Without end-to-end "real-time" testing, I still don't trust that the Iron Triangle - banks, electric utilities, telecommunications - won't suffer major problems upon Rollover.

I guess I'm just the Ultimate Doomer. ::sigh::

LunaC

-- LunaC (LunaC@moon.com), December 16, 1999

Answers

That'd be my guess too.

-- (In@san.ah Tee), December 16, 1999.

How about Armageddonopia?

-- (In@san.ah Tee), December 16, 1999.

LunaC, I agree. See Gary North's piece where he points to the lack of evidence for remediation. If it isn't tested, it isn't fixed.

-- Mara (MaraWayne@aol.com), December 16, 1999.

No, I just think that you are a realist. Personally, I am taking all unsubstantiated claims of "Y2K ready" with a large hunk of rock salt. And if they haven't thoroughly tested...they don't even know if they are ready!

-- Mad Monk (madmonk@hawaiian.net), December 16, 1999.

As a working rule of thumb, yes, if it hasn't been tested it hasn't been fixed. In practice this isn't always true, but it is true often enough to make it a good, conservative assumption.

However, the iron triangle has undergone a great deal of well publicized testing. So we're not talking about *no* testing, we're into the gray area of "sufficient" testing.

And once there, we seem to define "insufficient" testing as "testing that has not yet discovered the inevitable fatal errors we KNOW are there." Whether they are or not! And when the iron triangle proves to work perfectly adequately, are we going to claim they were "lucky", since they didn't test enough to find the errors that weren't there?

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

I just wanna know: which is better, Alcoa or Reynolds?

Foiled again Kook

-- Y2Kook (y2kook@usa.net), December 16, 1999.

Flint,

Are you, or do you know a smale plane pilot? Have you ever watch a good one walk around the plane, and tug and pull at all the critical flight surfaces?.... test the controls?...... THEN start the engine?

These are the guys that don't crash, they have contingency plans out the wazoo, but they never need them.

-- CT (ct@no.yr), December 16, 1999.

Flint: I gotta say that your conversations, comments, and examples are laudable. I really want to "buy" into all your bantor, but since Mr. Clinton announced that everything is 99.9% fixed...I will wait to see hoe the other .01% turns out. Remember, he has been able to fool most of the people most of the time. Linda Tripp will probably go to jail, while the Prez sips champagne in His $50M bunker. Isn't this country great! Anyway, I do appreciate your input, and I do hope that you are right and Mr. North continues in his unsuccesful predictions. We shall soon see.

Shepherd

-- shepherd (shepherd@sierratel.com), December 17, 1999.

"""Whether they are or not! And when the iron triangle proves to work perfectly adequately, are we going to claim they were "lucky", since they didn't test enough to find the errors that weren't there?"""

Uh--Flint-- on the whether or not part----why do you seemingly, instinctively run towards the [they are] part of your premise, instead of the [or not]??

-- d----- (dciinc@aol.com), December 17, 1999.

d:

Because these systems are NOT untested. In fact, a huge amount of testing has been done, at every level. I realize it's not possible to prove there are no bugs, even in theory. As I said, the issue isn't whether the iron triangle was tested or not. It has been tested, no question about it.

Has it been tested enough? This is something time will tell us. I'm simply pointing out that the failure to find fatal problems is not, *in and of itself*, proof that the testing has been insufficient.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), December 17, 1999.