..... It took SSA about ten years and they have just barely finished (with nary a peep that they could have fixed it in a few months but just sort of messed up for a decade or so)?

..... That some other very large corporate players have spent, by their own reckoning, hundreds of millions of dollars SO FAR over several years, at least, and have still not reached compliance?

..... (add your own "How Comes")?

No one, even IFM, has ever said Y2K can't be fixed, whether one is looking at an individual PC or the entire DOD. It is a simple matter of programming: just involves 'x' time and 'y' money.

The problem is, the time is already up (taking it globally) and even the serious optimists (excluding the Biffies whose life-force has been sucked dry already by us) don't project > 80% compliant AT MOST.

The ease of fixing Y2K errors (once found, it is indeed not rocket science) has become conflated/confused with the extraordinary chaos of Y2K as a global political-media-management process.

All the spin in the world can't move the date.

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), May 16, 1999

Answers

And all the handwaving in the world won't provide a single, useful definition of just what "Y2K Compliant" means, or why "80% compliant" automatically translates to "Big Trouble."

-- Stephen M. Poole, CET (smpoole7@bellsouth.net), May 17, 1999.

80% poole?

You want to know why 80% isn't good enough???

BWAAAAAAhAHAHAhahahaha ah haha ha ha.... :)

(Hint. Carrying capacity. JIT delivery. Interconnectivity. Domino and chaos theory. That'll do for starters, don't want to overload your pea brain.)

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), May 17, 1999.

Man - and I was thinking getting only 95% compliant would give us economic problems.....

-- Robert A. Cook, PE (Kennesaw, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), May 17, 1999.

This response is for Andy and Robert:

Software always HAS (and perhaps always WILL) been/be delivered with SOME bugs. I've been using Microsoft's Windows 95 now for three years, and must continue using it simply because it supports my telephony software and scanner requirements.

If you feel that Windows 95 was delivered bug-free, I will gladly point you to fora that will differ with these opinions.

100% compliance by a company, government, ANY entity...is NOT required. Ability to continue business is the major concern. Meeting artificial deadlines imposed by others is not a concern either. I'll cite the FAA as an example of this one. They never said they'd be ready by the date that the administration imposed. Their date was ALWAYS later.

Anita

-- Anita Spooner (spoonera@msn.com), May 17, 1999.

This response is for Big Dog:

The social security administration's Y2k problems were found and corrected. They certainly did NOT put their entire IT department on this task. I would suggest that THIS is the difference...meaning that in the past several years complete TEAMS of Y2k remediators have been working on this problem, where perhaps 1 programmer was assigned this task when the social security administration noticed.

Anita

-- Anita Spooner (spoonera@msn.com), May 17, 1999.

I've been at this computer game for 22 years Anita and agree with you completely.

However what we are talking about here is a cut-off point. At what percentile does the system of systems implode, gridlock, fail completely.

This has been addressed many times, most notably in "Tom's Take", Dr. Altman's threads in our archives here, and the "Infomagic" essays, amongst others.

Assuming we are at 100% software efficiency now (which we're not, but humour me, society is just about functioning now) at what percentile loss of s/w efficiency does everything go tits-up?

poole contends 80%, a whopping 20% failure rate across the board in all computer systems (including by default embedded systems) in all industries and sectors of commerce WORLDWIDE.

I find this absolutely risible but typical coming from his skewed view of the world, and wayward thought processes if you can call his "thinking" a process (an endeavour would be more apt, always prone to failure...)

My contention, much much less, only a few percentage points in failures will have serious consequences for society as we know it now.

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), May 17, 1999.

Anita,

"Meeting artificial deadlines imposed by others is not a concern either. I'll cite the FAA as an example of this one. They never said they'd be ready by the date that the administration imposed. Their date was ALWAYS later."

Agree with you again.

But y2k is a set deadline. Can't be moved.

Prognosis?

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), May 17, 1999.

Hi Anita,

"Their date was ALWAYS later."

So, you are admitting to "fudged dates?"

"where perhaps 1 programmer was assigned this task"

Yup, that's part of the problem, not enough resources. 35 or so years of legacy code to fix, and throw a programmer here, and a programmer there at it... <:)=

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), May 17, 1999.

Big Dog, I have just one question.

Has anyone estimated the likely impact on the French nudist resorts??

-- K. Stevens (kstevens@_come January_the_infrastructure_will_fail.com), May 17, 1999.

A "credit card" response center (or a grocery store wharehouse, or a train shipping yard, or a truck center, or a refinery, or anything else that has a very low (current) failure rate but high volume) for example, that handles 3000 calls an hour (.0001% of all monthly transactions), cannot manage double that for extended periods of time.

They can't do it manually at 9000, and shutdown completely at 30,000 "attempts" to get through. This is only .001 percent trouble factor.

Sure everything is a guess, but the problem is, the number of transactions now is so high that manual operations cannot let the system work the way it used to. Central stations, common plants, merged companies, and more central financial controls don't allow it to happen. You can't run a Fortune 500 company for a month guessing at inventory and salaries.

-- Robert A. Cook, PE (Kennesaw, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), May 17, 1999.

Nut (a.k.a. Andy),

I didn't say that 80% compliant was "enough." I asked HOW "80% compliance" could automatically translate to problems, considering that no one can provide me with a single consistent definition of what "Y2K Compliant" actually means, or how (in a given case) it might directly bear on the entity-in-question's ability to function?

-- Stephen M. Poole, CET (smpoole7@bellsouth.net), May 17, 1999.

"I didn't say that 80% compliant was "enough." I asked HOW "80% compliance" could automatically translate to problems, considering that no one can provide me with a single consistent definition of what "Y2K Compliant" actually means, or how (in a given case) it might directly bear on the entity-in-question's ability to function?"

Maroon,

While your futilely looking for a definition of compliance (which, by the way you'll still be doing as the clocks hit midnight and the lights go out), the rest of us are preparing.

You don't have the intellectual capacity to grasp what is going to occur. I gave you three guys who would explain all to you.

Give up.

Take up needlework or macrame.

More your style - any you won't get any more of those pesky headaches you get when you post on this forum.

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), May 17, 1999.

Your words, poole CrETin,

"why "80% compliant" automatically translates to "Big Trouble."

Why ask dumb questions like this???

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), May 17, 1999.

OK...

Why not 81, or 82, or 79, or... or the 75% NERC number, or, or... the 95% FPL number, or... what is enough? What will keep this country running? What will keep the world running, even in slow mode? When do we say "no problem" or "trouble ahead" ??? How about a "MAYBE" !!! This stuff ain't easy, and it ain't gonna be a cake walk. Maybe maybe is on the radar. America is listening, I hear in a recent polly post... <:)=

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), May 17, 1999.

I love when people start throwing around the 80% concept. More bell curve (bull curve?) reasoning.

Try this: How would you feel if only 80% of your organs worked? A randomly selected 80%. Or perhaps, 80% of your most critical organs and bodily functions?

If 80% of software didn't have a y2k problem, I'd have 80% more confidence in the ability of people (eighty percent of whom are idiots) to fix the 20% (mission critical systems) in time to run 80% of all our systems. But, that just isn't the case, is it?

We are only 19 weeks away from the time when a substantial number of business and financial applications will be digging into the next quarter (first quarter of 2,000) and trying to crunch numbers, order supplies, forecast cash flows, etc. If we couldn't anticipate this better than we have so far, why do you trust our ability to get even 80% of it done in time?

It doesn't matter anymore. Study our history to see our future. Analyze our record to anticipate our result.

Would you bet all your money that a lifetime .200 batter would bat .800 in the World Series? Only in the movies...

-- PNG (png@gol.com), May 17, 1999.

The most succinct answer to this question can be found from the person who actually built this soap box that all of you doomer blowhards enjoy so much: "What kind of a society would we have if everyone's computer crashed on January 1, 2000? The same kind that we have now."

All the computer illiterates and techno-wannabes who inhabit this forum seem to think that the people who actually fix software just sit around and play rummy 500 all day and collect a pay cheque. But you see, because of what it is that we do at work every day, contrary to popular wisdom, we DO know what will happen next year.

Face it gloomies, the bottom line is: same shit, different millennium.

-- Computer Pro (first_minister@hotmail.com), May 17, 1999.

No Computer "pro",

I don't believe for a start that you are a programmer as you appear to be an ignoramus :)..., but, on the off chance that you ARE...

... You've got it WRONG (as per usual for an arrogant techno-wannabee like yourself who even gets the millennium date wrong AGAIN [as if the 2 digits wern't bad enough] by a year), the new millennium starts on Jan 1st 2001 (ask Arthur C. Clarke...)

Soooooooo

"Face it gloomies, the bottom line is: same shit, different millennium."

Wrongo dude/dudette,

yep - you f**%#d up AGAIN,

"Face it gloomies, the bottom line is: same millenium, different shit"

Yup, the different shit meaning worldwide chaos...

Trainee Maroon

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), May 17, 1999.

PNG,

A fair number of systems were looking ahead to 2000 from the start of this year (FYs that started in January). More joined them every week. The UK government joined them at the start of April. So did one large USA state. (NY?)

There's a noticeable lack of reported problems.

I'm still cautious, because the sorts of problems that would be caused are probably the sort that are easy to sweep under the carpet for weeks, maybe even months. Nevertheless, the doom-mongers were predicting melt-down of some corporations at the start of their next financial year, and it hasn't happened, either at that time or in subsequent months.

-- Nigel Arnot (nra@maxwell.ph.kcl.ac.uk), May 17, 1999.

Nigel - fair point, but how do you explain this emerging EURO cover up. This seems to me the way this y2k business is going. If entities are in trouble it would be suicide for them to whistle-blow on themselves...

from another EURO/Banking thread...

From Martin A. Armstrong - Princeton Economics Review

OFFICIAL - THE EURO HAS FAILED

the current y2k inflation thread...

[snip]

The more important issue behind the Euro weakness is the dirty little secret that is being kept from the general media at all costs - the Euro clearing system still does NOT work! Merchants who take Visa or Master Card normally receive instantaneous cash when they deposit your transaction with their bank. This is now true for all currencies EXCEPT the Euro! Euro credit cards are taking days to clear and as such the Merchants have been the first to feel the effects of a clearing system that still does not work. Between banks, all currency transactions settle at the end of every day. Euro settlements are also taking days. Banks in London are putting Euro checks on a 4-week clearing status. The net effect, many are starting to discount the Euro in order to accept it. Even American Express has issued only 5,000 Euro based cards. This is not such a good story for a currency that was going to knock the dollar off this planet. Most central banks are still unofficially not accepting Euros as a reserve currency, which has been told to us on a confidential basis. If publicly confronted on this issue, everyone would naturally deny it, but the failure of the Euro has been expressed in its near perfect swan dive since January 1st.

The Europeans are having extreme difficulty solving the problems of the Euro. Most computers cannot calculate fractions of a currency and therein lines a far worse problem than merely Y2K. China's work around for Y2K is to simply turn their computers back 20 years. That trick will work, but calculating fractions of a currency remains impossible when such functionality never before existed. For this reason, your taxes in Germany are still payable in DMarks - not Euros.

[end snip]

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), May 17, 1999.

Anita -- The SSA has a significant team on the project from the beginning and a huge team on it for years (sorry, I don't have the numbers in my head at the moment).

Poole said, "And all the handwaving in the world won't provide a single, useful definition of just what "Y2K Compliant" means, or why "80% compliant" automatically translates to "Big Trouble."

This thread isn't about defining Y2K compliance, it's been done many times elsewhere. Nor is it about, "will there be Big Trouble?" Maybe there will be little trouble, big trouble or horrendous trouble. We don't know, that's why we "prepare for the worst" (and don't forget to take the money you need out of the banks as part of your preparation).

This thread makes a simple, unchallengeable point:

Serious, sophisticated enterprises have spent hundreds of millions of dollars and multiple years to reach Y2K compliance.

Whether one call it new development, mixed development or maintenance, this is evidence of the magnitude of that little 'ol Y2K bug within an enterprise, let alone across enterprises and industries.

It is also beyond question, as you concede wisely, that some percentage of enterprises will not be compliant because it is now too late to expend the required resources in the given time, even though it is, of course, just a "simple matter of programming."

You have decided to bet that the consequences will be next to meaningless. You're an American citizen, that is your right. I have decided to "plan for the worst" as an individual, just as I was taught to do in managing my business, while hoping for the best.

Or maybe we're in agreement, except that your "worst" is three days of problems and mine is five to ten years. That's cool, BTW, but stop hitting on forum participants whose worst is different than yours.

In America, we have a right to make our own judgments about our own families.

Meanwhile, if Y2K is so easy to fix, why doesn't Atlanta have enough time even now to just spend WHATEVER IT TAKES rather than have to focus intensely on contingencies instead of compliance because there isn't enough time to fix even the mission-critical systems? The reason is, nine women can't make a baby in one month.

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), May 17, 1999.

Andy (a.k.a. Nut),

Another example of a Y2K'er shooting his own argument in the foot.

First of all, the illustrious-sounding "Princeton Economic Review" is simply another source of investment advice, just one of many, along with Kiplinger's, the Dolans, Bro'Man Gary North's Remnant Review, Howard Ruff's, (or if U B Pseudo-hip and want to impress your redneck neighbors, you're a secret member of the Oxford Club -- oooo, but you can't actually TELL anyone that ...).

For a tongue-in-cheek look at this in general, see this little ditty. See the part about how you must convince the investor that you, and you alone, possess the knowledge that will save his/her precious shirt.

This guy has a new approach: HE HAS THE WORLD'S FIRST ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE!

(Read it and weep, MIT. Give up, Stanford.)

(No doubt this AI is the one who convinced him that computers cannot "calculate fractions" of currencies. Heh.)

Now: the part about the bullet entering your argument's foot. I suppose the Artificial Intelligence is the one that has convinced him that the Euro has "failed." What bearing the type of failure that he describes has to do with Y2K or Capers Jones' predictions is never quite explained.

What amuses me is that the second paragraph of the article (posted in its entirety in this thread) states (in part),

We have been warning that the effect of Y2K will be inflationary - NOT doom and gloom depression as some have touted over the Internet.

Wuuuhhh ... are you SURE you wanna use this guy to support your argument? He might "help" (wink, wink) with the Euro (his Artificial Intelligence told him so, after all) ... but he's gonna blow away your, "need to stock food and guns and gasoline!"

Heh. Heh, heh.

-- Stephen M. Poole, CET (smpoole7@bellsouth.net), May 17, 1999.

BD,

Given the amount of money spent on Y2K remediation, I am not sure anyone would say it has been "easy" to fix, but is Y2K really "impossible" to fix? BD, you have stated "the code" is "broken" and that remediation started "too late."

For specific applications in specific firms, this may well be true. And almost every "pollyanna" whose WORK I have read has admitted some firms may fail due to Y2K-related computer problems. The real debate is whether "enough" remediation will occur to ensure an operating economic system in the year 2000...? I am not as concerned about the number of firms who trumpet "compliance" as the number of firms who can "get by."

As noted on this thread, computer software is an imperfect world of patches, fixes, work arounds, etc. Can enough players in the most advanced capitalist economy on earth reach the "good enough" level? Perhaps not enough to avoid an economic downturn... but there is a great deal of real estate between downturn and meltdown, isn't there?

I just don't think the "want of a nail" applies to a dynamic, market- driven economy... at least not over the longer run.

Regards,

-- Mr. Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), May 17, 1999.

poole, as Milne likes to say you are an gigantic unmitigated asshole.

So. Your take on the EURO debacle, much like y2k, is that it is all a hoax, a sham. Princeton is selling something, therefore by default the EURO story is a hoax.

Fine.

Funny why you need two weeks, 30 experts and probably thousands of support staff working in frantic close coordination with all member financial institutions to stave off a financial disaster.

But you KNOW better.

I'd pass on the needlework and macrame if I were you poole, too complicated, perhaps take up pulling fluff off cushions eh?

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), May 17, 1999.

Computer Pro,

To set the record straight, I'm not a tech or a tech wannabe. I quetion whether you are.

At my wife's employer, several people went through months of hell on the job as the 18 month billing system conversion was 9 months late. The individual software troubleshooters from the software contractor may have liked working 400 miles away from home in a hostile work environment in a contract that could have put their employer out of business. But, other than the exciting travel to Raleigh, North Carolina, I don't see any motivation to drag this project out for so long.

Hey, it was just a billing system. Some addition, some subtraction and some addresses and some data conversion.

I guess everyone is not as competent as you in their work, eh, Computer Pro?

-- Puddintame (achillesg@hotmail.com), May 17, 1999.

Andy,

And you are a nut.

But I still luv you. :)

-- Stephen M. Poole, CET (smpoole7@bellsouth.net), May 17, 1999.

Decker said [I reply]

Given the amount of money spent on Y2K remediation, I am not sure anyone would say it has been "easy" to fix, but is Y2K really "impossible" to fix?

[Not at all. I thought I made it clear on both posts that it is eminently fixable. The issue is one of schedule and management "will" (expressed in terms of budget, plan and "real" as compared to "political" requirements internally) applied against schedule.]

BD, you have stated "the code" is "broken" and that remediation started "too late."

[Those are two different issues. The "code is broken" is admittedly a melodramatic and very imprecise way of stating that the pervasiveness of data calculations across the ENTIRE world's information infrastructure can be viewed (anticipatorily, which is why it's melodramatic) as "the code is broken" IN THE LARGE. Of course, it's always more or less broken even without Y2K.]

For specific applications in specific firms, this may well be true. And almost every "pollyanna" whose WORK I have read has admitted some firms may fail due to Y2K-related computer problems.

[Yes. I agree that most pollys accede to that.]

The real debate is whether "enough" remediation will occur to ensure an operating economic system in the year 2000...?

[No, though that is a debate of interest to many of us. The real debate is how much preparation individuals, families, communities, regions, corporations and countries should embark on given the fact that remediation will be incomplete and that the impacts of Y2K are unknown. "Low odds but extremely high stakes". As you well know, Flint, who is generally a big Y2K optimist, is preparing for the worst, though he not only hopes for but generally expects the best.

The real debate has to do with, "why at this stage is there any doubt that this is the right course for everyone, whatever their personal prediction (predictions are prophecy) about Y2K"?]

I am not as concerned about the number of firms who trumpet "compliance" as the number of firms who can "get by."

[Agreed. But compliance or readiness or whatever it is called (you know I myself consider the compliance game an absurdity) is the only metric in town. We won't know the number of firms who "get by" until it is too late one way or the other for preparation.]

As noted on this thread, computer software is an imperfect world of patches, fixes, work arounds, etc. Can enough players in the most advanced capitalist economy on earth reach the "good enough" level?

[We don't know, but I sure hope and pray they will.]

Perhaps not enough to avoid an economic downturn... but there is a great deal of real estate between downturn and meltdown, isn't there?

[Of course, and all manner of creative human ingenuity will be applied, just as the pollys predict. Unfortunately, another uncertainty about impact, which the pollys seem even more worried about than I am, is the effect of panic on culture(s). We can't be sure whether the real estate gap between downturn and meltdown will be greatly accelerated by the culture (foolish political decisions, panic, war) or retarded (exercise of leadership, communities helping each other). Most likely, both will be happening.]

I just don't think the "want of a nail" applies to a dynamic, market- driven economy... at least not over the longer run.

[I agree about the longer run. This is why I describe myself as a Y2K optimist even if really bad things happen. In the history of the cosmos, even our tiny corner of it, Y2K is a micro-event.

However, Y2K really is unique in imposing the first globally immovable schedule for software changes to the entire world infrastructure. It is singular by simple definition. Consequently, we just don't know how many "wants of a nail" will cause a downturn right on through to an honest-to-goodness TEOTWAWKI.

On the positive side, we will be much wiser about using our technologies, WHATEVER HAPPENS, on the other side (either by renewed confidence about the resilience of what we have ALREADY done or by what we MUST do to prevent-anticipate another Y2K event).

In May (almost June 1999) this entire forum should be focusing on how to help people complete specific preparations in a host of areas, not on debating whether Y2K is dangerous (of course it is) or how much preparation is excessive. (Unfortunately, as long as people keep forcing THIS debate, we have to keep at it as a wretched preliminary to helping people prepare).

Out of every thousand families in my own county, there are (of course, I'm guessing), probably 950 who have done nothing, 48 who are preparing as much as they can and doing it in a reasonably adult, realistic fashion and 2 who are nuts. But the 2 who are nuts WERE NUTS TO BEGIN WITH. Forget about them.

We should be proud of the 48 and doing our best to help the 950 get going ... because the stakes demand it.]

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), May 17, 1999.

Re: Euro "cover-up", two answers at different "levels".

First technological. The Euro isn't "merely" fixing design bugs. It's a whole new system, involving new codes and procedures and systems. Teething problems were expected by all those in the know. They happemed. The systems coped. This is actually quite impressive. I doubt it's got much Y2K relevance because the nature of the problems differs too much.

Secondly social. It was emphatically not in the banks' or governments' interests for these problems to become common knowledge at the time. It would have hurt the Euro, because speculators would have treated it the way that wolves treat a sick newborn deer.

-- Nigel Arnot (nra@maxwell.ph.kcl.ac.uk), May 17, 1999.

BigDog wrote to newcomer Anita:

"BTW, but stop hitting on forum participants whose worst is different than yours.

"In America, we have a right to make our own judgments about our own families."

Have you ever heard of the old saw, whenever you point a finger at a person, three fingers are pointing back at you? Do you understand the concept of "projection," psychologically? Have you ever read the definition of the word "hypocrite"?

You like to call yourself a "Christian". Why are you so intolerant towards anyone whose idea of the future is less apocalyptic than yours?

Most of the people on this forum are tired of having to watch your personality problems on parade.

-- urahipacrit (future@no.big.deal), May 17, 1999.

Nigel -- both your points are legitimate. The euro is very tricky to analyze. There are some undoubted similarities (scope, to a degree, as well as the way "information" is parceled out about "progress") as well as great differences with Y2K (again, scope).

I think this much is clear: the euro is probably stressing Europe's IT orgs to their max (as would any SUCCESSFUL new software project of that magnitude, coupled to all the many still-to-be-complete euro sw phase-in's). If Y2K adds much more noise to the system in Europe later this year and next, it won't be pretty.

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), May 17, 1999.

BigDog,

I see we have a daytime shill working the forum this morning. Is it unusual to have a shill on-line during work hours or is this a change in procedure?

-- Puddintame (achillesg@hotmail.com), May 17, 1999.

This response is for Big Dog.

I would think that in 1983 (wasn't it way back then?) when the Social Security Administration began finding problems, the problems they worked on were simply those that affected them at THAT particular moment. I doubt very much that they concentrated their efforts on ensuring that their code would work in the the year 2000. Of course these are my opinions only, as I was NOT a part of that effort. It simply makes business sense for me to make these assumptions.

I'm a bit confused regarding the following, however:

"It is also beyond question, as you concede wisely, that some percentage of enterprises will not be compliant because it is now too late to expend the required resources in the given time, even though it is, of course, just a "simple matter of programming." You have decided to bet that the consequences will be next to meaningless. You're an American citizen, that is your right. I have decided to "plan for the worst" as an individual, just as I was taught to do in managing my business, while hoping for the best. Or maybe we're in agreement, except that your "worst" is three days of problems and mine is five to ten years. That's cool, BTW, but stop hitting on forum participants whose worst is different than yours."

Your choice of the word "concede" gives the impression that I once stated that ALL enterprises would be compliant in time. Since I just began posting on this forum last evening, I can assure you that I would recall a statement of this form, even though I've slept once since. I never stated any such thing. You then go on to ASSUME that I have decided to bet that the consequences will be next to meaningless. Again, I purport that I did NOT state this. In addition, I have not "hit against ANY forum participants" in ANY form regarding their chosen plans of preparedness. Of course if you can prove that I have, I encourage you to do so, and will gladly apologize in that event to anyone I've offended.

Anita

-- Anita Spooner (spoonera@msn.com), May 17, 1999.

Hey, shill .... I wasn't talking to Anita but to Poole. Sorry, Anita, if you misunderstood.

Fortunately, one can be a Christian and still have personality problems. As Carl Jung once said, "has anyone ever considered that the reason Christians are so messed up (ok, I'm paraphrasing just a bit) is because their Founder CHOSE to hang out with whores, drunks and lowlifes?"

Yes, I qualify for membership in the only club that would accept me the way I really was and am.

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), May 17, 1999.

Mr.poole, you often ask about what "compliant"means,does not "y2k compliant"mean "will not cause 2 didget date errors"? A general term,yes,but doesn't "compliant"need to be general so it can refer to many differt type of remediation projects?are you saying that "compliant"is a misleading term to intententionaly mislead people?or are you being difficult and sophist?

-- zoobiezoobiezoobazoobzoob (zoobiezoob@yahoo.com), May 17, 1999.

Anita,

Our posts "crossed". I hope you checked the "Atlanta" thread where I complimented you TO THE MAX for giving names and details of your responsible work in Ft. Worth, Texas. GREAT work!

As I said above, I was referring to Poole. Still, since you said,

"Your choice of the word "concede" gives the impression that I once stated that ALL enterprises would be compliant in time. Since I just began posting on this forum last evening, I can assure you that I would recall a statement of this form, even though I've slept once since. I never stated any such thing. You then go on to ASSUME that I have decided to bet that the consequences will be next to meaningless. Again, I purport that I did NOT state this. In addition, I have not "hit against ANY forum participants" in ANY form regarding their chosen plans of preparedness. Of course if you can prove that I have, I encourage you to do so, and will gladly apologize in that event to anyone I've offended."

OK, I apologize AGAIN! But not to Poole because he should stop hitting on the forum .....

Seriously, Anita, it is very welcome to have posters with experience, common sense and integrity, whatever their position. Given your experience, what is your own sense both of how "easy" it is to fix Y2K and, if only gut-level, how municipalities are doing/will do around the country? Plus any guesses about potential impacts if they take a FOF approach?

Thanx much.

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), May 17, 1999.

Puddintame, it is just more biffy burps. Their belches of undigested disbelief are blowing in our general direction due to homeless misplaced migration. DWGI refugees. Their prevaripredicament is their own infliction, so no need to send our ground troops. Ignore and proceed with eye on the prize: PREPARATION.

-- h (h@h.h), May 17, 1999.

zoob,

No, I'm stating that which should be obvious: if we're going to get concerned about "85% compliance" figures, we should at least know WHAT that actually means.

Having defined the term, it would then be extremely useful to know WHICH systems remain "non-compliant." Is it the computer on the secretary's desk (which is primarily used for appointment scheduling, email, and -- of course -- Solitaire when the boss ain't watchin')? Or is it a critical accounting system up in the hum room?

There are plenty of systems in service which are "non-compliant," but which won't cause undue hardship. Back to trucking, which is an excellent example. They can easily schedule and keep up with deliveries using a gridboard on the wall with Post-it(tm) notes, some paperclips and a bunch of legal pads.

That leaves the accounting systems (because, after all, we DO want to get paid!). OK ... so suppose Ace Freight concentrates on the latter, building (or BUYING an off-the-shelf) a package that lets them hand-punch the weight and mileage and generate invoices. They decide to leave the scheduling system to be done if and when they get time.

(Using MFC or Visual Basic, I could build them such a package -- from scratch -- in a few days. Not that it'd be necessary; there are OFF THE SHELF packages that will do this. So ... Ace buys a few PCs and some software to do the accounts.)

That might break down on paper to only "60% compliance" on their part -- BUT IT DOESN'T MATTER. The trucks will roll, the freight will get delivered, and they'll still be in business.

-- Stephen M. Poole, CET (smpoole7@bellsouth.net), May 17, 1999.

This response is for Andy and Sysman:

Andy: The FAA stated that their system would reach compliance on or about June 30 (oftentimes reported in the media as June 31, which your calendar will show is a date that doesn't even exist.) This date (I assume) was determined by those in the know regarding what was involved. Of course they could miss this date. The best estimates in the world are oftentimes under/overstated.

Much later, the administration DECLARED that the deadline was March 31st. I don't know YOUR experience in IT, Andy, but I've led many projects myself and there always seems to be SOMEONE in upper management who wants to push dates either for budget reasons or simple PR. If I were the project leader for the FAA, I would totally ignore the "artificial date" imposed upon the team by management. I could work the team until they dropped to meet the date, which would simply mean that they'd be working dead-tired, introducing errors, etc.

Y2k News Clippings recently had an article stating that airports at O'Hare and Midway were to cut flights by 25% because a new software system was implemented that wasn't as reliable as the old one. The old system was immediately reintroduced and a timeframe given for correcting the problems. Of course the old system isn't compliant. The new system still has some things to work out.

Prognosis? I don't have one. My thoughts are that the FAA can slip as much as they must between the end of June and the end of 1999. Beyond that, planes won't fly until they are guaranteed of a reliable working system.

Sysman: I think there's a difference between a "fudged" date and an artificially imposed deadline by someone who has no clue regarding the effort involved in remediation.

Regarding lack of resources, I have seen this promoted in the media for the past two years. IMHO, there is NO lack of resources. The U.S. has an abundance of programmers to handle this problem if they were assigned the task. Foreign workers were imported due to reports of a lack of programmers here, but the truth is that the foreign workers simply worked for close to minimum-wage, and several firms chose to save money in this regard. The media has misled the public on not only this, but their statements that programmers would be making BIG money off Y2k. Having worked as a computer contractor for the past 10 years, had this been true, I would think I would know SOMEONE who made these big bucks. I know not one. In fact, the ONLY fellow contractor I know who is even WORKING on Y2k currently is a FoxPro consultant....meaning that the small and medium-sized companies ARE finally addressing this problem.

To continue further on this same theme, computer work in general seems to have "dried up" throughout the nation for contractors. I know of several folks who have decided to go permanent for firms rather than suffer through long periods of unemployment. Their work will NOT include Y2k remediation.

Anita

-- Anita Spooner (spoonera@msn.com), May 17, 1999.

Key quotes ...

Each organization needs to identify and to define for themselves what they think "Y2K ready," "Y2K compliant," or "Y2K certified" is. As you know, there are a lot of legal issues tied around the year 2000, and one of the things that is very important is for each organization to come up with a definition of what they mean by "year 2000 compliant."

... there is no one answer to your question.

13 May 1999

TRANSCRIPT: WORLDNET WITH Y2K TELECOMMUNICATIONS EXPERTS

(Cite importance of contingency planning) (8360)

http://www.usia.gov/cgi-bin/washfile/display.pl?p=/ products/washfile/topic/global&f=99051302.ggi&t=/products/washfile/ newsitem.shtml

[snip]

Q: ... One of the things that appears to be missing at the global level is a simple definition of year 2000 ready. Is anyone aware of a sort of -- that sort of definition that could be used by some people who are only now beginning?

MR. SERRA: Yes, there are many definitions, so this gets into the problem with the year 2000. There are many definitions of compliance. There are also definitions of certification. The one that Intelsat has chosen to use is the British Standard Institute year 2000 conformity definition. It's a very clear-cut definite with essentially four rules. I won't recite the rules, but essentially they say that your systems will operate through the transition of the century. They will either implicitly or explicitly -- by algorithm or by inference determine that dates can be distinguished. And of course the software and hardware will work for the leap-year transition as well.

[snip]

Q: The British developed for year 2000 certification is in fact one that could be viewed as a starting point for a global standard. The question I posed earlier is one that I still believe needs an answer, which is the definition for an organization or a business or a country would not be able to use this British definition will need something that countries who are only now beginning could use to see what does it mean to be finished if you use the terminology "year 2000 ready"?

MR. SERRA: Okay, I think again your questions are getting a little more difficult as we go on. I don't know what we'll do in the second half. Each organization needs to identify and to define for themselves what they think "Y2K ready," "Y2K compliant," or "Y2K certified" is. As you know, there are a lot of legal issues tied around the year 2000, and one of the things that is very important is for each organization to come up with a definition of what they mean by "year 2000 compliant."

Now, for the Intelsat program our major objective is a very simple statement. We basically say that the program is there to ensure that Intelsat services go uninterrupted through the transition and into the millennium. Now, there is a lot to that statement. First of all, the operative word is "services." We don't say that we are there to ensure that our systems are compliant or that our hardware is compliant. Intelsat is very much focused on the services that we provide, where those services can be anything from the activation of a carrier on our system to the issuance of a correct and accurate bill.

So therefore I really think there is no one answer to your question. I really believe you have to sit down and answer that question as a definition for yourself in the context of your own business, your own environment.

MS. MACBRIDE: I would also follow up with that. You know, the issue -- you take an IEEE standard and the other standard -- there's really not going to be time left to come up with a definition that everyone will agree with. As you can see, and as you have noted, there are a lot of different definitions of "ready," depending on how a particular company has approached the issue.

For the FCC's point of view, we note this, and talk about it, but really conclude that in a mission-oriented process like Y2K, which is basically to offer the same services at the same quality after the turn of the millennium as you did before, that the standard is kind of secondary to kind of getting the job done. And we have recognized that there are many different definitions, but really believe that people need to be focusing on fixing the problem right now.

[snip -- to end]

What IS the definition of is anyway? IS it even important?

Try to focus on what is important. (Hint: Being prepared for anything, qualifies, given the global situation).

Diane

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), May 17, 1999.

This is MinnesotaSmith, author of the Y2K-preparatory website http://y2ksafeminnesota.hypermart.net. I am with Big Dog on this one. He, North, Milne, and Infomagic have IMO a better feel for what our current situation is (and is likely to lead to) than most posters to this forum. I find one useful model to ask what percent of your body organs could malfunction and you not be in trouble. The answer is: Not very many. Pleasant dreams.

-- MinnesotaSmith (y2ksafeminnesota@hotmail.com), May 17, 1999.

Anita said, "The U.S. has an abundance of programmers to handle this problem if they were assigned the task."

Agreed. "If". Y2K is a technical problem that was exacerbated by management short-sightedness (including IT mgt, I might add).

Still curious if you would like to answer my other questions.

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), May 17, 1999.

This response is for Big Dog's latest reply.

"Given your experience, what is your own sense both of how "easy" it is to fix Y2K and, if only gut-level, how municipalities are doing/will do around the country? Plus any guesses about potential impacts if they take a FOF approach?"

Y2k remediation in the software sense is definitely not rocket science. The problem always was the magnitude. Software-wise, it's simply an exercise in "Find a date, fix a date." What has NOT been reported in the media is how often we have worked on implementing non- Y2k systems and at the same time handled the date problems. I've been involved in many projects that did just that in the past 10 years.

Forgive me if I go a bit astray here in responding to your original response, but I'm seeing folks go WILD on Usenet regarding the current Weiss (sp?) reports that stated that X number of firms have only spent Y% of their Y2k budgets to date. The assumptions (totally based on percentages of budgets spent to date) were interpreted to mean that these firms were only Y% complete.

Over a year ago, I worked at a firm wherein I supported completely a "piecework" system. If you're unfamiliar with the term, this means that workers receive $X for so many pieces of whatever they produce. This system was intimately tied into many other systems, as you might expect.

Because this firm was going with another system shortly, and that system didn't appear to be functioning in the timeframe originally stated, I was asked to appraise the level of Y2k work involved in the Piecework system.

Where to begin? Files (of course.) ANY file that contained a date was flagged as a possible problem. Next step: Scan the program libraries for any programs that use these files. Step 3: Determine the complexity of the programs involved and come up with an estimate.

Well, since this was simply an exercise, I didn't have to come up with any estimates. I continued on to examine each program. I found MANY programs that had shown up in the scan that never used these files at all. This was due to sloppy programming. Their programmers tended to "clone" the file-section from program to program. I ALSO found many programs that were OLD versions of recent code in production. These could be discounted also, and should have been purged from the program libraries when they became defunct.

My point in the above is that firms may very WELL spend MUCH less than their original estimate for Y2k remediation. It all depends on how they configured the amount in the first place and how much research was done before etching that amount in stone.

Please forgive my departure from your original question.

I have NOT surveyed the country's municipalities. It's quite easy to extrapolate from one to another, but it's incorrect to do so. I encourage you to E-mail your municipality and find out EXACTLY what they have done/ARE doing remediation-wise. My water/sewage utility director was quite prompt in responding to my queries last year. In fact my city in general took my suggestion and began posting Y2k information on their web-site. I might also add that my water/sewage utility director was quite HONEST in his assessment last year. Again, however, I can't extrapolate on the honesty of YOURS.

You don't really want to discuss fix-on-failure, do you? I have NO guesstimates on cities that take this approach. I have no crystal ball.

Anita

-- Anita Spooner (spoonera@msn.com), May 17, 1999.

Good comments, good observations - thank you, Anita.

I'm not sure why people get so wrapped up around defintions of "compliant" when the fundemental purpose od remediation and testing is so simple:

A Y2K Compliant company can continue to use and rely on all od its computerized and automated processes through year 2000. Rely on is key - since you cannot "see" the results of computer transactions, even slowing them down to check manually will produce disruptions and reduce profits: example, if every Coke dealer had to recount inventory by hand since the printout was wrong, then deliveries of Coke to 7-11's and gas stations will be slowed down. The drivers will take longer hours, or will deliver less, and so profits lower and expenses increase for Coke.

Some functions affected by year 2000 may still absolutely shut a process down: the newer "high-stack" warehouses use automated lick trucks that run on rails between closely packed shelves 30-50 ft high. regular for lift trucks can't get in the rows to get something - even if you could spend the time to find out manually where in 300 racks it is. What shelf, what rack, how many, which truck, what time, what's lefts in inventory, what it cost, when it is due, etc, are all automated and can't be run "manually". If problems occur, the warehouse is shut down until fixed by the vender. Period.

A non-compliant company will not be able to use its current methods and controls and processes (warehousing, shipping, storage, packaging, payroll, accounting, office and shop floor; recepit of vender supplied material, etc.) and shipping quality products to its current and future customers. A non-complinat company may be able to use other methods - if so, those methods will not be as effective, as useful, or as accurate.

Thus, with more effort required to produce less product at poorer quality and at greater cost, the question becomes: how long can a non-compliant company remain in business without being able to rely on its current methods?

Other factors come into the mixture: environment, water, food, housing, gasoline, diesel fuel, electricity, home life of workers, cross-country infrastructure for shipping of products, receipt of supplies, processing of supplies and products at venders, etc. but the company itself can't specifically ocntrol those things - hence the widespread threat of economic disruption to a compliant company from outside factors beyond its control.

But the only fundemental Y2K question (to a business) is "Can I remain profitable long enough to recover from whatever problems occur next year?"

-- Robert A. Cook, PE (Kennesaw, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), May 17, 1999.

Anita said, "My point in the above is that firms may very WELL spend MUCH less than their original estimate for Y2k remediation. It all depends on how they configured the amount in the first place and how much research was done before etching that amount in stone."

I agree. Budgeting is inexact at best and interfaces/iterations between budgeting and project management across a project's lifetime are scant to non-existent in many cases.

That said, the universal increase in budgets reported for Y2K across industries is telling, IMO, and in the opinion of Ed Yardeni, others. I don't want to rehash that here and I don't think this was your intent either. Remember, my initial post went to the simple, reported reality of some major, sophisticated entities who have spent gazillions of dollars on this because it REQUIRED it.

I have no crystal ball, either, except that FOF is a far cry from ANY sensible project approach to Y2K, especially when taken by entire countries ......

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), May 17, 1999.

"Merchants who take Visa or Master Card normally receive instantaneous cash when they deposit your transaction with their bank. This is now true for all currencies EXCEPT the Euro! Euro credit cards are taking days to clear and as such the Merchants have been the first to feel the effects of a clearing system that still does not work."

WHAT IDIOT WROTE THIS?!?!?!?!? Speaking as a merchant who has taken credit cards for years, I WISH that the money was avaible instantly, but guess what...IT'S NOT! From the time I batch(tell the credit card company what we have run), to the time it shows up in my bank account is sometimes over two weeks! Euro-only my butt. Nice try.

-- Owner Of A Business (businessowner@mycompany.com), May 17, 1999.

There was a thread posted months ago pertain to Alan Greenspan stating that "99% is not good enough"...wish I could find it!

-- Tim (pixmo@pixelquest.com), May 17, 1999.

But the only fundemental Y2K question (to a business) is "Can I remain profitable long enough to recover from whatever problems occur next year?" -- Robert A. Cook

Robert, I would submit the more immediate concerns will relate to cash-flow rather than profit ... near term.

Also employee support, and IF both the infrastructure and clean electricity stays up in ones local area. If businesses are dealing with intermittent blackouts, brownouts or dirty power ... it stresses the whole ability to conduct even a partial going concern.

Comes down to ... duration, location and staying power.

Diane

(Owner Of A Business ... if its taking two weeks for your CC merchant provider to deposit funds ... switch providers. Usually 2-3 days for VISA & MC, 3-5 days for AMEX).

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), May 17, 1999.

(When you batch out daily before their stated time deadline).

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), May 17, 1999.

Andy Nutcase said:

" At what percentile does the system of systems implode, gridlock, fail completely.

This has been addressed many times, most notably in "Tom's Take", Dr. Altman's threads in our archives here, and the "Infomagic" essays, amongst others. "

"Tom's Take"??? Hahahahahahahaha ROFLMAO Explains at what point the "system" will fail completely? ROFL "Tom's Take" was simply some guy's Mad Max fantasy story.

Infomagic??? ROFLMAO again! Infomagic spouts off "We're going down. We'll all be killed. We'll never make it." Reminds me of the little guy in the old Penelope Pitstop cartoons.

Dr. Roger Altman? Who the hell is he? Oh, yeah, a Yourdonite. Drop the Dr. Doc. It's too pretentious. Gives people a sense that you need that title to feel good about yourself. Now, what did you say you were a doctor of?

-- ROFL (rofl@this.place), May 17, 1999.

Andy - do you read this stuff or just repost it?

Most computers cannot calculate fractions of a currency and therein lines a far worse problem than merely Y2K.

Don't know about you, but last time I was in Canada, the guy at the govt. station where you exchange money didn't have a problem counting out the pennies. My bank doesn't have a problem with anyone's currency - you tell them you want $2000 bucks worth of Lire, you will get $2000 bucks worth down to the whatever it is they make change with (plus their fee, of course). Who comes up with this garbage? LOL.

-- Paul Davis (davisp1953@yahoo.com), May 17, 1999.

Paul - check me on this, I think this is an older symptom of the original Euro conversion in France.

It has to do with the original conversion (and post-conversion adjustments) of currencies when the original exchange rate was based on 1 franc = 1.123456 something else. (To reverse, the old conversion program inverted the equation - but not the "definition" of 1 franc.

But once converted to Euro's, the "1 franc" had to become some elaborate formula based on other factors - and so "1 franc" couldn't be converted using the older programs. Anyway - this was one subtle problem reported in the indistrial press last Dec/Jan as an example of problems. Others are newspaper vending machines, coin-operated machines across Europe, etc.

I don't think it is significant, just a problem to be solved when working in real life with old financial traditions. The Stock market, for example, uses fractions of a dollar and a share for any company's stock to break it (the stock) up into smaller units and prices - changing to decimal place divisions of the original chunk of a stock would cause uncomfortable changes to be instituted.

It certainly can be done, but non-trivial, expensive changes would be required.

-- Robert A. Cook, PE (Kennesaw, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), May 17, 1999.

Diane - I have switched providers numerours times. The best I ever got it down to was 5 days. For all the delays in the deposits, this is still the best overall provider. However, it does not change the fact the funds are NEVER avaiable at the moment of deposit when dealing with credit cards.

-- Owner Of A Business (businessowner@mycompany.com), May 17, 1999.