Didn't Invar say I'd be dead by now?

I think I was supposed to have died of startvation and my corpse consumed at a celebration of my death hosted by Milne, if I'm not mistaken...

If you are yet in your first year of studying the Y2k non-event, you may not remember some of the early "quotable quotes" posted by the recently humbled and apologetic rampant doomers. For your benefit, I intend to post occassional snippets here of their "logic" and "wisdom," along with quotes from those who supported such drivel.

I consider it a public service to those who may otherwise believe anything a doomer may say in the future.

Vindicated Regards,
Andy Ray

-- Andy Ray (andyman633@hotmail.com), May 05, 2000

Answers

Andy Ray, you need to learn to deal with your resentment and anger. You're taking way too personally what a bunch of wackos say on the internet. There's no need to make their problems your own.

-- (pollies@support.group), May 05, 2000.

Dear pollies,

I fear you misinterpret the presentation of historical information as "anger and resentment." I harbour no ill-will towards any. My current and coming postings are simply a brief look back at some of the attitudes expressed regarding (at the time) a controversial (non- ) event. It should be viewed in the spirit in which it is offered: a non-biased examination of the players involved and their words, with interspersed commentary.

There is no need for defensive-ness. If you added to the dialogue from the doomer standpoint, simply demonstrate the courage (lacking by most) to re-post under your original alias/email address, and I shall be happy to expound upon your views at my next entry.

Vindicated Regards,
Andy Ray

-- Andy Ray (andyman633@hotmail.com), May 05, 2000.

Hey, Andyman --

While I agree that for the general public, Y2K problems have been basically non-events in this country, I'm not ready to declare a total victory quite yet. I'm *still* repairing date-related problems that were missed in the massive remediation we did last year. Granted, nothing that I'm working on has the potential to harm anyone seriously if left unrepaired, but I have to wonder how many other problems remain out there and in which systems. As one example, I'm still not convinced that the IRS systems are fully operational.

-- (kb8um8@yahoo.com), May 05, 2000.

Andy,

I question U because problems have shown up a lot in other countries. Can you comment on this?

TIA

-- questionU (questionU@here.too), May 05, 2000.

"questionU" care to elaborate on what those problems are?

-- Buddy (buddydc@go.com), May 05, 2000.

"As one example, I'm still not convinced that the IRS systems are fully operational."

The IRS had no problem cashing my $9K check I owed them.

-- (polly@is.broke), May 05, 2000.

My refund check was promptly deposited into my checking account within a week of filing electronically, and I waited until the 13th of April to file.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), May 05, 2000.

I filed my federal taxes in February and my refund was deposited less than 10 days later.

-- Buddy (buddydc@go.com), May 05, 2000.

I didn't see any "resentment and anger" in Andy's comments.

Andy seems to have coped very well with the problem of being right.

On the old board, when someone posted "I don't think New Yorkers will be resorting to cannibalism by January 15, 2000," there was a clatter of posts like "Troll! Delete!" or "Troll Alert!" etc.

Now the trolls are the old doomers who now post "200 Without Power in Aukland NZ for two hours. Collapse of World's Power Grids Will Ensue" etc.

Former trolls are now savants. Former savants are now trolls. How gruntling. And amusing.

-- (retard@but.happy), May 05, 2000.

Buddy,

I have been reading the GICC forum for 2 months now, and they have lots of posts about problems in some developing countries. Some poor countries could not afford to fix their computers for y2k and now they have trouble with their power, etc. You should read about all the problems in Pakistan, for example. They even admitted in their news how they had trouble since rollover with their computers. It was no secret. They are being very up front about it.

That was why I wanted Andy to comment. I feel badly for those people there because they have many problems. We are lucky in the US because they did such a good job with fixing the y2k so it was not too bad at all.

-- questionU (questionU@here.too), May 05, 2000.

Buddy,

"We are lucky in the US..." for a zillion reasons. With all its problems, it's still the best country invented by humans.

Power outages in some Pakistan village? That's the least of their problems:

It's a military dictatorship. (Not caused by Y2K)

It's just been designated by the US as a "protector of terrorists." (Not caused by Y2K)

Women in Pakistan are treated like garbage. (Not caused by Y2K)

And on and on.

--------------------------

The GICC board is a bad joke.

-- (retard@but.happy), May 05, 2000.

Granted, nothing that I'm working on has the potential to harm anyone seriously if left unrepaired, but I have to wonder how many other problems remain out there and in which systems.

Same faulty logic as prior to rollover. Some people never learn.

We are lucky in the US because they did such a good job with fixing the y2k so it was not too bad at all.

Not too bad at all, try something more along the lines of one of the biggest non-events in history.

I tried searching for all of those problems in Pakistan and all I came up with was:

link.

Do you have links to any others?

-- fwiw (a@b.c), May 05, 2000.

Hey retard (Man, how p.i. is that?!),

Buddy is one of the good guys. I think that your response was for questionU.

-- fwiw (a@b.c), May 05, 2000.

I have perused the GICC board from time to time. I estimate that the number of Y2K-related problems posted there is close to zero, certainly no more than 10% of the problems posted. I agree, the GICC, while started with good intentions, has turned out to be a joke.

-- Buddy (buddydc@go.com), May 05, 2000.

GICC is still a good source for a quick look at some interesting info about things going on around the world. Why is it a joke?

-- Observer (observer@lots.to.observe), May 05, 2000.

No, "retard" your name is a bad joke because you should not make fun of people who have disabilities by using a handle like that.

I asked a question to Andy because I wanted to hear his comments about out of country problems. If there were no problems with people who didn't fix it, then why in the heck did we spend so much money to fix it??? I have friends out of the country, and believe me, there are some problems. It is their own fault for not taking y2k seriously or because of not having the money to upgrade the computers. I have friends and relatives who own businesses out of the country and they did nothing and now they have problems. That's all I meant.

GICC is good because how would they know if there were problems or not if somebody didn't do some tracking. Besides, they have good news updates there and I like it for that reason. I think they have done a good service to the public.

-- questionU (questionU@here.too), May 05, 2000.

Andy:

Post away. I would like to review the comments from a sociological and psychological perspective. I think there is a tremendous amount I can learn from this.

THanks

-- FutureShock (gray@matter.think), May 05, 2000.

Here's a few recent Pakistan links:

Link KARACHI: Electricity breakdown disrupts water supply

Link ISLAMABAD - More Than Half Dozen Thermal Power Units Closed for

Link KARACHI: 18-hour power failure at hospital

Link LAHORE - Talks at Wagah Hit by Power Breakdown

-- Questor (searching@for.tomorrow), May 05, 2000.

Observer wrote:

"GICC is still a good source for a quick look at some interesting info about things going on around the world. Why is it a joke?"

It was set up to be a Y2K problem clearinghouse. There are very few problems posted there which are Y2K-related, even remotely. And there is very little followup, if any, as was promised when it was set up. As for being a good source for info. about things around the world, fine, no problem there except that it's stated purpose should be rewritten. I see it as a joke because the vast majority of items posted are not Y2K-related yet it continues to mislead some people into thinking that there are more problems now than there ever have been.

-- Buddy (buddydc@go.com), May 05, 2000.

Nice Pakistan links. I'm sure if I looked hard enough I could find articles on power problems in Pakistan for the last fifty years. I don't see mention of anything Y2K-related though. Are you folks alleging a coverup is occurring?

-- Buddy (buddydc@go.com), May 05, 2000.

Sorry about the first link being circular. Here is is corrected, along with one other new article.

Link KARACHI: Electricity breakdown disrupts water supply

Link UPDATE, Karachi...Power Crisis Continues; Civil Hospital Plunge

-- Questor (search@for.tomorrow), May 05, 2000.

Buddy,

I'm not alleging anything. fwiw asked if anyone else had any links to problems in Pakistan, and I happened to remember some.

It does seem, however, that your mind is already made up and that you aren't interested in any new input that might possibly refute your position.

-- Questor (search@for.tomorrow), May 05, 2000.

Here's some clues for you guys from that Karachi article:

"...century-old biggest teaching hospital..."

Hmmm...old facility.

"According to eyewitnesses, the switch board at the junction of medical and surgical wards, after emitting sparks for a while, caught fire and later went off with a bang. As a result, the whole building plunged into darkness."

...

"The latest power failure and fire incident was attributed to the decaying electrical wiring at the hospital. "We have about 50 years old wiring while even the transformers provided to our sub-station are unable to carry the load required by the hospital. Such a shortfall rendered the hospital without electricity for more than 18 hours last week," a paramedic informed."

And folks wonder how they were so wrong about Y2K.

-- Buddy (buddydc@go.com), May 05, 2000.

Questor,

Buddy does have a point. I didn't read the first article because of the link, but the others all seem to be about an incident on April 26. The last article blames a good deal of the problem on low river levels affecting the amount of hydro that could be produced.

One of the articles claims that Karachi is a city of 130 million people?!!! That's half the population of the US. Let's hope they did a better job on the other "facts" in the story.

-- fwiw (a@b.c), May 05, 2000.

Questor,

"questionU" has implied that there are lots of Y2K problems around the world and that the GICC has reports of them. I am merely commenting that I don't see any mention of Y2K in these articles, nor any mention of anything that might imply a Y2K connection.

-- Buddy (buddydc@go.com), May 05, 2000.

It's not surprising that Karchi infrastructure is having some major problems, look a the growth that they've had to try to accomodate.

link.

-- fwiw (a@b.c), May 05, 2000.

Buddy -- OK, now I understand. Thanks for the clarification. Likewise, I was merely responding with some Pakistan info. I didn't really have time to read them or pass judgement on them.

-- Questor (search@for.tomorrow), May 05, 2000.

Where any post that showed that Y2K would not be a bad thing was flamed in masse over at TB2000 before the rollover, I see no reason why any consideration should be shown to those who did the flaming and degrading of the polly posters.

Suddenly it is wrong to bring up how wrong the doomers were when they showed absolutly no restraint against the posts the pollies wrote. Why do the doomers demand consideration when they showed none to the pollies. If there did happen to be major problems due to Y2K then the doomers would not be using any restraint in their crowing about being right. As a matter of fact they bragged about how they would throw it in the face of the pollies. Yet the pollies they degraded are supposed to be polite and not mention what was said by the doomers last year.

Point out what was said by the doomers, after all, they were so sure they were right and showed nothing but contempt for thoise who did not agree with them, yet now demand consideration from those they did it to. Do they feel the world revolves around them?

-- Cherri (sams@brigadoon.com), May 05, 2000.

Buddy,

Okay, I understand what you are saying. You are right, most articles do not mention y2k specifically. That was why I wanted Andy's opinion on this. How can people who don't fix their computers for y2k end up with no problems? Doesn't make sense. I still ask then, why did we spend so much on y2k then? What was the point when some small countries did not do as much?

I am just asking a question. It seems likes lots of problems to me in some countries, and I just say we are lucky we had good people to fix our computers. I praise the people who worked hard on our behalf.

-- questionU (questionU@here.too), May 05, 2000.

http://www.y2k.gov/docs/LASTREP3.htm

RETROSPECTIVE ON THE MAGNITUDE OF THE PROBLEM

There is general agreement that the Year 2000 rollover went more smoothly than expected. The incredible success of the transition has prompted a number of questions about the effort and the results it produced.

Was Y2K an insignificant, over-hyped problem?

In the weeks since the rollover, some have expressed doubt about the magnitude of the Y2K problem and whether or not the significant investment of time and money to avoid disruptions was necessary. However, it has been difficult to find executives who worked on Y2K in a major bank, financial institution, telephone company, electric power company or airline who believe that they did not confront -- and avoid -- a major risk of systemic failure.

 

One indication of the difficulty of the Y2K problem is the fact that many large, sophisticated users of information technology revealed in regular filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission that they had been required to increase the funds allocated to their Y2K programs. These increases, which in some cases were in the hundreds of millions of dollars, were not for public relations purposes. Rather, they reflected the difficult effort of remediating large, complicated and often antiquated IT systems.

The Federal Government experienced a similar phenomenon. Cumulative agency estimates for the costs to solve the Y2K problem increased over four years from under $3 billion to the $8.5 billion that was actually spent. This was still significantly less than the $20 to $30 billion estimated by outsiders. But here too, the job of ensuring Y2K compliance proved to be more challenging than initially expected.

The range of actual failures during the January 1 and February 29 (Leap Day) rollovers served as a reminder of the major economic and operating disruptions that had been avoided by the development of Y2K compliant IT systems:

• A classified Defense Department intelligence satellite system was totally inoperable for several hours during the rollover period. The problem originated not in the satellite itself but in the ground- based switching and software equipment used to download and process information from the satellite.

• Bank credit card companies identified a Y2K-glitch involving some credit card transactions. Merchants that did not make use of free upgrades provided during 1999 for a particular software package charged customers for orders every day after a single purchase was made. The problem affected primarily smaller retailers since most major retailers use their own customized software.

• A Y2K computer glitch at a Chicago-area bank temporarily interrupted electronic Medicare payments to some hospitals and other health care providers. As a work- around, Medicare contractors -- private insurance companies that process and pay Medicare claims - were forced to send diskettes containing processed claims to the bank by courier or Federal Express so that the payments could be made in a timely manner.

• Florida and Kentucky unemployment insurance benefit systems encountered a Y2K glitch in an automated telephone call processing system. The Y2K glitch in customized code prevented some claimants from claiming earned income for the week ending 01/01/2000. Claimants reporting the problem had to be given an alternative means for filing their claims pursuant to State contingency plans.

• Low-level Windshear Alert Systems (LLWAS) failed at New York, Tampa, Denver, Atlanta, Orlando, Chicago O'Hare and St. Louis airports during the date rollover. The systems displayed an error message. Air transportation system specialists at each site were forced to reboot LLWAS computers to clear the error. Fortunately, the weather was mild across the United States.

• Seven nuclear power plant licensees reported problems with plant computer systems used for supporting physical plant access control, monitoring operating data, and calculating meteorological data. The affected systems did not have an impact on the safety of operations at the plants.

• During the Leap Day rollover, several hotels reportedly were unable to issue room keys to guests because of a failure in hotel key- producing software.

• The Council Chair, traveling in March, received a car rental contract that included a $10 daily charge as an underage driver since the software indicated he was born in 2039.

These and other glitches would have been more serious had they occurred in an environment in which a wide range of other Y2K problems had also surfaced. If there had been a flurry of other difficulties, some glitches would have gone undetected for a longer period of time. Glitches also could have had a multiplier effect by creating problems through interfaces to other systems or could have resulted in a gradual degradation of service. As it happened, organizations were able to focus all of their attention on the relatively few problems that did occur, which resulted in much faster restoration of normal operations.

-- A portion of (Koskinen's@final.report), May 05, 2000.

What seems like a lot of money spent on Y2K fixes is really diddly-squat in percentage terms. Also, a lot of that money was spent on seminars, training, lawyers, public-relations, postage, copies, temp. staff to answer inquiries, etc. In other words a lot of money was spent on non-technical stuff in the name of Y2K.

-- Buddy (buddydc@go.com), May 05, 2000.

Buddy,

Sorry about the wrong name.

-- (retired@and.happy), May 05, 2000.