"They died so as not to die from embarrassment."

greenspun.com : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread

This is a line from Tim O'Brien's 1990 work of fiction The Things They Carried, probably the most acclaimed book about the Vietnam War. I teach the book regularly and my students at VMI enjoy it. We discuss this particular line at length. Why are men so afraid of being embarrassed that they will risk death to avoid it? This is what keeps many men from prepping, I think. They are embarrassed to appear "afraid" or "worried" about Y2k. They don't want people to laugh at them. So rather than risk embarrassment, they will risk hunger, thirst and death. I know of men who are almost hysterical in their ridicule of Y2k, as though it presents some kind of threat to their manhood. Truly odd. But I guess if you are truly plugged into our crass commercial culture with all its deification of manhood and, especially, the savvy businessman, you are afraid of being unhip, unorthodox, uncool. If you buy the slow-motion walkin', raybans wearin', luxury car drivin', Marriot residence suites stayin', first class flyin', notebook ownin', internet stock speculatin', classy poontang gettin' model of suave virility, even THINKING about buying some spam and hooking up your generator for your BUNKER is anathema. You'd rather die than be seen at Sam's Club by your slow-motion wakin' fellow travellers and die from embarrassment.

-- Kurt Ayau (Ayau@iwinet.com), December 28, 1999

Answers

-- Kurt,

Please read this before you hurt yourself...

http://www.ghsport.com/public/y2k.htm

Doug

-- Doug (Doug@itsover.com), December 28, 1999.


Ship Of Fool's has come to my mind all week. MJL

-- MJL (MJL@inthevally.net), December 28, 1999.

Hey, another Lexington person is prepping! Now we don't feel so alone. Our landlord is a major DGI and fits your "embarrassment" profile to a T. Except that he's not rich, but rather a retired hippie who hates work so much he's living off the $675 rent we're paying him.

I honestly don't believe Y2K is going to be TEOTWAWKI, but it only makes sense to prepare. After all, that's what Americans used to do.

Good luck to you next week during rollover!

-- Lex (InLexToo@middleofclueless.com), December 28, 1999.


Welcome to the age of the high maintenance fashion boy. Did I primp my coif just right? Did my two hours of work to attain the Casual Look pay off? Do I look suitably lame? Is my jaw sufficiently slack?

We're f*cked....

-- Ron Schwarz (rs@clubvb.com.delete.this), December 28, 1999.


Hey Doug, I've read your link and it consistantly scoffs problems which have already been documented and are happening now.It assumes a computer posesses the capability of logistical thought(ie)

"What isn't so often mentioned is that computer programs can handle this condition in many ways. In fact, the two-digit year is perfectly adequate in almost all applications. It only becomes ambiguous when the century is unknowable by other means. In almost all cases the century is knowable from other data. For example, it should be clear from the context that 00 means 2000, not 1900 or 2100. Of course, whether this is implemented correctly is another question, but there is no fundamental reason why it should not be."

Computers only know what they are told and cannot be expected to assume what is obvious to a human.Billions of dollars would not have been spent on remediation to fix something that isn't broke.

-- Dragnet (just@the.facts), December 28, 1999.



ROTFLMAO!

"slow-motion walkin', raybans wearin', luxury car drivin', Marriot residence suites stayin', first class flyin', notebook ownin', internet stock speculatin', classy poontang gettin' model of suave virility..."

-- Hokie (nn@va.com), December 28, 1999.


Dragnet, you clearly do not subscribe to the religion of computers!

I remember discussing in a sociology course in the early 80's what the potential impact could be of humankind's construction of its first creature which actually surpassed the abilities of its human creator -- the computer.

My sociology professor speculated that we would raise the computer to the role of a god, and therefore grant the computer special powers which exceeded its abilities. The professor backed this theory up with countless historical cases in which humankind has reacted to occurences which surpassed his then ability to comprehend, by granting the unexplainable a status of god.

Because such historical stances have led to those culture's to demise, the professor predicted that our raising computers to a god level would lead to a modern downfall.

Specifically, we would expect and become dependent upon the computer to solve a technical problem which was beyond our human means, and be destroyed when the computer-god did not perform at this "supernatural" level.

This scenario has been acted out in many sci-fi stories. The dumb scientists always buy the dirt farm.

-- Hokie (nn@va.com), December 28, 1999.


Hokie, I think you misread my post.The paragraph in quotations is part of the article in the URL posted by Doug which I inherently disagree with.My thinking is in line with yours in that computers are not human and never will be.Our trust in them will be our downfall.

-- Dragnet (just@the.facts), December 28, 1999.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ