I Used To Think......(from a former Doomer)

greenspun.com : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread

I used to think that the internet was the domain of both good, solid-thinking people, and loony wackos. I still do. (Not just as it regards Y2k.)

I used to think that Y2k was going to be a huge problem, worthy of the greatest degree of fear. I came to forums such as this one, and marvelled at the level of intelligence and expertise exhibited by those who expounded upon the problem. Preparations were on my mind all the day.

I used to think that intelligent people would/could change their opinions about important issues, when confronted by overwhelming evidence that a problem was not as frightening as previously supposed, in order to keep up with current realities. I guess Y2k changed all that, for some unknown reason. Y2k has made otherwise reasonable people stubborn in the defense of indefensible positions.

I used to think that the wacko fringe element of American society was just that, wacko, and on the fringe. Unfortunately, Y2k, and the immediate availability of the internet, as well as the lack of the requirement of prior 'peer editorial review' on the internet has made these types of people much more front-and-center in their attempts to influence the public consciousness.

I used to think that Gary North was a sincere, though misguided, person with whose opinions I simply did not agree; I thought this even when I was a Doomer. Further research has convinced me beyond any shadow of any doubt that Gary North is a totally contemptible person who wants nothing less that a totalitarian world that would make Adolph Hitler grin, where only one way of thinking would be tolerated, and everything else would be punishable by stoning. North is trying to bring on his vision of the world by trying to fan the fires of public panic over Y2k; just the latest in his attempts at bringing on the end of our free world, and the beginning of his nightmare, by his fanatical preaching. Yet North calls himself a Christian. So did Jim Jones in Guyana; so did David Koresh in Waco. (I haven't read anything in the Gospels about the virtues of poison Kool-Aid, or the stocking of firearms and explosives in violation of the law. Or about the virtues of creating millenarian panic in a self-interested campaign.) I hope Mr. North repents of his ways, lest he suffers the judgment his supposed leader Jesus mentioned in Matthew 7:21-23.

I used to think that the majority of Y2k-aware people wanted good, smooth, trouble-free living. These days, I wonder. When I was a Doomer, I certainly hoped that the coming disaster I thought I saw coming wouldn't come to pass (a sentiment that I've seen many Doomers express on this forum as well, granted). However, due to what I consider to be good, hard, incontrovertible evidence, I revised my doomview down from an 8.0 to a 5.0, then to my present 3.5 - 4.0. Why haven't so many of the Doomer community done the same? Don't they have the same info I have? Of course they do. It just leads me to believe that some don't really want things to be good, smooth, and trouble-free -- ` la Gary North. Subversive agendas at work? Personality problems? What?

I used to think that seemingly intelligent people could see and assimilate a wide spectrum of opinions in any intellectual debate. But that idea has been dashed all to pieces by what I've seen in this Y2k "Polly-Doomer" conflict. From what I read, most Doomers seem to think that there are only two possible outcomes to this Y2k event: TEOTWAWKI, or a non-event. Evidently, many of the Pollys seem to share this view. What I'd like to say is that there are many people who are acutely Y2k-aware, who are NEITHER POLLYS NOR DOOMERS. I include myself in that number. I don't see TEOTWAWKI happening, nor do I see a non-event. What in the wide wide world of sports makes so many people think that it has to be only the one way or the other, only black or white? Haven't any of you ever heard of the concept of "gray"? Any one who has eyeballs that function knows that in any black-and-white continuum, the vast majority of shades visible are shades of gray; not only black and white (as in...DUH). So it is with Y2k (uh...as in...DUH). If we view the picture in color (which the world is, isn't it), then the possible outcomes become even more varied. Enough with this "all-or-nothing" stuff. That's nothing more nor less than totally silly stupidity, and an exercise in the "blinders-on" viewpoint.

I used to think that all of the 'experts' in the Y2k arena had legitimate, honest interests in the subject. But live and learn. Besides the aforementioned intellectual/moral harlot North, we have Yourdon, Infomagic, Hamasaki, "Dear Karen", Hyatt, the family of Y2KNewsWire and Y2KSupply....the list goes on and on. People with an agenda, who have something to sell, whose interest in Y2k goes beyond an honest interest in helping people; those who see how this thing can benefit them, and elevate them to better political/economic/business standing (they hope). That, to my way of thinking, is beyond reprehensible. (Besides, I think I have news for them: when people see through what they're doing, (and they will)(/I); it'll be the fat lady singing, where their careers are concerned. Burger-flipping will be the order of the day, not creating panic and profiting from artificially-induced hysteria.)

I'm not trying to make a living off of Y2k. I do an honest job right here in my hometown, providing services to people who need what I advertise. I don't overcharge. I don't try to create a panic to drum up business. I receive no money from any government agency (though certainly I pay to one in particular! as do we all) I'm not a shill for anyone. Nobody tells me what to do or think (not even my mother, though she tries). I'm just interested in the truth. And I'm getting fed up with this big passel of lies that's being offered up every day on many of these Y2k forums, by people who know better.

I used to think I'd take such stuff sitting down; 'let somebody else worry about it'. I don't think that way any more.



-- Chicken Little (panic@forthebirds.net), May 02, 1999

Answers

thought I cut the italics off, sorry

-- Chicken Little (panic@forthe birds.net), May 02, 1999.

Chicken,

"NEITHER POLLYS NOR DOOMERS. I include myself in that number"

Me too! For the purpose of this forum, however, being "middle of the road" doesn't make for exciting debates. We get down to the nitty-gritty when we at least take into consideration the more extreme viewpoints. It's kinda like testing the waters - why some of the trollers hang out here. Even though they say they hate us, they are really searching for answers. Take care, my moderate friend.

-- @ (@@@.@), May 02, 1999.


Is this the same Chicken Little that came out with these classic statements regarding his "real busy" computer work days and knowledge of interconnectivity. Read on dear readers...

"Ninety-nine and a half just won't do" greenspun.com : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------

I recalled today the old Wilson Picket hit from my youth, "Ninety- nine and a half just won't do".

From a technology standpoint, that's the gist of the debate, isn't it?

Stephen, CET, states strongly, "They're fixing it." I agree. Considering the late start everyone got, I think that American companies will do extraordinarily well before the January 1 deadline.

But the pessimists are saying, "There will be trouble unless 100% of the companies are 100% compliant."

We know that's not going to happen. So it seems to me that the debate is about the benefit of near compliance.

The pessimists, stating that this problem is unique in history, refer not only to the issue of what needs to be done, but also to the suggested requirement of near perfection.

This is all related to computers.

Much of the discussion on this forum the past few weeks has been not about computers but about the likelihood of a breakdown of society in a given situation. Thus, discussion here of the threat of nuclear war (or high school student unrest) is relevant to the likelihood of societal breakdown even if not relevant to repairing computer code.

Of course, one aspect of the threat of nuclear war is the fear that the nukes will be thrown by soon to be non-compliant Russia and China.

Anyway, I've written this because I invite one and all to disagree with my hypothesis.

-- GA Russell (garussell@russellga.com), May 02, 1999

Answers

What hypothesis ?

-- Yan (no@no.no), May 02, 1999.

---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------

I am a 21 year software developer with a couple of years of experienc (delphi,oracle,webstuff,etc) under my belt. Its been my experience so far that even the smallest problems tend to have a cascading effect. So betting on the side of caution I am preparing for TEOTAWKI. I have faith in 'human nature', faith that most people are fucking crazy (pardon the tech. speek). I have noticed how short tempered, or more accurately, insane people have been behaving lately. Most Americans aren't aware of anything going on outside of their little universe, like the fact that our government is becoming the 4th Reich, or All of are national secrets were sold at at a Clnton adminsitration yard sale to the whole world, or the fact that companies like GE, american express, citibank, yada yada, are farming out their y2k remedation to India(you know the country firing off nuclear weapons with the technology they stole from the US while their government is collapsing amidst the discussions of a Russian/China/India alliance. How can anyone be surprised at the ignorance of the american population. I know I am ready. Fuck the stupid people!

-- jp (always@lurking.com), May 02, 1999.

---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------

Yan,

Your perspicacity, as always, continues to elude me. Keep trying.

Greenspan said, about Banking, that 99% isn't good enough, it has to be 100%. Transactions need to be foolproof, they need to be accurate and trustworthy.

Computers, in GENERAL, have to be accurate and trustworthy, as they ARE today (by and large).

In 7 months they will NOT WORK PROPERLY. All evidence points to this simple, but elusive (Yan?) fact.

Many banks worldwide will not cut it. Therefore the Banking System by default will not either. There WILL be a cascading effect of unintended consequences hitting humanity in ways not yet even thought of.

The situation in other areas of commerce is possibly not so severe - 100% may not, in most cases, be crucial for survival. But it certainly must be CLOSE to 100% - there is very very little carrying capacity in our JIT (tery) times.

I wrote an online article a while ago in the WRP about there being actually LESS than 180 working days to go to put all these code fixes into place. Look it up. However the fact is that we are now in May, Mayday actually which is quite appropriate, with SUBSTANTIALLY less that 180 working days to go.

This is the bottom line - the US Government knew some time ago what was going to happen on rollover - their policy now is of total abdication of responsibility to the US people regarding contingency planning and emergency preparedness. This is a fact for anyone to see. Perhaps it was the best decision (not my view at all), 280 million souls cannot be mollycoddled by the behemoth that controls our lives now.

Bottom bottom line - it's all up to YOU - take responsibility for yourselves, family and so on. The next seven months will be gone in the blink of an eye and then many of YOU reading this, and thinking, Andy's lost it, will be staring calamity in the face.

But deep down Y2K Prairie Dog, Doomslayer, Poole and all the other know-nothings (for you PROVE it every day), you knew it, didn't you.

-- Andy (2000EOS@prodigy.net), May 02, 1999.

---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------

jp --

I'm glad that at 21 you know so much. I, and most of my contemporaries, are well agreed on the fact that at 21 we thought we knew everything, but actually knew very little. How you've escaped this basic fact of life that has been well known by seasoned adults over the centuries is indeed amazing.

Andy --

as is the norm, you show your usual myopia:

"Computers, in GENERAL, have to be accurate and trustworthy, as they ARE today (by and large)." What planet do you live on? Certainly not Earth. Computers are like people: sometimes they work, sometimes they don't. If they worked well all (most of) the time, I'd be out of a job. But I stay real busy, with or without Y2k. Your statement leads me to believe that you've never been in the same building with a computer.

"The US Government knew some time ago what was going to happen on rollover - their policy now is of total abdication of responsibility to the US people regarding contingency planning and emergency preparedness. This is a fact for anyone to see." -- well I don't see that at all, and I'm a part of "anyone". You're an extremist doom- fear-panic monger, that I DO see. Quite clearly. And not one who thinks too much before he posts.

"But deep down Y2K Prairie Dog, Doomslayer, Poole and all the other know-nothings...." -- so the people who don't agree with your wild- eyed Doomer prognostications are know-nothings? Well I agree with them, dude....and I dare say I'd win any intellectual duel with the likes of you, with one cerebral lobe tied behind my back....

-- Chicken Little (panic@forthebirds.net), May 02, 1999.

---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------

"Computers, in GENERAL, have to be accurate and trustworthy, as they ARE today (by and large)." What planet do you live on? Certainly not Earth. Computers are like people: sometimes they work, sometimes they don't. If they worked well all (most of) the time, I'd be out of a job. But I stay real busy, with or without Y2k. Your statement leads me to believe that you've never been in the same building with a computer.

******* Hey, Johnny jerkoff. Read my statement CAREFULLY, as I knew you boneheads would come out of the woodwork to NIT PICK - I think you're too dumb to see the point I'm making. No, I KNOW you're too dumb to see the point...*******

"The US Government knew some time ago what was going to happen on rollover - their policy now is of total abdication of responsibility to the US people regarding contingency planning and emergency preparedness. This is a fact for anyone to see." -- well I don't see that at all, and I'm a part of "anyone". You're an extremist doom- fear-panic monger, that I DO see. Quite clearly. And not one who thinks too much before he posts.

******* The above statement about the US Government is spot on knuckle brain. Why is it that the UK and Canadian Governments are handling the situation TOTALLY differently to Uncle Sam? YOU'RE the idiot who either isn't thinking or too dumb to work things out for yourself. *******

"But deep down Y2K Prairie Dog, Doomslayer, Poole and all the other know-nothings...." -- so the people who don't agree with your wild- eyed Doomer prognostications are know-nothings? Well I agree with them, dude....and I dare say I'd win any intellectual duel with the likes of you, with one cerebral lobe tied behind my back....

-- Chicken Little (panic@forthebirds.net), May 02, 1999.

******* You've proved my point, you're handle says a lot about you. Gloves are off pal, you couldn't see your own reflection in a mirror. *******

-- Andy (2000EOS@prodigy.net), May 02, 1999.

---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------

CL,

Your assertion regarding the reliability of computers is not quite correct. The computer is an extremely reliable device. So reliable that it is used for missile guidance, eye surgery, and various forms of real-time process control. Once the hardware and software are thoroughly debugged, error rates drop to near zero and stay there until a component failure occurs. If this were not true, no one would bother to use such an indeterminate device, as the costs of failure in many applications would generally negate the usefulness of the device.

In fact, the worldwide computing infrastructure has been continuously fine-tuned in this manner, day in and day out, for about 5 decades now. This fine-tuning and reliability did not come about without a certain amount of cost, effort, and periodic, though manageable disruption and, in light of Y2k, it would not be entirely wise to assume its continuance will become a foregone conclusion.

-- Nathan (nospam@all.com), May 02, 1999.

---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------

Nathan,

Your two paragraphs are totally lost on young little - why? - because the moron WORKS IN COMPUTERS AND IS KEPT VERY BUSY THANK YOU VERY MUCH Y2K OR NO Y2K... :)

I wonder if his incompetence has anything to do with how busy his work days are?

I suspect a direct correlation.

-- Andy (2000EOS@prodigy.net), May 02, 1999.



-- Andy (2000EOS@prodigy.net), May 02, 1999.


Psst: Andy.

Go to the nearest WalMart. Buy a bottle of Valerian. Take according to the directions on the label.

(St. John's Wort might help, too. PassionFlower will help you sleep better at night, three.)

-- Stephen M. Poole, CET (smpoole7@bellsouth.net), May 02, 1999.


I like Andy. He's funny. He's nuts. He's amusing. Always with something to say, and usually with conspiratorial overtones.

He's paranoid.

I'm following you Andy. I'm always just around the corner...

-- I see you (andyisan@sshole.com), May 02, 1999.



what's the deal with these italics

@: point taken

Andy --

yep one and the same. What's your point?

I make no apology for anything I post. The general post for all to see has a more genial tone; but I have not much patience for Northites such as yourself, as I made perfectly clear in the general post.

As to 'being busy': extrapolate that out to everyone on the face of the earth who's busy? is that it? are you busy? if not, why not? what a lame attack. Think before posting. Replied with one lobe. You show your lack of .

Nathan: have to respectfully disagree. Computer glitches happen all the time, though we don't hear about them...sometimes we do. No need to hear about most of them, as they're a matter of everyday living. It depends on the magnitude. Of course our world runs on puters, and pretty reliably so, but not because computers run reliably all of the time. Computers run reliably MOST of the time, but when they don't? Good ol' human contingency measures, same as it'll be with Y2k.

Andy -- it'll be refreshing to hear to run your mouth about something you know about...you have details on my day-to-day job performance? Do tell....you idiot....

GA: I agree that this has become more an issue about what society will do about any possible failures, than an issue about the failures themselves. Education is key.

-- Chicken Little (panic@forthebirds.net), May 02, 1999.


Naah, Guinness is good for you.

Somebody is being disingenuous here. Is chicken in computers or advertising? Is he in government employ? Are you CET?

Chicken didn't, and doesn't get the point of my post. Neither do you. Why on earth do you constantly attack the messenger? Us "doomers" as you like to call us are not all anarchists who want the downfall of government.

The odds are heavily in favour of SERIOUS TRANSNATIONAL CHAOS.

You don't have the mental capacity to a. either grasp how this could happen, or more likely b. face up to the consequences of YOUR inaction NOW.

By all means spend you're waking hours messing about on this forum.

You're not fooling anyone poole.

-- Andy (2000EOS@prodigy.net), May 02, 1999.


And Chicken you oaf my credentials are in the archives of this forum - but hey, you don't do your research do you. 22 years in mainframes specialising in airline and banking realtime systems, contracting now, experience in several european and middle eastern countries, and as Art Bell says, coast to coast here.

-- Andy (2000EOS@prodigy.net), May 02, 1999.

Andy,

Good for you and your credentials, I suppose they make you the smartest person on earth. But one thing I just saw you do is to make all kinds of assumptions about me, and what I do. With no way in the universe to verify what you were saying.

A person can have credentials higher than the Himalayas, but that doesn't translate into common sense -- you're a prime example.

And common sense is a prime need in this Y2k event, methinks...you seem woefully unprepared.

-- Chicken Little (panic@forthebirds.net), May 02, 1999.


Chicken,

This is what you said.

""Computers, in GENERAL, have to be accurate and trustworthy, as they ARE today (by and large)." What planet do you live on? Certainly not Earth. Computers are like people: sometimes they work, sometimes they don't. If they worked well all (most of) the time, I'd be out of a job. But I stay real busy, with or without Y2k. Your statement leads me to believe that you've never been in the same building with a computer.

Now from my reading of the above you are implying that you know a lot about computers, if they worked well you'd be out of a job, you stay real busy [with computers], you say I have never been in the same room as a computer [implying you do, in a "real busy" context, day to day.]

OK?

I've been posting on this forum for quite a while, I DON'T have the arrogance to claim any superiority over anyone else, but when they are talking crap I will say so, in a kind and gentle way of course.

You talk a lot of crap, my feathered friend.

My original post was about carrying capacity, percentages, interconnectivity, odds, how the USA has PURPOSELY ignored y2k (where's the INTERNET INVENTOR Gore, our mythic and mysterious y2k "point man", remember the brief reference to y2k in the State Of The Union (and what a state it's in) speech by Clinton, which, GUESS WHAT??? drew a few timid titters from our great and good who are in DeeCee to supposedly "represent"..... us... I guess...)

Yes, old Clinton reduced y2k to a few laughs on TeeVee...

You just don't get what I was saying, and I couched it as SIMPLY as I could for you and your feathered friends to squalk about.

Back off - you're out of you're league here - debate me on facts, take my post apart by all means, I'm waiting.

-- Andy (2000EOS@prodigy.net), May 02, 1999.



Andy,

I'm actually starting to enjoy this....you're mainframe, I'm PC. So neither can really poo-poo the other on a technical level....because I have not much clue what you do, and you have not much clue what I do.

But what I do know is that you called into question what I do in my day-to-day work rotation...with no supporting data whatsoever. Scientific method cries "foul" on any level. Hence my doubting your common sense (which I still do.) If you're such a scientist, why would you ignore such a basic principle when attacking the 'enemies' of your 'premise'?

Why should I believe anything you say in any other regard, then?

Got a good, sensible, MORAL, non-BS answer?

(i.e. not interested in posturing for your Doomer friends who might read this)

-- Chicken Little (panic@forthebirds.net), May 02, 1999.


WOW... Some fun, eh ! Just makes me kinda wonder how you testosterone-laden little boys behave in your cars on America's freeways. Look out, folks, here they cum !

-- NiteHawk (nope @ noway. com), May 02, 1999.

"I'm actually starting to enjoy this....you're mainframe, I'm PC. So neither can really poo-poo the other on a technical level....because I have not much clue what you do, and you have not much clue what I do."

Massive mainframes linked in coupled complexes via hubs and satellites to other complexes in other countries all interface through PeeCees, and have done so for many many years. You know, HP's or IBM's with client servers and such, lan/wan ad nauseam . The whole gamut. VM/MVS/TPF. So I guess I have an advantage over you in the technical knowledge stakes. Likewise in these knowledge stakes - I worked in Europe and the Middle East, I know the state of their systems, I still have friends over there, I read all I can on the subject and I base my "take" on all these factors.

I'll say it one more time - percentages, JIT delivery, interconnectedness, unpredictability, cascading failures, one begets another and so on until critical mass is reached. You know exactly what I'm talking about.

You are wrong on computer systems reliability now (as Nathan eloquently explained), you are wrong in that you over-estimate our ability to fix-on-failure at the last minute, and you are certainly wrong over just how much the alphabet agencies know about the scenario as it's likely to unfold.

You think the CIA and NSA and other heavy hitters haven't briefed Clinton and Gore?

You think an executive decision hasn't been made - long ago - that the White House is gonna just wing it?

And you accuse ME of not having any common sense?

You are a complete buffoon, and I mean that in the nicest possible way, possum.

-- Andy (2000EOS@prodigy.net), May 02, 1999.


Thank you Andy,

I am so grateful to be apprised of how much more you know than anyone else on the face of this entire planet, much less such a cretin as I. That has always been your stance, and continues to be. Common sense? You have less than zero, by local standards. Couldn't get by for two nights in a hog parlor on your own, without someone holding your hand.

"I guess I have an advantage over you in the technical knowledge stakes." Oh yeah? There isn't a Y2k PC problem I haven't yet been exposed to, so in my field I'm up to snuff. If you're going to say that mainframes are superior to PC's, well then have at it; but I know my field. Apples & oranges. And another thing: I don't interpret data in my field to mean DOOM. So I guess I know my field a bit better than you know yours.

But you STILL elude the issue of whether or not you have common sense, dealing with your bogus attack directed at me, based on no scientific evidence. (Did you think I'd forget? Of course you hoped I would)

"Your two paragraphs are totally lost on young little - why? - because the moron WORKS IN COMPUTERS AND IS KEPT VERY BUSY THANK YOU VERY MUCH Y2K OR NO Y2K... :) I wonder if his incompetence has anything to do with how busy his work days are? I suspect a direct correlation"

Where'd you come by that knowledge, m'friend? Got a spycam? C'mon...come clean. If you make accusations, you'd best be able to back them up. Or shut up.

I'm dealing in facts, you're dealing in personalities...the last desperate resort of those who know they're wrong.

Dude, I know how to play politics/propaganda too. Think you're messing with a rookie?

-- Chicken Little (panic@forthebirds.net), May 02, 1999.


Kentucky me old son,

I don't know WHAT the hell you're crowing on about but you've managed to sidetrack everything I've said to a diatribe over my psychic ability to know what you get up to professionally on a day to day basis. You keep chickening out of addressing the points I made me old cockerel, it's unimportant anyway as you've made up your lobe on this one.

As far as assumptions go YOU assumed I knew nothing about PeeCee's - yes, us old fashioned mainframe Johnnies all know nothing about PeeCees...

Yes PeeCee's are important in the scheme of things, but it's going to be the legacy systems and embedded chips that byte us.

So what do you do? - please, put us all out of our misery, it seems to be all you're worried about.

-- Andy (2000EOS@prodigy.net), May 02, 1999.



Its neither the white nor the black that I find frightening. Its that long drawn out gray that one cannot get their hands around this is so scarey!

Taz

-- Taz (Tassie @aol.com), May 02, 1999.


Yep. Uncertainty certainly breeds anxiety, I'm afraid.

-- Max Dixon (mcdixon@konnections.com), May 02, 1999.

"By all means spend you're waking hours messing about on this forum.

-- Andy (2000EOS@prodigy.net), May 02, 1999. "

Andy REALLY didn't just say this did he? This wouldn't be the Andy who seems to post a comment on EVERY thread? Nah...couldn't be the guy taking out all this time to fight with Chicken Little...why that would just make no sense.

-- Really A Paranoid Little Weasel Aren't You? (getalife@andy.com), May 02, 1999.


here. here. Well said.

-- pauline jansen (paulinej@angliss.vic.edu.au), May 02, 1999.

Who are you trying to convince? Me or you?

-- Rancher (chicken for dinner@my house.fried), May 02, 1999.

Pauline Hanson is a racist fuck, you dumb cuntheads. Don't listen to a thing that stinking bitch says because it's all racist fascism.

-- Resistance (resistnet@yahoo.com), May 02, 1999.

I doubt if it's the real Pauline, she's too busy plotting the genocide of the indiginous people of that fair land.

She would have made a good General in the Indian Wars here in the USA.

fair comments tho.

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), May 02, 1999.


Andy,

Name one embedded system that you know won't be fixed in time for Y2K.

-- Stephen M. Poole, CET (smpoole7@bellsouth.net), May 03, 1999.


The one rumoured to be located in your cranium, although I suspect another orifice would suffice for the said system.

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), May 03, 1999.

"Name one embedded system that you know won't be fixed in time for Y2K."

-- Stephen M. Poole, CET

Stephen: I've noticed your posts on this forum recently. Why would you ask Andy about embedded systems? He admits to his area of technical knowledge. His opinions on any other technical topic carry no weight. (Sorry Andy...)

I suggest to you that statements, like the one above, distract from the true problem with embedded systems. Some of the brightest and most experienced engineers in some of the world's largest infrastructure and manufacturing industries are confident of their systems. Except for the fact that they simply do not know what will happen during real-time rollover versus simulated rollover testing. No one knows. They are certainly unwilling to make cavalier statements. I don't believe that you know more than they do.

PNG, BSME, MSEE, MBA

-- PNG (png@gol.com), May 03, 1999.


PNG,

Because of the statement that Andy made above: it's going to be the legacy systems and embedded chips that byte us.

OK, so he can tell us about legacy systems. From what basis does he make this statement about embeddeds? I asked a simple question: name an embedded system which he thinks won't be fixed in time.

I didn't think it was that unrealistic a question.

-- Stephen M. Poole, CET (smpoole7@bellsouth.net), May 03, 1999.


Poole, true about Andy as long as you acknowledge you don't have relevant expertise in any IT area that is Y2K related.

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), May 03, 1999.

OK Poole,

"Name one embedded system that you know won't be fixed in time for Y2K."

Are you telling me that there will be no embedded system failures?

At all, whatsoever?

"I didn't think it was that unrealistic a question."

From all the reading, and listening, and asking questions, and talking to people about the embedded systems problem - the answer I get is there WILL be failures. That the "experts" cannot decide on the number of failures is immaterial, the percentages vary widely, the amount of chips supposedly out there to find and test varies widely. So yes it's an unrealistic question. Why? Because even if it turns out that these percentages are smaller than expected, I have little faith in many many countries to find, test and fix those systems that are going to tank, perhaps spectacularly so.

Have you ever worked in a middle eastern country, or a manana based country? Russia? Do you have any idea of the calibre of the average technician in these countries?

I just took a poke around your web site Poole and I just cannot take you seriously.

From what I've read you don't have a clue me old son.

Each to his own - good luck - you mean well (I think), but you are going to cost lives - no question. Mainly "Christian" lives, folks that are of like mind as yourself, that trust you.

I stand by my statement referncing the FIRMLY embedded system that is your brain. It will not be fixed by y2k. No way.

P.S.

I am going to send you my article on working days to go published in the WRP DC reports - if you can't dispute me on the facts I challenge you to put it on your site. Your hero, Mr. Embedded chip himself, Mr. Theroux, has already done so.

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), May 03, 1999.


Chicken Little,

You write:

"Besides the aforementioned intellectual/moral harlot North, we have Yourdon, Infomagic, Hamasaki, "Dear Karen", Hyatt, the family of Y2KNewsWire and Y2KSupply....the list goes on and on. People with an agenda, who have something to sell, whose interest in Y2k goes beyond an honest interest in helping people; those who see how this thing can benefit them, and elevate them to better political/economic/business standing (they hope). That, to my way of thinking, is beyond reprehensible. (Besides, I think I have news for them: when people see through what they're doing, (and they will)"

You're missing the fact that though these people have their agendas and/or are trying to sell something, all because of Y2K, THAT DOES NOT MEAN ONE HAS TO BUY INTO IT! There are NUMEROUS ideas, groups, and merchandise out there in the world but I'm not believing, joining, and buying all of them. Come on! Persuasion and temptation are all around us. I happen to like having freewill and if a person can't think for themself then too bad. These Y2K folks can try as hard as they wish but no one is FORCING anyone to believe or buy anything.

-- Julie Stansbery (Flyer@Primenet.Com), May 31, 1999.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ