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: Cheeky Kid who wrote (3465)	1/29/1999 12:30:00 AM
From: jwk	Respond to of 9818

There are 4 time zones across the mainland US, so it is highly unlikely that everyone would pick up their phones at the same time........cheeeeeessssss.....please, stick to telling us that our micorwaves will work. Consider also that the N& S American continents will be the last population centers on earth to roll over. We will have had all day to watch how well things are going elsewhere around the world.

To: Cheeky Kid who wrote (3465)	1/29/1999 9:32:00 AM
From: Sawtooth	Respond to of 9818

From InternetWeek newsletter: Rash's Judgment: Separating Fact From Fiction In The Y2K Crisis One problem IT managers face when dealing with Year 2000 issues is deciding what's real and what's hype. In fact, if my e-mail in-box is any indication, sorting fact from fiction may be one of the greatest single issues facing managers. After all, it's hard to decide to attack a problem when it's impossible to know for sure whether it really exists, and, if so, its severity. One e-mail I recently received was typical. The manager, who had been working on Y2K issues for his servers and the users of his networks, was beside himself. Could I please point him to at least a couple of sources of information that were not biased in some way, not self-serving, not exercises in hype? I immediately suggested the InternetWeek Web site, of course, but it seemed he really needed something more specifically aimed at his company. The problem is made worse because there are any number of people who are intentionally making it so. As bad as the Y2K dilemma is, there is a plethora of consultants and others who profit from frightening potential clients. This adds to the hysteria and cuts down on the flow of accurate information. While it's true that the Y2K problem is finally getting national attention (when was the last time you heard a potential computer problem mentioned in the State of the Union address?), it's surprising how little useful information there is in the public domain. It's almost as if someone were making sure we were kept in the dark. On the other hand, things could be worse. Suppose, for example, that the companies on which we depend really were working to make sure that the Y2K mess was as bad as it could be and that the rollover to 2000 was as catastrophic as possible? As it happens, that's the theme of a new book by Edwin Black that suggests the Y2K problem is part of a deeper--and much nastier--effort to control all things digital. In his book "Format C:" (Brookline Books, 1999), the majority of computer operating systems are designed to fail at the stroke of midnight, Dec. 31, 1999. As 2000 dawns, 95 percent of the world's computers become dependent on continuous--and expensive--upgrades provided by the company that supplied the software. In Black's book (yes, it's a novel), the company carrying out the Y2K plot is run by a college dropout from Seattle who has amassed vast wealth through dubious business practices and, as a result, sells the operating system software for that 95 percent of the world's computers. Sound familiar? Of course, names have been changed to protect the innocent (or not-so-innocent), and as a result, the operating system is called Windgazer 98. The Seattle-based multigazillionaire software tycoon, Ben Hinnom, is undergoing a trial by the U.S. Department of Justice as the book opens. There are congressional hearings. Because Black has covered the computer business for years as a technology journalist, the details ring true, and that makes the book even scarier. In fact, the book is sufficiently true to life that only at the end, when the Y2K problems lead to Armageddon itself, is it obvious you are reading fiction. This is, of course, the factor that really gives one reason to pause. If the details of a thriller based on the Y2K problem can seem nearly as real as the scenarios being tossed about by many in the business, how do we tell hype from reality? To some extent, the best guide to filtering out the hype from the merely misguided is to apply a test of rationality. This means that the first assumption must be to ignore the extremes of either side. The people who say there is no Y2K problem and those who predict the end of civilization are probably both wrong. Then apply a test for self-interest. Will the people providing the information get rich if you follow their advice? If so, it might pay to get a second opinion--or a third. Solving the Y2K problem without bankrupting your company is hard enough without interference by people providing bogus or self-serving information. The recommendation I've been giving to those who e-mail me is not to panic. Look for advice in places where the greatest interest is in providing accurate information. Then, if you want fiction, get Ed Black's novel, which is at least labeled as such. After all, there's no actual plot for the forces of evil to control the world through the chaos caused by the Y2K crisis. Is there? By Wayne Rash Rash is managing editor/technology. He can be reached at wrash@cmp.com or wrash@mindspring.com.