Simple.

The world started way too late.

Consequently, enterprises could only focus on so-called critical systems, though no standards exist for defining such. Some, including entire countries, have explicitly decided to fix on failure.

Enterprises self-report progress in relatively meaningless percentages, since industry-standard metrics do not exist.

No evidence exists to suggest that more than 80% of large corporations will be Y2K mission-critical ready (probably far less, worldwide).

No evidence exists to suggest that more than 50% of SMEs will be mission-critical Y2K ready (probably far less, worldwide).

No evidence defines which ???% of military systems crucial for maintaining the balance of terror will be Y2K ready and there is no reason for confidence that adversaries will know who is ready and who is not.

No one can show whether embedded systems will be a minor problem or a catastrophe.

The world refuses to support worldwide preparation of citizenry beyond the trivial ("hurricanes") and mocks those who do prepare.

------------------------------------

The polly and troll hysteria on this board is a faint harbinger of what will hit the airwaves later this year and early next year.

Those of you who are new to the board, go back through the archives and read the threads from October '98 thru February '99. These predate the disinformation attacks on the forum. If my memory serves, the disinformation attacks are perfectly coincident with Koskinen/Kelly's re-interpretation of the Senate's report and training of the media for spin control. Conspiracies are possible, but simple synchronicity is enough of an explanation.

There is an intense desire on the part of hundreds of millions to turn away from the simple realities.

Those of you who are regulars know what to do:

CONTINUE PREPARING FULL-SPEED SO LONG AS YOU CAN. IGNORE POLLYS AND TROLLS. Lives really are at stake, starting with your own and your family. While a lot of people here, including some so-called regulars, play these threads as a mocking game, Y2K, sadly, is no game.

"It's still Y2K, stupid."

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), April 30, 1999

Answers

so right Big Dog

keep on posting We're putting in our own power systems, food, and other stuff that we can do.

Thanks,

Bob

-- bob Pilcher (rpilc99206@aol.com), April 30, 1999.

Well said, BigDog. Thanks for the reality check.

-- Nabi Davidson (nabi7@yahoo.com), April 30, 1999.

BigDog: may I ask as politely as I can,"What is your background that supports your opinion"? I for one am not a programmer. Thanks!

Sincerely, Feller

-- Feller (feller@wanna.help), May 01, 1999.

Feller -- And I answer politely that my 21 years of varied IT experience, both hands-on programming, management and systems audits, including large systems, is not needful to support this simple recitation of the facts as they stand. Interpreting their likely impact does require such experience but is not relevant to this thread. Full speed-ahead preparation is the only rational response to the uncertainties, given the significance of the stakes for your life.

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), May 01, 1999.

BigDog,

I have respected your opinions since my first day on this forum. However, I can not agree on your point of ignoring the trolls:

"These predate the disinformation attacks on the forum."

I do believe that these attacks will increase, and that they will not go away. If we do ignore them, they will take over this forum. I agree that we should all continue preparing. But, at least some of us, must continue to argue the points.

Got the other side of the coin?

My $.02 <:)=

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), May 01, 1999.

Ah - but who's heads and who's tails on whose coin?

I'm afraid the "gubment" got us outnumbered and outpublicized on this one. If the media were interested in honest research and looked at things.....

-- Robert A. Cook, PE (Kennesaw, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), May 01, 1999.

Sysman -- Sorry if I wasn't clear. You're right. Though it's unfortunate, ignoring trolls (or pollys) doesn't make them go away. I was simply saying that earlier threads are of great value to newbies because the terrorist noise is mainly (not entirely) lacking. Actually, the problem in our society (forget the forum) with trolls (though not pollys anymore) will be far worse next year than it is today, when it is mainly virtual. And we will still need to fight back. This has been well-covered on other threads and was not the primary purpose of my own post here.

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), May 01, 1999.

OK BD, I hear ya. <:)=

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), May 01, 1999.

The disinfo trolls increased after Sysman came to this forum. Go back and check. He has baited and begged them to argue with him ever since he started posting here. The man must be incredibly bored in real life. That is why he disagrees with you Big Dog. He's afraid of losing his buddies.

-- Disgusted (not@this.time), May 01, 1999.

Disgusted,

Excuse me! The increase started when GNIABFI announced that it was going down. Yes, I have "baited" a FEW trolls in the past. When was the last time? Vinnie? When is the last time Vinnie posted here? Get a grip. I will continue to argue my point of view, and you really do have balls to call these guys my buddies! I have a very nice life, thank you very much! My hobby is my job. Can you say that? I'll stop now, or I may loose my temper! <:)=

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), May 01, 1999.

yes, it's still Y2K, stupid. .........help! just lost two drives on a 150 gig system....having to re-load at 11:00 pm.. arrgghh. whine.

at least the pollies are somewhere else..... "so-called regulars?"

-- lisa (lisa@work.now), May 01, 1999.

Lost two drives....How the heck did you do that? And how come I can't get a 150 Gig system.....

-- Robert A. Cook, PE (Kennesaw, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), May 01, 1999.

robert, honestly don't know yet... operator called me in 30 minutes ago... they're out of commission. arrghh got an early morning soccer game.... so you're going to be in Houston? take oxygen masks and bourbon. I'd love ta finally meet ya... love to meet Jean, too.

-- lisa (lisa@work.this_late), May 01, 1999.

Diane found this from the federal site discussing the medicare payment system (HCFA):

<>

It is mixed with a little good news (theya re making progress!) and some very unsettling trends. Errors like these are typical. This system is in deep trouble, it might make it - but probably not. The rest of the report is simliar.

Whole report is at:

http://com-notes.house.gov/cchear/hearings106.nsf/768df0faa6d9ddab852564f1004886c0/8227de35056cef1885256760005ff369?OpenDocument

-- Robert A. Cook, PE (Kennesaw, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), May 01, 1999.

Excuse me again Disgusted. Do you consider this thread "troll baiting?"...

Hit me with your best shot...

Or this thread...

Fellow programmers - is this a FACT or not...

Yes, I do want to know why the polly crowd feels the way that they do. And yes, I do NOT think that they can back up their argument with facts. And yes, I will continue to argue my point, in hopes that the "lurkers" here do not fall for their line of BS. At least I am trying to make a contribution to this forum. What contributions are you making? Have you EVER posted any Y2K related information here? Or do you just put people down that are trying to intercept some of the noise here? Have a nice day, Disgusted. <:)=

PS - Sorry to hear about your 150 lisa. A pair of IBM 3390's I take it?

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), May 01, 1999.

no, an HP3000 running 100K+ members on an HMO package.. thanks for the sympathy.... we should compose a eulogy for doomslayer, no? he really was a nice guy for a troublemaker....

-- lisa (lisa@work.com), May 01, 1999.

Sorry, can't help ya on the HP lisa. Doomslayer? Yea, he is sorta OK, I think he's just taking a long weekend off. The kids won't have a home when Biffy shuts down in 2 weeks... <:)=

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), May 01, 1999.

If you are convinced that your view is the correct one then why don't you want Pollys to post? Do they threaten your views?

"CONTINUE PREPARING FULL-SPEED SO LONG AS YOU CAN. IGNORE POLLYS AND TROLLS".

Why such intense warning to people to not listen to other views if you are right? If you are sure the pollys are wrong, then their words should pose no threat.

In the USSR people who expressed opinions that disagreed with the government were punished. In a free society apposing opinions allowed.

If the only views accepted here are those that reinforce only one idea, then this is not a forum, it is a single view reinforcement site.

Kinda like the site the trenchcoat shooters got together to reenforce their ideas.

-- Cherri (sams@brigadoon.com), May 01, 1999.

"Kinda like the site the trenchcoat shooters got together to reenforce their ideas."

Thanks, Cherri. That's a major contribution on your part and a complete confirmation of the troll hysteria I alluded to.

As I have done with almost identical posts that lay out the simplest possible description of Y2K, return to my original post, read it, consider it and, if you're wise, prepare.

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), May 01, 1999.

My gosh Cherri, I think BigDog is just wisely urging readers, primarily newbies who are still trying to figure out whether the situation is potentially serious or not, to prepare for the unexpected, and not be lulled into unnecessary jeopardy (possibly even life-threatening jeopardy) by those extreme pollys or trolls that try to convince readers that y2k won't even be a bump in the road, let alone TEOTWAWKI. BigDog has repeatedly defended others' right to post opposing views here, but he also (thank goodness) cares enough about people to urge them to take precautions as best they can against the threats potential from the y2k problem, both technical and psychological. As he points out, the stakes are too high to justify unnecessary risks. The governments' own data and assessments (not Kosikin's anti-panic campaign) supports BigDog's argument -- that is, that complacency isn't justified, that there are serious risks, whatever the odds of those risks anyone argues to be. So please don't try to associate him with the trenchcoat mafia's neurosis. Good grief!

-- bdb (cb_rex99@hotmail.com), May 01, 1999.

Big Dog:

You are so right here. The evidence for y2k is written in the sounds of silence. No evidence for this, that and the other. No evidence, no metrics, no demonstrations, no verification, no significant problems to date. We have a few woolly warnings, a few hollow reassurances, a few reports of testing, and a whole lot of silence.

For some of us, this silence is ominous, for others it is comforting. Depends on how lack of information is interpreted. For those like you, the default is that y2k will be bad unless we are convincingly shown otherwise. For others, the default is that y2k will be nothing much unless we are convincingly shown otherwise. And our defaults seem so strong that in practice nothing can be sufficiently convincing.

I cannot see this forum as being subjected to disinformation attacks. My take is that the evident shift away from pure gloom has coincided with the failures of the predictions of problems due to FY00, JAE, the Euro, the 9's problems, etc., combined with the accelerating rate of reported positive test results.

Yes, the government has belatedly cranked up the spin machine, a couple of years behind Gary North. But Koskinen isn't responsible for the big remediation money spent in the private sector, he isn't responsible for the remediation programmers now being laid off, he isn't responsible for unexpectedly mild repercussions of lookaheads.

Our huge remediation effort has made two things increasingly clear -- some of the problems weren't as bad as feared, and the rest are being addressed, in most cases pretty successfully. Logically, I'm not willing to say that there will be many serious failures just because I can't prove there won't be, nor am I willing to say there won't be such failures because I can't prove they will happen.

I fully agree that when in doubt, it is safest to assume big problems and prepare against them. But it isn't disinformation to point out that this is an *assumption*. Nor is it disinformation to point out that the lines of reasoning attempting to support this assumption are often clearly circular. When we lack information, we tend to fill in the (many) blanks with our pre-conclusions, and 'support' this process with personal attacks. We're all guilty of this.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), May 01, 1999.

Here's the old "It's y2k, stupid" thread.

It's y2k, stupid

-- humptyd (no.6@thevillage.com), May 01, 1999.

On another thread someone said ...

"If taking heavy flak, you must be over the target!"

Well, Y2K issues certainly qualify.

Better to be individually prepared -- food, water, alternatives, etc. -- for the unexpected, than not.

Pretty basic, and fairly simple ... whatever the range of belief, or news, both spun and unspun.

Diane

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), May 01, 1999.

Flint -- I'm not saying that pointing out Y2K uncertainties on the down side (pro-bump) is disinformation, not at all. I think you know most of the regulars here welcome positive information as much as you do. You know I interpret the current status differently than you do, but let's not rehash that here. I try on these threads (thanks, Humpty, plus ca change ....) to stay away from prediction as much as possible.

I am only pointing out that Y2K remediation progress seems to be roughly tracking the expectations of Yardeni/Yourdon (and, as we know, THEY disagree on the most probable outcome, despite many overlaps). I find it remarkable how many of the overall progress expectations made in 1997-98 are proving out, more remarkable than the foolishness about pre-2000 critical dates (which you know I have shouldered some of the rap for as a doomist, even though I ALWAYS thought them dumb).

I repeat ad nauseam, I fervently hope the pollys are right. But even though I predict TEOTWAWKI by June, 2000 (I'm not ashamed to use that acronym), the description at the top of the post continues to stand on its own IMO, even if Y2K proves to be a bump. That is, it is STILL wise in May of 1999 to prepare for the worst. It's costly, time-consuming and irritating but still wise.

Fortunately, as many of us have experienced (Flint, are you in THIS camp?), a good portion of the hard cost (80%?) is not only redeemable in use next year or beyond but is leading us to consider, many for the first time in their lives, more self-reliant ways to live that are just plain rewarding and fun as well as protective to some degree in the event of Y2K or OTHER disasters.

As I often say, I am very optimistic post-Y2K, even if it proves to be TEOTWAWKI. Not starry-eyed (millions will suffer terribly) but optimistic. As a culture, we are being given a rare opportunity to step back and ponder the use and abuse of the marvelous technologies we have raced to create. So how can I not be optimistic no matter which way things turn out?

This said, I am, yes, convinced that tremendous amounts of Y2K disinformation are floating around on all sides, but particularly on the "bump" side by world enterprises and institutions. No, everyone is not lying. But it is scarcely news that crises and threats often lead to institutional deception, often practiced with elaborate social "justifications" ... ahead of the event.

Unfortunately, it's still Y2K, stupid. And it looks like I'll be forced to put this type of thread up every month or so for the next six. Fortunately, it won't be like this forever. However long its effects, you can book it that this dog, at least, won't be trying to pin the tail on Y2K directly after 2Q 2000 at the latest.

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), May 01, 1999.

Big Dog:

Yes, we're trying our best to make lemonade here also. The 80% redeemable figure is (at least to us) very hazy. Sure, we'll eat the food we've stockpiled; we didn't buy stuff we'd only choke down if an emergency forced it on us. But food was a small expense, relatively speaking.

The wood stove? Wellll, hard to say. It did save us about $400 in heating bills this winter, it smells nice, we get better heat circulation than with our central heating, and it's pretty to look at. But I got a bit less enjoyment out of cutting, hauling, and splitting the wood, and of course the ashes need to be cleaned out every 3 days, and the house needs a lot more dusting, and the wood needs to be carried around often, and bugs keep coming out of the wood into the house, and the chimney needs to be swept. And this is just the barest taste of reverting to a more self-reliant lifestyle. Which might be fun for some, but for me it's HARD WORK and very time- consuming. I'd prefer to avoid it if possible. And the wood stove expense itself was considerable, when you add in the installation and the woodshed. Far more in total than the food.

God forbid we'll ever need to shoot anyone, but good guns aren't cheap either. So my wife and I have taken up target shooting (and she is getting very good indeed). We believe in *using* what we bought. But even buying reloads in 10,000 round quantities (price break there), we're talking $25-50 in ammo each shooting session. We shoot once or twice each week, and this adds up, believe me. And it takes longer to clean the guns than to shoot them most times.

Anyway, you get the idea. I don't think I'd choose a more self- reliant lifestyle, because of the time and effort involved, and because I enjoy what I do today. I like my job and I look forward to going to work each day. Who could ask for more?

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), May 01, 1999.

Flint,

A gun owner with a wood stove and sounds like he's prepared?

I thought you might have been a polly from your other threads, and then I realize you are defending the middle of the road Y2K scenario.

Tell me if I'm wrong.

Father

-- Thomas G. hale (hale.t@att.net), May 01, 1999.

Thomas:

One reason why Flint is actually a kook like the rest of us is that he has actually prepared quite diligently, as he has shared in the past, more diligently than some so-called doomers. It's the "stakes-odds" thing. (BTW, we're about 25 miles SE of your old stomping grounds).

Flint:

Self-reliance is very tiring, yet satisfying (even bringing in the wood has its charms). Technology is cool but alienating at times. I over-simplify. OF COURSE, this is the Internet. I don't think even Bonnie Camp wants to return to the days she speaks of in her post (we'll leave that for Zog who already lives there).

The question is, "can we choose our technologies, both at the global and individual level" or are we "fated" to endure them as passive receptacles-victims. True luddism long ago ceased to be an option (around the time of Tom Sawyer). Solar zealots are among our most technologically sophisticated. I'm interested in whether or not technology can become (more) "intentional". Admittedly, it's a grandiose project, because it implies the need for the transformation of (heck, creation) of underlying world views that secure adequate consensus from people as different as INVAR and Gilda Jessie.

While I get to work on that teeny problem, "it's still Y2K, stupid", as I remind myself first and foremost.

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), May 01, 1999.

While I am loathe to bump heads (after such a delightful quiet), I must question your original post. Mr. Yourdon (and others) have made the same statement about "starting too late." I disagree, however, with the application of software development metrics to a remediation problem. I also feel the statement is far too broad and conclusive to apply to the vast world of IS/IT. (I feel the same way about the statement, "the code is broken.")

Your other points simply state that there is no evidence. How one interprets this lack of "proof" is a matter of perspective.

The majority businesses are privately held and owe no explanation of Y2K readiness to anyone but the owners. In fact, they have legal disincentives to making claims that might increase their liability.

Public companies owe an explanation to the shareholders and the board of directors. Again, unless they see the public relations value outweighing the legal liability, they are likely to say nothing.

The reports from the critical triad of power, telecoms and financial services have been overwhelming positive. (Are they all lying?) The TEOTWAWKI scenarios usually depend on a collapse of the basic infrastructure. Recent reports from transportation, including rail services, have been positive. (Again, is this widespread lying?)

The IT trade press is quiet on Y2K. (More lies?) And every "critical" date thus far has come and gone with little disruption.

Public (and business) awareness is high (as evidenced by the new KIA ads). Certainly I agree with the possibility of an economic downturn, but as you must know, even during the great depression, the business of America continued forth. We can split hairs on semantics and say the depression was the end of life as many people knew it, but that is not what we really mean when we say TEOTWAWKI.

Best of luck with your preparations,

-- Mr. Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), May 02, 1999.

Decker --

[my comments]

"Mr. Yourdon (and others) have made the same statement about "starting too late." I disagree, however, with the application of software development metrics to a remediation problem. I also feel the statement is far too broad and conclusive to apply to the vast world of IS/IT."

[If you are questioning a late start here as accurate, it makes me question your acument generally. As for metrics, they are applicable to any software project, since maintenance requires testing and introduces errors as well as new development. The larger problem with metrics, which gets to the so-called compliance data, is that there is no linqua franca within IT for reporting and comparing result. Metrics, in fairness to hackers, have often been a theoretical benefit and a practical nightmare (another subject). They remain critical.

At a minimum, Y2K is a colossal maintenance project for most organizations, and most of us in the biz believe it is mixed development-maintenance. As for the "vast world of IS/IT", what content does this phrase have and what does it have to do with my post? Although, I suppose "finish too late" certainly applies to that "vast world."]

"The majority businesses are privately held and owe no explanation of Y2K readiness to anyone but the owners. In fact, they have legal disincentives to making claims that might increase their liability."

[My statement borrowed from various surveys, government and business around the world, that converge to the facts I cited. What is your point?]

"Public companies owe an explanation to the shareholders and the board of directors. Again, unless they see the public relations value outweighing the legal liability, they are likely to say nothing."

[See my comment above. And you're right about the PR value being the determining factor in most Y2K communications, actually corporate communications of anything. You think this disconfirms my post? LOL]

"The reports from the critical triad of power, telecoms and financial services have been overwhelming positive. (Are they all lying?) The TEOTWAWKI scenarios usually depend on a collapse of the basic infrastructure. Recent reports from transportation, including rail services, have been positive. (Again, is this widespread lying?)"

[The "lying" canard is introduced whenever critiques are brought against the PR. Answer: some execs are lying; others are hoping it will work out; others don't understand the nature of the problem ... and are hoping it will work out. Putting it another way, most are like you. They have some sense of what happens in IT from an outside-in perspective. Are you lying when you grab a patchwork of items about the IT profession and cobble them together? No. But it doesn't make what you're saying "true".

Bennett has said that they came to realize ("came to" is key, given their original ignorance about the problem's dynamics) that they were being flat-out lied to in the beginning. Now, the question is, "is Bennett knowledgeable enough that he can appreciate other dynamics of IT projects, including the more subtle self-deceit of techies as huge projects proceed?" If you think I'm a mistrustful sort, I welcome your project management of large IT organizations. Even so, I have no doubt many are telling the truth. Life is not always simple.

As you probably know I've said repeatedly, this period was always destined to be the "good news" phase of Y2K. This is both because the companies that went on a death march in 1996 are cautiously coming to the successful end of a hellish project and because the vast majority of companies are in the "we're 90% complete and it's in the bag" phase of IT/exec optimism. Spin that number (?) with the PR and Occam's Razor's condition has been met.

I have OFTEN said we may be further along in the remediation process than we think as well as less. Of course, the money spent is having an impact, otherwise the figures I cite at the top of the post would be much smaller. So much for my rejection of the possibility of a bump. My sole insistence is that the data reported is mainly absurd, in the WaitingForGodot sense, not that it is primarily deceitful.]

"The IT trade press is quiet on Y2K. (More lies?) And every "critical" date thus far has come and gone with little disruption."

[First, the trade press has very little corporate penetration that is not provided by the PR releases and interviews. See comments above once more. Second, corporate advertising dissuades Watergate-style tech journalism. Third, the press lives on everything "new", must as IT thrives on the lust for new development. Y2K is too boring to receive appropriate coverage. Finally, most though not all, IT journalists are not very technical and that's complimentary.]

"We can split hairs on semantics and say the depression was the end of life as many people knew it, but that is not what we really mean when we say TEOTWAWKI."

[For my then 14-year old dad, who was lifted through the windows of abandoned farmhouses by his father hunting for a scrap of food because the family was near starvation, the depression was TEOTWAWKI. It is what I mean by TEOTWAWKI. Milage varies, obviously. Some people made millions then and will make millions in a TEOTWAWKI situation. Regulars know I have nuanced this over and over again on the forum.]

"Best of luck with your preparations,"

[I'm aware this is merely your signature here, but luck has nothing to do with it or Y2K. I have said elsewhere in this thread, because apparently it is lost on you and others, that while I have clear opinions about impacts, the top of the post avoids that on purpose. Yet, you want to focus on likely impacts ("is everyone lying"?). That 80%, say, of large enterprises may be Y2K ready by the end of the year has nothing to do with who is lying or isn't.

Even if remediation is ahead of the absurd self-reports ("what number should we use today, Joe?"), the impossibility of "knowing" overall status should induce intense preparation, given the stakes, the fundamental uncertainty and the ability to use preps in subsequent years.

Just like every shoeshine boy thinks they're a stock picker, everyone who has dabbled with computers (which is 95% of those on this forum if not more) thinks they understand systemic technical interdependencies. Remarkably, very few do. Pondering "why this is" and how to make a positive contribution after Y2K is a deeply-held personal concern of mine. That intelligent people like yourself, because indeed you are, are so dense about it tells me a lot about why/how Y2K became a crisis in the first place and why it will catch the world by surprise.

Do yourself a favor Decker and put some of your wealth into a few thousand dollars of preparations. It's very little insurance against the stakes. Betting against people like me on this issue is very dumb, even if Y2K turns out to be a bump. Take it as arrogance if you like, but I mean it in a friendly way: I know more about this than you do and have deeper insight into the systemic side (not merely technical, but technical-cultural, if you will) than some of the pollys here who, I freely admit, have higher IQs than me. There is no inherent reason why you should trust me, I know, but I'm right. They're wrong. Sorry.

(Sigh. Let me again repeat: not right about TEOTWAWKI. THAT'S an opinion. Right about the extraordinary peril, which has not changed structurally in the past two years of Y2K work).

You're the one who will need the luck, my future Middleton Tavern friend, since you're taking the sucker's bet on Y2K.]

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), May 02, 1999.

You all better start thinking like me, damnit! I have the biggest and brightest mind on the planet [yap, yap!!]

Everyone who doesn't think like me I will try and coerce thru banal posting and [.....pause for ball-licking......] nonsense stereotyping.

No one one this forum can think without my help, that is a given. [arf arf] I will protect you all from the .gov misinfotrolls. [...mind if I hump your leg?.....]

yap, yap, yap......

-- SmallDog (SmallDog@doofus.commie), May 02, 1999.

doofus --- which of the regular pollys and trolls are you? Why don't you post under that name like a man instead of speaking like a coward?

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), May 02, 1999.

BigDog. You nailed this one, not surprisingly. One question - you wrote in the original post "The polly and troll hysteria on this board is a faint harbinger of what will hit the airwaves later this year and early next year".

How do you see this playing out? Starting around the Fall perhaps, generally more of the same happy-face BS from the Gov and Press - just with the spin cycle turned to high? I ask this because to my mind this whole awareness aspect has been done on a balancing high-wire, and the powers that be are, as I have posted before, between a rock and a hard place... you know, the "panic must be avoided is Job #1" marching order at odds with encouraging prudent prep. I don't think this will change any time soon either, unless it is forced. What do you think?

-- Rob Michaels (sonofdust@com.net), May 02, 1999.

Rob:

Seems to me you are veering dangerously close to a CYA position. We have every reason to expect the incidence of genuine substantial compliance to skyrocket as this year wears on. Many if not most organizations timed it that way, either deliberately or because their original deadlines (which at the time they considered conservative) were not met.

Yet you have already predeclared this situation as "turning up the spin cycle", which I interpret as meaning that you have already decided that reports of factual compliance are to be rejected or ignored, even when valid.

Even Big Dog expects 80% compliance or more by year's end. Is that spin? Hundreds of billions of remediation dollars really have been getting translated into progress. I think you need to address how this progress can be believably reported.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), May 02, 1999.

I have been watching the trends of media and people around me. I have always been more concerned with 'social response' than almost any other aspect of this situation. I see a tendency that I don't like very much. It is a tendency to use fear to blame anybody making contingency plans.

The 'there's nothing to fear but fear itself' comment is often used. Many say, Y2K will be fine if people don't panic. Could be. Is definitely true in the sense that people panicking is bad whether Y2K has a bad effect or not, and it would aggravate everything.

It reminds me vaguely of Germany before WWII.... the Treaty of Versailles had demolished the country financially.... it was horrible.(So I'm told.) The Jews were represented as being the bankers and being rich. The whole initial stereotype came from this, from some jews having money, but nobody else did, so therefore it was somehow THEIR fault (and the fault of every jew) that everybody else was miserable, and then in fact, they were a THREAT to everybody else 'just because.' It devolved of course, as we know. But that's where it began.

The response I'm starting to see now and then, combined with some of the subtle direction I see in the media, is making me start to sense that same tendency. People preparing for Y2K have food. How dare they prepare, how dare they store food, they could cause a panic that could kill your family, they could eat all the food and then you won't have any. And just wait until supply line issues hit, THEN the blame will really flow... to those people who have supplies. I can almost see it in retrospect, articles on how 'thanks to y2k hysteria, by the end of 1999 generators, grain mills and other basic items were impossible for most of the population to obtain.' Those nasty paranoids took them all. (As if that is the fault of the people buying them instead of the gov't who should have said something two years ago so more could be made and sold.)

Anyway, I know I'm pushing the envelope here and my burden of proof has me pinned firmly to the ground for now. This doesn't yet exist, and I hope it never does. But as time passes I'm beginning to get more indications that something like this is coming.

I should also mention that from a purely psychological, machiavellian point of view, whenever things "go bad" for people -- even in a small dose -- what people most need is someone to blame -- a fairly singular, stereotype-able, common enemy. The government and media are not going to blame themselves, though they are the culprits. They might blame computer programmers for the problem, most people might believe that. But chances are they will blame anybody who prepared for Y2K. Already the stereotypes of the wacko radicals is being pushed. It would be no effort to continue that.

I also have an even more sinister sense that since (wow -- say that part five times fast!) terrorism both internally and externally would be best targeted right at the rollover moment, whether at buildings or at utility/infrastructure areas -- I mean that hardly takes a rocket scientist to figure out! -- that a combination of potential problems and terrorism could cause many to be BLAMED ON terrorism (whether they began there or not), could further firearm restriction laws, and so forth. But, that is my darker side.... there is no evidence for that at all right now... it's just a negative hunch.

On the bright side, tonight I'm having dinner with a Yourdonite from this board who, as it turns out, lives right near me! What a coincidence. Cool!

PJ in TX

-- PJ Gaenir (fire@firedocs.com), May 02, 1999.

Rob: You said of my post, "One question - you wrote in the original post "The polly and troll hysteria on this board is a faint harbinger of what will hit the airwaves later this year and early next year". How do you see this playing out?"

If (of course, it is still an "if") Y2K heads towards 6 and above, politicians-media will be spinning like tops right alongside of markets and business worldwide. Think not just one occasional cover of Time-Newsweek on millenium hysteria, but, a la impeachment, wall to wall coverage all the time. At that point, Y2K will cease to be boring, because WEIRD events, international/domestic, markets, urban/suburban/rural will be happening more or less simultaneously across 1Q/2Q 2000. At the same time, we'll be in the 2000 presidential year.

As I've said elsewhere on the forum, I think Y2K will be the "cause of last resort" wherever possible. Everyone (governments, industry) will have a "different" reason as well as lots of "it's their problem, it's their fault." For more than this, I'll have to go recheck the crystal ball .....

Flint: "Even Big Dog expects 80% compliance or more by year's end. Is that spin? Hundreds of billions of remediation dollars really have been getting translated into progress. I think you need to address how this progress can be believably reported."

Wow, EVEN BigDog ;-). I must say, I don't personally think we'll achieve that but (contra all the flamers), I am optimistically giving the benefit of the doubt. Absolutely, progress is being made, AT LEAST in ensuring that the fittest will gain heavy survival/profit advantage post-Y2K. Nothing wrong with that, they'll have earned it. I admit that believable reporting is hard, not so much because doomers (for instance) disbelieve everything, but because the same, core absurdity, using that term precisely not sarcastically, of industry "metrics" make it authentically difficult to gauge the accuracy of reports. Hence, again, why we might actually BE farther ahead than even most pollys think.

I would say that the reason Y2K REMAINS so risky and problematic and why I consider some of the pollys on this board to be, forgive me, morons (I know they return the compliment) is that the only way to test the entire world "system" is "in action." Sure, some code is coming online in 1999, etc., etc., but Y2K really is singular in that respect. In a sense, we CAN'T know, in principle and as a point of logic, what the results of the remediation PLUS embedded systems exposures are until we pass through the singularity.

So, Flint, the people I really do trust are the ones who say, "this was a bear, but we think we're there or almost there. However, no one can guarantee ....". Say, SSA. Bank of Boston. Northwest Airlines. GM, maybe. Others, of course. It's the "gee, everything's cool, we've always had it under control and just go back to sleep" PR, of which there is hideously much, is what scares me. Even "we'll fix on failure" commands, however bizarrely, a bit more respect. At least we know where they/we stand on the "fix" if not on the "failure".

PJ --- The way I would put it is that Y2K uncertainty, which is fundamental to the problem (ie, it is not, per se, the fault of government, IT, let alone doomers) makes 4Q 1999 through at least 2Q 2000 a "wild card" technically, politically and culturally.

HENCE, "prepare for the worst, but hope for the best."

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), May 02, 1999.

Dear Big Dog,

If I may, let me digress on a personal note. I was "prepared" before Y2K entered the public consciousness. The irony--much is accidental. I grew up on a self-reliant ranch in Montana. (My parents, God bless them, still live there). Our kitchen garden was well over an acre, and we raised the entire range of farm animals from chickens to cattle. I can still take beef from the hoof to your plate... in a nice marsala, if you like. I helped my father "turn wrenches" on the equipment and learned the basics of rough carpentry, electrical and plumbing. We built sheds, barns, privys, and miles of fence. In my spare time, I restored an antique truck... and eventually gave it to my nephew. (Despite my apparent learning disability, I am a nice guy.) (laughter)

These are skills you cannot learn from Carla Emery and her wonderful book. Until you have slaughtered your first hog, it just isn't "farm living." (laughter)

As an avid outdoorsman, I have the "gear" for extended backpacking and camping. In fact, I spend the best week of each fall in hunting camp with my family. Unlike many Americans, I know exactly what it is like to live without electricity, running water or refrigeration.

As if my formative years were not enough, Uncle Sam "volunteered" to add to my survival skill base. My military service taught me skills I hope the future never requires. Oh, and I worked in a few manual trades to facilitate my education.

Because I enjoy the outdoors, I have forty acres within a couple of hours of home. This summer, I had planned to build a shed or two (and a privy). Not because of Y2K, but because I am clearing brush, planting berry canes and fruit trees... and the weekends are easy if the tools (and facilities) are on site.

While I am a man of modest means, I am debt free. Like Sam Walton, I drive an older pick up and have few expensive vices (although a good cigar is appreciated from time to time).

I fully expect an economic downturn in the next 18 months... perhaps partially due to Y2K failures. Given some of the underlying fundamentals, I feel this could be a hard recession.

As much as I can be, I am prepared for the downturn. This does not, however, include years of soybeans in my basement. It does not include thousands of rounds of ammunition nor fortified bunkers.

In my mind, rational "preparation" is rational living. I can leave my job tomorrow and find work in a half dozen different occupations. Of course, the first fews days might be a tough haul after my soft white collar job. (laughter) More than some, I can ride out financial hard times, draw on my reserves and tighten the belt. In the worst case, I still own land in Montana and could return to eke out a living there.

In short, I have some confidence in my ability to weather a storm... and I am still not convinced Y2K will be the storm of the century. As always, we reach different conclusions from the same data. And I do think luck plays a role in all of this. If you have some suggestions on how I can spend a couple of thousand to prepare, by all means.... Until then, I wish you well.

Regards,

-- Mr. Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), May 03, 1999.

Decker -- Nice post, you're being "real", thanks. I'm too much of a wuss to slaughter hogs, at least not yet. We have our turkeys, geese and such "done" by local folk.

I fully agree that "rational preparation is rational living." The problem with the hurricane analogies is that people "read" that as incentives to continue to live irrationally while putting a few cans of food in the larder. Maybe. 90% of this forum's talk about preparations, which seem to get most people torqued, come down to mastering the kind of skills that, by God's grace, you received through your upbringing. "Rational" living has been (largely) abandoned, whether we're talking about the markets or back-up skills or canning food.

Plus, you can't be all bad if you drive a pickup. Ours has just reached 200K miles but we think it's got another 75K or more in it. 'Course I had to kick the fender at the end of the bed down with my boot because it was trailing on the road, but hey!

You said,

"In short, I have some confidence in my ability to weather a storm... and I am still not convinced Y2K will be the storm of the century. As always, we reach different conclusions from the same data. And I do think luck plays a role in all of this."

Not sure exactly what you mean by "convinced". If people truly understood (it is the one thing only that I "get" from my experience, which was highly audit and metrics related) the irrationality of the reported progress, they would appreciate both the impossibility of being convinced (one way or the another) AND the huge risks of this worldwide idiot project. I'm not "convinced" Y2K will be the storm of the century, just convinced that intense preparation (skills above all) has not been so important in my lifetime as it is this year.

"If you have some suggestions on how I can spend a couple of thousand to prepare, by all means...."

I thought you'd never ask! You see, it starts with writing me a check for $500 for my consulting time and then ......

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), May 03, 1999.

What a coincidence. $500 is exactly what I charge for teaching "city folk" how to butcher a hog.

In the not-so-distant past, pigs were called "mortgage savers" because of their ability to convert table scraps and other low-grade feed into excellent meat (and valuable lard). If it doesn't have lard, it just isn't pie crust. You might think about a few pigs for your little farm.

You also might want to learn how to take your food from hoof to table. I respect both hunters and vegans... it's the "soft middle" that my eyebrows knit. On the ranch, we often referred to meat by its former name. "Curly" burger was especially good, if memory serves. (laughter) You may regard this as callous, but the ranch, farm or wilderness is no place for the armchair quarterback. With self reliance comes some unpleasant, but necessary, tasks. I suppose the same can be said for liberty.

Unlike "Hallyx" and others intellectual "observers," I have been elbow-deep in the offal. Self reliance is a hard life... physically, mentally and emotionally. Many of the chest-thumpers here would fold like a wet rag at the first real adversity. Not many have lived hard- scrabble tough....

Share your thoughts, friend, and I'll help you with that hog. Oh, and my truck has 175k and all of its fenders. I plan to have a flat bed welded and mounted because of the inevitable dings and rust that happen when you haul cord wood. I think the beast is good for another 100k. (You don't have money to invest, unless you save a bit).

Be well,

-- Mr. Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), May 03, 1999.

"Many of the chest-thumpers here would fold like a wet rag at the first real adversity. Not many have lived hard- scrabble tough...."

Which is why so many of us are concerned about the potential societal effects of Y2K and have believed that the best antidote all along would have been a call to serious months-long preparation (supplies, community, skill-building et al). And, as it has been for so many of us, this could have been spun AND WOULD HAVE BEEN EXPERIENCED BY MOST as a benefit to us/country no matter what happened with Y2K. It never would have been anything other/more (or less) than a recovery of some measure of "rational living" by the citizeny. Too late now, alas.

If delivering cows of calves by reaching up inside and getting the dang thing out at the family's dairy farm nearby qualifies as country living, I think we're a bit past the city life stage.

But, no, we're not very tough. And I pray we will not have to learn how to be very tough.

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), May 03, 1999.

"Big Dog,"

Most do not achieve "toughness" by choice.... It is more often thrust upon us. This is why your call for "preparation" will always go largely unheeded. Like hog butchering, most country skills have little appeal for the masses. Despite the sales of "homesteading" books and magazines, few are willing to leave the comfort of modern urban/suburban living. Even country folk are considerably softer than in decades past. No matter how well-reasoned or impassioned your plea, most will not listen. Even fewer have the "sand" to take axe in hand and start making a chicken dinner. Hard times make hard people. When we have hard times again, most will simply have to learn time-old lessons... the hard way. We may disagree on the impact of Y2K, but do not think me such a poor student of history not to realize hard times can befall our nation. Now, what brilliant insights do you have on the few thousand dollars. Be forewarned, however, unlike your other arguments, I will hold this to the standard of "country sense."

Regards,

-- Mr. Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), May 03, 1999.

"No matter how well-reasoned or impassioned your plea, most will not listen."

But somehow they'll listen to GN about liquidating bank accounts?

Which is it? sssqqqqwwwwwwwwwaaaWWWWWWWWWWWKKKKKKKK

(Did enjoy your post, Mr. Decker. Glad I have paper in the bottom of the cage: that's how I learned to read.)

-- parrot (green@gold.macaw), May 03, 1999.

As usual I only manage to get onto this forum well after a good thread is well along. But this exchange between two of the best minds and writers on the forum (BigDog and Mr. Decker) has been illuminating.

BigDog carries the argument, I think, in reemphasizing the unassailable position that, realistically speaking, the best we can hope for at major U.S. companies is 80% mission-critical-complete. There is just no rational reason to expect anything better, in the aggregate. That alone spells trouble. And then there's that pesky qualifier: mission critical. For the federal government that comprises, at best estimates, about 9% of their total number of systems. But without some serious investigative journalism into just what those other 91% of the systems do we are not likely to find out, until they fail, just how non-mission-critical they really are. Same, of course, with business except their proportion of MC to NMC systems is smaller.

I personally am lulled lately into relative calm and security. Perhaps that's because my own preps are such that if it all came down tomorrow I think we would have at least the mission critical (;-D) stuff in place. And I do think that the incessant drumbeat of "good news" works its hypnotic magic on me too. But as BigDog and others have constantly pointed out, we would expect good news and lots of it all this year. The metrics don't say that no systems will get fixed, just that not enough of them will to prevent serious problems. It's not the systems that are fixed that are the problem; it's the ones that don't get fixed. So we return to BigDog's argument above to see that the good news probably just isn't good enough.

I respect Mr. Decker's personal abilities. My family has jumped hip to neck deep into acquiring such skills. I've got a couple of feeder pigs so I'll get that particular butchering experience later this fall; until then I'm practicing on rabbits and chickens. But as BigDog has noted, the startling thing about the various naysayers in this forum and the public at large is the braying and hooting at those who insist that we must get these skills back -- that the collective loss of such skills and the handing over of our personal welfare to The System is terrifying. "You're a doomsayer," we hear, "you're an anti-social militia crazed fundamentalist nutcase." We have blasphemed The System; we don't trust it anymore to care for us and such blasphemy seems to strike almost universal revulsion into 20th century Americans, cutting across religious, ideological, and economic boundaries.

Thanks again, BigDog, for the reawakening. Slap, slap, slap. Wake up, David! The System may not be there for you forever.

-- David Palm (djpalm64@yahoo.com), May 03, 1999.

parrot -- good point. The problem has always been, "what if everyone 'listens' all at once in a REAL panic on 'x' date?" Otherwise, ALAS, pollys have nothing to worry about, at least for now, about doomers creating panic. The world should be so lucky.

David --

"And I do think that the incessant drumbeat of "good news" works its hypnotic magic on me too. But as BigDog and others have constantly pointed out, we would expect good news and lots of it all this year. The metrics don't say that no systems will get fixed, just that not enough of them will to prevent serious problems. It's not the systems that are fixed that are the problem; it's the ones that don't get fixed."

It is hypnotic, even though, yes, there is lots of authentic good news. I continue to believe Koskinen/Kelly succeeded beyond their expectations and, perhaps, to their chagrin. They eliminated panic in 1Q 99 but may have guaranteed it for 4Q 99. OTOH, great spin in 4Q 99 may eliminate it as well. And that may not be so bad. It's too late for preparation then anyway. We might as well all fix on failure ....

I'm still pessimistic enough to believe that the fixed systems as well as the unfixed ones will give us excruciating headaches, but that is a nit.

"We have blasphemed The System; we don't trust it anymore to care for us and such blasphemy seems to strike almost universal revulsion into 20th century Americans, cutting across religious, ideological, and economic boundaries."

There really is something to this. Tres bizarre. Self-reliance has become more-or-less subversive. If we deeply understood why, I think we would understand not only the genesis and "progress" of Y2K as a technical problem but the likely trajectory of our society over the coming few decades, whatever happens with Y2K.

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), May 03, 1999.

Big Dog - your latest post reminds me of experiences that I have had in the natural resource development field. Since the 1960s, more and more federal decision have become based on processes to garner public input. In the past decade, these processes began to slop over into private, non-public areas.

"Consensus"-based groups of the "interested community" became formed locally to forge a "landscape vision" on a watershed basis. Regulatory agencies proceeded with a "watershed assessment," with an inventory of the "resource potential" and "sustainable" "carrying capacity" of the watershed. Computerized models were constructed and calibrated for decison making to take into account the cumulative effect of individual use. Participants came to agreement on "appropriate technology" and "best management practices" that would achieve the "community vision."

At first, educational workshops were held for the user "resource community," and implementation of the modes encouraged by volunteerism, supported by cost-share grant funds. The decision of the private person whether or not to participate was respected.

The process is now becoming institutionalized and implemented through regulations, permits and mitigations. A private resource owner cannot make management decisions without guidance and permission from the community because he/she contributes to the cummulative effects.

It has permeated our society. I believe it is a by-product of technological development and specialization that allows a population far in excess of what each of us can do on our own. Individualism and self-sufficiency is disquieting, perhaps thtreatening, to those who are part of the "hive." It "deviates" from "group-think."

You only have to look as far as the plea on the submit post page regarding fake e-mail addresses to see how deeply this has become ingrained.

"Please don't use a fake e-mail address; it creates a lot of technical problems for *the community*...."

-- marsh (armstrng@sisqtel.net), May 03, 1999.

Marsh --- Along with recent threads on the original concepts of the American militia and the like, maybe we are having a momentary forum renaissance. It is a truism that people like to keep their jobs. When government is inflated to grandiose levels, it acts tyrannically as an entity, even though the individual people, by and large, go home at night to .... complain about the government.

Voluntarism, which was at the heart of the American experiment, has been eroded nearly entirely, except for trivial, pious types of "helping". As you know, personal rights to property are mocked and abrogated at will by the Feds, though they are fundamentally biblical (speaking here as a Christian) and absolutely American (thinking of the Constitution and its first century or more of "interpretation").

"It has permeated our society. I believe it is a by-product of technological development and specialization that allows a population far in excess of what each of us can do on our own. Individualism and self-sufficiency is disquieting, perhaps thtreatening, to those who are part of the "hive." It "deviates" from "group-think."

Yes and even here on the forum we too often talk of community in a New Agey way that is hive-like. OTOH, America itself was and is a vast experiment in voluntary community. Community and individualism ought to be complementary: I help you by supporting my OWN family as well as by bringing you meals when you have a tractor accident.

I agree wholeheartedly that technology as a medium (stealing loosely here from McLuhan) is the message. It facilitates tyranny-at-a- distance (think Kosovo or the engine that makes possible the behavior you describe in your post). Certainly, without high-speed calculative technology, it is harder to have a hive. Not impossible (entire cultures have pulled it off) but harder.

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), May 03, 1999.