FW Our own little Y2K problem
In case you were puzzled by uncharacteristic lack of FW discourse between Dec. 28 and Jan 6...so were we! The server at U. of Waterloo was down for upgrading, and no one had passed that news along to Sally. But we're up and running again as of yesterday - Jan 7th. Perhaps a little breathing time over the holiday wasn't totally unwelcome. Sally and Arthur *FUTUREWORK MONTHLY REMINDER* PLEASE NOTE: A new list dealing only with Basic Income (BI) was is up and operating. To subscribe, send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] saying subscribe basicincome YourEmailAddress. This is a list for BI advocates and others interested in the idea to discuss ways to get BI onto the political agenda in North America, as well as how to work with others--the Basic Income European Network BIEN, for instance--who have the same objective. *FUTUREWORK: Redesigning Work, Income Distribution, Education* FUTUREWORK is an international e-mail forum for discussion of how to deal with the new realities created by economic globalization and technological change. Basic changes are occurring in the nature of work in all industrialized countries. Information technology has hastened the advent of the global economic village. Jobs that workers at all skill levels in developed countries once held are now filled by smart machines and/or in low-wage countries. Contemporary rhetoric proclaims the need for ever-escalating competition, leaner and meaner ways of doing business, a totally *flexible* workforce, jobless growth. What would a large permanent reduction in the number of secure, adequately-waged jobs mean for communities, families and individuals? This is not being adequately discussed, nor are the implications for income distribution and education. Even less adequately addressed are questions of how to take back control of these events, how to turn technological change into the opportunity for a richer life rather thanthe recipe for a bladerunner society. Our objective in creating this list is to involve as many people as possible in redesigning for the new realities. We hope that this list will help to move these issues to a prominent place on public and political agendas worldwide. FUTUREWORK is well-known for discussion and debate that is both spirited and civil, intelligent and provocative. It also serves as a bulletin-board to post notices about recommended books, articles, other documents, other lists and websites, conferences, even job openings relevant to the future of work and to the roles of education, community and other factors in that future. The FUTUREWORK list is hosted by the Faculty of Environmental Studies at the University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada. To subscribe to FUTUREWORK, send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] saying subscribe futurework YourE-MailAddress NOTE: To get the digest (batch) form of the list, subscribe to futurework-digest To post directly to the list (once you are subscribed), send your message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please begin the subject line of your message with FW, so that subscribers know the mail is from someone on the list. Subscribers almost always add a topic/thread identifier on the subject line (for example, 'FW downward mobility') to focus discussion--a very good idea. Searchable archives for the Futurework list are available at http://www.mail-archive.com/futurework%40dijkstra.uwaterloo.ca/ If you ever want to remove yourself from the Futurework list, you can send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the following command in the body of your email message: unsubscribe futurework YourE-mailAddress If you ever need to get in contact with the owner of the list (if you have trouble unsubscribing or have questions about the list itself) send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] We look foward to your participation in the ongoing FUTUREWORK discussions. Sally LernerArthur Cordell [EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED]
FW - Re-post re Y2K
Title: FW - Re-post re Y2K Y2K: The Homestretch by Roberto Verzola As Y2K preparations reach their homestretch, fund movements caused by the Y2K problem's differential effect on the perception of financial risk associated with various countries, markets and firms will become a major concern. This concern should be especially intense in Asia. It is here where fund movements in 1997 caused a currency crisis that triggered bankruptcies, recessions and devaluations in vulnerable countries that eventually included Russia and Brazil. State of Y2K readiness Last July 22, Inspector General Jacquelyn Williams-Bridgers of the U.S. Department of State testified before a U.S. Senate Special Committee on the Y2K Problem, where she reviewed Y2K-readiness worldwide: * "Approximately half of the 161 countries assessed are reported to be at medium-to-high risk of having Y2K-related failures in their telecommunications, energy, and/or transportation sectors. The situation is noticeably better in the finance and water/wastewater sectors, where around two-thirds of the world's countries are reported to have a low probability of experiencing Y2K-related failures"; * "Industrialized countries were generally found to be at low risk of having Y2K-related infrastructure failures, particularly in the finance sector. Still, nearly a third of these countries (11 out of 39) were reported to be at medium risk of failure in the transportation sector, and almost one-fourth (9 out of 39) were reported to be at a medium or high risk of failure in the telecommunications, energy or water sectors"; * "Anywhere from 52 to 68 developing countries out of 98 were assessed as having a medium or high risk of Y2K-related failure in the telecommunications, transportation, and/or energy sectors. Still, the relatively low level of computerization in key sectors of the developing world may reduce the risk of prolonged infrastructure failures"; and * Key sectors in Eastern Europe and the former USSR are "a concern because of the relatively high probability of Y2K-related failures". Failures in every sector, region and level Bridgers did not report how much of her assessment was based on self-reported progress, and how much was based on independently-audited reports. Since many Y2K progress reports are not audited and therefore tend to be too optimistic, the situation could actually be more serious than reported. One also wonders how the financial sector can be at a low risk while sectors it totally depends on like energy and telecommunications are at high-to-medium risk. Bridgers concludes: "the global community is likely to experience varying degrees of Y2K-related failures in every sector, in every region, and at every economic level. As such, the risk of disruption will likely extend to the international trade arena, where a breakdown in any part of the global supply chain would have a serious impact on the U.S. and world economies." As actual reports/rumors of Y2K failures come in, the perceived risks per firm, sector, and country will change. And as these perceived risks change, fund managers and depositors will keep moving their funds away from high-risk areas towards low-risk areas. This is simply rational economic behavior, part of the cold logic of finance and investment. This is exactly how fund managers behaved, when they withdrew their funds from Asia in 1997 to move them into areas of lower risk. These sudden fund flows bear watching. Most well-informed fund managers would have access to similar information and will therefore tend to move in similar directions. Those who lack information will tend to follow the placement decisions of the better-informed. This leads to "herd behavior," a follow-the-leader or follow-the-crowd strategy which tends to magnify small changes and cause huge impacts. Beware of herd behavior and positive feedback With feedback, the situation is worse. If the resulting effects in turn intensify the causes, this leads to even greater effects, which then further feed back into the causes. This positive feedback loop is a formula for rapid change, explosive growth, and extreme instability. By removing barriers to capital flows, financial liberalization increased the possibility of such positive feedback loops. When foreign speculators in 1997, for instance, rushed to sell their Thai baht for US dollars in fear of a baht depreciation, the sudden demand for dollars caused the baht to depreciate. This further fuelled the baht-to-dollar panic and eventually triggered the global financial crisis whose repercussions we still feel, two years later. If Y2K problems change risk perceptions, which then trigger fund movements that lead to herd behavior, the resulting rush can break the weakest links in the system. Failures in the weakest links can then lead t
Re: y2k bug urgent request -- If Microsoft Built Cars...
REH wrote: > Meanwhile the French can't get along with the Brits, theIrish > Catholics and Protestants have been fighting for 400 years > The moment the world gets connected it will be germ warfare all > over again. The Merry Minuet They're rioting in Africa They're starving in Spain There's hurricanes in Florida And Texas needs rain the Whole world is festering with unhappy souls The French hate the Germans, the Germans hate the Poles Italians hate Yugoslavs, South Africans hate the Dutch And I don't like Anybody very much. But we can be tranquil and thankful and proud For man's been endowed with a mushroom-shaped cloud And we know for certain that some lucky day Someone will set the spark off and we will all be blown away They're rioting in Africa There's strife in Iran What nature doesn't do to us Will be done by our fellow Man -- Sheldon Harnic, 1958 (?) > This is no recipe for the future. Like Germany's Schmidt put it, > "The market is filled with psychopaths!" So what do we call the > silicone CEOs with the culture of college dropouts I did see Schmidt's remarks but this is one of my favorite hobby horses. Those CEOs, their gurus, mandarins and shills repeatedly tell us in the biz press that their corporations (and by extension, they, themselves) have no responsibilities or obligations other than growth and shareholder value. The canonical corporate personality that they promote matches up nearly point for point with the official clinical diagnostic criteria for a psychopath. - Mike -- Michael Spencer Nova Scotia, Canada [EMAIL PROTECTED] URL: http://www.mit.edu:8001/people/mspencer/home.html ---
Re: y2k bug urgent request -- If Microsoft Built Cars...
Christoph Reuss wrote: > (snip) > Then again, the basic idea of the Internet was to enable *all* computers > and OS's (from different manufacturers) to work together -- if they *adopt* > the common standards, instead of "embrace&extend"ing them in order to > *hijack* (aka proprietarize) these standards... Meanwhile the French can't get along with the Brits, theIrish Catholics and Protestants have been fighting for 400 years, the Spanish had a 700 year war with the Moors who taught them how to count (an early example of Freud's teacher/father hatred) The only true Internationalists, the Jews and the Gypsies are the despised of the West, the Jews still see Philistines when they talk to the Arabs and the Arabs are still trying to prove the superiority of their recently acquired brand of monotheism. Except the Bahais have usurped the "most recent" title and that makes them the scum of the earth to Islam. Then there are the Croatian Catholics and the Serbian Orthodox and the Bosnian and Albanian Moslems. And get this, they are all cousins. They look more alike than Cherokees and the Sioux! So tell me Chris, how can these folks even imagine linkage on an information Internet? The moment the world gets connected it will be germ warfare all over again. This is no recipe for the future.Like Germany's Schmidt put it, "The market is filled with psychopaths!"So what do we call the silicone CEOs with the culture of college dropouts?How about Idiot Savants? You forwarded: If Microsoft Built Cars... > == > > The Top 13 ways things would be different if Microsoft built cars: > > 1. A particular model year of car wouldn't be available until after that >year, instead of before. No they would put out the same model in a different skin, on time andat a higher price. > 2. It would be completely acceptable to have new cars stop in the middle >of a road for no apparent reason, forcing the driver to shut the car >off, restart it, and continue driving. And they would require that everyone else wait until they couldplay again. > 3. The oil, alternator, gas, engine warning lights would be replaced with >a single "General Car Fault" warning light. Already done. I rent cars living in New York City. Whenwas the last time you saw an oil or heat gauge? > 4. People would get excited about the "new" features in Microsoft cars, >forgetting completely that they had been available in other brands for >years. This is not new. This is the consumer society! They've been playing such a game for at least 100 years. Fake newness is the only way that modern manufacturing can guarantee productivity. The economists lie about creativity. It barely exists. True R & D is too expensive to be profitable. The same crowd that used to lie about it on the left are now neo-s on the right. Their styles and even words are the same socialist realism crap. The only advantage is that they are no longer so involved with the schools. It was horrible when I went to school and they were the left wing. > 5. You would be constantly pressured to upgrade your car... Wait a second, >it's that way now! You're getting it now. > 6. You would have to take driving lessons every year, because the traffic >rules are changing regularly -- special traffic rules would apply to >Microsoft cars. You couldn't do this with cars so they invented Y2K as acomputer version of "Chicken." The lives of the banal, involved in insignificance, too simple for the art of living, must become involved instead in the art of death. Eros and Thanatos. > 7. You'd have to switch to Microsoft Gas(TM). You weren't around when the auto manufacturers lostthe right to choose their own fuel due to its extreme polluting properties. A section of my family was involved with Ford at the time and you should have heard them scream. They lost the potential to do what no. 7 describes and they realized the billions that it cost them. > 8. You could only have one person at a time in your car, unless you >bought a car NT, but then you'd have to buy more seats. This is what I call the hotrod mentality. Just another wayof making those of us who stupidly threw away our typewriters, and don't care "sh...t" about the new computers but just want to do the real work of the world, experience computer rage. > 9. New seats would force everyone to have the same size butt. Already done. Chiropractors are making a fortune withtheir new car seats and the adjustments that go with them. >10. Sun Motorsystems would make a car that was solar powered, twice as >reliable,
Re: y2k bug urgent request -- If Microsoft Built Cars...
REH wrote: > An interesting post Chris, > > I feel like the average driver who wants his "dictulena" car > to get him to and from work while talking to a race car > mechanic about his problems with General Motors. I have been talking all the time about the impact of M$ bugs on the *average* PC user and his daily work (and on the whole Economy), not about my problems with M$. (Since I'm living in a M$-free zone, my problems with M$ are not personal anyway..) Concerning your analogy, I can't resist forwarding "If Microsoft Built Cars" (below)... ;-) > I believe it is General Motor's purpose to build a universe > where their products are the simplest and works the best > for their consumers. It doesn't concern them that Ford's > parts don't work within their universe. Unfortunately for > us, the computer universe is all connected in ways that > no other industry has to be. Then again, the basic idea of the Internet was to enable *all* computers and OS's (from different manufacturers) to work together -- if they *adopt* the common standards, instead of "embrace&extend"ing them in order to *hijack* (aka proprietarize) these standards... Greetings, Chris ___FWD___ If Microsoft Built Cars... == The Top 13 ways things would be different if Microsoft built cars: 1. A particular model year of car wouldn't be available until after that year, instead of before. 2. It would be completely acceptable to have new cars stop in the middle of a road for no apparent reason, forcing the driver to shut the car off, restart it, and continue driving. 3. The oil, alternator, gas, engine warning lights would be replaced with a single "General Car Fault" warning light. 4. People would get excited about the "new" features in Microsoft cars, forgetting completely that they had been available in other brands for years. 5. You would be constantly pressured to upgrade your car... Wait a second, it's that way now! 6. You would have to take driving lessons every year, because the traffic rules are changing regularly -- special traffic rules would apply to Microsoft cars. 7. You'd have to switch to Microsoft Gas(TM). 8. You could only have one person at a time in your car, unless you bought a car NT, but then you'd have to buy more seats. 9. New seats would force everyone to have the same size butt. 10. Sun Motorsystems would make a car that was solar powered, twice as reliable, 5 times as fast, but only ran on 5% of the roads. 11. The US government would be getting subsidies from an automaker, instead of giving them. 12. Car radio manufacturers would go out of business because Microsoft is putting a free third-rate radio in all its cars. Replacing it by a different brand radio would make the car stop even more frequently. 13. The airbag system would ask "Are you sure? (Yes/No/Cancel)" before going off. (Default: No)
Re: y2k bug urgent request
An interesting post Chris, I feel like the average driver who wants his "dictulena" car to get him to and from work while talking to a race car mechanic about his problems with General Motors. I believe it is General Motor's purpose to build a universe where their products are the simplest and works the best for their consumers. It doesn't concern them that Ford's parts don't work within their universe. Unfortunately for us, the computer universe is all connected in ways that no other industry has to be. As for Gates and Cato, I could see it coming on the bias of MSNBC news.Some of the scuzziest people in the country including racists, a genocidal psycho-path host and a man who could bring back the anti-Roman bias with his stereo-typical culture bound ideas. And then there is the Jewish Puerto Rican Libertarian who has a good heart but is personally confused. They got rid of the only artist they had. He was too tricky. I wish I was a composer, I could write some great works with these strange characters. If you want to read a couple of interesting articles check the Sunday NYTimes Books in Review.One article is called Performance Art and is on Emerson and the other is The First Squillion Years, a review of a book on cosmology. When they do it right the NYTimes is a good read and these two are that. Ray Christoph Reuss wrote: > REH wrote: > > Most of the people that I talk to about this says much the same > > about Gates and Micro-soft. However, for the record I was not speaking > > of Gates only but the Libertarian Party cell that inhabits almost all of > > silicone valley. They fund anti community initiatives all over the > > country and one of their crew just did in fair minority hiring practices > > in California as "socialist." Generally they are followers of Ayn Rand > ... > > Their scholar's think tank is funded by that nutty Koch family from > > Kansas and calls itself the Cato Institute which shows how > > the media will kiss any body part that smells of money. > > Yup. See http://cato.org/gatesvisit.html for a weird example of > Gates whining about the bad bad Justice Dept. going after this poor > innocent victim of a socialist conspiracy. > > > On the other hand it could be just money and built in > > obsolescence. Something that has been done often in > > the past by big business selling individual products toconsumers. > > You've guessed it. So everyone will **have to** buy Windows2000. The > concept is total dependence. > > > > M$ also isn't interested in "hyper individuality" on the user's part -- > > > quite on the contrary, total "assimilation" to the "industry standard" > > > (yeah, incompatible with itself) is the goal, with nobody but Gates > > > calling the shots. > > > > You mean mass production which is the only productive way to go. > > No, I meant diversity and the degree of "customizability" of the software, > which is very low in M$ products. M$ doesn't want creative users, but > assimilated conformists. "Where do you want to go today?" is a rhetorical > question: You can't go anywhere else, only where M$ will let you go. > > > But you are confusing the dynamics of the net with the > > PC itself. My point is still that they have to inhabit the role > > of the "Trickster" with such a massive commune like entity as > > the Internet. It is literally vulnerable to anyone. > > That's why it's so important that users have bug-free and useful software > so they know what they're doing/sending and don't mess up mailing lists > with wrong-dated (by their insidious OS!) postings. > > > The > > only way I can see the net working is if there is standardization > > of structure with individuation of the process. > > The "standardization of structure" already exists (W3C etc.), but > unfortunately, M$ changes such standards (in the infamous "embrace > and extend" style) and inserts bugs, messing up the whole structure > (and process). > > Dennis Paull wrote: > > First, much of the Y2k difficulties will come from embedded microchips > > buried in products most of us don't think of as computers. Examples > > are traffic lights, medical and other scientific equipment and industrial > > control systems such as safety systems on refineries and power generators. > ... > > But there is another, difficult problem, that of legacy systems running > > COBOL programs on main frames. Can't blame Big Bill for that either. > > I didn't blame Big Bill for either; "only" for the PC software problems that > some listmembers are now experiencing. (Embedded microchips and COBOL > mainframes aren't programmed by M$, so it couldn't mess these up too.) > > Chris > > > "I think anybody who is savvy about this market knows that Microsoft > is getting away with stuff it probably shouldn't get away with." >-- GEOFFREY MOORE, Marketing Guru
Re: y2k bug urgent request
REH wrote: > Most of the people that I talk to about this says much the same > about Gates and Micro-soft. However, for the record I was not speaking > of Gates only but the Libertarian Party cell that inhabits almost all of > silicone valley. They fund anti community initiatives all over the > country and one of their crew just did in fair minority hiring practices > in California as "socialist." Generally they are followers of Ayn Rand ... > Their scholar's think tank is funded by that nutty Koch family from > Kansas and calls itself the Cato Institute which shows how > the media will kiss any body part that smells of money. Yup. See http://cato.org/gatesvisit.html for a weird example of Gates whining about the bad bad Justice Dept. going after this poor innocent victim of a socialist conspiracy. > On the other hand it could be just money and built in > obsolescence. Something that has been done often in > the past by big business selling individual products toconsumers. You've guessed it. So everyone will **have to** buy Windows2000. The concept is total dependence. > > M$ also isn't interested in "hyper individuality" on the user's part -- > > quite on the contrary, total "assimilation" to the "industry standard" > > (yeah, incompatible with itself) is the goal, with nobody but Gates > > calling the shots. > > You mean mass production which is the only productive way to go. No, I meant diversity and the degree of "customizability" of the software, which is very low in M$ products. M$ doesn't want creative users, but assimilated conformists. "Where do you want to go today?" is a rhetorical question: You can't go anywhere else, only where M$ will let you go. > But you are confusing the dynamics of the net with the > PC itself. My point is still that they have to inhabit the role > of the "Trickster" with such a massive commune like entity as > the Internet. It is literally vulnerable to anyone. That's why it's so important that users have bug-free and useful software so they know what they're doing/sending and don't mess up mailing lists with wrong-dated (by their insidious OS!) postings. > The > only way I can see the net working is if there is standardization > of structure with individuation of the process. The "standardization of structure" already exists (W3C etc.), but unfortunately, M$ changes such standards (in the infamous "embrace and extend" style) and inserts bugs, messing up the whole structure (and process). Dennis Paull wrote: > First, much of the Y2k difficulties will come from embedded microchips > buried in products most of us don't think of as computers. Examples > are traffic lights, medical and other scientific equipment and industrial > control systems such as safety systems on refineries and power generators. ... > But there is another, difficult problem, that of legacy systems running > COBOL programs on main frames. Can't blame Big Bill for that either. I didn't blame Big Bill for either; "only" for the PC software problems that some listmembers are now experiencing. (Embedded microchips and COBOL mainframes aren't programmed by M$, so it couldn't mess these up too.) Chris "I think anybody who is savvy about this market knows that Microsoft is getting away with stuff it probably shouldn't get away with." -- GEOFFREY MOORE, Marketing Guru
Re: y2k bug urgent request
-- Hi Ray, Chris, et al, I am a twenty seven year resident of Sillycon Valley and one of those technologists responsible for the Y2K problems. Please don't suggest that all SV residents are followers of those vocal Libertarians that seem to have become the spokespersons of many of the high tech folks here. Some of us (a few at least) are futurework types. First, much of the Y2k difficulties will come from embedded microchips buried in products most of us don't think of as computers. Examples are traffic lights, medical and other scientific equipment and industrial control systems such as safety systems on refineries and power generators. The reason that these systems are more likely to go bad is that, in many cases, there is no way to "fix" them short of replacement. But there is another, difficult problem, that of legacy systems running COBOL programs on main frames. Can't blame Big Bill for that either. Most major computer systems will probably fair pretty well. The ones that scare me are the computers in shops and factories that have no one who understands them available in-house. This includes many smaller companies in this country and even more in countries with a less well developed software industry and less resources to effect a fix. Not to let Gates off the hook. His company produces some of the most bloated, inefficient programs around and so should have found a way to avoid the Y2K problem long ago. They did copy so much of Apple's user interface, they could have looked a little deeper for additional guidance. In my case, if any of my software is Y2K buggy, it was not intentional. It was simply not paying attention. Usually this was because I could not believe that code I wrote in the '80s would still be around in '99 and later. Of course it would have been nice if the product specs I worked to had said to assure Y2K compatibility, but my customers didn't have that foresight either. So there is a lot of blame to spread around. dennis > > >Christoph Reuss wrote: > >> REH wrote: >> > We all notice the immense contradiction between >> > people greedily taking everything they can, declaring >> > that everyone is only responsible to themselves while >> > building an internet of sites where the "butterfly effect" >> > is more the rule than their hyper individuality. >> >> For the record: The Internet wasn't built by Gates and his Y2K-bug gang >> (just as little as it was invented by Al Gore..) -- in fact, M$ "slept" >> over the Internet for years and then copied the technology developed by >> Netscape et al. Let's state this clearly: The Y2K problems which >> various members of this list are now experiencing are due to the Micro$oft >> dumbware they are using. > >Hi Chris, > [snip] > >> They're not using mainframes from the 1970ies, they are using PCs with >> OSs from the 1990ies, but unfortunately, Gates has "migrated" the Y2K bug >> to the PC, ALTHOUGH there would have been plenty of storage space and >> upgrade changes to work with "complete" date formats -- as the MacOS did >> from the start. > >On the other hand it could be just money and built in >obsolescence. Something that has been done often in >the past by big business selling individual products toconsumers. The PC is a >lot cheaper than an automobile. > [snip] > >REH > >> >> >> ___ >> "640K [of RAM] ought to be enough for anybody." -- BILL GATES, 1981 >> [just like 8 characters for filenames...] > > > > >
Re: y2k bug urgent request
Christoph Reuss wrote: > REH wrote: > > We all notice the immense contradiction between > > people greedily taking everything they can, declaring > > that everyone is only responsible to themselves while > > building an internet of sites where the "butterfly effect" > > is more the rule than their hyper individuality. > > For the record: The Internet wasn't built by Gates and his Y2K-bug gang > (just as little as it was invented by Al Gore..) -- in fact, M$ "slept" > over the Internet for years and then copied the technology developed by > Netscape et al. Let's state this clearly: The Y2K problems which > various members of this list are now experiencing are due to the Micro$oft > dumbware they are using. Hi Chris, Most of the people that I talk to about this says much the same about Gates and Micro-soft. However, for the record I was not speaking of Gates only but the Libertarian Party cell that inhabits almost all of silicone valley. They fund anti community initiatives all over the country and one of their crew just did in fair minority hiring practices in California as "socialist." Generally they are followers of Ayn Rand and follow the new term of "Dynamists" as opposed to the rest of us which they have coined "Stasists".Actually their history is confused and their philosophy is a mongrel mix of romantic and classical 19th century artistic & cultural styles. The mix shows that they understand neither. I suspect that the mix of digital mechanics that they use in programming really is what they say, an ignorant mistake based upon a two dimensional view of the world. Their scholar's think tank is funded by that nutty Koch family from Kansas and calls itself the Cato Institute which shows how the media will kiss any body part that smells of money. The Internet was the government's invention based upon a need for scientists to communicate, or so the myth goes. I suspect that they all had something to do with it, Al Gore, Gates, the Army Band and all of the other connected folks. My point was how they are rabidly anti community (Gore excepted) in their politics and how that would make them truly awful when trying to work from network integrated systems when they don't believe in them. The key word is "believe."I would call this a giant double bind for such conflicted folks. > They're not using mainframes from the 1970ies, they are using PCs with > OSs from the 1990ies, but unfortunately, Gates has "migrated" the Y2K bug > to the PC, ALTHOUGH there would have been plenty of storage space and > upgrade changes to work with "complete" date formats -- as the MacOS did > from the start. On the other hand it could be just money and built in obsolescence. Something that has been done often in the past by big business selling individual products toconsumers. The PC is a lot cheaper than an automobile. > M$ also isn't interested in "hyper individuality" on the user's part -- > quite on the contrary, total "assimilation" to the "industry standard" > (yeah, incompatible with itself) is the goal, with nobody but Gates > calling the shots. You mean mass production which is the only productive way togo. But you are confusing the dynamics of the net with the PC itself. My point is still that they have to inhabit the role of the "Trickster" with such a massive commune like entity as the Internet. It is literally vulnerable to anyone. Imagine what it would be like for everyone to be able to change the traffic lights in New York's traffic grid simply by running the clock forward on their car and you get the linkage problem. The only way I can see the net working is if there is standardization of structure with individuation of the process.Those who still think like process when they are responsible for structure are like someone walking into another linguistic culture and speaking only their own language while demanding that the others grow up and speak his language which doesn't fit their culture or personal lives. > Dump the M$ crap and get yourself REAL software! > Chris This all reminds me of the Cherokee word for automobile, obviously of recent invention. It is dicktulena. If you say the word enough you will get the image of some drunk dick driving down a two lane road, which means to us "watch out!" I'm sure we could come up with some comparable word for this beast. REH > > > ___ > "640K [of RAM] ought to be enough for anybody." -- BILL GATES, 1981 > [just like 8 characters for filenames...]
Re: y2k bug urgent request
REH wrote: > We all notice the immense contradiction between > people greedily taking everything they can, declaring > that everyone is only responsible to themselves while > building an internet of sites where the "butterfly effect" > is more the rule than their hyper individuality. For the record: The Internet wasn't built by Gates and his Y2K-bug gang (just as little as it was invented by Al Gore..) -- in fact, M$ "slept" over the Internet for years and then copied the technology developed by Netscape et al. Let's state this clearly: The Y2K problems which various members of this list are now experiencing are due to the Micro$oft dumbware they are using. They're not using mainframes from the 1970ies, they are using PCs with OSs from the 1990ies, but unfortunately, Gates has "migrated" the Y2K bug to the PC, ALTHOUGH there would have been plenty of storage space and upgrade changes to work with "complete" date formats -- as the MacOS did from the start. M$ also isn't interested in "hyper individuality" on the user's part -- quite on the contrary, total "assimilation" to the "industry standard" (yeah, incompatible with itself) is the goal, with nobody but Gates calling the shots. Dump the M$ crap and get yourself REAL software! Chris ___ "640K [of RAM] ought to be enough for anybody." -- BILL GATES, 1981 [just like 8 characters for filenames...]
Re: y2k bug urgent request
Robert, I'm sure there are many people testing their machines. What I am doing now is to be sure that my clock registers the correct time and date, no matter what, if I am sending an e-mail. Like any disease, finding the beginning of it is interesting but not much practical use other than as a lesson. Being connected to each other is a very difficult problem for people on many levels. It has to do with what stops the negotiations on futures situations, like Ed's dealing with the indigenous peoples, and it has to do with the extreme libertarian positions of people in silicone valley who should know better. We all notice the immense contradiction between people greedily taking everything they can, declaring that everyone is only responsible to themselves while building an internet of sites where the "butterfly effect" is more the rule than their hyper individuality. >From the impotent cry of the virus maker to the businessman (or woman) trying to adjust their world to the new information reality while swimming in a sea of sharks, we all are extremely vulnerable to each other's welfare. It is no less so as we listen to the government committee that is supposed to arrive at solutions to this rapidly growing, out of control organism careening towards a creator imposed wall set to hit on the millennium. Does anyone ask why the inventors imposed such a limit? Well, yes, but when you do you just get the "aw shucks we're just human and incompetent" explanation. The same people who advocate the negation of all regulations and the incorporation of contracts enforceable only by the most wealthy as the "wave of the future." Who will make business on the illness of computers? This medical model is currently at work in the HMOs in the U.S. and proves that you are only healthy of you can afford a wife to do your home corporation or if you do so little in your business that you can do it yourself or if medicine or computers IS your business, or if you have a major educational institution conning their students into supporting your "research" as long as it is published. Like that great Amateur Charles Ives said before the first great crash of the 20th century. "If you want to do it right then it has to be something other than your job." Ives followed his own advice as he made millions and shaped the Insurance Industry in the 20th century. At night he wrote music at a furious pace, tossing the pages over his shoulder to land in a heap on the floor. In the morning his wife Melody would dutifully gather up the leaves, (kind of like the tons of e-mail that we now write) and place them in a cabinet never to be opened until Ives death and his biographers Braunstien and Smith tried to put the unnumbered pages in order. Ives had a heart attack, from the pace, in his forties at which point he only did insurance until his death in his eighties. He once heard a bit of Bernstein's performance of his second symphony at which point the ringing in his ears drove him away from the radio. His only comment was "It sounded like I thought" and America's only great composer died in a fit of forty year's rage rather than creativity. He knew the logical positivists and he knew intimately the sell out that the artists made to the rich giving up their connection to the "masses" that contained the wisdom that was dribbling away during his day. The same baronic rich, who needed the classical artists to validate their faked aristocracy today, continue their "hero's journey" in silicone valley led by people who wouldn't have a musical thought if it hit them in the face. As they earned their cultural validation with cash, they gave up any type of learning that doing the real thing might bring. It is said that music can kill cancer, in a new book by an MD from New York Hospital. No doubt it should be locked away lest this cancer be healed and the silicone gang lose their key to our pocketbooks. REH Neunteufel Robert wrote: > Could it be, that the mails on future-work with wrong dates are > disturbing my mail system? > > I am working with Netscape 3.0 under Windows 3.11. > When loadinng down the wrongdated mails Netscape crashed. > > So I had to uninstall and install Netscape twice. > > Now I have removed all the mails from the last two month. Netscape seems > to work again. > > What is going on? Are we - is anyone - testing the y2k bug? > > Could you please tell me how to handle the problem. > > With best wishes, Robert Neunteufel
y2k bug urgent request
Could it be, that the mails on future-work with wrong dates are disturbing my mail system? I am working with Netscape 3.0 under Windows 3.11. When loadinng down the wrongdated mails Netscape crashed. So I had to uninstall and install Netscape twice. Now I have removed all the mails from the last two month. Netscape seems to work again. What is going on? Are we - is anyone - testing the y2k bug? Could you please tell me how to handle the problem. With best wishes, Robert Neunteufel
Y2K at work...
Thomas Lunde wrote in response to Douglas P. Wilson: > Thanks for your detailed comments. On one point we have agreement Douglas, > we have both got our dates set wrong on our computer. I was puzzeled that > your message was at the bottom of my date ordered inbox - really, Friday, > Feb 27, 1920 is further than I ever dared to err. Thomas, your software has a Y2K bug: Douglas' mail was actually dated Sun, 2 Aug 2099, not Fri, 27 Feb 1920. Now that's real FutureWork! ;-) Chris P.S.: Your geo time zone is wrong too: + instead of -0500 (or so).
RE: Y2K - Out of sight - out of mind - but stillthere
Title: RE: Y2K - Out of sight - out of mind - but stillthere Thomas: Doing some Web browsing, I came across this article. The media have not been focusing our attention on this problem, but as the following article explains in chilling detail, the problem is still with us - a time bomb, perhaps, that could not only destroy our economy but the lives of millions. For most of us, we are in the similar situation of a train going through an avalanche area. We all know that the noise of the train could trigger an avalanche which could kill us, but we are on the train and there is no way off. Perhaps lack of knowledge is the best placebo to fear. Respectfully, Thomas Lunde -- The Co-Intelligence Institute // CII home // Y2K home The Accidental Armageddon http://www.theage.com.au/daily/990620/news/news22.html By HELEN CALDICOTT The Y2K bug could trigger a nuclear holocaust. So what are the experts doing? Hoping for the best MANY of the world's chemical plants, nuclear reactors and nuclear-weapon systems rely heavily on date-related computer systems. So what will happen to them come the millennium bug? It is remarkable that the Pentagon, the United States Defence headquarters, computerised its nuclear weapons, delivery systems and early-warning systems, despite knowing there was a date-related problem. And it beggars comprehension that the nuclear power industry made the same mistake. There are 433 non-military nuclear power reactors in the world, 103 of them in the US. All depend on an intact coolant system. In most reactors, integral components of the cooling system are computerised. So if any date-dependent fixture breaks down, the reactor could melt down within minutes. How to deal with this? Even if the reactor is taken ``off line'' - that is, the fissioning process is stopped on 31 December and the cooling system fails on 1 January - it will still melt down within two hours. Indeed, even if the fission reaction were to be stopped today, the core would still be so hot in six months that it would melt down within 12 hours if the coolant system failed. But there's more. The circulation of coolant water is also dependent on an external electricity supply and an intact telecommunications system. If the millennium bug causes power failures and/or telecommunication malfunctions, reactors will be vulnerable. Because of this possibility, each US reactor has been equipped with two back-up diesel generators. But at best these are only 85 per cent reliable. So, in the event of a prolonged power failure, the back-up diesel generators will not necessarily prevent a nuclear catastrophe. And 67 Russian-built reactors are even more vulnerable, because they have no back-up generators. What is more, the Russian electricity grid is itself at great risk because, as one might expect, the political and economic turmoil in that country means the Y2K problem has hardly been examined. There are 70 old nuclear reactors on old Russian submarines moored at dock in the Barents Sea. If they were to lose the electricity grid powering their cooling systems, they would melt. About 80 per cent of France's electricity is nuclear generated. Its government has announced it will close its nuclear power plants for four days over the New Year. But this will not stop meltdowns if the external electricity supply is lost and the coolant fails to reach the intensely hot radioactive cores. Because the air masses of the two hemispheres do not generally mix at the equator, Australia is likely to be largely protected from the fallout from any catastrophic radioactive accidents in the northern hemisphere, where most reactors are located. But Russia and America maintain an arsenal of up to 3000 nuclear warheads, targeted at each other and their allies. These weapons are on hair-trigger alert, meaning only minutes are allowed for either side to determine whether an apparent attack is the result of a computer error. And Australia is home to several of the Russian targets, among them Pine Gap, Nurrunga, North West Cape and Tidbinbilla. In the event of a nuclear war - accidental or deliberate - they could expect to be on the receiving end of at least one hydrogen bomb each. The Pentagon, which maintains more computer systems than any other organisation in the world, is in disarray about Y2K. The Pentagon admits that it is physically impossible to locate all the embedded microchips within the systems. And even if a system is deemed Y2K compliant, each system interfaces with others, so that a faulty embedded chip or hardware problem in one system can infect another that is deemed Y2K compliant, and ``bring it down''. The US Deputy Secretary of Defence, John Hamre, was quoted in October last year as saying: ``Probably one out of five days I wake up in a cold sweat thinking (that the Y2K problem) is much bigger than we think, a
Y2K
I've been listening to the government on Y2K committee. Maybe Nostra what's his name had something. The don't have any idea and they are doing nothing. REH
Re: US Naval War College & Y2K
Most interesting. Sounds like an old artist's maxim, "you either can do it or you can't." Now how do you learn to do it? Is it the small bits of information like numbers, writing or other academic standards arrived at through the necessity to teach mass education to massive groups of people? Or is it the large synergistically derived experiences from the kind of ensemble processes that take members of small groups into a greater universe in their thought? I suspect the most massive failure, of which Hubbell's flaw was the harbinger and Y2K is the most inclusive effect, is in the education of the business disciplines. The perceived truth is and was that the market was like a machine that is self regulating if you remove external regulations. Warfield's discussion of the cause of the Savings & Loan scandal was the failure of economists, political theorists, self-serving businessmen and both Reagan and the U.S. Congress to COMPREHEND the results of their actions. A failure of competence. Now one will say that economics is an exact science but cutting that mirror for Hubbell was. What could have possessed the businessmen and scientists involved in that process to believe that they could get away with putting such a flawed mirror into orbit? One could also say that NOT putting it into orbit could have scuttled the whole project but that is just the politics of funding. It does not address the issue of why the mistake was made and why they didn't rectify it with the second mirror that had been cut as a back-up to the first. Incompetence and greed. So much for competence rising to the surface of competition. That is obviously too complicated a situation to be so simply explained. There is such a thing as incompetence and there is, in spite of western science's love of simplicity (they call it "elegant") such a thing as "over simple." Which brings us to Y2K. The report says that it will demand the kind of excellence in thought that is required of a concert pianist or a member of the Super 300 International Opera Ensemble. Considering that it is considerably easier for almost anyone to finish a physics degree( when compared to the millions who train and apply for that group of 300 chosen from worldwide competition and judged by the openness of public performance) one would think there would be more American physicists. But Americans have found that physics is too hard for a people whose role in the world is to create consumption and we are now hiring Chinese and Russian physicists and pretending surprise when others have the bomb as a result. I think this is the reason that Clinton let it go on for so long. How surprising to find himself once more blamed for doing what TJ Rogers and the other genius businessmen of silicone valley had been urging all along. Now they are super-funding the governor from TEXAS! They didn't want American physicists, they were too expensive, better to have a leaky Russian or Chinese. Better still to have a Democrat to blame that on before you flood the market with Russian immigrants. (By the way, it is only the Russian scientists who come cheap. Their artists are hard bargainers and many have priced themselves out of the market to the American Singers good fortune.) So I find the Naval report to be too optimistic. I think the seductive power of cafe talk on the web and a general impulse to laziness portends something much more serious than just incompetence. Instead I think it smacks of a "Doctor making his patients sick with medicines meant to cure them so his practice will continue." That for me is the gist of most of this future of work talk. I don't think much of the intent of most human endeavor. Especially the "free" market. So I believe that the money will continue to define the difference between classes and that psychology and political intrigue, politely called connections, will have a great deal more to do with the future than just not knowing how to stop mistakes. (Remember it is only poor Indians whose mother's drank that have fetal alcohol syndrome. The NY City elite and their group all admit to drinking themselves silly while Diana was pregnant and yet their children write books and work in business and academia. That probably is because Indians were "less immune to European alcohol" or it means that we have mentally compromised folks running the country because of family ties. Will it change? Not as long as the "French drink.") But I hope the report is true, however I fear that it is just another instance of military projections. Wars are easy, they destroy things to make it necessary for their replacement and stimulation of jobs. Sort of like building your hospital in the middle of Tornado Alley like Oral Roberts has done in Tulsa. Sooner or later probability will overcome hope and wishful thinking
US Naval War College & Y2K
A most interesting website IMO. Steve - - - - - http://www.geocities.com/ResearchTriangle/Thinktank/6926/y2krep.html Conclusions of the US Naval War College Year 2000 International Security Dimension Project Report Conclusion #1 How You Describe Y2K Depends on From When You View It People who describe Y2K as "different in kind" from anything humanity has ever experienced, or something that is unique, tend to look at the event from the perspective of the past century. But those who look at Y2K from the perspective of the coming century, exhibit the exact opposite tendencies: they tend to describe Y2K as only "different in degree" from the sort of system perturbations humanity will increasingly face as we become more interconnected and interdependent on a global scale. In their minds, then, Y2K is a genuine harbinger of next definitions of international instabilities or uncertainty, in effect a new type of crisis that leaves us particularly uncomfortable with its lack of a clearly identifiable "enemy" or "threat" with associated motivations. Our bottom line (paraphrasing Rick in Casablanca): We'll always have Y2K Conclusion #2 Y2K Moves Us From Haves-vs-Have Nots to Competents-vs-Incompetents Success at dealing with Y2K has a lot to do with resources, and anyone who believes otherwise is painfully naive. And yet, defeating the challenge of Y2K says as much or more about one's competency than it does about one's wealth. The rich can survive Y2K just fine, but only the truly clever can thrive in Y2K, which IT competents tend to view as a sped-up market experience within the larger operational paradigm of the New Economy. The rise of "virtual tigers" such as India's software industry, Ireland's high-tech manufacturing, or Israel's Wadi Valley, tell us that it doesn't necessarily take a wealthy country to succeed in the New Economy, just a very competent one. Y2K may well serve as a microcosmic experience that drives this new reality home to many more around the planet: it's less about what you have than what you can do. For in the end, Y2K is less about vulnerability and dependency, then dealing with vulnerability and dependency. You can buy your way toward invulnerability and independency, but you can also work around vulnerabilities and dependency. Our bottom line: Competents will thrive, while incompetents nosedive. Conclusion #3 Y2K As A Glimpse Into the 21st Century: Divisions Become Less Vertical and More Horizontal The 20th Century featured an unprecedented amount of human suffering and death stemming from wars, and these conflicts came to embody humanity's definition of strife -- namely, state-on-state warfare. The divisions that drove these conflicts can be described as "vertical," meaning peoples were separated--from top to bottom--by political and geographic boundaries, known as state borders. If the 20th Century was the century of inter-state war, then the 21st is going to be the century of intra-state or civil strife. Divisions of note will exist on a "horizontal" plane, or between layers of people that coexist within a single state's population. These layers will be largely defined by wealth, as they have been throughout recorded history. But increasingly, that wealth will depend on competency rather than possession of resources. Y2K will help crystallize this coming reality by demonstrating, in one simultaneous global experience, who is good at dealing with the NewEconomy, globalization, the Information Revolution, etc., and who is not. And these divisions will form more within countries than between them, as borders will become increasingly less relevant markers of where success begins and failure ends. The coming century of conflict will revolve around these horizontal divisions. Our bottom line: We have met the enemy, and they is us. Conclusion #4 Y2K Will Demonstrate the Price of Secrecy and the Promise of Transparency Those who are more open and transparent and share information more freely will do better with Y2K than those who hoard information, throw up firewalls, and refuse outside help. Secrecy will backfire in almost all instances, leading to misperceptions and harmful, stupidly self-fulfilling actions. Governments must be as open with their populations as possible, or suffer serious political backlashes if and when Y2K proves more significant for their countries than they had previously let on. People's fears about "invisible technology" will either be conquered or fed by how Y2K unfolds. This is a pivotal moment in human history: the first time Information Technology has threatened to bite back in a systematic way. In a very Nietzschean manner, Y2K will either "kill" us or make us stronger, and the balance of secrecy versus transparency will decide much, if n
reflections on the evolving Y2K debate: beyond Y2K fatigue
>Date: Tue, 16 Mar 1999 11:31:00 -0800 >From: Robert Theobald <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Mime-Version: 1.0 >Precedence: bulk >Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: reflections on the evolving Y2K debate: beyond Y2K fatigue >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >X-Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > >Y2K ATTITTUDES AND PATTERNS > > >I have had the opportunity to attend a large number of Y2K events in >Australia. >The overall reaction clearly is that this is the time to look at the broader >issues and desired futures. It is the time to push trends which are already >emerging in the culture. This pattern has led to the following musings which I >hope may be useful. > >I want to share some emerging thoughts with you about Y2K and the confusion I >think we are feeling. I don't think that there is anything very new here but I >do think that some of the language and its brevity may be helpful. > >The initial Y2K issue was how much we could fix the bug: the hope was that it >would be possible to limit the damage so that there would be at worst a >bump in >the road. > >As community people realised that it was almost inevitable that there would >indeed be a bump in the road, then it became obvious that there was a need for >preparedness. The model that developed proposed that people should stock food >and water for a given number of days. There are also suggestions for >preparing >for interruptions in energy and money supply, etc. > >This fell easily into parallels with disaster preparation. The work that is >going is obviously useful for people have indeed become far too casual about >what might go wrong and what they need to have available to them if there are >disasters e.g in ice-storms, high winds, electricity and gas failures etc. >This model assumes that there will be a short period of major disruption and >that realities will then go back to their previous shape. > >It seems to me, however, that the debate has moved on. The people who I >respect >are arguing that while there may be short-run dangers, the real issues are far >more complex. They believe that the overall industrial system is dangerously >stressed. They think that if things do go wrong, breakdowns will take place >over time and will damage the infrastructure on which we have come to rely in >unexpected and unpredictable ways. > >If this is the case, we need a second level of preparation which is quite >different in nature. The best way I have so far found to get at this is to >provide a parallel with attitudes to the human body. One could not live >well if >one spent one's whole time worrying about all of the diseases one can possibly >catch. One needs to have a general awareness of one's body and to be aware of >specific dangers which come from one's specific circumstances but the most >important goal is to build one's health and immune system. > >At the present time, it seems to me that we are greatly in danger of asking >people to try to understand all the possible breakdowns which could emerge >from >Y2K. This is leading to "Y2K fatigue" as people find that they are getting >whiplashed by contradictory experiences. I am convinced that we need to help >them to see that there is an overall set of responses which are relevant and >which we have aimed to evoke by the term resilience. > >People will only see the need for resilience if they tackle the Y2K crisis >at a >deep level where they understand that it is challenging the core of the >beliefs >that we have used to shape our realities in the twentieth century. They will >then move on to see that we are indeed being forced to develop a new set of >understandings and beliefs. > >Y2K is indeed a catalyst and an opportunity. But it cannot operate in this way >unless we enable people to approach it from a values and spiritual base. > >What does this mean in specific terms. It means that we must affirm the need >for preparedness as there will necessarily be times when families and >neighborhoods will need to support themselves. But preparedness is not >particularly a Y2K issue. Rather it is part of an overall failure to >grasp the >reality that the challenge in any culture is to deal with failures as they >occur rather than to believe that all failures can be avoided. It is part of >the needed shift to recognizing that mistakes are part of life and are >learning >potentials but only if they are admitted rather than denied. > >The real Y2K challenge is to see it as the forerunner of massive changes >in the >21st century. Our future goals must be quite different than those of the past. >We need to state clearly that human survival requires a profound shift from a >quantity of goods to a quality of lif
Re: New Y2K Computer Problem -- Time Dilation (fwd)
I thought I'd better to send you the follow-up (debunking?), too. Eva > >From the Los Angeles Times > Monday, February 22, 1999 > > The Y2K Bug Has Company in the Form of 'Time Dilation' Computers: Pair who > stumbled on the odd phenomenon insist it's a legitimate concern. Others > call their warnings a scare tactic. This rubbish from Elchin and Crouch has been around for a while. Here are two of my messages to the Australian Computer Society's Y2K list: 24 February > >From Mike Echlin... > > Hi Carl, > > As you say its not easily replicated, and this is why a lot of people have > wrtten it off, they tried a few times, didn't see it, so say, "not gonna > hit me." > > But they are wrong, Every year or two a rumour circulates that a time bomb virus is out there, set to go off on a certain date and do dreadful things. Each time this happens, "current affairs" programs find a few poor people who didn't take the precautions and had computer problems. Warning!!! The PBhaha virus is set to come into operation on 22/9/1999. This evil program hides itself on your computer (it cannot be detected by any anti-virus program) until it detects that the date has rolled to 22/9/1999. When it sees this date, it generates a random number and, based on the value returned, causes either your hard disk or the fan in your power supply to fail. If either of these things happen when you turn on your computer on that date you have probably become a victim. This is a hybrid virus and is equally likely to affect PCs running DOS or Windows (any flavour from 1.1 to 2000), Macs, Linux boxes and HP network printers with hard disks. (A lot of Macs are immune to the fan problem, though.) Do not switch your machine on on that date unless you have adequate backups. But seriously - a couple of dozen computers from the hundreds of millions out there exhibit some non-reproducible anomaly in the BIOS or RTC date and this guy reckons Armageddon is here. Where's the pattern? Where are the large number of machines from the same manufacturer which all exhibit the same symptoms and which do it every time the test is applied? Time Dilation! More like "Brain Dilation". Perhaps we could call it "Brain Shrinkage, or "BS" for short. Crouch's website looks like a definite Quintessence candidate. === 5 March I spend a lot of my time online with people who are fighting quack medicine and other forms of ratbaggery such as those who claim paranormal powers of various kinds or are aware of events occurring through Forces Unknown To Science (FUTS). I was sceptical of Elchin and Crouch immediately, simply because they exhibit all the hallmarks of the mad scientist. Please note that scepticism does not mean immediate rejection, only a desire for truth. Cold fusion was not rejected immediately even though it looked highly probable that Fleischmann and Pons were either mistaken or deluded. It is classic quack or woowoo practice to quote slim anecdotal "evidence" and then demand that everyone else prove the findings to be false. Leaving aside the impossibility of proving a negative, the onus of proof has to be on the claimant, and, as we say in the sceptic business, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof". Many of these mad claims can be ignored because they are either obviously impossible (eg perpetual motion machines) or of no urgency. Unfortunately this one addressed a real problem with real urgency. This meant that real scientists had to spend real time and real money investigating the claims of these fools, claims based on the fact that highly improbable random events can happen. (The next time you hear of someone winning Lotto, remember that the win was less probable than your Windows machine running for 1,000 years without a problem.) The public have been scared silly by much of the talk about the Y2K problem and are susceptible to almost any stupid claim of a solution (I will talk about MFX2000 at another time). Like quack cancer cures or stories about planetary alignment, these things bring false hope (or fears) and demands for investigation. Like these other lunacies they waste everyone's time when there are real problems to solve. . Peter Bowditch [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.gebesse.com.au - End of forwarded message from Peter Bowditch -
(Fwd) New Y2K Computer Problem -- Time Dilation (fwd)
some of you are interested in this stuff I think,
Eva
>From the Los Angeles Times
Monday, February 22, 1999
The Y2K Bug Has Company in the Form of 'Time Dilation' Computers: Pair who
stumbled on the odd phenomenon insist it's a legitimate concern. Others
call their warnings a scare tactic.
By ASHLEY DUNN, Times Staff Writer
Like many computer hobbyists, Jace Crouch, a professor of history
at Oakland University in Michigan, decided to test the waters of the year
2000 by turning the clocks on his computers to Dec. 31, 1999.
To his relief, nothing happened. But within a few days, one of his
computers using an older Intel microprocessor began acting strangely,
jumping from January 2000 to December 2000. In later tests, friends
and acquaintances from the comp.software.year-2000 Internet newsgroup
reported similar random jumps in time.
What Crouch had stumbled on was an odd computer phenomenon on the
fringes of the year 2000 issue that typifies the vague uncertainties about
the millennium bug.
The phenomenon is known by the lofty name of "time dilation," or
the Crouch-Echlin Effect. The latter half of its name comes from the
Canadian programmer, Mike Echlin, who first came up with a theory about
its workings.
Unlike the basic Y2K problem, which is a simple, logical problem,
the Crouch-Echlin Effect stems from the interaction between some of the
most obscure and complicated components in a personal computer.
Simply stated, after Jan. 1, 2000, some personal computers will
suffer from erratic timekeeping. In extreme cases, Crouch and Echlin say,
it can lead to malfunctions, such as the inability of the computer to
recognize connected devices.
The two discoverers believe this little gremlin largely affects
pre-Pentium computers that use antiquated internal clocks. They both
concede that it is a petty issue in the spectrum of Y2K problems.
After a year and a half of controversy, there is no conclusive
evidence that the Crouch-Echlin Effect is an identifiable computer malady.
But it has also defied all attempts to be dismissed or explained.
The uncertainty over its origins has forced some of the biggest
players in the computer industry to take on the issue. Intel Corp.,
Digital Equipment Corp., Compaq Computer Corp. and Symantec Corp. have all
done extensive testing for the effect, but have been unable to reproduce
it or figure it out.
Last year Compaq had to defend itself against a claim of false
advertising in Britain because it stated that its new computers were ready
for 2000. The complaint alleged that Compaq could not say its computers
were ready for 2000 because they could be vulnerable to the Crouch-Echlin
Effect.
The British Advertising Standards Authority eventually ruled in
Compaq's favor.
Tom Becker, president of RighTime Co., a Miami-based firm that
specializes in regulating PC clocks and one of the staunchest critics of
the Crouch-Echlin Effect, said he has gotten panicked calls from Exxon
Corp. and the Federal Reserve Board over the Crouch-Echlin Effect.
"This is a scare tactic," he said. "They're proposing this problem
is everywhere. It's just not possible. I'm telling you, this has wasted so
much energy."
As Daniel Leviton, software architect for Symantec's popular Y2K
tool, Norton 2000, said: "I put this in the same category as cold fusion."
The furor over the Crouch-Echlin Effect probably would have died
away long ago if not for an apparent confirmation in October from Digital
Equipment, which had been bought by Compaq a few months earlier. Digital
issued a statement supporting Crouch and Echlin's findings and offering to
sell its customers a time dilation diagnostic program.
The statement was recently replaced with a new message that the
company was unable to reproduce the effect and would no longer offer the
repair program. But the company's earlier findings have lent a validity to
Crouch and Echlin's claims that has stuck.
Mark Slotnick, who conducted the time dilation tests for Digital
and is now an independent Y2K consultant, said there is no real dispute
over the fact that some older computers can start up with erratic dates.
He tested nearly 100 computers and turned up two that did. He has received
numerous messages from computer users reporting similar problems.
Slotnick said there are many routine reasons that a computer will
turn up a wrong date, such as a bad power supply or a weak clock battery.
"It does happen," he said. "The big debate is over why."
Since the first report of the effect in August 1997, there have
been several theories to explain the Crouch-Echlin Effect, variously
blaming the computer's real-time clock, Basic Input Output System, power
supply, device drivers and low batteries.
Re: [GKD] Training Y2K Specialists
Dear Henry:
If you have been following the answers, including your own, there does not
seem to be any pattern or truth to emerge out of my question. "Where is the
demand for trained people, given the urgency of the problem and the funds
projected to be spent?" Rather than the answers providing a conclusive
answer, the none answer that emerges from conflicting answers - is an answer
within itself. I would sum it up as - "we just don't know". I recently
received a copy of a Canadian Government Report that equates Y2K with the
1st and 2nd World Wars and the Great Depression as one of the defining
events of the century. This is definitely in the big leagues as problems
go.
And yet in reviewing those events mentally, one has to ask, are we in 1936
or 1939 and what is the equivalency of 1915, 1933 and 1942, that we are yet
to experience? The future is always murky. There are a billion plans going
on, from building a new house, to reforming Social Security to picking next
years vacation date. The fact that there has been a linearity for the last
50 years in which the appearance of predictability was our operating norm.
Perhaps we are at the edge of the whirlpool, about to start that great
centrigal movement that goes faster and faster and as we near the vortex, we
will be shot out into a future so different from all our current logics and
assurances that the differences are unthinkable.
When I think this way, I must ask; is Y2K the triggering event, the march
into Poland, or is the final piece of the puzzle, like the attack on Pearl
Harbour that completed the chessboard of World War 2. Our leaders ooze
complancey, don't worry, be happy, the final ballroom dance on the Titantic
is all glitter - when we appear the strongest, are we the most vulnerable?
Well, so much for doom and gloom reflections.
Respectfully,
Thomas Lunde
Subject: Re: [GKD] Training Y2K Specialists
>Hi Thomas and all
>
>Your apparent dilemma arises, in my humble opinion, out of a couple of
>things:
>
>- India has over the last 10 or so years, it may even be longer, set
>itself up as a major exporter of code. During this time they have
>built up a large core of very good programming skill who not only can
>read programs specs but can also read write and test code.
>
>- Other countries, SA, the USA, etc have a shortage of skills.
>Systems are not always properly documented having been written over
>a long period of time.
>
>While many countries have large populations we have not, as a national
>priority,
>ensured that there is a large skills pool in the way that India, and
>I think, Brazill have. In many cases free enterprise as ensured that
>some kind of balance has existed between supply and demand.
>
>Because its cheaper to import trained staff than to train them,
>the USA has actively sort to recruit skiled staff from outside its
>borders, as highlighted by its playing around with green card
>quotas last year.
>
>Interestingly enough though I had some correspondence with someone
>from west Africa, I forget the state, who said they had many people
>with computer skills but few jobs. Why are they not relocated? I
>suspect because of language and background differences which make
>them less usefull in a foreign country.
>
>
>- Your analagy with the appliance repair business is a good one because
>it serves to highlight the fact that untrained, in your case a year
>if I read you correctly, technicians will take longer to ffind and
>fix a problem.
>
>We dont have time now to give people even a three month crash course
>and let them learn on the job.
>
>It is also true that a technician with documentation will be much
>quicker and more certain, than one without.
>Much of this code is old and the documentation dodgy in the extreme.
>
>Hope this adds more to the debate.
>
>Henry
>
>
>
>"The old Chinese curse appears to be upon us,
> we live in interesting times!"
>=
>Subscribe to the IT Digest, an information resource from Wits Univ.
>Send e-Mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with SUBSCRIBE ITDIGEST
>and {your_user_id} in the body followed by END on the next line.
>--
>Henry C Watermeyer 'Phone +27-11-716-3260/8000
>Director - Computer & Network services Fax+27-11-339-1225
>University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg
>P/Bag 3, Wits 2050, South Africa mobile +27-(0)82-800-8862
> //SunSITE.Wits.ac.za //WWW.Wits.ac.za
>==
>
>
>
Re: [GKD] Training Y2K Specialists
-Original Message- From: Thomas Lunde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: February 21, 1999 4:19 PM Subject: Re: [GKD] Training Y2K Specialists > >Dear Henry: > >Thanks for your in-depth response. I guess what I hear you saying is that >Y2K personnel are highly specialized and that there is no army of unemployed >that could be mobilized to provide manpower. > >Chris Reuss responded in another post: > >India has them, for instance. India is one of the main profiteers of the >y2k >business. According to the Indian association of software producers >(Nasscom), >India has y2k orders in the volume of more than 2 billion dollars, and >demand >is still bigger than supply. > >Thomas: > >Now these two answers neatly bracket my dilema. Henry is saying, as have >others, it is tough to solve and requires a broad range of expertise and the >side effects of mistakes may be just as bad as the original problem. On the >other hand, I get, it's already taken care of, it's no big deal and by the >way, we can send the problem offshore to India as they understand >(apparently) all our languages and our networks and our business models >better or at least as well as anyone in North America. > >Henry wrote: > >>- the changes to datebases I referred to earlier do not happen in >>isolation. Databases can be used by tens, hundreds or even thousands >>of other programs and changes must be carefully planned and coordinated. > >Thomas: > >Now I don't have to be an expert to understand this paragragph. And it's >not hard to see how complex accessing data bases must be and how difficult >it would be to fix if all that data got scrambled in some way. So, it seems >to me that turning that over to programmers a half a world away and trusting >them to solve it is the highest form of irresponsibility. After they finish >the job, will there be anyone left on our side who can understand all the >changes they have made or in the worst case, if they fuck it up, do we still >have the talent to change it back or forward to a system that works. > >Now, I'm sort of a simple guy who fixes washing machines for a living. It's >not rocket science but it is amazingly more complex than most would think. >It requires all the skills - diagnosis - which can often be wrong - >replacement of parts - which may stress other parts of the system - external >factors such as water pressure or wiring problems, etc and etc. Though one >can go through a 6 month or year course, I can assure you that the variety >and complexity of the problems you can run into boggle the mind. And this >is in a very simple system of electro-mechanical design. Because I fix >broken things, I have a healthy respect for the difficulties of even simple >problems and I am far from re-assured about the confident tone we are taken >to this world wide problem. > >So, with great persistence, I'm still stuck at my original question. Do we >have the manpower with the expertise to do the job and if so, what would >constitute proof? The fact that there does not seem to be much demand for >Y2K specialists is very suspect given the amounts of money, complexity and >variety of systems affected and the potential downside if we do not get it >all fixed. It's easy to have opinions but I'm looking for a few facts. I >have yet to read a little story of a complete Y2K fix. From analysis, >diagnosis, repair, testing and final result in terms of manpower and money, >for even a small company or government dept. > >Respectfully, > >Thomas Lunde > > > >Subject: Re: [GKD] Training Y2K Specialists > > >>Good morning all >> >>I have been following the debate on training people to fix y2k >>problems and the apparent lack of success in doing this with some >>interest. >> >>It seems that once again we have people debating an issue about >>which they have only limited or theoretical knowledge. >> >>The reasons that it has not been possible to train droves of staff >>are many and varied and in my view include at least the following: >> >>- fixing the problem in most cases does not involve just changing a >>few lines of code. In many cases database files must be changed and >>output layouts modified. >> >>Since these outputs are in many cases very specific in nature, fields >>on forms, data in EDI files, etc, care must be taken with every change. >> >>- not all systems that will be effected are what might be thought of >>as traditional business systems. Many are complex interrelated >>systems which cannot be changed in isolation. An understandi
Y2K comics
Y'all might enjoy the comics at http://www.glasbergen.com/y2k.html Greetings, Chris
y2k and the economy
Has anyone been giving any thought to the possible economic fallout of y2k and its impact on employment? Dr. Ed Yardeni, chief economist of Deutsche Bank Grenfell, estimates the probability of a worldwide y2k-induced recession at 70 per cent. http://www.yardeni.com/cyber.html I can't claim to have his extensive sources of information or economic expertise, but I sometimes fear it could be worse. Something at least as bad as the Great Depression of the 1930's. My reason is that there is such a complex interconnection involved in all manufacturing; such things as "just in time inventory" are only one manifestation of it. The whole system has been made so lean and efficient and complex, that there seems to be no margin of error left. I'm reminded of the discussion of chaos theory in Crichton's parable, Jurassic Park. So I find myself in the incongruous position of constantly looking forward to retirement to deliver me from this dreary job in about five years time, but occasionally worrying that I may be involuntarily delivered before I can afford it. Live long and prosper Victor Milne FIGHT THE BASTARDS! An anti-neoconservative website at http://www3.sympatico.ca/pat-vic/pat-vic/ LONESOME ACRES RIDING STABLE at http://www3.sympatico.ca/pat-vic/
a low-tech y2k problem
Jim Hightower reports that in the USA there are approximately 250,000 pre-purchased mortuary stones with the first two digits of the year of death carved in as "19__" but the people who purchased them now seem quite likely to live on into the next century. Live long and prosper Victor Milne & Pat Gottlieb FIGHT THE BASTARDS! An anti-neoconservative website at http://www3.sympatico.ca/pat-vic/pat-vic/ LONESOME ACRES RIDING STABLE at http://www3.sympatico.ca/pat-vic/
RE: [GKD] Training Y2K Specialists
Dear All The embedded chip problem is one that I think most people are only beginning to become aware of. As I think I mentioned in a post or two ago, I attended a meeting on environmental issues and Y2K. At the meeting the President of the NSW Computer Society said his society was asked to advise the Australian Government of the various implication of Y2K on Australia. He suggested that one of the objectives that the government should take on board was that no person would die because of the Y2K problems. This was some what startling to the people in the audience to suggest that the Y2K problem could lead to deaths. He said that non-compliant embedded chips would cause accidents and endanger the health and safety of workers. This could be from oil rigs or chemical plants exploding to water supplies being contaminated. The fact that many embedded chips are inaccessible and the shear number of them means that they are impossible to fix or replace. The recent gas explosion in Melbourne where the city was cut off from gas supplies for 4 weeks and the Auckland power failure are examples of what could happen. The Melbourne gas explosion was the result of human error in the face of system malfunction. Two people died. Melbourne was entirely dependent on one gas plant to provide heating/cooking for 90% of homes and all restaurants/factories/hospitals. Unlike some people who predict that people will revert to hording and become selfish in adversity, the people of Melbourne rediscovered their neighbours. People invited others over for BBQs and those with electric showers shared with neighbours whose hot water was heated by gas. People who had hardly spoken suddenly were talking about the common plight. <<...>> -Original Message- From: Victor Milne [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, 19 February 1999 13:38 To: futurework; Thomas Lunde Subject:Re: [GKD] Training Y2K Specialists Thomas, >From the reading I've been doing I think that Y2K is a much more serious problem with respect to embedded systems than with respect to computers. Not to say it isn't a very big problem with computers. There is a very good article, long but not too technical, at http://www.tmn.com/~frautsch/y2k2.html >From it I gleaned the following interesting points about embedded chips. Estimates of the number of embedded chips in service range from 25 - 50 BILLION. Only a small number, perhaps 1 per cent, will be affected by the y2k date rollover, those that have a timing function. Many people do not realize that almost all chips used to control timing have a built-in date function. Even though the chip may be controlling only a simple process such as: Event A ... 15 milliseconds ... Event B, it is counting off the days on its internal calendar. A chip's internal calendar may or may not be in sync with our calendar. The chips were usually given arbitary start up dates, something like the date manufacture of that model commenced, which could be something like Se;tember 9, 1984. When the chip is first powered up, it sets itself to that date. This means that there are three possibilities. The chip does have a date-monitoring function and was reset to synchronize with the calendar. These chips may fail at the rollover to the millennium. The usual example is the elevator which must be inspected every six months. On January 1, 2000 it will subtract a date such as 23/09/99 from 01/01/00 and get an error and shut itself down. The chip was kept continuously powered up but only its timing function was utilized. Take our example of a start date of 09/09/84. Just to make it complicated suppose it was a replacement part that was not taken off the shelf and powered up until November 5, 1987. Starting at that date, the chip will take 15 years and 101 days to reach 01/01/00, which will happen on February 14, 2002. The author of the article cited above says that he expects "y2k" events to go on happening until about 2006. The third possibility is that the chip is powered down from time to time, maybe frequently. That's why you don't have to worry about the chips in your car. You would have to run the car engine continously for years to cause a timing control chip to reach 01/01/00 on its internal calendar. Anyway, as a repairman, you would appreciate that checking out embedded systems would mean first learning from the schematics of a machine or an industrial process where chips with timing functions are located, having a skilled technician remove the part with the chip on it and test it for y2k co
Re: [GKD] Training Y2K Specialists
Thomas: Reluctantly, I will allow this thread to get a little more lengthy as holding the previous posts in memory often helps understand the current answers/questions. >At 03:48 AM 2/10/99 -0500, Thomas Lunde wrote: > >>Now, assuming a shortage of qualified personnel, I would expect every >>training institute in the country to be offering courses in programming >>languages to get people up to speed to work on Y2K problems. As most of >>the >>work, I have read, requires no great programming skill, rather it is the >>reading of millions of lines of code looking for date sensitive code and >>then applying replacement code, it would seem to me that many people could >>be trained in a 3 month course to be a mini specialist in some aspect of a >>computer language. As I look at the ads of training schools, I do not see >>any offers for training to become a Y2K correction specialist and most >>courses in their outlines do not even mention the need to become expert in >>Y2K problems. Second question - what is going on in the training field to >>supply those capable enough to work on this problem. >> >>I would appreciate some thoughts on these questions. > > >Thomas, -From: Abelito Tortuga Suizo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> GKD] Training Y2K Specialists > >You assume correctly. There *is* a shortage of skills to address the Y2K >problem. This has been an oft-repeated fact in many publications in the web >and elsewhere (I'll have to scavenge my files if you really need refs). >This shortage is very acute in Asia, which is what is worrying the advanced >countries. This shortage, I believe, is artificial, because skilled Asians >have moved to the advanced countries in response to the great demand in >that part of the world. Thomas: Well, of course, if all those "Asian" personnel moved back to their home countries, then I assume there would be a manjor shortage in the United States. The question posed is not allocation, it is regarding the incongruency of up to a trillion dollars being budgeted for remedial work, which by it very nature (reading millions of lines of arcane computer language programs and making the appropriate changes) would seem to require massive numbers of people who are trained in those languages, and capable of making the appropriate changes. As we are down to the final 10 months before the event horizon smacks us in the face, I am trying to access whether there really is a problem or not by asking the obvious question - have we got the people to do the job and if so, how would that become apparent. > >Whatever the case, on the overall, the teachers left in training schools >are those in the state-of-the-art hardware and software, areas which many >would expect to be Y2K-safe. Understandably so, these schools would not be >able to provide Y2K training courses since the veterans are already out >there in the trenches. Thomas: Now this is really a worrisome statement. Even if we should need teachers, they are not available because they are focused on problems past the event horizon, the conclusion being that the Y2K event is already solved and the future is assured. If this is so, why can we not get definitive proof that this is so? Why are we still recieving many projections that the military, the energy sector, the transportation sector, the financial sector, etc still are not Y2K complaint? > >On the other hand, I would beg to disagree on your conception that there >are what you termed "Y2K correction specialists." If you listen hard >enough, the underpining feeling among Y2K remediators is still one of >*doubt*. Truth is, no one is a Y2K expert since this is the first time >we're facing this problem. Nobody in the Y2K business today can give a >guarantee that their work will be fail-proof before, during and after the >dreaded "event horizon." Ask them if they can tell what will exactly >happen, and they will say, if they're honest enough, "I don't know." Now it seems to me that you are arguing from both sides of the problem. On the one hand, smile, be happy. On the other hand most of the "experts" just don't know. I'm sorry, I want a more conclusive answer than that for myself and my family. > >The best persons who can do Y2K risk assessment, contingency planning are >those in the organization themselves. The "experts" can only help by asking >us questions and allowing us to see other possibilities we may not have >considered. Assumming that you have personnel within organizations who can handle the job, what happens to the work they are supposed to be doing but are not doing because they are busy handling Y2K? Or were they just there originally as sort of a corporate welfare for bright programmers
Re: Y2K Specialists
-Original Message- From: Neil Rest <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >The Y2K problems have been accumulating for almost 50 years. > >All reasonable efforts to deal with particular situations began one to five >or more years ago. >>> Practically all the adding of staff is over. << Thomas: That may well be so and if it is so, I would like others in the industry to comment. However there seem to be a lot of credible "experts" who are saying just the opposite. My goal is try and find out the truth! Given that a number of surveys have posted estimates of over 30% of the Companies surveyed have not even done a Y2K evaluation seems to indicate that either the surveys are lying or your assessment is incorrect. I don't care who is "right", I just want to know what the hell is going on! One of the primary indicators of a true problem, it would appear to me, is the simple proof of a shortage of Y2K personnel. There does not seem to be an acute shortage. Therefore, one can conclude two things: (a) There is no problem to fix and therefore we don't need anyone to fix it, or, (b) everyone is planning on fixing it but no one has started yet and therefore there is no demand for qualified personnel. The third alternative would be your assessment. Everyone got on top of the problem four or five years ago and it is basically fixed and we can stop worrying. Well, which is it? And how do we find out which possibility is the "true" one? Respectfully, Thomas Lunde > > >The Y2K problem is not the result of anything resembling a consipiracy; it >is the result of a mindset. >When the programmer told the boss in 1970 that this wouldn't work after >1999, the boss said, "It will have been replaced long before then!" >When the programmer told the boss in 1985 that this wouldn't work after >1999, the boss said, "We have to make a better showing this quarter than >last!" >(The programmer may not have had the opportunity to tell the boss in 1995, >since the department had been outsourced.)
Re: [GKD] Training Y2K Specialists
Thomas, >From the reading I've been doing I think that Y2K is a much more serious problem with respect to embedded systems than with respect to computers. Not to say it isn't a very big problem with computers. There is a very good article, long but not too technical, at http://www.tmn.com/~frautsch/y2k2.html >From it I gleaned the following interesting points about embedded chips. Estimates of the number of embedded chips in service range from 25 - 50 BILLION. Only a small number, perhaps 1 per cent, will be affected by the y2k date rollover, those that have a timing function. Many people do not realize that almost all chips used to control timing have a built-in date function. Even though the chip may be controlling only a simple process such as: Event A ... 15 milliseconds ... Event B, it is counting off the days on its internal calendar. A chip's internal calendar may or may not be in sync with our calendar. The chips were usually given arbitary start up dates, something like the date manufacture of that model commenced, which could be something like Se;tember 9, 1984. When the chip is first powered up, it sets itself to that date. This means that there are three possibilities. The chip does have a date-monitoring function and was reset to synchronize with the calendar. These chips may fail at the rollover to the millennium. The usual example is the elevator which must be inspected every six months. On January 1, 2000 it will subtract a date such as 23/09/99 from 01/01/00 and get an error and shut itself down. The chip was kept continuously powered up but only its timing function was utilized. Take our example of a start date of 09/09/84. Just to make it complicated suppose it was a replacement part that was not taken off the shelf and powered up until November 5, 1987. Starting at that date, the chip will take 15 years and 101 days to reach 01/01/00, which will happen on February 14, 2002. The author of the article cited above says that he expects "y2k" events to go on happening until about 2006. The third possibility is that the chip is powered down from time to time, maybe frequently. That's why you don't have to worry about the chips in your car. You would have to run the car engine continously for years to cause a timing control chip to reach 01/01/00 on its internal calendar. Anyway, as a repairman, you would appreciate that checking out embedded systems would mean first learning from the schematics of a machine or an industrial process where chips with timing functions are located, having a skilled technician remove the part with the chip on it and test it for y2k compliance and replace it ... if there is a replacement. There is obviously no quick way to swell the ranks of y2k trouble shooters as far as embedded systems are concerned. In some cases, it is virtually impossible to access the chip. An example that I've seen more than once: apparently an offshore oil rig has ten of thousands of embedded chips, many of them located below the waterline and encased in concrete. Incredible as it seems, it will probably be cheaper just to let this multimillion dollar installation fail and build a new one rather than to fix the old one. By the way, just as a matter of curiosity, do new washing machines use chips to time the cycles or is it still just a mechanical timer? Live long and prosper Victor Milne FIGHT THE BASTARDS! An anti-neoconservative website at http://www3.sympatico.ca/pat-vic/pat-vic/ LONESOME ACRES RIDING STABLE at http://www3.sympatico.ca/pat-vic/ -Original Message- From: Thomas Lunde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Global List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Future Work <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: February 18, 1999 8:03 AM Subject: Re: [GKD] Training Y2K Specialists > >-Original Message- >From: Thomas Lunde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Date: February 21, 1999 4:19 PM >Subject: Re: [GKD] Training Y2K Specialists > > >> >>Dear Henry: >> >>Thanks for your in-depth response. I guess what I hear you saying is that >>Y2K personnel are highly specialized and that there is no army of >unemployed >>that could be mobilized to provide manpower. >> >>Chris Reuss responded in another post: >> >>India has them, for instance. India is one of the main profiteers of the >>y2k >>business. According to the Indian association of software producers >>(Nasscom), >>India has y2k orders in the volume of more than 2 billion dollars, and >>demand >>is still bigger than supply. >> >>Thomas: >> >>Now these two answers neatly bracket my dilema. Henry is saying, as have >>others, it is tough to solve and requires a broad range of expertise and >the >>side effects of mistakes may be just as bad as the original problem. On
Re: [GKD] Training Y2K Specialists
Dear Dennis: I find myself in the position - analogous to asking a lawyer for advice. Your answer is the advice and it has been thoughtful and complete. I thank you. I have followed most of the sites your recommended and yes there are a considerable number of Y2K jobs posted and your explanations are certainly rational and possibly true. Why then do I still feel the unease with the answer? A metaphor comes to mind. Assume you own your house. Your budget is tight but you are making all your payments. The roof starts leaking. Estimates indicate that you need to spend $5000 to get it repaired. You do. In one week, your roof does not leak. However your finances now have to carry a $300 a month payment for two years with strains your budget and causes you to defer trading in your old car and taking a vacation. This week you had a good roof, next week you have a good roof - however, in the meantime, your lifestyle has been inadvertently challenged for no noticeable gain. Roofers have gained some income and automobile manufacturers, airlines, hotels and a foreign country have lost revenue. Y2K is similar. One year, we had a perfectly good computer system. Year 2000 comes and we have spent a trillion dollars and hopefully, we have a perfectly good computer system. However, someone - the taxpayer, the shareholder, the Company, the Utility, the airline is now carrying a debt that inhibits there options over the future. So, not only am I not satisfied with the estimates of shortages of roofer's, I am very concerned about all the cost and it's effects on the economy - even if everything is made Y2K complaint. However, what if the roof continues leaking and the roofer says, it is not his fault, it is the big windstorm that happened a week later that is the cause of the new leak. Now, you are out $300 per month and you still have a leaking roof, caused by external factors outside your contract. Do you take your Contractor to Court? Do you spend another $5000? Do you put a bucket on the floor for the next two years? These are the kinds of questions that Y2K is going to force us to answer, for even those who have spent the money are susceptible to external problems. How resilient is business, utilities, transportation and government in regards to financing this problem and what if all the money poured in only provides a partial solution - is there more money in the kitty? A number of writers have made the point that we can expect problems to continue for a number of years after the crisis point - how resilient is our economy going to be in this time of turmoil? I would appreciate a second opinion re labour and costs both before and after the Y2K date. Respectfully, Thomas Lunde >Hi Thomas, > > >>Dear Dennis: >> >>Thanks for the website. I went over and glanced through a few of the >>listing - now note, I am not looking for a job, I am just trying to satisfy >>my curiosity about the incongruency of the continuing call for massive >>amounts of money - up to trillion dollars and the dearth of demand from the >>labour market.I will take your assessment of 620 jobs, but what I >>noticed when I read some of the requirements, was that some were for out of >>the country and some seemed to be extremely short contract jobs. Anyway, >>620 hardly constitute a demand. I did a search for Technical Writers at the >>same site and came up with 3338 vacancies. >> >>I appreciate your effort but I'm still not satisfied. To use up a billion >>or a trillion dollars, I would expect to see a demand that dwarfed all other >>job categories and was funneling major groups of students, retired workers >>and quickie trained workers into jobs and I am not finding that and I don't >>know why. Either there is no work being done, or their is no need for the >>work to be done, or everyone is so busy planning that no one is doing or the >>whole damn thing is the biggest hoax ever played on the public. >> >>Respectfully, >> >>Thomas Lunde >> > >First, it is pretty late for people to be just starting on solving this >problem. I strongly suggest that most such work is in progress and thus >doesn't necessarily show up on the job market. > >Second, the DICE board turns over every few weeks, so the demand is >probably continuing. > >Third, fixing y2k code takes a considerable amount of experience. It is not >something that I would want a recent grad or 'quickly trained' programmer >to try to fix. It is SO EASY to fix one problem and create a few new ones. >The code is written in languages, in many cases, that are not being taught >in colleges anymore. Further, there are not many programmers that would even >want to work on this kind of one-shot problem unless they have nothing better >to
Re: [GKD] Training Y2K Specialists
-Original Message- From: Thomas Lunde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: February 21, 1999 4:19 PM Subject: Re: [GKD] Training Y2K Specialists Tom, Note date on your post. I've noticed this a lot from different people? Is this deliberate and does it have anything to do with the Y2K issue? My computer technician suggested that something of that nature would be done just before the turn of the century but it would render my date meaningless. So the simple solution is Timeless. REH
Re: [GKD] Training Y2K Specialists
Thomas Lunde persisted: > and for that you need some guys to sit in front of terminals for > months at a time, making corrections and hoping that they are not making the > problem worse. I want to know about those guys? Do we have them? India has them, for instance. India is one of the main profiteers of the y2k business. According to the Indian association of software producers (Nasscom), India has y2k orders in the volume of more than 2 billion dollars, and demand is still bigger than supply. Greetings, Chris
Re: Y2K
Subject: Y to K Status Report Y-to-K Date Change Project Status Report "Our staff has completed the 18 months of work on time and on budget. We have gone through every line of code in every program in every system. We have analyzed all databases, all data files, including backups and historic archives, and modified all data to reflect the change. We are proud to report that we have completed the "Y-to-K" date change mission, and have now implemented all changes to all programs and all data to reflect your new standards: Januark, Februark, March, April, Mak, June, Julk, August, September, October, November, December As well as: Sundak, Mondak, Tuesdak, Wednesdak, Thursdak, Fridak, Saturdak I trust that this is satisfactory, because to be honest, none of this Y to K problem has made any sense to me. But I understand it is a global problem, and our team is glad to help in any way possible. And what does the year 2000 have to do with it? Speaking of which, what do you think we ought to do next year when the two digit year rolls over from 99 to 00? We'll await your direction." === H talk about bad luck! > Over three weeks, I lost my job, my computer when the back porch of my > third floor apartment flooded, my closest friendship, most of a molar, > confidence in my landlord, and my ISP. I missed ConFusion and a couple of > great concerts, and instead of getting the tax refund I expected, I owe $750. > <<& when I'd gotten unable to count all that on my fingers, and wrote it > down, I didn't add that all that happened not long after I'd figured that > I'd never be able to get the time off to go to Australia as I'd planned so > long >> -- P.A. Gantt, Computer Science Technology Instructor Electronic Media Design and Support Homepage http://user.icx.net/~pgantt/ mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Subject=etech http://horizon.unc.edu/TS/vision/1998-11.asp Common sense is not common, and conventional wisdom is not wisdom. But at least you can have conventional sense. ~~ Daily Whale
Re: Y2K
At 04:43 PM 2/19/99 -0500, "Thomas Lunde" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> replied to me: > My goal is try and find out the truth! > I don't care who is >"right", I just want to know what the hell is going on! >>The Y2K problem is not the result of anything resembling a consipiracy; it >>is the result of a mindset. >>When the programmer told the boss in 1970 that this wouldn't work after >>1999, the boss said, "It will have been replaced long before then!" >>When the programmer told the boss in 1985 that this wouldn't work after >>1999, the boss said, "We have to make a better showing this quarter than >>last!" >>(The programmer may not have had the opportunity to tell the boss in 1995, >>since the department had been outsourced.) I'll try once more: What is going on is not just one thing. Many things are going on, in several diverse categories, which, all together, are in the big tent called "Y2K". Please stop trying to be all the blind men with the elephant at once! Computers do many things in many ways. Many of those things involve "awareness" of the passage of time. If this person is 65, they are eligible for Social Security; if this person is six, theyneed to have had their shots before entering school. Average the last ten one-minute-interval temperature readings in this pipe and if the rolling average increases too quickly, sound an alarm. Calculate the effects of currency fluctuations on various countries' 30-year bonds. If today is any day but Saturday or Sunday, turn on the building's HVAC at 6 a.m. Christmas is December 25, Thanksgiving is the fourth Thursday in November, but Easter is the first Sunday after the first full moon after the vernal equinox; all are paid holidays. Does this begin to suggest that there is no single What's Going On? Neil Rest [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Over three weeks, I lost my job, my computer when the back porch of my third floor apartment flooded, my closest friendship, most of a molar, confidence in my landlord, and my ISP. I missed ConFusion and a couple of great concerts, and instead of getting the tax refund I expected, I owe $750. <<& when I'd gotten unable to count all that on my fingers, and wrote it down, I didn't add that all that happened not long after I'd figured that I'd never be able to get the time off to go to Australia as I'd planned so long >>
Re: Y2K Specialists
-- Hi Thomas et al, I fear that all senarios discussed are true, depending on which computer system you are referring to. I suspect that many large systems with large programming staffs are well along the way to solutions, but not all. Supposedly, the DoD is only 30% prepared. On the other hand, smaller systems with smaller staffs may well be behind the curve. They have to decide whether they have a problem, whether to try to fix it or to switch to new software. All these tasks require a fair amount of work and expense. Those in the worst shape may be local agencies that have small staffs, paid an outside firm to write some code many years ago and have accumulated massive amounts of data like welfare data, property tax data, building department data, etc. These people have no budget for upgrading to new software and may not be able to use their old software. This could apply to companies too but I would guess that every small town and local water, fire, park and highway district may be in trouble. The second problem area is with embedded processors. These small devices are used in every piece of instrumentation, control system and monitoring equipment manufactured in the last 20 years. They run the traffic lights, monitor sewage plants, test for toxic spills, evaluate critically ill patients as well as control a vast amount of automated production machinery. Most people don't think of them as computers because they may not have keyboards and monitors that people are used to. The computer chips have even more chance of failure because they were designed for low cost and had limited program space and limited data storage. There was a strong incentive to take programming shortcuts which is where the problem came from in the first place. In many cases, like in the military, no one even knows where these devices are so no one is testing them to find failure modes. Now not all of these devices will fail. Many don't care what the date is and don't try to keep track. The devices I worry most about are those that have some kind of record of maintenance and won't work if they haven't been periodicly recalibrated. They may think that maintenance in '1900' is not good enough and may refuse to work. Real problems there. An awful lot of the Y2K remedial work will involve simply replacing old equipment that has been around a long time, huffing and puffing along, getting the work done slowly but surely. It may get replaced with much better, faster and more reliable equipment. This would be a net gain. So clearly some of the Y2K work will not just be money down a rat hole but will result in improved services. It is just that it is all coming at one time and this in itself can cause disruptions. Think of 2000 as a time of a great fire, destroying the old but offering a chance for the new to spring forth. .. dennis paull > >-Original Message- >From: Neil Rest <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; [EMAIL PROTECTED] ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > >>The Y2K problems have been accumulating for almost 50 years. >> >>All reasonable efforts to deal with particular situations began one to five >>or more years ago. >>>> Practically all the adding of staff is over. << > >Thomas: > >That may well be so and if it is so, I would like others in the industry to >comment. However there seem to be a lot of credible "experts" who are >saying just the opposite. My goal is try and find out the truth! Given >that a number of surveys have posted estimates of over 30% of the Companies >surveyed have not even done a Y2K evaluation seems to indicate that either >the surveys are lying or your assessment is incorrect. I don't care who is >"right", I just want to know what the hell is going on! One of the primary >indicators of a true problem, it would appear to me, is the simple proof of >a shortage of Y2K personnel. There does not seem to be an acute shortage. >Therefore, one can conclude two things: (a) There is no problem to fix and >therefore we don't need anyone to fix it, or, (b) everyone is planning on >fixing it but no one has started yet and therefore there is no demand for >qualified personnel. The third alternative would be your assessment. >Everyone got on top of the problem four or five years ago and it is >basically fixed and we can stop worrying. Well, which is it? And how do we >find out which possibility is the "true" one? > >Respectfully, > >Thomas Lunde >> >> >>The Y2K problem is not the result of anything resembling a consipiracy; it >>is the result of a mindset. >>When the programmer told the boss in 1970 that this wouldn't work after >>1999, the boss said, "It will have been replaced long before then!" >>When the programmer told the boss in 1985 that this wouldn't work after >>1999, the boss said, "We have to make a better showing this quarter than >>last!" >>(The programmer may not have had the opportunity to tell the boss in 1995, >>since the department had been outsourced.) > > >
Re: Y2K Specialists/an empirical observation
Tom, I couldn't agree with you more. For example I have several serious discussions going on with people on this and another list but the "roof started to leak" and so they have been put on hold. Meanwhile, a few people have changed their clocks and their e-mail ends up in my IN BOX as a new letter for 1948 or worse 1998 in the middle of a system where they don't belong.I can imagine what chaos this will do to all we individual (PC) entrepreneurs who depend upon a split second use of time. It will pretty well close down our ability to talk, because talking will be out of order, and will take too much time to figure out. So this will basically shut down the Internet list groups except for the idiot or adolescent chatters who talk in Sound Bites.Something that is to real conversation as those mass produced velvet wall hangings are to Art. A common maxim that I have heard again and again is " you don't exist until you have the numbers and they are published." That is the main reason for the existence of many government bureaus who just create a numerical history so their professions don't continue to re-invent the wheel. An "Order of the Domain" and the "Creative Acts that effect that Domain." When that order is chaotic, Time literally stands still, and all we "paper trail" folk's worst nightmare comes true in the real world. Not unlike when the plague killed so many of the keepers of Oral Knowledge not entrusted or able to be put on the written page. Gutenberg was almost immediately after that calamity and the "public" library was invented. At the same time there was a demonizing (witches) of those who would not cooperate and kept their knowledge as private capital.(Note this is not the public myth but it is what happened!) Today such an intrusion into our work life, makes a very good case for a Central Government Agency controlling and standardizing all virtual reality programs just to avoid the chaos created by the Free Market individual non connected companies. Although there are counter arguments about the vulnerability to terrorism of such a system, the total use of one Internet makes that argument obsolete. We ARE vulnerable and that is just the way it is.That very same vulnerability makes the inefficiency of an institution such as the Free Market intolerable. In fact the market encourages diversification for speculative/competitive reasons that have nothing to do with efficiency. It is also said that governments cannot be trusted with such power but would you rather it be in the hands of a non democratic power whose self-interest does not coinside with the self-interest of the majority of the globe?Those non-democratic governments will take this power anyway, just as if they were a private corporation. See Malaysia and Singapore not to mention China. One can make the case for this Y2K situation being created just to stir the competitive juices and profits of such companies, and the public be damned. (Planned Obsolesence? Shades of Ford and General Motors?)Consider that Bill Gates possesses as much wealth as 140 million Americans combined. He, in his own way, has been trying to monopolize and standardize the market to his own benefit.The government has been against monopoly because of its Free Market theology. So they go against the very efficiency that is needed because it would place too much of the Nation's fiscal resources in one private place. Of course the telephone companies are re-monopolizing after finding that the mini-companies don't work for them or their customers. But the Market claims the reason for destroying monopolies not to be, income re-distribution (horrors), but the "stifling of innovation and competition." BUT! the market depends upon productivity and productivity depends upon "economies of scale" and "economies of scale" cannot afford innovation. It seems to me that everything has been turned upside down and the economist's reliance on a pre virtual theology is more than a little of the problem.Adam Smith and John Locke would not say the same things today as they said it then. It is a different world.Neither would the obsessive Marx* have said the same thing in today's world. Studying the past is an important activity but one should always live in the current world. Knowing the context in which Art, Philosophy, Science, Law etc. was originally used is crucial. One need look no further than the battle between the two "out of Time" groups in the U.S. trying to do an impeachment. With the so-called "pundits" saying ignorant things on a daily basis, they only prove that idiocy is contagious. Computers almost destroyed the Stock Market a few years back. As a remedy the Market put a speed limit on the computers to give their de
Re: [GKD] Training Y2K Specialists
Dear Sam: Thanks for the reply and websites. You will excuse my confusion in that when I went to these various addresses, I did not see even one request for an employee. In fact the only place there might have been some gold was at Y2K jobs and there was a place for employers to list jobs at $300 per listing and a place to post resumes, at $75 a pop - but I did not see one job listing or one resume. Instead, I got mostly the conventional pap we are reading all the time of which I have taken a few cut and pastes below to show you. http://www.year2000.com (quote from) "In 1997, 1998 most of IS will wake up and realize they need to increase staff by 30%, or some such number, over two years to complete the Year 2000 project. If we all require even a 10%-15% increase in skilled staff, supply cannot meet demand."* Thomas: This little gem using percentages gives no information. Until you tell me how many IT professionals there are, 30% or 10 - 15% more is meaningless information. As the dates are 97 - 98, it still leaves my question begging, where the hell are the ads for these personnel? >http://www.itaa.org (quote from) 1999 National IT Workforce Convocation On April 12-13, 1999 in Austin, TX, hundreds of key practitioners in education, government, and industry will gather to gauge the nation's progress in dealing with the shortage of IT workers, highlight replicable programs that are expanding training & recruitment opportunities, determine priorities for private sector & government action and recognize excellence in innovative partnership Thomas: Now it would seem to me that a Convocation on April 12-13 is a pretty rediculous attempt to solve a problem that requires massive allocation of training, people and matching of skills and jobs. Perhaps, I am missing something, but it seems like the Officers of the Titanic are about to have a staff meeting after hitting the iceberg, but first they have serve tea. http://www.info2000.gc.ca/Welcome/Welcome.asp (quote from: Give your business a fully customized, hands-on assessment by one of our specially trained university or college students. He/she will go to your workplace, assess your computer system and software, and discuss ways that you can prepare your office for the Year 2000. Thomas: Gee, this is such a minute problem that we can take a University student away from his classes for a little part time work to solve your problems - I guess this is part of the 30% of personnel required that was alluded to in the first statement. http://www.can2k.com (quote from) of 200,000 COBOL programmers should be added to the existing pool (Under the assumption that 1999 would be used, for fire-fighting measures). Going by the Gartner estimates, the total cost to correct the entire COBOL code would be US $48-65 billion. All these only for COBOL. Add Assembler, PL/I, Pick, ... Thomas: Once again I see these astronomical projections for people and money and yet I cannot find one goddam ad for a Y2K personnel. Is this the biggest hoax since the tulip scandal in Holland or are we all in total denial and the Emperor really has no clothes on. I worry more about Western Civilization, the more I try and pin this problem down. Help me Please! -Original Message- From: Sam Lanfranco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: February 12, 1999 7:42 PM Subject: Re: [GKD] Training Y2K Specialists >Since a Canadian (Thomas Lunde), having taken a preliminary look at >Canada, has asked: where are all the workers and where is all the >training, to deal with Y2K testing and correction?, it is only >fitting for another Canadian to answer. > >I will not comment on the magnitude of the problem, the extent of >the hype, the level of awarness, or the overall adequacy of trained >personnel. I will comment on the supply side. First, the market for >such talent is not found in the newspapers - it is (no surprise) >found on the internet. Makes sense. > >Second, there is lots going on. Enough? hard to say. In Canada, for >insights into y2k approaches, and for insights, the rapid training >of front line testing skills, small scale correction skills, etc. >see: > >http://www.can2k.com >http://www.strategis.ic.gc.ca >http://www.info2000.gc.ca/Welcome/Welcome.asp >http://www.itaa.org >http://www.year2000.com > >and for a partnership between Canada and the U.S. state of >Pennsylvania >see: > >http://state.pa.us/Technology_Initiatives/year2000/ > >The Canadian Year2000 Workbook is available (in Canada) in English >and in French. > >What is missing here is the political will (elsewhere) for a lot >more strategic partnerships built on what has already been done in >Canada and done between Canada and Pennsylvania. > >The doing isn't difficult. The deciding is. > >Sam Lanfranco >Bellanet, Distributed Knowledge and York University > > > >
Re: [GKD] Training Y2K Specialists
Thomas Lunde > did not see one job listing or one resume. Where's the problem ? Simply type in +y2k +jobs in a search engine, and you'll get lotsa sites with y2k job offers. HTH, Chris
Re: [GKD] Training Y2K Specialists
-- Hi Thomas, > > >Dear Sam: > >Thanks for the reply and websites. You will excuse my confusion in that >when I went to these various addresses, I did not see even one request for >an employee. In fact the only place there might have been some gold was at >Y2K jobs and there was a place for employers to list jobs at $300 per >listing and a place to post resumes, at $75 a pop - but I did not see one >job listing or one resume. Instead, I got mostly the conventional pap we >are reading all the time of which I have taken a few cut and pastes below to >show you. > I surfed over to the DICE site which lists a large number of high tech jobs nation-wide, mostly in software and computer related areas. When I searched for "y2k" and "software", over 620 jobs were listed in the US. There is a way to search Canadian sites there as well. I'm pretty sure the need is there. DICE is at: www.dice.com .. dennis paull, silicon valley http://www.dice.com/search-dice.html
C4LDEMOC-L: Worldwide y2k warning by US State Dept (fwd)
-- Forwarded message -- Date: Tue, 02 Feb 1999 01:14:57 -0800 From: ernie yacub <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: C4LDEMOC-L: Worldwide y2k warning by US State Dept PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENT U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE Office of the Spokesman ---- Y2K Worldwide Notice - Public Announcement January 29, 1999 On January 1, 2000, some computer-based systems throughout the world may be unable to process information correctly, causing unpredictable results, including system malfunctions. Many businesses and governments are actively engaged in addressing potential Y2K problems and may experience little or no noticeable disruption in essential services. However, others with more limited resources or expertise, or who are not paying appropriate attention to the problem, may experience significant difficulties. In countries that are not prepared, the Y2K problem could affect financial services, utilities, telecommunications, transportation and other vital services. It is difficult to forecast where the Y2K problem will surface, and some problems could even appear before January 1, 2000. Areas of particular concern are: Some transportation systems abroad could be affected by computer problems. Although the major airlines have been in the forefront of preparing for potential Y2K problems, U.S. citizens should be aware of the potential for disruption of transportation services and factor that into their overall travel plans. Financial institutions outside the United States may experience difficulties. U.S. citizens abroad should not assume that credit cards, ATM machines, international banking transactions, etc. will operate normally in all locations throughout the world. U.S. citizens abroad with special medical requirements should not assume that all medical facilities and services will be available. Electrical, water and sanitation systems involving computers may experience malfunctions from the Y2K problem. U.S. citizens abroad may wish to consult their insurance companies to ascertain if policies cover Y2K-related problems. All U.S. citizens planning to be abroad in late 1999 or early 2000 should be aware of the potential for problems and stay informed about Y2K preparedness in the location where they will be traveling. The Department of State will provide more specific information periodically as it becomes available. By October 1, 1999 our Consular Information Sheets on individual countries will contain specific information, as available, on the Y2K preparations in each country. These can be accessed through the Department of State, Bureau of Consular Affairs home page via the Internet at http://travel.state.gov. Monitor our home page for additional information about Y2K issues and links to Y2K web sites for foreign governments, U.S. Government agencies and international organizations. This Public Announcement expires March 1, 2000. Department of State travel information and publications are available at Internet address: http://travel.state.gov. U.S. travelers may hear recorded information by calling the Department of State in Washington, D.C. at 202-647-5225 from their touchtone telephone, or receive information by automated telefax by dialing 202-647-3000 from their fax machine. Return to Consular Affairs Home Page Go to Consular Information Sheets and Travel Warnings | |To unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], no subject, with the |following message (and no other text): unsubscribe c4ldemoc-l
Theobald on Y2K
***FORWARDED MESSAGE*** WHY Y2K CANNOT BE IGNORED AND MUST BE TREATED IN NON-TRADITIONAL WAYS. Robert Theobald. Robert Theobald believes that a primary response to Y2k and other emerging crises is to develop resilient comunities. His latest book is Reworking Success. If you have received this as a forwarded message, he can be reached on [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Please state that you are responding from a forwarded mesage.) The level of confusion around Y2K continues to be high. There are those who believe that the whole issue is hyped by consultants wanting to make money. The amount of effort, and money, being spent by institutions who have nothing to gain by wasting resources, which they would rather spend elsewhere, should lead everybody to reject this argument. The next level of argument is that so much effort is being devoted to Y2K that it will be a non-event at the technical level. It is indeed true that the rapidly growing level of commitment around this issue has certainly reduced the dangers. The problem is that nobody knows how much. This is not the place for a detailed examination of the many issues that make Y2K such an uncertain issue. But three points need to be made. First, while North America and a few other countries have made considerable progress, there are many parts of the world that are behind the curve and where the time-scale makes certain types of necessary remedial work extremely difficult, if not impossible. Impacts on North American are likely, but not certain, to be more severe through overseas failures than those at home. For example, maritime trade requires that a large number of complex systems mesh completely. If they do not do so, ships and planes cannot be loaded and unloaded. Serious thinkers believe that a 20% reduction in imports and exports is possible think of the impact of this on the Northwest. Second, there are an enormous number of systems that are sensitive to dates. Some of these are controlled by computer code, much of which is written in outdated computer languages and therefore difficult to correct. Some of them are controlled by embedded chips. There are many points at which failures can happen and even small component failures can have huge consequences. Nobody knows the extent of the problems and our degree of confusion is reinforced by our society's commitment to "spin" rather than clarity and honesty. We can get some sense of what might happen by looking back at the failure of a single satellite in the summer of 1998. It caused radio programs to go off the air, pagers to cease functioning, credit card systems at gas pumps to fail and many other problems to emerge. Third, and most critically, we live in a system which is interconnected in extraordinarily complex ways. Small failures can cascade and cause major breakdowns. Those who study complex systems are constantly amazed at the ways in which they defy analysis and have patterns which are counter-intuitive. In fact, one often sees results which are exactly the opposite of Adam Smith's beneficial hand: the self-interested actions of individuals and groups can all too easily combine to create co-stupidity rather than co-intelligence. Our socioeconomic system has assumed that it is appropriate to design systems which only work when everything goes right ìjust-in-timeî systems are a primary example of this approach. Our cultures are therefore increasingly brittle and vulnerable to shocks. The dangers have been shown as weather has been more extreme in recent years: some parts of Quebec were without power for six weeks. Y2K threatens multiple shocks and cascading failures. It is important to note, however, that they will not take place only at the turn of the millennium. They have already started and will continue into 2000 and possibly beyond. This will add stress to systems which are already often overloaded. To make matters even more complex, the degree of danger from Y2K depends to a great extent on the context in which it occurs. If the weather is extreme at the time of the New Year, systems will already be stressed and small additional pressures will be likely to have significant, possibly disastrous, consequences. (Remember the chaos in airports in early January 1999 and think about what would have happened with even small additional computer glitches.) To add to the dangers, there are some groups who are convinced that the world will or should come to an end with the coming of the new millennium and some of them are planning sabotage to increase the possibility that this will occur. (I was reminded how easy it was to cause disruptions just recently. A bomb threat was called into a ferry. Everything had to shut down) In summary, then, Y2K is uncertain, will have different impacts in many parts of the world, can impact many systems and can cascade in unpredictable ways. As an event which can potentially have major impacts at the social level it would be irresponsible t
Secondary effects resulting from y2k preparation? (fwd)
From: MichaelP <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "unlikely.suspects": ; Subject: Secondary effects resulting from y2k preparation? London TIMES January 11 1999 Efforts to tackle bug could end in bust BY CARL MORTISHED FEARS are growing that efforts by large companies to protect their businesses from the millennium bug could lead to a rapid boom followed by a bust at the turn of the century. Evidence is emerging of stockpiling in both raw materials and products as firms attempt to ringfence their operations from anticipated distribution and supply-chain failures caused by computer failures. The possibility of computer meltdown, known as the Year 2000 (Y2K) problem, is caused by the inability of older generation computer programmes and hardware to recognise dates in four digits. Billions of pounds are being spent to correct the problem but concern about panic buying is encouraging firms to stockpile. Drug companies are planning sharp increases in inventory to guarantee supplies of essential drugs, while just-in-time manufacturers in areas such as food and in the car industry are seeking guarantees from suppliers. The prospect of a sudden build-up in stocks is worrying investment analysts who believe that some companies have failed to alert investors to a potential problem. Bill O'Neill, economist at HSBC, the investment bank, reckons that defensive behaviour in anticipation of a "millennium bomb" will give a quick boost to the economy while at the same time depressing corporate profits in 1999. He said: "It will depress profits to the extent that firms need working capital to build up inventory." Evidence from Cap Gemini, the information technology group, suggests that firms are planning to stockpile and the trend is likely to worsen. According to its survey of 1,700 businesses in two countries, about a third overall were planning to increase inventories and as much as 38 per cent of US firms. Chris Webster of Cap Gemini said that the survey, undertaken last year, was about intentions. He expects the number to increase. "People have less confidence in their suppliers than in their own systems and many are building boxes around their organisations." The trend is evident among drug companies, such as SmithKline Beecham, Zeneca and Novartis. Virginia Pascoe, analyst at HSBC, said that she will be adjusting her forecasts for the sector to take account of the cost of increased inventories. "They are planning to build up stocks themselves because they do not want wholesalers to increase stocks." The drug industry is highly sensitive, particularly in the large US healthcare market, to price pressure from buyers. A build-up in stock by wholesalers could hand buyers a weapon that could boomerang back on manufacturers. Mr Webster sees a wider threat to the whole of industry if the trend picks up. "A mini-crash is a real risk." -- For MAI-not (un)subscription information, posting guidelines and links to other MAI sites please see http://mai.flora.org/
Re: C4LDEMOC-L: Bob Olsen's Friends & Y2K
Dear Bob: It is January 3rd, and as I sit in my warm house, typing on my computer while one 8 year old daughter watch's TV and another lies abed, enjoying the last of the school break, I read your message and I decided to imagine a worst case scenario exactly one year from now. My story is at the end of your message. >Date: Fri, 01 Jan 1999 20:17:08 -0500 >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >From: Bob Olsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: Bob Olsen's Friends & Y2K > Hi. > > This is the most important email message that I have ever written. > SUBJECT: Canadian governmental responsibility to ensure the > safety and well-being of all Canadians in regard to > the threatened consequences of the Year 2000 problem. > > Written by Bob Olsen, Toronto, 1 January 1999 > > Permission is hereby granted to forward, duplicate or print > without profit as long as authorship is recognized and a > copy is sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Introduction: > > My purpose in writing this is, first, to help Canadians to > understand that they are threatened by the Year 2000, Millennium > Bug or Y2K problem, and to encourage you to demand immediate > action by municipal, provincial and federal governments. > > My second purpose is to convince all levels of government in > Canada that they have a responsibility to act, now. >1. What is known?: > > The Government of the UK, the US President's Year 2000 > Commission, the RCMP, and the Government of Ontario, none > of which could be described as alarmists, have publicly > advised people to begin storing up food and water for the > Year 2000. > > >2. QUESTIONS: > > A. Why should people store up food and water? > > That advice implies that the governments know that there is > a threat of disruption of water service and food supply. > > B. Why should the water supply be threatened? > > I have talked to City of Toronto water officials and read a > little bit, and I expect that the water supply system is the > is least likely municipal system to fail. It is the least > complicated. Although, any system might fail. > > I expect that the water system is reasonably secure (almost > guaranteed), as long as there is electricity. > > Thus, I believe that what the authorities are really saying, > is that there is a significant risk of electrical supply > failure. > > C. Why is the electrical system at risk of failure? > > I leave you to read the thousands of pages available on-line > on that topic. I am not an expert on anything. > > D. What risk is a significant risk? > > If, as a society, we have a responsibility to prevent one > death in ten-thousand population by implementing inoculation > or public health programs, that is because we agree that the > risk of one death in ten-thousand population is too high. > > My guess is that a 3-7 day disruption of electrical service > might lead to an increase in the City of Toronto death rate > by more than one in ten-thousand population. Again, I'm no > expert. > > We know that government authorities have advised people to > store up food and water for the Year 2000. But, since they > have not explained why they said that, we must infer why they > said that. If our (my) deductions are incorrect, then the > onus is upon the various levels of Canadian governments to > set the record straight, publicly. Now! > > >3. Consequences of disruption of electrical service. > > No electricity means: > - no electricity > - no heat > - no cooking (except on barbecues or camp stoves) > - no running water > - no sewage, no flush toilets > - no elevators > - no restaurants > - no banking > - no retail food stores open > - no gas stations open > - no subways (public transit in Toronto) > - no employment that depends on electricity or running water > (that would be just about everyone) > - no telephones after a few hours when the telephone system's > batteries run out > > Most people could probably survive 24 hours of such conditions. > > Disruption of electrical service for three days or more would > vastly increase the problems. There are large numbers of > seniors and other vulnerable persons living in high-rise > buildings in Toronto. > > How would they get water? > > What would they use for toilets? > > If people continued to use their toilet bowls without running > water, not knowing what else to do, there would soon be a > significant public health risk. If that situation continued, > the public health risk, I expect, might double weekly. > > Groce
[interdoc-y2k 17] Modularization vs globalization (fwd)
-- Forwarded message -- Date: 11 Dec 98 10:35:18 From: Roberto Verzola <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [interdoc-y2k 17] Modularization vs globalization I suggested in my earlier message that the shift from a risk-minimizing strategy to a gain-maximizing strategy is one major flaw which led to the Y2K problem. A second flaw, I suggest, is the shift from a "modular" to a "globalist" approach, which converts a network of relatively independent but interconnected systems into a single tightly-coupled complex system. Below is an article on this topic which I had submitted earlier in the GKD/Y2K discussions but which was not posted. The article provides a theoretical argument for modularization, based on the experiences of systems designers. Roberto Verzola - Our Economic System: Badly Designed? by Roberto Verzola* The international financial crisis which struck Asian countries in 1997 and continues to cause widespread damage this year is a perfect example of what systems analysts call "the side-effects of global variables." Take the most complex systems ever designed -- like the Apollo spacecraft system which took men to the moon and brought them back, or computer chips that are made of tens of millions of components, or a complex operating system with one hundred million lines of code. They work as designed because the system designers followed certain rules of design which time and again have been proven correct. Follow the design rules, and you get a system that is robust and reliable. Violate the design rules, and you get a system that is unreliable and crash-prone. One of the most important rules that good designers will never violate is modularization: breaking up a complex system into relatively independent modules, which are isolated from each other except for a few well-defined interfaces. This design rule can be found in all engineering and computer science texts. It is true for hardware and software designs. Most complex systems that violated this rule ended as miserable failures, while those which tried to implement it showed much better rates of success. The reason for the rule is simple: as the number of components in a system increases, the number of possible interactions between components rises exponentially. Normally, all possible interactions must be checked for the possibility of unintended and undesirable results, called "side-effects." But beyond a certain number of components, it becomes impossible to double-check or even to trace the results of every possible interaction. Because these potentially undesirable side-effects increase at a faster rate than the number of components, they eventually bring the whole system crashing down. Designers had earlier argued against modularization because it was "inefficient." Modular designs tended to use more components; a lot of thought and effort had to go into the interfaces between modules; some level of redundancy was required among the modules. But the loss in efficiency was gained in reliability. Modular designs failed less often (the average time between failures is a standard measure of system reliability); and when they failed, errors were corrected faster. The history of systems design is replete with crashed spacecrafts and crashed computer operating systems that drove home the point: complex systems must be broken up into smaller, more managable, independent modules; otherwise, you get an unreliable, failure-prone, or unworkable design. The opposite of modularization is globalization. It is true: that favorite word of World Bank and IMF economists is an absolute no-no among systems designers. Open any respectable textbook on computer science or system design, and one of the first design rules you are going to meet is: avoid anything that affects the entire system globally. Break up large systems into smaller modules. Protect your modules from interference by other modules. Isolate your modules from each other. Hide information. Build firewalls. Most of all, avoid global variables. In an economic system, a global variable would be anything that can affect many portions of a large system. Global corporations, because they operate worldwide, would be a good example. The IMF, the World Bank, and the World Trade Organization (WTO), because they intrude into almost every economy in the world, would be another. Their moves and decisions affect many other economies in the world, and result in consequences and other interactions, that are so numerous that it becomes impossible to anticipate and correct for undesirable side-effects. These side-effect then proliferate; eventually, they can bring the whole system down. Unfortunately, most economists appear to have little understanding of system design. (When I was in college, m
Auld Lang y2k
* FORWARDED MESSAGE * Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1998 22:03:05 -0800 (PST) From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tom Atlee) Subject: Auld Lang Sy2k Just an offering for your new year's revels... - tom IT'S THE YEAR 2000 BUG (Auld Lang Syne, new words by Nancy Schimmel) It's not a praying mantis and It's not a slimy slug It will upset the apple cart It's the Year 2000 bug. No it won't upset the apple cart Cause Apple looked ahead But all the guys with IBMs Are going in the red. But all the folks with Macs should note Before they get too smug They're gonna find their power line Has a Year 2000 bug. It's not in Revelations Nostradamus missed it too It is the Year 2000 bug And it's coming after you Jeanne Dixon never heard of it But the geeks could see it clear If management had listened We'd be happy next New Year If management had listened We would all be doing fine Oh where is grandpa's sli-ide rule From the days of auld lang syne. Tom Atlee * The Co-Intelligence Institute * Oakland, CA http://www.co-intelligence.org * http://www.co-intelligence.org/Y2K.html * END of FORWARDED MESSAGE *
Request for translation help for y2k booklet
I am passing this along for any who wish to become involved. arthur cordell -- From: Terry Cottam To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Request for help on y2k Date: Saturday, December 19, 1998 12:21PM To: Art Cordell, Special Advisor Information Technology Policy Industry Canada I'm informed you are a moderator of the Future-work listserver, which has high interest in y2k. Could you possibly pass on this request? I'm organizing a translation of a very good "Citizens Action Guide" created by volunteers. Thanks, Terry Cottam >Dear people concerned with y2k: > >In just over three months, in April 1999, the first serious y2k >bugs may hit. This is when fiscal years start for many governments, >including Canada, Japan, UK and New York State. We can anticipate heightened >awareness and perhaps the first significant impact on the stock markets. So >it makes sense for citizens to very soon begin preparing themselves and >their communities. > >One problem is how little preparedness information is in French. As one y2k >activist just told me, "When you think that my family back in Belgium is >totally unaware of Y2K... they probably think that I joined a cult. >France is even worst." In short order the French media will probably wake >up to this crisis, just as the English media has. But they too will focus >primarily on the potential for chaos, rather than empower francophone >citizens with practical preparedness advice. > >So I am organizing a translation of the Y2K Citizen's Action Guide. Nina >and Eric Utne with Utne Reader spent a month researching, compiling and >editing this 120 page handbook for "Preparing yourself, your family and >your neighborhood for the year 2000 computer problem." It is a collection >of the most balanced, positive and useful information that they could find >on inner as well as outer preparedness. People who have seen the >manuscript, including several Y2K sceptics, agree it is non-alarmist, >practical and even inspiring. > >Please see http://y2k.inode.org/utne/index.htm for the full table of >contents, which has already been translated. It is linked to >the original articles in English on the Utne website, until each >article in turn is translated. > >Seven other volunteers so far have agreed to translate one of the 20-odd >articles. We are asking volunteers to translate a minimum of two-pages, a >manageable amount. Then we will ask others to proof them for consistency >and accuracy. The latter job is best left to professionals, whose time is >more valuable and who can ensure a quality finished product. All will be >acknowledged for the important work they do. > >If you or a friend can translate, but are unfamiliar with y2k terms in >French, you can refer to existing translations through our new French page, >http://y2k.inode.org/francais.htm -- including the excellent article "The >Year 2000: Social Chaos or Social Transformation?" This long translation >makes a good reference on how to handle technical and colloquial terms. > >The Utne Guide is a totally volunteer effort. However, translation is a >difficult, time-consuming job. If we need more translators, I will consider >advancing some of my savings, to pay translators a token amount toward time >and expenses (we would fundraise it back later.) If we do this, all will be >compensated in proportion to their work. > >I ask your help in reaching beyond the anglo-community to others who need >to draw upon the experience of the growing y2k movement. Here in Ottawa, >Canada, a bilingual city, the need is obvious. But our globalized economy >has given each of us a personal stake in mitigating hardships no matter >what country our neighbours live in. Y2k differs from other disasters, not >only in its global scope, but in that we have forewarning, some precious >time to pool our best intelligence to help each other. > >Best wishes, > >Terry Cottam >President, Y2K Centretown Preparedness Group >Founder, Y2K Ottawa, OPIRG-Carleton >[EMAIL PROTECTED] >http://y2k.inode.org
Y2K endangers the global food supply
Food Supply Update: December, 1998 Y2K Food Supply Prospects Paint Frightening Picture copyright © 1998, by Geri Guidetti This and all Updates may be reprinted and distributed in any media if done so in their entirety, including byline, Web address and signature file information. They must be distributed free of charge unless included as part of a magazine or journal. It's crunch time. Here comes 1999, and it promises to be a dilly. Not since the days when guns replaced sharpened hunting sticks, and grain mills replaced crude, hand-hewn mortars and pestles, has a year's rollover meant more to the question of whether or not there will be enough food for the future. Simply put, what we doas nations, states, businesses, families and individualsin the next twelve months, may well determine what, when, and if we will eat in the year 2000 and beyond. Over the past three years, I have been sounding an alarm that our food supply is much less safe and secure than any of us can imagine, largely due to vulnerabilities wrought by the same technology that has brought us so much food. We've created a monster, and the monster's about to get sick. If you come to the same conclusion, it will raise your anxiety level. Most of us don't need anymore anxiety in our lives, yet the flip side of that is that it is better to know, when you might be able to do something about it, than not to know and be helpless to change the outcome. It is with some apprehension that I offer some thoughts about the bigger food supply picture for 1999 and prospects for Y2K. We will redefine food in the year 2000. It may take a little while, but that must-have-super-size-fried-double-whopper-with-bacon-and-cheese-with-cherrie s-garcia-and-big-gulp-chasers will be metamorphosed into a grateful-to-have-bowl-of-vegetable-soup-with-homemade-bread-with-water-chase r. And remember, if you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem. Despite the calm reassurances and optimistic projections of elected leaders, appointed agency heads and corporate CEOs, the ugly truth about our collective, global impotence to purge our infrastructure of the so-called Millennium Bug is leaking, seeping, oozing out. The Millennium Bug is the Ebola of our technology based existence. There is no cure for Ebola, and it will infect the computer-dependent food supply monster in the year 2000. Unless we hear and see proof, in the next few months, that the complex production, processing, distribution and sales limbs of the beast are fixedor that effective contingency plans are in placeincreasing public awareness and the resulting panic will make it sick well before the close of 1999. Let's look at some prospects for disease prevention. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) now has a web site offering called, "Facts About the Y2K Problem and the Food Supply Sector." You can find it at http://www.fsis.usda.gov/OM/y2kfact2.htm. It is here that you will find Secretary of Agriculture, Dan Glickman's, public statement on the problem. He observes that it takes the work of "tens of thousands of people" to produce a meal for an American family. He then says: "I must confess, however, that until recently I hadn't thought very much about the connection between food on our tables and computers. But, as a new millennium approaches, that link is becoming all too clearWe are facing the potential of serious disruption because of this problem" Interesting. In July of 1997 I published an Update citing data in one of the USDA's own reports on the extent of computers in all aspects of agriculture and posed the questions, at that time, concerning potential impacts on our food supply. Had Mr. Glickman even seen that USDA report? Had he thought about its implications for our nation's food in Y2K? In his current statement, he goes on to say, "That's why USDA, along with the rest of the Administration, is hard at work to make sure our internal systems are Y2K compliant. We are also working with our partners in state and local governments who help deliver federal programs to make sure our computers continue to talk to each other and perform the work they are programmed to do. Now, through the President's Council on Year 2000 Conversion, the federal government has undertaken a massive outreach effort to heighten awareness of the Y2K problem. "The Council has asked USDA, working with the Departments of Defense, Health and Human Services, State, and the Commodities Futures Trading Commission, to lead the government's awareness campaign to the food supply sector." Let's get this straight. First, Dan Glickman, the head of the federal agency that oversees food production for the U.S. and much of the rest of the world, just recently became aware of the connection between computers and food? Next, the newly formed President's Council on Year 2000
Y2K: Kauai (abridged)
Taken from NHNE Y2K Report 5: 12/6/98. If you aren't familiar with this story, it is perhaps the most heartening to come out of Y2K, and this condensed version (about 2 pages of text, not counting NHNE info at the end) makes it accessible to many who won't bother to read the longer article. Please read it if you haven't seen it yet. If you have, I apologize for duplication. Caspar Davis ESSAY: ON COMMUNITY COMPLIANCY [The following edited excerpts are taken from a nine-page special report by Karlos deTreaux, Kauai, Hawaii which was sent to all those on the NHNE mailing list a few weeks. This two-page abbreviated version is presented here because we feel the message is important and some people may not have had time to read the full report.] Almost a year ago, I was exposed to the human equivalent of the Y2K virus. I was certain we were doomed. My response was to sell everything non-essential, buy gold, guns and ammo, dehydrated food, and head for the hills. Suddenly there were only two types of people in my life: those who understood Y2K, and what it meant; and those who were ambling along toward death and destruction. I had an advantage: I had information others did not and I was prepared to act on it at all costs. Then something strange happened. I was in a hunting shop looking over bow and arrow setups -- something that would still protect the family when the ammo ran out. It was obvious I did not have a clue what I needed. The shop owner wondered why I was interested. I explained to him what I "knew" about Y2K. I infected the poor fellow with the "Y2K virus." As I left the shop, he was jumping up and down in excited panic, "I'm gonna blow their damn heads off if they try to steal my food." It was then that things changed for me. I had just infected this guy with not only fear and panic, but hopelessness; I had left him to fend for his own sanity. What the hell had I been doing for the past several months? I would never be able to turn away a hungry neighbor if things got bad. I would share my food, my provisions, my shelter with all who needed it. There was really no other option for me. I realized that aside from the technological aspects of Y2K, there was the human factor. All the bug fixes in the world could not keep the money in the banking system if the public lost confidence in banks. According to my research, if as few as five percent of the saving public demanded their hard-earned savings from the banking system, the banks would be brought to their knees. I devoured everything written by Larry Shook, Bill Dale, Cynthia Beal, Tom Atlee, Paloma O'Riley, Rick Cowles, Bill Laird, Robert Theobald and other visionaries. They all seemed to be spelling out the specifics of a concept I have held in my heart for years, something that I have come to call "Community Compliancy." It was not the end of the world -- it was an opportunity to make a massive leap as a planetary civilization. We all had created it and we all would have to fix it. This would involve clear and definite technological fixes, but even more important was the need for "Social Compliancy." It was going to be a difficult problem, but it was also the greatest opportunity that we the people of the Earth had ever had. The last veil of fear lifted from me. My partner and I, along with [like-minded friends], established the COMMUNITY SELF RELIANCE COOPERATIVE (CSRC). We drafted a mission statement pledging that fear would not become our motivating impetus for action, and developed a Web site to disseminate educational information. A critical mass was reached. The Mayor of Kauai [decided that the island] needed to address the issues. She called a meeting of Kauai officials and other business and industry participants. We were asked to participate as "citizen representatives." The meeting was a huge success. [By the end of the meeting], the Mayor, along with her invited guests all understood that the social aspects of Y2K could have as big an effect on the economy as the technical aspects. Her response was to instigate a Y2K task Force to address both technical and social issues, and prepare contingency plans where mitigation and/or remediation might not be completed. Then the Mayor went on Public Television with some of us from the newly-created task force. She pledged to bring the island of Kauai into a state of "Community Compliancy" that would exist outside of the realm of technology. This would involve a broad, system-wide approach that would [include] community gardens, county-sponsored first aid classes, study of our food reserves and natural resources should we be cut off from the rest of the world, fuel reserves, water and sewage, and education. Most of the participants signed up to help the Mayor and CSRC construct a fast-track plan of Social Compliancy on
Re: Y2K in SF?
>I see on the news bulletins that San Francisco is experiencing a massive and >mysterious power blackout. Could this be an early symptom? Maybe a systems >test that didn't work? >> >Tom Walker The following makes it sound all very mysterious! Ed Weick Massive blackout hits San Francisco, Peninsula By Larry D. Hatfield OF THE EXAMINER STAFF A massive power failure brought San Francisco to a darkened standstill at the height of the morning rush hour Tuesday, stranding hundreds of people in high-rise elevators and dark tunnels, freezing traffic, knocking thousands of computers off-line and paralyzing business operations and otherwise creating havoc. The blackout, which rolled neighborhood to neighborhood as far north as Fairfield and into other parts of the Bay Area after a Pacific Gas & Electric plant in San Mateo shut down, began at 8:17 a.m. and still had much of the region blacked out hours later. By late morning, power had been restored to various areas but much of the region was still without electricity. PG&E spokesman Corey Warren said power was returning station by station, with manual switching required to restore electricity city block by city block. Mayor Brown said he was told by PG&E officials that the blackout was caused by human error, but offered no details. "San Francisco has been magnificent,'' Brown said. "People have been respectful of each other. The City is essentially functioning as it previously has, a little bit slower but it's functioning." By late morning, some 350,000 PG&E customers were still without power; about 30,000 had their power restored. Of major concern were reports from the San Francisco Fire Department that as many as 10 percent of the elevators in 500 high-rise buildings San Francisco were having problems. There were no major medical emergencies reported. Fire DepartmentInspector Kaan Chin said the biggest problem was panic. "The fire department has been anticipating a situation like this since the 1989 earthquake,'' he said, adding that it took about a half hour for each elevator to free trapped people. Although some people were temporarily City department heads were already in their regular Tuesday meeting with Brown, then convened within minutes of the blackout at The City's emergency services headquarters at 1003A Turk St., according to Rachel O'Hara, an official in the city administrator's office. After returning from a briefing, Dr. Mitchell Katz, director of the department of public health, predicted that all power would be back to the entire city by noon. He said power already was restored by 11 a.m. in the Embarcadero and Bayview-Hunter's Point areas. "So far, it's gone remarkably smoothly," Katz said. He said there were no unusual police incidents and no health emergencies. All hospitals immediately switched to auxiliary power and all emergency rooms remained open. But elective surgeries and routine appointments were cancelled, Katz said. The biggest health problem was people trapped in elevators, he said. According to PG&E spokeswoman Mary Rodrigues, the center of the problem was a PG&E substation in San Mateo. The substation takes high-voltage power from transmission lines and lowers it to a voltage that can be used by consumers. She said an unexplained problem still under investigation caused the substation to go off-line. At that point, automatic switches were triggered to isolate the area supplied with electricity by the substation. Without the switches, power to all of Northern California could have gone out, called by the utility an "underfrequency.'' PG&E spokesman Bill Roche said it would take 2 to 5 hours to repair the substation and bring the others back on line. An unknown number of persons were evacuated from Muni tunnels. There apparently were no trains in the trans-Bay BART tunnel, according to a BART police spokesman. At San Francisco International Airport, one of the world's busiest airports, flight operations continued on separate power but some flights were diverted to Oakland and San Jose to ease traffic. Officials said if the blackout continued, arriving and departing flights would be delayed. Emergency power lit the terminals but computers were down, making it impossible to check in passengers, said airport spokesman Ron Wilson. Airport personnel used bullhorns to alert travelers to flight delays. A PG&E spokesman said more than 372,000 customers were left without service. Traffic lights at intersections throughout The City were off and some Muni electric buses were stuck in the intersections, blocking traffic. Police and parking control officers directed traffic at others. Mayor Brown, who was driving around The City to check on problems, urged calm. He also expressed concern about the operation of hospitals, although there were no early reports of problems as hospitals switched to auxiliary power. Brown spokesman Ron Vinson urged
Y2K in SF?
I see on the news bulletins that San Francisco is experiencing a massive and mysterious power blackout. Could this be an early symptom? Maybe a systems test that didn't work? Tom Walker http://www.vcn.bc.ca/timework/
new list on y2k/global financial crisis (fwd)
-- Forwarded message -- Date: 07 Dec 98 06:19:33 From: Roberto Verzola <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: new list on y2k/global financial crisis LIST NAME: Interdoc-Y2K LIST OWNER: Interdoc is a loose international network of non-government organizations (NGOs) and advocacy groups who are monitoring recent information and communications technologies (ICT) for their social impact on ordinary citizens and developing countries. The Interdoc coordinator is Roberto Verzola from the Philippines. Interdoc members keep in touch by email and meet every few years or so to discuss issues face-to-face, do training, and conduct planning. Roberto Verzola will moderate the Interdoc-Y2K list. LIST DESCRIPTION: Interdoc-Y2K is a moderated list that continues the Y2K discussions on the World Bank-sponsored Global Knowledge for Development (GKD) list, which were held Nov. 5-30, 1998. Roberto Verzola was part of the panel of three experts who led the GKD discussions. A major GKD thread raised concerns about how the Y2K problem can aggravate the global financial crisis and therefore cause more serious disruptions than originally expected. To avoid a cascade of problems, the "modularization" approach was proposed, whose prescriptions ran against the present paradigm of "globalization". This led to a discussion about a paradigm shift that may be initiated by the crisis triggered by the Millennium Bomb. Thus, a debate about two approaches to the Y2K problem emerged: * BUSINESS AS USUAL: Let's solve the problem and get on with it. This approach basically looks at the M-bug as an atypical case of misjudgment or perhaps temporary insanity, when a whole generation of designers lost their bearings entirely and happened to commit exactly the same blunder. * SYSTEMIC REFORM: Let's identify the deeply-flawed technological and economic thinking behind the M-bug, which are probably the root cause of our other problems elsewhere. In the universal soul-searching that will surely be caused by the crisis, let's initiate a thoughtfully planned process of discrediting and replacing these flawed thinking and behavioral patterns (the term "paradigm shift" was earlier; "systemic reform" may sound less pompous to some). The Interdoc-Y2K list was created to continue discussion on the second approach. If you are interested in the details of the "business as usual" approach, please note that this will be a small issue on this list, which will concentrate on the "systemic reform" approach to the M-bomb. Please address your questions about this list to Roberto Verzola <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>. SUBSCRIBING TO THE LIST: To subscribe, send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and in the body of your message (not the subject), put the line: subscribe interdoc-y2k POSTING A MESSAGE: To post a message to the list, address your message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] UNSUBSCRIBING FROM THE LIST: To unsubscribe, send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and in the body of your message (not the subject), put the line: unsubscribe interdoc-y2k
ns-y2k archive
An e-list on the impact and response to the y2k bug for Nova Scotia, Canada a region of mostly rural and small communities, may be of some interest to this list. The list is archived at: http://ccen.uccb.ns.ca/archives/ns-y2k.html regs Mike Gurstein
Farmers Prepare for Y2K
This messge is relevant not only to those concerned about Y2K. It also tells us a lot about society and especially about what's going on down on the farm. Caspar Davis * FORWARDED MESSAGE * Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1998 17:26:55 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Y2K-L] Farmers Prepare for Y2K Farmers Prepare for Y2K [You can access this story via www.y2k.com and follow the CBN link] November 12, 1998 In a nation that knows little about famine or widespread hunger, the prospect of food shortages possibility if the Y2K Millennium Bug interrupts links in the chain that delivers food from the farm to your kitchen table. - David Snyder, reporter (CBN). Do Americans take their next meal for granted? "These are the staples of life that people need," says Michael Sansolo of the Food Marketing Institute. Says Geri Guidetti from the Ark Institute: "This is the only time in history when men and women have not stored food to make it through the winter until spring." "So anything that can impact the delivery of those goods to the grocery store could cause spot shortages," notes Bruce Webster from the Washington, D.C. Y2K Group. In this land of plenty, it is a little disturbing to realize that the food chain is both intricate and vulnerable. "And so the average consumer nowadays doesn't have a good comprehension of what it takes putting food on the table," says farmer Bill Taliaferro. "We underestimate the number of dependencies that go on in any activity," says Peter de Jager, a leading Y2K authority. "The more I uncovered, the more I realized how extraordinarily vulnerable the system is," says Guidetti. Geri Guidetti is a biologist who moderates an internet forum on Y2K and agriculture. "The writing is on the wall: it is not only possible, but probable that there are going to be food shortages," she says. That's because modern agriculture and food production have grown heavily dependent on technology. And computers and automated systems are at risk of getting bit by the millennium bug. In addition, agriculture relies on a variety of other industries to put the food on your table. "It's a very wide, intricate chain, it is a global chain," says Webster. "We don't realize in the winter the grapes we eat are coming from Chile. We don't realize how much food comes from outside the U.S." Which highlights the fact that America is vulnerable to failures in countries which are well behind the U.S. in their efforts to fix their Y2K problems. Even the seeds are susceptible to Y2K. Most are hybrid, manufactured by seed companies. "So if you're not able to grow the food because of a glitch anywhere in the process or because you're not able to deliver the seed after it is produced -- if you have a glitch anywhere in that line -- that seed is in jeopardy, your future food is in jeopardy," says Guidetti. Seed in hand, it is up to the farmer to get it to grow. You'd be surprised at how much technology they're using down on the farm. "It gives us better control over what we're doing," says Taliaferro. Bill Taliaferro's grain farm in Eastern Virginia uses GPS (Global Positioning Satellite) to help grow his crops. "As the machine is going through the field, the GPS system is determining the position and it's recording the yield readings at each of those positions. So when we carry the data back to the office, we can generate a map of how the yield's running," he says. There's evidence of technology everywhere on Taliaferro's farm -- inside his huge new harvesting tractor, over at the soybean separating machine, and inside the front office. Unfortunately, Taliaferro hasn't had much time to react to the threat of Y2K. "I admit to you that I'm just beginning to think about it, and the honest truth is I don't think we'll fully know what the impact is until January 1, 2000." Everything could still work properly after January 1st, 2000, but what if one renegade computer chip caused this tractor to spread too much fertilizer? There could be a delay before the crops would grow. And what if there were other problems? "If you don't know who needs grain, if you don't know what global prices are, you don't know where you're going to get your money from, you don't know if there's credit available for the farmer or for whoever's dealing with the grain, what's going to happen to the normal grain commerce," says Guidetti. Once the grain is harvested or the cows are milked, the raw produce must be shipped out for processing. And most experts pinpoint transportation as the weakest link in the chain. "The railway systems, the trucking industry, if they
Excellent Y2K Article
Forward, Thanks to Tom Atlee:
NEAL PEIRCE COLUMN
For Release Sunday, November 1, 1998
Copyright 1998 Washington Post Writers Group
YEAR 2000 COMPUTER EMERGENCY:
DEADLY SERIOUS TEST OF AMERICA
By Neal R. Peirce
Head for a cabin in the hills with your Winchester, a stock of
dehydrated food, bottled water and your own gasoline-powered generator?
Or work with your neighbors to set up an emergency shelter, perhaps in
a local school or church, where folks could retreat for warmth, light
and food in case grievous emergencies develop?
That's the stark choice that the millennium bug -- the prospect of
computers and embedded memory chips unable to recognize a four-digit
year, going haywire on Jan. 1, 2000 -- may present to Americans. From
the people who know computer systems -- programmers, engineers,
government and business experts -- there's now a rising crescendo of
warnings about potentially grave Year 2000 ("Y2K") problems. At best we
can expect isolated equipment failures -- traffic lights malfunctioning
or short-term local power blackouts, for example. But wholesale
breakdowns could well occur: Longer electrical, gas and water supply
cutoffs. Phone systems inoperative. Fuel and heating oil shortages.
Failed rail and trucking networks, making it impossible for
supermarkets to restock their shelves.
The impact at the grassroots, in our everyday lives, could be profound.
In the words of Michael Hyatt, author of The Millennium Bug, "In
previous generations, emergency preparedness was a way of life. No one
was seduced by the myth of continuity'; everyone assumed that life
would be periodically interrupted by crises. But many of
us--particularly those of us who are baby boomers--have never really
had to face a widespread social crisis. War, famine and pestilence are
outside our realm of first-hand experience." When he was a boy in rural
Nebraska, Hyatt recalls, people had a storm shelter and a pantry for
protection against tornadoes and severe blizzards. And neighbor was
always ready to help neighbor. Yet now news reports indicate a growing
body of Y2K survivalists, people laying in supplies of fuel and canned
food and generators, planning a retreat into their homes -- or cabins
in the woods. It's an alarming trend, suggests my colleague Curtis
Johnson, chair of the Metropolitan Council in Minneapolis-St. Paul: "If
this event drives us into deeper behavior of individualism, if our
mentality is that every house is its own Y2K fortress and my neighbor
be damned, it will be as serious a calamity as any technological
failure."
The heartening news is that from the grassroots up, hundreds of local
groups are already organizing to raise Y2K awareness and explore how
whole communities can collaborate to weather even a period of severe
crisis. The Denver-based Cassandra Project, one of dozens of Y2K
Internet sites, is a national clearinghouse focused on community
preparedness rather than individual survivalism. Its web site
(www.millennia-bcs.com) has had over 1 million "hits."
"The Year 2000: Social Chaos or Social Transformation?" is the title of
three futurists' view of perils and possibilities
(www.angelfire.com/California/rhomer/social.html). Residents of all
ages and experience, they write, need to undertake community audits of
potential problems and contingencies to deal with each potential loss
of service, from utilities to food supplies, public safety to health
care. Indeed, this potential calamity could have the dividend of
bringing people together in neighborhoods where few residents today
even know each other. But we need to get specific fast about an
emergency shelter for every community -- and it ought to be schools,
suggests Douglass Carmichael, a lead Y2K consultant. The federal and
state governments, he says, should quickly appropriate funds and press
to make sure schools can provide water, food, cooking and a warm space
through winter 2000. One reason: schools -- as with hurricanes or
floods -- are a familiar emergency location in American culture.
Carmichael proposes rapid steps to authorize National Guard, even
regular armed forces help to get the schools ready. The President,
Carmichael argues, has to take the lead, telling the nation there's
potential for serious trouble, no one knows how serious, but we need to
be prepared for the worst.
Only with presidential leadership, Carmichael asserts, will Americans
take Y2K seriously enough soon enough to avert "massive hoarding" as an
increasingly panicy middle class, each family buying for itself, drives
up generator, food and fuel prices, triggering shortages and even
opening prospects of class warfare.
One's brought up short by such ideas: Can all this be serious? Check
the frivolous entertainment clogging tv channels, look at the media's
political coverage obsessed with posturing and the potential of
presidential impeachment, and you'
fw: Avoiding Panic: The Real Challenge of Y2K (fwd)
From: Terry Cottam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: fw: Avoiding Panic: The Real Challenge of Y2K This warning from Robert Theobald seems timely with yesterday's front-page Globe and Mail article, "Army fears civil chaos from millennium bug." You can find it at: http://www.globeandmail.com/docs/news/19981027/GlobeFront/UTWOON.html An excerpt: "Rules for the use of force are being drafted should soldiers have to make arrests or back up police dealing with riots and looting Navy captains have been told their ships may have to be docked to serve as garrisons, power plants, field hospitals and soup kitchens." Theobald warns about a vacuum of vision by authorities: "Communities should start activities which will make them more resilient and enable them to cope with breakdowns if they do occur. This requires at least three levels of activity" - Date: Tue, 27 Oct 1998 15:10:27 -0800 From: Bob Stilger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] A new piece by Robert Theobald ~~~~ Avoiding Panic: The Real Challenge of Y2K Robert Theobald. 14 Months and Counting until the decision to state dates in computers with two figures instead of four starts to bite. Or eight months if one recognizes that glitches will start appearing at the beginning of the 2000 fiscal year. And some problems may emerge as early as January 1,999. The amount of technical work which can be completed for large systems is already largely determined: there is not enough time to start work at this point and hope to have it completed. Smaller systems still have time to be changed although the availability of competent computer programmers is a major constraint and many organizations have yet to recognize how much they are at risk. Now the emphasis needs to move. We must prepare people so they can make intelligent decisions about how to deal with the implications of possible breakdowns. The essential problem emerges from the fact that we do not know now, and will not know until the various deadlines come and go, how serious the dangers may be. This is an unparallelled situation. An event is certain to take place but nobody can say for certain how much damage it can cause. Into this enormous vacuum, a growing number of people are pouring advice. Some of it is valuable: all too much of it threatens to create panic. For example, it may well make sense for everybody to have some aditional food stocked in case there are breakdowns in supplies. If people limit their demands on the system to two weeks more than they usually have in their houses, the implications are manageable. If, on the other hand, large numbers of people decide that they want to have a year's food supply then there is no way that the food delivery chain can cope. Similarly, there are scaremonger stories about the collapse of the banking system despite the fact that enormous effort is being made in most rich countries to deal with the bug. A decision by people that they want to have twice or three times as much money in their pockets at the turn of the millennium, let alone withdraw their deposits from the bank, could cause chaos. Decisions by the banks to force compliance on those to whom they have made loans could still further worsen the difficulties. What then should leaders be doing at every level from the local to the national to the global? They should be providing people with the best knowledge that is available about the likely impacts. This work needs to start immediately. The later this work is left, the more certain it is that people will act to deal with their suddenly aroused fears in a way which will certainly stress socioeonomic systems and may risk their breakdown. Communities should start activities which will make them more resilient and enable them to cope with breakdowns if they do occur. This requires at least three levels of activity. First, every support should be given to those who may be vulnerable to the impact of Y2K to minimize technical glitches. Second, community leaders should be organized to deal with such breakdowns as do occur recognizing that they will not be able to draw help from other communities as is normally the case with disasters. Third, local neighborhoods and sub-neighborhoods should be ready to deal with whatever problems do occur. They should take an inventory of who has gas and electricity and coal fires. They should know who is old and frail and young and vulnerable. They should be as prepared as possible to deal with their own needs without having to go to city hall. All of this work also needs to be put in a broader context. Y2K is a wake-up call for issues which have been developing over the last half century. There has been an emerging need for profound change in economic, technological, ecological, social
More Y2K
>From Stats Canada 61F0057MIE98002 The Preparedness of Canadian Business for the Year 2 000 Computer Problem A Reassessment Abstract: With the Year 2000 fast approaching, there could be major disruptions to business activities if computer systems are not able to correctly handle the date change from December 31, 1999 to January 1, 2000. Task Force Year 2000 sponsored an initial survey in October 1997 to determine the state of preparedness of Canadian businesses for dealing with the Year 2000 computer problem. The survey revealed that while 91% of businesses were aware of the Year 2000 issue, only 45% had taken steps to address it, with 9% of all businesses having a formal action plan to do so. In response to these results, the Task Force carried out a nation-wide communications strategy to increase awareness about the Year 2000 issue, and a follow-up survey was subsequently conducted in May of 1998. The survey found that virtually all firms were aware of the date-change issue, and 70% had taken some steps to deal with it. The percentage of businesses with a formal action plan had risen to 18%. This report provides descriptive analysis of the results of the follow-up survey. It takes a closer look at the various steps firms have taken and reassesses the costs, in both monetary and human resources terms, of finding and fixing non-compliant systems. It also presents findings on firms' timetables for preparing for 2000. Finally, the report contains detailed charts and tables of survey results for various industrial sectors and business-size categories. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Facing the Future Inc. 15003 56 Avenue, Edmonton AB T6H 5B2 (403) 438-7342
FW: y2k and its impact in manufacturing/possible environmental impact
Dear All The following is a lengthy article on the y2k situation in the oil and gas industry. It's interesting because it states that only 30% of systems will be remediated by 2000 and that it is the embedded chips, thousands of them throughout refineries, underwater pipes, off-shore rigs that could cause the breakdown of production. (examples are given of similar breakdowns). Environmental damage and workers' safety issues are flagged as an area of concern and contingency planning. The Online version is here: http://www.worldoil.com/archive/archive_98-04/bug-shemwell.html Archive April 1998 Vol. 219 No. 4 Feature Article Will the millennium bug give your operations the flu? Don't take the head-in-the-sand approach toward potential computer strangling of production operations. Time-contingent process controllers must be evaluated for year 2000 date stamp limitations and their implications for safety, the environment and operations Scott M. Shemwell, Jerry Dake and Bruce Friedman, MCI Systemhouse, Houston, Texas Human history is replete with mystical and religious concerns over the end of a millennium. Armageddon or end-of-the-world scenarios are typical refrains. This time, oil and gas producers may face a more identifiable plague. Then again, Jan. 1, 2000, may come uneventfully - as has every thousand-year transition of the past. For more than 15 years, the oil and gas industry has expended a massive effort to re-invent itself. We all know that none of our firms would be competitive in today's market, if we had not made these hard decisions. A linchpin of the industry's success has been the reduction of the corporate cost structure through the use of technology and process re-engineering, much of it computerized. All of this work is potentially at risk, if serious loss of production is sustained as a result of unplanned computer shutdowns in many segments of the business, all at the same time. THE MILLENNIUM BUG As we close on the first 100 years of the "information age," we are faced with a legacy from the medieval computer past. In the computing dark ages, processing power, memory and hard disk space were an expensive premium. Like the wizard Merlin, programmers of that bygone era concocted software brews, the recipes of which now are, more often than not, non-existing. They certainly did not take one important fact into consideration. No one expected that some legacy software, with roots often over 30 years old, still would be in general use today. Further, as these recipes or programming techniques were taught to modern-day wizards, they, too, adopted the same incantations. Therefore, even new software programs may have the same limitations. How the problem started. Today, we live in a world in which computer software is fundamental to our very way of life. Computers are everywhere - from mighty mainframes, high-performance workstations and PCs, to games, toys and even automobiles and household appliances. Many software programs driving our business functions have one thing in common - limitations of the past dictated that the variable calendar year be represented by two digits instead of four, e.g., 1966 would be expressed as 66 and 1998 would be 98. This was an efficient method and did not present any problems initially. This date stamp limitation is the so-called "millennium bug." A simple example. As one example, consider a simple problem. An oil and gas market researcher is interested in the buying patterns of his forecourt customers. He commissions a survey and asks 100,000 individuals a series of questions, one of which is their date of birth. In his analysis, he correlates age to a number of other variables, builds a profile of his customers and uses this profile as part of his next-generation product planning. Sound familiar? Well it should, because it happens every day. What if our hypothetical researcher conducts the same survey in January 2000? If his statistical software calculated the year by the last two digits (00), he may find three types of error: He will discover that individuals born in 1960 are not 40 years old, but minus 60, e.g., 00- 60= - 60. The astute researcher will see this problem immediately and adjust accordingly to this inconvenience. Any calculations involving the age of respondents such as "percentage of population over 30 years old" will be incorrect. This mistake may be more difficult to find and rectify, because age may be a variable in several processes. However, this is still largely a further inconvenience. Age, or calculations made from age, may be the basis for more sophisticated analyses errors that may not be readily apparent to the researcher, such as what might occur with matrix algebra. When multiplied by 100,000 samples, this error may impact the validity of the analysis seriously. Business decisions made on the basis of these analyses are likely to be inaccurate and fa
Y2K news transcript from Pacifica Radio (fwd)
-- Forwarded message -- Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1998 11:10:08 -0400 From: adam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Y2K news transcript from Pacifica Radio Pacifica Network News September 4, 1998 Phillip Babich phone: (510) 251-1501 pager: (510) 330-7006 ANCHOR LEAD: As the year 2000 approaches many institutions are making preparations for the computer millennium bug known as Y2K. Programmers are scanning through millions of lines of code to correct a decades-old practice of indicating calendar years with 2 digits rather than 4. As it stands now, when 1999 rolls over into the year 2000 some computers will think it's 1900 or will simply crash. Microprocessors in appliances, cars and other machinery are also susceptible to Y2K. Meanwhile, community organizers across the United States are leaving nothing to chance, predicting the possibility of wide-spread social collapse as power grids go off line and the monetary system freezes up. But looking beyond mere survival tactics, these organizers see the millennium bug as an opportunity to promote a more sustainable vision for the future. Phillip Babich reports. 00.00 AMBIANCE 1 [SOUND FROM MEETING. Coordinator asks: "How many think Y2K is no big deal and it will be handled? How many don't know what really will happen...] 00.10 FADE TO BED AMBIANCE 1 00.11 NARRATION 1 (00.44) It's lunch hour and about three dozen people are gathered inside of a community art gallery in Berkeley, sharing ideas about what do when and if the Y2K computer bug strikes. They're not alone. Across the country -- from Oregon and California to Massachusetts and Florida -- more and more groups are meeting to discuss Y2K. Some tackle nuts-and-bolts survival issues: how to store water, what dried food to buy. Others have more of a visionary bent, looking at Y2K and its potential for disrupting the systems on which we've all come to rely as a defining moment for transforming society. Mary Ann Gallagher had been working in Silicon Valley as a computer design manager for ten years. In February she quit because she realized that Y2K was going to be a big problem -- an earthquake as she puts its -- and dedicated all of her time to community preparedness. 00.55 GALLAGHER 1 (00.20) ["Most people think in Silicon Valley that it's going to be a speed bump, don't worry about it. It seems to be cities like Boulder and Berkeley and 88 others that have serious groups considering what may be the alternatives if the infrastructure goes down and we need to draw together as communities."] 01.15 NARRATION 2 (00.38) If food distribution, financial, and telecommunications systems are down -- as some experts predict -- how can neighborhoods not only cope but create their own exchange systems that will be insulated from future macro-failures? Among the critical areas community organizers are most concerned about losing in the event of cataclysmic failure are electrical power and water. In the San Francisco Bay Area the region's main power supplier, Pacific Gas and Electric, has been working on the Y2K problem since 1995. According to spokesperson, Dianna Gapuz, P.G. and E. is on schedule for making its computer and power distribution systems Y2K ready. 01.53 GAPUZ 1 (00.32) ["We expect to complete remediation of the critical software systems here at P.G. and E. by the end of 1998 and we expect to complete testing of those systems by the third quarter of 1999. We just recently completed our inventory of embedded systems and our schedule calls for the completion of assessment of all critical embedded systems and repairing and replacing those by the fourth quarter of next year."] 02.25 NARRATION 3 (00.10) As for water...the East Bay Municipal Utilities District is predicting minimal Y2K impact. Spokesperson Charles Hardy says that water should keep flowing to homes and business in the new millennium. 02.35 HARDY 1 (00.18) ["A lot of testing is going on and has been going on for months and I guess that's one reason why I speak with some confidence that we feel that it's working in all the reports we're getting back from all the various groups and work groups that have been assigned to it. Either we have everything in hand or it's close to being their."] 02.53 NARRATION 4 (00.38) Nonetheless, some neighborhoods are bracing themselves for the worst. Despite a utility company's best efforts Y2K could get them anyway, according to some Y2K observers. Virtually every system is dependent on another system, whether its electricity, telecommunications or agri-business. According to some Y2K analysts, if any link within those systems fails there could be widespread effects. In light of t
Re: Y2K
On March 23, 1998 Thomas Lunde wrote: I was having a coffee this morning and reviewing my local Ottawa Citizen when I found another article in the Business Section on the Y2K problem. Ho Hum, with all the problems I am concerned about, this seemed a long way from many of my interests but I scanned it - same old stuff, we have a problem, we may have a catastrophe, someone should do something, the government is taking care of their systems, etc.. Then up to my computer and a quick read of my E Mail. A short posting by Doug Carmicheal, a web site posting, oh well, I will take a couple of minutes to see what he has to say. As I read through the lengthy document, I found quotes that triggered a need to cut and paste, just because they jogged me in ways that I was looking at other problems. The following is a series of the cut and paste I took out of Doug's Web page and on which I will make some comments. I have found Douglass Carmichael's notes (http://tmn.com/y2k) on the Y2K problem to be a welcome relief to the large amount of superficial information that gets repeated over and over again in the media and on the net. One of the observations in today's email from him that I could identify with was this: "As you work on the problem, you learn more. As your sphere of knowledge expands, your sphere of ignorance (what you know that you do not know) expands faster. If I discover that the Y2K issues for Windows 95 will impact my company in a known way, I now also have uncertainty about these issues in other organizations. Ultimately, one realizes that there is a lot about how the world functions that one never knew before Y2k." Not only that, I would add, there are things I know that I can't tell anyone else for several reasons, which I also cannot divulge. see how it works? ** Another statement by Carmichael has also got me thinking about a discussion on electronic currencies and LETS (Local Employment and Trading Systems) that took place quite a while ago here on Futurework with Keith Hudson. In "Year 2000: who will do what and when and when will they do it?" at (http://tmn.com/~doug), Carmichael wrote: " By 2020 world wages will have evened out quite a bit, and production at a distance ceases to be so profitable. Then local production emerges quickly as the preferred solution. This means that each geographical area becomes the preferred place to produce. That means that community can be organized for work, education, and (hopefully smarter) consumption, in a much tighter cycle than we have had for a good part of this century, maybe even including much of the 19th. Citizen comes back into the identity of normal people who have a reason to participate because the town is becoming a coherent entity." Now, not wanting to debate the merits or likelihood of what Carmichael wrote, especially because I've cut out all the context for the quote (Read the article!), I just wanted to make a connection to a posting by Keith Hudson that gives us some insight into the kind of world we might be facing post-2000. ?Date: Fri, 03 Jan 1997 09:59:10 + From: Keith Hudson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Designing for POST-INDUSTRIAL REALITIES <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: FW: Electronic currencies I refer to Eric Lawton's posting of 2.1.97. WHAT ELECTRONIC CURRENCY(IES) ARE WE TALKING ABOUT? Both Eric and I are not talking about electronic versions of existing national currencies (I'll call this e-money) -- this has been with us for some time already and will increase simply as a matter of convenience and lower transaction costs. We are talking about the possibility of brand new currencies that are issued by non-national entities (I'll call this e-currency) -- the modern version of what banks used to do until about 300 years ago. WHERE WE AGREE We both agree that it is now technologically possible for new currencies to come into existence relatively cheaply (compared with the huge investments that would be required in starting, say, a traditional bank with all its obvious overheads). (We probably also agree that whatever is technologically possible will inevitably occur if there is a financial incentive.) We both agree, too, that because of strong encryption, if new e-currencies came into existence then its movements would be hidden from governments. For all we know, there may already be substantial flows of e-money (not e-currencies) between the international mafia and also between the trading departments of very large TNCs (though most unlikely in my view -- apart from the normal habit of shifting money around to reduce taxation). This is e-money, so far, and not e-currency, because it has still got to be introduced into the financial system by laundering ordinary money. Once it's in the financial system, however, it then becomes invisible to governments and only becomes visible
FW: dieoff vs. y2k
All else being equal, I must say that predictions of a global oil peak sometime in the next 10-12 years look fairly credible. I'd even be sanguine enough to say that given the oilternative of global warming, the end of cheap oil may not be such a bad thing. But a funny thing happens on the road to the peak. In seventeen more months the odometer clicks over on the millennium clock and a cartload full of cobol programs aren't supposed to hack the transition. One of the milder scenarios of the y2k sees a moderate to severe recession resulting from the confusion. I won't mention the doomsday scenarios. Considering that a major region of the world is already in a 'recession' and that the fallout from that is already causing a 'slowdown' in the rest of the world economy, predictions of a y2k induced recession may even be a little stale. A more likely -- but still moderate -- scenario is that y2k will prolong and deepen the recession that will already be in progress as y2k consequences begin to surface. Instead of demand for oil continuing to increase exponentially, the double-whammy recession could have the salutary effect of dampening and even decreasing demand for oil, thus extending the horizon for cheap oil by as much as several years (again, all else being equal -- which it ain't). Of course, as the world continues to approach the peaking of oil extraction (even if more slowly) oil prices would begin to rise in anticipation of the inevitable shortages and the world economy would face an even steeper climb out of an already profoundly deep and long 'recession'. Strike three for growth economics. The punch line of this is: see what happens if you enter "y2k" and "hubbert" in an Alta Vista search (as a boolean 'and' search). What do you get? Six or seven hits in which the two terms occur together *coincidentally*. My point is that -- aside from wide disagreement about the magnitude of effects -- both of these future events are predictable (in the proper sense) and have reasonable credibility within their respective fields. The Asian financial crisis is a fait accompli. Someone, somewhere has perhaps thought about the combined effects of these three phenomena but not enough people have been thinking and writing enough about it to make finding it an easy hit on a search engine. Regards, Tom Walker ^^^ #408 1035 Pacific St. Vancouver, B.C. V6E 4G7 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (604) 669-3286 ^^^ The TimeWork Web: http://www.vcn.bc.ca/timework/
y2k
Just received a brochure from BC Tel warning about THE ABYSS: "On January 1, 2000, don't let your company fall into the abyss." Regards, Tom Walker ^^^ Vancouver, B.C. [EMAIL PROTECTED] (604) 669-3286 ^^^ The TimeWork Web: http://www.vcn.bc.ca/timework/
FC: Greenspan reassures reporters that Y2K won't end economy (fwd)
Date: Fri, 3 Apr 1998 12:58:44 -0800 (PST) From: Declan McCullagh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: FC: Greenspan reassures reporters that Y2K won't end economy * http://cgi.pathfinder.com/netly/afternoon/0,1012,1873,00.html The Netly News / Afternoon Line April 3, 1998 Soothe Sayer Will millennium bug doomsayers accuse him of "irrational exuberance?" Yesterday Fed chairman Alan Greenspan said the so-called Y2K crisis will not cause any problems "of the type that can significantly impact on the economy." Speaking to the American Society of Newspaper Editors in Washington, D.C., Greenspan stressed that U.S. banks are "going to be in pretty good shape," though he can't offer that same comfortable reassurance on behalf of their overseas counterparts. Still, he admitted, "nobody knows how serious it is, because nobody knows what's down there in the bottom of these programs." And, we suspect, nobody knows better than Greenspan how important it is to avoid scaring a roomful of reporters. --By Declan McCullagh/Washington -- POLITECH -- the moderated mailing list of politics and technology To subscribe: send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with this text: subscribe politech More information is at http://www.well.com/~declan/politech/ --
FW Y2K is getting closer and more complicated
JUST A LITTLE MORE INFO on the Y2K problem, note letter at the bottom by a software engineer Thomas To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: The "Y2K-bugs-are-not-just-a-legacy-problem" FAQ From: Gary Lawrence Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: 29 Mar 1998 23:43:11 -0500 Just when you thought it was safe ... I found this on the USENET this evening and thought it might be of interest: From: Zooko Journeyman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: The "Y2K-bugs-are-not-just-a-legacy-problem" FAQ Date: 30 Mar 1998 02:24:53 +0200 Organization: XS4ALL Internet B.V. [Greetings, Usenetters. This is an article i've just hacked up that i intend to send to reporters and publications when i read that the year 2000 bug is caused by legacy programs. I argue that a "sizeable fraction" of y2k bugs were written in the 1990's, and i attempt to start a trend of calling them "y2k bugs" instead of "The Y2k Bug" since there are many of them and they come in many different flavors and they must be fixed individually. All flames, compliments, comments, criticisms, questions and answers are welcome at "[EMAIL PROTECTED]". --Z] Dear Sir or Madam: I am writing you in reference to a recent article of yours which propagated a common misperception about year 2000 bugs. I am a professional software engineer, and my motivation in writing this correction is solely to help inform the public about this very important issue. Permission is granted to reproduce, distribute, and use this article in any way. It is often stated (even by knowledgeable engineers, analysts, and reporters) that year 2000 bugs are caused by programs written in the 1960's, 1970's and 1980's. This misperception is dangerous, as it encourages people who depend only on modern programs to think that they are not at risk. In fact, year 2000 bugs abound in programs from all eras, including programs written during the 1990's. Examples: JavaScript, JScript, Netscape Navigator, Netscape Communicator, and Microsoft Internet Explorer suffer from y2k bugs themselves, and they also make it complicated for a programmer to write y2k-safe code using those systems: http://www.infoworld.com/cgi-bin/displayArchives.pl?97-t04-27.1.htm http://www.zdnet.com/intweek/printhigh/31698/cs1316.html American Megatrends was shipping its widely used PC BIOS software with year 2000 bugs until as late as July 1995 (or even later? The web pages don't precisely state.): http://www.amibios.com/support/2000.html Award was shipping _its_ widely used PC BIOS software with year 2000 bugs until as late as November 1996: http://www.award.com/tech/biosfaqs.htm#yr2000 (I bought a brand new PC in June of 1997 and its BIOS had a year 2000 bug.) A y2k bug was discovered in a BeOS application (BeOS was first made public in the second half of the 1990's): http://ww2.altavista.digital.com/cgi-bin/news?msg@4@comp%2esys%2ebe%2eannoun ce The popular AltaVista search engine uses 2-digit year fields to constrain the dates of your search. If there are any scripts out there which use AltaVista to e.g. find all articles on a certain topic posted during the last week, those scripts will break during the first week of the year 2000. http://www.altavista.digital.com/cgi-bin/query?pg=aq These are only a few examples. Almost certainly there are millions of year 2000 bugs that remain undiagnosed or unreported, and by my estimate a sizable fraction of them were written during the 1990's (since the majority of code currently in use today was written during the 1990's). You may well ask "Why the heck would someone writing code in the 1990's create a year 2000 bug?". There are 3 reasons: 1. Legacy data, legacy interfaces. Often new programs are written, and the first task of these new programs is to read in the data from the old programs that they are replacing. This means that the new programs usually use the same data formats. Also new programs are sometimes required to interoperate with old programs, which means that they often use the same data formats. 2. It's just a bug, like all bugs. All bugs appear stupid once they are identified, but when you are actually constructing a complex system, many a bug will be generated out of misunderstandings or mistakes. Year 2000 issues are not nearly as simple as the media tends to indicate. For example, let's say that you are writing a program in 1997 in a modern programming language such as JavaScript or Perl. You invoke the standard routine to return the current year. It returns "97". Now you want to use this information for your own calculations, and export the information for the benefit of the user of your program. What should you do? Leave it as 2 digits? Prepend the string "19" to the year? Add the number 1900 to the year? Do a check to see if the year is less than 50, and then add the number 1900 to i
RE: Y2K
I was having a coffee this morning and reviewing my local Ottawa Citizen when I found another article in the Business Section on the Y2K problem. Ho Hum, with all the problems I am concerned about, this seemed a long way from many of my interests but I scanned it - same old stuff, we have a problem, we may have a catastrophe, someone should do something, the government is taking care of their systems, etc.. Then up to my computer and a quick read of my E Mail. A short posting by Doug Carmicheal, a web site posting, oh well, I will take a couple of minutes to see what he has to say. As I read through the lengthy document, I found quotes that triggered a need to cut and paste, just because they jogged me in ways that I was looking at other problems. The following is a series of the cut and paste I took out of Doug's Web page and on which I will make some comments. First, though, I would like to say, I am not a very techno person and I really have only a conceptual grasp of the problem. In that sense, I represent the citizen who is slightly aware, while noting that most citizens have no awareness, and some have looked in the black box and are highly aware. Quote: We have also moved to a just in time society, which means we have little reserves of anything, and distribution is dependent on smart computer systems getting stuff to the right place on time. Violence and epidemics are real. Thomas This confirms one of the insights that I have argued in other contexts. The drive of the markets towards efficiency has a downside and that is twofold. One, we have no reserves in the concept of "just in time inventory" the great innovation of the Japanese miracle which gave it a competitive advantage which has now been copied by everyone. Two, scheduling is everything and creates complex systems in which one component failure can invalidate a whole system. A car is only a boat anchor without gasoline. It is a complex system that one shortage can invalidate all the other benefits within that system. Quote: Nothing like seeing 220 mostly scared or depressed major IT folks to give you the sense that what was supposition based on a series of one on one interviews, is real. I'd say the general view was that we, and they, don't make it. Between dirty code and buildings run by equipment from vendors that are out of business the length of the testing periods, the cost, the need for man years of time, while people are leaving the organizations (programmers are following markets) it looks like there is no way. Thomas: When 220 Information Technology professionals hold the general view, "that we, (the companies) and they (the government?) don't make it", I start to get seriously worried. Quote: I also believe (doesn'tt mean I am right) that central planning, FEMA, military, rationing, price fixing, will not work. They are too dependent on the very tech that is most likely to fail. That means that the techno-fascism or government continues to do its job is no longer plausible (there will be major political fights about this). Thomas: All our experts are trained to solve problems using the tool that is failing. All our educated elites have been moving away from reality, towards higher and higher levels of abstraction in the form of models, simulations, flow charting, economic models that depend on the unseen and reliable computer network systems that have been put in place over the last 35 years. We do not have the experience of people who knew how to make a system work without this tool. Quote: added Feb 13) There will be extraordinary personal pain and fear on the part of everyone, without exception. Asset preservation will appear first before community or personal survival is taken seriously. Thomas: Money is a coward is an old saying. What it means is that no one likes to lose anything and will go to extraordinary lengths to preserve their wealth, their comfort, their lives and damn the rest. As this idea of collapse starts filtering down into the mass consciousness, the potential fear will cause people to make different decisions to save themselves such as trying to convert their electronic money in bank accounts, stocks and bonds into an item which has substantial value such as paper currency, gold, silver, goods, etc. Our current economic system depends on the majority making "rational" decisions based on an ongoing and growing economy. Once it enters the consciousness of individuals, they will collapse their savings, try to liquefy their assets and protect their accumulations. Once this run of protection starts, we are only a moment away from panic as those who have not yet started see those who have, apparently gaining while they are losing. Quote Another friend and I talking this through came to the conclusion that doing all we can to get people employed will be as critical as food and heat. Little kits to let people knit, peel
Re: y2k -Reply
Michael Gurstein wrote: > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Thursday, February 05, 1998 8:22 PM > Subject: Re: y2k -Reply > > ... > > You probably recognize Edward Yourdon's name as one of the > longtime gurus of structured programming. (For those on the list who > don't recognize his name, for years Ed wrote books, conducted > seminars and sold tools to help people trying to manage unmanageable > systems like the ones running 360 assembler that should be turned into > boat anchors.) [snip] Ah, yes! The Structured Programming con$ultant$! What were they really up to: DESKILLING PROGRAMMERS. Theirs was not computer science, but a Foucaultean technology of disciplining bodies (AKA "social science"). I would urge anyone interested in this aspect of the contemporary world to read Philip Kraft's fine book: _Programmers and Managers: The Routinization of Computer Programming in the United States_ (Springer, 1977). A personal story. I once had my third-line manager tell me that the reason they used higher level languages was that most of the programmers were not competent to code assembly language correctly. I.e., by dumbing down the technology, they enhance productivity. My first line manager made the same point a slightly different way: "I know *you* can do the job your own way, but what about the other 300 people we have?" My response: "Tell them that they need to follow your rules because they can't do it their own way." Needless to say, I never got a promotion in *that* organization! \brad mccormick -- Mankind is not the master of all the stuff that exists, but Everyman (woman, child) is a judge of the world. Brad McCormick, Ed.D. / [EMAIL PROTECTED] (914)238-0788 / 27 Poillon Rd, Chappaqua, NY 10514-3403 USA --- Visit my website ==> http://www.cloud9.net/~bradmcc/
Re: y2k -Reply
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Thursday, February 05, 1998 8:22 PM Subject: Re: y2k -Reply ... You probably recognize Edward Yourdon's name as one of the longtime gurus of structured programming. (For those on the list who don't recognize his name, for years Ed wrote books, conducted seminars and sold tools to help people trying to manage unmanageable systems like the ones running 360 assembler that should be turned into boat anchors.) Ed would have a good handle on how computer shops around the world are fairing. He recently wrote a book with his daughter, something like 'The Year 2000 Meltdown.' He ended a recent e-mail on the 2000 software newsgroup with this: >P.S. Yes, I live in New Mexico now. In my humble opinion New York >City will resemble Beirut in Jan 2000. I don't want to be there when >the lights go out, the subways stop, the airports shut down, and the >less-affluent citizens of the city realize that it could be several weeks >or months before they receive their food stamps, welfare checks, >Medicare payments, and unemployment checks. > Donald Trump may not care, but another 7 million New York citizens >may discover that Y2K is not such an academic concept after all. >Maybe that will be enough to get a few more minutes of coverage on >CNN... > >Edward Yourdon, 1008-A Paseo Del Pueblo Sur, # 261 >Taos, NM 87571-6412 <=> phone/fax: 888-814-7605 >mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web: http://www.yourdon.com > I believe it was Burrows who wrote, 'Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you' and Andy, The President of Intel, Groves, wrote whole book titled, 'Only the Paranoid Survive.' Looks like I'll have company in my little padded cell. Cordially, David
[Fwd: Update on IRS and Y2K] (fwd)
I just received this memo from an attorney with I'm working as a co-author and co-seminar presenter. Vern Jacobs From: RICHARD LEVINE <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: When Will IRS Finish Y2K Fix? On December 11, Rep. Stephen Horn (R- Calif), chair of the House Government Reform and Oversight Subcommittee on Givernment Management, Information and technology stated that, in his view, at the rate it is going now the IRS will not finish its conversion of computer equipment to reflect the new millenium until 2004. Horn said Treasury is one of nearly a dozen federal departments and agencies running behind. Horn said the Treasury Department has finished about 8 percent of its conversion. --- Moderator's Comment: Does anyone on this list have any thoughts about the implicatons and consequences of a failure by the IRS to get their systems fixed before the year 2000? In a worst case scenario, they would be unable to process income or other tax returns, employer tax payments or other tax payments. What are their options with respect to preventing a complete breakdown of the government tax collection system? Is it feasible that the government could institute an "emergancy sales tax system" as a substitute for the present system? If the government were to be unable to collect money from any kind of taxes, what would be the economic and social impact? How quickly could a society such as our adjust to a system without any federal government? What impact would that have on the states, counties and cities? Would it result in a massive unemployment of government workers? How would they react? How would such a breakdown affect the millions of people on social security, Medicare or Medicaid, the hospitals, medical providers, military, government contractors, etc, etc., etc.? What impact would it have on our relations with other countries? The questions go on and on. I'd welcome your thoughts. Gary North, (http://www.garynorth.com) has published an issue of his newsletter predicting that the IRS would simply disintegrate. For more details about the status of the IRS and the year 2000, go to Gary's web site, then go to the links on taxation. Vern Jacobs Vernon K. Jacobs, CPA, Editor of "The Jacobs Report on Asset Protection Strategies" and "Vern Jacobs' Tax Solutions". Co-author of "The Best Legal Ways to Avoid Capital Gains Taxes" and "The Best Legal Ways To Avoid Estate Taxes". <http://www.rpifs.com> * email [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Research Press, POB 8194, Prairie Village, KS 66208 (913) 362 - 9667
AWARENESS: U.K. To Observe World's First Y2K Awareness Week (fwd)
-- Forwarded message -- Date: Wed, 10 Dec 1997 00:35:28 -0400 From: James Corbin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: "African Network of IT Experts and Professionals (ANITEP) List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: AWARENESS: U.K. To Observe World's First Y2K Awareness Week Colleagues. The following was posted on CPSR Y2K mail list. Due to the current discussions on this list about awareness in Africa. I thought it may be of some interest to members on this list. regards James >December 05, 1997, TechWeb News > >---- >U.K. To Observe World's First Y2K Awareness Week >ByAndrew Craig > >LONDON -- The British government is backing what it said is the world's >first national Year 2000 awareness week, beginning Monday in the United >Kingdom. > >The five-day program will attempt to warn senior managers -- rather than >IS >executives -- of the dangers of the year 2000 problem. > >The innovative national campaign is organized by a government-backed >awareness group, Taskforce 2000, and will include a series of conferences >and debates with both public and private-sector managers participating. >The >aim, according to Robin Guenier, head of Taskforce 2000, is to raise >awareness of the year 2000 problem among general management and to >encourage organizations to act promptly. > >"This is a top-level matter, and we'd like to get the message to chief >executives, general managers, and others," Guenier said. "The computer >people should already understand the issue; if they don't, they are not >doing their jobs properly." > >Taskforce 2000, a not-for-profit company principally funded by the U.K. >government, certainly has some way to go. A survey published earlier this >week by British computer consultancy PA Consulting found that barely more >than half of all British IT managers said they felt that senior managers >in >their organization fully understood the year 2000 problem. By contrast, >71 >percent of U.S. IT managers said that their senior managers had a good >understanding of the year 2000 problem. > >"While people are getting ready to enjoy Christmas, we hope to provide a >stark reminder of the problems ahead," said Guenier. An enormous amount >of >fixing is needed, and there is not any business that can afford to ignore >it." > >Although many people are aware of the year 2000 problem, their knowledge >is >mostly not detailed enough, and organizations are not taking action >quickly >enough, Guenier added. > >"There is a paralysis-by-analysis situation where people are doing a lot >of >talking and not enough action. Levels of awareness in the U.K. are high, >but the problem is that the awareness is superficial," Guenier said. > >The risks are high enough. A second survey, published by French computer >services company Cap Gemini in October, found that one in 10 U.K. >organizations will not convert their computer systems in time for the >change to 2000. Cap Gemini said the result could potentially put at risk >the equivalent of 29 percent of the U.K.'s Gross Domestic Product. > >Not everyone believes that the awareness week has been well-enough >organized, however. > >"It's not receiving nearly enough coverage," said Karl Feilder, chief >executive at Greenwich Mean Time, a year 2000 consultancy. "In our >opinion, >every week should be year 2000 week." >[snip] > > >- End Forwarded Message - > - James Corbin Divisional Manager Information Services Barbados Telephone Company 246-431-1456 (p) 245-439-8860 (f)
Y2K: Disaster Looming for California (fwd)
Message contents removed due to DMCA takedown letter. See http://www.chillingeffects.org/ for more information about the DMCA.
