I think of myself as a reasonable guy, but yesterday I screwed up badly! And now I feel as though I must say how sorry I am that I was wrong, even if it means that I will endure taunting and ridicule. What could I have done differently with the information I had? Why is it that now I will forever be known as that "Silly Memester" among my don't get it friends?

You see *sobbing* I wore my seatbelt yesterday, but I wasn't in a horrible accident!!! How could I have been so stupid?

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), December 13, 1999

Answers

Smart Alec!

-- (RightNReady@bellsouth.net), December 13, 1999.

But you got in the car.

There are thousands of accidents every year in which people DIE, and yet you got in the car anyway.

That's a stupid, dangerous risk. You should never have gotten into the car in the first place. You should NEVER get into a car. If you do, you might get killed.

It's not the odds, it's the STAKES.

-- (getit@gotit.good), December 13, 1999.

Hi Uncle. ROTFL. Nobody can say it like you; short, sweet, and on the money as always. Be well, Rob.

-- (sonofdust@net.com), December 13, 1999.

Don't feel too bad, Uncle Deedah, I've been buying Automobile Ins. all these years, and they won't give me my money back.Well,at least I'll eat my Y2k insurance if there's only a BITR.I just LOVE MRE's!! BTW, glad to see you stuck around here Uncle Deedah.

on de rock

-- Walter (on de rock@northrock.bm), December 13, 1999.

getit:

A lot of people won't by choice get into a car around New Years for ANY year -- too much risk with all the drunk drivers. But what if you didn't HAVE a choice -- you HAD to be in a car -- wouldn't it be smart to wear a seat belt?

Unless something really extreme happens to you, you WILL be alive on January 1, 2000. Buckle up.

-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.cum), December 13, 1999.

Wrong forum, Unc. This forum advocates a helmet and full-body armor while driving a main battle tank approach.... Oh, there are even a few who suggest HE rounds on any white van or dark blue Chevy Suburban.

The funny part, Unc.... the folks driving tanks don't feel like extremists at all. They do find time to mock the people who are just driving Volvos and wearing seatbelts. (Silly "DGI's)

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), December 13, 1999.

Or if you have an old VW Bug without belts, have a coterie of blow-up dolls around you to act as airbags...

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), December 13, 1999.

A lot of people won't by choice get into a car around New Years for ANY year -- too much risk with all the drunk drivers. But what if you didn't HAVE a choice -- you HAD to be in a car -- wouldn't it be smart to wear a seat belt?

There's always a choice. You don't HAVE to be in a car. You can prepare by NOT being in a car. EVER. If you get in a car, you and your family can be KILLED. Studied have SHOWN THIS. If you allow your children to get in a car, you are IRRESPONSIBLE and RISKING THEIR LIVES.

Risk your own life if you want, but don't sacrifice the lives of your children because you didn't prepare.

-- (getit@gotit.good), December 13, 1999.

(((Uncle))))

In my family, as I suppose in most families, we have an assortment of goofy but useful sayings that tide us over during the dicier moments of life. One of these comes from my baby sister:

"Get a helment, Honey, and strap in!"

I think in the manufacturer's box containing Human Life, (some assembly required), should be, along with a User's Guide, a helmet that grows with us as we mature, an important accessory. And while they're at it, I'd like a plug and play juke box that serenades me with all the appropriate background music for every life event.

(singing): "Life is just a chair of bowlies!"

--She in the sheet upon the hilltop,...

-- Donna (moment@pacbell.net), December 13, 1999.

Main battle tank?? Help! I knew I forgot something! Please, where can I get one? Cheap, of course. Oh, will it fit in my garage? Don't want my neighbors to notice.

-- Mr. Pinochle (pinochledd@aol.com), December 13, 1999.

Well, Unc, at least you got in the car to wear the belt.

If you start going around wearing the belst *without* being in the car, THEN, we will start to worry.

I, myself, had a slipup just the other day. I was goofing off not paying attention and ordered a SALAD at McDonalds.

I feel you're pain.

-Greybear

-- Got Concentration?

-- Greybear (greybvear@home.com), December 13, 1999.

Unk!

You silly goose, whadidya do that for??? Everyone knows that being pureed as you sail thru a windsheild is one of life's finer experiences.

Just can't understand this prevailing attitude around here, of thinking it's wise to take precautions. After all, you just haven't lived, till you've experienced various sorts of misery, such as starvation, dehydration and hypothermia. Stimulates the old constitution, doncha know ;-)

-- Bokonon (bok0non@my-Deja.com), December 13, 1999.

We KNOW Y2K is coming. We don't know if an oncoming car is coming.

-- A (A@AisA.com), December 13, 1999.

"It's not the odds, it's the STAKES."

Ahh, that lame line again. It's the odds and the stakes, and both must be high enough. Consider this:

1. Remember the guy a few months ago who used to work for NASA and was convinced that a comet was going to slam into the Earth? He tried to supply himself and hide out in a cave. Nobody else here did that. In fact, most here ridiculed the guy and anyone who suggessted that there was a conection beween his preps and Y2K preps. Why would that be? Certainly the stakes are incredibly high if a comet struck the Earth, so it had to be the odds. Everyone realized that the odds were so small that it wasn't worth worrying about despite the enormity of the consequences. Low odds, high stakes: No preparitory action.

2. Airborne diseases fill the air, especially in enclosed spaces with recirculated air such as office buildings. A specific example of such a disease is the common cold. To protect yourself from these diseases, it would seem prudent to carry your own self-contained oxygen supply around with you to avoid contracting the disease. However, nobody does this. Why? The risk is certainly high, but the stakes are pretty low. Few people actually are endangered by the common cold. High odds, low stakes: No preparitory action.

3. Toes can be broken by stubbing them on the furniture in your house. Hey, it happens. How can you prevent this from happening? Be sure to wear steel-toed safety shoes around the house at all times. Why don't people do this? Well, the chances of stubbing your toe hard enough to break a bone in the familiar territory of your own home is fairly low. Furthermore, in most cases, a broken toe is painful and annoying but otherwise is not all that big a deal. Low odds, low stakes: No preparatory action. 4. Some people buckle their seatbelts when they drive in a car. Outside the legal requirements that exist in most (if not all) states on this subject, there is a non-trivial risk of being in a serious accident. We see incidents in the news on a daily basis where people are killed or seriously injured in auto accidents. Furhtermore, in multi-car accidents there are often injuries and deaths among drivers who were not at fault in the accident. In otherwords, no matter how careful a driver you are, you have a non-trivial chance of ending up in a serious accident with serious consequences, so you buckle your seatbelt as a measure of protection. High odds, high stakes: Preparatory action.

That crap about "it's not the odds, it's the stakes" is simply a weak- minded rationalization for acting on fear and not on analysis. If you do the analysis and believe that both the risk and the stakes are high enough to take action, then you would be a fool not to do so. If either is deemed not high enough to act, then all you are doing by acting anyway is wasting itme and resources better spent elsewhere. But basing you actions on slogans like this isn't analysis. It's just being what is often termed here as "one of the sheeples."

-- Paul Neuhardt (neuhardt@ultranet.com), December 13, 1999.

Unk (((((clap, clap, clap,)))))

;-)

-- (karlacalif@aol.com), December 13, 1999.

Good analysis on the odds vs. stakes issue. I think the main difference between GI's and DGI's is their individual assessment of the odds. Few people have said that the consequences of full-blown y2k failures would be inherently trivial. It seems that just about everyone agrees that the collapse of the iron triangle would be disastrous. The conflict comes from our variance over the odds of such a collapse occuring.

I see the stakes as a given. I also believe the odds are high as well, based on my limited study and knowledge of complexity and the vulnerability of JIT-provisioned systems. Other people will look at the same data and assess a different set of odds than I do. Who's right and who's wrong? I don't know, but I think we'll all have a better guess in about 4 weeks. I'm prepared to be wrong - someone who assessed low odds and didn't prepare, however, may have a tougher time of it if they're wrong. No implied judgement there, just a statement of facts.

-- rob minor (rbminor@hotmail.com), December 13, 1999.

Paul Neuhardt:

Y2K is an event that will occur within a specific time range. Like ANY event so well time-bounded, it make sense to take extra precautions. For example, if I know that I am about to go on a long auto trip in January and snow has been forecast, I would probably take precautions that I normally would not. Y2K is the same way.

EVEN if I thought that the snow actually had a low probability of occuring, since previous weather forecasts has been in error. BECAUSE it's the stakes, not the odds.

Of course, your post states that you don't UNDERSTAND the concept of odds versus stakes. Which means you probably are not following ANY of this, are you?

OK, let's just then say that you are a moron. And we will leave it at that.

-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.cum), December 13, 1999.

It's not JUST the stakes, otherwise we would all be prepping like crazy (literally crazy) at the threat of every comet, meteor, tidal wave or other far-flung worry we hear about... BUT y2k and its possible consequences are something I can visualise, and I can improve me and my family's chances if things do go wrong. I can improve those chances considerably, but if it really is bad, no, I do not expect to survive. Still, I am doing all I can for my kids.

-- Sad Aussie (nospam@thanks.gone.com.au), December 13, 1999.

KOS, you scrawled:

"EVEN if I thought that the snow actually had a low probability of occuring, since previous weather forecasts has been in error. BECAUSE it's the stakes, not the odds."

Even if travelling from Jacksonville, FL to Houston, TX via the most direct route, an area which has only had recorded accumulations of snow once this century, and that was minimal? You would prepare for snow even under those circumstances? That's not preparedness, that's paranoia.

"Of course, your post states that you don't UNDERSTAND the concept of odds versus stakes. Which means you probably are not following ANY of this, are you?

OK, let's just then say that you are a moron. And we will leave it at that."

Ah yes, the KOS retort. Rather than discuss a point with someone who disagrees, you retort to playground insults. Well, if simply disagreeing with you makes me a moron, then fine. That's a pretty low standard on your part, but I suppose low standards are better than none at all.

-- Paul Neuhardt (neuhardt@ultranet.com), December 13, 1999.