ROUGH ESTIMATE OF BREAKDOWNS SINCE 1 JAN 2000 : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread

A rough estimate of computer breakdowns I've been monitoring since the rollover, so far the numbers of breakdowns are relatively small But with y2k is unpredictable, its like riding one wave after another. There maybe more breakdowns that I am not aware of. I wasn't able to post a graph in here, don't know how to.

1st Jan had 13 breakdowns 2nd Jan had 12 breakdowns 3rd Jan had 46 breakdowns 4th Jan had 39 breakdowns 5th Jan had 19 breakdowns 6th Jan had 44 breakdowns 7th Jan had 43 breakdowns 8th Jan had 20 breakdowns 9th Jan had 24 breakdowns

10 Jan (Still counting !!) so far: 11 breakdowns

-- Brent Nichols (, January 10, 2000


Where are you getting this info from?

-- Swampthing (in@the.swamp), January 10, 2000.

Thanks Brent,

I would say, however, that your numbers are very conservative, since the majority of Y2K problems don't get reported at all, and the few "computer problems" that do make the news are almost always reported as "not Y2K," even when the problems are date related!

In the organization I work for, I reported 5 Y2K problems on our Fixed Asset Inventory system last week. These will never make the paper. A co-worker's husband who works for AT&T cable reported Y2K problems with the "compliant" chips installed, but this will never be reported. My Pentium PC gave me the date of 2094 last time I turned it on, even though it's BIOS and software were updated for "Y2K compliance."

The above problems are real, and I am sure this type of thing is happening all over the country. What remains to be seen is the effect it will ultimately have. Maybe none, or maybe the "noise" will begin to degrade the system. Time will tell.

-- No Polly (, January 10, 2000.

FWIW, Cheesy ASCII graph:

01 ************* 02 ************** 03 *********************************************** 04 **************************************** 05 ******************* 06 ********************************************* 07 ******************************************** 08 ******************** 09 ************************ 10 ***********

-- Think It (Through@Pollies.Duh), January 10, 2000.

'Shrooms' must be in season down under.

-- Have (another@button.Brent), January 10, 2000.

01 ************* 02 ************** 03 *********************************************** 04 **************************************** 05 ******************* 06 ********************************************* 07 ******************************************** 08 ******************** 09 ************************ 10 ***********

-- JUSTTHINK COM (JUSTTHINK@Y2K.COM), January 10, 2000.


Please allow me to apologise for Brent. Most Kiwis (as New Zealanders are colloquially known) are reasonably intelligent and coherent. We generally express items as either opinion, personal knowledge, or as verifiable fact with evidence. There are, however, some exceptions (as is obvious here), but please do not let Brent give a bad opinion of everyone from Down-under.

New Zealand is divided into two main Islands, the South Island, locally called The Mainland, and the North Island which is often referred to as Pig Island. From Brents emphatic staements with no evidence or follow-up it appears that he may be from Pig Island, and possibly from one of the poorer educated areas of that Island.

Brent does like to post items as definite facts, but when asked to substantiate his posts he appears unable or unwilling to do so. I believe that when a Polly does this he/she is called a Troll. Perhaps we should just find a similar label for Brent, so as not to link all Kiwis with his ideas.

Once again, as an average Kiwi, I sincerely apologise for this thread and others like it.


-- Malcolm Taylor (, January 10, 2000.

Malcolm, if you are an 'average' Kiwi than NZ must be proud indeed. Hey, not to fret over dear old Brent. Progressive brain damage knows no boundries.

-- Have (another@button.Brent), January 10, 2000.

i don't think this is too useful--especially since most of us feel this is only a drop in the bucket. too bad you couldn't attach some sort of weighting to each incidence to judge severity and size of impact?

-- tt (, January 10, 2000.

Gotta agree with Malcolm on this. A real (and verifiable) measure of problems, WITH a comparison to normal levels, might give us some insight as to the continuing problems y2k is causing.

Instead, we get counts of "breakdowns" which are undefined and undescribed, without source or attribution, and reflecting a rate about 2 orders of magnitude below *normal* levels. The only possible conclusion is that Brent has some glitches in the wetware.

-- Flint (, January 10, 2000.

Brent, I agree with No Polly that your numbers couldn't possibly represent what is actually occurring behind the scenes. It is becoming apparent however that we failed to take time into account as a very significant factor in estimating rate of failures. We were correct about the systemic nature of the systems and the potential for cascading failures, but because errors need time to develop, I think we are now looking at more of an exponential growth type of acceleration of failures over time, something like this...

The overall time frame until they hit the steepest part of the curve (the increasing rate of failures), and just how pervasive this will be until it has either run its full course or is curtailed is still hard to know, but I'm reasonably sure that at least in some of the weaker organizations (less financially capable of recovery) the failures will manifest themselves in this type of pattern. For a general idea of how the efficiency of an organization would be affected during such a series of failures, you can simply invert the chart to view a condition of exponential decay.

-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), January 11, 2000.

Brent gets his information straight from the Rays From Space. I really think he's just yanking peoples' chains. Nobody that genuinely superficial would have the stamina to keep making these top level "BUT WHAT IF!" posts, day after day after day after day after day.

-- Servant (, January 11, 2000.


You said,

"1st Jan had 13 breakdowns 2nd Jan had 12 breakdowns 3rd Jan had 46 breakdowns 4th Jan had 39 breakdowns 5th Jan had 19 breakdowns 6th Jan had 44 breakdowns 7th Jan had 43 breakdowns 8th Jan had 20 breakdowns 9th Jan had 24 breakdowns

10 Jan (Still counting !!) so far: 11 breakdowns "

Where were all these breakdowns? Worldwide? If so, did you have moles in all the offices worldwide to count them? Or are these just the breakdowns in your office? Enquiring minds want to know.

-- Beached Whale (, January 11, 2000.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ