I don't think it's over blown at all.
There's an awful lot of company's that have not started remediation yet.
And there's an awful lot that have started, but are hopelessly behind schedule.
I was working at one company that started having failures on 1/1/98.  They'll be
dead in
the water on 1/1/99.  They fall futher behind as their programmers are bailing
out.
This is an insurance company.  The company and their policy holders are in big
trouble.
Upper management really dropped the ball on this one and I know there has to be
more in this situation.

Nick Demos wrote:

> Joe Geiser wrote:
> >
> > Wirt says after me, after Bruce,
> >
> > > While Joe's comments are legitimate, if I read between Bruce's lines
> > > correctly, I think what Bruce was commenting on was a
> > > recapitulation of
> > > Shakespeare's dictum, "First, let's kill all the lawyers,"
> > > that being the
> > > "undertaking" that lawyers should be involved in :-).
> >
> > I don't disagree with this at all... as a matter of fact, if Shakespeare
> > were alive today, i would help him.  I think the lawyers, especially those
> > (for lack of a better term) "ambulance chaser" types - are just drooling for
> > that date - January 3.  They will be on every street corner asking everyone
> > "Have you been harmed by the Y2K situation?  Can I represent you for 40% of
> > the reward?  I swear I can get you $50,000 or $100,000, or (insert money
> > amount here).
> >
> > Yes, there are too many damned lawyers --- and many of these are of the
> > contingency variety who will take on any case for a cut.
> >
> Can't disagree about the above about lawyers.  They will gain
> where they can.  By the way, anybody who signs a contingency
> agreement for 40% is crazy, unless it is a real
> shot in the dark.
>
> More to the point, I think the panic about Y2K is over blown.  I
> has been well publicized.  Sure there will be a few glitches on
> 1/3/2000, but the world will go on.
>
> Regards,
>
> Nick D.