Don't we have to build up from a contingency plan---at this point of the problem---assuming that all power will go down? Everyone wants a scenario better than that, but we are at the point that you need to assume the worse. If time allows, then replace embedded chips; if time allows, test them. But everyone has got to get to the township manager and have a contingency plan that uses stop signs (instead of traffic lights), divides responsibilities, builds up supplies, etc. Once we have the plan, then build from that. If we only work on the technical, then we can be really stuck.

-- Anonymous, October 30, 1998

Answers

The problem is, IMO, that a contingency plan for total blackout is, to say the least, almost unimaginable. Stop signs instead of traffic lights? Try no water, no sewage, no refrigeration, no grocery stores, no hospitals, no gasoline, no heat in January. It is impossible for ANY government...fed, state, or local, to provide a contingency plan for total blackout. Not enough time, not enough money (even tax money), and, its impossible to run our current system without the computers. the ONLY hope is to get as many people as possible self reliant and OFF THE SYSTEM. At least someone will survive. (This is assuming YOUR scenario of total loss of power, which may or may not happen.)

-- Anonymous, October 30, 1998

The towns and cities have been informed by Mr Koskinen(the Presidents y2k frontman) that they should make contingency plans based on having power and dial-tone. See my previous question about "testing and guarrenties".

-- Anonymous, October 30, 1998

And what do you expect Mr. Koskinen to say. "You do not have a chance of keeping your power or dial tone, so panic" or "You Toast forget it" of course not. He has to say, "plan on having power and dial tone, it will all be ok"

-- Anonymous, November 02, 1998

Steve Watson responded: "And what do you expect Mr. Koskinen to say..." I would expect something like:

"We expect a very small percent of the communities to fail. Do everything in your power to make sure that your community is not one of them".

I think this would avoid panic but still strike nearer to the core of the matter and get people moving faster.

-- Anonymous, November 02, 1998

Obviously, the most responsible and sane thing to do is to prepare for the worst-case scenerio. The Titanic taught us that. Again, it seems obvious, that self-sustainable communities (lets make it neighborhoods or even by street) would be the most comforting safe-guard we could have. This is not deep sustainability (bio-regionalism, deep ecology), that's for the future, after 2000. First, we need contingency self-sustainability: cheap, simple ways to be self-reliant. We need a special section on the website that solicites ideas and volunteers, perhaps, to cull and sift these to make the list ever-improving and not too unwieldy. There are already some good ideas right on this site. And I have some too. But let's get efficient and not waste time. Most people might scoff at the possibility of implementing in time, but leave the scoffers to scoffing, there are enough of us who when the chips are down are ready to make the effort. Lets move.

-- Anonymous, November 30, 1998