My claim is that the facts about the Y2K process as a whole have been abysmal and remain bad until this date. I argue that while we cannot know Y2K consequences (the province of prophecy, which is vital for other reasons but not for the purposes of facts), the facts about the Y2K process so far justify only a doombrood logic.

I also challenge others to debate the status of the facts.

What is a fact? Unfortunately, given the abysmal (my favorite word today) state of American education, very few of us know what a fact is or how to debate facts. And we are even poorer at knowing how to rate or categorize a fact with other facts.

Here is a small (quite small) but legitimate Y2K process fact from today's Westergaard column by Dick Mills.

"My personal experience includes the Power Engineering Society of IEEE. At the 1998 Winter Meeting I tried to stimulate interest in Y2K for a session. The only thing I got was ten minutes at a subcommittee meeting where I was ambushed by engineers who thought Y2K is a hoax. The next opportunity was for a session at the 1998 Summer Meeting. This session was scheduled but canceled due to lack of interest. Not until 1999 is the issue beginning to reach even modest prominence in the Power Engineering Society."

This Society is filled by engineers active in the utility industry. I consider this fact (note that I admit I judge Mill's report credible which other might question) negative with respect to Y2K remediation. That is, while I might expect management to treat Y2K as a hoax as late as summer 1998 (and even that is a highly negative fact), I consider the attitude of engineers here a negative indicator for the success of Y2K remediation.

BTW, Mills makes the point in the same column that the nuclear industry seems more aware. That could be raised as a positive fact about Y2K remediation. For reasons I won't go into here, I feel there are other positive facts about the nuclear industry and Y2K.

Are we learning together here, boys and girls?

Scaling facts about Y2K involves very complex, hard, intellectual work that looks at how systems, industries, governments, etc. interact. More than this tiny thread can handle.

Let me say once again, taken as a whole:

THE Y2K FACTS WE HAVE IN OUR HAND GLOBALLY AS A WHOLE AS OF 'TODAY' WARRANT ONLY PESSIMISM ABOUT Y2K REMEDIATION CONSEQUENCES.

The facts don't prove a bad result will occur because we cannot know in advance (prophesy) the resilience of the world's systems. Einstein himself would be hopelessly unable to process all of the existing facts in order to judge the degree of resilience.

However, PESSIMISM about CONSEQUENCES is warranted by the facts SO FAR.

The debating floor is open, but you have to bring an actual fact into this thread (I not only welcome, I long for optimistic ones my pollyanna friends) or you will be disembowelled on sight.

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), February 05, 1999

Answers

Some added facts, follow the money trail. In the 3rd quarter S&P 500 10q filings, the budgeted money for y2k compared to actual "reported" spent" was very low. Companies like Boeing were at 16% and the big auto makers were around a third. Averaged together, the S&P 500 is planning to throw more than half their money at this problem in 1999. As we all know, money is not the problem here, but time and personnel.

-- James Chancellor (publicworks1@bluebonnet.net), February 05, 1999.

and Parts.

-- James Chancellor (publicworks1@bluebonnet.net), February 05, 1999.

Fact: it is possible, today, to make a reservation for next year using the y2k-revamped travel airline reservation software.

-- Blue Himalayan (bh@k2.y), February 05, 1999.

Can't argue. If anything the more we learn about complex systems, and remediation, the more cause for pessimism.

Optimism only comes personally, as the result of considered adequate preparation for both y2k and one's considered post y2k world.

-- Mitchell Barnes (spanda@inreach.com), February 05, 1999.

Fact: food stamped with 00 expiration dates is being processed through factories and supermarkets with no problems at all.

-- Blue Himalayan (bh@k2.y), February 05, 1999.

Fact: my VISA card with a 00 expiration date is accepted everywhere.

-- Blue Himalayan (bh@k2.y), February 05, 1999.

Fact: a substantial percentage of software does not uses date, or uses it only trivially.

-- Blue Himalayan (bh@k2.y), February 05, 1999.

Fact: the software part of the Euro introduction, predicted by y2k gloomers such as North to be problematic, went fairly smoothly, apart from French post office riot (big deal).

-- Blue Himalayan (bh@k2.y), February 05, 1999.

Fact: the Jo-Anne Effect has not materialized.

-- Blue Himalayan (bh@k2.y), February 05, 1999.

Blue Himalayan: Yes, EXACTLY. Of course there are positive Y2K facts! The fact game has never been zero-sum on the side of doombrooders.

With respect to the airlines, I would like to see some quantitatively reported facts about the processing realities between yesterday and, say, a month from now. And some simple due diligence to determine (if we can, sigh) whether pet tricks are being performed behind the scenes to mask Y2K errors.

But (listen up, pollyannas), I'm not paranoid. Simple due diligence is what I'm asking for.

If the airline processing holds up, this is genuinely good news and a major FACT because we are dealing here with an enterprise system.

However, does this FACT even if it holds up, warrant optimism about Y2K as a whole. Not yet, bozos. Sheesh. We need many, many, many, many, many positive facts. I hope we get them. Meanwhile, the pessimism stands.

James Chancellor's are also facts, though more controversial because some consider them trivial. But I argue, as I have repeatedly, that while they may or may not prove to be trivial with respect to Y2K consequences, we can reasonably deduce from the near-universal budget disconnects that the Y2K process is being managed abysmally. See Ed Yardeni's careful reporting and pessimistic analysis of these facts.

And again, thank you, Blue. EXACTLY. How about some more simple facts? Reasoned challenges to facts presented or extensions to them also permitted.

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), February 05, 1999.

Blue, now you're posting too fast for me, but keep it up. Have comments about euro and JAE. Back later. Real life beckons.

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), February 05, 1999.

QUESTION: Which "costs more"...windowing/bridging-or-full remediation of date fields in lines of code? answer that and you will have some decent "facts" to explain the mysterious COST issue as well as why some appear to be defying time-schedules most assume are fixed in cement.

-- roadman (taking@breather.net), February 05, 1999.

Fact: Months back I was derided for stating that much good news would materialize between Jan and June of this year, culminating in a flood of 'Y2K ready' reports before the first of July.

The flood has begun. Get your boat ready.

-- Paul Davis (davisp1953@yahoo.com), February 05, 1999.

Where do facts come from? First, read this report:

http://www.koreaherald.co.kr/kh0204/m0204b12.html

Recently, a World Bank report was posted here, with 'analysis' (sic), as facts and evidence documenting the sorry state of third world countries. How were these data collected? This story gives us a clue.

The world bank sent a single individual named, A. Khawaja, to South Korea. Khawaja spent two days there, during which he 'evaluated' five institutions, not including anything in the government.

(It might be possible in two days for a single individual to do a meaningful evaluation of a single critical system at a single institution, if he's thoroughly familiar with that system. Do you suppose Khawaja can speak or read Korean?)

Because Khawaja didn't have time to examine any government agencies at all, he was forced to leave this part of his report blank. The World Bank interpreted this non-response to mean that the Korean government had not yet even reached the awareness stage!

Any two-day visit to any country by a single individual necessarily leaves a great deal blank. Why would the World Bank count these blanks as 'unaware' rather than 'unknown'? Two reasons: First, the World Bank stands the best chance of receiving the funding it wants if the situation can be made to look as bad as possible. Second, the very large number of 'unknowns' would make the World Bank study look as inadequate as it actually was.

Other studies (read the story) have found South Korea to 'compare favorible' with advanced countries.

So where do facts come from? The World Bank makes them up as needed. And then presents them as nice, hard numbers. How can we doubt such a report -- it has *numbers* in it. Anyone who questions it is in denial of the facts themselves!

NOW, this doesn't by any means show that third world countries are in good shape. It does indicate that published facts are accepted as accurate at your own risk.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), February 05, 1999.

Blue, P.D.,

interesting reflection of late 20th century American society - Everything you've mentioned more or less falls within the context of a 'service related industry'. Perhaps you noticed?

Arlin

-- Arlin H. Adams (ahadams@ix.netcom.com), February 05, 1999.

Fact: not all experienced power engineers are pessimistic.

From Skousen Power Evaluation

These past couple of days, I have been able to talk to a couple of the higher ups in the Power Distribution end of Pacific Power Corp, the major Supplier of Power to the Pacific Northwest and Intermountain West. One was in Dispatch (who controls routing of power), and the other was head of the Electronic Monitoring System (EMS) division (which is the main electronic system that supplies critical data as to status, voltage, and line/switch integrity throughout the power system), and who is also a member of the Y2k team. Here's what I was able to confirm: There are 3 or 4 master EMS stations in the Northwest that are absolutely critical for controlling power within the region. These are all fairly recent vintage electronic control units and appear, from current testing and simulations, that they are going to function well at the millenium. There are no COBOL programs controlling them, mostly embedded logic systems that are being upgraded where necessary with few problems. The head of EMS said he really did not expect to see any problems at the master level. He did indicate however that there are a fair amount of older vintage "submaster" systems under this master level that could present a problem. Being older, it is harder to get a handle on testing and fixing the embedded logic. On the other hand, both he and the one of the top dispatchers I spoke with said they can override these submaster controlls and even the relays at the substation level. But to do so, they have to physically send people out in the field to actuate these relays at the substations. The problem with manual overrides, however, is that (if electronic monitoring is down, or partially down) they may not be able to determine if the relay tripped due to a physical fault or a monitoring glitch. So my earlier point about liability being a major deterrent against override is valid--at least until a crisis arises. Only then, I think the powers that be will be under sufficient pressure to get the local power grid back up despite the "unknown" risk. Again, the Utility people I talked to felt this would only be an issue at the substation levels, not at the major distribution level which will be or is already y2k compliant. So, in summary, the non-programmed electronic functions are not going to be much of a problem. The hydroelectric system will produce power and that power can be distributed. Those I talked to did confirm that the software controlled problems were localized at the sources of power generation, and have to do with safety and periodic maintenance functions. Hydroelectric has the least complexity, followed by coal plants. The most vulnerable to bad safety software are the nuclear plants, of which there are few in the Northwest. All generating sources have manual-electronic bypasses, so the problem of computer generated maintenance checks and safety software can be bypassed if it isn't in compliance in time. But this becomes a political and liability issue more than a physical problem, ultimately. Finally I asked the EMS director to give me a gut feeling or prognosis for Y2k problem/compliance and the possibility of a major break down in the grid. He said he felt confident that almost all the control systems would be fully tested and compliant by 2000, and that the major breakdown scenario was extremely remote for the Northwest--he could not speak for other regions. He did say there could be some small pockets of problems at the sub and submaster station level, but that they could be worked around, manually, in fairly short order.

-- Blue Himalayan (bh@k2.y), February 05, 1999.

From http://flash.al.com/cgi-bin/al_nview.pl?/home1/wire/AP/Stream-Parsed/F INANCIAL/f0015_PM_Year2000

"Agriculture Secretary Dan Glickman says it is unlikely the Year 2000 computer problem will cause widespread food shortages, partly because few U.S. farmers use high-tech systems that might be susceptible."

Mr. Secretary, the fact is that the vast majority of them use diesel and chemicals. Please try again, and this time please pay attention.

-- David (dwaldrip@aol.com), February 05, 1999.

Flint, you present a good example, and it probably illustrates the true difference between a pollyanna and a doomer. "Unknown" to a pollyanna gives rise to optimism, since it implies that there are no known facts that support Y2K bad news; to a doomer, it gives rise to pessimism, since it implies that there are no known facts that support Y2K good news.

-- Jack (jsprat@eld.net), February 05, 1999.

Although I am an optimist I will take issue with this one.

"Fact: the Jo-Anne Effect has not materialized."

The JAE has materialized. I've seen it in my own company. However, the effects of it are overrated. Problems caused by the JAE can be overcome quickly through normal reconciliation and auditing routines carried out by financial personnel.

-- optimist (optimist@pollyanna.y2k), February 05, 1999.

Fact: a large majority of the business world promised completed remediation by December 31, 1998.

If that had happened, I don't think this thread would exist.

-- Kevin (mixesmusic@worldnet.att.net), February 05, 1999.

Fact: The global economy, with the exception of the US and some European countries is in dire straights.

On a less factual note, it is my understanding that the global money supply (due to the operations of the "Reserve Banks") only grows when debt grows. If true, it is not possible to shrink or even hold steady the debt "bubble" without negative economic impacts.

To me, the economy looks like a big balloon, and Y2K a very sharp pin.

-- Anonymous99 (Anonymous99@anonymous.com), February 05, 1999.

Fact - diesel fuel ain't high tech. You can substiute soybean oil, cottonseed oil, or even straight crude oil if you don't mind servicing the engine more often.

Fact - most farmers overfertilize. Yields would be reduced from the past year if fertilizer was not available - but not by anything like the amount required to cause widespread hunger in this country. Do none of you even see the emergency silos they build in grain country - some places close main street and fill the roads with grain covered with plastic!

-- Paul Davis (davisp1953@yahoo.com), February 05, 1999.

I sure hope Paul is correct. With 10+ months to go, and with the increased media awareness, I would think than any company that has make it would be quick to announce so. Sure, we have that legal problem, but if I knew for sure that my company would function. I'ld want to let others know! Maybe all the quiet companies are in the final stages of testing, just where they should be about now. Maybe the water will rise soon. Will it be a flood, or just a passing shower of good news? Promise keepers - where are you?

-- Sysman (working@it.edu), February 05, 1999.

Lots of disparate "facts ..." to respond to:

Blue: The distinction between mission-critical and other systems is partly based on judgments about the triviality of date usage in a given application as well as its relevance to operations. I wouldn't say we know enough to claim that a "significant percentage" uses dates trivially. This is one of the crap shoots of Y2K and makes me pessimistic.

That is: if we had started in time (fact: we haven't) we could have completed both mission-critical and (we hope) non mission-critical remediation. But we didn't. So it is a fact that there is trivial date usage, but we don't know the percentage and it is bad news that we ever had to triage systems at all.

Re euro: I never agreed with this GI prediction personally, because euro and Y2K incomparable except that both are large projects, but I'll let this go.

JAE: Jury is out with respect to the FACTS. I think "optimist" may prove correct, at least that JAE damage will be contained below the public Y2K noise level, but that is prophecy on both our parts. Need several more months on this until FACTS emerge.

Paul: Heck, you've been derided for so many things and justifiably I might add that you're bound to be correct on some of the facts that hit you personally :-). But, hey, I asked for facts and I suppose you provided one. As for what will happen between now and June, Paul, that's prophecy, not fact. NOT FACTS. However, I agree with your prophecy. In fact, there is going to be a lot of authentically good Y2K news all this year, one reason I don't predict a large panic.

IMPORTANT DIGRESSION: One reason for this thread is that this year is going to be all about weighing facts about missed/claimed remediation as they come in and, duh, weighing them fairly. And, here is where the rubber hits the road, evaluating those facts against the industry and interface dependencies (utilities/fuel), (Medicare/hospitals), (Japan/U.S.), etc.

roadman: answer your own question in the form of a fact. Then, if you're able to write a coherent sentence about it, we'll talk.

Arlin: not a fact, but I hadn't noticed that way of interpreting the facts. Interesting. We may discover FACTS as the year goes by that differentiate different industry sectors from one another. Let's stay tuned.

Blue: great and encouraging anecdote from the optimistic engineer, but not a fact we can use for extrapolation. For instance, minor though it was, Mills' point was that he tried and couldn't organize enough interest for a group of engineers to discuss Y2K: specific action, specific point in time to do something specific about Y2K. Your attributed post had lots of reported feelings, opinions and judgments about how things are but I could raise five or ten questions ASAP if I were auditing their site that are not described here quantitatively.

Kevin: Yes. This is a fact. While everyone wants to blow it off ("oh, no one really means those dates to be real in the first place"),it is the most serious fact reported on this thread, particularly because it is near-universal. And, because these same entities self-declared the need to spend a full year in test (completely congruent with IT experience). Saying, as Paul did on another thread, that experience shows Y2K testing is not revealing much and, by implication, doesn't need to be taken seriously, is ridiculous.

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), February 05, 1999.

Blue Himalaya,

The euro didn't go quite as smoothly as all that according to a news article "Banks bugged by a fear of the Millennium" by Anthony Hilton, City Editor that appeared yesterday on the news link of this site. When I pull it up from there I don't get a URL so can't post one. The article can be found under News stories added on Feb 4, 1999.

QUOTE:

While city banks were delighted to report that the launch of the euro was almost technically fautless here, several banks in member States were unable to cope. Money was sent to the wrong place at the wrong time in the wrong currency.

The millennium is bound to see these problems repeated and exaggerated.....

UNQUOTE.

Just thought you might like to know if you didn't already.

-- Carol (usa-uk@email.msn.com), February 05, 1999.

Sorry Blue HimalayaN....

-- Carol (usa-uk@email.msn.com), February 05, 1999.

Anonymous99: I would rather say that "the world is experiencing a historically unique imbalance between prosperity (US) and deep recession (Japan, Asia, Russia, parts of South America." That's a FACT. Interpreting it is hard. Deciding what effect Y2K will have is prophecy, useful, but not for this thread.

Paul:

"Fact - most farmers overfertilize. Yields would be reduced from the past year if fertilizer was not available - but not by anything like the amount required to cause widespread hunger in this country. Do none of you even see the emergency silos they build in grain country - some places close main street and fill the roads with grain covered with plastic!"

Overfertilization may be a fact, though I'm not sure you know enough about agriculture to claim it so? Certainly, the dominance and automation of agribusiness is a FACT; I won't go into the sad, human costs of this in my rural dairy-farming county, hope we can just agree on the FACT.

The consequences of breakdowns in fuel supply are prophecy at this point, though you are right that there are flexibilities ("resilience") that come into play.

Look, guys, I'm not hair-splitting here. Learning to determine in this NG the difference between FACTS (what is credibly known today), INTERPRETATION (while arguing fairly over the criteria being applied on the facts to produce the opinion) and PROPHECY (Y2K consequences) won't bring world (or even the NG) peace but it might help some who are reading to sort out signal from noise.

When I say that Y2K will cause a 5-10 year depression, that is PROPHECY. Prophecy (we all do it, consciously or unconsciously) is extraordinarily useful for guiding decisions (at least I think so), especially for preparation decisions, but it isn't FACT.

We need all three (FACT+INTERPRETATION+PROPHECY) but need to know where the boundaries lie for each one.

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), February 05, 1999.

FACT: Today Big Dog experienced the truth in the warning that goes something like this: "Be careful what you ask for because you just might get." Blue Himalayan and Paul Davis you have once again done excellent work in shining the cruel light of truth on Y2k hysteria. Fact #2: The largest energy producer in Sweden has already set the time in its systems to 2000 and they are working just fine. Fact #3: Many of us are using time shifting in Yk challenged alarm systems and the only draw back is bogus dates on the management reports which no one reads. Fact #4: One of my programmers completed all the Y2k remediation on 1300 Dibol programs in 1997. That's beginning to end in 1997 on a system of highly integrated financial applications and she took 12 weeks of maternity leave that year as well. Fact #5: Only about 10% of those programs required modification because the rest didn't do any DATE ARITHMETIC and if you ain't doin math with the dates and don't mind continuing to display two digit years then you don't have a problem. Fact #6: Big Dog talks about facts but only gives opinions.

-- Woe Is Me (wim@gloom.doom), February 05, 1999.

Woe Is Me,

I am in search of the facts. I read last week that the electrical utilities in Nova Scotia were also working as though it were the Year 2000. When I researched this I was disappointed to find out this was not factual at all.

You mention at #2 that the largest energy producer in Sweden is working as though it is the Year 2000. Can you provide a URL for this fact?

Thank you

-- Carol (usa-uk@email.msn.com), February 05, 1999.

We Himalayan Bluepoints thank Carol, who wrote as follows re euro conversion: Money was sent to the wrong place at the wrong time in the wrong currency.

Now Carol, all we need to know is the number of times per day this happens anyway, for any of a zillion reasons ?

-- Blue Himalayan (bh@k2.y), February 05, 1999.

[Man, I've attracted attacking Pollyannas to this thread like flies! Woe, how ya doing?!!]

"FACT: Today Big Dog experienced the truth in the warning that goes something like this: "Be careful what you ask for because you just might get."

[This isn't a game, Woe, and I've really never kept score of the debating points. But you're right, I'm interested in facts, always have been, so it wasn't a matter of "being careful ...."]

Blue Himalayan and Paul Davis you have once again done excellent work in shining the cruel light of truth on Y2k hysteria.

[Lame, Woe, it's not your style, try again]

Fact #2: The largest energy producer in Sweden has already set the time in its systems to 2000 and they are working just fine.

[True, so far as I have followed the news on it. And interesting, potentially relevant, though I haven't seen much to indicate whether their example maps to others or is being applied.]

Fact #3: Many of us are using time shifting in Yk challenged alarm systems and the only draw back is bogus dates on the management reports which no one reads.

[Who is "us" and where is this verified or publicly reported? Anecdotes don't count as FACTS when analyzing Y2K remediation effort, whether by doombrooders (negative) or pollyannas (positive)]

Fact #4: One of my programmers completed all the Y2k remediation on 1300 Dibol programs in 1997. That's beginning to end in 1997 on a system of highly integrated financial applications and she took 12 weeks of maternity leave that year as well.

[Good work.]

Fact #5: Only about 10% of those programs required modification because the rest didn't do any DATE ARITHMETIC and if you ain't doin math with the dates and don't mind continuing to display two digit years then you don't have a problem.

[True obviously]

Fact #6: Big Dog talks about facts but only gives opinions.

[Be specific, Woe.

Now, it is true that I am not personally involved in Y2K remediation and you are, to some degree. But we can't count your organization's experiences as a Y2K remediation FACT, unless they are publicly reported by management. Sorry. Nor could we count mine, even if I were involved.

That's the nature of analyzing a GLOBAL problem that crosses all countries/industries. How do I know you're not lying (I'm not being facetious nor nasty, Woe, but I can only respond to the electronic tokens you/someone is depositing on a thread today on Yourdon)?

These are the kind of FACTS we can analyze:

Publicly reported compliance schedules and meeting/slipping of those dates

Publicly reported budgets

Publicly reported test plans and the public, verified results of tests

Publicly reported compliance (heck, readiness) and independent audits of compliance/readiness

Publicly reported means "in the public domain."

Obviously, much is going on that won't be reported (Woe? TM? Flint? Sysman? others on this NG who are working hard ....). Awesome. It counts, of course. The anecdotes are relevant (I pay a lot of personal attention to smelling them out since they are sometimes more reliable than the reported stuff). BUT:

The only ground for intelligent debate and preparation is analysis of what is reported.

Class dismissed, Woe. Your assignment is to tell me how much of your organization's work was/is publicly reported (budgets, schedules, tests, compliance). Since it's done, Woe, how about starting with your company's name? And then all the relevant details. That given and verifiable, your work will receive deserved appreciation and stand as a FACT on this thread.

You essentially flamed me, but I stand ready to genuinely thank you for your Y2K work, Woe. If I could personally thank every geek/geekette who has been rescuing our bacon from this outrageously idiotic problem, I would.

BUT I'M SERIOUS ABOUT YOU PROVIDING THE EVIDENCE, WOE. OTHERWISE, YOU'RE JUST A BS ARTIST TRYING TO SCORE MEANINGLESS POINTS, EVEN IF YOU DID DO THE WORK.

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), February 05, 1999.

Fact:

Natural Gas Pipeline Distribution The American Gas Association has said at:(http://www.aga.com/gio/utilitiesy2kfaq.html):

"Put simply, interstate natural gas pipelines are the 'highways' for natural gas. About 260,000 miles of high-strength steel pipe, ranging in diameter from 20 inches to 42 inches, move huge amounts of natural gas thousands of miles from producing regions to local natural gas utilities. COMPRESSOR stations are located approximately ever 50 to 60 miles along each pipeline to boost the pressure that is lost through the friction of natural gas moving through the steel pipe.

Embedded chips are used in COMPRESSOR CONTROLS, flow calculations, which help to meter gas moving through pipelines, storage facilities or city-gate stations...other systems reliant upon embedded chips can be found at the previously listed URL (also a MAP of the Pipeline Distribution Network)

AGA says 29% of the companies are NOT "very confident in their ability to solve the embedded processor issues." The grid is like a chain. If one place in the chain breaks, everything from there down the line is cut off. It is not like a rope where if one strand breaks the rest of the system continues.

FACT or OPINION? A quote from Bruce Beach: "No one kept track of the sources of the processors, their serial numbers, or their batch numbers. They were just used. For this reason one particular piece of equipment may be just fine and the one manufactured immediately after is may have a faulty processor. This means that EVERY piece of equipment having an embedded processor would now have to be tested individually, and the processors are almost impossible to test."

Deborah

P.S. This information is from Jan.23,1999

-- Deborah (embeddedchips@gas.uhoh), February 05, 1999.

FACT: The Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board is on record as saying "99% remediation [of the banking/finance industry] is not good enough" implying that it must be 100% or else the latent error rate will mushroom out of control, and destroy the economic infrastructure.

FACT: 100% remediation of said industry is OUT OF THE QUESTION.

-- a (a@a.a), February 05, 1999.

Carol,

Sorry but I didn't keep track of the articles. However, I have seen this reported in several places. It may be in one of Dick Mills' artcles. If you haven't read Mills he is at the Westergaard site which is www.y2ktimebomb.com. If you check around in your community you may find that the engineers supporting your local electric utility's control systems will tell you a lot more privately than their lawyers will let them say publicly. What I have been told by engineers doing the Y2k work at the local nuke plant is that they have found only a few minor problems. Further, they have found (as I have) that some RTU's(Remote Terminal Units) roll over to 1980 rather than 2000 but it causes no problem because the application software in those RTU's does not access the date. There have been some very good factual discussions on this forum regarding electricity but I am not sure if they all remain in the archives. Perhaps someone can suggest for you an efficient way to query those archives. On the negative side, I suspect the Utilities will have a hard time getting all their business applications finished. In spite of all the hoopla about embedded systems the vast majority of the work is in plain old data processing systems. Also, in most organizations, the Y2k fixes are more complicated on the old data processing systems than they are on control systems. This fact can be illustrated by following the Y2k money trail.

Whether you have developed an opinion on the Y2k consequences or not, your time spent researching the problem will be well spent if you drill down deeply into the impact in various industries and professions because in depth research of this problem will give you new insights into the working of our very complex world. Have a nice weekend.

-- Woe Is Me (wim@gloom.doom), February 05, 1999.

FACT: Over 20% of people surveyed in recent polls claim they will withdraw 100% of their cash.

FACT: If 4% actually do, banks will fail.

-- a (a@a.a), February 05, 1999.

FACT: Oil production will be seriously curtailed by y2k.

FACT: When oil production is seriously curtailed, a recession or depression is the result.

And I don't care how much cottonseed oil Paul manages to round up, it will not be enough to power enough of the world's diesel engines to avert a catastrophe. (prophecy)

-- a (a@a.a), February 05, 1999.

FACT: Due to slipped schedules by most of the y2k remediation projects, testing will be abbreviated or non-existent.

FACT: When testing is shortened or not done at all, massive failures are highly likely.

-- a (a@a.a), February 05, 1999.

a

Shame on you. There has been no such data reported. Rather it has been reported that a small percentage of the population intends to have SOME cash on hand. Pay attention now, Big Dog asked for facts on this thread. By the way, I love some of that pysco-babble stuff you have posted.

-- Woe Is Me (wim@doom.gloom), February 05, 1999.

FACT: Failure of one or two key suppliers can bring an entire company to a halt.

FACT: There is no large scale technological or service industry in the world that is even 5% compliant as of 05 Feb 1999.

-- a (a@a.a), February 05, 1999.

FACT: Governments of Canada and NY experience FY rollover in a little over two months.

FACT: Said governments will not finish remediation, let alone testing, of EVEN mission critial systems by this date.

-- a (a@a.a), February 05, 1999.

FACT: Government of US experiences FY rollover in a little over eight months.

FACT: Said government will not finish remediation, let alone testing, of EVEN mission critial systems by this date.

-- a (a@a.a), February 05, 1999.

Woe: ZD Net survey this week - 24.1% will pull 91-100% (www.zdnet.com)

CNN survey two weeks ago - 16% will pull 100% (www.cnn.com)

-- a (a@a.a), February 05, 1999.

Paul Davis' contention regarding fertilizer makes sense to me, and even absent actual yield figures, since America currently produces far more than is needed domestically, I suspect that he's probably right about this. Isn't it ADM that claims to "feed the world"? This situation would also be a real boon ecologically in terms of cleaning up our food chain.

I have a few questions though, about the use of alternative oils in diesel engines for farming (or anywhere else for that matter). The fact that diesels will function on, "soybean oil, cottonseed oil, or even straight crude oil if you don't mind servicing the engine more often", doesn't address the question of availability or volume of supply or cost. It seems obvious to me that if those options were cheaper and readily available and viable in a maintenance sense, they would be in use now. Paul, you previously related to us an anecdote about someone you personally knew that used crude oil in his tractor, but how common do you think that scenario is, or would be? I submit that it is unlikely that we, either currently or in the event of a crude oil shortage, refine, or could refine, enough soybean and/or cottonseed oil in this country to replace the diesel fuel currently used and even if we had such a supply, there is the matter of distributing it to where it would need to be used.

I would be interested in hearing what you have to say in response to my comments and questions about fuel oil, Paul.

-- Hardliner (searcher@internet.com), February 05, 1999.

Neutral fact: if significant numbers of Americans start to pull everything from their accounts, gov't will declare indefinite bank holiday and stop them.

-- Blue Himalayan (bh@k2.y), February 05, 1999.

FACT: Germany is dependent on Russia for 40% of their electricity.

FACT: Russia electric power industry has not begun remediation.

FACT: CIA says (04 Feb 1999) Europe could face natural gas shortage because of the Y2K bug

-- a (a@a.a), February 05, 1999.

FROM: The Men of Few Words Department

SUBJECT: Y2K Prime Fact

If you don't have food or water, you die. Nothing else matters.

MoVe Immediate

-- MVI (vtoc@aol.com), February 05, 1999.

a said, "FACT: Due to slipped schedules by most of the y2k remediation projects, testing will be abbreviated or non-existent.

FACT: When testing is shortened or not done at all, massive failures are highly likely."

These are, indeed, facts. The first fact is not yet widely acknowledged officially, but it is being tacitly acknowledged officially by numerous statements that there doesn't need to be as much testing as had been expected.

Fact two is also true, based on 40 years of IT quantitative research (Boehm, Jones, others). Substitute "major" for "massive" if you like and "probable" for "highly likely" but those are just weasel word mood changes. Note that a doesn't say, "will happen" (prophecy) but "are highly likely." Repeat: that is FACTUAL based on hard research, not some doombrooder's negatively wishful thinking.

By contrast, the INTERPRETATION of the first fact by those claiming that Y2K testing is less important than typical IT testing might turn out to be factual IF Y2K consequences prove minimal. But it is strictly OPINION AS OF NOW and it is BAD OPINION based on real IT historical data.

Get it?

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), February 05, 1999.

FACT: DoD has been caught falsifying y2k data on three occasions.

FACT: FAA has been caught falsifying y2k data on one occasion.

FACT: UK government has been caught falsifying y2k data this week.

FACT: US government has hired a PR firm to put positive spin on y2k status and prevent food stockpiling and cash hoarding.

-- a (a@a.a), February 05, 1999.

FACT: 80% of large scale IT projects are late or cancelled.

FACT: y2k remediation of large enterprise systems and complex architectures has been shown to have metrics as bad or worse than large scale IT projects.

-- a (a@a.a), February 05, 1999.

FACT: y2k will seriously curtail the production and distribution of excess food and medicine.

FACT: 1 billion people depend on excess food and medicine for their survival.

-- a (a@a.a), February 05, 1999.

a --- you're on fire here, man.

FACT: Rep. Horn and his staff predicted in the fall of 98 that "Medicare will fail massively." (Note: their statement is a prophecy, but I am merely stating WHAT they said, which IS a fact).

FACT: Medicare admitted in the Computer Government Weekly in January (for the first time) that "some" of their mission-critical systems will not be ready in January of 2000, but that they are "turning the agency like a battleship turns itself in the water." No comment on that last one.

Now, it is a warranted interpretation (OPINION) of these facts that "Medicare IS in big trouble," since no one has stepped forward to dispute Horn's statement and we have an indirect confirmation from Medicare of problems, given they already know a year ahead of time they aren't going to make it. This leads to my ......

PROPHECY: Medicare will either fail massively or be seriously crippled for a year or more. The consequence: numerous (not all, pollyannas, thank God, just numerous) hospitals, especially small rurals ones, will go out of business by YE 2000.

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), February 05, 1999.

FACT: Social Security is declared compliant.

I accept that at face value, even though it hasn't been externally audited. Look, otherwise, madness stares us all in the face.

However, this raises an important point: even some compliant systems will fail (cf Software Magazine, Nov. 98 for disturbing article on this). Still, in the case of Social Security, we have actual evidence of a decade of hard work and straight-dealing with the problems by the agency. It's probably going to work. So ........

GREAT WORK, GUYS (if any of you read this NG). Thank you to all geeks/geekettes and managers who DID THE RIGHT THING.

Of course (yes, I'm a doombrooder), the Social Security work involves these sobering facts and their follow-ons:

FACT: it took over a decade to make a 30M line classic mainframe system compliant.

FACT: most other systems of equivalent size weren't touched before 1996, at the earliest.

OPINION: This system seems representative of several thousand other of the world's enterprise systems.

PROPHECY: Many enterprise systems will fail, unless work-arounds and pet tricks keep them running at a significantly reduced efficiency. Even in this latter case, the economy will take a major recession/depression hit.

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), February 05, 1999.

FACT: This situation is unprecedented. It is a problem NEVER before dealt with in the history of mankind.

FACT: Intelligent, knowledgeable people disagree about the possible outcome.

FACT: Having extra food, water and other "preps" makes this man feel 100% better about the possible outcome for HIM.

-- Uncle Deedah (oncebitten@twiceshy.com), February 05, 1999.

Though the hundreds of billions for several year global y2k remediation projected by Gartner sounds scary, what shall it be compared to ?

Fact: the Interior Dept reports that $120 billion is spent in the US alone each year for control of rogue species (Guam snakes, kudzu, etc.) Anybody here freaked out by that ?

-- Blue Himalayan (bh@k2.y), February 05, 1999.

Sorry, I want to be factually clear: the figure for rogue species includes the damage they do also, not just the expense of control efforts. Anybody freaked out yet ?

-- Blue Himalayan (bh@k2.y), February 05, 1999.

Blue ---- good point (where did you come up with that number! and more germane

FACT: Spending on Y2K remediation is not a zero-sum game, both because money is being earned productively and because fixed systems are arguably more productive for the long-term.

though also

FACT: Gartner Group was derided by pollyannas when it stuck with 300-600B figures on the grounds that Y2K was a far more trivial problem.

and also

FACT: Current estimates are in the 1T range (2T with ligitation included), suggesting despite claims on this NG that the scope has increased.

OPINION: If self-reported scope has increased and amounts spent on budgeted amounts are behind, this is a bad indicator for Y2K remediation, though mitigated IF roadman's claim can be quantitatively verified BROADLY, namely, that companies are applying effective but less expensive fixes as Y2K expertise increases.

-- BigDog@duffer.com (BigDog@duffer.com), February 05, 1999.

[*sigh* Well, this is supposed to be a debate. Dirty job, but I guess someone's got to do it]

FACT: The Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board is on record as saying "99% remediation [of the banking/finance industry] is not good enough" implying that it must be 100% or else the latent error rate will mushroom out of control, and destroy the economic infrastructure. FACT: 100% remediation of said industry is OUT OF THE QUESTION.

[The first fact here simply quotes an opinion. It's a fact that Gary North says we're all doomed. Whether he's right is a different matter, of course. The second fact here is really an opinion, but it goes deeper than that. No industry is *ever* 100% bug-free. There is a real question about how serious our problems will be and how effectively we'll deal with them. The implication that you're either perfect or dead, and since you ain't perfect...well, stifle it, OK? This isn't a word game.]

FACT: Over 20% of people surveyed in recent polls claim they will withdraw 100% of their cash.

FACT: If 4% actually do, banks will fail.

[Hilarious misuse of statistics, would get you laughed out of Statistics 101 class first week. (1) How much cash *is* 100% of the cash of 20% of the people? Any at all? (might well be none, realistically). (2) IF the government doesn't intervene and people attempt to withdraw 4% of the total cash in the system, banks will fail. Would the government intervene? Is the bear Catholic? (3) In cases like this, people *never* do what they tell pollsters they'll do, which is a fact being ignored for rhetorical purposes. (4) There is *absolutely no relationship* between 20% of polled people and 4% of the cash. Bottom line: this is stupid.]

FACT: Oil production will be seriously curtailed by y2k.

FACT: When oil production is seriously curtailed, a recession or depression is the result.

[The first 'fact' is a prediction. A prediction is not a fact. There is a non-computable *probability* that oil production will be curtailed. OPINION: The greater the curtailment, the lower the probability. We've already had a serious curtailment of oil, which led to a mild, fairly brief recession. Will the future oil curtailment be more severe? Maybe -- this is pure speculation.]

FACT: Due to slipped schedules by most of the y2k remediation projects, testing will be abbreviated or non-existent.

FACT: When testing is shortened or not done at all, massive failures are highly likely.

[The first statment consists of two parts, a bogus assertion and a prediction. The bogus assertion is based on schedules which were never considered realistic in the first place. The prediction is largely a falsehood, since testing is being done both before (unit testing) and after (system testing) remediated code is placed back into production. This practice is widespread. The implication that all remediated code will be slapped back into production simultaneously and untested is simply false. We've already seen numerous failures of code returned to production, and we've seen that these problems have been handled pretty damn smoothly.]

FACT: Failure of one or two key suppliers can bring an entire company to a halt.

FACT: There is no large scale technological or service industry in the world that is even 5% compliant as of 05 Feb 1999.

[The first assertion is not universally true. In cases where it is true, sometimes the key supplier can be easily replaced. In cases where this isn't so, several courses of action are available, though these do take time to implement. The second assertion must be a typo. FIVE percent? Arrant nonsense. Whatever the percentage, we still have two problems: (1) Where did this number come from; and (2) Why has a compliance percentage become meaningful, after we agreed it wasn't? And this *still* begs the question of how we distinguish 'compliant' from 'functional'. Finally, contingency planning is in full swing. Surely this planning takes into account the death of key suppliers? Are you saing it ignores this? What does contingency mean to you?]

FACT: Governments of Canada and NY experience FY rollover in a little over two months.

FACT: Said governments will not finish remediation, let alone testing, of EVEN mission critial systems by this date.

[The first statement has been true every year this time for many many years. What does it contribute? The second statement is a prediction (based on what?). A prediction is not a fact. Assuming this prediction comes true, what impacts will be felt by the public? Can these impacts be tolerated? Facts, please!]

FACT: Government of US experiences FY rollover in a little over eight months.

FACT: Said government will not finish remediation, let alone testing, of EVEN mission critial systems by this date.

[Same as above - words spoken twice are not doubled in meaning.]

FACT: Germany is dependent on Russia for 40% of their electricity.

FACT: Russia electric power industry has not begun remediation.

FACT: CIA says (04 Feb 1999) Europe could face natural gas shortage because of the Y2K bug

[The first statement meets the requirement of common agreement. Hey! A fact finally! The second is an assertion without attribution, though there has been extensive discussion by now, largly coming to the conclusion that Russian power plants don't rely on much computerization at all. I haven't seen discussion about German power distribution systems. And the third statement falls into the category of speculation. 'Could' face a shortage. We can pontificate endlessly about what 'could' happen. We're trying to use real facts to understand what *will* happen. It's surely a 'fact' that people at the CIA worry about things. But so what?]

FACT: DoD has been caught falsifying y2k data on three occasions.

FACT: FAA has been caught falsifying y2k data on one occasion.

FACT: UK government has been caught falsifying y2k data this week.

[All true. Indeed, the government has been caught falsifying data since government was invented. '60 Minutes' almost makes a living from this stuff. Will the falsification of data impact our daily lives? This behavior is endemic anyway, from individuals up to whole governments. We live with it.]

FACT: US government has hired a PR firm to put positive spin on y2k status and prevent food stockpiling and cash hoarding.

[Yes, the government is enlisting professional assistance to continue their program. But so what? If genuine bad-code y2k impacts should be minor, this is good policy (because panic is always bad). If those impacts should be serious, this is bad policy. The adoption of a policy with which you disagree is neutral, as far as this debate is concerned. Big Dog is looking for facts to help us determine what to expect, not facts implying what the government expects.]

FACT: 80% of large scale IT projects are late or cancelled.

FACT: y2k remediation of large enterprise systems and complex architectures has been shown to have metrics as bad or worse than large scale IT projects.

[Source for the first statement, I take it, is Capers Jones. OK, I accept that source. Source for the second statement is who? I haven't seen anything like this, can you cite references? Source for the implication that the y2k project is comparable to other large scale IT projects appears to be Yourdon. I accept him as a source as well. The implication that remediation won't be completed in time is a prediction just like saying the sun will rise tomorrow is a prediction. Let's accept this as a fact.]

FACT: y2k will seriously curtail the production and distribution of excess food and medicine.

FACT: 1 billion people depend on excess food and medicine for their survival.

[The first statement is another prediction. What is it based on? My reading is that curtailment is likely, serious curtailment is not. Do you have a source for that 'serious'? The second statement is woolly. Are you really stating as 'fact' that a billion people will die if they don't receive 'excess' food and medicine? What do you mean by 'excess?' Where does this excess come from now, and why is it excess? Is medicine being overproduced by accident, enough to keep a billion people alive? This isn't a fact, this is absurd. Give us a break.]

[And Big Dog, you too. Citing SWAG opinions as 'facts', and then weaseling that it's a 'fact' that these opinions were published, not that they're true, is a total cop-out. It's a fact that I consider 'a' to be a windbag carried away by his own rhetoric. But that doesn't make my opinion a fact.]

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), February 05, 1999.

Jack: You make a good point, but it wasn't my point.

The World Bank didn't *tell* us they didn't know, even though they had no data whatever. Instead, they *told* us that South Korea *had not reached the awareness stage!!!* By other accounts, South Korea appears to be in pretty good shape, after considerable effort.

This misinformation from World Bank was widely reported -- check out the year2000 information center. ABC news has had this World Bank report posted for a week -- AS PRESENTED by the World Bank, and with no further research at all!

Paul Milne posted this same report to this very forum, along with his usual profane challenge to us idiots to deny these self-evident *facts!* And as usual, we had the mindless chorus of thank-yous to Milne for keeping us aware of the Truth. Those of us who argued that surveys find what they set out to find were laughed at. In this case, the World Bank found what they wanted to find *without even looking*. Amazing.

If you don't know, say you don't know. We'll make of that what we want. But don't say things are awful when you don't have a clue how things actually are, not only keeping your ignorance a secret, but actually claiming knowledge you don't have!

I do think we need to go along with Big Dog's definition of a fact as including assertions that seem reasonable where we have no good reason to believe otherwise. The point of many of my posts (including this one) is that sources like the World Bank, NERC, 10Q reports, etc. have shown themselves to be poor sources of universal agreement.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), February 05, 1999.

Flint --- arf arf (tail wagging) ....

By SWAG opinions, do you mean Horn's comment on Medicare? Maybe I was cheating. Just a little. Me, Mr. Objective. Me, the One-Who-Is-Above-It-All. But I wasn't claiming that his opinion was a fact, just that he had said it. My point was that a reasonable opinion could be formed about Medicare's peril based on Horn's statement and Medicare's subsequent declaration. I do stand by that.

Flint, I do think you were being needlessly argumentative about a's comments on testing. I know (and I think a knows) very well that testing is ongoing. I took "testing" here to be acceptance (production and regression) testing, most of which is scheduled for late 99, if at all, and I stand my own confirmation of a's points.

Calling "a" a windbag!!! I'm a big fan of "a". Hey, he's on my side, seeeeeee. Step outside :-) Seriously, Flint, you do rightly challenge the factual basis of some of his assertions, though there are core facts lurking in most of those assertions.

But I'll repeat (to a as well as myself and everybody): we criticize the government (rightly) and corporations (rightly) for playing word games with a life-and-death matter. They don't take the truth seriously enough or sometimes at all. Obviously, this thread can't hope to be more than a potpourri of facts. And it's not a contest. But we've got to make sure we don't play the same games, even unwittingly.

My core point stands: we've got a tough year ahead. There is going to be lots of authentic good news, phony good news, bad news that turns out not to be bad, bad news that is bad and, maybe, awful news.

We've got to stick with facts, know when we're offering opinions (which is cool) and prophecy (which is vital).

BTW, Uncle Deedah's facts are obviously relevant to each one of us. Anyone with a brain should be able to understand the need to prepare, based on the first two facts he cites. It's actually the core of being a "GI" and is all that is needed, even if a, me, woe, flint and the others are wrong about all other facts on this thread.

Indeed, I think most of us will agree that the main reason we debate the other facts and will continue to do so throughout 1999 is because they help us weigh how much "prep" we still need to do.

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), February 05, 1999.

Blue Himalayan,

My Euro fact was to correct your Euro fact that only occurrence was from French post office riot(big deal).

FACT is French post office riot was not only occurrence.

QUIBBLE! QUIBBLE! QUIBBLE!

Woe Is Me,

Thanks, and I shall get researching.

***************

FACT: Time will tell and we shall all find out the truth soon enough.

-- Carol (usa-uk@email.msn.com), February 05, 1999.

Flint: normally your optimism impresses me with its mental gymnastics, but this time I've given you some hard questions and your argument is strikingly feeble. In fact, its so weak I think I can just wait and let Paul Davis refute it.

-- a (a@a.a), February 05, 1999.

"It's a fact that I consider 'a' to be a windbag carried away by his own rhetoric. But that doesn't make my opinion a fact."

Interesting how now that there's a little good news, its the pollyannas that are calling the doomers names...

Oh and by the way Flint, blow it out your ass. :)

-- a (a@a.a), February 05, 1999.

Does anyone remember Hurricane Allen from some years back? It was huge, filled the entire Gulf of Mexico. It caused heavy rain and severe worry from the Yucatan to the Florida Keys, and everywhere in between. But it did no severe damage anywhere. People boarded up their properties along the entire coastline and headed inland. All but a few were relieved to return and find minor to no actual damage.

Y2k is beginning to look much the same. Effects will be global and mostly minor, striking everyone but not too hard, with isolated exceptions. But until that hurricane ran its course, nobody could relax. y2k is the same. Until it's over, it's only sensible to assume the worst.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), February 05, 1999.

Some facts: Chevron: Not gonna make it. Prodigy: Kaput

Those who really KNOW....Say So.

Mr. K *****I'd stick with those companys as a consumer, investor, etc., cause they're letting me know where they stand....

-- Mr. Kennedy (back@you.com), February 05, 1999.

Mr. Kennedy, I'll assume you simply don't know. No offense there.

Chevron: They have stated that they have made the decision *not* to remediate some noncompliances. They did this for two reasons: It wasn't cost effective, and it didn't disrupt operations. Clearly, these are noncritical systems with inconsequential problems. By no stretch of imagination can this mean that Chevron has made the decision to go out of business. They have committed up to $300 million to fix what they recognize clearly needs fixing.

Prodigy: They had an obsolete service which had been losing big money for some time as it was. They made the reasonable decision that it simply wasn't worth remediating that service -- why pour good money after bad? Prodigy itself is in good shape, and is in fact remediating their money-making services. Saying that Prodigy is kaput is simply false. They're fine.

Please try to recognize what is really being done and why.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), February 05, 1999.

Neutral fact: if significant numbers of Americans start to pull everything from their accounts, gov't will declare indefinite bank holiday and stop them.

-- Blue Himalayan (bh@k2.y), February 05, 1999.

Neutral? Neutral? Helloo, you must be blue due to the lack of oxygen at your altitude.

I told myself a long time ago that I would waste no more time posting to vapid inanities such as this, and I have kept that promise by and large. Occasionaly though, like an old bass at the bottom of the pond, I must rise to the bait. Anyone that could call a bank holiday a neutral event has a room temperature I.Q. ...

All that matters, ALL THAT MATTERS, is that we as individuals prepare for disruptions in essential goods and services. That is the ONLY responsible choice we have as members of this society.

I would remind readers of this group of Pascal's Wager;

"Better to over-prepare and be thought a fool than to under-prepare and remove all doubt."

Any one and any act that contributes to complacency in the face of the monumental uncertainty that is Y2K is guilty of SEDITION.

Don't listen to saps like BlueBoy, folks. Be able to feed your families.

-- Will Huett (willhuett@usa.netq), February 05, 1999.

Yes, I do know all of that. Just assumed everyone else here did too. We've hashed a lot of this out as it hit the information waves.

The facts I put out here in the same format as Blue Him. Facts, such as "My credit card has 00 and it works". Well, mine didn't. Neither did **my** merchant software that I had to replace for my small business to process client purchases.

Fact is, Chevron will miss the mark and continue into 2000+ with Y2K work. I applaude their straightforward statements and SEC filing. Didn't say they were going out of business. I read the 10-Q where they stated among other things: quote: Because of the scope of Chevron's operations, the company believes it is impractical to seek to eliminate all potential Year 2000 problems before they arise. As a result, Chevron expects that its Year 2000 assessment and corrections will include ongoing remedial efforts into the year 2000. Unquote

Fact is, the OLDProdigy is kaput. Doesn't matter that they were flailing around before deciding Y2K was too expensive to apply to the "older system". Y2K was the deciding factor in putting nails in the coffin.

The newer Prodigy service, which is deemed by the company itself as a separate, more efficient service, of course is just fine. No coffin there.

So, I do have one correction to make. Fact: Chevron won't make it. (Meaning - by Jan 1 deadline). Didn't say they were going under. Fact: OLD version of Prodigy is kaput.

Mr. K

-- Mr. K (got@it.com), February 05, 1999.

Bigdog:

"Medicare admitted in the Computer Government Weekly in January (for the first time) that "some" of their mission-critical systems will not be ready in January of 2000, but that they are "turning the agency like a battleship turns itself in the water."

Anybody hear about the USS Radcliff ramming a Saudi tanker today off Norfolk, VA?

-- a (a@a.a), February 05, 1999.

Just when ya think it's all gone ta hell....

Hiya Will. I'm glad that ya can't resist now and again.

-- Uncle Deedah (oncebitten@twiceshy.com), February 05, 1999.

OPINION: Most of private industry will be in functional but not tiptip shape at rollover. Some noncritical systems (for remediation purposes) will turn out to have been pretty important after all. Result: delays and screwups galore. PITA, but liveable.

Most government operations (including education) won't come close even in critical systems. Reslult (pure bias here, deal with it): temporary inconvenience, permanent improvement.

It's going to be a wild ride. Prepare as you can, cross your fingers. Heading for the hills will be a net gain for a few, a net loss for most, and we'll *never* know which for whom. (Which is true of *any* experiment where there is no control. Were you one of those who got the *real* Salk vaccine, or did you get the placebo? Does anyone else here remember that?)

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), February 05, 1999.

TIME OUT! The 10% date figure is TOTALLY false!!! Dates are contained in records. Records have a structure. If you expand a date field, you have changed the structure. >>> ALL <<< programs that process that structure MUST be updated, EVEN IF THE DATE IS CONSIDERED FILLER!!! Let's get to the facts. When you change the structure in a MODERN data base, the program update is AUTOMATIC. However, the vast majority of ALL existing computer files are in the "flat file format". Processing this type of file ALMOST ALWAYS requires that the structure be HARD CODED in EVERY program that accesses the file.... Back to reading....

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), February 06, 1999.

a@a.a brings up a great point. Testing is, IMHO, the most important part ANYTIME you change even a SINGLE program. Believe me, is's SOOOOO easy to miss something, or make a mistake, be it a typo, or a "thinko". Good testing of even ONE program could take alot of time. Then we get into the full system test, where tracking down even a single error could get into the needle in the haystack... back to reading...

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), February 06, 1999.

SYSMAN has a point for those of you who are unfamiliar with how COBOL works, even if you change the record definition in the data dictionary and re-compile the programs to accept the new field size, you have to track through EVERY PROGRAM THAT ACCESSES the record with your muddy boots, looking for the uses of the RECORD, so that the references are to the correct bytes in the record. If you don't, you may get 00watervil when you expected to get waterville. Program is gonna go BBOOOOMMMM. Even if 99% of the record is REDEFINEd as FILLER, you still gotta include how many bytes are FILLER in the REDEFINE statement. And it is ALL hard coded.

Now how easy is it to remediate?? No date calculations in the program, but it still uses teh data record, so you gotta go in and fix it.

Chuck, who paid attention to his programmers.

-- Chuck, night driver (rienzoo@en.com), February 06, 1999.

Fact:

Federal agencies missed the September 30, 1998 target date set by the Clinton administration and the OMB for agencies to have all their mission-critical systems renovated.

Source: Federal Computer Week, October 5, 1998

http://www.fcw.com/pubs/fcw/1998/1005/fcw-newsy2kshort-10-5-98.html

-- Kevin (mixesmusic@worldnet.att.net), February 06, 1999.

ASSumption: Power companies won't offer '100% compliant' statements; hence they are NOT going to be ready by Jan. 1, 2000

FACT: Power utilities have historically NEVER offered guarantees of power on ANY given date.

ASSumption: "Oil production will be seriously curtailed by y2k."

FACT: Capped wells are numerous in US. Profit potential is TOO LOW right now to justify pulling ALL crude at home; hence, the purchase of foreign oil.

FACT: If(see how big that 'if' is boys and girls?) foreign oil becomes too expensive or unavailable (Y2K or not) USA will be popping capped wells faster than you can say "Paul Milne is a Butthead".

Read more both Here & Here (and if you doubt Morgan's expertise...just look what he did to 'Mouthy Milne'over Here!(Looooong reading) (PSSsst!...BTW, Paul?...they're still waiting for your answer over there. You are the one who said "I'll be waiting, Pollyannas" aren't you?)

Fact: Budgets and schedules aren't set in stone. see this editorial (with links to facts)[hey this thread is long enough as it is...]

it has been said that it took SS 10 years to be compliant... two points:

1) this is a GOVERNMENT agency we are talking about, right? since when do they ever move faster than molasses?

2)did they have access to the multiple automated scanning tools available today? Good read on this

Opinion: 'a' should remove his 'a' from his '@' and stop trying to pass of doombrood assumptions as FACT.

Opinion: Ed yourdon is about to attempt a 180 by doing a 360...will he be classified by most posters to this forum as a TURNCOAT, SELL-OUT, or LIAR? (ala: PdeJ, A.S.)

the "iron triangle" theory is rusting and coming apart people...this in itself will make all Y2K failures bearable.

And lets get off the big numbers, shall we? Is $1T REALLY that much when put in a GLOBAL perspective? (and no, I'm not a moron...I am quite glad its not my bill)

didn't the LA earthquake run $60B and Kobe $100B ? those were LOCALISED disasters, and look how much they cost.

oh, and one last thing...

"Any one and any act that contributes to complacency in the face of the monumental uncertainty that is Y2K is guilty of SEDITION." - WillNew nomination for most Idiotic Y2K statement of Feb.! Sedition of exactly what, bub?!? Your MORONIC Y2K religion?!?!? maybe those who don't agree with EXTREMIST views should be STONED, huh?

-- Mutha Nachu (---@butterflypond.com), February 06, 1999.

Mutha,

Do you have any facts to back up your opinion that "Ed Yourdon is about to attempt a 180 by doing a 360"?

Why do I get this feeling that you're criticizing Ed Yourdon without even ever having read the book "Time Bomb 2000"? Ed's book describes possible Y2K effects in different sectors of the economy, and suggests how to react if different sectors failed for two days vs. one month vs. one year vs. ten years.

In other words, he leaves it to you to decide how severe failures will be and how long they will last.

-- Kevin (mixesmusic@worldnet.att.net), February 06, 1999.

Fact:

In this October 23, 1998 article written by Reuters, the IRS said that all key IRS systems would be Y2K compliant by January, 1999...

http://www.news.com/News/Item/0,4,27886,00.html?st.ne.ni.lh

-- Kevin (mixesmusic@worldnet.att.net), February 06, 1999.

The most important FACT of all is that reported compliance dates and examples of reported compliance keep drifting. Those are FACTS, not opinions or prophecies about what will happen with Y2K.

While opinions can be raised that this will prove inconsequential, IT FACTs (quantitative research/case studies of later results) demonstrate historically that this is, regrettably, a rock-solid predictor of failure.

Therefore, the FACTS warrant a doombrood logic and preparation up to the limit of one's financial capability, since the problem, as Uncle Deedah points out, is unprecedented and worldwide.

The second most important Y2K FACT is that only mission-critical systems are being addressed. While it may turn out that some percentage of other systems continue operating, can be fixed on failure or aren't needed, it is a defensible OPINION that many of the non-critical systems will fail.

The third most important Y2K FACT is that tens of millions of SMEs plan to fix on failure.

My PROPHECY of a worldwide depression lasting five to ten years is unknown, by definition, but logical and warranted from these three facts.

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), February 06, 1999.

Mutha: Please list the facts you think I am in error on, along with evidence of such. Otherwise stop making false accusations. The FACTS I listed are exactly that.

I read Morgans posts on the thread you referenced. I can understand why Paul did not waste his time replying, as they are lame and evade the central issue. But that is typical for pollannas such as you and the great Morgan, you insist on looking at issues in a vacuum, without factoring in the myriad effects from other economic and y2k related problems. Some people's brains are not developed enough for such mental exercises; mine is, yours isn't.

The point is not that y2k fixes will cost 1 trillion, the point is that there IS NO TIME LEFT to spend such a sum, let alone do it in such a way that it is "successful". Get it yet Einstein?

Contrary to your charlatan claim, Yourdon said a month ago that he was "much more pessimistic" than he was a year ago, and just this week posted an essay where he now believes we will have a year of disruptions followed by a decade of depression. But I guess a decade of depression is not you and Davis's TEOTW is it.

As for the comparisons of y2k to an earthquake, get real son. You're wasting our time here. y2k is more like earthquakes happening every month for a year all over the world.

I suggest you take your feeble arguments back over to GNIABFI where your skewed logic is not only tolerated, it is revered.

-- a (a@a.a), February 06, 1999.

FACT : Mutha F is a liar.

Mutha F, you said to us all recently (for it is on record) that you would not let your brilliant mind any longer be contaminated by us Yourdonite cretins, and that you would bugger off to other fora.

FACT : You and your absurd HTML are back.

NOW BUGGER OFF LIAR

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), February 06, 1999.

Woe --- I was hoping and expecting you would post:

Your company name

The systems that needed remediation (platform, size, complexity)

The budget for remediation (and was the budget met/exceeded)

The schedules with reports of how/whether they were met

Whether the systems are Y2K-compliant or ready

Whether your company has publicly declared them Y2K-compliant or ready.

Since you say the work is done, this must mean you are compliant. So, I'm sure your company will have no problem with you reporting the good news to us.

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), February 06, 1999.

"Ed yourdon is about to attempt a 180 by doing a 360..."

This statement is notable in that it is at once the most obvious babble-garbage ever to masquerade as human thought and still reveal so clearly the inner workings of the nerve knot that conceived it!

-- Hardliner (searcher@internet.com), February 06, 1999.

ah, ah, ah, Andy;

I said I would leave that thread, and I did.

-- Mutha Nachu (---@ponds.com), February 06, 1999.

I would be interested to see anyone try to challenge my last post about the three primary Y2K facts and their significance. Mocking or flaming them will only confirm them further. Reasoned challenges will be discussed back.

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), February 06, 1999.

Big Dog:

I can't challenge your three facts; they're real. But I think we can discuss their implications.

"The most important FACT of all is that reported compliance dates and examples of reported compliance keep drifting. "

Absolutely true. These were political dates, unrelated to the size of the task. If compliance were a binary phenomenon, we'd be doomed for sure, since remediation work everywhere will be continuing at some level for the next couple of years. But remediation is really more like income -- the more you have, the better off you are. I don't think anyone can predict how many organizations will fall below the poverty level, or whether this is recoverable.

"The second most important Y2K FACT is that only mission-critical systems are being addressed. While it may turn out that some percentage of other systems continue operating, can be fixed on failure or aren't needed, it is a defensible OPINION that many of the non-critical systems will fail. "

Not universally true. Some responsible outfits are indeed addressing all systems over which they have control. And some (especially in government) have no real hope of completing critical systems. It's a spectrum. Now, some things can indeed be done without or fixed on failure in a reasonable period of time. I think some noncritical failures can be lived with while doing neither (just ignore that 1900 on your driver's licence, newspaper subscription, monthly report or whatever. We know about it, and you can still drive and you'll still get your newspaper etc.)

In real life, the distinction between critical and noncritical is not binary either. When you ask yourself, "can I do without this in a pinch?", the answer depends on how hard you're being pinched. Even critical systems can experience noncritical failures (happens all the time). When the time comes, it's clear there will be a lot of quick and dirty operational decisions as to what to fix first, and many ad hoc tradeoffs between speed of fix and quality of fix.

It seems less likely that businesses will suddenly keel over dead, and more likely that they'll struggle along as well as they can for some time before either recovering or being forced to give up. I too expect a very sick economy for a while.

"The third most important Y2K FACT is that tens of millions of SMEs plan to fix on failure. "

I presume this number is worldwide? I agree this issue is one where hard data are almost nonexistent. From what I've read, the plan to fix on failure is nowhere near universally a default plan resulting from a refusal even to consider the problem at all. Instead, a great many SME's (perhaps the majority) have taken a look at their level of computer dependency *over which they have control* and made this decision intelligently and consciously. How many SME's don't rely on their own computers much at all? They farm out their accounting, they lease their equipment, they use vendor software packages inhouse (maybe Excel), contracts are on paper or even just based on a verbal agreement and handshake.

If you make brake shoes for GM, of course you're in trouble if GM stops ordering them, or if your power or phone goes out, or if riots prevent your people from working. But what could you do about any of this? Face it, if you can easily do without any computerization that's within your power to fix, fix on failure makes good sense.

I don't have any good feel for the number of SMEs who have decided either that y2k is a hoax, or that they'll gamble that nothing much bad happens, or who have determined that the cost of remediation would kill them anyway, so they'll play out the string and hope for the best (while making personal plans for involuntary retirement).

Yes, the overall outlook is gloomy. I can't deny it.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), February 06, 1999.

Chuck, thanks for the backup. It's not only COBOL, but ASSEMBLY, FORTRAN, PL/1 RPG, etc. etc. All deal with record processing in a similar manner. Also, even files stored in some of IBM's "newer" access methods, such as VSAM are processed the same way.

Also good point from another thread. Windowing does help in some cases, but it's not a one-size-fits-all. Dates are OFTEN used for sequencing, and windowing doesn't work here. Usually requires expanding the field. All it takes is 1 more byte...

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), February 06, 1999.

"Any one and any act that contributes to complacency in the face of the monumental uncertainty that is Y2K is guilty of SEDITION." - Will New nomination for most Idiotic Y2K statement of Feb.! Sedition of exactly what, bub?!? Your MORONIC Y2K religion?!?!? maybe those who don't agree with EXTREMIST views should be STONED, huh?

-- Mutha Nachu (---@butterflypond.com), February 06, 1999.

Mutha, Mutha, pay attention now. Get your finger out of your nose and listen.

Sedition - " Language or conduct directed against public order and the tranquillity of the state."

Now, this will stretch your brain some, I know, but give it a try, you might get a headache attempting to actually THINK, but hey, no pain no gain, am I right?

Counseling people to not have food and water available so that they can remain in their homes quietly in the event of disruptions due to Y2K is precisely seditious. The "tranquility of the state" is served best in the face of these uncertainties by BASIC FOOD,WATER AND SHELTER PREPARATIONS. In the aftermath of Y2K the de Jagers, the Bennets and Koskinens will be brought up on these charges, assuming the State survives.

You are seditious in your speech.

"maybe those who don't agree with EXTREMIST views should be STONED, huh? "

Naw, anyone that doesn't see the sense in being able to eat without leaving home for a while is ALREADY ONE TOKE OVER THE LINE.

On second thought, thinking is really best left to those with experience in it, especially on subjects this profound.

Forget I suggested it, Momma

Uncle Deedah,

Good to hear from you, too!

-- Will Huett (willhuett@usa.net), February 06, 1999.

Whew - rest a couple of days and come back to a thread this long!!!

Hardliner - the usage of soybean, castor bean, cottonseed and other natural oils is curtailed because of price. Nothing else. Same for corn based alcohol in lieu of gasoline. Methanol is cheaper, but not as high an octane number. (Matter of fact, when you speak of gas as "watered" you actually mean it has had methanol added at some point in the delivery chain. If you car starts knocking or pinging after a sudden warm spell in the winter, and trying a better grade of gas "fixes" the problem, the last place you bought gas before the warm spell was pouring in methanol. They were taking advantage of the fact that IC engines run better when it is cold outside, and put in more than the warm weather would permit.) Pressing soybeans and such for oil is not complicated, just squeeze the oil out, let the water settle, and filter the bits that came through. Don't have to be nearly as perfect as for food grade stuff.

-- Paul Davis (davisp1953@yahoo.com), February 08, 1999.

FACT: there is 88 new answers on this thread.

FACT: I haven't read them all and I'm not going to.

FACT: there's going to be someone arguing my facts aren't all factual.

I see the girbils are still spinning the wheel...round and round they go... ;-)

Hi all, it's good to be back...I think ;-)

-- Chris (catsy@pond.com), February 08, 1999.

Mutha Nachu: "USA will be popping capped wells...

Somewhere I've read that Texas requires owners of oil wells that are 'capped' to fill the borehole with concrete. If this is true, no such wells in Texas will be reopened.

-- Tom Carey (tomcarey@mindspring.com), February 08, 1999.

Don't know - will check with my bro-in-law whose deep into nat. gas and oil drilling.

However, if a "plugged well" were in the way of a Texan and some oil, if he can drill to 5000 or 10,000 feet of rock, he can get through 50 feet of concrete.

More seriously, any well "off line" isn't easy to get back into production - though possible. takes a while, and the basic reason for turning off (capping) still must be addressed: low pressure, sour gas, polution, poor productivity, contaminates, bad oil, wrong type, wrong mix, whatever. If low pressure - then secondary and tertiery recovery becomes VERY expensive, very involved - often requiring new wells - new leases, new permits, new envir. checks, etc. That part too takes time, money, and effort.

This stuff ain't magic folks - it comes from the ground, but you don't turn it on and off at the direction of Washington with a simple wave of the hand.

-- Robert A. Cook, PE (Kennesaw, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), February 08, 1999.

Deborah,

Interesting natural gas post. Thanks.

FACT -(if I believe my gas company in south east WI) Gas supplies here are purchased from about dozen different suppliers.

FACT - That doesn't imply 12 pipelines - it actually comes through 4 major pipelines.

Possible Conclusion - 4 pipelines will have to fail before my gas company cannot deliver.

Missing variable - Minimum number lines in service to provide sufficient volume this far from the Gulf?

P.S. I'd send you a copy of my notes from our utility's presentation to our local user's group if I had your address.

-- john hebert (112277.2114@compuserve.com), February 08, 1999.