Answer to Lane Core : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread

I posted this in answer to Lane's Q. Then thought that I put enough effort into it to make it worthwhile posting by itself.

1 PREVENTION OF ALL FAILURE IS NOT POSSIBLE. This is a true statement. (Yes, I left out the Y2K part on purpose)

1.1 COMPLIANT DOES NOT EQUAL NO FAILURES. Again true. (Yes, I left out Y2K again.)

1.2. ALL PROBLEMS ARE NOT VISIABLE OR CONTROLABLE Again true. (Lane left out the Y2K this time)

1.3 INCOMING DATA MAY BE BAD OR MISSING. Again true. (Lane left out the Y2K again)

1.4 COMPLEXITY KILLS. (Again no Y2K from Lane) No. This is where Lane goes off the track. All of the conditions he described above pertain to the modern world now. Nothing to do or not do with Y2K. Things fail all the time. Data is bad. Complexity kills? If that were true how could any airplane every fly anywhere? Arent airplanes complex systems? Isnt air traffic control a complex system? Isnt all of the infrastructure to refuel, repair planes complex? Isnt the structure to get people to and from airports complex. Arent automobiles (all of those thousands of moving parts and chips in them) complex? And somehow it all works, most of the time. If Lanes logic was correct. Nothing would work at any time. Software has had all sorts of bugs from day one. Come to think of it how do computers, software and the Internet work if complexity kills? And isnt the human body and brain extremely complex. Yet Doctors operate on them every day? Gee I wonder how they do it? The FACT that all of these work shows the above is wrong.

2. DETERMINING LEGAL LIABILITY WILL BE VERY DIFFICULT. True but is this different from the easy, cheap way it is now? No wonder trial lawyers dont have any money and are just waiting for Y2K so they can make some. Uh huh.

2.1 THERE IS A SHARED RESPONSIBILITY BETWEEN BUYERS, SELLERS, AND USERS OF TECHNOLOGY. Again True. But is that any different from now? And doesnt it pertain to any technology? What is new here?

2.2 MANY THINGS ARE OUTSIDE THE CONTROL OF ANY DEFENDANT. Well, maybe. I think that is one for the lawyers to argue about. Its stuff like that on which cases turn.

2.3 THERE WILL BE A STRONG DEFENSE OF IMPRACTICALITY. Who knows? I didnt read in your bio where you are a lawyer Lane, so who knows? Im not one either.

3.0 COMPLEXITY AND TIME NEGATES ANY LEGAL LIABILITY INCENTIVE You are going to get in trouble Lane, practicing law without a license.


4.1 Y2K IS A LONG TERM, NOT SHORT TERM, PROBLEM Wait a minute here. First we were supposed to see a lot of stuff happening from 1/1/99 on, the Famous Jo-Ann effect. Not zilch, but not anywhere near as much as predicted. Then 1/1/2000 was supposed to be the Big Date. And now, well it may be, just about forever. Nice way of never having to say you were wrong. Does this mean that anything that happens after 1/1/2000 is a Y2K problem? Or can there still be non-Y2K problems? And could the non-Y2K problems be more serious then the Y2K problems? Wasnt one of the big things about Y2K was it supposed to hit all at once, overwhelming remedial resources? If it now comes out in dribs and drabs how is it different from any other screw up? Instead of being the end of the world (or reasonably facsimile therefore of) its just another bug to be fixed where it shows up.

4.2 RAPID AND EFFECTIVE ORGANIZATIONAL ADAPTABILITY WILL BE A PRIME NECESSITY And this is different from now? Can you say Microsoft. Can you say Lotus? And the difference is?

4.3 LAWSUITS, ACTUAL OR THREATENED, WILL DIVERT REQUISITE RESOURCES. Boy, none of that goes on now, does it? The world will really be different after Y2K.

4.4 JUDICIAL SYSTEM OVERLOAD IS ANOTHER DANGER. Quick email this to the Supreme Court. Theyd really appreciate being clued in to this.

-- The Engineer (The, October 04, 1999


Thanks, "The". May I call you by your first name?

I asked for facts. I got none. Which proves my point: facts aren't enough.

You guys are the greatest. :-)

-- Lane Core Jr. (, October 04, 1999.

I will leave it as an exercise to more astute readers to show how "The" has completely misread my entire post.

-- Lane Core Jr. (, October 04, 1999.

First, Core post something.

Someone replies, criticizing Core's dogmatic viewpoint.

Core returns to say that (1) his point was missed, BUT (2) his point was also proved!

The first time this happened, it was confusing. The second time, it was boring. By now, I guess the point is for Core to cackle at his own "jokes". And waste bandwidth.

-- Flint (, October 04, 1999.

Well, Engineer, your post demonstrates precisely the kind of detail-obsessive, counting-the-trees-instead-of-noticing-you're-lost in-a-forest thinking that got us in this incredibly stupid Y2K mess in the first place. Nobody who has thought about and analysed Y2K for any length of time thought it would be a short-term event with everything simply blowing up just after midnight on New Year's Eve. January 1, 2000 is simply the rollover date, the deadline, and the end of the road for excuses. Because it's a specific, non-negotiable point in time, people focused on that date but no serious Y2K commentator has indicated that it is to be a short-term event.

You're also making the usual engineer error of failing to distinguish between a number, even a large number of individual computer problems and an overwhelming number of hardware, software and embedded system glitches happening to massive numbers of systems--systems, not individual computers or corporations or even industries--all in a compressed time period of a month or so, starting with January 1, 2000.

You really need to stick your head out of that box and look around; check out the Big Picture; stop counting trees and realize that we're lost in the forest at twilight and the deep, dark night is about to fall.

-- cody (, October 04, 1999.

Well, since both you guys are disclaiming being lawyers, I'll dust off my J.D. and jump in with my two cents.

One thing is clear. Y2K is unprecedented, and the law has trouble dealing with the unprecedented. Our case-law approach works by analogies, i.e., analogizing from the "known" to the "new" or "unknown". This is a remarkably flexible way of doing law, but tends to be breathtakingly slow. At best, Y2K litigation will create a universe of uncertainty as a variety of theories (tort, contract, products liability, U.C.C., etc.) are all invoked to see what they are worth. No matter how you cut it, people hurt by Y2K (financially or in any other way) will be waiting a long time (I mean years) for relief.

I have several clients who have sought my input on Y2K "lawyer-speak" to say not-much very impressively to customers and vendors. I'm reasonably good at it, but not nearly as good as some other lawyers I've encountered. This mountain of fancy disclaimer language in which our industries are now swimming will not help much in sorting out the liabilities post-Y2K.

For what it's worth, the psychology of Y2K impresses me increasingly. As a former (pre-law school) programmer, I'm reasonably certain that Y2K will be disruptive. I'm convinced it will be much more disruptive than it needed to be, because the mainstream culture has pursued with a religious fervor the proposition that our systems cannot (virtually by definition) fail. It cannot happen...therefore, it will not happen. With this state of mind, it seems to me that the most modest failures (which are certainly bound to occur) will catapult people into paralysis. The failure of religious objects is certainly the most disturbing kind of loss to the human psyche.


-- B.Gore (, October 04, 1999.

Fact 1.1- Y2K software problems are real.

Fact 1.2- Billions of dollars have been spent to correct this real problem.

Fact 2.1- Knowledgeable experts state that because of the billions spent resulting problems will not cause serious disruptions.

Fact 2.2- Knowledgeable experts state that despite the billions spent resulting problems may cause serious disruptions.

Fact 3.1- Believing the wrong experts may have serious effects on you and your family.

Fact 4.1- Having and not needing is better than needing and not having.

-- Uncle Deedah (, October 04, 1999.

Heads up Lane. Flint's pretty predictable - after calling you "boring" he'll claim you're toking on Yourdon's wang...

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


You are correct. Most people, even highly-trained engineers, are capable (or willing) to view their world as a complex dynamical system. Students of Whole Systems, or Cybernetics, understand that Core's assertion, that "Complexity Kills" is in fact correct. As complex dynamical systems grow in complexity, they invariably reach what is called a "bifurcation point," wherein a great deal of noise and instability enter the system. At this point, it either makes a jump forward into a much higher level of coherence and further complexity, or it collapses into a more primitive state (either case can be highly chaotic during the change). The "Y2k" computer problem is an object lesson in a complex system growing in complexity until it "gets ahead of itself," and must dissolve and reformulate into higher coherence (or dissolve and stay dissolved for a good long entropic while). Either way, "complexity kills," because while we (considered as a culture, with all the technological extensions of our body) are a complex dynamical system creating itself, we have no consciousness of ourselves as such, and therefore we are unable to predict these patterns and mitigate their traumatic effects.

In short, make sure you have plenty of Crisco.

-- Dr. Polymorph (, October 04, 1999.


I won't harbor any such suspicions unless Lane starts cross-posting lots of Yourdon's articles, then spends his subsequent posts saying "Well done Ed" and "Good work, Ed", and stops showing any signs of doing his own thinking.

As things stand, I find Lane's efforts unpersuasive, but still thought-provoking and (more to the point) his OWN.

-- Flint (, October 04, 1999.

Here goes the "engineer" again with his usual stupidity: (duuuuuh, but that happens every day!)

"But is that any different from now? And doesnt it pertain to any technology? What is new here?"

Here is what is "new":

You are unable to perceive any difference between the magnitude of the Y2K problem and the magnitude of problems that have been occuring on a regular basis up until Y2K.

-- @ (@@@.@), October 04, 1999.


what railroad do you work for?

do you really get to drive those choo-choos?

-- i think i can (i.think@i.can), October 04, 1999.

Question: Should we be concerned if a nuclear war breaks out?

Answer: No. People are dying all the time as it is.

-- Me (, October 04, 1999.

Straw men can be so much fun to play with.

-- (, October 04, 1999.


While you're at it, how about the Earth being splashed by a comet?

But seriously, rather than the nuclear war straw man, consider automobile transportation. Is it viable? Absolutely. But Wait! More than 40,000 people per year in the US die in traffic accidents. The environmental pollution from cars is significant. They consume a large part of our resources (averaging 20% of the take-home pay of the average American) and our time (commutes get longer and longer). We are paving our countryside with roads and parking lots. We are pumping oil out of the ground at a prodigious rate to fuel them, and suffering oil spills. We sink an unimaginable volume of natural resources into building, scrapping, and running these things.

Cars are expensive, dirty, and dangerous. We know this, yet we continue to buy and drive them without ever giving any thought to doing without them. We *love* them. We know the price is high, and we still consider it a bargain. You could be like Lane Core and pile all the dangers and disadvantages of cars up into a Mountain of Death. And nobody would deny all of his facts. But Lane himself will tell you that facts and conclusions are two different things.

-- Flint (, October 04, 1999.


I think I see what you're getting at. Cars, like computers, are costly to maintain, but we are willing to do it, because like computers, we have become dependent upon them. And if all of our cars broke down on January 1, we would be almost as screwed as we are going to be when all of the computers break down.

-- @ (@@@.@), October 04, 1999.

Watch out - Flint's pissy! (try not to mention the impending collapse of our critical infrastructure - it upsets him so...).

-- Dr. Polymorph (, October 04, 1999.

Well, Doc, you sure said it fancier than I did but that's exactly what I mean. Complexity kills, or at least has the tendency to do so once it gets big enough.

-- cody (, October 04, 1999.

Flint, I'd hoped that you were busy making preps - with no time to offer disfunctional analysis. Re: Lane's current Post - notice he didn't have 1, not ONE, of his opinons in it. He asked for FACTUAL answers to refute the claims of the letter. When you read someone's post, does it sound like several people are talking at once to you? Is it hard to differentiate between what you see in the world and what you see in your head?

-- Gregg (, October 05, 1999.

And if all of our cars broke down on January 1, we would be almost as screwed as we are going to be when all of the computers break down.


"...when all of the computers break down."

Not some, not even most. No, it's when ALLLLL the computers break down. Not even one little tiny computer somewhere will be working, nope.


-- (LOL@LOL.LOL), October 05, 1999.

Sorry, Flint. I forgot: you're the only one who's allowed to argue both sides at the same time. :-)

Surely, you are not as obtuse as your response implies.

We have a phoney posting here who hypocritically calls himself a "FactFinder". He had dismissed the IEEE's Open Letter to Congress, sneeringly calling it "abstract fluff". No facts, no reasoning, no inferences, not even any assertions beyond calling it "abstract fluff" with a wave of the hand.

He later posted a lengthy article here and on EUY2K, Embedded Systems Revisited, but when challenged by Roleigh Martin on EUY2K, he ducked out by claiming he was taking a "vacation" from "Y2K discussions", though he was finding lots of time on his "vacation" to post on numerous threads here (especially when he finds a good press release).

I'm trying to expose his hype, trying to shine a light on his hoax: he's no more or less a "FactFinder" than the rest of us are. He is interested in backing up his preconceived notions. Period. Is he the only one here doing so? Heck, no. But that is what he's doing.

So, I decided to request "facts", allowing any "FactFinder" around here to show that the sneering dismissal of the IEEE's letter was really based on facts, and was not just an emotional reaction to assertions contrary to what he likes, a refusal (or incapacity) to think beyond the immediate and the obvious when it comes to his preconceived notions.

"The Engineer" responded thus: (1) he gave many assertions, some of which I agree with, but no facts -- thereby completely missing my point; (2) he attributed the IEEE's numerous statements to me though I several times made it clear that I was quoting the IEEE Letter -- thereby misreading my post (though not completely, which was an overstatement on my part).

Thanks for allowing me to clear that up, Flint. :-)

Oh, by the way, I do apologize for offending the sensibilities of The Pollyannas who think that "hype" and "hoax" belong exclusively to their vocabulary -- Not!...

-- Lane Core Jr. (, October 05, 1999.

"Complexity kills." Some seem to be interpreting this too strictly. It doesn't mean "complexity always kills". Take it as "complexity can kill" not "complexity does kill".

Like, "Floods kill". Everybody in a flood doesn't die (I know, I've been through them myself), but some people do.

-- Lane Core Jr. (, October 05, 1999.


I don't think there are "sides" here except as we impose them. I do try to see what is, and I see a lot of smoke and haze.

The IEEE statement is filled with assertions, speculations and predictions. You may agree with them (many are beyond reasonable dispute) but these are not "facts". The definition of a "fact" has become itself difficult to grasp.

So XYZ corporation issues a press release announcing they're "substantially compliant." Well, it's a fact that they issued the release, but is it a fact that they're substantially compliant? At this point, we all go in circles. We can't verify this statement, so we doubt it. Occasionally XYZ announces they've been verified by an outside party (as FAA did). So then we ask, well, just how "outside" was it, and HOW did they do their verification. And we doubt THEM! At some point, we all decide that assertions are all that's underlying what we don't want to believe, while "facts" underlie what we prefer.

And please understand that I'm taking your request seriously here. Understand that IEEE is making statements about the future (problems will be hard to control, there will be legal problems, there will be bad data, complexity will kill (it hasn't yet) and so on.) Your request for "facts" that will come true in the future is impossible to satisfy. Indeed, y2k is messy enough so that in most cases I predict it won't be possible to establish "facts" even in hindsight.

-- Flint (, October 05, 1999.

Thanks, Flint.

It is interesting to see the outrageously strict demands for verification. IV&V was always, for practical purposes, impossible for all but a fraction of Y2K remediation: there just aren't enough auditors or whatever to go around.

I think it is unwise to assume that every unverified assertion is untrue; I certainly don't do that. I do assume that some of them are untrue, and that the consequences are not necessarily... inconsequential. :-)

And I find the quibbling over things like "Is the US federal government 95% or 97% done with mission-critical systems?" to be almost amusing if it wasn't just missing the points. (I don't mean that you're doing the quibbling.) First, the figures are derived from performance that's reported by bureaucrats trying to impress other bureaucrats (similarly with industry reporting); second, the amount of effort required to get from either 95% or 97% to 100% complete can be (not necessarily is, but can be) as much as was required to get from 75% to 95% complete; third, bald percentages indicate nothing about the relative importance of what's done and what's not done; fourth, nobody really knows (and I mean nobody, including insiders) how well or how badly remediated systems are going to react with unremediated systems within the same entity, let alone among distinct entities.

-- Lane Core Jr. (, October 05, 1999.


Yeah, I know, I was using a bit of hyperbole to make my point since Flint was ranting about how important our cars are.

You said:

"Not even one little tiny computer somewhere will be working, nope."

Yes, I'm sure there will be lots of little tiny computers working, but individual computers don't do much good unless they are connected to other computers. By themselves they are just a calculator with a lot more storage space. With many broken links along the chain, I'd bet that 50% of our most important networks are going to be so severely crippled that they will require many transactions to be conducted outside of cyberspace ("physically" or "manually"). Yes, I was exaggerating, but we'll see what is still standing, in the aftermath of Hurricane 2000.

-- @ (@@@.@), October 05, 1999.


As an admirer of careful wording, I'm impressed. As things stand today, a very large number of transactions are handled physically or manually. I notice you were VERY careful not to make a measurable prediction, like 50% of networks not working at all. Only that 50% will be "so bad" that what is happening normally today will continue to happen. And just how bad is that? Why, anything you choose -- you can't lose. Good work, I must admire it.

-- Flint (, October 05, 1999.


Sure I call you Lane so feel free to call me The. Fair is fair. And I didnt misread your post. I think you misread mine. See below


Did you read @s post. He thinks everything is going to give up the ghost come 1/1/2000. So you not only disagree with me, you disagree with him too? And no, just the opposite its the people who think that it Y2K will bring about massive problems who dont see the forest for the trees. As I said before, to see it as an IT problem is to misread it. So now we have hardware failing as well as software and embedded systems. Why would the hardware fail? Some date related problem? And the myth about embedded systems is that they all have dates in them and they will all fail. This has become a mantra with little to back it up.

B. Gore: Well, Im not going to argue with a lawyer but isnt one of the problems the amount of Junk Science that is allowed into the court room? I am certain that there will be claims after Y2K that have no basis in fact. It wouldnt surprise me at all if someone claims their car crashed because of the embedded systems and the fact that the Breathalyzer showed them with a blood alcohol level of 2.2 was a Y2K glitch. How much headway any of the various cases make in court should be interesting.

I agree with you about the psychology of Y2K but from a different perspective. Your last comment is very true. And if a lot of what people (many in this forum) are predicting on Y2K doesnt come true we may see it.

Uncle Deedah: I agree with 4.1. The question is what do you need?

Dr. Polymorph: The fallacy in your logic is that not everything that runs a system is tied to a computer. Or that you cant break it down into small manageable parts. You can look at the Power Grid in the US as a complex system. But in reality what happens in CA doesnt effect NY. What happens in FL doesnt affect NY. What happens in NJ might. So its not one big system.

@: Except if the magnitude turns out to less than you expect? Again the argument in Y2K was that it had to be fixed by 1/1/2000. Then it became a problem that would show up over a period of time and extend into a further period of time. So the argument keeps changing. If everything doesnt fail on the big date and is in fact extended over a period of years then my argument holds true. Why dont you and cody go argue.

Lane: Sorry I did GI. The problem is that the IEEE paper is just a bunch of bell curves, etc. My point was that if you take the Y2K out of it you can see it pertains to just about everything and anything. Which was why I took the Y2K out of the first statements. And where I said Lane left out Y2K. Well if I said the IEEE left it out it would have given it away, wouldnt it? The problem is that you and many of the people who post on this forum do a lot of research in looking at papers, etc. but have little to no real world experience out of IT. The world does not run on IT. Y2K is not exclusively an IT type of problem. Its the failure to understand this that leads people down the wrong path. How many bad posts have you seen saying we nee GPS to run the power system, etc.

One of the first things that made me skeptical about a lot of Y2K pronouncements was an email (quite a while ago) from a big promoter of the Y2K end of the world school. He wanted to know if it was true that the Eastern Grid was 60hz and the Western Grid was 50hz. It does make you wonder, doesnt it?

-- The Engineer (The, October 05, 1999.


I am not trying to make some kind of bet so that next year I can say "see I was right and you were wrong". When I say that transactions will need to be conducted manually, I am referring to those that are currently being done by computers. I'm not playing childish games by twisting the facts around, just calling it like I see it, and I am on the level about what I expect to happen (no tricks!).

How do I arrive at an estimation such as "50% of important networks crippled". I don't just pull it out of my head, it is based on numerous reports coming out based on actual surveys and research. Although the results of these studies varies to a considerable degree, I'm starting to see a trend developing of more consistency in the numbers. This one from last week is just one such example:

recent survey including the Fortune 500

"The survey covered a broad range of industries from utilities to health care and telecommunications. Seventeen governmental agencies and 144 Fortune 500 company managers responded."

"only 48 percent of those responding expect to have their own mission-critical computer systems tested and compliant by the end of the year"

-- @ (@@@.@), October 05, 1999.

Alright, I'm gonna try this ONE MORE TIME...

The Cap Gemini survey Mr. Maudlin refers to is the same one Mr. Core posted about a few weeks ago, and to which I referred in the earlier IEEE thread.

Quoth Mr. Rubin in a discussion of this survey: "The good news is that the vast majority don't see their level of compliance as posing any major business risk. Only about one in ten said that non-compliance may impose a significant business risk. 6% are simply not sure what is going to happen."


-- RC (, October 05, 1999.

"The good news is that the vast majority don't see their level of compliance as posing any major business risk."

Of course! They have to say that to protect their own stock prices and to try to avoid any liability for negligence. Their lawyers tell them they must continue to say they "expect no problems" because to say otherwise would be a flagrant violation of SEC reguirements.

-- @ (@@@.@), October 05, 1999.


So they told the truth in one part of the survey, but lied through their teeth in another? Are you sure the legal department didn't lean on them to reduce their remediation percentages? Are they being overly optimistic to appease their stockholders, or overly pessimistic to appease their lawyers? Or both within the same survey response?

Are you sure you want to base your prediction of coming events on a survey which ain't worth the powder to blow it to hell?

-- RC (, October 05, 1999.

"Only about one in ten said that non-compliance may impose a significant business risk."

One in ten Fortune 500 companies? And this is no problem? How much does it take to really screw things up? And what is the number for SME? One in how many?

Yea, just a bump in the road.

Tick... Tock... <:00=

-- Sysman (, October 05, 1999.

"Are you sure you want to base your prediction of coming events on a survey which ain't worth the powder to blow it to hell?"

Yes, it is better than anything I'm hearing from you.

"So they told the truth in one part of the survey, but lied through their teeth in another?"


They can reveal that their entire company is going to explode (a plea for help or a warning to those who pick it up), as long as they "do not believe it will pose a business risk". As long as they say that, they can't be held liable. Think about it, and if you don't believe me, ask any lawyer.

-- @ (@@@.@), October 05, 1999.

"They can reveal that their entire company is going to explode (a plea for help or a warning to those who pick it up), as long as they "do not believe it will pose a business risk". As long as they say that, they can't be held liable. Think about it, and if you don't believe me, ask any lawyer."

Man, I'm at a loss. You really believe that Fortune 500 companies are sending "subliminal" messages to those who are attuned to them by way of survey responses?

That's some pretty tortured logic there. I would say it's more likely a confusion over the definition of "mission critical" or something like that, but I kinda just lost the will to live.

-- RC (, October 05, 1999.


What you NEED is not so important as is what you require, namely food, water, shelter (heat). Those are the basics, each person should add to that list according to how severe one feels that disruptions may be. Putting away things one would use in any event is CHEAP, no, make that FREE, insurance.

Of course it's getting very late in the game for the laggards. Matter of fact, I think I'll hit WallyWorld tonite. Ciao.

-- Uncle Deedah (, October 05, 1999.

Lane, ROFLMAO! You take life waaaaaay too seriously! Regards,

-- FactFinder (, October 05, 1999.

Thanks, FF. More sneering. Once again, you have lived down to my (and everybody else's) expectations. No facts, no reasoning, just laughing. Real impressive. Demonstrative, too: nervous laughter poorly disguising your incapacity to address the issues.

Sure, "The", there's a lot more to business and commerce and economy than the computers. I know that, and you misrepresent and distort my position when you imply that I do not take that into consideration. Hey, why not? That makes it a lot easier for you: you don't have to think, you can just wave your hands and make it all go away. What you refuse to consider (or are incapable of considering) is that computers might be a hell of a lot more important than gizmo-jockeys and gadgeteers like you and FartFactory know.

"The good news is that the vast majority don't see their level of compliance as posing any major business risk."

I have addressed this issue at length in the context of another survey.

More Observations on the June Y2K Experts Poll

Go read it, RC, and work yourself up real good. :-)

-- Lane Core Jr. (, October 06, 1999.

Lane posts: ________ "The good news is that the vast majority don't see their level of compliance as posing any major business risk."

I have addressed this issue at length in the context of another survey.

More Observations on the June Y2K Experts Poll

Go read it, RC, and work yourself up real good. :-) _______________________

RC sez to Lane: Well, you could've attempted to SUM UP a little bit, but I think what you're saying is that the Cap Gemini survey results are pretty much useless, which is exactly what I've said repeatedly.

What gets me "worked up" is when I see this in a Paul Milne post on c.s.y2k: -------- Here is what Lane Core has to say on the Yourdon forum today.... Re: the "Pollyanna Progression", it is noteworthy that the latest Cap Gemini - Rubin Systems survey showed that 48% of the companies will not finish their critical systems remediation. -- Lane Core Jr. (, September 19, 1999. ------------

So on the one hand you dismiss the survey results as bogus, and on the other hand you quote stats from the survey as facts to back your beliefs. And I'm "intellctually hypocritical"?

RC sez to @: Thanks to Lane for reminding me of this - @, if you don't mind using questionable poll data as gist for your predictions, try this from the "Y2K Experts Poll" press release:

"Surprisingly, when asked if legal considerations are affecting their ability to publicly share information about Y2K, 25% of those surveyed say they are in better shape than their lawyers will permit them to state."

-- RC (, October 06, 1999.


"Surprisingly, when asked if legal considerations are affecting their ability to publicly share information about Y2K, 25% of those surveyed say they are in better shape than their lawyers will permit them to state."

Yes, and what did the other 75% say?

I rest my case.

-- @ (@@@.@), October 06, 1999.

Court adjourned.

-- very (nice@job.'@'), October 06, 1999.

26.4% said they are in much better shape than their lawyers would let them say. 1.5% said they are in much worse shape than their lawyers would let them say. 59.8% said no effect. 12.4% weren't sure. OK?

-- RC (, October 06, 1999.

Thanks "very",

Yeah, it's always nice when the pollys get so stupid that they hand you the information instead of having to search for it. I deserve a break today! Thanks RC.

-- @ (@@@.@), October 06, 1999.

@, for the second time in our little exchange of views, I'm at a total loss as to how to respond to you. How do those poll numbers in any way support your point of view? They indicate to me that legal considerations tend to make publicly shared information MORE PESSIMISTIC, not more optimistic.

And I am not in the habit of concealing information. If this makes me stupid, color me stupid.

-- RC (, October 06, 1999.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ