A sense of government remediation efforts

greenspun.com : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread

From my attempts to integrate a wide variety of material, it seems that the following assertions appear likely. NOTE that this is an attempt at synthesis. These are NOT facts in any sense.

1) Governments at all levels have come under pressure to report satisfactory progress, whether they've made it or not.

2) The number of systems reported as critical is unrealistically low.

3) The criteria for a system to be deemed compliant continue to be softened.

4) No real effort has been made to identify those systems whose output is required input to the critical systems. Doing so would require that the sourcing systems be classified as critical.

5) Initial efforts have been directed toward those systems most easily remediated, for reasons of size, familiarity, and documentation.

6) Unit testing of remediated systems has been less than rigorous.

7) Remediation budgets have been partially redirected to other areas for political reasons.

8) Interdepartmental systems and state-federal liaison systems have been orphaned.

9) Systems for regulation of, and reporting by, private industry have been held to be the responsibility of the private sector.

10) The overall sense of urgency for remediation is substantially lower in the public than the private sector.

11) Remediation skill levels in general are notably lower in the public sector.

---

That's the way I see it today. Flames welcomed.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), January 25, 1999

Answers

Once again, please notice that flint REFUSES to EVER draw a conclusion from the evidence. Form the very beginning he has asserted 'no on can know' what will happen. So here we have a litany of items and YES boys and girls, once again, NO CONCLUSION.

It is hyesterically funny that he says "That's the way he sees it". Sees what? The EVIDENCE, as above, has always been there. Noone of any reasonable inteligence debates it. flint again, merely states the OBVIOUS.

The INPORTANT thing is what CONCLUSION do you draw from this and ALL the other evidence.

The ONLY conclusion is that the job is not getting done and the government will cease to be a functioning entity. But, flint stops there. "no one can know".

ROTFLMAO

-- Paul Milne (fedinfo@halifax.com), January 25, 1999.


I don't need to be told what conclusions to draw from evidence, or a person's interpretation of evidence. Flint can draw whatever conclusions he wants, I'll draw mine.

-- d (d@dgi.com), January 25, 1999.

No, Paul, you are wrong. You see, people who draw wild and extreme conclusions from such an astronomically bottomless source of information and facts, such as is the case with Y2K, are idiots. Idiots. You are one.

"No one knows for sure what the result of Y2K will be. Aside from that obvious truism about predicting the future, there are just so many factors involved here, with which we have so little, or no experience, that no expert can comprehend everything that is involved."

Know who wrote that Paul? Bruce Beach, National Coordinator of the Y2K Network, which has team leaders in 48 of the 50 states. This is a guy whose job REQUIRES that he devote several hours of reading about Y2K per day. Note that Mr. Beach does not spend several hours each day flaming people, insulting people, demeaning civilized discourse with childish, lunatic, and painfully boring outburts of hysteria, or however you spell it.

-- Herc (Herc@vernal.com), January 25, 1999.


n answer to Herc.... No, Paul, you are wrong. You see, people who draw wild

(What is 'wild' about the conclusion, bozo. You 'assert' it is wid. That is all. Address the EVIDENCE Herc-baby. Address the facts .)

and extreme

("extreme" . Address the facts bozo. The evidence is that they are not doing the job, boz. Examples are given ranging from the LARGEST steel company in the world, bozo. Address the FACTS.)

conclusions from such an astronomically bottomless source of information and facts

(Pray tell, what is a 'bottomless' sourse of facts. Care to elucidate on just what that is? )

, such as is the case with Y2K, are idiots. Idiots. You are one.

(Again, Just like I said. A complete FAILURE to address the FACTS. Exactly as predicted. )

"No one knows for sure what the result of Y2K will be.

(Yes, another of the flint school who START from the proposition that you can't know anything, therefore NO evidence can lead to ANY knowledge at all.)

Aside from that obvious truism about predicting the future, there are just so many factors involved here, with which we have so little,

(Which we have so MUCH!)

or no experience, that no expert can comprehend everything that is involved."

(You don't need to comprehend EVERYTHING. Just ENOUGH, bozo.)

Know who wrote that Paul? Bruce Beach, National Coordinator of the Y2K Network, which has team leaders in 48 of the 50 states. This is a guy whose job REQUIRES that he devote several hours of reading about Y2K per day. Note that Mr. Beach does not spend several hours each day flaming people, insulting people, demeaning civilized discourse with childish, lunatic, and painfully boring outburts of hysteria.

(Irrlevant. More to the point is that NOT ONE PART of your post addressed the issues. Just as predicted. YOU are the very reason for the flames, you moron. None of you address the facts issues or evidence, only the messenger. That is why you get flamed bozo. Expect more of the same until you start addressing the issues. )

-- Herc (Herc@vernal.com), January 25, 1999

Herc-baby, you another laughable dolt form the flint school of 'We don't know nuthin so nobody knows nuthin'

ROTFLMAO

-- Paul Milne (fedinfo@halifax.com), January 25, 1999.

-- Paul mIlne (fedinfo@halifax.com), January 25, 1999.


Milne talks of "knowledge". Others talk of "conclusions".

Unless Milne is an infallible prophet, he is mistaking his conclusions for knowledge. Some of the House mamagers in the impeachment trial going on just now seem to have done the same thing.

No matter how logical the conclusions drawn from what facts are available, they do not constitute knowledge. But most of what we all do in everyday life is based on just such conclusions. If we waited for Knowledge we'd be paralyzed.

If we all drew the same conclusions from the same facts, this world would be a giant ant-hill, all of one mind. We don't, it's not, and dissing folks who don't think "your way" is unproductive.

It's possible to let other people be wrong.

-- Tom Carey (tomcarey@mindspring.com), January 26, 1999.



Flint, you keep going up and up in my esteem for you :-)

This post has 2 of the factors essential for DGI's education:

1- Facts presented without emotions.

2- No opinions/conclusions drawned.

This positively piques the reader's interrest/motivation to do more research and acertain himself of your presented facts.

You have not insulted the reader, which Milne does consistently and puts the reader on the defensive and shuts out Milne's facts.

I would say from this, that you are a definite GI, and Milne is the ultimate Butthead. But I don't expect Milne to understand the irony in this, as he is a anti-social nutcase who is literaly shoving down people's throat his wish that TEOTHWAWKI happens, no matter how factual and able to "grasp" it he is.

-- Chris (catsy@pond.com), January 26, 1999.


Milne is the flip side of Jimmy Bagga Donuts. He is a pain in the ass even to those of us who think he may be right. Mr Milne, get a clue: the world does not need your petty bullying to figure out which way the wind blows. And don't any of you give me that nonsense about how he's done a great service by scaring people into preparing. I'll wager that he's more than cancelled that out by scaring/irritating people AWAY from thinking about the ramifications of Y2K. I'll take a Deedah, Cook, Squire, or even a Flint over an angry white guy like Milne (who constantly conjures up an image for me of Michael Douglas in "Falling Down") any day of the week.

Yeah, the conclusions are stark. Flint was trying to lay out the facts in an organized, direct manner, letting those of us with brains to draw our OWN conclusions. About the last thing I would ever want to do would be to let anyone, ESPECIALLY Milne, draw them for me.

Paul, you've got your bunker. Congrats. But stop patting yourself on the back for all the people you've saved by acting like a jackass. And tell me, do you ever get tired from lugging that cross around?

-- Haddy Nuff O'Milne (enough@already.com), January 26, 1999.


Somebody posted an analogy about Milne a while back. It's the story of the drill sergeant that cursed his troops and made them do things they didn't think they could possible do. The troops really hated him and though he was a sadistic bastard. But in the end, what they learned from their sergeant enabled them to survive brutal combat.

Milne is a courageous man. Whether he is correct about y2k or not his conviction is sincere. Stop attacking the messenger folks.

-- a (a@a.a), January 26, 1999.


Note to Chris: In the first paragraph, I wrote "These are NOT facts in any sense." They aren't. What I posted was a list of *conclusions* based on my best understanding of the available material. At least, that's according to my dictionary.

Facts are difficult to come by, which is why I refer to 'material' rather than to facts. All of our material is subject to debate and interpretation. Facts are not (again according to my dictionary).

I welcome any debate from those whose conclusions differ from mine.

Statements along the line of "the government is hosed" or "the government is lying to us" are *opinions*, not conclusions (and certainly not facts).I'm not saying that my conclusions support those opinions. My *opinion* is that the government is and will be in sad shape.

Note to Paul Milne: Have a nice day.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), January 26, 1999.


Chris can't even manage to read with comprehension.

All you flaming Pollyannas never 'know' anything, can't 'conclude' anything and can figurea anything out at all. You BEGIN from that position and end in it.

Lead, follow or get the HELL out of the way.

None of you lead. None of you follow. GET THE HELL OUT OF THE WAY.

The last thing we need is a bunch of know nothing milque-toasts like flint and chris.

I DON'T GIVE A RAT'S ASS IF YOU DON'T LIKE MY FLAMING THE POLLYANNAS. THEY ARE AS ABYSMALLY IGNORANT AS THE DAY IS LONG AND I WILL CONTINUE TO WIPE THEIR SNOTTY NOSES FOR THEM.

Not ONE pollyanna has put forth any EVUDENCE of ANY kind that ENOUGH work is being done. NOT ONE.

LEAD, FOLLOW, or get the hell out of the way.

-- Paul Milne (fedinfo@halifax.com), January 26, 1999.



Paul

I'm concerned, you seem have lost touch with your inner child.

-- Uncle Deedah (oncebitten@twiceshy.com), January 26, 1999.


Paul, you're such a card.

-- Lewis (aslanshow@yahoo.com), January 26, 1999.

I invite any of the regulars here to examine this entire thread as through the eyes of a member of the Clueless Majority. What happened to the topic? Where's the discussion? What opinion would you likely form? What do you suppose could have gone wrong here?

I think it's time 'a' came back and explained to us once again exactly how Milne's noble and sincere efforts have helped to enlighten the newbies. I'd swear a potentially educational and informative thread has been hijacked before it served its dangerous purpose.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), January 26, 1999.


Milne, you're frothing at the mouth and it's dripping on your keyboard. You're short-circuiting your brain. Ewww...disgusting.

Listen BunkerBoy, you yourself have presented #1,2,3,5,6 as facts not that long ago.

Flint, I apreciate the motive of your parsing, but many points you've made have been documented and verified already on this forum, from reliable sources, many from the gov. themselves.

-- Chris (catsy@pond.com), January 26, 1999.


To the newbies and lurkers:

I'm simply thinking on my own, don't be afraid to do the same. Milne is looking for cult followers. His bullying scare tactics are just that, tactics.

Come and get me Milne, I dare ya to get out of that bunker of yours.

-- Chris (catsy@pond.com), January 26, 1999.



Moderation questions? read the FAQ