By Paul Carrel

FRANKFURT, Germany (Reuters) - Banks in 19 countries around the world took a virtual step into the future Saturday as they simulated the first day of business in 2000 to test if their computer systems could keep the millennium bug at bay.

``Everything has gone very well for us so far,'' said Deutsche Bank vice-president and millennium expert Gerhard Singer.

The global exercise, involving at least 190 banks, is intended to ensure that whatever else happens the backbone of international payment systems worldwide will function normally as the world's clocks tick past midnight on December 31, 1999 ...

The test was designed to see whether computer upgrades -- in which banks have invested billions of dollars -- are ''understood'' by the computers operated by banks on the opposite end of global transactions.

In the United States, the New York Clearing House, which initiated the test, reported that payment settlements were processed without any problems. http://dailynews.yahoo.com/headlines/tc/story.html?s=v/nm/19990612/tc/yk_banks_1.html

-- Stephen M. Poole, CET (smpoole7@bellsouth.net), June 12, 1999

Answers

Here comes more media B.S. This article came out at 9:44 this morning Pacific time, yet it claims that the test was done on Saturday (today). Do you think it is possible that they were able to conduct a thorough test between at least 190 banks during the wee hours of the morning between midnight and 9:00? I, for one am not buying it. If they are so proud of their results, let's see this list of banks please.

-- @ (@@@.@), June 12, 1999.

AND, every bank THEY deal with, and every bank they deal with, and every bank they deal with..........

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), June 12, 1999.

Thank you all for coming to our International Press Conference regarding this weekends testing status.

We regret to inform you that the test was a complete FAILURE!!

We would very much appreciate your leaving ALL of your money in our banks.

The Pres ......

-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), June 12, 1999.

Very good indeed to know that this process is being started. Anyone who's done much testing knows that a little testing goes a long way, and the biggest bugs will show up quickly.

The sheer poverty of the responses so far is comical. The first response claims that since the test suite isn't finished yet, it must not have started! The second response claims an interoperability test isn't valid because it ignores interoperability! And the third response claims the results will be covered up, and therefore the testing doesn't count!

So this test is going on today and tomorrow, it's not complete, and it includes only 190 banks (apparently major clearing banks, though). Let's hope that lessons learned are communicated throughout the worldwide banking community, and that they're paying careful attention to the possibility of corrupt data (they should be, it's one of the key purposes of such a test). Let's also hope they have a *lot* more tests scheduled, including a lot more banks.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), June 12, 1999.

Flint, I thought Paul had you straightened out, guess not!!

Do you believe that ANY bank would tell the world it had a y2k problem that was serious and would cause major problems? Please don't Yada this to death.

Your Pal, Ray

-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), June 12, 1999.

Ray:

No, no bank would admit to a y2k problem. But bear in mind that the purpose of this testing is to avoid *having* y2k problems they won't admit to. Testing is always good, no matter how secret they keep the results.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), June 12, 1999.

Flint, thank you for the short and and accurate answer. Your absolutely right, testing is good and NO bank would disclose a major failure. I just wish that this test had taken place long ago. Ray

-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), June 12, 1999.

Ray:

You got that right. They're cutting it much too close.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), June 12, 1999.

Good, they tested. Let's give them time to get the results to everybody, then put the changes (if needed) out tot everybody.

At least they have admitted they need a "real" networked test.

The FAA still denies their need for an integrated test; or, can't do it (dare do it?) yet. USPS also. Medicare/Social Security? IRS?

Why the secrecy?

-- Robert A. Cook, PE (Kennesaw, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), June 12, 1999.

Flint,

The only thing "comical" about this is the "poverty" of brain cells in your skull. If you are naive enough to beleive this trash then I'd like to sell you some swampland in Florida. The reason I bet we will never see the list of banks is because first of all, there are not 190 of them, and secondly, every bank that supposedly participated in this farce can be traced to NWO connections at the highest levels. THEY stage the "test", THEY create the "results", and THEY print the story, through Reuters and any other media which THEY either own or control. Problem is they made a stupid logistical error when printing the dates. You say the test isn't done, but this is worded in past tense:

"In the simulated environment, Saturday became Monday, January 3, 2000 and Sunday was Tuesday, January 4."

How many parts of the world are going to be into Sunday if this article came out early Saturday, Pacific Time? Figure it out genius!

And where is the independent testing? Who is the "New York Clearinghouse" that initiated the testing? Sounds like a front for the New World Order banking elite. They are NEVER going to reveal any problems, and they are going to do their best to convince everyone that THEY believe everything will be fine. Whether or not WE believe it doesn't really matter, because THEIR goal is to escape any liability. When TSHTF, they have documented through the press that THEY believed everything was fixed! DUUUHHH-get a clue!

-- @ (@@@.@), June 12, 1999.

For perspective,show me the power companies that are 100% compliant. Seems to me that without "juice", EVERYTHING is a moot point.

-- Gia (Laureltree7@hotmail.com), June 12, 1999.

Now THIS is comical:

"``Everything has gone very well for us so far,'' said Deutsche Bank vice-president and millennium expert Gerhard Singer."

"Deutsche's Singer and Commerzbank millennium expert Detlev Kirchner said they had tested their financial messaging and clearing systems and they had worked smoothly."

Can anyone explain please to me exactly what is a "millenium expert"??

-- @ (@@@.@), June 12, 1999.

STEPHEN POOLE: Thank you for posting this important information. I side with FLINT. This is good news albeit later than I would have expected/preferred.

In any event, using the "keeping ones powder dry" metaphor, those whose powder remains dry, should maintain it as such, those whose powder is damp should add desicant, those whose powder is all wet should replace it, those that have no powder should take steps to obtain some, and finally, those that do not believe in having any powder should fully understand that they may also have no options as well.....

Despite the "pounding" you continually receive Stephen, you continue to provide valuable information. I for one thank you. Those that believe you are a liability and not an asset, I respectfully disagree with.

I also disagree with your assessment of the potential problems that will ensue from Y2K. That does not mean I think you a fool...

With respect,

-- Dave Walden (wprop@concentric.net), June 12, 1999.

This thread proves beyond a shadow of the doubt that many in this forum are standing on nothing other than the belief the end is near. Not one naysayer yet has proven that the test Stephen posted about is false in any form. The childish taunts that all the problems were covered up sound like the basis for a small child position.

The evidence was posted in the article and no evidence to the contrary has been released. No evidence means that, no evidence. And also it should prove to many like Flint that no matter what they bring to the table, you better damn well know its a lie.

To dismantle or debunk a article a person must present opposing evidence other than "Its all a lie" because it cuts off the debate. Or that facts have no relevance and debate will not take place because that is how it is.

Unfortunately most of us grow out of that form of thinking when hit the age of 6 or 7.

-- Pat (BAMECW@aol.com), June 12, 1999.

I ment fortunately, not unfortunately.

-- Pat (BAMECW@aol.com), June 12, 1999.

Boy, that is good news. Now I agree with Flint that banks will not admit problems due to y2k. Sadly, they will not admit compliance either.

-- Mike Lang (webflier@erols.com), June 12, 1999.

Pat commented:

"Not one naysayer yet has proven that the test Stephen posted about is false in any form. The childish taunts that all the problems were covered up sound like the basis for a small child position. "

Pat, it's pretty difficult to disprove something that is a total secret. The proof of the pudding will be apparent in short order. Will you still be around?

Ray

-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), June 12, 1999.

Pat - I disagree - this is good news, if true, and if the test was done properly. 190 is not many, but is probably enough to determine if the software (as installed) ran properly during the test (as run.)

Now, what are you complaining about? I merely pointed out this stage should have been reached last January, not this June. Also, 190 banks world-wide in one test does NOT mean that any bank worldwide has all the software loaeded anf functional. Loading Win 98 in one PC at one office in MicroSoft doesn't mean Win 98 is installed, is tested, or runs successfully in all other locations - Bill Gates had the version in his demo crash.

So, what exactly is your criticism? that we know enough about testing software to realize one test is not a working solution for a simultaneous worldwide problem, but rather indicates that a solution has been found to work in one condition under controlled conditions?

Now, go install it everywhere. Then give me a an optimistic press release that means something.

-- Robert A. Cook, PE (Kennesaw, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), June 12, 1999.

'@':

Tenses tend to get problematical when you're talking about a test plan written in the past, for a test taking place in the present, which is simulating dates in the future. Basing your rejection of the entire article (which discusses a process both necessary and reasonable) on a debate about tenses (you've done this twice) is more than passing strange. Are you really convinced that banks *want* to fail, solely to justify your paranoia?

No, it's not the greatest journalism. I suppose to a reporter who's stone ignorant about y2k testing, *anyone* involved must look like an expert.

Mike:

I consider this kind of testing absolutely essential for the banking system. And it's just starting (shudder). I certainly hope no bank would announce compliance *before* engaging in this kind of testing. How much would such a statement really be worth?

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), June 12, 1999.

Batty Patty does it again -- "To dismantle or debunk a [sic] article a person must present opposing evidence other than 'Its [sic] all a lie' [sic] because it cuts off the debate."

Here's a sample of Batty Patty's presentation of opposing evidence when Ed gave his reasons for leaving the Y2K scene --

http://www.InsideTheWeb.com/messageboard/mbs.cgi?acct=mb237006&MyNum=9 28010764&P=Yes&TL=928007982

Re: YOURDON THROWS IN THE Y2k HAND TO SAVE ANY REPUTATION HE HAS LEFT - Saturday, 29-May-1999 16:46:04

Must be getting ready to publish his next book,

Defusing the Y2K timebomb.

And it sure doesn't sound from his essay that he is still supporting his claims.

sighhh...

Don't worry Ed, you got plenty of company. Just don't let De Jaeger get near you for the incredible piece of crap essay you wrote about him several months ago.

Pat

Where's your evidence for Ed's next book, Defusing the Timebomb? Where's your evidence that Ed is longer "supporting his claims"?

-- OutingsR (us@here.yar), June 12, 1999.

Outings:

LOVE your approach. Pat speculated about Ed's next book on another forum, therefore the banks aren't testing!

You've raised the non sequitur to an art form. Congratulations.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), June 12, 1999.

Read it again, Sparkless. It points out that Batty Patty complains people aren't presenting evidence to support a contention, when in fact he/she doesn't present evidence himself/herself. How can you give any credence to someone who says don't do as I do, do as I say?

-- OutingsR (us@here.yar), June 12, 1999.

Outings:

Because what he says is clearly the case? Because of internal consistency in his post? Because the major objection to this article was based on nonsense?

Also, please read the subject of the thread. Combing the net trying to find feeble attacks utterly unrelated to the discussion is a waste of your time (which might even be valuable, who knows?)

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), June 12, 1999.

Pat, why would anyone NEED to prove the claims of testing to be false? What the hell difference does THAT make? This is *JUNE 1999* for God's sake. Let's talk about that. lugnut. 190 BANKS are participating? What is wrong with this picture????? Perhaps they left a few of the WORLD'S banks out of the "loop", ya think? I'm totally open to hearing some FEEBLE excuse *discounting* the imported data aspect of the banking system. ARE THERE ANY TAKERS? Step right up and stretch your brains. The banking system is about to pull it's rump through it's nostrils. *Shared* test results falls into the category of putting the cart before the horse. There is alot of wishing, hoping, wanting *fluff* going on in this thread. Fluff just ain't cuttin' it in *JUNE 1999*. Slap yourselves and wake up!!!

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), June 12, 1999.

Flint

(Shudder) I concur. In many places I have seen written that testing is fifty percent of the remediation process. Is it your belief that, worldwide, the system as it stands today will still be largely in place post y2? You mentioned that this testing is just beginning. It is almost impossible to imagine that it will be finished on time.

I think of the world markets, bank runs, hedge funds, panic, fear etc. Throw various viri into the mix as well as power problems, communication problems and others and I see double double toil and trouble. It is always so much more than any individual segment. There will be a lot of electronic blind-siding going on. Just how resilient do you think all these systems will be next year?

You are very logical and methodical, but you are not remediating the world.(I wish you were)

-- Mike Lang (webflier@erols.com), June 12, 1999.

Man you people give me a headache.

-- grinche (Light_servant@yahoo.com), June 12, 1999.

grinche has a headache, so let's discuss THE COMPLETE COLLAPSE OF THE BANKING SYSTEM a bit more quietly, OK?

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), June 12, 1999.

No, not really "that bad" - just not very good.

Individual (local) testing has been going on for a while. Likewise, local discovery has been going on - just very low key. Notice that no major new organization made a big deal out of the fact that 75% of large buisnesses already had Y2K failures internally?

This test was to determine if the "solution" (as installed in 190 banks) could work internationally. Assuming the report is true, now "all" they have to do is to get the 'solution" installed everywhere, then make sure the installation did not cause new problems, nor did the "solution" prevent current processes from continuing.

But, it's still too late to be remotely optimistic - if this is indeed the "first" international test, in the industry "furtherest" ahead internationally in remediation.

Get that? Phones, infrastructure, political systems, financial systems, airports, power, water, sewage, emergency services are all "behind" these guys internationally! And these guys (banking) are just now starting to test international connections......

-- Robert A. Cook, PE (Kennesaw, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), June 12, 1999.

Flint,

Ah, here we go again, with the sterotypical "paranoid" label. It's okay, I'm used to it, and it doesn't bother me a bit, because often times people who are referred to as paranoid are really the ones who can see well enough to discern the truth, instead of burying their heads. It's the old "shoot the messenger" syndrome again that people use to rationalize away a reality that they cannot handle.

To answer your question:

"Are you really convinced that banks *want* to fail, solely to justify your paranoia?"

My answer is a definite NO! They do not want to fail in anyway whatsoever, including making themselves vulnerable to lawsuits, which is exactly why we are going to continue to read these fabricated stories. The fact is they have been negligent of their responsibilities to their customers for decades, and still continue to be. Is this some kind of conspiracy to keep us from getting our money so we will starve to death while they take over the world? NO WAY! They are too stupid to plan that. It all comes down to one thing - GREED. In addition to the fact that most corporate CEOs are too stupid to understand the very same technology which makes them rich, they are also too greedy to shell out the money to fix it after years of neglect. They will only spend what they feel is a reasonable amount to fix it without cutting into their fat paychecks, and if that isn't good enough, they will be able to file bankruptcy, escape liability and get away scott-free. The selfish bastard Republicans are already trying to pass legislation which will let the damn corporations off the hook for years of negligence, and you know who will end up paying the price - John Q. Public! No, I do not think they are planning to fail, I just think they are stupid and greedy. Call it paranoia if you like, but I prefer to call it wisdom.

Pat,

That argument goes both ways - I need more proof than just words in a news report. Which banks participated in this? Who is this New York Clearinghouse and why haven't we heard about them before? My guess is it is something they cooked up at the Bildeberg conference.

-- @ (@@@.@), June 12, 1999.

Thank you Robert....beautifully stated. I could do that too you know,it's just not my "style". (Know what I mean?) HA

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), June 12, 1999.

Robert

Is this the same idea behind the Wall Street testing? Just to see if the solution would work? If so, we really are in a world of trouble. Do these banks interact with any of the financial markets directly? It sounds like there will be level upon level of testing that will not be done in time. My linear thinking is killing me.:)

-- Mike Lang (webflier@erols.com), June 12, 1999.

Dave Walden,

Despite the "pounding" you continually receive Stephen, you continue to provide valuable information. I for one thank you. Those that believe you are a liability and not an asset, I respectfully disagree with.

Well ... thanks for the kind words (sincerely). But just between you and I (shhh, don't tell anyone!) -- it would probably astonish the Pounders to know how little I care what they think. :)

-- Stephen M. Poole, CET (smpoole7@bellsouth.net), June 12, 1999.

Yes - the saving grace for Wall Street is that there are relatively few firms involved directly - only a few thousand. All in major centers - so only a few infrastructure MUST work (or if these infrastrucutres fail, at least it is only one that must be repaired!), all US firms are using one language, all are under one SEC control and are already highly regulated against bribery and corruption, all using one "target" software (the "market" itself can be considered "one" reporting system), all relatively "new" firms and all hghly automated relatively short itme ago - it means that solutions (and errors!) can get promulgated quickly and consistently.

But there are tens of thousands of firms when the international markets are interwined. And all of the "all" mentioned above change to "many" - many governmetns, many regulators, many languages, many high and low tech solutions, many inter-related infrastructures, many relationships - either end of which may or may not "work".

-- Robert A. Cook, PE (Kennesaw, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), June 12, 1999.

Will Continue, you crack us up, and we like to laugh. Please eMail us so we can laugh even more -- more than the Forum could stand ;^)  Thanks! WheeHeeHeeHeee!

xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxx

-- Ashton & Leska in Cascadia (allaha@earthlink.net), June 12, 1999.

Mike and others -- there are several layers here.

First, are the banks telling the truth about the test, IN GENERAL. Probably, but we can't be sure. This isn't paranoia, just reasonable skepticism, given the stakes for them and the way world corporations handle "news" (ie, negative news is never released without spin, all news is "positive" to achieve stated strategic objectives, in this case, keep consumer confidence).

Second, what was the real nature of the tests, in detail? We don't know.

Third, what failed? EVERY test encounters failures. We aren't told (see first point above). Worse still, will other banks around the world be told? Maybe. Maybe not. Against the incentive to spread info around is the powerful counter-incentive to keep Y2K failures from leaking. The more communication about failures within the banking community, the more leaks.

Fourth, can the results be replicated around the world (see Robert Cook's posts for the best summary of the challenge still ahead)?

Fifth, even if they can, have they left enough time (see Flint, others on this thread)?

Sixth, for extra credit (as already pointed out), if they're so far ahead and only beginning serious inter-org testing in May, 1999, we're f'ed, I'm afraid, in other Y2K domains.

So, is it good news? Within its limits, the probability is good and I take it as such.

Does it mean the banks worldwide are home free? ROFLMAO. Sadly. Its another example of the folly of having started too late. We're still facing Russian Roulette with lots of bullets in the gun, instead of the single one that could have been there.

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), June 12, 1999.

Thanks Robert. Quite clear and gives me a better understanding. Some of the points that you mentioned I had not considered.

"Got beans" does not sound nearly as silly as when I came here a while ago.

-- Mike Lang (webflier@erols.com), June 12, 1999.

Robert:

[Ah, if only reality weren't so complex and messy.]

Individual (local) testing has been going on for a while. Likewise, local discovery has been going on - just very low key.

[A good point. Testing comes in many flavors, as I'm sure you know. What these banks are doing is certainly not alpha testing, and likely not beta testing either. Depending on the exact nature of the testing (not defined, but you wouldn't expect such an article to define it), it may be very preliminary, and it may be just a formalized, larger scale version of what's been going on between individual banks for a while now.]

Notice that no major new organization made a big deal out of the fact that 75% of large buisnesses already had Y2K failures internally?

[But Robert, there wasn't any big deal. Yes, y2k failures of various sorts have been pretty common. My take is that these have also come in several flavors -- surprise date bugs, installation problems, errors introduced during remediation, failures that are artifacts of the tests themselves, expected failures in noncritical (and hence nonremediated) systems, and so on. But quite clearly these errors have been handled as business as usual, without external impacts.]

This test was to determine if the "solution" (as installed in 190 banks) could work internationally. Assuming the report is true, now "all" they have to do is to get the 'solution" installed everywhere, then make sure the installation did not cause new problems, nor did the "solution" prevent current processes from continuing.

[This isn't my reading. I don't think we have the information to draw this conclusion. I strongly doubt that they're devising a "solution" to be "installed" in many places -- that's more of an embedded system approach. Instead, (at least to me) the implication is that this is much more in the form of final testing, to make sure that solutions implemented on a bank-by-bank basis will play properly in a larger arena. Any test like this would be impossible if there weren't well- defined protocols being followed by all participants. It should be easy to track any errors found to individual banks not following these protocols properly.]

But, it's still too late to be remotely optimistic - if this is indeed the "first" international test, in the industry "furtherest" ahead internationally in remediation.

[But surely not. Many months ago (I think around December) the FDIC said that over 6,000 banks had availed themselves of FDIC's test environment. Arnold Trembley writes of many banks testing their exchanges with credit card companies and among themselves. Individual banks have stated their tests with key banking partners and customers and regulators. So this kind of thing has been going on for a long time. This might well be the largest international test to date, or the first international test of certain types of transactions.]

Get that? Phones, infrastructure, political systems, financial systems, airports, power, water, sewage, emergency services are all "behind" these guys internationally! And these guys (banking) are just now starting to test international connections......

[Whoa, Robert, come back! First, many of the systems you name aren't international in nature. Second, they've all been testing to some degree. Third, problems in many of these areas will be localized. Fourth, many of those problems will have far less than devastating consequences. Looking at a report of interbank testing and diving headlong to the conclusion that *nobody else* has lifted a finger to do squat is hardly becoming. You know better than this.

I agree with those who claim that nobody is going to advertise their problems. Testing highlights problems. At the risk of sounding like Yet Another Conspiracy Nut, I think announced tests like this are mostly PR. The *real* tests aren't publicized, for fear of problems. Once they *know* it works OK, *then* then announce a 'test', which of course sails through with flying colors. These are demos, not tests. I just wish many more such exercises were being done, as showcases for the progress made behind the scenes. I know it's hard to draw conclusions from the paucity of such showcases, but let's just say that it makes me nervous.]

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), June 12, 1999.

Guys/Gals,

There is a BUTT-LOAD of money being spent on Y2K. I absolutely expect that SOME companies will make real and significant progress. WHAT I DO NOT BELIEVE FOR A SECOND is that they will all be done on time and done correctly. My personal estimations on this is that 75% of US companies will be 85% 'correctly' complete, with 'correctly' being much harder than it may seem. The rest will be 'something less' than that.

For me, the question is not everything works vs. nothing works. It's will ENOUGH systems work to avoid serious disruptions. Personally, I don't think so, and that's why I'm still at a 4-6. Now external factors (panic, terrorism, NWO if you believe in that) could very well force all this to a 10. It's absolutely in the realm of the possible. Don't forget momentum; once things start moving in a particular direction they tend to keep moving in that direction.

Are the banks lying here? If they say that they had NO errors, or only a few inconsequental ones, then I'd say they are either A) lying through their teeth or B) not doing real tests. I've never, ever, ever seen a complex test go through without SOMETHING jumping up and biting SOMEONE on the ass. It just doesn't happen.

-TECH32-

-- TECH32 (TECH32@NOMAIL.COM), June 12, 1999.

Darn it there, Sir Flint of the hard-know's, I thought we agreed for a while there....

Yes, yes, local infrastructure is definitely not internationally linked (directly!) but what I was unclear in pointing out is that the failure of a "local" infrastructure could shut down the "local" market just as effectively as failure to "exchange data electronically" could shut it down.

Or, loss of services in Chicago could affect the financial markets in SFO or NYC when the firms in Chicago are prevented from accessing their data or sales points or customers.

I agree that this appears to be a "link" test, relatively far down the path from initial testing at a single point. It exactly what must happen at almost all levels of "linked" data internationally to minimize the chances for failure.

Can't prevent the possibility of failure with testing, but definitely will minimize it with proper in-depth testing. the closer testing and testing environment comes to real world, the more likely the real-world product will work as expected.

What I meant to emphasize was that international nat gas or phone or airline testing has not begun. International shipping and movement of economic goods and services (at ports, pipes, trains, trucks, in customs, between taxes, ships and power lines) has not begun at any level. International exchange of politcal and money (between governments - who themselves may not be compliant) has not begun.

The banking industry has long been in front of all others, so it is natural to find that they are the FIRST to test the method of the connections between them. The rest are just further behind.

Would they have released failure data from this test? - nice if they did, but unlikely. Would the reporter have recorded it correctly, if they did release it? Probably not...

-- Robert A. Cook, PE (Kennesaw, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), June 13, 1999.

Robert:

The main point I was trying to make (sorry I didn't do it well) is that I suspect a big difference between testing done and testing admitted to until it works. We test our products all the way through the development and manufacturing process. Until we're finished, of course the tests fail -- we're finished when no tests fail. And we *certainly* don't tell our customers about all those failed tests.

So I agree with TECH32 about the reality of the reported tests. From what I've seen, every 'test' reported on has been a glowing success, from Wall Street to GM assembly lines. These successes didn't just happen by accident, they were the result of a *lot* of testing that wasn't reported. Nobody calls in a reporter to watch any test that isn't rigged, and the best way to rig a test is to make sure everything is done right before the camera rolls.

So when you make the claim that, since *you* aren't aware of any testing being done, therefore testing hasn't started, I must argue that you can't make that claim. Yes, you might be right. But there is compelling history indicating the situation might be otherwise. Indeed, many organizations claim to be into the testing process, some of all systems and some of just critical systems. But the press isn't called in to witness any specific test until it's become a PR demo.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), June 13, 1999.

Yourpoint is exactly why I feel relatively comfortable in assuming how far progress is....because they are telling us loudly and clearly exactly where "all" the successes are. At every level.

Many, many more are actually being done in private than are publicized - but at the public level - each has been advertised loudly.

So the gaps between the results (in the public sector, not necessarily at the private company level) are ever the more obvious. I agree, I hope they are being filled in.

-- Robert A. Cook, PE (Kennesaw, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), June 13, 1999.

Flint --- your assumption that *lots* of internal tests are going on is plausible but as speculative as anything that doomers come up with. The truth is that, globally speaking, we simply don't know (to use a phrase you often use).

If anything, as already pointed, the paucity of publicly related successes suggests either that testing is badly delayed (as we would expect from the general drift of Y2K from the earlier "estimates") or is going rather badly.

Otherwise, it is certainly true that no org does (or can be reasonably expected to) report failures. Business suicide and businesses aren't required to commit suicide. It's merely optional.

-- BigDog@duffer.com (BigDog@duffer.com), June 13, 1999.

"it would probably astonish the Pounders to know how little I care what they think"

Ditto, Stephen. <:)=

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), June 13, 1999.

There are, what 10,000 banks in the usa, and something like just under 200,000 worldwide.

There is ONLY ONE TEST poole you simpleton.

If the Banks survive any bank runs, market crises etc. by 2000 they will have been very fortunate.

The rollever will be an ELE for the Bankers, no question at all in my mind about it. Speak to some insiders, to some folks in the IRS, to some credit card insiders. It's gonna happen.

The question is - what will be the fallout from it?

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), June 13, 1999.