NERC Lies to Fema? eyepopper on Norths" site

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

The story is on Worldnet daily. Hope that SIR linkmeister can do the honors.

-- David Butts (dciinc@aol.com), August 03, 1999

Answers

Here is the link:

Fema Left In The Dark

Ray

-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), August 03, 1999.


Hoffmeister, your comments please.

Ray

-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), August 03, 1999.


Seriously, y'all are really too much.

-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-deja.com), August 03, 1999.

I believe this is "old" news. I think I remember reading this a month or two back. Not that it seemed any less outrageous at that point...

However, it has been pointed out that many, if not most, large corporations and government organizations are unlikely to want to reveal a lack of Y2K preparation, for obvious reasons. As well, fear of litigation has also apparently prevented at least some corporations from publicly communicating even positive information about Y2K.

For the sake of risk assessment you should probably assume that things are somewhat worse than people are officially admitting, and I don't find this to be very surprising.

-- Peter Harlan (pharlan@efn.org), August 03, 1999.


Sorry, Ray, feeling lazy. See my comments over on c.s.y2k:

NER C coverup: REVEALED!!!

-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-deja.com), August 03, 1999.



I wish I could quote some sources for you. Truth is, I'm probably in the same position as most of the folks who post or lurk here: interested in finding out about things that might be important for us, but too busy to approach any of these Y2K topics with professional zeal and scholarship. I tend to remember cited facts and conclusions from my reading, but not usually when, where, or from whom I got them.

Based on my very limited understanding of the legal aspects of Y2K, I'd say that companies basically don't want to say *anything* at all about matters which might later be discussed in court. A claim of Y2K-compliance might be construed as a promise that is not kept. To my non-lawyerly mind, it's kind of like the advice an attorney is apt to give anyone who testifies under oath: answer the question, but don't volunteer any information that is not explicitly asked for. Basically, the more you say, the more likely it is that you'll say something that is harmful to your side.

Another reason might be that a corporation sufficiently on the ball to have its Y2K work already completed might well have very smart people running their operations. And, the more you know about the difficulties in maintaining large software systems, the less likely you are to make categorical claims about them. Smart people may not want to be publicly embarrassed if--probably when--a particularly stubborn Y2K error arises. Don't forget, Capers Jones has found the *new* error rate to be about 15 percent when large systems are modified. That is, programmers tend to inject new errors into the very systems they are fixing. All these bugs won't disappear overnight. The best companies are probably positioned so that they can handle whatever comes up without entering a crisis mode.

Finally, I think that many organizations--public and private-- really hesitate to release any information that they regard as internal. Basically, they're just not used to telling people the unvarnished truth about anything. Advertising and PR departments exist for the purpose of putting the most useful spin on any communication that is deemed essential.

-- Peter Harlan (pharlan@efn.org), August 03, 1999.


You maybe expected the TRUTH?

-- Mad Monk (madmonk@hawaiian.net), August 03, 1999.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ