[snip from Michael Hyatt at Westergaard July 7,1999]

Amazingly, some people still think Y2K is a hoax. These people are obviously in deep denial. The number of reported failures are continuing to mount, and these are likely only a fraction of those that have occurred.

Source: http://y2ktimebomb.com/Computech/Issues/hyatt9927.htm

Critt

-- Critt Jarvis (middlegound@critt.com), July 08, 1999

Answers

Lets see how well Mr. Hyatt has done with previous prognostications:

April 1, 1999. On this date, Canada, Japan, and the State of New York begin their fiscal year. This will, of course, include dates beyond Y2K. As a result, planning systems, especially budgets that have not been repaired will fail as they attempt to process Y2K dates. Since New York City is the media capitol of the world, problems there will grab headlines worldwide. Problems in Japan will remind everyone again of how interconnected our world is. The Japanese will also be forced to admit that there systems might not make it. I expect the stock market to react and begin (or continue) its downward spiral. Public confidence will continue to wane and the number of Y2K optimists will continue to dwindle.

July 1, 1999. On this date, forty-four U.S. states begin their fiscal years. The problems that began in New York will now spread exponentially across the country and around the world. The public will feel the global and pervasive nature of the Y2K Problem for the first time. This will be further exacerbated by the fact that many states have not had the resources to adequately address their Millennium Bug problems. Consequently, the failures will be real and widespread.

From the 12 Oct 1998 issue of Westergaard - Michael Hyatt

-- Y2K Pro (2@641.com), July 08, 1999.

I'm going to provide the "debunking" spin on Michael Hyatt's latest letter (below), without visiting the "Bunk board" first. I'll bet I'm just about right on all counts.

On Fri, 9 Jul 1999 14:17:45 -0400, Ellen wrote:

>------------ > >* July 1, 1999: British passport crisis blamed on Y2K glitch. The >British government's Passport Agency has been struggling to issue >thousands of passports during this peak vacation season, and Taskforce >2000, an independent Y2K watchdog group, claims that Millennium Bug >failures are the reason. A new Y2K-compliant computer system was >installed by Siemens in some passport offices, but the system is not >completely operational and has yet to be fully tested. Ian Hugo, the >assistant director of watchdog group Taskforce 2000, said, "[The >Passport Agency] said in March that they had halted introducing the new >system but would be ready by June. In June, the situation was no better. >Something quite clearly is wrong." > >http://www.telegraph.co.uk/et?ac=000271261842766&rtmo=VZZkGwjx&atmo=g gggg3qK&pg=/et/99/7/1/npass01.h >tml

This is clearly not a Y2K failure. They halted introduction of the new system, didn't they? They reverted to the old system, didn't they? They can just do the same next January if they need to.

>------------ > >* June 22, 1999: Pueblo 911 system fails Y2K test. City Council members >were informed by the Police Department that the 911 emergency telephone >system failed to function properly when the internal clock was rolled >over in a routine Y2K test. Had this system not been tested, it would >have put at risk citizens in need of emergency assistance. Computer >staff members tried to modify the AT&T system but were unsuccessful. The >estimated cost of replacing the city's 911 system is $160,000 and will >be covered by a federal grant. Other cities have also reported similar >experiences. > >http://www.y2ktoday.com/modules/home/default.asp?id=1666 >

That was just a scam by the police department trying to get more money from the federal government, just like the DC scam.

>------------ > >* June 6, 1999: New county computer issues $50 million checks. Fred Rice >wondered whether Monroe County, Indiana, had joined the lottery industry >when he received a check for $49 million and one cent in mid-June. The >county prosecutor's office recently installed new computer software to >fix the Y2K problem and no one noticed that Rice's $49.01 check turned >out to be a bit larger than it should've been. "It's almost enough to >retire on, isn't it?" Rice said with a grin. Monroe County official Carl >Salzmann said, "The computer guy is coming to fix it." He asked any >other citizens who may have received eight-figure checks to return them >and new checks for the correct amounts will be issued. > >http://www.hoosiertimes.com/stories/1999/06/22/news.990622_A1_CMK7722 4.sto >

So what? Did they pay any of the checks? No. So that proves that Y2K problems can be worked around!

>------------ > >* June 17, 1999: Y2K test causes massive sewage spill. Over 4 million >gallons of raw sewage spilled into the streets of Van Nuys, California >on June 17 during a Y2K test of computer equipment at the Tillman Water >Reclamation plant. Unbeknownst to plant officials, a computer closed a >key gate during the test which resulted in the blockage of a major sewer >line serving the western San Fernando Valley. The sew-age then backed >up, began flowing out of a utility hole, and poured down Woodley Avenue >into Lake Balboa Park. Plant Manager Bob Birk explained, "The computer >didn't tell us it closed the gate." Crews worked through the night with >vacuum trucks to clean up the mess. > >http://www.cbs2.com/news/stories/news-990617-081237.html > There was a power outage during the test, which is what really caused the failure. So it wasn't a Y2K problem at all. Also, the sewage is good for the park; it makes the flowers grow. Really good news all around!

>------------ >

>* May 31, 1999: Washington Post bitten by the bug. The Washington Post >doesn't want its subscriber's money at least not for a few more weeks. >Washington, D.C.'s largest newspaper is unable to accept 52-week >subscription renewals because its accounting Department is not yet >Y2K-compliant. "We are getting all new software and a brand new computer >to handle this problem over the next three weeks," said spokesperson >Linda Erdos. She predicts the paper will be able to resume offering >52-week subscriptions in July. One Post reader, expressing frustration, >was quoted as saying, "Now I have to call them back in two weeks just to >pay my bill." > >http://www.amcity.com/washington/stories/1999/05/31/newscolumn8.html? h=y2k >

Who cares whether the Washington Post can process its "subscriber's" money? Anyway, it should be "subscribers' ", not "subscriber's ", so that proves the whole thing is bogus.

>------------ > >* May 6, 1999: Software bugs stacking up O'Hare airport. The Federal >Aviation Administration (FAA) installed new Y2K-ready software in its >Chicago area air tracking systems on May 5. However, the software was so >filled with glitches and bugs, the locations of planes on air-traffic >controllers' screens were repeatedly misidentified. As a result, a cargo >jet came within 300 feet of a Southwest Airlines plane which had just >taken off, and 100 United Airline flights out of O'Hare International >Airport had to be cancelled. The FAA was forced to reinstall the old >software, which works well but is not Y2K-compliant. No schedule was >given for when the new software would be debugged and brought back >on-line. The air traffic controllers union president, Kurt Granger, >said, "It looks like this is going to be a long summer." > >http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/article/0,1051,SAV-990 5060162,00.html

See, the old software worked. So they can just revert to it, and there won't be any problem. > >------------ > >* March 24, 1999: Y2K glitch makes premature welfare payments. Almost >200,000 welfare recipients in New Jersey received a windfall March 21 >when computer tests at the state Department of Human Services >accidentally paid out an estimated $58 million in food assistance funds. >The benefits were electronically transferred to special welfare >recipient accounts. Officials said the mistake occurred when Y2K >com-puter repairs were being tested, although they could not say exactly >how the April 1 benefits were re-leased ten days early. Grocery stores >in Newark and other New Jersey cities were crowded with people eager to >take advantage of the snafu. State officials have yet to decide whether >to penalize those who cashed in and used the benefits. > >http://www.detnews.com/1999/technology/9903/24/03240161.htm

It was probably just human error; the fact that it was supposed to have happened during Y2K testing is probably a lie. After all, anything that goes wrong can be blamed on Y2K now, thanks to the doomers! > >------------ > >* January 28, 1999: Y2K repair work snarls insurance claims. Two health >insurance firms, Compcare HMO and Blue Cross & Blue Shield United of >Wisconsin, have been unable to pay millions of dollars in claims to >hospitals, physicians, and policy holders because of computer system >problems. The snafus in the computer systems have been caused by Y2K >remediation work. The delays began last fall and spokes-persons for the >insurance companies say the problems should be cleared up by the end of >March. Waukesha Memorial Hospital is owed $3 million; the Aurora >Healthcare system is owed "multi-millions"; and thousands of enrollees, >who must pay up front out-of-pocket for prescription drugs, have yet to >be reimbursed. > >http://www.jsonline.com/bym/tech/0128comp.asp

See, everything will be cleared up by the end of March. Anyway, why are you posting old news stories? Don't you know everything was fixed by June 30th? > >------------ > >* January 17, 1999: New mainframe computer paralyzes University of >Alberta. The University of Alberta installed a new mainframe computer to >avoid Y2K problems come Jan. 2000, but it did not expect school >operations to come to a screeching halt so soon. Glitches in the new >system, which was supposed to handle class registration by phone, have >produced constant busy signals, long lines of students, and mounting >frustration. Thousands of students were forced to register in person, >some waiting in line for four hours. The new mainframe turned out to be >incompatible with the university's current phone system. No estimates >have been offered as to when the problems will be fixed. > >http://www.edmontonjournal.com/news/alberta/011399ab2.html

They can be registered in person, just like the article says. So what's the big deal? > >------------ > >* January 5, 1999: Locked out of own building, executive has "new >attitude" about Y2K. David Sterling, the head of New York-based Sterling >and Sterling Insurance, says he used to be skeptical about the >wide-spread predictions of Y2K-related breakdowns. On January 4 a >date-related flaw in the brand new card-access security system in Mr. >Sterling's office building locked him and his employees out. Apparently, >when the date changed from 1998 to 1999, an undetected glitch in the >software caused the system to lock up. Mr. Sterling now says he has a >"new attitude" about the fragile relationship between dates, >mi-crochips, and software code. > >http://www.nt.excite.com/news/u/990105/21/tech-science-y2k

If that's the best the doomers can do, they obviously don't have any REALLY bad stories. Let them break the door down, or they could set the date back to 1971! > >------------ > >The above examples are only a representative sampling. (If you are still >not convinced, a more comprehensive list can be found at Year 2000 Bug >Bytes. It includes failures of oil distribution software, utility >billing systems, food stamp software, PC networks, pharmacy >administration systems, tax collection software, military command and >control systems, nuclear utility plant safety systems, and embedded >systems in water treatment plants. Yet another list is at Year 2000 >Problem Sightings. It's worth bookmarking both sites.) > >Year 2000 Bug Bytes: >http://www.year2000.com/bugbytes/NFbugbytes.html > >Year 2000 Problem Sightings: >http://info.cv.nrao.edu/y2k/sighting.htm

Nah, they're all a bunch of doom zombies or hypesters. You can't believe anything they say.

>Admittedly, some of my examples are trivial. They did not have >significant consequences and could only be classified as >"inconveniences." However, some of these were -- or could have been -- >catastrophic, particularly in a Y2K environment. In today's context, we >have a fully functioning foundation (FFF). In other words, problems are >generally local and isolated. Everything else is working, so problems >can be addressed quickly and efficiently. There are plenty of resources >available to resolve these matters with a minimum of disruption.

Exactly. That's why Y2k won't be a problem. They'll just work around it just like they do now.

>But what happens if the problems are more widespread? What if they are >global and simultaneous? Last fall, the GartnerGroup estimated that 40 >percent of all organizations worldwide will experience at least one >mission critical system failure due to Millennium Bug problems. In >addition, by their own estimates 22 percent of the Fortune 500 -- the >companies with the most resources to throw at the problem -- do not >expect to finish work on all of their mission-critical systems by >January 1.

You can't believe anything the Gartner Group says either. They're only in it for the money.

>So far the problems encountered have been minimal. Generally, they have >been look-ahead failures that occur when unremediated software attempts >to process dates into the next century or roll-foreword failures that >occur when programmers set the clock ahead and conduct Y2K tests. But >these failures are the tip of the iceberg, unless a great deal of work >gets done before now and the end of the year. Just imagine a scenario in >which there are so many failures occurring at once that we simply do not >have the available resources to address all the problems quickly. Add to >that the "domino effect" and the cumulative effect of failing systems >impairing compliant ones.

No, those failures ARE the iceberg. There is no domino effect. Nothing can go wrong, go wrong, go wrong ...

>I am not advocating panic, of course. But unless you are hopelessly >ensconced in denial, the failures I've outlined above should provide all >the motivation you need to either start making Y2K preparations or >continue making them. To act otherwise, is to miss the handwriting on >the wall.

Of course, I'm not telling anyone not to prepare. I'm just saying that anyone who tells others to prepare is a hypester, doom zombie, or meme [yes, I know this is an incorrect use, but the morons on the Bunk Board don't].

So, how did I do?

-- Steve Heller (stheller@koyote.com), July 08, 1999.

I'm going to provide the "debunking" spin on Michael Hyatt's latest letter (below), without visiting the "Bunk board" first. I'll bet I'm just about right on all counts.

On Fri, 9 Jul 1999 14:17:45 -0400, Ellen wrote: >------------ > >* July 1, 1999: British passport crisis blamed on Y2K glitch. The >British government's Passport Agency has been struggling to issue >thousands of passports during this peak vacation season, and Taskforce >2000, an independent Y2K watchdog group, claims that Millennium Bug >failures are the reason. A new Y2K-compliant computer system was >installed by Siemens in some passport offices, but the system is not >completely operational and has yet to be fully tested. Ian Hugo, the >assistant director of watchdog group Taskforce 2000, said, "[The >Passport Agency] said in March that they had halted introducing the new >system but would be ready by June. In June, the situation was no better. >Something quite clearly is wrong." > >http://www.telegraph.co.uk/et?ac=000271261842766&rtmo=VZZkGwjx&atmo=g gggg3qK&pg=/et/99/7/1/npass01.h >tml

This is clearly not a Y2K failure. They halted introduction of the new system, didn't they? They reverted to the old system, didn't they? They can just do the same next January if they need to.

>------------ > >* June 22, 1999: Pueblo 911 system fails Y2K test. City Council members >were informed by the Police Department that the 911 emergency telephone >system failed to function properly when the internal clock was rolled >over in a routine Y2K test. Had this system not been tested, it would >have put at risk citizens in need of emergency assistance. Computer >staff members tried to modify the AT&T system but were unsuccessful. The >estimated cost of replacing the city's 911 system is $160,000 and will >be covered by a federal grant. Other cities have also reported similar >experiences. > >http://www.y2ktoday.com/modules/home/default.asp?id=1666 >

That was just a scam by the police department trying to get more money from the federal government, just like the DC scam.

>------------ > >* June 6, 1999: New county computer issues $50 million checks. Fred Rice >wondered whether Monroe County, Indiana, had joined the lottery industry >when he received a check for $49 million and one cent in mid-June. The >county prosecutor's office recently installed new computer software to >fix the Y2K problem and no one noticed that Rice's $49.01 check turned >out to be a bit larger than it should've been. "It's almost enough to >retire on, isn't it?" Rice said with a grin. Monroe County official Carl >Salzmann said, "The computer guy is coming to fix it." He asked any >other citizens who may have received eight-figure checks to return them >and new checks for the correct amounts will be issued. > >http://www.hoosiertimes.com/stories/1999/06/22/news.990622_A1_CMK7722 4.sto >

So what? Did they pay any of the checks? No. So that proves that Y2K problems can be worked around!

>------------ > >* June 17, 1999: Y2K test causes massive sewage spill. Over 4 million >gallons of raw sewage spilled into the streets of Van Nuys, California >on June 17 during a Y2K test of computer equipment at the Tillman Water >Reclamation plant. Unbeknownst to plant officials, a computer closed a >key gate during the test which resulted in the blockage of a major sewer >line serving the western San Fernando Valley. The sew-age then backed >up, began flowing out of a utility hole, and poured down Woodley Avenue >into Lake Balboa Park. Plant Manager Bob Birk explained, "The computer >didn't tell us it closed the gate." Crews worked through the night with >vacuum trucks to clean up the mess. > >http://www.cbs2.com/news/stories/news-990617-081237.html >

There was a power outage during the test, which is what really caused the failure. So it wasn't a Y2K problem at all. Also, the sewage is good for the park; it makes the flowers grow. Really good news all around!

>------------ > >* May 31, 1999: Washington Post bitten by the bug. The Washington Post >doesn't want its subscriber's money at least not for a few more weeks. >Washington, D.C.'s largest newspaper is unable to accept 52-week >subscription renewals because its accounting Department is not yet >Y2K-compliant. "We are getting all new software and a brand new computer >to handle this problem over the next three weeks," said spokesperson >Linda Erdos. She predicts the paper will be able to resume offering >52-week subscriptions in July. One Post reader, expressing frustration, >was quoted as saying, "Now I have to call them back in two weeks just to >pay my bill." > >http://www.amcity.com/washington/stories/1999/05/31/newscolumn8.html? h=y2k >

Who cares whether the Washington Post can process its "subscriber's" money? Anyway, it should be "subscribers' ", not "subscriber's ", so that proves the whole thing is bogus.

>------------ > >* May 6, 1999: Software bugs stacking up O'Hare airport. The Federal >Aviation Administration (FAA) installed new Y2K-ready software in its >Chicago area air tracking systems on May 5. However, the software was so >filled with glitches and bugs, the locations of planes on air-traffic >controllers' screens were repeatedly misidentified. As a result, a cargo >jet came within 300 feet of a Southwest Airlines plane which had just >taken off, and 100 United Airline flights out of O'Hare International >Airport had to be cancelled. The FAA was forced to reinstall the old >software, which works well but is not Y2K-compliant. No schedule was >given for when the new software would be debugged and brought back >on-line. The air traffic controllers union president, Kurt Granger, >said, "It looks like this is going to be a long summer." > >http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/article/0,1051,SAV-990 5060162,00.html

See, the old software worked. So they can just revert to it, and there won't be any problem.

>------------ > >* March 24, 1999: Y2K glitch makes premature welfare payments. Almost >200,000 welfare recipients in New Jersey received a windfall March 21 >when computer tests at the state Department of Human Services >accidentally paid out an estimated $58 million in food assistance funds. >The benefits were electronically transferred to special welfare >recipient accounts. Officials said the mistake occurred when Y2K >com-puter repairs were being tested, although they could not say exactly >how the April 1 benefits were re-leased ten days early. Grocery stores >in Newark and other New Jersey cities were crowded with people eager to >take advantage of the snafu. State officials have yet to decide whether >to penalize those who cashed in and used the benefits. > >http://www.detnews.com/1999/technology/9903/24/03240161.htm

It was probably just human error; the fact that it was supposed to have happened during Y2K testing is probably a lie. After all, anything that goes wrong can be blamed on Y2K now, thanks to the doomers!

> >------------ > >* January 28, 1999: Y2K repair work snarls insurance claims. Two health >insurance firms, Compcare HMO and Blue Cross & Blue Shield United of >Wisconsin, have been unable to pay millions of dollars in claims to >hospitals, physicians, and policy holders because of computer system >problems. The snafus in the computer systems have been caused by Y2K >remediation work. The delays began last fall and spokes-persons for the >insurance companies say the problems should be cleared up by the end of >March. Waukesha Memorial Hospital is owed $3 million; the Aurora >Healthcare system is owed "multi-millions"; and thousands of enrollees, >who must pay up front out-of-pocket for prescription drugs, have yet to >be reimbursed. > >http://www.jsonline.com/bym/tech/0128comp.asp

See, everything will be cleared up by the end of March. Anyway, why are you posting old news stories? Don't you know everything was fixed by June 30th?

> >------------ > >* January 17, 1999: New mainframe computer paralyzes University of >Alberta. The University of Alberta installed a new mainframe computer to >avoid Y2K problems come Jan. 2000, but it did not expect school >operations to come to a screeching halt so soon. Glitches in the new >system, which was supposed to handle class registration by phone, have >produced constant busy signals, long lines of students, and mounting >frustration. Thousands of students were forced to register in person, >some waiting in line for four hours. The new mainframe turned out to be >incompatible with the university's current phone system. No estimates >have been offered as to when the problems will be fixed. > >http://www.edmontonjournal.com/news/alberta/011399ab2.html

They can be registered in person, just like the article says. So what's the big deal?

> >------------ > >* January 5, 1999: Locked out of own building, executive has "new >attitude" about Y2K. David Sterling, the head of New York-based Sterling >and Sterling Insurance, says he used to be skeptical about the >wide-spread predictions of Y2K-related breakdowns. On January 4 a >date-related flaw in the brand new card-access security system in Mr. >Sterling's office building locked him and his employees out. Apparently, >when the date changed from 1998 to 1999, an undetected glitch in the >software caused the system to lock up. Mr. Sterling now says he has a >"new attitude" about the fragile relationship between dates, >mi-crochips, and software code. > >http://www.nt.excite.com/news/u/990105/21/tech-science-y2k

If that's the best the doomers can do, they obviously don't have any REALLY bad stories. Let them break the door down; for that matter, they could set the date back to 1971!

> >------------ > >The above examples are only a representative sampling. (If you are still >not convinced, a more comprehensive list can be found at Year 2000 Bug >Bytes. It includes failures of oil distribution software, utility >billing systems, food stamp software, PC networks, pharmacy >administration systems, tax collection software, military command and >control systems, nuclear utility plant safety systems, and embedded >systems in water treatment plants. Yet another list is at Year 2000 >Problem Sightings. It's worth bookmarking both sites.) > >Year 2000 Bug Bytes: >http://www.year2000.com/bugbytes/NFbugbytes.html > >Year 2000 Problem Sightings: >http://info.cv.nrao.edu/y2k/sighting.htm

Nah, they're all a bunch of doom zombies or hypesters. You can't believe anything they say.

>Admittedly, some of my examples are trivial. They did not have >significant consequences and could only be classified as >"inconveniences." However, some of these were -- or could have been -- >catastrophic, particularly in a Y2K environment. In today's context, we >have a fully functioning foundation (FFF). In other words, problems are >generally local and isolated. Everything else is working, so problems >can be addressed quickly and efficiently. There are plenty of resources >available to resolve these matters with a minimum of disruption.

Exactly. That's why Y2k won't be a problem. They'll just work around it just like they do now.

>But what happens if the problems are more widespread? What if they are >global and simultaneous? Last fall, the GartnerGroup estimated that 40 >percent of all organizations worldwide will experience at least one >mission critical system failure due to Millennium Bug problems. In >addition, by their own estimates 22 percent of the Fortune 500 -- the >companies with the most resources to throw at the problem -- do not >expect to finish work on all of their mission-critical systems by >January 1.

You can't believe anything the Gartner Group says either. They're only in it for the money.

>So far the problems encountered have been minimal. Generally, they have >been look-ahead failures that occur when unremediated software attempts >to process dates into the next century or roll-foreword failures that >occur when programmers set the clock ahead and conduct Y2K tests. But >these failures are the tip of the iceberg, unless a great deal of work >gets done before now and the end of the year. Just imagine a scenario in >which there are so many failures occurring at once that we simply do not >have the available resources to address all the problems quickly. Add to >that the "domino effect" and the cumulative effect of failing systems >impairing compliant ones.

No, those failures ARE the iceberg. There is no domino effect. Nothing can go wrong, go wrong, go wrong ...

>I am not advocating panic, of course. But unless you are hopelessly >ensconced in denial, the failures I've outlined above should provide all >the motivation you need to either start making Y2K preparations or >continue making them. To act otherwise, is to miss the handwriting on >the wall.

Of course, I'm not telling anyone not to prepare. I'm just saying that anyone who tells others to prepare is a hypester, doom zombie, or meme [yes, I know this is an incorrect use, but the morons on the Bunk Board don't].

So, how did I do?

-- Steve Heller (stheller@koyote.com), July 08, 1999.

Steve,

I feel better already.

Guess I should call up the Community Conversations' people and tell them there's no need to come to Wilmington July 27th, huh?

I mean, it's our tax money at work, right? Surely they have better things to do? Don't you agree?

Critt

-- Critt Jarvis (middleground@critt.com), July 08, 1999.

Steve, Good to see som common sense instead of the usual alarmist 2 + 2 = 17 crap that goes on here. Downunder Pauline

-- pauline jansen (paulinej@angliss.vic.edu.au), July 08, 1999.

For some additional info on the Jo Anne Effect, acounting software and fiscal year rollovers, see this thread...

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=00122f

"Significance of States Fiscal Start"

-- Linkmeister (link@librarian.edu), July 08, 1999.

WARNING! Y2K Pro is a Government Agent working for Koskinen! Ignore his BS posts!

-- not in denial (Not@indenial.com), July 09, 1999.

if they (Brit's) halted the new system, but were still going to be ready by June, how was that supposed to have happened?

-- sarah (qubr@aol.com), July 09, 1999.

Paukline Jansen, Judging by your email address you're another freeloader "working" for the Victorian Education Department. And we all know how the Marxist led education department thinks. Stop bludging on taxpayers time. I hope, when things get nasty, that all you useless "Public Servants" end up where you belong. At the end of a long food line.

-- NotaPublic Servant (Not a freeloader@com.au), July 09, 1999.

Steve, brilliant.

Pauline, ... never mind.

-- Lane Core Jr. (elcore@sgi.net), July 09, 1999.

Y2K Pro,

"prognostications" are about the future. Hyatt is writing about reported failures in the past.

In case you can't keep things like this straight, reported failures in the past are not prognostications.

-- Lane Core Jr. (elcore@sgi.net), July 09, 1999.