If you go back and look down on the main page you will find this thread:

Russia: Face the FACTS (Paul Milne, fedinfo@halifax.com, 1999-01-20)

Go back and read it and then come back here.

Now there have been about five response to my post. Notice. Did even so much as ONE pollya... optimistic fellow come out of the woodwork and REFUTE the facts? NOT ONE. Where is Paul Davis the big mouth asshole? Where is the equally big mouthed asshole flint?

Nowhere to be found. Will they pop up now? They might. But this is standard for them. They can not refute the evidence. They only attack motives or the person. Flint is the fallacy king.

If you watch this thread you will find NO ONE who can refute the evidence. But, watch for the Pollya... optimistist who DO answer. They will not be able to address the facts. But, if they do respond, watch the attacks.

And I will be willing ready and able to respond back. But again, I seriously doubt that they will respond if they stick to the FACTS and the EVIDENCE. Watch.

-- Paul Milne (fedinfo@halifax.com), January 20, 1999

Answers

But it was all true, Paul. How could anyone say otherwise?

See how agreeable people are when you don't insult them?

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), January 20, 1999.

While I do tend to agree with you on your perspective on things, Paul, I do wish to give the Pollya...optimists the benefit of the doubt here. You only posted the Russia thing a couple of hours ago, and, well, not everyone is glued to this forum all the time. Maybe Polly just hasn't seen the thread yet. Be patient, Paul. In the long run, either you'll be vindicated or made to look like a fool. Hope against hope for the fool thing...

-- pshannon (pshannon@inch.com), January 20, 1999.

Paul, in response to my post you said "apparently you do not think very clearly". Reading your posts and responses it would seem that "apparently you don't think anybody thinks very clearly except for you". It's sad that it seems that the only way you can get any attention is to insult others. That's too bad because a few of the things you have to say have some substance.

-- thinkIcan (thinkIcan@make.it), January 20, 1999.

Another twisted perverse response from Flint. The Facts are the facts are the facts even if I print them and STILL call you a butthead.

But, still flint remains silent. He does not recognize that this is the situation the world over. He refuses to recognize the implications for the world's economy. He just attacks me when the whim strikes and then when the truth comes out he does not respond until goaded to do so.

This is the essence of the Pollyanna. He will never come out and say, "Wow. This is really bad news that does not bode well at all." All you get is an "Uh-huh" and the next day more diatribes about how we will muddle through.

The rest of the world is hopelessly unprepared. Russia is but one minor example. When the extrapolation is made that the US will suffer SEVER economic trauma when the rest go dow, the flints come out of the woodwork.

There are 200+- countries out there. Most are not even on the radar screen. The flints ignore it. The PLAIN facts are that not enough has been done and not enough will bedone in time. The economies of the world will collapse.

In case after case after case, I have posted information on dozens and dozens of countries, all off the map. But the flints can't put it together. All they can do is launch diatribes against the conclusions because they don't LIKE the conclusions. BUT THEY NEVER ADDRESS THE ISSUES exactly as flint has done, once again, here.

-- Paul Milne (fedinfo@halifax.com), January 20, 1999.

Russia toast? No shit. Italy? Damm! (I'm Italian...)

Big problems ahead? Sure. A nuke here. Anthrax there. Banks? Please!

Some folks will live pretty well though, by historical standards, in my opinion. A lot of "stuff" will survive, and people are 1) resourcefull and 2) don't give-up until they die (by definition). I just hope if a lot of folks have to die, it includes a lot of the a**holes that gave us big Federal Government, Hollywood and lots & lots of lawyers.

-- Anonymous99 (Anonymous99@Anonymous.com), January 20, 1999.

to 'think I can"

Apparently you still do not think to c;learly. The appropriate place to respond would be in THAT thread. I gave PRECISE reasons why you were not thinking clearly. That is NOT an insult. You could have responded point by point, but you do not. You whine that you have been 'insulted'. Same as flint whining that he will not accept the facts 'cuz his feelinz was hurt". If the best you can muster is bruised feelings, then you are up shit's creek when the collapse occurs. If you want to be a milque-toast, be one. I don't have time nor the inclination to mollycoddle sissies.

Ooops! There I go bruising you ever so fragile psyche again. Get used to it panty-waist.

-- Paul Milne (fedinfo@halifax.com), January 20, 1999.

Wow, this is really bad news that does not bode well at all.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), January 20, 1999.

I am hardly any of the thing you call me, but you have lost a fan.

-- thinkIcan (thinkIcan@make.it), January 20, 1999.

Don't take it to heart, thinkIcan, Paul is only applying the Golden Rule to the best of his ability to understand it. Just turn the other cheek.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), January 20, 1999.

To 'think I can'

For the third time, appaently you don't think too clearly. You think this is a popularity contest or a fan club?

Shortly, people are going to be dying. A lot of them. Most people are MONUMENTALLY ignorant. They will do nothing at all but make excuses. They are long gone. SOME people WILL listen to the facts. My dozens of e-mails a day saying "thank you' atest to that just fine.

I don't need no stinking 'fan' club. I want people to prepare. But that does not mean that I will suffer fools or pansies in the interim.

-- Paul Milne (fedinfo@halifax.com), January 20, 1999.

Paul, did you ever hear the one about the contest between the wind and the sun. Seems they had a contest to see who could remove the coat from a particular old man walking on a mountain trail. The wind said that would be easy and wanted to go first. The harder he blew the more tightly the old man cluched his coat around him. Then it was the suns turn. The sun came from behind a cloud and started to shine on the old man. The old man opened up his coat, the sun shone a little more and in no time the old man had taken of his coat and was carrying over his arm. A lot can be done with a little warmth. Y2K seems to be important to you, just think how effective you could be if you had even the slightest bit of warmth about you

-- thinkIcan (thinkIcan@make.it), January 20, 1999.

Come on Paul, we're all waiting for your responce.

-- thinkIcan (thinkIcan@make.it), January 20, 1999.

When it comes to Y2K, it does matter if you are right or wrong, however, Paul you are a fucking asshole.

Take your stupid shit somewhere else. Most of the people on this forum are intelligent enough to discuss issues in a civilized manner.

And yes I am preparing for the worst. And yes I am a programmer with 20 yrs experience. BITE ME PAUL.

-- areseejay (areseejay@aol.com), January 20, 1999.

"Paul, did you ever hear the one about the contest between the wind and the sun. Seems they had a contest to see who could remove the coat from a particular old man walking on a mountain trail. The wind said that would be easy and wanted to go first. The harder he blew the more tightly the old man cluched his coat around him. Then it was the suns turn. The sun came from behind a cloud and started to shine on the old man. The old man opened up his coat, the sun shone a little more and in no time the old man had taken of his coat and was carrying over his arm. But then something funny happened, the sun seemed to get hotter and hotter. The old man put his coat down and removed his shirt. And wouldn't you know it, it kept getting hotter and hotter - the wind tried it's best to cool the old man down to no avail, it was just making things worse. Eventually the old man passed out from heat exhaustion - and the next day, he was TOAST, BURNT TOAST!!!!!!!

BBWWWAAAAAAAAHHHAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHhahahahahahah

I crack myself up sometimes :)

Andy

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), January 20, 1999.

Good Grief Andy---that was great. ROTFLMAO. Too bad Paul doesn't have a sense of humour.

-- thinkIcan (thinkIcan@make.it), January 20, 1999.

think: We already have a lot of warm people preaching y2k. Pam Orielly, Diane, Leska, and others come to mind. But you know as well as I they are having only a partial impact. What Paul is trying to do is shock people into awareness, people that have been lulled to sleep by the "is this a great time or what" (MCI commercial) mentality that has been so pervasive these last couple of decades. His approach works well on some, and maybe not so well on others. IMHO he is a colorful additive to the y2k mix and livens up a topic that otherwise oscillates between boring, frustrating and frightening. Lighten up and listen to the message, not the messenger. And BTW, the message is that the vast majority of people (including some on this forum) are not taking the matter seriously "enough" and time has all but run out.

As someone noted on USENET yesterday, "My observation is he has low tolerance for fools. His obsession, as you characterize it, is a demand for the truth and a lack of patience when it does not appear to be forthcoming."

-- a (a@a.a), January 20, 1999.

'a', I agree Milne has a certain circus-freak entertainment value not provided by saner minds. I agree that this value may well catch the attention (and even the agreement) of the type of person impervious to reason and analysis, and we're all God's chillun'

He indeed has low tolerance for disagreement and a lack of patience when agreement does not appear to be forthcoming. He also seems to have 18 hours a day to spend hijacking discussion forums and turning them into interminable petty arguments.

Can you honestly see *any* useful contribution in the post that started this thread? I admit it was colorful.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), January 20, 1999.

..a I agree with you 100%. That was why I sent the post in the first place. If you think about a worst scenario and then spin other scenarios of that you start to realize just how difficult it will be to "make it". I think people are making a big mistake by letting others know how much preparations they are doing. Thank God for people like Gary North and Paul Milne, but people like you and I should try to be completely invisible.

-- thinkIcan (ThinkIcan@make.it), January 20, 1999.

"Can you honestly see *any* useful contribution in the post that started this thread?"

Flint: He's a frustrated man. After last night's epic performance by the President of our land, I don't blame him. I get frustrated when no one replys to my bad news posts also. But I wasn't "born in a USENET" so my manners are better. :)

think: I owe my awareness to Yourdon, North, Hamasaki, and Milne (in chronological order). I told everyone I knew 6 months ago. I took a big chance and I had almost decided to STFU after last night's SOU address. But today, I went to lunch with two DGIs that I have been pinging on for months. One has bought 20 lbs rice and the other is going to buy some can goods. It (or something) is working...

-- a (a@a.a), January 20, 1999.

Paul do you really care what Pollyannas think or don't think? Who gives a rats ass about them. Keep posting interesting articles and links. You sink to their level when you fight with the walking dead.

-- Bill (bill@microsoft.com), January 20, 1999.

We don't need warmth from Paul Milne. All we need is for him to admit that he doesn't know any friggin' more about Y2K than most of the people here. He thinks he's got a friggin' crystal ball. The collapse of society is not a foregone conclusion. You want proof? Evidence? Where's your evidence? Prove that the world is so interconnected that it will inevitably go down. Ever hear of human ingenuity? What makes you think that thousands of years of human knowledge and technology is just going to totally collapse because the friggin' clocks are wrong? Prove how many machines will not work if the reset button is pressed. Milne still thinks a friggin' car won't work. You call that research?

I believe there is trouble coming...lots of things won't work right, but that doesn't mean that everything inevitably collapses. That's why I'm here, that's why Flint and Paul Davis are still here I think. We are here because knowing what will go wrong as best we can is part of preparing. We are here because we thought this might be a place where people could figure out workarounds and contingency plans. We are here because we believe that communicating with others might help mitigate the problem. We are here because we think we might be able to contribute to the general knowledge.

We are not here to preach a political view or call people friggin' buttheads when they disagree.

Now, a few facts off the top of my head.

- Your car will work. I don't have proof. I don't need it. You'll have to trust me on this one. Go ask your friggin' mechanic.

- 95%+ of embedded systems don't give a flyin' frig what date it is.

- The power industry has stated that there shouldn't be any major problems with the power. Don't believe them if you want, but the fact is they have said it.

- We are in the midst of a telecommunications revolution. New communication paths are being built as we speak. The old infrastructures are being replaced and worked around because it is cheaper to do so. This process will only accelerate.

- The rollover into 1999 caused fewer problems than most Y2K pundits expected.

- Many companies are already experiencing software failures due to date look-ahead routines. I haven't heard of any bankruptcies yet.

- Human ingenuity and charity always astonish us in times of crisis. Why would Y2K be any different?

Now my hope has always been that the debate about Y2K would open up into mainstream society so all of the issues could be examined reasonably. That hasn't happened yet, so I am stuck with this.

-- no (rather@not.say), January 20, 1999.

Well, if your so frigging sure!

Let me just forgoe the common belief that no matter what shape America is in with it's infinite ingenuity and new infrastructure that the rest of the world is miserably behind schedule and will more than likly drag the USA down with it to whatever Anarchy abyss awaits it, and hop in my car, go down to Sears and max out all my credit cards.

What the Hell, I might as well stop sending my frigging money to the Adopt a Child program too because with man's infinite ingenuity I'm sure they will come up with a pill to cure hunger and poverty. They will probably come up with a fancy new DOS program to erradicate inner city gang violence too. Sh*t, while I'm at it I 'll just take a fifty gallon drum of chemical persticide and dump it in the river because God knows we will certaintly come up with a cute little ad slogan to totally wipe out pollution, with out "infinite ingenuity".

Thanks for the warning Paul, I'm off to get a few dozen bags of doritos and maybe a 2 gallon tin of Crisco to wash them down with. After all, in man's "infinite ingenuity" we will surely come up with a pill to cure heart disease, high cholesteral and obesity.

Oh and by the way, maybe you can go back and time and tell Oppenheimer and Einstein we won't be needing the thermonuclear devices because in just a few short decades, we will have "ingenuity".

-- (toast@USA.com), January 21, 1999.

Sorry, didn't mean to thank Paul, meant to thank NO for the last post... It's a little late and I'm feeling a bit nervous from the eight cups of double Columbian mocha supreme.

Apologies all around for my little rant there... I feel better.

-- (toast@USA.com), January 21, 1999.

>Now there have been about five response to my post. Notice. Did even so much as ONE pollya ... optimistic fellow come out of the woodwork and refute the facts? NOT ONE. Where is Paul Davis the big asshole? Where is the equally big mouthed asshole flint?

I have nothing against anybody who suggests TEOTWAWKI is likely. TEOTWAWKI is in my humble opinion more likely than 'a bump in the road.' What you aren't taking into account Paul, is that you're tempting the unwise to react to HOW you say what you say instead of WHAT you're saying.

The example of the wind vs. the sun is great. I'm about to quit calling this forum so I can have time to learn what I need to know to survive the truly hard times all of us will face in 2000. There are more personal attack messages here now than informative ones. You're partly responsible for that Paul because you think you have to attack those who attack you. And they think they have to attack you because you attack them.

To rework a familiar quote ... Whose the asshole? The asshole or the asshole that argues with the asshole?

Don't respond to this message, Paul. I want less rather than more attack messages here -- especially petty bickering from csY2K that started there and should have stayed there. I'd like to keep calling here and contribute my time but it's a precious commodity.

More SIGNAL please. Less NOISE -- now and in 2000. That's my prayer.

-- It Doesn't Matter (anon@this.time), January 21, 1999.

Mr. Milne,

Actually, it is that some of has have real lives to attend to and don't live here and on cs.y2k. As I have said before, I am assembling a set of verifiable information that offers some evidence that the death of millions is not nearly so imminent as you claim. I just do that around the rest of my life, which is rather full of things that don't relate to Y2K. Work, children, home, friends, education, etc.

Patience, my boy. Patience.

-- Paul Neuhardt (neuhardt@ultranet.com), January 21, 1999.

NO: OK, here goes...{Milne mode ON}

We don't need warmth from Paul Milne. All we need is for him to admit that he doesn't know any friggin' more about Y2K than most of the people here. He thinks he's got a friggin' crystal ball. The collapse of society is not a foregone conclusion. You want proof? Evidence? Where's your evidence? Prove that the world is so interconnected that it will inevitably go down. Ever hear of human ingenuity? What makes you think that thousands of years of human knowledge and technology is just going to totally collapse because the friggin' clocks are wrong? Prove how many machines will not work if the reset button is pressed. Milne still thinks a friggin' car won't work. You call that research?

[Obvious that NO has done NO homework on the issues. Thinks that y2k is happening in a vacuum. Economy is great cause Clinton said it was. Enterprise mainframes just can't be that complicated. Oil supply will hold, regardless of non-complaint SCADA in oilfields, a brewing war in the mid-east, and Asian monetary collapse. Etc. etc.]

I believe there is trouble coming...lots of things won't work right, but that doesn't mean that everything inevitably collapses. That's why I'm here, that's why Flint and Paul Davis are still here I think. We are here because knowing what will go wrong as best we can is part of preparing. We are here because we thought this might be a place where people could figure out workarounds and contingency plans. We are here because we believe that communicating with others might help mitigate the problem. We are here because we think we might be able to contribute to the general knowledge.

[Your "contribution", which is primarily unfounded optimism, serves only to temper the beliefs of those of us who can see the big picture]

We are not here to preach a political view or call people friggin' buttheads when they disagree.

Now, a few facts off the top of my head.

[There are few facts anywhere near your head]

- Your car will work. I don't have proof. I don't need it. You'll have to trust me on this one. Go ask your friggin' mechanic.

[Boy THAT'S a relief. Thanks genius.]

- 95%+ of embedded systems don't give a flyin' frig what date it is.

[So you're saying 5% of 40,000,000,000 is a manageable few? (BTW Einstein, 5% works out to 2 billion chips) ]

- The power industry has stated that there shouldn't be any major problems with the power. Don't believe them if you want, but the fact is they have said it.

[Again, NO with NO evidence. I guess the rest of the world won't have many power problems either]

- We are in the midst of a telecommunications revolution. New communication paths are being built as we speak. The old infrastructures are being replaced and worked around because it is cheaper to do so. This process will only accelerate.

[Yes that's it. More complexity is a GOOD thing. Right.]

- The rollover into 1999 caused fewer problems than most Y2K pundits expected.

[The 1999 rollover is not limited to Jan 1. Did you pass your course in Computer Science 101?]

- Many companies are already experiencing software failures due to date look-ahead routines. I haven't heard of any bankruptcies yet.

[Yes fool, GM will do fine. Keep buying their stock. LOL]

- Human ingenuity and charity always astonish us in times of crisis. Why would Y2K be any different?

{Yes the Human ingenuity and charity going on in Kosovo, Albania, and Africa right now is astonishing all right]

Now my hope has always been that the debate about Y2K would open up into mainstream society so all of the issues could be examined reasonably. That hasn't happened yet, so I am stuck with this.

[go back to bed little one. The real world may scare you.]

-- a (a@a.a), January 21, 1999.

I thought Pollyanna was a great movie. Her attitude changed the whole town. Millions? Really? Come on get real?

-- thebigredone (thebigredone@hotmail.com), January 21, 1999.

FACT: 40,000,000,000 chips does not equal 40,000,000,000 embedded systems. Learn something about how processors and controllers work before spouting off a number like that.

-- no (rather@not.say), January 21, 1999.

yo! bigredone, consider this: power intermittently goes on and off across the entire snowbelt in January, both here and across Europe/Asia...it continues to do so for several weeks not only delaying fixes in other areas but also resulting in severe degrading of existing infrastructure. Elderly and disabled persons, as well as small children will be especially vulnerable to the effects of hypothermia...think street people...think elderly folks who live alone...think single parent families on welfare...think yuppies in all electric suburban homes (after their three days of fuel for their generator is used up)...think blizzard/ice storm/ subzero temperatures for days on end...think a lot of dead bodies...

unfortunately 'several million dead' is NOT an impossible prediction, especially when one includes Russia and the Far East...

Arlin Adams

-- Arlin H. Adams (ahadams@ix.netcom.com), January 21, 1999.

"- The power industry has stated that there shouldn't be any major problems with the power. Don't believe them if you want, but the fact is they have said it."--NO

a., why wasting your time and precious brain cells with a guy like this? He is saying it clearly, he WANTS to believe them, and what any good PR spinhead says is good enough for him. You won't extract facts out of him, he doesn't NEED facts.

-- Chris (catsy@pond.com), January 21, 1999.

where are your facts Chris? I've seen alot of your posts. Your just a sheep following Milne and North the shepherds.

-- ok (yeah@right..), January 21, 1999.

[[Double Milne mode on]]

NO: OK, here goes...{Milne mode ON}

We don't need warmth from Paul Milne. All we need is for him to admit that he doesn't know any friggin' more about Y2K than most of the people here. He thinks he's got a friggin' crystal ball. The collapse of society is not a foregone conclusion. You want proof? Evidence? Where's your evidence? Prove that the world is so interconnected that it will inevitably go down. Ever hear of human ingenuity? What makes you think that thousands of years of human knowledge and technology is just going to totally collapse because the friggin' clocks are wrong? Prove how many machines will not work if the reset button is pressed. Milne still thinks a friggin' car won't work. You call that research?

[Obvious that NO has done NO homework on the issues.

[[Unsupported assertion. The implication is that whoever disagrees with you is ignorant. Interesting that when you don't know, you find it necessary to use the word 'obvious', as though saying so *with emphasis* makes it so.]]

Thinks that y2k is happening in a vacuum.

[[Unsupported assertion.]]

Economy is great cause Clinton said it was. Enterprise mainframes just can't be that complicated.

[[sarcasm is not argument. Is sarcasm, unsupported assertions and insults the best you can come up with? If so, it says a lot.]]

Oil supply will hold, regardless of non-complaint SCADA in oilfields, a brewing war in the mid-east, and Asian monetary collapse. Etc. etc.]

[[1) In a pinch, it's been shown that a very slightly reduced oil supply at higher prices can be produced domestically. Systems adapt. 2) Will SCADA in oilfields be noncompliant at the trigger date, and will this halt oil production? Who says so? 3) Asian monetary collapse has already happened, and been corrected for in the market. Where's the catastrophe?]]

I believe there is trouble coming...lots of things won't work right, but that doesn't mean that everything inevitably collapses. That's why I'm here, that's why Flint and Paul Davis are still here I think. We are here because knowing what will go wrong as best we can is part of preparing. We are here because we thought this might be a place where people could figure out workarounds and contingency plans. We are here because we believe that communicating with others might help mitigate the problem. We are here because we think we might be able to contribute to the general knowledge.

[Your "contribution", which is primarily unfounded optimism, serves only to temper the beliefs of those of us who can see the big picture]

[[The contribution is partially founded optimism, which indeed tempers partially founded pessimism. Insisting that your piece represents the big picture is a logical error.]]

We are not here to preach a political view or call people friggin' buttheads when they disagree.

[[Depends on who you mean by 'we'. Some posters may well be here for the sheer, childish pleasure of posting insults anonymously]]

Now, a few facts off the top of my head.

[There are few facts anywhere near your head]

[[Why do doomists tend to believe that insults bolster weak rguments? Well, that's one insult.]]

- Your car will work. I don't have proof. I don't need it. You'll have to trust me on this one. Go ask your friggin' mechanic.

[Boy THAT'S a relief. Thanks genius.]

[[Insult #2. But if cars had genuine, documented failures you'd be trumpeting this triumphantly. Typical doomist orientation -- if it's got problems (which won't be fixed, that's a given), it's really important. If it has no problems, dismiss it. Oh yes, and insult whoever mentions things that have no problems.]]

- 95%+ of embedded systems don't give a flyin' frig what date it is.

[So you're saying 5% of 40,000,000,000 is a manageable few? (BTW Einstein, 5% works out to 2 billion chips) ]

[[Insult #3. Converting systems to chips is a flat distortion. Implying that we cannot possibly manage most of the remainder is an unsupported assertion. On balance, remediation results coming in daily indicate that problems with embeddeds are on the whole both less frequent and less significant than feared. This is NOT to say there won't be some bad ones.]]

- The power industry has stated that there shouldn't be any major problems with the power. Don't believe them if you want, but the fact is they have said it.

[Again, NO with NO evidence. I guess the rest of the world won't have many power problems either]

[[The NERC report has been used to provide 'ironclad' evidence for *every* position I've seen. Power problems worldwide are likely, but I've seen no real examination of this issue. Have you? I'd genuinely like to know.]]

- We are in the midst of a telecommunications revolution. New communication paths are being built as we speak. The old infrastructures are being replaced and worked around because it is cheaper to do so. This process will only accelerate.

[Yes that's it. More complexity is a GOOD thing. Right.]

[[Has been a good thing for the last few hundred years, yes. To the degree that more complex means more fragile, this is a tradeoff we've been more than willing to accept. But what degree is this? Is it possible for any systems to be both complex and robust? Is telecommunications such a system? We have some indication that it is. The internet was designed to be able to stay up even in nuclear war. It has some weak links, though.]]

- The rollover into 1999 caused fewer problems than most Y2K pundits expected.

[The 1999 rollover is not limited to Jan 1. Did you pass your course in Computer Science 101?]

[[Insult #4. Numerous 'spike dates' have been identified for 1999, along with guesstimates as to how serious each is likely to be. We've passed one of them, and the guesstimates turned out to be pessimistic. Why deny it?]]

- Many companies are already experiencing software failures due to date look-ahead routines. I haven't heard of any bankruptcies yet.

[Yes fool, GM will do fine. Keep buying their stock. LOL]

[[Insult #5. Several opservatons here. First, GM wasn't mentioned. Second, GM's actual future status remains speculation. Third, the logical error here is called synecdoche -- generalizing from a single bad example. Perhaps you fall back on insults because you realize your argument is weak?]]

- Human ingenuity and charity always astonish us in times of crisis. Why would Y2K be any different?

{Yes the Human ingenuity and charity going on in Kosovo, Albania, and Africa right now is astonishing all right]

[[non-sequitur, another arrow in the quill of the doomists. Wars are totally irrelevant to the observation. Why not point to natural disasters instead, where there is no human enemy? Are you saying people do nothing but kill one another in an emergency? Absurd. Are you saying the geeks and techs will do nothing in the face of failures? Absurd (though a few will cut and run at the first sign of inconvenience). Are you saying anything that *isn't* absurd, or are you just lashing out with the first thing that crosses your mind?]]

Now my hope has always been that the debate about Y2K would open up into mainstream society so all of the issues could be examined reasonably. That hasn't happened yet, so I am stuck with this.

[go back to bed little one. The real world may scare you.]

[[Sigh, insult #6. 'a', why do you fear reasonable examination, and keep responding with insults? How many people do you really think read stuff like this and think 'Gee, he's a real jerk, he must be right?' Any?]]

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), January 21, 1999.

Flint:

"Sigh, insult #6."

Hey man - I said I had Milne mode on!! jeesh! :)

And my statement was 5% of 40 billion CHIPS. I said that. I guess I'll turn Milne mode back on and call you and NO liars.

As for the rest of your rebuttles, I will let the record stand. You make one or two salient points but overall I think my version of reality is vastly more accurate.

But I am interested in understanding how the Pollannic Extrapolation Process (PEP-talk) works. How about a brief description (we won't put you on the hook and call it a prediction) of how you see things unfolding here and abroad, say from mid 99 til mid 2001?

-- a (a@a.a), January 21, 1999.

Thanks, Flint.

I gave up posting a handle and e-mail address because anytime I challenged a doomsayer's ideas I'd get insulted like that.

Now you all know why trolls exist. Funny thing is, on internet forums about everyday topics it's people like these that end up being the trolls!

-- no (rather@not.say), January 21, 1999.

I repeat, a@a.a, it isn't 5% of 40 billion CHIPS. We don't have to worry about all the CHIPS. Go read up on the difference between CHIPS and SYSTEMS!!!

-- no (rather@not.say), January 21, 1999.

Asshole, I know the difference. I was probably programming CHIPS in embedded SYSTEMS when your were just a sparkle in your daddy's eye.

The point is that there are billions of CHIPS. A VERY small percentage of these will fail. A VERY small percentage of 40 BILLION is still a VERY LARGE number.

Sorry for the insults. Just trying to relieve stress while making the thread interesting. :)

-- a (a@a.a), January 21, 1999.

The last I heard the estimate of possibly affected chips in systems was under 1% of 50 billion. Of these a fraction are in mission critical systems, leaving 25 million chips to be repaired.

Frautschi's White Paper

Here's a portion:

Embedded Systems and the Year 2000 Problem (The OTHER Year 2000 Problem) http://www.tmn.com/~frautsch/y2k2.html

Draft of 18 January 1999

Copyright 1998, 1999 Mark A. Frautschi, Ph.D. Shakespeare and Tao Consulting http://www.tmn.com/y2k/ (410) 453-9256 frautsch@tmn.com

Abstract:

There is another Year-2000 risk. It is distinct from the more widely reported risks concerning impending failures of computers and software that represent dates using two digits for the year. This risk involves Real Time Clocks and their interactions with associated embedded processors and logic arrays, dedicated electronic control and monitoring logic incorporated into larger systems. These are essential to the operation of a vast portfolio of infrastructures, from medical equipment, to buildings (phone, security, heating, plumbing and lighting), to transportation, to financial networks, to just-in-time delivery systems, and so on. According to a recent study, the firmware (permanently loaded instructions) that enables these systems to run is date sensitive and not Year-2000-compliant in less than 1 percent of the fifty billion integrated circuits (chips) used in embedded systems installed worldwide by the end of the century. This small fraction will fail, causing the systems they control to begin failing around 1 January 2000 and for the first few years of the new century. These failures are coupled with significant factors mitigating their diagnosis and repair. These include the absence of reliable documentation of Year-2000-compliance of date sensitive systems produced over the past few decades. This poses formidable assessment issues.

A pessimistic, illustrative scenario is presented. It describes disruption of essential infrastructure from electric power, to food and fuel distribution, to communications, to financial networks. Insufficient resources and time are available to prevent and test against failures in critical infrastructures. It is time to shift emphasis from repair to triage and contingency planning and to make appropriate preparations for risk management against massive loss of infrastructure.

Introduction:

Embedded microprocessors and other time sensitive logic are silicon integrated circuits, generally with permanently coded instructions (firmware - where these serve as an operating system they may be called a microkernel) that are not designed to be easily changed. These monitor, regulate or control the operation of devices, systems, networks or plants. These are generally in the form of silicon microelectronic chips, such as microprocessors, timers, sequencers and controllers built-in to machinery from small devices such as wrist watches and consumer electronics, to dedicated processors controlling large industrial plants. The term "embedded" refers to the instructions that are permanently loaded in one of the chips comprising the system. The IEE give a broader definition that includes dedicated, code-driven, systems [1]. "Embedded" can also denote that the microprocessor and other hardware are installed within the device at hand at a depth that they may not be obvious to the user (and possibly experts) without disassembly.

Typically, an embedded system will be comprised of a microprocessor, Read Only Memory (ROM), input/output circuitry (for monitoring and control, e.g. Digital to Analog Converters), Random Access Memory (RAM), communications circuitry (e.g. a link with a central computer) a system clock and possibly a Real Time Clock (RTC). Several of these elements may be integrated onto a single chip (or multi-chip-module) which may be called a microcontroller. A typical embedded system contains approximately ten individual chips. This number varies greatly depending on the age of the design, the technologies used, the desired functionality and finally with cost. Generally, chip counts tend to decrease with design date for the same level of functionality. A treatment of the basic technical elements of digital electronics may be found in reference [2].

A treatment of the distinguishing characteristics between Year-2000 failures [3] in Information Technology (IT - computers and software) and embedded systems (ES - dedicated processors, logic and firmware) may be found in Reference [4]. GartnerGroup [5] estimates that there will be fifty billion integrated circuits (chips) used in embedded systems worldwide and that under 1 percent of these chips will have Year-2000 (Y2K) related failures leading to shutdowns, erroneous results or chaotic behavior. Of this, a fraction are in mission critical systems, leaving on the order of 25 million chips (deployed in systems) which must be repaired world wide. This, in turn, causes the devices in which they are incorporated to fail or behave unpredictably. The implications for society are widespread. A pessimistic scenario [6] will be presented for risk management purposes, thus proactive and reactive responses will be described in a section on recommended actions rather than as part of the scenario itself. This scenario is not intended as a prediction.

-- no (rather@not.say), January 21, 1999.

Yikes! I guess the pollyannas have decided to adopt a Hear No Chips, See No Chips, Speak No Chips approach. Unfortunately, folks like NERC keep insisting that they could indeed have a Y2K problem that could bring down the electric utilities. Here is a recent thread that covers The Whole Shebang.

Previous Embedded Chips Thread

-- Jack (jsprat@eld.net), January 21, 1999.

No, NERC recently said that they don't expect there to be major problems and that the embedded system problem is smaller than was first expected.

-- no (rather@not.say), January 21, 1999.

OK, I've been reading this forum for some weeks now. I've had serious concerns about Y2K - reading Gary North's, Michael Hyatt's, Ed Yourdon's and others sites etc. I'm am very informed about embedded chips and systems and I manage an IS dept. for a company of about 200 employees.

I am a troll (if that means I read this forum and havent responded until now, correct me if I am wrong)

I also have had many discussions with 2 of my friends - one does consulting in the power utilities industry across USA and the other is the head of IS dept. of a MAJOR TelCo. We all live in Chicago area (cold winters).

The Pres. of my co. has asked my to check all of our systems for Y2K compliance. I will be purchasing a new voicemail system, ours currently is non compliant. Others in my field will not be caught with their pants down either - they know their job is on the line.

Lets talk concerns and scenarios for just a moment.

1)I think my(our) biggest concern is if the power goes out - say worst case scenario the ENTIRE grid goes down. What happens then? Do the power companies quit and take home their marbles? Do they say we dont want your money anymore? No. They focus resources on the worst problem and solve it - say limiting power to a portion of their region - rolling black outs. I know that our PowerCo here is purchasing significant numbers of industrial size generators just in case - kind that can power a small city say 50K to 100K population. They could drop these gens in sub/ urban locations to gen more steady power, up in say 24 to 48 hours. Some might get cold some might need to go to a shelter. Not necessarily the end of the world.

2)Say heavy freight switching is affected i.e. switching/controlling of trains goes completely DOWN. Do the trains disappear? are the rails transported to another planet? Do rail shipping companies suddenly seize the contents of the rail cars and not deliver. No. They slow down rail traffic to avoid the problem of two objects occupying the same space at the same time. ;) So now it takes 3 weeks instead of 3 days to deliver something. Some fresh food might go bad. Not necessarily the end of the world.

3)Say we get wide spread panic and people pull their money out of the markets and banks. Which causes a recession even possibly a depression. My parents lived THRU the great ONE so did most of the rest of the country (and world). This I think is the most likely to happen. Most people still had jobs to go to on Wednesday (the day following Black Tuesday) Cars will still work, the companies I and my friends work for will still be there. Life will still go on. It may not always be easy but this will NOT be The day after or Mad Max. Like someone said What happens when the ammo is all gone No wonder the time article made Christians come off looking like wackos.

I think some of us have seen to many movies.

I have great respect for Ed Yourdon, his Structured Analysis is must read for all programmers. Wasnt he the same guy who back in the 80s said that something about most of the worlds programming will be done in China and India because their cultures are more structured there? Thats not exactly it but that is close to the idea. Good NO Great programmer but not necessarily the same can be said about being a Prophet.

I also have reservations about Gary North and his Reconstructionist views.

And Michael Hyatt selling a years supply of for food 3500$

On a 10 scale maybe a 2 no more than a 3.

My bottom line is PEOPLE take a chill pill and get a reality check.

I will have food and money for a month. I always have food for a month. I have a fireplace and wood for the winter. Ive always had a fireplace and wood for the winter.

Paul, remember this is USA - WE won the cold war... Russia is now a 3rd world country NOT a Super Power. We will probably get thru this on also.

Ive gotten much entertainment out of this forum. It keeps me thinking.

Thanks!

-- thebig redone (thebigredone@hotmail.com), January 21, 1999.

Name calling does not help your cause. Why dont you guys just step outside and duke it out?

-- Jane (Jane@doe.com), January 21, 1999.

About those embedded system...

Okay bright boys, you wanna make a big "my terminolgy is right, your terminology is wrong, ergo tou're totally wrong" debating point over "embedded chips" and "embedded systems"?

Get off your high horses and comes down here to the test and integration world with me and look at the chips that are part of a single embedded system. And that's a "conventional embedded system", not some of the six, dedicated-mainframe "embedded systems" I've worked on over the years.

Just how many different failure points are there in a single embedded system because one CHIP embedded inside of an embedded SYSTEM is either: a defective RTC, a failure prone microprocessor or PROM with a date-usage program written in 1998 by a goon who still doesn't understand that a two digit year won't work in less than two years?

Forty billion possible failure combinations on the loose and you guys want to argue semantics. Get real, get a grip on reality and get to work. You've got less than one year to try and make a contructive difference on this problem. Let the useless lawyers haggle over the "proper use" of words in describing the issue. They can haggle until Hell or their offices freeze over. Maybe before they're dead or done, they can determine what the meaning of "is" is.

WW

-- Wildweasel (vtmldm@epix.net), January 21, 1999.

Wildweasel, let's calm down and think. This isn't an argument over semantics at all. What we have that's important to you and me is the results of actual testing and remediation, regardless of the potential for problems, or how they get caused, or arguments about what's a system.

And these real-world results consistently show that embeddeds, however defined, turn out to represent both fewer problems and less serious problems than what was feared. We all know that embeddeds *could* have been really, really bad. Turns out that in practice they aren't (with a few exceptions). This is good news.

Turns out that there weren't that many bees in that hive after all, and even those weren't very aggressive. But it sure was a big hive, and we sure had reason to worry.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), January 21, 1999.

Flint,

I'm going to disagree here. A five percent failure rate of embedded systems is still going to be an awful lot of systems failure. And the distribution of failures isn't going to be uniformly spread over the spectrum of embedded systems applications.

Unfortunately for all of us, the systems that are the high-complexity systems which use date-sensitive programs and devices aren't going to be found in microwave ovens and vcr's. It's the medical systems, the manufacturing control, transportation, telecommunications, water, sanitation and energy industries where the more complex systems and the higher probabilities of failure are to be found.

These systems failing on us are going to have a profound effect on the economy and society at large. All the consumer electronics in the world could fail due to Y2K and 99.995% of society would survive. The .005% of the people who couldn't live without their beeper or cellphone, well they do have a problem. Heck, there would be an economic upturn as everyone replaced their failed devices.

But if five percent of the embedded systems used in just energy production and distribution industries fail due to Y2K, then we have a serious problem on our hands. Such failure rates will surely result in some facilities having single-point failures which cannot be bypassed. Enough of such critical path failures and we no longer have a national system, we have maybe regional systems which cannot perform at full capacity even on that level.

Add the results of such a failure rate and there will be cascading failures. What good is a Y2K compliant refinery located where power company "A" is dead due to Y2K? What about railroad "X" which depended on fuel from that refinery to haul coal to compliant power company "B". What about company "M", dependent on power company "B", which was going to manufacture replacement embedded systems for power company "A" who was going to fix on failure?

The overall rate of failures will be higher than the trigger rate of failed embedded systems and mainframe systems. And the string of secondary failures will cascade precipitously before there is a chance of a turn-around. Hopefully there will be enough inertia to the economic system to coast through the bog and get going again on the uphill side. Stalling out and sinking into the quagmire will not do any of us good.

WW

-- Wildweasel (vtmldm@epix.net), January 21, 1999.

WW, I think we're on the same wavelength, but slightly out of phase.

In practice, that 5% number turns out to be meaningless. You appear to understand that the boundary of important embedded systems isn't easy to define. These aren't VCR's, these are sensors or robots connected to embedded servers connected to non-embedded (PC or minicomputer) servers, connected to mainframes, connected to God Only Knows (accounting systems, regulators' systems, whatever).

OK, now how much needs to be repaired or replaced, and where does the real locus of error lie? In one case Hamasaki reported (a utility), they tested 200 systems (of their definition) and found noncompliance in 15 of these that required remediation. Of these 15, an unstated number would have prevented power generation if not fixed (but the number was not zero). As I recall, none of these required replacement at the lowest level of the systems, and most were correctable with a change in the server application program(s)(on disk). Of course, correctable doesn't mean a compiant version of the critical software was available.

But of all of the thousands of utility suppliers, there are NOT thousands of cases of custom application code. These are 3rd party installed systems, so relatively few changes, properly distributed, can cure a lot of problems.

A lot of these embedded systems/chips calculations we see are pretty blind -- they're based on estimates of failure rates, which are pretty much ex-rectum estimates. In practice, a large exposure is reduced to a much smaller (but still significant) number of fixes.

There is cause for optimism, and also cause for worry. But the problems should be local, I think.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), January 21, 1999.

Big Red One, the name for a person who just reads and doesn't post is a LURKER. You mentioned that the day after the stock market crash, people still had jobs. That is the same mistake made by people who are only looking at one day: Jan. 1, 2000. Did you know that by 1932, the NATIONAL income had fallen by 50%? 5,000 banks had closed their doors. This isn't about ONE day.

-- Gayla Dunbar (privacy@please.com), January 21, 1999.

Flint,

Again I'll politely disagree. I've been working with embedded systems for twenty-five years and my experience is that if we're very lucky, we'll get off with a failure rate as low as five percent. Since 1995 I've been doing evaluation and repair of embedded devices in industrial applications. Most of our repairs have involved replacing the PROMs with ones containing Y2K-revised versions of the original programming.

Our biggest problem has been getting "old and obsolescent" blank PROMs on which to load the new software. We've paid over $1000 apiece for certain part numbers to go with some of the older PLCs. We've also been installing EEPROMS where we can, so the next time something like this happens (and it will) the poor SOB who does the job won't go nuts trying to find by then obsolete chips. And I do expect that some of this work will be cleaning up some missed Y2K bugs or Y2K fix- induced problems.

Some of our cases have involved really old devices which have RTC and microprocessors (Z-80s and Z-248s!) which cannot be made Y2K ready. We have had to engineer replacement applications in about tem percent of our work.

I know of some manufacturers who were selling non-Y2K capable equipment as late as last fall. They weren't about to scrap usable controllers, Y2K or not.

And their customers? Well, they can buy the new and improved versions of the smaller equipment and spend serious bucks to upgrade the embedded systems in their larger systems. Some manufacturing equipment vendors were still selling 386 and 486-based systems going into 1999. And these systems are not running compliant software either. Everyone was waiting for the next version of Windows NT to solve their problems.

As if migrating from non-compliant versions of OS/2 to Windows NT 4.0 would be easy, imagine trying with a drop-dead date and an installed base of over 2000 machines to go and retrofit. While upgrading the installed CPUs to a Pentium class machine and installing networking capabilities at the same time.

(No thanks, I just upgraded my PC to a new 300MHz cpu and Win98 and I have enough stress in my life.)

What's ironic is that the stuck customers I've referred to are the embedded systems munfacturers like ABB, Allen-Bradley and Westinghouse, upon whom the power and other energy companies depend. If they're planning fix-on-failure they're going to find awfully short supplies of the replacement embedded systems they're going to need. And it's a vicious spiral from there.

As you've mentioned in a later post, we are going to have problems with the power and energy industries. At what point we can break out of the spiral we're likely to enter is the big question. One year, two years, I say maybe three from my perspective.

TEOTWAWKI? Well if the emphasis is on comfortable lifestyles AWKI today, yes indeed we'll see TEOTWAWKI. Will everyone around today be here then? No, there will doubtless be deaths and I'm afraid that those folks who use the worldwide Flu outbreak during WWI as an analogy will be right. Will we learn from this mess and go to a more de-centralized system of organization in our society? Hopefully! Time WILL tell.

WW

-- Wildweasel (vtmldm@epix.net), January 21, 1999.

WW, yes, certainly windowed parts are easier to deal with (but rare and expensive), and socketed parts are a big help as well (but sockets are expensive and also uncommon).

(For the non-technical, EEPROMS have a clear plastic 'window', and can be erased with UV and reprogrammed. Socketed parts means the DIP (dual inline package) can be removed from the board without needing to desolder the part. Desoldering DIPs is a *bitch*. Most PROMs (with errors or not) are neither windowed nor socketed, since both of these technololgies add cost. And most such parts are obsolete and damned difficult to find when you're lucky.)

Back to WW, how common are these problems in real life? What's the size of the task facing Allen Bradley?

(And to the non-technical, if Allen-Bradley has a lot of bugs out there that will cause critical problems and can't fix them, we're in deep deep shit. Allen-Bradley's PLC's run the assembly lines.)

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), January 21, 1999.

"where are your facts Chris? I've seen alot of your posts. Your just a sheep following Milne and North the shepherds."--OK

Here are my facts. NO has presented Gartner Group's estimate of 25 million world-wide that need to be repaired. Here's another expert's view:

"Cara Corporation Embedded Systems Specialist David C. Hall stated that there are over 40 billion microprocessors worldwide, and anywhere from one to ten percent may be impacted by the date change. Hall described an oil company that has determined the need to replace thousands of chips controlling an oil dispensation system."

Note that this guy says anywhere from 1 to 10 percent. So then, only counting mission critical systems the Gartner Group mentioned, it's anywhere from 25 million to 250 million. GG conveniently leaves out "..to 10%". The fact here is that several experts have said anywhere from 1 to 2%, 1 to 5%, 1 to 10% and I've seen "up to 20%" from Tava Technologies. http://www.y2k-status.org/EmbeddedFailures.htm

Even Gartner Group themselves can't figure out how many there really are, or how many will fail, they change their tune:

"In late 1997, a study published by the Gartner Group showed that about 2% of the 25 billion embedded chips in use worldwide may malfunction after the century date change--which means we can expect Y2K-related anomalies in about 500 million systems, devices or components. The challenge is we cannot always know which embedded systems will fail or where they are in use." http://www.y2ktool.com/year2000/tip04.shtml

As The Institute of Electrical Engeneering says "(a) no one knows how many embedded systems there are and where they are (except that they are "everywhere"), and they are not always easy to detect". http://www.iee.org.uk/2000risk/w-35.htm

So if experts with credentials can't agree, why argue here? 10% is just as valid as 1%. My position is that since 10% is just as valid, then that's what's worrying.

As for being a shepherd of North or Milne, you couldn't be further from the truth. Can't stand either of them. But I can't refute any of Milne's facts. I'm not into shooting the messengers. And I don't bother going to North's site, the links he posts end up here anyway, I can do without his comments on them.

-- Chris (catsy@pond.com), January 21, 1999.

Flint, how unpollyanna of you, "we're in deep deep shit" ? WW, please update us and Flint on the real world of chip failures. That is the info we need to be aware of.

-- Bill (y2khippo@yahoo.com), January 21, 1999.

Yes, Chris, our ignorance is vast. So far, problems are fewer than feared and more than hoped. We have a long way to go and not much time. We'll get a lot of them, but not all.

But please don't equate noncompliance with critical failure. Very few embedded systems are noncomplaint, very few of those are critical, and few of *those* can't be patched around in an emergency. Certainly we're going to have to live with a *lot* of inconveniences for a while. The questions are, how inconvenient, for how long, for how many of us, in what ways, and what can we do about it? And nobody can answer those questions well enough to direct intelligent planning and preparation. We have to prepare for everything we can imagine, and hope that most of our preparations were unnecessary.

Your research is good. Keep it up. And bear in mind that we'll be dealing with actual failures, not potential failures.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), January 21, 1999.

Well Flint, that nobody knows anything for sure has been what I and many others have said since I got on this forum. And that's EXACTLY why I think that it's going to be TEOTWAWKI. Everybody has their heads up where-you-know, the train is heading for the cliff and there's no conductor...yada yada yada.

And my research has been intensly done over months a while ago, I'm now mostly just sitting back and boggling my mind over all the gov. disinformation, as well as ludicrous "experts" such as Gartner Group.(There's a Y2K opportunist if you want to see one, try accessing any of their "expert analyses" for free on their webpage.) My bookmarks could fill-in all the pages of Time Magazine.

-- Chris (catsy@pond.com), January 22, 1999.

Chris, your information is old. Gartner changed their estimates because they did more research. I think you just said you stopped researching. Therein lies the problem.

-- no (rather@not.say), January 22, 1999.

Oh, yeah, I repeat, there are not 40 billion microprocessors. The estimate is 40 billion chips. The definition of chip covers a lot of integrated circuits that don't deal with dates.

-- no (rather@not.say), January 22, 1999.

That's right NO, you're observant, the 1997 report is old. They, along with everybody else, keep doing their research, and the more they do, the more scared they get, the more they know, the more they know they don't know, and the more scared they get, the more disinformation they dish out at the mass, "to prevent a panic".

Get it?

-- Chris (catsy@pond.com), January 22, 1999.

Never mind, you're one of those stuck in minute details, still arguing over the color of a specific tree's leaves, and can't see the overall color of the forest.

-- Chris (catsy@pond.com), January 22, 1999.

Chris, your comment about the Gartner Group downplaying y2k to avert panic confuses me.

Among other things, Gartner Group sells a y2k remediation service. Numerous sources indicate that this business is hardly thriving. Y2k remediation outfits are going broke, they're underbooked, the salaries of COBOL coders is not rising very much at all.

If anything, you'd expect Gartner Group to emphasize y2k problems. There seems excellent reason to believe that if GG sees the y2k skies showing signs of clearing, it's because those skies really *are* clearing.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), January 22, 1999.

Flint, I've been suspicious for quite some time that the government is applying pressure on GG, as well as Yardeni, DeJager and the likes who are very well known and respected in their fields.

-- Chris (catsy@pond.com), January 22, 1999.

Chris, of course I cannot find anything that shows you're incorrect. I personally think that if numerous respected sources start saying they see light at the end of the tunnel, the light might really be there. At least, this seems a *lot* more likely than a conspiracy theory. But conspiracy theories are always popular, because our inability to disprove them (especially if there is no conspiracy) tends to lend support them among some people.

Look at it this way: If I were to claim that y2k is a complete hoax, being foisted on us be the greedy, who are all part of some giant conspiracy, you'd begin to doubt my sanity. There's every reason to believe y2k actually exists, and no reason outside my imagination why it doesn't.

Now turn it around. If the situation in fact *is* getting better and those closest to it start trying to tell this to us, how can they possibly communicate to anyone who thinks they're all conspiring? Somewhere there's a line between healthy skepticism and unhealthy suspicion. If you start rejecting probable-looking information because it doesn't fit your convictions, you are crossing the line into darkist Milnism.

I agree GG can jigger their presentation in any direction they choose. So can de Jager. So can Cap Gemini. But they have no overt reason to do so, and all have good reasons not to.

I don't want to go into a long disquisition on government. Suffice it to say I worked there for a while, and my perspective might be quite different as a result. If you really want to know, email me privately. Right now I can only say, trust me, the mechanisms for the pressures you suspect (totally without evidence) just don't exist.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), January 22, 1999.

Back into the fray today... My experience with the Allen Bradlely product line comes from their own technical press. This past fall AB released a list of its current and recent products as "Y2K Ready" and " Not Y2K Compatable". "Not Y2K Compatable" speaks for itself. A Y2K Ready product is one which, barring some goon doing the installation "doing the now unthinkable" and programming it for two- digit years, is capable of properly operating through the Y2K transition. A Y2K Ready device is the basis of testing the device with its customer application programming for Y2K Compliance, of that particular device and program combination at a particular task.

If I was pressed, I would say that AB's problems are from their equipment vendors, who've sold them manufacturing equipment that really needs lots of upgrading to make the Y2K change. I should know, I built and tested lots of machines for Allen Bradley before I changed employers last summer (had to get at that 401K, you know).

Now some of the embedded devices I know have problems aren't brand names like Allen Bradley. They're in-house built, 386 and 486-based industrial PCs stuffed into automated circuit board assembly machines and the parts and product conveyor systems. These are the one- thousand dollar PCs and PLCs (the ones which use one thousand dollar PROMs) that are going do kill the half-million dollar machine. Like ruining your car by not putting in good oil and filters.

The manufacturers kept their costs down by using the low-price parts. Using Pentium-based or equivilent PCs and PLCs that are Y2K-Ready would have cost another thousand bucks per half-million dollar assembly machine. And now the cost to the Allen Bradleys of the world is going to make the initial savings look tremendously smaller than they are. It'll be like a plane crash caused by a missing five cent washer, it has happened and the cause can never by equated to the costs.

Wonder why companies fear Y2K lawsuits? 'Cause everybody has somebody who's going to be P-Oed about some product they bought a few years back and how it won't make Y2K. Look at Allen Bradley, they're doing pretty good, but they do have one third of their last five year's products out there that are classed a being "Not Y2K Compatable."

These are the kinds of things we're seeing out here in the "cyber trenches". My current problems are Unix systems (thought to be Y2K- proof) until the processor chips showed up on Motorola's list of "Orphan/No Longer Supported" products. Wonder why something is declared "No Longer Supportable" just as the calender changes to 1999?

It's going to be a long year at work, while the homefront won't have anywhere near enough time.

WW

-- Wildweasel (vtmldm@epix.net), January 22, 1999.

"Now turn it around. If the situation in fact *is* getting better and those closest to it start trying to tell this to us, how can they possibly communicate to anyone who thinks they're all conspiring? Somewhere there's a line between healthy skepticism and unhealthy suspicion."

Flint, believe me I'm not into conspiracy theories, never been. I swear to you I've never watched one single full episode of the x-files, although my husband and kids are avid fans. I've never listened to the Art Bell show, and even with all this talk about him here, I'm not even tempted to start listening to him. I have never been labeled a paranoid, or viewed as overly suspicious by my friends and relatives. Except recently, with Y2K.

Here are a couple of quotes as example, right off the bat, posted on this forum now, that helps me put 2 and 2 together and reinforce my suspicions. Then tell me if I've gone over the deep end and become paranoid from Yourdon forum overdose.

"As we count down to the year 2000, one of the issues being reported in the media is whether the U.S. currency supply is adequate for the century rollover. Media speculation that cash reserves might be depleted can lead to reactions we would like to avoid - public concern and hoarding of cash.

As part of the industry's proactive stance on year 2000 issues, financial institutions can play an important role in reassuring customers that the nation's money supply is not in jeopardy. All financial institutions may want to consider a communications campaign that focuses on the safety and soundness of money deposited in banks, credit unions, and savings and loans. An important component of that message is that customer deposits are insured to the legal limit by the FDIC and NCUA and will be fully accessible during the transition." (from "Say it aint' so Feds" thread) Here's the link to the whole article.

http://www.frbsf.org/fiservices/cdc/news4/page3.html

Then this from "brother rat"

"I have worked/work for two of the largest US Gov IGs. The DoD IG has done a good job of reporting the lies coming from various DoD commands certifying y2k compliance." (From "the gov. is lying" Thread. Ok, might be troll, but sounds like a real rat to me, doesn't have the usual troll attributes. http://greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=000Ptm

Plus all the miriads of obvious dissonance from Kosniken and Clinton etc.

What do you conclude that their collective intentions are? I conclude that the gov. and the banks, being joined at the hip, are "conspiring" to DISINFORM and prevent a PANIC and maintain CONTROL. And to maintain control with disinformation, you must have trusted experts to support your statements, don't you agree?

-- Chris (catsy@pond.com), January 22, 1999.

Chris, I partially agree with you. What I consider must likely (just my opinion, of course) is that neither the government nor the banks anticipate y2k problems worse than can be handled more satisfactorily than a bank run. A bank run is a disaster even in the best of times. Even if banks experience glitches resulting in long clearance times, errors in balances, temporary inablity to track payments, loss of records, etc., yes, these will be annoying, slow things down and require a lot of overtime. But that's still *much* better than a bank run. Even if the glitches are really bad, a bank run can only make things worse. It can never help. Yes, in the short term it might be good for those few people who withdraw first. In the long run, it hurts everyone.

Your use of the word 'control' bothers me a bit. Sure the government wants things to remain as peaceful and orderly as possible. So do I! If really bad things are coming (as I expect), widespread panic cannot possibly help anyone, and will only make the situation more dangerous, and last longer. Where's the evil in trying to keep unnecessary exacerbation to a minimum? Do you *want* to see people killed who might otherwise have lived? I don't.

GG, de Jager et. al. probably see it the same way. I doubt they're trying to cover anything up, I think they're calling it to their best ability to see it. But I think we've passed the time when our economy can support a responsible level of preparation on the part of a majority of US citizens. We can't ramp up that fast, nor were suppliers willing to invest in production facilities that must necessarily stand idle starting in a year, once the one-time demand has been met.

The scope of what's coming is still unknown. The scope of widespread panic is known, it's guaranteed bad, and no matter what's coming panic will make things worse for all but perhaps a small minority, and more likely bad for them too, just a little less bad.

If *you* were Koskinen, would you encourage everyone to go out and stock up with many times more stuff than you knew could *possibly* be available? What would you do?

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), January 23, 1999.

Flint,

You're confused about Chris' comment on the GartnerGroup downplaying Y2K? No need to be confused. Take a look at the first post in the following thread to get an understanding of the situation...

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=000OvB

"Firm with ties to GartnerGroup downplays the 'chip' problem"

-- Kevin (mixesmusic@worldnet.att.net), January 23, 1999.

Flint-

It's OBVIOUS to anyone with half a brain that you have NO understanding

oops

</milne mode>

I hate it when people forget to close their tags! Like your analysis, Flint.

-- Ned (entaylor@cloudnet.com), January 23, 1999.

"Your use of the word 'control' bothers me a bit. Sure the government wants things to remain as peaceful and orderly as possible. So do I!"

Flint, the gov. is always in control. It does not mean I think they're out to get me. "wants things to remain peaceful" is a way for you to go around the bush and avoid calling things by their name.

There's no use for us discussing this any further. You are afraid of the panic and you are trying to reason GG et al's motives to fit your wishes. I'm also afraid of the panic, and I'm taking steps to protect myself from it. But I'm clearing my mind of my wishes, and I look at things objectively.

Thanks for those links Kevin. Yet more support for my healthy suspicions. But I'm not desilusioned that Flint would see any dishonest motives with GG and its offspring Giga, because he blocks it out to fit his wishes. That's called unhealthy optimism.

-- Chris (catsy@pond.com), January 23, 1999.

OK Chris, I'll go along with you. The government is lying. GG is lying. de Jager is lying. Giga is lying. The remediators are lying. The NERC is lying. The actual field results are lying. They're doing it to manipulate me, but I'm wise to them, yes I am. I know better.

Ahhhh, it sure feels better now that I'm being open-minded and objective. Why didn't I do this sooner?

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), January 23, 1999.