I can't believe that hundreds of thousands of programmers writing codes for x years did not realize that 2-digit years would cause big problems. Many of them must have alerted managements, top leadership, media, etc. Many must have been "pessimistic" about this problem. Were the "doomers" all ignored, vilified? We could not have gotten into this quicksand just because society does not like real "doom," even when it is a warning of a pending disaster. Although fantasy Hoolywood "doom" is drooled over.

There are still entities that claim that Y2K is a hoax or almost benign. For example, the website of the Birch Society implies this. An article in a recent investment newsletter stated that Y2K is mostly a hype, hoax. Yet a supplement included with this letter describes in no uncertain terms that the whole will go to hell.

I am beginning to wonder if this whole thing is not a conspiracy(ies.) Either to cause a collapse to gain power; or it's nothing but hot air to extract more wealth from the ignorant masses by using scare tactics.

Any comments?

-- fly . (.@...), December 05, 1998

Answers

Fly

Some of us were able to see to it that our systems handled the problem, but in other cases we were told to stick to the corp standards and not to rock the boat.

cr

-- Chuck a night driver (rienzoo@en.com), December 05, 1998.

fwiw, I still remember when this came up in a COBOL 20 years ago - the response from the instructor was "look around - you don't see any software that's 20 years old now, and in another 20 years you wont see any either...".

ah well, we were all much younger then...

Arlin Adams

-- Arlin H. Adams (ahadams@ix.netcom.com), December 05, 1998.

Amazable what myopic vision can accomplish, huh?

Diane

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), December 05, 1998.

Problem is, software gets replaced overall every 5 years or so. But it is rewritten using the same core routines. Just look at MS record in getting 8 and 16 bit code out of Windows - Win95, NT 3.51, NT 4.0, and even Win98 all have some 16 bit stuff floating around in them because it is much easier to reuse the core - that supports routines you may not have documented - than try to rewrite the damn thing entirely. Now people are looking at core routines in payroll and so forth that have not been examined in 20 years or more. And some systems written in languages not much used or very hard to debug are just replaced wholesale and the data transferred to the new system with extra date bytes written in.

For a real fun time I suggest you try to fix a FORTH program with no documentation - if it has a very complex dictionary you will never ever fix it. I wonder how England is dealing with the large numbers of FORTH programs Charles Moore and his adherents left on the mainframes over there - anyone have a clue?

-- Paul Davis (davisp1953@yahoo.com), December 06, 1998.

plots are begin hatched, no doubt, but the hand of the secret cabal didn't create y2k. i'm sure this lemon fills them with joy and they're looking forward to their lemonade, but things have been moving too fast for them, too, and all they can do is react.

as a symptom, y2k points to an underlying psychosis, a severe dissosciation from simple reality. so many people driving blind in the fast buck lane, completely asleep at the wheel, mumbling to themselves: the invisible hand of the free market will take care of it, and I gotta get mine, gotta get mine gotta get mine gotta get mine.

as a symptom, y2k says: wake up, we're already in the future! but most people still live in the past when there were only 3 billion people on the planet and they thought fogging the playground with DDT would kill the fleas.

as a symptom, y2k says: you people are stark raving mad, you can't keep expanding your economy forever

as a symptom y2k says: you people don't really understand computers and the system they have created, so hurry up and figure it out!

it is possible that y2k is a monkey wrench in the nefarious agenda of the secret cabal, and a blessing to all us peasants who carry the weight of the pyramid on our backs because it will impede the rapid centralization of power and create a new drive toward self-sufficiency and localised control. It is possible that y2k may help us save the Constitution from the predatory system.

so i'm not afraid of the consequences of y2k as much as the consequences of a continuation of things as they are. the secret cabal has more to fear from y2k than you or i.

-- joseph danison (jdanison@aol.com), December 06, 1998.

From about 30 years of experience in programming several different types of computer, ranging from an old vacuum-tubed monster to desktop and pocket PCs, in dozens of different programming languages:

There _are_ several real calendar-related computer problems that have arisen or can arise that are all lumped into a group nicknamed "Y2K". These problems arise for the same basic reason that many other types of "computer errors" occur: computers don't "think" the same way that humans do, and human programmers sometimes overlook some of the possible differences and consequences.

Personally, I predict that the probable severity of Y2K effects will be neither negligible nor end-of-the-world, but somewhere in the middle. Serious (Y2K will cause some deaths) but not apocalyptic (Y2K won't destroy Western civilization).

Now, to respond directly to parts of your posting:

>I can't believe that hundreds of thousands of programmers writing codes for x years did not realize that 2-digit years would cause big problems.

1. Much of the flawed programming was written two, three or more decades ago, when 2000 still seemed far in the future and hardly anyone ever thought about it.

2. Many programmers did realize there would be a problem IF their programs were still used in 2000, but did not expect their programs to still be in use by then.

3. Many programmers who realized that two-digit years would eventually cause a problem wanted to use four-digit years, but this would have made their programs incompatible with others using two-digit years, and they did not have time, desire, or authority to make a sweeping change to all of them.

4. Many programmers who realized that two-digit years would cause problems wanted to make the sweeping change to four-digit years throughout all the programs on which they worked, but could not get management approval.

5. Hardly anyone in the 1980s or earlier foresaw that there would be so many computers involved in our everyday lives by now. Did you, back then, foresee computers routinely sitting on millions of desktops?

Let me say here that at various times in my career, when working on various projects, I was in each of the preceding groups.

>Many of them must have alerted managements, top leadership, media, etc.

In 1979, my manager responded [approximate quote] "See all these projects lined up here? They all have due dates this year. I can't worry about 21 years from now."

In 1985, a programmer placed a full-page ad in "Computerworld", a leading weekly newspaper widely read in the computer industry, warning of the Year 2000 problem with two-digit dates. IBM responded that they were were aware of the problem [but they didn't do anything to fix it until several years later] and intimated that they'd prefer that he not stir up trouble for them. That same programmer created software to help fix the Year 2000 problems in commercial programs, and formed his own company to try to sell it. He never convinced a single business to buy it.

>Many must have been "pessimistic" about this problem.

But 2000 was so many years in the future, seeming unreal, until recently. Can you honestly say that in your everyday life now you routinely think of January 2007 as being only slightly more than 8 years in the future, closer to you now than October 1990 is in your past?

Also, see #5 above. Hardly anyone foresaw that there would be so many computers in our lives by 2000 that a systematic problem throughout many of them could cause so much disruption.

>Were the "doomers" all ignored, vilified?

There weren't any Y2K "doomers" until recently. That ad-placing programmer in 1985 didn't think the consequences would be so widespread.

>We could not have gotten into this quicksand just because society does not like real "doom," even when it is a warning of a pending disaster.

Oh yes, we could, and we have.

World War 2 -- Hitler published his plans in advance, in plenty of time for folks to see. How many believed or acted, compared to the many who didn't?

>Although fantasy Hoolywood "doom" is drooled over.

Y2K seems much like fantasy, even to most computer veterans. I _know_ it's real (or, rather, that there _are_ real Y2K problems, even though some people are exaggerating their extent and probable consequences in my opinion), but have to constantly remind myself that I need to take action about it now.

>There are still entities that claim that Y2K is a hoax or almost benign.

There are still people who claim that the NASA moon landings were a hoax, and that's something that's already happened and easy for the average non-rocket-scientist to understand.

I can readily see that the Y2K problems are not obvious or easy for non-computer types of people to understand or believe, especially since they mostly haven't happened yet in plainly publicly-visible ways.

>For example, the website of the Birch Society implies this. An article in a recent investment newsletter stated that Y2K is mostly a hype, hoax.

Some people have vested interests in claiming that Y2K is a hoax.

>Yet a supplement included with this letter describes in no uncertain terms that the whole will go to hell.

Some people have vested interests in claiming that Y2K will be a catastrophe.

>I am beginning to wonder if this whole thing is not a conspiracy(ies.) Either to cause a collapse to gain power; or it's nothing but hot air to extract more wealth from the ignorant masses by using scare tactics.

If it were only a conspiracy or hoax, why is every major corporation in the United States, run by hard-headed business people who'd be fired if they sent their companies on wild-goose chases, spending tens or hundreds of millions of dollars this year and next to fix Y2K problems?

Is there some Y2K exaggeration out there? Yes.

Does that mean there's no real Y2K problem? No.

Are some people trying to take advantage of Y2K ignorance? Yes.

Does that mean that all Y2K warnings are hot air? No.

So how does a non-computer-geek know what to believe about Y2K? Get lots of information from different sources, and compare them.

Consider this:

If you prepare for the possibility of Y2K disruptions, and they happen, you'll be glad you prepared, and it may save considerable inconvenience, hardship or even injury or lives.

If you prepare for the possibility of Y2K disruptions, and they don't happen, you may feel embarrassed, but you'll wind up better-prepared for other disruptions such as natural disasters than you are now, which might save inconvenience, hardship or even lives in the future.

If you don't prepare for the possibility of Y2K disruptions, and they don't happen, you may feel pleased that you didn't waste time, effort, and money, but on the other hand you won't be any more prepared for natural disasters than you are now, which might risk inconvenience, hardship or possibly worse in the future.

If you don't prepare for the possibility of Y2K disruptions, and they _do_ happen, you'll wish you had prepared, and you may suffer inconvenience, hardship or possibly worse.

-- No Spam Please (anon@ymous.com), December 06, 1998.

This is admittedly over-simplified but it tries to sum up what No Spam Please and others here feel about Y2K...

Which box do you find yourself in?	Prepared	NOT Prepared
Severe Disruptions DO NOT Occur	You're OK!	You're OK!
Severe Disruptions Occur	You're OK! (Maybe)	You're DEAD!

-Arnie

-- Arnie Rimmer (Arnie_Rimmer@usa.net), December 06, 1998.

joseph danison

You Sir, have a somewhat screwed-up view of how the US Constitution regulates (or at least, was intended to regulate) American life.

There is no perfect form of government, no secret kept from us. There will never be Utopia on Earth, it is impossible to do so. Too many conflicting opinions.

The Founding Fathers gave us a charter for governing ourselves in a manner that would most seek to benefit each individual. They did this at a time in history when the Church ruled nearly every decision made for the regulation of society. They ignored popular convention and struck a big blow for the singular persons ability to regulate their life as they see fit, as long as they do not infringe on the rights of others to live the life they chose.

It is by no means a perfect system, but it is the closest that we have come yet. Will we make mistakes? Of course we will, but at least we are more or less FREE to make our mistakes as we see fit to make them.

-- Uncle Deedah (oncebitten@twiceshy.com), December 06, 1998.

Kudos to "No Spam Please" for your excellent and thorough analysis. Whenever faced with a choice between foolish human nature and sinister conspiracies, choose human nature. You'll be right virtually every time.

-- bill dunn (bdunn@snet.net), December 06, 1998.

Fly, if you look in the archives, this was discussed thoroughly already. The gist is, there is no conspiracy, many programmers have sounded the alarm over the years but it was silenced by company managers, CEO's (short sighted bottomlines) and the pentagon (turning down a new standard.)

-- chris (catsy@pond.com), December 06, 1998.

.: One has to wonder about the schizoid state of the Y2K info channels.

I fully agree with: * Kudos to "No Spam Please" for your excellent and thorough analysis.*

Bill Dunn: * Whenever faced with a choice between foolish human nature and sinister conspiracies, choose human nature. You'll be right virtually every time. *

Bill, I don't think this is an exclusive either/or sitation. I had to study a lot of history in Germany. Throughout history, groups have conspired to conquer, rape, pillage, and otherwise enjoy themselves. There's no reason to believe that conspiracies have stopped now. Today it's much easier to keep them secret.

Uncle: * It is by no means a perfect system, but it is the closest that we have come yet. *

Deedah, you are correct. But our system is being severely undermined. The Swiss system has so far lasted longer than ours and most Swiss barely know what their president looks like. He is not a cheerleader like ours have been.

We are NOT FREE to make our mistakes. We have to dance to the tune of bureaucrats, thousands of laws, etc. This is comparable to being tangled up in a dumpster full of wire coat hangers. My life would be a lot easier if I could get out of that dumpster and pursue "happiness" as our founding fathers and mothers envisioned it.

-- TTF (seenit@ww2.com), December 06, 1998.

A large part boils down to the technical folks being overridden by non-technical types (horn-hairs). In 1985 I was part of a military purchase team. We (the techies) specified that the new system be capable of making the century transition. In 1987 we were testing the prototype. Part of the test was the "set the clocks ahead" trick.

When the smoke cleared, we had discovered the embedded chip problem. Our software had been written to handle four digits in the year field. The real-time clocks in our system couldn't and had to be replaced (six computers worth) just to get the thing back up and running. A major design change would be required to fix the Y2K issue.

Now the horn-hairs come in. As part of our test and evaluation report we covered the date rollover issue. It was deleted when it went through the next level of the food chain. After mucho yelling and accusation, we were simply ordered to be quiet and accept the fact that we had bought a system that performed well in 1987 and not to worry about 2000. Telling the higher-ups that you just bought an expensive computer system with a fatal flaw was a certain career- ending move.

So the bad news was never allowed to rise past the level of the technical grunts and the managers that were the first level capable of overruling their calls for alarm. Besides we were told "We'll all be retired by then anyway so it won't be our problem then."

Multiply that attitude times every military and coorporate computer system and you see today's problem. No real conspiracy to cause Y2K other than an across the board desire by middle managers to not be the bearers of bad news to their bosses.

-- wildweasel (vtmldm@epix.net), December 06, 1998.

wildweasel, that reminds me of a Dilbert type joke that floated through our construction company. It went something like this:

Tech to Senior Tech: "We have a real problem. This ___ is a bucket full of shit."

Senior Tech reports this to Principal Tech.: "... pile of dung"

Pric. Tech reports to Engineer: ... compost

By the time the story gets to the head cheese who then makes this statement about the original contents of the bucket: "our co. is progressing well because of the fertile minds of our dedicated employees."

What made this so funny was that it was so true.

-- fly . (.@...), December 06, 1998.

No Spam Please said:

3. Many programmers who realized that two-digit years would eventually cause a problem wanted to use four-digit years, but this would have made their programs incompatible with others using two-digit years, and they did not have time, desire, or authority to make a sweeping change to all of them.

4. Many programmers who realized that two-digit years would cause problems wanted to make the sweeping change to four-digit years throughout all the programs on which they worked, but could not get management approval.

I concurr. I was in aerospace in the 1970s. E/M Design/Drafting/Checking. The Mil Standard format for dates on drawings was YY-MM-DD. Only the draftsmen (on boards, then) and checkers used that format. The engineer and project and management types, when they signed off, STILL used mm/d/yy.

Fast forward to 1998. I'm a "shopper" (contract worker) at a large aerospace company again, for the first time in twenty years.

Guess what, they're still not using YY-MM-DD, much less YYYY-MM-DD.

The network/mainframe pukes are putting out on the corporate intranet about how they've done this and that, everything looks A-OK for Y2K. And they've got some protogee of a pointy haired manager with a slick, graphics-intensive set of webpages that is all fluff.

But NOWHERE is there any place given for the PEONS to submit questions and statements.

Now MAYBE the mainframes are Y2K fixed. But I can tell you that the PCsoftware used in my group is not.

We and other groups have a LOT of PC applications using Microsoft Access and Excel. We, as individual programmers, have NO control over date formats; that is controlled by the network pukes. In the date format selections they ALLOW us to have access to, is there included in either a long or short date format something with 4-digit years?

Hell no!

-- prog (prog@jobshop.com), December 07, 1998.

Hey, No Spam "Personally, I predict that the probable severity of Y2K effects will be neither negligible nor end-of-the-world, but somewhere in the middle. Serious (Y2K will cause some deaths) but not apocalyptic (Y2K won't destroy Western civilization)."

How do you arrive at your coclusion ( a 5 on a 1-10?)?.

Does this 5 go, up or down every now and then?

To me a 5 sounds pretty damn serious when factored in with world politics, a stock market crash and bank runs.

-- Andy (andy_rowland@msn.com), December 07, 1998.

Kudos to "No Spam Please" for your excellent and thorough analysis.

Seconded here. Very good.

-- Richard Dale (rdale@figroup.co.uk), December 07, 1998.

They arent even listening to us NOW - a year before Y2k. And people wonder why they didnt listen to us 15 years ago??? 20 Years ago?

It iritates me when I hear someone (not this author - I dont know his/her background) but when I hear someone who JUST got involved in this issue - after several years of it being public knowledge - saying "Why didnt they do this right 20 years ago" We couldnt get you to LISTEN to us in 1996 that this is an issue - I am SURE we couldnt have convinced you 20 years ago that it was.

*Everyone* is to blame for this - not just the programmers - the managers - etc.

Look at the national debt for gawds sakes - we are all sitting back watching THAT future time bomb and doing nothing. I can imagine 30 years from now our grandkids - asking WHY *we* sat back and let this happen when THEY have to pay for OUR mistakes.

A society can not afford to support millions of non-productive membrs of its society without paying for it sooner or later.

Time to pay the piper...

Whitney

-- Whitney (Y2kWhit@aol.com), December 20, 1998.

Whitney;

>>Look at the national debt for gawds sakes - we are all sitting back watching THAT future time bomb and doing nothing. I can imagine 30 years from now our grandkids - asking WHY *we* sat back and let this happen when THEY have to pay for OUR mistakes. <<

Let's just hope that there are some of y'all around to hear the questions. That in turn involves us getting people's minds off of "YUK" and onto "y2k".

Right now all of the locals are concerned with "page 45 of Zippergate" and won't even listen to what's really going to ruin their day for them in just a few more months.

You are, of course, quite right about the debt. There is also the trade deficit. That one will hammer your fanny someday too.

It surely is "one H*ELL of a hole we've dug for ourselves isn't it?

But, remember, these will soon be "the good old days".

S.O.B.

-- sweetolebob (La) (buffgun@hotmail.com), December 20, 1998.

Andy,

>How do you arrive at your coclusion ( a 5 on a 1-10?)?.

>Does this 5 go, up or down every now and then?

What I said was "somewhere in the middle". On one 1-10 scale I might be a 5-7, on another I might be a 6.5. My main point was that neither extreme was likely.

>To me a 5 sounds pretty damn serious when factored in with world politics, a stock market crash and bank runs.

Okay, I expect a stock market crash, bank runs, a recession at least as severe as in 1973-1974, fuel shortages, at least two hundred deaths _directly_ attributable to Y2K computer problems (and thousands where the tracing of cause is not so clear). I expect an _impact_ on the nation of magnitude equivalent to the overall impact of the Great Depression, but distributed differently.

"Pretty damn serious" can be a lot better than TEOTWAWKI.

-- No Spam Please (anon@ymous.com), December 21, 1998.

I expect a disaster a whole order of magnitide greater than the Depression. I'm talking 80% unemployment (as opposed to the 30% that existed in the Depression). I'm talking civil chaos, America's fall as a superpower, hundreds or thousands of death due to violence alone, mass starvation.

And then I predict a Second Renaissance.

This chaos will show that big government doesn't work. The people who lead us OUT of this crash will have read Atlas Shrugged. The methods they use to pull us out of that crash will be A is A, that there's no such thing as a free lunch. Their employees will believe that, too. Soon the entire country will realise that A is A and that producers are valuable.

And it is THAT mindset that will make America great again.

--Leo

-- Leo (leo_champion@hotmail.com), December 21, 1998.