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: Ken who wrote (5305)	4/6/1999 9:10:00 AM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 9818

Ken, There is ONE BIG DIFFERENCE between traditional system faults and those expected over Jan 1st, 2000 (or before and after). When a fault occurs somewhere today, it usually occurs without advance notice and "experts" are left scrambling to travel to the place where the fault transpired and trying to figure out why the fault occurred. With faults occurring over 2000, they at least will have a place to start looking (and thus the possibility of cyberterrorism manifesting itself over that period. "you're looking at Y2K stuff when you should be looking for a system logic bomb") When faults occur over Jan 1st, 2000, corporate engineering staffs will be prepped and ready, looking for ANY SIGNS of a fault developing. They have a empowering advantage consisting of advance warning that their systems may fail. But they won't be able to rest easy for several months after the turn of the millenium. In discussing fault tolerance of a macro-economic system, one has to look at the fault tolerance of each of its individual components. Utilities have a different standard for fault tolerance than does a semi-conductor fabrication plant. A coal fired power plant has a different standard of fault tolerance from a nuclear plant. You can't just whip out a calculator, enter random data, and announce a SWAG statistic based upon a minimum of variables. And you especially can't then have the gall to use that as a viable predictor. The equation is just TOO DAMN COMPLEX for your kind of pseudo-analysis. YOU ASK EVERYONE BUT YOURSELF FOR EVIDENCE... And you consistently seem to imply that once a fault occurs, people are going to sit on their duffs and DO NOTHING to fix it. I can almost guarantee you that people will be working on any faults that occur from 2000. Their jobs rely upon it, and thus their ability to feed their families. And their sense of patriotism will ensure that they won't just roll-over and fall into a depressed delirium. Ken, while I understand your sense of reality is totally different than mine (and probably any other half-way logical being), and it is a waste of breath and digital dexterity trying to debate anything with you, I do think that others read our debates so I write for them, in order to give those who would be swayed by your overbearing belief that Y2K will result in utter complete societal apocalypse, an alternative set of variables. I write to defend those of us who realize there may be problems, but are not going to panic or deliberately try to panic anyone else. Regards, Ron

To: Ken who wrote (5305)	4/6/1999 11:21:00 AM
From: David Eddy	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 9818

Ken - Pareto's 80-20 law is against us. This time, 80% isn't good enough. If GM gets only 80% of its needed supplies, it goes out of business. GM could shut down for weeks & have minimal impact. Remember that brake plant strike a couple of years back? One part at one plant shut down most of GM's North American manufacturing. Basic issue is that cars, at least in the immediate term, are not a critical good. I can goose my old flivver along for a few more months. There are plenty of spare cars on the used car lots. GM can pull in it's horns and go into sleep mode for a while & they'd just forego revenue... rather like a strike. - David