I have read alot lately about logic as it applies to Y2K, rumors, reports, news, wild guesses, etc.....

I just take what I know, and use common sense (not that common) from there.

We know:

Y2K is not a myth. The gov't and big bus. have proven that one for us. If it was a myth, they would not have spent $100 Billion on fixes, command centers, senate committees, PR, etc.....

It will happen soon. This is not sometime in the distant future, its one month away.

It will not be fixed in time. Maybe it could have been, naybe not. But their wording, their anti-litigation laws, their "contingency planning, etc... prove that it will not be fixed.

Common sense and hitorical performance indicate that "fixers" will not find all mistakes, successfully fix all mistakes, make all fixes compatable with all other applicable fixes, AND do all this without inadvertantly causing other problems. Bug-free software = dry water, it doesn't exist.

Government stooges and their business counterparts WILL spread lies or truth with equal enthusiasm when it suits their purpose. Protecting and serving us is NOT their purpose. Their purpose is CYA.

Our society is incredibly frail and overly dependant. The average American could not survive 3 days in the summer without massive support, much less in the winter. I have heard preparers say to stock up on rubber gloves "in case we have to do dishes" or hand lotion "in case we have to do manual labor". Good god, if that is a problem, then you are already in a world of hurt.

The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one. For as long as there have been governments this has been true. It's not necessarily evil, just a fact of life. Death penealties, war, prisons, taxes, etc... IF there are problems next year, noone will mind if a few thousand of us die, we are a self replenishing asset. It's just that nobody wants to be "the one".

I could go on, but I think that's enough. Common sense says that if you percieve a risk, you take appropriate precautions against it. Risk assessment involves mutiplying the chance of risk by the severity of the risk to determine the cost of the risk. This then is the value you should be willing to ensure against. The odds of the average house burning down are quite slim. But the severity of a house fire is enormous (that's where all your stuff is). So you, like everyone else, insure your house against fire. The premium is gone, you never get that back, fire or not.

From what I know of Y2K, the odds of minor disruptions are significant. (moderate risk X minor expense = low/mod cost) The odds of major disruptions are lower, but the cost would be overwhelming. (very low risk X overwhelming expense = moderate cost)

I assign no numbers to this, because it is largely unknown, and it is relative to the value you place on your lifestyle, life, and family. For me this is rather large. So it would be wise of me to spend a moderately large ammount of my resources to protect my family against risk. Luckily, I did not have to. For less than $3000 I have secured the supplies and resources to protect my family. And the best part, is that this is not a premium, it is a one time expense. It's good from now on. And even if nothing happens, it's not wasted. I still have all this stuff. Stuff holds value better than money. Besides, I thought the goal of this money-grubbing materialistic society was to acquire more stuff than your neighbors. Well, you pollys better hurry up 'cause I've got a big lead on you.

Have a nice day :)

-- MegaMe (CWHale67@aol.com), November 26, 1999

Answers

That makes good sence to me.

-- E (erh2u@aol.com), November 26, 1999.

I'll second the motion.

-- tc (trashcan-man@webtv.net), November 26, 1999.

Gee--I was stocking up on rubber gloves in case I have to haul away a lot of dead bodies. I already know about manual labor.

Prepare for the worst to the extent you can/feel comfortable.

-- David Holladay (davidh@brailleplanet.org), November 26, 1999.

and the lotion for....well

-- thekid (frorider76@hotmail.com), November 27, 1999.