I was bemused to see the return of two titanic egos from the Y2K debate: Steve Heller and Charles Reuben. Are these guys twins separated at birth?

Reuben was right about Y2K and provided a fair amount of useful information (to the handful of regulars on the Debunker board). He also wore out his CAPS LOCK key screaming at anyone who dared disagree with him. Reuben babbled about making "lists" of doomers and maintained the rather epic delusion that he made a critical difference in the outcome of Y2K. Sorry, Charles, but I haven't heard Alan Greenspan make any cryptic message of thanks to a Texas real estate broker.

Heller was wrong about Y2K and basically provided his resume... over and over. "Hubris" Heller spent most of the Y2K in a state of utter disbelief... how could so many lesser intellects possibly disagree with him? He lost the debate with Ted Hoffman (badly) and made my favorite egocentric statement of the entire Y2K debate: "I know as much about economics as anyone." This might come as a shock to a few Nobel-prize winning economists. A couple of book on C++ is not the General Theory of Relativity.

OK, we could joke about the Narcissus twins all day... but there are a couple of lessons here. The Reuben Principle: Boorish people are occasionally right. The Heller Rule: Smart people are occasionally wrong, particularly when operating outside their area of expertise.

Unfortunately, the two people least like to learn anything from the Y2K debate are Reuben and Heller. Reuben is too busy being "right" to worry about details like civility. Heller is too busy being "smart" to realize there is a difference between intelligence and expertise. You may have been smart enough to go to med school, Steve, but that doesn't make you a doctor.

There is still time to develop a sense of humor, gentleman. Perhaps Stephen Poole can help you.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), June 23, 2000

Answers

Sums it up nicely, I think. Will it be the last word? Alas, I think not.

-- I'm Here, I'm There (I'm Everywhere@so.beware), June 23, 2000.

The Reuben Principle: Boorish people are occasionally right. The Heller Rule: Smart people are occasionally wrong, particularly when operating outside their area of expertise.

Intersting Principles. I would say boorish people are much more vocal when they are right. Smart people don't feel the need to be so loud, I guess.

-- Not now, not like this (AgentSmith0110@aol.com), June 23, 2000.

The Reuben Principle: Boorish people are occasionally right. The Heller Rule: Smart people are occasionally wrong, particularly when operating outside their area of expertise.

So I guess someday you will be right Mr. Decker. Perhaps you could consult with Mr. Poole on how to make your posts more interesting.

-- Stilling Yawning at Decker (is@he.done?), June 23, 2000.

Im continually amazed at the small minds that go into attack mode whenever Ken Decker puts up a post. You dont have to agree with the content to realize the intellect that Ken brings to the table. I for one wish I had his writing skills.

-- Ra (tion@l.1), June 23, 2000.

Are we talking about the same Ken Decker?

-- Little Mind (in@attack.mode), June 23, 2000.

Decker, you are another *total obtuse* equipped with selective memory like Heller and others, a city manager who posed on TB I as an "I am an Economist" dealing in cliches and preconceived notions with a huge byte of pompousness thrown in. Your choice long ago of a Spanish red vs. the greatest wine of Italy (the Biondi-Santi) established you in my mind at least as a self-appointed member of the "Drop a Name, I'm better than you are Club" but without the pedigree or training to support it. To use your "chat room" acquired online skills word, "CHUCKLE".

You have no idea of what I and many other de-bunkers did; ONLY what you could see on the net. You were the *greatest Straw Man* Yourdon and the rest of them could have asked for. Your "knowledge" and opinions were derived from TB I and common sources. NOT from intimate knowledge of what was going on in I.T. Even your reports of your "I.T. sources" were at best 2nd hand. You couldn't even read the Journals and web sites on the net where I and many others gleaned the information we used to counter the BS Cubed of the Doomers you tossed SOFTBALLS at. CHUCKLE goes to LOLOLOLOL.

I started debunking Y2k Fear Pushers lead by Gary North. When Yourdon surfaced and gave North's position some status, it was clear something strange had happened and we know now that the rapid transfer *without* Peer Review of "any ideas" via the Net had changed the playing fields of rational debate.

You and Heller both make the assumption that I give a rat's ass about "fame" or "history". I don't. And I don't particularly care what your "opinion" of me is. (That goes for the opinion of most of the posters to TB I and some here.) "CHUCKLE".

The only reason I have continued here to now is because I was waiting for Your Toasted&Done' s final move and now we have it: "Now that Y2k is over.........". Up surfaces, Heller the minor plaything trying to "revise the record" while spinning the facts to "improve his image". His statement below is typical from http://hv.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl? msg_id=003NPL .

I stated LONG before 1/1/2000 that the only reason that I identified myself anywhere was for a credibility factor. Every post to the list serves contained my email address (real) and a phone number. When I decided to take on the Fear Peddlers seriously, I removed my business web site from the host. I did ID myself on the DAMA site which was a serious organization of Data Administrators. I also stated time and again, I would do NO BUSINESS WHATEVER with anyone connected with Y2k. And have not. As soon as I change that, I will make that public.

I **WANT** to be "anonymous". If anything, I would prefer to be remembered as an average American citizen with a few tools and skills, who stood up to a bunch of Bully Boys trying to market Fear for one reason or another. "NOT TO CHUCKLE".

I don't do business with the public and have no interest in doing so. In addition, people like Richard Landes and Aaron Lynch are far better equipped to handle the **Academic Analysis** that will examine the entrails of Y2k Fear Marketing properly. As such, the work of the "de-bunkers" is almost complete. Heller is is just another example of the "Mc Carthy was always right" type whose opinions are derived through a "filter of Egoism" (WITH RESUME, "CHUCKLE").

Your "sense" of judgement re: me and Heller conveniently ignores his past absurd statements and now his "denial act" coupled with his attempt to both "revise History" and to SQUELCH IT. THAT, I can assure you in the case of Yourdon, Lord, Cowles, R. Martin, Missler, Gary North, and the rest of the "Its gonna be really, really bad" gang, that will not happen. After me there are 1,000s of others prepared to "GENTLY" remind people of the efforts of such people prior to and even after 1/1/2000. There are members of the Press that have very long memories for such people. Heller is a MINOR figure chosing to continue to try to "win" no matter what his MORPHING into a Horse's ASS LIKE YOU means. "CHUCKLE".

"You seem to think I care about Y2K. I don't. It's over."

"....I don't take it seriously at all; it's just a sideshow, with freaks to laugh at."

-- Steve Heller

Before, during or after 1/1/2000 is the question. Were the Doomzies he fed his Bull shit ((and mislead with his "I'm an expert to listen to ...see MY RESUME'" (a form of "winning through intimidation"))).... to Y2k the "sideshow". But WHEN?? before 1/1/2000, during it or now?

From the need to know how to build a foundry with charcoal and store a collection of "how to books" for the "restoration" its is or was "just a sideshow"?? Could *anything* be more irresponsible? Unless its the "I was wrong with excuses" (aka: "Passing the Buck" though none of his excuses washed when one reviews his Y2k "case" and argument constructed long before he claims to have been "mislead" by other leading Y2k "experts".


The only other "worse" examples of **pure irresponsibility were the "lets skip over it and move on" lead by one Ed Yourdon, THE "35 years of Expertise Expert" whose central fallacy I exposed in Spring, 1998 on CPSR-Y2k and de Jager's list. The 35 year expert who just "knew" that "major software projects like Y2k do not come in on time or schedule or are cancelled. And who wrote in his deplorable "Deja Vu" where he repeated ad nauseum his theme to the end, "I do not expect a real estate broker in Texas to UNDERSTAND...." To which, I replied, if a businessman in Texas can understand, what IS your problem, Toasty?

http://hv.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=003NPL

---

You seem to think I care about Y2K. I don't. It's over. However, I do like to amuse myself pointing out the idiocies of the "debunkers" who are still raving about conspiracies, when I don't have anything more interesting to do, which is rare. CPR takes this VERY SERIOUSLY, because it's all he has, as he has admitted. I don't take it seriously at all; it's just a sideshow, with freaks to laugh at.

-- Steve Heller (steve@steveheller.com), June 22, 2000.

---

LINK
http://hv.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=003Mr9

-- cpr (buytexas@swbell.net), June 23, 2000.

"I don't do business with the public and have no interest in doing so." -- cpr, June 23, 2000

And we, the public, want you to know how much we appreciate that, Charlie.

-- John Q. Public (All Over@The.Place), June 23, 2000.

Ah, Charles Reuben, international man of mystery... mild-mannered real estate salesman by day... computer God and secret agent by night. (laughter)

You are no more an "insider" than my great aunt Alice. For all of your prancing and preening, you are nothing more than a guy who knows how to write email to people who make the real decisions.

Here's a clue, Charles... no one cares. Most of the people who believed Gary North will believe him next time around. The same goes for Yourdon and the rest. I really doubt your hyperbolic ranting will convince anyone of anything, except that you need a new hobby.

You never produced any tangible evidence you actually influenced the Y2K debate. None. Like the "doom peddlers" you just want everyone to take your word for it. I see you wearing the masked crusader cape and tights, but I don't see any "heroic deeds."

I do observe one difference between you and Heller... he makes an ass out of himself much more succinctly.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), June 23, 2000.

Decker, Heller, and ceeper. Three birds of the same feather.

-- The Double Decker Heller Ceeper Show (let@it.die), June 23, 2000.

I'm perfectly aware that I was wrong about Y2K, and have stated as much on several occasions. What lessons has it taught me? That regardless of how compelling an argument may be, it may still be wrong. Also, that no matter how stupid or insane someone is, they can still be right on occasion.

I do have some disagreements with your comments. Far from being "Twins separated at birth", I'm as unlike Reuben as anyone could be. He is foul mouthed, accuses everyone of being in a conspiracy against him, claims to be the savior of the country from Y2K "exploiters", keeps files on everyone, refuses to admit error when it is obvious to everyone else, and otherwise illustrates that he is mentally unbalanced.

I, on the other hand, do not use foul language, do not believe everyone is conspiring against me, do not claim to have been a major player in Y2K, do not keep files on anyone, admit error when appropriate, and otherwise illustrate that I am mentally balanced.

As for the debate with Ted Hoffman, my intention in engaging in the debate was to find out if there was compelling evidence that a Y2K disaster was not going to happen, not to demonstrate that it was going to happen. In my opinion, Hoffman did not meet the burden of proof, so therefore I must conclude that he lost, according to my criteria. Other people, of course, will have to make their own determination about the appropriate criteria and the outcome.

As far as my comment about knowing as much about economics as "anyone": I didn't notice any Nobel Prize winners engaging in the debate on Y2K. If you have won the Nobel Prize in economics, or know someone else engaged in the debate who has done so, please provide a citation. Otherwise, I'll clarify my statement to say that I know as much about economics as anyone else engaging in this debate.

Other than that, I pretty much agree with you.

-- Steve Heller (steve@SteveHeller.com), June 23, 2000.

And I think that Gerald Ford won the 1976 presidental election.

-- Denny (always@open.late), June 23, 2000.

Without making any judgements about "winners" (far too, ahem, modest for that), gotta say I love your criteria, Steve.

Seems to me I've heard somewhere about the, umm, difficulties of attempting to "prove a negative"....

-- Hoff (hoff_meister@my-deja.com), June 23, 2000.

NOTE: my use of the venacular is FAR less odious than the SMELL of what you try to pass off as YOUR THOUGHTS pre and post-CDC. HELLER: ".....As for the debate with Ted Hoffman, my intention in engaging in the debate was to find out if there was compelling evidence that a Y2K disaster was not going to happen, not to demonstrate that it was going to happen. In my opinion, Hoffman did not meet the burden of proof, so therefore I must conclude that he lost, according to my criteria. Other people, of course, will have to make their own determination about the appropriate criteria and the outcome. :

Heller

WHAT PLANET DOES HELLER RESIDE ON? PLANET HELLER WITH HELLER BALL, HELLER BAT, HELLER PITCHER AND MOST IMPORTANTLY, UMPIRE HELLER???
SCIENCE FICTION AT ITS WORST. AND ...PURE FICTION as per Y2k except in PLANET HELLER'S STRANGE WORLD.

"PLANET HELLER" where HELLER"s CRITERA ia justification for his Bull shit doom scenarios of "Black Death in the Cities"????

This well advertized "debate" was dropped no sooner than Hoff scored the points and left Heller exposed. He then chose to be "very busy with business" of course and vanished from view. Such is the fate of the un-horsed Champion in Black at the lists. (Nicely replayed over and over by Heller and all the rest seeking a way out of their Pre- 2000 DOOM BOXES they built for themselves and The Remnants.) Too bad they never emulated the Gary who merely said, "I was wrong, sorry, BYE BYE." (And returned to ferretting out the next "I know you'll never believe me but I have just found........"

Now we get the pre-2000 demand updated, "Hoff didn't PROVE..."

Exactly WHAT HELLER? The FREAKING BURDEN OF PROOF WAS ON YOU AND THE REST OF THE **ACCUSERS** who charged that Y2k was being mismanaged, under addressed, "spun" and the rest of the Zombie Phrases.

"Beware the Ides of New Years Eve" they lamented as they stashed their rice and beans and urged all others to do likewise to AVOID SHOOTING THOSE WHO APPEARED AT THEIR DOORSTEPS BECAUSE THEY WERE NOT PREPARED." OR........they claimed of the Wicked De-Bunkers: "Their BLOOD WILL BE ON YOUR HANDS FOR TELLING PEOPLE TO NOT PREPARE" (another DOOM LIE).

As usual, in such matters, the rest of the Zombies at Spin City I (aka: TB I) "let it drop" as fast never to be mentioned again.



-- cpr (buytexas@swbell.net), June 23, 2000.

the education of Steve Heller continues........will he ever learn?

I'm perfectly aware that I was wrong about Y2K, and have stated as much on several occasions. What lessons has it taught me? That regardless of how compelling an argument may be, it may still be wrong. Also, that no matter how stupid or insane someone is, they can still be right on occasion. Steve Heller

Wrong? yep you were, you were also not even close as you know. Course relying upon your broken logic tables you are unable to admit you basically have no clue, image to uphold and all.

I thought it was "listen to me I am a computing expert...here look at my resume". Now the Flip is, "You were fooled by a compelling argument"? And your appearances here and the coverage of Y2k on your website indicates "you don't give a crap anymo"? Ya that is compelling alright.

And it pisses you off to no end that us "insane folks" see right thru your game, don't it? Too bad now isn't it. If you had the sense you were born with you would thank us for calling your shit, your welcome.

-- blah blah (hellerwatch@thisboard.com), June 23, 2000.

Statement: regardless of how compelling an argument may be, it may still be wrong.

Translation: *I* didn't find the arguments compelling that turned out to be overwhelmingly correct in every particular. *Therefore*, those arguments *were not compelling*! I, Steve Heller, have spoken!

Statement: no matter how stupid or insane someone is, they can still be right on occasion.

Translation: Those who disagreed with me were *therefore* stupid or insane. They were right because they didn't know any better. I, Steve Heller, have spoken!

Statement: In my opinion, Hoffman did not meet the burden of proof, so therefore I must conclude that he lost, according to my criteria.

Translation: Anyone who disagrees with me is wrong! Hoffman's arguments led him to the conclusion that the worst was over no later than last October. This was precisely correct and thoroughly demonstrated. But I *refused* to hear it, because he disagreed with me. Therefore, he lost. There is only ONE criterion I consider sufficient -- agreement with MY opinion. All others are stupid or insane, even when right.

Statement: If you have won the Nobel Prize in economics, please provide a citation. Otherwise, I know as much about economics as anyone else engaging in this debate.

Translation: Although I haven't won a Nobel prize in programming, that's my profession so I'm qualified to be dead wrong. I know as much about *every other* field as anyone who hasn't won a Nobel Prize, whether that's their profession or not. I'm so smart I know more about YOUR profession than YOU do, and I don't care what it is or whether I can even spell it! You can argue otherwise all you want, but by my criteria your argument will *not be compelling*. So there! I, Steve Heller, have spoken.

----------

Brother! I couldn't make any headway either if I had to lug around an ego that big. No, Heller won't learn until he puts that ego on a MAJOR diet. And if missing *every single clue* hasn't had any effect, what hope can there be?

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), June 23, 2000.

I haven't updated the "Y2K coverage" on my WWW site for months, except to post an essay detailing how and why I was wrong about it. As to why I'm still here; it's because I find you "sore winners" amusing, as I've already explained. If you want thanks, here it is: Thank you for giving me a chuckle!

-- Steve Heller (steve@steveheller.com), June 23, 2000.

BULL SHIT, Mr. Heller.
You are here to "revise" and squelch if you can. In reality, you are the BUTT HEAD.
You might find kindred spirits at the "Pig Roast" with Mauled Pilne and the other DC Bull Shitters of Y2k.


-- cpr (buytexas@swbell.net), June 23, 2000.

Steve, it's good to know you can realize you were wrong. A more valuable insight, however, would be to realize WHY you were wrong. In my opinion, you stopped thinking about Y2K rather early on and spent most of the debate entrenched in your own position. Most of us gained some insights from your debate with Ted Hoffman. Given your criteria, I am not sure God could have won the debate with you.

For a supposed "smart guy," your logical contortions are almost laughable. Since Hoff could not PROVE THE NEGATIVE, he lost. Unless someone has won the Nobel Prize in economics, you know as much about economics as they do. Is it hard to fit into the shower with a head so large? (laughter)

How about this, Steve. Since you work in IT, I imagine you know far more than me about software development. Since I have worked in applied microeconomics (sans any Nobel Prizes), I probably have an edge in that area. During the Y2K debate, I made mostly general observations based on my background in economics. You made comments based on your background in software.

Another reason you were wrong is that Y2K was not simply a software problem. If you built software XYZ and knew it was not Y2K compliant, I'd believe you. When you started talking about software in general, I was willing to listen but rather skeptical. When you talked about the social and economic consequences of Y2K problems, you were way over your head... as were most folks on the planet. Most had the good sense to know they were in the deep end of the pool. You didn't.

In my current job, I manage a small municipal water system. I stated quite clearly our town would have water flowing after rollover. To my knowledge, I was one of the few water operators involved in our little fora. (Our system has won several statewide awards.) I provided specific data about our compliance, however, the doomers were too enmeshed in their position to listen. It was easier to accuse me of being a gov't shill or operative.

In my opinion, Steve, you committed the cardinal sin of intellectual inquiry... you ignored the data that did not fit the theory. The second error was simply hubris. You missed the call on Y2K partly because you don't know nearly as much as you imagine about the world outside of software. Listen, Steve, 99% of people analyzing Y2K got it right and you missed it. Was this "dumb luck?" Or was there a problem in your thinking process? If you think it's dumb luck, you and Reuben share the same delusional thinking.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), June 23, 2000.

Flint:

I meant exactly what I said, not some "secret code" that only you could decipher. When I said that even a compelling argument can be wrong, that's exactly what I meant, not that such an argument was not compelling. When I said that even stupid or insane people can be right, that's exactly what I meant, not that anyone who disagrees with me must be stupid or insane. As for the comment about the Nobel prize: I was responding to Decker's intimation that I claimed to know as much about economics as people with Nobel Prizes. I didn't think anyone would interpret my comment that way, but just in case they might, I clarified it to say that I know as much about economics as anyone else in the debate, not anyone in the world.

I hope this clears up any confusion you might be suffering from.

-- Steve Heller (steve@steveheller.com), June 23, 2000.

Listen, Steve, 99% of people analyzing Y2K got it right and you missed it. Was this "dumb luck?"

I don't know what "99%" you are referring to. Most people never thought about Y2K, and of those who did, most of them didn't spend any time on it. Do you have any statistics on the tiny fraction of people who really spent time analyzing it? I doubt it is quite as one-sided as you claim.

As to why I got it wrong: I know how badly many large companies are run, and I didn't believe they would do the remediation work in time. As for embedded systems, I never claimed to be an expert on them, and couldn't get any reliable information on whether they would be fixed in time.

I assumed the worst case because that was the prudent thing to do. If I overestimated the severity of the problem, it would cost me some money and some annoyance. If I underestimated it, it could cost me my life and the lives of members of my family. Therefore, I prepared for a disaster that never occurred.

By the way, a number of people here seem intent on bashing me for the supposed harm I've done to others by recommending measures that turned out to be unnecessary. However, for some reason, I've never heard from anyone who took my advice and has been harmed by it. I wonder why that is?

-- Steve Heller (steve@steveheller.com), June 23, 2000.

Sorry Steve, it looks like Flint decoded it very accruately.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), June 23, 2000.

Hey Heller, how do you know Y2k is over?

-- bhahahblah (blah@blah.com), June 23, 2000.

CPR has the nerve to call Decker a "strawman"? If anything, CPR and the rest of the meme-fixated loonies served in this capacity, drowning out the rational optimists such as Hoffmeister.

-- WD-40 (wd40@squeak.not), June 23, 2000.

Maria:

Okay, I'll decode your statement, as follows:

"I agree with Flint, and I don't like Heller. Therefore, whatever Flint dreams up must be true, even if it contradicts common sense or the plain meanings of words."

Blah:

Y2K is over because everything seems normal after 6 months. Except for gasoline prices, of course, but they aren't really that high by historical standards in real money. So nothing happened, and nothing is likely to. I hope that answers your question.

-- Steve Heller (steve@steveheller.com), June 23, 2000.

By the way, a number of people here seem intent on bashing me for the supposed harm I've done to others by recommending measures that turned out to be unnecessary. However, for some reason, I've never heard from anyone who took my advice and has been harmed by it. I wonder why that is?

Same reason few of the loonies returned any of their preps to ValMart dingbat, suckers do not like being reminded they were taken.

-- bahahwhoohehehahha (bkah@wdblah.com), June 23, 2000.

Blah:

Yes, that is one explanation. However, it doesn't explain why people I know personally who took my advice and made some preparations have told me that they thought it was a good idea even though nothing happened. Apparently Y2K preparations are useful even in other emergencies, such as electrical outages, floods, and the like. Not having to go to the store when the streets are flooded or worry about your drinking water being safe when the water treatment plant isn't working seems to be something that a lot of people appreciate.

It also doesn't explain the email that I've gotten from people thanking me for getting them started in amateur radio. Apparently the possibility of Y2K disasters was enough to convince quite a few people to get their amateur radio licenses, and my Web page on how to do that and set up a modest station is quite popular on the Internet. Oddly enough, no one has written back to me telling me that they regret getting involved with amateur radio.

-- Steve Heller (Steve@SteveHeller.com), June 23, 2000.

With respect to your "radio logic", Mr. Heller:

You certainly must be eternally grateful to the person who instructed you in the "Fine Art of Mental Masturbation" and your teacher in "Self Congratulation".



-- cpr (buytexas@swbell.net), June 23, 2000.

Ken, well said.

Information on why preparing to be as self-sufficient as possible in an emergency may be found at an address to the new EO signed yesterday. Yesterday Clinton declared a state of national emergency. I think this country is technically in a state of national emergency declared during WWII; however, this new EO is serious. While it deals with money issues, it still enables civil law to be suspended -- I bring this up not to blast Clinton but to point out that a serious emergency could come up fairly quickly.

http://www.usnewswire.com/topnews/Current_Releases/0622-150.html

I don't know how to link it.

The doomer/polly debate has gone on too long and has been too nasty. When someone is in need of assistance, we don't ask about his/her personal affiliations. I urge us all to make sure we can get by without basic services for at least a period of two weeks.

-- helen (b@t.s), June 23, 2000.

Steve, when they polled economists about the impact of Y2K, not one predicted another Great Depression. The most common prediction was the loss of less than one half point of GDP, mostly due to consumption of stockpiling. The gloomiest, Ed Yardeni, placed the chance of depression at 5 percent during his darkest days. There were no predictions of doom in the IT trade press. Bill Ulrich, the most dour columnist at ComputerWorld predicted only economic impacts (and we spoke personally). In fact, Ed Yourdon was the most prominent IT person talking the "doom" game... and he was a just passe consultant-author cruising on a reputation he built in "prehistoric times" (by IT standards). Shall we go on? The NERC? FDIC? Federal Reserve?

What you did share with Ed (and Russ Lipton) was this Dilbertesque image that large firms are incomptent... a sentiment I have heard from IT-types on more than one occasion. I take great solace in the fact that Wall Street is littered with the bodies of "technical geniuses" who thought running a company was a heckuva lot easier than programming.

Assuming the worst was not the most prudent thing to do. Do you assume the worst every time you drive to work? If so, do you wear a helmet and a nomex suit? Do you always drive the posted limit? Do you keep your hands at the 10-2 position on the steering wheel at all times. If you don't, you are risking your life and the lives of your passengers. (chuckle) After all, a five-point safety harness is just a matter of money and minor annoyance.

The problem with your position, Steve, is that it is not internally consistent. You discount the familiar risks and exagerate the unfamiliar. You also have personal biases and the classic doomer predisposition.

Listen, Steve, I have no problem with whatever preparations you made. You exercised your economic freedom and I defend your right to spend money for any reason including little voices in your head. You get "bashed" because you are arrogant and a poor loser.

Had you been right, perhaps your arrogance would be justified. If had been right, I would gladly admit you understood the Y2K problem better than me... and probably know more about economics to boot. Instead, you are behaving like the child who will accept his punishment but does not believe for a minute he was really wrong.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), June 23, 2000.

Helen, thanks. You along with many decent people were shouted down by the "smarty pants" on both fora. I don't worry about the "State of Emergency" nonsense but I think most folks well advised to have modest preparations against unexpected disruptions in basic services. I also think one can make these preparations without adopting a "survivalist" or "homesteader" lifestyle.

My argument with the Heller and others was about Y2K--the event, not preparation--the concept. As much as any "polly," I wrote posts about moderate preparations... posts that still apply in the post-Y2K era. This was not enough for the frustrated, disaffected people who wanted to build a new society on the ashes of the old.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), June 23, 2000.

Steve,

You actually ask for harassment. And to think I actually felt sorry for you because you were such an weak target for me.

You still don't get it do you?

Saving your ego is your biggest downfall. Why you have to save your ego is the most pathetic thing about you.

And why does everyone assume you are smart? Because you said so and put up a buzzword resume that doesn't really say anything except include words that headhunters have written down to look for? As if they would even know, much less understand what you claim you can do?

And you point to that resume with pride as a reflection of who you are?

Buzzworks.

That is a fair representation of who you are.

smirk

Did you learn to defend yourself from James Taggart? You certainly sound like him.

What lessons has it taught me? That regardless of how compelling an argument may be, it may still be wrong.

Compelling? COMPELLING??? Not based of logic or fact, based on only your experience as an IT in a profession filled with undereducated college graduates? In a field of soft technology? And you presume to know how the hard sciences will function due to Y2K? Power, water, rail, etc., an infrastructure built on precise methodology and exact sciences? Subjects you could not come close to understanding and you presume to call the arguments of possible failure of these areas compelling?

You are not only a fool, you are an idiot.

Did you take an IQ test and score high? When?

giggle

You lack of ability to reason and learnshows your lack of intelligence.

Your neen to protect your ego shows your lack of confidence in your self. You boastfully act like you don't care what people say about you, use petty little ritual childish neener neeners to attempt to strike back at those who say anything you don't like, you presume to assume what people are thinking and saying in order to twist their words around to suit you, the entire time, deep within yourself your own self doubts are ripping you apart.

How does it feel to know you are inadequate?

Oh, and your change of heart in the "Cherri, put up or shut up" thread was not of your own doing, you were told I was correct and you were making an ass of yourself by trying to prove me wrong. And you aren't even man enough to admit it. Does that make me more of a man than you? Or make me more of a woman than you are a man? Or does the whole gender thing hurt your ego, knowing, as you do, that I am smarter than you? As are a lot of people here and in your own real life world.

SMIRK

ROFLMAO

Gads, you are such a joke!

-- Cherri (sams@brigadoon.com), June 23, 2000.

Steve, acutally your statement is untrue (I guess like all your Y2K predictions). "I agree with Flint, and I don't like Heller. Therefore, whatever Flint dreams up must be true, even if it contradicts common sense or the plain meanings of words." I never once said I don't like you. I don't know you, never met you, and haven't given you or your Y2K assessment much thought. True I agree with Flint but you put an "and" in that statement making the statement false. First statement false makes the conclusion false. And by these statements, you have shown to have little to no common sense.

"I don't know what "99%" you are referring to." Of those who thought about Y2K, 99% thought it would be OK. This 99% refers to those who actually worked on Y2K remediation and testing. Funny, the doomers did consider any of their opinions, just doomer opinions counted. Does that clear it up? Ken I hoped I didn't take words out of your mouth.

Steve, cool off some place.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), June 23, 2000.

Steve, acutally your statement is untrue (I guess like all your Y2K predictions). "I agree with Flint, and I don't like Heller. Therefore, whatever Flint dreams up must be true, even if it contradicts common sense or the plain meanings of words." I never once said I don't like you. I don't know you, never met you, and haven't given you or your Y2K assessment much thought. True I agree with Flint but you put an "and" in that statement making the statement false. First statement false makes the conclusion false. And by these statements, you have shown to have little to no common sense.

"I don't know what "99%" you are referring to." Of those who thought about Y2K, 99% thought it would be OK. This 99% refers to those who actually worked on Y2K remediation and testing. Funny, the doomers didn't consider any of their (the 99%) opinions, just doomer opinions. Does that clear it up? Ken I hoped I didn't take words out of your mouth.

Steve, cool off some place.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), June 23, 2000.

Maria:

Obviously there is nothing I can teach a woman like you. Have a nice millennium.

-- Steve Heller (steve@steveheller.com), June 23, 2000.

Cherri:

I feel sorry for someone as deluded as you. If you ever accomplish anything, please let us know. I'm not going to hold my breath waiting, though.

-- Steve Heller (Steve@steveheller.com), June 23, 2000.

Oh as if that comment you made to Cherri should "teach a woman" like me anything. Steve, your caged rat behavior is showing. I expect the next comment from you to be: "Oh yeah! I know you are but what am I?"

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), June 23, 2000.

Steve Heller
P.O. Box 63
Sulphur Springs, TX 75483
email: steve@steveheller.com



Author of Optimizing C++ (Prentice-Hall, 1998), Who's Afraid of More 
C++? (AP Professional, 1998), The 
Java Training Guide (AP Professional, 1997), Who's Afraid of Java? (AP 
Professional, 1997), a July 1997 
Main Selection of McGraw-Hill's Computer Book Club, Introduction to 
C++ (Academic Press, 1997), C++ 
Training Guide (AP Professional, 1997), Who's Afraid of C++? (AP 
Professional, 1996), a selection of 
McGraw-Hill's Computer Professionals Book Society, and Efficient C/C++ 
Programming: Smaller, Faster, 
Better, 2nd Edition (AP Professional, 1994), a June 1995 Main 
Selection of the Small Computer Book 
Club.



Education
Shimer College, Waukegan, IL: BA, Natural Sciences, 1971.



Hardware
Intel 80x86 family, Motorola 680x0, Zilog Z80, DG Nova, DEC PDP-10, HP 
9845, National NS32081, MOS 6502, and others.



System 
Environments
Windows NT, MS-DOS, Unix, TCP/IP, Windows 3.x, and others.




Languages
C++, Java, C, 80x86 Assembler, and others.



Specialties
Systems level programming on microcomputers.  Object oriented design 
and 
implementation.  Excellent written and oral communications skills, 
including 
writing textbooks and teaching C++ in the classroom.



Other
Publications
"OMNI: One Person's Language". Computer Language, 1(December 1984), 
58-62.
"Design Your Own Language". Computer Language,  3(January 1986), 
61-63.
"Megasort: A Distribution Sort". Computer Language, 4(November 1987), 
63-68.
"A Double Cross for MASM". Dr. Dobb's Journal of Software Tools, 
13(October 
1988), 46-52, 87-99, 148.
"Extensible Hashing". Dr. Dobb's Journal of Software Tools, 14 
(November 1989), 
66,69-70, 116, 120-121.
"Grey Skies, Frowning at Me". Computer Language, 8(May 1991), 131-136.
"Making a Hash of Your Data". Computer Language, 8(August 1991), 
47-52.
"Sneaking into Windows". Windows Tech Journal, 1(March 1992), 38-43.
"From C to Shining C". Computer Language, 9(June 1992), 38-45.
"Galloping Algorithms". Windows Tech Journal, 2(February 1993), 40-43.
"486 Cache Detection". Dr. Dobb's Journal of Software Tools, 18(June 
1993), 48.
"Windev for Windows NT". PC Techniques, 4(Oct/Nov 1993), 84.
"Do You Need an Interpreter?" PC Techniques, 5(Dec/Jan 1995), 87-91.
"Compilers?  Who Needs 'Em?" VB Tech Journal, 1(Mar 1995), 43.
"Virtually Limitless". NT Developer, 3(June 1995), 12-18.
"Career Development in the 1990's and Beyond". American Programmer, 
9(January 1996), 31-35.
"Some Problems with Java". Web Update 1(October 1997), 13-31.



Biographical Data
See Who's Who in the South and Southwest, 26th edition.



Industry
Experience




1998-



Associated Solutions, Inc.
Dallas, TX
Principal Engineer



My major role is to develop the C++ infrastructure for the new 
generation of 
character recognition products of this small system integrator, as 
well as 
algorithm development and optimization of these new products. I am 
also 
responsible for staff technical development in C++ and object-oriented 
programming.



1995-1996



Financial Sciences, Inc.
New York, NY
Analyst



My major role was to design and implement new infrastructure for the 
C++ 
developers in the company, as well as upgrade existing infrastructure. 
Recent 
examples include the creation of a set of classes for exact numeric 
calculations 
and the simplification and improvement of the database access toolkit. 
I also 
led a weekly seminar on advanced C++ programming.



1993-1995



Reuters Information Technology
Hauppauge, NY
Technical Specialist



Projects included editing a compendium of "best practices" for 
corporate 
software development and reimplementing existing data access 
technology as 
an OCX, as well as leading the investigation into SOM/DSOM and CORBA 
technology as a possible future direction for their software 
development. Other 
duties of my position included attending and writing up seminars on 
various 
technical topics and implementing prototypes of potential future 
software 
products in C++ and other languages.  I also led a weekly lunch time 
seminar 
on advanced C++ programming.



1993



TCAM Systems, Inc.
New York, NY
Consultant



I designed and implemented a real-time Unix C program to monitor 
NASDAQ 
trades for market makers participating in the SOES system, and 
automatically 
update their quotations in order to reduce the impact of unprofitable 
trades.  To 
aid in the debugging of this program, I wrote a custom 
memory-allocation 
library that supports detection of memory overwrites and memory leaks, 
two of 
the most common and difficult to detect bugs in C programs.



1991-93



Systems Strategies, Inc.
New York , NY
Senior Consultant



I designed and implemented functional equivalents for Unix streams 
pipes, 
shared memory, and interprocess/intermachine communication functions 
on 
Windows NT; the objective was to port several large, multitasking 
systems to 
Windows NT from Unix, connecting to a Unix server via TCP/IP.  On 
previous 
projects for this employer, I developed similar facilities for use 
under Windows 
3.1, and ported the Unix programs to AIX on the IBM RS/6000.



1989-91



Liberty Computer Systems
Westbury, NY
Director of Research and Development



I designed and implemented, in Turbo C, an RS-232 transaction 
processing 
system, which supported up to 6 terminals on a 80286-based server.  I 
wrote 
the great majority of code in the system, including data compression 
and error-
detection code, and supervised the design and implementation of the 
rest of 
the project.



1987-89



ICM Services, Inc.
Great Neck, NY
Product Manager



I wrote a completely new set of C string functions to include length 
checking on 
all string modifications and the ability to handle strings containing 
null 
characters.  Other routines I wrote for the ICM standard function 
library include 
functions to manage keyed random access files and a completely user-
definable screen handling package.  I ported this library, which 
consists of 
about 750 Kbytes of C source code, to the Tandem C compiler and the 
Turbo 
C compiler.  I also wrote a data compression program based on 
arithmetic 
coding, which reduced a SWIFT file of over 700 Kbytes to slightly over 
200K.  I 
provided technical leadership and supervision of software development 
for their 
next generation of electronic banking systems.



1986-88



Spencer Organization, Inc.
Westwood, NJ
Consultant



I designed and wrote, in 68000 assembly language and a 32081 macro 
language of my own invention, floating point hardware drivers for APL.  
The 
resulting throughput of more than 30 Kflops for double precision 
arithmetic at 
the APL level compared well with compiled FORTRAN on the VAX 11/780, 
using the BYTE floating point benchmark.



1984-87



Sperry Corporation
Great Neck, NY
Consultant



As Trident test coordinator, I supervised a team of five programmers 
testing 
real time 68000 and AN/UYK programs for the control panel of the 
Trident 
navigation subsystem.  In addition to my supervisory duties, I wrote 
two utility 
programs in Turbo Pascal.  The first was a full-duplex intelligent 
terminal 
emulator for the Sperry PC, which operated at 9600 baud and included 
features such as keystroke capture and replay, either single-stepped 
or 
continuous.  The second was a configuration management program which 
allowed comparison of developers' code with the code captured in the 
software 
vault, thus enabling automated isolation of differences and tracking 
of versions. 
On earlier projects for this client, I wrote a program design 
specification for the 
Pascal version of a "bootstrap media generator", and coded a 
significant 
portion of the program.



1984



Citibank CBT&EG
Melville, NY
Consultant



I designed and wrote a token-threaded interpretive systems programming 
language on the Apple ][e, which was used in the conversion of a large 
multitasking real-time communications program  for home banking from 
IBM 
PC C to the Apple.  The implementation consisted of approximately 6000 
lines 
of assembly language.



1982-84



New Language Associates
New York, NY
Director of Software Development



I conceptualized, designed, and coded a new computer language and 
application programs in that language.  This system consisted of 
approximately 
18000 lines of Z80 assembly language and approximately 5000 lines of 
code 
written in the language itself, including the word processor 
originally used to 
produce this resume.  Advanced features of this language included 
rapid 
compilation (4000 lines/minute on a 4 MHz Z80), extremely compact code 
(a 
1000 line program compiled to approximately 8 Kbytes of object code) 
and a 
rich variety of intrinsic operators and data types, including arrays 
of variable-
length strings stored in virtual memory.  This project also included 
approximately 2000 lines of 68000 assembly language coding.



1978-82



Micro Corporation
Philadelphia, PA
Director of Software Development



I designed and coded DATAMASTER, a comprehensive data-base 
management system for small business and professional applications.  
This 
system consisted of more than 200 Kbytes of code in BASIC and Z80 
assembly language , about evenly divided.  More than 300 copies of 
this 
system were delivered.



1976-77



Quotron Systems, Inc.
New York, NY
Senior programmer/analyst



I designed and coded, in structured macro assembly language, real-time 
information processing systems for commodity exchanges.



1974-76



General Instrument Corporation
Towson, MD
Assistant Director of Research and Development



I designed and wrote utilities (text editor, directory sorter), 
real-time 
communications programs (error detecting and retransmitting tape 
transmission program), and advanced text processing software.  I also 
participated in the design of a transaction processing system 
specified at 200 
transactions/second against a 13 gigabyte database; my contributions 
were in 
the areas of  network configuration, hardware and software selection, 
language 
specification, and vendor interface.



Other projects
Participation in design and implementation of a hierarchically ordered 
information retrieval system allowing multiple simultaneous access and 
update 
by key, sequence, and ownership orderings.



Market research and development of commodity account calculation and 
other 
software for programmable calculators and personal computers.



Design and implementation of an order entry, inventory control, and 
sales 
analysis on CALL/360 timesharing, and conversion to CDC 6400 
timesharing.



Analysis, design, and coding of actuarial and other insurance-related 
systems.



Teaching Experience
	
1996-present




Collin County Community College
Plano, TX
Adjunct faculty



I have taught courses in C++, including one for complete beginners to 
programming. The college has adopted one of my books, Who's Afraid of 
C++?, for a newly created course of the same name.



1996



University of Texas at Dallas
Richardson, TX
Adjunct faculty



I taught courses in C++ and object-oriented programming, including one 
for 
upper-division and graduate students.

-- Steve Heller (steve@steveheller.com), June 23, 2000.

Steve:

All this just begs the question -- how could someone with such specific detailed knowledge as your resume implies, get y2k so stunningly wrong. Not just a little wrong, not just a lot wrong, but wrong in every detail, every aspect, every degree? Could it be possible, just maybe, that your accomplishments and the narrowly focused expertise they imply might be, um, *insufficient* for broad analysis of a general topic?

From my reading, it's not uncommon for someone with outstanding accomplishments in one small field to consider themselves near- experts on nearly everything. This is a 2-way street, as well. Mark McGwire is considered a greater expert than, say, Walt Weiss on nearly anything because he hits more homers. This is irrespective of whether McGwire *thinks* he knows more than Weiss. But I wonder if McGwire's abilities (and the resulting adulation) fool him into thinking he knows more about economists than any non-Nobel Prize winner.

My take (from listening to interviews) is that while McGwire isn't the brightest bulb in the chandelier, he at least has some perspective. He knows he's not an economist. He also knows that the best hitters make the worst hitting instructors.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), June 23, 2000.

Okay, now it's your turn, Cherri. Let's see your record of accomplishments (i.e., resume/CV). Oh, you haven't had any accomplishments to record? Too bad. Thanks for playing, though!

-- Steve Heller (steve@steveheller.com), June 23, 2000.

Could it be possible, just maybe, that your accomplishments and the narrowly focused expertise they imply might be, um, *insufficient* for broad analysis of a general topic?

Certainly. In this case, I certainly was about as wrong as I could have been. In retrospect, I think my main mistakes in analysis were these:

1. Not being an expert on embedded systems or their ubiquity, and seeing no hard evidence that they would be okay, for the sake of prudence I prepared for the worst case suggested by apparently knowledgeable people.

2. With respect to business systems, not taking sufficient account of the fact that they NEVER work right, and yet people get by anyway.

To answer another couple of points: of course, many intelligent and sane people dismissed Y2K as any threat at all. I've never claimed otherwise. As for my knowledge of economics, I freely admit to being self-taught in that area, but I don't believe that makes it impossible for me to be knowledgeable about it. I have read a great deal of economic theory, and have thought about it seriously. I would be happy to discuss Austrian price theory or the origin of money with you, if you were interested in such topics.

However, the notion that the "free market" is omniscient, and therefore Y2K couldn't be a problem because markets ignored it is illogical and unsupported by evidence; markets are often blindsided by unexpected, unforseen events such as the formation of OPEC. Since most observers dismissed Y2K as a problem, if it HAD been a problem, the markets would have adjusted ... after the fact, not before. If markets really foretold the future correctly all of the time, the futures markets would not fluctuate, as they obviously do. "The market" is just a name for the opinions of investors and speculators. They are usually right, but sometimes they are seriously wrong.

I hope this clarifies my position.

-- Steve Heller (steve@steveheller.com), June 23, 2000.

Mr. Heller: I did enjoy "the great Y2k debate" twixt you and Mr. Hoffman. I recall at one point that you said you purchased electric generators for your house. What size unit(s) did you purchase, and is the system emergency backup only, or can it parallel with your utility? What was the approximate cost for such a system? What specifically about the electric industry led you to believe that you would lose power due to Y2k? Do you think your money was well spent?

Regarding your resume, I am very surprised by your latest title of Principal Engineer, since you do not have even a Bachelor of Science degree in anything. Is that correct, you only have a Bachelor of Arts degree? How can you call yourself an engineer, with only one degree in the natural sciences?

Where I work, one cannot call himself a Principal Engineer without an engineering degree from an accredited institution, with 10 or more years actual engineering experience, and either professionally registered as an engineer or published in engineering journals.

-- Dan the Power Man (dgman19938@aol.com), June 23, 2000.

MARIA is CORRECT again. Heller is not. He merely displays his talent for "CHANGING THE SUBJECT" as he now fishes for ANYTHING to save his image. LOLOLOLOLOL VERY LOUDLY.

The vast majority of PROs knew. The Pro magazines knew. The Vendors knew (no Y2k related ads or PR pieces for business by majors in 1999). Heller did not. Maybe his "resume" knew ....but his Body did not. The question of whether his brain knew is open because as they say on "Law and Order" goes to defendent's "state of mind, Yo' Honor." The "charitable view" would be that all those radio waves were influencing him. I digress.

Again, "Heller, the Online Bully" against Cherri and Maria. I would take issue with using the term "translation" that she agreed with. I think the word "parse" is far better. Translations "vary". Parsing is far more accurate.

I digress. WHY IS MARIA CORRECT?

FACT: In January, 1999 an emaciated looking person looking like someone on far too much caffeine; sat in the front row of the DFW DAMA Y2k meeting staring at a panel of 3 Y2k "pros"....YES,,,, People who actually got paid for working in Y2k. One was a Cutter Man, yes, a man from Ed, the 35 year expert himself.

The emaciated one proceed to call the panelist with the most depressing outlook a "pollie" compared to a "real Expert" like Ed Yourdon. That panelist was the non-College grad: Y2k Weatherman, Dennis the Deluded, who was "reforming himself" and to the chagrin of the emaciated one moving away from the North/Yourdon silliness and that which he himself had once esposed. At the time, he was in a state of "flux". Later, he would speed up the reformation because his Y2k Project for a telecomm co. had finished :ON TIME and UNDER BUDGET and he was ......in need of a YOB. YUP. YOB. (Doomzies are not greatly loved in DFW a major center of IT and Telecomm.)

Towards the end of the meeting, before the 50 people in the room, a questioner asked "I would like to see a show of hands of everyone after a minute if you "approve" the following statement:

".......We think we will be ok but we are concerned about "X" or "Y" or "Z". "

The person in the back repeated the drill and then called for a show of hands.

REMEMBER: JAN. 1999. Data Admin. Mgt. Association IT PROS and interested observers (a Y2k SAVVY CREW).

99% of the hands in the audience went up.

MARIA WAS CORRECT ABOUT HER STATEMENT AND HELLER WAS .....OUT OF THE LOOP WITH TRULY BAD INFO.

How do I, the Wonderful CPR know??

..........I.......asked the question.

-- cpr (buytexas@swbell.net), June 23, 2000.

Stupid shit pissing contest at its best,polly/doomer/doomer/ polly......old,old,old,regurgitation.

Ken (almost) has it figured out, prize for...best of the bunch.

This shit don't matter no mo!!! except to yaw'll cerebral elites or is that wannabees??? And that goes for both sets of people on both sides of the issue.The truly intellectual people realize that it is no longer a significant topic,it is time to examine the next set of problem areas in this country and the world and not get mired up in a circular clusterfuck.

I'm just a Dufuss McGoo compared to yaw'll,but I appreciate ya makin' me look half ass smart,even an old curr dog knows when theres no marrow left to suck out of the bone.

No wonder why some of us got it wrong!!!!!! We had to try and filter out both of the so-called intellectuals arguments/facts and bullshit.

Smoke more,drink more,think more,whatever,I don't care... You still ain't got anything over us regular folk.Stick the high falutin' credentials up a hogs ass and see what it gets ya.

A shitty piece of paper.

Have FUN and enjoy the weekend,nude if possible: )

-- capnfun (capnfun1@excite.com), June 23, 2000.

Dan,

I can't argue with you, but if S.H. really is the first author of half a dozen books (not worth it to me to look it up) that at least is an accomplishment to be respected IMHO.

Haven't paid much attention to the thread, but good going on the publications, Steve.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), June 23, 2000.

Where I work, one cannot call himself a Principal Engineer without an engineering degree from an accredited institution, with 10 or more years actual engineering experience, and either professionally registered as an engineer or published in engineering journals.

I have 30 years of experience and enough publications to be a full professor at a university. Sorry if that's not good enough for you, but it's different in the software field, or at least my company. You'll have to take it up with my employers if you object; they're the ones who gave me that title. It's supposed to indicate that I'm the highest-ranked technical staff member, above "senior engineers".

-- Steve Heller (steve@steveheller.com), June 23, 2000.

ARE YOU EVEN LISTENING TO A WORD I SAY? it's all just a waste of time.

-- sick of this (conversation@tired.now), June 23, 2000.

Well, good great heavens, Mr. Heller,

If you're that qualified, how did you fuck up so badly in your predictions? Perhaps some introspection is in order here?

-- E.H. Porter (Just Wondering@About.it), June 23, 2000.

I can't argue with you, but if S.H. really is the first author of half a dozen books (not worth it to me to look it up) that at least is an accomplishment to be respected IMHO.

Haven't paid much attention to the thread, but good going on the publications, Steve.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), June 23, 2000.

PUHLEEEEEESE.

By your "criteria", Gary North should be Writer Laureate of the US. He had 40 "books" to his name.

BARBARA CARTLAND would be EMPRESS OF THE WORLD. How many did she crank out? 1 every couple of weeks for 50 years? AND BTW, RESUME MAN can believe what he wants to "believe" but in Academia, there are still some "real criteria" for a Full Professorship (shortages in I.T. and High Tech not withstanding). A min of a recent Masters in one's field and preferably a Ph.D. EXCEPTION: the "Performing Arts". But, it should be noted that most Concert Pianists are forced to the level of the Ph.D. even as undergraduates. You don't graduate from Julliard without 10-15 hrs. a day of practice. 7 X./365. Wynton Marsalis, probably the best Horn player in the world is a LEADING teacher of Musicology at the Graduate Level and a "Visiting Professor". He is a de-facto Ph.D. also.


A "Full Professorship" is not given lightly even in Podunk U.

SIDEBAR: .....The only non-Ph.D. I ever knew of with a Full Professorship and no Ph. D. AND.. tenure in the State U. of California was someone I had the honor of auditing Calc 1 with.

LEWIS LEITHOLD, author of one of the most popular College texts for Calc 1,2, & 3 and competitor to the equally gifted Thomas Apostol, Ph. D. Leithold taught by simply putting the chapter up on the black board from memory. Leithold gave me a tip on studying Calculus that was truly invaluable. He told me to "do all the problems". He did not mean "most of them". ALL of them. I did and by the 2nd semester, I was able to go back to the first book and solve a lot of the problems in my head (or more properly "by inspection").

Since I could do it as a Sr. student at 37 after having done no Algebra for 20 years, it goes without saying that I have NO SYMPATHY WHATEVER for those who claim they can't do math.

I learned later that first semester Calc. is essentially a combination of everything you were supposed to have learned in H.S. and "mostly Algebra". The leading cause of students not being able to do Calc. was they simply could not do the Algebra, lost interest and spiraled down. (This is also true in the 3 semesters of entry Physics and the first year of Organic Chemistry. You will never pass if you do not do the problems assigned.) (Leithold was revising the work in 1978 and to get fresh feed back taught the First Course at 3 different NY schools, a Private College in Manhattan, a University on L.I. and a C.C. that had the model demographics he was looking for.)

-- cpr (buytexas@swbell.net), June 23, 2000.

OFF.

-- cpr (buytexas@swbell.net), June 23, 2000.

Flint:

Your amateur psychologizing (or are you a credentialled psychologist too?) is worthless to me (and I suspect to everyone else too). I took (and apparently wasted) my time to try to explain why I took the PRUDENT course, based on the AVAILABLE information I had, along with my experience with the "Dilbert's boss" managers of the world, but you just blew that off. I don't need your "help" in figuring out my "mental defect". I suggest that you spend your time and energy figuring out why you have this need to "help" someone who doesn't want or need your help.

-- Steve Heller (steve@steveheller.com), June 23, 2000.

Steve: I think you misunderstood my comment. This was not a personal attack. I am aware that many companies have people with the title of "engineer", even if that person doesn't have an engineering degree.

I'm not questioning your credentials in general, and it seems to me that you obviously have plenty of experience. I'm objecting to the "Engineer" in your title. According to your resume, you don't have any engineering degrees. I have the same problem with Dr. Laura, whose degree is in physiology, not psychology. Sometimes I wish we'd adopt the Canadian standard, whereby one cannot call himself an engineer unless he is a degreed professional in that field.

Please answer my questions about your home electrical system; I'm curious about the size/cost of your generators. Thanks.

-- Dan the Power Man (dgman19938@aol.com), June 23, 2000.

Dan:

I'll answer your questions by email, but not here. There are too many loonies on this board for me to feel comfortable giving out any details of my electrical setup.

As to the "engineer" question: I know many "real engineers" don't appreciate the hijacking of their title, and I can't really blame them. Personally, I call myself a programmer or software designer, but that's the title they bestowed on me, so that's what I put on my resume.

-- Steve Heller (steve@steveheller.com), June 23, 2000.

Steve, since you brought it up, Im curious to know how you attracted your wife on the net? Did you overwhelm her with your resume? Or was it that wonderful picture that weve all seen? She must be so proud of her man, what with all of your many accomplishments. Just confirms that some of the most pathetic losers come in many packages. Ill bet your house is even happy to see you leave for a while, insufferable dickhead that you are. There is no shame in being butt-ugly, but throw-in the rest of your obnoxious traits and.whew!

-- Ra (tion@l.1), June 23, 2000.

Steve:

Want help, obviously not. Need help, obviously yes. Recognize this, obviously not.

Steve, let me clarify. You weren't just a little wrong. You were totally, completely, unambiguously wrong. Way, way, way, way wrong. Not anywhere close. Not in any respect. Wrong by an uncountable order of magnitudes. If you'd bet two dice would come up totalling a million, you'd have been closer!

Now, this ought to suggest *something* to you beyond the idiocy of your (correct) critics. It ought to suggest that you misunderstood the situation in every possible way. Misunderstanding *that serious* suggests, nay *requires*, some STRONG motivation.

Notice that I'm not assuming you're a total moron. Maybe I'm wrong. But empirical evidence could not possibly contradict your expectations more completely. Empirical evidence doesn't happen by accident. So, to be blunt, either you're an idiot or you were DAMNED determined to see what wasn't there.

So if you want to claim idiocy, I won't buy it. All the indications were there, in spades. The ONLY alternative is motivation. Soul- searching is not a crime. I've searched mine publicly, at length. Felt good. What's YOUR problem?

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), June 23, 2000.

Steve:

There are too many loonies on this board for me to feel comfortable giving out any details of my electrical setup.

Don't trust yourself, eh. :^)

Loonies come in many packages. Some even call themselves engineers. Go figure.

Best wishes,,,,

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), June 23, 2000.

Flint:

Apparently you have a Messiah complex. You're going to SAVE the SINNER (or in psychological terms, HEAL the MENTALLY ILL). I am neither of these things, and I have no need of your help. I'm getting along just fine, thank you, without it. If you're going to try to save someone, I suggest you try it with some of the obviously crazy people who inhabit this board and seem to have no other lives or accomplishments. You have plenty to choose from, and they may even welcome your help. Go to it!

-- Steve Heller (steve@SteveHeller.com), June 23, 2000.

Steve:

I suggest you try it with some of the obviously crazy people who inhabit this board

You may have noticed, that your stock is not too high here to begin with [it is now following a pattern set by Amazon.com]. Either with the rational or the "loonies". These kind of statements don't help your case. Once again, no matter how unfair, I consider you a member of the lunatic fringe. I guess that is an honored position in Tejas. Won't have time to talk much for a while. I am off to DC for meetings. Take care.

Best wishes,,,,

Z

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), June 23, 2000.

You may have noticed, that your stock is not too high here to begin with. Either with the rational or the "loonies".

And exactly who would the "rational" people be? Certainly not the one with that handle, who is about as irrational as anyone I've run across recently. Please name a couple of the "rational" people, if you don't mind.

-- Steve Heller (steve@SteveHeller.com), June 23, 2000.

steve:

You're not obviously crazy -- those people are beyond help. You're just not too bright, clearly not bright enough to recognize that being overwhelmingly wrong is, like, a clue. The great thing about being stupid is that you don't have what it takes to realize it. As you demonstrate with everything you say.

Now, not all stupid people are beyond hope. Only the ones too stupid to realize it are beyond hope. My efforts have assumed sapience. My mistake. I advise you to keep posting your resume until you feel better. The rest of us could use the humor.

As a suggestion, you might start a new thread to do this. Repost your resume to that thread every time someone points out how incredibly wrong you were. Isn't that better than wondering why you were so wrong? Of course it is. Now, post that resume again. Doesn't that feel better? You have *accomplishments*, right? You say so yourself. Post the resume again now. Attaboy! You're fooling the only person who really counts, see?

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), June 24, 2000.

Hey, Steve, I'll bet CPR has a LIST of who the rational people are. I mean, he has his LISTS of names for everything, right?... (chortle)

-- WD-40 (wd40@squeak.not), June 24, 2000.

CPR,

I don't know how I ended up defending someone I haven't heard about and don't know, but there's a difference between producing a technical paper and writing a stream of consciousness rant.

If you don't understand that, you probably haven't had to publish any -- it's a lot of work.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), June 24, 2000.

Flint,

Until now, I've been sort of flip in my responses to you, not taking you seriously. But now I think I have to change that. Please listen to me very carefully:

1. It is true that I made a very large error in analyzing a large, complex problem with many variables.

2. You believe that this demonstrates that I am mentally unbalanced. This is a DELUSION, indicating that you have a very poor grasp of reality.

Of course, you can't accept this, as it would contradict your chosen role as my "therapist". So what I urge you to do is to go to a mental health professional of your choice, explain to this person your belief than I am in need of your help, and why, and ask him what he thinks. I suggest that you choose someone who cannot involuntarily commit you to an institution, but that is up to you.

I hope you will take my advice, as it is a shame to see an obviously intelligent person in such a sad state. God bless you.

-- Steve Heller (steve@steveheller.com), June 24, 2000.

"2. You believe that this demonstrates that I am mentally unbalanced."

I don't typically get involved in these obvious pissing matches, but I don't read where Flint ever said you were mentally unbalanced. It seems to me the word he used was stupid. One needn't seek therapy for stupidity. Lots of folks get along just fine.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), June 24, 2000.

It is true that I made a very large error in analyzing a large, complex problem with many variables.

Course you did you knucklehead. C++ is a programming language, not a blueprint to run your life by, wake-up. Rearrange the "data" any dam way you like it Heller, the Logic is somewhat flexible but it will always return the answer that you are bananas.

Steve is right, and EVERyBODY else is full-of-it. Yep that flies to one who is clinically insane.

-- blahblah (deathpools up next@this board.com), June 24, 2000.

Hey, "Frank". I **AM** published so SHOVE IT.

-- cpr (buytexas@swbell.net), June 24, 2000.

How do we know that Heller wasn't right. Maybe in an alternate dimension his predictions are actually happening. Maybe in that universe he actually did win his debate against Hoff. Maybe in that universe someone actually cares about cpr's, Heller's, and Decker's petty squabling.

-- This is getting real old (@@@.@), June 24, 2000.

Heres the part that I love. Heller will not discuss his homes electrical system for fear of the loonies on this board. However, this fear apparently does not extend to his posting his address, albeit a P.O. Box.

Steve Heller P.O. Box 63 Sulphur Springs, TX 75483 email: steve@steveheller.com

Sulphur Springs is not Dallas and I suspect that the natives (Village Idiot and all that) might know Steve. Heller, I suspect even the loonies would give you a wide berth. Due to your proximity to CPR I have to ask the question Have you two met in person?

-- Ra (tion@l.1), June 24, 2000.

Anita: Flint said: Want help, obviously not. Need help, obviously yes. Recognize this, obviously not. ... So if you want to claim idiocy, I won't buy it. All the indications were there, in spades. The ONLY alternative is motivation. Soul-searching is not a crime. I've searched mine publicly, at length. Felt good. What's YOUR problem?

That certainly sounds like he thinks I'm crazy. In fact, he said he won't buy a claim of idiocy, and the only alternative is "motivation", in which I have a problem and "need help". I hope that answers your question.

-- Steve Heller (steve@SteveHeller.com), June 24, 2000.

RA.

I met Heller and his wife at a DFW DAMA Y2k Work Group lunch once. We were introduced by the same person that had me, Gary North, Karl Fielder and one Leon Kappelman at dinner the night after Karl gave a presentation in Austin to the State of Texas DIR on PCs. Feb. 1997. I set up that meeting for Karl. North claimed that I needed to remember that night as the "highlight of my life" after 1/1/2000. (NOT !!!). The man who introduced us tried to pass The Duct Tape off as an "Economic Historian". I did have some repect for Ph.D.s before I saw Kapp, North,Carmichael and Frautsche misuse those initials in their Y2k Efforts.

The Hellers and I chatted a few minutes before the meeting. She is really a very nice person. We have discovered since then what he is. Enough said.

One curious thing that I remember from that event was that Heller saw fit to give DAMA a copy of "Who's Afraid of C++" as a "door prize". That is somewhat curious considering the staid nature of the Data Administrators and I.T. types who came to the meeting.

In retrospect, one can only view such a gesture (more typical of Vendors to the trade), as "self promotion".

I have no reason to suspect he included his resume' inside the book but then to use his "method of thinking" I have NO PROOF that he did not put a copy there. [8>>))

CPR

-- cpr (buytexas@swbell.net), June 24, 2000.

I guess I need to try a different tack here.

When the issue of 2-digit years started coming off the back burner in about 1996, the scope of the problem was simply unknown. Those aware of this date protocol knew the problem facing us wasn't trivial, and for all anyone knew it might have become insurmountable.

As a corollary of Moore's Law, computerization had been doubling every 18 months for 30 years, likely expanding the number of date bugs right along with it. That's 20 doublings, a factor of about one million. Without question, we faced a large job. The only possible "silver bullet" was plain, tedious, grinding effort, case by case.

At that time, concerns about possible automated catastrophe were valid, because the bugs were known to be both real and numerous, and the information simply didn't exist to put any limit on it. So over the course of the next year we rolled up our sleeves, took a SWAG at a remediation budget, and plunged in. And *everyone* aware of the problem was justifiably worried, pending the information remediation would give us.

And here's where things get interesting. What we learned was that in *most* cases, the problem was nasty but not impossible. Testing showed that most embedded systems had no date sensitivities, and those that did had few instances and were eminently fixable or cosmetic and ignorable.

Three general courses of action were adopted, based on factors particular to any organization -- repair, upgrade, or replacement. So each organization selected its most appropriate strategy. Over the course of 1998, most organizations breathed an internal sigh of relief. They *could* deal with the problem. Not cheaply, not easily, probably not completely, but fully adequately. Subject to legal restrictions, they got the word out.

But a fairly small number of people, Steve Heller among them, did not want to hear this. I can speculate that Steve had made an early decision that the problem was intractable, and altering that decision amounted to an admission of error. Since someone as brilliant as Steve considers himself do not *make* errors, it became necessary for him and others like him to systematically distort and misrepresent what we were all learning to *force* it to fit the original vision. And indeed, maybe we were fooling ourselves. After all, we always expect to finish large computer projects on time, right up until we don't.

But as 1999 wore on, the "certain catastrophe" position became unsustainable by any honest analysis. Key lookahead dates (a critical part of the y2k problem) passed without incident. Organizations were in test mode, cleaning up loose ends and laying off hired guns. Bugs that did bite (many did, it was common) turned out to be both mild in impact and quick and easy to fix. In most (not all) cases, we found the problem had never been all that bad to begin with, something we could not know at the start. Key infrastructure elements (power, water, transportation) turned out to be nearly bug-free.

The only alternative for Steve was wholesale rejection of any emerging results, combined with exaggeration of carefully selected speculation. To create a "compelling" case for a hopeless position, it was increasingly necessary to fabricate one. Evaluation of the situation on the ground, no longer in any way congenial, degenerated into a combination of preaching the faith and calling names.

By now, the task Steve faces has morphed from preaching a position reality has proved as false as can be imagined, into finding some rationalization to save ego. This effort combines name calling, documenting his alleged brilliance, calling those willing to *see* what was happening "lucky", claiming those he misled were actually helped, etc.

This is NOT mental imbalance, quite. This is a defense mechanism inappropriately applied. Steve sounds like a student who says "yes, I flunked a test most everyone passed, but that's only because the teacher asked stupid questions and most people passed because they're just as stupid." And apparently he really believes this.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), June 24, 2000.

Now Flint will explain why all who did absolutely NOTHING, have weathered the Y2k tornado.

He will also explain away the CapGemini surveys showing GROWING incidence of Y2k problems in the very systems demied remediated.

-- * (2ykwas@monster.hoax), June 24, 2000.

CPR,

Since you're published yourself, you should know the amount of work that goes into it. That being the case, why don't you have at least a *little* respect for someone who's put out some books?

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), June 24, 2000.

Flint's analysis of the embedded part of Y2k is correct but there was far more to the embedded story than he mentions. What is important to remember is that a few "examples" were used and generalized to create the "embedded Myths". Even when some of them were totally de-bunked (Coff's or Time Dilation), they were repeated by Lay people. When one dug into the material presented, one found the IEEE-UK sort of "it is possible to use a device in such a way that there will be a problem" but FEW actual case examples were given. In addition, we now have the statement from a leading "expert" in Embedded, Dale Way, that "embedded was grossly exaggerated". And that should have ended it. Instead we hear the same thing. The Alaskan Airplane fell from the sky: Y2k. The oil prices are up Y2k. NO PROOF but .......well ...you "know it has to be Y2k don't you?".

The Myths of the Fear pushers seemed in direct contrast to the list serves of the embedded designers who flat out called the Y2k embedded situation "a hoax the I.T. people did not understand". So Poole and I had been absolutely correct in claiming that I.T. (especially Kappelman and Hall) were out of their expertise. Cherri S. had stated it many times and continually demanded that Hall prove what he was promoting to be met by silence or another "change the subject".

From the 1996 days of the de Jager/ Giga/Gartner speculations, one by one each was addressed or dismissed as "manageable". The news never got back to the first tier Fear Pushers though it was evident their "businesses" were under severe pressure after the release of the Senate Report. Cory Varian inquired online in May, 1999 "is it slow or " with repect to his assorted profit centers which included a "real estate relocation service". He mentioned talking to Mike Adams and others who confirmed that. By Fall, the price cutting and the dead web sites were more evidence that Y2k Fear had peaked. STILL the nonsense at Gary's Daily House of Horrors, Hyatt and TB I continued.

The ability to dismiss former concerns and "change the subject" are not unique to Doomzies. They just had to do more of it. By Spring of 1999, even Cory Had A. Tuna was not discussing "not enough programmers, not enough time or too many lines of code". The Code Factories of IBM had closed as had the independents. The test houses were not getting work and the Stocks of the y2K DEJAGER INDEX HAD CRASHED. I saw one this week at 35 cents vs. a former high of 28. Matridigm went Bankrupt.

Mentioning any of that on TB I brought out Big Jerk and the others "Its not Y2k yet". Even CSy2k had toned down but TB I went on lead by the "35 Yr. Expertise in all things" who stated "I know what I know" (implying YOU DON"T). Great was the rejoicing when Lord Jimbo found the "Navy Paper" and that WAS the last of the great Y2k SCAMS. De-bunked almost instantly and dead in 5 days in the media, the Cult still believed. As did EY and his "Hall Monitors".

Left unsaid was that the Utility industry was able to leverage information through EPRI and other groups and greatly reduce redundancies. The answer from the last Y2k vendors and a few "consultants", was "we must have IV&V" to which the very conservative and very tough Utility guys responded "take a hike".

PROOF? I have much but there is something from the outside that confirms the above. JIM LORD's "Mr. CEO" concerns about "all the testing projects that were cancelled" blah, blah. They were cancelled because there simply was no reason to **waste the money**. I know that for a fact. I know which of the top 10 power utilities gave the information to EPRI that lead to the decision in many other Companies.

AND.... I knew it from MAY, 1999 on. Which is why, I was so very adamant that "embedded" was not the problem the Fear Pushers were describing to others. I was **NOT** alone in this either. It was not just the De-Bunkers who knew.

Most of the vendors of Medical and non-medical equipment and instruments from H.P. to Johnson Controls to Honeywell to the makers of the Process equipment and robotic controls also knew because their Engineers had reviewed their own work from the design and production schematics and documentation. As CHERRI pointed out (and was berated for it), a good engineer or even a "tech" could tell from the design work or purchase documentation and specs whether there was Y2k Exposure.

It wasn't software. It was "Engineering Work" with a Software component and unlike the massive Software at the enterprise level, rapid correction or replacement was possible.

That lead to the *very correct* position that the Doomzies never could understand: "Fix on Failure". Fix on Failure was predicated on good engineering reviews to the point of "we know most of what we have to fix now and if we miss some, this is what we will do." (By pass or replace or manual over rides etc).

The one instance of the notorious instrument that had different code in ROM even though the serial numbers were consecutive was *most unusual*. Design and Production requirements coupled with "Product Liability" parameters demand that Makers of embedded devices keep good "paper trails"(now in zeroes and ones).

-- cpr (buytexas@swbell.net), June 24, 2000.