There is a thread started by Ken Decker titled The Changing Y2K Argument that is filled with various statements and rants on whether or not the doomer arguments have or have not changed over time. I submit that while the theme of the discussion is interesting, it is obvious that the focus had to change over time simply because one type of Y2K problem is fast fading from the scene even as another two approach. The fact that the focus is shifting away from any Y2Ks gonna hit us in 1999 arguments and towards its gonna happen next year can be (and obviously is) taken as either an optimistic sign or a sign that the problem never lay in 1999 at all.

Quick review: The Y2K problems has nothing to do with the changing of the date to the year 2000 per se, but on systems ability to properly manage date functionality across that year change. Basically, those systems must recognize dates as being in the proper year (2000 v. 1900) and be able to do proper date arithmetic (i.e. recognize that 12/30/1999 and 1/2/20000 are four days apart). These systems need to perform these functions any one of three ways: retrospectively, currently and prospectively.

Prospective functions are the look-ahead actions that formed the basis of the JoAnne Effect and concern over fiscal rollovers. These functions are generally attempts to either forecast a future state or to actively determine what a state should be at a given point in the future. Obviously, the number of these transactions lessens as the 1/1/2000 approaches simply because there are few and fewer opportunities (and less need) to conduct them. Despite what some have posted on Kens thread, there has been a lot of bandwidth fried discussing the potential seriousness of these indicators, and much was made over them by people who now try to pooh-pooh their importance. It isnt hard to go back and find loud and lengthy threads discussing the havoc that these transactions might have, nor is it difficult to find threads arguing over whether or not the apparently low number of problems caused by them

Current functions are the what day is it now and how long has it been since  transactions that will show any serious unknown effects in the few days on and after 1/1/2000 but trail off rapidly after. There are the transactions that generate the most concern/fear regarding embedded systems and are the focus of those who expect the century rollover to be the proverbial Day Of Reckoning in Y2K. They may or may not be the focus of the people here (and I believe that there are a number of people here backing away from their importance who once saw them as critical) but they certainly are the focus of the general population and of the media.

Lastly, there are the retrospective functions that attempt to describe and reconcile what happened in the past. Financial systems closing out fiscal periods would be an example of these transactions. These are the transactions that form the basis of the we might not know until at least summer or even 2001 arguments.

With a large body of prospective transactions behind us and mainly current and retrospective transactions ahead, it seems obvious that if the discussion is to continue at all it must begin to focus on these last two transaction types. The substance of Kens hypothesis then becomes did a significant portion of the doomer crowd base large parts of their concern on prospective transactions, and if so how have they adjusted their thinking now that these transactions are past us? He seems to indicate, and I basically agree, that the answers are Yes, they did, and they are basing their concerns on the retrospective transactions because it is becoming clearer and clearer that current transactions are not likely to be a significant problem.

In other words, if you are going to continue to worry, retrospective transactions are most of what is left to worry about. If you are unwilling to modify your level of concern, then you must out of necessity place a higher and higher importance on retrospective transactions. Its up to each and every individual to examine their own beliefs and concerns and admit whether or not they have evolved their positions and the reasoning behind those positions over time. If you have evolved your reasoning over time, you must then determine whether that evolution has been driven by the evidence or by an unwillingness to change positions basic position. Then you have to decide if you are comfortable with the answers that you get.

-- Paul Neuhardt (neuhardt@ultranet.com), October 12, 1999

Answers

Paul,

That was a very good post. I agree with you completely.

-- (cannot-say@this.time), October 12, 1999.

EXCELLENT POST PAUL!

-- CD (not@here.com), October 12, 1999.

Sorry, don't buy it. This totally ignores any embedded chip problem, and the fact that many systems are running in parallel right now during testing. Yes, we've made progress, and some of the biggest institutions will probably finish all their important systems in time. Maybe even most institutions, although I think that is really a stretch.

It still tells us nothing. The fact that some systems are able to muddle through does nothing to tell us about the effects of the millions of systems world-wide that will not. We have no way of gauging the effects.

To say that the JAE has not crippled the country is surely true. To say that Y2K is now behind us is surely false.

-- Dog Gone (layinglow@rollover.now), October 12, 1999.

I was never particularly concerned about the 1999 problems. And any attempt to compare them with the 2000 rollover is fatuous. No, 1999 problems didn't spew thousands of gallons of sewage into the Pacific Ocean. They didn't cause companies across the globe to spend TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS on remediation of BROKEN CODE. These weren't 99 problems, but a microscopic localized foretaste of 2000 problems.

Paul is trying to equate the significance of 99 problems with 00 problems. I don't know anyone who was truly concerned about any 99 problems in and of themselves. How many TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS were spent on fixing the MANIFESTLY BROKEN CODE of supposed 99 problems? Did FEMA admit that it was preparing for "simulataneous emergencies in all 50 states" because of a 99 problem? Did the Red Cross tell people to prepare for 9/9/99? This is typical disinformation: associate the thing you want to hide, A, with something else, B; discredit and ridicule B: voila! A is discredited BY ASSOCIATION.

This isn't an attempt to shed light, it's a smear. I have nothing but contempt for these sophmoric parlor tricks. Take your straw man and go home, Pauli.

Liberty

-- Liberty (liberty@theready.now), October 12, 1999.

Paul What a great run down on the present situation. Now if I remember right the Jo Anne effect was for the calender year not for the fiscal year and she preffered Jo Anne to Joanne. Small thing but personal to her. Also the Gartner folks mention that the bulk of the "prospective" potential problems are going to happen during the final weeks before the CDC.  Year 2000 World Status, 2Q99: The Final Countdown

4.0     When Year 2000
 Problems Will Occur
 

Many year 2000 contingency and disaster recovery plans
cover only a narrow failure risk period around 1 January
2000; however, we believe the majority of failures will not
occur during this time. (For the purposes of this discussion,
"failure" is defined as the production of inaccurate data, the
inability to execute a transaction or the inability to continue
functional operation.)

Organizations that limit contingency-planning efforts to the
century boundary will miss a broader set of business
conditions that warrant contingency and continuity efforts.
Their plans, aimed at reducing risk, will actually create a
false sense of security that will be rudely tested by failures
occurring in 1999 and beyond January 2000. Attempts to
accurately and completely determine the time horizon to
failure (THF) have been limited in scope, have only dealt
with small samples or parts of key applications and
infrastructure, or have not dealt with enough critical,
non-IT-supported systems and dependencies. In cases where
this data was collected, it appears to have been lost or
forgotten, because contingency plans show limited
understanding of when IT and supply chain failures will
occur.

Year 2000 failures will increase in the second half of 1999
and continue to increase through year-end 2000 (see Figure
11). As an example, the prime failure period for
organizations for which the fiscal year is the same as the
calendar year could run from 3Q99 through 4Q00.

Failures in 1999 will be due to:

       Some fixed and tested solutions, since 5 percent to 9
       percent of remediated lines of code still have defects
       after testing
       Larger volumes of transactions using date-forward
       calculations
       Non-fixed-symbol dates in source code used as
       processing actions
       Enterprises that have not yet completed remediation
       but are continuing to execute more date-forward
       transactions later in 1999
       A large number of companies entering their fiscal
       2000 and processing more "00" dates

Failures in 1999 are likely to have a higher impact on the
enterprise due to more customer-facing transactions and
services being affected.

-- Brian (imager@home.com), October 12, 1999.

Or it could be that some of us never placed a high value upon the 1999 dates in the first place. My 1999 concern back in 97 & 98 was civil unrest, not that there would be major failures in major systems.

Yes, my position has evolved in 1999, but it had nothing to do with expectant systemic failures or non-failures. It evolved because I saw that govt spin spun. It evolved because there has been "apparent" progress in some of what I tagged as "key industries".

My conception of y2k failures has become more subtle because of this. No longer to I expect y2k to be like a verticle cliff. Instead I see it as many incidents taking place over months, some of the interactions between these y2k incidents will make things worse, some things will actually be repaired enough to maintain viability.

My main concerns now lay in the areas of the SMEs and the near certainty of very high unemployment, the 2nd main concern is USGovt - I period do don't believe their self-reported progress. Just those two alone & their larger scale inter-economic and international interactions keep my y2k estimation in the high 9s.

-- Mitchell Barnes (spanda@inreach.com), October 12, 1999.

All of this ties right back into The Engineer's question -- at what time should we decide that y2k is or is not bad? While details about the future are forever unknowable, we can still set landmarks of all kinds, to help us make such a determination.

High unemployment? What level at what time would lead to a low, moderate, and high impact assessment? 10%? 20%? By when -- Feb 1, June 1?

Oil import reduction? down 5%? 25%? By when? Milne has weighed in with a specific prediction -- that we'll import "NOT ONE DROP" during 2000. Anyone else?

Stock market drop? How far, and by when?

The point here is, without any yardstick, we cannot communicate the meaning behind words like "bad" "light" and "moderate". This lets us, for example, have one person find (say) 5 totally screwed up universities and say it was "bad", while another person points out 1,000 other, properly functioning universities and says it was "good". Who's right if there are no standards?

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), October 12, 1999.

Looks like the pollies are getting a little antsy. Not even the middle of October and they want to take their ball and go home. Must be that feeling of imminent doom emanating from the casinos on Wall Street.

-- a (a@a.a), October 12, 1999.

Dumb post, Paul, really dumb. Concentrate hard now, read what follows, and try to remember ...

Y2K - It's The Year 2000, Stupid!

-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.cum), October 12, 1999.

a,

I agree. This is happy face b.s..

They will refuse to admit that death-by-a-thousand-cuts is anything more than a few scrapes - right up until they lose consciousness.

Liberty

-- Liberty (liberty@theready.now), October 12, 1999.

I get so mad when people disagree with me. Don't do it again. Please delete this thread. We don't need these goverment shills here.

-- dum dum (disd@no.no), October 12, 1999.

Paul,

You are quite adept at avoiding our summons servers. We, the "Party Invitation Law Team" wish that you would stop avoiding your civic duties, and answer our calls for a sworn deposition in this matter. With your co-operation we call have the entire matter resolved of the soonest.

Regards,

-- Trial Lawyers (Getting@tothebottom.ofthematter), October 12, 1999.

Who's right if there are no standards?

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), October 12, 1999.

ME!

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), October 12, 1999.

* * * 19991012 Tuesday

Paul:

IMHO: This post is REALLY unadulterated Y2K bawlder dash.

As we indulge in this REAL forum, _some REAL unfortunate and also Y2K- DELUDED LEMMINGS_ are trying to explain to affected multitudes--10's and 100's of thousands of REAL PEOPLE, TODAY!--WHY THEY ARE _REALLY_DOING WITHOUT:

... payroll checks for weeks and/or months.

... correct payroll checks (e.g., now experienced by many school districts and businesses).

... university tuition financial aid.

... legitimate purchase orders from private/government vendors.

... payment for services/inventory delivered in "good faith."

... responses to 911 (emergency) calls placed in "good faith."

... background checks on school bus drivers.

... valid DMV registrations for private/commercial(!) vehicles.

... computer-generated hunting/fishing licenses from authorities.

... timely and/or NO response to LEIN queries from police agencies.

... legislated benefits for 100,000+ eligible Welfare/Medicaid recipients in the state of Washington, USA.

... timely and/or NO delivery of cargo aboard at least 150 ships turned away before port by US National Guard.

... _Y2K-compliant_ upgrade and/or replacement OS/software/devices from non-existent or overwhelmed software vendors.

... ad nauseum, ad REALLY ad nauseum ... ...

Get the REAL point? ...

These are REAL consequences--objectively confirmed (a.k.a. reported in electronic/print/broadcasting media)--and add up to REAL consequences in the REAL world, and ARE REALLY generating/inflicting social and economic consequences UPON _INNOCENT/TOO-TRUSTING/NAIVE_ REAL PEOPLE. As the REALLY few remaining days lapse toward rollover, these REAL failure events will be cumulative/piling-on and more and more REALLY alarming and self-evident by shear volume--even to JQP!

There are REALLY thousands upon thousands of system environments in the REAL world, today, that ARE NOT RUNNING IN PARALLEL. They REALLY cannot run parallel due to the fact that the REAL "old" system(s) is REALLY being replaced and/or upgraded and are REALLY no longer functional according to original REAL specifications. They REALLY do not produce intended and/or legitimate production output/results!

Furthermore, check out the REAL status of the standard and nuclear electrical power industry < http://www.bashar.com/GSP/houston1.htm > before you mount the apologetic Polly Soapbox.

Once the REAL Y2K "Boom" slams the power grid, telecommunications, water/sewerage, financial, and transportation sectors, ANY and ALL REALLY effective/productive capacity to repair/replace affected systems/devices will become REALLY exponentially cumbersome and/or REAL NEAR impossible to effectuate by REAL antecedent "ordinary" means and/or methods.

Individuals will REALLY be forced to allocate ALL POSSIBLE (rudimentary) MEANS AT THEIR DISPOSAL, acquiring REAL basics for themselves and/or families: water, food, hygiene, and--as required-- heating/cooling.

Very soon--TOO SOON--individual responsibility in response to REAL "LOCAL"--AND AT THE SAME TIME, UNIVERSAL-- individual systemic failures and precipated conditions will be the ONLY REAL ORDER OF THE DAY!

Regards, Bob Mangus

Apologies for the REALLY annoying alliteration! Sometimes there are justifiable and provocative circumstances that require an otherwise inappropriate response. I consider this the least harmful literary release "valve." 8-)

* * *

-- Robert Mangus (rmangus1@yahoo.com), October 12, 1999.

Liberty, you said:

"Paul is trying to equate the significance of 99 problems with 00 problems."

You miss my point. I never said anything about 99 problems, only about 2000 problems which occur during 1999. Read it again.

-- Paul Neuhardt (neuhardt@ultranet.com), October 12, 1999.

Dear Trail Lawyers,

Please state the time and the forum under which you prefer to depose me, and I shall do my best to make myself available in a timely and effacious manner.

-- Paul Neuhardt (neuhardt@ultranet.com), October 12, 1999.

KOS, you said:

"Dumb post, Paul, really dumb. Concentrate hard now, read what follows, and try to remember ...

Y2K - It's The Year 2000, Stupid!"

Gee, King, you used to get it. What happened?

Of course it's the year 2000, but are you really trying to say that systems out there aren't dealing with dates beyond 1/1/2000 now? Are you saying that they haven't been for a long time? Are you saying that nobody ever was concerned about this? Are you saying that youwere never concerned about this?

Really?

-- Paul Neuhardt (neuhardt@ultranet.com), October 12, 1999.

"Of course it's the year 2000, but are you really trying to say that systems out there aren't dealing with dates beyond 1/1/2000 now?"

Not many. CURRENT-DATE (in COBOL terms) is the real problem. A tiny percentage of date processing deals with future dates.

Tick... Tock... <:00=

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), October 13, 1999.

My concern about any Y2K problems that occurred pre-Y2K was that they would be visible enough to the public at large so as to cause PANIC. Specifically, that the problems -- virtually all of which were confined to financial applications (e.g., fiscal year look-ahead, fiscal year rollover), not "showstoppers" like embedded systems or operating systems -- would show Joe Sixpack that Y2K was indeed real and could really mess things up. The classic scenario that I imagined might be inner city welfare recepients not getting their checks due to July 1 fiscal year rollover problems, getting a lot of TV coverage (perhaps due to some civil unrest to boot), which would get everybody hyper enough about Y2K to effectively end any hope of personal preparation way before it actually got here. Whether such problems were actually fixed, or "fudged" via tricks like extending fiscal year end-dates is immaterial -- the fact is that Joe Sixpack has slept peacefully and continues to do so for the moment. Whatever pre-Y2K Y2K problems there may be, they have not been serious enough nor visible enough to cause the widespread panic that I worried would occur. This is why, even at this late date, personal preparation is possible IF YOU ACT NOW.

The real nitty gritty TECHNICAL worries about Y2K have always been about what happens when we "cross the line" over to the year 2000. This is potentially when embedded systems that control our power systems, nuclear plants, etc., will be at risk. This is potentially when operating systems that run underneath applications will be at risk. And this is potentially when many diverse applications will be at risk.

Again and again, pollies try to claim that an absence of visible Y2K problems prior to the year 2000 acts as evidence that there will be minimal problems and disruptions come January. There is absolutely no merit to this argument, it is based on absolutely nothing.

-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.cum), October 13, 1999.

Paul Neuhardt,

Thank you for your kindest regards and stated intent of co-operation. As you are well aware we, as a team, have been trying to our utmost to resolve the so called "Party Invitation" dilemma.

Our client, Mr. U. Deedah, has found himself allegedly beholden to hold a soirie, and, of course, our client wishes to distinguish the particulars of when and where this alleged assemblage of like, or non- like, minded individuals may, or may not, be of a judiciously conclusive atonement, but, if circumstances should deem necessary, or, of course, if the prevailing prejudice should see to our clients content, we as a law team, must untangle an ever inclusive encompass of convoluted statements of intent derogated towards, and, by its very nature, inclusive to, by the absence of non-exclusion, our client, who, as stated in appendage 1-5 has not, repeat, not seen unmitigated proof of said statements, nor, as to their very nature, been attributed nor proven to be even of our clients wishes, unless, of course, our client, who, by the very nature of the goodness in his heart, deems it to be so. This is, with out a doubt, the crux of the matter.

We will contact you for your sworn deposition, and, if need be, your letter of intent.

Kindest regards in this matter,

-- Trial Lawyers (ohsure@makeus.thebadguys), October 13, 1999.

Paul,

I don't quite agree with your comment that "retrospective transactions are most of what's left to worry about." I do agree that most prospective functions related to fiscal year software and financial forecasting software have already taken place. But, other types of prospective functions such as making a doctor's appointment in December for January or ordering a part in late 1999 for arrival in early 2000 are still ahead of us.

I also disagree with your comment that "it is becoming clearer and clearer that current transactions are not likely to be a significant problem." You're too quickly glossing over potential PC BIOS chip and PC operating system problems, and embedded system/process control system problems.

While the "we might not know until at least summer or even 2001" arguments are partially based on retrospective functions, they are also based on the idea that many compliant organizations will not have difficulties until after non-compliant vendors have already had problems. The delayed scenario also has to do with whether or not Y2K problems related to a particular item can be fixed before supplies in the "pipeline" for that item are drawn down to zero. How long supplies would last without replenishing or only being replenished at a slow rate is a factor.

Then there's the issue of overall confidence in the system. If consumers or businesses with expansion plans first see some organizations have current function problems and then later see other compliant organizations affected by non-compliant vendors or shortages, it could put a damper on major consumer purchases or business expansion plans. The longest lasting impact of Y2K is likely to be economic.

Before February 1st of this year, I didn't know one way or another if the Jo Anne Effect was going to cause noticeable problems that would end up being reported to the media. After February 1st, when Wal-Mart and some other companies entered their fiscal year 2000 with no reported problems, I realized that what PNG had been saying on this forum was true...that problems in accounting software aren't nearly as noticeable to outsiders as problems in manufacturing or distribution would be. Accounting software has to do with "keeping score."

We won't hear that much about Y2K-related manufacturing or distribution problems until January 2000. It was clear to me in February that we weren't going to hear much about fiscal year rollover problems in accounting software on April 1st and July 1st. Most people on this forum weren't expecting "show-stoppers" on April 1st and July 1st either, but yet the issue of few reported problems does continue to get raised from time to time here for some reason.

Anyone who'd like to learn more about the significance and non- significance of fiscal year rollovers in accounting software, as well as find examples of problems that have occured so far can find quite a few relevant links on the following thread:

"Significance of States Fiscal Start"

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=00122f

Most non-accounting software problems, PC BIOS chip and PC operating system problems, and embedded system/process control system problems are still ahead of us. Those are the ones with the potential of being "show-stoppers."

It should also be noted that the GPS rollover and 9/9/99 were each their own unique types of glitches and are not a subset of the "99" and "00" problem that we usually refer to as Y2K.

-- Linkmeister (link@librarian.edu), October 13, 1999.