Thus far, every single prophecy of major disruption for Y2K has failed to pan out. Every single one, without exception.

(A computer virus hit Asia and caused far more damage than anything related to Y2K thus far -- and they're working around it handily.)

This begs the question:

If the Y2K Prophets have been so horribly wrong in the past, why in the world would anyone believe what they predict for the future?

I'm interested to see if just ONE PERSON HERE will answer this question directly, without side-stepping, ad-hominem attacks, handwaving, and smoke.

-- Stephen M. Poole, CET (smpoole7@bellsouth.net), May 11, 1999

Answers

I agree that we shouldn't rely on anyone's predictions. "Experts" don't know what will happen. I don't know what will happen. You don't know what will happen.

-- Codejockey (codejockey@geek.com), May 11, 1999.

Personally, I don't expect Armegeddon due strictly to Y2K. I just think that with global debt and BJ Clinton having brought us to the edge, minor glitches due to Y2K may be enough to "break the camel's back".

I pray your optimism and glee are well founded. My life may depend on it, based on my inability to fully prepare for a "Mad Maxx" scenario.

-- Anonymous99 (Anonymous99@Anonymous99.xxx), May 11, 1999.

BZZZZZZTTTT!

As I wrote in another thread (which I know you read since you posted below mine). I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you posted your challenge here before you read my response. But how about an answer to this quote by Jones, Mr. Poole; no waffling:

-----------------

Interesting that you say this juxtaposed with the interview with Capers Jones running in another thread:

"[Problems with the Euro conversion] are now starting to show up. Some of them are big problems. Currency conversion errors to billions of dollars, funds transfers to the wrong bank...It is false to say that the Euro got introduced without any grief or problems; there were a lot of problems. Some of them were offset, though, because the books had to close after the first quarter, before the errors showed up."

Now, as we have been saying ad infinitum: the Euro is one facet, of one industry, of one part of the world. They experienced significant problems. Y2K effects all facets, of all industries, of every part of the world. Do the math. Smell the smoke.

-- David Palm (djpalm64@yahoo.com), May 11, 1999.

Mr. Poole-- I concur with David Palm. I conducted the interview with Capers, and I have heard the same from other sources. There were indeed significant problems with the Euro conversion, although most (a French unemployment debacle being an exception) did not directly affect consumers around 01/01/1999. But they did involve transactions of currency in the billons of dollars at the corporate level. Also, you make the classic mistake of equating unreported stories in the media with the nonexistence of such stories. (If a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it, it still fell.) Such problems are not exactly trumpeted by the victims.

And again, potential Euro problems (as well as fiscal year rollover problems) are miniscule in comparison with Y2K vulnerabilities (in terms of the pervasiveness within systems, the difficulty in remediation, and the potential level of damage.

Regards,
Scott Johnson
Editor,
y2ktoday

-- Scott Johnson (scojo@yahoo.com), May 11, 1999.

"If the Y2K Prophets have been so horribly wrong in the past, why in the world would anyone believe what they predict for the future?"

As usual, Poole, you're being intellectually deceitful.

1. There are no Y2K prophets. Nice strawman. There are a widely diverse of Y2K consultants and thinkers with widely diverse and highly nuanced views.

2. No one has been "horribly wrong." Hamasaki and the famous Joanne herself speculated (and labeled it as speculation) that there might be a JAE effect. They have amply explained both why there, indeed, probably is as well as why it hasn't manifested itself visibly. Big deal.

3. Capers Jones believed the Euro would cause big problems. A few other people grabbed hold of this. Jones worked for my father-in-law and I know him personally. You're not even remotely in his league. Still, he was probably wrong (though he also believes Euro problems have been hushed). Big deal number two.

4. Ed Yourdon speculated that the state unemployment systems would provide a leading indicator shortly after 1/1/1999. He was mainly right, since admissions have been made that a number of state systems have kludged a fix through 12/31/99 while they keep working on Y2K.

5. Ed Yourdon and quite a few others speculated that April 1, 1999 would reveal big problems. It didn't. The jury is out as to whether or not 4/1/1999 problems as well as early Y2K problems generally are being kept quiet for reasons that sane people, pollys as well as doomers, have BOTH appealed to at various times on this thread (legal, competitive dangers, etc). But let's even concede this. Big deal number 3.

As for attacks, here's one: you are what would be termed an "empty suit" in the environments I used to work in. There is no "there" there for you intellectually. Here is a big clue for you, CET, though you won't get it because your agenda remains destruction of the primary purpose of this forum, which is preparation:

Y2K hasn't happened yet. And NO ONE predicted that anterior effects would remotely reach the intensity of the effects of Y2K itself.

Just go to sleep, Poole. You won't stop a single one of us from preparing or being fed, housed and clothed during Y2K impacts, just yourself. Though, perhaps, you will deceive some who come to your site looking for wise counsel. Shameful blood on your hands, Poole, while you continue to play games whose effect is deceit.

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), May 11, 1999.

Uh, as I understand it's a 01-01-00 thing.

-- Gia (Laureltree7@hotmail.com), May 11, 1999.

First things first, Mr. Poole,

"If the Y2K Prophets have been so horribly wrong in the past, why in the world would anyone believe what they predict for the future?"

What exactly are you alluding to here?

Can you be more specific?

Mike ==================================================================

-- Michael Taylor (mtdesign3@aol.com), May 11, 1999.

Also: you grossly underestimate the impact of the Chernobyl virus, which, again, represents a mere fraction of the pervasiveness of Y2K. I suggest the following links:

Chernobyl Virus Caused $120 Mln Damage In China

Computer virus caused heavy damage abroad

< /A>CIH computer virus toll tops 540,000

Asia, Middle East hit hardest by Chernobyl computer virus

Chernobyl Virus Damages 240,000 PCs In SKorea

Many Americans seem to have the "if it didn't happen here, it didn't happen" attitude. Tsk, tsk...

Scott

-- Scott Johnson (scojo@yahoo.com), May 11, 1999.

Mr. Poole,

The simple answer is that people should pick better prophets. The complicated one is that most of the dates that have passed were _potential_ trouble dates only affecting a very SMALL subset of computing operations. Still, they all got lumped together under the "Y2K" moniker. As far as I'm concerned, Y2K means a failure on or about 1/1/00. Failures on other dates have been minor, or in the case of corrupted database tables, haven't manifested themselves yet.

-TECH32-

-- TECH32 (TECH32@NOMAIL.COM), May 11, 1999.

Mr. Poole,

From what I see, you base your entire Y2K argument on failed prophecy, and the fact that computers fail, every day, now. You really are starting to sound like a broken record. Please, get a new act. We are all growing very tired of this one. <:)=

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), May 11, 1999.

Poole's just bored because Dee Bunki is so slow..... go mess with him over there and he won't come here.

-- Lisa (lisa@work.now), May 11, 1999.

Ya have to understand that they only have two new threads on Der Boonkah today, which is why Poop likes to post over here (looks like we have around 40 new threads today -- does this tell you something, Poopie?). Just can't STAND not getting any attention, can't STAND us being more popular than Der Boonkah. Poor Poop! Oh well, you'll just have to make do with something he posted on the 10th.

http://www.InsideTheWeb.com/messageboard/mbs.cgi?acct=mb237006&MyNum=9 26317931&P=No&TL=926317931

Debunking Y2k webboard

Let's Recap, Shall We? - Monday, 10-May-1999 02:32:11

209.214.105.139 writes:

After a few weeks in Yourdon's Swamp, comp.software.year-2000, and alt.talk.year2000, I want to make sure I've got it all straight.

Y2K is going to kill us all. In spite of the fact that no major failures have happened yet, they're GOING to come, just you wait and see.

Besides, the Chinese and the Russians are going to nuke us before the start of the new year, so we're all going to die anyway.

Bill Klinton is a secret Chinese agent who has helped bring thousands of undercover operatives into this nation. They're working at Chinese laundries and restaurants across the country, just waiting for the Big Signal from the Big Man to start throwing closet nukes around.

Ergo: we're all going to die in several ways.

Have I missed anything?

Stephen M. Poole

---------------------------------

Only a few brain cells, Poopie, only a few brain cells. Well, YOU didn't miss 'em but WE noticed.

-- OutingsR (us@here.yar), May 11, 1999.

The US has had no severe y2k problems as of yet.

Countries like Russia, that have spent zilch, have had no severe y2k problems as of yet.

By your "logic" Poole, Russia will have no problems after y2k.

-- a (a@a.a), May 11, 1999.

Hey Poole, these folks just picked you apart like a left over Thanksgiving turkey.

Ray

-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), May 11, 1999.

I've always liked that argument, "a". It's original with you, isn't it?

-- David Palm (djpalm64@yahoo.com), May 11, 1999.

Let me see if I understand. Because nothing noticable HAS happened in 1999, that means nothing significant IS GOING to happen in 2000. Right? Ooooooookay then.

Remember the old joke about the man who fell off a fifty story building? Everything was still fine as he passed the tenth floor, the ninth floor, the eighth floor... .

-- (lplapin@hotmail.com), May 11, 1999.

Stephen Poole for the many who still DGI(Doomers are DGI from now on), is simply that the Profits of Doom have said that these dates will be the indicators of how bad the Year 2000 rollover will be. Now that April 1st has come and gone, April 9th, and Jan 1, 1999. We were supposed to see the first shutdowns in society, the first run on banks. So when will it happen?

According to Gary North, I should already be hunkering down in my bomb shelter, Ed Yourdon said that nobody would be able to ignore Y2K now. But there are still many of us here that don't accept the Profits of Doom point of view. And the Profits of Doom are now scrambling for the latest news to use.

Y2KNewswire is the perfect example. They are now using the Balkin problems to sell food.They began selling gun locks after the Columbine shootings. How conveinent is that you say? Whats next for Y2KNewswire to sell, Im betting on underground shelters when the comets begin striking the earth.

Also for a quick thought, anyone out there who is thinking about running to the hills to live with North and Yourdon, please do so. That means next January there will be one less car in a traffic jam going to work on Jan 3rd, and one less person to wait behind in the supermarket when they try to return their now useless 50 pound bags of rice and beans, while they throw a fit because they now realize that they can't return it.

-- Pat (BAMECW@aol.com), May 11, 1999.

Stephen,

I can think of several reasons why we heard of no problems when fiscal-year rollovers took place, for example, on April 1st. The fixing of accounting software had been prioritized and taken care of early by organizations; or, accounting software was temporarily bandaged by changing the end date of FY 2000 to 12/31/99; or, maybe there were some problems in accounting software but we didn't hear about them because they haven't affected manufacturing or distribution.

There is another possible explanation. It could be that Y2K was always a hoax from the beginning and that problems would always have been minimal even if nobody had done any remediation. I don't believe that, and I hope you don't either.

-- Kevin (mixesmusic@worldnet.att.net), May 11, 1999.

I work at a company - believe me when I tell you youve heard of it - and weve had some major failures of "compliant" applications. We are so far behind on testing certain FUNDAMENTAL processes that I dont see how we can possibly finish in time. Do you think Im going to tell the world about it? Of course not! The last thing I need is right now is to lose my job. Besides which, my company has enough lawyers, guns and money to - well, I dont even want to think. Our PR machine is massive and ever vigilant. And lets not forget something else. Suppose I had the balls to come out publicly about my company with some information that would point towards a major banking meltdown. When it comes right down to it, do I want to be the person to cause the inevitable bankrun/stock market crash? Hell, I cant even take it when my brother gets mad at me for suggesting he buy firewood.

Mr. Poole, you have a rosy picture of the world and the people in it. Everyone is honest, everyone works hard, everyone is loyal. No one is afraid, no one is greedy, no one makes mistakes. Youd better pray to God youre right.

-- Very Concerned in Silicon Valley (itwasgoodwhileitlasted@aol.com), May 11, 1999.

Pat said:

..now useless 50 pound bags of rice and beans

Now, think about that statement. Useless food?

-- Codejockey (codejockey@geek.com), May 11, 1999.

Codejockey: right, and we should inform those who don't prepare and/or discourage preparation that

50 lb. rice = 13.50 and

50 lb. beans = 15.00.

What'll be interesting is when these crotchety ol' geezers have to go without coffee for months. Look out!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

-- Lisa (lisa@work.now), May 11, 1999.

Now I normally don't put much stock in those "I work at a company...it's all screwed up..." but that post by VeryConcerned has the ring of sincerity about it. Yikes!

-- David Palm (djpalm64@yahoo.com), May 11, 1999.

Stephen,

I left one explanation out. I just know you're going to reply and say it means most companies had finished their remediation. There's a big problem with that line of reasoning though. When Wal-Mart ended its fiscal year 1999 at the end of January 1999 and then entered its fiscal year 2000...

http://www.computerworld.com/home/print.nsf/all/990426A11E

...Wal-Mart had only spent $8 million out of the $27 million they say they need to spend on Y2K. Since we didn't hear about any accounting software problems at Wal-Mart on February 1st, does that mean they don't need to spend that other $19 million?

-- Kevin (mixesmusic@worldnet.att.net), May 11, 1999.

Pat is a biffy clone whose sole purpose is to say negative things. Just ignore him/her.

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), May 11, 1999.

If I might add a word...

The question may have been worded differently, but it is valid to ask. Several prognosticators predicted significant date rollover- related problems in 1999. It is appropriate, perhaps necessary, to revisit the predictions and examine the actual results.

The logic of "domino system failure" presupposes linkages between systems. This oft repeated argument says that one system failing will invariably crash others. In fact, it is the logic that underpins the "worst case" scenarios.

If there had been failures in these "interconnected" systems this year, it would have been impossible to hide. The "good companies" would in court right now hammering the "bad companies." Data would have been corrupted, shipments delayed, deadlines missed.

So, is everything interconnected or not?

Is it possible the lack of bad news actually is just that? That the few problems that were encountered were managed locally?

It is difficult to hide bad economic news. Someone usually leaks the news to the business press and the stock dives. With all due respect to Scott Johnson, the reason an event was not reported may be that it did not occur.

The news from the critical infrastructure sectors has been generally positive. The worst case scenarios of Y2K have been based on catastrophic failures in financial services, telecommunications and utilities. One can attempt to dismiss this as "spin," but the possibility exists that the lights will stay on as of January 1st.

-- Mr. Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), May 11, 1999.

Well Stephen, your request that "ONE PERSON HERE will answer this question directly, without side-stepping,ad-hominem attacks, handwaving, and smoke." seems to have fallen on deaf ears.

Surprised? Nor i..

-- Y2K Pro (2@641.com), May 11, 1999.

Yeah David, even RMS will have trouble pulling VeryConcerned's post apart...he didn't misspell a single word!

Can't take credit for the US/Russia example. I gleaned it off c.s.y2k a month or so ago.

-- a (a@a.a), May 11, 1999.

David,

It really doesn't matter if VeryConcerned's post is accurate; it's well-known by anyone actually involved in Y2K (as opposed to those who are just spouting off about it) that those things are happening. Some of it is even, relatively, public record (ie, that many fixes are failing).

Several weeks ago, someone from EDS said they expected tech takeovers in the post-Y2K world. Gee, I wonder why. But, you know- those folks from EDS- they're all a buncha right-wing militia nuts, right?

-- Drew Parkhill/CBN News (y2k@cbn.org), May 11, 1999.

BigDog, why don't you take that issue up that I posted earlier? Why is ok for Y2KNewswire and the rest to sell based on changing fears that people have? And especially selling gun locks that came from a tragedy? Its easy to dismiss a person, and I can do the same with you. "Don't listen to BidDog, he is just another Yourdonite."

And for the concerned in Silicon Valley, I take great stock in the fact that you won't name the company(I know I will get slammed for this)? Why do you hide behind a fake email? Saying that a company is beind on Year 2000 remediation is not a reason to be fired if it the truth. You posting your experiences won't cause a fall for the company stocks, or the entire stock market. How do we know that this isn't just a spin from a Profit of Doom trying to boost sales?

Pat "Ignore me if you can, survive if you buy my ten years of food."

-- Pat (BAMECW@aol.com), May 11, 1999.

Looks like Poole did another hit and run.

Or maybe the first shift Poole posted this ? and the second shift Poole didn't show up for work today.

-- Johnny (jljtm@bellsouth.net), May 11, 1999.

"The question may have been worded differently, but it is valid to ask. Several prognosticators predicted significant date rollover- related problems in 1999. It is appropriate, perhaps necessary, to revisit the predictions and examine the actual results."

Poole doesn't "ask it", he hurls it repeatedly as some sort of juvenile challenge. This entire thread has responded to it, not in an effort to edify him (he doesn't want to be, as you very well know) but to keep communicating with others who do.

Most doomers DO have nuanced views, as I stated. I am somewhat heartened by the euro and April 1 (as I would have been quite upset with the converse). I am somewhat heartened by the utility picture, though the crowing that goes on with Poole and others is ridiculously premature. Of course, the lights may stay on Jan. 1. I hope you're not setting that up as a strawman now too. If Drew, a, David, others who have posted here disagree with me, let them say so. It's a canard.

The substantial message of this thread AND OF THIS FORUM is that Y2K remains an uncertain risk but a REAL risk (whose riskiness overall has not diminished in the past year) with AWESOME stakes, for which substantial personal and community preparation is warranted (with individuals responsible to make their own decisions as adults, not victims).

If people like Poole would stop trying to trivialize Y2K, 90% of the flaming would disappear in a week.

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), May 11, 1999.

And if anyone still has questions about the Euro changeover, see this link:

http://www.y2ktimebomb.com/International/pobeirne9904.htm

-- Kevin (mixesmusic@worldnet.att.net), May 11, 1999.

>> now useless 50 pound bags of rice and beans

Yuh, totally useless.

-- Debbie (dbspence@usa.net), May 11, 1999.

Mr. Poole,

At first, I began stockpiling because I was concerned about y2k. Now whether or not that event happens is not an issue with me. I have six months of food stored, I will have six months of water on hand, I will have several gallons of gasoline, enough propane to last quite a while, and a completely stocked first-aid kit. So let me access what damage this has done to my family if y2k is a non-event. First, we will eat the food. Second, we will drink the water, or at least use it to water our garden. Third, I can use the gasoline in my car. Fourth, we can cut our heating bill drastically by using the propane. Fifth, the bandages and dressings in the first-aid kit can always be used, as well as the allergy medication and aspirin.

So what have I wasted? Nothing! But, what will I have wasted if y2k does become an event and I have done nothing? Everything!

It just boils down to being a personal choice as to whether anyone wants to be prepared or not. Mr. Poole, please remember, I have not wasted any of your time or money in getting prepared.

-- Larry (lawada@tminet.com), May 11, 1999.

Pat,

You say "Saying that a company is beind on Year 2000 remediation is not a reason to be fired if it the truth."

Are you kidding me??!!??!! Is this your understanding of the business world?!? Going public with any information I glean from our intranet and internal reports is expressly forbidden. Id paste the pertinent paragraph from the employee handbook, but Im afraid someone would recognize it and Id be busted. Even if it wasnt, I know theyd find a way to get me. Sometimes I wonder how many like me are out there.

And Im not trying to boost somebodys sales. I dont get that argument. How can you be so cynical about somebodys profit motive, yet be so trusting of the Governments Christmas Miracle of 92% Compliance?

-- Very Concerned (itwasgoodwhileitlasted@aol.com), May 11, 1999.

So every one is tired of Poole's sameold argument huh? Well let us look at Very Concerned's song and dance "Well if I tell I will get fired!" So? If your company is so bad off you won't have a job come "the day" anyway, so what are you so concerned about losing your job? It holds little to no water with me.

I also find it hard to believe that in the millions of people you all seem to believe are working for non-complaint companies, that not one has had the balls to come forward and say anything. The odds of that are little to none.

And on a final note, Poole was accused of having blood on his hands for havign a debunking web site...what about the blood on the hands of all theose people who are participating in not telling the truth? I don't see any of you yelling at those people. Why not?

Nice double standard you all have set.

-- You all are full of it (concerned@mybutt.com), May 11, 1999.

For the simple fact that whoever posted the above Silicon Valley gives no reason why they should be believed. You can't dismiss a employee for talking, giving out internal memos is different. If you could fire a employee about speaking truthfully about there business, then I should have been fired many times over from my previous part time job while in school last year, which was Blockbuster.

The real reason for disproving that post is that, they never once adress anything with actual detail. I work now as a legal clerk, and we had our computer program replaced several weeks ago, but they haven't checked our heating system yet. Now I could say, "My office is behind in Year 2000 remediation. Systems have not been checked that need to be."

When in honesty, just one portion of our office is yet to be checked, while the main issues have been adressed like our computer network, telephone, and programs/accounting software. And not using a email adress is just the icing no the cake. Would you believe a person if they told you they were a expert on installing carpets, but wouldn't refused to tell you what company they worked for?

-- Pat (BAMECW@aol.com), May 11, 1999.

Also, I am cynical of the fact that people scream, Y2K is bad. Fine, but then at the same time being ready to sell a family everything they need in the same breath is not ethical. Im cynical because Gary North sells 2 year subscriptions when he says that TEOTWAWKI is months away. Im cynical of Ed Yourdon saying that he never believed in the whole TEOTWAWKI in a essay that tried to center himself as a moderate. But had told people to sell their homes, pull money out of banks and stocks, and purchase his books/vidoes on how to survive coming chaos.

But why do you assume that I believe that 92% of all computers are complian? I never once ever brought up the fact. The figure itself is misleading though, 92% of computers that have been termed as mission critical are included. Not every single computer that is in current service is included with the figure.

Of course disruptions will occur, nobody argues that nothing is going to happen. I am preparing for possible problems with the Year 2000 rollover. Im saving pop bottles and getting extra cans of food when I go shopping.

What Im opposed to is the fear mongering that many use as a way to sell their goods. The fact that they say things *will* be bad, that you *need* their supplies to survive. When Michael Hyatt was previously a radio salesperson. Gary North is a writer/historian. They are persons passing themselves off as experts, but they are not.

And that is whats wrong with this whole event.

-- Pat (BAMECW@aol.com), May 11, 1999.

Above I asked Mr. Poole to be specific because I want him to fill in his own blanks. In other words, let Mr. Poole point out what he views as "Y2k Prophets" who have been "so horribly wrong". Mr. Poole has an artful way of manipulating and disrupting the forum without providing any useful information or facts of his own.

Mr. Decker,

[The logic of "domino system failure" presupposes linkages between systems. This oft repeated argument says that one system failing will invariably crash others. In fact, it is the logic that underpins the "worst case" scenarios.]

This logic underpins any logical scenario, not just the "worst case". Do you expect that dominos this large would fall in a day, a month, two months, a year? Who knows. The logic behind "domino system failure" doesn't really presuppose anything. The linkages between companies or entities is real and the fact is that their interdependence is essential to maintain business operations.

[If there had been failures in these "interconnected" systems this year, it would have been impossible to hide. The "good companies" would in court right now hammering the "bad companies." Data would have been corrupted, shipments delayed, deadlines missed. So, is everything interconnected or not?]

For someone who is constantly badgering others regarding their speculation of what might occur you seem to be doing quite a bit of your own.

What timeline are you going by? Who said that these kinds of disruptioins would be occuring right now? It's May in 1999. Are you getting a little antsy?

Even so, the whole concept behind "systemic failures" is that they are systemic. This isn't code and test for immediate results. This isn't debugging a system. This is the real world where interconnected systems run across borders, timezones, different corporations, entities, etc. Where did you get the idea that these kinds of systemic problems would be happening right now?

[Is it possible the lack of bad news actually is just that? That the few problems that were encountered were managed locally?]

No doubt, in some cases this is absolutely true. In all cases? I don't think so. [It is difficult to hide bad economic news. Someone usually leaks the news to the business press and the stock dives. With all due respect to Scott Johnson, the reason an event was not reported may be that it did not occur.]

Guess you don't watch CNBC huh? I'm hearing stuff every day about Y2k this or that. No really bad news though. Just a lot of spin and speculation from both sides. Even so, the market seems to be unable to handle or want to consider bad news. It's in a bubble.

[The news from the critical infrastructure sectors has been generally positive. The worst case scenarios of Y2K have been based on catastrophic failures in financial services, telecommunications and utilities. One can attempt to dismiss this as "spin," but the possibility exists that the lights will stay on as of January 1st.]

In my case, I think you're right. The worst case scenarios do seem to revolve around the collapse of the iron triangle. Even so, my own thinking leads me to believe that even if the lights stay on here, the phones work here and the utilities work here we would have a difficult time as a nation. If we can't phone outside the U.S. to do business I think that might affect our economy. If the power is even less reliable over seas making manufacturing and shipping, etc. difficult that might hurt our exports/imports.

Anyway, as for Mr. Pooles original question. I don't base any of my preps on someone elses idea of what might occur. I do the thinking for myself. Take one imported good, any good, and work backwards to see just how vulnerable it is to a problem at any one point of failure in this chain. Now what if there is more than one problem. More than two. How many weak links are there in this chain? It's not that hard to draw your own conclusions. I choose to prepare on the side of caution.

You don't need to be a prophet or an expert to know how vulnerable supply is in the world of supply and demand. You don't need to be a psychic to consider what might happen to demand under a disruption in the supply of goods.

Mr. Poole,

What is it you mean by this, "Thus far, every single prophecy of major disruption for Y2K has failed to pan out. Every single one, without exception."

What is it you are talking about? Fill in some blanks here. Why don't you be specific and then maybe you'll get the answers you're looking for.

Mike ============

-- Michael Taylor (mtdesign3@aol.com), May 11, 1999.

Stephen Poole: I have and hope to continue to read your many posts.

We humans, to the degree we become mentally lazy, have a tendency to blur conceptual clarity. Rarely is this of more consequence than when we do not make a distinction between what we believe to be true and what we claim to know is true. Because of the unknowns that apparently exist with respect to Y2K, the potential consequences that would follow from being in error when confusing what is known versus what is believed, seems to me to be potentially of great significance.

If I jump out of an airplane flying through the atmosphere, then I know that I will fall to the ground. (I am ignoring the arguments made by those who claim man cannot know anything. I will accept their claim of certainty, though not this particular version wherein they contradict their claim.) However, I believe (as opposed to know) the cause of my falling to the ground is a force called gravity, the experimentally confirmed "laws" of which were originally postulated by Newton.

I could conceivably become convinced of a more suitable explanation than gravity, and the rules governing its manifestations, if new theories, put to the test by scientific method, could be demonstrated to convey a more comprehensive understanding of the aspects of reality involved. On the other hand, I could not be convinced I would not fall from the airplane unless someone demonstrated the means whereby my fall could be prevented. That would still not invalidate what I know, it would simply augment that which I know with more precision, more context. Newton's theories that identify gravity, and offers explanations pertaining to its workings however, may be proven incorrect at any time.

I start with the premise that there exists a potential problem (called Y2K) of unknown magnitude, with potential consequences ranging from none to "catastropic" (catastropic in the sense of the function in which the potential problem causes a failure, not societal catastrophe). This potential problem apparently exists across a broad spectrum of software and related hardware produced for the past 30 years. My experience, based upon what I have read, based upon what I have discovered in discussions with knowledgeable friends - indeed based upon the collective posts of either end of the "Polly/Doomer" spectrum found on this forum, causes me to believe that these are the facts, and from what I can determine, they themselves are not in dispute. What apparently remains in dispute is "so what?"

It should be evident that the "so what" cannot be resolved. Like I have done, a person searches for information, weighs that which is discovered, attaching some small or great degree of significance on whatever opinions and reasoned arguments you find compelling, and they choose what they will or will not do in response. We each have - or will within the span of the next 8 months, be forced to take a position at or between the extreme "beliefs." I might add that to ignore the need for a choice is in itself a choice.

Stephen, it is much like Religon. Those that claim to believe also claim to know. Those that do not believe, they too claim to know. This I ask of you. What do you claim to know Stephen, and having done so, what are you willing to acknowledge you only believe.....

-- Dave Walden (wprop@concentric.net), May 11, 1999.

OK, so we have Capers Jones insisting that there were major problems with the Euro (but they're being covered up!) and Cory Hamasaki insisting that there have been major Jo Anne Effects problems (but they're being covered up!).

Were there some problems? HAVE there been some problems? Sure. Drew has nice list of all these scattered problems over at CNN's Web site; go read the list and say, "ooooooooooo."

This is what I mean by handwaving. The Prophets -- and there's no strawman here; they have names like Yourdon, Lord, North, et. al. -- have SPECIFICALLY predicted that we would be seeing significant Y2K disruptions by NOW.

SPECIFIC PREDICTIONS. SPECIFIC FAILURES.

This is important: follow this closely. IF their premise about systemic/domino/JIT/(insert buzzword here) dependencies was correct, then they were ABSOLUTELY RIGHT. We SHOULD HAVE BEEN seeing significant, impossible-to-hide-or-cover-up failures by NOW. By now, everyone should be "getting it."

I'm talking about, you go to pay some taxes in New York, and someone says ... "Wuh ... come back later, the computerz iz down." I'm talking about stuff that's so obvious that ABC, NBC, FOX, CBS and CNN _can't_ "ignore" it (as is darkly hinted at here by some[g]); problems so big that a vast Happy Face Conspiracy _can't_ cover it up.

We're not seeing that. I'm not talking about isolated cases -- for that matter, I know of a doctor who lost everything when his ancient system tripped on a "9999" thingie on April 9th. That's bad, and I certainly feel for him; but it was an isolated event. On that same date, literally thousands of other computer systems, worldwide, failed due to "normal" causes and had to be fixed/worked around/whatever.

Thus far, Y2K has been a virtual non-event. Gary North rather specifically told us a coupla years ago that we should see bank runs by NOW. The DOW should have already crashed.

And Sysman, you continue to take square aim at your foot on this Win95.CIH thing; I'll turn my head when you pull the trigger a few months from now. Sure it cost money to clean up. Sure, it was a Bad Thing. But 6 months from now (well, 5-1/2 now[g]), it'll be a fading memory.

They'll work around and fix the problems (and they're already having economic problems over there, remember?). Wait and see.

-- Stephen M. Poole, CET (smpoole7@bellsouth.net), May 11, 1999.

Michael,

I didn't think you were serious. If you are, fine; have a look at the short list here at my Web site; for a longer list (which includes a few "amateur" prophets for fun), see Bradley K. Sherman's list here.

-- Stephen M. Poole, CET (smpoole7@bellsouth.net), May 11, 1999.

Lisa:

Run out of coffee? Aagh! Rue the thought. That's another reason for living on Kauai...where we grow coffee and sugar...and where we have a dairy for those of us who prefer cream in our coffee.

Come on gang, there WILL be disasters...and if not, we can always eat what we store...if we but store what we enjoy eating in the first place.

-- Mad Monk (madmonk@hawaiian.net), May 11, 1999.

The question that begs Mr. Poole is "why in the world" do you care about "prophets" other than your own? If you're worried about us buying up all the beans just buy a few yourself. Helps Norm get rich.

-- Carlos (riffraff@cybertime.net), May 11, 1999.

Codejockey's first post meets all the criteria (no ad hominem attacks, no hyperbole, etc.) so is worth restating:

I agree that we shouldn't rely on anyone's predictions. "Experts" don't know what will happen. I don't know what will happen. You don't know what will happen.

And Pat, what is so uniquely horrible about Y2knewswire's entrepreneurial spirit? Pollys scoff and say Y2k suppliers are stirring up false needs to create a target market to sell to. Shocking! As if salesmanship is such an anomaly in American commerce. This is capitalism and the American way, warts and all. Are you aware of the billions spent every year by industry advertising just to conduct focus groups to identify profitable target markets? Just one good example is fragrances -- this is a billion-dollar market that sells totally non-essential products by filling emotional needs. TV and print ads convince people that they must keep buying the latest scents with seductive packaging in gorgeous bottles. Just because I would be blowing my paycheck on this, doesn't mean somebody else would be, if it's really important to them. You can say "but the advertising created the need," well.... welcome to "spin," it's everywhere.

As for arguing what is a real need and what isn't, Y2k purchases are often compared to insurance. To me, this is very valid. They are insurance, with considerable side benefits that insurance doesn't have. This one has been done so well on other threads, I won't beat it into the ground.

The first rule of good consumerism is caveat emptor. The art of being a discriminating consumer is one of life's skills. I happen to think that even if sometimes the commercial motive is blatant, Y2k suppliers are catering to a real need. If you think there is no real need, then don't buy from them.

If you (pollys and naysayers) are ethical and care for your fellow man (Poole says he's doing this as a public service), you'll say to people, "Look, I don't think Y2k purchases are warranted, but you do what's right for you. Buy, if you think it's right, after all it is a form of insurance." But I don't hear that, all I hear is "Don't be taken in!! Nothing's going to happen!!" Is that a public service or is that somebody's ego wanting to go down in history as being on the winning side? (And it's funny how God is always on the winning side, too.) OK, our forum too has its share of people who think they're right, but if you think it's the dominant message, then you're just seeing what you want to see.

I wonder why I waste my time soon it will all come out in the wash, however.

-- Debbie (dbspence@usa.net), May 11, 1999.

To deny the fact that so called "Early warning dates" have produced much ado about nothing is downright silly. I dislike the arrogant Pollys as much as anyone else here, but right is right. To quote a famous movie line, "Show me the money!"

Yes, I know that it is still Y2K stupid, but thus far the "Doomer" prognostication has been less than inspiring.

Also, since we as a board have been under attack for being so dishonest as to avoid using real Email addresses, I suggest that we all get a Yahoo account. That would be one less thing for the Pollys to complain about. To you hard core paranoids, if "they" want to know who you are, "they" already do.

PS, civility is over-rated, I enjoy a heated debate, mixing it up. Or as Andy would say "A good piss-up."

Cheers,

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), May 11, 1999.

I guess I have to post this again...

Stephen,

I can think of several reasons why we heard of no problems when fiscal-year rollovers took place, for example, on April 1st. The fixing of accounting software had been prioritized and taken care of early by organizations; or, accounting software was temporarily bandaged by changing the end date of FY 2000 to 12/31/99; or, maybe there were some problems in accounting software but we didn't hear about them because they haven't affected manufacturing or distribution.

There is another possible explanation. It could be that Y2K was always a hoax from the beginning and that problems would always have been minimal even if nobody had done any remediation. I don't believe that, and I hope you don't either.

-- Kevin (mixesmusic@worldnet.att.net), May 11, 1999.

Poole:

"OK, so we have Capers Jones insisting that there were major problems with the Euro (but they're being covered up!) and Cory Hamasaki insisting that there have been major Jo Anne Effects problems (but they're being covered up!)."

No, not "insisting", let's start there Poole, "proposing as a realistic possibility". As for "covered up", sometimes a cigar really is a cigar. Welcome to the real world, where many things, not all, but many negative things, are initially covered up.

In general, your retort is far more "ad hominem" than those posts of ours that you delight to scorn.

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), May 11, 1999.

Also, again...

Stephen,

I left one explanation out. I just know you're going to reply and say it means most companies had finished their remediation. There's a big problem with that line of reasoning though. When Wal-Mart ended its fiscal year 1999 at the end of January 1999 and then entered its fiscal year 2000...

http://www.computerworld.com/home/print.nsf/all/990426A11E

...Wal-Mart had only spent $8 million out of the $27 million they say they need to spend on Y2K. Since we didn't hear about any accounting software problems at Wal-Mart on February 1st, does that mean they don't need to spend that other $19 million?

-- Kevin (mixesmusic@worldnet.att.net), May 11, 1999.

Kevin,

I'm pointing out that they were wrong; WHY isn't the point. Of course if you dig, you'll find a reason. There HAS to be a reason (by definition).

I'm also asking a rhetorical question: if the Prophets have been so wrong in the past, why in the world would anyone believe them in the future?

Re: your comments on WalMart ... think about what you said for a long several minutes and you might begin to "get it" . .. :)

-- Stephen M. Poole, CET (smpoole7@bellsouth.net), May 11, 1999.

r. Decker,

"The "good companies" would in court right now hammering the "bad companies.""

What do you think the big stink in Congress, right now, is about? The BigBoys, IBM - Microsoft - AT&T, are running scared, so scared in fact, that they need to ask Congress for special legal protection. The lawyers are waiting in the wings, waiting for BJ to make it law. I expect a BIG increase in legal actions when it is. It has been said many times that legal costs will be at least as much as fix costs. I beleive it.

And once again, the number of programs that do look ahead processing is tiny when compared to the total number of programs that have a date problem, including mainframe, PC, and embedded system. I asked this a week or so ago here, and most programmers, the ones that answered, agree, that if not tiny, small. And I read just yesterday that look ahead programs are well known, and would be fixed first, since they are needed first (I'll try to find it and post the link).

BigDog,

"If people like Poole would stop trying to trivialize Y2K, 90% of the flaming would disappear in a week."

Amen brother (and I'm not into religion)!

Larry,

"So what have I wasted? Nothing!"

Amen brother (and I'm not into religion)!

Johnny,

"Looks like Poole did another hit and run."

I found RMS, Stephen's bud from biffy, with his foot in his mouth today. Think he'll visit this I didn't start CIH. What does CIH have to do with Y2K? People have BACKUPS (you do know about backups, don't you?), that they reload, and are back in business. Don't even get me started on the value of old backups, come Y2K. And please answer my above question, what else do you base your opinion of Y2K on?

I'm going to eat... <:)=

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), May 11, 1999.

Stephen,

I've already given a few reasons how an organization like Wal-Mart might have no reported accounting software problems at their fiscal year rollover. So tell me how you see it.

-- Kevin (mixesmusic@worldnet.att.net), May 11, 1999.

Stephen Poole said, "{A computer virus hit Asia and caused far more damage than anything related to Y2K thus far -- and they're working around it handily.)"

$150 million in damage in ONE country alone. "Handily?"

From the Electronic Telegraph:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk:80/et?ac=000154642417163&rtmo=wswQfMnb&atmo =99999999&pg=/et/99/5/6/ecncher06.html

. . . The Chernobyl virus struck worldwide on April 26, the anniversary of the Chernobyl nuclear reactor disaster, disabling and wiping the memories of up to 15,000 computers in Bangladesh.

Worldwide, several hundred thousand computers are thought to have been attacked, mainly in south-east Asia and South America. Europe was left relatively unscathed. Chen Ing-hau, a 24-year-old Taiwanese information engineer who is now serving mandatory military service, claimed responsibility for the computer havoc.

The virus, which attacks the BIOC chip, was hidden on pirated software on CD-Roms and the Internet. The Far East was most affected because pirated software is widespread there, but 40,000 computers at a French bank were damaged, and 200 at an unnamed British university.

In China, which ignores all copyright legislation governing computer software, more than 100,000 computers were said to have been affected.

In South Korea, 250,000 PCs were wrecked. The damage came to #150 million. In India, 30,000 computers, many of them in banks and financial institutions, were out of action.

In Israel, the state intelligence organisation, Mosad, was said to have been hit. Police computers disintegrated in South Africa, and Malaysia's stock exchange slowed down when 12 of the country's 60 brokerages caught the bug. . . .

Cut and pasted by

-- Old Git (anon@spamproblems.com), May 11, 1999.

As much as anyone, I want a civil exchange of ideas. I say this as one of the more frequently attacked persons on the forum.

In response to the many posts since my last:

1. If you have made a personal decision to prepare... fine. I have no desire to interfere with how you spend your hard-earned money. I present an alternative viewpoint. This does not make me personally responsible for the actions (or nonactions) or others. If anything has weakened the Republic, it is the notion that "someone else" is responsible for our behavior.

2. Like most of the folks who post here, I have no financial stake in any of the information or opinions I provide. Y2K supply firms have the right to engage in business. It is important to note, however, that Y2K "journalists" ought to stay out of Y2K commerce... for the simple reason of conflict of interest.

I don't have a problem with the fragrance industry and their incessant marketing. But I don't consider the fragrance industry an authoritative source of unbiased information. The same thought applies to Y2Knewswire.

3. The Gartner Group predicted 25% of rollover problems would happen this year. Ed Yourdon predicted April 1st would be a bellweather date. Very few problems were reported.

If problems happened, and were hidden... then "the system" is less interconnected than suggested here. Or the system is more fault tolerant than given credit for. Or there were very few problems of mostly local scope. Any of these alternatives can be seen as positive.

On side note, it seems Y2K experts become "downgraded" if their predictions are not severe enough. This appears to have happened with De Jager and Yardeni. The Gartner Group may suffer the same fate.

4. "Cover ups" are more often speculating than true. Let's make a better effort in providing evidence... and less "X files" speculation.

Regards,

-- Mr. Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), May 11, 1999.

Old Git:

Do you really think you can have it both ways? If the CIH virus was so bad, where are the dominoes? Poole isn't denying that the virus has caused a lot of damage. Clearly it has been very serious, as you point out so well. Now, exactly what macroeconomic processes have ground to a halt? Other than those who suffered the virus themselves, who else has suffered? Is life going on around the victims or not? All you are accomplishing by citing the virus damage is emphasizing the resiliance of our systems. Poole's point exactly.

Incidentally, I managed to get a copy of the source code to the CIH virus. Very interesting indeed. I can tell you that it does make an attempt to overwrite some of the flash BIOS, but this attempt will ONLY work with ONE chipset, and even then ONLY on boards that have no flash-write protection. I've never seen ANY board that didn't control writes to the flash part by gating some critical signal like Vpp or Write Enable. But the CIH virus does try.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), May 11, 1999.

Mr. Decker,

Business being interconnected usually means, for example, that company A needs a part from company B, transported from B to A by another company (C). If company B or C temporarily has a non- functioning general ledger (the fiscal-year rollover issue), company A may never notice as long as its gets the part it needs from B by way of C.

On the other hand, if manufacturing software was having problems at B, or if C had problems with distribution software, then A would be much more likely to notice.

Accounting software programs are what is most likely to have been at risk so far this year. What manufacturing or distribution problems there are will most likely take place near January 2000.

-- Kevin (mixesmusic@worldnet.att.net), May 11, 1999.

Mr Decker,

While Gartner has predicted that 25% of Y2K failures will occur in 1999, that should be put in context. Marcoccio has said that anything before Oct 1 is "just noise," (ie, one should not expect the significant failures until after that date- at least, so I would assume). Further, Gartner has said since October of 98 that the real Y2K problems would be outside the US, and that there should not be really major problems in this country.

-- Drew Parkhill/CBN News (y2k@cbn.org), May 11, 1999.

I hate it when I do that! Just like programming, hurry up and screw up. Anyway, dinner was good.

MR. POOLE,

That last paragraph, the "link" was directed at you, in reply to your "And Sysman, you continue to take square aim at your foot on this Win95.CIH thing;" remark. You can't compare regular failures, even a virus, to Y2K, because of things like backups. Even if you have to resort to a re-install, the software still works. This will not be the case come Y2K.

And Johnny, here's the link where you can find RMS with foot in mouth. <:)=

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), May 11, 1999.

The Wednesday, May 5 air traffic slowdown at Chicago's O'Hare Airport due to problems with their newly installed air traffic control system would seem to give some credibility to the potential seriousness of the situation. Based on all I have read about the FAA's history of lying about their level of compliance, I'm not too confident that they will fix their systems in time.

-- Clyde (clydeblalock@hotmail.com), May 11, 1999.

Kevin,

First, what you call "accounting software" is a generalization. Management information systems cut across most business functions including procurement, facilities management, maintenance, contracts management, payables, receivables, distribution, payroll, personnel, project management, etc. If the core MIS fails, it impacts other parts of the business.

Second, manufacturers like GM, are already running Y2K simulations at plants. This is not to say there will not be disruptions.... There will, but the manufacturing sector has made strides in Y2K readiness and the supply chain is not as weak as portrayed on this forum.

Third, the argument forwarded by the "systemics" clearly suggests the interconnections are software linkages... like electronic ordering and billing. If one accepts your guess that it's mostly "accounting software" that has had problems... failures should have been more noticeable. Again, the interconnections must be more than the movement of goods for the "domino effect" to work.

The speculation that manufacturing or distribution problems will "most likely take place near January 2000" is pure speculation unless you can provide data.

Of course, the experts making the Y2K predictions must have known all of this... right? The simple fact is that predictions were made and those predictions did not bear fruit. This does not mean Y2K will not be a problem, but it does provide interesting food for thought.

-- Mr. Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), May 11, 1999.

The following was issued from Pat's word hole:

"You can't dismiss a employee for talking"

Pat, you jackass, we have people on this forum, like Dan TPM, that will not reveal their company's identity EVEN WHEN THEY HAVE GOOD NEWS!!!!!! What does that tell you about people that want to reveal that their company/hospital/govt agency/etc is toast? HUH???

You pollyannas are getting screwier by the minute.

-- a (a@a.a), May 11, 1999.

Flint,

"Clearly it has been very serious,"

Why does this virus BS always show up here? An attempt to distract us from the issue, maybe?

CIH only hit PCs, running only Win/9x I believe, no mainframes, no embedded, no DOS machines. I wonder how many still run DOS in places that did get hit? Doesn't matter, it's a fact of life, backups save the day.

We're hearing too much of computers fail today, the virus threat, the phophets are wrong, all stuff that doesn't have beans to do with the problem. Let's do try and stay on topic here, and don't fall for the distraction tricks used by the polly crowd... Hey, BigDog, "It's still Y2K, stupid" - did I get that right? <:)=

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), May 11, 1999.

Sysman,

ROFL! Just because a bunch of your friends raised their hands and said, "yup, look-aheads aren't common" doesn't prove anything!

It is a FACT that in banking and insurance, look-aheads are common. Depending on the application, they are THE MOST common date-sensitive formula used in the software.

But OK, let's go with the next dodge: most businesses had to fix these problems first, so maybe we shouldn't be seeing disruptions yet. But that's just a variation of Kevin's EXPLANATION for the failed prophecy. I don't need an explanation; I need to know why anyone would still consider the Prophet a prophet after such a miserable failure?

Why didn't the Prophets know that businesses would fix the look-aheads in time, if they're unimpeachable IT/IS experts with a zillion years of experience who know what they're talking about and I don't, so there, YOU HUSH, POOLE?

Hamasaki should have known that. Jo Anne Slaven should have known that. Capers Jones should have known that. (How many more names d'ya want?)

(And don't say they're agreeing with you, because Cory and Capers, just to name two, are sticking to their guns like glue, insisting that the problems HAVE occurred; they're just being covered up by a vast Happy Face Conspiracy Of Silence.)

The fact that they were wrong tends to indicate to me -- naive, unwashed bumpkin that I am -- that perhaps they are somewhat less than suited for the office of Prophet. Hmmmmmmm?

Given that, why do we still see their names here on virtually a daily basis as references for one Doomlit argument or another?

And no more handwaving on this virus-vs-Y2K thingie. IF THE SYSTEM IS AS INTERCONNECTED AND INTERDEPENDENT AS YOU INSIST, THE CIH VIRUS SHOULD HAVE CAUSE _MASSIVE_ DISRUPTION -- stalled cars, cryin' babies, food lines, people jumping from windows, the whole 9 yards -- all the stuff that the Doomlits are predicting for Y2K.

It DIDN'T.

-- Stephen M. Poole, CET (smpoole7@bellsouth.net), May 11, 1999.

Mr. Poole,

"Depending on the application, they are THE MOST common date-sensitive formula used in the software."

We actually agree on something! You have named a few where this is true. I can name thousands where it is not true. 50,000 mainframes, running who knows how many applications, very many custom written. You never did tell me how many of the fortune 500 don't have at least one mainframe.

You believe what you want Stephen. I'm not here to discuss prophets, so you won't be hearing much more from me on this distraction. And you already know my opinion of your "normal failures" theory, so you won't be hearing much of that either. Maybe just a few links here and there in your threads, so the newbies can figure you out. When you have something new to discuss, feel free to page me. <:)=

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), May 12, 1999.

Stephen: If you insist on blabbing on about this topic, put the shoe on the other foot and try this:

Say that look aheads are causing major problems internally right now. Let's hear you argue how these effects should have been recognised and made public by now.

-- a (a@a.a), May 12, 1999.

Speaking of staying on topic, just to answer your question...

"why in the world would anyone believe what they predict for the future"

I respect the opinion of experienced fellow programmers, as well as other intelligent people. I don't believe everything that I read. I spend a considerable amount of my professional and personal time researching Y2K. I know, from my limited, tunnel-vision view of Y2K, based on my 31 years of working and playing with all kinds of computers, and based on current news, that it is going to cause problems. See ya Stephen. <:)=

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), May 12, 1999.

Mr. Decker,

Here are my replies or questions to your points.

First, what you call "accounting software" is a generalization. Management information systems cut across most business functions including procurement, facilities management, maintenance, contracts management, payables, receivables, distribution, payroll, personnel, project management, etc. If the core MIS fails, it impacts other parts of the business.

That makes sense, except do most of these business functions internally contain fiscal year calculations? I would imagine almost all functions are sooner or later recorded into an accounting system to "keep score". Sure, if the core MIS fails, there would be impacts, but I'm talking about the fiscal year issue. When distribution of a particular item is first processed, does it normally involve fiscal years at this point?

Second, manufacturers like GM, are already running Y2K simulations at plants. This is not to say there will not be disruptions.... There will, but the manufacturing sector has made strides in Y2K readiness and the supply chain is not as weak as portrayed on this forum.

You forgot about how much we import from overseas. A company like GM could be compliant and still be in trouble if it depends on parts from non-compliant foreign countries.

Third, the argument forwarded by the "systemics" clearly suggests the interconnections are software linkages... like electronic ordering and billing. If one accepts your guess that it's mostly "accounting software" that has had problems... failures should have been more noticeable. Again, the interconnections must be more than the movement of goods for the "domino effect" to work.

You're confusing "pure" supply chain problems with real-time data exchanges commonly seen in the telecommunications and banking sectors. The problems are somewhat related but not quite the same thing. To use the GM example again, data exchanges could be flawless, but if the foreign port that a needed part goes through is having Y2K problems, then GM may not receive that part right away.

The speculation that manufacturing or distribution problems will "most likely take place near January 2000" is pure speculation unless you can provide data.

You wouldn't expect BIOS or embedded systems problems in April 1999, would you?

Of course, the experts making the Y2K predictions must have known all of this... right? The simple fact is that predictions were made and those predictions did not bear fruit. This does not mean Y2K will not be a problem, but it does provide interesting food for thought.

If you're talking about the points you just made, I wouldn't expect the "experts" to know all this, because in my opinion there are flaws in your logic. On the other hand, I would say that failures so far this year would have been more noticeable if remediation of functions that include fiscal year calculations or lookaheads had not been taken care of first. I would expect a programmer to address these before addressing problems likely to occur near January 2000.

-- Kevin (mixesmusic@worldnet.att.net), May 12, 1999.

Pat...I run a home health agency with about 60 employees. I started it after a mud slinging match with my supervisor at at local hospital based agency. I was right (VERY right as government inspired events later proved) but that didn't save my job. You not only have to be right, you have to be made of Teflon like Willy to survive. Should one of my current employees go spreading information that is held propriatary in my business, you are damn correct that I would fire them. Maybe not for spreading restricted information....but I sure couldn't trust their loyalty or judgement anymore. And it would be done legally. Maybe not fair but legal. I back my employees thru thick and thin and I expect the same in return. Or else they need to find someone they CAN back.

Mr. Poole...go play somewhere else. I'm very, very tired of your constant carping regarding 'the error of our ways'. If I choose to spend my money on racecars, would you say I'm foolish? Probably so...but you wouldn't waste everybody's time telling them what a fool I am. Same logic applies to y2k. At least I'll be able to eat my mistake. As far as the 4/1/99 errors, I know of three BIG ones that really were covered up by the ones involved. Were they Y2k?? I don't know and don't care. The fact remains that these were covered up within the organizations involved and certain vendors were paid to keep their mouth shut. 'Nuff said. Would I name them??? You're nuts. I don't want to lose the business.

-- Lobo (atthelair@yahoo.com), May 12, 1999.

Stephen said...

[snip]

It is a FACT that in banking and insurance, look-aheads are common. Depending on the application, they are THE MOST common date- sensitive formula used in the software.

But OK, let's go with the next dodge: most businesses had to fix these problems first, so maybe we shouldn't be seeing disruptions yet. But that's just a variation of Kevin's EXPLANATION for the failed prophecy. I don't need an explanation; I need to know why anyone would still consider the Prophet a prophet after such a miserable failure?

Why didn't the Prophets know that businesses would fix the look- aheads in time, if they're unimpeachable IT/IS experts with a zillion years of experience who know what they're talking about and I don't, so there, YOU HUSH, POOLE?

[snip]

Yes, lookaheads are very common in banking and insurance. That's also why these are among the most remediated sectors (relatively speaking, anyway) of the economy. These sectors have known about lookahead problems for years, so they started their Y2K projects early.

Also, I didn't have just one explanation for no reported April 1st problems. Just one explanation is not likely to account for there being zero reported failures on April 1st, because I don't believe that all fiscal year issues at all companies had already been fixed. Some of the credit also should go to changing the end date of fiscal year 2000 to, say, 12/31/99, and some of the credit for no April 1st problems should go to the fact that April 1st was an accounting software issue and not about software likely to affect manufacturing or distribution.

Manufacturing or distribution problems are what would be most noticeable to those outside a particular organization.

Manufacturing or distribution problems

-- Kevin (mixesmusic@worldnet.att.net), May 12, 1999.

Jonathan,

"Kludge" is not only an acceptable technical term, Microsoft has raised it to a fine art. :)

-- Stephen M. Poole, CET (smpoole7@bellsouth.net), May 12, 1999.

Jonathan,

"From what I see, you base your entire Y2K argument on failed prophecy, and the fact that computers fail, every day, now. You really are starting to sound like a broken record. Please, get a new act. We are all growing very tired of this one. <:)=

C'MON, Sys, you can do better than that. Poole is speaking specifically about GI's failed propheciesand is asking that if they have been wrong before, why should we believe them later?"

What's up here, are you doing a little mix and match? The above Q and A don't go together, they're like, 4 days apart! And to answer this question, see my above post to Mr. Poole! <:)=

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), May 12, 1999.

Well I'll just drop my little bit of 'eye of newt' into the brew.

Posted this over on another thread, and was admonished by Ed Yourdon "Sysman" that I should bring it over to this thread...so being an obedient little boy, here it is:

(the thread over there was called "The Yourdon Pollyannas: A comedy of errors")

***************

ROTFLMFAO!!!! LOL LOL LOL!

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), May 12, 1999.

===============

LMAO! LMAO! Doomer predictions so far are LAMO

To wit:

January 1, 1999: big Doomer predictions for all kinds of failures. (Including 'JoAnne Effect'.) Reality: not enough to warrant a sneeze. (InfoMagic and Hamasaki also predicted a stock market crash by this time; DUH.)

April 1, 1999: New fiscal years, Japan, Canada, New York. Doomer predictions: Big Problems. It's in Ed's book. Got it right here. Reality: not enough to warrant a sneeze.

April 6, 1999: Beginning of U.K. government fiscal year. Doomer predictions: Big Problems. Reality: not enough to warrant a sneeze.

April 9, 1999: 99th day of 1999. Doomer predictions: Big Problems. Reality: not enough to warrant a sneeze.

April 15, 1999: More new fiscal years. Doomer predictions: Big Problems. Reality: not enough to warrant a sneeze.

AndyFreek: based on such a non-position, from whence comes your bravado? From a position of sheer insanity? Do you have answers to these non-occurrences? Straight answers? I don't mean evasive bullcrap. I mean straight answers.

Waiting. And I already know the answer: you don't have one. No Doomer does. And for good reason: straight-up answers to these questions, that are acceptable to Doomer-types, just plain don't exist.

-- Chicken Little (panic@forthebirds.net), May 12, 1999.

===============

Hey, CL...

Don't forget the rollover of the travel industries' systems on February 4th that also went off with nary a hiccup.

Keep smiling,

Jonathan

-A computer glitch will not bring about the end of civilization. it takes hordes of panicking people to do that.-

-- Jonathan Latimer (latimer@q-a.net), May 12, 1999.

===============

Chicken Little,

This topic is being discussed at Prophets Batting .0001 Please stay on topic. <:)=

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), May 12, 1999.

===============

The topic of this thread is "A Comedy of Errors". I'm dead on topic Ed, thank you very much.

-- Chicken Little (panic@forthebirds.net), May 12, 1999.

-- Chicken Little (panic@forthebirds.net), May 12, 1999.

Chicken Little,

You're a pretty funny guy. Ed Yourdon = Sysman? Sorry, I don't have that much money in the bank! We have been in the "field" for about the same amount of time, but I'm just a systems programmer and network administrator, a lowly grunt. I'm going to bed, so I can stop laughing! <:)=

PS - Ed, I'm honored...

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), May 12, 1999.

I made this comment...

[snip]

I can think of several reasons why we heard of no problems when fiscal-year rollovers took place, for example, on April 1st. The fixing of accounting software had been prioritized and taken care of early by organizations; or, accounting software was temporarily bandaged by changing the end date of FY 2000 to 12/31/99; or, maybe there were some problems in accounting software but we didn't hear about them because they haven't affected manufacturing or distribution.

[snip]

Jonathan's reply to that was...

If those can be worked around so quietly now, what makes you think January will be any different?

Jonathan,

1. Just because an organization may have completed remediation on its accounting software doesn't necessarily mean that all of it's mission- critical software will be remediated by January 2000.

2. A 12/31/99 end-date for fiscal year 2000 is only a temporary "bandage" for accounting software. In January 00, some calculations will be made using both historical data from "99" and as well as current data from "00". The problem does need to be fixed before January.

3. Again, April 1st problems would have been in accounting software. Problems in manufacturing or distributing would be much more visible...working quietly around problems would be difficult or impossible. No BIOS or embedded systems problems were predicted for April 1, 1999.

4. Even John Koskinen has said that fix-on-failure in January may not be possible. He said it could take months to fix because of other failures happening at the same time.

-- Kevin (mixesmusic@worldnet.att.net), May 12, 1999.

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=000n8Y

The John Koskinen quote I was talking about...

[added bold emphasis mine]

[snip]

We are running events in the United States focusing on small businesses, trying to provide them technical information, trying to encourage them to take action in the face of what we find increasingly is a position where many of them are saying they're simply going to wait, see what breaks, and then they will fix it once it's broken. We are trying to tell them that that's a very high risk roll of the dice, because when they go to get the fix, whether it's an upgrade in their software or a replacement for the software or the hardware, it will be obvious what the fix is, everyone will know how to do it, but the risk is, they will be at the end of a very long line of other people who waited to see what broke and then decided to fix it. And the fix will work just fine when it arrives, but it may not arrive until March, April or May of the year 2000, and these companies and governments and those who decided to wait and see may find that they're going to be severely challenged in continuing their operations while they're waiting for that fix to arrive.

[snip]

-- Kevin (mixesmusic@worldnet.att.net), May 12, 1999.

Flint:

If you look at my comment you'll see it has nothing to do with any domino theory but was directed at the fact that a small country like S. Korea has to come up with 150 million pounds (not dollars as I mistakenly typed above), which translates to about $225 million. In the United States, that amount of money is hardly noticeable, but to a small country like S. Korea it's evidence of a severe blow, possibly catastrophic to a small business..

"Other than those who suffered the virus themselves, who else has suffered? Is life going on around the victims or not?"

Flint, if you owned a small business and you relied on PCs for payroll, design, e-mail and fax files, customer and employee records, and so on, I guarantee you would think you were suffering if a virus wiped out all the data on your computers. Poole blithely gives the impression that Chernobyl virus victims sailed through it all with big grins on their faces. Is life going on around the victims? No doubt. I haven't heard of any deaths associated with Chernobyl--but do you really think there were no economic or emotional consequences?

You and Poole give the impression that hundreds of thousands of PCs wiped out in small businesses all over the underdeveloped world, with what must be billions of dollars in costs, was no big deal. Well, it's no big deal to you and Poole because you have no conception of how an Asian small business operates. You're judging the situation by US standards and that's a big mistake. Do you think all those employees, laid off until the computers were fixed, had their salaries continued, or got unemployment or food stamps? Do you think the boss carried them by paying them out of his own pocket? Do you think the boss can write off his losses on his income taxes? Think again! There were CONSEQUENCES here, small in the grand scheme of things, but individually devastating nonetheless, and you say there weren't any. My point has nothing to do with any domino effect, it has to do with Poole's (and now your) cavalier dismissal of damaging consequences of any kind. This is the attitude typically permeating many of your posts, you and Poole, and this blind spot is the reason your opinions are so often challenged. Like most pollyanna types, you both have an undeveloped sense of consequence.

-- Old Git (anon@spamproblems.com), May 12, 1999.

Ed, you're a smart guy, but you just don't cover your tracks that well.

-- Chicken Little (panic@forthebirds.net), May 12, 1999.

Old Git:

We're talking about two different things here. I do *not* deny that fatal automobile accidents are devastating to their victims and to the families of their victims. The Doomers, however, would go one step further and argue that the highway carnage necessarily means the end of automobile transportation as we know it. This is obviously not true.

Same with the CIH virus. If you read what I wrote, I'm saying those it struck were badly injured. And it struck quite a few. I pointed out that this virus had *no* macroeconomic effect even in Korea. Business as usual. And the worse you make this virus out to be, the better you make Poole's point -- we deal with these things.

At least Sysman has the logical sense to dismiss this virus as insignificant. Not that it *was* insignificant, you understand. Just that Sysman recognizes that he must make this claim if the evil Poole is to be properly shot down. Sysman also recognizes that Capers Jones' Euro woes and Hamasaki's JAE problems must be minimized. To credit Hamasaki and Jones with accurately pointing out the magnitude of these problems serves only to emphasize the resiliance of the system, which is Poole's point.

So think about it, OK? Poole's argument becomes stronger the more you cite these authorities on problems that were and are large. You have to pretend they're small to maintain your illusions.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), May 12, 1999.

Flint --- This is what rubs me wrong about your comments and the usual ones by Poole and cronies. I have seen endless, sincere disclaimers by Yourdon, Hamasaki, Joanne and most other "well known" commentators (Cowles, Martin, Eddy, Porlier, Lord, Parkhill), noting I except Milne, North and IFM, that they are making personal, though professional, "best guesses" about Y2K impacts based on extraordinarily incomplete data.

What more can/should they do? Does this mean that they shouldn't express opinions? That they should grovel when events sometimes disconfirm or leave the results of their opinions ambiguous (and it is FAR from total as Poole alleges)? Among other things, projecting that "budgets would dramatically increase in 1998 and 1999" was as much a prediction by Yourdon in 1997 as (I recall) his expectation that panic by late 1998 would hinder acquisition of supplies (wrong).

I have seen far more caution expressed by the names I cite above than by Poole, for instance, who merely trashes the significance of Y2K, albeit consistently (he is indeed an anti-North personality, if you will).

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), May 12, 1999.

Flint commented:

"The Doomers, however, would go one step further and argue that the highway carnage necessarily means the end of automobile transportation as we know it. This is obviously not true. "

Flint, there you go putting words in other folks mouths. Please, don't ever speak for me. Get a life!!

Ray

-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), May 12, 1999.

BD,

Well, my arguments seem to be lost in this mega-thread. I just wanted to comment that your position does seem more nuanced. In fact, the more thoughtful pessimists seem willing to concede some of the good news may actually be good news.

On your last post... not all "Y2K experts" are created equal. I took the time to read Gary North. I find it difficult to take him seriously as an expert... and his 20 year history of predicting TEOTWAWKI diminishes his authority as a prognosticator. I reject the theology of Christian Reconstructionism. It seems clear that Y2K is simply the latest "opportunity" for North to advocate a theocratic regime.

I respect De Jager and Yardeni... not because they are moderates, but because they have offered articulate, well-grounded thoughts and have been willing to modify their position based on new data. Some of the other "experts" seem to take TEOTWAWKI as a foregone conclusion. Read Milne's response to my request for economic predictions. Yikes!

If we continue to receive positive reports, I think the thoughtful optimists and pessimists will move closer together in terms of opinion.

Regards,

-- Mr. Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), May 12, 1999.

"If we continue to receive positive reports, I think the thoughtful optimists and pessimists will move closer together in terms of opinion."

Not before 3/1/2000, because positive reports are to be expected and discounted. Not discounted because necessarily untrue, not at all. Discounted in the sense that, of course, one would expect 80% compliance achievement to generate enormous positive news. It's the remaining 20% (in U.S., more elsewhere) and its impacts that will be inherently unknowable until we pass through the date barriers.

That 20% could (optimists) result in a bump or (pessimists) cause TEOTWAWKI. Technically speaking, both remain defensible possibilities, though I obviously find the latter more probable based on my industry experience than the former, while wishing for the former along with every sane person.

As for North, his historian expertise led him (he believes) to the deduction that Y2K was-is "systemic". Of course, as you legitimately point out, the jury is still out on that. But this too remains in play until the end of 1Q 2000. His degree of expertise will be revealed or exposed, no doubt.

I don't agree with Christian Reconstructionism as an ideology, but we all have agendas, even if unconscious. At least Scary Gary's is explicit, which for me, at least, makes it easier to sift the wheat from the chaff.

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), May 12, 1999.

Big Dog is right in that all anyone can do is make best guesses as to the outcome of Y2K. Analysis begins with reliable information; we don't have that on Y2K. There's a lot of spin going on, and covering up- and that includes covering up of *positive* information (due to fear of lawsuits, among other things- which I think is rather shaky, but lawyers can run the corporate world in many cases).

In any event, the idea that some people made some projections which didn't prove true (to this point) means little. Why? For one thing, not everyone who studies Y2K considered those dates meaningful. I didn't think 1/1/99 would mean jack squat; and I wrote in this forum *before* 4/1/99 that it would be a non-event. As Marcoccio has said, anything before Oct 1 is just noise.

That said, another point about "failed predictions:" I read about a guy who, in 1986 or 87, thought the Japanese stock market was going to tank. It didn't, and he was wrong. Did this mean the Japanese market was in great shape for years to come? Obviously not. He plugged away, though, and, although I'm not sure, I believe he might have made a little money when the Japanese market *did* bite it, beginning in 1990. That "guy's" name is George Soros. Oh, yeah- him.

The point is that the basic idea of a thesis is not at all invalidated because of the failure of certain parts of that thesis (at least parts held by some individuals, at some point in time- they may have changed their views later). The Japanese market didn't care if Soros was right at that particular point in time- but he was proven right later (big-time).

Forecasts are made based on accurate informations- forecasts about sports events, elections, weather, financial markets, etc. Y2K, however, is different, as I said, because there's not enough reliable information available. (And look how hard it is to predict things when information *is* available- after all, everyone *knew* Duke was going win the NCAA basketball title, right? Does the failure of those who predicted Duke to win mean they're never right on anything? Get real.)

Consequently, Y2K moves from the realm of prediction (although I do think some rough estimates can be made) into the realm of risk. And make no mistake: at this point in time, for the global economy, Y2K *is* what I call a high-risk environment. Anyone who thinks otherwise is drop dead nuts.

And if you think it isn't being discussed in just those terms, in closed door sessions around the world, public & private sector, you are certifiable. Do you think businesses are stockpiling because they expect smooth sailing? Get a grip. Now.

No, they know there's serious risks involved in this thing. Even the Clinton Administration, home of Mr Koskinen, recently said their goal was to prevent Y2K from becoming the first global economic crisis of the next millennium (or century, whatever). They weren't saying that to pass the time of day. They, and a lot of other people, KNOW how serious Y2K could be, if enough preventive measures aren't taken. They aren't wasting their time with happy-face crap, at least in private.

-- Drew Parkhill/CBN News (y2k@cbn.org), May 12, 1999.

Mr. Poole,

For someone who constantly badgers others regarding their speculation of what might occur it appears to me that you offer this forum nothing (and I mean NOTHING) more than your own idle speculation.

You don't provide us with any facts or statistics - just your own opinions. Frankly, I don't hold your opinions in high regard and the value of your speculation seems worthless to me. You do provide a little entertainment.

I asked you to be more specific regarding what your rant about "prophets" and you offer me the following invitation, "have a look at the short list here at my Web site".

Nope. I haven't been nor do I intend on visiting your website to look at your "short list". Why should I? Your posts on this website don't really interest me enough to take a leap and travel through cyberspace. Heck, they don't even annoy me enough to take that leap. Visit your website? I'm a little surprised that you have time to keep and maintain a website considering the time you spend posting. Or, do you have a staff including a webmaster that support you?

Actually, Mr. Poole, the only thing I want from you is factual evidence that backs up your position that Y2k is nothing more than some mystical event which will have absolutely no impact on the U.S. and/or the world. And, I ask that you provide the evidence on this forum since you are posting here. That would be the polite and proper thing for you to do. If you are so sure of your evidence then allow it to be held up to all scrutiny.

Honestly, I have no idea why you choose to get into silly battles over why someone's predictions of what might occur have yet to materialize. I already wrote that the predictions made by someone you hold up as a "prophet" are not what I use to draw my own conclusions. I'm not making predictions and I'm not placing my faith and the well being of family and our future in any predictions either. There is plenty of evidence to support the view that Y2k will be an event. The real speculation is over what impact this event will have on the US and the world.

Who really knows? I say neither of us know. I say NO ONE knows.

However, if it is the April 1st predictions you are feeling so good about then perhaps I should remind you that it's 5/12/99 and it's only been about a month. Would your really expect things to be happening already? The month just closed. Do you really think that problems would be visible right now? If there are problems they would be compounded over time, wouldn't they? Why would they be visible right now?

I'm fortunate to have a wife that is a CPA and based on her professional opinion this wouldn't be the case. Also, based upon her professional opinion, it would be highly unlikely we would hear ANYTHING regarding problems unless there were some legal reason for the information to become public.

As for rumor, you should try what I do and take them for what they're worth.

Regardless, your ability to provide nothing more than your own useless opinion and idle speculation - which offers nothing more than a glimpse into your self-important, bloated ego - is really entertaining.

Keep it up as we all need a break from reality every once in a while and your posts sure do offer that.

Mike ==========================

-- Michael Taylor (mtdesign3@aol.com), May 12, 1999.

"If the Y2K Prophets have been so horribly wrong in the past, why in the world would anyone believe what they predict for the future?"

It seems to me after following this forum for 18 months, that the Pollys have been "Y2K Prophets" also. They have consistently predicted FEAR AND PANIC should people believe the Doomers.

This forum has grown to astounding levels in the past year, with the majority seeming to be GI's. I have seen NO evidence of FEAR or PANIC. Rather, I have seen reasoned preparation, and a search for knowledge of how to return to a simpler way of life.

May I ask....since the (POLLY) Y2K Prophets have been so horribly wrong in the past, why in the world would anyone believe what they predict for the future?

-- Sheila (sross@bconnex.net), May 12, 1999.

Old Git,

You and Poole give the impression ... [that the Chernobyl virus] was no big deal.

Flint said it better than I could, but I do take issue with your statement that I don't appreciate the consequences. As a programmer who has helped develop several anti-virus applications, I know exactly what damage computer viruses can cause (I helped write programs that would REPAIR that damage, after all).

Yes, some businesses were hurt -- badly. I'm not making light of that. BUT THEY WORKED AROUND IT AND FIXED THE PROBLEM -- EVEN THOUGH THE PROBLEM WAS QUITE DEVESTATING IN SOME CASES.

I stand by my prediction that within 6 months (5-1/2 now), Win95.CIH/Chernobyl will be a fading memory in Asia. Wait and see.

And I maintain that the same will be true of most Y2K failures. I DO NOT DENY THAT SOME WILL OCCUR (I've even granted that a few will be whoppers). We'll work around them. Wait and see.

Again: the big disconnect here is that "computer failures = TEOLAWKI." The assumption on the part of Doomlits is that we'll just stare at the sick computers and go, "oh, no, what'll we DO?"

Resolve that one disconnect and you'll address about 90% of the Doom and Gloom being posted ad infinitum on the Web about Y2K.

Drew,

Do you think businesses are stockpiling because they expect smooth sailing?

Why is it so necessary for your side of the argument to characterize people like Flint, Decker and me as saying, "there's no problem?" I've never said that. Go look at my Web site and count the number of times I say, "Y2K is/was a problem."

I then follow that statement with, "Y2K is being fixed (or addressed, or whatever)." The problem is, the Doomlits very rarely include that second provisio. It's left to people like me to supply it (and weather a firestorm of personal attacks as reward[g]).

In the few weeks I've been here, I've said several times that I expect some disruptions from Y2K (including a few whoppers). But I've also said that I have faith in the ability of the average businessman -- when faced with the loss of everything he/she has -- to come up with a viable contingency if the computers aren't fixed.

(I cannot fathom why this is so hard to understand on your part.)

They, and a lot of other people, KNOW how serious Y2K could be, if enough preventive measures aren't taken. (emphasis mine)

I agree with that. The problem is, you're relying primarily on the IT/IS side for your point of view. I feel for these folks, too, because they're working frantically against a fixed deadline, they're being managed by people who don't understand programming and don't understand WHY it's taking so long -- which only increases the pressure. From their point of view, they're living a 25-hour-a-day nightmare. I actually sympathise with them, believe it or not.

(That's one reason why, as soon as my back healed from the car accident, I got out of programming and went back into straight broadcast engineering. I got tired of trying to explain to butt-kick sales/management types WHY it wasn't possible -- in my case -- to write a complete anti-virus scanner package FROM SCRATCH in 2 months.[g])

But having said that: the programmers are working to fix the problem, while at the same time, other people in that organization are working on contingencies. Do you really think that our company would permit itself just to go off the air in January? That WalMart and KMart will just close their doors and DIE?

Do you really think that Ford and other companies with JIT dependencies aren't planning to stock extra supplies to keep the lines running? By your own admission, businesses are making plans for disruptions. I ACKNOWLEDGE THAT. This is *GOOD* NEWS, and the fact that you read it as BAD news speaks volumes about your mindset -- and, if you'll pardon the bluntness, your objectivity as a reporter.

(Yeah, I know a little about that, too.[g])

By analogy, suppose someone tells me that a hurricane is coming. I'll tape and board up the windows, store supplies, and make other plans. In THAT event, you would say, "Stephen's being prudent." In the unique case of Y2K, you point to me and say, "wow, this is going to be a REALLY BAD STORM! Look at all the businesses that are boarding up windows and stocking supplies!"

Another analogy: in normal times, the Midwest can flood and badly disrupt the supply of cereal grains. Most of us take it in stride, accepting that we'll pay modestly higher prices at the grocery store (or even have to work around some shortages).

In the Y2K context, you hear that there'll be flooding in the Midwest, and start hoarding grain!

This is all a matter of attitude, and I repeat what I said in another thread: if all of the people who are preparing for TEOLAWKI were to also volunteer to help prevent TEOLAWKI, TEOLAWKI would be avoided.

Why isn't CBN calling for volunteers to help man the hospitals, police stations, water plants, tax offices, and other entities who are threatened by Y2K? If you really believe that Y2K represents TEOLAWKI, that should be your natural response, I would think.

-- Stephen M. Poole, CET (smpoole7@bellsouth.net), May 12, 1999.

Here's the John Koskinen quote again. It applies even more to foreign countries we import materials and goods from that are vital to our economy:

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=000n8Y

[added bold emphasis mine]

[snip]

We are running events in the United States focusing on small businesses, trying to provide them technical information, trying to encourage them to take action in the face of what we find increasingly is a position where many of them are saying they're simply going to wait, see what breaks, and then they will fix it once it's broken. We are trying to tell them that that's a very high risk roll of the dice, because when they go to get the fix, whether it's an upgrade in their software or a replacement for the software or the hardware, it will be obvious what the fix is, everyone will know how to do it, but the risk is, they will be at the end of a very long line of other people who waited to see what broke and then decided to fix it. And the fix will work just fine when it arrives, but it may not arrive until March, April or May of the year 2000, and these companies and governments and those who decided to wait and see may find that they're going to be severely challenged in continuing their operations while they're waiting for that fix to arrive.

[snip]

-- Kevin (mixesmusic@worldnet.att.net), May 12, 1999.

Quoting you, from above: "Again: the big disconnect here is that "computer failures = TEOLAWKI." "

I think I see one big error you are making in your attacks/comments throughout - you are either assuming that "all" those who are properly preparing are getting ready for TEOLAWKI; or you are helplessly exaggerating the percent of those who are preparing so that most (60-75% ?) are assuming that Y2K will lead to TEOLAWKI.

Wrong on both counts - based on many earlier surveys, I'd make a very educated guess that less than 2-5% OF THOSE ACTUALLY PREPARING are getting ready for "life-ending" event. the remainder of those preparing are trying to mitigate the effect of Y2K troubles assuming 2 weeks to 4 months of irregular disruptions.

Also - you are dead right that MOST people can do nothing if the "right" computer fails - no single person can get power, telephones, 911 service, or mediacal care by himself. No person can write a label in the food processing plant, re-program a robot for GM, or reset the FAA terminals. All they can do is look at the aitport arrival screens and wait.

Also - the police and federal government emphatically DON'T want civilian assistance from people preparing - they are setting up FBI task forces to investigate those same people BECAUSE they are simply preparing for Y2K. The fed's hate and despise we who are trying to prepare, their leaders curse and defame Christians viciously.

To answer your original question - No Fortune 500 company has yet declared it is ready for Year 2000. No state government has said it is ready. Every federal agency is demanding more money to solve the problem - even though they claimed also to be ready on March 30.

Failures will occur. My job is simply to warn people that varioius things will fail in various unpredictable ways for irregular periods of time in many unknown areas of the country for unknown reasons, to try to get them mentally ready to withstand those potential troubles.

Your job is to tell me exactly what will fail, and where, and how long that failure will last. When you can do that exactly, then I will grant you the right to tell everybody else to relax. Can you do that?

-- Robert A. Cook, PE (Kennesaw, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), May 12, 1999.

Robert - I agree that the folks who think TEOLAWKI is at hand are only 5% or so of the people who are preparing. And they will be the ones who lose the most when 2000 rolls around. Having said that - you should admit in turn that the TEOLAWKI types are by far the most active posters and recruiters for preparations. They feel they are performing a duty to save as many people as they can - just as I feel it is my duty to try to keep people from being recruited into TEOLAWKI ranks - as that lays them open to all sorts of personal/financial damage from panic - a panic that my studies and work tell me is not necessary. But I do understand their mindset, which is why you will sometimes see me explain to someone how to raise a goose or some other farm chore with which I am familiar.

It is not the heavy preparers that worry me, it is their very large presence, which is enormously overrepresented, in any discussion of Y2K. If one took only numbers of postings on this forum as evidence of Y2K problems, and went by the ratio between pessimistic and optimistic, you would conclude that TEOLAWKI is at hand. And allowing people to make that conclusion, without any moderating voices being heard, would be a near guarentee of panic.

-- Paul Davis (davisp1953@yahoo.com), May 12, 1999.

And allowing people to make that conclusion, without any moderating voices being heard, would be a near guarentee of panic.

-- Paul Davis (davisp1953@yahoo.com), May 12, 1999.

There it is again!! What evidence do you base this on Paul? What "PANIC" have you seen so far? Or do you call stockpiling some food, making personal investment choices, and organizing one's life as they see fit, PANIC????

I think we need a definition of PANIC in this forum.

Personally, I think the only one's "panicing" are the Pollys. They are PANICED at the thought that the doomer's preparations may impact their status quo.

My advice to them? Stop panicing and start PREPARING for the impending disaster you are predicting!! That is the only logical thing to do! You will not change GI's views with your arguements....for the simple reason that you can't PROVE your opinions. On the other hand.....if you BELIEVE your own predictions of chaos caused by the preparers, the only intelligent thing to do is to protect yourself from it the best way you can.

This is exactly what the doomers are doing.

-- Sheila (sross@bconnex.net), May 12, 1999.

Stephen,

My, you're interesting. In one paragraph, you lament that you:

>>weather a firestorm of personal attacks as reward[g]).

A whole two paragraphs later you write of me:

>(I cannot fathom why this is so hard to understand on your part.)

Poor dumb Drew, huh? And poor Steve, who suffers such attacks- but of course, never questions anyone else's cognitive abilities. Sheesh!

You write:

>The problem is, you're relying primarily on the IT/IS side for your point of view.

I'm always impressed with people who know what I think better than I do, and also know who I'm talking to. You have *zero* facts to back up that statement. You don't have *any* idea of who I talk to, where I get information from, etc.

You write:

>>Do you really think that Ford and other companies with JIT dependencies aren't planning to stock extra supplies to keep the lines running? By your own admission, businesses are making plans for disruptions. I ACKNOWLEDGE THAT. This is *GOOD* NEWS, and the fact that you read it as BAD news speaks volumes about your mindset -- and, if you'll pardon the bluntness, your objectivity as a reporter.

IOW, my objectivity depends on my ability to agree with you - ?

Please show me where I said stockpiling was bad news- ? What it *is* is a recognition that Y2K is a serious problem- a notion which, for all your protestations to the contrary, you seem to spend an awful lot of time attempting to debunk. The fact that you have already decided what I think says one whale of a lot more about *your* objectivity than mine.

At what point have I said I expected TEOTWAWKI or TEOLAWKI? When? Where? There's a big difference- which you apparently don't understand- between expected that Y2K can be a serious economic threat without being TEOwhatever. You scoff off even the economic threat aspect of it. Why should anyone believe you take Y2K seriously?

-- Drew Parkhill/CBN News (y2k@cbn.org), May 12, 1999.

Hey Steve Poole,

Sheila had you pegged perfectly in her posts above. Drew has put you and your rants in proper perspective.

You, on the other hand, don't realize that this is becoming quite a comedy.

You start this thread asking why anyone would believe future predictions made by "Y2k Prophets" who have been "so horribly wrong" and you continue (over and over again) to speculate, make assumptions and even make predictions of your own!!!

Congrats Steve, you're outing yourself on your own.

Can you speculate on this?

Are we laughing with you, or at you?

Mike =================================================================

-- Michael Taylor (mtdesign3@aol.com), May 12, 1999.

Purely as speculation ...

 If NOTHING had been fixed, anywhere on the planet, for Y2K, do you think there would have been a problem starting 01-01- 2000, or before?

 If EVERYTHING had been fixed, everywhere on the planet, for Y2K, do you think there would have been no problem starting 01- 01-2000, or before?

Clearly, trillions of $, worldwide, are being spent on Something perceived as ... a BIG global problem.

Do you think EVERYTHING will be fixed by 01-01-2000?

If ... YES ... then do nothing.

If ... NO ... then prepare to the level you think is right for you and your family.

Thats what important here.

Trust your own assessment ... and do your own homework. Just dont rely on someone else to do it for you.

For every piece of good news ... look for the holes. For every piece of bad news ... look for the holes. Then think ... who/what/ when/where/why/how is the news an example of self-interest or other- interest.

What do you think are the shades of truth? What do you think are the shades of lies? Find supporting snippets of evidence.

It also might be prudent to recall that ... *most* governments, corporations, military, people, et. al. ... dont always tell the truth. Or completely tell a lie.

Thats often what ... repeatedly ... gets us into these global manmade messes.

So, the wise, plan accordingly. And become their own prophet.

Diane

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), May 12, 1999.

BTW, Stephen M. Poole, CET ...

Who are your preferred high-profile Y2K prophets?

Koskinen?

??

Since, you set so much store in prophets being right.

Who is a good Y2K prophet in your opinion?

Just curious.

Diane

(Still observing today's date as contrasted to ... Y2K = Year 2000)

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), May 12, 1999.

A good point (or two or three) Paul, thank you.

To illustrate, please note that several people apparently regarded as "Polly's" are actually and seriously preparing for longer periods of more serious disruptions than I (personally) am preparing for.

A caveat there - my local city and county governments (Cobb Cty and Marietta, Kennesaw), power distribution (Cobb EMC), and water and sewage (Marietta City), 911 (Cobb Cty), police (Cobb Cty), fire (Cobb Cty), and bank (Wachovia), etc. have completed testing already. (They are continuing to spend money in further testing, but all have declared themselves ready, and all began substantially before the rest of the country. The power provider (Ogalthorpe) remains a little questionable, but appear to be no worse than the rest of the country, and did start relatively early. (They have not declared test results yet.)

Also, I've been able to review their results and efforts with personal interviews and checks - so I have probably less uncertainity than most others world-wide. Socially, no area is more "independent-minded" and "self-reliant" than Kennesaw, and I doubt any other area has as many people individually preparing than here, perhaps as many as 40-60% are making some level of preparations, and all locally are required by law to have some form of self-protection at home. Significant civil unrest appears near neglible locally - the City of Atlanta is a different story.

So: preparations need to be locally adjusted to local conditions.

-- Robert A. Cook, PE (Kennesaw, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), May 12, 1999.

Diane,

If NOTHING had been fixed, anywhere on the planet, for Y2K, do you think there would have been a problem starting 01-01-2000, or before?

Yes, and I've said that here Do you think EVERYTHING will be fixed by 01-01-2000?

No, and I've said that, too, many times.

Trust your own assessment ... and do your own homework. Just dont rely on someone else to do it for you.

Absolutely. But that works both ways.

DON'T just obtain your Y2K information from here, Cowles' forum, and sources like Y2KToday and Y2KNewswire. Visit the Debuking and Biffy boards from time to time. Read. Look into things.

Do as I have: talk directly to the people at your utility, bank, and so on. You'll find that they take Y2K seriously, that they're working on it -- and in they main, they're satisfied that they'll handle it with few problems. (They'll even tell you WHY.)

Then think ... who/what/ when/where/why/how is the news an example of self-interest or other- interest.

(Sigh.) See? When I answer this the way you already know I'm going to answer it, people get upset. But here goes ...

That works BOTH ways. There is so much conflict of interest in Y2K reporting, it's a miracle that ANY truth gets out. To start with, anyone who'd consider Gary North a reliable source of information is living in a land of delusion. (I'm not necessarily accusing YOU of that, but plenty of people here do refer to him.)

This is truly the first Web-driven event. The problem with the Web is, there's very little checking of some of this material prior to publication.

More often than you'd believe, someone will create a COMPLETELY BOGUS story. It begins circulating. After a while, it gets posted on zillions of Web sites. It's repeated so often that eventually, it's accepted without question -- even though it's bogus. In time, it will make it into Congressional testimony or other "official" publications, and at that point, it IS taken as truth.

Not related to Y2K, but look at the so-called "Gulf War Virus" -- which story was created as an April Fool's joke by a computer magazine. Over the years, that thing has entered the Cyberlegend category; Discovery Channel has reported it as fact, and so have magazines such as Popular Science. But it's still bogus: it never happened.

It has been repeated SO MANY TIMES, in fact, that when I say, "it never happened," people don't believe ME! (Heh.) But see Good examples for Y2K? I've already mentioned Gary North's "Fire truck that wouldn't start." A good recent example is the hospital story that was posted here last week. My friends and I have been trying to verify that thing since it appeared. The guy's email address is bogus; doesn't exist (and we checked the address immediately after the post appeared). The computer system isn't interconnected in that way and COULDN'T have caused some of the failures claimed. And so on.

The story has the look, smell and feel of 100% prime-choice "bogus," but it will probably appear on a few dozen (or million or so) Y2K Web sites -- particularly those selling survival supplies. Wait and see. :)

Maybe all I'm trying to do is tell people to do what YOU'RE saying: take everything Y2K-related with a grain of salt. :)

-- Stephen M. Poole, CET (smpoole7@bellsouth.net), May 12, 1999.

That's what I get for trying to write during an electrical storm.

The link for the Gulf War virus coverage is Crypt News.

Sorry for the lotsa link lines above. :)

(Hey, at Biffy, you can PREVIEW the message as it will appear before posting ...)

-- Stephen M. Poole, CET (smpoole7@bellsouth.net), May 12, 1999.

>> DON'T just obtain your Y2K information from here, Cowles' forum, and sources like Y2KToday and Y2KNewswire. <<

Too funny. You've obviously mistaken Diane Squire for someone else!

>> Visit the Debuking and Biffy boards from time to time. Read. Look into things. <<

Diane? Looks like you've left one stone unturned....

-- Debbie (dbspence@usa.net), May 12, 1999.

Mr. Poole,

Re: the hospital story. Wasn't there an article in the Washington Post a couple of weeks ago about aWashington DC hospital that had such a horribly cobbled system? Sounds like this guy's place. I'll try to find it tomorrow and let you know.

-- Goombah (goombah@aol.com), May 12, 1999.

Stephen,

Ive looked at the BIFFY site and it frankly, made me ill. Your personal web-site wasnt much better. Talk about prejudiced, intolerant, hate-filled people! Whew!

Yes, this Yourdon group gets a bit OT, at times, but BIFFY is out past right field, IMHO! Sort of the polar opposite to csy2k.

Rarely, do I visit Gary Norths site, so your immediate assumption that I do, or that many people do, astonishes me.

I study and research the myriad issues. Pure and simple. Then post here.

Telling me ... DON'T just obtain your Y2K information from here, ... actually made me LOL.

Yes, Lisa ... I peeked at the creepy crawlies under that stone and said ... no thank you!

Diane

BTW, Stephen ...

Who are the well-known Y2K prophets you DO admire?

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), May 12, 1999.

Mr. Poole,

You really do like walking in mine fields, don't you? Diane, IMHO, holds down the #1 spot on Y2K research. You are so wacky with this one, that I really don't have a comeback.

Diane,

I've had the same feeling about biffy since my first visit there. No thanks! <:)=

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), May 13, 1999.

Sysman,

I agree. Diane is, without a doubt, the most prolific researcher on this forum.

Nice to see a few new posters on this thread. I wonder just how they found their way here?

Mike ==================================================================

-- Michael Taylor (mtdesign3@aol.com), May 13, 1999.

First message: 1997-12-22
Most recent posting: 1999-05-13
Number of archived messages: 106776
Note that these data do not include messages that were deleted (or marked for expiration) by the forum moderator.
Active Contributors
sacredspaces@yahoo.com (2990) avowed 5
cook.r@csaatl.com (2209) avowed 5-6
mixesmusic@worldnet.att.net (2062)
allaha@earthlink.net (1878)Avowed 5-6
2000EOD@prodigy.net (1831) Avowed 11
catsy@pond.com (1535) 5-6
y2kboard@yahoo.com (1465) 6-8
a@a.a (1353)
anon@spamproblems.com (1321)
moment@pacbell.net (1319)*5-7
rienzoo@en.com (1314) 5-7
ahadams@ix.netcom.com 4-8 (1166)
tomcarey@mindspring.com 5-7 (1120)
BigDog@duffer.com (1103) 6-8
sonofdust@net.com (1093) 6-9
flintc@mindspring.com (1035) 3-8
oncebitten@twiceshy.com (1010) 5-7
privacy@please.com (995)
davisp1953@yahoo.com (965)
anon@ymous.com (934)
searcher@internet.com (805)
bardou@baloney.com (785) 5-7
jsprat@eld.net (743)
rdale@figroup.co.uk (707)
pshannon@inch.com (681) 5-7
mtdesign3@aol.com (635) 5-7
greybear@home.com (626)6-8
dit@dot.com (617)
ray@totacc.com (586)
jayles@telusplanet.net (553)
drherr@erols.com (546)
As of 0658Z. Anyone I misrepresented, SORRY, because I did this from shaggy memory.


And my point is that the most prolific posters here are NOT card carrying doomers, but more middle of the road 5-7 people.

Mr Poole, do check your facts again. Chuck

-- chuck, a Night Driver (rienzoo@en.com), May 13, 1999.

Nice job Chuck. Any body want to put this in a spreadsheet, and see what we come up with. And I'ld like to update my status to 6.5, looking hard at 6, but not yet! <:)=

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), May 13, 1999.

As a clarification of the reason for the list above, I "got" the following and was refuting it:

"Having said that - you should admit in turn that the TEOLAWKI types are by far the most active posters and recruiters for preparations" /blockquote> Chuck

-- chuck, a Night Driver (rienzoo@en.com), May 13, 1999.

---

For the record, upon initial exposure I was a 9... Now I'm right at 5/6 and move one or two points either way based upon mood, news, the look in my son's eyes, the fear over having insulin for my wife...etc.

Thanks Chuck.

==================================================================

-- Michael Taylor (mtdesign3@aol.com), May 13, 1999.

---

Chuck,

I noticed you weren't sure of what I might estimate. Right now--in May of 1999--I see a 7.0 as a plausible scenario for the U.S. It could certainly turn out to be not as bad as that. It could be higher than a 7.0, although I don't think it's likely that the grid might go down and stay down. A reliable supply of water, food, gasoline and clothing, and how long any of these might be in short supply, are what tends to concern me.

The most chilling possibility about the year 2000 is whether there will be social or political instability in foreign countries more affected by Y2K than the U.S.

That's my May 1999 take on Y2K.

-- Kevin (mixesmusic@worldnet.att.net), May 14, 1999.

---

I think very converned works for VISA - the Banking meltdown phrase gave the game away.

More on this in my "VISA os toast" thread in the Banking archives.

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), May 14, 1999.

---

Moderation questions? read the FAQ