Dear Y2k Pro:
I've been following your posts with great interest for some time now and have grown increasingly curious as to your apparent involvement with the IT industry. Without revealing anything too personal, can you tell me something about your professional life and your own connection to the y2k issue?
Thanks.
-- yan (no@no.no), April 03, 1999
Answers
Y2K Pro is "Mr. Happy Face" Norm
-- @ (@@@.@), April 03, 1999.
Yes Y2K Pro, I know that I've busted your balls since you've showed up here, but I did offer a truce a few days ago. What is your experience? Us doomers really want to know. <:)=
-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), April 04, 1999.
I think y2k pro is fearful.
-- cw (cw5410@hotmail.com), April 04, 1999.
More likely pro doesn't live on this bb....unlike others I could
mention.
-- Mutha Nachu (---@flowerscatteredhillsides.com), April 04, 1999.
Like you Mutha.
-- Wiseguy (got@it.gov), April 04, 1999.
or like you wiseguy...
-- (ABC@123.XYZ), April 04, 1999.
or like you "ABC"
-- (joker@707.com), April 04, 1999.
or you Joker
-- (let's call the whole @ thing . off), April 04, 1999.
Yan: Me? Y2K Consultant manager.
Who? Aviation industry.
Why am I here?
What most people don't realise, is that we are a lot closer to full
compliance than they realise. PR flacks and lawyers are ensuring that
nothing of substance gets released for fear of future liability
claims. This is why most IT proffesionals are so confident about the future.
-- Y2K Pro (2@641.com), April 04, 1999.
Link seems to have disappeared.
Tuesday March 30, 8:59 am Eastern Time
Company Press Release
IT Managers' Y2K Worries
Subside-Computerworld Reports 77% Will be
Ready On Jan. 1, 2000
FRAMINGHAM, Mass.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--March 30, 1999--With a
little more than nine months to go, information technology (IT)
managers are
increasingly confident that their companies will beat the year
2000 problem
before the clock strikes midnight.
Computerworld newspaper surveyed over 200 IT managers and found
that 77% of those surveyed believe all of
their organization's information systems will be ready to handle
the date change. This finding is up from 71% in
October 1998 and 66% in September 1998. Even better is that both
small and large firms report an average of
97% of their systems will be compliant.
Compliance
``What percentage of your company's information systems do you
expect will be fully compliant by January 1?''
Small Firms
(100 to 499 Employees)
September 1998 96.9%
October 1998 98.1%
March 1999 98.7%
Large Firms
(500 or More Employees)
September 1998 97.1%
October 1998 97.1%
March 1999 98.4%
Contingency Plans
``Have you developed, or do you plan to develop, contingency
plans in the event of a year 2000 related failure?''
Small Firms
Yes 80%
No 18%
Don't Know 2%
Large Firms
Yes 89%
No 11%
Nation's Economy
Computerworld also found that IT pros are more confident that the
year 2000 will not make any significant impact
on the nation's economy -17% foresee less of an impact or no
impact at all.
-- Y2K Pro (2@641.com), April 04, 1999.
Y2K ??????? commented:
"PR flacks and lawyers are ensuring that nothing of substance gets released for fear of future liability. "
And all along I thought PR Flacks and Lawyers were around to cover up lies and bad news. SILLY ME !!!
Ray
-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), April 04, 1999.
OK Y2K Pro, since you're in the aviation industry, I'ld like your
comments on the following. This was posted in a thread last week, from
Aviation Week & Space Technology magazine. <:)=
Twelve of twenty ATCs interface with foreign countries.
Cuba handles flights from southern US to Latin America.
21 of 65 (32%) ATC software systems fixed. The remaining 44 are the
most complex.
Fixing the 65 ATC systems requires installation procedures at 3,000
field sites (remote radars, ILS, etc).
In house FAA systems as of 2/28/99 fixed 41/151 (27%).
-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), April 04, 1999.
Sysman:
Nice try. I seek to keep my job, however I will say that all of us
who actually deal with the FAA are confident they have the right
people and the right process in place to be perfectly compliant. Will
I be flying during the date change? Absolutely. In Russia or Africa?
NO!!!
-- Y2K pro (2@641.com), April 04, 1999.
Sysman:
"Cuba handles flights from southern US to Latin America."
Nice try. I seek to keep my job, however I will say that all of us
who actually deal with the FAA are confident they have the right
people and the right process in place to be perfectly compliant. Will
I be flying during the date change? Absolutely. In Russia or Africa?
NO!!!
-- Y2K pro (2@641.com), April 04, 1999.
Hello Y2K Pro. Are you saying that this isn't true about Cuba? This
isn't my field, but I do understand that this is a highly respected
magazine. We're both anonymous here. Can't you give me a little more
from your point of view on these statements? <:)=
-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), April 04, 1999.
Y2K Pro,
Is the recent info on the FAA incorrect? You know, the 30 something
percent complient information.
Are you doing any prep at all? If not, why not? If so, why? Why
would you be flying during the rollover? What are you trying to
prove and who are you trying to prove it to?
Why is it wrong to do simple prep in a time of where things are
plentiful? Why is it wrong to mistrust a system that has lied
constantly for decades? Why shouldn't I own weapons to protect
myself? Why should 40 some rounds of ammo be fired at an unarmed
man. Why did they only hit less than half of the time?
This world is filled with lies and liars, why should I believe you?
-- d (d@dgi.old), April 04, 1999.
P.S.
Nice way to steal bandwidth @...
-- d (d@dgi.old), April 04, 1999.
I know I am spinning my wheels here but Y2K ????? commented:
" I will say that all of us who actually deal with the FAA are confident they have the right people and the right process in place to be perfectly compliant."
Now Y2K ??????? who is correct, Jane Garvey when she said the FAA was 99% compliant last fall or the OMB when they said the FAA was 31% compliant recently?
Ray
-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), April 04, 1999.
d,
32K? B.F.D.
Who the frick are you, the kilobyte miser?
-- @ (@@@.@), April 04, 1999.
Ray:
Just to set the record straight, this BS about the FAA has gone on
long enough.
First, look at the FAA site:
FAA Site
The FAA lays out its definition of the phases of its project as:
- Awareness
- to
alert organizations, inside and outside of the FAA, of the
Y2K
challenge and that Y2K compliance must be a top priority.
This
phase is expected to be ongoing throughout the Y2K repair
process.
- Assessment
- to
inventory and prioritize system Y2K fixes. Assessment of
FAA's
mission critical systems was completed on January 31, 1998;
assessment of FAA's non-mission critical systems was completed
April 15, 1998.
- Renovation
- to
achieve compliance of Y2K-impacted systems. This phase includes
conversion, replacement, or elimination of selected hardware
platforms, applications, operating systems, databases, COTS
packages,
utilities, and internal and external interfaces. On
September
30, 1998, the FAA completed the renovation of 99% of
all its
systems. As of December 31, 1998, 100% of the systems
were renovated.
- Validation
- to
test all applications and interactions between scores of
converted or replaced computer platforms, operating systems,
utilities, applications, databases, and interfaces. Validation
is
underway and is scheduled to be complete on March 31, 1999.
- Implementation
FACE="Arial"> - to test integration and acceptance to ensure
that
all converted or replaced system components perform adequately
in
their real-time operating environment. Implementation is scheduled
to be complete on June 30, 1999.
Now, look at the actual quote in Septemeber:
Story
WASHINGTON (AP) Federal Aviation Administration expects to have
about 99 percent of its computer systems renovated to deal with the
Year 2000 computer problem by Wednesday.
Testing to make sure all systems are working properly already has
begun, administrator Jane Garvey told a joint meeting of two House
committees Tuesday......
Now, quite correctly, the story said they were 99% renovated;
not done, not compliant. It is obvious what was meant, at
least until the "Doomers" decided to start twisting the reports.
This whole thing with the FAA "lies" regarding completion percentages
is completely bogus.
-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-dejanews.com), April 04, 1999.
"d, 32K? B.F.D.
Who the frick are you, the kilobyte miser?"
Yes I am the Kilobyte Miser and you'd better be prepared, I going to
steal Christmas next. I was actually commending you for stealing
bandwidth from those idiots. Everyone should link to y2k is ok. 32k
or not. Link to em. Why not? Burn'em off the net. Yee haw!
-- d (d@dgi.old), April 04, 1999.
"What most people don't realise, is that we are a lot closer
to full compliance than they realise." Y2K Pro
You must not be from the U.S.
-- none (none@none.none), April 04, 1999.
d,
OK, I get it! Yeah, that would slow em down after a while wouldn't
it? Let's see if we can find some really huge Jpegs on the Polyanna
sites to latch onto. Yeeeehaaaaa!
-- @ (@@@.@), April 04, 1999.
If their big ass smiley faces really add to things, link to them.
Eat up those idiot's bandwidth. Right on @! We're on the same
side. If their ideas and big graphics are spreading the measage then
lets help them. It's only neighborly.
;) Link, link and link again. Fight stupidity from their pockets
for a change. Link their graphics, don't follow their $$$ links.
-- d (d@dgi.old), April 04, 1999.
Hey you guys arguing about the FAA - chill out! There is a test
coming soon when you will find out more about their status (maybe?).
FAA
-- @ (@@@.@), April 04, 1999.
-- Hoffmeister commented:
"Now, quite correctly, the story said they were 99% renovated; not done, not compliant. It is obvious what was meant, at least until the "Doomers" decided to start twisting the reports."
Hoffmeister, I am not a Doomer and I don't believe that most of the participants on this forum are either. You just highlighted the problem with the government reporting on y2k. Last September they led folks to believe they were 99% complete. You can spin it any way you want but that is what they did. They did not say 99% renovated and 25% complete. This is just plain LYING and they got caught with their pants down.
Ray
-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), April 04, 1999.
No, they did not lie. They did say 99% renovated, which
falls into their project definition. They also said testing had just
begun; not completed. Interpret it how you want, to fit your
perception of things. The facts are, the statements made were
consistent both with their project definitions, and project status.
-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-dejanews.com), April 04, 1999.
Hoffmeister, their INTENTION was to DECEIVE the average American. It only works for a little while. The chickens do come home to roost. SPINNING is LYING !!
Ray
-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), April 04, 1999.
This is what happens when people pontificate about things they do not
understand. Ray, assessing, renovating, validating, and implementing
are the steps to compliancy. If you want to believe you have been
deceived, that is your right. It doesn't make it true...
-- Y2K Pro (2@641.com), April 04, 1999.
It seems quite clear that Ray *was* deceived. He was deceived because
he failed to read what the report said, preferring his
misconceptions. When these misconceptions are pointed out to him in
black and white, he blames the FAA for his own failure to read. When
told that the failure is his, he rants and shouts.
A mind is a terrible thing to change.
-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), April 04, 1999.
Y2K Pro, I started cutting code on the largest IBM mainframes available back in 1964. I have worked for a mainframe manufacturer as well as very large software companies and the largest aircraft manufacturer in the world. I do UNDERSTAND what the FAA was trying to do back in September 1998. It was not only the FAA that was caught LYING the DOD was also nailed red handed. If you think .gov is being HONEST with the average American regatding y2k then I can well understand your CONFUSION.
Ray
-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), April 04, 1999.
Flint, the FAA was not up front with the average American. If you took one of Klintoons famous polls right after the FAA made their statement 99.9% of Americans would have stated tie FAA was 99% finished with their job. Why didn't the FAA come out and say we are 25% complete? Why have the number of Mission Critical systems been continually reduced since August of 1997? Why do we NEVER hear about the specific systems that still need to be remediated? Because the government will NEVER tell the truth.
Ray
-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), April 04, 1999.
The last defense of the Doomers:
..the government will NEVER tell the truth
Pretty much says it all. Of course there is no sense in
discussing Y2k; they're all lying.
-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-dejanews.com), April 04, 1999.
Hoffmeister, I am glad you have so much confidence in the truthfulness of our government. I don't. We HAVE evidence that they have lied regarding y2k.
Ray
-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), April 04, 1999.
OK folks, I still don't have an answer here.
1) Is Aviation Week & Space Technology a well respected magazine?
2) Should we believe the SELF REPORTED numbers from the FAA, or should we respect the numbers from the OMB?
<:)=
-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), April 04, 1999.
I only believe the numbers I hear on TV. TV wouldn't lie! It's
against the law to lie on TV! The liars would be caught and put in
jail!!
-- Couch Potatoe (WatchesTV@home.cnn), April 04, 1999.
Moderation questions? read the FAQ