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.
Politics : Clinton -- doomed & wagging, Japan collapses, Y2K bug, etc -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Sidney Reilly who wrote (824)12/1/1998 10:05:00 PM
From: SOROS  Respond to of 1151
 
Be careful, Bob! You used several key "code words" in that post. These boards may be infiltrated by that evil woman turned government spy -- Ma Bell.

I hope you understand it is my jest that is sarcasm. The next 2 years should get very interesting.

I remain,

SOROS

ps Don't forget to pack a bunch of spit-wads and a couple of good straws in your Y2K grocery bag as well.



To: Sidney Reilly who wrote (824)12/2/1998 9:44:00 AM
From: SOROS  Respond to of 1151
 
scotsman.com



To: Sidney Reilly who wrote (824)12/3/1998 3:57:00 PM
From: SOROS  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1151
 
More good news:

dailynews.yahoo.com



To: Sidney Reilly who wrote (824)12/3/1998 3:58:00 PM
From: SOROS  Read Replies (3) | Respond to of 1151
 
Still more good news:

newsday.com



To: Sidney Reilly who wrote (824)12/5/1998 11:27:00 PM
From: SOROS  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 1151
 
cnn.com



To: Sidney Reilly who wrote (824)12/7/1998 9:27:00 AM
From: SOROS  Respond to of 1151
 
Asia will face big Y2K hit; 40% of companies worldwide will experience
mission-critical failure

by David Legard

(IDG) -- A total of 40% of companies worldwide will experience a mission-critical information technology failure because of the year
2000 problem. But the rate of those affected in Asia will be higher, according to Jim Duggan, research director at Gartner Group Inc.

Among Asian countries, only Taiwan, South Korea and Singapore feature in Gartner's Level 2 readiness list (see below), and none
made it to Level 1, Duggan said. Level 2 readiness indicates a predicted Y2K-related mission-critical failure among 33% of a
country's companies, while Level 1 finds that 15% of a nation's companies are expected to suffer a Y2K-related mission-critical
failure.

Asian countries in Level 3 (50% failure) include India, Malaysia, North Korea, and, importantly, Japan, Duggan said at a meeting
entitled The Y2K Bug: Threat to Business Community, held in Singapore today.

"Because of the size and importance of its economy, Japan's lack of Y2K readiness could cause major problems to ripple out," he
said.

Also important is the presence of China in Level 4, where 66% of companies are expected to suffer a mission-critical failure. China's
extensive and growing trade links could cause year 2000 problems for its neighbors, Duggan said. The remaining Asian countries in
Level 4 include Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Pakistan, the Philippines, Thailand and Vietnam.

Non-Asian countries whose lack of year 2000 readiness could have regional impacts include Germany (Level 3) and Russia (Level
4), Duggan said.

Duggan said there is also considerable variation in year 2000 readiness in different industry sectors. The private sector is generally
better prepared than government; large businesses better prepared than small business; and the financial sector better prepared
than engineering, transport, services or construction industries.

Singapore is an exception, with a well-prepared government sector but a woefully unprepared small and medium-size enterprise
(SME) sector, according to Toh See Kiat, chairman of local company CommerceNet Singapore Ltd.

"We know that of around 92,000 SMEs in Singapore. Less than 100 have applied for a government grant to help with their Y2K
problems," he said at the conference. "The problems are ignorance and fears that consultancy could be expensive and that
consultants are playing up the Y2K problem for their own benefit."

But the economic problems in Asia have not hit year 2000 projects, according to Duggan.

"Y2K budgets have generally come through undamaged, while longer-term advances such as E-commerce infrastructure have been
delayed," he said. "Not enough is still being done about Y2K, but no less is being done than before."

One hopeful sign is that year 2000-prepared banks and large multinationals are beginning to put pressure on their smaller business
partners to become year 2000-compliant, even to the extent of removing them from preferred supplier lists if they don't comply,
Duggan said.

Overall, Gartner believes that the year 2000 problem won't cause the global business meltdown that some analysts have predicted,
but that it will cause a negative impact on the world economy that will be felt for three to five years.

Y2K corporate failure rate predictions by country

Level 1 (15%): Australia, Belgium, Bermuda, Canada, Denmark, Holland, Ireland, Israel, Switzerland, Sweden, U.K., U.S.

Level 2 (33%) Brazil, Chile, Finland, France, Hungary, Italy, Mexico, New Zealand, Norway, Peru, Portugal, Singapore, South
Korea, Spain, Taiwan.

Level 3 (50%): Argentina, Armenia, Austria, Bulgaria, Colombia, Czech Republic, Egypt, Germany, Guatemala, India, Japan,
Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Malaysia, North Korea, Poland, Puerto Rico, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Turkey, United Arab
Emirates, Venezuela, Yugoslavia

Level 4 (66%): Afghanistan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Cambodia, Chad, China, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Fiji,
Indonesia, Kenya, Laos, Lithuania, Morocco, Mozambique, Nepal, Nigeria, Pakistan, Philippines, Romania, Russia, Somalia,
Sudan, Thailand, Uruguay, Vietnam, Zaire, Zimbabwe.

Y2K corporate failure rate predictions by Industry:

Level 1 (15%): Insurance, Investment services, Banking, Pharmaceuticals, Computer Manufacturing

Level 2 (33%): Heavy Equipment, Aerospace, Medical Equipment, Software, Semiconductors, Telecom, Retail, Discrete
Manufacturing, Publishing, Biotechnology, Consulting

Level 3 (50%): Chemical Processing, Transportation, Power, Natural Gas, Water, Oil, Law Practices, Medical Practices,
Construction, Transportation, Pulp & Paper, Ocean Shipping, Hospitality, Broadcast News, Television, Law Enforcement

Level 4 (66%): Education, Health care, Government Agencies, Farming & Agriculture, Food processing, Construction, City & Town
Municipal Services.



To: Sidney Reilly who wrote (824)12/7/1998 9:29:00 AM
From: SOROS  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1151
 
Nato alert over Russian missile millennium bug
London Times - 12/03/98

NATO has offered to co-operate with Moscow to ensure that Russia's nuclear missile forces avoid a "millennium bug" computer
breakdown.

The potential risks posed by the failure of computers to re-cognise the millennium date change are regarded as so serious that the
alliance wants a full exchange with Moscow to find out what the Russians are doing about the problem.

Although the command and control fail-safe systems that are linked to nuclear weapons should be adequate to prevent an
accidental missile launch, there are concerns that computer glitches in the early-warning stations or other nuclear support
equipment could have unpredictable consequences.

President Clinton and President Yeltsin signed an agreement in September under which Washington and Moscow would exchange
data from their early-warning systems to reduce the risk of missiles being launched because of a false warning of attack.

However, under pressure from the United States, Nato has now gone further by making a formal request to the Russians to consider
fully co-operating to meet the risks that are posed by the millennium bug to military computers.

One Nato official said: "We are not talking about a cataclysmic scenario, with missiles being launched by computer malfunctions.

"In fact, the Russians have a more manual system controlling their intercontinental missiles than the Americans do.

"But we have no idea what Russia is doing about the millennium bug and whether it will affect a whole range of systems, not just
nuclear wea-pons - such as air traffic control. What we're worried about is that the Russian military are so under-resourced that they
may be sleep-walking into the next century and sweeping this potential problem under the carpet."

The alliance offer was put to Moscow three days ago at the monthly ambassadorial meeting of the Nato-Russia Permanent Joint
Council, which was set up to discuss security issues of common interest.

Sergei Kiseljak, the Russian Ambassador, agreed to pass Nato's request to Moscow. The alliance wants to make it a priority for the
permanent joint council next year.

One area of sensitivity would be Russia's reaction to any offer from the US to examine missile systems to check for possible
millennium bug malfunctions.

The US Defence Department alone has 4,000 computer systems and billions of dollars are being spent to ensure they operate
normally in 2000. The main challenge is that weapon systems rely on huge numbers of microchips which are difficult to locate.



To: Sidney Reilly who wrote (824)12/7/1998 9:43:00 PM
From: SOROS  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 1151
 
wired.com



To: Sidney Reilly who wrote (824)12/7/1998 10:01:00 PM
From: SOROS  Respond to of 1151
 
World Net Daily - worldnetdaily.com - November 13, 1998

By David M. Bresnahan Copyright 1998 WorldNetDaily.com

The National Governors Association would like to have a national ID system, and plans to work with the White House to reinstate
Executive Order 13083 to make that a reality.

The bipartisan NGA is claiming much of the credit for stopping Executive Order 13083, but they also plan to help craft a revised
version of the order that will alter the relationship between states and the federal government.

An internal document used by the NGA to inform all governors of their goals and objectives was made available to WorldNetDaily,
along with a "Fact Sheet on Federalism" used by the White House staff. Both documents were provided by a Republican source.

Each document shows that both the White House, and the nation's Governors, plan to put the currently suspended executive order
into effect.

One of main reasons for the alteration of state and federal government relations is to provide for "preemption of state and local laws"
by the federal government, according to the NGA document.

"This is because of demands by citizens, businesses, and the federal government to make all government more accessible and
open," claims the NGA. "Pressures for uniformity and simplification come from globalization in trade and telecommunications
policy, regional environmental quality solutions, and a greater need for some type of personal identification mechanism to combat
fraud, crime, illegal immigration, and mismanagement of funds.

Congress passed the "Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996," which authorized the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration of the Department of Transportation to establish a national ID system through the use of driver's
licenses. Those guidelines are spelled out in Section 656 (b) of the act. They include the use of Social Security numbers on all
licenses, and in all data bases beginning Oct. 1, 2000.

The act also calls for digitized biometric information to be a part of each license, or "smart card." The biometric information will
include fingerprints, retina scans, DNA prints, and other similar information.

Thousands of letters of protest were received by the Department of Transportation during a public comment period, which concluded
in October. The exposure of the plan in WorldNetDaily, and the outcry that followed, prompted Congress to place a moratorium on
the national ID, as well as the medical ID law.

"These new national ID regulations violate every notion of federalism, because they force states to comply with regulations issued
by the federal government, without any constitutional authority to do so," said Patrick Poole of the Free Congress Foundation. "Nor
are federal agencies empowered to force states to gather detailed information on every person in order to comply with federal
mandates."

The NGA document indicates that governors apparently would like to alter the concepts of federalism, mentioned by Poole, to
facilitate the national ID system. The governors claim that the federal government must be able to preempt state and local laws, and
pressure from "special interest groups" seem to be involved.

"Preemption and standardization proposals are now common for international, business, environmental, health, and financial laws in
Congress, and regulations by executive branch agencies with substantial support from selected special interest groups," states the
NGA.

The NGA claims that governors objected to the executive order on federalism because it was issued by President Clinton, without
consulting governors. They also say they were concerned with the way the federal government would have supremacy over state
laws.

The NGA complained in their document that plans for negotiating with the White House for an acceptable executive order will be
made more difficult because of a Congressional ban on funding. They say they expect to have discussions with Clinton in 1999 on
the issue.

Congress included three clauses in the omnibus appropriations bill to withhold funds for implementation of the national ID, medical
ID and Executive Order 13083. Apparently the governors are not pleased with those actions, according to their document.

The White House claims in their internal fact sheet that the executive order was necessitated by unnamed recent Supreme Court
decisions and recent legislation. It states that Executive Order 13083 merely clarifies previous executive orders on federalism.

Gov. Mike Leavitt, R-UT, disagrees. He was asked to testify to the U.S. House of Representatives Subcommittee on National
Economic Growth, Natural Resources, and Regulatory Affairs in July. He asked Congress to demand that the executive order be
withdrawn. Leavitt says the Clinton order does not clarify previous federalism executive orders -- it eliminates them.

"This order represents a 180-degree turn from all previous federalism aimed to restrain federal action over states," said Leavitt in
disagreement with the Clinton fact sheet statement of purpose. "The current version of this new order is written to justify federal
supremacy."

The White House fact sheet claims that President Clinton believes the executive order is necessary in order to "protect individual
liberty." Critics claim he is taking liberty away.

The fact sheet summarizes the executive order using language that copies the deceptiveness for which the order was criticized by
the U.S. Senate, National Governor's Association, National Conference of State Legislatures, National League of Cities, National
Conference of Mayors, and the National Association of Counties. All of those organizations demanded withdrawal of the executive
order.

"Given the secrecy surrounding this order and the complete turnabout of its language and scope, one can only conclude the Clinton
administration deliberately set upon a course to expand the role of the federal government. Not exactly the end of the 'era of big
government,'" said Leavitt when he testified, criticizing the deceptiveness of the order.

Many who were first asked to comment on the executive order by WorldNetDaily, just after Clinton signed it, were initially unable to
respond because the wording was so deceptive. It took some time for officials to have the order analyzed. The language and wording
used has been termed by many as extremely "Clinton-like." Once the order was evaluated by legal advisors, the alarm bells went off
and demands for withdrawal were made.

"When I discovered President Clinton's executive order," said Rep. David M. McIntosh, R-IN, "I wrote President Clinton that I could
not understand how (he), as a former governor, could willingly abandon the protections accorded the states since 1987 from
unwarranted federal regulatory burdens.

"The bottom line is that the new order would wreak havoc on the balance of power envisioned by the Constitution between the
States and the federal government. I simply asked, 'Why?.'" McIntosh is chairman of the Subcommittee on National Economic
Growth, Natural Resources, and Regulatory Affairs, which held hearings on the executive order.

Leavitt pointed out that the wording of the "Executive Order on Federalism" was so broad that the federal government could come
into a state for any reason and enact any regulations it wants -- with no recourse for the state. It also appeared to delegate that
authority to government bureaucracies, permitting vast powers to individuals who are not responsible to the voters.

"It is nothing short of ironic -- and I would assert very troubling -- that President Clinton, a former governor and a former leader among
governors, would sign an executive order that undermines the very constitutional and political principle he says in the order he seeks
to protect and promote," said Eugene Hickok, former special assistant in the U.S. Department of Justice, when he testified before
the committee.

The documents obtained by WorldNetDaily clearly show that the NGA would like to facilitate a national ID system, and the
organization believes Executive Order 13083, with some revisions, is needed to facilitate that.

David M. Bresnahan (David@talkusa.com) is a contributing editor of WorldNetDaily.com, is the author of "Cover Up: The Art and
Science of Political Deception," and offers a monthly newsletter "Talk USA Investigative Reports."