Pollies: I'm Still Waiting . . .

greenspun.com : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread

I posted the following about an hour ago:

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

Think about your gleeful crowing a minute. Less than 5% of the US$600 Billion was spent on embedded chips/systems repairs. We can fairly safely now assume they were never a problem - since most of the world did nothing and experienced as much success as the Good 'Ole U S of A. If they were a problem (and even the eperts didn't agree until yesterday), it very well could have been TEOTWAWKI.

Think it through, though. You're claiming complete victory over Y2K on Jan. 2, 2000. With over 95% of the repairs still facing there tests (and there is no doubt that software systems programmed for two digits dates don't work right unless properly remediated, windowed, replaced, something).

The rest of the world (and a good chunk of your country) lucked out on the embeddeds - they weren't fixed, it just turned out that they didn't have to be. I pray that the world will get lucky a second time but I know it won't because now we're talking about my area of expertise - software systems.

Go ahead, Pollies, crow till the cows come home but keep in mind that it's only 6-0, there's still over five minutes left in the first quarter and the Doomers are about to get the ball back.

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

Since that time I've had people question my motives (which are pretty irrelevant, don't ya think?), but haven't had a Polly explain how they are so sure of victory when over 95% of the global effort hasn't been tested yet. Pollies, you got a good explanation?



-- Think It (Through@Pollies.Duh), January 02, 2000

Answers

As long as we have electricity, what's the worst that can happen?

-- not sitting (in@the.dark), January 02, 2000.

WORST?

Think Indonesia, power works fine there, but riots are a daily event. Think Russia, No money to buy food with.....

There are lots of troubles that can happen even with the electricity working...

-- Helium (Heliumavid@yahoo.com), January 02, 2000.


Anyone who considers Y2K to be a game that can be won is plain deluded.

Go find your redemption elsewhere.

-- (f@y.i), January 02, 2000.


You sir, are a moron.

Doug

-- Doug (Doug@itsover.com), January 02, 2000.


Doug:

Good answer! That'll make the remaining 95% work fine, no doubt. Thanks for your thoughtful insight on the matter.

-- Think It (Through@Pollies.Duh), January 02, 2000.



I do not think Y2K is a game. It's an appropriate analogy to say that all the Pollies are screaming they've won the Super Bowl while it's still in the first quarter.

-- Think It (Through@Pollies.Duh), January 02, 2000.

Still waiting . . .

-- Think It (Through@Pollies.Duh), January 02, 2000.

The electricity stayed up in 1930. "What's the worst that can happen?" World War III is the worst I can think of. How about you?

-- Think It (Through@Pollies.Duh), January 02, 2000.

Think:

Your error lies in saying "over 95% of the global effort hasn't been tested yet."

All indications, surveys, authorities, say this is not correct. The usual number is that about 55% of date bugs will be encountered after the moment of rollover. NOT 95%, 55%. And that lower number does NOT include the problems encountered by organizations switching to entirely new (and compliant) systems. Yet *every* significant problem (that is, affecting business) has resulted from such a switch.

NOR does that 55% number include errors introduced during the remediation process. Now, go back and categorize all the computer errors posted here (try Homer Beanfang, who has done yeoman work in this area). The vast majority are new implementation issues (not included in the 45% of pre-rollover errors), next most common are introduced errors (also not included), and finally we have lookahead errors in (mostly) unremediated systems. The 45% of pre-rollover errors were lookahead errors, as estimated by Capers Jones, Gartner, Cap Gemini, etc.

NOW, if you add in the other categories, we should have experienced most likely somewhere around 60% of the y2k-related computer problems, broadly defined. This means it ain't over by a long shot, but it's very very very far from just starting, as you claim.

If roughly 60% of the problems (those we've already encountered) haven't even caused a BITR, the remaining 40% should only cause Major Difficulties if they all fall within a much shorter time span -- a week or two. And most of them probably will! I'd recommend not relaxing until at least next month.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), January 02, 2000.


OK, I'll explain slowly, since you obviously don't understand the fundamentals here.

First, just based purely on the date-errors themselves, your percentage is way off. Payables, Receivables, Order processing, even to some extent Production Control or MRP has been dealing with potential date problems long before now. Based on at least GartnerGroup, I think 35-40% of the potential date errors have already been encountered.

But if you take into account the errors related to Y2k due to system replacements and remediation, that number rises dramatically. I won't go into the specifics again, but it is readily apparent that in total, far higher rates of errors have been generated, of greater impact and severity, due to these replacements and remediation than we have or will encounter due to Y2k.

The only possible wildcard here flew out the window 2 days ago with the rollover of embedded systems in the infrastructure.

Face reality, folks. Errors will happen in IT; errors always happen in IT. But you've been sold a bill of goods that just doesn't cut it. Learn, and move on.

-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-deja.com), January 02, 2000.



Flint:

You must also keep in mind a couple of points 1) not all errors are created equally - 40% of all Y2K errors occurring in the span of a couple of weeks has the potential to lock our digital global finance network into a spirally economic distaster. 2) you're making a flawed assumption - that all errors have been dealt with. If this were true, why was Duetsche Bank trying to roll out a new mainframe system for transaction settlement (with no success) in early Dec. 1999.

The fact of the matter is, over the next couple weeks we are going to experience millions of Y2K errors in entities that aren't even included in your statistics because they've done virtually nothing to remediate/repair/replace.

-- Think It (Through@Pollies.Duh), January 02, 2000.


Think:

We're not on the same wavelength here. I agree we will experience millions of date errors over the next few weeks. I'm saying we have *already* experienced millions of date errors. The vast majority are tiny, don't affect operations, and are quickly and easily found and fixed. They never get out of the glass rooms, but they *did* happen.

And I agree that the *potential* for really serious problems still remains. It's always been there, and always will be. You are making the conceptual leap from "anyone *can* break a leg" to "THEREFORE, everybody *will* break a leg." And it's never true that everything that can happen does happen, much less that everything that can happen always happens.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), January 02, 2000.


Flint (or anyone):

Do you know anything about date-sensitive embedded chips counting for 100 hrs. before they fail? I came across this idea on another thread. But I'm not a programmer, just a clerical. Is there anything to be concerned about, regarding a 100 hour 'boundary' involving embeddeds?

-- Jim Young (jyoung@famvid.com), January 02, 2000.


Doug-
You, Ma'am, are an idiot.
Sir

-- Sir (noDoug@idiot.com), January 02, 2000.

Flint,

I think we're kinda on the same wave length. What I'm saying is that because no significant (i.e. nuclear meltdowns, pipeline explosions, etc.) have been reported as of 2030GMT 2000-01-02, we can MAYBE assume that embedded chips/systems were never that big of a probelm (because the overwhelming majority world-wide were never inventoried let alone tested/replaced/remediated, we cannot claim victory.

We lucked out on the embedded problem. The same will not happen with the software systems/data communications that run this planet's finances. Failures in this area will take days to weeks before they severly shut down global commerce.

-- Think It (Through@Pollies.Duh), January 02, 2000.



~~Squeak!~~

(Running back into my hole in the wall) ~Eeakk!~ There's lots of bad things that can happen out there!! (Pawing at my ear, and scrunching my nose.) I might get caught in a mousetrap! I might get smacked with a newspaper. I mightget my wiwwtle whiskers caught in the door.

I think I'll stay in my mouse house forever!!!

(Scampering away)

---/--@

-- (Ms. Mouse@logic.........), January 02, 2000.


To Ms. Mouse who says..."I think I will go back in my mouse house""...good.. and take you mouse size brain with you..... oh BTW.. I have some cheese you can take with you too....

-- puuurfect... (catwomen@the cat house.com), January 02, 2000.

Jim:

That's a new one on me, and I can't imagine what might cause such a problem. Doesn't mean there isn't one, of course. I just can't come up with a design offhand that would lead to such a problem.

Think:

I don't think the embedded systems experience has been "luck", since I never did see it as likely to cause big headaches. Possible, of course, but not likely.

IT systems are outside my direct experience. I don't know what to expect, but I have observed that the the same take-the-worst-for- granted philosophy has been applied there as well. I have good reason to believe that remediation and at least unit-level testing has taken the curse off it (where it occurred, of course), but not eliminated it by any means. And I can't picture unremediated business systems being suitable for FOF either. So yes, there will be problems. I predict a thousand problems of reportable impact. But very few dominoes.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), January 02, 2000.


Flint:

Hope you're right.

Mouse Boy:

While sarcastically hiding in your mouse house, please leave your juicy money in the stock bubble (all the more for those of us shorting it!).

-- Think It (Through@Pollies.Duh), January 02, 2000.


So Think, explain how all these banks and financial institutions were able to implement new systems, or remediated ones, with all the resultant errors, without causing this "collapse"?

-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-deja.com), January 02, 2000.

My point exactly, Hoffmeister, they haven't! Banks all over the world are going to try to go manual over the next two weeks. It can't be done. I suspect Latin/South America will show the first cracks but the Motherload will be the debt-ridden, restructuring Japanese banks.

-- Think It (Through@Pollies.Duh), January 02, 2000.

Ahh yes, the "great conspiracy" continues......

-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-deja.com), January 02, 2000.

Well, I thought I'd come out of hiding and throw my $.02 into the mixing pot. I'll take this one slowly.

1st paragraph: Where exactly did you get that $600 billion figure? I know that was thrown around as an estimate at one time, but have you checked the latest figures? Andy seems fond of throwing around the 1 trillion dollar figure, but I haven't seen anything to back that one up either lately. Oh...I may be a polly, but I haven't engaged in ANY crowing. In fact, I stayed away by design to avoid what I KNEW would happen on Y2k fora the first few days of rollover.

2nd paragraph: 95%? I could understand arguments that power couldn't be tested until rollover, but you're suggesting that 95% of software remediation will be TESTED this coming week? It's apparent to me that you've not worked on software remediation. I have, and I assure you that most will go through the remaining exercise with few problems. Personally, I haven't been involved with remediation for about 2 years now. I DO have friends, however, who will be in place for the possible problems that occur. In fact, I heard from a few of them today and they said that absolutely NOTHING happened during the previous shifts, so why would tomorrow be any different?

Of course there will be problems. There are ALWAYS problems. The possibility of no power with which to solve these problems was the REAL threat. With power, we can fix ANYTHING that goes wrong.

Any more questions?

-- Anita (notgiving@anymore.com), January 02, 2000.


Anita,

"Of course there will be problems. There are ALWAYS problems. The possibility of no power with which to solve these problems was the REAL threat. With power, we can fix ANYTHING that goes wrong. "

Yes, with power we can fix anything. I work in my company's IT department, although not in a technical position. With power we can fix anything? True, from what I've observed, it can be extremely costly and time consuming. I've worked there for over a year and a half, and they are STILL dealing with many of the same problems they had when I started there.

-- brent (me@overhere.com), January 02, 2000.


Brent:

[grin]...there are some tough ones, but it sounds to ME like you still have a job and your firm is still solvent, RIGHT? SOME problems are put on the back burner due to other more significant problems. If your firm wasn't debilitated by the errors you saw, they were classified NON-CRITICAL and will be worked on only if there's absolutely NOTHING else to do.

-- Anita (notgiving@anymore.com), January 02, 2000.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ