Y2k was 8-11% of most Corp and Gov. total I.T. budgets. As such it was blown way out of scale. If it were more of a problem it would have required far more than 8-11% of budgets. IN SHORT. IT **NEVER** was a "critical priority" for most entities but only PART of the overall budget. A "Check Off" on I.T. "to do lists" OVER HYPED then dragged by Doomers and Pessimists into the Public Sector......NEEDLESSLY. The US NAVY is going to spend "only" $7 Billion for a new computer system and THAT is not the entire Budget for the US Navy's I.T. department.

As a sidenote, anyone pretending to know about the D.of D. and the US Navy's I.T. work, would have dismissed an old page on a web site about y2k status would at least have checked on it instead of claiming it was a "secret analysis by the Navy of dangers to the American people" as Lord Jim DUMBO did with his "Navy Papers".

E.D.S. Wins Record $7 Billion Contract for Navy Computer Network The largest information technology contract ever awarded by the government, worth nearly $7 billion, has been won by the Electronic Data Systems Corporation. http://www.nytimes.com/2000/10/07/technology/07COMP.html

-- cpr (buytexas@swbell.net), October 07, 2000

Answers

cpr-

What's the scoop on Lord Jim's motivation for blowing all the smoke he did. I don't recall, was he selling survivalist crap on his website? Was he "connected" with those who did? Also, has there been a Lord Jim sighting since the rollover or has he too crawled back under his rock?

Thanks,

-- CD (costavike@hotmail.com), October 07, 2000.

CD, Jim is a regular contributor to Michael Hyatt's Fun House Of Future Horrors.

-- butt nugget (catsbutt@umailme.com), October 07, 2000.

You started a similar thread about government Y2K spending three weeks ago, CPR.

http://greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=003oWx

New 11 Biilion Navy I.T. project larger than ENTIRE FedGov Y2k Expenses

Perhaps it needs to be pointed out to you again that finding the money to fix Y2K wasn't the real problem. The problem was the increasing amount of work being discovered that needed to be done, and done in a short period of time.

Y2K had a fixed, non-negotiable deadline. It's easy to understand why some people were concerned.

Excerpt from a January 1999 article relevant to this discussion.

http://www.findarticles.com/m0NEW/1999_Jan_20/53618689/p1/article.jhtm l

======================================================================

Today's hearing before the committee, hastily assembled before the start of Senate morning business and this afternoon's continuance of the presidential impeachment trial, General Accounting Office Comptroller General David M. Walker told a sparse assortment of Senators that federal agency progress has been made, but the amount of work left to do is "daunting."

Walker also submitted his latest of more than 70 reports from the GAO concerning Year 2000 readiness, "Readiness Improving, But Critical Risks Remain."

He said the GAO now estimates more than $7 billion will be required to insure Year 2000 readiness among so-called mission-critical systems throughout federal agencies. Walker added that the Mar. 31, 1999, compliance date likely will see a good deal of stragglers.

"Sixty-one percent of mission-critical systems are Year 2000- compliant on average, but averages do not disclose significant differences...within the agencies," Walker testified.

Bennett's concern that Senate Appropriations does not sponsor a blank check policy for compliance was contrasted by comments from committee member Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., who said that with "11-and-a-half months (to go until) the Year 2000, we need to see that whatever funding is necessary is provided."

"In November 1998, (the GAO estimated) about $7.2 billion, triple the aggregated original estimate in February 1997," Walker said. "And we simply don't have enough data to say whether more will be needed."

======================================================================

-- (The@estimate.tripled), October 07, 2000.

"Y2K had a fixed, non-negotiable deadline. It's easy to understand why some people were concerned."

NO, the Millennium Contagion involved a "fixed date". Y2k specific issues have been around for THREE freaking decades.

This statement of yours indicates just how ignorant most of the Doom buyers were. You have not clue one as to what Y2k was. You think us Pollies just LUCKY in basically reporting the trend which the worryworts thought a prediction?

-- Doc Paulie (fannybubbles@usa.net), October 07, 2000.

Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., who said that with "11-and-a-half months (to go until) the Year 2000, we need to see that whatever funding is necessary is provided."

Who is Arlen Spector? can you say Warren Commission Report, good class.

This guy is still around throwing our tax dollars around? Be funny if it were not so pathetic.

-- Doc Paulie (fannybubbles@usa.net), October 07, 2000.

"You have not clue one as to what Y2k was."

Then go ahead and tell us what Y2k was. I hope your use of the term "millennium contagion" doesn't mean you're claiming people who prepared for possible computer-related problems believed 2000 would be the Biblical "end of the world."

-- Y2k (the@computer.bug), October 07, 2000.

One of the things that I really enjoyed at Bok's chat room the other night was when we played "Spin the Polly" -- one of us would change our handles to that of a well known polly, and then we would really have a good go at arguing with the "simulation".

I've got to practice up on "Doc speak", so that I'll really be able to get some fannys bubbling!!!

-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.cum), October 07, 2000.

Another "anon" with another HISTORY RE-WRITE and a WHO CARES POST misses the whole point. The TIME TO FINISH ........was a scare tactic TO GET THE FREAKING MONEY .......IDIOT,,,,,,,,,,.That was how D.C. and the "system" works. THAT WAS EXACTLY the tactic that the District itself used so it could pay IBM and get the work FINISHED.

"In November 1998, (the GAO estimated) about $7.2 billion, triple the aggregated original estimate in February 1997," Walker said. "And we simply don't have enough data to say whether more will be needed."

=================================================================== === The@estimate.tripled), October 07, 2000

The estimate "tripled"....???

THAT WAS THE FIRST TIME IN 200 years that an ESTIMATE IN D.C. was RAISED? ........SILLY ME.

THE FREAKING ESTIMATE FOR Y2k was LAUGHED AT ON de Jager's list from the first minute it was posted. People working in D.C. who knew the systems fired ranges of 3X to 10X including the amounts that were in the budgets from ongoing work (like that of Social security which had Y2k compliance in the original specs. for the complete rewrite project at SSI.)

BUT......don't let that stop you from making another weak point ZOMBIE.

-- cpr (buytexas@swbell.net), October 07, 2000.

OFF

-- cpr (buytexas@swbell.net), October 07, 2000.

Jim Lord and the Navy report

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

-- (for@the.record), October 08, 2000.

More info on the $7 billion project:

http://www.abcnews.go.com/sections/tech/DailyNews/navyinternet001006.h tml

Navy, Marines Get Connected

Those are just two examples of how the Navy and Marine Corps say their planned five-year, $7 billion Intranet will reform military operations.

Todays contract award to Electronic Data Systems Corp. of Plano, Texas, to establish and run a single integrated Navy-Marine Corps network is being characterized as perhaps the largest single government computer contract awarded outside the government.

For months, four key companies have battled for the initial five-year contract.

-- (News@of.note), October 08, 2000.

Let's take a quick look at the assumptions behind what cpr is saying about y2k spending and I.T. budgets.

Y2k was 8-11% of most Corp and Gov. total I.T. budgets. As such it was blown way out of scale. If it were more of a problem it would have required far more than 8-11% of budgets. IN SHORT. IT **NEVER** was a "critical priority" for most entities but only PART of the overall budget. A "Check Off" on I.T. "to do lists" OVER HYPED then dragged by Doomers and Pessimists into the Public Sector......NEEDLESSLY.

http://greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=003oWx

Since Y2k was spread over 4 years in most cases: you get about 2.125 B/yr/30 OR LESS THAN 10% for Y2k. OR the equivalent of "maintenance". Which is exactly what it was.

http://hv.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=003bCg

Y2k was "maintenance" BLOWN WAY OUT OF PROPORTION by a few vendors and the MORONS aided by the net. IBM /UNISYS/C.A. and all the REAL PLAYERS ramped Y2k DOWN on the Marketing side by early 1998 (not 1999. 98).

Cpr is assuming most organizations began work on y2k in the 1995/1996 timeframe (starting Jan. 1996 would have given an organization four years). I know there were some larger banks who did begin work on y2k at that point, but most other organizations started later.

If y2k really was just 'maintenance' most started working on in 1995 or 1996, cpr would not have been forecasting in June 1998 that y2k's impact was going to be a '5.0' (8.0 minus a panic impact of '3'). See http://www.russkelly.com/experts.html for forecasts about y2k made prior to Jan. 2000.

-- (a@closer.look), October 10, 2000.