CNN poll results show most people more confident about Y2K readiness. Those responding "more confident" outnumbered those "less confident" nearly two to one. Details: Y2K Poll.

Regards, Andy Ray

-- Andy Ray (andyman633@hotmail.com), July 07, 1999

Answers

Which means only that the happy face publicity campaigns are working. This translates into longer preparation time for us. Unfortunately, it also may translate into a greater number of deaths later.

Remember, a plurality of those voting have twice elected our current president. That's a good argument for thinking for yourself, rather than following the herd.

-- de (delewisX@inetone.net), July 07, 1999.

Andy Ray, don't you know Doomers hate polls? They dislike having their noses rubbed in the diarrhea of their own stupidity. Besides, no amount of polling, remediations, facts, assurances or testing is ever going to change their tiny little minds. They Know Y2K is going to be bad - facts be damned...

-- Y2K Pro (2@641.com), July 07, 1999.

Pro(?)

facts be damned Lets see, billions spent so far, most of the world in a panic to get there systems readywhats it going to take to change your tiny little mind?

-- BiGG (supersite@acronet.net), July 07, 1999.

Y2K Pro, have you ever brought a fact to this forum? Of the many messages from you that I have read, I don't recall seeing even one solitary fact.

-- Peter Errington (petere@ricochet.net), July 07, 1999.

Y2K Pro said:

They Know Y2K is going to be bad - facts be damned...

What, you think its gonna be GOOD? Dumbass.

And what "facts" be damned? A frigging survey of the public that has been swayed by government/industry/banking/media spin??? MORON.

-- (@ .), July 07, 1999.

A poll has nothing to do with what will happen. The code will do what the code will do, and subjective speculation won't change that in the least. A poll indicating that most people think that they can breathe underwater doesn't change the physics.

At best, this is relevant to determining whether people take the problem seriously. It says nothing about the problem.

-- Dog Gone (layinglow@rollover.now), July 07, 1999.

The few that are NOT worried clearly do not include the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers: Excerpts from IEEE's June 9, 1999 Open Letter to Congress in support of legislation imposing severe limits on liability for Y2K failures.

http://www.ieeeusa.org/FORUM/POLICY/99june09.html

"PREVENTION OF ALL Y2K FAILURES WAS NEVER POSSIBLE: For many large and important organizations, technical prevention of all Y2K failures has never been possible in any practical way

"Y2K COMPLIANT" DOES NOT EQUAL "NO Y2K FAILURES." If an organization makes all of its systems "Y2K compliant", it does not mean that that same organization will not experience Y2K failures causing harm to itself and other organizations. In fact, efforts to become "Y2K compliant" in one place could be the direct cause of such failures in others. If interconnected systems are made compliant in different ways, they will be incompatible with each other. Many systems in government and industry are mistakenly being treated as if they were independent and fixed in the most expedient way for each of them. When this "Humpty Dumpty" is put back together again, it will not work as expected without complete testing, which is unlikely

"ALL PROBLEMS ARE NOT VISIBLE OR CONTROLLABLE. many Y2K failures are inevitable because some technical problems will not be discernible prior to a failure, and others, while discernible, may not be within an organizations jurisdictional control to correct. This is especially true in large complex organizations with large amounts of richly interconnected software involved in long and complex information chains and in systems containing a high degree of embedded devices or systems purchased in whole from external parties

"INCOMING DATA MAY BE BAD OR MISSING. To maintain their operations many organizations require data imported from other organizations over which they have no control. Such data may have unknowingly been corrupted, made incompatible by misguided compliance efforts or simply missing due to the upstream organizations lawful business decisions.

"COMPLEXITY KILLS. The internal complexity of large systems, the further complexity due to the rich interconnections between systems, the diversity of the technical environments in type and vintage of most large organizations and the need to make even small changes in most systems will overwhelm the testing infrastructure that was never designed to test "everything at once." Hence, much software will have to be put back into use without complete testing, a recipe, almost a commandment, for widespread failures

"MANY THINGS ARE OUTSIDE THE CONTROL OF ANY DEFENDANT. Incoming data from external sources outside its control may be corrupted, incompatible or missing. Devices and systems embedded in critical purchased equipment may be beyond the defendants knowledge or legal access. Non-technical goods and services the defendant depends upon may not be available due to Y2K problems within their source organizations or distribution channel.

"THERE WILL BE A STRONG DEFENSE OF IMPRACTICABILITY. Existing large-scale systems were not made safe from Y2K long ago for good reasons. Many systems resist large-scale modernization (e.g., IRS, FAA Air Traffic Control, Medicare) for the same reasons. Wide-spread, coordinated modifications across entrenched, diverse, interconnected systems is technically difficult if not impossible at the current level of transformational technology

"COMPLEXITY AND TIME NEGATES ANY LEGAL LIABILITY INCENTIVE. Even if making all of an organization's systems "Y2K compliant" would render an organization immune from Y2K failures (it will not), the size and complexity of the undertaking is such that if any but the smallest organization is not already well into the work, there is not enough time for the incentive of legal liability to have any discernible positive effect on the outcome

"Y2K IS A LONG TERM, NOT SHORT TERM, PROBLEM. Irrespective of the notion of Y2K being about time, a point in time, or the fixation on the rollover event at midnight December 31, 1999, or even the name Year 2000 itself, Y2K computer problems will be causing computer system malfunctions and failures for years into the next decade.  it will take years for the infrastructure to "calm down" after Y2K impacts themselves AND the impacts of the sometimes frantic and misguided changes we have made to it"

-- Brooks (brooksbie@hotmail.com), July 07, 1999.