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: Jeff Redman who wrote (3640)	2/4/1999 1:15:00 PM
From: John Mansfield	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 9818

'TIME MAGAZINE'S Y2K STORY Recently I was waiting in a doctor's office when I spied the latest issue of Time magazine with an apocalyptic-looking Y2K cover. (Imagine! the latest issue of any magazine in a doctor's office!) Now I normally don't read Time, because I prefer to think for myself, not be told by an arrogant media elite whose vision seldom extends beyond the shores of Manhattan Island what I should think. But anyway, there it was and it was about Y2K.... so I read it. What a mishmosh. The article mixed the usual "nobody knows" what will happen with people making modest preparations with "survivalist nut-cases" (as they're known on the Internet) with "Scary Gary" North (as Time put it) with the apocalyptic visions of various religious sects. When I had finished reading it.... admittedly, it was a quick read, I was at the doctor's, after all.... I wasn't sure what Time's point was, except maybe they thought that anybody who took the problem seriously and was expecting more than a bump in the road in 2000 was a crackpot. (Yeah, $800 billion being spent worldwide to fix a problem that doesn't exist. Must be a lotta crackpots out there.) Two days later my wife, noticing the Y2K cover and thinking I might be interested, brought home the issue for me to read and was disappointed when I said I'd already seen it. Where? At the doctor's office. Furthermore, it's junk journalism at it's worst. What a shame, when they could have done some serious research and written a really helpful article - but if you want to learn about Y2K, this story won't do it. Just the same, I said, this will give me a chance to go over it more carefully (and pick it apart, I thought to myself). But before I had a chance to reread the article, our youngest dog got ahold of the issue and chewed it to shreds. A deserved fate - but I missed my chance to do my own analysis. Fortunately, on the Internet others have stepped into the breach - and what follows is one of the best: Dear Time Magazine: Your article about Y2K was so predictable it was alarming. I always thought TIME was above this type of journalism. There are consistently two themes that are discernable in this style of Y2K coverage; TIME is just one of many media sources using them. THEME ONE: The magazine or newspaper articles always start out by talking about a family who "appears" to be normal. You know, wife, kids; regular job; middle America sort of folks. But, as the article goes on, the reader starts to see the signs that this family is just a tad bit "over the edge". For instance, in YOUR article: You mention stockpiling food, making sure to note that they have cases of "Chop Suey". (The reader makes a note; nuts!) You mention that the wife is taking a medical class so she can sew a small wound or fill a tooth. (Reader makes a note: nuts!) You mention the guns; three different kinds. (Reader makes a note; militant nuts!) You mention that the kids tell their friends on the school bus that the whole school system will fail when America's infrastructure collapses. (The reader makes a note; militant and totally nuts!) SECOND THEME: Virtually every article quotes Gary North, right wing religious zealot. Why is that? Certainly not because he is the most expert and available source for Y2K information. No! Because he serves YOUR PURPOSE. You even mention how the government is concerned that the religious zealots will cause a panic. It's sad but interesting to note that Gary North, the least qualified expert [in programming, not in history, in which he is degreed - /Nick] is quoted (by far) by the mainstream media more than any other Y2K spokesman. What is the purpose of your article? Certainly not to disseminate factual information to your readers. There was no effort to do that. Personally, I have printed 10,000 pages of information on Y2K from the Internet; government reports, audits, transcripts, UN meetings, utility 10Q's, corporate disclosures. Why is it that TIME does not access this type of documentation for their articles? Why? Because TIME is not interested in investigative journalism. TIME is selling the sensationalism of this story and, at the same time, helping the US government keep the truth about the seriousness of Y2K from the public. You do the reader, your customer, grave disservice here. You and I both know that Y2K is a serious matter; a matter that warrants personal and community preparation. If you do not know this, you have not investigated; and if you haven't properly investigated it; don't write articles about it. There is a saying on the Internet; a Y2K pessimist is just an informed optimist. The citizens of this country need to start contingency planning NOW. Two, three, six months down the line, they will not have the resources saved they can divert toward preparation. It is not the religious zealots that will cause a panic in this country. It is a government that refuses to tell the people the truth and media that perpetuate the lies. -- Meg Davis fiendbear.com

To: Jeff Redman who wrote (3640)	2/4/1999 1:16:00 PM
From: John Mansfield	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 9818

'The Information Stream Gets Corrupted Going the Other Way >From Franklin Journier: Geek to Supervisor -- I just don't see how we're going to finish this project on time. I can probably have the first pass of the code remediation done around October of 99, but that doesn't leave much time for testing the complete, integrated system. And I can't guarantee that I won't miss anything. Of course, that's just the critical systems; the rest will have to wait. We should have started working on this in 1996 instead of just reading about it in the industry rags. Supervisor to Manager -- We're on track to complete the code remediation on our mission-critical systems. There may be a few glitches but nothing we can't handle in short order. Then we can tackle the secondary systems. You remember that article that you read about this in 1996? We probably should have started then, huh? Manager to V.P. -- Our Y2K preparations are coming along fine. Hey, we've known about this since 1996. V.P. to PR flak -- Take care of this Y2K thing with the media, will you? The IT folks say it's no problem. They've been working on it since 1996. P.R. to the public -- The Bizmo Company has been working on its Year 2000 compliance since 1996. We are making excellent progress and are on track to have our internal systems Y2K ready well before the turn of the century. .... fiendbear.com

To: Jeff Redman who wrote (3640)	2/4/1999 1:30:00 PM
From: C.K. Houston	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 9818

Jeff, I can only tell you what we, as an audience, were told at the actual presentation. I don't understand why you keep on asking me more and more questions. I only reported back what the Kraft VP said, and what was contained in the hand-out (his entire PowerPoint presentation). He had a quite extensive spreadsheet showing how and where problems were occurring. I didn't realize how much that date code was used internally and externally, until then. Jeffrey Mitchell (who I met for the first time, and who was in the audience, and who posts on SI), was also there. He also wrote a write-up on the presentation. Listen, I don't go to these conferences anymore. I've stayed in touch with some of these speakers from various industries. It's primarily thru them that I hear about some of the stuff currently going on. Some companies are far ahead of the game. Others aren't. There's a big worry about supply chain, across the board with all companies. So, from what I hear most of the big companies are doing contingency planning. If you and your boss don't believe what I wrote, that's cool. It's your prerogative. I heard enough over past couple of years that I decided it was best to start doing some personal preparation and take care of my family. I try to encourage others to at least make a minimal effort to do the same. That's why I post here. But, I'll soon be cutting back on that. I have too many other things to do. Regards, Cheryl