Consequence of Navy Documentsgreenspun.com : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread
Unfortunately, none. To GIs the documents have a deep, confirming meaning; We're right; they're wrong; we're not nubts; they are. To DGIs it's just same-old same-old. Wall Street's cruising right along.
Revealing anecdote. I'm at the bank 10 minutes ago and there's a guy right in front of me getting $10,000 in cash. He walks away from the window and I say, "Didn't like the looks of those Navy documents?" and he says, "Not one bit."
PS - I tried to leave this forum a week ago and here I am again. It's like leaving the Superbowl in the fourth quarter even if you think you know the outcome; I just couldn't do it. (I was going to use an analogy of a dog chasing a stick -- "Somebody make them stop throwing the stick!" -- but I didn't know if it would agitate "Big Dog" too much.)
-- Dave (firstname.lastname@example.org), August 20, 1999
Nothing gives a result without some kind of connect-the-dots work by the reader. Those who DWGI will not even make out the letters on the Navy stuff - it's invisible. They will certainly not connect the dots.
What are the dots to connect here? The Navy can't predict the future any more than the rest of us can, but here's a suggestion.
(1) the Navy thinks many sites are at extreme risk, and is apparently taking measures to mitigate the problem. (People who live there ought to hear about this.)
(2) the government's mouth is lying about what its brain is thinking, Navy research being part of the brain, here. (So what else are they lying about?)
(3) Giving K's rebuttal the best possible face, it at least means that when they were saying "3 day storm" they really had no clue. (So how much of a clue have they now, and what should we be preparing for?)
-- bw (email@example.com), August 20, 1999.
>Kosky's "three day storm".
In order for that to be legitimate advice the Navy doc has to be completely wrong for every city for every utility.
Kosky knows that cannot be.
I have seen the light. The man is a shill and an (expletive deleted, no make that twenty expletives deleted) liar.
If the WH found it necessary to hire a shill and a liar to be "Y2K Czar" then that means they knew _the day they hired him_ that their would be major problems that would justify public panic. There is simply no need to lie if you have nothing to hide.
-- cgbgjr (firstname.lastname@example.org), August 20, 1999.
bw - Good point as to item (3). It's similar to the analysis of the older NERC documents that demonstrated the utility industry had decided many moons ago what they would announce this July that things would be ok-dokey, long before they could have known for sure and at a time they were really quite concerned. At a minimum, it goes to credibility.
-- Brooks (email@example.com), August 20, 1999.
I think it is way to soon to tell what the consequences will be.
Just because we on the web are used to dealing with info at light speed doesn't mean every one else is (clearly).
It took weeks for the full effects of the 60 minutes show to be felt. By the time most of the populous had digested the information it was too hard to tell from whence their need to prep came.
These bits and pieces of unadorned credible data are accumulating slowly but surely. The more we have the more their combined weight will be felt.
Perhaps the most important thing to realize about Y2k awareness is that generally those who know - don't speak. They keep their mouths shut around their co-workers and acquantinces. We at these forums are the loud-mouthed few and most of us take the precaution of posting with some degree of anonynymity.
-- R (firstname.lastname@example.org), August 20, 1999.
"Revealing anecdote. I'm at the bank 10 minutes ago and there's a guy right in front of me getting $10,000 in cash. He walks away from the window and I say, "Didn't like the looks of those Navy documents?" and he says, "Not one bit.""
Yes, it reveals your full of crap. Another 'dumb luck' incident. You happen to be at the bank, the guy in front of you pulls out 10g's and you mention the navy thing and it clicks with him. Sure.
-- notme (email@example.com), August 20, 1999.
Did you notice that Everett was missing off the list but they had Port Hadlock on it? And also Pacific Beah which is now an R & R site?
BTW KOMO 4 noon news had the report with the K spin at the end and followed that with the "similar to the Y2K glitch on some GPS systems" this week end. They were basically warning hikers and fishermen.
-- (firstname.lastname@example.org), August 20, 1999.
You're so right. Why should I ever have assumed that a guy pulling $10,000 in hundred dollar bills wasn't simply getting his lunch money for the week. There's no way that he heard the news. There's no way that his withdrawal would ever stem from the same emotional response that got me to buy 80 lbs of rice on the way home last night at 12 midnight. I stand corrected by your thoughtful response.
There's pollys and there's trolls. Notme (Mr. Notme?), you are not a polly.
-- Dave (email@example.com), August 20, 1999.
How'd ya like to be a New Yorker-- all set up in your pad--living the high life and then SEE this Navy Report???
Seems like russian roulette--- who do I believe---navy-gov.-navy- gov. oh bother!! can't be!!
By the way, I know this has been beat to death, but what the hell did koskinen say. Is it just me or does his response make absolutely zero sense?
-- David Butts (firstname.lastname@example.org), August 20, 1999.
Port Hadlock. Go figure.
They lose power every other month, they all have fireplace inserts, stocked,up, they couldn't care if the infrastructure goes down. Maybe some of the Navy guys bunk there, commute from Bangor. That would make it important enough, I guess, to be in this report.
-- bw (email@example.com), August 20, 1999.
I know, Dave. Sometimes I get so tired of the trolls (those are the posters who know it all, and yell and swear alot to convince you of their superior intelligence and analysis, is that right?), that I tell myself that there is nothing new here to learn, and that I can make far better use of my time than perusing the discussions. But then I sign on to skim through a few, and find some thread that I'm glad I happened across (like this one), and I'm interested again.
Anyway, this seems like a good thread to ask this question; it's been bothering me all day. I thought Baltimore and New York were on the Navy's list yesterday, in the total failure category (for water and sewage for Balt., and I'm not sure which utilities for NYC). I can't find the original posting today to confirm that, but is that what you all remember? Am I also correct in my reading of all the AP, Washington Post, etc. media reports about this survey, that those 2 cities, and in fact all of the total failure category, were not mentioned in any of those news reports? I must be wrong about that, because no one else has mentioned it in today's threads. If it was there, how strange it would be that the worst part of the listing, of interest to millions of residents living in highly urbanized settings, would not have been mentioned in the reporting of this survey? I'm going to keep trying to get back to the threads to see if I misread something, but I'd appreciate hearing from any of you as to whether you saw the same/different thing. thanks..
-- Kristi (KsaintA@aol.com), August 20, 1999.
Kristi, NYC was gas, water, & sewage. You had Balt. right.
-- Albatross (firstname.lastname@example.org), August 20, 1999.
From: Y2K, ` la Carte by Dancr near Monterey, California
I'm thinking Milne would like to be a bit further out.
-- Dancr (email@example.com), August 20, 1999.
Today's Skagit Valley Herald (www.skagitvalleyherald.com) in NW Washington State had the article at the bottom of front page (very unusual!). They print extremely little about Y2K. The strange thing to me was, they printed the names of cities, NY, Dallas, etc. but never mentioned *any* bases in Washington. 25 miles from us is Oak Harbor and Everett. Obviously they just took it off the wire and never researched what cities were mentioned. I am going to email the editor and ask him to please read the cities named in the report, this is deplorable that those reading the article will never know it means *them*!
-- Sammie Davis (firstname.lastname@example.org), August 21, 1999.
Sammie: Same thing happened here in the Reno Gazette. They mentioned some cities but neglected to mention that Reno was on the list of likely to fail in the gas/sewer department.
-- Claire (email@example.com), August 21, 1999.
The Atlanta Journal for Friday (Aug. 20) ran a full column on the front page, headlined "Report warns of major faiilures from Y2K." Oddly, it refers to "The most recent version of the study, updated less than two weeks ago."
It was interesting to note that the piece made no mention of Atlanta itself, even though the Navy report places Atlanta's water and gas utilities in the "Partial failure is likely" category.
-- Tom Carey (firstname.lastname@example.org), August 21, 1999.
Speaking of cities, DeeCee is listed in the "partial failure is probable" section with an 'x' for Gas only. Since DeeCee is almost universally agreed to have one of the worst Y2K outlooks of all American cities, how come they don't look so bad on the Navy report? I'm guessing that the Navy report is only looking at the utilities, and the reason for DC's bad prognosis is the status of their own internal municipal government systems. Is that correct?
-- Jim (email@example.com), August 21, 1999.