To All:

This one's straight out of Walt Disney. Sorry, I don't have time to post it. Homer -- where are you?

-- eve (123@4567.com), December 08, 1999

Answers

We wouldn't want anything nasty like Y2K to spoil the party, would we?

-- cody (cody@y2ksurvive.com), December 08, 1999.

Apologies -- This piece actually appears to be a Wall St. Journal - Walt Disney Studios collaboration. After all, gotta give credit where credit's due.

-- eve (123@4567.com), December 08, 1999.

page A22. Kedrosky is an idiot.

-- (cluefree@reporting.com), December 08, 1999.

The text is now posted in the above thread: "WSJ Editorial - dissin' Yourdon".

Enjoy.

-- eve (123@4567.com), December 08, 1999.

Here is the article for educational and discussion purposes only:

It's incredible to me what a Polly this guy is. It's definitely a keeper for one of the most gloating articles written so far.

Y2K: Apocalypse Not

By Paul Kedrosky, an assistant professor of commerce at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver.

With the day of reckoning rapidly approaching, all but the hardiest Y2K alarmists have turned tail. Advocates of myriad disaster scenarios are sounding increasingly uneasy about their past pessimistic bleating. It's about time.

While there was a date-related problem in many computer programs, the panic outdistanced the likelihood of calamity so much that we reached absurdity in record time. And now the problem, such as it was, is largely fixed. It was, of course, predictable from the start. Mix the millennium, technology and an over-heated economy, and you have instant apocalypse. Just add media.

The first mention of the debacle-in-waiting, in a 1984 computer trade publication, could have been written today. The column was replete with now-familiar silliness, including a consultant selling his anti-Y2K amulet, blithe chain-logic predictions of future disaster (if this, then this, then that, then that!) and, of course, a handy telephone number at the end to contact a vendor of lifesaving Y2K-repair tools.

But after 15 years the topic has, if you'll pardon the expression, run out the clock. A disproportionate amount of the current babble is mere spin control; indeed, the Gartner Group now estimates that by late this year 80% of companies' Y2K costs will be related to public relations.

Granted, some of the Y2K disaster scenarios have been entertaining. My favorite is the theory that Y2K is a Clinton strategy. When mayhem breaks loose on Jan. 1, Mr. Clinton is supposed to declare martial law and make himself president-for-life.

With 31/2 weeks to go, Y2K carnage abounds. But most of the mess is from pundits doing screeching U-turns. Even staunch pessimists, like Deutsche Bank chief economist Edward Yardeni, are coming about. Mr. Yardeni had, until recently, the distinction of being the most otherwise-intelligent person making an "end is nigh" case for Y2K. He never actually said that the world was going to end, but it would have felt that way if his predictions came true. Since the middle of 1998, the economist has been doing the rounds saying that there was a 70% chance of a "severe" world-wide recession caused by Y2K. The downturn would last at least 12 months, and it would be as bad as the 1973-74 global recession.

But there Mr. Yardeni was last month in Kansas City, Mo., backtracking away in a speech to financial analysts. While he hadn't given up on a Y2K-induced recession, the calamity had shrunk. He said that things would be over in a speedy six months--and the Dow Jones Industrial Average would reach 15000 by 2005. It's quite a turnaround. One might even feel sympathy for the man if he hadn't been so alarmist along the way, and if he weren't still naughtily persisting, asking, in effect: Can't I have just a small recession?

Two things are clear: Alarmism has become the real Y2K problem. And having economists opine about technology is like having professional golfers write political columns. No slight intended to golfers.

Prophets of doom like Mr. Yardeni, Ed Yourdon and Peter de Jaeger seem increasingly desperate to find Y2K problems. Mr. Yourdon recently penned a column warning that serious errors are being introduced into software by fixing the Y2K bug.

In other words, as Jan. 1 approaches, these pundits' predictions recede. As the philosopher Karl Popper might say, it is increasingly difficult to see how their predictions are falsifiable. If any computer problem after Jan. 1 is a Y2K problem, and if any recession in 2000 is a Y2K recession, then the exercise is pointless. Anyone can predict pretty much anything correctly by being hazy about the timing and details.

But at long last it's nearly over. The blessed date is just 24 days away, and the largely unblemished progress reports pour in. You can now get online odds on the probability that Y2K will shut down any international bank for 24 hours or more (about as likely as Steve Forbes becoming president). NBC recently aired a scary Y2K movie-of-the-week; its ratings, fittingly, were disastrous. About the most useful thing left to do is to turn the whole fiasco over to media watchdogs like CNN's "Reliable Sources." Let the flagellation begin. Over to you, Bernard and Howie.

-- nothere nothere (notherethere@hotmail.com), December 08, 1999.

nothere nothere:

Thanks for posting this. The quintessence of reckless, irresponsible journalism.

-- eve (123@4567.com), December 08, 1999.

*sigh*

shaking head

-- Duke 1983 (Duke1983@AOL.com), December 08, 1999.

nothere nothere,

Ref: CNN's Reliable Sources - and CNN as a reliable source - I have found their Y2K reporting absolutely irresponsible over the past two years, and have given them feedback that questions their continuing acceptance of corporate PR "reports" of Y2K compliance, readiness, yadayadayada.

Not that a full-court press shouldn't be waged, even at this late date, to get the word out. No matter how few can benefit, it is the ethical thing to do.

BTW, I have always found the WSJ to be a mouthpiece for corporate America... so they are simply promoting corporate spin in the guise of journalism, as per usual.

The newspaper has redeeming features, however; I have found it is very good as chicken litter bedding, however.

-- Sara Nealy (keithn@aloha.net), December 08, 1999.

Sara,

No offense intended, Sara, but please try to understand that there were probably many corporations (the entities you seem to knock) involved in producing and distributing the lumber (and/or other materials) you're using for your chicken coop.

-- eve (123@4567.com), December 08, 1999.

Let me say that I have been reading the WSJ for many years (almost two decades) now and I have always enjoyed their editorial pages whether or not I agree with them. My jaw dropped the day after the "Ground War" portion of the Gulf War ended and the title of the editorial was "On to Baghdad" in which they recommended taking over Iraq and replacing the government with a democracy. It's not that I questioned the judgement, it's that I could believe anyone had the balls to write it.

Today, I read this piece (not written by the editors) and just shook my head the same way that I shake my head whenever I read a column by Al Hunt.

-- nothere nothere (notherethere@hotmail.com), December 08, 1999.

That should have been:

"... I couldn't believe..."

-- nothere nothere (notherethere@hotmail.com), December 08, 1999.

nothere nothere,

Al Hunt is the staff's "liberal-in-residence." Because my views run libertarian I think Hunt is wrong about many things. But Hunt doesn't really bother me because I see many of his views as rather dated and ineffective.

Kedrosky's piece, on the other hand, is just pure recklessness. I keep myself from getting too angry, though, because I try to see him as I would a child who has no talent for art, but has been given some paper and can't wait to see his "fingerpainting."

But here, to the extent people rely on his "musings," and things turn bad, lives are endangered or lost.

I really think that ultimately the editorial staff is to blame for allowing obviously false, and really potentially dangerous, material like this to make it to print.

-- eve (123@4567.com), December 08, 1999.

Amazingly enough, the doom camp yet again seeks to pounce on an article it views as being contrary to its scattershod mindset. eve, in particular, is quite amusing with her views about the article being 'obviously false' and 'reckless'.

Here's one for you eve....prove it. I'd say it is much more reckless to spread anxiety and spark a panic, and much more irresponsible to write posts/editorials about one's 'beliefs'.

I am not saying that I am in agreement with this particular article, but it continues to amaze me how ridiculously some argue.

Just keep shooting the messenger folks. The literal 'millions' who have written such articles simply MUST be wrong.

-- Bad Company (johnny@shootingstar.com), December 08, 1999.

WSJ Article - dissin' Yourdon

-- LinkDancr (addy.available@my.webpage), December 08, 1999.

Bad Company,

Please re-read my post. I was not making an argument; I was just posting some conclusions I came to. Are you able to understand the difference between an argument and conclusions? If not, let me know and I'll give you some help.

If you are going to take the position that the article in question is presumed to be true unless proven to be false, that is your prerogative. And if you believe that this article is true, then I believe you to be quite lost; you obviously have a lot of catching up to do.

Now this is nothing against you. I am quite ignorant when it comes to electronics. I accept it.

I look forward to arguing with opponents who understand many of the issues, even though I may disagree with them; for example, Hoff, Flint, and Ken Decker.

But I just don't have the time to hold a beginner's hand and take him step by step through all the chains of reasoning. So if you want to use my backing out of an argument with you as some sort of victory, then "you win." There, feel better now?

-- eve (123@4567.com), December 08, 1999.

I was a subscriber to the WSJ for many years, but dropped my subscription about 6 months ago. I think the quality of the paper has really deteriorated over the years. They have never been good at predicting recessions or market crashes, however. They were bulllish in 1929, and have been bullish this year as far as I know. The day of reckoning is rapidly approaching and many of thier wildly optismistic predictions will be discussed in future history books.

-- Dave (dannco@hotmail.com), December 08, 1999.

Bad Company;

Here is a suggestion on how you could get started.

Find Leonard Read's essay, "I, Pencil." (I'm sorry, I do not have the links handy). Read it three times in a row, with a quiet, contemplative hour between each reading, thinking about nothing but the essay and its implications.

Then Find the I.E.E.E.'s website and link to the section on embedded systems (again, I'm sorry, but I don't have links). Read that in the same fashion as the above. Pay particular attention to the listing of all the areas in which embedded systems might be found. Do not expect to understand all that you see in this site, but I have confidence you'll pick up enough to catch the idea.

Finally, take a whole day and try to integrate in your mind the implications of site with the implications of essay until you can at least hazily see the combined possible implications of both.

I'm sure others would have other opinions on how you could get started, and I'm sure many might well be better than this one, but I believe this will give you at least some sort of reasonable foundation for eventually understanding the true significance of this issue.

I've purposely omitted extremely significant issues (e.g., the Information Technology side of things), and many superlative essays and "white papers," etc. etc. in order that you not be initially overwhelmed with materials.

After that, just start a thread asking for basic information, and I'm sure you'll be inundated with some of the best materials in existence on this subject.

Good luck,

-- eve (123@4567.com), December 09, 1999.

Sorry,

4th from last paragraph above should read, "...the site..." and "...the essay..."

-- eve (123@4567.com), December 09, 1999.

From: Y2K, ` la Carte by Dancr (pic), near Monterey, California

Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers letter to the Senate Committee on Liability issue

I, Pencil

-- LinkDancr (addy.available@my.webpage), December 10, 1999.

LinkDancr,

I appreciate your help.

-- eve (123@4567.com), December 10, 1999.