> > Either they "just know" that it's going to be the end of Western Civilization, or they "just know" that it's not going to even be noticed...
>
> I "just know" that it'll be somewhere in the middle.

That's what I believe, but I'm not closing my mind to either extreme, since historically, extreme things are not impossible. Historically, civilizations have been wiped out by surprise, and historically, people have over-prepared for the end of the world when it never happened.

> I didn't know about the satellite thing, though -- that's interesting to hear. I'll have to check it out.

Here's a place to check out the GPS end of it (the GPS Rollover problem is similar to the Y2k problem, although they are not the same thing... see link [wish you could have more than one link])

> At any rate, they need not send up new chips to replace. That's what software is for -- to work around the kinks in the hardware. It's not hard to fudge some hack in software to work around hardware deficiencies until the hardware can be fixed.

If you don't want to change the hardware, you can do a technique called "windowing", where you have a pivot year, like, say "1930", and if the year number is "29" then it assumes that it means "2029" and if it is "30" then it assumes "1930". Of course, if the wrong 2-digits get interpreted, then you may have a reference to Line #1930, or maybe an increase to 1930% interest... and with human error, such things are practically inevitable when you have hundreds of millions or even billion lines of code to repair.

Other alternatives include changing the date format itself to 4-digits (good until the year 10k), or changing to hex or something like that (which does the Y2K thing in 2042 or some funky date like that). All of the "fixes" merely delay the problem- maybe they delay it 30 years, maybe 42, maybe 100 or 1000 or 10,000, but there is no "cure" to the problem. There is not enough time left for most of the big companies to change to 4-byte dates. The FAA will probably be compliant sometime in 2007:
http://www.house.gov/science/graham_02-4.htm
and they have only got about 23 million lines of code (other organizations are in the hundred-millions to billions of lines of code).

> So I'm not real worried about the satellites. And I while I don't know what NASA's plans are, I find it hard to believe they'd let the problem slide, especially with all the paranoia about it.

I don't know what NASA's plans are, either. However, you might get an idea at:
http://www.nasa.gov/search/
by searching for "Y2K".

>
> In reality, there WILL be problems, but not end-of-the-world type problems. Suddenly someone's date-sorted database will show new entries at the top instead of the bottom. Big deal. People will cope, and as these types of problems are noticed, they'll be fixed. Don't get me wrong -- it'll be noticed. But it won't be anything to worry about.

Ever see what happens when a non-compliant mainframe attempts to divide by the date "00"? Nothing. That is, everything stops, all millions of lines of code and thousands of programs come to a complete standstill, leaving just an error message that says something like "cannot divide by zero."
Other than that, I understand everything you just said, and agree with most of it... I guess it's just the extent of the problem that we disagree over. For instance, I wouldn't want to be in a hospital when a computer thinks it's been 99 years since I got my last shot, or hooked to a life-support system if the lights go out...

Oh, and don't get me wrong, either... I'm not worrying about it either, but probably for different reasons than most. My reason for not worrying about it is that I've already been through almost everything that Y2k can directly hit us with (loss of electricity, potable water, food, transportation, billing problems, inability to fly, etc.), [poverty can have a tendancy to do that to you] and I am still living and breathing and responding to a message... only because of the grace of God Himself. Right now, there is no logical reason why I am still alive if you discount that last statement. Jesus told us not to worry about what we will eat and drink tomorrow, because He already knows about our problems and cares for us, and I am a person who has had the opportunity to see it in action.

Unfortunately, most Americans haven't had that opportunity, so where I might be saying, "Here we go again!", others might be terrified. I know I was terrified at the time.

So, basically, I'm not at all worried about what the Year 2000 will bring... no, what scares me is that I might let slip an opportunity to help other people who might go through a terrible time that I've nearly been through myself.

I don't believe that the Bible condems preparing... Proverbs has tons of references to it and the "fools" who don't... and let's not forget Joseph (I wonder what the officials thought when he told them to prepare for a world-wide disaster 14 years down the road). Don't worry about what you'll eat or drink, but at the same time don't waste the time God has given you.


>
> To be honest, though, I'm more worried about what the paranoia is going to do rather than the actual y2k problem itself. If enough people get paranoid about it, and we get people yanking money out of the stock market 4th quarter 1999, we'll have an economic recession for sure.

That wasn't what did it for Quaker:
http://cnnfn.com/markets/9809/25/hotstox/
and the Fed is increasing their reserve by $50 billion "just in case" the very thing you mentioned happens. I guess Greenspan isn't all that optomistic... or maybe he just wants to be prepared.

I am fairly sure that paranoia will be a big problem, but I don't think it'll really hit people until something happens that causes them to change their way of life... However, be sure to isolate that which is paranoid from that which is fact.

The site:
http://www.y2ksupply.com/index.asp?PageID=Statistics
has a great compilation of statistics. However, I'll be the first to criticize the site, because it is made by a company that profits on people's preparedness, so that is something to keep in mind while reading the statistics...
However, the statistics do appear valid, and you can use most of them if you search for the original sources for verification. Some of it is just theoretical... for instance, they say there are 1 billion imbedded chips out in the world, others say 25 billion. The fact is, nobody knows. "There's alot of 'em" is all I know for sure.

Actually, the best resource site I have yet seen on the Y2k Problem is www.garynorth.com. Gary North is one of the people who "just know" that Western Civilization will fail. He does his best to convince you of the fact, and he does a pretty good job. However, the reason I value the site is because it is _the_largest_ compilation of links related to the Year 2000 Problem on the net. Not just links that support his ideas, but links that cover every possible aspect of the problem from all angles. He claims he has over 2,500 documents on the site, growing at a rate of 200 a month (sounds reasonable, but I haven't counted them myself), and it's updated almost every day. Oh, and the fact that all his links go to the original sources helps alot, too.

Basically, don't take my word for it. There's plenty of good sources (like sites that end in .mil and .gov) that are pretty valid, to give an idea about the extent of the problem.

Good grief. I've gone and written a book. I'm sorry! I didn't have a clue it was going to end up being this big when I started. Once again, though, please tell me if and when you find some good news, as I eagerly await it.

-Jo "it's late and i'm tired so i'm stopping here" hn W.