dennis roberts wrote:
>
> happy new year to everyone ... hope your y2k +1 year is great!
>
> now, the y2k scare provides us with an excellent example of confounds (more
> or less) .. consider the following:
>
> Time One: lots of hype about "potential" disasters related to y2k ... (PRETEST)
That's how we get "self-fulfilling prophecies"! Actually, many companies are
so stingy with their IT investment that some kind of "scare scenario" may
have been necessary to get their attention. Seems a shame, but that's life in
the corporate world. Managers don't really take their computers serio
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
says...
>
<
>
>Another tests and measurement issue -- I heard one report on a talk
>show that one facility found all its computers reading 4 JA 1980 on
>New Year's Day. A y2k bug? Not exactly. I noted that one of the
>test programs I used left
On 7 Jan 2000 07:41:07 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hayden)
wrote:
...
> Another tests and measurement issue -- I heard one report on a talk
> show that one facility found all its computers reading 4 JA 1980 on
> New Year's Day. A y2k bug? Not exactly. I noted that one of the
> test programs
Like other people I know, I left my computers off on New Year's eve, and
started them up again the next day. My 386 running DOS had reset the date
to 1980, which I assume is when the BIOS was created (that was the only
problem). The date program refused to accept any year outside the window
198
On Fri, 7 Jan 2000, Bob Hayden wrote, inter alia:
> Another tests and measurement issue -- I heard one report on a talk
> show that one facility found all its computers reading 4 JA 1980 on
> New Year's Day. A y2k bug? Not exactly. I noted that one of the
> test programs I used left the system
- Forwarded message from Paige Miller -
>
> I'm wondering if those spending/earning the billions are congratulating
> themselves on so "few problems" (We fixed that just right!!!) or if the
> problems existed in the first place. Now, if we'd only had a control
> group.
I read somew
At 08:20 AM 1/7/00 -0500, Paige Miller wrote:
>I read somewhere that a state government agency deliberately left three
>computers unfixed for Y2K and they crashed immediately and were useless.
the problem with this is how does one know that these 3 would not have
crashed even if there were
"J. Williams" wrote:
>
> The only thing you're missing is a control group (one with a "treatment" that
> didn't spend billions on a fix) and you'd really have something here. :-))
>
> I'm wondering if those spending/earning the billions are congratulating
> themselves on so "few problems" (We f
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (dennis roberts)
wrote:
>happy new year to everyone ... hope your y2k +1 year is great!
>
>now, the y2k scare provides us with an excellent example of confounds (more
>or less) .. consider the following:
>
>Time One: lots of hype about "pote
I suggest we wait until 2999 and then don't spend any money on updating
software and computers. That should indicate if spending the money during
the past few years was worth it.
Oh, oh, maybe not. New computers have the Y2K bug fixed. I guess it will
only be a true test on older 486, 386 m
happy new year to everyone ... hope your y2k +1 year is great!
now, the y2k scare provides us with an excellent example of confounds (more
or less) .. consider the following:
Time One: lots of hype about "potential" disasters related to y2k ... (PRETEST)
Time Two: billions of $$$ spent on
12 matches
Mail list logo
