I mean, get the opening line....."In the first article of this series I predicted that the failure of even a small number of our computer systems, combined with fundamental problems already existing in the global economy, will lead to the total collapse of civilization as we know it."

Boy....if Sir Winston, and Charles deGaulle, and Franklin Roosevelt had taken that type of wimp-fanny attitude in the 1940's, where would we be now? And anyone who doesn't think WW II wasn't a much larger challenge than Y2K is, just has no grasp of world history. Computers or no computers.

-- John Howard (Greenville, NC) (pcdir@prodigy.net), December 01, 1998

Answers

Whatever happened to those pesky Aztecs, or Mayans, or Egyptians, or Romans, or Greeks.

All the above civilisations collapsed.

We should pay attention to this fact.

Why should we be any different?

It's a wonder we've got this far without blowing the planet to smithereens, we're also doing a pretty good job on the world environment. Oh and did I mention biological weapons?

Finally you mention the following statesmen:- Sir Winston, and Charles deGaulle, and Franklin Roosevelt.

Now what wimp-fanny do we have in charge???

Why it's good old "slick" Willie (ROTFLMAO)

This is what "slick" had to say today at the whitehouse -

""No need to worry", according to the President.

"We have moved to improve the security and reliability of cyberspace by focusing attention on protecting critical infrastructures and solving the Y2K computer problem. Now, that's a pretty impressive line of work for all concerned," Clinton said.

BWWAAAAAAAAAHHAAAAAAAAAHHHHAAAAAAAAHHHAAAAAAAAHHAAHHAAAAHAHAHAHAhaha

-- Andy (andy_rowland@msn.com), December 01, 1998.

But the y2k "enemy" is lurking in every conceivable place, even in your own backyard. In WWII everyone lined up and just tried to beat each other to death, at least you knew where you stood. PS I'm not recommending it. Granted y2k is not a war.

-- Richard Dale (rdale@figroup.co.uk), December 01, 1998.

Sorry, John,

I think that Y2K is a much greater threat than WWII. It's a genetic defect in the entire infrastructure. In WWII the enemy was "over there." With Y2K we have indeed met the enemy, but it is us.

-- Franklin Journier (ready4y2k@yahoo.com), December 01, 1998.

Right now, Y2K is a relatively "silent" war. We can survive this too, just differently.

Diane

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), December 01, 1998.

I usually keep quiet, but I gotta take major issue with the statement "anyone who doesn't think WW II wasn't a much larger challenge than Y2K is, just has no grasp of world history."

Listen: this has NEVER happened before. Never have we experienced a worldwide breakdown in infrastructure on a nearly infinite number of levels. As much a disaster as World War II was, it was an essentially bipolar struggle between two enemies who could, for the most part, see each other. In other words, it was the largest example yet seen of an ancient event (war). This time, we have met the enemy, and it truly is us, in the form of the invisible fallibility of our technology. There's no one to "beat" this time, except the clock and our own stupidity and dependencies.

I therefore must disagree. This is a pervasive problem which invites an infinite number of greater problems, including, sad to say, military conflict that could end up dwarfing the Second W.W. That's certainly not an inevitability, but it is only one example of the myriad challenges that this breakdown makes possible.

-- Scott Johnson (scojo@yahoo.com), December 01, 1998.

John, I would love to see someone like Winston Churchill or Roosevelt, or deGaulle take the leadership role and marshall the effort to get through all this mess. So far, we are left without.

Read Infomagic again. It's one view of one possible future. The key to that future is that Infomagic is a hardcore programmer who understands the complex systems that form the "web". It's his understanding of the systems and history that form his view of that possible future.

Consider that only a small portion of his future may actually occur and it is still very scary and basically is TEOTWAWKI.

The bottom line is that Infomagic is not Winston Churchill.

Infomagic is the grunt in the front lines on Normandie. Some schoolteacher who volunteered for the cause. There is no Truman and no Allied Command. There is no air cover, no off shore pre-dawn shelling, no French Resistance. Over to his right his Captain is drinking coffee and smoking a cigarette, totally oblivious to the bullets and the death. Over to his left his Sarge has taken a direct hit to the head by a mortar. Infomagic is on the beach, head peeking up over the dune, rounds whizzing by his head. Infomagic's life is flashing before his eyes with extreme clarity.

John Wayne, wish you were here.

Mike =======================================================

-- Michael Taylor (mtdesign3@aol.com), December 01, 1998.

Mike, what about John Glenn???

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), December 01, 1998.

No the threat is that "enemy" - if we that which bodily threatens us - is the potential for rioting and looting from those who are in our own country.

In WWI, II, Franco-Prussian War, Civil War, Crimean War, mexican War, 1812, Napoleanic War, -> every other conflict in history - save the gradual fall of Rome from barbarians "invited" in from the East - the threat was from "outside" the local society as they invaded from outside. That external threat gives the community something to literally "rally around" - or physically gather in as in the castles that were near the Medival towns and Japanese villages.

John Glenn? Not now, he corrupted himself last summer, before during the Keating Five savings and loan bribery scandal, other times as he caved in to teacher, government worker and labor union donations, and promulgated other Democratic lies.

-- Robert A. Cook, P.E. (Kennesaw, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), December 01, 1998.

Diane, any John... even Mr. John Howard of Greenville, NC.

Someone. Anyone, who can take the leadership role, put personal politics aside, forget about public opinion and work for the good of the many and not of the one.

Mike ========

-- Michael Taylor (mtdesign3@aol.com), December 01, 1998.

"Mike, what about John Glenn?"

"John Glenn? Not now, he corrupted himself last summer, before during the Keating Five savings and loan bribery scandal, other times as he caved in to teacher, government worker and labor union donations, and promulgated other Democratic lies."

John Glenn? Hah! Wouldn't trust him as far as I could spit. He is a 33rd degree Freemason and is working to another agenda entirely. Watch him very closely in the next couple of years folks.

I want to apologise to you John Howard, from Greenville. I'm sorry, yesterday I was just so frustrated with the whole damn issue, and Clinton's speech at the Red House was the clincher.

This Y2K problem is absolutely unique, this thing is invisible. Doesn't have a face. It can't be touched, smelled, felt, heard or seen, except by those who are working on the problem. Michael Taylor's anology also put it superbly, above.

Another way of looking at the problem that particularly hit homw with me is from an ex-Military Pilot, worth remembering his words.......

"In my 52 years on this planet including service as a military officer and pilot, health care administrator and small business entrepreneur, I have yet to observe a circumstance in which the general population took a proactive stance about anything. And this thing is invisible. Doesn't have a face. It can't be touched, smelled, felt, heard or seen, except by those who are working on the problem.....and that's only a very small percentage of the population.

No, I'm sorry to say that this thing will happen in the magnitude of Biblical proportions. Sort of like the great flood. Everybody carrying on like nothing was happening. Then the rain began to fall................."

Thanks, Andy

-- Andy (andy_rowland@msn.com), December 01, 1998.

Before WWII, there was no denial that a war was coming. Poeple believed "the experts" that trouble was brewing. During the war, people ralied in the war effort. We're at the end of a war against time, people are still in denial. In 2000, the war is over and we've lost most major battles already.

-- Chris (catsy@pond.com), December 01, 1998.

Sorry

There was plenty of denial before the war about the threat posed by Hitler. They did not want to go through the PAIN of another war.

Granted though, Y2K denial is much more widespread.

-- Uncle Deedah (oncebitten@twiceshy.com), December 01, 1998.

Do recall, that they DID finally mobilize a nation, after 1 event, Pearl Harbor. And they won on two fronts. Over one year, with the lights on and counting down...

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), December 01, 1998.

John,

How can we put Y2K into historical context when it hasn't even happened yet?

Infomagic's article gave us his Pollyanna scenerio. I try every day not to think about the worse case scenerio but it is always a nagging thought in the back of my mind.

I do not fear his analysis as put forth in his article nearly as much as the "potential" devastation that he left unsaid.

Infomagic is not our leader. We have no one leader in this war on Y2K. If we had had a leader, we would not be in this mess. Every corporate, company, industrial, governmental leader in this country have let us down. All of them.

This is all just too sad for words.

Best regards,

Anna

-- Anna McKay Ginn (annaginn@aol.com), December 01, 1998.

John, you are dealing here with silicone-based lifeforms. you know what happens when there's computers in the classrooms..

you don't?

well, these computers have colonized our planet. the CRT induces a trance and the molecular structure of the innocent viewer is quietly transformed. all the "C's" become "Si's" and a fifth column of siliconized humans is formed, identical in all respects to normal carbon-based humans, except that they tend to think in acronyms like WTSHTF and TEOTWAWKI.

the alien mothership now orbiting our planet senses an imminent disruption of its control over carbon-based lifeforms before it has achieved its mission of siliconizing all humans. It feeds relentless terrifying messages to its slaves here below.

That's why they talk like they do, John. But it's good for them. It will make them remember who they are, where they are, and what's really important. WTSHTF we may actually be able to talk to them again, John!

-- Skinny Oldbird (arkeopterx@aol.com), December 01, 1998.

The Infomagic Y2K analysis is actually quite conservative; he consistently uses deliberately optimistic numbers and still makes his case. I think what he says reflects simple common sense applied to what we already know about large scale computer projects, which is: they're always very late, they have unseen bugs in them, and the very act of correcting the bugs creates more bugs. Apply this to a global computer project and you have an inevitable disaster of historic proportions. Can anyone refute what he says?

-- cody varian (cody@y2ksurvive.com), December 01, 1998.

In a word - No.......

I was extremely impreseed with Perry Arnett's analysis of Infomagic's treatise:-

for any newbies, here goes, one more time.......

Assessment -- Infomagic -- SET RECOVERY ON

PART 2: THE DEVOLUTIONARY SPIRAL

by

Y2000@Infomagic.com

Sorry for the length, others have asked, so I've taken the opportunity to do a quick analysis. PJA

" the failure of even a small number of our computer systems, combined with fundamental problems already existing in the global economy, will lead to the total collapse of civilization as we know it."

great lead-in; can he follow-up?

" collapse is probable even in an unreasonably optimistic best case scenario in which all of the systems are fixed before 2000. "

quite a rejoinder...

" recovery in our lifetimes is an extremely unlikely outcome. We must prepare for a dark period of several generations during which much of our technology and knowledge will be lost and after which there may be a slow recovery by our descendants."

this guy knows how to get ones attention!

" Such preparations are the subject matter of this series of articles."

seems to me like he has given his motive, here.

" However, we must also prepare ourselves for the very real possibility that the outcome of this situation might well be the total extinction of the entire human race. "

some extant scenarios [ nuclear war, ,etc] justify this view

"It really could be worse than I am predicting and I really am being optimistic. "

[I think so too!]

" I am not fixated on the success or failure of individual systems. I have the capacity to see the larger picture and I am far more concerned with the total failure of Charlotte's Web itself -- that system-of-systems which forms the backbone of modern civilization. "

now we begin to see from whence he comes...it takes a view of the larger picture to understand what he's trying to say; and what lies ahead for all of us.

" the disaster scenario requires the failure of only a relatively small percentage of our systems (let's say 20%) while the "bump in the road" scenario requires virtually perfect correction of almost all affected systems, all on time and all on budget. "

logical point - score 1

"For the bulls to be right, we must somehow magically move from a historical on-time project success rate of less than 15% to a success rate for Y2K projects of at least 90 - 95%. Such a position is clearly irrational. "

logical point - score 2

"assume that all affected systems will indeed be fixed before they start to fail. Unfortunately, this would not solve the problem or prevent the disaster. "

tell us more...

" after any major maintenence change to a system (which Y2K most certainly is) there is always a residual rate of failure as a result of the changes themselves, even when the changes are properly "tested".

true!

"The failures manifest themselves when the system is placed back into the real world of "production", as opposed to the artificial world of "testing". They happen because maintenence programmers customarily test only the immediate effects of their changes. There is neither the time nor the money nor often even the ability to test the entire consequences of a particular change to a system. The residual failures typically arise elsewhere in the system, at some point unrelated to the change itself and completely unanticipated by the programmer. "

logical point - score 3 ; verifiable from other industrial diciplines

"This last is why residual failures are so hard to identify and correct. Often, we can't even tell for certain whether a particular failure really is the result of a recent system change or not. In turn, this is why a good system administrator would never return two or more systems to "production" at the same time. Not only is the risk of failure almost doubled, but there is also a small chance of both systems failing simultaneously."

valid/ agreed

" For Y2K, the problem is greatly compounded by the fact that, essentially, we will be placing all of our corrected systems back into "production" at roughly the same time. "

the first rule of problem-solving is to never make more than one change at a time to a sytem, again, valid point - score 4

"The actual rate of residual failure depends on a number of factors, but mostly on the size of the system and the scope of the changes."

logical - score 5

" A large business with 100 or more systems would have a 99% chance of a failure (1-(1-.05)**100 = 0.994). This is EVEN IF ALL OF THE SYSTEMS ARE FIXED!"

reasonable - understanding that "a 99% chance of a failure" does not mean that "a failure is mandated to occur"

"Of course, many of these failures will be relatively easy to fix, but others will require an effort beyond the capabilities of the business and they will not be fixed before the business itself fails (this is particularly true for small and medium businesses using packaged software)."

consistent with historical reality

" In addition, the great majority of these failures will have at least some domino effect on related customers and vendors."

great point, gets picked up in more detail later...

" To make it even worse, virtually everybody will be facing these problems at about the same time,"

OK - given

" leading to a chaos in which actually fixing the problems becomes almost impossible."

reasonable ; not unthinkable

" At the very minimum this will lead to an economic disaster, "

a few citations of progressive detail have been omitted, i.e. as businesses fail they lay off workers who have no income, who, thus, cannot spend, which drives the economy into stagnation or "disaster"...; but the logic is valid and the conclusion is reasonable; one does need to define "economic disaster" a bit more in detail, however.

"JUST FROM THE ACT OF FIXING THE SYSTEMS THEMSELVES, without even taking into account the effect of the unfixed systems, of embedded systems or of an already declining global economy. "

logical; given

"In reality, of course, the situation is much worse than this, and the residual failure rate will be much, much higher."

recent data from numerous sources would seem to bear out this point

" Just how much worse is anybody's guess since we have, as yet, insufficient historical data of actual Y2K failures. "

fair point; he's being honest

thus: a conclusion:

" a "bump in the road" is not even on the scale of possibility. As we have seen above, the best case end of the scale really begins with a global economic disaster and even then assumes that all systems are fixed on time and that there are no outside factors such as a global recession."

if this is true, then the following conclusion is also

" Clearly this, too, is an untenable position. "

agreed

"So, in a realistic best case, how much worse than an "economic disaster" is it going to get? Let's use the same formula but this time with a guesstimate of the rate of critical failures (those likely to lead to a failure of the business itself). As an expert, I personally think that the overall, critical failure rate will be between 10 and 20% but, again, let's be overly optimistic and say that only 1% will fail critically and terminally for the business. Even this means that 5% of small, 22% of medium and 63% of big businesses will, inevitably, cease to exist as a direct result of Y2K system failures."

very important point and must be understood very clearly to make much sense of any other conclusions; this guy seems to know his stuff very well and is trying to impart to us more than some of us want to know; i.e. each one of us is probably, in some way, connected to one or more of those "small, medium or large" businesses that is bound to fail

" Interestingly, these numbers accurately reflect our intuitive grasp of the increasing dependance on information technology as businesses grow larger."

borne out by experience

"But the exact numbers don't really matter because this is only the first level of failure. "

agreed

"The second stage of failure is the "domino effect", the interrelationships between vendors and their customers. Roughly speaking, each of the big three auto manufacturers has about 50,000 vendors of whom about 10,000 are "critical" to production."

I can only asume this 'critical' ratio is accurate, since I have no independent numbers of my own.

" On the basis of the above, at only a 1% critical failure rate, at least 500 of the critical vendors (5%) will go out of business, forcing the production line to a halt."

quite probably true; verifiable from numerous sources regarding "just- in -time" inventorying

"If that happens for any extended period of time then most of the other 49,500 vendors are basically out of business."

fair point; reasonable

" Not that it matters. On the basis of the above, two of the big three (63%) will themselves go out of business because of their own Y2K failures, taking most of their vendors with them."

again, resonable conclusion based uopn the previous premises

" Not that it really matters. 50% of the big three's customers are employed by small businesses, of which 5% will immediately go out of business. Unfortunately, the other 50% of their customers are employed by medium and large businesses of whom, optimistically, (63- 22)/2+22 or 42% will also go out of business, removing their former employees from the auto market. Those who still have jobs will also be much less likely to buy and, with this immediate and increasing drop in sales, all of the big three will effectively go out of business -- together with most of their vendors. The same thing will happen in every other segment of the economy as well. "

very important conclusion; very reasonable to conclude

"Even with unrealistically optimistic numbers, and without taking either embedded systems or the already poor global economy into account, I think this proves beyond any reasonable doubt that Charlotte's Web will indeed completely collapse, just as I predicted in the previous article. Unfortunately, that is still only the second level of failure. "

well, he's done it!! great job, so far

"The third level of failure is something I call a devolutionary spiral -- the unwinding of everything we have built over the last 2,000 years of civilization. It is a continuing, self perpetuating, reduction in global population, economic activity and technical capability. It has many of the characteristics of a deflationary spiral in economics; of the entropy of a closed thermodynamic system; and of the sudden jump to a lower energy level which we see in the decay of many nuclear-physical systems. Historically, it is much like the fall of the Roman Empire, which collapsed under it's own weight far more than from outside factors, and from which "recovery" took over 1,000 years. I don't yet know how to measure the spiral, scientifically, but I do know how to describe it. "

key word here is " everything"; reasonable people may disagree with the ramifications to the nth degree, but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt for the moment.

"The key is something called "carrying capacity", a term from the biological sciences. It defines the maximum population of a given species which a particular habitat can support under a specified set of circumstances. If the maximum population is exceeded, or if the capacity itself is reduced, the inevitable result is always a reduction in the population to a level far lower than the simple difference in population numbers would suggest."

so far so good

" It took decades to recover to normal levels (and then only with the resumption of controlled hunting). "

again, so far, so good

" we, ourselves, are really not that different from the Kaibab deer herd. We live in a complex, computer dependent, world with a carrying capacity of about 6 billion souls. "

fewer would complain about this assertion, I think, if he had added that those 6 billion souls are being fed by a highly complex, computer dependant, fertilizer producing chemical industry and agribusiness industry. This is not to say that this earth might not be able to carry more, but without the current situation, this carrying capacity would be significantly less than it is.

"Take away some of the computer capacity, as little as 10%, and we lose a significant portion of the carrying capacity. "

valid conclusion

"Because of the domino effect, if we lose just 10% of our businesses (and even the government expects more) this could easily translate into a loss of one third of the carrying capacity and, thus, 2 billion dead. "

one might argue with the concluded number, but I'll give him +/- 50% either side

"But that's just the beginning of the devolutionary spiral. ... we human beings are to a large extent responsible for creating our own carrying capacity. Without our complex society there is no way this earth could support or carry 6 billion people."

valid - see the above

" But, conversely, without 6 billion people there is no way we could create such a complex society in the first place. "

interesting point; very prescient; this guy can think!

"When we lose a significant percentage of the population, which we certainly will,"

again, he has left out some intermediate steps of logic - i.e. when y2k effects are felt, food production will decrease, therefor some will die; we need to define "significant percentage"

" we will also lose an important part of our ability to maintain civilization itself."

controversial point; - not to put too fine a twist on this, but some might say " if you die, who cares, [civilization lives on]; if I die, the civilization dies with me!'' Not the case. If, however, we talk about diversity and richness of the multicultural world that we call civilization, then his point is valid.

"As a result, we will lose even more of the carrying capacity and even more of the population. Once the spiral starts it feeds on itself and it cannot be stopped by anything we do. It will stop, all by itself, but only when a new equilibrium is reached with a much lower carrying capacity and a much smaller population, with far less economic activity and more limited technology. "

this is where the "points of light" concept enters; there will probably always be places where 'civilization' remains, but there will probably be more numerous locations where barbarism is the rule

"It doesn't matter whether you believe me. It doesn't even matter if I am right. Because you are not the only one reading this article. Through the magic of the internet there are thousands, perhaps millions, who are also reading and who do believe. There are millions of others who have found similar opinions elsewhere and who also firmly believe it's really coming, really soon, to a town near them. They believe it is serious enough that they have already decided to withdraw their money from their banks and mutual funds. When that happens en masse, some time next year, our entire economy will collapse. In a sense, the end has already begun and the spiral has already started to unwind. "

well, he has done it again!

"There is nothing wrong with their decision, even though it will indeed trigger the very collapse they are trying to protect themselves against. The point is that Y2K is real, the global recession is real. Roosevelt was wrong. We really do have something more to fear than fear itself. It makes sense to prepare. It is sheer folly to ignore Y2K and those who do so will be numbered among the dead. "

"The sensible question is not whether to prepare but how to prepare and for what. The remaining articles in this series will cover the how, for the moment I am concerned with the what. I have painted a pretty bleak picture of the total collapse of civilisation itself and the death of billions. Using highly optimistic numbers, I think I have shown that this is not just possible but probable. It makes the most sense to prepare for this worst case scenario. If you prepare for anything less, and I am right, you will not be prepared at all and you, too, will be numbered among the dead. "

"To drive this point home, I would like you to consider the closest historical precedent I can think of. The Roman Empire also collapsed in upon itself, in much the same way that I am predicting. As it collapsed, the carrying capacity of the empire was reduced and the population did indeed spiral downwards, reaching a low point several hundred years later around 1350. Most of their technology was also lost and their roads, aquaducts, cities and monuments soon fell into disrepair because none of the survivors understood the Roman technology. Even if they had, there weren't enough people nor enough economic activity to justify let alone institute the repairs. Consider this also. After a 1,000 years there were indeed survivors. They just weren't Romans. "

I spent 8 hours yesterday re-studying the rise and fall of Rome from various scholars viewpoints; conclusion: as similar as our situation is at this moment, to theirs was then, - they didn't have y2k, we do!

" I wonder what little boy will look for us, if we don't prepare."

I have to conclude that Infomagic is a sane, rational, well-read, hgihly involved, and very concerned individual, one whom most of us would probably enjoy meeting, if we had the chance.

I await his next pronouncements, anxiously.

Perry Arnett

-- Andy (andy_rowland@msn.com), December 02, 1998.

Rowland forgot to post next post after his; the answer to ROWLAND's post followed his on C.s.y2k, so for the wanding masses of INFO-Seekers not looking for mystics or magic or INFO-GARBAGE:

http://supernews.com/default/transcript.pl?group=comp.software.year-20 00%3A50023898&update=1321 Article: 2 of 3 From: Q Subject: Re: Detailes Analysis Of INFOMAGIC's TEOTWAWKI Date: Tue, 01 Dec 1998 19:55:47 GMT

On Tue, 1 Dec 1998 10:58:09 -0800, "Andrew Rowland" wrote: "Assessment -- Infomagic -- SET RECOVERY ON PART 2: THE DEVOLUTIONARY SPIRAL by Y2000@Infomagic.com Sorry for the length, others have asked, so I've taken the opportunity to do a quick analysis. PJA. " the failure of even a small number of our computer systems, combined with fundamental problems already existing in the global economy, will lead to the total collapse of civilization as we know it." great lead-in; can he follow-up?

A pronouncement, nothing more. Where are the "facts" that are usually demanded?

" collapse is probable even in an unreasonably optimistic best case scenario in which all of the systems are fixed before 2000. " quite a rejoinder...

Rejoinder to him/her secret self? Plus the little matter of "all systems fixed = societal collapse" -- pure bullshit.

" recovery in our lifetimes is an extremely unlikely outcome. We must prepare for a dark period of several generations during which much of our technology and knowledge will be lost and after which there may be a slow recovery by our descendants." this guy knows how to get ones attention!

Lots of bullshitters do...

" Such preparations are the subject matter of this series of articles." seems to me like he has given his motive, here.

Nah. Tis *not* possible to prepare for several "dark" generations!

" However, we must also prepare ourselves for the very real possibility that the outcome of this situation might well be the total extinction of the entire human race. " some extant scenarios [ nuclear war, ,etc] justify this view

Yeah, everybody on earth could be struck by lightning at the same time, too

"It really could be worse than I am predicting and I really am being optimistic. " [I think so too!]

Get a dictionary!

" I am not fixated on the success or failure of individual systems. I have the capacity to see the larger picture and I am far more concerned with the total failure of Charlotte's Web itself -- that system-of-systems which forms the backbone of modern civilization. "

Operative phrase here "I have the capacity to see" -- all things? Hey, infomagic is god!!!

now we begin to see from whence he comes...it takes a view of the larger picture to understand what he's trying to say; and what lies ahead for all of us.

Sure do... Egomaniac. More bullshit to come.

" the disaster scenario requires the failure of only a relatively small percentage of our systems (let's say 20%) while the "bump in the road" scenario requires virtually perfect correction of almost all affected system s, all on time and all on budget. " logical point - score 1

Once again, facts?

"For the bulls to be right, we must somehow magically move from a historical on-time project success rate of less than 15% to a success rate for Y2K projects of at least 90 - 95%. Such a position is clearly irrational. " logical point - score 2

Mixing new development projects and maintenance here.

"assume that all affected systems will indeed be fixed before they start to fail. Unfortunately, this would not solve the problem or prevent the disaster. " tell us more...

Once again, all systems fixed, and it makes no difference?

" after any major maintenance change to a system (which Y2K most certainly is) there is always a residual rate of failure as a result of the changes themselves, even when the changes are properly "tested". true!

Bops over to maintenance now.

"The failures manifest themselves when the system is placed back into the real world of "production", as opposed to the artificial world of "testing". They happen because maintenance programmers customarily test only the immediate effects of their changes. There is neither the time nor the money nor often even the ability to test the entire consequences of a particular change to a system. The residual failures typically arise elsewhere in the system, at some point unrelated to the change itself and completely unanticipated by the programmer. " logical point - score 3 ; verifiable from other industrial disciplines

Programming is an inductrial process now?

The maintenance programmers (and lead programmers and consultants) will be very familiar with the code that has been remediated. Some programs (duh!) don't have date routines. So the logical place to look if failures occur, would be the date routines!

"This last is why residual failures are so hard to identify and correct. Often, we can't even tell for certain whether a particular failure really is the result of a recent system change or not. In turn, this is why a good system administrator would never return two or more systems to "production" at the same time. Not only is the risk of failure almost doubled, but there is also a small chance of both systems failing simultaneously." valid/ agreed

Most shops that are progressing on their y2k work are doing one at a time.

" For Y2K, the problem is greatly compounded by the fact that, essentially, we will be placing all of our corrected systems back into "production" at roughly the same time. " the first rule of problem-solving is to never make more than one change at a time to a system, again, valid point - score 4 "The actual rate of residual failure depends on a number of factors, but mostly on the size of the system and the scope of the changes." logical - score 5

One change to a program at a time -- this is an ideal, rather like "Life should be fair".

" A large business with 100 or more systems would have a 99% chance of a failure (1-(1-.05)**100 = 0.994). This is EVEN IF ALL OF THE SYSTEMS ARE FIXED!" reasonable - understanding that "a 99% chance of a failure" does not mean that "a failure is mandated to occur"

Systems or programs? What the hell is he talking about?

"Of course, many of these failures will be relatively easy to fix, but others will require an effort beyond the capabilities of the business and they will not be fixed before the business itself fails (this is particularly true for small and medium businesses using packaged software)." consistent with historical reality

Whose reality? Systems fail every day. Infomagic must think none of these get fixed!

" In addition, the great majority of these failures will have at least some domino effect on related customers and vendors." great point, gets picked up in more detail later...

Effects can range from inconsequential on up...

" To make it even worse, virtually everybody will be facing these problems at about the same time," OK - given

Some no problems, some minor problems, same serious...

" leading to a chaos in which actually fixing the problems becomes almost impossible." reasonable ; not unthinkable

Depends on who is doing the thinking. Or, non-thinking in the case of complete denialists and members of the y2k doom church.

One I should not havbe snipped: Something about "system administrators" returning more than one system at a time to production.

Infogarbage is getting networks mixed-up with mainframes.

Bottom line: All opinion. No facts. But thats all right, Infogarbage sees more than ordinary folks. How typical of Usenet!!!

-- Q Anti-spam email address: Q atqsystems.com

-- Aunty Magic (antimagic@noguessing.com), December 02, 1998.

I thought PJA did a superb analysis; of course it's up to each individual whether they buy the whole/any of the scenario or not.

Auntie Magic (I love that name Possums, it reminds me of my old Auntie Sheila in the maximum security twilight home for the infirm in sunny Tasmania), I bow to your superior intellect.

On the other hand, if you want to be serious on a rather serious subject, let's see *your* analysis. Sorry, nothing ending in "it" allowed - these are the rules bozo.

Pretend it's your 11-plus, or, end of term paper if you will, just "imagine", you can say what you like, isn't that exciting!

All you have to do is get a spellchecker and a thesaurus and you are all set!

Oh - uh, ........ I forgot, ..... you need a brain too. Isn't that exciting!

-- Andy (andy_rowland@msn.com), December 02, 1998.

So what's Rowland's point Aunty Magic?

"" the failure of even a small number of our computer systems, combined with fundamental problems already existing in the global economy, will lead to the total collapse of civilization as we know it.[Infomagic]" great lead-in; can he follow-up?[PJA]

A pronouncement, nothing more. Where are the "facts" that are usually demanded?" [Rowland]

Perry pointed out Infomagic's good lead-in sentence to his essay. In essays, the facts are not given in the lead-in sentence, they're given later in the body. A good strong lead-in sentence is like a good headline, tells the essence of the article, then goes on with the facts, explanations, arguements etc.

Rowland only showed to me that he never really grasped english comp. From that, I don't expect him to grasp what Infomagic is trying to demonstrate. If one can't understand the mechanics of written language, one might be inclined to dismiss as "bullshit" anything that an author is saying, especially if one's mind is already made up about the subject.

-- Chris (catsy@pond.com), December 02, 1998.

Uncle Deedah - HELP!! - I've got meself into trouble again :)

Chris - "A good strong lead-in sentence is like a good headline, tells the essence of the article, then goes on with the facts, explanations, arguments etc."

To me this is the beauty of Perry's assessment. I agree with you wholeheartedly. The guy is good!.

But that Scalliwag Auntie Magic shouldn't be trusted - although, I must admit, the handle is pretty good.

Just to change the subject, why the obsession with fictitious e-mail id's? Auntie Magic - who are you really, you big puss? :o)

-- Andy (andy_rowland@msn.com), December 02, 1998.

oops...I got mixed up with names Andy, sorry. Rowland is you! Who the heck is the one that replied after you? That name should be substituted for any "Rowland" references in my post above.

Darn, should never have died my hair blond! (kidding, still am a brunnette ;))

-- chris (catsy@pond.com), December 02, 1998.

Sigh.

Aunty Magic's "analysis" of the closely reasoned article by Infomagic may be fairly summarized as follows:

"Is not! Is not! Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit."

Guess that'll put old IM in his place.

First rule of this forum, Aunty: engage brain before posting.

More seriously, Infomagic's reasoning should be chilling to any professional programmer since we all know that doing anything to a complex program, no matter how seemingly innocuous, is likely to have unexpected side effects. Brrrrrr.

-- Franklin Journier (ready4y2k@yahoo.com), December 02, 1998.

Okay,

Lets get radical here. Trash the d*mn computers, every single one! What do you have left? A lot of people, thats what. THE PROBLEM is NOT just the computers! The problem is How do we help all those 6 Billion people, worldwide, survive without a complex technological structure in place? We have just over one year to figure that one out. All other remediation and testing and Y2K bug fixing is simultaneous as we rush onward to 2000. What IS also important is all those people, not just the heavy metal. Get it?

Now how can we get amazingly creative about helping them, in addition to the computers, in the absence of any national or international leadership, at least for the time being? That is the real issue! Quit ringing your d*am hands and saying woe is me, we are doomed! Figure it out. This is your test. Your soul (and numerous others) is counting on you to ALL figure this one out!!

Whew. I dont often get this angry, but I am getting sick and tired of all the me not the rest of us victimized attitudes here!

Its broken -- not All, just some will be fixed in time. Get over it! Get on with what is important, and what works!

Diane

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), December 02, 1998.

Hey Dianne, while you're in that feisty mood, can you give Auntie Magic a good kick up the arse for me? Thank you.

Good old Steve ? - the six million dollar man.......

"We can rebuild him!"

Problem is, multiply this cost by factor x - we're talking about Six thousand million - six *Billion* souls. That's a 'lotta SMDMen.......

6,000,000,000.

Six thousand thousand thousand souls ladies and germs.

As Dianne said "The problem is How do we help all those 6 Billion people, worldwide, survive."

This is where my pathetic attempt at a little logic comes in.

The simple answer, as we all know, is "we can't".

There are a myriad of answers to why "we can't".

Maybe another thread.

-- Andy (andy_rowland@msn.com), December 02, 1998.

Andy, "Can't" just isn't good enough.

Think again, and clobber your noggin for some solutions. Brain storm. Anything goes. Get creative! Get wild! It's important to really think outside the box on this one.

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), December 02, 1998.

Just got back to reading all these responses. Got em in e-mail of course, but decided to see em in order....Thanks for making this a great thread! Good responses and thoughts, one and all (would that that were the case all the time)

But right now I gotta go feed about 50 puppy dawgs....more detailed response will follow

(We can't all agree, but we can all respect each other, even if we might not respect such-and-such an opinion...that's different than not respecting the person)

-- John Howard (Greenville, NC) (pcdir@prodigy.net), December 02, 1998.

Diane,

I got it along time ago. I do not wring my hands and say woe is me. I just accept that reality is not going to conform to my wishes. I do what I can to minimize the impact. I've written my representatives. (Not one has responded.) I've posted tons of articles on other boards to "enlighten" those who read them of the importance of this issue. I had one 16 year old respond to me and call me a "B!t@h" and say that she didn't believe in Santa Claus either. But more importantly I've had dozens of other thank you e-mails and requests to pass the information on to friends. I think of it as my own little Y2K chain letter. :)

"Lets get radical here."

I've always been a radical thinker. I figured out months ago that to really fix this problem it would require a complete change in consciousness of everyone on this planet. It is this same consciousness that caused the problem to begin with.

Egos would have to go and that extension of the ego, referred to as money, would have to go. That is not going to happen. (At least not before Y2K.)

You are never going to tear down all of the walls of selfishness that people have. Their sense of selfworth depends on their perception of being better than "that other guy". They have a vested interest (their ego) in not helping anyone else. Just look at Clinton and his "Y2K" is no problem statement. I do not blame Clinton. Clinton IS the archetype American or haven't you noticed?

The people who read and post on this board are not part of mainstream America. If we were, there would be a whole lot more than 500 posts a day. LOL We are the outside looking in. I've learned to accept that.

I admire your fighter attitude. (Smile) I wish you luck on your quest to solve the problems of the world. I for one will be very happy if just my family survives. Both of my children still live in So. Calif. (sigh)

Anna

-- Anna McKay Ginn (annaginn@aol.com), December 02, 1998.

I for one, wish all my neighbors were like Diane. We'd survive alright.

Do you speak french Diane? If so, you could write something to enlighten and knock some sense in my family for me. *big sigh* I keep looking but there's not much of anything worth written in french on the net about Y2K to really jar my family :( They sort of get it, but not enough I'm afraid :(

-- Chris (catsy@pond.com), December 02, 1998.

Chris, none of the links in French on Sharefin's page will work?

-- Gayla Dunbar (privacy@please.com), December 03, 1998.

Chris,

I actually stumble through French (my father was raised in France until the age of 14 went through WWI in Paris with dirigibles dropping bombs on the city) so it's "in the blood" so to speak, or not to speak. My Spanish is somewhat better but not at almost midnight. Have some friends who are French fluent, but not net surfers. Drat.

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), December 03, 1998.

well, to recap up to this point........

I'm kinda proud of this here forum community. If I had started a thread that disagreed with the worst-case scenario a couple of months ago, there would have been flames out the wazoo.

(How do I know this? Um....been there, done that.)

Maybe...just maybe....those of us who 'get it' are starting to realize that what we need to do, instead of arguing amongst ourselves as to possible outcomes, is to pool our energies in an effort to get those who DON'T get it, in with the program. Whether we think the outcome will be a '1' or a '10' or whatever in between. The vast majority of the population have no clue as to ANY outcome.

Now. Exercising my God-and-Constitution-given right to express my opinion: As far as what Infomagic says. And this is just my opinion, of course, so feel free to trash all words from this point forward.

When the Y2K problem first came out, it was going to be somewhat of a problem.

Then it was going to be a pretty big problem.

Then it was, if a large percentage of the world's computers aren't fixed, it will be the end of the world.

Now, Infomagic says, if even a small percentage of the world's computers fail, it could well be the end of civilization as we know it.

At this rate, the next big thing will be, if Bill Gates' laptop's battery runs out, and he isn't able to replace it with a fresh battery within 5 minutes, nuclear catastrophe will engulf the entire planet.

Ridiculous? Absolutely.

-- John Howard (Greenville, NC) (pcdir@prodigy.net), December 03, 1998.