Why I'm now down to a '2'....

greenspun.com : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread

Several months ago I posted a note as to the observation that most folks would rate me a '2.5' on the diaster-prediction scale. FWIW I decided to lower my expectations of what is to come based on the following:

1. Lack of significant look-ahead (e.g., 'JoAnne effect') problems reported.

2. Lack of hard data on the true susceptability of energy suppliers and distributors.

3. Increasingly religious and zealotness of the remaining true believers.

Note that I don't put much stock myself in a 1-10 type of scale, as such a scalar understanding of the problem doesn't portray the physical reality very well. I simply believe '2' sounds about right for me. I define '2' to be: widespread chronic productivity losses, with resultant economic (and health and welfare) consequences.

My preparedness is simply extra cash, and a months supply of drinking water (since where I live is very water poor) and medicine.

I haven't visited this forum in a few months, and it appears as if a smaller (and more hardcore) group of people are now posting most of the articles. True?


-- booboo (strawberry9@worldnet.att.net), July 27, 1999


True, the evidence keeps mounting on the positive side and yet the zealots keep screaming louder. They want so much to be right that I wonder what will happen when it turns out they were wrong all along. Hardcore sums it up.

-- positive (evidence@is always ignored.here), July 27, 1999.

booboo, I entered this board yesterday with a query about media presentation of 'y2k facts' and was happy to see many respondents agreeing that each day, the media makes it more and more difficult to attain a grasp on this situation. In case you missed my articles of reference, on the same day Intel's CEO proclaims his belief that y2k is overblown and manifested by the stinking media's need to report crises and possible catastrophic ramifications, the Senate is told of the possible humanitarian disaster that y2k will yield.

For someone who HAS prepared like me, staying firmly in the middle of the road means keeping my sanity, as well. It's my belief that no one has a firm grasp on this situation.

And now your prognostication. I appreciate your comments as I think everyone would love to see an almost-harmless scenario transpire. But given the fact that Sysman put his numbers at 6.5, well, here we go again.....just who is on the right track here?

I'm not involved in IT in anyway. I've read the various accounts for two years plus now and have spoken to a number of programmers that have also given me low-and high probabilities of y2k problems on a global scale. I've found that in their cases, two things usually strike me:

a. that their success rate or failure rate paints their view of remediation efforts around the globe

b. that they sometimes give the view that the entire world revolves around computers...and that without them, we will return to the stone age.

I know I'll raise the hackles of some with that last comment, and that's fine. I am just wondering if the truth might be somewhere in the middle of all of this.


-- Bad Company (johnny@shootingstar.com), July 27, 1999.


Interesting, I would rank what you describe as "widespread chronic productivity losses, with resultant economic (and health and welfare) consequences" at at least a 4 or a 5. A 2 would be minor and localized problems.


If you think that the problems you stated stand a chance of occuring why would you not store some food as well?

-- John Beck (eurisko111@aol.com), July 27, 1999.

From all the evidence I've seen regarding FAILED remediation, DOUBLESPEAK, and LIES from the media, I'm definitely seeing a 9 or 10 coming soon. There's no way to stop it now. I'm afraid that if you're only preparing for a 2, or even a 4 or 5, you won't live through January.

-- (its@coming.soon), July 27, 1999.

I think that most people that have been active on this forum over the past 8 months (In Nov 98 I started lurking mostly, posting occasionally) are burned out on Y2K. The preps are done. Its time to lay low and enjoy the rest of the summer, comfortable knowing that our preps - at what ever level - are complete and will hopefully sustain us if things become difficult.

Only time will tell.

Off to the golf course!

-- MarktheFart (quke@ix.netcom.com), July 27, 1999.

booboo said:

it appears as if a smaller (and more hardcore) group of people are now posting most of the articles.

133 forum regulars were polled two weeks ago. Average expected severity was a Yourdon style depression. Odds of a total collapse were put at 1 in 5. HTH.

-- a (a@a.a), July 27, 1999.

I guess 133 is the smaller hardcore booboo references. Sounds about right, 133 out of the world's population. We'll ignore the fact that you have the pollys in that poll, a, who believe close to bump in the road. But then again, you're good at ignoring facts.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), July 27, 1999.


-- Not Again! (Seenit@ww2.com), July 27, 1999.

Mark the Fart is right. I'm predicting that very soon there will be an influx of newbies coming here to get some answers and some advice from us old timers. Since my preparations have be completed several months ago it's business as usual for me. I won't feel any sympathy for the newbies because they chose to bury their heads in the sand and it's too late now. The best any of us can do for them is to direct them to the hundreds of Y2K preparation sites. And now, I'm getting ready to go fishing........

-- Relaxed Max (relaxed MAX@relaxedmax.com), July 27, 1999.

Maria, apparently you are not familiar with how a poll works. We did not attempt to poll the Earth's 6 billion people. We only polled the hundred or so on this forum who know y2k issues like the back of their hand (and I include you this group).

There are more people on the forum than ever before, some days seeming in excess of 100 new threads. This is a dramatic rise from earlier in the year when new threads averaged around 50, and the middle of last year when the averaged around 10.

BTW Maria, the Weiss ratings released today show the following "progress" for your coveted telecos, who you claim are "done":

        --       AT&T                from "average" to   "below 
        --       SBC Communications  from "average" to   "below 
        --       US West             from "average" to   "below 

See the "Y2K bugets jump as much as five-fold thread".

-- a (a@a.a), July 27, 1999.

See also...

OT?: William S. Cohen, Secretary of Defense: Preparing For A Grave New World (USIA)

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id= 0018ov

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), July 27, 1999.

Washington D.C. apparently believes that Y2K could turn out to be more than a "2" for them:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/WPcap/1999-06/28/074r-062899- idx.html

Think about this for a minute. D.C. is preparing even though the Jo Anne Effect has reportedly only had mild effects, and even though the conversation about Y2K has grown more polarized. Some might say that Washington D.C. government is now a "true believer," but I'd say they're preparing just in case--as we should be.

-- Linkmeister (link@librarian.edu), July 27, 1999.

Well it looks like the "spin" is working. People seem to think "no big deal", they haven't TOLD us any bad news, so everything must be fine...


Just becuase you haven't had a car accident in 10 years, do you drop coverages off of your car insurance??? I am worried because of the LACK of information. I should be able to get a concise report of remediation from my bank, mortgage company, utility company, etc... I cannot get those. I get this stupid form letter, with a "insert company name here" blank, that says absolutely NOTHING concrete.

That bothers me.

What do they have to hide? They are obviously trying to hide something... Why does the bank VP I am talking to have perspiration on his top lip in a 70 degree F. office? Why when I try to talk to PNM reps, they refer me to their website that also says nothing?

I would be a fool not to prepare for a least a month, whether that month is a continuous time, or spread out over a year. I hate it when my questions are not answered.

Booboo, do what you think is prudent. I am not trying to change your mind about anything. But, think about any dependants you may have, and think about if you are being told the whole story. Prep accordingly.

sniffin' at the door...

The Dog

-- Dog (Desert Dog@-sand.com), July 27, 1999.


I think this thing will be a 2 or 3 as well. But I have pretty extensive preparations. The reason is that:

A. Food is cheap at my income. B. I know a lot of people I care about that don't make much money that I want to be able to provide for. C. I only bought stuff I'll use. So not much will go to waste. D. I could be wrong about the 2-3 scanario. Even though I've written software for fourteen years, I still can't calculate the extent of the problem. It could go from a bump, to a fairly large event, and that makes me prepare for the worst.

-- Bryce (bryce@seanet.com), July 27, 1999.

Maria & Deano: Why don't you two, since you seem to be the ONLY two Y2K Project Managers that have brought your firms to completion, "go public" and show everyone else how to do it? I mean, time is getting short to say the least, everyone else is running up against brick walls, but you two geniuses remarkably finished MONTHS ago. In fact, maybe as much as a year ago.

You two could save the world! And makes lots of money, too!!

-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.com), July 27, 1999.

Q. How do you finish a Y2K project in plenty of time? A. Start it with plenty of time to spare, like (say) in 1995. ;-)

This is of course a rather useless bit of advice today. It was really useful back in 1995, but few listened and still fewer acted. Which is why we are where we are now.

-- Nigel Arnot (nra@maxwell.ph.kcl.ac.uk), July 27, 1999.


NO ONE will ever report Jo Anne effect problems nor genuine, pure- strain Y2K problems per se for that matter. Not even AFTER 1/1/00. It will always be "cyberterrorism", "religious fanatics", "Chinese sabotage", "human error", "fortuitous events", "Act of God" and what have you. Being y2k-ignorant doesn't mean they are all DUMB. Lawyers also play.

As per point (2) of your original post I suggest you read Chevron, Exxon, Dow Chemical, and Amerada Hess threads on this forum, some of which are still listed on the current cover page listing. Obviously you have not read about the "high risks and uncertainties" all of these companies acknowledge.

Take care

-- George (jvilches@sminter.com.ar), July 27, 1999.

The following thread has links to quite a bit of information on the Jo Anne Effect, accounting software and fiscal year rolovers:


"Significance of States Fiscal Start"

-- Linkmeister (link@librarian.edu), July 27, 1999.

George, you make point 2 instead of disputing it. "uncertainties" means lack of hard data. Huh?

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), July 27, 1999.


I know we aren't the only ones that finished 'the project' on time.

Nigel nailed it for any corporation of any size - you really needed to start it 4, 5 maybe 6 years ago. We started latter part of 1994 and finished around the end of November 1998.

We did have a little incentive too - 23 million loans on our system that don't belong to us. There are some very large companies out there that would have failed for sure had we not completed everything on time. No doubt about that.


-- Deano (deano@luvthebeach.com), July 27, 1999.

No Marma. These companies clearly explain their "uncertainties" concerning third party non-compliance. Visit their web-sites and/or threads on this forum and convince yourself how much jeopardy these companies' top executives perceive in the supply lines (domestic and foreign) and in their local and regional infraestructure, utilities, etc.

Now "high risks" is pretty obvious and does not require further explanation I guess. You're smart enough for that one aren't you?

-- George (jvilches@sminter.com.ar), July 28, 1999.

Maria, you and other pollys (as well as the more extreme doomers) make the classic "scientific" mistake of equating evidence with truth. Just because someone doesn't possess hard evidence of a fact does not make the fact any less true. You have made a choice to err on the side of optimism: in the absence of hard evidence that there will be catastrophic failures, I shall assume that there won't be any. This is the exact logical equivalent of Paul Milne, gazing into a mirror... doesn't mean you're wrong, but for you to arrogantly dismiss Y2K concerns because of lack of "proof" is the simple arrogance of the scientist, who trusts five senses and a mediocre mind to be sufficient for understanding the universe...

-- Simply Exhausted (sigh@fedup.com), July 28, 1999.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ