Here's something we all probably already know but need to be reminded of... business WOULD NOT spend vast amounts of money on unproductive remediation repairs if it were not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the impact of ignoring the problem would lead to more serious (disasterous) consequences. It wouldn't. There are too many naysayers in finance who would veto the IT requests for capital if the need was not genuine (read D-E-V-A-S-T-A-T-I-N-G)In other words, bright, intelligent, successful, rational white collar types have concluded the threat is real and must be prioritized over expansion, market share, R&D etc. Only problem is they started too late, as most have not fully understood the depth and the intricacies of the project.

Finally, it is my belief that companies make decisions in isolation i.e. how will this problem affect us (as a company)? The difficulty with Y2K is the problem is not an isolated problem; it is a systemic problem.

Look at it this way . . . let's say an (aeronautical) project was broken up into 100 individual tasks and assigned to different groups. While each group could readily manage their assignment given the appropriate amounts of time, capital and resources; the project needs to develop as a whole, with constant testing, communication and adjustment of the individual assignment parameters. The project is in a constant state of flux and is not restricted to a multiplicity of individual efforts. Would you want to be the test pilot of a plane that was pieced together from different countries, cultures and languages? This is what is going to happen in 37 days.

Got a parachute?

-- chzcake (bryan@home.com), November 25, 1999

Answers

Not even John Wayne would want this assignment. And we all know he can keep plane in the air by lifting up on the control stick and physically holding the plane up by himself.

And even though I have sometimes been accused of being willing to climb into a cockpit and do stupid things in the name of finding out could it be done, I'll sit this one out, too. I just wish I had a bunker like ole' Shaky@forty ft below to sit it out in.

WW: which translates into "Brave or really stoopid pilot and/or Wheezo"

-- Wildweasel (vtmldm@epix.net), November 25, 1999.

Chzcake !!!

Well said.

-- Rob Somerville (merville@globalnet.co.uk), November 25, 1999.

chzcake! hey hey hey hi, great to see you here :-)

Hoping that plane doesn't land on our head as it falls outta the sky.

-- Ashton & Leska in Cascadia (allaha@earthlink.net), November 25, 1999.

My 1946 Piper Cub is y2k compliant.

-- Roy (bushwacker @ north woods .com), November 25, 1999.

chzcake:

1) Yes, the problem was serious. That's why all that money got spent. But why assume the problem is just as bad *after* the money was spent as it was before? You are trying to have your chzcake and eat it too -- either the money didn't need to be spent (in which case no big problem), or else it did (in which case no *more* big problem). You can't have it both ways. Smaller problems, no doubt about it. You are vastly underestimating the comprehension of those who wrote and maintain the code we fixed or are fixing. Do you feel you do not "fully understand the depth and intricacies" of what you do for a living?

2) Fixing the problem happens just like creating it did -- by individuals working on the code they're responsible for. The date bugs didn't get to *be* systemic because there was some master plan that took all the complex interdependencies into account, nor does fixing the problem require a master plan or big analysis of complex systems. You fix what you broke, and I'll fix what I broke, and so does everyone else, and the systemic problem gets fixed.

The problem became systemic without any agreement between isolated companies as to how to create it. Interface protocols between isolated companies are being either maintained as-is, or renegotiated in great detail (most of which are already tested and back in production).

3) We didn't *build* this plane with a master plan, yet it flies just fine. Isn't that amazing? So we fix it the same way we built it and it still flies. Remember that an economy is a *lot* more loosely coupled than an airplane. Your project description is *exactly* how the economy has always been built and maintained, and we are all the test pilots all the time.

You are fortunate (as are we all) that you have misunderstood the nature of how the real world wobbles.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), November 25, 1999.

Whoa Flint! My first time post was intended as a contribution to a well respected forum and not meant to draw forth debate. However, in response I must say, you make a huge assumption in stating so unequivocally that money spent = problem fixed.

Will a pay phone work because you jammed in 24 cents instead of 25?

Of course it's recognized that huge strides of progress have been made, but the target is not a stationary one. As a project unfolds, new insights are discovered that were not initially taken into consideration and additional time and capital are required to circle the problem(have you ever general contracted your own home?)

In a nutshell, I strongly feel the magnitude of the problem has been underestimated (especially by small business that is the backbone of the economy). I agree with you that people are wonderfully resourceful, but my point is quite simply, too much work, too little testing, too little time, too much faith. Pure and simple.

Lastly, Flint, you make several good points. I hope you are right in asserting we will have virtually flawless execution world wide due to the amount of money that has been spent. Entropy and Murphy will make it interesting. I'll close with this one: "good intentions and 24 cents will only leave you with a phone booth dial tone"

Peace bro'

-- chzcake (bryan@home.com), November 25, 1999.

chzcake:

I wouldn't go quite that far. Money spent = bugs fixed, but nobody is claiming that ALL of them are fixed. I agree there is plenty of room for half-informed debate (the best anyone can do) regarding how close we'll come, and thus the impact of what remains. I agree that some have started too late. Almost no larger organization is any longer making any pretense at fixing everything, they're only claiming they got enough of the important stuff to keep the problems to a manageable level. Are they right? We'll find out.

But it's not the all-or-nothing your phone booth metaphor implies. You'll get a connection. How *clean* that connection is, who knows? There *will be* static. How much is wide open.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), November 25, 1999.

Flint: "half-informed debate" -- I like that, it's true. Better to be involved and making the best decisions we can with the information we've managed to piece together than strolling into the next millenium with our blinders on.

Cheers,

Chz

-- chzcake (bryan@home.com), November 25, 1999.

I like those two guys!

-- Hull Stetson (stetson.hull@usa.net), November 25, 1999.

Flint--aren't you the fool who refused to believe that my dashboard digital clock went berserk when I pushed it forward a year and a half to 00:01, 0101? You SOUND intelligent, you SOUND knowlegeable, but I--personally and absolutely--know that you have AT LEAST ONCE opened your mouth too declaim as impossible that which actually happened. Sorry, buddy, your credibility is forever in question now. I'm announcing it to the world: YOU ARE SOMETIMES DEAD WRONG. Let's hope you've made your preps, and that statement doesn't become literal.

-- StanTheMan (heidrich@presys.com), November 25, 1999.

Stan:

I'm the one who asked for details about that clock, so that it could be verified and not rejected as a silly urban myth. Your explanation sounds like something that could well have happened. Perhaps we should all report on the performance of our vehicle clocks? Might be interesting. I don't regret to say that my Harley has no clock.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), November 25, 1999.

StanTheMan said- "YOU ARE SOMETIMES DEAD WRONG" Poignant and dead right!

I suppose then Flint, there is no reasonable excuse for the lack of cures for most of the major diseases. Your simplistic vision of a complex problem is to throw enough money (effort) at it and viola - IT'S CURED! Well then, why, after the quadrillions of denarii, centuries of effort, application of some of the best minds man has propagated throughout time, are the cures for most diseases still absent. Could it be that the problem is both virile, and dynamic.

Y2K, for me, is more than the numerical debauchery. It represents the culmination of a dihedral, formed from a bonding of man and machine. For most, this intersection came to represent the panacea. Now it has offered up the complementary facet. Given time, we could start over and fix the hardware. But the disease still mutates and propagates. The body has become infected with a virulent strain of hate, that will eventually overcome the host.

What $$ figure would you put on a fix for that Mr Flint? How long do we have to fix it? Is there time? Will the host be overcome before the cure is found? What will bring the patient to the point of accepting the cure? Will the patient survive the race for the cure?

We have run out of places to hide. It is time to face the music...[goto 12/31/99, T-minus 0:00:59]... the radio's playing "There's a hush all over the world" Can you still hold your breath for 60 seconds Mr Flint?

-- Michael (mikeymac@uswest.net), November 25, 1999.

Michael:

We'll know soon enough. Then you can rant about something else. I'm sure the change will do you good.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), November 25, 1999.

Flint. It was only a cheap stick-on clock, about 1"X2", bought in 1995, worked fine. In mid '98 I pushed it forward to 12/31, and it rolled over no problem to 0101. Then I ran the months ahead to the NEXT 12/31. Bear in mind it did not have a visible year function. This time: 11:57. 11:58, 11:59, 12:00, 12:01(for a fraction of a second) ... and that was the end of sanity. Instantly it began running sequences rapidly. Stop, show a gibberish display, run sequences again, go blank. With very nimble figures on the Set and Display buttons I could get it to fix on the correct time, but it would not hold it, and everytime I tried to reset it went into the berserk functioning again. I DID try to use it as a proof to DGI's, but they STILL did not get it. After several months it stopped entirely, and I trashed it. ..... Okay, I'm not an engineer, but I'm not stupid, either. To me this was revelatory. This clock was manufactured in 1995! Because it was cheap, I assume no special chip was made for it. It probabl;y used a generic type chip. The chip had date function capability. And I assume that some firmware instructions (?) were added to it. These DID NOT require a year designation per se. The chip itself needed a year input in two digits. So the firmware writer input two digits, Voila--it's only good til end of 1999, even though it has no year function. Is this analysis reasonable? By the way, I went out and bought another clock, (different model) and had no problem running it ahead. Here's an idea, why not start a thread on personal experiences with embedded chip problems? I would bet that some VCR's and microwaves will have similar problems. How can it be otherwise? Such chips are everywhere. When they interact with remediated software hell is going to break loose. (IMHO) sa

-- StanTheMan (heidrich@presys.com), November 25, 1999.

Stan:

That may well have been a year bug in there. Alternatively, since it was admittedly a cheap stick-on device, it may have broken as a matter of course -- I've had cheap watches not last a day and I didn't even try anything strange. That's why more samples are important -- to tell internal firmware bugs from plain shoddy workmanship. I personally find it hard to imagine coding that error into that clock -- it strikes me that it would take special failure logic, and space (for the logic) is costly. But of course I have no idea *what* the firmware actually did.

I guarantee you that IF that were a critical device in my operation, I'd replace every damn one of them on general principles!

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), November 25, 1999.

Stan, Flint go to your rooms right now; 5 minute time out. Next time its gounded for 24 hours, no TV, no puter games and no after school activities.

Seriously though I see both of your points within limits. I wrote the office systems for a medium size mfg. If something goes wrong and (it is detected in time I can do fix on failure). I spent 4 months of one year fixing damaged files because of constant machine crashes.

It is the embeddeds and the very large and complited IT systems that have me very shakey~~~~~ if I may borrow from another. Fix on failure w/o electric? Fix on failure when the people with the talents to do so must stay at home to look after and protect their families? Fix on failure happens every day, but in 37 days or somewhat more the resources to do so may not exist for a multitude of reasons.

-- Ed (ed@lizzardranch.com), November 25, 1999.

Flint I don't think there is a doomer on this board (and doomer is a very nebulous term, at what point does one officially become a doomer?) that doesn't think that we're going to have it easier in the good ole U.S.A. than most other countries because of the cumulative effort thrown at the problem. HOWEVER, you are not taking in to account (especially with government agencies) how slow we are to respond. Yes, Y2K has been worked on, is being worked on and won't be anywhere near finished by the New Year whereupon FOF will become king NOT remediation. In addition, we are not an island, and I'll specifically mention the Taiwan earthquake and its cascading effects on our economy among a large number of hardware companies. Could there be a better example? Specifically, lets say the USA doesn't have a single Y2K related problem but is the rest of the world as current as we are? I dooonnn't thiiiinnnnnk soooooooo! Excuse me, I did think of a better example. Chernoble, it seems their problem made it all the way up to the Scandinavian countries and they had to slaughter entire herds of reindeer because of the contamination.

-- Guy Daley (Guy@bwn.nwt), November 25, 1999.

Guy:

I don't have a crystal ball. I can't see the future. I can't say you're wrong, because I don't know.

I can observe that if things are going to be that bad, we should be seeing many indirect indications all around us, and we don't. I can read the surveys (Cap Gemini, Capers Jones, Gartner Group) saying we should have encountered a sizeable percentage of date bugs by now. Indeed, surveys now show, what, 92% of organizations having experienced them. No dominoes. Homer Beanfang has been documenting the occasional troubles encountered by businesses implementing new systems, which has been endemic (an estimated 25% of all large organizations are using this approach). No dominoes. I can read the SEC reports where the "likely worst case" scenario nearly invariably points to the "other guy" as the source of problems, while everyone claims *they* are ready. Can such claims be believed? Maybe not, but we have no clear evidence to the contrary, only speculations and suspicions. I can point to all the failed predictions, both of bugs and of abnormal public behavior, made by people who actually wrote those bugs. No dominoes, and indeed only a very few serious issues. No bankruptcies yet, despite all these new implementations.

I can point to a wealth of happyface status reports, of dubious reliability, but still not contradicted by any hard facts. I can point to a large number of reports of successful testing -- of banks, Wall Street, power generation and distribution, communications, transportation, on and on. Yes, they're unconfirmed, and again not contradicted by anything factual. I can point out that many of the organizations announcing such readiness and testing are multinationals, which says something about quite a few overseas operations. And I can point out that nearly all the "bad news" we get takes the form of concerns, worries, guesses, and reports that discuss the *nature* of some of the problems while carefully omitting their *frequency*. And the ultimate source of most such negative reports is firms that make their living doing repairs, rendering them just as dubious (if not moreso) than the positive reports.

Ultimately, then, the more pessimistic positions rest on *faith* that things will be bad, and this faith is based on the practical impossibility of proving a negative (that there won't be problems). You cannot prove a computer system is bug-free, even in theory. You can prove it isn't just by finding a bug, but NOT finding a bug doesn't mean it's perfect. This same asymmetry applies to perception of the size of the problem facing us.

Taken all together, my belief (nobody can *know*) is that all indications point to a mostly manageable level of exasperating problems -- to delays, downtime, screwups, and inconvenience exceeding the usual noise level. With a few newsworthy and truly serious problems thrown in. I think a recession is more likely than not, and I think y2k bugs will be a primary trigger for that recession. I think worse than that is easily possible, and better than that would be mostly luck. So I'm definitely not saying there will be no problems, only that I think many on this forum are exaggerating the *probability* of pervasive serious trouble.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), November 25, 1999.

Flint - I had to read all your posts on this one to Not Disagree with you too strongly.

Your last post and final assessment could be considered very logical, but I must say, your first post's simplicity fails to take into account many things. One for example would be :

(2) Fixing the problem happens just like creating it did -- by individuals working on the code they're responsible for. The date bugs didn't get to *be* systemic because there was some master plan that took all the complex interdependencies into account, nor does fixing the problem require a master plan or big analysis of complex systems. You fix what you broke, and I'll fix what I broke, and so does everyone else, and the systemic problem gets fixed.

This interdependency was created over the last 35 years - fixed in 2? Please.

But to take the fact that now we have X number of companies(nations, systems), that tell us "they will be fine", because they have fixed something that would have destroyed them had they ignored it, and that ALL these companies face this possibility at approximately the SAME TIME (Year 2000), tells us we can enter the field of probabilities.

What are the odds of ALL the salmon making it back up their river to spawn? Do you think the death rate is as high when they are out at sea?

The chances of ALL companies making it are ZERO. Clearly there will be failures. Because most started late -even MORE FAILURES. Because those started early have spent their money on remediation that did not work, and CAN'T DO ANYTHING NOW ABOUT IT - even MORE FAILURES. Because some companies are lying, even MORE FAILURES.

This will not be the normal death rate at spawning time!

The tone of your posts is that "things will be just a tad worse than normal, we're bright people".

I think to have 50% (One -half of the enterprises) failure rate would be a miracle. Of course they would be gone shortly after.

-- Gregg (g.abbott@starting-point.com), November 26, 1999.

Gregg:

I believe you are engaging here in exactly the kind of exaggeration I was talking about. So I'll respond to your points in an effort to explain why I feel this way. Please note that I'm not saying you're wrong, only that you have exaggerated. Like, you really did catch a good fish, it just kind of grew in the retelling.

[This interdependency was created over the last 35 years - fixed in 2? Please.]

Had we spent 35 years writing and executing nothing but date bugs, this would be a good point. Look at it this way -- 2/35ths of the effort is about 7%. Yet the very highest estimates I've ever seen are that dates are used by 10% of all computer code. Already the level of effort is a close match for the size of the problem. But also consider:

1) Fewer than half of all code that handles dates is incorrect. More than half simply stores or recalls or reports or displays dates, without making calculations. And not all the code that makes calculations or decisions based on dates is incorrect. And the effect of many date errors is benign.

2) In general, repairing errors in existing, working code is much simpler than creating and debugging working code in the first place. The job has been consistently described as tedious but trivial.

3) We have many sophisticated, automated tools by now for finding and fixing most date bugs. These are far more effective than the relatively recent tools to automate the task of writing original code, since we're not changing the logic or functionality of the code.

With all of this in mind, it seems likely that the job of fixing ALL the date errors doesn't exceed 3% of the size of the task of writing all that code in the first place. Considering that remediation has been at most half the coding effort over the past 2 years, I'd have to conclude that the magnitude of the effort is a good match for the magnitude of the job. And this is consistent with the observation that programming departments know what they're doing -- which *must* have been the case to get us into this mess in the first place.

[But to take the fact that now we have X number of companies(nations, systems), that tell us "they will be fine", because they have fixed something that would have destroyed them had they ignored it, and that ALL these companies face this possibility at approximately the SAME TIME (Year 2000), tells us we can enter the field of probabilities.]

Saying that doing nothing would have destroyed them is a flat, unsupported assertion. I'm sure this is true in some cases, false in others. It's too big (and self-serving) a generalization. As for the timing, this is a subtle point. Computer technology changes quickly, and early adopters fare better than laggards. You could also say, therefore, that when new technology appears, it needs to be adopted by everyone at nearly the same time, because those who don't suffer. In the case of y2k, organizations must fix what will break or risk penalties of varying severity, regardless of whether others are doing it. These are largely (except for some interfaces) independent projects. You must file your tax return within a given time limit, yet your effort is made no slower or more difficult just because everyone else is doing the same, right?

[What are the odds of ALL the salmon making it back up their river to spawn? Do you think the death rate is as high when they are out at sea?]

Gregg, I don't think this analogy holds. I don't think we have good statistics on salmon mortality.

[The chances of ALL companies making it are ZERO. Clearly there will be failures.]

This is true generally. Normal bankruptcy rates are quite high. I agree that y2k generally (remediation plus FOF plus loss of efficiency) places a strain on the health of companies, and this strain will in some cases be sufficient to push the sickest companies into the grave. It will be interesting to examine *relative* bankruptcy rates over the next few years.

[Because most started late -even MORE FAILURES.]

Another faith-based assertion. I'm not just saying that for exercise. HOW could you or anyone else support this statement? There are NO DATA yet. At all. You can't even say, well, they won't finish so they started late. Many organizations have made a conscious, calculated, informed decision that some date errors simply weren't cost-effective to repair. As far as I've read, ALL organizations that have performed remediation allocated a minority of their programming resources to the task. Yet the majority of large organizations have announced that the are effectively finished.

[Because those started early have spent their money on remediation that did not work, and CAN'T DO ANYTHING NOW ABOUT IT - even MORE FAILURES.]

WHAT??? How can you say it didn't work? Nobody has failed yet -- not even the worst cases of new implementations like Hershey, or Whirlpool. Gregg, you are substituting catechisms for thought here. "started too late", "remediation did not work", sheesh. Yes, without question some underestimated the size of the job. They will experience bugs. But please, please don't equate code failures with system failures with business failures. These are different things. But you are now lost in your chants, bemoaning failures that have not happened and may never happen.

[Because some companies are lying, even MORE FAILURES.]

Sigh. You're just chanting the same thing over and over. TRY thinking instead. "They're lying, therefore they are FAILURES". You are only kidding yourself. It's a messy world out there. Some may be exaggerating their readiness, some may be in worse shape than they sincerely believe they are. Who knows? YOU don't, neither do I.

As a suggesting, try thinking in terms of a manageable bug rate. You have slipped lazily into binary thinking -- success or failure, worked or didn't work, truth or lies. Think instead of relative costs. Y2k is expensive. How many will be able to afford it easily, or bearably, or at what level? You are simply too intelligent to descend into simplistic doomchants, based on no data, false assumptions, black-and-white thinking, and worst-case misinterpretations.

[This will not be the normal death rate at spawning time!]

This is a prediction. You may be right. But if the death rate is higher than normal, HOW MUCH higher?

[The tone of your posts is that "things will be just a tad worse than normal, we're bright people".]

OK, *some* of us are bright people. (grin)

[I think to have 50% (One -half of the enterprises) failure rate would be a miracle. Of course they would be gone shortly after.]

OK, that's what you think. Now, like the rest of us, you wait and see. I'm just trying to show how you've talked yourself into this despite NO DATA, and no failures yet. Remember that even the most dire speculations are ultimately based on self-reporting, most of which is now obsolete, yet the doomcult continues to chant them as though nothing had changed.

Yet two things have changed drastically over the last 2 years:

1) We've remediated a great deal, and positive reports are pouring forth as a result. Doomies reject them as spin and lies, rather than change their religion.

2) We've found that the embedded date exposure was FAR less than feared before we investigated. Doomies are equally blind to this knowledge; it also goes against Received Dogma.

Remember I spoke of *relative* bankruptcy rates. Normally, 90% of new companies fail within the first 2 years. That's NORMAL. So I'm anticipating that devout Doomies will spend the next year combing all sources to find every bit of bad news they can, touting it all as "proof" they were right all along, and NEVER comparing it to normal patterns to get any perspective. And they'll sit at their computers, well fed and warm and employed, posting it all to the (working) internet. And feel they were right all along. That's MY prediction.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), November 26, 1999.

There are many types of aircraft "pieced together from different countries, cultures and languages". Some were designed as collaborative international efforts, others designed in one country but built from components sourced worldwide.

-- Rob (rob@planet.rob), November 26, 1999.

You can always tell a newbie by the way they word their posts almost exactly like Gary North and the old outdated sites that copied from his site.

They use the same old analogies that we heard 2 years ago and have found absolutly no information on what has been done since those sites were written. It's too late to try to convince them of anything individually, and with places like this where the people have already made up their minds to believe the worse, they probably will never read other views.

Thats why we can only direct them to places like

http://www.jediknight.com/~smpoole/

and

http://stand77.com/wwwboard/board.html

to give them half a chance to see more than one side.

The death rate of spawning salmon is 100% by the way, after they spawn, they die.

-- Cherri (sams@brigadoon.com), November 26, 1999.

1) We've remediated a great deal, and positive reports are pouring forth as a result. Doomies reject them as spin and lies, rather than change their religion.

[Good to know FLINT doesn't belittle, mock or namecall. Oh, I forgot. He only does it in DEFENSE. Sorry. Anyway, back to our regularly scheduled program. A great deal has been remediated. Sorry, it wasn't enough.]

2) We've found that the embedded date exposure was FAR less than feared before we investigated. Doomies are equally blind to this knowledge; it also goes against Received Dogma.

[As Reagan used to say, "there he goes again" with the name-calling. Embedded date exposure is still a huge, uncertain black hole with one month to go. This inspires confidence?]

So I'm anticipating that devout Doomies will spend the next year combing all sources to find every bit of bad news they can, touting it all as "proof" they were right all along, and NEVER comparing it to normal patterns to get any perspective. And they'll sit at their computers, well fed and warm and employed, posting it all to the (working) internet. And feel they were right all along. That's MY prediction.

[No, we want to be wrong, huge, big, "in the vast majority" of the regulars posting here percentages. You're the one obsessed with your calculative "rightness". We want Koskinen and Hoffy to be awarded the Nobel Prize for rightness. You can tag along and write their speeches. I'll sit in the audience and cheer. I'm AFRAID I may be right, not hoping to be right. When are you going to stop resorting to ad hominem attacks on the obvious?]

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), November 26, 1999.

Let's be specific, Flint, though it's hard for you.

If it's just a recession, you WIN, big boy. So does Decker. We'll even throw Hoffy in, though he predicts nothing noticeable (as have you in some of your other "predictions"). How's that?

I would love to have merely a Y2K-related recession. It means, as you point out so profoundly, that I will probably be employed or, at least, employable. The stores will be open. Oil will flow. Yes, people will be out of work but a recession is not a big deal, to say the least.

Bookmark this thread, Flint. That way, you can be "right" next year and poke fun at me and all the "doomers". AS IF it would bother me.

Yes, I predict the unlikely, a depression. For many people around the world, it will be TEOTWAWKI because of the related international tension and, most likely, war.

Still, if I'm right, Flint, you can STILL be right, how's that? I honestly don't mind. After all, you've often said you don't "know" how bad it will be. Make you feel better?

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), November 26, 1999.

Big Dog:

OK, I spend long posts explaining in detail what I find wrong with a given mindset. True to form, you ignore every part of this explanation. Then I spend a couple of paragraphs expressing irritation with this mindset, and sure enough, you extract the irritation so that you can be offended by it. Can't you see that one of the very things I'm complaining about is the tendency to extract a small, unrepresentative slice of the big picture and treating it as the whole? Can't you see that this process has led you to misrepresent both the y2k issue AND my observations, in exactly the same way?

I've called this technique "basing your evidence on your conclusions". Anyway, thanks for the illustration.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), November 26, 1999.

Flint -- Gee, you're "right" again. You must be a heck of a lot of fun to live with.

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), November 26, 1999.

Big Dog:

People with a positive outlook usually are. No surprise there.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), November 26, 1999.

Flint - I sincerely appreciate your input as it helps temper the field of postings. A pragmitist in our midst, so to speak.

Taken all together, my belief (nobody can *know*) is that all indications point to a mostly manageable level of exasperating problems -- to delays, downtime, screwups, and inconvenience exceeding the usual noise level. With a few newsworthy and truly serious problems thrown in. I think a recession is more likely than not, and I think y2k bugs will be a primary trigger for that recession. I think worse than that is easily possible, and better than that would be mostly luck. So I'm definitely not saying there will be no problems, only that I think many on this forum are exaggerating the *probability* of pervasive serious trouble.

Thankyou for the previous paragraph because that sums your position succinctly which I have been wondering about and I agree with your scenario. A recession is nothing to scoff at and if people knew you were predicting that (although you are loathe to make predictions because of insufficient facts) they wouldn't be so argumentative with you. Unquestionably some of the people are exaggerating the problem, for what purpose, who knows (especially those worried about a nuclear attack) but they get there jollies out of fear mongering. But your confession, "a recession is more likely than not", should be adequate agreement for some of the hardcore doomers. In fact, since you do think some negative consequences are going to occur that should also make you a doomer and most posters don't realize that. Here's the key thing for me, your admission of greater than 50% chance of recession carries a lot of weight because you have the persona of the "voice of reason". Thankyou for posting.

-- Guy Daley (guydaley@bwn.net), November 26, 1999.

Big Dog - Why does Flint win if there is only a recession? It seems to me that very few win during a recession and there are some people that can profit in any kind of economic climate. Are we all competing to see who is the best prognosticator, who is the Nostradamus of the 1990's? I have to admit, its fun to play. Whoever dials in the best prediction I will wholeheartedly congratulate. It means they got lucky. If they go 2 for 2 then we have to pay closer attention to that person. Right now, everybody is taking a stab at the "true nature and consequences of Y2K". Everybody is allowed to have there own "best guess". Just make sure yours is very specific, clearly outlined so that when the results are in we can pick a winner and if you win I will be one of the first to congratulate you.

-- Guy Daley (guydaley@bwn.net), November 26, 1999.

The important thing, Guy, is that Flint is ALWAYS right on every subject, no matter what it is. Regrettably, the "persona" of reason which he cloaks himself in has nil to do with exercising reason ....

That's why it's impossible to ACTUALLY reason with him. I stopped trying months ago. I try to ignore him except when my blood sugar is so low that a response is good for both body and soul.

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), November 26, 1999.

Cherri:

The death rate of spawning salmon is 100% by the way, after they spawn, they die.

-- Cherri (sams@brigadoon.com), November 26, 1999.

Cherri, people working with salmon would be suprised to find this out. You should publish it in a major journal. Those foolish biologists think that some salmon species don't die after spawning.

Best wishes,,,

Z

----------------------------------------------------------------------

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), November 26, 1999.

Flint:

"Gregg, I don't think this analogy holds. I don't think we have good statistics on salmon mortality. "

I guess that you don't read the literature in this area. For certain runs, data is available. You should talk to Cherri, she is the salmon expert. Question: why are we discussing salmon on a Y2K forum? ;-).

Best wishes,,,,

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), November 26, 1999.