SI
SI
discoversearch

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.
SI - Site Forums : Silicon Investor - Welcome New SI Members! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Cheeky Kid who wrote (10834)1/2/2000 5:33:00 AM
From: Bill Ulrich  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 32932
 
The flaw in that argument is that none of those countries have a computer infrastructure which even approaches that which we have to contend with. One might as well ask, "Hey, Zimbabwe doesn't spend billions on mass transit and public roadway systems, and their people transport themselves just fine. Why do we have to spend billions to get the same results?"
___________________________________________________
“…how could countries like Nigeria, Zimbabwe, Indonesia, Ivory Coast, not to mention various areas of Eastern Europe who did little or nothing to fix their Y2K problems come through the rollover without so much as a scratch? And if they could do that, spending barely a dime on remediation, why in hell did we spend billions to accomplish the exact same results?&#148



To: Cheeky Kid who wrote (10834)1/2/2000 7:30:00 PM
From: Cheeky Kid  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 32932
 

The great anti-climax
By Mitch Ratcliffe, ZDY2K
Thursday December 30, 1999

zdnet.com
SNIP:
>>But, recognizing that much needed to be done, we should not include the doomers in our congratulations. These people, who have exploited fear to push the most anti-social and back-handed economic agendas, did not do anyone any favors. For every family that will have to forego other expenses because they spent far too much on Y2K supplies after reading the irresponsible rants of the doomers, these profiteers should receive a smart blow to the cheek. Or, perhaps we should just turn our other cheek and record the identities of these people so that they will never be trusted enough to get away with this kind of abuse, again. In any case, if, on Monday morning, a doomer claims to have saved the world by raising his voice to warn people that the end of the world was nigh, give him a smack for me.<<

- - - - - - - - - -

I have been exchanging e-mails with Mitch Ratcliffe today, about my concern that there could have been more too Y2K than meets the eye, basically in my opinion it appears to be a major money making racket.


This is what he said:

E-Mail posted with his permission:

>> I think that some consultants billed far too much, and there was certainly no lack of opportunistic publishing. However, there was a very real problem and many consultants and conference producers were serving a valuable and important role. All in all, my experience tells me that there was no more exploitation of Y2K than usual among technology consultants. Of course, there is a lot of exploitation of fears of obsolescence all the time.

See my last piece, published Thursday, on ZDY2K.

Mitch <<





To: Cheeky Kid who wrote (10834)1/2/2000 8:43:00 PM
From: Lizzie Tudor  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 32932
 
Cheeky, have you seen any articles (or talk shows, whatever) where any y2k consultants are actually questioned about whether the whole thing was a big boondoggle?

Cisco I know spend millions on y2k, and other projects and teams suffered because of it. The consultants I saw doing y2k work (not at cisco, other places) were practically unemployable until y2k came along, because they were cobol jocks or whatever.