from c.s.y2k:

On Sat, 10 Apr 1999 18:13:45, adechert@my-dejanews.com wrote:

> How about others? Please share. > > --Alan Dechert

Here's an quote from Rodney Barker's book (ISBN 0-684-83845-1) on the discovery of pfiesteria, page 298:

"In defense of this 'crisis avoidance' approach, the department has invoked the public interest, saying that if a perceived threat has not been documented,it is important not to create undue public alarm, which could spark widespread panic, negatively impact commercial interests or bring about the imposition of costly environmental regulations. Understandable and worthy reasons all -- unless they become overriding considerations, which is the dark side of the department's conservatism."

Interestingly, the book details a government hysteria. The power is lost to the Level 3 containment lab and when the scientists request emergency power, the government over reacts, panics, starts a five mile evacuation (when 5 yards is adequate) and calls in helicopters to incinerate the building.

I understand that I have frustrated our broomer-buddies because my writing 'style' does not lend itself to the broomer quote-out-of-context attack approach. Style? You call that style, I call it grunge writing.

You're not going to hear about specific failures. I took a peek at Yourdon's forum the other day and they reported on another welfare prepayment bug. Colorado sent money to welfare clients that should have been dropped, strange and wonderful, yippie. Here's the catch, the event occurred in February, thousands knew about it, it just hit Yourdon's forum in April.

If a bunch of geeks doing IT/MIS at a big corp are in crisis recovery mode, you'll never hear about it. The company will go under before the word gets out.

There have been too many odd sell-outs, mergers, divestments. Y2K hullbreach, the rats are abandoning the sinking ships.

I don't think of myself as a doomer. I recognize that the IT systems that run the larger organizations are in big trouble and can't be fixed in the time remaining. I advise my friends to take inexpensive protective measures, monitor the situation, and be prepared to change their plans if needed.

dechert makes the broomer-buddy error in thinking that there is *a* doomer scenario. Take a look at the WRP114 appendix, there is a spectrum of possible events (and this doesn't cover all the possibilities)

If the doomer posture is 50% biznec more or less as usual and 5% you don't want to know, what is the broomer posture? Is it, 100% OK, guarenteed with absolutely no, zero, nada, chance of a 4000 pt fall in the Dow, food runs, mega corp failures and 100,000s tossed out of work?

Most doomers admit that the business as usual-but strange scenario has a fairly high probability, so what. It's the 1%, 5%, 15% killer or life disrupting scenarios that you prepare for.

Here's some OB:computer-software comments. There are mission critical systems that will fail on the roll over and these systems have not been remediated. Some are in Hawai'i. Based on this insider info, we will see large governmental systems fail.

I cannot predict what the impact on society will be. We will know soon enough.

cory hamasaki >8 months. http://www.kiyoinc.com/current.html 

-- a (a@a.a), April 10, 1999

Answers

Hello,

Which systems in hawaii, specifically?

Jonathan

-A computer glitch will not bring about the end of civilization. It takes hordes of panicking people to do that.-

-- Jonathan Latimer (latimer@q-a.net), April 10, 1999.

I doubt Cory will specify the systems, that's asking a bit much. But with any luck, he'll provide a bit of insight as to *why* some large government systems known to be seriously noncompliant have not been remediated. Is this another situation where they're working furiously but don't have time? Or have they decided just to let it go for fun, to see what happens and laugh about it?

And if they're working on it but just overwhelmed by the scope of the task, how serious a failure is being predicted here? Historically, large government systems failing seem more the rule than the exception. Yet the government soldiers on, as powerful, sinister and odious as ever (it says here in this forum ad nauseum).

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), April 10, 1999.

Hello,

I think he should be able to name at least some "mission critical systems that will fail on the roll over and these systems have not been remediated. Some are in Hawai'i."

I would like to know at least some of those critical systems that are in Hawaii. I have a lot of data bout systems locally.

Jonathan

-A computer glitch will not yadda yadda yadda.-

-- Jonathan Latimer (latimer@q-a.net), April 10, 1999.

Mr. Yourdon comments on April 1 rollover

asked in the TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) Q&A Forum ---------- Mr. Yourdon writes a weekly Y2K column for some outfit called Cutter Consortium. He wrote one of these columns about the April 1 rollover, and a friend passed it along to me. Not sure if it's kosher to post it here on his forum, but I figure that what goes around comes around...

Lurker

*******

Welcome to the Y2000 E-Mail Advisor, a weekly electronic briefing from Ed Yourdon, Director of the Cutter Consortium's Y2000 Advisory Service.

THE 1 APRIL FISCAL YEAR ROLLOVER

It's now been a week since New York, Canada, and Japan celebrated the beginning of their new fiscal year; as I write this week's column, the British government is going through the same process. Thus far, it appears that there have been no significant Y2000 problems, and Y2000 pundits are now trying to decide what it all means.

Unfortunately, much of the discussion has degenerated into petty bickering between the Y2000 optimists and pessimists (or, to use the more disparaging terms, pollyannas and doomsayers). The pessimists may have been hoping that dramatic Y2000 problems would emerge in Ottawa, Tokyo, London, or Albany in order to validate their predictions about Y2000, or to at least raise the level of awareness about potential problems looming ahead in the next few months. And the optimists may have been hoping that the lack of 1 April problems would prove, once and for all, that the pessimists' predictions were grossly exaggerated.

I found myself dragged into the fray when a participant on the comp.software.year-2000 Internet forum reminded his fellow participants shortly after 1 April that I had written a grumpy article last July (available at http://www.yourdon.com/articles/y2kClintonspeech.html) in which I said "On April 1, 1999, we will all watch anxiously as the governments of Japan and Canada, as well as the state of New York, begin their 1999-2000 fiscal year; at that moment, the speculation about Y2K will end, and we will have tangible evidence of whether governmental computer systems work or not." It was suggested that I should "put up or shut up": unless there was tangible evidence of Y2000 problems resulting from the fiscal year rollovers, I should acknowledge that Y2000 isn't going to be such a bad problem after all.

Well, maybe it won't be -- and if that's the case, we should all rejoice. After all, we're all on the same side, in terms of our desires for a best-case Y2000 outcome, even if our current assessments of the situation may differ. I'm happy to agree with the notion that the fiscal year rollover success enjoyed by New York, Canada, and Japan -- coupled with the similar experiences enjoyed by the Eurocurrency projects, as well as the absence of catastrophic rollover problems on 1 January 1999 -- means that there is less reason than before to assume that Y2000 will lead to TEOTWAWKI (the end of the world as we know it). But I never believed in the TEOTWAWKI scenario in the first place, and I still think there's an enormous amount of potential for moderate disruptions between the "bump in the road" scenario predicted by the optimists, and the apocalyptic TEOTWAWKI scenario articulated by the doomsayers.

Looking back on the words I wrote last July, I do regret having said "at that moment, the speculation about Y2K will end," because it has become evident that there is still much to speculate about. The most significant aspect of speculation involves embedded systems: regardless of whatever problems the various government authorities might have had with their financial computing systems on 1 April or their Eurocurrency systems back in January, none of it involves the embedded systems. We still don't know how that part of the Y2000 story will unfold, and we continue to be whipsawed between optimism and pessimism as we see each new report indicating that embedded systems failures are worse than -- or, according to the next report, less serious than -- what we previously believed. Y2000 optimists and pessimists will continue arguing passionately about the presence or absence of life-threatening embedded system failures until much later this year -- indeed, possibly right up to midnight on New Year's Eve.

It's also fairly clear that a fiscal-year rollover phenomenon only concerns those computer systems that are aware of the concept of a fiscal year, and that make use of that concept in their decision- making and/or calculations. Thus, there are almost certain to be a wide range of computing systems within a government organization that are date-sensitive, and potentially noncompliant, but which are completely unaffected by the fact that the organizational entity has moved into a new fiscal year that extends from 1 April 1999 to 31 March 2000.

But let's put these two categories of systems aside for the moment, and focus on the heart of the debate: what can we conclude from the apparent fact that FY-sensitive computing systems in the Canadian, Japanese, and New York State governments appear to have survived the 1999-2000 rollover event?

The optimistic interpretation is fairly obvious: it means that appropriate remediation efforts on those systems were indeed finished on time, rather than falling behind schedule; and it means that the testing efforts were sufficiently thorough and comprehensive that no "show-stopper" bugs have appeared. And if that interpretation is correct, one might logically conclude that the government agencies will extend their success to the rest of their systems, and thus succeed in remediating and testing all of the other systems that would otherwise fail on 1 January 2000.

But this gets back to the issue of what I referred to as "tangible evidence" in my 1998 article. How do we know that New York State's mission-critical systems survived the fiscal-year rollover? Well, we have the governor's word for it: on 1 April, New York Governor George Pataki issued a press release (available at http://www.state.ny.us/governor/press/year99/april1_1_99.htm), which announced that "New York State's "mission critical" computer systems -- such as the state's payroll, general accounting, and tax systems -- that are dependent on the state's fiscal year have been remediated, tested, and are in production." Alas, we have become such a cynical nation that we're not entirely sure if we can trust such public statements; after all, we live in a nation where the meaning of truth is sometimes determined by what the meaning of "is" is. Thus, the Y2000 pessimists -- along with at least a few computer- illiterate cynics -- may seek their own evidence that the state's computer systems are working properly.

But it's likely that many computer problems that might have occurred on 1 April were simple enough that they could be fixed by computer programmers within a matter of hours, without the public ever becoming aware of the problem. True, this might have cost the taxpayers some money, and it may have caused an incremental, temporary decrease in the efficiency and productivity of the state government. But the reality is that if the problem is small enough -- or, to put it more cynically, if the problem is capable of being hidden and covered up -- then it doesn't qualify as "tangible evidence." If the citizens and taxpayers don't see it, it doesn't exist.

That seems to have been the experience with the Eurocurrency situation, and the FY-99 rollover experience. That's not to say that either of these two "trigger dates" were completely problem-free; a Eurocurrency problem with one of the French banks led to riots in Marseilles by welfare recipients who had not received their checks by mid-January 1999 (see http://www.telegraph.co.uk/et?ac=000144088531503&rtmo=3umxxY3M&atmo=rN 00bsGq&P4_FOLLOW_ON=/99/1/7/wrio07.html&pg=/et/99/1/7/wrio07.html

for details); and rumors abound of European banking difficulties with bungled deposits and funds transfers. And though the FY-99 rollover didn't lead to any catastrophes, there is no shortage of minor problems that have been reported (see http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=000RSP for one such list).

But thus far, we have NO evidence of FY-00 rollover problems in Canada, New York, Japan, or England. It's worth remembering, though, that many of these problems -- if they exist at all -- may not show up until several "cycles" of processing have occurred, e.g., when monthly or quarterly reports have to be generated, or when several payrolls have been run. The cumulative effect of software errors -- sometimes referred to as the "Jo Anne Effect" problem among Y2000 cognoscenti -- may not be visible until numerous database records have been clobbered, or numerous end users have been affected.

And that will be the ultimate test: if FY rollover problems cause New York, England, or Canada to bungle the payment of pension checks to a hundred thousand retired civil-service workers, it won't be possible to hide the problem. We've already seen one such problem, though it's now attributed to human error rather than a Y2000 software bug: the recent fiasco that led the New Jersey state government to erroneously credit thousands of food-stamp recipients with an additional payment.

For whatever it's worth, the public acknowledgments of the 1 April situation by New York and Canadian Y2000 managers was cautious. A 2 April article in the *Los Angeles Times* (see http://www.latimes.com/excite/990402/t000029233.html) quotes Jim Bimson of the Canadian Year 2000 office as saying, "So far it's been a nonevent. We haven't heard anything today, but I'm not that surprised since we really have to wait a while for some transactions to occur. Most of the computers are still working in the last fiscal year."

Meanwhile, it's also important to remember that Canada, Japan, England, and New York State are not finished with the systems that MUST work on 1 January 2000. A quick look at the "top 40" mission- critical systems in New York State (visible at http://www.irm.state.ny.us/yr2000/top45lst.htm, which shows the status as of January 1999) indicates that roughly half are not yet compliant.

Whether you're an optimist or a pessimist, it's important to remember that we still have several months before we'll really know how Y2000 will turn out. If you think of it as a 10-round boxing match, the optimists can claim to have won the first three rounds; but there are still several rounds to go.

-- 32356 (3@23.56), April 10, 1999.

Just so I don't get lost in the big posts around me (I feel like a little sailboat among big oil tankers...Hello? Down here! Please don't run my little boat (GRUUNCH! burble burble))

Hello,

I think he should be able to name at least some "mission critical systems that will fail on the roll over and these systems have not been remediated. Some are in Hawai'i."

I would like to know at least some of those critical systems that are in Hawaii. I have a lot of data bout systems locally.

Jonathan

-A computer glitch will not yadda yadda yadda.-

-- Jonathan Latimer (latimer@q-a.net), April 10, 1999.

I have NO idea who 32356 is, but i would gladly fix his computer for him/her/it. This is the THIRD thread s/he/it has posted Ed's 4/1/1999 article on. Twice is an accident, 3 times is a bandwidth wasting TROLLISH SCREWUP!!

C

-- My Goal (to.be@un.known), April 10, 1999.

You guys are the real don't get its. Hamasaki is laughing up his sleeve at you. I have done my best to analyze several pieces of his writing - 99% of it is like a politicians speeches - he makes you think he has said something when he hasn't. Can any of you name ONE SINGLE SOLITARY piece of REAL INFORMATION, naming a REAL COMPANY, or a REAL PERSON or a REAL SERIOUS FAILURE you got from CH? Come on, just one real thing that was not common knowledge. Not rumor, not innuendo, one single solitary fact you could pin something to.

Look at the above snip for crying out loud - the only info is a quote from someone else. Everything else is opinion. CH, you are the Rush Limbaugh of Y2K - you have found a perfect forum for your opinions without fear of anyone who disagrees getting through your loyal fans/screeners.

And I bet a nickel his 'inside info' (that he can't really reveal - oh no - that would be telling) from Hawaii is just the old early 97 Hawaii power plant stuff recycled once again. Wonder when everyone is going to wake up and find out that was fixed in 98?

Now come 1/1/2000 I plan to be right here at midnight - and we will see if I stay on or not. I bet I will, and that I have some pithy things to say about some of those who have tossed flames in my direction.

-- Paul Davis (davisp1953@yahoo.com), April 11, 1999.

Paul Davis wrote:

"You guys are the real don't get its. Hamasaki is laughing up his sleeve at you. I have done my best to analyze several pieces of his writing - 99% of it is like a politicians speeches - he makes you think he has said something when he hasn't. Can any of you name ONE SINGLE SOLITARY piece of REAL INFORMATION, naming a REAL COMPANY, or a REAL PERSON or a REAL SERIOUS FAILURE you got from CH? Come on, just one real thing that was not common knowledge. Not rumor, not innuendo, one single solitary fact you could pin something to."

Do a dejanews search for comp.software.year-2000 Cory Hamasaki and you can find his references to Oxford Health Care, Maxwell Online, and PhyCor failures.

Regards, Tom Beckner

-- Tom Beckner (tbeckner@erols.com), April 11, 1999.

You will also find that he is working on a system there that uses , ummm, a 4-cpu Pentium II processor for a backbone (if I emember correctly) which is controling a function for the whole Islands Chain (if memory serves).

CR

-- chuck, a Night Driver (rienzoo@en.com), April 11, 1999.

Yes, Paul, Cory is all hot air. Y2K is a hoax. Don't prepare.

Now tell us again how the odds of TEOTWAWKI are comparable to all the electrons in the universe suddenly converging into one spot.

-- a (a@a.a), April 11, 1999.

'a':

If you're going to be in attack mode, you at least ought to wear your thinking cap. Poor reporting about y2k doesn't mean y2k doesn't exist, it means the reporting is poor. Cory's sum factual data is that two or three companies *might* have gone broke in the past primarily due to computer problems (out of a million that went broke). That isn't a whole lot to go on.

In any case, mocking those who disagree with you might amuse you, but it doesn't address issues. *Can* you address issues?

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), April 11, 1999.

HOORAY!!! Someone got the point!!! CH is a POOR REPORTER OF Y2K PROBLEMS. HIS STUFF IS ALL SECOND RATE, SECOND HAND and rumor. READ the DC weather reports with a critical eye, please. Even better - cut and paste every word that is from CH - not someone else, not HIS cut and paste from someone else, HIS WORDS, and put them into a single document. Then come back here and report on just what facts were in HIS words.

I shall anxiously await your results.

-- Paul Davis (davisp1953@yahoo.com), April 11, 1999.

Paul:

Come on, be reasonable. If your mind is already made up, why go to a whole lot of effort just to demonstrate that your opinion is unsupported by the facts? What you're requesting lies outside the range of human variation!

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), April 11, 1999.

Paul Davis commented:

"HOORAY!!! Someone got the point!!! CH is a POOR REPORTER OF Y2K PROBLEMS. HIS STUFF IS ALL SECOND RATE, SECOND HAND and rumor. READ the DC weather reports with a critical eye, please. Even better - cut and paste every word that is from CH - not someone else, not HIS cut and paste from someone else, HIS WORDS, and put them into a single document. Then come back here and report on just what facts were in HIS words.

I shall anxiously await your results. "

Paul, Cory Hamasaki has given much of his personal time over a long period to present as honestly and openly the facts about y2k.

What has YOUR contribution been? Ray

-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), April 11, 1999.

Paul: my point in creating this thread was to justify the concept that letting our guard down is premature. You contribution is to ridicule this possibility and attack the messenger. Cory's post was very clear. Your post was clearly Cory bashing.

Now don't make me embarrass you by dredging up some of your earlier post on GNIABFI where you call Y2K a hoax and show your butt in other uninteresting ways.

Flint: my position is that everything I see in my workplace meshes perfectly with what Cory reports. I do address issues Flint, it's just that unlike you, I know what my position is.

-- a (a@a.a), April 11, 1999.

'a':

Do you misunderstand deliberately? Your position has consistently been that things are bad. My position has consistently been that only the bad things are bad.

I spend my time here trying to determine *which* things are bad, and just how bad they really are. You seem to spend your time mocking those who don't toe the party line. I admit you're very consistent about it.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), April 11, 1999.

Flint commented:

"'a':

Do you misunderstand deliberately? Your position has consistently been that things are bad. My position has consistently been that only the bad things are bad. '

Now I understand, bad is bad and good is good! Thanks for clarifying this point for me Flint.

Ray

-- Ray (ray@ttoacc.com), April 11, 1999.

Ray:

You're welcome. You badly needed this clarification. Otherwise, you might have gone right on insisting that bad is bad and good is bad also. Welcome to reality.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), April 11, 1999.

Flint commented:

"Welcome to reality. "

Flint's REALITY??

Sincerely, Ray

-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), April 11, 1999.

...no, the reality of logic - something you seem to need an injection of...

-- Y2K pro (2@641.com), April 11, 1999.

I love you guys, even when you're being assholes.

Pollys keep us more honest than the Chicken Littles we'd all be by now if there was ONLY a "party line" expressed here.

But most of you are still caught up in being proven "right" on 1-4- 2000. Who the f cares if YOU'RE right?

My 3 year old kid doesn't know Pollys from Doomers from embedded Yardenis to compliant Yourdons. She does know hungry, and cold, and a few other things I haven't figured out yet. Her Dad and Mom are basically unemployable in today's weird economy, and today we are planning how to keep the deer we haven't seen yet out of our new garden.

Y2000 forumites have always talked about a 1-10 *RANGE* of y2k possibilities. A *RANGE* dammit! No one has yet *proven* WHICH number it's going to be out of that *RANGE*!

So as a responsible FATHER, I have to prepare for the whole damn range, without going nuts at the far extremes. RIGHT? It took about 2 minutes for me to decide whether to prepare, once I had seen the extremes presented by GN and CH and IM.

It never occurred NOT to prepare. I didn't have to BELIEVE in teotwawki (ever seen it in lower-case before?). I just had to start then (3/98) to intersect and be ahead of the curve of possible computer and social breakdowns to remove my family from potential danger. Gawd -- it's simple isn't it?

You guys making asses of yourselves arguing over who's right or wrong either don't have kids you're worried about taking care of, or, or -- I don't know -- I'll just stop now. Maybe the human ego is just insatiable and boundless.

Yes. Thanks to those who insist on standards of proof and evidence -- missing in our stupid era of media hypnosis -- but not for implying that we should act ONLY upon their conclusions at this time.

Can everyone say this now, TOGETHER. "Y2K will *probably* be a bump in the road (with many potholes on the other side) but the outlying potentials are so extreme as to require extraordinary precautions."

Would that stop about 90% of the argument around here?

I used to go in a General Store in a frozen hilltop town where the locals hung around a pot-bellied stove all day and chewed the fat. I'll bet they're still up there, and now they've got y2k to chew on.

-- jor-el (jor-el@krypton.com), April 11, 1999.

jor-el commented:

"Can everyone say this now, TOGETHER. "Y2K will *probably* be a bump in the road (with many potholes on the other side) but the outlying potentials are so extreme as to require extraordinary precautions."

jor-el, thanks for clarifying this with your statement that " the outlying potentials are so extreme as to require extraordinary precautions."

Ray

-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), April 11, 1999.

I agree. Preparations must address the *stakes*, not the odds.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), April 11, 1999.

Yep...lost in the shuffle. Sailboat sunk. Trying again...

Hello,

I think he should be able to name at least some "mission critical systems that will fail on the roll over and these systems have not been remediated. Some are in Hawai'i."

I would like to know at least some of those critical systems that are in Hawaii. I have a lot of data about systems locally.

Jonathan

-A computer glitch will not yadda yadda yadda.-

-- Jonathan Latimer (latimer@q-a.net), April 11, 1999.

Jonathan, you're starting to bore me... No, actually you're well into the middle of boring me. Grow up, will you?

-- Roger (roger@wilco.con), April 11, 1999.

Jonathan:

You are looking a gift horse in the mouth. You are probably too young to understand this saying. In the days that horses were as valuable as a new John Deere tractor is today, if a man gave you a horse, it would be an insult for you to check the horse's teeth in the presence of the donor.

Jonathan wrote:

"I think he should be able to name at least some "mission critical systems that will fail on the roll over and these systems have not been remediated. Some are in Hawai'i." ""

In public high school, the information is handed to you on a silver platter for regurgitation. In the real world of commerce, pearls of information are rare, and are often disconnected, requiring further followup.

Some prove to be true, some don't. The legwork is your problem. You have twice asked for validation. It has not been forthcoming. The next step is up to you, based upon your concern and your requirements.

Regards,

Tom Beckner

-- Tom Beckner (tbeckner@erols.com), April 11, 1999.

Hello,

Roger- Boredom is a state of mind. I have little to no influence over yours.

Tom- I appreciate what you are saying, and I have done plenty of research locally. I have information on several critical systems that are being remediated, and on a few that have completed it. Cory has posted, specifically, that there are critical systems that will fail, some of which are in Hawaii. I don't think it is too much to ask "Really? Specifically, which systems in Hawaii are those?"

I have 2400 printed pages that say he is wrong. Perhaps my sources are in error, so I would like to know where he got his information. Why is this too much to ask?

Jonathan

-A computer glitch will not bring about the end of civilization. It takes hordes of panicking people to do that.-

-- Jonathan Latimer (latimer@q-a.net), April 12, 1999.

Jonathan -

Given the constraints of non-disclosure agreements, it seems unlikely that CH will post details about current work.

One suggestion (though not re CH information):

According to Ed Yourdon's calendar (check the home page), Our Host is in the Islands (specifically Kauai, The Big Island, and Oahu) most of next week. You might want to drop in on one of his talks near you and then see if you can go off-line for any G2 that he might have. There would still be the equivalent of non-disclosure, but at least you might be able to cross-reference your information.

Just a thought...

-- Mac (sneak@lurk.hid), April 12, 1999.

Jor-El

"Can everyone say this now, TOGETHER. "Y2K will *probably* be a bump in the road"

No actually. Bump in the road? Are you out of your freakin' mind? DOD caught lying. Koskinen hiring a blue chip spin company for their "services". Fed printing billions. Russia is fixing on failure guy. Italy has a y2k office, no web site, and the phone has just been installed. Germany gets 40% of it's power from Ivan. France has no clue. China? Already admitted it will have major problems.

Jor-El - take your head out of your ass - please!

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), April 12, 1999.

To: Jonathan & Paul,

I cannot reveal the names of the organizations nor any details of the systems. These belong to current and recent clients. It is fair to speak in generalities but specifics such as names, functions, exact locations are not available.

If you choose to ignore the clear warning that such systems exist, please feel free to do so. That is your decision. If you do not know enough to read through such word games as LCLC-CLCL and HIR-MIH, find someone (the poster you know as MVI is a good candidate) to explain what they mean.

Like the Lone Ranger's silver bullet, those word games tell a tale.

That said, if you have followed c.s.y2k, read every posting, you will have seen several confirmations from others that these systems exist and if drastic action is not taken, there will be problems.

For now, all I can say about Hawai'i is that I am concerned but perhaps there is something that can be done. If either of you lives in Hawai'i, I will be happy to meet with you on my next trip.

-- cory hamasaki (kiyoinc@ibm.net), April 12, 1999.

Andy:

you first.

-- jor-el (jor-el@krypton.com), April 12, 1999.

Jor-baby,

I take back all I said, it will be a bump in the road.

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), April 12, 1999.

Cory,

When you refer to ...LCLC-CLCL and HIR-MIH word games I dont quite get your reference? Where in the thread are they referred to? What am I missing?

My Guess is LCLC = Assembler Macro Instr to declare a var for a SETC, CLCL = Compare Logical Long but the other two???.

Maybe if I could see the context in which the word games were being played? I've been kicking around the mainframe world for a fair few years but they just don't ring a bell! Or am I right off the mark and they're nothing to do with M/F's?

Nemo

-- Nemo (nemo@nowhereatall.com), April 12, 1999.

If you know LCLC-CLCL, it's because you've programmed in S/370 macro assembly language, as you said LCLC is a macro instruction, CLCL is an opcode for an S/370 extension.

HIR is "Hardware Instruction Retry". You only see this if you've been on a failing S/370. Call IBM if you see this. The MIH is the Missing Interrupt Handler. Very likely a peripheral device has failed and IOS is alerting you to that fact. To juxtapose those 14 letters means that you been around the barn with S/370, done code, and probably had standalone time on the machine.

Perhaps I've been harsh on the denialists. Whatever. If you're still on the fence, note that several have confirmed the sorry state of remediation. This doesn't mean we're doomed. It does mean that we should take sensible precautions. You have to decide for yourself what fits your personal situation.

Perhaps the systems that will fail are not that important. If so, lets shut them down now and be done with it. Time to move on.

-- cory hamasaki (kiyoinc@ibm.net), April 12, 1999.

I ain't no shrink, but Cory's last post expresses a lot about him, IMO, that the trashers simply insist on ignoring. In fact, this dude, like most big iron guys, is painfully pragmatic. Hey, he eats donuts, for crying out loud. He's not only within five miles of most 7-11's (maybe not at rollover), he FREQUENTS them.

If it works, use it. If it can be fixed, fix it. If it can't, move on. The only thing he professes to be sure of is that a lot of today's enterprise systems are doomed and that the results are likely to be very strange. But who knows? The main thing is: get real and stop denying the obvious.

In the land of Lilliputians that is today's America, Cory's endless insistence in his WRPs that anyone without a sense of humor (for instance, Paul Davis and Flint) should pass by is exactly to the point.

Cory's experience is authentic and his opinions are (amazingly enough) opinions. Some are based on his own experience, some on experience reported to him and some on his conjecture. Whoa, there's a radical approach.

People should get a grip.

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), April 12, 1999.

Another interesting and little known fact about Cory is that he really is a pollyanna. His probabilities:

65% Plan A (stay in city)

25% Plan B (burbs)

10% Plan C (safely cowering behind the pressure-treated)

are rosier than Ed Yardeni's (50/45/5) and probably even Flint's. Compare this to moi, (30/50/20), and you'll see that he really is clueless (just kidding Cory J)

-- a (a@a.a), April 12, 1999.