I've been doing my own Y2K research now for a few months. I consider myself middle of the road when it comes the the issues. I plan to have a 30 supply of food and water and enough kerosene and wood to heat a portion of my house during that time.

I've been to many of the "gloom and doom" sites such as Gary Norths'. I think it's only fair to report when positives occur also. The following is part of an article on zdnet.

"Where are we today? According to Cap Gemini, a research firm, global Y2K spending almost doubled in the last six months of 1998, from $256 billion in April to $494 billion in October. No one yet knows what the final bill will be, because post-2000 repairs, lost revenues due to Y2K problems and liability lawsuits cant be calculated today. But, a ballpark figure is possible, based on a survey of estimated costs to fix the problem.

At ZDY2K, our best estimate for the total cost of the Year 2000 problem, including all the direct costs (repairs, lost revenue and liabilities), is between $1.5 trillion and $2.5 trillion, based on a consensus estimate produced by research firms. The impact on the stock market, which could fall in response to unexpected costs or the prospect of widespread liability suits against companies, is not included in this estimate. By comparison, the Asian currency crisis cost global markets approximately $3.5 trillion in lost value.

Its also becoming clear that many of the worst case scenarios for Y2K wont come true. Power generation and distribution systems in three regions are already operating using post-1999 dates. The banking industry has made excellent progress, with fewer than five percent of all banks thought to be behind the curve. Telephone companies have announced their networks readiness to handle calls in 2000.

When most state and federal governments began their fiscal year 1999 calendars, in July and October, respectively, errors had been expected that did not occur. As the fiscal year begins, you see, computers begin to look forward into the next year -- presumably, government systems with Y2K problems should have experienced at least a few significant failures when performing this look-ahead processes. None were reported."

I especially find the sentence about electric companies heartening. I keep hearing people say there is not 1 power company that is Y2K complient. What we don't know is how many are 75-80% finished with their remediation. It all boils down to a lack of disclosure on the progress these utilities are making. I don't think it's fair to assume "no news is bad news". I do realize that so much is yet to be done and I fully expect that eveyones life will be touched negatively in some way.

I still happen to have a little faith in the engineering and technical skill sets of the utility employees.

Another site well worth visiting is:

http://nova.smu.edu/garynorth.htm

It refutes many of Gary North's theories with humor and fact.

I highly recommend it.

-- Anonymous, December 23, 1998

Answers

Y2K stuff is frustrating is it not? Per your and ZDNETs comments, I have a great deal of faith in our people to get things accomplished. In fact in a way our ability to get things done so well has created this problem. We are now trying to fix all the brillant software and embedded systems that were built on a flawed premise. The problem is not a lack a brillance or faith; the problem is a lack of time. The question is not whether or not we will get things fixed ... we will get them fixed. The question is ... can we fix them on time.

Years ago this concept was brought home to me. I am a engineer by education and a software architect by profession. In college, I had a particularly vexing course called Thermodynamics. Basically is it the study of energy and heat in dynamic systems such as steam driven generators. The course was high level and roundly hated by all students. I studied hard for the dreaded first test and showed up on time, with calculator and pencils (and backups for both). The test was handed out and I was excited. I knew how to do all the problems presented. I set to work and time flew. I was shocked when the professor declared that the test time was over and I had only completed 2/3 of the test. I correctly answered the questions that I attempted and *still* flunked the test! Ouch. Big lesson for me ... it is *never* good enough to just know the material ... I had to know the material well enough to do it fast. The same analogy applies to Y2K. The problems are known and solveable. The question is ... can we complete the test on time? Industry feedback and project metrics seem to lead us the the conclusion that the answer is no.

On the critique of Gary North ... We all owe Gary North a great deal. Yes, he sometimes is a bit emotional and sometimes he seems to skip steps in logical arguments. However, the vast majority of information on his site simply references published statements of companies and governments, i.e. stories that represent the state of the state. We may disagree with Gary's conclusions, but please, we can not disagree with the facts as reported. If we disagree, let us disagree based on the facts. The site that you referenced is loaded with attacks on Gary North personally and does little or nothing to refute the facts. I am disgusted by those who make their point by tearing others down. This is simply not necessary.

-- Anonymous, December 23, 1998

I agree with you and I do not condone the bashing of Gary North. What I got out of the web site, ( after having the bejeezes scared out of me by Gary North ), is that he has made many similar gloom and doom predictions in the past that have all been incorrect.

I disagree with using the fear/shock variable to bring awareness to a situation.

I have read that utilities plan to bring some old retired generation plants back into service to help account for potential failures on 12/31/99. What is the feasibility of this and where can I find information on this?

-- Anonymous, December 23, 1998

Sorry, but you're missing the point. You're paying too much attention to the messanger, and not enough on the message.

If the North American power grid (or a substantial portion) goes down for more than six or eight weeks, we'll be in a meltdown situation. That's what this website and forum are all about. What are the chances that will happen, and what can we do about it if it does.

If the power staying on was only dependent on the utilities, I'd give them a fighting chance, although I still wouldn't be convinced they could keep the lights on. The real problem is there is a huge, very delicate web surrounding (and affecting) the generation of power, including things like telecommunications, banking, the world's economy, transportation, supply chains, human error, and equipment failure.

Whatever Gary North's problems are, however bad his predictions have been in the past, Y2K is different. It's not something the people in charge can do much about, except fix the computers. And that's not happening nearly fast enough.

As far as his technique of using fear and shock, in theory I'd agree that it's a bad idea, but in practice it's the only thing that works. People are used to being barraged with huge amounts of news and information, much of it bad. Very little of it seems to have any direct effect on us, so we ignore it for the most part. Y2K is too important to ignore, but so far most people have been doing just that. Shock & fear is sometimes the only way to get people to pay attention. Of course, often it has just the opposite effect, and the people trying to spread awareness get lumped in with the rest of the fear & shock crowd peddling whatever...

I don't agree with a lot of GN's conclusions, but the evidence he provides cannot be argued with...

Jon

-- Anonymous, December 23, 1998

I agree there are positives, but not enough of them on 12/24/98. If you don't mind, here is a mild critique ala GN. =============== > I've been doing my own Y2K research now for a few months. I >consider myself middle of the road when it comes the the issues. I >plan to have a 30 supply of food and water and enough kerosene and >wood to heat a portion of my house during that time. I guess we all have our definitions of whats "middle of the road". Mine is 6 months not 30 days. I think there is a very slippery slope between "bump in the road" and TEOTWAWKI. My advice is to prepare for either one week or one year. If the power goes down for 29 days, it is not coming back on day 30. Panic and violence will rule at that point. >"I've been to many of the "gloom and doom" sites such as Gary >Norths'. I think it's only fair to report when positives occur also. >The following is part of an article on zdnet. > "Where are we today? According to Cap Gemini, a research firm, >global Y2Kspending almost doubled in the last six months of 1998, >from $256 billion in April to $494 billion in October. No one yet >knows what the final bill will be, because post-2000 repairs, lost >revenues due to Y2K problems and liability lawsuits cant >be calculated today. But, a ballpark figure is possible, based on a >survey of estimated costs to fix the problem. >At ZDY2K, our best estimate for the total cost of the Year 2000 >problem, including all the direct costs (repairs, lost revenue and >liabilities), is between $1.5 trillion and $2.5 trillion, based on a >consensus estimate produced by research firms. The impact on the >stock market, which could fall in response to unexpected costs or >the prospect of widespread liability suits against companies, is not >included in this estimate. By comparison, the Asian currency crisis >cost global markets approximately $3.5 trillion in lost value. === So exactly what is "good news" about spending $2+ trillion? And there is a huge difference between spending money (value changes hands) and the phantom "lost value". If nothing else happens but the $2T spent on Y2K, it will likely cause a Depression and market crash. >Its also becoming clear that many of the worst case scenarios for >Y2K wont come true. Power generation and distribution systems in >three regions are already operating using post-1999 dates.

On the contrary, it is far from clear what will happen. No one, pollyanna or doomer, has clearly enunciated what embedded systems are where and how they will react to a Y2K environment. We simply don't know.

Now, name the regions and the power generation facilities using forward set dates. Then tell me that they forward set the SCADA/EMS and the telecommunication controls between multiple plants and the grids. Then explain in detail what depth of study there has been on the embedded systems at the distribution substations. I am aware only of isolated forward set testing on a very limited basis at a few individual plants (but not distribution).

>The banking industry has made excellent progress, with fewer than >five percent of all banks thought to be behind the curve. Telephone >companies have announced their networks readiness to handle calls in >2000. Excellent progress? Five percent? Have you looked at their skyrocketing budgets? Did I miss an announcement that large scale testing between banks has been accomplished? Name your souces to justify this remarkable claim. We all want good news. But I want more than a press release of 'good feelings and confidence'. >When most state and federal governments began their fiscal year 1999 >calendars, in July and October, respectively, errors had been >expected that did not occur. As the fiscal year begins, you see, >computers begin to look forward into the next year -- presumably, >government systems with Y2K problems should have experienced at least >a few significant failures when performing this look-ahead >processes. None were reported." Look ahead 1999 processing will generate some errors, but very few in "critical" apps like check processing, etc. Most of such errors would show up in strictly internal (versus public) documents that are used for management functions. Further, I don't know about "none reported". My personal retirement statement from the Army was wrong for the first time in 15 years. It showed absolutely no activity prior to 1990 even though I have a service record that dates to 1971. Hmm, sounds like a pivot error to me. I reported it. Heard nothing back. Maybe I should call the New York Times and let them investigate. > I especially find the sentence about electric companies heartening. >I keep hearing people say there is not 1 power company that is Y2K >complient. What we don't know is how many are 75-80% finished with >their remediation. Well, we do know how much money they have budgeted and how much they have spent. My local company (PECO) has budgeted $75 million. As of 9/30/98, they have spent $7 million. I don't like that ratio and its repeated commonly throughout the industry. Now are you going to tell me that every other segment of the economy has underestimated the Y2K cost but that the utilities have overestimated? >It all boils down to a lack of disclosure on the progress these >utilities are making. I don't think it's fair to assume "no news is >bad news". And why is that? Most people and companies like to proclaim good news. So its more accurate to say that no good news implies at least the possibility of bad news. Isn't that why you are giving yourself 30 days of supplies? >I still happen to have a little faith in the engineering and >technical skill sets of the utility employees. Faith is irrelevant. You are engaging in wishful thinking and betting your life on it. Furthermore, the Achilles heel of power distribution is telecommunication. The grids will not survive long if the telecomm links are unreliable. Therefore, include a little wishful thinking and faith for them as well. I hope I added just the right GN tone there at the end !

-- Anonymous, December 24, 1998

When explaining the y2k issue to people, I've found a very simple discription to use is: "When the hips, knees and ankles AREN'T compliant....they will topple over onto the carpet, announcing, that thier thighs, calves and feet WHERE compliant, complete with a full year's testing"!! Nobody can deny that electricity would qualify as, at least, having the importance of HIPS.

-- Anonymous, December 25, 1998