SWAG -- a 'Reverse Turing Machine'

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

Why did things go so smoothly? More smoothly than event the broomsquad expected?

There's been a fair amount of speculation, none of which -- so far as I've can figure -- fits the ticket.

So here's my guess: The wizard has been replaced by an army of Men Behind The Curtain.

The nitty gritty infrastructure stuff normally managed by embedded systems and such like has been "taken manual". We've already seen some reports of this happening, but I suspect it's far more widespread than reported.

While a human pilot can take over for a faulty autopilot, he'll eventually succomb to fatigue unless he's got a relief pilot to take over.

So, how many dial-twiddlers are running the show, *disguised* as *computers*?

I don't know.

Are there enough in *reserve* to take over when the on-duty guys start keeling over from fatigue?

I don't know.

One thing I *do* know: NERC was very clear in stating that going manual was tantamount to remediation. A willingness to go manual was accepted as proof of being Y2K "Ready".

-- Ron Schwarz (rs@clubvb.com.delete.this), January 03, 2000


"More smoothly than event..." should be "More smoothly than even..."

Operator fatigue strikes home!

-- Ron Schwarz (rs@clubvb.com.delete.this), January 03, 2000.

The current time hrs:minutes:seconds:Month:Day:Year is now:


-- Bill P (porterwn@one.net), January 03, 2000.

Ron, I totally agree. To an extent I think we're living in a "workaround world".

The good news is that power generation and distribution is nothing new. It's been around nearly the entire past century, right?

The bad news is that prior to automation and computer controls the world was different. Power wasn't always reliable and generating it wasn't nearly as safe.

That goes for the oil industry as well.

I'm keeping my fingers crossed but we might see additional accidents and what might be termed as "minor" disruptions.

When you're running manual and you have a glitch that wouldn't be termed a Y2k problem, right? The rollover is a done deal.

Think, "plausible deniability".



-- Mike Taylor (mtdesign3@aol.com), January 03, 2000.

Same thoughts on my end Mr. Schwarz.....same thoughts here.

-- Satanta (EventHoriz@n.com), January 03, 2000.

Gee, we never needed all those computer gizmos to begin with.

-- (ohno@mr.bill), January 03, 2000.

Ron, just kidding with my 88 hundred hours.

All kidding aside you make a valid point. If true, we should see an increase in the Y2K "glitches" over next few days as fatigue sets in and new glitches outnumber fixes.

-- Bill P (porterwn@one.net), January 03, 2000.

I think that even though they'll be playing it close to the vest, there *will* be a yardstick we can use to kind of gauge how much of it is going on.

If my guess is right, we'll soon be awash in reports of "human error, not a 'y2k bug' issue" events.

-- Ron Schwarz (rs@clubvb.com.delete.this), January 03, 2000.

1966 - Five O'clock World - the Vogues
1988 - Living in a Material World - Madonna
2000 - Living in a Workaround World - Mike Taylor

Any songwriter with writer's block need look no further than our beloved forum for fresh inspiration!!!

-- Jay Urban (Jayho99@aol.com), January 03, 2000.

LOL Jay!!!

-- Hope Full (notareal@address.com), January 03, 2000.


Just have to comment on your Turing machine reference!

When I was in college many years ago, I wrote a Turing machine simulation in PL/I that was used for many years in the department as a teaching aid. (Probably wasn't Y2K compliant tho).

Anyway, I don't know if they teach about Turing machines anymore. If you are curious, a Turing machine is a simple computing algorithim that in theory could be programmed to perform any function. So, I guess going to "manual" IS a reverse Turing machine.

-- Kevin Lemke (klemke@corpcomm.net), January 03, 2000.

Would that be similar to- 10 Get HELP

-- Michael (mikeymac@uswest.net), January 03, 2000.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ