Here's the Link.

This article has been around for some time now.

Ray

-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), September 18, 1999

Answers

Ray,

Thank you for posting that. I didn't know it was on the Web. "Connections" was one of my must-see programs when it was running. The particular show you posted a link to really emphasizes our dependence on technology and the interconnectedness of modern society.

There's also some irony here, too. This episode is one of the things that got Peter de Jager to start looking into Y2K, before he started believing that a few people accepting Gary North's view of Y2K was more dangerous than the fact that most of the public and many small businesses have made no preparations at all for Y2K.

http://www0.bbc.co.uk/the_net/4/3/peter.html

[snip]

THE NET: Is this the first time we've seen a problem of this scale come along, well obviously the Year 2000 only comes along once but have we come across a similar situation or is it going to be much worse than we're ever seen before?

PETER DE JAGER: We've never had anything like this. This is totally brand new. We've never had a system-wide failure. The closest we can come to events like that might be blackouts. In fact one of the things that got me into this and got me fired up about it was a show `Connections' by James Burke. The first instalment was an exposi of the great blackout on the Eastern Seaboard and all of that happened because of one single power switch that did what it was supposed to do but had a very unexpected consequence. Well the Year 2000 is power switching, it's calculations, day calculations, millions upon millions of them in programmes all over the world that are all set to fail on a particular time, that's the only thing that is even close to this type of problem.

[snip]

-- Linkmeister (link@librarian.edu), September 18, 1999.

... before he started believing that a few people accepting Gary North's view of Y2K was more dangerous than the fact that most of the public and many small businesses have made no preparations at all for Y2K.

Well put. Sure does put it in perspective.

-- Lane Core Jr. (elcore@sgi.net), September 18, 1999.

Ray, thank you so much for posting this link. It is a chilling read, and every word is true. There is no speculation or spin, just the facts and the interconnectedness of it all. I have enjoyed Burke's work over the years, and this is headed for my printer. It is soon to be a lesson plan for my middle school technology students. It will be a great way to sneak some Y2K awareness into my community. I can hear the parent's phone calls now...

-- semper paratus (don't_shoot@the.messenger), September 18, 1999.

Ray

Thanks for the link. It was a great series. As a lay chaologist :o) Burke just points out what alot of us think, with or without Y2K shit happens. And the more complicated things are the more likely they are to be a disability when lost ooorrr get FUBAR when under pressure such as the power trip during the blackout. Turbulance because of cascading events.

Oddly enough this will be a good feature of the timing of Y2K. January 1st. is a non pressure time of the year for alot of social systems. Hey here is a good irony, people worry most about the credit card payments from their Xmas shopping. Serious pressure on the credit systems at that time of the year. If the business don't get it together their little 00 problem will have cascading effects. Now would that be the same business that say the Y2K problem is "fixed"?

Linkdude

Good memory, flotsom in the big y2k picture.

-- Brian (imager@home.com), September 19, 1999.

Glad you all enjoyed this little ditty. When I read it last year it reminded that I was in NY City at the time on a two week training seminar (lived in Chicago at the time). We were on the 17th floor of an office building overlooking Central Park. Had to walk down the 17 flights of stairs and back to the hotel.

Ray

-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), September 19, 1999.

Love Burke, his show and all his books. If your interested in more on interconnectivity read anything by Fritjof Capra,..."The Turning Point", his film, "Mindwalk".

--She in the sheet watching the fractal universe dance.

-- Donna (moment@pacbell.net), September 19, 1999.

I love Burke's Connections series (and Scientific American column) also. But his point seems widely misinterpreted here. Why am I not surprised.

Yes, the interconnections are pervasive and subtle. But the point isn't that if some of these connections are broken failures will cascade. The point is that you could break all of them and new connections would reform themselves. You can break a large number in a short time, and a large number of new ones will spring up to take their place in a short time. Connections themselves are unavoidable, whereas *particular* connections are mostly accident and coincidence.

As a mental model, say you toss a rock into a field. The chances of it landing *precisely* where it does are infinitesimally small. But the chances of it landing *somewhere* are 1, unity. A great deal of y2k "analysis" presumes as a given that if that rock doesn't land exactly where it is, it won't land at all! That the current set of connections is the only one possible, and if it's changed the result must be chaos. Instead, Burke shows us that the result is a new and similar set, and life goes on a bit differently.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), September 19, 1999.

No, Flint, YOU have sadly misinterpreted the article. The idea that so much hinges on so little, with small changes (oh, maybe, like our computers are no longer reliable next year for instances) causing big effects. Everyone else seemed to understand the article just fine. Dummy.

-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.com), September 19, 1999.

KOS:

When we have threads from people saying they already have the answers, and are asking for the questions that will most likely lead to those answers, you know you're in a group that places the cart before the horse.

After all, your desire that everyone share your expectations about y2k is itself (in your mind) an attempt to overcome falsehoods that "everyone understands". You already recognize that you're a member of a small minority everywhere but in this particular padded cell. You shouldn't be surprised if you're surrounding yourself with those who share your misunderstandings. Reality will not be kind to you.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), September 19, 1999.

Flint, it appears you are now having trouble convincing yourself of all your BS!!

Your Pal, Ray

-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), September 19, 1999.

At the risk of pointing out the obvious.

1) This was in 1965. There have been some changes since then. Believe it or not people do learn from their mistakes. If you look at large power outages since then they have been cause by second and third contingencies. Not just one thing. 2) The outage affected NY and New England. Not the entire East Coast. So even back then it didnt spread until the entire country was blacked out. It couldnt have anyway. 3) There have been black outs since then. Some have been widespread. None (that didnt require the repairing of physical damage) lasted more than a day for all the power to be restored. Most power was restored in a few minutes to a few hours. 4) This is the equivalent of pointing out that every year there are chain reaction collisions on highways.

-- The Engineer (The Engineer@tech.com), September 20, 1999.