This gentlemen is a smart, informed individual who has run the gamut on all issues regarding Y2K. His interview is very eye opening and a reality check. He says point blank....everything will be fine here in North America. No power outages, no large scale failures....end of story. Boy, Jon Anderson does everything in his power to get Peter to say what he wants to hear....doom and gloom. Peter says that he has been in the arena for 9 years and most of Y2K is SOLVED. He mentions the fact that he will be flying overnight across the Atlantic. Here is a guy who has his wits about him. He says he would not put his life at risk to calm people down. He says he couldn't be anymore sincere and matter of factly. I believe him. Until today I was a GI and a doom and gloomer with a 8 or a 9 in the making. I now believe that we will see a 1 or a 2. I am not turning on you guys and I have invested nearly 25000 dollars in the cause of Y2K. 20000 in PRO Y2K investment and 5000 in personal preparations. I feel pretty damn stupid right now. I should have stayed with my stock market portfolio and took my five grand in food, fuel, and generators and bought a cruise for me and my wife. I am sorry folks, but we have been had. Please, I repeat, please do not attack me personally. I am and will continue to be one of your friends. I have posted as a different name several times and really thought that we were in fact DOOMED. WE are not. The writing is on the wall. As far as conspiracy, Peter also notes that large companies have accountability that has criminal implications if falsified. The CEO's of these companies would have jail time. Look at the news....nothing, zilch, nada. Don't you think that some young, enterprising journalist would at least do something to further his career by exposing Y2K? I also regret that I believed Don Macalvany, Jon Anderson, Gary North, Ed Yourdon, Mike Adams....etc... the list goes on and on. I have decided to go out for New Years Eve....I will not discuss the issue with colleagues or family anymore. I am going to stop preparing for the worst and start prepariong for the best. Not even one person on this forum has mentioned how lucky we all are to have the opportunity to witness a once in a thousand year event. SO, relax gang....life and our infrastructure will be fine. Have one on me... See ya Happy holidays and New Year...I am officially DONE here... Bill

-- Bill (me@realityville.com), December 20, 1999

Answers

So,ya goin'to that big party in times square??I'm glad yer not worried and,like most here despite what y2k pro thinks,I hope yer right.

-- zoobie (zoobiezoob@yahoo.com), December 20, 1999.

I've got a bridge for sale. cheap De Jager got off the boat when he could no longer be the big cheese of Y2K. Keep your prep's.... your in for one heck of a ride. By the end of January you'll realize the folly of De Jagers mantra.

-- richard shockwave (vission441@aol.com), December 20, 1999.

Yes, of course, we believe you. Thanks for sharing.

Troll.

-- (brett@miklos.org), December 20, 1999.

Oh Bill, you party-poop, you tool of the Establishment. I want my TEOTWAWKI!

-- (me@myfunky.bunker), December 20, 1999.

Bless you Bill. I was a 10 for a long time. I don't think it's going down either. Some problems... yes. Go on that cruise next year. I hope what de Jager said is true.

-- (YUP@YUP.com), December 20, 1999.

Yeah, I quit (completed) preparing for the worst about six months ago and started preparing for the best. Cost about 400X more than preparing for the worst.

See ya back here soon!

-- lisa (lisa@work.now), December 20, 1999.

My condolonces on the fact of you being screwed, but than what happens if people do not use their own brains. Nobody forced me to do my preps. Why don't you read this -- http://www.computerworld.com/home/print.nsf/all/991129CE6A . I bet you will find it a bit contradicting to what Mr. De Jager had to say.

-- Brooklyn (MSIS@cyberdude.com), December 20, 1999.

This IS good news.

It's certainly a good thing that none of our fuel comes from overseas.

And it's certainly a good thing that we don't import anything at all from any foreign country that might experience computer problems.

'Cause then we might be in trouble, huh...?

-- duh (uhhh@uh.duh), December 20, 1999.

Even if he's right, how does DeJager know what the terrorists will do? I think I'll still keep my plans in order.

-- Larry (cobol.programmer@usa.net), December 20, 1999.

Brooklyn, Good Article....I am not an idiot. I have prepared and come this far for a reason. I just feel a little differently now. I will continue to be ready for anything that might come up...that has not changed. After hearing De Jager, I am no longer concerned. Bottom line....I just want this thing to be over with. Regardless of what happens. I just get so damn angry when I look like an idiot to friends (so called) and family when I try to keep them informed. The stock market continues to go ballistic and meanwhile, I sold all of my portfolio eighteen months ago and have most of my money in gold, gold stocks and oil. Go figure....

-- Bill (me@realityville.com), December 20, 1999.

Stock market - ballistic?? DJIA is where it was many months ago, and the advance/decline index is WORSE than it was then.

Don't be suckered so easily, my friend. Before you get too concerned about who's laughing, remember that it is quite possible that very few will laugh if they can't fill up the tank on their brand new gas guzzling SUVs.

Time for a SANITY check, Bill. Try this: Link

-- TA (sea_spur@yahoo.com), December 20, 1999.

I thought that Lady Logic put this all to rest when she taught us that we have 30 years of oil here in the U.S. ??

-- zoobie (zoobiezoob@yahoo.com), December 20, 1999.

Bill, So your main reasons for your about face is the ridicule of your DGI family and the fact that you want this thing over with. I wish it was all so easy to dismiss. I listened to De Jager (I don't know why) and as usual he spoken nothing about our interconnectedness in his grid discussion and offered no reasons for optimism other than hopes and dreams. The problem is simply so gigantic and you can't predict the outcomes exactly, but the negative ones are politically incorrectly disregarded. Facts: millions of chips WILL fail, the world is unprepared for lengthy disruptions, we are working on a small percentage of the overall code, we generally started late, this has never happened before, we trade with countries that are behind the remediation curve. These FACTS haven't changed from the beginning. He never reinterates this. The low awareness in the general population is a clue as to the remediation efforts. Many of these people operate businesses and they don't know what the problem is, let alone solving it. De Jager never goes beyond the obvious that, yes some work has been done. Will it all work in concert? He thinks so. End of story. As far as the relatives, who get their info. by press releases and sound bites, information is power and they probably haven't looked at this for five minutes. You have worked to find the truth and that will benefit you. Your relatives live in the world of ignorance and fantasy and the govt. and big business know this hence the "don't worry" message. The corporation is in existence to make money not to warn you about Y2K or anything else. People actually believe that the gov't and comapnies care. Do you? They will be angry when the truth appears and, in true form, and want you to take care of them. Stay clear of them and clam up. The fun is about to start. has cd.

-- PJC (paulchri@msn.com), December 20, 1999.

I'm glad that Peter DeJager is familiar with all aspects of our infrastructure. Given the fact that he moved 180 degrees in the space of a week or two, it must have been possible for him to assess everything within that time frame.

Peter is much more optimistic than the Senate Committee. He must know more than they do.

Peter must know:

- the status of drinking water systems in the U.S. The Senate Committee does not know this.

- the status of wastewater treatment facilities in the U.S. The Senate Committee does not know this.

- the true status of SME's in the U.S. The Senate Committee does not know this; they think there are hundreds of thousands of unremediated companies.

- the true status of the petroleum industry in the U.S. The Senate Committee does not know this.

- the status of chemical manufacturing facilities in the U.S. The Senate Committee does not know this.

- the status of embedded systems and the resulting impact (none) but even John Koskinen was sounding the alarm just a few days ago ("time to get on it", he said).

I could go on, but why bother. If you are so easily swayed by a radio interview with a known polly convert, then obviously your opinions were not very firmly held. That's fine, to each his own.

Lots of smart people think nothing much will happen. That has been the case for some time. Were you unaware of this fact?

I have prepared based on *MY* analysis. No one has enough information to make the kind of blanket statements that Peter makes. That is my opinion. It is also my opinion that the evidence continues to point towards a disaster. Time will tell. But I will not be unprepared.

A final point. You should try reading some of those SEC filings. They're scary.

-- Me (me@me.me), December 20, 1999.

Hey, Bill, you think *YOU* feel stupid?

Just think how stupid the *government* must feel after spending billions of dollars on bunkers, fuel, food, and *troops*!

-- Ron Schwarz (rs@clubvb.com.delete.this), December 20, 1999.

Try looking out a window when your nose is 4" from the glass. All you see is the glass. We have a civilization with its collective noses too close to the window. The glass is too easy to stare at, what is beyond takes some effort to concentrate on.

So everyone, take a step back, what do you see? Something closer to reality than what the glass offers.

-- gary elliott (gelliott@real.on.ca), December 20, 1999.

Bill,

DeJager seems to latch on to some hopeful assertions; i.e., that CEOs and reporters' actions or inactions necessarily mean things will be ok. Is that really the basis for your optimism? Do you honestly feel you need to look no further?

All I see so far is that DeJager took a huge leap of faith and that you seem eager to go along with him. If my assessment is wrong, is there anything of real substance you can share with us?

If this is all there is to it, you really do have a lot to learn; perhaps some of us can help to guide you. On the other hand maybe it's a psychological thing; I guess I can understand not being able to cope with the possibilities, and turning from the reality of it. I've been tempted to do it myself.

Bill, I mean no offense, and I really hope I'm wrong in my take on your post, and that there are some good reasons behind your decision.

Good luck, in any case.

-- eve (123@4567.com), December 20, 1999.

This Y2k experience has been kind of like a gambler's sale: the longer you wait, the greater the risk you won't get what you want. There's no way you could have assurance about Y2k last year, or early this year, so you took your chances. Now, with less than two weeks to go, you hear de Jager and feel you've been, what, mislead? You dumped your portfolio 18 months ago? Didn't you do any research on your own and come to your own conclusions? Gee, there are no guarantees in life. I made my decisions based on research and with a fervent desire to to what's best for my children. I spent X thousands of dollars. If nothing happens, I DON'T GIVE A FLYING RAT SHIT that I've "lost" some money. I have an obligation to my family, and that is, first and foremost, to its physical wellbeing, not a stock portfolio. If you've screwed yourself financially, well, sorry, but no one held a gun to your head. Stop looking for messiahs or gurus. If nothing happens next month, well, you pick yourself up and say, I made an informed decisions based on the best available knowledge I had. There are plenty of folks who bet the other way, who didn't want their precious stock portfolios to take a hit, and so they've gambled their lives and their safety on the happy face scenario. Would you rather be in that crowd, Bill? Because no one knows what's going to happen. Yet. De Jager is one person. What other advice of his are you taking? Does he have any ideas about how to please your partner in bed? What kind of boxers to wear? ONE PERSON CANNOT KNOW THE OUTCOME. Not North, not de Jager, not Yourdon, Yardeni, Hamasaki, Milne. No one. So chill. Hold onto your gold. Party. Or not. It's your life. Take responsibility for it.

-- Kurt Ayau (Ayau@iwinet.com), December 20, 1999.

Oh, yeah, I forgot: about witnessing a once in a thousand year event. First, of course, it's not the millennium. That's next year. But since you listen to gurus, I guess you've bought that hype. Second, what's so fantastic about the dawn of a new era with 6+ billion people and all the accumulated problems of the 20th Century dragging after us? Our time-keeping and calendars are artificial, but the suffering, evil and chaos aren't, and they aren't getting any better.

-- Kurt Ayau (Ayau@iwinet.com), December 20, 1999.

"Me" is right.

It's not THAT DeJaeger changed his mind. Flint changes his mind every other day. It's that he turned 180 degrees within a two-week period (maybe a twenty-four period)? It was very, very weird at the time and has remained weird from then until this day.

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), December 20, 1999.

You spent 25000 on preps and invested 5000 in Y2K hedges.

Then 11+ days before the big CDC you listen to an interview and BAM (John Madden style) you change your mind.

Another Y2K transformation.

-- gary (a@a.com), December 20, 1999.

So Bill,

Uh, we're supposed to believe you moved your money to "y2K safe" investments and then spent $5000 on personal preps and was a full doomer until you listened to Peter de Jager?

You went to the trouble of doing some sort of research and changing many facets of your life only to read/listen to one article/speech well AFTER your time and research for preps?

Either you are incredibly stupid, duped easily, insincere, or a troll. Which is it?

-- Paul L. Hepperla (paulhep@terracom.net), December 20, 1999.

Bill, From your statement: "As far as conspiracy, Peter also notes that large companies have accountability that has criminal implications if falsified. The CEO's of these companies would have jail time."

You mean you and Peter believed the CEOs of the tobacco companies when they sat before Congress and swore under oath that "nicotine is not addictive"?

Are we supposed to believe that CEOs of corporations won't lie to us?

How many times do you have to have government officials, the media and corporations lie to you before you become skeptical of their claims?

"I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinski." How many times do you have to hear that to finally realize they all lie to achieve what ever they see as important at the time? The President sets the tone for his administration and he is a liar, as determined by a federal judge. "It depends on what the meaning of is, is." They don't tell the truth, they manipulate, miss-inform and guide you to where they want you. They no longer say Y2K compliant , they say, Y2K-Ready. Wonder what the difference is?

-- UR2Blame (upower@jps.net), December 20, 1999.

Bill, thanks for your input with this news. Just as some respect ed Yourdon, I have great respect for Peter deJager. When I first started reading the various scenarios with regards to y2k 2+ years ago, it was Mr.deJager's voice that was both rational AND wary of multi-faceted problems. On his site, he continually spelled out the vast problems associated with y2k. He did not digress into talk about TEOTW and how to build bunkers and fortifications in and around one's house.

As you can imagine, I generally shaped my opinion around his own renderings.

As time progressed, deJager began to change. This wasn't drastic or radical, instead, it was a change that evolved with time. When I add his voice to the myriad articles I have read, I share your new feelings about the issue.

I simply won't buy the 'all CEO's are lying' line of logic, nor will I look at Klinton's Lewinsky affair and say that it is applicable to y2k in any way, shape or form.

With 10+ days left, I too now bolt to greener pastures. I have no doubt that individuals like deJager have their collective fingers on the pulse of the issue, and it must be noted that many 'experts' have changed their tunes recently. One would have to call that noteworthy, at the very least.

Happy Holidays to all.

-- Bad Company (johnny@shootingstar.com), December 20, 1999.

Bill,

Peter D may be right. I read your post and it reminded me alot of the way I thought and reacted with regards to the stock market, I also left alot on the table when I cashed out most about 18+ months ago.

Some of the stocks I was in since doubled since that time (Heavy Tech) We are 2 weeks away, you have come this far, keep prepared, with regards to the Market, most of the Market has been flat to lower over the last year unless you were in the high fliers, than it does hurt.

Ed Yourdon is the guy I like to use as a barometer for all of this, and the reason I do, was that a VP of Engineering referred me to his book some time ago, with regards to this subject.

I hope this is a BITR, the reason you do not see/hear more about this issue, well you've experienced it yourself, people just do not believe this thing is going to turn out bad. I go through the same crap, to the point where you just do not mention it anymore.

I give the people who have stood up and said hey, we have a problem alot of credit, alot! Think about what that does to their careers if they are wrong?? More importantly, our world is much better off, due to the few that have stood up over the last few years, it made people respond, report, act to get code fixed. I am hoping this is a BITR, but I am not convinced (based on what I have read) Good luck to you.

-- Rich (Rluck@aol.com), December 20, 1999.

Hey, if you are jumping out of it, and feel that way. If you want to get rid of all your preps now at cut rate. Let me know I'll borrow, and borrow till we can bargain. To do it I would almost have to sell my soul to Satan to get your preps. Of course I would cut short of Satan, but you get the drift.

-- Notforlong (Fsur439@aol.com), December 20, 1999.

J.I.T. inventories and distribution of labor are like a circle of dominoes. The inter-dependency that we have so foolishly allowed to happen makes us vulnerable, Y2K or not.The inflated stock market and the Federal reserve can bring it all down. It happened in 1929. I have homeowners and auto insurance, but the chances of collecting are not in my favor. I have Y2K insurance also. I hope I don't have to collect on either of them. I can always eat my food , drink the water and burn the firewood.

-- HERB (herb01@prodigy.net), December 20, 1999.

When will everyone stop looking for one person (a god) who will tell them it will be alright or it won't be alright? If what one person says is enough to influence you, I wouldn't want advice from you. NO ONE KNOWS. When will they get that? I guess in a few weeks, they'll get that - plus or minus.

-- Sheri (wncy2k@nccn.net), December 20, 1999.

How lovely - China only started in earnest 13 months ago, but because Peter D. says, "everything is fixed", then it's all fixed?

Of course, Italy, Germany, Indonesia, Paraguay, Russia, Pakistan and a few dozens of others just got recent starts too but I guess DeJager's word is better than reality there too?

We'll be lucky if 911 works in the US, let alone a functional branch of Chase Manhatten in Paraguay. Hey, have a nice time waiting for Santa this week too.

-- paul leblanc (bronyaur@gis.net), December 20, 1999.

I also regret that I believed Don Macalvany, Jon Anderson, Gary North, Ed Yourdon, Mike Adams...

Pardon me, but just this once I have to do it: BWAHAHAHAHAHA!! Here is someone who is familiar with all the above gentlemen, has spent $25,000 on Y2K preps, yet had never heard of Peter De Jager before now? BWAHAHAHAHA!! Reminds me of a certain Phoole we used to know...BWAHAHAHAHA!!

-- (LOL LOL@LOL.LOL), December 20, 1999.

Peter has been growing gradually more optimistic over the last few years. He still feels there will be a lot of problems, but he also feels that the worst of those problems have been addressed well enough to prevent any sort of major collapse.

What's interesting is that in his gradual change, at some undefinable point he seems to have crossed the line imposed around here between pure white and pitch black, there being no other positions permitted (or at least comprehensible to some). So the black-and-white people say, Look, he changed 180 degrees almost overnight!

It has become extremely difficult for anyone to say things will be bad but not that bad. Too many people deconstruct this position to be: "things will be bad" = doomer. "but not that bad" = polly. Look, he took both sides in the same sentence! He can't make up his mind! deJager now expects mostly mild, mostly manageable problems. This is a valid position, NOT a self-contradictory position.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), December 20, 1999.

Nope, wrong Flint and "Bad Company". The regulars here (Linkmeister?) will remember numerous threads which speculated, quite appropriately on the utterly unexpected and SUDDEN change-of-face that De Jaeger had. As I recall, Flint, you had all sorts of Flint-ish justifications for it at the time, but no one debated the sudden-ness of it.

Until now, of course, when it's convenient to forget it.

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), December 20, 1999.

Here are a few links on the evolution of Peter de Jager's thinking.

Interview with the BBC:

http://www0.bbc.co.uk/the_net/4/3/peter.html

[snip]

THE NET: Is this the first time we've seen a problem of this scale come along, well obviously the Year 2000 only comes along once but have we come across a similar situation or is it going to be much worse than we're ever seen before?

PETER DE JAGER: We've never had anything like this. This is totally brand new. We've never had a system-wide failure. The closest we can come to events like that might be blackouts. In fact one of the things that got me into this and got me fired up about it was a show `Connections' by James Burke. The first instalment was an exposi of the great blackout on the Eastern Seaboard and all of that happened because of one single power switch that did what it was supposed to do but had a very unexpected consequence. Well the Year 2000 is power switching, it's calculations, day calculations, millions upon millions of them in programmes all over the world that are all set to fail on a particular time, that's the only thing that is even close to this type of problem.

[snip]

Peter de Jager's open letter to President Clinton, dated November 17, 1998:

http://www.year2000.com/archive/y2kclinton.html

[snip]

If this report is not accurate, then action must be taken by you to correct it. It describes a totally unacceptable situation. As it is reported, it raises unnecessary concern, uncertainty and even fear. Three emotions no political party should be fostering as it heads into an election year.

Either way, action, real action, not soothing words and platitudes, is required at the highest levels either to correct an unacceptable situation or to correct the notion that your administrators are incapable of executing their mandated mission statements.

[snip]

Canadian newspaper paper article dated November 22, 1998 with info on de Jager's preparation plans:

http://www2.thestar.com/thestar/back_issues/ED19981122/money/981122BUS 01_FI-DEJAGER22.html

[snip]

Seated in the shadow of the towering Mormon temple near his Brampton home, de Jager smiles at the irony.

The Mormon church teaches its faithful to stockpile food - a practice that has become vogue among the growing ranks of Y2K survivalists, who are buying cabins in the woods and withdrawing their life savings from banks.

De Jager, a father of two teens, scoffs at such ``overreaction.'' He bought a cottage north of Orangeville recently, but it had nothing to do with Y2K, he insists.

Still, he does plan to stock up on groceries and supplies, keep a generator in his home and cash handy in case bank doors stay closed.

[snip]

The "Doomsday Avoided" article:

http://www.year2000.com/archive/y2ky2kdoomsday.html

[snip]

Doomsday Avoided

by Peter de Jager

"We've finally broken the back of the Y2K problem." I've been making that statement now for about 6 months. Naturally, it has generated some interest and a handful of e-mail. The comments range from polite requests for me to state, in my own words, what exactly I mean by 'broken the back of Y2K' to the outraged rants from folks intent on selling the world panic, gold coins and plots of otherwise worthless real estate. Naturally, any good news about Y2K spoils the fun and intentions of those trying to incite panic and runs on the bank.

[snip]

And here's an editorial from Michael Hyatt's Y2K site on de Jager's changing position:

http://www.michaelhyatt.com/editorials/dejager.htm

[snip]

Y2K EDITORIAL

Paul Revere Does "About Face"

Evidently, Mr. de Jager is distorting the situation to get the maximum amount of repair work done. This is certainly a noble goal, but history has shown that whenever we play games with the truth, unexpected negative consequences often occur.

by Bill Dunn

March 8, 1999

One of the most prominent personalities in the world of Y2K is Peter de Jager (rhymes with "logger"; pronounced "yogger"). Mr. de Jager is a Canadian programming expert who has been warning about the Millennium Bug problem since the early 1990s.

Although many in the computer industry were aware of the Y2K threat going back to the 1960s, de Jager is credited with bringing the issue to many peoples attention with his ComputerWorld article in September, 1993, titled, "Doomsday 2000."

[snip]

Heres the Catch-22, according to my theory: to encourage programmers to keep working hard and achieve that 90 percent mark, de Jager has to tell them there will not be severe problems. Otherwise, theyll stop working, quit their jobs, move out of the cities, and far less repair work will get done. But de Jager knows full well that a 90- plus percent success rate will still cause serious disruptions in the economy and societyjust a heck of a lot less than 70 percent.

In his mind, I believe, he is distorting the situation to get the maximum amount of repair work done. This is certainly a noble goal, but history has shown that whenever we play games with the truth, unexpected negative consequences often occur. If de Jager is now down- playing the risks of Y2K to motivate programmers, his new public stance may be causing corporate management to relax at the very time strong leadership is needed.

If my theory is correct, de Jagers sudden about-face has been prompted by good intentions. But you would think that after all the years of learning the hard way, people would realize that mom had it right: "Honesty is the best policy."

[snip]

-- Linkmeister (link@librarian.edu), December 20, 1999.

Look, Peter may be right. I don't know. I focus on the fact that only 9% of the systems were even looked at. Just how functional the infrastructure is under those conditions is anyone's guess.

On the other hand, I just returned from the Post Office. Had an interesting discussion with a postal employee who explained in some detail their backups and contingency plans. He mentioned that no Express or Priority Mail will be accepted from about Dec 30 till Jan. 3. Reason?? No mail will be put on ANY Aircraft during that time...Everything moves by truck.

Bottom line, de Jaeger may believe that "Planes will not fall out of the sky," but thats not good enough for the Post Office.

-- K. Stevens (kstevens@ It's ALL going away in less than two weeks.com), December 20, 1999.

Here's a thread from January 1999 about Peter de Jager's rapid change of opinion on Y2K:

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=000RP5

-- Linkmeister (link@librarian.edu), December 20, 1999.

OK, I read the links. At the time (almost a year ago) I speculated that deJager had decided that the need to sound the alarm had been superseded by the need to quell panic. His emphasis changed. When a problem has a million facets and you try to address a few at a time, you are always at the mercy of interpreters who project what you say onto all the others. When you try to summarize, these same interpreters will apply your summary to the exceptions.

It's one thing to post successively lower numbers to a Russ Kelly list. It is (I have discovered) a whole lot more difficult to put into words a description of serious problems becoming less serious as repairs continue. Are there still serious problems? Of course there are. There aren't as many, and even the serious problems are less threatening. Will the remaining serious problems be "bad"? If you're a manager at Hershey, problems are bad. If you are a consumer who doesn't eat candy, they aren't.

deJager ran into this same problem. When he focused on the bugs themselves, he came across as a doomsayer. When he tried to summarize that the bugs, while real, have been addressed, he came across as having "changed his position". Yet both remain true today -- there are still lots of bugs (bad), but it looks like they will have mild macroeconomic impact (good). And it's still difficult to describe a middle ground.

I continue to predict that middle ground, and I continue to doubt extreme positions -- *either* extreme. And like deJager, I continue to be accused of changing my mind. This is a trick of perspective. Even a jockey is a "tall" man in the land of the pygmies.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), December 20, 1999.

De Jager sold out long ago. What took you so long to jump on his bandwagon? With 10 days to go, hang on to what you've got and don't look back. You should have known that there was always a chance for the BITR scenario, no matter how remote. Let's hope that is all it is (whatever is, is).

Don't worry about what could have been as far as your stock market phantom gains go. Don't make money your God, or the gummit either.

If you got preps, you are in good shape for the disaster in 10 days, or for the next natural disaster, whatever/whenever that may be. Don't look back on what could have been, resentments and insanity come from that.

-- Bill (bill@tinfoil.com), December 20, 1999.

Bill, many of the folks here use a different standard of evidence when evaluating de Jager's expertise than they do in evaluating Yourdon's expertise. Sure, back in the old days when de Jager was a Doomer, they were happy to quote him. But he is now persona non grata here. Please, read my article on de Jager vs. Yourdon and you will see that at least some of the Doomers here follow a double standard. Make sure you click on the link toward the end of the article and you will see Ed Yourdon do some Fancy Dancing.

I am simply amazed that there are still people worried about millions of "chips" that will fail. You would think that Dale Way, Chairman of Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers' y2k focus group, would have put an end to these fears.

4. Many elements have very narrow ranges of vulnerability and will not be a factor in any Y2K disruption. Clocks have an infinitely small range right at rollover, therefore have only a one-time risk and are usually easily resetable. Most physical/process control systems, if they have any year sensitivity at all (because they concatenate year/date with time representations and compute on the whole as a unit) have very narrow windows (seconds, minutes, maybe hours) that will pass quickly. While theoretically exposed during that period, there are other mitigating factors that keep that vulnerability from turning into failures that can break out into the wider world. Consequently the vast majority of such physical/process control systems that underlie the production facilities of our utilities and much of our factory infrastructure are at no or little risk of direct Y2K disruption that will be visible to the wider world. THE LIGHTS WILL NOT GO OUT AT MIDNIGHT.

Yet, despite Way's statement, rumors of embedded chip failures flourish in this forum like a fungus that will not die. It does make you wonder whether some of these anonymous posters who spread these rumors have a hidden agenda. Perhaps some are in the survival supply sales business and they want to spread these rumors just to make another sale. Or perhaps not. Perhaps they are genuinely confused, but this confusion could be quickly cleared up if the moderators here and Ed Yourdon came out firmly and stated, repeatedly if necessary, that the whole embedded problem has been overhyped. It would be a welcome development if they stepped in and tried to relieve unnecessary fear. In any case, you will see in a couple of weeks that the danger due to those "millions of chips that will fail" has been greatly exaggerated. Once that truth is known you can devote some time speculating why those who could have stopped this rumor did not take the responsibility of doing so.

-- Robin S. Messing (rsm7@cornell.edu), December 20, 1999.

"The embedded problem has NOT been overhyped." You can now return home to the DerBunkie board, Robin, where they live for your illogic.

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), December 20, 1999.

BigDog,

I know different people here have different expectations of when the y2k impacts will play out. Some expect problems for years as software bugs pop up over time. Is it safe to say that we will know about the impact of embedded system problems within a few days of y2k? If we don't see much of a problem from embedded systems by the end of the first week of January, can we at least agree that this won't be a problem, or do you think we will have to wait weeks or months before determining the impact of the embedded problem? If not much happens by the end of the first week of January, would you agree with me that we can stop talking about the impact of embeddeds?

-- Robin S. Messing (rsm7@cornell.edu), December 20, 1999.

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=001qGO

[snip]

23 November 1999

Text: Daley Urges Testing of Embedded Systems for Y2K Problems

(Critical systems affect host of business operations) (500)

U.S. Secretary of Commerce William Daley has called on American businesses to test for Year 2000 computer problems in critical "embedded systems" hidden away in machines other than computers.

In a press release issued November 22 by the Commerce Department's National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), Daley said, "We urge businesses to be especially vigilant in testing embedded systems" that use computer chips to control or monitor everything from elevators to manufacturing plants.

A survey conducted by NIST and Century Corporation, a computer consulting firm, concluded that it is possible that many important systems have not been tested adequately. "Managers of these systems should, as a last resort, rely on assurances from suppliers and others that the individual components of a system are Y2K compliant," Daley said.

Following is the text of the NIST press release:

(begin text)

Nov. 22, 1999

Secretary Daley Urges Vigilance on Y2K Problem

Secretary of Commerce William M. Daley today urged American businesses to redouble their efforts to test for year 2000 computer problems that are hidden away in a variety of machines other than computers. Thorough testing of these "embedded systems" is a wise safety measure, Daley said.

"Ferreting out all the Y2K connections in the systems that run manufacturing plants, provide services to consumers, and control a host of operations that we all rely on is a tough job. We urge businesses to be especially vigilant in testing embedded systems," Daley said.

Embedded systems use computers or computer chips to control, monitor or augment a process. Such systems are found in everything from elevators to manufacturing plants.

The Commerce Department's National Institute of Standards and Technology and Century Corp., a computer consulting firm, have assessed the range of testing methods industry is using.

They conclude that it is possible that many important systems have not been tested adequately. NIST strongly recommends that all critical systems be tested literally from end to end.

"Managers of these systems should, as a last resort, rely on assurances from suppliers and others that the individual components of a system are Y2K compliant," Daley said. "I want to reinforce the message that I and others, including the President's Y2K Council, have been delivering about taking appropriate actions in readiness and contingency planning," he said.

A research article that includes guidelines for testing embedded systems by NIST and Century Corp. is available on the NIST web site at www.nist.gov/y2k/embeddedarticle.htm.

As a non-regulatory agency of the U.S. Department of Commerce's Technology Administration, NIST strengthens the U.S. economy and improves the quality of life by working with industry to develop and apply technology, measurements and standards through four partnerships: the Measurement and Standards Laboratories, the Advanced Technology Program, the Manufacturing Extension Partnership and the Baldrige National Quality Program.

(end text)

(Distributed by the Office of International Information Programs, U.S. Department of State)

[snip]

-- Linkmeister (link@librarian.edu), December 20, 1999.

Thanks for the link, Linkmeister. I never said that there was no embedded problem. And I never said that no one should do any testing. What I said, and I still mainitan, is that it has been greatly overhyped. I believe that Dale Way, the head of the IEEE's y2k committee, has better credentials to discuss the nuances of embedded systems than the Secretary of Commerce does. This is an issue of engineering, not of commerce.

-- Robin S. Messing (rsm7@cornell.edu), December 20, 1999.

Robin:

But the beat goes on as always. Anyone who claims problems are exaggerated *must* be saying there are NO problems. And oh yes, telling people not to prepare, no matter how many times they say preparations are prudent.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), December 20, 1999.

Flint, with your typical bias, you conveniently ignore the fact that Messing's post was replete with innuendo about FUD on this forum, agendas (apparently lots of the regulars here sell prep supplies, you see), etc.

But, then, you're so busy being "objective" that you never notice you have the biggest negative agenda of any regular on this forum.

Messing: Apologize for your post and I'll be glad to answer your question.

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), December 20, 1999.

Robin--Some embeddeds problems for you.

-- Rachel Gibson (rgibson@hotmail.com), December 20, 1999.

I would just like to go on record that I lurk and post as Bill, sticky@2sides.tape. This is not me making this post

-- Bill (sticky@2sides.tape), December 20, 1999.

Good bye Bill. Say goodnight to Hillary for me.

-- snooze button (alarmclock_2000@yahoo.com), December 21, 1999.

The following link is just one reason I don't believe that complacency about Y2K is called for, and why I think considering a variety of fallback contingency plans is important for families:

http://www.senate.gov/~y2k/news/pr991021.htm

-- Linkmeister (link@librarian.edu), December 21, 1999.

Big Dog:

I'm confused as to why Robin should apologize for anything. I read this entire thread TWICE now and didn't see Robin say anything more than SOME folks here sell survival goods. SOME folks here DO, BD. Minnesota Smith does, Cody Varian does, and Matt...or Mark or somebody ALSO does. They make no secret of this. Perhaps I'm confused as to WHY Robin should apologize before you respond? [I think I may have gleaned the folks who sell survival threads from your response to Flint.] Could you clarify the need for the apology, please?

Of course I ALSO post on occasion to Debunkers, BD, so you may just throw me back "where I CAME from", but I only found out about Debunkers when I came to THIS forum, and if you choose to use that argument, I DO wish you'd point out the post in which I was discourteous.

-- Anita (notgiving@anymore.com), December 21, 1999.

Bill: (thread originator)

[I almost forgot about what this thread was all about...sorry for that.] I've followed de Jager since I've followed Y2k. His change was gradual (IMO). ONE thing bothered me about him, however, and that was one of his contributions to the Yardeni T-X00 series. I don't remember which one it was, but Peter took almost his entire time to state that 9/9/99 could be a BIG problem. He said he'd programmed systems that would DEFINITELY fail on that date and I just sat scratching my head because I figured I'd been in this business just about as long as anyone else, and I'd NEVER programmed anything that would fail on that date. I tried to pursue this with other programmers on other fora, but got no hits. FWIW.

-- Anita (notgiving@anymore.com), December 21, 1999.

Look if you are going to prepare, be prepared for anything-anytime. But, don't be prepared for a single event, one that has seen Billion$ spent for fixes and preparedness. Please focus your energies on something better for mankind, not something selfish.

It's just not going to happen.

Frank

-- Frank McGraw (communic@excite.com), December 21, 1999.

This is a follow-up to Robin Messing's posts.

Robin, do not infer from Dale Way's words that the fact that a clock-dependent embedded system can fail only once, in a (micro-)interval at midnight on 12/31/2000, means any such failures will be mostly trivial. If a date-subtraction routine yields a negative answer for the interval (however large or small) between 12/31/99 and 01/01/2000, that negative result will continue to grow larger (negatively) with each new measurement thereafter (if the device doesn't stop working with its first negative answer). During this negative feedback loop, the embedded system will not carry out its designed function, because it was never programmed to deal with negative numbers (since time intervals are always supposed to be of positive magnitude). It is only if the system does not happening to be carrying out any interval checks at the moment of rollover that it will escape failure mode.

If the function of the system was to provide some kind of protection (e.g., against a circuit overload), the consequence of any failure will not become evident until overload actually occurs, which might be months (or years) after actual time of failure.

These circumstances, combined with the inherent inaccuracy of real-time-clocks, and the manifold possibilities of multiple resets having already occurred in any given system's life, mean that there will be no discernible pattern of failures right after 01/01/2000, and maybe not for a long time afterwards.

For a detailed explanation of what I am talking about, I invite you to read this essay.

I happen to agree with Dale Way and you: the lights will not all go out at midnight on December 31. But after three to six months, it could be just as bad as if they had.

-- Allan Haley (ashaley@nccn.net), December 21, 1999.

To all but Bill, the original poster:,

I could be wrong, but my take on him has now become this: I think that Bill has undergone what would be equivalent to an overnight quasi-religious experience. In other words, he seems the type eager to follow certain charismatic figures as opposed to using his own mind about things. This is why he essentially has no reasons for his "conversion." I'm equally practically convinced that he had originally followed, say, someone like Gary North in the same way, which is equally bad from the standpoint of primarily relying on the mind(s) of the nearest charismatic figure(s), and not allowing his own mind to be at least the final arbiter in his decision-making process.

And this is why he hasn't even responded to anyone here. He has no real "why" to argue, and has never had one (at least with this issue), in either direction.

Can we move on to those who at least think for themselves?

-- eve (123@4567.com), December 21, 1999.

Allan:

It all depends on how the code was written. While it's possible to construct interval-timing code the way you describe, this is (in my experience) very unusual. At least I've never seen it, and I've seen quite a few time sampling techniques. The usual approach (in general, and disregarding system-dependent details) is to sample the current time, compare it with the prior time, and then consider the current time to be prior for the next sample. If a 2-digit year is used as part of the sample used to generate the time, the error happens during the one sample where one time was taken before rollover and one after rollover, resulting in an absurd interval. If the system survives this error, the *next* interval is based on two post- rollover times, and the interval is correctly calculated from then on.

Based on the one bad calculation, the system either does something it should not, or fails to do something it should. Hopefully this "something" isn't catastrophic. This isn't a forlorn hope, since most such systems are designed with the understanding that clock chips break, batteries go dead, power is sometimes unreliable, etc.

I'm not saying continued or cumulative errors can't happen, just that their frequency shouldn't be overestimated. Even then, restarting such systems almost always corrects the problem.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), December 21, 1999.

Robin:

Century Corp co authored the embedded chip report. Read about Mike Cherry and learn. Xerox hired his company to do IV&V. Xerox don't hire Joe $#iT the Ragpicker computer sales to do IV&V.

-- RJ (LtPita@aol.com), December 21, 1999.

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

...my take on him has now become this: I think that Bill has undergone what would be equivalent to an overnight quasi-religious experience. In other words, he seems the type eager to follow certain charismatic figures as opposed to using his own mind about things...

My own take on the original poster is that he's a professional lurker and is speaking to newbies, here, hoping to snag as many as possible to listen to de Jager.

-- Dancr (addy.available@my.webpage), December 21, 1999.

Flint:

Thanks for the response. I don't think we differ. Using your metaphor, what my analysis told me was that when there was a negative time interval produced by the subtraction of "prior" time from "current" time at rollover, the "current" time would never become "prior" time after that because the previous interval comparison test failed. The logic of the system would continue to check "current" (2000) times against the last known good "prior" (1999) time, and would keep generating increasingly negative (and meaningless) answers, all the while waiting, before starting the interval checking loop again, for a positive result that now would never come. And while the system was stuck in that kind of endless loop (if, as you say, it didn't freeze on the first negative result), it would fail to carry out its designed function, whatever that was.

This loop might be corrected by a reset (such as a prolonged power outage), but if a reset simply returned the date to the system's epoch date, the whole dance would start over again in about twenty years or so.

Maybe we're so far OT from this thread by now that we should start a new one. Anyway, I appreciate the chance to trade thoughts with you.

Allan Haley

-- Allan Haley (ashaley@nccn.net), December 21, 1999.

Dancr, I agree. Its not that I want to shout down people who have differing opinions. I enjoy the exchange of views. I do however, like to tease the authors of these "revelation" posts. They're fantasticly transparent. You would think that these stories are best told to a polly forum. For Bill's sake I hope he stays away from Amway distributors.

-- gary (a@a.com), December 21, 1999.

Allan:

Good point. Interval timers are used for two general purposes. (1) To see if enough time has elapsed to do something; and (2) to measure the interval between two events.

(1) In the first case, the results of an erroneous calculation are either to decide enough time has elapsed even if it hasn't (false positive), or to decide that not enough time has passed yet when in fact it has (false negative). In the case of a false positive, some function is performed prematurely, which may or may not have serious consequences. This tends to be a 1-shot problem. In the case of a false negative, the logic you describe applies, and the interval before performing the function will never elapse.

(2) In the second case, the time is sampled upon the occurrance of some external event (like an interrupt, or the determination of some condition). An erroneous calculation of the elapsed time between two events also tends to be a 1-shot error, since the time of the second event (the current time) is copied to the prior time when the event recurs. How the system behaves based on an invalid interval is undefined, but happens only once.

So assuming nothing catastrophic happened because of a premature function or silly interval, the task is to notice those systems that have "gone dead" and aren't performing their functions anymore when they should. If something catastrophic did happen, the question is likely moot. And of course, bad things can happen sooner or later if their monitoring mechanism is dead.

In many cases, the function to be performed (too early or never in case of error) is just to log the system status. In most cases, a function happening too early or an absurd 1-time interval is benign. But not always, of course. Systems that wait forever need to be identified fairly quickly.

Yes, it's off topic for this thread, but I find it interesting stuff.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), December 21, 1999.