Big Dog, Thanks for pointing out in a thread below that, as in all other professions, most IT workers are also ungulates. (Pardon me if I paraphrased wrong.) That also goes to explain some of the responses I've gotten in mentioning y2k. Look at this example.

I've got a relative in the software business north of Los Angeles. He's been very successful financially and is a hard working self-made type. I was curious about his take on y2k, so I called him last week. It took him a few seconds to realize what I was talking about, and then when he understood I was talking about the century date change problem, he began laughing heartily. (At me, not with me.) He wasn't ROTFL, but I think that's only because he was in an office environment. He was very familiar with the technical aspects of the problem, but only in a very tunnel vision sort of way. He knew the problem and some of the typical remediation approaches, but when I probed a little further, he was as ignorant as an Uzbek goatherder. I mentioned embedded systems, blank. I mentioned the Federal Reserve Bank's capacity to handle corrupt data from non-compliant institutions, blank. I mentioned general non-compliance of overseas firms, blank. Suddenly it occured to me, this guy is in his own little software world. He doesn't read squat outside of his own little world. None of the software he writes has anything remotely to do with y2k, so in his mind there is no problem. When it comes to a y2k worldview, this guy may as well be an Uzbek goatherder! By the time I realized all of this he had just about quit laughing and we changed the subject. He'll never appreciate any risk with this issue. Let this be a lesson to anyone who's sitting on the fence about whether to prepare. Just because a DGI is in the computer professional, don't assume that their opinion is in any way reliable. Do your own research, draw your own conclusions and don't let ANYONE's laughter or sideways glances deter you from doing what you think is reasonable to protect your family.

-- Puddintame (dit@dot.com), January 27, 1999

Answers

ungulate

ungulate (yng4gye-lnt, -lbt4) adjective 1.a. Having hoofs. b. Resembling hoofs; hooflike. 2.Of or belonging to the former order Ungulata, now divided into the orders Perissodactyla and Artiodactyla and composed of the hoofed mammals such as horses, cattle, deer, swine, and elephants.

noun An ungulate mammal.

[Latin ungulbtus, from ungula, hoof, diminutive of unguis, nail. See unguis.]

I like that word, never heard it before. You can get your teeth around it. Makes a good insult - the receiving party will probably not know what you are saying, so making them feel more stupid, like the guy in the above anecdote.

Andy

Two digits. One mechanism. The smallest mistake.

"The conveniences and comforts of humanity in general will be linked up by one mechanism, which will produce comforts and conveniences beyond human imagination. But the smallest mistake will bring the whole mechanism to a certain collapse. In this way the end of the world will be brought about."

Pir-o-Murshid Inayat Khan, 1922 (Sufi Prophet)

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), January 27, 1999.

I have had similar experiences when asking computer professionals what they think about Y2K. Theier general answer is, "No problems at my job. My boss says things will be fine. No problem." I soon realized, as Puddintame did, that they are looking at the problem through the wrong end of a telescope.

-- Pearlie Sweetcake (storestuff@home.now), January 28, 1999.

Right on, Puddintame.

I am a computer professional, electrical engineer, embedded systems type.

So what.

I have seen in this Y2K thing that it does not matter one lick. I talk to my colleagues about it once in a while. Most of them laugh at the whole thing.

"But Bob (or Frank, or Bill)," I ask, "how many of your software projects come in on time?"

"None," says Bob (or Frank or Bill).

"Then why do you expect Y2K to be fixed on time?"

"Because they have to."

THEY have to! But they is US! These guys know how it works but they just don't get it.

So the attacks on Gary North because he's "just a historian" or on Milne because he was "just a broker" are all bluster. Obviously, since those same attacks evaporate when applied to Hamasaki, Infomagic, or Yourdon; they're not "just fill-in-the-blank-non- computer-types," they're hardcore computer types.

But some of us GI and some DGI, same as with the rest of the population. Why? I dunno.

-- Franklin Journier (ready4y2k@yahoo.com), January 28, 1999.