http://hv.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=003HL3

IBM, Red Cross suggest safeguards for New Year's

Computer giant and aid agency suggest using common sense Jonathan Chevreau Financial Post

A recent internal publication issued by International Business Machines Corp. focused on the Y2K problem, advises employees around the world to make personal contingency plans and be prepared on personal finances, including putting aside some extra cash.

The special 1999 issue of IBM's Think magazine, headlined simply "Understanding Y2K," also advises workers to be flexible about vacation plans and to be prepared for unusually heavy workloads in the fourth quarter of 1999 and first quarter of 2000.

"In planning for the transition to 2000, nothing is being taken for granted, and few scenarios are too far-fetched," it warns.

For personal living preparations, it largely relies on the recommendations of the American Red Cross, available on the Internet at www.redcross.org/disaster/ safety/y2k.html.

"Stock non-perishable foods, water and medications you use regularly," the IBM publication says. "Have some extra cash on hand; fill your gas tank a day or so before New Year's Eve; and have blankets, gloves, flashlights and extra batteries on hand in case of power failures." (It suggests candles are hazardous.)

While the document says "there's no reason to panic," it also suggests that employees "should talk to your personal bank/credit union/health-care provider about whether they are ready." It also cautions people to "beware of rumours," particularly spread over the Internet.

While personal preparation suggestions are often cited by Y2K skeptics as coming from the lunatic fringe, it's quite another thing coming from IBM or the Red Cross.

But IBM acknowledges it has been essentially near "ground zero" in the whole Y2K phenomenon. In 1964, it reminds us, IBM introduced the System/360 mainframe, and used a two-digit year to conserve space on punch cards.

Indeed it is a former IBMer-- Peter de Jager -- who became dubbed the Paul Revere of the Y2K crisis when he issued his call for action in a 1993 article in Computerworld magazine, headlined "Doomsday 2000."

Last March, Mr. de Jager declared Doomsday had, in fact, been avoided, asserting that the world had at least broken the back of Y2K enough to avert the most far-out "end of the world as we know it" apocalyptic scenarios.

That doesn't mean there won't be days or weeks of disruptions. What's remarkable about the IBM publication is its repeated reminders that "all markets, all businesses, all governments and all communities are interconnected."

In fact, IBM's graphic descriptions of Y2K interconnectedness and interdependencies aren't radically different from the dire falling-domino theories of such Y2K doomsayers as Dr. Gary North and Joe Boivin.

"It's not enough to convert your own business, because you're not ready until your entire supply chain is," IBM says.

"It's not enough to live in a Y2K-ready neighborhood unless all its interwoven threads -- businesses, schools, neighbourhood associations, police and fire departments -- are ready. Y2K will throw these interconnections into sharp relief."

The publication warns of the billions of embedded chips contained in such diverse technologies as oil-drilling equipment, airplanes, medical devices and microwave ovens.

It says efforts to find and fix embedded chips will continue "well after Jan. 1, 2000." Mr. de Jager calls embedded chips the wild card of Y2K.

But Y2K, according to IBM, is not primarily about the way we code dates in computer software, hardware or components. Rather, "it's mostly about how information technology has spread throughout our economy, society and personal lives."

IBM recognizes that opinions about the consequences of not being Y2K-ready "range all over the map. Perhaps the biggest problem with Y2K is that no one knows exactly what will happen."

From its interaction with customers around the world, IBM does not see anything to support predictions of a global recession or some kind of "digital winter."

It says large U.S. organizations "should be ready," although it is "less certain ... how small businesses and less developed nations will fare... Many are on the move now, but they've got to pick up the pace."

IBM met with some internal resistance when it began one year ago -- relatively late in the game -- to gather data on contingency plans. It eventually came up with 10 scenarios "that could possibly go wrong -- from applications and systems failures to disruptions in utilities, telephone and public mail services." It called the exercise sobering.

That's why businesses have developed contingency plans and why individuals should also regard some personal preparations as a form of insurance against disruptions.

The Red Cross suggests having on hand at least a three-day supply of household staples. This is consistent with the most conservative Y2K-preparation gurus, who compare any possible disruptions to a weekend storm. There are plenty of Y2K experts who argue for a month or many months of supplies.

The Red Cross Disaster Supplies Kit checklist includes storing a gallon of water per person per day, non-perishable food, a first-aid kit, non-prescription drugs, various sanitation items such as toilet paper, tools such as flashlights and battery-operated radio, a non-electric can opener, warm clothing, extra eyeglasses or contact lenses and much more.

Canadian Y2K gurus would add to the list a supply of firewood for a fireplace or wood stove.

Don't wait until the final few weeks, since such supplies could be unavailable, scarce or very costly.

Coming from prominent Y2K gloom-and-doomers, such survival contingency plans might appear ludicrous. But when they come from IBM and the Red Cross, maybe -- just maybe --there may be cause to take at least the teensiest bit of personal preparations.

Besides, even if Y2K ends up a blustery gust rather than a raging storm, there's always the possibility a major blizzard or other act of God could strike.

Residents of Eastern Canada who suffered through the ice storm almost two years ago would have welcomed having a lot more than the Red Cross' three days worth of provisions. Mr. de Jager told CTV News last week that two or three weeks of provisions would be prudent.

As of tomorrow, there are just 100 days until the turn of the century.

Jonathan Chevreau can be reached by e-mail at jchevreau@nationalpost.com -- Uncle Bob (UNCLB0B@Y2KOK.ORG), September 22, 1999 ---------------------------------------------------- Some people, like Andy Ray, say that the meme infected idiots of the former TB2000 are to blame for the Y2K "panic." It was all caused by North and Yourdon.

Is Andy correct? After all didn't you see this, above?

"In fact, IBM's graphic descriptions of Y2K interconnectedness and interdependencies aren't radically different from the dire falling-domino theories of such Y2K doomsayers as Dr. Gary North and Joe Boivin."

Oh, and I really like this line:

"Coming from prominent Y2K gloom-and-doomers, such survival contingency plans might appear ludicrous. But when they come from IBM and the Red Cross, maybe -- just maybe --there may be cause to take at least the teensiest bit of personal preparations."

So, here we have the proof that IBM was infected by Gary North!

But what about our former leader, Ed Yourdon? Well, that's easy. He testified here:

HTML Senate Reort on Y2K with bookmarks

Ed infected the government!

So, Andy is right. It was the morons of TB2000, that caused the FUD, to be noticed by the .gov, IBM, the Red Cross, IEEE, jeez, how many do I have to dig up outta the archive? I'm gonna need some help here, to re-post the entire old forum...

You're right Andy, We caused it all. We caused the construction of the .gov command center. We caused the the billions to be spent. We caused ...

<:)=

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), June 05, 2000

Answers

Sorry, my dashed line screwed up. I hate HTML. Guess I better put up a shortcut to Frontpage, and use it for anything over 2 lines...

<:(((=

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), June 05, 2000.

http://www.computerworld.com/home/print.nsf/CWFlash/990628B142

Forming a command center to quickly respond to problems during the date rollover is wise planning. Here's what to keep in mind

By Rick Saia

06/28/99 Mary Livens is working hard to make New Year's Eve as boring as possible. Livens, year 2000 project leader at Medical Mutual of Ohio in Cleveland, is helping assemble a Y2K command center that can react quickly to any disruptions that might occur at the date rollover.

Many corporations are apparently doing the same. A survey of Fortune 500 firms released last month by Cap Gemini America LLC in New York found 85% of the companies surveyed plan to build Y2K command centers or crisis-management centers  up from 40% just five months earlier.

"Companies are demonstrating their sense of caution by placing greater emphasis on managing possible year 2000 risks," says Jim Woodward, a vice president at Cap Gemini.

The risks are many. Aside from problems related to unremediated software and hardware, organizations must be prepared for losses of power, telecommunications and water, as well as the possibility that their suppliers' or customers' unfixed code could infect their systems during data transmissions.

Forming a command center takes months of planning, especially because you're assembling a team of people that will have to be on alert status for no more than a few weeks.

"We're taking a very structured approach" to building Medical Mutual's command center, Livens says. Part of that is determining what will need prompt attention should there be a malfunction at any of the insurer's 16 locations throughout Ohio.

In the event of a system crash or another severe problem, she says, the command center team  made up of key managers and technicians  would be contacted via beepers, and gather in a designated room with several backup phone lines and attack the problem. There will be a list of contacts for each office with all possible ways of reaching them in the event something goes awry, such as a loss of power, she adds.

There are three, key components to a command center, Livens says. First, you must answer the question, How are you going to get in touch with people who need to make decisions? Next, she says, you need a top leader or decision-maker onboard. Finally, a scribe must be present to document problems and solutions so "you don't have to reinvent the wheel" if something similar happens in the future, Livens says.

Laura R. Adams, year 2000 project manager at a national managed health care firm, advises that when you're forming a Y2K command center, get input from all of the key players  such as business-unit directors, vice presidents and senior executives  and keep them informed of changes to the plan as it comes together.

Also, build a command center structure tailored to the potential disasters your company could face. Then, she says, consider the worst- case scenarios and ask, "Is there anything that can be done right now, in advance?"

Howard A. Rubin, an information technology researcher and chairman of the computer sciences department at Hunter College in New York, says a company should provide primary and backup communications links to key external organizations, such as regulatory agencies and public services, that are critical to operations. Rubin also advises that the command center plan be implemented early, tested often and revised continuously.

The bottom line is to know your industry, your business and its processes and systems, says Walter Taylor, vice president of airline operations systems and year 2000 at Delta Air Lines. Establish a set of "guiding principles" such as "Safety will remain a priority" or "We won't inconvenience a customer," he says.

Prepared for Disaster

Some companies  particularly in the airline and health care industries  already have procedures in place for dealing with unforeseen factors, such as power failures and weather events, that can turn operations topsy-turvy.

Delta is mandated by federal law to have emergency response plans, which Taylor finds a big help in planning for Y2K. The Delta command center will be led by Taylor, CIO Charlie Feld and one or two vice presidents, all operating in rotating shifts.

The center will be linked to Delta's IT operations center and its Atlanta-based "nerve center," which monitors weather conditions and flight schedules and communicates with the Federal Aviation Administration. One person will act as a "direct link" to managers who oversee applications and manage Delta's IT infrastructure, Taylor says.

Delta's biggest Y2K challenge is the possibility of losing a large component such as its reservation system. Should that happen, the nerve center would be contacted to help determine whether the airline must delay or cancel flights.

A bonus is that "problem-management skills and techniques developed as part of the Y2K command center can be applied to day-to-day problem-solving" after the year 2000 threat disappears, says Gregory J. Blatnik, IT manager at Medical Mutual.

Of course, many large organizations already have problem- and risk- management systems. But for those that don't, Y2K "is a good way" to get one off the ground, Blatnik says.

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

Saia is Computerworld's senior editor, Managing.

-- (some@help.here), June 06, 2000.

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

http://news.excite.com:80/news/r/991109/02/tech-yk-usa

Link

White House Readies Y2K Center

Updated 2:58 AM ET November 9, 1999

By Jim Wolf

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The White House lifted the veil Monday on a $40 million operations center designed to track how the world fares as it enters the technologically challenging Year 2000.

The center, in old Secret Service premises two blocks from the White House, will launch 24-hour operations on Dec. 28 continuing through the first few days of the new year or longer if conditions warrant.

Brian Kilgallen, head of the center's public outreach arm, told reporters that Y2K-tracking operations "probably" would continue at a reduced pace until March 15 to monitor any Leap Year complications for automated systems.

Jokingly dubbed the Y2K "bunker" by congressional staff members, the facility is on upper floors at 1800 G St. N.W. It will coordinate data collected by existing government emergency centers and, for the first time, the private sector.

Arrangements have been made for the sharing of centralized information by the following industries: electric power, banking, finance, telecommunications, oil, gas, airline, pharmaceuticals and retail industries.

The Information Coordination Center (ICC), as the project is formally known, is being set up by the President's Council on Year 2000 Conversion, headed by John Koskinen, a presidential assistant.

The ICC will receive international status reports from the State Department, Pentagon, U.S. intelligence agencies and private sector information centers, he told Congress last week.

Koskinen has said basic U.S. infrastructure is ready for Jan. 1, when unprepared computers could crash if they misread the last two zeros in the date field and mistake 2000 for 1900.

ICC TO SERVE AS BRIEFING FACILITY

In the days surrounding the century date change, the ICC will also serve as a briefing facility for the United Nations-backed, World Bank-funded International Y2K Cooperation Center, which is coordinating the work of national Y2K coordinators worldwide.

In addition, it will work with the National Infrastructure Protection Center, the FBI-led cyber crime detection operation, and computer emergency response teams in the United States and abroad to monitor unauthorized computer intrusions, Koskinen told two House panels on Nov. 4.

Information gathered by the ICC will be the basis for regularly updated national and international status reports provided to federal decision-makers. But the center itself will not be involved in decision-making, Koskinen has said.

Mindful of conspiracy theorists, he dismissed as a myth the notion that the federal government was planning to use the Y2K issue as an excuse to "take control" of key institutions in the United States.

Kilgallen said status reports would be provided to the public about once an hour start starting shortly after 7 a.m. EST (1200 GMT) Friday, Dec. 31, when New Zealand becomes the first industrial country to ring in the New Year.

Comprehensive, on-camera briefings by Koskinen were tentatively scheduled to take place about once every four hours, Kilgallen said.

The center's operations are headed by Peter Kind, a retired Army lieutenant general.

-- Homer Beanfang (Bats@inbellfry.com), November 09, 1999

-- (history@of.Y2K), June 06, 2000.

http://hv.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=001m1m

http://cnn.com/US/9911/14/y2k.security/

(snip)

"California cops, National Guard prepare for millennium trouble"

"From Correspondent Rusty Dornin"

November 14, 1999 Web posted at: 5:55 p.m. EST (2255 GMT)

"SAN FRANCISCO (CNN) -- California is gearing up for turn-of-the- century celebrations that go over the top. Some 1,700 National Guard troops will be on duty from December 30 to January 2, ready for action in San Francisco -- or other cities in the state in case revelers get out of hand."

"Right now, the National Guard is preparing for Y2K in the eventuality we would have to backup law enforcement because of lights going out or a civil disturbance," said Capt. Joseph Horton of the California National Guard."

"There is a history of citywide parties turning dangerous."

"Thousands of San Franciscans took to the streets for VJ Day, when the fighting with Japan formally ended in 1945. Eleven people were killed during the celebration and thousands were injured in the three- day party." "To make sure millennium parties -- or any civil disturbances resulting from possible Y2K problems -- don't measure up to those statistics, San Francisco police have been practicing riot control measures, backed by stiff warnings."

"If you intend to come to San Francisco and conduct yourself in an unpeaceful manner ... you will be taken into custody immediately," cautioned San Francisco Police Chief Fred Lau."

"The National Guard helped out Los Angeles police during the Rodney King riots."

"Troops also have provided statewide disaster relief during earthquakes and floods. Spokesmen say the Guard would be ready for just about anything the New Year might bring -- including massive power outages."

"For the Y2K phenomena, we're ready with fuel. For example, generator crews, we have 50 of them, we have trucks, C130s, Blackhawks and Chinooks (helicopters) and people and shelters and armories and so on," said California National Guard Col. Terry Knight."

"Crews at California's Office of Emergency Services will also be on duty round the clock through New Year's weekend."

"We are connected with all the counties by satellite with generators so even if there was a problem we would be able to communicate with one another to help protect public safety," said the agency's Tom Mullins."

-- Deb M. (vmcclell@columbus.rr.com), November 15, 1999

-- (history@of.Y2K), June 06, 2000.

LOL -- (history@of.Y2K),

Keep 'em comin' - not that it'll matter...

<:)=

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), June 06, 2000.

http://www.accessatlanta.com/partners/ajc/reports/y2k/dos.html

[The Atlanta Journal-Constitution: 9.19.99]

Be prepared: A list of do's

By Marilyn Geewax

Atlanta Journal-Constitution Staff Writer

Washington -- Don't panic, but get prepared. While the nation's basic infrastructure will function after Jan. 1, authorities say the Y2K computer bug is sure to cause some problems. The power could go out in one community, while the water system falters in another and traffic lights malfunction in still another. Because no one can say with certainty which systems might fail, "the basic message we are giving people is ... be prepared for an emergency," said Red Cross spokeswoman Leslie Credit. Start your preparations by figuring out who is going to be in your household between Dec. 31 and mid-January, and what each person's special needs will be. Then lay out a strategy for making sure everyone can stay hydrated, healthy and warm for up to two weeks. These are among the recommendations being made by mainstream agencies:

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

WATER

THE POTENTIAL PROBLEM:

Local providers typically keep water flowing by using pumps and valves controlled by microprocessors and chips. Computers also regulate various aspects of water treatment, such as the addition of chlorine. In addition, Y2K-related power outages could cause a loss of heat that would allow pipes to freeze and burst.

THE SOLUTION:

(snip)

-- (history@of.Y2K), June 06, 2000.

http://hv.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=0029an

[Fair Use: For Educational/Research Purposes Only]

Thursday December 30 10:04 AM ET

FEMA Awaits the Stroke of Midnight

By BRIGITTE GREENBERG Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) - Hundreds of federal emergency officials have fanned out across the country and will await the stroke of midnight in each U.S. time zone Friday with an eye toward Y2K disaster.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency has established 10 regional centers to monitor potential catastrophes in the United States and its territories.

Beginning today, FEMA will have its emergency support team in full gear around the clock through Sunday. More than 800 personnel will be working through the weekend.

The agency can draw on resources from as many as 26 federal agencies and the Red Cross if Y2K emergencies arise.

``FEMA is confident that nothing serious will happen, but we are prepared to respond just like we would for any other natural disaster or any other emergency situation,'' said Robert Adamcik, associate director for FEMA response and recovery.

Preparing for 18 months, the agency's officials have rehearsed a multitude of scenarios, including explosions, power outages and nuclear disaster.

FEMA officials said they will constantly gather information from state and local governments throughout the weekend, monitoring them with an automated system that assigns a green light to communities that are OK, a yellow light to those where an emergency is suspected but information is incomplete, and a red light for a confirmed disaster.

FEMA would be called in only after a state's governor asked President Clinton to declare a federal disaster area.

``Some of the things that we can provide under the plan range from mass care that Red Cross can provide, food through the Department of Agriculture, transportation, communications, search and rescue or emergency medical and pharmaceuticals, should those be needed by state and local government,'' said Bruce Baughman, chief of operations for FEMA response and recovery.

The Health and Human Services Department, Centers for Disease Control and Defense Department have gas masks and antidotes in the event of chemical or biological terrorism, FEMA spokesman Marc Wolfson said.

Officials emphasized that they had not received any specific threats, but extra security measures were introduced at federal buildings across the country this week, said Bob Dunfey, the regional administrator of the General Services Administration in New England.

At the federal courthouse in Boston, visitors and courthouse employees were asked to produce photo identification to enter the building.

In Scranton, Pa., officials told visitors to the federal courthouse to park in nearby lots rather than on the street right outside, allowing the building to have a buffer, said Dave Branham, a spokesman for the U.S. Marshals.

Even if a significant disaster arises that is not related to Y2K, such as an unexpected weather phenomenon, FEMA would respond, Adamcik said. However, certain emergencies - cyber terrorism, local civil disturbances, a national security emergency or long-term economic recovery - would fall under the purview of other agencies.

President Clinton's top Y2K expert, John Koskinen, said stores appear to be fully supplied if people wish to stock up on water or other provisions for parties or a long midwinter weekend.

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

-- Linkmeister (link@librarian.edu), December 30, 1999.

-- (history@of.Y2K), June 06, 2000.

http://www.wild2k.com/database/vanityfair.html

(snip)

But in suburban Toronto, Peter de Jager, a bearded, South African- born computer consultant of prodigious girth and with a similarly sized knack for phrasemaking, was about to bring Y2K to the fore. He'd known about the problem since the 1970s, but he hadn't 'paid it any heed until 1989, when he saw a documentary on the 1965 East Coast power blackout-an event brought about by the failure of a single transmission line. If something so minor could visit such misery on so many, de Jager thought, what would happen if billions of lines of computer code suddenly went screwy?

Over the next four years. de Jager soaked up everything he could about computer dates, power grids, and systems connections. "It scared the hell Out of me!" he says. "First, because of what it could do to me and my family. Then something else occurred to me: What the hell is it going to do to the world?" In September 1993, de Jager published his worries in Computerworld. "Have you ever been in a car accident?" he wrote beneath the headline DOOMSDAY 2000. "Time seems to slow down.... It's too late to avoid it-you're going to crash. All you can do now is watch it happen.... We are heading toward the year 2000. We are heading toward a failure of our standard date format.... Unfortunately, unlike the car crash, time will not slow down for us. If anything, we're accelerating toward disaster." De Jager laid out just why-and noted the squandered billions that would be the consequence. "We and our computers were supposed to make life easier;" he wrote. "This was our promise. What we have delivered is a catastrophe."

By 1995, "the Paul Revere for the year2000 computer crisis," as The New York Times dubbed him, was pounding the lecture circuit'. "If today were December 31, 1999," de Jager told audiences, "tomorrow our economy worldwide would stop. It wouldn't grind to a halt. It would snap to a halt, You would not have a dial tone.... You would not have air travel. You would not have Federal Express. You would not have the Postal Service. You would not have water. You would not have power. Because the systems are broken."

Before long, de Jager was delivering 85 speeches a year. A book (Managing 00: Surviving the Year 2000 Computing Crisis) was also in the works, along with pricey seminars on videotape and a 600,000- visits-per month Web site-www.year2000.com. Such was de lager's influence that the American Stock Exchange named a listing of Y2Kremediation companies after him. During its first year in operation, the value of the "de Jager Year 2000 Index" jumped 100 percent-two and a half times more than the Dow. Its namesake, who was reportedly pulling in more than $1 million a year; wasn't doing badly, either-a fact de Jager's critics never tired of pointing out. Some scoffed at the need for doomsaying. In 1997, David Star; chief information officer for Readers' Digest, called the clamor over Y2K "the biggest fraud perpetrated by consultants on the business community since re-engineering." Added Money, "We cope with wars, huge upheavals, natural disasters of all sorts. And now we're going to be stopped in our tracks by a computer glitch?" Even the John Birch Society joined the chorus, suggesting that Y2K could lead to a government power grab reminiscent of the Reichstag fire.

IBM, however, was taking Y2K quite seriously, and as far back as October 1995 had announced a series of steps to "assist customers in timely Year 2000 transitions." That IBM had played a leading role in creating the need for those transitions-and faced the prospect of whopping lawsuits wasn't mentioned. But the company left no doubt that big trouble was coming. "The problem is large; it's complex," IBM's press release quoted de Jager as saying. "IBM is right ... to address this issue today."

Internet publisher John Westergaard needed no convincing. His friend New York senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan was a different story: he still wrote on a typewriter. But that had not kept the two men from being close, nor had it prevented Westergaard from being Moynihan's campaign treasurer. And so, over lunch one day in early 1996, Moynihan listened intently as Westergaard spun a bloodcurdling tale of a phenomenon he'd never heard of. "I had' a fascinating lunch in New York," the senator told reporters when he got back to Washington. "A friend was talking about madcow disease for the computers of the world." He wasn't kidding, Moynihan said. "There is a bug in every computer that will cause it to go haywire January' 1, 2000, and the federal government better get its act together. If they can't pay their bills and issue checks in a normal fashion it is going to domino to all other things."

When the warning went virtually unnoticed. Moynihan asked the Congressional Research Service to prepare a report on possible Y2K consequences. What came back in June 1996 was chilling: hospital systems failing, airplanes not taking off or landing, records being scrambled-one cataclysm after another. Moynihan passed the news to Bill Clinton in a July 31, 1996, letter, along with a recommendation that the president appoint someone who would ensure that all federal agencies-and the companies that did business with them-be Y2K-compliant by January 1, 1999. "The computer has been a blessing," Moynihan closed. "If we don't act quickly, however; it could become the curse of the age."

Moynihan was not telling Clinton anything he didn't already know; eight months earlier; Howard Rubin, chairman of the computer-science department at Hunter College, had briefed the president in detail. "Clinton understood that technology is more than the Internet and pulling wires through high schools," says Rubin. "He really understood how everything was tied together [and Y2K's] potential for broad reaching consequences. He was very interested and very concerned." Al Gore was slower on the uptake. "How could this be a problem in a country where we have Intel and Microsoft?" he exclaimed when Rubin finished; Rubin shot back, "No way are you going to be able to run for office in 2000 if government systems are failing around you." Gore had no reply. "He was educatable," says Rubin, "but with effort."

Moynihan, meanwhile, was getting only silence. Finally, three months after sending his letter, he received a reply from the Office of Management and Budget (O.M.B.). It thanked' him for' the. heads-up and pledged to keep an eye on the problem.

Far from reassured, Moynihan introduced bills calling for the designation of a Y2K czar, the establishment of compliance deadlines, and a bipartisan national commission to address what was called "a devastating computer problem which will have extreme negative economic and national security consequences unless dealt with."

The legislation went nowhere, even as reports of Y2K incidents piled up. In Pennsylvania, a computer network that scheduled patient appointments at three hospitals and 75 Clinics shut down after someone punched in a visit for January 2000. In Michigan, a produce store's brand-new cash registers crashed more than 100 times when customers tried to pay with credit cards expiring in 2000. In Minnesota in 1993, officials instructed 104-year-old Mary Bandar to report to kindergarten after a computer took her 1888 birth date to mean that she was 4 years old. During a Y2K test-run at a Maryland jail, computers decided that inmates who still had time to serve were ready to be released. Industry was getting hit as well. At Amway, a mixing system for a cleaning product rejected a batch of chemicals when a computer read a 2000 expiration date as 1900. At a Chrysler plant, a Y2K dry run locked every entryway and exit and wouldn't let anyone in or out. At a Fortune 500 financial-services company, computers sent out bills for 96 years' interest.

Glitches were also surfacing abroad. In Britain, computers at the Marks & Spencer department stores ordered a consignment of corned beef discarded after deducing that the "02" sell-by date meant that the meat was 94 years old. In Canada, the computer at a university admissions office created letters on behalf of foreign students informing Canadian immigration they had graduated 95 years earlier.

(snip)

-- (history@of.Y2K), June 06, 2000.

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

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

http://www.senate.gov/~y2k/documents/100dayrpt/exec_sum_100days.pdf

(snip)

INVESTIGATING THE YEAR 2000 PROBLEM: THE 100 DAY REPORT SENATE SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON THE YEAR 2000 TECHNOLOGY PROBLEM 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

What will happen when the clock strikes midnight on December 31, 1999? A single, specific answer to that question is still unknown (and, ultimately, unknowable) but the extensive information developed by the Committee and outlined in this report provides an understanding of the size, scope, and nature of the problems that may occur.

There is currently widespread awareness that Y2K involves more than the failure of an individual's personal computer, or an incorrect date in a spreadsheet. Potential Y2K problems increase exponentially upon examination of the multiple layers of computer systems, networks and technologies supporting individuals' everyday lives. It is now widely understood that Y2K could affect the lives of individuals, but exactly in what manner is unknown.

Inherent uncertainty in the outcome of Y2K fuels public concern and makes preparation difficult. Sensationalists continue to fuel rumors of massive Y2K failures and government conspiracies, while some corporations and nations concerned about their image downplay real Y2K problems. The Committee finds that both extremes are counterproductive, and do not accurately reflect what typifies most Y2K problems. The true extent of Y2K failures will match neither the most optimistic nor the most apocalyptic predictions. Rather, Y2K problems will hit sporadically, based on geography, size of organization, and level of preparedness, and will cause more inconveniences than tragedies.

While optimism pervades the domestic Y2K outlook, uncertainty with regard to Y2K's impact dictates that preparation is prudent. Individuals and companies must take charge of their own situation by examining the Y2K readiness of the utilities and services that they depend on, and by preparing accordingly.

(snip)

-- (history@of.y2k), June 06, 2000.

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

(snip)

 

THE JOURNEY TO Y2K: FINAL REPORT OF THE

PRESIDENT'S COUNCIL ON YEAR 2000 CONVERSION

 

March 29, 2000

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

1. The Y2K Challenge
2. Y2K Council Organization
3. Y2K Council Initiatives

   Federal Agency Activities

   Helping Other Organizations Prepare for Y2K

   Information Sharing

   Y2K Action Weeks

   White House Roundtable Meetings

   100 Days to Y2K - Y2K Resource Guide for Smaller Organizations

   International Activities

   Creating a Global Y2K Network

   Y2K Cooperation in North America

   Organization of the International Maritime Industry

   Providing Information to the Public

   Quarterly Assessment Reports

   Y2K Council Web Site and Toll-Free Information Line

   Y2K Community Conversations

   Y2K Youth Education Initiative

   Y2K and You Booklet and Checklist

   Commerce Department Report - Economic Impact of Y2K

   Monitoring the Rollover

   Information Coordination Center

4. Results

   (snip)

   The mechanics involved in making any one of these systems capable of correctly processing the Year 2000 date were fairly straightforward, but the scope of the work -- identifying, fixing, and testing millions of systems and data exchange points in a global economy -- was daunting. Since no one knew with certainty the true extent of the problem or had any experience in dealing with anything like it, initial cost estimates for Y2K-related repairs varied widely. The range was illustrated by a frequently cited estimate of $300 to $600 billion for the worldwide cost. Many predicted that the final price tag for the United States Government alone would top $30 billion. Given the relatively unknown size of the task and the ballooning cost estimates, it is easy to understand why many serious people in the mid- and late-1990s who had looked at the situation maintained there was no way the work could be finished in time. Several obstacles appeared to support the view of those who said it was too late to avoid disaster. There was the natural tendency to procrastinate. In the mid-1990s, with several years until the millennium and the possibility that someone would invent a "magic bullet," some were comfortable putting the work off into the future. There was also the perception that Y2K was solely an information technology issue, not a core management problem. As a result, in many organizations, Y2K was just another project battling for scarce financial and management resources on the IT side of the ledger. In the private sector, information bottlenecks were widespread. Anti- trust issues and a natural tendency to compete for advantage made working together on Y2K difficult, if not inconceivable, for many companies. Moreover, the threat of lawsuits had companies worried that they would be held liable for anything they said about the Y2K compliance of products or devices they used, or their test processes and results. Legal considerations also prevented companies from saying anything about their own readiness for the date change. Thus, their business partners -- as well as the general public -- assumed the worst. When the Council began its work in early 1998, the Federal Government was struggling to fix its systems. The consensus among many was that the Government wouldn't make it. In particular, the Federal Aviation Administration, the Internal Revenue Service, the Health Care Financing Administration, and the Defense Department had an extraordinary amount of work to do in a relatively short period of time. Some people were predicting that government agency failures alone would send the U.S. economy into a deep recession. Internationally, much of the world seemed to be paying little attention to making sure that information systems would be ready for the date change. A 1998 World Bank study found that three-fourths of the world's countries lacked even basic plans for addressing the Y2K problem. In some cases, countries were aware of Y2K but lacked the resources and technical expertise to deal with it. Furthermore, information sharing among nations was limited, hampering the efforts of those who might have benefited from a neighbor's advice on remediating systems.

   (snip)

   Retrospective on the Magnitude of the Problem

   Lessons Learned

5. Conclusion
6. Appendices

(snip)

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.

Some of the failed expectations about more serious Y2K problems can be traced to the skepticism and disbelief with which some people greeted company and government progress reports on Y2K, believing that these institutions were inevitably covering up the possibilities of major Y2K failures. However, as the Council noted on numerous occasions, individuals in positions of responsibility who were claiming success in their Y2K efforts would be easily found after January 1, and held accountable, if subsequent system failures proved that they had misrepresented the facts. But many people continued to assume the worst would materialize even as much of the self-reporting pointed to a fairly orderly transition into the new millennium.

Why weren't there more Y2K-related problems abroad, especially in less-developed nations?

Some of those who have discounted, after the fact, the significance of the Y2K threat point to the relative lack of major disruptions abroad as evidence of how exaggerated the problem was. How did countries that appeared to have spent so little, and were thought to be relatively unprepared, emerge unscathed?

A number of factors created the mismatch between perception about the Y2K readiness of foreign countries and the actual outcome. Chief among them was the difficulty in obtaining accurate status reports internationally on a fast moving issue such as Y2K. Information three months old was out of date, and much of the international information reported was second hand and anecdotal. But, in many cases, this was the best information available until countries began to report more publicly on their Y2K work. Without more current, detailed reports, people often relied on such older information and were then surprised when it was overtaken by subsequent progress. A report about risks from April or June 1999 was assumed to still be operative in December.

A related problem was the stereotype of countries doing nothing to prepare for Y2K. While this was probably true for three- quarters of the countries in the world in early 1998, by mid-1999 virtually every country had a Y2K program in place and was devoting a high level of attention to the problem. In many cases, the fact that some countries may have spent the bulk of their funds in a concentrated effort the last six to nine months of 1999 was largely ignored. For some commentators, therefore, it has been easier to suggest that the problem was overstated rather than to consider the possibility that perceptions before the rollover were inaccurate.

Additionally, outside of the world's largest users of information technology B countries like the United States, Canada, Japan, and the United Kingdom -- the reliance upon IT drops off quickly. In many of these less IT-dependent countries, other factors also made for an easier transition into the Year 2000. Fixes in these countries were frequently more straightforward than in the United States since the technology being used was more likely to be "off the shelf," and not customized. Also, unlike the United States, countries such as Spain and Italy that had moved into IT more recently were not saddled with old legacy systems that were built with antiquated, customized code by people who had long since retired.

Countries starting later also had the benefit of lessons learned by those who had been working on Y2K for several years. The sharing of technical information about problems, products, fixes and testing techniques that was encouraged by international organizations and the Council paid enormous dividends. Elevators provide a good example. In 1998, everyone was testing to see if elevator-specific systems had a Y2K problem. Once it became clear that they did not, no one else had to spend time and money pursuing the issue. Similar experiences took place in industries such as banking, finance, telecommunications, air traffic and electric power where information was being exchanged and shared globally in a way never seen before. And in many industries, large multi-national companies actually worked directly with their local counterparts and host countries to fix basic systems.

 

Finally, technology itself helped countries that had gotten a late start on Y2K. One the reasons those that started late spent less on their Year 2000 efforts was that the technology to fix the problem improved dramatically. By 1999, automated tools could fix millions of lines of code quickly and at a dramatically lower cost than was possible just two years earlier. This technology helped late-starting countries to fix the problem quickly - and more cheaply.

Why weren't there more problems among small businesses?

Small business was another area about which many, including the Council, had expressed concerns. While there were relatively few reports of Y2K-related failures among small businesses, for firms large and small, there is a natural inclination not to report problems that are fixed in very short time frames. This phenomenon was revealed before the rollover when surveys showed that over 70 percent of companies reported they had experienced Y2K glitches, even though the public was unaware of virtually all of them. Some said the number of failures indicated the pervasive nature of the Y2K problem. The Council believed that the experience of companies with Y2K failures before January 1, 2000 also demonstrated that most Y2K problems could be fixed without people being inconvenienced or even knowing that anything had happened.

The lack of information about how small businesses were doing was an ongoing challenge for the Council and others following Y2K. The sheer number of these companies - over 23 million - and the absence of regular reporting relationships that made it difficult to gather information on the progress of small businesses prior to January 1, also made it difficult to determine how many actually experienced Y2K difficulties after the date change.

What happened to fears of overreaction by the public?

While a very small, but visible, minority engaged in excessive stockpiling of goods in advance of the New Year, most Americans took Y2K in stride. Anxiety about the date change, which seemed to peak in 1998, declined throughout 1999 as more and more information became available about organizations that were completing their Y2K work. By the end of the year, there was very little evidence of overreaction among the general public to the potential consequences of Y2K.

The availability of information - both positive and negative -- about Y2K efforts played a major role in reversing the trend toward overreaction. The Council's position was that people are more inclined to panic when they lack information, which can lead to a general feeling that the system is out of control. But, given the facts, whatever they are, people have great common sense and will respond appropriately. Even when the information about industry and government Y2K efforts revealed that there was still substantial work left to do, people were not alarmed. Instead, they seemed reassured in the knowledge that organizations were treating the problem seriously, were working together to solve it, and would keep the public informed about their progress. Americans knew Y2K was an important problem, but they also knew that organizations were spending large amounts of time and money to minimize any difficulties that could have been created by the date change.

Was the money well spent?

In hindsight, it is always easy to see what was not a problem and say that less money could have been spent. It's a little like saying you could have saved money spent on building safer roads when fewer accidents occur. But part of the reason for the smooth transition, in the face of thoughtful analyses noting that IT projects generally finish late and over budget with remediation work creating errors as well as removing them, was that people did test, retest, and then test their systems once again. Never before had so much independent verification and validation been done for IT work -- and it showed in the positive results and the on-time performance.

Ultimately each organization had to make its own judgement about the potential implications of failures and the appropriate cost necessary to minimize such problems. Any organization that cut back on its work to save money and subsequently experienced serious system failures would have been pilloried as badly managed and foolish.

(snip)

-- (history@of.Y2K), June 06, 2000.

Bold off?

-- (history@of.Y2K), June 06, 2000.

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

Nov. 22, 1999

Secretary Daley Urges Vigilance on Y2K Problem

Secretary of Commerce William M. Daley today urged American businesses to redouble their efforts to test for year 2000 computer problems that are hidden away in a variety of machines other than computers. Thorough testing of these "embedded systems" is a wise safety measure, Daley said.

"Ferreting out all the Y2K connections in the systems that run manufacturing plants, provide services to consumers, and control a host of operations that we all rely on is a tough job. We urge businesses to be especially vigilant in testing embedded systems," Daley said.

Embedded systems use computers or computer chips to control, monitor or augment a process. Such systems are found in everything from elevators to manufacturing plants.

The Commerce Department's National Institute of Standards and Technology and Century Corp., a computer consulting firm, have assessed the range of testing methods industry is using.

They conclude that it is possible that many important systems have not been tested adequately. NIST strongly recommends that all critical systems be tested literally from end to end.

"Managers of these systems should, as a last resort, rely on assurances from suppliers and others that the individual components of a system are Y2K compliant," Daley said. "I want to reinforce the message that I and others, including the President's Y2K Council, have been delivering about taking appropriate actions in readiness and contingency planning," he said.

A research article that includes guidelines for testing embedded systems by NIST and Century Corp. is available on the NIST web site at www.nist.gov/y2k/embeddedarticle.htm.

As a non-regulatory agency of the U.S. Department of Commerce's Technology Administration, NIST strengthens the U.S. economy and improves the quality of life by working with industry to develop and apply technology, measurements and standards through four partnerships: the Measurement and Standards Laboratories, the Advanced Technology Program, the Manufacturing Extension Partnership and the Baldrige National Quality Program.

(end text)

(Distributed by the Office of International Information Programs, U.S. Department of State)

-- Homer Beanfang (Bats@inbellfry.com), November 23, 1999

-- (history@of.Y2K), June 06, 2000.

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

Monday November 15, 8:06 pm Eastern Time

Explorer to shut pipe temporarily New Year's Eve

NEW YORK, Nov 15 (Reuters) - Explorer Pipeline Co. said on Monday it plans to idle its entire oil products pipeline system, which feeds the U.S. Midwest, for 20 hours starting on New Year's Eve to guard against any unexpected Y2K incidents.

``We will do the same thing as Colonial. We will shut our system temporarily,'' Explorer President and Chief Executive Officer Scott Van Dyke told Reuters by telephone.

The Houston-to-Chicago Explorer Pipeline, the second largest refined products pipeline in America and jointly owned by eight oil companies, can pump as much as 700,000 barrels per day of refined products like gasoline and distillates.

Colonial, the No.1 pipeline firm, has already announced an eight hour shutdown of its entire 8,480-km (5,300-miles) long oil products line from Houston to New York, starting before midnight December 31, to avoid any such disruptions.

Officials at Tulsa, Oklahoma-based Explorer said the Explorer line shutdown will last from 5:00 p.m. (CST) on December 31 until 1 p.m. January 1, 2000.

For Colonial, which has a capacity of some 2.1 million bpd, the shutdown is due to start at 6:30 p.m. (EST) and last for eight hours.

Experts fear potential problems to communications or power supply, for instance, due to the so-called Year 2000 computer bug, which may cause some older computers to malfunction after the date roll on December 31, 1999.

``We have excess capacity this time of year so the shutdown will not be a big problem...We should be able to compensate for the supply loss,'' Tom Jensen, Explorer's manager of shipper relations and transportation services, told Reuters.

He said although the Explorer system was Y2K-compliant, like Colonial's, the company was taking no chances.

``If we had any problems with communications or power supply we want to make sure that our line is down at that time so we have no unforeseen problems,'' Jensen told Reuters.

-- (history@of.Y2K), June 06, 2000.

The House Y2K committee:

http://www.house.gov/reform/gmit/y2k/index.htm

-- (history@of.Y2K), June 06, 2000.

You're right Andy, We caused it all. We caused the construction of the .gov command center. We caused the billions to be spent. We caused ...

<:)=

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), June 05, 2000

-- (history@of.Y2K), June 06, 2000.

B-b-b-but, on the other hand you had some anonymous internet posters, with such names as "cpr" (with a broken caps lock key and a serious case of MPD), Doc Paulie (who writes with some Rastaspeak affect and al-d punctuation), Mr. Polly (screaming,/I> "STICK YOUR HEAD IN A TOILET AND FLUSH!!!"), and Andy Ray (who knows so much about computers he can type in a teal font). Did you not find these people credible???

-- (abc@def.com), June 06, 2000.

off off off

-- (hmm@hmm.hmm), June 06, 2000.

Doesn't anyone find it the least bit humorous that the doomer idiots claim that one of the major reason they over-prepared for Y2K was because of government reports saying they should and government crisis centers and congressional reports etc. etc.

Then, a large majority of these same mental midgets question the validity of the income tax, believe chemtrails are a government conspiracy, believe there are internment camps being readied for them, etc. etc.

Are you all really that stupid that you can't see the obvious contradiction? Sorry, that was just a rhetorical question !

-- My Full Name (MyEm@il.address), June 06, 2000.

Doesn't anyone find it the least bit humorous that the doomer idiots claim that one of the major reason they over-prepared for Y2K was because of government reports saying they should and government crisis centers and congressional reports etc. etc.

See the articles about IBM and the Fortune 500 that are at the beginning of this thread.

-- Partial name (no@e-mail.address), June 06, 2000.

There were two kinds of information coming from the government about y2k. One kind were the press releases, usually brought to the media's attention by John Koskinen with the White House. These press releases were generally optimistic and were meant to reassure the general public that U.S. banks had fixed their y2k problems (banks did start earlier than others) and that most of the U.S. would have electricity on Jan. 1, 2000.

The second kind of information coming from the government, likely to be read only by other government officials and by policy makers, were the reports put out by the House, Senate, State Department and others. They painted a picture of possible, temporary utility outages scattered across the U.S., along with potentially more serious problems abroad that could indirectly reach the U.S. in the form of shortages, including oil, and economic impacts.

International preparedness as of Oct. 1999

http://www.senate.gov/~y2k/hearings/991013/

Russia and China were believed to be far behind in their efforts, and that would not have been a good thing for world stability.

We can say now, in retrospect, that y2k risks in many foreign countries were smaller because computers are not used as widely, and because the computers they do have are not tied together into systems nearly as much as computers here.

The U.S. itself? The business community and the government may have overestimated the risk of problems here. On the other hand, given the interconnectedness of systems here, it's also quite possible the reason the U.S. had so few problems was precisely because business and government did take it seriously and spent a large chunk of money to fix it. In many cases, hard to fix systems were not repaired but completely replaced.

Considering the scarcity of detailed information about y2k before the rollover, I don't believe people who prepared for possible short-term utility problems and longer-term global supply chain disruptions need apologize to anyone. I was also totally debt-free by Dec. 1999 in case of a recession or worse.

-- Just (an@verage.Joe), June 06, 2000.

This editorial was written by a very serious individual, and was utterly ignored on TB2K. It was, and is, a fascinating insight into the pre-Y2K mindset inside the beltway.

http://hv.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=001E2C -snip-

The second is the July issue of a DC area 'zine named iMP. This issue is devoted to Y2K, and it features as contributors some of the larger brains our species has produced. Well written and very thought provoking.

http://www.cisp.org/imp/july_99/07_99contents.htm

Here is the introductory editorial, but I recommend clicking through and spending an hour reading this entire issue.

*Snip*

A Few Words of Introduction

Richard P. O'Neill rpon@bellatlantic.net

(author's bio) Richard P. O'Neill is President of The Highlands Group, a consulting and analysis firm located in Bethesda, Maryland, with clients in both the public and private sector. He previously served in government, in his last position as Deputy for Strategy and Policy in the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense. He created and directs The Highlands Forum, a nationally recognized cross-disciplinary forum of leaders from industry, academia, government, the arts and the professions, to support high level government policy and strategy development.

I ask you to read the thoughtful essays in this special edition of iMP at your own peril. Not because you will be subjected to horrific scenes of an apocalyptic millennial nightmare wrought by our dependence on an invisible technology. Not because you will know what will happen when the clocks strike midnight across the world this New Year's Eve. But because you won't know. Because the fault will lie not in our stars, but in ourselves. This collection of essays aims to focus on what Y2K says about us, as individuals, as a society, and as a small world of unmet neighbors. Some of your insights gained may be difficult to accept.

Asking a group of guest guessers to ponder the unknown as we approach the midnight countdown and then pass into action and reaction would be easy. Scores of experts are already telling us what to expect, and few of them agree. Some may be right, but which ones? We will likely choose the answer that validates our preconceived notions -- so when you choose, perhaps you should think about why you accept one answer and reject the others. That, and what you do about it, is what Y2K will say about you and us. Us, because after all, we are all interconnected in this ultimate globalized society.

-end snip-

-- Perception Managment (Wh@tme.worry), June 06, 2000.

"Doomers were (and remain) a bunch of mindless cutters and pasters who believe anything they read"

No Andy, I don't believe anything that I read. For example, I could care less what Gary North had to say in his "comments" on his old site. But if he had a link that pointed to, the Senate Report for example, the respect for what I was reading went up considerably. I don't know what to tell you, if you can't see the difference.

And Andy, speaking of "mindless cutters and pasters" - what have you become yourself?

<:)=

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), June 06, 2000.

Ok Sysman and "history", I will repeat for you what I stated to "whatever" in a similar thread above:

You're making the same mistake now that you and other doomers did last year....taking the worst news you could find, and accepting only that, without question.

In 1999, there were far more "positive" stories about y2k than pessimistic ones, from industry, from government, from many sources. When you start using the Red Cross as your "authoritative y2k source", you just aren't hittin' on much, and certainly deserve the "doomer" label. The GOOD news, the ACCURATE news from the INDUSTRY Y2K groups - you gave them no serious consideration then, and you aren't posting them now. History repeats itself.

No one ever likes to admit they were flat out wrong....*sigh*..;)

-- FactFinder (FactFinder@bzn.com), June 06, 2000.

Anyone got anything 'good' to say about the doomers?

Someone on this thread said they are now debt-free.

Can we focus on 'some' positive? I find being debt-free VERY positive, now if we can stay that way. :-)

-- consumer (shh@aol.com), June 07, 2000.

Howdy FF,

Actually, I was using IBM; the Red Cross just happened to be mentioned in the same article.

The point is that there were many sources of Y2K info. Yes, there was a bunch of good news, but there was also the "doomer" news from the very same industry and .gov that you cite above. If it makes me a doomer to point out this info, so be it.

Andy Ray likes to call the doomers names like moron and idiot. He likes to pick on me, and other individuals whose only "crime" was to discuss something that we believed to be important. Yet he refuses to even mention the very things that we talked about, nor the .org where they started.

If anyone wants to call me a doomer because I question the positive, that's fine with me. But remember, I also question the negative. If that makes me a better doomer, I shall consider it an honor.

Sorry, I never did like rose colored glasses...

<8)=

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), June 07, 2000.

"Then, a large majority of these same mental midgets question the validity of the income tax, believe chemtrails are a government conspiracy, believe there are internment camps being readied for them, etc. etc."

Please define "large majority" here. I made over 3,000 posts on the old forum, about the same as Flint.

Yes, there were chemtrail threads. I guess the Art Bell fans started it. I don't remember making any comments on this issue, but I may have made a one-liner or 2. So what?

I have questioned the validity of the IRS and the income tax, for at least the last 15 years, and I shall continue to do so until I die, or something gets changed. I would much rather see a "national sales tax" of some sort. Sorry, but I gotcha here. I'm a US citizen. Even so, I don't think I made over a few hundred posts on the tax issue. A few of those were personal, asking for the opinion of my "friends" at TB2000. So what?

I did think it was possible that "shelters" would be needed in some areas, but I never used the term "internment camps". I can understand 10 thinking here however. If things did go "long term" something besides local shelters would be needed. Does it make a 10 a bad person, because they could see this possibility? Do you think the .gov could see this? Is that why they spent $50,000,000.00 on a "command center" paid for with MY tax $$$. Maybe I used the word "shelter" in a few dozen posts. So what?

Since you seem to know what was being discussed on the old forum, please tell me where my 2,500+ other posts are, and what they were about...

Just couldn't resist that paragraph... <:)=

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), June 07, 2000.

Ok Sysman and "history", I will repeat for you what I stated to "whatever" in a similar thread above:

You're making the same mistake now that you and other doomers did last year....taking the worst news you could find, and accepting only that, without question.

Most people do not believe everything they read, FactFinder. I try to read widely and take much of what I read "under advisement," not necessarily believing or disbelieving but instead filing it in the back of my mind until some other piece of information comes along I can compare it with.

When someone develops contingency plans, they look for reliable information sources to help them determine negative scenarios that are possible though not necessarily likely. I already knew what a mild outcome for Y2K would look like--life pretty much the same after Jan. 1 as it was before Jan. 1. What I wanted to learn about was what could go wrong in case there were some disruptions.

In 1999, there were far more "positive" stories about y2k than pessimistic ones, from industry, from government, from many sources.

I expected there would be a lot of good news in 1999 about Y2K, FactFinder, because I had read at the end of 1998 the GartnerGroup estimate that 85% of companies in the U.S. would *not* suffer a mission-critical system failure. What I pondered about in 1999 was that other 15% and other countries that started working on Y2K much later than the U.S. did.

I realized the 15% might include any number of things such as, let's say, the local water company.

When you start using the Red Cross as your "authoritative y2k source", you just aren't hittin' on much, and certainly deserve the "doomer" label.

Of course the Red Cross was not an authoritative source as to how bad Y2K would be...they were an authoritative non-technical source suggesting that some preparation for Y2K was prudent in case there were problems. It's plausible to think the Red Cross could have picked up on concerns about Y2K from folks such as FEMA.

The GOOD news, the ACCURATE news from the INDUSTRY Y2K groups - you gave them no serious consideration then, and you aren't posting them now. History repeats itself.

As I said, I expected a lot of good news last year. Some of that good news I saw I took at face value. Some of it seemed more like a carefully-crafted press release than it did hard info. Something like "We don't expect any major problems" was something I often saw.

Again, for many organizations, that was true. It was the 15% that might have problems that concerned me, not the 85% that I was fairly sure would be OK.

We all saw the good news about Y2K last year, FactFinder. We heard optimistic comments in the mass media by John Koskinen about banking, and I'm sure most on the old TB 2000 saw your many good news posts there.

I admit I preferred 3rd party sources of information such as the U.S. Senate, and the reason why is that just as one should have taken with a grain of salt what they saw about Y2K at survival food Web site, I took with a grain of salt what was said by companies whose stock might be affected if they would have had bad news to report. What companies did about Y2K was as important to me as what they had to say about it.

I did believe by the summer of 1999, though, that I would probably have electricity on Jan. 1, 2000.

No one ever likes to admit they were flat out wrong....*sigh*..;)

-- FactFinder (FactFinder@bzn.com), June 06, 2000.

One reason it's hard for me to say I was wrong about Y2K is that I did not know how Y2K would turn out. I thought a collapse of society was rather unlikely--and I never at any time predicted a collpse--but enough Y2K work worldwide seemed unfinished in the fall of 1999 that Y2K could still have been something more than just a bump in the road.

Yes, I thought Y2K was likely to cause at least a few more problems than what actually has happened since Jan. 1, but even the experts have been puzzled the scarcity of failures since then. I prepared for possible short-term utility problems, medium-term shortages (especially imports), and a long-term economic impact (getting a recession-proof job).

Was I wrong for doing so? It seemed the prudent thing to do based on information available and not available at that time. It was *not* a given even in late 1999 that Y2K would be turn out to be as mild as it has been.

-- Prepped for an (uncertain@Y2K.future), June 07, 2000.

http://partners.nytimes.com/library/tech/00/01/biztech/articles/09year .html?AltaVistaRefId=LmY_WEFnnnnuntly_W

January 8, 2000

Experts Puzzled by Scarcity of Y2K Failures

By BARNABY J. FEDER

Whether it is with scorn, anger or resignation, most computer experts and Year 2000 program managers brush off suggestions that they overreacted to the Y2K threat, taken in by computer companies and consultants positioned to profit from fear.

Still, like the skeptics, many wonder: How did countries that started so late -- and appeared to do so little -- manage to enter 2000 as smoothly as nations like the United States and Britain that got an early jump?

"That question is plaguing all of us, although some people won't admit it," said Maggie Parent, Morgan Stanley Dean Witter's representative to Global 2000, an international banking group formed to coordinate and stimulate Year 2000 work. "We expected there to be some significant blowouts."

A World Bank survey published last January concluded that just 54 of 139 developing countries had national Year 2000 programs outlined and only 21 were actually taking concrete steps to prepare.

Japan, China, Italy and Venezuela showed up as high-profile question marks in various studies. Paraguay's Year 2000 coordinator was quoted last summer saying the country would experience so many disruptions its government would have to impose martial law. Russia, Ukraine, Belarus and Moldova were seen as so risky that the State Department issued travel advisories in November and called nonessential personnel home over New Year's.

So what accounts for the surprisingly quiet rollover? Computer experts cite several factors. Even they may have underestimated how hard many countries worked in the last few months, when the problems were better understood, and how much help came from others that started early. And in many cases, assessments of overseas readiness were based on scarce or vague data.

But the simplest if most embarrassing explanation is that the some public and private analysts who testified before Congress and were widely quoted overestimated the world's dependence on computer technology. Most countries had much less to do to prepare because they are far less computerized than the United States. The computers they do have are much less likely to be tied together in complex systems and are often so old that they run much simpler software, according to Louis Marcoccio, Year 2000 research director for the Gartner Group, a technology consulting firm.

At a briefing last week on why Pentagon analysts overestimated the risks in many countries, Deputy Defense Secretary John Hamre said, "If we had a failing, it may be that we extrapolated to the rest of the world the kind of business practices that we have developed here."

Once adjustments are made for technology dependence, some analysts say, the investment of the United States and other pacesetters in Year 2000 preparations was not that far out of line with those that started late. But the figures from many countries are so unreliable that it is hard to be sure. Russia, for example, is estimated to have spent anywhere from $200 million to $1 billion.

Mr. Marcoccio suspects the lower figures are closest to the truth but he adds that based on the government's estimate that the United States spent $100 billion, "If Russia spent $400 million, they spent proportionally more than the United States, because the United States is 300 times more reliant on computers."

Such assessments lead down a pathway that only a statistician could love. Use Gartner's estimate that the United States spent $150 billion to $225 billion, and the comparable Russia investment jumps to a minimum of $500 million. Tamper with Gartner's guess that the United States is 300 times as computer-dependent, and figures dance another direction.

But nearly everyone agrees that the figures for the United States include substantial sums toward preparations abroad by American multinationals. Motorola said its $225 million Year 2000 budget included not just repairs at its overseas factories but, for example, helping its Asian suppliers pinpoint potential Year 2000 flaws. It also paid overtime for support that helped paging and radio networks in Italy function flawlessly over New Year's.

The federal government picked up part of the tab for foreign nations. To jump-start lagging nations, the government paid for many of them to send representatives to the first United Nations meeting on Year 2000 in late 1998. It distributed hundreds of thousands of CD's in 10 languages providing background and suggestions for how to organize Year 2000 projects. More recently, the Defense Department provided $8 million to set up a joint observation post in Colorado as insurance against miscommunication that could lead to missiles' being launched.

"We got a lot of free consulting from the United States and agencies like the Inter-American Development Bank," said Rodrigo Martin, a Chilean who headed a regional Year 2000 committee in South America.

Such aid played a bigger role in helping late starters to catch up than most people realize, some computer experts say. As John Koskinen, chairman of the President's Council on Year 2000 Conversion, sees it, hype about the magnitude of the problem misled fewer people than hype about the impossibility of getting it fixed.

"This was a process that could move faster than the preparedness surveys," Mr. Koskinen said, noting that alarming press releases and testimony frequently relied on research that was obsolete within weeks.

Del Clark, who led the Year 2000 program at Phillips Petroleum, concurred, saying: "China was the big question mark for us. Part of what happened was that they were working hard late in 1999 and the status information was out of date."

It helped that repair efforts became less expensive toward the end because of the experience gained by those who did the work early and the tools developed for them, according to Brian Robbins, senior vice president in charge of the Year 2000 project at Chase. In addition, Mr. Robbins said, it turned out that some countries like Italy had done more work than reported.

By 1998, the pacesetters were far enough along for a sense to develop that others were lagging, and fears about the consequences began building. There were extenuating circumstances in some cases, like the economic slump in Asia, and many realized the problems would not be as daunting as in the United States. But with time short, industry groups like Global 2000 and a few countries began trying a variety of tactics to accelerate Year 2000 preparations.

"People outside of information technology don't realize how incredibly mobilized the world became," Ms. Parent said.

Still, many of those most familiar with the relative preparedness and spending levels in many foreign countries wonder whether it will be possible to figure out why things ended up going so smoothly.

Information was always hard to come by and hard to compare since sources varied so widely in what costs they attributed to Year 2000 work. In general, foreign countries have not included labor costs in their Year 2000 figures while the United States and Britain have, but practices have varied widely.

Now that Year 2000 has arrived, the pressure to sort out such data is disappearing rapidly.

Still, questions about the transition will not go away. What actually happened might figure in insurance lawsuits because if courts were to decide insurers were liable for the money companies spent to avoid problems, the insurers would undoubtedly cite the success of laggards and low spenders as a sign that budgets for American companies were needlessly bloated.

click here for more

-- (history@of.Y2K), June 07, 2000.

It is now an historically-proven fact: There was never a need to prepare for a catastrophic Y2k.

Vindicated Regards,
Andy Ray

-- Andy Ray (andyman633@hotmail.com), June 07, 2000.

Someone said the following on another thread. I think it speaks for many on the old forum in 1998 and 1999 who prepared.

http://hv.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=003HW8

Quotably Quoted - What the 2/99 Senate Report Really Said...

Factfinder, there were many, credible reports of potentially severe problems at the beginning of 1999. The February Senate report is just one of them. That was the period a great many of us were preparing. Our responsibility to our families and communities required that we err on the side of caution if there was any question about the validity of those reports. I would have made different preparations if I had started later in the year. So you misrepresent the decision-making process of myself and a great many others on the old forum. It was irrelevant what later reports would eventually say (although Sept. proves the Senate reports continued to be negative), decisions had to be made on incomplete information.

-- Some degree of preparation was (prudent@--if.unnecessary), June 09, 2000.

http://hv.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=0017kE

[Fair Use: For Educational/Research Purposes Only]

Friday July 16 1:31 AM ET

Big U.S. Cities Slow On Y2K Readiness

By Jim Wolf

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Many big U.S. cities -- including Los Angeles, Chicago and Washington -- are leaving themselves scant time to complete preparations for possible year 2000-related computer glitches, the audit arm of Congress said Thursday.

In addition, nine states are ``behind'' in efforts to ensure their most critical systems do not fail when the year 2000 dawns, said the head of a Senate panel monitoring the issue.

The nine -- which reported having completed work on less than 70 percent of their most important systems -- are New Hampshire, Ohio, Alabama, Louisiana, Colorado, Wyoming, New Mexico, California and Hawaii.

On a local level, only 55 percent of the smallest counties surveyed -- those with a population below 10,000 -- say they have countywide emergency plans to cope with possible 2000-related disruptions to vital services, the National Association of Counties reported.

At issue are fears that some computers may crash or scramble data by misreading 2000 as 1900, the result of old space constraints that pared the date field to two digits.

Any such glitches, known as Y2K problems, could disrupt the provision of water and waste treatment, emergency services, transportation systems, city government services and the operation of public buildings among other services.

The problem could also boggle systems that hinge on date-sensitive microchips, such as traffic signals, radio communications and 911 emergency services that rely on global positioning systems.

Dallas and Boston were alone among the 21 biggest U.S. cities to report completion of efforts to deal with the so-called Y2K problem, the General Accounting Office said. The GAO is the audit and investigative arm of Congress.

Nine cities -- New York; Houston; Philadelphia; San Diego; San Jose, California; Indianapolis, Indiana; Jacksonville, Florida; Memphis, Tennessee; and Milwaukee -- said they expected to complete preparations by Sept. 30.

The remaining 10 -- Los Angeles; Chicago; Phoenix; San Antonio, Texas; Detroit; San Francisco; Baltimore; Columbus, Ohio; El Paso, Texas; and Washington -- said they expected to be ready by Dec. 31.

Joel Willemssen, head of a GAO arm that tracks information systems, voiced concern about the laggards. He made his comments in a letter released at a hearing of the Special Committee on Y2K issues.

``Completing Y2K activities in the last months of the year increases the risk that key services will not be Y2K-ready in time for 2000 because there will not be enough time to deal with unanticipated complications,'' Willemssen said.

``Given the amount of Y2K work remaining to be done in the last months of the year, contingency plans are critical to ensure that cities will continue to provide key services through the year 2000 date change,'' he added.

The Senate panel displayed a chart showing that only 43 percent of the 21 cities' key systems were said by the cities themselves to be ready as of July for the date change.

The GAO carried out the study by interviewing city officials by telephone from June 28 to July 9.

Sen. Robert Bennett, a Utah Republican who heads the special Y2K committee, said he feared that many state and local governments were ``leaving little room for testing, contingency planning and unexpected problems.''

``I hope these statistics aren't as bad as they appear,'' he said in a written statement.

``Only very efficient executive-level management and contingency planning can sustain us through the upcoming historic date change,'' added panel Vice Chairman Sen. Christopher Dodd, a Connecticut Democrat.

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

-- Linkmeister (link@librarian.edu), July 22, 1999.

-- (history@of.Y2K), June 09, 2000.

Stinkmeister,

This may come as a shock: Your heroes in government were incorrect about Y2k - there was never a threat, and therefore never a reason for the hysteria you and you memetic friends attempted to propagate.

Vindicated Regards,
Andy Ray

-- Andy Ray (andyman633@hotmail.com), June 09, 2000.

John Koskinen and the Prez's Council had this to say about three months ago...

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

==

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.

==



-- (March@29.2000), June 09, 2000.

O, embarrassed to use to your old alias,

You asked me at the Hysterium once if I believed I was right and "all these other agencies and people were wrong." I told you yes. And, I was. All the lies in the world, no mattr how often you quote them, will not return to you enough credibility to feel comfortable posting under your old alias - and one cannot really blame you.

Shame, after all, is natural after such a monumental blunder.

VIndicated Regards,
Andy Ray

-- Andy Ray (andyman633@hotmail.com), June 10, 2000.

abc@def.com is absolutely correct -- generally, the pollies that posted on TB2000 lacked credibility. Likewise, they were never able to come up with any convincing evidence to refute the voluminous evidence that Y2K might turn out to be a real pill.

And, of course, for many pollies, evidence was never the issue. Their entire belief rested on their faith that anyone who was worried about Y2K was actually under the control of a "meme". As far as I am concerned, it is a toss up as to which is wackier: memes or chemtrails.

-- WD-40 (wd40@squeak.not), June 10, 2000.

This thread was started by Sysman, who said...

Some people, like Andy Ray, say that the meme infected idiots of the former TB2000 are to blame for the Y2K "panic." It was all caused by North and Yourdon.

I've seen Andy Ray, on a recent thread, blame the former TB2000 for the concern about Y2K in whatever country it is in which he lives. The thing is, concern about the potential effects of Y2K, interconnectedness and interdependencies were well-distributed among various organizations monitoring and making decisions in regards to Y2K, including, but not limited to, the World Bank, IBM and the State Department.

For example, the World Bank in an Oct. 1999 statement had this to say...

The threats posed by interdependence applies equally to developing- country organizations - relying on inputs from other developing countries - and to their trading partners in developing countries who rely on the supply of raw materials, manufactured goods and off-shore labor. These risks are well-documented elsewhere1. In addition to market risks and fiscal risks, developed country governments should be cognizant of the possibility that the Y2K problem might trigger social instability, a backlash against technology, donors, and the opening of markets, or cause a strain on diplomatic relations.

The former TB2000 was not the matrix of the world's concerns about Y2K. There were concerns, in my opinion, because of the almost universal belief that Y2K was something that needed to be fixed before 2000, because many countries in the world waited until 1999 to begin working on Y2K, and because we live in a global economy.

January 1 did come and go with few noticeable problems. It's not safe to assume the reason was because Y2K was never a potentially serious problem, though, and it wasn't safe to assume Y2K would have turned OK even if no money had been spent ahead of time to fix it.

-- Hindsight (is@20.20), June 11, 2000.

Hindsite:

Your input is interesting, but I found my own informal polls of folks in real life indicating most folks not concerned with Y2k at all. This included folks both in and out of the technical sector. Having extended family in Europe, I found absolutely no concern about Y2k. They were much more concerned in learning why Americans consistently harped on the sex life of our president. Y2k fear was, OVERALL, a phenomenon isolated to the U.S., IMO.

I think the roots of Y2k fear go much deeper than a Y2k forum. Why was it that some folks developed an interest in Y2k? The folks I polled stated that the media was constantly mentioning Y2k. The folks on the Y2k fora felt that the media was silent on Y2k. When was the last time you chose to read a SEC report from a company, listen to Congress discuss something on a minor cable station, or CARE about reports on anything else? It goes beyond political interest, because I lurked on Political fora and found Y2k discussed only in passing. In the same way, why were firms who'd never before in their lifetimes had to reassure the public that their computers would work now singled out as being incompetent in some respects if they did not do what they'd never done? The fear began somewhere, and the Y2k fora attracted those WITH the fear, but I'm still at a loss to determine where folks initially got the bug.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), June 11, 2000.

The fear began somewhere, and the Y2k fora attracted those WITH the fear, but I'm still at a loss to determine where folks initially got the bug.

One might possibly blame Peter de Jager or the Congressional Research Service report to Sen. Moynihan if one actually thought someone or some group needed to be scapegoated. But, if it wasn't for Peter de Jager or the Congressional Research Service report, there would have almost certainly would have been many more problems than what we've seen this year.

Y2K had a set deadline for fixing it, and hard information about the progress of Y2K remediation was scarce.

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

Given the relatively unknown size of the task and the ballooning cost estimates, it is easy to understand why many serious people in the mid- and late-1990s who had looked at the situation maintained there was no way the work could be finished in time.

Several obstacles appeared to support the view of those who said it was too late to avoid disaster. There was the natural tendency to procrastinate. In the mid-1990s, with several years until the millennium and the possibility that someone would invent a "magic bullet," some were comfortable putting the work off into the future. There was also the perception that Y2K was solely an information technology issue, not a core management problem. As a result, in many organizations, Y2K was just another project battling for scarce financial and management resources on the IT side of the ledger.

In the private sector, information bottlenecks were widespread. Anti- trust issues and a natural tendency to compete for advantage made working together on Y2K difficult, if not inconceivable, for many companies. Moreover, the threat of lawsuits had companies worried that they would be held liable for anything they said about the Y2K compliance of products or devices they used, or their test processes and results. Legal considerations also prevented companies from saying anything about their own readiness for the date change. Thus, their business partners -- as well as the general public -- assumed the worst.

-- Hindsight (is@20.20), June 11, 2000.

"The Question of Italy: An Analysis"

by Peter de Jager

http://www.year2000.com/y2kitaly.html

-- (history@of.Y2K), June 11, 2000.

Hindsight [and history]:

I think you miss my point. Nobody knows WHO de Jaeger IS, let alone knows what he wrote, UNLESS they were already provoked into following Y2k. All these reports simply go unseen [as they probably should] by the mainstream folks, including the folks who work in the fields discussed.

OF COURSE, once one sees Y2k as an important event, one sees Y2k articles, reports, etc.. My point is to ask WHY, or HOW folks thought Y2k an important event if they were not involved with remediation.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), June 11, 2000.

One of my earliest exposures to Y2K, Anita, was the Newsweek cover story "The Day The World Crashes" in the summer of 1997.

-- Hindsight (is@20.20), June 12, 2000.

Anita,

Most people that use a computer were involved in "remediation" of some sort. Many people had an easy fix. Hit the MS site, and download the fixes for each product, or order the CD. To many, that's all Y2K was, just another "patch."

But it really wasn't that easy. Look at Win/NT. Three seperate SPs were released, all of which were the "final word" on Y2K compliance. And then they do things like make a late update to DUN, part of which was a significant Y2K update, but "forgot" to announce the fix as such.

And Microsoft wasn't alone. IBM did the same thing, with PTF after PTF. I did question the "big boys" but I knew they would make it, with a last-minute fix or 2 if needed. Off-the-shelf stuff was a hi priority. Public confidence must be maintained...

It was never the "out of the box" stuff that bothered me.

It was the "custom code." It was the stuff that I, and many of my friends, worked on for decades, literally. And not for some "Dick and Co." down the street, but for big companies, doing things for them that are critical. Maybe I was in a strange place. Maybe I did spend too many years, working on too many applications in a row, that were, and are, very date sensative. Maybe I've seen too many accounting, and inventory, and yes, even publishing systems, that WERE (big HA!!! there) screwed. Gee, I guess I over-estimated the problem...

But I don't think that's what this is about now. This isn't a review of the debate, where the doomers show their side, and the pollys theirs. This is about us doomer idiots, that had the nerve to dig into something, and question the "major media" and refuse to accept the "PC" way of thinking. And it's about a genius that just loves to remind us all, of how "wrong" we were, no matter why, because he was right.

But I'm not going there again. Besides, ligntning is on the horizon. Time to get off the net, and go sit on the porch. When I get back, I think I'll check out the auroral threads...

<:)=

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), June 12, 2000.

Watch "sysyman" spin the FUD....

Old info but apparently still being ignored...

-- (lol@lol.lol), July 02, 2000.

Hey lol,

Thanks for that trip down memory lane, but why do you say that I was trying to "spin the FUD"?

I've read most, just about everything I think, of Dick's stuff. In fact (no pun...) FactFinder pointed me to one of his articles that explained an answer to one on my questions, in terms that even an idiot doomer like myself could understand...

"Another NORMal Person" seemed to me like a guy that knew what was going on in the power industry. He reminds me of "Dan the Powerman" and we know all about him... We had talked in other threads, and he seemed sincere. Yes, I did question him. Yes, I don't know what I'm talking about, when it comes to power, and I said so in that thread. Yes, I did ask him about what other power "experts" said about Y2K, like Rick at EUY2K, where I first met FactFinder by the way. And yes, I was glad to see the comments of Mr. Cook, another "powerman" in that thread.

I was "new" to the "aware" phase of Y2K back in March. I had been a "regular" on the forum for just about a month. As a programmer, I have known about the problem, since my first program that used a date, back in 1968. And even though I was involved in a huge software conversion project, caused DIRECTLY BY Y2K, for several years, before I "spoke out" on the issue, I didn't begin to "connect the dots" until late 1998.

Yes, I did have a bunch of questions about power back then. I've always said, and I think most agree, that power is the big one. Without it, not much else gets done. And I'll say, once again please, that people like FactFinder, and Dan the Powerman, and Another Normal Person, above, and yes, even the King Pollys, Dick Mills, are one of the reasons why I never was a 10 on the Y2K scale. I did listen to what thay had to say. But I also listened to what people like Cowles and Cook had to say.

What is your point, lol? Am I not allowed to question authority???

<:)=

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), July 04, 2000.

Well, what I see is you trying to put cowles up as some kind of expert, when he IS NOT. (I know that everyone and their brother tried to "stick up" for clueless ricky before roll-over, but CDC proved ONCE AND FOR ALL that the dude doesn't know what the hell he was/is talking about) He could have been a broom-jockey for all we know....hell I've got a relative that does janitorial work at a nuclear facility, should he be allowed to pontificate on nuclear power and state that "he works at XYZ nuclear plant"? NO. And he is honest enough NOT to try something like that.....unlike certain would-be y2k power experts.

That thread sure reads to me like you were doing your darndest to try and stop the flow of true facts and spin whatever you could....

To that I say "whatever". I am getting tired of the whole y2k thing anyway.

-- (lol@lol.lol), July 05, 2000.

lol,

Yes, Rick was considered somewhat of an expert at the time. And I did meet several folks at his forum, EUY2K, that were in the business. Like I said, I first met FactFinder there.

Listen lol, again, like I've said many times, power was the big 1. It was a concern of mine. Enough of a concern that I spent many hours on the net looking for info. When I did find someone that seemed to know what they were talking about, I did question them. You make it sound like I'm trying to spread FUD, when just the opposite is true. I was looking for real, honest answers, from people that could provide them. I was concerned.

But I guess you will never understand this. To you, I'm just another fear monger.

Yea, right...

<:)=

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), July 06, 2000.