This post is "OFF TOPIC."

Big Dog's recent posts have a familiar feel. A walk to my bookshelf solved the riddle for me. Big Dog and the Rev. Thomas Malthus! I was delighted with the depth of similarity. BD, a St. John's graduate and minister and Parsons Malthus, English clergyman.

In my opinion, the "mistakes" of Malthus are being repeated with Y2K. Rather than provide a detailed analysis, I'll let the reader sort through some material I gathered:

"Let us overview more up-to-date main points of criticizing Malthus.

He may be faulted for overlooking other checks on population that might change his gloomy conclusions. For one thing, he failed to separate, conceptually, sex and procreation. Yet in a world of modern birth control techniques and other arts of family planning, the distinction is often made. Many families limit the number of their offspring for reasons other than finantial ones (e.g., a desire for personal freedom and mobility or a career). These additional checks are capable of reducing the disparity between multiplication of the species and growth of the food supply.

A more serious shortcoming of Malthus's population theory was his tendency to underestimate the advantage of agricultural technology. There was already the hint in the Essay that agriculture is a subject to diminishing returns. As an economic law, however, diminishing returns hold only for a constant state of technology. And in the advanced economies rapid progress in technology has so far succeeded in forestalling the gloomy Malthusian prospects.

Another problem with the Malthusian theory of population in that he and his proponents based their beliefs on a very few and rather poor quality statistics from a few European countries and American colonies."

FULL ARTICLE:

http://www.tdd.lt/sdib/html/malthus.htm

[Club of Rome made the same errors and so have some Y2K pessimists... underestimating market forces and price signals, holding technology constant and using poor data.]

"In 1980, convinced of the righteousness of his position, Simon issued a challenge to all Malthusians to bet that the future price of any natural resource at any future date would be reduced. Ehrlich announced "that "he would accept Simon's offer before other greedy people jumped in.'"

A bet was between them was paced in October 1980 on the October 1990 combined price of five metal--chrome, copper, nickel, tin, and tungsten. The price of a certain quantity of these metals was $1000 in 1980.: Simon agreed to pay Ehrlich the amount of which they increased over the next decade and Ehrlich agreed to pay Simon the amount to which they decreased.

The bet was settled ten years later, in October, 1990, Ehrlich, who had never met Simon in all the years that he had berated him--Ehrlich refused to debate, saying that Simon is a "fringe character"--simply sent Simon a check for $576.07 with a sheet of his calculations. The price for the combined basket of metals had fallen to 57.6 percent of the 1980 price. If inflation were taken into effect, the price for the metals had really fallen to less than 30 percent of the 1980 price."

FULL ARTICLE:

http://www.ecis.com/~liberty/ecology.htm

[Does anyone remember the doom-and-gloom 70s? The estimates on what date we would run out of certain raw materials? The birth of the survivalist movement? I'll let the reader draw any Y2K connections.]

"In 1987 Simon & Schuster, smelling a market for a sensationalist book to coincide with the stock market crash of October 1987, purchased the rights to Batra's book on monetary cycles under the condition that it be rewritten and retitled The Great Depression of 1990.

After the initial success of The Great Depression of the 1990, Batra rushed out a sequel entitled Surviving the Great Depression of the 1990s. Although both of these books were totally discredited by the business press and the few economist who agreed to comment on them, together they sold over 2 million copies."

FULL ARTICLE:

http://www.ecis.com/~liberty/p-econmy.htm

[How many copies of Time Bomb 2000 have been sold?]

"While preparing a 20/20 segment on multiple chemical sensitivity that aired in January, John Stossel sent ABC associate producer Deborah Stone and her sister-in-law, Julie, to Dr. Grace Ziem, an MCS specialist in Baltimore. Prior to the visit, Ziem sent the two healthy women a 16-page questionnaire that included items such as "Do you crave sweets?" and "Do you ever forget what you read?" as well as queries about headaches, chest pains, and other symptoms. They answered the questions honestly and brought the completed forms to Ziem's office, where a physician's assistant gave them brief physical exams. After looking at their answers, Ziem told them they were chemically sensitive. She warned Julie not to get pregnant. She recommended that Deborah move out of New York City and enlist a "smelling buddy" to walk around with her, steering her away from dangerous odors. She charged each woman $925 and prescribed $3,300 in lab tests.

Later Ziem heard through the grapevine that the patients were ABC confederates and that Stossel, who had requested an interview, planned to discuss MCS in the context of "junk science." She also read a transcript of Stossel's 1994 special, "Are We Scaring Ourselves to Death?," in which he took a hard look at overhyped hazards such as dioxin, asbestos, and pesticide residues. Surmising that Stossel would not portray her in a positive light, Ziem not only backed out of the interview, she filed criminal charges against him, Deborah Stone, Julie Stone, and two other producers, accusing them of surreptitiously recording the conversation at her office. In Maryland, that's a felony. ABC said no such recording was made, and the charges were dropped about a month and a half later for lack of evidence. A disappointed Ziem promised further, unspecified legal action, and her bewilderment at the prospect of a journalist's skeptical treatment was almost touching. According to the Associated Press, "she had always considered the news media a friend' but now wonders who she can trust."

Many of Stossel's critics exhibit a similar sense of betrayal. As a consumer reporter at WCBS-TV in New York and, beginning in 1981, at ABC's Good Morning America and 20/20, he acquired a reputation as an enemy of greedy capitalists, a champion of government regulation, and a protector of the public from the insidious hazards lurking in everyday life. Gradually, however, he came to see that businesses are not always evil, regulation can be harmful, and the risks that get the most publicity are usually trivial, if not non-existent.

As this new perspective began to shape Stossel's TV reports, his erstwhile allies in the consumer movement were not pleased. Ralph Nader, who came across as a paternalistic worrywart (imagine that!) in "Are We Scaring Ourselves to Death?," told TV Guide that Stossel "used to be on the cutting edge -- now he's gotten lazy and dishonest." Sidney Wolfe, executive director of the Public Citizen Health Research Group, told The Washington Post, "I think he's really a menace. This guy is doing a massive amount of damage."

Nader and Wolfe probably were not thinking about Stossel's special on "The Mystery of Happiness" or his stories about relationships and child rearing. A psychology major at Princeton, Stossel has long shown an interest in topics that have little to do with public policy. No doubt Nader and Wolfe would prefer that he stick with those, instead of mucking about with their cherished assumptions. This Stossel does both on 20/20 and in his one-hour, prime-time specials, which air four times a year -- a privilege he won from ABC when Fox tried to lure him away in 1993. His first special, "Are We Scaring Ourselves to Death?," featured themes that are rarely explored on TV, including the hidden costs of regulation and the exaggeration (or invention) of risks by interest groups and the news media"

FULL ARTICLE:

http://www.reason.com/9704/fe.stosselint.html

[I'd pay hard cash to see a John Stossel special on Y2K.]

Well, I may return to this subject, but I don't have the time before the holiday weekend to engage do much serious writing. I will bring a copy of Adam Smith's "The Wealth of Nations" with me... the natural antidote to Malthus.

Regards,

-- Mr. Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), May 28, 1999

Answers

Decker, don't you have anything better to do?

-- (bored@by.itall), May 28, 1999.

some twisted problem with Y2K and with religion ``` the guy needs help ``` this is not the place to spread confusion ``` he can't grapple with concepts of faith or preparing for things as yet unseen ``` wants to be immersed in good old solid material standbys ``` fine, that's what preps can do for you ``` prepping for simple survival is grounding and basic and satisfying ``` get real and basic for the next few months ``` plenty of time for intellectual hodgepodge musings in 2000 ``` learn to prioritize ``` sheesh ``` ``` ``` `

-- h (h@h.h), May 28, 1999.

They may be watching you... ACT LIKE YOU AREN'T READING THIS! ARE YOU "DIFFERENT "? Then YOU ARE ONE OF THE CHOSEN -- and that's why this pamphlet has "accidentally" fallen into your Web browser!

EVEN MORONS KNOW: THESE ARE THE END TIMES!!

We have reached the juncture in history at which two previously impossible things have become technologically feasible: the destruction of all life on Earth, or Infinite Slack for everyone forever. Hopefully, these are two different things; but it's never too early to start being pessimistic.

ONLY J. R. "BOB" DOBBS STANDS BETWEEN " THE CONSPIRACY " AND TOTAL PLANETARY FREAKOUT!

A r e Y O U i n s h a p e f o r t h e "F I N A L S ?"

Then YOU MUST BE SAVED -- EVEN IF IT KILLS YOU!!

ETERNAL SALVATION

-- OR TRIPLE YOUR MONEY BACK

AT LAST -- IT HAS COME -- the final Do-It-Yourself END TIMES RELIGION for SWINGING MUTANTS & TERMINAL ABNORMALS!!

The Church of the SubGenius. The World's First Industrial Church "Breaking the Tolerance Barrier"

LIVE WITH YOUR SINS!! -- "Bob" Dobbs Can Show You How!

Caution -- May Be Habit Forming Do Not Operate Heavy Machinery While Under The Influence Of This Tract )1985 by THE SUBGENIUS FOUNDATION DOBBS-APPROVED THE "WORLD" IN TURMOIL Gotterdammerung?? -- Or a GODDAMN PARTY? Only the "Xists" from Galactic Central know -- but they aren't telling. We just might get used to not knowing the difference.

DRIVEN TO THE BRINK OF SANITY BY THE CONSPIRACY'S FALSE REALITY AND THE PRESSURE OF A CRUMBLING WORLD?? THEN THIS MAY BE FOR YOU!!

You might be SO OUT OF IT that YOU DON'T EVEN KNOW WHO "BOB" DOBBS IS. Even worse, you may not care! Of course, there's considerable pressure to keep you from caring whether you care or not, and it's so much easier to just let that weight keep you slowed down ... you're used to it... you can take it... it's a living ... you'll just go on about your job ... doing what you're told... ...because everything we say from here on out is going to sound like UTTER INSANITY to you; at least, if you're NORMAL it will... ...uh...

...you are NORMAL, aren't you?

WAKE UP!! Snap out of it! REPENT!! QUIT YOUR JOB!! SLACK OFF!!! ... if only for a second, that's all we're asking. Then you can go back to sleep, or to Hell.

YOU CAN LEARN TO THINK FOR YOURSELF -- BUT ONLY "BOB" CAN SHOW YOU HOW!!

INSTANT INSTRUCTIONS FOR THOSE WHO FOLLOW NO MASTER!! Technically, this organization cannot exist -- because it is composed of people who are not joiners. The only thing most SubGenius have in common is that they're ALL DIFFERENT -- and they have NOTHING in common with the C.O.N.S.P.I.R.A.C.Y.!! ( Cliques of Normals Secretly Planning Insidious Rituals Aimed At Controlling You) The SubGenius, because it does not "fit in," is actually better than everyone else!

OUR CREED: "Orthodoxy Is The Only Heresy" THIS INCREDIBLE NEW FAITH, AUTHORIZED TO BLASPHEME BY THE GODS THEMSELVES, IS THE FIRST ALL-PURPOSE BELIEF SYSTEM TO BE COMPATIBLE WITH MOST MAJOR WORLD RELIGIONS AND MANY WEIRD CULTS -- WITHOUT EXPENSIVE INTERFACES!!

THE QUEST: SOMETHING FOR NOTHING THE GOAL: WORLD WIDE SLACK SubPurposes: TO END DEATH, TAXES, HUNGER, WAR, DISEASE, AGING, and WORK * "As long as we must work, we are not free." -- J. R. "Bob" Dobbs

THE WEAPONS:

THE POWER OF ABNORMALITY, UNPREDICTABILITY, and THE WORD OF "BOB"

THE METHOD: TIME CONTROL TM

through Bullshattering, Morealism, Cynisacreligion, Sadofuturistics, and the Sciences of BULLDADA. and Stupidism..

THE MOTTO: "FUCK 'EM IF THEY CAN'T TAKE A JOKE."

---------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- EVERYTHING YOU KNOW IS TRUE -- therefore --

ONLY YOU can read what this means into it. YOU HAVE THE POWER!

"You'll PAY to know what you REALLY think." -- Dobbs, 1961

YES -- AFTER ALL THESE CENTURIES of organized "belief" -- a religion that finally comes out and admits that "IT" CAN'T BE SAID because "IT" IS WHAT IS BEING SAID AND DOING THE SAYING AT THE SAME TIME. "Those who know don't say, and those who say don't know." ( The Hells Angels)

"BOB" IS A SEX GOD!!

HE HAS COME AGAIN AND AGAIN TO RATIONALIZE YOUR SINS! You can lose your virginity -- and we'll STILL let you be a SubGenius!

ENTER INTO COMPLICATED PACTS WITH TERRIBLE ALIEN BEINGS!! EXPERIENCE THE TRUTH ABOUT THE SQUIRTING UNIVERSE!!

REGAIN YOUR LOST YETI POWERS As you undergo the unhallowed rites of Glandscaping and Acubeating, forbidden shapes from the shadows will be called forth... you will RELIVE your Inner Memories of past Reincarnalities in Atlantis, where you were once a fullblood Yeti, superior creation of our brothers from beyond the stars. Look perfectly normal while mentally practicing the lost arts of YETINTHROPY. and SCHIZOPHRENIATRICS. (not illegal in most states) !!

STAY TEENAGED OR YOUNGER WHILE MASTERING THE APPEARANCE OF ADULTHOOD!!

TEENS! 'UGLY DUCKLINGS!' Do you sometimes feel like 'rear dwarf in the dinosaur suit'? THAT'S JUST WHERE THEY WANT YOU. Peer pressure to 'fit in' and 'be popular' is THE CONSPIRACY'S BIGGEST SNARE!! Quit wishing you could be like those pink jerks -- if you're a 'loner', SO BE IT! 10 or 20 years from now, if you can avoid suicide for that long, YOU'LL GET THE LAST LAUGH! When those 'popular' creeps are 30 and have drab lives of passion-deadening security and boredom, you'll have gone through all sorts of interesting hell, paid your abnormality dues, and become a cool swinger, getting away with more wild shit than they ever dreamed possible -- because you didn't give up, and kept up the F.I.B. ("Faith In 'Bob'")! That's what we did, and now we're better and cooler than anybody else!

THIS IS THE KEY -- if you can reach the 17th page of this Pamphlet, then you will know that you are already Enlightened.

---------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- SUBVERT FROM WITHIN OR WITHOUT -- THE QUICK, EASY WAY! POLITICS ARE A DEAD END!! The only hope left for human society is PATRIO- PSYCHOTIC ANARCHO-MATERIALISM: every person a Monarch, every yard a Kingdom, every child and dog a serf! COMMUNISM SUCKS and Conspiracy-style "Monopoly Capitalism" is a RUSE. "Bob" doesn't want everyone to be equally POOR -- he wants all humanity equally RICH!!! RICH!!! RICH BEYOND YOUR WILDEST DREAMS --WITHOUT WORKING!!! It's a Church of love AND money, AND SENSE -- Common Sense, Sense of Humor, and DOLLARS AND CENTS.

TURN WATER INTO GASOLINE Look at the word, "SubGenius." Anybody could "qualify." It has NOTHING to do with BRAINS; it's not the intelligence, it's how you use it. The SubGenius is not "just below a Genius;" he does not pretend to Super-Knowledge, but to SubKnowledge: knowledge of the Under Things -- the Hollow Earth from whose darkness issue the Nazi Hell Creatures and other Dwellers of the Abyss. It is in contemplation of the Under Things, the "underwear" lurking just under the "clothing" of Existence, that the SubGenii display what genius they have. The study of this substratum, the "foundation garment" underlying reality, is indeed the SubGenius's strength -- and, ultimately, its undoing as well.

KIDS -- you can know Drs. For "Bob"!!

HAS PEER PRESSURE MADE YOU A PRETEEN DOPE ADDICT? "BOB" CAN HELP YOU 'KICK' THOSE CONSPIRACY STREET DRUGS -- AND GET YOU HIGHER, CHEAPER!

Get off false pills and get on "Bob"! -- or get off on false pills with "Bob"! MORE DRUGS AND FREE PILLS

"Better Than The Bible"

When you take the PILS. that "BOB" sends you, everything seems to fall right into place as if by magic! Your Pink Human boss, date or teacher will be bound instantly under your THRALL... every customer will buy your sales pitch ... every cop will look the other way. Like the Zombies for "Bob" say (over and over again, every day), "MORE THEM KIND PILS, 'BOB'!" Like to smoke a little of what's in "BOB's" Pipe? Membership in the Church as an ordained SubGenius Minister makes you eligible to be on the waiting list for VAST SHIPMENTS of the LEGAL IMMORTALITY HERB, HABAFROPZIPULOPS (or "FROP" for short) -- the mind-inverting flower which grows only by moonlight on the graves and droppings of dead Tibetan holymen and fullblood Yetis. 'FROP is not only safer than your cheap Conspiracy street drugs -- it's PERMANENT, TOO. No more "coming down!" No matter how much 'Frop you ingest, YOU CAN NEVER AGAIN GET LESS HIGH. Interested?

"Your mind is a bowling pin. The PILS. are the ball. And only J. R. "Bob" Dobbs can bowl a PERFECT GAME." ( Hyperclessians 6:14)

-- ! (!@!.!), May 28, 1999.

Deck: What makes you think John Stossel would downplay y2k? Do you think that Steve Kroft was just joshing us on 60 minutes last week? Do you think the head of the DC y2k task force was spinning a yarn about preparing for 4 weeks with no water? And the programmers they showed remediating code, were they just a setup? 1,000,000,000,000.00's of dollars to be spent and litigated and the whole thing is a mainly a scam, is that what you're saying?

You remind me of the folks that think we never went to the moon, that the Holocaust was faked, and that the Earth is really flat. Just because Ravi Batra was wrong about having a depression in 1990 doesn't mean depressions are no longer possible. In fact, Batra had a comment on the possibility being wrong back then. He said that if, by some manipulation of the markets, we were able to avoid a depression around 1990, then when we actually did have one it would be much worse.

-- a (a@a.a), May 28, 1999.

"A,"

I'd take Stossel seriously, whatever he reported on Y2K. Kroft completely blew off "ultra preps." I am amazed DC functions now, let alone in Y2K. The money spent on Y2K is real. Here's a test question, "A," why are firms spending money on Y2K? Ding! "Profit motive." Why do we have automated Y2K remediation tools? Ding! "Profit motive." If the government passed a law against Y2K remediation today... it would still occur.

I don't think Malthus was a "scam artist." By all accounts, he was an honorable man who made an honest mistake. He did not account for the forces of the marketplace... and with all due respect, it's hard to fault the guy for it.

By the way, I'm not the one rambling on about United Nations "One World Government" takeover plans, black helicopters, etc. Try a few doors down.

Oh, and don't think for a minute that the business cycle or depressions are over. Just tricky to predict. Ask Batra.

Wonder if he gave any of the book royalties back for being wrong? Nah.

Regards,

-- Mr. Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), May 28, 1999.

Decker -- I am not a Malthusian. He was wrong. I think the environmentalists are wrong about the carrying capacity of our planet (though they are right in many, many individual areas with respect to how we should modify our value systems and care for the ecosystem we share: good business as well as good ethics, IMO).

I am also far more pro-capitalist than you might imagine. And free market. Yes, I am a fan of Adam Smith (whom I read with enthusiasm at St. John's).

While of merely anecdotal interest to you, I have considered "depression is coming stuff" absolute crap over the past thirty years.

Also, I am not an apocalypticist theologically (though there are theological nuances there that might make you think I am). Put another way, I am somewhat "Flint-like" on eschatalogical matters.

I view Y2K as singular in its nature and its perils. True, IMO, it will probably bring down a financial mechanism that I view as immoral (and not Adam Smith-ian, BTW). But I doubt it would have happened for quite a while, failing Y2K. Which is why I insist that it's "Y2K stupid".

I say this with kindness, though you may receive it as vitriolic: you are dense and wrong on this issue. I'm not entirely sure why. One of the reasons you are charged with disingenuousness is that you are so amazingly dense that disingenuousness seems to be more reasonable. Occam's Razor and all that.

If it seemed that you were evidently learning even one thing about Y2K through coming to this forum (the rest of us are), disingenousness would appear less plausible.

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), May 28, 1999.

Malthus, Club of Rome, Al Gore and all those other eco-nazis are wrong because humans are not mere consumers. We produce resources. We can alter our environment. There are no limits to growth. Read Bucky Fuller's books to see why. I remember being told that gasoline would be $5.00 a gallon by now.

-- Joe O (ozarkjoe@yahoo.com), May 28, 1999.

Not bad, BD. The first two thirds actually responded to the information posted.

This is meant with kindness, but I like the company of the "lead heads."

Fortune 1000 CEOs, CIOs, the IT press, Alan Greenspan and the Federal Reserve Board, the NERC, the telecoms, mainstream economists, and so many others.... Of course, they all could be wrong.

Why don't you wander back to my "asking for the numbers" post. Let me see your hard predictions for Y2K... in purely economic terms. We'll let Stan Faryna do a side-by-side... oh, July of next year?

Loser buys dinner. I'll even put a gourmet meal in long term storage just for you and your family... and I'll walk to deliver it if I have to. How about it?

Regards,

-- Mr. Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), May 28, 1999.

I have learned this about Y2K, BD. Fear moves products.

Regards,

-- Mr. Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), May 28, 1999.

Poor Stan. I would sure hate to be your token "thoughtful pessimist"! Oh, right, Walden too.

As the thoughtless type, I have learned this about Y2K, Decker: denial moves pollys.

And, if I'm right, you'll be walking long before July, 2000.

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), May 28, 1999.

Deckers probably got more food stored and is better prepared for than anybody!

-- Johnny (JLJTM@BELLSOUTH.NET), May 28, 1999.

Translation of original post, with wasted verbiage excised: "other people have been wrong, therefore Y2k Pessimists are wrong".

Makes as much sense as Decker's other posts, don't you think?

-- Lane Core Jr. (elcore@sgi.net), May 28, 1999.

Lane:

This oversimplification shouldn't be your style -- you usually give things more thought than this.

Decker's point, quite clearly, was that linear extrapolations applied to nonlinear systems have been way off base. Y2K is highly nonlinear. We've discussed linearity at some length, but some while back. Decker is arguing, quite clearly, that the 'adaptive' part of adaptive systems is significant, and that those who select a few congenially worrisome data points and extrapolate out in a straight line from there are guilty of faulty analysis. He is making a very valid *methodoligical* argument, and providing salient examples.

Characterising Decker's argument as "some people have been wrong, therefore pessimists are wrong" is no more than mindless sniping. We sit here watching hundreds of billions being spent adapting. We read daily that this effort is having a measurable effect. If you can make a good argument that this effort will prove inadequate for your purposes, then define your purposes and make your argument. We'll listen.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), May 28, 1999.

Flint

If Decker was as "clear" as you there would be more agreement on the possible futures. I say clear because nonlinear systems are not well understood by most. There is an equation in life and that is the more you work at something the more destiny - fate intertwines through syncronistic principles. Some may think that the Y2K rollover with bring downfall rather than looking at the attention drawn to the problem will bring solutions than may be novel and inovative. As I am not a programmer my opinion on the matter has to be taken with a pound of salt but the understanding of system intergration and "simplification" (dropping obsolete technology) will reap great rewards for those that carried it out. If you are looking at it in a evolutionary - destiny aspect there is an arguement to be made about what exactly is our destiny in the future. Y2K might also be telling us something that we are trying to devote energy on a losing cause which could have been focused on futhering our evolutionary capacity.

The contridiction in our society is that our evolutionary medium needs flexibility over periods of time, and if there is one thing Y2K has shown is that our society is not flexible. Ironicly we are debating the effects of something that isn't "real".

Boy oh boy, is the information on the screen of your computer real? That is an arguement that could last lifetimes :o)

-- Brian (imager@home.com), May 29, 1999.

Bullcrap.

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), May 29, 1999.

Andy what is bull crap?

-- Brian (imager@home.com), May 29, 1999.

Brian:

You make a strange statement. If one thing is clear to me, it is that y2k has shown us to be quite flexible indeed. We see the problem, we're fixing the problem. We're making contingency plans. We'll find workarounds. When what we missed strikes, we'll all deal with the fallout as optimally as we can.

It certainly looks like there is an 'invisible hand' operating here. Nobody is coordinating the millions of remediation efforts, but they're happening anyway. Nobody is coordinating inter-system testing, but it's happening. Nobody will need to tell any organization that they have problems and had better play it where it lies. But this will happen, millions of times over. Nobody directed the creation of remediation houses, but they sprang up when the need was perceived. Nobody will decree that troubleshooters are needed later, but when the need arises, so will the necessary response. When businesses fail despite demand, new businesses pop up to replace them, and the new ones had best be better run, or they'll fail too.

And this happens on every scale, from individual programmers fixing individual bugs, to whole industries adapting to circumstances as they unfold. To me, this condition of millions of individually focused, appropriate responses to particular problems is the essence of flexibility.

I'm not claiming this response pattern will be sufficient to make y2k a nonevent. But I do expect it to make y2k a temporary event.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), May 29, 1999.

Flint --- Yes, I agree, somewhere between five to ten years.

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), May 29, 1999.

DD's post.

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), May 29, 1999.

"If it seemed that you were evidently learning even one thing about Y2K through coming to this forum (the rest of us are), disingenousness would appear less plausible.

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com)"

TO MR. DECKER: TO CLARIFY...WHAT WAS MEANT BY THE ABOVE IS ACTUALLY--

"If it seemed you were succumbing to the brainwashing techniques employed by myself and others (I.E. "thinking" more like "us") then you would be more welcome by "us". Since you refuse to exalt the cult, the mind police will hound you fervently. We cannot risk you influencing those we have so carefully apprenticed."

-- TRANSLATOR (linguist@launguage.clear), May 29, 1999.

Flint

In some manner you are right. But I was looking at the mass of society not just fixing the problem. And from what has happened in regards to Y2K is often met with a blank stare. The capasity for folks to conseptualize through time is limited. If this wasn't the case then we wouldn't be at the stage where we have doubts of the simple things such as water supply to be fixed. It may be fixed but the utilities have not reported as such therefore we don't know. And in the case of the chemical industry they are talking about shutting the plants down rather than having them fixed and operating. This is obviously repairing after the fact. If we were flexible mentally through time then this problem would never have happened at all. It really doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that a computer will not understand 00 as a date unless it was told to do it. And it wasn't told. I mean we have just 6 months to go (I am writing December off) and Microsoft is still figuring out its own software! DUH!

I knew about Y2K in the eighties when checking out Macs. It was a selling point back then. They will work through to 30,000 or something like that.

Correct me if I am wrong but a program like Excell is only useful till 2029. As far as Excell is concerned my Dad is not born yet.

Alot of the remiediation is windowing, this is not a "fix' more of a stop gap measure to keep it running. This is not forward thinking.

I think you would get the point. We wouldn't have to worry about fixing something if it wasn't broke in the first place. And the last 20 yrs. has shown that JIT fixing is the norm rather than the exception. This is not the sign of an enlightened species.

-- Brian (imager@home.com), May 29, 1999.

[Brian: A good and useful answer. Let's take this one from the top and see where we stand, OK?]

In some manner you are right. But I was looking at the mass of society not just fixing the problem.

[The problem isn't fixed by 'the mass of society', it's fixed by those whose job it is to fix it, and those who *make* it their job if the demand is there and their skills are appropriate. Let's say there's a shortage of auto mechanics. Wages rise, more people are motivated to learn such skills, the shortage vanishes. This happens even though you or I pay no attention to auto mechanics at all. And millions of such things happen, details everywhere, and nearly all of them fall below the threshhold of 'mass' public awareness. If you are arguing that mass public awareness is necessary before appropriate responses are made by appropriate people, then I can't agree. That's not how it works.]

And from what has happened in regards to Y2K is often met with a blank stare.

[Agreed. There are two questions here: (1) what can *you* do to help fix the problem (as opposed to preparing yourself in case *others* didn't or don't do *their* jobs properly?); (2) From a 'mass' perspective, nothinbg has actually happened yet. People respond to problems they see, not to problems that *might* happen later. For those doing remediation, the problem is immediate and they're responding. For the rest, we'll do what's necessary when the necessity itself becomes clearly defined.]

The capasity for folks to conseptualize through time is limited. If this wasn't the case then we wouldn't be at the stage where we have doubts of the simple things such as water supply to be fixed.

[These doubts might exist at any time (and indeed, water supplies have gone bad in the past). y2k has so many unknowns that it seems appropriate to look at *anything* and wonder about its future. Not that most people can do anything about it beyond wondering. There is a limit to pervasive worry, since most of us still have to performe adequately on unrelated jobs to make a living.]

It may be fixed but the utilities have not reported as such therefore we don't know.

[Not strictly true. Some utilities have said they're ready, and most have said that nothing that would interrupt the flow of power remains unremediated (as opposed to billing, metering, etc.) And of course there aren't *any* utilities saying they *won't* be ready. You can disbelieve them for any number of reasons (people on this forum are creative in dreaming up reasons to disbelieve things) but that doesn't mean they haven't made these statements.]

And in the case of the chemical industry they are talking about shutting the plants down rather than having them fixed and operating.

[Too general for me, I'm afraid. Who is 'they', and why are the plants being shut down? I have read of a few cases (out of a great many) where the company has decided it's prudent to close down overnight and restart the next day, because there *might* be some processes sensitive to the rollover itself (and maybe up to 20 minutes one side or the other). This is called adapting to the immediate situation and taking steps with zero economic impact, just in case. It doesn't mean the plants are 'broken', nor does it mean that these plants won't continue to be operational. So what you're talking about here is a safety precaution being taken here and there. Please don't confuse this with the total, long-term loss of all ability to process chemicals, because that's not what it is.]

This is obviously repairing after the fact.

[Maybe obvious to you, but WRONG in fact. This is *not* a repair, and it isn't being done after the fact. If you close your windows when you see a rainstorm coming, and open them again after it passes through, are you repairing anything after the fact?]

If we were flexible mentally through time then this problem would never have happened at all.

[I don't think you're talking about flexibility here, but rather talking about foresight and historical contingency. Computer date usage could have gone either way, and we were unlucky that in most cases 2-digit-years were adopted. I've been arguing with Big Dog that we could have started in 1990, and last-minute remediation and testing would *still* have been necessary. Flexibility doesn't mean being able to predict the detailed consequences of all our actions, it means adapting when it turns out that our actions had undesired consequences. Which we're doing.]

It really doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that a computer will not understand 00 as a date unless it was told to do it.

[Not strictly true, by the way. The computer *does* understand 00 as a date perfectly well. The problem is, it doesn't interpret it as the same date we *want* it to.]

And it wasn't told. I mean we have just 6 months to go (I am writing December off) and Microsoft is still figuring out its own software! DUH!

[True enough. We won't get them all. We'll be figuring out our software and making date fixes for a decade. We'll be fixing other unrelated bugs forever. Can we get by with the remaining bugs? Well, the definition of 'get by' is so hazy that if I'm comfortable with any single prediction, it's that a year from now, *everyone* on this forum, whatever their persuasion, will be able to say "I told you so." And don't blow off December so readily. A lot of code does 30- day and 60-day lookaheads, so we'll be finding problems then. Also, furious testing will be in progress throughout December. Hopefully, it will do some good.]

I knew about Y2K in the eighties when checking out Macs. It was a selling point back then. They will work through to 30,000 or something like that.

[Of course, it's possible to make date errors with Mac software, and some people did so. Some large organizations started out using 4- digit-years from the beginning. But few.]

Correct me if I am wrong but a program like Excell is only useful till 2029. As far as Excell is concerned my Dad is not born yet.

[This is version dependent, and I'm not an Excel expert. I vaguely recall someone saying that you could *choose* to use 4-digit years with Excel, but that wasn't the default. I believe if you chose the 2- digit year default, different versions have different windows. And if you are tracking >100 year data (like birth dates), you really had to use 4-digit years from the start, else your results would have been screwy instantly and obviously.]

Alot of the remiediation is windowing, this is not a "fix' more of a stop gap measure to keep it running. This is not forward thinking.

[You need to read more about windowing. Properly done (with IO filters and where data are appropriate), windowing is a perfectly good technique and will work OK forever. I think the cases where windowing is used even though inappropriate, and it's known that it will just fail later, is in the small minority.]

I think you would get the point. We wouldn't have to worry about fixing something if it wasn't broke in the first place. And the last 20 yrs. has shown that JIT fixing is the norm rather than the exception. This is not the sign of an enlightened species.

[No, this is not the sign of an omnicient species. Big difference. Writing software is hard. Mistakes are easy. Testing is (and must be) limited. Targets keep moving. Advances keep happening fast in both languages and hardware. And some programmers are marginal.

But times are changing. It wasn't long ago (I was there, and I've been 39 for many years) that the Holy Grail of software was the space- time product. Make it as small and fast as possible, because the hardware was both expensive and slow. And today, those goals no longer apply. Today, those software features considered "good" have to do with comprehensibility, portability, extensibility, reusability, etc. We no longer much care that applying these new goals produces "bloatware."

And what will be the definition of "good software" in the future? Are we unenlightened because we don't know?]

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), May 29, 1999.

Flint

Of course as mentioned in my first post computers and software are not something I know much about, most I have learned from Y2K related information.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For those doing remediation, the problem is immediate and they're responding. For the rest, we'll do what's necessary when the necessity itself becomes clearly defined. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

This is more my point. As a society we should have been considering the "personal contingency options" unfortunately there is less time to consider this option. When will it be clearly defined? And will it be possible for the mass of society to impliment the solutions for personal contingency plans once it is clearly defined? I am not talking about TEOTWAWKI just the failure of isolated systems and the effects of the individual preparations in regards to the failures.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [Not strictly true. Some utilities have said they're ready, and most have said that nothing that would interrupt the flow of power remains unremediated (as opposed to billing, metering, etc.) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I was refering to water as a utility and not power. Power is now less of an unknown. Water still is an unknown. (re latest GAO report) As mentioned above water systems may be fixed but at this time there is very little data to indicate this. EPA was writing Draft reports on the matter as of late last year. This is not timely.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [Too general for me, I'm afraid. Who is 'they', and why are the plants being shut down? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "In just making the chemicals, we found no occurrence of dates," he said. Rohm and Haas, a Philadelphia-based chemical manufacturer with a turnover of US $4 billion, plans to shut down its plants at the end of the year to avoid Y2K-related problems."

"Although startups of chemical plants are infrequent and their durations are short compared with the life cycle of a plant, process safety incidents occur five times as often during startup as they do during normal operations 16 . Thus, a large number of simultaneous startups may increase the potential of incidents in one or more process plants. In addition, the simultaneous restarts of large power-consuming facilities will impose large demands on the electrical grid."

Flint the above is from the PDF file

Technology Problems and Industrial Chemical Safety http://www.csb.gov/y2k/y2k01.pdf

There appears to be risk in the starting of the plants after a shut down. Starting the next day would not be likely. Please don't go to simplistic.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Please don't confuse this with the total, long-term loss of all ability to process chemicals, because that's not what it is.] >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Actually I never mentioned duration, just what seems to be a lack of timely remediation so that systems will operate as they are expected regardless of the rollover. The rollover is just a point in our relitive timescape. It is in our minds not the machines. I am aware that alot of the y2k problems is our need to interface with the equipment rather than the failure of the equipment itself.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is obviously repairing after the fact.

[Maybe obvious to you, but WRONG in fact. This is *not* a repair, and it isn't being done after the fact. If you close your windows when you see a rainstorm coming, and open them again after it passes through, are you repairing anything after the fact?] >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Well there is another thread on whether it is a repair or not so we will leave that as speculation :o) What should have been said is that the design of the interface has to be reengineered due to the inability to anticipate the rollover in some cases. After the fact will be after the rollover and we will see how it works then.

[I don't think you're talking about flexibility here, but rather talking about foresight and historical contingency. Computer date usage could have gone either way, and we were unlucky that in most cases 2-digit-years were adopted.]

Unlucky? Now that is a poor choice of words **VBG** I was of the opinion that engineers don't like to rely on "luck".

Unfortunately life is catching up to me in "real time" so I have to leave but these has produced some interesting speculations. Will see what comes up in the thread later.

-- Brian (imager@home.com), May 29, 1999.