Example of computer glitch for pollyannas that think everything can be fixed in 3 days. Last night, I posted "Stock market bubble is not sustainable. The increase in money supply has been pumped into stocks etc." I posted a link, It did not work. I reposted it.greenspun.com : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread
The first link did not even show in the message. The second post did show the link but it would not download. I got an E mail reply in my computer to my reply to my first message and it downloaded perfectly by clicking on the blue part. Chuck posted the hot version. It did not work. He tried again. Debbie tried and plugged in part of her HTML reference template. She tried again. It finally worked on about the 6th try with all of these experienced posters. With all of these problems in an attempt to post a simple link that worked on the E mail response but nothing else for the first several tries, how can the polyannas expect everything to be fixed in 3 days with millions of lines of code to be checked and fixed with lost documentation by coders who are not familiar with the program where the revisions and interconnections will not be tested? Look at the post and the answers to see the picture. It does not look good to expect complicated remediation to be fixed if something this simple was so difficult to fix. Erratic is the term. I have also had problems retrieving "favorites" in windows 95 where another link comes up or something never seen before comes up and it is not consistent. Although these are not Y2k glitches, these types of erratic performance will further complicate efforts to fix the Y2k problems.
-- Steve (firstname.lastname@example.org), January 28, 1999
I DO get your point :) Try working with the damn things for a living :) Seriously, working in humungous data centres with multiple coupled (8) enterprise system mainframes linked to communications systems worldwide via a couple of carriers does give you a healthy respect for the possibility of breakdowns in the "chain." These mainframes are the systems that run "the motor of the world" - it will be an interesting year...
Two digits. One mechanism. The smallest mistake.
"The conveniences and comforts of humanity in general will be linked up by one mechanism, which will produce comforts and conveniences beyond human imagination. But the smallest mistake will bring the whole mechanism to a certain collapse. In this way the end of the world will be brought about."
Pir-o-Murshid Inayat Khan, 1922 (Sufi Prophet)
-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), January 28, 1999.
So let me get this straight... because a couple of fumble-thumbs can't properly use technology; this is supposed to convince the rest of the rational world that the end really is near? You give yourself far to much credit in your own mind...
and you are exactly the kind of people that little eddie yourdonefor LOVES to have around... after all; the more sheeple he gets to spread the lies, half-truths and rumors... the less work he has to do himself!
Step back for a minute and look at the big picture. Someone plops something on the internet as a fact (Ivan Mingham decides its a downward spiral that cannot be stopped) Someone else then relays that to North or Yourdonefor, or hamasaki... whoever. The sheeple then begin to circulate this amongst themselves as 'fact'; it bounces from newsgroups to forums... it travels by e-mail and 'spat-room' discussion...re-inforced by "this just in from a reliable source" (no source named) and the next thing you know... Viola! instant urban legend. (if enough people say its true then it must be...)
The problem? the original assumption is flawed! Mingham... in his own mind came up with the problem. When his own mind failed to find a solution...he deemed the problem 'unsolvable' and 'unstoppable'...IN HIS OWN MIND! No facts to back up what he says. just statements like "it doesn't matter if you believe me or not...this will happen". (and faulty math use is not "facts")
In my amused wanderings of the ether which is the 'net, I have found several who still retain logic and reason; coupled with critical thinking skills, this is a formidable weapon against fear and ignorance. Many may be found here tho they are beginning to 'get it' in the general public arena as well.
ask yourselves this question..."what is it that qualifies me to address Y2K?" Is it your ability to use a web browser? a couple of hours of 'internet research'? (or even a week or several months?) what kind of 'research'? going thru the links at garynorth.conjob? reading yourdonefor's "stinkbomb 2000"? Ivan 'infomagic' Mingham's "doomsday prophetics"? or is it just the pooled ignorance of others like yourselves that refuse to listen to anything that sounds even remotely optimistic, because it would betray your y2k "gotta convert my neighbors" religion?
ask yourself why it is O.K. for your head fear leaders to quote the gartnergroup or Bennett (or whoever) when they say the outlook is bad; but when they see the progress being made and change that to not so bad..looking better they are suddenly 'unreliable' or 'pollyanna' or 'liars'...does this make sense?!?
It goes back to...they don't want it to get better. (no profit in calm-mongering, you see)
Before you self-appointed "experts" on y2k go any further down this trail of madness, you may consider reading this post which nicely exposes the problem of 'misinterpreting the data' in light of a persons objectives. here is another.
Normally, Mutha Nachu stands by silently and watches the goings on in the world. But a few rable-rousers have taken to stirring up the stew, and are frightening innocent people. Enough is ENOUGH.
-- Mutha Nachu (---@earth.com), January 29, 1999.
Andy: I like your frequent posts of "Two digits. One mechanism. The smallest mistake. ..." Keep on keeping on.
-- vbProg (vbProg@microsoftsucks.com), January 29, 1999.
So let me get this straight - there was a computer glitch and you didn't even have to break out your MREs? How could that be? Everyone knows that we are totally dependent on computers to function perfectly at every moment or we will all die a terrible death while trying to avoid being eaten by our neighbors.
Sorry, but maybe we ARE going a little overboard here.
-- Amy (email@example.com), January 29, 1999.
I'm hungry. What are some good recipes for boiled neighbour?
-- Leo (firstname.lastname@example.org), January 29, 1999.
Mutha Natha you got it a_ _ backward. The point made was that if the knowledgable people can not get it right without several attempts on a simple posting problem, how can we expect relatively untrained programmers to not make errors when they are trying to fix complex codes on mainframes and there will be NO EFFECTIVE TESTING to see if the numerous changes made will work? DUH DUH DUH Some programmers are from India and other cheap labor places and may not understand the systems and it is difficult to communicate with them because they are sleeping when we are awake and visa versa. Did you notice that the post worked on the e mail back and not on later attempts? Did you wonder why? It looks like you decided a conclusion without understanding the comments. You need to understand addition before you can understand complex systems. It was not fumble fingers. Look at the posts. Could you make it work if it is so simple? Ha Ha.
-- Can read English (Reader@notdumb.com), January 29, 1999.
Dear "It was not fumble fingers. Look at the posts. Could you make it work if it is so simple? Ha Ha.";
So simple you made my eyes water, I laughed so hard!
LOL! OH AH ha ha hah hah!
It's a href=...NOT a href+
and you can't leave out the "//"; you must close all tags, or they run into the next one...blah, blah, blah...
If you had bothered to look at the doc source you would have seen the mistakes, and admitted to yourself "whoops...guess I messed up". We all make mistakes and I don't think anyone should jump down somebodies throat because of a typing error (or spelling errors). You on the other hand, jumped right to the conclusion of "see how complicated..." and started calling 'pollyanna' and tried to shore up your sorry belief that this Y2K thing is unfixable...
You provided a much better example than I had hoped, of how this thing gets so out of hand, so quickly. "knowledgable people" indeed...
you also said: "Did you notice that the post worked on the e mail back and not on later attempts? Did you wonder why?"
No...I didn't. I don't subscribe to this forum. I have an IGNORANCE filter that would delete 90% of the posts here. Not worth my time.
So... your advice of "looks like you decided a conclusion without understanding the comments." should be heeded first by...yourself!
-- Mutha Nachu (---@sky.com), January 30, 1999.
You are an arrogant sob aren't you - 90% indeed are not up to your standards. Ptuhhh!!
Avast to other fora and do not let us contaminate you any further.
-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), January 30, 1999.
If you were Mutha Nachu, wouldn't you be arrogant as well? LOL!
I will indeed take my leave of this thread...after you answer a simple yes or no question.
Do you believe Steve's (email@example.com) extrapolation was warranted? (his comparison of fumble-thumb typing errors as a 'proof' that remediated code is unfixable)
Maroon is nice. so is Blue. What do you think of...pink?
personally, I think the kiddies here should stick to 'cut-n-paste' and let the big people worry about html...
Wouldn't you agree?
-- Mutha Nachu (---@clouds.com), January 30, 1999.
Now bugger off.
-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), January 30, 1999.