Going round and round with Paul in the last thread helped me realize that the classic debate twixt the Pollyannas and the TEOTWAWKIs centers around definitions of these terms, IMHO.

How can we have a constructive dialogue (or even a decent argument) if the terms are interpreted differently by both sides? What we need are common terms. So here goes.

PP===============================================================PEW

PP - Pure Pollyanna means this event will have less effect on our collective lives than the death of a British divorcee.

PEW - Mad Max and the Thunderdome, Kevin Costner starts delivering mail.

Now add the point where the situation gets disruptive enough that people have their lives impacted DIRECTLY with infrastructure problems. Specifically the inability to obtain essential goods/services (food, water, medicines, electricity) for any time period over two weeks. Let's call this point PIF for Personal Infrastructure Failure. Our line looks like this now;

PP=================PIF=========================================PEW

Now, if disruptions are severe enough, ubiquitous enough and long lasting enough, the government will have to attempt to impose order any way they can. This point I will call ML for Martial Law. Here it is;

PP================PIF==========================ML==============PEW

There is without a doubt an enormous psychological barrier at PIF. This is the point at which one admits that things might get dicey and takes responsibility for oneself and family and says, "It is up to me to protect and provide for mine."

As all of us who have crossed this line know, it is the proverbial eye of the needle. Those that have not or will not do so do not understand what this is like.

PP===============PIF==========================ML===============PEW

Here's the parting of the ways as I see it.

The Pollyannas see PIF as frightening, stupid, ridiculous, whatever and CLAIM/ASSUME THAT ALL WHO CROSS IT BELIEVE IN/WISH FOR TEOTWAWKI.

Those who understand the necessity of crossing PIF absolutely do not see this as meaning they will live in a world of spikey-haired mutants. They understand it as merely prudent to prepare to some extent in the face of an unprecedented event in human history. They view anyone who knows of the problem and refuses to cross PIF even a short distance as somewhere between foolish and stupid beyond belief.

PP================PIF==========================ML=======OS=======PEW

All who cross PIF flow to the right in their minds to the Bad Place. Call it OS for Oh Shit. This is the place THEY see as TEOTWAWKI personally. Each has their own definition ( and yes Paul, I will give you mine ). I placed this to the right of Martial Law because that is where these scenarios would transpire.

So, my definitions are as follows;

PP===============PIF===========================ML=======OS=======PEW All Pollyannas are to the left of PIF. To Pollyannas all points to the right of PIF are emotionally equivalent and therefore they do nothing and do not cross PIF.

All others know that there is a lot of distance between PIF and OS or PEW and that the need to cross PIF is absolute.

Pollyannas middle ground exists from PP to PIF. The rest of us see the middle ground as PIF to OS, or argueably, PP to OS.

Personal preparation is designed to shield us as much as possible from all points between PP and OS. That is why I say there is NO MIDDLE GROUND, that personal contingency planning takes care of everything in the middle.

Now for you Paul, I will define TEOTWAWKI for me. The point beyond which all bets are off and survival is less predicated on events that I can attempt to control and more the Grace of God.

The OS point for me is civil war. Globally, y2k is going to push governments to the brink in their attempt to deliver on their promises to the governed. In the event that these attempts fall too short, civil insurrection will occur. That is the point at which, once the smoke clears, tomorrow won't be like yesterday. TEOTWAWKI.

Last month's GQ had an article entitled,"Praise the Lord and Pass the Anthrax." The head of the little known Chemical Biological Incident Response Force (CBIRF) is Art Corbett. What he had to say about underground groups in this country was sobering indeed. Sufficient disruption from y2k would be exactly the opportunity these groups are waiting for.

THAT is what frightens ME.

And Paul, do not assume that just because I have crossed PIF I believe OS to be inevitable or desirable.

-- Will Huett (willhuett@usa.net), September 04, 1998

Answers

Ver interesting. But please explain what "PEW" stands for. I am afraid I missed a cultural reference

-- David Holladay (davidh@rdcbraille.com), September 04, 1998.

Well I used to be an oppossum in the Middle of the road: Request you break PIF sliding scale into: one week with no power/water < two weeks ... < four weeks

If you expect less one week with no services, little preparation is needed to support life and safety. Some effort is still required.

If 1-4 weeks are needed, then it takes some prudent, well-thought effort and a triage of comfort levels (health, safety, food, comfort).

If more one month with no services, extreme preparations are needed.

I disagree with the Yourdans' expontential 2 day, 1 month, 1 year, 10 year pattern. Those are too great a breakdown to be realistic. Stuff will recover or go past PIF to the OS level: it just depends on how comfortable/safe you and your family will be while it recovers.

-- Robert A. Cook, P.E. (cook.r@csaatl.com), September 04, 1998.

My hat's off to you Will. Very interesting way to put it.

If I can further define PIF (Personal Infrastructure Failure) as the inability to obtain *some* essential goods/services, than I think I have crossed that line. Then again, if you will not allow me this definition than you probably would classify me as a pollyanna. In "Tom's Take" I guess I would be classified as a Davy Crockett as well.

I, too, am most frightened by the underground groups. It doesn't take much to get them to come out of the woodwork.

I think that if the possible effects of Y2K were couched in the terms of PIF rather than TEOTWAWKI, then it would become much easier to convince others that there really is a problem.

-- Buddy Y. (buddy@bellatlantic.net), September 04, 1998.

Will,

I want to congratulate you on the descriptive line you have drawn for us here. I may (and do) disagree with some of your definitions, and I will suggest a slight modification to your line, but overall that line and your attempt to provide points of reference on it is one of the best clarifying tools I have seen in any Y2K discussions over the last year. The only thing that really bothers me about it is that I didn't think of it first. ;-)

I don't have the free time right now for a full response, so I'll post one later. However, I will ask one question. One of the points you and I have repeatedly disagreed on is the need for specific levels of preparations. My tack has always been that is is counterproductive to prepare for something whose proabability is too low to make the preparation worth the time and expense. You have stated that you feel the need to preapre for situations well to the right of PIF and out to as close to OS as possible. What is your expectation of Y2K problems reaching the PIF point as you have defined it? I'm not looking for percentages. Words and pharases such as likely, probable, remote, and "possible enough to worry about" will do.

Again, this is a wonderful foundation for a discussion, and I want to let you and everyone here know that I respect and admire the start you have given this thread.

-- Paul Neuhardt (neuhardt@ultranet.com), September 04, 1998.

I like the concept of the line, but honestly I think any attempt to somehow actually forecast the daisy-chain effect that Y2K will have (or even what might be considered the "pre-Y2K" effects in 1999) is really grasping at straws. It is hard enough just to grasp all the implications of banking, the stock market, power, transportation, etc. Trying to now get a handle of the aftermath is absolute whistling in the wind. Keep it simple: Hope for the best, prepare for the worst.

-- Joe (shar@pei.com), September 04, 1998.

"Hope for the best, prepare for the worst."

This is precisely the problem. If everyone followed the advice of preparing for the absolute worst case, we would all be hunkered down in bunkers and noone would be available to fix the problems that do occur.

I believe it is very important to try to forecast what will work and what won't. The alternative--thinking that nothing will work so why bother--is defeatism.

-- Buddy Y. (buddy@bellatlantic.net), September 04, 1998.

Will: I don't even think we need Y2K to set off terroist attacks on the American people. Even our own government has been known to disperse viruses into the air to see what affect they have on people. Why wouldn't the government do it again? Of course those in charge would be immune.

-- Bardou (bardou@baloney.com), September 04, 1998.

Line from a 1950-ish sci-fi flick; See there in the microscope, how it starts as a single cell, and then mutates?

Since this is now a new thread I feel it is OK to finally add my $.02 worth. (Only a boor answers his own question) I will admit to some disappointment with my inability to un- entrench peoples views about what would have to happen in order to see things from the other side, however, with human nature being what it is I am not overly surprised that you have all stuck to your guns.

A complete and Pure Pollyanna doesnt want to see any evidence that would upset their worldview, it would be way too disturbing. In fact if you hold the evidence right under their nose, and force them to consider, PPs will usually come up with an argument that will blow your mind because of its obtuseness. For whatever reason, the PPs cannot, or will not, consider anything that speaks to discord, or else chaos would ensue. IMHO, many of these people subconsciously feel as if they are barely hanging on now, and could not cope with another helping on the platter, and thus the conscious mind obeys with unbelief. Perhaps the rest of the PPs are just plain dullards.

I see PIF (Personal Infrastructure Failure) as a justification for a Viagra scrip, more than a distinct two or so week failure in the ability to obtain consumer luxuries. Im not trying to be a booger about it, but I dont believe that an arbitrary cut and dry number such as this makes any sense to me in this situation. Im not diss-ing you Will, yours is a well thought out argument, and in this case, (Y2K) I wholeheartedly agree with your assessment that the middle of the road does in fact occupy an extremely small place in rational discussion. Little mistakes will pile up upon one another, one after another after another after another after another etc, etc, etc.

Millions and millions (billions?) of mistakes piling up in all industries, in all governments, and in all utilities, all across the globe, in a short period of time, is not a situation we have ever had to deal with before. This situation, by the absolute unpredictability of its end effects leads a rational person to OS by default. I see no viable alternative to this conclusion. The unknowns are too many, and links too interconnected, and the time is too short, for me to feel comfortable accepting the one or two weeks of mayhem school of thought. Clinging to a middle of the road mentality is merely a reluctance to divorce yourself from the comfort and reassurance that things will not screw up to the point where your lifestyle would face a significant change. The middle of the road mentality is PP by default.

Now, I will be the first to admit that this does not automatically mean that the end of life is at hand. What I do believe is that making small changes and small preparations is about as logical in this situation as making none. Unprecedented times call for unprecedented measures, or as Spock would say Logic dictates

PS to answer my own question- in order for me to think no big problem provide proof that all systems are 100% fixed in 100% of the countries around the world. Then I will believe that the few bugs testing didnt find wont account for much disruption.

-- Uncle Deedah (oncebitten@twiceshy.com), September 05, 1998.

Uncle Deedah==This situation, by the absolute unpredictability of its end effects leads a rational person to OS by default.==

Correct insofar as preparations go. Let's examine why this is so.

PIF is the point that an individual admits to himself that the situation is beyond his control to some extent. This realization causes enough uneasiness that he begins some level of preparation. This is a milestone psychologically. Then, in order to know what to prepare for, the person must define a scenario. This definition will be based upon his/her opinions and analysis, which as we all know, vary a bit.

If this person can truly reason (and this is not a common trait) sooner or later they will begin to question the validity of their scenario. New information will come in that conflicts with what they have opined as the probable outcome of y2k and slowly they will come to understand that they DON'T KNOW what is going to happen and that they CAN'T FIND OUT, because (and this is the really good part) NOBODY ELSE KNOWS.

There is then another realization that will not come to many, but when it comes, the person then understands that ALL POINTS BETWEEN PIF AND OS ARE EQUALLY POSSIBLE.

They are not equally probable, but they are equally possible. This is because there is no way TO ASSIGN ANY PROBABILITY TO ANY POINT BETWEEN THEM! When someone says, " The odds of this happening are ___" we are hearing their opinion, not the odds.

PP======PIF=a?=b?=c?=d?=e?=f?=ML?==g?=h?=i?=j?=OS?===PEW

Do you understand? All defenses of any arbitrary point between PP and OS are ultimately based on incomplete information gathered from unreliable sources. These defenses are merely opinions.

Once freed from the siren clutches of our precious opinions, only then can we understand what must be done.

And that is to prepare on some sliding scale, for all points in between.

As you say, nothing else is rational.

-- Will Huett (willhuett@usa.net), September 05, 1998.

David==Ver interesting. But please explain what "PEW" stands for. I am afraid I missed a cultural reference ==

Sorry, it just means Pure End of the World.

-- Will Huett (willhuett@usa.net), September 05, 1998.

Buddy==This is precisely the problem. If everyone followed the advice of preparing for the absolute worst case, we would all be hunkered down in bunkers and noone would be available to fix the problems that do occur.==

Hogwash. What do you think bombshelters are for?

Everyone's opinion is different as are their abilities to implement. If everyone does everything they can, we will be stronger as a nation and better able to respond. Seven million people in the L.A. basin standing in line at a soup kitchen isn't going to do a damned thing to get us back on our feet.

Hell, rounding up all the COBOL programmers and sticking their butts under Cheyenne mountain till the rioting is over might be the best thing for the society as a whole. ( assuming restoring this society is an honorable goal...)There aren't that many of 'em and it would be a shame if their brains got splattered all over a Walmart tryin' to buy a bag of ice.

-- Will Huett (willhuett@usa.net), September 05, 1998.

Will,

Ill make you a deal. Lets ban the following terms (and all of their variants) from the rest of the discussion: end of the world, Pollyanna, denial and survivalist. Each of these is commonly being used in this and other forums in some highly negative and personal ways, and its beginning to interfere with having good, positive discussions. Youve done it, Ive done it, others have done it. Lets get over it. Can do?

In no particular order of importance, some suggestions:

I'll agree with your definition of PIF if we can make some slight adjustments. To me, personal Infrastructure Failure would indicate the inability to obtain *survival level* of *most or all* essential goods and/or services. If I have to get by on 1/2 the food and electricity only three days a week for a couple of months, it will be disruptive as hell and potentially unhealthy if it continues too long, but survival prospects would still be relatively high. Also, most people would be able to live a lot longer without electricity than they would food or water, so we should recognize that some of these essential items are even more essential than others are.

I would label the entire space between the left side of the line (Ill keep calling it PP without using the banned P word, but can we think of a new label?) and the PIF point The PID Zone Personal Infrastructure Disruption. Just to the right of PP lies Pres. Clintons dopey example of the video rental place hounding you for a tape you already returned while just to the left of PIF are things like rotating blackouts, food shortages, water rationing and restricted access to bank deposits. In other words, there is a whole range of possibilities in the PID zone. (Look out, Im building a middle ground here)

Believe it or not, I would put the PIF point and the ML point closer together. Under your definition of PIF, I dont see long at all before the National Guard is called out and the same sort of restrictions put in place that we see right after a major natural disaster. Curfews, travel restrictions, supply rationing, supplemental identification documents and the restriction or suspension of some civil rights such as habeas corpus could all occur. While I dont necessarily call this martial law (except for the civil rights suspensions), I suspect many here would, and its close enough that I would accept it as a term for this discussion. Now, having said all that, I would move these two closer together not by moving ML to the left but by moving PIF to the right.

-- Paul Neuhardt (neuhardt@ultranet.com), September 05, 1998.

Now, a few directed comments, again in no order of importance:

<< All P*****s are to the left of PIF. To P*****s all points the to the right of PIF are emotionally equivalent and therefore they do nothing and do not cross PIF. >>

Uh oh, Will. Look out, now. I most definitely do not see all points to the right of PIF as the same. Might I not be one of the Ps?

<>

Hmmm. I agree with a lot of distance between PIF and OS. Its a long way from infrastructure breakdown to civil war, totalitarian governments and the like. On the other hand, PIF sits awfully close to the precipice of a slippery slope that could lead from PIF to OS in a hurry, so in my mind the bigger gap sits to the left of PIF and not to the right. Im not willing to buy into the need for crossing PIF as absolute, but so far we are agreeing more than we disagree, and Im close to being one of the others. Am I scaring you yet, Will?

<>

Hot diggity! I fail Wills definition of the P-word and meet the definition of the rest of us. I honestly didnt think I would live that long! Of course, I fall into the PP to OS is middle ground definition, so he could still change his definitions and revoke my membership in the Rest Of Us Gang. :-)

Lets separate the line from our reaction to the line. I see the line as a representation of situations resulting from Y2K. When talking about preparations (read: reactions) , we need to talk about what point on the line we are preparing for. Im going to take a stab at defining the differences Will and I have in terms of preparedness. Will, if I misrepresent your position here, I dont mean to. I am stating what I understand to be your views. Please correct me if Im wrong. I think the crux of our difference can be summed up in one word: reasonable.

On the horizontal line, each of us must draw a vertical line. To the left of the vertical line are all those events that we see having a high enough possibility of occurrence to be worth the time, effort and expense of preparing for. To the right are those events that either we believe we cannot preapre for, are are remote enough in probability it just doesn't make sense to prepare. Will has drawn his line at the OS point. He believes that drawing it anywhere to the left of that point is unreasonable. Actually, I believe he thinks of it as little short of mental illness, but we can cover that later. Now, Im betting he wont believe me on this one, but I am drawing my line right at the PIF point. No, really. Look, I like to keep enough food, water and fuel hanging around the house to get by two weeks under the best of circumstances, so I obviously believe that it is reasonable to prepare up to that point. The thing is, I just dont see any compelling evidence that Y2K is likely enough to cause the events to the right of PIF that I am willing to go to the extra preparation. Im not saying that stuff out there cant happen, just that I dont see enough probability of it happening to make me devote resource to it that I feel could better be used in other pursuits..

Now, let me tell you, I expect the challenges to the left of PIF after Y2K to be a whole different ball game after Y2K than before. Before Y2K, an error on my credit report would be a fluke, but now I may have to expect it as a probability. I rely heavily on electronic fund transfers in my personal banking now, but Im intending to cut out EFT almost entirely in late 1999 until Im sure that all the organizations I deal with are up to snuff. I currently lose power for a few hours about twice a year and for at least a day about once every three or four years, but after Y2K I may have to expect reduced power or rotating periods of no power for some time. (I dont believe it will be that bad, but Im willing to prepare for it). There may be a lot of things Im used to freely buying at the supermarket that will be in short supply, or disappear entirely for a while. However, I see the prospect of no food at all for prolonged periods of time to be sufficiently remote that I am not planning to prepare for it. I could go on, but hopefully you see where I am at here.

Will, how am I doing so far? Even if you dont agree with me, or like what I am saying, are we closer to understanding each other, even though I doubt we will ever agree?

-- Paul Neuhardt (neuhardt@ultranet.com), September 05, 1998.

Thank you Will for your clarity and logic. I am grappling with devising explanations that will resonate with disparate members of my family. My 81 year old aunt just feels resigned. "What can I do, at my age?" I'd hardly call her a Pollyanna, but she is her reluctant to push through the necessary steps of thinking this through (denial? disbelief? disinterest?) to realize that personal contingency planning is essential. One of the saddest parts of all of this process of research and planning is the gradual realization that there very well may be family members and friends who are vulnerable to the perils that may occur between PIF and PEW. Thanks again for your insight, Will.

-- saranealy (keithn@ptd.net), September 05, 1998.

Will,

<< There is then another realization that will not come to many, but when it comes, the person then understands that ALL POINTS BETWEEN PIF AND OS ARE EQUALLY POSSIBLE.

They are not equally probable, but they are equally possible. >>

To use your wording in a response to Buddy, "hogwash." Do you really intend to indicate that 2 1/2 weeks of infrastructure failure and civil war are equally likely, yet somehow 2 weeks of infrastructure failure and civil war are not? If this is the case, then you are effectively saying that PIF and OS and PEW are all one in the same, as there is no progression from one point ot the other. What you are saying there is "Pass PIF and everything becomes random happenstance, with all outcomes equally liekly!" Did you really intend to set PIF as a cliff point, beyond which all is chaos but short of which all is right? If so, why bother with a line? You've reduced the spectrum of events back to a single point.

That is just way, way, WAY to black and white a view for me. Life is made up mostly of various shades of gray.

-- Paul Neuhardt (neuhardt@ultranet.com), September 05, 1998.

Paul, I have come to the conclusion that you must have a lot more money than most of us, because the PRICE you are going to pay in late 1999 and early 2000 (if you can FIND the food, etc.) staggers the imagination. It's called "supply and demand." Short supply, high demand, astronomical prices!!!

-- Behind the scenes (Just@observing.com), September 05, 1998.

Paul,

Whew, where to begin? I agree with your PID zone to the left of PIP, I just skipped over all that area, mostly in an attempt at simplicity. That and I just can't get too worked up about any of that area. Would some of the situations in the PID ZONE be unpleasant? Sure, but there is no threat to our society (local or global) as a whole, or to many individuals in a life and death type way. If I thought the problems would exist mainly here, I wouldn't waste my time talking to people.

You asked me earlier what I thought the odds were we would hit PIF. My short answer is 100%. BTW, the two week business was totally arbitrary, I really can't split hairs too finely here. My interest was in roughing out some definitions, but let's not get caught up in the difference between 2 and 2.5 or 3.2, etc. I simply thought that somewhere after two weeks, all the old corn flakes and canned chili and Aunt Glady's fruit cake from two Christmases ago would be gone and folks would start being scared and truly desperate.

I agree with you that the PIF and ML are probably closer together. The truth will probably lie in how much of the disruption is due to infrastructure vs. general confusion. One thing is sure, if the cities can't get fed, the Feds will step in. No choice. The MOUT manouvers with the marines in Chicago, Jacksonville and Charlotte? show they are preparing for this as we speak.

Paul "On the other hand, PIF sits awfully close to the precipice of a slippery slope that could lead from PIF to OS in a hurry, so in my mind the bigger gap sits to the left of PIF and not to the right."

Yes bery, bery swippery. So you mean like this?

PP======PID============PIF===ML======OS====PEW

This is fun, don't you think? Here is a major parting point being uncovered. You spend you energy looking at PP-PIF while I focus on PIF-OS. Perhaps soon we can discuss why my way is better. ;)

Also, fundamentally, I see my original distance as more "probable". Actually, I think that the most slipperiest slope is between PID and PIF.

Like this maybe;

PP__ \___PID \ \ | | PIF Whatever, I can't draw on this damned thing.

-- Will Huett (willhuett@usa.net), September 06, 1998.

Paul****To the right are those events that either we believe we cannot prepare for, or are remote enough in probability it just doesn't make sense to prepare.*****

Paul***What you are saying there is "Pass PIF and everything becomes random happenstance, with all outcomes equally liekly!"****

Let's lump these because I think we come to the heart of it all regarding preparation here.

Past PIF all does most certainly NOT become random and all outcomes are NOT equally likely. Ok?

They ARE however equally POSSIBLE. This is because it is IMPOSSIBLE to determine the probabilities that do in fact exist. You can't do it Paul, because the number of variables in the y2k soup approaches infinity. This is really important to understand.

Your estimation of probability is merely opinion, no more, no less.

You are drawing a map and then living as if the map were the reality.

It is not.

You do not understand that they are equally possible, so you prepare only for those on your map.

We all love our maps and getting free of them for even a short while is NOT an easy task.

All arguments that posit a particular outcome are flawed. That is why preparation must be for worst case, at least to some extent. It is the only choice given the reality of uncertainty and the inability to accurately determine risk.

Don't get me wrong, I LOVE my opinion. I am willing to debate it all night. (You are wrong, and I am certain of it. ;) ) But that is a wholly seperate issue from preparation.

The more people prepare for scenarios worse that they think will happen, the safer we will all be if these things do in fact come to pass and the better able we will be as a nation to cope and rebuild.

-- Will Huett (willhuett@usa.net), September 06, 1998.

This stupid chart defines one thing. Paul is a Polyanna and Will is a doomsayer. Why don't you try, Eeeeneee meeeeneeee minnnne moe? I have never seen two people with more useless chatter. I wish Paul would answer Rocky's post about power companies. Will, quit encouraging him. It's all the more for us if the shit hits the fan!

-- J.J. (equalizer@juno.com), September 06, 1998.

Paul writes:

You've reduced the spectrum of events back to a single point. That is just way, way, WAY to black and white a view for me. Life is made up mostly of various shades of gray.

Paul in any other circumstance I would agree with you, however in the case of Y2K preparations the shades of gray disappear. You will either have made sufficient plans to survive what will occur, or you will not have made sufficient plans to survive what will occur. Black and white, cut and dry.

Now as to the question of what steps are logical to take in the face of the unknown, here is my opinion. Do as much as you can afford to do. Think to yourself At what point would things be so bad, that I would not want to live past that point. Figure out what that point is for you, and then do everything that you can to be prepared for any degree of failure up to that point.

Simplistic? Yes. But it covers the bases, please dont be thinking in 2000 if I had only....

-- Uncle Deedah (oncebitten@twiceshy.com), September 06, 1998.

A couple of data points related to some of the above....

1) All those "underground groups" so many people (including government officials) are "afraid of" probably don't make up 10% of the number of street gang members in this country. Most of the "underground" (by far) is more involved with manifestos and elaborate plans, threats and communiques (often known as "woofing"). Street gangs are actively involved in robbery, murder and various other violent pursuits on a daily basis. "Underground groups" get press. Sure, there have been two serious domestic bombings, and such activities are indeed a threat. But street gangs kill people every day. In the same sense, plane crashes get lots of press, but car crashes cumulatively kill more people every year by far. Which is more of a realistic actuarial threat? Accurate, realistic threat assessment is a very important part of preparation, and spooking at things that are not real threats (while ignoring more likely ones) will not contribute to good preparation.

2) A continuum of conditions is one workable diagnostic/ planning tool. Another is relating conceivable scenarios to historic events. Will this be like World War I? World War II? the Great Depression? Some aspects of several identifiable historical events? Which ones, from what events?

LPL

-- Lee P. Lapin (lplapin@hotmail.com), September 08, 1998.

Will,

<< This is fun, don't you think?>>

Yes. Not only that, it's constructive, which is even better.

<< You asked me earlier what I thought the odds were we would hit PIF. My short answer is 100%.>>

<< BTW, the two week business was totally arbitrary, I really can't split hairs too fine here. >>

I beleieve that is the defining difference between our viewpoints, and thus our preparation plans. Were I to believe as you do that reaching PIF is inevitable and the only question is how far right the world slides from there, I would agree that personal preparations should get as close to OS as possible. I just don't see any real evidence that we are likely to reach PIF. BTW, two weeks is probably as good as any place to draw the line. If nothing else, it is consistent with the Yourdon's scenarios in TB2000.

Come close to PIF? Possibly. Have problems and disruptions lasting beyond two weeks, maybe (in some areas of the infrastructure, probably). Have a total failure of the infrastructure that lasts beyond two weeks? I just don't see it. What I do see is a lot of higgeldy-piggledy inside of the PID zone. The probability of screw-ups that affect individual lives due to Y2K is quite high. The question in my mind is "How many things are going to get ewscrayed, and of those things how many can I personally deal with and how many am I just going to have to learn to live with?" For instance, if the bank's accounting of my balances gets screwed up, I can protect my account values with a clear paper trail. However, I can't control how long it will take to either set my accounts right or claim my money from my bank's successor should it fail, whether that be another bank or the FDIC. That could be a hell of a disruption even though it would fall somewhere to the left of PIF.

<< You spend energy looking at PP-PIF while I focus on PIF-OS. >>

That is because this is where each of us expects to find ourselves on the post-Y2K spectrum. In that light, it makes clear and perfect sense why we differ on preparation.

<< Also, fundamentally, I see my original distance as more "probable". Actually, I think that the most slipperiest slope is between PID and PIF. >>

Obviously, I like the second set of distances on your line better than the first. If you want to put the distances back the way you had them, I'll just pretend you are using some sort of reverse logarithmic scale that compresses perspective towards the left side and elongates it towards the right. ;) As for the slippery factor, don't forget that there is a lot of ice on the road through PID. Our difference appears to be that you see a downward slope to the raod while I see level ground covered with ice patches that could cause us to skid past PIF if we don't regain a high enough level of control of the vehicle soon enough.

-- Paul Neuhardt (neuhardt@ultranet.com), September 08, 1998.

Will,

<< They ARE however equally POSSIBLE. This is because it is IMPOSSIBLE to determine the probabilities that do in fact exist. >>

I'll give you that the probabilities are impossible to calculate. However, if these probabilities do exist it indicates that events to the right of PIF are equally possible only if the proabilities are all identical. I don't believe this to be the case. To get from PIF to OS you have to pass through all points in between, including ML. Every event you have to cross as you move from left to right across the spectrum makes it less likely that you will ever reach the right simply because more and more things have to happen in order to get there. We could split a lot of hairs arguing about where OS is much less likely than ML or just slightly more likely, but I'd rather not. As you have pointed out, the only thing we have to go on out in that range is speculation and opinion and the farther to the right we get the more speculative and opinionated we are forced to become.

<< Your estimation of probability is merely opinion, no more, no less. >>

Never said it wasn't. In fact, I've made the same point to several other people.

<< You are drawing a map and then living as if the map were reality.

It is not. >>

Yes, I'm drawing a map, but I'm using it as a plan for getting from point A to point B, not as a representation of reality. As with any map, I realize the possibility of detours and innaccuracy. I constantly seek to upgrade and refine the map. That's the reason I continue to read and post here despite the heaping helpings of abuse I have been known to receive in postings and in email. I believe that the only way to really validate an opinion is to constantly challenge it with opposing ideas and views. It's why I'm enjoying this thread as much as I am.

<< All arguments that posit a particular outcome are flawed. >>

I agree, so long as some concept of which outcomes are likely and which ones are not can be introduced into the discussion.

<< That is why preparation must be for the worst case, at least to some extent. >>

Will, buddy, I think the best we can do here is agree to disagree. However, I certainly feel that I have a far better understanding of and sympathy for your position. Do you see better where I am coming from, even if you think that place to be the looney bin?

<< Don't get me wrong, I LOVE my opinion. I am willing to debate it all night. >>

No. REALLY? :-)

(Me too, BTW.)

<< But that is a wholly seperate issue from preparation. >>

That's a lot easier said than done. It is part of the human condition to let our opinions influence our thoughts and actions no matter how hard we try to be objective. After all, we are all creatures of our own experiences. Asking a human to shed its opinion is about like asking it to shed its skin. It is often better to just admit that we are biased, examine our biases and attempt to correct them from time to time.

-- Paul Neuhardt (neuhardt@ultranet.com), September 08, 1998.

J.J.,

<< Paul is a Polyanna and Will is a doomsayer. >>

Hey, hey, hey! Don't pick on my buddy Will. Just because he sees a state roughly approximating doom as a distinct possibility is no reason to call him a doomsayer. ;-)

<< I wish Paul would answer Rocky's post about power companies. >>

Be careful what you ask for. I've got a whole bucket full of opinion pennies and a thick skin to go with it. I'll throw $.02 at almost any question if provoked. (I won't mention the inconsistency of having one sentence accusing me of "useless chatter" and then soliciting that chatter in the very next sentence.)

Okay, which post? Give me the title of the thread and I'll be sure to take a look and post something within a couple of days, even if that something is "Gee, I have nothing to say."

-- Paul Neuhardt (neuhardt@ultranet.com), September 08, 1998.

Uncle Deedah,

<< Paul in any other circumstance I would agree with you, however in the case of Y2K preparations the shades of gray disappear. You will either have made sufficient plans to survive what will occur, or you will not have made sufficient plans to survive what will occur. Black and white, cut and dry. >>

On survival, I will agree. Basic survival is pretty much a binary condition. The gray comes in the estimation of "what will occur" and then reacting to it, and I still see a lot of gray there.

<< Do as much as you can afford to do.>>

I'll admit that it is hard to argue with this as a position. I guess that my only response would be that I just can't make myself to expend the resources in preparation for what I consider to be the extremely unlikely. For example, I have so little expectation of needing a year's supply of food in my cellar that I would rather put the money that would be required to build that food supply into a fund designed to provide for my children's education.

There is obvious disagreement with my position that survival level occurances are extremely unlikely, but that's my current position and I'm sticking to it until I get better evidence to the contrary. Anyone disagreeing with me should, by all means, prepare to the hilt.

-- Paul Neuhardt (neuhardt@ultranet.com), September 08, 1998.

Paul

The reason that I came at you with a pointed stick instead of a banana or pomegranate, is because you had your back to me.

Seriously though, I cannot disagree with you that each must do as they see fit, if you were to do otherwise you would be untrue to yourself.

My concern is that people, in general, have very little historical perspective today. They wrongly believe that things have always been good, food has always been there for all, nobody gets hurt by events beyond their control, (blank) could never happen here, good guys always win in the end, that kind of stuff only happens on TV, etc, etc, etc.

Wrong! Look in a book, ditch the remote for a while. (present company exempted, of course) We have not been granted immunity from becoming players in another of the many sad chapters in history. What goes around comes around, what goes up must come down, Y2K has made me acutely aware of this fact, I do not relish it, but I accept it.

Whether the common malaise enveloping our society is due to lack of education, or a fascination with pop culture to the exclusion of all else, this I cannot tell you, it ees not my yob. My yob is to try and get you to challenge your assumptions about the future, what it might hold, and to think outside of the box. (Actually that is not really my yob, but I enjoy doing it anyway)

-- Uncle Deedah (oncebitten@twiceshy.com), September 08, 1998.

me<< But that is a wholly seperate issue from preparation. >>

Paul<< That's a lot easier said than done.>>

Yes indeed, but don't you see that is my point? It MUST be done. It is in fact probably the hardest thing for any of us to do. There is gobs of psychological research behind this.

As long as you are enamored of your opinion, you are a slave to it. And it is a most persuasive siren. It whispers in your ear constantly, telling you how smart you are, how right you are. And we just love hearing that, don't we?

Try going against it and see what it says about you then! That little voice ( mind talk ) will tell you you are stupid, foolish. It will insult you in ways I couldn't dream up. And more importantly, YOU WILL BELIEVE IT. I can call you names all night, won't get it. Your mind talk will, every single time.

That's why I mentioned a 'sliding scale'. An ever decreasing amount of time and money and effort as the line moves to OS. (assuming you think OS is extremely remote) But not zero!

-- Will Huett (willhuett@usa.net), September 08, 1998.

Paul "There is obvious disagreement with my position that survival level occurances are extremely unlikely, but that's my current position and I'm sticking to it until I get better evidence to the contrary."

What would that evidence look like, Paul? There isn't a major organization, public or private that is not going to put on a happy face, regardless of the truth. YOU CAN'T FIND OUT THE TRUTH.

The only evidence that would convince you of my postion, would be a major failure.

The problem of course is then it will be too late to respond... .

-- Will Huett (willhuett@usa.net), September 08, 1998.

Will

You referred to the little voice.

I am listening to that little voice (when it comes to Y2K) because it has always been right. I have ignored it in the past, and have paid a steep price. Sometimes a very steep price, complete with broken bones and a walker as reminders. (a faint fleeting thought: I really shouldnt be doing this) Sometimes I have listened to it, and I have been rewarded, but for some reason it is louder when it speaks to the avoidance of pain.

It is quiet and hard to hear, and the pace of modern life has all but drowned it out, but it is there if you listen carefully. If you didn't hear it think back, and you will remember its call, and realize that you chose to ignore.

It is telling me that things are more serious than people realize.

Maybe I should pose another question to the forum, in order to gauge response, as I think that perhaps only the hard core remain here on this thread. But I have noticed that in my circle, (real life) that this issue is taken far more seriously by the women that I know, than by the men.

Womens intuition?

-- Uncle Deedah (oncebitten@twiceshy.com), September 08, 1998.

I hate to interrupt Will and Paul while they are having such fun, but Uncle Deedah when you said a little earlier that what goes around comes around, you reminded me of an article I read earlier today on MSNBC. It didn't have anything to do with Y2K, but I found it interesting. Maybe you will, too. "A 1974 report by the House Judiciary Staff on the constitutional grounds for impeachment was worked on by Hillary Rodham. The report included the view that impeachment does not require criminal conduct, but rather is a tool used to punish public official's violation of public trust." Senator DeLay's office has the report. After hearing Bill's remarks concerning Nixon, then Hillary's opinion on impeachment, seems like 24 years later things have "come around."

-- Gayla Dunbar (privacy@please.com), September 09, 1998.

<< The only evidence that would convince you of my position, would be a major failure. >>

Not quite. I decided months ago that the thing that would convince me would be a series of failures to make any progress on the problem before the end of 1998. So, if we were to look around and see no progress being made, I would worry more than I am. But I'm not worrying more because most major infrastructure industries have, in fact, shown progress.

Examples:

Telecomm: The big North American players (AT&T, the Baby Bells (as if that were an accurate term anymore), Sprint, MCI and the like are all making demonstrable progress in their preparations.

Finance: Banks all around the country are making progress. The recent test by major brokerages and financial houses was a success and indicated progress. Yes, it was a limited and highly controlled test, but it still indicated significant progress.

Power? Hey, even Rick Cowles is beginning to express a little optimism in public. Not a lot, mind you, but some.

-- Paul Neuhardt (neuhardt@ultranet.com), September 09, 1998.

Why don't you check out the latest numbers from the Office of Management and Budget? I read four news stories yesterday (press clippings) that reported the federal government is severely lagging. The Transportation Dept.(includes FAA) has only 11 percent of it's critical systems ready. The other departments are not much better. Most are not even half ready. I realize that journalists normally don't do any research and most of these stories are written by lawyers but when four of them report the same thing I guess we can give it some credibility.

-- Dave (dave22@concentric.net), September 10, 1998.

Congressman Horn gave the U.S. Government a "D" on it's latest report card. He said 1/3 (one third) of all mission critical systems will not make the deadline.

-- Dave (dave22@concentric.net), September 10, 1998.

I still don't see a total collapse of society coming.

However, I think the "Oh shit!" point properly belongs at the Personal Infrastructure Disruption point. Even that is bad enough.

-- Buddy Y. (buddy@bellatlantic.net), September 10, 1998.

Paul, your observation is correct. The progress that is being made indicates to me that total permanent collapse "probably" won't happen.

More likely, as said above, (1) if large company IT progress continues and (2) awareness and action by more utilities and local governments (gas, power distribution, water, phone, fire, police, sewage, taxes, etc.) continues so disruptions are the "small enough" and "short enough" so they CAN be fixed and (3) enough business (mid and small) get enough fear so they fix things,

then (and only then) would there be "only" 3 week to 5 week "rolling" intermittant outages and a mild depression = PIF. Otherwise, 6-8 week losses and an international depression (really, an economic black hole = OS)

-- Robert A. Cook, P.E. (cook.r@csaatl.com), September 10, 1998.

WHAT PROGRESS???? As we type into this thread on this day, Sept 10, 1998, I ask: WHAT PROGRESS do we see? Is there a single electric utility company that is Y2K compliant TODAY? A single BANK? These are just two examples of vital insitutions that are not standalone entities, but interface in order to produce. Note that in both industries there are some cases where they have been attempting to become Y2K compliant for years, others where they are just getting started. Yet, unbelievably, they will all somehow be ready by Jan 1, 2000. ** When the Y2K deadline hits, the game is over. There are not prizes for being 90% complete rather than 20%. That is the reality of The Y2K Project, and why it is unique.

-- JOe (shar@pei.com), September 10, 1998.

Paul>>It is often better to just admit that we are biased,examine our biases and attempt to correct them from time to time. >>

As Bach said in ILLUSIONS,"We teach best what we most need to learn"

You continue to assume your probability scale is valid. Like the song says, "It ain't necessarily sooo."

Your assumption that there is a linear decrease in probability the farther to the right you go on the line is not a given. Our complex, interconnected world might be such a house of cards that one specific embedded system in Syracuse that no one knows is there is the lynchpin and when it goes, we all go. So for all we know, we are dead men walking.

For example, if you were skydiving, you could argue that the odds are you will live, because most do. In this, the slippery slope of survival is very level with no chute failure and very, very steep with any kind of parachute trouble. IOW, PIF and OS are cheek to cheek.

Its as though you and I were falling happily to earth with you lecturing me on how the odds of death while skydiving are very low. If, however, there isn't a parachute in your pack, you are doomed, in spite of your being absolutely correct regarding the odds of it happening.

With Y2K, you cannot know if there is a chute in your pack so any plans made on "opinion probabilities" that don't include OS are inadequate. Since we are all going to be pushed off the plane, the only sane thing to do is check your parachute.

All your logic and analysis is useless, BECAUSE YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU DON'T KNOW!

You are like a guy playing Russian Roulette, only in this game, you don't know how many bullets the gun holds, nor do you know how many of the cylinders are loaded. BUT YOU ARE PLAYING AS THOUGH YOU DO.

Not smart, bro.

-- Will Huett (Willhuett@usa.net), September 11, 1998.

<< With Y2K, you cannot know if there is a chute in your pack so any plans made on "opinion probabilities" that don't include OS are inadequate. Since we are all going to be pushed off the plane, the only sane thing to do is check your parachute. >>

I know that there is a chute in my pack. What we are discussing here is whether or not our altimeters are correctly set. You are looking to prevent any possibility of accident by pulling your cord right out of the plane. I'm looking to free-fall for a while and will only get into trouble if I wait too long to pull the cord.

-- Paul Neuhardt (neuhardt@ultranet.com), September 11, 1998.

On a braoder note, I don't believe you can go through life worrying about all of the unknowns. Hell, the world is full of them, and a lot of them could be fatal.

Is the plane I'm on going to make it to it's destination without catching fire and crashing? Is that semi in the next lane going to suddenly try merging over and knock me off the road? Is the guy in that blue sedan over there drunk and not in full control of his vehicle? Is the 7-11 I'm about to walk into going to get held up by a gun-toting maniac while I'm in there? Did somebody find a new way to tamper with the Tylenol I just bought? What do I do?

I take the risk and fly. I try not to be in the blind spot of a semi more than a few seconds if at all. I keep a distance between cars that allows me to react to the actions of the blue sedan. I avoid 7-11s at night and go get what I want at other times and take my chances. I take Tylenot only from containers where the boxes don't appear to have been opened and with the bottle's safety seal apparently intact at purchase time, then take my chances.

And when you say I don't know what I don't know, that's not true. I know what I don't know: Most of everything.

The fact of the matter is, we all don't know most things. The amount of information available in modern life is too large to fathom. There is no way we can know anything other than a tiny slice of what is knowable, and nothing at all of what is not knowable. Therefore, we do the best we can, collect what information appears to be useful and muddle on. That's the human condition in modern society, and it's that way Y2K or not. I can accept or I can rail against it. I choose acceptance.

-- Paul Neuhardt (neuhardt@ultranet.com), September 11, 1998.