The following is the URL to The Standish group's report dated 1995.

http://www.standishgroup.com/chaos.html

Most of you will not read it. It is not terribly long and extremely inforamtive. It is kind of a short story on the big picture of IT Metrics. It CLEARLY explains why the vast majority of IT projects do not finish on time or on budget.

Here are some interesting snippets, interspersed with my 'germane' comments.

On the Failure side...

"The Standish Group research shows a staggering 31.1% of projects will be canceled before they ever get completed. Further results indicate 52.7% of projects will cost 189% of their original estimates."

The huge budget overruns are amply demonstrated in Y2K remediation, especially in the federal government. Not only did they start with a budget of only $1 Billion, that was for all 70,000 systems. Eventually, they pared that down to only 6000 systems and the budget went up to $8.5 billion.

Please do not attempt to tell me that they ''were or 'are' on top of things. They 'were' not and they 'are' not now. simple, classic and unrefutable IT Metrics.

On the success side...

"On the success side, the average is only 16.2% for software projects that are completed on-time and on-budget. In the larger companies, the news is even worse: only 9% of their projects come in on-time and on-budget. "

One may argue that these metrics apply mainly to new projects and not to the 'mere maintenance' work of Y2k. This is balderdash. These metrics are not so merely because the '' original specification requirements' changed. They are so because of the state of affairs in IT as a whole. It is an infant industry. Y2k is not like a rookie big leaguer going back to a sandlot to play against teen-agers, just because it is mere maintenance work. There is no demonstrable difference in the difficulty of Y2k remediation work and the level of dificulty of new project work. Maybe remediation is even MORE dificult due to some facets peculiar to it such as the tedium.

As well, it dispells the myth that 'the big boys' have some sort of advantage. The party line is that the big boys are getting the job done, while the little guys are floundering. Actually, their survey shows that the 'big boys' have proven themselves to be less capable.

Time Over-runs

"For large companies, the average is 230%; for medium companies, the average is 202%; and for small companies, the average is 239%."

Bottom line: There is a demonstrable history of failure to meet deadlines. And not by a mere increment. The time over-runs are HUGE.

Typical comments:

"We have 500 projects. None are on-time and on-budget. This year, 40% will get canceled," said Edward, Vice President of MIS at a pharmaceutical company.

Other comments went directly to the reasons for failure. Jim, the Director of IT at a major medical equipment manufacturer, said: "Being that it's a mindset, it's very difficult to get all of the management -- it's even on the local level, not even on a worldwide level -- to get all of the management to agree on a set of rules.... That's a challenge in itself because you have to, in some cases, convince them that this is best for the company, not necessarily best for them, but best for the company. And you have to have that buy-in. If you don't have that buy-in, you're going to fail. I don't care how big or how small the project is."

John, Director of MIS at a government agency added: "Probably 90% of application project failure is due to politics!" And Kathy, a programmer at a telecommunication company, offered an even more scathing comment on politics: "Sometimes you have to make a decision you don't like. Even against your own nature. You say well, it's wrong, but you make that decision anyway. It's like taking a hammer to your toe. It hurts."

Bob, the Director of MIS at a hospital, commented on external factors contributing to project failure. "Our biggest problem is competing priorities," he said. "We just had a reorganization today. So now that's going to sap all the resources. And explaining to senior management that, 'Well, it's really taking us the time we said it was going to take. But because you've reorganized the company, I'm going to take another six months on this other project, because I'm doing something else for you.' That's the biggest issue I have." Bill, the Director of MIS at a securities firm, added: "Changes, changes, changes; they're the real killers."

Some of the comments were darkly humorous. "Brain-dead users, just plain brain-dead users," said Peter, an application analyst at a bank. "When the projected started to fail," said Paul, a programmer at a personal products manufacturer, "the management got behind it -- way behind."

The comment most indicative of the chaos in project development came from Sid, a project manager at an insurance company. "The project was two years late and three years in development," he said. "We had thirty people on the project. We delivered an application the user didn't need. They had stopped selling the product over a year before."

Some of these comments are not apparently directly related to Y2k remediation per se, however they render an adequate picture of the disarray in IT.

Insight

"Software components and small projects tend to be less complex. Making the projects simpler is a worthwhile endeavor because complexity causes only confusion and increased cost."

Y2k, globally, is the biggest combined software 'project' ever attempted. It has no central authority or leadership. It is utterly disjointed. Information was poorly shared, if at all. It has various 'solutions' (expansion, encapsulation, windowing), and few standards. It is amazingly complex and that very complexity contributes HEAVILY towards the disposition that it will NOT be accomplished on time successfully.

This is the 'big picture' on the state of affairs in IT. It is not much different now than it was in 1995 and some suggest it is actually worse. This is not meant to bash geeks. It is just an honest assessment of who is doing the remdiation. The track record is abysmal. There are no two ways about it, all nit picking aside. On top of that, only a relative minority of code is being remediated. The start was so late that the majority had to prioritize systems into non-mission critical and mission critical. It remains to be seen whether these classifications even indentified that which was and was not actually mission critical. More than one 'dope-slap' is going to resound.

And this is JUST here, in the USA where only 25% of all the code in the world resides. The other 75% is out there somewhere. Now think, Russia, China, Italy, Germany, Indonesia, India, all asleep at the switch. Now think the reports from our own Senate about countries like Venezuela, Saudi Arabai and other Oil exporters being 'severely' behind.

When I have to guess what to do for the safety of my family in light of the above picture of who is doing the remediation, then I opt heavily on the side of substantial preparation in anticipation of catastrphic results.

Won't be long now.

-- Paul Milne "If you live within 5 miles of a 7-11, you're toast"

-- Paul Milne (fedinfo@halifax.com), September 23, 1999

Answers

Paul:

This is interesting and all of it may be true: but, it is not my problem. Mine is: they keep sending critical Y2K patches. At the present rate, I will be getting them through 2010. At some point I will have to say FOF!

Best wishes,

Z

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), September 23, 1999.

Paul,

That is an irrefutable statement...It won't be long now!

I even sense the speed in the River of Time increasing in speed...it seems that sometime this past Summer we could stop paddling, the current just pushing us along...and we even know the location of the rapids...we just don't know if it is just rapids, or Niagra Falls!

-- K. Stevens (kstevens@ It's ALL going away in January.com), September 23, 1999.

FOF = If it is mission critical you keep working around the clock with no sleep and no breaks until the damn thing is fixed or you pass out from exhaustion.

Fun Fun Fun.

-- Simon Richards (simon@wair.com.au), September 23, 1999.

SILCON- SAND--HM? JESUS SAID DON,T BUILD ON SAND.

-- why-not? (dogs@zianet.com), September 23, 1999.

Not a bad technical assessment for a pig farmer, aye Flint?

-- a (a@a.a), September 23, 1999.

Aye, 'a'. Not bad for a pig farmer, as you say.

If I read this correctly, what we have here is a collection of humorous anecdotes and quotes concerning failed programming projects, dated 1995. Sprinkled with some Capers Jones statistics, all carefully culled from the worst cases Jones and Standish could find.

Yes, I'm absolutely sure that these descriptions could be dead on target for a few remediation projects today. Indeed, the world as we know it practically *requires* that this be the case. We live in a reality of an infinity of overlapping bell curves, and anyone who wants to paint a hopelessly inaccurate and biased picture need only sample from the tip of any of those curves, as is done here.

Which is why this analysis is only good by pig farmer standards. As Nabi so accurately pointed out on another thread, if we were all this stupid, we'd have gone extinct long ago. Fortunately, those of us who aren't this stupid choose to subsidize those who are. It's called compassion, even though it's not voluntary.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), September 23, 1999.

Listen Flinty, I work for a super large government agency that was ready a fucking year ago, that millions depend on, and guess what, our computers have been down for 2 days. Finally came back today. Our fucking website says that we won't really know how things are until next year. Yet the sheeple are led to believe its all roses and pineapples. All you pollies are on prozak....

-- core (calling@it.com), September 23, 1999.

http://www.standishgroup.com/chaos.html

99 days.

Y2K CANNOT BE FIXED!

-- Jack (jsprat@eld.net), September 23, 1999.

As Nabi so accurately pointed out on another thread, if we were all this stupid, we'd have gone extinct long ago

Some extinctions are caused by the inability to cope with sudden new conditions.

Stupid has nothing to do with extinction unless you think cockroaches are smart. Sometimes, Flint, your arguments just kinda suck.

-- Dog Gone (layinglow@rollover.now), September 23, 1999.

Flint:

I respect your opinions, but I have a question. You have responded to Paul. Now you should respond to Al-D. Craig has. You have an obligation. You know the build on sand stuff.

best wishes,

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), September 23, 1999.

Simon:

Good definition, but no way. In a short time I leave for the North Cascades. I can't be reached.

Best wishes,

Z

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), September 23, 1999.

Z, visit us on your way over 'n out.

-- Ashton & Leska in Cascadia (allaha@earthlink.net), September 23, 1999.

My Dear Mr. Flint Sir...Long have you bedazzled them with B/S! And frequently you have disdained the profession of animal husbandry....Shorty though, in a matter of months sir...It will be root Hog! Or die! And your famous retoric will not stay the grim reaper's attendance to your needs. I but wonder what debate you will seek to begin when there are none who will listen; none who will take pity on your sorry A$$. It is 99 days and counting some say...it can be shorter or pehaps a little longer in the sliding time scale. But sir .....Something evil this way comes, and you had better stop short on the long winded debates you so love. And start putting by something to fill you and your's stomaches with...Just in case the gentleman farmer is more right than wrong... ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Shakey~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

-- Shakey (in_a_bunker@forty.feet), September 24, 1999.

"involuntary compassion"? I'm speechless, Flint.

-- DaveW (dwood@southwind.net), September 24, 1999.

Went to a Sprint PCS retail shop last Sunday and bought a dual band cell phone. Was informed that activation may take an hour or two. Went home, put it on the charger (as instructed) overnight. Monday morning tried it out. Canned message: "Your account cannot be validated at this time...." Tried again Monday afternoon, Monday evening, Tuesday several times, Wednesday morning. Each try got the same response: "Your account cannot be validated at this time."

Took the phone back to the the PCS shop Wednesday afternoon. Folks there checked everything out. All was in order, so far as they could tell. Still no joy, though. Finally they swapped that unit out for a new phone. Brought it home, charged it up as before. But still got the same message: "Your account cannot be validated at this time."

Went back to the shop today (Thursday). Persuaded the people to talk to Sprint technical support. Support confirmed that everything was in order technically, but told them that activation often took up to 48 hours. I pointed out that after 72 hours the first phone still wasn't activated. Hmmm. "Go home, wait a couple of days, let's see what happens."

While waiting for the tech support call to go through (it took a while) the tech I was dealing with happened to mention that Sprint had very recently implemented a new system-wide accounting program.

Oi weh.

-- Tom Carey (tomcarey@mindspring.com), September 24, 1999.

Flint,

Without regard to Mr. Milne's "old" information, can you name an industry that is compliant today? Not close. Not 97%. I mean compliant. No, sir, you cannot. Now, we were told nearly 2 years ago by Corporate America and by Fed.gov.org that they would be DONE by Dec. 98 or Jan 99, which would allow for a full year of testing. Where are we today, sir, with regard to these statements?

As you and I have already discussed some time back, maybe it won't be the end of civilization. Maybe it won't be back to the stone age. Hell, we may even be able to live within 5 miles of a 7-11 without being toasted!! But the point of Mr. Milne's post is that the Remediation Effort has Failed. I think you will have to agree with Paul for a change...yes?

-- Don Wegner (donfmwyo@earthlink.net), September 24, 1999.

why-not,

It cannot be that simple? Brilliant! I looked at that saying and never connected. Thanks for that.

SILCON- SAND--HM? JESUS SAID DON,T BUILD ON SAND.

-- why-not? (dogs@zianet.com), September 23, 1999.

-- freeman (freeman@cali.com), September 24, 1999.

My experience with software projects is that they are "done" when the funding runs out. They get turned over to the customer and if the customer has problems, they need to come up with more funding. Basically, when the boss says you're done, you are done. No arguing tolerated. Given that time is money, we actually have had immovable deadlines in the past and that is how they are handled.

-- Amy Leone (leoneamy@aol.com), September 24, 1999.

Amy,

That's exactly how this will be handled as well, eh? Yes. Ultimately the customer WILL have something and in many cases it will be worthless but it will be 'done'. Gotta smile at that insight into the politics and economics of organizations.

-- ..- (dit@dot.dash), September 24, 1999.

Flint will argue anything right or wrong

-- (not@now.com), September 24, 1999.

Remediation has failed???!!!???

Did I sleep through the rollover?????

Kind of a bold statement coming from a pig farmer. My calendar clearly shows it's still 1999.

Is there something about pig farming that enables you to see the future???

Maybe I'm in the wrong business........

Deano

-- Deano (deano@luvthebeach.com), September 24, 1999.

Here Flint & Deano - Enjoy:

"IT managers of the nation's largest corporations report improved performance in meeting Year 2000 deadlines (because) only 81 percent are now experiencing an accelerated incidence of missed deadlines." - Cap Gemini, August 1999

-- a (a@a.a), September 24, 1999.

dogs@zianet.com,

silicon=sand: thas freekun scary, dude!

-- prep-uh-ray-shuns (coffee@bean.store), September 24, 1999.

Don:

I've said all along, and I'll say again, that compliance cannot and will not EVER be achieved by anybody. It simply can't be done. Because of this, I've never claimed that a single organization of any size will be fully compliant, much less a whole industry. Close is the best anyone will EVER get.

And you need to be very careful with your shifting definition of the word "done". If companies were going to be "done" leaving a year for testing, and testing is an essential part of the project, then clearly they were not planning to be "done" before they even tested, right? If you're done, you don't need to test, right?

If you're willing to pick ONE definition of done, we can probably answer your question. Those who originally announced that they'd be "done" with their remediation leaving a year for testing (a minority, despite Gary North), then we're 2/3 of the way through that year of testing. By even that definition, we're not *supposed* to be done yet. We're supposed (at best) to be 2/3 tested.

Now you ask, where are with respect to 2/3 tested? I don't think such a point is particularly measurable. And even if it were, I don't know how meaningful it would be for the global economy anyway. And if testing finds bugs (it damn well better, right?) then of course there is more remediation to do to fix those bugs. Testing is forever.

Now, has "the remediation" failed? Quite the contrary. Yes, some shops are way behind and will suffer badly. Some can't think of anything else to test. Most in the US are today undergoing one successful battery of tests after another. And as Hoffmeister has pointed out, many are finishing up the trauma of major upgrades or replacements to compliant hardware and software. Which we've survived just fine, despite the very large number of very large organizations pursuing such approaches.

And back to Milne. If he is saying that remediation has failed to achieve provable perfection, of course I agree with this. This exalted state was never reachable even in theory. Which makes it a straw man. However, if he's saying remediation has failed because too many organizations are too far behind to remain minimally functional come rollover, then he is loony as a mad hatter.

There is, as far as I can tell, AMPLE indication that WAY over a critical mass of economic actors passed the point of guaranteed continued functionality long ago. Most of them are now going through the motions of establishing this to everyone's satisfaction (who is satisfiable at all, which Milne will never be), and creating contingency plans unless their partners don't get there (unlikely but worth guarding against), and cleaning up the loose ends (noncritical systems, etc.).

So saying that remediation has failed is practical nonsense. Remediation has been a rousing success, despite isolated pockets of really screwed up projects. As I said earlier, anyone who wants to create a truly false impression can take case studies from the far tip of the normal curve and pretend those cases are normal. They are not. THEIR remediation has failed, I agree. THEY are in the tiny minority, however spectacular their failure.

You could look ONLY at businesses that go broke, and conclude that there are no successful businesses anywhere. But a simple look around you should convince you otherwise. And if you refuse to look because Milne refuses to look that's your choice. Not mine.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), September 24, 1999.

Flint,

Why would you accuse me of changing the definition of "done"???

I come to this forum seeking knowledge from those who are far more qualified than I on this subject. I was asking you a serious question and was not trying to be combative...and if you took it otherwise then that was not the intent!

It has been my understanding that when someone says they are "done" with remediation and in the testing phase, that means inventory and assesment is finished, code has been remediated, and has been validated. The only thing left would be to implement the whole works and test it in a real-world environment.

The reason for my question in the first place is that so many are still working on remediating code, not to mention the rather significant number of folks who have chosen to do nothing! So if this is the case, then I would have to conclude that Hamasaki and Milne are correct, the remediation effort has failed. I don't understand how you can state that the remediation effort has been a rousing success...there's a lot more than just a few isolated pockets of really screwed up projects. I don't see any glowing reports of people being completely done, and I mean by that, remediated, tested, and back in production. I am seeing a lot of "allmost there" type stuff. You and Hoff are saying most companies are doing fine, but the companies themselves are not saying that! Why?

-- Don Wegner (donfmwyo@earthlink.net), September 24, 1999.

Answer to flint's nonesense...

And back to Milne. If he is saying that remediation has failed to achieve provable perfection, of course I agree with this.

(Of course you would. Because it is NOT what I. Show me ONE time that anyone is concerned with acheiving 'perfection'. I am not accusing them of failing to make the perfect grade. I am accusing themof not doing even in the ballpark of ENOUGH. But you love to set up straw men, then, don't you? It is your stock and trade.)

This exalted state was never reachable even in theory.

( And once again, NO ONE has EVER made the comment that we need to have absolutely 100% done, in practicality. Just enough. What ever that is. But the manifest evidence is that not even half are done. )

Which makes it a straw man. However, if he's saying remediation has failed because too many organizations are too far behind to remain minimally functional come rollover, then he is loony as a mad hatter.

(Notice how the pollyanna always lowers the bar to the most minimal of standards to make his argument. In this highly competitive dog eat dog world of JIT flint thinks that they can just be 'minimally functiuonal'. How is GM 'minimally functional' if only ten percent of it's vendors were unable to deliver? five percent? recently, over 600 businesses went bankrupt as a DIRECT result of the temporary two week UPS strike. 600. And there were a myriad of other shipping alternatives available. Evidently flint's brain is only 'minimally functional', that is if I give it THAT much credit.)

So saying that remediation has failed is practical nonsense.

( actually, saying that it HASN"T is the real nonsense. The Federal government is spending $8.5 BBBILION dollars to fix less than ten percent of their systems and they are not even close to having remediated and properly tested. Globally, the situation is light years worse. )

Remediation has been a rousing success, despite isolated pockets of really screwed up projects.

( If anything this is an example of the most stupid comment I have ever seen concerning Y2k. Not even de jager is THIS stupid. Not even Koskinen. Not even Zvegnitov. Not even RATcliffe. To think that there are ONLY 'isolated pockets' of screwups is to admit that you are totally clueless in regards to Y2k and Completely INEPT in even the most rudimentary forms of observation. It is to admit that you have no appreciation of even the most basic history of Abysmal IT metrics.)

You could look ONLY at businesses that go broke, and conclude that there are no successful businesses anywhere. But a simple look around you should convince you otherwise. And if you refuse to look because Milne refuses to look that's your choice. Not mine.

( Flint, you stupidity knows no bounds. Like I said, I have seen some REALLY stupid things written about Y2k and you just took the cake. The ALL TIME biggest ass on the Y2K issue that I have ever seen. To call the remediation a "ROUSING SUCCESS' will serve to show every reader of this forum what a Class "A" moron that you are. I will definitely have to cross post this to CSY2K so that everone can have a good guffaw at your expense.)

Paul Milne "If you live within 5 miles of a 7-11, you're toast"

-- Paul Milne (fedinfo@halifax.com), September 24, 1999.

Don:

[Sorry if I sound combative -- not my intention. I admit I'm irritated with Milne's efforts to turn a messy and complex situation into a binary coinflip -- we've either "failed" or we havent. The real world doesn't work that way. I'll try to answer you better, as well as I can, OK?]

Why would you accuse me of changing the definition of "done"???

[I didn't intend it that way. I was just referring to what I judge to be a "definition of convenience" being used here, perhaps not by you. Just so long as we're clear that an organization could have completed the remediation phase last year and still be testing, and therefore not "done" even though their original schedule has NOT slipped.]

I come to this forum seeking knowledge from those who are far more qualified than I on this subject. I was asking you a serious question and was not trying to be combative...and if you took it otherwise then that was not the intent!

[OK, if so I apologize]

It has been my understanding that when someone says they are "done" with remediation and in the testing phase, that means inventory and assesment is finished, code has been remediated, and has been validated. The only thing left would be to implement the whole works and test it in a real-world environment.

[Fine, provided you realize that this model isn't entirely realistic. Organizations recognize that some of their systems are far more critical than others. They assign the bulk of their resources to these systems first. As a result, these critical systems enter the testing phase while other systems are still in remediation, and yet others (the "office coffee maker" category) haven't even been assessed yet. So you can have a great many systems all in different phases at any given time. I doubt that anyone at all tried to remediate ALL systems before beginning to test ANY of their systems. That approach would be pretty senseless. Bear this in mind, because this real-world status-mix will be important soon...]

The reason for my question in the first place is that so many are still working on remediating code, not to mention the rather significant number of folks who have chosen to do nothing!

[OK, hopefully *most* those organizations still remediating are either remediating less-important stuff, or are correcting what their testing showed was not done corrrectly. The purpose of testing is to find errors. Fixing those errors before retesting means back to remediation. That's life.]

So if this is the case, then I would have to conclude that Hamasaki and Milne are correct, the remediation effort has failed.

[I wouldn't lump those two together. Milne's position is religious -- his conclusions come first, and his data are shaped to fit it, however much those data must be twisted to do so. Hamasaki is another story, and his viewpoint demands to be taken seriously. And Hamasaki says he knows of BIG outfits who did it right, and will be in good shape. He also says some other BIG outfits did it wrong, and their ability to survive is problematic.

My reading is that Hamasaki is trying to build the big picture by extrapolating from his personal experience. And his experience is of course with failing systems -- you don't call in a Hamasaki otherwise, because those are big expensive clocks ticking away Hamasaki-type hourly rates. And of course his advice is solicited by others in the same boat, and his correspondence tends to be with people of similar experience with failing systems. And for sure there are failing remediation projects out there. If there are a million organizations undergoing remediation, you'd expect under normal distribution that at least a few thousand of those are going to be hopeless. And Hamasaki's data tend to be culled from those few thousand. For them, remediation has failed.

Try thinking of a medical model. From a doctor's perspective, the state of national health might seem pretty grim, especially if he has no external source of data (outside his own practice) that he considers reliable. The doctor only sees sick people and generalizes from there. (And of course Milne IS sick, and thinks everyone else must be as well).]

I don't understand how you can state that the remediation effort has been a rousing success...there's a lot more than just a few isolated pockets of really screwed up projects.

[Well, I can only disagree here, and time will prove one of us to be more nearly correct. Yes, we know some projects are failing, but we lack perspective in important ways. We need to look at this status very indrectly, and most people are uncomfortable with that. By indirect, I mean, what should we be seeing if things are going as badly as you fear? We should be seeing a LOT more failures than we are. Recruiters should be seeing concern to panic in the eyes of their recruits, and they are not. CIOs and project leaders should be bailing in huge numbers, and they are not. Salaries of experienced remediators should be rising, and they're falling. Openings for remediators and testers should be everywhere, and they are almost nonexistent. Remediation budgets should be skyrocketing and few are -- most firms have underspent their budgets substantially. Programming newsgroups (COBOL, mainframe, embedded, assembly, etc.) should be hotbeds of concern and shared techniques, and y2k isn't even mentioned there. The market should have dropped WAY below where it is now. A whole lot of smart money should be moving into more catastrophe-resistant instruments, especially if these CEOs are lying. And so on and on and on.

So no, we cannot point to working systems THIS year and say directly that y2k has been reduced to a minor problem. But there are clearly LOTS of things we ought to be seeing if y2k is a big deal, and we aren't seeing ANY of them.]

I don't see any glowing reports of people being completely done, and I mean by that, remediated, tested, and back in production. I am seeing a lot of "almost there" type stuff. You and Hoff are sayingmost companies are doing fine, but the companies themselves are not saying that! Why?

[Interesting. I've seen at least a thousand such reports, for all practical purposes. If you are expecting any legal departments to permit companies to promise that NOTHING will go wrong, you can wait until hell freezes over. Never happen, because things are always going wrong. A huge amount of code is now remediated, tested, and back in production. Remember that this doesn't happen all at once. I believe the most important systems meet this description, and more systems of lesser importance meet it every day. And also remember that "almost there" is the BEST we can EVER do. Perfection can never be achieved. That's a Milne strawman.

And the companies ARE saying they're doing fine. Pick a few threads at random, and count the number of times the doomies chant about self- reporting, and you can't trust CEO's and you can't trust the government and you can't trust ANYONE who says things are fine. And all the times the media are attacked for echoing this PR stuff, etc.

I myself cannot believe that companies can possibly be doing as fine as they say they are. I discount these press releases at least 50%. If I didn't, I wouldn't ever post here, I'd be moving on with my life.

Finally, we don't have any working definition of "good enough", not even a ballpark definition. I have suggested that if we don't need our preparations to survive, then we got "close enough." Nobody has suggested ANY better definition. I suspect that the pessimists on this forum don't want to go near such a definition, so that next year they can claim that we didn't come "close enough" no matter WHAT happens.

They will be sitting at their computers, in their warm houses, eatting fresh junk food and drinking cold beer, and combing the net for stories about glitches that happened here and there. And they will find plenty of them, and they'll cluck at one another over how they were right and y2k was a calamity after all, if you only know where to look!]

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), September 24, 1999.

sure enough, this one's cross-linked to csy2k

-- cross eyed (and@just.plain.cross), September 25, 1999.