Here is a really interesting web site:

http://www.primenet.com/~heuvelc/skeptic/predictions.htm

It has a list of various predictions for the end of the world for the last decade or so and the ones still coming up. It is an amazing study in human nature.

-- Jim Cooke (JJCooke@yahoo.com), March 28, 2000

Answers

There is at least one difference between those predictions and Y2k. A Senate committee was established that looked into potential disruptions from Y2k.

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

-- (Z@y.x), March 28, 2000.

Remember our Congress has a Burtons ranting in it so a Senate committee looking into it is not necessarily the "litmus test" for credibility...

-- ????? (Justme@home.now), March 28, 2000.

Even though Sen. Bennett is a pretty credible guy stuck doing a pretty incredible job..

-- ????????? (justme@again.home), March 28, 2000.

Indeed, as Yourden and Gary North proved this time around, if you repeat something often enough, loud enough and in enough places, some people will believe that there's something to it. Or at least that there's reason for concern and a Senate investigation.

-- E.H. Porter (Just Wondering@About.it), March 28, 2000.

There is a common thread here.PROFIT.

-- Ra (tion@l.1), March 28, 2000.

PROFIT. yes. A fine motivator.

This list of predictions will just continue to grow. Since when has being wrong stopped the erroneos prognosticators in the past?

Thanks for the link.

-- Super Polly (FU_Q_Y2kfreaks@hotmail.com), March 28, 2000.

Uhm, just as a historical query, not that it would change anyone's beliefs, but, didn't the Congressional (senate and house) Comittees predate Yourdon's pronouncements??

Mr Porter, if I recall correctly, the "information" that came OUT of these committees was used as fodder for EY and others, as opposed to EY and others providing fodder for the committees. Disregarding, of course, the appearance by EY.

Joss

-- Joss Metadi (warhammer@Pride.of.Mandeyne), March 28, 2000.

OH MY GOD.

For those that have NOT read that page, you need to look at the one on Jason Hommel (halfway down the table) The guy actually posted an apo logy!

I can think of a few y2k pontificators that should buy a clue from Mr. Hommel.

(its not just the apology. Its the way he did it. compare it to Yourdon's "I was wrong, but not really")

-- SP (you@all.know), March 28, 2000.

Indeed, as Yourden and Gary North proved this time around, if you repeat something often enough, loud enough and in enough places, some people will believe that there's something to it. Or at least that there's reason for concern and a Senate investigation.

You mean Y2k didn't need to be fixed?

-- I heard Y2k did need (to@be.fixed), March 28, 2000.

"I heard"

Nope.

-- Eye Hurt (th@doomers were.idiots), March 28, 2000.

http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1009-200-1499423.html?tag=st

Link

Federal spending on Y2K reaches $8.38 billion

By Melanie Austria Farmer

Staff Writer, CNET News.com

December 17, 1999, 7:00 a.m. PT

Federal agencies will spend nearly $40 million more than expected tackling the Y2K computer problem, according to a new report issued by the Office of Management and Budget.

Government agencies now estimate they will have spent a total of $8.38 billion fixing the Y2K glitch from 1996 through 2000. This is an increase from the $8.34 billion price tag named in the OMB's quarterly report, released three months ago. As reported, the estimated $8.34 billion figure to assess and fix the government's 6,343 "mission critical" systems jumped $290 million from the previous report in June.

-- (What@was.spent), March 29, 2000.

Kevin who really cares how much the gov spent? if it is wasted money do you think this is the first thing they have wasted money on??? if shit needed to get fixed then they spent the money and fixed it.

why this fixation on gov spending?

-- (musicmixers@should.stick.to.mixing), March 29, 2000.