A quick suggestion...

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

...in the spirit of minimizing needless arguement.

I'm sure Gary North won't want to do this, but maybe some of the rest of us can.

The idea that "no bank has reached compliance" or that "no power plant" is compliant (fill in your own blank) seems to be a major point of contention. As a Doom 'n Gloomer myself, I would like to appeal to the other D'n G's to throw the pollyannas a bone and give them the benefit of the doubt and say things like "since only a small percentage of banks are claiming to be compliant" or maybe "since there are very few reported compliant power plants" or something along those lines.

The reason for this suggestion is simply that the "battle" is not between us. We all want the same thing. We all want to lead our lives in peace and safety. Yes, there are a few nasties out there who get their rocks off by creating negativity. Ignore 'em. Therefore, I suggest this simple semantic exercize. Paul Milne? why don't you be the first to try it? I know you've got heart, and it won't hurt you. You'll still be right, but it will mitigate some of the pointless animosity.

Just my very humble opinion...

-- pshannon (pshannon@inch.com), January 08, 1999


I personally would like to understand the mind and reasoning of the person who considers Y2K to be a non-event. I don't get "them" and feel it would be of value to learn why they are not concerned.

-- Bumble Bee (bumble@icanect.net), January 08, 1999.

Understanding the mindset of people who think Y2K will be a non-event. While I don't think it will be a non-event, I certainly don't buy into TEOTWAWKI thing by any means. I'd be willing to bet that most of the folks who don't think it will be that big'o'deal are actually the ones working on the problem. Like I said in an earlier thread - I was raised to 'NEVER GIVE UP.....NEVER!' I pride myself on that and have instilled that mindset in my children and the kids I coach in Little League - many victories in the bottom of the 7th because of that mindset! The IT industry has so many, MANY talented, hard-working individuals that won't give up. Hell, we made the problem, we can fix it too. Only a quitter would think otherwise. And, yes, I'm one of the Y2K management people that you folks think so highly of.

You asked.....


-- Deano (deano@luvthebeach.com), January 08, 1999.

Gosh, this is getting to be on the order of Clinton's trial-or-censure question!!!

While it might seem perfectly reasonable for us to simply agree that currently "an insufficient number" of banks and utilities are Y2K compliant, I think that this actually skirts the issue. The fact is, we don't actually see any bank or electric utility actually bellying up to the bar and claiming compliance. What we do see are people who know of testing that has been done at an electric utility by setting clocks forward or whatever, and then concluding that this constitutes Y2K complaince. Or someone else who "knows" via some "undercover" source that their bank is absolutely 100% ready, but because of The Lawyers, cannot say anything about it. If we accept this as being sufficient grounds for Y2K compliance, quite frankly we might as well consider everything to be, because we have given up any standards.

And you know, the whole issue of whether a specific bank or a specific electric utility is or is not compliant should not be the big mystery that the Y2K optimists portray it to be. My own electric utility, NOVEC, has a web site and claims it will be compliant by July 31, 1999. My own bank, Wachovia, has a web site and claims it will be compliant by March 31, 1999. (Gee, thats funny, it was claiming December 31, 1998, until just a few days ago.... Ack! Never mind, lets stay on topic here, Jack.) So, it seems to me that the right way to settle this is to simply ask if anyone, anywhere, can provide the URL for any bank or any electric utility that claims that it is ... Y2K compliant. As in, Now. Not next quarter, or next month. But ... now.

-- Jack (jsprat@eld.net), January 08, 1999.

I really do admire anyone who can *effectively* debate "non-event'ers" without losing it, hurling invective, etc. Of course, a well-timed outburst has its place! But rational talking gets you further. It's more than I can usually pull off, myself. :-)

Some good discussions of this sort are on the CompuServe Year 2000 Forum which is where I first "got it," in 1997. The general tone of the forum is GI but a lot of business and engineering types and other professionals show up saying really stunning DGI things, but interesting nonetheless. Instead of flames the GI's engage them. Harlan Smith posts there as sysop and I find him extremely articulate (yeah I know Milne thinks he's a butthead...)

At this late date I don't have much time myself to spend on awareness discussions, so I have to leave it to those who have the talent. Many of the good minds are right here, that's why I keep coming back.


(Read-only unless you're a member.)

-- D B Spence (dbspence@usa.net), January 08, 1999.

I read in y2kNews Magazine that City Utilities in Springfield, MO. was compliant. The first time they tested they found glitches. Had outside person or consultant test and are y2k compliant. Of course that does not mean their vendors. Rick Cowles also had the articles on his site euy2k.com

-- gilda jessie (jess@listbot.com), January 08, 1999.

I hate to phrase it like this, but I think it will depend on how you define "y2k compliant" :)

It has been noted before that software cannot be proven correct, and no currently running software has been proven correct for any of its functions. Some testing has been done, and it runs OK most of the time. For y2k, the most anybody could ever say is: "We've done some testing on these cases." You can have fancy legal or high-level marketing statements, but on the ground, the way I've phrased it is the only realistic possible statement. Why is more demanded of y2k, as a special class of the millions of bugs out there ?


-- runway cat (runway_cat@hotmail.com), January 08, 1999.

Wasn't it Alan Greenspan who said that "99% is not good enough.."...

or something to that effect?

-- Tim (pixmo@pixelquest.com), January 08, 1999.

Claiming compliance.

First of all, no company can claim compliance because their legal staffs won't let them.

Why? Because even if every single computer system in the company is fixed, some external event may come in and mess things totally up.

And companies are terribly afraid of being sued because the legal awards are occasionally large multiples of the actual damage done.

What you will see, I think, are qualified statements by companies about their Y2K processes in order to indicate attempts at compliance.

Following Ed Yourdon's logic, at least we can assume companies that manage to get through testing with a reasonable level of confidence will be able to handle some level of triage after Y2K, assuming some basic facilities (like power) are available.

I'll be looking for many statements from many companies about being in the "testing" phase of Y2K by July, or I'll be moving to the country to help relatives with their farms.

-- Glen Austin (gdaustin@aol.com), January 08, 1999.

I went to a Wash. D.C. y2k meeting at Fannie Mae in July. To paraphrase the Vice-pres. (fannie mae)---" We assess, fix, test; everything is fine. Six months later, we're not compliant again.

-- Arthur Rambo (buriedtreasure@webtv.net), January 08, 1999.

# # # 19990108


I can't find the Grenspan quote but I recall it, too. Here's a few other 99% ISN'T GOOD ENOUGH statements ...


Are Telcos Ready For Year 2000

INFORMATIONWEEK ( June 22, 1998, Issue: 688 )

"Year 2000 is truly a 'weakest link' problem," says A. Gerard Roth, VP of technology programs at GTE. "The single system or date conversion we miss may be the undoing of the 99% we did find." Because the telcos can't recreate the entire public network, the true test of the network won't come until Jan. 1, 2000, adds Roth."


Navy official: Date code failure rate must be nil


''Even if 99 percent of the Navys systems are ready for 2000, the service likely will experience severe service hiccups, said Vice Adm. Arthur Cebrowski, the Navys director of space, information warfare, command and control.

A failure rate of just 1 percent may be enough to significantly hamper Navy operations, Cebrowski said this month at the GCN Forum luncheon in Washington.

"Clearly, 1 percent is not satisfactory," he said.''

"GET IT?!!"

Regards, Bob Mangus # # #

-- Robert Mangus (rmangus@mail.netquest.com), January 08, 1999.

Thanks Rob, that's what I thought...

Greenspan used to be a programmer...and if I recall, he's not in the stock market, either.

-- Tim (pixmo@pixelquest.com), January 09, 1999.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ