It didn't have anything to do with Nostradamus or the Aztec calendar.The timing is coincidence.What kind of error is it that can take out the CBOT for a week,defying solution from the best problem solvers from MCI,Lucent and who knows where else?This will be referenced in the future.This is the week that fear took hold in the bond markets.This is the week where the public began to feel y2k.The seminal error has occurred.

-- Desertj98 (jturner@ptway.com), August 16, 1999

Answers

And guess what...the world still rotated. Amazing wasn't it?

-- duh (duh@duh.com), August 16, 1999.

Please excuse me for reposting this. Many MCI threads, so a repeat isn't too bad, I hope.

It doesn't matter if this is "Y2K related" or not. The problem was caused by a software update. One, single, tested, software update, and the network was virtually down for 10 days. Think of how many Y2K related software updates are going on all over the world. How many of these are being rushed into production, with too little testing? Remember these statements by FAA technicians, the same FAA that has been accused of lying about Y2K progress:

"Technicians who maintain the nation's air traffic control system planned to leaflet 21 airports across the country Friday, complaining that equipment is being rushed into service without sufficient testing or training..."

"They rushed this system into service, against our wishes, because they want to say we've got another 40 percent of our equipment Y2K compliant,"

Think about today's post:

"Army Chemical Weapons Plant falsified y2k compliance: Your Government at work, ready for y2k!"

Bump in the road? I just don't understand this thinking.

Tick... Tock... <:00=

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), August 16, 1999.

duh

Diagnosis doesn't cause the death of the cancer patient.

It merely lets them know they are about to die.

-- Desertj98 (jturner@ptway.com), August 16, 1999.

Except that all Y2K FIXES will either work first time (once they are actually completed and tested, which is still in progress), or be IMMEDIATELY remedied via fix-on-failure. Because ... Hoffmeister, Flint, and the rest of the pollies SAY SO.

YOU GOTS TO B-E-L-I-E-V-E!!!

-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.com), August 17, 1999.

Sysman, see http://www.infobeat.com/stories/cgi/story.cgi?id=2560736146-c41

Please excuse me for reposting this. Many MCI threads, so a repeat isn't too bad, I hope.

It doesn't matter if this is "Y2K related" or not. The problem was caused by a software update. One, single, tested, software update, and the network was virtually down for 10 days.

Sysman, geeze. It wasn't like that.

"The new software, intended to add capacity and service features"

Adding capacity and (how many?) service features does in no way resemble

"One, single"

software update. It is "new" software. As for

"tested"

they are saying (it) "has been removed, and no upgrade will be attempted until the source of the problem is pinpointed."

Think of how many Y2K related software updates are going on all over the world.

These are specific changes, most of the major ones started years ago, and by now done with tried, tested and proven methods. Not newly developed updates.

How many of these are being rushed into production, with too little testing?

The people who are doing these Y2K updates are overly aware of the possibility of problems and are testing.

Remember these statements by FAA technicians, the same FAA that has been accused of lying about Y2K progress.

"ACCUSED".

Sorry but those doing the accusing are those who do not understand what actually happened. And yes the new ones were rushed and not tested as they should have been. These were "new" computers with "mew" software. Not older software being updated.

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), August 16, 1999.

-- Cherri (sams@brigadoon.com), August 17, 1999.

Sysman questions the appropriateness of the "bump in the road" notion. I hit a bump in the road once that broke a transaxle. Very hard to ignore, harder yet on the pocketbook. I hit another years later that busted the transmission. Even harder to ignore. Even more expensive.

Some bumps are boojums, you see.

-- Tom Carey (tomcarey@mindspring.com), August 18, 1999.