Scattered power outages across the U.S. Northeast have been reported. Utilities are begging consumers to reduce demand. GPU Energy said it "may be required to initiate further emergency procedures, up to and including rolling blackouts". Providence, Rhode Island's City Hall was closed when power failed. New York City subways were delayed as they were starved for electricity.

Isn't this exactly the kind of thing that the Y2K experts have been telling us to expect this summer as the first big wave of Y2K problems hits critical mass? What a convenient coincidence this so called record heat wave is. Where is the explanation from that association of bullshiters at NERC? Is there anything government and industry won't do to pull the wool over our eyes

I received an unsolicited email from someone who works at NASA who let me know, on the grounds of absolute anonymity as it is obvious he would be fired for letting this out, that the space administration has deployed huge orbital panels to reflect more solar energy back to earth and increase the temperature. Also, my baby-sitter's husband who works for the weather service, told me about a confidential memo that five degrees are to be added to all reported daily high temperatures until further notice. There is wide-ranging conspiracy to increase and exaggerate this heat wave so that the public does not find out the real truth about these Y2K problems.

Of course, you won't hear anything about this from that moron Mitch Ratcliffe at ZD Net. While we are sweltering, he is busy making excuses for LA's sewage spill. That government lackey is dedicated to keeping you misinformed and hiding the truth from the good people who would prepare for a disaster. Well Mitch, I've got news for you: when this is over you will have the sewage of a lot of unfortunate people on your hands and there's no air conditioning in Hell!

-- Burning Up (burning@doomiscoming.com), July 06, 1999

Answers

Not that I wouldn't believe in government cover ups but, how do you fake a heat wave?

Reference: "This man looses everything he owns in a flood. He takes some of the insurance money uses it to fly to Tahiti. While sitting on the beach he strikes up a conversation with another fellow sitting near him who happens to be a lawyer. The lawyer says "I'm here because my house burned down and I collected the insurance money." The first fellow says "Wow. Same thing happened to me. I lost everything in a flood." To which the lawyer replies "How do you start a flood?"

Watch six and keep your...

-- eyes_open (best@wishes.net), July 06, 1999.

Burning Up,

Yes, it has been proven (in the past) that our Government has been involved in nefarious schemes - but I believe that one of your statements is very far fetched i.e., orbiting heat refractors. Have you stopped to consider the number of orbital platforms necessary to affect any significant temperature (ground) increase within our cities - or the size of the mirrors. I believe (by using simple formulas contained in any first year Physics book) that you could determine the level of difficulty associated with such a plan. The number and size of required mirrors would make it very easy for a professional or amateur astronomer to detect such a govermental conspiracy.

-- paul dirac (pdirac@hotmail.com), July 06, 1999.

Poole, is that you again???

-- Nabi Davidson (nabi7@yahoo.com), July 06, 1999.

Find this scenario very hard to swallow.

All meteorologists nationwide going along with raising temp 5 degrees? You mean the thermometer on my porch went along with them, too?

Giant panels in space reflecting back sunlight? Golly, you'd think all those amateur astronomers searching for comets and Saturn's rings would have noticed something that big and that close.

Sorry. Doesn't work for me.

-- Anita Evangelista (ale@townsqr.com), July 06, 1999.

Just in case any newbies are lurking and don't get it, this post is a TROLL.....absolute B.S. designed to start a fight.....

Solar Panels.......hehehehehehehe.........C'mon, I hear they have brains for sale at Walmart this week......pick one up for yourself.

-- Craig (craig@ccinet.ab.ca), July 06, 1999.

Hey;

The russians really did plan to launch an orbiting mirror to bring nite time lighting to burgs out in Siberia durring the winter. The plan is currently on hold due to lack of funding. But this may be the "solar pannels" this "author" refers to.

Remember put a grain of truth in it, then hyperbolize to the moon......

I

-- Its Gonna be long (hot@summer.com), July 06, 1999.

This is no joke. Until the Orbital Panels were perfected the plan was to launch Squire into orbit and have the shadow start a new ice age.

-- Jimmy Bagga Doughnuts (jim1bets@worldnet.att.net), July 06, 1999.

http://www.smartass.org/Presswire/RussianSunlight.html

Russian Sunlight Cosmonauts fail to bring a bright future to the world

Those wacky Russians are at it again. At a time when the Russian economy is sinking like Ted Kennedy's Buick, the space program is investing in a risky and controversial experiment to increase productivity and decrease alcoholism and depression with sunlight.

Last month, cosmonauts attempted to unfurl an 82-foot-diameter space mirror which would reflect sunlight onto the earth for more hours of "daylight" in areas where the sun barely shows itself during the winter.

There was opposition to the plan in Russia, where some felt money for the program would have been better used on silly, unnecessary items like building a strong industrial base or even food. Outside Russia, opposition was just as strong amongst astronomers, who claimed the mirrors would have destroyed sensitive components in telescopes, frying them with too much light. Asked for comment on this theory, Russian officials smiled and said, "Oops."

The first attempt to unfurl the mirrors failed when the mirrors got caught on the antenna of the Mir, also known as the "Space Chevette." After attempts to free the mirrors without damage failed, they were cut loose and burned up in the atmosphere over the Pacific Ocean. Sensing a possible backlash if the program failed, Russian scientists did have a back-up plan. This time, the plan is to cover the Kremlin in gasoline and then set fire to Yelstin's liver. Russian scientists estimate that the flames could reach several miles into the sky, providing daylight conditions for much of the Northern Hemisphere.

-- Sunlite (allwinter@sun.com), July 06, 1999.

Paul, great to have you aboard, kicking troll butt. Enlist your friends!

-- Peter Errington (petere@ricochet.net), July 06, 1999.

It happens - this is summer time.

Now, if massive electric failures result from the regional failures of certain companies to serve their customers, then you can legitimately derive some "network" level lessons from this current weather.

But otherwise, nope, no connection at all. You're looking too hard in this case for trouble in places that have no connection.

Now - did you notice the display changed? That happened because the embedded reference changed attributes of the displayed text. Nothing more sinister than that - though inconvenient and more difficult to read.

The Y2K lesson is in watching how long it takes to remove the color change. That will show you how hard it is to correct a simple programming problem.

-- Robert A. Cook, PE (Kennesaw, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), July 06, 1999.

color change? embeded text? hard to read?

I do not understand mr professional enginerr

are you saying Y2K=No Big Deal?

-- I (don't@get.it), July 06, 1999.

Are you sure it's hot? It's only 99 here. But maybe I'm the one to blame. I said I like warm weather...

-- Mara Wayne (MaraWayne@aol.com), July 06, 1999.

I'll try

-- a regular (guess@who.ok?), July 06, 1999.

Now you see it, now you don't. No color change PE

Now you know how quick I will fix Y2K.

It is not a problem any more!

-- I (fixed@it.com), July 06, 1999.

The display background changed color. Your browser may, or may not, be capable of noticing this effect, dear sir. My browser, Internet Explorer on a WinNT 4.0 machine, shows a black background very clearly.

Again - the y2k lesson there is that the same effect very evident on my PC may not be visible on your PC - but it doesn't mean there is no effect. Only that you are incapable of viewing it (and hence in resolving or troubleshooting it) on your machine using your equipment.

Thus, like next January or February, you would be unable to correct a y2k failure until you attempt more debugging. Or until I get frustrated at your failure to resolve my problem and take my business to a y2k-compliant competitor. After many of such transfer, you are unemployed, your company out of business and your other clients (the ones who failed to transfer) bankrupt.

Unless you work for the federal or state government - then we (your clients who pay your wages and who you are supposed to serve) have no choice but to try to live with your incompetence and inability to take care of your remaining y2K problems.

But Clinton says these are all resolved, and since we believe him and since he has never lied to us before, I guess that I should believe you and realize I'm not really seeing a black screen. Am I?

-- Robert A. Cook, PE (Kennesaw, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), July 06, 1999.

Sorry "regular" - still black.

Nope - never changed color there, dear sir. Your effort failed too.

Told you resolving problems is not trivial. But we all know that it will only take a few hours to "fix on failure" - right?

-- Robert A. Cook, PE (Kennesaw, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), July 06, 1999.

Still broken.

-- Robert A. Cook, PE (Kennesaw, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), July 06, 1999.

Looks fine on my Internet Explorer on WIN98

Maybe you have changed your local envirnment?

-- No (Problem@all.com), July 06, 1999.

Still broken. The background remained white unitl I grabbed the slide bar at the right margin and moved it down. Used the regular "mouse" press and drag. As soon as the screen began scrolling - it reversed color and became black.

Give me your email - I'll send you a zipped bmp of the effect.

No change in "environment" or "settings" or web functions - all other forum screens - except this one - remain correct.

BUT - I thought this was an easy fix compared to y2k. Right?

-- Robert A. Cook, PE (Kennesaw, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), July 06, 1999.

Still broken. Again.

-- Robert A. Cook, PE (Kennesaw, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), July 06, 1999.

No, it's still broken. Want the screen bitmap?

-- Robert A. Cook, PE (Kennesaw, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), July 06, 1999.

mr PE, if I don't see black (and you tell me its black)

and I have power, water, food, internet, job, family and so on

maybe, just maybe, some of those other computers you say are dead

are not dead! Just cuz u says so dont make it true!

Maybe your system is dead, but all is well here in doughnut land

Maybe WhyTwoKay is for has beens,

Wake up, smell the coffee, it was a bad dream, come out and play

Power=OK Banks=OK Food=OK DOW=OK Mil=OK

All systems green, live life and enjoy!!!!

My systems are OK, maybe you should visit a doctor.

-- No (Problem@all.com), July 06, 1999.

Please send me the bit map. It is great!

-- no probs (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), July 06, 1999

So because I'm bald, if I orbit the Earth I can help in this conspiracy using my Solar Sex Panel?

Where do I sign up?

*giggle giggle, snicker, snicker*

The guys at www.suck.com would have a field day in this forum.

-- Gonzo, BABY! (gonzoj@gonzo.com), July 06, 1999.

Welll - despite what you say - it's still broken on this end. And guess what? If my end is broken, it doesn't matter what you think - or what you believe - or what you want to believe - I'm looking at a black screen - and it's still broken.

Further - like y2k - I don't care what you're looking at: if my end of the process is broken, it's broken. Your end doesn't count as far as my process (and my business) is concerned!

Lesson to others - since this guy isn't apparently going to listen, the rest of you might as well learn something.

Remember: all y2k failures are

1. In the eye of the beholder.

2. All failures are "local" - even if the other end doesn't get the same symptom.

3. All failures are real to the person experincing them.

4. A satisfactory test (at one PC or mainframe computer) doesn't mean anything at some other PC or computer.

5. Listen to your customer. Even though he is experiencing things you may not be able to duplicate, it doesn't mean he is not experincing them.

6. Fixing programs and processes is not simple.

7. "Fixing on failure" requires being able to isolate and solve the failure. It is not simple. Not short. Not easy to do.

-- Robert A. Cook, PE (Kennesaw, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), July 06, 1999.

Juz for you.

I been a progamin for a long time.

I cut my teeth on a CDC 1604, you remember the first transitorized computer? I been a doin JCL, COBAL, FORTRAN, 360-370, even of the first 8080 stuff. Still current in Microsoft Development Platform although my C is ruster than my COBAL.

Get it though your head. It is Fixed! The US will not have a problem! The market may dip, trade may slow down, but like welcome to stagflation baby.

Y2K is real, but very very over blown.

Life is good, enjoy it, have a beer, you will feel better.

TEOTEWKI (not)

-- No (Problem@all.com), July 06, 1999.

Sorry - I don't want the whole Y2K problem to be resolved. I know neither you (nor I) can fix that big a problem.

I just want this one screen, in just this one thread, in just this one application to be solved. That's all. One screen. One application. One problem. It can be done, right? It's easy, right?

But don't tell me it's fixed. Fix it.

-- Robert A. Cook, PE (Kennesaw, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), July 06, 1999.

Mr. PE

If I can not see the problem, if I can not feel the problem, if I can not hear the problem, taste or touch the problem.

Maybe there is No Problem!

All systems go here, white space, black letters, all is good.

You know when people have a problem with reality, they should seak help. Life is good, enjoy, you live in the most powerful country in the world, the old ways are gone, markets will continue to expand and if you you are really as good at this html thing as you claim, you too can make lots of bucks on the internet. Good winds, and good sailing!

Y2K=AOK

-- No (Problem@all.com), July 06, 1999.

But you misunderstand my purpose, dear sir. I did not change the html, not do I claim to be able to change it back.

Nor is it a serious or life-threatening problem.

It is a useful training tool, and as such, I will continue to use it as a training tool to show several lessons, including your refusal to send me an email to look at (investigate) the problem.

And that repeated refusal to investigate a reported problem, but rather to rely on your "perceived realty" rather than my "proveable phenomona" is itself a lesson, isn't it?

Your conclusion that y2k will be "nothing" is being tested here, not my available (to date) but "unlooked at" evidence of failure. Your judgement and ability to troubleshoot and correctly interpet the results of reported events based on incomplete and spotty results from other people's activities is being tested - not my judgement that there will be likely be widespread and irregular failures in many widespread systems and processes next year.

___

And the screen still has a black background.

-- Robert A. Cook, PE (Kennesaw, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), July 06, 1999.

for pete's sake the screen is BLACK. The trolls and pollys are colorblind, truthblind, realityblind, integrityblind, courtesyblind, ad infinitum.

-- blind (as@a.bat), July 06, 1999.

Robert;

My system can not see your "black space"

Everything here is AOK.

Black text, white background.

Maybe this is a real Y2K exchange. I see OK you see Black.

Things are good. I have lived in times where things are not good.

Things may go bad, but I prefer to live in the good.

I prepare, But HTML prowness (as the ability to bring down 370 systems, passes.

You may be good a some form of cyberterrorism, by changing this page to some difficult to read color scheem, (I do not see it so I can n ot comment on the problem) But realize that you may wish for TEOTWAKEIO But TWMGO (The World May Go On)

Take a pill, chill out, drink some wine,

Y2K=AoK

-- No (Problem@all.com), July 06, 1999.

Hi - but the screen's still black.

-- Robert A. Cook, PE (Kennesaw, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), July 06, 1999.

Robert;

In your world the screen is black.

I can not see into your world. In my world the screen is white with black text. My computers have been fixed. They are Y2K compliant, tested stem to stern. If I do not see your "black" world it is because my systems have 1)virus protection 2) Y2K compliance

Your reality is not my reality inspite of your claims to fame.

You do not get it. Y2K is a LOCAL issue. You may be hit. But I have done my homework along with the Federal Gov., the State Gov., And the Local Gov. We are prepared.

You are Not. You have a problem.

We do not.

We are prepared. We have fixed our code. We are safe and warm. Your are out in the cold. It is not doomsday..

Prepare for Good Times!!!!

-- No (Problem@All.com), July 06, 1999.

I believe you Robert! :-) The other day we had a problem on a thread where Robert could see large red letters on his screen, but I couldn't. He sent me a zipped file of what he was seeing, and sure enough, it was there just like he said. Robert, I will see if I can fix this for you. Let me know if it works.

-- Gayla (privacy@please.com), July 06, 1999.

Robert;

PS: The President of The United States (Bill Clinton)

Has said "Party Down at Y2K" You should attend.

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=00138x

-- No (Problem@all.com), July 06, 1999.

Boy - this has become a tremedous training example - I'm amazed at how well you are helping me educate the other readers. Thanks. Let us continue the lesson.

To repeat - we are testing your repeated refusal to email me and get a pair of simple bitmap images showing that your perception is wrong.

That (in itself) is interesting - I'll let others analyze your refusal to investigate one problem as a symptom of your inablity to understand the potential severe difficulties relating to next year.

Despite your cooperaqtion, you still have not emailed me to get evidence to properly analyze the problem. Your reassuring bland announcements and simplistic comments "that there will be no problems next year" - that it is all in my perception (so remarkably similar to those of the federal government!) do not fix the problem. They only serve to distract other people from trying to fix the problem.

Like the federal government will find out - bland announcements that the problem is fixed don't fix the real problem.

I just want to get the screen fixed. It's still broken.

-- Robert A. Cook, PE (Kennesaw, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), July 06, 1999.

-- - (z@z.z), July 06, 1999.

Robert; Robert; Robert;

Send an Email Address?

Download a Program?

I am a troll, if you wish to Kill a troll what do you do?

Send a Trogan Horse to Kill the tolll.

But, you know, my Virus software may be better than your ability, but why chance it.

We are doing a good job of communicating here on a forum. I am not in your space. You are not in my computer.

I have spent a lot of $ making this node safe. Why do you want to have direct contact. I do not find you physically attractive (although I do not have any data on this opinion) But you do seem to be very "hostile" and Y2K is "BAD".

Well Y2K may be good. I have seen things come and go. This will not be a cake walk. But it may not be doom.com eather.

Drink a beer, it will help calm you. I see lots of beer cans in the blocks garbage each week. It must be gooooood for you.

-- No (Problem@all.com), July 06, 1999.

Nope - the screen is still black. The lesson continues - I am surprized and disppointed you would consider any reference to Clinton (or to the government in general) as a credible source would contribute to your case.

The federal government is (still) among the furthest behind, least prepared, and most vunerable to probable failures. Its people are the least skilled in "work-arounds", they (the rank-and-file bureacrats and simple clerks) are most vunerable to automated systems failures, and the most reliant on old, unremediated programs and old computer hardware. The fundemental attitude of bureacratic employees is NOT "solving the problem" - as is the case in all businesses - it is in "don't make waves" - "follow procedure" - "look at the what the book (computer) says to do".

And they (the government overall) are a monopoly - they control their own processes, and there is no recourse if their processes fail. But they are the also the most likely to blame others, to try to conceal and hide failures (easy to do with a complacent media) and to issue false statements meant to make their leaders look good.

Now - all they have to do is fix the problem(s). They (the government) had ample warning. They caused the problem by not demanding 6 years ago that every business doing work for the federal government must be compliant by Dec 1998. But they failed. Clinton-Gore failed.

The only government agency ahead of schedule was the Social Security Administration. And Bush's appointtee ordered that repair process started. Not Clinton. Not Gore. They didn't want to solve the problem. ____

But the screen is still broken.

-- Robert A. Cook, PE (Kennesaw, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), July 06, 1999.

You said "I just want to get the screen fixed. It's still broken."

You do not get it!!!

My screen is fine, No Problemo,.

Just becuz you think there is a problem do not make it a WORLD WID FACT!!

Y2K=AoK!!

-- No (Problem@all.com), July 06, 1999.

This is fun!

You are a doomer! I am a Polly! What better mix!

We could be like those two mouths for the gov. Mary&Weasel

I vote Dem and you vote Rep!

I just do not see the problem you are talking about. Truefully my screen is just fine. I do not see the black background you are prepondering. NS4 WIN95, things are good.

Maybe my "provider" filters out your bad data.

But maybe this is a protend for Y2K.... It will not be all bad.

As much as Doomers want, it will not be that bad.... As much as pollys want, it will not be that good.

Y2K is serious, but not fatal.

Times are good, have fun, relax, enjoy the sunshine...

-- No (Problem@all.com), July 06, 1999.

Oh I'm sorry - you did not understand the process - you email me, just like anybody else can do. I reply to you with an attached zipped file of two bitmaps. ( Just like what I do all the time.) You then can look at the problem with MSPaint, or Paint Shop Pro, or Photoeditor, or any other bitmap viewer you choose. I am sending a zipped file, not a program. (Now, what other people do is their business - if they choose to send viruses or spam - that's their failure not mine. It is their sin, their crime, not mine. But then again, I am a trainer - not a troll. So I don't do that kind of thing.)

You have to decide if you wish to learn, or to continue the lesson for everybody else in showing how you think.

Again - your peception, and your declaration of "feel good" is only as accurate as what you _allow_ yourself to learn. Also, it is only as worthwhile, and will only last as long as you can deny reality by avoiding it.

Which will last (in the case of year 2000 troubles) until perhaps next January.

Thank you for compliment - but I must decline. I do not consider myself famous. True "fame" is earned only by proved actions over a long period of time, and is only granted when others, by consensus, state it by their recognition - it cannot be self-proclaimed, nor self-defined. __

Regardless, my failure is still "local", it still affects me. The screen is still broken. So the lesson goes on.

-- Robert A. Cook, PE (Kennesaw, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), July 06, 1999.

lemme try.......

-- y2kbiker (y2kbiker@worldnet.att.net), July 06, 1999.

No Problem At All:

I just received an e-mail from Robert Cook with a zipped attachment. Sure enough, the background is black and the words are white. When I read this thread, I see a white background, too, but I assure you, Mr. Cook is seeing white words on a black background. (PS- There is no virus in the zipped file.)

-- Gayla (privacy@please.com), July 06, 1999.

Robert;

You are making me more of a poly than I already am!

I feel as if I am talking to Gary North himself.

You "see" the problem, my system can not! Everything is oK here. You claim to have set some parameter that makes this into a "black" space. But my software does not "see" your cyborterrorism.

Perhaps you need a bigger bomb.

If you are really a PE, why are you "defaming" a wall (or website)with this suposed "graffity". Engineers build, they are not known for cyborterrorism.

Does Y2K push you to such extreems?

Think, Watch, and Listen.

It is not as bad as it sometimes seems.

-- No (Problem@All.com), July 06, 1999.

Robert: This is TOO funny. You are cracking me up!! I sent this thread to my Y2K committee, my daughter, and my local correspondents.

Please, oh please, keep trying to get your screen "fixed". ROFLMAO!!!

-- Jon Williamson (jwilliamson003@sprintmail.com), July 06, 1999.

well, its still 'broken", but we've got black (and blue and purple) on white now.

If only I was able to edit the file instead of only appending to it...but then it'd be trivial.

-- (y2kbiker@worldnet.att.net), July 06, 1999.

-- (y2kbiker@worldnet.att.net), July 06, 1999.

Robert, is it still black?

-- Gayla (privacy@please.com), July 06, 1999.

No, no. I did not "set" any parameter - which was subsequently (and sucessfully) reset by the "biker" person - thank you, kind sir.

I was only using the accidental setting of a stray parameter to train the other students in how you (a nominal polly) perceive things. In how you (the subject nominal polly of today's lesson) fail to investigate a problem by discussing "around it" with bland re-assuring statements about my condition without resolving the actual failure.

I (also) am html challenged - but prefer to train people to minimize trouble, rather than accept a so-called expert's word that there "will be" no trouble based on that so-called expert's "feeling" (and desire) that there be no troubles next year. I believe in results, not feelings or preceptions. The cmputer too - does not care what you think, nor what you want. It will fail (or continue to operate) based only on what the programmer tells it to do.

We have established that a "nominal polly" cannot (refuses to) analyze a situation that contradicts his perceived reality. Instead, he will use many (most) of the same arguements that the government is now actively using to distract and sidetrack his readers.

BUT - the "nominal polly" will not fix the problem. Deny it? Yes. Fix it? No. Attack the person describing the problem? Yes. (By the way, no one can count any beer cans at my property - there are none. I recycle all my aluminum, plastic, paper, steel, brass/bronze and wood products.)

A "invisible worker bee" - "a real expert" - not the so-called experts talking about things - is the only one who can remove the problem. Only the workers - not hte administrators, not any "observer" - only the workers can fix this thing we call the y2k troubles.

____

The bitmap zipped file will now include the transition at biker's input. That will make three bmp's. Black1.bmp, black2.bmp, and white1.bmp.

____

By the way, Biker - now the "link" colors are grey -they used to be blue. ____

To the remaining students - notice that an acceptable fix need not be perfect to be acceptable.

To the remaining students: notice that any given y2k "fix" has a 7% chance of introducing a new error, not present in the previously operating code.

-- Robert A. Cook, PE (Kennesaw, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), July 06, 1999.

Well, I am glad it is fixed. (I never saw the problem)

Maybe this is the way of Y2K;

Some will see the problem and prepare;

Others will live their lives with out care.

When the time comes, the bell will toll.

And each will find out Y or Y(not) to beware.

-- No (Problem@all.com), July 06, 1999.

Alas sir biker - I was outdated in my premature anouncement of failure in your initial attempt at remediation training.

Well - technically, I was right (at the time the "test" was run) in my statement that the links were the wrong color, but by the time this "beta release" announcement was made, the programmers (you) had made a change and the testers (me) were talking to management (the students) about problems that no longer were valid.

____

Note to other students - y2k is a dynamic process, and progress is being made regularly. Do not assume tht because something failed once, or was not ready earlier, that the same thing will fail again. Nor should you make the assumption that "nothing has been fixed", rather, be aware that

1) we don't know how much needs to be fixed for things (all sutomated systems and processes) to remain operable as they are now.

2) we aren't being told (accurately and reliably) what remains to be fixed. We are being told that "nothing will happen..." (I hope veryone sees how accurate a statement that can be.)

3) nobody knows what will happen

4) nobody knows how many things will work - and how many things (systems) will break. Nobody actually knows all the things that can break, must less all those that will break next year.

5) nobody is willing to test things (in a fully integrated systems format) to find out what will happen if they are not fixed.

6) computers demand prefection to run "okay" - but programs are not perfect. Some things will fail regardless of what is fixed. We just don't know what yet.

7) Some things will work no matter what is broken. We just don't know what yet.

____

Sir biker: Your subsequent testing and remediation was successfully resolving the matter while I was continuing the "polygraph" lesson. Such is life. Your successes go unrewarded by the user, but like most software programmers, you needed a couple of tries to get it completed. Would that we had more time to allow all programmers the luxury of re-trying.

____

The links are now returned their former blue, the text remains black, and the background is white. You, sir biker, have done well. Bitmap white2.bmp, showing your final success, has now been added to the training plan and is available, as always, upon request. ____

Class dismissed. Again - please thank the "nominal polly" for his outstanding contribution to the lesson on your out.

____

Your exam will be next January. Per the announced schedule. No late slips or tardies permitted. All students are requried to take the exam. All grades will be pass/fail. No substitutions are allowed - everyone must take his or her own exam, but you can prepare any way you like. ____

Your grade will be (could be) your final exam. Ever.

-- Robert A. Cook, PE (Kennesaw, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), July 07, 1999.

I was going to hit my "Troll Alert" button when I first saw this post title, but I feel much better now. Thanks, All!

My abs' hurt from laughing,

-- Spindoc' (spindoc_99_2000@yahoo.com), July 07, 1999.

Not so fast there, Professor Cook.

First, may I say I've rarely seen such a blatant example of someone missing the point of a lesson. Koskinen and Cory both say that things will fail locally and in unpredictable ways. Just because the lights may be on in his neighborhood does not guarantee they are on in yours, as No Problem evidently assumes.

Worse, No Problem seems to feel that it is fine if, through no fault of their own, other people suffer the life-threatening "blackscreen" while his "whites" remain on and, further, feel no moral compunction to even investigate, let alone care about, his neighbors' problem.

Though I did not experience the deadly "blacksceen, I have been inconvenienced by annoying "greylink" ever since that silly "Sunlite" paste (eigth post on this thread). Even after remediation by the capable Y2K biker fixed the critical "blackscreen" problem (thus saving Cook and others from the ravages of the purple-haired, mutant, cannibal looters) I still suffer the inconvenience if cronic, long-lasting "greylink" and....

OMIGOD....they're headed this way!!!

Hallyx

You say you have problems as great as my own,

I'm forced to admit this is true...

But consider that mine really happen to *me*

While yours merely happen to you.

-- (Hallyx@aol.com), July 07, 1999.

"Professor" Cook, indeed. While you were congratulating Biker on his repair services, you skimmed over the most important statement he made:

"If only I was able to edit the file instead of only appending to it...but then it'd be trivial."

You see folks, Mr. Cook, doesn't just want "fix on failure", he wants it instantly and he wants the people doing the fixing to be working with one arm tied behind their backs, a jam sandwich on their keyboard, all while a gang of 3 year olds pokes sticks in their eyes.

Here is a hint Mr. Cook. When we cruise into the next century and all of those expected Y2K disaster stories fail to materialize, and you are wondering how the programmers were able to manage it, the answer is: "WE CAN EDIT THE FILE!!"

A sterling example of the old adage, "those you can, do, those who can't, teach".

-- Computer Pro (first_minister@hotmail.com), July 07, 1999.

My dear fellow - I do "edit the file" regularly. In fact, "editing the file" (to directly manipulate the data - without using the program or any interface) is a prime debugging and troubleshooting method in finding and fixing CAD programs. I'm also very good at that level of "tweaking" in the files I manipulate.

I fully expect that any programmer who faces a crisis will use any trick available to try to get things working again - which is also why I expect more failures in more unexpected areas than most people. ( Anything repaired in a hurry breaks harder and takes longer to fix than routine well-regulated repirs.)

But I do not, as expressed above, play with html. I only used the html as a training example.

____

Note to the fellow students: This is slow, tedious, nerve wracking and very, very dangerous. (Imagine a programmer going directly to the "check-issuing" part of your company's financial records, and telling the "print check" module that "here is the new cheks for this month, print these to these people for these amounts." with no ability to audit or verify anything by the CFO or payroll administrator.)

Yes - of course it works - one file at a time. If you have one programmer for each data file (trusted and completely accurate) you can take care of that one file per programmer at a time (figuratively) while all the other people who rely on the needed data (and all those who would regularly enter and access the data) are twiddling their thumbs.

That's exactly WHY I insisted that the simple symptom of a single failure is so illustrative: just like you can pretend to be able to "manually" cut a 14" thick piece of structural steel with a hacksaw - and you could be judged legally correct in claiming so - you cannot make a building taking three days to cut one piece of steel.

Normal users, in normal cases, trying to do all of the millions of normal jobs that involve every day-to-day business transaction CANNOT "edit the file". Thay must rely solely and completely on a programmer and the computer to get the routine business done.

And you have illustrated exactly why it will be difficult to manage next year. Why a recession, or other irregular fialures, are so likely.

-- Robert A. Cook, PE (Kennesaw, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), July 07, 1999.

Clearly, Robert not only "can", but he "did" and managed to offer a lesson to boot!

-- Hardliner (searcher@internet.com), July 07, 1999.

Thanks, Robert. BTW, the e-mail addresses are still grey for me. I just tried to clear it up, but based on previous efforts, I doubt it'll work.

-- regular (zzz@z.z), July 07, 1999.

This was only a test...should this have been an actual emergency, you would not have known about it.

WARNING: Do not try this at home

-- RUOK (RUOK@yesiam.com), July 07, 1999.

Professor Cook seems to have fallen into his own trap. He had assumed, since HIS "blackscreen" as well as HIS "greylink" were remediated, that the problem had been solved. But regular and I are still suffering from "greylink."

So what has the student learned from this?

Hallyx

"The primary purpose of the DATA statement is to give names to constants; instead of referring to pi as 3.141592653589793 at every appearance, the variable PI can be given that value with a DATA statement and used instead of the longer form of the constant. This also simplifies modifying the program, should the value of pi change." --- Fortran Manual for Xerox Computers

-- (Hallyx@aol.com), July 07, 1999.

Mr. Cook, I'm afraid you took my statement regarding "editing" the file a little too literally. I was not talking about editing the final output as you suggest in your example of actually hacking the printed output of a cheque run. That is not only a "cheat", but a stupid and utterly futile method that is no method at all. In this little test you have contrived, it would be analogous to Mr. Biker taking the bit map image you sent him, load it into Photoshop, correcting all the colors, and sending it back to you, claiming "See, I fixed it". You might as well try hiding a dead body with saran wrap.

Mr. Biker's lament was that there was a clear bug in the HTML code of the page, but because of the "rules of the game", he could not do the obvious thing of removing the error. He was complaining that he did not have proper access to the HTML code, and he could only effect repairs by appending a patch to the end of it.

To suggest that this kind of constraint typifies the normal working environment and is indicative of why we can expect significant failures next year is ridiculous. Maintenance programmers do have access to the code and they don't have to play silly games to make their job harder. Maybe you would like them to do all fixes only with language commands that have seven letters? Or perhaps, all code mods have to be an anagram of "I hate working on legacy applications"?

The only aspect of Y2K work that makes it any more difficult than any other normal maintenance issue is testing. You need a machine where the system date can be moved ahead well into the future. And creating a good, representative data set for that time period is a pain in the butt. Other than that, Y2K is strictly business as usual, it just pays a little better :-)

-- Computer Pro (first_minister@hotmail.com), July 07, 1999.

You specify a clear and plausible testing platform, would that all companies (or at least enough companies) and enough agencies were adequately testing their application in such a way.

Would that they surveyed and remediated their hardware, operating systems and applications. Would that they checked their data, their vender's data, and their client's data adequately.

If all had, or at least if enough had completed enough work early enough, then this whole thing would not be the potential trouble that it is likely to become.

_____

But it does not appear that enough have done such testing on enough platforms. And many who have done too little appear to be concealing that fact, particularly in the monolpolies of government agencies.

_____

And to repeat what was stated above: an adequate soultion to any given problem to one customer in one situtation may (or may not) be adequate for another who faces a different problem or a different requirement.

That several users still face color problems remains a valid lesson - fixing things is extremely difficult. Testing adequately to remove the problem is not simple, easy, or a one-time affair - but the power companies would have us believe that manually calling emergency telephone numbers is a "power grid" test!!!

It also shows that those who claim "everything is broken" or "everything must be fixed perfectly" are equally not correct - in all cases.

Those who claim that they will be able to "fix on failure" are equally, if not more, wrong.

Then there are those who fail to note that I did not cause, create, or edit the original color change - someone named "sunlite" tampered with the file, and introduced the defect. Who he is, and he (or she did it) - I don't know. And I don't particularly care. You (a user) cannot know who introduced the original y2k error that may bankrupt your employer. You ar eonly interested in getting rid of the problem.

I was only using it as a convenient teaching tool. And as a tool, it has served its purpose. So to the pollies who have contributed so much to our learning experiences, thank you very much.

-- Robert A. Cook, PE (Kennesaw, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), July 08, 1999.

Mr. Cook, you are very magnanimous to thank the pollies for contributing to your learning experience, but I see that you continue to stubbornly hang on to this contention that a game of on-the-fly HTML repair has some bearing on the big picture. As it is obvious that you are part of the analogy challenged, I will post this dialogue to help you out.

	[A cook is in the kitchen making his famous Georgian possum stew. An assistant tosses in some peppercorns, but fails to notice a rat turd.]
Cook:	Blahhh! What the heck happened here? This tastes awful! What got put into this? Somebody help me fix this.
Don't Get It:	I don't get it. [Takes small sip] Mmmmm, tastes great to me Cook, what's the problem?
Assistant:	Tastes fine to me too, boss, are you sure you just didn't have a breath mint. They always makes things taste different after.
Cook:	Your inability to detect the problem is obviously due to the limited range of your taste buds. I, on the other hand, being a professional cook [PC] can taste it immediately - and it is not pleasant. Now I want this fixed, and I want it fixed now.
Lemme Try:	Maybe a little oregano?
No Problem:	I tried it with a piece of white bread and a glass of Chardonnay and it was fine. Are you sure you're not smoking one of those cheap cigars?
Cook:	Still tastes off I tell you. It's got this muddy, earthy, flavour - it's just not right. I'll put some samples into containers and send them out. Maybe somebody can analyse it and figure out what's wrong.
No Problem:	This is getting silly. What do mean earthy? Must be the mushrooms. Look, the stew is fine, I ate it, I enjoyed it, now stop griping and send me the bill.
Cook:	[Sighs heavily.] Well - despite what you say - it's still tastes funny to me. And guess what? If it doesn't taste right to me it doesn't matter what you think - or what you believe - or what you want to believe - this ain't how my possum stew is supposed to taste! [Cook raises his voice so all of restaurant staff can hear.] Pay attention - since this guy isn't apparently going to listen, the rest of you might as well learn something. I don't care how many customers like this stew. I don't like it, and that's what counts. Just because all those morons out there have had their taste buds destroyed by Big Macs, Twinkies and diet cola, doesn't mean that we lower our standards one iota.
No Problem:	Look, I have a degree in food preparation from the Ecole Hoteliere de Lausanne, I'm author of several cook books and I write a weekly restaurant review column for the New York Times. I think I know something about food. You're making a mountain out of a molehill. Relax and think about breakfast and all will be forgotten.
Cook:	No! I want my stew fixed, and if you can't fix it, then what good are you? All I know is, I didn't screw it up, and I don't claim to know how to fix it. But the fact that nobody around here knows how to fix it to my satisfaction is a sad, sad commentary on the global food preparation industry.
Gayla:	I believe you Cook! The other day I had some Kraft dinner and it tasted fine to me, but you said there was a bit too much "process" in the processed cheese. When I tried the leftovers I could see what you were talking about. Here, let me add a bit of this Red Devil sauce.
Cook:	Well, all I can say is, what a good training example! In this pot of stew we have a microcosm of the world, and all of it's hungry inhabitants, sitting down to a meal. I've been saying for years that the restaurant business just isn't what it used to be, and here is living proof. No one cares, not the food and beverage association, not the health inspectors, certainly not the food industry. So when you bite into your Cheerios tomorrow and they just seem to be a little off, don't be surprised.
No Problem:	Cook, get a grip. I eat out in a lot of places. Some are better than others. It has always been this way, it always will be. Take it easy, and if it will make you feel better, I'll get you a piece of Bill Clinton pecan pie.
Cook:	Blah! Clinton pie, you gotta to be kidding me. Sir, you insult me. You insult my kitchen, my entire restaurant. What does the President know about food, except that a lot of it inflates his belly? Besides, he has his own kitchen staffed with an elite unit of cook-troopers, why does he need to eat out?
Biker:	[Finally arrives to the rescue.] Hmmm, let me try a bit of Dijon.
Crowd in restaurant	[Laughing] What's with those guys - they're not still playing with that stew????
Biker:	Better  not quite right - maybe a tad of Worcestershire. Course if I had the recipe and could start over it would be trivial. But trying to correct it perfectly at this point - to cover, rather than remove a pre-existing taste - very tricky.
Cook:	Precisely why this is so typical of the global challenge facing restaurateurs everywhere.
Biker:	Okay, I'm getting close - a couple of capers.
Cook:	Hmmm, that's getting it  yes, very nice, very tasty, thank you Biker. Not quite my original, of course, but quite creditable in its own right. Staff: please note, an acceptable fix need not be perfect to be acceptable. But keep in mind, that the addition of any ingredient has a 7% chance of introducing a new error, not present in the previous recipe. I hope everyone learned a valuable lesson today. No Problem is a fool, and everyone can see that his expertise is useless to us. Biker, it took you a while, but congratulations on your concoction. I think I will write up this episode for "Food and Beverage Corner". Could be a lesson to the entire industry, in fact to the entire community. And remember, today we proved that fixing the world's food supply will be neither quick, nor easy!

_____

So Professor, have fun with playing with your CAD parameters, and speculating on how this unique knowledge gives you a window on the whole world of software. But as for Y2K, please, just stay out of our way.

-- Computer Pro (first_minister@hotmail.com), July 11, 1999.

Clear your cashe and reload

-- hcegbr (mw@,dsjj.djio), July 11, 1999.

Must be a government cafeteria selling to government workers - So typical of a monopoly - the government does not need to care about whether its customers are served properly, nor whether there is no problem at all; a perceived problem in the customers soup that the cook and the manager do not want to admit (which is the still a real problem when competition is available); a real problem (turds really were in the soup (after all) which is health problem that would shut down a "real cafeteria and allow me (the customers) a lot of money when sued.

So, now we have the official polly representative admitting that a real problem that was discovered by an outside user that can really kill real people - eating contaminated food - is not a real problem if the "official" representativie of the official government food service agency "says" it is not a problem. Without testing the food for contamination or feces. We (the users) are supposed to take his word for his conclusion, because he (the supposed expert) studied food preparation overseas.

____

Note, however, that the administration (with respect to y2k issues) is being led by a lawyer with political connections, not be a programmer, engineer, technician, or qualified quality assurance or power/telecommunications/manufactoring or transportation expert.

____

Very interesting - and very accurate - analogy. Again, thank you for the training example in our government is seeking to "cover up" and "falsely" claim that y2k will have effect - because they don't "want it" to have any effect.

-- Robert A Cook, PE (Kennesaw, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), July 12, 1999.