My Rather Fond Memories of Old TB2000

greenspun.com : LUSENET : TB2K spinoff uncensored : One Thread

First, let's tak about memes. Having read a very good book on the subject (Howard Bloom's "The Lucifer Principle") I think I'm as well qualified to talk about memes as anyone else on this forum who is wont to refer to them. Memes will come up later in this little ramble.

I initially got involved with TB2000 as I recall in January 1999. My interest was almost totally with the prospects for successful remediation and hardly at all with preps (which certainly insured that I would never join the TB2000 inner circle). And I got some very good information from TB2000 regarding this primary interest.

I didn't avoid the other stuff entirely, but mostly I did (so I missed out no doubt on some extremely colorful discussions). When I did make a snide comment about some conspiracy theory or other, I pretty much got away with it from the standpoint of not getting a ferocious response, and usually I had some support for my views. (As I recall, I was semiflamed twice. Someone told me to ESAD, and Andy said I was a cloth-headed fool, criticism that would have withered a lesser man but not me.)

Now about memes, there is no doubt that some doomers were possessed with it really bad. This Todd Berg over at EZboard is a case in point. However, a lot of Pollies who go on forever about memes have (with the almost incredible lack of self-awareness that seems to characterize them) their own meme, which basically is (I know I'm oversimplifying): all the undo panic was due to North-Yourdon and it was totally obvious one year (or 2, or 3, or 4 even) that Y2K was going to be a big nothing. And that, my friends, is hogshit, fresh.

-- Peter Errington (petere@ricochet.net), April 26, 2000

Answers

Just to say it again. Todd Berg is not me -- Todd Detzel.

Todd

-- Todd Detzel (detzel@jps.net), April 26, 2000.


Peter, interesting that I have just spent the hour or so searching for this board (my browser is askewed and lost my favorites, don't even ask). So along my trip (from Hell) "searches", I happen chance across one site which hosted the links to many reputable sites which put out Y2Y concerns. Call me Doomer. I read supposedly reputables, including Industry testimony on the hill (not this convenient link). Hell, they weren't sure, none of the Big Guys were sure. We only seemed to have the ankle biting Chihuahua, saying anything different. And some of them were obnoxious, and full of themselves. Anyway, I am going to post the following for those who wish to visit, may see a collection.http://www.cert.org/y2k-info/Y2K_FAQ.html

-- Lifes' A (box@chocolate's.com), April 26, 2000.

http://www.ship2000.com/Ship2000.nsf/WebHotlinks?OpenView Sorry, this is the original link to which I referred.

-- Lifes' A (box@chocolate.com), April 26, 2000.

The silence is deafening.

I was a doomer who prepared for nothing to be working on 1/1/2000. I'm awfully glad the "pollies" were correct. It was a delightful surprise. Dispite the many discussions here that "doomers" should have believed what the "pollies" said and should in fact have TRUSTED the "pollies", I wonder if some of them were surprised that it all worked.

-- Pam (jpjgood@penn.com), April 26, 2000.


Peter:

Excellant point. And I give you a round of applause for n ot n aming names. Good job.

-- FutureShock (gray@matter.think), April 26, 2000.



Peter,

For the record, I never felt Yourdon or North had much of an impact. As may you know, I was roasted on Debunker for saying the whole online Y2K debate was a tempest in a teapot.

Yourdon peddled a few books, hawked a video and watched his MLM go nowhere. North was handicapped by two decades of bad "end of the world" predictions. The missed critical dates throughout 1999 kept any panic from reaching critical mass. When all was said and done, only a tiny handful of people really "flaked out" over Y2K.

As for Y2K being a "big nothing," 99 percent of economists put the worst case scenario of Y2K being loss of less than one half of one percent of GDP. The IT trade rags like PC Week and ComputerWorld covered Y2K all throughout 1999. Even the hardcore IT guys writing "worst case" scenarios were predicting only economic impacts. I started out skeptical in 1998, but by the end of '99 the fix was in. Out of the entire universe of "experts," only a handful predicted ANY Y2K impact. Yardeni, the gloomiest of economists, predicted a 70% chance of recession... 5% of depression. He adjusted this figures downward as we approached rollover. De Jager said we had broken the back of Y2K.

Only Yourdon, North and a few others were talking doom and gloom... and frankly, Peter, no one was listening. I doubt all of the regular participants in TB 2000 could fill a decent high school gymnasium.

There is no "meme" about what happened last year. It's all a matter of historical record. A few souls panicked and spent New Year's Eve waiting for the bubble to burst. The rest of humanity enjoyed a great party and some of the coolest fireworks in history.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), April 26, 2000.


Peter:

I'm going to diverge from Ken's view a bit here. I don't think that many people were mislead by the Y2K information put out by business and government but I do think it wasn't as clear as it could have been. For example, if it would have been up to our Y2K team, we would have put out a statement like "We've checked everything, fixed what needed to be fixed, and believe that power is not going to be a problem". Of course, the lawyers made sure we didn't say anything that clearly since we weren't 100% certain that there would be no problems. We were 99% certain but that's enough to have to include some weasel words in public statements. I can see how people who were looking for clearer statements were disappointed and how that may have contributed to their discomfort.

The interesting thing to me is that the vast majority of the public seemed to have been able to read between the weasel words and get the correct answer. A much smaller group read the statements and said since we couldn't be 100% sure that meant we had to prepare for the end of the world. There has to be some differences between these two groups that preceded anything having to do with Y2K.

-- Jim Cooke (JJCooke@yahoo.com), April 27, 2000.


Jim, the vast majority of the public wasn't worried about Y2k panic, and as it turned out, they were right. Are there some differences that account for your concern about panic?

-- (Rhetorical@question.only), April 27, 2000.

Sorry, but if that was actually a question, Rhetorical, I don't understand it. Where did I mention panic?

-- Jim Cooke (JJCooke@yahoo.com), April 27, 2000.

The great lesson here is it is pointless, to reason with folks infected with a meme. Not until a point where the virus lacks sufficient recharge sources, will the host even understand what was operating in them, if they ever do. You see these type of memes like Y2k, are historical, and intertwined into all that is, call it evolution if you will, that no matter the resistance, one is best to fight those infected, by complete distancing of self from them. Failure to do so, one(me included, the Polly), becomes fodder for the virus and suffers as a result. Different reactions, but few around would honestly say that the time spent in Y2k would NOT have been spent better elsewhere(even if if had not been spent better elswhere, most would agree a ton of time was pissed away repeating oneself, thus a waste). Many things were learned, the effort was somewhat successful, but the end result is for every Polly, the virus got 25 doomers. The "public" got it, and serviced their MEME by hoarding staples on Dec30 and staying home 48 hours later.

The success of the anti-doomer cause was in using a stronger identity meme, to expose the Doomer as a nutcase and thus deflect most away from infection. However this was largely the Millennium Contagion and was in no way going to be pushed under a rug completely. Y2k the computer bug, gave those predispositioned for collapse/change/you name-it(with internet access), their "believable" trigger and thus became fully infected in the face of even their spouse saying they were nuts, strong infection indeed.

Decker thinks the Rollover was normal, ya OK. All one has to do to see the Millennium Contagion in action, is to research the rise and fall of the Celebrations which never happened(typical infection cycle- up/down and out). Many places had less partying than for any other normal New Years, and this was a freaking Millennium. The Bicenntanial had 100 times more celebrations as I reMEMEber. Truth is many felt it better to laylow...."just in case", the meme(hint). Here in Vegas, the New Year was a complete bust, worst in memory, coincidence?

Look, NOTHING, NADA, ZILCH, ZIPPO happened even close to the Y2k hype (the MEME). If that alone does not at least inspire one to ponder the existence of mind viruses, one has multiple problems requiring medical treatment, IMHO. I said ponder, not necessary to fully buy a concept in the infancy stage without anything approaching definition or ways of nailing the sucker down. If one can understand a physical virus, one has only to ponder this phenom may indeed exist in a less "physical" form as you know it. There was never any period in your own life experience which you can say was a little bizarre and NOT you, I doubt it.

Sorry, the evidence is OVERWHELMING that a significant number of otherwise intelligent people were so wrong it compells one to seek deeper answers than the dribble of,,,,"we had no solid info". Which basically means, we abandoned our normal mode of inquiry and because of a significant mind virus which found fertile ground in our "outlook" of life, we were unable to understand a simple computer dating scheme of little importance to much of anything(relying on meme-pushers is no substitute for understanding like how a BIOS works- sorry). Once again, as proven out by the complete and utter failure of the Doom scenarios whatever version one points to. Even have many examples of folks around the Globe who did squat Y2k work and still zippo, is this that hard to get, that Y2k was Majorly overblown? Glitches are not what they were spouting(Y2k meme) if you were not following. Alone another clue that at work was a complex mind-virus and not some community pride-prepare crapola. How does one prepare for TEOTWAWKI anyhow?

One will NEVER understand Y2k until one GETS the Memetic component, I guarantee it. You will go around in a circle because you still, even in the face of overwhelming evidence, THINK Y2k was anything. Forget all the work(member the folks who did nothing?), (or the gazillions who never did finish whatever the hell they thought they were working on?)(the daily fix on failure going on?)(the many new problems introduced while one was supposedly addressing Y2k issues, member them?). Y2k was real(computer issue), was/is/ and will be for as long as I will be alive for sure. So are hundreds of other computer issues far more worrisome than a couple of missing digits. These others however,, lack the connection to the Century-MEME and never reach anything beyond interest to those directly involved with them. These are NOT viruses.

Understanding the Millennium angle is your KEY which will unlock complete understanding of this WHY2K issue, end of story. Not digits, secondary clocks, windowing, encapsulation, software metrics, or never have we finished a project ontime, that be the static.

Y2k is about a major stepping stone into a new era. From all indications, most are still laying low,,,,"just in case". Don't know about you, but I do not sense a new vigor in many around. Which describes largely how a Y2k ever reached the global debate as it did. Complex, but does it feel like a new century to you? Is this what was imagined when a 2001 was produced? We have Hubble and all that it is revealing and most shuffle about as if the end is around the corner.

Interesting subject and I hope some gain some value despite my always egotistical, sarcastic way of communicating here in cyberspace. If you Peter are looking for admission of my infection, you are a little late. I started as a major doomer on Garrees boards. All changed once Lynch published his paper the Millennium Contagion. Also I am not blind to understanding I am still infected by all manner of memetic material. I think anyone operating differently, defines memetics.



-- Attack-Paulie (fannybubbles@usa.net), April 27, 2000.



Other reasons why Y2K concerns grew in the mid-to-late 1990s.

Link

. . . .Given the relatively unknown size of the task and the ballooning cost estimates, it is easy to understand why many serious people in the mid- and late-1990s who had looked at the situation maintained there was no way the work could be finished in time.

Several obstacles appeared to support the view of those who said it was too late to avoid disaster. There was the natural tendency to procrastinate. In the mid-1990s, with several years until the millennium and the possibility that someone would invent a "magic bullet," some were comfortable putting the work off into the future. There was also the perception that Y2K was solely an information technology issue, not a core management problem. As a result, in many organizations, Y2K was just another project battling for scarce financial and management resources on the IT side of the ledger.

In the private sector, information bottlenecks were widespread. Anti- trust issues and a natural tendency to compete for advantage made working together on Y2K difficult, if not inconceivable, for many companies. Moreover, the threat of lawsuits had companies worried that they would be held liable for anything they said about the Y2K compliance of products or devices they used, or their test processes and results. Legal considerations also prevented companies from saying anything about their own readiness for the date change. Thus, their business partners -- as well as the general public -- assumed the worst.

When the Council began its work in early 1998, the Federal Government was struggling to fix its systems. The consensus among many was that the Government wouldn't make it. In particular, the Federal Aviation Administration, the Internal Revenue Service, the Health Care Financing Administration, and the Defense Department had an extraordinary amount of work to do in a relatively short period of time. Some people were predicting that government agency failures alone would send the U.S. economy into a deep recession.

Internationally, much of the world seemed to be paying little attention to making sure that information systems would be ready for the date change. A 1998 World Bank study found that three-fourths of the world's countries lacked even basic plans for addressing the Y2K problem. In some cases, countries were aware of Y2K but lacked the resources and technical expertise to deal with it. Furthermore, information sharing among nations was limited, hampering the efforts of those who might have benefited from a neighbor's advice on remediating systems. . . .

-- More (than@a.meme), April 27, 2000.


Before Gary North's website and before Ed Yourdon's book, there was this March 1997 Congressional hearing during which the embedded systems issue (among others) was discussed.

"YEAR 2000 RISKS: WHAT ARE THE CONSEQUENCES OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY FAILURE?"

http://www.fas.org/2000/y2k/congress/hsy079182_0.htm

-- (early@days.of.Y2K), April 27, 2000.


Hershy Foods, Samsonite, Royal Doulton, Deutches Bank.

Did they inspire confidence in a rosy outcome? Not for me.

-- Pam (jpjgood@penn.com), April 27, 2000.


I liken memes to Jung's archetypes: People do seem to operate from a somewhat fixed mindset-engrained in, who knows, DNA, culture being passed on, etc. But I do leave room in my view for new archetypes to form. The apocalyptic archetype has been aroud forever. The new testament has many passages in which the writer insists the end is just around the corner(reread the book of revelations).

I have reread Peter's post, and my initial response, and I am changing my mind: I am not sure that the pollies had formed their own, new archetype/meme. I think those that have come up with a generic explanation for doomerism, and continue to bring it up, are finding their own way of being comfortable with what happened. I am not so sure their position describes a new world view.

-- FutureShock (gray@matter.think), April 27, 2000.


If it took a meme or a Jungian archetype to get my handpump installed, that's fine with me. I will never be unwashed again!

-- helen (home@the.farm), April 27, 2000.


Mr. Errington:

I hope that none of your former instructors in the use of the English language stumbles across the item with which you started this thread. The word you wanted was "ensure", not "insure". And "undue", not "undo". And your grammar wasn't so hot either.

I know the kind of feeble excuse that people like you are apt to give. Such as English only being your second language (the first being COBOL or something).

-- Stickler (st@st.st), April 27, 2000.


I thought the Pollies were those who had never been cold, or had a lack of food, nor showered with cold water when it was 30 degrees outside, never worn homemade clothing. I thought (still do) they had no experience with what life was like for those long before them. (Also, I thought they were raised in a other than poor family). Can someone over 50 dispute this belief, and show me another story? Memes? Not by a long shot, it had to do with a reality of bad things can happen to good people, remember Kosovo?

-- My (Story@ndIsticktoit.com), April 27, 2000.

Story-and-stick:

"I thought the Pollies were those who had never been cold, or had a lack of food, nor showered with cold water when it was 30 degrees outside, never worn homemade clothing. I thought (still do) they had no experience with what life was like for those long before them. (Also, I thought they were raised in a other than poor family). Can someone over 50 dispute this belief, and show me another story?"

I'll never divulge my age, but my family was poor, and the only clothes I had were either homemade or hand-me-downs from someone else. My first bra was something like a 38-C because SOMEONE ELSE had outgrown it. [That may be an exaggeration, but it sure looked that way ON ME. ] I don't remember ever being cold. We wore coats indoors on occasion as kids, but we just didn't bathe if the weather was too cold. [We didn't have a shower...only a tub with funny feet.] We never lacked for food either. When sweet-corn went on sale in the summer, we had a meal of sweet corn....just a big bowl of sweet corn on the table. At a penny or two a cob, we could eat four each.

Poor people don't realize they're poor, however, until life moves on and they NOTICE that the standards of others are far above those they've experienced.

--

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), April 27, 2000.


ANITA:

RIGHT ON........ From one poor person to the other....been there done that also....

Remember the lime green jello?

Went one week eating nothing but melba toast crackers.

Was grateful to have that.

Very well spoken.

-- consumer (shh@aol.com), April 27, 2000.


Consumer:

There are "free" alternatives these days that didn't exist when WE were kids. When we lived in Chicago, there was a grocery store called the Jewel. We had no food in the house, but we could always go to the ATM, get money, and buy some, RIGHT?

Well, I hadn't realized that I'd placed my ATM card in the same folder as my security card to obtain entrance to the computer room at work. This folder clipped to my waist or suit pocket via a magnet [which had wiped my ATM code clean.]

What to do? Well, I said to the kids, "How about we walk to the Jewel and dine on their samples?" The kids thought this a great idea. Two neighbor kids were over at the time and begged to go along. Geez, we ate good that night. Jewel had samples of pizza, sausage, cheese, and all sorts of other good stuff.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), April 28, 2000.


Anita:

Wow, do WE have alot in common...I lived in chicago for a moment while hubby in Navy, couldnt even afford pkg of kool-aid at commisary. LOL

Enjoyed the 'jewel' story, what a gem. (pun intended)

Memories...one nite., as usual low funds, took houseful of children as storm blew out power, hot and AC not available., went to great inexpensive place here in Cleve Ohio called "hot dog inn" chili dogs are about $1.00 a piece w/everything.

We got buncha dogs, went to lake and sat and ate the dogs w/ice cold milk and my what fun., kids still talk about that. Watching lightning show and the water.

----thnks for the coool memories.

-- consumer (shh@aol.com), April 28, 2000.


well, erring-a-ton, you can play your "hogshit, fresh" game all you want, but it doesn't change the FACT that most of us KNEW that y2k as the hype stated it, wasn't even a possibility. *I* don't care if you accept that or not, I KNEW. I tried to tell people, got me flamed. All I can say is "tough shit, bud".

You sound like Chuck, with his whiney "why didn't anyone try and tell us y2k was no big deal?"

And YOU have the balls to talk about an "incredible lack of self-awareness" in regards to POLLIES?!?

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAH!

-- Super Polly (FU_Q_Y2kfreaks@hotmail.com), April 28, 2000.


Super,

Were you ever concerned about it as a technical issue?

It seems that many of the committed 'pollies' were reformed 'doomers'.

I'm not flamin' ya, just trying to put some pieces together in my mind to help me better understand what I watched happen around here.

-- flora (***@__._), April 28, 2000.


Government prepared for Y2k...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/et?ac=000271261842766&rtmo=ws0Aw5Qb&atmo% 20=99999999&pg=/et/99/4/18/wbunk18.html

Businesses prepared for Y2k...

http://www.computerworld.com/home/print.nsf/CWFlash/990628B142

...so I don't understand why so many people are still bent out of shape about families who prepared. Businesses apparently were wrong about needing those command centers. And yes, I was also prepared for the possibility that I wouldn't need to use my preps.

They call it insurance.

-- (Family@business.government), April 28, 2000.


Flora, Super Polly, you must have existed in a vacumn for the past two years. Even today, I was doing an internet search for a subject which had nothing to do with Y2K. Low and Behold, the search brings up a military message about stockpiling cash, before the roll over. Questions to different military installations about possible vaults and security questions. I didn't dream this shit up. I had seen the questions, in Congressional testimony, for two years. You must not be too aware about what was "going on". It was an experience, kinda like Noah and da boat. You had to be there,

-- My (Story@ndisticktoit.com), April 28, 2000.

My,

If I was in a vacuum for the past two years, a good deal of it was on the old Timebomb. Unlike your handle, I recognize Super Polly's. We were on different sides of the fence for most of that time. Why do you have a problem with me asking about somebody else's point of view and motivation?

-- flora (***@__._), April 29, 2000.


flora:

No, I was never concerned from a tech standpoint. I may not know much about COBOL or older DB systems, but I took the time to talk with actual people in the field and get informed. I researched the "iron triangle" and found out that 99% of what was out there was hype.

I am not a reformed doomer, because I was never afraid of y2k.

The only reason I started posting to Stinkbomb was because Diane p*^&%d me off by the way she was treating people. I saw "pollies" trying to prevent a possible panic via the internet, and exposing vendors and there shills, and all they got was flamed, censored, and banned.

Those days are gone now, and with this new forum I don't see much need to even post anymore. I just read mostly, (stuff like the power threads, good reading) and call the doomers on there attempts to re-write history (like mr erring-a-ton here).

I hope that answers your question.

-- Super Polly (FU_Q_Y2kfreaks@hotmail.com), April 29, 2000.


Thanks Super,

I have a couple of uuber-geek friends who fill esoteric niches in military applications.

They agreed about the risk of panic being the major factor for concern. They were also perplexed at personal friends who were galvanized by fear. It seemed that they couldn't effectively communicate to them.

I realize that we are not likely to see another event like this in our lifetime, but am still fascinated by what happened.

-- flora (***@__._), April 29, 2000.


I saw "pollies" trying to prevent a possible panic via the internet, and exposing vendors and there shills, and all they got was flamed, censored, and banned.

Those days are gone now, and with this new forum I don't see much need to even post anymore. I just read mostly, (stuff like the power threads, good reading) and call the doomers on there attempts to re- write history (like mr erring-a-ton here).

I think Peter's point is that most of us, even 'pollys,' did not expect Y2k's outcome to be quite as smooth as what we've seen since December 31. Anyone who did know there would be as few problems as this should also have also known that there wouldn't panic.

'Doomers' were wrong about TEOTWAWKI if they did happen to believe that in late 1999. 'Pollys' were wrong about Y2k panic.

Optimists thought it was imperative that TB2000 know that TEOTWAWKI was not likely. Pessimists thought is was imperative that people knew Y2k could be something more than a bump in the road. The available data in late 1999 suggested that there was still enough unfinished Y2k work left that temporary but significant problems were still possible.

I'm thankful that there have been relatively few problems. This BITR outcome for Y2k was not a given. Even with electricity on, shortages or other problems could have been notable. And I am not nor have I ever been a Y2k vendor or shill....

-- Regular poster at hte (old@TB.2000), April 30, 2000.


To Super Polly:

I never believed in the hype about Y2K's potential for causing a multi-year depression, much less TEOTWAWKI. I stated this quite clearly, in several posts to old TB2000.

I still think that people like yourself, who argued that they just knew, years before rollover, that Y2K would be nothing at all, also did not know what they were talking about.

-- Peter Errington (petere@ricochet.net), April 30, 2000.


flora:

LOL, I think the reason I still lurk at this and a few other boards is because millenial madness WAS a once in a lifetime thing! It is cool to watch the aftermath; its almost like having a tiny window into the human pysche(sp?)

"regular":

most of us, even 'pollys,' did not expect Y2k's outcome to be quite as smooth as what we've seen since December 31. Anyone who did know there would be as few problems as this should also have also known that there wouldn't panic.

1) you must not have read GNIABFI forum or doc's y2k debunked forum. there were plenty of people that knew it would be smooth.

2)I was pretty sure there wouldn't be panic, but people are unpredictable. my point was that while some people (pollies) were trying to MAKE SURE that correct info was getting out, extremists doomers on Stinkbomb were trying to SILENCE those people...your guess is as good as mine as to WHY they would want to do that, but I think if you study guys like Stan the Meme, and Ron Shwarzt, you'll see why.

The available data in late 1999 suggested that there was still enough unfinished Y2k work left that temporary but significant problems were still possible.

You were filtering the data based on your meme. NOBODY should have been concerned from a "unfinished y2k work" standpoint after mid-98 (hint: when big blue and several others let there y2k teams go, THAT should have told you something. it obviosly didn't.)

This BITR outcome for Y2k was not a given. Even with electricity on, shortages or other problems could have been notable.

1) yes, it was a given and

2) no, other problems could not have been notable. again, you filtered the data you got. bad problems can occur at ANY time, and y2k wasn't even on par with most of what goes on every day in the computer world.

Petey-boy:

I still think that people like yourself, who argued that they just knew, years before rollover, that Y2K would be nothing at all, also did not know what they were talking about.

What can I say? your ignorance is showing again. uh, in case you haven't noticed, time HAS proven me correct. not just me, but the 99% of the IT/IS community that wasn't worried about y2k AT ALL. perhaps YOU would like to send an e-mail Nick Z about his 1996 article on y2k as racket and ruse? YOU tell him that he was wrong and didn't know what he was talking about.

I bet his response is ".....peter... who????"

-- Super Polly (FU_Q_Y2kfreaks@hotmail.com), May 02, 2000.


Sept. 1999

http://hv.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=001Rwk

What will happen when the clock strikes midnight on December 31, 1999? A single, specific answer to that question is still unknown (and, ultimately, unknowable) but the extensive information developed by the Committee and outlined in this report provides an understanding of the size, scope, and nature of the problems that may occur.

There is currently widespread awareness that Y2K involves more than the failure of an individual's personal computer, or an incorrect date in a spreadsheet. Potential Y2K problems increase exponentially upon examination of the multiple layers of computer systems, networks and technologies supporting individuals' everyday lives. It is now widely understood that Y2K could affect the lives of individuals, but exactly in what manner is unknown.

Inherent uncertainty in the outcome of Y2K fuels public concern and makes preparation difficult. Sensationalists continue to fuel rumors of massive Y2K failures and government conspiracies, while some corporations and nations concerned about their image downplay real Y2K problems. The Committee finds that both extremes are counterproductive, and do not accurately reflect what typifies most Y2K problems. The true extent of Y2K failures will match neither the most optimistic nor the most apocalyptic predictions. Rather, Y2K problems will hit sporadically, based on geography, size of organization, and level of preparedness, and will cause more inconveniences than tragedies.

While optimism pervades the domestic Y2K outlook, uncertainty with regard to Y2K's impact dictates that preparation is prudent. Individuals and companies must take charge of their own situation by examining the Y2K readiness of the utilities and services that they depend on, and by preparing accordingly. . . .

. . . .The Committee conducted extensive research and held numerous hearings in 1999, but still cannot conclusively determine how extensive Y2K disruptions will be. However, the Committee has no data to suggest that the U. S. will experience nationwide social or economic collapse. Nonetheless, disruptions will occur and in some cases those disruptions will be significant. The international situation will certainly be more tumultuous.

-- Less than TEOTWAWKI, more (than@a.bump), May 02, 2000.


Super Polly:

Ah, the famous Nick Z. 1996 article. Really something, that's for sure. For those who haven't read it, the article is divided into two parts.

The first part gives us the theory of the Turing Machine. The purpose of this part is to show us the brilliance of the author. This part does not remotely tie in with the second part, wherein Y2K is discussed.

The analytical high point of the second, Y2K, portion of the paper can be summarized as follows:

I am looking at a reference to a year in an application. It is easy to fix. There, I've proved something.

-- Peter Errington (petere@ricochet.net), May 03, 2000.


Peter, you started this thread by claiming a "meme" in "[pollies who thought]...it was totally obvious one year (or 2, or 3, or 4 even) that Y2K was going to be a big nothing. And that, my friends, is hogshit, fresh."

Super Polly has presented an example to you -- a documented, on-the-books example -- and it would appear that you are dismissing the example. Why, because he got it right and you got it wrong? Or are you claiming to have some all-knowing insight into Nick Z.'s mind? It isn't that difficult to see that virtually everyone except Nick Z. GOT IT WRONG.

Look, aside from Super Polly, I don't know one single so-called "polly" who didn't start out being a "doomer" (myself included). Most of the "pollies" I know also thought there would be some problems. But guess what? There weren't. Despite a web site being set up as "Y2K Glitch Central" doesn't change the simple FACT that nothing of any note went wrong.

I also have to reiterate something Super Polly said; you speak of "...the almost incredible lack of self-awareness that seems to characterize [pollies]...", but take a look at what you've written on this thread and tell us again who is suffering from an "almost incredible lack of awareness".

If you have a point, make it; otherwise this is just starting to sound an awful lot like whining; like sour grapes. Yeah, I know, you "used to think highly of [me]". Well lately I've had worse said to me than that. Whatever.

-- Patricia (PatriciaS@lasvegas.com), May 03, 2000.


Patricia:

Forget Mr Erring-a-ton. He wanted to show off his big brain and it didn't work. He is just as dense NOW about y2k as he was last year. NOTHING learned, unfortunate for him.

I don't expect a straight up response from him, and neither should anyone else. I've made my point, and Petey-boy just doesn't GI (ah the irony of THAT statement!)

I hope all is going well for you and yours, Patricia.

(PS did you see the Bigdog thread? I am still laughing my @ss off on those links!)

-- Super Polly (FU_Q_Y2kfreaks@hotmail.com), May 03, 2000.


Since most organizations had not started even the assessment phase of their Y2k projects by 1996, I don't see how someone could have known then that it would be fixed in time. And many foreign countries didn't really start working on Y2k until 1999.

Was Nick Z one of those people who thought Y2k would have turned out OK even if it had not been fixed, or who thought that fix-on-failure was possible in almost all cases?

In their book copyrighted 1997, Managing 00 - Surviving the Year 2000 Computing Crisis, Peter de Jager and Richard Bergeon had this to say...

Jones also validates our estimation that an enterprise starting in 1997 is likely to get through only about 80 percent of its applications; if it waits until 1999, only 30 percent. And even conceding that only 30 percent of the applications may be critical to the business of the enterprise, that 30 percent is probably attached by data to another 40 percent of the other applications that won't make the transition in time. At best, the organization will be crippled; at worst, it will no longer exist.

What is the basis and reasoning behind Nick Z's 1996 comment?

-- (Metrics@revisit.ed), May 03, 2000.


Patricia:

It is true that Super Polly presented me with a case where someone made a prediction in 1996 which came to pass. Whereas I, as a Yardenite, was wrong.

The reason I am dismissing Super Polly's example is that the Nick Z. article was so poorly reasoned that his prediction might as well have been based on tea leaves.

(Ask Super Polly, the big Nick Z. fan, how the Turing Machine stuff tied in with Y2K.)

-- Peter Errington (petere@ricochet.net), May 03, 2000.


Peter, you wrote: (snip) "The reason I am dismissing Super Polly's example is that the Nick Z. article was so poorly reasoned that his prediction might as well have been based on tea leaves. snip

Come on Peter, if you want to talk "so poorly reasoned", let's look at the very basis of the "doomers'" "arguments" throughout this whole nonsense. And stating that the Turing Machine information had zero to do with Y2K, well, again, look at some of the "omens of doom" touted throughout 1999, most of which also had zero to do with Y2K. But I don't see a need to re-visit that yet again.

Fact is that Nick Z. got it right and the rest of us got it wrong. Period. I'm reminded of being reprimanded in school for arriving at the right answer for the wrong reasons. Made no sense then and makes even less sense now.

Metrics@revisit.ed wrote: "Since most organizations had not started even the assessment phase of their Y2k projects by 1996, I don't see how someone could have known then that it would be fixed in time. And many foreign countries didn't really start working on Y2k until 1999.

Was Nick Z one of those people who thought Y2k would have turned out OK even if it had not been fixed, or who thought that fix-on-failure was possible in almost all cases?

In their book copyrighted 1997, Managing 00 - Surviving the Year 2000 Computing Crisis, Peter de Jager and Richard Bergeon had this to say... snip

I can't speak for Nick Z., but it just might be that's exactly how his reasoning went, based on his IT knowledge and experience. But I really have to take issue with "...most organizations had not started even the assessment phase of their Y2k projects by 1996...". This and the paragraph you posted from that book you referenced were "alarms" used by self-appointed experts. I can guess again here and say the "alarms" were a form of sales pitch for consultant work, speaking engagements, book sales, etc. It would seem that it worked, too. I don't know how anyone could know what organization had done what in what year, much less how anyone could use that "stat" as proof positive of anything. And yes, initially, I fell for the "alarms", too.

As to "foreign countries", I don't recall ever seeing anyone mention that many (if not most) foreign countries (at least Europe, from what I've heard) are standardized on some form of ISO. This could account for the lack of Y2K problems. No, I don't know this as fact, just a guess.

As to Capers Jones' metrics: It has been my personal experience that they don't translate to many software projects. When laid out against thousands of projects, perhaps a case can be made (larger sampling and all that). But speaking from the projects I've worked on, they don't translate. And again, Y2K remediation was not a "software project" in the true sense of the term, and to use those metrics to judge any Y2K work, as many so-called "experts" did, was grossly negligent.

Then again, there was consultant work to be had, and speaking engagements to book, and books to sell.

If anything, the fact that we came through the rollover virtually unscathed points out (to me anyway) that the "hype" was much worse than the actual problem.

These are my opinions, my guesses, and are based solely on my experience(s), disclaimer, disclaimer, disclaimer.

Super Polly: Me and mine be just fine ;-) Thanks for asking.

-- Patricia (PatriciaS@lasvegas.com), May 03, 2000.


Come on, Patricia, excusing flaws in the Nick Z article by pointing to doomer nonsense is truly lame. You can do better than that. And I am 100% supportive of any teacher who does not give credit for a right answer wrongly arrived at.

The organizations I was aware of (federal government) hadn't done anything in 96. 97 was when they started getting down to business (except for one Agency, when it was later.)

I was at one time very much involved with ISO. I'm quite sure ISO had nothing to do with foreign countries coming through alright.

I'm glad I can agree with you on one point - Capers Jones' metrics. The pollies do have a point, that the program fixes are easy. And because you do the same thing over and over, Jones' statistics (number of errors introduced per 100 changes made) should not have been expected to apply. It's finding all the changes that should be made that's the problem, and the severity of this problem will vary widely.

Your disclaimer that your opinions are based on your experiences, hell that's true of everyone including myself. Let's take an extreme case, someone whose job was to install Y2K fixes sent him by the vendors of the packaged software that his organization had bought. Now that puts Y2K remediation right into ordinary run-of-the-mill maintenance activity. Contrast that with a case I knew of in early 98, where a bank had a poor young lady going line by line thru assembler applications, and meanwhile another poor young lady, separted from her, was repeating this work (I got this from a friend at MITRE). It was like peope insured a good translation of the Bible, in the old days. Anyway, my point is that one can suspect which one will be optimistic or pessimistic regarding the big picture.

-- Peter Errington (petere@ricochet.net), May 04, 2000.


many corperations started assesment in 94/95. Bank of America started 95, for one example.

I think the problem here is one of WHERE people get info from. The garynorth.com site was the one stating over and over again that "all business started too late". How would an historian know what was or was not "too late?" That "mantra" was repeated all over the internet, without ever being proven correct.

I don't remember were I read it, but someone coined an analogy that y2k was like inspecting a building for sale, rather than starting from bare land and building one to sell.

There really is a HUGE difference between the two, isn't there?

-- just my 2¢ (bigf@t.nobody), May 04, 2000.


many corperations started assesment in 94/95. Bank of America started 95, for one example.

True, banks started working on Y2k before other organizations. Bank computer programs frequently deal with future dates, and banks knew early on they had to fix this problem.

It's always been my impression, though, that the typical U.S. organization began its Y2k project in 1997 or 1998. The vast majority of the money GM spent on Y2k was spent after 1997. Of course, the smaller the organization, the less complex the systems are, so systems at those smaller organizations were easier to fix.

-- (1996@1997.1998), May 04, 2000.


I don't think the article was poorly-reasoned, Peter; and I certainly didn't see any "flaws". I felt if anything, it could have been somewhat more explicit in explanation, but it did appear in "American Programmer", a professional publication.

Sorry, but the only thing "lame" about any of this is that you are still clinging to this "polly/doomer" stuff for whatever reason. I'm not at all surprised you would be "100% supportive of any teacher who does not give credit for a right answer wrongly arrived at". But that was a poor example on my part, as I feel the article is quite well-reasoned and leaves the reader to draw a logical conclusion based, if nothing else, on things as they are. Again, it appeared in a professional publication, one read by programmers, who shouldn't require further explanation. (And for anyone who had done "thousands of hours of research" into the Y2K problem, this should have been the foundation of their "research"; a no-brainer, if you will.)

OK, so you were aware of places that hadn't done anything in 1996. Are they up-and-running today? And that's really the bottom line, isn't it? You haven't actually refuted the "racket" part of my post; in fact, you've (probably inadvertently) supported it. Pam above cites four companies that didn't inspire confidence in her for the rollover. They're still in business, aren't they, despite severe problems? And that's the point most of us were trying to make all along. But for argument's sake, let's say those four companies went out of business. Yes, there would have been some people who lost -- big time. But would you still have been able to buy chocolate and luggage and china and wouldn't you still have been able to do banking and financial services?

And you've been "very much involved with ISO". So how can you be "quite sure" that it "had nothing to do with foreign countries coming through alright"? I was taught the standardization of dates through ISO was four-digit years. Perhaps I'm over-simplifying, but to me that would indicate that less work had to be done in such places (enter the "ruse"); hence, coming through the rollover cleanly. And again, Peter, I did label that paragraph as a "guess" on my part.

But your arguments lead me to believe that you think there are massive cover-ups afoot. Please don't tell me you subscribe to the Quantum Failure Theorem (they're there, you just can't see them). This would seem to be the case as you are now speaking in "present/future tense": It's finding all the changes that should be made that's the problem, and the severity of this problem will vary widely. What gives?

My "disclaimers" were kind of an inside joke; sorry if you didn't get it, but it wasn't directed at you. IMO, all your "extreme case" illustrates is the redundancy (sometimes unwarranted) that exists in business and systems;, IOW, still more reason one should not have let "doom" dictate their Y2K outlook.

P.S. I'm familiar with MITRE, and I corresponded on occasion some years back with a couple of their people who were on de Jager's Y2K mail list.

-- Patricia (PatriciaS@lasvegas.com), May 04, 2000.


Patricia, I'm afraid we're pretty well arguing past one another at this point.

We will just have to agree to disagree on the quality of Nick Z's 1996 article. However, even if I thought it to be well-reasoned, the question remains as to how a confident prediction could have been made about roll-over before many organizations hadn't even inventoried their problems.

Are these organizations up and running today, and isn't that the bottom line, you ask. In the large important picture, it is of course the bottom line. With respect to my much narrower point, criticism of Nick Z's article, it doesn't seem to relate.

Regarding Europe, I recall the Economist doing a cover story on Y2K, sometime in the first half of 97. Very long article, mostly about European countries. They had the same two-digit year problem that we did.

Re "finding all the changes...that's the problem", the phrase has to do with successful remediation that has been completed, i.e. how we got to our present successful state. Should have said "was the problem." I do not think there are hidden disasters out there ready to pounce.

-- Peter Errington (petere@ricochet.net), May 04, 2000.


Agree to disagree then. Like I said, I did not have much first-hand knowledge on Europe as a whole; just some insight into the U.K. and Ireland from personal contacts (who had contacts in other European nations). As to my comments on businesses being up and running, that had to do with "metrics'" comment about when organizations started assessment, etc. I thought it clearly showed the problems that were being hyped simply weren't there to begin with. How many times from how many "experts" did one hear that "IT CAN'T BE FIXED!!!"? Well, oops, but if it couldn't be fixed, then I can only conclude that said magnitude of problems wasn't there in the first place.

I think what bothered me the most about this whole "debate" (not the one between you and I, the whole thing in general) was the number of self-appointed "experts" claiming "thousands of hours of research" led them to believe "it's all going away". Had they really done any actual research, "doom" never would have been on the agenda. And I know you don't see it, but Nick Z.'s article is a prime example of this.

-- Patricia (PatriciaS@lasvegas.com), May 04, 2000.


I know I caught hell for saying that the "average TB2K doomer" picture exceed anything that would have happened even if nobody had ever lifted a remedial finger against it. But of course, we *did* remediate, and there's no "control world" to see what might have happened otherwise. Perhaps Nick Z. grasped that date bugs weren't that hard to deal with, and fell well within the corrective capacities of what we do every day. But in 1996, that was STILL a speculative position, not an analytical, data-based position.

I think at best, in hindsight, we can say that it was a reasonable speculation, and soundly based. Less optimistic speculation at the time (based on not-quite-appropriate metrics) was equally reasonable, however. Had the task turned out to be much harder than anticipated, those less optimistic speculations would look soundly based in hindsight today, and Nick Z. would look foolish. And at that time, with few exceptions not enough outfits had *done* the whole task for us to grasp the scope and nature of the challenge.

Getting the right answer for the wrong reasons is fine, better to be lucky than good any day. But luck is a LOT less consistent than skill and knowledge.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), May 04, 2000.


This IS the reality which concludes Y2k will be what it is, more of the same-old...http://hv.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch- msg.tcl?msg_id=00365D

The doomer "wished" reality would be different, they lost. Fact is, little is efficient NOW. What is, is mainly because of computing. Is there risk everyday? Y2k or not? No kidding. What is also known is that computing and humans are not very "robust" and must not be trusted with all of one's eggs(now and more so in 1996). To the degree this law is violated, risk increases(when done it is called calculated risk). This was the question lost in the musings, memes of the doomer mentality. At webboards here, and Senate hearings there. The carpet of what is, simply was not efficient enough to allow a simple dating issue to run ruin. Diversity ruled the day as thankfully it does most others. To the degree of centralization, to this degree are you or anybody or anything is at risk. Throw balance to the wind at your own risk.

This knowledge is what lies below a Nick Z analysis. The single largest motivator of THE WORK(who would question), is a little thingee called,,,,FIX on FAILURE. Knowing this, where oh where then are all the cascading cross-faults? the systematic implosion from contaiminated data streams? The death by a thousand cuts? Even in the face of the biggest and hopefully last TRIGGER date(01-01-00), where is the mess hiding? Right where it has been for 3 decades...in a mostly balanced, working computing environment. Not perfect(a ridiculous wish to start with), but an environment able to handle far worse than what I believe, was an overblown(for profit reasons)issue (Y2k)not unlike a pile of other "bit" issues.

Failure to GET THIS, one is sentenced to the circluar hell that is WHY. The simple rarity of incidents tells me Y2k largely was a whole lot to do about nothing. Fact is, MOST did nothing ahead of FIX on FAILURE. Even in 1996 the single largest motivator was them bad charge cards. Wasn't all the "opinions" from the likes of Peter de Jager. Humans are not this smart to even plan a dating scheme which will last past 5 years, let alone 30. This IS the reality.

We can all hope things would be different. That one day the world would be perfect, it ain't, and in fact THIS IS what it spose-to-be, GI yet? Your mission, is to be a force of change in your direct control. All the while in complete harmony and knowing full well what can, should or needs to be changed if at all.

-- Attack-Paulie (fannybubbles@usa.net), May 05, 2000.


Doc still be havin' his head up his ass?

-- lisa (lisa@work.now), May 11, 2000.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ