They just aren't going to cause doomsday scenarios.

Get it?

Don't worry so much about whether or not something is Y2K-related--spread out over time, it doesn't really matter. Computer glitches, for Y2K and other reasons, are quite common.

-- Jim Thompson (jimthompsonmd@attglobal.net), January 06, 2000

Answers

I'm more concerned about how a large number of glitches could affect stock market confidence. It wasn't a picnic in the 1930s. Let's hope the glitches stay relatively minor.

-- (Wait@nd.see), January 06, 2000.

Yes, quite.

Thanks for your contribution.

-- (squirrel@huntr.com), January 06, 2000.

Jim, granted, but we could still be facing the issue of "too many" problems, too little programmer resources.

I like it all so far, but I WILL wait and see, and watch the trends of "issues", failures, etc.

Also, I work for an employment agency. If I start getting a number of calls for employees to do "manual workaround" type work, well, that also will be a datapoint. They will be hard to find.

-- mushroom (mushroom_bs_too_long@yahoo.com), January 06, 2000.

This market scares me a lot more than Y2K. Not because of generalized badness secondary to Y2K or anything else, but because it is so incredibly overbought. I'd have thought that was O/T before, but now I guess if the stockmarket plunges, it must have been Y2K. Sigh...

-- Jim Thompson (jimthompsonmd@attglobal.net), January 06, 2000.

Jim,

The hole in your logic is that if it takes time, say for example 3 months to repair a failure (Catawba nuke plant, for instance), then other failures will pile up ontop of this initial failure, creating a domino. Get it?

-- Hokie (Hokie_@hotmail.com), January 06, 2000.

Jim,

I addressed this point at the end of your prior thread. You never responded, apparently abandoned the thread and now you're starting a new one!

Jim, you'll get more respect by being straightforward with people, rather than by ducking and dodging.

-- eve (123@4567.com), January 06, 2000.

See recent post on this thread...

< href="http://hv.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl? msg_id=002FAE">Cory was right...

-- Carl (clilly@goentre.com), January 06, 2000.

Aw shit, try again... See recent post on this thread...

Cory was right...

-- Carl (clilly@goentre.com), January 06, 2000.

To all:

Above, I refer to Jim's thread titled, "Major Computer Ststems Failing". And the post after mine (on that thread), by a nurse, is a perfect example of my point.

Can someone get Jim to respond directly to those posts?

-- eve (123@4567.com), January 06, 2000.

I replied to te nurse personally, via email. Sorry if I lost another thread. I do have a job, and catch the forum here and there. I know the current argument for a bad outcome involves stacking problems on one another until the larger "system" is overloaded.

I think I do get that point.

What I am telling you is: Ain't gonna happen anymore than disaster has struck so far. And I'm putting it on the public record. I hope not to be accused of "hindsight" when, six/twelve/eighteen months from now not much has happened in the way of doom.

-- Jim Thompson (jimthompsonmd@attglobal.net), January 06, 2000.

Jim,

I appreciate your response, although I don't agree. And I'm sorry for my insinuations above; I understand you're busy and apparently lost track of the other thread.

I think a lot of us could have benefited, however, if you had posted the relevant portion of your response to the nurse publicly.

In any case, thanks for your input and good luck.

-- eve (123@4567.com), January 06, 2000.