This is in Intellectual Capitol rather than Wired.

-- Lisa (lisa@work.now), April 16, 1999

Answers

What a moron!

-- Roger (roger@wilco.con), April 16, 1999.

As a Y2K realist, I thought the article was balanced, well written and accurate. I'm sure the hopin'-fer-the-end-of-the-world gloomers will disagree...

-- Y2K pro (2@641.com), April 16, 1999.

Y2K realist??? ROFLMAO!!!

-- Roger (roger@wilco.con), April 16, 1999.

Y2K Prophylactic:

Do you really think the people on this forum are "hopin'-fer-the-end- of-the-world"?

Obviously there are some who think it's quite likely some serious shit will happen. But do you really think they *want* the economy to tank and people to die by the bushel?

-- rick blaine (y2kazoo@hotmail.com), April 16, 1999.

Yes, Rick, y2k pro does seem to think that... he's obviously a good liberal who believes everything the Clinton adminstration says.

-- Roger (roger@wilco.con), April 16, 1999.

Y2K Pro -

Declan did a pretty good job on this, but I think he missed the essential point that the "panic" is the result of people's lack of trust in the folks responsible for taking care of the problem. It does no good to criticize people "panicking" if you cannot give them a good reason not to take some action. Lack of leadership and loss of trust creates a crisis of confidence.

He also comments that no one in Congress is an engineer or programmer, implying that Congresscritters therefore lack insight into the problem. This may be strictly true, but Senator Lautenberg (D-NJ) built ADP from nothing into a multi-million dollar computer services business, so I suspect that he at least has some appreciation for the complexities of Y2K.

Re "gloomers": tell me again what sort of preps you're making. If there are more than a week's worth and you're storing water in any quantities at all, I can tell you that most folks would consider you a "doomer". Are you following de Jager's recent recommendations of 2-3 weeks' worth? If not, why not? They seem prudent.

-- Mac (sneak@lurk.hid), April 16, 1999.

This is an old story that he has dusted-off and trying to get more mileage from it.

-- Watcher (Anon@anon.com), April 16, 1999.

Y2K pro needs a major rethink. If you can appreciate that systems that shouldn't fail do, that programming is hit and miss at best, and that even if they had the next 50 years, they probably couldn't fix such a prolific mess, let alone 4 or 5 more months, then you realize that serious sh** is gonna hit. Pro is a dreamer. Welcome to reality.

-- wellwell (oky@doky.com), April 16, 1999.

Mac, it is way easy to take vicious offense at rodents like Y2K Prairie Dog and others, but I finally figured out what's up with this group. They really perceive that anybody worried about Y2K wants to see the system crash blah blah a la GN. They haven't hung out long enough to know that most people here are trying to concoct honest ways around any problems the rollover might hand us.

There's another forum (two, actually) that fixates on GN. You could have not even HEARD of GN, but if you're even slightly pessimistic, you're pegged as a anarchist GN disciple. So irritating.

Particularly if you're in the community-awareness ranks: here you are, trying to explain the problem to non-techs such that they see that preparation might be in order, then these yo-yos label you a fear-mongering grifter for that!

Rant over, off to the soccer fields. Have a nice weekend. Don't take the idiots personally, because they're not really talking to you.

-- Lisa (lisa@work.now), April 16, 1999.

Y2K Prairie Dog,

see you've emerged again, had a sniff around and felt compelled to launch another moronic statement.

back in your hole, Prairie Dog!

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), April 17, 1999.