The Simplicity of Y2K: Lying

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

It's not surprising that an intense debate over "misleading" and "lying" has come to the forum (I may post some material from other threads here later if it appears relevant).

There are numerous instances of lying on the part of governments and businesses with respect to Y2K over the past two years. These include:

... Statements that work was/has been performed that are later shown to have been knowingly false at the time those statements were made.

... Statements that 'x' preparation is needed/not needed based on statements of Y2K status and/or societal risks that are later shown to have been knowingly false at the time those statements were made.

... Strategic decisions that were taken by major opinion-makers (WH/Koskinen, NERC, etc) to present good news about remediation long before the remediation itself had been completed, if indeed it has been to this day.

Ironically, some pollies on this forum have been heard recently to defend government misleading as perfectly appropriate given any number of factors (more efficient for getting work done, reduces politicization, keeps the sheep from asking nasty questions, etc). Because government is "amoral", it must be expected that it will behave "amorally." Yet, these same pollies consider it "paranoid" for this forum to be suspicious of the accuracy or truthfulness of these same entities.

I have long stated my technical view that remediation could be farther behind or further ahead than we can determine based on the ludicruous nature of the so-called technical measures (starting with "compliance percentages") given the history of software. I rated the chance of a BITR at 5% earlier this summer. The pollies love to pretend I never pay any attention to their arguments, yet I have said it is POSSIBLE that Hoffy is correct about his function points, though I don't believe the core assumptions are correct.

Nonetheless, because of the deceitful stance taken by TPTB, it remains impossible to determine the true status of Y2K (btw, lately, the most hilarious examples of deceit are coming from reports of international compliance). One side-effect of this is that they themselves are lied to (cf 50% of vendors lying to one of the major telecoms about their compliance activities), reducing their own ability to peer through the haze.

My conviction is that claims that most Y2K systems are already in production are bogus, taking the world's entire software asset as the foundation for the claim. My estimate, based on > 20 years of IT experience and two years of research into Y2K, is that a small minority of significant enterprise systems are now in production and that something less than 50% compliance worldwide is probable by year-end. For the sake of my children, I hope that doesn't matter, next year or any year.

In the super-charged environment of the forum, expression of opinion these days seems to be tantamount to robbing a bank. THIS IS MY OPINION. Opinions are not facts and I'm not presenting mine as fact.

Once again, not being told the truth does NOT guarantee a Y2K debacle. These days, programmatic lying is its own reward in the public sphere. However, being able to separate the formal strategy of TPTB (PR, spin, "all Y2K news is good news", "preparation is bad", etc) from the reality of Y2K remediation (overbudget, late, FOF) is crucial.

Those of us who have been following Y2K have been dumbstruck by the sheer audacity of the deceit on an item-by-item, episode-by-episode basis. Quite possibly, the pollies are correct that this is just business-as-usual for today's American governmental system. If so, it is time to revisit the Constitution and relearn its lessons. The founders did NOT envision such an outcome, nor, IMO, have we always lived in such a corrupted public space.

When it comes to honest public communication about Y2K, the Emperor isn't wearing any clothes. And I'm not going to back-off from saying so because the forum bullies don't like it.



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

Answers

Big Dog, in the case of Latin America your assertions are also definetly 'on track'!

Take care

-- George (jvilches@sminter.com.ar), September 14, 1999.


///

Those of us who have been following Y2K have been dumbstruck by the sheer audacity of the deceit on an item-by-item, episode-by-episode basis.

///

You said it.

Feel free to say again.

Any time.

-- no talking please (breadlines@soupkitchen.gov), September 15, 1999.


"The secret of life is honesty and fair dealing. If you can fake that you've got it made." Groucho Marx

"We ask for information, but we are usually only interested in what confirms our opinions." Albert Hubbard

-- quoter (quoter@quoterrr.com), September 15, 1999.


It strikes me that yet again I should anticipate the oh-so-tired smear that I think "everyone" is lying. No. When "everyone" lies (cf the old Soviet Union or Maoism), it is EASY to determine what the real situation is.

The difficulty comes when lying is interwoven with a blend of accurate facts, reasonable statistics and achievable objectives.

As Jon Williamson has pointed out (and my minor consulting experience with Hill & Knowlton) bears out, there is a VAST PR apparatus, which did not exist at all a century ago and was amateurish before, say, 1950, whose raison d'etre is "spin" (ie, delivery of a blend of truth and lies on behalf of the client's objectives).

Orwell called spin "progaganda."

It is bizarre but somehow appropriate that the victims of this deceit (all citizens, doomers and pollies) are somehow blamed for the deceit itself. That's a real "wow" even for our day and age.

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


Can we get the ground-rules upfront here? Is this a thread in which one can respond with rebuttals, or is this a thread in which you only choose to have praise and adolation? Personally, I have NO CLUE what adolation means, but I think you posted a response on a previous thread with that word.

-- Anita (spoonera@msn.com), September 15, 1999.


OOPS! ADULATION...I DO know what THAT means. Sorry.

-- Anita (spoonera@msn.com), September 15, 1999.

Anita -- you're off to a good start on behalf of the pollies. The "adulation" crack was humor on my part on that other thread. Say whatever the hell you want.

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

What's the problem Anita, you can't think of anything intelligent to say? I think that BigDog really hit the nail on the head here. I don't know how anyone could reasonably disagree with what he has to say. But they'll try, I'm sure.

-- Amused (amused@laughing.com), September 15, 1999.

Going hand-in-hand with the polly belief that systems that are supposedly Y2K remediated really are, is the belief that we are getting continuous "confirmation" that the system are OK by virtue of the fact that the are in production and working just fine TODAY. But wait, you say, what about when we get into 2000? Stop being silly, say the pollies, if it works today it will work in 2000; why would it not. Uhh, maybe because of the 2000 date, we ask? No problem, say the pollies, you see the systems have been Y2K remediated and are working just fine now, so ....

-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.com), September 15, 1999.

I have been lurking on this site for a few weeks sorting the wheat from the chaff as it were. I agree with your thoughtful posts. I don't care what the ground rules are. You state your points in a way that resonates with my thinking. Thanks, and keep up the good work. And no, KOS, I do not want to mudwrestle.

I think we are in for intesting times as the Chinese curse says. I am hoping and pretty much prepared for a 4-6.

-- NW (wellsnl@hotmail.com), September 15, 1999.



"The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubts."

Bertrand Russell

-- harl (harlanquin@aohell.com), September 15, 1999.


Big Dog,

The Pollies love spin because the effect of it is to thoroughly confuse the issue. In such a situation, ANY outcome can be made to appear possible. The outcome they most desire appears to be the propagation of good news to ensure the status quo isn't affected.

But the reality of 1/1/00 is a brick wall that the spin is going to run into. Afterward the spin game will begin again, but with much larger stakes. It will be interesting to see if the government can spin its way out of the looming debacle.

Or if they choose another way...

-- Nabi (nabi7@yahoo.com), September 15, 1999.


"Nobody believes the official spokesman...but everybody trusts an unidentified source." Ron Nelson

-- quoter (quoter@quoterrr.com), September 15, 1999.

You might ask someone who went to the DCY2K meeting tonight... about how Janet Abrahms (ms?) spun and spun to each set up, one after another... and didn't stop until she realized that everyone was laughing at her, louder and louder.

Sincerely, Stan Faryna

-- Stan Faryna (info@giglobal.com), September 15, 1999.


XXX really hit the nail on the head here. I don't know how anyone could reasonably disagree with what he has to say.

Exactly what points do you agree with and can you elaborate on them? Or do you write this to everyone you consider in your camp?

-- Cherri (sams@brigadoon.com), September 15, 1999.



Stan, back when I lived in Northern Virginia, I always went to the WDCY2K meetings. I thought things were getting sort of "on the edge" as of March of this year (I re-located to NW Arkansas in April), I imagine it must be a very interesting time to be attending them now.

One of the more interesting places to pick up "vibes" so to speak, I always thought, was during the time that folks lined up for free food and beverages just prior to the actual meeting there at Fannie Mae. It seemed like, at least back then, people really got quite candid. I'd be interested to know what a WDCY2K meeting is like these days, if you have anything you would like to share....

-- Jack (jsprat@eld.net), September 15, 1999.

IMHO More to the point (as I realize that quote above can be misconstrued by some of the creative types 'round here), lying, misleading, misrepresenting the truth, spin, whatever you'd like to call it, is now symtomatic for a simple reason. Why? Think 'Bottom Line'.

If you, right now, were the CEO and you Know that your company isn't going to make it.... Would you tell anyone?

No. You would not. "There's still time, they might get it fixed." "Ah, we've done this without computers before." "What can a lousy two digits do?" Add any justification/disconnect you'd like, but you'll not say "boo". The investors would lynch you.

And, on an even cheerier note, you probably wouldn't even blame them, assuming you're looking at that bottom line yourself. Besides which, it's not really your decision, now is it? Something like that would have to be approved by the board of directors, and they as a group aren't going to touch this one, either. Hey, you're off the hook. For now.

Flip side: you know your company will breeze through. Everything's tested, in real time, with all connections in place. You've seen your suppliers; not only are they ok, they've proven it to your satisfaction. Your vendors, likewise. Or they're inhouse. It makes no difference because You Still Can't SAY AnyThing! The legal staff has made that one abundantly clear- "No guaranties, or we're DOA if anything unexpected happens." Whether it has anything to do with the date, or even in your company, or not.

Now, I've seen a lot of 'flight to quality' arguments, but if there's been a 'flight to honesty' proposition, I've missed it. No one in corporate america would trust it now, anyway. "What, admit we're not ready, explain that we're doing the best we can, we'll muddle through somehow, and just HOPE that investors/stockholders/customers don't run screaming into the night? Are you Nuts??"

Damned if you do, damned if you don't. The upshot of all this, naturally, is a lot of paranoia and uncertainty. (Well, if we're talking about percentage of the population that's even interesed, that is. The vast majority couldn't care less.) Say what you will, we'll all start finding out the results of this situation next year at the latest, for good or for ill.

And now that I've rambled into merely restating most of BD's post, I do have one question: How exactly, would you like to revisit the constitution? Short of taking Billy Shake's suggestion to 'kill all the lawyers', what would you like to see? Not that any of this will make a damn bit of difference, I'm just curious.

Harl

-- harl (harlanquin@aohell.com), September 15, 1999.


me think squaw anita with sharp tongue is heap big speller...think she need to loosen tight braids so brain can workum logic too....ugh...

-- spellum (police@pollyswigwam.com), September 15, 1999.

BD -- This is a way OT response, on the other hand it's not at all. Your original post re the government misleading? lying? Good grief, is anybody really surprised? I cringe at how this is going to sound, but I can't help it. Guess what? They mislead us and lie to us all the time. My own personal experience dates back a full twenty years yet will forever live in my mind like yesterday. I was living overseas at the time in a country in the midst of revolution. I came FACE to FACE with what our country is capable of doing, and though I will spare all of you the details, believe me when I say that not a day goes by that I don't remember the pain and agony OUR country inflicted upon innocent people. Not a day goes by that I don't feel the guilt of being a citizen of this country and that I continue to benefit from living here when I know what we are doing elsewhere. For now, I try to justify my existence by trying to bring about change within my own sphere (my family, my community, my local government). I pray that God will allow me this work for now. I have a young child-- perhaps when she is older I will be able to do what I need to do and stand up and speak. I pray for the strength to do so. Do I sound torn? I am. Please don't flame me. Also, don't think it impossible for our blessed government to lie to us -- they do it every day. Because we let them. -grngrl-

-- grngrl (jhandt@gte.net), September 15, 1999.

"The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubts."

I don't usually agree with Bertrand Russell. But about that, he's quite right.

-- Lane Core Jr. (elcore@sgi.net), September 15, 1999.


And... great post, BD!

-- Lane Core Jr. (elcore@sgi.net), September 15, 1999.

Harl -- I'll repeat with you that I fully concede that litigiousness (another leg of the cultural deceit that is poisoning our culture) may be masking COMPLETED remediation. No, pollies, this is about a "wicked" CULTURAL problem (you know, like wicked computing problems?) that hurts everybody, including the corporate good guys.

As for the Constitution, the main point here is that the future is not set fatally. The first task is to acknowledge the cancer as well as to acknowledge that the original foundations of our communitas, while not perfect, are as suitable today as then. The argument that the 21st century needs to go beyond those foundations is folly. Liberty secured by appropriate order, based on realities given by God Himself and not by man, to man, is not a style of the moment. It can be discerned and obeyed, lost and recovered, but it cannot be improved upon substantially.

That those original American foundations had or even have flaws (take the Anti-Federalists into account with the Federalists) is inherent in our character as human beings but the eternal foundation which underlies them remains the same. God hasn't ceased to exist on the basis of Gallup or Gartner polls that find His reality inconvenient. I know these are unpopular SPIRITUAL as well as unpopular POLITICAL positions but that can't be helped. I use "spiritual" somewhat broadly, recognizing that early America was not monolithic on this score.

grngrl -- I disagree that "they lie to us all the time." There are honorable people in government by the hundreds of thousands as well as in the military. Regrettably, they -- and we -- are increasingly tolerating and being cowed by a culture of lies. When "spin" becomes the core criteria for speech by those in power, honorable people tend to despair.

I would also add that a world culture is emerging that loves to obey the same American rules. This is not the least reason why unashamed appeal to the true operational (as well as spiritual and political) wisdom of our founders is more important now than it has ever been before. Whether or not others around the world hate America, they need to give a steady, sober, studious look to the meaning of liberty as it was conceived here long ago.

to pollies -- I have said on other threads that "lying" should never be used to stimulate Y2K preparation. The end does not justify the means. I have never consciously done that (IMO, preparation is amply justified by all the known phenomena to date). I have conceded that people like Gary North, however I have appreciated them, have done so at times and I repudiate that.

I am sure that this same culture works its woe on this forum in a variety of ways. But this forum is a minor eddy in the course of Y2K, whatever some here may imagine about our "importance" in the eyes of the feds. Whether Y2K is a 3 or a 9, redressing the widespread corruption of our national life will remain a critical task for us and our children.

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


Big Dog, as we are in the subject matter of "Y2K lying practices", could you please refresh us as to exactly when, where and how Gary North has lied?

Take care

-- George (jvilches@sminter.com.ar), September 15, 1999.


Big Dog - Those of us who have been following Y2K have been dumbstruck by the sheer audacity of the deceit on an item-by-item, episode-by-episode basis.

Harl - If you, right now, were the CEO and you Know that your company isn't going to make it.... Would you tell anyone? No. You would not. "There's still time, they might get it fixed."

I think it is amazing that the spin was in full operation so early and has remained so effective. The idea that it was all hype was a brilliant piece of hype. The idea that it was all a hoax was a monstrous hoax. The spin that turned preparation for possible calamity from something desired (else all insurance companies would be bankrupt) to something derided as the activity of the lunatic fringe was "sheer audacity" at its best.

Its such a shame those efforts to deceive, obfuscate, deride and delude couldn't have been put to better use.

-- Linda (lwmb@psln.com), September 15, 1999.


George -- I have said and say again that I believe North should be honored at a White House ceremony for his Y2K web site. I don't collect any of his statements or links to test them for veracity. I'm mainly giving the benefit of the doubt here to those who hate him, since my main point is that sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Certainly, North does have an agenda (though it is scarcely hidden or deceitful!) and he is often too quick on the trigger with his analyses., IMO. He rarely if ever corrects errors, either. Turning this thread into a referendum on North, not that you're suggesting this, would only deflect attention from the core post at the top. If you're asking me for a specific instance of "deliberately misleading," I can't recall one. Pollies are certainly free to supply one if they have one: I'm already conceding the point. Even if North were a pathological liar, he'd merely be joining the one whom Senator Kerrey also described as such.

Linda -- your post reminds us that Y2K spin-deceit has gone through several distinct, entire life-cycles over the past several years.

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


Wow. Excellent points, BigDog. As much as I'd like you to be wrong, I reluctantly have come to the same conclusions. This begs the question (as you and others have said), "if y2k is no big deal, why all the lying?"

-- coprolith (coprolith@rocketship.com), September 15, 1999.

BigDog:

Yes, opinion swaying is approaching a science. As a complete non- geek, running on "hunches" AND the amount of spin we hear, I am now expecting only 35% to 60% of all mission critical systems to have been EFFECTIVELY remediated.

As my father told me long ago, concerning another subject entirely, "Son, the chances are that the more they brag about it, the less of it they are getting".

I'm still hoping for an 8. The essay on relay systems in Cory's #129 did not do anything for my mood today.

Frankly, I have trouble working lately.

I think we are in the "Golden Autumn" of a culture we will look back on nostalgically for generations to come. The bad will be forgotten and only the plenty and relative ease of life in America will be passed on.

-- Jon Williamson (jwilliamson003@sprintmail.com), September 15, 1999.


Coprolith -- One of the reason I consider a BITR still possible is that the lying isn't NECESSARILY going on because remediation is failing. I maintain TPTB probably don't have any better idea than we do about that. The DECISION to spin Y2K, regardless of truth content, was made and has been upheld throughout the process ON ITS OWN PRESUMED merits (banking? "panic?" national "security"?).

Moreover, this isn't being done as a conspiracy, except in the sense of a conspiracy-by-consensus. Our "system" (as represented by those in positions of influence in gov, biz, media et al) appears to reward lying and punish truth-telling. I say, "appears" because cultures which do this will fail unless they turn away from it as self- defeating (when your own staff are lying to one another and to you and you to them as a matter of routine daily process, what next?)

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


Cherri, I agree with the whole damn thing! And you, Cherri, are a closet polly.

-- Amused (amused@laughing.com), September 15, 1999.

Big Dog:

Always like your posts. Looks like you've gone through a "y2k snap". It's like malaria -- you get recurring episodes of emotional outbursts. We should stockpile valium.

-- Dave (aaa@aaa.com), September 15, 1999.


Dave --- We have large quantities (acre total?) of St. John's Wort growing native across our land. Ms. Big Dog took some vodka and make a few, shall we say, tinctures, for Y2K usage. Now, where can we get LOTS of high-proof vodka, cheep?

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

Bigdog:

You know that I don't discuss politics or religion on a Y2k forum, but I AM curious as to how you came up with the following opinion:

"My conviction is that claims that most Y2K systems are already in production are bogus, taking the world's entire software asset as the foundation for the claim. My estimate, based on > 20 years of IT experience and two years of research into Y2K, is that a small minority of significant enterprise systems are now in production and that something less than 50% compliance worldwide is probable by year- end."

Just curious, since you've stated elsewhere that you've not worked on remediation.

Spain: You obviously haven't worked on any remediation. Testing is performed either on a time-machine or on a platform that has the date set ahead. Transactions with dates beyond 2000 are used to ensure that the remediation WILL work before the programs are placed into production.

-- Anita (spoonera@msn.com), September 15, 1999.


Anita -- That is a very fair question and, you're right, I haven't worked on Y2K remediation (thankfully). I'm not sure how useful that would have been, since getting the deal on a narrow corner of remediation is not germane to scoping the worldwide picture. Put another way, I feel you could have made pretty accurate determinations about the NATURE of Y2K remediation even if you hadn't done any yourself.

ALLjudgments about Y2K WORLDWIDE are going to derive primarily from research and analysis, based, of course, on the overerall experience (not only technical) of the person making those judgments.

My IT background (this is both good and bad) is very eclectic, including some programming (but I do not consider myself a programmer), management (ran UNIX division of large independent software corporation), journalism (briefly had an editorial column in Computerworld plus dozens of PC-style articles), consulting (Fortune 500, including IBM, Xerox, Morgan-Stanley, Aetna, Bull Systems, MCI etc), research (brief, miserable stint with Meta Group) and, for past three years, running an Internet ecommerce start-up (sorry, um, always looking for a few good Web developers!) that might, just might, make it through Y2K if the Net stays viable.

Stacking that with a M.A. in Theology and PhD studies at Westminster Theological Seminary, along with the old classical education at St. John's College as a B.A. at least gives me an interesting PERSPECTIVE on Y2K worldwide (working in France for two years on the Bull Systems project and wide travel doesn't hurt either).

Determining the impact of Y2K would ideally require someone who was technically, culturally, politically and financially astute simultaneously. And even then, it would be tough.

Remember, I stated at the top that my take on remediation was an OPINION. I'm hesitant to make this thread center on that opinion. I still think Hoff's debate position with Heller was very interesting and, if I can keep my eyes from glazing over as I work through the material, it deserves more response. The problem is, I don't really care that much about anyone's Y2K opinions any more, even my own. It's too late to make a difference one way or the other, except for keeping score and I'm still hoping the final score will be, Pollies 1, Doomers 0.

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


Are we being lied to? Yes. The reasons for the lies will not be as important as the consequences of the lies. In some instances, the consequences could be severe. If you believe there are justifiable reasons for corps. to lie about Y2K remediation, please read this thread and tell me what that justification is.

HELP - Communication contingency plan for HAZMAT?

-- RUOK (RUOK@yesiam.com), September 15, 1999.


of course there's not a huge conspiracy of lies. just a million small conspiracies. and of course there are reasons to conceal the truth (eg to prevent "panic") that do not preclude BITR level impact. still, it all smells a bit fishy, and I am wondering when it will be noticed that the emperor's wearing no clothes. on the other hand, with share prices and polls being the Bottom Lines of business and politics, respectively, there is obviously excellent incentive to suppress bad news if the scenario were WORSE than BITR. gotta go now, good comments from all.

-- coprolith (coprolith@rocketship.com), September 15, 1999.

Anita: And you obviously did not understand what I wrote. If indeed a remediated system has also been tested via time advancing techniques, then SAY SO as part of the confidence level of Y2K readiness. What SOME pollies say (the more gullible ones, perhaps) is that a Y2K remediated system working problem free TODAY -- prior to Jan 1, 2000 -- is IN ITSELF proof that it is ready for Y2K. I don't buy that. Regardless of whatever technical background I may lack, I still can apply something known as COMMON SENSE, which YOU pollies seem to woefully come up short on. (For that matter, the entire stupid computer programming profession seems to suffer from a lack of common sense. I mean, did it not ever occur to you people that the day would come that the 2-digit convention would not suffice??!!!! Gawd.)

-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.com), September 15, 1999.

Big Dog wrote:

The problem is, I don't really care that much about anyone's Y2K opinions any more, even my own. It's too late to make a difference one way or the other...

I'm at that point also, BD. It will be whatever it will be, and people will either be unprepared or have little need to be prepared. At this point, I don't care to argue about it anymore. If the pollies are right, praise G-d! If they are horribly wrong, a lot of people will die. Nothing I've said or done has made much of an impact one way or the other on the big picture.

So let the chips fall where they will...

-- Nabi (nabi7@yahoo.com), September 15, 1999.


Sorry, Spain. Programmers understand that time-testing took place before programs were put back into production, so it doesn't even occur to us to mention it. Even programs that were remediated as part of a system revamp in the early 90's have been put on Y2k testing platforms more recently.

Oh yes...we KNEW the code wouldn't work in 2000...knew it as soon as we looked at the code as junior programmers. Personally, I would have liked to see the date fixes included within the large overalls performed throughout the years. They were in many instances, but I wanted this done in ALL instances. I wasn't exactly told to sit down and shut up, but pretty close.

The next time you see someone suggest that remediated programs have been put back into production, ask whether future-date testing had been performed. I betcha 100% will respond affirmatively.

-- Anita (spoonera@msn.com), September 15, 1999.


Perhaps the answer is the simplicity in the adage that if you tell a lie often enough, in the teller's eyes it becomes the truth. CIC is proof enough of that ""truth"".

In big business there is also the version of juvenile peer pressure. If 'A' doesn't admit to short comings, 'B' certainly isn't going to - no guts and why should 'B' take the losses that 'A' certainly deserves to share? In the mean time, we all lose.

And, the bottom line is, doomer's would not believe it if the "true" news truly was all good and the pollies would not believe it if everyone suddenly came "clean". Such is the state that "true lies" puts us in. Tis truly sad.

-- Valkyrie (anon@please.net), September 15, 1999.


Gawd, Anita, you still don't get it.

TESTING REVEALS THE PRESENCE OF BUGS, NOT THEIR ABSENCE.

All the testing in the world does not match the REAL EVENT. And until the REAL EVENT occurs, you cannot state that it is a "done deal" based on OTHER events.

-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.com), September 15, 1999.

Big Dog,

Good job! You've sparked some interesting thoughts and comments, and you've created one of those rare threads where everyone behaves in a reasonably civilized fashion.

For what it's worth, I agree with virtually everything you've said.

Ed

-- Ed Yourdon (HumptyDumptyY2K@yourdon.com), September 15, 1999.


Bigdog:

I UNDERSTAND we're simply discussing opinions here, and as I expressed on another thread, I don't see how an opinion can be wrong.

I don't think I would have understood the whole picture on Y2k had I not been involved in so many diverse remediation efforts, or if not involved myself, coordinated the efforts of my projects with those of the Y2k teams. Two stints at electric companies were particularly rewarding. One stint at a municipality was also quite interesting. My stint at a boot manufacturing company taught me quite a bit also. I can't think of ONE contract, in fact, that didn't open my eyes to yet another aspect of the complete picture.

Of course on all these contracts, we discussed previous contracts and how THEIR remediation went.

I would be hard-pressed to draw conclusions such as your "contention" above, based on what I've seen get done. I've also been in this field longer than you have, child! [grin]

I look forward to seeing how things play out. If failures occur, there are plenty of us available to work on them. If they don't occur, there are new systems to design and lots of other maintenance that's been put on hold due to the freezes. We all look forward to once again being part of the game. Of course I ALSO look forward to those paychecks. We've not traveled outside the country now for 2 years. I had to miss a trip to Guatemala this year because I didn't want to spend the money. I missed a great volcanic eruption!

I'm done with this thread. Let the praise and adulation continue. [grin]

-- Anita (spoonera@msn.com), September 15, 1999.


Spain:

I apparentlyh don't know how to explain time-machine testing to you in terms that you'll understand. The hardware thinks it's 2000, the operating system thinks it's 2000, and the transactions are entered with dates in 2000. If no bugs are present, does that mean they're absent? Of course not. A situation could occur later that passes through some logic that hadn't been hit in testing. This is ALWAYS true.

I have a feeling that no matter how hard I try, you've got your mind set that even time-machine tested applications will automagically fail in 2000. That's fine with me. I'm not trying to change your opinion.

-- Anita (spoonera@msn.com), September 15, 1999.


No, Anita, not "automatically fail" by any means. I am just trying to drive home the point of what testing shows -- and what it does not.

And, more importantly, to "de-bunk" the polly myth that if a Y2K remediated system is WORKING JUST FINE today, that this somehow means that it will WORK JUST FINE in 2000. Certainly, a system that is NOT working today will not work in 2000 (unless there is a sort of inverse-Y2K bug that we have never heard of), but to point to a system and say, "See, it works, and therefore will work come 2000", is bad logic that only a gullible polly could swallow. And that is plain common sense.

-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.com), September 15, 1999.

Anita -- There, don't you feel better now that you've praised me? (JUST KIDDING, JUST KIDDING).

While I COULD justify the 50% (ie, I had reasons for choosing that number), I'm the guy who believes with a passion that compliance percentages have been one of the biggest jokes of the whole thing and are themselves largely PR-driven. Look, the software industry HAS accomplished tremendous things over 40 years, but "rational" methods for collecting metrics data and reporting them ain't one of them.

The variable that can't be set with a value about Y2K (especially when embedded systems are factored in) is, "HOW compliant does the world need to be to escape 'x' result on the 1 to 10 scale?" Heck, maybe 50% will be enough. Maybe 95% won't be enough.

The reason I said that Y2K "expertise" crosses disciplinary boundaries is because there are too many (worldwide) macro dimensions interlock with the micro dimension of the code itself -- and "panic" is indeed one of them, for instance. "Terrorism" is another. In fact, there might be another thread here, not on the percentage required but the set of variables ....

50% code compliance without terrorism will beat 95% with suitcase nukes being detonated, using Y2K as a cover.

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


Big Dog : by "the Bull Project in France" did you mean the John Bull Project? if so, can we talk...email is real

thanks,

great thread

Perry

-- Perry Arnett (pjarnett@pdqnet.net), September 15, 1999.


Quote:
"Nobody believes the official spokesman...but everybody trusts an unidentified source." Ron Nelson -- quoter (quoter@quoterrr.com), September 15, 1999.
The reason nobody believes the official spokesman is that they KNOW he lies. OTH, there is at least a slim chance the unidentified source is telling the truth.

KOS -- you got so serious, you didn't invite any of the ladies to join you in the mud (unless I missed them). :-)

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


I would like to add (and I hope that this hasn't already been said somewhere on this thread) that I strongly believe (although I cannot prove) that those who are lying to us are, in addition to being duplicitous, incompetent.

Their lies will make things worse, and they will not have the personal ability to make things better when the time comes.

Perhaps this is not always true of liars, but I believe it is very true of the liars we've got now.

-- GA Russell (ga.russell@usa.net), September 15, 1999.


Our man Bertie could be pretty blunt on occasion:
"I wish to propose for the reader's favourable consideration a doctrine which may, I fear, appear wildly paradoxical and subversive. The doctrine in question is this: that it is undesirable to believe a proposition when there is no ground whatever for supposing it true." (Bertrand Russell)

Big Dog is right -- not everyone in government lies. But in the last forty years enough people in positions of power have told enough lies so that it's not possible to trust any of them you don't know personally. (I know none of them personally.) And it goes on as we speak -- cf. the current revisiting of the Waco debacle.

-- Tom Carey (tomcarey@mindspring.com), September 15, 1999.


Perry --- John Bull? No, Bull Systems. We did a complete audit of GCOS7 and GCOS8, reporting to the CEO, replete with mid 1980s recommendations for reasonable process changes, including design reviews, code inspections, meaningful test cases, metrics, etc. Mostly ignored but we made enormous sums of money and ate ourselves silly in all of Paris' best restaurants. The drill was to start dinner at 7 almost every night, finish at 10 and then walk it off for 90 minutes across Paris. Our all-expenses paid flat was on the Seine, across from the Louvre. Amazingly, I didn't gain any weight.

Needless to say, EVERYTHING has been downhill from there.

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


In summary then, Y2K lying and spin in the US is pretty much the same as in Latin America !

-- George (jvilches@sminter.com.ar), September 15, 1999.

From: Y2K, ` la Carte by Dancr near Monterey, California

The line about "other countries" being worse remediators reminds me of a phenomenon that happens with disease. In times of global epidemics, the diseases are always supposed to originate elsewhere. The same disease may be known in Great Britain as the French flu, while in france they speak of la grippe anglaise.

-- Dancr (addy.available@my.webpage), September 16, 1999.


I don't want to ruin this thread but KOS you said something about the pollys saying that if a program or system works NOW it will work fine in 2000. (something like that)

I have NEVER seen that on ANY y2k site, polly or otherwise. perhaps you can give an example (maybe NOT on this thread, so it doesn't get de-railed)

-- fence sitter (leaningtow@rd.polly), September 16, 1999.


* * * 19990917 Friday

The Y2K flak, shill, spin "lying" would stop immediately if ALL NON- DISCLOSURE AGREEMENTS entered into by the programmers/technicians representing ~10% of those buying and preparing for Y2K today! ( Note: Think about it: Systems folk represent 1% of the employed population! ) This speaks volumes about where the lies lay.

Without NON-DISCLOSURE agreements, {editorial} we would have plenty of solid, unfiltered information from the insiders doing the work for proper and prudent Y2K preparations.

As the status quo stands, the Y2K good news spin doctors in and out of government are spewing happy face garbage to the non-critically thinking public with impunity. They--and they know who they are-- will face "justice" from the starving herd.

Regards, Bob Mangus

* * *

-- Robert Mangus (rmangus1@yahoo.com), September 17, 1999.


what was that about lying....???....

-- One Wonders (WHO@was.doing the lying), January 03, 2000.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ