One of the most pervasive facets of Y2k is its ability to completely polarize any issue it touches. There is very little middle ground between "doomers" and "pollies." There is no such thing as being "partly remediated" anymore than one can be "partly pregnant."

Either a system is free of Y2k glitches or it is not.

We talk about a middle-of-the-road scenario here but there is simply nothing middle-of-the-road about Y2k. I have heard nonsense about "localized" rather than "widespread" failures. There is nothing middle-of-the-road about that statement. Either you are in a very bad place or you are in a very good place.

This is a binary problem and is creating ripples of extreme polarization in everything it touches. Either you understand the fragility of our already overloaded infrastructure or you don't. Either you understand the perils of JIT business protocol or you don't. Either you grasp the global interdependency of power/oil production or you don't.

The most phenomenol (sp?) result of Y2k so far has been the massive polarization and division between CIA/IEEE/GAO stats and PR spin. There is no middle-of-the-road compromise between the statements "No oil imports" and "3 days worth of food and water." If there is no more imported oil for an indefinite amount of time then you are going to need more than 3 days worth of food. Duh.

Their ain't no middle ground here yet and I don't believe that some mythical state of middle ground will result as the effects of Y2k become more extreme.

-- R (riversoma@aol.com), August 28, 1999

Answers

No middle ground in Middle Earth. To quote from csy2k:

Y2K For Tolkien Fans

With strong apologies to J.R.R. Tolkien....

LORD OF THE YEARS

Three programs for the Elven-Users of E-mail,
Seven for the Dwarf-users in their valley of silicon,
Nine for Mortal Programmers doomed to flail,
One for the Dark Year on its dark throne
In the land of Y2K where the programs fail.

One Bug to rule them all, One Bug to find them,
One Bug to crash them all and in hysteria bind them
In the land of Y2K where the programs fail.

Gilbert Healton
http://www.exit109.com/~ghealton/y2k/humor/years.html
---------------------------------------------------------------

-- Ashton & Leska in Cascadia (allaha@earthlink.net), August 28, 1999.

R,

There *IS* a middle gound with Y2K. A system can be compliant enough to avoid serious disruption. It's not a question of everything everything or nothing working. I'm a longtime programmer and I can tell you that with all the money being spent on Y2K repairs that real and substantial progress is being made. That in and of itself means at least SOME systems will work. And SOME systems didn't have Y2K problems to begin with.

That said, I don't think ENOUGH systems will be sufficently remediated to avoid at least SOME serious disruptions. I'm currently (and have been for a while) at a 4-6 scenario. A few months of really, really hairy times, some food shotages, big-time oil shortages, and yes, quite a few long (3+ weeks) blackouts. But I don't think it's going to be the end of the world, and we WILL get back on track eventually. Humans are pretty smart. I like to think of us as "infinitly mallable creatures with a real knack for problem solving" (quoting myself). Personally I've stocked up on 3 months worth of food with a little extra for family and friends who are not preparing. 90 days should be enough time to either fix broken systems *OR* figure out work-arounds to get the goods (food, etc) to their intended destinations.

-TECH32-

-- TECH32 (TECH32@NOMAIL.COM), August 28, 1999.

From the thread archives: http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=000cvv [snip]

Y2K And The Erosion Of The Middle Ground

Somewhere between "a bump in the road" and "the end of the world as we know it" lies the Middle Ground. It is a place where bad things can and do happen but where people with courage, skills and determination work together to overcome difficulties. They don't always succeed -- for The Middle Ground is not a fairy tale universe where everyone lives happily ever after. Sometimes success is only partial and is often bittersweet.

The Middle Ground not a pretty facade, a bedtime story or a marketing campaign. It is not a place where denying reality helps you to see the next sunrise.

It is a place where risk must be accessed and fears faced. It is a place of suprises, not all of which are pleasant. It is a place where luck can be just as important as prudent preparation.

The Middle Ground is where Captain Alfred Haynes and the crew of United Flight 232 landed their DC-10 aircraft that July afternoon 10 years ago.

At 3:16pm on July 19th, 1989, United Flight 232, suffered a catastrophic engine failure while cruising at 37,000 feet. The fan rotor of the aircraft's number two engine disintegrated, causing the loss of all three of the aircraft's redundant hydraulic flight control systems. This made the aircraft nearly impossible to control.

"Everyone was confident that the complete loss of all flight controls was impossible."

But everyone was wrong.

The companies responsible for the aircraft were so confident, in fact, that pilots were not even trained for such an "impossible" scenario. The designers were very proud of their design and their attention to detail, safety and redundancy. When first reports of the loss of control systems were broadcast, company PR reps rushed to say how "impossible" this was. It had to be something else. The odds were said to be "one chance in a billion". But the odds were not flying the aircraft that day, Captain Haynes was.

The crew soon knew that the aircraft was in very serious trouble. The crew of United 232 did not deny that the problem was real nor did they waste time "thinking positive thoughts" or telling passengers and air traffic controllers "everything will be OK". Neither did they give up and let the plane fall from the sky. They walked the Middle Ground. It can be a very narrow place to find your footing sometimes. But through a combination of luck, skill and preparation of the flight crew, the air traffic controllers and the emergency response personnel, the aircraft and its passenger took the only path that remained for them that day. Without the prudent preparations of all these people, the Middle Ground would have vanished.

There were 285 people on board United 232. For 111 of them, it was indeed the end of the world. For many who lost loved ones, it was also the end of the world as they knew it. But had the crew not stood on the Middle Ground, somewhere between denial and despair, 174 more people would have perished that day.

As a professional software developer, I know that the Y2K problem is real. I also know that the potential for disruptions of our infrastruce is also real. What I cannot tell you is precisely what will happen and how bad it will be. They are just too many variables. But I am convinced that serious preparation by all people is a prudent and wise thing to do. It adds a resilience that allows us to collectively withstand moderate disruptions without panicking. I am also convinced that we will face nothing so horrible in Y2K that it cannot be overcome by prudent preparations. But lacking those preparations, we needlessly erode the Middle Ground. Could Y2K be a 'bump in the road'? I suppose it could, but I am becoming increasingly pessimistic. I think somewhere in the middle is much more likely.

But as I have watched Y2K unfold over the last several months, it is the continuing erosion of the Middle Ground that concerns me the most. Companies and goverments have rushed to deny that such a ridiculous possibility exists. They worry only about their own corner of the universe and seek to protect it at all costs. Perceptions become more important than realities and the danger signs are ignored wherever they occur. Missed deadlines seem to mean nothing. They have collectively brought their public relations guns to bear in a war to convince everyone that significant infrastructure disruptions are absolutely impossible. They point to the extreme in a short-sighted attempt to discredit the middle. They collectively discourage significant preparations by the masses. In doing so, they dangerously erode the Middle Ground.

For if it turns out that such disruptions are anything more than a "bump in the road", they will surely regret their folly. So will we all.

-- Arnie Rimmer (Arnie_Rimmer@usa.net), March 19, 1999

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

-- Linkmeister (link@librarian.edu), August 28, 1999.

The ground has become polarized with good reason. The iron triangle, large enterprise systems, medium and small enterprise systems, all are interconnected. None can stand alone. Either it's all fixed and ready on 1/1/00 or none of it will work.

Interconnectedness is a double edged sword. When it works, it sings; but when it goes down, it all goes down. (Sigh) I hope to God it's the system still singing in Jan and not the Fat Lady.

-- Sandmann (Sandmann@alasbab.com), August 28, 1999.

Here's a counterpoint to consider: Let's say that one of the power companies' generators trips off line due to a Y2K bug that is missed. The grid, which is not overloaded in January picks up the slack. The errent power company's customers lose power for 4 hours while the situation is handled. A plausible scenario, and one that's middle of the road.

I would agree that the longer power is interrupted, the more severe the consequences. Up to 4 hours is probably not a severe consequence but after that the consequences escalate even faster relative to the duration of the outage.

But if rolling blackouts occur, then power should be on long enough to at least muddle by for awhile -- such as pumping water critical to sanitation. If it continues too long (more than several days), then there's an economic impact as it's hard to make up with overtime if too much production time is lost.

So yes, I still feel there's a middle ground between BITR and TEOTWAWKI. Even the gasp-dare-I-say-it three day storm.

-- Mikey2k (mikey2k@he.wont.eat.it), August 28, 1999.

R.

For me, middle ground is not a mythical state nor is it pre destiny. It's a more local and personal thing. A goal to be reached or a path I choose to walk.

All computers are not equal and some computers are much more important than other computers.

There are some that control the water that flows to your home. Others control the large programmable marquee on the civic center. If the marquee fails, I can live with that. On the other hand, if my water stops flowing, well, that's a bit more of a concern.

Likewise, Y2K bugs come in an extremely diverse assortment of shapes, sizes and effects. For example, if the date function on my VCR fails, I couldn't care less. If a date on a report is wrong, my boss can decide how serious a problem that is.

On the other hand, if the software that issues my paycheck stops functioning, I'm not going to panic but it is a real concern that needs to be addressed. If my company is making alternate arrangements and I believe I'll soon have my check, it makes good sense to cooperate in order to ensure both the continuity of my company and of my job.

Should my electricity fail for anything more than just a couple of hours in the middle of winter in Iowa, I have an immediate problem.

I believe the majority of Y2K-related problems will be highly insignificant. A somewhat lesser number will be more serious, fewer still will be real show stoppers, and a relatively tiny portion of all Y2K-related incidents will have the potential to kill large numbers of people.

Serious man-made disasters can begin with small, unintentional, and insignificant errors that tend not to get noticed right away. Those errors interact with other external events, some random and others not. The consequences can be dramatic.

All Y2K problems, regarldess of their size or scope, will be somebody's problem. You know that someone will eventually be tasked with either fixing, replacing, or removing that marquee on the civic center. That's not likely to ever become my problem so I can safely ignore it.

So the real questions, the ones I'd like answered because it tells me what I need to do are these: What is this subset of Y2K problems that could directly impact my immediate world? How many of those would be real problems? Most importantly, what reasonable steps can I personally pursue in order to take responsibility for and mitigate the risk?

Middle ground is about making personal choices that take partial or complete ownership of potential risk.

Will my water keep flowing? I think so but I've not been able to reach a definitive conclusion.

So I've decided to store some water. If there is a problem, I'll be very glad I stored it and if there's no problem, then I guess ...um, ... I'll have some stored water. The negative consequences of having stored water are insignificant.

Middle ground is also about measured response. If I knew as absolute fact that a huge asteroid was going to destroy the Earth tomorrow morning, I'd take all my money out of the bank today and have one heck of a going-away party tonight. While I acknowledge such an large asteroid strike is a high risk at some point over the next few million years, I suspect that the chances are quite tiny for tomorrow morning. But the negative consequences of my fabulous going-away party, should I be wrong about that asteroid tomorrow, would be swift, severe and certain.

Middle ground does not guarantee success but it is a far better option than assuming you have no control over the events in your life. I have no control over whether the systems that provide water to my home will fail or not. Hopefully they will not But what I do control is whether I and my family will have water. And I'm pretty sure we will.

-- Arnie Rimmer (Arnie_Rimmer@usa.net), August 28, 1999.

"Either it's all fixed and ready on 1/1/00 or none of it will work."

Ah, yes. This is one of the more enlightening threads I've seen here in a while. The major y2k fallacy is stated baldly and unequivocably -- either the rainbow is black, or it is white. So there! It cannot be anything else! Either you are rich as Bill Gates, or you are destitute. Either you are ecstatic or you are suicidal. There IS no middle ground! And since we obviously won't be able to fix and exhaustively test every last y2k bug, collapse is the ONLY alternative.

But how does this self-evident lunacy arise, anyway? It flies in the face of everyone's experience with everything in life. Our very language is built to know better -- we have words like sufficient, and adequate, and good, better, and best, and nearly and almost. We have concepts like close, and alternative, and temporary. And yet a certain class of doomie (like riversoma) chooses to ignore every bit of this in order to impose binary thinking onto a multidimensional spectrum.

And this isn't an accidental blunder either. Riversoma says "this is a binary problem" in so many words! After all these threads, all this time, all these reports and surveys and testimonies and details and scenarios and test results ad nauseum saying just the opposite! The difficulty of predicting what y2k will bring has been accurately termed a "trillion-variable problem." And every one of those trillion variables can take on a near-infinity of values. Yet riversoma chooses to ignore this and FORCE binary thinking onto reality.

If supporting doomism requires such bottomless stupidity, do we really need to worry?

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), August 28, 1999.

I heard one analysis on Y2K News Radio that suggested that for large cities there was no middle ground. Thus it would be either a 1-2 or it would go 10. People will riot when they WIN a ball game. They rioted over Rodney King. It won't take a very big BITR to set them off... Castle, Checkmate, End of Game.

You've seen the Navy analysis (June version).

What does even a small BITR.. which might lead to a rather large social upheaval do to business as usual? What if its not a localized power or water outage at a small to mediumsized city, but something that affects medicare or SS or disability payments or food stamps over a state or region?

If the bumps in the road are few, and they only happen in small localized places (and in small unimportant countries), then I think we can bumble our way to middle-ground.

We got an awful lot riding on an awful lot of "ifs".

Hey! Is Vegas booking Y2K? What're the odds?

-- Linda (lwmb@psln.com), August 28, 1999.

zzzzz,

In Flint's rush to discredit my view he has demonstrated my point with admirable accuracy. According to him I am wrong. According to him he is right. This is (to the best of my knowledge) always the nature of his posts. He is right and someone else is wrong. No middle ground for ole Flint. Simple and polarized in the extreme.

I am making a point about the very polarizing nature of the Y2k experience. About how it puts people at odds and how I don't see any reason for the actual experience of Y2k to be any different. All he has done is to demonstrate for me how polarized we as a culture are over this issue. Way to go Flint.

BTW - I'm proud to say I'm not a geek.

-- R (riversoma@aol.com), August 28, 1999.

z:

You don't need to be a system remediator of some stature to understand that reality isn't binary. You only need the common sense drilled into you by even a short lifetime of daily experience.

Now, I will grant you that if any spectrum can be *usefully* reduced to a yes/no switch, it certainly simplifies analysis. As Einstein said, everything should be made as simple as possible, *but no simpler*. Riversoma (and many other doomies) have for some time now been sweating and heaving to force one of the more complex issues to face us in some time, into a binary issue. I'll be generous and assume that this is being done to simplify the analysis, rather than out of sheer blind stupidity (I was hasty there, I admit).

The problem is, this makes y2k *way* too simple, to the point where analysis (such as it is) is being done essentially in a vacuum. The real world simply doesn't present all-or-nothing solutions to complex problems. It will be all shades of all colors everywhere, and changing constantly. I really do expect that those who suffer minor inconveniences will come away with the worst memories, while those hit hardest will come out of it grateful to be alive and happier people as a result. Perspective is tricky like that.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), August 28, 1999.

Holy cow, my statement must have been right on the money, since it's drawn the attention of the hair-splitting, moustache twirling enemy of everyone who advocates preparing for Y2k, the one, the only.. FLINT.

You are a piece of gear, Flint... the are teeth broken and don't mesh with reality anymore, but you are a piece of gear.

I said: "Either it's all fixed and ready on 1/1/00 or none of it will work."

Naturally, you chose to take that sentence, out of context, and then compare it to totally illogical statements of your own manufacture: "The major y2k fallacy is stated baldly and unequivocably -- either the rainbow is black, or it is white." Uhh, yo Flint, rainbows are neither, but formed into a spectrum of colors from white light.

Next, you said: "Either you are rich as Bill Gates, or you are destitute." This is FUNNY. Illogical, but funny. How many people are interconnected to Bill Gates the way every aspect of our technological, JIT society is interconnected by computers?

And finally, you said, "And since we obviously won't be able to fix and exhaustively test every last y2k bug, collapse is the ONLY alternative." Damn, you are dense, Flint. We are talking systems here, Flint, SYSTEMS. If the grid goes down, the phones don't work, if the phones go down... Surely, I don't have to draw you a picture, do I?

In attempting to support your ever-crumbling, precipitous pollyanna position, you have abandoned both internal and external logic, Flint, and your posiiton is made untenable.

But I wish you no harm, Flint. I hope you see the error of your ways in time to prepare, especially if you have a family.

Remember, people, hope for the best and prepare for the rest. And don't be dissuaded from your preps by the likes of Flint; he's just reading from the latest White House press release.

-- Sandmann (Sandmann@alasbab.com), August 28, 1999.

River mentioned

"The most phenomenol (sp?) result of Y2k so far has been the massive polarization and division between CIA/IEEE/GAO stats and PR spin."

Then Flint mentions

"Yet riversoma chooses to ignore this and FORCE binary thinking onto reality.

If supporting doomism requires such bottomless stupidity, do we really need to worry?

River

I understand your statement above and agree. A mass disconnection.

Flint

What the hell are you ranting about??? I could go throught the GAO stuff and the Testimony and find serious issues that John Koskinen seems to ignore. Yet you don't see this???

I hope you apologize for that lunatic statement you posted, or you are just as bad as certian doomers that attack and then think. Unless you would like me to compare GAO stats. and John Koshinen's happy face material.

This blows me away that the GAO reports to the congress and congress represents the US people. John K is not a political rep. He is a crisis manager.

-- Brian (imager@home.com), August 28, 1999.

Hey, riversoma...

I didn't realize that you said exactly the same thing in your original post. Great minds think alike, I guess.

-- Sandmann (Sandmann@alasbab.com), August 28, 1999.

"And this isn't an accidental blunder either. Riversoma says "this is a binary problem" in so many words! After all these threads, all this time, all these reports and surveys and testimonies and details and scenarios and test results ad nauseum saying just the opposite! The difficulty of predicting what y2k will bring has been accurately termed a "trillion-variable problem." And every one of those trillion variables can take on a near-infinity of values. Yet riversoma chooses to ignore this and FORCE binary thinking onto reality."

Flint, I understood Riversoma's analogy the first time and he made it very clear:

"This is a binary problem and is creating ripples of extreme polarization in everything it touches. Either you understand the fragility of our already overloaded infrastructure or you don't. Either you understand the perils of JIT business protocol or you don't. Either you grasp the global interdependency of power/oil production or you don't."

By binary he means it's either or; Either we understand or we don't. I didn't interpret that statement as meaning the y2k problem was a simple binary problem. You latched on the techy term and mislead yourself.

I think you would have understood right away what he meant if he said "It's an either/or problem that is creating ripples of extreme polarization in everything it touches."

-- Chris (%$^&^@pond.com), August 28, 1999.

I don't see what you people are howling about, I sincerely don't. I quote exactly, and it's out of context? This entire thread is about whether a middle position can exist, and pre-answered that it cannot. That IS the context, folks.

riversoma says "there is no such thing as 'partly remediated'". This is simply ludicrous, I'm sorry. Everyone will be partly remediated. It's not anything like being 'partly pregnant'. But it is a lot like almost any task we do -- we start, we spend our time in a state of being partly finished, until we finish. The extent to which we approached the finished state is called progress. It can be measured. We are making progress. Without question there is substantial disagreement as to both the size of the task, and the amount of progress that has been (or will be) made. But this disagreement ought not blind us to the fact that millions of geeks are out there fixing millions of bugs. And every single bug fixed is a step in the right direction. 'Not finished' is NOT the same thing as 'Not started'.

I can only try to demonstrate by analogy, much as analogies are derided by those who make the original mistake. But say you set out to walk to a place a mile away from your starting point. Yes, it's absolutely true that you are either there, or you are not. It's also useless to cast things that way. If you have taken only three steps, you are 'not there yet'. If you have only three steps remaining, you are 'not there yet'.

What riversoma (and many others here, and most especially Gary North) do at this point is equate the first 'not there yet' with the second, concluding that they are the SAME! After all, not there is not there, right? It's all-or-nothing thinking.

But there is a middle ground, I believe. We can indeed come 'close enough' in the opinion of the majority. And that might be one hell of a long way from 'free of y2k glitches'. It's somewhere in the middle. It's what I expect. Even the most pessimistic fanatics here don't paint the same picture of calamity, some going much further than others, as per the survey 'a' conducted here. Jeez, we have a 1-10 SCALE, not an on/off switch. Why bother with 1-10 if the only possible answers are 1 and 10?

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), August 28, 1999.

BTW, just an observation I have about this forum and how we debate. This thread and another one where I've been trying to debate on an OT subject drives home the notion that people either can grasp concepts in a bird's eye view or they can't. Those who can tend to make generalizations and skim on details that to them seem uninportant to the point they're trying to make, and those who can't tend to get stuck on one perticular sub-point and deviate from the original point. They also tend to be very detail oriented.

Both these personalities (or mental abilities should I say) are very important in solving a problem. Therefore, it is crutial that we all make a concious effort to be aware of this when we debate, to reach...yes you guessed it, a middle ground.

-- Chris (%$^&^@pond.com), August 28, 1999.

You MAY be called to stay in a city or suburb. However, VERY few Have to stay there, UNLESS they are called (there are many good reasons to stay, but if it becomes bad, you will probally die.) There is no middle ground!

"How long will you falter between two opinions"?

Staying in Dee Cee or lovely Fairfax County is not a good choice, if it is bad (or any other major city or suburb). If it is bad, Gary North and Cory are right! "Get out of the city, etc"!

Make your decision. Too many people on this list server are caught between the two decisons IMHO. There is a time to flee to Youreatin(sp)!(Dr Zhivago). However, you've got to have a Youreatin BEFORE you flee. And as an admitted Agarian, I would much rather live there than lovely Fairfax etc. Easy choice :~)

Deo Vindicie!,

BR

Deo Vo

-- brother rat (rldabney@usa.net), August 28, 1999.

Chris:

Maybe you're being too subtle for me. You write:

"Either you understand the fragility of our already overloaded infrastructure or you don't."

Well, I think you can make by far the stronger case that our infrastructure is neither overloaded nor is it fragile. Indeed, it's overbuilt in many ways, redundant in many ways, and demonstrably robust, showing extremely few failures despite incredible stresses (hurricanes, earthquates, floods, ice storms, you name it). So your statement is a lot like "Either you understand why 2+2=17, or you don't". But your premise is false.

"Either you understand the perils of JIT business protocol or you don't. "

This is exactly the same thing. I understand JIT in detail. I've written long, detailed posts about it. I've explained how it can work as much to our advantage as otherwise, in detail. I've explained that that it is NOT necessarily perilous. If you really believe JIT is perilous, send me a private email and we can discuss it. But I believe you haven't studied it in detail, you've simply got a hazy overview somewhere and parroted those who know less but fear more.

Anyway, I'll certainly agree that this forum has polarized people, but from my viewpoint, the polarization is between those who study to understand, and those who bully to pump their egos. And when a real effort to understand and explain is met with nothing but childish personal attacks, what are you supposed to do? When nobody is left but the attackers, you get polarization. The drooling loonies here have driven the middle-grounders away, leaving nothing but grenade- lobbing between gangs of the maladjusted. In that respect, riversoma is correct (and I can't believe riversoma is male. Her though processes are very feminine).

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), August 28, 1999.

"Well, I think you can make by far the stronger case that our infrastructure is neither overloaded nor is it fragile. Indeed, it's overbuilt in many ways, redundant in many ways, and demonstrably robust, showing extremely few failures despite incredible stresses (hurricanes, earthquates, floods, ice storms, you name it). So your statement is a lot like "Either you understand why 2+2=17, or you don't". But your premise is false."

My premise is not false if we both are looking at the same premise, i.e., understand the same thing.

For example, I agree that the infrastructure as it's been working so far has worked robustly, showing relatively few failures despite extreme stresses. That is because it has been dependent on a well organized and trained work force, and on a y2Kbug-free computer systems up to now. Take away 25% of the work force and the same infrastructure cannot operate as as robustly as it is now. Add the same with the y2kbug, introduce 25% errors in infrastructure's computer systems in Dec. 31 and the infrastructure cannot operate as robustly as it does now. Repeat above for JIT.

So it is more like my premise is saying 2+2=4, and you say no you're wrong because 10+7=17.

"Anyway, I'll certainly agree that this forum has polarized people, but from my viewpoint, the polarization is between those who study to understand, and those who bully to pump their egos."

We're in complete agreement with this, the emotional abandon that has overtaken this forum makes it almost impossible to make any headway anymore.

" In that respect, riversoma is correct (and I can't believe riversoma is male. Her though processes are very feminine)."

I've read over Riversoma's post and couldn't find anything s/he said that would make his/her reasoning anymore feminine than masculin. I'm often mistaken for the masculin myself. Unless you can explain your reasoning on this, I'll assume you've been guilty of assuming because of your bias.

-- Chris (%$^&^@pond.com), August 28, 1999.

Flint: There have been many times that I have agreed with some of the things you have posted. The same for Riversoma and all the others. I do not believe that you do yourself credit when you generalize that everyone reading these threads are in lock-step with the ones you disagree with. Perhaps the problem is one of a lack of appreciation of the total number of readers on the site. I am not a "geek" but I understand the concepts all of you are using. It doesn't take a rocket scientist. Both sides need to understand that flaming each other is to the detriment of the site and info sharing. Besides, this unlike you and the others to flame away on a subject that is obviously open to anyone's interpretation.

-- Neil G.Lewis (pnglewis1@yahoo.com), August 28, 1999.

It's been a long day, and an even longer week. I've been in Pittsburgh for the past few days, and can't wait to find my friendly bed.

There is no way that Y2K is going to be a 10. Too much money has been spent. And thanks to people like Mr. Yourdon, and Mr. North, and yes, Mr. Cringley years ago, awareness has spread big-time.

But, there is no way that Y2K is going to be a 1. It's just too big, too complicated, too FUBAR.

Sysman, still a 6.5, even after spending almost 7 months here, and I don't know how many other Y2K sites over the past year + ...

Tick... Tock... <:00=

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), August 28, 1999.

Neil:

You may be right about those who read these posts, but I can't disagree with what isn't written, only with what gets posted. And the post that kicked off this thread made an argument I must consider utterly unsupportable in any way. Quite conversely, it's the extremes that are mythical. The middle, *somewhere* in the middle (a huge territory) is where things almost always end up. Yes, you can find cases in history where this wasn't true, if you search hard enough and interpret literally enough according to principles you define suitably enough. But if you bet on a middle ground, you'll come out way ahead.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), August 28, 1999.

Okay

Lets try something

Indications of possible major problems that will effect people

 GAO Report Important Progress Made, Yet Much Work Remains to Avoid Disruption of Critical

 (PART Two) GAO Report Important Progress Made, Yet Much Work Remains to Avoid Disruption of
 
 (Part Three) GAO Report Important Progress Made, Yet Much Work Remains to Avoid Disruption of
 

Middle Ground (we are fixing, yet preparing)

See Year 2000 disclosure in filing

 MOTOROLA INC - Quarterly Report (SEC form 10-Q)
 

And useless polly drivel from ZD Net

  Y-Life: Will The Y2K Sky Really Fall?
 

While this is a rough draft I am sure that folks will be able to get the point.

The GAO report paints some bad senerios if things continue as they seem to be.

As far as I am consern a middle ground would be like Motorola, aware of serious issues, working to fix them, preparing for possible failure.

ZD net is the polly mindless drivel, much like the US Government line.

Motorola has the best disclosure I have seen, great middle ground and it should be a model of how information on Y2K could be presented. Unfortunately this is not the case. Because of this we look at the GAO report and go "holy sh*t" and then people read crap from a "respected news source" and go "well there is no problem" and folks do nothing to prepare and book the flight overseas to bring in the New Year across the date line :o) Of course John K. and Peter D will be flying on midnight during the rollover. But not to Veitnam.

Does this help?? Lets figure out the middle ground first eh?

-- Brian (imager@home.com), August 28, 1999.

Brian:

Excellent idea. We need to know what we're discussing and disagreeing about, it makes things more interesting.

It seems to me that if the worst of what the GAO warns about comes to pass, that's *still* a middle ground compared with the requirement for physical gold, non-hybrid seeds, rural armed enclaves, and suitable arsenals. Preparations of this kind presume the collapse of banking, business, government, commerce, infrastructure, you name it. And in that context, GAO is mildly pessimistic, but not bad.

Sure, I see widespread problems, and very small but very annoying domino chains. But nothing we can't live through easily, and nowhere near the collapse of civilization out of whose ashes North's remnant can rise with his theocracy. I don't expect mortality rates to be above normal even within ONE mile of the nearest 7-11.

So what's a middle ground anyway?

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), August 29, 1999.

As I write this, I am aware that I could be way over-extrapolating. I have no experience with mainframes, only with four PC's of my own, and some PC's that belong to other family members.

I have never gotten the configuration thing down pat, but I'm the closest thing to a computer geek in the family, so I get the thankless job of not onlyconfiguration, but of any remediation, as well. The computers that I work on, never perform flawlessly. There's always glitches and hang ups fatal exceptions, illegal operations, etc, etc. But they all sorta work. Well enough to get the job done, anyway. I do desk top publishing, music composition, and basic word processing on mine. As I said, I may be over-extrapolating, but it's not hard for me to imagine mainframes that sorta work, as well.

Preparing for a 10, but hoping for a 5 or less, and don't regard the hope as pie-in-the-sky, but agree with Sysman that expecting a 1 is.

-- Bokonon (bon0non@my-Deja.com), August 29, 1999.

Flint (and others)

You may be right that the GAO report doesn't indicate a worst case senerio. But of course you know I can do better than that. If you "add" up the information below and speculate that the worst fears are confirmed then a worst case senerio could be developed.

Remember I said SPECULATE

All of these sites are reliable and legit. Oh and with a bit more research I could get even more scary. But I shy away from doomer stuff as a rule.

Maybe one could use the GAO report above as a middle ground. Of special note is the Frontline site  "THE CRASH" not one word about Y2K yet doom and gloom from financial leaders.

 (HTML) Report to the Senate Special Committee on the Year 2000 Technology Problem

  Senators Call for Chemical Industry Y2KReadiness Summit

 CNA Analysis, cont.

 CNA Analysis, cont.

 ****frontline: the crash: will it happen again?

 California State Water Resources Control Board,

 FEMA: Contingency and Consequence Management Planning for Year 2000 Conversion

 Y2K Preparedness of the United Nations

  The International Energy Agency
Examples of Y2K Problems
 

 GAO United States General Accounting Office OIL and GAS  My site

 Food, Agriculture and the Millennium Bug
 

  TRANSCRIPT: KOSKINEN REMARKS TO APEC Y2K

Bridgers Testimony: Hearing of Special Committee on Year 2000 Technology Problem

-- Brian (imager@home.com), August 29, 1999.

Just thought I would post this from the links above. CNA is some kind of US military think tank. This is a report on the electrical supply. Of course this is more "speculation" but is there anything else till the rollover??

What I find odd is this is about a year after Rick Cowles was constantly posting "doomer" articles and the Quebec Ice storm.  My main inspiration for building the Prep Archives. The Quebec Ice storm showed that shit can happen at anytime anywhere, peoples opinions mean NADA.

Y2K Analyses for Complex Systems of Systems:
Electric Power Systems in North America February, 1999

Snip

CNA Analysis, cont.

       The industry systems for modeling and
       analyzing contingencies emphasize
       continued operation in spite of the
       most severe single contingency,

           & nbsp;  In July 1996 the Western Interconnection grid crashed with 2
           & nbsp;  small contingencies.

       These systems are far less capable of
       dealing with multiple and dispersed
       contingencies.

       But Y2K failures are almost surely
       going to be multiple and geographically
       dispersed - even if not catastrophic
       individually.

CNA Analysis, cont.

       The industry strategy of isolating
       failures may fail because few
       participants may be healthy enough
       (Y2K compliant in every important
       respect) to execute it.

       Moreover, the strategy assumes that all
       required fixes or workarounds to the
       initial failure - e.g. an offending tree or
       relay - can be made quickly, thus
       allowing the system to reconstitute
       itself in hours or days.

       What if the Y2K fixes take weeks?

-- Brian (imager@home.com), August 29, 1999.

This could be, well, tough.

An effort to "convert" Flint?!?!

Oh well, I guess I'm in. I always liked Flint, even if he is the polly's polly (grin Flint).

I'll check back later, I gotta crash for now. 3:00 AM here in NJ, and I ain't havin fun yet!!! ... Hummm...

Tick... Tock... <:00=

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), August 29, 1999.

Flint,

I am having so much fun watching you mangle and twist my original post that I am almost tempted to give you more rope to hang yourself with. However, since you seem to be having serious trouble grasping the point of the whole thread I will make it very very simple.

1. Y2k is going to happen to some degree.

2. We are experience some of the socio/psycholgical effects of Y2k now.

3. Those effects tend do be polarizing.

4. The polarizaton has extended to the widening gulf between the findings of the IEEE, The CIA and the Navy vs. the PR reports put out by most govt. agencies and large businesses.

5. Most media portrayal of people who prepare for more than 3 days depicts us (you and me Flint) as harmless kooks at best and deranged survivalists at worst. This has an extremely polarizing effect at the personal and public level.

Y2k is dividing the world into binary realities - memes if you will. Generally polarizaton increases unless some unifying factor (a war for example) pulls the diverse polarities together. Maybe something like that will happen. Matbe the simple shock of Y2k will bring us all together. I hope so. It is what I pray for. However if this board and (heaven forfend) csy2k are any indication of how people react to Y2k then we are in for some contentious times.

-- R (riversoma@aol.com), August 29, 1999.

River

IMHO the middle ground is actually nature and the natural order. Deal with that and Y2K is irrelevent. The loss of social structure brings us back to our humble origins.

Folks have lost the root. Priorities have shifted and reality has taken a back seat.

Another angle.

-- Brian (imager@home.com), August 29, 1999.

A 3 week power outage is not minimal, and it is not even middle ground. It is extreme. Or at least will lead to the extreme, which has much the same effect.

During that 3 week outage, in dead of winter, pipes will freeze, businesses will close. Computers and software cannot be fixed unless you have power to turn them on, and heat and light to work on them. But people cannot come to work because gasoline can't be pumped to fill the trucks to plow the roads so that people can come to work to fix the problem. Of course, some people won't go to work because their employer is a minor concern to them at this point, and besides, no one else is going to work.

Meantime, pipes freeze in businesses, windows break, things freeze, computer rooms are in sad shape.

So during the three week power outage, the software doesn't get fixed. So there is no good way to prime the power generation capability, or to address supply chain breakdowns. So the outages and supply chain leagages continue.

There is a snowball here. No power, no goods, no fix. No fix, no power, no goods. No power and goods, no fix.

The longer it has stayed broke, the longer it will continue to stay broke. The brokeness will accelerate.

-- Spanky (nospam@spamfree.net), August 29, 1999.

Good points, Spanky.

-- Ashton & Leska in Cascadia (allaha@earthlink.net), August 29, 1999.

R:

I'm trying to unmangle what you wrote. Problem is, you make so many unwarrented assumptions that once those assumptions are made explicit and addressed directly, almost nothing remains of your point. In other words, your entire point rests on taking the unlikely for granted. Bad juju. Anyway, let's do it once again, OK?

[1. Y2k is going to happen to some degree. ]

Oh yes, time marches on. We already have some date bugs, there will be more showing up. But "to some degree" means anywhere from hardly noticeable to very bad. It does NOT necessarily mean anywhere from very bad to much worse than very bad.

[2. We are experience some of the socio/psycholgical effects of Y2k now.]

Like what? You need a microscope to see these, and a liberal interpretation of what you're seeing. Yes, the media had some fun with the loonies in the boonies until the story got old and it turned out that nobody new was joining their ranks. Yes, there have been backorders of things like freeze-dried foods and generators, but you'll notice stocks of generators are now larger than ever. But I defy you to wander around in the real world for a week, never ONCE mentioning y2k to anyone or deliberately seeking out one of the few loonies, and seeing how often the subject arises. Like, not once. Yes, if challenged directly with surveys shoved in their faces, people will admit they might withdraw money or buy ahead on food and supplies. But once the survey is finished, it turns out that as usual, these same people do nothing out of the ordinary.

It is entirely possible that your perspective derives somewhat from your experience. If I hang out only with bridge players, I'll come away with the impression that bridge is taking over the world. y2k works the same way. You need to realize that the TB2000 forum padded cell has few inmates. You may choose to spend a lot of your time here, and your big picture may be WAY warped as a result, but in the real world NO, people in general are NOT experiencing any socio/psychological effects. It's no big deal.

[3. Those effects tend do be polarizing. ]

What effects? If you really are referring to the inmates of this forum, they have polarized themselves, by taking a position waaaay out on the lunatic fringe, and defending that position by (1) considering as 'real' only exaggerations of the few indications they can find; and (2) dismissing as 'spin', 'lies' or 'disinformation' the overwhelming body of evidence that y2k is just another problem to be handled as life goes on, much like a bear market or a flu epidemic.

When you take a silly position and defend it by squeezing your eyes shut, sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting, of course anyone trying to communicate with you will appear to be polarized. What the real world has done, essentially, is to encyst the loonies and dismiss them, recognize the real bugs and fix them as much as possible, make contingency plans for whatever they missed, and carry on. A reasonable response, not polarized at all.

[4. The polarizaton has extended to the widening gulf between the findings of the IEEE, The CIA and the Navy vs. the PR reports put out by most govt. agencies and large businesses. ]

This is really incorrect, and deserves volumes of discussion. A very, very interesting assertion, though. This gulf exists NOT between these various 'findings', but between the purpose and interpretation of these findings. And the interpretation is largely an invention of the far fringes, not a reflection of reality at all. Now I know if I stop there, I'll just get denial, so some further explanation is in order.

The IEEE, CIA and Navy, interpreted even worst case, are saying there are real problems out there. And there's no question about it, there really are big problems. They are saying not all the bugs will be or can be fixed or worked around. This is true. They are saying that come rollover, we'll be well short of totally ready for what's coming. I agree with that too. They're saying we'll have a lot of FOF, and by no means all of it will be of the 3-day variety. Yup, all true.

The so-called 'PR' reports are *integrations* of these data. In other words, what will these bugs MEAN? How will we all be affected in our daily lives? To what degree will macroeconomic processes be compromised, and how? It's one thing for your bank to occasionally experience a rash of errors (happens every major upgrade, you know). It's quite another thing for you the customer to even notice these errors ever happened (usually you don't). And still another thing for the bank itself to become nonviable (this has NEVER happened because of software problems that I know of). And even if your bank cannot function and cannot recover (as has happened, like the S&L problems), the most you as a customer notice is a different letterhead and sign out front of the bank. You still have the same account, and the same people in the same building are still serving you.

What I'm driving at is that in order for the expectations of the doomies to even *begin* to be noticed, y2k bugs must be AT LEAST as bad as the worst the IEEE, CIA and Navy can imagine, and they must STAY that bad for some period of time. Specifically, the Iron Triangle must be compromised. And to my knowledge, ALL the hard data we have indicates the Iron Triangle is safe. The direct testimony from the insiders indicates the same.

To try to sum up even this nutshell discussion, the IEEE etc. reports are saying that there sure are a hell of a lot of germs floating around in the air. The PR reports are saying yeah, but we aren't getting sick from them! Both are entirely correct, there is no polarization there unless you superimpose it where it doesn't exist.

[5. Most media portrayal of people who prepare for more than 3 days depicts us (you and me Flint) as harmless kooks at best and deranged survivalists at worst. This has an extremely polarizing effect at the personal and public level.]

I guess we must disagree here, at least in part. Yes, the media tend to depict my preparations as extreme. Hell, my friends and family depict my preparations the same way! And if nothing happens, they'll be all over me for panicking when the boogymen were imaginary. My insurance analogy doesn't affect them, because there are real statistics on fires, accidents, theft, etc. and none on y2k. And I won't mind a bit if they're right, and I'll eat my premiums!

But I don't think this has any polarizing effect at the public level. At that level, people do weird stuff all the time. Collectors collect everything. For every issue, there are committed groups in favor and against, however small these groups are. I suppose you could say that just in general, civilizations have always suffered polarization simply because people show such a wide range of variation.

At the personal level, this is up to how you choose to see things. I don't feel polarized because I prepare anymore than I feel polarized because I ride a Harley or collect baseball cards. If someone feels preparing is dumb, that's their privilege. I give them the information I read, and they make their own decision. If someone feels we're doomed, I try to create a context for what I consider appropriate perspective. So do you. But your context polarizes you, it's too inflexible and narrowly focused. This doesn't mean there isn't any rational middle ground. It only means you have carefully and deliberately walled yourself off from it.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), August 29, 1999.

Flint

Sometimes you remind me of a dog that won't give the stick back.

(thats a joke but it seems to fit :o)

-- Brian (imager@home.com), August 29, 1999.

Flint, Flint,

I tried to make the point so easy for you to grasp and yet somehow you still missed it. I will hold your hand now in the hopes that maybe this once your polarized brain will be able to make the logical leap from your assumption that everything I have said is wrong or irrelevent.

Hey thats cool. I was pretty deragatory myself in my last post. Nonetheless yours is as irrelevant as mine.

"[1. Y2k is going to happen to some degree. ]

Oh yes, time marches on. We already have some date bugs, there will be more showing up. But "to some degree" means anywhere from hardly noticeable to very bad. It does NOT necessarily mean anywhere from very bad to much worse than very bad."

VERY GOOD!!!! You are right!!! The term "some degree" is a scientific term and you have interpreted it accurately.

"[2. We are experience some of the socio/psycholgical effects of Y2k now.]

"Like what? You need a microscope to see these,"

I don't. But perhaps my eyes are better than yours.

"and a liberal interpretation of what you're seeing. Yes, the media had some fun with the loonies in the boonies until the story got old and it turned out that nobody new was joining their ranks. Yes, there have been backorders of things like freeze-dried foods and generators, but you'll notice stocks of generators are now larger than ever."

These are hardly noticable effects and NOT what I am referring to. If this is where you are looking for evidence of Y2k then I don't doubt that you would need a microscope to see them.

" But I defy you to wander around in the real world for a week, never ONCE mentioning y2k to anyone or deliberately seeking out one of the few loonies, and seeing how often the subject arises. Like, not once."

This is simply not true. The subject arises all the time up here behind the redwood curtain. I never bring it up myself. Folks up here are concerned. They want to belive it will all be ok (as do I) but they are not sure. Not sure at all, and they do want to talk about it. They bring it up in conversation with me often because they know I have the patience to read all those govt reports. They also have a great deal of respect for me as a business consultant and want to know how I think it could affect them economically. I tell them the same thing over and over. "Try to reduce your dependancy on imported goods." Simple conservative advice which goes well in a community that always prefers to buy locally produced goods.

"Yes, if challenged directly with surveys shoved in their faces, people will admit they might withdraw money or buy ahead on food and supplies. But once the survey is finished, it turns out that as usual, these same people do nothing out of the ordinary."

This is a classic example of the polarizing effect I am talking about. People saying one thing and doing another. It is this kind of thing which concerns me the most and only reinforces the idea that there is very little middle ground on this issue.

"It is entirely possible that your perspective derives somewhat from your experience. If I hang out only with bridge players, I'll come away with the impression that bridge is taking over the world. y2k works the same way. You need to realize that the TB2000 forum padded cell has few inmates. You may choose to spend a lot of your time here, and your big picture may be WAY warped as a result, but in the real world NO, people in general are NOT experiencing any socio/psychological effects. It's no big deal."

I understand why you think all I do with my life is hang out here but I can assure you that you are confused on this point. However, since this is the ONLY place you see my mind at work you have no other point of reference for me. I have a similar impression of you. That all you do is try to find ways to take clear points and confuse them until you reach some sort of obfuscation climax. Is it good for you Flint?

"[3. Those effects tend do be polarizing. ]

What effects? If you really are referring to the inmates of this forum, they have polarized themselves, by taking a position waaaay out on the lunatic fringe, and defending that position by (1) considering as 'real' only exaggerations of the few indications they can find; and (2) dismissing as 'spin', 'lies' or 'disinformation' the overwhelming body of evidence that y2k is just another problem to be handled as life goes on, much like a bear market or a flu epidemic."

This is so great because you are demonstrating so exactly what I mean by polarization. You are determined to polarize my view as "wrong" and yours as "right." This is because Y2k is polarizing. The same way most other controversial issues are (abortion for example). Yes we are on the fringe - or cutting edge of Y2k awareness. That includes you too. Y2k is so polarizing that most people have an opinion but are AFRAID to express it. They would love to take a middle ground but they can't find one to stand on.

"When you take a silly position and defend it by squeezing your eyes shut, sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting, of course anyone trying to communicate with you will appear to be polarized."

Really? That statement doesn't ring true with me. Generally if someone does the above they are just confused. Anyone trying to communicate with such a person is generally just tuned out. No polarization occurs at all. Just simple denial.

"What the real world has done, essentially, is to encyst the loonies and dismiss them, recognize the real bugs and fix them as much as possible, make contingency plans for whatever they missed, and carry on. A reasonable response, not polarized at all."

Encysting the loonies is a polarized response.

"[4. The polarizaton has extended to the widening gulf between the findings of the IEEE, The CIA and the Navy vs. the PR reports put out by most govt. agencies and large businesses. ]

"To try to sum up even this nutshell discussion, the IEEE etc. reports are saying that there sure are a hell of a lot of germs floating around in the air. The PR reports are saying yeah, but we aren't getting sick from them! Both are entirely correct, there is no polarization there unless you superimpose it where it doesn't exist."

The PR reports are saying we will NOT get sick from them ever. THIS is the polarization I am talking about. The IEEE says there are a lot of germs which will become increasingly virulent as we appraoch the roll-over. They are saying that these germs are increasingly and exponentially unpredictable in their effects but will have life - threatening consequences if we are not all immunized against them. Unfortuantly, there are a great deal of forms this "illness" can take and the population at large is already infected with several virulent strains. There is an incubation period to these germs which creates an illusion of robust health. Wer don't expect any real outbreak untill 1/1/00.

PR reports that say "These germs don't make us sick!" Just shows how clueless they are. That's because the worst of the germs don't become virulent till 1/1/00 and beyond.

"[5. Most media portrayal of people who prepare for more than 3 days depicts us (you and me Flint) as harmless kooks at best and deranged survivalists at worst. This has an extremely polarizing effect at the personal and public level.]

I guess we must disagree here, at least in part. Yes, the media tend to depict my preparations as extreme. Hell, my friends and family depict my preparations the same way! And if nothing happens, they'll be all over me for panicking when the boogymen were imaginary. My insurance analogy doesn't affect them, because there are real statistics on fires, accidents, theft, etc. and none on y2k. And I won't mind a bit if they're right, and I'll eat my premiums!"

Looks to me like we are agreeing here so far.

"But I don't think this has any polarizing effect at the public level. At that level, people do weird stuff all the time. Collectors collect everything. For every issue, there are committed groups in favor and against, however small these groups are. I suppose you could say that just in general, civilizations have always suffered polarization simply because people show such a wide range of variation."

So what you are saying that what a person experiences on a personal level has no connection with what is happening in the big picture? That in itself is a polarized statement and really makes no sense at all.

"At the personal level, this is up to how you choose to see things. I don't feel polarized because I prepare anymore than I feel polarized because I ride a Harley or collect baseball cards. If someone feels preparing is dumb, that's their privilege. I give them the information I read, and they make their own decision. If someone feels we're doomed, I try to create a context for what I consider appropriate perspective. So do you. But your context polarizes you, it's too inflexible and narrowly focused. This doesn't mean there isn't any rational middle ground. It only means you have carefully and deliberately walled yourself off from it."

Perhaps you are confused on the whole "doomed" angle. I don't consider myself to be personally doomed. "Doomer" is a term that was coined for me - not by me. I expect the world to change - not end. I expect there to be mass suffering. Some populations are doomed. Which ones? Thats the 64 billion dollar question. Obviously China and Brazil are in trouble and when all of Saudi Arabia's desalinization plants go off line millions will die. My little corner of the world is already economically depressed. High unemployment and gas prices up to $1.79 a gallon for regular. People up here will go hungry even if it is BITR.

I have a great deal of concern for my fellow human beings. Even the ones on other continents. You on the other hand seem amazingly callous in your disregard. As long as everything is hunky-dory in your corner of the world then Y2k is a bunch of hype. Time to wake up Flint. Its a big world. Most of it can't afford to spend ANYTHING on Y2k remediation. Those places will be hit badly even if over here its all good. I consider that fact to be apalling. I would hope that you have enough humanity to feel the same way.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), August 29, 1999.

-- R (riversoma@aol.com), August 29, 1999.

R:

Apparently we cannot communicate no matter how hard we try. You have made your point very clear, and here it is in pure form:

"when all of Saudi Arabia's desalinization plants go off line millions will die. "

OK, I'm willing to grant that IF the desalinization plants go offline (low probability), and IF they can't be brought back up quickly (also low probability), and IF those who cannot be properly supplied by what water can be brought in refuse to relocate, preferring to die of thirst (almost zero probability), THEN millions will die.

NOW, what you've done is ASSUMED that ALL of these low-probability events will happen, and you've killed off millions as a result. Can't you see that this is all in your imagination? Can't you see that your picture of y2k DEPENDS on turning whole chains of low-probability events into foregone conclusions?

This isn't the first time you've pulled this stunt, either. I've often chuckled at the way you tend to START your points by saying "WHEN the power goes out and stays out for a month..." or sometimes "WHEN the banking system collapses..."

You betcha, if I stood out on that slender limb and regarded the distant tree as being the exception, I'd feel the subject was polarized as well. And my point still stands, as you've wonderfully illustrated at great length -- you have polarized yourself. And I agree, there is a small subgroup of highly polarized extremists, with y2k just like with many other issues. But that doesn't mean it's the *issue* that polarizes these people, it's their own extremism that does that.

But in a year, you'll have picked a new issue, I suppose.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), August 29, 1999.

To All,

I consider Y2k to be the latest form of a sort of disease - a kind of binaryitis. The binary meme has infected western culture for many years. Ever since a bunch of Greek philosophers met up with a bunch of Judaic teachings and postulated on the whole absolute good vs. absolute evil hypothesis. The result has been a culture which believes that day is the opposite of night, women are the opposite of men and good is the opposite of bad.

In logic terms it is expressed as "If A then Not B. If B then Not A." It is a kind of divide and conquer approach to defining reality. It has given rise to the scientific method and advanced technology. Not to mention a whole host of belief systems and quite a few atrocious good guy vs. bad guy movies.

Y2k is the natural outgrowth of excessive binaryism. We are about to pay the price for our culture's need to divide the world into good vs. evil, black vs. white and devil vs. angel.

Y2k, the child of this polarized duality, is only continuing to create the same divisiveness it is sprung from. It cannot really do anything else. Chaos theory shows that once there is a bifurcation that that bifurcation will continue to grow and widen the divide between two points.

I would be overjoyed if this were not the case. There is only the evidence to suggest that in some places Y2k will be surmountable and that in others it will be a disaster on a terrifying scale.

As Y2k awareness spreads it is creating incredible cultural polarization. Contrary to what many pollies seem to assume most of the people who are considered to be "doomers" do not agree with each other on almost anything. I had along debate with a local "doomer" yesterday about what the real Y2k problems are likely to be. We couldn't have been more polarized (my point was that wastewater problems are the biggest threat his was that terrorism was - however, we could both agree that we hope neither comes to pass).

I am hoping that at some point soon we can give up our addiction to binary thinking. We are not doomers and pollies. We are people interested in discussing Y2k. To label us thusly only creates false lines between us. Flint chooses to call hiself a polly. He could call himself a doomer (he is massivley prepping after all). There are times when I consider Hamasaki to be overly optomistic - even pollyannish at times.

Can we please just discuss the realities of Y2k without getting fixated by drawing lines in the cybersand? Y2k is polarizing our culture. The more this point is argued the more it proves the point.

I hope where you are will be ok. If you believe it is going to be fine then how about a little human compassion and think about what you will be able to do now for those who are not going to be so fortunate in the interesting times to come.

-- R (riversoma@aol.com), August 29, 1999.

"NOW, what you've done is ASSUMED that ALL of these low-probability events will happen, and you've killed off millions as a result."

What are the probabilities for the survival of the desalinization plants Flint? Lets see some good data. It would cheer me immeasurably. To the best of my knowledge they have not done any remediating on those. So factor that into your calculations and let me know what you come up with. I would sleep better at night not worrying about all those children.

-- R (riversoma@aol.com), August 29, 1999.

"Apparently we cannot communicate no matter how hard we try."

Flint!!!

Thanks! You have so eloquently proved the point of this thread. We cannot communicate because Y2k has polarized us. I'm sure you and I could come to a meeting of the minds about many other things. (Gotta love those Harleys). But about Y2k? We are so polarized in our views that you cannot even agree that we are polarized. Thereby continuing the polarization. If you could at least concede on this obvious truth - that Y2k is causing extreme polarities of opinion in those most aware of it - then we could work from there to bridge the gap.

Too bad Flint. We coulda made history.

-- R (riversoma@aol.com), August 29, 1999.

R:

I have no data at all on the desalinization plants specifically. I don't know if anyone does. I do have a good feel (from both personal experience and investigations/testing in similar facilities) for both the frequency and the nature of the sort of failure that would render the entire plant useless for a long time. And I can tell you that it would be damn hard to do that even on purpose.

I think it's important to try to get the general gist of the risks in the absence of specific data. For example, you buy auto insurance and wear a seat belt just in case of accident. Now, you could say that you are assuming you'll have an accident when you do these things, and I agree. You are making that assumption. But the assumption nearly (but not quite) always proves false.

Similarly, you are assuming the desalinization plants will fail and stay failed for some time in the absence of any data one way or the other. This is a great assumption if you are responsible for remediating these plants, and I'd certainly assume *every* device in the plant would die permanently until I tested it. That's the correct mindset for testing.

But please recognize that it's the same as the seatbelt mindset. It assumes the worst, which has very low odds of coming true. It is extremely unlikely that the *process* of desalinization depends on dates in any way. Yes, ancillary code probably does, for purposes of monitoring trends, maintenance and replacement, scheduling, billing, whatever. The point is that all of these ancillary things can be shut down or wired around if necessary, and desalinization itself will carry on. If the plants stop for any reason, I'm willing to bet that the proximate cause of stoppage can be hotwired. When it's life and death, you just don't worry about getting the bills out on time.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), August 29, 1999.

Hey Flint,

How do you perceive the difference between masculine and feminine thought processes? Chris's follow-up question to you intimated that you assumption was based on the posters emotions. Since emotions are running high on both sides of the fence, I'm curious to see what logical intricacies back you feelings about River's gender.

-- flora (***@__._), August 30, 1999.

"Apparently we cannot communicate no matter how hard we try." Flint

Flint, you understand electricity right? Have you ever tried to run a 220 volt appliance on a 110 circut? It won't work.

-- Chris (%$^&^@pond.com), August 30, 1999.