-- Colin MacDonald (roborogerborg@yahoo.com), November 30, 1999.
Top Ten Y2K Mythsgreenspun.com : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread |
My top ten Y2K myths...10. Traditional software development metrics apply to Y2K remediation. (Based on industry reports and testing, the IT community has kicked backside on remediation during the past two years. Re-write the book, Ed.)
9. Companies are required to report Y2K readiness. (Most American firms are privately held and have no obligation to report any Y2K information including results of Y2K testing).
8. Self-reported data is always false (unless it's bad).
7. Data from third-parties (API, FDIC, NERC) is always false (unless it's bad).
6. All suppliers must be "Y2K ready" for a business to survive. (For every good or service we order, we have at least three competing firms. In most cases, we could have 300.)
5. People who run businesses are idiots (except those who "GI" and have a survival bunker. The converse of this myth--a handful of mostly middle class, mostly white, mostly male posters on TB 2000 are the select few with the insight and intelligence to grasp "the big picture.")
4. If one business fails, there will be a domino effect. (Wrong. Businesses fail every day... and in a recession, many businesses fail. The market provides massive redundancies... and opportunities.)
3. The problem starts on rollover. (As Hoff correctly observed, the huge number system upgrades, replacements, patches, etc. should have created bigger and badder errors. During the past two years, we have demonstrated a strong ability to resolve problems. Oh, and we have shown that computer errors like the CIH virus do not "crash" the entire system.)
2. Everything is interconnected. (A better statement--everything is redundant. If international firms fail, I hope American multinationals grab market share.)
1. There will be no Y2K problems. (Here's one for the "home" team. While the vast majority of news on Y2K has been positive, there are still clear indications of a signficant economic impact.)
Bonus Myth: Everyone concerned about Y2K is a crackpot. (There are toughtful folks genuinely worried about Y2K. Unfortunately, the debate has muddied by the radical fringe... the Fed-haters, gold bugs, conspiracy theorists, isolationists, religious zealots and other folks who think the four riders of the Apocalypse plan on cruising Route 66 next year. Before you scorch me for a gross generalization... this is not a characterization of every pessimist on this forum. The lack of credible authorities on Y2K has made "15 minute" celebrities out of some odd ducks. Personally, I think the Y2K problem deserved better.)
-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), November 30, 1999
Myth or not?: Ken Decker is a government shill.;-D
Have a "nice" day. 31 left.
Diane
-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), November 30, 1999.
Speaking about Y2Krackpots, where's Andy when you need him?
-- just (just@asking.com), November 30, 1999.
31 left until what?
-- Buster Collins (BustrCollins@aol.com), November 30, 1999.
Ken,In regards to your bonus myth: not all the radicals are doomers. The Polly radicals are alive and well too. Frankly, I see just as many less than credible authorities on the polly side. It seems clear to me that in many (most?) cases we have been fed "happy talk" from such pollies. Balance that with all the doomers and there's the mud.
-- anonymous (anonymous@anonymous.com), November 30, 1999.
Andy is wisely (and no doubt thoroughly) enjoying the fleshpots of Teneriffe right about now.
-- Canary (Islands@for.winter), November 30, 1999.
Just wondering where are the redundancies for medicare, the IRS, the Department of Defense.Assuming that most of the things we import are possible to manufacture here, then it follows that the only reason we import them is because it is cheaper. If we can't import, it follows that prices will go up. Supply vs demand.
Myth #11: Y2k is a hoax. Everyone who doesn't believe this is a paranoid conspiracy theorist.
-- Amy Leone (leoneamy@aol.com), November 30, 1999.
This post is a troll. It serves no other purpose.
-- (brett@miklos.org), November 30, 1999.
And the biggest Y2k myth of all?That Ken Decker is an expert on Y2K myths.
-- He's a (legend.in@his.own.mind), November 30, 1999.
Ken you sure know how to stir it, don't ya?snoozin'...
The Dog
-- The Dog (dogdesert@hotmail.com), November 30, 1999.
Ken,These are not myths. These are your speculations of what others may believe or might have meant. I fairly believe that each of your ten statements as offerings of proof to myth, are patently flawed.
As an example,
"8. Self-reported data is always false (unless it's bad)."
I don't believe that is a widely held thought among those who read or post to this forum. I do believe it is your mis-interpretation of others' beliefs.
It would probably be more accurate and fair to describe the subject of self-reported data this way:
-Self-reported data is just that...self reported data. Trust the data but verify it.
There is no skew intended in this view, other than simply to note that self-reported data represents in one way or the other the honesty of the source; as well as, any other motivations they or their industry may have.
---
You can believe this or not (I don't care which):
PRESSURE HAS BEEN APPLIED DIRECTLY FROM THE *VERY TOP* FOR CRITICAL INDUSTRIES TO REPORT 100% COMPLIANCY AS EARLY AS POSSIBLE WITHOUT REGARD FOR THE TRUTH.
---
-- snooze button (alarmclock_2000@yahoo.com), November 30, 1999.
Ken,I got a sense this morning that while I'm going through a struggle with optimism you're going through a little struggle with pessimism : )
(laughter?)
You forgot to e-mail me the address to the spread in MO : )
It'll just be me and a few thousand of my closest friends and family. Breakfast at 9:00 am?
Got preps? -31 days...
Mike
===================================================================
-- Michael Taylor (mtdesign3@aol.com), November 30, 1999.
Diane, 6000 posts and still gems from you. (laughter)Anon, those Polly radicals... like the bulk of IT professionals?
Amy, DoD has been successful in its Y2K readiness testing... according to DoD, of course. As for the IRS, I have my fingers crossed for implementation of a flat income tax and national sales tax. Oh, and your assumption is incorrect a la David Ricardo. Trade is beneficial even when one country has an absolute advantage in the production of all goods. It is one of the few economic laws that can be proven mathematically. That said, there has been a worldwide recession for the past several years... and we have feasted on cheap foreign goods.
Dog, with 30 days left, you know I'm going to shake the tree once or twice. Of course, this will be much easier after rollover.
Snooze, agree or disagree. I've been writing this stuff for over a year and these are generalizations of common pessimist "myths." And, it's a mild attempt at humor. If you really want to get serious, I can find dozens of threads for each of the above myths... my personal favorite "Why are we so smart and Pollies so dumb?" (laughter)
I agree with your description of self-reported data. But if you read this forum, you know that positive self-reports are often dismissed. Why? Because the data does not fit the pessimist theory.
Oh, I do not believe pressure has been applied from "the very top." If there was pressure, the CEOs/CIOs would have squealed for relief. Don't think AT&T owns enough of Congress to tell the administration to go pound sand? (laughter)
-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), November 30, 1999.
My top ten Y2K myths...10. Traditional software development metrics apply to Y2K remediation. (Based on industry reports and testing, the IT community has kicked backside on remediation during the past two years. Re- write the book, Ed.)
Jury still out entirely. What industry reports? Testing, at least as publicly reported, has been scattered and primarily a driver for PR concerns. This could be true but there is nearly ZERO factual evidence to back up such an extraordinary claim about the entire industry. It also would appear to be a highly U.S.-centric statement (cf Germany, France, Italy, large parts of Asia, South America and Middle East).
9. Companies are required to report Y2K readiness. (Most American firms are privately held and have no obligation to report any Y2K information including results of Y2K testing).
(True, if most covers all the SMEs. This is precisely why 1. above is specious).
8. Self-reported data is always false (unless it's bad).
(Witty riposte that we all "understand" here on TB2K. No, not false, uncertain, by the definition of "self" which, quite legitimately under capitalism, reflects all forms of self-"interest". Honesty in the public space is not viewed in our culture as highly compatible with self-interest).
7. Data from third-parties (API, FDIC, NERC) is always false (unless it's bad).
(See my comment above)
6. All suppliers must be "Y2K ready" for a business to survive. (For every good or service we order, we have at least three competing firms. In most cases, we could have 300.)
(Of course not. However, milage may vary greatly depending on the business and process involved. In areas that prove non-redundant, we don't yet understand the impact on other sectors and entities.)
5. People who run businesses are idiots (except those who "GI" and have a survival bunker. The converse of this myth--a handful of mostly middle class, mostly white, mostly male posters on TB 2000 are the select few with the insight and intelligence to grasp "the big picture.")
(More "wit". However, thanks for the compliment.)
4. If one business fails, there will be a domino effect. (Wrong. Businesses fail every day... and in a recession, many businesses fail. The market provides massive redundancies... and opportunities.)
(You surely don't mean "one", since that is silly on its face: of course not. This phenomenon is our best hope against recession becoming depression. However, other factors (possible market crash, war/terrorism, poor political leadership) could negate or reduce its benefit.)
3. The problem starts on rollover. (As Hoff correctly observed, the huge number system upgrades, replacements, patches, etc. should have created bigger and badder errors. During the past two years, we have demonstrated a strong ability to resolve problems. Oh, and we have shown that computer errors like the CIH virus do not "crash" the entire system.)
(Not "starts" but dramatically accelerates. This has been rehashed ad nauseam on forum, not worth further expenditure of electrons.)
2. Everything is interconnected. (A better statement--everything is redundant. If international firms fail, I hope American multinationals grab market share.)
(This particular use of "redundant" seems a very poor fit. Redundancy is not a primal axiom of human society. Many things are. Many things aren't).
1. There will be no Y2K problems. (Here's one for the "home" team. While the vast majority of news on Y2K has been positive, there are still clear indications of a signficant economic impact.)
(Right).
-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), November 30, 1999.
Ken,You really seem like an intelligent guy who has probably had some pretty good exposure to all sides of the issue. That's why I can't believe you're serious with this post.
-- eve (123@4567.com), November 30, 1999.
Dear Colleagues,I assure you Ken is neither a troll, nor a government shill. He is not a programmer/analyst either. He is merely a well-reasoned man who values balance, objectivity, and seeks facts rather than opinion. We do too right?
Diane, I need to hear opposing views. For my sake, please suspend judgement on the semi-pollys.
-- Laura (Ladylogic46@aol.com), November 30, 1999.
LadyLogic,You haven't seen ALL that Ken's posted this year. Not "suspending" anything.
He's subtle... except when he isn't. Which is often.
Diane
-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), November 30, 1999.
Good point, Diane!If it walks like a troll and talks like a troll, then it's a troll. This is just more distraction to dissuade people from preparation.
-- (brett@miklos.org), November 30, 1999.
Diane,31 days until what?
-- Buster Collins (BustrCollins@aol.com), November 30, 1999.
Ooh, that came so close to making any kind of sense. Anyone figure out what his point is, if any? Is it to educate or obfuscate? Insult or praise? Is he typing with one hand? Or is he just a...?
-- Colin MacDonald (roborogerborg@yahoo.com), November 30, 1999.
Really Decker, you must not have gotten enough rest on your vacation. You make stronger points when you remember to be subtle. This one wasn't.
-- Nancy (wellsnl@hotmail.com), November 30, 1999.
I know I don't have much seniority here, but I say leave Ken alone. We're all entitled to our opinions, no matter what they are. He didn't use any profanity, which suits me.One thing though: For far too long we have lived in a society in which 'opinions' and 'feelings' seem to be more important than the facts. Y2K will be the first world wide event for which opinions mean nothing. The facts will become apparent, right on schedule.
Me, well I'm an out-of-the-closet doomer and proud of it. I know a bunch of pollies in my neck-O-the-woods, and all of them are bright, well mannered, and don't drool a lot. What really frosts my 'lil Kook is the fact that I can't say 'nya-nya' to anyone if we slide into the tubes. I'll either be cut off communications wise or too busy hiding from the bright, well mannered, semi drooling pollies.
Kook, hyphenator extrordinaire
-- Y2Kook (Y2Kook@usa.net), November 30, 1999.
Ah, Decker, you grow weaker -- and a little more pathetic -- with every post. You realize, of course, that you've posted a bunch of straw men. Let's just take a few, shall we?------6. All suppliers must be "Y2K ready" for a business to survive. (For every good or service we order, we have at least three competing firms. In most cases, we could have 300.)
Obviously you use COTS (Commercial, Off-The-Shelf, for those who are unfamiliar with the term).
I dont believe GM, for example, uses generic parts from their suppliers. They design a car, Ken, and each part must meet form, fit, and function requirements. These are not COTS parts, Ken -- but you kinew that, didn't you. Sad straw man, wasn't it.
Now, if a provider does go belly up as far as meeting your delivery requirements, can you immediately substitute another firm? With no impact on your schedules? If the answer is yes, then youve revealed yourself as being a user of unsophisticated goods and services -- or an unsophisticated user. The minute goods or services deviate from the standard offering of a supplier, you become dependent on that supplier.
5. People who run businesses are idiots (except those who "GI" and have a survival bunker. The converse of this myth--a handful of mostly middle class, mostly white, mostly male posters on TB 2000 are the select few with the insight and intelligence to grasp "the big picture.")
Obvious straw man, Decker, and more obvious than your usual ones. It takes little reading in this forum to realize that this isn't the concensus opinion. It's one you hold up, in order to demolish......that's the definition of a straw man.
As a matter of fact, many people who run businesses are very concerned about the effects of Y2K on said businesses. Your gratitious insults to forum participants are duly noted -- and filed in the trash heap, where the rest of the post belongs. As the date change comes closer, you appear to be growing more strident, less calm. Maybe you should take a vacation, and come back in March.
4. If one business fails, there will be a domino effect. (Wrong. Businesses fail every day... and in a recession, many businesses fail. The market provides massive redundancies... and opportunities.)
Again, you reveal lack of discernment (to be charitable). The domino effect is the result of the failure of key businesses, and perhaps the failure of several such businesses. As an obvious example, the failure of a power company to deliver power for a substantial period of time can obviously bankrupt any business that requires power and has failed to prepare to be without it. The failure of several banks can lead to downstream business failures. The failure of a key supplier can lead to lack of delivery of manufactured goods. But, you knew this also didnt you, you little troll you?
Moreover, the businesses fail every day argument is identical to the but computers make errors every day argument so loved by those who claim BITR. It ignores the quantity of errors/failures.
Finally, if you read Ed Yourdan carefully, you might note that his scenario is such that it calls for business failures -- an increase of failures that results in a depression. Im surprised at you, Ken, because you seem to have adopted the new generation economics: dont use the word depression, because we all 'know the fed controls everything so well that we cant actually have a depression.
Ah, well, to the person out of work, watching the sheriff seize his home and property for failure to pay taxes and mortgage, theres little difference. But, to Ken Decker its something to debate. You know, Ken, you really need to make an appointment at a good doctors.
3. The problem starts on rollover. (As Hoff correctly observed, the huge number system upgrades, replacements, patches, etc. should have created bigger and badder errors. During the past two years, we have demonstrated a strong ability to resolve problems. Oh, and we have shown that computer errors like the CIH virus do not "crash"the entire system.)
Come back early in January and tell us this. Tomorrow (12/1/99) we begin with almost all date sensitive computations becoming exposed -- on an increasing basis to rollover errors. Expect an increase in the number of failures. Whether they will hit the media or not, we don't know. Weve already seen several companies that are in deep trouble because they lacked that strong ability to resolve problems; companies such as Hershey, Whirpool, etc.
How many payroll and entitlement programs must be hosed before you admit that there are problems that cant be easily solved in 2 or 3 days? Come onb, Ken, how many babies must go without milk before you recognize that it's past time for puerile debate?
Of course, given your previously demonstrated its all a game, lets see if I can stir up hate and discontent attitude, you would fail to see a problem unless it was your paycheck, or unless you, personally, were the one to be tossed out on the street.
2. Everything is interconnected. (A better statement--everything is redundant. If international firms fail, I hope American multinationals grab market share.)
This item is redundant, (pun intended) since it is a corollary of items 4 and 6. See the response to items 4 and 6. But, to test you, please answer this simple question.
If the major supplier of a critical component is unable to meet the need, what will be the net effect on our economy? Assume, for the purpose of this discussion, that the Brazilian plants that belong to American multinationals are unable to manufacture and ship ball bearings in a timely manner. What happens, Ken?[Hint -- No, not TEOTWAWKI -- but it causes a major slowdown in the manufacture of many other products, including electric motors, cars, tractors, airplanes, busses, etc. etc., etc.]
Now, Ken, multiply this slowdown by the hundreds of companies that may be facing problems, not only from lack of ball bearings, but from shortages of hard drives, computer memory, printed circuit boards, Nike and Rebock shoes, clothing, and so on. Add in potential reductions in oil production, refining, and delivery of petroleum products.
No, interconnected is the correct word. I know redundancy, since I worked with it for years. Redundancy implies that alternatatives exist and can be rapidly used should the need exist.
We're interconnected, not redundant. Timken can restart American ball bearing factories -- at a great cost in time and money -- and eventually, we can drag oil out of the reserve and use it, but all of these things take time and involve expenditure of money. The question, of course, is what happens in the mean time? How badly is our economy damaged, what weaknesses are exposed in our national security, how many people are damaged (physically or financially) by the failure to have true redundancy?
-- see-a-doctor (ken@decker.boy), November 30, 1999.
I'm losing it here! His myths seemed reasonable to me. Somebody help me please? Colin, I trust you; what is your opinion of Ken and the myths?
-- Laura (Ladylogic46@aol.com), November 30, 1999.
Check "see-a-doctor"s response. Ken's just trolling again with strawman arguments and idiot polly drivel.
-- (brett@miklos.org), November 30, 1999.
Myth 1A: The government knows what will happen in January.Myth 1B: The government (in general) and government spokesmen and the government experts from the Clintons' administration (in particular) are an independent, knowledgeable, unaffected, reliable source of information regarding year 2000 events.
Myth 1C: The government's (and the national media's) predictions about next year, and any polls about next year's events - are reliable, have been accurate in the past, and are based on useful facts whose accuracy are untampered with from outside influences, and are thoroughly based on past events.
Myth 1D: Computers and automated processes listen to polls and expert predictions from the government.
-- Robert A. Cook, PE (Marietta, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), November 30, 1999.
Sorry, couldn't let this one pass. As usual Ken, great post but most have missed the points.See-a-doctor, great counterpoint but... Just because a particular part can not be produced (pretty strong statement with a very low likelihood), doesn't translate into the automobile industry dies. Duplication of cars is key. How many types of cars are out there, trucks, SUVs. The consumer has a multitude of choices. That could be reduced come 2000 but not by very much.
-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), November 30, 1999.
classic Decker w/yummy bonus recipe
-- archivist (basement@tb.forum), November 30, 1999.
Myth #1 - Gary North is qualified to comment on y2kMyth #2 - people outside their area of expertize are qualified to comment on y2k
Myth #3 - Those spreading y2khype aren't making money from the venture
Myth #4 - Ken Decker thinking he will get a fair shake from the Timebomb groupies. (psst, Ken....they want everyone to think you are a 'troll', and will continue to paint you in the worst possible light.)
-- Miss Myth (missed@miss.myth), November 30, 1999.
even mo' classic Decker, with bonus Poole cameo
-- archivist (basement@tb.forum), November 30, 1999.
Thanks for the posts, "a". They reveal far more about Decker's attackers than about Ken himself.Interesting read.
Thanks again.
-- Miss Myth (missed@miss.myth), November 30, 1999.
KD's Myth No. 8: Self-reported data is always false (unless it's bad).From the Report on The United States Senate Special Committee on the Year 2000 Technology Problem: Investigating the Impact of the Year 2000 Problem - February 24, 1999
http://www.year2000citizen.com/y2k/senate_report.html
Self-reporting has yielded unreliable assessments for most industry sectors. With few exceptions, disclosure of Y2K compliance is poor.
Analogous to letting students grade their own tests, self-reporting offers data of varying reliability. Nonetheless, it has become the standard in both private industry and government. Industry surveys are currently the most widely utilized tool to measure compliance. Unfortunately, the results of many surveys have been kept from public and Special Committee view (see "Transportation" in this report). Despite an SEC rule requiring Y2K disclosure of public corporations, companies are reluctant to report poor compliance levels.
***Even the politicians admit self-reported data are "unreliable" and "poor"***
-- Through (the@fog.and.mytht), November 30, 1999.
I think Flint said it best...Wait a minute. All we have is Decker's words. I regard Decker as kind of a bellwether here. His posts are mostly polite, unobjectionable, thoughtful, informed, and innocuous. The amazingly vitriolic abuse he attracts simplifies the process of sorting out those here to think, from those here to prevent thought.
Basically, Decker's contributions help separate those who view this forum as a school, from those who view it as a church.
-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), May 07, 1999.
Well said, Flint.
-- Miss Myth (missed@miss.myth), November 30, 1999.
Miss Myth's missed myths missive is missing a myth...<
> Myth 3A - Those in the government and the national media, and the national businesses who are using (and spreading false) and misleading infomration have no profit motive involved, nor have they any personal or political motive to mislead the public.....nor have they ever deliberately or maliciously lies to the public in the past.
-- Robert A. Cook, PE (Marietta, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), November 30, 1999.
LOL, "Miss Myth" defends Double-talk Decker with the words of another polly-troll. She just keeps digging herself deeper and deeper into that hole.
-- (brett@miklos.org), November 30, 1999.
Decker in the beginning.Capitalism is not perfect, but it will solve most Y2K problems. Of course, there are forces that can exacerbate Y2Kprimarily public panic and government intervention. The true danger of Y2K is economic recession or depression due to public panic and a subsequent loss or personal or economic freedoms through government intervention. As a nation, staying calm and rational will deter centralized government "solutions."
http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=000eh6
Decker doesn't trust the government either!
-- A stroll (down@memory.lane), November 30, 1999.
Ah, brett....you must agree with the personal attacks as a way of winning a debate....don't attack the words, JUST ATTACK THE ONE WHO SPEAKS THEM. Okay, I'll post Chuck's words as well...First, one of the things I enjoy about Mr. Decker's contributions is the fact that, in most cases, I don't have to wade through 5 attacks, 3 of which are borderline obscene, and fully over the line of civility.[SKIP]Secondly, I will take INFORMATION from ANYBODY, be they Old Git, Andy, INVAR, Flint, Koskinen, Old Scratch, Gabriel, Michael, Uriel, whoever, I don't care.[SKIP]Thirdly, I may be in the extreme minority but I happen to NEED to hear varying viewpoints.[SKIP]-- chuck, a Night Driver (rienzoo@en.com), May 07, 1999.
-- Miss Myth (missed@miss.myth), November 30, 1999.
If you people would stop stroking kenny's fragile ego by responding to his nit-wit drivel - he would probably go away. The entire point of all his posts is to get a rise out of most forum participants - keep the pot boiling!! Shunning is really a good idea - let him talk to Maria and Miss Myth!!
-- catfish joe (joe6pack@bottomdweller.net), November 30, 1999.
vintage Decker w/religion
-- archivist (timebomb@basement.see), November 30, 1999.
If I want to become a pessimist... do I need my sense of humor surgically removed first? (laughter)C'mon folks. The pessimists make gross generalizations all the time. The whole "top ten" concept was borrowed from David Letterman and the post itself was somewhat tongue-in-cheek.
Let's take time to rebut a few "serious" points...
I don't believe GM is the only manufacturer of automobiles. If GM loses business due to JIT parts shortages... there are a few normal consequences. GM will lose revenue and profits. Other car manufacturers will gain market share. If all car manufacturers make the same "mistake" supply will decrease. The price of new cars will increase. Of course, I think we pay far too much for new cars now, but if left alone, the market will reach a new equilibrium where I'll be even less impressed with new car prices.
If GM chooses to allow their business to depend on a single supplier of a unique part on which their product line depends... they deserve to go out of business. The failure of GM hardly means the end of the free world. From my perspective, they are just another private enterprise. And like a true capitalist, within every failure I see opportunities for new enterprises.
As for my characterization of SOME forum pessimists... it is accurate. I have no bone to pick with the thoughtful pessimists. In addition, I have often defended the economic right of the "fringe" to buy tons of rice and beans. I do take issue with the notion a handful of disgruntled, middle class, conservative white males have some special insight into a meta-problem like Y2K... and the rest of the world including its leaders (private and public) are totally in the dark. I also reject the notion that optimists are somehow intellectually incapable of grasping Y2K. Finally, I reject the notion of a global conspiracy. Hogwash.
For the record, this forum has no "consensus" opinion, not even a dislike of me. (chuckle)
As for bashing the small businessman, I entered the Y2K chat room a few days ago. I was attacked on the issue of small business readiness. It turns out, the attacker is a small businessperson. His business is Y2K ready. Is he simply smarter than the rest? Mark my words, we'll see some small business failures next year, but their Y2K "unreadiness" has been greatly exagerated.
Ah, the utilities... they are most quasi-public entities. Had lunch with execs from the local power company. The juice will flow through rollover. They say it. Their testing firm says it. The NERC says it. Shall I go on?
As for the banks... if you read the FDIC, we are over 99% Y2K ready. Telecommunications... ready.
Even if every business in a single sector fails... other firms can enter the marketplace and provide the same good or service. Quickly, probably not. Even if a firm fails, I presume the employees are Y2K compliant. If GM fails, what prevents Ford from hiring their workers (already trained) and expanding capacity? The real power of a firm are its people.
As for failure tolerance... this country survived a civil war and a great depression. The year prior to Y2K should have been a catastrophe given the massive software upgrades. It hasn't been.
Myth #11... the country is fragile.
I am delighted to see only Hershey and Whirlpool. Compared to the problems I expected... two major companies struggling with computer difficulties is miniscule.
As for "forced" redundancy... we are better letting the market decide than building fortress America. "Domestic capacity" is usually invoked by uncompetitive firms seeking shelter from foreign goods. I am a staunch free trader (as are most economists.)
Mr. Cook makes a usual silly argument. Of course the machines don't care about opinion. My argument, the vast majority of people who built and run the machines are reasonably confident they will function on rollover. You are just miffed because the rest of the world hasn't taken time to provide you with detailed test results... as if they owed you them.
Oops... I missed a great set of myths. Everyone who thinks we'll survive Y2K is a gov't shill. Everyone who thinks we'll be in deep doodoo is honest, even if they are selling you Y2K stuff.
On another subject, of course I don't trust the government completely. I lean libertarian. And how about someone giving me credit for being right... capitalism HAS SOLVED most Y2K problems. Compare June 1998 to November 1999 and tell me we haven't seen a market-driven miracle.
-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), November 30, 1999.
blah-blah-blah ... MARKET DRIVEN MIRACLE???? Gawd!!!
Well, so much for all that bad computer code, that good ol' "invisible hand of Adam Smith" once again saves the world. LOL!
Keep on keeping on, Ken, this ought to be one very interesting month. Hope you are putting your paychecks into cash, gold and silver.
-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.cum), November 30, 1999.
You know, Spain, I laugh out loud every time I see you post about gold. Remember the Spanish mercantilists? How do you think Spain went from a global power to the European version of a third world country? They failed to learn Adam Smith's lessons.
-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), November 30, 1999.
---Ken, you said:
"Oh, I do not believe pressure has been applied from "the very top." If there was pressure, the CEOs/CIOs would have squealed for relief. Don't think AT&T owns enough of Congress to tell the administration to go pound sand? (laughter)"
I disagree with you on this point for the following reason:
The industry behemoths, such as AT&T, would have no logical or sane reason (other than to tell the truth as a principle) to employ their lobbyists to apply pressure in this instance.
Why would they intentionally and publically divulge proprietary business information which would hurt them with absolute certainty?
The banks, bond holders, stock holders, business partnerships and relationships and employees would then view them as vastly weakened. And that weakness would be perceived as giving up valuable ground to their biggest competitors. They would only stand to lose. No up-side to this at all.
---
-- snooze button (alarmclock_2000@yahoo.com), November 30, 1999.
You're all wasting too much time debunking each others assumptions about the upcoming reality of Y2K (but its fun, isn't it, sort of like debating club in high school). I offered to run a contest before where everybody puts there prediction on the line and then receives public recognition or condemnation down the road after the scores are tallied but I got virtually no response. We don't need OIL. We could just harness the hot air coming from this board we could cut our imports by 95%, improve our trade deficit, etc, etc. Homer Beanfang is one of the few productive members of this board who posts useful articles. The rest (including this contribution) merely contribute empty words. I say register your prediction once and for for posterity, stick by it, and stop the verbal fisticuffs.
-- Guy Daley (guydaley@bwn.net), November 30, 1999.
I made my predictions long ago, Guy. Sorry, but I'll pass on sending you money. Call it a "trust issue."
-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), November 30, 1999.
Don't take Decker so seriously. He's just a flow of electrons. Anyway, speaking of taking ME seriously, I posted this to Arnie Rimmer's current thread on Yardeni:"Arnie -- my take is this. Yardeni's personal position hasn't changed throughout the year. Nor has mine. That is only interesting in illustrating that the blizzard of positive PR has not provided solid reasons for a fundamental change of view about Y2K. It probably explains why neither pollies or doomers have moved from their basic positions this year -- no evidence supporting a move. He does give a nod to all the optimism by fiddling slightly with his recession predictions (and the diff between a mild and serious recession is only minor, anyway). Again, similarly, I have given somewhat of a nod to a less dire Y2K outcome reasoning that there just might be some positive fire behind all the PR smoke. But not much of a nod.
Finally, while 5% chance of a depression is only 1-in-20, I have always considered Yardeni's 5% shocking for a late-90s econ and especially one notorious for his bullish views, and his bullishness on life after Y2K impacts do their thing.
Distilled, EVEN WITH ALL THE PROGRESS, Yardeni does not see a lessened (albeit unlikely) chance of a systemic crash. Interesting or wot?"
-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), November 30, 1999.
**********************************************************************Here we are...
Rearranging the semantic DECK CHAIRS on the late 20th Century TITANIC
**********************************************************************
Partially at least in answer to Ken's self-seeking questions.
---
-- snooze button (alarmclock_2000@yahoo.com), November 30, 1999.
.....capitalism HAS SOLVED most Y2K problems. Compare June 1998 to November 1999 and tell me we haven't seen a market-driven miracle.I'm not knocking capitalism but I wouldn't say it's been responsible for what's been accomplished so far. The federal government has made much more progress in dealing with Y2k than the private sector has.
And I'm curious just how much would have been done by this point if Gary North had not started calling attention to Y2k on the Internet in 1997.
-- (it@wasn't.capitalism), November 30, 1999.
I take Russ more seriously than an electron... although I imagine him close to the same size (laughter). I take Yardeni more seriously than Russ (or me). The profession could use many more like him. Personally, I'm pretty comfortable at 1 in 20 for a depression. Since meltdown is a subset of depression, I'm feeling pretty saucy.
-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), November 30, 1999.
Thanks for the posts, "a". They reveal far more about Decker's attackers than about Ken himself.Huh? How did I get dragged into this? I've been on the sidelines the past month watching the fracas with increasing amusement.
My opinion, based on 18 years computer experience and a career designing and maintaining complex software systems, is a 1 in 2 chance of a depression and 1 in 5 of a meltdown.
But I'm glad you feel 'saucy' Ken. Hope you're right.
-- a (a@a.a), November 30, 1999.
You said:"10. Traditional software development metrics apply to Y2K remediation. (Based on industry reports and testing, the IT community has kicked backside on remediation during the past two years. Re- write the book, Ed.)"
To believe that suddenly, the software industry can get its act together and ship EVERYTHING or nearly everything on time, to specification, with few errors is, to say the least, fatuous.
And, though Ed Yourdon wrote about the problems with software, I'll turn you on to a few tomes not written by Ed:
The Mythical Man Month
Antipatterns (Brown,Malveau, et al)
Software Engineering (Sommerville)
Introduction to the Personal Software Process (Humphrey)
Software Inspection (Gilb, Graham)
Managing Software Maniacs (Whitaker)
Testing Computer Software (Kaner, Falk, Nguyen)
Peopleware (Marco, Lister)
Total Quality Management for Software (Schulmeyer, McManus ed)
All of the above discuss in various ways the problems of software development. And they describe the problems with shipping on time. They base their conclusions not on self reporting, but on actual statistics derived from the industry ("metrics"). Measurement is not rocket science.
Again, it is absurd to think that suddenly the software industry has changed dramatically in the last couple of years, when it has over 30 years of proof to the contrary.
And if "myth" #10 is NOT a myth, who cares about the rest?
Jolly is a software "engineer" and manager
-- Jollyprez (jolly@prez.com), November 30, 1999.
JollyRemediation does not equal development. By traditional metrics, the progress thus far is impossible.
-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), November 30, 1999.
Miss Myth: Do you like to mudwrestle?
-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.cum), November 30, 1999.
Id like to point out a few other non-mesmerized by Y2K scenariosIt is very possible that Y2K could be non-event by Yardinis definition and there could still be a recession. Not having the one doesnt preclude the other. Only the timing may change.
It was the mistake of the IT boys that looked at Y2K as an IT type problem and only an IT type problem that led to a lot of misconceptions about fixing the problem. Their logic assumed that since no (or few) IT projects come in on time and budget Y2K wouldnt either. If you discard the basic premise that Y2K was and is an IT project you can see the faults in the conclusions.
-- The Engineer (The Engineer@tech.com), November 30, 1999.
This raises an interesting question. When a software project will not be ready in time, typically how long is it before the expected completion date that it becomes obvious it won't be ready?
-- not a (soft@ware.guru), November 30, 1999.
Ken,I never ceases to amaze me the response you get on your posts. What amazes me more is the rabidity of the response without them even understanding the post completely. It seems the post is quickly scanned and then, "BOOM!!!" Both barrels at Decker. The truth comes out as to their understanding of what you wrote by their response, which almost always is NOT what was written.
People, please READ the posts thoroughly BEFORE you warm up the keyboard with a scathing response. You merely look like a fool if you don't.
I will never understand the venom aimed at Ken, and I have been here lurking and posting since 1/98, so I HAVE read all the posts in the past, so don't feed me that line of BULL.
This is a FORUM. A FORUM requires differing OPINIONS. Without a difference of opinion it is pointless.
I don't know about the rest of you, but I pray to GOD (Jehovah, Yahweh, Elohim, YHWH, etc... pick your favorite) that Ken has a crystal clear vison of the future, even though deep in my thoughts I think INVAR and Milne are closer to what will be... But then, that is strictly MO... And GUESS WHAT???
Nodody really knows.... YET.
growlin' at the stoning....
The Dog
-- The Dog (dogdesert@hotmail.com), November 30, 1999.
<-- not a (soft@ware.guru), November 30, 1999. >> And the classic answer is: "Three weeks before the deadline."
Regardless of the length of the project, or the budget, or the number of people involved.
-- Robert A. Cook, PE (Marietta, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), November 30, 1999.
Dog -- it's a combination of style, content and the dynamics of this board (cf Flint for another example). This is one of the only places in the Western World where people who are concerned about Y2K can come to talk with one another. If some of it is mutual comfort and reinforcement of legitimate anxieties without paying excruciatingly detailed attention to the "contrary case" that is made everywhere else ad nauseam, so be it. As it is, the "contrary case" is made endlessly here as well by Flint, Decker and those who post the same "good news" I've read everywhere else.When this is mixed with apparent dissing of those concerns, it feels like salt being rubbed in a wound.
That doesn't justify rabidity, though that can be in the eye of the beholder (you, in this case). Pushing back happens all the time on this forum and Andy, for instance, was vilified repeatedly before he began to respond in kind. It doesn't happen only to "pollies". Diane is another case in point and it wasn't only when she became the sysop.
It is very hard to judge what is behind the "electrons", especially when wit, satire and a particularly arcane English style is thrown into the mix.
I personally have come to accept Decker as one of the participants on this forum -- I credit him with doggedness, Dog, if nothing else. He's like my brothers-in-law: he's there, deal with it.
Frankly, it is easier to get hold of Decker's arguments and make some sense out of them than it is with Flint whose every response to someone's 'x' is 'not-this-x' and Decker holds his own positions with more consistency.
Fundamentally, he is a pro-free market libertarian who thinks that we are living in (basically) a great era, that Y2K is a genuine problem that has probably been licked enough to forestall anything worse than a recession (but it's sensible to be out of an overvalued market), that anything beyond good common sense in leading an ordinarily thrifty life is probably needless preparation (and no special preparations are needed for a recession) and that some of us on this forum are crazy and perhaps unpatriotic, let alone selfish. And he likes to hunt but he's afraid that others are going to abuse firearms.
It's not that big a deal.
-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), November 30, 1999.
I agree BigDog, but it sure seems Decker gets singled out a lot. Of course on the other hand, so do INVAR and Milne.I confess I have jumped on Flint a few times because he/she is WISHY- WASHY. Ask him/her the same question twice and you get two different answers. Ken hasn't changed his stance at all. That is commendable, considering the sheer volume of information and dis-information thrown about on this forum.
I am a card-carrying NRA member, I vote (what little good it does), I am patriotic, and I am THOROUGHLY disgusted with big government, the media, and the total lack of consideration by these folks of the rest of us. I hope the rollover will be a wake-up call for these people, but I doubt it...
Ken, keep on keeping on, I appreciate your posts.
BigDog, ditto, even though you don't come over here very often. I know the prep forum is a handful, but dude, don't be a stranger...
"Baalzebal/Cthulu in 2000... why settle for the LESSER evil..."
snoozin' by the fire... (OUCH)
The Dog
-- The Dog (dogdesert@hotmail.com), November 30, 1999.
Russ...That is a fair, even-handed description of me. Thank you.
-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), November 30, 1999.
Ken --In reply to Jollyprez you stated "Remediation does not equal development. By traditional metrics, the progress thus far is impossible."
In this statement, you are 100% correct. Remediation, like *ALL* maintainance work, is *HARDER* than development. (Usually, what you get is 'total code rewrite' if the individual doing it has any creativity at all.)
Thus, I didn't really expect the metrics to hold up. I have believed all along that the estimates based on metrics were *way* too optimistic.
And I suspect that your own argument shoots down myth #10. Which, of course, kind of obviates all the rest. The problem with the date rollover is that there is an awful lot of code that won't work in its present state when it runs into dates in a range greater than 1999. This won't change, regardless of polls, opinions, or myths. It will change if and only if the remediation is done, on time, and correctly. This is what worries me, as I do not, and have not, seen it done. My own personal take on the 'bad news' is the 'only news' issue is that it is not so much 'lies' by intent, as believing their own status reports. (And if you aren't in the industry, allow me to clue you in: the writing of status reports has *MUCH* more to do with a course in 'Creative Writing' than with a course in 'Technical Writing'. Take it from one who is on both ends of this particular topic. I not only write 'em for my higher ups, I get to do it partially by synopsis of the ones I get from the rest of the group. And I can guarantee you that better fiction was never writ.)
-- just another (another@engineer.com), November 30, 1999.
JustAnother --- ROFLMAO. You are so right about progress reports and I have penned some melodramas and science fiction myself. Ditto metrics. I had a good buddy who was a testing genius (you build it, he'll find a way to break it). He and his team used to provide metrics to upper IBM mgmt by using the "magic number" from Hitchhiker's Guide as the multiplier.Hey, youse guys out there, you can think we're the exception on talking about this kind of stuff but the techies know it's real.
Yeah, software has been cool, I love it. But Y2K progress is a tissue of hopes piled on a bed of PR (welll, I was gonna say ....). We're still back to this teensy-weensy little problem with Y2K that is unique, no matter how many times Hoffy says it ain't -- 12/31/99 is the immovable deadline and we won't know how remediation went (can't know) until we move in Jan, Feb, March of 2000.
-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), November 30, 1999.
The Dog,Applause! Excellent post.
-- Deb M. (vmcclell@columbus.rr.com), November 30, 1999.
BigDog --"Science Fiction" That's good. Or in this case, most likely to be "Science Fixtion". ;-)
As for the accuracy of the reports and metrics, I once had a manager who measured weekly progress by printing out everybodys home directory on Friday afternoon and weighing the result on a postal scale. This gave him an 'objective measure' of progress for the week. (Man, we had some of the best documented code in the *universe* after about 2 weeks. Most white space, eminently readable, went into *exhaustive* detail about the most trivial of algorithms. But, By Gosh, it was *OBJECTIVE*!)
-- just another (another@engineer.com), November 30, 1999.
By traditional metrics, the progress thus far is impossible.-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), November 30, 1999.
Absolutely correct. Therefore, we have two possibilities to consider:
1. All the metrics have suddenly been overturned;
2. The managers are lying or misinformed.Having worked for a lot of managers, I know which one of these I prefer.
-- Steve Heller (stheller@koyote.com), November 30, 1999.
Wow! An actual post about Y2K near the top of the new answers.Thanks for supplying a little balance there Ken.
-- Lurking on the sidelines (Alw@ys lurking.com), November 30, 1999.
This raises an interesting question. When a software project will not be ready in time, typically how long is it before the expected completion date that it becomes obvious it won't be ready?Becomes obvious to whom? The programmers can tell you months in advance, sometimes even the minute they get the project schedule. The managers, however, will just look at you like "How do you know you aren't going to make a date that is four months away?" As far as they are concerned, it isn't late until it actually is late. Often they have pressure from above to be finished in time for a certain event, for example a military exercise or something that can't be rescheduled. So it becomes pointless to debate the schedule, and programmers just plod along the best they can, agreeing among themselves that they are never going to make it. Sometimes they agree among themselves to develop the most important functionality first, or if it isn't clear what is the most important, then the easiest part first. This is for the point of having something done by the deadline. If you can't satisfy them, then partially satisfy them, is the goal of belegeared programmers everywhere.
-- Amy Leone (leoneamy@aol.com), December 01, 1999.
So true and we always do the easy parts first, which gets us to 90% or so. It isn't even intentional, just a result of not being able to focus clearly on the hardest "10%", which is, of course, really 40%.We're talking good programmers here, not bad ones.
The Michael Jordan programmers breeze through the entire 100%. The minoir leaguers, and there are many, never get past 50%.
-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), December 01, 1999.