The Explanation

greenspun.com : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread

There is 1 and only 1 reason why no-panic-so-far, in fact attention to y2k is decreasing: the failure of any pre-y2k so-called trigger date to fire (as vicariously experienced by the herd through mainstream media). This and only this.

We here know it is called "y2k" for a reason, but Gartner's estimate of only 8% failure on the big day itself (remainder symmetrical on both sides of 2000/01/01) means we've already experienced a significant percentage of all the y2k failures that will ever occur. Thus there will be no panic.

-- Count Vronsky (vronsky@anna.com), September 11, 1999

Answers

You are absolutely correct, Count! In fact, this was always the biggest worry regarding the "trigger dates" -- that they would TRIGGER a big panic by large numbers of people who would go from DGIs to GIs in a flash.

Never happened. Personal prepping is STILL possible, with only three and a half months to go.

-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.com), September 11, 1999.

But, Your Majesty and Lord Vronsky, pray what does the lack of trigger date firings mean? Why did Gartner believe this in the first place? Who told them so?

-- CD (CDOKeefe@aol.com), September 11, 1999.

King of Spain, I would mudwrestle you in a flash! How about at midnight Dec. 31????

-- mary (maryh@dalittlelamb.com), September 11, 1999.

See, King? You get a rep and you don't even have to beg anymore! I knew guys in college like that (or so they told us -- there wasn't any evidence like ooey-gooey mud sticking to the back seat of their Jags to show us).

Just harvesting your garden from here on out, eh?

BTW, (u can tell us now, can't u?) have you ever -- really, ever -- MW'd? And don't tell us, "That depends on the meaning of the word 'mud'."

Inquiring minds...

-- jor-el (jor-el@krypton.uni), September 11, 1999.


Um . . . wait a minute.

You buy Gartner's argument that close to half of all Y2K problems will occur by the end of 1999?

Isn't that the same as saying 2000 will be approximately the same as 1999? (Except perhaps in reverse order of severity of impact.)?

Now don't start going Polly on us pollies. That takes the fun out of it!



-- N.Arro (nicoloa@hotmail.com), September 11, 1999.


N.Aro,

Have you never stopped to consider that "taking all the fun out of it" for the pollies, might be a real hoot for us?

I don't know about you, since it's the first time I've seen your name, but the idea of some of the more obsessive pollies, Like Y2K Pro, having to go back to having nothing to do for amusement but play with his/her self, is a very satisfying idea.

-- Bokonon (bok0non@my-Deja.com), September 11, 1999.


Bokonon, "My boy, when I want to play with a prick, I'll play with my own." W.C. Fields

-- W.C. Fields (W.C.FIELDS@WCFIELDSS.com), September 11, 1999.

I always thought the 9999 problem to be rather rare since it requires some really bizzare data formatting.

I you can conclude anything meaningful from the 9999 incidents (or general paucity thereof) as regards jan 1 2000.

Keep checking your bank statements, you never know when they might screw up and put an extra million or two in your account! :)

-- quasimodo (hunchback@belltower.com), September 12, 1999.


There are many sets of "trigger dates." For example if 1/12 of the corporations had an end of their fiscal years each month, the Jo Ann Effect would trigger any JE effect problems in roughly 8 per cent of these companies each month as predicted by Gartner Group. Embedded systems problems could cluster around 1 1 00 or could be on either side depending on the type of clock used, the start date in the system, if the timer was a counter with a rollover like GPS etc. The most likely system problems to cluster around 1 1 00 will be the business processing systems that have not been fixed where the rollover is to a smaller number causing minus numbers. Events on 9 9 99 and similar dates have no predictive value of these future events.

-- Moe (Moe@3stooges.gom), September 12, 1999.

One must consider QUALITY as well as QUANTITY. If an embedded chip related Y2K problem occuring in January 2000 causes an electric utility to tank, that is going to cause A LOT of problems, regardless of what percentage the chips may be to the overall number of Y2K problems.

mary: ABSOLUTELY!!

-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.com), September 12, 1999.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ