http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/19991201/tc/yk_world_1.html

Y2K Bug: From Time Bomb to Dud By Neil Winton

LONDON (Reuters) - The millennium computer bug has mutated from a time bomb into a dud.

Former Cassandras are backing away from scenarios that predicted chaos around the world as computers crashed at midnight on Dec. 31 because of the ubiquitous bug. Now these experts say that thanks to their perception in identifying the problem and the effectiveness of their public relations effort, the world can party into the next millennium without fear.

The lights will not go out at midnight. Telephones will work normally, once the traditional New Year phoning frenzy has died down. Jumbo jets will not fall from the sky. Civilized life as we know it will not come to an abrupt halt.

But this hoped-for happy outcome has not come cheaply. U.S. information technology research company Gartner Group said companies around the world would have to spend between $300 billion and $600 billion to fix the problem.

IDC, another U.S. high technology consultancy, estimated in a report last month that by the end of 1999 the world will have spent $250 billion finding, replacing, rewriting, testing and documenting computer code infected by the bug.

And all because lazy computer programmers in the 1980s used two digits, such as 89 or 97, to record dates on software, knowing that this would trip over the two zeros in 2000 and cause computers to crash or spew out corrupt data.

They knew that this shorthand, to conserve what was then precious and scarce memory, would cripple data processing if not rectified before clocks ticked into 2000. But they gambled that the progress of technology would be fast enough to render obsolete this method of using dates.

They lost, setting off this expensive race to fix computer systems before midnight on Dec. 31 to avoid disaster.

Some Disruption But Barely Noticeable

IDC believes the race has been won, although some disruption may occur if people fear that there will be problems and rush to hoard necessities like cash or food.

``There will be some disruptions, whether from Y2K-related computer glitches, bad weather or aberrant behavior of the populace,'' IDC said in the report. ``But wholesale hysteria is clearly not called for,'' it added.

Some countries, such as China and Vietnam, are more vulnerable than others, according to IDC. But even there disruption is likely to be minimal.

``Sure, China has a miserable record of Y2K remediation -- yet in a country with little in the way of dependable infrastructure, a little computer downtime will have little impact,'' the report said.

``Relatively speaking, Latin America and Asia Pacific will feel the most pain -- they are automated economies with lots of pirated software and not a lot of remediation. Eastern Europe and Africa will escape because they aren't automated in the first place. First World countries will be fine because they have worked so hard to fix the problem,'' IDC said.

It dismissed claims by economists such as Ed Yardeni of Deutsche Banc Alex Brown that Y2K disruption is a threat to the global economy.

``Y2K will have only a minor impact on the global economy,'' said Tom Oleson, IDC analyst and one of the report's authors. ''We estimate that the financial impact of Y2K will be around $25 billion, and out of a total economy of over $100 trillion in revenues that doesn't seem much, just a minor problem.''

Important Industrial Sectors In Good Shape

Research by Reuters correspondents backs up this outlook. Few experts believe airliners will be hit by computer failure, although there may be some problems from ticketing and baggage systems. Air traffic control is expected to work worldwide.

``There are no no-fly areas,'' said a spokesman for British Airways. ``If we had any doubts we would cancel our flights, but there are no reasons to do so.''

The world banking system is said to be solid, although some worry that weak links in the system might pose a threat.

``It doesn't matter how good a driver you are because you have to rely on other people not making mistakes, and it's the same with banks and Y2K,'' one senior banker told Reuters.

Retailers, relying on complicated supply chains heavily dependent on computers, say they are debugged and ready.

World stock markets expect business as usual after the long holiday weekend.

But not everybody is convinced. Professor Gary North publishes a Web site (http://www.garynorth.com) with advice on what he believes is an upcoming Y2k disaster.

North, who has moved his family to northwest Arkansas, says computer crashes will rock the industrialized world. He believes no power generation on Earth is safe from infection.

This, coupled with failing telephone infrastructure, could spell havoc for weeks or even months in the industrialized world, North says. He provides a survival check list including advice on wood stoves, water and food. Of the stock market, he says, ``Get out of it. Now.'' And he recommends acquiring gold coins because banks and automated teller machines will crash.

The last resort will be items that can be bartered easily, he said in a recent newsletter. ``There are the old favorites: cigarettes, chewing tobacco, bullets, condoms, toilet paper, and other easily recognized items for which there is demand. These are near-money; barter items that have broad appeal.''

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), December 02, 1999

Answers

Sorry, Ken, but didn't somebody already told you -- do not read your news on Yahoo. The author has no f..ing idea what he is talking about, just pulled a bunch of phrases together. I mean -- look at it:

"And all because lazy computer programmers in the 1980s used two digits, such as 89 or 97, to record dates on software, knowing that this would trip over the two zeros in 2000 and cause computers to crash or spew out corrupt data."

Ken, I thought you knew enough French to understand -- do not take reporter's (British in this case) word without a healthy dose of skepticism.

-- Brooklyn (MSIS@cyberdude.com), December 02, 1999.

I am one of technical people that gave Ken's kind of people (brain dead managers) his electronic toys. They ignored the warning label we attached.

So sad.

-- a (a@a.a), December 02, 1999.

Yes Ken, I wouldn't go believing everything I'm told if I were you, on either side of this issue.

-- haha (haha@haha.com), December 02, 1999.

ya' know, I been thinkin' about dem countries (like China) that are predicted to have problems. Every time us lot from Bermuda go on our shopping sprees to the U.S., guess where most of the merchandise is imported from? ( I'll give you a hint: The new port owners of each end of the Panama Canal) As long as everything in the U.S. is O.K.- like all the banks ATM's display-then all is well in the world!!

on de rock

-- Walter (on de rock@northrock.bm), December 02, 1999.

I posted the article... I did not write it. Up a few threads, you'll find the "full coverage" section of Yahoo on the Year 2000 problem. This article is a wire service story, Brooklyn. Yahoo simply publishes the major wire services like Reuter's and AP.

Well, "a," do you plan to add Prometheus to your list of handles. (laughter) Do you butter your ears to squeeze through doorways? Gosh, can you show me your list of patents, Mr. Edison? (belly laugh) I must tell you, "a," it's just like a visit to the "IT" shop where the resident experts are busy telling one another how smart they are... and debating whether Kirk or Picard was the better Star Trek captain.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), December 02, 1999.

Just one small request -- please post the articles written by people who know something about the topic they are writing about.

-- Brooklyn (MSIS@cyberdude.com), December 02, 1999.

Walter, when pollies see Made In China on a label they think that it was made in Chinatown in NY. This is why they think that problems in the country that will manage the Panama Canal will not affect them in any way.

-- Brooklyn (MSIS@cyberdude.com), December 02, 1999.

Brook,

C'mon... are you going to demand the end of the staple pessimist story like "Mr. CEO." You see, Brook, my brother's wife has this friend who knows someone who used to work for this guy who has cousin that DEFINITELY knows company X will not be ready for Y2K. Of course, I can't tell you who I am, or who the company is, or where I live or what I do. But, hey, this is REAL. (rolling on the floor laughter)

Sure, I trust the eighth-hand gossip over a major international wire service. Oh, sorry, I forget that the international banking cartel controls all media except Gary North and friends.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), December 02, 1999.

If you would pay attention you would know that this article is yesterday's news, which has already been posted and discussed. Go find the thread yourself if you're interested.

-- (Sheesh@nobrainer.bah), December 02, 1999.

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl? msg_id=001u1Y <:)=

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), December 02, 1999.

Ken: you seem to be quite happy with the demise of society that the world will incur next year due to shortsighted morons such as yourself. Is that what you mean when you say you feel 'saucy', or are we to infer that you've been hitting the bottle again?

-- a (a@a.a), December 02, 1999.

Ken Decker, The year 2000 is going to be exceedingly grievous for you. A settling of accounts in many, many ways.

-- wyse (ryyr@soa.com), December 02, 1999.

"Y2K's close; we're still not ready"

http://www.computerworld.com/home/print.nsf/all/991129CE6A

-- Linkmeister (link@librarian.edu), December 02, 1999.

Ken -

That article really isn't up to your own standards, you know. The correspondent from Reuters simply made some minor updates to an article he wrote back in June and re-submitted it. It's lightweight to the point of vacuity.

Note that he does not state which "former Cassandras" (note the plural) have "backed away". I know of only one, and even Mr. de Jager still maintains that complacency may cause problems. Could the writer perhaps name two more, or any? Certainly not the founder of the Cassandra Project, nor Ed Yardeni, nor any other high-profile "doomsayer" I can think of.

And oh, the arrogance of this paragraph:

...And all because lazy computer programmers in the 1980s used two digits, such as 89 or 97, to record dates on software, knowing that this would trip over the two zeros in 2000 and cause computers to crash or spew out corrupt data.

Yeah, it was those "lazy programmers" what did it. It wasn't storage constraints, nor was it performance problems resulting from using 4 digits instead of 2, nor even management vetoing a simple and relatively low cost fix due to "budget". Just level a ludicrous character assassination of many of the people who helped create our current "digital infrastructure" and let it go at that.

Ironically, Yahoo! no longer has the original June item available for review, but Gary North's site does: Y2K Test Approaches - 200 Days And Counting

If this Reuters correspondent is the same "Neil Winton" who's very active in perl and tcl circles, he should be ashamed of himself.

-- Mac (sneak@lurk.hid), December 02, 1999.

So as I toil away on software projects that are more complex than the neural organization of Ken's noggin, he peers down from his ivory tower, or ah, I guess that would be his 'bureaucratic sugar teat' now, and laughs at those who were his enablers. Here Ken, have a dose of Nat Hawthorne, just substitute yourself for the Mr. and Y2K for Tophet:

"And then did my good friend Mr. Smooth-It-Away, laugh outright, in the midst of which cachinnation did a smoke ring issue from his mouth and nostrils while a twinkle of lurid flame darted from either eye, proving indubitable that his heart was all of a red blaze. The impudent fiend. To deny the existence of Tophet when he felt its fiery tortures raging within his very breast"

Pretty fitting, huh?

-- a (a@a.a), December 02, 1999.

Hey, folks, I missed the article as posted earlier. I'll be the first the admit, it didn't require much heavy lifting, but it seemed representative of the general media tone (agree with it or not.)

While I find "a" amusing, the thought of Y2K serving as a personal "day of reckoning" is truly funny. I'll be on this very forum in January, February and March of next year. We'll see if I was right.

As for you, "a," (I mean Smithers) it's good to see you continue to add nothing to the Y2K debate. Where's Mr. Burns? (laughter) Oh, and if you ever want to have dueling synapses bring your IT salary to my semi-regular poker game. You can dazzle me with your insight while I add to my retirement fund.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), December 02, 1999.

HAHA

-- bg (x@v.b), December 02, 1999.

Ken: 5 card stud? One draw for each of your functioning neurons?

And that's Mr. Smithers to you.

-- a (a@a.a), December 02, 1999.

Ken Decker cannot possibly be as unlikeable and annoying in person as he is in print...can he? It just isn't possible...is it?

Quote of the day from BigDog:

Inquiring Minds want to know: Why Decker (laughs) without really appearing to have a sense of humor Now that was funny

-- (PeanutGallery@work.not), December 02, 1999.

Mr. Decker,

I think all this short century date programming actually started before the 80's. I started writing programs in 1967 and, you betcha, we didn't use those century parts of the dates. I did ask the manager why and was told that disk space was too precious to waste on UNNEEDED characters. Like most people I do what I am asked to do and obediently left them off. Unfortunately, there are still many COMPUTERS and PROGRAMS still running out there with old programs and they just might be running something important. I don't know that for sure, but it could be that way. Y2K is above all other things, AN UNKNOWN. With thirty three years of Programming experience in several different areas of computing I might be known as an expert too. BUT I ASSURE you that all those years have not made me a fortune-teller. NO ONE KNOWS what is going to occur, either at midnight 12/31/99-01/01/00 or later.

Decide for yourself where you stand but remember, if it is worse than you think it will be and you convinced one person not to prepare then you are somewhat responsible for what happens to that individual(s).

I'm praying that the ride into 2000 and beyond will be smooth.

-- wally wallman (wally_yllaw@hotmail.com), December 02, 1999.

Mr. Decker,

You are off topic when posting Y2K news stories. This is the "Chemtrails" forum now. SPLAT

-- (Polly@troll.com), December 02, 1999.

Mr. Decker --

When you post such lightweight articles in the future, please be sure to attach a large stone to them. They have a tendency to float away.

-- just another (another@engineer.com), December 02, 1999.

Ken, while I'm not as optimistic as you, I do appreciate a chance to read articles written by any reputable person. I feel that Reuters is such a source. So do the major doomers, when Reuters supports their dogma.

But you are wasting your time trying to influence these wackos. When they read something that tarnishes their bright ray of disaster hopes, they go into a total state of denial.

ALK

-- Al K. Lloyd (all@ready.now), December 02, 1999.

Hellooooooo eveyone! Is is apparent to anyone else(besides me) that Decker is now getting paid by the word????? Or just possibly by the words posted in response to his shallow, dumb-assed comments clearly designed to discourage people from preparation?

-- LongTimeLurker (LongTimeLurker@lurk.org), December 02, 1999.

Gary North's commentary on the article:

The Miserable Quality of Journalism: Another Example

-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.cum), December 02, 1999.

I hate it when we get the same story posted in two or more threads. For the second time:

Mac, wally and everyone,

The 2 digit year has nothing to do with lazy programmers. In the early 60's the Department of Defense recommended a 2 digit year standard. IBM and other computer companies wanted the DOD business, and built their mainframe hardware/operating systems to support a 2 digit year. Programmers used whatever service was available to them. There was no 4 digit year available from the operating system in the 60's, 70's, 80's or early 90's.

Tick... Tock... <:00=

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), December 02, 1999.

I'd like to remind previous posters that this article, technical erros and all, is only expressing an opinion - a biased (and in my opinion, an incorrect opinion not supported by even the few "facts" listed), but it is still only an opinion about future events that have absolutely no precedent in any previous age.

Of course, the reporter is stating his (the administration's (?) - remember the explicit "press guidelines" previously issued by the Clintons' national media) opinion, rather than impartially reporting the facts and their uncertainity.....

---

To show the real cause of the errors, and why this can't be in any way a 3-day fix; consider this example:

I use routinely a small (one person) screen capture program fro printing, creating, and saving bitmaps and error messages for troublingshooting. (Yes - my day job is training, testing, and debugging design and CAD (engineering) software after it's been installed, modified or upgraded! I spend most of my time actively looking for the kinds of systemic errors that the administration insists aren't going to occur.....)

Anyway - we just got notified of an upgrade by email on Monday - then received this today (Friday) -

< I'm sorry for the premature 3.51 release, but sometimes bugs only surface when more people download and use a program.

Greg Kochaniak, YYYYYY>>

---

Fix on failure? Right. And I've got a bridge in NY to sell you so you can replace those bombed in Yugoslavia......nice idea (in theory) but it doesn't carry traffic ....

-- Robert A. Cook, PE (Marietta, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), December 03, 1999.

Decker is a lying sack of pompous s**t with no balls.

-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), December 03, 1999.