My thanks to most everyone here

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

While I tend to agree that we may not have experienced the full economic impact of Y2K computer problems, I believe (like many here) that what has happened so far has exceeded the expectations of even the most optimistic among us. For that, I'm extremely thankful.

So I would just like to extend my personal appreciation to the following:

I'm sure there are other awards worth bestowing as well (there will probably be some pretty scarcastic ones heading this way) and individuals worth recognizing . . . please feel free to add yours.

David (aka BankPacman)

-- David Bowerman (dbowerman@blazenet.net), January 09, 2000

Answers

I freely admit that I greatly over-prepared. When one regards the RISK as the point of preparation as opposed to the ODDS of the problem occuring, there is no such thing as being 'right or wrong', only being less or more prepared.

Yes, I do appreciate the input of the optomists on this forum such as Flint and K Decker. However, I do not think they deserve any award for their input anymore than a@aa or any of the hard core doomers. It, after all, was just their opinion. They had no more facts to back them up than the extreme doomers.

Go down a couple of posts and you will find a quote from a retiring newsman/journalist that is very appropriate to people's input here.

I DO have to say 'hats off' to Greenspun and Yourdon for their work here. Regardless of the end result, they have made a significant contribution to my life.

-- Lobo (atthelair@yahoo.com), January 09, 2000.


Lobo:

[They had no more facts to back them up than the extreme doomers.]

This is technically true. The difference is, "they" based their opinions on ALL the information out there, whereas the extreme doomers chose to base their opinions on a carefully selected subset of that information and reject/ignore the rest.

During the night, everyone knows it's dark. But there are more facts than mere darkness, and the extreme doomers chose not to credit them when they predicted the sun would never rise. This wasn't purely a matter of luck and guesswork.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), January 09, 2000.


Lobo,

Thanks for the response. The reason I chose to recognize the contributions of those such as Flint and Decker is because without their persistent voice I surely would have spent far greater resources and burned many more credibility bridges in my life. I needed to hear them as my "voice of reason" to balance my preparations. Without them, we'd all be in Beach's bunker right about now.

With regard to the "risks", it one thing to evaluate the "odds" when one has a proper understanding of the "risks". It is entirely another when the "risks" are incorrectly identified. That is clearly the case with regard to embedded systems. I don't know how the embedded chip problem was first identified or how the scope of it was evaluated, but it was red herring.

Many of us started out preparing under the mistaken notion that chips everywhere would fail bringing the infrastructure that our culture depends upon to a crashing halt. When folks started showing up here challenging the embedded chip theory based on their real world experience, they didn't have to stay here trying to speak the truth to those of us listening in the wings all the while being vilified by those who've never touched a chip in their life. But they did. For that I applaud them.

-- David Bowerman (dbowerman@blazenet.net), January 09, 2000.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ