Letter to PBS re Cringley report on Y2K

Dear Persons at PBS:

Regarding Robert Cringely's commentary

http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit19991021.html

about his upcoming PBS television program "Y2K: The Winter of Our Disconnect": Mr. Cringely's stance here misses one very big concept: the difference between the LIKELIHOOD of something happening, and the SEVERITYof the consequences if it does.

The reason most sane people put on their seat belts and pay for airbags in their cars isn't because of the LIKELIHOOD of being involved in a head-on crash, but because of the SEVERITY of the consequences if they are.

Y2K has the potential, no matter how slight, to be a global head-on crash, and laying in a month's worth of canned food and storing some water are hardly radical alarmist survivalist acts- they are low-impact common-sense precautions that any modern, seat belt-using citizen should consider, and not just for Y2K.

Cringely's smug ridicule of those preparing for Y2K disruptions is on par with shaming parents who put their infants in car seats, or young adults whouse condoms.

I'm sure the show will be very clever and cute, but it is appalling to me that Cringely's reckless and self-indulgent viewpoint is to stand as one of PBS's few contributions to the dialogue about this important and potentially catastrophic historical event.

-- (letterwriter@home.com), October 26, 1999

Answers

Consequences of an automobile accident are quite obvious. Consequences of Y2K snafus are less known. But they are diminishing with time. Unless you are a religious follower of this forum, in which case you will not listen to any evidence contrary to your deeply held beliefs. Bottom line? It's a bad analogy.

-- You Knowwho (debunk@doomeridiots.com), October 26, 1999.

I strongly disagree with "You Knowwho's" statement.

The seatbelt analogy is fair and conclusive.

Only a hardcore fool would see otherwise.

-- no talking please (breadlines@soupkitchen.gov), October 26, 1999.

For those in the Puget Sound area, the program will air tonight-Tuesday, 10/26 at 8:00 P.M. on Channel 9

-- greg lawrence (greg@speakeasy.org), October 26, 1999.

If severity of consequences overrides consideration of likelihood, should begin a massive program to create a viable life-preserving subterranean system of cities in case another huge asteroid hits the earth?

After all, the current scientific minds think that this was what caused the great extinction of the dinosaurs - so it's already happened once! (more than we can say for Y2K).

Failure to build a huge network of underground cities is on par with shaming parents who put their infants in car seats, or young adults who use condoms!

JZ

-- Jeff Zurschmeide (zursch@cyberhighway.net), October 26, 1999.

JZ -- There ARE shelters deep underground built for nuclear strike-resistance, but they might do for a smaller asteroid strike.

-- helen (sstaten@fullnet.net), October 26, 1999.

But whereas the potential for the asteriod hitting us is once in How many years? versus the frequency of the Daily car accident? Your point poindexter? The building of underground cities? Give me a break. It's reasonable to have preparations. Y2K is going to happen. What or how severe, no one knows...but it is prudent to prepare. Just like mom w/the babyseat and seatbelt, it doesn't hurt to take precautions.

-- Billy Boy (Rakkasan@Yahoo.com), October 26, 1999.

Billy Boy sez:

>But whereas the potential for the asteriod

>hitting us is once in How many years?

Irrelevant - the original poster said:

>Y2K has the potential, no matter how slight, to be a global head-on crash

"No matter how slight."

>Your point poindexter?

My point is just that when you advocate massive undertakings "no matter how slight" the chance of trouble, you can very quickly get into some ridiculous scenarios - such as building underground cities because an asteroid might hit the earth.

>It's reasonable to have preparations.

Yes, it is. I lived nearby the epicenter in the mountains during the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake, and my standard household emergency kit was quite handy.

>Y2K is going to happen. What or how severe, no one knows...but it is prudent to prepare. Just like mom w/the babyseat and seatbelt, it doesn't hurt to take precautions.

Certainly - but let's get rid of the "no matter how slight" idea before we all end up sitting in padded rooms in concrete bunkers lest some remotely possible accident befall us.

JZ

-- Jeff Zurschmeide (zursch@cyberhighway.net), October 26, 1999.

Youknowwho..

Do you consider yourself a "good" driver? If so...do you wear a seatbelt, and/or purchase car insurance?

Why do you pay for insurance? Is it because of the *unknowns* surrounding the daily drive down the road with other cars?? Even though you may never cause an accident it is true that you may be involved in one, and therefore have decided to cover your ass *JUST IN CASE*???

JUST IN CASE JUST IN CASE JUST IN CASE

Why is it so hard for you to grasp such a simple concept? Some people are MORE CAUTIOUS then others. Some people purchase Liability insurance, and others purchase FULL COVERAGE. By your logic, the full coverage people must be "doomers". Is that what you think?

You sit here and call us doomers and idiots because we have chosen to take a different take on life then you. Who the hell are you to tell me or anyone else that I am wrong? How can you tell me what my PERSONAL feelings are about preparedness? How can you tell everyone in the world that they have no cause for alarm in regards to Y2K? People with 1000 times your expertise in this subject CANNOT AGREE..but you claim to be the "all knowing" anti-doomer.

Whats next? Are you going to tell me what my favorite color is?

Why do you spend your time on this forum? If we are so wrong, why would someone as intelligent as yourself hang around here with us retards? Surely you have other things to do rather then read and answer the whining of a bunch of doomers.

Well???

-- Cory Hill (coryh@strategic-services.net), October 26, 1999.

In other words, don't gamble based on the odds, gamble based on the stakes.

Couldn't agree more...

Kook

-- Y2Kook (Y2Kook@usa.net), October 26, 1999.

Actually, the Russians do have underground cities, built to protect millions of people in case of nuclear war. Our benevolent government made the conscious decision to NOT protect us. We probably should have underground cities, in case of nuclear war and/or asteroid strike. But, that's an entirely different argument. Consequences versus Likelihood once again. We may wish we had them at some point in the future.

-- rob minor (rbminor@hotmail.com), October 26, 1999.

I've been a fan of Cringely for years, by reading InfoWorld every week. I may have read his first column in 1987. I liked the PBS series, Triumph of the Nerds. I didn't buy his book. I also didn't know, until moments ago, that he left InfoWorld 1n 1995, but they still publish "his" column...

Someone at REUTERS Gets It!! A review of the PBS show...

He was an early Y2K alarm sounder, talking about it in 1991. An original doomer. Gary North says that he ignored Cringely's early warnings:

http://garynorth.com/y 2k/detail_.cfm/413

But, back to the point, yea, give 'em hell!!! Comments like this, from his site:

"No heading for the hills, withdrawing your savings, or stockpiling food. There will be some problems, but probably nothing more than you'd get from a bad storm."

deserve a little hell! He has gone from almost polly to polly! He has sold out! He almost had me, 'til he came up with the food remark! Let's hang the bastard!!!

Oops, after we find out who the real Cringely is...

Will the real Robert X. Cringely please stand up?

I wonder if I can find "his" e-mail address... I'll ask him to come and defend himself...

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

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), October 26, 1999.

All is well all relax!

PBS "The Winter of Discontent" let us know:

1. No planes will fall out of the sky and if something happens on the airplane or in the tower all the pilot has to do is look out the window and see where he is. Hey Bill does that look like St. Louis down there? Na too many sheep!!!

2. Nothing on embedded chips I bet he thought they were talking about potato chips!

3. You will all have power and water with no problem we have been assured that computers have nothing to do with delivery. Honey did you buy that oil lamp?

4. We have no worries over foreign supplies of oil. Why one American oil company has 35 tankers ready to roll besides those foreign countries don't use computers. Hey Dave how many gas cans do we have?

5. Those preparing for over 72 hours are weirdos and nuts and gone over the edge.

6. The government is totally compliant and government will go on as usual. Where is my dissability check?

7. You are not to worry if your credit card doesn't work to make a purchase just whip out your check book and the bank will hapily pay the company for they want to keep your business. Dear how long has it been since we got a bank statement?

What a missed chance to do responsible journalism. Those that might have prepared now will certainly not. I had all I could do to not yell at the tv. I did find a url posted on Michael Hyatt's forum under announcements where you could go the the PBS url and state your views on the program and I did.

-- Susan E.Barrett (sue59@bellsouth.net), October 26, 1999.

Nothing presented in this special leaves the impression that any of the participants know much more about what the new century will bring in the way of cybergeddon than do the rest of us. It must be our cue to avoid the rush, and start worrying today.

-- @ (@@@.@), October 27, 1999.

"I had all I could do to not yell at the tv."

I DID yell at my TV. Then switched the channel.

If people believe what this nitwit says, God help us all.

-- "cringe" is (the@correct.word), October 28, 1999.