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 : 2000: Y2K Civilized Discussion -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (172)	8/13/1999 4:07:00 PM
From: Ken	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 662

Ron:you continue refusing to answer ALL of my questions, but asking me more as a humorously transparent avoidance 'tactic' to divert attention away from the hard questions you are obsessively avoiding. I will not answer yours until you answer mine, but if you do, then I shall also. Fair enough? Each time I offered this in the past, you rejected this same offer. In fact,this exact same pattern has been ongoing since the beginning, hasn't it? If you disagree, we can go back to the beginning to trace out this fact. Otherwise, my statements stand as written. Your reward or punishment, as the case may be, for your said childish display THIS time shall be my posting more doomeRealist articles for your reading pleasure or displeasure, whichever is the case.

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (172)	8/13/1999 4:10:00 PM
From: Ken	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 662

To and For Ron:< Coast Guard Posts a Warning uscg.mil It has been difficult since March to remind ourselves that y2k is real, that is is objectively a threat to our way of life. We have been the targets of a carefully orchestrated psychological warfare campaign. Those doing the manipulating are paid to make things look better than they are. Not much could look worse than y2k, and nothing this predictable looks worse. Every Establishment institution has an incentive to lie. Few are resisting. But, at the same time, some of them have to deal with the truth in order to survive y2k. Their managers do want to be employed in a year. Heads will roll if the institutions do nothing to prepare. So, we look to internal memos for information. Thanks to the Web, these memos get published. Those who write them assume, correctly, that the public will not read them or interpret them correctly. But a few of these do wind up on a general public Website. This one warns the reader that it's better to have a system shut down than to contunue spewing out bad data. The latter is more likely. This is why good news on January 1 may be bad news by February and disastrous news in April. This warning comes on the letterhead of the U.S. Coast Guard. It is dated July 18. * * * * * * * * * * * * In the best-case scenario, these applications will visibly fail, thus drawing immediate attention to the problem. In the more likely scenario, applications will continue to process but produce erroneous results which, left undetected, may wreak havoc on customers and Coast Guard missions. In addition to application failures, embedded microchips in hardware may, in rare cases, not be designed to be Year 2000 Compliant. The year 2000 problem is unique in the history of information technology since the problem impacts virtually every organization and the drop dead date for Year 2000 Compliance is nonnegotiable.

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (172)	8/13/1999 4:20:00 PM
From: Ken	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 662

Good doomeR overview for all, compliments of Ron: <The domino effect is the problem of falling systems. One system fails, but another is dependent on it. Like a series of gigantic rows of dominoes, each within falling distance of another, so is the y2k problem and its effects. No one can even guess what these effects will be. This is what makes y2k the most complex problem facing the world -- possibly ever. Consider banking. Banks are threatened by y2k. Depositors will draw out cash. Then the system collapses. If a business cannot pay programmers because its bank is closed, it cannot complete its y2k repairs. When it fails, the firms it supplied are trapped by production shortages. Etc. The domino effect is one gigantic "etc." Scientists speak of the butterfly effect: when a butterfly in California flutters its wings, it sets up wind currents that may produce a tornado in Texas. (That's because just about anything can produce a tornado in Texas.) This is an analogy, of course. We can't test the truth of this hypothesis. But it will be easy to test the domino theory if there is a run by Japanese housewives on the unliquid Japanese banks in 1999. These banks will start selling the U.S. government debt that they hold in the hundreds of billions of dollars worth. Interest rates in the U.S. will soar. The dollar will fall. Meanwhile, the run will spread to other nations. Who knows where it will start? Only one thing seems certain: it WILL start. And when it does, every market institution and every government will suffer enormous setbacks. (See the category, "Banking.") Banking is the obvious domino. Here's another: shipping. What happens to cities if gasoline is unavailable to truckers? If the computers that control train schedules break down? If rail freight cars cannot be located by defective computers? Think about your supermarket's shelves. What happens to production when "just in time production" becomes "bottleneck production"? Here's another: farming. Modern commercial farming is tied to hybrid seeds. The plants produced by hybrid seeds produce seeds that will not produce healthy plants if planted. Every year, almost every large farm on earth must re-order another batch of hybrid seeds. If, for any reason, the seed companies fail, or the banks fail, farmers will not be able to plant anything. This will lead to a famine. Let's not hedge our words: FAMINE. There is no way today to get enough non-hybrid seeds into production in order to avoid this problem. If this is one of the dominoes, the result will be widespread starvation. This is an unpleasant thought. Are you willing to order a year's supply of non-hybrid seeds today for a few dollars, just in case? If not, you do not understand y2k and the domino effect. You do not take it seriously. Y2K is a systemic problem. It cannot be fixed. Whatever it's going to do, it will do. Deferral is the primary response when men face a problem they know they cannot solve. Deferral, in this instance, means resignation to systemic failure. "What's the use?" is a completely rational response to the magnitude of y2k. Too much of the breakdown is going to take place outside institutioonal, regional, and national borders. Money spent to fix your system is thrown away if few of those outside your organization are willing to spend money to fix their systems. Even this assumes that the systems can be fixed. There is no precedent for a breakdown of this magnitude. It is not clear that money can solve the problem. There is overwhelming evidence that money cannot possibly solve it: there are too few y2k programmers worldwide. Money will only raise the price of programmers; it will not increase their supply in the time remaining. So, the money is not being spent at the local level. Y2K will not be fixed at the macro (system) level because it must be spent at the micro level. It will not be spent at the micro level unless there is a high probability of success for the organization. There is no reason to spend money at the micro level if the macro level will fail. There is overwhelming evidence that the money will surely be wasted: thrown down a y2k hole. So, the money is not being spent, nor will it be spent. Desperate cries by y2k awareness specialists have led to only one institutional success story (maybe): Visa. But Visa's success will mean nothing in 2000 if the banks fail. Spending money at the micro level will accomplish nothing visible at the macro level. The y2k awareness lecturers are modern-day John the Baptists, crying in the wilderness. All the programmers' cries of "this insight is not helpful" will not change the reality of this analysis. The money is not being spent. I have shown why. Furthermore, the cries of "we can fix it if we stick together" are bound to fail. We cannot "stick together," for there is no institutional means to "stick us together."