http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a378d0003033d.htm

Subject: Y2K Date: Mon, 12 Jul 1999 16:05:18 -0500 From: lking@omaha.com (King, Larry) To: [DELETE--Personal Info--Per Request--Sysop]

Mr. XXX,

We often change articles between editions -- those in print and those on line. Y2K is a coined abbreviation that does not appear in most newspapers' style manuals. While one could argue that everyone knows what Y2K means, that is not necessarily the case. In any event, it is not good practice for a newspaper to start using coined terms when individual reporters decide to put them in an article.

Larry King Executive Editor

-- helium (heliumavid@yahoo.com), July 14, 1999

Answers

Pentagon tests reveal dangerous trend -- Y2K

News/Current Events Opinion (Published) Keywords: Y2K DEFENSE Source: y2knewswire.com Published: July 14, 1999 Posted on 07/14/1999 14:24:19 PDT by Dog Gone

Pentagon tests reveal dangerous trend

Over the last week, the Pentagon conducted "...what is believed to be the largest-ever simultaneous test of computer systems to make sure Year 2000 problems won't prevent delivery of everything from bullets to toilet paper to American troops." Source: Associated Press.

The story reports, "Technical experts built a duplicate network -- what they called a "parallel processing environment'' -- then rolled those computer clocks forward to simulate the week following Feb. 28, 2000."

Also in the story: a quote from John Koskinen: "What we're seeing is the ultimate in testing."

HOLD ON HERE A MINUTE The Defense Department oversees thousands of computer systems and hundreds of ships. In this "largest-ever simultaneous test," how many systems and ships were actually put to the test?

44 systems, it turns out.

... and five ships.

In other words, this "massive Year 2000 computer test," hailed by Koskinen as the "ultimate in testing" is actually more like the NERC drill than a robust test. The Defense Department did not build a parallel processing environment for all their computers, they built a parallel processing environment for 44 of them (out of nearly 2100).

MANY BANKS ARE LARGER THAN THAT If it's really true that this 44-system test is "massive" and the largest ever conducted, it means testing is in worse shape than previously thought. Many banks have more than 44 systems. Most manufacturers have a lot more than that, too. And the IRS, you probably know, has hundreds of times more.

Are we to understand that none of these organizations have tested more than 44 systems?

THE REAL STORY The key to the story is hidden in the fine print: the systems tested were "supply request" systems. What about systems that track enemies, jam radar, navigate cruise missiles, receive electronic transmissions, store personnel records and calculate projectile trajectories? Not mentioned...

Also in the story: the revelation that the department has nearly 2100 systems on its "mission-critical" list. Given the numbers, this means a "massive Year 2000 test," called the "ultimate in testing," hailed as a "parallel processing environment" consists of a whopping two percent of the systems on the mission-critical list.

THE GAO IS RIGHT Once again, the GAO spells it out. The office said, just last week, that the Dept. of Defense was "far from successfully finishing its various Year 2000 end-to-end test activities.''

Yet the Pentagon, like NERC, wants to exaggerate the significance of the test. After testing just 2% of the systems, limited to "supply request" computers, here's what they say: "Pentagon officials repeatedly stressed Tuesday that the test results show America's military will be prepared for battle even after Dec. 31."

Prepared for battle? By running an end-to-end test of 2% of the mission-critical systems? It rings of NERC's implied claim, after testing power plant backup communication systems, that the ability to generate and distribute electricity was Y2K-compliant. (Hogwash! It wasn't even tested.)

A DANGEROUS TREND This Pentagon test is the latest installation in a dangerous trend of Y2K testing where the organization in question tests a tiny portion of vulnerable computers then announces total success. The mainstream press propagates the implied success by parroting good-sounding headlines and repeating key phrases like, "massive." But was it massive? The press really doesn't know, frankly. They never questioned it. As a result, the public is left with the false impression that some sort of complete, end-to-end, robust test was conducted -- and passed. In fact, no such activities have taken place.

Worse yet, they probably won't take place in the next 170 days, either.

THE REAL NEWS EVEN MORE ASTOUNDING But the news here isn't that the Department of Defense only tested two percent of its computer systems and called it a "massive" test. The real story is that this is apparently the largest test conducted in America.

If true, this means that no organization, no matter how many computers they have, has conducted a simultaneous, end-to-end test involving more than 44 systems. If true, this is the most significant Y2K story in recent memory. Nobody has tested 45 systems? Nobody? The FDIC gives 98% of member banks in the United States a "satisfactory" rating on Y2K. Has this rating been assigned even though no bank has tested more than 44 systems?

A bit disturbing: that the press would relay this story to the public with the headline, "U.S. military conducts massive Year 2000 computer test." Did any member of the press actually stop to think whether this was massive or not? Or did they decide it was "massive" just because they were told it was massive? Did anybody run the numbers here? We did: 2% of all the systems is not massive. Two percent is tiny. The headline, if correct, should have read, "U.S. military tests 2% of its mission-critical systems."

Even more disturbing: that Koskinen would call this, "The ultimate in testing." The definition of "ultimate," by the way is: furthest or highest in degree or order; utmost or extreme; "the ultimate achievement"; "the ultimate question"; "man's ultimate destiny"; "the ultimate insult"; "one's ultimate goal in life". In other words, Koskinen is looking at this test of 2% of the military's mission-critical systems (which, even then, is a subset of all the systems in question) and referring to it with a phrase that means, "the highest in degree or order; utmost."

The obvious question: if testing 2% of the systems is called the highest degree of testing, what reason does anybody have to test 3%? Or 5%, 10% or 20%? How about 99%?

Recall the "Y2K is Systemic" story published by Y2K Newswire. It indicates that even 95% compliance may not be enough to avoid major disruptions. Yet here we see a 2% test hailed as the greatest demonstration yet of Y2K compliance.

THE CHASM The difference between the testing expectations of those in Washington D.C. and Y2KNEWSWIRE is appalling. Can intelligent people disagree so radically on such a concept? Y2KNEWSWIRE thinks we must test 100% of the systems in question, not 99%, not 90%, not 50%, not 10% and certainly not 2%. But those in charge of getting systems compliant apparently think that testing 2 out of every 100 systems is not merely adequate, but of the highest degree.

This belief that a 2% test qualifies as "ultimate" is precisely what allows the people in charge to publicly release damning information without having any clue that it actually shows the depths of their procrastination. Again, the story here is not simply that the Pentagon ran a test of 2% of their mission-critical systems. The story is that the people in charge of Y2K fixes honestly believe a 2% test is the "ultimate" in testing -- and that this is the largest test yet conducted in America.

That story, by the way, should be front-page news everywhere. The fact that it isn't demonstrates the severity of the loss of healthy skepticism at the highest levels in America's news industry.

-- helium (heliumavid@yahoo.com), July 14, 1999.

Yet more evidence of the sort that makes me a 9.5 on Y2K. I may go higher, but I probably won't go lower. Thanks for the post.

www.y2ksafeminnesota.com

-- MinnesotaSmith (y2ksafeminnesota@hotmail.com), July 14, 1999.

helium,

Thanks! That is a great article...passing it along the e-mail vine. Here's the link

link to article

-- RUOK (RUOK@yesiam.com), July 14, 1999.

While it is a very good article, it wouldn't be too hard to believe that Koskinen was exaggerating/lying about this being the "ultimate" in testing, and to still hope that some organisation somewhere has end-to-end tested more than 44 systems.

-- number six (Iam_not_a_number@hotmail.com), July 15, 1999.

"Supply Request" systems??? ONE THIRD of the Quartermaster function. I sincerely hope this is as joke!!

-- K. Stevens (kstevens@It's ALL going away in January.com), July 15, 1999.

See also:

Link

-- CD (not@here.com), July 15, 1999.

I'm not sure if we are toast, but my address is at toast.

Sorry, I couldn't resist 8^)

-- CygnusXi (noburnt@toast.net), July 15, 1999.

The "Ultimate Insult" sounds about right.

-- mar (Derigueur2@aol.com), July 15, 1999.

The military doesn't have the manpower to do a complete test. That's the bad news. The good news is that Clinton will encourage the D.O.D. to subcontract the work to the Chinese - they have the manpower, and are very competitive pricewise. Relax! Go find a _real_ problem to worry about.

-- A. Hambley (a.hambley@usa.net), July 15, 1999.

Anyone, that by now, who doesn't know what the acronym "Y2K" means is a fricking idiot and deserves to be toast.

And we don't need the seemingly obligatory paragraph describing what Y2K is before getting into the meat of the article ("Y2K means Year 2000, a computer problem where 2 digit years ...blah blah). Enough already. If someone is still clueless by now, they deserve to be run over.

-- A (A@AisA.com), July 15, 1999.

VRooom....Vrooom...!!

-- CygnusXI (noburnt@toast.net), July 15, 1999.