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: C.K. Houston who wrote (206)	8/14/1999 2:03:00 PM
From: O. H. Rundell	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 662

Cheryl, "What we've said beyond that is that each community ... needs to take a look at what their own experience is, in terms of natural disasters generally and in terms of confidence in their own readiness for the Year 2000, and make their own judgements."> John Koskinen This statement makes no sense whatsoever, at least not to moi. What on earth does a community's disaster experience have to do with Y2K? Y2K is certainly not going to be like an earthquake or a hurricane or (from my own community's experience) like a tornado. Get real, JK! My favorite phrase that JK has been using from the beginning: "there is no evidence to indicate...." (e.g., that Y2K will lead to a recession). Wonder what he would would take as evidence? Wonder what evidence he is prepared to accept / present that would indicate that Y2K will not result in a recession. Sounds like PR mumbo jumbo to me -- but then that's your area (i.e., PR, not mumbo jumbo <vbg>). Regards, O. H.

To: C.K. Houston who wrote (206)	8/14/1999 2:31:00 PM
From: O. H. Rundell	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 662

Cheryl, Guess I just can't help myself. The more you read of Koskinen, the stranger it gets: Koskinen: "If we have more outages than any evidence now suggest, the problem at that point won't be overreaction by the public. The problem then will be, in fact, dealing with whatever the emergency is, because the nature of the failure will be obvious. "The problem with overreaction is the problem before you get to that time, where you can aggravate or create problems. You can create spot shortages or other difficulties in advance, as people get more anxious." Now lessee, if you have a problem (e.g., "no power") the problem is how to react on a local level to "no power"; the problem is not the public's reaction to "no power". (Might want to re-think that analysis if "no power" lasts a couple of weeks <no g>.) According to Koskinen's semantics, "overreaction" can only occur in advance of a problem ... creating difficulties like "spot shortages" (e.g. of money? water? food?). If we do have "more outages than any evidence now suggest" I would propose that the problem will be under-preparation, not "overreaction". Interesting to note that -- although a "national" breakdown is not expected (by Koskinen) -- he does seem to be predicting a sufficient number of "local" breakdowns that FEMA and the feds won't be able to handle the load. Neither will the states or counties be able to cope, so we're left with the cities bearing the brunt of the problem(s)? Hmmmm.... Thirty-six hours without power and we're (my city) out of water according to the Municipal Water Department. Wonder how the city is going to distribute drinking water to the citizens? Wonder where we're going to get the trucks and the tanks (and the water)? Clearly not from FEMA. Wonder how many water tankers the OKlahoma NG has standing by? O. H.