Summary of the facts - Y2K is looking real bad....

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

I quick summary of the facts for all: 1. computer testing requires end-to-end analysis, which for all intents and purposes, ain't gonna happen. So forget hydro, telecommunications, banking. And even if they can somehow test end to end, it would take approximately 10 years to get it right. 2. God is still under $300. Tis to laugh. Talk about controlling the market value. It should be around $700 right now. 3. We're getting sprayed big time by our beloved leaders. I wonder why? 4. Klinton sayed 'we're in good shape'. Who's we? I think I know!!! 5. My local hydro provider says not to worry, and, oh, we'll have people on hand if we have to go manual. This was in the local rag. 6. Klinton says 'we're in good shape'. 7. 160 CEO's have resigned in the last 5 months. 8. Nobody knows! (yea, right). 9. Bill Gates just bought a private island near Hawaii. 10. Bill Gates says Y2K won't be a real problem........

-- polka monster (howdy@doody.all), November 22, 1999

Answers

"There are no (if's) with the President!" Actually I got to kind of be grateful to old Billybubba in a way. Koskinem is such an obvious lying greaseball that now every time I even see his face on the tv I go buy more supplies.

-- Nikoli Krushev (doomsday@y2000.com), November 22, 1999.

Hey Clarabelle, God is not happy with you!

-- Truth (at@the.ready), November 22, 1999.

God under $300? Then I think we should stock up on a few extras, as having just one clearly isn't doing the trick.

-- Billy (cachecow@hotmail.com), November 22, 1999.

Oh, that is just tooooooooooo funny Billy. Can;t see for the tears of laughter.

Taz

-- Taz (Tassie123@aol.com), November 22, 1999.


You're right, Snickering at the typo "God" is a cheap shot. What should be questioned is the statement "talk about controlling the market value. It should be around $700". Talk about paranoia! Exactly how do our beloved leaders accomplish such price control? I mean, literally HOW? You give them more credit than they deserve.

-- Lars (lars@indy.net), November 22, 1999.


P.M.;

Do you have a list or a URL of those CEOs and their former company?

Lars;

Gold manipulation has been doen by:

Selling gold short to the tune of many times world annual production.

Borrowing gold from Central Banks to sell.

Convincing producing mines to sell forward most of their production.

See: Le Metropole Cafe for a thorough explanation.

-- Bill P (porterwn@one.net), November 22, 1999.


Bill P:

It appears that the goldbugs are in a bind here. On the one hand, they want gold to be "real money" at least partially because it's rare. On the other hand, the rarer a commodity is, the more easily its price can be manipulated and controlled. A gold standard would give small groups great influence and power, and power corrupts.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), November 22, 1999.


Flint, you don't seem to understand, if gold is our real money, then it has no price that can be manipulated. It's everything else that is priced in terms of gold.

-- cody (cody@y2ksurvive.com), November 22, 1999.

"...if gold is our real money, then it has no price that can be manipulated. It's everything else that is priced in terms of gold."

Which came first -- the chicken or the egg?

What is "real money"?

In Mongol cultures in past centuries, "real money" meant horses.

On the Pacific island of Yap, "real money" meant certain sculptured stones weighting up to several hundred pounds.

In some bush cultures of New Guinea, "real money" meant pigs.

"Real" money is defined by societal agreement. It's whatever is accepted as a medium of exchange.

No commodity, whether it's animal, vegetable or mineral has any INTRINSIC value. If Robinson Crusoe on his desert island had found fist-size nuggets of gold rolling free in the streambeds, he would have had no more purchasing power than he had when he drifted to its shores. Fifty gold sovereigns in his pocket would have made him no richer. By comparison, a hen and a rooster would have been of real use to him.

-- Tom Carey (tomcarey@mindspring.com), November 23, 1999.


Tom: I'll take you up on one point. In cosmic terms, nothing has intrinsic value, but if we can agree to restrict "value" to the human sphere, then I'd argue that basic food (bread, rice, beans) has intrinsic value. If you want to argue that point, I'll fall back to clean drinking water. If you still want to argue it, give me all your stuff. ;)

-- Colin MacDonald (roborogerborg@yahoo.com), November 23, 1999.


Letter to Congress June9,1999 From the IEEE (institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers) the oldest and largest intl. non-profit assc. of engineers and computer scientists in the world. (credibility)

1. Prevention of all Y2K failures was never Possible: read on 1.1."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 goverment 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.

1.4 COMPLEXETY 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 vingtage 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."" END

-- d________ (dciinc@aol.com), November 23, 1999.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ