Is this a "ray of hope?"

greenspun.com : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread

Access: y2k.policyworks.gov/ and scroll down & click on Year 2000 General Information, next click on the first left-hand square--Articles, then click on Missile Range Tests Millenium Bomb. The report said they had positive results. If they were successful, maybe enough others will be to keep some segments of our world going....I hope, I hope!

-- Holly Allen (Holly3325@juno.com), July 06, 1998

Answers

How about a better address for the web you want people to access. Like the full address please! Thanks! P.S. I don't think there is a ray of hope, I am a hopeless pesstimist!

-- barb-douglas (bardou@yahoo.com), July 06, 1998.

Federal Computer Week just ran an article about that test. It said the systems were not date dependent. You can read the article on "Press Clippings."

-- Annie (anniegaff@mailexcite.com), July 07, 1998.

It isn't a "ray of hope" to the cronic pessimists...nothing will be. (as already shown by Barbara and Annie) These people will nit-pick every and any positive news regarding Y2K. Barbara claims she quit watching television because of the bias-ness. The only reason it is biased is because she is biased herself...duh!

Geez, the fools are all around...

-- Anti fools (Anti_fools@usa.net), July 07, 1998.


If the systems were not date sensitive then it did not test y2k compliancy....we are realists, not biased, in denial, or arrogant spouting off to keep an argument going. Though we hope to see positive results, not many are ever quoted in the media, and when companies wish to keep a low profile in this, we have to assume they are as confident as we "doomers"

-- Laurane (familyties@rttinc.com), July 07, 1998.

Please read the article, and tell me if you believe it says anything about not being "date sensitive". The only reference I can see is the paragraph that says it's unlike typical administrative applications that use dates for payroll and budgets. My opinion is it sure seems to have tested POSITIVE for a number of "date sensitive" applications. And I'm not arrogant...I'm accurate. Unlike so many of you...

http://www.fcw.com/pubs/fcw/1998/0706/fcw-newsmissile-7-6-1998.html

-- Anti fools (Anti_fools@usa.net), July 07, 1998.



Sorry, barb-douglas! I assumed all the other nerds, like this great granny, knew to start with http://www. So here's the WHOLE thing: http://www.y2k.policyworks.gov/

-- Holly Allen (Holly3325@juno.com), July 07, 1998.

Anti-Fools, You are right. I misread that story. Please accept my apology. Let's hope that all of our defense systems will have good luck with their testing.

-- Annie (anniegaff@mailexcite.com), July 07, 1998.

A few minutes ago, on a Seattle NewsRadio station, the commentator began an interview with someone from Data Integrity. The man, on a cell phone, related that his company is successfully solving the Y2K problem by looking for math operations. CitiBank and The Department of The Interior are among their prime customers. Unfortunately, the @#$% cell phone died--twice!--just as the commentator was asking what will happen at midnight Dec. 1999. I turned off the station, and don't know if the question was ever answered. Instead, I accessed Data Integrity on my Search, and sent them an Email telling them about the above, and asked for a report by return Email. I also asked them to access this site, and give a report, including--what about other nations? because it's mostly doom and gloom here! We need some hope based upon solid facts!

-- Holly Allen (Holly Allen3325@juno.com), July 07, 1998.

North has a posting today about this company. You might find it interesting. Like he said, this is proof that the other cures hyped must have failed, or we would be hearing about what a success they are. Time will tell!

-- Annie (anniegaff@mailexcite.com), July 07, 1998.

Dear anit-fools...be careful in whom you call a fool. If your call letters are what you say you are, wake up and smell the coffee!

-- barb-douglas (bardou@yahoo.com), July 08, 1998.


Sorry, Barb... Anti-Fools, to me, is the voice in the wilderness when it comes to such matters. He IS accurate, from the months and months of reading I have done on this topic. I remember back in the 80's a steady stream of talking heads on the television speaking about our fascination with doom and gloom and our pointless anxieties ESPECIALLY in times where things are apparently going well. I am disturbed in that this fascination and willingness to embrace the negative despite any good news is once again upon us.

It is quite telling that each positive story is met with reservations from the doom and gloom community. Isn't there anything worth hoping for.

As for the likes of Gary North, here's hoping a systems error has a ICBM launched at his wooded campsite.

-- Professor K (PROFESSORK@prodigy.com), July 08, 1998.


Professor K and Anti Fool

I remain optimistic. Optimistic that you are correct, there is no reason for doom and gloom. We'll all wake up Saturday 1/1/2000 and breath a sigh of relief. "Thank God", we'll all say, "It was just another one of those weird collective gloom and doom phenomenons after all!". Its just that there's one little problem...history.

Nero was optimistic - he played the fiddle while rome burned, no problem. Things like the Bubonic plague would NEVER happen again! Nobody's ever going to REALLY use nukes. World Wars? That's all fanciful romantic thinking, we here in America, the bastien of hope and freedom, know that we could NEVER be affected by such tripe!

Someday, we Americans will wake up and realize "Hey! We're F'ed!" If not because of y2k, then because of terrorism, or some viral plague, or, maybe - the real end of the age promised by the Bible. (Which incidently has a perfect batting average when it comes to prophesy)

I think the hardest thing Denial-Heads have to overcome is their own pride. It's not so much that you guys can't believe that something catastrophic could actually happen, its just that its a stupid, short sighted, idiotic error commited collectively by mankind and not an asteroid! Because hell, if it was an asteroid "we could just send up ol' Bruce Willis to land on it a blow it up! There, problem solve!"

-- Sam Loy (sloy@iphase.com), July 09, 1998.


Just MAYBE General Motors is doing all their assessing and testing of Y2k vulnerable systems during the strike, with the acquiescence of the Union, as both could take advantage of the time down to make GM as compliant as possible and thereby gain the advantage over their competitors, without panic striking their investors. Meanwhile the other manufacturers will be testing and having their problems fully exposed to public scrutiny next year as they continue to operate and fix and test while still online. MAYBE this is a good news story or MAYBE it is just what is seems - a labor disagreement.

-- Laurane (familyties@rttinc.com), July 13, 1998.

O.K. let's see if anyone can shoot this one down! Earlier I went to http://www.cbn.org and did some clicking around. I came across a report, dated today, which states a "windowing" approach--a shortcut year 2000 fix that allows software programs to assume what century a given date is in--is working, according to John Ortega, director of the Agriculture Department's National Finance Center. Connie Craig, CIO for the Treasury's Financial Management Services, states they will be Y2K compliant by the end of THIS year. (Don't ask me just where I found it! I tried going back and couldn't get there again, and don't have time to go through every page again.) Anyone understand "windowing" who can confirm this? This sounds too good to ignore!

-- Holly Allen (Holly3325@juno.com), July 13, 1998.

Windowing is an old technique for handling this sort of problem. I've heard a lot of debate about whether or not it's a real solution or just a workaround.

Leaving that debate aside, if done properly and with a little bit of care, the technique will let you deal effectively with the rollover problem in most situations.

Of course, it does little or nothing for embedded systems, software for which you have lost the source code (or your ability to modifiy and execute it) and data from outside sources not under your control. Still, it is an effective and fairly easy method to work with in those situations where it applies. From what I have seen, most remediation efforts that are being done "last minute" are using windowing whenever possible to save time.

-- Paul Neuhardt (neuhardt@ultranet.com), July 14, 1998.



Moderation questions? read the FAQ