Anti Doom For The Cluelessgreenspun.com : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread |
The people who post here try to make you believe that there is general agreement on the arguments behind Y2K Doom, and that anyone who disagrees with the Doomsters simply "Doesn't Get It" (DGI).Have a look at these, in no particular order.
http://www.InsideTheWeb.com/messageboard/mbs.cgi?acct=mb237006
http://nova.smu.edu/garynorth.htm
http://www.ercb.com/brief/brief.0112.html
http://www.zdnet.com/enterprise/zdy2k/stories/0,6158,2243925,00.html
http://www.serve.com/thibodep/cr/y2k.htm
http://www.gospelcom.net/ccmag/y2k/msty1198.html
-- Youshould (question@doom.com), April 28, 1999
You should post a real address.
-- R. Wright (blaklodg@aol.com), April 28, 1999.
You should read what the experts say.
-- sue (deco100@aol.com), April 28, 1999.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/business/daily/feb99/y2k24.htmSenate Study: Y2K Risks Are Widespread
By Stephen Barr
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, February 24, 1999; Page A1
A report on the Year 2000 computer problem prepared by a special Senate panel warns that a number of foreign countries and U.S. economic sectors, especially the health care industry, appear at significant risk for technological failures and business disruptions.
The report, scheduled for release this week by Sens. Robert F. Bennett (R-Utah) and Christopher J. Dodd (D-Conn.), includes a letter to Senate colleagues describing the problem of computers' ability to recognize dates starting on Jan. 1, 2000, popularly known as Y2K, as a "worldwide crisis" and as "one of the most serious and potentially devastating events this nation has ever encountered."
The prospect of widespread computer glitches and lobbying by industry groups have galvanized bipartisan groups in the Senate and House to press for legislation protecting companies that fail to deliver goods and services on time because of Y2K problems.
Rep. David Dreier (R-Calif.) estimated yesterday there might be $1 trillion in lawsuits filed because of the glitch and urged adoption of an industry-backed House bill to allay "a great deal of fear regarding out-of-control litigation."
A draft copy of the Senate report, provided by staff aides to The Washington Post, describes in vivid detail the scope of the potential Y2K problem and the frustrations that Senate investigators encountered as they tried to gather information from industries reluctant to describe what progress they have made in fixing computer and telecommunication systems.
But the report represents the most comprehensive assessment of the Y2K problem to appear as companies and governments scramble to fix their computer systems. In addition to health care, the report portrays the oil, education, farming, food processing and construction sectors as seriously lagging on computer repairs.
Among the report's findings: More than 90 percent of doctors' offices and 50 percent of small- and medium-sized companies have not addressed the Y2K problem; telephone systems are expected to operate; and planes will not fall out of the sky. The Senate panel also worries that communities will not be able to provide "911" and other emergency services.
Even though governments and corporations have mobilized technology staffs and consultants to sift through millions of lines of software code looking for Y2K glitches, the 161-page draft also underscores how little experts know about the potential impact of the so-called millennium bug.
"The interdependent nature of technology systems makes the severity of possible disruptions difficult to predict. Adding to the confusion, there are still very few overall Year 2000 technology compliance assessments of infrastructure or industry sectors. Consequently, the fundamental questions of risk and personal preparedness cannot be answered at this time," the draft said.
Clinton administration officials have portrayed the Y2K problem as similar to a severe winter snowstorm that causes inconveniences but little lasting harm. Yesterday, Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan assured Americans that they can keep their money in the bank over New Year's 2000 without fear.
"There's almost no conceivable way . . . that computers will break down and records of people's savings accounts would disappear," he told the Senate Banking Committee.
Still, almost all government agencies are drawing up emergency plans, including the Fed, which plans to stockpile an extra $200 billion in cash for banks, about a third more than usual.
The Senate report, which grew out of a series of hearings last year by the Senate Special Committee on the Year 2000 Technology Problem, concludes "that the biggest Y2K impact will occur internationally."
Two important trading partners, Japan and Venezuela, seem to have miscalculated the time and money needed to fix the computer glitch, according to the draft report.
Relying on surveys by consultants, the report suggests that Japan "may have underestimated the resources needed to address the problem," noting that major Japanese banks have indicated far lower repair costs than U.S. banks.
Venezuela and Saudi Arabia lag from a year to 18 months behind the United States in Y2K preparations, raising concerns about the availability of oil and other critical imports, the report said.
International ports are widely described as far behind in their Y2K efforts, prompting worries that the maritime industry will face shipping problems that could interrupt commerce, the report added.
International aviation and foreign airports also appear at risk, and "flight rationing to some areas and countries is possible," the report said.
Overall, the report said, "the least-prepared countries are those that depend heavily on foreign investment and multinational companies to supplement their economies. Panic over Y2K concerns may cause investors to withdraw financial support. Lack of confidence in a country's infrastructure could cause multinational companies to close their operations."
[snip]
In assessing U.S. preparedness, the draft report reserved some of its strongest language for the health care industry, concluding it "is one of the worst-prepared for Y2K and carries a significant potential for harm."
The industry relies on computers for patient treatment, insurance claims and pharmaceutical manufacturing and distribution. While large hospitals are pushing to fix their computers, the report described hospital management as "playing a catch-up game."
Many hospitals are relying solely on medical device manufacturers to certify products as Y2K-compliant, which the report said "could be a serious mistake."
The report cited rural and inner-city hospitals as at special risk because they do not have the staff or money to find and fix Y2K glitches.
In an effort to head off a potential avalanche of lawsuits caused by Y2K glitches, a bipartisan group of House members yesterday introduced a bill to address litigation issues. Sen. John McCain (R- Ariz.) has introduced a similar bill, and Sens. Orrin G. Hatch (R- Utah) and Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) plan to announce their version today.
Although the House bill has the support of major business organizations, Rep. Thomas M. Davis III (R-Va.), the measure's principal author, stressed that the measure was "pro-consumer" because it will "encourage businesses to come in and fix their problems."
The Year 2000 Readiness and Responsibility Act would require plaintiffs to give notice to potential defendants about their difficulties, wait 30 days for a response and give the defendant an additional 60 days to fix a glitch before suing.
Under the bill, plaintiffs may recover actual damages, but punitive damages would be capped.
Staff writer Guy Gugliotta contributed to this report.
) Copyright 1999 The Washington Post Company
-- Kevin (mixesmusic@worldnet.att.net), April 28, 1999.
A few more experts:U.S. Department of Commerce:
The National Guard:
http://www.ngb.dtic.mil/y2k/impact.htm
Senator Bob Bennett speaking to the National Press Club (video-- Realplayer required):
http://www.bog.frb.fed.us/y2k/CSPAN/19980715/Complete.ram
Expert testimony:
http://www.cia.gov/cia/public_affairs/speeches/gershwin_testimony_0305 99.html
-- Kevin (mixesmusic@worldnet.att.net), April 28, 1999.
Dear Youshould:I find the assertion that there is general agreement ANYWHERE ref Y2K a reasonable attempt at the absurd. In ref HERE, in particular, having lurked and posted here for about 8 months, I can assure you that there is no such monolithic expectation.
Now, do many of the people here evidence a less than positive expectation? Yes. "DGI" here tends to mean more that the folks involved have the belief that it will be no big deal, not even something really noticable in the grand scheme of things. This attitude, if coupled with a strong message not to prepare, at any level, is what gets flamed. The flames appear mostly because the "don't prepare" chorus tends to be unsigned, or obviously nom de'puter signed.
Lest someone suggest that I might be the pot calling the kettle a deep tan, my sig and address are a) true and valid, and b) all the information one needs to determine my true name, as it's all built in there.
Chuck, da Night Driver
-- chuck, a Night Driver (rienzoo@en.com), April 28, 1999.
There is good news and bad news about Y2K. To say there are risks, well, yeah, of course there are risks. To say there's a possibility of disruptions, well, yeah, of course. But anything beyond that comes down to predictions which no one (not even Ed Yourdon, your Y2K expert) can make with any accuracy. I have found that a good portion of the bad news sounds like hype making the doomers look absurd. Most of the doomers believe that the good news is spin, calling the companies and government liars. People are going to believe what they want, no one is right, no one is wrong, based on their own experiences and knowledge. Some just have a better grasp on reality than others.
-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), April 28, 1999.
" "DGI" here tends to mean more that the folks involved have the belief that it will be no big deal, not even something really noticable in the grand scheme of things. This attitude, if coupled with a strong message not to prepare, at any level, is what gets flamed. The flames appear mostly because the "don't prepare" chorus tends to be unsigned, or obviously nom de'puter signed."A fanciful "rose-colored" examination of the truth. In fact, the few DGIs (or realists) on this forum are not against disaster preparation, but rather the dangerous paranoid ranting that may cause the self-fulfilling prophecy. So many so called "GIs" have absolute blind faith that the date change will bring about TEOTWAWKI - that if you disagree with their position, you must put on your flame retardant suit. The few of us not part of the GI herd are not at all appreciated. Gosh, I wonder why?
"On January 1, 1999 they will experience many more, and it will be much more difficult to sweep them under the rug. On April 1, 1999 we will all watch anxiously as the governments of Japan and Canada, as well as the state of New York, begin their 1999-2000 fiscal year; at that moment, the speculation about Y2K will end, and we will have tangible evidence of whether governmental computer systems work or not."-- Ed Yourdon
"So, of course I want to see y2k bring down the system, all over the world. I have hoped for this all of my adult life." -- Gary North
-- Y2K Pro (2@641.com), April 28, 1999.
Maria,I hope this isn't the way you treat tornado and hurricane warnings. There's never a guarantee that they'll hit your area, and predictions of rain, sun or snow are often wrong.
Still, many pay attention, and not because they have a poor grasp on reality.
-- Kevin (mixesmusic@worldnet.att.net), April 28, 1999.
Kevin, you must admit too that predicting storms can not be compared to predicting the outcome of Y2K. If that were the case, Ed would be considered a poor weatherman. I didn't say or mean to imply you shouldn't prepare but that preparation, based on your knowledge comes from your personal bias, nothing more. It certainly is NOT based on evidence.
-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), April 28, 1999.
"I didn't say or mean to imply you shouldn't prepare but that preparation, based on your knowledge comes from your personal bias, nothing more. It certainly is NOT based on evidence."Add that to the list of most moronic statements.
-- regular (zzz@z.z), April 28, 1999.
Regular, you obviously have a grip on reality. Why don't you go back to zzzzz.
-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), April 28, 1999.
Maria,No, I don't see much difference between weather forecasts and Y2K forecasts. Weathermen have less than perfect track records, but we usually listen to them anyway. My preparation is based on reliable sources of information. What is your personal bias that leaves you unconcerned when you read things such as these:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/business/daily/feb99/y2k24.htm
http://www.cia.gov/cia/public_affairs/speeches/gershwin_testimony_0305 99.html
-- Kevin (mixesmusic@worldnet.att.net), April 28, 1999.
Maria:I indeed do have a grip, thank you. Your statement is indeed absurd. Kevin's links are but a handful. There are literally thousands of others. Preparations are indeed based in reality. Failure to prepare is based on denial and magical thinking. It is your bias which makes it impossible for you to see this simple fact.
-- regular (zzz@z.z), April 28, 1999.
Maria said:"But anything beyond that comes down to predictions which no one (not even Ed Yourdon, your Y2K expert) can make with any accuracy."
Agree with that. But you just debunked 99% of the statements that you yourself have made on this forum.
Scott
-- Scott Johnson (scojo@yahoo.com), April 28, 1999.
Kevin, Weather predictions are based on more evidence than Y2K. We can take pictures of storm activities and trace their path, lots of evidence out there. We can't predict the exact amount of snowfall but we can predict that Hawaii won't be affected by the storm in the midwest. Y2K evidence has lots of "appears", "maybe", "possibilities", "could", "potentially", the list goes on. Not one data point, all future stuff. You stated, "My preparation is based on reliable sources of information" I don't agree. Your preparation is based on your evaluation of that info. You take what you read digest it based on your personal experience, point of view, knowledge of computers, and then come to your personal conclusions. Also please tell me where I've told any one on this forum not to prepare. Knock yourself out. Spend your money the way you see fit.Scott, sorry I don't put IMHO before each statement but everything I state is my opinion (once again) based on my knowledge and experiences.
Regular, once again I'm not saying don't prepare, I just don't see TEOTWAWKI. Call that denial and magical thinking but that only makes you appear like an alarmist. BTW hello Chris.
-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), April 28, 1999.
Maria: the opinions of others are also just opinions, yet you deride them. Even though your "opinion" has been quite clear for some time now, you have just tactily admitted that you don't know what's going to happen with this extremely chaotic event. Some might say, "about time."Scott
-- Scott Johnson (scojo@yahoo.com), April 28, 1999.
Sorry Scott, one of my first posts (back in October) was "my crystal ball is just as good as yours". Sorry you missed that one.
-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), April 28, 1999.
Maria: doesn't matter whether you said that back in October or not, and it most assuredly doesn't matter that I missed it. The gist of 99% of your statements that I've read have betrayed a very clear opinion about what will happen with Y2K -- or rather, what won't.Scott
-- Scott Johnson (scojo@yahoo.com), April 28, 1999.
If I am an alarmist, then there are many others with more credentials and expertise than I who would fit the definition as well. I read, I process, I come away having no clue how the world will look this time next year. And I prepare. This is hardly alarmist; it is simply prudent.So, I guess we agree. We also agree that some people are preparing at what might be called an extreme level, based on a belief of TEOTWAWKI. I am not, but I am certainly not preparing for a "2-3 day storm", either.
All the debate and all the pontification will ultimately end, of course. Y2k will play itself out. The only power or control we as individuals is to make the decision to prepare for potential problems. That decision should be an easy one, based upon overwhelming evidence of potential problems.
Given that, and given your earlier statement (despite your follow-up), I still stand by my previous comment.
-- regular (zzz@z.z), April 28, 1999.
Maria,You said...
I don't agree. Your preparation is based on your evaluation of that info. You take what you read digest it based on your personal experience, point of view, knowledge of computers, and then come to your personal conclusions.
Fine. Then tell me what your evaluation is of the info at the last two links I provided. Saying it doesn't suggest TEOTWAWKI isn't enough, because most people on this forum don't see Y2K as a 10. I don't think the power grid going down and staying down is likely, and most here don't think that's likely either.
So again, what is your evaluation of the info at the last two links I provided? What do you think is likely, and what do you base it on?
-- Kevin (mixesmusic@worldnet.att.net), April 28, 1999.
Maria,And have you noticed how these people keep repeating the same posted material again and again?
I wish some people here WOULD check out these links. CPR, a regular poster on Biffy and Debunker, is constantly bringing in new stuff. I don't know where he finds it all, frankly. He must never sleep. [g]
-- Stephen M. Poole, CET (smpoole7@bellsouth.net), April 28, 1999.
Sue,WHICH experts? I DO read the so-called "experts" -- on both sides of the issue -- and they disagree more than we do. One should look at both sides and make up his/her own mind. Only one side, in the main (with Flint, Doomslayer and a few others being notable exceptions) is ever presented here.
Rick Cowles prefers this forum and his own on this site, because he can preach to the choir. Dan the Power Man says he's flat wrong, and has challenged him to debate the latest NERC report here. It'll be very interesting to see if he takes him up on that.
Some of the folks who post in the Biffy and Debunker forums are FAR more "expert" than Michael Hyatt or Gary North or the members of the US Senate or any of a dozen others who flood the Web with misinformation and SWAGs about Y2K.
Not to mention the fact that, thus far, your side's "experts" have been batting about .001 when it comes to predictions. Had you been a regular at Biffy, for example, you would have KNOWN that nothing would happen on April 1st, and that there was nothing to the "Jo Anne Effect" -- in spite of predictions HERE to the contrary.
Just read both sides. That's all I'm saying. What have you got to lose?
(Why do you think I'M here?)
-- Stephen M. Poole, CET (smpoole7@bellsouth.net), April 28, 1999.
Why do I think you're here??Because somehow EY participants are gonna precipitate a bank run all by ourselves and you'd rather we didn't. Eh? True? Hah?
Pal, if 25% of SME's try to stockpile enough cash to make Jan 2000 payroll (just in case), you get your runs. Go bother them already. And take Maria with you.
-- lisa (lisa@work.now), April 28, 1999.
Lisa,The real problem is when SME's start stockpiling MRE's.
-- Morgan (morgan96@netscape.net), April 28, 1999.
Morgan, puuhhhllleeeeezzze.Cash is the problem. What on earth do you mean by the MREs??
-- Lisa (come@on.morgan), April 28, 1999.
Lisa, lighten... UP! just a joke...
-- Morgan (morgan96@netscape.net), April 28, 1999.
MRE's!!! puhleeeze---!Let's hold this conversation to a higher standard....
-- Tom Carey (tomcarey@mindspring.com), April 28, 1999.
Well, obviously I've hit a nerve with the MRE's joke.... and not much of one, by the looks of it. Once again, lighten UP!P.S. MRE's *do* have their uses - the meatloaf will take out a charging water buffalo at 30 paces.
-- Morgan (morgan96@netscape.net), April 28, 1999.
"Youshould" (Y2K Pro),How many different names are you using? I can always tell right away when it is you, such as "Norm", and now "Youshould", because you are the only one stupid enough to think that computer experts can take 40 years worth of errors and correct it within one year. But in your desperation to try convince everyone there is no problem you need to use many names on your posts to try to convince us that there are a lot of others as dumb as you. When it comes right down to it, you are more of a "doomer" than any of us because what you really seek to do is lead the sheeple blindly into this thing unprepared so that you can watch them suffer. You are disturbed!
-- @ (@@@.@), April 28, 1999.
Youshould is not Y2K Pro. It is Stephen M. Poole, CET. Definitely his signature if you know what to look for. I could tell you what that is, but then he would change it.
-- none (none@none.none), April 28, 1999.
Morgan, I don't know much about MREs but I prefer to eat soups and other canned goods.Scott wrote, But you just debunked 99% of the statements that you yourself have made on this forum. you have just tactily admitted that you don't know what's going to happen with this extremely chaotic event. Some might say, "about time." I responded that one of my first posts was about crystal balls. I havent JUST admitted to not knowing. And I would not call it an extremely chaotic event.
Scott wrote, The gist of 99% of your statements that I've read have betrayed a very clear opinion about what will happen with Y2K -- or rather, what won't. Scott, Please explain for I dont get what you mean.
Kevin, The first article discussed a number of topics. I'm trying to keep my response brief, so here goes. A number of companies will not remediate. How that translates into 3,8, or 10 on the doom scale is anyones guess. However, their failure is an every day reality. I know a lawyer who spent one entire year doing nothing but business dissolutions, mine included. Its the darwin theory applied to the free market. From my point of view, my doctor doesnt use computers. Everything is written on paper: appointments, patient records, prescriptions, payment records. The article also went into possible legislation to address legal issues. Great idea but will it free up companies to come forward, probably not. We live in a law suit happy society. It also included some positive remarks, one concerning the power grid. But in the end the article pointed out more opinion than fact. It even stated, "Consequently, the fundamental questions of risk and personal preparedness cannot be answered at this time"
The other link discussed other countries Y2K efforts (or lack thereof). I have only stated my opinion about Russia because I know that country better than any other, they are toast now and if they could steal remediated code, they would. (I dont care to elaborate). This is based on my studies of Russian military, economy, and culture. I have no opinion about the remediation efforts of other countries. I dont know enough about them to comment. Bottom line on other countries is that we are no smarter than they. They do as they decide whats in their best interest. Further, when problems occur in other countries who do not complete their Y2K efforts, we (the US) will find other ways or work arounds. We do it all the time. We will be affected by foreign countries but the degree of their impact I cannot answer.
I said I'd keep it short, sorry. I think that people will fix whatever problems occur, because that's what we do. We do this in our every day lives. I may be a little strange but during my programming days, I loved finding bugs. I think it's fun to solve problems, it gives me such a sense of accomplishment. I may be wrong but you also strike me as someone who will not run away from problems but meet them head on and fix them. This is what will keep Y2K failures to a minimum.
You said many here dont believe in a 10. I read that thread also. I found that the average was an 8 but that many caveated with an easy slide into 10. That to me says that many doomers (none of the pollys responded to that poll) here believe in a 10.
-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), April 28, 1999.
Maria,And to put the "10-believers" in perspective, they represent a small percentage of the population at large.
I've been here for a couple of weeks now, and it seems like most of the posts are generated by the same relative handful of people.
Of course, you do have to account for the lurkers.
BTW and to whom it may concern: I don't post here under the name "Y2KPro." I don't know where that idea came from. :)
(I don't even know who Y2KPro is; I'd like to know him/her, though ... if they'd like to send me a privy email.)
-- Stephen M. Poole, CET (smpoole7@bellsouth.net), April 29, 1999.
Youshould is not Y2K Pro. It is Stephen M. Poole, CET. Definitely his signature if you know what to look for. I could tell you what that is, but then he would change it.-- none (none@none.none), April 28, 1999.
I didn't say you were Y2K Pro, Mr. Poole. I said you were youshould. Care to deny that one?
-- none (none@none.none), April 29, 1999.
I think that everyone who is truly looking for some tangible, real life, hard work and most likely a success story, should read this in it's entirety...http://www.freep.com/news/airtravel/qnwa27.htm.I for one have been searching for this type of truthful, verifiable, but still frightening in it's implication, news. I understand hard work, I have done it all my life. I understand success mixed with some failure, and failure mixed with some success'.
Maybe some one here has a very good educated guess as to the number of business' both private and otherwise, that constitute core infrastructure. Then lets multiply that times the number of people NWA 'threw' at the Y2K computer bug. How does that number.. 200 x core Bus. compare with the number of qualified people to "throw" at the Y2K bug? If you can assure me that everythings going to get fixed, then I'll stop preparing and helping those I love and care for prepare. Of course the article did say that they have been at the repairs for 8 years now!! The report states, then they got serious about it in 1996. And Mr. Dufek, Northwest Airlines point man since 1991 did say "There is no question that every major application we have would have failed. Absolutely no question about it." Hmmmmmmm And again we have the vendor problem. Ohhhhhhhh If it is still a big worry then it would follow to me that they are still not completely confident that serious problems could not arise. Well now, it ends up saying that "Northwest is planning to fly 100 percent"when the New Year rolls around." Ahhhhhhhh "That's our assumption-- that we'll be able to fly everything." OH... one more thing, what do you think he means by "my days are getting very long right now." I'll be looking forward to those very good educated guesses to my equation
200 (x) # B (-) # Qualified progammers/IT/MIS ect. (=) ( (:> ,UhOh ).
Thanks in advance.
-- spun@lright (mikeymac@uswest.net), April 29, 1999.
OK, "none." I'll deny that one, too, and any others you care to try. I post under the name Stephen Poole. I even provide my email address in case someone wants to flame or "attaboy" me.(... unlike you. Who are you? Ed Yourdon? Bill Clinton?)
If there are other people here with styles similar to mine, it just proves that I'm not the only erudite non-Doomster in Cyberspace. :*
I'm finding it increasingly difficult to generate sufficient interest to stay here. There's very little intelligent life. At least Sysman can give me an intelligent argument.
-- Stephen M. Poole, CET (smpoole7@bellsouth.net), April 29, 1999.
Sysman, engage Mr. Poole no more, please.
-- 'bout time. (thank@god.whew), April 29, 1999.
Chris stop being such a stupid bitch.
-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), April 29, 1999.
What's the matter Maria? No IDIOT this time?Mr. Poole I thought your religion taught you not to lie? WWJD?
-- none (none@none.none), April 29, 1999.
And I had been hoping no one would notice that "WWJD", lest anyone generalize about all Christians from what they see here.A word-count of all the insulting and hurtful words in Poole's posts - about the writers, and not their positions - says it all.
-- Grrr (grrr@grrr.net), April 29, 1999.