If things were going well, it would not be possible to hear the following information.... But, let's see, after reading it, if flint's words "Rousing Success" come to mind. =======

"The longest running poll of Y2K readiness has very bad news about corporate America. Cap Gemini and Rubin Systems have been surveying 161 large corporations for two years. In August 1998, twelve percent of the companies didn't expect to have their critical systems repaired in time for the Year 2000; since then, the percentage has grown steadily: by August 1999, it had reached forty-eight percent not expecting to have their critical systems done in time. It should go without saying that, if all is well, those numbers would be going down, not up."

As it stands now, almost HALF do not expect to finish EVEN their mission critical systems. And Mission critical systems constitute only a minor fraction of the totality of their systems. And these are the results for 161 LARGE companies that are supposed to be 'getting it'. This is horrifying information. Does this bring to mind the words "Rousing Success"?

"And the Y2K Experts Poll conducted in June by CIO Magazine4 revealed that 18 percent of the 892 companies surveyed were more than a month behind schedule; more than half admitted they may have malfunctions or failures in critical systems; and, one in four admitted they either are not assessing all their embedded control systems or they are, basically, just going to wait and see what happens."

More than a month behind schedule. par for the course, but it does not say 'how much farther than a month' behind. It could be several months behind, easily, the way things are going. And a FULL 25% are not dealing at all with their embedded systems. That is a sure fire guarantee of major legue problems. Does this bring to mind the words "Rousing Success"?

"That strategy  that widespread strategy of hoping for the best while waiting to see what happens  has come to be called Fix on Failure. It does not seem to occur to these companies that waiting to see what fails and then trying to fix it is not so much optimism or hope or positive thinking as it is gambling. And, much like gambling, it's effective only if you gamble the right way.'

"Given all that, I must ask you if you believe in miracles. You're supposed to. You're supposed to believe that, for the first time in the history of the human race, we already know how long it will take to fix problems that haven't happened yet: two or three days, that's what's said. Just two or three days. "

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

It is sheer luncacy to come to the conclusion that we are in the throes of a "Rousing success."

Half not getting even their mission critical systems done, 25% not dealing with their embedded systems,18% more than a month behind schedule and many relying solely upon 'fix on failure'.

Just take one of the above. 48% do not expect to get mission critical systems done. BY DEFINITION the mission critical systems are absolutely ESSENTIAL to the operation of the company. Almost hald don't think they will get their essential systems done. Does this categorically mean the company will fail? No. What it means is that the best informed, best prepared, most on-top-of-it companies can not even get their essential systems done in time; a tiny fraction of ALL their systems.

A "ROUSING SUCCES" !!!!!

I imagine that flint would have thought the maiden voyage of the Titanic was a 'rousing success'. Hey, they got more than 48% across a 99% iceberg free Atlantic Ocean.

flint, you ought to hide your miserable face in embarrassment. Why would anyone listen to a word you have to say in the face of your LUDICROUS assessment that Y2K is a "ROUSING SUCCESS"?

(and flint...please try to confine your comments to the topic at hand...which is YOUR assessment that Y2k is a "ROUSING SUCCESS." It has NOTHING to do with me or my beliefs. We are talking about YOU and YOUR beliefs. If you can not constrain your self to the topic at hand, then remain silent. If you want to talk about my beliefs, start a new thread. Let's see if you can co-operate with even the most simple of directives/requests to stay on topic)

http://www.wbn.com/y2ktimebomb/Computech/Issues/lcore9938b.htm

Thanks to Lane Core for his very fine article. It makes taking on flint like shooting fish in a barrel! -- Paul Milne "If you live within 5 miles of a 7-11, you're toast"

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

Answers

Citing *Lane Core* as evidence? Hehehe. But then, Lane Core cites his own articles as "evidence". Maybe you can get Lane to cite your rants as evidence too? Looks like the Doompool is drying up, eh?

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

Paul Milne, what's a fine mind like yours doing even noticing that Flint exists?

You're waisting bandwith, the both of you. (and me too.)

-- Chris (#$%^&@pond.com), September 24, 1999.

Answers Citing *Lane Core* as evidence?

No flint-boy, I did not cite Lane Core as any evidence at all. He merely authored the article that cites the evidence.

But, I asked you...

"and flint...please try to confine your comments to the topic at hand...which is YOUR assessment that Y2k is a "ROUSING SUCCESS." It has NOTHING to do with me or my beliefs. We are talking about YOU and YOUR beliefs. If you can not constrain your self to the topic at hand, then remain silent. If you want to talk about my beliefs, start a new thread. Let's see if you can co-operate with even the most simple of directives/requests to stay on topic"

You have not adressed the topic at hand. You have defaulted once again, and not even in very good style.

You claimed a rousing success and i provided evidenc ethat ove rhalf of all firms in the surveys will not even get their critical stuff done, nor will 25% look at their embedded issues, as well, a nice chunk are months behind schedule.

You failed to address the facts in any substantive way, once again as is your style to run away like a scalded cat.

All you have done is to impugn Lane Core. He did not make the surveys. he reported them. Do you take issue with them? Say so and say why. Otherwise, you cackling moron, begone like the ignorant wretch that you are.

Even when the evidence is right in your face, you run away like a little sissy.

Apparently your retort was a "ROUSING SUCCESSS'

BWAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

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

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

Flint: Paul has issued a challenge to you and you're not responding. What's the matter, are you chicken? Have you run out of excuses? Or has all that sand you've been inhaling with your head stuck in the ground so you can't see what's going on clogged up your brain?

-- cody (cody@y2ksurvive.com), September 24, 1999.

I was there 1980 MS State 6 alabama 3

-- The Count of Meijer Crisco (40@cansof.course), September 24, 1999.

Hey, Flint. Cite some facts. Engage in some reasoning. Or quit farting.

-- Lane Core Jr. (elcore@sgi.net), September 24, 1999.

Yeah, Flint. Try using some actual data instead of always calling people names, you dumbass polly.

-- (briton@where.are.they), September 24, 1999.

Flint , you need a seeing eye dog AND your Mamma ! Where are the rebuttals ??? LLK

-- L.L. Knows (LonelyLurker@feelfree.com), September 24, 1999.

Cody, Lane, brion, L.L., before you get on Flint's case, what about your feeble leader Milne?

30 times now over the last few months I've asked Milne for any piece of evidence on the certainty "millions and millions and uncounted millions will die" (his words, not mine) and the only answer I ever got was profane and off-point.

In other words, when it comes to examples Flint may not be a saint, but your boy sure as hell is a miserable sinner. Consider that next time, fellas.

-- Paul Neuhardt (neuhardt@ultranet.com), September 24, 1999.

More typical polly spin. Milne probably didn't give you any evidence because you were too stupid to understand it. Consider that next time, dumbass.

-- (briton@where.are.they), September 24, 1999.

Hey Lane. Since you quote them in your "article", do you know what Cap Gemini means by "critical systems"?

-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-deja.com), September 24, 1999.

Didja forget about the part of the very statement you're quoting from that says:

"The good news is that the vast majority don't see their level of compliance as posing any major business risk. Only about one in ten said that non-compliance may impose a significant business risk. 6% are simply not sure what is going to happen."

Or do you always pull the little factoids you use out of context? There's a word for that... spin.

RC

-- RC (randyxpher@aol.com), September 24, 1999.

Paul started a new thread with that quote pulled out of context, and I replied in great detail on the original thread. So on the SECOND thread, I explained that my response was on the first thread.

In response, Paul started a THIRD thread to attack me, where my reference was not to be found. How very clever.

So once again, I explained what I meant in great detail in several long and careful responses to Don Wegner on the original thread. I've already responded. Go read it. And just hope that Paul doesn't start yet another thread in response!

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

Here is my response. I guess I've got to cross post.

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.

Sorry Flint, nice try but NO CIGAR. Your polly spin sounds good but doesn't hold water.

-- Close, but.... (forgetit@sorry.com), September 24, 1999.

Shaking head in disbelief...You're gonna have to start a whole new series now Paul, check out the latest dumbass statement from Flint.

"On balance, in a bad y2k situation JIT is a decided net benefit."

I'm going to confess that when I first found this forum Flint impressed me with his command of the english language and at times very persuasive arguments. However as the evidence mounts and his position becomes more and more untenable the cracks in his logic are becoming glaringly apparent. I can't even begin to decipher the kind of twisted logic loop that leads to statements like this.

-- Nikoli Krushev (doomsday@y2000.com), September 25, 1999.

Close:

I assume you gave it at least 30 seconds of careful judgment, long enough to list all the points you disagree with. And your list doesn't surprise me a bit.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), September 25, 1999.

Nikoli:

Like Milne, you take the concluding sentence of a long and careful argument, pluck it entirely out of context, and then hold it up and mock it, without letting on that there WAS a context. Just because Milne pulls stunts like this doesn't mean you are obliged to imitate him.

If you disagree with the *argument* I presented about JIT, explain where you think I went wrong and I'll discuss it with you. Otherwise, you simply look like a bigoted jerk.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), September 25, 1999.

',=Flint<-#= "plonk",='z

-- look out (it's@contagious.ooy), September 25, 1999.

',=Flint ^-#= "plonk",='z

-- look out (it's@contagious.ooy), September 25, 1999.

Flint you could write an article the length of the encyclopedia brittanica but when it closes with the statement in question everything else said is shown for the bullshit it is.

-- Nikoli Krushev (doomsday@y2000.com), September 25, 1999.

Flint:

I am a recruiter. I ask all of my candidates who have any trace of background in Y2K work how it went, what they expect to see next year.

The overwhelming majority can be quoted as saying, "It's going to be a real mess", "Transportation is going to trip us up", "Do you know who was running that (MAJOR)chemical company's Y2K effort? The legal department. I moved 100 miles upwind.......

Yes, I've heard success stories. I do not discount them, actually, when a former IS manager tells me how he "tricked" his company into starting Y2K remediation in 1995, and it still took three years, I take him at his word.

All done. Some are doing very well, as Cory says. Many are flopping, according to the people who were working on the projects themselves.

I do NOT push my personal opinion or spin on these folks. I am trying to determine facts. By and large, the facts I have discovered do not lend themselves to optimism.

I hope you are right. Crow tastes fine, I've eaten it before (literally), will you be cooking next year if you are right and I am wrong? I want double helpings........

-- Jon Williamson (pssomerville@sprintmail.com), September 25, 1999.

Flint, you could post a lengthy argument that 1+1=3 and make it sound convicing. If a doomer stated that most fire trucks are red, you would make an argument that most fire trucks are green. Why would I, or anyone else, waste his or her time arguing with you? You talk out of both sides of your mouth and use twisted logic to support your views (which are pretty tough to figure out at times).

-- No Cigar (nocigar@flintshopeless.com), September 25, 1999.

Nikoli:

Yes, JIT would end up being a net benefit in a BAD y2k breakdown, although (as I said and you omitted) if y2k is minor, JIT definitely works against us. I explained why, I gave the pros and cons, you ignored all of this and quoted the conclusion without emphasizing (as I tried to do) that JIT leads to both faster breakdown AND faster recovery. If y2k is bad and recovery is required, THEN and ONLY THEN is JIT a net benefit. If you think (as I do) that y2k will be minor, then I agree that JIT is bad news. But if you think y2k will be major, then you should appreciate the flexibility JIT provides.

Finally, if Gary North or Paul Milne or one of your heroes TOLD you that JIT was just awful and you've never given it any thought, then this is not my fault. You must think before you can understand.

No cigar:

For a long time, all fire trucks were red. But some years back, this convention started being given a second look. Red is as hard to see at night as black, maybe even harder. And fires happen at night as well. So they did some studies to see what color could be seen best both day and night, and came up with a kind of greenish yellow. Newer trucks use this high-visibility color much more than red, so the overall mix out there is changing.

The point of my saying this is, I try to focus on what's actually happening out there and why. The current (changing) mix of fire truck colors, like the current (changing) mix of remediation statuses, is something that's real and subject to accurate evaluation. We all make foolish statements. But the conviction that anyone who corrects you is arguing for the sake of arguing prevents that foolishness from every being recognized. If this is how you regarded your teachers, it's no wonder your education got short-circuited.

Jon:

Your experiences seem quite different from William, the recruiter in Dallas. If the majority of those with y2k experience are negative (rather than a few that stick in your mind because of your predisposition to listen to them), then this is good information. And raises my level of concern, too. It implies that the majority of those you interview are NOT willing to mention any of this on the COBOL or related newsgroups, where the overwhelming majority says it's no big deal. Inconsistencies like that beg for explanation, but I don't have one.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), September 25, 1999.

Chris:

Paul Milne, what's a fine mind like yours doing even noticing that Flint exists? You're waisting bandwith, the both of you. (and me too.)

-- Chris (#$%^&@pond.com), September 24, 1999.

You and I agree on many things, Chris, but certainly THIS isn't one of them. I followed Milne on csy2k for 2 years and since coming to this forum just a few months ago made exactly TWO comments regarding Milne: 1) He bought his farm LONG before he feared Y2k. He bought it because he's seen the U.S. economy failing due to foreign markets for YEARS. I didn't make this up. I had just that day read an archived csy2k post stating same. 2) He's an electrician.

His response stated that I was an ASS, going on to state that what I'd stated was NOT true. Hmmm...I thought. I hadn't actually READ where he'd stated that he was an electrician. It MUST be that, eh? Within the next 2 days, Paul posted to TB2000 that he'd been working as an electrician. D'Oh!

I'd therefore reverse the question, Chris, and ask ANYONE why their fine mind would be wasted on Milne. I understand that some of you appreciate his "down to earth" language. I came from a working class family myself, but we were taught not to treat others in a manner in which we wouldn't like ourselves to be treated. Since Milne can't control his emotional outbursts online in a public arena, I, personally, have a hard time seeing him controlling his emotional outbursts behind closed doors.

-- Anita (spoonera@msn.com), September 25, 1999.

"More typical polly spin. Milne probably didn't give you any evidence because you were too stupid to understand it. Consider that next time, dumbass."

Gosh, briton, did you stay up all night working on that one?

Well, gosh, you are probably right. My feeble pea brain probably isn't worth Mighty Milne's attention. Of course, it was worth Ed Yourdon's a few months back, but hell, we all know Might Milne is the God of all, so we can safely ignore Ed, can't we? (Bet not.)

"What does he mean by that?" you say? Follow the link below. The periodical in question is a monthly edited by Ed, and the articles in this issue were all solicited by Ed personally.

October 1998 Cutter IT Journal

-- Paul Neuhardt (neuhardt@ultranet.com), September 26, 1999.

Big deal. Like we're all supposed to be impressed that you wrote an article for Ed's journal. No doubt he regrets that mistake if it was filled with the same polly drivel you've been spouting here.

-- (briton@where.are.they), September 26, 1999.

No, briton, actually the point was I'm not some rube in off the streets just here to pick on the Mighty Milne. I do know a bit about the subject at hand, and furthermore my knowledge didn't come from brief work as a commodities telemarketer or as an electrician barely earning poverty level wages but rather as professional in the relevant field. Furthermore, whether or not you agree or disagree with the opinions I have expressed here (or anywhere else) has absolutely nothing to do with the fact the more outlandish Milne's claim the less he is willing to show even the weakest of evidence to support it. If that type of hogwash is what you choose to defend, that's your choice. Don't expect me to share in it.

As for whether or not Ed regrets having me write the article, check with him. But you might read the article before you condemn it as "polly trash." You might be surprised, unless of course you don't want any evidence of anything at all, at which point I can understand your liking Milne so much.

-- Paul Neuhardt (neuhardt@ultranet.com), September 26, 1999.

Furthermore, whether or not you agree or disagree with the opinions I have expressed here (or anywhere else) has absolutely nothing to do with the fact the more outlandish Milne's claim the less he is willing to show even the weakest of evidence to support it.

As I said, I'm sure he just figured you were too stupid to understand the evidence.

As for whether or not Ed regrets having me write the article, check with him. But you might read the article before you condemn it as "polly trash."

Gee, I'd really love to, but I don't have $485 lying around for a subscription. Nice try, though.

-- (briton@where.are.they), September 26, 1999.

briton, you said:

"Gee, I'd really love to, but I don't have $485 lying around for a subscription. Nice try, though."

Ever hear of a library?

-- Paul Neuhardt (neuhardt@ultranet.com), September 26, 1999.

I guess not. Let me clue you in: they are places where people go when they want to actually research an issue before making up their minds about it. There's one in almost every city and town in the country, and most of them will share with the other ones through an inter- library loan process. So, if what you need isn't available locally you might be able to get it by filling out a form and waiting a few days. Then you could actually decide based on factual information rather than a barbarian's rantings.

-- Paul Neuhardt (neuhardt@ultranet.com), September 27, 1999.

While we are at it, do you realize the implication behind the following statement?:

"As I said, I'm sure he just figured you were too stupid to understand the evidence"

He didn't post any evidence for you, either. Or anyone else for that matter. Do you then assume he considers you (and everyone else here) too stupid to understand his "evidence?"

Milne has a long history of quoting articles and speeches that he believes support his positions when he can find them. When he can't, he simply issues his position anyway and backs it up with profanity aimed at anyone who dares question him, assuming that he can bully them into either believing him or in going away. Have you been bullied, or do you simply choose not to evaluate the positions on your own?

-- Paul Neuhardt (neuhardt@ultranet.com), September 27, 1999.