What a difference perspective makes.

It's the seventh inning of the biggest game in modern history (according to the Y2K pessimists) and a "star player" walks off the field. Of course, unlike the "fans," the "star" has made a significant amount of money on the Y2K ball game. He has enjoyed a successful book deal, speaking engagements, consulting work and launched a multi-level marketing enterprise. The stadium is full of fans, and he leaves the huddle to pick up a microphone.

"Sorry, folks. Even though no one can agree on the score, I think we're behind by at least five runs. I know most people disagree with me, but they don't know baseball like I do. If you believe we can catch up, you must believe in the Tooth Fairy. If the coach had only listened to me in the first inning, we wouldn't be losing right now. I think I have done all that I can in this game. The parking lot after the game will look like Beirut. I am leaving."

Not quite as inspirational as Joe Dimaggio or Lou Gherig.

The really amazing part... the player gets a standing ovation. The die hard fans want immediate induction in the Y2K Hall of Fame. Oh, and his contract is "guaranteed" through the end of the year. The book royalties and other ventures will continue to produce revenue.

Watching this show from the cheap seats, I am tempted to applaud. Not for Ed Yourdon's "public service," but for his business savvy. Yourdon has built his Y2K money-making machine. He can take his profits and invest the next six months in other projects. Whatever happens with Y2K, Yourdon has a play. He has carefully written much of his work in a "what if" style. In fact, I'll wager he takes partial credit if Y2K does NOT end the world.

To borrow the baseball analogy, Yourdon's Senate testimony was a sacrifice bunt. He talked about everyone's family, modest preparations and full disclosure. No real risks there. In fact, Yourdon's entire approach to Y2K has been pure "little ball" (for you baseball afficianados.)

Some might think I question Yourdon's right to make a living. Absolutely not. To my knowledge, Yourdon sold only what people were willing to buy. For that, I must applaud Ed Yourdon, the businessman.

My disappointment is with Ed Yourdon, the Y2K "player." Perhaps my years of participating in and coaching athletics distorts my perspective. No matter what the score, you don't just walk off the field in the middle of a game... even one that may be lost.

This is why I rarely watch professional sports anymore. I have little respect for the athletes who care more about the business than the game.

If you read this, Ed, I have a suggestion. Find a Little League game somewhere in New Mexico. Watch the losing team. Even if they are buried, losing by a landslide, you'll find a few kids who hustle and work and dive for every ball. They're playing until the very last out... all for a game that will be forgotten in a few days.

Regards,

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

Answers

Mr. Dicker;

You can only talk to a brick wall for so long, before you figure out you are wasteing your time! You sir, need a shrink!

-- FLAME AWAY (BLehman202@aol.com), June 02, 1999.

Smooth, mocking, derisive, all couched "reasonably". Vintage, maybe the "best" post Decker has ever done. Bravo, Ken, you're quite the man. A virtual study in Shakespearean trolling.

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

Is this "troll day" or what? First Poole, then y2k pro and now Double Decker.

If Mr. Yourdons gone and y2k is gonna be a none event, Why do you even post here? Not enough to do? You must really have a shallow life.

-- Johnny (JLJTM@BELLSOUTH.NET), June 02, 1999.

Decker, you have described Roger Clemens to a "T", and also Koskinen and Bennett, but I fail to see how it applies in any way to Ed Yourdon. There are only 7 months left. Our national leaders have abdicated their responsibilities and have ensured that Y2K is now strictly a locally-managed and -impacted event. In the time remaining, I simply do not believe that Ed or anyone else can cut through that. Ed says he will stay very involved, on a community and family level. His continuing and non-trivial legacy to the rest of us are this forum and at least three books. Sounds like your recommendation for "smart living" just applies to us common folk, not to one of the few people who really has made a difference here.

-- Brooks (brooksbie@hotmail.com), June 02, 1999.

Mr. Decker, Excellent point. I feel exactly the same way about Yourdon's sayonara.

Bob

-- Bob (bob@bobby.com), June 02, 1999.

Hint: Y2K isn't a game!

Maybe you don't "walk out" in the seventh inning of a baseball game, but your analogy just doesn't cut it. A better one would be a canoe trip- when you reach the rapids do you try it or portage? Its a judgement call which way will get you to "the other side" in better shape - not really "good" or "bad" in itself.

You trolls have really revealed your shallowness in these recent posts.

-- Jon Johnson (narnia4@usa.net), June 02, 1999.

Mr. Decker,

You, sir, have hit the nail on the head. I was also stunned to see Mr. Yourdon bail out in the seventh inning. I understand the baseball analogy.

I watched my son play a hockey game last night and his team was down by 10-1 with no chance of winning. There were whiners but a few played their hearts out.

I can't believe the sheep here are bending over to kiss Yourdon's ass.

His game plan was good though.......

Black Sheep

-- Black Sheep (Wondering@about.com), June 02, 1999.

On Yourdon's Departure (Mr. Decker) (02-Jun-1999 09:57:49)

http:// www.InsideTheWeb.com/messageboard/mbs.cgi?acct=mb237006&MyNum= 928331869&P=No&TL=928331869

Debunking Y2k webboard

HOW *** EXTREMISTS **** USE THE WEB
Monday, 31-May-1999 19:05:20

http:// www.InsideTheWeb.com/messageboard/mbs.cgi?acct=mb237006&MyNum= 928191920&P=Yes&TL=928191598

The Decker and Debunkers game plan.

-- Quiet (Observer@watchingyouguys.gonuts), June 02, 1999.

I think maybe Ed had a faint glimmer of hope that the Senate hearings he recently participated in might accomplish something -- maybe mitigate the situation. But, right after the hearings, he bails. I can't blame him for that; probably that last flame of hope he had, carefully tended, was extinguished when he saw in person what goes on in our hallowed halls of hyprocrisy (government). Maybe he has come to the same conclusion that I did, long ago. EGTTTS (Everything government touches turns to shit). If action is called for, they dither and blather. If inaction is called for, they pass another law.

-- A (A@AisA.com), June 02, 1999.

Y2K = baseball game? Where the "hump" is your head, man? Y2K = Custer's Last Stand, would be more like it. Stick it out to the bitter end? You would have been trapped under your horse with an arrow in your neck. Have you ever heard of "return to fight another day"? I'm of the mentality to "hide in a bush to survive and then sneak into your camp that night and run your horses off". (Geeeeese) Fancy words don't always imply "smart"! I'm really getting sick of this "intellectual phoo-phoo".

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), June 02, 1999.

Is there now any doubt in anyone's mind, except possibly Flint, that Decker is a Dickhead?

-- a (a@a.a), June 02, 1999.

Shakespearean trolling, Act II:

Decker will return to this thread, shaking his metaphorical head sadly and comment that he had, of course, assumed that "most of us" would respond as we did but that he is still hoping for a "reasonable debate" on the topic of Ed Yourdon being a quitter from the "thoughtful pessimists".

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

.... we're waiting, Kenny.

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

Yeah but its non-compliant and won't work after the rollover!

-- country boy (Life ain't nothing but @funny funny riddle.com), June 02, 1999.

P.S....This is *JUNE 1999* Decker! Why don't you write us all another "English essay" addressing THAT point, eh buddy? Please, Ohhhh, I just can't wait!

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), June 02, 1999.

Give Decker credit -- he is the cleverest, most brilliant troll that this forum has ever seen. And he works very hard at it. Y2K Pro, Mutha, Poole et al are not fit to even walk across his bridge, much less live under it.

This troll's portrayal of a stuffy gentleman with just that dash of patriotism, willing to say Balderdash! to Y2K has, I am sure, caused many to slow down on their personal preparation plans. I wonder: was there a Decker in the early days of Nazi Germany, saying "It will be all right. Things won't be THAT bad." Was there a Decker in the Garden of Eden saying, "You surely shall not DIE!" Uhhh, OK, maybe that last one is going a LITTLE too far, but you get the point....

-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.com), June 02, 1999.

Useless, worthless ad hominem.

Now, back to the facts, please....

That, after all, was Decker's whole purpose with this post: to distract us from the facts. Indeed, as far as I can tell, that is his only purpose on this forum. Maybe (but I merely speculate) it's his only purpose in life now.

Don't take the bait, folks. Don't take the bait.

-- Lane Core Jr. (elcore@sgi.net), June 02, 1999.

Drecker: what is the point?

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=000kW4

The general utility of this forum seems to be in decline. Readers from the pessimist-survivalist-fatalist (PSF) camp appear near completion in their preparations. The idealist-optimist-realists (IOR) folks repeat the generally positive media reports and quibble with the radical elements over the interpretation.

The paranoid posters suspect Y2K connections to every negative event. The hard core survivalists continue to worry about issues like the virtues of the Ruger M-14 .223 semi-auto rifle or how many thousands of rounds of ammo to stockpile. Conspiracy buffs contemplate the all-inclusive government-business-media "spin" on Y2K. Let us not forget the Gaia-types who look forward to a new agrarian age where we live happily without the evils of technology (like state-of-the-art medical facilities). The anti-fractional reserve banking gold bugs trade notes with economic illiterates. The computer wonks (none has less than "decades" of experience with every system ever developed) argue over chips and code. Finally, the rationalists calmly point that having several tons of soybeans in the cellar can do no harm.

What is the point?

The PSF folks are better served by hardcore survivalist web pages or perhaps homesteading or small farming sites. Posts by the IOR contingent generally fall on deaf ears. Has anyone decided to ease up on preparations based on reading a post on this forum?

While I have only posted on this forum a relatively short period of time, the posts have become increasingly less interesting... at least to me. On occasion, some of the more rational folks become involved on a particular thread. Even then, one more often sees ridicule than reason. While I have seen flashes of IS expertise, the quality of thought on economic issues... abysmal.

Yes, anticipating that some readers have a grasp of the obvious, I can choose not to read the forum. I believe there are a few intelligent, reasonable people who read (and post) here. It makes it worth a mouse-click... at least for now.

Regards,

-- Mr. Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), April 22, 1999

(End quote)

So -- what is the point, Drecker? Why are you still here, a month and a half later, clicking that mouse?

-- OutingsR (us@here.yar), June 02, 1999.

Mr. Decker:

You rile up the "tribe" when you attack the chieftian. Please cease and desist. You already know what the reaction will be.

Would you walk into your local place of worship and denounce the (insert title of religious leader) and expect the congregation (parishoners, followers, etc.) not to attack you?

-- Hip Hypocrite Hater (egads!@nothanx.spammers), June 02, 1999.

Let me see here - the big time star of Y2K doom pulls out and you guys think it is no big deal. After all, he was preaching to us complete idiots who could only yammer about how 90% of what he was saying was just totally off the wall stuff about banking and commerce in fields where he is an amateur. And he could not convince us so he walked.

I think Decker's analogy is pretty well taken - though I would have put it as more like Newt Gingrich's little tantrum when he was booted out as Speaker of the House. If people are going to question me and my motives I quit! - this is your hero? Get a clue people, get a clue.

-- Paul Davis (davisp1953@yahoo.com), June 02, 1999.

For facts:

Lane Core's Data Analysis: http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=000tpU

Preps You Need ASAP: http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=000tpU

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

The polly strategy for newbies on TB2000:

"When a "newbie" posts a message sympathetic to us, CONTACT THEM IMMEDIATELY! Greet them, and offer them information about our activities and resources. Failure to contact newbies is a great error, as you can win many allies by showing interest in those who have potential."

Folks, this is just a game to most of them... they want to prove that they are smarter than us doomers... I mean, come on! Does the group with the most members "win" y2k???

-- Pollyslayer (pollys@all.around), June 02, 1999.

<< "When a "newbie" posts a message sympathetic to us, CONTACT THEM IMMEDIATELY! Greet them, and offer them information about our activities and resources. Failure to contact newbies is a great error, as you can win many allies by showing interest in those who have potential." >>

This is right out of the handbook on how to increase church membership. Sheesh, Dear Bonkers! Can you try to be a little less obvious in the creation of your religion?

-- David Palm (djpalm64@yahoo.com), June 02, 1999.

Mr.Decker,

They say that if you give a man enough rope, eventually he'll hang himself with it. You've certainly proven that to be the case here. Perhaps more than most, I've been willing to give you the benefit of the doubt, as to your intentions, but no longer. You've bitten off more than you can chew, certainly more than you can swallow and in the process, you've revealed your basic incompetence at your attempted task. You've picked on the wrong man to deride and even if you had been correct (which you most assuredly are not) the "villagers" would burn you at the stake. I am not surprised at your failure, but I am surprised that you were not more astute and disappointed that you have turned out to be simply another "troll". In spite of my pessimism regarding Y2K, I am basically an optimist in terms of always hoping for the best from men. I have seen men do things that are beyond belief and that, taken in isolation, would convince one that mankind is a noble breed. In spite of the "trolls" of the world, I have yet hope for mankind. For you, I have no more.

Your techniques are classic "bait and switch". You make a vague assertion ("What a difference perspective makes") with full knowledge that it is so indeterminate (just what difference does it make?) and generally accepted that it sets the stage for the reader to be sucked in by whatever you present next. That which you present next is full of holes in the analogy department, yet you expect (and with good reason) that many will not question the basic assumption that a baseball game is similar enough to the Y2K situation to draw even general conclusions from the analogy. It is not.

Your entire piece is presented as an attempt to portray Ed Yourdon as a deity with feet of clay and a "quitter", and to therefore cut the heart out of such morale as his admirers may posses. As you can easily tell from the responses, it didn't work.

Baseball is a game played between 18 men on a limited area called a playing field. Y2K is a real life situation, and involves every member of Western Civilization and is happening over the entire face of this earth. No one can run away from it. The best that any of us can hope for is to be able to face the consequences from a location of our own choosing, with such resources as we are able to marshal and with companions of good intent.

But let's compare Y2K to your baseball game anyway. It will only further point out your methodology and intentions and your mistakes.

To begin with, it would not be the 7th inning, but more like the bottom of the 9th. Considering that the alarm was first raised in 1984, each "inning" would be roughly 100 months long, which would put us in the "bottom of the 9th" since sometime in late 1995.

And, while it may be fair to characterize Ed Yourdon as a "star player", neither he nor anyone else is able to "walk off the field". The best anyone can do is play another position or bury their head in the ground.

As for the money he may or may not have made (and just how do you have any information about this? Are you an IRS agent?) such is no one's business except his own. One who complains about another's wealth or brags of his own reveals some of the baser characteristics of men. If he had not made what money that he did, they would not have given it to you (or me) instead, so what is your concern? I had hoped for more of your personal character.

You make reference to your, ". . .years of participating in and coaching athletics", yet you characterize Ed as leaving the "huddle". I doubt that many would claim to have ever seen a "huddle" on a baseball diamond. The grouping that baseball players form may well be referred to by some as such, but the common perception is that "huddle" is something that football players do. If your intent was to appear credible to your readers, you didn't make it with this one but perhaps more damaging is that such usage calls into question the truth of your claim to, ". . .years of participating in and coaching athletics". I certainly doubt you and what's more, discovering that you may well have lied here puts all of your previous assertions in the questionable department. As I said, not very competent.

You continue to address finances and attempt to engender envy and other disruptive feeling among the readers of your "stuff", which only demonstrates that you have no criticism of substance to offer and that your intent is clearly to damage the image of Ed Yourdon in the minds of such readers. If you are being paid to attempt this, you're not giving value for compensation, and if you're not, you're simply a disgruntled and envious individual. To repeat, if Ed hadn't gotten the money, you wouldn't have received it by default.

You are too plainly the shill with your wager that, "he takes partial credit if Y2K does NOT end the world." Ed never claimed that Y2K would end the world. And whatever results that his warnings and predictions motivated entitle him to such credit. Your own grandfather, as you have described him here, would chide you severely for demeaning a man for such efforts.

His Senate testimony was a sacrifice all right, but it was no bunt, it was a soliloquy. The government had obviously "walked off the field" (as you would have put it) a long time before.

Finally, you resort to comparing Little League to Y2K (are you related to that baboso "Deano" down on the beach?). Little league is a fine organization and will teach young people many fine values given appropriate adult supervision, but your purpose here is obviously of the same stripe as the current, "for the children" emotional hook being bandied about by the propaganda efforts in our society. Your attempt to call the reader into an emotional state so that you can slip past him the falsehood that the comparison is valid is detestable. Ed did not stop "playing his heart out" nor will Y2K be "forgotten in a few days".

None of it flies, Mr. Decker. Furthermore, as it is obvious that you are not stupid, it is just as obvious that your purpose is not the simple opinion of disagreement. If it were all so apparent that Ed Yourdon is what you attempt to portray, most here would have no trouble discerning that fact. Few, if any here, need your assistance in making up their mind on this subject. For myself, I have formed my own judgment as outlined above and it should be clear with what regard I perceive you.

-- Hardliner (searcher@internet.com), June 02, 1999.

The sad part is Kenny coaches Kids. I wonder if he teaches them to attack when their opponets have their backs turned?

-- CT (ct@no.yr), June 02, 1999.

Yeah,

I cried when I read that about the kids.

-- Black Sheep (Wondering@about.com), June 02, 1999.

Mutha,

I run anonymous cookie, the lastest from humming bird, SIP, and my security is turned uo full. I got real good advice from a web master for other security on top of that. The only site on the web I've been to, and I've been to soom duzzies, that has been able to do an auto down load on me, and not show it on the monitor, is De bunker. You tell me? Ps...you missed

-- CT (ct@no.yr), June 02, 1999.

Hey Pantyliner! You ol' jasper you! Nah, Mr. Decker and I aren't related but we do share a lot of the same ideas. Kinda sucks Mr Yourdon quit in the middle of the game. Took his ball and went home. Bummer. He was one of the few pessimist I had any respect for. Oh well, as they say - Another one bites the dust!

BTW jarhead - my kids kicked some fanny this spring and I now have the honor of, once again, coaching the summer All Stars. I must really suck at this Little League thing just like you say...........maybe one day I'll get it like you do.

Regards,

Deano

-- Deano (deano@luvthebeach.com), June 02, 1999.

Second that, Hardliner. Agree, BD, "Vintage, maybe the "best" post Decker has ever done."

It was truly contemptible, contemptuous of all who read here, unrelated to fact, ad hominem, attempting not to inform but to demoralize. Revealing of Decker as he is.

Look how reliably we rise to the bait.

An edited forum paralleling this one would have this entire waste of space, time, and mental energy removed. Do we have time to spend on this dreck?

-- jor-el (jor-el@krypton.uni), June 02, 1999.

And besides all that, he can't spell "aficionado."

-- Vic (Rdrunner@internetwork.net), June 02, 1999.

jor-el wrote:

"Do we have time to spend on this (i.e. Decker's) dreck?

Judging by the posts above, the answer would have to be ...... Yes.

Doomers seem to predict continually that come 1/1/2000 the emperor (whoever that may be  fed govt, large corporations, society as a whole etc.) will be shown to have no clothes. Decker points out something similar with your emperor - Yourdon - and the wailing and gnashing of teeth commences. Gotta love those double standards.

--Buffalo sucks--

-- Johnny Canuck (nospam@eh.com), June 02, 1999.

Mr. Decker -

Let us continue your "game" analogy, just for grins.

If Y2K is a game, then you must admit that you are not on Mr. Yourdon's "team", and never have been. You have not been supportive of his efforts to increase awareness and encourage preparation. You have been just another spectator, sitting on the sidelines and criticizing those who really are "in the game". Just another noisy voice from the stands, who thinks that watching from the cheap seats is in any way equivalent to standing in the arena (cf. T. Roosevelt).

The analogy has been really rather stretched out of shape, so I'll be more to-the-point.

Y2K is in truth not a game at all; it is a collection of projects, whose overall objective is (or should be) to ensure business continuity. One of the cardinal rules of good project management is "knowing when to pull the plug", i.e., having a clear set of success criteria, and knowing when to tell senior management, "We cannot complete this under these circumstances, save yourself money and time and loots of stress and just cancel this project." Too many PMs just keep slugging away and too many projects waste boatloads of time and money because no one will admit that failure is not only possible, it's now inevitable.

Mr. Yourdon is not employed by any entity to "lead" the US or global Y2K effort, nor has he been appointed by any political body to head up remediation or any other aspect of the work to address the Year 2000 Problem in any form. He has simply attempted to be a good citizen and provide people with valuable insight and information about this problem and its potential impacts.

In this most recent instance, he spent his own time and money to testify before Congress, was apparently met with no small amount of indifference, and decided that enough was enough. Management isn't listening very well, the appropriate actions are not being taken, and too many of the risks have not been mitigated. Time to execute one's own contingency plans and go on with one's life.

This seems a very sensible and wise response. "The game is no longer worth the candle."

-- Mac (sneak@lurk.hid), June 02, 1999.

There's a truism popular in Alcoholics Anonymous (and counterpart Al-Anon) meetings that goes something like, "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result." The feeling I get about Ed's public Y2K departure is that he is following that dictum. If he gives his Y2K message 50 or 100 more times (which he still does for people who go to the library or, God forbid, buy his book) on this forum, how many minds will he change at this stage of the game? I am a Y2K agnostic, and the possible range of outcomes I see varies from 2 to 10. My level of preparation is probably OK up to a 7, maybe 8. My wife and I have taken a public stand on Y2K, mainly in the form of a mass mailing to friends, family, and church members last October. It was probably a more strongly worded warning than we would send now, because at that time, Bob Bennett's best guess for widespread power outages was 40%. Anyhow, only 10% or so of the more than 200 people we mailed ever acknowledged receiving it. They don't turn and run when they see us coming, they're just as polite and helpful as ever, and they still seem, basically, to respect us. A few have thanked us. But I believe it's unlikely that our continuing to send them updates on our Y2K concerns would change any minds at this point. How anyone could read the CIA's Senate testimony from March '99 and not be concerned is beyond me. Maybe some know more than the CIA. Yes, some things have changed since March, but not that much, and it goes in both directions. I think I understand what Ed is doing. I hope his concerns, and mine (and the CIA's) turn out to be overblown. One advantage to being a polly is that, if things go well, you can laugh at those who took it seriously. If any doomers are ready to laugh if it goes the other way, Lord have mercy on them.

-- Bill Byars (billbyars@softwaresmith.com), June 02, 1999.

Wise and excellent post, Bill. Thanks.

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

Seriously, the choice of using baseball as an analogy for Y2K is a poor one. Baseball is a game; Y2K is not. In a baseball game, one side loses; the other side wins. Where Y2K is concerned, we all may win if it turns out to be the famous "bump."

If it goes IM, or even a little less, there will be some losers, but those of us who have prepared will not be counted among them, except in the cosmic sense.

For awhile, I, too, appreciated what I thought was Decker's attempt at a middle of the road, rationed and reasoned approach. Other than a private smirk at what I perceived to be his self-image as the wisest among us, a sort of intellectual snob, if you will, I read his posts without fail. He does, you realize, think he's the intellectual superior of everyone here.

Lately, however, it has become apparent that his agenda is a harmful and hurtful one. If his musings result in some newbie deciding to postpone or cancel preparations, and if things go bad, he has done something unforgivable. I realize that is two "if," but the merest chance of such a thing should prompt a reasoning, intelligent person to abandon a potentially devastating course of action.

Decker thinks a great deal of himself as a writer and a thinker. We all know, however, that a man wrapped up in himself makes a very small package.

-- Vic (Rdrunner@internetwork.net), June 02, 1999.

The baseball analogy is a poor one, huh? **************************************** from www.yourdon.com: ---------------------

What If Y2K Was A Baseball Game?

You've just arrived at the stadium for the final game of the 2000 Baseball Olympics, and you settle down in the box seats that your brother-in-law got on the first-base line, ready to watch your National Team compete for the Olympic gold medal. You got a late start from home, the traffic was terrible, and the lines at the stadium entrance were incredibly long; as a result, it's already the top of the seventh inning by the time you take your seat. Your team is behind, 5-2, and the fellow sitting in front of you points out, in a loud voice, that they seem to fall an additional run further behind with each inning. Well, what the heck: it's not over 'til the fat lady sings, right? Your team will be up at the bottom of the 7th, and then again at the bottom of the 8th, and the bottom of the 9th. Miracles can happen; there's always a chance that your team will score a huge flurry of runs at the last moment.

The Olympic Committee has decided to allow on-site betting on the game, throughout the stadium (hey, let's be realistic: it's been a long time since anyone thought it was a purely amateur contest), and the local bookie is wandering around, looking for customers. He approaches your seat, and asks if you would like to place a bet on your team. In fact, he'd like you to bet all of your life savings on the prospect of your team winning. If it was only a matter of five or ten dollars, you might have placed a bet without even thinking about the details -- but if all of your money is at stake, perhaps you should pay attention.

Among other things, it occurs to you that you should take a closer look at the pitcher for your team; he's out on the mound now, winding up for another pitch. You haven't seen him before; you have no idea who he is, or where he came from.

"Who's pitching for us?" you ask the bookie.

"Isn't he handsome?" the bookie responds. "Look at his uniform! See the stars and stripes on his hat? Isn't it great?"

"Well, yeah," you respond. "But can he pitch?"

"Of course he can pitch!" the bookie reassures you. "So how large a bet shall we talk about? $10,000? $100,000?"

"Wait a minute," you say. "Where did this pitcher come from?"

"Oh, no one's quite sure," the bookie says. "Iowa, I think. Or maybe Indiana. He's kinda like that pitcher in the old Robert Redford movie, The Natural. In fact, he kinda reminds me of Robert Redford...."

"Yeah, well, that's great," you reply. "But he's given up five runs so far. Looks like he's gonna lose this game, doesn't it?"

"Aw, don't pay any attention to that bad news. That's just a bunch of negative thinking!" says the bookie reassuringly. "Wait 'til you see how he does during these last three innings! Now, let's talk about that money. Didja bring your checkbook, or were you thinking of giving me cash? I'd really prefer cash...."

Finally, you ask the question that you should have asked at the beginning of the conversation: "What's his record?"

"Whaddya mean?" the bookie asks.

"Whadda mean, what do I mean?" you exclaim in exasperation. "What's his record? How many games has he won and lost this year? For that matter, how many games has he won in situations where he was behind, 5-2, in the seventh inning? How many strikeouts does he have on his record? How many walks? How many home runs has he given up? How many balks and passed balls? How many years has he been pitching? What's his record?"

The bookie shuffles his feet, and looks away. "Well, actually, I'm sure he's got a great record ... but I don't have it with me."

You've been a baseball fan all your life, and you're somewhat of a trivia buff. So you politely ask the bookie, "He's a leftie, right? Our pitcher is a southpaw?"

"Yeah," grumbles the bookie. "So what?"

"Well," you answer, "you may not be able to tell me what this guy's personal record is, but it turns out that 15% of the pitches thrown by left-handed pitchers in the last three innings are wild pitches. I notice that the bases are already loaded; the situation doesn't look very good to me."

"Where on earth did you get crazy numbers like that?" the bookie asks, incredulously.

"Right here in the Capers Jones Baseball Almanac," you reply, holding up a dog-eared book. "I can even tell you how many strikeouts a left-handed pitcher is likely to have on a Tuesday afternoon -- it's expressed in function points, but I can translate it into English if you want. Jones has these statistics from the last 30 years of baseball history; and if you don't believe him, there's another book of baseball statistics by Handsome Howie Rubin, and another one by Leapin' Larry Putnam."

"Aw, gimme a break, will you?" whines the bookie. "What do all those numbers matter, anyway? That's history! This is different! This is here, this is now! This game is unlike any other game that has ever been played! Don't worry about whatever record he might have had! Just give me your money!" "If you can't tell me what this guy's record is," you say patiently, "then I have to assume that he's no better and no worse than any other left-handed pitcher for the past 30 years. Why should I bet all of my hard-earned money on your optimism?"

"It's not just my optimism," the bookie responds indignantly. "The manager of the team is optimistic, too -- really optimistic, because his bonus depends on winning the game. And the pitcher, too -- I talked to him before the game, and he said he was determined to win."

"Yeah," you answer. "He was probably determined to win the last game, too. And the game before that. But what's his record?"

"You don't get it," the bookie says slowly and carefully, as if speaking to a moron. "This time it's important!"

"Wasn't the last game important, too?" you ask. "And even if it wasn't, didn't the pitcher think it was important?"

"Why are you being so darned pessimistic?" the bookie says. "Why do you keep coming up with these negative interpretations?"

"I'm not trying to be pessimistic," you object. "I'd just like to make an informed, intelligent bet. And the best way for me to do that is to understand what this pitcher's record is. In the absence of data about his performance, the best I can do is use voluminous statistics about the overall performance of pitchers like him."

"Look," says the bookie, with an air of finality. "I didn't want to get into politics, but you've left me no choice. I happened to be down in the locker room just before the game started, and the President was there. He was giving the team a real pep talk; more than that, he ordered them to win. He said it was a matter of national pride and honor!"

"Oh, that's very impressive," you respond. "By the way, did the President indicate what would happen to the manager if the team loses?"

The bookie cackles with glee. "The President said that he was going to hold the manager personally responsible for ensuring that the team wins. If the team loses, he'll be turned over to the Starr grand jury!"

"Well, that would certainly motivate me," you chuckle. "And I guess it motivates the manager, too. But, look: the manager's not out there on the mound. He's not throwing the pitches. He's not batting, either. He's not catching any flies out there in left field, and he's not running down grounders at third. He's not doing a damn thing other than issuing orders. It's the players out there on the field who are going to ultimately determine whether the game is lost. And right now, we're at the mercy of the pitcher. And I've got just one last question for you..."

"And your question is..." says the bookie.

"My question is: what's his record?" *********

Okay, so Y2K isn't really a baseball game. But the metaphor isn't as crazy as you might think. Software projects are carried out by teams, and the typical Fortune 500 organization has dozens, if not hundreds, of projects underway at any given time. All of the projects have schedules, budgets, and deadlines; some of the projects finish on time, within budget, and some do not. Some of the projects don't finish at all; some of them are so far out of control that they're cancelled, usually after going far beyond their original schedule and budget.

Y2K is a project, too; for most organizations, there are dozens of such projects underway -- mainframe remediation projects, PC/network projects, and embedded systems projects. All of these projects have a budget, which is important for two reasons: (a) it determines how many people can be hired to work on the project, and (b) if the project hasn't spent any of its budget yet, then it's reasonable to assume that no work has yet been accomplished. Asking an organization if it has a Y2K budget is not enough; you need to ask how much of that budget has been spent, how much will be spent during the remainder of 1998, how much will be spent in 1999, and how much is being held in reserve for 2000.

Y2K obviously has a deadline, and (as everyone has heard ad nauseum by now) the deadline cannot be extended. Thus, in the spirit of the baseball metaphor above, it's reasonable to ask a company (e.g., your bank, your utility company, your phone company, or any other company whose products and services you depend on) "What percentage of the software projects you've worked on, during the past 5-10 years, have been delivered on or before the deadline? What's your record?"

Amazingly, many of these organizations cannot answer the question -- for the simple reason that they have never kept any metrics. It's like the after-school baseball games played by kids, where nobody keeps score from one day to the next, and no one can remember who won the game last Tuesday -- because the only thing they really care about is having a good time, catching and hitting and pitching. Professional baseball teams not only keep track of the outcome of each game, but also the details of each player's performance during the game. Professional baseball teams also follow a fairly standardized process for playing the game; deviations from the process are rare, and are remarked upon. If a batter announces that he's going to stand on his head, and swing the bat with his feet, chances are that (a) the manager will notice, (b) the manager will strongly object, and (c) if the player gets away with the bizarre behavior once or twice, the manager will keep careful measurements of the outcome.

This isn't the case in most software organizations: many programmers consider themselves artists, free to exhibit their intellectual talents in whatever fashion they choose. For example, one "process" that you might have taken for granted is known as "configuration management": it means that a software organization will keep very careful track of the current version of each computer programs, ensuring that the "source" code (e.g., the program written in COBOL or FORTRAN) matches exactly the "binary" code that runs on the computer after the program is compiled. To the embarrassment of some organizations engaged in their Y2K efforts, as much as 25% of the source code has been lost; and in some cases, the binary code does not match the archived source code. So much for the process.

The lack of a standardized, repeatable process makes it all the more difficult to predict the outcome of a software project. Suppose that every player on your baseball team decides that he's going to invent an even more creative batting approach than his team-mate. "Surprise!" the next batter exclaims, as he approaches the plate."I've decided to hold the bat in my teeth, and just swing my head to see if I can hit the ball. It's a new way of bunting -- I'll bet no one has ever thought of that approach before!"

When it comes to software, the "bottom line" is that approximately 15% of all software projects finish behind schedule -- not just a day or two late, but an average of 6-7 months or more -- and the large, complex projects have a significantly worse track-record. If we require projects to be both on time and on schedule, only a very small percentage succeed; I'm less concerned about that with Y2K, because budget over-runs are far less important than schedule over-runs, though the politicians and the managers may whine and complain about the amount of money being spent.

Perhaps a 15% schedule-overrun rate doesn't sound so bad to you -- after all, it's roughly akin to playing Russian roulette with one bullet in the six-slot chamber. And since we like to believe in last-minute miracles, there's a common tendency to wave away the failure rate. Maybe a miracle will occur. Maybe the programmers will figure out how to fix Y2K bug at the last minute, just like the Hollywood movies have shown us in summertime blockbusters for the past few years. Hey, didn't Jeff Goldblum manage to inject a computer virus into the alien spaceship in Independence Day with that snazzy Macintosh Powerbook? Did anyone stop for even a moment to think how utterly ridiculous such a concept really is? Naaah... we really wanted to believe it because those pesky aliens looked like they were about to wipe us out, and that doesn't make for a happy ending!

Unfortunately, we're not dealing with one alien spaceship here, nor are we trying to fix just one company's non-compliant software. If we were dealing with one, then anomalies could happen; but when we're dealing with large numbers, then statistics and probabilities become more and more important for anticipating the outcome. Any one batter, in any one ballgame, can defy the odds and hit that bases-loaded, bottom-of-the-ninth grand slam home run. But if you look at all the players, in all the games, in all the teams, in both leagues, across thirty seasons of baseball -- well, then you're dealing with statistics.

What's this got to do with Y2K? Simple: Y2K affects 11,000 banks in the United States. And 7,000+ utility companies. And 3,400 (or is it 5,400?) water authorities. And 100,000 suppliers for General Motors. And 50 state governments. And 500+ airports. And ... well, you can do the counting for whatever industry sector matters to you.

Even if it's just one bank -- e.g., your bank -- it's still legitimate to ask the senior management, "What's your record?" But you're likely to get a bunch of distracting answers, such as, "We're different. We're special. It doesn't matter. This time it's different. This time it really matters. Trust us, everything will be fine! Meanwhile, stop asking all of these annoying questions. Just go away."

Okay, so maybe your bank is special. Maybe they got started early. Maybe they hired some superstars. That still leaves 10,999 other banks. And for each of them -- not to mention the industry as a whole, and all the other industries we depend on -- the question is the same: what's your record?

Ed's books Cool books American Programmer

Copyright 1998 by Edward Yourdon .Updated August 21, 1998. Comments to Ed Yourdon, ed@yourdon.com

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

I guess Ed Yourdon threw too many wild pitches.

-- Buddy (.@...), June 02, 1999.

Excellent find Buddy!! Read that one last year on Ed's main page. Definitely (and that's how you spell it people.......no 'a' in definitely!) priceless. Methinks Ed can compare Y2K to anything he wants to in these folks eyes and it's OK. Uh-oh.......there's that double standard thing again.

Deano

-- Deano (deano@luvthebeach.com), June 02, 1999.

Few surprises here. I did not think this post would be well received. Personally, I think Ed Yourdon could take hostages and still have avid supporters on this forum... anything, of course, but change his mind on Y2K. If anything proves my point about Y2K as religion, this is it.

Thank goodness a few people actually have some questions about the Yourdon's decision to "quit" Y2K... a sign independent thought is not completely dead on the forum.

If you feel Ed Yourdon is right, if the fate of civilization depends on solving the Y2K riddle... what is a moral response? What is our moral obligation? Perhaps Big Dog can explain the Christian response to "every man for himself."

Perhaps not.

Regards,

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

If the "Buddy" above is the forum participant of long time standing, he is a Y2K project manager as I recall. If one can believe "Deano", he is as well. These two seem to fairly drip with glee at the thought that Ed Yourdon ever compared Y2K to baseball in any way and attempt to convince everyone that Decker has presented something of merit as a result.

Can they both be so incredibly dense or so careless as to note that Decker compared the whole of the Y2K situation to a single game (". . .the biggest game in modern history") and Ed was clearly comparing it to all of baseball (". . .if you look at all the players, in all the games, in all the teams, in both leagues, across thirty seasons of baseball -- well, then you're dealing with statistics.")? I do not think that they can. I think that they are simply in pursuit of any straw that they can grasp to discredit Ed Yourdon. You will, of course, form your own opinion as to their motives.

Ed's message in that essay is clear--"I'd just like to make an informed, intelligent bet." Look at the record. Do you trust bookies to give you that information?

Decker's message in his essay is also clear--"My disappointment is with Ed Yourdon, the Y2K 'player'." This is a perfect example of an ad hominem attack. Even if Ed was all that Decker claimed, it would not be relevant to Ed's arguments vis a vis Y2K.

Decker likens Yourdon to an athlete who gives up because he believes the game lost. You decide if that is an apt conclusion.

Yourdon likens the government and industry PR flaks to a bookie trying to convince you to bet to his advantage and accept his evaluation of "the record". You decide if that is an apt conclusion.

Yourdon claims that predicting the results of Y2K based on historical statistics is comparable to predicting the results of a baseball game on the statistical records of the teams and players.

Decker claims that Yourdon is a "quitter" because he has turned his efforts to a different facet of Y2K than public awareness and compares that behavior to a baseball player who "walks off the field" because he believes he cannot win.

You decide if distinguishing between those two claims constitutes a double standard.

-- Hardliner (searcher@internet.com), June 02, 1999.

Ummmm... Staying with Mr Deckers analogy, if this IS a baseball game, and EY is on one team, why should he continue to play when the other team sees strikes as balls and balls as strikes?

-- Unc D (unkeed@yahoo.com), June 02, 1999.

Look I'm a doomer and not only am I disappointed about Yourdon no longer publicly communicating with I also see him as a quitter. I hate to say it because of all he has done to lend credibility and professional information to the debate. I hate to use that word.... however, his computer stature and business acumen has made him a high profile figure on the y2k landscape. With the territory comes a certain responsibility. Think of all the books, websites, and thousands of other references that are directing and will direct people to his site...... especially in the fall. What will they find? A link that says Sayonara y2k. What kind of message is that? What does that title mean anyway? Does he think anyone can just say goodbye to y2k? Oh, I get it, it just means his public y2k status. Sayonara to you too Ed. We'll take it from here. Don't bother coming back in the fall. As you said, "The alarm has already been given." We'll see you on the other side, maybe.

-- BB (peace2u@bellatlantic.net), June 02, 1999.

Hardliner, I don't think that's the same Buddy. (from DC) Unless, of course, Buddy tried to make a link to Hustler on the Fruitcake thread.

-- Gayla Dunbar (privacy@please.com), June 02, 1999.

since where using baseball anologys. ill try one.

ed yourdon was the star pitcher of the extreme underdog team (the doomers)

vs the favored team (the pollyannas, aka: denial heads, pussyannas, idiots, morons,etc,etc)

the majority of the crowd was for the pollys team, everytime yourdon took the mound he was booed and hissed at.

the only support he got was from his teamates and the small crowd of fans supporting the doomers.

he pitched one hell of a game aginst extreme odds but in the 7th inning his arm gave out and he had to leave the game. the pollys cheered because the star pitcher had left the game and the doomers cheered because their star pitcher had pitched a great game and kept the game close.

yourdon tried his best but his arm gave out in the 7th inning as you said in your brilliant post.

you pitched a great game yourdon.

whos the relief pitcher going to be?

err, umm, uuuu, so much for my baseball analogy.

matt

http://michael.mcelwain.com

-- matthew gregory vaughn (mgv0415@hotmail.com), June 02, 1999.

I do believe this Buddy used to call himself Doomslayer, as in --

http://www.InsideTheWeb.com/messageboard/mbs.cgi?acct=mb237006&MyNum=9 25399427&P=Yes&TPP=25&TL=925394939

Thursday, 29-Apr-1999 11:23:47

I first went to Yourdon's forum because of Yourdon's reputation, which I learned about while earning a Computer Science degree. I almost barfed when I read Yourdon's approach to the problem. Then when I started reading the forum I couldn't believe the amount of crap there.

Doomslayer

-- OutingsR (us@here.yar), June 02, 1999.

And heeeeeeeere's Deano --

(Old BFI post at new BFI forum)

http://206.28.81.29/

Have heard quite a bit about this place [BFI] and now I see the time is limited. [But it's open again under new management.] Bummer. Name's Deano, Y2K project manager at a Fortune 500 company that has completed everything. Even made the 12/31/1998 deadline. Spend quite a bit of time arguing with the doomers over at yourdonefors place. They're not too fond of ol' Deano over there but I have a little fun with'em anyway. Never was one to warm up to a raving lunatic anyhow.

Just wanted to let yall know that there are plenty involved in the game that really and truly 'get it' (to use one of their phrases).

Deano

-- OutingsR (us@here.yar), June 02, 1999.

I'm not so sure that anyone has looked at Ed's position realistically.

(1) He is in the position of losing a majority of his consulting business in seven months. He has moved his family away from their previous home into the wilds of New Mexico (well, maybe not all THAT wild). He (like the rest of us) is getting down to the endgame. It may well be that he is planning on spending the next six months or so getting his final preparations completed.

(2) Ed has spoken to various groups in power, most recently the Senate Committee... Perhaps he recognizes that more speaking would not engender much more action/preparation. In that case, there is little use in wasting one's breath. Certainly, many of us who consider ourselves GIs will seldom go out of our way to warn others at this relatively late date...especially if the others are taking a firm DGI stance.

-- Mad Monk (madmonk@hawaiian.net), June 02, 1999.

"Buddy from DC" and Doomslayer I understand to be one and the same, and I can easily believe that he referenced the link to Ed's "baseball" essay. I would be disappointed and surprised however, if he had tried to link a thread here to Hustler. "That" buddy has always been civil, honest and remarkably restrained when attacked for his "polly" viewpoint. And, I don't see his referencing that essay as any different. I simply see it from a different perspective.

"Deano" is a sometime poster here who maintains that Y2K is "under control" and will not result in major problems. In that respect he is simply another "polly" who's viewpoint I disagree with. He has, however, bragged of the tears of "his" boys when required to leave "his" Little League team and of his wealth and material possessions. He has also espoused the "love it or leave it" garbage that so callously supports the status quo. For those reasons, I find him a dispicable character and would do him bodily harm if I found him around any of the male children in my family. None of that, however, has anything to do with his opinion on Y2K. I simply do not believe him because he is a manager. Most of the managers who ever reported to me could be counted on to lie in their own self interest and I have no reason to believe that this one is different.

BB,

I've followed your posts here and elsewhere for over a year now and it is apparent that you take Y2K very seriously. You appear to be a thoughtful man and I believe you to be an honest one. Your congregation is fortunate to have you to guide them. I also recall that you served in Viet Nam as a military chaplain. I assure you sir, you have my utmost respect for that service.

It seems to me however, that your disappointment at Ed Yourdon's change of direction, perhaps coupled with your own steadfast values of determination and loyalty and service to others has caused you to lose sight of something which was all too common in the Viet Nam debacle. That which I think is relevant is that sometimes continued expenditure of effort or resources is fruitless and that the solution to a particular problem lies elsewhere. I'm sure that you know how Marines view "quitters", and I assure you that I am no different in that respect but I simply cannot see Ed Yourdon as such. Time will tell and I'm still betting on Ed.

As for what message Ed's farewell essay would convey to newcomers, I would hope that such would take it as indicative of the lateness of the hour and therefore as a spur to urgent and immediate action.

Perhaps it would be helpful to compare an effort to convince the government of this country to house the homeless with service in a mission which actually provides beds for a few of them.

-- Hardliner (searcher@internet.com), June 02, 1999.

Other propaganda pieces from Decker.

Decker on Y2K as Religion
http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=000sT2

Decker on Y2K and Risk
http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=000eh6

-- (outings@b.us), June 02, 1999.

Face it guys, Ed is a quitter. That's exactly what he did. Frankly I don't blame him for doing it. Not because he spoke garbage most of the time but because he put lots of uncompensated time into it. That's tiring and he's entitled to call it quits. But you can't try to slice this one into a change of direction or any other theory you may conjure up. HE QUIT. nothing more.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), June 02, 1999.

Ken, I'm not going to attack you. I do want to share some thoughts with you, however.

Firstly, you start your post with the following, "What a difference perspective makes" and I have to wonder just how your perspective has evolved over the last few months?

Or, are you trying to find insight into Ed Yourdon's perspective? Maybe I can help a little.

I hope the authors don't mind me posting the following excerpt;

"We don't Know what's going to happen when the clock strikes midnight on December 31, 1999; nobody else does either. Some have suggested to us that by making the decision to write a book, we have created an obligation for ourselves to find out, so that we could state the future with certainty. Instead, we've tried to describe plausible scenarios, and then we offer some suggestions for responding to those scenarios. We don't have the "answer" to the Year-2000 problem, and given the complexity of the problem, we think it's pretentious for anyone to suggest that he or she does. Instead of presenting answers, we've focused on raising what we think are responsible questions that you should be asking yourselves.

Ultimately, what we think, and what other people think or do, is not your problem. What you do is the real issue  in the final analysis, you're responsible for your own actions and for the health and happiness of your family and loved ones. The issues we're writing about in this book are of direct concern to our family, and it forms the basis for our own plans for the Year-2000. We can only hope that we've made a modest contribution to society by articulating the issues for your consideration."

Edward Yourdon Jennifer Yourdon New York City, 1997

It's from page xxiv of the preface of Ed and Jennifer's book, Timebomb 2000.

I never, ever thought of Mr. Yourdon as a master or a god (little "g"). In fact, it was my impression time and time again that Mr. Yourdon pushed any question raised back upon the person who made the inquiry. In essence, he made a few points regarding his personal perspective but then he asked the individual to make up their own mind. The bottom line is that I consider NO ONE an expert at ANYTHING let alone Y2k and the Yourdon's said the same thing in the preface to Timebomb 2000.

Yet, there is something to be said for an individual like Mr. Yourdon who puts himself or herself out in full view for the world to see. There is much to be said for someone who takes a position and evolves that position over time, not wanting their beliefs to become stagnant and gather moss.

If I value anything about Mr. Yourdon it was just this ability. I think it would be hard for any computer professional to look at the problems and potential problems caused by a little two digit coding defect and consider the ramifications of those defects not just locally, regionally or by country but throughout an entire planet. Unlike many professionals who might never consider the possibility that they themselves fail, let alone their entire industry, Mr. Yourdon actually spoke about and brought attention to the problems inherent in the computer industry. If you want to succeed you have to appreciate and learn from failure, right? Yet, we still have people saying that there will be a 100% success rate for all projects currently underway in the remediation of Y2k defects. Is this a reasonable position? I don't think so. I don't think you do either.

Mr. Decker, you have an interest in economics, yes? Can you answer this for me? Isn't it hypocritical for someone with interests in economics to question a profit motive in a free market system? Isn't the health of the entire system based upon profit? Who would market a product or service knowing that it will only lead to bankruptcy? I obviously have more questions than answers for you Mr. Decker and I defer to you about such matters.

However, I am self-employed and it would make no real sense to me to be self-employed unless I had an interest in making a profit from my work. My profession requires that I work in, and supervise the production and printing of, materials from small to extremely large in quantity. It isn't a secret that the publication, printing and production of such materials is an expensive endeavor. It is no secret that the publication, distribution, marketing, etc., of these materials is extremely expensive. In fact, I myself have a first hand understanding of just how expensive it is to undertake such a business endeavor. Personally, I have no problem with Mr. Yourdon realizing a small profit from his product let alone meeting all the expenses required. As someone with an interest in economics I find it interesting that you do.

My common sense tells me that it is acceptable for a self-employed person to make money from his product or service. In fact, if this were not true then I would not be in business.

Regarding the ever growing popular argument among some that Y2k is now a cult, religion, etc. and Ed Yourdon was the chosen one. Let's get a grip on reality.

Mr. Yourdon did not engage in any form of brainwashing, idolatry or even scare mongering. He held up a problem in full view and allowed the individual to process the information and draw their own conclusion. He became an activist on behalf of the public interest though this wasn't his original intent. His opinions were so respected that he was given the opportunity to speak before the Senate. And, one day, he decided his own personal interests should become a priority in his life and he gave up his public persona.

I don't understand the intricate nature of the global market economy and I'm fairly naive about the real magic or voodoo behind economics. But, I am a family man and I can say without any hesitation that there is no other priority as great to me as my family. I think Ed and I are similar in that respect and I cannot find fault in a man who choses his family over the prospects for a growing celebrity image and even more profit opportunities. Logically, it would seem to me that with only a short time left Mr. Yourdon could have easily used his celebrity status to further grow his profit opportunities. If it was money Mr. Yourdon was really interested in then why would he quit at a time when awareness is actually growing and the news media is moving toward presenting views closer to his own perspective?

What a difference perspective makes.

Of course, I think I'm closer to the truth in my opinions and speculation then you are.

====================================================================

Also, Mac said,

"Y2K is in truth not a game at all; it is a collection of projects, whose overall objective is (or should be) to ensure business continuity. One of the cardinal rules of good project management is "knowing when to pull the plug," i.e., having a clear set of success criteria, and knowing when to tell senior management, "We cannot complete this under these circumstances, save yourself money and time and loots of stress and just cancel this project." Too many PMs just keep slugging away and too many projects waste boatloads of time and money because no one will admit that failure is not only possible, it's now inevitable."

I totally agree. And failure is not only inevitable, it's essential for evolution to occur. If you don't learn from failure you will never evolve. If you don't evolve you may be destined to become extinct. My hope is that this whole experience will lead to a great evolution in the way a business looks at itself, the future and it's most valuable resource, the employee.

I'm still waiting for one optimist (read polly) to nail down for me the precise moment in time when the great and magical shift toward perfection in all things occurred. When did failure become not only unlikely but impossible? When did the great moment of clarity occur? When did the big change occur in how business and government operate? When did external and internal interference in a project become non-existant?

Just curious bec

-- Michael Taylor (mt4design@aol.com), June 02, 1999.

Just curious because I didn't get cc'd on the memo.

Mike ================================================================

-- Michael Taylor (mt4design@aol.com), June 02, 1999.

Mike

Impressive read

-- Brian (imager@home.com), June 02, 1999.

Ed has not quit. He has redoubled his efforts to get his family and homestead prepared. His hiatus is a redirection of energy completely into personal contingency planning and doing. He received information that showed Y2K will be worse than expected, that the government will not be able to turn around their approach and face Y2K squarely. He saw that time even for talk was short, so warned us all and is busy with his own life, which he has taken back JIT.

-- h (h@h.h), June 02, 1999.

Mike, on another thread KayCee said he doesn't work in the economics field right now, he's in some sort of human services for a non-profit because he likes to serve his fellow man. That perspective might make a difference to you. To broaden your perspective, from the Gary North is a Big Fat Idiot Forum --

http://www.smu.edu/cgi-bin/Nova/get/gn/965/1/2/1/1.html

My parents once joked that I would read the label on the toothpaste to pass the time. Reading is a lifelong love. For a young man in rural Montana, it offered a free passport to worlds far outside my own. Even now, I polish off a book or two a week... depending on my hectic schedule. At mid-career (I'm 36), I want to segue into university teaching and writing... combined with the life a gentleman farmer. Too Jeffersonian? Providing the world (as we know it) does not end, it seems a fair enough plan. Et vous?

Mr. Decker

-- OutingsR (us@here.yar), June 02, 1999.

Mike,

A reasonable post deserves a reasonable reply:

1. Ed Yourdon exercised great business acumen and savvy timing. He engaged in commerce and was duly rewarded for his risk.

2. Yourdon applied software metrics to a meta-problem. He (and his daughter) then wrote a "beer and pretzels" book that covered areas well beyond his areas of expertise. Let's just say many IT experts will disagree with applying Yourdon's metrics to Y2K remediation, but to his credit, Yourdon raised awareness of the Y2K issue.

3. Almost no one thinks Y2K is "solved." The difference of opinion is on the cumulative effects. Will Y2K disrupt the social and economic structure of the United States enough to result in a second Great Depression or worse? [Or in the words of Yourdon, we'll see major U.S. cities turn into Beirut. If so, why did he not mention this to the Senate when he had the chance?]

4. I think the profit motive is just super. Here's my issue, Mike, I don't trust salespeople. If someone is selling me a service or product, they may not be entirely objective. In fact, the purpose of the saleperson is to SELL the product... not to provide the consumer with an objective analysis. This is why I have an inherent distrust of Y2K "journalists" who are also selling preps. I hope Mr. Yourdon has made a BIG profit on selling Y2K. Once he decided to package Y2K and sell it, however, he became a saleman... not a computer expert.

5. I'm sorry, Mike, but I don't buy the Ed Yourdon as humble, public servant. He wrote a book with a very specific outlook. It was not a great book, but he sold a lot of copies. This happens a lot in American publishing. Check the "best seller" list if you doubt me.

Yourdon made it to the Senate because he sold alot of books. He attended a committee hearing where a few Senators actually cared enough to attend. With all due respect, Mike, giving testimony in front of the Senate is not a mandate of one's ideas. Complete idiots testify. Paid lobbyists testify. Angry citizens testify. Corporate hacks and policy wonks testify. In fact, Mike, if you want to spend a few days listening to Senate hearings you'll wonder if some people just didn't wander off the street and stumble into the Senate chambers.

6. I'm not questioning Mr. Yourdon's family values. I do think the profit opportunities from here on out are limited. His book will continue to sell, so will the videos, so will the multi-level marketing (and I'm missing a few ventures I'm sure.) Yourdon's "celebrity status" is tied to an event that may have a modest impact. If he steps back down (and other people take up the banner) he can avoid becoming the Ravi Batra of year 2000.

7. "...media is moving toward presenting views closer to his own perspective?" There's a lot of good news out there, Mike, and the "iron triangle" arguments are getting weaker by the day. I say a sharp recession, Mike, what say you? Perhaps Mr. Yourdon has realized one the better ways to provide for one's family is to ensure future earnings potential.

8. We don't need perfection, Mike, good enough will do.

Regards,

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

Ed has not quit. He has redoubled his efforts to get his family and homestead prepared. His hiatus is a redirection of energy completely into personal contingency planning and doing. He received information that showed Y2K will be worse than expected, that the government will not be able to turn around their approach and face Y2K squarely. He saw that time even for talk was short, so warned us all and is busy with his own life, which he has taken back JIT.

-- h (h@h.h), June 02, 1999.

Dear Ed,

I thank you from the bottom of my heart for all you have done for me and for our country. Also when you are being maligned, you know that you have done a great job and must regard Dicker Decker's comments as compliment.

Decker does not realize that the stakes are high and that if it will be TEOTWAWKI, then coaches will be impertinent because society will no longer be able to afford hocus pocus.

-- Not Again! (Seenit@ww2.com), June 02, 1999.

2. Yourdon applied software metrics to a meta-problem. He (and his daughter) then wrote a "beer and pretzels" book that covered areas well beyond his areas of expertise. Let's just say many IT experts will disagree with applying Yourdon's metrics to Y2K remediation, but to his credit, Yourdon raised awareness of the Y2K issue.

And just what does this statement by Mr. Decker mean? It comes across as a fancy way of saying Y2K is easy to fix and deadlines will be met. Decker's statement could have been plausible in December, 1998.

But it's now June, 1999.

-- Linkmeister (link@librarian.edu), June 02, 1999.

Hardliner,

It was very difficult for me to hit the submit button. I'm sure it has a lot to do with my own desires to quit. I'm a pastor. I could say that the church has done its job and warned everyone in the U.S., that there is a God who is going to judge us all on how we respond to His offer of mercy in Jesus Christ. The alarm has been sounded therefore, I will stop preaching, witnessing, helping others and just help my family. If I did that, I'd be called a quitter. Jesus recognized the desire to quit, when He said, "He that endures to the end the same shall be saved." Paul said, don't quit when he wrote, "run the race with patience that you might receive the crown." I could go on.

Remember the thread over the Pastor who felt like resigning. Almost everyone who posted counseled him to hang in there. Not one said, maybe he has a good reason to resign. Only that minister knows why he feels like resigning.I doubt that meant he was quitting the ministry, just moving on from that church. If he did resign, I'm sure some would have called him a quitter....

Ed, who I respect very much, gave his reason as "the alarm has been sounded". Sounds like de Jager. But de Jager is still in there although he has cut back. But de Jager is not a doomer. I could see him shutting down his site. It would make sense.

As an 8.5, Ed knows that more than an alarm is needed. I saw him realize that when he put the preparedness book etc. on his site. Isn't preparedness still important? I would say that very few are fully prepared. What was that all about? Selling the preparedness book was important then but not now? Don't think so.

I would like to think that Ed has other reasons for bowing out of the y2k picture. If and when I hear them I will gladly apologize if necessary.

There is not a day that goes by but that I want to just worry about my own preps. As our county y2k moderator, I have a responsiblity to stay at my post and help even one if necessary. I tire of giving out the same old information and prep hints every week. But I realize that this will all end sometime in the fall and I have accepted my responsibility. I can hang in til then. I feel Ed could have done the same.

What I can't understand is why he didn't just scratch his discussion forum, and modify his y2k information on his webpage ala Yardeni. I remember when North took his forum off line. It devastated the forum faithful who found great help in working out y2k issues and preparations. I was angry that North did that and still don't agree with what he did, but he felt he had to modify his site to keep his sanity and endure even to the end. I never thought of North as a quitter for modifying his site. Why did Ed just scrap everything? Just because the alarm was sounded? There has to be more. And that's o.k. Ed doesn't owe me an explanation. To all appearances it looks like he just decided to quit. At first I was sad, now I am angry, soon I will just accept it and move on.

But before I do, just a little prediction. The forum will not be the same. Maybe this is at the root of my anger.

Take care HL and thanks for the good thoughts. Your words were not wasted on me. b

-- BB (peace2u@bellatlantic.net), June 02, 1999.

So Buddy & Decker,

I take it that Ed sorta sees himself as sitting in the bleachers with all the rest of us, while Decker thinks hes the coach and Buddy thinks he was the pitcher?

Humm.

If I was in the stands, watching unprofessional players, who kept claiming they well *all-stars* I just might leave (quit) the stadium in disgust too.

Decker... youre playing the wrong game, with the wrong team, IMHO. (Are you trying to SELL something?)

Diane

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), June 02, 1999.

Mr. Decker, thanks for the reasonable reply. I'll try to maintain that degree of civility in my post : )

1. Ed Yourdon exercised great business acumen and savvy timing. He engaged in commerce and was duly rewarded for his risk.

[Was he duly rewarded? Or is this pure speculation on your part that because he had a best seller he made a substantial profit? None of us know if the Timebomb 2000 book was a highly profitable venture. In fact, whenever Mr. Yourdon made additions/corrections to the next edition he posted whole chapters on his site. Only Ed and Jennifer Yourdon and their publishers really know. Fair enough?]

2. Yourdon applied software metrics to a meta-problem. He (and his daughter) then wrote a "beer and pretzels" book that covered areas well beyond his areas of expertise.

[I am beginning to think you've never read the book. However, consider this. You state that he and his daughter (a Wall Street economist) wrote a "beer and pretzels" book. This may seem like a condescending term to you until you consider the target audience and who this book is intended for. It isn't a highly technical manual geared toward software professionals. TB2000 is a book targeted directly at nontechnical, average people.

You speculate that it covered areas "well beyond his areas of expertise." I'd love for you to give some specifics examples of where this occurs. But it isn't necessary because you do the same thing. You and I are equally guilty of covering areas beyond our "expertise." And, you know how I feel about so called "experts."]

Let's just say many IT experts will disagree with applying Yourdon's metrics to Y2K remediation, but to his credit, Yourdon raised awareness of the Y2K issue.

[There is that word expert again in an industry which is constantly evolving. Even so, do you consider the metrics of other "experts" who concur with Yourdon's?]

3. Almost no one thinks Y2K is "solved." The difference of opinion is on the cumulative effects. Will Y2K disrupt the social and economic structure of the United States enough to result in a second Great Depression or worse?

[Having had the opportunity to get your take on the situation I know you don't think Y2k is "solved." I also know your feelings regarding the possible economic repercussions and that your views aren't rosy. As for the social and economic fallout, who knows? Know prediction can be valid with a future as uncertain as it is.

(Or in the words of Yourdon, we'll see major U.S. cities turn into Beirut. If so, why did he not mention this to the Senate when he had the chance?)

[Can you provide a specific article or post where I can verify this quote? I wont reply until I can be sure that this is a true statement]

4. I think the profit motive is just super. Here's my issue, Mike, I don't trust salespeople. If someone is selling me a service or product, they may not be entirely objective. In fact, the purpose of the saleperson is to SELL the product... not to provide the consumer with an objective analysis. This is why I have an inherent distrust of Y2K "journalists" who are also selling preps. I hope Mr. Yourdon has made a BIG profit on selling Y2K. Once he decided to package Y2K and sell it, however, he became a saleman... not a computer expert.

[Mr. Decker, IMO your position is weak here. As a self-employed person you wear many hats and salesperson is just one of them. Is what you're saying that his "expertise" became nil because he wrote a book? Come on! How many books has Ed Yourdon authored or co-authored prior to his two books regarding Y2k? Did those books weaken his authority as a person with years of experience? Notice, I didn't say "expert." If anything, those books raised his position as a respected authority. As for anyone who is in business for themselves it is not a prerequisite to be objective. In fact, I'll go so far as to say that Ed Yourdon was not objective regarding his views on Y2k. He has strong views. However, he didn't sell anything but ideas, concepts, personal perspective. In that regard he allowed for alternative positions to be drawn opposed to his own views. He didn't say, "Believe what I believe." He left it to the individual. Did you read the book? He does this over and over and over again.]

5. I'm sorry, Mike, but I don't buy the Ed Yourdon as humble, public servant.

[I respect your opinion. I never said Mr. Yourdon was a "humble, public servant." He did, however, give countless hours of his time with no compensation to the public in raising awareness. Even Maria above wrote this same thing above. Is this really something you are disputing?]

He wrote a book with a very specific outlook. It was not a great book, but he sold a lot of copies. This happens a lot in American publishing. Check the "best seller" list if you doubt me.

[And "reasonable" goes out the window...]

Yourdon made it to the Senate because he sold a lot of books. He attended a committee hearing where a few Senators actually cared enough to attend. With all due respect, Mike, giving testimony in front of the Senate is not a mandate of one's ideas. Complete idiots testify. Paid lobbyists testify. Angry citizens testify. Corporate hacks and policy wonks testify. In fact, Mike, if you want to spend a few days listening to Senate hearings you'll wonder if some people just didn't wander off the street and stumble into the Senate chambers.

[Mr. Decker, I believe you're going full tilt with speculation here. Not everyone who testifies before the Senate is "cordially invited." There is a major difference here between possible wrong doers and invited guests...A MAJOR DIFFERENCE. One of my passions is listening to both the House and the Senate via CSPAN and CSPAN2. I've heard a lot of testimony, I assure you. You see, I have a twin brother currently working in the office of a very famous Senator in D.C. I keep a look out for him when he's in the Chamber. I assure you, as someone who has been to the Senate Chambers, it's impossible to "stumble" into it. Ed Yourdon was cordially invited to testify because of his insight into the problem and his work in the community. That isn't speculation, it's fact.]

6. I'm not questioning Mr. Yourdon's family values. I do think the profit opportunities from here on out are limited. His book will continue to sell, so will the videos, so will the multi-level marketing (and I'm missing a few ventures I'm sure.) Yourdon's "celebrity status" is tied to an event that may have a modest impact. If he steps back down (and other people take up the banner) he can avoid becoming the Ravi Batra of year 2000.

[More speculation about the departure of Mr. Yourdon. Let's just say that neither of us knows the specific reasons why Mr. Yourdon has made this move. Yet, can we agree that the choice is his and it's a personal one? Why attack him if you hold his decision in such high praise? When reading your last statement it appears as though, in your words, Ed Yourdon has made an incredibly savvy business decision at the proper time. However, from my reading of his latest essay that wasn't my personal take on the situation and why he made his departure.]

7. "...media is moving toward presenting views closer to his own perspective?" There's a lot of good news out there, Mike, and the "iron triangle" arguments are getting weaker by the day. I say a sharp recession, Mike, what say you? Perhaps Mr. Yourdon has realized one the better ways to provide for one's family is to ensure future earnings potential.

[K.C., I think we agree that at a minimum there will be a sharp recession. But, if people lose their jobs or their lives due to a Y2k problem the impact to the family of that individual is essentially TEOTWAWKI for them. The "iron triangle" was never my biggest worry anyway. But I don't talk about my own specific preps. Your last sentence really puzzles me though. If Mr. Yourdon has been so successful with his marketing of Y2k hysteria then why on earth would he need to ensure his future earnings potential? Maybe Mr. Yourdon's number one concern is just his family...period.]

8. We don't need perfection, Mike, good enough will do.

[Ahh, really? And "good enough" will ensure that the "iron triangle" continues to operate? So, "good enough" means that we have brown outs instead of black outs and those brown outs have the capacity to destroy electronic equipment and disrupt business operations. Ahh, "good enough", we have a dial tone in the U.S. but none overseas and international business becomes next to impossible. Nope, "good enough" wont do. If you listen to and read the "polly" view they are the people who preach perfection. In their minds there is no chance for any failure because everything will be solved. I don't buy that because, as you say, "good enough" is ALL that is deemed necessary. That is the history of Y2k awareness, remediation and testing. What exactly is the definition of "good enough" anyway? Is it "done by December 31, 1998, with an entire year for testing"? Is it "done by June 30 with six months for testing"? "Good enough" wont get water into the Los Angeles basin. "Good enough" wont get enough petroleum products to the market to sustain normal personal let alone business comfort levels. The realist inside me keeps saying that not everything can be fixed in time to avoid disruptions. The optimist keeps saying have faith and overcome. The pessimist inside me keeps saying... well, there is no pessimist inside me! I just hope you're right and "good enough" gets the job done.]

Anyway, it's always great to have the

-- Michael Taylor (mt4design@aol.com), June 02, 1999.

Decker said:

'I'm sorry, Mike, but I don't buy the Ed Yourdon as humble, public servant. He wrote a book with a very specific outlook.'

ROTFLMAO! Obviously then Decker has never even read Time Bomb 2000. Scenarios of varying lengths for different aspects of society are discussed. It's consequence management for individuals.

-- Tired (of@the.disingenuous), June 02, 1999.

...DAGNABBIT!...

Anyway, it's always great to have the chance to civilly disagree with you : )

Best wishes,

Mike ================================================================

-- Michael Taylor (mt4design@aol.com), June 02, 1999.

BB,

My first impulse was to simply accept your response at face value and let it go at that. Certainly you are entitled to your own opinions and conclusions and I do not mean otherwise but something that I really can't define causes me to make one more (and I promise it will be the last) attempt to present you with another perspective.

Somewhere along the line, you decided to spend your life in the service of God. I am sure that you did not make any reservations or put conditions on such, but made an absolute promise that was permanent and binding.

I feel as if I can literally sense your faith and strength, even through the medium of cyberspace and I have no doubt whatsoever that you will deliver all that you have promised to God, regardless of the odds, the circumstances or the personal sacrifice such might cost you.

I remember well when I made a promise of my own, before God, to support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America. That too was a permanent and binding promise and because of it I can well understand how easy it is to view those who are not absolutely dedicated to a task as being in some indefinable way, less than satisfactory.

Such is not the case obviously, as such oaths are not for everyone nor is everyone suited for such lives. Still, it is human nature to judge others from the perspective of our own values whether or not that process yields an accurate conclusion.

What I'm trying to get to here is that Ed Yourdon is neither a priest nor a constitutional fanatic. It seems unlikely that judging his actions by the standards of either would yield an accurate conclusion. As Dr. Byars noted above, "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result." Most everyone in the military knows that chaplains never quit and they expect Jarheads to beat their heads against the same wall ad infinitum but Ed Yourdon is neither. He is however, smart enough with much left over to realize that what he's been doing is not working. He's made it clear that he wishes a different result. Whatever he does from this point on, it had better be different or he'll keep on getting the same result. And, regardless of opinions, I've seen none here who hold that Ed Yourdon is insane.

You're probably right in your supposition that there is "more", but that which Ed has told us is sufficient. Who among us would bare all of their thoughts to a frequently hostile audience?

I think too, that you're correct in your prediction that the forum will not be the same. Although Ed posted here only infrequently in the time that I've been haunting the forum, he was always lurking and a query to him would always be answered. He is no longer "on-call" and that in itself has caused "TEOTFAWKI". Maybe it will be better, although I can't see how. Maybe it will be worse, although that is not necessary. Maybe we can all emulate you and get past our sadness and our anger and simply accept it and move on.

For myself, I neither demand nor expect Marine Corps discipline of civilians and I know better than to demand or expect priestly virtue of communicants. And, I know that although Ed Yourdon is only a man he is one who has given of himself more than was required and taken less than was offered.

-- Hardliner (searcher@internet.com), June 03, 1999.

Damn it. GOD damn it, it's too late.. I need my sleep... Screw you Y2K freaquese... (aka POLLYS)

PS - Hardliner - keep these puppies in check... I'll be back... I'll be back... I'll be back... I'll be back... Yea, and a 1, and a 2, and a 3... ... ... I'll be BACK...

Signed, Happy New Year................

B____ aka Sysman <:)=

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), June 03, 1999.

Perfect end to a great thread. Thanks Jarhead.

Semper Fi! '69

-- Carlos (riffraff1@cybertime.net), June 03, 1999.

I warned you all about ddecker from day one - the smell is still the same, not pleasant.

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), June 03, 1999.

Mike,

C'mon, Mike. Your post makes you sound like the crown prince of speculation. We just have different perspectives.

1. All the talk about Yourdon's "selfless" motives is speculation. Unless, Mike, you have the ability to peer into Yourdon's soul. If not, you are simply looking at his behaviors and speculating.

2. If Yourdon has not made money on his many Y2K ventures, I'll have to reconsider my opinion of his business acumen. The list of ventures, however, is public knowledge.

3. "It isn't a highly technical manual geared toward software professionals. TB2000 is a book targeted directly at nontechnical, average people." This is my way of saying "beer and pretzels."

4. "You speculate that it covered areas 'well beyond his areas of expertise.' I'd love for you to give some specifics examples of where this occurs." For starters, anything about economics aka the banking system. Yourdon claims his daughter is an economist, but she has a B.A. in economics from Trinity and has done "some" graduate classes. Close, but no cigar. Why don't you provide one review of TB 2000 written by a nationally respected economist who agree with Yourdon. Just one.

5. "But it isn't necessary because you do the same thing." I engage in this forum as a private citizen... not a paid consultant. If you want to hire me or I try to sell you something, Mike, and you can explore my credentials to your heart's content.

6. Please feel free to give me a list of every nationally recognized software expert who agrees with Yourdon.

7. "There are approx 9,000 electric utility plants in the U.S., including 108 nuclear plants, and at the present time (Feb 25, 1998), NONE of them are Y2K compliant. None. Zero. Zip. Nada. Last survey that I saw indicated that one-third had not started any Y2K effort at all, one third were seriously behind schedule, and one-third were on- schedule. This is not an exaggeration; NONE of the nuclear plants are compliant, and the Nuclear Regulatory Agency (NRC) is currently drafting a letter to the plant operators to warn them of their vulnerability and liability. The Chairman of the SEC, Arthur Levitt, has drafted a letter to the non-nuclear agencies, also warning them of their Y2K exposure; this will probably go out in the next week or two. Most likely scenario: 20-30% of the utility plants will suffer at least sporadic Y2K problems on 1/1/2000, primarily with their embedded systems, including intermittent blackouts; and it's not at all beyond the realm of possibility that portions of the nation's power grid will be brought down for several hours, days, or weeks. Don't take my word for it; take a look at the web sites of two Y2K- oriented utility experts, Roleigh Martin

(http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/roleigh_martin/)

and Rick Cowles

(http://www.euy2k.com/index.htm)

Both of them think the situation will be MUCH worse than what I've suggested.

If you're a computer professional, you may be aware of the statistics for project success, whether's it's utility plants or any other kind of software project: even if you completely eliminate project failures caused by budget problems, the data that we have from the last 30 years of software projects tells us that 15% of all projects are late, and 25% are cancelled before completion. The projects that are late turn out to be late by approx 7.6 months; for large projects (1+ million lines of code), the behind-schedule projects are late by an average of 13.8 months, and for VERY large projects (10+ million lines of code), the behind-schedule projects are late by an average of 25 months. This is not an exaggeration; I can give you citations of books and references if you care to see the details. And it doesn't take a rocket scientist to conclude that this does not bode well for Y2K projects.

So much for utilities (and note that I haven't commented on water supply, oil, gas, and sewage). When it comes to banks, consider these statistics: there are approx 11,000 banks in this country. Even taking into account the holding companies that own several small banks, and the banks that outsource their IT development to service bureaus, you have to assume that there are at least 5,000 separate enterprise-level banking software systems that need to be fixed. The numbers from one large banking institution are instructive: Bank of America currently has an army of 1,000 programmers working on 250 million lines of code, and as of late Jan 1998, they reported they were 1/3 of the way done. More statistics from another large bank: Chase Manhattan was quoted in an article in the NY Times last October as saying they have interfaces with 2,950 external entities. Naturally, we can be highly confident that all 2,950 will be Y2K compliant with no problems, right? ... nevertheless, it's interesting that Edward Yardeni, chief economist of Deutsche Morgan Grenfell, predicts that between 5% and 20% of the small banks in the U.S. will fail because of Y2K problems. That's the good news; the bad news is that Europe is approx one year behind us and is dangerously distracted by their Eurocurrency projects, Latin American is sound asleep, and Asia is preoccupied with its current financial crises.

If you're a computer-literate person, here's an interesting statistic: 70% of the Japanese banking systems are inhouse, customized systems, while in the U.S., 70% of the banking systems are packages. Conclusion: maybe the international banking system will survive, but when Alan Greenspan says Y2K could be a serious problem (as he did today, in his testimony to the Senate) you'd better pay attention. From my perspective, this is not a theorectical, academic issue: this affects my retirement savings and it's not something I feel like risking.

Bottom line: the banking system, as we currently know it, is in serious danger of collapsing.

The other component of the "iron triangle" of critical infrastructure services is telecommunications. Each of the "big three" of ATT, MCI, and Sprint is dealing with a Y2K portfolio of 300-400 million lines of code; there are interesting rumblings from all three that indicate all is not rosy with their Y2K efforts. Even if they make it, there are now hundreds of small, independent, deregulated carriers that can wreak havoc on the overall telecommunications "grid". An example of this occurred two days ago with a problem caused by a random firm called Illuminet; see the attached news release below. Even assuming we get dial tone on 1/1/2000 in the U.S. and England, you can reasonably expect that several third-world countries are going to be cut off from telecommunications for several weeks or months because of Y2K problems.

Meanwhile, within the typical corporate environment, consider yet another statistic: 90% of the PBX switchboards installed before 1996 are NON-compliant. Small-medium enterprises (SME's) are generally oblivious to this problem, and are not at all interested in upgrading their equipment. If you look at this on a global basis (as I'm currently doing with one of my consulting clients, who has 100+ MAJOR offices on 7 continents), the problem is horrific.

Then there's the government. The smart-ass character who critiqued my email to your list-serve member seemed amused by my oblique reference to Clinton's executive order; I suspect he had never heard of it before, which isn't surprising considering how little media attention it got. For what it's worth, the Executive Order was quietly published on Feb 4th and began with the words "Minimizing the Y2K problem will require a major technological and managerial effort, and it is critical that the United States Government do its part in addressing this challenge." But it turns out that the "Y2K Conversion Council" that Clinton has created with the Executive Order is just another bureaucratic committee, and won't have much impact on the outcome. Your homestead group may not care about such things, but it's worth noting that 16 of the 26 major federal agencies are predicting that they'll finish their Y2K testing in Nov or Dec 1999; that's enough to make any veteran software professional break out in howls of laughter. Congressman Stephen Horn (R-CA, and a former university president) predicts that 14 of the 26 agencies won't finish even their mission-critical systems on time. IRS appears to be doomed; perhaps that's why the CIO, Arthur Gross, resigned last month. FAA has gotten lots of press recently about their Y2K problems (and the top Y2K person in that agency has resigned, too) -- but that's the GOOD news about the Dept of Transportation, which is currently estimated to finish its Y2K work in 2019; the bad news is that 95% of the exports from this country go by sea, and the maritime industry only held its first Y2K conference this week (in NYC; I attended it), and doesn't have a clue about Y2K. HHS (Health & Human Services) has basically shot itself in the foot by firing its outsourcing-contractors and bringing its partially completed software projects inhouse without Y2K compliance; as a result, Medicare and Medicaid are seriously threatened. Etc, etc, etc. I can't claim that my crystal ball is perfect, but I will tell you that my own personal Y2K plans include a very simple assumption: the government of the U.S., as we currently know it, will fall on 1/1/2000. Period.

I just noticed your sig file says you're from Georgia. Well, here's what's going on in GA: about a month ago, the Governor woke up and announced that the state would have to spend approx $130 million to "combat" the Y2K bug, most of which would be spent to hire approx 400 programmers. By itself, a proposal from the governor doesn't mean diddly-squat, but it's amazing to see that the GA legislature actually approved the funding proposal within a matter of weeks; by contrast, states like Texas (where my daughter recently addressed the Appropriations committee of the state legislature on the global economic impact of Y2K) cannot easily do so, because they operate on a constitutionally-mandated balanced budget, which doesn't allow deficit spending. Anyway, GA apparently has approval to spend $130 million, which means that it has approval to hire 400 programmers. But the governor doesn't want to hire them himself -- the appropriation has to trickle down two or three levels to the various departments that will actually decide how much they need, and how many programmers they need. How long will that take? Three months? Six months? Whenever it happens, the state IT departments will go out into the marketplace to try to hire 400 people at civil-service salaries. In today's marketplace, how many do you think they'll be able to hire? How about: ZERO. The "great sucking sound" that Ross Perot warned of in his last Presidential campaign turns out to be the sound of programmers being sucked out of the public-sector government agencies, into the private sector, where competitive salaries can be paid, and salaries are rising at the rate of 2-5% per month. And even if they could hire 400 programmers 3-6 months from now, it's too late. IT'S TOO LATE! Of course, maybe God will smile on Georgia, and maybe the critical state agencies in your state will get their Y2K work done in time; meanwhile, there are 49 other states, several of whom (ND, MT, WY, AK and several others) appear not to have even begun doing any Y2K work. The chances that even a reasonable majority of them will finish is pretty small, in my humble opinion. And then there are the counties, and the cities....

I could go on at great length, because there's a lot more detail that we Y2K "warriors" know about and are dealing with, but I think you see the point: those of us who are living with the problem on a day- to-day basis are terrified. . . . I could make at least as much money, if not more money, during the next two years by focusing my efforts on OO technology, Java, and the Internet; but in my opinion, the Y2K problem will make any discussion of OO and the Internet roughly akin to rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. Frankly, I couldn't care less whether your computer veterans agree or disagree with my views on Y2K; my daughter and I wrote our "Time Bomb 2000" book to articulate personal Y2K contingency plans for our family, our friends, and other personal acquaintances. If Y2K does turn out to be as bad as I think it will be, nobody is going to care about the opinions of software professionals on 1/1/2000 (other than possibly lynching them for having created the problem in the first place!); instead, everyone is going to be concentrating on how to get food, shelter, clothing, and the basic necessities of life. Y2K threatens all of this, except in the backwards economies that have never depended on automation or socio-economic interactions with other automated societies. Rural China will probably be okay; but in my humble opinion, New York, Chicago, Atlanta and a dozen other cities are going to resemble Beirut in January 2000. That's why I've moved out of NYC to rural New Mexico a couple months ago.

You're welcome to post these remarks on your listserv if you think it would serve some constructive purpose; I'll leave that up to you. But in general, I assume that your listserv group has come to the conclusion that Y2K is not a problem, and that you'd rather not hear any opinions of the sort that I've expressed above. That's fine with me; as Spock says on Star Trek: "live well and prosper." I wish you well, and hope that we'll all be able to compare notes about the Y2K situation in a calm rational fashion on 1/2/2000.

But in the meantime, I've got work to do. There are only 674 days left.

Sincerely, Ed Yourdon"

8. Sorry, Mike, your position is weak here. Ed Yourdon didn't lose expertise, he lost credibility on the issue by creating a conflict of interest.

9. "he didn't sell anything but ideas, concepts, personal perspective." Books, videos and multi-level marketing, Mike. Product.

10. "I respect your opinion. I never said Mr. Yourdon was a "humble, public servant." He did, however, give countless hours of his time with no compensation to the public in raising awareness." Where's the proof, Mike, or is this more speculation?

11. "Ed Yourdon was cordially invited to testify because of his insight into the problem and his work in the community. That isn't speculation, it's fact." C'mon, Mike. You are dodging the issue again. I didn't say Yourdon wasn't invited... I said the fact he was invited doesn't mean his opinions on Y2K are above reproach.

12. "The 'iron triangle' was never my biggest worry anyway." It was THE pessimist argument until a few months ago. (And read Yourdon's letter.)

13. "If Mr. Yourdon has been so successful with his marketing of Y2k hysteria then why on earth would he need to ensure his future earnings potential?" Because if Y2K is a nonevent, Yourdon's stock drops in the IT community where he has earned his living for the past 30 years. Dropping out now allow him to create some distance between himself and the event.

14. Mike, you're ranting. Nothing works perfectly... and still society and the economy function. The economy is a huge mess of missed deadline, failures, mistakes, etc. And still, we function. It's the pessimists who think it all has to run like a Swiss watch. Good enough gets the job done every day.

Regards,

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

Ed has not quit. He has redoubled his efforts to get his family and homestead prepared. His hiatus is a redirection of energy completely into personal contingency planning and doing. He received information that showed Y2K will be worse than expected, that the government will not be able to turn around their approach and face Y2K squarely. He saw that time even for talk was short, so warned us all and is busy with his own life, which he has taken back JIT.

-- h (h@h.h), June 03, 1999.

Simple thoughts from a simple guy, me.

1. I am thankful Ed wrote the book and gladly paid for it. I never assumed he was expert on all the different subjects raised (he's a programmer) and was most helped by the varying scenarios described, since it enabled me to pose my own.

2. I am thankful Ed provided a free forum where I met like-minded people who could help me continue to brainstorm and, especially, prepare. That a number of them have since become personal friends is an unexpected bonus.

3. I never thought of Ed as a public servant but as a private citizen. What he chooses to do with his time between now and the end of his life is his own concern. He didn't owe me any explanation but I take the one he gave at face value, since I have never seen anything in his writings or spoken presentations that has made me doubt his consistency or his word.

4. I consider Decker's ceaseless efforts, ever since he posted to this board, to deride and diminish Ed's character, despicable.

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

HL,

Your point about not making Ed a priest or military man or constitutional fanatic is well taken. You are quite right in saying that we must let a person be who they are. Again, not knowing all the reasons or motives in his leaving, I make no value judgments of Ed's character, I'll leave that up to his Maker.

For me, there are standards, absolutes, values, principles, and virtues. They exist whether a person is a janitor, a writer, a geek, a minister, or the President. To me, Ed has put himself above helping the public on a national level. Maybe he is just burnt out and needed to quit. If he had said that, I would have quickly jumped to his full defense. But HL, until he gives me a better reason, you can say he stopped, and I will say he quit. Like you said earlier, quitting sometimes is a good thing, not always bad. I like to think he had other reasons for quitting that he did not share. But even if he didn't, your point is that, let's not hold him to the standard of a priest or jarhead. O.k. I won't. I will hold him to the standard of being a major voice on one of the most critical and possibly devastating events to hit our nation. He just stepped down HL.

He said, "It is not working." I disagree. Look at all the hits on his webpage. Preaching to the choir? Not totally, and the choir needs the reassurances and inspiration too.

People's actions have consequences. I take the position that Ed's action to quit being a public figure on y2k will have adverse consequences. I say this because of the tremendous help I got from him. Like many I read his chapters when they were online. Like many I was refreshed by his articles. Like many, I made his forum my #1 forum for y2k info, debate, encouragement and cyber comradery. Ed has been one of my top three y2k mentors. His leaving is a loss to the y2k cause pure and simple.

I only used the minister example because there is one similarity that exists with Ed. Both are involved in saving lives and helping people. Like North commented, "The Titanic is going down. But I will be like one of the crew members, still helping people into the boats, until the boat goes down."

y2k is very serious. I will continue to fight the y2k cause, not as a citizen, not as a minister, nor as a soldier, but as a man who sees danger ahead. I am weary of it all. I tire of it. I wish January 1st were tomorrow. Is it wrong to expect a runner to finish the race? No, even if it means you have to slow down to a walk. Ed, it seems just walked off the track. I expected him to at least slow down to a walk. That is my expectation of people. Regardless of their station in life. Remember Jimmy Valvano the basketball coach's dying words, "Never give up, never never give up."

-- BB (peace2u@bellatlantic.net), June 03, 1999.

I don't know what the heck Gayla is talking about, but if you're going to make a charge like that you'd better be able to prove it.

Hardliner, thank you for your kind remarks.

I posted Yourdon's essay on Y2K and baseball simply to show that Decker's analogy wasn't as far out in left field as some were saying. That's all.

Yes, I was Doomslayer, and I stand by those remarks. I have never agreed with the approach that Yourdon took toward Y2K. I view it as fatalistic to think that the only option that we as a society have in this situation is "every man for himself." I have always said that we are all in this together.

You should know that most of us so-called pollys are really moderates in the grander scheme of things. In the real world, I am a Y2K project manager and often have to deal with funny looks and remarks from people who view me as a doomsayer. I think the main reason that most of us are now in the "polly camp" is because of the tremendous amount of noise generated by the fatalistic pessimists who have long dominated this board and many others.

-- Buddy in DC (buddydc@go.com), June 03, 1999.

Not fatalistic and not every man for himself. These "Pollys" are so dense they have not Gotten that Ed is/was the prime advocate of COMMUNITY PREPARATION and most of the Realists (misnamed "Doomers") were COMMUNITY ACTIVISTS.

The only fatalistic aspect of Y2K is the continuing ridicule and apathy of the herd, lead by valueless pollies. They passively set their own fate by not researching, listening, learning, or taking any positive self-preservation community-preservation action.

And fate is hardening as time flies by.

xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxx

-- Ashton & Leska in Cascadia (allaha@earthlink.net), June 03, 1999.

Hello Buddy in DC. What I said was that I didn't think the other person who posted under the name of buddy (..@..) was you. Am I correct? (I just couldn't see you trying to make a link to Hustler on the Fruitcake thread.)

-- Gayla Dunbar (privacy@please.com), June 03, 1999.

And Buddy, if it WAS you.... proof? When you click on someone's e- mail address here, it no longer shows up in blue. It will then appear in a purple color (at least on the software that I am using.) I clicked on the (.@...) on the Fruitcake thread to watch and see if that person posted again. The person who posted above as Buddy has the EXACT same e-mail address as the person on the Fruitcake thread, and the address is in purple on my screen. Or were you asking for proof that the link was intended for Hustler? That's easy!

-- Gayla Dunbar (privacy@please.com), June 03, 1999.

Gayla, you're way off here.

If the e-mail address reads .@... it means nothing. That is nobody's address. If .@... is showing purple for you it simply means that you've clicked on a .@... before. Anybody can put .@...

-- Buddy (buddydc@go.com), June 03, 1999.

(Pant, puff,) Sorry, gang. I (wheeze) got here a little late (gasp). But I GOTTA get in on this one.

I just now read Deckers original analogy, and I LIKE IT! I mean this guys good. No misspelled words, no run-on sentences. It was well thought-out and developed. It had just the right touch of emotion. Brought a lump to my thought, Ill tell ya; all those valiant little kids.

But I think he made a very good point buried in the rhetoric. After the game, the parking lot may look like Beirut. Well, if so, youd have to be pretty damn stupid to hang around to the end, even if you thought your team was going to win. And if youve got old folks or kids who look to you for help, not only stupid but careless and negligent.

I mean, Pollys & Doomers, Maria and Big Dog, Decker and Hardliner, you and me, and all the rest seem to agree that there is a POSSIBILITY of serious problems, whether it be from computer code, chips, social reaction, or whatever. And as long as that possibility exists, it shouldnt strain anyones brain to come up with a prudent preparation response.

And as for Eds departure. SO WHAT? He aint taking anything of mine with him. He doesnt owe me any money, and I guess it is HIS business. I really doubt that many of us here are so gullible that Mr. Yourdon single-handedly convinced us of the end of the world. Nor will many of us believe Mr. Decker, on his own, that it will be business as usual. So lets all get off our soapboxes and get back to work, OK? What I need now are facts about the end-game we are entering, not more analogies or opinions, thank you very much all the same.

-- Lon Frank (Postit@here.com), June 03, 1999.

Decker,

I'll try to keep this short.

"Decker wrote" [I reply] (thanks BD : )

"C'mon, Mike. Your post makes you sound like the crown prince of speculation. We just have different perspectives"

[crown prince of speculation? I constantly say that I speculate. You, however, speculate and call it fact. We have different perspectives? Hurray! It finally occurred to you!!! As for the rest...I tried to go through by the numbers and answer but your ability to take a quote and answer out of context is exceptional. Don't believe me? Check each number of my response to you against each number or your rebuttal. Most don't match. So, I'll keep it simple.]

1. [Decker, you're ranting...]

2. [I agree.]

3. [No duh. However, you conveniently left out your facts supporting this,

"Or in the words of Yourdon, we'll see major US cities turn into Beirut. If so, why did he not mention this to the Senate when he had the chance?"

Why, I wonder?]

4. [Decker, you're ranting, speculating and making unwarranted personal attacks regarding someone you don't even know. Your ability to make assumptions regarding people you've never met is astounding. As for the book reviews, I'll work on doing the research.]

5. [Clueless rant which has absolutely no relevance.]

6. [Not sure how you got here from my #6. Nice push off.]

7. [Thanks for the repost of Mr. Yourdon's essay. And your point is?] 8. [Ed Yourdon lost credibility? You're entitled to your opinion but that is all it is, YOUR OPINION. Furthermore, I have news for you ... I'm completely lost by your post. What does this have to do with my #8? Decker, you're ranting...]

And new numbers appear...

9. [Decker, you're ranting...]

10. "Where's the proof, Mike, or is this more speculation?"

[Pure speculation on my part. I admit it. Can you admit that what you post is speculation?]

11. "Ed Yourdon was cordially invited to testify because of his insight into the problem and his work in the community. That isn't speculation, it's fact." C'mon, Mike. You are dodging the issue again. I didn't say Yourdon wasn't invited... I said the fact he was invited doesn't mean his opinions on Y2K are above reproach."

[I'm dodging the issue? Are you serious? Really? Maybe you should read above again. You NEVER said anything about his opinions being above reproach. You drew comparisons regarding testimony before the Senate in the following way

"With all due respect, Mike, giving testimony in front of the Senate is not a mandate of one's ideas. Complete idiots testify. Paid lobbyists testify. Angry citizens testify. Corporate hacks and policy wonks testify."

I don't think you said Yourdon's opinions were above reproach, I think you maliciously intended to draw comparisons to Yourdon and the examples you've given. I stated, factually, that not all who testify before the Senate are invited. MANY ARE COMPELLED TO TESTIFY BY LEGAL MEANS. You dodged the issue.]

12. [And, your point is?]

13. "If Mr. Yourdon has been so successful with his marketing of Y2k hysteria then why on earth would he need to ensure his future earnings potential?" Because if Y2K is a nonevent, Yourdon's stock drops in the IT community where he has earned his living for the past 30 years. Dropping out now allow him to create some distance between himself and the event."

[ahhh, and of course, the argument that you raise regarding the incredible success of his Y2k ventures becomes nil? All of a sudden, based upon conclusions drawn from your own speculation, Yourdon gives ALL the money he made from Y2k back? YOU ARE SPECULATING DECKER, get it? Neither of us actually KNOW.]

14. [Yep. No doubt about it. The world operates every day under the normal, "good enough" situation. The point is Decker that there has NEVER been a circumstance like Y2k before which could cause disruptions in such broad terms in every area of the modern human experience AND have the capacity to create the kinds of burdens currently under speculation. Under the burdens caused by y2k disruptions the speculation is whether or not society and the economy will continue to function in terms which will not cause a serious loss in comfort, living conditions, and the health and safety of all of us. The bottom line is NO ONE KNOWS.]

Regards, [same to you buddy <> jk]

I really could have written, "Ditto BigDog" regarding his last post and felt very comfortable.

Mike ===============

-- Michael Taylor (mtdesign3@aol.com), June 03, 1999.

Lon,

I wish I would have checked back before I made my post. I would have wanted you to have the last word.

Great post sir. Thank you.

Mike ==================================================================

-- Michael Taylor (mtdesign3@aol.com), June 03, 1999.

Mike,

One of the wonderful things about this forum is that NOBODY ever gets the last word. :) Thanks anyway for the kind response; I've learned to read your posts.

-- Lon Frank (Postit@here.com), June 03, 1999.

K. Decker wrote:

<< Please feel free to give me a list of every nationally recognized software expert who agrees with Yourdon. >>

Your clear implication here is that there aren't any. Note first that there are few "nationally recognized software experts" to begin with and fewer still who have said anything publicly about Y2K. Their silence, of course, proves nothing one way or another.

But you clearly imply that one can't really find "software experts" (dropping the "nationally recognized" modifier as useless) who agree with Mr. Yourdon.

Well try http://www.russkelly.com/experts.html for starters.

Then count the heads on this forum. I dare say that there are quite a number of us who qualify as experts in our chosen field of software development. I, for one, agree exactly with Mr. Yourdon that Y2K will not be TEOTW but will facilitate a serious global depression. I have stated my reasons on a thread "Why I Am Still Gloomy" which, I note, you never weighed in on, Mr. Decker. Like many, I appreciated your early contributions to this forum but have found that you are merely nibbling around the edges of the evidence and never get around to addressing the core.

And BTW, I am most disappointed that you are so critical of a book (TB2000) that you have not read. Bad form, Mr. Decker, bad form.

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

Buddy, you seem a bit defensive. I said at the start that I didn't think it was you, because I didn't think you would do such a thing. Now, after your other remarks on this thread, I'm not so sure. Was it just a coincidence that you typed in the e-mail EXACTLY the way it was on the Fruitcake thread? The odds are astronomical against it.

-- Gayla Dunbar (privacy@please.com), June 03, 1999.

OutingsR has perspective too. And from that perspective comes this question: who's enhanced your life more -- Ed Yourdon and friends or K. C. Decker and friends?

-- OutingsR (us@here.yar), June 03, 1999.

Among DECKERS DEMANDS...

2. If Yourdon has not made money on his many Y2K ventures, I'll have to reconsider my opinion of his business acumen. The list of ventures, however, is public knowledge. -- Decker

Well, rather than SPECULATE, why dont you just ask him... directly, Decker?

We recognize that being direct is not your forte however DEMANDING, semi-politely, is.

Perhaps, you might just re-evaluate that entrenched opinion of yours. But I doubt it.

Which part of the Y2K elephant are you exploring, Decker? Blinded by something?

BB (peace2u@bellatlantic.net),

Maybe he is just burnt out and needed to quit. If he had said that, I would have quickly jumped to his full defense. But HL, until he gives me a better reason, you can say he stopped, and I will say he quit. - - BB

To you I also say... ask Ed directly. Rather than assuming.

You might become satisfied with the answer.

I did, as have many of us privately, and I am satisfied.

Diane, tired of the inane speculation too.

(OutingsR... Ed... hands down!)

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), June 03, 1999.

For starters, anything about economics aka the banking system. Yourdon claims his daughter is an economist, but she has a B.A. in economics from Trinity and has done "some" graduate classes. Close, but no cigar. Why don't you provide one review of TB 2000 written by a nationally respected economist who agree with Yourdon. Just one.

Mr. Decker:

Very few economists have studied Y2K and could thus be considered experts on the subject. I doubt that economists have worked up any econometric models on Y2K. So let's make this easy. Give us your review of the chapter "Year-2000 Impact on Jobs" from the book Time Bomb 2000.

Have you or have you not read the book?

(from the 1st edition)

Chapter 2 Year-2000 Impact on Jobs, 19

Introduction, 19
How Could the Year-2000 Problem Cause All of This?, 35
Fallback Advice: The Two-Day Shutdown, 40
Fallback Advice: The One-Month Shutdown, 41
Fallback Advice: The One-Year Shutdown, 47
Fallback Advice: The Ten-Year Shutdown, 50
Endnotes, 57

-- (who@really.cares), June 03, 1999.

Thanks to the folks who took the time to weigh in. For the record, I read TB 2000 and then gave the book to a family member. In all honesty, I have read much better books, fiction and nonfiction, on the "end of the world" and "preparations." If you check the fallback planning archives, you'll see my recommendations for a "Y2K library" as well as many forum regulars talking about their favorite "reads."

For the record, I harbor no ill will for Ed Yourdon. He has been polite in our infrequent on-line contacts. I have openly admired his business savvy and we do agree on issues like free enterprise.

We disagree on the application of metrics to Y2K and the resiliance of the free market system. Unlike Yourdon, I don't think the government will fall or that major cities will go "Beirut." I question the inherent conflict of interest between Y2K commentator and Y2K businessperson... but all these are just honest disagreements, I suppose.

On reflection, my original post could have been much less pointed. It is just difficult for me to understand "hanging up the spikes" if, indeed, our entire civilization hangs in the balance. As a former member of the U.S. Military, my view may be biased. During the Memorial Day weekend, I remembered the brave men and women who made the ultimate sacrifice to protect this country. Our freedoms have been paid for by those who did not leave the battle, by those who fought until the end.

Perhaps it is unfair to hold Ed Yourdon to this standard. I hope at least some members of the forum understand... the bar for my heroes is high.

Regards,

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

<< For the record, I read TB 2000 >>

Oooo, ouch! I was hoping you wouldn't say this. Alas, Mr. Decker, I had given you the benefit of the doubt that you were merely being shifty, trying to pull a fast one by commenting on something you hadn't actually read. But now your bogus comments on the book leave only two possible options: you're stupid or you're dishonest. And you're not stupid. So that leaves....

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

Diane,

According to his webpage "Email messages sent to ed@yourdon.com WILL NO LONGER BE ANSWERED." Sounds like he doesn't want to be bothered doesn't it?

-- BB (peace2u@bellatlantic.net), June 03, 1999.

Well, I hate to post after Decker made more remarks.

However, I must set Gayla straight. Gayla, you said, "Was it just a coincidence that you typed in the e-mail EXACTLY the way it was on the Fruitcake thread? The odds are astronomical against it. "

You seem to need a lesson in Internet 101. How hard is it to type .@...? That's what you are concerning yourself with. I could just as easily type your email address on my post. Would that make you think it was your post? If I seem a bit defensive it is because you brought my name up in connection with something I never would have done.

-- Buddy (........@..........), June 03, 1999.

BB,

That doesn't necessarily mean he has stopped all communications. (Though it might by now). Why don't you post your question to him?

Who knows? Kind'a like Y2K. You don't know something until you test it.

(My motto anyway).

Speaking of which...

Mr. Decker.... Would you care to offer your opinion on what problems you DO anticipae Y2K causing next year, if any?

Diane

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), June 03, 1999.

"anticipate"

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), June 03, 1999.

Buddy, I'm glad to hear you say that. While I was waiting to hear back from you, I went back to find the thread where you "confessed" to all of your different names. Here it is:

"Doomslayer a.k.a. Buddy a.k.a. Average Joe a.k.a .@... a.k.a. several other random troll names, but none of the other well-known ones.

-- Doomslayer (1@2.3), April 30, 1999."

(Emphasis mine.) Interesting that each time it's exactly the same.

-- Gayla Dunbar (privacy@please.com), June 03, 1999.

Diane,

To tell the truth Diane, I'm not that interested into prying into Mr. Yourdon's privacy, especially since he has requested to be left alone.

Hey, I got it, why don't you just email me privately and share this privileged information. b

-- BB (peace2u@bellatlantic.net), June 03, 1999.

We should be discussing prep strategies, community planning, etc., but apparently we easily get distracted by posts such as this.

If you haven't done so already, please read:

The Twenty-Five Rules of Disinformation - The Politicians Credo
http://www.tr ufax.org/research2/disinforules.html

Time spent arguing over something that's said and done gives one less to address what needs to be done. If you'd rather argue amongst yourselves why Ed left versus what you have to do/keep on the lookout in the coming months, go for it.

-- Tim (pixmo@pixelquest.com), June 03, 1999.

BB,

Because it is private. I'm sure *many* others e-mailed him too after his announcement. And they'll honor their communications too.

Go re-read his "Sayonara, Y2K" again. Carefully. Put it context with where he had been that week, and who he openly posted that he had met with, besides the Senate hearing committee.

And consider, what would you do if the D.C. response to Y2K Community Preparation was... Koskinen's "Community Conversations?" And just after the 60-minutes piece aired nationally on Y2K conditions in our nation's capitol? Pitiful.

Personally, Ida kicked Koskinen in the shins. (And wouldn't have hesitated at the President either).

If you want to point to the "real" quitters... numero uno sits in the Oval office, and John-boy at his right hand.

So many Y2K grassroots activists were flabbergasted by Washington last week, that several of them tossed in the towel too.

As far a Im concerned, the only politician Id consider voting for-- for ANYTHING in 2000--much less President, is Senator Bennett. And Im a Democrat.

Be prepared, is the only wisdom worth knowing and acting upon, now.

Washington isnt wise or prepared, and they dont want you to be either.

So, that said, set your sight on "what's important."

Diane

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), June 03, 1999.

Interesting threads...

Why John Koskinen puts a happy face on his public announcements with an explanation of what he is trying to do behjind the scenes based on information obtained by a person who has interviewed him. The link is

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id= 000tYB

Say it Isn't So Ed ! He is leaving ! (Includes full-text Sayonara, Y2K)

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id= 000t7S

On Ed Yourdon

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id= 000tfN

Ed Yourdon's "Sayonara Y2K" Gives Me Pause (Tom Atlees E-List Message)

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id= 000taE

Y2K essays, links and resources remain on my site, for now...

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id= 000tNi

Parsing Ed's Statement (Long) -- Then On With It

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id= 000tJJ

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), June 03, 1999.

Well, David, thanks. Let me write this down. The true test of intelligence and integrity is to read Ed Yourdon's book. I was not aware Ed was writing the Scriptures... I must have missed the part where God dictated the book through a burning mainframe. What's next, David, the Shroud of Yourdon?

Dianne, I have weighed in with my predictions... gloomy as they may be. Hard recession next year caused by a combination of Y2K and an economy with no legs left. My "preps" are on record as well... they exceed the Red Cross, but fall short of the bunker brigade. In fact, Dianne, on the rare occasion someone asks a reasonable question, I try to provide a reasonable answer.

Regards,

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

Diane said:

"Put it context with where he had been that week, and who he openly posted that he had met with, besides the Senate hearing committee"

Who? At least point me to the post that reveals who.

-- ? (??@??.??), June 03, 1999.

Ed has not quit. He has redoubled his efforts to get his family and homestead prepared. His hiatus is a redirection of energy completely into personal contingency planning and doing. He received information that showed Y2K will be worse than expected, that the government will not be able to turn around their approach and face Y2K squarely. He saw that time even for talk was short, so warned us all and is busy with his own life, which he has taken back JI

-- h (h@h.h), June 03, 1999.

Mr. Decker

I'm sure Ed Yourdon has spoken until he has turned many shades of blue in the face. He has done all he can do in his mind. Lawyers and Politicians have kept his face a blue hue. Mr. Decker, you sir are also a factor in the blue faces of Yourdon and the rest of the G.I.'s. The analogy of patriotism has merit when people make attempts to try collectively. I don't know if you realise how dangerous the game really is. The almighty dollar and system you worship has some dark representation. Being blue in the face at the same time opposing leaders who are playing hush hush, you sir would also find some reprieve. The bats are greased for good and the game masters and game players know it! I think I'll let off before I turn blue in the face.

-- Feller (feller@wanna.help), June 03, 1999.

Decker, try not to be an ass, just once, eh? I would say that it is a mark of either stupidity or dishonesty to read a man's book (any man's book, you twit!) and misrepresent its contents. As I've said, you're not stupid but you are doubly confirmed to be dishonest.

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

Geez, Gayla, you're connecting too many dots from too many different pages. It wasn't me ok. How many others have posted with .@... or space@space.space or ?@?.? (even on this thread)

C'mon

-- Buddy (buddydc@go.com), June 03, 1999.

Gosh, Dave, harsh language. Why don't you rush over to:

http://www.y2kopportunity.com/

Sign up for Ed Yourdon's multi-level marketing business. Get in on the ground floor and make some money on the coming Apocalypse. Why don't you visit the web page, Dave, and tell me what you think.

Next, lest you think I am the only person on the planet who doesn't worship Yourdon....

"T H E C O B O L R E P O R T

An Open Letter to Ed Yourdon

Editors note - Ed Yourdon was sent a copy of this column to provide him an opportunity to respond. He declined, citing a lack of time.

How long does a community of programmers stand by and listen while their professional accomplishments, reputations, and very intelligence are disparaged and attacked? How many inflammatory statements does it take to cross the line before saying enough is enough?

The time is now. Enough is enough. This column usually takes an impartial third-person tone: the gentlemanly approach to editorialize. Not today. It is time to replace the "We" with "I" and get into the fray on a first-name basis. It has gotten personal. Although never much of a fan, I was, nonetheless, reading Ed Yourdons Rise and Resurrection of the American Programmer when his constant harangue on all things Cobol finally took their toll. It was not that Yourdon simply has negative things to say about Cobol, I appreciate honest criticism of Cobol, it is that his criticisms are without merit and groundless.

Originally entitled "Ed Yourdon is a ****" I restrained myself, and toned down the columns title. As tempting as it is to respond, in kind, to Yourdons mindless attacks I will instead concentrate on some of his statements concerning Cobol from Rise and Resurrection. Yourdon - "... then it's only a matter of time before all the existing COBOL programmers die of old age. Hopefully, the legacy COBOL code which has been estimated at 18-200 billion lines of code will die with them. Or, if it must be kept alive, maybe it will all be outsourced to some part of the world where COBOL maintenance programming is considered a pleasant alternative to growing rice or raising pigs."

Ed, Ed, Ed. In only three sentences you manage to insult a group of over two million Cobol programmers, and much of the third worlds population. I doubt there are many pig or rice farmers who could maintain, or enhance a Cobol application. Perhaps you should share your thoughts with the Human Resource departments who are paying premium finder fees to locate Cobol programmers.

Although you may wish for the demise of Cobol the Gartner Group estimates that 2-5 billion lines of new Cobol code are added to the base each year. Were not talking maintenance, or enhancements - this is new code, Ed. In addition, the Gartner Group found 65 percent of all new mission-critical applications in 1995 were written in Cobol. A 1995 study by Dataquest found Cobol for Windows based machines growing at 75 percent a year. A study by Sentry Market Research in 1996 found Cobol to be the second-favored language for developing client-server applications. Sentry Market Research, in 1996, found Cobol to be the only language rated more positively today than in 1993.

Yourdon - "The American (COBOL) programmer is dead; long live the American (Internet) programmer."

Ed, you can code Internet applications using Cobol. Micro Focus has extended the capability of the Accept and Display verbs to receive and present HTTP data. Parsing and deciphering HTML name/value pairs is no longer part of the business programming equation - it is accomplished behind the scenes where it belongs. Cobol as the interface language relieves managers who no longer need to deploy Perl scripts of questionable security. The ability to use Cobol as the CGI language almost immediately allows legacy code to be Web- enabled, scaling up to a potentially limitless user-base overnight. Cobol as the gatekeeper brings the power of Cobols preeminent data- manipulation features into play; allows the gateway program to talk to other programs, databases, and transaction monitors; and leverages existing skill sets. Other Cobol vendors are working on similar solutions.

Fujitsu markets NetCobol, a compiler that translates Cobol code into 100% pure Java bytecodes. The Fujitsu solution is the realization of the one suggested by James Gosling (the creator of Java) when he stated, "I think COBOL is a fairly reasonable bet for the Java VM." The reality is the American Internet programmer is, quite probably, a Cobol programmer. I hope I didnt frighten you Ed. Yourdon - "The hundred person COBOL projects are being replaced by five-person Visual Basic projects that renders our Cobol programmers expertise in MVS, JCL, CICS, and IMS utterly irrelevant." That means one Visual Basic programmer can do the work of twenty Cobol programmers. I program in Visual Basic, and I had no idea I was doing twenty times more work than when coding in Cobol. The Cobol application I was going to write in about eight months, I will now write in Visual Basic. With my new Yourdon (1=20) math skills it should only take me about a week and a half. Thanks Ed. MVS is becoming OS/390, mainframes are morphing into safe, secure servers, and IBM is actively developing middleware to complement and extend CICS, as well as introduce other transaction servers, across a sea of platforms. Cobol fits right into the picture with CORBAs recent standard for distributed Cobol objects, allowing Cobol to interoperate with other distributed objects around the Web and around the world. Your fixation with the past, Ed, fails to recognize the work accomplished by the Cobol community over the past ten years. Yourdon - "...one could make the same Darwinian argument in favor of wholesale sacking of COBOL programmers and their replacement with younger, cheaper C++ programmers."

Here are the facts Ed. A study by IDC Technology in 1993 found C and C++ programmers to be among the most expensive in the market. The study further found, "The typical C programmer gets bogged down in a myriad of detail that a more business-oriented language, such as, Cobol, has been taking care of automatically during the 30 years of its existence."

A few other highlights of the study found the following:  "Neither C or C++ is well suited to the requirements of IS organizations developing business applications."  "Most experts today consider the Cobol language to be far more portable, and standardized, than the C/C++ languages."  "Cobol compilers now achieve performance levels that are on a par with, or even better than C compilers."  "C code is almost impossible to maintain."  "Although many IS organizations use C to develop business applications, no vendor believes this is a wise direction."

Companies are always anxious to save money Ed. How about if you and I go see a Fortune 500 CIO whose companys existence depends on their information technology, and propose saving the company money by firing every Cobol programmer and hiring recent C++ college graduates? I bet we get thrown out, and rightly so, within a minute. What is there to conclude about Yourdons criticisms on all things Cobol? One must first look at Yourdons agenda. As Robert L. Glass so delicately puts it in Februarys IEEE Software, "... Ed is selling solutions in some form or other, and it is much easier to sell them to people who have come to believe that their practitioners are indeed sloppy, undisciplined hackers..." Pure and simple Yourdon is a salesman. When Willie Sutton was asked why he robbed banks he replied, "Because thats where the money is." The biggest banks on the block use Cobol. The key is picking the Cobol lock. Cobol doesnt release new updates every six months, obsolescing everything from before. To make a living, the Yourdon-way, you need to convince people Cobol is no good and get them on the upgrade treadmill. Divorce them from proven technology. Different technology demands new processes, controls, training, and a host of other billable services.

Enter Ed Yourdon.

Yourdon fancies himself a software clairvoyant. Someone who can perceive the twists and turns of the industry and advise its practitioners when to bob and when to weave. At least that is what he would like you to believe. A delicious irony, the Year 2000, and its soaring appetite for Cobol coders, makes short shrift of Yourdons self-ordained guru status. As far back as the early 90s, Peter deJager, Bob Bemer, and others were warning business of the looming millennium obstacle. One only needed to look at the supply of Cobol programmers, the inventory of legacy code and conclude the obvious - rising wages. Yet Yourdon couldnt see past his own biases to advise programmers to stay with Cobol and reap the coming financial windfall.

Consistent in promoting himself, and not just wrong, but dead-wrong, for almost 25 years, Yourdons legacy is in keeping with one of Americas finest traditions: snake-oil salesman.

Edmund C. Arranga"

Regards,

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

Diane, I'm not into puzzles and riddles right now. Truly, thanks for taking the time to help me see it from another perspective. I am ready to move on and continue to warn others about the coming troubles (judgments) that are coming to a town near you.

Let us join together in new determination and zeal to continue to shout out and warn all we know to prepare. Ezekiel 33:1-9. In the end... all we can answer for is how we individually responded in word and deed. b

-- bb (peace2u@bellatlantic.net), June 03, 1999.

Drecker is employed by a nonprofit human services agency. His paycheck comes from taxes and/or private donations. That means we're payng at least part of his wages, if not all -- while he sits in his cube and types his daytime dreck. You can see why it's a nonprofit agency. (laughter)

-- OutingsR (us@here.yar), June 03, 1999.

Ken Decker,

You sure arent like the kind of people I lived and worked with near Buffalo/Sheridan Wyoming. Those people were/are for the most part, we and us people. You and your ilk are most certainly I and me people. You and your ilk are a one shot generation, you have failed!

My people know that history does not start with us or end with us. We are concerned about our families and about generations yet unborn.

You and your ilk have lost, but you are still very dangerous.

Abjuring the Realm,

Christus Victor!,

BR

-- brother rat (rldabney@usa.net), June 03, 1999.

Link

http://204.202.137.113/sections/tech/DailyNews/chat_990212yourdon.html

Ed Yourdon
Y2K: Are You Prepared?

ABCNEWS.com

Feb. 12  What will happen on Jan. 1, 2000? Will the computer glitch known as the millennium bug cause life-support systems to fail and planes to fall out of the sky? We talked to Ed Yourdon, one of the world's leading authorities on software development and author of The New York Times best-seller Time Bomb 2000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------
Moderator at 1:01pm ET
Ed Yourdon now joins us. Welcome.
---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------
Sterling Hill from dialup.mindspring.com at 1:04pm ET Please explain the difference between Y2K ready and Y2K Compliant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------
Ed Yourdon at 1:04pm ET
Everyone is inventing their own definitions for Y2K ready and Y2K compliant. It's important to ask the companies what they mean by these terms since there is no universally accepted definition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------
Brent Larson from mnext.umn.edu at 1:05pm ET
With all the computer technology available, why can't these situations be simulated in the critical environments we hear so much about so we know what is going to happen?
---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------
Ed Yourdon at 1:06pm ET
The difficulty with simulation is that there are so many interconnections between components of any system. So it's impossible, for example, to simulate the behavior of the entire international telecommunications system or the behavior of the entire national power grid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------
nglover from [38.29.63.42], at 1:07pm ET
Don't you think the Y2K problem is really overblown and meant to be a money pit for ignorant people who just don't understand the problem completely?
---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------
Ed Yourdon at 1:07pm ET
No, I don't think it's overblown. There are some areas that have been exaggerated but, in general, it's a potentially very serious problem that has been underappreciated by most people.
---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------
Al Conger from [206.242.150.66], at 1:08pm ET
Does the average person need to make special preparations for Y2K? If so, what?
---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------
Ed Yourdon at 1:10pm ET
The average person needs to assess where he might be vulnerable to Y2K problems and then needs to decide whether to prepare for a disruption of a few days, a few weeks, or a few months. For most people, this would usually involve a modest amount of stockpiling for basic supplies. For example, the Red Cross recommends stockpiling a weeks' worth of food.
---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------
Shedel from [207.4.188.144], at 1:11pm ET
Mr. Yourdon, My big question is this: What do you really think the odds are that the power grid could go down for a significant period of time? In my opinion, this is the one big factor that could lead to a doomsday scenario. Everything else, we'll recover from... eventually.
---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------
Ed Yourdon at 1:11pm ET
Most experts now believe that we will not suffer a nationwide power failure. But we may experience localized power disruptions in various cities, perhaps lasting as long as a few days or a week.
---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------
Dan Campanelli (dkc114@technol from [131.220.59.85], at 1:12pm ET Mr. Yourdon, Do you believe the fallout from the Y2K situation will be seen before Jan. 1. 2000? I have heard that the markets will take a tumble in the last half of the Year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------
Ed Yourdon at 1:14pm ET
The Wall Street reaction to Y2K will probably depend upon the outcome of certain Y2K "Trigger Dates." These include April 1st (beginning of 1999-2000 fiscal year for New York State and Canada), and July 1st (beginning of 1999-2000 fiscal year for 46 additional states). ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------
Brett Dalrymple from sugar-land.omnes.net at 1:14pm ET
How have your views on the Y2K problem changed since your book on the subject was published?
---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------
Ed Yourdon at 1:15pm ET
My opinion about Y2K has become more pessimistic since the original publication of my book. The reason is that we have more evidence now that small companies are not preparing for Y2K. Similarly, there is more evidence now that small towns and small countries are not preparing for Y2K.
---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------
Mike McKulka from [144.170.168.203], at 1:16pm ET
After reading the world bank report about non-industrialized nations, and realizing that 3/4 of them will never come close to being Y2K compliant, what are your thoughts on how this will affect the rest of the world and the global economy. How can we support contingency planning for these masses of humanity?
---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------
Ed Yourdon at 1:17pm ET
Most recent studies agree that developing nations are far behind schedule with Y2K. This will almost certainly cause a massive disruption in the global economy. The United Nations discussed this problem in a Y2K Summit Conference on Dec. 11, 1998, but there is no obvious solution to the problem.
---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------
Timothy G. from [146.132.234.8], at 1:18pm ET
Mr. Yourdon, With the number of embedded chips in computer systems estimated as high as 70 billion, only a small percentage of some reportedly will be affected by the millennium bug. But this small percentage is still a very big number. How will these rotten eggs spoil the meal?
---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------
Ed Yourdon at 1: ET
The concern about embedded systems is that they are used to control critical manufacturing processes. It's often difficult to locate and identify the non-compliant embedded systems, and there is often significant delay in obtaining a compliant replacement. Thus, if a problem does occur, it may not be possible to fix it quickly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------
Ray from [198.85.45.138], at 1:20pm ET
Can we take some "comfort" in the fact that the Gartner Group has stated that only 8% of Y2K related problems will occur at the "witching" hour? The rest of the problems are already starting to happen now and will continue to happen well past the year 2000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------
Ed Yourdon at 1:22pm ET
There is some comfort from the statement, because we may have an early warning of Y2K problems that would otherwise have been ignored. And it may give us more time to fix the problems rather than being confronted with a need to fix all the problems at one instant in time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------
Kelly Moore from [209.75.154.110], at 1:22pm ET
What are you planning to do to prepare for Y2K, and what do you suggest families on a strict budget do to prepare?
---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------
Ed Yourdon at 1:24pm ET
I have moved to New Mexico and have installed a solar panel on my roof to generate electricity as well as making many other plans. For families on a tight budget, you need to begin making modest preparations as soon as possible, a little at a time. Buy a little bit of extra food each week and set aside a little bit of extra cash each week.
---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------
Emily Turrettini from zurich.ch.pub-ip.eu.psi.net at 1:26pm ET
Dear Mr. Yourden: I Follow Y2K news daily and I have never come across an article with regard to the automobile industry. I know cars have many embedded chips but not if they have dates in them. Will we be able to open our car doors, use our breaks?
---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------
Ed Yourdon at 1:26pm ET
The vast majority of consumer automobiles should be safe. A few models of high-end sophisticated automobiles may have problems with GPS Navigation Systems and other embedded chips. But most of the problems will occur in industrial vehicles such as buses, fire engines, and heavy duty trucks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------
Amy from atlanta-05-10rs.ga.dial-access.att.net at 1:27pm ET
How likely are we to experience a disruption in the supply of food and gasoline, and to what extent?
---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------
Ed Yourdon at 1:29pm ET
Food disruptions could occur in many different areas. For example, most grocery stores are re-stocked every 72 hours. So if there is a disruption in transportation, that could cause a disruption in availability of groceries. And if there is a disruption in shipping, it could cause a disruption in imported foods. For example, 60% of the fish consumed in this country is imported. Regarding gasoline, there may be disruptions in oil wells, the oil tankers, refineries, and the distribution of refined gasoline to the gasoline stations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------
Inman (thinman@digisys.net) from [205.138.110.159], at 1:30pm ET Mr. Yourdon: Are the large cities more vulnerable to extended power and other utility problems than the rural areas? If so, how are the police and other agencies gearing up ahead of time to prevent widespread looting? In my opinion, this will be catalyst for the breakdown of society.
---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------
Ed Yourdon at 1:34pm ET
Large cities and rural communities are both vulnerable to power disruptions. However, residents of the suburban or the rural community usually have the option of buying their own generator or providing some form of alternative energy (such as solar panels). Residents of an urban city usually have no control over their basic utilities. A long term disruption in power or water or other basic utilities certainly could lead to civil unrest. There are rumors of plans being made by the National Guard and other government agencies to provide emergency services in the event of a Y2K breakdown, but none of this has been confirmed by government authorities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------
Gary Hansbrough from mix1.sacramento.cw.net at 1:34pm ET
When I talk to computer industry insiders, most of them seem to think Y2K is mostly hype that a lot of people are promoting to make a buck off of. Honestly, how much are you profiting from it and why should I believe this doesn't skew your views on it?
---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------
Ed Yourdon at 1:37pm ET
I am a making no more of a profit for my Y2K activities than I was in the past with my other computer activities. Regarding the question of hype, you should ask why the IRS is spending $1 billion on Y2K repairs. Why is AT&T spending $500 million on Y2K and why is Citibank spending $650 million on Y2K repairs? If Y2K is so simple, why has the federal government budget for Y2K tripled within the past 18 months.
---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------
Arnoldo Rodriguez from [160.94.112.88], at 1:37pm ET
Who is responsible for the Y2K bug? Should we press for further action against them?
---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------
Ed Yourdon at 1:40pm ET
The best history of the Y2K bug was published in an article in the Jan. 1999 of Vanity Fair Magazine. Historically, almost every programmer created Y2K bugs deliberately in the 1960's because we had such limited computer memory available. So the question is not who created the problem, but why we did not start dealing with the problem sooner. The answer is that procrastination is a universal American habit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------
Leslie W. Elaine,AR from [150.208.115.118], at 1:41pm ET
How and why do you think that there is going to be a global economic depression as a worst case scenario?
---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------
Ed Yourdon at 1:43pm ET
We are likely to see failures of some international banking systems. We are likely to see bankruptcies of industrial organizations around the world because of Y2K problems. And we are likely to see problems in air transportation and air shipping which will disrupt global trade.
---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------
Melissa from [205.188.195.26], at 1:44pm ET
Mr. Yourdon, Do you see any real possibility of threat to our national security as a result of Y2K on nuclear tracking devices?
---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------
Ed Yourdon at 1:45pm ET
There are potential threats caused by terrorists who might try to take advantage of Y2K disruptions. And the military has expressed concern about possible Y2K problems in early warning systems. But they express confidence that nuclear weapons themselves will remain safe.
---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------
Karen from [209.240.197.33], at 1:46pm ET
In your opinion what, if anything, should the government be doing differently in the way they are handlng the Y2K problem? Especially with regard to what they are telling the public?
---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------
Ed Yourdon at 1:48pm ET
I believe the government should be much more candid and forthright about potential Y2K problems. And I think the government should be publishing recommended Y2K contingency plans much like the Red Cross has done on their website. Unfortunately, government is likely to be part of the problem rather than part of the solution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------
Jason Brittain from [216.15.103.34], at 1:49pm ET
Mr. Yourdon: I have read several news stories on the Net about the potential for Y2k nuclear disasters such as nuclear reactor meltdowns and Y2k-triggered nuclear missile launches from around the world. As a software engineer, I see this as a very real possibility, and I worry about it. What (if anything) have you heard about serious government effort to prevent these life-threatening Y2k problems?
---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------
Ed Yourdon at 1:50pm ET
As you might imagine, most of the information about nuclear weapons is highly classified. So we can only hope that military officials have had the common sense to carefully check potential Y2K problems in nuclear weapons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------
Prasad Ram from [4.11.247.69], at 1:51pm ET
Would the Y2K bug affect Bio-electronics, like heart monitors and so on? If so, will the liability to correct fall on the manufacturer? Lastly, how will Y2K bug affect such equipment sold to third world countries? Thanks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------
Ed Yourdon at 1:53pm ET
Most hospitals have discovered that they have hundreds of medical devices that contain embedded systems and each of these must be checked to see whether a Y2K problem might have life-threatening consequences. Pace makers for example, will not stop or explode if they have a Y2K problem, but they might record erroneous information about a patient's heart condition. This could lead to a faulty diagnosis on the part of the doctor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------
michael from [206.148.52.140], at 1:53pm ET
It seems inevitable that some sectors will try to take advantage of a global crisis. Which businesses or people in power do you see benefiting the most in the Y2K fallout?
---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------
Ed Yourdon at 1:55pm ET
Some companies may achieve competitive advantage simply because they are Y2K compliant, while their competitors experience Y2K problems. On a global scale, the United States might gain an advantage because we have taken the Y2K problem more seriously than most other countries around the world.
---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------
Brent Sundberg from kellogg.com at 1:56pm ET
What risk do we have of losing money in the financial institutions at the turn of the century? Are there good alternative havens during that period?
---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------
Ed Yourdon at 1:58pm ET
Of all the industries working on Y2K, the banking and financial industry has the greatest sense of urgency and has made the most progress in achieving Y2K compliance. But there is no absolute guarantee that every bank will be safe, or that the American banking system will remain unaffected by Y2K problems that might occur in international banks. On the other hand, there may be a greater risk caused by panic and bank runs than the risk of actual Y2K problems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------
Dennis Chimelis from [208.225.13.10], at 1:59pm ET
Aren't we creating a potentially dangerous atmosphere by overhyping the so-called Y2K bug? Making the public aware is one thing, causing the public to panic with a run at the bank in 12/99 is quite another.
---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------
Ed Yourdon at 2:01pm ET
There is a fine line between awarenes and panic, and the best way of preventing panic is to provide detailed credible information that can be verified by an independent third party. Unfortunately, none of the banks have provided a detailed description of the state of their Y2K compliance that has been subjected to a third party audit. They are simply asking us to trust their assurances of Y2K progress.
---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------
Moderator at 2:07pm ET
Any final thoughts, Ed?
---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------
Ed Yourdon at 2:08pm ET
I'd like to offer my best wishes for whatever Y2K plans you might be making. For more information, feel free to visit my website at www.yourdon.com.
---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------
Moderator at 2:11pm ET
Thanks for joining us everyone. Sorry we couldn't get to all of your questions ... we had nearly 500 in the queue

-- (thank@you.Ed), June 03, 1999.

Bold off.

-- (thank@you.Ed), June 03, 1999.

Poor Dickhead Decker. He can't get over his jealousy of Ed Yourdon. Yourdon discovers that a potentially civilization destroying problem is heading our way, devotes his career to getting the message out, tries to make money in the process, and Decker thinks that it's just not fair. I can hear Decker ranting to himself now:

Why, the nerve of that Ed Yourdon! He should be providing his book for free! What's that? Oh that's right, he was providing it for free.

Well, then he should be devoting his time free of charge to testify before Congress! Huh? Oh...yeah...he was doing that.

Well...he should sponsor an online forum, at no cost, so the situation can be debated! Ah, hmmm...that's what we're posting on right now.

Well...well...HE'S A QUITTER!

Maybe you should sign up, Decker. You could raise money to buy more petunias for your place in the mountains.

And as for the "sour grapes" from COBOL's finest...thanks for re-posting it. I got almost as much of a laugh out of the "you can code Internet applications using Cobol" part as I did the first time I saw it. You can build houses out of old shipping pallets too...but why in the hell would you want to?

-- a (a@a.a), June 03, 1999.

BB,

Just for you. A few snips.

Diane

PAGING MR. YOURDON, PLEASE

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id= 000rX1

[snip]

Thanks, I'll try to track it down and read it. I've just arrived here in DC (late Sunday night), and am planning to attend John Koskinen's press briefing Mon AM, where he will apparently be "rolling out" the governmental initiative for community Y2K awareness. Have heard various rumors, but not sure of the details.

Also still trying to whittle down the written testimony that I've prepared for the Tuesday hearing into five cogent minutes. Will post the written testimony on my site on Tuesday.

Thanks for your good wishes ...

Ed

-- Ed Yourdon (ed@yourdon.com), May 23, 1999.

[snip]

WHERE'S..... ED'S....... SPEECH?

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id= 000ri0

[snip]

I'll be posting the written testimony early Tues morning. Will post the oral testimony sometime Tues night or Weds morning.

Ed

-- Ed Yourdon (ed@yourdon.com), May 24, 1999.

[snip]

And under...

Oral Remarks Posted for May 25 Senate Y2K hearing

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id= 000s62

I've posted a text version of my oral remarks before the Senate Y2K committee this morning. Unfortunately, I had to cut a couple paragraphs out of even this limited amount of material, as the "you're just about outa time" light went on in front of Senator Bennett's desk.

It was hard to tell what impact, if any, the remarks had. Unfortunately, it was predicated on my having something to say to each of the members of the committee ... but the only ones there were Senator Bennett, Senator Dodd (who arrived late), and (for the first 10 minutes) ex-officio member Senator Stevens. Senators Collins, Edwards, Moynihan, Kyl, and Smith did not attend the hearing. C'est la vie, I guess.

Ed

-- Ed Yourdon (ed@yourdon.com), May 25, 1999

[snip]

See also Douglass Charmichaels remarks about Koskinen meeting...

Y2K Chair John Koskinen Honored as Public Sector Executive of the Year

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id= 000sLZ

[snip]

[Recall that ED was AT THIS MEETING]

From Douglass Carmichaels latest Y2KWEEKX
Week 32 issue 36 May 26, 1999

http://tmn.com/y2k

[BTW, lots of good stuff].

[snip]

Monday's big news was the President's Council on Year 2000 Conversion official press conference announcement of the "Community Conversations" campaign. The only media coverage I know of was CSPAN outside the web based news.

I attended this event and although I applaud the effort I am unimpressed. Council Chair John Koskinen invited representatives from the American Bankers Association, the National Conference of State Legislatures, the North American Electric Reliability Council, the American Hospital Association, the Clearwater, Florida based Citizens for a Stable Community and Frost Bank in San Antonio, Texas to endorse this endeavor. The strongest message was: "We need to build confidence in the infrastructure"

My questions is: how does confidence lead to preparedness? I think it encourages us to not prepare. If there is no problem, why worry? John Koskinen and Judith (Joose) Hadley from Citizens for a Stable Community were the only voices calling for preparedness. But they didn't do it strongly or with enough sense of urgency. In fact I thought it was interesting that the Council chose Joose as the only community organizer on the panel. Although she is clearly well connected in her local community and doing great efforts to raise awareness and work with the local infrastructure, JK had never met her and she has had little contact with the rest of the Y2k community network. Why would he not want one of the well networked vocal community awareness spokespeople up on the podium? Why pull a stranger from a bubble? What was he afraid of? Would one of us have said the wrong thing? I think so.

All of the statements were prepared in advance btw. Were they approved ahead of time? They were certainly seen ahead of time. I learned yesterday that the Council has hired a number of hot shot PR consultants to run the media campaign around the conversations. A team of them flew to Hartford, CT where the first official "Conversion" will take place on June 7th. What are they being told to say, what will they be doing to make sure these events get strong participation, will they work with us? I intend to find out and let you know. -- Douglass Carmichael

[snip--to end]

See also...

Koskinen and the National Press Club (Transcript about Community Conversations)

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id= 000tON

And also...

Atlee: How should we respond to "Y2K Community Conversations"?

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id= 000rzQ

After reading all that, you figure it out.

(And don't forget to read ALL the Senate Testimony--both Oral and written--and the 60-minutes Washinton DC transcript).

Diane

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), June 04, 1999.

Ed has not quit. He has redoubled his efforts to get his family and homestead prepared. His hiatus is a redirection of energy completely into personal contingency planning and doing. He received information that showed Y2K will be worse than expected, that the government will not be able to turn around their approach and face Y2K squarely. He saw that time even for talk was short, so warned us all and is busy with his own life, which he has taken back JIT.

-- h (h@h.h), June 04, 1999.

Poster buds: Try to leave out the long snips. FEW read all that stuff.

Decker: More war hero stuff please. Helps keep me from skipping you.

-- Carlos (riffraff1@cybertime.net), June 04, 1999.

Diane,

Are you serious?

bibbity bobbity boo as far as I can tell.

Same drivel that has always came from Ko-skin-em.

Sincerely, Bob

-- bb (peace2u@bellatlantic.net), June 04, 1999.

My opinion,

Ed thought he was going to save the world by going before the senate. His 15(5) minutes of fame fizzled. It was probably so embarrassing for him that he decided to bag it. I feel sorry for him, but on the other hand, he did end up a rich man. Time will heal the senate fiasco.

-- Troll (Troll@troll.com), June 04, 1999.

Bob, you're a moron -- Yourdon realized from interest he got from the Senate and the treatment of Koskinen's "Community Conversations" (which they themselves admitted were to "build confidence in the infrastructure"), that the cover-up was complete. Can't you imagine how he felt? Go back to sleep.

Thanks Diane.

-- a (a@a.a), June 04, 1999.

a,

Ah, namecalling and a lack of civility. Probably the real reason Mr. Yourdon dumped the forum.

We have known there was a coverup since last November. At least some of us did who had some brains a. We told Ed before he left not to bother, go check my post when he asked for suggestions.

What concerns me about you a, is your defense and support of your beloved president who is the Chief coverup artist. You can recogize the coverup of y2k but you can't recognize or admit his many other coverups. Talk about being asleep. Get real.

-- bb (peace2u@bellatlantic.net), June 04, 1999.

Hardliner - time for you to get your pompous ass off your high horse. Bodily harm?? Liar because I'm a manager? Dude - you need professional psychiatric help. As soon as possible. Were you always this way? God help you old man.......you got some serious fucking problems inside buddy.......

Deano

-- Deano (deano@luvthebeach.com), June 04, 1999.

BB,

Have a nice day.

And forget about the Y2K train tracks you're standing on, ignore that whistle, and please don't be alarmed by that big red, white and blue iron engine heading straight for you. It only want's to have a "conversation."

Stay where you are. Do not move. All will be fine. Smile.

Diane

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), June 04, 1999.

Bob: I challenge you to find a post where I have expressed any love of Clinton. I am not defending him, I am trying to separate reality from fiction. As I have said before, he is a typical power-hungry, womanizing, lying, money-grubbing politician, like most of our past presidents. I have a problem with people like you that claim as FACT that he is planning to nuke the US, raped 20 women, murdered hundreds of others, fathered a black son, etc etc etc. He is the president of our country, for better or worse, and you denigrate yourself by virtue of denigrating him.

If the "moron" comment hurt your feelings, I apologize.

-- a (a@a.a), June 04, 1999.

Diane,

Your latest post makes no sense. I'm sure I'm more ready for y2k, the coming power grab, etc. than you. I'm off the track Diane and I'm at my post. And I will remain here. I don't fear the government. "Fear not him who can kill the body but fear Him who can kill body and soul and cast it into hell". Matt. 10:28. Are you ready for His coming judgments Diane? They are upon us. That train you see is 'the peace train' and it is heading into the station. Not much time to get on.

a,

You really need to get your FACTS straight. I don't think I even posted in that thread about Clinton. I'm sure I never accused him of raping 20 women, fathering a black son, or nuking the U.S. - talk about denigrating someone.

But just so we get the FACTS straight, he covered up his affair with Flowers, his whitewater activity, his monica episode (until the blue dress showed up), his illegal fundraising, his connection to China (which may get us nuked), his rape of Juanita B., his groping of K. Willey, and other things too numerous to count. There is no way I could ever denigrate him, he has done it all to himself. I don't respect him, and I fear what he has done to the military preparedness of this country, not to mention his coverup of the y2k problem. But you know what, I pray for him regularly.

Have a nice weekend. b

-- BB (peace2u@bellatlantic.net), June 04, 1999.