http://www.computerworld.com/home/print.nsf/all/991025C85A

-- You Knowwho (debunk@doomeridiots.com), October 25, 1999

Answers

Senate 100 Day Report in HTML:

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=001SFC

Official page for the Senate 100 Day Report:

http://www.senate.gov/~y2k/documents/100dayrpt/

-- Linkmeister (link@librarian.edu), October 25, 1999.

Wonderful. If he's so smart send him to the mainframe newsgroup, where they are _still_ struggling with Y2K-related data exchanges, S/390, etc. You can go there yourself and help out all these hapless, helpless programmers, just now finding problems with 67 days to go. Or are you just sneering vapidly from the sidelines with vaporware? Were you the one who called Art Bell and said that all the mainframers need to do is reset the clock on the BIOS chip? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

-- (pollys@pcweenies.com), October 25, 1999.

I don't Y2K is a blip. I think it is a "bleep" (EXPLETIVE CENSORED).

-- coprolith (coprolith@rocketship.com), October 25, 1999.

Way to go You Know Who. Like you, I believe everything I am told. Bill, the greatest and most trustworthy leader of all time, is to be trusted without reservation.

-- Dr. Pollydork (DrPollyDork@SingleDigitIQ.com), October 25, 1999.

"No matter how we tweak the assumptions in our model, we can't come up with much more than $15 billion in lost revenue worldwide, which is less than 0.1% of the world economy. A blip. "

They need to do some research. Talk to their buddies at Gartner. At best estimates, IDC is off by a factor of at least 20.

Besides: "blip n : a radar echo displayed so as to show the position of a reflecting surface" In other words, a 'blip' was the first, distant, inkling to Baghdad that a cruise missle was on its way.

-- Scarecrow (oz@yellowbrick.road), October 25, 1999.

I know this guy and I find this more interesting than some of you might. Acknowledging nuances, either their research is UNABLE to detect what is really going on or we're nuts. Hopefully, we're nuts. If IDC is nuts, then the post-Y2K world is going to need RADICALLY different approaches, tools and analysis methodologies than the pre- Y2K world.

Not too long now.

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), October 25, 1999.

BigDog, perhaps the situation is that their conclusions would be reasonable in a world where the fundamentals do not significantly change, but aren't reasonable if the fundamentals do change. Think of the situation for classical physics when Relativity came along. New paradigms (or at least older ones more relevant than the current ones) are needed to understand what Y2K is likely to mean. Lack of acceptance of fiat currency at any rate of exchange by holders of scarce goods in First World nations is an example of an eventuality that these people have probably not considered, yet many GIs (including me) believe that this is an event with a nontrivial probability of occurrence once Y2K hits. If you asked them about the likely effects of cascading cross-defaults in the banking system, the answers would probably be 1) "What's that", 2) "That would never be allowed to happen", and 3) "That is impossible".

Reaching conclusions totally different from those drawn by people at least potentially worthy of respect is part of what one has to get used to when you are a Y2K G.I. This used to surprise me, but not anymore.

my site: www.y2ksafeminnesota.com

-- MinnesotaSmith (y2ksafeminnesota@hotmail.com), October 25, 1999.

One is tempted to ask after the sources of the info they are using for their "analyses". If they are using the PR Dept. releases, or the CEO surveys, they MIGHT be getting the same stuff WE are.

C

-- Chuck, a night driver (rienzoo@en.com), October 26, 1999.

What a nerd!

"No matter how we tweak the assumptions in our model, we can't come up with much more than $15 billion in lost revenue worldwide, which is less than 0.1% of the world economy. A blip. "

They are only taking into consideration lost revenues?? What about costs you frickin idiot?

He reminds me of that Hassett dildohead that says the DOW will go to 36,000... yeah, and if that happens then by that time a Volkswagen will cost $1 million and a loaf of bread will cost $100!

The costs of Y2K are now well over $1 trillion, and we are just getting started on actual failures and legal expenses. How can this lamebrain say that this does not affect the economy? We are already looking at closer to a 10% hit to the world economy, without even taking any actual disruptions into account yet!!

-- @ (@@@.@), October 26, 1999.

Chuck -- Yes, though one would think they are getting data from the same IT sources that they have relied on with acceptable precision in the past. However, I do think Y2K data has a "smoke of war" dimension that is different. If Gantz is right, even the Senate, GAO and CIA are doomer nuts. Either the data sources are different or the interpretations being placed on the data are wildly different (indeed, that is now a given). Why and what is it about Y2K that produces that? Is it symptomatic of a "hole" in our IT understanding? These are the kind of questions that intrigue me when I see this type of statement at minus-60 days.

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), October 26, 1999.

Big Dog and Chuck,

You guys still don't get it? Do you know the difference between revenues and expenses? This nerd Gantz is ONLY talking about the effect on revenues. Of course he is probably underestimating the loss of revenues by a long shot, but more important are the COSTS. The costs of Y2K are going to drive prices up, cause inflation, deflation, more debt, bankruptcies, layoffs, unemployment, you name it. He doesn't want to include this in his model because most businesses will try to pass these costs to the consumer, but it still has an enormous effect on the world economy. His model might be able to help see what will happen to revenues, but it is by no means a picture of the effect on the entire economy. Not even close!

-- @ (@@@.@), October 26, 1999.