<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_01_01_0157220</id>
	<title>The Long Shadow of Y2K</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1262350320000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="http://hughpickens.com/" rel="nofollow">Hugh Pickens</a> writes <i>"It seems like it was only yesterday when the entire world was abuzz about the looming catastrophe of Y2K that had us both panicked and prepared. Ten Years ago there were doomsday predictions that planes would fall from the sky and electric grids would go black, forced into obsolescence by the inability of computers to recognize the precise moment that 1999 rolled over to 2000 and for many it was a time to feel anxious about getting money out of bank accounts and fuel out of gas pumps. "Nobody really understood what impact it was going to have, <a href="http://wcco.com/local/remembering.y2k.2000.2.1399549.html">when that clock rolled over and those digits went to zero</a>. There was a lot of speculation they would reset back to 1900," says  IT professional. Jake DeWoskin. <a href="http://news.idg.no/cw/art.cfm?id=DB3E7A7D-1A64-67EA-E46DAAA4FD7AA244">The Y2K bug may have been IT's moment in the sun, but it also cast a long shadow in its wake</a> as the years and months leading up to it were a hard slog for virtually everyone in IT, from project managers to programmers."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hugh Pickens writes " It seems like it was only yesterday when the entire world was abuzz about the looming catastrophe of Y2K that had us both panicked and prepared .
Ten Years ago there were doomsday predictions that planes would fall from the sky and electric grids would go black , forced into obsolescence by the inability of computers to recognize the precise moment that 1999 rolled over to 2000 and for many it was a time to feel anxious about getting money out of bank accounts and fuel out of gas pumps .
" Nobody really understood what impact it was going to have , when that clock rolled over and those digits went to zero .
There was a lot of speculation they would reset back to 1900 , " says IT professional .
Jake DeWoskin .
The Y2K bug may have been IT 's moment in the sun , but it also cast a long shadow in its wake as the years and months leading up to it were a hard slog for virtually everyone in IT , from project managers to programmers .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hugh Pickens writes "It seems like it was only yesterday when the entire world was abuzz about the looming catastrophe of Y2K that had us both panicked and prepared.
Ten Years ago there were doomsday predictions that planes would fall from the sky and electric grids would go black, forced into obsolescence by the inability of computers to recognize the precise moment that 1999 rolled over to 2000 and for many it was a time to feel anxious about getting money out of bank accounts and fuel out of gas pumps.
"Nobody really understood what impact it was going to have, when that clock rolled over and those digits went to zero.
There was a lot of speculation they would reset back to 1900," says  IT professional.
Jake DeWoskin.
The Y2K bug may have been IT's moment in the sun, but it also cast a long shadow in its wake as the years and months leading up to it were a hard slog for virtually everyone in IT, from project managers to programmers.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30613730</id>
	<title>My Name Is Earl - Y2K ep. 19</title>
	<author>Rick Richardson</author>
	<datestamp>1262356620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Earl decides to make up for #24, "Stole a red 'Take-a-number' machine" from a local Bargain Bag. He brings along Donny Jones and Joy and Darnell to help cross the item off. However, Randy runs into the store and takes the ticket machine from him, not wanting to part with it. Earl remembers back to why Randy did not want to part with it; in Christmas 1999 Earl stole presents from a house while Joy, Donny and Randy distracted the family with carols. They go back to the Crab Shack, where Darnell explains Y2K to them, and says that life will not be able to continue without computers, all of which will break down. They all decided to stock up on supplies, and hide in Donny's sister's basement. As the timer hit midnight, all the lights in the house went out. They all thought that the Y2K myth was happening, but in fact it just happened because Donny's sister had not paid her electric bill, and her electricity ran out on January 1, 2000.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Earl decides to make up for # 24 , " Stole a red 'Take-a-number ' machine " from a local Bargain Bag .
He brings along Donny Jones and Joy and Darnell to help cross the item off .
However , Randy runs into the store and takes the ticket machine from him , not wanting to part with it .
Earl remembers back to why Randy did not want to part with it ; in Christmas 1999 Earl stole presents from a house while Joy , Donny and Randy distracted the family with carols .
They go back to the Crab Shack , where Darnell explains Y2K to them , and says that life will not be able to continue without computers , all of which will break down .
They all decided to stock up on supplies , and hide in Donny 's sister 's basement .
As the timer hit midnight , all the lights in the house went out .
They all thought that the Y2K myth was happening , but in fact it just happened because Donny 's sister had not paid her electric bill , and her electricity ran out on January 1 , 2000 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Earl decides to make up for #24, "Stole a red 'Take-a-number' machine" from a local Bargain Bag.
He brings along Donny Jones and Joy and Darnell to help cross the item off.
However, Randy runs into the store and takes the ticket machine from him, not wanting to part with it.
Earl remembers back to why Randy did not want to part with it; in Christmas 1999 Earl stole presents from a house while Joy, Donny and Randy distracted the family with carols.
They go back to the Crab Shack, where Darnell explains Y2K to them, and says that life will not be able to continue without computers, all of which will break down.
They all decided to stock up on supplies, and hide in Donny's sister's basement.
As the timer hit midnight, all the lights in the house went out.
They all thought that the Y2K myth was happening, but in fact it just happened because Donny's sister had not paid her electric bill, and her electricity ran out on January 1, 2000.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30615412</id>
	<title>Re:My findings on Y2K hype.</title>
	<author>wwphx</author>
	<datestamp>1262376300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Agreed.  Most was hype.  There were big problems, but they were addressed and remediated, the stuff that wasn't caught was cleaned up very quickly.  What was funny was a friend of mine who was a veteran computer guy, though to be fair, more hardware/networking than from the programming/admin side, moved to Idaho.  Apparently he had two generators, who knows how many gallons of fuel, a year's worth of MREs, and thousands upon thousands of rounds of ammo.  All for naught.<br> <br>

The one that gets me was Prez Bush changing daylight savings time.  So many controllers have dates burned in to ROM, and twice every year thermostats are wonky and many electronic time clocks are off for a couple of weeks.<br> <br>

I really wish Obama would cancel that Bush order as it's been proven that it did not save any energy, but he has plenty of other problems he needs to deal with.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Agreed .
Most was hype .
There were big problems , but they were addressed and remediated , the stuff that was n't caught was cleaned up very quickly .
What was funny was a friend of mine who was a veteran computer guy , though to be fair , more hardware/networking than from the programming/admin side , moved to Idaho .
Apparently he had two generators , who knows how many gallons of fuel , a year 's worth of MREs , and thousands upon thousands of rounds of ammo .
All for naught .
The one that gets me was Prez Bush changing daylight savings time .
So many controllers have dates burned in to ROM , and twice every year thermostats are wonky and many electronic time clocks are off for a couple of weeks .
I really wish Obama would cancel that Bush order as it 's been proven that it did not save any energy , but he has plenty of other problems he needs to deal with .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Agreed.
Most was hype.
There were big problems, but they were addressed and remediated, the stuff that wasn't caught was cleaned up very quickly.
What was funny was a friend of mine who was a veteran computer guy, though to be fair, more hardware/networking than from the programming/admin side, moved to Idaho.
Apparently he had two generators, who knows how many gallons of fuel, a year's worth of MREs, and thousands upon thousands of rounds of ammo.
All for naught.
The one that gets me was Prez Bush changing daylight savings time.
So many controllers have dates burned in to ROM, and twice every year thermostats are wonky and many electronic time clocks are off for a couple of weeks.
I really wish Obama would cancel that Bush order as it's been proven that it did not save any energy, but he has plenty of other problems he needs to deal with.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30613808</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30614148</id>
	<title>See If You Can Find.....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262362500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>On Y2K day, the website calendar of the US Naval Observatory (our observational time keeping experts; National Bureau of Standards count them, these guys tell us when they start and stop and need readjusting) read JAN 1, 19001.</p><p>See if there's still a screen capture of that around, I know several circulated back then. Then if anyone challenges you, simply show it to them and say "We didn't oversell. We got it right. They didn't."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>On Y2K day , the website calendar of the US Naval Observatory ( our observational time keeping experts ; National Bureau of Standards count them , these guys tell us when they start and stop and need readjusting ) read JAN 1 , 19001.See if there 's still a screen capture of that around , I know several circulated back then .
Then if anyone challenges you , simply show it to them and say " We did n't oversell .
We got it right .
They did n't .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On Y2K day, the website calendar of the US Naval Observatory (our observational time keeping experts; National Bureau of Standards count them, these guys tell us when they start and stop and need readjusting) read JAN 1, 19001.See if there's still a screen capture of that around, I know several circulated back then.
Then if anyone challenges you, simply show it to them and say "We didn't oversell.
We got it right.
They didn't.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30613920</id>
	<title>Try another kind of moment in the sun</title>
	<author>drinkypoo</author>
	<datestamp>1262359320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>OK, I know a moment in the sun is one in which you are illuminated, the brightest thing in the room. But let's try another meaning; basking in the sun on a tropical beach. For me, IT's moment in the sun is when everything is working and there's nothing to do but dream up what the future may hold.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>OK , I know a moment in the sun is one in which you are illuminated , the brightest thing in the room .
But let 's try another meaning ; basking in the sun on a tropical beach .
For me , IT 's moment in the sun is when everything is working and there 's nothing to do but dream up what the future may hold .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>OK, I know a moment in the sun is one in which you are illuminated, the brightest thing in the room.
But let's try another meaning; basking in the sun on a tropical beach.
For me, IT's moment in the sun is when everything is working and there's nothing to do but dream up what the future may hold.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30615060</id>
	<title>Re:This kind of hype was exactly the problem</title>
	<author>Radtoo</author>
	<datestamp>1262372460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Not really. For diseases with an purported global scale, ways of transmission that could not realistically be averted by most people, and visible symptoms, we surely can tell if a vaccination was successful. There always will be people that were not vaccinated and people where the vaccination statistically should not have worked (we know no vaccination would ever work 100\%), and if they show symptoms, many of them will be recorded for sure.<br>

What is hard to tell is really not whether a vaccination was useful in retrospective, but predicting in advance how deadly a disease is, and how much / how fast it will spread and how it will mutate.<br> <br>

Now, Y2K was was the same - it might have been a severe problem that was fixed in advance, or something that happened in some cases but was never observed on the outside. Sure, most programs were actually not affected in the first place, but as for the ones that actually were affected, we can expect companies to have been able to find and fix them. Usually, testing it would only require setting some clocks to a few seconds before 2000, after all. Add to this that companies would not be interested in announcing minor problems to the public, and international or even national news could care less about minor problems, and it should be obvious why this might be some problem you never heard about even when it existed or happened.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Not really .
For diseases with an purported global scale , ways of transmission that could not realistically be averted by most people , and visible symptoms , we surely can tell if a vaccination was successful .
There always will be people that were not vaccinated and people where the vaccination statistically should not have worked ( we know no vaccination would ever work 100 \ % ) , and if they show symptoms , many of them will be recorded for sure .
What is hard to tell is really not whether a vaccination was useful in retrospective , but predicting in advance how deadly a disease is , and how much / how fast it will spread and how it will mutate .
Now , Y2K was was the same - it might have been a severe problem that was fixed in advance , or something that happened in some cases but was never observed on the outside .
Sure , most programs were actually not affected in the first place , but as for the ones that actually were affected , we can expect companies to have been able to find and fix them .
Usually , testing it would only require setting some clocks to a few seconds before 2000 , after all .
Add to this that companies would not be interested in announcing minor problems to the public , and international or even national news could care less about minor problems , and it should be obvious why this might be some problem you never heard about even when it existed or happened .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not really.
For diseases with an purported global scale, ways of transmission that could not realistically be averted by most people, and visible symptoms, we surely can tell if a vaccination was successful.
There always will be people that were not vaccinated and people where the vaccination statistically should not have worked (we know no vaccination would ever work 100\%), and if they show symptoms, many of them will be recorded for sure.
What is hard to tell is really not whether a vaccination was useful in retrospective, but predicting in advance how deadly a disease is, and how much / how fast it will spread and how it will mutate.
Now, Y2K was was the same - it might have been a severe problem that was fixed in advance, or something that happened in some cases but was never observed on the outside.
Sure, most programs were actually not affected in the first place, but as for the ones that actually were affected, we can expect companies to have been able to find and fix them.
Usually, testing it would only require setting some clocks to a few seconds before 2000, after all.
Add to this that companies would not be interested in announcing minor problems to the public, and international or even national news could care less about minor problems, and it should be obvious why this might be some problem you never heard about even when it existed or happened.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30614162</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30613752</id>
	<title>Re:What about epoch + 2G?</title>
	<author>Opportunist</author>
	<datestamp>1262356920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But that's another 28 years plus a few days. That's a lot of time, we will worry about that later...</p><p>Why'd you think it will be different? Wait 'til at least 2037 with your doomsday hype, nobody will care any moment earlier.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But that 's another 28 years plus a few days .
That 's a lot of time , we will worry about that later...Why 'd you think it will be different ?
Wait 'til at least 2037 with your doomsday hype , nobody will care any moment earlier .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But that's another 28 years plus a few days.
That's a lot of time, we will worry about that later...Why'd you think it will be different?
Wait 'til at least 2037 with your doomsday hype, nobody will care any moment earlier.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30613584</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30616210</id>
	<title>Re:Not oversold: success</title>
	<author>Jaime2</author>
	<datestamp>1262340660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't buy this.  Almost nothing happened on Jan 1, 2000.  If the problem was real and really deserved the effort we put into it, we should have seen at least 0.01\% of the events not get fixed.  I would expect that well-funded entities like governments would be hit least hard and people out in the third world that had one ancient computer running some piece of equipment to be hit at like a 10\% rate.  The reality was that almost nothing happened anywhere.  "We fixed it" just doesn't make sense.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't buy this .
Almost nothing happened on Jan 1 , 2000 .
If the problem was real and really deserved the effort we put into it , we should have seen at least 0.01 \ % of the events not get fixed .
I would expect that well-funded entities like governments would be hit least hard and people out in the third world that had one ancient computer running some piece of equipment to be hit at like a 10 \ % rate .
The reality was that almost nothing happened anywhere .
" We fixed it " just does n't make sense .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't buy this.
Almost nothing happened on Jan 1, 2000.
If the problem was real and really deserved the effort we put into it, we should have seen at least 0.01\% of the events not get fixed.
I would expect that well-funded entities like governments would be hit least hard and people out in the third world that had one ancient computer running some piece of equipment to be hit at like a 10\% rate.
The reality was that almost nothing happened anywhere.
"We fixed it" just doesn't make sense.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30613688</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30615350</id>
	<title>Re:This kind of hype was exactly the problem</title>
	<author>jbolden</author>
	<datestamp>1262375760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The FAA didn't think planes falling out of the sky was an exaggeration.  The system air traffic controllers used wasn't Y2K compliant.  Had the fixes not happened at midnight of 2000 the airtraffic controllers would have radars full of planes that they couldn't identify.</p><p>Would there have been a crash under those circumstances?  Probably.  Hundreds, no.  But one, yeah I don't that was unreasonable.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The FAA did n't think planes falling out of the sky was an exaggeration .
The system air traffic controllers used was n't Y2K compliant .
Had the fixes not happened at midnight of 2000 the airtraffic controllers would have radars full of planes that they could n't identify.Would there have been a crash under those circumstances ?
Probably. Hundreds , no .
But one , yeah I do n't that was unreasonable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The FAA didn't think planes falling out of the sky was an exaggeration.
The system air traffic controllers used wasn't Y2K compliant.
Had the fixes not happened at midnight of 2000 the airtraffic controllers would have radars full of planes that they couldn't identify.Would there have been a crash under those circumstances?
Probably.  Hundreds, no.
But one, yeah I don't that was unreasonable.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30613682</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30614750</id>
	<title>Re:This kind of hype was exactly the problem</title>
	<author>ucblockhead</author>
	<datestamp>1262368920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That idiot CIO's quote makes me livid.  I worked in IT in '99 (I mean worked, not blathered or "managed") and as such spent a good couple months on Y2K issues.  I was given the task of surveying a large portion of my company's software.  I did this.  In '99, I knew *exactly* what would happen if not updated down to the line number of broken code.  I duly created my report, which listed every damn issue in the software.  Most were stupid cosmetic crap like reports that would say "19100".  There were two major data errors that would have caused data corruption, but both were almost trivial to fix.</p><p>Y2K was a real issue, and serious things might have happened had it not been addressed, but for the most part it was a simple bug-hunt.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>That idiot CIO 's quote makes me livid .
I worked in IT in '99 ( I mean worked , not blathered or " managed " ) and as such spent a good couple months on Y2K issues .
I was given the task of surveying a large portion of my company 's software .
I did this .
In '99 , I knew * exactly * what would happen if not updated down to the line number of broken code .
I duly created my report , which listed every damn issue in the software .
Most were stupid cosmetic crap like reports that would say " 19100 " .
There were two major data errors that would have caused data corruption , but both were almost trivial to fix.Y2K was a real issue , and serious things might have happened had it not been addressed , but for the most part it was a simple bug-hunt .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That idiot CIO's quote makes me livid.
I worked in IT in '99 (I mean worked, not blathered or "managed") and as such spent a good couple months on Y2K issues.
I was given the task of surveying a large portion of my company's software.
I did this.
In '99, I knew *exactly* what would happen if not updated down to the line number of broken code.
I duly created my report, which listed every damn issue in the software.
Most were stupid cosmetic crap like reports that would say "19100".
There were two major data errors that would have caused data corruption, but both were almost trivial to fix.Y2K was a real issue, and serious things might have happened had it not been addressed, but for the most part it was a simple bug-hunt.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30613560</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30615328</id>
	<title>Re:This kind of hype was exactly the problem</title>
	<author>AK Marc</author>
	<datestamp>1262375460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>Painting doomsday scenarios that were lapped up by the gullible - or those who enjoy nothing more than making a crisis out of a molehill.</i> <br> <br>But the doomsday was real.  If nothing had been done to patch any system after, say, 1995, then when 2000 rolled around, the systems that held records would be wrong.  Future transactions would pre-date past transactions and the mess would take years to clear up.  Essential services would see actual wrong information being pumped through, and that would cause failsafes to kick in, cutting power and water.  If nothing at all was done then there would have been a massive problem.<br> <br>As it was, I watched the ball fall from the comfort of my living room.  When it struck 2, the power went out.  I never could figure out why.  So I know for a fact that essential services did fail at midnight.  Please feel free to investigate, I never could get anyone to give me an answer.  This was the Preston Hollow neighborhood in Dallas, TX.  I know it happened there, and I never heard about it after, so I can only assume there were other very real problems that no one ever talked about.  I know it wasn't the rest of the city because I could see the glow of lights.<br> <br>And then, I worked IT at the time, and we used it as an excuse to throw away computers that were old (not compliant).  We visited offices that the IT department hadn't visited before (there were some 2 and 3 person sales offices spread around the country).  And if we didn't do our job, we'd have emails with incorrect timestamps and no one could use calendars correctly.  Not the end of the world, but when the CEO hears about Y2K on the news, he gives a blank check to his workers to make sure nothing happens.<br> <br>I guess that's the problem with risk management.  When you are right, people hate you (you spent money and nothing happens).  People blame IT for predicting trouble if nothing is done.  Things are done, and the trouble was mostly addressed.  So they spent money and got nothing in return.  I'm curious what these people think risk management is.  That's what you pay for...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Painting doomsday scenarios that were lapped up by the gullible - or those who enjoy nothing more than making a crisis out of a molehill .
But the doomsday was real .
If nothing had been done to patch any system after , say , 1995 , then when 2000 rolled around , the systems that held records would be wrong .
Future transactions would pre-date past transactions and the mess would take years to clear up .
Essential services would see actual wrong information being pumped through , and that would cause failsafes to kick in , cutting power and water .
If nothing at all was done then there would have been a massive problem .
As it was , I watched the ball fall from the comfort of my living room .
When it struck 2 , the power went out .
I never could figure out why .
So I know for a fact that essential services did fail at midnight .
Please feel free to investigate , I never could get anyone to give me an answer .
This was the Preston Hollow neighborhood in Dallas , TX .
I know it happened there , and I never heard about it after , so I can only assume there were other very real problems that no one ever talked about .
I know it was n't the rest of the city because I could see the glow of lights .
And then , I worked IT at the time , and we used it as an excuse to throw away computers that were old ( not compliant ) .
We visited offices that the IT department had n't visited before ( there were some 2 and 3 person sales offices spread around the country ) .
And if we did n't do our job , we 'd have emails with incorrect timestamps and no one could use calendars correctly .
Not the end of the world , but when the CEO hears about Y2K on the news , he gives a blank check to his workers to make sure nothing happens .
I guess that 's the problem with risk management .
When you are right , people hate you ( you spent money and nothing happens ) .
People blame IT for predicting trouble if nothing is done .
Things are done , and the trouble was mostly addressed .
So they spent money and got nothing in return .
I 'm curious what these people think risk management is .
That 's what you pay for.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Painting doomsday scenarios that were lapped up by the gullible - or those who enjoy nothing more than making a crisis out of a molehill.
But the doomsday was real.
If nothing had been done to patch any system after, say, 1995, then when 2000 rolled around, the systems that held records would be wrong.
Future transactions would pre-date past transactions and the mess would take years to clear up.
Essential services would see actual wrong information being pumped through, and that would cause failsafes to kick in, cutting power and water.
If nothing at all was done then there would have been a massive problem.
As it was, I watched the ball fall from the comfort of my living room.
When it struck 2, the power went out.
I never could figure out why.
So I know for a fact that essential services did fail at midnight.
Please feel free to investigate, I never could get anyone to give me an answer.
This was the Preston Hollow neighborhood in Dallas, TX.
I know it happened there, and I never heard about it after, so I can only assume there were other very real problems that no one ever talked about.
I know it wasn't the rest of the city because I could see the glow of lights.
And then, I worked IT at the time, and we used it as an excuse to throw away computers that were old (not compliant).
We visited offices that the IT department hadn't visited before (there were some 2 and 3 person sales offices spread around the country).
And if we didn't do our job, we'd have emails with incorrect timestamps and no one could use calendars correctly.
Not the end of the world, but when the CEO hears about Y2K on the news, he gives a blank check to his workers to make sure nothing happens.
I guess that's the problem with risk management.
When you are right, people hate you (you spent money and nothing happens).
People blame IT for predicting trouble if nothing is done.
Things are done, and the trouble was mostly addressed.
So they spent money and got nothing in return.
I'm curious what these people think risk management is.
That's what you pay for...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30613560</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30613766</id>
	<title>100 billion nationwide!!!</title>
	<author>es0vyr4fVY9LD8ub</author>
	<datestamp>1262357100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I had no idea that we, the proud people of Tuvalu, had spent so much to prevent the apocalypse of Y2K.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I had no idea that we , the proud people of Tuvalu , had spent so much to prevent the apocalypse of Y2K .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I had no idea that we, the proud people of Tuvalu, had spent so much to prevent the apocalypse of Y2K.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30615164</id>
	<title>Re:See If You Can Find.....</title>
	<author>Damhna</author>
	<datestamp>1262373720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My Lycos-fu is not what it used to be.</p><p>Closest I could come was this:</p><p><a href="http://metrologyforum.tm.agilent.com/news2000.shtml" title="agilent.com" rel="nofollow">http://metrologyforum.tm.agilent.com/news2000.shtml</a> [agilent.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My Lycos-fu is not what it used to be.Closest I could come was this : http : //metrologyforum.tm.agilent.com/news2000.shtml [ agilent.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My Lycos-fu is not what it used to be.Closest I could come was this:http://metrologyforum.tm.agilent.com/news2000.shtml [agilent.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30614148</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30615360</id>
	<title>Re:This kind of hype was exactly the problem</title>
	<author>colinrichardday</author>
	<datestamp>1262375760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Won't we have 64-bit processors by then (with 64-bit integers)? You can get a 64-bit laptop these days.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wo n't we have 64-bit processors by then ( with 64-bit integers ) ?
You can get a 64-bit laptop these days .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Won't we have 64-bit processors by then (with 64-bit integers)?
You can get a 64-bit laptop these days.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30614284</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30614278</id>
	<title>Re:This kind of hype was exactly the problem</title>
	<author>russotto</author>
	<datestamp>1262364060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Planes dropping out of the sky might of been an exaggeration by rumour mongers, (I'm not sure, anyone care to correct me?), but serious global problems aren't such a dumb idea as a result of a few major systems crashing.</p></div></blockquote><p>No planes would have literally dropped out of the sky; the actual aircraft control electronics weren't (hopefully still aren't) date dependent.  However I'm not sure if any navigation or ATC systems would have failed had no one addressed the Y2K issue, and that could have been messy.  Certainly Y2K issues in air traffic control systems \_were\_ corrected.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Planes dropping out of the sky might of been an exaggeration by rumour mongers , ( I 'm not sure , anyone care to correct me ?
) , but serious global problems are n't such a dumb idea as a result of a few major systems crashing.No planes would have literally dropped out of the sky ; the actual aircraft control electronics were n't ( hopefully still are n't ) date dependent .
However I 'm not sure if any navigation or ATC systems would have failed had no one addressed the Y2K issue , and that could have been messy .
Certainly Y2K issues in air traffic control systems \ _were \ _ corrected .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Planes dropping out of the sky might of been an exaggeration by rumour mongers, (I'm not sure, anyone care to correct me?
), but serious global problems aren't such a dumb idea as a result of a few major systems crashing.No planes would have literally dropped out of the sky; the actual aircraft control electronics weren't (hopefully still aren't) date dependent.
However I'm not sure if any navigation or ATC systems would have failed had no one addressed the Y2K issue, and that could have been messy.
Certainly Y2K issues in air traffic control systems \_were\_ corrected.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30613682</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30613682</id>
	<title>Re:This kind of hype was exactly the problem</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262356140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The reporters that had no idea still irritate me to this day when they mention Y2K. I've seen again and again supposedly enlightened reporters whimsically refer to Y2K as a big "myth". It was a serious problem and the reason nothing bad happened was down to the fact people did so much effort in preventing it. The hype (although blown our of proportion) was due to the truth that there was a genuine problem and it required a large amount of man power to fix it (and a large segment of companies waited until the last minute to fix it). And yet reporters go on spouting arrogantly how Y2K was a giant scam, or boogie man spread by IT.</p><p>Basically there are fools who only see money down a drain, because people have a tendency to ignore disasters unless they actually happen. Planes dropping out of the sky might of been an exaggeration by rumour mongers, (I'm not sure, anyone care to correct me?), but serious global problems aren't such a dumb idea as a result of a few major systems crashing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The reporters that had no idea still irritate me to this day when they mention Y2K .
I 've seen again and again supposedly enlightened reporters whimsically refer to Y2K as a big " myth " .
It was a serious problem and the reason nothing bad happened was down to the fact people did so much effort in preventing it .
The hype ( although blown our of proportion ) was due to the truth that there was a genuine problem and it required a large amount of man power to fix it ( and a large segment of companies waited until the last minute to fix it ) .
And yet reporters go on spouting arrogantly how Y2K was a giant scam , or boogie man spread by IT.Basically there are fools who only see money down a drain , because people have a tendency to ignore disasters unless they actually happen .
Planes dropping out of the sky might of been an exaggeration by rumour mongers , ( I 'm not sure , anyone care to correct me ?
) , but serious global problems are n't such a dumb idea as a result of a few major systems crashing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The reporters that had no idea still irritate me to this day when they mention Y2K.
I've seen again and again supposedly enlightened reporters whimsically refer to Y2K as a big "myth".
It was a serious problem and the reason nothing bad happened was down to the fact people did so much effort in preventing it.
The hype (although blown our of proportion) was due to the truth that there was a genuine problem and it required a large amount of man power to fix it (and a large segment of companies waited until the last minute to fix it).
And yet reporters go on spouting arrogantly how Y2K was a giant scam, or boogie man spread by IT.Basically there are fools who only see money down a drain, because people have a tendency to ignore disasters unless they actually happen.
Planes dropping out of the sky might of been an exaggeration by rumour mongers, (I'm not sure, anyone care to correct me?
), but serious global problems aren't such a dumb idea as a result of a few major systems crashing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30613560</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30614730</id>
	<title>Re:No-win situation</title>
	<author>Will.Woodhull</author>
	<datestamp>1262368740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>That's how I feel about the global warming issue. If we succeed in stopping the effects of climate change</p></div><p>Not to worry, we won't succeed. At this point it is accepted that we will be impacted by global climate change, and the concern is how to minimize it, and how to mitigate what will still happen no matter what we do from this point onward.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's how I feel about the global warming issue .
If we succeed in stopping the effects of climate changeNot to worry , we wo n't succeed .
At this point it is accepted that we will be impacted by global climate change , and the concern is how to minimize it , and how to mitigate what will still happen no matter what we do from this point onward .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's how I feel about the global warming issue.
If we succeed in stopping the effects of climate changeNot to worry, we won't succeed.
At this point it is accepted that we will be impacted by global climate change, and the concern is how to minimize it, and how to mitigate what will still happen no matter what we do from this point onward.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30613650</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30613728</id>
	<title>Better data representation</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262356620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why don't all the operating systems start supporting internal data representations that do not impose any upper or lower limit? Something like a null-terminated string equivalent of numbers and various data types?</p><p>Forget about n-bit integers or IEEE floating point numbers. Let's just design a logical format that supports ANY number, no matter how big or how small. It may be computational expensive, but at least we have a choice to not being bound by any arbitrary size limits like 2^32 ever again.</p><p>I always thought it's silly to have to pick between a short or long integer, or to pre-define the size of a database column, only to find out a year later that it's not big enough.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why do n't all the operating systems start supporting internal data representations that do not impose any upper or lower limit ?
Something like a null-terminated string equivalent of numbers and various data types ? Forget about n-bit integers or IEEE floating point numbers .
Let 's just design a logical format that supports ANY number , no matter how big or how small .
It may be computational expensive , but at least we have a choice to not being bound by any arbitrary size limits like 2 ^ 32 ever again.I always thought it 's silly to have to pick between a short or long integer , or to pre-define the size of a database column , only to find out a year later that it 's not big enough .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why don't all the operating systems start supporting internal data representations that do not impose any upper or lower limit?
Something like a null-terminated string equivalent of numbers and various data types?Forget about n-bit integers or IEEE floating point numbers.
Let's just design a logical format that supports ANY number, no matter how big or how small.
It may be computational expensive, but at least we have a choice to not being bound by any arbitrary size limits like 2^32 ever again.I always thought it's silly to have to pick between a short or long integer, or to pre-define the size of a database column, only to find out a year later that it's not big enough.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30613704</id>
	<title>Re:What about epoch + 2G?</title>
	<author>Threni</author>
	<datestamp>1262356260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nobody cares about websites failing, apart from those website owners perhaps.  Websites don't run power stations, guide planes etc.  If crooks have trouble selling their stolen tat on eBay for a few hours then that's something I can live with.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nobody cares about websites failing , apart from those website owners perhaps .
Websites do n't run power stations , guide planes etc .
If crooks have trouble selling their stolen tat on eBay for a few hours then that 's something I can live with .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nobody cares about websites failing, apart from those website owners perhaps.
Websites don't run power stations, guide planes etc.
If crooks have trouble selling their stolen tat on eBay for a few hours then that's something I can live with.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30613584</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30614044</id>
	<title>Re:My findings on Y2K hype.</title>
	<author>LaughingCoder</author>
	<datestamp>1262361000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>People were practically begging for the doom and gloom scenario.</p></div></blockquote><p>
You've got that right. Especially when there is money to be made, or power to be grabbed/transfered/co-opted. For a great example of this, see Man-made Global Warming (MGW).
<br> <br>
Over the years I've seen a number of these panics and I have learned to first consider who benefits from the mitigation. If they are the same ones who are screaming the loudest I become very suspicious. As far as MGW goes, the anti-capitalists and anti-Americans are quite prominant in the cast of doomsayers. Just something I observed. Did anybody else notice that the key "remediation" that came out of Copenhagen was for the "West" to agree to transfer untold billions to the developing nations?
<br> <br>
As regards Y2K, the consultant houses were very busy publishing papers predicting doom, unless of course we did the "smart" thing and hired them (at inflated rates due to the severity and time-critical aspect of the problem) to fix it. Now, I'm not saying Y2K was a myth. There were clearly issues that needed to be addressed. I was working as a developer in a fairly large medical device company at the time. We did a thorough code audit and found and fixed a number of problems -- most of which would have merely displayed funny dates to the user. But, if the problem were truly as massive and far-reaching as the shrillsters were claiming, there is *no way* we would have been so successful in cleaning it all up. Not possible. And so the problem, in reality, was significantly less serious than we were led to believe. And much wealth changed hands.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>People were practically begging for the doom and gloom scenario .
You 've got that right .
Especially when there is money to be made , or power to be grabbed/transfered/co-opted .
For a great example of this , see Man-made Global Warming ( MGW ) .
Over the years I 've seen a number of these panics and I have learned to first consider who benefits from the mitigation .
If they are the same ones who are screaming the loudest I become very suspicious .
As far as MGW goes , the anti-capitalists and anti-Americans are quite prominant in the cast of doomsayers .
Just something I observed .
Did anybody else notice that the key " remediation " that came out of Copenhagen was for the " West " to agree to transfer untold billions to the developing nations ?
As regards Y2K , the consultant houses were very busy publishing papers predicting doom , unless of course we did the " smart " thing and hired them ( at inflated rates due to the severity and time-critical aspect of the problem ) to fix it .
Now , I 'm not saying Y2K was a myth .
There were clearly issues that needed to be addressed .
I was working as a developer in a fairly large medical device company at the time .
We did a thorough code audit and found and fixed a number of problems -- most of which would have merely displayed funny dates to the user .
But , if the problem were truly as massive and far-reaching as the shrillsters were claiming , there is * no way * we would have been so successful in cleaning it all up .
Not possible .
And so the problem , in reality , was significantly less serious than we were led to believe .
And much wealth changed hands .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People were practically begging for the doom and gloom scenario.
You've got that right.
Especially when there is money to be made, or power to be grabbed/transfered/co-opted.
For a great example of this, see Man-made Global Warming (MGW).
Over the years I've seen a number of these panics and I have learned to first consider who benefits from the mitigation.
If they are the same ones who are screaming the loudest I become very suspicious.
As far as MGW goes, the anti-capitalists and anti-Americans are quite prominant in the cast of doomsayers.
Just something I observed.
Did anybody else notice that the key "remediation" that came out of Copenhagen was for the "West" to agree to transfer untold billions to the developing nations?
As regards Y2K, the consultant houses were very busy publishing papers predicting doom, unless of course we did the "smart" thing and hired them (at inflated rates due to the severity and time-critical aspect of the problem) to fix it.
Now, I'm not saying Y2K was a myth.
There were clearly issues that needed to be addressed.
I was working as a developer in a fairly large medical device company at the time.
We did a thorough code audit and found and fixed a number of problems -- most of which would have merely displayed funny dates to the user.
But, if the problem were truly as massive and far-reaching as the shrillsters were claiming, there is *no way* we would have been so successful in cleaning it all up.
Not possible.
And so the problem, in reality, was significantly less serious than we were led to believe.
And much wealth changed hands.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30613808</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30615092</id>
	<title>Re:The threat was real.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262372760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Mod parent up.  One Y2k bug slipped through the QA at a large company I worked for, it cost at least $40,000 per month plus whatever it cost to deploy a patch.  In March of 1996 a motor controller for another company I worked for failed, it essentially locked up.  AFAIK this motor controller was used in HVAC systems rather than elevators but still, it was date aware and it failed completely on March 32nd,1996!</p><p>What really happened at Y2K is that QA and reengineering efforts were so focused on Y2k/date issues that these fell below the the background noise of other bugs.  Software is horrendously buggy as is our economic system as are many human created systems.  But it's "good enough" and market forces along with FTC reporting guidelines are forcing companies into adopting a "good enough" model of business.</p><p>What surprised me was that during the first leap-year after Y2k, date related bugs were already resurfacing.  Because many companies adopted a "good enough" hack to slide the bad date window 10-30 years into the future, we will continue to see date related bugs.  But our society is so skewed towards big business that this won't appear on FTC profit reports and large companies can safely brush these problems under the rugs because most of the problems will affect the customer more than the business.  You'll be overbilled for cable, electricity, telephone service or you will be charged extra interest on your credit card, car loan or mortgage.  You'll be put on hold forever when you contact their customer support department in Bangalore because their queue system has a y2k glitch.  This will all be lost in the noise until someone notices that Joe Sixpack no longer has enough free pocket money to keep the economy going and then watch the economy spiral into the ground... wait a minute, sorry I should have posted this five years ago.  My bad!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Mod parent up .
One Y2k bug slipped through the QA at a large company I worked for , it cost at least $ 40,000 per month plus whatever it cost to deploy a patch .
In March of 1996 a motor controller for another company I worked for failed , it essentially locked up .
AFAIK this motor controller was used in HVAC systems rather than elevators but still , it was date aware and it failed completely on March 32nd,1996 ! What really happened at Y2K is that QA and reengineering efforts were so focused on Y2k/date issues that these fell below the the background noise of other bugs .
Software is horrendously buggy as is our economic system as are many human created systems .
But it 's " good enough " and market forces along with FTC reporting guidelines are forcing companies into adopting a " good enough " model of business.What surprised me was that during the first leap-year after Y2k , date related bugs were already resurfacing .
Because many companies adopted a " good enough " hack to slide the bad date window 10-30 years into the future , we will continue to see date related bugs .
But our society is so skewed towards big business that this wo n't appear on FTC profit reports and large companies can safely brush these problems under the rugs because most of the problems will affect the customer more than the business .
You 'll be overbilled for cable , electricity , telephone service or you will be charged extra interest on your credit card , car loan or mortgage .
You 'll be put on hold forever when you contact their customer support department in Bangalore because their queue system has a y2k glitch .
This will all be lost in the noise until someone notices that Joe Sixpack no longer has enough free pocket money to keep the economy going and then watch the economy spiral into the ground... wait a minute , sorry I should have posted this five years ago .
My bad !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mod parent up.
One Y2k bug slipped through the QA at a large company I worked for, it cost at least $40,000 per month plus whatever it cost to deploy a patch.
In March of 1996 a motor controller for another company I worked for failed, it essentially locked up.
AFAIK this motor controller was used in HVAC systems rather than elevators but still, it was date aware and it failed completely on March 32nd,1996!What really happened at Y2K is that QA and reengineering efforts were so focused on Y2k/date issues that these fell below the the background noise of other bugs.
Software is horrendously buggy as is our economic system as are many human created systems.
But it's "good enough" and market forces along with FTC reporting guidelines are forcing companies into adopting a "good enough" model of business.What surprised me was that during the first leap-year after Y2k, date related bugs were already resurfacing.
Because many companies adopted a "good enough" hack to slide the bad date window 10-30 years into the future, we will continue to see date related bugs.
But our society is so skewed towards big business that this won't appear on FTC profit reports and large companies can safely brush these problems under the rugs because most of the problems will affect the customer more than the business.
You'll be overbilled for cable, electricity, telephone service or you will be charged extra interest on your credit card, car loan or mortgage.
You'll be put on hold forever when you contact their customer support department in Bangalore because their queue system has a y2k glitch.
This will all be lost in the noise until someone notices that Joe Sixpack no longer has enough free pocket money to keep the economy going and then watch the economy spiral into the ground... wait a minute, sorry I should have posted this five years ago.
My bad!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30613952</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30613574</id>
	<title>Fine, have it your way.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262354700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Would you rather spend $x so those "computer nerds" keep your computers running, or pay them $30x after everything (literally, in some cases) crashes?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Would you rather spend $ x so those " computer nerds " keep your computers running , or pay them $ 30x after everything ( literally , in some cases ) crashes ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Would you rather spend $x so those "computer nerds" keep your computers running, or pay them $30x after everything (literally, in some cases) crashes?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30614010</id>
	<title>The 12/99 bug</title>
	<author>lucm</author>
	<datestamp>1262360640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In 99, a friend of mine was doing a live migration from a mainframe software that was too expensive to fix for Y2K. This was a critical billing system for the business so they had to keep the mainframe working until the migration to the new software was complete. The complex project was scheduled to be over on Dec 15.</p><p>What they did not expect was that the end-of-month calculation routine in the old software used a "clever" trick: add one month, remove one day...</p><p>So on Dec 1st the software went down in flames (and my friend did not get his Y2K bonus).</p><p>They called it the 12/99 bug.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In 99 , a friend of mine was doing a live migration from a mainframe software that was too expensive to fix for Y2K .
This was a critical billing system for the business so they had to keep the mainframe working until the migration to the new software was complete .
The complex project was scheduled to be over on Dec 15.What they did not expect was that the end-of-month calculation routine in the old software used a " clever " trick : add one month , remove one day...So on Dec 1st the software went down in flames ( and my friend did not get his Y2K bonus ) .They called it the 12/99 bug .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In 99, a friend of mine was doing a live migration from a mainframe software that was too expensive to fix for Y2K.
This was a critical billing system for the business so they had to keep the mainframe working until the migration to the new software was complete.
The complex project was scheduled to be over on Dec 15.What they did not expect was that the end-of-month calculation routine in the old software used a "clever" trick: add one month, remove one day...So on Dec 1st the software went down in flames (and my friend did not get his Y2K bonus).They called it the 12/99 bug.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30613990</id>
	<title>Re:This kind of hype was exactly the problem</title>
	<author>DoninIN</author>
	<datestamp>1262360460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>There was a substantial, real problem. That was fixed at great time and expense, a whole of "stuff" turned out to be obsolete and much of it became marginally less useful or truly obsolete. (Various small electronic really had two digit dates, somewhere on earth this made them less useful,when people really had a bunch of 1899 documents to keep separate from their 1999 docs, courthouses maybe?)
<p>
Then there was a second myth. County employee. "My PC is obsolete, Y2K I need a new one, some of the software isn't complaint, or not certified" These facts weren't necessarily lies, or even inaccurate, in the case of the vast majority of the PCs and replacement electronics I sold the stuff people were replacing was obsolete as hell whether Y2K was a real problem for it or not. Don't forget a lot of still deployed DOS programs and some windows 3.1 stuff was in fact not complaint as well. How much this would have been a real problem for anyone is debatable. So this one wasn't quite a myth, but a vast amount of repairs and upgrades and replacements got assigned to the "Y2K upgrade" when that wasn't really the cause.

<br>
Then there was a third<strong> GIANT </strong>myth somehow, a hundred million times people heard someone say that product X doesn't work after Y2K, and took that at face value. I got into a bit of an argument with a customer, I kept patiently explaining to him that his FAX machine would roll over to show 00 dates, and that the only problem this might cause him was that he might not be able to tell which faxes had arrived in the year 2000 and which had arrived in the year 1900, he was thoroughly convinced it was stop working when the numbers got to 00. In a less than professional moment I told him it didn't have any sort of anti-time travel device. Then I got him to try setting it to 00 and see if would in fact work. (Duh)
</p><p>
See that's the thing, elevators would plunge to the ground, planes would crash machines were going to STOP all these "embedded" systems and hidden devices, the machines we use constantly but don't see. Is our Air Compressor Y2K Complaint? We can't run the plant without air! No matter how many times you explained to people that devices like this were not in fact "certified" or "complaint" if there was in fact any date sensitive function in that equipment it would go on happily believing it was 1900, it was as if they all thought the clock had been set at the current date when these things were built and no one knew what was going to happen when it hit 00, or they had anti-time travel circuits that would shut them down if they found themselves in the years before they were invented. </p><p>
Your copier, your FAX machine, your air compressor, I liked to point out the really paranoid at the time that their generator wasn't Y2K complaint. A lot of this stuff wasn't date sensitive at all of course, even in the odd case where it happened to know what date it was, the consequences of this thing being "broken" were pretty non-existent. However if you added up the list price of all the embedded equipment that was non-complaint or certified it was a pretty staggering number. This was the number that got snowballed around and was used to scare people who weren't just abjectly stupid into getting worried, then it snowballed from there.
<br>
For the record when we came back from the break I had a customer who had an old PC with non-Y2K compliant BIOS and they used it for some forgotten but important application and was somehow date sensitive to them anyway. So I had to write them a batch file to set the date when they started the computer. The day was saved $25 was spent, cabinet parts could still be picked out according to the handy DOS software.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There was a substantial , real problem .
That was fixed at great time and expense , a whole of " stuff " turned out to be obsolete and much of it became marginally less useful or truly obsolete .
( Various small electronic really had two digit dates , somewhere on earth this made them less useful,when people really had a bunch of 1899 documents to keep separate from their 1999 docs , courthouses maybe ?
) Then there was a second myth .
County employee .
" My PC is obsolete , Y2K I need a new one , some of the software is n't complaint , or not certified " These facts were n't necessarily lies , or even inaccurate , in the case of the vast majority of the PCs and replacement electronics I sold the stuff people were replacing was obsolete as hell whether Y2K was a real problem for it or not .
Do n't forget a lot of still deployed DOS programs and some windows 3.1 stuff was in fact not complaint as well .
How much this would have been a real problem for anyone is debatable .
So this one was n't quite a myth , but a vast amount of repairs and upgrades and replacements got assigned to the " Y2K upgrade " when that was n't really the cause .
Then there was a third GIANT myth somehow , a hundred million times people heard someone say that product X does n't work after Y2K , and took that at face value .
I got into a bit of an argument with a customer , I kept patiently explaining to him that his FAX machine would roll over to show 00 dates , and that the only problem this might cause him was that he might not be able to tell which faxes had arrived in the year 2000 and which had arrived in the year 1900 , he was thoroughly convinced it was stop working when the numbers got to 00 .
In a less than professional moment I told him it did n't have any sort of anti-time travel device .
Then I got him to try setting it to 00 and see if would in fact work .
( Duh ) See that 's the thing , elevators would plunge to the ground , planes would crash machines were going to STOP all these " embedded " systems and hidden devices , the machines we use constantly but do n't see .
Is our Air Compressor Y2K Complaint ?
We ca n't run the plant without air !
No matter how many times you explained to people that devices like this were not in fact " certified " or " complaint " if there was in fact any date sensitive function in that equipment it would go on happily believing it was 1900 , it was as if they all thought the clock had been set at the current date when these things were built and no one knew what was going to happen when it hit 00 , or they had anti-time travel circuits that would shut them down if they found themselves in the years before they were invented .
Your copier , your FAX machine , your air compressor , I liked to point out the really paranoid at the time that their generator was n't Y2K complaint .
A lot of this stuff was n't date sensitive at all of course , even in the odd case where it happened to know what date it was , the consequences of this thing being " broken " were pretty non-existent .
However if you added up the list price of all the embedded equipment that was non-complaint or certified it was a pretty staggering number .
This was the number that got snowballed around and was used to scare people who were n't just abjectly stupid into getting worried , then it snowballed from there .
For the record when we came back from the break I had a customer who had an old PC with non-Y2K compliant BIOS and they used it for some forgotten but important application and was somehow date sensitive to them anyway .
So I had to write them a batch file to set the date when they started the computer .
The day was saved $ 25 was spent , cabinet parts could still be picked out according to the handy DOS software .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There was a substantial, real problem.
That was fixed at great time and expense, a whole of "stuff" turned out to be obsolete and much of it became marginally less useful or truly obsolete.
(Various small electronic really had two digit dates, somewhere on earth this made them less useful,when people really had a bunch of 1899 documents to keep separate from their 1999 docs, courthouses maybe?
)

Then there was a second myth.
County employee.
"My PC is obsolete, Y2K I need a new one, some of the software isn't complaint, or not certified" These facts weren't necessarily lies, or even inaccurate, in the case of the vast majority of the PCs and replacement electronics I sold the stuff people were replacing was obsolete as hell whether Y2K was a real problem for it or not.
Don't forget a lot of still deployed DOS programs and some windows 3.1 stuff was in fact not complaint as well.
How much this would have been a real problem for anyone is debatable.
So this one wasn't quite a myth, but a vast amount of repairs and upgrades and replacements got assigned to the "Y2K upgrade" when that wasn't really the cause.
Then there was a third GIANT myth somehow, a hundred million times people heard someone say that product X doesn't work after Y2K, and took that at face value.
I got into a bit of an argument with a customer, I kept patiently explaining to him that his FAX machine would roll over to show 00 dates, and that the only problem this might cause him was that he might not be able to tell which faxes had arrived in the year 2000 and which had arrived in the year 1900, he was thoroughly convinced it was stop working when the numbers got to 00.
In a less than professional moment I told him it didn't have any sort of anti-time travel device.
Then I got him to try setting it to 00 and see if would in fact work.
(Duh)

See that's the thing, elevators would plunge to the ground, planes would crash machines were going to STOP all these "embedded" systems and hidden devices, the machines we use constantly but don't see.
Is our Air Compressor Y2K Complaint?
We can't run the plant without air!
No matter how many times you explained to people that devices like this were not in fact "certified" or "complaint" if there was in fact any date sensitive function in that equipment it would go on happily believing it was 1900, it was as if they all thought the clock had been set at the current date when these things were built and no one knew what was going to happen when it hit 00, or they had anti-time travel circuits that would shut them down if they found themselves in the years before they were invented.
Your copier, your FAX machine, your air compressor, I liked to point out the really paranoid at the time that their generator wasn't Y2K complaint.
A lot of this stuff wasn't date sensitive at all of course, even in the odd case where it happened to know what date it was, the consequences of this thing being "broken" were pretty non-existent.
However if you added up the list price of all the embedded equipment that was non-complaint or certified it was a pretty staggering number.
This was the number that got snowballed around and was used to scare people who weren't just abjectly stupid into getting worried, then it snowballed from there.
For the record when we came back from the break I had a customer who had an old PC with non-Y2K compliant BIOS and they used it for some forgotten but important application and was somehow date sensitive to them anyway.
So I had to write them a batch file to set the date when they started the computer.
The day was saved $25 was spent, cabinet parts could still be picked out according to the handy DOS software.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30613682</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30615410</id>
	<title>Re:This kind of hype was exactly the problem</title>
	<author>jnork</author>
	<datestamp>1262376300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If I'm not mistaken, the GPS is the only control in an airplane that depends on the date. If the GPS fails you're dependent on charts, landmarks, and backup instruments to navigate, ground radar and radio, and the rest of your avionics if you have them. That gives you a bunch of other ground-based radio beacons and so on. A commercial jet is going to have backups of everything. Your average puddle jumper may not even HAVE a GPS. And it's possible for a GPS to fail in other ways -- losing track of the date is only one (unlikely) possible failure, and pilots are trained to use all the instruments in the plane, not just the most convenient one.</p><p>No. If an airplane falls out of the sky solely due to a GPS failure then it was flying with a bad crew.</p><p>Note: I speak not as an aviator or an expert but as somebody who makes realistic simulator equipment.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If I 'm not mistaken , the GPS is the only control in an airplane that depends on the date .
If the GPS fails you 're dependent on charts , landmarks , and backup instruments to navigate , ground radar and radio , and the rest of your avionics if you have them .
That gives you a bunch of other ground-based radio beacons and so on .
A commercial jet is going to have backups of everything .
Your average puddle jumper may not even HAVE a GPS .
And it 's possible for a GPS to fail in other ways -- losing track of the date is only one ( unlikely ) possible failure , and pilots are trained to use all the instruments in the plane , not just the most convenient one.No .
If an airplane falls out of the sky solely due to a GPS failure then it was flying with a bad crew.Note : I speak not as an aviator or an expert but as somebody who makes realistic simulator equipment .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I'm not mistaken, the GPS is the only control in an airplane that depends on the date.
If the GPS fails you're dependent on charts, landmarks, and backup instruments to navigate, ground radar and radio, and the rest of your avionics if you have them.
That gives you a bunch of other ground-based radio beacons and so on.
A commercial jet is going to have backups of everything.
Your average puddle jumper may not even HAVE a GPS.
And it's possible for a GPS to fail in other ways -- losing track of the date is only one (unlikely) possible failure, and pilots are trained to use all the instruments in the plane, not just the most convenient one.No.
If an airplane falls out of the sky solely due to a GPS failure then it was flying with a bad crew.Note: I speak not as an aviator or an expert but as somebody who makes realistic simulator equipment.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30613682</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30613550</id>
	<title>Just wait for the 2010 bug</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262354400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are still some bugs which will come up in 2010 in some financial systems. Wait and see in february march for surprises</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are still some bugs which will come up in 2010 in some financial systems .
Wait and see in february march for surprises</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are still some bugs which will come up in 2010 in some financial systems.
Wait and see in february march for surprises</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30613742</id>
	<title>Re:This kind of hype was exactly the problem</title>
	<author>Opportunist</author>
	<datestamp>1262356800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The difference is that back then all that hype meant was that a few old school nerds with cobol knowledge got rich quick. Today that hype means a loss of liberty by all.</p><p>Personally, I'd prefer the former. Not only because it could make me rich...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The difference is that back then all that hype meant was that a few old school nerds with cobol knowledge got rich quick .
Today that hype means a loss of liberty by all.Personally , I 'd prefer the former .
Not only because it could make me rich.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The difference is that back then all that hype meant was that a few old school nerds with cobol knowledge got rich quick.
Today that hype means a loss of liberty by all.Personally, I'd prefer the former.
Not only because it could make me rich...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30613560</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30613994</id>
	<title>I believe you are mistaken...</title>
	<author>gbutler69</author>
	<datestamp>1262360520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>...it is a signed int....it does support dates prior to 1970. Funny thing is you said, 1970 + 2 billion. It would be 1970 + 4 billion if it were unsigned.</htmltext>
<tokenext>...it is a signed int....it does support dates prior to 1970 .
Funny thing is you said , 1970 + 2 billion .
It would be 1970 + 4 billion if it were unsigned .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...it is a signed int....it does support dates prior to 1970.
Funny thing is you said, 1970 + 2 billion.
It would be 1970 + 4 billion if it were unsigned.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30613584</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30615102</id>
	<title>Re:My findings on Y2K hype.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262373000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"People were practically begging for the doom and gloom scenario. It gave me insight into the human condition, I'll say that for sure."</p><p>"I went to work armed, I was worried about crazies[....]"</p><p>Unsurprisingly, your criticism says more about you, sadly, than of others.</p><p>You *participated* in that doom and gloom by packing, and thus were one of the crazies, just of a different sort.  You hypocrtically thought little would happen but were still packing, which insured your personal safety (in you mind) in either scenario.</p><p>If you were so sure nothing was going to happen, and it was hype, and the crazies were wrong, (a) why were you scared enough or "prepared" yourself by packing, and (b) why would prepared crazies attack?  It's the unprepared which would have hung you out to dry, and the unprepared were the normals and spared your criticisms.</p><p>iow, it's quite odd to by critical of someone else's preparedness, while insuring that you yourself are prepared.  Your attitude is actually very much like the holier than thou who are sinning in the background, the cheaters who badmouth and prosecute, thus insuring their bad behavior is more profitable in the end.</p><p>I'm one of those people who try to be prepared.  My parents look at me like I'm nuts.  Except when there was an extended power outage.  And their crazy son comes over with the spare generator.  When I go on backpacking trips, I go somewhat light but it's still close to what fast and light packers call a pack mule.  It's strange, however, how many often times I end up helping myself and people out; often it's the fast and light who mooch.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" People were practically begging for the doom and gloom scenario .
It gave me insight into the human condition , I 'll say that for sure .
" " I went to work armed , I was worried about crazies [ .... ] " Unsurprisingly , your criticism says more about you , sadly , than of others.You * participated * in that doom and gloom by packing , and thus were one of the crazies , just of a different sort .
You hypocrtically thought little would happen but were still packing , which insured your personal safety ( in you mind ) in either scenario.If you were so sure nothing was going to happen , and it was hype , and the crazies were wrong , ( a ) why were you scared enough or " prepared " yourself by packing , and ( b ) why would prepared crazies attack ?
It 's the unprepared which would have hung you out to dry , and the unprepared were the normals and spared your criticisms.iow , it 's quite odd to by critical of someone else 's preparedness , while insuring that you yourself are prepared .
Your attitude is actually very much like the holier than thou who are sinning in the background , the cheaters who badmouth and prosecute , thus insuring their bad behavior is more profitable in the end.I 'm one of those people who try to be prepared .
My parents look at me like I 'm nuts .
Except when there was an extended power outage .
And their crazy son comes over with the spare generator .
When I go on backpacking trips , I go somewhat light but it 's still close to what fast and light packers call a pack mule .
It 's strange , however , how many often times I end up helping myself and people out ; often it 's the fast and light who mooch .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"People were practically begging for the doom and gloom scenario.
It gave me insight into the human condition, I'll say that for sure.
""I went to work armed, I was worried about crazies[....]"Unsurprisingly, your criticism says more about you, sadly, than of others.You *participated* in that doom and gloom by packing, and thus were one of the crazies, just of a different sort.
You hypocrtically thought little would happen but were still packing, which insured your personal safety (in you mind) in either scenario.If you were so sure nothing was going to happen, and it was hype, and the crazies were wrong, (a) why were you scared enough or "prepared" yourself by packing, and (b) why would prepared crazies attack?
It's the unprepared which would have hung you out to dry, and the unprepared were the normals and spared your criticisms.iow, it's quite odd to by critical of someone else's preparedness, while insuring that you yourself are prepared.
Your attitude is actually very much like the holier than thou who are sinning in the background, the cheaters who badmouth and prosecute, thus insuring their bad behavior is more profitable in the end.I'm one of those people who try to be prepared.
My parents look at me like I'm nuts.
Except when there was an extended power outage.
And their crazy son comes over with the spare generator.
When I go on backpacking trips, I go somewhat light but it's still close to what fast and light packers call a pack mule.
It's strange, however, how many often times I end up helping myself and people out; often it's the fast and light who mooch.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30613808</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30627874</id>
	<title>Re:Oversold?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262438820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>First and last post by this AC in this thread.</p><p>NO the danger was not oversold (actually it was deliberately undersold by all governments I know of) only misapplied by the uninformed press (the few members of the press who I know got told a bit too much did not spread it but instead complied with the government initiatives) and gobbled up by the equally uninformed public just as on so many other topics (I would say all topics really).</p><p>Chemical refineries.<br>Oil refineries.<br>Steel factories.<br>Nuclear plants.<br>Power infrastructure.<br>Water infrastructure.<br>Communications infrastructure.<br>Military command, control, infrastructure, and weapon systems.</p><p>That's the kind of places where the serious people including consultants were working. I know first-hand how much effort went into some of these in Europe and how hard it was because many "certified" replacement parts simply weren't trustworthy and failed when put to the test and also how shutting down some plants took a long time (months in some cases, and sometimes shutting down is not really an option at all).</p><p>Two days before New Year's fatalism spread like wildfire. Many of these people, perhaps even all of them, would have told you it was 50-50 at that moment despite all the work- Absolutely no one could with any degree of confidence say that everything would be ok, least of all within governments. No one dared sound the "all clear" in advance, and I don't think any government went any further that the usual cover-your-ass statements of feigned control. Many places had at this point simply been shut down due to a lack of time (triaging was employed from the start one and a half year earlier). After rollover many places did not start up again in weeks and some not in months.</p><p>Those who worked at the core of the problem lost years of their life and suffered depression, illness, and family difficulties afterwards, just like many of those most involved with the actual work in the early parts of the Apollo program (a story just as few are aware of).</p><p>Y2K would without any doubt have been the end of the world as we know it but due to tremendous effort that was hard to spot behind all the noise it was avoided. Thanks to the real efforts all that happened was stuff like the loss of an aging Pentagon/DoD satellite, some Japanese train lines shutting down for a small period, and mundane stuff all over the world like grandparents getting invited to start kindergarten etc.. It could have been a hell of a lot worse.</p><p>I don't know of a single truly affected company or service or ANY NATION that do not treat the details of their own experience of Y2K as highly confidential. People in general don't understand how to interpret that fact even when told about it. That information is not public and will never ever become public, I would be willing to bet it doesn't even exist any more.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>First and last post by this AC in this thread.NO the danger was not oversold ( actually it was deliberately undersold by all governments I know of ) only misapplied by the uninformed press ( the few members of the press who I know got told a bit too much did not spread it but instead complied with the government initiatives ) and gobbled up by the equally uninformed public just as on so many other topics ( I would say all topics really ) .Chemical refineries.Oil refineries.Steel factories.Nuclear plants.Power infrastructure.Water infrastructure.Communications infrastructure.Military command , control , infrastructure , and weapon systems.That 's the kind of places where the serious people including consultants were working .
I know first-hand how much effort went into some of these in Europe and how hard it was because many " certified " replacement parts simply were n't trustworthy and failed when put to the test and also how shutting down some plants took a long time ( months in some cases , and sometimes shutting down is not really an option at all ) .Two days before New Year 's fatalism spread like wildfire .
Many of these people , perhaps even all of them , would have told you it was 50-50 at that moment despite all the work- Absolutely no one could with any degree of confidence say that everything would be ok , least of all within governments .
No one dared sound the " all clear " in advance , and I do n't think any government went any further that the usual cover-your-ass statements of feigned control .
Many places had at this point simply been shut down due to a lack of time ( triaging was employed from the start one and a half year earlier ) .
After rollover many places did not start up again in weeks and some not in months.Those who worked at the core of the problem lost years of their life and suffered depression , illness , and family difficulties afterwards , just like many of those most involved with the actual work in the early parts of the Apollo program ( a story just as few are aware of ) .Y2K would without any doubt have been the end of the world as we know it but due to tremendous effort that was hard to spot behind all the noise it was avoided .
Thanks to the real efforts all that happened was stuff like the loss of an aging Pentagon/DoD satellite , some Japanese train lines shutting down for a small period , and mundane stuff all over the world like grandparents getting invited to start kindergarten etc.. It could have been a hell of a lot worse.I do n't know of a single truly affected company or service or ANY NATION that do not treat the details of their own experience of Y2K as highly confidential .
People in general do n't understand how to interpret that fact even when told about it .
That information is not public and will never ever become public , I would be willing to bet it does n't even exist any more .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First and last post by this AC in this thread.NO the danger was not oversold (actually it was deliberately undersold by all governments I know of) only misapplied by the uninformed press (the few members of the press who I know got told a bit too much did not spread it but instead complied with the government initiatives) and gobbled up by the equally uninformed public just as on so many other topics (I would say all topics really).Chemical refineries.Oil refineries.Steel factories.Nuclear plants.Power infrastructure.Water infrastructure.Communications infrastructure.Military command, control, infrastructure, and weapon systems.That's the kind of places where the serious people including consultants were working.
I know first-hand how much effort went into some of these in Europe and how hard it was because many "certified" replacement parts simply weren't trustworthy and failed when put to the test and also how shutting down some plants took a long time (months in some cases, and sometimes shutting down is not really an option at all).Two days before New Year's fatalism spread like wildfire.
Many of these people, perhaps even all of them, would have told you it was 50-50 at that moment despite all the work- Absolutely no one could with any degree of confidence say that everything would be ok, least of all within governments.
No one dared sound the "all clear" in advance, and I don't think any government went any further that the usual cover-your-ass statements of feigned control.
Many places had at this point simply been shut down due to a lack of time (triaging was employed from the start one and a half year earlier).
After rollover many places did not start up again in weeks and some not in months.Those who worked at the core of the problem lost years of their life and suffered depression, illness, and family difficulties afterwards, just like many of those most involved with the actual work in the early parts of the Apollo program (a story just as few are aware of).Y2K would without any doubt have been the end of the world as we know it but due to tremendous effort that was hard to spot behind all the noise it was avoided.
Thanks to the real efforts all that happened was stuff like the loss of an aging Pentagon/DoD satellite, some Japanese train lines shutting down for a small period, and mundane stuff all over the world like grandparents getting invited to start kindergarten etc.. It could have been a hell of a lot worse.I don't know of a single truly affected company or service or ANY NATION that do not treat the details of their own experience of Y2K as highly confidential.
People in general don't understand how to interpret that fact even when told about it.
That information is not public and will never ever become public, I would be willing to bet it doesn't even exist any more.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30613836</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30614076</id>
	<title>It was a largely a myth</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262361660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There was real panic and an attempt to pay their way out of the perceived threat, but despite the fact that some systems were prone to the problem, most were not. For those that were, many could be upgraded simply. I don't recall any real extra workload.</p><p>That experience seems to have been common to many who worked in IT at the time. It was certainly true where I worked and on the sites where our consultants provided support.</p><p>I feel sorry for you if you were one of the few whose experience was different.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There was real panic and an attempt to pay their way out of the perceived threat , but despite the fact that some systems were prone to the problem , most were not .
For those that were , many could be upgraded simply .
I do n't recall any real extra workload.That experience seems to have been common to many who worked in IT at the time .
It was certainly true where I worked and on the sites where our consultants provided support.I feel sorry for you if you were one of the few whose experience was different .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There was real panic and an attempt to pay their way out of the perceived threat, but despite the fact that some systems were prone to the problem, most were not.
For those that were, many could be upgraded simply.
I don't recall any real extra workload.That experience seems to have been common to many who worked in IT at the time.
It was certainly true where I worked and on the sites where our consultants provided support.I feel sorry for you if you were one of the few whose experience was different.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30613682</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30615532</id>
	<title>Re:This kind of hype was exactly the problem</title>
	<author>jbolden</author>
	<datestamp>1262377200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We have a over a 2 trillion dollar deficit for physical infrastructure that isn't being fixed.  Dams which are failing inspection, bridges that are entirely unsafe, piping that is leaking badly but not badly enough to fix.</p><p>By 2038 I think the attitude towards infrastructure spending will be what is was like during the middle of the 20th century, enthusiastically supportive, when people could still remember dams failing and flooding towns and villages in a matter of hours.  The stupidity of the last decade will be very evident long before 2038.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We have a over a 2 trillion dollar deficit for physical infrastructure that is n't being fixed .
Dams which are failing inspection , bridges that are entirely unsafe , piping that is leaking badly but not badly enough to fix.By 2038 I think the attitude towards infrastructure spending will be what is was like during the middle of the 20th century , enthusiastically supportive , when people could still remember dams failing and flooding towns and villages in a matter of hours .
The stupidity of the last decade will be very evident long before 2038 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We have a over a 2 trillion dollar deficit for physical infrastructure that isn't being fixed.
Dams which are failing inspection, bridges that are entirely unsafe, piping that is leaking badly but not badly enough to fix.By 2038 I think the attitude towards infrastructure spending will be what is was like during the middle of the 20th century, enthusiastically supportive, when people could still remember dams failing and flooding towns and villages in a matter of hours.
The stupidity of the last decade will be very evident long before 2038.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30614284</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30614042</id>
	<title>It was a pure money making scam</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262361000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A lot of consultants made a lot of money by hyping the problem. As it is, nothing much happened but the hullabaloo driectly fed the IT industry pay bubble, which led to the collapse a year or so later.</p><p>Look around at the IT news and you will see plenty other scams.</p><p>Pointy Haired people are suckers for expensive consultation advice and are more than happy to spend the company money on it. It saves them having to think for themselves, justifies their budget, and shifts the blame for any subsequent catastrophe.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A lot of consultants made a lot of money by hyping the problem .
As it is , nothing much happened but the hullabaloo driectly fed the IT industry pay bubble , which led to the collapse a year or so later.Look around at the IT news and you will see plenty other scams.Pointy Haired people are suckers for expensive consultation advice and are more than happy to spend the company money on it .
It saves them having to think for themselves , justifies their budget , and shifts the blame for any subsequent catastrophe .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A lot of consultants made a lot of money by hyping the problem.
As it is, nothing much happened but the hullabaloo driectly fed the IT industry pay bubble, which led to the collapse a year or so later.Look around at the IT news and you will see plenty other scams.Pointy Haired people are suckers for expensive consultation advice and are more than happy to spend the company money on it.
It saves them having to think for themselves, justifies their budget, and shifts the blame for any subsequent catastrophe.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30613808</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30615222</id>
	<title>Apollo Domain</title>
	<author>chill</author>
	<datestamp>1262374320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Apollo was a company that made mini-computers back in the day.  The OS was called "Domain" and the system was used in a manufacturing environment, controlling an automated circuit assembly system.</p><p>They, too, used unsigned ints for date keeping, but it used an odd epoch date.  On October 30th, 1999 I was notified by our supplier that there wasn't a "Y2K" issue.  There WAS a November 3rd, 1999 issue, however.  At that time, the system would not boot.</p><p>Some of the boot code used signed ints, some unsigned.  Early in boot, one of the routines waited for a certain time + interval to start.  Essentially, waiting for the last process to complete.  However, the last process wrapped and the timestamp was something like 6,500 B.C. and the next process used an == to compare, not &gt;=.  It would wait for the next few thousand years before completing.  "Oh look, I've got time!"</p><p>Luckily we had the Sun Solaris-based replacement equipment there...for a year.  We had just needed motivation to actually make the transition.  4 days we motivation enough -- the bastards.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Apollo was a company that made mini-computers back in the day .
The OS was called " Domain " and the system was used in a manufacturing environment , controlling an automated circuit assembly system.They , too , used unsigned ints for date keeping , but it used an odd epoch date .
On October 30th , 1999 I was notified by our supplier that there was n't a " Y2K " issue .
There WAS a November 3rd , 1999 issue , however .
At that time , the system would not boot.Some of the boot code used signed ints , some unsigned .
Early in boot , one of the routines waited for a certain time + interval to start .
Essentially , waiting for the last process to complete .
However , the last process wrapped and the timestamp was something like 6,500 B.C .
and the next process used an = = to compare , not &gt; = .
It would wait for the next few thousand years before completing .
" Oh look , I 've got time !
" Luckily we had the Sun Solaris-based replacement equipment there...for a year .
We had just needed motivation to actually make the transition .
4 days we motivation enough -- the bastards .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apollo was a company that made mini-computers back in the day.
The OS was called "Domain" and the system was used in a manufacturing environment, controlling an automated circuit assembly system.They, too, used unsigned ints for date keeping, but it used an odd epoch date.
On October 30th, 1999 I was notified by our supplier that there wasn't a "Y2K" issue.
There WAS a November 3rd, 1999 issue, however.
At that time, the system would not boot.Some of the boot code used signed ints, some unsigned.
Early in boot, one of the routines waited for a certain time + interval to start.
Essentially, waiting for the last process to complete.
However, the last process wrapped and the timestamp was something like 6,500 B.C.
and the next process used an == to compare, not &gt;=.
It would wait for the next few thousand years before completing.
"Oh look, I've got time!
"Luckily we had the Sun Solaris-based replacement equipment there...for a year.
We had just needed motivation to actually make the transition.
4 days we motivation enough -- the bastards.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30614800</id>
	<title>Re:Oversold?</title>
	<author>UnknowingFool</author>
	<datestamp>1262369460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Also the media reporting was hyped.  Yes bad things would have happened.  Banking records may have been affected.  Computers might stop working.  But planes falling out of the sky, probably not.  But this would not have been a good story:  "Major inconveniences due to Y2K".   Instead this is a much juicer story: "Disaster awaits due to Y2K"</htmltext>
<tokenext>Also the media reporting was hyped .
Yes bad things would have happened .
Banking records may have been affected .
Computers might stop working .
But planes falling out of the sky , probably not .
But this would not have been a good story : " Major inconveniences due to Y2K " .
Instead this is a much juicer story : " Disaster awaits due to Y2K "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Also the media reporting was hyped.
Yes bad things would have happened.
Banking records may have been affected.
Computers might stop working.
But planes falling out of the sky, probably not.
But this would not have been a good story:  "Major inconveniences due to Y2K".
Instead this is a much juicer story: "Disaster awaits due to Y2K"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30613632</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30614340</id>
	<title>It was a big deal but it was mostly fixed by 1997</title>
	<author>ei4anb</author>
	<datestamp>1262364720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I worked for a telecomms company (one of the biggest) and was involved in Y2K remediation. Most of our software was fixed by 1996 with a few small systems fixed in 1997. Our first Y2K fix was done in 1988! If those systems (and similar from the other big companies) had not been fixed nobody could have made any long distance phone calls after 1/1/2000, but they were fixed. It would have been a big deal but we fixed and double-tested everything and robbed the scare mongering reporters of their disaster headlines, get over it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I worked for a telecomms company ( one of the biggest ) and was involved in Y2K remediation .
Most of our software was fixed by 1996 with a few small systems fixed in 1997 .
Our first Y2K fix was done in 1988 !
If those systems ( and similar from the other big companies ) had not been fixed nobody could have made any long distance phone calls after 1/1/2000 , but they were fixed .
It would have been a big deal but we fixed and double-tested everything and robbed the scare mongering reporters of their disaster headlines , get over it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I worked for a telecomms company (one of the biggest) and was involved in Y2K remediation.
Most of our software was fixed by 1996 with a few small systems fixed in 1997.
Our first Y2K fix was done in 1988!
If those systems (and similar from the other big companies) had not been fixed nobody could have made any long distance phone calls after 1/1/2000, but they were fixed.
It would have been a big deal but we fixed and double-tested everything and robbed the scare mongering reporters of their disaster headlines, get over it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30615554</id>
	<title>Words from a dead comedian</title>
	<author>jnork</author>
	<datestamp>1262377440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm reminded of a Carlin piece (Carlin on Campus? Live at Carnegie? I forget) where he talks about practicing for rain dancing.</p><p>If you don't practice, how do you know you've got it right?<br>If it doesn't rain when you practice, doesn't that mean you're doing it wrong?<br>If it does rain when you practice, why have the dance? When you need rain, just hold practice!</p><p>OK, I have no idea why I thought of that.</p><p>How about this, then: I carry elephant repellent. How do I know it works? Well, do you see any elephants?</p><p>Not sure about that one either. I'm here all week, folks!</p><p>The fact is that nobody knows if you've staved off disaster because the disaster never happened. And if the disaster does happen, you've failed. What you need is a time rewinder so you can wait for the disaster to happen, say "See? I told you so!" and then go back in time and fix it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm reminded of a Carlin piece ( Carlin on Campus ?
Live at Carnegie ?
I forget ) where he talks about practicing for rain dancing.If you do n't practice , how do you know you 've got it right ? If it does n't rain when you practice , does n't that mean you 're doing it wrong ? If it does rain when you practice , why have the dance ?
When you need rain , just hold practice ! OK , I have no idea why I thought of that.How about this , then : I carry elephant repellent .
How do I know it works ?
Well , do you see any elephants ? Not sure about that one either .
I 'm here all week , folks ! The fact is that nobody knows if you 've staved off disaster because the disaster never happened .
And if the disaster does happen , you 've failed .
What you need is a time rewinder so you can wait for the disaster to happen , say " See ?
I told you so !
" and then go back in time and fix it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm reminded of a Carlin piece (Carlin on Campus?
Live at Carnegie?
I forget) where he talks about practicing for rain dancing.If you don't practice, how do you know you've got it right?If it doesn't rain when you practice, doesn't that mean you're doing it wrong?If it does rain when you practice, why have the dance?
When you need rain, just hold practice!OK, I have no idea why I thought of that.How about this, then: I carry elephant repellent.
How do I know it works?
Well, do you see any elephants?Not sure about that one either.
I'm here all week, folks!The fact is that nobody knows if you've staved off disaster because the disaster never happened.
And if the disaster does happen, you've failed.
What you need is a time rewinder so you can wait for the disaster to happen, say "See?
I told you so!
" and then go back in time and fix it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30613782</id>
	<title>Wait for the Y10k bug</title>
	<author>mangu</author>
	<datestamp>1262357340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>There are still some bugs which will come up in 2010 in some financial systems</p></div></blockquote><p>Why would that be? It's not as if 2010 required an extra digit. A bug in 2010 would only happen if someone started writing years with <i>one</i> digit in 2000.</p><p>I'm a procrastinator by nature, there's no way I'm starting to prepare now when I still have 7990 years left to do it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>There are still some bugs which will come up in 2010 in some financial systemsWhy would that be ?
It 's not as if 2010 required an extra digit .
A bug in 2010 would only happen if someone started writing years with one digit in 2000.I 'm a procrastinator by nature , there 's no way I 'm starting to prepare now when I still have 7990 years left to do it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are still some bugs which will come up in 2010 in some financial systemsWhy would that be?
It's not as if 2010 required an extra digit.
A bug in 2010 would only happen if someone started writing years with one digit in 2000.I'm a procrastinator by nature, there's no way I'm starting to prepare now when I still have 7990 years left to do it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30613550</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30613604</id>
	<title>Re:What about epoch + 2G?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262355000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://xkcd.com/607/" title="xkcd.com">http://xkcd.com/607/</a> [xkcd.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //xkcd.com/607/ [ xkcd.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://xkcd.com/607/ [xkcd.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30613584</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30614022</id>
	<title>Re:Benefits of Y2K????</title>
	<author>DoninIN</author>
	<datestamp>1262360820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This had some good effects, but the misleading and moronic labeling of a lot of these systems as Y2K upgrades. When in fact the forklift was falling apart to begin with.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This had some good effects , but the misleading and moronic labeling of a lot of these systems as Y2K upgrades .
When in fact the forklift was falling apart to begin with .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This had some good effects, but the misleading and moronic labeling of a lot of these systems as Y2K upgrades.
When in fact the forklift was falling apart to begin with.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30613592</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30615170</id>
	<title>Re:Benefits of Y2K????</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262373780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The name of that connection was token ring - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Token\_ring</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The name of that connection was token ring - http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Token \ _ring</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The name of that connection was token ring - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Token\_ring</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30614158</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30614190</id>
	<title>Re:This kind of hype was exactly the problem</title>
	<author>froogger</author>
	<datestamp>1262363100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I can't say whether planes would actually fall out of the sky, but I did have to patch communication equipment used to synch flightdata between national flight control and abroad. If not, they wouldn't know what those blips on their radars were, when they were supposed to arrive etc. I'd call that a rather paramount issue. OTOH, the only post Y2K incident I had to clean up was a server spewing out invoices dated 1980... in September 2001 (NW server rebooted due to a powerfailure). I think it's fair to say we did a good job.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I ca n't say whether planes would actually fall out of the sky , but I did have to patch communication equipment used to synch flightdata between national flight control and abroad .
If not , they would n't know what those blips on their radars were , when they were supposed to arrive etc .
I 'd call that a rather paramount issue .
OTOH , the only post Y2K incident I had to clean up was a server spewing out invoices dated 1980... in September 2001 ( NW server rebooted due to a powerfailure ) .
I think it 's fair to say we did a good job .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can't say whether planes would actually fall out of the sky, but I did have to patch communication equipment used to synch flightdata between national flight control and abroad.
If not, they wouldn't know what those blips on their radars were, when they were supposed to arrive etc.
I'd call that a rather paramount issue.
OTOH, the only post Y2K incident I had to clean up was a server spewing out invoices dated 1980... in September 2001 (NW server rebooted due to a powerfailure).
I think it's fair to say we did a good job.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30613682</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30613618</id>
	<title>FUCKER</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262355300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><A HREF="http://goat.cx/" title="goat.cx" rel="nofollow">log on Then the Huubard and Mike</a> [goat.cx]</htmltext>
<tokenext>log on Then the Huubard and Mike [ goat.cx ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>log on Then the Huubard and Mike [goat.cx]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30615310</id>
	<title>The era of reckless stupidity</title>
	<author>jbolden</author>
	<datestamp>1262375220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>After 1999 infrastructure spending of all sorts dried up.  We didn't spend for FEMA, we allowed transportation, water gas and military infrastructure to start to fail.  Since then infrastructure spending has been reactive than proactive across the economy.</p><p>Americans made a choice in 2000 when faced between<br>* Mr "wishing makes it so" Bush<br>* Mr "lets proactively deal with problems" Gore<br>that they liked wishing makes it so.  We now have an infrastructure deficit over 2 trillion.  I agree with everything in the article, but the collapse in IT spending that we are still in is a result of the move to systematic corruption and grotesque inequality of George Bush.  We had a president who ran on Apr&#232;s moi le d&#233;luge, why are we shocked that CEOs would be willing to do that?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>After 1999 infrastructure spending of all sorts dried up .
We did n't spend for FEMA , we allowed transportation , water gas and military infrastructure to start to fail .
Since then infrastructure spending has been reactive than proactive across the economy.Americans made a choice in 2000 when faced between * Mr " wishing makes it so " Bush * Mr " lets proactively deal with problems " Gorethat they liked wishing makes it so .
We now have an infrastructure deficit over 2 trillion .
I agree with everything in the article , but the collapse in IT spending that we are still in is a result of the move to systematic corruption and grotesque inequality of George Bush .
We had a president who ran on Apr   s moi le d   luge , why are we shocked that CEOs would be willing to do that ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>After 1999 infrastructure spending of all sorts dried up.
We didn't spend for FEMA, we allowed transportation, water gas and military infrastructure to start to fail.
Since then infrastructure spending has been reactive than proactive across the economy.Americans made a choice in 2000 when faced between* Mr "wishing makes it so" Bush* Mr "lets proactively deal with problems" Gorethat they liked wishing makes it so.
We now have an infrastructure deficit over 2 trillion.
I agree with everything in the article, but the collapse in IT spending that we are still in is a result of the move to systematic corruption and grotesque inequality of George Bush.
We had a president who ran on Après moi le déluge, why are we shocked that CEOs would be willing to do that?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30614158</id>
	<title>Re:Benefits of Y2K????</title>
	<author>Sycraft-fu</author>
	<datestamp>1262362620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It did for sure spur people in to updates that really should have been done a long time ago. At the time I was working for a newspaper as a webmaster and the classified ads system there ran on technology so ancient it was amazing. Old computer running on some network connection I'd never see (cables as thick as your thumb, big square connectors). The thing was a disaster waiting to happen, there was no support from IBM (who'd made it back in the day) any more and we'd been warned that if this breaks, you are fucked.</p><p>So finally Y2K convinced them to get a new system. This one used a modern database as a back end and had a nice little app that ran on any computer to access it. Well worth it not only in terms of preventing problems, but it was much more efficient than people straining to look at a 30 year old CRT that hardly worked in a strange text interface.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It did for sure spur people in to updates that really should have been done a long time ago .
At the time I was working for a newspaper as a webmaster and the classified ads system there ran on technology so ancient it was amazing .
Old computer running on some network connection I 'd never see ( cables as thick as your thumb , big square connectors ) .
The thing was a disaster waiting to happen , there was no support from IBM ( who 'd made it back in the day ) any more and we 'd been warned that if this breaks , you are fucked.So finally Y2K convinced them to get a new system .
This one used a modern database as a back end and had a nice little app that ran on any computer to access it .
Well worth it not only in terms of preventing problems , but it was much more efficient than people straining to look at a 30 year old CRT that hardly worked in a strange text interface .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It did for sure spur people in to updates that really should have been done a long time ago.
At the time I was working for a newspaper as a webmaster and the classified ads system there ran on technology so ancient it was amazing.
Old computer running on some network connection I'd never see (cables as thick as your thumb, big square connectors).
The thing was a disaster waiting to happen, there was no support from IBM (who'd made it back in the day) any more and we'd been warned that if this breaks, you are fucked.So finally Y2K convinced them to get a new system.
This one used a modern database as a back end and had a nice little app that ran on any computer to access it.
Well worth it not only in terms of preventing problems, but it was much more efficient than people straining to look at a 30 year old CRT that hardly worked in a strange text interface.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30613592</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30613562</id>
	<title>Anonymous</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262354520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Y2k was overblown by many in IT but especially by the media. It was non-event then and still is.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Y2k was overblown by many in IT but especially by the media .
It was non-event then and still is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Y2k was overblown by many in IT but especially by the media.
It was non-event then and still is.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30615580</id>
	<title>Re:This kind of hype was exactly the problem</title>
	<author>jbolden</author>
	<datestamp>1262377680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That is how most projects get funded, they tie themselves to popular initiatives.  In 2002 Darlene and John argue their upgrades are needed for the war on terror and in 2011 they are going to be needed to support public health care.</p><p>I wish more rational budget processes where middle managers genuinely considered the budget to be fair and reflective and thus were emotionally invested in supporting its integrity.  But it is wrong to think that people like to be cogs.  Good for Darlene and John for doing what they think is right in a despotic system to make it more consensus driven.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That is how most projects get funded , they tie themselves to popular initiatives .
In 2002 Darlene and John argue their upgrades are needed for the war on terror and in 2011 they are going to be needed to support public health care.I wish more rational budget processes where middle managers genuinely considered the budget to be fair and reflective and thus were emotionally invested in supporting its integrity .
But it is wrong to think that people like to be cogs .
Good for Darlene and John for doing what they think is right in a despotic system to make it more consensus driven .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That is how most projects get funded, they tie themselves to popular initiatives.
In 2002 Darlene and John argue their upgrades are needed for the war on terror and in 2011 they are going to be needed to support public health care.I wish more rational budget processes where middle managers genuinely considered the budget to be fair and reflective and thus were emotionally invested in supporting its integrity.
But it is wrong to think that people like to be cogs.
Good for Darlene and John for doing what they think is right in a despotic system to make it more consensus driven.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30614338</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30617886</id>
	<title>Re:The Agony and The Ecstasy</title>
	<author>jbolden</author>
	<datestamp>1262354340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I agree completely about 9/11 I've been saying the same thing since then.  And telling people how different it would be after the negligence of the last decade if 9/11/2011 were to bring down a major data / communications center with personnel.</p><p>As for the agony...  Those were the last of the glory datas.  the IT grunts were making a lot of money back then.  I'd trade those days for these days in a heartbeat.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree completely about 9/11 I 've been saying the same thing since then .
And telling people how different it would be after the negligence of the last decade if 9/11/2011 were to bring down a major data / communications center with personnel.As for the agony... Those were the last of the glory datas .
the IT grunts were making a lot of money back then .
I 'd trade those days for these days in a heartbeat .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree completely about 9/11 I've been saying the same thing since then.
And telling people how different it would be after the negligence of the last decade if 9/11/2011 were to bring down a major data / communications center with personnel.As for the agony...  Those were the last of the glory datas.
the IT grunts were making a lot of money back then.
I'd trade those days for these days in a heartbeat.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30614152</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30613992</id>
	<title>Re:This kind of hype was exactly the problem</title>
	<author>treebeard77</author>
	<datestamp>1262360460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I agree completely.  I did the Y2K change testing and many of the changes for accounting/trading software for a large multinational bank. I ran parallel old software/new software comparison testing using production data on a dedicated Y2K system.  I can say, unequivocally, that failure to do the changes would have been a disaster.
<br> <br>
And guess what, not everything was caught.  We had some failures after 2000 rolled in.  We missed "some stuff".  They were ALL attributed to other causes.  No one could afford to admit to management that a single Y2K bug was missed.  I should imagine this was not uncommon in most industries.
<br> <br>
The commentators were mostly assholes with no real understanding, but it wasn't really hype.  It would have been a disaster.  We just fixed ( most of ) it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree completely .
I did the Y2K change testing and many of the changes for accounting/trading software for a large multinational bank .
I ran parallel old software/new software comparison testing using production data on a dedicated Y2K system .
I can say , unequivocally , that failure to do the changes would have been a disaster .
And guess what , not everything was caught .
We had some failures after 2000 rolled in .
We missed " some stuff " .
They were ALL attributed to other causes .
No one could afford to admit to management that a single Y2K bug was missed .
I should imagine this was not uncommon in most industries .
The commentators were mostly assholes with no real understanding , but it was n't really hype .
It would have been a disaster .
We just fixed ( most of ) it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree completely.
I did the Y2K change testing and many of the changes for accounting/trading software for a large multinational bank.
I ran parallel old software/new software comparison testing using production data on a dedicated Y2K system.
I can say, unequivocally, that failure to do the changes would have been a disaster.
And guess what, not everything was caught.
We had some failures after 2000 rolled in.
We missed "some stuff".
They were ALL attributed to other causes.
No one could afford to admit to management that a single Y2K bug was missed.
I should imagine this was not uncommon in most industries.
The commentators were mostly assholes with no real understanding, but it wasn't really hype.
It would have been a disaster.
We just fixed ( most of ) it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30613682</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30642074</id>
	<title>It was a weird time.</title>
	<author>rayk\_sland</author>
	<datestamp>1262626140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>We were a service/hardware provider and we made a killing that year that was completely erased by the doldrums in years following, Everyone had pushed forward their buying cycle into late 1999 so 2001-2003 were unnaturally lean years.</htmltext>
<tokenext>We were a service/hardware provider and we made a killing that year that was completely erased by the doldrums in years following , Everyone had pushed forward their buying cycle into late 1999 so 2001-2003 were unnaturally lean years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We were a service/hardware provider and we made a killing that year that was completely erased by the doldrums in years following, Everyone had pushed forward their buying cycle into late 1999 so 2001-2003 were unnaturally lean years.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30614038</id>
	<title>Re:My findings on Y2K hype.</title>
	<author>dasqua</author>
	<datestamp>1262360940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The so called Y2Kaboom... the reason it was a non-event was that many people had worked to resolve as much of the problem as they could. We had started in around March 1998 so for us this was old news. By the time our management had started freaking out we had already completed a preliminary audit.</p><p>I had some people predict all sorts of gloom and doom... they bought extra food and waited for the apocalypse. A lot of magazines were filled with doomsday predictions etc.</p><p>For what its worth... if we hadn't fixed these:<br>security system - doors wouldn't have been able to be opened/closed using swipe cards<br>lighting/airconditioning wouldn't have turned on - (Summer in Australia with no AC)<br>some Microsoft access databases wouldn't have tracked contracts correctly<br>some Microsoft Excel spreadsheets used in reporting system gave faulty results<br>some clunky old accounting systems that would have truncated data on input (retired these instead of fixing)<br>a few telemetry systems wouldn't have turned two sites' pumps on/off</p><p>we would have had an "interesting" January 2000.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The so called Y2Kaboom... the reason it was a non-event was that many people had worked to resolve as much of the problem as they could .
We had started in around March 1998 so for us this was old news .
By the time our management had started freaking out we had already completed a preliminary audit.I had some people predict all sorts of gloom and doom... they bought extra food and waited for the apocalypse .
A lot of magazines were filled with doomsday predictions etc.For what its worth... if we had n't fixed these : security system - doors would n't have been able to be opened/closed using swipe cardslighting/airconditioning would n't have turned on - ( Summer in Australia with no AC ) some Microsoft access databases would n't have tracked contracts correctlysome Microsoft Excel spreadsheets used in reporting system gave faulty resultssome clunky old accounting systems that would have truncated data on input ( retired these instead of fixing ) a few telemetry systems would n't have turned two sites ' pumps on/offwe would have had an " interesting " January 2000 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The so called Y2Kaboom... the reason it was a non-event was that many people had worked to resolve as much of the problem as they could.
We had started in around March 1998 so for us this was old news.
By the time our management had started freaking out we had already completed a preliminary audit.I had some people predict all sorts of gloom and doom... they bought extra food and waited for the apocalypse.
A lot of magazines were filled with doomsday predictions etc.For what its worth... if we hadn't fixed these:security system - doors wouldn't have been able to be opened/closed using swipe cardslighting/airconditioning wouldn't have turned on - (Summer in Australia with no AC)some Microsoft access databases wouldn't have tracked contracts correctlysome Microsoft Excel spreadsheets used in reporting system gave faulty resultssome clunky old accounting systems that would have truncated data on input (retired these instead of fixing)a few telemetry systems wouldn't have turned two sites' pumps on/offwe would have had an "interesting" January 2000.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30613808</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30615100</id>
	<title>Re:No-win situation</title>
	<author>jbengt</author>
	<datestamp>1262372940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I've already heard the argument that all the cost and effort to stop the destruction of the ozone layer was a waste since the "predictions about the ozone layer disappearing" didn't come true.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've already heard the argument that all the cost and effort to stop the destruction of the ozone layer was a waste since the " predictions about the ozone layer disappearing " did n't come true .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've already heard the argument that all the cost and effort to stop the destruction of the ozone layer was a waste since the "predictions about the ozone layer disappearing" didn't come true.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30613650</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30615788</id>
	<title>My experience - wakeup call</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262336580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I worked at local telco and we had automated wakeup service: You call to a service number and dial in the time you want a wakeup call. Very popular service, impressive to watch during morning rush hours (07:00 etc) when it was doing its' thing.
Tested the backup system simply setting the date to 2000 something. All help break loose: Don't remember if it was just software freezing up or starting to behave irrationally. Seeing that got me worried, perhaps the doomsday types were right after all. I changed to another company before Y2K, so I don't know how the problem was solved in the previous company. Perhaps they just ditched the system.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I worked at local telco and we had automated wakeup service : You call to a service number and dial in the time you want a wakeup call .
Very popular service , impressive to watch during morning rush hours ( 07 : 00 etc ) when it was doing its ' thing .
Tested the backup system simply setting the date to 2000 something .
All help break loose : Do n't remember if it was just software freezing up or starting to behave irrationally .
Seeing that got me worried , perhaps the doomsday types were right after all .
I changed to another company before Y2K , so I do n't know how the problem was solved in the previous company .
Perhaps they just ditched the system .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I worked at local telco and we had automated wakeup service: You call to a service number and dial in the time you want a wakeup call.
Very popular service, impressive to watch during morning rush hours (07:00 etc) when it was doing its' thing.
Tested the backup system simply setting the date to 2000 something.
All help break loose: Don't remember if it was just software freezing up or starting to behave irrationally.
Seeing that got me worried, perhaps the doomsday types were right after all.
I changed to another company before Y2K, so I don't know how the problem was solved in the previous company.
Perhaps they just ditched the system.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30615428</id>
	<title>Re:I was there...</title>
	<author>apoc.famine</author>
	<datestamp>1262376480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.f-22raptor.com/news\_view.php?nid=267" title="f-22raptor.com">It doesn't take Y2K</a> [f-22raptor.com] to screw planes up at the International Date Line.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It does n't take Y2K [ f-22raptor.com ] to screw planes up at the International Date Line .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It doesn't take Y2K [f-22raptor.com] to screw planes up at the International Date Line.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30613732</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30614288</id>
	<title>One Major Y2K Problem</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262364180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In case anyone cares to recall, there was one major Y2K problem: US spy satellites were offline or operating minimally for a couple of months. At first they said hours. Then it became days then weeks. Then finally, they were forced to admit it was a couple of months.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In case anyone cares to recall , there was one major Y2K problem : US spy satellites were offline or operating minimally for a couple of months .
At first they said hours .
Then it became days then weeks .
Then finally , they were forced to admit it was a couple of months .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In case anyone cares to recall, there was one major Y2K problem: US spy satellites were offline or operating minimally for a couple of months.
At first they said hours.
Then it became days then weeks.
Then finally, they were forced to admit it was a couple of months.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30613836</id>
	<title>Re:Oversold?</title>
	<author>Sockatume</author>
	<datestamp>1262358180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not <i>all</i> two-digit computer systems "break" because of that limitation, mind you. It only becomes an issue for systems which do comparisons between dates on different sides of the discontinuity. Admittedly that's most of the computing tasks that use dates, but it's not universal. And "break" has many different senses: the media often portrayed it as everything Y2K noncompliant keeling over and dying or entering some worst-case-scenario failure mode, when in many cases the errors were benign. That's what was being oversold, really: the danger.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not all two-digit computer systems " break " because of that limitation , mind you .
It only becomes an issue for systems which do comparisons between dates on different sides of the discontinuity .
Admittedly that 's most of the computing tasks that use dates , but it 's not universal .
And " break " has many different senses : the media often portrayed it as everything Y2K noncompliant keeling over and dying or entering some worst-case-scenario failure mode , when in many cases the errors were benign .
That 's what was being oversold , really : the danger .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not all two-digit computer systems "break" because of that limitation, mind you.
It only becomes an issue for systems which do comparisons between dates on different sides of the discontinuity.
Admittedly that's most of the computing tasks that use dates, but it's not universal.
And "break" has many different senses: the media often portrayed it as everything Y2K noncompliant keeling over and dying or entering some worst-case-scenario failure mode, when in many cases the errors were benign.
That's what was being oversold, really: the danger.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30613632</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30626390</id>
	<title>The biggest change that I noticed...</title>
	<author>AG the other</author>
	<datestamp>1262428800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>was the pretty much complete retirement of Windows 3.1 during 1999.<br>Personally I see this as a good thing.</p><p>AG</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>was the pretty much complete retirement of Windows 3.1 during 1999.Personally I see this as a good thing.AG</tokentext>
<sentencetext>was the pretty much complete retirement of Windows 3.1 during 1999.Personally I see this as a good thing.AG</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30614018</id>
	<title>Re:Wait for the Y10k bug</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262360760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's not so critical an issue, but the Microsoft Xbox live site had a major problem with dates last night. It shows when players were awarded various game "achievements" and they were all being displayed with the wrong month in the hours approaching 2010.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not so critical an issue , but the Microsoft Xbox live site had a major problem with dates last night .
It shows when players were awarded various game " achievements " and they were all being displayed with the wrong month in the hours approaching 2010 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not so critical an issue, but the Microsoft Xbox live site had a major problem with dates last night.
It shows when players were awarded various game "achievements" and they were all being displayed with the wrong month in the hours approaching 2010.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30613782</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30615290</id>
	<title>There still out there</title>
	<author>GreyFish</author>
	<datestamp>1262375040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>
This site (full of spam comments) has a y2k bug:

<a href="http://www.amtor.com/cgi-bin/links/cougalinks.cgi?action=view-links" title="amtor.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.amtor.com/cgi-bin/links/cougalinks.cgi?action=view-links</a> [amtor.com]

note that the dates are "19109" (or 19110 now), this is beacause perl stores the year as the number of years  after 1900, so 1999 is 99, and 2000 is 100, you were supposed to print years by adding the perl year to 1900 and then converting the result to a string and printing that, but many people didn't bother and instead printed "19" and then the perl year, which is why that site is showing "19109" as the year...</htmltext>
<tokenext>This site ( full of spam comments ) has a y2k bug : http : //www.amtor.com/cgi-bin/links/cougalinks.cgi ? action = view-links [ amtor.com ] note that the dates are " 19109 " ( or 19110 now ) , this is beacause perl stores the year as the number of years after 1900 , so 1999 is 99 , and 2000 is 100 , you were supposed to print years by adding the perl year to 1900 and then converting the result to a string and printing that , but many people did n't bother and instead printed " 19 " and then the perl year , which is why that site is showing " 19109 " as the year.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
This site (full of spam comments) has a y2k bug:

http://www.amtor.com/cgi-bin/links/cougalinks.cgi?action=view-links [amtor.com]

note that the dates are "19109" (or 19110 now), this is beacause perl stores the year as the number of years  after 1900, so 1999 is 99, and 2000 is 100, you were supposed to print years by adding the perl year to 1900 and then converting the result to a string and printing that, but many people didn't bother and instead printed "19" and then the perl year, which is why that site is showing "19109" as the year...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30614240</id>
	<title>Re:Oversold?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262363640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>A great many computer systems used two digit dates, and would treat '00' as a date in the past. Changing this fundamental fact would take an awful lot of work; not changing it would mean that all these computer systems break on Jan 1st 2000.</p><p>Allot of work was done, and most all important computer systems didn't suffer from any serious problems.</p><p>What is being oversold?</p><p>I suppose there were 'cowboy' consultants exploiting the problem by offering to come in and look at your recently acquired IT infrastructure, charging huge amounts for a simple thumbs up. That doesn't undermine the severity of the problem though.</p></div><p>The problem wasn't with the IT folks...  Not even the 'cowboy' consultants who tried to scare up some income.  The problem was with the media coverage.</p><p>There were reports on how all your money would vanish overnight, trains would derail, nuclear power plants would melt down, missiles would launch themselves, planes would fall out of the air...  The same kind of silliness and paranoia we're now seeing in relation to the 2012 thing...  Except it was being reported as <b>real</b>, <b>impending</b>, and <b>IT's fault</b>.</p><p>If you talk to someone who was working in IT during the whole Y2k thing, they'll probably tell you stories about long hours and stress and frustration.</p><p>If you talk to someone who was working in management during the whole Y2k thing, they'll probably tell you similar stories about long hours and stress and frustration.</p><p>If you talk to some random person on the street about Y2k they're likely to mention how the world was supposed to end and it was all kinds of hyped up and nothing ever happened.  They never saw anyone putting in long hours.  They never saw the effort that went into making sure that nothing happened.  All they saw were the crazy news stories and docu-dramas about the impending disaster.</p><p>The problem is that now, because nothing tragic happened, the IT industry in general has lost credibility with the general public.  So when someone suggests that we're running out of IP addresses...  Or that GPS may start failing soon...  Or that there's some nasty bug on the way and you really ought to update your computer...  The general public just rolls their eyes and ignores the warning.</p><p>And, of course, it doesn't help that the media <i>continues</i> to report on things they don't understand...</p><p>Remember the DST change a little while back?  Our local news programs were reporting that you better run Windows Update and patch your computer or you'd lose data.  They literally said you'd lose data.  Because your computer didn't know that it should automatically change the time by an hour...</p><p>And then there was all the paranoia about Conficker.  I believe I even saw reports about Conficker on CNN.  We had clients who were afraid to turn on their computers, even after we'd assured them a dozen times that they weren't infected.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>A great many computer systems used two digit dates , and would treat '00 ' as a date in the past .
Changing this fundamental fact would take an awful lot of work ; not changing it would mean that all these computer systems break on Jan 1st 2000.Allot of work was done , and most all important computer systems did n't suffer from any serious problems.What is being oversold ? I suppose there were 'cowboy ' consultants exploiting the problem by offering to come in and look at your recently acquired IT infrastructure , charging huge amounts for a simple thumbs up .
That does n't undermine the severity of the problem though.The problem was n't with the IT folks... Not even the 'cowboy ' consultants who tried to scare up some income .
The problem was with the media coverage.There were reports on how all your money would vanish overnight , trains would derail , nuclear power plants would melt down , missiles would launch themselves , planes would fall out of the air... The same kind of silliness and paranoia we 're now seeing in relation to the 2012 thing... Except it was being reported as real , impending , and IT 's fault.If you talk to someone who was working in IT during the whole Y2k thing , they 'll probably tell you stories about long hours and stress and frustration.If you talk to someone who was working in management during the whole Y2k thing , they 'll probably tell you similar stories about long hours and stress and frustration.If you talk to some random person on the street about Y2k they 're likely to mention how the world was supposed to end and it was all kinds of hyped up and nothing ever happened .
They never saw anyone putting in long hours .
They never saw the effort that went into making sure that nothing happened .
All they saw were the crazy news stories and docu-dramas about the impending disaster.The problem is that now , because nothing tragic happened , the IT industry in general has lost credibility with the general public .
So when someone suggests that we 're running out of IP addresses... Or that GPS may start failing soon... Or that there 's some nasty bug on the way and you really ought to update your computer... The general public just rolls their eyes and ignores the warning.And , of course , it does n't help that the media continues to report on things they do n't understand...Remember the DST change a little while back ?
Our local news programs were reporting that you better run Windows Update and patch your computer or you 'd lose data .
They literally said you 'd lose data .
Because your computer did n't know that it should automatically change the time by an hour...And then there was all the paranoia about Conficker .
I believe I even saw reports about Conficker on CNN .
We had clients who were afraid to turn on their computers , even after we 'd assured them a dozen times that they were n't infected .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A great many computer systems used two digit dates, and would treat '00' as a date in the past.
Changing this fundamental fact would take an awful lot of work; not changing it would mean that all these computer systems break on Jan 1st 2000.Allot of work was done, and most all important computer systems didn't suffer from any serious problems.What is being oversold?I suppose there were 'cowboy' consultants exploiting the problem by offering to come in and look at your recently acquired IT infrastructure, charging huge amounts for a simple thumbs up.
That doesn't undermine the severity of the problem though.The problem wasn't with the IT folks...  Not even the 'cowboy' consultants who tried to scare up some income.
The problem was with the media coverage.There were reports on how all your money would vanish overnight, trains would derail, nuclear power plants would melt down, missiles would launch themselves, planes would fall out of the air...  The same kind of silliness and paranoia we're now seeing in relation to the 2012 thing...  Except it was being reported as real, impending, and IT's fault.If you talk to someone who was working in IT during the whole Y2k thing, they'll probably tell you stories about long hours and stress and frustration.If you talk to someone who was working in management during the whole Y2k thing, they'll probably tell you similar stories about long hours and stress and frustration.If you talk to some random person on the street about Y2k they're likely to mention how the world was supposed to end and it was all kinds of hyped up and nothing ever happened.
They never saw anyone putting in long hours.
They never saw the effort that went into making sure that nothing happened.
All they saw were the crazy news stories and docu-dramas about the impending disaster.The problem is that now, because nothing tragic happened, the IT industry in general has lost credibility with the general public.
So when someone suggests that we're running out of IP addresses...  Or that GPS may start failing soon...  Or that there's some nasty bug on the way and you really ought to update your computer...  The general public just rolls their eyes and ignores the warning.And, of course, it doesn't help that the media continues to report on things they don't understand...Remember the DST change a little while back?
Our local news programs were reporting that you better run Windows Update and patch your computer or you'd lose data.
They literally said you'd lose data.
Because your computer didn't know that it should automatically change the time by an hour...And then there was all the paranoia about Conficker.
I believe I even saw reports about Conficker on CNN.
We had clients who were afraid to turn on their computers, even after we'd assured them a dozen times that they weren't infected.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30613632</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30614162</id>
	<title>Re:This kind of hype was exactly the problem</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262362680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yes.  It's very similar to the problems faced by health services on occasions like the H1N1 vaccination program.  If the vaccination efforts are successful, and no alarming wave of deaths hits the world, then "obviously it was oversold and all those vaccination programs are money down the drain".  If they turn out not to have covered all the bases and something terrible happens, then obviously "they failed to take proper measure to protect the population".  Even a major success in public health can only be perceived as a failure for the lack of consequences (unless they tackle and endemic disease that has taken its toll for generations, but many of those cases have been tackled already).  They are permanently stuck in a no-win situation.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes .
It 's very similar to the problems faced by health services on occasions like the H1N1 vaccination program .
If the vaccination efforts are successful , and no alarming wave of deaths hits the world , then " obviously it was oversold and all those vaccination programs are money down the drain " .
If they turn out not to have covered all the bases and something terrible happens , then obviously " they failed to take proper measure to protect the population " .
Even a major success in public health can only be perceived as a failure for the lack of consequences ( unless they tackle and endemic disease that has taken its toll for generations , but many of those cases have been tackled already ) .
They are permanently stuck in a no-win situation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes.
It's very similar to the problems faced by health services on occasions like the H1N1 vaccination program.
If the vaccination efforts are successful, and no alarming wave of deaths hits the world, then "obviously it was oversold and all those vaccination programs are money down the drain".
If they turn out not to have covered all the bases and something terrible happens, then obviously "they failed to take proper measure to protect the population".
Even a major success in public health can only be perceived as a failure for the lack of consequences (unless they tackle and endemic disease that has taken its toll for generations, but many of those cases have been tackled already).
They are permanently stuck in a no-win situation.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30613682</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30614868</id>
	<title>Re:The 12/99 bug</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262370120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>"The 12/99 bug"? No wonder you guys had problems. Even one month from Y2K, in the middle of a giant Y2K bugfix project, you were still using 2-digit year numbering.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" The 12/99 bug " ?
No wonder you guys had problems .
Even one month from Y2K , in the middle of a giant Y2K bugfix project , you were still using 2-digit year numbering .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"The 12/99 bug"?
No wonder you guys had problems.
Even one month from Y2K, in the middle of a giant Y2K bugfix project, you were still using 2-digit year numbering.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30614010</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30614470</id>
	<title>It was because we focused on the negative effects</title>
	<author>Provocateur</author>
	<datestamp>1262366040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Those articles that mentioned planes and fire and brimstone falling out of the sky should have focused on the positive e.g. guess what, that hardware you bought late this year? The warranty's going to extend itself another 99 years. Heck bring it in even after 12 months, and we'll stick it to The Man.</p><p>(And to the OP the reason the damage was minimal was because we DID have people making sure that there wasn't going to *be any damage.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Those articles that mentioned planes and fire and brimstone falling out of the sky should have focused on the positive e.g .
guess what , that hardware you bought late this year ?
The warranty 's going to extend itself another 99 years .
Heck bring it in even after 12 months , and we 'll stick it to The Man .
( And to the OP the reason the damage was minimal was because we DID have people making sure that there was n't going to * be any damage .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Those articles that mentioned planes and fire and brimstone falling out of the sky should have focused on the positive e.g.
guess what, that hardware you bought late this year?
The warranty's going to extend itself another 99 years.
Heck bring it in even after 12 months, and we'll stick it to The Man.
(And to the OP the reason the damage was minimal was because we DID have people making sure that there wasn't going to *be any damage.
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30615020</id>
	<title>Re:Wait for the Y10k bug</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262371920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>never underestimate stupidity.</p><p>for example, all email is spam today...<br>at least spamassassin thinks it is, cause the sent date in the headers is "grossly in the future"</p><p>it's the future bitches! where's my silver jumpsuit and flying car!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>never underestimate stupidity.for example , all email is spam today...at least spamassassin thinks it is , cause the sent date in the headers is " grossly in the future " it 's the future bitches !
where 's my silver jumpsuit and flying car !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>never underestimate stupidity.for example, all email is spam today...at least spamassassin thinks it is, cause the sent date in the headers is "grossly in the future"it's the future bitches!
where's my silver jumpsuit and flying car!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30613782</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30614830</id>
	<title>Re:This kind of hype was exactly the problem</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262369760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; As an IT worker, I think that most of the hype was caused by arrogant/self-important IT people and then propogated by the media.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; Apart from a few  critcal apps which needed patching or re-writing, it was NEVER A SERIOUS PROBLEM...  not for the vast majority of computers out there.     I suspect that the critical apps were mostly finance related, would never have caused a  life or death situation.    I remain totally unconvinced that there existed any affected app or system which, if left unpatched,  would have caused anything more than a temporary disruption of workflow for whichever industry it was used in.   If that is not the case (and I will conceed the remote possibilty that a very, very tiny fraction of systems could have caused a life/death issue somewhere if left unpatched) then I think the designers and managers of said systems are probably criminally negligent to begin with.  (eg.   knowing what the correct time is should have nothing to do with keeping a fly-by-wire airplane in the sky or nuclear power plants from melting down, etc...)</p><p>That's just my opinion.     If people start dying because  computers can't tell time properly or crash when they try, someone is doing something seriously wrong.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>        As an IT worker , I think that most of the hype was caused by arrogant/self-important IT people and then propogated by the media .
    Apart from a few critcal apps which needed patching or re-writing , it was NEVER A SERIOUS PROBLEM... not for the vast majority of computers out there .
I suspect that the critical apps were mostly finance related , would never have caused a life or death situation .
I remain totally unconvinced that there existed any affected app or system which , if left unpatched , would have caused anything more than a temporary disruption of workflow for whichever industry it was used in .
If that is not the case ( and I will conceed the remote possibilty that a very , very tiny fraction of systems could have caused a life/death issue somewhere if left unpatched ) then I think the designers and managers of said systems are probably criminally negligent to begin with .
( eg. knowing what the correct time is should have nothing to do with keeping a fly-by-wire airplane in the sky or nuclear power plants from melting down , etc... ) That 's just my opinion .
If people start dying because computers ca n't tell time properly or crash when they try , someone is doing something seriously wrong .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
        As an IT worker, I think that most of the hype was caused by arrogant/self-important IT people and then propogated by the media.
    Apart from a few  critcal apps which needed patching or re-writing, it was NEVER A SERIOUS PROBLEM...  not for the vast majority of computers out there.
I suspect that the critical apps were mostly finance related, would never have caused a  life or death situation.
I remain totally unconvinced that there existed any affected app or system which, if left unpatched,  would have caused anything more than a temporary disruption of workflow for whichever industry it was used in.
If that is not the case (and I will conceed the remote possibilty that a very, very tiny fraction of systems could have caused a life/death issue somewhere if left unpatched) then I think the designers and managers of said systems are probably criminally negligent to begin with.
(eg.   knowing what the correct time is should have nothing to do with keeping a fly-by-wire airplane in the sky or nuclear power plants from melting down, etc...)That's just my opinion.
If people start dying because  computers can't tell time properly or crash when they try, someone is doing something seriously wrong.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30613682</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30623172</id>
	<title>Maintenance</title>
	<author>gremlinuk</author>
	<datestamp>1262453640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In the run-up to 2000, I was consulting for a large international pharma company. My area of concern was in making sure that the software that monitored the maintenance schedules of all the expensive (and in-expensive-but-dangerous) plant didn't suffer from date-difference errors. For example, when does that 500 gallon pressure vessel next need a scheduled maintenance cycle? One-hundred years ago? WHAT? QUICK... EMERGENCY! Shutdown the production line of that drug, the FDA will castrate management for un-auditable maintenance logs!!</p><p>So, as others have said, the problems were real, but it was the idiot journalists who couldn't understand the real problem. Afterall, if they were real experts, why the hell are they writing for a newspaper instead of doing it for real?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In the run-up to 2000 , I was consulting for a large international pharma company .
My area of concern was in making sure that the software that monitored the maintenance schedules of all the expensive ( and in-expensive-but-dangerous ) plant did n't suffer from date-difference errors .
For example , when does that 500 gallon pressure vessel next need a scheduled maintenance cycle ?
One-hundred years ago ?
WHAT ? QUICK... EMERGENCY ! Shutdown the production line of that drug , the FDA will castrate management for un-auditable maintenance logs !
! So , as others have said , the problems were real , but it was the idiot journalists who could n't understand the real problem .
Afterall , if they were real experts , why the hell are they writing for a newspaper instead of doing it for real ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In the run-up to 2000, I was consulting for a large international pharma company.
My area of concern was in making sure that the software that monitored the maintenance schedules of all the expensive (and in-expensive-but-dangerous) plant didn't suffer from date-difference errors.
For example, when does that 500 gallon pressure vessel next need a scheduled maintenance cycle?
One-hundred years ago?
WHAT? QUICK... EMERGENCY! Shutdown the production line of that drug, the FDA will castrate management for un-auditable maintenance logs!
!So, as others have said, the problems were real, but it was the idiot journalists who couldn't understand the real problem.
Afterall, if they were real experts, why the hell are they writing for a newspaper instead of doing it for real?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30613570</id>
	<title>Street lights</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262354640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Notice how people take things seriously only if something bad does happen.<br>Example: street lights.<br>
&nbsp; If a street needs lights because its too dark, then people will only allocate enough resources to put in the street lights if there is an accident proved to be caused by darkness.</p><p>Same with Y2K.  People spent money when there was a valid issue shown.  With any system it was abused, but that is human nature. Therefore the money was well spent because the wolf was killed with a minigun and rocket launchers, instead of just a slingshot.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Notice how people take things seriously only if something bad does happen.Example : street lights .
  If a street needs lights because its too dark , then people will only allocate enough resources to put in the street lights if there is an accident proved to be caused by darkness.Same with Y2K .
People spent money when there was a valid issue shown .
With any system it was abused , but that is human nature .
Therefore the money was well spent because the wolf was killed with a minigun and rocket launchers , instead of just a slingshot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Notice how people take things seriously only if something bad does happen.Example: street lights.
  If a street needs lights because its too dark, then people will only allocate enough resources to put in the street lights if there is an accident proved to be caused by darkness.Same with Y2K.
People spent money when there was a valid issue shown.
With any system it was abused, but that is human nature.
Therefore the money was well spent because the wolf was killed with a minigun and rocket launchers, instead of just a slingshot.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30615366</id>
	<title>Re:Wait for the Y10k bug</title>
	<author>IntlHarvester</author>
	<datestamp>1262375820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The question is whether the Y2K programmers actually fixed the date storage, or only kludged some logic around it (year4 = (year2&lt;20) ? year2+2000:year2+1900). I have a feeling some of those systems which received last-minute fixes are going to blow up with date bugs at some later date.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The question is whether the Y2K programmers actually fixed the date storage , or only kludged some logic around it ( year4 = ( year2</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The question is whether the Y2K programmers actually fixed the date storage, or only kludged some logic around it (year4 = (year2</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30613782</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30618036</id>
	<title>Perl, Solaris, SunOS had the problem.</title>
	<author>jotaeleemeese</author>
	<datestamp>1262355180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Back then, my first gig in the UK was dealing with Y2K issues.</p><p>We had a substantial group of people in an isolated environment moving dates to 1/1/2000 and beyond and finding what was breaking.</p><p>I was witness of Perl scripts that failed to calculate dates correctly and SunOS and Solaris widespread patching due to specific Y2K issues.</p><p>Whoever says that Y2K was a hoax or myth does not know what he is talking about.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Back then , my first gig in the UK was dealing with Y2K issues.We had a substantial group of people in an isolated environment moving dates to 1/1/2000 and beyond and finding what was breaking.I was witness of Perl scripts that failed to calculate dates correctly and SunOS and Solaris widespread patching due to specific Y2K issues.Whoever says that Y2K was a hoax or myth does not know what he is talking about .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Back then, my first gig in the UK was dealing with Y2K issues.We had a substantial group of people in an isolated environment moving dates to 1/1/2000 and beyond and finding what was breaking.I was witness of Perl scripts that failed to calculate dates correctly and SunOS and Solaris widespread patching due to specific Y2K issues.Whoever says that Y2K was a hoax or myth does not know what he is talking about.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30619334</id>
	<title>y2k computer bug</title>
	<author>generalSocial</author>
	<datestamp>1262365560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Y2K computer bug is just another bug</htmltext>
<tokenext>Y2K computer bug is just another bug</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Y2K computer bug is just another bug</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30613688</id>
	<title>Not oversold: success</title>
	<author>wappie</author>
	<datestamp>1262356200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The fact that Y2K is looked back upon as being one big joke can be seen as a giant success for all the effort that was put into 'solving' it, "we" managed to avoid disaster.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The fact that Y2K is looked back upon as being one big joke can be seen as a giant success for all the effort that was put into 'solving ' it , " we " managed to avoid disaster .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The fact that Y2K is looked back upon as being one big joke can be seen as a giant success for all the effort that was put into 'solving' it, "we" managed to avoid disaster.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30613560</id>
	<title>This kind of hype was exactly the problem</title>
	<author>petes\_PoV</author>
	<datestamp>1262354520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Not the tech. issues, but the pundits rattling on about things they knew nothing about. Painting doomsday scenarios that were lapped up by the gullible - or those who enjoy nothing more than making a crisis out of a molehill.
<p>
We see exactly the same reaction today about all the issues that face us (whether personal, local, national or world-wide). The considered, thoughtful and measured responses that would (given a chance) produce equitable solutions with a minimum of fuss get washed away by the ignorant but vocal commentators in the media. These people don't care about the problem, or finding a solution. All they want is the cameras pointing in their direction.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not the tech .
issues , but the pundits rattling on about things they knew nothing about .
Painting doomsday scenarios that were lapped up by the gullible - or those who enjoy nothing more than making a crisis out of a molehill .
We see exactly the same reaction today about all the issues that face us ( whether personal , local , national or world-wide ) .
The considered , thoughtful and measured responses that would ( given a chance ) produce equitable solutions with a minimum of fuss get washed away by the ignorant but vocal commentators in the media .
These people do n't care about the problem , or finding a solution .
All they want is the cameras pointing in their direction .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not the tech.
issues, but the pundits rattling on about things they knew nothing about.
Painting doomsday scenarios that were lapped up by the gullible - or those who enjoy nothing more than making a crisis out of a molehill.
We see exactly the same reaction today about all the issues that face us (whether personal, local, national or world-wide).
The considered, thoughtful and measured responses that would (given a chance) produce equitable solutions with a minimum of fuss get washed away by the ignorant but vocal commentators in the media.
These people don't care about the problem, or finding a solution.
All they want is the cameras pointing in their direction.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30613808</id>
	<title>My findings on Y2K hype.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262357640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>People wanted to fear it.</p><p>I was at Wal-Mart getting an oil change (for the record never go there for that) in 1999 while in the waiting area a conversation was struck up between myself and another person waiting on a vehicle.  It came out that I worked for an ISP and had done all kinds of other computer/networking work.  The person wanted to know my thoughts on Y2K.</p><p>I answered "I think there's going to be a few hiccups and glitches.  I don't think they're going to be all that big, we've done a pretty good job of preparing, and many things may fail over to a wrong date, but will continue to work anyways.  All in all whatever problems come of it a majority will be fixed in the first couple of days and a few may take longer, but I don't think there will be much impact."</p><p>The person became visibly annoyed at my answer.  We stopped talking very quickly after that.  I had many other conversations with people along these lines, a couple of them even sited Art Bell and how his show was talking about the doom and gloom to come.  I listened to Art Bell.  He must have made a fortune selling crank radios, flash lights, and other survival gear in preparations for Y2K, not to mention his business model relies on crazies and they were coming out of the woodwork for this.</p><p>I was working the night shift during the roll over.  I wasn't worried about our equipment failing.  I went to work armed, I was worried about crazies who might decide our company was going to be the cause of the downfall of civilization.</p><p>The only thing I noticed was the IRC chat room had some sort of a reset, 90\% of the people connected dropped off at midnight, that was actually the event that caused me to check the clock.  Us other 10\% stayed connected, I'm guessing it was one of dial up routers dropping everyone.</p><p>People were practically begging for the doom and gloom scenario.  It gave me insight into the human condition, I'll say that for sure.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>People wanted to fear it.I was at Wal-Mart getting an oil change ( for the record never go there for that ) in 1999 while in the waiting area a conversation was struck up between myself and another person waiting on a vehicle .
It came out that I worked for an ISP and had done all kinds of other computer/networking work .
The person wanted to know my thoughts on Y2K.I answered " I think there 's going to be a few hiccups and glitches .
I do n't think they 're going to be all that big , we 've done a pretty good job of preparing , and many things may fail over to a wrong date , but will continue to work anyways .
All in all whatever problems come of it a majority will be fixed in the first couple of days and a few may take longer , but I do n't think there will be much impact .
" The person became visibly annoyed at my answer .
We stopped talking very quickly after that .
I had many other conversations with people along these lines , a couple of them even sited Art Bell and how his show was talking about the doom and gloom to come .
I listened to Art Bell .
He must have made a fortune selling crank radios , flash lights , and other survival gear in preparations for Y2K , not to mention his business model relies on crazies and they were coming out of the woodwork for this.I was working the night shift during the roll over .
I was n't worried about our equipment failing .
I went to work armed , I was worried about crazies who might decide our company was going to be the cause of the downfall of civilization.The only thing I noticed was the IRC chat room had some sort of a reset , 90 \ % of the people connected dropped off at midnight , that was actually the event that caused me to check the clock .
Us other 10 \ % stayed connected , I 'm guessing it was one of dial up routers dropping everyone.People were practically begging for the doom and gloom scenario .
It gave me insight into the human condition , I 'll say that for sure .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People wanted to fear it.I was at Wal-Mart getting an oil change (for the record never go there for that) in 1999 while in the waiting area a conversation was struck up between myself and another person waiting on a vehicle.
It came out that I worked for an ISP and had done all kinds of other computer/networking work.
The person wanted to know my thoughts on Y2K.I answered "I think there's going to be a few hiccups and glitches.
I don't think they're going to be all that big, we've done a pretty good job of preparing, and many things may fail over to a wrong date, but will continue to work anyways.
All in all whatever problems come of it a majority will be fixed in the first couple of days and a few may take longer, but I don't think there will be much impact.
"The person became visibly annoyed at my answer.
We stopped talking very quickly after that.
I had many other conversations with people along these lines, a couple of them even sited Art Bell and how his show was talking about the doom and gloom to come.
I listened to Art Bell.
He must have made a fortune selling crank radios, flash lights, and other survival gear in preparations for Y2K, not to mention his business model relies on crazies and they were coming out of the woodwork for this.I was working the night shift during the roll over.
I wasn't worried about our equipment failing.
I went to work armed, I was worried about crazies who might decide our company was going to be the cause of the downfall of civilization.The only thing I noticed was the IRC chat room had some sort of a reset, 90\% of the people connected dropped off at midnight, that was actually the event that caused me to check the clock.
Us other 10\% stayed connected, I'm guessing it was one of dial up routers dropping everyone.People were practically begging for the doom and gloom scenario.
It gave me insight into the human condition, I'll say that for sure.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30614904</id>
	<title>747s crossing the International Date Line</title>
	<author>mosel-saar-ruwer</author>
	<datestamp>1262370420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><br>
<i>None of us seriously expected 747s to invert on crossing the International Date Line, as some more fevered commentators speculated, nor did we expect nuclear power stations to destabilize.</i>
<br><br>
<b>Software Bug Halts F-22 Flight </b> <br>
Posted by kdawson on Sunday February 25 2007, @06:35PM<br>
<a href="http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/02/25/2038217" title="slashdot.org">it.slashdot.org</a> [slashdot.org]
<br><br>
On Feb. 11, twelve Raptors flying from Hawaii to Japan were forced to turn back when a software glitch crashed all of the F-22s' on-board computers as they crossed the international date line. The delay in arrival in Japan was previously reported, with rumors of problems with the software. CNN television, however, this morning reported that <b>every fighter completely lost all navigation and communications when they crossed the international date line</b>. They reportedly had to turn around and follow their tankers by visual contact back to Hawaii...
<br><br><nobr> <wbr></nobr>.</htmltext>
<tokenext>None of us seriously expected 747s to invert on crossing the International Date Line , as some more fevered commentators speculated , nor did we expect nuclear power stations to destabilize .
Software Bug Halts F-22 Flight Posted by kdawson on Sunday February 25 2007 , @ 06 : 35PM it.slashdot.org [ slashdot.org ] On Feb. 11 , twelve Raptors flying from Hawaii to Japan were forced to turn back when a software glitch crashed all of the F-22s ' on-board computers as they crossed the international date line .
The delay in arrival in Japan was previously reported , with rumors of problems with the software .
CNN television , however , this morning reported that every fighter completely lost all navigation and communications when they crossed the international date line .
They reportedly had to turn around and follow their tankers by visual contact back to Hawaii.. . .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
None of us seriously expected 747s to invert on crossing the International Date Line, as some more fevered commentators speculated, nor did we expect nuclear power stations to destabilize.
Software Bug Halts F-22 Flight  
Posted by kdawson on Sunday February 25 2007, @06:35PM
it.slashdot.org [slashdot.org]

On Feb. 11, twelve Raptors flying from Hawaii to Japan were forced to turn back when a software glitch crashed all of the F-22s' on-board computers as they crossed the international date line.
The delay in arrival in Japan was previously reported, with rumors of problems with the software.
CNN television, however, this morning reported that every fighter completely lost all navigation and communications when they crossed the international date line.
They reportedly had to turn around and follow their tankers by visual contact back to Hawaii...
 .</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30613732</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30617210</id>
	<title>Dial-up routers?</title>
	<author>antdude</author>
	<datestamp>1262349660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They're not Y2K compliants? Wow.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They 're not Y2K compliants ?
Wow .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They're not Y2K compliants?
Wow.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30613808</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30619674</id>
	<title>It really was a problem</title>
	<author>dave87656</author>
	<datestamp>1262369640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I worked with a team offering Y2K services for customers of a large computer company. We fixed alot of code and it would have been a much bigger problem than it was if it hadn't been taken seriously.</p><p>One tiny example, which showed up before 1/1/2000 was with a large nationwide toy chain. If you used a credit card with an expiration date after 1/1/2000 every register in that store hung. We found alot of issues that would have had news-making consequences if nothing had been done.</p><p>The fact that it was a non-event was because alot was done to fix the code before hand.</p><p>One interesting side note is that we hired a bunch of retired Cobol programmers because alot of the code we fixed was in Cobol. Although I hadn't done alot of Cobol programming myself, it became very clear to me that Cobol was at that point and probably still is the most effective Business programming language. Pretty amazing considering its age.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I worked with a team offering Y2K services for customers of a large computer company .
We fixed alot of code and it would have been a much bigger problem than it was if it had n't been taken seriously.One tiny example , which showed up before 1/1/2000 was with a large nationwide toy chain .
If you used a credit card with an expiration date after 1/1/2000 every register in that store hung .
We found alot of issues that would have had news-making consequences if nothing had been done.The fact that it was a non-event was because alot was done to fix the code before hand.One interesting side note is that we hired a bunch of retired Cobol programmers because alot of the code we fixed was in Cobol .
Although I had n't done alot of Cobol programming myself , it became very clear to me that Cobol was at that point and probably still is the most effective Business programming language .
Pretty amazing considering its age .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I worked with a team offering Y2K services for customers of a large computer company.
We fixed alot of code and it would have been a much bigger problem than it was if it hadn't been taken seriously.One tiny example, which showed up before 1/1/2000 was with a large nationwide toy chain.
If you used a credit card with an expiration date after 1/1/2000 every register in that store hung.
We found alot of issues that would have had news-making consequences if nothing had been done.The fact that it was a non-event was because alot was done to fix the code before hand.One interesting side note is that we hired a bunch of retired Cobol programmers because alot of the code we fixed was in Cobol.
Although I hadn't done alot of Cobol programming myself, it became very clear to me that Cobol was at that point and probably still is the most effective Business programming language.
Pretty amazing considering its age.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30616030</id>
	<title>Re:This kind of hype was exactly the problem</title>
	<author>ArsenneLupin</author>
	<datestamp>1262338800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It's very similar to the problems faced by health services on occasions like the H1N1 vaccination program. If the vaccination efforts are successful, and no alarming wave of deaths hits the world, then "obviously it was oversold and all those vaccination programs are money down the drain".</p></div><p>The difference being that the Y2K fixes were indeed performed, but hardly anybody got a vaccination. The doses just sit unused in a cabinet, and will be flushed down the drain in a couple of years when they will be expired. But despite this, there was still no huge wave of death, and still lotsa moolla in the coffers of the pharma industry.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's very similar to the problems faced by health services on occasions like the H1N1 vaccination program .
If the vaccination efforts are successful , and no alarming wave of deaths hits the world , then " obviously it was oversold and all those vaccination programs are money down the drain " .The difference being that the Y2K fixes were indeed performed , but hardly anybody got a vaccination .
The doses just sit unused in a cabinet , and will be flushed down the drain in a couple of years when they will be expired .
But despite this , there was still no huge wave of death , and still lotsa moolla in the coffers of the pharma industry .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's very similar to the problems faced by health services on occasions like the H1N1 vaccination program.
If the vaccination efforts are successful, and no alarming wave of deaths hits the world, then "obviously it was oversold and all those vaccination programs are money down the drain".The difference being that the Y2K fixes were indeed performed, but hardly anybody got a vaccination.
The doses just sit unused in a cabinet, and will be flushed down the drain in a couple of years when they will be expired.
But despite this, there was still no huge wave of death, and still lotsa moolla in the coffers of the pharma industry.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30614162</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30615902</id>
	<title>There are none so blind as...</title>
	<author>strangedays</author>
	<datestamp>1262337720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> those that refuse to see...</p><p>Some software lasts decades and has big side effects.  Techniology management is ephemeral, with life-spans measured in months, rarely years.</p><p>Managers knowingly mandate stupid decisions, because there is no personal downside and a short term budget upside.</p><p>Y2K was because large organizations (or the incumbent management) repeatedly ignored technical advice to allow for 4 digit years, because it saved a few bytes storage for each date (which was significant back then) and they could argue "that problems still 15 years away, we will replace it", "that's still 10 years away, we may replace it", "that's still 5 years away, maybe we can fix it later", "that's still 2 years away, we are asking for a Y2K budget"...</p><p>Y2K?  Oh Sh*t  Fix that now..., then blame the developers!</p><p>Technology "management" typically refuses to  see or respond to anything with an effect longer than their own Mayfly existence.  At the same time mangers (as a group) are hypocritical and unethical enough to blame others, when the fertilizer hits the windmill...  Couple that asshattery with a wilfully ignorant and fear mongering media, and you have the recipe for shifting the blame from chronic management incompetence to "the techies did it..." which is completely bogus.</p><p>There are few, if any, real technical issues remaining unsolved for most business purposes, and none that go completely unpredicted by systems analysts.</p><p>There are an enormous number of fundamentally incompetent CIO's and (worse) "Project managers", who should not be permitted the long term indirect technical influence they possess.</p><p>Their myopic decisions can cause potentially dangerous and expensive impacts on society, such as Y2K.</p><p>The negative influence, spin, and misleading media, continues; for example, the poor design of security in most commercial applications is directly attributable to short term "not my problem" management thinking.<br>Fortunately, we have better controls on building bridges than we have software, but the impact of some types of software is now much more serious and far reaching than mere mechanical and civil engineering.</p><p>Technology management needs a better professional accreditation and system of ethics, see acm.org for in depth discussions.<br>In particular, the ludicrous notion that you can manage construction of something you don't understand, (and don't attempt to understand) )by setting arbitrary dates and budgets, is commonplace in IT.</p><p>When the time comes to fix the next disaster, our failure to fix chronic management incompetence, will be the root cause.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>those that refuse to see...Some software lasts decades and has big side effects .
Techniology management is ephemeral , with life-spans measured in months , rarely years.Managers knowingly mandate stupid decisions , because there is no personal downside and a short term budget upside.Y2K was because large organizations ( or the incumbent management ) repeatedly ignored technical advice to allow for 4 digit years , because it saved a few bytes storage for each date ( which was significant back then ) and they could argue " that problems still 15 years away , we will replace it " , " that 's still 10 years away , we may replace it " , " that 's still 5 years away , maybe we can fix it later " , " that 's still 2 years away , we are asking for a Y2K budget " ...Y2K ?
Oh Sh * t Fix that now... , then blame the developers ! Technology " management " typically refuses to see or respond to anything with an effect longer than their own Mayfly existence .
At the same time mangers ( as a group ) are hypocritical and unethical enough to blame others , when the fertilizer hits the windmill... Couple that asshattery with a wilfully ignorant and fear mongering media , and you have the recipe for shifting the blame from chronic management incompetence to " the techies did it... " which is completely bogus.There are few , if any , real technical issues remaining unsolved for most business purposes , and none that go completely unpredicted by systems analysts.There are an enormous number of fundamentally incompetent CIO 's and ( worse ) " Project managers " , who should not be permitted the long term indirect technical influence they possess.Their myopic decisions can cause potentially dangerous and expensive impacts on society , such as Y2K.The negative influence , spin , and misleading media , continues ; for example , the poor design of security in most commercial applications is directly attributable to short term " not my problem " management thinking.Fortunately , we have better controls on building bridges than we have software , but the impact of some types of software is now much more serious and far reaching than mere mechanical and civil engineering.Technology management needs a better professional accreditation and system of ethics , see acm.org for in depth discussions.In particular , the ludicrous notion that you can manage construction of something you do n't understand , ( and do n't attempt to understand ) ) by setting arbitrary dates and budgets , is commonplace in IT.When the time comes to fix the next disaster , our failure to fix chronic management incompetence , will be the root cause .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> those that refuse to see...Some software lasts decades and has big side effects.
Techniology management is ephemeral, with life-spans measured in months, rarely years.Managers knowingly mandate stupid decisions, because there is no personal downside and a short term budget upside.Y2K was because large organizations (or the incumbent management) repeatedly ignored technical advice to allow for 4 digit years, because it saved a few bytes storage for each date (which was significant back then) and they could argue "that problems still 15 years away, we will replace it", "that's still 10 years away, we may replace it", "that's still 5 years away, maybe we can fix it later", "that's still 2 years away, we are asking for a Y2K budget"...Y2K?
Oh Sh*t  Fix that now..., then blame the developers!Technology "management" typically refuses to  see or respond to anything with an effect longer than their own Mayfly existence.
At the same time mangers (as a group) are hypocritical and unethical enough to blame others, when the fertilizer hits the windmill...  Couple that asshattery with a wilfully ignorant and fear mongering media, and you have the recipe for shifting the blame from chronic management incompetence to "the techies did it..." which is completely bogus.There are few, if any, real technical issues remaining unsolved for most business purposes, and none that go completely unpredicted by systems analysts.There are an enormous number of fundamentally incompetent CIO's and (worse) "Project managers", who should not be permitted the long term indirect technical influence they possess.Their myopic decisions can cause potentially dangerous and expensive impacts on society, such as Y2K.The negative influence, spin, and misleading media, continues; for example, the poor design of security in most commercial applications is directly attributable to short term "not my problem" management thinking.Fortunately, we have better controls on building bridges than we have software, but the impact of some types of software is now much more serious and far reaching than mere mechanical and civil engineering.Technology management needs a better professional accreditation and system of ethics, see acm.org for in depth discussions.In particular, the ludicrous notion that you can manage construction of something you don't understand, (and don't attempt to understand) )by setting arbitrary dates and budgets, is commonplace in IT.When the time comes to fix the next disaster, our failure to fix chronic management incompetence, will be the root cause.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30615206</id>
	<title>Re:Oversold?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262374260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Which great many computer systems stored years as two character *strings*? No, your home Excel spreadsheet doesn't count and 1960s punch card systems don't count either as nothing of any significance depended on them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Which great many computer systems stored years as two character * strings * ?
No , your home Excel spreadsheet does n't count and 1960s punch card systems do n't count either as nothing of any significance depended on them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Which great many computer systems stored years as two character *strings*?
No, your home Excel spreadsheet doesn't count and 1960s punch card systems don't count either as nothing of any significance depended on them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30613632</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30613690</id>
	<title>Plenty of time left before Y2K</title>
	<author>Andy\_R</author>
	<datestamp>1262356200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think 38 years should be long enough for us to sort things out before Y2K.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think 38 years should be long enough for us to sort things out before Y2K .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think 38 years should be long enough for us to sort things out before Y2K.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30615842</id>
	<title>An Ounce of Prevention</title>
	<author>ChiRaven</author>
	<datestamp>1262337120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>In 1973, as a newly hired systems analyst, I suggested in a design meeting that a new major system we were designing use four-character year fields instead of two to prevent future problems.  It drew a laugh.  Of course virtually all the laughers were long since retired by the time the company spent tens of millions of dollars retrofitting all those systems with four-digit fields or 60/40 assumption logic (which, by the way, just postponed the "Y2K" problem for another few decades).  But we could have saved a LOT of grief by doing it right in the first place.</htmltext>
<tokenext>In 1973 , as a newly hired systems analyst , I suggested in a design meeting that a new major system we were designing use four-character year fields instead of two to prevent future problems .
It drew a laugh .
Of course virtually all the laughers were long since retired by the time the company spent tens of millions of dollars retrofitting all those systems with four-digit fields or 60/40 assumption logic ( which , by the way , just postponed the " Y2K " problem for another few decades ) .
But we could have saved a LOT of grief by doing it right in the first place .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In 1973, as a newly hired systems analyst, I suggested in a design meeting that a new major system we were designing use four-character year fields instead of two to prevent future problems.
It drew a laugh.
Of course virtually all the laughers were long since retired by the time the company spent tens of millions of dollars retrofitting all those systems with four-digit fields or 60/40 assumption logic (which, by the way, just postponed the "Y2K" problem for another few decades).
But we could have saved a LOT of grief by doing it right in the first place.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30614384</id>
	<title>Re:This kind of hype was exactly the problem</title>
	<author>bonze</author>
	<datestamp>1262365140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm reminded of Nassim Taleb's alternative-universe story about unsung (or worse, derided) heroes in <i>The Black Swan</i>:  A congressperson pushes through legislation mandating reinforced aircraft cockpit doors in 1998:  as a consequence, 9/11 never happens, because would-be hijackers know they're not going to be able to break down the cockpit door.</p><p>The congressperson loses the next election because, hell, hundreds of millions of dollars were <i>thrown away</i> on a non-existent problem!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm reminded of Nassim Taleb 's alternative-universe story about unsung ( or worse , derided ) heroes in The Black Swan : A congressperson pushes through legislation mandating reinforced aircraft cockpit doors in 1998 : as a consequence , 9/11 never happens , because would-be hijackers know they 're not going to be able to break down the cockpit door.The congressperson loses the next election because , hell , hundreds of millions of dollars were thrown away on a non-existent problem !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm reminded of Nassim Taleb's alternative-universe story about unsung (or worse, derided) heroes in The Black Swan:  A congressperson pushes through legislation mandating reinforced aircraft cockpit doors in 1998:  as a consequence, 9/11 never happens, because would-be hijackers know they're not going to be able to break down the cockpit door.The congressperson loses the next election because, hell, hundreds of millions of dollars were thrown away on a non-existent problem!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30613682</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30614198</id>
	<title>But would they break?</title>
	<author>Sycraft-fu</author>
	<datestamp>1262363220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Part of the overselling was this idea that the systems would just blow the fuck up when the date rolled over. That was not necessarily the case. In particular I think it was oversold for critical system, like computers that control power plants and the like. I never saw any evidence that these things would go nuts, lock up, set the plant to do something dangerous. Looked more like they'd roll over and nothing much would change since the date was used in terms of "On this date do X," kind of stuff, not a comparative function.</p><p>Also in some cases, the date was kept on a computer but was totally irrelevant. One system I helped with around that time was an old Windows 3.1 machine. It ran a proprietary piece of software that controlled an instrument. Well the system did keep a date and was not Y2K compliant. What would have happened when it rolled? Who knows, I didn't bother to find out. Instead, I set the date back 30 years. The date on the system was never used in the control software, and thus was not relevant. Simple cheap fix.</p><p>I'm not saying there wasn't a lot of work to be done with regards to the problem. In particular the financial industry needed to do a lot since there stuff IS dependent on comparing dates. However I do not find evidence that it was the world ending problem it was made out to be. If nothing had been done I'm sure there would have been plenty of problems, but I am rather doubtful they would have been catastrophic problems, or things that couldn't then be dealt with.</p><p>That's not to say the proper answer wasn't for companies to deal with it beforehand. I'm just saying the doom and gloom paranoia was way overblown.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Part of the overselling was this idea that the systems would just blow the fuck up when the date rolled over .
That was not necessarily the case .
In particular I think it was oversold for critical system , like computers that control power plants and the like .
I never saw any evidence that these things would go nuts , lock up , set the plant to do something dangerous .
Looked more like they 'd roll over and nothing much would change since the date was used in terms of " On this date do X , " kind of stuff , not a comparative function.Also in some cases , the date was kept on a computer but was totally irrelevant .
One system I helped with around that time was an old Windows 3.1 machine .
It ran a proprietary piece of software that controlled an instrument .
Well the system did keep a date and was not Y2K compliant .
What would have happened when it rolled ?
Who knows , I did n't bother to find out .
Instead , I set the date back 30 years .
The date on the system was never used in the control software , and thus was not relevant .
Simple cheap fix.I 'm not saying there was n't a lot of work to be done with regards to the problem .
In particular the financial industry needed to do a lot since there stuff IS dependent on comparing dates .
However I do not find evidence that it was the world ending problem it was made out to be .
If nothing had been done I 'm sure there would have been plenty of problems , but I am rather doubtful they would have been catastrophic problems , or things that could n't then be dealt with.That 's not to say the proper answer was n't for companies to deal with it beforehand .
I 'm just saying the doom and gloom paranoia was way overblown .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Part of the overselling was this idea that the systems would just blow the fuck up when the date rolled over.
That was not necessarily the case.
In particular I think it was oversold for critical system, like computers that control power plants and the like.
I never saw any evidence that these things would go nuts, lock up, set the plant to do something dangerous.
Looked more like they'd roll over and nothing much would change since the date was used in terms of "On this date do X," kind of stuff, not a comparative function.Also in some cases, the date was kept on a computer but was totally irrelevant.
One system I helped with around that time was an old Windows 3.1 machine.
It ran a proprietary piece of software that controlled an instrument.
Well the system did keep a date and was not Y2K compliant.
What would have happened when it rolled?
Who knows, I didn't bother to find out.
Instead, I set the date back 30 years.
The date on the system was never used in the control software, and thus was not relevant.
Simple cheap fix.I'm not saying there wasn't a lot of work to be done with regards to the problem.
In particular the financial industry needed to do a lot since there stuff IS dependent on comparing dates.
However I do not find evidence that it was the world ending problem it was made out to be.
If nothing had been done I'm sure there would have been plenty of problems, but I am rather doubtful they would have been catastrophic problems, or things that couldn't then be dealt with.That's not to say the proper answer wasn't for companies to deal with it beforehand.
I'm just saying the doom and gloom paranoia was way overblown.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30613632</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30613584</id>
	<title>What about epoch + 2G?</title>
	<author>GPLHost-Thomas</author>
	<datestamp>1262354760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The point is that, when it's going to be 1970 + 2 billion seconds, a lot of computer will fail because of storing dates in an unsigned int (if I'm not mistaking, PHP has issues with it that I could spot, for example), but the vast majority wont understand it. My guess is that we will get into huge trouble because of that. Maybe THAT will be the moment when planes will start falling, because nobody prepared for that.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The point is that , when it 's going to be 1970 + 2 billion seconds , a lot of computer will fail because of storing dates in an unsigned int ( if I 'm not mistaking , PHP has issues with it that I could spot , for example ) , but the vast majority wont understand it .
My guess is that we will get into huge trouble because of that .
Maybe THAT will be the moment when planes will start falling , because nobody prepared for that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The point is that, when it's going to be 1970 + 2 billion seconds, a lot of computer will fail because of storing dates in an unsigned int (if I'm not mistaking, PHP has issues with it that I could spot, for example), but the vast majority wont understand it.
My guess is that we will get into huge trouble because of that.
Maybe THAT will be the moment when planes will start falling, because nobody prepared for that.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30615154</id>
	<title>Year 2.01k bug</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262373660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In a hobby project[1] which I'm involved in, a developer wrote this:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>document.cookie = 'defaultnick=' + encodeURIComponent(thenick) + "; expires=" + (new Date(Date.parse("1 Jan 2010")).toUTCString());</p></div><p>I call it the Y2.01k bug<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-p</p><p>According to what I heard, the rationale behind it was that he expected the project to be scrapped or rewritten by now...</p><p>Took me a few moments to figure out why things weren't working<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p><p>[1] <a href="http://www.iwannachat.net/" title="iwannachat.net" rel="nofollow">http://www.iwannachat.net/</a> [iwannachat.net]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In a hobby project [ 1 ] which I 'm involved in , a developer wrote this : document.cookie = 'defaultnick = ' + encodeURIComponent ( thenick ) + " ; expires = " + ( new Date ( Date.parse ( " 1 Jan 2010 " ) ) .toUTCString ( ) ) ; I call it the Y2.01k bug ; -pAccording to what I heard , the rationale behind it was that he expected the project to be scrapped or rewritten by now...Took me a few moments to figure out why things were n't working : ) [ 1 ] http : //www.iwannachat.net/ [ iwannachat.net ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In a hobby project[1] which I'm involved in, a developer wrote this:document.cookie = 'defaultnick=' + encodeURIComponent(thenick) + "; expires=" + (new Date(Date.parse("1 Jan 2010")).toUTCString());I call it the Y2.01k bug ;-pAccording to what I heard, the rationale behind it was that he expected the project to be scrapped or rewritten by now...Took me a few moments to figure out why things weren't working :)[1] http://www.iwannachat.net/ [iwannachat.net]
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30613900</id>
	<title>Re:I was there...</title>
	<author>Cassini2</author>
	<datestamp>1262359080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>It was real, but hyped. None of us seriously expected 747s to invert on crossing the International Date Line, as some more fevered commentators speculated, nor did we expect nuclear power stations to destabilize.</p></div> </blockquote><p>The interesting thing is that the international date line really does cause severe code problems.  For instance, <a href="http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=6225" title="dailytech.com">a squadron of F-22 Raptors</a> [dailytech.com] was <a href="http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/f22-squadron-shot-down-by-the-international-date-line-03087/" title="defenseindustrydaily.com">taken out</a> [defenseindustrydaily.com] by the <a href="http://www.f-22raptor.com/news\_view.php?nid=267" title="f-22raptor.com">date line.</a> [f-22raptor.com]

</p><p>The 747 has the significant advantage of being a relatively old plane, thus most of its systems were date immune.  Also, a 747 won't fly inverted, or at least I don't know anyone that has tried to fly a 747 inverted.  Nuclear power stations are another example of old equipment designed largely without date information in the critical systems.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It was real , but hyped .
None of us seriously expected 747s to invert on crossing the International Date Line , as some more fevered commentators speculated , nor did we expect nuclear power stations to destabilize .
The interesting thing is that the international date line really does cause severe code problems .
For instance , a squadron of F-22 Raptors [ dailytech.com ] was taken out [ defenseindustrydaily.com ] by the date line .
[ f-22raptor.com ] The 747 has the significant advantage of being a relatively old plane , thus most of its systems were date immune .
Also , a 747 wo n't fly inverted , or at least I do n't know anyone that has tried to fly a 747 inverted .
Nuclear power stations are another example of old equipment designed largely without date information in the critical systems .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It was real, but hyped.
None of us seriously expected 747s to invert on crossing the International Date Line, as some more fevered commentators speculated, nor did we expect nuclear power stations to destabilize.
The interesting thing is that the international date line really does cause severe code problems.
For instance, a squadron of F-22 Raptors [dailytech.com] was taken out [defenseindustrydaily.com] by the date line.
[f-22raptor.com]

The 747 has the significant advantage of being a relatively old plane, thus most of its systems were date immune.
Also, a 747 won't fly inverted, or at least I don't know anyone that has tried to fly a 747 inverted.
Nuclear power stations are another example of old equipment designed largely without date information in the critical systems.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30613732</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30628572</id>
	<title>Still alive and well</title>
	<author>Autonomous Crowhard</author>
	<datestamp>1262446020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>At my company we've had a weekend fire drill thanks to Y2K. I'm not talking about 10 years ago. I'm talking about yesterday. Ten plus years ago some genius "fixed" the Y2K issue by checking to see if the first of the two digits in the year was a zero. If it was prepend "20", otherwise...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>At my company we 've had a weekend fire drill thanks to Y2K .
I 'm not talking about 10 years ago .
I 'm talking about yesterday .
Ten plus years ago some genius " fixed " the Y2K issue by checking to see if the first of the two digits in the year was a zero .
If it was prepend " 20 " , otherwise.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At my company we've had a weekend fire drill thanks to Y2K.
I'm not talking about 10 years ago.
I'm talking about yesterday.
Ten plus years ago some genius "fixed" the Y2K issue by checking to see if the first of the two digits in the year was a zero.
If it was prepend "20", otherwise...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30613864</id>
	<title>Re:Oversold?</title>
	<author>Opportunist</author>
	<datestamp>1262358600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Of course there were these kinds of consultant. And while they didn't undermine the severity of the problem, they certainly undermined the credibility and seriousness of our profession. So should I ever get a hold of one of these snakeoil peddlers, I'll give them a consultation that they usually see a proctologist for...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Of course there were these kinds of consultant .
And while they did n't undermine the severity of the problem , they certainly undermined the credibility and seriousness of our profession .
So should I ever get a hold of one of these snakeoil peddlers , I 'll give them a consultation that they usually see a proctologist for.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of course there were these kinds of consultant.
And while they didn't undermine the severity of the problem, they certainly undermined the credibility and seriousness of our profession.
So should I ever get a hold of one of these snakeoil peddlers, I'll give them a consultation that they usually see a proctologist for...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30613632</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30621148</id>
	<title>Something amusing...</title>
	<author>John Pfeiffer</author>
	<datestamp>1262433840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I never really faced a problem with the Y2K bug, but now I remember it just about any time I sit down at my desk...  A couple years ago at a thrift store, my mother found a Y2K snowglobe.  Yes.  I'm not kidding.</p><p>The base says '01-01-00' and 'It's coming...'.  And in the globe, there's a computer with '01-01-00' on the screen, and a bunch of components and stuff bursting out of the top of the monitor.  And the snow?  Little plastic 1s and 0s.  BEST. GIFT. EVER.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I never really faced a problem with the Y2K bug , but now I remember it just about any time I sit down at my desk... A couple years ago at a thrift store , my mother found a Y2K snowglobe .
Yes. I 'm not kidding.The base says '01-01-00 ' and 'It 's coming...' .
And in the globe , there 's a computer with '01-01-00 ' on the screen , and a bunch of components and stuff bursting out of the top of the monitor .
And the snow ?
Little plastic 1s and 0s .
BEST. GIFT .
EVER .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I never really faced a problem with the Y2K bug, but now I remember it just about any time I sit down at my desk...  A couple years ago at a thrift store, my mother found a Y2K snowglobe.
Yes.  I'm not kidding.The base says '01-01-00' and 'It's coming...'.
And in the globe, there's a computer with '01-01-00' on the screen, and a bunch of components and stuff bursting out of the top of the monitor.
And the snow?
Little plastic 1s and 0s.
BEST. GIFT.
EVER.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30614652</id>
	<title>2010 bug!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262367840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You'd think developers learned from Y2K, but:</p><p><a href="https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show\_bug.cgi?id=6269" title="apache.org" rel="nofollow">Spamassassin Bug 6269 -  FH\_DATE\_PAST\_20XX scores on all mails dated 2010 or later.</a> [apache.org]</p><p>Every mail that has gone through Spamassassin since midnight gets a spam score because "the date is grossly in the future." And what's worse, they "fixed" it five months ago on the trunk (not in any released version)... by changing the cutoff year to 2020.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 'd think developers learned from Y2K , but : Spamassassin Bug 6269 - FH \ _DATE \ _PAST \ _20XX scores on all mails dated 2010 or later .
[ apache.org ] Every mail that has gone through Spamassassin since midnight gets a spam score because " the date is grossly in the future .
" And what 's worse , they " fixed " it five months ago on the trunk ( not in any released version ) ... by changing the cutoff year to 2020 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You'd think developers learned from Y2K, but:Spamassassin Bug 6269 -  FH\_DATE\_PAST\_20XX scores on all mails dated 2010 or later.
[apache.org]Every mail that has gone through Spamassassin since midnight gets a spam score because "the date is grossly in the future.
" And what's worse, they "fixed" it five months ago on the trunk (not in any released version)... by changing the cutoff year to 2020.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30615408</id>
	<title>Re:This kind of hype was exactly the problem</title>
	<author>jbolden</author>
	<datestamp>1262376240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Good point.  Defense is the same way.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Good point .
Defense is the same way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Good point.
Defense is the same way.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30614162</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30613952</id>
	<title>The threat was real.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262359920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I was an analyst for Gartner in the years leading up to Y2K.  As usual, the real story is nothing like what is reported in the press.</p><p>First of all, the systems failed not because the date itself rolled over to January 1, 2000, but when systems attempted to do a calculation that spanned both centuries and thus did the math wrong.  In 1970, 30-year mortgages started having glitches because they calculated into the year 00, and started calculating interest based on 99 years&rsquo; worth of time.  Called, the &ldquo;Time Horizon to Failure,&rdquo; these types of failures increased on a log scale in the 90s as we approached 1/1/2000.  Few if any systems based on microcontrollers (say, elevators) care at all about the date, much less that the year is 2 digits.</p><p>The bug was very real.  There was literally billions of lines of mainframe code written in the 60s, 70s, 80s and even 90s that used two digits for dates.  There was actually a 1970 bug, where some systems used only one digit for the date in the 60s.  Remember we are talking 80 byte punch cards and memory that was hundreds of dollars per byte.  The fixes weren&rsquo;t hard but there was a LOT of code to slog through, much of which was not documented and in some cases they didn&rsquo;t even have the source.</p><p>Why weren&rsquo;t there more visible problems?  in the early and mid 90s, all the IT departments alerted their managers to the problem, showed where in the code it needed to be fixed, and what the consequences were.  But few managers acted, because nobody believed the &ldquo;hype&rdquo; and budgets were needed for more pressing initiatives.</p><p>Enter the Wall Street Journal, who wrote an article, I think it was in late 1996 or 1997, that said to company executives that their Errors and Omissions insurance would not cover them if their company experienced Y2K failures because the bug was widely publicized and the threat was well known.  This means that the executives were personally liable (e.g. they could lose their houses) for Y2K failures that happened in their companies.</p><p>The next day, thousands of companies started Y2K projects, and fixed the issues.  So, no serious bugs were reported, and those who labeled it hype had all the evidence they needed to support their theory.  But it took a legal threat for managers to act.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I was an analyst for Gartner in the years leading up to Y2K .
As usual , the real story is nothing like what is reported in the press.First of all , the systems failed not because the date itself rolled over to January 1 , 2000 , but when systems attempted to do a calculation that spanned both centuries and thus did the math wrong .
In 1970 , 30-year mortgages started having glitches because they calculated into the year 00 , and started calculating interest based on 99 years    worth of time .
Called , the    Time Horizon to Failure ,    these types of failures increased on a log scale in the 90s as we approached 1/1/2000 .
Few if any systems based on microcontrollers ( say , elevators ) care at all about the date , much less that the year is 2 digits.The bug was very real .
There was literally billions of lines of mainframe code written in the 60s , 70s , 80s and even 90s that used two digits for dates .
There was actually a 1970 bug , where some systems used only one digit for the date in the 60s .
Remember we are talking 80 byte punch cards and memory that was hundreds of dollars per byte .
The fixes weren    t hard but there was a LOT of code to slog through , much of which was not documented and in some cases they didn    t even have the source.Why weren    t there more visible problems ?
in the early and mid 90s , all the IT departments alerted their managers to the problem , showed where in the code it needed to be fixed , and what the consequences were .
But few managers acted , because nobody believed the    hype    and budgets were needed for more pressing initiatives.Enter the Wall Street Journal , who wrote an article , I think it was in late 1996 or 1997 , that said to company executives that their Errors and Omissions insurance would not cover them if their company experienced Y2K failures because the bug was widely publicized and the threat was well known .
This means that the executives were personally liable ( e.g .
they could lose their houses ) for Y2K failures that happened in their companies.The next day , thousands of companies started Y2K projects , and fixed the issues .
So , no serious bugs were reported , and those who labeled it hype had all the evidence they needed to support their theory .
But it took a legal threat for managers to act .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was an analyst for Gartner in the years leading up to Y2K.
As usual, the real story is nothing like what is reported in the press.First of all, the systems failed not because the date itself rolled over to January 1, 2000, but when systems attempted to do a calculation that spanned both centuries and thus did the math wrong.
In 1970, 30-year mortgages started having glitches because they calculated into the year 00, and started calculating interest based on 99 years’ worth of time.
Called, the “Time Horizon to Failure,” these types of failures increased on a log scale in the 90s as we approached 1/1/2000.
Few if any systems based on microcontrollers (say, elevators) care at all about the date, much less that the year is 2 digits.The bug was very real.
There was literally billions of lines of mainframe code written in the 60s, 70s, 80s and even 90s that used two digits for dates.
There was actually a 1970 bug, where some systems used only one digit for the date in the 60s.
Remember we are talking 80 byte punch cards and memory that was hundreds of dollars per byte.
The fixes weren’t hard but there was a LOT of code to slog through, much of which was not documented and in some cases they didn’t even have the source.Why weren’t there more visible problems?
in the early and mid 90s, all the IT departments alerted their managers to the problem, showed where in the code it needed to be fixed, and what the consequences were.
But few managers acted, because nobody believed the “hype” and budgets were needed for more pressing initiatives.Enter the Wall Street Journal, who wrote an article, I think it was in late 1996 or 1997, that said to company executives that their Errors and Omissions insurance would not cover them if their company experienced Y2K failures because the bug was widely publicized and the threat was well known.
This means that the executives were personally liable (e.g.
they could lose their houses) for Y2K failures that happened in their companies.The next day, thousands of companies started Y2K projects, and fixed the issues.
So, no serious bugs were reported, and those who labeled it hype had all the evidence they needed to support their theory.
But it took a legal threat for managers to act.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30615320</id>
	<title>Re:Oversold?</title>
	<author>mattpalmer1086</author>
	<datestamp>1262375340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I was briefly a Y2K consultant - it certainly wasn't me overhyping the problem or overcharging for non-solutions, although I'm sure such people did exist.</p><p>If anything, it was the IT departments who wanted to replace their infrastructure and were just looking for an excuse, and the consultant was the convenient excuse. I audited lots of systems and gave most of them a basically green light - just a few simple things to do and they'd be fine.  It was quite frequent that I was told to rewrite the report to imply a greater risk than really existed (or rather, told to stop "underselling" the risk)...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I was briefly a Y2K consultant - it certainly was n't me overhyping the problem or overcharging for non-solutions , although I 'm sure such people did exist.If anything , it was the IT departments who wanted to replace their infrastructure and were just looking for an excuse , and the consultant was the convenient excuse .
I audited lots of systems and gave most of them a basically green light - just a few simple things to do and they 'd be fine .
It was quite frequent that I was told to rewrite the report to imply a greater risk than really existed ( or rather , told to stop " underselling " the risk ) .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was briefly a Y2K consultant - it certainly wasn't me overhyping the problem or overcharging for non-solutions, although I'm sure such people did exist.If anything, it was the IT departments who wanted to replace their infrastructure and were just looking for an excuse, and the consultant was the convenient excuse.
I audited lots of systems and gave most of them a basically green light - just a few simple things to do and they'd be fine.
It was quite frequent that I was told to rewrite the report to imply a greater risk than really existed (or rather, told to stop "underselling" the risk)...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30613632</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30615260</id>
	<title>Re:This kind of hype was exactly the problem</title>
	<author>phantomfive</author>
	<datestamp>1262374800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It is the same thing we are seeing now with global warming. Anthropogenic global warming is a real thing, but if you talk to people they tend to associate it with oceans rising to cover New York, or global plagues or something like that.  In reality no climate scientist asserts those things.<br> <br>
Actually the hype problem happens with a lot of stories covered by the news. It makes them money.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It is the same thing we are seeing now with global warming .
Anthropogenic global warming is a real thing , but if you talk to people they tend to associate it with oceans rising to cover New York , or global plagues or something like that .
In reality no climate scientist asserts those things .
Actually the hype problem happens with a lot of stories covered by the news .
It makes them money .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is the same thing we are seeing now with global warming.
Anthropogenic global warming is a real thing, but if you talk to people they tend to associate it with oceans rising to cover New York, or global plagues or something like that.
In reality no climate scientist asserts those things.
Actually the hype problem happens with a lot of stories covered by the news.
It makes them money.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30613560</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30614234</id>
	<title>Worst code example?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262363640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I just ran across this example in Peter Wegner's "Programming in ADA: an Introduction", published in 1980. This one doesn't even have the excuse that it was storing two-digit years!</p><blockquote><div><p> <tt>type DAY is range 1..31;<br>type MONTH is (JAN,FEB,MAR,APR,MAY,JUN,JUL,AUG,SEP,OCT,NOV,DEC);<br>type YEAR is range 0..2000;<br>type DATE is<br>
&nbsp; record<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; D: DAY;<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; M: MONTH;<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; Y: YEAR;<br>
&nbsp; end record;<br>TODAY: DATE;</tt></p></div> </blockquote></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I just ran across this example in Peter Wegner 's " Programming in ADA : an Introduction " , published in 1980 .
This one does n't even have the excuse that it was storing two-digit years !
type DAY is range 1..31 ; type MONTH is ( JAN,FEB,MAR,APR,MAY,JUN,JUL,AUG,SEP,OCT,NOV,DEC ) ; type YEAR is range 0..2000 ; type DATE is   record     D : DAY ;     M : MONTH ;     Y : YEAR ;   end record ; TODAY : DATE ;</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I just ran across this example in Peter Wegner's "Programming in ADA: an Introduction", published in 1980.
This one doesn't even have the excuse that it was storing two-digit years!
type DAY is range 1..31;type MONTH is (JAN,FEB,MAR,APR,MAY,JUN,JUL,AUG,SEP,OCT,NOV,DEC);type YEAR is range 0..2000;type DATE is
  record
    D: DAY;
    M: MONTH;
    Y: YEAR;
  end record;TODAY: DATE; 
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30615448</id>
	<title>Yet year 19100 in perl lives on...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262376600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&amp;q=19100+perl" title="google.com" rel="nofollow">Rock over London</a> [google.com], <a href="http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&amp;q=19100+year" title="google.com" rel="nofollow">rock on Chicago</a> [google.com]: Wheaties, <a href="http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&amp;q=19100+bbs" title="google.com" rel="nofollow">breakfast of champions!</a> [google.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Rock over London [ google.com ] , rock on Chicago [ google.com ] : Wheaties , breakfast of champions !
[ google.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Rock over London [google.com], rock on Chicago [google.com]: Wheaties, breakfast of champions!
[google.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30615602</id>
	<title>Re:My findings on Y2K hype.</title>
	<author>bwcbwc</author>
	<datestamp>1262378040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, most techies were reporting real problems.</p><p>The hype came from the media, because they public loves doomsday predictions; and from the snake-oil salesmen who capitalized on the hysteria.</p><p>Regardless of the hysteria, a lot of corporations made long-term capital investments in IT systems that helped facilitate the business-methods revolution exemplified by Walmart, and the internet boom itself. So even if the Y2K problem was over-hyped, the Y2K opportunity was seized by many corporations that still enjoy competitive advantages from their investment.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , most techies were reporting real problems.The hype came from the media , because they public loves doomsday predictions ; and from the snake-oil salesmen who capitalized on the hysteria.Regardless of the hysteria , a lot of corporations made long-term capital investments in IT systems that helped facilitate the business-methods revolution exemplified by Walmart , and the internet boom itself .
So even if the Y2K problem was over-hyped , the Y2K opportunity was seized by many corporations that still enjoy competitive advantages from their investment .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, most techies were reporting real problems.The hype came from the media, because they public loves doomsday predictions; and from the snake-oil salesmen who capitalized on the hysteria.Regardless of the hysteria, a lot of corporations made long-term capital investments in IT systems that helped facilitate the business-methods revolution exemplified by Walmart, and the internet boom itself.
So even if the Y2K problem was over-hyped, the Y2K opportunity was seized by many corporations that still enjoy competitive advantages from their investment.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30613808</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30614338</id>
	<title>Re:This kind of hype was exactly the problem</title>
	<author>Will.Woodhull</author>
	<datestamp>1262364720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Part of that hype was deliberate FUD from elements of the USA permanent government.

</p><p>In the Veterans Administration and presumably a number of other agencies, during the 3 years from 1997 to 2000 there was a major drive to get every computer "Y2K Compliant". And the tests for compliance were made strict enough to ensure that entire operations had to have brand new CPUs (and associated interfaces and so on) across the board. Y2K was quickly seen as an excuse for emergency authority to spend much more on new hardware than the budget called for.

</p><p>The FUD was aimed primarily at high level management and professional staff who controlled or influenced disbursement of discretionary funds. But as those persons became concerned that the IT infrastructure would crash in flames around them unless they bought the new toys, they naturally talked with their counterparts in the private sector, and the FUD spread further.

</p><p>Darlene and John, I'm looking at you. You, and other mid level managers, flexed your ethics to push your agenda, and a shitload of unnecessary new equipment was bought and installed. You would have upgraded the network to fiber optics if only you could have dreamed up an argument that CAT5 itself was maybe not Y2K compliant. Meanwhile, programs to assist veterans with PTSD were delayed or curtailed. Way to go, guys. Zippity-doo-dah.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Part of that hype was deliberate FUD from elements of the USA permanent government .
In the Veterans Administration and presumably a number of other agencies , during the 3 years from 1997 to 2000 there was a major drive to get every computer " Y2K Compliant " .
And the tests for compliance were made strict enough to ensure that entire operations had to have brand new CPUs ( and associated interfaces and so on ) across the board .
Y2K was quickly seen as an excuse for emergency authority to spend much more on new hardware than the budget called for .
The FUD was aimed primarily at high level management and professional staff who controlled or influenced disbursement of discretionary funds .
But as those persons became concerned that the IT infrastructure would crash in flames around them unless they bought the new toys , they naturally talked with their counterparts in the private sector , and the FUD spread further .
Darlene and John , I 'm looking at you .
You , and other mid level managers , flexed your ethics to push your agenda , and a shitload of unnecessary new equipment was bought and installed .
You would have upgraded the network to fiber optics if only you could have dreamed up an argument that CAT5 itself was maybe not Y2K compliant .
Meanwhile , programs to assist veterans with PTSD were delayed or curtailed .
Way to go , guys .
Zippity-doo-dah .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Part of that hype was deliberate FUD from elements of the USA permanent government.
In the Veterans Administration and presumably a number of other agencies, during the 3 years from 1997 to 2000 there was a major drive to get every computer "Y2K Compliant".
And the tests for compliance were made strict enough to ensure that entire operations had to have brand new CPUs (and associated interfaces and so on) across the board.
Y2K was quickly seen as an excuse for emergency authority to spend much more on new hardware than the budget called for.
The FUD was aimed primarily at high level management and professional staff who controlled or influenced disbursement of discretionary funds.
But as those persons became concerned that the IT infrastructure would crash in flames around them unless they bought the new toys, they naturally talked with their counterparts in the private sector, and the FUD spread further.
Darlene and John, I'm looking at you.
You, and other mid level managers, flexed your ethics to push your agenda, and a shitload of unnecessary new equipment was bought and installed.
You would have upgraded the network to fiber optics if only you could have dreamed up an argument that CAT5 itself was maybe not Y2K compliant.
Meanwhile, programs to assist veterans with PTSD were delayed or curtailed.
Way to go, guys.
Zippity-doo-dah.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30613560</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30614284</id>
	<title>Re:This kind of hype was exactly the problem</title>
	<author>mdwh2</author>
	<datestamp>1262364120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Indeed - but unfortunately the hype these days has swung completely the other way, with Y2K viewed as a collosal non-event, and it's the programmers and Government - not the media who overhyped it the first place - who are portrayed as being stupid and worrying over nothing.</p><p>The point, AIUI, is that there were some genuine issues that needed fixing. And if nothing happened - well that's because they fixed the problems! But far from being praised, it's now widely assumed that Y2K was entirely a hoax, and that any money spent fixing it was a waste.</p><p>I wonder what will happen with the 2038 problem - I fear that attempts to fix this genuine problem will be hampered by the ignorant masses going "Oh it's just another Y2K, it's a load of old rubbish, what do these experts know!"...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Indeed - but unfortunately the hype these days has swung completely the other way , with Y2K viewed as a collosal non-event , and it 's the programmers and Government - not the media who overhyped it the first place - who are portrayed as being stupid and worrying over nothing.The point , AIUI , is that there were some genuine issues that needed fixing .
And if nothing happened - well that 's because they fixed the problems !
But far from being praised , it 's now widely assumed that Y2K was entirely a hoax , and that any money spent fixing it was a waste.I wonder what will happen with the 2038 problem - I fear that attempts to fix this genuine problem will be hampered by the ignorant masses going " Oh it 's just another Y2K , it 's a load of old rubbish , what do these experts know !
" .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Indeed - but unfortunately the hype these days has swung completely the other way, with Y2K viewed as a collosal non-event, and it's the programmers and Government - not the media who overhyped it the first place - who are portrayed as being stupid and worrying over nothing.The point, AIUI, is that there were some genuine issues that needed fixing.
And if nothing happened - well that's because they fixed the problems!
But far from being praised, it's now widely assumed that Y2K was entirely a hoax, and that any money spent fixing it was a waste.I wonder what will happen with the 2038 problem - I fear that attempts to fix this genuine problem will be hampered by the ignorant masses going "Oh it's just another Y2K, it's a load of old rubbish, what do these experts know!
"...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30613560</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30613592</id>
	<title>Benefits of Y2K????</title>
	<author>smitty777</author>
	<datestamp>1262354940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In the couple of years leading up to Y2K, I saw my company pour millions into updating any outdated infrastructure.  Since were all techies, I'm betting that we all have similar stories. All the negativity aside, is it also possible that we moved ourselves ahead with this non-existent catastrophe? I mean shoot, I know I at least got a new laptop out of the deal<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;^)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In the couple of years leading up to Y2K , I saw my company pour millions into updating any outdated infrastructure .
Since were all techies , I 'm betting that we all have similar stories .
All the negativity aside , is it also possible that we moved ourselves ahead with this non-existent catastrophe ?
I mean shoot , I know I at least got a new laptop out of the deal ; ^ )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In the couple of years leading up to Y2K, I saw my company pour millions into updating any outdated infrastructure.
Since were all techies, I'm betting that we all have similar stories.
All the negativity aside, is it also possible that we moved ourselves ahead with this non-existent catastrophe?
I mean shoot, I know I at least got a new laptop out of the deal ;^)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30615204</id>
	<title>NYT Op says Y2K was hype</title>
	<author>mdsolar</author>
	<datestamp>1262374200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/01/opinion/01dutton.html" title="nytimes.com">http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/01/opinion/01dutton.html</a> [nytimes.com] So all of you must be wrong.</htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.nytimes.com/2010/01/01/opinion/01dutton.html [ nytimes.com ] So all of you must be wrong .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/01/opinion/01dutton.html [nytimes.com] So all of you must be wrong.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30623660</id>
	<title>prowest   http://prowest.ua</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262456160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>thank you
<a href="http://prowest.ua/" title="prowest.ua" rel="nofollow">http://prowest.ua/</a> [prowest.ua]</htmltext>
<tokenext>thank you http : //prowest.ua/ [ prowest.ua ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>thank you
http://prowest.ua/ [prowest.ua]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30613936</id>
	<title>Software Engineering is not IT</title>
	<author>EmagGeek</author>
	<datestamp>1262359440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Y2K was Software Engineering's moment in the Sun, not IT's.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Y2K was Software Engineering 's moment in the Sun , not IT 's .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Y2K was Software Engineering's moment in the Sun, not IT's.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30613732</id>
	<title>I was there...</title>
	<author>CaptainOfSpray</author>
	<datestamp>1262356680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>It was real, but hyped. None of us seriously expected 747s to invert on crossing the International Date Line, as some more fevered commentators speculated, nor did we expect nuclear power stations to destabilize.
<br> <br>
However, we knew that all our systems had to interact correctly for the business to deliver correctly. I was working as a contractor for a major airline, and we knew that lots of our most fundamental systems had been written in the 60's and 70's. They HAD to be checked, and HAD to be tested through the full extent of the workflow.
<br> <br>
Moreover, it was always journalist bullshit that it was all going to happen at the stroke of midnight. There were plenty of opportunities for problems to occur at other times. A major food and clothing retailer started rejecting shipments of canned food in September 1999 because the dates on the cans said the Sell-By date was 100 years ago. This really happened.
<br> <br>And yet stuff DID happen at the stroke of midnight - and that news got suppressed because it was embarrassing, and anyway most of the incidents were minor - we had successfully fixed everything major.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It was real , but hyped .
None of us seriously expected 747s to invert on crossing the International Date Line , as some more fevered commentators speculated , nor did we expect nuclear power stations to destabilize .
However , we knew that all our systems had to interact correctly for the business to deliver correctly .
I was working as a contractor for a major airline , and we knew that lots of our most fundamental systems had been written in the 60 's and 70 's .
They HAD to be checked , and HAD to be tested through the full extent of the workflow .
Moreover , it was always journalist bullshit that it was all going to happen at the stroke of midnight .
There were plenty of opportunities for problems to occur at other times .
A major food and clothing retailer started rejecting shipments of canned food in September 1999 because the dates on the cans said the Sell-By date was 100 years ago .
This really happened .
And yet stuff DID happen at the stroke of midnight - and that news got suppressed because it was embarrassing , and anyway most of the incidents were minor - we had successfully fixed everything major .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It was real, but hyped.
None of us seriously expected 747s to invert on crossing the International Date Line, as some more fevered commentators speculated, nor did we expect nuclear power stations to destabilize.
However, we knew that all our systems had to interact correctly for the business to deliver correctly.
I was working as a contractor for a major airline, and we knew that lots of our most fundamental systems had been written in the 60's and 70's.
They HAD to be checked, and HAD to be tested through the full extent of the workflow.
Moreover, it was always journalist bullshit that it was all going to happen at the stroke of midnight.
There were plenty of opportunities for problems to occur at other times.
A major food and clothing retailer started rejecting shipments of canned food in September 1999 because the dates on the cans said the Sell-By date was 100 years ago.
This really happened.
And yet stuff DID happen at the stroke of midnight - and that news got suppressed because it was embarrassing, and anyway most of the incidents were minor - we had successfully fixed everything major.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30615450</id>
	<title>Re:The 12/99 bug</title>
	<author>jnork</author>
	<datestamp>1262376600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Huh? It was the old software, not the new, that was performing this trick. They just didn't realize it until the system failed. They weren't ready because they didn't expect problems for another month. He was just explaining why the problem occurred a month earlier than expected.</p><p>Your comment doesn't make any sense to me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Huh ?
It was the old software , not the new , that was performing this trick .
They just did n't realize it until the system failed .
They were n't ready because they did n't expect problems for another month .
He was just explaining why the problem occurred a month earlier than expected.Your comment does n't make any sense to me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Huh?
It was the old software, not the new, that was performing this trick.
They just didn't realize it until the system failed.
They weren't ready because they didn't expect problems for another month.
He was just explaining why the problem occurred a month earlier than expected.Your comment doesn't make any sense to me.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30614868</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30614698</id>
	<title>Re:My findings on Y2K hype.</title>
	<author>jellomizer</author>
	<datestamp>1262368380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes... People want some how to be part of history, and be That Guy who survived it.  Especially being Pre 9/11 at the time Generation X didn't have anything historically that they say that they lived threw.  There was World War 1, World War 2,  Vietnam... Generation X had the First Iraq War that was relatively small. We wanted something big to happen so we can tell the next generation how easy they have it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes... People want some how to be part of history , and be That Guy who survived it .
Especially being Pre 9/11 at the time Generation X did n't have anything historically that they say that they lived threw .
There was World War 1 , World War 2 , Vietnam... Generation X had the First Iraq War that was relatively small .
We wanted something big to happen so we can tell the next generation how easy they have it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes... People want some how to be part of history, and be That Guy who survived it.
Especially being Pre 9/11 at the time Generation X didn't have anything historically that they say that they lived threw.
There was World War 1, World War 2,  Vietnam... Generation X had the First Iraq War that was relatively small.
We wanted something big to happen so we can tell the next generation how easy they have it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30613808</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30613754</id>
	<title>Nothing to do with integers and such</title>
	<author>ascari</author>
	<datestamp>1262356980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>According to a friend of mine who is a manager with a large Indian offshore IT company the biggest impact of Y2K was that it gave offshore IT consultancies a big opportunity to gain some street cred and foothold in the US. The rest is history. (Whether this is good, bad, inevitable, indifferent etc. is a separate matter and largely dependent on viewpoint I guess.)</htmltext>
<tokenext>According to a friend of mine who is a manager with a large Indian offshore IT company the biggest impact of Y2K was that it gave offshore IT consultancies a big opportunity to gain some street cred and foothold in the US .
The rest is history .
( Whether this is good , bad , inevitable , indifferent etc .
is a separate matter and largely dependent on viewpoint I guess .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>According to a friend of mine who is a manager with a large Indian offshore IT company the biggest impact of Y2K was that it gave offshore IT consultancies a big opportunity to gain some street cred and foothold in the US.
The rest is history.
(Whether this is good, bad, inevitable, indifferent etc.
is a separate matter and largely dependent on viewpoint I guess.
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30615830</id>
	<title>Re:This kind of hype was exactly the problem</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262337000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Basically there are fools who only see money down a drain, because people have a tendency to ignore disasters unless they actually happen. Planes dropping out of the sky might of been an exaggeration by rumour mongers, (I'm not sure, anyone care to correct me?), but serious global problems aren't such a dumb idea as a result of a few major systems crashing.</p></div></blockquote><p>Keep in mind a couple things.</p><p>IT guys had been telling the PHBs for up to 30 years in some cases that Y2K <b>MIGHT</b> be a problem, and the longer they waited to do anything, the more costly it would become.  All the IT guys I know personally, along with myself, just heard the crickets chirping.  The PHBs weren't interested in hearing about something that's gonna happen 'years from now' when they had to worry about next quarter's dividend check payments.  Two guesses which took priority for them.</p><p>The PBHs screamed and yelled after Y2K for a 'humongous waste of money fixing obviously not broken computer systems' and took their revenge on IT departments because the IT guys had the balls to come up to them and say things like, 'Hey, we have 8000 man-hours work to do in the timeframe you're giving us, and we only have 2000 man-hours to work with.  We're gonna need some more help if we're gonna curbstomp any problems you direct us to stomp.'  Because the PHBs took their time and waited til the last minute, they had no choice but to open their checkbooks for the pound of prevention needed.  No good deed goes unpunished.</p><p>The PHBs got stuck buying a lotta shit they didn't need to (Y2K compliant office desks, anyone?) as the scammers came out of the woodwork selling stuff 'certified' as Y2K compliant that didn't need to be 'compliant'.  How many calculators truly needed to be Y2K compliant?  Yet, their stockholders insisted, and would have had them all shot had they <b>not</b> done so because of the hype.</p><p>A lot of the old COBOL programmers had been retired by the early 90's, and some came out of retirement at big bucks and in a couple cases, seriously overstated their need to fix some problems in systems that should have been updated up to 20 years beforehand.  A good way to pad your retirement fund, I'll give you that, but the PHBs screamed bloody murder as they signed the checks for 'consultant fees'.</p><p>When you have to certify Y2K compliance in a piece of software, then you get forced into upgrading it by the PHBs and have to retest, you waste the IT guy's time.  Upgrade first, <b>THEN</b> test and certify.</p><p>Posted anon because my password is stored on a computer I can't get to at the moment, and I'm too goddamned lazy to request a password change<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:D</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Basically there are fools who only see money down a drain , because people have a tendency to ignore disasters unless they actually happen .
Planes dropping out of the sky might of been an exaggeration by rumour mongers , ( I 'm not sure , anyone care to correct me ?
) , but serious global problems are n't such a dumb idea as a result of a few major systems crashing.Keep in mind a couple things.IT guys had been telling the PHBs for up to 30 years in some cases that Y2K MIGHT be a problem , and the longer they waited to do anything , the more costly it would become .
All the IT guys I know personally , along with myself , just heard the crickets chirping .
The PHBs were n't interested in hearing about something that 's gon na happen 'years from now ' when they had to worry about next quarter 's dividend check payments .
Two guesses which took priority for them.The PBHs screamed and yelled after Y2K for a 'humongous waste of money fixing obviously not broken computer systems ' and took their revenge on IT departments because the IT guys had the balls to come up to them and say things like , 'Hey , we have 8000 man-hours work to do in the timeframe you 're giving us , and we only have 2000 man-hours to work with .
We 're gon na need some more help if we 're gon na curbstomp any problems you direct us to stomp .
' Because the PHBs took their time and waited til the last minute , they had no choice but to open their checkbooks for the pound of prevention needed .
No good deed goes unpunished.The PHBs got stuck buying a lotta shit they did n't need to ( Y2K compliant office desks , anyone ?
) as the scammers came out of the woodwork selling stuff 'certified ' as Y2K compliant that did n't need to be 'compliant' .
How many calculators truly needed to be Y2K compliant ?
Yet , their stockholders insisted , and would have had them all shot had they not done so because of the hype.A lot of the old COBOL programmers had been retired by the early 90 's , and some came out of retirement at big bucks and in a couple cases , seriously overstated their need to fix some problems in systems that should have been updated up to 20 years beforehand .
A good way to pad your retirement fund , I 'll give you that , but the PHBs screamed bloody murder as they signed the checks for 'consultant fees'.When you have to certify Y2K compliance in a piece of software , then you get forced into upgrading it by the PHBs and have to retest , you waste the IT guy 's time .
Upgrade first , THEN test and certify.Posted anon because my password is stored on a computer I ca n't get to at the moment , and I 'm too goddamned lazy to request a password change : D</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Basically there are fools who only see money down a drain, because people have a tendency to ignore disasters unless they actually happen.
Planes dropping out of the sky might of been an exaggeration by rumour mongers, (I'm not sure, anyone care to correct me?
), but serious global problems aren't such a dumb idea as a result of a few major systems crashing.Keep in mind a couple things.IT guys had been telling the PHBs for up to 30 years in some cases that Y2K MIGHT be a problem, and the longer they waited to do anything, the more costly it would become.
All the IT guys I know personally, along with myself, just heard the crickets chirping.
The PHBs weren't interested in hearing about something that's gonna happen 'years from now' when they had to worry about next quarter's dividend check payments.
Two guesses which took priority for them.The PBHs screamed and yelled after Y2K for a 'humongous waste of money fixing obviously not broken computer systems' and took their revenge on IT departments because the IT guys had the balls to come up to them and say things like, 'Hey, we have 8000 man-hours work to do in the timeframe you're giving us, and we only have 2000 man-hours to work with.
We're gonna need some more help if we're gonna curbstomp any problems you direct us to stomp.
'  Because the PHBs took their time and waited til the last minute, they had no choice but to open their checkbooks for the pound of prevention needed.
No good deed goes unpunished.The PHBs got stuck buying a lotta shit they didn't need to (Y2K compliant office desks, anyone?
) as the scammers came out of the woodwork selling stuff 'certified' as Y2K compliant that didn't need to be 'compliant'.
How many calculators truly needed to be Y2K compliant?
Yet, their stockholders insisted, and would have had them all shot had they not done so because of the hype.A lot of the old COBOL programmers had been retired by the early 90's, and some came out of retirement at big bucks and in a couple cases, seriously overstated their need to fix some problems in systems that should have been updated up to 20 years beforehand.
A good way to pad your retirement fund, I'll give you that, but the PHBs screamed bloody murder as they signed the checks for 'consultant fees'.When you have to certify Y2K compliance in a piece of software, then you get forced into upgrading it by the PHBs and have to retest, you waste the IT guy's time.
Upgrade first, THEN test and certify.Posted anon because my password is stored on a computer I can't get to at the moment, and I'm too goddamned lazy to request a password change :D
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30613682</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30615076</id>
	<title>Re:The threat was real.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262372640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>This means that the executives were personally liable (e.g. they could lose their houses) for Y2K failures that happened in their companies.</p></div></blockquote><p>
Generally, in a limited-liability corporation, an executive can't lose his house for big failures when the company goes bankrupt. His half-a-billion dollar portfolio of company stock? Sure. Snazzy paycheck? Hasta la vista. Non-company-related personal assets like a house? Not so much. You <i>could</i> have someone sue him for criminal incompetence or malice afterward, but it's not going to be trivial to pull off.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This means that the executives were personally liable ( e.g .
they could lose their houses ) for Y2K failures that happened in their companies .
Generally , in a limited-liability corporation , an executive ca n't lose his house for big failures when the company goes bankrupt .
His half-a-billion dollar portfolio of company stock ?
Sure. Snazzy paycheck ?
Hasta la vista .
Non-company-related personal assets like a house ?
Not so much .
You could have someone sue him for criminal incompetence or malice afterward , but it 's not going to be trivial to pull off .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This means that the executives were personally liable (e.g.
they could lose their houses) for Y2K failures that happened in their companies.
Generally, in a limited-liability corporation, an executive can't lose his house for big failures when the company goes bankrupt.
His half-a-billion dollar portfolio of company stock?
Sure. Snazzy paycheck?
Hasta la vista.
Non-company-related personal assets like a house?
Not so much.
You could have someone sue him for criminal incompetence or malice afterward, but it's not going to be trivial to pull off.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30613952</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30613632</id>
	<title>Oversold?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262355480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A great many computer systems used two digit dates, and would treat '00' as a date in the past. Changing this fundamental fact would take an awful lot of work; not changing it would mean that all these computer systems break on Jan 1st 2000.</p><p>Allot of work was done, and most all important computer systems didn't suffer from any serious problems.</p><p>What is being oversold?</p><p>I suppose there were 'cowboy' consultants exploiting the problem by offering to come in and look at your recently acquired IT infrastructure, charging huge amounts for a simple thumbs up. That doesn't undermine the severity of the problem though.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A great many computer systems used two digit dates , and would treat '00 ' as a date in the past .
Changing this fundamental fact would take an awful lot of work ; not changing it would mean that all these computer systems break on Jan 1st 2000.Allot of work was done , and most all important computer systems did n't suffer from any serious problems.What is being oversold ? I suppose there were 'cowboy ' consultants exploiting the problem by offering to come in and look at your recently acquired IT infrastructure , charging huge amounts for a simple thumbs up .
That does n't undermine the severity of the problem though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A great many computer systems used two digit dates, and would treat '00' as a date in the past.
Changing this fundamental fact would take an awful lot of work; not changing it would mean that all these computer systems break on Jan 1st 2000.Allot of work was done, and most all important computer systems didn't suffer from any serious problems.What is being oversold?I suppose there were 'cowboy' consultants exploiting the problem by offering to come in and look at your recently acquired IT infrastructure, charging huge amounts for a simple thumbs up.
That doesn't undermine the severity of the problem though.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30615030</id>
	<title>Super gigantic load of crap</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262371980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Before (long before) it came, I was in university (ok about 3 years before).  I had a roommate also in CS.   Our landlord was studying physical education, and another was in education.  They asked us earnestly if there was anything to worry about.  We told them no.  It was a problem that could affect a few systems (old legacy cobol systems and some old DOS programs, but mostly it was marketing bullshit to sell software and services.  It was true that all computers have clocks, but another more technical term is oscillator, and its more like a heartbeat than a wristwatch.  It doesn't care about the year one fig.  In spite of this, and the practical reality that most systems aren't programmed to care in the slightest what year or day it is, there really isn't anything to worry about.  For manufacturers with machines, software and services to sell, NO, what I was saying was sacrilege.  In a way, it was.  This was their once-in-a-millennium chance to make a killing.  Either I didn't understand that, or they would declare that I simply didn't know what they knew.  Gosh that was money well spent.  The same people buying computers for large companies (those who went to business school, having taken an introduction to computers course in college, and as business folk are prone to do, declared themselves expert), bit hook, line and sinker, and saved trillions of dollars by spending billions of dollars on new equipment declared to be 'safe'.  After y2k, the people selling solutions set about selling virus and computer security products.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Before ( long before ) it came , I was in university ( ok about 3 years before ) .
I had a roommate also in CS .
Our landlord was studying physical education , and another was in education .
They asked us earnestly if there was anything to worry about .
We told them no .
It was a problem that could affect a few systems ( old legacy cobol systems and some old DOS programs , but mostly it was marketing bullshit to sell software and services .
It was true that all computers have clocks , but another more technical term is oscillator , and its more like a heartbeat than a wristwatch .
It does n't care about the year one fig .
In spite of this , and the practical reality that most systems are n't programmed to care in the slightest what year or day it is , there really is n't anything to worry about .
For manufacturers with machines , software and services to sell , NO , what I was saying was sacrilege .
In a way , it was .
This was their once-in-a-millennium chance to make a killing .
Either I did n't understand that , or they would declare that I simply did n't know what they knew .
Gosh that was money well spent .
The same people buying computers for large companies ( those who went to business school , having taken an introduction to computers course in college , and as business folk are prone to do , declared themselves expert ) , bit hook , line and sinker , and saved trillions of dollars by spending billions of dollars on new equipment declared to be 'safe' .
After y2k , the people selling solutions set about selling virus and computer security products .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Before (long before) it came, I was in university (ok about 3 years before).
I had a roommate also in CS.
Our landlord was studying physical education, and another was in education.
They asked us earnestly if there was anything to worry about.
We told them no.
It was a problem that could affect a few systems (old legacy cobol systems and some old DOS programs, but mostly it was marketing bullshit to sell software and services.
It was true that all computers have clocks, but another more technical term is oscillator, and its more like a heartbeat than a wristwatch.
It doesn't care about the year one fig.
In spite of this, and the practical reality that most systems aren't programmed to care in the slightest what year or day it is, there really isn't anything to worry about.
For manufacturers with machines, software and services to sell, NO, what I was saying was sacrilege.
In a way, it was.
This was their once-in-a-millennium chance to make a killing.
Either I didn't understand that, or they would declare that I simply didn't know what they knew.
Gosh that was money well spent.
The same people buying computers for large companies (those who went to business school, having taken an introduction to computers course in college, and as business folk are prone to do, declared themselves expert), bit hook, line and sinker, and saved trillions of dollars by spending billions of dollars on new equipment declared to be 'safe'.
After y2k, the people selling solutions set about selling virus and computer security products.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30613722</id>
	<title>Re:This kind of hype was exactly the problem</title>
	<author>ascari</author>
	<datestamp>1262356560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Hmm. I think the widely accepted metaphor actually is to make a "mountain" out of a molehill. Not sure what you make a "crisis" out of metaphorically.(Perhaps something along the lines of "making a crisis out of a slashdot comment"? Open to other suggestions though, since this clearly is a problem begging for a solution.)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hmm .
I think the widely accepted metaphor actually is to make a " mountain " out of a molehill .
Not sure what you make a " crisis " out of metaphorically .
( Perhaps something along the lines of " making a crisis out of a slashdot comment " ?
Open to other suggestions though , since this clearly is a problem begging for a solution .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hmm.
I think the widely accepted metaphor actually is to make a "mountain" out of a molehill.
Not sure what you make a "crisis" out of metaphorically.
(Perhaps something along the lines of "making a crisis out of a slashdot comment"?
Open to other suggestions though, since this clearly is a problem begging for a solution.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30613560</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30619176</id>
	<title>Re:This kind of hype was exactly the problem</title>
	<author>Halborr</author>
	<datestamp>1262363700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The problem with IT: major problems are only visible to the end user when they happen, not when they are avoided.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem with IT : major problems are only visible to the end user when they happen , not when they are avoided .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem with IT: major problems are only visible to the end user when they happen, not when they are avoided.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30613682</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30614742</id>
	<title>Re:This kind of hype was exactly the problem</title>
	<author>gollito</author>
	<datestamp>1262368800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Yes.  It's very similar to the problems faced by health services on occasions like the H1N1 vaccination program.  If the vaccination efforts are successful, and no alarming wave of deaths hits the world, then "obviously it was oversold and all those vaccination programs are money down the drain".  If they turn out not to have covered all the bases and something terrible happens, then obviously "they failed to take proper measure to protect the population".  Even a major success in public health can only be perceived as a failure for the lack of consequences (unless they tackle and endemic disease that has taken its toll for generations, but many of those cases have been tackled already).  They are permanently stuck in a no-win situation.</p></div><p>
The problem here is due to all the other wolf cries that the media has shouted in regards to medical "pandemics".
<br>
Anybody remember bird flu?
<br>
Yeah, me either.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes .
It 's very similar to the problems faced by health services on occasions like the H1N1 vaccination program .
If the vaccination efforts are successful , and no alarming wave of deaths hits the world , then " obviously it was oversold and all those vaccination programs are money down the drain " .
If they turn out not to have covered all the bases and something terrible happens , then obviously " they failed to take proper measure to protect the population " .
Even a major success in public health can only be perceived as a failure for the lack of consequences ( unless they tackle and endemic disease that has taken its toll for generations , but many of those cases have been tackled already ) .
They are permanently stuck in a no-win situation .
The problem here is due to all the other wolf cries that the media has shouted in regards to medical " pandemics " .
Anybody remember bird flu ?
Yeah , me either .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes.
It's very similar to the problems faced by health services on occasions like the H1N1 vaccination program.
If the vaccination efforts are successful, and no alarming wave of deaths hits the world, then "obviously it was oversold and all those vaccination programs are money down the drain".
If they turn out not to have covered all the bases and something terrible happens, then obviously "they failed to take proper measure to protect the population".
Even a major success in public health can only be perceived as a failure for the lack of consequences (unless they tackle and endemic disease that has taken its toll for generations, but many of those cases have been tackled already).
They are permanently stuck in a no-win situation.
The problem here is due to all the other wolf cries that the media has shouted in regards to medical "pandemics".
Anybody remember bird flu?
Yeah, me either.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30614162</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30614102</id>
	<title>Re:This kind of hype was exactly the problem</title>
	<author>Kjella</author>
	<datestamp>1262362020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The hype (although blown our of proportion) was due to the truth that there was a genuine problem and it required a large amount of man power to fix it (and a large segment of companies waited until the last minute to fix it). And yet reporters go on spouting arrogantly how Y2K was a giant scam, or boogie man spread by IT.</p></div><p>But the point is that it was blown way out of proportion, not just the critical stuff but all the nice-to-haves were fixed and I'm sure many took the opportunity to shoehorn big upgrades in under guise of the y2k bug. It'd be like discovering that 90\% of the SOX-compliance processes you do isn't actually mandated by law but just by control freak bean counters under the guise of SOX, then naturally people feel scammed or scared by a boogie man. Of course companies needed to fix what they needed to have, but they spent far more than that out of fear.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The hype ( although blown our of proportion ) was due to the truth that there was a genuine problem and it required a large amount of man power to fix it ( and a large segment of companies waited until the last minute to fix it ) .
And yet reporters go on spouting arrogantly how Y2K was a giant scam , or boogie man spread by IT.But the point is that it was blown way out of proportion , not just the critical stuff but all the nice-to-haves were fixed and I 'm sure many took the opportunity to shoehorn big upgrades in under guise of the y2k bug .
It 'd be like discovering that 90 \ % of the SOX-compliance processes you do is n't actually mandated by law but just by control freak bean counters under the guise of SOX , then naturally people feel scammed or scared by a boogie man .
Of course companies needed to fix what they needed to have , but they spent far more than that out of fear .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The hype (although blown our of proportion) was due to the truth that there was a genuine problem and it required a large amount of man power to fix it (and a large segment of companies waited until the last minute to fix it).
And yet reporters go on spouting arrogantly how Y2K was a giant scam, or boogie man spread by IT.But the point is that it was blown way out of proportion, not just the critical stuff but all the nice-to-haves were fixed and I'm sure many took the opportunity to shoehorn big upgrades in under guise of the y2k bug.
It'd be like discovering that 90\% of the SOX-compliance processes you do isn't actually mandated by law but just by control freak bean counters under the guise of SOX, then naturally people feel scammed or scared by a boogie man.
Of course companies needed to fix what they needed to have, but they spent far more than that out of fear.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30613682</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30615362</id>
	<title>Re:I was there...</title>
	<author>wwphx</author>
	<datestamp>1262375820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I was working for the police department at Y2K as their SQL Server DBA.  We put a lot of work in to verifying that our apps used the century in date fields, and as most databases at that time did, it wasn't a big deal.  I don't recall having to do a lot of application remediation to accommodate the rollover.  We went in at 6pm and were told we'd be staying for 12 hours, another shift was coming in at 9pm for 12 hours.  We had a big checklist of things to check, pre and post midnight, and all of the MS-based stuff rolled over just fine and I think we went home around 2 or 3am<br> <br>

What didn't work?  The mini computers (HP3000) that ran the dispatch system.  They received a patch from the vendor that would kick in at midnight, compiled it, but didn't run it through the link/edit step, and when midnight came the system went down.  Fortunately the operators on that shift were the most experienced, they knew their precinct maps, and had plenty of paper and pencils standing by.  They switched over to dispatching manually and tracking units with paper, and there were no hiccups.<br> <br>

The funniest thing was Motorola.  All of our MDTs ran Windows 3, which was not Y2K compliant, and Motorola wanted $500 per unit to patch it to handle Y2K.  As it turns out, as soon as the MDT logged on to the mainframe, the software downloaded the current time stamp, including century, which the system had no problem accepting.  The officers were told to sign off and sign back on to their MDT after midnight, and all was well.<br> <br>

There were 2,000 MDTs deployed, it was a pretty chunk of change that Motorola wanted to screw us out of.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I was working for the police department at Y2K as their SQL Server DBA .
We put a lot of work in to verifying that our apps used the century in date fields , and as most databases at that time did , it was n't a big deal .
I do n't recall having to do a lot of application remediation to accommodate the rollover .
We went in at 6pm and were told we 'd be staying for 12 hours , another shift was coming in at 9pm for 12 hours .
We had a big checklist of things to check , pre and post midnight , and all of the MS-based stuff rolled over just fine and I think we went home around 2 or 3am What did n't work ?
The mini computers ( HP3000 ) that ran the dispatch system .
They received a patch from the vendor that would kick in at midnight , compiled it , but did n't run it through the link/edit step , and when midnight came the system went down .
Fortunately the operators on that shift were the most experienced , they knew their precinct maps , and had plenty of paper and pencils standing by .
They switched over to dispatching manually and tracking units with paper , and there were no hiccups .
The funniest thing was Motorola .
All of our MDTs ran Windows 3 , which was not Y2K compliant , and Motorola wanted $ 500 per unit to patch it to handle Y2K .
As it turns out , as soon as the MDT logged on to the mainframe , the software downloaded the current time stamp , including century , which the system had no problem accepting .
The officers were told to sign off and sign back on to their MDT after midnight , and all was well .
There were 2,000 MDTs deployed , it was a pretty chunk of change that Motorola wanted to screw us out of .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was working for the police department at Y2K as their SQL Server DBA.
We put a lot of work in to verifying that our apps used the century in date fields, and as most databases at that time did, it wasn't a big deal.
I don't recall having to do a lot of application remediation to accommodate the rollover.
We went in at 6pm and were told we'd be staying for 12 hours, another shift was coming in at 9pm for 12 hours.
We had a big checklist of things to check, pre and post midnight, and all of the MS-based stuff rolled over just fine and I think we went home around 2 or 3am 

What didn't work?
The mini computers (HP3000) that ran the dispatch system.
They received a patch from the vendor that would kick in at midnight, compiled it, but didn't run it through the link/edit step, and when midnight came the system went down.
Fortunately the operators on that shift were the most experienced, they knew their precinct maps, and had plenty of paper and pencils standing by.
They switched over to dispatching manually and tracking units with paper, and there were no hiccups.
The funniest thing was Motorola.
All of our MDTs ran Windows 3, which was not Y2K compliant, and Motorola wanted $500 per unit to patch it to handle Y2K.
As it turns out, as soon as the MDT logged on to the mainframe, the software downloaded the current time stamp, including century, which the system had no problem accepting.
The officers were told to sign off and sign back on to their MDT after midnight, and all was well.
There were 2,000 MDTs deployed, it was a pretty chunk of change that Motorola wanted to screw us out of.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30613732</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30614152</id>
	<title>The Agony and The Ecstasy</title>
	<author>anorlunda</author>
	<datestamp>1262362560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ecstasy<br>The attack of 9/11/2001 took out the WTC and other buildings near ground zero. This was the heart of the financial district and the IT base of many firms.</p><p>In the hours following the attack, the offsite backup sites for many of those firms seamlessly took over. Nobody noticed that.</p><p>I firmly believe that without Y2K remediations, 911 would have been a big IT disaster too.</p><p>Agony<br>At the successful conclusion of Y2K remediation efforts, the upper and middle level managements treated themselves to celebrations at luxury resorts. Meanwhile, many IT grunts who put in all the extra hours got nothing more than pink slips. In most cases, the companies didn't even offer to buy them a beer as thanks for their long hours.</p><p>It was the most ungracious treatment of labor I ever witnessed. Compare it to calling Viet Nam vets baby killers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>EcstasyThe attack of 9/11/2001 took out the WTC and other buildings near ground zero .
This was the heart of the financial district and the IT base of many firms.In the hours following the attack , the offsite backup sites for many of those firms seamlessly took over .
Nobody noticed that.I firmly believe that without Y2K remediations , 911 would have been a big IT disaster too.AgonyAt the successful conclusion of Y2K remediation efforts , the upper and middle level managements treated themselves to celebrations at luxury resorts .
Meanwhile , many IT grunts who put in all the extra hours got nothing more than pink slips .
In most cases , the companies did n't even offer to buy them a beer as thanks for their long hours.It was the most ungracious treatment of labor I ever witnessed .
Compare it to calling Viet Nam vets baby killers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>EcstasyThe attack of 9/11/2001 took out the WTC and other buildings near ground zero.
This was the heart of the financial district and the IT base of many firms.In the hours following the attack, the offsite backup sites for many of those firms seamlessly took over.
Nobody noticed that.I firmly believe that without Y2K remediations, 911 would have been a big IT disaster too.AgonyAt the successful conclusion of Y2K remediation efforts, the upper and middle level managements treated themselves to celebrations at luxury resorts.
Meanwhile, many IT grunts who put in all the extra hours got nothing more than pink slips.
In most cases, the companies didn't even offer to buy them a beer as thanks for their long hours.It was the most ungracious treatment of labor I ever witnessed.
Compare it to calling Viet Nam vets baby killers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30613828</id>
	<title>Re:What about epoch + 2G?</title>
	<author>TheRaven64</author>
	<datestamp>1262358060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'd be surprised if PHP has problems with the epoch, because it doesn't expose the precision of integers to the user.  They can store time intervals in a 64-bit value without problems.  A lot of other code is similarly protected, for example the OpenStep specification uses a double for time intervals and allows multiple epochs (absolute times are time intervals plus an epoch date).  Apple's implementation defaults to using the release date of OS X 10.0 as the epoch, but a double has a 52 bit mantissa and so will last more than 140 years before the precision drops to less than a microsecond.  Most 64-bit UNIX systems use a 64-bit integer for time\_t (on Darwin, for example, it's a typedef for a long, so it's 32 bits on 32-bit platforms and 64 bits on 64-bit platforms), so only code that isn't recompiled in the next 28 years (or which explicitly casts a time\_t to an int or int32\_t) will have a problem.</p><p>
Unlike Y2K, the problem is understood decades in advance and planned for.  No one thought in the '70s or '80s that people would still be using their code after so long.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd be surprised if PHP has problems with the epoch , because it does n't expose the precision of integers to the user .
They can store time intervals in a 64-bit value without problems .
A lot of other code is similarly protected , for example the OpenStep specification uses a double for time intervals and allows multiple epochs ( absolute times are time intervals plus an epoch date ) .
Apple 's implementation defaults to using the release date of OS X 10.0 as the epoch , but a double has a 52 bit mantissa and so will last more than 140 years before the precision drops to less than a microsecond .
Most 64-bit UNIX systems use a 64-bit integer for time \ _t ( on Darwin , for example , it 's a typedef for a long , so it 's 32 bits on 32-bit platforms and 64 bits on 64-bit platforms ) , so only code that is n't recompiled in the next 28 years ( or which explicitly casts a time \ _t to an int or int32 \ _t ) will have a problem .
Unlike Y2K , the problem is understood decades in advance and planned for .
No one thought in the '70s or '80s that people would still be using their code after so long .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd be surprised if PHP has problems with the epoch, because it doesn't expose the precision of integers to the user.
They can store time intervals in a 64-bit value without problems.
A lot of other code is similarly protected, for example the OpenStep specification uses a double for time intervals and allows multiple epochs (absolute times are time intervals plus an epoch date).
Apple's implementation defaults to using the release date of OS X 10.0 as the epoch, but a double has a 52 bit mantissa and so will last more than 140 years before the precision drops to less than a microsecond.
Most 64-bit UNIX systems use a 64-bit integer for time\_t (on Darwin, for example, it's a typedef for a long, so it's 32 bits on 32-bit platforms and 64 bits on 64-bit platforms), so only code that isn't recompiled in the next 28 years (or which explicitly casts a time\_t to an int or int32\_t) will have a problem.
Unlike Y2K, the problem is understood decades in advance and planned for.
No one thought in the '70s or '80s that people would still be using their code after so long.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30613584</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30613950</id>
	<title>But the machines never stopped</title>
	<author>ltkije</author>
	<datestamp>1262359920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I remember news stories from fall 1999. People were seriously concerned that gas, electricity and water utilities would fail, planes would crash, cars would stall and Social Security payments would not get made. Some acquaintances didn't like it when I pointed out that from the first time the Social Security Administration began automating, it had to deal with people born in the 19th century and others would not retire until the 21st. Hospitals replaced medical equipment that could not be certified as Y2K-compatible, instead of testing to see whether there would be any problem. </p><p>It got so bad that some New York buildings halted their elevators before the fateful midnight, and the U.S. Secretary of Transportation was riding on a commercial flight at midnight on December 31.

</p><p>Those of us who wrote software for these machines just laughed and repeated the mantra, "Embedded systems programmers don't use COBOL."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I remember news stories from fall 1999 .
People were seriously concerned that gas , electricity and water utilities would fail , planes would crash , cars would stall and Social Security payments would not get made .
Some acquaintances did n't like it when I pointed out that from the first time the Social Security Administration began automating , it had to deal with people born in the 19th century and others would not retire until the 21st .
Hospitals replaced medical equipment that could not be certified as Y2K-compatible , instead of testing to see whether there would be any problem .
It got so bad that some New York buildings halted their elevators before the fateful midnight , and the U.S. Secretary of Transportation was riding on a commercial flight at midnight on December 31 .
Those of us who wrote software for these machines just laughed and repeated the mantra , " Embedded systems programmers do n't use COBOL .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I remember news stories from fall 1999.
People were seriously concerned that gas, electricity and water utilities would fail, planes would crash, cars would stall and Social Security payments would not get made.
Some acquaintances didn't like it when I pointed out that from the first time the Social Security Administration began automating, it had to deal with people born in the 19th century and others would not retire until the 21st.
Hospitals replaced medical equipment that could not be certified as Y2K-compatible, instead of testing to see whether there would be any problem.
It got so bad that some New York buildings halted their elevators before the fateful midnight, and the U.S. Secretary of Transportation was riding on a commercial flight at midnight on December 31.
Those of us who wrote software for these machines just laughed and repeated the mantra, "Embedded systems programmers don't use COBOL.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30614056</id>
	<title>Reikk sucks</title>
	<author>Runaway1956</author>
	<datestamp>1262361120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Fucking horrible remnant of shitty 1900's fetus.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Fucking horrible remnant of shitty 1900 's fetus .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fucking horrible remnant of shitty 1900's fetus.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30613548</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30613548</id>
	<title>Linux sucks</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262354400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Fucking horrible remnant of shitty 1970s technology</htmltext>
<tokenext>Fucking horrible remnant of shitty 1970s technology</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fucking horrible remnant of shitty 1970s technology</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30613660</id>
	<title>Y2K was right!</title>
	<author>Cyko\_01</author>
	<datestamp>1262355780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September\_11,\_2001\_attacks" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">planes fell from the sky</a> [wikipedia.org] and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northeast\_Blackout\_of\_2003" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">electric grids went black</a> [wikipedia.org]. It just didn't happen how and when we thought it would</htmltext>
<tokenext>planes fell from the sky [ wikipedia.org ] and electric grids went black [ wikipedia.org ] .
It just did n't happen how and when we thought it would</tokentext>
<sentencetext>planes fell from the sky [wikipedia.org] and electric grids went black [wikipedia.org].
It just didn't happen how and when we thought it would</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30613804</id>
	<title>Different flavor of FUD.</title>
	<author>geekmux</author>
	<datestamp>1262357580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Y2K was nothing more than a standard Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt(FUD) campaign in a dated wrapper.  Sure, some ultra-greedy contracting agencies hyped it up to try and justify $200/hr to drag a FORTRAN programmer out of retirement, but it was all still FUD nonetheless.  Trying to paint some weird decade-long gloom and doom over IT because of one particular snapshot in time is a bit false.  Our industry isn't exactly dying off out there(cough, newspapers).  Perhaps you should look towards those selling domain names(business.com anyone?) for millions, or those "developing" vaporware for anyone willing to sign a check during the whole dot-com era that cast more of a shadow of FUD around IT in general.  Sorry, just cutting to the quick here and calling out the true bullshit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Y2K was nothing more than a standard Fear , Uncertainty , and Doubt ( FUD ) campaign in a dated wrapper .
Sure , some ultra-greedy contracting agencies hyped it up to try and justify $ 200/hr to drag a FORTRAN programmer out of retirement , but it was all still FUD nonetheless .
Trying to paint some weird decade-long gloom and doom over IT because of one particular snapshot in time is a bit false .
Our industry is n't exactly dying off out there ( cough , newspapers ) .
Perhaps you should look towards those selling domain names ( business.com anyone ?
) for millions , or those " developing " vaporware for anyone willing to sign a check during the whole dot-com era that cast more of a shadow of FUD around IT in general .
Sorry , just cutting to the quick here and calling out the true bullshit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Y2K was nothing more than a standard Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt(FUD) campaign in a dated wrapper.
Sure, some ultra-greedy contracting agencies hyped it up to try and justify $200/hr to drag a FORTRAN programmer out of retirement, but it was all still FUD nonetheless.
Trying to paint some weird decade-long gloom and doom over IT because of one particular snapshot in time is a bit false.
Our industry isn't exactly dying off out there(cough, newspapers).
Perhaps you should look towards those selling domain names(business.com anyone?
) for millions, or those "developing" vaporware for anyone willing to sign a check during the whole dot-com era that cast more of a shadow of FUD around IT in general.
Sorry, just cutting to the quick here and calling out the true bullshit.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30633930</id>
	<title>The Y2K bug almost cost a friend of mine his life-</title>
	<author>DeVilla</author>
	<datestamp>1262511060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>time subscription.  (Sorry hit a character lime in the subject.)  He got a notice that his subscription to his ham radio magazine was expiring.  Since it was a lifetime subscription, he called them up and asked if they knew something that he and his doctor needed to be aware of.  Lifetime subscriptions were given an expiration year of '99'.</htmltext>
<tokenext>time subscription .
( Sorry hit a character lime in the subject .
) He got a notice that his subscription to his ham radio magazine was expiring .
Since it was a lifetime subscription , he called them up and asked if they knew something that he and his doctor needed to be aware of .
Lifetime subscriptions were given an expiration year of '99' .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>time subscription.
(Sorry hit a character lime in the subject.
)  He got a notice that his subscription to his ham radio magazine was expiring.
Since it was a lifetime subscription, he called them up and asked if they knew something that he and his doctor needed to be aware of.
Lifetime subscriptions were given an expiration year of '99'.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30613880</id>
	<title>Re:I was there...</title>
	<author>mce</author>
	<datestamp>1262358720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Indeed, things happened sooner than Jan 1, 2000 and they also happened at the stroke of midnight. I encountered my first unexpected Y2K bug (I'd already fixed several ones that we knew of in our own systems) a few minutes after midnight in Jan 1, 1999. More in particular, SCCS on HP-UX was unable to check in a file after midnight on that day because for some reason that I never understood it calculated a date one year into the future while doing so. Fortunately, HP already had done their homework as well and they had an update readily available.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Indeed , things happened sooner than Jan 1 , 2000 and they also happened at the stroke of midnight .
I encountered my first unexpected Y2K bug ( I 'd already fixed several ones that we knew of in our own systems ) a few minutes after midnight in Jan 1 , 1999 .
More in particular , SCCS on HP-UX was unable to check in a file after midnight on that day because for some reason that I never understood it calculated a date one year into the future while doing so .
Fortunately , HP already had done their homework as well and they had an update readily available .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Indeed, things happened sooner than Jan 1, 2000 and they also happened at the stroke of midnight.
I encountered my first unexpected Y2K bug (I'd already fixed several ones that we knew of in our own systems) a few minutes after midnight in Jan 1, 1999.
More in particular, SCCS on HP-UX was unable to check in a file after midnight on that day because for some reason that I never understood it calculated a date one year into the future while doing so.
Fortunately, HP already had done their homework as well and they had an update readily available.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30613732</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30613650</id>
	<title>No-win situation</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262355720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>"It was a no-win situation," says Paul Ingevaldson. "People said, 'You IT guys made this big deal about Y2K, and it was no big deal. You oversold this. You cried wolf.' ""</p></div><p>That's how I feel about the global warming issue.  If we succeed in stopping the effects of climate change, all the nay-sayers will claim it was a waste of money and less effort will be taken to prevent the problem going into the future.  If we don't, we could really screw up the planet.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" It was a no-win situation , " says Paul Ingevaldson .
" People said , 'You IT guys made this big deal about Y2K , and it was no big deal .
You oversold this .
You cried wolf .
' " " That 's how I feel about the global warming issue .
If we succeed in stopping the effects of climate change , all the nay-sayers will claim it was a waste of money and less effort will be taken to prevent the problem going into the future .
If we do n't , we could really screw up the planet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"It was a no-win situation," says Paul Ingevaldson.
"People said, 'You IT guys made this big deal about Y2K, and it was no big deal.
You oversold this.
You cried wolf.
' ""That's how I feel about the global warming issue.
If we succeed in stopping the effects of climate change, all the nay-sayers will claim it was a waste of money and less effort will be taken to prevent the problem going into the future.
If we don't, we could really screw up the planet.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30614444</id>
	<title>My experience.</title>
	<author>shippo</author>
	<datestamp>1262365800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I worked for a systems reseller/support provider back then. We had 50 to 100 customers out in the field running a particular OS and associated software products.</p><p>Our major vendor was extremely slow at getting updates out. The OS definitely had a problem, as account expiry dates were stored using two digit years, so ever user on every system would get locked out come 2000. They managed to devise a fix to the account security system, but it was well into 1999 before this update appeared. Even then the update was in the form of a complete new release of the latest version of the OS which had some terrible inherent problems not seen in the earlier releases many customers chose to still run.</p><p>More annoying with this new update is at the same time many long lasting OS features were discontinued, features which the majority of our customers used. It was as if they simply couldn't be bothered to audit the code, so they simply junked it. These features included WAN connections via serial and leased lines and integration with IBM mainframe architecture - with these features no longer available the OS no longer had an advantage over the then competition.</p><p>The knock-on effect was that the majority of our customers simply decided to abandon the OS altogether and migrate to something else, such as NT.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I worked for a systems reseller/support provider back then .
We had 50 to 100 customers out in the field running a particular OS and associated software products.Our major vendor was extremely slow at getting updates out .
The OS definitely had a problem , as account expiry dates were stored using two digit years , so ever user on every system would get locked out come 2000 .
They managed to devise a fix to the account security system , but it was well into 1999 before this update appeared .
Even then the update was in the form of a complete new release of the latest version of the OS which had some terrible inherent problems not seen in the earlier releases many customers chose to still run.More annoying with this new update is at the same time many long lasting OS features were discontinued , features which the majority of our customers used .
It was as if they simply could n't be bothered to audit the code , so they simply junked it .
These features included WAN connections via serial and leased lines and integration with IBM mainframe architecture - with these features no longer available the OS no longer had an advantage over the then competition.The knock-on effect was that the majority of our customers simply decided to abandon the OS altogether and migrate to something else , such as NT .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I worked for a systems reseller/support provider back then.
We had 50 to 100 customers out in the field running a particular OS and associated software products.Our major vendor was extremely slow at getting updates out.
The OS definitely had a problem, as account expiry dates were stored using two digit years, so ever user on every system would get locked out come 2000.
They managed to devise a fix to the account security system, but it was well into 1999 before this update appeared.
Even then the update was in the form of a complete new release of the latest version of the OS which had some terrible inherent problems not seen in the earlier releases many customers chose to still run.More annoying with this new update is at the same time many long lasting OS features were discontinued, features which the majority of our customers used.
It was as if they simply couldn't be bothered to audit the code, so they simply junked it.
These features included WAN connections via serial and leased lines and integration with IBM mainframe architecture - with these features no longer available the OS no longer had an advantage over the then competition.The knock-on effect was that the majority of our customers simply decided to abandon the OS altogether and migrate to something else, such as NT.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30613678</id>
	<title>Re:What about epoch + 2G?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262356140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're talking about the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2038\_problem" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">year 2038 problem</a> [wikipedia.org]. Still got 28 years time to switch over to 64-bit time. Planes being planes, I think they will use 64-bit CPUs with 64-bit OSs with 64-bit time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're talking about the year 2038 problem [ wikipedia.org ] .
Still got 28 years time to switch over to 64-bit time .
Planes being planes , I think they will use 64-bit CPUs with 64-bit OSs with 64-bit time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're talking about the year 2038 problem [wikipedia.org].
Still got 28 years time to switch over to 64-bit time.
Planes being planes, I think they will use 64-bit CPUs with 64-bit OSs with 64-bit time.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30613584</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_01_0157220_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30613592
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30614022
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_01_0157220_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30613584
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30613704
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_01_0157220_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30613732
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30615362
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_01_0157220_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30613808
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30614042
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_01_0157220_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30614152
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30617886
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_01_0157220_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30614010
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30614868
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30615450
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_01_0157220_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30613808
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30615602
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_01_0157220_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30613584
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30613994
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_01_0157220_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30613650
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30615100
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_01_0157220_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30613732
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30613880
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_01_0157220_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30613584
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30613752
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_01_0157220_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30613584
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30613604
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_01_0157220_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30613560
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30613742
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_01_0157220_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30613560
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30613682
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30614076
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_01_0157220_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30613808
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30617210
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_01_0157220_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30613632
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30615206
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_01_0157220_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30613808
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30614698
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_01_0157220_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30613560
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30613682
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30614278
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_01_0157220_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30613952
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30615092
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_01_0157220_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30613808
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30614038
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_01_0157220_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30614148
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30615164
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_01_0157220_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30613632
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30615320
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_01_0157220_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30613952
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30615076
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_01_0157220_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30613808
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30615102
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_01_0157220_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30613808
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30614044
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_01_0157220_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30613560
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30613682
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30615350
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_01_0157220_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30613560
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30615260
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_01_0157220_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30613560
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30613682
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30614162
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30614742
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_01_0157220_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30613560
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30613682
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30613990
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_01_0157220_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30613560
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30613682
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30614162
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30615060
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_01_0157220_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30613560
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30613682
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30614190
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_01_0157220_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30613560
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30613682
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30613992
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_01_0157220_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30613550
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30613782
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30615020
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_01_0157220_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30613732
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30614904
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_01_0157220_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30613550
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30613782
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30614018
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_01_0157220_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30613560
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30613682
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30614162
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30616030
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_01_0157220_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30613560
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30614284
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30615360
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_01_0157220_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30613584
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30613678
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_01_0157220_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30613560
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30613682
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30614102
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_01_0157220_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30613808
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30615412
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_01_0157220_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30613584
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30613828
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_01_0157220_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30613688
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30616210
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_01_0157220_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30613632
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30614198
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_01_0157220_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30613560
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30613682
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30614162
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30615408
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_01_0157220_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30613560
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30613682
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30619176
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_01_0157220_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30613548
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30614056
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_01_0157220_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30613560
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30613682
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30614384
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_01_0157220_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30613560
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30614284
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30615532
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_01_0157220_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30613632
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30613864
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_01_0157220_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30613560
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30614750
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_01_0157220_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30613632
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30614240
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_01_0157220_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30613560
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30613682
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30615410
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_01_0157220_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30613560
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30615328
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_01_0157220_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30613550
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30613782
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30615366
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_01_0157220_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30613560
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30613682
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30615830
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_01_0157220_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30613560
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30614338
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30615580
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_01_0157220_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30613732
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30615428
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_01_0157220_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30613560
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30613682
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30614830
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_01_0157220_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30613632
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30614800
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_01_0157220_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30613732
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30613900
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_01_0157220_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30613592
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30614158
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30615170
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_01_0157220_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30613632
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30613836
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30627874
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_01_0157220_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30613650
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30614730
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_01_0157220_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30613560
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30613722
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_01_0157220.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30613562
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_01_0157220.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30613650
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30615100
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30614730
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_01_0157220.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30613950
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_01_0157220.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30613560
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30615328
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30615260
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30613722
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30614284
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30615532
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30615360
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30613742
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30614338
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30615580
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30614750
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30613682
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30615410
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30614102
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30614278
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30615350
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30615830
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30619176
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30614076
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30613990
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30614384
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30614190
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30614830
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30613992
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30614162
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30616030
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30615408
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30614742
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30615060
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_01_0157220.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30613584
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30613752
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30613704
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30613604
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30613994
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30613678
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30613828
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_01_0157220.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30613732
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30615362
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30613880
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30613900
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30615428
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30614904
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_01_0157220.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30613570
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_01_0157220.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30613808
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30617210
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30614698
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30614038
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30614044
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30615602
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30615412
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30614042
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30615102
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_01_0157220.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30614148
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30615164
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_01_0157220.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30613728
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_01_0157220.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30613688
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30616210
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_01_0157220.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30613730
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_01_0157220.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30613632
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30614800
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30615206
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30613836
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30627874
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30613864
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30614240
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30614198
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30615320
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_01_0157220.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30615204
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_01_0157220.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30613592
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30614158
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30615170
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30614022
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_01_0157220.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30614010
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30614868
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30615450
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_01_0157220.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30615310
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_01_0157220.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30614152
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30617886
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_01_0157220.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30613548
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30614056
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_01_0157220.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30613952
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30615076
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30615092
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_01_0157220.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30613550
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30613782
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30615366
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30614018
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_0157220.30615020
</commentlist>
</conversation>
