I have not followed you guys for long, but was wondering. Has anyone heard the y2k ad on the radio put out by consumer reports. It is remarkably direct in the declaration that the "problem is real". Secondly, did you folks see the article in the journal "Science" by Bennett about a month ago in which he really emptied both barrels with a very honest (sounding) appraisal of the risks?

-- David Cornell (dbc1@cornell.edu), May 11, 1999

Answers

Wow David, thanks for the heads-up! I haven't heard the radio spot yet. As for the journal "Science" I'll look for it.

Can you give a little detail about his appraisal of the risks?

Mike ===================================================================

-- Michael Taylor (mtdesign3@aol.com), May 11, 1999.

Let me first apologize for being obtuse. I hate lying about who I am; Dave is right, Cornell and my email are not. (There's no way I'm sticking my real email address out on this web; they'll have to sneak it off my computer using more clever tricks.) I am a Chemist at Cornell (duh). While this means I'm not stupid, I also don't know anymore than anyone else who reads alot about this particular subject.

To elaborate a little, the article in "Science" was a very clear, two page article that summarized the senate report. There were very clear statements about possible social unrest and global recession. The only sugar coating was that, amidst statements strongly suggesting that "personal preparedness" is essential (which I read to mean don't wait for the Feds to save you), there was a little boiler plate about the banking system being safe. Overall, however, it was a very alarmist article -- probably the most clear and CREDIBLE two pages that I've read on the subject since July of 1997. I dropped it on one of my colleagues laps with no buildup whatsoever (a guy so far back that he's neither a GI or a DGI) and asked him for his comments. His reply: "This is very scarey". Those of you who are still trying to preach to the unconvertible might find this a very useful article. (It is certainly in all university libraries and should be in your public library. It may even be on the web if "Science" is putting full issues on the web.)

A very interesting question: Why did Bennett publish this article? "Science" is probably the most prestigious general science periodical. Is Bennett trying to call the scientists of the world to do something? I really don't know.

That leads me to my last point. In my world as a chemist I talk to a lot of serious physical scientists with heads the size of watermellons, plenty of savvy about technical issues, and absolutely no awareness whatosever about y2k and its possible consequences. The chemical plant issue and affiliated disasters could be huge. It also strikes me that the pharmaceutical supply issue could also be huge given that all sorts of Federal laws will prohibit stock piling and dramatically inhibit switching suppliers of even the simplest solvents.

The bad news is that I often feel like I'm waiting for the mother ship. Somebody ought to write a book entitled, "Surviving the Year 1999". The good news is that I've formulated one of my most globally sweeping hypotheses and now I get watch the experiment get done!

I'm going back to being a "lurker" for a while.

Until later...

-- Dave Cornell (dbc100@cornell.edu), May 11, 1999.

Interesting that Science would defer to a politician on a "technical problem" and publish his opinion. Could this be a clue? Y2K is more than a technical problem? In the recent Journals of the ACM, the erudite CS watermelon heads say y2k is no problem. I think it is because of two factors:

1. The systemic nature of y2k crosses so many disciplines, and is so convoluted, that no one person can comprehend its impact.

2. Most scientists long ago traded a belief in "God of the natural world" for a belief in "God of man's technology". And everybody knows God can't fail.

-- a (a@a.a), May 11, 1999.