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 : TAVA Technologies (TAVA-NASDAQ) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: kfdkfd who wrote (10577)	2/7/1998 2:35:00 PM
From: E	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 31646

I'm going to excerpt below an article from the Financial Times that I think is interesting, but I see that there are readers of this thread who feel this sort of "cut and paste" (I wish: I mostly type this stuff out) material is known to all and a waste of their time. So let me know if you want me not to post material like this in the future and I'll stop. Most interesting to me about this piece is the growing concern regarding liability, and the appearance on the scene of a new term, at least new to me. And also simply that it is IBM who's testifying. Financial Times, February 5, excerpts: IBM WARNS ON COST OF SYSTEMS 'BOMB' The UK government has underestimated the cost of fixing the "millennium bomb" in its own systems, International Business Machines told the technology committee of the House of Commons yesterday. The world's largest computer company said in its experience customers tended to err on the low side in assessing the scale of remedial measures... IBM was giving evidence before the Science and Technology Committee which is investigating the bomb... Chris Moore, IBM's Year 2000 manager...gave cautious evidence to the committee, reflecting increasing concern about the possibility of legal action and responsibility for costs should systems fail after the date change. He said current IBM hardware and software was "2000 ready", a less binding term than the more usual "2000 compliant". The Federation of Small Businesses said...that legislation should be passed to ensure all compliant software and hardware systems carried an appropriate mark or stamp...chief frustration was the lack of awareness of the problem in the small business community.