Lane Core's latest column, "On Schedule? Perhaps It Depends On What Your Definition of 'On' Is" can be found at

http://www.y2ktimebomb.com/Computech/Issues/lcore9903.htm

Good hard information taken from companies own 10-Q statements. And not very encouraging either.

-- Arnie Rimmer (arnie_rimmer@usa.net), January 19, 1999

bold off.

-- Jack (jsprat@eld.net), January 19, 1999.

Good artice, indeed documenting what we all knew would happen anyway. And, of course, next filing will produce a new offset schedule (as well as more monkeying with Y2K "compliant" versus "ready"). (Maybe these guys need to come up with a new one: "Y2K hopeful"?)


Y2K CANNOT BE FIXED

-- Jack (jsprat@eld.net), January 19, 1999.

No, Jack, Y2K bankrupt.

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), January 19, 1999.

Y2sKrewed?

-- Uncle Deedah (oncebitten@twiceshy.com), January 19, 1999.

Some schedules seem to be based on asssumptions that thorough testing can be skipped. Some apparently take the "fix on failure" approach. In either case, the project can be "on schedule", but the schedule includes one or more major gambles. What, me worry?

Jerry B

Is Murphy's law Y2K compliant? You bet!

-- Jerry B (skeptic76@erols.com), January 19, 1999.