News from Poland - Translation

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

Here's a translation of that article in Warsaw Times, as provided by the originator.

-----

TRANSLATION from "Zycie Warszawy""

"Hundreds, perhaps even thousands of workers will receive only a part of their pay by end of January. The reason? Firms without accounting computer program can't calculate correct payroll. Small firms maybe able to pay their workers with a help of calculators.

But firms with hundreds or thousands of workers find it impossible to do it manually when considering the fact that new reforms were enacted last year. Many firms which ambitiously decided to try to calculate health and retirement benefits, as required by new reforms, ran as described by an accountant from a medium size firm "into a wall". Attempts to calculate payrolls were unsuccessful. Calls to ZUS (PolishSocial Security) go unanswered. A trip to offices of Polish Social Security is useless as many people attempt to get answers directly.

One must understand that two reforms enacted, require firms to fillout 19 new forms. Everything was supposed to be simpler! One was supposed to take new disks, insert them into computer and everything would be fine. Many firms followed that route and found out that the software has bugs in it. Other software programs seem to have incomplete command strings.

In meantime software firm "Prokom" which developed the software, issued 7th version, which also contains errors. Even when the software works, IT IS UNABLE TO CALCULATE SOCIAL SECURITY TAX IN CASES WHEN FOR EXAMPLE IT NEEDS TO CALCULATE TAX FOR WORKERS FROM NOVEMBER OF 1998 to AUGUST 1999 or long-term HEALTH BENEFITS, look into future.

Offices of Social Security were packed with irritated customers. Rooms were full with information seekers.

- We have never had such situation, said one Social Security employee.

- Until the end of February Social Security will have longer hours to accommodate annoyed public.

- "It all is tragic", said Paul Szachowicz, an owner of one firm

- "I attempted to contact Social Security a numerous occasions. Their phone number is either busy or noone answers", said Elizabeth Hilcher. "Social Security employees are unable to help anybody, they only know how to fillout forms."

Social Security workers admit they have no idea how to resolve this problem. The big problem is that the accounting software contains bugs. Unofficially experts state the the problem will take around six months to correct..

---

OK, what we have here is a combination of hasty reforms, a botched upgrade, and real buggy software. Y2K issues have *absolutely* nothing to do with any of these problems according to this translation. There's no doubt that some people in Poland were 'whacked' by this mess, but it's in *no way* a Y2K problem.

Side note - now that this has come to light, as usual Milne is silent.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), January 24, 1999

Answers

Flint: how can you say this is unrelated to y2k? It looks like JoAnne Effect or at least a problem with upgrading to a new y2k compliant software. But I know, your glass is perpetually half full...

More to the point, Flint, what is happening now in the world is that computer transactions are beginning to get trashed. It will only get worse from here on out, much, much worse, and there will come a point when there are no longer enough hours in a day to sort it all out. All the kings' horses and all the kings' men won't be able to put Humpty back together. That's when TSHTF.

BTW where did you get the translation?

-- a (a@a.a), January 24, 1999.


"Flint: how can you say this is unrelated to y2k? It looks like JoAnne Effect or at least a problem with upgrading to a new y2k compliant software. "

Well, 'a', the article says nothing related to y2k, even speculatively. It mentions trying to implement 'required' reforms a couple of times, which sound like government reforms. It says nothing about 'new y2k compliant software' at all -- where did you get that? Apparently the prior software could handle exactly those cases that are failing now -- are you saying that JAE was *added* to this new software?

"But I know, your glass is perpetually half full..."

I'm reading what the article actually says. "More to the point, Flint, what is happening now in the world is that computer transactions are beginning to get trashed. "

In your experience, have you ever heard of a problem like this before? Do you think they're becoming more common? It seems like the phrase "the computer is down" has been with us for decades. Of course we are now all hypersensitive to computer problems lately, and scouring the world for them. But the trend you see is almost surely an artifact of this sensitivity, at least so far.

"It will only get worse from here on out, much, much worse, and there will come a point when there are no longer enough hours in a day to sort it all out. All the kings' horses and all the kings' men won't be able to put Humpty back together. That's when TSHTF. "

I agree with you here, completely. This is exactly what I tried to describe in my PEP-talk. The error rate will soon swamp our ability to keep up with it, and a lot of ugly things will happen. I expect the situation in Poland is entirely symptomatic of what we'll be facing everywhere. As an object lesson, it's good. As an *actual* y2k failure, no, it isn't one.

BTW where did you get the translation?

The original brief summary, and subsequent translation, were provided by S. Borkowski, in csy2k. The summary is what caused Milne to jump to his usual foregone conclusion and start braying about it on all forums he's polluting. This translation has effectively shut him up, since even Milne would have to admit that any y2k-related aspects of it were simply projected on it using his imagination. Milne has made many such errors. He's admitted none, always vanished. For what it's worth.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), January 24, 1999.


Once again, and interminablt, flint comes down flatfooted on the pollyanna side. I guess he EXPECTS them to actually call it a JOANNE effect, never ever having herd that nomenclature before.

To flint, no matter WHAT happens, it is NOT Y2K related. The article must DEFINITIVELY state that it is, for it to be so.

Until the day that things just stop, flint will deny anything and everything. That's the way his tired little brain works. Get used to it.

-- Paul Milne (Fedinfo@halifax.com), January 24, 1999.


Hey Paul, good to hear from you.

I guess we aren't supposed to pay any attention to what the article actually says. What's important is what you *want* it to mean.

I note that your support for your distortion consists solely of insults. I wonder if anyone will notice that name-calling is only a childish admission of error?

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), January 24, 1999.


It IS an interesting "object" lesson Flint, with Y2K extrapolations.

The San Francisco Blackout was not caused by Y2K either, at least, that's what they said, even while on the same day the CEO admitted in a press conference that they were working on Y2K software fixes. But, the LESSONS, if learned, have distinct Y2K implications.

Diane

(Sure glad Paul Milne, Mr. Rudesby himself, is picking on you and NOT me. Hummm...?)

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), January 24, 1999.



A lesson in botched software programs, hasty reforms, mandatory government intervention without consideration of alternatives, government programming errors affecting people, and delays in fixing "released" governemnt software covered with bugs?

I'm surprised you claim this is not Y2K related - it has all the symptoms of what the US government is going to release to meet Clinton's "politically corrupt" dates for the IRS, HFCA, FAA, DOD, DOE, etc.

True, this failure is not y2K related - but the reactions, the results, and the government responses are what I see happening. But in the US, the media will hide the errors to shield Clinton-Gore from his incompetance.

-- Robert A. Cook, PE (Kennesaw, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), January 24, 1999.


Flint, as an experienced journalist who is currently covering Y2K, I must tell you that you are one of the least media-savvy people I have recently encountered. You assume that, because the article doesn't mention Y2K, that it wasn't a Y2K problem. There are all kinds of possibilities/probabilities that you have ignored, including:

1) the writer didn't think to consider whether it was Y2K-related;

2) the writer did think to consider whether it was Y2K-related, but didn't know for sure, so like a good journalist, didn't speculate;

3) the writer did think to consider whether it was Y2K-related, asked his/her sources, was assured that it wasn't Y2K-related, and took them at their word without getting corroborating information;

4) the writer did think to consider whether it was Y2K-related, decided that it wasn't worth pursuing because to disclose it as a Y2K problem would cause more chaos than the disclosure was worth;

ETC. ETC. ETC. What is *NOT* established here is whether this was or wasn't a Y2K problem. You make a foolish assumption: that which is not discussed, is not real. Those who draw conclusions based on speculation, in *either* direction, are being foolish... but it sure sounds like Jo Anne to me.

scott

-- Scott Johnson (scojo@yahoo.com), January 24, 1999.


scott, everything you say is correct. Unfortunately, we really cannot determine whether date bugs led to any of the reported problems without actually examining the code, line by line. Even then, we might miss one!

There is agreement among all the programmers in csy2k that the symptoms given in the article cannot be made to match any known or even hypothetical form of JAE at all. Of course, the journalist may have botched the facts. Beyond a certain point, you get to reducto ad absurdum, rejecting everything in the story as a possible error, and left with the unmentioned y2k problems you're convinced must have caused the problem!

At least one Polish-speaking programmer (see the 'whacked' thread where I posted it) called Poland and started asking around. His conclusion was that y2k had nothing to do with any of these problems whatsoever. Of course, he didn't examine the code either, and he may be equally naive and foolish.

By the standards you propose, it becomes completely impossible to rule out y2k from any computer problem we read about anywhere. The issues the article mentions are, by themselves, amply sufficient to explain the problems they're having. Why the effort to superimpose y2k problems nobody mentions, nobody can find, and nobody has any good reason to suspect?

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), January 24, 1999.


Flint - assume you're right, and I agree that there is no objective evidence that this problem is Y2K-derived. Still, isn't this an example of the results we expect from botched Y2K programming?

Isn't that the more important lesson learned? Apparently, a government programdeveloped from 1995 through 1998 was hurried into production without safeguards and testing, and botched up thousands of accounts -> isn't that critical enough to alarm you of what may happen when the US government hurries through its programs? (Already happened in FAA, right? They had to recall flight programs affecting Chicago, SanDiego, Denver, etc.)

-- Robert A. Cook, PE (Kennesaw, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), January 24, 1999.


Robert,

Earlier I wrote:

"The error rate will soon swamp our ability to keep up with it, and a lot of ugly things will happen. I expect the situation in Poland is entirely symptomatic of what we'll be facing everywhere. As an object lesson, it's good."

Yes indeed, we'll see a *lot* of this sort of thing, and much worse, many of them for the reasons you describe. But the fact remains that nobody can find any Polish date bugs in action. Milne was flat wrong, and arguing that this is 'like what a y2k failure might be' doesn't change that.

I disagree that the drop-dead dates for fix-or-fail are 'politically corrupt' dates. I confidently expect we'll see estimated completion dates postponed one quarter, each quarter, until we're dealing with the fallout. I expect the *last* 10Q many companies put out will have phrases like "we are on schedule to be able to continue to perform our key business functions through the century change" or words to that effect.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), January 24, 1999.



Thank you, sir - I missed that in your post.

The "eternal postponement" of federal compliance will proabably quietly begin when the IRS misses its 1/31/1999 deadline this coming week. Think we will see a public aknowledgement?

-- Robert A. Cook, PE (Kennesaw, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), January 24, 1999.


Wow, Flint, you really DGI do you? I was wondering why Milne seems to be so focused on you. First of all, as was mentioned before, this is an example of the potential effects of badly remediated software. Y2K or not, it is an example of what we will be looking at on a larger scale in the near future. Second, having you tell me that some Polish programmer SAYS that he called Poland and found that it isn't Y2K related, makes no difference to me. No one seems to be telling the truth. Why should some firm in Poland be any different?

-- d (d@dgi.com), January 24, 1999.

[This post from 'b' is extremely instructive, and worth thinking about.]

Wow, Flint, you really DGI do you?

[Maybe not]

I was wondering why Milne seems to be so focused on you.

[because when the facts aren't there, I point it out. Pisses him off]

First of all, as was mentioned before, this is an example of the potential effects of badly remediated software.

[As a matter of fact, I was the one who pointed that out. Try going back and reading.]

Y2K or not, it is an example of what we will be looking at on a larger scale in the near future.

[I said that too]

Second, having you tell me that some Polish programmer SAYS that he called Poland and found that it isn't Y2K related, makes no difference to me.

[Who needs facts when your mind is already made up, right? Milne claimed this was a y2k failure. Was it? Nope. Do we have any evidence that it wasn't? Plenty. Any evidence that it *was*? None. Well, in that case, let's just dismiss it, right? 'Makes no difference to me'. I ask you, if this *really was* a y2k problem, would it make a difference to you?]

No one seems to be telling the truth. Why should some firm in Poland be any different?

[We've gotten as close to the truth in this case as could possibly be hoped for. Are you dismissing it as untruthful because you *still* think it really is, or because it *ought* to fit your pigeonhole and doesn't, so it's a lie and you're right after all?]

-----

I still fail to understand the mindset that swallows unsupported allegations of y2k problems without digesting, and then turns around and attacks the messenger, weasels by trying to redefine facts, dismisses the facts as unimportant, and then calls them lies, when it turns out to be other than the way they wanted it.

If it's OK for you to pull this stunt to force things to fit your convictions, why is it wrong for the government to do exactly the same thing to fit theirs? Can we say 'double standard', boys and girls?

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), January 24, 1999.


"I still fail to understand the mindset that swallows unsupported allegations of y2k problems without digesting, and then turns around and attacks the messenger, weasels by trying to redefine facts, dismisses the facts as unimportant, and then calls them lies, when it turns out to be other than the way they wanted it."

Me too. Change some of the terms here, and this paragraph reads like a pejorative description of recent and current events in re impeachment -- and either of the dueling parties could be saying it.

-- Tom Carey (tomcarey@mindspring.com), January 24, 1999.


No, flint-child. You don't piss me off. Why would I get pissed off at a child? You are merely INTENTIONALLY ignorant and self-deceptive.

You are an unflagging believer in fairy tales despite mountains of evidence explicitly to the contrary. And NO MATTER what story crops up, it is dismissed with the wave of a hand. And the end result is that there 'may' be 'problems'. Nebulous, amorphorous, undefined 'problems'. How convenient.

Most assuredly flint does NOT get it. And he is happy that way.

But not for much longer.

-- Paul Milne (fedinfo@halifax.com), January 24, 1999.



No, the thing had nothing to do with Y2k. Everything doesn't. Hasn't anyone else noticed we've never lived in a perfect world? Stuff happens. I do, however, take notice of the effect of poor implementaion, hasty programming, etc. Could get ugly.

-- margie mason (mar3mike@aol.com), January 24, 1999.

Flint is nitpicking at Paul Milne's "facts". Flint made a good and logical arguement in this thread.

I say "nitpicking" because I admit that my mind is made up. It was made up long ago that it was too late to fix when the world woke-up, and I don't need Paul Milne's "facts" to sway me still more. I can see where Paul, as Flint points out, makes assumptions.

But Flint is dangerously optimistic still, and that's why he enjoys pointing out Paul Milne's discrepencies.

That's how I see it. Flint is smart and observant, but I don't think he has a good grasp of the JAE.

My humble opinion, as always ;-)

-- Chris (catsy@pond.com), January 25, 1999.


Chris:

First, you are correct, I'm not an accountant and I have no understanding whatever of the intricacies of JAE. All I can do is read what's written by those who do understand, and report it.

Second, I am in no way an *advocate* for any y2k viewpoint, good or bad. An advocate's goal is to win; my goal is to understand. I did my best to describe what I expected (in the PEP-talk thread), based on my best understanding of what I've read. Of course I continue to read all I can get my hands on. My expectations are subject to change.

Third, I started this thread for several reasons -- as an example to illustrate what we are likely to face (a lot, I think), and to point out that as far as y2k is concerned, this was a false alarm (and not an early shot in the actual y2k battle).

I continue to prepare like mad, hopefully for more than will happen. I don't believe I'm dangerous simply because I'm unwilling to fabricate, exaggerate or misrepresent reported y2k material. I have enough confidence in people to believe they can see the forest without the need to plant lots and lots of fake trees and then make them wear magnifying glasses. If I'm wrong and people *do* need y2k to be dishonestly demonized, I apologize. I just don't think that way.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), January 25, 1999.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ