If you are on this forum hours a day you notice patterns over the months. Very interesting!!!

One pattern is Mr. Beanfang and his tenacious Posts of newsworthy Y2K failures. Usually Mr. Beanfang does not generate much response. I guess because cold hard facts of purported Y2k failures don't push any opinion buttons. or the failures don't effect most people here. One thing of notice, The gartner group reported that failures were high in Oct. and were expected to rise in Nov. and would Rise dramatically in Dec.

This first week of Nov. it seems that the posts of Mr. Beanfang has gone up considerably.

Keep your eyes on HOmer!! He may not be as DOH!!!!! as the cartoon!

-- David Butts (dciinc@aol.com), November 05, 1999

Answers

Excuse me. We don't know who Beanfang is? Mr. or Ms. Beanfang, I've been waiting for this opportunity. Who are you? Are you a moderator, like Diane, for an example? You seem to have much time to roam the web and come up with all this nitty gritty.

We've read most of the posts, but the suspense is killing me.

Comment?

-- TruthSeeker (truthseeker@kdsi.net), November 05, 1999.

Go Homer!!! Go Homer!!! Go Homer!!! ...

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

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), November 05, 1999.

I for one... thank Homer.

(((THANK YOU!!!)))

;-D

Diane

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), November 05, 1999.

I always assumed that Homer is a new and improved Norm...

-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.cum), November 05, 1999.

At different times, different people/web identities have been particularly noticeable as finders and linkers to pertinent news items. Sometiemes Diane, sometimes Kevin, sometimes Linkmeister, and more recently, Homer Beanfang. I'm sure I have missed some other noteworthy frequent contributors.

I would like to applaud them all while honoring the apparent preference for anonimity of Linkmeister and Homer Beanfang.

I sometimes get a chuckle at the thought that someday the Pulitzer Prize might be supplanted by something that might be named: the Homer Beanfang Prize. :-)

Jerry

-- Jerry B (skeptic76@erols.com), November 05, 1999.

Well. We got Diane's response, sorta! Diane, just who is Beanfang? We know you know. And, if for some reason the coffee latta fails you and you don't know, why not answer this post yourself, Beanfang?

King of Spain,

Just a brief note to let you know you are one of our favorite posters. So who are "we". We're a group of longtime posters (1 1/2 years), lurkers, realists and "doomers"- by some polly standard.

Keep the Faith!

-- TruthSeeker (truthseeker@ whoops.com), November 05, 1999.

TruthSeeker:

Right on! The emperor has no cloths.

Beanfang I love your work, but I also find myself curious as to your identity??????????????????

-- Who-really-cares? (truth?@there-is-none.gov), November 06, 1999.

Here he is!

-- Y2KGardener (gardens@bigisland.net), November 06, 1999.

HOMER BEANFANG FOR PRESIDENT!!

Homer!.. Homer!.. Homer!.. Homer!....whuu, whuu, whuu, whuu

Good work with those rapid-fire posts buddy.

(how do you get a name like Homer Beanfang anyway?)

-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), November 06, 1999.

Go, Homer!

-- Fan of (bean@f.ang), November 06, 1999.

Homer taking a break from research...

-- you deserve a (bre@k.today), November 06, 1999.

Hawk,

And we hope you are a true Hawk. Beat the Illini tomorrow. It may be our only Big 10(11) victory.

The Very Tired But Totally Fulfilled, TruthSeeker!

-- TruthSeeker (truthseeker@ seektruth.always), November 06, 1999.

-- what a cute (b@b.y), November 06, 1999.

Never did turn that center off - seems to work!





-- Y2KGardener (gardens@bigisland.net), November 06, 1999.

-- Where are the (be@n.s?), November 06, 1999.

Jeesh - this Micro$oft $oftware is really letting down our image posters tonight!



-- Y2KGardener (gardens@bigisland.net), November 06, 1999.

Third time lucky!



-- Y2KGardener (gardens@bigisland.net), November 06, 1999.

BuuuuWaaaaaaaHaaaaaa!!

haaaaa HA AHAHHA huuuuuuuhhh!

BUUUUWWWWWAAAAAAAAHHHHPPP!!!

heeee hee heeee heee!

goin off the rails on the crazy train...

-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), November 06, 1999.

DOH!!

-- try (ag@i.n), November 06, 1999.

My brother and I were just discussing this very thing. Homer, you are a true Paul Revere of sorts. Persistently and diligently unveiling the snowball that has started rolling down hill. As someone elsewhere on this board said........"The ice is melting and nobody's noticed"

CP

-- CP (Spoonman@prodigy.net), November 06, 1999.

OK - Who's the anal retentive sysop??

I was kinda diggin the centered page thing, especially with all of these pics. What's wrong with breakin the rules once in a while?

Somebody's gettin a little power happy.. is that you Chuck?? :-)

-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), November 06, 1999.

Hawk. I ge to the forum when I can which tends to be outside of the 1400 to 0200 time frame as that is work time. Can't hjang that one on me..... C

-- Chuck, a night driver (rienzoo@en.com), November 06, 1999.

Homer, do you take your name from that cartoon strip by Wiley?

-- Wilferd (WilferdW@aol.com), November 06, 1999.

If Homer Beanfang isn't Hoffmeister, he might as well be. Hoffmeister has been arguing for a while now that problems with new implementations are happening now, are at least as serious as actual date bugs and often take much longer to fix, and that no dominoes are falling despite all this.

Beanfang actually *documents* the problems Hoffmeister has been pointing out. Excellent support for a good argument.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), November 06, 1999.

I've always suspected Homer is a regular who posts opinions under another name. If not, he/sh is one of those quiet types who just goes about his/her business without asking for much. And, once again, I applaud Homer for the effort.

-- Dave (aaa@aaa.com), November 06, 1999.

Flint?

The "no dominoes are falling" statement suggests either that someone is posting under Flint's name in order to discredit him, or that Flint's idea of falling dominoes does not include such things as employees and vendors not getting paid, products not getting shipped, employees getting laid off, etc.

Jerry

-- Jerry B (skeptic76@erols.com), November 06, 1999.

Okay Hawk,

I shifted it back off-center 'cause that what the original poster appeared to want. (All in the TBY2K housecleaning drudge work *Big Sigh*)

;-D

BTW... Homer is NOT Hoffy.

Diane

(Get some sleep Chuck!)

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), November 06, 1999.

TruthSeeker,

Beat the Illini? The Hapless Hawks are where our revered Illini were the last 2 seasons...they couldn't beat a good high school squad.

Final score: Illinois 35, Iowa 14

-- TM (mercier7@pdnt.com), November 06, 1999.

Go Hawks! I doubt they'll win today though. Maybe next year.

-- rc white (cw5410@netscape.net), November 06, 1999.

Jerry:

You have to stretch pretty hard to find dominoes here. We've been reading about big layoffs since we were old enough to read. Layoffs in the early 90's were much greater than we've seen ever since. Yes, we've read about backorders from Hershey's and Whirlpool, but backorders are pretty common. Nothing yet has come even close to the side-effects on GM of their strike, or the UPS strike. Which we weathered without a blip from the standpoint of the whole economy. And neither of those strikes came anywhere close to the effects of the big midwest flood.

But your observation nonetheless corroborates another point I've made several times -- that *any* effects, however minor or however transient or however few are affected, WILL be used as 'proof' that y2k was bad, whether it was or not, by those determined to see what they choose. By your reasoning, you could pick *any* year for the last 50, list everything that went wrong that year, and be satisfied that y2k was very bad, if it had only happened that year. It's hard to have much perspective when you've positioned yourself into a corner.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), November 06, 1999.

Forgiven Diane! I was just having a bit of fun that's all, but I guess order is better. Yes, it is a rather thankless job you have. I picture you guys waking up and crawling over to your computers thinking something like .. "ok, time to take out the trash again", and then head out in search of all the messes that need to be cleaned up. Sounds kinda like being a cyber-janitor, or digital maid service. You have my sympathies, and thanks. :-)

-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), November 06, 1999.

Flint may soon find himself stuck in the corner in a fetal position. We can only hope. Real hard.

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), November 06, 1999.

Fint,

I guess that is you.

You're recent post appears to be arguing that if falling dominoes do not exceed the (fill in the blanks) problem, then they are not really falling dominoes.

It seems, further, to be arguing as if the date is already well past 1-1-2000.

I guess I'll just have to bide my time until my calendar catches up with yours. :-)

Jerry

-- Jerry B (skeptic76@erols.com), November 06, 1999.

Homer....do you mud wrestle?

Ahhh, sorry about stealing your line KOS, but I'm just curious. (g)

-- Cary Mc from Tx (Caretha@compuserve.com), November 06, 1999.

Mr. Flint,

I read the Intl. Electrical and Electronic Engineers chairs Y2K essay.

If I'm not mistaken the IEEE is an entity that is qualified or has been chosen to set STANDARDS on computer connectivity (The most Complex kind of standards). In fact if you pick up the latest DSL for dummies book you see just how credible they are (they set standards)>

To put his essay in a nutshell after all of the technical examples. "We will run this ship into the icebergs"!!!!

Question to you: Are you not satisfied with his creditials to make these comments? Do you feel more qualified to hold the middle ground? Is holding the middle ground a psychological buffer for you to not to have to use your obvious strengths for something you don't want to devote thought to???????????? Could this be too much of a challenge for your well orchestrated life???

C'mon---it just may be the most exciting time of all of our empty,boring,tv watching,computer sitting,eating,sex starved lives!!!!

-- D.B. (dciinc@aol.com), November 06, 1999.

C'mon Twister-boy, where'd ya go?

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), November 06, 1999.

D.B.

I read it, and agreed with what he said. This doesn't force me to agree with your interpretations or conclusions. Mr. Way sounds much like a doctor talking about public health. Almost all of us have health problems of some kind. Some of our health-related practices (varying from pollution to smoking to obesity) are sufficient, taken together, to constitute a phenomenal amount of suffering, and doubtless shorten our average lifespans. There are common diseases for which we have no cure, and others for which existing cures are increasingly ineffective. From a doctor's perspective, our national health is in sorry shape.

Now, you might extrapolate from this to the conclusion that we're all very dead. But simple observation argues otherwise. Yet you extrapolate from Mr. Way's observations that our computers are all incurably diseased and will fail. I agree they will (and already are) suffering a health problem. This problem might be as serious as a nasty strain of influenza. Lots of suffering, but not the end of the world.

Jerry:

English makes sorry use of subjunctive mood. I was speaking hypothetically. IF y2k had already happened, the kind of "dominoes" you mention would be taken by pessimists as proof that y2k was as bad as they'd feared. If 2000 brings no worse problems than 1999, there will still be ample problems to point to, if you insist on seeing what you want to see.

Sorry for the delay in replying. I was out buying a new gun.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), November 06, 1999.

Mr. Flint,

I read your analogy!!

Unless I'm mistaken your are asking me to accept a comparison between the miraculous self-regulating intelligence of the human body.

Unfortunately Sir--If you or anyone else is created with a gene that will begin to send erroneous information to this self regulating system of systems (DNA), Say on a certain date when we are in our 40s.

Well----tell ya what!! how about you finish the outcome!!!

By the way you started your premise with if everyone had a health issue. Some of us (Thank God) do not!!

-- David Butts (dciinc@aol.com), November 06, 1999.

"I was out buying a new gun."

Now I liked that one Flint. But don't wait up for me.

There I go thinking again.

-- Tommy Rogers (Been there@Just a Thought.com), November 06, 1999.

David:

I'm glad you are in good health. Permit me to doubt that your health is perfect, since I'm not aware that such a state has ever been defined. I consider myself to be in good health too, but I wear glasses and of course I am aging, which is (so far) incurable. I was not speaking of *major* health issues with everyone, though. I view the economy as organic. It tends to cure itself. Computers don't, they must be repaired or replaced, I agree. I expect the economy to get sick, and recover.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), November 06, 1999.

Flint,

No problem with the delay; I appreciate that there is more to life than posting here. :-)

As for: "IF y2k had already happened, the kind of "dominoes" you mention would be taken by pessimists as proof that y2k was as bad as they'd feared.", well, if you want to position yourself that far out on that limb, all I can do is wish you well.

But as for: "If 2000 brings no worse problems than 1999, there will still be ample problems to point to, ...", omitting the psychobabble that seems to afflict your posts from time to time :-) , keep in mind that 1999 is not yet over. Which is not to say that I expect Y2K problems to peak this year, but simply to point out the obvious: it is not yet Dec 31.

Jerry

-- Jerry B (skeptic76@erols.com), November 06, 1999.

Jerry:

You're right, 1999 isn't over. Perhaps I could have picked 1993? But there was that flood. Or 1996? Nope, hurricane.

But that's not quite the whole point. I doubt I'm far out on a limb here. People are *already* pointing to y2k bugs, as Homer documents (and gets cheered). I anticipate much more serious problems to come. My question amounts to, What shall we use to measure y2k carnage? Decker has already pointed out that we lack econometric models that can factor y2k out from ordinary economic trends. We might look at dollar costs for repairs, and maybe estimates of business actually lost (rather than merely switched to competitors) due to obvious y2k problems. Will y2k directly and indirectly be as expensive as that flood or that hurricane? Maybe so, maybe no. But neither disaster shook the foundations of civilization either.

According to current estimates, y2k has already cost several hundred billion dollars. That's a big number. If costs next year are similar (and ramifications as minor), it will also be a big number. But would you consider current costs a BITR? We don't seem to be suffering yet.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), November 06, 1999.

Flint,

You ask: "According to current estimates, y2k has already cost several hundred billion dollars. That's a big number. If costs next year are similar (and ramifications as minor), it will also be a big number. But would you consider current costs a BITR?". Without hesitation, yes!

As for the limitations of econometric models, we lack econometric models that can agree with each other. :-)

As for "what shall we use to measure Y2K carnage?", 1. in general, and I do mean in general, i.e. without any qualification whatsoever, "measurement" of things other than physical attributes is an illusion, 2. more to the point, if the negative global effects of Y2K problems remain so minor that only a small percentage of the population notices, I would be delighted, and would say that it would not be worth arguing whether or not it was a BITR.

On the other hand, if the negative global effects of Y2K problems become sufficient, for example, to burst the stock market bubble (which, in turn, would lead to additional, and substantial, negative effects), I would say that anyone who felt they needed an economist to tell them whether or not it was more than a BITR should not be surprised to be regarded as somewhat less than a shrewd observer. :-)

Jerry

-- Jerry B (skeptic76@erols.com), November 07, 1999.

Flint,

In the all seriousness aside department: while you were out buying a new gun, I was doing some grocery shopping and mulling over parts of your then previous post. Having the impression that you have some technical background, I imagine that you might get a chuckle from a "translation" of your comments suggesting difficulty finding dominoes.

The "translation" was that you had discovered a new corollary of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle as applied to falling dominoes, but in this new corollary, Plank's constant was replaced by Avogadro's number. :-)

Jerry

-- Jerry B (skeptic76@erols.com), November 07, 1999.

With apologies to Max, that's Planck's constant.

Jerry

-- Jerry B (skeptic76@erols.com), November 07, 1999.

Jerry:

You bring up a specific example of what I was trying to say. Many people have been saying for some time that the market bubble is overdue to burst (and I agree). At the very least, those who claim we're due for a correction, possibly large, are taken seriously, y2k notwithstanding.

This is why I asked Decker if we have any quantitative methods for determining the degree (if any) to which y2k contributed to such a burst, should it happen sometime next year. I think it's safe to say that if it *does* burst next year, most people here will attribute that to y2k, proclaiming the fact of the burst as irrefutable proof they were right. When I asked if there were any reliable means to tell whether it would have happened anyway, the answer was a clear "no". We will never know, provided y2k bugs are not obviously responsible for an overwhelming number of big monkey wrenches being thrown into the economic machinery.

Most of Homer Beanfang's posts document tribulations suffered by organizations implementing new, compliant systems. I've called these second-order effects, problems caused not by date bugs, but by the efforts to avoid date bugs. I'd classify these as y2k problems. But at some point the relationship becomes distant and problematical. Assuming no obvious collapse, we must make guesses based on assumptions, in turn based on observations of *ranges* of bankruptcy rates, unemployment rates, etc. Given that the bubble may burst anyway, even hindsight will never be sufficient to support a firm conclusion.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), November 07, 1999.

Flint,

Surely, in any major crisis there would be finger pointing galore, politicians confidently laying blame at their opponents door, spinmeisters spinning, and, of course, we may expect Andy to find confirmed rumors from anonymous sources tracing the problems to the all powerful manipulators. Such is life in the real world.

Also in the real world, major events usually, one might say almost always, are results of multiple influences. If we encounter sudden and widespread malfunctions of automated processes very early in 2000, or somewhat less sudden, but very widespread malfunctions of automated processes in 1Q2000, I would be inclined to conclude that they are Y2K effects. If someone else reaches different conclusions, such is life.

While I have a preference for understanding events, I would much prefer that adverse Y2K effects be minimal, which would imply that even late in 2000, we would be unlikely to know just how extensive they had been. I venture to surmise that most of the regulars here would much prefer such an outcome rather than one in which adverse Y2K effects were so massive that there would be no doubt about it.

Jerry

-- Jerry B (skeptic76@erols.com), November 07, 1999.

Jerry:

I agree completely. What actually happens is what's important, regardless of how different people choose to interpret it. And I think I can understand people like Andy, who don't mind if their explanations are absurd, so long as they're simple and easy to understand. Given the choice, I believe it's part of human nature to prefer being certain to being right. And certainty is in short supply in a messy, ambiguous world.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), November 07, 1999.

Homer is at it again. Great articles! You GO, Beanfang!

-- bat fan (hell's@bells.ringing), November 08, 1999.