Given the basis of this group's positions, I am sure someone will take me up on this challenge....

I expect that nothing of any real significance will occur as a result of the Y2K problem. This is not to say that it will not impact any computers in the world. It clearly will. However, I am willing to make the following bet:

(1) There will be no nuclear disaster, whether as a result of a nuclear power generation safety failure or as a result of the detonation of a nuclear weapon;

(2) Banks will be capable of functioning, and will function perfectly well in January 2000 as they did in December 1999. There may be bank runs, but they will not result in inability of the banking system to pay out deposits as provided by the FDIC;

(3) Electricity grids in the United States will be unaffected by the Millennium Bug;

(4) Air traffic control will be unaffected by the Y2k problem; and

(5) There will be no food riots or any such event as a result of the Year 2000 problem.

Now, the wager. I had originally contemplated making this a monetary wager, but the laws in many states prohibit that. Thus, I propose the following. The loser (either me or the erstwhile Y2k doomsayer) will return to this group on January 5, 2000 and post the following: "[Loser's Name] is a stupendous dodo." That's it. Just a matter of pride.

Since someone will raise the (logically consistent) argument that if there is a Y2k problem, the internet will not likely work, I submit the following. If I am wrong, and one (or more) of the above listed criterion are met (and I am incapable of posting a message to this group), I will repeat the message described above on short-wave radio for a period of not fewer than 10 hours. I'm sure a dedicated radio ham amongst the group will tell me what channel will result in the least amount of broadcast disruption.

I sincerely hope that this post will not result in flames or a barrage of hate e-mail. I see no point in that. If you do not like my position, then please go to the next post (which will more than likely support your own view). Please also do not respond with accusations that I am not a "Got It" or somesuch; I really don't see the point in any such post. My positions are what they are, and they do no harm to you otherwise. I will certainly not change them as a result of a rant claiming that I am ignorant. If this is a public forum for the expression of ideas, let it be that.

Now, since there is only one of me (and apparently many of you), I will accept only one wager (mostly because I don't have the time to keep track of multiple names).

Anyone interested?

-- Jeff Donohue (jeff_donohue@hotmail.com), March 25, 1999

Answers

I'll bet you! Me! Me! 'Cause I hope you're right, and I won't mind losing a bit.

-- Helen (sstaten@fullnet.net), March 25, 1999.

Well, I guess we'll do this on a FIFO basis. Helen, you're it!

-- Jeff Donohue (jeff_donohue@hotmail.com), March 25, 1999.

OK, and I'll throw in a bean dinner for you too, if you're right. :)

-- Helen (sstaten@fullnet.net), March 25, 1999.

I'll bet you'll be one of the first people in line at bank when the runs begin.

I'll bet you'll be an "anchor" to a friend that you know is preparing.

I'll bet you're employer isn't Y2K-compliant.

I'll bet you think you'll be able to get through to your broker when TSHTF.

I'll bet you think you'll be able to buy what you need when 10% of the populace thinks the same thing.

I'll bet you think people/government will be there to help you in a time of need.

I'll bet that you haven't consider what the ramifications are on your prescriptions when 80% of the material used to make them come from outside the country.

I'll bet you haven't thought about what happens when your pipes in your home freeze and burst if you live in the North.

I'll bet you don't think about Y2K much... All Bets Are Off.....

-- PJC (paulchri@msn.com), March 25, 1999.

Jeff, if TSHTF, you can stay with us. Really.

-- Helen (sstaten@fullnet.net), March 25, 1999.

Jeff, didn't see anything about healthcare. Any prognosis in that area?

Ray

-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), March 25, 1999.

Jeff -

Why are you on this forum if this is your studied and considered view?

-- Valkyrie (anon@please.net), March 25, 1999.

This is not a friggin contest smart ass. Take your BS over to GNIABFI.

However...I may show up at the Milne dunking booth if all this turns out to be way overblown. :)

-- a (a@a.a), March 25, 1999.

" If this is a public forum for the expression of ideas, let it be that. "

Here's what this forum's for, Jeff... it's "for people who are concerned about the impact of the Y2000 problem on their personal lives, and who want to discuss various fallback contingency plans with other like-minded people."

You apparently feel that Y2K is a non-issue, so I'd say you're out-of-place here. May I suggest that you visit a forum where views such as yours are welcomed?

-- sparks (wireless@home.com), March 25, 1999.

Dear Jeff: So what if we're wrong? So- we'll have plenty of food to eat- no groceries to buy for awhile. We'll have a way to heat our homes without fossil fuel or through the next power failure. We'll have flashlights and radios for emergencies. We'll have thought through just how interconnected everything is on the planet these days. We'll have taken another look at our jobs, our skills and our relationships . We'll have looked at where we live, how we shop, what we depend on for our survival. We'll have gotten to know our neighbors and community. That's even if we're wrong and Y2K is a total complete dud.

What if you're wrong??

-- anita (hillsidefarm@drbs.com), March 25, 1999.

anita:

Again you make a false assumption. I'm fully prepared, but I think Jeff's future is as likely as not, if not moreso. I'm prepared for all kinds of things I don't expect to happen, just to be safe.

I notice only one individual here was willing to take the bet. Lots of bad-mouthing and weaseling, but when it comes down to cases, the doomists wimp out. Interesting.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), March 25, 1999.

Jeff,

Look through the past 6 months of this forum and search on keyword of FAA. THEN, come back and tell us all why you think air traffic control will be "unaffected". I suspect you simply make these statements without any basis on the facts. Thats right, FACTS. I mean-- you do know the specifics about the 3083 mainframes, microcode problems, G3 replacements not in place, custom code operating systems, failed remediation schedules, 32% critical ready as of 3/99, etc,etc. .... NO? Thought not. Now do yourself a favor, keep mouth shut, ears open, brain on process and dive into the specifics. THEN, when you have an opinion, we'll discuss it. Betting on whether people live or die is not my idea of sport.

-- RD. ->H (drherr@erols.com), March 25, 1999.

Jeff, you didn't even make your predictions (except the electric grid) for the United States! You CAN'T WIN!! :-) This is a GLOBAL problem!

"What a Maroon!-- Bugs Bunny"

-- Gayla Dunbar (privacy@please.com), March 25, 1999.

I'm a stupendous dodo.

I'm not afraid to admit that.

While your idea is amusing, I really don't think you've thought this thing through. Please spend a couple thousand hours studying this and then tell us, honestly that you've considered all the factors.

Number one - I'm not even going to address. Just impossible. I'm not taking this into consideration in my preps.

2. - Banks "will function perfectly well in January 2000 as they did in December 1999" How do you plan on measuring this? You might not know the answer to this until Feb. or March. "There may be bank runs, but they will not result in inability of the banking system to pay out deposits as provided by the FDIC." again, not very well thought out.

3. - "Electricity grids in the United States will be unaffected" but what about individual power plants? What about the rest of the world? If half the power in the rest of the world goes down, that will be "real significant."

4. - Again, in this country? or the whole world? What if they ground half the planes to avoid air traffic control problems? is that "real significant?"

5. - "There will be no food riots or any such event" What such event? What if such events don't begin until springtime?

Personally, I don't think it's appropriate to be making bets about this issue. I think it's appropriate to be making preparations...

-- pshannon (pshannon@inch.com), March 25, 1999.

Even if all of your predictions came true, that's not the same as "bump in the road". I wish De Jager weren't saying "We've broken the back of Y2K" like it was all solved. I don't even think he believes this. I expect he's closer to agreeing with Yourdon, but isn't willing to come out and say "OK, now it's just a 30's-style depression, not the end of civilization."

Even without utility failures in the U.S., even without banking systems failures, even without panic *before* Y2K, we will still most likely see 15% or more of businesses in the U.S. freeze in their tracks, for days to months, due to systems failures. This kind of time to fix will be guaranteed by the inability of so many companies to purchase upgrades or download patches at once.

Internationally, the situation will be worse. How much is hard to guess, especially when weighted by trade with the U.S. Most of what gets reported here is from the English-language press. I don't have any real feel for the situation in Europe or Asia. And of course, a supply-chain disruption could come from practically anywhere.

Banks can still fail from ordinary economic problems (S&L's, Japanese banks.) I don't understand why anyone thinks that nothing like that can happen here. If you had told the Japanese in 1985 that in a few years, the stockmarket would crash by over 50%, they'd have laughed. If you had told the Soviets that in a few years, their country would break up, and in 15 it would be involvent and ignored, they'd have laughed too. None of this means that the U.S. will go the same way, but to pretend that it can't happen?

I was reading up on the 30's depression last week. It took months after the crash of '29 before the stock market hit it's lows, and more months before most economists were agreeing that it was more than just a temporary slowdown. It took years before mass protests broke out.

I don't think people would react the same way today, partly because the situation will be quite different. We now have a much more luxury-based economy which can react more quickly (and shrink much faster.) People also expect a lot more from government. Half the population receives a government check, either Social Security, Medicare, pension, or as a direct employee. Trust in institutions is certainly lower.

And this is not just cynicism. Take all the self-reporting as absolute gospel, and you still have lots of companies planning to fix on failure. Lots of governments with unfinished remediation projects. Lots of foreign utilities with no money and no clue. And even in the U.S., alarming reports about the status of water utilities and chemical plants.

How can you possibly assume that nothing will happen?

Personally, I can't prepare for TEOTWAWKI (due to health problems), and I don't think it's a realistic scenario. I also would not care to live the Amish lifestyle. For recession or even depression (assuming cash holds it's value) I know what to do -- earn money now while it's easy. For depression followed by hyperinflation as government frantically tries to improve things, I have no idea.

-- Michael Goodfellow (mgoodfel@best.com), March 26, 1999.

I often am, and have been, a stupendous dodo in my life.

However, it's not likely that I am about Y2K. I've done the homework.

What does that make you, Jeff? Right now.

You're on! (Or OFF actually).

Diane

(Well Flint? How about you?)

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), March 26, 1999.

Jeff, you can join me on the podium at the old train station in Kennesaw noon on Jan 21, 2000 for your apology, or to hear mine.

Diane, Paul, and Sir Flint (of the hardnosed) are invited to be my guest at lunch afterwards; but Jeff, you'll have to buy your own, or bring your own, as the case may be.

-- Robert A Cook, PE (Kennesaw, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), March 26, 1999.

"Here's what this forum's for, Jeff... it's 'for people who are concerned about the impact of the Y2000 problem on their personal lives, and who want to discuss various fallback contingency plans with other like-minded people.'

You apparently feel that Y2K is a non-issue, so I'd say you're out-of- place here. May I suggest that you visit a forum where views such as yours are welcomed?"

-- sparks (wireless@home.com), March 25, 1999.

Fascinating. A "forum" that accepts no dissention. Quite frankly, if the only people who were to survive a Year 2000 problem must all agree with one another about all things, I want nothing to do with it.

* * *

"I'll bet you'll be one of the first people in line at bank when the runs begin."

-- PJC (paulchri@msn.com), March 25, 1999.

Well, now, let's think about this for a minute. If the Year 2000 problem really will result in "the end of the world as we know it," will U.S. currency be worth anything? Of course not. So then what would be the point?

* * *

"I'll bet you'll be an 'anchor' to a friend that you know is preparing."

-- PJC (paulchri@msn.com), March 25, 1999.

No one I personally know is preparing. By this I mean no one is individually preparing (i.e., stocking up on canned goods, et al.) Many businesses I know of are making efforts to ensure compliance, but I don't think that this is what you mean.

* * *

"I'll bet you think people/government will be there to help you in a time of need."

-- PJC (paulchri@msn.com), March 25, 1999.

Paul, you couldn't be more wrong. I am a libertarian. I believe, like Thoreau, that which governs best governs least. Thus, I believe that government shouldn't be involved in the first place. Now, I also believe that people aren't as stupid as many people would have you believe (that is another central tenant of libertarianism: that people have the ability and the wisdom to govern themselves). This is why I think that, even if there are disruptions, they will be surmountable; and that the nightmare scenarios will be avoided.

* * *

"Jeff, you didn't even make your predictions (except the electric grid) for the United States! You CAN'T WIN!! :-) This is a GLOBAL problem! "What a Maroon!-- Bugs Bunny"

-- Gayla Dunbar (privacy@please.com), March 25, 1999."

Indeed, but I was unaware that the FDIC insured any banks outside the U.S. [it doesn't]. Thus, banks are qualified in that respect also. However, you have a good point about air traffic control outside of the U.S. (that, by the bet's terms, "Air Traffic Control" is not limited to air traffic control in the U.S.) I had originally intended to qualify it accordingly. However, I'll stand on it as drafted. Good catch, Gayla, but despite my love of Friz Freeling and Mel Blanc, I think the insult was unnecessary.

* * *

"5. - "There will be no food riots or any such event" What such event? What if such events don't begin until springtime? "

-- pshannon (pshannon@inch.com), March 25, 1999."

Excellent point, but for obvious reasons the bet needed a time qualifier (either not much of anything will happen as a result of Y2k -- in which case this chat group will likely disappear astoundingly quickly, or one of those horror scenarios will occur, in which case, well, Golly, I might be eaten by a roving cannibalistic food riot). Your suggestions are most welcome as to how to rephrase (but, since we have an agreement, Helen will need to agree to any change...)

* * *

Dear Jeff: So what if we're wrong? So- we'll have plenty of food to eat- no groceries to buy for awhile. We'll have a way to heat our homes without fossil fuel or through the next power failure. We'll have flashlights and radios for emergencies. We'll have thought through just how interconnected everything is on the planet these days. We'll have taken another look at our jobs, our skills and our relationships . We'll have looked at where we live, how we shop, what we depend on for our survival. We'll have gotten to know our neighbors and community. That's even if we're wrong and Y2K is a total complete dud. What if you're wrong?? "

-- anita (hillsidefarm@drbs.com), March 25, 1999.

Another valid point, but the question, I think, is the same as every other question in life: "how do I allocate my resources?" If you have x dollars, we can spend it or invest it with the expectation (or hope) that it will be worth more in the future. However, it's a zero-sum trade off: you can't both spend the money today and invest it today. Life itself is very similar to that: we have x productive hours in the day, and we need to use them or invest them in the expectation of future return. But how do we use them or invest them? How certain are we of the result? What else could we be investing our time in? (This is what economists call the "opportunity cost".) I think my response to you, Anita, is to ask you what have you not done as a result of efforts to address y2k. If your response is, "well, I didn't sit around watching the Jerry Springer show quite as much," then I would tend to agree that nothing was lost. (Apologies to any Jerry Springer fans.... I needed an absurd example). On the other hand, if you've invested your family's savings in silver coins with the expectation that the U.S. economy will collapse, all things being equal I'm not sure you spent wisely (even forgetting about the fact that silver coins are taxed at a higher capital gains rate than other investments!). Another way to phrase my question is: what is your expected return? By this, I mean, is the cost of your efforts (not just in dollars, but in effort and non-monetary costs) greater than the probability of a disruption to your life multiplied by the costs (economic and non-economic) of such disruption to your lifestyle? What is your risk adjusted return, and what have you foregone?

Personally, I see no problem in being concerned about the y2k problem, but where it becomes central in one's psychology, I find myself asking whether many people's certainty with an immanent y2k disaster is really just a self-justification for time spent on the y2k issue.

* * *

And finally....

"Personally, I don't think it's appropriate to be making bets about this issue. I think it's appropriate to be making preparations... "

-- pshannon (pshannon@inch.com), March 25, 1999.

"Betting on whether people live or die is not my idea of sport."

-- RD. ->H (drherr@erols.com), March 25, 1999.

Well, think of it this way: either I am right, in which case I have injected a tad of joviality into this group and hopefully we all take ourselves a little less seriously, or I am wrong, and you all will be able to say to your grandkids, "I conversed with this fellow who really just didn't see it coming.... In fact, he was so crazy as to...." Think of the historical value!

Seriously, though, it is precisely because it is a harbinger of fear that I make this challenge -- to upset the dominant paradigm, to use a hackneyed bumpersticker. I believe that what we have to fear from the Y2k problem is fear of the Y2k problem. (Apologies to FDR [who, just in case PJC asks, I think was an atrocious President], but I think I actually use the phrase more accurately than FDR did.)

-- Jeff Donohue (jeff_donohue@hotmail.com), March 26, 1999.

But you are forgetting that

"If you prepare for Y2K disruptions, you have nothing to fear from Y2K disruptions - except the government's efforts to prevent other people from preparing."

Because, evidently, the government greatly fears people preparing for Y2K disruptions.

-- Robert A Cook, PE (Kennesaw, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), March 26, 1999.

But the government evidently doesn't care if people's lives and businesses are disrupted or threatened by Y2K disruptions.

-- Robert A Cook, PE (Kennesaw, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), March 26, 1999.

No, Robert, I'm not forgetting that at all. I don't think government is the reason why people aren't preparing for the Y2k problem.

And I disagree with your statement: "If you prepare for Y2K disruptions, you have nothing to fear from Y2K disruptions - except the government's efforts to prevent other people from preparing."

If I accepted the premise that the Y2k problem is going to cause a significant disruption, then my own preparedness would not be enough. Everyone around me must be prepared, as another poster pointed out.

Let me ask a hypothetical question about banks, which I believe is illustrative of my point about "Fear of Y2k" being the real problem. Imagine the following situation with a commercial bank: Bank X is aware that it has a Y2k problem, as are Bank X's customers. Realizing that there is a problem, Bank X prints out it customers' accounts at the close of business on December 31, 1999 (as the FDIC is now requiring pursuant to the Y2k readiness plans for all FDIC insured banks).

Assume (for the purposes of this hypothetical) that no one panics. On January 1, 2000, customers come into the bank to conduct business as usual. Predictably, the computers don't work. So the banks use pen and paper. Slower? Sure -- a lot like when I was growing up and people had bank books instead of ATM cards. A pain in the neck? Sure. But transactions can still be completed, just as they were since the first banks were established in the Netherlands in the 1400s: on paper. The Dutch lacked ATMs, believe it or not. Letters of credit were used instead of wire transfers. Not as efficient, surely, but not an "End of the World" event. (By the way, the first wire transfers were telegraph, and didn't need computers one bit!)

Now, what is the potential for disaster here? It is that people assume that their bank is going to fail, so they rush out to get money from their accounts (thus causing the bank to fail). In reality, even if the electronic system totally choked, they'd be able to conduct banking business. But it is the fear of Y2k, and its concordant unknowns, that is the problem.

Wouldn't you agree?

-- Jeff Donohue (jeff_donohue@hotmail.com), March 26, 1999.

Jeff --- You're not thinking systemically. Yes, if banking was a system in isolation and we could begin from a clock turned back to even, say, 1955. But we can't. The implosion danger comes from the interconnectedness of banking with power, JIT supply chain, etc., etc., etc.

The inability to think systemically is the real reason most people don't understand Y2K world risks, including military.

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), March 26, 1999.

"Here's what this forum's for, Jeff... it's 'for people who are concerned about the impact of the Y2000 problem on their personal lives, and who want to discuss various fallback contingency plans with other like-minded people.'

You apparently feel that Y2K is a non-issue, so I'd say you're out-of- place here. May I suggest that you visit a forum where views such as yours are welcomed?"

-- sparks (wireless@home.com), March 25, 1999.

Fascinating. A "forum" that accepts no dissention. Quite frankly, if the only people who were to survive a Year 2000 problem must all agree with one another about all things, I want nothing to do with it.

______________________________________________________________________

In addition to agreeing with what Jeff said here, I submit that trying to understand the effects of Y2K as best we can--taking into account new information as it comes out--is part of developing fallback contingency plans.

-- Buddy (buddydc@go.com), March 26, 1999.

"Jeff --- You're not thinking systemically. Yes, if banking was a system in isolation and we could begin from a clock turned back to even, say, 1955. But we can't. The implosion danger comes from the interconnectedness of banking with power, JIT supply chain, etc., etc., etc..."

But BigDog, we can only think systemically if we can understand the individual components of a system. If banking in the abstract is not at risk (per the example I gave), then we understand the systemic risk that much more -- we understand that banking could function perfectly well without computers. Then we move, as your suggestion, to the next link. But much of my commentary on this page is focused on the fact that, whenever a problem is identified, it is specific and identifiable. If that problem is solved, we can lurk behind interconnectedness, and such, without clearly defining what the problem will be.

As for "the interconnectedness of all things, and JIT (just in time production), I never stated that there would be no disruption whatsoever. I just think that the disruption will be far less dire than many of the posters here.

Airplanes will not fall out of the sky. Nuclear weapons will not detonate because they can't tell the time, nor missles launch because they think it is January 1, 1901. Why do I think that? Mostly because, if those things could've happened, they would've by now -- someone would've forgot to replace the clock battery in one of those things. (As an aside, don't you think that would be an absurd way to design a weapon? "If you can't tell what date it is, detonate..." Given human error (I said humans were wise, not infallable), don't you think that one such weapon would've had a glitch and think it was a hundred years ago?) Again, just a thought.

-- Jeff Donohue (jeff_donohue@hotmail.com), March 26, 1999.

Jeff, Jeff, Jeff...

I have no technical background, my knowledge of the "insides" of the banking industry is limited to what I see through the drive-thru window every week. But I do understand human nature and I am capable of playing out your scenario in terms based on this understanding.

It seems to me, that people who say these little "bumps in the road" won't be anymore than an inconvenience at best, don't realize how these little bumps will start a dominoe effect, and can't comprehend the amount of information any given system, be it a banking institution, processes each day. Way back in the dark ages, I remember our bank used to send us a personally signed Christmas card.Tellers conducting business as usual with pen and paper!!!

There will be panic for sure. But the root of this panic will be from folks like yourself, Jeff, that haven't made preparations (but hopefully you have, I won't ask) and you believe all will be well if folks like us, who have prepared don't start a panic (which I really don't see how we could, but...). Then when these little "glitches" stand between you and your money or your next meal, or your next car payment or your next whatever, well, you scare me Jeff. People get mighty nasty when they can't get their hands on their money NOW.

If you base your whole y2k agrument on everything will be ok if people don't panic, I suggest that you stop being one of the people that will cause this panic, and encourage all of your friends of like-mindedness to do so also.

I hope you are right, but I don't intend to stand in any lines for as long as I can help it.

-- Lilly (somewhere@some.level), March 26, 1999.

Jeff,

Thanks for the post.

Helen,

Well put. Be the best bet you (we) would ever loose.

jh

-- john hebert (jt_hebert@hotmail.com), March 26, 1999.

"However, it's a zero-sum trade off: you can't both spend the money today and invest it today"

Gotta argue this one Jeff. I can invest in ME today, and MY future. What's the big deal here? Food, water, fuel, all will still be good. And that $1300 generator, wish we had it hooked-up 2 months ago when the power was out for 18 hours. Got damned cold in the old farm house! <:)=

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), March 26, 1999.

My point, Sysman, was that you had to allocate your resources. That $1,300 is not available for something else, now. Whether your use of that money in the manner that you used it was wise or not is not the point: you had to decide whether to use it or save it.

-- Jeff Donohue (Jeff_Donohue@hotmail.com), March 26, 1999.

Save it for what Jeff? This is one of the best investments we've made in a while, Y2K or not. We get hit with every other thunder storm and every other snow storm. Sometimes for an hour or 2, sometimes much longer. Ever spend 10 hours manually pumping out the sump? Believe me, it's no fun. You can't take it with you Jeff. <:)=

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), March 26, 1999.

One bank, at one branch, can operate without power for one hour.

One bank, at one branch, can operate by paper for one day.

No bank can operate by paper for one week.

No bank can operate without power for two days.

Your argument falls apart as soon as you multiple by three, and how many banks are in downtown DC? NYC? LA? SFO? Atlanta?

Having said that - the absolaute fear of the government is first bank runs - becuase they

(1) know that the public understands "first come first served"

(2) the public that they have trained has no morals or scruples any more, nor any example of the "public good" or more important "personal sacrifice for the Public Good"

(3) that at least 40% of the public (as now polled) doesn't believe anything the government says anyway.

(4) that the remainder might be convinced (duped some would say) into believing goverment lies since this 60% wants to believe the government - because that is easier than taking self-reliance and responsibility.

(5) so the government wants to shield the 60% from opposing information (mainly from the internet - the mainstream media will spread only the government information anyway) - and discredit what information is out there already - to try to protect the banks.

So - let me ask why you bring the same absolutely stupid examples you just quoted? The same litany as always - the same tired and absolutely false litany of airplanes and elevators that NO Y2K-aware individual has ever said would happen? I have never deliberately criticaized a person directly before - it's not my style - but your questions are simply stupid, and need to be addressed that way.

It's not airplanes falling from the sky, stupid - they can fly very well, but the FAA probably won't be able to control them safely. They may or may not be able to land at airports capable of handling baggage and people and cargo, capable of scheduling runways, radars, and lights and fuel pumps. At airports capable of operating the xray machines and gun magetic sensors that help protect against skyjackers adn terrorists......

Its not elevators fallling down, stupid - the elevators - with no power - can't go up!

It's not ATM's and banks will fail - they probably will be compliant - and closed until the power is restored and they can run their "compliant" software. Cash won't be needed, stupid, because the banks will fail - cash is needed because people need to buy things and can't use their creedit cards and debit cards.

Do you understand - the problem - stupid - is people who refuse to think more than one step ahead of the news media - who ar elistening to your federal government at work - who doesn't care whether its citizens are healthy and safe or not.

Again - I've never been so blunt with any one before in the past 1600 some odd answers I've given. But, you don't seem to understand the simple stupidity of your answers, the irresponsibility of your simple-mindedness.

The government cannot help the people it is condemning to probable extreme discomfort and troubles. Nor does it apparently want them to try to help themselves. So just what is its agenda?

Other than hoping nothing happens?

-- Robert A Cook, PE (Kennesaw, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), March 26, 1999.

Damn Jeff, I've NEVER seen Robert act this way! Maybe he's having a real bad day, or maybe he has a real good point. You deceide. <:)=

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), March 26, 1999.

Once again the argument hinges on whether there will be power or not. The electric power industry has stated that they don't anticipate any long-lasting power problems. I know many here don't trust these statements, but if we didn't start trusting at some point we all wouldn't even be here now. This "there will be no power" argument is getting old and is not based on the best information available at this time.

-- Buddy (buddydc@go.com), March 26, 1999.

Chill Buddy. Mr. Cook has gained much respect here from his personal experience in the field. Don't believe him? Check out euy2k. And I'm getting tired of posting this, but just for you, from the US Senate report on Y2K... <:)=

At the time of the hearing, there was a lack of industry-wide survey data of the electric power industry. As a result, the Committee staff surveyed five large electric and five large gas and oil companies to obtain cursory readiness information. Figure 3 below displays the result of the survey. Based on the survey results, the Committee concluded that the utilities were proceeding in the right direction, but the pace of remedial efforts was too slow and there was so much remaining to be done that there was significant cause for concern. Only two of the eight firms reported completion of assessment, making assertions of Y2K compliance by December 1999 highly suspect. Committee concern was heightened because the most difficult tasksrenovation and testingwere yet to come. The utilities lack of information regarding Y2K compliance of their major suppliers, vendors, and service providers created additional concerns about the utilities assertions of readiness. The survey results raise significant levels of concern given that the firms surveyed were among the largest utilities and were dedicating many resources to Y2K (collectively over $400 million). Smaller firms with fewer resources are presumably further behind in their Y2K remediation efforts.

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), March 26, 1999.

And - if most of Americans have prepared their families for two weeks of disrupted services - only three -four days of cash are needed for emergency purchases and almost all cash is left in banks, and regular checks are written and mailed to all regular businesses. ->

hence no panic,

hence no bank runs,

hence no subsequent problems.

But - if only 20% have prepared for disruptions, the remaining 80% will feel they have no choice but to panic if ANY problems occur for more than the 2-4 hours it takes to start to panic - causing all of the failures the government fears.

So, they have a choice, get almost everybody to prepare for some level of disruptions - even if it were no more than 1 week, that would would help - or declare martial law and a banking holiday.

Power - yes, buddy, it's a symptom only - simply the easiest single link to show the trail of successive failure through the system - and those links are valid if the power failure is for one hour or ten days, one city or 500 hundred cities - you have got to either have cash in hand and a store able to sell things, or be ready to manage for a while BEFORE the power goes out.

....or steal from somebody who has cash and preparations.

-- Robert A Cook, PE (Kennesaw, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), March 26, 1999.

Clearly, we disagree about the response that people will have. My point, simply put, is that many of you are wasting lots of time and money on something that I believe will amount to nothing.

Since I cannot prove to you that it will amount to nothing significant (any more than you can prove to me that it will amount to something significant), we are left with my original bet, which you can read on the page above if you would like. I'm not looking for a sermon or an exposition of how my concepts are technically, morally, or economically right or wrong. I will not convince any of you, as you are a group who have self-selected and used y2k disaster as a shibboleth. It is much like trying going to a church meeting to attempt to convince people to change faiths.

Therefore, since I don't have time to respond to each inquiry (despite diligent efforts today), I will simply defer and ignore all praise (yes, there has been some off line) and criticism of my position and my bet. The bet is what the bet is.

Since it has been also made clear that the list serv accepts no wavering views, I will leave you all to discuss amongst yourself how of us dumb "don't get its" are going to be so sorry.

I leave you with an imperfect metaphor. In 1910, Halley's comet returned to a near pass near the Earth. Scientists (correctly) detected cyanide gas in the comet's tail, which is made largely of ice and snow blowing off as the comet (which is itself ice, snow, and some embedded gas) was heated by the sun and pelted with solar radiation. The scientists announced this to the public, who snapped this up as a sure sign of doom, predicting disaster, rioting, looting, and, of course, death. People hawked gas masks and "anti- comet pills" and hunkered down expecting the worst.

Fortunately or unfortunately, the world's demise (to paraphrase Twain) was largely exaggerated. The impact of the cyanide gas was non-existent.

I'm not saying that the y2k problem will be non-existent. I just think that 90 years from now, your position will look equally quaint.

My bet is simply an expression of that opinion.

Oh, by the way, I'll make a side bet with Bob Cook: he mentioned elevators (independent of electricity problems). Impliedly, he means that the embedded chips in the elevators will, all things being equal, cause the elevators not to work. My side bet: a slight modification of the original bet "[Loser's Name] is a dodo and knows nothing of elevators." Bob wins if elevator failure is mentioned in any of CNN, AP Wire, Reuters, or Bloomberg as being a major Y2k problem (after January 1, of course) which significantly disrupts business or the economy (hmm, not just inconvenience people, right, Bob?).

Are you game, Bob?

Aside from that, I let the terms of my original bet (accepted by Helen) stand, and will take my leave of this group until then.

-- Jeff Donohue (jeff_donohue@hotmail.com), March 26, 1999.

See ya Jeff, maybe. <:)=

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), March 26, 1999.

But sir Jeff - I said the problem would be "elevators not going up" if power were off - not elevators failing - however, kind sir, till we meet on the podium to discuss things at noon, I will check - if circumstances permit - the elevator(s) at work - provided I can still in the building - if the electronic door locks work - to find out if they are on day shift, night shift, no shift, or shiftless status between daily and weekend service.

Have fun...

-- Robert A Cook, PE (Kennesaw, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), March 26, 1999.

Jeff Donohue, you da man! I want to bet on your side! IT IS ALL HYPE!!! The only problems will be panic driven!

This old hippie remembers the Kinks song that says "Paranoia will destroy ya!"

:-)

-- FearLess (y2k@itsallhype.com), March 26, 1999.

Hey Mr. Cook! I was going to ask if I could show up on 01/21/2000, but then I realized I won't lose the bet and most likely won't be able to get there...

-- Helen (sstaten@fullnet.net), March 26, 1999.

Hey Fearless,

As a fellow "old hippie", I was wondering which major news/personal event it was in your life that brought on your blind faith in the establishment?

-- Lilly (tinsoldiers@kent.state), March 26, 1999.

I can't believe this guy was actually trying to argue that banks can operate with pencils and paper. Are you really that dumb, Jeff? You really think they're gonna give you money if the can't access your records, and if they're not sure that those records are accurate? Records that are stored on computers? They're not gonna take YOUR word for it, believe me! What are you some kinda brain-dead idiot? Jeesh!

By the way - Money spent on preparations is money that is NOT taken outa the banking system. If our stoopid government and industry would encourage people to SPEND money on preps, they might not hafta worry about bank runs. But they all have the mental powers and foresight of our buddy Jeff here. Hey Jeff -

You're a stupendous dodo, and you're about to become extinct!

-- dodos (are@now.extinct), March 26, 1999.

Okay Helen, if you're there, I'll buy you lunch too. But in return, you've got to read all 8 historical markers downtown - and count both stop lights. 8<)

Now clarify the bet though - it depends on how you parse each clause and participle ... do all conditions need to be met, or is one criteria meeting/not meeting the criteria suffucuent to "lose" - if so who "loses" the bet?

1) no real disagreement - but the language assumes worldwide, and the effect of a nuclear threat that is successful but does not result in an explosion is not addressed. (China-Tawain, North Korea-South Korea ?)

2) Sunday Jan 2 and Sunday Jan 9 as many banks will be open as any Sunday in Dec. No sure whether they will have reliable power and comms and satellites to operate the ATM, but the night deposit box will probably work too. How successfully and how long on how many days will be needed to "win" the bet?

3) Electric grids may be okay - not sure whether they all will have power in the local power cables, but the national grid will still be there - how big and how many a "local" intermittent outages are needed to "win" the bet?

4) Totally agree - Air traffic control for those airplanes not flying will be unaffected. Again, you need a little qualifier here on what constitutes "safe flight" and "unaffected by Y2K" to resolve this clause.

5) "no food riots....or any such event" is a pretty blunt statement - is one negative example cause for "winning"?

Teasing him slightly, assuming we could figure out the actual "winner" and "loser" of this wager for each clause - is it not clear the real "losers" may be those who are hurt but their own or someone else's failure to prepare for probable disruptions?

-- Robert A Cook, PE (Kennesaw, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), March 27, 1999.

"I can't believe this guy was actually trying to argue that banks can operate with pencils and paper. Are you really that dumb, Jeff? You really think they're gonna give you money if the can't access your records, and if they're not sure that those records are accurate? Records that are stored on computers? They're not gonna take YOUR word for it, believe me! What are you some kinda brain-dead idiot? Jeesh! By the way - Money spent on preparations is money that is NOT taken outa the banking system. If our stoopid government and industry would encourage people to SPEND money on preps, they might not hafta worry about bank runs. But they all have the mental powers and foresight of our buddy Jeff here. Hey Jeff -

You're a stupendous dodo, and you're about to become extinct!"

-- [Someone with a forged e-mail address]

My, my... You do have a VERY short view of history. How do you think banking worked before computers? Ledgers. Records on paper.

And if you're so sure, then you shouldn't be so hot and bothered by my statement, now should you. We'll see, soon enough.

-- Jeff Donohue (jeff_donohue@hotmail.com), March 28, 1999.

Bob, your point is well taken about a need to specify the terms of the bet. A legal draftsman should do better. But I have neither the time nor the desire to develop an extensive checklist of points. Unless Helen cares for or requests clarification, I'd just assume let it be. I think that the central tenant is obvious enough: "The end of the world as we know it" or... not.

Signing off, folks. If you all want to call me names, I won't be checking this group again until the bet becomes relevant (i.e., early January 2000). If you have a burning urge to discuss the matter with me, e-mail it. If not, then until then best wishes to all (even those who disagree with me and those whose best response is to name call).

-- Jeff Donohue (Jeff_Donohue@hotmail.com), March 28, 1999.

Jeff, I would like to add one bit of clarification to the bet:

If the United States falls under Martial Law for any reason before January 1, 2000, the bet is off.

OK?

-- Helen (sstaten@fullnet.net), March 28, 1999.

Dear Jeff,

I doubt that you know it but your

"(2) Banks will be capable of functioning, and will function perfectly well in January 2000 as they did in December 1999. There may be bank runs, but they will not result in inability of the banking system to pay out deposits as provided by the FDIC"

is really quite humorous. By present day law banks only have the following obligations in regards to giving cash to customers, $100.oo in cash on the day of the deposit, and additional $400.oo in cash on the day that the deposit clears the originating bank, PERIOD, FINITO.

This nonsense about going into a bank (S&L, CU, etc.) is just traditions that the bank does for the convenence of the customers. Example, ever since I was born (Truman was Prez) S&L's were only legally obligated to give you your money (check or cash) on written 90 day notice. However, ALL S&Ls in the 50s and 60s would give anybody anything anytime. Helps prevents nasty rumors don't you know. This came to a screaching halt in Ohio and R.I. in the 70's when state chartered S&Ls went belly up.

So technically you are right, since it is impossible under the new laws for there to be banks runs ON CASH. I would NOT want to be a teller in the inner city in 12/99. "I'm sorry sir, you have no legal right to cash, unless a deposit covered by your existing balance exceeding $100.oo is deposited on this calendar date and an additional $400.oo in cash can be erk....."

As for processing/clearing millions of checks by hand? Forget it. You need to talk to somebody about how automation system in banks run, you would be AMAZED at what the recent equipment is capable of in terms of checks per minute.

-- Ken Seger (kenseger@earthlink.net), March 28, 1999.

I just Googled my own name and discovered this page.

I guess I was right, unless, in fact, the world did end and I missed it.

-- I guess I was right... (Jeff.Donohue@gmail.com), November 30, 2004.