I'd Love to See Some Proofgreenspun.com : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread |
On another thread,"Bogus Doomer Predictions Revisited: Pigs Fly"
http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=0013uX
one "a@a.a" said this:
"Flint: I repeat Problems encountered, if we are lucky, would be immediately obvious. However, if they are not obvious, it usually means they are more serious, and are silently corrupting the global data network..........."
-- a (a@a.a), July 09, 1999.
Some proof please?
Or is this just another Doomer fear tactic -- state things in an authoritative manner, that really have no basis in fact whatsoever.
Put up or shut up. "Where's the beef?"
***************
-- Chicken Little (panic@forthebirds.net), July 11, 1999
I guess Chicken Little doesn't remember what happened to that presidential candidate who frequently asked the same question.
-- where are foxes (whenyou@need.them?), July 11, 1999.
To whom do you think we have the burden of proving anything?The banks?
-- zoobie (zoobiezoob@yahoo.com), July 11, 1999.
It seems to me that irrational people are having a field day with Y2K. As if there wasn't enough borderline supersticion plaguing the world. Now we have to worry about imaginary food shortages generated by excitable panic mongers. I wonder where it will all end, but most likely it will all end sometime before Jan 31, 2000, once all of the doomers have gone into hiding from sheer embarrassment.
-- (MisterBurp@AOL.com), July 11, 1999.
"doomers have gone into hiding from sheer embarrassment"Or maybe we will be running around buying up the assets of the pollys for 10 cents on the dollar. If your self-esteem is so low that you would go into hiding from sheer embarrassment (If you are wrong about something), you have a much bigger problem then any "doomer" I have seen yet!
-- (supersite@acronet.net), July 11, 1999.
Chicken BIG,When one continues to look in the WRONG places one continues to find the WRONG things !!
Ray
-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), July 11, 1999.
Golly gee whiz,you folks do everything BUT answer the original question
What are you afraid of?
-- Chicken Little (panic@forthebirds.net), July 11, 1999.
Chicken Little asked a simple question, that apparently no one is able to answer. Instead of answers, he has only recieved insults. It is a good question, so can anyone answer it?
-- Serious Responses Only Please (insults@don't.help), July 11, 1999.
Thank you Serious.Some people don't seem to be capable of answering serious inquiries -- they're too much caught up in their cultish memetics to be able to answer anything outside what they've been taught, or brainwashed to believe.
I was once a Doomer. That's why I find those who still are, to be so repugnant. I saw the error of that way of thinking. Why can't they? Doomers are analagous to the Neanderthals. They died out; Cro-Magnons took over.
-- Chicken Little (panic@forthebirds.net), July 11, 1999.
Yes, yes, yes,There is an answer, and it's not overly complicated. First, you have to be able to recognize and understand the proof, which unfortunately the Polly crowd seems incapable of doing, even when it's right in their face. As someone said, long ago, "It would bite you if it had teeth." Second, and this is a paraphrase of a great line by Jack Nicholson in the movie A Few Good Men, "Proof, you want proof, you couldn't handle the proof." And that seems self-evident after watching the broken record lament of the Polly group. Where's the proof? Where's the proof? Come on back!
-- Gordon (gpconnolly@aol.com), July 11, 1999.
CL:Your request for 'proof' is kind of silly. I'm quite sure that 'a' is correct about this, since what testing we've done so far has uncovered all manner of symptoms. Most of the time, programs just break and stop. But this is a question of incredible detail. I've seen myself that these errors can corrupt data, or kill the program, or lead to unexpected sequences of all variety. The interesting thing is, a given (erroneous) routine could be written in a very large number of different ways (kind of like the number of different love songs). So along comes a date the routine wasn't written to handle properly, and the output and side effects depend entirely on the specific, near-random choices the programmer made when he wrote it. For *every* incorrect date-handling routine, the results are unpredictable and undefined. Often enough, you couldn't predict the ultimate constellation of symptoms if you studied the actual bug for hours.
The main questions are: How many of these have we fixed properly, and how many did we miss? What symptoms will we have to deal with, and how serious will they be? And, to be honest, how far downstream from the error will the actual symptoms become visible? And will multiple date-handling errors interact with one another? These are the crucial questions, and they are flat unknowable until the bugs bite.
'a' and I may disagree strongly on the magnitude of the impacts on our daily lives, but I don't think we have any disagreement about the mechanism involved.
-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), July 11, 1999.
You guys are so full of it. Especially Flint, who pretends to be an expert of sorts."a" made a statement. I asked for factual proof. None has been offered yet. Flint says that to ask for proof is "silly". Flint, you're full of horsecrap if you really believe that. Or are you playing the Doomer side of the fence this week? I never know which side you're playing (does anyone...do you, even).
"a" makes a provocative statement. I ask for proof. NONE HAS BEEN OFFERED YET. Those are the facts, Jack.
-- Chicken Little (panic@forthebirds.net), July 11, 1999.
CL:'a' is making a prediction. This prediction is based on an understanding of how code works. I tried to explain the mechanism a bit, to place this prediction into a context.
And here you are, ignoring every bit of it and demanding that somebody 'prove' the future! Apparently, you're doing this only so that you can sit there smugly, criticizing those who are trying to understand. Do you really feel that if the future can't be proved, therefore it won't come? I call this silly. At best, we can extrapolate from more-or-less similar past experience, which is known.
So what kind of 'proof' are you looking for -- stone tablets handed down by God?
-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), July 11, 1999.
Flint,This place definitely missed you last week! Hope you have no further vacation plans for this year...
-- BiGG (supersite@acronet.net), July 11, 1999.
Chicken Little,You don't get the point.
a is stating the Joanne Effect and what kind of turmoil it can have.
You are looking for proof. Well. You can't cook rice if the water hasn't been boiled yet, can you?
So how can anyone show you the proof of a Joanne Effect untill it's to late for you.
Now if you are having trouble understanding data corruption then hark back to the days when you played Telephone in nursery school. You started a message and passed it around the circle. At the end the first person shared with the group what the message was and the last shared what they thought the original message was, and everyone laughed.
Now apply your newfound knowledge of data corruption to any database of your choice, only you may not laugh.
Father
-- Thomas G. Hale (hale.tg@att.net), July 11, 1999.
Flint,Go get em! I like the probe you doing on this matter. It really is a messy question. And you're right, we can't *prove* the future. Good luck in getting that point across to the "show me" Polly crowd!
-- Gordon (gpconnolly@aol.com), July 11, 1999.
Gordon:Getting that point across to the doomer crowd has been just as hard, if not harder. Denial is denial, regardless of which extreme is being taken. Just LOOK at the creativity being used to reject any information contrary to the 'oficial religion' around here. Except for the positions taken, the techniques here are no different from the techniques used on the debunker and biffy forums. Just deny anything you don't want to hear, and attack those who post it! Simple. And you are insulated from all that damn doubt.
Everyone here is basically making predictions. The denialists are those who defend their predictions by sticking their fingers in their ears and shouting I CAN'T HEAR YOU! Can you even imagine someone like 'a' or his cheerleaders saying, "This is good news indeed. Maybe y2k won't be so bad after all?"
-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), July 11, 1999.
Awww come on Mr. Little. You ask for proof about something of which you have little knowledge of. I asked about two days ago who the contractor was that you worked a w-h-o-l-e year on the apparently o-n-e steam machine that you personally have ever seen close up.I have a mental picture of your exhaultation the first day on the job! The walls must have reverbrated with..."Yesterday I couldn't even spell Electrican! TODAY I ARE ONE"
Sir you are the greatest B/S artist that has walked down the pike that I have seen in a long time! But thank you for the entertainment, and feel lucky that you weren't on any of the jobs that I have ran...I doubt that you would have lasted a week.
Now be sure to study up on how to put a 4 way switch in between the two 3 way switchs.
Shakey
-- Shakey (in_a_bunker@forty.feet), July 11, 1999.
chcken - its so simple:NO ONE KNOWS whats going to happen next year. not the doomers. not the pollys.
having said that, however, its my humble position that no one can deny the staggering risks that exist *right now* to our society.
our vulnerability to catastrophic shortages of oil due to the embedded systems problem.
our vulnerability to environmental catastrophes, due also to embedded systems.
the overall risk of contaminated data spreading throughout the 'global network' that society currently depends on to keep functioning.
and on and on and on and on ....
there is NO PROOF this will happen. but the signs of RISK are everywhere. if you dont get it by now .. you never will baby ..
best o' luck to ya ..
lou
-- lou (lanny1@ix.netcom.com), July 11, 1999.
I am indeed saddened by the inability of those I previously considered 'intelligent' to be able to decipher plain statements rendered in plain English.I will once again quote what Mr "a" said in plain, kindergarten-friendly terms, in the hope that someone here besides myself will be able to divine just exactly what it was that he was plainly conveying:
"Flint: I repeat Problems encountered, if we are lucky, would be immediately obvious. However, if they are not obvious, it usually means they are more serious, and are silently corrupting the global data network."
Nothing there about JoAnne; nothing there about "what-if". The statement is present tense, and deals with problems ongoing as we speak. If you don't see this, go back and get some remedial clues from your fourth-grade English teacher. "They are more serious, and are silently corrupting the global data network."
Quit throwing this "he didn't say what he said" crap at me. You're not Bill Clinton, and I'm not a liberal Democrat media reporter. Spin your top at someone stupid enough to believe it. That person ain't me.
-- Chicken Little (panic@forthebirds.net), July 11, 1999.
In other words, and to make it simple; back to square one:Can anyone show us any concrete proof of "a"'s statement. We've been round and round the mulberry bush, much has been said.
But the bottom line is this: I've asked a PLAIN STRAIGHT SIMPLE QUESTION, and NO ONE has given a plain, straight, simple answer.
Lies take many words to explain. Circuitous, like a snake. The truth can be stated in just a few. Straight ahead, no need for detours.
Still waiting for a truthful, straight, plain, simple answer.
-- Chicken Little (panic@forthebirds.net), July 11, 1999.
I'll answer the question for you. In the 1840's various Adventist groups were predicting the second coming of Christ. When this did not occur they saved face by saying it did occur - but only on a 'spiritual level'. These failures are hapening but only on a 'spiritual level'.
-- Nada Troll (papist@kube93.com), July 11, 1999.
Proof? I want you to visit two city parks and report back to us. One is located in Van Nuys Ca. It is filled with shit, much like yourself.The other is located in Bellingham Washington. As you look at what's left of Whatcom Creek (scorched three weeks ago by an explosion of 300,000 gals. of gasoline which was from a burst pipeline caused by a "computer failure" from an "recently upgraded system") I want you to reflect on the last moments of the three young boys who died there. Tell me what their last moments were like. Then imagine your own during some other Y2K inspired disaster.
-- Gordon (g_gecko_69@hotmail.com), July 11, 1999.
CL:You have mistaken the subjunctive tense for the present tense. This is a problem with the English language -- the two are so similar. The giveaway is the 'would'. I interpreted 'a' to be speaking hypothetically -- I'd have written "if they should not be obvious", to emphasize this.
Certainly if 'a' intended present rather than subjunctive, the proof is all around us. IF such problems are happening now, they clearly aren't having any visible impact on anyone. And since nothing important has materialized since Jan 1, clearly any problems they have been causing have been minor to the point of invisibility.
But if 'a' intends present tense, why does he say "IF we are lucky"? Quite obviously, we ARE lucky. I don't believe he intends this.
-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), July 11, 1999.
Good grief chicken nugget.....Shakey has just singed the *last* tail feather you had. You're lookin' fleshy and ripe for the pot, buddy! Give it a break bird.....my sides hurt!!I WAS going to bring it up....but glad he did instead, BWAAAAAAAHAHAHO
-- Will continue (farming@home.com), July 11, 1999.
Dear Mr. Little,sir I do believe that I have the answear. You were/must have been an apprentice when you where on the power house. I wonder if you still are an apprentice. LOL
In either case sir, there is still the embeded problems to be addressed by all of them; the power generation complexes,chemical plants,refineries, and of course the various pipe lines.
I suggest for you to get an understanding of he problem that you go immeadately to the local Video store and rent the movie "Toy Soldiers" You may come away with an understanding that chips are made to fit into many functions, some of the requiring RTC's and some of them that do not require it. But will still in any case once the RTC hits the infinity factor, still lock-up that chip's function.
You have asked for specfic dates, Sir you should know that those depend on several factors..One of them being; if the testers of a system artifically ran their clocks forward to test for y2k. Some of the embeds that have unused RTC's in their lattice code. Can be run forward, but not back.
Now as to just where you can find such chips in any given "black box" controller. Sir if you would have walked into and examined a "second" power house in your electrcal career. You would have noted two things...The first is that building power generation complexes ( or for that matter any large induttrial complex) is an International effort! The equipment and sensor controls etc. coming from all over the world. And two..The motors,switch gear,PLC"s will not be from the same manufactor. Nor will the physical lay out of the plant be the same either (pardon me...that is three isn't it.)
But I digress, in any event your correct inquiry should be the estimated time frame for failures..I personally look for some sensational happenings for about 6 months. Beginning about Sept. the 1st. An running to March.
As to my personal out look about the whole matter...I am not a Doomer, Broomer, nor a Polly. I am a realist. What is going to happen, will happen. And no amount of baiting will change it. But to not prepare for the worst eventuality is the ultimate in insanity.
Shakey
-- Shakey (in_a_bunker@forty.feet), July 11, 1999.
A's original quote in full. It doesn't necessarily refer to the present:http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=0013uX
[snip]
Here's a list of 55 problem dates between 1998 and 2002 from Mitre Corp. http://www.mitre.org/research/y2k/docs/Y2K_SITEMAP.html. We have only passed 9 dates out of these 55. Problems encountered, if we are lucky, would be immediately obvious. However, if they are not obvious, it usually means they are more serious, and are silently corrupting the global data network.
[snip]
-- Linkmeister (link@librarian.edu), July 11, 1999.
Chicken:I remember that thread, and I remember being confused at the thought that "look ahead" logic, AKA JoAnne Effect problems could somehow not be noticed at least during month-end processing. I've not seen any evidence to support a conclusion that fiscal-year problems could go undetected. This doesn't mean that there isn't any. It simply means that I've not seen any.
I think the majority of responses you've received refer to overall Y2k problems, and not the Fiscal Year rollover.
-- Anita (spoonera@msn.com), July 11, 1999.
Gordon - what is your proof that the Bellingham incident is y2k related?
-- Joe Six-Pack (Average@Joe.Blow), July 11, 1999.
Next point: the Jo Anne Effect sometimes deals with projections, and sometimes with deciding what fiscal year a particular result will be assigned to in order to compare one fiscal year with another. In other words, in most cases, the Jo Anne Effect does not affect real-time transactions and thus would not be likely to cause data corruption between two systems exchanging data in real time.Data corruption while exchanging data in real time is much more likely to occur next year.
-- Linkmeister (link@librarian.edu), July 11, 1999.
CL,You started this thread by asking an excellent question. I would love to get more information on this too. Initially, I thought it was unfair that you were attacked by the first few posters.
Then Flint, who I think is as much an "authority" as anyone, did a great job in actually answering your question. So, you attacked him.
What do you want? A detailed bug report? Do you want a list of files corrupted? That is real "proof". Is it that you are after or an thoughtful explanation?
My guess is that this kind of corruption happens on a smaller scale all the time.
As a layperson working in my little microuniverse, I would think that an excellent example of data corruption would be a computer virus. I've had personal experience with that kind of problem and I assure you that data can be corrupted in the "background", files destroyed, before a person ever knows exactly what is going on and it can certainly move across a network to other corrupt other data, systems, etc. But, it doesn't even have to happen because of a virus. If the system goes down in the middle of a function then that can cause data to be corrupted which in turn can cause other data to be corrupted and so on.
So, like you, I would love to get more information and insight into how and what might happen in the huge, complex, networks ans systems that function in today's modern world.
But, based upon your responses thus far, I'm not sure you are interested in an answer and may not even be looking for "proof". You may be more interested in raising this question as a way to attack those that try to answer.
Based upon your response I'll make that judgement.
Mike ==================================================
-- Michael Taylor (mtdesign3@aol.com), July 11, 1999.
Joe Five-Pack commented:"Gordon - what is your proof that the Bellingham incident is y2k related?"
Joe, what is your proof that it isn't y2k related?
Ray
-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), July 11, 1999.
How far afield people will go in the pursuit of an avoidance of a STRAIGHT ANSWER. Amazing.Nada: your history of the Adventist movement is partially correct, in the initial clause. But the phrase "when this did not occur they saved face by saying it did occur - but only on a 'spiritual level" is completely inaccurate. I'm well acquainted with the history of that movement -- but there's no point in debating these events of history, since they have basically NOTHING to do with the point at hand (why did you even bring it up?)
Gordon -- to bring you up to date on the Van Nuys incident: it was not a Y2k problem per se. The "default to closed" gate command was written into the software in the early 1980's...and surfaced in a Y2k test. But it was a mistake written into the code in the early 1980's.
The boys who died in Bellingham -- indeed a tragic occurrence. But what does this have to do with Y2k? Was Columbine attributable to Y2k as well? Mount St. Helens? Pearl Harbor? What's your point?
Flint -- thanks for the tutorial on tenses. I speak and understand English much better now. (yeah right) I also understand context, a concept you have completely ignored in your most erudite exposition.
"a" was speaking about things as they now stand. It is clear that there have been no obvious problems with the dates that have been touted as 'problem dates' by those of the Doomer persuasion. That is the point he was addressing, since that was the point I had raised as the topic of the thread (DUH). So when he said, "Problems encountered, if we are lucky, would be immediately obvious. However, if they are not obvious, it usually means they are more serious, and are silently corrupting the global data network", it was obviously in the context of present matters at hand. (If you go to the thread in question, you will see that this is indeed the case.)
So....to put "a"'s comments in the subjective, or subjunctive, or quasi-Martian, or any other tense or case or hypothetical other than anything that deals with matters now being dealt with, is a complete load of bovine waste product, as you should well know, being such an intelligent fellow as you are (or pretend to be). You "interpreted 'a' to be speaking hypothetically" -- sorry dude, you interpreted wrong. You're too caught up in being intellectually "lofty" to see what's plainly right in front of your nose.
Will....nah, I won't. Never mind. Not worth the bandwidth.
*****
-- Chicken Little (panic@forthebirds.net), July 11, 1999.
some chicken feed.....State Patrol's Warrants Lost in Computer Glitch BY TANYA EISERER WORLD-HERALD STAFF WRITER
A Y2K-related computer glitch in the Nebraska State Patrol's crime database resulted in the loss of misdemeanor warrants that had been entered statewide during the past five months, a patrol spokeswoman said Wednesday.
The scope of the problem and whether the warrants can be retrieved are not yet known, said spokeswoman Terri Teuber.
The warrants were erased Wednesday as computer programmers were upgrading the state's system to be Y2K-compliant as it relates to the FBI's National Crime Information Center, Teuber said.
The problem affects misdemeanor warrants entered on the Nebraska Crime Information System since Feb. 10, Teuber said. Authorities accessing the system wouldn't be able to learn whether a suspect has a warrant pending in another jurisdiction if it had been entered after that date.
By 11 a.m. today, Teuber said, the State Patrol will have "a better idea of if we can get those back - and how quickly - without re-entering them."
Law enforcement agencies around the state were sent a teletype about the glitch late Wednesday afternoon, said Douglas County Sheriff Tim Dunning.
Dunning estimated that 2,500 warrants may have been lost but said he would have a more accurate accounting today.
If the warrant data cannot be retrieved, "it will probably take us to the end of July to get all those back in, because you've got to do it by hand," the sheriff said. "You just have to completely re-create the record."
Dunning said he had a hard time believing only misdemeanor warrants could have been affected by the glitch.
Teuber said the only way a felony warrant could have been lost was if a law enforcement agency entered it improperly. When agencies run a check, it runs simultaneously on the federal and state systems, she said. Even if felony data on the state computer system is lost, it is still available on the national system.
"We should not have lost any felony warrants," she said. ------------
-- hack off it's head (bread it@and fry it.com), July 11, 1999.
joe,you might want to check out this thread on euy2k. there were some interesting parallels noted between the bellingham incident and y2k.
after reading the data you will be able to reach your own 'informed' conclusion.
scada
-- marianne (uranus@nbn.net), July 11, 1999.
Anita,See the following thread if you are interested in the source of these three quotes I'm about to post:
http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=00122f
Quote #1:
[snip]
Few worries about cut-over
Benzen said there were few problems because the fiscal year date is used in most states' systems only to label data or documents, not as a key computational input. In contrast, the calendar year date is critical for computing and tracking values indicating such things as Medicaid eligibility. For that reason, said Benzen, few state information technology officials were worried about the fiscal year cut-over.
"I forgot we changed the fiscal year until I got in this morning," he said.
Because the fiscal and calendar dates are used so differently, Benzen said, the ease with which states coped with yesterday's change doesn't mean they'll be as successful on Jan. 1, 2000. "This is no predictor of what will happen on January 1," he said. "You can't reach a valid conclusion based on what happened with the fiscal year change."
[snip]
Quote #2:
[snip]
For most of us, however, the July 1 date is no big deal.
That's because most fiscal year dates are not used to calculate the payments that thousands of state residents receive every month. Bills are paid, food stamps are issued, Medicaid payments are made and vouchers are tracked by actual dates.
[snip]
Quote #3:
[snip]
Response to Wii something really happen or just another April Fool's Day?
Well, we know that it won't have any impact on embedded systems -- so we're not going to see any failures of process control systems, refineries, utilities, or things of that sort.
It also means that we're not going to see problems in PC BIOS chips or non-compliant PC operating systems.
The problems will exist in application programs that are aware of, and make use of, the end-date of the fiscal year, i.e., March 31, 2000. Thus, we're almost certainly talking about financial systems, tax systems, etc. It's likely to have the greatest impact on report- writing programs that spew out spreadsheet-looking reports with rows and columns of numbers, showing budget figures for all 12 months of the fiscal year.
Several people have argued that we probably won't see any problems in the day-to-day transaction-processing systems, e.g., the systems that process daily receipts and daily disbursements of funds. However, if there are any logic-checks that ask questions like, "Is this disbursement legitimate within the context of a full fiscal year?", THAT could cause problems.
[snip]
-- Linkmeister (link@librarian.edu), July 11, 1999.
CL:OK, your questions were rhetorical. Good enough. You can read 'a's mind, and you already know that there are no problems, there haven't been any problems, and there won't be any in the future. The sole purpose of your question was to attack anyone who failed to see what's so obvious to you and actually tried to answer you.
And I agreed that there aren't any problems now, and haven't been any up until now. I think 'a' is expecting much worse to happen than actually will happen. What more do you want?
But this "simple question" stuff is bullshit. It wasn't a question at all, it was simply a vehicle to allow you to sucker punch anyone dumb enough to treat you as an honest person. Fortunately, this isn't my problem. You must deal with your own problems.
-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), July 11, 1999.
While I was writing/posting that last response, several posts were added to the thread, I came to see. Also came to see that the original question/point of contention has been lost/obscured.The original question is this: "a" said "Problems encountered, if we are lucky, would be immediately obvious. However, if they are not obvious, it usually means they are more serious, and are silently corrupting the global data network."
My question is, and has been the whole time: where is the evidence/proof of this "silent corruption of the global data network"? Plain and simple. I haven't said a word about JoAnne, or anything else; other than this plain, simple question. And this plain, simple question has yet to be answered, or even addressed in any concrete fashion.
A lot of OTHER questions have been addressed; but not the one I originally asked. What is so difficult about answering a single simple question?
-- Chicken Little (panic@forthebirds.net), July 11, 1999.
Flint I'd have to say you're the hugest double-talker I've ever seen.You say I'm trying to read "a"'s mind? I've said in kindergarten terms three or four times on this thread what my intentions and questions are regarding "a"'s statements. Sure you're not trying to read my mind/put words in my mouth?
The purpose of my question was to get someone to state/verify if there was any concrete proof of any problems that are "silently corrupting the global data network", ("a"'s words) as I have said again and again. Any other implications on your part, impugning my motives as being anything else than what I have stated, are completely bogus. There ya go. I've said what I said, and meant what I meant. Nothing more, nothing less.
I certainly hope you don't twist people's plain words and meanings in day-to-day living, as you have here. There are those who don't take too kindly to that sort of stuff.
-- Chicken Little (panic@forthebirds.net), July 11, 1999.
Chicken Little,Since you've made it clear now that your question isn't about whether data corruption in general is possible, but rather whether data corruption is going on now, I will agree that very, very little data corruption is happening at this moment. The reason I'm agreeing with you is because of the way fiscal year dates are typically used, as described in the three quotes I posted above which are on the following thread:
http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=00122f
Having agreed with you on that particular point, though, let me also add that "a" may not have been talking about the present. His original comment needs to be read in context and in full--not just the small excerpt repeated a second time to Flint:
http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=0013uX
-- Linkmeister (link@librarian.edu), July 11, 1999.
cl,i rarely post to this forum as i am kept busy at euy2k and in my own preparations. but i find your question either hopelessly naive or purposefully incendiary and felt moved to respond.
cl asks] My question is, and has been the whole time: where is the evidence/proof of this "silent corruption of the global data network"? Plain and simple.
m] silent corruption is just that... silent. it has not yet reared its ugly head. there is nothing plain and or simple about it.
an analogy is WWII germany. the world was rife with rumor and innuendo regarding the nazi regime and its attitude towards the jews. it wasn't on the front page of the newspapers,it wasn't talked about at 'polite' social gatherings, and it was denied by the government and in academic circles.
the result was approximately 15% of the jewish population were either perceptive or paranoid enough to remove themselves from the country...the rest is history.
there are no easy, quick, definitive answers. you put together what evidence you may and draw your own conclusions.
-- marianne (uranus@nbn.net), July 11, 1999.
I can't believe you guys are trying to have a conversation with poultry. BWOCK BWOCK BWOCK BA-WOCK!!!!!
-- Colonel Sanders (harlansanders@kfc.net), July 11, 1999.
Again, the original quote from "a"--uncut and in context--was this:http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=0013uX
[snip]
Here's a list of 55 problem dates between 1998 and 2002 from Mitre Corp. http://www.mitre.org/research/y2k/docs/Y2K_SITEMAP.html. We have only passed 9 dates out of these 55. Problems encountered, if we are lucky, would be immediately obvious. However, if they are not obvious, it usually means they are more serious, and are silently corrupting the global data network.
[snip]
-- Linkmeister (link@librarian.edu), July 11, 1999.
Link -- again and again and again I repeat and repeat (knock knock -- anybody home?) -- that is NOT the quote/snippet I'm even talking about, not at all. Nowhere close.I'm talking potatoes, you're arguing about rutabagas.
Marianne -- this is not WW2. This is not Nazi Germany. Nobody's herding millions of people into death camps. Nobody's trying to take over the planet by force. What's the parallel, besides none at all?
Such comparisons are beyond ludicrous.
-- Chicken Little (panic@forthebirds.net), July 11, 1999.
I'm not an IT person at all but I think the flaw in logic is this: that problems that may not be obvious immediately are therefore usually serious and are silently corrupting the global data network. They may or may NOT be. Who can know? Who can predict the degree of impact, if any, on so many, over such a large global expanse?
-- Barb (awaltrip@telepath.com), July 11, 1999.
Mr Little,I am sure that you must have read some where a while back about the various states moving their unemployment fiscal year end dates forward to 12/31/99. Even an old shirt tailed electrican such as myself knows that the fiscal year ending dates are moveable. And I know that you must know this also, after all I am sure you have collected your share of "rocking chair" money (unemployment checks).
The process of moving up the fiscal date is realitive simple, I can tell you that any time office personel who couldn't do it couldn't stay. And that is the only two can'ts in construction...if you can't do it; you can't stay!!!
No supt. is going to put himself in a position of having his men walk off the job because they could not get their paychecks.He would go balistic, if he had his bond called by the union hall for failure to pay the men. The job steward would be his shadow, his head office would be holding his hand,and he would be paying unworked over time; hour for hour untill the checks were physically placed into the men's hands.
Fiscal software and dates are moveable. That is...untill you hit the real time date of 01/01/2000. Then my man, you are out of time. All bantering, name calling, and B/S is over...you know it, I know it. And any person who can add 2+2 will know it.
Incidently...ever pull any Million MCM tri-plex? It is a B... Kitty ain't it LOL
Shakey
-- Shakey (in_a_bunker@forty.feet), July 11, 1999.
well cl... i am still with the rutabagas... more exotic than potatoes, but let's see if you can get the picture if it is in black and white and doesn't require any excess creativity on your part.
my point with the WWII analogy, uh, example, was that everything is not right in front of your face.i was not implying the imminent implementaion of deathcamps, nor assuming invasions from wherever you invisioned ,i was saying that everything is not spelled out for you... nor is it on the front page of the new york times. sometimes, just sometimes, with sufficient data, a tad of extrapolation is necessary in order to arrive at a conclusion.
this is not a scary thing and is accomplished by the common man every day of the week. it kinda works like this... you are driving down a street, you see three kids on bicycles cross the road in front of you, they are one in front of the other, you are almost at the intersection and quickly slow down, not sure, but assuming another one or two might be following behind... and thank god you slowed down, because there are two more directly in your path. see how this works? you took a piece of information, analyzed it, and deduced a probable outcome.
as of this year, 1999, about a third of the problems that are occurring are being found in software that nominally was repaired, tested, and put back in service. but we are visibly less than one hundred per cent efficient in finding date problems and testing them.
another issue is that we are injecting new problems-- not necessarily date problems --but but problems in the software applications as we fix them. for the last 50 years, this has been an average of about 7 per cent of all software updates that accidentally inserted a new error. the year 2000 repairs certainly seem to be hitting at least 7 per cent, maybe higher. some of these fresh bugs are troublesome in their own right.
so, given the fact that we are missing dates and injecting new problems, i think it is very unlikely that we will end up with all of the dangerous problems fixed by the end of the century. we will end up with many of them fixed, probably most, but certainly not all.
-- marianne (uranus@nbn.net), July 11, 1999.
hey noah....can you provide me with sme kind of "proof", anything, any kind, just something to "prove" that it is going to rain. it hasn't ever rained before, noah. so how can you be so sure it's gonna rain now.hey noah, you've been working on that boat now for 120 years. it ain't rained yet but you still say it will. got any "proof"? just show me something noah, anything, anywhere, and i'll believe.
hey noah, is that big white thing in the sky the beginnings of your rain? it ain't good enough "proof". show me the water man!
hey cl, get back on the boat before it's too late my friend....
-- don (mrmtgman@aol.com), July 11, 1999.
Hey Chicken Little,Go ring your "little chickens" neck 'ya j*#@ off! Get a life.
-- Neck Ringer (NeckRinger@no.chickens), July 11, 1999.
don:I think the current situation is a lot less like Noah (who had inside information), and a lot more like those who saw the spaceship behind Hale-Bopp. All they had was conviction.
Interestingly, they could see the 'ship' with binoculars, but when they bought an expensive telescope, it didn't show the ship. Bad telescope, of course, so they took it back and returned to the binoculars. They treated the telescope much like those here treated 'Norm'. Bad. Send it back. Our minds are made up, so don't confuse us with the facts. If you do, you're a troll. So there!
-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), July 11, 1999.
flint,certainly no troll here...have spent a little over $20000.00 in prepping for y2...just get tired of hearing/seeing the "show me or shut up" crowd. i mean, what's it gonna take? yeah...noah had some inside info but the "crowd" he was speaking to hadn't heard the word other than what he had been saying. the "show me" crowd has had ample opportunity to see/hear what the potential for problems/disaster are and still insist because the ground hasn't opened up yet that everything will be fine...guess i'm also tired of just lurking here and not saying anything. it's time, for me anyway, to get to workin' on my soapbox......
-- don (mmtgman@aol.com), July 11, 1999.
don:Sounds good to me. Just remember that even in Noah's day, there were con artists and nutcases. Noah had good competition, and you have hindsight. At the time, would you have bought into it? Or would you have bet on the wrong horse?
Remember also that there's a big difference between potential and kinetic. By now, we have a very good idea of what all can go wrong, but only the haziest notion of what will go wrong. And even then, I'll wager that the worst problems we see will be things nobody could ever have predicted. The truth will be stranger than all the fictions people here create by mixing a little fear, a little knowledge, and a little imagination.
-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), July 11, 1999.
Will Continue..I give up on Mr. Little. I would wonder though why his Journeyman allows him loose with a computer terminal. He is dangerous enough with the english language (or his conception of it) as it is...I'd sure hate to be around when he weilded a pair of 9" Kliens pliers. Or else worked a HOT panal or switch gear.
I must confess though, that I am a little disappointed in not being able to talk "shop"with him. But I guess he is, at best a Tri-County Boomer.. Which means he'd starve to death before he left juristiction to go find a job. That or "stick his ticket in his boot...(if he has one that is) And go to work "open-shop". But may be there is some hope. He at least has learned that there just might be lurkers reading his drivel,when he seeking to beat his chest, trying to impress some one about how much of an experienced electrican he is. Who just might come out from behind the curtains, so to speak, and discuss OHM's Law 101 with him LOL.
Shakey
-- Shakey (in_a_bunker@forty.feet), July 11, 1999.
I've had a good chuckle about this whole thread. Marianne picked up on exactly what I picked up on when Chicken Little wanted his proof. To quote Chicken Little:While I was writing/posting that last response, several posts were added to the thread, I came to see. Also came to see that the original question/point of contention has been lost/obscured.
The original question is this: "a" said "Problems encountered, if we are lucky, would be immediately obvious. However, if they are not obvious, it usually means they are more serious, and are silently corrupting the global data network."
My question is, and has been the whole time: where is the evidence/proof of this "silent corruption of the global data network"? Plain and simple. I haven't said a word about JoAnne, or anything else; other than this plain, simple question. And this plain, simple question has yet to be answered, or even addressed in any concrete fashion.
As Marianne said the keyword here is 'silently', this means there is currently no evidence or proof that the errors and/or corruption is happening. For such evidence or proof to exist it would mean the errors/corruption that is happening has directly impacted a human, but that does not imply that the human being has noticed.
This direct impact could be a light suddenly turning on, a bank balance being 1 cent lower, 1 can of tuna out of 1 thousand at a factory being tossed aside, a slot machine giving 3% more winnings than it usually does, etc.
Take the bank balance example, not immediately obvious but over a period of time it would be eg 1 cent a week.
Where I work we had a bug in one of our programs (not Y2K) which was happening every day. It was until around day 90 that the bug happened once too often and directly caused an impact with a human. It was not until day 93 that that human informed me. When I investigated I discovered yes there was a problem and I managed to trace it back and worked out that indeed this thing had been happening for 90 days without me or anyones elses knowledge. Over the next month we still had problems from it as slowly but surely other people were affected by it.
What had caused it? Incorrect data being entered at Day 1.
So 'a' is saying, there is data corruption happening as we speak but it won't be till the day that we are directly affected by it that we know that it has been happening.
So therefore the proof is there, but we can't see it as of yet.
Regards, Simon Richards
-- Simon Richards (simon@wair.com.au), July 11, 1999.
Italics off
-- Simon Richards (simon@wair.com.au), July 11, 1999.
de jager:1. The Code IS Broken! 2. 80% of ALL IT projects come in late or not at all 3. Exact deadline
Logic dictates problems--opinions debate degree of problems
-- David Butts (dciinc@aol.com), July 11, 1999.
FlintYour last post was perfect. The question for me is,"How dangerous will the stranger truth be and how will it impact me?"
I do not have an answer so I prepare.
-- Mike Lang (webflier@erols.com), July 11, 1999.
Chicken Little,In answer to your original question, it all depends on your definition of "proof"is.
-- MarktheFart (quke@ix.netcom.com), July 11, 1999.
Chicken Little and others,Good Grief!
The sentences by a that are quoted at the top of this thread seem to me to express opinions, not proveable statements.
If you're going to argue about opinions, abide by the rules appropriate to opinions. One can't "prove" an opinion.
Asking for proof of a statement is not entirely reasonable when the statement is an opinion rather than a proveable theorem.
All of you take a couple of deep breaths and calm down.
-- No Spam Please (nos_pam_please@hotmail.com), July 12, 1999.
... and in regard to " state things in an authoritative manner, that really have no basis in fact whatsoever": Yeah, it's common for folks to state their opinions in an authoritative manner. Too bad. Get used to it and learn to tell the difference between opinion and proveable statement.
-- No Spam Please (nos_pam_please@hotmail.com), July 12, 1999.