Several have challenged those of us who don't believe in the "doom and gloom" scenario to state reasons why they don't, and to back it up with factual information. Okay, here is a very isolated attempt to do so for one very limited set of information in one very limited area: electrical power. But first, a few ground rules:

1. No use of the terms "Doomsayer" and "Pollyanna." Both are being used here primarily as insults designed to avoid real debate and denigrate honest differences of opinion. Some have even used them to be totally intolerant of differing opinions. 2. You must be willing to believe that not everyone with a differing opinion is a sub-moronic idiot or is lying to you. If you can't accept that, you might as well post a reply ("Butthead" will do for the Milne crowd) and hit the "back" button now. 3. You must be willing to accept that some people know more about some things than you do and be willing to accept their opinions as guidance. For this discussion, I will presume to know very little about the generation of electrical power beyond thinking that it is really cool how the lights go on and off when flip the wall switch. I know more about it than that, but not so much that I could be mistaken for an expert, or even a competent employee of an electrical utility. I must therefore depend on the expert analysis of others to guide me. 4. Admit that the progression of time exists and that problems that existed last year, or even last month, have some probability greater than zero of no longer existing. It is called progress, and it happens all the time. Again, if you can't accept this then hurl your insult and move on. 5. The information I cite is available elsewhere. I will tell you where, but it is up to you to go get the details. This post is too long as it is. 6. Lastly, there is no cut and dried set of information that is totally correct to rely on in this issue. In other words, if you see only black and white then you are looking at the wrong picture.

I'll let you ponder on this, then continue in the next post. I don't want this to go on too long in a single message.

-- Paul Neuhardt (neuhardt@ultranet.com), January 26, 1999

Answers

To me, the principal question here boils down to "who are you going to believe?" If I can't count myself as an expert in electrical power generation, who do I believe when attempting to evaluate the probability of failure in that industry? Worse yet, suppose I find reputable sources that disagree. How do I make a decision then? Don't think that happens? For a single example of this situation, look at the issue as presented in the October, 1998 issue of "Cutter IT Journal," a publication edited by none other than Ed Yourdon.

An article by Roleigh Martin presents evidence why utilities need to be pressed on Y2K issues, and how a reader might do that pressing. In his article, he cited Dick Mills' weekly column for Westergaard Year 2000 and points out that Mills has "decades of experience in the utility industry, including doing Year 2000 embedded systems work for utilities in his full-time job at Digital Equipment (now owned by Compaq)." Mills is quoting as saying "No matter how big the blackout, we can restore service to just about everyone within 24 to 72 hours." This quote is proceeded by several examples of severe failures in power plants during Y2K testing, and is immediately followed by several paragraphs explaining why Martin believes that Mills' statement is over simplifying the situation and may be wrong.

On one hand, Martin is a pretty smart guy. He is an acknowledged Y2K expert who has written extensively on embedded systems problems in key industries, particularly power and other utilities. He makes a number of valid points why we should be worried, and he backs them up with concrete examples. On the other hand, Mills is no dummy either as even Martin acknowledges. Furthermore, Mills has more extensive experience in this area than Martin, and he also uses concrete examples to back up his statements. I must have read Martin's article two dozen times by now, as well as a couple of others Martin he written. I have also checked out several pieces of Mills' work, and I have come to three conclusions:

1. Both men are honest in their beliefs and opinions. Neither has an apparent ax to grind or any substantial benefit to be gained (current or future) from publicizing those beliefs.

2. They disagree at a non-trivial level on the potential for disaster (i.e. prolonged, widespread failure) in the electrical industry.

3. If you read both sets of work (and information from other sources as well) and are willing to keep to the ground rules I laid out before, you are faced with the problem of reconciling two conflicting opinions backed up by conflicting evidence. How do you form your opinion? The next post tells you how I did it.

-- Paul Neuhardt (neuhardt@ultranet.com), January 26, 1999.

Here's how I did it. Your mileage may vary.

1. They can't both be correct. Given the research put into the work and the experience of both people, I feel that neither is likely to be completely wrong, nor is either likely to be completely correct.

2. Given #1, I'm going to give the edge to the statements of the fellow with more extensive and directly related experience, in this case Mills. Having done that, I feel reasonably optimistic that the lights will either stay on or come back on quickly. It's not that I think Martin doesn't raise some very good points. He does. But in this article, as well as one other I have seen, I feel Martin is too quick to dismiss superior experience in others simply because it conflicts with his own opinions. I know that sounds like a slam on Martin, but it isn't intended to be. It's just my observation. Again, your mileage may vary.

3. I will keep reading and evaluating because I feel that Martin makes some very valid points and cites some troubling examples. I am willing to convert to a more pessimistic view point if present with a more compelling argument showing why Mill et. al. are wrong.

4. Lastly, I freely acknowledge that my personal biases and pre- dispositions color the formation of my opinion. I am human, and none of us can completely escape from our own biases and experiences when dealing with personal matters. When you live in New England and have two small children, whether or not the power stays up in the dead of winter is a personal matter no matter how objective you try to be. I want the power to stay up and I am willing to believe experts who tell me it will. Furthermore, I have lived through tornadoes (plural, several minor and one horrific), hurricanes (again plural, although none severe) and ice storms (again plural and again, none overly severe) and in every case one very positive thing happened.

People found a way to get things done and make things work. After the horrific tornado there was a newspaper on the front doorstep by 10:00 the next morning. This in spite of the fact that the printing presses were destroyed at about 6:30 the previous evening along with the newsroom and large portions of the building they were in. Water pressure returned to functional levels within 12 hours to most of town despite the destruction of one pumping station and damage to several others. Electricity was restored to most of city within hours. Other sections took a few days. (Actually, some sections took weeks and months but nobody lived or worked there for even longer afterward, so we can overlook them). Schools, courts and public offices reopened within a few days. No business that did not suffer physical damage failed to re-open within four days. Life went on. It leads me to believe that even if there are problems (and I am pretty sure that there will be Y2K problems with electrical power), life will go on again.

-- Paul Neuhardt (neuhardt@ultranet.com), January 26, 1999.

Point by point answer to BUTTHEAD neuhrdt, yes, BUTTHEAD

Several have challenged those of us who don't believe in the "doom and gloom" scenario to state reasons why they don't, and to back it up with factual information. Okay, here is a very isolated attempt to do so for one very limited set of information in one very limited area: electrical power. But first, a few ground rules: 1. No use of the terms "Doomsayer" and "Pollyanna." Both are being used here primarily as insults designed to avoid real debate and denigrate honest differences of opinion. Some have even used them to be totally intolerant of differing opinions. 2. You must be willing to believe that not everyone with a differing opinion

The issue has never been that one is a butthea dMERELY becuase his opinion differs. That is a classic neuhardt straw man. It is the REASON the opinion differs. If neuhardt wants to jump off a thousand foot cliff, I'll tell him that he is a BUTTHEAD. His response "Just becuase my opinion of the safety of doing so is different than yours, I am NOT a butthead" LOL LOL

is a sub-moronic idiot or is lying to you. If you can't accept that, you might as well post a reply ("Butthead" will do for the Milne crowd) and hit the "back" button now. 3. You must be willing to accept that some people know more about some things than you do and be willing to accept their opinions as guidance.

Sorry. That is Bullshit. i need the facts and the evidence. I do not need neuhardts appeals to authority. Any idiot can see that if a company has less than a year to go, having 35% of its code remediated and 255 of its budget spent, that it is in deep trouble.

For this discussion, I will presume to know very little about the generation of electrical power beyond thinking that it is really cool how the lights go on and off when flip the wall switch.

It is already a given that you know little of anything at all.

I know more about it than that, but not so much that I could be mistaken for an expert, or even a competent employee of an electrical utility.

LOL LOL

I must therefore depend on the expert analysis of others to guide me.

That is your first mistake,and one of the VERY reasons that you are a pollyanna. You are willing to accept what others may say especially when it contradicts the evidence. The NERC says all is well when the facts are manifestly otherwise, so pollyannas are willing to accept that. Why, because they are lamos who do not do their own research.

4. Admit that the progression of time exists and that problems that existed last year, or even last month, have some probability greater than zero of no longer existing. It is called progress, and it happens all the time.

And by all measurements both in the way of Lines of codes and budgets and survets, the work is not getting done, despite the fact that you believe there is meaningful progress just because the second hand on a clock moves around.

Again, if you can't accept this then hurl your insult and move on.

You are still an asshole.

5. The information I cite is available elsewhere. I will tell you where, but it is up to you to go get the details. This post is too long as it is. 6. Lastly, there is no cut and dried set of information that is totally correct to rely on in this issue.

There is AMPLE information. Mountains of it pling up every day. Thje bad news inundates any that could be interpretted favorably.

In other words, if you see only black and white then you are looking at the wrong picture.

Only buttheads wh insist the world is nothing but greys, and that nobody can really see clearly will ever see anything clearly beacuase they begin from the presupposition that YOU CAN NOT.

I'll let you ponder on this, then continue in the next post. I don't want this to go on too long in a single message.

Oh, I'm looking forward to setting your ass on fire in that one too. lead on McDuff.

-- Paul Neuhardt (neuhardt@ultranet.com), January 26, 1999

-- Paul Milne (fedinfo@halifax.com), January 26, 1999.

answer to part two:

To me, the principal question here boils down to "who are you going to believe?"

(If you ask the wrong question, you get the wrong answer. It is not who. It is what EVIDENCE do you believe. The evidence is plain and manifest.)

If I can't count myself as an expert in electrical power generation, who do I believe when attempting to evaluate the probability of failure in that industry? Worse yet, suppose I find reputable sources that disagree.

(On this issue , after looking at the EVIDENCE it is CLEAR that REPUTABLE sources do not disagree. The NERC is NOT reputable when you consider their conclusions against the evidence. )

How do I make a decision then? Don't think that happens? For a single example of this situation, look at the issue as presented in the October, 1998 issue of "Cutter IT Journal," a publication edited by none other than Ed Yourdon. An article by Roleigh Martin presents evidence why utilities need to be pressed on Y2K issues, and how a reader might do that pressing. In his article, he cited Dick Mills' weekly column for Westergaard Year 2000 and points out that Mills has "decades of experience in the utility industry, including doing Year 2000 embedded systems work for utilities in his full-time job at Digital Equipment (now owned by Compaq)." Mills is quoting as saying "No matter how big the blackout, we can restore service to just about everyone within 24 to 72 hours."

(Dick Mills is a PR flak. He is a laughable SHILL. Read his work and then read the evidence. Dick Miles DOES NOT have twenty years of experience. He has one year of experience twenty times. Big difference.)

This quote is proceeded by several examples of severe failures in power plants during Y2K testing, and is immediately followed by several paragraphs explaining why Martin believes that Mills' statement is over simplifying the situation and may be wrong.

On one hand, Martin is a pretty smart guy. He is an acknowledged Y2K expert who has written extensively on embedded systems problems in key industries, particularly power and other utilities.

(LOL LOL LOL Acknowledged shill.)

He makes a number of valid points why we should be worried, and he backs them up with concrete examples.

(And then he dances the don't worry be happy dance like the lackey PR Flak that he is)

On the other hand, Mills is no dummy either as even Martin acknowledges. Furthermore, Mills has more extensive experience in this area than Martin, and he also uses concrete examples to back up his statements. I must have read Martin's article two dozen times by now, as well as a couple of others Martin he written. I have also checked out several pieces of Mills' work, and I have come to three conclusions:

1. Both men are honest in their beliefs and opinions.

And Clinton 'honestlt' believed he did not have sex with Lweinsky. Yet people like you fall for that and believe he is being honest. Mills is not in the LEAST bit honest. No more than you are. He is SINCERE though and that is utterly different. )

Neither has an apparent ax to grind or any substantial benefit to be gained (current or future) from publicizing those beliefs.

(MOST assuredly Mills has displayed on countles occassions his 'ax'. )

2. They disagree at a non-trivial level on the potential for disaster (i.e. prolonged, widespread failure) in the electrical industry.

Irrelevant.

3. If you read both sets of work (and information from other sources as well) and are willing to keep to the ground rules I laid out before, you are faced with the problem of reconciling two conflicting opinions backed up by conflicting evidence. How do you form your opinion? The next post tells you how I did it.

Not in the least. In the same way that anyone can EASILY see your axx. look at the title of this post. You claim you are an 'optimist'. This betrays your underlying bias to begin with, and Mills as well. You see I AM NOT an optimist NOR pessimist. I look at the FACTS, and THEN draw a conclusion. But you DO NOT. You BEGIN as an optimist and filter everything through those rose colored glasses. You are not trudtworthy. You are not honest and you have no integrity at all. But you are very sincere, which is no gudie to the truth at all.

Ready for part three, lamo.

-- Paul Neuhardt (neuhardt@ultranet.com), January 26, 1999.

---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------

-- Paul Milne (fedinfo@halifax.com), January 26, 1999.

Part three of answer to lamo neuhardt.

Here's how I did it. Your mileage may vary.

(It ceratinly will.)

1. They can't both be correct.

(That's right.)

Given the research put into the work and the experience of both people, I feel that neither is likely to be completely wrong, nor is either likely to be completely correct.

( This of course is the easy way out. It is always the Pollyanna way to try to 'balance' things out. The porrifge CAN NOT be tooooooo hot. It can not be tooooooooocold. It must be from the wee little baby bowl that is juuuuuuust right. No bad news. Plenty of hopeful news, and then, a nice long nap. Lets see if I got it right)

2. Given #1, I'm going to give the edge to the statements of the fellow with more extensive and directly related experience, in this case Mills.

(Bwhahahahahahahahahaahah! Despite the mountain of FACTS ANDEVIDENCE out there he just arbitrarily DECIDES to give it to Mills. BWAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHA! Who couldn't figure that was coming?)

Having done that, I feel reasonably optimistic that the lights will either stay on or come back on quickly.

(BWHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAH! This is such a classic case of self- deception that I am rolling on the floor laughing. He starts by being a what? Yes boys and girls, an optimist and then he gives the debate to who? That's right boys and girls, the optimist. And his conclusion? That's right once again, boys and girls, YaY! everything will just be a short inconvenience. YAY! No facts. No evidenc. No nothing but going on the opinion of an optimist PR Flak.)

It's not that I think Martin doesn't raise some very good points.

(It would not matter if he had a letter form God. You are an incredibly laughable dolt. BWAHAHAHAAHAHAAHAHAHAHA!)

He does. But in this article, as well as one other I have seen, I feel Martin is too quick to dismiss superior experience in others simply because it conflicts with his own opinions.

( Agiain, neuhardt is sych a lamo that he does not understand that it is not the disagreement but the REASON for it. But he only addresses the mere disagreement because he can not carry the weight of the argument on the merits of the evidence.)

I know that sounds like a slam on Martin, but it isn't intended to be. It's just my observation. Again, your mileage may vary.

(No one who is that self delude WOULD think that he was doing that. That is part of the self-deception. GOOD JOB!!)

3. I will keep reading and evaluating because I feel that Martin makes some very valid points and cites some troubling examples. I am willing to convert to a more pessimistic view point if present with a more compelling argument showing why Mill et. al. are wrong.

(It has NOTHING to do with optimism or pessimism or CONVERSION, you dolt. )

4. Lastly, I freely acknowledge that my personal biases and pre- dispositions color the formation of my opinion.

(BWAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! NO KIDDING!!!BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHH!)

I am human, and none of us can completely escape from our own biases and experiences when dealing with personal matters.

(BULLSHIT. That is what intellectual integrity is all about, Having the ability to impartially weight the evidence. You lack the ability and admit as much. Your opinions are TERRIBLY suspect.)

When you live in New England and have two small children

(Wait a minute let me get out my crying towel.)

, whether or not the power stays up in the dead of winter is a personal matter no matter how objective you try to be.

(And this goes very much to the heart of neuhardt's psychological incapacitation. He knows DAMN well that to conclude that there will be great electrical problems, him and those two children are in DEEP trouble. He will do anything to refuse to admit that. His alleged analysis is bullshit from one end to the other.)

I want the power to stay up and I am willing to believe experts who tell me it will.

( Again, LISTEN to this. He WANTS the power to stay up. In my case, I do not let what I want, one way or the other influence my opinion. What the hell does my wanting or not wanting power have to do with anything at all. It should NEVER even be brought into the discussion. And this is why neuhardt is horribly horribly biased. He starts as an optimist BEFORE, the facts. He knows that he is predisposed. He is terribly afraid of the consequences of no power for his kids, and then he wants us to believe that his opinion is ANYTHING other than a sickening psychological hodgepode of preconceptions and foregone conclusions based upon what he 'wants' to happen.)

Furthermore, I have lived through tornadoes (plural, several minor and one horrific), hurricanes (again plural, although none severe) and ice storms (again plural and again, none overly severe) and in every case one very positive thing happened.

People found a way to get things done and make things work.

(This now strays from the issue as always. It is another feeble attempt. But here it comes anyway. Its the old 'people are resilient' line.)

After the horrific tornado there was a newspaper on the front doorstep by 10:00 the next morning. This in spite of the fact that the printing presses were destroyed at about 6:30 the previous evening along with the newsroom and large portions of the building they were in. Water pressure returned to functional levels within 12 hours to most of town despite the destruction of one pumping station and damage to several others. Electricity was restored to most of city within hours. Other sections took a few days. (Actually, some sections took weeks and months but nobody lived or worked there for even longer afterward, so we can overlook them). Schools, courts and public offices reopened within a few days. No business that did not suffer physical damage failed to re-open within four days. Life went on. It leads me to believe that even if there are problems (and I am pretty sure that there will be Y2K problems with electrical power), life will go on again.

)Again, nothing to do with the topic at hand. What he is saying is that even if he is wrong and it DOES go out, it still won't be bad. So you see, no matter what evidence is in front of his face, he comes up smelling like roses. First, The power WON'T go out. And second, if it does, it'll come right back on.

All in all neuhardt is a specious self-deciever. Invincibly ignorant and totally unreliable as a commentator on the facts because he does not look at them, only at his grotesque biases, THEN decides it won't be so bad.)

-- Paul Neuhardt (neuhardt@ultranet.com), January 26, 1999.

-- Paul Milne (fedinfo@halifax.com), January 26, 1999.

If utilities will be compliant, then the next question would be whether the railroads will be compliant.

Also, how do different parts of the grid communicate their power needs with other parts of the grid? Telephone lines?

-- Kevin (mixesmusic@worldnet.att.net), January 26, 1999.

Paul you said that you had been through tornadoes, etc. and explained how everything picked up and life went back to normal within a few days.

I keep hearing about this tornado, or snow-storm that we should expect at worse. I'd like to know where this one tornado, or snow- storm is expected to hit.

Any of the disasters that you had the unfortunate misfortune to live through would have had a quick response by government agencies, electrical technicians, and relief agencies, etc. This prompt effort goes a long way to mitigate and shorten the duration of any disaster. This same response is supported by an up and running network of systems that provide communication, food, drinking water, medicine, financial aid, etc.

Supposing if we don't just have the one tornado or snow-storm. Just suppose that we happen to experience many disasters on a global scale. The devastation will be tremendous. Governments and relief agencies will just not be able to respond as effectively as they do now. They will not have the luxury of being able to concentrate all their efforts on one particular region. They also may not have an up and running network of systems to assist them like they do now.

So far, pre-2000, when people go through a disaster and loose power, etc. they at least have some comfort in knowing that at some point the power shall be restored. However, post-2000, people will have heard enough about Y2K to perhaps not have the same degree of security in feeling that power can be restored. The despair and fear that this might induce could cause widespread panic.

I think it is fair to say that no-one knows for certain at this time what is going to happen one way or the other.

However, there does appear to be a worldwide concern demonstrated by the powers that be that they feel strongly enough to make emergency preparedness preparations on a scale that is unprecedented. Every season we do not see our local governments rolling into high-gear making heavy duty emergency preparedness preparations for any potential disaster that we might face. If they are only expecting the tornado, snow-storm, or hurricane, then why can't we just deal with it the same way we always have and do now.

No, I have a feeling that they are not quite as confident as you are that we are going to welcome in the Year 2000 quite as easily as they would otherwise like us to believe.

The government is predicting that this and that system will be compliant by December 31, 1999. These are only the mission-critical systems I note as well. However, to date they don't have a very good track record of living up to their scheduled compliancy status. Dates have been pushed back.

One other thing I am trying to figure out is: Okay we have problems and suffer the tornado, or snow-storm which is expected to last at most two weeks. Am I to take it that if all these programmers can't get it fixed by December 31, 1999, they'll just need an extra couple of weeks at the beginning of January 2000, to complete the job. I am having a difficult time trying to make this compute....

For this individual I think I shall follow my local governments lead and make preparations on the same scale that they are - preparations for the worst. For them to be spending even more of their budget dollars on emergency efforts on the scale that they are indicates enough to me that they just might not be as confident in their systems ticking over to 2000 with only a minor glitch here and there. No! No! No! I don't feel reassured at all.

I certainly hope though that all their preparations and mine shall not be needed.

I shall be prepared living in hope for the best!!!!!!

-- bullfrog (bullfrog@aol.com), January 26, 1999.

Paul you might want to read the latest RICK COWLES NERC ANALYSIS at http://www.euy2k.com/guest5.htm and the latest NERC Report itself. If you go to Rick Cowles site address that I gave; his site will in turn give you access to the NERC site.

These might help you to form your own opinions as to how well the electric utilities are doing. They are both up to date and present the latest available information.

It would seem to me that you, just like everyone else are entitled to your opinions. However, your opinions at least should be based on a bit more information and resources than the two that you indicate in your posting. To form an opinion based on the method that you chose would seem rather foolhardy given the seriousness of the issue involved.

I would think that you owe it to your family and to yourself to carefully research the concerns that you have and form a more educated opinion. Your opinion may well remain the same, but at least you will have based it on information taken from a number of sources including the NERC itself.

-- bullfrog (bullfrog@aol.com), January 26, 1999.

If you don't trust Dick Mills, there's also Rick Cowles:

hotlink

He's perhaps less optimistic than Dick mills, but also very far from the hard-fail predictions.

Both these people have an expert view of how electricity generation works. Dick explains some very technical matters in a way which is absolutely masterful, debunking various myths as he goes. As a physicist, I can see from fundamental principles that his explanations are valid and that the myths are indeed myths.

As for how things will turn out, their crystal balls are no more clear than anyone else's -- no-one has a gods-eye perspective on the whole system (which is no less than the entire world economy). Still, within their own area of expertise their opinions are probably more reliable than those from outside -- especially than those who can't coherently argue their case, or who continue to propagate the myths.

-- Nigel Arnot (nra@maxwell.ph.kcl.ac.uk), January 26, 1999.

Paul, once again you have demonstrated a binary mindset. Even while avoiding the use of the terms pollyanna and doom and gloomer, you've assumed only two possible scenarios can be possible -- very limited power outage ("gee, honey the lights flickered") or the death of the North American electrical system. Then you work to show that one expert doesn't predict the last, so your optimistic outlook is justified in your own mind.

Great. You reveal the operation of your own mind. Given two options, Mills' or Martin's, since you are an optimist you seek reasons to grab onto Mills' line of reasoning. The only basis you can establish is that Mills has more direct power industry experience on his resume. I'm not knocking that as one consideration. But, in the absence of demonstrated wisdom from Mills -- and to my mind he's failed miserably -- it's a poor basis for choice.

The world is not binary. There are shades of grey, which you have refused to acknowledge in your postings for over a year. There are also domino or ripple effects that you have never acknowledged. Your mind is seeminly unable to grasp more than singular events, and I've never seen a 'cause and effect' posting from you......only denials that things will be as bad as everyone else believes.

Who are you trying to convince, Paul? Yourself?

..... "In my opinion it is not prudent to assume anything less than 72 hours for preparation planning purposes. It's that simple.

I strongly disagree with others, including NERC, who say that no special precautions are necessary for the year 2000. In my opinion, that is imprudent and irresponsible......."

Paul, that quote is from Mills latest column. This is the column where his explanation of why he feels power will be restored in 72 hours is attempted. It is a lame explanation. It does not address the very simple case of an embedded system failure in which no compliant replacement is available, and leave unanswered the question of why, if the compliant spare were available, the non-compliant unit hadn't been replaced.

But, even with all of this, the very best that Mr. Mills can come up with is that it's wise to prepare for at least 72 hours without power.

Will New York remain calm and cool if the lights are off for 72 hours? Will Boston, Chicago, St. Louis, and LA?

You don't know the answer to those questions any more than you know the answer to the question, "will the lights remain on." And, those may be the really tough ones. If the government doesn't think so,we see troops in the street, which is not what most Americans want.

Moreover, you go through your comparison of the writings of Mills and Martin and declare that you go with Mills because of the experience, then don't state the obvious -- what is it that Mills believes will happen, as opposed to Martin? Or Cowles? Or, even Paul Neuhardt.

In other words, Paul, you wasted 3 posts because you come to no conclusion, other than that you prefer Mills writings to Martin's.

Paul, I wrote Mills after his very first column on Westergaard. At that time I stated that -- as an engineering manager with nearly 40 years experience -- I would have fired him had that been a report to me. In it he begged the question and claimed that people shouldn't expect answers from him.....even though he was getting paid to provide them and even though he held himself out as an elite professional.

If he is (was) indeed the professional he claims to be I would expect more. I would, for instance expect that the very alarming issue of viable replacement parts be addressed. Until it is, his claim for a 72 hour (1 sigma) down time is absurd, being based only on restoration of power should a limb fall across a line. It has been what -- 6 months? -- and the issue hasn't been addressed.

I would also require answers from Mr. Mills as to why the comparison is always made between Y2K and a storm. Most storm damage requires attention from linesmen. Lines are down and must be replaced. Y2K failures will require an entirely different set of actions because the control circuitry will need replacing or repairing. Different talent pool. All the experienced linesmen in the world don't help.

All sorts of problems when you choose to believe someone only because they project the most optimistic outlook, without basis in fact, aren't there, Paul? cheers

-- De (dealton@concentric.net), January 26, 1999.

Paul, I do believe there are other issues you need to address, that I didnt hear you comment on re Mills vs Martin.

First, how can power be generated if there are fuel production/processing/distribution failures? gobally I mean? Anyone who has looked into the possibilities for oil and natural gas disruptions MSUT see the dire consequences.

Second, its very possible that, come July 1, we might see a shutdown of nuclear power plants throughtout the US. I assume you've heard about this already. If that happens, I think the writing is on the wall as to what will happen next.

And third, what about the embedded systems problem? There's simply NO way that they can be ignored for a 72 hours restart. With the minimal amount of replacement done up til now, there's already ocurring a large backorder of components needed for replacement.

-- Lou Navarro (lanny1@ix.netcom.com), January 26, 1999.

Ah, Mr. Milne. You took the bait. You rail about facts and evidence, and yet you have ignored nine, now ten requests for you to present some evidence for your opinions on why so many will die. How trite.

-- Paul Neuhardt (neuhardt@ultranet.com), January 26, 1999.

Bullfrog, you said:

"Paul you might want to read the latest RICK COWLES NERC ANALYSIS at http://www.euy2k.com/guest5.htm and the latest NERC Report itself. If you go to Rick Cowles site address that I gave; his site will in turn give you access to the NERC site.

Been there, done that. I'm a regular at Cowles' site and I've read the NERC analysis along with info from various Senate and House hearings, private utility's reports and reports from private and public sources in several European countries. I don't decide on lunch until I've read the menu twice. I sure don't decide my position on something like this without reading as much as I reasonably can.

This thread wasn't intended to represent the sum total of what I've looked at. I was pretty clear that this was a single example (or at least I thought I was). That example was intended to demonstrate a point and a process, not form a complete argument. So many here have asked the question "how can you possibly feel that disaster might not happen?" I was attempting to deonstrate how one goes about that process.

-- Paul Neuhardt (neuhardt@ultranet.com), January 26, 1999.

BLAH BLAH BLAH

We're gonna go round and round and round and round until the event happens, Polly vs. Doomer.

Folks, do everything you can to be ready for the worst, doing any thing less is as foolish as endless arguing.

-- Uncle Deedah (oncebitten@twiceshy.com), January 26, 1999.

Lou, you said:

"And third, what about the embedded systems problem? There's simply NO way that they can be ignored for a 72 hours restart. With the minimal amount of replacement done up til now, there's already ocurring a large backorder of components needed for replacement."

Gee, that was sort of my point. Mills is someone who doesn't ignore that problem. He works with that problem day in and day out. He certainly knows far more about it than I do, and has for a long time. Since I can't examine the detailed aspects of the problem myself, I have to rely on others to do it for me. Mills is one of those I rely on, although by no means is he the only one. I have my tasks and responsibilites for Y2K issues in my company and industry and he has his. I have to hope and trust that Mills and others like him are doing their jobs. And that really isn't to big a leap since we already implicitly exhibit that trust every time we flip the light switch and expect the room to get brighter.

-- Paul Neuhardt (neuhardt@ultranet.com), January 26, 1999.

Paul Milne said:

"And this is why neuhardt is horribly horribly biased. He starts as an optimist BEFORE, the facts. He knows that he is predisposed. He is terribly afraid of the consequences of no power for his kids, and then he wants us to believe that his opinion is ANYTHING other than a sickening psychological hodgepode of preconceptions and foregone conclusions based upon what he 'wants' to happen."

Gee, and this from the guy who chucked it all and headed for the hills some years ago and has been crying that the "societal sky is falling" for all those years. I'm sure that no preconcieved biases exist here. Nope. Couldn't be. Uh-uh. No way.

-- Paul Neuhardt (neuhardt@ultranet.com), January 26, 1999.

Neuhardt, I would be happy to address ant evidence. YOU PRESENTED NONE, moron. All you did was expose your biases and why you are NOT basing your opinion on the evidence but on the bases of your bias. But, like most unprepared pollyannas you will remain in populated areas surrounded by unprepared people and you will be dead soon.

No skin off my nose. Stupid people will get what they deserve by their own hand. You have been warned and now you will reap the result of your own foolish behavior.

-- Paul Milne (fedinfo@halifax.com), January 26, 1999.

De, you said:

"Paul, once again you have demonstrated a binary mindset. Even while avoiding the use of the terms pollyanna and doom and gloomer, you've assumed only two possible scenarios can be possible -- very limited power outage ("gee, honey the lights flickered") or the death of the North American electrical system. Then you work to show that one expert doesn't predict the last, so your optimistic outlook is justified in your own mind. "

I never said that. You inferred it from what I clearly described in the first post as "a single example." I examined only Martin's article, not the entire set of information available. Furthermore, I drew conclusions on Martin's article only, not the situation as a whole. Drawing conclusions from a single data point is one of the crimes you accuse me of, and yet you immediately do it yourself. If that is the way you conducted all your analysis during "nearly 40 years as an engineering manager", I hope I don't traverse any bridges you built, or fly in your planes, or use whatever it is you engineer.

The point wasn't to create a convincing argument. It was simply to demonstrate that when presented with two opposing sets of "expert opinions" that the pessimistic opinion is not always the one that must be taken in preference.

-- Paul Neuhardt (neuhardt@ultranet.com), January 27, 1999.

Mr. Milne,

"Neuhardt, I would be happy to address ant evidence. "

So do it, already. You just missed an oportunity to do so and instead burned bandwith hurling poorly typed insults. Why would that be, exactly?

-- Paul Neuhardt (neuhardt@ultranet.com), January 27, 1999.

De, you said:

"..... "In my opinion it is not prudent to assume anything less than 72 hours for preparation planning purposes. It's that simple.

I strongly disagree with others, including NERC, who say that no special precautions are necessary for the year 2000. In my opinion, that is imprudent and irresponsible......."

Paul, that quote is from Mills latest column. This is the column where his explanation of why he feels power will be restored in 72 hours is attempted. It is a lame explanation. It does not address the very simple case of an embedded system failure in which no compliant replacement is available, and leave unanswered the question of why, if the compliant spare were available, the non-compliant unit hadn't been replaced."

I read Mills' latest column. In fact, I have read almost every one of his columns for the last six months. Again, the point here was the evaluation of a single source of info (namely Martin's article), not a treatise on Mills' overall opinions of how things are going. But since you bring it up...

There is no contradiction in the two quotes from Mills. First, he continues to use 72 hours as a reference for his expectation of the extent of significant problems. The use of the phrase 'less than 72 hours' regards preparation planning, not the outages themselves. Mills is recommending that people preapre for what he envisions as the worst case, a sentiment reasonably consistent with that of many here.

Secondly, his recent criticism of NERC is not regarding the duration of expected problems but the necessity to prepare oneself for any problems, something NERC is saying is unneccesary and Mills claims is necessary. I agree with Mills, but on a braoder scale. The fact of the matter is that the power does go out from time to time. I feel it is wise to be preapred for two to three days without power at all times, not just for Y2K.

As for not addressing the replacement problem, exactly how do you expect him to cover every aspect of the issue in a single weekly column? The presentation format allows for only brief treatment of an issue, not a treatise. When evaluation information you should consider content, source and presentation format. Also, did it occur to you that he has addressed the problem professionaly and simply hasn't gottten around to it in his column yet? If you really want him to address it, email him again and ask.

Lastly, of course there is gray area. I said so in the original postings. Read where I said "Lastly, there is no cut and dried set of information that is totally correct to rely on in this issue. In other words, if you see only black and white then you are looking at the wrong picture." I went on to describe (in the third post) how I intended to continue to evaluate new information as it arose and would revise my opinions as necessary based on that information and my evaluation of it. That evaluation would only be done by someone willing to admit to a gray area, not by someone who has already made up his mind. It was you who took a single set of information (my 3 postings) and drew a black/white conclusion out of it (the guy's an ignorant putz who can't think straight.)

-- Paul Neuhardt (neuhardt@ultranet.com), January 27, 1999.

Mr. Milne,

I'm curious. If you have such a low opinion of the people that Yourdon presents as experts to be listened to (i.e. Martin and Mills), why do you spend so much time here on Yourdon's forum? Ed has referenced Martin repeatedly in Y2K discussions and often suggests people pay attention to the Westergaard site where Mills' column appears. If you dismiss the information Yourdon himself presents as well as the sources of that information, what benefit could you possibly hope to gain from your time here?

-- Paul Neuhardt (neuhardt@ultranet.com), January 27, 1999.

Paul Milne is such a pathetic asshole! He is the most repugnant, idiotic, ranting lunatic this forum has yet seen.

He has already worn everyone out and bored readers to tears at csy2000, now he comes over here and expects us to listen to his ravings.

Only last summer he was posting some of the vilest and most sadistic insults I had ever read, directed at anyone who dared to think differently than a lunatic. Despite the poor spelling and pathetic grasp of rudimentary grammar, he enjoyed attacking people with violently sick and frankly quite horrifically obscene attacks.

This is a man with children, whose wife dresses in Depression-era garb, who invites the press to visit him on his "compound," and take pictures of himself, wife, children, etc., all for publicity sake.

Think of his children!

Because he was so crude and filled with such an extreme and vicious brand of hate, he was noticed, just as Hitler was noticed in the thirties. He then toned down his violence a little. But underneath it all, he is still the repugnant and odious swine he always has been.

-- Fellow (Fellow@bresson.com), January 27, 1999.

I still say I enjoy Paul's posts.

I also enjoy the mental picture of his keyboard and screen drenched in spittle as he pounds furiously at the keys.

Keep it up bud.

-- Uncle Deedah (oncebitten@twiceshy.com), January 27, 1999.

Uncle,

You and I may disagree on Y2K specifics, but I will say that I really like your sense of humor. That last post had me ROFL.

Thanks again.

-- Paul Neuhardt (neuhardt@ultranet.com), January 27, 1999.

OK, Milne, we believe you. There are major problems coming. You can climb back into your hole now.

The question is no longer whether the shit is going to hit the fan. It's how are we going to clean up the mess?

You're sure not going to help that effort Milne.

Now, what did I do with that business plan to open new 7-11's in Virginia?

-- Buddy from inside Cory's dreaded D.C. (buddy@bellatlantic.net), January 27, 1999.

That does it. I'm removing my "One more whore and we get Gore" bumpersticker and replacing it with MILNE FOR PRESIDENT!

-- a (a@a.a), January 27, 1999.