After 2 years of keeping us in the dark - why would they tell us the TRUTH Now...

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

Missed deadline after missed deadline - lie after lie. Why do so many people believe that they are going to tell us the truth NOW. Just saw ABC - not one report Y2K problem in the WORLD - come on - how many countries adopted fix on failure. Its not statistically possible to have 0 failures. I am seeing forum members claim they were wrong already. Give me a break. Hell you still have time to return most of your preps before your own towm rolls over. Why the sudden change of heart? I will not be satisfied until several months have past. For God sakes people - trust me the fun is just getting STARTED...

-- Toast (nomoretime@ahuh.com), December 31, 1999

Answers

Toast,

I'm with you all the way. It isn't over until it's over and it's not over. Still a lot to be proven, disproven and it is FAR too soon to be calling the dog. MAYBE in 3 weeks, maybe.

-- Rob (maxovrdrv51@hotmail.com), December 31, 1999.


Nobody's been kept in the dark - the answers have been in front of you the whole time. Both we in the tech press and those in the mainstream press have shone an incredibly bright light on this issue - and no one has hidden anything.

The hardest thing in the world is to admit that your most fervent beliefs were misplaced. As I've been saying on Online Tonight for the past two years, the greed of business people is our biggest ally: the capitalist system would never allow Y2K to be an adversary with any chance of winning.

Feel free to call in tonight at 800-396-6546 with your comments: we'll be broadcasting for 6 hours rather than three, beginning at 10p ET, and you can hear the show on your local affiliate or on the web at http://online-tonight/webcast - courtesy of our Portland affiliate KBNP.

As the first of January unfolds around the world, the lights are on. Gary North is worried about his site going down, but no one else is. Everybody's checking in to see how he spins the backpedals, not to get help.

David Lawrence, Host Online Tonight The Net Music Countdown

-- David Lawrence, Online Tonight (Lawrence@aol.com), December 31, 1999.


Toast,

I agree. Ed had written a very interesting analysis of the phases of Y2K. To paraphase: There are four phases, the anticipatory phase, rolover phase, glitch phase, and the ramifications phase. We have just started the rollover phase. Before I say Y2K was a non-event, I want to get 1 quarter into 2000, which I see as the primary glitch phase. If we make it through that with 'minor' glitches, then I will put on my tin foil hat. 'Till then, lock and load.

-- Stars and Stripes (stars_n_stripes@my-deja.com), December 31, 1999.


All we can verify is that the power is still on. That you can do by checking out a server in any given country. But POWER is the one thing that needed to stay on - and everyone from the top down knew that. The fact the power is on is not even a surprise. So if anything got fixed, it was power. Next is the banking system. If it works, that shouldn't be a shock either - more effort was exerted there than even in the power sector. We can't verify or know anything else - and won't for a few days.

-- Reedfisher (reedfish@mediaone.net), December 31, 1999.

from Dale Way-Y2K chair for the IEEE:

-snip-

""The wholesale and permanent collapse of signinficant systems, although possible, is unlikely for a number of reasons. The failures will most occur along the boundaries of organizations and what are generally considered separate systems, although due to data sharing are actually not, the convenience of humans not withstanding.""

-end-

-- d........ (dciinc@aol.com), December 31, 1999.



I, for one, am releived that the power is still on in the areas where rollover has occured. Most of the few hundred bucks I spent on preps were to allow my family and I to be able to eat, drink and keep warm in case the power went down. I can always use the stuff anyway, so no loss there. I also think the banks will be OK, but time will tell what other problems start cropping up in the next few weeks.

-- Lurker (eye@spy.net), December 31, 1999.

Dale Way--Y2k Chair of the IEEE:

-snip-

""In any case, Y2K, the Y2K problem or the Y2K Crisis does not "end" at any discrete point in calendar time, nor will the efforts at prevention: they must continue for elements whose domain of applicability is entered as times goes on, as 'todays date' moves forward. Like a quantum mechanical particle, Y2k exists as a probability wave that peaks sometime around 1/1/00 falls off on both sides and only collapses to a point when an individual technology element is pinned down and "measured". There is no "END GAME". At best, psychologically it is at most, to paraphrase churchill, the end of the beginning.""

-end-

-- d...... (dciinc@aol.com), December 31, 1999.


Time will tell. So far, I'm relieved. I do not want doom. But we haven't even rolled over here yet.

-- Mara (MaraWayne@aol.com), December 31, 1999.

Now is just the digestion part only... we will know the end results soon.

-- fuse (fusetrips@bigfoot.com), December 31, 1999.

I'm with David Lawrence...I've monitored prep discussion groups for 16 months, and have seen Y2K go from a major problem to what is likely to be a series of glitches. Yet people, for some reason, want to see TEOTWAWKI. I've even seen diabetics, who would die in about 2 weeks if the infrastructure went down, talking about having their guns ready when they should be worried about insulin delivery. Do these people really want the drug manufacturing/delivery system to come to a halt? Does anybody? Sad to say, I've also inferred from many preps that the people who seem to want the current socioeconomic structure to break down haven't down very well in it. They often seem resentful, and want everybody to start "even" all over again (I except from this group those who are alarmist for their own econonic gain, including some site owners who visit their own groups under assumed names to whip up flagging interest). Still, does anyone really want to roll the clock back to subsistence living? The worst part is that some out for money or a sense of personal worth have led the impressionable and the paranoid down the wrong path. Sure, having a stocked pantry, alternative heat sources, extra water, and personal security are important--but some at this and other sites seem to think we're going to live off the land for the next hundred years. Rubbish. Unlikely the lack of problems will change minds, though. Have you heard about the man who was convinced he was dead? Doctors took years of records, notes, experiments, pictures, and other proofs to him to show him that dead men do not bleed. The man studied the evidence for days. Then they pricked his arm with a needle. As the man watched the blood oozing from the wound, he cried, "Astounding! Dead men bleed, too!"

-- doug flick (flicker45@aol.com), December 31, 1999.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ