Y2K............................... The Facts

greenspun.com : LUSENET : The Christian Church : One Thread

Year 2000 Facts, Forecasts, and Areas of Concern

By Warren Bone October 28, 1999

Editor's Note: Make sure to read Mr. Bone's Special Note of Clarification at the end of this article.

Small Businesses

40% will not be ready for 2000.¹

28%, nearly one-third, plan to do nothing at all -- will just wait and see what happens. They "think the problem is being blown out of proportion." ²

Are putting themselves in economic jeopardy, according to the White House.³ Potentially 8,000,000 or more may be forced to close.

Employ more than 50% of the private workforce.⁴

Generate more than half the nation's Gross Domestic Product (GDP).⁵

Number between 15 million and 24 million in the U.S.⁶

Don't seem to care or understand the seriousnessthey just don't get it. Only 81 have applied for loans through The Small Business Year 2000 Readiness Act,⁷ which provides SBA loans for consulting, systems and software purchases and repair. That has been available since 2 April 1999.⁸
Large Businesses

81% are still not ready.⁹

44% will not be ready for 2000.¹⁰

92% rank the need for independent Y2K verification and validation as high.¹¹ This also provides further due diligence.

59% are concerned about legal issues, with 27% believing lawsuits against their company are likely.¹²

Half the large companies do not have a contingency plan.¹³
Local Governments

25% of counties in U.S. have no Year 2000 plan and will not be ready.¹⁴

63% of "911" call centers (mostly run by local governments) will not be ready.¹⁵
Healthcare

60% of healthcare providers will not be ready.¹⁶

15% of healthcare providers have done nothing.¹⁷
Education
70% of schools and colleges will not be ready.¹⁸ Federal Government

Is not ready for 2000 and will not be ready.¹⁹

Has been painting the "positive" picture for the public. "The administration is fooling itself and luring the American public into a false sense of security."²⁰

"and the job is still not completed. Progress during this quarter, which ended on August 15 (1999), is discouraging. The flurry of activity we saw among federal agencies earlier this year has slowed to a snail's pace."²¹ (My emphasis.)

"the overall federal government improved its compliance rate by a measly one percent during the last three months."²² (My emphasis.)

Will likely see the need to intervene in the economic sector, as well as in the governmental sectors at the state and local levels, and internationally. "Pentagon officials say the idea behind the change is to give a president options short of martial law to deal with domestic crises."²³ (My emphasis.)

We may see the federal government intervene in the stock market by suspending trading if the market begins declining rapidly. A significantly sustained decline in the value of stocks will herald the beginning of the worldwide recession, which I believe we will experience. (See "Worldwide Economic Impact" topic below.) Also, the government may need to regulate/adjust wholesale and retail prices and interest rates in an effort to stave off the deflationary effects of Year 2000 problems worldwide.

Almost every Year 2000 report you see, from every source, talks about mission critical systems. These are the systems, which if not working, can shut the business (or government) down; they are essential to the "mission" of the organization. The federal government's count of its mission critical systems has varied monthly:
U.S. Federal Government's Year 2000 Percent Compliance Reported, Versus Its Actual Percent Compliance, Considering Reclassified Mission Critical Systems ²⁴

Date Data Received Number Mission Critical Systems Reported Number Compliant Per the Report Percent Compliant Per the Report Actual Percent Compliant Based on Nov. 97's 8,589 Count (Before Reclassification Began) Compliance Percentage Points Gained by Gov's Reclassification of "Mission Critical Systems"

June 97 7,649²⁵ 1,598 21% N/A N/A

Aug 97 8,562²⁶ 1,646 19% N/A N/A

Nov 97 8,589²⁷ 2,296 27% 27% N/A

Feb 98 7,850²⁸ 2,716 35% 32% 3%

May 98 7,336²⁹ 2,913 40% 34% 6%

Aug 98 7,343³⁰ 3,692 50% 43% 7%

Nov 98 6,696³¹ 4,069 61% 47% 14%

Feb 99 6,399³² 5,045 79% 59% 20%

Mar. 31, 1999 Deadline* 6,123³³ 5,633 92% 66% Compliant. NOT 92%. 26%

May 99 6,190³⁴ 5,780 93% 67% 26%

Aug 99 6,343³⁵ 6,126 97% 71% Compliant. NOT 97%. 26%

*President's deadline to have all federal government systems compliant was 31 March 1999.

From November 97's high of 8,589 to March 99's low of 6,123 the government managed to reclassify 2,466 systems (29%) as "not really mission critical after all." (Again, see note 24.)

An explanation of the calendar of events between the Feb. 99 and May 99 reports, is in order here:

The Feb. 99 data above was received from the agencies, dated 12 February 1999. (That report of 6,399 systems and 79% compliant was not released to the public until 18 March 1999, one month later -- all the Quarterly Reports are issued a month following receipt of the data.)

On 23 February 1999, only one week after receiving the February data, Mr. Koskinen, Chairman of the President's Council on Year 2000 Conversion, announced (at a press conference) that the federal government's mission critical systems would be 90% compliant by 31 March 1999, the President's deadline. ³⁶

On 18 March 1999 the February 12 data was issued.

On 31 March 1999 Koskinen reported that, "according to the most recent data obtained from the agencies" 92% were now compliant, and had met the deadline.³⁷

Then the May 99 figures were issued. "Despite their stellar work, the overall federal government improved its compliance rate by a measly one percent during the last three months. (My emphasis.) This performance rate is simply not acceptable."³⁸

The bottom line to all this is that the number of systems identified as "mission critical," has continued to drop up to the point of the 31 March 1999 deadline set by the President.

Now note that immediately after the "big deadline" the number of systems began to increase again. The Defense Department added 333 more systems.³⁹

PAY CLOSE ATTENTION TO THE LAST TWO COLUMNS OF MY TABLE ABOVE:

The agencies in their inventory of mission critical systems had identified eight-thousand-five-hundred-eighty-nine(!) systems critical to their operations, by November 1997.

Using that number (8,589) (as the number of mission critical systems which really should be made compliant) the percent compliant each quarter then looks quite different. Two good examples are the 31 March deadline (government reported 92%; should really be only 66%), and the report of August 99 (government says it is 97% compliant; it is actually only 71% compliant.) I suspect that by 31 December 1999 -- we should see a report dated about 15 November and issued about 15 December -- the government will be reporting 100% ready, while my projection right now is that the actual will only be about 75% compliant. (I expect the count of mission critical systems to stay rather much like it shows for August 1999: 6,343. DOD may be still doing its inventory at this late date, but I am sure the other agencies will find that more of their mission critical systems are really not critical after all, and even more can be dropped off the list prior to year end. That will make the government's numbers come out just right: 100% just in time! Using my formula: If the total number systems is 6,343 and the government finally reports 100% of them are compliant, then that's 6,343 in the "Number Compliant" column. 6,343 is 74% of 8,589.

To round it all off, and to give the government the benefit of the doubt regarding what is really critical or not, let's say the total number reported and compliant at year end is 6,000, and that since the November 1997 inventory there really were 589 of those systems that were misclassified to begin with, then the number of systems to be made compliant is 8,000.

6,000 is 75% of 8,000. The government mission critical systems will probably be at about 75% compliant at millennium end. (Even if they say they are at 100%.)

The government has gained 26 percentage points on its reporting by simply reducing the base of the calculation.

The number of non-mission critical systems for any company or organization is probably five to ten times greater than what it calls mission critical (and this would not include all the individual PC-based software in use).

Most companies have concentrated on the mission critical. Enough "non-mission critical" systems exist to cause severe disruption if they, too, are not made ready.

"we must constantly remind ourselves that the mission-critical systems we talk about are but the tip of the iceberg -- approximately one eighth of the installed base of systems (referencing federal government systems). Roughly speaking there are 8,000 mission-critical systems plus 60,000 second and third tier systemsuncounted millions of embedded computer chips. We can not allow all of these so-called non-mission-critical systems to failThe collective confusion of tens of thousands of secondary systems failing could be catastrophic."⁴⁰
Worldwide Economic Impact

Overall, the U.S. is not in good shape for Year 2000. To put it another way: The U.S. private sector and the federal, state and local governments are all in bad shape for 2000. (I would normally put a footnote here to substantiate these statements; but if you will disregard the efforts to paint a "don't worry, be happy" picture for us all -- from the federal, state and local governments and from all those businesses making their Year 2000 Readiness Disclosure Statements and SEC disclosures -- you will realize there are thousands of articles and documents to substantiate my statementstoo many to "footnotes," of course.)
The rest of the world is much further behind than we are.⁴¹ Many are at great risk and will suffer deep and severe related problems, many of which will negatively impact our economy. "It is amazing, but true, that the Year 2000 computer bug could harm the world's largest and most robust economy."⁴²

75% chance of severe global recession. 60% for recession or depression.⁴³

Real Gross Domestic Product (GDP) down 2%-3%.⁴⁴

Stock market down 30%.⁴⁵

Business interruptions, domino effect, reduced production, layoffs, higher unemployment, less demand, Y2K costs continuing for years. Deflation.⁴⁶

The process is likely to start before 2000, become obvious by April 2000, and continue through 2000 and 2001. Worldwide.⁴⁷

Summary

Only 43 workdays to get it all done.

40% of small businesses will not be ready, and don't seem to care.

48% of large businesses will not be ready.

25% of counties will not be ready.

60% of healthcare providers (including doctors) will not be ready.

70% of schools and colleges will not be ready.

The federal government will not be ready.

The rest of the world will not be ready. Major problems.

75% chance of a major deflationary recession worldwide.

Special Note of Clarification:
NFIB research indicates that 60% of the small businesses had done something to prepare for Year 2000; therefore, 40% had done nothing, with 75% of that group actually planning to do nothing (which is 30% of the total).

My position is, and my projections are, that any company, organization or government, which was not completely ready by mid-year 1999, will not be completely ready by 2000. A portion of that 60% of small businesses will not be fully ready, and since 30% actually plan to do nothing, it is easy to see that at least 40% of all small businesses will not be ready for 2000 when it arrives.

I have taken this position with all sectors on which I have reported in this document: i.e., 100% of the sector, less the percentage of those "ready" leaves the percentage of those "not ready." Those not ready will also not be ready at 1 January 2000. Given that any survey results are usually several months old by the time we digest them, in the case of Year 2000 I have seen that the patterns displayed by any particular survey hold true from report to report, survey to survey. At this late date in the Year 2000 issue those patterns for any group or sector under observation will continue until 2000 gets here, and beyond.

¹National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB), Survey shows half of all small firms preparing for Y2K; Almost three million have acted to prevent "millennium bug" (NFIB Online: News Releases, May 24, 1999. (This address may not work as a link from this page. May get "Illegal Operation." If so, type this address in manually on your browser: http://www.nfibonline.com/. Once there, click on "SITE SEARCH," then type in "survey shows half" and click on Search. Then click on the title of the article to view it.)

The President's Council on Year 2000 Conversion, VARBusiness, and many others quote this report.

Also see:

President's Council on Year 2000 Conversion, 100 Days to Y2K (Press Release, September 22, 1999. http://www.y2k.gov/new/0922prls.html), and 100 Days to Y2K: A Resource Guide for Small Organizations (http://www.y2k.gov/new/0922doc3.html).

Also, David Myron, Y2K Looms Over Small Business (VARBusiness, September 27, 1999. http://www.techweb.com/se/directlink.cgi?VAR19990927S0023)

² Ibid.

³Stephen Barr, All Okay On Y2K? Not Yet (Washingtonpost.com, September 27, 1999. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/business/feed/a47772-1999sep27.htm)

⁴David Myron, Y2K Looms Over Small Business (VARBusiness, September 27, 1999. http://www.techweb.com/se/directlink.cgi?VAR19990927S0023).

⁵Ibid.

⁶Ibid. Also: Statement of John A. Koskinen, Chairman, President's Council On Year 2000 Conversion. January 20, 1999. (http://www.y2k.gov/council/JKTE0120.htm).

⁷Stephen Barr, All Okay On Y2K? Not Yet (Washingtonpost.com, September 27, 1999. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/business/feed/a47772-1999sep27.htm).

⁸Small Business Administration (SBA), Y2K Action Loan Program (http://www.sba.gov./financing/fry2k.html). Also: U.S. Senate, Small Business Year 2000 Readiness Act (February 23, 1999. http://www.itpolicy.gsa.gov/mks/yr2000/hill/106srpt106-5.htm).

⁹CIO Magazine News Bureau, Y2K Experts Poll Exposes Incompletion and Complacency (Press release, September 30, 1999. http://www.cio.com/info/releases/093099_y2kpoll.html).

¹⁰Cap Gemini America, With 100 Days Remaining, 82 Percent of Major Firms Say Year 2000 Poses "No Significant Business Risk" (Press Release, September 22, 1999. http://www.usa.capgemini.com/news/pr99.asp?id=109).

¹¹Ibid.

¹²CIO Magazine News Bureau, Y2K Experts Poll Exposes Incompletion and Complacency (Press release, September 30, 1999. http://www.cio.com/info/releases/093099_y2kpoll.html).

¹³Ibid.

¹⁴President's Council on Year 2000 Conversion, 100 Days to Y2K: A Resource Guide for Small Organizations (http://www.y2k.gov/new/0922doc3.html).

¹⁵Ibid.

¹⁶Ibid.

¹⁷Ibid.

¹⁸Ibid.

¹⁹Rep. Stephen Horn, R-CA, Chairman of the Subcommittee on Government Management, Information, and Technology, Horn Releases Ninth Y2K Report Cards (News Release, September 10, 1999. http://www.house.gov/reform/gmit/y2k/990910.htm).

²⁰House Majority Leader Dick Armey, R-Texas, USAToday, Most critical govt. systems Y2K-ready (USAToday Tech Report, April 1, 1999. http://www.usatoday.com/life/cyber/tech/cte770.htm).

²¹Horn, Horn Releases Ninth Y2K Report Cards (News Release, September 10, 1999. http://www.house.gov/reform/gmit/y2k/990910.htm).

²²Ibid.

²³Jamie McIntyre, Military Affairs Correspondent, CNN, Expanded domestic use of U.S. military raising civil liberty concerns (CNN.com, October 7, 1999. http://www.cnn.com/US/9910/07/military.civilian/index.html).

²⁴Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), 4th Quarterly Report (February 15, 1998. http://www.cio.gov/docs/y2k4q.htm).

This was the first of the reports explaining why the number of mission critical systems identified keeps going down: "This change occurred because senior management in several agencies refined their lists of mission-critical systems." The 5th Quarterly Report noted below, also contains such text: "senior Federal managers have reevaluated which systems are critical to their organizations' missions and set priorities within their organizations." Further reports use the same text with simply adding the words "continue to reevaluate"

²⁵OMB, Getting Federal Computers Ready for 2000. Progress Report, (first report, June 23, 1997. http://www.cio.gov/docs/yr2krev.htm).

²⁶OMB, Progress on Year 2000 Conversion (second summary report, August 15, 1997. http://www.cio.gov/docs/y2krp897.htm).

²⁷OMB, Progress on Year 2000 Conversion, 3rd Report (November 15, 1997. http://www.cio.gov/docs/y2knov97.htm).

²⁸OMB, 4th Quarterly Report (February 15, 1998. http://www.cio.gov/docs/y2k4q.htm).

²⁹OMB, 5th Quarterly Report (May 15, 1998. http://www.cio.gov/docs/598rpt.html).

³⁰OMB, 6th Quarterly Report (August 15, 1998. http://www.cio.gov/docs/y2k6q.htm).

³¹OMB, 7th Quarterly Report (November 15, 1998. http://www.cio.gov/docs/decdraft6.htm).

³²OMB, 8th Quarterly Report (February 12, 1999. http://www.cio.gov/files/8thQuarterlyReport.pdf).

³³USAToday, Most critical govt. systems Y2K-ready (USAToday Tech Report, April 1, 1999. http://www.usatoday.com/life/cyber/tech/cte770.htm).

³⁴9th Quarterly Report (May 14, 1999. http://www.cio.gov/files/9thQuarterlyReport.pdf).

³⁵10th Quarterly Report (August 13, 1999. http://y2k.gov/new/10th_omb.htm).

³⁶Paul Malamud, Koskinen Says U.S. Government is Y2K Ready (U.S. Department of State, U.S. Information Agency, February 24, 1999. http://www.usia.gov/topical/global/y2k/99022401.htm).

³⁷President's Council on Year 2000 Conversion, Federal Government Nears Completion of Y2K Work On Mission-Critical Systems (Press Release, March 31, 1999. http://www.y2k.gov/new/0331PRL2.htm).

Also: Major Federal Departments and Agencies-Y2K Status, (March 31, 1999. http://www.y2k.gov/new/AGENTOT.htm).

Also: U.S. Department of Energy, Most Federal Agencies Ready for Y2K - 92% of Mission Critical Systems Meet March 31 Goal for Compliance (Y2K Fast Facts, April 2, 1999. http://cio.doe.gov/y2k/OtherInfo/Y2KnYou/FF04-02-99.htm).

³⁸Rep. Stephen Horn, R-CA, Chairman of the Subcommittee on Government Management, Information, and Technology, Horn Releases Ninth Y2K Report Cards (News Release, September 10, 1999. http://www.house.gov/reform/gmit/y2k/990910.htm).

³⁹Ibid.

⁴⁰Horn, Governmentwide Year 2000 Issues and the Department of the Treasury (Opening Statement, March 18, 1998. http://www.house.gov/science/horn_03-18.htm).

⁴¹Dale Vecchio, Gartner Group, Inc. Quoted in the following: David Myron, Y2K Looms Over Small Business (VARBusiness, September 27, 1999. http://www.techweb.com/se/directlink.cgi?VAR19990927S0023).

⁴²Horn, Governmentwide Year 2000 Issues and the Department of the Treasury (Opening Statement, March 18, 1998. http://www.house.gov/science/horn_03-18.htm).

⁴³Dr. Edward Yardeni, Chief Economist & Global Investment Strategist, Deutsche Bank, Alarmist Shrugs (The Y2K Reporter, October 11, 1999. http://www.yardeni.com/public/y_19991011.pdf). Also: Yardeni, Reassessing Y2K Recession Odds (February 22, 1999. http://www.yardeni.com/public/y_19990222.pdf).

Also: Dr. Reynolds Griffith, Y2K Economic Forecasts (September 21, 1999. http://cobweb.sfasu.edu/~rg/forecast.htm).

Dr. Yardeni, in his October 11, 1999 report states that he still sees a 70% chance of a recession. Having spent my career in IT, and having been Y2K project manager for a major international corporation for over three years -- in other words, "I've been on the inside of this" -- I think the real chances of a recession are between 75% and 100%. Dr. Griffith presented the economic forecast from seven sources, including Dr. Yardeni's. Referencing his table: I eliminated the S&P forecasts since they were not current (March 1998). By averaging the five probability scenarios for the six forecasts in the table, you will see that the average for "recession" is 49%. The average for "depression" is 11%. The two combined then total 60%, the probability of their being a recession or depression.

⁴⁴Ibid. Yardeni.

⁴⁵Ibid. Yardeni.

⁴⁶Ibid. (My projections and opinions, based on the above information, and similar data.)

⁴⁷Ibid. (My projections and opinions, based on the above information, and similar data.)

Contact Warren Bone
Email: wbone@home.com
Telephone:(615) 353-0249

Technology - [Issues] [Management]

[Search WY2K] [Site Map] [Y2K Book Center]
[Reader Email] [Features] [Columns]
[Contingency Planning] [Economy] [Industry] [International] [Investing]
[Litigation] [Media] [Technology] [Washington]
[Westergaard Year 2000 Home]

© Westergaard.com, Inc., 1999
www.y2ktimebomb.com

-- Anonymous, October 27, 1999

Answers

May I suggest we read The Millennium Bug Bebugged by Hank Hannegraff. It answers many of the irrational fears held by many.

-- Anonymous, October 28, 1999

Yes, those irrational fears need to be eradicated. The "rational" concerns are the ones that should be addressed... Like the ones in the above post.

May I suggest we visit garynorth.com. It answers much of the irrational denial held by many.

-- Anonymous, October 28, 1999

Duane, you really should take a look at what Hanegrraaf has to say. Even if you decide after you do to not agree with what he presents, he will put some things in a new light. I've listened to most all of the big names go on about it all (I work for a Christian radio station and get to listen to preachers and teachers all morning), including Gary North, Michael Hyatt, Chuck Missler, etc. Please, get or borrow the book "The Millenium Bug De-bugged", and give it a fair hearing before you make final decisions or actions. If you still buy the big arguments, you'll have done so because you made a choice, rather than because you've only heard the overwhelmingly loudest side of the argument.

-- Anonymous, October 28, 1999

Sorry, I should have mentioned--I read Hanegraaf's book.

And Hyatt's, and Yardenis, and about 70 others. Some in this Forum can attest that I have been following this closely for 2 years. I was invited to perform a Y2K parody song at a Computer Programmers Convention in Chicago in the Summer of 1998 where I met Leon Kappelmann, Ed Yourdon, and several hundred other top programmers.

I have carried on extensive correspondence with the above mentioned men, plus Clinton's Y2K czar, John Koskinen, Gary North, Ed Yardeni, and numerous other state government Y2K coordinators.

Hanegraaf's book was pretty much discredited the minute it hit the stands. He is okay when it comes to exposing theological error, but when it comes to computer error, he is way out of his league. The only redeeming value of his book is that he points out that there are indeed "people taking advantage" of the hysteria. That is certainly true. But he does nothing to allay the genuine technical concerns of the experts in the information technology arena. When he attempts to do so, he is seen as someone who does not even begin to understand the comprehensive nature of the problem.

But thanks, Sam... I have thoroughly studied BOTH sides... and by the way, those who are the LOUDEST in this issue... are the pollyanna denial-heads in the banking industry who post banners "WERE READY FOR Y2K" and hand out brochures with their "compliance statements" because they fear bank runs.

A friend of mine, who has been a computer programmer since 1975, wrote a "review" of Hanegraaff's book, which says it all:

As I read this booklet, I was suprised by the lack of depth of understanding that the author shows of the problem at hand. Some of the examples that he sites as "Myths to be debugged" are not worth the paper that they are printed on.

One of the examples he uses is of stories associated with a 104 year woman. While he did finally call the lady and verify which of these stories were true, I hardly consider this to be an example of innacurate journalism in an area of key importance. Thank you Mr. Hannegraaff for debugging this vital issue.

On his radio program, this work is advertised as coming from indepth research. The bibliography is large for a work this size, but the content of the book does not seem to do justice to the size of the bibliography.

The author seems to see only two sides of this subject. There is his opinion. There is the wrong opinion. Everyone else is lumped together into one big fear-mongering conspiracy. This issue is far too complex to resort to defining the camps into a simplistic US vs THEM. I do not understand how some one can lump Larry Burkette, James Dobson, and D.James Kennedy into the same group as Chuck Misler?

I have read and listened to the above authors along with Michael Hyatt and others. Mr Hanegraaff seems to only get the bits and pieces from these authors and does not seems to relay the latest that some are saying.

From time to time a book is written that adds to the body a knowledge on a particular subject. This book is NOT it. This is more of a last minute sensationalist attempt to cash in on Y2K, than a book to seriously address the issue.

His chapter on torturing the scriptures, takes aim at those who misinterpret scriptures. They do see things as Hank does. They do not have his background. There are areas where Hank is good. However,as a member of the computer industry, this book shows me that the author is "out of touch" in this field and would best serve his readers by writing in the Bible,Religion and Theology areas.

The one thing good I can say for the book is that after all the Y2K preparedness bashing , the author did include a good Y2K prep checklist in the book.

-- Anonymous, October 28, 1999

Thanks for the review. I know Hanegraaff can be very polarizing, and "polar-istic", when he decides to take on a subject. I'm certainly not the one to give the final say on the matter.
The man who publishes "Christian Computing" Magazine (out of Durham, I think -- just up the road -- not that that means anything) is very much on the nay-sayers side. A man in our church here makes his living "fixing" Y2K concerns in software and hardware -- he doesn't see much problem ahead for most of us. My wife is an assistant vice- president in a top-ten bank -- they have assured their employees that they are ready. I think I'm banking on the ones on the softer side, who aren't expecting much problem stateside. Some problems in scattered areas, some smaller business having some problems, some perhaps even losing it all, because they've done nothing to prepare.
At our house, we bought a generator -- as much for the yearly losses of power form the hurricanes blowing through as for Y2K concerns. In fact, we had to use it after Floyd blew thru here last month. We've got maybe two weeks worth of groceries in a closet, and have beefed up our food pantry at church some. We've straightened up and cleared out some of our financial concerns -- but that needed doing anyway, and Y2K gives an emotional kick-in-the-butt to go ahead and get it done.
I don't THINK we're too much in denial. I think we're expecting that there will be some inconveniences, but not on much larger a scale than what we usually go through during storm season.
I think the claim in Hank's book that moves me most is that while, yes, there are millions or billions of embedded chips that can't be reached in time, they mostly have no date concern involved anyway. If that is true, then we don't have to worry about not getting to them, becasue, while they may be part of a critical system, they are not DATE-critical, and so won't be affected anyway. What is your much-more-learned-about-this-than-me response to such an idea?
Thanks.
SammyBoy

-- Anonymous, October 28, 1999

I didn't mean to try to sound like "I know more than you do"... I just wanted to make it clear that my position is not based on irrational response to media (or other) hype. It is rather empirical.

Embedded systems is a whole 'nother ball of wax. Some people confuse the "embedded chips" issue with the programming issue. It is true that most of the billion or so embedded "chips" are not date-sensitive. Estimates range from 2 to 4% that will be affected. But 2% of a billion is a lot! And, we don't know which of the "chips" are flawed. Kind of like a needle in a haystack. But the millions of lines of unremediated code is the main problem.

What I find interesting is that we question the motives of a doomer, if he happens to also sell generators, as perhaps we should, but think nothingof believing a banker who says "don't worry, be happy"... Remember, the banker has a FINANCIAL INTERE$T in you NOT to be concerned... so it can (and should) cut both ways. I prefer to trust neither the carpetbagger nor the financially motivated status quo protector...

I know what the Department of Defense is saying and doing... theythink it will be more than your average hurricane.

As for preparations, Sammy Boy, I am near your level. I anticipate 2-3 weeks of no power, just as the American Red Cross suggests I do. Just in case, I have a little bit more than that. I, like Joseph, see wisdom in preparing for the skinny cows. I trust God and keep my powder dry. How many of you spend money on Fire insurance? What are the odds of you having a fire?

Here is the final thing to consider. I will have the capability to live "off the grid" for 3 months or more IF their are problems. If there are no problems, I will still eat all of the food I have prepared, and save quite a bit on my electric bill. If there are problems, I have saved my life and the lives of my family members. So the person who prepares has nothing to lose. But if there is the worst case scenario, the person who does not prepare (and his family) will die.

-- Anonymous, October 28, 1999

I forgot to mention two things... for those who advocate considering "both sides" of this issue... Take a look at the sources and links in the original post....

Secondly, Sam, ask your wife, (or the rest of you, ask any banker), "you say you are 'y2k ready' but are you 'y2k compliant'? Banks love to say "we are ready" but their lawyers won't allow them to say "we are compliant".... at least not in writing...

-- Anonymous, October 28, 1999

Did not mean to imply snideness on your part, Duane. You clearly DO know more about it than I do.
On the banking, "ready vs. compliant" issue, our bank some months ago finished the testing of all of their systems. The bank administers the 401k plans of every individual in the state that draws a paycheck from any government entity at any level -- state, county, town, municipality -- teachers, cops, dogcatchers, senators, everything -- and so had plenty of political pressure to get it done right and well ahead of time. They are tested, and they are ready for it to come. All systems are go.

-- Anonymous, October 29, 1999

Tested... ready to go.... but compliant?

And is the Federal government, from whence the money comes, compliant? And is the electric utility, which the bank relies on, compliant? And are the railroads, which deliver coal to the utilities, compliant? Ad nauseum...

-- Anonymous, October 29, 1999

Perhaps we're talking in circles around each other here. Tell me what you mean by "compliant", and I'll tell you whether they are or not.

-- Anonymous, October 29, 1999

The following is posted for my bride, Kathy Combs. She found it, and thought ya'll might be interested:
Dr. Jays View of the Y2K Bug Several people have asked me my opinion of the Y2K bug and its effect on people when January 1 rolls around. First of all, you need to know my qualifications to speak on the subject. I have worked with computers since I was in junior high school. For example, one of the very first PCs to hit the market was Radio Shacks TRS-80. It became available when I was in high school. I wrote programs for that computer and actually sold several commercially. I have continued to program computers throughout my life, and several of my programs are still used in the scientific community. In the process of earning my Ph.D. in nuclear chemistry, I actually had to build computers from the ground up in order to be able to collect the data I needed in experiments. That gave me a firm knowledge of the hardware involved in computers. In addition, I have participated in the design of integrated circuit electronics, some of which are still in use to this day. In the end, then, I have a good knowledge of computer hardware and software design and implementation.
In my opinion, the Y2K bug is not going to impact the lives of everyday people very much. I know this goes against a large majority of what you might have heard, but it is the most common view among computer professionals. If you read the actual trade magazines in our industry, you would know that we have been addressing the Y2K bug for nearly ten years now, and it is mostly under control. The vast majority of power companies are already Y2K compliant. In order to be totally safe, they also have manual backup plans. Those power companies that are not Y2K compliant have solid schedules laid out in publicly-available white papers that indicate they will be Y2K compliant before January 1. The same can be said of water and gas utilities.
Having said all of that, let me make one quick caveat. There will be some companies that go broke as a result of the Y2K bug. Companies that did not devote the necessary time and effort into fixing the bug will go under. A medical laboratory for which I consult, for example, has spent well over $500,000 in fixing the Y2K problem. For a company that grosses only 16 million per year and has less than a 5% profit margin, that is a HUGE investment. Had they not made that investment, however, they would have gone bankrupt after January 1. Some companies have refused to devote that kind of money to the problem, and they will fail in the year 2000!
If you are wondering why I think that the Y2K bug is not going to destroy the world as we know it (like the doomsayers are predicting), consider the following points.
1.. The Y2K bug, although enormous in scope, is the simplest kind of computer bug to fix. When I have a problem with my software, I usually have no idea what the problem is. Thus, I need to run test after test just to find out what the problem is. Then I can start the programming to actually fix the bug! In the Y2K arena, we know what the problem is. That makes it a no-brainer to fix. In many Y2K conversions, interns do a lot of the re-programming, because it is a perfect introduction to real bug-fixing. Thus, the Y2K bug fixes take mostly manpower and very little brainpower.
2.. Most major companies have already done serious Y2K testing, which involves "rolling the clocks ahead" past the year 2000. The reports I have seen, and the companies for which I have consulted, have indicated that this testing resulted in no major calamities to their computer systems. The entire Wall Street network, for example, has run a series of such tests already. If you cannot demonstrate that your system has passed such tests with flying colors, your system will be "locked out" of the Wall Street network in December. This is typical in the industry.
3.. Even for systems that are not Y2K compliant, there are backup plans that can work. For example, a company can set its clocks backwards 28 years. If they do that, all of the dates and days will be correct, only the years will be wrong. Billing systems and the like have already demonstrated that this is a viable solution to keep a system running if it has Y2K problems.
If you are worried about the so-called "embedded chip" problem, dont be. This is something that has been overhyped by people who really do not understand how embedded chips work. Consider these points:
1.. The vast majority of embedded chips do not have calendars. It turns out that a calendar is a design-intensive power hog. You only put one in a chip if you absolutely have to. Most embedded chips that work on a time interval do not use calendars. Instead, they simply count the oscillations in a quartz chip. This is completely year- independent.
2.. Most embedded chips with calendars also have firmware. They can have their firmware "flashed" to reset the calendar. These chips need not even be replaced - merely identified and flashed - a very easy task.
3.. If an embedded chip does have a calendar, it probably makes no decisions based on that calendar. It probably still looks at a quartz chip to measure time intervals. Calendars in chips are mostly used to timestamp an item or a report. Thus, the operation of these chips will not be affected. They will simply timestamp with a "00" in the year 2000. Since that is purely for informational purposes, there is no problem there.
4.. For those few chips that do have a calendar and do make decisions based on it, year 2000 is still not necessarily an issue. For more than 10 years, chip makers have put a century switch in their chips so that when the year does turn to "00," the chip will know how to handle it. Even though these chips are not specifically Y2K compliant because they have only 2-digit years, they will stay operational until the next century change in 2100.
If you read the wrong people, these facts might be completely new to you. Feel free to check them out thoroughly. They are based on years of experience and many discussions with the people who actually make chips. I would like you to consider one other thing. Many of the doomsayers are telling lies. They may not know that they are telling lies, but nevertheless, they are. For example:
1.. Virtually every Y2K alarmist says that there is an embedded chip in every transformer that sits at the top of utility poles. To make power delivery Y2K compliant, then, someone would have to climb up to every transformer and change the chip - a clearly impossible task. This is a lie. If you actually look at the designs for pole-top transformers, there never have been chips in them. A transformer is and always has been an analog device. There is nothing digital in them! A few huge transformers at power stations are controlled digitally, but they are few and easily assessable.
2.. One of the most famous doom stories in the Y2K alarmist community seems to have been started by Jack Anderson. He claims that a nuclear power plant ran a Y2K test and was completely shut down because one chip (out of thousands) at the top of a smokestack was not Y2K compliant. It supposedly took them "weeks" of constant work to find this chip. When asked for the name of the nuclear power plant and other details, Anderson could not provide any information. Larry Burkett also uses this story. He had no details when asked. The main brains of nuclear energy, the NEI, has never heard of such a story. Investigative journalists cannot find it. It is a lie - a good story that someone made up and then just passed on. I hope that neither Anderson nor Burkett made up the story. Most likely they just heard it somewhere, liked it, and began passing it along with no research to see if it was true.
3.. Y2K alarmists are fond of saying that in order for a system to be Y2K compliant, every chip must be tested, one by one. This is patently false. It takes a high schoolers research ability to see that it is false. Every system that uses embedded chips keeps track of serial numbers. The serial numbers can be used to reference manufactures schematics, which can tell anyone with a working knowledge of chip design whether or not the chip will have Y2K problems. At that point, only the problem chips need be investigated further.
4.. Y2K alarmists are also fond of stating that the final problem is connectivity. Since computers are all connected in one way or another, there needs be only one system that is not Y2K compliant, and it will "bring down" all of the others with its bad data. Once again, a high school student can do research to see that this is not true. There is a standard practice called "windowing" that has been used with birthdates ever since computers were first used widely in commerce. It can also be used to protect a Y2K compliant system from non-Y2K compliant systems. Computer companies do not consider a system Y2K compliant until is has instituted windowing, which makes it completely safe from non-Y2K compliant data.
These four points are a tiny, tiny list of the many lies told by Y2K alarmists. I choose to think the best of people, so I do not think that people like Jack Anderson, Larry Burkett, and Gary North know that they are lying. I expect that they just hear good stories and pass them on. On Gary Norths website, for example, you are free to post any Y2K horror story that you can dream up. He states very clearly that he does not try to confirm the stories. He just allows them to be posted. If you get anyone with a working knowledge of computers to review these stories, he or she will immediately see that the vast majority of them are simply impossible. Whatever happened to "Study to shew thyself approved unto God..." (2 Tim 2:15)?
The international journal Embedded Systems Programming is the most highly-respected journal in the embedded chip industry. Consider this quote from the editorial in their January, 1999 edition: "Ten months ago in this space I asked for those of you who have encountered year 2000 (Y2K) problems in embedded systems you are developing to let me know. In all of the E-MAILs I have received, no one cited a verifiable problem." Those who do their homework and know what they are talking about have little worries about Y2K.
One final note. There is the possibility of food shortage and bank failures in late December and early January. It will not be due to the Y2K bug, however. If such calamities occur, it will be because people have listened to the lies of the alarmists and have tried to hoard food and money. Please research the facts before you go nuts over Y2K. If everyone learns the facts, there will be no serious problems! Personally, I plan to be websurfing on January 1, 2000. I expect that soon after the date change occurs, the sites of Gary North and the like will change. They will start congratulating themselves, saying that they "raised the alarm" soon enough to avoid disaster. That will be one more lie to add to their list of lies. It is the computer and chip industries themselves who have raised the alarm as much as ten years ago. They raised the alarm, and they rallied the troops to fix the problem. Gary North and the like have just been making money off of it.
Kathy R Combs

-- Anonymous, October 29, 1999

Sigh! Happy face Dr Jay... Could you please post more info... His full name, credentials, links, etc. Then if we can contact him, it would be nice if he would give us his sources ....So there you have it folks... Who are you going to believe? Warren Bone or Dr Jay? Once again, let me introduce Warren Bone: Warren Bone initiated the Year 2000 Project in mid-1996 for Gaylord Entertainment Company (NYSE: GET), an international company headquartered in Nashville, Tennessee, with over 60 operating companies. He directed and managed the project for over three years and has dedicated his time to the research and activities related to Year 2000 issues since mid-1996. He has over 25 years experience in Information Technology (including management, systems engineering, design, and development), public accounting, strategic planning, contingency planning and disaster recovery, marketing, product management, business consulting, computer security and crime prevention, and Year 2000. He earned his Master of Business Administration degree following his undergraduate degree in accounting. His Year 2000 studies include daily research of more than 80 selected Y2K web sites, including those of the U.S. government. So who is Dr Jay? Is it even a real person? LOL! And by the way... Has anybody actually read the original post, checked the sources.....and if so, can you give any real objections...?? It seems that most of you who already believe that "everything will be ok" scrolled past the VOLUMINOUS scholarly evidence, without checking the footnotes or considering the implications... Is anybody up to the task? I didn't think so....

Sam, there is a legal definition of compliance in the IT industry. Your wife knows what it is. Her bank is not compliant.

-- Anonymous, October 29, 1999

The info that DC put in on my behalf came from a onelist that I subscribe to so it was third-handed info. It was originally from this site, listed below (so I have been told). Am I interested in validating it?...NAH, just put it in for your perusal. Feel free to "validate" the info on your owns...... www.highschoolscience.com CIAO, KRC ><>

-- Anonymous, October 29, 1999

I want to thank Duane for calling me to let me know about this site. I especially appreciate your interest in my article and for posting it.
Kathy, thanks for giving us Dr. Jay's site address. I can't resist checking something out (as you might have suspected by all the sources I used in my paper.) So I checked out Dr. Jay's site. If any of you go there, just click on "university professor" on the home page and you will see his Bio.
His name is Dr. Jay L. Wile, and his site is for providing home schooling books, audio, supplies, etc. I think his "home school business via the 'net" is all his. He is the author of all the materials. It is Christian related.
Should I comment on his Y2K article?
(Duane helped me out some since my local service Intermedia@home had some problems today and even THEY can't get to my publication at Westergaard's site! So I had not even seen this version until Duane called and I explained my problem...then he found it for me. But I still can't get to it myself! It was first published at garynorth.com, then Westergaard picked it up, and North put a link from my article on his site to Westergaard's, then Michael Hyatt and I started working on it for his site, but he now plans to just link from his site to Westergaard's. Yourdon might do something with it also.)
Oh...It's too late to call me. You'll wake my two Schipperkes! You don't know what that is? Or what they are? Better start doing some research!
(I won't have time to be spending all day, every day, debating all the Y2K issues through this forum, though I find it interesting to see how everyone feels about the subject. I do answer all my e- mails, though, if you'd like to do that.)
wlb.

-- Anonymous, October 30, 1999

Perhaps we can make some headway here. Even Dr. Jay is not one of those who says it is "not really a problem." He admits it is a genuine problem... he just thinks most businesses and agencies have fixed it. Hear him:

There will be some companies that go broke as a result of the Y2K bug. Companies that did not devote the necessary time and effort into fixing the bug will go under. Okay... now, the real question is: How many companies have fixed their problem and how many haven't? Let's look at the FACTS: Scroll up to the original post to see about Big Business and Government--I will only cut n paste how SMALL BUSINESSES are doing:

40% will not be ready for 2000.1 28%, nearly one-third, plan to do nothing at all -- will just wait and see what happens. They "think the problem is being blown out of proportion." 2 Are putting themselves in economic jeopardy, according to the White House.3 Potentially 8,000,000 or more may be forced to close. Employ more than 50% of the private workforce.4 Generate more than half the nation's Gross Domestic Product (GDP).5

-- Anonymous, October 30, 1999

I emailed Dr Jays remarks to some computer professionals.... Here are some of their replies:

> > 1.. The Y2K bug, although enormous in scope, is the simplest kind of > computer bug to fix. When I have a problem with my software, I usually have > no idea what the problem is. Thus, I need to run test after test just to > find out what the problem is. Then I can start the programming to actually > fix the bug! In the Y2K arena, we know what the problem is. That makes it a > no-brainer to fix. In many Y2K conversions, interns do a lot of the > re-programming, because it is a perfect introduction to real bug- fixing. > Thus, the Y2K bug fixes take mostly manpower and very little brainpower.

This keeps getting repeated, but it is not accompanied with the fact that you have to identify all of the dates, and any intermediate work fields, to fix them. This requires intimate knowledge of the software or more than very little brainpower. Some errors are from unidentified dates that didn't get fixed.

> > 1.. Virtually every Y2K alarmist says that there is an embedded chip in > every transformer that sits at the top of utility poles. To make power > delivery Y2K compliant, then, someone would have to climb up to every > transformer and change the chip - a clearly impossible task. This is a lie. > If you actually look at the designs for pole-top transformers, there never > have been chips in them. A transformer is and always has been an analog > device. There is nothing digital in them! A few huge transformers at power > stations are controlled digitally, but they are few and easily assessable.

I have never seen this claim, and I venture to say we are in a hotbed of Y2K alarmists. This polly doesn't talk about enterprise wide, mainframe systems. The guy is a PeeCeeWeeNee who has no experience with real business systems on real computers.

> > 4.. Y2K alarmists are also fond of stating that the final problem is > connectivity. Since computers are all connected in one way or another, there > needs be only one system that is not Y2K compliant, and it will "bring down" > all of the others with its bad data. Once again, a high school student can > do research to see that this is not true. There is a standard practice > called "windowing" that has been used with birthdates ever since computers > were first used widely in commerce. It can also be used to protect a Y2K > compliant system from non-Y2K compliant systems. Computer companies do not > consider a system Y2K compliant until is has instituted windowing, which > makes it completely safe from non-Y2K compliant data.

Windowing was not a standard practice to use with birthdates and other dates with long spans. Such dates that needed to be unambiguous were stored in 4 digit year fields. Windowing was dreamed up for Y2K to make remediation faster. I guarantee you he never wrote a windowing routine in his life and has no idea how dates were processed in the business systems that run our world.

> > The international journal Embedded Systems Programming is the most > highly-respected journal in the embedded chip industry. Consider this quote > from the editorial in their January, 1999 edition: "Ten months ago in this > space I asked for those of you who have encountered year 2000 (Y2K) problems > in embedded systems you are developing to let me know. In all of the E-MAILs > I have received, no one cited a verifiable problem." Those who do their > homework and know what they are talking about have little worries about Y2K.

I posted that quote here when it was news. The embedded thing has been put to bed.

Ralph

*******************

Duane, compare Dr Jay's quote:

>The international journal Embedded Systems Programming is the most >highly-respected journal in the embedded chip industry. Consider this quote >from the editorial in their January, 1999 edition: "Ten months ago in this >space I asked for those of you who have encountered year 2000 (Y2K) problems >in embedded systems you are developing to let me know. In all of the E-MAILs >I have received, no one cited a verifiable problem." Those who do their >homework and know what they are talking about have little worries about Y2K.

with this one:

>General industry assumptions that put the expected failure >rate somewhere around 15% -- so 6% is low. From an article >about a control engineering conference at:
> http://www.controlmagazine.com/0398/c0200398.html#1

> > Richard Ryan, president, Rockwell Software, stood in for his > Rockwell hardware cousins and reported that a number of > semiconductor plants-operating with a lot of home-grown > devices-found two in every three devices had a compliance > problem. He added that a Lucent [Technologies] factory reported > four of every five failed, and some Rockwell plants had 100% > compliance failure in the devices tested.

Do you notice a tiny disconnect between the editorial and a report from a conference recounting results of real-world tests? Good, I hoped you did.

BTW, that issue of the magazine is in the archives and the present URL for the article is:
http://www.controlmagazine.com/archives/0398/c0200398.html#1

Dean

******************

Duane,

To develop a point by point answer for the embedded chip issue, I would start here:

http://www.iee.org.uk/2000risk/

This is the The Institution of Electrical Engineers "The Millennium Problem in Embedded Systems" site.

Pete

*************

Hi Duane,

As far as qualifications go, my qualifications are roughly the same as those of the unnamed polyanna: namely, I learned on a Trash-80 in high-school, am an engineer who has written software professionally for both embedded control and application programming, etc., etc. In other words, I'm not qualified to write an essay on the effects of Y2K, either...

That said, I do not see how this person can look at the situation and conclude that there will not be serious problems. It may be reasonable to conclude that there *probably* will not be serious problems, but there still is a clear possibility that serious problems will occur. The point is this: two similar individuals with two very different responses to the same information. The fact that he believes nothing will happen is useless information.

Back to your original question about refuting this work. I will take on the paragraph below:

>Here is the Pollyanna drivel:

>1.. The Y2K bug, although enormous in scope, is the simplest kind of >computer bug to fix. When I have a problem with my software, I usually have >no idea what the problem is. Thus, I need to run test after test just to >find out what the problem is. Then I can start the programming to actually >fix the bug! In the Y2K arena, we know what the problem is. That makes it a >no-brainer to fix. In many Y2K conversions, interns do a lot of the >re-programming, because it is a perfect introduction to real bug- fixing. >Thus, the Y2K bug fixes take mostly manpower and very little brainpower. >

If you apply very little brainpower in an attempt to solve an engineering problem, you will end up with a problem which is not solved. The direct evidence of this in regards to Y2K is found in the following web article:

========================================= Y2K infests Web pages

The Web may be a new medium, but it's riddled with non-compliant code, both in-use online and for incorporation into new programs.

By Jocelyn Amon

On June 24, 1999, with barely six months to go to 2000, I spent six hours searching Internet Web pages for Y2K errors and was easily able to find over 300 (editor's note: One of the examples given is drawn from a site owned by EarthWeb, the publisher of Y2K Info, so nobody is immune). The majority of these errors occurred in code published on the Web for programmers to copy and incorporate into their programs, others were given as examples of how to program. Many were included in programming language tutorials. Others were detected in the Web page HTML code and were viewable only by viewing the source.

... http://www.y2kinfo.com/journal/features/0899_amon.html

=============================================

This article was quite an eye-opener for me. The fact is that some of the incorrect examples of windowing given in her list were on university web pages where professors placed example code for their students! One thing that a laymen must understand is that programmers avoid reinventing the wheel if possible, and will borrow code from others if possible. This is evident on this web search, as you will see the same pieces of *incorrect* code show up multiple times. If a university student has a piece of windowing code provided to them by their professor, they will probably use it in the future. They would only *not* use it if they actually suspected it was wrong and *tested* it for rollover problems. The fact is that your average "intern" with "very little brainpower" can easily make the same mistake that his college professor made, all the time believing that he had properly remediated the software by incorporating windowing.

Regards,

George

Duane,

Interesting that he is able to make unfounded claims about the economic and social impacts of Y2K. Why would a small business go bankrupt because of a Y2k bug? (Because I am an expert on computers! Why else?) Why will massive numbers of people decide to suddenly listen to the alarmists and 'panic' and hoard money and food? (Because I am an expert on computers! Didn't you read my qualifications?)

Either he's been listening to too many alarmist 'experts' himself, or he isn't qualified to judge the impact of Y2k on a small business or mass populous psychology.

Flak

-- Anonymous, October 30, 1999

>>"Sam, there is a legal definition of compliance in the IT industry. Your wife knows what it is. Her bank is not compliant. " (from Duane)
Well, see, Duane, that's why I'm asking. I don't know what the "legal definition of compliance in the IT industry" is, and I don't have the first clue as to where to find out. Does it involve the "windowing" that Dr. Jay spoke of? Is it listed in the Bone piece? I missed it if it was. If you know it, please share it, or point me in the right direction, so I can learn it as well. Thanks.
(I'm not trying to be challenging here; I'm seeking information, and trying to use your experience and learning as a source.)

-- Anonymous, October 30, 1999

Oh, that we would spend as much time promoting the lostness of mankind and the Good News of Jesus Christ who died that we might live eternally with our Father in heaven!
Here's a wise saying, principaled straight from the Bible...

Don't sweat the small stuff!
"Be still and know that I am God."
Love you guys! ;-D

-- Anonymous, October 30, 1999

Here is a website rather conservative in view (maby right winged)
they have been no. 1 in reporting about y2k preparedness planning and have many links to other sites as well
Nate, your note is well taken but the Church needs to be ready to serve those in our community that may need our guidance and support maby this is an opportunity to do just that!

-- Anonymous, October 31, 1999

oops almost for got to give ya'll the site

http://worldnetdaily.com/
i hope it helps those who may be interested

-- Anonymous, October 31, 1999

Hey Nate...

As long as we're taking the spiritual high road... There is a verse in Proverbs somewhere... "A prudent man foresees danger and prepares, but the fool ignores it, to his peril." Also, "A man who does not provide for his family is worse than an infidel"

-- Anonymous, October 31, 1999

Yes Duane *sigh* I know,
I DO see the Nehemiah in you. Nehemiah prayed for God to help him, and THEN he strapped on his sword to prove to God that he was willing to work for it.
However, hasn't history been fraught with peril? ("The Romans are coming, the Romans are coming!" "The British are coming, the British are coming!" etc. ad nauseum) Haven't we survived each and every peril? (And grown stronger, I might add.) So, it's the end of the world as we know it... so what? Do you really think that this world, the way it is, is really what God had in mind? My belief (not that it matters one iota what I think) is that we will see a societal hickup from which we will soon recover.
Hurricane Andrew came whipping through Miami and few people died as a result of it. Miami is now a stronger city because of Andrew. A philosopher once said, "That which does not kill us, makes us stronger." Get ready to grow!
God is in control! It is when we forget that and rely on our own strengths that we get into trouble. What is it Duane that YOU can do to control what will happen because of Y2K? Oh, you can prepare by having ready cash available, making sure your stores of food are plentiful, being ready "in season, and out of season." But there is nothing that YOU can do to stop the tide from washing up on shore. You will not sway those on the opposite shore from their belief that nothing will happen. So they will do nothing to prepare their computers which supply your grocery store. Nothing changes! They have heard your arguments and rejected what you have to say! You are beating a dead horse that isn't even yours to beat. In the end, do you want the right to say, "See, I told you so!"? I really don't understand what it is you are going to accomplish. I really am perplexed! Please enlighten me brother.
Your brother in Christ;

-- Anonymous, November 01, 1999

As to my stance, prepare to be enlightened, in a true Saffoldian fashion:

Nehemiah prayed for God to help him, and THEN he strapped on his sword to prove to God that he was willing to work for it.

Bad comparison. I am not trying to prove anything to God. If you board up your windows in anticipation of a tornado, are you trying to "prove" anything? Are you demonstrating a lack of faith?

"The British are coming, the British are coming!" etc. ad nauseum)

So you're saying Paul Revere was an unnecessary fanatic?

Haven't we survived each and every peril?

You me "we" as a race? Does this mean that any disaster is ok as long as there are "some" survivors to carry on the race?

So, it's the end of the world as we know it...

Did I say that?

My belief (not that it matters one iota what I think)...

Then why state it?

Hurricane Andrew came whipping through Miami and few people died as a result of it.

Because they evacuated! That is called "preparation"

God is in control!

Amen.

It is when we forget that and rely on our own strengths that we get into trouble.

The next time a category 5 hurricane in the Gulf threatens Spring Hill, I want you to stay home, forget precautions, and rely on God. (not really)

What is it Duane that YOU can do to control what will happen because of Y2K?

Nothing. But I can influence its effect on my life, by my response, before, during and after.

In the end, do you want the right to say, "See, I told you so!"?

Bad logic, and a cheap shot. Impugning motives is above someone of your compassion and character.

I really am perplexed!

I know.

Nothing happens by accident; everything falls out according to Gods purpose. And that includes the Millennium Bug. Even though it is the result of what is in one sense a colossal mistake on the part of man, the Millennium Bug is in another, more cosmic sense as necessary as the Flood and as inevitable as your last breath. God is in control of everything; everything fits perfectly into His plan.

If the Millennium Bug is not the result of thoughtless decisions, I dont know what is. But God incorporates into his plans even the least calculated of actions and nothing happens unless it is according to His will. And I am convinced that God has allowed the Y2K problem to surface for a specific purpose of His own, a purpose that includes the building up of the Church and the salvation of men.

Throughout history, Gods people have always used a crisis as an occasion for self- examination and repentance. Our brothers and sisters of old saw the invisible hand of God behind the unfolding events of history, and unlike modern Christians, they insisted on asking themselves, What can we learn from this? What is God trying to tell us?

So what might God be trying to tell us? I believe it may go back to the issue of trust. Whom or what do we trust today? Can we as a nation honestly quote the back of our dollar bills and say with conviction, "In God we trust"? I dont think so. A myriad of farcical deities has sprung up and distracted us from the one true God, and partly in order to justify the distraction we have allowed ourselves to become fascinated by empty ideologies such as materialism, scientism, and socialism. These in turn set themselves up as gods even as they vehemently declare that there is no such thing. They promote progress of society, progress of the body, progress of the pocketbook, progress of just about anything but the soul, unless by "progress" they mean an advance toward amorality and other such supposedly enlightened notions.

Accordingly, we set up around us gods that serve our primary interests. It is thus no surprise that in the pantheon of modern gods, the one god that reigns supreme is the god of science and technology. Modern man looks to this god to solve his every problem and to meet his every need. And the incarnation of the god of science and technology is the computer. You have seen how long the lists are of processes that are both necessary to our way of living and entirely dependent on computers. For electrical power, for water, for food, we have placed our trust in computers. Millions of people in our society have transferred their dependence on the living God to these seemingly omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent machines. They worship at these shrines daily.

This is equally true of both Christians as well as non-Christians, for many of us have been as enthusiastic about the rise of the computer as anyone else. And if we have been ignorant of just how much we depended on computers, we still have no excuse. We of all people should have been able to predict a coming disaster, not because we knew anything about the Millennium Bug, but because we know something about God.

Our God is a jealous God, according to the Scriptures. He will not part with His glory for the sake of a metal box filled with wires and little silicon chips. How can Christians have failed to see the danger in glorifying a product of mans hands, much less the folly in trusting manmade devices to fulfill his needs and solve his problems (most of which are manmade themselves)? Jesus said, "Do not worry, saying, What shall we eat? or What shall we drink? or What shall we wear? But seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all these things shall be added unto you" (Matthew 6:31, 33). But we have sought first the kingdom of man, and now these things may well be taken away for a time.

Could it be, though, that the Lord is using the Y2K problem to smash the false god of technology and turn our hearts toward Him?

I believe that a responsibility we have in the face of the Millennium Bug is to prepare. Proverbs 22:3 says, "A prudent man sees danger and takes refuge, but the simple keep going and suffer for it." Notice that preparation does not negate trust, and likewise that trust does not justify procrastination. Faith in Gods providence is never a good pretense for failing to use our heads. Yes, we should trust God to give us the resources we need to live in this world. But we must remember that among those resources is the ability to see what is coming and to prepare accordingly.

Common sense is a good thing, and if "all good things come down from the Father of lights," then even common sense is of divine origin. If we truly trust in God, we will use well the resources He has given us, which means putting common sense into practice to the fullest possible extent. And common sense says that the only way you and I can be ready for this crisis is through advanced preparation.

In previous generations, emergency preparedness was a way of life. No one in the past was seduced by the "myth of continuity"; everyone assumed that life would be interrupted from time to time by crises in one form or another. But many of usparticularly those who are baby- boomershave never really had to face a widespread social crisis. War, famine, and pestilence are outside the realm of our first-hand experience. We get up expecting that today will be pretty much like yesterday, and tomorrow will be pretty much like today.

In the past, however, people expected their lives to be occasionally disrupted, and they planned accordingly. For instance, many folks had a storm shelter and an extensive food pantry. The "cellar" (as it was called) was protection against summer tornadoes, and the pantry was protection against winter blizzards. No one questioned the wisdom of preparing for emergencies. In fact, the opposite would have been true; a lack of preparation would have been seen as foolishness. We would often go for years without a blizzard or a tornado. But that did not make our parents or grandparents any less vigilant. They knew it was only a matter of time before disaster struck. But since we have transferred our dependency on God and ourselves to machines and to other people, we have lost sight of the need to be ready for disaster.

Insurance is based on a similar notion. Most people, even Christians, purchase life insurance, health insurance, auto insurance, and home insuranceeven though statistically we have a very slim chance of annually having a major medical difficulty, getting in a car wreck, having our houses burn down, or dying. Our response to Y2K should be no different.

Thus, you have a choice. Either you can ignore the Year 2000 Problem and go on with life as though you had never heard about it, or you can begin now taking steps to prepare for what may be the worst disaster our world has experienced in centuries. If you choose the former, you may end up a victim. If you choose the latter, you may ensure that you and your loved ones survive this crisis in one piece.

The Apostle Paul makes it clear that we are to provide for the needs of our own household, saying that those who fail to do so have abandoned the faith (see 1 Timothy 5:8). Now admittedly, Paul probably has in mind people who are able to take care of their household but fail to, not people who by a bizarre computerized catastrophe are suddenly stripped of their power to put food on the table. But that is no excuse; we know this is coming. The Scriptures say that every man will be judged according to the light he has been given. If we know there will probably be hard times just around the corner on account of the Millennium Bug and yet fail to prepare for them, we will be judged for our inability to provide for our households. We will have become worse than unbelievers. And if we do not know that trouble is coming, we are as culpable for our ignorance as Judah was for not foreseeing its coming exile. The light has been given, but it is up to us to see.

-- Anonymous, November 01, 1999

I pressed the "Submit" button before finishing... The bulk of the previous post is not my own writing...It is edited excerpts cut and pasted from the very lengthy article, "Y2K and our Christian Duty" by Michael Hyatt, found at: www.michaelhyatt.com/christians.htm

Sam: Definition of Compliance:.. I was wrong: (see below)

YEAR 2000 COMPLIANT - Due to the lack of consistent standards and leadership, there is no singular definition that may be applied across all software or hardware. (See Compliance and Y2K Compliant)

1) Compliance can be stated as the attribute of a computer-based system to operate correctly, unambiguously and acceptably in storing, collating (sorting), displaying, and calculating date information within reasonable System and User date ranges. including leap years according to the Gregorian calendar, in a form compatible with the full ISO8601 YYYY-MM-DD form, with default installation values and error checking to specifically exclude User error, before and after the Year 2000. Acceptability Index 0 is defined as "Year 2000 Compliant". (Per Cinderella Project)

2) Technology, including but not limited to, information technology, embedded systems, or any other electro-mechanical or processor-based system, when used in accordance with its associated documentation, is capable of accurately processing, providing, and/or receiving date data from, into, and between the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, and the years 1999 and 2000, including leap year calculations; provided that all other technology properly exchanges date data with it. (Per IEEE)

YEAR 2000 CRISIS - Speaking in general terms, it is the assortment of potential problems that may be encountered by computer hardware, software, or firmware in processing date data for the year 2000 and beyond.

The IEEE carries this simple definition several steps further:

The Year 2000 appears to be a simple problem that is intuitively understood. But when examined closely, the solutions are varied and complex in nature. The essence of this problem is the representation of the year as a two-digit number within computer systems and other technologies. This representation may cause malfunctions to occur when a system date or application date crosses the year 2000 (whether that is the actual arrival of the date or for date processing purposes) or when the system or application must reach back into the 20th century after January 1, 2000. These malfunctions can include:

Arithmetic calculations,
Comparisons
Sorting or sequencing
Incorrect recognition of leap years

Conflict with "00" & "99" as values designated with meanings unrelated to date data Rolling over of system date data, filling up storage registers Failure of one or more system elements Among the environments in which mission-critical applications may be affected by Year 2000 issues include:

Bio-medical
Telecommunications/transportation
Finance/Banking
Aviation/Aerospace
National security/law enforcement

Many organizations are in various stages of addressing this problem. Some are just beginning to assess the impact on their own information technology (IT) environments. Others have already begun to implement solutions. The rising need for solutions has created a market environment wherein there are a growing number of organizations offering such solutions. These organizations have also created a diverse set of terms. Many of the terms are similar on their face but have multiple meanings within differing environments, bringing potential for confusion to what should be a simply understood problem. (per IEEE)

-- Anonymous, November 01, 1999

Yeeouch! (I get the Saffoldian reference)
My hide is still smoldering from the fire! Whew!
Duane, Please forgive me if you took what I said as a personal attack. I respect your opinion! I intended no cheap shots at you or anyone else. However, our opinions differ in application.
What I should have said was...
Nehemiah prayed for God to help him, and THEN he strapped on his sword and was ready for God to use him in fulfilling his prayer.
"The British are coming, the British are coming!" etc. ad nauseum) So you're saying Paul Revere was an unnecessary fanatic?
OK, I admit it... bad choice but I was loath to use "Wolf!" or "The sky is falling!" Although I am not the only one who feels like there are plenty of Chicken Littles out there making mountains out of molehills.
I am not saying that I feel that nothing is going to happen when Y2K occurs. Some BAD things are going to happen, you are right! We should be prepared in true survivalist techniques for what will happen. This IS a technological Catagory 5 hurricane headed right for us. Time to duck and cover! (oo, bad analogy that never would have helped, would it?)
What I AM saying is that even though you may be right in every way (about this Y2K thingy) people see others that shout so loudly as fanatics and they end up dismissing them. I see your Prophet spirit at work here. (Truth-telling, not future-seeing) But are you really doing anbybody any favors by shouting this from the mountaintops? Who is still listening? Those who are interested have noticed and responded in preparation... those who are not, well... what do you expect them to do?
We are less than 60 days from Y2K, If the world is not ready now, it will never be ready. I am not saying that you should not prepare for the worst. You have a family to take care of, while I do not... perhaps this is the disparity between us. I, personally, am ready for Jesus to return... today... this hour! If I have to go through this Y2K thing to get there, so be it. I am flexible for my Lord.
Perhaps He is using this to turn men's hearts back to Him, I truly hope so. But this world has survived greater catastrophes... look at the great dust bowl. A horrible time in America's history. The great depression... etc. etc. I think that History will look back at us and notice that the worst thing that the "Baby Boomers" had to go through was the "Great Y2K Fizzle."
I really have nothing more to say. So maybe I should just shut up, huh?

-- Anonymous, November 01, 1999

No, never shut up! And you are right... At this stage of the game, it is late for convincing, either way. Over the last 2 years, however, I am happy to say that I was a small part of the awareness campaign, and did in fact convince many to prepare (without headin for the woods), and without joining the chicken littles. I founded the 2000 BUG Hotline in '98, and sent over 1800 information packets to non-internet users. (You can still reach me by phone at 1 (800) 2000 BUG!)

It is not too late to shout from the rooftops. People can still buy a few extra canned goods each week, rather than doing it all at the end of the year. Remember, even the American Red Cross is advising ALL of us to have 2-3 weeks worth of supplies. So it makes sense to avoid the late December lines at Sam's. (Panic now-- Avoid the Rush!) I sincerely hope and pray that this will only be a "speed bump" for all of us. I hope that people will say to me: "I told you so!" And wouldn't it be great if Jesus came tonight!

-- Anonymous, November 01, 1999

HEY! HEY! Don't be coming to MY house!

-- Anonymous, November 02, 1999

(Panic now-- Avoid the Rush!)
Now there's the tongue-in-cheek Duane we all know and love!
:-D

-- Anonymous, November 02, 1999

Moderation questions? read the FAQ

Year 2000 Facts, Forecasts, and Areas of Concern

By Warren Bone	October 28, 1999

Date Data Received	Number Mission Critical Systems Reported	Number Compliant Per the Report	Percent Compliant Per the Report	Actual Percent Compliant Based on Nov. 97's 8,589 Count (Before Reclassification Began)	*Compliance Percentage Points Gained* by Gov's Reclassification of "Mission Critical Systems"**
June 97	7,649²⁵	1,598	21%	N/A	N/A
Aug 97	8,562²⁶	1,646	19%	N/A	N/A
Nov 97	8,589²⁷	2,296	27%	27%	N/A
Feb 98	7,850²⁸	2,716	35%	32%	3%
May 98	7,336²⁹	2,913	40%	34%	6%
Aug 98	7,343³⁰	3,692	50%	43%	7%
Nov 98	6,696³¹	4,069	61%	47%	14%
Feb 99	6,399³²	5,045	79%	59%	20%
Mar. 31, 1999 Deadline*	6,123³³	5,633	92%	66% Compliant. NOT 92%.	26%
May 99	6,190³⁴	5,780	93%	67%	26%
Aug 99	6,343³⁵	6,126	97%	71% Compliant. NOT 97%.	26%