I'm with Gary North. Why did the press suddenly go silent on the wonderful testing that Wall Street was doing. I''m very glad they are doing the test, but it has rolled over into the new century and ......silence. Either the press is biased or Wall Street has kept a lid on it.

-- James Chancellor (publicworks1@bluebonnet.net), July 17, 1998

Answers

Look at "update for July 17" on WWW.SIA.COM

-- Dennis Good (dgood@carolina.net), July 17, 1998.

The update is hard to find. Here is a more complete URL address: http://www.sia.com/year_2000/html/betatest.html

.....

-- Dan Hunt (dhunt@hostscorp.com), July 17, 1998.

James, thanks for illustrating how some people are determined to find bad news in good news. That Wall Street is at this point in the testing with nearly eighteen months remaining is an unqualified success story. What's more the real beneficiaries will be those markets around the world which have been dragging their feet. Due to the open reporting the late starters will be able to benefit from copying methods used by the pioneers. The importance of not having to re-invent the wheel should be obvious to anyone in any profession. The doomsayers have served a valuable role in getting the message out and the message has been pretty disheartening. However, some extremists simply refuse to adjust their conclusions to allow for progress which exceeds their original projections. Instead they prefer to spread falsehoods and inuendos debunking any reports of progress. If you want to find horror stories then look to your state and local governments' efforts - in most cases that will give you plenty of fuel to stoke your flame of pessimism and you won't have to resort to defaming successful Y2k practioners. Also, if you become one of those brave souls addressing the problem you will find that locally is where you can make a real difference.

-- Joe (logic@sanity.com), July 17, 1998.

Cool,

Good to hear some upbeat news on the old Y2K front. Anyone who relies on the press to cover anything needs their head examined.

j

-- j (yada@yada.com), July 17, 1998.

logic@sanity.com wrote: "However, some extremists simply refuse to adjust their conclusions to allow for progress which exceeds their original projections. Instead they prefer to spread falsehoods and inuendos debunking any reports of progress."

First of all, you don't know that I'm an extrmist. Second of all, you don't know what my conclusion of this y2k thing is. It changes week by week like most of us since there are so many unknowns out there. I do confess to jumping the gun on the Wall Street testing, which I am very glad they are doing by the way. Silence has been a real problem with this whole issue (ask the SEC). We are all gunshy when it comes to silence. 30% of the publicly traded companies filing with the SEC since January didn't even address the year 2000.

-- James Chancellor (publicworks1@bluebonnet.net), July 17, 1998.

It is my understanding that they are planning to publish the results of the Wall Street test on August 11. The test is to run for two weeks and then they're going to synthesize and evaluate the overall picture. So, we should hopefully hear something then. I guess my question is - what difference does it make if they're compliant if they don't have electricity? It would seem moot that they're compliant at that point...

-- Chana Campos (chana@campos.org), July 17, 1998.

The url given above for Wall Street test results says the following...

"This text will be updated on Friday July 17,1998 by 12 pm EST."

It is now after 5 PM... where's the beef???

RA

-- R.A. Mann (ramann@hotmail.com), July 17, 1998.

Here's the beef: .

There seem to be *two* beta test pages... sloppy. In the column on the left of the betatest.html page, click the 2nd link from the top ("Beta Test").

In a nutshell, they still haven't run into any unexpected problems.

-- Larry Kollar (lekollar@nyx.net), July 17, 1998.

Geez... I did it again. The beef is at:

http://www.sia.com/year_2000/html/bt-7_17.html

I've got to remember not to put < and > around URLs on this forum.

-- Larry Kollar (lekollar@nyx.net), July 17, 1998.

I'm still not sure the jury is in on the testing, is it? I may be all confused, but when I read the article at SIA it sounded like they won't test the actual 1/1/2000 date until Monday, until now they have only done pre-2000 tests. And it is not all of Wallstreet, but only a handful of exchanges, with the big street-wide test to come sometime in 99, right? I too am concerned about silence. It seems like anytime there is good Y2k news it is trumpeted far and wide. Of course, the silence could just be a result of the media deciding it's not big news anymore. What concerns me is that it seems like the general public is being lulled to sleep with all of these unqualified announcements of success.

I have been sharing at work about Y2k, and the day the big "news" about Data Integrity's "Cure" for Y2k, everyone came up to me and said "See, they've fixed the Y2k problem!!!". Now, nothing I say or do will convince them it still IS a problem and the FIX was not a universal one. The average guy usually doesn't know much about the problem and doesn't want to read more than an occasional headline about it.

I have been talking to my brother about it who is heavy into stocks and he will very occassionally read an article or two about it in a news mag. or computer mag. Still, it is a big joke to him, and he scoffs at me when I say that big-time economists say the market could have a big correction. He heard a news sound-byte about the market test being successful on the first day, and said to me "See, Wall Street has fixed the bug, so I'm not worried. He's planning to put everything into the market and forsees it continuing to rise throughout his lifetime. It breaks my heart that no-one will LISTEN to me in my circle of family and friends, which is why I don't expect anyone to listen to me in my community! NOBODY WANTS TO HEAR ANYTHING THEY HAVE TO THINK TOO MUCH TO UNDERSTAND, especially if it is negative.

-- Kay P (Y2kay@usa.net), July 17, 1998.

This is a partial quote from that site;

"The test, has uncovered several issues which are being addressed as they are reported. These have included such glitches as communications and routing issues, changes necessary on our security master test file, and test symbols not being recognized when they are valid. All reported issues have been or are in the process of being resolved and have not prevented the participants from continuing testing. Firms that have experienced connectivity problems will enter any missing trades the next testing day."

***** In case the starry eyed out there can't understand, this is not an "unqualified success". But go on and tell yourselves that its all ok, and I don't need to prepare for my family at all.

Yeah, right.

-- Will Huett (willhuett@usa.net), July 17, 1998.

Will, Surely you didn't intend to misrepresent the news so let me clarify your remarks with the facts. The reported problems have to do with the technology involved in setting up a parallel network for testing. These technical problems are routine in setting up a new network. The report clearly states that none of the problems are related to the Y2k logic changes. Further, while the tests so far have been executed on Dec 31, 1999 they involve transactions which span the new year - probably the most challenging type transaction will be these transactions which start in '99 and have settlement dates in '00. This is not a success? Follow this logic while looking at yourself in the mirror: You accept all the worst projections and go out of your way to promote them. Take this standard from your profits of doom and gloom, they say that a large organization should finish repairs by the end of '98 to allow for one full year of testing. This bunch at Wall Street starts testing almost six months early by the standards promoted by your own pessimistic crowd and you claim thls is not an unqualified success. Can YOU spell D.E.N.I.A.L.? Y2k is a big problem but there are enough qualified grownups working on it that it won't be the end of the world.

-- Joe (Logic@sanity.com), July 18, 1998.

Why didn't Gary North adress his prediction of april 1, 1998 about NY.and July 1998 This guy makes his money off of misery get a refund This was one of the better fourms we have had in a while plenty of facts keep up the good work

-- Steve M (ltyw90a@prodigy.com), July 18, 1998.

Why didn't Gary North adress his prediction of april 1, 1998 about NY.and July 1998 This guy makes his money off of misery get a refund This was one of the better fourms we have had in a while plenty of facts keep up the good work

-- Steve M (ltyw90a@prodigy.com), July 18, 1998.

Joe, Here are some Y2K statistics from the July 1998 issue of BYTE magazine (p. 61)

Number of Americans who might not get their tax refunds in the year 2000: 90,000,000 (IRS)

Percentage of US government's revenue stream in peril: 95 (IRS)

Number of medical devices that could be affected: 10,000 to 15,000 (Hospital Council of Western Pennsylvania)

Estimate to fix US Y2K problems: $600,000,000,000 (Gartner Group)

Estimated legal costs regarding Y2K: More than what it cost to fix it (ABA)

Average cost of repairing source code for a Fortune 500 company: $30 million (Brown & Bain, Phoenix)

Amount the US Government will have to spend to fix or replace its systems: $3.8 billion (US Government)

Number of "bug busters" to be mobilized by UK's PM Blair: 20,000

UK "Action 2000" project budget: $28,500,000,000

Total cost of Y2K fixes: $3,600,000,000,000 (Software Productivity Research)

Total cost of Y2K fixes: $52,000,000,000 (BZW, UK)

Number of programs in Pennsylvania state government needing correction: 44,228 (PA state government)

Number of hours needed to make those apps Y2K-ready: 1,298,310 (PA state government)

Cost to make those apps Y2K ready: $38,083,123 (PA state government)

Amount of work completed on those apps: 59% (PA state government)

Percentage of mainframe resources dedicated to solving Y2K problems: 10 to 25 (various sources)

Percentage of companies that say they've completed Y2K assessment in SEC filings: 60 (Triaxsys Research)

Organizations that will experience a failure: 30% to 50% (Gartner Group) **************** I am not in denial. Rather it is the pollyannas such as yourself that cling desperately to any whiff of good news. There is far more evidence that most systems will not be fixed than there is that they will.

We're all on a train careening downhill toward a broken trestle. Sure, the engineer is telling us that they are working on it, relax. You are happy to sit in your seat and watch. Me, I'll step off thank you, and watch from the hill.

It is going to be very, very messy.

Oh, yeah, put a cork in the end-'o-the-world line, huh? It is silly.

-- Will Huett (willhuett@usa.net), July 18, 1998.

Will, What's the point of listing things that will occur if nothing is done. Do you have some evidence that any of these "potential" problems is not being addressed. These statistics "may" represent the current status but they don't show where we will wind up. Neither do they represent any new information. The new information shows that progress is being made on several fronts. Current information shows that the embedded systems problem has been greatly exagerated. The programmer shortage has been greatly exagerated. Furthermore, any discriminating student of Y2k reporting can see that most reports are redundant and frequently they include urban "myths" which have already been disproved. Will, I know you long for Armageddon but regurgitating the same old tired, unsubstantiated, sparsely research D&G hyperbole doesn't prove we are doomed, and it contributes nothing to solutions of the problems at hand. The solutions train is gaining momentum every day and even if you had a red S on your chest you couldn't slow it down with shrill, irrelevant recitations of the D&G party line, because most of us are just not content to sit on our hands and watch things fall apart. Preparation is a good thing. Accepting defeat without engaging the enemy is pathetic. In your spare time do you hang out in hospital recovery rooms telling patients they are gonna die?

-- Joe (Logic@sanity.com), July 20, 1998.

Hey, Joe Logic,

:Do you have some evidence that any of these "potential" problems is not being addressed.

The problems have been addressed for several years now, but they havent been solved. Do you have any EVIDENCE that the potential problems will be solved in time? No one denies that people are working on the problem. Its neither a problem of great technical difficulty, nor of total lack of address. Its a problem of scope and magnitude, which a Wall Street pre-test does little to address. ********** :These statistics "may" represent the current status but they don't show where we will wind up.

Immaterial (and obvious). Unless they show rapid movement in the direction of solution, they indicate that solutions wont occur on time. Interesting that you can take a page full of items that represent the current state of affairs as compiled in news media that has nothing to gain from Y2K and use the sophomoric trick of putting quotes around the word may, and that you can trivialize the extent of the problem by stating the obvious. The problem is not where we are today, it is, as you point out, where we wind up. The metrics to be used to assess the magnitude of the problem have to be initial position and velocity. Velocity is a vector: it has both magnitude (speed) and direction. The statistics Will cited show a poor position today and a slow velocity (movement toward solution) ********** :Current information shows that the embedded systems problem has been greatly exagerated.

No it doesnt. The best information available today shows that the embedded systems problem hasnt gotten any worse. What current information indicates that the probable number of failures will be less than 1% of 40 billion? (Which is 400 million failures, some of which may not be in anything more serious than a VCR) This is simply another statement youve put forward, with (again) no evidence to support it.

********** :The programmer shortage has been greatly exagerated.

Has it only been exagerated a little bit? Whats your definition of greatly? Is there a surplus of programmers? Where is this reported? Again, you offer statements of your belief, but you refuse to offer proof. The last definitive statements I saw on this aspect were a media article quoted in another thread and the work done by Cory Hamasaki in his DC Y2K Weather Report that relates to current salaries in DC. Both indicate a shortage is developing in several parts of the country (including Washington DC, where most of the federal programming is done.)

********** :Furthermore, any discriminating student of Y2k reporting can see that most reports are redundant and frequently they include urban "myths" which have already been disproved.

This is a ludicrous statment, as once again you attempt to apply terms such as discriminating, logical, reasoned, to yourself. Give up the debating tricks that score points with judges. They avail you nothing on January 1, 2000. Would one who is discriminating engage in the repeated attempts you make to convince newcomers that there is no problem, so that these people may fail to prepare.

If you really want to be of any service, put forward evidence. Quote articles, provide references to URLs, and carry out reasoned debate well above the level of labeling others in an attempt to discredit them. Unfortunately, you appear to only have a small bag of tricks, and when the bags empty you have to change your name and move on.

Hasta la vista

-- Rocky Knolls (rknolls@hotmail.com), July 20, 1998.

I work in the IT dept. of one of the largest Investment Banks in the country. The two biggest projects right now are Y2K compliance and preparing for the EMU. We utilize a mainframe system with millions of lines of code for almost all of our database, accounting, and trading systems. Although I do not work in the Y2K group, I can say assertively that a great deal of work is being done to insure that the company is compliant.

Many people are scared of what is going to happen to banks and financial institutions at the beginning of the new millenium. This is to be expected. Who knows how the many bugs in the systems will manifest themselves. Even more frightening is the possibilty of power and telephone outages.

But, let's say for the sake of argument that phone and power outages are intermittent and brief. The economy could still be extremely vulnerable, however. After all, what would happen to the dollar if banks end up becoming insolvent, or the Fed has some major problems? What kind of currency will takes it's place, or how will it end up being valued? What will happen to stock and bond markets?

The irony is that we will see an example of this BEFORE the new millenium this next Jan., when the EMU becomes the monetary standard for all of Europe. Talk about computer problems! How does a company go about preparing for this when nobody (economists included) really knows what to expect? The introduction of an entirely new currency to all of Europe is a major change. And, you can be sure there will be an adjustment period (in both technology and the economy).

So, while it is encouraging that Wall Street has been conducting tests on their system now, their silence should not mean that the results are devastatingly bad. In less than 200 days there will be an entirely new monetary unit for Europe, and, while this certainly has received press, one can hardly say it is all over the news (unless you are an avid reader of economic journals). Yet here we have a situation that could cause ripples in all the world's economies and pricing structures.

-- N. Slater (nslater@hotmail.com), July 20, 1998.

Rocky, I enjoyed your tirade. If you had been paying attention you would know that I have been pointing to evidence. Look at the posts on this forum. Weren't you miserably disappointed that you didn't get the response you wanted on the question of programmer shortages? Where's your proof Rocky? No one has come forward on this forum to give you the answer you desired. There you go again, exagerating the embedded systems problem. Harlan Smith's explanation of how greatly this problem is exagerated is on this forum - you just ignore it. Harlan has forgotten more about embedded systems than you are capable of understanding and his 25 million is more plausible, defendable and manageable than your hyperbolic claim of 400 million. I say you are exagerating the embedded systems problem by a factor of 16 - prove me wrong. I stated that Wall Street is ahead of the curve according to the standards set by the D&G crowd that you hang with - prove me wrong - show me where the D&G crowd which said we need a full year of testing can prove that starting early does not equate to being ahead of the curve the D&G clowns drew to begin with. You don't have facts Rocky, you just have your pathetic mantra: Y2k is systemic, it can't be fixed umm,umm,umm...

-- Joe (Logic@sanity.com), July 21, 1998.

Joe Illogic

I don't have to prove you wrong. You haven't posted anything to prove yourself right.

The best one can do with yopu is ignore you. Too bad there isn't a killfile for your posts.

Have a good day. I have to go prepare for that which you choose to ignore.

-- Rocky Knolls (rknolls@hotmail.com), July 22, 1998.

Rocky,

Speechless old boy? I'm not surprise. The cat really gets your tongue when someone has the audacity to ask you for evidence to support your extreme position. Now, go on and slither over to the thread discussing the fact the FAA computers are already compliant and tell the world why that is not good news. Go ahead Rocky, do it quickly before your pal Will Huet beats you to it. Oh, there have already been a few worthless attempts at debunking the "facts" of the report but they don't hold a candle to the psuedo-intellectual tongue lashing you can give folks who report progress. Go for it man - you have become my favorite comedian and I can always use a good laugh.

-- Joe (logic@sanity.com), July 22, 1998.