Y2K a "cakewalk", says Poole

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

Exploring deja.com, I came across a 4-3-99 message by Stephen Poole, posted on uk.tech.y2k. It contains the following:

Referring to someone who emailed him, "He pointed out something else that most Doom and Gloomers don't realize. Most banks, government agencies, and insurance companies MUST have programmers on staff just to keep updating their code--each time there's a rate change or a new law passed, for example. In his words, Y2K was a CAKEWALK compared to, say, plugging in a completely new set of actuarial tables and formulas"

As God is my judge, I have not made this up.

-- Peter Errington (petere@ricochet.net), July 14, 1999

Answers

Poole, Kinsler, et al, find safety in sweeping generalization. When they venture into specifics, they expose themselves.

It remains true that you can judge a tree by its fruit.

-- Tom Beckner (tbeckner@erols.com), July 14, 1999.


Y2K is easy to fix. So easy that it was fixed by Dec. 31, 1999.

Not!

-- (two@nd1/2.years), July 14, 1999.


That should have been. :-)

Y2K is easy to fix. It was fixed by Dec. 31, 1998. Not!

-- Freudian S. (two@nd1/2.years), July 14, 1999.


Here's another unanswered question that was asked of Mr. poole on csy2k. I'm going to keep posting this at least once a day until Mr. Poole answers it. Since I know he is posting here, if he doesn't answer this message, the reason should be obvious to anyone with a brain. But just in case, here it is: He has no answer.

---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------- Hey, Poole, please explain why the Chemical Safety Board (a US government organization), the EPA, and "several chemical industry trade associations" have written a brochure dated June 1999 (http://www.chemsafety.gov/1999/news/smefinal.pdf) that tells small chemical plants that:

"Many systems and pieces of equipment used to sustain process safety in chemical facilities rely on the progression of dates from year to year (for example, 1998 to 1999) to function properly." (page 2)

Is that true? If so, shouldn't the operators of these plants know it already? Also, why do they have an elaborate flowchart on how to assess and fix the problem? Why don't they just tell them to set the clocks back?

They also say:

"Some systems, especially "embedded" systems, may have date dependence that is not obvious. This "hidden" date dependence may affect other functions of the system." (page 8)

You've already explained that this is nonsense; they must have picked it up from Gary North or Bruce Beach. I think you should straighten them out right away, so they will stop spreading FUD. Go to it!"

We are all about to sail the y2k sea shouldn't we be good sailors and take our lifeboats? Desertj98

-- Desertj98 (jturner@ptway.com), July 14, 1999.


Two - Unfortunately, "it was fixed by Dec. 31, 1999. Not!" sounds about right.

-- Brooks (brooksbie@hotmail.com), July 14, 1999.


But Poole is not alone. Even Hoffmeister agrees with him.

"... expected error rate in UN-REMEDIATED code is estimated to be 3 to 6 times larger than normal..."

" estimated " by whom I ask? What is "normal" ?

How blind, deaf and dumb can some people get to be

There are 50,000 mainframes loose out there, 100 million computer systems, and 50 b-b-b-billion embedded chips.

-- George (jvilches@sminter.com.ar), July 14, 1999.


Here you go, George:

Y2k Metrics and Error Rates

All you had to do is ask...

-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-deja.com), July 14, 1999.


Lets have a contest. Who's GIF is the most nauseating:

or



-- a (a@a.a), July 14, 1999.


The thread you link us to above is truly a must as your theory is chopped down to size Hoff. Funny, but no one mentioned that only 25% of the world4s code is in the US. Needless to say, codes in Brazil, Russia, China, Italy, Argentina, Indonesia, etc., are hospitalized in intensive care units in comparison to North America. So, all in all Hoff, your theory stinks. We are in for a rough ride. Your link proves it. Thanks for the enlightment and help to prepare as many people as you can. 4Cause no matter how well you have prepared if your neighbors don4t you are still toast.

-- George (jvilches@sminter.com.ar), July 14, 1999.

Hmmm. "Chopped down to size"?

While some valid arguments were brought up about potential severity of errors, no one really challenged the estimated error rate, which is what you were quoting.

-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-deja.com), July 14, 1999.



Moderation questions? read the FAQ