Milne: The Readers Digest version of Y2K

greenspun.com : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread

reposted from the Mitch Ratcliffe Kicks doomer ass! thread:

wholst or whatever you call yourself;

Without being rude, Your question proceeds from a fallacy. That fallacy is that only someone of a certain background is qualified to make comments on Y2K.

There is hardly time to explain the amount of energy or the hours I have put into studying Y2K.

Suffice it to say, that I have intricately examined the situation. From ALL perspectives.

The several things that stand out above all else are these:

1. IT has an horrendous track record with projects of this scope and magnitude. Thirty years of IT statistics do not fly out the window just because it is now imperative that they do. If anything The remediation is the beat all and end all of business as usual.

2. The number one reason, historically for IT failures is late starts. Virtually everyone started too late, that is if they started at all. To date, not ONE major comopany has admitted that it will fail as a direct result of their own remediation shortcomings. This is statistically impossible, and it underscores the inherent dishonesty of the compliance reports that say companies are on track.

3. The money has not yet been spent as verified by SEC filings. As of December, the SEC filings indicate that the average Fortune 500 company had not yet spent fifty percetn of their proposed budget.

4. We live in an ultra dependent world. Never before have we been saddled with the intricate spider web of dependencies and the division of labor under which we now exist. Capitalism, is a relatively NEW economic system. Its main emphasis is to squeeze out a profit. Computer technology has so enhanced the profit making ability, that to maintain profitability and efficiency in the face of the problems that may be sprung by Y2K, will be near impossible.

5. No significant percentage of any industry is yet compliant. This is probably the most telling. They will not all magically spring up ready to go in the last quarter. "IF" we were going to have a significant number of companies ready, a large number would already be compliant and would be becoming compliant along the lines of a standard distribution, a bell curve, if you will. We have not even yet started up that curve yet. Only the naive believe that companies are holding back due to litigation constraints. Only the naive believe that companies do not have to be esentially compliant internally, but just ready enough to eke out business in this never before computer driven dog-eat-dog economy.

6. Testing is the most expensive and time consuming part of the job taking at least fifty percent of resources and time. On the whole, testing has not yet even begun. Not only has it not begun, internally, but a myriad of entities must be able to relate to one another. This has not been done to any large degree.

7. Internationally, the remediation is a conclusive disaster. Country after country has related where they are. 75% of all the computer code is outside the US. Russia, not begun. Italy, not begun. China, paralyed with 90% of pirated software. Canada, slipping schedules as is Ireland and New Zealand and England. Country after country announces it needs a billion dollars to proceed. Iran, Venezuala. The list is endless.

8. To a one, virtually ALL 'positive' information is completely unbacked by and substantive evidence and is utterly unverifiable. For every company that releases info that it is doing well there are a thousand companies that are not even in the running.

The above is not even remotely exhastive. It is the tip of the iceberg.

Make up your own mind. If you want to discuss this with me, personally, you have my e-mail adress.

You have a choice. You can rely on governments and companies who have AT BEST remdiated only a tiny fraction of the totality of their systems for the continuity of that upon which your life depends, or, you can prepare.

The degree of your preparation will depend on whom you believe. and without being inflamatory, your preparation will be based, in large part, on how willing you are to let the safety of your family reside outside your own hands.

I am not willing, for one minute, in light of what I know about Y2K, to allow my family's well being to be out of my hands as far as dependecies for the basic things of life are concerned. Food, water, a relatively safe environmnet. My status is meaningless. My 'job prospects' are meaningless. My 'vacation plans' are meaningless.

I have a wife, five children, two parents in law, a sister in law and her two kids and a brother in law who may have to depend on me for their lives.

If I have to be mistaken, one way or the other, I would rather be mistaken and end up losing .....what? Money? Status?

If I am wrong the other way, people die. People that I love, die. I get no second chances. No do-overs.

The evidence that I have gathered and post daily is conclusive. We are not going to experience a mere recession or depression. The one thing that most of the 'pollyannas' can not get through their heads is the big picture. More specifically, the economic context of Y2K. All of this is coming to a head in a world never before in this condition. AWASH in a sea of debt. Fiat money. Fractional reserve 'banking' scams. Wildly out of control populations consisting of mere speculators, the breadth of such speculation boggles the mind.

But, like I said, the info is quite conclusive to any one who has any degree of intelectual honesty, meaning that they will accept what is true even though it is not pleasant. If you want to talk, you have my e-mail.

-- Paul Milne (fedinfo @halifax.com), June 06, 1999.

-- a (a@a.a), June 06, 1999

Answers

a,

remember the real readers digest version of y2k last year - what a joke!!!

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), June 06, 1999.


OK, I'll take a stab at Milne's "wisdom."

Your question proceeds from a fallacy. That fallacy is that only someone of a certain background is qualified to make comments on Y2K.

When I first appeared in this forum, a list of my own "qualifications" was demanded in several cases. The implication was obvious: my opinion should be discounted until I did this.

There is hardly time to explain the amount of energy or the hours I have put into studying Y2K.

But if all that study is in the wrong place, reading the wrong materials, and/or -- here's the biggie! -- you really aren't qualified to understand those materials, you won't reach a rational conclusion.

IT has an horrendous track record with projects of this scope and magnitude.

That it one of the most tired and misapplied bromides in cyberspace.

Y2K is not a single "project;" it is zillions of little projects being worked on simultaneously by zillions of different people. Some are faring better than others. Further, Y2K remediation, in most cases, is not a NEW project -- it is maintenance of existing code.

But I like what Dr. Scott Shemwell, Director of Oil & Gas for the EDS E-Business Solutions Group said recently:

While the jury is still out, one thing is clear: our Herculean efforts are drawing to a close rapidly. While the industry is making the world "safe" for the new millennium, one other thing is becoming clear: IT has finally not only brought a project in on time, but in many cases has finished ahead of time ...

To date, not ONE major comopany has admitted that it will fail as a direct result of their own remediation shortcomings.

BZZZT! Disconnect alert!

If you don't read anything else here, read this. In fact, call all of your Doomer friends around the computer screen, because this is very, very important. I have a FACT for YOU:

The fact is that in every case to date, without exception, computer experts have overestimated the effects of computer problems. Without exception!

In plain English: COMPUTER FAILURES MERELY REPRESENT THE LOSS OF USEFUL TOOLS. Having a power screwdriver is handy, but I can get by manually if I have to -- for that matter, in a pinch, I can use a table knife (when I was growing up, we called 'em "Poole screwdrivers"[g]).

You will find few IT/IS professionals who can even countenance the concept that their work isn't indispensible; this is just human nature. But the dentist sees a world filled with (potentially bad) teeth; the farmer, a world filled with (potentially failed) crops ... and the programmer sees a world in which everything grinds to a halt if his precious program doesn't crunch numbers correctly.

Each is right in his/her limited vision -- and flat wrong, at the same time.

In this case, how many examples do you want? The Michelangelo Virus. Electronic Pearl Harbor. The Ping O' Death security loophole. Bugs in popular programs. In every single case, without exception, the so-called "experts" have estimated that there would be disruptions (usually severe) due to these problems.

And in every case, the disruptions -- if they occurred at all -- were minor, and were soon forgotten a few weeks down the road.

Look at the Win95.CIH "Chernobyl" virus. Several hundred thousand computers were hammered unexpectedly on April 27th. At the time, the "experts" stated that this was an unqualified disaster (and they were right), and that it would have serious, long-term economic effects in Asia (and they were flat WRONG -- in spite of the fact that Asia has already been struggling economically).

Guess what? The effects of this -- the worst computer disaster in history! -- are already fading. They've worked around it. The net overall effect was something less than a bump in the road ... supporting what Mitch Ratcliffe, and NOT John Westergaard, said in the debate.

A humorous note: when the Chernobyl thing first hit the news, many Doomlits crowed that it would provide an excellent idea of how Y2K disruptions might look. Yep, it sure did! I tried to warn them that they were shooting themselves in the foot with a .44 magnum ...

The money has not yet been spent as verified by SEC filings.

And this is utterly meaningless. Next question.

We live in an ultra dependent world.

Ah, yes, the old "we're interconnected" thingie. JIT dependencies; transportation chains; the whole nine yards.

When hurricane Fran ripped through NC, it knocked out several major industries -- some of whom were JIT suppliers and vendors to other corporations elsewhere -- and the net overall effect was NIL. If your "interdependencies" were that serious, ONE MAJOR NATURAL DISASTER would shut down the entire country (if not the world). Chernobyl would have paralyzed Asia. But the premise is incorrect -- and the evidence is right in front of you.

I'll leave it to you to find that evidence. Let's hurry up and get through with these.

No significant percentage of any industry is yet compliant.

Utterly meaningless. Aside from the fact that NO ONE can provide a single, consistent definition of "compliant," the truth is that many functions can be continued (manually or by hand, if necessary), EVEN IF THE COMPUTERS ARE RIPPED OUT AND THROWN INTO THE DUMPSTER.

(Remember, computers are USEFUL TOOLS. Nothing more.)

This is something that you would KNOW if you were anything approaching a computer or control systems experts (which I am), but since you're not, I can't excoriate you for NOT knowing that. (You're not alone. Half the people in Washington haven't caught on to this FACT yet.)

Against the remainder of your comments I plead abyssus abbsum invocat; they're essentially different facets of the same "compliance gem." Just re-read what I said above a few times, and maybe you'll get it. I'll finish with this:

virtually ALL 'positive' information is completely unbacked by and substantive evidence and is utterly unverifiable ...

Boy, you've got stone cahones to even say such a thing. It is the DOOMER side of the argument that has virtually no facts, only unverified stories from "insiders," assumptions, guesses, and worse ...

But I don't expect you to believe that, either. Like most Doomers, you already made your mind up and aren't interested in facts to the contrary. Maybe you'll get it next January when the rest of us head for pizza before the Rose Bowl. We'll see.

-- Stephen M. Poole, CET (smpoole7@bellsouth.net), June 06, 1999.


I cannot believe the gargantuan stupidity poole exhibits above (actually, I can.......)

Less than 111 working days to go worldwide and despite all evidence to the contrary this simpleton fails again to grasp reality.

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), June 06, 1999.


From poole CrETin's web "site"... bold emphasis mine... :)

If you want a good laugh, the site is priceless. The sad thing is that a lot of Christian folks that are not very computer-savvy may stumble on to it and believe what this "Christian" computer guru is saying, oh, things like, keep a jug or two of water on hand, the stores will still have food, the banks will be open, the power will be on and the faucets will work...

As I said before, this dangerous know-nothing poole will in all probability cost lives if this singularity plays out as I suspect it will...

Sleep well poole

Where I Stand

See the article, The State Of Y2K. There's so much good news coming out about Y2K now, I'm not even sure I need to keep this section on the main page, save to answer the occasional flame mail from a moron who thinks I "want people to die" or some such nonsense.

I'll never criticize someone for making commonsense preparations -- buying some extra food, having a jug or two of water on hand, that sort of thing. Frankly, having lived through several hurricanes, I do that myself and think anyone should (and shouldn't have waited for Y2K to do it!).

(Maybe the real problem is, we're too used to being able to run to the Superstore on the way home and pick up medicine, milk and bread at need. When I was growing up, you bought several day's worth at the store at a time. My wife and I still shop that way.)

Do I think there will be problems in January, 2000? Sure, but there are problems already. Technology is buggy and fails all the time now; we work around it (I make this point in great detail elsewhere, believe me).

But I also have to say that I don't think there will be serious problems due to Y2K, certainly not here in the United States. Except for a few isolated cases (which will undoubtedly make the news for a few nights), your lights will stay on. Your faucets will still produce water. Your neighborhood supermarket will still have food. Your bank will still be in business. Anyone who tells you otherwise is basing their claim on older information or plain paranoia and distrust; take them with a grain of salt.



-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), June 06, 1999.


Stephen,

Your comment...

"In plain English: COMPUTER FAILURES MERELY REPRESENT THE LOSS OF USEFUL TOOLS. Having a power screwdriver is handy, but I can get by manually if I have to -- for that matter, in a pinch, I can use a table knife (when I was growing up, we called 'em "Poole screwdrivers"[g])."

...appears to have little relevance to the topic at hand. Sure, when you are piddling around in your garage on Saturday afternoon, you can get by without a power screwdriver. As long as your project is small and your time is not important. The idea that you can use a table knife, though, suggests that your experience with screws is very limited; I own dozens of different (and expensive) screwdrivers, and most of the screws I deal with could not under any circumstances be turned with a table knife.

But the issues being discussed here aren't about piddling around in your garage, are they? How does your example hold up in my business - - auto manufacturing? The plant I am most closely involved with is very new as auto plants go, and was designed from the ground up with a very high level of robotic automation. If even one of the robot stations starts screwing up, the whole thing stops. Period -- end of story. Walking down the line watching the automation is quite an amazing experience -- even if you know how all the stuff works. In some areas, you can walk a consideralbe distance without passing any human workers.

In this plant, which was never designed to work without the robots, it is NOT POSSIBLE to revert to manual operations. For one thing, there isn't enough room in there for enough people to perform the operations, even if the processes were redesigned for humans. Oh, sure, cars have been built in the past without computers. We'll just build a new non-computer-based plant and start over (using the manual screwdriver from your example). Do you think the business will still be solvent by then? What about the workers who have been without jobs for umpteen months? Are they still around? Were they able to make their house payments during that time?

When you ask the computer folks how the y2k stuff is coming, they usually give you a most unpleasant glare. I don't interpret that as particularly good news, but maybe I just have a "doomer" attitude. And we're not even talking about the thousands of parts that come from all over the world to build each car. Remember the recent (last year?) GM strikes at the supplier plants that brought some of their production lines to a halt? Just one little part....

If we have problems I'll be sure to suggest that we have all the workers bring in their "Poole Screwdrivers" and everything should be just fine. Yeah, I'll remind them that all those computerized robots and processes are just "useful" -- not actually necessary. We can just use those table knives and build cars the old fashioned way...

For many manufacturing companies, JIT may have a new meaning in a few months: January It's Toast!

-- Randy (randyjones@techie.com), June 06, 1999.



To CET and paul milne,

I saw a TV show a few months ago about the building of the Panama Canal. Big machines and lots of lives lost. They couldn't have done it with a kitchen knife, they needed serious heavy lifting steam shovels.

But the make or break issue was something very small, malaria.

In 6 months, we may be stung to death or maybe we'll lose the big machines. Either way, I'm worried.

-- cory (kiyoinc@ibm.XOUT.net), June 06, 1999.


phrrrrrrr hear that Mr. Pools's spinning again

-- spinner (spin@spin.com), June 06, 1999.

Yup. Poole's spinning like a top. He's going to throw himself on the floor and begin holding his breathe until he turns blue. "I DO believe in technology, I DO, I DO believe in technology"! Just let him get it out of his system. We're gonna finish roofing our barn and *hopefully* he will have worked himself into a deep slumber by the time I get back!

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), June 06, 1999.

Several months ago, I gave a number of posts on how railroads USED to be run, before the widespread computerization of today. What I described would be roughly equivalent to your "going back to manual" thesis. There is no way the railroads CAN go back to this paper and pen era, at least not quickly. The staff has been slashed, the skills lost, and in at least my case, the interlocking tower I used to work at has been torn down. Someone would have to stay by the switches to throw them by hand, not an attactive prospect in the middle of winter. No railroad is preparing to revert to the way things were done; either the computers get fixed in time or they are in big trouble. As I haven't worked in the rail industry for years, I cannot tell you how well they stand as far as being done. All I know, if they don't finish, well there goes the coal for the power plants, steel for cars, potash for farmers, etc.

-- Sure M. Worried (worried@internet.com), June 06, 1999.

I must agree that there's no going backwards in the most important cases (and the mom and pop outfits aren't important. The fact that they've been disappearing is instructive). We have indeed lost the tools, the knowledge, and the organizational structure and procedures for doing so.

This is also true between organizations and industries. Even if the railroads (say) could rebuild their switchyards overnight, and make sure all switches were manual overnight, and create the necessary paper forms and train everyone to use them and hire all those people who *used* to be employed doing manual things (and train them), and build all the decentralized locations required for a manual operation, and on and on, it wouldn't help much at all. The railroads still rely on tens of thousands of vendors and customers, nearly ALL of whom would need to do exactly the same thing. Also overnight.

The computers must be remediated. If this is postponed to fix on failure, then they must be able to fix enough of the critical failures quickly enough to keep rolling. There really isn't any other option.

This isn't to argue that this isn't being done, or won't be possible. Only to point out that it's required, and there is no substitute.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), June 06, 1999.



In answer to Poole's response: My comments on Poole's response Poole are in parenthesis:

OK, I'll take a stab at Milne's "wisdom."

Your question proceeds from a fallacy. That fallacy is that only someone of a certain background is qualified to make comments on Y2K.

When I first appeared in this forum, a list of my own "qualifications" was demanded in several cases. The implication was obvious: my opinion should be discounted until I did this.

There is hardly time to explain the amount of energy or the hours I have put into studying Y2K.

But if all that study is in the wrong place, reading the wrong materials, and/or -- here's the biggie! -- you really aren't qualified to understand those materials, you won't reach a rational conclusion.

IT has an horrendous track record with projects of this scope and magnitude.

That it one of the most tired and misapplied bromides in cyberspace.

( Calling it tired, in no way shows it is not true. Ooops. There's that 'tired' old statement that George Washington was the first president again.)

Y2K is not a single "project;" it is zillions of little projects being worked on simultaneously by zillions of different people.

( No one said it was ONE project. This is a juvenile objection. Sometimes we speak about Y2K as a whole or phenomenologically as a 'project'. The fact that Poole recognizes that it is thousands of little project ought to amplify ALL THE MORE in his mind the exceeding difficulty of trying to co-ordinate all that needs to be done. if it WAS one project at least some oversight could be established. because it is not, everyone is going his own way in his own manner helter skelter making it even that much more assured that the overall remdiation will not be accmplished.)

Some are faring better than others. Further, Y2K remediation, in most cases, is not a NEW project -- it is maintenance of existing code.

(Calling it mere 'maintenance' is to show the utter misunderstanding of Y2K that Poole labors under. The dichotomy in his thinking is between new development and maintaining existing software. He leaves the impression that new development is orders of magnitude more difficult than mere garden variety (read Y2k) maintenance. In some senses this may be true. Overall, it is not. By way of analogy... replacing an oil filter is maintenance not NEW car bulding. Pulling out my valves and replacing them in not new manufacture either but it is very difficult and time consuming.)

But I like what Dr. Scott Shemwell, Director of Oil & Gas for the EDS E-Business Solutions Group said recently:

While the jury is still out, one thing is clear: our Herculean efforts are drawing to a close rapidly.

( Yes they are, but this says NOTHING about how the remediation is actually faring)

While the industry is making the world "safe" for the new millennium, one other thing is becoming clear: IT has finally not only brought a project in on time, but in many cases has finished ahead of time ...

(I recognize that Poole likes this. However, it is patently false. Brought a projest in on time? 'A project'? A minute ago, poole was carping that it was NOT 'a' project, but a series of small ones. But when this guy says it , well then, it is OK, How come Poole did not complain that THIS guy did not know what he was talking about? Secondly, he is jumping the gun. He speaks in the past tense about it having BEEN BROUGHT in on time. If so, let us see the MYRIAD that are done. They are not.)

To date, not ONE major comopany has admitted that it will fail as a direct result of their own remediation shortcomings.

BZZZT! Disconnect alert!

If you don't read anything else here, read this. In fact, call all of your Doomer friends around the computer screen, because this is very, very important. I have a FACT for YOU:

The fact is that in every case to date, without exception, computer experts have overestimated the effects of computer problems. Without exception!

( The actual case is that Poole underestimates the effects.)

In plain English: COMPUTER FAILURES MERELY REPRESENT THE LOSS OF USEFUL TOOLS.

(Only partially correct. They represent useful tools that have become relied upon to the point of life and death dependency. These 'useful' tools have been used to maximize business opportunities that could NOT be accomplished without this technology. Take WalMart as an example. Walmart exists as it does today ONLY because of it's technological dependence and could NOT exist if this were not so.)

Having a power screwdriver is handy, but I can get by manually if I have to -- for that matter, in a pinch, I can use a table knife (when I was growing up, we called 'em "Poole screwdrivers"[g]).

( To make a comparison about the loss of technology to the difference between a screw driver and a power screwdriver is as diingenuos as one can possibly get. Is the difference between landing Jets in a modern setting subsatntially diffent than what you would have without radar and air traffic control systems? Laughably, yes. Is the generation and distribution of electricity without SCADA systems and doing without them the relatively the same? LOL Exa,ples ABOUND, but are wasted on people like Poole who come up with such adolecent tripe.)

You will find few IT/IS professionals who can even countenance the concept that their work isn't indispensible; this is just human nature. But the dentist sees a world filled with (potentially bad) teeth; the farmer, a world filled with (potentially failed) crops ... and the programmer sees a world in which everything grinds to a halt if his precious program doesn't crunch numbers correctly.

Each is right in his/her limited vision -- and flat wrong, at the same time.

In this case, how many examples do you want? The Michelangelo Virus. Electronic Pearl Harbor. The Ping O' Death security loophole. Bugs in popular programs. In every single case, without exception, the so- called "experts" have estimated that there would be disruptions (usually severe) due to these problems.

(Irrelevant rant)

And in every case, the disruptions -- if they occurred at all -- were minor, and were soon forgotten a few weeks down the road.

( More irrelevant rant)

Look at the Win95.CIH "Chernobyl" virus. Several hundred thousand computers were hammered unexpectedly on April 27th. At the time, the "experts" stated that this was an unqualified disaster (and they were right), and that it would have serious, long-term economic effects in Asia (and they were flat WRONG -- in spite of the fact that Asia has already been struggling economically).

Guess what? The effects of this -- the worst computer disaster in history! -- are already fading. They've worked around it. The net overall effect was something less than a bump in the road ... supporting what Mitch Ratcliffe, and NOT John Westergaard, said in the debate.

A humorous note: when the Chernobyl thing first hit the news, many Doomlits crowed that it would provide an excellent idea of how Y2K disruptions might look. Yep, it sure did! I tried to warn them that they were shooting themselves in the foot with a .44 magnum ...

The money has not yet been spent as verified by SEC filings.

And this is utterly meaningless. Next question.

( One of the most telling inanities by Poole yet. The SEC filings indicate quite clearly that on average Fortune 500 companies have not yet spent half their proposed budgets. For Poole to say 'meaningless' is for him to have no answer at all. Remediation costs a lot of money. When it is documented to have NOT been spent all Poole can do is ignore it as if it would go away. Classical pollyanna tactic. ignore the unpleasant truth.)

We live in an ultra dependent world.

Ah, yes, the old "we're interconnected" thingie. JIT dependencies; transportation chains; the whole nine yards.

( Some people do not have the breadth of thought to be able to contemplate dependencies and their importance. )

When hurricane Fran ripped through NC, it knocked out several major industries -- some of whom were JIT suppliers and vendors to other corporations elsewhere -- and the net overall effect was NIL. If your "interdependencies" were that serious, ONE MAJOR NATURAL DISASTER would shut down the entire country (if not the world). Chernobyl would have paralyzed Asia. But the premise is incorrect -- and the evidence is right in front of you.

( This 'disater' was in ONE tiny place, highly localized. They made it through on the basis of outside help. Natural disaters are highly localized. Y2k will be an event that encompasses the entire earth. Now ask Mr. Poole what would be the State of affairs if Fran or Mitch had hit every square inch of the world as Fran did Florida or as Mitch did to Central America.)

I'll leave it to you to find that evidence. Let's hurry up and get through with these.

No significant percentage of any industry is yet compliant.

Utterly meaningless. Aside from the fact that NO ONE can provide a single, consistent definition of "compliant," the truth is that many functions can be continued (manually or by hand, if necessary), EVEN IF THE COMPUTERS ARE RIPPED OUT AND THROWN INTO THE DUMPSTER.

( Yes and no. overall, it is a plain lie to leave folks with the impression that , overall' we can just dump computers and roll along just fine. Every SIGNIFICANT function is most assuredly dependent upon lighting fast results of technological dependence.)

(Remember, computers are USEFUL TOOLS. Nothing more.)

This is something that you would KNOW if you were anything approaching a computer or control systems experts (which I am), but since you're not, I can't excoriate you for NOT knowing that. (You're not alone. Half the people in Washington haven't caught on to this FACT yet.)

Against the remainder of your comments I plead abyssus abbsum invocat; they're essentially different facets of the same "compliance gem." Just re-read what I said above a few times, and maybe you'll get it. I'll finish with this:

( I accept the fact that you can come up with no rational response)

virtually ALL 'positive' information is completely unbacked by and substantive evidence and is utterly unverifiable ...

Boy, you've got stone cahones to even say such a thing. It is the DOOMER side of the argument that has virtually no facts, only unverified stories from "insiders," assumptions, guesses, and worse

( Again, Poole has no retort based on any evidence)

...

But I don't expect you to believe that, either. Like most Doomers, you already made your mind up and aren't interested in facts to the contrary. Maybe you'll get it next January when the rest of us head for pizza before the Rose Bowl. We'll see.

(Poole, I will give you a chance to show everyone how mistaken I am. Accomplish the following and I will go away. period. Ready?

Divulge the name of three Major US Airports that have completed remdiation, are fully tested and back in Production.

Name ten Fortune 500 companies that have completed remdiation, tested and are back inproduction. That is ONLY 2% of the 500, so at this late date when companies are MOSTLY ready, it should be NO problem at all to do so.

And finally, out of the 9000 or so electric utilites, name 9, only 9, that have remediated, tested and are back in production. 900 would be ten percent. 90 would be one pecent. 9 is only one tenth of one percent. Come now Mr. blabbermouth. Dispatch me forever. )

( Mr. Poole is as self-deceived as one can get. Specious arguments mean nothing and Poole is the master. What Poole has boiled the whole thing down to is this....Computers are just some useful tools that we 'could' throw away and most functions would still go along just fine. If you believe this then, frankly, you are a moron.)

-- Stephen M. Poole, CET (smpoole7@bellsouth.net), June 06, 1999.

-- Paul Milne (fedinfo@halifax.com), June 06, 1999.


I notice that not one person here has addressed these two facts:

1 - in every case thus far, without exception, computer "experts" have overestimated the effects of computer problems. In every case in history.

2 - the Win95.CIH Chernobyl virus is the best example of this to date. It's the single worst computer disaster in history, and yet, Asia has basically worked around it quite handily ... in spite of general economic malaise to start with.

Instead, you nitpick. Fine; pick away! But for those who care, if you wanted to see the big disconnect in Y2K thinking, I provided it for you: "if the computers aren't fixed/remediated/made ready, the world will end."

Computers are useful tools, and nothing more. Certainly there are cases where they're essential tools. But in those cases, I daresay that you'll find that (A) they were FIRST computers to be checked and remediated as needed, and/or (B) workarounds have already been considered with contingency plans in place.

There you go, and I repeat again: the big disconnect is this idea that 100% remediation is required to forestall TEOLAWKI. And lest you accuse me of erecting a strawman, please look at the number of posts here that are based on that disconnect: "[insert name of city or government agency] is only XX% complete!"

Have fun. :)

-- Stephen M. Poole, CET (smpoole7@bellsouth.net), June 06, 1999.


Andy, you forgot to give the link so that they can see for themselves. There you go.

-- Stephen M. Poole, CET (smpoole7@bellsouth.net), June 06, 1999.

Mr. Puddle, I don't think the majority of us "believe" this problem will create "the end of the world". I know, I don't. It may result in the end of the ONLY way most of us have known it to be. For as long as you have been smirking on this forum, I should think you might have picked up on that. IF the world ends, it will be at the hands of mindless, weak, dependent individuals like yourself...running around in a panic like an ant-hill ablaze. (clutching your ticket to the Rose bowl) Of course, you know this to be the truth, but spoiled, upset children tend to lash out with the most "jabbing" statement they can come up with (in the heat of a tantrum). Would somebody please locate his NUK?

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), June 06, 1999.

No Stephen you're wrong, on both counts.

1 - in every case thus far, without exception, computer "experts" have overestimated the effects of computer problems. In every case in history.

So the doctor says you don't have leukemia, you just have AIDS? In this country, the chemical industry experts have become more pessimistic. That's one example. And what about the experts at Microsoft that are continually slipping ship dates, with delays increasing. Now look overseas. Do you think that the experts in Russia, Italy, Indonesia, China, Venezuela and the like have OVERESTIMATED the work that lies ahead? Do you have experience with large software projects? I do, and I' here to tell you that you're just plain wrong.

2 - the Win95.CIH Chernobyl virus is the best example of this to date. It's the single worst computer disaster in history, and yet, Asia has basically worked around it quite handily ... in spite of general economic malaise to start with.

Comparing ONE computer virus to the SUM of the effects of y2k is ludicrous. Furthermore, where is your evidence that they have "worked around it handily"? The loss of productivity caused by this hurdle, and the ones that are yet to come, will mount cumulatively.

As for your comparison of y2k to Hurricane Fran, good luck getting anywhere near the amount of help from the US government if and when your community or another is struck by another storm next year.

And please, Steven, don't embarrass yourself by dredging up that argument that doomers think 100% must be remediated. But by all means explain how we will avoid disaster if only 80% are.

-- a (a@a.a), June 06, 1999.



In addition, Mr. Puddle, this is *JUNE 1999*. We are about to witness the next wave of missed mandatory deadlines. Accept this fact with a little grace and dignity, please. The party is over, there is nothing to argue about. Go home, crack open a beer and watch your favorite episode of Gilligan's Island. YOU fear nothing. Why do you continue to come back here? What are you afraid of? Are you lonely?

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), June 06, 1999.

Okay, I am willing to consider that both Stephan Poole AND Paul Milne are correct in the issues they have each left on the table. Following is a copy of those issues. After deliberate consideration of the implications, in my opinion Paul is not the one who is picking nits. But, other readers may, as always, arrive at a different conclusion.

Stephan Poole-- In every case thus far, without exception, computer "experts" have overestimated the effects of computer problems. In every case in history.

Consider-- Let's grant that this is true, and that by extension computer experts have overestimated the effect of Y2K. How might this impact your life on January 1, 2000?

Stephan Poole - The Win95.CIH Chernobyl virus is the best example of this to date. It's the single worst computer disaster in history, and yet, Asia has basically worked around it quite handily ... in spite of general economic malaise to start with.

Consider-- Let's grant that this is true, that the impact of the Chernobyl virus was negligible in Asia. How might this impact your life on January 1, 2000? (Sorry, Stephan, I simply cannot jump to your conclusion that, if this were true, then Y2K will have a negligible impact. Fundamentally flawed logic.)

Paul Milne-- Divulge the name of three Major US Airports that have completed remediation, are fully tested and back in Production.

Consider-- Let's grant that the implication is true that there are NOT 3 major US airports that have completed remediation. How might this impact your life on January 1, 2000?

Paul Milne-- Name ten Fortune 500 companies that have completed remediation, tested and are back in production. That is ONLY 2% of the 500, so at this late date when companies are MOSTLY ready, it should be NO problem at all to do so.

Consider-- Let's grant that the implication is true that NOT 2% of Fortune 500 companies have completed remediation. How might this impact your life on January 1, 2000?

Paul Milne-- And finally, out of the 9000 or so electric utilities, name 9, only 9, that have remediated, tested and are back in production. 900 would be ten percent. 90 would be one percent. 9 is only one tenth of one percent.

Consider-- Let's grant that the implication is true that NOT 1/10th of 1% of US electric utilities are remediated. How might this impact your life on January 1, 2000?

It is June 6, 1999. There is no time left for picking nits.

-- RUOK (RUOK@yesiam.com), June 06, 1999.


RUOK:

You ought to be aware that whoever can phrase the question frames the debate. Let's try this just a bit differently.

Paul Milne-- Divulge the name of three Major US Airports that have completed remediation, are fully tested and back in Production.

Consider-- Let's grant that the implication is true that there are NOT 3 major US airports that have completed remediation. How might this impact your life on January 1, 2000?

-------

Also consider -- Name three airports *known* to be essentially nonfunctional next year. Alternatively, name ANY major airport *not* known to be addressing their problems aggressively. How might this recognition and redress of their problems impact your life next January 1, 2000?

--------

Paul Milne-- Name ten Fortune 500 companies that have completed remediation, tested and are back in production. That is ONLY 2% of the 500, so at this late date when companies are MOSTLY ready, it should be NO problem at all to do so.

Consider-- Let's grant that the implication is true that NOT 2% of Fortune 500 companies have completed remediation. How might this impact your life on January 1, 2000?

-------

Also consider -- Every single one of the fortune 500 companies is making strenuous efforts. How many are *known* to be nonfunctional next year? How many are known to be in the final stages of testing (which was *supposed* to last "all of 1999" anyway?) How will it affect your life that all serious issues have been identified and handled?

-------

Paul Milne-- And finally, out of the 9000 or so electric utilities, name 9, only 9, that have remediated, tested and are back in production. 900 would be ten percent. 90 would be one percent. 9 is only one tenth of one percent.

Consider-- Let's grant that the implication is true that NOT 1/10th of 1% of US electric utilities are remediated. How might this impact your life on January 1, 2000?

-------

Also consider: How many utilites are *known* to be ignoring all y2k issues? What *do* we know about these efforts? (and by the way, I can only laugh at your implicit assumption that remediation is a yes-or- no issue. You've fallen right into Milne's trap. He implies that a utility is either 100% remediated, or it's "not remediated". And since it's "not remediated", of course it will fail. Hehehe).

-------

It is June 6, 1999. There is no time left for picking nits.

------

It's not picking nits to point out that you can graduate, with honors even, without scoring 100 on every test. And in any case, you know perfectly well that NO amount of validation would satisfy Paul. Many people have responded to his challenges by trotting out detailed compliance statements, and he's rejected them all. You can't possibly win when your opponent is doing the scoring.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), June 06, 1999.


Flint, you dropped a "nit". Now, How much longer do you expect intelligent, patient, thoughtful, honest and persistent people, on this forum, to continue to "coddle" you. I think folks around here have just been *MORE* than tolerant of your "ramblings". Why, I'd be willing to bet that you are wearing the accidental spit-balls of each decent human being on this forum, who has been willing to engage you in your fluffy phoo-phoo. Please wrap this up. I wouldn't even know where to begin to rip apart your last post. I need to pick my daughter up from work, and perhaps will give it a go, when I return.

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), June 06, 1999.

Well from your response Flint, I see Paul won't be rushing down to Macy's anytime soon.

-- a (a@a.a), June 06, 1999.

Hooo. -a-, you are da mannnn. Sorry, I just had to "peek", before I left! heheha

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), June 06, 1999.

If Computers are just useful tools, how come I get system admins screaming in my ear that their company is at a standstill and losing money when one of their software programs doesn't function properly?

If most of a company's employees are plugging info into fields in said software, what happens when they have to revert to manual work? Who is going to do all the work the program does? Not the end users I talk to!

-- wondering (wondering@techsupport.network), June 06, 1999.


In answer to flints fluff:

It is not necessary IN ANY way to show that they are Non-complinat. It is AXIOMATIC to presume that they are not. UNTIL they PROVE thenselves ready.

Now what have they done to do this? The answer is nothing. The send out press releases about their 'expectations'. Expectations are irrelevant. Thirty years of IT metrics COCLUSIVELY proves that their expectations have been wrong in over 85% of the cases. Additionally they did not even know their expectations were mistaken until the eleventh hour. adittionally, they were late by an average of 18 to 24 months. So I am not real keen on their 'expectations'.

When you are making decisions concerning the life and death of your family, you do NOT give IT the benefit of the doubt. Only an asshole would do that. We are not in Pholosophy 101 with nothing at stake. Lives hang in the balance and that substantially alters the picture.

flint relies on the old saw that companies are working real hard. real hard work is in NO way a determinant of success. flint can only rely on this: they may eke out just enough to remain afloat. I agree. they might. And thousands and thousands and thousands of companies barely remaining afloat will be an unmitigated disaster.

You can not barely remain afloat and make it in this economic climate. Debtors will be defaulting left and right. Layoffs. Cascading effects.

But cock-eyed optimists hoping for the best flies in the face of the evidence looming larger every day. Not a day goes by and another major issue arises about this country or that being billions short or light years behind. All the individual good reports do not hide the fact that for every company announcing near compliance there are a thousand more just like it who are failing.

If flint was as confident as his stupid comments make him out to be, then he could easily answer the child's play challenge I issued. But so far, he has been silent on the issue.

-- Paul Milne (fedinfo@halifax.com), June 06, 1999.


Perhaps, he's just "thinking". Really, really hard. Let's curb some of the noise in the room, please.....that's better. Just begin when you're ready Flint (has Stephen woke up yet?)

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), June 06, 1999.

In answer to flints fluff:

[In answer to Paul's bluff (sigh)]

It is not necessary IN ANY way to show that they are Non-complinat. It is AXIOMATIC to presume that they are not. UNTIL they PROVE thenselves ready.

[This is your axiom. Glad you brought this up. OK, you presume all are guilty until they satisfy you that they are not. You can presume whatever you want. You can even call your presumptions axioms. Your fundamental position is clear: It is not necessary in ANY WAY for you to defend your position. Your position is axiomatic. It is necessary for anyone who disagrees to defend theirs. How very convenient.]

Now what have they done to do this? The answer is nothing. The send out press releases about their 'expectations'. Expectations are irrelevant. Thirty years of IT metrics COCLUSIVELY (sic) proves that their expectations have been wrong in over 85% of the cases. Additionally they did not even know their expectations were mistaken until the eleventh hour. adittionally, they were late by an average of 18 to 24 months. So I am not real keen on their 'expectations'.

[I'm not too keen on them either. But it's not necessary to distort the metrics to make that point. I assume (you don't say) that these metrics came from Capers Jones. And you carefully select the single worst category (without saying so, of course) despite the fact that this category applies to a small minority (which you didn't mention) of development projects (whereas you are applying it to remediation projects, and you didn't mention that either). This is THREE key pieces of information about the numbers you cite, which you conveniently 'forgot' to mention, and then misapplied. Distortion, anyone?

In fact, a great deal of code is being returned to production daily. Did you forget to mention this too? And code that runs but has bugs is better than unfinished development code that won't run at all. Did you forget to mention this? What you omit is most interesting.

In any case, I don't expect ANYONE to be finished on time, whether they declare they're done or not. "Finishing" (whatever that might mean) isn't the issue. Functionality is the issue]

When you are making decisions concerning the life and death of your family, you do NOT give IT the benefit of the doubt. Only an asshole would do that. We are not in Pholosophy 101 with nothing at stake. Lives hang in the balance and that substantially alters the picture.

[Where did this benefit of the doubt come from? I'm trying to determine where they *really* stand, rather than insisting they all stand where I prefer to believe they are. And I agree that lives hang in the balance, but I don't understand how this alters what's happening or what will happen. And I don't believe all of your obscene preaching will either speed up or slow down any remediation project anywhere.]

flint relies on the old saw that companies are working real hard. real hard work is in NO way a determinant of success. flint can only rely on this: they may eke out just enough to remain afloat. I agree. they might. And thousands and thousands and thousands of companies barely remaining afloat will be an unmitigated disaster.

[While hard work doesn't guarantee success, it sure helps. And just how is remaining afloat so disastrous? Because that's what you decree? Functional means functional. I'll agree that a lot of organizations will fail. A lot will be fine. A lot will be pretty marginal. As repairs continue, the marginal companies will recover, and startups will replace the failures. For some, it will be a disaster. Economy wide, disaster is highly unlikely by now. I've never claimed y2k will go by uneventfully, and I can't imagine how that would happen. We'll have plenty of events.]

You can not barely remain afloat and make it in this economic climate. Debtors will be defaulting left and right. Layoffs. Cascading effects.

[And startups. And the winners raiding the losers. And a changed, and probably worse, economic climate. Net longer-term effect: lots of newer computers. Lots of retired legacy software. Lots of programmers *much* more familiar with the code they work with. The clouds will blow over, but the silver linings will remain. At least, for those who succeed in digging themselves out OK.]

But cock-eyed optimists hoping for the best flies in the face of the evidence looming larger every day. Not a day goes by and another major issue arises about this country or that being billions short or light years behind. All the individual good reports do not hide the fact that for every company announcing near compliance there are a thousand more just like it who are failing.

[This looming evidence is highly selective. True, we are being inundated with more and more y2k reports. Some are success stories, some are dire warnings. Try looking at both.

And I mean that, because of your last sentence there. You have divided all companies into two groups: announcers and failures. And how do you know they are failing? Because they haven't said differently. Paul, I *know* you've done enough research to realize that every large organization that hasn't announced success yet is making progress in that direction daily. You chop logic when it suits your fancy, now here you are equating absence of evidence, with evidence of absence. You know better than this. You *see* the work being done. Paul, they aren't going backwards, and they aren't going nowhere either. And the *only* "evidence" you have of all this failure you rant about, is that you have NO INFORMATION. You take the few real data points you have, and declare that they are all anomalies and that all the data points you LACK must be different. And you just aren't that stupid.]

If flint was as confident as his stupid comments make him out to be, then he could easily answer the child's play challenge I issued. But so far, he has been silent on the issue.

[I've been far from silent. I've shown that your conclusions are based on assumptions, which in turn are based on ignorance (in the sense that if you don't know, you assume the worst). You continue to contend that everyone without a written declaration of health from their doctor must be dead. And I'll never understand why you do this, when you know better.]



-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), June 06, 1999.


flint, diisngenuous as ever

The salient point is that lives are at stake. The lives of my family. Your family. Clearly you missed that. I do not assume that they will fail. The evidence is manifest that not nearly enough has been done. For you to rfute that, you need to show that the EVIDENCE ***DOES*** show that enough has been done. You can not. No such evidenc exists.

In light of NO hard evidence that enough has been done only an idiot would not make at leat some level of preparations. I know you agree with that.

But, you take the chicken-shit route out every time and start weaseling about what 'complinace' really is. You revert to the childish y2K 'ready' bullcrap using inept analogies about companies not getting all 'A's but still passing with C's and D's. This ain't grade skool, moron.

And next you will argue about what it means for a company to remain 'afloat'. Does GM remain 'afloat' if it sells 100,000 cars instead of 200,000? Who cares. The fact that they could be knocked back to a level of fifty percent production or less, would be RUINOUS to the economy ALONE. The cascading effects of these barely flaoting companies will come home to roost. So you go ahead and hitch your wagon to the barely afloat' company in the barely 'afloat' economy.

Now that we see that you have backpeddaled all the way back to 'we might make it if they all stay 'barely afloat' we know where you stand. In the corner with a dunce cap on your pointy little head.

-- Paul Milne (fedinfo@halifax.com), June 06, 1999.


Let me get this straight, Flint. You puffed out ,"you are equating absence of evidence with evidence of absence." Now, let's allow this to sink into my mediocre frontal lobe, hmmmmm. I'm sorry, but in light of the fact that it is, after all, *JUNE 1999*, that comment fails to meet the task. Could I be wrong about that? This red-neck just doesn't think so!

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), June 06, 1999.

Paul:

You're quite right. Not nearly enough evidence exists to conclude that companies will remain sufficiently functional. And not nearly enough evidence exists to conclude that they won't either. I agree that we're in the dark, and so we should be prepared for at least the worst we expect.

It's increasingly obvious that the key difference between us is how we handle what we don't know. I assume that I don't know what I don't know, and you assume that you *do* know what you don't know. On this forum, people tend to fill these big blanks with fear, while on the optimist forum they fill the same blanks with happy talk nonsense. And then *neither* side remembers that these really *are* blanks, and stands amazed at the foolishness of the other side.

So keep preparing, and be ready, and I wish you the best.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), June 06, 1999.


Flint...would you please discuss your theory of fault tolerence again? Pretty please? Throw in the state of International affairs, too. I just LOVE that one!

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), June 06, 1999.

Keep you kissy-kissy shit to yourself flint.

I threw down the gauntlet and you REFUSED to pick it up.

All your dizzy crap about not knowing what you think you thought you may or may not have not known, is bullshit.

I KNOW, for a FACT, that the evidence MANIFESTLY says that not enough has been done to draw the conclusion that ANYONE anywhere will be safe if they do not make substantial preparations whether they will need them or NOT.

Every day the evidence piles higher and deeper and your only retort is that YOU don't know. I **KNOW** that you don't know. That is the whole point. Your abyssmal ignorance of the actulaity of the failed remediation.

Still you can not name me any of the companies that I asked for that are compliant. Simple. remediated, tested and BACK in production. No hemming. No hawing. No slathering over definitions. You know what remdiating code is. You know what testing is, And I presume that you know what back in production means. No Y2K ready crapola. No Y2k Okey- dokey. Back in production. Simple concept.

I asked you for a modicum of companies. No answer from you. You just hang on to that tired old, "well, they might just remain afloat if they get enough done and that might be good enough".

flint, if one of your kids were hanging by their fingernails from the edge of a skyscraper and I told you that I 'might' rescue him or that I 'expected' to rescue him, would that be good enough for you? Would you feel good if I told you that I was working hard in my rescue effort and that I was dedicated to resuing your son. What about if I told you that I was making substantial progress in moving towards him?

I would not trust that rescuer. And I don't trust the life of my kids to companies that we were 'formerly' dependent upon for food, water and electricity. I don't trust their IT track records. I don't trust them with my family's life. I don't trust their expectations when time after time after time their IT endeavors have come up short. And I don't trust the systemic interdependencies when the EVIDENCE is MANIFEST and screamingly clear that so little has been accomplished that you can not even name the few odd companies that I asked for.

You are welcome to your opinions. But you are all washed up. It is the eleventh hour. You have ZERO left to say unless it is in the form of what would ammount to credible and verifiable evidence that the overwhelming majority is DONE. Not 'almost there' . Not 'expecting to be ready to test in September'. Not 'on track' to be done. Freaking DONE, flint. DONE.

-- Paul Milne (fedinfo@halifax.com), June 06, 1999.


Ok, I found Flint, I just followed the sound of his "tinkling marble bag". He's been hiding on the "Pollys will be cause of Fourth Quarter panic" thread (he's been there since yesterday). Anyway, I told him to come on back (as soon as he's feeling better)

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), June 06, 1999.

Paul:

Whatever happened to "all of 1999 for testing"? We're all doomed because YOU aren't satisfied that they aren't finished six months early? Are things going so badly for you that you need to change the rules to continue to rant? Did your last half dozen wildly wrong predictions throw you off stride? Kind of hard to get these things right when you start out with the Truth, isn't it? A sad spectacle.

And I guess if you're going to claim to know what you don't know, you might as well shout it. It gives you "leadership qualities".

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), June 06, 1999.


Geeeeese Flint. Like as if YOU'D know a leader if he licked your nose.

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), June 06, 1999.

Flint commented:

"Whatever happened to "all of 1999 for testing"? We're all doomed because YOU aren't satisfied that they aren't finished six months early? "

Flint, you can only use this one for a little over six more months. Do you realize what YOU have just said? These folks should have been done correcting this problem years ago. You don't SEE a major Tusnami coming with your philosophy that they haven't finished six months early. We should be talking about vacations and summer fun. I can't wait to see what you have to say in December.

Your Pal, Ray

-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), June 06, 1999.


italics off

-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), June 06, 1999.

flint:

You pompous gas bag, I'll tell you what happened to al of 1999 for testing. You see, you have to GET to the testing phase before you can even begin testing. On the whole, the coding has not even come close to being done. By even mentioning the fact that the companies proposed a fullnyear for testing shows that they understood the significance and necessity for it. However, on the whole, they have not reched the point yet where they have finished coding which leaves them with far less than half a year to do scanty half assed testing that you know, as well as I do, is wildly insufficient.

Try another way to weasel out flint-boy. The 'almost' afloat strategy did not work. And now, the 'give them more time tack is down the drain too.

They HAD enough time if they had started on time. They did not. The single biggest cause of failure is lack of calender time. But you will be ignorant enough to think that THIS time, just this once, flying in the face of thirty years of IT metrics, that MAGICALLY they will eke it out.

ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO

Was there ever a more inept and naive IT person?

-- Paul Milne (fedinfo@halifax.com), June 06, 1999.


I'm voting, that the answer is probably "yes".

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), June 06, 1999.

Paul:

We've been reading about all kinds of tests lately. Airlines, refineries, manufacturing, utilities, banking, Wall Street, quite a long list. How is this possible, if these industries aren't ready to test yet? Have you been following Arnold Trembley's testing reports -- they've been at it over a year now, remember?

Or are you going to start weaseling that it's the tests you *haven't* heard about that are important? Remember what I wrote earlier, that your conclusions aren't based on this evidence, your conclusions are based on your own ignorance of what's happening out there. Once again, absence of evidence becomes evidence of absence?

Or will you weasel that it doesn't matter that these tests are happening, because of all the supplier dependencies? Are will you weasel by changing the subject or just making personal attacks again? I'm curious now.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), June 06, 1999.


You're curious alright....and fluffy.

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), June 06, 1999.

flint,

Again you ahve failed to address the points.

However, I will condescend to play with you.

For every report of a company testing there are a thousand that are not.

Here is a little tidbit just in from Canada:

June 6, 1999 Canadian municipalities not ready for Y2K bug, survey discovers

By SCOT MAGNISH -- Sun Media Newspapers

... a federation survey of the country's local governments found more than half have waited too long to address the Y2K problem and may not be ready for Jan. 1, 2000 as a result.

The FCM's survey found almost 50 per cent of respondents don't plan on testing their computer systems until later this summer -- when it's too late to fix any problems encountered.

Another 17 per cent have no plans to test their computer systems at all, the survey said.

"Our experience in Canada is that people aren't as ready as they think they are," said IBM's Y2K expert, Al Aubrey.

http://www.canoe.ca/LondonNews/06_n1.html

Continue to believe in the tooth fairy, flint-boy. Continue to believe that the few reports of testing are rightly extrapolated to the big picture, the global remediation. I have cited you EVIDENCE that the majority of Canadian municipalities will not even be testing untill it is way too late. Testing is over 50% of the job. So I suppose that you believe that if they begin testing in a couple of months and can actually test through December, that that will be sufficient.

And then there is the 17% that won't test at all.

Flint, stick the abscence of evidence crap in your ear. Canada is widely adjudged in the FOREFRONT of remediation and they are doing miserably by any reasonable standard.

But you will find some way to ignore this or to diminish the significance thereof.

Of that, we have no doubt.

The only 'absence' around here is the 'absence' your evidence in refutation of mine.

-- Paul milne (fedinfo@halifax.com), June 06, 1999.


Paul:

None of this can be accurately extrapolated. Some are testing, and some are not. Some will get to it in time, and some won't. Some will suffer severely for this lack, and some will get lucky. There is no overwhelming evidence of anything, just lots of little bits and pieces. Some are promising, some are distressing, and most are ambiguous.

You argue that the future will be bad, mostly because you *don't* know that it will be good. This 'good' vs. 'bad' stuff is binary thinking once again. It's clear that all these bits and pieces of all variety add up to a big mess. Interesting times indeed. I expect hard times for many. If you want to call this an 'unmitigated disaster', fine, use whatever terminology you want. Your specific predictions will not be borne out, however. Your admitted method of using your conclusions as your axioms makes your predictions simple, obvious, and wrong.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), June 06, 1999.


Answering flint-boy:

Paul: None of this can be accurately extrapolated.

(In your mind, nothing can be extrapolated. That way, you can always sing the happy refrain: "Nobody knows".)

Some are testing, and some are not.

( The article clearly said that those who were, were doing so violently late. You refuse to get to the heart that testing is FIFTY percent or better of a project. Then there were the 175 who were not testing at all.)

Some will get to it in time, and some won't.

(Your use of the word 'some' is like a tranquilizer for you flint. Just say 'some' this and 'some' that and you never have to draw the difficult conclusions. Just 'some' yourself to death. I have a clue for you. Just 'some' of your kids will die.)

Some will suffer severely for this lack, and some will get lucky. There is no overwhelming evidence of anything, just lots of little bits and pieces. Some are promising, some are distressing, and most are ambiguous.

( Some, some, some, some. Keep repeating your mantra; "There is no overwhelming evidence..." "There is no overwhelming evidence..." "There is no overwhelming evidence...'

And guess what. There WILL be no overwhelming evidence. )

You argue that the future will be bad, mostly because you *don't* know that it will be good.

Unequivocably NOT. I have argued that I am PREPARING becuase I have no evidence of any kind that enough is being done. AND, I have demonstrable evidence,which I post daily that shows that schedules are slipping, countries are in dire need of money, countries have not started and evidence that even those countries in the forefront are falling behind on every count.)

This 'good' vs. 'bad' stuff is binary thinking once again.

( No, the binary thinking is only YOUR misunderstanding of my bekiefs.)

It's clear that all these bits and pieces of all variety add up to a big mess.

( Not clear to you at all. 'big mess' is a wonderfully amorphous and ambiguous escapist terminology.)

Interesting times indeed. I expect hard times for many. If you want to call this an 'unmitigated disaster', fine, use whatever terminology you want. Your specific predictions will not be borne out, however. Your admitted method of using your conclusions as your axioms makes your predictions simple, obvious, and wrong.

(Once again, you have utterly failed to address the evidence that I posted with any counter-evidence at all. It is your only resort, to apply meaningless rhetoric. I post FACTS, you whine with mealy mouthed rhetoric. I solicit facts from you and you show up empty handed every time. C'mon flint. Just produce the survay that says that the majority of Canadain Municipalities did indeed begin testing on time and that that ugly 17% that refuses to test actually will. C'mon, shit-for-brains. No more words. Follow my example and post evidence in support of your position. You can't. You are an addle-headed empty-handed pollyanna rhetorical flop.)

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), June 06, 1999

-- Paul Milne (fedinfo@halifax.com), June 06, 1999.


As a net is made up of a series of ties, so everything in this world is connected by a series of ties. If anyone thinks that the mesh of a net is an independent, isolated thing, he is mistaken....

Buddha

"The conveniences and comforts of humanity in general will be linked up by one mechanism, which will produce comforts and conveniences beyond human imagination. But the smallest mistake will bring the whole mechanism to a certain collapse. In this way the end of the world will be brought about."

Sufi Prophet Pir-o-Murshid Inayat Khan's prophecy (Complete Works, 1922 I, p. 158-9)

Huh, wha.. wassup?

Flint 1999 111 working days to go...

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), June 06, 1999.


Oh, thanks alot flint, I told everybody you were thinking really, REALLY hard. Pull yourself up by the bootstraps man.

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), June 06, 1999.

OK, Paul, you posted facts. As I pointed out with your Capers Jones statistics, you post very selective facts, and misapply them whenever possible.

So OK, Mr. FACTS, can you tell us who *paid* for this survey you found? If the funding came from someone who just happens to do remediation or testing, this is exactly the kind of fact you tend to 'forget' to tell us about. And I notice that you forgot to tell us this time.

And oh yes, you also neglected to tell us *what* these municipalities need to test, and what might happen if they fail. Also, no mention of whether the 17% who have no test plans have anything to test. But I guess if you can see the forest, the trees are irrelevant, right?

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), June 06, 1999.


Once again in condescension to answer the child flint:

OK, Paul, you posted facts.

( To whicu you previously responded with no facts of your own, just childish ranting)

As I pointed out with your Capers Jones statistics, you post very selective facts, and misapply them whenever possible.

( Yes i know, when you don't like the facts and evidence and statistics you seek to besmirch whomever collected the facts that you don't like)

So OK, Mr. FACTS, can you tell us who *paid* for this survey you found?

( If you read the article from the URL that I gave you , you would resadily see that the survey was conducted by The Federation Of Canadian Municipalities. I presume that you would think that they conducted a survey and juiced the results and thereby TATTLING ON THEMSELVES. If the survey was in this case bogus, one would expect that it would have reflected a rosy picture. It did not. As you can see, they have no ax to grind. What is your , this time?)

If the funding came from someone who just happens to do remediation or testing, this is exactly the kind of fact you tend to 'forget' to tell us about. And I notice that you forgot to tell us this time.

( And I notice that you swallow any happy face report and NEVER dispute its authenticity or request who funded it.)

And oh yes, you also neglected to tell us *what* these municipalities need to test, and what might happen if they fail.

( Flint, you are an idiot. What do you think they need to test, you asshole?)

Also, no mention of whether the 17% who have no test plans have anything to test.

( Oh yes, that's right. They included such BOGUS data as including companies that do not need to test becuase they have no computers.)

But I guess if you can see the forest, the trees are irrelevant, right?

( BWAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHA! There is no forest flint-child. Every tree obviously fell on your head along time ago. If ever there was an example of straw-clutching moronism, I have yet to see it. Flint- child, I asked you to post some facts, some evidence that might counter the assertion of the Federation Of Canadian Muncipalities. All you have done is feebly tried to discredit their survey. Any survey that you disagree with was funded by folks with axes to grind or was used inappropriately or some other whacko excuse. You have no basis for doing so and you have provided no counter-evidence or facts of any kind at all. You are desparate now, I see. You come up empty- handed on multiple attempts. You are abjectly pathetic in such lame attempts to AVOID bringing to light EVIDENCE that counters mine. Is it possible that you merely do not understand? I cite evidence of my claims. You need to do the same in order for anyone to give credence to your unsuppoerted position. Now go assail the Federation of Canadian Municipalities for explaining that said municiplaities are very very late on testing and that a significant portion will not teat at all. Oh, I forgot, you tried to sweep that one under the carpet by saying that they didn't have anything to test. Yes, flint- child, I am sure that while there may be a town or two in the tundra that is relatively insignificant, but I am sure that the Federation Of Canadian Municiplaities is not so stupid that they listed towns as not testing non-existent systems.. If you had read what they wrote you would see why you are so f*cking stupid. And I quote...

"Another 17 per cent have no plans to test their computer systems at all, the survey said."

http://www.canoe.ca/LondonNews/06_n1.html

You see, butthead. They have no plans to test their COMPUTER SYTEMS. This means that they ***HAVE*** computer systems and they have NO plans to test them. NOT that they DO NOT have computer systems and therefore have no plans to test that which they do not have. Truly, you are a straw-clutching ignoramus.)

(ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO)

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), June 06, 1999

-- Paul Milne (fedinfo@halifax.com), June 06, 1999.


truly it has been funthrashing you here tonite flint-child. Just like the old days. You come in here and open your ignorant yap, never having any evidence with which to support your unfounded claims, going off half-cocked, not reading the provided material on the URL, clutching at straws etc etc ad infinitum ad nauseum.

Come back when you grow up.

I am going to bed now. Long day tommorrow. I won't be back on the thread. I grow weary of your ineptitude.

However, I am very grateful for one thing, Your dismal performance here this evening ought very nicely solidify the opinion that you are empty handed and not in possession of the facts or the evidence and even after confronted with it, you can not support your own position and resort to whining and carping about inanities.

LOL LOL LOL LOL

-- Paul Milne (fedinfo@halifax.com), June 06, 1999.


So Milne, reduced to his usual taunting, declares himself "winner" and quits. When your conclusions are used as your axioms, how can you lose?

Meanwhile, if this survey is accurate, 17% of Canadian municipalities will be fixing on failure. Of course, many Canadian municipalities are tiny, and have a single PC, running packaged software. And if they have a blinking light at their intersection, maybe it will stop blinking?

And half of those municipalities will be testing so late that they may well be facing fix on failure as well. Depending on what those computer systems are used for, and what goes wrong, this could be significant here and there.

The other half, hopefully the big ones, are well into testing, or already finished.

Now, is it proper to conclude that Canada is toast, on the basis of this information? What a joke.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), June 06, 1999.


"Now, is it proper to conclude that Canada is toast, on the basis of this information? What a joke."

No, but it is proper to conclude that your brain Flint is toast, on the basis of your performance on this thread. What a joke.

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), June 06, 1999.


That's all folks! please procede in an orderly fashion to any one of the other threads Flint is "huffin' and puffin'" on. Take your best shot and "dunk the dummy", just remember folks, it's for a good cause.

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), June 06, 1999.

My conclusion is: This is a one laned game of chicken 7 miles long. Milne knows that if you wait until the last foot, both Milne and Flint will hit head on. Flint disregards the distance for now. Does Milne have more insight so he becomes impatient with Flint? Could very well be folks. At a high speed game of chicken on the one laned Y2k bridge, you need to know that no one will win this one.

-- Feller (feller@wanna.help), June 07, 1999.

Feller:

I agree, attempts at discussion with Milne are a waste of time. I try to evaluate the information, and he tries to beat people over the head with it. If you want to measure something (and y2k is something we're all trying to measure), you can use scales or you can use a steamroller. Apparently, the nutballs on this forum get a big charge out of watching the steamroller destroy the scales, like fans at a pro wrestling match. Well, it won't make much difference in the long run.

In a year, I hope some of the Milne fanclub are kind enough to send him some get well cards. They'll help him get back on his feet to go tilting against taxes or some other windmill.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), June 07, 1999.


Get well cards will not be needed, I applaud Paul for having the guts to face up to reality and actually do something to protect his family.

You would do well to follow his example Flint but you will still be dithering as the axe makes it's descent...

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), June 07, 1999.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ