Just curious, but I think the point of educated discussion is to have all sides weigh in on a topic, event, etc, so that all involved can make new choices based on the information. How open-minded are we?? I never expected more than a 1 or 2, prepped for a month, but I monitor this board every day because I am willing to change my mind and want to be ahead of the game should the thousand cuts theory become more than theory. I still believe that it will not, and I still belive no more than a 1 or 2-BUT I will stay open-minded. Are there any so-called doomers willing to become "pollies" or vice-versa? What are ya'alls cut-off to declare yourself and family safe from the y2k threat?

-- futureshock (gray@matter.com), January 27, 2000

Answers

12/31/2999

-- Charli (claypool@belatlantic.net), January 27, 2000.

Industrial and commercial firms have nothing to gain by publicizing any Y2k problems they encounter. Consequently no news is simply no news, and doesn't imply anything one way or the other. For all I know, any problems of this sort have been and will continue to be minimal and fixable. Equally, for all I know, the roof may cave in tomorrow.

Will a time come when it will be foolish to keep a reserve supply of food and water and fuel on hand? Who knows? Stuff happens -- as demonstrated this past week with severe and unexpected ice and snow storms.

Seems to me the doomster/polly "debate" is over. It was all about estimating possibilities. These categories don't mean anything now.

Historically, no culture or civilization has been immortal. There's no reason to think ours will break the pattern.

Life goes on, and its circumstances are always contingent.

-- Tom Carey (tomcarey@mindspring.com), January 27, 2000.

futureshock,

great question!!!

i was a doomer, still am. but my pessimistic views dont just center around y2k issues. geeez ... they're just one of a dozen (or more) issues that threaten all of us.

i've realized that none of us will *really* know the extent to which computer problems or embeds probelms due to y2k are causing problems. its something that can too easily be covered up. my point is - you dont have to be a genius to see what's going on in the world today. LOTS of problems everywhere. it pays to be prepared!

i'm soo glad to have prepared for y2k the way we did (which was longer that you), and also soo glad that the bottom did NOT fall out (why do pollies think doomers were unhappy it didnt???). what our family learned was: we've got LOTS more preparations to make to make ourselves less dependent on others for basic necessities of life.

so to answer your question, y2k *may* be less severe than was anticipated. but the real problems facing all of us arent over, and thats the REAL deal.

-- lou (lanny1@ix.netcojm.com), January 27, 2000.

Hi-good answers above. We know a lot of prepped folks, and it seems to be the standard that nearly all are setting a cut off date of April or summer, after which they will give extras to a food bank. (preps ranged from 2 months to a year, we did six ( four good, two starchy) but anticipated needing three at the most probably. Most of us will use most of it....personally the powdered milk and canned veggies are good riddance, but the rest can get eaten by the shelf life. Almost all the folks I know who prepared are Christian, and we tend to all believe in the sovereignty of God over events in ways we cannot see immediately. We universally see Y2K as a wake up call to be prepared for disasters. Most folks have a wierd feeling- call it discernment, prophetic, or flaky- that something is coming. Maybe massive solar flares, war, natural diasters, who knows. At any rate most of us were FOOLISH IDIOTS who had kids and no alternate heat source up north for the winter, despite periodic electric outages. We plan to permanently live, God willing, with a two month or so rotated emergency food supply, a couple weeks to a month of water, wood and fuel, etc. The issue is not Y2k and maybe never was, the issue is bible promises of war and famine and earthquakes and hard times. Keep in mind the big Y2K prediction was economic, and if this oil thing keeps up the economy could still crumble....I won't feel like the immediate danger of that is over until oil prices go down and stocks stay up. And from what they are saying the gasoline crunch can be bad by summer. So most of us are in wait and see mode for several months yet, before we relax re. Y2K If inflation hits, we'll be glad for everything we already bought. After that we just become general all around doomers,ha!

-- carolyn (carolyn@luvmyhub.com), January 27, 2000.

The general trend for doomers posting on this board has been to go from "Y2K will cause terrible, obvious problems" to

"Y2K problems are out there like crazy, but are being covered up".

This saves face, and it avoids taking accountability. The human condition is to want to avoid admitting just being wrong. The leaders of the Y2K hyping are also feeding into this, IMHO; of course they are not only saving face, but saving future consulting jobs.

There have been those who have simply admitted they were wrong; congratulations to them. Those who steer the discussion toward self- congratulations about being how good it is to be prepared are some of the worst offenders in simply being able to say they were wrong.

The fact is, the average doomer believed:

1. Y2K would cause serious disruptions on a macro scale

2. Remediation had no hope of ameliorating the problem enough to avoid these disruptions.

For many of the naifs who bought into that, their own lives were disrupted as a consequence. The reply to them by those touting doom has been, on average, "Hey; you are responsible for your own due diligence". Well, the point is, they WERE trying to do their own DD and they were misled. Now the doomers want to pretend we were just "lucky". What has luck got to do with totally exagerated, erroneous predictions not coming true?

-- I'mSo (lame@prepped.com), January 27, 2000.

Pollies and GIs regularly mis-state each other's position.

GIs never "believed that Y2k would cause disruptions ...", GIs believed (and still do) that Y2k COULD cause disruptions. "Prepare for the worst, hope for the best". This position has typically been phrased as "prediction of doom" by pollies, when it is a warning of risks. Big difference.

"Admitting being wrong" is a consistent theme in pollie comments. It is not enough to survive without damage; there is a demand for an apology, with multiple threads and even heavy spamming on the subject. I'm personally delighted that my worst-case warning did not come to pass. I'm baffled that a polly would feel that this calls for an apology, as if anyone would feel better with a few thousand or million dead.

With that in mind, note the "avoiding accountability" comment above. We GIs are not (the above poster suggests) telling you what is happening, based on decades of experience. Rather we are (again, his point, not mine) trying to evade the responsibility for warning you of danger. Polly threads often see "doomers" as some kind of drooling apocalyptic-obsessed zombies. "Weak-minded" and "zombies" were a couple terms used recently, no kidding.

GIs are not hoping for disaster; we are warning of it so you can mitigate the impact if it happens. The danger of embedded failures seems to be fading. By mid-March we'll know if the damage to mainframe systems is large or small. But based on many years of experience (25+ for me) we know that large systems break S__L__O__W__L__Y, and it's just too early to sound the all-clear.

-- bw (home@puget.sound), January 27, 2000.

oops - left a fragment there. My comment ended with the sentence in SLOWLY in it. Trying to type too fast.

-- bw (home@puget.sound), January 27, 2000.

Thank you for the replies so far. It is interesting that in some posts positions are being restated-My intent with this thread was not to intimate that any one was right or wrong-I wanted to gauge what is the nature of our real debate on the y2k scenarios-I think it very wise to always be prepared for life's disruptions-I have been part of civic group in which a two month prudent reserve of cash expenses is always kept-and I totally believe that all small businesses and households should try to reach that same place of readiness

I come hear to find out if there is definite, clear, non-debateable y2k failures going on out there, so I can change from a 1-2, to a 3-5 if I see the handwriting on the wall-I thank you all for trying to find these things-It does bother me, however, when any and all computer problems in the year 2000 are being postulated as y2k problems, and then when you confront someone on this, they say that "as long as you cannot prove that it is not y2k, it could be". This is problematic for my rational mind, as it begs the questions and has logical faults-I am going to base my decisions on irrefutable evidence. I would hope that those who have a higher apprehension level-may also find evidence, if it is there, to change from a 5-6 to a 1-2, if that evidence is showing "No big deal" and thereby putting their money into something else other than y2k preps. Just thoughts... peace

-- futureshock (gray@matter.com), January 27, 2000.

After 12/31, I've been very willing, and it hasn't been hard for me to do at all. I guess, for me, after the past year and a half, a brighter outlook has been a breeze for me to accept. I try to continually be ready to reassess my assumptions, premises, and positions as new information comes to my attention.

On the other hand, it was very hard for me in July, 1998, when I first came to the realization that things could be very bad. I think it took a good week or so for the possibilities to sink in. I made a great effort to stay objective, do as much research and analysis as I could, and to assimilate all the information the best I knew how, as I moved to a very dark pessimism shortly afterwards...

But I'm just ecstatic that I'm here to write about all this at the end of January, 2000.

-- eve (123@4567.com), January 27, 2000.

As you accurately stated/quoted:

"It does bother me, however, when any and all computer problems in the year 2000 are being postulated as y2k problems, and then when you confront someone on this, they say that "as long as you cannot prove that it is not y2k, it could be".

There appears to be no logical problem with the statement. Had the word "could" been replaced with "must" I would be quick to agree that there was a logical problem. I'm NOT seeing that the doombrood is saying "must", but that (we)they are saying "could" a lot.

I am ALSO looking for reasons to change from my worst case to a better case expectation. Unfortunately, my expectations require a longer time frame than that which we have lived through in 2000 yet.

WHich translates to my concerns are that my worst case is still viable. Somewhere in June, my worries will either have been born out or I will get to provide the kindling for Paul's Bonfire and might even take a turn in the dunking booth (If I'm out from under the weather by then).

Chuck

-- Chuck, a night driver (rienzoo@en.com), January 27, 2000.

I wasn't sure what to expect but I thought the most likely case was a 6 or 7, with a 9 or 10 a low but not insignificant possibility. I prepared as best I could for a 10, simply because I have two small children and I could not forgive myself if I did not prepare enough and they ended up suffering for it. Thankfully, my preparations have not been tested.

My take on the future is this - as each day goes by without major problems, I believe the chance of major disruptions goes down. As of right now, I think that if we make it through early July without major difficulties in the "core" industries, I will declare my family safe from y2k.

Does this mean that I am going to use up all my provisions and not replace them? Of course not. I will probably draw down my inventory to the 6 month level. But I won't go back to living as we did a few years ago. Even before I knew about y2k,in the back of my mind I felt that I should have more backups in case things go bad with the economy. This came from all the experiences of my grandparents and parents in dealing with depressions and wars of the 20th century in Europe. Having some backup for bad times is prudent, and saved the lives of family members on a number of occasions.

The one thing that I have learned from the whole discussion on y2k is that we as a society are totally dependent on nearly everything going right all the time. The biggest problem with it is that the reserves are miniscule compared to the population, and there are very few people with knowledge on how to cope (or even a willingness to cope) if major disruptions occur.

The question of "polly" or "doomer" is to me a red herring. I have been an engineering project manager for a major industrial company for 10 years (industrial equipment and automation, not software)and I have seen how many ways projects can go wrong, get delayed, etc., in spite of the best efforts of very talented people. If you look at world with an objective eye, you know there are many ways for things to go wrong. And by looking at human history, you can see that things often happen that result in widespread problems,wars, depressions, etc. Because human societies are large and very complex, the causes of major problems are difficult to isolate and so are usually attributed to bad luck. While the chances of any one thing going wrong to the point of major disruptions is vanishingly small, there are multitudes of these things. Because of this, the chances of something touching off a cascade that turns into a major problem, while small, is not non-existent. To be prepared for problems does not make me a "doomer" - it merely confirms that in the long view, I am a realist.

-- Lazarus Long (lazlongk@aol.com), January 27, 2000.

"It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent, but the ones most responsive to change"

Charles Darwin

-- (watching@waiting.com), January 27, 2000.

All I have to say is:

Early in December we heard:

"By Mid January we will know if the problems are large or small"

In mid January we heard:

"By Mid March we will know if the problems are large or small"

I suppose in Mid March we will hear:

"By Years end we will know if the problems are large or small"

Each time a prediction of doom doeasn't materialize the date is set back a month or 2 in the hopes that at least one prediction of disaster will come true.

-- Joe (TheRebel12@aol.com), January 27, 2000.

I think by June my husband Jerry and I will feel confident about Y2k and it's effects. It will take wuite awhile to consume our preps. However, now that we aren't rushed by a deadline and a new house to finish (all the while running our business and having a sheep farm for fun), we are taking off in new directions. We have a generator and fuel for the short term. We have a natural gas turbine and almost complete steam system with batteries and converter. New gas refrigerator that I am looking forward to useing and a new gas stove with pilot lights everywhere--makes great dried apples and peppers in the oven. So now we complete the steam system and take time to look seriously into solar panels. We don't regret anything we bought to prepare for Y2k but are now thinking longer term. Oil and natural gas are being depleted--how do we sustain the comfort level we like? Solar looks like the answer--. A few days ago there was a reply on this forum about a place to check on solar panels besides Real Goods. If anyone remembers this or has the info, I would appreciate hearing from you. I can't find the darn thing now I want it again. So we're going off grid--it's an adventure--what else would we do with all our spare time?!

-- Pam (jpjgood@penn.com), January 27, 2000.

A full pantry... feels good.

Diane

BTW... You might want to read Tom Atlees Y2K, Experts and Citizens Jan 10, 2000...

http:// www.co-intelligence.org/y2k_experts.html

You may find section d) especially insightful...

[snip]

d) TECHNICAL EXPERTISE AND THE CURVE OF Y2K:

Finally, can we say anything about the various experts we've had in our "Y2K movement," now that we know that the rollover was basically uneventful (except for all the dancing and fireworks)? Of course, there were people who knew a lot LESS about the problem than we did, who predicted that "nothing would happen." But I'm not about to trade my hard-won knowledge that turned out to be wrong for their ignorant obliviousness that, by chance or grace, turned out to be right. The question is not whose ignorance was right, but who's insight was right.

So, quite specifically, we might ask: Among all those competing experts from before the rollover -- the people who knew A LOT about Y2K -- are there any who have all along promoted well-reasoned, believable rationales for a problem-free rollover? What are they saying now about what lies ahead? (The interesting question "Why didn't we listen to them rather than to all the others?" is a subset of the previous issues a-c. The fact is, we ordinary folks never have dependable means to decide who is right until after the fact -- unless we have something like a citizen's technology panel....)

Now, I openly admit that I don't frequent the technical listserves and websites and chat rooms. So my ability to answer this question is limited. However, my regular email traffic has exposed me to one interesting nominee for "Y2K expert who got it right so far" who we can use, just as a case in point here -- Dale W. Way, Y2K Chair for The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) < d.way@ieee.org>. For months he has been posting long and complicated pieces on various forums that, because they weren't taken up by others on the forums, and because I was always pressed for time and had to struggle to understand, I didn't pay much attention to. But now that some of his well-reasoned predictions have come true, a few people are digging out his old stuff and reposting it and trying to get other Y2K technical experts to address his issues. I've decided to join their ranks. I've appended below one of Way's more novice- readable pieces, which he posted right after the rollover (thanks: terstec1@webtv.net). But first I'm going to try the impossible: to summarize for lay folks some of what I think are his most salient points for the rollover. (I'll probably mess up, and anyone's free to correct me. I am encouraged by a quote from my friend Marianne Morgan: "It is always best to do a thing wrong the first time." So said Sir William Osler.)

Dale Way suggested that most Y2K problems would arise from math calculations that straddled the centuries. This means that programs that looked forward would have problems before the rollover; programs that operated in present time (e.g., clocks) would have problems at the rollover; and programs that looked backwards would have problems after the rollover. Some programs combine these functions, making them vulnerable both before and after rollover.

He also noted that the longer the period of time included in the calculations typical of that system, the more vulnerable it would be to problems. In other words, if a typical calculation involves times that are 10 seconds apart, then the window of vulnerability in a forward-looking system would be from 11:59:50pm until midnight New Years Eve; after that, you'd be home free, because all the dates in later calculations would be on the far side of the rollover. However, if the calculations involved a 30-year period looking both forward and backwards, problems could crop up for years on either side of the rollover.

Way identifies four kinds of system:
1) physical control system infrastructure (power grids, toxics controls, water systems)
2) on-line transaction systems (ATMs, check and credit card processing)
3) support systems (that automatically detect faults, schedule maintenance, order spare parts)
4) administrative and accounting systems (for purchasing, invoicing, personnel, payroll).

He notes that this list is in descending order of vulnerability and ease of fixing. The physical control systems tend to be more integrated, robust software/hardware combinations with coherent tasks; are better engineered and stress-tested, and therefore better understood, and usually have redundancies built in; are so clearly vital that they get lots of management attention; and tend to operate with very tiny (seconds to hours) time-windows. Therefore they are less vulnerable to Y2K glitches which, if they occur, are relatively easy to find and fix.

At the other extreme, the administrative and accounting systems are usually extremely large, complex, repeatedly modified software programs with broad windows of vulnerability (weeks, months or years) -- containing and linked to a vast variety of heterogeneous technologies and data sources which no one really understands, maintains or tests, with little redundancy or management attention -- whose data output is used by other applications all over the enterprise. Therefore, these complex systems are extremely vulnerable to Y2K glitches which, when they occur, will be very messy and iffy to find and fix.

On-line transaction systems and support systems fall in between the other two in vulnerability and fixability.

Given his analysis, he predicted that the rollover was only really special for systems with short time-windows (i.e., real-time systems, such as physical control systems and on-line transactions). Since the vital infrastructure systems were also the most resilient (low vulnerability, easy to fix), he was quite sure they wouldn't go down, at least in any significant way.

His last pre-rollover report on Dec 31, 1999 gave this summary:

"Physical control systems and other primary production systems are not at much risk and not for long, while administrative and accounting systems in all industries are at great risk for a long time. Support systems are in the middle, but closer to production systems at the lower risk end. If we are to have major damage to the economy and system infrastructure it will come from administrative and accounting systems and those dependent on them. This will have long-term impacts on the economy, but the shape of those is hard to decipher at this point. There is still much we can do by way of adaptation to mitigate such failures, but if they persist anyway, we are in serious trouble."

What's next? His January 2 report (below) is entitled: "The Fat Lady Has Not Yet Sung."

For him, it was easier to predict the rollover than what happens next, and for good reason. We've moved from the simpler, easy to remediate systems, to the endlessly complex, vulnerable and difficult to repair systems.

[snip]

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), January 27, 2000.

futureshock,

Y2K, has only been the trigger for many, many events that will not be admitted to by large corporations and governments. I was never expecting the End Of The World. But, if you're reading the information coming onto this forum on a daily basis, you must realize that there's more going on than we're being told. Obviously a "glitch" messed up the gasoline in Australia, and now the small air craft that they depend on isn't flying, and at the moment it seems it will be some time before this situation is fixed.

For the Australians, this is a major problem. Shut down our rail system for a month and see what happens.

No need to list all the items, one by one, I am sure you've read them for yourself. I am not a Doomer, nor am I a Polly, I am a "Preppy" = prepared for whatever comes, and there's no cut-off date.

-- Richard (Astral-Acres@webtv.net), January 27, 2000.

Is it possible that y2k is the pin which pricks bubble.com, but OIL is the thing which brings down the economy? I suspect this is where we are headed. I am a doomer, but previously held the view that most systems would crash and power plants down DUE TO Y2K, etc . . .

I'm not backing up completely - this could still happen, but it seems that most of the probs so far are in oil and are continuing to be - I suppose because of a vast number of embeddeds focused in that industry. At any rate, we all know it doesn't take that much to start a panic (irrational exuberance speech by Greenspan) and a panic starts a crash.

Further, if oil is really high and everyone loses their money, then we've got a serious problem . . .

-- robert bright (roosterbos@go.com), January 27, 2000.

Gee, lets see: truckers are threatening to strike/boycott/sickout because of the fuel prices (ie: no supplies/food to stores.)Paid $1.48 for gasoline. Just got a quote of $1.97 for home heating oil, can't decided if we should top off or ride it out- and you don't see this as a problem? You don't think this in anyway related to y2k. Sure. Gotta go count my cans!

-- Kathy (catfish@bestweb.net), January 27, 2000.

I have been re-evaluating my position weekly for over a year. I still don't have a strong opinion regarding how serious it will be. It could range anywhere from a 2 to an 8. I am still closely watching the price of oil and still believe that if Y2k is serious, it will affect the oil industry before it affects other industries.

-- Dave (dannco@hotmail.com), January 27, 2000.

I`mSo, The Preppers and Doomers truly wish they could have been as enlightened pre and post rollover as some of the chosen ones who obviously knew what would and will unfold. I guess the P&D`s inherently lack the insight posessed by the Pollies.

-- NoJo (RSKeiper@aol.com), January 27, 2000.

That article you referred us to was really worthwhile. Thank you, Diane.

-- MinnesotaSmith (y2ksafeminnesota@hotmail.com), January 28, 2000.