Sysman, I started a new thread because I'm tired of trying to wade through 120K megathreads.

There are several programs in my facility which have "date problems." One is embedded in a machine used to transmit digital packet info; it only takes 2-digit year figures. After 2000, we'll have to schedule transmission packets manually (a case of pressing a three buttons instead of one, *shudder*). On the receiving end, the date will print out as "xx-xx-00" (another *shudder*).

The program which schedules music for airplay also has a 2-digit year bug, and after the first of the year, it won't play the correct music. If the company doesn't send the promised patch in time, we'll work around it by simply creating schedules that are dated for the last few weeks of December and simply setting the master clock back. It works just fine, and I assure you, we could keep doing this ad infinitum, if need be.

No, setting the date back won't work in all cases. But it will in many. Therefore, your blanket statement has holes in it. Instead of trying to clarify it (which you could have easily done; in the case with the music scheduler above, technically, the program DOESN'T work ... unless you set the date back! ), you go on the offensive and figure, if you screech and call me stupid frequently enough, the dumb statement will evaporate. "No, I'M not stupid, YOU'RE stupid! Yes you are yes-you-are yesyouareyesyouare!"

Just for the record, I DON'T think you're stupid, by the way. Misinformed, maybe; viewing Y2K with an intense case of personal tunnel vision, maybe; but not stupid.

Not only have you taken square aim at your foot with the CIH virus thing, now you make statements like this. The reason why I don't respond to your questions in all cases is because I don't take all of them seriously.

(In other cases, I DO have a job, and have to work sometimes. At least now and then.[g])

But just for fun: your question about the "difference" between Y2K bugs and normal failures ...

To be fair to you, I have no doubt that you're thinking of Y2K bugs in the machines you're most familiar with. But you can't limit it to that (and even there, I could disagree with you, but let's not nitpick).

Y2K bugs can cause all sorts of failures, from mathematical errors to complete shutdown (the latter is admittedly rare, and would be most common in an embedded program that uses dates -- itself a rare animal).

But so can the other types of problems that computer operators face on a daily basis. Here's one example: there are several common computer viruses which subtly corrupt data (ex, Ripper). I know of cases where people have had a virus on their machines for months without knowing it, and have had to recreate months of data. They didn't discover it until the data had gotten so bad that it was obvious in day-to-day operations ("Hey! Where is Yler, JX? This crazy moe-sheen says we owe the man a refund of -.123213E#$!"). Ouch.

WFWG was released with a subtle bug that corrupted the file system (again, Geoff Chappell gets credit for unearthing that one while he was examining the IFS code). The corruption occurred very much at random, and would almost certainly not show up for quite some time.

(As an aside, Geoff notes that he tried to warn people, but "no one seemed to care." Maybe he should have called it a Y2K bug.[g])

From there, I could degenerate into the more esoteric cases -- like power supplies and data lines that get noisy and introduce subtle bugs. (This is particularly true in industrial control equipment. Most of my stuff operates in a very high RF field, so I run across it daily. But my experience admittedly isn't typical.)

You create the impresion that fixing all of these "non-Y2K" problems is a routine matter of pulling out the last backup tape. That won't work in all cases, and you know it.

If a hard drive crashes and the backup is no good (which happens more often than you might think), you have to send the dead hard drive to a recovery shop -- very expensive, and you do without until they can rebuild the disk (IF it can be rebuilt, which isn't always possible).

Finally, we get to bugs in general -- of which Y2K bugs are only a subset. These things also afflict businesses on a daily basis ... and they work around them.

Shoot, when I was working with Siemens, they wanted me to use the (*gack*, *gag*) VC++1.5 compiler. The version I used had several bugs, some subtle, some nasty. A dumb and obvious one was, if you happened to have the mouse pointer over the "X" (close) button when you stroked "ALT-F(ile)-S(ave)" (as I was wont to do, being on an unreliable electric utility[g]), it would hang tighter than a drum.

The workaround on this one? Simple: don't put the mouse pointer over the "X" while stroking "ALT-F(ile)-S(ave)." [g]

A less obvious one was that the compiler would build FAR pointers which reversed the segment/selector and offset values (ex, ES got the offset, BX got the selector). I discovered that one at length (and published a warning to the IS department, of course) by tracing through the errant program at the assembly level. :)

Windows 95 has a bug with long filenames that can really annoy a work-at-home small developer like moi. Suppose you're doing a little cleanup; you delete a few unneeded .CPP or .ASM files, and move them (using XCOPY) to a new subdirectory.

Guess what? You deleted "FILE~2.ASM"; during the copy, "FILE~1.ASM" and "FILE~3.ASM" might become "FILE~1.ASM" and "FILE~2.ASM" in the new subdirectory. This is pure joy, because most of Microsoft's build tools use the 8-dot-3 short filename! ... meaning you get to plod through your MAKe and slick "one button build" .BAT files to correct every instance of the hosed names!

(That's why I recommend DOS32 at my site; it protects both short AND long filenames during copys, among other things.)

You could easily nitpick these examples. But they're all cases that will reduce productivity (in some cases, drastically), so they're analogous to Y2K bugs. Some of these bugs are subtle, the effects of which are only discovered many months down the road, too -- which sounds a bit like the Jo Anne Effect, doesn't it?

Finally: you will point out (and Chuck has pointed out, in another thread) that most large businesses use mainframe-based systems. Es verdad, 'mano. BUT ... it is also true that most large businesses now use PCs (at least in part) as workstations, adding a wonderful element of instability to the whole mix. These machines could read a record, gibber it, and then write it back.

Bottom line and in plain English: things ain't as cut and dried as you're trying to present. My original statement, that "Thousands of Computers fail every day, and we work around them," *IS* applicable. I stand by it, and it DOES bear direct comparison to Y2K bugs -- more specifically, the problem scenarios being forecast for Y2K.

[EOM]

-- Stephen M. Poole, CET (smpoole7@bellsouth.net), May 13, 1999

Answers

Um, too many paragraphs to be one of the recent Mr. Pooles we've seen here lately. I'm guessing you're a new guy working under the name, anyway Steven, you are way out of your league. No way can an ex furniture salesman from Heilig Meyers compete with these people. Shut up and sit down. You're giving the south a bad name.

I guess Mr. Decker will post next.

Stephen M. Poole, CET (certified exercise therapist)

-- Johnny (jljtm@bellsouth.net), May 13, 1999.

Ah true Sir Stephen, but you are neglecting that millions of potentially "stupid" - more catastrophic erros will (most likely) occur at the same time next year - the net effect is very different.

To illustrate - how long did it take you to detrmine what was hanging up the compiler? How much lost time did that represent? Now repeat - millions fold nationally. The systems in use now, as they are now configured, cannot withstand that level of stress.

While many can be "worked around" - many/most/some/a few 9take your pick) will fail in ways that cannot be recovered from by th ecommon user, the uncommon user, or the system operator.

It isn't PC's, it isn't just Cobol'ed old mainframes, it isn't the Classic" embedded chip - it the sum of many millions of processes that need to work - and to date - no large company has tried to claim it is compliant.

You may quibble over "compliant" - I grant there are many interpretations - most of them don't contribute the discusion. Try this: A compliant company is one that has examined its computers, its processes, its suplliers, and its infrastructure, and its people; and believes - to the best it can define, and using as much testing as it decides is prudent - that it can not only will stay in business next year, but it has the ability to continue to make a profit the first two months next year.

Right now, there is little "good news" that I'd settle for even 10 of the Fortune 500 to declare themselves "Y2K compliant" - even with no auditing or outside testing.

But nobody has. When will they? Why have they not? What do the Fortune 500 know that prevents them from declaring themselves ready? What has the 900 billion spent to date bought so far?

Not even a single "I think we are ready now?"

-- Robert A. Cook, PE (Kennesaw, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), May 13, 1999.

Start an exciting career as a Computer Specialiat, or was it Dental assistant!

-- && (&&@&&.&), May 13, 1999.

Robert:

I find your contribution fascinating and instructive. You write:

"...and believes - to the best it can define, and using as much testing as it decides is prudent - that it can not only will stay in business next year, but it has the ability to continue to make a profit the first two months next year.

But nobody has. When will they? Why have they not? What do the Fortune 500 know that prevents them from declaring themselves ready? What has the 900 billion spent to date bought so far? "

I hope I'm not splitting hairs and you aren't either, but your definition of compliance is almost exactly what we see so much of. I know my own bank and power company have sent notices saying that they expect no serious problems, and will sail across the Great Divide and into the new year seamlessly. Indeed, the compliance you ask for matches the language in nearly every happy-face declaration of optimism we've seen -- and we've seen an awful lot of them.

Of course, these declarations all say "For Immediate Release" at the top, and all come from the PR departments, and this tends to undermine their credibility. But the fundamental issue you raise is still a tough one -- HOW can an organization that believes they can survive their inevitable problems profitably say so convincingly?

Would you be willing to settle for a statement like, "To the best of our knowledge, we have remediated all of our critical programs and most of our noncritical programs, we are currently engaged in a testing process we have no intention of stopping before year's end, and the number and magnitude of the bugs that keep cropping up is dropping. We have every reason to believe that those bugs we miss will be few and minor enough to be manageable without impact to our customers."

I doubt a statement like that would survive the PR and legal departments, but if it did, would you feel better? My current gut feeling is that such a statement could accurately describe a percentage of organizations considerably above 80%.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), May 13, 1999.

Nope - to be convincing, give me a total count of the systems (nothing "company confidential" needed), number systems considered critical, number repaired "complete", number tested complete, number still to be tested, number of venders, number of venders reporting compliant (or number per month expecting to be compliant each month over the next 6 months - since evidently "nobody" is yet ready), and status of contingency plans.

In other words, show me "you" (the spokeman reporting the compliancy) know what you (the company) are talking about.

If - as with many utilites - there are several "things" planned for future replacement, but not yet done, just indicate what those 'exceptions" are.

In short - show me values, not mere "reassurances."

To date - every press release seen - almost without exception - has been ridiculously easy to shred as meaningless blather that actually hides significant problems.

Exceptions? Ontario Hydro, NorthWest Airlines, Cobb County, St Lawerence Seaway (had a few things, but was relatively strong), and the two hydro-electric plants up in the Pac NorthWest.

In every case, they reported only after testing status (including integrated testing) was complete, they reported what was spent, when remediation begun, what their venders and environment still needed, talked about current status, and what was left to do. they reported problems, what was found (often in general terms, but always honestly), and added that they were going to be continuing through this year.

But they reported AFTER they finished all testing, not after only one test was done, and implied that everything was done. GM, for example, did a good job in discussing the robot work area - but notice that the fact that only 3 such robot assembly areas, in only 3 plants were complete was not emphasized. Reported, of course, but not emphasized.

The headline and first four paragraphs though - implied that every GM plant everywhere was completely complete with all repairs. Not so. one robot setup in 4 plants - out of ???? worldwide - was tested okay. One Air Force base at one place (in the US, not abroad) tested its infrastucture once - in a limited way, in a "fore-shortened" environment - but the story was written to imply that this meant the entire Air Force could meet its mission next year.

Bulls**t.

-- Robert A. Cook, PE (Kennesaw, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), May 13, 1999.

Re-reading your statement - that level of reporting begins to get the message across, but understand why the emphasis must be one "finished integrated testing." In software, promises mean nothing. Assurances mean nothing - the computer really, truly doesn't give a damn what you (or your boss, or the CEO, or the stockholders, or the President of the US, or his boss) wants. It only cares whether it is receiving good data, is programmed with good programs, an druns those programs using that data on a stable operating system.

And that can't be detrmined with "logic" - Mr Poole or anybody else to the contrary. You MUST test it - and even after testing is over, you only really know that

"Under the conditions that I tested it, using the specific test case(s) I used, analyzing the results the way I specifically checked them, I got the results I expected."

Once done, you hope it will work in actual conditions using actual data the way it did during the test.

Most of the time, it doesn't.

-- Robert A. Cook, PE (Kennesaw, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), May 13, 1999.

Personally, I'd be overwhelmed by that level of detail, updated daily (of course, else it's outdated) from a million organizations. The resources required by each organization just to verify the accuracy of these daily reports, and the knowledge necessary to assign suitable weights to the importance of each system, would probably dwarf the remediation effort itself!

To me, this request easily qualifies under the category of "impossible levels of proof" (Rule of disinformation #19). If you really mean this, than I cannot consider your request sincere. You have stacked the deck.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), May 13, 1999.

"My current gut feeling is that such a statement could accurately describe a percentage of organizations considerably above 80%."

For a year now I've heard from every "polly" that us "doomers" need to give facts and not gut feelings.

This just goes to show that Y2K is a matter of personal filters and experience: ain't no fact gonna sway you - your gut feeling drives your perceptions, and for me, ain't no fact gonna sway me - my gut feeling is gonna drive my opinion. It's all conjecture until 2000 anyway.

I simply find it amusing that your gut feeling rears itself. Admit it - you're just like the rest of us - you just have a different opinion. Which is fine - we agree to disagree and wait and see.

-- Brett (savvydad@aol.com), May 13, 1999.

Flint-

My current gut feeling is that such a statement could accurately describe a percentage of organizations considerably above 80%.

I wish and hope your gut feeling is true. I can't imagine what it is based upon, being employed by one of the Fortune 500 companies and on its Y2K taskforce. We mostly eat doughnuts at our meetings, and crack Y2K jokes.

I'm losing credibility in the organization by urging contingency planning, and I'm frankly torn between hoping I'm right and hoping I'm wrong.

-- Doug (douglasjohnson@prodigy.net), May 13, 1999.

Brett:

It's quite true that ultimately our opinions must be based on our gut feelings. Robert Cook has made this abundantly clear, I should think. Without the impossible level of detail he'd like (impossible both to collect and to assimilate), we really can't do any better than gut feelings. And it should be obvious that even if such detail were somehow provided, we'd have no way of *personally* verifying any of it. And we can be quite sure that even the geeks from whom such data derive don't all agree on where they stand (even when working side by side).

The only think about what's coming that wouldn't surprise me is if I'm not surprised by it.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), May 13, 1999.

No - it needs to be issued just once - when they declare themselves compliant. And I am only looking for the top 500, the top 100, the top 5, the top anybody.......

But mere reassurances are meaningless - and frightening in their bland sameness - it means (to me) that they either don't know what they are talking about (referring to the spokeman) or don't want to present what they really know.

The question then becomes - why don't/can't they present actual remediation "completion" reports?

Why has nobody reported "complete"? Why has nobody reported "they found nothing."

Why? Because every company not reporting yet has found immense problems that are not yet eliminated, and every time they try to finish some phase of testing, another serious problem is exposed requiring more money and effort.

Granted the effect of some problems is minor - but enough are major to prevent releasing completion reports.

-- Robert A. Cook, PE (Kennesaw, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), May 13, 1999.

Flint

May I suggest that it is Y2K that has stacked the deck. All these arguments over all this time should be unnecessary.

Business has been subject to rules, regulations, contracts, laws etc. Now that the time approaches for answers based on the standards of business, few are forthcoming. No businessman will accept some press release as fact. Why should I? Where is documented, statistical evidence with verification?

Y2K has changed the standard upon which hard evidence is based. The new standard is unacceptable to me. I must make decisions predecated on a baseline that shifts around like a snowdrift in a high wind.

It is not easy to see the truth. It is much easier to understand what is fog and smoke. I may be a doomer in that I look for the negative but that is only because the positive, for the most part, is portrayed as "confidence"... or other emotional opinions. Try giving me facts.

-- Mike Lang (webflier@erols.com), May 13, 1999.

Sir Flint of the Hard-nosed - I saw a good report over on the NASA thread, had most of the details needed.

Its another "good" example - can't figure out how Norm missed it. He must be slipping.

-- Robert A. Cook, PE (Kennesaw, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), May 13, 1999.

If I or my putative company issues a press release that says we have just developed a Carbon/boron/metalhalide honeycomb which will maintain hull integrity to 1,000 metres at a cost of $50 per sq metre, and a weight saving of 65% over the nearest competing material, who is going to simply accept this and order it?

The analogy should be clear.

Chuck

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

Robert,

you are neglecting that millions of ... catastrophic errors will occur at the same time next year ...

I am puzzled why you continue to say this, when most of the Experts -- from Yourdon to de Jager to the Gartner folks -- are now saying that they only expect about 8-10% of all Y2K failures to occur around the turnover. In fact, they'll most likely be distributed over a period of several months (if not years), and in some cases, the effects won't even become apparent until quite some time after the 1st.

how long did it take you to determine what was hanging up the compiler?

Darn, you beat Sysman to it. I figured he would bring that up. It's a good question. :)

Actually, it was the program that was hanging; not the compiler. Sorry for the confusion. I got lucky on that one -- it took only about an hour or so.

While many can be "worked around" - many/most/some/a few take your pick) will fail in ways that cannot be recovered from by the common user, the uncommon user, or the system operator.

True. But Robert, that happens *now*, outside of Y2K. That was my point.

I grant there are many interpretations [of "compliant"]

Thanks for acknowledging that; I'll buy you a Sneaky Pete(tm) hot dog next time you make it ovah heah to Birmingham. :)

Flint's saying about what I'd say in response to the rest of your posts; no need to repeat it.

Brett,

For a year now I've heard from every "polly" that us "doomers" need to give facts and not gut feelings ... This just goes to show that Y2K is a matter of personal filters and experience ...

Of course that's true; that's always going to be the case with something like this. This isn't a cut and dried "A follows B follows C" thing here.

In fact, my complaint has been about "compliance" statistics in general; I think they're worthless for determining whether an entity will survive Y2K. I could go through our facility and restore the date bugs to every date-sensitive computer system that we use, and we'd still perform our primary mission: stay on the air.

On BOTH sides, those of us "in the know" are basing our gut opinions on experience, by talking to people whom we trust, etc. Sysman and BigDog have a different take because of the crowd they hang with. I freely admit that guys like me, who get the call at 3AM when the whole system has headed south, tend to believe in our ability to work around problems. :)

(This may not mean anything to you, but I wish I had a dollar for every time I've been called into an emergency situation to work on a piece of equipment that I've never seen before, and for which I have no schematic and no number to call, because the company that made it has either gone under or has been swallowed in a merger.[g])

My complaint is that the "work around" side (or officially: "contingency" side) of the coin tends to be downplayed. There's a tendency on the part of the "5-10" crowd to automatically equate "computer failure = disruption/major problems/(insert descriptive of choice here)."

... which is WHY I point out that thousands of computers fail now, every day, some of them *spectacularly* (imagine fireworks and screaming babies[g]) ... and we work around it.

The only valid objection that I've acknowledged to this point is that we could be overloaded or swamped by Y2K failures. Here's MY gut feeling: I don't think we will, because (A), I don't think there will be anywhere near the critical failures that are been predicted by the Doomlits, and (B), because most of the entire engineering/technical/support workforce will be on duty (including yours truly!) the night of Dec 31st just to address any problems that crop up.

That's the real reason why I'm not worried about the lights going out. Every utility that I've talked is going to treat Y2K the same as a major storm -- all leaves cancelled, extra supplies (such as coal for the coal-fired plants) stored, and so on.

-- Stephen M. Poole, CET (smpoole7@bellsouth.net), May 14, 1999.

Comes my next trip to Huntsville, I'll swing your way via the south route, rather than north over the hills through Summerville and Scotsboro.

Bell curve it - errors now are spotty, relatively infrequent, and occur in widely diverse systems, seldom affecting more than the local company or division.

Sorry to disagree with the others mentioned - they are only partially right, but my experience tells me that errors occur most often at the start/stop point, at interuptions, and at irregularlities not previously tested. They occur after changes, not in regular operations, and occur at extreme points - not in the "middle" of the regular process.

If a company (or agency) is fully compliant now - they will at least have a decent chance of finding and fixing what extra things actually breaks. but you cannot rely on "logic" to tell what will break, and what will work successfully. You don't know until you test, and even then you only know that what you tested worked under those conditions you tested it under.

Anything else is an assumption.

Everybody tests the simple conditions - few test the changes. Fewer still test the transitions. Programmers especially like to limit their test to merely verify the program works under simple conditions.

Test specialists test to assure their future users have a relaible product - regardless of input conditions or unexpected conditions. Programmers leave errors in. Testers try to find errors. it's a different attitude. Gives different results. I'll get a quote from home - copy it in tommorrow - you'll find it instructive.

There is a bell curve affect - not all erros will happen at midnight by any means. They will begin at midnight though, but many symptoms will only be FOUND later. I fully expect significant serious (economic/stock market-affecting) disruptions will only be found at end-of-month in January, end-of-quarter in March, and maybe even a few at mid-year in June.

But that's discovery - not cause. Many millions more will happen innocently, and not ever be corrected. A few will surprise everybody - like the program error that wiped out a single satellite last year that wiped out gas pumps nationally. Ooops.

-- Robert A. Cook, PE (Kennesaw, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), May 14, 1999.

Robert,

If you bypass all that pretty mountain country just to come to Birmingham and put up with the horrible traffic, I'd have to do better than a hot dog. :)

The only thing I question in your post is the "bell curve" thing. Bell curves are certainly as common as rice in Asia, but they can't be applied to every situation. Some are exponential; some are straight-line progressions. Why do you think a bell curve would work for Y2K -- and more importantly, on what date do you think the apex of the bell would fall?

-- Stephen M. Poole, CET (smpoole7@bellsouth.net), May 14, 1999.

Stephen, Reworking the schedules, and resetting the master clock gets the music played but (I'm assuming that this also plays spots and PSA's and logs them) won't the FCC look askance at the Mark I- Skillcraft (or Cross) Pen modified logs printed by the system??

It's been a long while since I played in that arena, but I seem to remember that the spots, ID's and PSA's had to be logged for them. And OUR traffic director was a stickler for clarity, neatness and heavens NO erasures on OUR logs. (we did em by hand back then)

Chuck, who still has a friend or two in the industry.

-- chuck, a Night Driver (rienzoo@en.com), May 14, 1999.

Stephen: In your last response you said:

"The only valid objection that I've acknowledged to this point is that we could be overloaded or swamped by Y2K failures. Here's MY gut feeling: I don't think we will, because (A), I don't think there will be anywhere near the critical failures that are been predicted by the Doomlits, and (B), because most of the entire engineering/technical/ support workforce will be on duty (including yours truly!) the night of Dec 31st just to address any problems that crop up.

That's the real reason why I'm not worried about the lights going out. Every utility that I've talked is going to treat Y2K the same as a major storm -- all leaves cancelled, extra supplies (such as coal for the coal-fired plants) stored, and so on."

First, please explain why you think the number of critical failures will be manageable by the extra staff which will be on hand the night of December 31st.

Second, if you're wrong about the above statement, and if you agree that recent experience has shown that a typical Y2k remediation program requires years just to get an organization to the "internally compliant" stage, then how could ANY AMOUNT of extra manpower on hand the night of 12/31 be of practical use?

Third, what probability to you give that your conclusions are correct?

Roger Altman

-- Dr. Roger Altman (rogaltman@aol.com), May 14, 1999.

Roger - don't discount the value of extra hands in "unusual events."

Problem is: how can predict where to send them, what they should look out for, wha they need to do, until after failures occur?

You can't (at that stage) "logic" out the source of failure(s), because if you could predict what would fail (and in what way) you'd be able to prevent that failure now. Hopefully, we are assuming that most engineers and technicians are competent, and are thorough enough to be doing just this kind of "extra-normal" investigation now.

But what will fail then is what was skipped during remediation, what was tested improperly or incompletely, or what was ot expected to fail - there was an interface or a process going that is completely unexpected.

This emphasises the absolute importance of integrated testing - if, after every test is completed, the Y2K problems are found and eliminated, and then the test repeated with expanded conditions, then at some point in time, the users can have a useable level of confidence in saying "It will work next year - It is compliant."

bell Cureve - I said it in another thread more eloquently (Kroger - I think) - essentially - given a large population (of Fortune 500, of utilities, of government agencies, of animals, of people, or whatever) that are faced with a task - some will finish earlier than the average time, most at the average time, and some later.

Given that the Fortune 500 have different sizes, different applications, different start dates, different degrees of corporate emphasis on Y2K, and different leaders in the Y2K efforts - obviously they will not finish at the same time. They could not. Just because they face a deadline - doesn't mean they will finish at the same time either - regardless of the deadline, some will be early, most on time or slightly ahead, some late.

Hopefully, most would be "early" facing the January 01, 2000 deadline - so we can assume there is some "average" Fortunate 500 completion date. I can't tell what that date is though - since we have no completions yet - I can't even begin to extrapolate.

As soon as I know the std deviation, the number compliant, or even had some guess about anything else, I can make some useable statement. But with 0 declaring themselves compliant - we are not yet even at the .5% , 1% (5 self-declared compliant), 2.5% (12 self-declared compliant), or 5% points (25 compliant) - there is no way to tell. Frankly, I had hoped the average completion date would be June 30 1999 - this gives them two quarters to wring out minor problems, or even to resolve the major problem between businesses.

But that won't be erached unless 250 Fortune 500 companies declare themselves compliant in the next 45 days - 6 per day!

-- Robert A. Cook, PE (Kennesaw, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), May 14, 1999.

Chuck,

Actually, the FCC has deregulated most of that now (did you know they don't even require a license to work on transmitters now? Off-topic, but thought you might be interested).

But even back when the strict logging of everything was required, the FCC made specific prevision for hand-written changes to logs. You could strike through the error, write in the correction, and then initial and date it. Most stations still follow this practice.

Besides, the logs are done separately in our case.

---

Dr. Altman,

First, please explain why you think the number of critical failures will be manageable ...

Quick answer? Because there won't be that many of them.

The best overview (power industry-specific) is the one written by Dr. Mark Kinsler here at my Web site.

The Y2K problem has been horribly overstated in the control area from day one; I created my Web site specifically to address this. I saw tons of bad information being disseminated by people who didn't really understand these systems -- impressive titles and credentials notwithstanding.

Second, if you're wrong about the above statement, and if you agree that recent experience has shown that a typical Y2k remediation program requires years just to get an organization to the "internally compliant" stage, then how could ANY AMOUNT of extra manpower on hand the night of 12/31 be of practical use?

Heh. Now THERE'S a loaded question. You've just encapsulated the inherent non-Polly skepticism of company readiness reports in one sentence. My hat's off to you. :)

See above, and I'll add this: you're confusing the length of time required to remediate mainframe/data/EDI/etc. systems with the time required to check and test control systems in utilities.

(Boy, I need to restate that in bold letters, because it's a common misconception.)

I never believed the projections from 96 and 97 that insisted that it would take zillions of man-hours to test these systems, and I said so. Actual field research has shown that only a fraction of these devices were ever a signficant risk (.001%, according to the latest figures from Gartner). That's certainly manageable, because more machines are likely to fail on any given day from OTHER causes.

(Whence my oft-repeated question: when someone points to a device and says, "If this fails, it could dump excessive chlorine/cut off the lights/make planes crash and trains wreck," I immediately ask: "OK, so what do they do when this device fails NOW? Or do you assume that these things never fail outside of Y2K bugs?")

There are actually some very simple steps which any company can use to eliminate and test devices for Y2K problems. These steps have been attacked by people who don't know what they're talking about (Bruce Beach being the current Chief of that tribe), but they've worked.

Result? Just to name one, the head of Shell Services Corporation says flatly that embedded systems simply "weren't the problem" that everyone assumed going in. The idea of hundreds of embedded systems buried on the seafloor for each oil rig in the Gulf is a gross embellishment.

Third, what probability to you give that your conclusions are correct?

98%.

-- Stephen M. Poole, CET (smpoole7@bellsouth.net), May 14, 1999.

Here is another 'spin' on NASA's Y2K situation...

NASA has not monitored its contractors' efforts to eliminate expected computer failures when the year 2000 dawns, and runs the risk of serious problems in its financial and program management, the agency's inspector general has found.

In a report issued last month the NASA IG said the agency "lacks reasonable assurance that its production contractors will provide Y2K- compliant data to support the agency's key financial and program management activities.

"Without reasonable assurance that contractor systems are Y2K compliant, NASA risks receiving, processing and placing reliance on erroneous data that could adversely affect agency operations," the IG continued in the report, which has been posted on the IG website.

NASA managers agreed that the problem is serious, although they rejected the IG's contention that the agency does not know whether its contractors are bracing for the day when the two-digit numeral that most computers use to designate the year kicks over from "99" to "00".

At issue is the extent to which the Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) and Defense Contract Management Command (DCMC) monitor NASA contractors for Y2K compliance. The two Defense Dept. organizations administer and audit NASA contracts at contractor facilities under an arrangement that dates to 1969, before the Y2K problem was a concern.

"Outreach" to all NASA contractors.

The IG found that NASA's "Office of Procurement has not asked the DCAA or DCMC to conduct Y2K reviews at NASA's major contractor locations.

"As a result, NASA risks using noncompliant data that adversely affect the Agency's control, budgeting, program management and cost accounting activities," the IG report continued.

However, after IG personnel interviewed officials at the two DOD organizations, DCAA and DCMC sent directives to its regional offices on the Y2K issue. But the IG noted that the directives did not include timetables for Y2K audits, and recommended that "as a customer of DCAA and DCMA services, NASA needs to specify the extent of coverage and milestones for examination of contractor compliance."

NASA managers accepted the recommendation and asked the DOD agencies for Y2K audits. The agency's information managers argued that there were other sources of information for Y2K compliance at NASA contractors, including the contractors' own Y2K audits and Security and Exchange Commission disclosure requirements. In addition, Administrator Daniel S. Goldin signed a letter to the more than 3,000 businesses and institutions that do business with NASA asking for assurances that they had a Y2K plan. The agency also initiated Y2K "outreach" efforts through the Aerospace Industries Association.

"We agree that Y2K oversight may exist at NASA's production contractors; however, we found no evidence that NASA was assessing the adequacy of its contractors' Y2K activities, " the IG report stated. "Also, we found no evidence that either the DCAA or the DCMC was assessing the contractors' Y2K activities."

The report urged NASA to review the results of the DOD agencies' directives on Y2K compliance, and to "take appropriate action to address the deficiencies" if any are found.

© 1999, McGraw Hill Publishers, 1/13/99, Article:122416

-- Brian E. Smith (besmith@mail.arc.nasa.gov), May 14, 1999.

Stephen: Let's review what's been said so far:

"First, please explain why you think the number of critical failures will be manageable ...

Quick answer? Because there won't be that many of them."

So if I follow your supposition, you think that ANY operating facility (not just a utility) will have few enough CRITICAL FAILURES to address these problems with an expanded staff. Is that it in a nutshell?

"Second, if you're wrong about the above statement, and if you agree that recent experience has shown that a typical Y2k remediation program requires years just to get an organization to the "internally compliant" stage, then how could ANY AMOUNT of extra manpower on hand the night of 12/31 be of practical use?

... you're confusing the length of time required to remediate inframe/data/EDI/etc. systems with the time required to check and test control systems in utilities."

It appears to me that you are limiting your argument to process control systems. Regardless, do you have any evidence that what you say is correct (in general, as well for utilities) besides public statements made by corporate officials? You will admit that these people have a vested interest to ease public (Y2k) concern as much as possible.

I have found third party studies that paint a much more pessimistic picture, but I know you'll be the first to say that their self- interest (to generate more Y2k business) invariably obscures the truth (BTW, why you choose to believe the former, and not the latter group, if, in fact that is the case, should be interesting to learn about). So who should we believe and why, and isn't it more prudent to err on the side to safety and be prepared as much as possible?

Roger

-- Dr. Roger Altman (rogaltman@aol.com), May 14, 1999.

Audits (by themselves) are not going to resolve this kind of issue, because any individual "audit" is most often a paper chase useful in the cover-one's-ass mode by bureacrats and administrators.

There could be problems in contractor data, in contractor records, and in contractor "contract compliance - the contractor claims something is compliant, but it actually fails; or he has tested something, but didn't test it thoroughly and so it fails depite remediation, instead of remediation, or because of remediation.

Regardless, adequate testing by NASA - if done early enough - will wring out these problems regardless of the paper trail. Inadequate testing will allow them to remain in place, hidden, until identified by "real world testing" next year some time. Like - when the satellite is next used or next sent a control message.

The point to remember is: regardless of the audit trail, testing by NASA can find the problem, if adequate testing is done early enough to let the problem be found, indentified, fixed, and retested.

-- Robert A. Cook, PE (Kennesaw, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), May 14, 1999.

Howdy gang. Been a little busy and haven't been on in a while. Thanks for holding down the fort on this one.

Mr. Poole,

First, I don't think you're stupid either, and I don't think you're a bad guy. We just have a difference of opinion here, that's all. Sometimes you piss me off, and sometimes you make me laugh. Nothing wrong with that, so don't ever take any of this personally. Anybody willing to buy Robert a hot dog, is OK in my book!

I'll be the first to agree that I suffer from tunnel vision when it comes to Y2K. Everybody does. I did some work on early embedded systems, using both Z-80 and 6502 microprocessors. I know for a fact that none of these systems will have a Y2K problem. However, I'm still concerned about other embedded system failures due to Y2K. At my current job, we are converting a mainframe system to net based technolohy, only because we felt it would be impossible to "patch" the hundreds of Cobol and Assembly programs, because the entire system made very extensive use of dates. However, I'm not as concerned about other mainframe applications, because they hardly ever, if at all, use dates. I do have a limited background on what I have personally worked on, but I do have 31 years of experience, and I do have a general knowledge about the types of systems that run on all kinds of computers. I am concerned.

I have never said that work-arounds can not be used in many cases. I can only speek for myself, but I'm not worried about the little things. I'm not worried about a year printing as 00, and I'm not worried if my local radio station goes manual. I am concerned about big ticket items, complex systems in a digital world.

Like power plants, esp more complex nuclear plants, and all the things needed to keep the grid working, including fuel for the plants. I'm not all that happy with the 75% average in the last NERC report. With places like FPL at 95%, you can be sure others are at 55% to come up with a 75% average. We are at the 7.5 month mark. FPL started in 1995, and aren't done yet. Many started much later. What is going to be over-looked in the rush to get things done? Are enough going to be able to keep working, even with unresolved problems, to keep this country going? Dan says no problem, and I do respect Dan. Robert and Rick say not so sure.

And things like refineries, and the oil needed to keep them working, and transporting that oil. You and others tell us that the problems just aren't being found. I really hope your sources are correct. I have also heard that it's easier to build a new refinery, than it is to make one Y2K operational. And I see that we have yet another refinery explosion. I'm not saying that it's Y2K related, but at this rate, we're going to have enough worries about oil, even without Y2K.

And things like imports, and their impact on the supply lines. I could go on for quite a while. I don't sweat the little things. It's the complex digital ones that I'm worried about. I deal with all kinds or normal failures every day. I haven't dealt with Y2K yet.

I've got some catching-up to do. I'll be back... <:)=

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), May 14, 1999.

Brian,

I feel to see the relevance of something from NASA that was initially published last fall.

-- Stephen M. Poole, CET (smpoole7@bellsouth.net), May 14, 1999.

Figured I'ld stick this on top, since no Stephen yet. But while we're at it:

"On BOTH sides, those of us "in the know" are basing our gut opinions on experience, by talking to people whom we trust, etc. Sysman and BigDog have a different take because of the crowd they hang with. I freely admit that guys like me, who get the call at 3AM when the whole system has headed south, tend to believe in our ability to work around problems. :)"

Funny, I'm the guy that gets the 3:00 call also. And back to the original question, that's why normal failures are no big deal. It's call IBM and get a new HDA (disk), restore from the backup, and get goin'! Or, it's stick your head in the dump, change the program, and get goin', well, if you did the change right, or do it again, and then get goin'! Y2K however, will bring many, various failures, in various degrees of seriousness. People will jump on the really bad problems first, leaving the just bad problems for later, while the not so bad, but bad problems pile up, the serious problems get filed for future reference, and the no problem failures get swept under the rug. It's the size of the pile that bothers me.

As for the crowd I hang out with, the president of my company is a GI. Y2K is a regular topic of conversation where I work. It should be, it's keeping the whole company very busy. Most of the people are concerned about the overall impact of the problem. A few figure it will get fixed in time. Much like this forum, in fact. My two housemates are also GI's, and both are very geek. My 65 year old parents called me over the holidays, asking about Y2K, out of the blue. Believe me, they will be ready, and it won't cost them $.01 <:)=

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), May 14, 1999.

Oh, hi Stephen, any comments? <:)=

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), May 14, 1999.

The primary fallacy (and it is colossal) in Poole's position (De Jager's too, don't mind including him) is that Y2K is fundamentally "already fixed". That is a total crock.

At a minimum, Y2K CLEARLY demands intra-industry and cross-industry testing because of the global nature of the problem, both that it cuts across all computing entities and that, relatively speaking, all fixes are being fed into production simultaneously (all of 1999 qualifies, though it will mainly be 4Q 1999).

While some extra-enterprise testing is being done (primarily financial), it is quite striking and alarming that some industries (telecom, for instance, also utilities) rule out this kind of testing as being impossible, in principle. Or, to put it another way, the only real testing can/will occur when the code fixed (and presumably system tested) within an enterprise begins communicating with the code of others in a similar industry (and, then across industries).

If not for the passions aroused by Y2K, any sane project manager would consider this entire world process absolutely lunacy (and this doesn't even include the FOF plans of Japan, Russia and, to some extent, Japan and Germany!) and is destined to cause a train wreck of major proportaions. Robert Cook has been focusing on this for months in varied forms, correctly. Even Flint has, many times more than once, acknowledged the unshakable achilles heel of this process:

The REAL testing is going to take place live, beginning in 4Q 1999 and extending into 2000 and we will be the guinea pigs.

As Dick Mills said in his column today (and he is basically a polly, at worst a middle-roader), it is likely to be June 2000 before we even understand the true scope of Y2K problems one way or the other. I vote for April 1 but that is a nit.

Sysman, it doesn't matter how many challenges you throw at Poole or how many he throws at you: he is fundamentally ignorant about the nature of software and, especially, testing and release to production of large systems. You are wasting your time.

OTOH, because he is unspeakably stubborn, he will no doubt continue to plague the forum with this stuff. It's sad, because his self- deception (at least I hope that is what it is) will undoubtedly cause some lurkers to fail to prepare, thinking that somehow "all the experts disagree."

Not so. Poole isn't an expert.

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), May 14, 1999.

Sysman,

I offered to go better on the hot dog, too. Don't miss that[g].

Nah, no comments. Looks like I had my say, then you had yours. We'll meet in another thread, I'm sure. :)

Dr. Robert Altman,

So if I follow your supposition, you think that ANY operating facility (not just a utility) will have few enough CRITICAL FAILURES to address these problems with an expanded staff. Is that it in a nutshell?

Are you a lawyer or something? I love these carefully-worded questions[g]. But in general, yup, that's what I'm saying in a nutshell. Further, I think that most of them will be able to do it with staff on hand.

do you have any evidence that what you say is correct (in general, as well for utilities) besides public statements made by corporate officials?

I do focus primarily on control systems, because that's where my experience lies. (Hold that thought; more on that in a moment). In that area, I have plenty of reason to believe as I do, from personal experience and from talking with the people who are actually working on these systems.

I'm not just listening to "CEO's," either. That's a rather handy way to mischaracterize my position, but I won't let you get away with that. You act as though only CEOs are releasing the "good news;" that's an unmitigated bucket of crap.

(Nice try, though.[g])

In fact, I look at government reports, CEOs, and reports from Y2K consultants, same as everyone else. But I don't really base my conclusions on these (ESPECIALLY not on government reports, which are exercises in political hot air, for the most part).

I primarily base it on discussions with the people actually working with these systems. I get regular "attaboy" and "you tell 'em!" emails from these people in response to my Web site, and they give me the details (some of these are posted on the email page).

isn't it more prudent to err on the side to safety and be prepared as much as possible?

I want to start talking about something else: I see a clear pattern here (but see what I said to Sysman; I'm tied up at the moment).

What's being defended here in general are personal preparations in the areas of food, shelter, and so on. It is a fact that those computer systems which would be the most likely to create that type of personal need would be CONTROL SYSTEMS -- and yet, everything I've seen to date indicates that these are the LEAST likely to fail.

So why the urge to make these types of preparations? Why not instead focus on that area in which there is far more possibility that the average person could get "hurt" -- the financial arena?

It's simple: more than a few people who post here are SELLING personal preparedness. They make nothing off my decision to sell Siemens Concrete in Asia and buy Oracle stock. They DO make money if somehow make a (dis)connection between financial woes and the presence of bread on my table, so it's in their interest to keep concern up about this.

Not for no reason do they keep trying (desperately, of late) to play up the possibilities of failure in CONTROL SYSTEMS which could cut off the electricity, oil, water (and by extension, transportion, and ultimately, food and other essentials).

Not for no reason as well do they try to make links between control and enterprise data systems (which are actually two separate animals in most cases).

But more on this later. I'll probably start another thread after the weekend when I get time (this one has already gotten too large, too!).

-- Stephen M. Poole, CET (smpoole7@bellsouth.net), May 14, 1999.

"You are wasting your time."

Yea, I know BD, and I'm not sure why. Partly for the lurkers, and partly because I've got to find something to do with myself while waiting for the next news item, I guess. Oh well, off to see what Liberty Basic has to offer, while Y2K ticks off in BG... <:)=

PS - Anybody ever play with Liberty Basic, a Win dev kit, kinda like Visual Basic I guess???...

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), May 14, 1999.

Stephen,

Yea, I hear ya. I'm a little tired of this argument myself. I'm sure the BigDogs, err, Yourdon hounds will stay on your tail, and I'll put my $.02 in from time to time. Heck, the weather is getting too nice, and except for you guys, it's quite here now anyway.

Just wondering, can you make the Virginia meeting. I'm going to try to cut work early and take a ride. They tell me no guns... <:)=

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), May 14, 1999.

Oh, and Stephen,

"It's simple: more than a few people who post here are SELLING personal preparedness."

This is a public, pretty much anything goes Y2K forum. People aren't as dumb as you would like to think. Most, IMHO, are here looking for news and opinions on Y2K, not the "quick, get me a year's worth of food" kind of person. If you're mission is to save us all from the quick buck, don't worry about it. <:)=

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), May 14, 1999.

BigDog,

OTOH, because he is unspeakably stubborn, he will no doubt continue to plague the forum with this stuff. It's sad, because his self- deception (at least I hope that is what it is) will undoubtedly cause some lurkers to fail to prepare, thinking that somehow "all the experts disagree."

You know something, BigDog?

I have never questioned your "credentials." Not once. This is in spite of the fact that I have no real way of confirming who you are, what you actually do, or where you come from. Speaking in a purely objective sense, for all I REALLY know, you're a bored 28-year old troll who has read a few books and who is eloquent enough to talk the talk.

In spite of this, I have taken you (and Sysman, for that matter) at face value. I choose to believe that you are who you say you are. And even though you clearly disagree with me, and I clearly with you, and I have sometimes posted sharp disagreement with your position, I don't attack you personally. I never have.

If I'm biased, I'm not the only one. You have an innate and "stubborn" belief that ANYONE who "doesn't get it" (ie, doesn't agree with your assessment, at least in main), MUST either be a troll, a fraud, or (at best) deluded, "stubborn," stupid, and/or in no possible way an "expert."

You have no idea who I talk to daily, or who I correspond with, and who and what I know. As Steve Hewitt said politely to Drew Parkhill: you ain't the only one with sources, 'mano. I'm saying the same to you (just as politely, of course(g)).

There will be no collapse of the economy next year. There will be food in the grocery stores. At worst, there will be some temporary shortages (primarily of imported items), but no one who can afford to buy that food will starve.

That's not "self-delusion" speaking; it's common sense. Forget the Who Knows What stuff: are you REALLY trying to tell me that a computer bug could cause more disruption than WWI, WWII, flooding in the nation's breadbasket, or a category 5 hurricane in the nation's Southern Agricultural belt?

That's really what this boils down to. And knowing what I know, I can confidently say, "NO."

-- Stephen M. Poole, CET (smpoole7@bellsouth.net), May 14, 1999.

""It's simple: more than a few people who post here are SELLING personal preparedness."

This will be the next gambit since the Der Boonkah Biffies don't have any logical arguments about Y2K itself. Poole doesn't realize that any regulars or lurkers who have been here more than a few weeks know that NONE of the regulars are selling ANYTHING having to do with personal preparedness.

FWIW, I posted to "Minnesota Smith" that he shouldn't post here with any effort to sell anything and have said the same to the occasional NEW POSTER who thought this was a good idea.

The only one "selling" something is Poole with his endless links to his own website. Since Poole wants to destroy this forum, though, we'll have to wade through another YADA (Yet Another Dumb Ass) thread.

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), May 15, 1999.

"There will be no collapse of the economy next year. There will be food in the grocery stores."

Can you guarantee this Stephen? Can anyone? Why? Why not? Please, give me a break. <:)=

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), May 15, 1999.

TIME OUT!!!!!

Let's catch up. Back up, and read the last 10, count to a hundred, at least, then GO!!! <:)=

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), May 15, 1999.

"FWIW, I posted to "Minnesota Smith" that he shouldn't post here with any effort to sell anything"

Yea, I remember that. His butt was outta here in a heartbeat!!! <:)=

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), May 15, 1999.

Poole said [I reply]

"Speaking in a purely objective sense, for all I REALLY know, you're a bored 28-year old troll who has read a few books and who is eloquent enough to talk the talk."

[How I wish I were 28! Happens that some of the folks who have posted here know me personally, though many don't. I'm never bored, though. A wonderful wife, five children, wonderful fellowship and the challenges of preparing for Y2K see to that. I have freely admitted I'm not nearly as intelligent as many on this board. And I mean that. You're flattering me if you think me eloquent, but I know you don't really mean it.]

"There will be no collapse of the economy next year. There will be food in the grocery stores. At worst, there will be some temporary shortages (primarily of imported items), but no one who can afford to buy that food will starve."

[Is that a prophetic word or just your own opinion? You state it as privileged knowledge. The rest of us are content with living with the uncertainties of Y2K: you'll notice we often quiz each other on our opinions, which vary widely. You, OTOH, already know the future. Very convenient for supporting your agenda. Hope you're right, BTW, but my motto is, "prepare for the worst, hope for the best"].

That's not "self-delusion" speaking; it's common sense. Forget the Who Knows What stuff: are you REALLY trying to tell me that a computer bug could cause more disruption than WWI, WWII, flooding in the nation's breadbasket, or a category 5 hurricane in the nation's Southern Agricultural belt?

[All I have been saying is that you don't understand the nature of enterprise software. And you don't. I have also been saying you want to "destroy" the forum. That is a simple description and falls out naturally from your paragraph above. OF COURSE, believing what you do, you want this forum to end (or the equivalent: you want regulars and lurkers NOT to prepare for any meaningful Y2K impact).

I think it is unlikely, but possible, that Y2K will cause more damage than WWI or WWII. I think it is certain it will cause more damage worldwide than flooding or a Category 5 hurricane though these are silly comparisons in the sense that Y2K impacts will, precisely, not resemble a flood or a hurricane.]

That's really what this boils down to. And knowing what I know, I can confidently say, "NO."

[Bald assertions don't cut it, Poole. You're very welcome to keep posting here all year, it's Ed's forum and he is very gracious. But you're never going to get a free ride or a "gee, maybe this, maybe that, let's discuss it to death." It's too late for that.

Fortunately (I'm sure you're thrilled), because the government has damped down preparation, there is still PLENTY of time (say, two to four months) for folks reading this post to prepare themselves and their families for big-time Y2K impacts. Go to it, folks.

As for personal attacks, I'm afraid that nothing other than the most intense push-back can have any hope of stopping your obsession with us. I don't consider push-back to be attacks. I do pray that God will forgive you for your intransigence about this subject. Unfortunately, you can't stop people from preparing, Poole. Sorry.]

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), May 15, 1999.

"Unfortunately, you can't stop people from preparing"

Jeez BigDog, did you have to get so serious? Here we are again, at the prep stage. Maybe Stephen is really worried about spending next Jan. Here's what I have in mind, if Y2K is a flop:

Well guys, looks like Dinty Moore again tonight, and chile over rice tomorrow. And, break-out that gallon of 7-up in the Y2K room. Uh-oh, we're not going to the store for quite a while...

Damn, my car is out of gas again. Well, since I've got these 4 55 gal. drums of unleaded ofer here... Uh-oh, we're not going to the gas station for a while...

What, the burner is out of oil again? Throw a couple of those 55 gal drume of kero in, it burns nicer anyway. Uh-oh, won't be needing the oil co this winter...

Looks like the cult has brought down the economy in early 2000. <:)=

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), May 15, 1999.

Yah, Sysman, we are SOOOOO powerful and omnipotent, no? Now, if only I could figure out a way to earn some money from all this, the one thing I don't seem to have any power over ......

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), May 15, 1999.

BD,

LOL, and if cows could fly, on both counts... <:)=

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), May 15, 1999.

Stephen:

First, how can you tell people to go unprepared based on information that only you are privy to, and basicly won't share with the rest of the forum participants? Please make your case about the lack of control system problems, and let's debate it. Making unsupported statements wastes everybody's time.

Second, you said that one needn't store the basic necessities because the industries that produce these products will not have (control system) problems, but financial organizations may be vulnerable. Doesn't that statement ignore the systemic nature of Y2k? Or perhaps you don't think Y2k IS systemic. If so, make your case, but please provide us with the facts which support your position.

Roger Altman

-- Dr. Roger Altman (rogaltman@aol.com), May 15, 1999.