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 : Compaq -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Tech Master who wrote (23397)	3/25/1998 10:53:00 PM
From: Night Writer	Respond to of 97611

Tech Master, Just sent you a couple of e mails on wire topic. Your Y2K knowledge is impressive. I have see some serious research work on the topic due to my day job. (Ya, I do something besides play golf.Just don't tell anybody!) It is very interesting from a business dynamic. CEOs didn't want to spend large sums on the problem in late 80s and early 90s. It would detract from the bottom line. Many were due to retire, and so fourth. Many thought it could not be that big a problem The SEC became so concerned they currently require a Y2K status statement in SEC filings. This is interesting because there is no real standard for Y2K compliance. Your system may be good, but if it interacts with a system that is not good, your system may go down. It is a very big problem for big companies with big computer systems. Now something has to be done to 1.) clear the SEC filings, 2.) not shut down by maybe 1999, 3.) keep from having the pants sued off of you. Try and buy insurance coverage for potential Y2K losses. You will get a serious idea of the problem. Another interesting idea i had was to request a big company to run programs using dates in 2000, 2001, and 2010. Don't think you will find many takers. I hope to receive a check returning interest on my mortgage in January 2000. Look at the expiration date on your international American Express card. Mine should have been 2000. It's not. Check out www.year2000.com NW