If many of the other countries in the world did not prepare properly for y2k, why are they doing fine?

Perhaps, since there have only been small glitches, it would have been more prudent to wait until the glitches happen, then fix them... instead of searching through "billions" of line of code trying to fix what ain't broke... just my MHO.

-- steve jonsson (penitantman@hotmail.com), January 03, 2000

Answers

If you're on a ship, and the rudder falls off, and you have all your crew members running from side to side with oars to flap in the water in an attempt to keep the ship's heading in the right direction, does that count as a solution?

If so, define "permanent".

If not, define "what then?"

-- Ron Schwarz (rs@clubvb.com.delete.this), January 03, 2000.

Ron, you've totally gone around Steve's question.

Very simply, why hasn't there been failures in countries that spent little or nothing on Y2K?

My only guess, Steve, is that we use much more hi-tech equipment and automation than smaller countries.. We make use of vast IT systems as well, that don't exist in 2nd world countries.

When even the Soviet built Chernobyl reactor gets through the rollover, you have to wonder what WILL NOT..

-- bryce (bryce@seanet.com), January 03, 2000.

perhaps, we (the u.s.) are not as high-tech as we think we are.

the stuff about traffic lights having chips in them...rubbish!

y2k is just what I have always said it is, a DATE problem... the scare-mongers turned it into a "disaster".

most chips aren't even date sensitive.

-- steve jonsson (penitantman@hotmail.com), January 04, 2000.