"I may have to eat my words, publicly and with great embarrassment."greenspun.com : LUSENET : TB2K spinoff uncensored : One Thread |
"Either there will be a lot of Y2K problems, and I will make a tremendous living as an expert witness in the next year or two," Mr. Yourdon said. "Or, if it turns out, a month from now, that there never were any serious problems, I may have to eat my words, publicly and with great embarrassment."Not only do his words mean nothing, as proven by his false "predictions" about Y2K, but also when it comes to keeping his word.
I guess it is correct to say that Mr. Yourdons words should never be taken again, as he has proven over and over that he cannot keep them.
Should he become employed by anyone for anything, they should be warned of this fact. A fact he has shown publicly.
-- Cherri (sams@brigadoon.com), July 23, 2000
Anyone know what this guy does for a living nowadays?
-- Lars (lars@indy.net), July 23, 2000.
Why, goodness. He is an "expert". See he will tell you so here:But as he sneeringly wrote in Deja Vu, he would never expect me to understand.
-- cpr (buytexas@swbell.net), July 23, 2000.
Don't wanna steal your thunder, but he and Gary North apoligised a couple days after the rollover. Page 2 in the Wash Post.I'm curious mostly, because I don't have a stake in the outcome, but what is it that you (and CPR) would like to see happen with this, and what would be the fitting end to the debate, and result of the archive "research".
I'm asking because I haven't understood the "point" of it.
-- KoFE (your@town.USA), July 23, 2000.
For those of you who don't know, Ed really is an expert in Object Oriented Programming (OOPS). He has several books on the subject and is *widely* thought of as being amongst the best of the best in the field.The fact the he (and I) were wrong about the impact of Y2K in no way detracts from the excellent work he has done. Frankly I'm DAMNED GLAD Y2K turned out the way it did. And I'm DAMNED GLAD that I prepped. If I had to do it all over again I would. So far the only thing that got chucked was a few boxes of Parmalat. Everything else we've used and/or continue to use.
-TECH32-
-- TECH32 (TECH32@NOMAIL.CON), July 23, 2000.
"Excellent work" indeed.I saved a workshop brochure on an OO Analysis Design Workshop developed by Ed Yourdon. If you have followed him over the years you may have noticed that he has a tendency to jump feet first into anything new under programming design, and then charge a bunch of managers a bundle for the new workshops he develops. Between the seminars, books and design tools I would imagine he has put away a tidy sum.
The reason I kept it is that for $1895 over four days Eddy will present his second Generation Object-Oriented Methodology. No place in the entire course outline does he pause to describe where OOP should be used, but he does mention that he has no hidden agenda. He is right, the $1895 is not hidden at all.
see for yourself
-- (ye@h.....RIGHT!), July 23, 2000.
Not only do his words mean nothing, as proven by his false "predictions" about Y2K, but also when it comes to keeping his word.I find it hard to believe you didn't know already, Cherri, that Ed Yourdon said in March he was wrong about Y2K. You posted messages on the same thread that also has a link to his 20-20 Hindsight: A Y2K Postmortem essay.
Credibility is a precious item, Cherri. Don't squander yours.
-- Think (before@you.speak), July 23, 2000.
>>Credibility is a precious item, Cherri.<<
Sinse when did Cherri have ANY credibility?
-- (Cherri@is a stupid name for a stupid .woman), July 23, 2000.
Cherri,You're starting to sound like Creeper and Andy Gay. Get yourself up to date on the facts before you go around slandering other people. If you keep posting crap like this I'm afraid I'll have to add you to my dumb cunt list.
-- Hawk (flyin@hi.again), July 23, 2000.
That was unneccesary, and just plain wrong, Hawk. If that really was you.
-- KoFE (your@town.USA), July 23, 2000.
"That was unneccesary, and just plain wrong"If you were an honest and fair person, you would have made that remark to Cherri instead of me. Oh well, just another pussy-whipped chauvinist trying to act macho, I guess.
-- Hawk (flyin@hi.again), July 23, 2000.
Hawk,is that you?
if not, you have some serious trolls after you.
Is it you or a complete (name???) oh yea,I forgot, cunt is not equal.
-- uplifting? (inandout@limp.com), July 23, 2000.
YeahRight,No place in the entire course outline does he pause to describe where OOP should be used...
BWAAAAHAHAHA!! That's like complaining that a Science Fiction writers workshop doesn't tell you where you should use Science Fiction! OOPS is a methodology NOT a technique. If this person didn't know that then they shouldn't even be reading the brochure in the first place. DOH!
And as far as 'jumping on the bandwagon', well, this person is just talking out his ass. Ed was a pioneer not a follower. His methodologies are the stuff that senior level comp-sci courses are made of.
-TECH32-
-- TECH32 (TECH32@NOMAIL.CON), July 24, 2000.
TECH32,RED instead of BLUE??
What does that mean?
-- here (123@456.com), July 24, 2000.
here,Don't know what you mean. I don't see any red...
-TECH32-
-- TECH32 (TECH32@NOMAIL.CON), July 24, 2000.
What are you talking about:http://www.yourdon.com /y2kfan/index.html
I was wrong about Y2K. Not about the magnitude and pervasive nature of the problem, and not about the likely consequences if millions of computer systems and embedded chips around the world had not been repaired or replaced. But I was wrong about the likelihood that enough of the repair/remediation would be finished in order to prevent serious disruptions. Indeed, it has gradually become apparent during the first few weeks and months of 2000 that Y2K has caused a number of moderate-to-serious problems in various parts of the world -- but it has not turned out to be the crisis that some of us had anticipated.
Ed Yourdon - April 3, 2000
-- (stop@spreading.bullshit), July 24, 2000.
GOOD TRY.............NO SALE. BECAUSE TO THE END BEFORE 1/1/2000,,,YOURDON WAS IMPLYING DIRECTLY "BIG DISASTER COMING". READ "I KNOW WHAT I KNOW" AND THEN ASK YOURSELF, "WHO IS THIS GUY TRYING TO KID, SCARE, BULL SHIT?YOURDON GOT Y2K ****WRONG****. FROM THE START (AND HE DIDN'T EVEN ENTER THE "GAME" UNTIL 1997 LONG AFTER THE ISSUE WAS CRESTING),,,,HE INSISTED THAT THE IMPACTS WOULD BE GREATER ***BECAUSE*** :
HIS............"35 YRS OF EXPERTISE" IN SYSTEMS "TOLD" HIM THAT :
1. SOFTWARE PROJECTS DIDN'T COME IN ON TIME (TRUE)
2. Y2K PROJECTS WERE SOFTWARE PROJECTS (TRUE)
3. THE EVIDENCE FROM PEOPLE LIKE CAPERS JONES THAT HE USED WAS FACTUAL (TRUE)
4. THEREFORE................Y2K WOULD BE IN A RANGE OF SERIOUS TO DISASTER. (FALSE).. WHY?
*****BECAUSE IN CONSTRAST TO **YOURDON'S CENTRAL FALLACY** (WHICH I IDENTIFIED IN 1998)........Y2K PROJECTS WERE NOT SUBJECT TO THE METRICS THAT FULL SCALE START FROM SCRATCH SOFTWARE PROJECTS WERE.
AND IT WAS **YOURDON'S CENTRAL FALLACY** THAT CALLS INTO QUESTION ALL OF HIS "EXPERTISE" BECAUSE IF ***HIS "JUDGEMENT" WAS SO WRONG ABOUT Y2K*** (AND TRUST ME THAT CAN BE SHOWN 100 FOLD)....THEN WHAT GOOD IS IS "OPINION" ABOUT ANYTHING ELSE OUTSIDE OF HIS FIELD?
AND ,,,,,,,,,IS THAT A LEGITIMATE QUESTION??
YOU BET IT IS. BECAUSE...IT WAS YOURDON WHO "ANALYZED" THE "IMPACTS" ON:
BANKS
UTILITIES
FOOD SUPPLY
GOVERNMENT
ETC
WHEN HE HAD ******NO EXPERTISE IN THOSE FIELDS OTHER THAN AS A CITIZEN.
HE **IMPLIED** HIS "SPECIAL EXPERTISE" GAVE HIM THE "RIGHT" TO DO SO AS "AN EXPERT". DERIDED OBJECTORS BY CLAIMING THAT Y2K WAS UNIQUE WHEN IN FACT..........IT WAS MERELY A "MAINTENANCE PROJECT" AND NOT SUBJECT TO THE METRICS ....THAT YOURDON ****DEMANDED*** BE USED.
TO COMPOUND THAT............HE THEN :
ENCOURAGED THOSE 300,000 POSTS ON TB I WHICH INCLUDED MANY 100S OF *FACTUAL ERRORS* AND TOTALLY DISTORTED TO THE END.....WHAT **REMEDIATION** HAD ACCOMPLISHED.
AS FOR THE **REMEDIATION**........THE SECOND REAL QUESTION IS IF PETER DE JAGER AND ALAN SIMPSON AND I BEGAN TO MODIFY OUR PESSIMISTIC VIEWS IN LATE 1998 WHY WAS IT A **YEAR LATER** YOURDON WAS WRITING THE SPECIOUS "I KNOW WHAT I KNOW" ONLY **DAYS** BEFORE 1/1/2000????
EITHER HE "KNEW" y2K WOULD NOT BE A BIG DEAL........
IN WHICH CASE,,,,HE WAS DELIBERATELY DISTORTING THE IMPACTS FOR HIS "FOLLOWERS"....OR:
*********HE SIMPLY DID NOT KNOW BECAUSE HE NEVER DID HIS HOMEWORK*****
AND IF YOU READ TB 2000 AS A CRITIC YOU COME TO ONE, SINGLE CONCLUSION (AS MANY CRITICS ON AMAZON AND OTHER PLACES DID): THE WORK WAS ****SHODDY*** AND NOT FACTUAL. I GO FURTHER AND CLAIM IT WAS COPIED FROM A MOVIE SCRIPT SKETCHED OUT FOR YOURDON BY ***GARY NORTH*** AND........I HAVE THE EVIDENCE TO BACK UP THAT STATEMENT.
SAME "ESSAY":
While it's still too early to write the final chapter on the Y2K story, I believe that it's time to at least begin working on a post-mortem of what happened, what went well, what went poorly, what we anticipated correctly, and what we got wrong. For some, this will seem a pointless exercise. "Why bother?" the average citizen or business executive might ask. "It's over. Move on." And in today's sound-bite news environment, that seems to be exactly how most are treating Y2K; having declared victory over the troublesome computer problem at 12:01 AM on January 1st, most have moved on to focus on the 2000 political campaign, or the upcoming baseball season, or the Oscar awards. That's an understandable reaction if one assumes that Y2K was a unique, once-in-a-lifetime phenomenon. But suppose, as the Naval War College seems to believe, that Y2K is just the first of several complex, global, technology-based crises -- to be followed by crises involving cyberwarfare, bio-terrorism, ecological crises, or a non-Y2K collapse of the technology-based utility/telecommunications/banking infrastructure. In that case, it would be extremely useful to take advantage of what we did well in coping with Y2K, and hopefully avoiding some of the mistakes that we made.
Even without a technology-based crisis, it would be helpful to apply the "lessons" of Y2K to ordinary computer development projects. One of the reasons that I was personally so concerned about the possibility of Y2K failures was simply because of the track record our industry has developed for the past 40 years -- i.e., a substantial percentage of software projects are late, over budget, and full of bugs. If the same level of shoddy project behavior had taken place with Y2K -- a phenomenon that I referred to in one of my essays as "deja vu all over again" -- chances are that we would still be trying to figure out how to get our phones, banking systems, and electric utilities to work properly. But the apparent fact that we did not suffer these problems suggests that we figured out a way to achieve success on a massive scale -- not just on or two Y2K projects, but on an enormous number of them, around the world. How did we do it? How can we apply those lessons to "normal" projects, in order to improve our track record?
There are several ways to look at this phenomenon, one of which is underway in a different section of this web site, known as the Humpty Dumpty Y2K project. That material, which is linked to a lively discussi on forum (participation in which requires registration, and the results of which are not available for browsing by the Internet community at large) asks the question: What did we learn from Y2K? What changes and modifications does it suggest that we should make, as part of the aftermath, in our personal lives and in the lives of our local neighborhood and our global community? Again, some will shrug and dismiss the entire issue: those who felt Y2K was a non-event from the very beginning are not likely to see it as a catalyst for change. But for others, the outcome (non-event) of Y2K after January 1st is only a minor part of the educational process that took place during the two or three years prior to the rollover. Some, for example, have an entirely different opinion about alternative energy, or food stockpiling, or banking relationships, or the responsiveness of their government representatives, than they did three years ago -- and based on that, they're now considering significant changes in their lifestyle.
But the material below is more of a traditional postmortem -- an examination of plans, predictions, and actions from the perspective of someone with 20-20 hindsight. Unfortunately, that turns out to be a poor metaphor: one of the unfortunate conclusions about Y2K is that there has been very little forthright disclosure from companies and government agencies about the true situation, both before the rollover and afterwards. There are Y2K glitches, failures, and problems -- but the responsible individuals and organizations don't want to talk about them, just as they don't want to talk about oil spills, toxic chemical leaks, hazardous waste materials, unsafe products, and various other "skeletons" in their respective closets. Instead of referring to this material as "20-20 hindsight," perhaps I should have called it "Blurred Vision."
O
-- cpr (buytexas@swbell.net), July 24, 2000.
>>I'll have to add you to my dumb cunt list.<<
BWAHAHAHAHA. Cherri has been on most peeples dumb cunt list for a long time.
-- (Cherri @ is a stupid name for a stupid .woman), July 24, 2000.
"For those of you who don't know, Ed really is an expert in Object Oriented Programming (OOPS). He has several books on the subject and is *widely* thought of as being amongst the best of the best in the field."Sorry, Ed Yourdon is NOT widely thought of as an expert in OOP. He wrote some books on structured analysis a while back, and more recently books on object-oriented analysis. Both of his "methods" are abstract and he provides few concrete examples. Expert on "structured analysis" or "object-oriented analysis" ? Maybe. Expert in OOP? Get real.
-- Buddy (buddydc@go.com), July 24, 2000.
And it should be noted that his "structured" books while "classics" are 20 years old and his OOP books pale in comparison to Grady Booch's (amoungst others) work. Taos Flash's books on OOP are "C0- AUTHORED" (as in: "I will put my name on the book and we gwine sell a lot of dead trees together, ok, Bubba?).
-- cpr (buytexas@swbell.net), July 24, 2000.
"Either there will be a lot of Y2K problems, and I will make a tremendous living as an expert witness in the next year or two," Mr. Yourdon said. "Or, if it turns out, a month from now, that there never were any serious problems, I may have to eat my words, publicly and with great embarrassment." Not only do his words mean nothing, as proven by his false "predictions" about Y2K, but also when it comes to keeping his word.OK so he was wrong, no-one can predict the future not even YOU
-- richard (richard.dale@onion.com), July 24, 2000.
Go back to "The Onion" where fiction and satire rule. FACT: YourToast- ED claimed that it was HIS "special expertise" that enabled him to cast the scenarios for Y2k that made 250,000 copies of his COMIC BOOK Time Bomb 2000 leave the warehouse.His "special expertise" was used on Podiums before people with NO ability to judge whether or not he KNEW WHAT HE WAS TALKING ABOUT.
His "special expertise" was included in a MLM scheme for Tapes and his "COMIC BOOK" and said marketing by his "business venture partners", Robert Roskind and the survivalist Fruitcake and now Jim Lord's "partner", James Talmadge Stevens, were used TO SCARE PEOPLE in to "prepping" for A SCENARIO THAT HAD AT MOST, 1/10,000 I.E. FAR LESS THAN 1% OF EVER OCCURRING.
SO........THE QUESTION IS.........:
DID.........YOURDON KNOW, WHEN DID HE KNOW Y2K WOULD NOT BE "DISASTEROUS" AND........WHY DID HE UNTIL 1/1/2000 CONTINUE TO SPREAD,,,,,,,***FUD*** FEAR, UNCERTAINTY AND DOUBT?
DID HE JUST WANT TO "CLEAR OFF THE BOOK STORE SHELVES" OR....WAS HE,,,LIKE SO MANY OTHERS.........JUST SUCKERED INTO THE DOOMER MIND FRAME?
TIME BOMB I AND THE MANIPULATION OF THE POSTS AND ATMOSPHERE BY HIS HAD SELECTED "MODERATORS" (SOME CALL THEM "FORUM NAZIS") INCLUDING **CENSORSHIP**.....SUGGEST,,,BOTH.
-- cpr (buytexas@swbell.net), July 24, 2000.
you're still being wise after the event(not the lack of insult in my posts)
-- richard (richard.dale@onion.com), July 24, 2000.
ps you get nazis of any political persuasionstop shouting in CAPS, just discuss sensibly and rationally
(but only if you want to)
-- richard (richard.dale@onion.com), July 24, 2000.
DALE. GET THE MESSAGE NOW. I WAS OPPOSING NORTH AND YOURDON FOR THEIR "READ" ON Y2K TWO YEARS BEFORE 1/1/2000. I AM **NOT** A POST Y2K REVISIONIST LIKE THEM AND THE REST OF THE Y2K FEAR ***SHILLERS**.IN 1998, I STARTED CALLING YOURDON'S WORKING "HYPOTHSIS" THE "YOURDON CENTRAL FALLACY" AND TIME PROVED ME........NOT ED YOURDON...CORRECT. LINK
http://www .russkelly.com/experts.html DEAL WITH THAT.
-- cpr (buytexas@swbell.net), July 24, 2000.
Cherri,
Excellent quote and commentary. Yourdom has no credibility remaining.
sqwawk,
Please post some more big text - it was working nicely!
Vindicated Regards,
Andy Ray
-- Andy Ray (andyman633@hotmail.com), July 24, 2000.
Maybe I should post it all in a nice colored font. After all, most of them seem to have a lot of trouble reading anything past the "Look Jane, See Spot" Dr. Seuss styles.AND ITS FOR SURE, THEY ARE "MEMORY SELECTIVE" ABOUT Y2K.
SO....IT IS REALLY OUR "DUTY" TO HELP THESE POOR CREATURES ****....REMEMBER-Y2K....AND THEIR ROLES IN DOOM ZOMBIE LAND.****.
-- cpr (buytexas@swbell.net), July 24, 2000.
Tech32 wrote, "The fact the he (and I) were wrong about the impact of Y2K in no way detracts from the excellent work he has done. Frankly I'm DAMNED GLAD Y2K turned out the way it did. And I'm DAMNED GLAD that I prepped. If I had to do it all over again I would. So far the only thing that got chucked was a few boxes of Parmalat. Everything else we've used and/or continue to use"Well, I'm glad that you think this way but eddie caused more harm than good. Because of his FUD, companies spent more money than needed. Oh, you say too bad. Well yeah, too bad because you think it only hurts companies, no it hurts everyone. The companies just pass the increased costs on to you the consumer.
I just want to reiterate that fast eddie never said he was wrong about Y2K. The bozo just said he underestimated the work getting done. Well, he was wrong, period. He underestimated the effort that needed to fix Y2K, it was minimal in comparision to what his FUD spread about embeddeds, IV&V, and contingencies to name a few.
-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), July 24, 2000.
DID.........YOURDON KNOW, WHEN DID HE KNOW Y2K WOULD NOT BE "DISASTEROUS" AND........WHY DID HE UNTIL 1/1/2000 CONTINUE TO SPREAD,,,,,,,***FUD*** FEAR, UNCERTAINTY AND DOUBT?In his essay Y2K And The Year of Living Dangerously from March 1999, Ed Yourdon said he was not predicting TEOTWAWKI and then goes on to explain why he was nevertheless still quite concerned about Y2k.
-- Answer for the (all@caps.man), July 24, 2000.
HORSE=SHIT.He was predicting disasters and preaching FUD to the rollover. See "I know what I know" from the last week of Dec. 1999.
-- cpr (buytexas@swbell.net), July 24, 2000.
I just read Y2K: I Know What I Know again, but I don't see Ed Yourdon in it predicting disasters as you claim he was, cpr. I do see him saying some y2k work had not been completed yet, especially in foreign countries. You're reading a fanaticism into that essay that I don't see.Any comments, cpr, on the Naval War College's y2k page?
http://www.geocities.com/ResearchTriangle/Thinktank/6926/y2krep.html
-- Risk management (fallback@contingency.planning), July 25, 2000.
DALE. GET THE MESSAGE NOW. I WAS OPPOSING NORTH AND YOURDON FOR THEIR "READ" ON Y2K TWO YEARS BEFORE 1/1/2000. I AM **NOT** A POST Y2K REVISIONIST LIKE THEM AND THE REST OF THE Y2K FEAR ***SHILLERS**.I've decided my first name is Dale for today.
For gods sake stop losing your temper, OK you were right but you may not have been, you're still gloating after the event, "I was right, they were wrong" therefore because they were wrong they're bastards
-- dale or richard (dale.richard@onion.com), July 25, 2000.
Hawk,I'm really dissapointed in you. I had thought that you had grown beyond the immiture habit of using foul language as a method of getting your point across. You have told us when we mentioned it that you only use it against someone who has done it to you first, that was not the situation in this case. If you do not agree with what I have said, is it necessary to make your feelings known in such a derogitory way to me? Do you honestly believe this about me? Or do you have such a small sense of self respect that these kind of statements come to you as normally and constantly as your breath? I had come to enjoy reading things you were writing and respected your view on some of them. Then you turn around and make a statement like this and ruin the respect that had been building for you as a person. After all, adults can dissagree on subjects without the discussions having to degrade down to this kind of name calling. It really wasn't necessary and I'm sorry you felt the need to post it.
-- Cherri (sams@brigadoon.com), July 25, 2000.
http://www.computerweekly.com/cwarchive/daily/20000720/cwcontainer.asp ?name=C1.HTML&SubSection=6&ct=dailyThis is a problem in y2k, its the kind of thing predicted, though its not due to date processing
-- richard (richard@garlic.com), July 25, 2000.
"ruin the respect that had been building for you as a person."
Your wrong. He didn't ruin respect, he gained respect.
-- Cherri picks her nose (and e@ts her .bugers), July 25, 2000.
Hawk, I'm really dissapointed in you. I had thought that you had grown beyond the immiture habit of using foul language as a method of getting your point across. You have told us when we mentioned it that you only use it against someone who has done it to you first, that was not the situation in this case.I'm guessing that the person who posted as Hawk above is an imposter. As you mentioned, the post is inconsistent with his past behavior. He also had an imposter post under his name in this thread.
-- (hmm@hmm.hmm), July 25, 2000.
hmmmwe got squawky all figured out. he trolls himself so he has an "excuse" when someone calls him on his poor behavior.
he is indeed, the "little testicle man"
-- poor hawk (hung@like.hamster), July 26, 2000.
*****BECAUSE IN CONSTRAST TO **YOURDON'S CENTRAL FALLACY** (WHICH I IDENTIFIED IN 1998)........Y2K PROJECTS WERE NOT SUBJECT TO THE METRICS THAT FULL SCALE START FROM SCRATCH SOFTWARE PROJECTS WERE.AND IT WAS **YOURDON'S CENTRAL FALLACY** THAT CALLS INTO QUESTION ALL OF HIS "EXPERTISE" BECAUSE IF ***HIS "JUDGEMENT" WAS SO WRONG ABOUT Y2K*** (AND TRUST ME THAT CAN BE SHOWN 100 FOLD)....THEN WHAT GOOD IS IS "OPINION" ABOUT ANYTHING ELSE OUTSIDE OF HIS FIELD?
There were others you should have also been trying to convince in 1998, CPR.
http://www.csis.org/html/y2ktran2.html#dejager
SNIP
Point number 3 -- and this is the one that most people seem determined to ignore. The people in this room, and the people listening to this presentation, I challenge you to answer the following question truthfully. Over the last three years, in your organization, what percentage of IT projects have been delivered on time? Hands up, anyone, if you could say 100 percent. So we admit there is a bit of a risk.
The academic study number -- and I'm sure you'll hear it again today -- is that more than 80 percent of all IT projects are delivered late or never. And yet -- I know, it's a sad number, isn't it? We'd like to forget that one. And yet I can sit before a CEO or a CFO in a large Fortune 1000 company and they will tell me in all sincerity, "Peter, relax. We will have this fixed by the day. Trust me."
And what they have assumed without rights is the mantle of confidence, and they assume it without right because they have let wishful thinking obscure their memory of past results. We do not, as an industry, have a track record for delivering systems on time.
Now, some people would suggest that I've asked the question unfairly, because they would suggest to me that the systems that are important are always delivered on time.
Now, Mr. Bill Gates runs a rather successful company, a company so successful that we have taken umbrage at it. The question is for Microsoft -- and for us to ask -- they are a good software company -- how many times have they delivered Windows on time?
Now, if someone would like to suggest to me that, well, that wasn't an important product or project, I would suggest you did not pay attention to Mr. Bill Gates running up and down the halls of these organizations every time the product was late. We do not deliver projects on time.
Those are the three points. The code is broken. We have a deadline. And we're not good at delivering on time.
Now, unlike in the past when we were late, it didn't really matter. Why? Well, if I'm using an old accounting package, and you've asked me to put in a new accounting package, and you happen to be six months late, what do I do? I continue using the old thing until the new thing is ready. The year 2000 problem is different.
The thing that we're trying to fix is the thing that we're using on a daily basis. Come January 1st, if it isn't fixed, it is broken, and we do not have an accounting system anymore. And it is awfully difficult to take a Fortune 50 company and put 25,000 people in a large room and give them typewriters and calculators and say, "Do accounting for the multi-billion dollar organization."
SNIP
http://www.y2k.gov/docs/LASTREP3.htm
SNIP
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.
SNIP
-- (history@of.Y2K), July 27, 2000.
This thread is about a one Edward Yourdon, not the ability of CPR to convince the world.Ed Yourdon did what he did cause he could careless. He knows that most of his "customers" are as stupid and naive as a few on this thread.
Are you boneheads going to be PREPARED for the next CONMAN who comes a knocking? Are you ever going to get serious about being prepared?
Yourdon was not even close, this should tell you something. Explained why and how it was all NOT going away ad nausem for well over a year ahead of time. Did ya listen? Did ya learn anything?
Really is amazing how even now some are so dam unwilling to face the fact they were fooled majorly. Not a little, completely.
-- Doc Paulie (fannybubbles@usa.net), July 27, 2000.
Look asshole. We didnt believe you pollies last year becuase none of you have any credebility. All of everyone of you are mean an rude and your wimen are whores. For some reason you think that there were and are NO problems and that in itself shows how MORONIC you are!
You promised not to post here anymore. You lie an thats why you have no credebility.
Does Patty baby give good head? Would you say the troof?
-- (Patricia@doesn't.charge), July 27, 2000.
"The interdependent nature of technology systems makes the severity of possible problems difficult to predict."http://hv.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=003HW8
-- (Quot@bly.quoted), July 27, 2000.
All of everyone of you are mean an rude and your wimen are whores.This is inconsistent with your premise that "Patricia doesn't charge." If our "wimen" are whores, then it would stand to reason that they would charge and this would include Patricia.
Perhaps you need to make up your mind whether they are "whores" or not.
-- (hmm@hmm.hmm), July 27, 2000.