1) "We expect that the basic national infrastructure will hold.. there may be problems; prepare for three days' outages" - Koskinen, paraphrased.

2)"If 40-60% of the country experiences outages of 2 weeks, we'll consider that a homerun." Mr. CEO, paraphrased.

The middle ground, then, is 20-30% of country experiencing outages of one week?

Is this a fair expectation? Would this change your model for the best or the worst? If true, it'd send me from a 4-5 to a 7-8.

I can't see where .gov and .mil mobilization would be indicated for scattered three day outages but I would suggest it myself for the middle ground.

Also would like to get an update on Greg Caton's information regarding the generation capacity in Wyoming that's reputedly at risk?

Still pontificating on power loss, at this late date..............

-- lisa (lisa@work.now), December 27, 1999

Answers

lisa, I think that your "compromise" is perfectly reasonable, and is one that both sides should agree to. However, there is one party that simply will not compromise, no matter what: the broken computer code. It will do what it has been programmed to do, regardless of how inflexible and unreasonable that may seem to us. Remember, always remember: Bad computer code does not care.

4 days.

Y2K CANNOT BE FIXED!

-- Jack (jsprat@eld.~net), December 27, 1999.

lisa, it sounds like you're basing your calculations on Mr CEOs "best case" scenario which throws off your end result. Remember, it says he considers that a home run. We won't necessarily hit a homer. As far as my expectations - who the hell knows. I'm personally tired of the guessing game. Anything I say would be pure speculation. We'll all know soon enough. Good luck to you.

-- (rcarver@inacom.com), December 27, 1999.