KPMG proves Y2K impact Tuesday, 15th February 2000 from www.it-analysis.com/00-02-15-3.html

Educational use only (snip)

"KPMG has been up to its old tricks this week, collecting statistics, analysing numbers and otherwise preparing a bundle of facts and figures to stun the world. In this case the focus of the company's desire has been the Y2K and in particular the number of problems reported. What does the study show? Well, as you might have already guessed it clearly demonstrated that the Y2K bug did strike and quite possibly, it struck pretty damned hard."

--Mainly an editorial piece.

-- Mello1 (Mello1@ix.netcom.com), February 15, 2000

Answers

Would, ..."quite possibly, it struck pretty damned hard" be about what the average doomer on this board was expecting? I got the impression from reading a lot of posts here that we'd be able to tell Y2K had hit just from our daily lives, and not from reading a consultant's analysis. I asked for the candidate for the SINGLE worst Y2K problem so far and got accused of being a troll just for ASKING.

-- ImSo (lame@prepped.com), February 15, 2000.

Here's the "rest of the story":

The KPMG study unearthed a number of rather worrying Y2K events. Amongst these were nine nuclear plants that were struck by the bug in the US and Japan. Satellites also suffered problems that, in the US, prevented the Pentagon from processing data received from the communication devices. And in France led to military satellites losing information. This wasn't the sum of it either, kidney machines in Scotland failed, credit cards across America went belly up - as systems failed to accept them - and, apparently, Traffic lights in Jamaica failed to operate.

All in all it seems to have been a fairly even spread of serious and non-serious impact effects. Certainly losing satellite data must be regarded as a costly - if not life threatening - problem, but even traffic light failures whilst seemingly a marginal problem could lead to fatalities. And that's not even mentioning Japanese customers having their bank details deleted or children in the UK being registered as having been born in 20200.

So what does that tell us? That the mass media missed the boat and decided to criticise the IT industry instead of hunting out more grand scale failures that so far remain hidden from the public gaze? Or that in fact the world did spend billions of dollars on something that was never going to happen. I guess you can figure that out for yourself.

-- Paul Harvey (stand by@for.news), February 15, 2000.

"Nuclear plants struck by the bug"...Hmmm

How 'bout picking the WORST one that actually happened, and posting the specifics.

As for the dialysis machines--sounds minor, and I bet there was a workaround. I'm not hearing DOOM, kids.

-- ImSo (lame@prepped.com), February 16, 2000.

Hey ImSo . . .

Just a question . . .

Is it POSSIBLE that some of the failures attributed to Y2k ARE actually Y2k related?? Just POSSIBLE??

I've read many of your posts, and am aware of your non-doomer position. I am a doomer, and from the "earthly" perspective, my position is to wait until April or May - if nothing "significant" happens by then, then I will say I was wrong and move on from there. Just because some people think/believe/know that Y2k will cause more extensive problems for months after the rollover doesn't mean that we are unwilling to (eventually) admit error. Just give us some time for the scenario to play out. I have held to the position that the primary problems would NOT happen at rollover for about a year. Thus, my scenario is not dead yet.

I (and some other doomers) have not held the position that the probs would occur immediately, in spite of the media attention to Jan. 1. So, how about cutting us some slack until April or May

robert bright

-- robert bright (roosterbos@go.com), February 16, 2000.

Robert, slack is not often seen in this forum. I'm a GI, I'm prepped, but I don't accept the term "doomer" - why let pollies define you in their terms? I never wanted doom, never hoped for it, but I can see the risks. As we see oil climbing and minor breaks happening, we can be simultaneously pleased that the breaks are so small and satisfied that prepping was appropriate.

The stock bubble continues to look iffy, oil prices are starting to really hurt transportation, and it might not be long before you'll be really glad to have some food put by. We are hitting the iceberg, but it looks like a paint-scraper.

I've said that somewhere in March I'll let out a big sigh of relief, and it looks like that'll come to pass. That's great - I have other things I want to get on with. We're damaged by Y2k, but not too badly, and it's a safe bet no one will ever admit any damage at all.

Our preps continue, by the way. We maintain a full pantry, and we are still working with emergency preparedness here. We're still facing a 9+ quake, and I don't know anyone here who isn't glad for the preparations and also relieved that Y2k is no worse than we've seen so far.

-- bw (home@puget.sound), February 16, 2000.

Mr Bright,

I think a lot of problems attributed by KPMG (for instance) to Y2K ARE Y2K. I've said all along Y2K problems exist. What I can't buy into is that they represent a substantial percentage of ALL computer failures, and that assorted macro problems in the world are attributable to Y2K. The stock market may crash, for instance, but not from Y2K...

So when I hear Nuclear Plants Bitten by the Bug, what I want to know is, what exactly happened, and what were the consequences, before I am stunned.

-- ImSo (lame@prepped.com), February 16, 2000.

bw-

You took the words right out of my neuro-net. I was just lamenting the same. We have allowed ourselves to be dragged into the dung with them by assimilating the 'doomer' tag. I very much appreciate your propping up the posture of preppers appropriately.

Thanx

-- Michael (mikeymac@uswest.net), February 16, 2000.