Help wanted: Programmer Explanation!

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

The Wash. Post article yesterday included the most incredible dichotomies. Can anyone explain some of the contradictions?

"There MAY be things thats suffer interruption"

"A handful MAY fail temporarily"

"this COULD cause systems to transmit bad data,malfunction"

OK, please explain the MAYs and COULDs--please!!!

"Recognizing the---DANGER OF A CATASTROPHIC FAILURE---in the city, congress gave $62 million to ACCELERATE the work"

"but even with an army of programmers success is far from assured"

"19 out of 73 are not even half way done"

Ok--- with all of this info. why these responses??

"Mayor Williams reasonbly comfortable"

"Convince people New years no Chaos"

"Our intent not to alarm, but to put people at EASE"

"Centuries most HYPED event"

How does all this make sense from the same article?

-- David Butts (dciinc@aol.com), June 29, 1999

Answers

It appears the decisions have been made at high levels that there is absolutely nothing to gain by pointing out how bad it could get. As there is realistically a wide range of potential problems and no one can say will surety how severe the problems will be, it makes sense for them to try and avert panic which will only make things worse.

I think they are trying to find some kind of middle ground so that there will be some preparations made on an individual level without causing what they perceive as extreme panic.

Like it or not, chaos would ensue if even half the people tried to buy even a months supply of goods and take out even a months worth of cash from the bank.

So the question really becomes: What do you think the newspapers should be telling people......would you feel better or worse if fear caused a run on the banks??

-- Craig (craig@ccinet.ab.ca), June 29, 1999.


David

You will have to come to grips with the fact that these folks operate under an entirely different set of standards and goals than you or I do. The intention of articles such as this is to paralyze people with inconclusion.

Why would they want to do that?

First, to avoid being blamed. They can always point out the warnings in articles if things go badly. "Oh, but we told you there might be problems." and if things go OK they can say "Oh, we told you everything would be OK.". CYA in media and all 'authoritative sources'.

Second, they know that the vast majority of people these days are totally reactive (vs proactive) and brain dead. They know that a mixed message will paralyze people in thier tracks. They won't move because there is ambiguity and uncertainty in the information stream they hear. And THAT is just what is wanted .. inaction, complacency, confidence in others (them).

Since the bad days of the sixties and seventies people have wanted to BELIEVE that everything would be alright, that America is OK and by extention that they will be able to find thier part of the America dream. We are living in a culture which has perfected the art of self deception for the past 18 years since Ronald Reagan brought the promise of 'peace' to this troubled nation.

We are no less troubled today. But we are peacefully asleep to it. Pray to God to save yourself and your family. You will need to disconnect from the main stream of this nation's 'consciousness' in order to achieve a real perspective and have a chance to find a way to the higher, drier land of reality. A first step would be to look at such articles as the trash that they are without doubting your own assessment of it, even if it means that you are alone in your opinions amongst those who form your social context.

You can do it.

-- -.. (dit@dot.dash), June 29, 1999.


"The intention of articles such as this is to paralyze people with inconclusion." Thanks, Dit. That nugget is going on my wall! It also applies to the polly trolls who immediately attack anyone's attempts to assume individual responsibility and prepare for hardtimes.

-- Brooks (brooksbie@hotmail.com), June 29, 1999.

(1) As you indicate, it is probable (like 99.999%) that the Y2K problem cannot be remediated in DC. Brooks Law points this out.

(2) The political and journalism disconnect is probably due to the fact that they don't want to be the ones to cause panic.

(3) The only thing that makes sense is contingency planning. A nice vacation cabin at least 2 tanks of gas from DC seems like a good start. Properly stocked, of course.

-- Mad Monk (madmonk@hawaiian.net), June 30, 1999.


Brooks It occures to me that this paralysis by inconclusion has alot to do with the past thirty years of TV culture we have been immersed in. TV programing ALWAYS brings things to a conclusion in 30 second or 30 minute intervals. The medium of TV itself induces a 'passive receptive' state in the brain waves of viewers. So people wait for the conclusion. Without a conclusion they wait passively.

Do you ever notice that no one says much during a TV show but only talks after the show is over? This is an intensely conditioning medium. The entire populous has been conditions to this medium and its structure for thirty years now and behaves very differently than a culture which does not have TV as its primary time allocation. Other than working or sleeping people spend their time in front of the tube.

I have a feeling that this is completely understood in the halls of power and used to whatever end they wish. In this case it is to immobilize people from action of any kind. When they wish people to act they will begin to 'spin' a story and we will see the 'conclusion' of the story coming from a mile away. Right now they have a few story lines they have been warming up. One of them will be the one they pick. I believe it will be the 'terrorist' story because as a nation we are very afraid of people coming to our homeland to hurt us. We have been 'scot free' from war impact on our soil since the uncivil war over 135 years ago. We are terrified of ever seeing war on our own soil. To my thinking that fear has the characteristic of people wanting to beleive the government will be their only hope and so leads to self submission of people to centralized authority. This plays into their hands perfectly.

-- .-. (dit@dot.dash), June 30, 1999.



Moderation questions? read the FAQ