PD sez below: "OK, find an expert, with some CREDENTIALS in this type of low level design/software who agrees with Beach. Martin, Kappleman et al don't count as they are not able to judge the matter, they just repeat what they have heard. Even Cory Hamasaki doesn't buy Beach's clocks."

-- Paul Davis (davisp1953@yahoo.com), July 07, 1999.

Even?

Beach's thing doesn't make any sense to me, not that I do ASICs.

Even? What am I, the standard for gullible-ness?

I know S/390, large enterprise systems, machine language programming, old style hardware (1960's and 1970's), high level language programming, and some theoretical computer science.

There are a couple people on the concerned side who are on thin ice. In general, they tend to be management sorts who realize that there's a problem but do not have the technical expertise, the academics, or the hands-on experience to support their opinions or gut-feel.

This doesn't invalidate their concern but it does weaken their case.

You've seen their stuff, it sounds OK but doesn't have an edge to it.

Similarly, there are people on the broom-it-under-the-carpet side who also don't have the foundation to support their beliefs.

-- cory (kiyoinc@ibm.XOUT.net), July 07, 1999

Answers

Cory -- the irony is that you are actually one of the more optimistic types by temperament.

What grates on the broomers is your experience since it can't REALLY be gainsaid (I've read some of the jibes on that but they're weak and self-contradictory --- either belittling your mainframe experience as obsolete or your PC knowledge as irrelevant). When that doesn't work, they beat you around the head with your position on the JAE stuff, without ever honestly acknowledging what your position was/is on it (ie., you didn't invent the concept, nuanced it when you brought it into the Y2K conversation and never claimed it was the big enchilada).

Won't be long now.

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), July 07, 1999.

For the record... as far as I can tell, I'm about as optimistic as Cory is. :-)

-- Lane Core Jr. (elcore@sgi.net), July 07, 1999.

roflmao...

Cory, er...Mr. Hamasaki, you are a true hero to many, including myself.

However, to Paul Davis, YOU are the antichrist. He doesn't like you much and rails against you any chance he gets. That Paul has actually used you as an "example" to further an argument against BB is really hilarious...or is it desperate?

Mike ================================================================

-- Michael Taylor (mtdesign3@aol.com), July 07, 1999.

Cory,

FWIW, I took Paul Davis' comment as follows: Even (a recognized non-polly techy such as) Cory Hamasaki doesn't buy Beach's clocks.

Although I would imagine PD might have chosen some term other than non-polly. :-)

Jerry

-- Jerry B (skeptic76@erols.com), July 07, 1999.

Gulli-bull. Nincowpoop. What a maroon.

As a mainframer (ever notice what a large percentage of pollys are Pee Cee noodle-heads?), I'm entirely empathetic.

These yo-yos have never had to bring a hosed production system back to life. They can't possibly know what they're talking about. Sometimes I wonder if putting them on helpdesk duty might help them get it.

Soon enough, they'll see....

-- lisa (lisa@work.now), July 07, 1999.

Cory, I read your latest WRP members only comments and noticed that you are giving a 5% chance to a depression similar to the one in the 1930s.

I also noticed that you have stuck with the 7.0 rating in Russ Kelly's "Expert Poll".

Is it safe to say that to date you have not seen or heard anything that would move you off of these positions?

Thanks for your continued efforts in providing y2k awareness to all.

Ray

-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), July 07, 1999.

Re: 5% depression... and other percentages. These are guesses, that's one reason I label my commentary "Clueless". I'm concerned that there will be a shock to the economy. I can't quantify it.

I've been polling some local programmers and computer consultants and will have the results available shortly.

I still think PD is hinting that I've fallen for the Y2K hype, you know, I believe that DeeCee is getting locomotive sized generators.

-- cory (kiyoinc@ibm.XOUT.net), July 07, 1999.

Easy there old timer, we don't want to put the old ticker in overdrive, but I guess if you call youself "clueless" enough times it starts to stick :)

Like Cory, I do not profess to understand embeds, but I think the crux of the Beach issue is that predicting the behavior of a complex array of them (black box) can become "fuzzy", just as predicting the interdependencies of a mainframe network or the global economy is fuzzy.

BTW, Paul, you never responded when I asked if you were involved in the Corp of Engineer's decision to classify all of Nebraska's roadside drainage ditches as "protected waters"...

-- a (a@a.a), July 07, 1999.

Cory, you really are clueless...

It's locomotive sized SPEAKERS -- you know, for Bill's big ball on the mall :)

-- a (a@a.a), July 07, 1999.

LOL & ROTF!

Cory,

Doesn't matter if DC has generators... or not... the Dragon Ranch is STILL to close to that political morass. Think of the "Millennium Madness" at Bill's Bash, and all those people swarming out of DeeCee.

The mind boggles.

Diane

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), July 07, 1999.

"As a mainframer (ever notice what a large percentage of pollys are Pee Cee noodle-heads?), I'm entirely empathetic."

-- lisa (lisa@work.now), July 07, 1999.

Lisa of course you're right but, maybe not for the reasons you think. First, the percentage of "PC" types on the Net is not proportional to the american population, it is very much higher. Second, programmers usually develope out of PC types. That being the case, you can conclude that in general, PC types are younger (and less logical) than programmers . Just a few thoughts.

Gotta Go!

-- PC Type (midwestmike_@hotmail.com), July 07, 1999.

Not a standard for gullible per se, just a mainframer who doesn't buy Beachs nonsense either.

I haven't done an enormous amount of low-level control programming, but I have done enough to know that what Beach suggests is not a common thing at all. Possibly, in a few rare cases, where synchronization is everything, you might have a clock that can neither be set nor modified from the client end - but you have to be able to start it sometime if you are going to synch in at the beginning. What happens when the power is out? How does the clock get back in synch then? How do you synch in a new unit? This just CAN'T be that big a problem, not if you understand the startup sequence.

It is like the rumor about 'unreachable' oil field devices that can't be replaced. How do you fix one when it goes out? You don't drill a new oil well for a $50 part, nor even for a $50,000 part. The first time such a part quit, and the head engineer announced the well could never be used again, there would be a firing, and a quick redesign.

Cory, I think you do have a tendency to buy into stuff that you get third hand. As you know, I have called you on that several times. And you have been very slow to revise your position, even in the face of good news. You have been revising, though so slowly that most here probably haven't noticed.

-- Paul Davis (davisp1953@yahoo.com), July 07, 1999.

Cory, You said: "There are a couple people on the concerned side who are on thin ice. In general, they tend to be management sorts who realize that there's a problem but do not have the technical expertise, the academics, or the hands-on experience to support their opinions or gut-feel.

This doesn't invalidate their concern but it does weaken their case.

You've seen their stuff, it sounds OK but doesn't have an edge to it.

Similarly, there are people on the broom-it-under-the-carpet side who also don't have the foundation to support their beliefs."

This is the most cogent analysis of this "doomer - polly" dielectic I've seen. Couple of points:

* Management does know projects run late, overbudget, fail (just never wants to admit it of their own projects.)

* All the opinions of the uninvolved/inexpert are only of value in measuring human reaction, not the technical problems - but they are useful for predicting/measuring panic.

Noel

-- noel (ngoyette@csc.com), July 08, 1999.