, May 26, 1999.


In a way, it's like Stephen Poole's statements. Nothing major has happened yet. Problems are routinely happening in computer technology and routinely fixed. Therefore, there won't be any major problems ahead.

That's a bit of an oversimplification. :)

Yes, I have said repeatedly that computers fail now, on a daily basis, and we work around them. I make that point because some Doomlits apparently think that everything from large enterprise systems down to embedded controllers don't fail that often now.

That's simply not true; hardly a day goes by that I don't have to look at SOMETHING in my facility -- which is by no means as large as Ford or GM.

Further, the JAE and other predictions were perfectly logical, given another premise of Doomlits: too many problems, not enough programmers. The fact that they failed can only indicate that maybe fixing Y2K bugs ISN'T as difficult as they first assumed.

So, I've also said (and can defend) that IF WHAT YOURDON AND NORTH WERE SAYING WAS TRUE IN THE MAIN, THEN WE *SHOULD* HAVE BEEN SEEING MAJOR DISRUPTIONS BY NOW. Actually, Ed's prediction for April 1st was dead on the money ... IF HIS BASIC PREMISE WAS CORRECT.


Interdependencies. JIT scheduling. All of the stuff that you use to demonstrate that 2000 could be bad, APPLY *NOW*.

Let's take an imaginary scenario. The JIT vendor who makes computer modules for Ford has a "Jo Anne Effect" in a system that the vendor depends on *heavily* for inventory, complete with projections of how many parts to buy and when (to get the best price).

In March, instead of ordering 10,000 chips, because of data corruption, the computer mistakenly cranks out a PO for 1,000. Their assembly line stops because of the shortage ... which affects Ford, and on down the line.

That's just one contrived example of literally hundreds. The key here is that the assumed "collapse" occurs because everything's interconnected and interdependent. Right?

Back to my main point: computers fail NOW and we work around them. Happens all the time, every day. In the contrived example above, it's not hard to fathom why that vendor didn't go under (and in turn, hurt Ford badly): because there's a human being examining the purchase orders before they go out. He looks at the PO and says, "waitaminnit! Only 1,000 chips?!? Somethin's wrong here ..."

... and there you go. Another Disaster forestalled by someone with a little common sense. :)

-- Stephen M. Poole, CET (, May 27, 1999.


I think you protest too much, and explain too much. After reading your more lengthy explanation above, I stick with my brief assessment of your position on the whole Y2k issue. Your position may seem more complicated and involved to you, but once you strip it all down to essential details, it looks like the way I portrayed it. What's the matter, you think if it's that simple it isn't important? Why don't you just accept that I have spotted it as an *elegant* theory? Since it doesn't encorporate any involved, complicated, interconnected reliance on everyone else's work, everywhere else, it's a very simple theory of how things will turn out. Be happy with that. No need to make it into an essay.

-- Gordon (, May 27, 1999.


Since it doesn't encorporate any involved, complicated, interconnected reliance on everyone else's work, everywhere else, it's a very simple theory of how things will turn out.

But it does involve "complicated reliance" in many cases; I thought my example demonstrated that. Ford relies on the vendor, who in turn relies on the vendor who ships the chips, and so on down the line.

If you want to boil it down to its essense, why not call it, "after a while, you gotta trust someone a little bit."

My bank says it's ready. I certainly trust them FAR more than I trust the government, so I believe them. The people who supply the equipment for our stations say they're ready, and I believe them, too.

See how this works?

What your side is actually saying is, EVERY NON-DOOMER IN THE WORLD is either misinformed, stupid, or lying. And you call that logic? :)

-- Stephen M. Poole, CET (, May 27, 1999.


Trust you say! Well, trust goes hand in hand with faith. This is the basis of religion. What we can't actually *see* or comprehend we must have trust and faith in. I'm not attaching any harsher labels than that.

-- Gordon (, May 27, 1999.

Stephen, Stephen, Stephen, you're using the same old rationalizations for keeping your head in the sand, and they take the same old standard responses.

the JIT interdependencies function only so long as the system stays within fault tolerances (taking food as an example the fault tolerance is roughly two days at a given store, and a maximum of two weeks at a given supporting warehouse under normal circumstances). Those are maximums. Unless you can guarantee that everything will either remain entirely normal following the rollover (and you cannot) and unless you can guarantee that the situation will return entirely to normal within the fault tolerance (2 days/ 2 weeks) of the food distribution system in this country (and you cannot) then your argument is meaningless.

Now I realize that you believe nothing is going to happen next January, so you really don't care, but for those of us who have actually been paying attention to the projected problems in areas as diverse as the Middle East, South America, and Eastern Europe, we see every indication that there are indeed going to be significant and long lasting impacts from problems either directly or indirectly related to the simple fact that a good portion of the world isn't going to have a chance to complete their remediation problems.

Also, if you'd actually apply the logic you claim to use, you'd see that your 'computers fail all the time' propaganda line only holds water in an environment in which such failures are the rare exception. According to the U.S. Coast Guard information release last winter the PLC y2k non-compliance rate was running as high as 20 percent in modern if you want to prove the truth of what you claim, all you have to do is show us a modern, functional industry in which 20 percent of it's equipment is constantly that shouldn't be too hard if what you claim is true, and this sort of thing is an everyday occurance.

Oh, and Stephen, let's not forget your slurs on various folks' characters. We are NOT saying that the vast majority of spindoctored folks out there in televisionland are in any way wrong, in the same sense that someone who doesn't know better is merely misinformed. The only people we're saying are wrong, lying or stupid are those, such as yourself and the 'die bunkah' crew, who know about the issues involved, and either due to prejudice (CPR), immaturity (the y2k kiddies), or ego (decker, the paulie troll, and your, er, esteemed self), choose not only to ignore the problems ahead, but also seek to disrupt this forum, the purpose of which, as stated in the forum's mission statement is:

"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."

Let's face it Stephen, neither you nor any of the rest of the die bunkah crew fit within that mission statement. you're off topic, and now you're out of ideas too...guess the best thing for you to do is simply pack it in and go home...


-- Arlin H. Adams (, May 28, 1999.


These people are prepareing yet try to keep others from prepareing by their constant distortion of the facts, they are evil. I truely believe they want, for some perverse reason to see massive suffering. Maybe they are in there with Algore and want to see a 1/3 reduction in the population, maybe they have some plan to become big fish in little ponds after the roll over, I don't know, but I hope they are held accountable, their neighbors will remember.

-- CT (ct@no.yr), May 28, 1999.

111 working days to go - time's up, last call, ain't you miserable lot got homes to go to!!!

"My bank says it's ready. I certainly trust them FAR more than I trust the government, so I believe them. The people who supply the equipment for our stations say they're ready, and I believe them, too."

There are about 200,000 banks/financial entities worldwide.

199,999 may decide to send poole's bank corrupt imported data. I hope it hits poole's account big time :) The odds are heavily on my side.

BTW poole you're christian web site is STILL propagating your egocentric false view of the world. You are going to cost lives me old son.

Sleep well.

-- Andy (, May 28, 1999.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ