If I only knew who I was...........

-- FutureShock (gray@matter.think), March 17, 2000.

How we miss him. And all the others.

-- PAST (blast@from.the), May 25, 2001

Answers

No matter what happens, they'll always been someone with a sense of impending doom. Who knows, "Will," you may be right some day. In the mean time, I'd rather enjoy my life and trust my modest lifestyle and even more modest "FEMA-approved" preps. Hey, apocalyptic fiction is often a great read, but I have no desire to build my life around the myriad possibilities of disaster. There are some fine minds on this forum, like McLaughlin, Cook and our man Flint. If they stop by, I will pick up the tab. But on a warm summer's day with a light breeze and the scent of freshly cut grass... would you rather be typing at the computer or sipping a cold drink outside? If "it" comes, I hope "it" finds me happy, relaxed and satisfied having lived a full and rich life. On a related note, "it" comes for us all, sooner or later. All we have is the fleeting moments between birth and death.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), June 21, 2000.

Yet another sad poster has left us. *snif* Ken oh how we miss him.

-- PAST (blast@from.the), May 25, 2001.

zippity dandy zooba jambo oinker int he cat... You know what I mean?

------ bam bam --- bambammalone@straitboy.com

-- memories (all@we.have), May 25, 2001.

BAB BAM was the DOOM FREAK to end all ZOMBIES OF THE CULT OF ED. Not worth posting here, UNLESS YOU BELIVE WHAT THE PAULA HAS TO SAY. Probably a BAPTIST.

-- not posting here anymore (no@not.really), May 25, 2001.

The writing style of, "not posting here anymore" looks eerily similar to a certain posting realtor, if you know what I mean.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), May 25, 2001.

You got a hamster up your ass fuckwad?????

Hawk flying@high.com

**SIGH** Those were the days.

-- Jack Booted Thug (governmentconspiracy@NWO.com), May 26, 2001.

That was my best line?

-- FutureShock (gray@matter.think), May 28, 2001.

Ignorance is bliss, until reality pops up and bites you on the ass.

-- Cherri

FutureFlint or TarzanShock...

-- unknown

-- (bygrace@thru.faith), May 28, 2001.

Hi FS! Actually I think these are SOME of your best lines (although there were many others-this one sprang to mind):

I

Ridges of sandstone

spans and spires

fire in the noon sun rays.

Cities of stone

jut upward among

large, pompous birds;

casted shadows criss-cross

Kaleidoscope cameras aimed

crosshairs locked on the burning furnace.

II

Around each corner, hallowed holes and

holes being hollowed

Stone arches and natural bridges

blasted, erased to today's shape

by striking ice and slicing winds.

Many come to savor

This beautiful carnage of rocks.

Tomorrow

entropy will continue; insistant

erosion

plans shows for visitors

not yet born.

III

Some, however, come on quests

For them this landscape

means much more

more

than a roll of pictures...

With rigid purpose

An emptiness seen but buried

for fear of confrontation

with the holes in their souls.

IV

Groups of two shoes tiptoe

through the living ground-

not dead, these pinks, whites, and reds

they cover shoelaces and the

Soles of shoes.

Balanced rocks and Colorado-carved

Buttes

howl out directions, ruling the land

maliciously manipulating the feet

through a maze

of skeletal Junipers and Indian

Grass.

V

The afternoon sun

Scourges even the toughest

Creatures

Who try to hide from the

Sword.

Nevertheless, men who attempt to cross its spots

traversing among skittish lizards and

Ignorant prickly pears

lose their sight-

Gouged eyeballs roll unimpeded

While

Hands grasp brows and

Frantically claw the ground-

Thorns sticking, arms flailing

heads with two new holes

lay in the desert.

VI

Balls roll over the edge

An avalanche of boulders

Splintering as they collide in

The blazing valley.

The injured cannot hear where

Their eyes are going

deafened by raw nature.

VII

The valley is depleted of water-

run-off washes in every direction are dry

Dirt shattered

Like spiderwebs in

Broken windsheild glass.

-- FutureShock (gray@matter.think), September 08, 2000

Thank you FS, for sharing your thoughts with us in the past. You are one of many who is genuinely missed.

I miss the contemplative nature that this forum used to have. You all remember, before all the hateful politics and just plain hatefulness that we see here these days. Perhaps if the mood of the board changed, some of the thoughtful, and insightful folks of yore would return to the fold. I can only hope....

-- Aunt Bee (Aunt__Bee@hotmail.com), May 28, 2001.

I said I was leaving, because you guys are all assholes.

Now I'm back.

What does that say about me?

-- FutureShock (Grey@matter.missing.break.my.word.unfortunately.for.all), May 29, 2001.

FS didn't say we were all assholes. If he wanted to leave and came back then we consider it a compliment.

I don't remember him signing a contract saying he would not be back. But then someone has nothing better to do then act like a 12 year old and go around trying to start conflicts.

-- Cherri (jessam5@home.com), May 29, 2001.

I thought he said he would be back from time to time, but wouldn't be posting under his FutureShock handle, and if anyone posted as FutureShock it wasn't him.

-- jammy (jammin@with.jammy), May 29, 2001.

I enjoyed most of FutureShock's posts, but the most entertaining to me [in a very simple sortof way] were those presumably in response to Cherri's "Name that Thing" threads, wherein FS would state "It's a rock. Whoops...wrong thread." I'll just never forget the "It's a rock" line.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), May 29, 2001.

Hey Anita it was a rock. Did ya EVER have any doubts?

*sigh* geez I miss FS

-- how we miss you (oh@dear.FS), May 30, 2001.

And how we miss Manny! Every single word that he typed just oozed intelligence, articulateness, eloquence, and compassion. I think there are only three names that come to mind when speaking of the creme de la creme. Certainly Abraham Lincoln, probably Albert Einstein, and without a question our very own Manny.

-- Butt Nugget (catsbutt@umailme.com), May 30, 2001.

"I could snap your neck and then dance the funky chicken over your limp body."

"You're nothing but a troglodyte."

"I liken you to a turd on the sidewalk."

My best friend hardliner to me during the great Y2K debate.....;-)

I miss that ol' jasper!

Deano

-- Deano (deano@luvthebeach.com), May 30, 2001.

Deano -

I owe you an apology or two.

Although the quotes you attribute to me are not entirely accurate, they are close enough.

I recall quite clearly that I said I'd make you 'do the chicken' (funky or otherwise) before I snapped your neck, should you 'come near' (or something to that effect) any of the young boys in my family.

That was in response to your post about a young boy who'd been emotionally distressed to the point of tears because he had to leave your team.

We are all living in a subjective world, and mine has included service as a scoutmaster to a group of boys who's fathers were mostly overseas, either in the Navy or the Corps. One such however, had a father who, although in the boy's life, was deep in the throes of alcoholism and thus an extremely negative factor in the development of this boy. For my purpose here, I'll simply call the boy 'George'. For whatever reason, George and I developed a bond and an emotional attachment. Likely, on my part, it was influenced by the facts that I had found my own father lacking and that George's father, whatever his other faults, had more than 'paid his dues' to America and to the Corps.

The day came when I was transferred to another duty station, and George too, came to me in tears over the parting. I did my very best to communicate to him that personal relationships, particularly in the military service, are subject to the vagaries of life and often are terminated by things beyond our control or wishes. I too, was sad over the parting but it was clear to me even then, that the parting itself was something that I could give to George as an example of a way to deal with such events and that surely it would not be the last time something like this ever happened to him. I was, and am, completely aware that George's distress was due to his youth and need, and not in any way because I was anything special. To him because of circumstance, and to myself as well, it was special, but such experiences in the grand scheme of things are very ordinary indeed.

I have not spoken of this incident before to anyone, and I only do so now to communicate to you the frame of reference that I perceived your comments within. On reflection, it seems apparent to me that what I perceived may well have not been what you meant, and that you may well have experienced the same feelings that I had. What really got up my nose was that you appeared to me to be bragging that your influence on this boy and all the others was of such character that its loss caused them grief. That appearance was reinforced by your revelation of certain of your material possessions (boat, house, etc.), which came across to me as nothing more than 'Look at all the stuff I have'. As I find bragging extremely distasteful, I so found your post and thereby, you.

At any rate, I judged you on your words and my perception of them. If I correctly interpreted them, I stand by my response but if I misjudged you, I sincerely apologize to you.

As to the troglodyte characterization, you were not the only one I adjudged as such. As you may know, the word simply means one who dwells in a cave or underground, and as I used it, and intended to use it, it was an attempt to express my opinion that they that I called such were unable to see what might be going on 'above ground'. Perhaps it was inappropriate because I meant also to include those who simply refused to see. In your case, it was your expressed status as a manager and your espousal of the 'party line' that evoked that characterization.

As I noted then, I have been a manager in a Fortune 500 corporation, and was and am both a director and an officer of two corporations (although neither comes anywhere near such lofty status as the Fortune rankings). As is clear to anyone who has such experience (and you may well have such yourself) it is a fact that the great majority of 'managers' in our business community are simply functionaries who perform without question the directives of the stockholders.

'Truth'(whatever that might be), 'Justice', Equity, and compassion are often at odds with the ultimate objective of a capitalistic enterprise, which is simply to make a profit for the stockholders and is unqualified by any such considerations. The only restraint our society places on such objectives is law.

The subsequent non-event of Y2K makes clear that either it was never as significant as some of us thought it might be, or that most of the various public and private entities affected did successfully deal with it. Taken in that light, it is clear that you were speaking the truth, whatever your motives. It is also clear to me that my opinion of you as a troglodyte was unjustified and I no longer hold it. I unqualifiedly apologize to you for that.

While I don't actually recall likening you to a 'turd', such is clearly vulgar at the least, and on those grounds alone, an apology is called for. I herewith tender a second unqualified apology to you.

I do know that 'a turd on the sidewalk' is an integral part of one of my favorite analogies in that I liken it to a grudge. One may pick it up, carry it in one's pocket against the day when the opportunity appears to fling it at the appropriate target. While 'scoring' would render some satisfaction, one is still left with a nasty mess in one's pocket and on one's hand. It seems to me at least, that the wisest course of action is simply to never pick it up in the first place.

You and I are no more than cyber entities to each other Deano, yet it is clear that the words we exchanged remain as at least significant enough to cause your Memorial Day post and this response. For what it's worth Deano, I bear you no ill will.

-- Hardliner (searcher@internet.com), May 31, 2001.

"If Ladylogic was locked in a cabin with Gandhi, he'd smack her."

-- Ken Decker, (circa fall, 1999)

(Good to see you're still around, Hardliner!)

-- Eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), May 31, 2001.

Hardliner!

I'm somewhat at a loss for words here. Hope things are going well with you and yours.

Re: the bragging. Definitely a low moment in my past and certainly not my style. My apologies. It was such a heated 'discussion', nasty insults and the like were flying all over, and for some reason I felt compelled to defend myself. BTW, we sold the boat..;-). Might get another one day, but not anytime soon.

FWIW, I most certainly feel a loss when the kids grow up and leave me for another league. A lot worse than they feel about leaving me for sure. BTW our 12 yr olds kicked some fanny this spring, 18-5 and League Champs!

Anyhow, apologies accepted and I hope you accept mine. There were times when I definitely acted like a jerk. And, you're right, I was playing the party line during Y2K, but it was a sincere party line...;-).

Alright, yall have it. I'll go ahead and start - Anyone got any kleenex??

Deano

-- Deano (deano@luvthebeach.com), June 01, 2001.

FS definately said his handle was retired, and that if he were to come back, it would be under another handle. It is obvious that the post above is not him.

Just thought I would put in my two cents.

-- Enlightenment (gone@away.now), June 01, 2001.

Hardliner you are a man without morals or character.

You seduced a married woman pre-Y2K (Chris) and your posts spoke volumes about what kind of man you are. I'm shocked you would ever show your face in public and I'm more shocked you have the nerve to post here. I'm going to take time over the next week to gather your posts demonstating what a low-life you are.

Let's start with this:

I simply believe that we will never change the status quo without a lot of bloodshed. After all, war is what man does "best".

-- (246@8.10), June 01, 2001.

.

-- (246@8.10), June 01, 2001.

Just so you don't forget Deano....

"And there I was, really and truly trying to pass on honest-to- goodness good news. Didn't realize just how HATEFUL some of those folks were until now.

I sure wish Ray, 'a', Andy, OutingsR and hardliner were around now.....might be nice to hear what they have to say now......NOT!!!

Deano

-- Deano (deano@luvthebeach.com), December 06, 2000."

-- (246@8.10), June 01, 2001.

And your point is??

I never said I was an angel on the old forum. Probably said a few things I wish I hadn't. Can't change history.

I was actually glad/surprised to hear from ol' Hardliner regardless of what I said 6 months ago. Times and attitudes change......

Deano

-- Deano (deano@luvthebeach.com), June 01, 2001.

"I am betting my life, as well as the lives of my family, on the belief that a military supported Clinton Empire is nothing more than a very disturbing bad dream. If "Slick" should be foolish enough to pit his "alphabet" troops against the real military, that highway outside Kuwait City would look like a sunday school picnic by comparison.

-- Hardliner (searcher@internet.com), January 11, 1999

-- (246@8.10), June 01, 2001.

Careful '246'. . .your ignorance is showing. Knock yourself out and enjoy your shock.

-- Hardliner (searcher@internet.com), June 01, 2001.

I remember when he thought there would be martial law. Not very bright for an ex CEO:

>>Depending on the answers to those questions (and others) it could be anything from business as usual to genuine martial law.<<

He has also said:

>>I freely admit that I am a fanatic in matters regarding the Constitution and I cannot help but recall the personal loyalty oaths that Hitler required.

If only the National Guard is called to the aid of the federal government, we should all ask why.<<

>>This is what I expect: I don't see a snowball's chance in Hell that any government above the county level is going to be functioning 18 months from now. Y2K is going to set the NWO back every bit as far as it does everyone else. The code is not aware of Agents provocateurs, militias, the Constitution, USDA agents, forest rangers, dynamic entry, or the tripartate NWO. The code is broken and it will play out without regard to any of the above.<<

>>Power ultimately comes out of the barrel of a gun or at the point of a sword or with the swing of a club or with the grasp of a human hand.<<

-- (I @ remember him.too), June 01, 2001.

LOL!

'I', your reading comprehension is a bit lacking. Obviously I was wrong in my estimation of the public sector's ability to cope with the century date change bug. So what?

-- Hardliner (searcher@internet.com), June 01, 2001.

Hardliner

I had no intention of all the 'old news' rearing it's ugly head. Just remembered a few of your better lines (in reference to me) and posted'em. Hell, I thought they were funny!

Deano

-- Deano (deano@luvthebeach.com), June 01, 2001.

Da nada, Deano. Those who are offended by my beliefs are entitled to be so. Those who are offended by objective reality are in deep kim-chee. . .

-- Hardliner (searcher@internet.com), June 01, 2001.

>>E., you're preaching to the choir about the corruption in the American power structure.<<

>>My personal Orwell favorite, Animal Farm makes it too clear what we are and how we operate.<<

>>Still, I don't look for the total disappearance of "jackbooted thugs". They're simply too useful to the maintenance of political power.<<

>> No one ever hands you inside information for free and you must always work for it, but in the face of an openly acknowledged, well financed and well organized effort to shape public opinion by the government and industry, it is often so difficult to obtain that it simply makes good sense to assume the worst and prepare for it. <<

>>I have never seen the movie, ET. Is that the Spielberg propaganda film you were refering to? <<

-- (I @remember him .too), June 01, 2001.

Who gives a fuck? Hardliner is a good joe in my book, he was wrong about Y2K and so was I. I said lots of things that look very foolish in hindsight, and so did a lot of other people. Get over it, most of the rest of us have.

Life is far too short to hold a grudge, and it is so much sweeter when you learn to let go of old hurts and slights.

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), June 01, 2001.

Hardliner posted several messages this old thread.

http://hv.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=000ToL

-- what he (said@in.context), June 01, 2001.

Let's let go of old hurts and slights at my house over huge, steaming plates of rice!

-- helen (i_still_h@ve.lots), June 01, 2001.

Helen, you never fail to bring a smile to my face....thank you :-)

-- check your email ..... I'm (someone@you.know), June 01, 2001.

Anybody that invited ME to a picnic at his house, knowing that I was a polly, can't be all bad. [I might add that he lets any traveler use his bathroom before he knows if she's friend or foe.]

Now I'm reminded of Lilly. I haven't heard a word from her since the picnic last year. I recently got an E-mail entitled, "From Lilly". I got my hopes up, but it turned out to be just another "I'm lonely and I'm horny" number.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), June 01, 2001.

Bullshit. Hardliner is a fuckin asshole and a gigantic wuss. He's been posting anonymously and if he's man enough to keep posting with his real name [which I doubt] you'll find out what a psycho he really is.

Hardliner

Are you up for it punk? You certainly weren't at a loss of words before Y2K. Are you willing to post your thoughts now with your "Hardliner" handle?

-- (246@8.10), June 01, 2001.

If you insist, '246', (although I haven't much relish for a contest of wits with one so obviously ill-equipped)knock yourself out.

-- Hardliner (searcher@internet.com), June 01, 2001.

I have no desire to engage in a contest of wits with you. I never fight an unarmed man.

I'm just challenging you to post with your "Hardliner" handle from now on. Go on, pick a thead! Any thread and topic! Give us your brilliant insights like you did before y2k! You were very vocal then and in your earlier post to Deano, so don't clam up on us now!

-- (246@8.10), June 01, 2001.

Despite my 'relish' (or more accurately, the lack thereof) or your 'desire','246', the readers of this and other threads will determine for themselves who might be 'ill-equipped' or 'unarmed'in the matter of wits.

For the record however, I stopped posting to the original Yourdon forum some several months prior to the advent of the year 2000, for reasons that had nothing to do with Y2K. I have not posted to any of the successor forums either, anonymously or otherwise, with a single exception. That single post was signed:

-- Hardliner (searcher@internet.com), June 01, 2001.

Aunt Bee-Thanks for posting that FutureShock poem. I enjoyed reading it again as I had not read it since it was posted originally.

As you know, FS is never really that far away. The forum is definately not the same without him.

-- Enlightenment (gone@away.now), June 02, 2001.

Enlightenment-You're welcome. I couldn't agree more. His poetry and his posted thoughts stirred imaginations. FutureShock is sorely missed. I'm sure he comes back to "peek in" every now and then.

-- Aunt Bee (Aunt__Bee@hotmail.com), June 03, 2001.

Pantyliner shows he is a REAL asshole (along with a few other "regs")

Bwahahahahahaha

-- (mult@I.milne), June 05, 2001.

COOL! A classic thread of doomers being shown how wrong they were, and the zealot 'faithful' ganging up on any bearer of good news or logic!

I luv it! Thnx 4 the laugh!!!

-- (old@tim.er), June 06, 2001.

Wow, great stuff! Check out this classic from the Big Dog:

Hardliner, this is a penetrating discernment and a good reason why the secular equivalent of the Nuremberg trials may still be held for my IT peers post-Y2K.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!! I wonder if BigDog is still waiting for those Nuremberg trials to begin.

-- (BigDog@Doggy.DooDoo), June 06, 2001.

In the admittedly forlorn hope that some might yet recognize the deficiency in their reasoning process, I must point out that there could not be a poorer example of how 'wrong' the Doomers were.

Clearly, history has shown that all the 'marbles' did not get 'polished'. The great majority of remediators simply recognized the accuracy of the proposition that there was not time enough to do so and attacked the problem from another angle. If you are really interested, investigate the technique called 'windowing'. To all our benefit, a cybernetic catastrophe was averted, albeit by postponement. Hopefully, the effort will be forthcoming to deal with the potential for a repeat when the 'window' closes. Clearly a winning strategy, but certainly a demonstration of the accuracy of the 'marbles' analogy rather than the reverse.

It should also be clear that those Doomers who were 'wrong' were those who claimed to know without doubt that Y2K would be a calamity. The only 'proof' of whether or not it would be, arrived on schedule at midnight December 31st.

-- Hardliner (searcher@internet.com), June 06, 2001.

Hardliner:

You sound like you know the buzzwords, but don't have the experience to relate them to actual data processing. So let's go through this slowly.

First, understand that the only thing that really causes problems with dates is (1) A calculation is performed using 2 or more dates; (2) at least one date falls on one century while another falls on another century; and (3) the code uses the same century for both dates.

Windowing was the technique that had been used all along. We'd been using a 100-year window, which was about to expire. And you're quite correct that rather than rewrite a huge amount of stuff, most remediators simply moved the window. They sometimes picked a fixed window, and sometimes used a sliding window, but whichever approach they used, the window is STILL 100 years wide. And errors STILL only happen when two dates are used in a calculation and fall on either side of the window.

Now, does this technique "postpone" catastrophe? No, it does not. The only insoluable problem with windowing is when two dates *really are* more than 100 years apart, and therefore a 100 year window is not wide enough and ambiguity cannot be avoided. Because in practice, these 100-year windows never "close", they just keep getting moved.

BUT, very few programs work with data data spanning such a long period. Such applications might be birth dates (some people do live to be 100), or copyright dates, or other historical documents. And those applications were written with 4-digit dates from the gitgo, because the original data entered spanned over 100 years.

Most of our data, however, has a much shorter timespan before it becomes obsolete, so a 100-year window is absolutely ample forever. The bottom line, then, is that these marbles were in fact fully polished, and there was never any need to rewrite code so as to be able to handle a situation that could never arise anyway.

Like the "midnight 12/31/99" danger, the windowing "timebomb" is yet another false alarm, peddled by those who do not understand what it is or how it works, or who prefer to let their imaginations worry them.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), June 06, 2001.

Flint -

Go as fast as you like. While I am aware that I have nothing close to your expertise at fundamental code, I understand quite well that most of what you posted was absolutely correct.

Rather than quibble with you over the definition of 'polishing the marbles', can we agree that the analogy took it to be the rewrite of the mountain of code? If not, the analogy obviously falls apart.

I would also argue that the potential for a repeat of the effort to move the window is not a 'false' alarm, but one which is as real as caused the effort to move the existing one prior to the century date change. I am aware of at least two 'windows' that were moved to different points and it would seem likely that there are others. Obviously such moving of the window is possible since it has been done, and by having the various windows at different points in time, any future efforts should be spread out, as opposed to all 'coming due' at the same instant.

FWIW, the effort to deal with Y2K has demonstrated to my personal satisfaction that any such problems in the future will be easily dealt with.

It would seem clear however, that the effort to move the largely 'common' window ending on December 31st was not so easily dealt with if the amounts of time, effort and money reported to do so were anywhere near accurate.

I submit that the analogy was accurate, but focused on the wrong question (Can all the code be rewritten in time?). As hindsight clearly shows, the question should have been, 'Can everyone move their window in the time remaining?

We all now know the answer to that question.

-- Hardliner (searcher@internet.com), June 06, 2001.

Rather than quibble with you over the definition of 'polishing the marbles', can we agree that the analogy took it to be the rewrite of the mountain of code?

Actually, this is what you originally said about this analogy (my emphasis added):

The point is that although polishing marbles is a very simple task, the sheer number of them precludes finishing the entire job by Saturday.

Do you believe that rewriting "the mountain of code" is "a very simple task?"

-- (what@i.think), June 06, 2001.

'What' -

No, I did not believe that 'rewriting the mountain of code' would be a simple task.

Flint can easily describe for us all the various things that would have involved, but in very basic terms, it would have involved identifying each fragment of code that 'needed' to be rewritten (analogous to sorting through the marbles in the canyon to ascertain which 'needed' polishing) and then rewriting that fragment.

As Flint will certainly confirm, the rewrite of a fragment is indeed a simple task for a code jockey and when it was done, it was apparently assigned to very junior people just for that reason.

So, to properly answer what I think you asked, I do not see the polishing of an individual marble as anything but simple, and I thought (and still do) that the process to figure out just which 'marbles' required it somewhat more complex, but not overly so.

The 'showstopper' to the whole idea (which Flint has correctly pointed out was the wrong 'solution') was the sheer number of such code fragments to be examined in the time allowed.

Hi Jonathan! Good to see you too.

I always knew (and still do) that Y2K could have been a major catastrophe. It is obvious in hindsight that those who successfully dealt with it thought so too, else they would never have taken the actions nor spent the sums that they apparently did.

I always did my very best to make plain that I was and am, a stakes gambler. The potential stakes were simply too high to ignore in my view.

As many who were 'sure' that a calamity would not result pointed out, entities that were economically motivated to survive could be counted on to do whatever was possible to that end. I never doubted that, but having no little experience in the private sector, I knew better than to take their word on faith that all would be well. It is apparent that even they were not 'sure' until after the rollover, witness the thousands of people who spent New Year's Eve at work, 'just in case'.

It was clear then, as it is now, that if for any reason electrical power was lost to any significant degree or for any significant period of time, utter chaos would result.

While I've known for a very long time that there is nothing inherent in the generation of electrical power that requires a computer, or even digital circuitry, it is beyond question that the entire electrical grid is intertwined with computers for other purposes (i.e. calculation and control of when and how much goes where). There was a genuine question in my mind as to whether or not that entanglement was sufficient to cause major problems.

The 'late in the day' acquisition of millions of dollars worth of emergency generation facility by such as the City of Austin, Texas, convinced me that no one else was sure either.

The announcements that various power plants were currently running with their clocks advanced beyond the date change was encouraging, but again, it was on my part a matter of trust of the truthfulness of such. I wonder how many in California today trust the word of the same folks.

My largest single concern was that the governmental entities were not up to the task. Who among us truly views any government as anything like as efficient as a profit motivated organization? I certainly did not. I did believe that they would fail, and I was obviously wrong about that. It was a belief though, and as unprovable as the opposite.

I stand by my reasoning, but as is apparent, reasoning cannot guarantee accurate conclusions absent accurate premises.

With no surety of the accuracy of the data, I chose to prepare with the worst in mind. I did my best to do that in such a way that those preparations would not be valueless no matter which way things turned out, and I was largely successful in that regard. Nothing I did with Y2K in mind has turned out to be anything less than a benefit.

As to what would have convinced me that everything was going to turn out well, I don't think anything could have. Conversely, nothing could have convinced me the other way either.

Had there been a man with the moral authority of the Pope, the credibility of Walter Cronkite and an absolute understanding of the issues involved who told me not to worry, I would have probably been convinced, but that's a pipe dream. As I said many times, I viewed the entire affair as a 'crapshoot' and gambled accordingly.

Nothing ever did convince me that my conclusions were correct, but it was, and is, clear to me that if they had been, I would have needed a very different set of resources to deal with the situation. The decisions I made with Y2K in mind were always taken in light of the question, 'If nothing happens, what will I do with this?', and as I noted above, I'm not 'stuck' with anything useless.

-- Hardliner (searcher@internet.com), June 06, 2001.

Hardliner:

Howzit goin. My largest single concern was that the governmental entities were not up to the task. Who among us truly views any government as anything like as efficient as a profit motivated organization?

Actually, for all of their problems, I consider the government entities to be more efficient [and clearly more honest] than the private sector [I have worked in both]. I guess that is why I was right and you weren't. Water over the bridge

Good to hear from you.

Best Wishes,,,,

Z

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), June 06, 2001.

Hey Z!

Good to see you're still around!

I've seen a lot of the same thing probably. NEL certainly has its act together and it doesn't take long to see that an ARTCC does as well. I certainly don't wish to impugn the great majority of civil servants, and neither do I buy into the stereotype of fat, dumb and lazy on their part.

Unfortunately, the 'pols' and politically appointed 'civil servants' are in charge, and direct the efforts of those subordinate to them. I see them as honest and/or efficient only when it is in their own interest to be so.

Taken as a whole, I distrust government until proven otherwise, but as time has demonstrated, it was up to the task.

Water indeed.

-- Hardliner (searcher@internet.com), June 06, 2001.

So who the heck was " .`.`@.`.` " anyway?

-- (curious@nd.more.curious), June 06, 2001.

Hardliner:

[It would seem clear however, that the effort to move the largely 'common' window ending on December 31st was not so easily dealt with if the amounts of time, effort and money reported to do so were anywhere near accurate.]

Quite so. Yeah, we had an implicit window of 1900-1999, 100 years. But this window needed to be explicit, and it was not. Instead, a great deal of code simply pasted on the "19" part for printouts and displays.

By making the window explicit, I mean adding code that says, IF the year field is greater than X, THEN the century field is Y, otherwise the century field is Y+1. And at that point the (now determined) century field would be appended in the actual logic of the arithmetic, so that the caculated elapsed time would be sensible.

So in other words, there was a lot of code to be rewritten, and your original question was correct. But fortunately (assuming sapient programmers), this code never needs to be written again. This is because the value of X (the window year), and Y are supplied to the code as external variables, which can be changed whenever you like without making any actual changes to the code again at all.

So there really was a large project that needed to be done. Fortunately, programmers and IT departments are not universally stupid. They knew what they needed to do, and how long it would take, and how many automated tools were likely to be developed to help them, and they handled the general problem in stride, as normal maintenance.

Now, there are some other things I think should be cleaned up a bit here:

[I always knew (and still do) that Y2K could have been a major catastrophe.]

Yeah, I always knew that too. But I don't still know that, because I was wrong and it NEVER WAS possible for y2k to be that catastrophe. Certainly I spent a lot of time and words explaining even beforehand that a lot of logically incorrect techniques were being used to create the impression of grave potential out of mostly spun sugar.

For one thing, y2k never had the ability to kill the power. Even the most diehard doomers could not find anyone who could say anything worse than "all elements of the grid pass every test we can throw at them, BUT we might be missing some important test. We don't think so, because our tests cover absolutely everything the grid actually DOES."

For another thing, this odds/stakes argument is silly and always was. We always gamble according to the *product* of the odds and the stakes. The highest possible stakes (death itself) face us all day long, every day. Yet we "foolishly" eat untested food, breathe tainted air, drive dangerous cars, walk out in the open where we might be hit by anything from a car to a meteor to a mosquito with malaria! We do this because the odds of calamity are very low.

So y2k looked bad not because of the stakes (which were less than death itself, by and large), but because the stakes were extreme inconvenience, and the odds looked very high. Our entire error lay in exaggerating the odds beyond any rational estimate.

So I can only repeat that lengthening the list of the number of things you might run into if you fall asleep at the wheel, does not increase your chances of falling asleep. As the list grows, however, it can fool the illogical into getting the *false impression* that the odds are increasing, and that's how the y2k argument played out. The more things people could dream up that *might* go wrong, the more likely it seemed that more *would* go wrong.

So I'm not going to pretend that I couldn't have figured it out better. And I also made purchases with the idea in mind that nothing might happen, so I avoided any white elephants also.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), June 06, 2001.

Flint -

If I understand you correctly (and it seeems quite clear), the solution was not to 'move' the window, but to replace it with one that was self validating according to an easily changed external value. If indeed that was done, it is immediately apparent that we will never face the same problem again.

However, in the only instance that I have first hand absolute knowledge of, they simply moved the window. It was a medium sized trucking company, and they hired an additional group of programmers who did nothing but deal with Y2K code issues for nearly 2 years. This company also installed enough electrical generating capacity of their own (and fuel to run it for some considerable time) to power a small village. They also were not confident enough of their solution to allow their IT staff a normal NYE. Every last one of them was there a full 12 hours with the rollover in the middle of that time period.

Now I've spent a lot of my life working with IT departments, and IMO they are just the opposite of universally stupid. And, while I am aware of the fallacy of arguing the general case from the specific instance, the one enterprise I have hard data about handled the problem with extra people, lots of extra money and to my certain knowledge, lied about their progress. Besides that, they did not implement the solution you explained above. I find it hard to believe that they were the only enterprise that went this route.

When you say that it never was possible for Y2K to be that catastrophe, are you saying that if nothing had been done, chaos would not have been the result?

While it seems likely in retrospect that you're correct in that Y2K never had the ability to kill the power, if that was so apparent at the time, why did the power companies spend even one cent testing to find out if it did?

I suppose that you and I will forever disagree on the stakes/odds argument. I'll go so far as to agree that we all usually gamble on the product of the two, but certainly not always. Would you play Russian Roulette for a large enough sum? I would not.

Neither do I consider my own death the ultimate stakes. Many of us (yourself included if I recall correctly) gambled our lives on behalf of our country. Whether or not we did this based on the odds or the stakes is another argument.

You are correct in your examples of our gambling our lives on the odds, but in those instances, we are dealing with a more or less known quantity. If people routinely died from food poisioning in massive numbers, or the already horrendous auto fatality rate were much greater, we might choose not to do so. And, had I the hard data on what was being done in vital areas vis a vis Y2K, I might have gambled differently too. I just didn't find what data I did have to be trustworthy.

I agree about the length of the list versus the odds. After all, if you flip a coin 100 times and it comes up 'tails' 99 times in a row, the odds on the 100th flip are still 50-50. I think you would agree that a lot of folks would bet on the 100th flip thinking that they had much better odds.

-- Hardliner (searcher@internet.com), June 06, 2001.

Zoobie was 'da bomb.

-- jammy (jammin@with.jammy), June 06, 2001.

Hardliner:

Some of your questions baffle me, but I'll give it my best shot.

First, it was not possible to move the window without adding logic. That's because the window was implicit -- we were just using the last two digits as is. Even moving the window with hardwired code requires adding a test to see if the year portion (the last two digits) are greater or less than some window value. So a window value and a test needed to be added no matter what.

Now I grant that lousy programmers could hardwire the new window in, so that the code would later need to be changed. But even so, the added logic would still be there, so the effort required would be only a small fraction of what it was the first time.

Next, my understanding was that the NYE vigils were partly FUD and partly PR. Nearly all the modified code had been subjected to at least basic functional testing. But Murphy still lives, and PR still needs to be done. In fact, nearly nothing went wrong even in most of the world where extensive remediation never happened at all.

It's my belief that, if nobody had ever lifted a finger to change any code, we would have had a fairly extensive amount of weirdness and downtime going on. After all, in most of the world it's unusual for things to be working, rather than unusual for them not to be. But I think people would have cut corners, and worked "off the record", and found ways and means around most problems. And while I think fixing ALL the problems was always a massive undertaking, fixing *enough to get by* in most cases would have been only a few weeks of furious firefighting. But since there is no alternate reality to use as a control, this is only my conclusion based on not-quite-comparable experiences elsewhere. YMMV.

I confess I don't understand your question about testing. We test all our products. At any given time, we might have no known bugs. But that doesn't mean we have NO bugs, only that we don't know about them. So the question is, *when* did it become apparent that power was not endangered? I'd say this was pretty well established by early 1999.

[Would you play Russian Roulette for a large enough sum? I would not.]

You say this, yet I already wrote that you do exactly this all day long! You risk death from countless sources, deliberate or accidental, all day every day. You cannot avoid this. Why can't you see this? Yet you drive without a full face helmet and a fire- retarding suit, and you're not in a car built to withstand much trauma at all.

So the ONLY problem with the Russian Roulette is that the odds are much too high for your own comfort. The stakes are the same as in your car. You are not thinking this through. We ALWAYS consider the product of odds and stakes. Either one in isolation tells us nothing.

I agree that *not being able* to get within the same area code as the real odds is a real problem. Or more accurately, not being able to know if you're in the same ballpark or not, because the situation is unique and our information sources were all unreliable.

But there was one source of information I considered extremely reliable, that nobody seemed to agree with me about. The dog was not barking in the night! If the code had really been bad enough to cause such awful things, we'd have seen it coming as obvious as the dawn. Nobody was cashing in, nobody was bugging out, the market just kept rising, the spike dates passed uneventfully, no knowledgeable people were becoming pessimists, and knowledgeable people not making a killing from spreading fear (and even some who were, like deJager) were backing out. The worst any organization could report, when forced to speculate, was that *the other guy* might screw up. Even among the pessimistic programmers on the board, not one claimed HIS operation was hosed, oh no! THEY were all OK, but still convinced nobody else was!

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), June 06, 2001.

Flint -

You're right of course about the need for an added test to move the window, and that is just what they did. They moved it as far into the future as they thought they could, based on the oldest data they were 'sure' they would have to deal with.

The reason I recall the details so well is that when they tested it, it blew up. It was then that they discovered that the company still carried on the books (and in fact still actually possessed as a 'relic') the first truck the original company had ever owned, and its data fell outside the window. They simply moved the window back to include that data, and everything tested fine. Again, this may be a unique situation, but it doesn't seem likely to me. Still, you are right that the next time (should there be one at all) will be far easier to deal with.

I agree with your estimation of what would have happened had no one lifted a finger, as far as it goes. As you correctly point out, most of the world is not like here--and it functions largely without our complex infrastructure. Had such occurred in a vacuum, that is if there had been no concern that America's enemies would be able, by virtue of their less technology dependant societies, to take advantage of that weirdness, I would have thought too that we could somehow 'muddle through'.

I suspect that you recall quite well, a small technologically impoverished society that moved enough 'freight' on bicycles, without benefit of roads, to make life very difficult for a lot of us despite our superior technology. America is not the most popular nation on this planet, and I doubt our enemies would have passed up such an opportunity. Do you think that they would have?

As to the grid, they may well have known far earlier than you suggest, but were we to simply take them at their word? Is anyone taking these same people at their word now with respect to the electric power issues in California? It all boiled down to trust, as to whether or not one considered the data reliable or questionable and if questionable, prudence was the safer course of action.

I disagree that Russian Roulette and the daily risks are the same. With the revolver, you know precisely what the odds are and there is no question of the result if you draw the loaded chamber.

With the tainted food, not only are the odds much greater in your favor, the results (stakes) are nowhere near certain. In fact, it is far more likely that you will experience much less than death from food poisoning. The same is true of the auto accident example. The vast majority of auto accidents do not result in fatality. The same is true of your other examples.

Clearly the stakes are certain in one case and not in the other. With the revolver, you have odds that you will win or lose, and absolute stakes. With the others, you also have odds that you will win or lose, but you also have multiple possibilities, odds if you wish, as to what the stakes will be.

As you pointed out, the unreliability of the data made it impossible to know what the odds actually were, or what the stakes would be either. Under those circumstances, I chose to take such precautions as I could, against as many of the possible outcomes as I could. I do invariably wear a seatbelt, and drive only infrequently. I am fortunate in being able to make those choices. In those instances, I am gambling on very good and mostly known odds, with unknown stakes. As we all do, I make such gambles. With Y2K, both the odds and the stakes were unknowns. Since I could find no way to determine the odds, I bet to cover all the stakes I was able to cover.

As for your one reliable source, I think I know just what you mean. I recall many times when I would look out the window and see the world going on just as before and wonder if it was all a tempest in a teapot; yet people I knew and trusted IRL who were involved in the hands on effort would not say that they knew for certain that all would be well. I already lived in the 'boonies' and only visited a grocery about once a month. Taking what precautions against uncertainty as I could was not a very big deal in any case.

In the final analysis, for me at least, it all boiled down to 'Why not take precautions? Just don't do anything you'll regret if nothing happens.'

-- Hardliner (searcher@internet.com), June 06, 2001.

Oh fess up now. You just listened too much to them ole’ cedar cutters.

-- In (the@hill.country), June 07, 2001.

Hardliner/old forum//Dickhead

Tell us how disappointed you are that you don't get to play G.I. Joe, now that Y2K fizzled. It must be frustrating to keep your penis extension locked up.

Thankfully, the boy scouts don't let fags lead the troops anymore. You probably fucked that little kid up worse than his Dad ever could.

What kind of faggot game is "Guess who I'm posting as this time?"

-- KoFE (your@town.USSA), June 07, 2001.

No hardliner, stop making it sound all so normal. You took the precautions you thought necessary for you and in the process, shouted the sky is falling, constantly badgering those that didn't see things your way. Your bully tactics, along with Eddie's "confirmations", permitted you to be an ass. (I promised myself I wouldn't comment to you, but you make me sick.) Your arguments (especially to me, Flint, and Ken) were rude, belittling, and totally illogical, yet supported by your rabid fans, the Gordon twins, Will, KOS and others. You kept it up. No excuses for your behavior.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), June 07, 2001.

Good morning 'Troll Maria'!!!

Broke a promise did you?

Do you still believe that pit bulls are inherently vicious animals?

The record is there for all to see. Make of it what you will, as others will do also, each according to their values and abilities.

Although courtesy is usually free and I generally attempt to extend it first, it is not always appropriate.

No excuses Maria, none needed.

-- Hardliner (searcher@internet.com), June 07, 2001.

Broke a promise did you? Yes. (For the mentally astute, no answer required.)

Do you still believe that pit bulls are inherently vicious animals? "Inherently" as much as any other animal. But animals show many kinds of behavior when presented with various situations. You on the other hand, displayed only viciousness. I could have a pit bull as a pet.

For the record, you were WRONG "for all to see".

I generally attempt to extend it [courtesy] first. LOL The record IS there. How much "courtesy" did you extend to Ken? You actually believe there was nothing wrong with your behavior? Just phenomenal to me.

none needed I didn't say they were needed. Being wrong doesn't require an excuse and boorish behavior doesn't deserve one.

-- Troll Maria (anon@ymous.com), June 07, 2001.

Ah c'mon...the "pantyliner" wasn't alsways such a bad dood...just after overexposure to zealot suck-ups idolizing him...

Gary North gets a bunch in his "pantyliner" (98)

-- (lurker@since.beginning), June 07, 2001.

My how one can grow in a few short years.

I actually defended the gare on the thread referenced above. YIKES!!!

Musta been BEFORE I visited his website........geez, how embarrassing!

Deano

-- Deano (deano@luvthebeach.com), June 07, 2001.

BTW pantyliner, how was mrs. Sullivan in bed?

[you DARE to challenge others credibility on broken promises?!? MY GAWD!!!]

-- (pantyliner@hypo.crite), June 07, 2001.

A gem from that wanker Andy@EOD2000:

"Visa is toast!"

I wonder how much $$ folks lost with his 'buy all the gold you can' advice??

Deano

-- Deano (deano@luvthebeach.com), June 07, 2001.

Aweome!!

He can spend the next 14 months chattering on this forum. It will go down in 2000, along with everything else.

-- Gary North (gknorth@gte.net), October 29, 1998.

LOL!!

-- (Gary@so.scary), June 07, 2001.

Maria,

You said, "The record IS there. How much "courtesy" did you extend to Ken?"

Your answer is in the record, here. I'm almost certain that this thread is the first time I ever responded to 'Mr Decker'.

-- Hardliner (searcher@internet.com), June 07, 2001.

Pantyliner, do shut the fuck up.

-- KoFE (your@town.USSA), June 07, 2001.

Kofe: How many people here told you to shut up? I think not many.

That was an interesting link you posted, Hardliner. It was from before my time on the TB2000 forum. I don't think I entered the forum until June of 1999. Heh. That lady who once posted as Anita changed her name after I joined the forum, saying that she didn't want to be confused with a polly like me.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), June 07, 2001.

Shut up Kofe!

-- That (sure@felt.good), June 07, 2001.

"whaaaa! I think y2k getits are causing all the earthquakes!"

Diane J Squire djsquire@indiana.edu

-- DJS (admin@Xsacredspaces.com), June 14, 2001.

"That is, had software become time compliant regardless of century soon enough, the number of existing programs requiring re-design would have been small enough that we could have accomplished the task before Y2K arrived. (Hardliner)"

Hardliner, this is a penetrating discernment and a good reason why the secular equivalent of the Nuremberg trials may still be held for my IT peers post-Y2K. Anyone who thinks an industry that is so lame, however clever (and we are the "smartest", believe me) is now handling the marble removal with integrity has lost their marbles.

As witness the smartest of them all, Mr. Bill. "Y2K? What, me worry?"

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), May 04, 1999.

At my Nuremberg trial, they sentenced me to a big fat bonus.

-- Bemused (and_amazed@you.people), June 15, 2001.

****** pantyliner.....tee hee hee ******

-- puddintane (ask@meagain.com), July 05, 2002.

What a ponce.

-- Catzilla (blowme@youasswipe.com), February 03, 2003.