Y2K And The New Industry Of Hysteriagreenspun.com : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread |
I came upon this article by Michael Theroux yesterdya, entitled "Y2K And The New Industry Of Hysteria".To my mind this was as bad, if not worse than, the Readers Digest article published recently.
Read it for yourself at:-
http://www.sightings.com/ufo/ywkhyst.htm
It got me so mad I wrote a rather angry e-mail to Mr. Theroux - more to follow...
-- Andy (andy_rowland@msn.com), November 20, 1998
Just had to say that the article by M. Theroux on Y2k hysteria was one of the most il-informed and condescending on the subject that I have ever read. The author is patently a complete and utter fool - and dangerous at that for propagating his polyann'ish viewpoint.Check out the latest, similar, article in Readers Digest - is it Mr. Theroux writing under a pseudonym?
He should be ashamed of himself.
IF things get really bad, he will have cost many lives.
"A little knowledge is a dangerous thing" Mr. Theroux.
Got wheat?
-- Andy (andy_rowland@msn.com), November 20, 1998.
Mr. theroux's replyTo quote: "Y2K doom and gloomers have nowhere to hide, except perhaps, for a short while, in adhominum attacks, flames, and off the cuff dismissal. The fact is, their role in making the public aware of the problem has now been eclipsed." Y2K Immunity Website at http://www.sitewave.net/y2ksb/
Where are your facts, Sir? You say, I will have cost many lives? You apparently did not read the references portion of the article. I list several places where one may go for solutions. Or does your belief system exclude solutions?
I received this recently:
===== Mr. Theroux,
Thank you for publishing what I've been saying for years. I've been designing embedded systems and writing software since before there even were microprocessors. Back then we had to design our own out of discrete components. In any case I agree with you that this so called "problem" is simply a marketing scheme although I do feel sorry for all the young programmers who are getting sucked in to fixing it. In about 13 months they will all be out of work.
Brad VanDyck =======
BTW, calling someone a fool, and then offering nothing in the way of substantiation is nothing but an "adhominum attack". I haven't even read the Reader's Digest article. I don't get my info from little snips of what I read and then compose it around my belief system I check out the facts based on my computer programming history of nearly 20 years.
Feel free to engage me in a debate, but don't just call names it is unbecoming of our human race.
Thank you
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Michael Theroux Director Borderland Sciences Research Foundation - Since 1945 http://www.borderlands.com theroux@borderlands.com Ph. 707.825.7733 FAX: 707.825.7779 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
-- Andy (andy_rowland@msn.com), November 20, 1998.
Ok Michael, I now have a little time to point you in the right direction. But I am surprised, you having 20 years programming experience, that you have not quite grasped the severity of the situation we are facing.It seems that you've already made up your mind that it's all a load of hype for the Gary North's of this world (and yes, I know his background very well - don't shoot the messenger...) to make a quick buck and promote their agendas. This may be the case for some, but the underlying problem is immense, systemic, and with the resources available now we have a snowball's chance in hell of fixing things.
You also are not taking into account the world situation - uh, the US does trade with the rest of the world does it not? And the rest of the world, never mind politics, is in a shambles regarding y2k, far far worse than the USA.
Here's your facts, Sir.
First of all take a look at the R. Digest article, together with some reactions to it from both programmers and y2k-aware "normal folks" :-
http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=000FpT
Next - my experience is in realtime systems, airline and financial. I have explored my theories with my peers, take a read of the following:-
Make sure to read the whole link to get a response from programmers who are more experienced in interconnectivity testing.
They all explain the "effect" that will take down western civilisation in 400-odd days time - the propagating of bad/corrupt data on a systemic basis between all interconnected computers.
http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=000FMj
Finally, take a look at my "Visa is toast" thread on the comp.software.year-2000 newsgroup for the full picture.
Spend a few hours on this newsgroup, perhaps as a programmer yourself you could enlighten us with your knowledge in the arena.
I still stand by my point, ill-thought out articles like the ones on your site will cost lives, *IF* things get really bad. Even if *YOU* think things will turn out OK you owe it to your readers to point out the alternative scenarios so that they might at the very minimum stock up on some food, water, and basic supplies.
Do a little more research Mr. Theroux, don't be so cynical as to think that *all* y2k doombrooders are simply out to make a quick buck - that would be the ultimate folly don't you think?
Regards, Andrew
-- Andy (andy_rowland@msn.com), November 20, 1998.
Theroux said: "None of my computers have ever been infected by the Michaelangelo virus, or with any virus for that matter"What computers does he have, TRS-80s?
Theroux: "I,ve done this on all the computers at BSRF, and even the old 386,s running MSDOS (which is compliant back toversion 3.2)"
***ROFLMAO!!!
And what's with the commas where apostrophes should be?
He doesn't seem to be very good at doing research on the Internet either. Can't find info.? ROFLMAO again!!!
-- Buddy (DC) (buddy@bellatlantic.net), November 20, 1998.
Oh, and the site he mentions "Y2K Immunity, The Silver Bullet" is good for a laugh. I thought of something like that awhile back, but it didn't take long to realize it won't work for most things. Turning the clock back might work for traffic signals and the like, but not for any real-time data.http://www.sitewave.net/y2ksb/s56p576.htm
Welcome to the Dan Quayle School of Computer Science!
ROFLMAO!!!
-- Buddy (DC) (buddy@bellatlantic.net), November 20, 1998.
Andy, my man; and list:You know, that Borderland Sciences moniker struck a chord with me....had to hunt through catalogs (actually, had to have amazing-organizer-hubby hunt for 'em)....
Michael Theroux and Borderland sells and publishes in the realm of (shall we say) "extreme" science, stuff like: Tesla patents; free energy; Lahkovsky multiple wave generators; Vril energy; UFOs; Velikovsky; weather engineering; radionics; "planetary influences"; the Ray-X Button; and hollow earth theories.
Okay, you cynics out there -- quitcher guffawing.
Now, I've gotta admit, I've got one or two teensy books from the Borderlands list (well, okay, maybe three or four)....I am a big fan of freedom of the press and open scientific enquiry.
But, isn't Theroux calling "y2k a hysteria" kinda like the pot calling the kettle black?
I mean, really, "hollow earth"?
Whoa -- watch out for DEROs!!! Anita Evangelista
-- Anita Evangelista (ale@townsqr.com), November 20, 1998.
Kinda strange too, because that "Sightings" site has a Y2K section. I didn't read any of the articles yet, but from scanning the headlines I didn't see anything remotely like this essay. ???
-- Buddy (DC) (buddy@bellatlantic.net), November 20, 1998.
Buddy - check out the Borderlands site for his other Y2K "articles" - LOL.
-- Andy (andy_rowland@msn.com), November 20, 1998.
This is the main point that Mr.Theroux cannot grasp and does not understand. What will bring everything down is the propagating from one mainframe to another, worldwide, on a systemic basis, bad/corrupt *DATA*....
from Mr. Theroux The Millennium bug is obviously not a virus. A computer virus is simply a program that is able to replicate by itself (not necessarily sinister). A program that does not replicate is not a virus, regardless of whether it does damage to a computer or not. In order for a computer virus to actually do anything, it first has to be run on the computer " it doesn,t do anything all by itself until it is run by the user. Now this guy, Brian, understands what I'm talking about and this is his assessment of my theory in the first paragrap above about *DATA*
Hmm. I work with "communicating computers" and must say that Andrew is precisely right. Date-dependant calculations have nothing to do with data-interchange validations routines. What Andrew is pointing out is that non- complient programs will produce data that is wrongly calculated; these errors will spread magnitudianlly throughout the global financial system. Validation routines between data interchanges simply verify that the parameters are correct: not the calculations forming the data. This is the meaning of corrupt data: bad information, not bad parameters. Andrew (and Gary North) are precisely correct. You are espousing the "misguided, unsupported idea of "corrupt" data " equalling bad parameter transfers. That is incorrect and a straw dummy. Corrupt data = data correctly parametered yet wrongly calculated. Wrong calculations beget wrong calculations ad nauseum. Within 24 hours of the turnover, the Global Finacial System will either A)be completely corrupt B)be completely shut down so as to avoid A. The result is the same in either case; even if we don't go Milne, you are going to see a mess bigger than you can imagine. Alan Greenspan was entirely correct when he stated that 99% is not good enough. We will be nowhere close--not even in the ballpark. The engines have shutdown; the plane is falling--we simply haven't hit the ground yet. Scoff if you must; as a professional working with professionals, I know the score. It's going down. This is why at least 61% of IT professionals are pulling their money out before it hits--of course, in 10 or 11 months, that number will rise to 100%; but then, it will be to late. We know for a fact that that 50% of all businesses in this, the best prepared of countries, will not perform real-time testing. As a Programmer/Test Engineer, I can therefore assure you that at least 50% of all businesses in this, the best prepared of countries, are going to experience mission-critical failures, Gartners new optimistic spin not withstanding. Remediation sans testing is not remediation. The code will still be broken, just in new and unknown ways. Got wheat?
Bryan
If you remember nothing else about the complexities of y2k, just remember the concept outline above, this will bring us all down, this is the Achilles Heel.
Got wheat?
-- Andy (andy_rowland@msn.com), November 20, 1998.
andy,I was delighted with your responce.
I have had nagging doubts as to whether or not Y2K will really be that bad, doubts largly due to the absolute silence by most of our leaders.
Are you saying that:
One major, real problem ahead is the fact that miscalculations by non compliant systems, not dates, will corrupt compliant data bases around the world.
If so, we all know that globally there is no way that we can avoid a major meltdown in 2000. How can it be denied??
-- WAYNE WITCHER (WWITCHER@MVTEL.NET), November 20, 1998.
Who the heck is calling Y2k a virus at this late date -- what a waste of space. I wish I had the naive faith in the average systems designer, project manager, and programmer that Mr. Theroux does.The fact is, since before the day they were put into production, MOST programs written for the past 50 years have NEVER been tested beyond 12/31/99. It was never a requirement. If it had been a requirement, testing beyond 2000 would have been in the test plan and there would currently be no massive, belated Y2k "enhancement" rat-race.
I base this on the fact that I have seen many programs in every company I've worked in that will fail on 2000. They will fail because the date handling is either sloppy, wrong, or entirely missing for dates beyond 2000 -- even on systems that store 4-digit years! The code is sloppy, wrong, or missing because it was never tested. It was never tested because it wasn't an explicit requirement. These systems will, in fact, spew out bad data -- bad date stamps, bad transaction dates, bad billing dates, and bad timing intervals, some before 2000, some on and after 2000.
I wonder if Mr. Theroux has ever a line of code? It's one thing to hope that there won't be major problems, it's entirely another to KNOW that everything will be fine.
Stage one denial.
Here's another to chew on -- 'course, these 3rd-party verification providers are probably just out to make a quick, dirty buck:
Flaws found in Y2k conversions
-- Nathan (nospam@all.com), November 21, 1998.
Wayne - that's precisely what I'm saying - hence the deafening silence from our "leaders".Mr. Theroux is one of many fools, know-nothings with a smattering of knowledge, who will muddy up the waters in the next 400 days.
Unfortunately, people will listen to his "expert" views....
By the way, two days later and I have still to recieve a reply from him and his "Borderlands" site....,
It would be laughable if it wasn't so pathetic.
-- Andy (andy_rowland@msn.com), November 21, 1998.
Article Comments as pertains to Y2K And The New Industry of Hysteria By Michael Theroux, From: www.borderlands.com 11-19-98:None of my computers have ever been infected by the Michaelangelo virus, or with any virus for that matter). Many other hysterical virus warnings have appeared over the years " all have been inflated myths.
Y2K is likened to a VIRUS?? Aw, come on, Michael Theroux. Surely youre not assuming people are THAT dumb. (Ive been working with personal computers since 1983. Never did I have a virus either, until a Mac friend got the AutoStart 9805 worm over a month ago. It took me several days to clean up her problem. Im a convert). Are you implying Y2K is a myth? Sheesh.
The media has always played a crucial role in the propagation of these myths. This is due to the fact that "fear" and "hysteria" make for the best story material, and that "expert" journalists failed to do any serious research into the subject matter.
Are you implying that you are an expert journalist? By that logic no reporters would have ever blown the whistle on Watergate. IF you were to pay attention, youd see that, in bits and pieces, dribbles and drabs, the media IS leaking the Y2K story. You just have to have a team of internet sleuths to piece it together at this point in time. That will change come January 99.
"Gary North,s Y2K Links and Forums" with the subtitle: "The Year 2000 Problem: The Year the Earth Stands Still." While he might be esteemed for his ability to stir things up, he lacks credibility when it comes to several of his statements concerning the Y2k problem. For example, he begins the essay by saying, "At 12 midnight on January 1, 2000 (a Saturday morning), most of the world,s mainframe computers will either shut down or begin spewing out bad data. Most of the world,s desktop computers will also start spewing out bad data." The emphasis on the words "most" are mine. This statement is completely false. First of all, most computers have no Y2k problem at all...
Where is your head Michael? In the sand? When there is a problem, it often takes an extremist to yell Danger! Why would our countrys government spend $600 billion and public corporations all across America begin to admit in their SEC filings how much theyre spending to fix something that is no problem. Why would the Canadian military publicly admit they are preparing for Y2K? Or the U.K. government try to downplay a leaked Scottish Home Office memo? Why would our own United States Subcommittee on Government Management, Information and Technology Issue the following report on October 8, 1998 at http://www.house.gov/reform/gmit/y2k/y2k_report/IIreport.htm] with an executive summary at http://www.house.gov/reform/gmit/y2k/ y2k_report/Isummary.htm, (discussed in an earlier thread) that among other things CLEARLY says:
It is now clear that a large number of Federal computer systems simply will not be prepared for January 1, 2000. At the same time, the utilities industry, the financial services industry, the telecommunications industry, vital modes of transportation, and other indispensable industrial sectors are all at risk. ...
And...
The Year 2000 problem could result in a stunning array of technological failures. Air traffic could be delayed or even grounded; telephone service could be interrupted; breakdowns in the production and distribution of electricity could bring widespread power failures; automatic teller machines might malfunction; traffic lights could stop working; timeclocks at factories might malfunction. Government payments, including checks from the Internal Revenue Service, the Treasury, and the Veterans Benefits Administration, could be interrupted; military technology, including the Global Positioning Satellite System, could malfunction. Closer to home, devices with a timing function, including microwave ovens, personal computers, video cassette recorders, and climate control systems could all falter or even shut down entirely.
Some early failures have already occurred...
...Failures such as these may be the tip of the iceberg. Solving the problem, however, is an expensive process.
And...
The Federal Government must be sure that the most important systems at the key Federal agencies are revamped before January 1, 2000. Similar action needs to be taken by nations around the globe. By failing to address the Year 2000 problem, the United States could suffer severe disruptions in the delivery of essential governmental and private industry services. It has been suggested that this could even precipitate an economic recession.
And...
Based on the investigation and oversight hearings conducted by the Subcommittee on Government Management, Information, and Technology, the committee finds as follows:
1. The Federal Government is Not on Track to Complete Necessary Year 2000 Preparations Before January 1, 2000
And...
Several additional factors raise concerns about Federal Year 2000 preparations. One is that the focus has been almost exclusively on mission critical systems. The problem is that mission critical systems are only a small percentage of the total number of Federal computer systems. Many of these secondary systems are important even if not mission critical. It is unwise to ignore their Year 2000 compliance.
And...
A crucial component of Year 2000 remediation is the exchange of data between organizations. Fixing internal systems simply is not enough. Federal agencies have data exchange partners throughout society including other Federal agencies, State and local governments, and private and non-profit organizations. These data exchanges must be tested through cooperative effort. Current indications are that the Federal agencies lag badly in this area.
[Highlight: A crucial component of Year 2000 remediation is the exchange of data.]
And...
2. Some State and Local Governments are Lagging in Year 2000 Repairs and in Many Cases Lack Reliable Information on Their Year 2000 Status.
While the data on Federal systems reflects a somewhat gloomy picture, at least overall data exist. The same cannot be said for the status of State and local entities. Subcommittee hearings found that there is limited aggregated data for Year 2000 activity at the State and local levels.
From the data that are available, States and cities are at varying degrees of readiness. Many smaller municipalities are stuck in the awareness stagestill trying to understand the problem. Large cities have made more progress in converting their systems but have not fully assessed embedded systems, identified exchange partners, or developed contingency plans. Also, some States and larger cities are concentrating on outreach efforts with institutions (universities, private entities), while many smaller governments are left to struggle on their own.
And...
3. The Year 2000 Status of Basic Infrastructure Services, Including Electricity, Telecommunications, and Water, is Largely Unknown.
No one knows the overall extent of our nation-wide vulnerability to Year 2000 risks, or the extent of our readiness. No assessment across private and public sectors has been undertaken.
And...
Inadequate attention to the Year 2000 problem by electrical utilities is seen as the cause for "potentially major catastrophes," writes a representative of large electrical users. Major industrial power users are "concerned" and "dismayed" that "electrical utilities lag behind other industries" in preparing their computers for the next millennium. The lack of action in the past is most likely to lead to very high costs when the Y2K problem is dealt with on an emergency basis.
And...
4. Embedded Microchips are Difficult to Find, Difficult to Test, and Can Lead to Unforeseen Failures
Although initially the Year 2000 problem was understood mainly in terms of softwareoperating systems, databases, and other programsthe vulnerability of embedded chips has been widely publicized. There are between 25 and 40 billion such chips in use around the world. Many of them are hard to access, encased in products or equipment. Some are simply invisible: the owners and operators of the equipment do not know that it depends on embedded chips, or at least do not know which functions depend on the chips.
Organizations addressing the Year 2000 problem generally understand the embedded chip aspect and are working diligently on it. Based on subcommittee hearings and investigation, however, it appears that the sheer number and relative inaccessibility of embedded chips will overwhelm these efforts. The result will be failureoften unforeseen...
And...
5. Strong Leadership from Senior Management is Necessary to Address the Year 2000 Problem
The key to success is support from senior level management. Awareness of the Year 2000 problem among the technology experts at an organization is meaningless if those experts do not have the backing and direction of senior management. Year 2000 repairs deliver no new benefit to an organization. Management tends to see the repairs as a burden to be delayed for as long as possible. This is in part because of the persistent belief that someone will invent a silver bullet to fix the problem. Unfortunately, there is no silver bullet. Instead, management must bite the bulletdevoting considerable resources to the repair effort. Inevitably, this means taking support away from other projects. Senior management must make hard choices, but the process begins with recognizing there is a problem and, if it is to be solved, organized action must occur in a timely way.
For too long, Federal management has been in denial about the Year 2000 problem.
And...
The current evidence points to considerable Year 2000 failure unless the rate of progress throughout society improves considerably. In too many sectors, there is simply no reliable information about Year 2000 vulnerability. We cannot head into the new millennium unprepared. It is time for the President to declare that the Year 2000 problem is a National Priority. If sufficient progress is not made by an intermediate deadline, he may even need to escalate the Year 2000 problem to a National Emergency.
The point of calling for such urgency is not to trigger panic, but in fact to avoid panic. If this problem does not receive the attention it demands during the next six to nine months, and if we allow the date change to approach without knowing our vulnerability, panic will be the inevitable result. The only way to avoid this is to act now. The President must sound the alarm and address to the Nation now in order to avoid panic later.
And...
The Year 2000 problem must not be allowed to spark a national crisis. Good measures of Year 2000 readiness will be both a technological and psychological antidote to panic.
And...
5. Citizens Should Demand Information on Year 2000 Readiness from their State and Local Governments, their Utility Companies, and Other Organizations upon which they are Dependent.
As noted above, there are at least two significant barriers to effective Year 2000 remediation: (1) Management denialthe reluctance of senior management to recognize the Year 2000 problem and make the hard choices necessary to solve it; and (2) fear of legal liability which can have the effect of stifling the kind of disclosure and exchange of information necessary to solve the problem. These barriers to serious Year 2000 efforts must be broken down. Perhaps the most effective means of doing so is public pressure. Profit-making organizations respond to pressure from consumers; political institutions respond to pressure from constituents; non-profit organizations respond to their donors and public opinion as well.
And...
...Furthermore, the Year 2000 problem raises the specter of widespread panic. There has been talk of customers withdrawing their money out of banks, stockpiling weapons, and taking other steps that could be more dangerous than the technological failure itself. One of the best antidotes to this panic is information. People need to speak directly with their banks, utility companies, and other organizations whose failure would have drastic consequences. They need to assure themselves that the fixes will be made. They need to knowbased on direct contactthat there is no reason to panic. And they need to know what reasonable steps should be taken to prepare as January 1, 2000 approaches...
EXCUSE ME, Michael Theroux. DO YOU STILL CALL Y2K A MYTH????
Even the CIA in a publicly available article (Uncle Sam Wants Spooks by Arik Hesseldahl 4:00 a.m. 26.Oct.98.PST -- Copy of Wired News Article: http://www.wired.com/news/news/politics/story/15816.html) admitted:
"We teach a concept called open source and public domain intelligence -- that is, taking what is in the public domain and creating new knowledge by analysis and interpretation," he said. "If you spend 20 percent of your intelligence budget on open source intelligence you'll be able to answer 70 percent of the boss's questions."
GET REAL, Michael Theroux, and do some hard investigative journalism yourself.
Diane
(P.S. Fired this as e-mail off to info@borderlands.com)
-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), November 21, 1998.
To: info@borderlands.comThanks for your articles on y2k. They were a riot! You know, with all the worn out jokes out there its hard to find a good laugh on the net these days. Please keep them coming, as the general public's ignorance of the impending doom is becoming quite depressing.
"Y2K is a myth" That's a good one Micheal! I love it! Cracks me up!!
Thanks again for the great humor!
-- a (a@a.a), November 21, 1998.
Great letter!Thanks Diane. May I copy? ...and forward elsewhere?
What I don't understand is how the national media can credit these kind of one-sided reports (from Theroux, and others) as experts and "wise" advise, while implying (or flat out labeling) Y2K-knowledge and ready individuals (Yourdon, Yardeni, ..) as extremists, or wild-eyed kooks.
-- Robert A. Cook, P.E. (Kennesaw, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), November 22, 1998.