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: Jeff Mizer who wrote (8130)	8/20/1999 1:12:00 AM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 9818

Jim's a good man. I don't know exactly what he has in his possession, but he has some interesting sources given his contacts at the Pentagon. In the time that I met him a year or so ago, he was involved in some of that consulting work with some AsstSecDef at the Pentagon trying to get them to pay attention. Apparently someone over there paid a bit more attention than expected.... :0) But I also think that Koskinen's take has merit. The military's mindset is generally "prove to me that it will work, or I'll have to call it suspect". Just because the military states something may fail, doesn't mean it will. Only that they were not satisfied to a comfortable degree that they could clear that utility. But the disturbing implications are that certain cities are considered to face inevitable disruptions. Now the tricky question is, how long those disruptions will last and how big a disruption they will cause. I'm trying to chase down more info at the moment. Hopefully I'll have something to add by next week. Regards, Ron

To: Jeff Mizer who wrote (8130)	8/24/1999 2:56:00 AM
From: C.K. Houston	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 9818

LOL - More on those Naval documents Jim Lord released. Love the URL this guy posted. "Freely available" could mean that the document was on some government site, but no link was ever put up to it. Titles and meta-tags in the header could have been easily written to "duck" the search engines. Instead, the direct address may have been given out to a select few for "private" viewing. This would "technically" make it correct when they say it was "freely available". Freely available to anyone who can randomly guess an address such as: doublespeak.mil shit_are_we_in_trouble_/utilities/doc78578745.html Sure. I mean, it would only be a matter of time before someome stumbled onto it, right? Steve Baxter ------------------------------------------------------------ Canadian Y2K ... 'We're not all polite'. albertaweb.com x24.deja.com[ST_rn=if]/threadmsg_if.xp?thitnum=55&AN=515504189.1&mhitnum=0&CONTEXT=935475891.596901925