Nikolai (sp.?) posts on this forum occasionally. I can't remember his last name. He recently compared the seriousness of computer failures, from now until sometime next year, to a tidal wave which, when far from shore (i.e., mid 1999) is far less consequential than when it approaches and hits shore. Nikolai, if you see this, please elaborate. I am trying to get a handle on why 1999 failures have had so little overt impact (even in places like Italy that are hopelessly behind) and your analogy struck a chord with me. Are the current failures almost uniformly fixed or worked around in ways that will not be available after we cross the threshold?

-- Bill Byars (billbyars@softwaresmith.com), May 31, 1999

Answers

Obviously, I'm not Nick, but...

Here's why the tidal wave (or tsunami, if you will) is quite apt:

Somewhere in the deep, dark recesses of the ocean, an earthquake occurs. The shockwaves from that earthquake are powerful, and have a tremendous amount of energy to expend, yet create a barely perceptible wave at the surface in the middle of a big and deep ocean. That energy does not disipate on it's own, though - as the shockwaves approach the continental shelf, where there's less physical area to expend the energy, what was a ripple in a vast ocean becomes much more obvious on the surface. And as the wave approaches shore, the wave continues to grow because there's no longer any room beneath the surface to absorb the shock. Finally, the wave crests as it crashes ashore.

The Y2K analogy is thus - there is a big enough ocean of infrastructure and redundant information technology to absorb the impact of the isolated failures that have occured to date. That's why you haven't seen much in public fora. The wave has been small enough to remain subsurface; all you've seen to date is a ripple on the surface. The closer we get to 1/1/2000, the closer the wave is to shore, and the less room for error there will be. The "wave" will grow, and be blatantly obvious to everyone who sees it crash ashore in the days and weeks following January 1.

-- Dan Webster (dan_webster@flashmail.com), May 31, 1999.

Exactly Dan.

-- Nikoli Krushev (doomsday@y2000.com), May 31, 1999.

somewhere there was a discussion between Flint and (?) about tidal waves and magnifying glasses. Did anyone else read it?

-- Just (curious@cur.ious), June 01, 1999.

Nikoli,

Did you see the thread on Jeff Nyquest? Some one was requesting info and I figured you would know more...

-- Moore Dinty moore (not@thistime.com), June 01, 1999.

Thanks.

-- Bill Byars (billbyars@softwaresmith.com), June 01, 1999.

Bill:

As I recall, I dreamed up the tidal wave metaphor in the form you mention as part of an argument I was having with Mutha Nachu some while back. Nachu was claiming that no impacts yet implies no impacts later, and I used the tidal wave image to argue that Nachu's position, uh, didn't hold water [g].

If Nikoli came up with this idea independently, I wasn't aware of it, but if so, good work, Nikoli. It does seem pretty applicable.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), June 01, 1999.

Dont know which thread I picked this up off of (amazable), but...

Tidal Wave

Carmichel has tremendous insight and his post make you think in new ways. It suddenly struck me that what he is on the verge of grasping is that Y2K is not the Titanic, but a Tidal wave. Moving across the Ocean unimpeded and barely visible it is aproaching the shore at incredible velocity. It passes under the ships of forward looking dates with minimal disruption at first for those farthrest from shore, but as it aproaches the slope of the sea bed its effects become increasingly more severe and uncontainable. Nearing the shore even huge ships are swamped and capsized as the wave mounts, and the water begins to recede from the beach. The geologist have told us of a massive offshore earthquake and those who know this causes tidal waves are fleeing to high ground, while those lacking the ability to associate cause and effect remain scoffing in the surf, or secure in their stilted beach houses. For those who are not actively retreating now, it will be too late when the wave becomes visible. If the flood doesn't get them, the backwash will.

And...

I believe you could look at a tidal wave and, drop by drop, demonstrate that no particular drop could cause any problems. And since the tidal wave is itself composed of nothing but drops, it poses no dangers at all. QED.

Yes, I'm encouraged to read about each nonthreatening drop as factually refuted by those you named. The epiphenomenon of the wave itself, however, continues to bother me. -- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), May 16, 1999.

The entire y2k mess strikes me as a giant jigsaw puzzle with most of the pieces missing and the rest made of putty. -- Flint

So,

The more I read it, the more I like the tidal wave analogy.

PNG once referred to the Japanese banking system impact as the Asian Tsunami.

Assuming we recognize it's more than one, and coming both simultaneously and in successive waves with different unknown points of maximum impact.

Got surf boards?

Diane

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), June 01, 1999.

DAMN! Intelligent life on earth! Now I'm gonna have to re-write my whole report to my alien masters!

-- jor-el (jor-el@krypton.uni), June 01, 1999.

Lets have a little integrity here. No fair to snip out commets from the opposing side.

This is the thread that has the tidal wave stuff on it (near the bottom; the top is mostly flame wars) http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=000p Z3

I find it suspicious, Diane that you "can't remember" where you got those 'snips' but just happen to have only doomer (pessimists) quotes. Why not include both?

-- Regular (at@the.forum), June 02, 1999.

OK folks, just like next year is NOT the 21st century, a tsunami is NOT a tidal wave. A tsunami is caused by a seismic event, a tidal wave is simply an extremely large but otherwise normal tide caused by the earths rotation, moon's gravitational pull, etc.

-- Stickler (for.det@ils.com), June 02, 1999.

incorrect stickler: from Websters.

2 definitions found.

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

Tidal \Tid"al\, a. Of or pertaining to tides; caused by tides; having tides; periodically rising and falling, or following and ebbing; as, tidal waters.

The tidal wave of deeper souls Into our inmost being rolls, And lifts us unawares Out of all meaner cares. --Longfellow.

Tidal air (Physiol.), the air which passes in and out of the lungs in ordinary breathing. It varies from twenty to thirty cubic inches.

Tidal basin, a dock that is filled at the rising of the tide.

Tidal wave. (a) See Tide wave, under Tide. Cf. 4th Bore. (b) A vast, swift wave caused by an earthquake or some extraordinary combination of natural causes. It rises far above high-water mark and is often very destructive upon low-lying coasts.

-- Nikoli Krushev (doomsday@y2000.com), June 02, 1999.

Regular,

One of those few times I didn't note the URL. I was writing something else at the time and LIKED the Tidal Wave analogy. So... quick snip.

I STILL like it... "assuming we recognize it's more than one, and coming both simultaneously and in successive waves with different unknown points of maximum impact."

A little 3-day storm, just doesn't cut it descriptively, for a global "event."

Diane

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), June 03, 1999.

Diane:

Fair enough

But I like the response as well;

"Why assume its more than one? Why assume its in successive waves? You know what happens when you assume. That is how the hype of year 2000 roll-over turned into the big dung-ball that it is today. -- Mutha Nachu"

And

"oh and the tidal wave thingy?....just plain dumb. It is NOT a question of 'examining the droplets'....back up now....

...let's first find out if its a tidal wave we are dealing with or not. (It looks like you are operating under the assumption it is...I think that's where the problem starts)

I don't grant those kind of starting assumptions. That thinking was O.K. in 97...even early 98...but now? doesn't wash.

And it certainly doesn't help to have the grifters and hypsters showing people an ocean wave thru a magnifying glass saying "see...its big...HUGE...(say, you wanna buy a little insurance from me?...maybe a 'how to survive the coming tsunami' video? its not put out by oceanographers, no... its desert biologists...what's the difference? a mere pitance I tell ya...after all hope for the best; prepare for the worst!, right?"

"Y2K...it's still stupid"

-- Mutha Nachu (---@tsunami's .are me...heh, heh, heh...), May 16, 1999."

For all her sarcasm and uneccessary stupid remarks, MN brings up a valid point. I know I have been guilty of thinking inside the box, and the pollys often force me to re-evaluate. Without that, we could all end up like Dr. North; unable (or unwilling) to change our position.

We are, after all, on a quest for the truth of this matter...aren't we? :)

-- Regular (at@the.forum), June 03, 1999.

Most look ahead 1999-2000 processing will not really have any impact on the outside world, anyway, no-one will ever get to know the real impact of computer system failure except the IT developers and the users directly involved.

Its also possible that any remaining 1999 problems can be fixed on failure, if not dealt with in the y2k project, also the first problems to be addressed in such a project would obviously be any problems potentially occurring before 2000.

In my experience most processing problems will occur in 2000, the question is will companies be so overwhelmed by them that their systems will grind to a halt. There will always be the utmost secrecy attached to any computer system faults.

-- dick of the dale (rdale@coynet.com), June 03, 1999.

Regular (or irregular).

"...let's first find out if its a tidal wave we are dealing with or not. (It looks like you are operating under the assumption it is...I think that's where the problem starts)."

I don't ASS-U-ME anything. I research, which you know. So do most of us.

Watch the international Y2K situation and I think you'll find the "source" of simultaneous tidal waves. Not to mention the local tornados, earthquakes, hurricanes, floods and fires of the natural and manmade kinds. And then, I suspect, waiting in the millenium wings are the Y2K critical infrastructure terrorists.

"Dicey" doesn't even begin to describe "the water-based problems."

Try climbing outside your own box once in awhile. As a contingency plan.

Diane

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), June 03, 1999.

Greeting's to England's Richard of "alan-a-dale" fame...

Waving from across the pond, and over a few rocky mountain and lower Sierra bumps.

Diane

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), June 03, 1999.

It's so strange...

Ever since last May (as my ever-lovin', ever-patient wife can attest), I have characterized my sense of "The Y2K Problem" as like standing on the seashore looking at the horizon, and seeing the horizon MOVE UPWARD. You think to yourself, "What the... now just a minute here. I'm not sure just how big that wave is, but it's WAY too big for my taste." The issues then become just how much time you have, and what actions are necessary to ensure safety.

Some kind of Jungian collective image here...

-- Mac (sneak@lurk.hid), June 03, 1999.

Well, Diane here we go. All I'm trying to say is that the pollys force me to think outside the box; then you go and tell me to try thinking outside "my" box once in a while, as a contigency plan. Is that some kind of a veiled attack? Why do you assume I don't have contingency plans? I'm prepping the same as you...but to be honest, I could use the money for other things. So I'm trying to figure out the truth of this matter. I do believe that some of the Y2K angles have been blown out of proportion; I guess what I'm saying is, if I can prep for six months and wind up only needing three months I'm O.K. with that. but if I prep for a year or more and don't need but a few weeks worth of it...then what? Like I said, I could use the money right now, instead of having it tied up in preps.

(and as far as your irregular mark goes, I've been following this forum for 18 months. Just because I don't post as often as you doesn't make me less of a regular)

That's all I have time for now. will check back tonight.

-- Regular (at@the.forum), June 03, 1999.

Regular,

Re-read your cut n paste above from MN... is this some kind of unveiled attack?

And it certainly doesn't help to have the grifters and hypsters showing people an ocean wave thru a magnifying glass saying "see...its big...HUGE...(say, you wanna buy a little insurance from me?...maybe a 'how to survive the coming tsunami' video? its not put out by oceanographers, no... its desert biologists...what's the difference? a mere pitance I tell ya...after all hope for the best; prepare for the worst!, right?"

"Y2K...it's still stupid."

And you are, uh, rattled, that I imply you may be stuck in a box, that the pollys help you climb out of?

*Sigh*

In BigDogs words... Its still Y2K, stupid. Only piled higher and deeper.

Diane

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), June 03, 1999.

I can see I'm dealing with a closed mind. Forget I said anything, Diane.

-- Regular (at@the.forum), June 04, 1999.