What I believe is wrong, and why.

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

I feel compelled to respond to those who, responding to my last post (More on exit strategies) first accused me of generalisation, and proceeded to state generalities about myself (I am used to the logic, having followed the thinking here for some time now...)

First, I don't know any polly's who believe that people should not prepare for anything they feel could mean impending disaster. Personally, I have repeatedly stated that everyone should prepare to the level that makes them comfortable, for Y2K or any other real or imagined events. So, prepping is not the rub.

Second, I am a scientist, an historian and author. I am not the only scientist, historian, or author on the planet; and, as such, do not pretend to put on airs about correctness in every matter. Further, I doubt that I have single-mindedly precognised the future events and non-events with more accuracy than the next bloke. If you read that into my words, then there is more evidence for you of precisely where the problem with your ascertations regarding the scope of the Y2K issue lies.

For review; 1) I have never told anyone not to prepare for something they feel may happen; regardless of my opinion of the likelihood of such an event (nor am I doing that now); and 2) I do not claim to be able to see the future.

So, with whom do my complaints lie? With those who:

And so, in sum, prepare if you will. But either produce the independently verifiable component, test procedure, and usage (at a bare minimum); or stop wasting the bandwidth claiming something for which you have no direct proof will occur.

Regards,
Andy Ray

-- Andy Ray (andyman633@hotmail.com), October 09, 1999

Answers

yada, yada, yada
Talk about a waste of bandwith!


-- @ (@@@.@), October 09, 1999.
oops! undo big

-- @ (@@@.@), October 09, 1999.
Andy Ray

I must say that this is the best thought out post you have contributed. And I must agree that there has to be more than "press releases" to identify significant problems. Some form of analysis is needed that can give a clearer picture of possible future events.

The problem it seems is the lack of "data" to make any real "scientific inquiry". That may come after the fact as hindsight is always the best view :o)

Because of the lack of "data" one has to make judgement calls and that is where there is a bit of weakness. Often folks will not commit the time or have the patiance to dig as deep as one may have to, to find the answers to something that hits home as well as the global picture.

This "ignorance" is the greatest problem as most folks have enough on their minds with lifes little quirks. But then they read about the Y2K situation and if they are moved by it then the big investigation begins.

Now in the myriad of documents out there how is it possible to get any kind of concensis of understanding? Where does a person go to find the definitive information on Y2K? I would value your opinion if you could provide good relevent information indicating to people that there is little to be worried about.

This doesn't just mean power being on or not, some folk may lose their jobs, have health problems, education interupted or have local social structures that didn't fix the problem.

Personally it is up to the individual to understand the problem and look for risks in their personal lives. If there is a significant amount of risk then a contingency plan will have to be developed.

Unfortunately science will not provide all the answers that are needed regarding Y2K. Awareness is the answer. IMHO

-- Brian (imager@home.com), October 09, 1999.

"The essence of good science is then to attempt to disprove any hypothesis presented. (This is how I arrived at this side of the debate, by the way. Critical thinking reveals the two reasons why Y2K will be a non-event are: 1)interconnectivity - a critical mass of systems are not communicating with each other; and 2) interoperability - a critical mass of systems are not dependent upon each other.)"

Andy,

How did you come to this conclusion? Here's a snip from IBM, not one of us doomers:

"What's remarkable about the IBM publication is its repeated reminders that "all markets, all businesses, all governments and all communities are interconnected."

In fact, IBM's graphic descriptions of Y2K interconnectedness and interdependencies aren't radically different from the dire falling-domino theories of such Y2K doomsayers as Dr. Gary North and Joe Boivin."

So are you telling us that IBM doesn't know what they are talking about?

I'ld also like to see some links to these "fictitious government reports" that you mentioned.

Even considering ALL of your above remakrs, you are STILL talking about a very small part of this fourm. You are taking a few examples, and saying that it represents everyone on this forum. It just ain't so! Not "critical thinking" or "good science" in my book, Andy.

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

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), October 09, 1999.

What a pompous guy! So full of [him]self! By the way, A-R, you love logic, what is wrong with the statement below, w.r.t. your intended meaning:

All doomers do not fall into this category,

Try: Not all doomers fall into this category.

And about something for which you have no direct proof will occur

It is a well-known maxim of engineers that if it isn't fully tested, you should assume it is broken. Got an argument with that ? Very few here have ever claimed that this will necessarily mean the end of civilization. Just keep quiet until you have some substantial facts to post.

-- Count Vronsky (vronsky@anna.lit), October 09, 1999.

Ummm would you like to list some of the "fictitious government reports"?? I'd be interested to know which reports you have found to be fraudulent??

Chuck

-- Chuck, a night driver (rienzoo@en.com), October 09, 1999.

Andy Ray--I like your conclusions and am heartened by some of your reasoning, ie a lack of "interconnectivity" and a lack of "interoperability". I hope you are right but you cannot prove that there is no danger anymore than I can prove that there is. So I will continue my pathetic lil preps. I have no use for those who truly want a crash of civilization, as corrupt as it is.

Only one real objection to your post--do you have to use the irritating socio-jargon word "meme"?

-- (pretentious@moi.?), October 09, 1999.

Andy Ray - I was behind you this afternoon at the checkout at COSTCO. What's with all the dry milk, rice and beans? Got a new recipe you want to share with the responsible masses?

Love and Kisses

-- Nosy Shopper (Paper@Plastic.Sir?), October 09, 1999.

///

Oh my Andy,

Such an eloquent post. I was almost drawn in to your logic, but then I noticed a fatal flaw. Please bear with me:

"If you do not decry such actions, other doomers, by their silence, are perceived as endorsing such behavior. This in turn leads one to believe that they are quite possibly as immature as the post-er of the original offense. Really."

///

I do not intend to let you assert that I shall be associated with what someone else has written. If my only "misdeed" or "offense" is that I did not take a written stand against someone else, then that makes you as guilty as I.

You are wrong, quite clearly.

Also, you do not know what you do not know.

There is a great deal going on behind the scenes in industry and elsewhere right now.

Verifiable, yes.

Potential show stoppers, yes.

Does anybody know for sure the outcome to expect, no.

But, you are obviously not privy to that knowledge.

Most people who are, don't want to lose whatever is at stake. And will not publicly identify themselves, tell the whole nasty story and then wait around for the retribution to fall on them. Most people are not that stupid. If you expect them to be that stupid for your benefit, then you should have something to offer as well.

A trade. You can't dance until you pay the fiddler.

Until then you will have to wait, listen, think and wait some more.

///

-- no talking please (breadlines@soupkitchen.gov), October 09, 1999.

Andy,

Some marginal types post here along with a solid phalanx of thoughtful, decent, intelligent citizens. Why do you pick up on the worst of the worst that has been said over thousands of posts? Good question, huh? That's why people might think that you are a little mentally unbalanced--your propensity to toss out certain inforamtion will emphasizing other facts that distort the entire topic under discussion.

-- Mara Wayne (MaraWayne@aol.com), October 09, 1999.

no talking please,

Very good point. If a thread looks like crap from it's title, I don't bother to read it. Heck, with the number of poste here, it's hard enough to keep up with the ones that look like they have a great title! I would guess that I have read much less than half of the posts here, and I spend a whole bunch of time here! <:)=

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), October 09, 1999.

aint seyin nuttin ubout yo moma butt yure daddies uh germin scheperd

-- ah sehn it (happin@bakyard.duh), October 09, 1999.
This sounds so depressingly familiar. On the one hand, we may have lots of organizations who consider themselves compliant but their lawyers don't dare let them say so. On the other hand, we may have lots of organizations that are hopeless, but those in the know don't dare say so for fear of identification and reprisals.

So we look at ambiguous trends. Remediators can no longer find work. Does this mean the work is done, or that companies have given up? We see organizations underspending their budgets. Does this mean they're way behind, or that they overestimated the problems? We nontheless see huge amounts being spent. Does this mean the problem was hopeless, or that it was reduced to manageable levels? We see very few problems so far this year. Does this mean we spiked the y2k guns, or does it mean the worst is yet to come? We see none of the Great Geek (and CIO) Migration, nor any big money being pulled from the market. Does this mean things aren't that bad, or that they just don't know any better?

Finding big future y2k problems remains a matter of personal conviction, supported (until now) by careful interpretation of carefully selected material. The most recent trend is to claim that the *real* y2k problems won't show up for another year! The pessimists more and more resemble Wile E. Coyote after he's walked off a cliff. They haven't fallen yet because they haven't noticed yet; they're held up by the power of belief.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), October 09, 1999.

I am fully prepared for most contingencies, but I always have been. It's just insurance. I may have gotten it from being drafted. I may have gotten it from Mom and Dad, who lived through the depression, they always seemed prepared for anything. However, for anyone to assume that this is not a time to prepare for a worst case scenario, then WHY would you have home or car insurance. I have just started a new internet retail business, because it may NOT be TEOTWAWKI!!! But if it is, I HAVE INSURANCE! I consider myself a GI, (not from thirty years military) but I have insurance in case the pollys are right. There are very good minds on both sides of this fence, and I appreciate their thoughts and posts, but you can't cause me to NOT be prepared, and you can't influence me NOT to make a future. The road will guide me when I get there.

-- space (hooda@thunk.it), October 09, 1999.
Andy, something to consider. Sometimes people react to stressfull situations in unusual ways. For instance, I laughed through my wedding. No one was suprised...it's the way I've handled stress throughout my entire life.

People here use the forum to express their fears aloud, and sometimes that in itself helps you to feel alittle stronger, a little more in charge of the situation.

I think the people who "post stories of future cataclysm" are actually using the forum to deal with fears they have. Running the worst scenario over and over in your mind can help you deal with the stress of that thought so much better..because the average person will picture themselves dealing with these scenarios in a positive way. You come out on top. It's like envisioning anything you do before you do it. It helps to prepare the mind for the actual event. Mental preparedness is just as important to us as beans and rice. Working through your fears in this manner is normal.

-- kritter (kritter@adelphia.net), October 09, 1999.

Flint, I noticed you seem to prefer the equilibrium state of null.

-- no talking please (breadlines@soupkitchen.gov), October 09, 1999.
No talking please,

In Softimage 3D animation terms, it's called "children of the alien null." (Real term, and applicable.)

-- (IgnitoCog@aol.com), October 09, 1999.

Well Andy, we like to think we are a scientist. Perhaps you are. But being a scientist does not make you an expert plumber or good at any number of skiller professions.

As we all are facing this whole computer/year 2000 situation, we need to think like spy agencies. What evidence is credible? How to we plan for the next 6 months? What are our fall-back plans? This is not the time to set up double-blind experiments. I do not want to take the fake sugar pill. And don't sugar coat the truth either.

To illustrate, lets play history.

I have spent years of my life reading and studying interesting events that the US government (and others have been covering up). Who shot JFK? It meant a hell of a lot in 1963-1966 (you could be killed for knowing the truth). Now, hell, if you knew the full story they put you on Larry King.

Well, its 1963 and we want the real story. Because it is important, yet dangerous information. Not some bullshit 3 shot story. We want all the details. Your careful logic and lab experiments do not prepare you for an environment where there is so much lying and coverup.

Why is this so important. I think like its 1939 and we are all Jewish and stuck in Poland. In case you skipped that part of history as well, lets cover the raw statistics: 3.3 million in 1939. After the war, there were 250,000 survivors, but 200,000 of those had escaped to Russia during the opening of the fighting. That means out of 3,300,000 only 50,000 survived inside of Poland. Thats history. Thats real. The world can be very cruel at times. Most of the people on this site are aware of the possibilities.

Its now late 1999. What do you do?

-- David Holladay (davidh@brailleplanet.org), October 09, 1999.

Flint said:

The most recent trend is to claim that the *real* y2k problems won't show up for another year!

Hmm. I thought the most recent trend was for the pollies to say "Well, it didn't get fixed, but it won't matter anyway". That and attacking Ed Yourdon for everything from having his fly down to not sealing his posts with a kiss.

The overwelming evidence of a crisis is still there Flint. Just because it may not all cullminate at midnight on 12/31 doesn't mean you were right.

-- a (a@a.a), October 10, 1999.

(snip from yourdon's letter to greenspan) as you must be aware, the software industry has a notorious record for failure on complex problems, especially in the three critical areas of schedule, budget, and defects. The OMB report [1] issued last week highlighted one aspect of the problem within the U.S. Federal government: even though the number of mission-critical computer systems has been reduced from roughly 9,000 to roughly 6,000 between 1997 and 1999, the budget for Y2K remediation rose from approximately $2.3 billion to approximately $8.3 billion during that same period. Thus, in the space of only two years, with a workload that was reduced by 1/3, the government nevertheless managed to over- run its budget by almost a factor of four. If you had contracted with someone to build you a house, and he underestimated the cost by a factor of four, wouldn't you be a little worried that he underestimated the schedule, too? After all, doesn't that enormous increase in expenditures imply that much more work has to be done than originally anticipated? As for the schedule and deadline, that's obviously fixed -- and it has become politically unacceptable for any organization, private- sector or government, to admit that it won't meet the deadline. Indeed, 8% of the government's mission-critical systems were not finished by the self-imposed deadline of March 31, 1999 and it appears that roughly 3% won't be finished by September 30, [2] when the government is ready to begin its 1999-2000 fiscal year. Meanwhile, the fate of some 60,000 "non-mission-critical" systems (which presumably includes the 3,000 systems that were once considered mission-critical, but then were magically downgraded in status) is unknown. Well, perhaps not unknown to the managers of various government agencies, but certainly unknown to those of us who have to make our own personal decisions as to whether our lives and our day-to-day activities are going to be disrupted by the government's non-compliant status.

(end snip)

-- Apokoliptik (Apokoliptik@yahoo.com), October 10, 1999.

'a':

I've always agreed that y2k cannot be fixed, in the sense that it's impossible to find and correctly repair every y2k bug. I've written several times that I don't believe ANY sizeable organization can do this.

I notice that you are careful not to address impacts in terms of any kind of measurable scale. If y2k helps to trigger a 1973-type recession, then was remediation a success (no meltdown of civilization) or was remediation a failure (because y2k had some impacts of newsworthy importance)? Altogether, from what I read I give remediation a B- so far. Is this failure? To me, B- is a failure only if nothing less than A+ is considered passing.

Given how hopeless things looked 18 months ago, I've called a B- a rousing success. As far as I'm concerned, calling anything less than perfection a failure is a straw man. Perfection, or even close, has never been in the cards. I wonder what sort of impacts you'd consider to be "close enough"?

I also notice you are starting to lay the groundwork for "indirect" impacts broadly enough so as to be able to blame y2k for ANYTHING that goes wrong. I wouldn't be surprised if, should Company A introduce a product that fails to sell, you'd blame it on inadequate market research BECAUSE the necessary funds went into remediation. Just anything to blame y2k for normal unrelated misfortunes.

Remember, I gave recession a 50% probability. Considering what *could* have gone wrong if we hadn't fixed it first, I'd consider this a positive outcome.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), October 10, 1999.

Andy Honey,

Your link for "More on Exit Strategies" doesn't work. Btw, you've written a moocho better post this time....getting rid of the "God Complex" has really helped. (g)

Only have one comment on your assertion, "Critical thinking reveals the two reasons why Y2K will be a non-event are: 1)interconnectivity - a critical mass of systems are not communicating with each other; and 2) interoperability - a critical mass of systems are not dependent upon each other.)"

I believe that the following quote by this scientist, historian and author came to a different conclusion than you on the inter- dependency issue......

For want of a nail, the shoe was lost; For want of a shoe, the horse was lost; For want of a horse, the rider was lost; For want of a rider, the battle was lost. --Benjamin Franklin

Now who said "Those who fail to study history are doomed to repeat it"?

-- Cary Mc from Tx (Caretha@compuserve.com), October 10, 1999.

Cary:

Be careful that you don't conclude that *every* lost nail is sure to cost every battle. If this were true, both sides would have lost every known battle!

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), October 10, 1999.

Flint,

You ol' 50 percenter, you. How safe is that? (g)

"Remember, I gave recession a 50% probability. Considering what *could* have gone wrong if we hadn't fixed it first, I'd consider this a positive outcome."

Btw, is that 50% probable and 50% probably not?

-- Cary Mc from Tx (Caretha@compuserve.com), October 10, 1999.

Cary:

As I recall, at the time I gave a BITR 30%, varying degress of recession 50%, and mild depression 20%. But I'm more optimistic now; I doubt y2k will lead to a depression more than I did. Maybe today I'd change that to 40-50-10.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), October 10, 1999.

P.S. Flint, there are always "winners and loosers" in every war/game...I think it depends on who gets to write the history? (tic)

-- Cary Mc from Tx (Caretha@compuserve.com), October 10, 1999.
Moderation questions? read the FAQ