On Art Bell tonight is...

11/16/99

Tue/Wed David Israel Executive Producer: Y2K The Movie Website: www.nbc.com/y2k/

And Art Bell tomorrow is...

11/17/99

Wed/Thu Mark Stephens Book: Y2K Ready or Not? Preparing for the Year 2000

-- Uncle Bob (UNCLB0B@Tminus45&counting.down), November 16, 1999

Answers

Art Bell link...

www.artbell.com

-- Uncle Bob (UNCLB0B@Tminus60&counting.down), November 16, 1999.

Mark I will tune in for, but I'll skip David.

-- Paula (chowbabe@pacbell.net), November 16, 1999.

Heads up.....David Israel just came on Art Bell's program.

-- (listening@home.now), November 17, 1999.

This exec producer, David Israel, is an idiot. He suggests: we got along without computers before, we could do it again. The concept of our current dependence upon them, and our inability to go back 40 years to paper processing in one fell swoop is lost on him.

Dumb and dumber.

-- Sy O'Nara (YouEeediot@production.com), November 17, 1999.

I just found out something important about the movie. Only three days are depicted in it -- Dec. 30, 31 and Jan 1. So any of the problems shown in it are probably the immediate, embedded system type and not what might be happening when people go back to work after the holidays are over (delays and shortages).

-- (listening@home.now), November 17, 1999.

The subject of days covered came up when an 'optimist' called in complaining that responsible authorities say Y2K will only last four or five days. David Israel pointed out that the last day depicted by the movie is Jan. 1.

-- (listening@home.now), November 17, 1999.

Lame show so far. NBC is marketing the movie overseas. Japan has already bought it (they just finished the dubbing), other countries are interested. Israel said FEMA calls the movie a "public service", as it will potentially overcome complacency...

Israel said they made a movie about "the world's biggest party, and history's biggest hangover"...

No tough questions from any callers so far. One guy accused Israel of fearmongering...

-- I'm awake (at 3a.m.@for.this?!?!), November 17, 1999.

David Israel is right. We could go back 40 years with no big problem (except for the transistion :-).) Of course, McDonalds would have to give the "dumb and dumbers" they hire remedial change counting lessons. Buty seriously, most of the stuff now done by computers is completely unnecessary, and most of the rest can be done manually. As far as I'm concerned only a very few of the application we see are really worthwhile. But people are willing to pay for them, and it beats being a lawyer. I'm old enough so I remember what it was like 40 years ago. I don't see any big improvement in quality of life. And I am intimately familiar with computers, starting in 1978 with a TI-59 programmable calculator, then to HP series 80 desktops, then to IBM PC clones -- XT, AT, 286, 386, 486, now got a Pentium. And I've been programming since the getgo -- being paid for it for over 15 years. Not a guru, but not a naif. Last rate $48 per hour. And still I stand by what I said above about the usefulness of computers.

-- A (A@AisA.com), November 17, 1999.

Sy O'Nara, are you the same person as Paula Chowbabe? I get the impression that one of you had a bad experience with David Israel.

Of course we can live without computers, there are billions of people doing it right now. It's all a matter of attitude adjustment.

-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), November 17, 1999.

Er, is ANYONE going to argue that we couldn't get along without computers, except for trolling pollies? The problem is what would/will happen if we have to SUDDENLY get along without them. We couldn't use the INTERNET! AAARGH! Oh yeah, or distribute or sell food. That as well.

-- Colin MacDonald (roborogerborg@yahoo.com), November 17, 1999.

Do you seriously think that, computer technology being as entrenched and ubiquitous as it now is, we could get along without it if the rug were suddenly yanked out from under our feet? I'd like a detailed analysis of how you define the term "get along".

-- Ludi (ludi@rollin.com), November 17, 1999.

I can't tell whether people are kidding or not regarding "getting along without computers". But as just one tiny example, take a bank. In the old days, banks were ALWAYS huge, because of the sheer physical magnitude of keeping all those paper files and an army of TRAINED clerks to deal with them. With computers, all that was eliminated over time, now of course you find a bank in every nook and cranny. You cannot just "go back" to the way it was.

And this is exacerbated everywhere by just-in-time inventory systems. Generally, everything depends on things being delivered where they need to be when they need to be. There is not the physical space, nor the know-how, to instantly revert back to the way things worked in 1950.

We have painted ourselves into a corner that depends on the computers working. There is no going back. Not without big time pain and strain, anyway.

-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.cum), November 17, 1999.

You're right on target, KOS. Well said.

-- Jill D. (jdance@mindspring.com), November 17, 1999.

Most people who claim 'We can just go back to manual' probably have never seen some of the modern factories out there and seen how dependent they are on computers. Important things like water and sewer, oil refinement, chemical manufacture, and other vital manufacturing services are heavily dependent on computers.

Think of this: you've got some factories which are basically built around computers, with many machines embedded in systems. There is no manual. The machines are controlled by a 'black box.' They didn't put manual control buttons on the box because that would add cost to the box. So all that is necessary in such situations is a big red STOP button which the operator can press to stop the machine. If the computer breaks down, they just order another control board and put it in. If the board has non-Y2K compliant chips, what are they going to replace it with?

We depend on these factories for services and products vital to our economy. If the chemical factory fails, the pharmaceutical companies which depend on that provider also fail, unless they can find an alternate supplier. The oil refinery that depends on that chemical will either find another source, or will stop generating petrofuels.

If we have widespread embedded systems failure, we're screwed.

-- Tim the Y2K nut (tmiley@yakko.cs.wmich.edu), November 17, 1999.

Some of you act as though we are all going to die without computers. Sorry but I don't think that people just throw in the towel that easily, at least I won't. We may not "get back to normal", if they way we live today is what you consider "normal", but life will go on. In fact I think there are a whole lot of simple beautiful aspects of life that are being forgotten because of high technology. Just watch "Lonesome Dove", "Little House on the Prarie", or some old western movies. Remember when you watch them that they did not happen thousands of years ago, it was only about 100 years ago, in fact many people still live that way and get along just fine. I seriously doubt that we are going to have to live without computers, but if we do, don't be such wimps.

-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), November 17, 1999.

From: Y2K, ` la Carte by Dancr (pic), near Monterey, California

In fact I think there are a whole lot of simple beautiful aspects of life that are being forgotten because of high technology. Just watch "Lonesome Dove", "Little House on the Prarie", or someold western movies.

Then... imagine making a living at selling the furniture that you make with the tools and training that you have on hand right now, as Pa did. We can use some of our dinner dishes and tie them up to our dogs to plow up the back yard. For entertainment, we'll string up a rubberband on a kleenex box and call that a fiddle. Then, as someone here so eloquently described it, imagine the scene where Mad Max and all his contemporaries drop in on Laura, Mary, Ma, Pa, and Little Carrie.

-- Dancr (addy.available@my.webpage), November 17, 1999.

My favorite "manual" solutions appear on the Star Trek shows.

I really like the shows in general, but when they're in a battle and their control over the matter-antimatter containment field goes down, someone invariably says, "Switch to manual control!"

So the crew member stands there and touches some of the buttons on the console and almost invariably says, "Manual control not responding, sir!"

Of course it's not responding, because it's not really "manual". The matter-antimatter injectors or some other such nonsense are physically jammed and the only solution is to eject the warp core.

I just hope we won't face anything remotely this bad.

-- nothere nothere (notherethere@hotmail.com), November 17, 1999.

Dancr, sheeesh, that sounds like an awful defeatist attitude you have there, I'm suprised. Fact is that God gave us everything we need to live happily, you just need to see it, and use a little ingenuity.

-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), November 17, 1999.

The bottom line:

It it NOT possible to support the current U.S./world population, in terms of food, infrastructure, and jobs, without computers. Period.

Anyone that thinks this is possible is deluding themselves. YES, we can go back to "them thar olden dayz." But we can't do it without MILLIONS of deaths.

No rational denial of this fundamental reality can be made.

-- Dennis (djolson@cherco.net), November 17, 1999.

You are not going to find the resources you need to survive in the cities, but there is plenty here for everyone. Humans were not intended to exist on the artificial life support systems that exist in the city, so they will need to be strong enough to journey into the country. Some would undoubtedly perish while making the transition, but these would primarily be the weak, whose suffering would be ended by as they move into the afterlife as it was meant to be. This is just nature's way of ensuring that mankind can continue to experience this physical reality, by allowing only the survival of the fittest of the species. It happens to ALL species, and we cannot cheat Mother Nature by using our clever devices and machines. In fact, when the process of evolution is closely studied, it is clear that if our progression toward dependence on machines continues, the machines will become so critical to our very survival that we would eventually reach a point in time where we cease to exist as the physical beings that we now are, and we would exist only as a spiritual entity within them, a sort of "ghost in the machine." Y2K could be our wake-up call that it is time for the human race to decide which road we choose to take. Do we want to guarantee our existence as an actual physical species on this planet, or make our transition to the spiritual world by becoming one with the machines?

I already know which way I want to exist, because I enjoy the physical pleasures of our earthly existence, and I would hate for our descendants to miss this experience because we chose to be weak and lazy.

-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), November 17, 1999.

Also, I'm curious to know of those who have some opinions on this subject... do you think that Y2K could be the "point of no return" with respect to our dependency on machines, or do you believe this is still somewhere off in the future? And if it is not now, when do you predict we will reach that point of no return?

-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), November 17, 1999.

Hawk:

Having worked in the "computer industry" (a generic term) for 7 years, and working with my father who has been in the industry since 1970, I have come to believe, that we are not yet in the clear as far as systems redundancy is concerned.

I think that it would actually be a good thing for us to have several heavy, but recoverable failures, because in the long run it will teach us to make our systems and networks more robust and fault- tolerant.

One of the big debunker arguments is that we (society) already have solid networks in place, and that the point of a network web is to have strength, and not have a "single point of failure". This way, problems can be simply bypassed/ignored until they are repaired. Redundant (backup) systems simply take the load temporarily. Debunkers are right, if we had a strong web for an infrastructure, then we would have little to worry about. The error in their logic is that they assume a large enough percentage of the interconnected systems out there are ready to act in this manner, ready to act in a web-like way and are able to simply work around potential problems.

As I see it, we are not at that point yet. YES, many businesses are, but our infrastructure as a whole isn't there yet. We are just getting started. Any network engineer will tell you that non-fault tolerant networks can be easily taken out with a single point of failure, which will cause its own cascading effects.

Example of redundancy: One of the systems I used to work on had 2 "fault tolerant" server engines that were completely mirrored in real time. (meaning the two engines actually exist both separately, and as a single machine simultaneously - Novell SFTIII). If one of the network server (engines) was to have a critical failure (hard drive dies, network card dies, etc), the other would still be up and running, and the network never misses a beat. Then you simply repair the damaged engine and sync it back up with the one that remained operational.

However, I cant tell you how many times I have seen redundant server configurations like the one above, where both servers were plugged into the same (non-UPS) power source. Shut the power off, you have a DEAD network, and two dead server engines. Redundancy is a tricky and EXPENSIVE thing. You cannot simply add backup system, but ignore that both your operational, and backup systems share a common power source.

Problem is, many "systems" do not have fault tolerance taken into consideration, especially in small and medium businesses. Shoot, I've worked with countless people who don't even do backups at all. They just assume the old hard drive will keep on humming.

Our infrastructure simply does not have the redundancy in todays day and age. Business "X" might be able to handle a severe Y2K related network disruption without a missed beat, but that does not mean that the entire US is ready as a holon.

All we can do is hope that the bug itself has been mostly exterminated. If not, Im afraid our network isnt ready to deal with multiple failures.

Sorry if I did not articulate that very well....I tried :)

-- C. Hill (pinionsmachine@hotmail.com), November 17, 1999.

Dennis: VERY VERY VERY well-said. And VERY accurate.

Bravo.

-- preparing (preparing@home.com), November 17, 1999.