Seriously, my bro is one smart guy. Very, very smart. So why does he absolutely disregard Y2K. He thinks I'm nuts. I totally get it, I completely understand the ramifications. Question is, does my brother understand something I don't?

-- y2k (so@im.looking), November 16, 1999

Answers

Your brother is afraid and is in denial. It's doubtful that you will be able to convince him at this late date. He will probably be dead in a few months.

-- (its@coming.soon), November 16, 1999.

Actually it is because idiots like you and your friend here are so disconnected from reality that you cannot believe that you are wrong.

You'll see the light in 45 days.

-- You Knowwho (debunk@doomeridiots.com), November 16, 1999.

Y2K,

Emotions and evaluating information play a major role in coming to grips with understanding this.

BTW, how does he know what he knows about Y2K? Is he on the Net? If not, he's forming opinion from press releases from self-interested entities. Just the facts.

Maybe he does understand, but is so petrified that he can't get moving to prepare. So he'll just sit there an denial its existence. Maybe he doesn't want to be viewed as a kook as the media has so labeled the personally responsible? Could be that Y2K challenges all his beliefs about government and business leadership that has been MIA? Many, many psychological reasons......

It's too late to try to convince the walking asleep. Do some prepping for him and he'll forever know who really cares about him. A great Christmas gift!

-- PJC (paulchri@msn.com), November 16, 1999.

>> ...my bro is one smart guy. Very, very smart. <<

Intelligence is a very complex subject. But after much observation and thought on the subject, I have come to the conclusion that being "smart" is a very bad predictor of success in most common tasks, while being "informed" has a lot better track record.

>> Question is, does my brother understand something I don't? <<

The only way to know what he understands about Y2K is to ask him, then listen carefully. If he says anything you don't understand, ask him to clarify. If he does a good job of explaining himself, then when he is done you'll understand everything he does and you'll be on an equal footing.

Chances are he is guessing, based on very sketchy information, with most of the gaps in his knowledge filled in by his emotional response to the subject matter. For most of us, most of the time, when we are confronted by any subject outside our personal experience, this is Standard Operating Procedure.

Mark Twain once wrote that, as far as he could see, the comparative intelligence of most humans was so nearly equal that it could be imagined as a sea of people, all within 1/2 inch of the same height. A Goethe, or an Abe Lincoln, or a Thomas Edison came to be a towering intellect, because they rose a good inch or more above the norm. This image has stuck with me for a good 30 years. I tend to agree with MT.

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), November 16, 1999.

For a lot of people I have talked to it is JUST TOO BIG to get their minds around. For them it boils down to 'their' computer or 'their' job, the rest is just too much to think about. Very sad.....

-- Sammie (sammiex0@hotmail.com), November 16, 1999.

One smart fella, he felt smart. Two smart fellas, they both felt smart. Three smart fellas, they all felt smart.

-- enough is (enough@enough.com), November 16, 1999.

My brother is the same way. He's intelligent. He knows he's intelligent. He makes six figures. Ergo, he won't consider that he might be wrong. He hasn't enough time.After all, if he were wrong, then he wouldn't be rich and successfull now would he? He's a fortyish yuppie, has never known hard times,never read history. He's a master of the universe;his universe anyway. Recently he and his wife had a second child. Suddenly their 2500 sq ft house wasn't large enough. They bought one with 4000 sq ft. Musta been a big kid. The arrogance of intelligence! The arrogance of success! I see this attitude reflected in many of the postings by certain pollies on this forum. Me thinks that if this goes down bad that folks like him are going to fall alot farther and land alot harder then many of us, as the universe of which they are masters collapses before their eyes.

-- Ralph Kramden (and@awayWeGo.com), November 16, 1999.

One of my closest friends heads a Y2K project for a large bank here in Sydney. He is highly intelligent, with more degrees than a thermometer, and he has real life experience of wars and disasters. He is an immigrant from the middle east. However, he is totally fixated, with tunnel vision, on his bank's remediation. He has said that if they start getting bad data from outside, then the filters will reject it and send it back, and if they get more bad data then they will close down that link. Yet he is not able to comprehend the situation of hundreds of the bank's connections having bad data. He does not GI. Some months ago I suggested he at least fill a 6x4 foot trailer with petrol (gas to you Yanks) and supplies and be ready to head to my place up country, but he has not done anything about it.

-- Sad Aussie (now@ayjose.con.au), November 16, 1999.

Pro, your opinion is valued slightly more than my kittens, and slightly less than my cats. I've come to the conclusion that pollies who visit this site more than once are really really stupid, not just stupid. At least my brother has an excuse. What yours?

-- y2k (y2k@y2k.yyk), November 16, 1999.

Just had a short talk with my co-worker, who is the system manager for my current client. Spoke to him on the food supply vis-a-vis the Y2K moive and/or last minute panic food-buying by the masses.

His response: "Well, it's not like the stores weren't aware that this was coming; I'm sure they're stocking up..."

Pollys, ya gotta love 'em!

-- Dennis (djolson@cherco.net), November 16, 1999.

Same with my bro Ralph only he has been in electronics and computers a lot longer than I and for me that is over 14 years ago. So smart has nothing to do with it as understanding and digesting mixed with a little common sense that is my opinion for all its worth. Love to you all

-- Susan Barrett (sue59@bellsouth.net), November 16, 1999.

Want to know how polly's feel? Try this...

Look at the NASA stills photographs of the moon landings, taken with a camera strapped to the outside of the chest of a guy bouncing around in low gravity, in a vac suit, in a sun/shade temperature gradient of (very approximately) a zillion degrees - way way beyond the temperature tolerance of any film available even today. Every picture is sharp, clear and perfectly exposed, with no fogging from the radiation sleeting through it. Every picture has the subject framed in the centre - with no viewfinder to help.

I believe that many of them are fakes. But very few people believe that. Most don't even think think about it. Why not? Well, either they don't care, or it's because the implications are too staggering. The whole moon program must have been a fake, right?

Well, wrong. I don't doubt for a second that every moon landing happened exactly as claimed, or that some of the pictures are real. I do believe that most of them came out crappy, that some guy in NASA panicked and padded them with some "publicity" shots, and then had to continue the deception. I don't think there was any sinister conspiracy behind it, just come frightened people covering their backs.

Does this sound wacko to you? Are you a doomer? Now you know how your polly friends feel. There's evidence there if you go and look, but, well, why bother? It would mean reading some shit rather than going bowling, and who CARES, that's all just geek stuff, right, how does it effect me?

Hope that helps. :)

-- Colin MacDonald (roborogerborg@yahoo.com), November 17, 1999.

It helps. But the bottom line is, regardless of whether a bunch of moon landing photos are fake or not, it won't change my life one bit. Regardless of my belief about it, I can afford to be wrong.

Not so with Y2K.

-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.cum), November 17, 1999.

I happen to think all the moon landing were faked...

-- y2K (y2K@y2K.Y2K), November 17, 1999.

X-no-archive: yes

A good cogent question, Y2K.

The entire polly/doomer debate seems to be related to the issue of connectedness. The degree to which Y2K is a bad will indeed depend on the degree of connectedness. Some computers will go bad, some data will go bad, some chips will fail but . . . what are they going to affect. I believe that the bad stuff will have great effect, so I am a "doomer".

The issue of Y2K may perhaps point to the need for a new academic discipline. Today few people are experts at Y2K: they have no experience of Y2K. How can one anticipate Y2K correctly. I believe that the people who have been reading this message board know more about Y2K than John Koskinen, B_ll Cl_nt_n, and Al G_r_. But, the question remains, how can one anticipate the effects of Y2K? What are the qualifications?

Judging Y2K requires a knowledge of computers, economics, sociology, psychology, international relations, and one other skill  the ability to foresee what the product of many, many things added together may be. Who is qualified? I believe that some are qualified, but they are difficult to identify. They don't occupy a particular office, occupation, or incomne bracket. [Those who accept what the media says about Y2K, take notice!].

Is there a way to anticipate major ground-shifting problems in advance? Is there an academic who can forge an adequate curriculum for young people in North America and elsewhere to learn this prognosticating ability.

The science of Meteorlogy has advanced to a prdictive ability that would flabbergast those of a century ago. We can sometimes know about a coming thunderstorm when there is not a cloud in the sky. If academia will help in the aftermath of Y2K. The development of a new discipline may be the way.

Any takers?

Any input on what we could name such a discipline?

-- Rick (rick7@postmark.net), November 17, 1999.

The moon landings were fake??????

Oh Christ!!!!

PRICELESS!!!!!

Deano

-- Deano (deano@luvthebeach.com), November 17, 1999.