Another Departure: Dick Mills moves on.

greenspun.com : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread

Dick Mills has written his last Powerful Prognostications column.

Apparently he is not leaving the Y2K arena, but will begin a new column next week.

One of the things that he says in parting reinforces the views widely held by many on this forum:

"Public fears regarding Y2K and electricity may have been overblown, but they were not unfounded. Industry and government still have not properly answered these fears. Their public statements have, in my opinion, been condescending and that makes the public suspect cover-up rather than feel better. Perhaps that reveals their low opinion of the intelligence of the public. I'm happy to report that they are wrong about that."

-- Hardliner (searcher@internet.com), June 25, 1999

Answers

Also from Dick Mills' parting column: "One thing I did was to apply to be a volunteer for Yes Corps, and to help other countries with their Y2K power problems. My application has been hung up in Yes Corps' bureaucracy for nearly three months. That's frustrating because 2000-01-01 approaches rapidly. They seem hung up on my references and are unconvinced that I'm qualified to help. If you would like to recommend me (or get me out of the country), please send an e-mail to Lyn.Logatto@metagroup.com and tell her so." But I'm sure that Koskinen will claim the YES Corps was a huge success - NOT!

-- Brooks (brooksbie@hotmail.com), June 25, 1999.

The column Dick Mills will begin next week is entitled: Lessons Learned. "The series discusses the long-term technological and societal implications of Y2K". Personally, I've always found his articles on power to be very enlightening. I also felt his conclusions were arrived at objectively and without deference to either the polly or the doomer positions. I believe his new column will be an interesting read and am looking forward to it. With that said, I am curious as to how those on this forum would rate Dick Mills' credibility. If you care to respond to this and you feel Dick Mills lacks credibility, please site specific examples of what lead you to that conclusion. Thanks in advance to anyone who responds.

-- CD (not@here.com), June 25, 1999.

I gonsider Dick Mills to be both very credible, and also very honest. Of course, I feel the same way about Rick Cowles, and throughly enjoyed the presentation that he made near Annapolis, Md, back last Winter.

From my view from the peanut gallery on this issue, whick has got to be the most important Y2K issue of all of them, I have come to two certain conclusions:

1) The experts disagree on just what the impact of Y2K will be.

2) Any expert generally can only speak to his or her "field of vision", and not really address a lot of important, interconnected issues that they have no control over, or perhaps even no knowledge of. Rick Cowles, in his presentation, compared Y2K to a multi-faceted diamond, with each face of the diamond representing a particular area such as power, teleccom, banking, food supply, oil supply, transportation, etc., etc. A problem with one of these areas could adversely affect others (if not all) to a measure that would not be obvious to the experts in those particular areas.

I hope Mills is right regarding the low probability of Y2K power disruptions (and that Cowles, who expects roughly a year of serious problems -- beginning in late January due to the exhausting of redundant safeguards in power systems -- is wrong). But, if he is wrong, thats why I moved to the country and bought a 15KW diesel generator, a high capacity battery/interter system, and am in the process of storing diesel fuel.

(Aside: I am using PRI-D: Complete Diesel Treatment from Power Research, Inc., to stabilize my fuel. Anyone else had experience with this, or perhaps a similar product?)

-- Jack (jsprat@eld.net), June 25, 1999.

I am a bit pissed at Mr. Mills. He never, to my knowledge, answered in a clear, rational fashion the many challanges that gnorth made to him. If Mr. Mills is so concerned to calm public fears, which can fuel other serious problems, why doesn't he take up the challenge and make a point by point answer.

I know some of the questions were answered by Mills in previous columns, but it would be nice for the public if someone could put together in one page/listing the specific answers to gnorth and others.

Also, i hadn't heard that about Cowles, no probs in early January. Is there a source for that?

So, what item should people buy to protect their appliances, etc. if we have one year of horrible service? How to protect equipment in face of brownouts, whatever?

ciao fornow.

-- walterskold (wskold@lazrus.org), June 25, 1999.


Dick Mills has been a breath of fresh air, because he's always been honest. For every issue he discussed, he dug into it and explained what it was (and what it wasn't), and what it meant, and how it really worked. If his evaluation was that the issue presented a clear and present danger, he said so. If he found that the issue was overblown, he said so.

The contrast between Mills and most of the posters to this forum could hardly be greater. Mills' goal was to inform, rather than to persuade. He wanted his readers to understand the issues he covered in as much detail as he could impart, rather than get his readers to agree with some school of predictive thought. The essence of this drastic contrast is this -- Mills has been capable of changing his mind as conditions change or as he learns what conditions really are.

What made Mills' power columns so useful was his effort to *quantify* the risks. Rather than deny them or exaggerate them, he attempted to assess them. He always helped his readers focus on the issue at hand, and never tried to distract with irrelevant questions or other debating tactics. Mills always has displayed the rare ability to draw conclusions from his evidence, rather than to draw the evidence to fit his conclusions.

Someone said eariler that Mills was neither a doomer nor a polly, and this mode of thought lies at the heart of this observation. Doomers and Pollys are *both* advocates, using carefully selected and carefully misinterpreted evidence (along with many other techniques) to build a case. Mills never attempted to do this. He investigated and he reported, as objectively as anyone could be expected to.

I wasn't comfortable with every conclusion Mills drew, but I knew that every conclusion he drew needed utmost consideration, because it was virtually free of any kind of spin, and was based on solid information and understanding. I'll miss his columns.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), June 25, 1999.



I was going to write giving some observations about Dick Mills, and how impressed I am by his credibility, lack of bias, etc. But I don't think I could have written my opinion nearly as well as Flint. Flint, thank you. You said what I wanted to, only better.

-- jumpoffjoe (jumpoff@echoweb.net), June 25, 1999.

walterskold:

In a court of law, every question North asked Mills would be objected to on the grounds that it's leading the witness. And every objection would be sustained. Think about it.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), June 25, 1999.


'Dick' Mills, aply named, has been an asshole from the day he rode in. Rarely have I read anyone quite so utterly clueless, flint notwithstanding.

You will all find that out in a few more months.

Oh, and pre-emtively, kiss my ass, flint.

-- Paul Milne (fedinfo@halifax.com), June 25, 1999.


Paul- Can you please site specific examples of what Dick Mills said which led you to doubt his credibility? Thanks

-- CD (not@here.com), June 25, 1999.

CD -- Paul has made this abundantly clear on csy2k. Mills' sin was that he educated when he should have been preaching. And education is the worst possible anathema to Paul's brand of religion. Unforgiveable.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), June 25, 1999.


walterskold: Cory Hamasaki also attended the Feb presentation that Rick Cowles made, and wrote it up in his "D.C. Weather Reports" issue #113. Here is a link to it:

D.C. Weather Report #113

Cory's report does not mention the no-problem initially scenario, just states that there will be potentially a year's worth of problems, with the first month being the most serious. However, Rick definitely stated that it was his belief that there are enough safeguards and redundant paths so that initially there would not be problems, and even power plant control personnel would not see anything amiss. However, the problems would in fact be occuring, and would in time (a month) overwhelm the systems.

Given that its been four months since this presentation, you may want to just go to www.euy2k.com, which is Rick Cowles' Electric Uilities & Y2K web site, and see what his latest opinions are. (I haven't been there in a long time, too busy prepping...)

Hope this helps....

-- Jack (jsprat@eld.net), June 25, 1999.

Flint, as you have raised the concern about what could happen "in a court of Law" (without specifying at which court and with application of which law), let me still remind you that prior quantification and spelling out of possible/probable y2k consequences would be the craziest of all possible ideas for an institution such as the IEEE, whose extraordinary report to the US Senate you have criticized for not having done so.

If the IEEE would quantify y2k probable damages beforehand, they would place themselves between a rock and a hard place (legally) after y2k events take place.

The IEEE leadership has proven to be brave, but they are not stupid.

Take care

-- George (jvilches@sminter.com.ar), June 25, 1999.


George:

I didn't criticize them for not quantifying. I pointed out that wasn't their purpose. Their purpose was to solicit legal protection, and they presented a case supporting that purpose.

As a matter of fact, my argument is quite the contrary. That IEEE documented was paraded around by doomers (see 'a's post attempting to mock those who disagree with him for failure to respond instantly) because those doomers *projected* quantification where it didn't exist. Their argument boils down to: Look! The IEEE says everything will go to hell in a handbasket!

So I point out that they said no such thing. This is in no way a criticism, simply an observation. My criticism is with those who insist on reading what isn't there, merely because either they wish it *were* there, or because they want to create a false impression among those who didn't read (and think about) the document itself.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), June 25, 1999.


Walterskold:

Re your query for protecting equipment during a brownout:

I just picked up a new UPS/Surge Protector today because voltage dips were causing my PC based system to reboot randomly. These units are available at better computer stores - in my case MicroCenter in Sharonville, Ohio. The unit controls voltage to a tight range and can run on battery only for about 30-40 minutes according to the literature. Cost on the unit I bought was $350 - I have a PC, two monitors, a Land infrared imager, and the imager battery recharger on the same circuit in a steelplant where the voltage appears to be a little dirty.

-- Bill P (porterwn@one.net), June 25, 1999.


Bill, DON'T COUNT on that 30-40 min. It is usually about half that, based on some UPS "trials" I have had the ummmm, education, to have "participated in".

Can you say "Print and git!!"

Chuck

-- Chuck, a night driver (rienzoo@en.com), June 25, 1999.



Moderation questions? read the FAQ