Infomagic, and the Ghosts of Predictions Past and Presentgreenspun.com : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread |
If you are new to the forum, and the Y2k discussions in general, you'll see many references to past "Doomer" predictions, and their failures.Understanding these predictions, and their failures, is I believe essential to understanding the difference in opinion. At least, the difference in the opinions of this "Polly" and the "Doomers".
I noticed another thread dredging up the theories of the acclaimed "InfoMagic":
Infomagic provides as good a starting point as any.
InfoMagic and "Charlotte's Web"
Infomagic's basic theory is laid out in Cory's WRP's:
If you haven't yet, read through the postings.
Now, maybe surprisingly, I give Infomagic credit for recognizing the magnitude of the errors that have been faced in 1999, due to remediation and replacement of systems. This quote kind of sums it up:
"At the very minimum this will lead to an economic disaster, JUST FROM THE ACT OF FIXING THE SYSTEMS THEMSELVES, without even taking into account the effect of the unfixed systems, of embedded systems or of an already declining global economy. "
A somehwat lengthier quote is from a c.s.y2k posting, last September:
http://x43.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=394776966&CONTEXT=935454991.997326989&hitnum=1
"I have seen _nothing_ to make me more optimistic and much to make me more pessimistic by the day. I expect a full scale global depression before the end of this year as Japan, South America and the derivatives and stock markets finally tank completely. In January 1999, the first major Y2K failures will cause noticeable actual business failures and will trigger genuine public awareness of the "possibility" of major problems in 2000 itself. Just to be on the safe side, enough people will empty their bank accounts leading to a complete collapse of the banking system around March 1999, further deepening the global depression. The problems will be exacerbated by "government help". The situation will be so bad that Clinton will declare a state of emergency sometime next summer, quite possibly leading to the beginnings of a civil war. An increase in "brushfire" wars and insurrections can also be expected in many parts of the globe. In this situation, further Y2K remediation will become impossible (not that it could have been achieved anyway). The problems will be exacerbated by "government help". In January 2000, the peak of the Y2K failure will result in massive and continuing infrastructure failures, widespread business bankruptcies and total collapse of whatever is still left of the global economy. The result will be a huge drop in the "carrying capacity" of the economic "environment" which currently supports the lives of about 4 billion people world wide. In the first year, half of these will die. The problems will be exacerbated by "government help". Because of the drop in population, the world's ability to recover will be effectively eliminated and more of the infrastructure will continue to fail for a wide variety of reasons (including lack of fuel, spare parts and qualified _people_ to address the problems). Carrying capacity will be further reduced, millions more will die in the next winter, and we will experience a continuing downward spiral for 3 to 7 years. This will stabilize when government is no longer able to "help" (poetic license), but the world population will be only a fraction of the present level. Recovery to a new "civilization" will require several hundred years. Of course, I could be wrong. It could be worse. "
Now, none of these predictions require debunking; a quick look around is all that's needed.
Again, though, give Infomagic credit. He did at least recognize what was probably the largest "threat" due to Y2k, being the massive number of errors introduced through replacements and remediation.
Since early August, I've been harping on this premise. That basically, we've already been through error rates at least as high as Y2k, due to replacements and remediation.
The second debate thread, Y2K Debate Round 2, centered around the relative scope and severity of errors. In particular, it was my contention that errors from system implementations far outweigh "date-related" errors in both scope and severity.
Again, this has been borne out by events. Daily, reports are posted of system problems that have occurred during the last year. Almost exclusively, they are due to system implementations. The few that are reported that are "date-related", such as the recent jury announcements, are at best nuisance type problems.
Other Predictions
Infomagic is by no means the only "Doomer" who ventured predictions. Among others:
Gary North and the Euro
The first of the "trigger" dates really had nothing to do at all with Y2k. For those institutions affected, the conversion to the Euro was estimated to be even more costly, and more complex, than Y2k.
As such, it obviously drew comparisons to Y2k. Gary North made quite a few posts regarding the Euro, but this one is closest to a summary:
The Ticking Clock on The Euro: No Way to Meet the Deadline
....
The deadline is fixed: Jan. 1, 1999. It has been trumpeted for years. It has been fundamental to one of the great public relations campaigns of all time. But Europe will not make this deadline. The world will know on Jan. 4.
What you must pay attention to after January 4 is the back-peddling, the excuses for failure, the redoubled efforts to impose the new software, and the delay of y2k repairs in the name of the Euro, which will be dead on arrival. All of these excuses will be applied to that other missed deadline, namely, "compliance on December 31, 1998, with a full year for testing."
Europe's public relations hacks will go into action in just a few weeks. They will tell us why the deadline was not really very important, how things are progressing nicely, etc.
But there is this problem: the programmers will have missed the deadline. The deadline was the token of great and unstoppable things to come. PR giveth, and programmers taketh away.
Now, the Euro may not be the strongest currency in the world at this point. But did anyone notice the massive failures, missed deadlines, and back-peddling?
Other Date Predictions
Some other notable pre-Y2k predictions:
Michael Hyatt
Y2K: It's Closer Than You Think
There are at least nine millennial milestones that you need to watch for:
Milestone #1: January 1, 1999. On this date, testing is scheduled to begin for systems all over the world. As you have no doubt heard, many infrastructure providers and businesses have promised that their systems will be ready for testing on this date. According to the Gartner Group, 80 percent of the companies that have announced they will begin testing on this date will miss it. The travel industry will also get its first live test as it begins accepting reservations for dates into the next century. In addition, some business planning systems will fail as they begin processing dates beyond Y2K. To add insult to injury, the European Common Currency system goes online. This will create its own level of chaos and continued drain on Information Technology resources that could be used on the Year 2000 computer problem. As these problems and others begin to surface, you can expect the media to begin covering Y2K and a significantly more intense level.
Milestone #2: April 1, 1999. On this date, Canada, Japan, and the State of New York begin their fiscal year. This will, of course, include dates beyond Y2K. As a result, planning systems, especially budgets that have not been repaired will fail as they attempt to process Y2K dates. Since New York City is the media capitol of the world, problems there will grab headlines worldwide. Problems in Japan will remind everyone again of how interconnected our world is. The Japanese will also be forced to admit that there systems might not make it. I expect the stock market to react and begin (or continue) its downward spiral. Public confidence will continue to wane and the number of Y2K optimists will continue to dwindle.
Milestone #3: July 1, 1999. On this date, forty-four U.S. states begin their fiscal years. The problems that began in New York will now spread exponentially across the country and around the world. The public will feel the global and pervasive nature of the Y2K Problem for the first time. This will be further exacerbated by the fact that many states have not had the resources to adequately address their Millennium Bug problems. Consequently, the failures will be real and widespread. We will begin seeing the public begin to panic - particularly where there has not been strong local leadership.
Milestone #4: August 22, 1999. On this date, the Global Positioning Satellite (GPS) technology will fail in receivers that are not upgraded or replaced. The GPS system consists of twenty-four satellites that transmit signals to earth, which are in turn picked up by electronic receivers to determine a vehicle's exact location and velocity. They are installed in both military and civilian vehicles and devices, including fighters, bombers, commercial and private airplanes, helicopters, trains, ships, submarines, tanks, jeeps, missiles and other "smart" weapons, police cars and ambulances, and some newer-model cars. Unfortunately, this system has a date-related error in its receiver technology. There are some 10 million of these receivers installed throughout the world. Those that are not upgraded will produce inaccurate data that could prove to be dangerous and even life threatening. While not specifically a Y2K related problem, this computer glitch will add to the chaos and confusion.
Milestone #5: September 9, 1999. On this date, many computers will encounter the infamous "99" problem. For decades programmers designated the end of a file or the termination of a program by entering a series of four nines in a row (i.e., "9999") in a date field. Much like the Year 2000 Problem, programmers thought that the programs they were writing would surely be replaced before they actually encountered this problem. Unfortunately, they underestimated the longevity their programs would enjoy. This code, like the Millennium Bug, is embedded in millions of computer programs throughout the world. Unless it is tracked down and removed, these programs will abruptly terminate - often with unexpected results.
Milestone #6: October 1, 1999. On this date, the federal government will begin its fiscal year. According to the most recent estimates by the House Subcommittee on Government Information Management and Technology, thirteen out of twenty-four key federal government agencies will not make the deadline. Computer systems operated by the Defense, Transportation, Treasury, and Medicare Departments, among others, will begin malfunctioning. All the smoke and mirrors will be gone. The government - and the administration - will be forced to admit the truth. There will be no place to hide. The naked truth will be evident to all.
Ed Yourdon
O Captain, my Captain, I hope someone has told you that the problems will begin long before the strike of midnight. They have already begun: 37% of the companies in this country have already experienced Y2K problems. On January 1, 1999 they will experience many more, and it will be much more difficult to sweep them under the rug. On April 1, 1999 we will all watch anxiously as the governments of Japan and Canada, as well as the state of New York, begin their 1999-2000 fiscal year; at that moment, the speculation about Y2K will end, and we will have tangible evidence of whether governmental computer systems work or not. On April 6, the government of England and many of the private-sector companies begin their fiscal year; on July 1, another 46 states begin their 1999-2000 fiscal year. On August 22, 1999 the clocks on the GPS satellite system will do a "roll-over," resetting to zero the 10-bit counter that counts the number of weeks since the satellites were launched. On September 9, 1999 we may or may not experience some problems with old mainframe systems, depending on which experts you listen to. And on October 1, 1999, the U.S. federal government begins its new fiscal year. We don't have 535 days to fix all of these problems; we now have less than six months.
Y2K Software Projects: deja vu all over again
You'll have to decide for yourself whether this situation with the state unemployment insurance systems is a fluke, or an example of deja vu all over again. But you won't have to wait long for the next test: on February 1, approximately a dozen of the Fortune 500 companies begin their new 1999-2000 fiscal year; it's quite possible that a few more have a March 1st FY rollover date. The first really visible test will be on April 1st, when the state of New York, the government of Canada, and the government of Japan start their new fiscal year; I haven't yet been able to confirm this, but I've been told that India and China also have an April 1st FY beginning. England begins its new fiscal year on or about April 6th; 46 more U.S. states, along with Australia and New Zealand, celebrate their 1999-2000 fiscal year on July 1st; Texas and a couple of other states begin on August 1st and September 1st; and then the U.S. federal government starts on October 1st.
Maybe we'll be lucky, and all of these government entities (along with the towns, counties and other lower-level municipalities) will be ready. Maybe there will be relatively few glitches, and maybe the civilian population won't even notice that a few backup plans have been put into place. If so, it will be a convincing rebuttal to my premise that Y2K is deja vu all over again. But based on my 35 years of experience in the software field, I think it's just about as likely that pigs will fly.
http://www.sightings.com/ufo/y2kyour.htm
Rural China will probably be okay; but in my humble opinion, New York, Chicago, Atlanta and a dozen other cities are going to resemble Beirut in January 2000. That's why I've moved out of NYC to rural New Mexico a couple months ago.
[Note: I included this with other failed predictions because Yourdon has recently recanted this statement]
These are just a sampling. Other, lesser predictions have also come and gone, for example the "JoAnne Effect" or JAE.
But What's the Point?
So, why dredge these up?
First, it gives some background to the current situation. And maybe provides some insight into some of the "arguments" that continue to occur.
Far more importantly, however, is that these predictions, and their failures, demonstrate the fatal flaw in the "Doomer" arguments.
The predictions weren't necessarily wrong in whether or not system errors occurred; undoubtedly, they did occur.
Where the predictions were wildly wrong is in the impact those errors would have. "Doomers" have consistently, grossly overexaggerated the affect system errors would have on the individual businesses, and overall societal impact. Even errors in "mission-critical" systems don't translate directly to "mission-critical failures".
As much as those that supposedly "Get It" like to think of themselves as "Big Picture" people, they tend to take a very simplistic, linear approach to translating system errors to the effects and impact.
The second InfoMagic post above demonstrates this better than anything else. He attempts build a "probability model", which also exists other places on the web. But for all the mathemetics, the underlying assumption is that if anything fails, everything fails.
If interested, I went to some detail discussing this over on c.s.y2k:
Doombrooder Drumbeat - Part II
This simplified "Cause and Effect" thinking runs throughout the "Doomer" scenarios. And is, at its core, wrong.
So, we've been through all the pre-Y2k "trigger" dates, their resulting errors, and non-impacts.
We've been through a period of enormous errors, of much greater scope and severity, from system replacements and remediation.
And, at least according to Gartner Group, we are basically 2/3's of the way through a period of escalating Y2k failures; failures that they believe will have an even greater impact on the enterprise. If you're tempted to slough this off, consider all the supposedly "completely unprepared" countries.
We've been through all this, with virtually no discernable impact. Time and again, the "Doomer" scenarios have been guilty of grossly exaggerating the impact of system errors.
To steal a quote from one of the resident sysops:
"Lessons, anyone??"
-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-deja.com), November 28, 1999
Don't Chase the Y2K Red Herrings
-- Lane Core Jr. (elcore@sgi.net), November 28, 1999.
Hoff, I am glad that someone had the presence of mind to keep track of all the past predictions. Apparently, track records mean nothing to many. Thanks again.
-- Bad Company (johnny@shootingstar.com), November 28, 1999.
Hoff:Can't argue with much of what you have said. I can argue with some of the baggage that you carry. You live in a binary world [something that I have noticed about a lot of the people in this argument]. Neither side can accept the fact that world contains people who see this as a technical problem which, may or may not, be solved, easily.
Most of the problems that I have experience, so far, have resulted from remediation software installed in haste. As you said,
"The predictions weren't necessarily wrong in whether or not system errors occurred; undoubtedly, they did occur. Where the predictions were wildly wrong is in the impact those errors would have. "Doomers" have consistently, grossly overexaggerated the affect system errors would have on the individual businesses, and overall societal impact. Even errors in "mission-critical" systems don't translate directly to "mission-critical failures". "
Really, how big the failures were depends on whether or not you were affected.
Otherwise,
Best wis
-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), November 28, 1999.
Only one "prediction" left, eh, Hoffy: rollover-and-post-rollover impacts.That's the only prediction I've ever involved myself with. Here is mine, write it down as "BigDog's prediction" ---
January -- Enough embedded system collapses to be noticeable world- wide. SW remediation failures not yet noticeable enough to be common coin but bubbling intensely just below the surface. Around Jan. 15, talking heads declare Y2K "not the end of the world" and everyone heaves a sigh of relief.
February -- Embedded failures stabilize but it now becomes apparent that some sectors (oil, chem, medical) will take many months to recover, assuming rest of economy can support. First visible signs of significant gov, big biz and SMEs failures now being reported. A fresh level of anxiety begins to build.
March -- Clear the economy will/is entering a Y2K-triggered recession. For the first time, we will be able to gain a modestly clear picture of the extent of the damage, though tremendous efforts at spin and positive PR will continue unabated. Situation worse around the world and several international crises are bubbling simultaneously. Bush and Bradley will be the Presidential nominees.
April-October -- U.S. economy continues in recession and there are fears that a mild depression is now emerging. People are beginning to get used to reduced levels of technology function but aren't any happier about it. Situation worse still around the world.
OK, Hoff? If by April 1, this isn't happening in its broad outlines, visibly, you can republish this thread and YOU WILL BE THE WINNER!!!! I can't wait and hope it will be so.
I ain't making my prep decisions based on your polly-ness, though.
-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), November 28, 1999.
Won't and don't chase the "red herrings", Hoff.Thanks for the post, Lane.
You're a Y2K Pro in misinformation disguised as logic.
-- PJC (paulchri@msn.com), November 28, 1999.
Hoffmeister, I very much hope you're right. I've prepped enough to handle the practical side of any serious problems that might arise, but there is nothing I can do to be prepared to enjoy myself should they arise. I won't lose any weight or get cold if the lights turn off for good, but I doubt I could ever be happy.One of my main preps was to make and save money. The $25,000 in my safety deposit box is insurance against some possible Y2K results. If it isn't needed for that, then it is enough for 3 more years of over- seas life for me. I never would have busted my butt getting that kind of money if I hadn't been concerned about this.
I know there has been a shift away from concern over the 12/31/99 to 01/01/00 transition, with more talk about gradually developing problems. But I'm confident I'll be able to know enough by January 4th to decide whether to call my travel agent.
-- Gus (y2kk@usa.net), November 28, 1999.
Hoff, I'm confused. Are you counting your chickens before they're hatched, or just whistling past the graveyard?My 'prediction' (unchanged since since July 98):
1% chance BITR (Kosinen)
28% chance recession (Yardeni)
50% chance depression (Yourdon)
20% chance collapse (Milne)
1% chance devolution (Infomagic)
-- a (a@a.a), November 28, 1999.
Interesting responses. Z attempts to redefine the issue away altogether, while Big Dog opts to make it such a drawn-out, subtle affair that nearly any reduction in economic growth is satisfactory.Z: The issue here is whether or not y2k will cause systemic problems. In other words, the question is whether, for example, automobile transportation is workable and sustainable at all, NOT whether you personally are injured in a crash. Your redefinition permits you to point to any isolated, everyday problem and claim y2k was "systemic". Sorry, that's not it.
Big Dog: I think your vision of the one-damn-thing-after-another *persistence* of the problem sounds fairly likely. I just think you underestimate our ability to cope with these damn things, despite (especially overseas) lifelong practice dealing with really unreliable systems. I hope you're wrong, as do you.
Hoff: You forgot about the GPS rollover, which was to have made all hell break loose in the air and on the high seas. Another case of Doomer Selective Amnesia Syndrome -- that was a very specific, trackable example of "systemic" embedded failures with GPS systems. And another illustration of two things Doomers never do -- they never learn, and they never mention it again.
-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), November 28, 1999.
'a':You seem to have the bases covered pretty well. No matter what happens, you gave it *some* chance of happening.
-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), November 28, 1999.
I stand by the 9.5. Why? Because the failures are occuring, and the intensity level has been rising weekly since mid-October. It will not become visibly public until next year. So, please, for God's sake...
Don't feed the pollys. They may bite.
John 9.5
-- John 9.5 Galt (jgaltfla@hotmail.com), November 28, 1999.
Flint:For once, I have no idea what you are talking about.
Best wishes,,,,
Z
-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), November 28, 1999.
HoffThanks for the "deja vu" :o)
If anyone wants to search through the news groups use the Infoseek search page. Alot quicker to load and usefull features. Deja News really crapped out when the added all of that other bullshit on there site.
Infoseek Advanced Search: Usenet Power Search
-- Brian (imager@home.com), November 28, 1999.
Hoffy, the big worry for all of these Y2K-like trigger dates (including the GPS rollover, which you rightfully included; Flint's brain must have been in it's usual output rather than input mode) was not so much the havoc that they would cause per se, but rather THE PUBLIC REACTION to what was assumed to be widespread media coverage of significant problems. Note that, with the exception of the GPS rollover, all of these problems are limited to specific FINANCIAL APPLICATIONS. They have nothing whatsoever to do with hardware, embedded systems, operating systems, and a multitude of diverse applications (e.g., the software that runs nuclear power plant operations tend not to worry about fiscal years).
Likewise, the predictions (e.g., Infomagic's) regarding the stock market are also based on what was forseen to be a public at large that would be very frightened of Y2K, based in part by the previous trigger dates. This obviously has not happened -- in spite of wild mood swings, the stock market mania is going strong.
There is nothing wrong with reviewing these pre-Y2K date predictions, as long as one understands how to interpret them. And as long as one remembers the Clintonesque rule:
"Y2K - It's the Year 2000, Stupid!"
-- King of Spain (madrid@al.cum), November 28, 1999.
Sir Hoff,Well, you sure have convinced me. You were right all along and I could not "get it" through my thick head. Don't worry about me prepping no more. It's been a hard year getting all these y2k supplies together. I deserve a break. So I'm setting back in my easy chair for the rest of this year enjoying life, thankfull I can now stop fretting over what I may have forgotten.
BTW, if you need anything come April, post it here, and I will dig through my preps and send it your way. Wouldn't want a brother to be hungry.
-- Tommy Rogers (Been there@Just a Thought.com), November 28, 1999.
Thanks, Hoff, for an excellent article with superlative documentation and organization. Before rebutting, I must note that I did not accept the "trigger date" concept, ever, and also rejected Gartner's probability spread from the beginning. January IS the critical month, and January one--or the first business day--is the only really significant day. (Granted, overseas problems in January may impact us in June.) To go on: actual computer shutdowns, and embedded chip failures, were not affected by trigger dates. These problems/catastrophes, will occur WHEN WE ENTER 2000. Anything til now is only a glimmer of foreshadowing. But let us step back a bit from the immediate y2k issue and look at the general idea of predictions. They are almost invariably wrong. (Ironically, almost all HAPPENED events are obvious in hindsight. Which places humans in the really awkward position of not being able to predict the future but being ultimately responsible for it because it should have been foreseeable.} The more specific the prediction, the more likely it is wrong. If this were otherwise, I'd have long since won a dozen big lottery jackpots. Nevertheless, Hoff, it is quite possible to make accurate generalized predictions about the future, and be generally right. Knowing a child's family history, one can safely guess that he/she will have difficulty with intimate relationships, or be prone to substance abuse, or will be likely to succeeed academically, or will be a white collar worker, etc. And the GI's on this forum are mostly interested in, and are in fact making, generalized predictions about the future impact of a current design flaw in our modern computerized world. The more specific such predictions are, the more likely they will be wrong, unless the event predicted has a huge weight of probability leaning in favor of its occurrence. I, for one, would bet a fair amount of money (so far, I've found no takers) that there will be one or more reactor meltdowns in Russia. It is my belief that the probability on this weighs strongly in favor of such an occurrence. But apart from a few predictions like this, I have the sense to avoid specifics on what the particular consequences of the design flaw are. One more pertinent observation. The big events in recent human history (the Reformation, the Industrial Revolution, the Depression, either of the world wars, the proliferation of PC's, the end of the USSR) were all utterly unforeseen by the vast majority of people and termed very unlikely by the experts. BUT, they were all foreseen in general terms by a few. And so it will be with y2k. Like these other big events, the cataclysm coming is simply beyond the imagination of most people. Infomagic is right, I think. But the bubble has not yet burst, and until it does, all predictions of doom will be, well, wrong.
-- StanTheMan (heidrich@presys.com), November 28, 1999.
Why does anyone who reads posts like this one have a problem correlating a prognosticator's success rate with his crediblilty?If they've been SO wrong SO many times already, what makes you think they will be right next time?
As I've said before, many times, I'm prepared IN SPITE of Gary North and his radical ilk.
ALK
-- Al K. Lloyd (all@ready.now), November 28, 1999.
Al -- I haven't been wrong so many times and I'm the only prognosticator you should concern yourself with. I did think the market would be down more than it is, but never expected a crash; didn't expect panic this year and didn't agree with the 99 predictions. Stay with me and you'll be ok.Flint -- Uh, how much more specific should I be? You've made every prediction imaginable over the months in all directions, washing each other out. Do I need to give you percentages per month? That's tough even for me. Recession beginning by March; mild Depression by October -- that's not enough for the first 10 months of 2000?
-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), November 28, 1999.
Al -- I haven't been wrong so many times and I'm the only prognosticator you should concern yourself with. -BigDogTranslation for Al... If there's anything more important than his ego around, he wants it caught and shot now.
-- CD (not@here.com), November 28, 1999.
CD -- you pollies are so humorless!
-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), November 28, 1999.
Only one "prediction" left, eh, Hoffy: rollover-and-post-rollover impacts.That's the only prediction I've ever involved myself with. Here is mine, write it down as "BigDog's prediction" ---
I guess this doesn't qualify as a prediction
I feel certain we did see the market top for this bull market.
I feel reasonably certain my general scenario is plausible. To be more specific (trading ranges):
August: 10,300 -- 11,100
September: 9,400 -- 10,400
October: 9,300 -- 9,900
November: 8,900 -- 9,500
December 1 to December 15: 8,600 --- 9,000
Market on December 15: 8,600
I personally consider this a quite sufficiently aggressive (and bearish) prediction, but realistic. -- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), August 02, 1999
-- helpful (pointing@out.hypocrites), November 28, 1999.
Big Dog:It's not that your predictions are too vague. Just that even if y2k didn't exist at all, I'd have no big problems with your picture. I find the market scary and I consider the global economic situation highly unstable. Viewing y2k as just one more straw makes sense to me. Earlier, you may have read, I asked if we had any econometric models capable of extracting the y2k straw to get some idea of just how much contribution it might have made to such a dismal economic cycle. Answer: Nope. This is one where historians will just have to wrangle for a few decades.
-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), November 28, 1999.
Recessions and even depressions are a normal part of capitalism. These don't scare me nearly as much as the original InfoMagic-style irrevocable collapse of the "iron triangle" (including power grid) within a single 24 hour period, on January 1st, 2000.If it is 'only' "a mild depression by October 2000" I'll call y2k a dud and the prognosticators failures as such (though I'll still be happy to have my preps for earthquakes and nuclear wars).
-- Count Vronsky (vronsky@anna.lit), November 28, 1999.
Hoffmeister,The biggest weakness in your line of reasoning is that the government itself doesn't agree with it. The $40 million (now $50 million) Information Coordination Center...
http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=001jjc...didn't go to 24-hour operation at the end of September to monitor the federal government's fiscal year rollover on October 1st. The ICC will be going to 24-hour operation on December 28th. January 1st, at least in the government's opinion, is a much more critical spike date than October 1st.
And there's a reason for that. Many of the problems that have happened so far have involved accounting or financial forecasting software.
Almost all non-accounting software problems, PC BIOS chip and PC operating system problems, and embedded system/process control system problems are still ahead of us. Those are the ones with the potential of being "show-stoppers." Problems with accounting software or general ledgers aren't nearly as significant as problems that affect distribution or manufacturing would be.
Also see this thread from earlier today:
"Revisiting The Problem Distribution Curve"
http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=001sK3
-- Linkmeister (link@librarian.edu), November 28, 1999.
I hate these "failed predictions" threads. I agree with many here, that these early dates represent only a tiny percentage of date related problems, and as a result we have seen only a small number of errors to date. Heck, Hoff and I have been thru this about a dozen times, so I won't waste any more of our (short) time on the "other errors" part of Hoff's idea.But since we're on the topic of predictions, here's one that I read today:
"Government and utility officials predict no major life disruptions related to Y2K."
So what do you think? Will this prediction also fail? Why or why not?
Tick... Tock... <:00=
-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), November 28, 1999.
The biggest failed prediction about Y2K for many firms is the one about remediation being finished by the end of 1998, leaving a year for testing in 1999.Another failed "prediction" is this one:
http://www.fcw.com/pubs/fcw/1998/1005/fcw-newsy2kshort-10-5-98.html[snip]
Sept. 30 [1998] was a target date set by the Clinton administration for agencies to have all their mission-critical systems renovated, yet it slipped quietly past many federal agencies, which are still frantically fixing their computer systems, and past many critics.
In a quarterly report released in November 1997, the Office of Management and Budget asked agencies to complete the renovation of all mission-critical systems by September. OMB also set January 1999 as the deadline for agencies to complete testing the systems and March 1999 as the date to reinstall the systems.
[snip]
Instead, as of November 1999, there are still 18 high-impact federal programs that remain "at risk of failure":
http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=001qX5[snip]
The 18 "at risk" federal programs include: child nutrition; food safety inspection; food stamps; supplemental nutrition program for women, infants and children (WIC); student aid; child care; child support enforcement; child welfare; Indian health services; low- income home energy assistance; Medicaid; Medicare; temporary assistance for needy families; public housing; unemployment insurance; retired rail worker benefits; air traffic control system; and maritime safety.
[snip]
See...
http://www.house.gov/reform/gmit/y2k/991122.htm...for more information on what progress the federal government has and hasn't made.
-- Linkmeister (link@librarian.edu), November 28, 1999.
This whole tread is nothing more than mental masterbation.Todd
-- Todd Detzel (detzel@jps.net), November 28, 1999.
My Dear Mr. HoffmeisterSir with all due respect. The Fat Lady has not sang yet! She is clearing her throat even as we debate this subject. And as for predictions, I go by my own personal predictions. And those are only just beginning to ocurr.
My position on your scale of 1 through 10...I am an 11. I vector in our global neighbors' and their possible actions through ciber warfare and WMD weapons during the rollover and the days after ward. With our embedded systems troubles...And make no mistake, the embeds will be what takes us out.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Shakey~~~~~~~~~~~~
-- Shakey (in_a_bunker@forty.feet), November 28, 1999.
Hoff,Taking into account all the Y2K related computer and systems failures to date (yes, the failure of newly installed upgrades and mishaps due to "testing" of computers and embedded systems in order to combat Y2K count as a Y2K related failure) means we are now, today, experiencing a 2 on the 1 to 10 scale.
Seeing that we are currently operating in an ongoing 2 environment, why won't it get worse when we hit the roll over?
-- GoldReal (GoldReal@aol.com), November 29, 1999.
You all are to much over my head but i know whats coming...canned the left over turkey today...hope ya figure it out
-- sandy (rstyree@overland.net), November 29, 1999.
Business and government have missed one deadline after another to fix the Y2K bug. Some outfits say they'll slam in the last bick on Dec. 31. Some outfits have give up on fixing there computers by 01-01-00 all together, and say they'll fix on failure.
-- Ocotillo (peeling@out.===), November 29, 1999.
Todd -- You're so right, big mistake trying to have a bit of fun on a thread like this."Helpful" -- YOU'RE right, you can call my prediction wrong. Hypocritical? Give me a break. And I had already admitted I was wrong about it!
For those of you late to this thread, you've got one month to prep. Unfortunately for all of us, lots of stuff is still available. You won't regret it no matter what happens next year.
.... Applying Hartz Polly-Off to entire body, soul and spirit.
-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), November 29, 1999.
Hoff and Flint,I know you've heard this one from me before, but I intend to keep bringing it up until it sinks in.
What is the point of going over either failed or successful predictions if we have a brand new ballgame on 1/1/2000? The brand new ballgame is the worldwide, simultaneous, real-time embedded systems "test" on 1/1/2000, which has never occurred before. Therefore, no reasonable extrapolation is possible.
-- eve (123@4567.com), November 29, 1999.
LaneDon't know. Read recently on this board that some now consider Y2k IT problems in general a "Red Herring".
Z1X4Y7
As Flint said, the point isn't individual system failures. These always have, and always will occur. Not saying that some aren't affected adversely; just that no evidence of "systemic", cascading failures has formed. Especially from errors due to strictly "date processing".
BigDog
Perhaps more than any other person here, you represent the disconnect I've seen develop.
Grudgingly, perhaps, you do at least acknowledge the changes in circumstances that have occurred.
Yet you appear to still cling to a "prep" scenario that seems stuck in a time-warp from well over a year ago.
Again, not knocking what anyone feels necessary. But looking at your scenario above, the question strikes me again; just how do you prepare for a "recession"?
Kev
Distribution and Order processing are currently encountering Y2k dates. And distribution and manufacturing systems have been subject to replacements and remediation, with the corresponding errors.
You apparently missed my "line of reasoning". I didn't make these predictions. But what they all have in common is a gross exaggeration of the effects of system problems.
GoldReal
So this is a "2", huh?
Guess if the "problems won't come to the scale, the scale must go to the problems".
-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-deja.com), November 29, 1999.
Hoff -- my analysis hasn't changed in a year. I expect a depression, lasting for five years or more. I also believe there is still a realistic possibility, though small, say 5%, of a near-Infomagic scenario (survivable in many place, but terrible). Separately, I feel the next few years offer war risks that we haven't seen since the Cold War or, minimally, cyber- and bio-war risks to the infrastructure.My father and mother endured the first Depression in grinding hardship, one in the Midwest, one in NYC. Hearing their stories, I know that our preps will make our lives significantly more comfortable: near self-sufficient gardening and livestock raising and a variety of other family (homeschooling) and community (midwifery) contributions.
If I prove wrong about Y2K, as I hope, our preps are simply a sped-up example of what we were already trending towards, simply because we ENJOY it. We'll raise baby beef next year when we might have waited until 2002, to go along with the turkeys, chickens and pigs.
Even better, I am super excited about the prospects of our Internet business, a business we think is founded on long-term value, not bubble values. Digital video is going to be huge and our blend of creativity, prog skills, classic film/video expertise and ability to improvise should lead to coolness on all sides, based on the work we've already solidly done. It may not appear so but I put big-time hours into my "real" life.
The biz should be okay even through recession, though we'll scramble. However, people do lose their jobs and businesses during recessions. The odds of our biz failing will double or triple in a recession, though still unlikely. If we do lose it, our preps will be invaluable during the weeks/months I scramble for work. Hey, I might even try SAP consulting ..... groan.
My point is, there is nothing grudging one way or the other. Like most of us here, we really do hope you've been right with your mantra of replacement systems. I just don't see Y2K adding up to a benign outcome.
Prepping doesn't have Y2K in view, but long-term survival in view. Y2K is just one of the conditionals. And there ain't nothing gloomy about it ....
.... sitting last night watching the Jets by the wood stove with Mollie (border collie) by my side, eating home-raised turkey broth soup that Ms. BigDog had magically turned into a meal from Provence (garlic/pistou base, garden potatoes, beans) with fresh ground whole wheat bread and recently-arrived Beaujolais Nouveau.
Life is brief even for those, who, like me, expect to reach the hundred-year mark. Y2K is a blip viewed against eternity. Prepare hard, Hoffy, not just for Y2K but for everything still to come, in this life and beyond.
-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), November 29, 1999.
i need license code and name of the game super collapse 2...plzzz
-- azzihr yabalap (rhizwelle090101@yahoo.com), February 19, 2003.