Reeza! wrote:
Sorry, yes I am up-playing, for the sake of humor. No, I'm not a consultant, Yes I desire to earn money, and the real problem (as I see it) isn't with the hardware or software, it is with what people will do. Regardless of anything relevant or irrelevant, what the sheeple think can happen, what they see happen, what really does happen and how some of them will over-react to it.
All the Gov't's making plans for martial law is an enormous alarm going off in my head,,,,
What I guess is very bad currently is that plenty of owners of the computer systems appear to be shy of facing squarely with the problem and of conducting some direct tests to get at least some real feeling of the problem that quite probably may occur. (It's like one is not inclined to consult the doctors until the illness becomes very grave. Certainly this is only my superficial observation. I may be very wrong.) Of course, such tests, if not well designed, may not deliver the hoped-for results. But having the courage to do some tests is anyway better than to avoid considering the problem till the day when Y2K really hurts. I am ignorant of how hard it is indeed to devise some realistic tests for Y2K. On the other hand, I can't imagine that these could be anything terribly difficult. If there are huge data bases involved, one could copy a part to a separate hardware and do experiments with it by entering data of Y2K and manipulating the system clock. If nothing happens, then one gains at least some assurance and can proceed to do more sophisticated tests. If something goes wrong, one knows directly what kind of misery one could expect to have at 2000 if the problem is ignored today and can thus energetically look for the remedy. I speculate that most firms can start to do some tests with their own staffs, i.e. without external consultants. M. K. Shen