What is Hawaii's state bird?

-- Deb Nykamp (nykamp@hope.edu), January 28, 1999

Answers

Nene goose

-- Roy Inouye (roy@bothi.com), January 28, 1999.

In article <501-36AFA0A1-81@newsd-212.iap.bryant.webtv.net>, DaShad0w@webtv.net wrote: > THE REAL Y2K QUESTION > [essay from Mike Goodin, editor] > I've been pondering the root Y2K problem for many years, searching for a > concise way to describe the true nature of the potential threat. This > week, aided by the phraseology of a scientist, I've constructed this > question: > "What is the fault tolerance of our globally-distributed specialization > network?" > This is the relevant Y2K question. Remember, it's not the compliance of > home appliances that matter (and why polls keep asking people about home > appliances is an unfortunate mystery...), and the likelihood of failures > somewhere on the planet are all but certain. Failures are going to > occur, without a doubt. > The question concerns the ability of our globally-distributed > specialization network to survive faults. If the global system is highly > fault tolerant, it will survive intact, with few disruptions. If the > global system has low fault tolerance, we're in for a very rough ride. > Perhaps even a multi-year shutdown of civilization as we know it. > FAULT TOLERANCE HAS NEVER BEEN TESTED > Recognize the fault tolerance of our "new" global community has never > been tested. In the days of World War II, America was relatively > isolated. We could build our own planes, trains and automobiles (tanks, > too). We had factories, we had relatively short, U.S.-based assembly > lines with skilled U.S.-based workers who possessed labor skills. The > network of specialization was much smaller, and therefore, more fault > tolerant. Everybody knows the fewer pieces you have in an engine, the > less likely it is to fail. Simplicity leads to reliability. Complexity > results in a low fault tolerance. > Today, the manufacturing base of America is nearly extinct, and the > supply lines for building products stretch across oceans, involving a > half-dozen countries for parts. This is the "globally-distributed" > specialization network to which I refer, and it is a relatively young > system. > It's been driven by economics, by specialization, by efficient > ocean-going transports and air deliveries. It's enabled by international > telecommunications: e-mails, faxes, phone calls, even video > conferencing. International banks allow the moving of funds from buyer > to seller, through trusted international clearinghouse networks. This > is, indeed, a "network" of a thousand parts, and each part of the > machine must work at near-perfect efficiency for the whole system > operate correctly. > WE ALREADY KNOW THE SYSTEM CAN HANDLE A 1% FAILURE RATE > So what is the fault tolerance of this system anyway? That's the debate, > that's the big question. Clearly, the people who say that systems fail > all the time -- with no big deal -- are missing the point. Yes, power > plants fail on a daily basis. Phone lines go down somewhere on the > planet on a daily basis. Banks mess up transactions with frightening > regularity. We understand that this global network has a fault tolerance > of at least 1%. But that's not the right question.

EXACTLY!! In order to get the right answers you have to ask the right questions.

Y2K isn't a local > hurricane. It isn't a local power outage or a local bank error. It's a > simultaneous, global slam-dunk event. It may raise the failure rate of > this network to 10%. And *that* is the big question: is our > globally-distributed specialization network able to withstand a > simultaneous failure of 10% of its parts?

NO

> See, isolated failures always rely on the non-failing services -- and an > excess of available resources -- to complete repairs. When a power plant > fails, all the power experts get called on the phone lines, and they > rush to the scene to fix this lone failing power plant. They use credit > cards to buy plane tickets, gas, food, you name it. And when they're > done, they go home and wait for the next power emergency. This > demonstrates the 1% fault tolerance of our current system. > But what if ten power plants go down? Suddenly you've got 1/10th of the > available resources for each power plant. Then what if the telecomm is > down? You can't reach the people qualified to repair the power. If the > telecomm is down, they can't use their credit cards to get there. Then > what if the airlines aren't flying? You've got delays, people have to > drive. So they depend on oil, but what if the oil tanker shipments are > delayed? > AT WHAT POINT IS THE FAILURE UNIVERSAL? > See, at some point, somewhere between 1% and 100%, you get a total > failure of the network. The real Y2K question, when you boil it down, > concerns this number. What percentage of simultaneous failure can the > network withstand without collapsing?

That may be unknown. And THAT is EXACTLY why one needs to prepare for a worst case scenarion.

Moreover, there is ample evidence to MORE than suggest that NOWHERE near enough is being done to even a cheive a 50% rate of completion.

> Clearly, it's something lower than 80%, something higher than 1%. > Perhaps the network could withstand a 5% failure; that's debatable. > Imagine if 5% of all financial transactions were bad. That would clobber > the financial institutions: busy signals forever. Imagine Wall Street > with a 5% transaction failure. The whole system would shut down due to > the 5% failures. A 10% failure would seemingly bring most networks down. > Imagine if 10% of the parts in a power plant didn't work correctly. > That's an off-line plant in short order. Imagine if 10% of the parts > didn't show up at the Chrysler plant. That's a sure-thing shutdown. > Imagine if 10% of the water treatment plants in the country failed. It > would be a Red Cross nightmare, just attempting to supply water to 10% > of the population. > In my opinion, the world probably can't withstand a 10% failure rate > without severe and long-term consequences. A 20% failure rate would be, > I think, a fatal economic event.

I believe, unquestionably based upon the evidence, we will have NOWHERE near a MERE 20% failure rate. It will be double that at minimum.

It would thrust the world into a > depression with all the resulting costs in dollars and lives. At a 20% > failure rate, the efficiencies break down: the food production and > deliveries, the oil, power, banking, telecommunications, and so on. > 80% ISN'T GOOD ENOUGH > This is why, when people tell you that 80% of the systems are going to > be ready, that's not nearly good enough.

And remember, it is NOT 80% of the systems. In MOST cases it is 80% of the TEN PERCENT of mission critical systems.

Technically, if you believe my > analysis, 80% of the systems working is still a disaster. 20% of the > systems failing could break the global network's back. In fact, a 95% > "working" ratio isn't good enough, either. Even a 5% failure could have > long-term, painful consequences. In order to avoid the worst effects of > the Millennium Bug, systems need to operate at 99% or better. We need to > have less than one failure per one hundred systems. At that rate, I'm > confident the fault tolerance ability is sufficient. >

Look, even the best of the best of the best, on average, will only have the ability to reomove up to 90% of the defects. Even the testing that is going on is not uncovering them all. Report after report has stated that tested systems have been found to be non-compliant and riddled with defects. And over 71% will not even do proper testing. This is a SURE fire failure. It is a guranteed written in stone prescription for failure.

As of the present, there is not one Fortune 500 company ready. Not one. Years and years they have had. Not one. Not one Airline. Not one Major Bank. Not one Auto Manufacturer. Not one utility. Not one State. Not one major metropolis. Not one Oil Co. 139 out of 200+ countries are doing NOTHING. Japan is 18 to 24 months behind us. Most of Europe is way behind. Forget Africa and South America entirely.

It is NOT possible for enough of these companies to be ready in time to avert absolute economic catstrophe. NOT POSSIBLE. The global economic situation is in tatters. This is MORE IMPORTANT than anything else. It CAN NOT sustain a significant shock from the consequnces of Y2K and remain functional.

If you live in a populated area, you will EASILY find yourself surrounded by thousands or tens of thousands of UNPREPARED people. No one will do any serious preparation UNTIL IT IS TOO LATE. The only way out of this one with your skin intact is to move BEFORE the masses.

Stay in a city. Be more concerned about your job, your condo, your 'prospects'. Be my guest. It's your funeral. I understand how much more important your Lexus payments are. And your family and friends will probably ridicule you. Yeah, if you actually do something substantial, you'll be ruined and NEVER be able to recover. I mean, its the best economic environment that we have ever 'allegedly' had and if NOTHING happens, you will NEVER be able to recover in that WONDERFUL atmosphere. Not like all the myraid of people in the thirties who did just fine over the long haul after a devastating depression. I guess they are still in tar-paper shacks in Oklahoma.

Yeah. Better to do nothing at all. Get a case of raspberry flavored mineral water in bottles with hand-pleasing shapes. You know, in case of DIRE emergency. That will pull you through. C'mon, people are resilient. They have 'spirit'. They have a 'can-do' attitude. And you can't believe that the government would drop the ball on this one. No way. And companies are financially interested. Capitalism will find a way out. Yeah, that's the ticket. It's just hype and hysteria and over-reaction. Oh, and don't forget scaremongering and religious zealotism. Citigroup was scared into spending 925 MILLLLLION dolars because they were tricked by hype. The federal Government has a 7.5 BBBBBILLLLLION dollar budget 'cuz they wuz fooled by religious zealots in Pat Robertson costumes. And a computer consultant screamed "BOOO!" at the NRC and they said they would shut down all nuclear reactors if they could not PROVE they were compliant by July 1 1999.

Paul Milne If you live within five miles of a 7-11, you're toast.

-- a (a@a.a), January 28, 1999.

In article <501-36AFA0A1-81@newsd-212.iap.bryant.webtv.net>,

DaShad0w@webtv.net wrote: > THE REAL Y2K QUESTION > [essay from Mike Goodin, editor] > I've been pondering the root Y2K problem for many years, searching for a > concise way to describe the true nature of the potential threat. This > week, aided by the phraseology of a scientist, I've constructed this > question: > "What is the fault tolerance of our globally-distributed specialization > network?" > This is the relevant Y2K question. Remember, it's not the compliance of > home appliances that matter (and why polls keep asking people about home > appliances is an unfortunate mystery...), and the likelihood of failures > somewhere on the planet are all but certain. Failures are going to > occur, without a doubt. > The question concerns the ability of our globally-distributed > specialization network to survive faults. If the global system is highly > fault tolerant, it will survive intact, with few disruptions. If the > global system has low fault tolerance, we're in for a very rough ride. > Perhaps even a multi-year shutdown of civilization as we know it. > FAULT TOLERANCE HAS NEVER BEEN TESTED > Recognize the fault tolerance of our "new" global community has never > been tested. In the days of World War II, America was relatively > isolated. We could build our own planes, trains and automobiles (tanks, > too). We had factories, we had relatively short, U.S.-based assembly > lines with skilled U.S.-based workers who possessed labor skills. The > network of specialization was much smaller, and therefore, more fault > tolerant. Everybody knows the fewer pieces you have in an engine, the > less likely it is to fail. Simplicity leads to reliability. Complexity > results in a low fault tolerance. > Today, the manufacturing base of America is nearly extinct, and the > supply lines for building products stretch across oceans, involving a > half-dozen countries for parts. This is the "globally-distributed" > specialization network to which I refer, and it is a relatively young > system. > It's been driven by economics, by specialization, by efficient > ocean-going transports and air deliveries. It's enabled by international > telecommunications: e-mails, faxes, phone calls, even video > conferencing. International banks allow the moving of funds from buyer > to seller, through trusted international clearinghouse networks. This > is, indeed, a "network" of a thousand parts, and each part of the > machine must work at near-perfect efficiency for the whole system > operate correctly. > WE ALREADY KNOW THE SYSTEM CAN HANDLE A 1% FAILURE RATE > So what is the fault tolerance of this system anyway? That's the debate, > that's the big question. Clearly, the people who say that systems fail > all the time -- with no big deal -- are missing the point. Yes, power > plants fail on a daily basis. Phone lines go down somewhere on the > planet on a daily basis. Banks mess up transactions with frightening > regularity. We understand that this global network has a fault tolerance > of at least 1%. But that's not the right question.

EXACTLY!! In order to get the right answers you have to ask the right questions.

Y2K isn't a local > hurricane. It isn't a local power outage or a local bank error. It's a > simultaneous, global slam-dunk event. It may raise the failure rate of > this network to 10%. And *that* is the big question: is our > globally-distributed specialization network able to withstand a > simultaneous failure of 10% of its parts?

NO

> See, isolated failures always rely on the non-failing services -- and an > excess of available resources -- to complete repairs. When a power plant > fails, all the power experts get called on the phone lines, and they > rush to the scene to fix this lone failing power plant. They use credit > cards to buy plane tickets, gas, food, you name it. And when they're > done, they go home and wait for the next power emergency. This > demonstrates the 1% fault tolerance of our current system. > But what if ten power plants go down? Suddenly you've got 1/10th of the > available resources for each power plant. Then what if the telecomm is > down? You can't reach the people qualified to repair the power. If the > telecomm is down, they can't use their credit cards to get there. Then > what if the airlines aren't flying? You've got delays, people have to > drive. So they depend on oil, but what if the oil tanker shipments are > delayed? > AT WHAT POINT IS THE FAILURE UNIVERSAL? > See, at some point, somewhere between 1% and 100%, you get a total > failure of the network. The real Y2K question, when you boil it down, > concerns this number. What percentage of simultaneous failure can the > network withstand without collapsing?

That may be unknown. And THAT is EXACTLY why one needs to prepare for a worst case scenarion.

Moreover, there is ample evidence to MORE than suggest that NOWHERE near enough is being done to even a cheive a 50% rate of completion.

> Clearly, it's something lower than 80%, something higher than 1%. > Perhaps the network could withstand a 5% failure; that's debatable. > Imagine if 5% of all financial transactions were bad. That would clobber > the financial institutions: busy signals forever. Imagine Wall Street > with a 5% transaction failure. The whole system would shut down due to > the 5% failures. A 10% failure would seemingly bring most networks down. > Imagine if 10% of the parts in a power plant didn't work correctly. > That's an off-line plant in short order. Imagine if 10% of the parts > didn't show up at the Chrysler plant. That's a sure-thing shutdown. > Imagine if 10% of the water treatment plants in the country failed. It > would be a Red Cross nightmare, just attempting to supply water to 10% > of the population. > In my opinion, the world probably can't withstand a 10% failure rate > without severe and long-term consequences. A 20% failure rate would be, > I think, a fatal economic event.

I believe, unquestionably based upon the evidence, we will have NOWHERE near a MERE 20% failure rate. It will be double that at minimum.

It would thrust the world into a > depression with all the resulting costs in dollars and lives. At a 20% > failure rate, the efficiencies break down: the food production and > deliveries, the oil, power, banking, telecommunications, and so on. > 80% ISN'T GOOD ENOUGH > This is why, when people tell you that 80% of the systems are going to > be ready, that's not nearly good enough.

And remember, it is NOT 80% of the systems. In MOST cases it is 80% of the TEN PERCENT of mission critical systems.

Technically, if you believe my > analysis, 80% of the systems working is still a disaster. 20% of the > systems failing could break the global network's back. In fact, a 95% > "working" ratio isn't good enough, either. Even a 5% failure could have > long-term, painful consequences. In order to avoid the worst effects of > the Millennium Bug, systems need to operate at 99% or better. We need to > have less than one failure per one hundred systems. At that rate, I'm > confident the fault tolerance ability is sufficient. >

Look, even the best of the best of the best, on average, will only have the ability to reomove up to 90% of the defects. Even the testing that is going on is not uncovering them all. Report after report has stated that tested systems have been found to be non-compliant and riddled with defects. And over 71% will not even do proper testing. This is a SURE fire failure. It is a guranteed written in stone prescription for failure.

As of the present, there is not one Fortune 500 company ready. Not one. Years and years they have had. Not one. Not one Airline. Not one Major Bank. Not one Auto Manufacturer. Not one utility. Not one State. Not one major metropolis. Not one Oil Co. 139 out of 200+ countries are doing NOTHING. Japan is 18 to 24 months behind us. Most of Europe is way behind. Forget Africa and South America entirely.

It is NOT possible for enough of these companies to be ready in time to avert absolute economic catstrophe. NOT POSSIBLE. The global economic situation is in tatters. This is MORE IMPORTANT than anything else. It CAN NOT sustain a significant shock from the consequnces of Y2K and remain functional.

If you live in a populated area, you will EASILY find yourself surrounded by thousands or tens of thousands of UNPREPARED people. No one will do any serious preparation UNTIL IT IS TOO LATE. The only way out of this one with your skin intact is to move BEFORE the masses.

Stay in a city. Be more concerned about your job, your condo, your 'prospects'. Be my guest. It's your funeral. I understand how much more important your Lexus payments are. And your family and friends will probably ridicule you. Yeah, if you actually do something substantial, you'll be ruined and NEVER be able to recover. I mean, its the best economic environment that we have ever 'allegedly' had and if NOTHING happens, you will NEVER be able to recover in that WONDERFUL atmosphere. Not like all the myraid of people in the thirties who did just fine over the long haul after a devastating depression. I guess they are still in tar-paper shacks in Oklahoma.

Yeah. Better to do nothing at all. Get a case of raspberry flavored mineral water in bottles with hand-pleasing shapes. You know, in case of DIRE emergency. That will pull you through. C'mon, people are resilient. They have 'spirit'. They have a 'can-do' attitude. And you can't believe that the government would drop the ball on this one. No way. And companies are financially interested. Capitalism will find a way out. Yeah, that's the ticket. It's just hype and hysteria and over-reaction. Oh, and don't forget scaremongering and religious zealotism. Citigroup was scared into spending 925 MILLLLLION dolars because they were tricked by hype. The federal Government has a 7.5 BBBBBILLLLLION dollar budget 'cuz they wuz fooled by religious zealots in Pat Robertson costumes. And a computer consultant screamed "BOOO!" at the NRC and they said they would shut down all nuclear reactors if they could not PROVE they were compliant by July 1 1999.

Paul Milne If you live within five miles of a 7-11, you're toast.

-- a (a@a.a), January 28, 1999.

In article <501-36AFA0A1-81@newsd-212.iap.bryant.webtv.net>,
  DaShad0w@webtv.net wrote:
> THE REAL Y2K QUESTION
> [essay from Mike Goodin, editor]
> I've been pondering the root Y2K problem for many years, searching 
for a
> concise way to describe the true nature of the potential threat. 
This
> week, aided by the phraseology of a scientist, I've constructed this
> question:
> "What is the fault tolerance of our globally-distributed 
specialization
> network?"
> This is the relevant Y2K question. Remember, it's not the compliance 
of
> home appliances that matter (and why polls keep asking people about 
home
> appliances is an unfortunate mystery...), and the likelihood of 
failures
> somewhere on the planet are all but certain. Failures are going to
> occur, without a doubt.
> The question concerns the ability of our globally-distributed
> specialization network to survive faults. If the global system is 
highly
> fault tolerant, it will survive intact, with few disruptions. If the
> global system has low fault tolerance, we're in for a very rough 
ride.
> Perhaps even a multi-year shutdown of civilization as we know it.
> FAULT TOLERANCE HAS NEVER BEEN TESTED
> Recognize the fault tolerance of our "new" global community has 
never
> been tested. In the days of World War II, America was relatively
> isolated. We could build our own planes, trains and automobiles 
(tanks,
> too). We had factories, we had relatively short, U.S.-based assembly
> lines with skilled U.S.-based workers who possessed labor skills. 
The
> network of specialization was much smaller, and therefore, more 
fault
> tolerant. Everybody knows the fewer pieces you have in an engine, 
the
> less likely it is to fail. Simplicity leads to reliability. 
Complexity
> results in a low fault tolerance.
> Today, the manufacturing base of America is nearly extinct, and the
> supply lines for building products stretch across oceans, involving 
a
> half-dozen countries for parts. This is the "globally-distributed"
> specialization network to which I refer, and it is a relatively 
young
> system.
> It's been driven by economics, by specialization, by efficient
> ocean-going transports and air deliveries. It's enabled by 
international
> telecommunications: e-mails, faxes, phone calls, even video
> conferencing. International banks allow the moving of funds from 
buyer
> to seller, through trusted international clearinghouse networks. 
This
> is, indeed, a "network" of a thousand parts, and each part of the
> machine must work at near-perfect efficiency for the whole system
> operate correctly.
> WE ALREADY KNOW THE SYSTEM CAN HANDLE A 1% FAILURE RATE
> So what is the fault tolerance of this system anyway? That's the 
debate,
> that's the big question. Clearly, the people who say that systems 
fail
> all the time -- with no big deal -- are missing the point. Yes, 
power
> plants fail on a daily basis. Phone lines go down somewhere on the
> planet on a daily basis. Banks mess up transactions with frightening
> regularity. We understand that this global network has a fault 
tolerance
> of at least 1%. But that's not the right question.







EXACTLY!! In order to get the right answers you have to ask the right
questions.







Y2K isn't a local
> hurricane. It isn't a local power outage or a local bank error. It's 
a
> simultaneous, global slam-dunk event. It may raise the failure rate 
of
> this network to 10%. And *that* is the big question: is our
> globally-distributed specialization network able to withstand a
> simultaneous failure of 10% of its parts?



NO




> See, isolated failures always rely on the non-failing services -- 
and an
> excess of available resources -- to complete repairs. When a power 
plant
> fails, all the power experts get called on the phone lines, and they
> rush to the scene to fix this lone failing power plant. They use 
credit
> cards to buy plane tickets, gas, food, you name it. And when they're
> done, they go home and wait for the next power emergency. This
> demonstrates the 1% fault tolerance of our current system.
> But what if ten power plants go down? Suddenly you've got 1/10th of 
the
> available resources for each power plant. Then what if the telecomm 
is
> down? You can't reach the people qualified to repair the power. If 
the
> telecomm is down, they can't use their credit cards to get there. 
Then
> what if the airlines aren't flying? You've got delays, people have 
to
> drive. So they depend on oil, but what if the oil tanker shipments 
are
> delayed?
> AT WHAT POINT IS THE FAILURE UNIVERSAL?
> See, at some point, somewhere between 1% and 100%, you get a total
> failure of the network. The real Y2K question, when you boil it 
down,
> concerns this number. What percentage of simultaneous failure can 
the
> network withstand without collapsing?



That may be unknown. And THAT is EXACTLY why one needs to prepare for 
a worst
case scenarion.



Moreover, there is ample evidence to MORE than suggest that NOWHERE 
near
enough is being done to even a cheive a 50% rate of completion.



> Clearly, it's something lower than 80%, something higher than 1%.
> Perhaps the network could withstand a 5% failure; that's debatable.
> Imagine if 5% of all financial transactions were bad. That would 
clobber
> the financial institutions: busy signals forever. Imagine Wall 
Street
> with a 5% transaction failure. The whole system would shut down due 
to
> the 5% failures. A 10% failure would seemingly bring most networks 
down.
> Imagine if 10% of the parts in a power plant didn't work correctly.
> That's an off-line plant in short order. Imagine if 10% of the parts
> didn't show up at the Chrysler plant. That's a sure-thing shutdown.
> Imagine if 10% of the water treatment plants in the country failed. 
It
> would be a Red Cross nightmare, just attempting to supply water to 
10%
> of the population.
> In my opinion, the world probably can't withstand a 10% failure rate
> without severe and long-term consequences. A 20% failure rate would 
be,
> I think, a fatal economic event.



I believe, unquestionably based upon the evidence, we will have 
NOWHERE near a
MERE 20% failure rate. It will be double that at minimum.








 It would thrust the world into a
> depression with all the resulting costs in dollars and lives. At a 
20%
> failure rate, the efficiencies break down: the food production and
> deliveries, the oil, power, banking, telecommunications, and so on.
> 80% ISN'T GOOD ENOUGH
> This is why, when people tell you that 80% of the systems are going 
to
> be ready, that's not nearly good enough.




And remember, it is NOT 80% of the systems. In MOST cases it is 80% of 
the TEN
PERCENT of mission critical systems.







 Technically, if you believe my
> analysis, 80% of the systems working is still a disaster. 20% of the
> systems failing could break the global network's back. In fact, a 
95%
> "working" ratio isn't good enough, either. Even a 5% failure could 
have
> long-term, painful consequences. In order to avoid the worst effects 
of
> the Millennium Bug, systems need to operate at 99% or better. We 
need to
> have less than one failure per one hundred systems. At that rate, 
I'm
> confident the fault tolerance ability is sufficient.
>



Look, even the best of the best of the best, on average,  will only 
have the
ability to reomove up to 90% of the defects. Even the testing that is 
going
on is not uncovering them all. Report after report has stated that 
tested
systems have been found to be non-compliant and riddled with defects. 
And
over 71% will not even do proper testing. This is a SURE fire failure. 
It is
a guranteed written in stone prescription for failure.



As of the present, there is not one Fortune 500 company ready. Not 
one. Years
and years they have had. Not one. Not one Airline. Not one Major Bank. 
Not
one Auto Manufacturer.  Not one utility. Not one State. Not one major
metropolis. Not one Oil Co. 139 out of 200+ countries are doing 
NOTHING.
Japan is 18 to 24 months behind us. Most of Europe is way behind. 
Forget
Africa and South America entirely.



It is NOT possible for enough of these companies to be ready in time 
to avert
absolute economic catstrophe. NOT POSSIBLE. The global economic 
situation is
in tatters. This is MORE IMPORTANT than anything else. It CAN NOT 
sustain a
significant shock from the consequnces of Y2K and remain functional.



If you live in a populated area, you will EASILY find yourself 
surrounded by
thousands or tens of thousands of UNPREPARED people. No one will do 
any
serious preparation UNTIL IT IS TOO LATE. The only way out of this one 
with
your skin intact is to move BEFORE the masses.



Stay in a city. Be more concerned about your job, your condo, your
'prospects'.  Be my guest. It's your funeral. I understand how much 
more
important your Lexus payments are. And your family and friends will 
probably
ridicule you. Yeah, if you actually do something substantial, you'll 
be
ruined and NEVER be able to recover. I mean, its the best economic
environment that we have ever 'allegedly' had and if NOTHING happens, 
you
will NEVER be able to recover in that WONDERFUL atmosphere. Not like 
all the
myraid of people in the thirties who did just fine over the long haul 
after a
devastating depression. I guess they are still in tar-paper shacks in
Oklahoma.



Yeah. Better to do nothing at all. Get a case of raspberry flavored 
mineral
water in bottles with hand-pleasing shapes. You know, in case of DIRE
emergency. That will pull you through. C'mon, people are resilient. 
They have
'spirit'. They have a 'can-do' attitude. And you can't believe that 
the
government would drop the ball on this one. No way. And companies are
financially interested. Capitalism will find a way out. Yeah, that's 
the
ticket. It's just hype and hysteria and over-reaction. Oh,  and don't 
forget
scaremongering and religious zealotism. Citigroup was scared into 
spending
925 MILLLLLION dolars because they were tricked by hype. The federal
Government has a 7.5 BBBBBILLLLLION dollar budget 'cuz they wuz fooled 
by
religious zealots in Pat Robertson costumes. And a computer consultant
screamed "BOOO!" at the NRC and they said they would shut down all 
nuclear
reactors if they could not PROVE they were compliant by July 1 1999.







Paul Milne
If you live within five miles of a 7-11, you're toast.

-- a (a@a.a), January 28, 1999.

In article <501-36AFA0A1-81@newsd-212.iap.bryant.webtv.net>,
  DaShad0w@webtv.net wrote:
> THE REAL Y2K QUESTION
> [essay from Mike Goodin, editor]
> I've been pondering the root Y2K problem for many years, searching 
for a
> concise way to describe the true nature of the potential threat. 
This
> week, aided by the phraseology of a scientist, I've constructed this
> question:
> "What is the fault tolerance of our globally-distributed 
specialization
> network?"
> This is the relevant Y2K question. Remember, it's not the compliance 
of
> home appliances that matter (and why polls keep asking people about 
home
> appliances is an unfortunate mystery...), and the likelihood of 
failures
> somewhere on the planet are all but certain. Failures are going to
> occur, without a doubt.
> The question concerns the ability of our globally-distributed
> specialization network to survive faults. If the global system is 
highly
> fault tolerant, it will survive intact, with few disruptions. If the
> global system has low fault tolerance, we're in for a very rough 
ride.
> Perhaps even a multi-year shutdown of civilization as we know it.
> FAULT TOLERANCE HAS NEVER BEEN TESTED
> Recognize the fault tolerance of our "new" global community has 
never
> been tested. In the days of World War II, America was relatively
> isolated. We could build our own planes, trains and automobiles 
(tanks,
> too). We had factories, we had relatively short, U.S.-based assembly
> lines with skilled U.S.-based workers who possessed labor skills. 
The
> network of specialization was much smaller, and therefore, more 
fault
> tolerant. Everybody knows the fewer pieces you have in an engine, 
the
> less likely it is to fail. Simplicity leads to reliability. 
Complexity
> results in a low fault tolerance.
> Today, the manufacturing base of America is nearly extinct, and the
> supply lines for building products stretch across oceans, involving 
a
> half-dozen countries for parts. This is the "globally-distributed"
> specialization network to which I refer, and it is a relatively 
young
> system.
> It's been driven by economics, by specialization, by efficient
> ocean-going transports and air deliveries. It's enabled by 
international
> telecommunications: e-mails, faxes, phone calls, even video
> conferencing. International banks allow the moving of funds from 
buyer
> to seller, through trusted international clearinghouse networks. 
This
> is, indeed, a "network" of a thousand parts, and each part of the
> machine must work at near-perfect efficiency for the whole system
> operate correctly.
> WE ALREADY KNOW THE SYSTEM CAN HANDLE A 1% FAILURE RATE
> So what is the fault tolerance of this system anyway? That's the 
debate,
> that's the big question. Clearly, the people who say that systems 
fail
> all the time -- with no big deal -- are missing the point. Yes, 
power
> plants fail on a daily basis. Phone lines go down somewhere on the
> planet on a daily basis. Banks mess up transactions with frightening
> regularity. We understand that this global network has a fault 
tolerance
> of at least 1%. But that's not the right question.







EXACTLY!! In order to get the right answers you have to ask the right
questions.







Y2K isn't a local
> hurricane. It isn't a local power outage or a local bank error. It's 
a
> simultaneous, global slam-dunk event. It may raise the failure rate 
of
> this network to 10%. And *that* is the big question: is our
> globally-distributed specialization network able to withstand a
> simultaneous failure of 10% of its parts?



NO




> See, isolated failures always rely on the non-failing services -- 
and an
> excess of available resources -- to complete repairs. When a power 
plant
> fails, all the power experts get called on the phone lines, and they
> rush to the scene to fix this lone failing power plant. They use 
credit
> cards to buy plane tickets, gas, food, you name it. And when they're
> done, they go home and wait for the next power emergency. This
> demonstrates the 1% fault tolerance of our current system.
> But what if ten power plants go down? Suddenly you've got 1/10th of 
the
> available resources for each power plant. Then what if the telecomm 
is
> down? You can't reach the people qualified to repair the power. If 
the
> telecomm is down, they can't use their credit cards to get there. 
Then
> what if the airlines aren't flying? You've got delays, people have 
to
> drive. So they depend on oil, but what if the oil tanker shipments 
are
> delayed?
> AT WHAT POINT IS THE FAILURE UNIVERSAL?
> See, at some point, somewhere between 1% and 100%, you get a total
> failure of the network. The real Y2K question, when you boil it 
down,
> concerns this number. What percentage of simultaneous failure can 
the
> network withstand without collapsing?



That may be unknown. And THAT is EXACTLY why one needs to prepare for 
a worst
case scenarion.



Moreover, there is ample evidence to MORE than suggest that NOWHERE 
near
enough is being done to even a cheive a 50% rate of completion.



> Clearly, it's something lower than 80%, something higher than 1%.
> Perhaps the network could withstand a 5% failure; that's debatable.
> Imagine if 5% of all financial transactions were bad. That would 
clobber
> the financial institutions: busy signals forever. Imagine Wall 
Street
> with a 5% transaction failure. The whole system would shut down due 
to
> the 5% failures. A 10% failure would seemingly bring most networks 
down.
> Imagine if 10% of the parts in a power plant didn't work correctly.
> That's an off-line plant in short order. Imagine if 10% of the parts
> didn't show up at the Chrysler plant. That's a sure-thing shutdown.
> Imagine if 10% of the water treatment plants in the country failed. 
It
> would be a Red Cross nightmare, just attempting to supply water to 
10%
> of the population.
> In my opinion, the world probably can't withstand a 10% failure rate
> without severe and long-term consequences. A 20% failure rate would 
be,
> I think, a fatal economic event.



I believe, unquestionably based upon the evidence, we will have 
NOWHERE near a
MERE 20% failure rate. It will be double that at minimum.








 It would thrust the world into a
> depression with all the resulting costs in dollars and lives. At a 
20%
> failure rate, the efficiencies break down: the food production and
> deliveries, the oil, power, banking, telecommunications, and so on.
> 80% ISN'T GOOD ENOUGH
> This is why, when people tell you that 80% of the systems are going 
to
> be ready, that's not nearly good enough.




And remember, it is NOT 80% of the systems. In MOST cases it is 80% of 
the TEN
PERCENT of mission critical systems.







 Technically, if you believe my
> analysis, 80% of the systems working is still a disaster. 20% of the
> systems failing could break the global network's back. In fact, a 
95%
> "working" ratio isn't good enough, either. Even a 5% failure could 
have
> long-term, painful consequences. In order to avoid the worst effects 
of
> the Millennium Bug, systems need to operate at 99% or better. We 
need to
> have less than one failure per one hundred systems. At that rate, 
I'm
> confident the fault tolerance ability is sufficient.
>



Look, even the best of the best of the best, on average,  will only 
have the
ability to reomove up to 90% of the defects. Even the testing that is 
going
on is not uncovering them all. Report after report has stated that 
tested
systems have been found to be non-compliant and riddled with defects. 
And
over 71% will not even do proper testing. This is a SURE fire failure. 
It is
a guranteed written in stone prescription for failure.



As of the present, there is not one Fortune 500 company ready. Not 
one. Years
and years they have had. Not one. Not one Airline. Not one Major Bank. 
Not
one Auto Manufacturer.  Not one utility. Not one State. Not one major
metropolis. Not one Oil Co. 139 out of 200+ countries are doing 
NOTHING.
Japan is 18 to 24 months behind us. Most of Europe is way behind. 
Forget
Africa and South America entirely.



It is NOT possible for enough of these companies to be ready in time 
to avert
absolute economic catstrophe. NOT POSSIBLE. The global economic 
situation is
in tatters. This is MORE IMPORTANT than anything else. It CAN NOT 
sustain a
significant shock from the consequnces of Y2K and remain functional.



If you live in a populated area, you will EASILY find yourself 
surrounded by
thousands or tens of thousands of UNPREPARED people. No one will do 
any
serious preparation UNTIL IT IS TOO LATE. The only way out of this one 
with
your skin intact is to move BEFORE the masses.



Stay in a city. Be more concerned about your job, your condo, your
'prospects'.  Be my guest. It's your funeral. I understand how much 
more
important your Lexus payments are. And your family and friends will 
probably
ridicule you. Yeah, if you actually do something substantial, you'll 
be
ruined and NEVER be able to recover. I mean, its the best economic
environment that we have ever 'allegedly' had and if NOTHING happens, 
you
will NEVER be able to recover in that WONDERFUL atmosphere. Not like 
all the
myraid of people in the thirties who did just fine over the long haul 
after a
devastating depression. I guess they are still in tar-paper shacks in
Oklahoma.



Yeah. Better to do nothing at all. Get a case of raspberry flavored 
mineral
water in bottles with hand-pleasing shapes. You know, in case of DIRE
emergency. That will pull you through. C'mon, people are resilient. 
They have
'spirit'. They have a 'can-do' attitude. And you can't believe that 
the
government would drop the ball on this one. No way. And companies are
financially interested. Capitalism will find a way out. Yeah, that's 
the
ticket. It's just hype and hysteria and over-reaction. Oh,  and don't 
forget
scaremongering and religious zealotism. Citigroup was scared into 
spending
925 MILLLLLION dolars because they were tricked by hype. The federal
Government has a 7.5 BBBBBILLLLLION dollar budget 'cuz they wuz fooled 
by
religious zealots in Pat Robertson costumes. And a computer consultant
screamed "BOOO!" at the NRC and they said they would shut down all 
nuclear
reactors if they could not PROVE they were compliant by July 1 1999.







Paul Milne
If you live within five miles of a 7-11, you're toast.

-- a (a@a.a), January 28, 1999.

In article <501-36AFA0A1-81@newsd-212.iap.bryant.webtv.net>,
  DaShad0w@webtv.net wrote:
> THE REAL Y2K QUESTION
> [essay from Mike Goodin, editor]
> I've been pondering the root Y2K problem for many years, searching 
for a
> concise way to describe the true nature of the potential threat. 
This
> week, aided by the phraseology of a scientist, I've constructed this
> question:
> "What is the fault tolerance of our globally-distributed 
specialization
> network?"
> This is the relevant Y2K question. Remember, it's not the compliance 
of
> home appliances that matter (and why polls keep asking people about 
home
> appliances is an unfortunate mystery...), and the likelihood of 
failures
> somewhere on the planet are all but certain. Failures are going to
> occur, without a doubt.
> The question concerns the ability of our globally-distributed
> specialization network to survive faults. If the global system is 
highly
> fault tolerant, it will survive intact, with few disruptions. If the
> global system has low fault tolerance, we're in for a very rough 
ride.
> Perhaps even a multi-year shutdown of civilization as we know it.
> FAULT TOLERANCE HAS NEVER BEEN TESTED
> Recognize the fault tolerance of our "new" global community has 
never
> been tested. In the days of World War II, America was relatively
> isolated. We could build our own planes, trains and automobiles 
(tanks,
> too). We had factories, we had relatively short, U.S.-based assembly
> lines with skilled U.S.-based workers who possessed labor skills. 
The
> network of specialization was much smaller, and therefore, more 
fault
> tolerant. Everybody knows the fewer pieces you have in an engine, 
the
> less likely it is to fail. Simplicity leads to reliability. 
Complexity
> results in a low fault tolerance.
> Today, the manufacturing base of America is nearly extinct, and the
> supply lines for building products stretch across oceans, involving 
a
> half-dozen countries for parts. This is the "globally-distributed"
> specialization network to which I refer, and it is a relatively 
young
> system.
> It's been driven by economics, by specialization, by efficient
> ocean-going transports and air deliveries. It's enabled by 
international
> telecommunications: e-mails, faxes, phone calls, even video
> conferencing. International banks allow the moving of funds from 
buyer
> to seller, through trusted international clearinghouse networks. 
This
> is, indeed, a "network" of a thousand parts, and each part of the
> machine must work at near-perfect efficiency for the whole system
> operate correctly.
> WE ALREADY KNOW THE SYSTEM CAN HANDLE A 1% FAILURE RATE
> So what is the fault tolerance of this system anyway? That's the 
debate,
> that's the big question. Clearly, the people who say that systems 
fail
> all the time -- with no big deal -- are missing the point. Yes, 
power
> plants fail on a daily basis. Phone lines go down somewhere on the
> planet on a daily basis. Banks mess up transactions with frightening
> regularity. We understand that this global network has a fault 
tolerance
> of at least 1%. But that's not the right question.







EXACTLY!! In order to get the right answers you have to ask the right
questions.







Y2K isn't a local
> hurricane. It isn't a local power outage or a local bank error. It's 
a
> simultaneous, global slam-dunk event. It may raise the failure rate 
of
> this network to 10%. And *that* is the big question: is our
> globally-distributed specialization network able to withstand a
> simultaneous failure of 10% of its parts?



NO




> See, isolated failures always rely on the non-failing services -- 
and an
> excess of available resources -- to complete repairs. When a power 
plant
> fails, all the power experts get called on the phone lines, and they
> rush to the scene to fix this lone failing power plant. They use 
credit
> cards to buy plane tickets, gas, food, you name it. And when they're
> done, they go home and wait for the next power emergency. This
> demonstrates the 1% fault tolerance of our current system.
> But what if ten power plants go down? Suddenly you've got 1/10th of 
the
> available resources for each power plant. Then what if the telecomm 
is
> down? You can't reach the people qualified to repair the power. If 
the
> telecomm is down, they can't use their credit cards to get there. 
Then
> what if the airlines aren't flying? You've got delays, people have 
to
> drive. So they depend on oil, but what if the oil tanker shipments 
are
> delayed?
> AT WHAT POINT IS THE FAILURE UNIVERSAL?
> See, at some point, somewhere between 1% and 100%, you get a total
> failure of the network. The real Y2K question, when you boil it 
down,
> concerns this number. What percentage of simultaneous failure can 
the
> network withstand without collapsing?



That may be unknown. And THAT is EXACTLY why one needs to prepare for 
a worst
case scenarion.



Moreover, there is ample evidence to MORE than suggest that NOWHERE 
near
enough is being done to even a cheive a 50% rate of completion.



> Clearly, it's something lower than 80%, something higher than 1%.
> Perhaps the network could withstand a 5% failure; that's debatable.
> Imagine if 5% of all financial transactions were bad. That would 
clobber
> the financial institutions: busy signals forever. Imagine Wall 
Street
> with a 5% transaction failure. The whole system would shut down due 
to
> the 5% failures. A 10% failure would seemingly bring most networks 
down.
> Imagine if 10% of the parts in a power plant didn't work correctly.
> That's an off-line plant in short order. Imagine if 10% of the parts
> didn't show up at the Chrysler plant. That's a sure-thing shutdown.
> Imagine if 10% of the water treatment plants in the country failed. 
It
> would be a Red Cross nightmare, just attempting to supply water to 
10%
> of the population.
> In my opinion, the world probably can't withstand a 10% failure rate
> without severe and long-term consequences. A 20% failure rate would 
be,
> I think, a fatal economic event.



I believe, unquestionably based upon the evidence, we will have 
NOWHERE near a
MERE 20% failure rate. It will be double that at minimum.








 It would thrust the world into a
> depression with all the resulting costs in dollars and lives. At a 
20%
> failure rate, the efficiencies break down: the food production and
> deliveries, the oil, power, banking, telecommunications, and so on.
> 80% ISN'T GOOD ENOUGH
> This is why, when people tell you that 80% of the systems are going 
to
> be ready, that's not nearly good enough.




And remember, it is NOT 80% of the systems. In MOST cases it is 80% of 
the TEN
PERCENT of mission critical systems.







 Technically, if you believe my
> analysis, 80% of the systems working is still a disaster. 20% of the
> systems failing could break the global network's back. In fact, a 
95%
> "working" ratio isn't good enough, either. Even a 5% failure could 
have
> long-term, painful consequences. In order to avoid the worst effects 
of
> the Millennium Bug, systems need to operate at 99% or better. We 
need to
> have less than one failure per one hundred systems. At that rate, 
I'm
> confident the fault tolerance ability is sufficient.
>



Look, even the best of the best of the best, on average,  will only 
have the
ability to reomove up to 90% of the defects. Even the testing that is 
going
on is not uncovering them all. Report after report has stated that 
tested
systems have been found to be non-compliant and riddled with defects. 
And
over 71% will not even do proper testing. This is a SURE fire failure. 
It is
a guranteed written in stone prescription for failure.



As of the present, there is not one Fortune 500 company ready. Not 
one. Years
and years they have had. Not one. Not one Airline. Not one Major Bank. 
Not
one Auto Manufacturer.  Not one utility. Not one State. Not one major
metropolis. Not one Oil Co. 139 out of 200+ countries are doing 
NOTHING.
Japan is 18 to 24 months behind us. Most of Europe is way behind. 
Forget
Africa and South America entirely.



It is NOT possible for enough of these companies to be ready in time 
to avert
absolute economic catstrophe. NOT POSSIBLE. The global economic 
situation is
in tatters. This is MORE IMPORTANT than anything else. It CAN NOT 
sustain a
significant shock from the consequnces of Y2K and remain functional.



If you live in a populated area, you will EASILY find yourself 
surrounded by
thousands or tens of thousands of UNPREPARED people. No one will do 
any
serious preparation UNTIL IT IS TOO LATE. The only way out of this one 
with
your skin intact is to move BEFORE the masses.



Stay in a city. Be more concerned about your job, your condo, your
'prospects'.  Be my guest. It's your funeral. I understand how much 
more
important your Lexus payments are. And your family and friends will 
probably
ridicule you. Yeah, if you actually do something substantial, you'll 
be
ruined and NEVER be able to recover. I mean, its the best economic
environment that we have ever 'allegedly' had and if NOTHING happens, 
you
will NEVER be able to recover in that WONDERFUL atmosphere. Not like 
all the
myraid of people in the thirties who did just fine over the long haul 
after a
devastating depression. I guess they are still in tar-paper shacks in
Oklahoma.



Yeah. Better to do nothing at all. Get a case of raspberry flavored 
mineral
water in bottles with hand-pleasing shapes. You know, in case of DIRE
emergency. That will pull you through. C'mon, people are resilient. 
They have
'spirit'. They have a 'can-do' attitude. And you can't believe that 
the
government would drop the ball on this one. No way. And companies are
financially interested. Capitalism will find a way out. Yeah, that's 
the
ticket. It's just hype and hysteria and over-reaction. Oh,  and don't 
forget
scaremongering and religious zealotism. Citigroup was scared into 
spending
925 MILLLLLION dolars because they were tricked by hype. The federal
Government has a 7.5 BBBBBILLLLLION dollar budget 'cuz they wuz fooled 
by
religious zealots in Pat Robertson costumes. And a computer consultant
screamed "BOOO!" at the NRC and they said they would shut down all 
nuclear
reactors if they could not PROVE they were compliant by July 1 1999.







Paul Milne
If you live within five miles of a 7-11, you're toast.

-- a (a@a.a), January 28, 1999.

In article <501-36AFA0A1-81@newsd-212.iap.bryant.webtv.net>,
  DaShad0w@webtv.net wrote:
> THE REAL Y2K QUESTION
> [essay from Mike Goodin, editor]
> I've been pondering the root Y2K problem for many years, searching 
for a
> concise way to describe the true nature of the potential threat. 
This
> week, aided by the phraseology of a scientist, I've constructed this
> question:
> "What is the fault tolerance of our globally-distributed 
specialization
> network?"
> This is the relevant Y2K question. Remember, it's not the compliance 
of
> home appliances that matter (and why polls keep asking people about 
home
> appliances is an unfortunate mystery...), and the likelihood of 
failures
> somewhere on the planet are all but certain. Failures are going to
> occur, without a doubt.
> The question concerns the ability of our globally-distributed
> specialization network to survive faults. If the global system is 
highly
> fault tolerant, it will survive intact, with few disruptions. If the
> global system has low fault tolerance, we're in for a very rough 
ride.
> Perhaps even a multi-year shutdown of civilization as we know it.
> FAULT TOLERANCE HAS NEVER BEEN TESTED
> Recognize the fault tolerance of our "new" global community has 
never
> been tested. In the days of World War II, America was relatively
> isolated. We could build our own planes, trains and automobiles 
(tanks,
> too). We had factories, we had relatively short, U.S.-based assembly
> lines with skilled U.S.-based workers who possessed labor skills. 
The
> network of specialization was much smaller, and therefore, more 
fault
> tolerant. Everybody knows the fewer pieces you have in an engine, 
the
> less likely it is to fail. Simplicity leads to reliability. 
Complexity
> results in a low fault tolerance.
> Today, the manufacturing base of America is nearly extinct, and the
> supply lines for building products stretch across oceans, involving 
a
> half-dozen countries for parts. This is the "globally-distributed"
> specialization network to which I refer, and it is a relatively 
young
> system.
> It's been driven by economics, by specialization, by efficient
> ocean-going transports and air deliveries. It's enabled by 
international
> telecommunications: e-mails, faxes, phone calls, even video
> conferencing. International banks allow the moving of funds from 
buyer
> to seller, through trusted international clearinghouse networks. 
This
> is, indeed, a "network" of a thousand parts, and each part of the
> machine must work at near-perfect efficiency for the whole system
> operate correctly.
> WE ALREADY KNOW THE SYSTEM CAN HANDLE A 1% FAILURE RATE
> So what is the fault tolerance of this system anyway? That's the 
debate,
> that's the big question. Clearly, the people who say that systems 
fail
> all the time -- with no big deal -- are missing the point. Yes, 
power
> plants fail on a daily basis. Phone lines go down somewhere on the
> planet on a daily basis. Banks mess up transactions with frightening
> regularity. We understand that this global network has a fault 
tolerance
> of at least 1%. But that's not the right question.







EXACTLY!! In order to get the right answers you have to ask the right
questions.







Y2K isn't a local
> hurricane. It isn't a local power outage or a local bank error. It's 
a
> simultaneous, global slam-dunk event. It may raise the failure rate 
of
> this network to 10%. And *that* is the big question: is our
> globally-distributed specialization network able to withstand a
> simultaneous failure of 10% of its parts?



NO




> See, isolated failures always rely on the non-failing services -- 
and an
> excess of available resources -- to complete repairs. When a power 
plant
> fails, all the power experts get called on the phone lines, and they
> rush to the scene to fix this lone failing power plant. They use 
credit
> cards to buy plane tickets, gas, food, you name it. And when they're
> done, they go home and wait for the next power emergency. This
> demonstrates the 1% fault tolerance of our current system.
> But what if ten power plants go down? Suddenly you've got 1/10th of 
the
> available resources for each power plant. Then what if the telecomm 
is
> down? You can't reach the people qualified to repair the power. If 
the
> telecomm is down, they can't use their credit cards to get there. 
Then
> what if the airlines aren't flying? You've got delays, people have 
to
> drive. So they depend on oil, but what if the oil tanker shipments 
are
> delayed?
> AT WHAT POINT IS THE FAILURE UNIVERSAL?
> See, at some point, somewhere between 1% and 100%, you get a total
> failure of the network. The real Y2K question, when you boil it 
down,
> concerns this number. What percentage of simultaneous failure can 
the
> network withstand without collapsing?



That may be unknown. And THAT is EXACTLY why one needs to prepare for 
a worst
case scenarion.



Moreover, there is ample evidence to MORE than suggest that NOWHERE 
near
enough is being done to even a cheive a 50% rate of completion.



> Clearly, it's something lower than 80%, something higher than 1%.
> Perhaps the network could withstand a 5% failure; that's debatable.
> Imagine if 5% of all financial transactions were bad. That would 
clobber
> the financial institutions: busy signals forever. Imagine Wall 
Street
> with a 5% transaction failure. The whole system would shut down due 
to
> the 5% failures. A 10% failure would seemingly bring most networks 
down.
> Imagine if 10% of the parts in a power plant didn't work correctly.
> That's an off-line plant in short order. Imagine if 10% of the parts
> didn't show up at the Chrysler plant. That's a sure-thing shutdown.
> Imagine if 10% of the water treatment plants in the country failed. 
It
> would be a Red Cross nightmare, just attempting to supply water to 
10%
> of the population.
> In my opinion, the world probably can't withstand a 10% failure rate
> without severe and long-term consequences. A 20% failure rate would 
be,
> I think, a fatal economic event.



I believe, unquestionably based upon the evidence, we will have 
NOWHERE near a
MERE 20% failure rate. It will be double that at minimum.








 It would thrust the world into a
> depression with all the resulting costs in dollars and lives. At a 
20%
> failure rate, the efficiencies break down: the food production and
> deliveries, the oil, power, banking, telecommunications, and so on.
> 80% ISN'T GOOD ENOUGH
> This is why, when people tell you that 80% of the systems are going 
to
> be ready, that's not nearly good enough.




And remember, it is NOT 80% of the systems. In MOST cases it is 80% of 
the TEN
PERCENT of mission critical systems.







 Technically, if you believe my
> analysis, 80% of the systems working is still a disaster. 20% of the
> systems failing could break the global network's back. In fact, a 
95%
> "working" ratio isn't good enough, either. Even a 5% failure could 
have
> long-term, painful consequences. In order to avoid the worst effects 
of
> the Millennium Bug, systems need to operate at 99% or better. We 
need to
> have less than one failure per one hundred systems. At that rate, 
I'm
> confident the fault tolerance ability is sufficient.
>



Look, even the best of the best of the best, on average,  will only 
have the
ability to reomove up to 90% of the defects. Even the testing that is 
going
on is not uncovering them all. Report after report has stated that 
tested
systems have been found to be non-compliant and riddled with defects. 
And
over 71% will not even do proper testing. This is a SURE fire failure. 
It is
a guranteed written in stone prescription for failure.



As of the present, there is not one Fortune 500 company ready. Not 
one. Years
and years they have had. Not one. Not one Airline. Not one Major Bank. 
Not
one Auto Manufacturer.  Not one utility. Not one State. Not one major
metropolis. Not one Oil Co. 139 out of 200+ countries are doing 
NOTHING.
Japan is 18 to 24 months behind us. Most of Europe is way behind. 
Forget
Africa and South America entirely.



It is NOT possible for enough of these companies to be ready in time 
to avert
absolute economic catstrophe. NOT POSSIBLE. The global economic 
situation is
in tatters. This is MORE IMPORTANT than anything else. It CAN NOT 
sustain a
significant shock from the consequnces of Y2K and remain functional.



If you live in a populated area, you will EASILY find yourself 
surrounded by
thousands or tens of thousands of UNPREPARED people. No one will do 
any
serious preparation UNTIL IT IS TOO LATE. The only way out of this one 
with
your skin intact is to move BEFORE the masses.



Stay in a city. Be more concerned about your job, your condo, your
'prospects'.  Be my guest. It's your funeral. I understand how much 
more
important your Lexus payments are. And your family and friends will 
probably
ridicule you. Yeah, if you actually do something substantial, you'll 
be
ruined and NEVER be able to recover. I mean, its the best economic
environment that we have ever 'allegedly' had and if NOTHING happens, 
you
will NEVER be able to recover in that WONDERFUL atmosphere. Not like 
all the
myraid of people in the thirties who did just fine over the long haul 
after a
devastating depression. I guess they are still in tar-paper shacks in
Oklahoma.



Yeah. Better to do nothing at all. Get a case of raspberry flavored 
mineral
water in bottles with hand-pleasing shapes. You know, in case of DIRE
emergency. That will pull you through. C'mon, people are resilient. 
They have
'spirit'. They have a 'can-do' attitude. And you can't believe that 
the
government would drop the ball on this one. No way. And companies are
financially interested. Capitalism will find a way out. Yeah, that's 
the
ticket. It's just hype and hysteria and over-reaction. Oh,  and don't 
forget
scaremongering and religious zealotism. Citigroup was scared into 
spending
925 MILLLLLION dolars because they were tricked by hype. The federal
Government has a 7.5 BBBBBILLLLLION dollar budget 'cuz they wuz fooled 
by
religious zealots in Pat Robertson costumes. And a computer consultant
screamed "BOOO!" at the NRC and they said they would shut down all 
nuclear
reactors if they could not PROVE they were compliant by July 1 1999.







Paul Milne
If you live within five miles of a 7-11, you're toast.

-- a (a@a.a), January 28, 1999.