Dear Mr. Yourdon,

I read your response to Mr. Poole. I agree that you are not responsible for the actions of others. Nor are the so-called Y2K Pollyannas responsible for those who chose not to prepare. Given your statements about personal responsibility, I take it you agree.

On profit:

I fully support your right to engage in commerce. Whether you write 25 more books or sell solar panels in New Mexico, may you profit mightily. I imagine, though, you can see the apparent conflict of interest between reporting on Y2K and making money on Y2K. Its the same reason legislators and judges place personal investments in a blind trust. If you owned 1,000,000 shares of IBM, you might be tempted to act in your own interest rather than meet your professional obligations.

You have chosen to engage in Y2K commerce and I hope you have made a tidy sum. Your profits, after all, are the engine of capitalism. Once you cross into the realm of business, however, you leave behind the world of pure journalism. Please understand that I level the same criticism at the mass media that work and play well with advertisers.

This is why I think miss the point when you say people complain about the profit motive. You may be quite sincere and Id like to trust you. But if I am critical of the business journalist who is a consultant for IBM and then reports on the company why should I treat you differently?

As a side note, I have suggested on numerous occasions that you are a canny businessperson. Others, however, suggest that you havent made any money from your book, multi-level marketing, Y2K consulting, etc. While you have no obligation to share this information, I would be disappointed to learn you had lost money on your ventures.

On look ahead failures:

I was surprised to hear you admit to mistakes but less so as I read how you qualified them. As you know, fiscal systems are often the backbone of the modern business. This goes well beyond budgets and financial reports. A breezy glance includes payroll, benefits, pensions, accounts payable, accounts receivable, billing, collections, depreciation, maintenance, facilities, etc. All of these systems are date sensitive.

So, my first contention is simple. Fiscal-year computer logic may not be omnipresent, but it is significant.

If these budgets and financial reports have been blowing up, we would have heard about it. Why? Your argument about the systemic nature of the economy should ring a bell. For example, if JIT manufacturers had computer glitches related to the logistics of ordering, payment, etc., the problems had a good chance of disrupting the allegedly tight manufacturing process.

There are a few alternative answers. The system may have more flex than you realize. In short, it may be possible to have computer problems without a domino effect. Or we may not have had many significant problems thus far. Do you want the good news or the good news? Oh, I neglect a third option. We may have IT pros that kick backside and take names in a crisis. (Sorry, Ed, but I cant remember the order of your books. Are American programmers rising or falling?)

On the mysterious "hidden" failures:

This is a bit cryptic, Ed. With all due respect, knowledge of a number of non-trivial problems hardly constitutes proof of global omerta. I agree most companies do not want to advertise computer failures. On the other hand, show stoppers are tough to hide. Again, you may have underestimated the ability of organizations to fix on failure. We are also seeing positive test results from large systems. (See the recent DoD logistics systems test. And who ever expects government to get it right?) The news on Y2K is generally positive, particularly from the iron triangle. Admittedly, much of this is self-reported; however, can you acknowledge there at least seems to be significant progress? [And how about those lagging Y2K remediation stocks?]

On the mysterious non-trivial failures

Of course organizations want to appear perfect. Yes, they will spin information to their competitive advantage. If computer problems impact their ability to provide goods and services, however, they suffer in the marketplace. As a free market supporter, Ed, I think you must appreciate the forced honesty the market creates. In simple terms, its perform or die. New euphemisms hardly constitute proof of more sinister motives. It the usual public relations pap corporations use. The bottom line, however, is the bottom line. I cannot recall a single report of a firm failing (or even losing a major contract) due to Y2K problems.

On software metrics:

Given the reported progress of so many firms with respect to Y2K remediation, I suggest your next book revisit software metrics. We have argued before on the validity of applying development metrics to a remediation problem. I think there is enough data available on remediation work to revisit your original thesis. All software projects may not be "created equal." Good theories require constant exercise. With all due respect, I am not sure you stumbled on an immutable law of the universe with software metrics.

Its all got be fixed!

I disagree. It doesnt function perfectly now. Here I suggest your background in IT may be a disadvantage. The economy is a large, messy, organic place. Businesses fail every day. Shipments are late, projects delayed and somehow we stumble forward. If we let the market work, things do get better. FedEx now gets our package there, overnight. Ben and Jerry add new flavors of ice cream. You buy solar panels for you New Mexico homestead.

How low can general economic efficiency drop? Its an interesting question, Ed. Most of our economy is focused on non-critical goods and services. In fact, I could live well without 98% of the stuff floating in the consumer universe. There would be friction in reallocating resources between non-critical services and critical services but it can be done. If you look at Americas production ramp-up into the Second World War you have an excellent example. While I do not wish to underestimate the Y2K problem, I also do not want to underestimate the resilience of the American economy.

On the ten-year depression and chemical plants:

We agree, Ed on the fact most Y2K impacts will be economic, just not the degree. If you are willing to wager on a 90% decline in the market, some strategic shorts can make you a very, very wealthy man.

I think we should look into the embedded chip issue, but based on what I have read, the vast majority of embedded chips are not in danger of failure due to rollover issues. I hope we do not have a chemical plant failure, but it is one of the risks of living in an industrial economy. We can eliminate the risks by choosing a simpler lifestyle, but the American consumer does not seem to want to go organic. By the way, if a chemical plant releases deadly toxins into the environment, what is the purpose of stored food?

Good news or bad news:

I think there has been a great deal of good news from the iron triangle in the U.S. At this point, Ed, do you think we will lose the grid and telecommunications? The news is not as good from the international perspective. If the U.S. economy stumbles (and I think it will), the rest of the world will be badly damaged. My concern here is the geo-political ramifications of severe global recession. Bad times seem to bring out the worst in nation-states.

DC and others

Having spent time in DC, I am amazed the city functions at all. It is one of the most poorly managed metropolitan areas in the U.S. I agree DC will have rollover problems. Other government entities will have trouble as well. Remember, Ed, we have no profit motive in the public sector. I do not want to dismiss government out of hand. On the other hand, many public agencies could stop functioning tomorrow with little real impact on the economy. Aside from a handful of critical services, if government isnt working, it isnt spending our money. (Pause for happy thought.)

On denouncing the radical fringe:

Please, Ed. A measure of intellectual courage is standing up to truly foolish ideas (like Y2K bugs coming from alien landings at Roswell). One of the problems of this forum is the soggy notion that all opinions are somehow equal. (And there are some bad ideas floating around.)

If you are concerned about your reputation, Ed, you might consider this. There are times when remaining silent is more damning than speaking out.

Finally, thank you for the civil tone of your letter. I appreciate the calm, thoughtful approach. In return, I hope you understand that there is no personal hostility in my comments. As a public figure in the Y2K debate, I feel obligated to question (and challenge) your ideas.

Regards,

-- Mr. Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), July 21, 1999

Answers

"Once you cross into the realm of business, however, you leave behind the world of pure journalism."

Oh yes, that's right. There is NO SUCH THING as objective reality. It's strictly in the eyes of the perceiver.

And notwithstanding the rest of your letter, Mr. Decker, you obviously DO have a problem with making a buck while sounding the alarm.

Emmanual Kant would be proud of you, sir.

Jolly

-- Jollyprez (jolly@prez.com), July 21, 1999.

Mr. Decker,

I have never challenged one of your posts, nor do I have the technical expertise to do so.

However, having read much of this forum's contents today, I would like to ask you the following questions:

Why are you a public figure in the Y2k debate?

Have you ever been in a meeting of public relations professionals who work for any of the 5 largest global corporations?

What--precisely--is your background?

Thanks.

:)

-- FM (vidprof@aol.com), July 21, 1999.

Why ask Ed anything when he has been wrong so many times before? Don't push him into writing another book on the aftermath of Y2K and how we all must pick up the pieces and move forward. Please, spare us. Keep your money in your pocket and not in his.

-- sittin (sittinonthesidelines@sittin.com), July 21, 1999.

I would like to know why when Ed chose to respond to Poole's letter, that all of a sudden, all of the "Pollys" decide to address a letter to him? Is this just an attention-getting gimmick?

-- amazing (simply@ma.zing), July 21, 1999.

Dear Mr. Cucaracha,

Although it does not change my pessimistic outlook, I will say that was an excellent, well thought out, poignant and articulate response. My compliments. Ed's reply will have to be pretty darn interesting...

-- a (a@a.a), July 21, 1999.

Mr. Poole's letter and Ed's response has not changed the outcome of Y2K. It has not changed the course of what may or may not happen, it hasn't fixed code, it hasn't changed legislation, and it hasn't made me rich. It's only a jostle of words, one trying to outwit the other to keep the Y2K myth scare alive and to keep the believers spending their hard earned dollars for something that will never happen. Ed's next photos will reveal a cyclone fence and razor wire circling it....hmmmmmm!

-- X~X~X (X~X~X~X~@X~X~X~.com), July 21, 1999.

Decker, my long worded friend.

I believe your intentions are good, many GIs do not, but that is irrelevant. I would ask you to simplify. Actually the request is to condense your opinions. Make it short and sweet. Give 30 column answers and wait for a response. So many people schroll by your input because of its length.

-- MidWestMike_ (MidWestMike_@hotmail.com), July 21, 1999.

Lookin for your 15 minutes too decker?

-- Injun Joe (injunjoe@the.cave), July 21, 1999.

Decker- YOU are a "PUBLIC FIGURE"???? ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO!!!!!

-- Gia (laureltree7@hotmail.com), July 21, 1999.

Dear Mr. Decker

I have read your well thought out and written letter. Firstly I must say that I am duely impressed with your written demeanor. But it quickly becomes apparent that you are in effect attempting "Befuddle them with bullshit, since you cannot bedazzle them with brillence"

I can only take a part of our letter in reference sir. The part in which I am some what familar with. But first I would remark on your attempt at subtrifuge on the fiscal year look ahead. Sir, while superentendant of a job. If the pay roll office could not advance my pay roll ahead to say the 12/31/99 deline for my "NEW" fisal year ending. They would get their pay checks PDQ. And if it took them more than a day to do it, they still get the checks.

In the construction industry (Electricans) there are only two can'ts...you can't do it...you can't stay.

In my 30 odd years out on the road, most of them where spent in the building of coal-fired co-generation complexes out in the western states.Oh there have been a couple of copper smelters, a pipe line or two. Even a few refineries thrown in the mix. And of course the Palo Verde nuclear generation complex out side of Phonix, Az.

-- Shakey (in_a_bunker@forty.feet), July 21, 1999.

Ed,

My hat is off to you, not for your insight, nor your wisdom, not for your experience, or your insightfull commentary, nor even your civil response to Steve Poole.

Nope.

I admire anyone who would put up with these constant harpies, these bUZZarDs wHo pICk aT The EYes oF DIEter, over something that has yet to occur. IMHO you have made yourself clear. As have those who disagree with you. But yet the nitpicking goes on and on and on and on. "What about this"? What about that"? "What if this"? "What if that"? Ad nauseum. Endless debate over what MAY be. You're a much more patient man than I would be in your shoes, and a much more civil response comes from you, than that which I could muster. Kudos.

Having said that, I truly hope that your prognostication ranks among those who laughed at Fulton's Folly, nothing personal of course.

To Mr. Decker,

Since this is an open letter perhaps you will pardon me, but your example of "The economy is a large, messy, organic place. Businesses fail every day. Shipments are late, projects delayed and somehow we stumble forward." is quite apt. THE question yet to be answered is:

How much messier must it get for things to go REALLY organic, how many more businesses must fail, how many more shipments must be late, and projects delayed before we stumble and FALL?

Would an additional 10-15% do it? Would it take 20%? How much slack do you see in the system? How much additional drain on productivity could this nation shrug off?

I have read your past commentary here with interest, and I look forward to your response.

-- Uncle Deedah (oncebitten@twiceshy.com), July 21, 1999.

In Decker's defense, he was referring to Yourdon as a public figure.

-- a (a@a.a), July 21, 1999.

I hope.

-- a (a@a.a), July 21, 1999.

Dear Mr. Decker

Sir

I have long been an admired of your command of the english language. But at some point it becomes evident, even to a shirt tailed old electrican as myself. That at times you are trying to "bedazzle them with you brillence-when all the while you are befuddling them with bullshit"!

Even I when I was running work, knew that it is very little effort to artifically run my fiscal year up to 12/31/99 in order to buy myself time. Been there done that sir!!!

Now before you think you have a country bumpkin on the hook, I think it is only right to give you some back ground of my past professional life.

My first big job was in 1972. The ABM complex at Mountain N.Dak. PAR/MSR I believe the job was called. Then Jim Bridger coal-fired 750 megawatt at Rock Springs Wyo. The Navaho coal fired complex at Page, Az. Phelps Dodge copper remodel at Mornci, Az Wheatland coal fired 750 at Wheat Land Wyo. Huntington coal fired (little 150 megawatt) a Huntington, UT Both coal fired(250 megawatt as I recall) at Steam Boat Springs, Colo. Again Az. Palo Verde, and the Salt River Projects coal fired at St. John's Az. The Joseph city addition to their string of little coal-fired at Joseph City,Az. The San Juan Power complex at Farminfton N.Mexico The Intermountain coal-fired 750 megawatt at Delta Ut. Throw in about four Diamond Shamrocks refineries,A Chevron and a Texaco refinery.

Now sir, Please give me your qualifications to talk knowledgeably about the RTC problems you might find in the embeded systems of these type of complexes. But be aware! We will have to go internatonally in our discussion on the subject. As every one of these complexes have over seas equipment and their accompanying embedded systems.

It is no mystery to me why you will see embeded systems failures starting now and extending for some time into the year 2000. If you are conversant you know this as well.

Now as to my classification...I am a Journey man wireman. But I have been start-up engineer/tech mostly I like being an indian, but I have been a Chief also. And I have been all over the construction of power stations,from helping install the turbine, to running const. maintance, to installing conduit. etc.

Thank you for your kind indulgence

Shakey

-- Shakey (in_a_bunker@forty.fee), July 22, 1999.

Keep going Shakey -- three times is a charm

-- (@ .), July 22, 1999.

As a public figure in the Y2K debate, I feel obligated to question (and challenge) your ideas.

Regards,

-- Mr. Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), July 21, 1999

Mr. Decker

a is quite right. Could you please clearify the above statement. It doesn't make sense. Not that the rest of your diatribe does (Y2K wise).

-- Brian (imager@home.com), July 22, 1999.

Excuse me, Mr. Decker, but why do you continually address Mr. Yourdon as Ed in your letter, yet sign yourself Mr. Decker, rather than Ken? I believe the honorific "Mr." is used as a sign of respect - does this informal use of Mr. Yourdon's first name (while withholding your own) imply you have no respect for the gentleman?

-- Just (checking@manners.here), July 22, 1999.

Regarding the comment of "many public agencies could stop functioning tomorrow with little real impact on the economy"...

My brother works for the federal government, and he says that there's alot of outsourcing to private agencies, such as Information Technologies, landscaping, you get the drift.

Granted, if these companies rely on governmental contracts/bids for their bread and butter, they'll have to find new clients.

Why anyone would put all of their eggs in one basket and not have a diversified customer base is beyond me, but it happens nevertheless...if a company is catering to a narrow niche that cannot be applied towards the private sector, it must adapt rather quickly in order to maintain their cash flow if its reserves are low. Will there be enough money to cover the negative cash flow if one needs to revamp and conduct a marketing campaign to attract new customers, or would it be better to cut one's losses, fold the company, and start over again?

If the latter applies, will venture capital be readily available to accommodate the demand? It will be interesting to see which businesses or market sectors will have the flexibility and resources to do adapt should things get messy.

I'm not a fan of big government, but the reality is that many businesses rely on government contracts/bids to stay afloat, even if a said government service appears to be non-critical.

If you can adapt and have the resources to turn problems into opportunities/solutions, recognize emerging markets and capitalize on them, your enterprise stands a better chance of surviving than those who've grown complacent or whose management team is asleep behind the wheel, so to speak.

I forgot what percentage of the GDP pertains to government spending...it's late, so if someone could help me out here, I'd be much obliged. Constructive criticism or comments welcome.

-- Tim (pixmo@pixelquest.com), July 22, 1999.

Mr. Cucaracha?

Tell me, "KEN", do you have any kleenex I could borrow? BWAAAAAAHA

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), July 22, 1999.

Correction: the federal percentage for 1997 was 4.2%, state and local was 8.5%.

-- Tim (pixmo@pixelquest.com), July 22, 1999.

It was not clear but I meant Ed Yourdon is the public figure. (Yikes!) Second, I have read enough of Mr. Yourdon's work to feel a sense of familiarity. If you read this Mr. Yourdon, feel free to call me, "Ken." If you prefer a more formal approach, just let me know. No offense meant.

Finally, Tim, where does the government gets its money? What the government "produces" is financed by the private sector. It sure feels that way when I see what I pay in federal taxes. I think there are many government programs that are unnecessary. Let's take the federal Bureau of Mines. If it didn't function for a month or two, we might realize what we have is a bureaucratic relic of on earlier era. Remember this this, private enterprise is the horse. Government is the cart. Thanks for the comments.

Regards,

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

Mr. Decker, is the nonprofit that employs you partially or wholly funded by taxpayer dollars? Does it have anything to do with government programs that we might be better off without? Your place of employment receives tax breaks for being a non-profit, at least, which is another form of government subsidy.

Your education - was it funded in any way by the government via your Navy service or Pell grants or similar? Is the GI education program one we can do without? The tax-free purchases at various stores on military bases - are those tax subsidies more government give-aways we can do without?

-- Chicken Big (preparing@means.no.panic), July 22, 1999.

Mr. Decker,

I can't speak to the condition of DC, but other than that - Well done.

Having developed (yes written from scratch) Financial Reporting systems for quite a few years, I can honestly say that Fiscal Year End is no more strenuous on a system than a normal month-end. Date look-aheads exist in actuarial systems which do forecasting/modeling but not in your standard run-of-the-mill Accounts Receiveable, Accounts Payable, and General Ledger systems. Look-back's =funny but in almost 30 years in the business I have never heard of that term= I can only relate this to the gathering of metrics in historical reporting. Even at that, the "reporting" phase of any system is not necessarily critical to the entire system.

Yours in COBOL... Dino!

-- (COBOL_Dinosaur@yahoo.com), July 22, 1999.

Reading Mr. Decker's "open reply", I could not help but be reminded of the attitude and strategy of NASA management evinced in Nature Cannot Be Fooled: do whatever you can, say whatever you can, think whatever you can, to convince yourself that it can't possibly be as bad as some people say it is.

-- Lane Core Jr. (elcore@sgi.net), July 22, 1999.

Chicken,

I routinely drive on roadways and over bridges financed by the government. Do I plan on walking on the shoulders and swimming the rivers as a form of protest? The answer is, "no."

Of course there are legitimate government functions. National defense is one. (For the record, I think Uncle Sam got his money's worth from me.) Recognizing the need for a public sector, my philosophy is simple. To the greatest extent possible, government should be limited and local.

I benefit from the current system. So do most Americans. Unlike some, however, I am willing to forfeit my personal benefits in return for this government more "limited and local." For example, I support a no-deducations, flat income tax even if it means I pay more.

While I am just a private citizen, I do what I can within the existing political system to advance my philosophy. If all of "my" changes were implemented... my personal life would impacted. After the party, I would find and seize a new opportunity.

The fate of the Republic is more important than my personal interests.

Regards,

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

Forgive the repetition but you did not answer my questions, prompted by your statement: "I think there are many government programs that are unnecessary. Let's take the federal Bureau of Mines. If it didn't function for a month or two, we might realize what we have is a bureaucratic relic of on earlier era."

Is the nonprofit that employs you partially or wholly funded by taxpayer dollars?

Does it have anything to do with government programs that we might be better off without?

Your education - was it funded in any way by the government via your Navy service or Pell grants or similar?

Is the GI education program one we can do without?

The tax-free purchases at various stores on military bases - are those tax subsidies more government give-aways we can do without?

I would like to know if you have been a willing participant in what I and others might consider an "unnecessary...bureaucratic relic of on earlier era."

-- Chicken Big (preparing@means.no.panic), July 22, 1999.

Mr. Decker,

A truly outstanding contribution sir. I look forward to Mr. Yourdon's response, the dialogue has gotten so shallow on this forum lately I was about to stop dropping by.

Mr. Yourdon,

Thanks for returning, your team has been getting a terrible thrashing by Decker and the other realists. This forum has always been most interesting during the times when the playing field has been level. As you can see from the above responses to Mr. Decker the doomers' spokesfolks are dominated by people who have yet to learn the old adage: "If you can't run with the big dogs, stay on the porch!"

-- Woe Is Me (wim@doom.gloom), July 22, 1999.

Bravo, bravo! Well done.

If I may add, my overall impression of Mr. Yourdon's response is that it contain all the old tired chants. He didn't acknowledge any of the "good" news, such as the progress being made on the iron triangle. But at least now we know how much (85%) needs to fail for a ten year depression. ;) Now to just figure out what constitutes that 15% failures. Is it some banks and all supply chains? Is it just supply chains? Or maybe the missile launches and the sanitation department in Detroit. Sorry, just having a little fun.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), July 22, 1999.

While all this dazzling rhetoric is fascinating, I'd like to point out that "diversion" most safely belongs in the entertainment industry. Y2K is NOT entertaining me today. I like the idea that the economy may be organic. I like poetic images. I don't like the idea that my personal economy may turn to organic shit. Shit stinks. It's bad poetry.

Recession is when your neighbor looses his job. Depression is when I loose my job. So what if my business is compliant. What if my customers decide my service is non-essential? I'll tell you right now, compared to utilities, my services are nonessential. Can I go three to six months without good cash flow and have a business future - NO. I personally don't want to bet on the "TEOWAWKI" insurance policy, to wit: my obligations disappear because of chaos.

I do have a talent for conceptualizing "systems," interrelationships and possible future results - some people don't. It doesn't make them stupid - just different. There are many, many things I am inept at. They just can't visualize a future result until it is in the present. Its unfair to expect them to possess it. Its a capability that is unessential to their daily lives. Why do you think furniture stores set up mock "rooms" to display their furniture - so Dick and Jane can "see" that new waterbed with genuine stained pine side tables in their doublewide.

It is a legitimate interest to sift these discussions for facts and news. You won't find them on "television news," an oxymoron if there ever was one. Certainly I'd like to estimate the Richter value of the coming economic consequences - to know which way the sands are shifting. However, as anyone with a grain of common sense knows, all youll be standing on in the end is shifting sands.

As imprecise as the recent FAA announcement is, it certainly is encouraging. Hartsfield in Atlanta recently announced compliance, too. Will I book a flight in Atlanta? No - Id prefer Kennedy Air and Limo Service on a nice day from Charlie Brown Field to Delta at Hartsfield. Perhaps the risk is smaller today, but the consequences of failure are still ordinarily and personally catastrophic today. I do not accept the risk nor will I buy a ticket for my wife or any of my children. You dont have to know COBOL to figure that out.

Heres a suggestion for the FAA. If youre so confident in your compliant code, why not order all your traffic controllers to move their clocks ahead to 01/01/2000 sixty days from now. Youll have two months to install and patch the new software. Many airports are protesting the planned tests for the end of the year. OK. No tests. Just install the software and fire up those vacuum tubes. Then, put every employee of the FAA on distributed flights through Denver, Miami, OHare, Kennedy, etc. for a couple of weeks of flights, assuming, of course, the pilots are willing to cooperate. Surely there are some bureaucrats within the beltway that would enjoy a free trip to Chicago. What a refreshing public exercise in the quality of government contracting that would be. Maybe this isnt NASA but my family arent astronauts, either. But what about our healthy economy? Unemployment is low. The stock market is great. I dont think so. Employment has shifted for a great many regular, ordinary folks from hard, high-asset leveraging jobs into soft, low value-asset jobs. Example: operating a blast furnace to flipping burgers. Not every transitioned employee can get a Masters and teach Developmental Education or become a Certified Microsoft Engineer. Not that we dont need them, its just that we dont have what it takes to do the job.

As for the stock market, let me ask you a question. If you had a child, who at age nine, and according to generally-accepted accounting/ health standards was expected to be 56 tall and weigh 125 lbs. instead was 11 tall and weighed 250 lbs., would you be personally concerned? Or, would you, and ALL your neighbors be lining up three times a day to thrust more food down his or her throat in expectation the child would hit 20 and 500 lbs.? On top of that, suppose you and your neighbors were even mortgaging your houses and using credit cards to buy more and more food to cram down the kids throat - even stealing time from your job to slip down and buy more food? Im sure the grocery store owners would like it. But, would the Social Services experts say thats a healthy family? Would the President try to take credit for the kids growth? If Y2K technical disruptions, regardless of actual severity, and psychological fears halve the market, dont blame the code-heads.

I like neatly-packaged solutions to deal with risk. The minimum effort I have to make for auto insurance is nothing. I could probably even get insurance cheaper. But you know what - its hardly worth the effort. My wife recently changed our insurance but probably only because she works for the new insurer that provides our coverage. How do you make an Excel spreadsheet to calculate this one? The factors alone are numerous, risk percentages change with every announcement and do I have what it takes to be dispassionate about my future expectations?

One concept is very simple. If I do nothing, take no action at all, I would be displaying an amazing amount of faith in our collective organic and that I wont be the one who ends up in the mulch pile. And if I look foolish later, so damn what. It sure wouldnt be the first time, and I survived those experiences just fine, thank you very much.

-- Karl (valleycable@earthlink.net), July 22, 1999.

Just a comment for Chicken Big (and persistent). The GI bill and other "benefits" for our military folks are, IMO, too little. Did you know that the lower echelons of the military ranks are below the poverty line in the US? That without these subsidies, they couldn't make it. They serve their country for what? Where's the incentive to stay in the military. And you want to sit back in your lazy chair and talk about freedoms. Please do some research first.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), July 22, 1999.

Mr Decker, Though Pollys may not be responsible for the LEVEL that other Pollys prepare for... they are certainly responsible for influencing innocents to NOT prepare. You seem to fail to grasp the relationship between preparation and possible consequences of NOT preparing versus the level that anyone prepares for. Let us hope that your family will not suffer for your misconceptions as well. As for not trusting someone to report on issues they profit from----anyone with a modicum of intelligence will take ALL posts with a large grain of salt (even this one). It does seem to me that people who profit from most categories do so by demonstrating an expertise in that subject. Heaven help us to DENY people with expertise from reporting to us, leaving us pure idiots to submit information? Your double edge sword cuts into your own theory. On this basis, we should deny the DoD any attempt to report on world situations. While we are at it, lets include Doctors, Scientists, Programmers, Financial Consultants and anyone with ANY expertise to write on a subject they also profilt from. Sound fair? Sounds RIDICULOUS! Fiscal year computer logic IS significant. What YOU fail to grasp is the way each business or govt system employs the data in that system and how any "glitch" might manifest. Certainly not in your time table (convenvient to rebuke). Data mishaps happen when that system is involved with correlations using FUTURE extrapolations. I.E. WHEN that particular business/system is involved in actually USING that data. They don't go by a schedule convenient for anyone's predictions, not even yours. Pollys have been told , over and over again that most failures of this sort would NOT be seen til the end of the month, since the majority of systems used wouldn't be accessing that data til then.Do you have trouble with calendars? And exactly WHO do you think will deem you so important that they will submit their failure to YOUR evaluation the first second a problem is experienced? This may display your A) lack of understanding in corporate strategy,B) business finance or C) legal liability. I would choose D) none of the above...the afore-mentioned person merely twists any scenario to his own purposes/arguements. Fix on Failure topics... another thrill at the fair... The logic here escapes me (as it does with most intelligent people)... a 3 day bump? The possibility of watching it crash then fixing within 3 days? Well, gosh amighty, if it's THAT easy to fix in 3 days THEN DO IT NOW! Point made. The rest of your arguments are old hat... points already covered by wiser people than I am. If you aren't smart enough to listen to the infomation that already exists on those topics, we won't waste the time to do it now. Time will prove what is truth and what the results of that truth will have on our society and lives.

-- River (LdyRiver@yahoo.com), July 22, 1999.

And the pollys continue to babble on about all the great "progress" being made. (Well, here in the good ol' USA anyhow, thank goodness none of those other countries count.)

Lets all say this together. I-t i-s n-o-w l-a-t-e J-u-l-y 1-9-9-9. N-o-b-o-d-y t-h-a-t c-o-u-n-t-s i-s F-I-N-I-S-H-E-D y-e-t. T-h-e-y w-i-l-l n-o-t f-i-n-i-s-h o-n t-i-m-e. (And that includes the FAA, unless you are REALLY gullible.)

-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.com), July 22, 1999.

Chicken,

"'Go to hell!' or other insult; is all the answer a snoopy question rates." Lazarus Long

For more quotes from the fictional character, "Lazarus Long," see:

http://www.overbyte.com/scottr/lazarus.htm

I do not answer questions concerning details of my personal life. Period. If you want to discuss a particular government program, fine, but not from the perspective of how your or I may have benefited from the program.

Oh, and "River," I think there is a substantial difference in paying for professional advice and objective analysis. Even with my trusted doctor, I'll seek a second opinion... from someone who has no particular financial stake in the outcome.

Regards,

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

Folks I find it rather amusing and more than a little informing, that first Mr. Little, then Mr. Poole. And now our distingushed Mr. Decker all seem to have one thing in common.

When each of them jump up and beat their collective chests about the embeded system problems toward Mr. Yourdon, Mr. C. Hamasaki, or Mr Milne. Whom they know have no back ground in the instalation of such.They invarily ignor my request to debate them if they wish....Since I have had a little experience. At such things.

Gives one pause to think, do we have "Komono Dragons" amoungst the forum....??

Shakey

-- Shakey (in_a_bunker@forty.feet), July 22, 1999.

"So, my first contention is simple. Fiscal-year computer logic may not be omnipresent, but it is significant.

If these budgets and financial reports have been blowing up, we would have heard about it. Why? Your argument about the systemic nature of the economy should ring a bell. For example, if JIT manufacturers had computer glitches related to the logistics of ordering, payment, etc., the problems had a good chance of disrupting the allegedly tight manufacturing process."

No, we wouldn't have heard about it yet. This is a legitimate matter for disagreement but most calcs that require "2000" in business are not yet being made or being made in large numbers. Most "ordering" takes place within a 30 to 60 day window. Payroll doesn't yet require 2000 dates by and large. Forecasting does, but is not critical to current operations (ie, July, August, September).

Are some 2000 dates being calculated? No doubt. If they are blowing up, are they past the threshold at which the public would be hearing about them? Impossible. That said, every month that goes by henceforth without stuff bubbling up is good news, with these two important caveats:

.. Most year 2000 fixes have little or nothing to do with the systems in question. To the degree that resources already delayed in fix-test of Y2K is sucked up by "JAE" stuff, the worse for us later.

.. Second, we just don't know at what point complex systems become gridlocked by the accumulation of errors. This has been debated without winners on this forum. This remains a Y2K risk that will be largely underground until/if it explodes in our cultural face.

(Parenthetically, I never bought the April 1 and July 1 stuff for these reasons and said so for many months and described Yourdon myself as wrong about this. He was also wrong about when prep supplies would dry up (welcome to the club). I think his own candid acknowledgement of this says enough about that. On the flip side, Davis predicted in this forum in MARCH, 1999 that thousands of entities would formally declare compliance by June, 1999 and this didn't happen either.)

"I think we should look into the embedded chip issue, but based on what I have read, the vast majority of embedded chips are not in danger of failure due to rollover issues. I hope we do not have a chemical plant failure, but it is one of the risks of living in an industrial economy."

The problem is not, "will there be A failure" but will there be dozens, hundreds or thousands? Each plant represents a unique failure point and there is no inherent reason why ONLY one would fail or (to be fair) thousands will. WE DON'T KNOW. The same single embedded system problem (even if, overall, failures are .001) could bring down thousands. I'm not predicting it, but stating that the level of our ignorance about this in July, 1999 is appalling. This same ignorance pervades much of the debate about embedded systems and the infrastructure (cf, oil, shipping and weapons systems), though not all ("cars" will be mostly okay, which is great news and not to be trivialized).

"I think there has been a great deal of good news from the iron triangle in the U.S. At this point, Ed, do you think we will lose the grid and telecommunications? The news is not as good from the international perspective. If the U.S. economy stumbles (and I think it will), the rest of the world will be badly damaged. My concern here is the geo-political ramifications of severe global recession. Bad times seem to bring out the worst in nation-states."

On this, we agree, though I would rate the news as a mixture of good-and-bad. I don't personally think we will lose the grid and telecom in the U.S. on the whole. I do envision the possibility of major downtime "noise" and culture/business frustration and productivity loss for weeks or months, peaking in summer of 2000 (and depending also on status of post office, UPS and airlines/airports). Arguably, the shipping industry (understood broadly in all its dimensions: oil, ships, airlines, trucks, postal, credit cards) is the world's most critical enabler of JIT.

A Y2K global downturn that short-circuits the modest recoveries now underway and re-ignites the downward line, leading to U.S. stumble that could well lead to a devolutionary feed-back spiral with other nations and back to us again (deep recession? depression? what?) is my biggest concern. And war arising from that.

These concerns weigh more heavily with me than failed 1999 predictions.

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), July 22, 1999.

LOL, Shakey, I noticed that fast "side-step" of Deckers to avoid your questions! Best laugh I had today ;)

-- River (LdyRiver@yahoo.com), July 22, 1999.

River -

My background includes almost 30 years of Programming, Systems Analysis, Systems Architecture and Project Management - most of it within the realm of Financial Systems.

I don't know what your background is, but I would venture to say that it is not parallel to my own. I would like to bring a few things to light in regard to your statements about Fiscal Year processing.

River - "Fiscal year computer logic IS significant. What YOU fail to grasp is the way each business or govt system employs the data in that system and how any "glitch" might manifest. Certainly not in your time table (convenvient to rebuke)."

Actually - truth be known - Fiscal Year Processing is not much different than a standard Month End process. The books are closed out (all transactions processed for the calendar month) and posted. General Ledger now has a full month of data which is applicable only to that month (years really don't enter into the picture in terms of processing a balance sheet). All of the companies and organizations I have worked with over the years (including Local, State and Federal Government) have all processed Fiscal Year End the same. Actually I can not think of any other way it could be done within the realm of reason. Some organizations choose to align their Fiscal Year with the end of the second Calendar Quarter (June 30th). The reporting of Fiscal Year End data (on IBM Mainframe Systems) is generally done with the processing of the last 12 generations of History Files (backups taken of the current month's data at the end of the month). The dollars are accumulated on both sides of the balance sheet (with little to no regard for what year it is processing - since it is just working with "generations" of backup data) and then reported as Totals by Organization, Cost Center, Account, etc.

River - "Data mishaps happen when that system is involved with correlations using FUTURE extrapolations. I.E. WHEN that particular business/system is involved in actually USING that data. They don't go by a schedule convenient for anyone's predictions, not even yours."

Fiscal Year reporting is done at the END of a Fiscal Year - Not at the beginning. What you have chosen to use as a model here is some form of Financial Forecasting. I have never heard of Fiscal Year processing using dates in the future.

River - "Pollys have been told , over and over again that most failures of this sort would NOT be seen til the end of the month, since the majority of systems used wouldn't be accessing that data til then."

If there were to be a date related failure in the Fiscal Year End process for an organization, it would happen during the close of the Fiscal Month/Year. In other words, if there were to be a date related failure in the Fiscal Year processing for ABC-Widgets Fiscal Year 1999 which closed on June 30th 1999 - That failure would have occurred in the early hours of batch processing on July 1st, 1999. Corporate online systems cannot be made available until the batch process for the previous day is complete. You are wrong.

River - "Do you have trouble with calendars? And exactly WHO do you think will deem you so important that they will ......"

MuchoSnippage

......" I am. If you aren't smart enough to listen to the infomation that already exists on those topics, we won't waste the time to do it now. Time will prove what is truth and what the results of that truth will have on our society and lives. "

Well now River, Hopefully you will be calm enough to have read and understood what I have tried to impart to you.

This is, basically, how the cow eats the cabbage in the world of financial systems.

Yours in COBOL... Dino!

-- (COBOL_Dinosaur@yahoo.com), July 22, 1999.