Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Discuss Year 2000 Issues -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Rarebird who wrote (7235)	7/26/1999 1:46:00 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 9818

Rarebird, Did you actually read both of those essays?? This guys' an expert?? Btw, where did he say that he was directly working on the problem?? I'm gonna post that essay in sections and go through, what I opine, are the logic errors and unsubstantiated suppositions on his part: I hope David Eddy will step in here and take me to task if any of my conclusions are dreadfully in error. ************** How to Think About Y2K 9/2/1998 <----Note the timeliness of this article. Written 12 months ago when even Peter De Jaeger was still skeptical about achieving a workable compliance by Blake Leverett (bleverett@worldnet.att.net) This is my attempt to explain Y2K. When I say Y2K, I'm not talking about computers or bank runs, but the psychology of how people react to the idea that a small but common computer error could stop civilization. Note how he hedges and states what I and so many other have been stating, "That the fear of Y2K is a far more dangerous issue than any disruptions that could physically result from temporary disruptions from systems". It is fascinating to me how almost every person reviews some very dire facts and somehow produces the conclusion that we will be OK, that Y2K will be "a bump in the road." I am not attempting here to convince anyone about the reality of Y2K or propose any particular outcome. I just want to help people think more clearly about what they read and hear. Before I continue, let me give you my background. This may help you understand me better, and help you to decide whether my ideas are worth anything. I am an electrical engineer (MIT EE '87) and spend most of my time designing analog and power circuits, mostly for embedded systems. I have done lots of computer programming of various kinds from AppleSoft BASIC to C++ for Windows, including embedded system code in assembly and C. I have never seen a mainframe. LET ME HIGHLIGHT ONCE MORE. This guy fully admits that he has never seen a mainframe or been a "big iron" programmer. SOME QUALIFICATIONS for making such dramatic conclusions. Obviously he overinduldged in Cory Hamasaki's doom and gloom predictions. After countless hours of study on the internet (most of which consisted of reading comp.software.year-2000) I conclude two things: 1. The computers will fail. Not all of them, but enough to cause a real threat to civilization. What will happen after 1/1/00 is anybody's guess, and you could spend until 2000 reading everybody's guesses. 2. Trying to get factual information from a newsgroup is like trying to learn quantum physics by listening to CB radio. Don't believe everything you read, and check out every interesting claim for yourself. My "Analysis":** After countless hours of personally STUDYING Y2K over a 3 year period and having a spouse personally working on the issue, and friends who have children working at Compaq (DEC/Amdahl)... etc, etc, etc..., I'm not getting that sense at this time and moment. So I guess that makes an "expert" too, huh?? (btw, I once did some programming in Basic and Pascal... so I guess I can add that to my Y2K analyst "love me wall") I have YET to see anyone provide documentation that tells me that such and such a company or gov't agency's systems are going to fail to the extent that they will be irreparable or circumvented. It ain't out there because the lawyers aren't letting the public know. But just because the lawyers aren't letting people know doesn't mean that they will fail, just that they are worried about legal liability if they say they are fine and then a fault occurs. Lack of information should NEVER be taken as an absolute proof of a particular position or outcome. And that information must be backed up and confirmed from various unrelated sources to maximize accuracy. Again, I'm not saying something will or will not occur. But since my wife isn't coming home with frantic tales of how people within her IT sections are constantly discussing the dire state of all of those vendors they deal with, it seems to me that those "big iron" programmers who she works with, and who's work she validates for Y2K compliance, would be dropping some "uh-ohs" her way. To be con't..... (on a response to myself)

To: Rarebird who wrote (7235)	7/26/1999 1:47:00 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Respond to of 9818

Rarebird, I apologize for the double post... SI screwed up and posted the 1st message twice. So here's part two: I have devised a set of principles about Y2K that a "Y2K newbie" should know before spending lots of time on research. I hope these principles help some people to realize and accept the nature of Y2K faster than they would have otherwise, and prepare for what is coming. Y2K Principle #1: * Nobody believes in this stuff * The number of people who are now preparing for Y2K fallout is small - tiny really. This is because virtually nobody believes Y2K can be that bad. Don't believe me? Just try to convince one other person that Y2K could shut off the lights for three months. Not will, but could. Most people are close-minded to the idea that our civilization is actually quite fragile. This principle is part of the proof of why the problem got so bad in the first place. The PHM's (Pointy-Haired Managers) who should have been pushing hard for fixing Y2K for the past decade are just people, so only 0.1% of them really believe Y2K is deadly. If the people who are in charge of fixing the problem don't think it's a problem, then how will it get fixed? It won't, and it's already too late to start fixing. Y2K Principle #2: * The first hour of research is scary * Before you really make an effort to research Y2K, you have probably heard some news stories about how you should save your checking account statement from December '99 just in case the bank's computers lose your records, and how a few computer errors will cause oddball and wacky incidents like the 104 year-old lady who was told to register for kindergarten. But when you read about how bad some people think it will be - TEOTWAWKI - you are scared. My Note: Blake say nothing substantial here from a 1st hand experiential level. He merely is reflecting the panic of others and being coopted by it. Again, he talks about how bad OTHER people think it will be, not providing his own thoughts on the matter. IE: Just another "belly button" opinion. (we all have one)