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: C.K. Houston who wrote (5602)	4/28/1999 12:24:00 PM
From: C.K. Houston	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 9818

April 26 Wall Street Journal "Global Investing Section" No Mention of Y2K greenspun.com Today's Journal [Apr 26] has a special 16 page news insert (not a paid advertising insert) which attempts to dissect the recent collapse of global markets. Much of the insert is under the heading "Now What?" Conspicuously absent from the discussion of the future was mention of Y2K. I cannot deign call this a disconnect, more like a separate reality or another dimension. Has the Journal become nothing more than a febrifuge to be administered by the lords of commerce? How can a discussion of the future of global markets not include a discussion of Sens. Bennett's and Dodd's statement that "The international situation will be more disturbing. Those who suggest it will be nothing more than a 'bump in the road' are simply misinformed." *How can the Journal ignore it's own reporting* that the FCC's NRIC committee's latest assessment of global telecom readiness shows that readiness has actually "worsened" in some countries. How can the Journal ignore the CIA's congressional testimony that y2k may have "humanitarian consequences" in some parts of the world, including former Soviet states. How can the Journal ignore the Senate Committee's report that Venezuela and Saudi Arabia, providing 30% of US oil imports, are 12 to 18 months behind the US in remediation. Why is there no discussion of where Japan gets its oil and the state of remediation of those countries? What about Scott McNealy saying his computer company may be unable to make computers next year because of y2k effects in Asia.** I continue to be baffled by the lack of any investigative reporting on this issue. Even the more informative articles and well-written articles are superficial reportage of publicly-stated facts and statistics. There has been no top echelon investigative reporting based on any independent investigation. It appears that this is the one important news issue of the last three decades where there are no confidential sources, no deep background, no sources "close to" anything or anybody, no highly placed sources, no reliable sources, no unnamed sources, simply no sources other than public statements issued by CO's of one type or another or PR employees. Heck, there aren't any paid sources supplying The Enquirer. etc. Now one rational explanation is that there is nothing to leak because the PR line is absolutely consistent with the reality. This would be a logical explanation and I do not at all discount it. The main weakness I see with that argument is that it would be the easiest to confirm with an actual investigation. For example, has The New York Times sent a skilled journalist to General Motors with a request to investigate the remediation. By investigate, I mean asking the real questions, hiring real experts to assist with and refine the questioning and determining, analyzing and reporting the detailed factual basis for the company's confidence. I'm not going to hold my breath. Let me suggest a story for some enterprising reporter at The Times. (Let me know if this has been done.) Interview Cory Hamasaki. He has celebrity among the y2k devotees, both pollies and preppers. Give Cory his best shot to build a story for you. Naturally, he can't reveal confidences, but if the problems are as widespread as he claims, let him pick a likely y2k failure. Let him engineer your investigation. Let him draw conclusions. Subject your investigated facts to independent paid experts. Subject Cory's conclusions to the same. Write a story. I am frustrated that the only source of investigated knowledge is Cory and anonymous writers such as Infomagic. But I do know that these guys, in contrast to the professional media, at least purport to give a behind the scenes glimpse. The inaction of the professional media is inexplicable. I'm beginning to think that The New York Times would let you confirm your own obituary, especially if you work for an infrastructure provider. -- Puddintame (achillesg@hotmail.com), April 26, 1999 ANSWERS [Excerpt] More talk of global disruption coupled with a stated desire to investigate can be found at y2knewswire.com PRESIDENT'S YEAR 2000 COUNCIL REPORT IMPLIES A GLOBAL Y2K COVER-UP Essay by the Y2KNEWSWIRE.COM staff - Y2K won't be a big problem here in the United States, according to the President's Council on the Year 2000 Problem. But other countries? They're in deep trouble. Says a recently-released report authored by the Council, "It now appears that a number of countries will experience Y2K failures in key infrastructures such as electric power, telecommunications and transportation." This AP story also adds, "An administration official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said U.S. industry experts advising the government, lack confidence about overseas airports and air-traffic control systems, foreign telephone networks and routine imports of some types of foods." [End paste.] Did I read that right? An anonymous administration official cited by the AP? Well, push me over with a feather. -- Puddintame (achillesg@hotmail.com), April 26, 1999 My guess is, unfortunately, nothing more than denial. "It simply won't can't happen here" is so widespread that I can believe even the Wall Steet "giants" would be able to ignore it. As has often been said here, it was the same in 1929 or in most other "disasters". The desire for everything "to contiue as it has" can overwhelm even supposedly astute analysts. Jon Johnson (narnia4@usa.net), April 26, 1999 The World Bank, the Bank for International Settlements, the UN, the CIA, the National Intelligence Council, etc.--all those organizations ARE very worried about what is going on internationally with Y2K. On this issue, use the WSJ only for an occasional laugh. -- Don Florence (dflorence@zianet.com), April 27, 1999 Cheryl

To: C.K. Houston who wrote (5602)	4/28/1999 12:33:00 PM
From: C.K. Houston	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 9818

IMAGE OVER REALITY by Victor Porlier ========================================================= The President's Council on Year 2000 Conversion issued its second quarterly Summary of Assessment Information last week. Within the 49 -page narrative, we are reminded that Y2K awareness is now quite widespread, coordinators have been designated, plans are being developed or are underway, fewer problems have been found than anticipated, progress is being made, and that (depending on the industrial or governmental sector) the systems will be tested and implemented by July 1, or October 1, or January 1. After all, the Y2K challenge has been largely solved already or will be soon, with the following exceptions taken from the body of the report: Organizations that are not paying appropriate attention to the problem or adopting a "wait and see" strategy are putting themselves -- and those who depend on them -- at great risk. This position is most prevalent among small businesses and local governments. There is a wide disparity in the readiness of emergency systems at the county and municipal level. International Y2K activity, though increasing, is lagging and will be the source of our greatest risk. We are increasingly concerned, however, about the Y2K readiness of health care providers. Non-compliance among smart building systems could potentially create a ripple effect. Concerns exist about the roughly 1300 small and medium-sized telephone companies where there is limited information about the status of their Y2K efforts. Half of those surveyed didn't have a formal Y2K plan. Personal computers, especially those made before 1997, may contain hardware and software that is not Y2K compliant. There is concern about those power companies that are not participating in industry assessments and for whom data is therefore not available on their progress. Middle Eastern countries that produce much of the world's oil have been slow to act on the problem. One of the biggest concerns in the pharmaceutical sector is the readiness of international suppliers. This is particularly troublesome in areas such as generic pharmaceuticals, where 90 percent of supplies originate from overseas. There are significant concerns about the readiness of some airports, international aviation partners, and international ports and shipping. There are significant concerns about the Y2K readiness of all parts of the international maritime transportation system: port infrastructure, communications systems, continuity of electric power, ship electronics, and navigation systems that interface with shore-based systems. The majority of public water systems do not expect the Y2K problem to interrupt service, (but they can't say for sure). It now appears that a number of countries will experience Y2K failure in key infrastructures. And so, on go the exceptions noted in the Quarterly Report and, of course, we are expected to remain sanguine in the face of these dichotomies. y2ktimebomb.com Cheryl The President's Council on Year 2000 Conversion Second Summary of Assessment Information y2k.gov

To: C.K. Houston who wrote (5602)	4/28/1999 3:40:00 PM
From: flatsville	Respond to of 9818

Cheryl-- I saw the ITA/Dept. of Commerce Y2k Problem and the Global Trading System Report for the first time yesterday. Oh baby, it is the Mother Lode of trade data for sure. I've been working with tables 9, 10, 21 and 22. Next I plan to mine some of the source documents. After I categorize the US trading partners according to the Gartner Group infrastructure risk ranking I should have...what? Some really interesting tables that tell me...what? <ggg> This is generally the kind of info needed to deconstruct (?) that 20% of US GDP comprised of imports/exports, but I need greater detail. I hope I can find it. Yardeni predicts a 5% drop (ouch) in US real GDP. How did he get that? Just once I'd like him to explain how...Even it it's "Well, ya know, I put a load on one evening and pulled it out of my hat" (arse or other just as likely spot.)