From Contest #8
This Contest's Candidates (the official list, in no particular order):
Tom Newbern with the Texas
Department of Transportation: "If we have power, we assume traffic signals will be
working."
As we try to keep telling people: "Hope" is not a strategy. Quoted
on Y2KToday Officials
Say Texas in Good Shape to Handle Y2K Concerns January 27, 1999. Submitted by
Will Duty.
From the City of Albuquerque Year 2000 Project web page:
"July 1, 1999, August 22, 1999, September 9, 1999, January 1, 2000 - all of these
days will be watched closely as computer date-and-time clocks - programmed for three
decades to translate four-digit years into two-digit shorthand-mistake the "00"
of the year 2000 for the "00" of the year 1900."
Hey, they got 2 out of 4 right anyway. Although interesting dates to watch
for potential failures, neither 8/22/99 nor 9/9/99 involve a Y2k rollover. An
inauspicious way to start off an official Y2k web page. Quoted on the City of Albuquerque Year 2000 Project home
page. Submitted by Kirsten Oschwald.
David L. Kupfer, PhD, clinical
psychologist in Falls Church, Va., specializing in phobias and other anxiety-related
disorders: "Because the year 2000 is an unfamiliar number, says Kupfer, many people
fear it. 'What we know, we trust,' he says, 'and what we don't know, we fear.' Even though
it is only an arbitrary number, people will experience the year 2000 as a boundary between
the familiar and unfamiliar, he says. ... And, says Kupfer, it can be helpful to remind
people that the year 2000 is an invented fear. Consider this, he says: Our year 2000 will
be the year 5760 on the Jewish calendar, 4698 on the Chinese calendar, 1421 on the Islamic
calendar and 1922 on the Indian calendar. "
Interesting, except for the fact that all the systems those people are afraid of don't
use those other calendars. Quoted on APA Monitor Online I'm okay and you're okay, but not so sure
about Y2K by Lisa Rabasca, January 1999. Submitted first by Duane Desilets.
Italian Cabinet undersecretary Franco
Bassanini, on announcing Thursday January 14, 1999 the formation of a
troubleshooting committee to look into potential Y2k problems in Italy: "I'm
afraid we're starting this a little late."
Kind of like being a "little pregnant" we suppose. Quoted on
Reuters Italy
Gets To Grip With The Millennium Bug, Finally January 15, 1999.
Those wacky Russians again...
Andrei Terekov, a St. Petersburg University mathematics professor
and director of Lanit Holding--a firm helping Russian companies with the Y2k
transition--on the likelihood that
the Y2K problem would cause Russian warheads to detonate or missiles to be fired by
mistake: "My understanding is that the problem with strategic weapons has been
solved."
Problem? There was a problem!? We thought they were using "special"
computers (see Contest #3) that didn't have problems.
Quoted on USA Today Expert
downplays Y2K nuclear effect January 14, 1999.
A spokesman for the Russian Defense Ministry: "There is
a problem and we are working on it."
Buzz...snap...crackle...er...Houston, we have a problem. We guess their
"special" computers weren't so special after all. Quoted on Russia
Today/Reuters Russian Military
Says Y2K Bug a Problem, U.S. Helps January 26, 1999.
Not to be outdone, the Thailand government gets involved
as well...
"The Y2K bug, the glitch expected to affect computers worldwide as the year 2000
begins, could cause safety problems for a Thai nuclear reactor, warned a senior computer
official. ... However, Kriangsak Bhadrakom, secretary-general
of the Office of Atomic Energy for Peace, dismissed the fear, saying the controlling
system was manually controlled and the reactor could be shut down if problems arose. He
added the computer for the reactor was used in monitoring and reporting about the
operating system such as water temperature and other aspects not related to safety."
Funny, we thought the water was used to keep those things cool. Perhaps
they've been discussing the problem with the Russian consultants. Quoted on the
Bangkok Post Y2K Bug: Thai
nuclear reactor may be affected January 23, 1999.
William Fagan, assistant
director of information services for the Rhode Island Department of Labor and Training:
"I am ungodly optimistic that we are Y2K compliant."
Is that "ungodly" in a good way or a bad way? Quoted on the Boston
Globe Lawmakers
says state needs to better handle millenium bug January 13, 1999. Submitted by
Christine M. Greenwald. And a special honorable mention for the Boston Globe, whose
spell checker apparently doesn't know there are two n's in millennium.
Montana State Senator Bob Keenan,
sponsor of a bill to protect government and private business from lawsuits related to Y2k
failures: "Government and private enterprise have inherited the Y2K bug and now face
significant costs based on no fault of their own."
Assuming you don't count approving the acceptance of the buggy software as
"fault." Quoted on the Billings Gazette Bill gives government,
business protection if millennium bug bites January 12, 1999. Submitted by John
Selhorst.
Gregor Bailar, Executive vice
president and chief information officer National Association of Securities Dealers on
whether your brokerage accounts might get deleted due to Y2k problems: "Ludicrous.
But I'll have paper printouts of my personal finances. Just in case."
Don't worry, be happy...and keep your receipts. Quoted on Forbes The glitch watch January 11,
1999. Submitted by Tom Carr.
Will County Illinois Sheriff Brendan
Ward, commenting on the decision to purchase a $5.2 million radio system back in
1996 that turned out to be non-Y2k compliant: "I don't think anybody knew about what
Y2K meant at that time...Who paid attention back then? Computer geeks."
And he says that like it's a bad thing! Quoted on The Chicago Tribune Millennium
Bug Lurks With Time Running Out January 1, 1999. Submitted by Jeff Manson.
Columnist Anita Creamer:
"If the threat is so great, why is the name so cute? Y2K sounds like a baby's first
sentence or the name of a stuffed successor to Furby or, at the very least, a quirky,
jerky, utterly appealing "Star Wars" character. Y2K sounds as friendly and
precious as a puppy."
My nephew got a Furby for Christmas. If the Y2k problem is half as annoying
as those things, we're in deep do do. And mark May 21st on your calendar for the new
Star Wars movie. Lucasfilms is absolutely mum
on whether "Y2K" is actually a character. Quoted on The Sacramento Bee Y2K: Head for hills
or nearest chat room January 1, 1999. Submitted by Judy Hoskins.
David Houghton, financial
columnist for the Ottawa Sun: "According to one article I read from a highly regarded
analyst, the big guys, the banks and so forth, have solved their Y2K problem already or
will have it in hand very shortly. The mid-cap guys are still working on in and only the
small guy is in left field. That could be a problem, but remember, the small guy can do a
lot with a paper, pencil and calculator that the big guy can't."
And don't forget what they can do with a couple of tin cans and some string by the
light of kerosene lamps! Quoted on the Ottawa Sun Canuck stocks lag behind
U.S. December 28, 1998. Submitted by Heather Westerfield.
Vice President and all-round technology guy Al Gore: "How could this be a problem in a country where we
have Intel and Microsoft?"
Asked and answered. No URL on this one, but quoted in the January 1999 issue
of Vanity Fair, page 141. Submitted by Heather Westerfield.
Stupid Journalism Section
James Gleick, author and
occasional columnist: "The amount of time that you, a dutiful citizen of the modern
world, should spend worrying about Y2K is zero."
Don't worry, be happy! He does go on to say some other more helpful things in
the column. Our advice--worry: yes, panic: no. Quoted on the New York Times Doomsday
Machines January 24, 1999. Submitted first by Bill Adsit.
Actually, we're unsure as to whether this belongs in Stupid Journalism or Stupid Politicians:
Wisconsin state assembly speaker Scott Jensen, on legislation
proposed to assist with Y2k contingency planning efforts: "It will not contain the
National Guard legislation for one particular reason, and I'm going to be very blunt with
you all," Jensen told a group of reporters. "As long as the National Guard
provision was contained in this legislation, it was impossible to get the media to cover
anything else about it."
That'll teach those nasty ol' reporters! Quoted on the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel
Online National Guard taken out
of Y2K bills: Assembly leader says media ignored measures' other important aspects
January 20, 1999. Submitted by Heather Westerfield.
Scientific American, in a
sidebar to Peter de Jager's article on Y2k on other rollover dates to watch for:
"January 19, 2038: Unix systems will roll over, because it will be 231 seconds from
their start date of January 1, 1970."
More like 2^31 (pesky web-publishing software!). We usually don't make fun of
simple typos, but it gives us an excuse to let you know that the UNIX clock will
roll-over on January 19, 2038 at 3:14:07 when its 32 bit clock overflows, and midnight,
January 1, 1970 does equate to 0 on the clock. Quoted on Scientific American Y2K: So Many Bugs ... So
Little Time by Peter de Jager, January 1999. Submitted by Per Hammer. And
thanks to Capers Jones for providing the details on the UNIX clock rollover (and lots of
other very interesting dates) in his article Dangerous Dates for Software
Applications. Both Peter's article (typo notwithstanding) and Caper's article
are must reading.
"It's one minute after midnight on Dec, 1, 1999. With
31 days left until the new century kicks in and the second 1,000 years in recorded history
begins, Americans are wary enough to take few dollars out of their bank accounts, just in
case."
Er, excuse us, but the whole "2000 vs. 2001" start of the new millennium
issue aside, shouldn't that be the start of the third thousand years?
And--due to popular demand--we should also point out that there were, in fact, one
or two things that happened in recorded history before Y1. Quoted on The Billings
Gazette Y2K: Truth or
SCARE The sky may not fall, but Y2K is one big thunderhead January 10, 1999.
Submitted by Michael Kenniston.
"Problems in Social Security computers would affect
older Americans who rely on the checks to help them in their retirement. For example, an
eligible recipient born in 1930 would be recognized as born in 1830 without the computer
fix, and could be presumed dead and removed from the rolls. "
Reporters who make up stuff like this should be presumed brain-dead and ignored.
Quoted on Reuters Social Security Y2K
problems solved December 28, 1998. Submitted by Jeanne Boyd.
Op/Ed columnist David Boldt:
"Experience has taught us, for better or worse, that the events we anticipate almost
never occur. Remember Comet Kohoutek?"
Yep, we do. And it's not so much the big Y2k bugs we've thought of that will
likely cause problems, but all the little ones no one thought of. Quoted on The
Philadelphia Inquirer Barring any real
tragedy, it might be fun if computers think it's 1900 January 5, 1999. Submitted
by Heather Westerfield.
And now the the unofficial list:
all those other entries who's sources couldn't be verified, but we liked anyway
I just wanted to share with you this conversation I had with
my 50-year old friend who prides himself on being a computer buff :
Me : So, Francis, what are you doing about the Y2K situation; you've spent a lot of money
on your software programmes and your PC itself is about 2 years old, now isn't it?
Francis : Y2K? What's that? (After a 5 minute brief on Y2K ...) Ooohhhh, you mean the
Millennium Bug?
Me : Yeah, that's right ...
Francis : Isn't that the virus you get from the Internet .....? I don't surf the Net much,
you know .....
It's closely related to the "good times" virus. Submitted
anonymously by someone who wishes to keep Francis as a friend.
Yet another concern for Y2k professionals: Relatives
Out of the blue on New Year's eve 1997, my brother-in-law asked me if the Big Apple that
comes down in New York's Time Square every year on that day was going to fail on 12/31/99.
Louie was quite relieved to hear that the big ball with all those sparkling lights is
actually lowered by four big guys with ropes. But this year, he really surpassed himself.
Here's his 12/31/98 stumper: If a red-eye flight leaves Hong-Kong on 12/31/99 for, say,
Los Angeles... and it accesses a geo-positioning satellite that was built with old chip
technology for direction... and, at midnight, the satellite thinks it's suddenly 1/1/1900,
and the plane is now going to, say, Cairo because of the stars' position on that date...
but then the plane crosses the International Dateline, and it's 12/31/99 again... will the
plane make it to L.A.? Yeah, sure, Louie. Here; have another drink!
If a tree starts to fall in the forest right at midnight but doesn't land until
after the century change, will it still be a stupid question? Submitted by Pierre Fortin.
Heard on a Dutch television interview
An unnamed government official attempting to explain the Y2K problem to the general
public: "Let's say someone was born in 1970. Now is the year 1999. That means this
person is 1999-1970=29 years old. Now let us look forward to the year 2000. Then this
person would be ... (a little pause) -30 (that is minus 30!) years old."
Quick, get out the calculator. Submitted by Karst Koymans.
My grandmother called me one night at about midnight. She
told me she had the solution to the Y2K problem. She told me she couldn't talk about it on
the telephone in case someone was running a wiretap. When I had a "meeting" with
her several days later she made me promise that she would have a share in the profits. She
then explained to me how she wanted people to use capital O's in their dates instead of
zeros. This, she believed, would rectify the entire situation. If anybody decides to
implement this solution on a large scale, they'd better talk to my grandmother first or
else she'll be after the money!
The sad part is that some enterprising young patent attorney has probably already
contacted her. Submitted by John Laur.
Overheard at a bank
Customer to Teller: Are you Y2k compliant?
Teller to Customer: I'm perfectly happy with my present long-distance carrier, thank you.
An unnamed reporter from CNBC, overheard December 28, 1998
during the announcement that the U.S. Social Security system was officially Y2k compliant
(we're paraphrasing here): "Now that you have the solution for Y2K, will you be
sharing it with others?"
Nope, they are keeping it to themselves. If we had a URL for this interview, we
would cheerfully place it in the Stupid Journalism section. Submitted by Claudia
Sawyer.
The commanding general of a combat support agency in the
Department of Defense was being briefed on the progress (or lack there of) to deal with
the Y2K problems in his organization. After hearing about the status of several systems --
which would be ready, which would not, and what was being done about it -- he interrupted
and asked, "Well, what did we do the last time we had this problem?"
No comment required. Submitted anonymously.