Just saw Hawkings on Larry King Live. Hawkings said y2k was a big hype deal and said we would go on BITR because the machines will still be working. My immediate thought: his day-to-day mere existence is dependent on all systems go, so maybe he's in denial. Then again, he is supposed to be one of the most brilliant men in the world......

-- Wifey (steverromano@eaton.com), December 25, 1999

Answers

What does Stephen Hawkings know about computer programming?

-- cody (cody@y2ksurvive.com), December 25, 1999.

Hawkings has got it all wrong with his theories, and the know-nothing has got it all wrong with y2k too. I hope seriously his machinery is up to snuff.

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), December 25, 1999.

How much did CNN pay him?

-- Earl (eshuholm@tstar.net), December 25, 1999.

I'm with Cody-what does Hawking know about computer programming, the OS390 etc.?A brilliant physicist discoursing on or offering opinions about how to detect and correct date data formats isn't going to convince me to let him near my mainframe.

-- Blew5M (gaf@mindspring.com), December 25, 1999.

Rule #1 in the "publicity" game: Whether you agree or disagree, whether it's good news or bad, just spell the name right!! It's "Hawking", not "Hawkings". Clearly, his IQ isn't all it's cracked up to be.

146 hours...

-- counting down (the@hours.now), December 25, 1999.

I agree - what does Stephen Hawking know about computers. We certainly don't know about physics, etc like he does! Would CNN ever think to ask us about what we think about singularities? Would they ask Garth Brooks what he thinks about it? Would they ask Willie Nelson? I don't think so. So why do they ask him about Y2K? Has he read as much as any of us - I doubt it. I have heard this happen over and over - radio and TV interviewers ask EVERYBODY what they think. Just because they are famous; just because they have IQ's of 170 - doesn't mean they know the ramifications of Y2K.

Its a crazy mixed up world.....

-- Sheri (wncy2k@nccn.net), December 25, 1999.

Maybe Dr. Hawking will witness a naked singularity on 1-1-2000 when the system of computer systems is proven to be a singular entity with a naked truth - its vulnerable, fragile and sick.

-- Darby (DarbyII@AOL.com), December 25, 1999.

Bill Clinton--No Problem

Al Gore--No Problem

Bill Richardson--No Problem

Bill Gates--No problem

John Koskinen--No Problem

Dale Way--"We are going to run this ship into the iceberg and not say a thing until the screaming starts. And then say we did all we could to make everything compliant. WE WILL BURN IN HELL".

Who do you trust with the technical analysis of the problem??

Well for one it aint any of the no problem guys!! I'll take the Y2K chair for the IEEE any day.

So shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh! the IEEE is watching

-- d----- (dciinc@aol.com), December 25, 1999.

I forget, is Stephen Hawking a Cosmologist or a Cosmetologist?

-- Lars (lars@indy.net), December 25, 1999.

But what does Bruce Willis say?

-- Mara (MaraWayne@aol.com), December 25, 1999.

I wonder what Isaac Asimov would have had to say about Y2K. Isaac was postulating that there would be an InfoMagic like collapse in the early twenty-first century because of unchecked enviromental damage, over population, and depletion of resources.

-- Ocotillo (peeling@out.===), December 25, 1999.

I'm a member of Mensa and The International Society of Intertel.Considering that,I must state,common sense is a small factor in the intellegience quotient.Mr.Hawking is a prime example.

-- Dragnet (Just@the.facts), December 26, 1999.

I believe Hawkings on Y2K like I believe the ABA sermons and pronouncements on solar flares. I believe Clinton on Y2K like I believe he didn't have sex with THAT woman. I've never heard Al Gore say anything on Y2K, but I would absolutely believe the Father of the Internet on anything he cares to say. Bill (we-have-plenty-of-gas-so-you-only-need-1/2 tank) Richardson... Bwahahaha! Bill (No-man-is-an-island.. except me of course) Gates... who cares. Iceberg spotted... full speed ahead. Strike up the band. Grab a deck chair. The show is about to start.

-- Linda (lwmb@plsn.com), December 26, 1999.

"Rule #1 in the "publicity" game: Whether you agree or disagree, whether it's good news or bad, just spell the name right!! It's "Hawking", not "Hawkings"."

If those are the rules then why do you spell Clinton "Klinton" and "Klintoon"?

-- why (the@double.standard), December 26, 1999.

Andy.

So Hawking got it wrong with his theories. Could you kindly point out where; perhaps give us the benefit of your knowledge?

-- Notso (Notso@silly.com), December 26, 1999.

Notso,

He is a product of the scientific establishment - to him, science IS God. It's folks like Tesla that you should be more interested in, than some guy pontificating on the history of the Universe, the Big Bang etc. Hawking is not privvy to real knowlege, that is for the select few.

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), December 26, 1999.

Mr Hawking dosen't believe in Jesus Christ either. Some people's intelligence gets in the way of the truth.

-- Gambler (scotanna@arosnet.com), December 26, 1999.

Hawking doesn't even understand his own field properly! Too much time crunching numbers, not enough time spent observing...Big Bang theory is a crock.

-- number six (!@!.com), December 26, 1999.

Number Six doesn't even understand html properly! link

http://www.metaresearch.org/mrb/SeeingRed-Arp.htm

-- number six (!@!.com), December 26, 1999.

Every one is intelligent in the areas of his own expertise. Many intellectuals don't believe in God. I worked with a Chemical Engineer once who didn't know what to do when the turn signals on his car stopped working. I lived next door to a couple who both had doctorate degrees. I saw her put leaves in a platic container to burn them. She was shocked to see it melt. Just ask one of those intelligent educated people a question requiring common sense that wasn't covered in a textbook and you will see what fools they are.

-- HERB (herb01@prodigy.net), December 26, 1999.

See Ed Yourdon's website article "Y2K, I know what I know"

-- Jubilation T. Cornpone (Empirical@IKNOW.COM), December 26, 1999.

Andy,

Are you one of the chosen few? That's the inference from your posts. IMO, everything is part of God, including science.

-- Notso (Notso@silly.com), December 26, 1999.

Again, people are getting intelligence confused with knowledge. I am not aware of anything Hawking has proposed that would indicate that he is exceptionally intelligent, or as some have said, "brilliant." Knowledgeable yes, but mostly about knowledge that others such as Einstein, Asimov, Sagan, and Michio Kaku have theorized. As Andy said, Hawking has not derived by himself anything that resembles "real" knowledge (something previously unknown), but rather he understands what is already known.

-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), December 26, 1999.

From: Y2K, ` la Carte by Dancr (pic), near Monterey, California

I once lived across the steet from a University of Minnesota physics professor who blew the back end off his house when he decided to use his oven to warm up some frozen cans of spray paint he had found in his garage.

-- Dancr (addy.available@my.webpage), December 26, 1999.

Andy; Your ignorance is showing. In the end you will probably be surprised to find that Hawking did get the brunt of his theory correct and that it does not disagree with your belief structure... Perhaps not, just a heart felt belief on my own part.

I don't believe Hawking is a programmer and as one I have always been irritated to have to admit that it was Mathmaticians that invented computers but I can live with that. I don't have to live with their continued arrogance that they by virtue of their knowledge of mathmatics have some corner on understanding computer and information systems. That is patently BS.

-- (...@.......), December 26, 1999.

Folks:

If that is what Hawkings said, he may be right? After all he agrees with Flint. That satisfies me :o).

Best wishes,,,

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), December 26, 1999.

In re. Steven Hawking. He's definitely a genius. His theories have done a lot for the scientific community. However, so was Albert Einstein. And he flunked lower math and couldn't tie his shoes... Genius in one thing doesn't necessarily translate to genius in another. We'll see if he's right in a few more days. :)

-- James Collins (jacollins@thegrid.net), December 26, 1999.

I attended a highly advertized presentation at the U. of Utah in Salt Lake City featuring Stephen Hawking (sometime in '96 if I recollect.) (I wouldn't have opted for it on my own but my wife at the time was impressed because he was 'a famous physicist' and thought we ought to uplift ourselves by attending.) I figured it would be an evening somewhat informative but probably sort of dull.

What a shock!

Hawking was amazingly pedantic, mediocre, a real hack -- when compared to such spirits as Einstein, Bohr, and Feynman. I just couldn't get over how downscale he was compared to all the furor about him (which I admit I had partially bought into, my excuse being I really hadn't homed in enough on his writings -- figured "Well, with all that fame about him he must have something on the ball.")

Incredible. Incredible.

Towards the end of the meeting I finally figured out at least part of why he gets such a big play in the press: he's physically challenged. That trait goes a long way in the Politically Correct universe (which universe, BTW, seems to be heavily tilted towards the Y2K polly camp. Any connection?)

-------- Bill, who recommends everybody check the Emporer's threads from time to time ---

-- William J. Schenker, MD (wjs@linkfast.net), December 27, 1999.

Yah, yah, 'Emporer' is spelled 'Emperor.'

-- William J. Schenker, MD (wjs@linkfast.net), December 27, 1999.

Notso,

Nice try.

I have real intuitive knowledge.

I don't have the knowledge that certain folks on Earth now have, which they choose to surpress for their own ends.

Comprende? I doubt it.

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), December 27, 1999.

From XXXXX at aol.com

WAS EINSTEIN's WORK REALLY AN ELABORATE HOAX ???

Many are convinced that Einstein was in fact WRONG. We now discover that he stole E=mc2 from an Italian scientist, but more importantly, more and more scientists are PROVING, despite intense scientific elitism and dogmatism, that most if not ALL of what Einstein promoted was complete rubbish and balderdash, and has in fact caused a retardation in physics, not advances, i.e. despite how advanced we now are, we would be far more advanced if it were not for this crack pot egomaniac, wife abuser, consummate grandstander, confuser of many otherwise intelligent people.

Just because you think you understand something that many dont, does NOT make you A. Intelligent, or B. what you think you understand true! C. it could be that what you think you understand is really just some cranks hallucinations, and just because you can regurgitate his ramblings accurately does not make those rantings true. Same applies to many conspiracy theories which are really just intentional disinfo that many have memorized as sacred. Conversely, just because disinfo exists, does NOT mean the truth does not, as if that even needed mention.

ALSO, nearly everyone knows that it was ENRICO FERMI, NOT einstein who ushered in the NUCLEAR ERA, i.e. FERMI LABS etc etc etc.

THE GUARDIAN THE OBSERVER

Einstein's E=mc^2 'was Italian's idea' --------------------------------------

(ROME, ITALY) Rory Carroll Thursday November 11, 1999

The mathematical equation that ushered in the atomic age was discovered by an unknown Italian dilettante two years before Albert Einstein used it in developing the theory of relativity, it was claimed yesterday.

Olinto De Pretto, an industrialist from Vicenza, published the equation E=mc^2 in a scientific magazine, Atte, in 1903, said Umberto Bartocci, a mathematical historian.

Einstein allegedly used De Pretto's insight in a major paper published in 1905, but De Pretto was never acclaimed, said Professor Bartocci of the University of Perugia.

De Pretto had stumbled on the equation, but not the theory of relativity, while speculating about ether in the life of the universe, said Prof Bartocci. It was republished in 1904 by Veneto's Royal Science Institute, but the equation's significance was not understood.

A Swiss Italian named Michele Besso alerted Einstein to the research and in 1905 Einstein published his own work, said Prof Bartocci. It took years for his breakthrough to be grasped. When the penny finally dropped, De Pretto's contribution was overlooked while Einstein went on to become the century's most famous scientist. De Pretto died in 1921.

"De Pretto did not discover relativity but there is no doubt that he was the first to use the equation. That is hugely significant. I also believe, though it's impossible to prove, that Einstein used De Pretto's research," said Prof Bartocci, who has written a book on the subject.

Einstein's theory held that time and motion are relative to the observer if the speed of light is constant and if all natural laws are the same. A footnote established the equivalence of mass and energy, according to which the energy (E) of a quantity of matter (m) is equal to the product of the mass and the square of the velocity of light (c). Now known as: E=mc^2 .

The influence of work by other physicists on Einstein's theory is also controversial. A German, David Hilbert, is thought by some to have been decisive.

Edmund Robertson, professor of mathematics at St Andrew's University, said: "An awful lot of mathematics was done by people who have never been credited - Arabs in the middle ages, for example. Einstein may have got the idea from someone else, but ideas come from all sorts of places.

"De Pretto deserves credit if his contribution can be proven. Even so, it should not detract from Einstein."

ttp://www.newsunlimited.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,102274,00.htm

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), December 27, 1999.

My, my Andy. We are so full of ourselves, aren't we? Do you believe everything you find in some obscure text... You might want to look at Ed's latest article. There is a quote there you may find appropriate. Something about the certainty of fools and the doubts of the wise...

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

No, just totally fed up with troll assholes like yourself.

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), December 27, 1999.

In response to the (then) new ideas of Niels Bohr about Quantum Theory, Albert Einsten's famous reply was, in effect, "God does not play dice". It turns out that Einstein was wrong, at least as far as his opinions about quantum mechanics. It seems that is was really a question of scale.

Even a genious can be blinded by his preconceptions.

-- Spindoc' (spindoc_99_2000@HeadDown.Now), December 27, 1999.

Sorry, that's "genius". Even Einstein was dislexic...

-- Spindoc' (spindoc_99_2000@HeadDown.Now), December 27, 1999.

Calm down Andy. Only a few more days with these chatroom yackers.

-- Amy Leone (leoneamy@aol.com), December 27, 1999.

ALL THE KING'S HORSES

So, it is clear---

Things run down,

broken stays broken,

no "something from nothing"

How then inert molecules that leap to awareness

in a critical mass concerting?

How then a word, a joke, a poem,

bubbles in a mind rising?

Life!

See it walking

through your dead cosmology

Stephen Hawking

-- Lars (lars@indy.net), December 27, 1999.