"NOT Y2K Related"???!!!!!????greenspun.com : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread
I just have to laugh every time I hear this, "NOT Y2K related." Could any news source just once say, "We have been told..." it is "NOT Y2K related."!!!!????!!!! Does any one person, at any news agency EVER think about this??? Some one please explain to this Geek Granny just what they(sources, news agencies, media persons, etc.) mean by "NOT Y2K related." ???? Do they really expect us to believe that EVERY malfunction, glitch, breakdown, disater, etc., that makes the news is "NOT Y2K related?" Seems so to not so humble me. granny-TX
-- granny-TX (email@example.com), January 06, 2000
Are we supposed to believe that every malfunction, glitch, breakdwon, disaster that makes the news IS Y2K related?
Sure, organizations could lie to the news. But why are doomers who are thousands of miles away from a glitch and in many cases obviously have next to no knowledge of the technical issues or context regarding whatever glitch they're discussing be accepted as more reliable than the organization who had the glitch reported by a major news outlet?
-- John H Krempasky (firstname.lastname@example.org), January 06, 2000.
Here's the rub. Companies have been forced to
upgrade their software because it would not
work in the year 2000. This software usually
takes years to develop, but in these cases
they are forced to upgrade without proper
testing. When this software fails, they can
say that it is "not a Y2K problem" because the
glitch was not based on time calculations. They
ignore the fact that Y2K was behind the reason
to update their software. Computer system glitches
just stopped air travel on the East Coast. If the
problem was not date related they can easily
continue the snow job.
-- spider (email@example.com), January 06, 2000.
The real question is: were these random glitches occurring regularly before Y2k and no one was reporting them, or are they unusually frequent now? And here's the clincher, if they are only glitches that happen all the time and "not Y2K related" why are they being reported now at all? Someone's not being honest.
-- Padre (firstname.lastname@example.org), January 06, 2000.
John K. answered. "Are we supposed to believe that every malfunction, glitch, breakdwon, disaster that makes the news IS Y2K related?"
Granny thinks, NO, but based upon what we should know about both the nature of the Y2K computer problem and the behavior of our media we should certainly be suspicious. granny-TX
-- granny-TX (email@example.com), January 06, 2000.
It can't be Y2K related according to corporate lawyers. Too much risk of liability if it is a documented Y2K failure. Therefore, all technology breakdowns from 01/01/2000 forward will be related to human error or some other glitch...
-- Uncle Bob (UNCLB0B@AOL.COM), January 06, 2000.
Just watched a Fox news report on the FAA computer glitch. 2 statements stand out. (1)WE DONT WHAT CAUSED THE PROBLEM. (2) IT was not Y2K.
-- Martin THompson (Martin@aol.com), January 06, 2000.
And granny and spider are so smart that they know the companies are lying. What a joke you guys are! Not even Eddie can support you on this one.
We had some Y2K related glitches and some that were not. We won't report any of them because they were fixed in short order. And further when it comes down to it we don't need to report anything to you. Who are you?
-- Maria (firstname.lastname@example.org), January 06, 2000.
Well Missie Maria, just who are you with your NON email address??
-- granny-TX (email@example.com), January 06, 2000.
Granny in TX,
Granny, meet Maria - the Royal "We". She is the 'definitive' pronouncer of all that IS and ISN'T.
-- Wilferd (WilferdW@aol.com), January 06, 2000.
Nothing has to be reported to me or to anyone for that matter. But if it is reported to me, I expect it to be the truth.
-- Jean (firstname.lastname@example.org), January 06, 2000.
Uncle Bob is correct.
-- bw (email@example.com), January 06, 2000.
"Just watched a Fox news report on the FAA computer glitch. 2 statements stand out. (1)WE DONT WHAT CAUSED THE PROBLEM. (2) IT was not Y2K."
As for statement 1, this certainly isn't the first time the FAA has sood up and said "Those peksy old computers just went south, and we don't know why." It's happened before, and it will happen again with or without Y2K.
As for statement 2, with all the hype and hysteria around Y2K, OF COURSE THEY ARE GOING TO MENTION THAT SOMETHING WAS OR WAS NOT Y2K. The press just loves to take a story and beat it to death. Remeber OJ?
I see we are back to seeing daemons behind every bush. Sigh. It was the one thing I thought that this forum had grown out of.
-- Paul Neuhardt (firstname.lastname@example.org), January 06, 2000.
Hmmm... From RC's Oil thread yesterday:
Frankly speaking... they're not commenting on why the decrease. They are not denying it is Y2K and they are not saying that it is either. Then again that might be because it is not y2K...but given the atmospherics...when a problem comes up...everyone has been rushing to say "its not Y2K"... but Shell is not denying as one would expect. What's up with that??? My guess is that its Y2K and they don't want to admit it...but that's just my guess.
-- Dick Moody (email@example.com), January 05, 2000.
So, if you say it is NOT a Y2K problem, then it is. If you do NOT say that it is NOT a Y2K problem, then it is also. Very reminiscent of Flint's post yesterday...
-- My Full Name (My@email.address), January 06, 2000.
Remember the printing glitch that put 1900 on a lot of Wells Fargo output? They claimed that a very obvious Y2K problem was not at all Y2K related! This disclaimer will soon be so standard that virtually everyone with any intelligence will ignore it, hopefully the news media as well!
-- Slobby Don (firstname.lastname@example.org), January 06, 2000.
"And further when it comes down to it we don't need to report anything to you. Who are you?"
Who are you?
"Professing themselves to be wise they have become fools."
-- You are Who You Are (WhoWho@WhoWho.areYOU), January 06, 2000.
Went back to work Monday.5 million dollar machine would't startup ,mechanics could not get power,all the current to machine checked out ok. today they got updated files for computer installed it and had the machine humming along like nothing happened.ran fine before rollover. each day i had plant manager calling every half hour to see if fed ex &ups had delivered yet,software came today.about 1 hour later another machine went down,seems like it was an embedded chip.customers were here to see their product being run on our machine. electric went out for about 1&half hours tuesday,working with flaslights.today punch 1 zipcode number in for billing different number on screen.not y2k related. logical explanation?
-- harry huges (email@example.com), January 06, 2000.
Miss Maria, you really should use your real email address. Granny & Uncle Bob make valid points, and it sounds like it's YOU who doesn't want to be honest in your answers when you obviously are in a position to know.
-- Marie (firstname.lastname@example.org), January 07, 2000.