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: JBTFD who wrote (213)	8/14/1999 4:29:00 PM
From: C.K. Houston	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 662

D.C. Falls Behind on Y2K Fix, GAO Says Key Agencies Miss Repair Deadlines By Eric Lipton Washington Post Staff Writer Friday, August 13, 1999; Page B01 The District's late-starting year 2000 repair effort has fallen behind the tight schedule set to make sure city services do not fail on Jan. 1, a U.S. General Accounting Office official said yesterday. The public works, personnel, employment services and procurement departments and the University of the District of Columbia have missed deadlines to make their computers Y2K-compliant, said Ronald L. Hess, assistant director of GAO's Governmentwide and Defense Information Systems Division. Several of these "priority one" departments and other D.C. agencies also are late in preparing manual backup plans that could be used if computer systems fail. "Services are at risk," Hess said yesterday. . . . search.washingtonpost.com Cheryl 139 Days until 2000

To: JBTFD who wrote (213)	8/15/1999 1:23:00 AM
From: O. H. Rundell	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 662

Mark, In my opinion, the more prepared the populace is, the less chance of a panic, and the more time will be there after the problems hit to rectify the problems before the public becomes unruly. Bingo! Couldn't have said better. Seems that our government is much more concerned with the potential problems of "overreaction" (e.g., spot shortages) than with the potential of under-preparation (e.g., civil disorder, starvation, etc.). An extraordinary gamble in my opinion. O. H.

To: JBTFD who wrote (213)	8/15/1999 12:23:00 PM
From: O. H. Rundell	Respond to of 662

Mark, It seems to me he is giving the administration's justification for not lengthening recommended preparation times. ie "if we say be prepared for 30 days, everyone will go out and buy 30 days worth of supplies at once and that will cause shortages, etc and panic." In my opinion, the more prepared the populace is, the less chance of a panic, and the more time will be there after the problems hit to rectify the problems before the public becomes unruly. If everyone were prepared for 30 days, then the government or authorities would have 30 days to try to find workarounds or fixes before the public paniced. This 30 days would be after the actual problems had happened. I think he is taking a big gamble with this approach, hoping for the best.... Don't know why I bother to post, you seem to be saying better than I. O. H.