THE PAULA is still at it. Her error never bothers her. Embedded chip problems are "cumulative". She ignores the fact that would only occur if NO chip failures could be fixed. We know that to be her fallacy but the real question is : "WHO WILL GIVE THIS POOR WOMAN A HAND HELD DEVICE AND A LIFE TIME SUPPLY OF BATTERIES TO HELP HER RELIEVE "STRESS" "???

http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=4555

paula, i admire your fortitude in pressing on with what you feel is an important public policy issue, even though i think it is fruitless. i have one main question - what to you want people to do? the public perception is that we whipped Y2k. that perception is held by those who gave it credence to begin with. most people paid it no mind whatsoever. now, you expect public figures to come forward and admit they made quite a mess of it afterall and whip up public awareness to a growing problem? reputations aside, i still don't see a cause and effect to warrant a rating of 4.5 __________________ Have you killed a tyrant today? Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged 08-02-2001 04:08 AM

Paula_Gordon Member Registered: Jun 2001 Location: Washington, DC Posts: 25 Trove: You are absolutely right about preexisting problems and problems that would be occurring even if there had been no Y2K technology issues. But since there were and still are Y2K technology issues, the resulting problems are additive and in many sectors could be said to be the "straws" that are "breaking the camels' backs". BWD: You wrote: "i have one main question - what do you want people to do?....." and "....now, you expect public figures to come forward and admit they made quite a mess of it afterall and whip up public awareness to a growing problem?" There was a popular song in the '40s that had the following lyrics: "You've got to accentuate the positive, eliminate the negative, and don't mess with Mr. In-Between." The ideal would be to focus on what can be done to make a positive difference. To do that in this instance, the nature and scope of continuing problems need to be acknowledged and understood. That requires intelligence, commonsense, humanheartedness, and concern for the public good. It also requires respect for scientific and technological expertise. Policies and actions that are based on such understanding and that are designed to minimize negative impacts need to be put in place and implemented. This would involve mobilizing resources and expertise and focusing these on addressing continuing challenges, including finishing the tasks that were only partially or temporarily completed. It also includes identifying, acknowledging, and building on the most successful actions and practices of the past several years, particularly those just prior to the rollover. The first three parts of my White Paper at http://www.gwu.edu/~y2k/keypeople/gordon addressed what needed to be done prior to the rollover. Much of what was outlined there concerning the orchestration of resources to address challenges continues to remain relevant. Nothing is accomplished by vilifying anyone. We need to begin from where we find ourselves and do what is going to help minimize negative impacts, safeguard public health and safety and environmental sustainability, and ensure social and economic stability. In other words, we need to do what is going to be in the long-range best interests of humankind. You also wrote: " i still don't see a cause and effect to warrant a rating of 4.5." The "millions of debilitating cuts" scenario does not leave clear indications of cause and effect. We are dealing here with new kinds of challenges that require the capacity to discern patterns of failure and system degradation. Some might say it requires the application of a quantum approaches and solutions. The scenario that is unfolding is exactly what could be expected when lots of things fail or gradually get more and more degraded or out of kilter. This has happened as predicted in all sectors. What has happened has had a cumulative impact owing to the connectivity amongst all sectors. Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged 08-02-2001 07:57 AM

Flint Senior Member Registered: May 2001 Location: Posts: 407 [The scenario that is unfolding is exactly what could be expected when lots of things fail or gradually get more and more degraded or out of kilter. This has happened as predicted in all sectors. What has happened has had a cumulative impact owing to the connectivity amongst all sectors.] Brother! When you grasp at straws that don't even exist, I guess this is how it comes out. The "scenario that is unfolding" is that computer failures generally, of ALL VARIETIES TOGETHER, are so inconceivably trivial that they aren't even in the noise. Sure, specialists in ANY field, when pressed, can think of cases of failure, cases of error, cases where all the facts aren't known and can never be known. But what Paula is doing is equivalent to looking at everyone who dies, applying her pet theory that meteor impact will cause death, and *deducing* meteor impact *without a single documented case*! And then alleging (without any reliable data) that the "death rate" is increasing, and *deducing* that the cumulative effect of invisible meteor impacts must be the cause. Any evidence, Paula? Uh, well, moving right along... Things are in no way getting "more degraded or out of kilter", which is doubtless why these terms are not defined in any operational sense. This makes the assertion semantically empty, but what it attempts to imply is simply false. It's simply phrased in such a way that it cannot be *proven* false even with ALL the facts, because it doesn't MEAN anything. As for things happening "as predicted", who is this intended to fool? Before y2k, the Paul Milne lunatics were predicting that "the connectivity amongst all sectors" guaranteed a total global meltdown of every damn thing everyone knows or is or does, across the board. Now, let's consider two aspects of this "prediction". (1) We aren't seeing either an increase or decrease in documentable computer failures. Even the most optimistic of y2k observers expected at least a noticeable (if short-lived and only mildly inconvenient) rash of glitches. We didn't even get that. The situation has been rock steady normal. Not perfect, normal. (2) When you predict that *everything* will fail, then ANY failures, however minor or unrelated to computers, were "predicted". It should be clear to any honest observer that this is not a useful "prediction". The entire implied methodology is intellectually pathetic. OK, you predicted computer failures due to mishandling of improperly stored dates. That's fine. Now, to document that this prediction is correct, you must find a computer failure due to mishandling of improperly stored dates! This is elementary! And so far, we've seen a total of ZERO such documents. None. Hey, there ought to be a few million total over time (out of probably billions of computer bugs and virus effects encountered worldwide daily, some of which really *are* inconvenient). The inability of the Paula Gordons to find a single known case, their need to fall back on hazy phrases about general failures of either unknown cause or cause known NOT to be date-related, is, uh, informative. This is the kind of weaseling you'd expect from someone who wasn't just wrong, but who was unambiguously, spectactularly, overwhelmingly, 180 degrees DEAD wrong. And can't admit it. Fortunately for the rest of us, while Paula Gordon lies to herself until she's blue in the face, sane people are addressing genuine problems supported by actual evidence, and solving them all the time. That's what people do, who know what they're talking about. (As a footnote, it would be useful to know if Paula has succeeded in fooling anyone not already predisposed to a paranoid inclination to see things that aren't there. Especially anyone in a position of responsibility. Might be a good litmus test for weeding out any true bouncing bozos.) Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged 08-02-2001 04:50 PM

-- Anonymous, August 08, 2001

Answers

< /TBODY> SmartAZ Senior Member Registered: May 2001 Location: Phoenix, AZ Posts: 256 I confess that my eyes glaze over too. I can't understand the motivation to write such a long-winded analysis of a problem that apparently never happened. Exactly what problem are you now addressing? Whatever it is, I think you at least need a new name for it. "Y2K" no longer carries the implications that it once did. __________________ **SmartAZ** smartaz@rubyridge.com< BR>But wait! There's more! You also get this clever tagline! Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged 08-02-2001 06:04 PM

< /TBODY> Paula_Gordon Member Registered: Jun 2001 Location: Washington, DC Posts: 25 The following is a reprise of mostly previously posted material. I have also attached lists of references and resources that may be of help to those interested in studying archived material concerning Y2K-related problems and problems that are possibly Y2K-related that have occurred pre- and post- rollover. I have not taken the time to make sure that the older links are still working. Nevertheless, I hope that some may find the material both of use and of interest. __________________________________________________ Thread 1 Response to February 2001 threads on ezboard addressing Y2K- related embedded control system connections to energy sector and other problems (with minor edits) http://hv.greenspun.com/bboard/q-an...er%20%28GICC% 29 There are various kinds of evidence. What constitutes evidence of Y2K-related embedded control system problems for one person, however, does not constitute evidence for another. Some of the kinds of evidence include: 1) Documented failures of specific kinds of systems or system modules. (For numerous specific examples, see IEE case studies at http://www.iee.org.uk/2000risk/Casebook/casebook.htm There are at least 60 categories of cases involving embedded systems faults in The Institution of Electrical Engineers' [IEE] Embedded Systems Fault Casebook detailed there.) 2) Failures known to people working on embedded control systems that have not been documented and are not likely to be documented except by those exercising whistleblowing perogatives and risking legal repercussions and/or loss of their livelihood. [A list of threads from the GICC archives is attached below.] 3) Documented problems that were predicted in unremediated systems or system modules. [A list of threads from the GICC archives is attached below.] 4) Problems that were predicted in unremediated systems or system modules that have not been documented and are not likely to be documented except by those exercising whistleblowing perogatives and risking legal action and loss of one's livelihood. [A list of threads from the GICC archives is attached below.] There are relatively few people who are coming forward to share what they know. There are major disincentives for doing so including the fact that by doing so, one can place his or her job in jeopardy. For a longer discussion of the reasons why there has been so little attention paid to ongoing problems, see the following items all of which can be found on my website at http://www.gwu.edu/~y2k/keypeople/gordon ~ April 12, 2000 presentation : Video, April 12, 2000, Panel program: "Y2K: What Happened and What Has Been Happening Since January 1?" http://www.stuarthrodman.com/video.htm. For a summary of Paula Gordon's slide presentation, see http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-a...l? msg_id=003I5R ~ John Koskinen Question & Answers piece, including the extensive appendices at http://www.gwu.edu/~y2k/keypeople/gordon/Q&A.html ~ my White Paper at http://www.gwu.edu/~y2k/keypeople/gordon If one regards the form of evidence mentioned in #1 as being without merit, then it seems unlikely that any of the other three kinds of evidence would be at all compelling. Of particular interest when it comes to the postings during January 2001 and through the present, is that there is an abundance of new information and observations coming out in these threads, information and observations that further help those who are researching the issue to put together the pieces of the puzzle. There are more names of companies that are having problems mentioned; and there are more people who are willing to talk about what is happening, particularly on an "off the record" basis. Some are posting using pseudonyms and real e-mail addresses. Others are using both pseudonyms and false e-mail addresses. A few are using their own names and valid addresses. When possible, individuals desiring first hand information may wish to contact some of these people who have frontline experience and see what they have to say. The International Energy Agency in a report issued in May of 1999 stated that they expected that problems would occur after the rollover that would not be traceable to embedded problems. There is an explanation for how that could be: When a malfunction or minor failure or set of malfunctions or failures triggers other large or small problems, it may not be possible to sort out what happened when and it may not be possible to determine what systems played the critical role in a possible series of events. Regarding the form of evidence known as "circumstantial evidence", an example can be given: If you have a doubling of the costs of pipeline explosions in the year 2000 (which was the case) and if an increase in pipeline explosions was expected and/or predicted owing to embedded control system malfunctions or failures (which also was the case), and if you have instances of explosions before or after the rollover that were linked to embedded control system or other Y2K-related problems, then one is on fairly sound ground in assuming that at least some of the pipeline explosions that occurred in the year 2000 were Y2K-related, especially in light of the fact that 1) they were predicted and/or expected, 2) those on the frontlines are reporting the causes as they know them to be, and/or 3) there are no other more plausible causal factors that have been or can be identified. If remediation efforts were known to have been faulty or incomplete or if no remediation was done, then there is added basis for linking a problem to a possible Y2K-related cause. It can take a Sherlock Holmes kind of approach to sort out this kind of evidence, and piece it together. It requires sifting through evidence from all the four different categories I have noted above. When independent reports from different sources come to light as they are now at an increasing pace, the basis for considering the strongest evidence, including the strongest circumstantial evidence becomes all the more compelling. The Sherlock Holmes mode of inquiry is one that few people take to naturally and which few people are trained in. Add to this the technical complexity of Y2K-related embedded control system problems and there are bound to be very few people who recognize or know about the growing body of hard evidence as well as the growing body of compelling circumstantial evidence that both now exist. I hope these comments might be helpful to others trying to put together the pieces of the puzzle. Paula Gordon __________________________________________________ Thre ad 2 (A thread from GICC providing references to Y2K-related and suspected problems) Y2K Bug: The Year 2000 in review http://hv.greenspun.com/bboard/q-an...l? msg_id=004J6U The most under reported story in the year 2000 is the effect of the Y2K bug on systems in this country and around the world. Thanks to GICC and its many posters for providing information that would only be found in local papers. There were a lot of stories that had solid Y2K relationships and maybe 20 times that many that were only in the probable or possible category. Here is a partial list of stories that can be stated to be in the solid category from the last half of this year. OK - Computer problems halt funds Factory Shutdown blamed on Y2K bug Hershey Foods Corp. Seeks New CEO OR: Portland billing glitch flows downhill OH: City resumes water shut-off notices WI: Schools plan to drop Ameritech TX: County comtemplates lawsuit over computers OH - $5,000 Y2K glitch hits timeclock MO: Thousands of Jackson County property tax statements incorrect CEO: SAP Installation Caused Problems MI: Computer woes a glitch NV: DMV to get more armed guards Fl: City may ditch Munis software GA - City's technology head resigns OK: Low Funds Caused By Computer Glitches Ohio: Agencies' Y2K haste makes waste WA - Audit finds errors cost sheriff's office $170k in lost grants Sante Fe: PNM blamed for water-billing errors And these are widespread problems with police departments not being able to arrest someone based on their computer read-out. Michigan Cops confounded by computer glitches WA: Computer's flaws stymie police And this from the State University of New York. SUNY blames Y2K for release of student loan files And this tax problem in Spokane The deadline looms And this from Australia AU: INCIS Doomed To Failure And in September . . . Harvard University [Mass]: Y2K upgrade problems NJ: Computer Glitch Forces Nursing Home To File For Chapter 11 Bankruptcy and in August . . . NV - Computer Glitches Hold Up Child-Welfare Checks Spokane: Y2K problem: Health district failed to collect $190,000 Clay County in danger of flunking audit E.Goshen Twnshp, PA y2k billing error and in July . . . Glitch delays property tax bills People Soft upgrade alleviates U. Minnesota problems That Y2K Bug Ain't Dead Yet These are recent posts in the Y2K discussion group NM: Medical Lab Recovering From Rough Start Alberta: U of A promises to find answers for computer woes CO: Fiscal fix has big costs for city N.Y. Court Rules Against Xerox on Y2K Insurance Coverage These stories are in the probable category. MI: State cancels contract to expand child support computer system AK: UAMS chief cites progress on billing, collection problems AU: Big jump in power industry complaints AZ: St. Joe's offers workers buyouts Alaska Airlines maintenance software failure The big story of this month is that the Alaska Airline jet that went down in January of 2000 was due to have its horizontal stabilizer replaced in December of 1999. The new maintenance software installed failed to notify the maintenance workers of the need to change the part until 3 days after the crash. The FAA has been checking the maintenance software of all the airlines to make sure that the problem isn't widespread. Here is the possible Y2K connection to planes falling out of the sky, trains derailing and other disasters that are caused by parts that had not been changed expediently. Here is a link to some graphs on nuclear SCRAMs and refinery capacity. The oil graphs were done by L. Cassels Hunter. Nuclear power SCRAMs graph and Oil capacity graph -- spider (spider0@usa.net), December 28, 2000 Answers And here are some businesses that had Y2K problems Whirlpool to Cut Up to 6,300 Jobs Beverly Enterprises posts net loss in quarter Owens Corning Files for Bankruptcy Protection Owens Corning has commenced a Declaratory Judgment action against Factory Mutual Insurance Co. and six other carriers in Delaware Superior Court (Approx. March 17), seeking coverage for Y2K remediation costs under two all-risks policies. The amount sought is unknown but quarterly statements from Owens Corning suggests that it spent some $160 million in Y2K remediation between 1995 and 1999. INSURANCE COVERAGE DISPUTES ConnectiCare, Inc. England: Y2K to blame for Compel profit slump Informix relates Y2K troubles Hartco Corporation Reports Hershey Foods Licks Computer Woes TransNet Reports Whirlpool whipped by Prudential Programmer's Paradise, Inc. Reports ILOG Reports AZ: 'Trib' circulation drops from Y2K billing delays -- spider (spider0@usa.net), December 28, 2000. -------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------ Nuclear Power Sector: for the archives http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-a...l? msg_id=003Vyr Energy Sector - for the archives http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-a...l? msg_id=003VxC Energy Sector postings - for the archives http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-a...l? msg_id=003Vyf Brazil Oil Spill: for the archives http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-a...l? msg_id=003VzX Railway incidents - for the archives http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-a...l? msg_id=003Vzi Australian aviation fuel problem - for the archives http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-a...l? msg_id=003Vzp Y2K Malfunctions in Nuke Plants - for the archives http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-a...l? msg_id=003W00 Explosions and Fires Summary - for the archives http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-a...l? msg_id=003W0O Venezuelan and other energy sector problems - for the archives http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-a...l? msg_id=003W04 Energy Sector concerns - for the archives http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-a...l? msg_id=003W0K Insurance and legal concerns - for the archives http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-a...l? msg_id=003W09 Plant and pipeline explosions - for the archives http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-a...l? msg_id=003W0A Airplane related concerns - for the archives http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-a...l? msg_id=003W0G International glitches - for the archives http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-a...l? msg_id=003W0Z Senate Y2K Committee Report 2/29/2000 for the archives http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-a...l? msg_id=003W2r Oil accidents and problems - for the archives http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-a...l? msg_id=003W2v Refinery problems contributing to spike in fuel prices - for the archives http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-a...l? msg_id=003W3H Oil sector and railroad derailments - for the archives http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-a...l? msg_id=003W35 Pipeline breaks - for the archives http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-a...l? msg_id=003W8b Oil Refinery Concerns - for the archives http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-a...l? msg_id=003Vze Airline Sector Postings for the archives http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-a...l? msg_id=003VzL Manhole cover explosions - for the archives http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-a...l? msg_id=003W9L Energy sector items - for the archives http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-a...l? msg_id=003W9U Miscellaneous sources of information re Y2K - for the archives http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-a...l? msg_id=003W9N -- Paula Gordon (pgordon@erols.com), December 28, 2000. ________________________________________________ Thread 2 http://hv.greenspun.com/bboard/q-an...l? msg_id=004WFo More on 1-1-2001 Norwegian train failure (Computer Risks listserv) greenspun.com : LUSENET : Grassroots Information Coordination Center (GICC) : One Thread Source: RISKS DIGEST 21.21, 25 January 2001 [see source info at end of this post] Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 05:38:49 +0100 From: Espen Andersen Subject: Re: 54 weeks in a year? (RISKS-21.18) The discussion of the Norwegian State Railway (NSB) troubles with the 2000/2001 transition focuses on fairly advanced causes, such as the 54-week situation. The discussants (including our esteemed moderator) seem by this to believe that the NSB is a competent and responsible organization. As recent events (such as a horrible rail accident with 19 dead where it turned out the railroad had a number of Single Point of Failure situations, or the fact that the new high- speed "Signature" trains had been built with axles that cannot tolerate high speeds and turns at the same time) has shown, this organization has completely lost the public's confidence (as witnessed by the recent, forced departure of its CEO), as has its locomotive supplier ADTranz. My hypothesis is that the 2000/2001 bug was a regular millennium bug, found in 1999. The problem was then "fixed" by turning the clock back one year to buy time, and promptly forgotten. Now NSB and ADTranz has turned back the clock back once again. This time, with the newspaper and RISKS interest, they are unlikely to forget. Espen Andersen , Norwegian School of Management (www.bi.no) +47 6755 7177 European Research Dir., The Concours Group www.concoursgroup.com ---------------------- -------- Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 08:35:48 +0200 From: "Bob Dubery" Subject: Re: 54 weeks in a year? Standards are great - but it's RISKy to assume that they are being adhered to just because they're published and sensible. I led a y2k remediation project in 1999. I saw the source code for literally thousands of programs. Some code anticipated a leap year, but never exactly to the standards (IE the code would have accepted 1900 as a leap year). Very seldom were date and time presented in any kind of standard format. I'm willing to bet that if I asked all the programmers at my office what ISO and RFCs are not all of them would know about ISO, and less than half would have heard of RFCs - and nearly all of them wouldn't see the point. This sounds disparaging, I know. I'm a programmer myself, so I do know whereof I speak. I never worked for an employer that stipulated adherence to any ISO standard. I have dealt with 3 "Web design houses" who had no knowledge of RFCs. If standards had been adhered to then why did we have a Y2k problem? And why do we know have systems unable to roll into 2001? ------------------------------ Date: 26 Dec 2000 (LAST-MODIFIED) From: RISKS-request@csl.sri.com Subject: Abridged info on RISKS (comp.risks) ... -- Andre Weltman (aweltman@state.pa.us), January 31, 2001 End of GICC thread _________________________________________________ Thread 3 Manhole cover explosions http://www.timebomb2000.com/cgi- bin...ic&f=1&t=002279 _________________________________________________ Thread 4 Health: Could Drug Shortages Be Related to Y2K-Related Problems? This thread includes a very long list of URLs pertaining primarily to drug shortages. A general statement on the topic of drug shortages can be found on a recent thread on GICC now in the archives under "Health": "Y2K- related problems and the pharmaceutical industry? More predicted coincidences?" http://hv.greenspun.com/bboard/q-an...l? msg_id=004v14 _________________________________________________ Thread 5 Pipeline Accident Summary http://hv.greenspun.com/bboard/q-an...l? msg_id=004A7u __________________________________________________ Thread 6 Water Main Breaks & an Oil Spill Disaster: Role of Computer Glitches http://hv.greenspun.com/bboard/q-an...l? msg_id=005dns __________________________________________________ Thread 7 More Thoughts on Ongoing Y2K Issues http://hv.greenspun.com/bboard/q-an...l? msg_id=0057ji __________________________________________________ Thread 8 List of embedded problems at Y2K roll-over http://hv.greenspun.com/bboard/q-an...l? msg_id=004YKr (Request password from spider@freeze.com ) 2000/01/01 The clocks for the Automated Radar Terminal System and other clocks for security and access stopped. http://hv.greenspun.com/bboard/q-an...l? msg_id=002BT7 From www.healthcare.ecri.org reported on 2000/01/01 Embedded chips that failed on rollover BAS-2000 building automation system TP 1030 cardiotocograph Cardio Life TEC 71 defibrillator WWA laboratory information system Delta patient admission system Sirecust 455-1 data management system Aerodydne Ultratherm humidifier Midas 2100 Explorer Mobile X-ray Unit CPC perfusion controller FM6 fetal monitor Passport ELXG patient monitor Omni 9 blood gas analyzer ST Guard computer ECG Trend Monitor SLi Linier Accelerator Bactlert blood culture incubator detector AK100 and AK200 hemodialysis units Sterilog printer autoclave printer -- spider (spider0@usa.net), February 05, 2001 _________________________________________________ Other Sources of Information The President's Council issued their final report in June of 2000. It is available at http://www.y2k.gov/docs/LASTREP3.htm A GICC Thread on the President's Council's Report Y2K Final Report is at http://hv.greenspun.com/bboard/q-an...l? msg_id=002tqR The Final Senate Y2K Committee report is dated February 29, 2000. (Pages 37-49 contain a list of Y2K glitches.) For the report itself, see: http://www.senate.gov/~y2k/documents/final.pdf A thread on the Senate Committee's Report can be found at the following GICC URL: [url]http://hv.greenspun.com/bboard/q-an...l? msg_id=003W2r[/url] There is also a statement in the Senate report to the effect that the causes of Y2K-related problems may not be reported and the extent of the problems may never be known for sure. IY2KCC final report posted http://hv.greenspun.com/bboard/q-an...l? msg_id=002cxk A GICC thread concerning the IY2KCC's final report is at http://hv.greenspun.com/bboard/q-an...l? msg_id=002cxk . The September 2000 GAO report is available at www.gao.gov/daybook/000925.htm . GAO limited the primary focus of their report to IT system remediation efforts within Federal government agencies with very little attention to complex integrated systems or government regulatory and other responsibilities that extend to the private sector. (See threads on the September 2000 GAO Report) http://hv.greenspun.com/bboard/q-an...l? msg_id=003rxv and at http://pub5.ezboard.com/fyourdontim...cID=11806.topic ) May 2001 State Department Report: "Year 2000 Lessons Learned: Strategies for Successful Global Project Management" Office of the Inspector General, U.S. State Department, Report No. 1-IT-008 http://oig.state.gov/pdf/y2klessons.pdf (For a thread on State Dept May 2001 Report: Year 2000 Lessons Learned, see http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...25548#post25548 ) Glitch Central http://www.ciaosystems.com/GlitchCentralGuts.htm January 24 -25, 2000 Conference in Livermore, California sponsored by Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (http://cgsr.llnl.gov Click on January 24 - 25, 2000 Conference on Y2K, then click on Agenda) See especially presentations by Olivia Bosch, Rosanne Hynes, and others. The references in the January 17 Comments and Rating piece at http://www.gwu.edu/~y2k/keypeople/gordon. The Grassroots Information Coordination Center (GICC) Archives: http://hv.greenspun.com/bboard/q-an...er%20%28GICC% 29 Categories of archived material include the following as of August 2001 Administrative/Sysop (49) Aerospace, Satelites (90) Agriculture (47) Air Transportation (913) Aircraft Incidents (173) Business and the Economy (873) Business: Banking (23) Business: Stock Exchanges (253) California Energy Crisis (889) Chemical/Radiation (81) Computer Glitches (128) Computers (542) Cyberwarfare (41) Drought (118) Earthquakes (16) Education/Kids (88) Electric Power (866) Energy Crisis (2435) Energy Crisis-Electric (383) Energy Crisis- Natural Gas (115) Energy Crisis-Propane (13) Energy crisis-Oil (120) Energy- Alternative (15) Environment (263) Feb 29/Leap Year (58) Fires and Explosions (274) Food Supply (119) Gas and Oil (334) Gas and Oil Pipelines (97) Global Financial Crisis (194) Global Warming (21) Government - Congressional Activities (19) Government - Federal (179) Government - International/Nation States (173) Government - Local (176) Government - State (141) Government Services (77) Hackers & Computer Deviance (436) Health Care (112) Health: care delivery/hospital/pharmacy (56) Health: public health alerts (126) Humor (13) International (288) Internet (216) Land Transportation (335) Lay offs (118) Legal (35) Media Coverage (29) Middle East (42) Military (131) Miscellaneous (305) Nuclear Power (302) Public Safety (108) Refineries (143) Reflecting on Y2K (142) Solar activity (33) Supply-Chain (15) Telecommunications (298) Terrorist activity (20) Water and Sewage (383) Weather (94) World trade (14) World water crisis (122) Y2K Overview (86) Uncategorized The Institution of Electrical Engineers: The Millennium Problem in Embedded Systems Dates Potentially Causing Problems in Computer Systems (from today to 2100) Published 2nd April 2001 at http://www.iee.org.uk/PAB/SCS/problemdates.htm Y2K Discussion Group: http://hv.greenspun.com/bboard/q-an...cussion% 20group A password is needed. Request password by e-mailing: spider@freeze.com Also see www.gwu.edu/~y2k/keypeople/gordon for additional material and references on Y2K including ~ "John Koskinen's Responses to Questions from Paula Gordon Concerning National and Global Aspects of Y2K" March 22, 2000. See www.gwu.edu/~y2k/keypeopl...n/Q&A.html ~ "1/30/2001 Summary of an Engineer's Observations Regarding the Status of Ongoing Y2K-Related Embedded Systems and Complex Integrated Systems "Problems" is also posted at www.gwu.edu/%7Ey2k/keypeo...ngObs.html Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged 08-03-2001 12:12 AM

-- Anonymous, August 08, 2001

---

< /TBODY> bigwavedave Crusty veteran Registered: May 2001 Location: southern california on the beach Posts: 641 well, i for one feel buried. and you, Flint? __________________ Have you killed a tyrant today? Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged 08-03-2001 03:24 AM < IMG alt="Find more posts by bigwavedave" src="images/find.gif" border=0>

< /TBODY> well, i for one feel buried. and you, Flint? __________________ Have you killed a tyrant today? Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged 08-03-2001 03:24 AM < IMG alt="Find more posts by bigwavedave" src="images/find.gif" border=0>

< /TBODY> cory Member Registered: Jun 2001 Location: DeeCee Posts: 5 Paula, Flint, Crusty, you're talking past each other. Don't know if this formatting will be readable. But think hard about this scale. 0 No real impact 1 Local impact for some enterprises 2 Significant impact for many enterprises 3 Significant market adjustment (20%+ drop); some bankruptcies 4 Economic slowdown; rise in unemployment; isolated social incidents 5 Mild recession; isolated supply/infrastructure problems; runs on banks 6 Strong recession; local social disruptions; many bankruptcies 7 Political crises; regional supply/infrastructure problems, disruptions 8 Depression; infrastructure crippled; markets collapse; local martial law 9 Supply/infrastructure collapse; widespread disruptions, martial law 10 Collapse of US government; possible famine You could say that there was "no real impact". That's good logic and theological discussion. If you look at the result, mull over possible causes, a different picture emerges. Using the scale, the economy is in a 5, 6, or 7 and tipping into an 8. Since the DJIA peak on January 14 2000 (or you could use the NASDAQ peak on March 10, 2000), we've seen massive losses in annuities, stock 401(k) plans, jobs, corporate revenues, company failures, etc. Why did that happen. Why did a few Y2K aware cash out in the Fall of 1999, less than two months before the DJIA turned. Could be a coincidence, doesn't matter much. That's the past, the question is, what happens next. We're still trending down in spite of Greenspans best efforts to juice the interest rates. What's your opinion? What happens next? __________________ cory Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged 08-03-2001 11:07 AM

< /TBODY> Troke Senior Member Registered: Jun 2001 Location: Posts: 484 1. The stock market crash and the faltering economy was caused by Y2K 2. The 'disappearance' of the energy problem and the drop in gas prices was caused by the Dems taking over the Senate and announcing they were going to 'investigate' the energy industry. 3. Computer chips always work as planned. 4. I got a bridge for sale in Brooklyn. It will really enhance your cash flow. Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged 08-03-2001 12:30 PM

< /TBODY> bigwavedave Crusty veteran Registered: May 2001 Location: southern california on the beach Posts: 641 well, cory, i'd say first off that the scale leaves much to be desired. it is an omelette of apples, oranges and rusty hubcaps. even you have acknowleged this by giving our current situation a range somewhere between and 5 and an 8. yes, predictions were made and sure enough, some of them turn out to not be far off (present company excepted, of course ). what will happen next? more bad stuff mixed in with more good stuff. it's not as though we haven't had business cycles before digital technology. nothing is going on that a little kick in the pants (say, a world war) wouldn't solve. population reduction followed by rebuilding provides lots of new opportunities. more precisley, i think the market still has a ways to go down before plateauing, then possibly, slowly rising again. the optimism of the 90's with it's subsequent depressing reality (debt), hasn't quite sunk in yet. i predict some retrenchment in consumer spending to reduce their debt. over time, we'll discover just what products and services we really do need. the ones we don't need will cause companies to fail, causing unemployment (maybe global). that could last a while (i hope it gets resolved before i go on SS ). then something bad will happen. __________________ Have you killed a tyrant today? Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged 08-03-2001 04:02 PM < IMG alt="Find more posts by bigwavedave" src="images/find.gif" border=0>

< /TBODY> Flint Senior Member Registered: May 2001 Location: Posts: 407 Cory: I'll reply to you first, since you seem to epitomize some of the confusion Paula is sowing here. We desperately need to distinguish between the general economic phenomenon of business cycles (which we have *always* experienced), and the specific problem of computer software mishandling dates. Yes, we are currently on the downslope of a periodic business cycle. Fortunately, there was NO IMPACT from any computer software mishandling dates. That turned out (thankfully!) to be a totally false alarm. Second, we need to understand that the world doesn't run smoothly -- something is *always* going wrong. Pick up a daily newspaper from any day during your entire lifetime, and start reading. *Because* things are always going wrong, it has always been important to diagnose what the cause really is, so that we can attempt to prevent such causes in the future. Diagnosed causes are not in general kept secret. Yes, specific businesses don't like admitting stupid mistakes, because lawyers lurk like disease, ready to infect any weakness. But the general causes are well known. The tenor of your level 5-8 descriptions is misleading. The intention of that list was to describe responses to clear and present computer failures, which in turn were rendering those employing the computers largely inoperative. The intention of your list was NOT to describe a normal business cycle downturn. As for why business cycles happen, I think people tend to overreact, and this leads to a positive feedback effect -- if people think things will be great, they overspend and overinvest and we way overshoot any sustainable market level. Then we see that we're not sustaining it, we get worried and STOP investing and spending, and we way *undershoot*. This is market psychology. This is NOT date bugs in computer software. What happens next? Eventually the business cycle runs its course and we head back up. It could be this year, it could be in 10 years. Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged 08-03-2001 04:47 PM

< /TBODY> Flint Senior Member Registered: May 2001 Location: Posts: 407 Paula: What a wonderfully exhaustive testimony and illustration that you have no idea what you're talking about. Rather than get sidetracked right off the bat, let's deal with some of your false assumptions. [What constitutes evidence of Y2K-related embedded control system problems for one person, however, does not constitute evidence for another.] Fundamental bullshit. Evidence of y2k-related embedded control system problems consists of coding errors. The code was written by people, not by magic. The source exists, and people capable of understanding that source exist as well. What someone who is competent to do so does, is to examine the code and find an error handling dates due to improper truncation of the year representation. Period. NO OTHER KIND OF "EVIDENCE" MATTERS!!!! [Some of the kinds of evidence include: 1) Documented failures of specific kinds of systems or system modules.] Fundamental bullshit! "Specific kinds of systems or system modules" fail all the time, for a wide variety of reasons. What we do is examine the failure, track down the reason, and correct it. We do not *DEDUCE* a "preferred" cause, we DETERMINE the cause by direct examination. Doh! [2) Failures known to people working on embedded control systems that have not been documented and are not likely to be documented except by those exercising whistleblowing perogatives and risking legal repercussions and/or loss of their livelihood.] Fundamental bullshit. Basically, what you are alleging here is that, unique in the computer world, date bugs are being *universally* kept a deep dark secret. That anyone who breathes a word about the "real" cause of failure will be blacklisted at the very least, if not silenced permanently. Now, this sort of implication might appeal to those of the hopeless paranoid persuasion as a possible explanation for the utter lack of actual evidence, but to sane people this just doesn't cut it. Sane people are more persuaded by the utter lack of evidence. Dig? [3) Documented problems that were predicted in unremediated systems or system modules.] This is simple incompetence at best, stupidity at worst. You are working backwards here unnecessarily. PLEASE read my analogy about death-by-meteor. PLEASE read about the logical fallacy of predicting that EVERYTHING will fail (knowing things always fail), and then cherry-picking any failures you can find, of any nature, as "proof" of a prediction! But I'll try once more. I can claim only indetectable fairies make the flowers bloom, and then use the blooms as "proof" of the fairies! Nobody can ever prove me wrong. In your case, you can be proved wrong by anyone examining the failures themselves to determine the exact cause. This is always done. Nobody has found y2k date bugs to be the cause. Your "prediction" (which could not possibly be wrong), has turned out to be WRONG! Can't you SEE this? [There are relatively few people who are coming forward to share what they know. There are major disincentives for doing so including the fact that by doing so, one can place his or her job in jeopardy.] Sigh. Let's try another tack. First, nobody is going to come forward and attest to a nonexistent problem. Second, there is a qualitative difference between acknowledging a y2k problem, and badmouthing your employer. If I, in my investigation, had found that my employer had purchased (let's say) a Fujitsu stamping press controlled by firmware suffering a date bug, WHY would my employer punish me for making this known? And in the real world, nearly any embedded y2k problem (assuming there were any at all) would not be the responsibility of whoever suffered the consequences. Your "fear for their lives" explanation is a desperate grasp for something, *anything*, to explain the total lack of any real evidence for your fantasies. [If one regards the form of evidence mentioned in #1 as being without merit, then it seems unlikely that any of the other three kinds of evidence would be at all compelling.] Amen, sister! Remember what I said about false assumptions? If your first bark is up the wrong tree, ALL your barks will be incorrect. (However, I do notice that at least you aren't blaming the failure of the dot-com business model on y2k like some people are. Good on you!) [The Sherlock Holmes mode of inquiry is one that few people take to naturally and which few people are trained in.] Groan. Paula, y2k problems need not be "deduced". They can be examined in all their detailed glory. The y2k wolf-criers predicted *thousands* of bug-effects. Now, finding NONE despite the actual code being available to those doing any diagnosing, you fall back on dishonest statistical methods. First, you simply disregard all of the thousands of predicted problems that DID NOT happen. That's dishonest. Then, you disregard the actual, diagnosed causes of the remaining problems. That's dishonest. Finally, you get to the problems whose exact cause cannot be determined for various reasons, and claim these must be y2k problems because YOU cannot think of anything more "plausible"! Trust me, you could think of HUNDREDS of more plausible explanations if you knew what you were talking about. I don't know how to make this any plainer. You are STARTING with the conclusion that y2k caused lots of problems. Then you go about "deriving" your conclusion by using it as your ONLY working hypothesis, and finding any way you can to justify it. And lacking what SHOULD be a mountain of explicit and specific evidence if your foregone conclusion had ANY VALIDITY AT ALL, you fall back on the most transparently invalid (and functionally unnecessary) statistical tomfoolery. Your GICC stuff is incredibly irresponsible for any researcher with any integrity. I find it stunning (yet so very informative) that you rely on a web site devoted to rumors and speculations, supplied by people of an agreeably biased cast of mind. Why not consult the manufacturers themselves? Why not ask some pointed questions in the embedded systems newsgroups where actual programmers and engineers who *know* something hang out? Don't you realize that your choice of source material used (and NOT used) reflects on your methodology? Yes, there were some genuine date bugs. Some still exist and crop up every now and then. Nobody was particularly inconvenienced by any of them, none of them were in embedded systems (except at the highest level of "embedded", like servers running COBOL!). Every now and then, we have seen a "1901" date on a printed form. We live with this. Why not put your "embedded expertise" to good use? Just go find some machinery or process that has problems, analyze any code involved, and correct the offending instructions? You know, use your "knowledge" to make yourself actually useful? BWAHAHAHAHAHA! Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged 08-03-2001 04:49 PM

< /TBODY> Paula_Gordon Member Registered: Jun 2001 Location: Washington, DC Posts: 25 Cory, How nice to see your posting. My response to your question about what the future might hold is contained for the most part in what I wrote here on this thread in what I posted on 8-1-2001. I think that we are presently at a 4.5 on the version of the Y2K impact scale that you cite (the same scale that I used in my White Paper). I think that there is much unfinished business with Y2K that has yet to be concluded. As I noted above, "If those in positions of public responsibility continue to be oblivious to what is going on and fail to exercise the responsibility that they have, the current scenario could well result in a 7 impact by this time next year. Their attention to ongoing problems could play a major role in helping to minimize the extent of the impacts by at least a point or two on the impact scale." "Given the options, why not do what can be done to help people understand what is happening and to encourage actions and policies that will minimize the impacts?" "As regards what needs to be done, "The ideal would be to focus on what can be done to make a positive difference. To do that in this instance, the nature and scope of continuing problems need to be acknowledged and understood. That requires intelligence, commonsense, humanheartedness, and concern for the public good. It also requires respect for scientific and technological expertise. Policies and actions that are based on such understanding and that are designed to minimize negative impacts need to be put in place and implemented. This would involve mobilizing resources and expertise and focusing these on addressing continuing challenges, including finishing the tasks that were only partially or temporarily completed. It also includes identifying, acknowledging, and building on the most successful actions and practices of the past several years, particularly those just prior to the rollover." "The first three parts of my White Paper at http://www.gwu.edu/~y2k/keypeople/gordon addressed what needed to be done prior to the rollover. Much of what was outlined there concerning the orchestration of resources to address challenges continues to remain relevant. " If things continue along their present track, I think that there will be a continuing implementation of unpublicized or little publicized stop gap, temporary fixes along with large scale replacement of failing equipment and systems when the equipment and systems can no longer be fixed or temporarily repaired. Those in positions of public responsibility could minimize the impact by becoming informed concerning current problems and acting on the basis of that knowledge and understanding. If they understood the nature and scope of ongoing problems, they would more likely to devote needed resources and expertise to addressing these problems. They would also be more likely to recognize that efforts that should have been completed prior to the rollover, should be completed now. Ideally, they also need to enact policies that encourage and allow for the open acknowledgment of ongoing problems. They need to enact policies that are based on an understanding of the complex nature of the problems that we face. What chance is there of learning how to deal with problems of such complexity if those who know about the problems keep the information and understanding from those who need to know? What chance is there of effectively addressing continuing challenges if people who know what is going on do not feel that they can talk about the problems that they have faced and the problems that they are addressing? Ongoing efforts could, of course, continue to be done under the guise of "quality assurance" and "normal maintenance". It would seem helpful to address ongoing problems using more specific terminology, terminology that does not potentially lead to confusion concerning the nature of the problems being addressed. Wildweasel in his 8-1-2001 comments above on this thread provides considerable insight into what has gone on and what is going on on the "frontlines". In order to be effective over the long term and in order to minimize costs in the long run, it is essential that those who are responsible for dedicating resources to such efforts understand the nature and the scope of the problems that need to be addressed. It is also essential that those who have the expertise needed to address the ongoing problems be allowed to do so. There are many people who played a major role in remediation efforts and contingency planning efforts. These individuals possess valuable knowledge about what was done, what went wrong, and what more needs to be done. For a variety of reasons, many of these individuals are no longer working on ongoing challenges. Many of those who are are not free to talk about what they are doing. Cory, I hope you will write about the kinds of problems that you are aware of first hand or second hand, under a pseudonym if not under your own name. Thanks again for posting here. Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged 08-06-2001 01:00 AM

< /TBODY>

-- Anonymous, August 08, 2001 and Flint bashes ME? Too funny it is. -- Anonymous, August 09, 2001 Flint, good job. (I get the feeling that you always do such.) Doc, I am surprised at you. Don't you see that "The Reuben Delusion" and "The Gordon Delusion" are just two sides of the same coin? -- Anonymous, August 09, 2001

Two sides of what coin? I don't follow your dualistic reasoning, as simplistic as it maybe.

-- Anonymous, August 09, 2001

Hilarious how Paula totally ignores criticism and proceeds to post the same old crap again!

-- Anonymous, August 09, 2001

I would expect Paula Gordon to be just a person doing what she does as to keep the taxpayer grants coming, but I know better. Even crazy people sound and act like they are not be the lesson here.

-- Anonymous, August 09, 2001

Second lesson is Doc can't write for shit.

What I was trying to convey is many who look normal, are really as nuts as someone tied to a cot at a walnut factory. Ed Yourdon being another great example of someone appearing rational, but is most likely clinically bonkers.

-- Anonymous, August 09, 2001

. . . many who look normal, are really as nuts as someone tied to a cot at a walnut factory.

ROTFLMAO

I'm glad someone finally came out and said that about her. Someone who avoids reality so completely is fertile ground for reseach. She's the kind of person who gives entirely new dimensions of meaning to "delusional".

-- Anonymous, August 10, 2001