After seeing a definitive, almost logarithmic increase in reported incidences of remediation efforts that failed and outright failures and denials noted in many news reports over the last month or two, and considering the tremendous global cost of work-to-date on trying to fix Y2K. I wonder if forum members would take a few minutes to evaluate where we each think we are right now (12-17-1999) with respect to seriousness (of course using a scale of 1-10) Many "happy faced" news reports make fun of anything more than a bump in the road, yet haven't we already exceeded a 2 or a 3? (Think Volkswagen, Whirlpool, SAP, Hershey's, Midland, Deutche Bank, Ca. sewer problems, etc. and hundreds of millions spent-or is it billions?). Consider we really don't know the outcomes of the wildcards (embedded logic, true % of IV & V testing, historical precedence, panic, normal deception by those who will lose the most, denial) What about the massive costs associated with contingency planning by both corporate and governmental concerns. The list goes on and on... The effects of this massive project will effect and influence corporate behavior well through the first decade of the new millennium. Some positive, some negative. where are we now...where are we going. Is the worst behind us or just around the next sunrise?

Based on best "guesses", and the above I think we are in the 3-4 range already, the effects of which we have yet to fully realize. Where are we going?... Where can we go if "the problem is simple, the fix improbable". The most significant terms or concepts are shadowed by "death by a thousand cuts, systemic interdependencies, fractional reserve banking, division of labor, a year of disruptions a decade of recession/depression" I like many of you have prepared, sometimes I think to the level of .....insanity. When does hypothesis testing and multi-variable analysis take a normally reasonable sane individual into the realm of "the twilight zone"?....well I guess when I consider that my wife, my children and my grandchildren depend on me to be there for them, to protect and love... to secure their inheritance and provide for in times of trouble. I won't have to answer to those who judge my actions as insane, nor will I second guess my decisions if Y2K is a non-event. Y2K has already taught me a very valuable lesson...I will never again take my responsibilities as a husband , a father and a grandfather so lightly.

May the pollies, the doomers and all in between have a joyous holiday. Make the new year good, no matter what the outcome. God Bless

-- richard shockwave (vission441@aol.com), December 17, 1999

Answers

I'm holding at a "polly" reading of 7-9.6. I've increased the upper end from 9.4 because of the direct urging from some irresponsible government officials that people NOT prepare.

-- Mad Monk (madmonk@hawaiian.net), December 17, 1999.

In the final analysis it won't surprise me for a 7-9 level by mid 2000.

-- richard shockwave (vission441@aol.com), December 17, 1999.

If you work for or need parts, supplies from the above companies then you may have already experienced a 2-4. Eventually we will all get in the same boat.

-- none (none@none.com), December 17, 1999.

- I'm at "2" out of "10". - Maybe a "2" plus or minus 2 would be more accurate. - I plan to wear a football helmet on January 1, 2000 to protect against planes falling from the skies. - I'll also have extra cash, water and food -- expecting a "2" doesn't necessarily mean preparing for a "2" -- "prepare for the worst, hope for the best" is more logical. - If I get a $10,000 phone bill for January, I will not pay it. - And I'm a doomer compared with everyone I know!

-- Richard Greene (Rgreene2@ford.com), December 17, 1999.

Doomer-lite reporting in for duty. My guess is a 6 - 7, tops(God forbid!). Still prepping for an 8 though.

Mush, get that .22 ready for me, jist in case! ;-)

-- Deb M. (vmcclell@columbus.rr.com), December 17, 1999.

I think overall it will be quite a mess, the vast majority of which won't affect me. The many failures that have occurred already didn't affect me, so that is what I am basing that on. I have physically prepared for about a month. By then, either things will have restored to some semblance of order, or the majority of people will be dead or incapacitated. In that case, I'll have access to the gas in their car tanks and their land and various free-roaming critters. It's not my fault if people don't prepare.

I know what you mean about considering your responsibilities in a whole new way. Being responsible for your children used to mean making enough money, and the other stuff would follow.

-- Amy Leone (leoneamy@aol.com), December 17, 1999.

I started out as an 8 two years ago. Mellowed out to a 4.5 as of 12/17/1999.

-- Lurker (eye@spy.net), December 17, 1999.

Remember there are two different things at work.

One is the computer problem, the other is the HUMAN reaction to the computer problem.

I am betting on a 6+.

I liked one guys analogy. You are driving down the freeway at 75. You hit something that has fallen from another vehicle.Your car is ok but when you look in your mirror, you see one of your hubcaps rolling accross lanes and into the center divider.

How bad things are depends on if you and your situation is the car or the hubcap.

Or as one of the country/western girls (Mary Chapin Carpenter I think) sings, "sometime your the windshield, sometime your the bug"

Suppose you are in a downtown office highrise. Y2K strikes. The bank can do business from another branch,maybe. The lawyers upstairs can work at home,maybe. BUT the guy who runs the snack bar and the girl who runs the flower/balloon shop, they are dead meat.

-- woody (woody11420@aol.com), December 17, 1999.

My intuition is inflexible on this: if it reaches a five or six, it goes straight to a 10. When you're living in a house of cards, anything stronger than a zephyr brings it down.

-- StanTheMan (heidrich@presys.com), December 17, 1999.

I'm betting on a 3.5 around January 12th. 95% of your everyday daily lives will be back to normal around mid-February, with only minor problems still around.(or out of reach of your knowledge)

But I agree with Stan - If it hits a 6 or 7, it might as well be a 10, cuz it will get there quick.

-- Shawn (shawnagee@hotmail.com), December 17, 1999.

My crystal ball's probably no better than the next guy's, but here's how I see it: I'm thinking oil (crude & refined product) availability and deliverability will tell the tale. If embeddeds cause a major problem here, we're in big trouble (9.0 - 9.5) very quickly -- forget the crap about using strategic reserves, that stuff isn't for John and Mary Q. Public.

If a wide spread oil crisis doesn't happen within the first few days of January, maybe we're only looking at around a 5.0 - 6.0 by the end of February, but by the end of April, integrated systems failures will have us at 7.0 -- by the end of June 8.0.

Depends next on how well our programmers and project managers hold up from that point on. It will either (a) go to an 8.5 - 9.0 by end of summer and stay between 7.0 and 8.0 for several months, or (b)level off quickly and recede to between 6.0 and 7.0 by year end.

Best case: It's gonna be awhile before we get back to the fat-dumb- and-happy days of the '90s.

Worst Case: Guess I'm in denial -- can't stand to think about the 21st century oil-wars.

-- TA (sea_spur@yahoo.com), December 17, 1999.

richard:

Your own list of "failures" should give you a clue as to the magnitude of what we've been experiencing -- namely, miniscule. There have been some reported problems, and you named them. Deutche Bank lost a day, and made it up. Hershey couldn't make their delivery schedule for a while, but they're well on the way to recovery. VW likewise. SAP is OK, but rushed SAP implementations have had bugs.

And this is a logarithmic increase? Hoo Haw! What this is, is a handful of reported problems, repeated like a mantra. Your perception is an artifact of hypersensitivity to computer problems on the part of both you and the media, combined with a dogged *determination* on your part to see an increase, dammit! You have us all the way up to level 3 or 4, and the *only* people who seem to notice are those who plain flat *refuse* to see anything else. In terms of real world dislocations, we're at 0.0, whether you admit it or not. The few problems we've exaggerated so greatly around here are nothing out of the ordinary at all. At least so far.

There is some debate about the cost of remediation. In dollar terms, it's large. As a percentage of GDP, it's beneath notice. The major concern is whether some sectors are experiencing an artificial sales bubble due to accelerated purchases of new equipment and software, to be followed by a slowdown later. Whatever else happens, the widespread upgrades are a silver lining to the economy.

As for the general signs of problems, what's truly remarkable is their lack! Very few problems despite the largest exercise in code- changing in history. No visible impact of any of these few problems. No indirect signs at all -- market is fine, banks are fine, even the more unusual preparation items (generators, wood stoves, etc.) are well stocked.

Indeed, this utter lack of external indications has been a real handicap to those of us trying to preach the preparation gospel. People say "show me a problem". What should I say, that Hershey had difficulties converting to SAP? But the candy counter is cram packed with Hershey products, so where is my "evidence"?

I wish you a joyous holiday as well. Things are looking very good right now.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), December 17, 1999.

As for the general signs of problems, what's truly remarkable is their lack! Very few problems despite the largest exercise in code- changing in history.

And as soon as we see remediated (and unremediated, for that matter) systems handle current and past dates after 1999, we'll have some way to tell whether the companies that depend on them will crash and burn. Until then, there's no way to determine that.

-- Steve Heller (stheller@koyote.com), December 17, 1999.

End to end testing BEGINS midnight, at the rollover for every company, every industry, every man, woman and child on planet earth. Until that moment, it's nothing but pre-game warm up.

After the clocks strikes twelve midnight on the 31st, all bets are off. Then it is time to pray that God will be merciful, because sure as hell humans have done their best to f--- themselves up with this one.

Most likely, God will sit back and let us boil in our karma. Which will essentially mean we will experience above an 8 on our scale of magnitude by April 1st.

If we are to not go above an 8, it will be because government and corporate leaders actually are able to successfully execute some modicum of contingency plans in first quarter that mitigate a travesty from becoming Armageddon.

After April 1st, we begin to analyze how long, and how hard our recovery will be.

Good luck to all, and try to have compassion for the elderly and the young children who will suffer the most from our greed and arrogance.

-- Zen Angel (EndofDays@Now.com), December 17, 1999.

Even if we have successfully remediated everything of any importance in this country Anybody ever study probability and statistics?) I'm afraid that if the Russian designed nuclear reactors pop in Europe things will fall apart worldwide in short order. I've prepped extensively, expect a 7-10, and pray daily for a 0. May God have mercy on us all.

-- Ace (Ace@nospam.com), December 17, 1999.

9.5 KaBOOM! Embeddeds start the fireworks, then the rest of it erodes the carrying capacity. Big mess. Praying we're coocoo 'n wrong.

-- Ashton & Leska in Cascadia (allaha@earthlink.net), December 17, 1999.

Flint

Your answer intrigues me. The failures I mentioned are only a small portion of those actually being delt with at the IT/IS level. I am not a programer, but was put on an internal audit and remediation team 2 years ago for a global corporation. If I could only reveal the level of failures and problems I've seen I think even you would be amazed. Numerous type I, III, & IV fail scenarios that would have brought process system down for weeks. This was a relatively benign process invironment that posed little danger to outside individuals, but would have been devastating to the 2000 employees that could have lost income. I won't even begin to mention downstream effects or ramifications to other businesses dependent on the one I've mentioned. Again and as I implied before, Its beyond even the best professionals ability to say one way or the other how the 2000-2001 world economies and pain indices will look several months from now. Two and 1/2 years ago I was the one talking your talk. Ignorance was bliss,.....and I wish you were right. I don't think so this time my friend.

ps Hershey's loss at this point is estimated at 100-150 million with full remediation expected by period 3 or 4 2000. Care to guess at stock value losses?

-- richard shockwave (vission441@aol.com), December 17, 1999.

Has anybody noticed that all these companies are soaking the insurance industry for their Y2K fixes, and they are being re- embursed to the tune of millions and millions and millions. Guess who is going to get stuck with that bill, john q public, you and me brother. So they are getting the fixes and we will get the shaft, as usual.

-- Notforlong (Fsur439@aol.com), December 17, 1999.

As one who always claims that "Y2K CANNOT BE FIXED!", I find myself, really, in no better position to say what the effect of all that broken code will actually be than I was a year ago. There are just too many unknowns. I believe that I have prepared, as best as I am able to, for a near 10 position, and believe that it will be a miracle if we see less than a 5.

I do believe that the recent spike in Y2K related problems does not bode well; these problems appear to largely be from organizations that did seemingly act to prevent Y2K problems by installing new systems, but are now having production problems. What happens when true Y2K problems start occurring on systems that did not get replaced, in unison world-wide, is clearly going to be where "the rubber meets the road".

Like Flint, I hope that we have a joyous holiday season and a largely un-eventful New Year; unlike him, however, I believe that the news is largely bad and will almost certainly get much, much worse.

14 days.

-- Jack (jsprat@eld.~net), December 17, 1999.

I will guess that it starts off around a 3 and moves up to a 5 or 6 within a few months. Anyone else notice that when a question like this is asked, Flint chooses to attack someone else's opimion rather than express his own.

-- Dave (dannco@hotmail.com), December 17, 1999.

richard:

Behind the scenes, people have been putting out fires like mad. The number of internal problems (in IT departments) has been very large, the number of such problems that have broken the surface very small. But what people here are recommending preparations against isn't lots of troubleshooting that never becomes publicly visible. They are talking about really major systemic breakdowns. And we haven't seen any such thing yet.

You speak of problems that could have been serious except they were contained. This is becoming more common, I agree. But level 1, according to the usual scale, was exactly the situation where geeks were working 80 hour weeks, while some companies suffered problems visible at least to their business partners. So far, we aren't up to the 80-hour weeks except in isolated cases, and the many problems we've encountered have been manageable, most of them with little difficulty. So far. There's ample evidence that this level will rise after rollover, with 80-hour weeks very common and annoying problems visible outside the glass rooms much more frequent.

Nor do I expect any shortage of problem reports. Whether they've prepared or not, people are highly aware of y2k. I think the media have been a bit frustrated at the lack of stories so far, so there is a pent-up demand for them. People are extremely curious to see what y2k will bring. After rollover, I expect media scrutiny to become intense to feed this demand. The result may well be that perceptions will flip over.

As for Hershey, they seem to have become the poster child for botched implementation of a new system. Well, *somebody* had to be the worst case. And as worst cases go, Hershey is surprisingly mild. Some losses, nothing that threatens the company, despite problems during their peak season. But surely you don't think anyone is stashing canned tuna or buying a generator to protect against a drop in Hershey's stock price?

Mostly, what strikes me isn't so much the lack of (visible) computer problems, as it is the lack of indirect indicators, resulting from widespread anticipation of problems. A couple hundred billion dollars in remediation pays a LOT of people. If problems are even half as bad as many here expect, these people should be acting in concert in some ways enough to make visible impacts. Like key shortages (none), a market drop (none), a cash shortfall (nope), a whole lot of anonymous tips about BIG problems (very very few), etc.

For a hurricane that big, this close to shore, it ought to be visible to more than just a tiny tiny minority of folks, most of whom (face it) tend to be packages of various hates, fears, suspicious and miscellaneous delusions, all of them negative.

So when I wish you a joyous holiday season, I'm not being sarcastic at all. I mean it and expect it. I wish everyone here a happy new year.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), December 17, 1999.

10. Infromagic was right.

-- Sure M. Worried (SureMWorried@bout.Y2K.coming), December 17, 1999.

It still is immpossible to know, isn't it?

Flint, I agree with what appearances seem to indicate - some rather big problems have surfaced, but no "deal breakers". But, I would argue the market is hardly "fine". With the NYSE and NASDAQ lowering margins from 75% to 25%, we see gas being poured on the fire. Volume was at a record high today. This is a VERY bad sign, even without Y2K.

On another infamous thread, I got a little carried away with some numbers, but let me try and clarify the situation. Emmbedded chips number between estimates of 25 billion to 75 billion.

Lets take 60 billion for our purpose. Say 3% have date related problems. This then leaves 1.8 billion problem chips. If only 10% of those problem chips are in mission crital systems, we then have 180 million mission critical failures, occuring at roughly the same time. (Now, maybe a "system" uses a bunch of these problem chips, but it's still an overwhelming number of failures) I know this has been discussed at length before, but what is important in our estimate of the severity of Y2K, is to realize that these systems have not failed YET. The problems we've heard about seem to be from software applications.

I can't believe we can do better than a 6 or 7, leaving escalation a very big possibility. It's very hard to realize that things may never be the same. If we had a Government, that was for the People by the People, I would have more hope.

At this point, there are hardly words to describe this unbelievable situation. All the best to everyone. Merry Christmas?

-- Gregg (g.abbott@starting-point.com), December 17, 1999.

Gregg:

You're still having some problems with these numbers. Let's go through them a bit more slowly, OK?

[Emmbedded chips number between estimates of 25 billion to 75 billion.]

Well, this is an estimate of microprocessors and microcontrollers, mostly microcontrollers. As your spread indicates, we don't really have data on this, only a SWAG. Let's accept this SWAG for the sake of calculations, though. NOTE that this is NOT an estimate of the number of clock chips out there.

[Lets take 60 billion for our purpose.]

OK.

[Say 3% have date related problems.]

Oops, bad bad. You have suddenly jumped from *chips* to *systems*. Each system can contain many microcontrollers, and a whole lot of other support chips. And you have applied a (fairly high) estimated failure rate of *systems* to the number of *chips*. So let's say that on average, each embedded system of interest (not VCRs) contains about 10 microcontrollers. Assembly lines contain tens of thousands of microcontrollers. However, the vast majority of microcontrollers are in small, standalone devices (VCRs, coffee makers, radios, etc.) The total number of microcontrollers in systems of interest (big, important systems) probably totals at most 5 billion. With 10 microcontrollers in each system (on average), we're down to 500 million systems of interest total, worldwide.

[This then leaves 1.8 billion problem chips.]

Nope. It leaves about 500 million *systems* that might cause infrastructure problems, at the very most.

[If only 10% of those problem chips are in mission critical systems]

What you're really saying here is that about 10% of those 500 million *systems* are mission critical. That's 50 million mission critical systems of concern to us, at the very most.

[we then have 180 million mission critical failures, occuring at roughly the same time.]

Oops, "problems" just became "failures". Yet we KNOW this isn't the case. We've read literally dozens of reports about electricity generation facilities saying that NONE of the problems would have caused failure. Logging problems, display/printout problems, 1-time problems that can be ignored or avoided by resetting the clock, etc. It would be pessimistic indeed to say that 10% of the problems would cause failure of the system. So we have, then, 5 million failures, not 180 million.

5 million is still a whole lot, I agree. This might be, what, one per every 100 companies worldwide. That's significant. Losing 1% of all businesses overnight is one bodacious monkey wrench thrown into the works, so a whole lot rides on how quickly they can resolve these problems. Let's say 10% can't continue. Still bad news, surely with an economic impact.

There *will* be problems. I'm convinced. But let's not exaggerate them so wildly by confusing chips with systems, and problems with failures.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), December 17, 1999.

I haven't changed my opinions at all, I'm still a 7-10. I feel that the absolute best will be a 5 and the worst will be worse than infomagic, but those aren't likely. I'm staying at the 7 to 10 level until 1/1/2000, when I will revaluate. I will thn "go with the flow" as to what I think the outcome is... May y2k be a 0!!! :) And may all of us GI's stay prepped forever!

-- Crono (Crono@timesend.com), December 17, 1999.

Flint said:

"For a hurricane that big, this close to shore, it ought to be visible to more than just a tiny tiny minority of folks, most of whom (face it) tend to be packages of various hates, fears, suspicious and miscellaneous delusions, all of them negative."

After spending 15 months researching this issue with more intellectual intensity than anything I've undertaken in 46 years of life, I resent this characterization.

I think what is most resentful is that in making this kind of maligning characterization of people who have concluded from the research and data available that Y2K will be a serious, life-threatening, society-altering experience, is that you, Flint, are really speaking for the vast majority of people who have followed TPTB's lead in marginalizing the doomers.

At issue is that this characterization is not a fact, but a fabrication of the Power Machine as it tries desparately to avoid a panic on all fronts. To avoid panic, and the resulting run on food and banks, and selling off of stock market equities, TPTB have unmistakeably woven an image of the so-called "doomer" as hate-mongering, fear-driven, conspiracy-theorist, delusional psychotic.

In repeating the Power Machines' mantra, you Flint have achieved the high honor of public mouthpiece. Take your place alongside such luminaries as Joseph Goebbels, Senator MacCarthy, George Wallace, and John Koskinen. Now, there's a team that exemplies your characterization of doomers.

-- Zen Angel (EndOfDays@Now.com), December 17, 1999.

Flint, Said

"""For a hurricane that big, this close to shore, it ought to be visible to more than just a tiny tiny minority of folks, most of whom (face it) tend to be packages of various hates, fears, suspicious and miscellaneous delusions, all of them negative.""

And you my arrogant homosapien fence sitting waffle mania man--what about you. You never have addressed any of the Dale Way essay especially the last paragraph regarding Ships into icebergs,Screaming ,burning in hell. The independence fallacy regarding the system of systems (this is delusional?lol). You tend to look at the mountain of credible evidence and because of what I can only surmise is your lack of Spinal cord thickness, come up with this middle of the road ---"well we really don't know" or "well we cant be sure". I can't stomach your Painfully obvious conveyance of fear based on the evidence of your intellect coupled with the empirical information at hand and your wishy washy, one day this the next day that.

If you detect annoyance in this post-you're right. After reading mountains of credible reports from credible people for you to come up with a statement of "delusional,etc. what a joke. JOKE I SAY!!!!!!!

If anyone is delusional my good man it just may be you!!!

Do you think the astronauts on the Discovery mission were close to a hurricane when that o-ring didnt hold?? were the engineers at Morton Thiokol Delusional??? Or angry?? BOOM!!! bye bye astronauts. How can you be of such omnipotent mental power that given all the information regarding imbeds,interconnections,software,infrastructure,terrorists,etc. that you come up with a benign answer for all of us angry,obtuse,deluded people ?? PLEASE spare us your LOGIC. Hurricane indeed.

Face it you are afraid!! Terrified in fact. You do not want severe disruptions therefore you work yourself up into a delusional state of consciousness and find yourself arguing against any rational data you may see and at the same time attempt to bring others with you!

Pathetic.

-- d----- (dciinc@aol.com), December 17, 1999.

Flint, Not that we can deal with 50 million failures but let me say again - 60 billion chips. 3% have date related failures (problems). That's 1.8 billion failures. Lets say that 10% of those, are in mission critical applications. Then that's 180 million failures of chips in mission critical applications.

I believe the figure of one tenth of the 1.8 billion problem chips is used, because we do recognize that a coffee maker going down, is not what concerns us. Granted, many of these problem chips may all be in the same "system", so the total number of failures would be less than 180 million, but could our world even deal with 1,000 near simultaneous failures? When did that happen last?

We are talking vaguely, but the RANGE of numbers (failures) we're describing is UNPRECEDENTED!! That's whats scarey. Even your numbers are exponentially larger than anything in history. Compounded by true software failure - wow. Do your numbers make you feel any better than mine? Not me.

-- Gregg (g.abbott@starting-point.com), December 17, 1999.

Zen Angel:

If the characterization doesn't fit you, don't wear it. NOW, as a disinterested observer, try reading the list of currently active postings. Nearly all of them are off topic. You will find non-y2k- related rants against the government, against banks, against the UN, against the money system, against you-name-it. You find UFOlogists, and people saying we're being sprayed with something evil. You find your fill of conspiracy theories, regardless of how much you can swallow.

Go ahead and TRY to find anyone who appreciates *anything* the government does, or who has *any* admiration for management (except among managers, of which we have precious few), or mentions anything at all that's nice or thoughtful that any institution ever did for them.

As far as I can see, many of these people (not all, but many) have marginalized themselves. Hey, I take y2k seriously, I'm well prepared, and I expect a lot of problems. But I also live in a world where my boss is competent and understanding, and where my government helps me out in a hundred ways every day. I find I have very little to complain about, and I see no reason to manufacture complaints in my own mind. I don't think I'm that ususual, and from my perspective, there are a LOT of disaffected people on this forum.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), December 17, 1999.

Good point flint...

Just remember-- if my characterization don't fit YOU......blah,blah.

tomorrow a new face eh!!! another approach. Somemore mental gymnastics we can all look forward to.

-- d----- (dciinc@aol.com), December 17, 1999.

Flint:

I am in the camp that believes that while the American form of democracy is not a perfect form of government, that it is simply the best form of government man has created thus far.

I am of the belief that as long as Corporate America provides the honest man and woman an opportunity to better their lives, buy homes, put their kids through college and live a comfortable retirement, then, at least its better than a poke in the eye with sharp stick.

Where your belief system and mine will surely part ways is when the sh-- hits the fan in January, the benign sense of trust that Americans have placed in their Government and Corporate institutions will be forever broken. When millions lose their life savings, their jobs and possibly, their lives, there will be a wail heard like nothing ever in the Universe.

And it will be decades before the average, honest man and woman will put their lives in the hands of corrupt government or corporate leadership again.

Just my delusional opinion.

***

-- Zen Angel (EndofDays@Now.com), December 17, 1999.

Flint: I have always wondered if you are my father-in-law. You do sound like him.

FWIW, here are my "official" predictions. I think that we WILL start to see a slow awareness dawning on enough of the American public that the media WILL have to spin even more furiously. I think the bank runs will end up being pretty bad. I think bank presidents everywhere are biting their fingernails off and not sleeping so well right now. I am already seeing the bottled water aisle in my Wal- Mart totally cleaned out, but no one notices b/c they are all still under the Christmas spell. By Dec. 28, there will be all kinds of media stories on would-be terrorist that the FBI has nabbed ("Thank goodness! Whew!") and constantly reassuring people everything will be alright. I STRONGLY suspect something big and attention-getting will happen to divert attention from Y2K. Might or might not work. THAT was the human factor. As for actual failures, I do think we will start to see them pretty quickly. Snowball effect. A 7 or higher. I am hoping we can stop it at a 7, though I don't know how.

I sincerely hope and pray for a 0.

-- preparing (preparing@home.com), December 19, 1999.

d:

Know what projecting is? You ought to, since you're doing it. I continue to say there will be lots of problems, most of them (but by no means all) manageable. I keep saying that it's foolish both to pretend this isn't true, and to fear that we will see macroeconomic catastrophe as a result. In any case, I'm prepared against far worse than I expect, because I lack a crystal ball and I can't rule out anything worse than I expect. I hope you have done the same. When I see what appears to be exaggeration, I point it out. Look at what richard said to start this thread -- that there has been a huge increase in problems (there has not) and that we're up to level 3 or 4 (we haven't reached 1 yet). This is perception, not reality.

Gregg:

I guess my calculations were too complex for you, since you continue to make the same two errors. Let's keep it simple. First, you have applied a *system* error rate to a *chip* count estimate. Systems are NOT chips. Second, you have assumed that every problem will cause a failure, despite all evidence to the contrary. As a result, you have calculated a "failure" rate at least 2 orders of magnitude too large.

Either you have made an honest mistake, (in which case you should correct it) or you are deliberately and dishonestly exaggerating the problem (in which case you lose all credibility).

This distinction is critical, since it makes the difference between manageable (but nasty) and hopeless. Since you simply ignored the corrections and repeated the identical error without further comment, I suspect you are trying to build a case that things will be hopeless even if this requires cheating. Why?

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), December 19, 1999.