SNET: United Nations plans SWAT team training to "control" citizens in Y2K crash
From: USCMike1@aol.com Subject: SNET: United Nations plans SWAT team training to "control" citizens in Y2K crash Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1998 15:34:16 EST To: KatieSouix@aol.com -> SNETNEWS Mailing List This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --part0_914877258_boundary Content-ID: <0_914877258@inet_out.mail.aol.com.1> Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII --part0_914877258_boundary Content-ID: <0_914877258@inet_out.mail.netdoor.com.2> Content-type: message/rfc822 Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Content-disposition: inline Return-Path: <kepi@netdoor.com> Received: from rly-zd05.mx.aol.com (rly-zd05.mail.aol.com [172.31.33.229]) by air-zc01.mail.aol.com (v53.20) with SMTP; Sun, 13 Dec 1998 23:22:22 1900 Received: from netdoor.com (netdoor.com [208.137.128.6]) by rly-zd05.mx.aol.com (8.8.8/8.8.5/AOL-4.0.0) with ESMTP id XAA17219; Sun, 13 Dec 1998 23:22:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from kepi (port201.hat.netdoor.com [208.137.155.201]) by netdoor.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with SMTP id WAA26607; Sun, 13 Dec 1998 22:21:38 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19981213222221.008aa4b0@mail.netdoor.com> X-Sender: kepi@mail.netdoor.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1998 22:22:21 -0600 To: Kepi <kepi@netdoor.com> From: Kepi <kepi@netdoor.com> Subject: Nations at UN conference suggest SWAT teams to handle Y2K crises Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable Source: Star-Telegram.Com http://www.star-telegram.com/news/doc/1047/1:COMP73/1:COMP73121298.html Updated: Saturday, Dec. 12, 1998 at 17:58 CST Nations at UN conference suggest SWAT teams to handle Y2K crises By Leslie J. Nicholson Knight Ridder Newspapers NEW YORK -- In a stark demonstration of the global scale of the Year 2000 computer problem, representatives of 130 nations gathered at the United Nations Friday to hammer out plans for dealing with Y2K. The ideas included setting up national and international "SWAT teams" to handle crises caused by the computer glitch. The U.N. conference marked the first such gathering of Y2K coordinators from several nations, including many developing countries that lag far behind the United States in remediation efforts. Y2K refers to a programming glitch that will cause some computers, softwar= e programs and microprocessors to interpret the abbreviated date 00 as 1900 rather than 2000. The result could be incorrect data processing and equipment malfunctions. "We all know that we are competing in a race against time," said Pakistani ambassador Ahmad Kamal, who hosted the conference. "Despite all the effort= s and committed work of individuals and institutions, we are far from the objective of ensuring Y2K compliance by the inflexible deadline of Dec. 31= , 1999." Fixing Y2K problems is a daunting task that involves rewriting computer codes and potentially replacing billions of microchips. U.N. Undersecretary-general Joseph E. Connor called Y2K the largest computer project in the 50-year history of the information-technology industry, but said predicting its effects accurately was impossible. He said the global cost of fixing Y2K problems could reach as high as $600 billion with an additional $1.4 trillion going for litigation. "There's no way to draw on past experience and predict what is going to fail and what consequences these failures will have," Connor said. "All we know for sure is the timing." He said nations should attack Y2K on two fronts: by deciding which systems are critical and fixing them first, and by developing contingency plans fo= r coping with computer failures. "We have to get used to the fact that some systems and facilities will not be addressed," Connor said. Delegates spent most of the day in closed-door sessions to discuss Y2K problems affecting specific industries and regions and released few detail= s of those meetings. One goal was to organize on a regional basis, including implementing the SWAT-team idea. Kamal told reporters that such teams woul= d help nations deal with problems that cross borders, such as regional power grid failures. "You cannot stop at the political border of a country," he said. Distributed by The Associated Press (AP) =A9 1998 Star-Telegram ### =A9~=A9~=A9~=A9~=A9~=A9~=A9~=A9~=A9~=A9~=A9~=A9~=A9~=A9~=A9~=A9~=A9~=A9~= =A9~=A9~=A9~=A9~=A9~=A9 **COPYRIGHT NOTICE** In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, any copyrighted work in this message is distributed under fair use without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receivin= g the included information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. [ Ref. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml ] =A9~=A9~=A9~=A9~=A9~=A9~=A9~=A9~=A9~=A9~=A9~=A9~=A9~=A9~=A9~=A9~=A9~=A9~= =A9~=A9~=A9~=A9~=A9~=A9 --part0_914877258_boundary-- -> Send "subscribe snetnews " to majordomo@world.std.com -> Posted by: USCMike1@aol.com
Vladimir Z. Nuri wrote:
From: USCMike1@aol.com
NEW YORK -- In a stark demonstration of the global scale of the Year 2000 computer problem, representatives of 130 nations gathered at the United Nations Friday to hammer out plans for dealing with Y2K.
The ideas included setting up national and international "SWAT teams" to handle crises caused by the computer glitch.
The U.N. conference marked the first such gathering of Y2K coordinators from several nations, including many developing countries that lag far behind the United States in remediation efforts.
Y2K refers to a programming glitch that will cause some computers, softwar= e programs and microprocessors to interpret the abbreviated date 00 as 1900 rather than 2000. The result could be incorrect data processing and equipment malfunctions.
Is is (approximately) known how many percent of the owners of computer systems have ever tried with some test cases to find out whether their hardware/software could be susceptible to the Y2K problem? I guess such tests would deliver some confidence intervals of whether the problem could actually arise at 2000. M. K. Shen
At 10:15 AM 12/29/98 +0100, Mok-Kong Shen wrote: --snip of magnanimous import--
Is is (approximately) known how many percent of the owners of computer systems have ever tried with some test cases to find out whether their hardware/software could be susceptible to the Y2K problem? I guess such tests would deliver some confidence intervals of whether the problem could actually arise at 2000.
What, you trying to downplay the tumult and ? that y2k will cause??? the fearmongerers will not be happy with you. They want everyone to be begging them for mercy, safety, deliverance from the y2k bug. What? you say consumers should actually test their own shit? You forgot to mention the outside consultants who should be brought in at xyz dollars per hour. To think that Joel and Janice Consumer might actually be able to test their own equipment for y2k compliance. y2k is coming, or else!!! (read, it will be manufactured if it does not eventualize itself). Reeza! ============================================================================ DH Key available upon request. The affairs of Men rarely rely on the dictates of logic, or even common sense. "Yeah, they mostly rely on something below the belt." -- my older sister
Reeza! wrote:
At 10:15 AM 12/29/98 +0100, Mok-Kong Shen wrote: --snip of magnanimous import--
Is is (approximately) known how many percent of the owners of computer systems have ever tried with some test cases to find out whether their hardware/software could be susceptible to the Y2K problem? I guess such tests would deliver some confidence intervals of whether the problem could actually arise at 2000.
What, you trying to downplay the tumult and ? that y2k will cause??? the fearmongerers will not be happy with you. They want everyone to be begging them for mercy, safety, deliverance from the y2k bug.
What? you say consumers should actually test their own shit? You forgot to mention the outside consultants who should be brought in at xyz dollars per hour. To think that Joel and Janice Consumer might actually be able to test their own equipment for y2k compliance.
y2k is coming, or else!!! (read, it will be manufactured if it does not eventualize itself).
In WHICH word I wrote I was downplaying??? I think you are up-playing! Are you a consultant, desiring to earn money? If not, then try to keep discussion to real matters of the problem. M. K. Shen
At 04:54 PM 12/29/98 +0100, Mok-Kong Shen wrote:
In WHICH word I wrote I was downplaying??? I think you are up-playing! Are you a consultant, desiring to earn money? If not, then try to keep discussion to real matters of the problem.
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,,,, Reeza! ============================================================================ The affairs of Men rarely rely on the dictates of logic, or even common sense. "Yeah, they mostly rely on something below the belt." -- my older sister "Shhhhh. You're flooding my inbox with crap. How about giving it a rest for a bit? I know you're probably bored wherever you are, but please." -- krys
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
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.
aside from the humor (which I agree on) you might be right. someone said not too long ago that the real y2k problem is in the people's mind. test yourself: born in the summer of '68, the 70s, sign with name and date: 28.12.98 <signature>. people THINK two numbers, which might be the real reason so much software is written using two bytes.
participants (4)
-
Mok-Kong Shen -
Reeza! -
Tom Vogt -
Vladimir Z. Nuri