State of Y2K, Second Half Of Junegreenspun.com : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread
The State of Y2K, Second Half Of June
In this issue:
Fasten Your Seatbelts!
The Ringmaster: Paul Milne
More Good News
The Disconnect Looms Large
Sayonara, Part Deux
-- Stephen M. Poole, CET (email@example.com), June 24, 1999
What attention you received as a child wasn't good was it...You can still get help you know...and if your nothing job does not provide health care, by all means please spend the cash...fast...
-- BiGG (firstname.lastname@example.org), June 24, 1999.
The state of Y2K in the second half of June is adequately represented by the fact that one newspaper at least is still running articles like the one pasted below.
Can you say "Houston, we have a problem"?????
Y2K: What It Is
Thursday, June 24, 1999
The Year 2000 technology problem, or bug as it is sometimes called, was created in the early days of computers, when memory storage was scarce and expensive. Programmers took shortcuts whenever possible to save space. Instead of using a four-digit code for year dates, a two- digit entry was used.
This practice persisted, long after the need for saving space was eliminated. The two-digit code also was used in embedded chips, which are found in many devices that control processes, appliances, cars, medical equipment, telephones, building ventilation systems, elevators, and fire and security alarm systems.
When the year 2000 arrives, programs coded with two-digit year codes will not distinguish between 2000 and 1900. If software or hardware uses time-sensitive calculations or comparisons, it may not work correctly or, in some cases, may not work at all.
--Source: American Red Cross ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Richmond Times-Dispatch
-- Lee (email@example.com), June 24, 1999.
As noted in this article, roughly 20% of small businesses will do absolutely nothing to address Y2K. They will not test their systems and they will not fix them. The number one reason they give for this inaction: "...the whole year-2000 problem is blown out of proportion."
You have been part of the effort which has succeeded in convincing these people that they need not take any action, that all this Y2K work is a sham and a hoax. You have not been a voice of moderation, but one of mockery. You did not encourage prudence, but complacency. To listen to you tell the tale, any preparations or work on Y2K remediation would be a sign of "Doomerism" and insanity.
I hope you've been right all along, Stephen. I hope for the sake of all those businesses (1 out of 5) who have listened to you (and others like you) that you have been absolutely right all along, because they've done NOTHING at all to fix their systems. They've taken your advice, so your vision of the future has to be correct for them to make it. If it is not, they will experience failures, some possibly quite severe, which could have been easily avoided, and you will have some responsibility in that. Your message, bantering tone and all, has come through loud and clear.
I have encouraged prudent preparations among my contacts ever since I began studying the potential for Y2K problems. If my "vision" is correct, everyone who took my advice will be in pretty good shape, and if I'm wrong and no Y2K failures occur, the businesses will have much improved contingency plans and the people won't have to visit Food4Less for a while. I personally will have a very clean garage, a nice garden in the backyard, solar on my house, and a much improved skill set (including Red Cross First Responder.)
What if you're wrong?
-- Mac (firstname.lastname@example.org), June 24, 1999.
Lotta work there Stevie. Pitty nobody wants to read it.
-- carlos (email@example.com), June 24, 1999.
Great issue Stephen, however, I expect the engineers' on the "Train of Fear" will not be quite as generous in doling out the compliments...
-- Y2K Pro (firstname.lastname@example.org), June 24, 1999.
Maybe you should run over to csy2k and look at the survey in progress concerning the belief of the average geek. They are far from amused. Better yet, why don't you post your silly page over there. Take bandages.
-- Mike Lang (email@example.com), June 24, 1999.
Why did I see on CSPAN today the House voting on Y2K litigation Bills which Rep. Moran said could very easily reach in the trillion dollar range. Why do you suppose they would be passing laws like that? Because people know that will disater comes lawsuits? That corporations are slicker than you or I or even the great S. Poole? That they might very well intentionally sabotage their projects in hope of drawing up some multi-million dollar lawsuit against suppliers of hardware and software. Makes sense to me... why work for your money when you can just sue someone and make more?
I might have missed it, but I didn't see any mention of that on Poole's site?
-- (firstname.lastname@example.org), June 24, 1999.
Stephen. Lose the mockery! You may be very funny in person (I'm guessing) but the persona on your web site badly needs a makeover if you want to be persuasive to those who don't already agree with you!
"No one can write decently who is distrustful of the reader's intelligence, or whose attitude is patronizing. ..." -Strunk and White, The Elements of Style
Or maybe I miss the point, and it's really "Stephen Poole's Y2k Standup Comedy Site". Fine, but forget being able to persuade anyone! Believe me, it is my desire to listen in earnest, to you or anyone who has something to say on a subject that interests me. But all this tone will do is entrench the sides even further. For me the threat of Y2k is diminishing, but no thanks to you. (On the other hand you have made some compelling points here on these threads.)
This is given as constructive criticism, not entrenched doomer ad hominem attacking. (even if you care not a whit what I think)
-- Debbie (email@example.com), June 24, 1999.
Maybe you could help us all out here. Why is it that your feeling like the threat of Y2K is decreasing? What in particular makes you feel that way? Or are you just losing interest in the subject?
-- (firstname.lastname@example.org), June 24, 1999.
The President has signed two presidential directives (White Papers) concerning Y2K.
The litigation Bill in Congress lookes like it will pass.
The CIA paints an ugly picture of the status of the rest of the World regarding the effect Y2K can have on their infrastructures.
Yardini publicly states there is a 70% chance of Depression.
Hey, Poole! Which one of these don't you understand? Or are you a case study in Ignorance?
-- Thomas G. Hale (email@example.com), June 25, 1999.
You know Stephen, I actually read your link. Sorry, it wasn't worth the time. You're attacking people, and you virtually ignore the problem. Oh, you mention the latest NERC report, and a couple of Y2K "ready" power cos, and this is good news. But it's old news around here. I thought you would do better. I expected to see some real information. All I see is a bunch of wounded messengers. <:)=
-- Sysman (firstname.lastname@example.org), June 25, 1999.
Burger King is Y2K ready.
-- Y2K Pro (email@example.com), June 25, 1999.
I read poole's claptrap as well.
Thank the goddess he's also saying Sayonara to Y2K.
-- (firstname.lastname@example.org), June 25, 1999.
"Yardini publicly states there is a 70% chance of Depression.
Hey, Poole! Which one of these don't you understand? Or are you a case study in Ignorance?"
The attack would be more effective if you quoted Yardeni correctly. Ed Yardeni believes there is a 70% of global RECESSSION and a five percent chance of DEPRESSION.
Now, what were you saynig about "case study"?
-- Mr. Decker (email@example.com), June 25, 1999.
Why I am less (not UN-)concerned about Y2k - I am as prepared as I can be without burning my bridges. We are getting closer to the date and not much has happened (including on spike dates). We were supposed to be in full out pandemonium by this time in 1999, if you recall how the thinking was last year. My catastrophic fears last year (fanned by runaway speculation) were that the power grid would go down nationally and stay down. That is extremely unlikely. I am not saying I think there will not be any problems (indeed some may be headed right at me).
With power staying up, whatever problems there are (even with outages in some places and not others) there will be both a means and a will to fix them. Areas that are in trouble will get help if they can hold out (which is why prudent preparations for self-sufficiency are so important).
Sorry I don't have facts or evidence for the above view. I am no expert and alas, go on "gut feel" and "inference" after considering a variety of views.
The distinction is subtle, but I went through many months of "fear of absolutely everything getting screwed up" and "anything could happen, what about this, this, and this?" but realized that once you are actually confronting a problem (vs. anticipating it), there is almost never nothing you can do. It is finite, there is hope and something to fight for. This is how it will be when Y2k gets here. Not "everything" will be screwed up by any means. Maybe very little will be. I feel sure it will vary a lot from person to person, from place to place. Also I can't live in fear, enough is enough. And I did take action. Maybe I burnt out my adrenals! Que sera sera.
-- Debbie (firstname.lastname@example.org), June 25, 1999.
This Scoop of Poop is of particular interest --
"But where "Indiana Ed" Yourdon was merely trying to distance himself from the extreme elements in Y2K (and in particular, in his Timebomb 2000 forum)...."
Are you stating polly extremistss drove him out? Or doomer extremists? Or both? Taken in context it looks as if you are referring to doomer extremists.
-- OutingsR (email@example.com), June 25, 1999.