[My apologies if this doesn't format correctly.]

Facts are not enough.

When the IEEE's Open Letter to Congress was first brought to the attention of the EUY2K forum, it was sneeringly dismissed as "abstract fluff".

What we really need, I think, is some facts. So, this is a request of any "Fact" "Finders" there might be out there.

Here's the heart of the letter, with my specific requests in italics.

1. PREVENTION OF ALL Y2K FAILURES WAS NEVER POSSIBLE: For many large and important organizations, technical prevention of all Y2K failures has never been possible in any practical way for these reasons:

1.1 "Y2K COMPLIANT" DOES NOT EQUAL "NO Y2K FAILURES." If an organization makes all of its systems "Y2K compliant", it does not mean that that same organization will not experience Y2K failures causing harm to itself and other organizations. In fact, efforts to become "Y2K compliant" in one place could be the direct cause of such failures in others. If interconnected systems are made compliant in different ways, they will be incompatible with each other. Many systems in government and industry are mistakenly being treated as if they were independent and fixed in the most expedient way for each of them. When this "Humpty Dumpty" is put back together again, it will not work as expected without complete testing, which is unlikely (see COMPLEXITY KILLS below).

I request the following: at least one fact that demonstrates that 1.1 is wrong. No name calling. No sneering. No LOLing. Just give us a fact that demonstrates how 1.1 is wrong.

1.2 ALL PROBLEMS ARE NOT VISIBLE OR CONTROLLABLE. In the best case organizations can only address those things they can see and those things they have control over. Given this reality, many Y2K failures are inevitable because some technical problems will not be discernible prior to a failure, and others, while discernible, may not be within an organizations’ jurisdictional control to correct. This is especially true in large complex organizations with large amounts of richly interconnected software involved in long and complex information chains and in systems containing a high degree of embedded devices or systems purchased in whole from external parties. (The temporary lifting of certain copyright and reverse engineering restrictions for specific Y2K protection efforts should also be considered as long as copyright holders are not unduly harmed.)

I request the following: at least one fact that demonstrates that 1.2 is wrong. No name calling. No sneering. No LOLing. Just give us a fact that demonstrates how 1.2 is wrong.

1.3 INCOMING DATA MAY BE BAD OR MISSING. To maintain their operations many organizations require data imported from other organizations over which they have no control. Such data may have unknowingly been corrupted, made incompatible by misguided compliance efforts or simply missing due to the upstream organizations lawful business decisions.

I request the following: at least one fact that demonstrates that 1.3 is wrong. No name calling. No sneering. No LOLing. Just give us a fact that demonstrates how 1.3 is wrong.

1.4 COMPLEXITY KILLS. The internal complexity of large systems, the further complexity due to the rich interconnections between systems, the diversity of the technical environments in type and vintage of most large organizations and the need to make even small changes in most systems will overwhelm the testing infrastructure that was never designed to test "everything at once." Hence, much software will have to be put back into use without complete testing, a recipe, almost a commandment, for widespread failures.

I request the following: at least one fact that demonstrates that 1.4 is wrong. No name calling. No sneering. No LOLing. Just give us a fact that demonstrates how 1.4 is wrong.

2. DETERMINING LEGAL LIABILITY WILL BE VERY DIFFICULT. Traditionally the makers of products that underlie customer operations are liable if those products are "defective" enough to unreasonably interfere with those operations resulting in damage. Y2K is different in that those customers themselves are also at risk for legal action if they fail to fulfill contractual obligations or fail to maintain their stock values and their failure to "fix" their Y2K problems can be shown as the cause. This customer base of technology producers cannot be overlooked in this issue. As it constitutes most of the organizations in the world, its needs and the implications of legislative actions on it being considered now should not be overshadowed by undue focus on the much smaller technology producer sector. (They are also customers/users of technology products.) Nonetheless, even there product liability is not as clear as tradition might indicate. Several factors make liability determination difficult, expensive, time consuming and not at all certain.

I request the following: at least one fact that demonstrates that 1.4 is wrong. No name calling. No sneering. No LOLing. Just give us a fact that demonstrates how 1.4 is wrong.

2.1 THERE IS A SHARED RESPONSIBILITY BETWEEN BUYERS, SELLERS AND USERS OF TECHNOLOGY. Computer products themselves have only clocks that have dates in them. Application software products usually offer optional ways of handling dates. The customer/user organizations, especially larger, older ones, have created much of their application software in-house. When new products are introduced into the buying organization, the customer/user usually has vast amounts of data already in place that have date formats and meaning already established. These formats and meanings cannot be changed as a practical matter. The majority of, and the longest-lasting, potential system problems lay in application software and the data they process, not in clock functions. (Clock-based failures, those likely to happen early in January 2000, while potentially troublesome, will be for the most part localized and of short duration.) Various service providers can be optionally called in to help plan and apply technology for business purposes. But it is only when these are all merged together and put to actual use that failures can emerge. It is very rare that one of them alone can cause a failure that carries legal consequences.

I request the following: at least one fact that demonstrates that 2.1 is wrong. No name calling. No sneering. No LOLing. Just give us a fact that demonstrates how 2.1 is wrong.

2.2 MANY THINGS ARE OUTSIDE THE CONTROL OF ANY DEFENDANT. Incoming data from external sources outside its control may be corrupted, incompatible or missing. Devices and systems embedded in critical purchased equipment may be beyond the defendant’s knowledge or legal access. Non-technical goods and services the defendant depends upon may not be available due to Y2K problems within their source organizations or distribution channel.

I request the following: at least one fact that demonstrates that 2.2 is wrong. No name calling. No sneering. No LOLing. Just give us a fact that demonstrates how 2.2 is wrong.

2.3 THERE WILL BE A STRONG DEFENSE OF IMPRACTICABILITY. Existing large-scale systems were not made safe from Y2K long ago for good reasons. Many systems resist large-scale modernization (e.g., IRS, FAA Air Traffic Control, Medicare) for the same reasons. Wide-spread, coordinated modifications across entrenched, diverse, interconnected systems is technically difficult if not impossible at the current level of transformational technology. New products must be made to operate within the established environment, especially date data formats.   Technology producers will claim, with reason, that the determining factor in any Y2K failures lay in the way the customer chose to integrate their products into its environment. It will be asserted, perhaps successfully, by user organizations that economic impracticability prevented the prevention of Y2K failures. Regardless of the judicial outcome, it will take a long time and many resources to finally resolve. And that resolution may have to come in thousands of separate cases.

I request the following: at least one fact that demonstrates that 2.3 is wrong. No name calling. No sneering. No LOLing. Just give us a fact that demonstrates how 2.3 is wrong.

3. COMPLEXITY AND TIME NEGATES ANY LEGAL LIABILITY INCENTIVE. Even if making all of an organization's systems "Y2K compliant" would render an organization immune from Y2K failures (it will not), the size and complexity of the undertaking is such that if any but the smallest organization is not already well into the work, there is not enough time for the incentive of legal liability to have any discernible positive effect on the outcome. As a analogy, providing any kind of incentive to land a man on Mars within one year would have no effect on anyone’s efforts to achieve that unless they had been already working to that end for many years. A negative effect will result from management diverting resources from prevention into legal protection.

I request the following: at least one fact that demonstrates that 3 is wrong. No name calling. No sneering. No LOLing. Just give us a fact that demonstrates how 3 is wrong.

4. THE THREAT OF LEGAL ACTION IS A DANGEROUS DISTRACTION AT A CRITICAL TIME. There will be system failures, especially in large, old, richly interconnected "systems of systems" as exist in the financial services and government sector. The question is how to keep such technical failures from becoming business or organizational failures. We should be asking ourselves how we as a society can best keep the flow of goods and services going until the technical problems and failures can be overcome. The following points bear on these questions.

I request the following: at least one fact that demonstrates that 4 is wrong. No name calling. No sneering. No LOLing. Just give us a fact that demonstrates how 4 is wrong.

4.1 Y2K IS A LONG TERM, NOT SHORT TERM, PROBLEM. Irrespective of the notion of Y2K being about time, a point in time, or the fixation on the rollover event at midnight December 31, 1999, or even the name ‘Year 2000’ itself, Y2K computer problems will be causing computer system malfunctions and failures for years into the next decade. Y2K is much more about the dates that can span the century boundary represented in data that must be processed by software than it is about any calendar time or clock issues. Because of the vast amounts of these, the complex intertwining among them and our less than complete understanding of the whole, it will take years for the infrastructure to "calm down" after Y2K impacts themselves AND the impacts of the sometimes frantic and misguided changes we have made to it. The current prevention phase is only the beginning.

I request the following: at least one fact that demonstrates that 4.1 is wrong. No name calling. No sneering. No LOLing. Just give us a fact that demonstrates how 4.1 is wrong.

4.2 RAPID AND EFFECTIVE ORGANIZATIONAL ADAPTABILITY WILL BE A PRIME NECESSITY. The key to an organization’s ability to continue to provide the goods and services other organizations and individuals need to continue their operations will be determined by an organization’s ability to adapt its practices and policies quickly and effectively in the face of potentially numerous, rapid and unexpected events.

I request the following: at least one fact that demonstrates that 4.1 is wrong. No name calling. No sneering. No LOLing. Just give us a fact that demonstrates how 4.1 is wrong.

4.3 LAWSUITS, ACTUAL OR THREATENED, WILL DIVERT REQUISITE RESOURCES. Preventing and minimizing harm to society from Y2K disruption is different than, and at times opposed to, protecting one’s organization from legal liability. Addressing lawsuits, and even the threat of a lawsuit, will divert requisite resources, particularly management attention, from an organization’s rapid and effective adaptation. This is already happening regarding technical prevention and will get worse the longer such legal threats remain. Organizational management has much more experience dealing with legal threats than they do addressing something as unique and unprecedented as Y2K. Their tendency is to address the familiar at the expense of the novel. They must be allowed to focus on the greater good.

I request the following: at least one fact that demonstrates that 4.3 is wrong. No name calling. No sneering. No LOLing. Just give us a fact that demonstrates how 4.3 is wrong.

4.4 JUDICIAL SYSTEM OVERLOAD IS ANOTHER DANGER. Given the great interactive and interdependent complexity of Y2K’s impact on the operations of our institutions on a national and global scale, the effort to determine exactly what happened, why it happened and who is legally responsible for each micro-event is itself a huge undertaking requiring the resolution of many questions. For the legal and judicial system to attempt to resolve the legal rights and remedies of affected parties while Y2K impacts are still unfolding will, in any case, threaten to overwhelm the legal and judicial system’s capacity to assure justice in the matter, let alone its ability to continue to do its other necessary work.

I request the following: at least one fact that demonstrates that 4.4 is wrong. No name calling. No sneering. No LOLing. Just give us a fact that demonstrates how 4.4 is wrong.

Let me make myself quite clear. I don't want an opinion, I don't want gut feelings, I don't want the testimony of personal professional experience: I want clearly verifiable facts. For each and every assertion in the IEEE letter, I want at least one clearly verifiable fact showing how and why the assertion is wrong.

Don't change the subject. I don't want to hear about anybody else's opinion, good, bad, or ugly. I don't want to hear about predictions, right, wrong, or inconclusive. I don't want to get speculation and conjecture about motivations: don't change the subject.

Give us facts to demonstrate that a sneering hand-waving dismissal of this kind of document is not based on prejudice and emotion and ego and a refusal to think beyond the immediate and the obvious.

So, do we have any "Fact" "Finders" around here?

If I haven't made my point by now, I'm sure the response (or lack thereof) from a "Fact" "Finder" will make it for me: Facts are not enough.

-- Lane Core Jr. (elcore@sgi.net), October 04, 1999

Answers

Bravo!

-- Lane (does@it.again), October 04, 1999.

For the sake of argument, and to point out how simplistic this line of thinking is, Mr. Core, how about providing us just one fact that the above points are correct?

It seems to me that far too much energry is spent debating things that can't possibly be proven one way or the other.

Respectfully,

'bub

-- Beelzebubba (thedevilsadvocate@hell.com), October 04, 1999.

For the sake of argument, and to point out how simplistic this line of thinking is, Mr. Core, how about providing us just one fact that the above points are correct?

He asked for facts and all you provided was worthless polly posturing and rhetoric. Obviously, Lane is correct and you are a dumbass.

-- (pollys@gonna.die), October 04, 1999.

Top

-- Jon Williamson (jwilliamson003@sprintmail.com), October 04, 1999.

I'm not sure there are any facts to dispute any of these assertions. They are all valid "might" and "may be" statements. One can agree with all of these statements and still not see a major disaster looming.

-- Buddy (buddydc@go.com), October 04, 1999.

What can I say? I'm here... <:)=

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), October 04, 1999.

Lane, Excellent!

Bub, perhaps you should visit the link provided above. The IEEE is an acronym for "The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc."...a professional organization filled with experts. The point of the letter was not to "prove" anything.

With the exception of the failures which have occured already everything else is left to speculation. Upon reflection, I choose to respect deeply the views of an organization such as the IEEE. Especially when I see no alternative group of professional experts coming out with a well publicized view that Y2k will be a BITR or non-event.

Actually, where are the groups comparible to the IEEE in size and quality, that represent the Polly side of Y2k views? I'm interested in their take...but there is no "their" there...you know?

Mike

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

-- Michael Taylor (mtdesign3@aol.com), October 04, 1999.

Michael:

I agree with you. But relatively little has occurred, and this IEEE brief was composed to support legislation to provide legal protection to the computer industry. Accordingly, the excellent speculation and predictions made are not intended to be descriptive -- IEEE is taking an advocacy position here pure and simple, and NOT an investigative position.

If things are anywhere near as bad as some feel this IEEE brief supports, then limited legal protection is surely moot.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), October 04, 1999.

Maybe this will help.

From

IEEE Spectrum July, 1999 Volume 36 Number 7

Tekla S. Perry, Senior Editor

Checking up on Y2K

http://tease r.ieee.org/pubs/spectrum/9907/y2k.html

-- Buddy (buddydc@go.com), October 04, 1999.

Thanks "Buddy" and "Bub" for proving my point: facts are not enough.

You guys are just great. :-)

-- Lane Core Jr. (elcore@sgi.net), October 04, 1999.

---

And Flint opined:

"But relatively little has occurred..."

EXCUSE ME...Flint, are you referring to the budgetary matters applicable to y2k remediation?

Or are you referring to the many fortunes which have already been spent?

Or are you referring to the many fortunes planned to be soon spent?

Or are you referring to the ongoing patching of systems?

Or are you referring to the claims of readiness followed by extreme efforts at c.y.a.?

Or are you referring to the ongoing attempts at remediation?

Or are you referring to the growing inventories of contingency plans and equipment among the government agencies and businesses?

Or are you referring to the ...???

If you truly believe, "But relatively little has occurred...",

then I suggest that you are in the midst of a PEA SOUP FOG.

FLY OUT WHILE YOU STILL CAN.

And quit attempting to confuse others with your lack of direction.

---

-- no talking please (breadlines@soupkitchen.gov), October 04, 1999.

lane core dumps some more!

"the sun is going out tommorrow. FACTS are not enough to prove me wrong. you must prove that the sun is NOT going out tommorrow. i will continue to be pompous and arrogant to everyone that does not disprove me" - coredump

you need to move into the big fear league, dumper. Like north and yourdon who have "first class" written all over their FUD.

-- Coredump (needs@towelette.forhisbackside), October 04, 1999.

Lane,

Personally I don't need to see any facts to believe that these statements by the IEEE are correct, they are based on years of cumulative experience. Just because we have never experienced these problems on the exact same scale as we will next year does not mean they will not happen. There's a first time for everything, right?

I'm not sure what you're fishing for here but if you're looking for Pollys you'll have to look somewhere else, we scared them away. They finally started to realize that with less than 90 days to go they could not afford to stay around here wasting time with the wanna-be-macho denial games. They are all out shopping for supplies right now and very thankful that they participated in this forum. Even though they made asses of themselves, it finally sunk in.

-- @ (@@@.@), October 04, 1999.

no talking please:

You're right, I should have made it clear that we aren't suffering much impact from either y2k bugs specifically, or from the admittedly huge efforts being made to eradicate the problem. There has been some (but not huge) impact from changed corporate spending patterns, and some smaller outfits have suffered (and others profited) noticeable as a result. There have been some problems experienced here and there resulting from current efforts, but (at least from my observations) not sufficient to penetrate public consciousness very broadly.

Basically, if all that y2k has wrought up until now were all it ever causes, it would be less than a blip in the history books. Compared to what *might* happen if things get much worse, I'd say this is not much. In other words, from a social or macroeconomic standpoint, y2k will need to become a lot more severe than it has been so far, before people in general consider it more than very minor.

[Footnote: while there is broad and growing public awareness of what y2k is, this hasn't affected public behavior in any newsworthy way]

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), October 04, 1999.

---

The century hasn' rolled over yet.

But the meter is running.

---

-- no talking please (breadlines@soupkitchen.gov), October 04, 1999.

Just for the record, Dale Way, the signatory on the original IEEE letter confirmed to me via email that the 'brief' was not authored by attorneys, nor was it based on the input of attorneys.

-- OR (orwelliator@biosys.net), October 04, 1999.

Just to get one red herring out of the way:

About that IEEE Spectrum article that Buddy linked, it appears that IEEE has an independent journalistic enterprise that doesn't necessarily parrot its owner's views. On a quick scan, it doesn't look like they talked to IEEE people. I doubt that the author is an engineer. Sounds strange, but I work as a trade journalist under a similar arrangement in the financial services field. Bottom line: this article shouldn't be taken as IEEE's take on the problem.

-- Thinman (thinman38@hotmail.com), October 04, 1999.

Much against my better judgment

1. PREVENTION OF ALL Y2K FAILURES WAS NEVER POSSIBLE: [well, duh!]

1.1 "Y2K COMPLIANT" DOES NOT EQUAL "NO Y2K FAILURES." If an organization makes all of its systems "Y2K compliant", it does not mean that that same organization will not experience Y2K failures causing harm to itself and other organizations

Fact: At this very moment, there are networks of interconnected systems out there with components in various stages of remediation. The sort of problems described here will be immediately apparent - and they should be happening NOW, not 88 days from now.

1.2 ALL PROBLEMS ARE NOT VISIBLE OR CONTROLLABLE. In the best case organizations can only address those things they can see and those things they have control over. Given this reality, many Y2K failures are inevitable because some technical problems will not be discernible prior to a failure, and others, while discernible, may not be within an organizations' jurisdictional control to correct Fact: A "technical problem" which is hard to find prior to a failure, is, by definition, a hell of a lot easier to find after a failure. Fact: Any organization depending entirely on FOF is/are collectively an idiot. Fact: For an organization which is, say, 80% remediated, FOF is much faster and much more cost-effective than any other means of ferreting out the more subtle bugs.

1.3 INCOMING DATA MAY BE BAD OR MISSING. To maintain their operations many organizations require data imported from other organizations over which they have no control

Fact: As I said above, remediated and semi-remediated systems are out there passing data around even as you read this. Fact: Data corruption happens every day for reasons beyond anyone's control - this is why systems edit and validate incoming data.

1.4 COMPLEXITY KILLS. The internal complexity of large systems, the further complexity due to the rich interconnections between systems, the diversity of the technical environments in type and vintage of most large organizations and the need to make even small changes in most systems will overwhelm the testing infrastructure that was never designed to test "everything at once." Hence, much software will have to be put back into use without complete testing, a recipe, almost a commandment, for widespread failures.

Fact: Software is fielded every day without complete testing, pal. That's why we have "bugs".

2. DETERMINING LEGAL LIABILITY WILL BE VERY DIFFICULT. Traditionally the makers of products that underlie customer operations are liable if those products are "defective" enough to reasonably interfere with those operations resulting in damage...

Fact: Outside of the company legal dept., who cares? Fact: I don't.

2.1 THERE IS A SHARED RESPONSIBILITY BETWEEN BUYERS, SELLERS AND USERS OF TECHNOLOGY. Computer products themselves have only clocks that have dates in them. Application software products usually offer optional ways of handling dates blah, blah, blah

Fact: I'm starting to feel sleepy.

4. THE THREAT OF LEGAL ACTION IS A DANGEROUS DISTRACTION AT A CRITICAL TIME. There will be system failures, especially in Fact: The threat of legal action is a distraction only to lawyers.

4.1 Y2K IS A LONG TERM, NOT SHORT TERM, PROBLEM. Irrespective of the notion of Y2K being about time, a point in time, or the fixation on the rollover event at midnight December 31, 1999, or even the name 'Year 2000' itself, Y2K computer problems will be causing computer system malfunctions and failures for years into the next decade. Y2K is much more about the dates that can span the century boundary represented in data that must be processed by software than it is about any calendar time or clock issues. Because of the vast amounts of these, the complex intertwining among them and our less than complete understanding of the whole, it will take years for the infrastructure to "calm down" after Y2K impacts themselves AND the impacts of the sometimes frantic and misguided changes we have made to it. The current prevention phase is only the beginning.

Fact: Computer system malfunctions will continue for years into the next decade, and the following decades as well, regardless of Y2K. Fact: The Y2K "computer problem" will begin when Y2K errors become prevalent enough to rise above the background noise of non-Y2K errors. Fact: Y2K errors will increase to some point, and then decrease. Fact: The Y2K "computer problem" will end when Y2K errors fade back into the noise. Fact: Any statement about the duration of the Y2K problem or its societal effect is conjecture.

4.2 RAPID AND EFFECTIVE ORGANIZATIONAL ADAPTABILITY WILL BE A PRIME NECESSITY. The key to an organization's ability to continue to provide the goods and services other organizations and individuals need to continue their operations will be determined by an organization's ability to adapt its practices and policies quickly and effectively in the face of potentially numerous, rapid and unexpected events.

Fact: This has always been true.

4.3 LAWSUITS, ACTUAL OR THREATENED, WILL DIVERT REQUISITE RESOURCES. Preventing and minimizing harm to society from Y2K disruption is different than, and at times opposed to, protecting one's organization from legal liability. Addressing lawsuits, and even the threat of a lawsuit, will divert requisite resources, particularly management attention, from an organization's rapid and effective adaptation

Fact: Programmers ain't lawyers. Fact: Having management distracted from IT is often a good thing.

4.4 JUDICIAL SYSTEM OVERLOAD IS ANOTHER DANGER. Given the great interactive and interdependent complexity of 

Fact: As potential Y2K impacts go, judicial system overload is WAY down the list. ____________________________________________________________________

Now that I have that attempt out of the way, I need to say a few things

"Let me make myself quite clear. I don't want an opinion, I don't want gut feelings, I don't want the testimony of personal professional experience: I want clearly verifiable facts. For each and every assertion in the IEEE letter, I want at least one clearly verifiable fact showing how and why the assertion is wrong."

People in hell want ice water, Lane. You present a document full of opinion and conjecture, and insist (rather arrogantly, no less) that someone refute it with verifiable fact. Apparently your side of the argument has a different standard of proof than the other side.

And all of this under the title "FACTS ARE NOT ENOUGH"??!! Geez!!

Of course, the first notice I took of Mr. Core was his posting of info from the recent Cap Gemini/Rubin report, spinning out all the negative numbers while ignoring the bit stating that 90% of the companies polled felt that their degree of compliance was not a significant business risk. That is certainly a debatable point, but to pretend it wasn't in the report was dishonest. So given the information I have at hand, I will present one more Fact: Lane Core Jr. is a boob.

RC ______________________

And to save you time, Lane, I'll just enter your response for you:

Hee Hee, Thank you for proving my point :-)

-- Lane Core Jr. (elcore@sgi.net), October 04, 1999

-- RC (randyxpher@aol.com), October 04, 1999.

three cheers for RC

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), October 04, 1999.

1. PREVENTION OF ALL FAILURE IS NOT POSSIBLE.

This is a true statement. (Yes, I left out the Y2K part on purpose)

1.1 COMPLIANT DOES NOT EQUAL NO FAILURES.

Again true. (Yes, I left out Y2K again.)

1.2. ALL PROBLEMS ARE NOT VISIABLE OR CONTROLABLE

Again true. (Lane left out the Y2K this time)

1.3 INCOMING DATA MAY BE BAD OR MISSING.

Again true. (Lane left out the Y2K again)

1.4 COMPLEXITY KILLS. (Again no Y2K from Lane).

No. This is where Lane goes off the track. All of the conditions he described above pertain to the modern world now. Nothing to do or not do with Y2K. Things fail all the time. Data is bad. Complexity kills? If that were true how could any airplane every fly anywhere? Arent airplanes complex systems? Isnt air traffic control a complex system? Isnt all of the infrastructure to refuel, repair planes complex? Isnt the structure to get people to and from airports complex. Arent automobiles (all of those thousands of moving parts and chips in them) complex? And somehow it all works, most of the time.

If Lanes logic was correct. Nothing would work at any time. Software has had all sorts of bugs from day one. Come to think of it how do computers, software and the Internet work if complexity kills? And isnt the human body and brain extremely complex. Yet Doctors operate on them every day? Gee I wonder how they do it?

The FACT that all of these work shows 5 is wrong.

2. DETERMINING LEGAL LIABILITY WILL BE VERY DIFFICULT.

True but is this different from the easy, cheap way it is now? No wonder trial lawyers dont have any money and are just waiting for Y2K so they can make some. Uh huh.

2.1 THERE IS A SHARED RESPONSIBILITY BETWEEN BUYERS, SELLERS, AND USERS OF TECHNOLOGY.

Again True. But is that any different from now? And doesnt it pertain to any technology? What is new here?

2.2 MANY THINGS ARE OUTSIDE THE CONTROL OF ANY DEFENDANT.

Well, maybe. I think that is one for the lawyers to argue about. Its stuff like that on which cases turn.

2.3 THERE WILL BE A STRONG DEFENSE OF IMPRACTICALITY.

Who knows? I didnt read in your bio where you are a lawyer Lane, so who knows? Im not one either.

3.0 COMPLEXITY AND TIME NEGATES ANY LEGAL LIABILITY INCENTIVE

You are going to get in trouble Lane, practicing law without a license.

4.0 THE THREAT OF LEGAL ACTION IS A DANGEROUS DISTRACTION AT A CRITICAL TIME.

Ditto above

4.1 Y2K IS A LONG TERM, NOT SHORT TERM, PROBLEM

Wait a minute here. First we were supposed to see a lot of stuff happening from 1/1/99 on, the Famous Jo-Ann effect. Not zilch, but not anywhere near as much as predicted. Then 1/1/2000 was supposed to be the Big Date. And now, well it may be, just about forever. Nice way of never having to say you were wrong. Does this mean that anything that happens after 1/1/2000 is a Y2K problem? Or can there still be non-Y2K problems? And could the non-Y2K problems be more serious then the Y2K problems? Wasnt one of the big things about Y2K was it supposed to hit all at once, overwhelming remedial resources? If it now comes out in dribs and drabs how is it different from any other screw up? Instead of being the end of the world (or reasonably facsimile therefore of) its just another bug to be fixed where it shows up.

4.2 RAPID AND EFFECTIVE ORGANIZATIONAL ADAPTABILITY WILL BE A PRIME NECESSITY

And this is different from now? Can you say Microsoft. Can you say Lotus? And the difference is?

4.3 LAWSUITS, ACTUAL OR THREATENED, WILL DIVERT REQUISITE RESOURCES.

Boy, none of that goes on now, does it? The world will really be different after Y2K.

4.4 JUDICIAL SYSTEM OVERLOAD IS ANOTHER DANGER.

Quick email this to the Supreme Court. Theyd really appreciate being clued in to this.

-- The Engineer (The Engineer@tech.com), October 04, 1999.

heh heh HAH. hey, lane can you say "spank me"?

cuz that is what just happened to you and your pathetic attempt at logic! BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!

(come on now, all you doomers. surely one of the extremists will crop up now with a mess of personal attacks while completely ignoring the counter-arguments. you can do it. say something about how all the pollys don't GI or they will all be dead in a few months. come on, you can do it!) WHERE ARE ALL THE DOOMZOMBIES?!?

YOU GONNA ABANDON THIS THREAD LIKE YOU ALWAYS DO WHEN YOU GET YOUR TAILS KICKED?

HAH ha suckers!

-- Well (blow@me.down), October 04, 1999.

Thanks, "coredump" and "The Engineer".

I love it when you guys show how you haven't got a clue.

-- Lane Core Jr. (elcore@sgi.net), October 04, 1999.

Here's where you Pollys (RC, Maria, "Engineer", and other dimwits) are really missing the boat;

You are unable to perceive any difference between the magnitude of the Y2K problem and the magnitude of problems that have been occuring on a regular basis up until Y2K. If this is no different than the regular everyday problems that we have with computers, than why have we spent in the neighborhood of 1 trillion dollars over the last 2 years to fix it? Surely you are not going to try to tell me that this is normal expenditures for IT maintenance! (knowing the "engineer", he probably will)

That is what we mean when we say "Don't Get It". Hellooooooo, anyone home? You have extremely limited perceptual ability, tunnel vision, brain damage, whatever you want to call it, you just don't see the difference!!

I'll give it one last shot, using the simplest analogy I can think of, and if you still don't get it, I'll write you off as hopelessly brain dead.

OK, here we go, you paying attention now children?

In Happyville USA it snows 1" of snow every night and the every morning John Boy gets up and goes out and shovels the snow off of his driveway. No problem, right?

But one very unusual night it snows 10 feet, and John Boy wakes up and shits his pants. He won't be able to get to work on time so he tries to call his boss but the phone don't work. He turns on the TV to see when the plows will be around, but the TV don't work because the power is out. How long will it be before John Boy will run out of food? How long will it take to dig his way though the snow to get to the store? Will the store even be open with no power? It's getting damn cold in his house, when will the power come back on?

Even a "3 day snowstorm" can cause a lot of trouble! When Koskinen used that analogy, in the back of his mind he was thinking "yeah, snowing for 3 days non-stop, but how long to get out, well I don't need to mention that part".

-- @ (@@@.@), October 04, 1999.

@:

Is one permitted to notice that your trillion dollars has actually purchased what it was spent for? Or is it your position that the problem has always been so insurmountable that no level of resource allocation could ever have dented it, and the magnitude of the effort proves this?

We had a big problem. No question. We spent big money fixing it. No question. We won't fix it all, but we never fix ALL the problems. No argument there either. By most indications, we have reduced the problem to manageable levels, and it took one HELL of an effort to do so. Nobody said it would be easy, and it hasn't been. But those who claim the effort failed seem to be the VERY SAME people who claimed the effort was impossible before it was under way.

Those who have watched the progress have seen it happening. The time is soon coming when members of the Church of Doom are going to start wondering why their chants aren't having the expected effect.

Won't be long now.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), October 04, 1999.

"Or is it your position that the problem has always been so insurmountable that no level of resource allocation could ever have dented it, and the magnitude of the effort proves this?"

Exactly.

"no level of resource allocation could ever have dented it"

I wouldn't say that. My estimation would be that if they had been attacking the problem since 1990 at the same pace and rate of expenditure that they are now, we would have little to be worried about. And that is also why I think it will probably be another 5 years of equal expenditures until we reach some semblance of a controllable situation. Economically, I think the world as a whole will be dealing with the cumulative costs of Y2K for at least the next 10 years.

Procrastination is of course a human weakness that we need to work on, but in this case I think the procrastination was driven primarily by greed. What comes around goes around. The collapse of a financial system which rewards greed could really be seen as a direct result of the very same greed which it has served so well. Ironic, eh?

-- @ (@@@.@), October 04, 1999.

A quest for facts - good start. One early problem though, the letter you site is a legal advocacy letter for Y2K legislation written by a subsection technical advisory group. A good question that I have posted regarding this letter is "what companies influenced this letter?" I find this is a good question, since IEEE's presence in the Y2K efforts of the electric utility industry has been essentially a "no show", except for this letter and some interesting documents (including a very extensive test document) that were developed way to late to be of any use to those of us involved in Y2K assessments and testing. The IEE in the UK on the other hand has been involved for many years - I found some fairly decent material on the UK IEE site. I don't mean this as a slam on IEEE, I am a member and this organization produces some worthwhile standards (I have referenced several at work on a specification). But as many large organizations go, sometimes the wheels turn slowly, and IEEE just got out of the gate way to late (the same is true of many companies as far as Y2K and embedded systems).

I have no desire to answer your questions about this legal letter, Lane. I find it rather murky, and see no "evidence" here. As you remember, I also had no desire to answer your challenge to read your y2k articles and find any errors of fact. I am open to discussing the nature and severity of Y2K problems found in embedded systems, since this is an area where I have some knowledge.

Pick a more meaty article on Y2K in embedded systems Lane, and we may just have us that discussion you've always dreamed of, lol...

Regards,

-- FactFinder (FactFinder@bzn.com), October 04, 1999.

HEY MR ENGINEER,

What kind of choo-choo do you drive???

-- toot toot (chugga.chugga@i.think.i.can), October 04, 1999.

Flint,

Just one additional follow up to your question:

"Is one permitted to notice that your trillion dollars has actually purchased what it was spent for?"

Well you are permitted to believe whatever you wish of course, but I for one am not buying it for a minute. Our government is so big and confused that one hand doesn't know what the other one is doing. Just one recent example:

"But district officials said they need additional federal funds to reach the finish line and recently filed a request for $68 million in additional funding with the Office of Management and Budget.

Officials from the General Accounting Office, however, took issue both with D.C.'s timeline for Year 2000 compliance and its inability to track the funds the district has received to date.

Although the district has made notable progress with Year 2000 fixes, it still is in danger of not meeting the deadline, according to GAO, and the district has not fully accounted for how it had spent the $120 million in funding it has received for Year 2000 fixes.

GAO had "received inconsistent and unreliable cost data from several District officials," said GAO official Gloria Jarmon. "The district cannot offer assurance that funds intended for Y2K efforts have been properly or effectively spent."

However, Williams and the other district officials acknowledged that they had encountered difficulty in tracking Year 2000 funds and said efforts were under way to accurately track the money. But they also noted that the district's Year 2000 readiness efforts contributed to the problem."

c orruption to the max

GAO: "What happened to that $120 mill we gave you?

Y2K MANAGER: "Gee, I dunno sir, the computers are so screwed up we may never find out!"

This is just one city, one example, of what I'd be willing to bet is occuring at hundreds of cities across the nation.

-- @ (@@@.@), October 04, 1999.

Flint:

I would buy that the trillion has purchased what we so desparately need, eg: remediation across the board; if the arival AT the trillion hadn't paralelled my and so many other people's experience in IT projects. This trillion is NOT the amount that was initially expected. As a matter of fact, when the first SWAG of a trillion floated to the top of the pile, it was roundly discounted as totally rediculously high. At THAT time, the estimate of the TOP of the possibility chart was 300 Billion, and LOTS of people were laughing that THAT was not even REMOTELY possible unless someone was padding a LOT of projects. As things developped and companies opened their various cans of worms, the numbers expanded, just as every project I have ever been a part of, from ANY side, User, Analyst, Project Leader, has.

I can only assume that, as the budgets have increased right on track with my experience, the times to completion have slid on the same track. Unfortunately, this would suggest a reasonable expectation for a completion date somewhere early in the year 2001.

Chuck, who drives now but has had his share of projects not arrive on time, due to circumstances beyond his control...

-- Chuck, a night driver (rienzoo@en.com), October 05, 1999.

*Sigh*

From the IEEE site, as part of the letter in question:

In addressing public policy issues we have no more expertise than the literate public. However, we do possess expertise in the technical issues underlying the situation that should be considered as you weigh the conflicting public policy goals in formulating appropriate Year 2000 Liability Legislation. In particular, for your consideration we offer the following points pertaining to the technical realities of Y2K.

Now, frankly, I will tend to trust the IEEE AS AN ORGANIZATION when they are speaking within their area of expertise, as they indicated above, until proven to be wrong.

In answer to a couple of points made above.

Yes, cars are complex, but they are designed, often over a period of several years, to work together as a system. We still see recalls running into the millions because of problems.

Yes, humans are complex systems. We have also had many generations of culling to remove "complex genotype systems" that did not work. And we still have a significant amount of genetically caused illness, disabling deformities, and deaths.

My personal opinion is that the examples above exactly prove that we could see serious problems due to Y2K. We are dealing with a newly evolved complex set of systems (call it a new "species", if you will) that is facing a first ever environmental challenge.

Will it make it through that challenge in its present form or will it prove to have unsuspected "genetic" flaws which will subject it to severe stress?

Comparisons and analogies are great, but let's keep in mind comparitive time frames AND relative levels of complexity. Humans and computer systems are immeasurably more complex than automobiles.

-- Jon Williamson (jwilliamson003@sprintmail.com), October 05, 1999.

A quest for facts - good start. One early problem though, the letter you site is a legal advocacy letter for Y2K legislation written by a subsection technical advisory group. A good question that I have posted regarding this letter is "what companies influenced this letter?" I find this is a good question, since IEEE's presence in the Y2K efforts of the electric utility industry has been essentially a "no show", except for this letter and some interesting documents (including a very extensive test document) that were developed way to late to be of any use to those of us involved in Y2K assessments and testing. The IEE in the UK on the other hand has been involved for many years - I found some fairly decent material on the UK IEE site. I don't mean this as a slam on IEEE, I am a member and this organization produces some worthwhile standards (I have referenced several at work on a specification). But as many large organizations go, sometimes the wheels turn slowly, and IEEE just got out of the gate way to late (the same is true of many companies as far as Y2K and embedded systems).

Thanks, FF. You certainly are keen on living down to my expectations of you.

-- Lane Core Jr. (elcore@sgi.net), October 05, 1999.

We had a big problem. No question. We spent big money fixing it. No question. We won't fix it all, but we never fix ALL the problems. No argument there either. By most indications, we have reduced the problem to manageable levels, and it took one HELL of an effort to do so. Nobody said it would be easy, and it hasn't been. But those who claim the effort failed seem to be the VERY SAME people who claimed the effort was impossible before it was under way.

I dare... I double dare... I triple dare anybody to cram more platitudes into one paragraph of similar size.

And to demonstrate what these "indications" might be. Oh, that's right.... lots of assurances in press releases....

This reminds me of Tom Benjamin's remark on EUY2K, that he could have written NERC's August 1999 report to DOE a year before: he knew what they were going to assert long before they asserted it, because that's what they would say, true or not. Of course, that doesn't mean it's not true, just that assertions aren't facts -- especially the assertions of PR types who always say everything is okay, especially when everything isn't okay.

-- Lane Core Jr. (elcore@sgi.net), October 05, 1999.

Lots of good points, RC.

But our society is inundated, saturated and overwhelmed with "good news" about Y2K. Most of it opinion and assertion, most of that coming from people with an incalculably tremendous vested interest in saying "everything is AOK" whether it is or not.

Do we get opinion and assertion from the other side? Sure. Mice among elephants, though, that's what they are. Mice among elephants.

But me, oh, I'm just a wicked evil nefarious "spinner" of doom because I draw attention to what everybody wants to ignore -- the bad news in all the good news.

So, I reject your intellectual hypocrisy with all the scorn it deserves. You are a very good teacher, though, of the techniques of smear and diversion. So, you do have some use. :-)

-- Lane Core Jr. (elcore@sgi.net), October 05, 1999.

Lane:

You are asking for the impossible, and dismissing the most likely because God himself has not signed off on it. Hell, you yourself could examine every single damn line of code in every program in the world, and all we'd have is your *assertion* that it was good or bad, not PROOF! You have held your excuse for "proof" to be flat impossible to achieve, and then dismissed all observations, no matter how reasonable or likely or consistent, as irrelevant because they fail to meet impossible standards.

Yes, this allows you to act self righteous and superior and look down your nose at us poor peons who must assess the odds. And when we point out that you fail utterly to meet your own standards of proof (you are speculating as well), you turn around and claim we all miss the point because WE are required to do the impossible and you are not. This is hardly the path to enlightenment, however good it makes you feel.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), October 05, 1999.

"You are unable to perceive any difference between the magnitude of the Y2K problem and the magnitude of problems that have been occuring on a regular basis up until Y2K. If this is no different than the regular everyday problems that we have with computers, than why have we spent in the neighborhood of 1 trillion dollars over the last 2 years to fix it? Surely you are not going to try to tell me that this is normal expenditures for IT maintenance! (knowing the "engineer", he probably will)"

A trillion dollars have been spent on this because - are you sitting down?... this is the only project in the history of IT maintenance that EVERYONE has had to do AT THE SAME TIME. Why are you surprised that the dollar figure is so high? And given that plus the typical cost overruns on any given IT project, why is this outside the realm of "normal expeditures"?

"In Happyville USA it snows 1" of snow every night and the every morning John Boy gets up and goes out and shovels the snow off of his driveway. No problem, right?

But one very unusual night it snows 10 feet, and John Boy wakes up and shits his pants. He won't be able to get to work on time so he tries to call his boss but the phone don't work. He turns on the TV to see when the plows will be around, but the TV don't work because the power is out. How long will it be before John Boy will run out of food? How long will it take to dig his way though the snow to get to the store? Will the store even be open with no power? It's getting damn cold in his house, when will the power come back on? "

Bad analogy. Try this one:

One very unusual night it snows 3" EVERYWHERE IN THE USA, not just in Happyville. John Boy will have to work a bit harder than usual, but gets most of the driveway shoveled. Meanwhile, down South where they don't see much snow, they're scrambling to do something about it. Some driveways only get partially shoveled, and few idiots decide to see if the snow will melt on its own. There will be fender benders across the South, and a few cars will be totalled. Life goes on.

PS - And are you still clinging to the prediction that the phones and power will be down all over? Even the most pessimistic have backed off of that one.

-- RC (randyxpher@aol.com), October 05, 1999.

"But our society is inundated, saturated and overwhelmed with "good news" about Y2K. Most of it opinion and assertion, most of that coming from people with an incalculably tremendous vested interest in saying "everything is AOK" whether it is or not."

The point I'm trying to make is that virtually ALL "news" about Y2K, good or bad, is opinion and assertion. ALL OF IT! Unlike you (and nameless others), I am not going to stand here and say I KNOW what's going to happen. I won't be the one presenting opinions/assertions as facts.

"But me, oh, I'm just a wicked evil nefarious "spinner" of doom because I draw attention to what everybody wants to ignore -- the bad news in all the good news."

Spin is spin, pal. Regarding the Cap Gemini/Rubin report I alluded to, the correct response to it would have been "this is the most worthless report in the history of Y2K". It basically said "most of us wont be completely done, but most of us think it'll be OK". Slam it for that. But you pulled out the meaningless numbers that supported YOUR cause, and presented them as FACT. And nobody called you on it.

"So, I reject your intellectual hypocrisy with all the scorn it deserves. You are a very good teacher, though, of the techniques of smear and diversion. So, you do have some use. :-)"

Smear? I smeared you with FACTS. You like facts, don't you?

Diversion? I believe I attempted to answer your offensively toned questions before I "smeared" you.

Intellectually hypocritically yours,

-- RC (randyxpher@aol.com), October 05, 1999.

I wont try and answer everything.. But the main fact that Lane, @, Chuck, and company miss is that it is not purely an IT problem. Hence you cant decide if it is fixed or not by looking at it from only an IT perspective. Lane keeps going on about NERC. He seems to think he can divine the state of the Power Grid in this country from their press releases. Why not cut open a pig and reads its entrails? You might get as much insight.

Our IT department does not run the SCADA, AGC, etc. The equipment in our substations is not run by the IT department.

If you look at everything as being IT and having to be repaired then the money spent does not seem adequate. Once you understand that IT is neither the end all or the be all of every organization it makes more sense.

-- The Engineer (The Engineer@tech.com), October 05, 1999.

You pollys really kill me. You insist on looking at y2k as a technical problem that will cause the end of the world. As I've argued with Flint since last October, the real y2k problems are, in order of severity,

• The global stock market meltdown that has been brewing for the last 10 years
• The Y2K computer glitch that will curtail productivity and reduce efficiencies
• Increased militarism, terrorism and political turmoil
• Worsening environmental conditions causing increased economic hardship

Use your little polly brains to add these factors up and what do you get? A DEPRESSION. Just like the average person on this forum has been predicting for the last 6 months. Geez you guys are dense.

-- a (a@a.a), October 05, 1999.

You insist on looking at y2k as a technical problem that will cause the end of the world.

LOL

You mean like this??

Yes and I'll keep pointing out that if the doomers are wrong, one winds up with some extra food and supplies. If the pollies are wrong, one may end up dead. Touche.

-- a (a@a.a), October 05, 1999.

LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL

-- (LOL@LOL.LOL), October 05, 1999.

You guys are a trip.

-- Lane Core Jr. (elcore@sgi.net), October 05, 1999.

'a':

The way you have things rigged, we'll have severe y2k problems even if we don't suffer a single date mishandling error anywhere. Neat trick. Y2K to you seems no more than passing scenery as you ride to hell in a handbasket. I can only wish you godspeed.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), October 05, 1999.

You know, I just really can't ever remember Flint being such an ass, and I've been hanging out here 18 months.

-- lisa (lisa@work.now), October 05, 1999.

Gee Flint - you may be starting to UNDERSTAND THE PROBLEM! Y2K WON"T HAPPEN IN A VACUUM! Just like your pal Milne has said for years!

Congratulations.

-- a (a@a.a), October 05, 1999.

RC,

"Meanwhile, down South where they don't see much snow, they're scrambling to do something about it. Some driveways only get partially shoveled, and few idiots decide to see if the snow will melt on its own. There will be fender benders across the South, and a few cars will be totalled. Life goes on."

This is where you and Flint are confused. You use cars as an analogy to computers, and I cannot believe you do not see the difference:

COMPUTERS ARE CONNECTED, CARS ARE NOT!

-- @ (@@@.@), October 05, 1999.

Oh, great, here come the NWOphiles to put an end to intelligent discussion.

And Lane, I work my intellectual hypocrisy into a frazzle, and all the response we get is:

"You guys are a trip."

You can do better than that. I'm hurt. It's all over between us.

-- RC (randyxpher@aol.com), October 05, 1999.

Hey LOL - did you know that some Americans died because of the Great Depression? Go read a history book genius. Look for the term "starvation".

-- a (a@a.a), October 05, 1999.

Yes, I'm sure that's what you meant.

LOL LOL

-- (LOL@LOL.LOL), October 05, 1999.

'a':

As I recall, mortality rates during the Depression weren't beyond the normal range, although the *causes* of death had a slight change of pattern.

Surely you're not setting yourself up so that if anyone dies next year, you'll consider it proof of catastrophe? People will die.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), October 05, 1999.

Flint, you're an idiot. The Depression and the ensuing war killed millions. Your nicotine deprived synapses must be atrophing.

Curious, though, how did you answer the question in my poll about how many people would die as a direct or indirect (as in hurricane stats) result of y2k (including market mayhem) by Jan 2001?

-- a (a@a.a), October 05, 1999.

""Meanwhile, down South where they don't see much snow, they're scrambling to do something about it. Some driveways only get partially shoveled, and few idiots decide to see if the snow will melt on its own. There will be fender benders across the South, and a few cars will be totalled. Life goes on."

This is where you and Flint are confused. You use cars as an analogy to computers, and I cannot believe you do not see the difference:

COMPUTERS ARE CONNECTED, CARS ARE NOT!"

You're taking my "cars" a bit too literally, I'm afraid. My cars would represent businesses, I suppose, though the analogy is far from perfect. But, hey, you started this analogy! As for the nebulous "INTERCONNECTEDNESS" mantra that surfaces here regularly, I would submit for your approval my previous statement of fact:

1.1 "Y2K COMPLIANT" DOES NOT EQUAL "NO Y2K FAILURES." If an organization makes all of its systems "Y2K compliant", it does not mean that that same organization will not experience Y2K failures causing harm to itself and other organizations

Fact: At this very moment, there are networks of interconnected systems out there with components in various stages of remediation. The sort of problems described here will be immediately apparent - and they should be happening NOW, not 88 days from now.

-- RC (randyxpher@aol.com), October 05, 1999.

RC:

Not quite, and the distinction is subtle but important. I'm not comparing cars to computers, but rather automotive transportation (as one form of transportation) with computerization (as one form of increasing productivity).

Accordingly, the huge expenses associated with automotive transportation relate to the ills of y2k bugs. I tried to say that cars work fine and are fully useful despite very high costs. And computerization will continue to be fully useful despite many bugs. Focusing ONLY on the negatives not only misses the big picture, but gets the gist of it exactly backwards!

'a':

I recall I estimated about 300 direct y2k deaths (I expect some explosions here and there). Indirect y2k deaths ventures into deeper waters than I think you can grasp. After all, *anything* might be considered indirect if you allow enough layers of indirection. And from your arguments, I can see that you don't care HOW far the result is from your starting point, you'll get there even though all principles of logic and inference are laid waste in your wake.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), October 05, 1999.

Good old Flint. Talking out of both sides of his mouth. Y2K is no big deal, but I'm prepared to the teeth "just in case". Hey, Flint, why are you prepared to the teeth if it's not going to be a big deal. You sound very confident about that and you preach complacency constantly, but your actions speak louder than your words. You don't buy insurance for something that you really don't think is going to happen. Think about it. I have no reason to believe that a damaging earthquake is going to hit the Cleveland area, so why would I buy earthquake insurance? I wouldn't. But you have bought Y2K insurance, in spite of all of your arguments that Y2K is not going to be a big deal at all, a "pimple on an elephant's ass" is how you put it. You don't buy insurance for a pimple, Flint. So, why are you preaching complacency and preparing to the max? What's up with that?

-- Ohio Bob (noway@notachance.com), October 06, 1999.