Checking to see if this works.....

-- Forrest Covington (theforrest@mindspring.com), January 22, 2000

Answers

Forrest, Thank you, it works for me!

-- Richard (Astral-Acres@webtv.net), January 22, 2000.

Where W(n) is???

-- K. Stevens (kstevens@ It ALL went away 22 days ago .com), January 22, 2000.

F. Stevens ... I would assume "W" means week ( One, two , Etc.) Eagle

-- Hal Walker (e999eagle@freewwweb.com), January 22, 2000.

Nice graph, the x-axis is time, therefore what do the different labels/lines mean?

-- Will (righthere@home.now), January 22, 2000.

As I recall, the five W lines represent different types of y2k problems, with W1 being the most innocuous (like a web site date of 19100) and W5 being the most serious type. Perhaps someone could provide a post to the original link which explains this more accurately.

-- Brooks (brooksbie@hotmail.com), January 22, 2000.

Thanks Forrest. Please keep it going. What do the W numbers signify?

-- Earl (earl.shuholm@worldnet.att.net), January 22, 2000.

Thanks, glitch types make sense. They don't look too bad ....I guess. That exponential looking slope for W1 W4 W5 has got the feel of adrenaline to it...or is it just me?

-- Will (righthere@home.now), January 22, 2000.

Search for ciaosystems.com go to Our Links click on Glitch Central link

-- K Taylor (KTaylorOre@webtv.net), January 22, 2000.

One must keep in mind that the W(n) graphs are cumulative from one day to the next. For example, it says about 720 W1 glitches on Jan. 20th but that means there have been 600 up to that day and 120 more that day. Wow, I guess that is a lot!

-- Beerman (frbeerman@juno.com), January 22, 2000.

The "W" stands for "WEIGHT." Apparently the designer uses that term to signify the importance of the glitch. A W1 glitch is a faulty date calculation, where a W5 is a power outage to more than 10,000 subscribers. I think that's the system...

-- Liz (lizpavek@hotmail.com), January 22, 2000.

I see NO benefit for a "Y2K Glitch" chart ... UNLESS ... it's broken out by industry ... and severity of situation.

Otherwise, it's meaningless. Whole deal is too complex.

Personally, I find earnings reports for publicly held companies more telling. Unfortunately we have to wait until "after the fact" to find out what the deal is.

Too much is not public knowledge. IMHO

-- Cheryl (Transplant@Oregon.com), January 22, 2000.

Opened right up Forrest, thanks.

-- Hokie (Hokie_@hotmail.com), January 22, 2000.

I just put this up to test out putting an image on the forum. The original is on the page:

http://www.ciaosystems.com/glitchcentral.htm

THere are some problems with the graph. For one thing, it is cumulative, which means they are adding each day's glitches to the preceding days and weeks, that means that OF COURSE the total will go up. This means very little because the relevant number is an increase or decrease in DAILY glitches...... there are going to be a large number of annoying but not fatal Y2K problems spread out over the year, so a constant increase in the number on the graph will not necessarily indicate a worsening situation.

Also, they say they are only posting verified reports, but neglect to mention whether they are adding in the anecdotal information they are recieving but not posting. The graph is suggestive, but no more than that. I just thought it was better for the forum than posting another squirrrel picture just to teach myself how it's done.

-- Forrest Covington (theforrest@mindspring.com), January 23, 2000.

Coombes was a booboo-yap. He got a following and his 15 minutes of fame as promised by Andy Warhol, and then when his nutcase website was found, he deleted it, and split.

-- Forrest Covington (theforrest@mindspring.com), January 23, 2000. ======================================================================

Another fine analysis from Forest.

Forest neglects to mention the real facts coming out thanks to the work of marcia.

RC was indeed RIGHT about OIL!!!

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), January 23, 2000.

If you are talking about Marcia Peter's site, it looks good. However, it's only one site, and the list of oil problems from previous years is incomplete and skewed for various reasons. If and when more information surfaces that is at least as well organised as hers, and when it starts accumulate to meaningful levels, then we will have enough material to draw *possibly* meaningful conclusions.

Go a few threads down and find the link to Carl Sagan's Baloney Detector Kit. Granted, it isn't a very "andy" type of site, but it is exactly what we should be applying to all sorts of situations, not just this board. I intend to dust off my books on logic from my college days, if I had done so before, maybe I wouldn't have been caught up in the the y2k hysteria as much as I was.... which was far less than most people on this board, apparently. At least I was quick to admit I was wrong, and be done with that part of it. But I am still here, at least until I settle on another place, to watch the windout. Y2K didn't happen as advertised. Good thing, too! But now is the time to be wary... it was wierd people with agendas, like RC, who played on people's fears and tried to panic them. That is the real lesson of Y2K, the false prophets and pied pipers. RC is not right about oil. RC is a nut. Kook. Boobooyap. (Unless he's really a disinformation agent for the Greys.... better call Mulder on a secure line and warn him.) But hey, it's a free country, and Darwin works in mysterious ways, so go for it, Dude.

-- Forrest Covington (theforrest@mindspring.com), January 24, 2000.

Apparently a couple of Andy's responses were deleted, which is why this thread no longer makes sense, if any readers are wondering. It went on quite a while for a HTML test. THe reasons for the deletions are.....?

-- Forrest Covington (theforrest@mindspring.com), January 24, 2000.

I'm sorry Forrest but YOU'VE LOST ALL CREDIBILITY pal...

======================================================================

"it was wierd people with agendas, like RC, who played on people's fears and tried to panic them. That is the real lesson of Y2K, the false prophets and pied pipers. RC is not right about oil. RC is a nut. Kook. Boobooyap. (Unless he's really a disinformation agent for the Greys.... better call Mulder on a secure line and warn him.) But hey, it's a free country, and Darwin works in mysterious ways, so go for it, Dude."

======================================================================

It's abovious from the above that you have a personal grudge against RC.

Very lame.

Very lame indeed.

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), January 24, 2000.