From: hls on 6 Nov 2009 14:45
"Steve" <no(a)spam.thanks> wrote in message news:FZednfV4srBJ-
> Anyone that thinks Y2K wouldn't have been a problem if corrective measures
> hadn't been put in place is, frankly, clueless. It wasn't a problem
> because a huge effort was committed to fixing it in time.
I appreciate your opinion. A lot of work WAS done, and a lot of money
was spent, and in the end there wasnt much of a problem, if any.
And the millenium passed, there was no apocalypse, no battle of Armageddon.
The next end of the world scenario, I understand, is supposed to be
after which we will focus on the Mayan predictions.
From: Joe Pfeiffer on 6 Nov 2009 15:32
"E. Meyer" <epmeyer50(a)gmail.com> writes:
> On 11/5/09 3:56 PM, in article
> 1bd43wocta.fsf(a)snowball.wb.pfeifferfamily.net, "Joe Pfeiffer"
> <pfeiffer(a)cs.nmsu.edu> wrote:
>> In fairness, Y2K was a huge problem, but it was seen coming just barely
>> far enough away that companies were able to put a huge amount of effort
>> in and fix (or band-aid) their code so that almost nobody outside was
>> inconvenienced. Had the work not gone into fixing it, the dire
>> predictions would have come true.
> You can't possibly believe that.
Yes, I can. And I do. Here's an example:
And, of course, that's the smallest estimate I've seen by a wide margin.
Here's another, quoting the Commerce Department at $100B.
I guess we can argue about whether these numbers are "huge" or not, but
not about how badly broken things would have been if it wasn't spent.
As we enjoy great advantages from the inventions of others, we should
be glad of an opportunity to serve others by any invention of ours;
and this we should do freely and generously. (Benjamin Franklin)
From: Steve on 6 Nov 2009 17:37
> "Steve" <no(a)spam.thanks> wrote in message news:FZednfV4srBJ-
>> Anyone that thinks Y2K wouldn't have been a problem if corrective
>> measures hadn't been put in place is, frankly, clueless. It wasn't a
>> problem because a huge effort was committed to fixing it in time.
> I appreciate your opinion. A lot of work WAS done, and a lot of money
> was spent, and in the end there wasnt much of a problem, if any.
Not being in Y2K-related sofware, my direct experience was that it was
quite hard to hire experienced software developers in the couple of
years prior to Y2K. They had ample opportunities for work... for
employers that were in a serious bind and would pay handsomely.
It amazes me that anyone today doesn't realize what a massive effort
went into fixing all the possible Y2K problems before they happened. I
guess thats gratitude for you.... :-(
From: hls on 6 Nov 2009 18:54
"Steve" <no(a)spam.thanks> wrote in message
> It amazes me that anyone today doesn't realize what a massive effort went
> into fixing all the possible Y2K problems before they happened. I guess
> thats gratitude for you.... :-(
I think you are right in a sense. There is no gratitude. Did we not see
millenium coming for the entire history of modern computing???
From: Bill Putney on 6 Nov 2009 18:58
> ...the breaker point ignition always meant that the engine
> spent a considerable amount of its life with late timing due to breaker
> points wearing down...
Hmmm - Being that the spark occurs when the points *open*, worn breaker
points would make the timing advanced (reduced dwell, but advanced
timing). Unless you're going to say that the wear block wears down
faster than the points burn back - which I don't think is generally the
That's my buttal. Do you have a rebuttal?
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')