For those who are still looking for a polly viewpoint essay from someone with substantial technical experience (a laughable understatement in this case), I suggest they check out the piece by Daniel Hillis in the current Newsweek, titled "Why Do We Buy The Myth of Y2K?"

http://www.newsweek.com/nw-srv/printed/us/dept/my/my0122_1.htm

I would think that it might shake the confidence of the tech savvy doomers to have Hillis turn out to be a non-believer. But probably not.

-- Polly (skippy@innermongolia.com), May 24, 1999

Answers

Yea, the how many trillion dollar myth. Give me a break. <:)=

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), May 24, 1999.

He most certainly is NOT, "enough of an expert"!

In his own words:

"There are no real experts, only people who understand their own little pieces of the puzzle. The big picture is a mystery to us, and the big news is that nobody knows."

-- Hardliner (searcher@internet.com), May 24, 1999.

sigh...

No, there are no experts when it comes to predicting the outcome of the trillion-variable Y2K problem. But he is a technical expert who is advocating a non-disater opinion.

And he does not state that Y2K is a myth. Only that he believes that the notion of causing an apocalyse is a myth. And he gives some interesting reasons why.

But don't bother reading it. Your viewpoint might actually be challenged. Can't have that.

-- Polly (skippy@innermongolia.com), May 24, 1999.

Few people on this forum are forecasting that Y2K will be the apocalypse or the end of civilization. Y2K could cause you to go hungry next year, though.

-- Kevin (mixesmusic@worldnet.att.net), May 24, 1999.

Might get thirsty (or catch a stray e.coli bug or two); could get cold.

Might have a few "temporary" problems getting through to 911, or getting a response from the police if you do get through.....

-- Robert A. Cook, PE (Kennesaw, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), May 24, 1999.

"Polly",

You are a presumptuous ass. I did read the article, in its entirety, before replying to your question.

I also directly and accurately answered your question.

Apparently, you didn't like the answer and changed your perspective to, ". . . a technical expert who is advocating a non-disater (sic) opinion."

Just what does that mean, "advocate a non-disaster opinion?"

On the face of it, it would appear that you are suggesting that this man is advocating (or arguing in favor of) everyone holding an opinion that Y2K will not result in disaster. His own words ("There are no real experts, only people who understand their own little pieces of the puzzle. The big picture is a mystery to us, and the big news is that nobody knows.") indicate that he is not qualified to make such a suggestion.

His opinion may be interesting, and regardless of what it is, it enhances my own viewpoint, but it is, after all, only an opinion and one moreover, that has been subjected to the editing of Newsweek, which everyone knows is always completely un-biased and always reports with total objectivity (heavy sarcasm intended here).

Why are you interested in "challenging my viewpoint" anyway? I could not care less what you think. I agree with Mr. Hillis that, "nobody knows", but I have a suspicion that, in your case at least, that "sigh. . ." may well turn into a "GASP!!!"

-- Hardliner (searcher@internet.com), May 24, 1999.

The one thing that most assuredly won't make me gasp is being called an ass by someone on this forum. The fact that many of the doomers are so truculent speaks volumes in itself.

-- Polly (skippy@innermongolia.com), May 24, 1999.

Hardliner,

you're arguing with a polly, who by definition is in a dichotmous position - he must argue that all of the evidence of problems doesn't matter in order to pretend there's a reason for hope - thus he must argue for a subjective interpretation of reality. At the same time, he must demand that his particular (and odd) interpretation of reality MUST be accepted by everyone as absolutely true (i.e. claiming objective truth/objective reality).

In other words the polly arguments make no sense, because they are entirely based on an impossible paradox...the pollys just aren't bright enough to realize that...personally I'd just avoid dealing with them, as it saves immense amounts of heartburn.

Arlin Adams

-- Arlin H. Adams (ahadams@ix.netcom.com), May 24, 1999.

And as I like to point out, if the news about Y2K now is good and getting better everyday, why do the "optimistic" keep posting here? If the constant barrage of "good news" in the mass media continues, the public is going to wonder why when supposedly Y2K is a non-issue and has been taken care of already.

-- Kevin (mixesmusic@worldnet.att.net), May 24, 1999.

In case nobody noticed, I wasn't arguing anything. I was merely pointing out that someone who is extremely well respected in the realm of computing has published an article which takes an essentially "no big problem" stance.

Apart from vicious arguments about the words 'myth' or 'expert', I was hoping there might be some comments regarding his opinions as to why this thing has become such a source of fear and uncertainty.

-- Polly (skippy@innermongolia.com), May 24, 1999.

Arlin,

You're right. This one's not even bright enough use words that he knows the meaning of. OTOH, I guess a "Polly" would define describing someone as a presumptuous ass as truculent. It's tempting to demonstrate some genuine truculence for him, but recalling the pledge that I signed onto the other day, I'll just let it go.

-- Hardliner (searcher@internet.com), May 24, 1999.

sheesh,Arlin,Iwish ya still lived in wisconsin,we're the poorer for it

-- zoobie (zoobiezoob@yahoo.com), May 24, 1999.

I had to look it up, because I'm not very bright. Number 2 is a bit much, and maybe #1, but I stand by my choice of words.

More to the point, this is just another wasted thread, like all the others. But it sure as hell wasn't my fault.

Main Entry: tru7cu7lent Pronunciation: -l&nt Function: adjective Etymology: Latin truculentus, from truc-, trux savage; perhaps akin to Middle Irish trz doomed person Date: circa 1540 1 : feeling or displaying ferocity : CRUEL, SAVAGE 2 : DEADLY, DESTRUCTIVE 3 : scathingly harsh : VITRIOLIC 4 : aggressively self-assertive : BELLIGERENT

-- Polly (skippy@innermongolia.com), May 24, 1999.

Like some others on this forum, Danny Hillis has his head up his ass. For those that haven't heard, he's the MIT professor that wants to build a coocoo clock that will last 100,000 years. Sure he's made a mint on parallel processing patents, but that makes him uniquely qualified to misjudge the significance of y2k: He is so mesmerized by the potential of "next-generation" computing that he has forgotten just how screwed up the "last-generation" really is.

-- a (a@a.a), May 24, 1999.

a -

I agree that he's a bit out in left field intellectually. And I think he minimized mainframes just a tad, and is a little too sure of manual workarounds. But I still think he nailed it by pointing out that we're back in the jungle, and our lack of knowledge is amplifying our fears.

-- Polly (skippy@innermongolia.com), May 24, 1999.

Columbus was out in left field too.

-- maria (anon@ymous.com), May 24, 1999.

Daniel Hillis is a heavy-duty computer scientist, but not in a field relevant to Y2K. He invented the Connection Machine, a massively parallel supercomputer, and has done a lot of work with genetic algorithms (artificial learning systems). Doesn't mean he knows squat about enterprise systems or embedded chips. According to him we don't need those systems anyway. Guess they were all a waste of money.

This quote from his article sounds like a doomer speaking: "There are no real experts, only people who understand their own little pieces of the puzzle." Shades of Gary North, "collapse of the division of labor"....

-- Shimrod (shimrod@lycosmail.com), May 24, 1999.

Nah. Columbus was in center field.

-- Ty (Knowsplayers@thistime.com), May 24, 1999.

I agree Polly, that part was pretty thought provoking. I am actually working on a positive post as we speak. But be forewarned -- it ain't THAT positive..

-- a (a@a.a), May 24, 1999.

Like most "institutions of higher learning", MIT is a bit of an "Ivory Tower". For some humorous takes on "the world according to MIT", just follow some of the "photo links" provided by Philip Greenspun at the bottom of the threads on this forum. My fave so far is this one: Tales of shame and degradation in the Big Idea Lab

Only slightly less funny is this item re a faculty lawsuit/donnybrook: "a case of political correctness gone mad..."

Mr. Hillis may be right, or he may be way off base. One things certain: his working environment must truly be "First Team All-Weird" sometimes...

-- Mac (sneak@lurk.hid), May 24, 1999.

Subject:	Re: NEWSWEEK: Calls Y2K A MYTH
Date:	1999/05/24
Author:	cory hamasaki <kiyoinc@ib m.XOUT.net>
	Posting History

On Mon, 24 May 1999 18:23:05, ad echert@aol.com (Adechert) wrote:   > fedinfo@halifax.com wrote, > > > >  MY TURN > > > >Why Do We Buy the Myth of Y2K? > > > >By Danny Hillis > >.... Most mainframes are not doing anything of earth- > >shattering, time-critical importance. The paychecks they write can > >still be verified by humans before they are mailed.   ... > >I have come to believe that the Y2K apocalypse is a myth. > >==== > >It is hysterically funny,   ... > If this is the Danny Hillis I know, I wouldn't call the guy a dolt. He > is one   "I know"?  He's your pal?  How's Danny doing these days?   > of the inventors of parallel processing and founded a company (Thinking > Machines) that produced one of (if not the first) the commercial massively > parallel computers. > > While at MIT, his papers on parallel processing made him quite famous.  You and > Hamasaki are mental midgets by comparison. > > --Alan Dechert   Well, no. Here's why.    "super" does not mean "superior and used by big brains who understand the way things really are."  It means fast.  Sometimes it means fast in certain limited circumstances.   The real problem is Danny is running his keyboard about things he barely understands.  There are 50,000 IBM style mainframes in the world and 35,000 MVS and OS/390 licenses.  Sure, one of these is the desktop mainframe in my living room but some are full-house 9X2s, 9672s, Skylines, and such.   A full-house IBM mainframe data center, such as runs an airline or hotel reservations system, a multinational industrial corporation, etc. can contain 50 or 100 million dollars in hardware.  These systems certainly perform time critical important tasks.  His statement is false in that it does not reflect the reality.   This doesn't make him bad, he's simply poorly informed.  He may be frustrated by TM's poor business results.   The supercomputer market is gone.  The really big parallel problems are being tackled by lash-ups of home computers.  IBM is selling SP2s but they sell far more 9672s.   Sad to say, Belasco might know more about commercial systems than Hollis.  Very likely DD, Arnold, and a few others here could clean his clock on an IEBGENER control card coding contest.   cory hamasaki http://www.kiyoinc.co m/current.html 

-- a (a@a.a), May 25, 1999.

I posted my "MIT info" above before I had thoroughly read Mr. Hillis' article. In this article, Hillis said:

Most mainframes are not doing anything of earth-shattering, time-critical importance.

Such a statement is almost breathtaking in its foolishness, and anyone with a modicum of enterprise systems experience (and regardless of their "take" on Y2K) would almost certainly take issue with it. Mr. Hoffmeister, what say you? Do you agree that the majority of all those legacy apps that SAP replaces on the big iron are not truly vital to the life of the enterprise? Are those 2-3 year, multimillion dollar deployments of ERP systems just wasteful boondoggles, since nothing of importance is being done?

I must retract my statement that "Mr. Hillis may be right, or he may be way off base." "Off base" is an understatement. He's 20 feet from the bag, and the infielder already has the ball. Fuhgeddaboutit.

-- Mac (sneak@lurk.hid), May 26, 1999.

Polly,

When I started reading Hillis's article, the first sentence that impressed me was

The truth is that society is not nearly so dependent on bug-free technology as the experts would lead you to believe.

That is, indeed, one of the factors I see consistently lacking in some doomers' views. The presence of a Y2k failure does not necessarily imply a disastrous consequence -- there might be one, and a dire consequence is more likely then than if there were no Y2k failure at all, but one needs to always keep in mind that Y2k compliance is only as important as the potential consequence of its absence.

However, I was brought up short by Hillis's very next two sentences:

Most mainframes are not doing anything of earth-shattering, time-critical importance. The paychecks they write can still be verified by humans before they are mailed.

"... not doing anything of ... importance" ?? Well, maybe some of the mainframes at some universities and research centers aren't, but the ones I've known in use by businesses in other contexts had to earn their keep by doing stuff important to the business it served.

"The paychecks they write can still be verified by humans before they are mailed."??? What?? Well, sure they can, but it's going to be significantly slower and more labor-intensive than the automated procedure that manual verification replaces. We're using these mainframes and automated mailing equipment to more stuff much, much faster than it was ever done manually. Plugging in a manual verification step will require many, many people and shoot any tight schedules all to hell. If the company pulls in people to do it from other positions within the company, a lot of other functions are going to suffer. If it hires temps, that a bunch of extra cost. And remember: it isn't just the verifying that will have to be done -- it's also the correction of mistakes that are found, and verifying of those corrections. All this will turn a smooth minor processing function into a manual-labor-expensive mess because it will lose all sorts of automated efficiencies.

Then:

And most microprocessors embedded in industrial equipment do not even know what time it is, much less depend on the date's being right.

Will someone please remind Mr. Hillis that it's a matter of whether they'll handle their internal 99->00 rollover properly, not whether they know the external time or are in sync with it?

This tells me already that either Hillis doesn't "get it" or is pretending not to.

What interests me most about the Millennium Bug is why this particular potential for disaster has captured the collective imagination.

This is a legitimate question. I, too, have been fascinated by the way that the real Y2k computer problem has been linked to other Millenial hopes/fears/etc. My knowledge of psychology tells me it's quite natural and predictable.

However, then Hillis swings definitely into the put-down camp with:

I believe it is because this story has all the makings of a great rumor: Convincing Detail, Cooperative Experts and a Hint of Deeper Truth.

Why doesn't Hillis use his computer expertise to acknowledge the realities of the Y2k computer problems and distinguish them from the stuff like downfall-of-society and apocalypse?

-- No Spam Please (No_Spam_Please@anon_ymous.com), May 27, 1999.

Columbus Maria???

The Irish (Saint Brendan) made it to this fair land way before C. and his papal freemasons.

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), May 27, 1999.

Never read such crap in my life.

Is Hillis a C.E.T. by any chance???

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), May 27, 1999.