as a cubicle drone at worldnet tech support,this makes me feel fuzzy all over. ................................................... http://www.att.com/globalnetwork/year2000/index.html

.................................................................... This is a very important document. It is published by AT&T Global Network Services, a division of AT&T. To understand it, you must first understand the company's definition of the term, components: "hardware, software and services."

The document admits three crucial facts:

1. There can be no final testing of interconnected services.

Each of our global network services depends upon the proper interaction of these components. This means that even though AT&T Global Network Service performs significant Year 2000 readiness tests on its network services, the nearly unlimited combinations of AT&T and third party components, functions and entry and exit points make it impractical to test every aspect of the network services.

2. It is possible to re-introduce noncompliant components into a compliant system.

Once changes have been made to achieve Year 2000 readiness, and significant testing conducted, we follow a "clean management" system with the objective of preventing non-Year 2000 Ready components from being introduced into a Year 2000 Ready environment.

Therefore. . . .

Even where AT&T identifies a network service as Year 2000 ready, because of all the possible combinations and interdependencies of components, AT&T Global Network Services does not represent, warrant or guarantee uninterrupted or error free operation of the network service. AT&T Global Network Services is not responsible for the Year 2000 readiness of those portions of our network services that utilize third party telecommunications.

3. The company is not yet compliant.

We have completed the majority of our conversion activities for our generally available network services. The remainder of our conversion, along with extended integration testing and contingency planning are to be completed throughout 1999.

The importance of this document goes beyond the company involved. Its importance lies in its frank admission regarding the impossibility of final testing of interconnected systems. This is true, not just of the telecommunications industry, but also of banking, financial services such as the world's stock markets, electrical power distribution, and any other computerized system of systems.

With this in mind, review the implications of the Beach/Oleson pain index: an estimate of the likelihood of a catastrophic failure, which increases with the number of interconnections.

* * * * * * * * *

What does Year 2000 ready mean?

We use many different components to provide network services to you. Hardware, software and services furnished by AT&T and third parties (including customers themselves) all play important roles. For example, most of our network services depend upon products and services provided by third party telecommunication carriers.

Each of our global network services depends upon the proper interaction of these components. This means that even though AT&T Global Network Service performs significant Year 2000 readiness tests on its network services, the nearly unlimited combinations of AT&T and third party components, functions and entry and exit points make it impractical to test every aspect of the network services.

Subject to the qualifications below, for any of our network services identified as "Year 2000 ready" we mean that the network service, when used in accordance with its associated documentation, is capable of correctly transmitting, processing, providing and/or receiving date data within and between the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, provided that all products (for example, hardware, software and firmware), services and customer applications used with or using the service properly exchange accurate date data with it.

Even where AT&T identifies a network service as Year 2000 ready, because of all the possible combinations and interdependencies of components, AT&T Global Network Services does not represent, warrant or guarantee uninterrupted or error free operation of the network service. AT&T Global Network Services is not responsible for the Year 2000 readiness of those portions of our network services that utilize third party telecommunications. AT&T Global Network Services is not responsible for the Year 2000 readiness of data, applications, products or services provided by customers.

With respect to AT&T Global Network Services' internal systems, the potential Year 2000 impacts extend beyond our information technology systems to our manufacturing and development systems and physical facilities. AT&T Global Network Services is addressing these issues, and aims to complete these efforts throughout 1999, including testing phases. Although AT&T Global Network Services believes its efforts will be successful and does not expect the costs of these efforts to be material, any failure or delay could result in the disruption of business and in AT&T Global Network Services incurring substantial expense. To minimize any such potential impact, AT&T Global Network Services has initiated a global contingency planning effort designed to support critical business operations.

AT&T Global Network Services Year 2000 readiness strategy for network services We are going through the same steps to achieve readiness -- assess, develop a plan, execute the plan, and integrate and test -- that we recommend our customers follow. We are well into the process of contacting vendors of the products we use to determine whether they are Year 2000 ready. If a vendor supplied product is not Year 2000 ready, we assess how critical the product is to the delivery of our network services and, based on that assessment, develop a plan for upgrading or replacing the non-ready product with a Year 2000 ready alternative. In some limited cases, however, there may not be a vendor able to supply us with a Year 2000 ready product within the time frame required. In such cases, contingency plans are being developed to identify possible alternatives. . . .

Levels of testing: Testing of components may be done at one or more of the following three levels:

Unit level testing of individual software modules and applications

Integration testing of groups of related applications into larger building blocks, including testing of external interfaces, as needed.

End-to-end testing, where operation of a process is tested from beginning to end.

Once changes have been made to achieve Year 2000 readiness, and significant testing conducted, we follow a "clean management" system with the objective of preventing non-Year 2000 Ready components from being introduced into a Year 2000 Ready environment.

We are performing significant Year 2000 testing of our global network services with the objective of identifying possible failures. Customers must recognize, however, that it is impractical to test the entire network. Even if we could, the network is dynamic and changes every day. Some of those changes are within AT&T Global Network Services' control; many others we never know about because they are made by third party service providers. In addition, the interaction of all the components used to deliver a network service varies depending upon the entry point into, and the exit point from, the network. It is impractical to test all possible combinations.

We have completed the majority of our conversion activities for our generally available network services. The remainder of our conversion, along with extended integration testing and contingency planning are to be completed throughout 1999.

Link: http://www.att.com/globalnetwork/year2000/index.html

-- zoobie (zoobiezoob@yahoo.com), October 16, 1999

Answers

said in a very soft, hushed voice, ....WOW ! it sort of says it all about many interconnected systems, doesn't it? And if AT&T 'ain't ready, ain't nooooooobody ready' !!

-- Taz (Taz@aol.com), October 16, 1999.

Kind of like Phillip Morris finally admitting that cigarettes cause cancer, huh?

-- (dot@dot.dot), October 16, 1999.

Yes, it's good to see a frank admission that there are limits to testing. As a result, the probability of failures can be minimized, but never reduced to zero. Given the number of interconnections, the probability of at least one good glitch approaches certainty. By all indications, we'll be putting out a *lot* of fires next year, and some of them will be very stubborn.

It's a truism in computing that no useful, nontrivial system is without bugs.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), October 16, 1999.

Yep I loved it when Gary North posted it, and I loved it when you posted it.

-- lovin' it (lovin'@it.con), October 16, 1999.

The irony of gary is he's such a nutter,and will probably be quite esteemed if he turns out to be right.Oh,well,better a zombie than a corpse.

-- zoobie the zombie (zoobiezoob@yahoo.com), October 16, 1999.

This is the corp I work for but can't say...

Maybe soon...

ntp

-- ouch (there's.lot@more.to.know), October 16, 1999.

Zoob, it would be the first time he is right.

-- lovin' it (lovin'@it.con), October 16, 1999.

"Interesting." Thanks for posting.

Camping anyone?

Diane

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), October 16, 1999.

Diane:

Out of curiosity, do you really see NO difference between an inability to guarantee correctness, and a guarantee of incorrectness? Do you really feel that just because you cannot absolutely guarantee that you'll be alive tomorrow, constitutes a guarantee that you are SURE to be dead tomorrow?

I ask because that's the conclusion you always seem to draw. Got logic, anyone?

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), October 16, 1999.

No, Flint, that is the conclusion that you always try to claim that people draw. Think of Y2K as a poison that you are going to have to drink -- everyone agrees that it is no good for you, and many say that they have done all that they can to try to minimize the effects, such as diluting it, such as having you first ingest baking soda, etc., etc. Even after you take it, you expect to have a lot of fast medical response, replete with induced vomiting, etc., to try to save you.

But you still have to drink it. You still worry about whether you will be alive the next day. That, in a nutshell, is Y2K.

-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.cum), October 16, 1999.

Flint will mysteriously ignore that last one

-- zoobie (zoobiezoob@yahoo.com), October 16, 1999.

Got blinders on Flint? (As usual!)

Think... GLOBAL.

Think... INTERCONNECTEDNESS.

Think... *SOME* UNKNOWN & UNEXPECTED CASCADING PROBLEMS

Think... DURATION?

Think... LOCATION, LOCATION, LOCATION?

The first real "LIVE" test of the WHOLE planetary system Flint, is 01/ 01/2000. So, you think everyone will be compliant in time?

Got Logic? (Back at you).

(((Twit)))

Sometimes, Flint... you're such a bloody idiot!

Sheesh!

I need a long walk and a latte now. Don't often get angry, but today, and after all the key info from this past week, and your continuing ridiculous condescending attitude, well... I'm there!

Diane, Grrr

BTW, Do you EVER read anything Flint?... of international importance?...

See links at...

New Senate Y2K Hearings - "What in the World Will Happen?"

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id= 001Zqp

Nevermind. Silly question.

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), October 16, 1999.

Diane:

Just how do you get from an excellent description of the physical limitations of communications testing, to the requirement for camping gear? My guess (since you don't spell this out) is that because testing has limitations, communications will fail. Because communications will fail, our infrastructure (power/water) will also fail. Because *these* will fail, we will need to camp out. Whew!

Yes, of course I read all that stuff. As far as I can tell, I read what it says and you read what you prefer to *believe* it says. Of course there will be problems, nobody questions that. Some of these problems are sure to be serious, and nobody questions that either. The mounting indication that these problems will be uncommon and mostly of short duration is now forcing you to be ever more selective with your interpretations and ever more shrill with your shouted chants of your precious keywords.

If you cannot see that your convictions have short-circuited your thought processes, nobody can help you.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), October 16, 1999.

Flint, your BS days are on a SHORT fuse.

Your Pal, Ray

-- Ray (ray@tottacc.com), October 16, 1999.

Testing Y2K infrastructure is best analogized to NON destructive testing of a major bridge for flaws in the steel. You can't take it out of service and REALLY push it for fear that the Golden Gate will drop into the Bay. So you use Ultrasound, Cobalt 60 hard gamma rays, and optical techniques. Yes, of course you find flaws...ALL such structures have them. The REAL question is "What are you going to do about it??" Are they serious enough to initiate major repairs, and close the Marin - San Francisco connection for, say, a month or two and perhaps with the major repair further weaken the structure with newly introduced "bugs" or flaws??

Ironically, Banking was the easy part. Mechanisms are in place to deal with Herstatt type failures...because there is precedent. With global telecom, this is Unprecedented. Think of that Jurassic Park actor who invites you to look at that "alarming" scene of the suitcase being handed off among the white suited crowd through the keyhole. Fact is, the network HE shills for, i.e, MCI Global, isn't compliant either.

As for Scary Gary, the good news is for the last twenty years he has been dead a** wrong about EVERYTHING. The bad news is that it is looking as if the Almighty took pity on him and perhaps, just Perhaps, JUST THIS ONCE, granted him a true vision of what happens "when the people bow and pray to the Neon god they made." Heavy indeed are the wages of sin...and Idolatry is sin. I really fear that in 76 days, a judgement begins...not the end of the world, but consequences for misplaced priorities.

This Thanksgiving, I plan to really give thanks, because for some of us, I fear it could be our last.

-- K. Stevens (kstevens@ It's ALL going away in January.com), October 16, 1999.

KOS said,

"Think of Y2K as a poison that you are going to have to drink -- everyone agrees that it is no good for you, and many say that they have done all that they can to try to minimize the effects, such as diluting it, such as having you first ingest baking soda, etc., etc. Even after you take it, you expect to have a lot of fast medical response, replete with induced vomiting, etc., to try to save you.

But you still have to drink it. You still worry about whether you will be alive the next day. That, in a nutshell, is Y2K."

Just thought it bears repeating...this is *very* good, King.

As for Flint, is it possible that he has written and is beta testing a crude, AI program that no longer requires his actual presence on this forum? (Codename: Flintbot, patent pending) It appears to extract key words from any thread, which it manipulates to produce a variation of the following: "Just because Y2K could be bad, that does not mean it will be bad. If it is bad we won't know it anyway because we cannot agree on a definition of the word bad."

-- (RUOK@yesiam.com), October 16, 1999.

KOS seems to be confusing what y2k is, with how those here go about describing what it will be. Let's try this again, more accurately.

The food you buy at the grocery is surely suspect. Very little of it has been independently certified as healthy and uncontaminated. The little that IS certified, is done by a government agency. And we all know the government is corrupt, lazy and incompetent, if not out to get us outright. We also know that agribusiness is out to make big profits, and safe and proper food handling is expensive, so it's either not done at all, or done just enough so those greedy CEO's can make exaggerated claims about it.

Clearly, anyone who fails to subject all the food they buy to thorough chemical testing is taking their life in their hands. They are blind fools, and guaranteed to be poisoned. Anyone who claims other wise is a shill and an idiot.

THAT'S how y2k is presented on this forum.

[Footnote to RUOK: People have been referring to the "Milne AI" on csy2k for almost 2 years now.]

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), October 16, 1999.

KOS, excellent example. "But you still have to drink it."

Kind of like dealing with sure death. The only way to do it is believe and accept that you are already dead and now figure out how to stay alive.

-- no talking please (breadlines@soupkitchen.gov), October 16, 1999.

Flint,

Just when I thought you were being reasonable you post the following to Diane (I think):

"The mounting indication that these problems will be uncommon and mostly of short duration is now forcing you to be ever more selective with your interpretations and ever more shrill with your shouted chants of your precious keywords. If you cannot see that your convictions have short-circuited your thought processes, nobody can help you"

Hold on Flint, the indications are indeed much much longer for the oil industry. As we have noted in earlier threads, (I hope you saw the one where I answered your question about %of supply lost in 73-74 Oil embargo--2.2%) ... We could see severe oil supply disruptions for much longer than a few days... it is very very possibly, some would argue likely to see perhaps a month to 6 months or even a year to get supply levels restored to what we now have today. That is NOT short term.

IF we should see a 5% loss of supply it would be at least twice as severe as 25 years ago. If we see a 50% loss of supply, this too would be exceedingly bad. Either number is quite feasable but the lower is more possible because it would be easier to reach that level. There will INDEED be disruptions, some of which will be of long term duration and by themselves not be signficant but when combined with their brethren in a given company or industry, the effects are cumulative to the point of being severe in repercussion. Will this indeed happen? The chances of it happening are probably better than you being in a car accident...but you still have car insurance don't you?

If I were you, I'd go argue with the pollies about the need to prepare as I think you'll have more fun arguing with them now than before. Maybe you can persuade them that there really is a need to preparer just in case.

-- R.C. (racambab@mailcity.com), October 16, 1999.

I've heard employees and consultants for other telcos like Pac Bell and GTE ... tell me that they've already been told that they're not going to make it. One Pac Bell source told me that they don't know if they can even save the corporate internal communications systems that would enable them to repair the rest of the system. This source was "terrified" in realizing that it was a hopeless cause to fix everything in time. He told me that they will be battling to save the systems needed in order just to rebuild.

-- R.C. (racambab@mailcity.com), October 16, 1999.

Flint, I've said it once (a long time ago), I'll say it a thousand times:

you can't establish cause-effect relationships because your thinking process lacks common sense, just like computers. You invariably arrive to computer-type conclusions, without input from context. By the way Flint, are you sure you're not a computer?

I still envy your superb English but almost always it is a waste of bandwith.

You never encouraged anyone to prep. You've always discouraged newbies lurking on this forum, directly or indirectly. Your attitudes are ego-centric and selfish.

Sorry to hear you went back to smoking. Smoking is bad for you and for everyone else too.

Take care everybody, and forget about Flint.

-- George (jvilches@sminter.com.ar), October 16, 1999.

By the way, MAAAAARIIIIIIIIIIIIIIAAAAAAAA, where are yoouuuuuuuu????

Aaaaaanniiiiiiiitttaaaaaaaaaa Spoooooooooner, where are youuuuuu???

Hoffy? where's Hoffy? Anybody seen Hoffy around? Call SAP and check if he's there. No, I didn't say that he was getting a check from SAP. I said "check" (as in 'verify') if he's there, at SAP.

Anybody recall the almost 100 posts thread with Hoff, Marma, Anita and myself about phones about 4 months ago?

("PHONES WILL WORK?", I believe)

Take care

-- George (jvilches@sminter.com.ar), October 16, 1999.

R.C.:

Yes, if oil imports are curtailed, this will result in shortages, followed by higher prices. And in turn, this would negatively impact the economy. Not only would this not surprise me, I've predicted it. My probability of recession stands at 50%, with a significant (10- 15%) chance of outright depression. And I've written that I see hard times coming, although I don't believe anyone can know how hard.

On the other hand, the most solid evidence we have (largely discounting secondhand rumors) is that the iron triangle is in pretty damn good shape. So even if I had the money to spend on camping gear, I think I'd be better advised to hang onto it in case of unemployment. Camping gear is a lot less likely to be either necessary or unavailable than good employment.

And although I may be mistaken, I consider Diane an airhead.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), October 16, 1999.

George, I think it was Flint and Flint only who drew "weekend polly duty" this time, though of course the others are always on standby if need be.

Flint, I guess I could spruce up my analogy by saying, OK, it's actually contaminated meat rather than poison, etc., etc., but I don't think there would be any point. You still would not get it.

And you still have to eat it.

-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.cum), October 16, 1999.

KOS:

OK, I'll go along with that. The meat is contaminated. We know this. We'll have some health problems, and we know this too. How sick will we get? We have no idea, and our guesses vary wildly. But yes, we still have to eat it. My guess is that Pepto will be sufficient for most of us to have on hand, and your guess is a priest would be better. We shall see, like it or not.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), October 16, 1999.

Flint,

Go read this thread regarding Lucent Technologies 10-Q if you haven't already. It dovetails nicely with this thread started by Paul Maher.

http://greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=001ag5

Also there was another thread by Keith Wolgamuth but I don't remember the thread title and it may now have slipped off the main index but his thread on embeddeds also dovetails into this thread also.

-- R.C. (racambab@mailcity.com), October 16, 1999.

R.C.:

Yes, I read those threads. The Lucent stuff seemed very dense, and I didn't follow it as well as I'd like. It sounded like the kinds of problems being described would have turned up during the testing detailed on another thread. Other posters (with inside knowledge and experience I lack) seemed to feel that the worst problems were mostly software, and mostly upgraded. My sense is that telephone service will be hit-or-miss in some places.

I was especially bothered by the apparent lack of upgrade path for some of it. If this entails ripping out a chunk of physical plant and reinstalling, rewiring, and reprogramming, it ain't gonna happen in oh, 2 or 3 hours. Two weeks would be a closer estimate, and that assumes suitable replacement equipment is available. How much of that work has already been done, I couldn't figure out at all.

As with power and banking, I feel that phone service will be degraded in some places for a while. How badly degraded, how many places and for how long is an open question. All in all, things don't look real bad, and they don't look like current levels will be maintained either. Patience will be at a premium.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), October 16, 1999.

We'll all go back to logging on at 2400 baud.

Now those were the days ... aahhhhhh

Flint, I understand where you are coming from in regards to Y2K and what effect it will have on us all. I appreciate the time and effort you put in with your viewpoint on this forum, and also appreciate what you are trying to get across. Thankyou.

Regards, from a Doomer, Simon Richards

-- Simon Richards (simon@wair.com.au), October 16, 1999.