Before I begin, let me give you some background on myself. I am a cellist with a masters degree, and I currently have a great job with a world renowned orchestra. I would be quite content to keep my job and continue my way of life for many years to come...however, I have come to the unfortunate conclusion that civilization as we know it is about to end.

I have come to understand that pollies will be pollies and doomers will be doomers, nevertheless let me explain in as few words as possible why I have come to such a radical comclusion. My reasoning is as follows:

Researching y2k is like assembling a giant jigsaw puzzle. Each news story, testimonial, 10Q, rumor, etc. taken by itself has little significance unless seen in the context of all the other 'pieces'. Once you have read enough stories (i.e. assembled enough pieces), you begin to develope a unique perspective. Even many of you "doomers" have probably only read a small fraction of the available material of the past few years. Admittedly,I myself belong to this camp as I did not become aware of y2k until June of 1998, and of the material that has surfaced since then, I have certainly read only a fraction.

But of the material I have seen (and I have seen ALOT), the VAST majority has been bad. Bad enough to have given me nightmares on several occasions. What scares me most, however, is not the stories of oil companies that are going to "fix on failure" because there are too many embedded systems to justify continued efforts, or the fact that as of April 1999, Utilities self-reported numbers showed that they were on average 44% done with remediation and testing, or the fact that when the Post Office surveyed it's vendors and suppliers, only 60% replied, and of those, only 31% said they would be compliant by 2000...no, it is only when I put these facts into the giant y2k jizsaw puzzle along with the other THOUSANDS of facts, and add to them variables such as 200,000 or so expected computer viruses, the fact that we import 55% of our oil, potential terrorism, and on and on...THAT my friends, is when I get scared.

I you are not scared, then there is something wrong.

Good luck.

-Orson

-- Orson Wells (wells@whitebulb.com), November 13, 1999

Answers

This is not the time to be scared, it is the time to be prepared. Fear is not knowing what's ahead, but being prepared takes a lot of the fear away. Whatever happens is beyond our control, but what happens in your home is in your control. Take care of yourself and family, that's what's most important.

-- bardou (bardou@baloney.com), November 13, 1999.

The past skirmish over the line of control between India and Pakistan shook me. We are in the path of the wind. When one thinks what that would have caused here to the food chain alone...well, anyway, I ordered ThyroBlock because it is my own opinion a nuclear war is waiting to happen. Not only there but elsewhere. I think the globally dreaded nightmare is going to be reality. If I could have a nuclear bomb pit I'd have one "just in case."

We also face the ramifications of any plant melt down on the globe, which can be worse than a nuclear war, simply from Y2K chaos.

[opening front door and looking out, hair stands up on end, door slammed shut]

-- Paula (chowbabe@pacbell.net), November 13, 1999.

Dear cellist, I agree. Also, I used to live your kind of life, and it was fun. Did you ever hear of Dr. Gordon Epperson? Had many workshops with him at the UofA. Studied under many great great artists. Feels like a previous lifetime now. In between that life and the Y2K-immersed life was another intense life completely enwwrapped in its own world. I imagine the next couple years, if I'm still alive, will start a new epoch. The best of luck to you. Brought back a flood of memories :-)

-- Leska (allaha@earthlink.net), November 13, 1999.

You got it Orson! Absolutely, that is the "big picture" which so many pollys and sheeple caught up in the details have a hard time seeing. It is assuring to see that an intellectual such as yourself has arrived at a similar conclusion. Ironic isn't it, that this is both the smallest problem and the largest problem that mankind has ever encountered. "Smallest" in that it is only two bytes of digital code, and "largest" in that we have never experienced a problem so extensive and pervasive that it is likely to affect the lives of the entire human race.

As far as being scared, it is likely we will undergo a great deal of change, but whether or not this is to be feared depends on us. If the world wasn't such a mess, perhaps I would resist change, but as it is, I welcome it. If we have learned anything at all throughout the last millenium, then all we have to do is use this experience to change for the better in the next. There is nothing to fear but fear itself.

-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), November 13, 1999.

The challenges ahead will require that you follow your instincts, and accept that much is unknowable. Fate is something which is denied by many, because it negates logic. Follow whatever course you are sure is right for you, and you will have peace of mind. It is not worth sweating over disasters no one could handle. For that you will have to accept there is a bigger plan at work.

-- Gia (laureltree7@hotmail.com), November 13, 1999.

perfect love cast out fear. That is what Jesus is about.God sent His Son Jesus to provide a way for us. God's word, in the world you will have tribulation in me you will have Peace. Y2k is so big and you cant face it without Jesus and have peace.

God love the world so much that he gave his only begotten son that who ever believes in him shall not perish but shall have eternal life.

y2k could end this world as we know it, receive God's free gift of salvation and have peace in your soul and fear not. just love and be the best you can. It's all in the hands of our Creator God the Father. When the world grew to wicked in the past God allowed civiliation to be destroyed in order for it to be rebuilt. It is no different this time. The powers to be do not apreciate the gifts and abundance that God has bestowed on our civilization, They are greedy and unthankful and have unforgiving hearts. They oppress and steal from the poor. God is probably very unhappy with the way they are running the world. Expect God to change it. God is a God of love and hope. Hope in God not technology. The real solutions to the y2k induced infrastructure problems will come from God's people not the technology.

-- y2k aware mike (y2k aware mike @ conservation . com), November 13, 1999.

Paula,

You don't have to dig a pit to avoid damage from fallout. With a modified basement area, supplies and a home-made radiation meter, you could add decades to your life in the aftermath of nuclear fallout in your area. Check it out: http://oism.org/nwss/s73p904.htm

-- Dr. Polymorph (Youknowmore@thanyouthink.com), November 13, 1999.

Being scared of real things is appropriate behaviour. In rock climbing, there is a dynamic tension between being scared and conquering fear with good technique, equipment, physical, and most important, mental preparation and practice. When you stop being scared and respectful of the rock, its time to stop climbing.

-- seraphima (seraphima@aol.com), November 13, 1999.

Orson:

Just out of curiosity, exactly how are you factoring in all the stories never written about problems never encountered by those who made no press releases about business as usual? The hardest part about integrating all we know, is that when you come right down to it, we don't know enough and what's written is flavored by our definition of what's worth writing about.

As for the vast majority being bad, I've found this is nearly as much a matter of interpretation as it is of information. Maybe even moreso. We read the required worst-case scenarios in SEC reports, and tend to gloss over the "very unlikely event" assessment, and treat contingency plans as guarantees those contingencies will happen. Most of these worst-case scenarios speak of difficulties resulting from problems with the other guy, which reflects yet more lack of information.

I've found that those in both the pessimistic and optimistic camps range from casual observers to intense researchers. There seems to be NO correlation between depth of study and expectation of problems. Neither group seems to have any difficulty whatever in finding and interpreting their information to "support their belief" (in the immortal words of RZN).

So I can assure you that many have studied this just as hard as you have, and have come to the equally well-supported conclusion that anyone who does worry doesn't have their head screwed on right. All of which leads me to the conclusion that we'll see a very wide range of problems, wide in type, intensity, impact, duration, and every which way. And when the dust settles, *everyone* will be able to claim they were right. As usual.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), November 13, 1999.

I, like a lot of people, am in a position of living in a world that I have incomplete knowledge of. That's a tough admission, for me to make. I like to pretend that I've got it all sown up. I like to say, "Yah, yah, yah. I know all about that", with any question put to me. Fact is though, my knowledge of computers, at best, falls into the moderate range. There's many arcane ins and outs of this little machine I'm sitting at now, that are a complete puzzle.

There are a few things I do understand, though. One is that even the most brilliantly designed system can and does fail. Even a minor glitch can send a smoothly operating machine into a tailspin.

A case in point: The mental health agency, that I used to work for hired someone to develop an Management Information System. The person hired was widely regarded as "brilliant". It was common to refer to him as "the guy the computer gurus turn to, when THEY need a guru. Agency leadership regarded it as a major coup to get this guy on board. $325,000 ($75,000 over budget) and a year and a half later, the MIS system still did not work, and the guru was fired, due to incompetence. I have no idea where this individual went wrong, but I can only assume, that despite all his expertise, there was some little problem hiding in the system that he could not find.

While I'm not a computer whiz, I am what you call "handy". I've fixed all kinds of things, from toys to toasters to TVs. A lot of times, in the interest of expediency, I've improvised those fixes. Some have worked, some have not. And some have appeared to work for a long time, and then failed, when least expected.

Many, if not most, of the computers that control our critical infrastuctures, have been jerry-rigged. New components are piggy-backed on top of old components until the final product is less "a brilliantly designed system", and more a tottering Rube Goldberg contraption. It's no great leap for me to see that, just like some of my household fixes, when you expediently improvise information and control systems, you are walking a tad close to the edge of the cliff.

Given those two things, I have to go with the pessimistic view. No, I don't proceed with complete confidence, because I lack the knowledge to make a complete assesment. But I'd rather risk having a back-up source of heat I'll never use, than risk freezing to death.

I agree with Bardou, that you try to keep the fear to a minimum, but I also agree with Seraphima, that you need to "respect the rock".

-- Bokonon (bok0non@my-Deja.com), November 13, 1999.

uh, this wouldn't be the Orson Well(e)s of _War of the Worlds_ and _F for Fake_ fame now, would it? The Orson Well(e)s known in Europe as a great magician, the master of illusion and legerdemain

-- Palinurus the Spoiler (panjandrum@foote.net), November 13, 1999.

Bokonen:

Brilliant guruship is no match for bad management. I don't know the details behind your story, but I've lived through too many projects that suffer from shrinking budgets and schedules while chasing a diffuse and moving target. Management information systems were notorious for being undefined, with each manager wanting something very different from all the rest. As IBM said when giving up on the IRS project, "Every time we asked the same question, we got a different answer."

In contrast, date bugs encounter very few definitional issues. The usual goal is that the code should do just exactly what it did before. If you can't tell ANY difference, you did it right. This and the trivial ease of repairing most date bugs have been our biggest weapons against the technical issues of y2k.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), November 13, 1999.

Flint,

One question for you: Where are the NUMBERS (aka metrics) to support your view? It is my most sincere desire for this whole thing to pass without major impact on our lives. I have a four year old son and a beautiful loving wife. We have lots of positive things happening in our family. We WANT the y2k saga to have a happy ending!

So, to overcome the fear of the future with y2k, I have been digging and researching for nearly two years. Reading every article that I can find -- positive and negative. The problem is that the only positive numbers are either (a) corporate self reported completion percentages -- not actual counts of embedded systems triaged or lines of application systems code remediated and tested; or (b) government reported statistics.

Neither of these are true metrics, therefore useless in terms of getting to the facts. Worse, we should all know that statistics (not to be confused with metrics) can be made to imply whatever you wish. Compound that with a government known to have a difficulty telling the truth and you have "good news" that is not meaningful. Further, where actual numbers (metrics) and examples exist, the information is very rarely positive.

Flint, I must believe you are more intelligent than what we're seeing from you. If you ever hope to disqualify verified information, you have to counter it with other actual verified information, not rhetoric.

It is true that I only have 22 years of systems design, development, integration, conversion, migration and conversion (mainframe, midrange, and client server. Nonetheless, I do know how to research and put best case/worst case/most likely outcome metrics together.

The most likely scenario I can personally come up with matches many others, of accepted repute. We (you included) are on the brink of a very challenging period of time -- at least a year and potentially much, much longer. To get an idea of what a depression is like, do some historical US research and some current-day Russian, Brazilian, French (and others if you choose to look into it)research. In America, we have become too soft and too dependent upon "modern" or "instant" society. Unfortunatley, we are in for some major changes -- ready or not, like it or not.

Respectfully,

TA

It's the numbers, Flint -- the numbers.

TA

-- TA (im@ready.now), November 13, 1999.

Where did Orson go? Hit and run?

-- orison well (no@replies.here), November 13, 1999.

TA:

I'm working with the same numbers you are, from the same sources. Your assessment and conclusions may well be correct. However, there are a few points to bear in mind (yes, with your experience, you know these):

1) Ultimately, ALL of our numbers are self-reported in one way or another. While I cannot fault your method of assigning reliability to any numbers, I can point out that your assignments aren't sacrosanct. You may feel your understanding of the *motivations* behind our number sources is sound and solid. Permit me to remain agnostic. Your characterization of positive numbers as "useless" and "not meaningful" suggests a bias.

2) Can I assume you are familiar with Hoffmeister's analysis, based on quite a few metrics? I'm reluctant to repeat his entire presentation here. If you haven't read it, I believe you'll find it worthwhile.

3) Your characterization of the bad news as 'verified' strikes me as odd. Most of that bad news takes the form of reports that organizations are only X% complete with remediation, or that Y% of a specified subset have yet to start, etc. I hope you aren't referring to these numbers, since they've been the object of considerable debate here. The outcome of such debates tends to be preordained -- high completion percentages are unreliable, low completion percentages can be trusted! But this is a viewpoint, not verification.

4) I don't regard us as having become soft or dependent on instant gratification. People strive. Their environment has changed, which in turn has changed their goals. The problems we face today are in some ways much more challenging than in the past, though quite different. Following a horse around a field is hard work. Writing and debugging complex software is also hard work. Which is harder? Who can say?

5) I hope you are factoring into your analysis some method of accounting for the reports never written about problems that never arose? Very few of us are doing primary research, after all. I also hope you factor in the relatively benign problem rate experienced so far this year. We are well past the date when the metrics-collectors (Capers Jones, Cap Gemini, Gartner) predicted notable rises in these rates, yet impacts have been small and local (and NOT due to improper date handling directly). The "indicator" spike dates came and went. If the programmers of long experience (like Yourdon) were correct, these indicated smaller problems than feared next year as well.

6) Finally (for now), please understand that I'm not trying to 'disqualify verified information'. I've been trying to interpret that information -- its reliability, its accuracy, its completeness, and its meaning. If your interpretation is more negative than mine, I won't complain since I can see quite a range of valid interpretations. However, please understand also that many of the interpretations presented here fall beyond the pale, to the point of what I must consider deliberate, often absurd misreading so as to *force* the information to fit a predetermined conviction.

And I cannot avoid the impression that, in my attempts to identify and defuse the most irrational pessimism, I come across as much more positive than I really am. I haven't prepared for nothing -- I regard serious problems as a high enough probability to justify it. Nor do I regard you as being less intelligent simply because you may disagree with my interpretations -- just wrong [grin].

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), November 13, 1999.