Motley Fool series, plus my response

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

The Motley Fool just finished a Polynna series, located at:

http://www.fool.com/features/1998/sp980914y2k001.htm

Below is my respnse to the writer. I think folks who write these kinds of articles need to be advised of the evidence they are ignoring or are not aware of.

Ms. "Puck": In RE: your series on Y2K and you assertion that there is "overwhelming evidence that companies and government agencies are on top of the Year 2000 problem", I suggest you check out the following site:

http://www.y2ktoday.com/

This site was created by James Adams, former CEO of United Press International and former managing editor of the London Sunday Times. The evidence collected on this site should assure anyone that the "overwhelming evidence" actually suggests that governments and industry are far from being on top of the problem. As the head of the Microsoft Year 2000 Project was quoted as saying in the current Esquire (this is from memory, but I assure you it's basically correct), "Anyone who has spent any significant time working on this issue knows that it is as serious as anyone has said it could be." Implicit in "anyone" would have to include Ed Yourdon, Ed Yardeni, and even the king of survivalist "nutcases", Gary North.

You obviously have not done your homework, Ms. Puck. It is also obvious that, as a person whose living depends on a strong stock market, you have a vested interest in pooh-poohing the facts. For the record, I have degrees from Harvard (poli sci) and Columbia (masters in journalism) and worked at the White House for a year, so I do think I have some credibility.

Your assertion that "If a U.S. bank tries to do business with a bank in Russia plagued by the problem, their systems simply won't be able to communicate. The end..." is absolutely laughable and contradicts pages and pages of accounts that I have read by experienced mainframe programmers and systems analysts, as well as a great deal of government testimony.

You are correct that "panic" doesn't do anyone any good. But you should have considered that before rubberstamping the compliance assurances of publically held companies and government agencies (which, according to the GAO, have been lying outright about their Y2K readiness... I'll be happy to send you URLs which confirm this). This is Journalism 101; consider the vested interests of any such statements.

Panic and preparation are not the same thing. It is generally accepted among even the most optimistic people in the government and corporate spheres that it is too late to avoid major disruptions. It's simple math: there are not enough programmers, not enough time, and not enough coordination across industry and national boundaries. The focus should be on contingency plans, not coding.

If and when this crisis does reach the heights that many are predicting, "journalists" like you will have a lot of explaining to do. You will have to justify your insistence that Y2K "is, in fact, not a software problem but a hype problem." I hope that, should this eventuality arise, you will be prepared to write a more responsible follow-up. I am afraid, however, that by then it will betoo late. Sincerely,Scott Johnson

-- Scott Johnson (scojo@yahoo.com), September 23, 1998

Answers

Very well said Scott. It's undocumented Pollyanna crap like that that lulls people into a false sense of security.

-- Craig (craig@ccinet.ab.ca), September 23, 1998.

Even the CIA has told it's people to prepare. You would think she would take that into consideration.

-- Gayla Dunbar (privacy@please.com), September 23, 1998.

Here is the response of the writer to my e-mail. Interesting, at best...I especially liked the ad hominem nature of some of her comments. My own response follows...by the way, her address is TMFPuck@aol.com...

Mr. Johnson: From the posts on our Y2K message board and the emails I have receivedon this issue, I am even more convinced that Y2K will not be some majorcatastrophe. Many programmers working on this very problem have written me or posted messages thanking me for writing a contrarian piece countering the hype surrounding the problem. By the way, having degrees from Harvard and Columbia (especially the journalism school) and working at the White House don't lend points on credibility. These days, thanks to our esteemed president, working atthe White House actually detracts from one's credibility. Also, I'm not a journalist; I'm a writer. I have done my own researchand my own thinking and drawn my own conclusions. I presented my ideas on thesubject not as the definitive view on the subject but as my take. You can dowith it what you will. Since any "crisis" most likely will prove to be hype,I'm not worried about having to do a follow-up retracting my opinion.Foolishly,Yi-Hsin (TMF Puck) -- ---TMFPuck@aol.com wrote: > Many programmers working on this very problem have written me orposted > messages thanking me for writing a contrarian piece countering thehype > surrounding the problem.

Yi-Hsin: programmers' views vary even more than most people's. But you must remember that programmers tend to be "trees" rather than "forest" people, and often don't think about the larger ramifications of coding decisions. I would think that Ed Yourdon, however, would have a great degree of credibility on this department, since he ls widely considered THE guru of mainframe systems implementation.

> By the way, having degrees from Harvard and Columbia (especially the > journalism school) and working at the White House don't lend points on > credibility. These days, thanks to our esteemed president, workingat the > White House actually detracts from one's credibility.

Ouch! Well, I'll reluctantly agree on the last point, ad hominem though it may be. But I would think that my overall record would certainly suggest that I am an intelligent person who looks at issues in a dispassionate manner. As for the remark about the journalism school, the one concretely beneficial thing that I did take away from my experience there was the ability to examine ALL the evidence, not just the evidence that supports my own opinion. I wonder why you have not considered the fact that budgets for corporations and gov't agencies have exponentially increased over time, as these institutions have learned more about the depth of the problem? Or admissions by the Department of Defense that they have radically underestimated their Y2K vulnerabilities? Or documented cases of "catastrophic failures" at every major GM factory? Or an utter breakdown of the Hawaiian power system during a Y2K test? Or the quote I sent you by Microsoft's Year 2000 manager, whom you yourself quoted in your series? Or, most significantly, that many companies who months ago were pooh-poohing suggestions that this was a problem... are now admitting that they can't fix all their systems in time?

> Also, I'm not a journalist; I'm a writer. I have done my ownresearch and my > own thinking and drawn my own conclusions. I presented my ideas onthe subject > not as the definitive view on the subject but as my take.

How does that make you not a journalist? And in any case, semantics are pointless, since your impact is that a journalist's.

> You can do with it > what you will. Since any "crisis" most likely will prove to be hype,I'm not > worried about having to do a follow-up retracting my opinion.

Well, in that light, I certainly wish you the best. I also hope you are absolutely right, as I have no stake in your being wrong. But I assure you that, should the predicted crisis (or worse) come to pass, you will bear a share of the responsibility for discouraging people from preparing.

Sincerely,Scott Johnson

-- Scott Johnson (scojo@yahoo.com), September 23, 1998.


I am currently testing software here in the Great Northwest (the only place to live, IMHO ; ) ) and can attest to the fact that software never ships on time; the product I'm working on is two years overdue. Marketing departments often promise what developers and testers have to deliver, and despite their best efforts, bugs happen. And when developers fix one, they often create two or three more. Y2K could be a fizzle or a firestorm, depending on how well business and governments around the world react and deal with the problem. I'm not taking any chances; I'm stocking up on the essentials as well as luxuries like...chocolate, because I can't live without chocolate! Seriously, I intend to be ready for the worst, but hope for the best. I would be more than happy to see the impact of Y2K be a 'ho-hum so what?' kind of event, but in case it isn't, I would like to be able to provide my family and neighbors with some sustenance.

-- Karen Cook (browsercat@hotmail.com), September 24, 1998.

Some OLD Greek said (the name escapes me at the moment): - - Hope is too expensive, it's better to be prepared. - -

And since these two erudite folks have both mentioned it, and I think it's a good idea, I'ma gonna add it to my list now.

I'll gotta go "add hominy" to my list of grub too.

The Neph (Uncle Deedahs unclaimed Texas nephew)

BTW - Y'all know the (un)Civil War was fought over grits, dontcha? Yeah, the loosers had to eat 'em.

ps - None of the opinions expressed here in any way represent anything to do with the actual Uncle Deedah. (Knew you'd want me to add that unc) TN

-- Nephew Deeduh (twicebit@onceshy.com), September 24, 1998.



If ya din't want grits, whyja order breakfast?

BTW, I thought adoption worked the other way around.

-- Uncle Deedah (oncebitten@twiceshy.com), September 24, 1998.


I think you guys would enjoy the cartoon that is currently at Duh-2000. I know I did.

-- Amy Leone (aleone@amp.com), September 24, 1998.

Good responses Scott.

Interesting, but I've noticed exactly the opposite effect to this "reporter"

- No person who has examined the problem has become more confident.

- Programmers are mischaractarized as "twig" people, with most not able to notice the tree, much less the forest. However, the first people to begin responding to the problem, and the most concerned group about the problem, are programmers and engineers.

- Politicians and econmists (including stock market trendies) have found over the past 20+ years that they can "say" anything and have never been held accountable for anything they say. What gives them credibility now?

-------

Her snide remark about White House connections proving you have no credentials or reliability is an axample of just how low those lies have gone. So WE are supposed to believe THEM now?

?? Why ?? She answers her point.

If I were concerned about cars blowing up in Jan 3 2000, and found out that no automotive mechanic was going to drive that day, would I listen to a lawyer paid by the company, the automotive executive or would I watch what the mechanics were doing?

-- Robert A. Cook, P.E. (Kennesaw, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), September 24, 1998.


"If I were concerned about cars blowing up in Jan 3 2000, and found out that no automotive mechanic was going to drive that day, would I listen to a lawyer paid by the company, the automotive executive or would I watch what the mechanics were doing?"

Mr. Cook: I posted this statement verbatim on the Motley Fool web message board (located at http://boards.fool.com/messages.asp?id=1020040000000000) where her article is being discussed. Hope you don't mind; extremely well put.

scott

-- Scott Johnson (scojo@yahoo.com), September 24, 1998.


Motley Fools ------ Doesn't the name speak for itself?

-- Dave (dave22@concentric.net), September 24, 1998.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ