Re: Y2K Fears to Stop Cityrail Trains

[lbrash@my-deja.com]

All agreed.  But there are a few things to remember about Y2K:
1.  Because Y2K is so well publicised, there is no chance of defending a
law suit on the basis of ignorance - companies and govt agencies are
therefore in a situation where they have to take all reasonable steps to
prevent problems which could lead to liability, even if no problems
exist.
2.  Due to 1, it is irrelevant whether Y2K problems exist or not.  I
have seen no hard evidence to date to suggest that anything serious
would have happened if we had done nothing.  (But I have seen lots of
evidence that Y2K consultants have made $$$.)
3.  The argument, that most software in use today originated a long time
ago, was always crap.
4.  As someone else pointed out, if everything is shut down for 30
minutes at the critical time, we will never know for sure if there was a
problem or not.  So after the event, our fearless leaders will breathe a
sigh of relief and tell us that their actions saved the day.  This may
save them from the hard questions about how much they have spent to save
us from *nothing*.
5.  Of course, with the benefit of hindsight (July 1999) one could ask
why all the money was spent on Y2K compliance when everything was going
to be shut down anyway?? - ie, the two should have been alternatives,
doing both would always be overkill.
6.  Also, it is easy for Scully to *say* that trains will stop going
through the circle for half an hour, but I suggest much harder to
actually do in practice, even at late night headways.  Even bringing the
whole system to a grinding halt will have mega consequences for
placement, staff rosters etc.  Will the trains remain "in steam" to
avoid a huge drop in the current being drawn?  What about security on
the trains/stations that are at a standstill?  If the underground
stations are to be evacuated, that could take more than 15 minutes, and
quite a lot of personnel.
7.  But don't be surprised to see Melbourne propose a similar plan, for
all the same reasons.
8.  As I understand it, Howard's legislation indemnifies agencies acting
to avoid Y2K problems.  That is, no one can sue cityrail because the
trains were not running as an anti-Y2K measure, but (see 1) could sue
for the proverbial row of brick sh*t houses if, say, they were stuck in
a train in the circle/loop for an hour or two because of an unexpected
Y2K problem.  This means that everyone is going to over-react in order
to cover their backsides.
9.  Probably, the community is going to be sympathetic to this low risk
approach - eg. even if the airlines do schedule flights across midnight,
they are likely to find lots of seats empty (except for a few
nihilists?)  So the airlines might as well get publicity out of
cancelling those flights.
10.  The fact that some Banana Republic got by without any Y2K planning
will be conveniently explained away by the pollies and Y2K consultants.
11.  After 01.01.00, lots of Y2K consultants will be out of work ...
what are the odds on a new issue cropping up, like "Y2K+1"???
12.  Just for the record, I think Y2K may well have some minor/localised
effects ... where everyone least expects it, and not necessarily
computer-related.  (Mental note: must get a hard copy of these last
three points.)

Regards,
LB.

In article <379dba9b.0@news.bris.corplink.com.au>, "MattyQ"
<matticueQ@corplink.com.au> wrote:
> David Johnson <trainman@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message >
>> I really think that people are expecting a major disaster at midnight
that will
>> not happen.  On New Years Day, I predict that most people will say
"That was
>> painless.  What were we so worried about?"
>
> True. In fact, I think most of this is just a ploy for software
companies
> etc. to generate income. Look at all the texts and software already
> available to combat the alleged bug.


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.