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 (5546)	4/16/1999 1:01:00 PM
From: B.K.Myers	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 9818

Peter de Jager has a new article: year2000.com In this article, Peter does make some good observations: "Some are suggesting 2 - 3 days is sufficient. I classify this advice as ‘South of Prudence,' but not for the reasons some might think. It's not because I think Y2K disruptions might be longer or shorter than 2-3 days. It's because I think preparation plans of 2 - 3 days are not ‘plans' at all. One could go to practically any household in the Western world, and with only 10 minutes warning, bang nails into the doors, cut off water and power, and even in the dead of winter, come back three days later to find the inhabitants a bit smelly but none the worse for wear... One the other end of the scale, call it ‘North of Reason' (as a counterpoint to ‘South of Prudence'), we have the 6-months to 10-year preparation plans. I don't buy the notion of Y2K disruptions lasting 6 to 120 months. I can imagine no reasonable scenario where such lengthy disruptions are feasible. Are they possible? Sure! In the same way it's possible for you to get four flat tires at the same time. That's possible, but I don't see too many people carrying four spares in the back of their car just in case it happens... If your level of preparation is sufficient to cope with a 2 - 3 week disruption of services equivalent to what happened in Montreal during the Ice Storm, then I would state you've a sufficient level of preparation to cope with anything Y2K might throw at you in the proactive countries such as Canada, USA, UK, Australia, New Zealand, the Nordic Countries, Israel, Belgium, Holland, Ireland, and even South America to a certain degree. In other parts of the world where less preparations have been done, then I'd increase those preparations to 4 - 5 weeks, with the notable exceptions of Russia, much of Eastern Europe, and Italy. What are sufficient levels for these three exceptions? I honestly don't know. I don't have enough information to hazard a guess.? That part of the article is well thought out and well presented. Then he decides to present a counter-argument to the Y2K Doomsayers: "With that as necessary background, let's get to the core of my reasoning as to why 2 - 3 weeks is sufficient. It boils down to a very simple observation. A Y2K problem cannot both be pervasive and hidden at the same time. Stated differently, saying something is both ‘everywhere' and ‘difficult to find' is a contradiction. Again, if it's everywhere, we can't avoid finding it. Why is this observation important? Because it strikes at the heart of all the doomsday scenarios " No matter how many times I read these statements, I could not see how he could conclude that this observation "strikes at the heart of all doomsday scenarios." The Y2K problem is pervasive. But, is it really hidden? Most computer professional have known about the problem for decades. For one reason or another, we simply have avoided fixing it until now. I completely disagree with his statement: "saying something is both 'everywhere' and 'difficult to find' is a contradiction." Flu viruses are everywhere and they are difficult to find. Cancer's exist everywhere and they are difficult to find. I just don't see where this statement holds water. Although he does go on to make some reasonable arguments downplaying the serious consequences of Y2K, I simply could not agree with the core of this reasoning. B.K.