Y2k Hysteria
Borderland Sciences
Research Foundation
Responses to Borderlands Y2k
Hysteria — The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly
Here is only a sampling of
the email I have received recently. It will be added to regularly,
of course, until 1/1/2000.
"Y2K doom and gloomers
have nowhere to hide, except perhaps, for a short while, in
adhominum attacks, flames,
and off the cuff dismissal." — Y2K Immunity Website at http://www.sitewave.net/y2ksb/
The Good...
From: "Bentch, Kevin" < bentchk@staff.abanet.org > To: info@borderlands.com Subject: Ditto! Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1999 10:46:44 -0600 Michael, I have worked as a programmer, engineer, and manufacturer of embedded systems, and never had any that cared one whit about the century. Certainly never seen or heard of any that would fail for having the wrong date. If anyone had tried to make any part of the system fail because of something so transitory as the day/time/year his or her work would have been rejected outright. All dates that matter must have a manual date input. We never trusted anyone to the point of making the date relevant for control operation. Some of these applications were real-time and we didn't have clock cycles to waste on checking on the date. I have worked on avionics electronics for the military. We routinely shut down everything, and re-started. There was nothing on any of the equipment that I worked on that was the least bit century caring, much less century sensitive to failure. Good web site! I'm sending it to my boss, and others. Thanks! Kevin Bentch Sr. Project Manager, Y2K Maxim Group 111 N. Canal St., Ste. 505 Chicago, IL 60606 bentchk@staff.abanet.org
From: "Jeffrey T. Miller" <XXXX@san.rr.com> To: <info@borderlands.com> Subject: Finally! Some y2K Sanity! Date: Sun, 21 Feb 1999 16:57:03 -0800 Borderland Dudes, Thank you for posting your web page regarding the hysteria over the y2k bug. As a programmer I have been DISGUSTED! by the large number of pseudo-experts trying to make a buck off of this non-existent problem! Keep up the good work! ======================================== Jeffrey T. Miller Forward Consulting Windows/C++ Contract Development ========================================
Greetings:
We very much appreciate your sane viewpoint on the "embedded
chip"
madness. As a real Silicon Valley embedded system engineer, I am
squarely in position to evaluate embedded Y2K bugs.
We have a WebSite forum designed to connect problems to solutions
at:
http://home.inreach.com/ithaqua
No problems - yet. No surprise either! In nearly 20 years of
firmware system engineering - I never implemented a year-dependent
system. Neither have any of my associates.
But, if there are any problems - let's see 'em. Link if you like.
Best Regards
Mr. Theroux,
Thank you for publishing what I've been saying for years. I've
been
designing embedded systems and writing software since before
there even
were microprocessors. Back then we had to design our own out of
discrete
components. In any case I agree with you that this so called
"problem" is
simply a marketing scheme although I do feel sorry for all the
young
programmers who are getting sucked in to fixing it. In about 13
months
they will all be out of work.
Brad VanDyck
From: XXXX@okidata.com
To: info@borderlands.com
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 1999 08:01:04 -0500
Subject: Y2K Challenge
Thank goodness there are still some sensible people out there!
I am tired of Y2K "terrorists" trying to use
unsubstantiated rumors and
scare tactics to get rich off of people's fear.
Keep up the good work!
From: mike <xxxx@eisa.net.au> To: director@borderlands.com <director@borderlands.com> Subject: y2k !!! Date: Friday, January 15, 1999 3:27 PM Thank god there is borderlands. I'm getting sick and tired of these book peddlers coming onto radio programes and causing hysteria among their audiences. I cant wait for the year 2000 , only to see these people (the scare mongers) eat their words. thanks mike
-----Original Message-----
From:
To: info@borderlands.com
Date: Sunday, January 10, 1999 12:40 PM
Subject: y2k not such a big deal
I just got done reading your various
articles. What you are saying is similar
to information I have been getting. A few months ago I got
a hysterical e-mail
forwarded to me by a co-worker from Gary North.
Instead of giving in to panic, I
forwarded the piece to two very trusted
friends. One a physics and mathmatics teacher who minored
in computer
sciences and another who is a programmer. Their conclusions
– sit back and watch
Dick Clark on new years eve.
They did have some practical suggestions.
One is to keep paper records of all
transactions for about a month before and after 1-1-2000, and
paper records of
all important things such as insurance pension holdings and
mortgage papers.
Things which any prudent person should do anyway regardless of y2k.
As for the power plant situation I work
in a nuclear power plant,
and amazing as it may seem to some alarmists most of the
computers operating
the plant are big and dumb and not to dependant on the date
– a generator
totally ignorant of our human dating system. Most other
systems even though they were
date intensive could be operated manually. Most of your
date intensive
systems are involved in plant access and radiation dose tracking
– things
which while important can be done manually on paper if necessary.
People really need to get a grip on
themselves. If Gary North really has
a PhD in history, he didn't pay much attention because we have
these waves of
hysteria with every new century, usually whipped up by fanatics
who should know
better.
Thank You
J. T.
Michael,
Here's an interesting quote from the editor in
chief of Visual Developer's Journal:
'One of my correspondents reports that Atlanta
TV station WXIA (Channel 11) has been running a seriously
misleading "in-depth report" on the Y2K problem,
obviously designed to whip the rubes into total panic. According
to WXIA-TV, on January 1, 2000 all "computer chips"
will stop working unless they have been "programmed to run
past 1999." They say that electric clocks, coffee makers,
microwave ovens, and even automobiles will simply stop running.
They demonstrated this by showing watches and clocks that had
obviously had their power turned off. They decribe this as a
"worst case scenario," which seems to be journalese for
"we know this can't actually happen but we wanted to scare
you with it anyway." It's getting to the point where we may
well have panic in the Year 2000 - but it will be panic caused by
those who seem to enjoy predicting catastrophe and don't mind
stretching the truth well past the breaking point. The gods
themselves may content against this sort of stupidity in vain,
but you and I have a much simpler solution: Turn the damned thing
off. Better still, put a brick the screen and do something useful
with your life. I haven't watched network TV in 15 years, and I'll
tell you, it never felt better than now.'
Jeff Duntemann, Editor In Chief, Visual Developers Magazine, Sept/Oct
1998
Kinda funny
S.M.
Interesting article, Michael!
For me it begs the question, why are people
so easily convinced of scenarios of catastrophe? Do you think it
is possibly
because most people know deep down that our way of life is so out
of balance
that it cannot be sustained in the long run, and if it's not
alien
brain-suckers or the Y2k bug
*something* is bound to take us down in the end? I think there is
a weird
psychology at work where many people *believe* we've got it
coming, and the
irony of the Y2k bug combined with the fact that it coincides
with the
"end-times" of many traditions makes it perversely
appealing.
Yarrow
The Bad...
Subject: I'm happy for you...
From: Dennis
Host: mpls-fire-001.rfc.com
Date: Thu Mar 11 14:47:33
On Thu Mar 11 13:45:04, Michael Theroux wrote:
> I really liked Bruce's informed opinion. Overall, I agree
with what
> he is saying. [See: http://members.xoom.com/BruceWilliam/y2k.htm
]
That's your right. What do YOU do for a living, other than
design/publish web pages, and SELL Y2K information?
> So, Dennis, if you'd really like to blow a gasket,
> check out my website on Y2k Hysteria at:
>
> http://www.borderlands.com/journal/millenni.htm
Intersting site. Tends to be of the "don't worry, be happy"
variety. IMO, those are as dangerous as the Gary North type.
> Maybe your response will even make it into my "Good,
Bad, and
> Ugly" response section.
Doubtful. You see, I am a PESSIMIST. (by nature; has nothing 'per
se'
to do with Y2K). I am NOT a TEOTWAWKI'ist. When I first began my
research, I was quite frightened by what I found (not North's
site;
I'd never heard of him).
At this point in time, I hold the belief that, with the notable
exception of various gov't agencies and small businesses in the U.S.,
we'll probably be fine. There could well be short-duration
localized
problems, but that'll be about it.
Much MORE disturbing, and left ENTIRELY unaddressed on your site,
is
the complete inter-dependence of the world economy and supply-system.
You know - money, goods & services? The untimate [sic] impact
of OTHER
COUNTRIES' failure to complete remediation in time COULD spell
economic devastation here, in the longer-term.
I feel that by limiting yourself to a small piece of the whole
picture, you smugly tell others that "everything's gonna be
fine;
the experts are nutz...trust me...I know more than they..."
To
me, that's as asinine as Mac users screaming "buy a Mac;
they're
compliant, and always have been..." (of course, YOU probably
believe that as well. LOL)
I'm sorry, but that so-called "genius" referenced in
the
above post is just issuing his OPINION, and one not well grounded
in
experience, (IMHO). You are certainly free to believe him, as you
see fit, and I'll not think less of you for it.
Also, I notice that YOU TOO are selling something. In MY book,
that
puts YOU in EXACTLY the same place as the OTHER Y2K profiteers.
In your piece on Gary North, you state: "Mr. North is
considered
an expert on Y2K...". Puhleeeaase! The only thing North is
an
EXPERT on is how to make MONEY off scared people. Also, the
"mainstream" experts consider him to be a NUT. Which he
is.
The fact that you refer so much to HIM as ammunition for your
"happy-face" info shows how desperate you are to
bolster that
view.
Oh, and Cory Hamasaki is only a step or two above North, when you
get
right down to it. Reference my comments, above.
As far as hoaxes and hucksters are concerned, Y2K is just another
opportunity for them. As it is for YOU. To sell a product. Like
the
rest of them...
I DARE you to publish this note/thread in its entirety.
Dennis
This response is actually
part "Good" part "Bad" but I think the intent
places it here. My original statement
(after the >) was posted at 13:45 at
http://bbs.msnbc.com/bbs/msnbc-y2k/posts/cy/4682.asp and Dennis' response at 14:47 so that
gave him an entire hour to review what is on this site. Hardly
enough time to really go over what is said here. As for being a
"Y2k profiteer" the little booklet we came out with ($4.95)
as requested by those without computers has sold 0 copies to date
(03-11-99 I have given away several). It appears I misjudged
Dennis' attitude about Y2k, but not about "blowing a gasket".
Hello:
While the so-called "Millennium bug" may be a tempest
in a teapot,
NEWSWEEK (11/23/98) on page 12 estimates that the cure wll exceed
$858
billion. Yesterday's WALL STREET JOURNAL on page A3 reports that
the
major national banks have increased their estimates to over $2
billion.
This huge expense is an unneccessary drain of national capital
that
could be enough to drive many into a very real financial hysteria.
----- Larry Porter -----
Included my response (in purple) and omitted much ....
Article Comments as pertains to Y2K And The New
Industry of Hysteria By
Michael Theroux, From: www.borderlands.com 11-19-98:
>Y2K is likened to a VIRUS?? Aw, come on, Michael Theroux.
Surely you’re
>not assuming people are THAT dumb. (I’ve been working
with personal
>computers since 1983. Never did I have a virus either, until
a Mac
>friend got the AutoStart 9805 worm over a month ago. It took
me several
>days to clean up her problem. I’m a convert). Are you
implying Y2K is
>a “myth?” Sheesh.
You didn't get it,
did you. I was merely "likening" the hype over the
Michaelangelo virus to the hype surrounding Y2k. In the 80s, I
learned how to write viruses in assembly so that I could better
understand how they worked. The only virus I ever got was one
that I put on my isolated test machine — the one I used to
observe what the viruses could do. And, where did I say Y2k was a
myth? If I thought it was a myth, would I list so many references
for cheaply and easily solving some of the problems associated
with it?
>Are you implying that you are an “expert”
journalist? By that logic no
>reporters would have ever blown the whistle on Watergate. IF
you were
>to pay attention, you’d see that, in bits and pieces,
dribbles and
>drabs, the media IS leaking the Y2K story. You just have to
have a team
>of internet sleuth’s to piece it together at this point
in time. That
>will change come January ‘99.
You are reading a
lot into what I am saying. There is NO "implying" about
anything. Your heavy biases about Y2k are clouding your ability
to just read what I said.
>Where is your head Michael? In the sand? When there is a
problem, it
>often takes an extremist to yell “Danger!”
I am not doing this
for converts. Nor am I gaining anything — but the task of
dealing with more hysterical emails from those who want me to
convert. My experience with this situation does not come from
listening to misinformed hysterical "extremists". It
comes from working with computers and system administrators for
nearly 20 years.
>And...
>
>The Year 2000 problem could result in a stunning array of
technological
>failures. Air traffic could be delayed or even grounded;
telephone
>service could be interrupted; breakdowns in the production
and
>distribution of electricity could bring widespread power
failures;
>automatic teller machines might malfunction; traffic lights
could stop
>working; timeclocks at factories might malfunction.
Government payments,
>including checks from the Internal Revenue Service, the
Treasury, and
>the Veterans Benefits Administration, could be interrupted;
military
>technology, including the Global Positioning Satellite System,
could
>malfunction. Closer to home, devices with a timing function,
including
>microwave ovens, personal computers, video cassette recorders,
and
>climate control systems could all falter or even shut down
entirely.
>
> Some early failures have already occurred...
>
>...Failures such as these may be the tip of the iceberg.
Solving the
>problem, however, is an expensive process.
This "cut and
paste" clearly sums up the hystericist's attitude. The words
"could" and "might" do not represent
substantiation for any of these claims. We "might" be
destroyed by a comet tomorrow as well. And, where are the
failures? Don't just give me unconfirmed examples either. I have
seen way too many of these — all of them inflated rumors.
>[Highlight: A crucial component of Year 2000 remediation is
the
>exchange of data.]
With the way "data"
is mishandled and misinterpreted on the internet today, it seems
the problem is already here!
>3. The Year 2000 Status of Basic Infrastructure Services,
Including
>Electricity, Telecommunications, and Water, is Largely
Unknown.
Unknown to whom?
See: http://y2ktimebomb.com/PP/RC/index.htm
>Inadequate attention to the Year 2000 problem by electrical
utilities is
>seen as the cause for "potentially major catastrophes,"
writes a
>representative of large electrical users. Major industrial
power users
>are "concerned" and "dismayed" that
"electrical utilities lag behind
>other industries" in preparing their computers for the
next millennium.
>The lack of action in the past is most likely to lead to very
high costs
>when the Y2K problem is dealt with on an emergency basis.
"The Internet
is also the most amazing instrument ever invented for the purpose
of distributing and magnifying rumors, techno-gossip, and
misinformation. I see it as part of my role to debunk a few of
the most persistent and widespread ones. Today, I'll tackle the
one that if the grid goes black that we can’t restart it
right away."
Dick Mills — he has been creating software for power plants
and power systems for more than 30 years.
Again, See: http://y2ktimebomb.com/PP/RC/dm9832.htm
>4. Embedded Microchips are Difficult to Find, Difficult to
Test, and Can
>Lead to Unforeseen Failures
>
>Although initially the Year 2000 problem was understood
mainly in terms
>of software—operating systems, databases, and other
programs—the
>vulnerability of embedded chips has been widely publicized.
There are
>between 25 and 40 billion such chips in use around the world.
Many of
>them are hard to access, encased in products or equipment.
Some are
>simply invisible: the owners and operators of the equipment
do not know
>that it depends on embedded chips, or at least do not know
which
>functions depend on the chips.
Do you understand anything about embedded chips?
"Some companies have started from the viewpoint that
anything that an uninformed person might think was an embedded
system should be included in an inventory and investigated (An
example is the enquiry recently received by the Institution as to
whether its Wiring Regulations Compact Disc was compliant). In
some companies no account is taken of the fact that in the large
majority of embedded systems the chances of date-related failures
are so remote that they can be discounted. Such approaches
naturally inflate the total number of items to be counted which
in turn has the effect that the proportion of systems found to
have failures will be very small." — Institute of
Electrical Engineers
>5. Citizens Should Demand Information on Year 2000 Readiness
from their
>State and Local Governments, their Utility Companies, and
Other
>Organizations upon which they are Dependent.
Yeah, just like
when the FAA said Air Traffic Control systems have fulfilled
compliancy directives — the people said, "They must be
lying!"
>EXCUSE ME, Michael Theroux. DO YOU STILL CALL Y2K A MYTH????
Never did. But with
all your cut-and-pastes, you have yet to address one single thing
I wrote about. Read it again, check out the references there and
here, and then talk to me. If you still want to believe what you
have been told then fine.
>Even the CIA in a publicly available article (Uncle Sam Wants
Spooks by
>Arik Hesseldahl 4:00 a.m. 26.Oct.98.PST -- Copy of Wired
News Article:
>http://www.wired.com/news/news/politics/story/15816.html)
admitted:
>
>"We teach a concept called open source and public domain
intelligence --
>that is, taking what is in the public domain and creating new
knowledge
>by analysis and interpretation," he said. "If you
spend 20 percent of
>your intelligence budget on open source intelligence you'll
be able to
>answer 70 percent of the boss's questions."
Could you explain
this to me? I don't see the relevance, or I might just be a bit
hard of thinking here.
>GET REAL, Michael Theroux, and do some hard “investigative”
journalism
>yourself.
Why, thank you for
that order. The reality of all this? Guess we'll find out soon.
Mr. Theroux, you've allegedly debunked Gary North
and y2k on
your website. However, your position is no different than
his. Who to believe? From the president down through senator
Bennet and representative Horn and many well known
programmers, an alarm about y2k has been sounded. It seems
extremely foolish for those of us with families to ignore
this alarm is there is any potential for some kind of
disaster or severe infrastructure disruption.
So why don't you join the programmers on comp.sys.year-2000
to explain your theories on how to resolve the y2k "problem"
or explain why y2k isn't a problem? Thus far, the
"debunkers" have primarily engaged in ad hominem rather
than
address the programmers' arguments. Of course there are many
"doomsters" on csy2k that do the same and worse. But
many of
us ignore the ranting and sift through the various posts for
intelligent discussion. If you truly have something
important to say, then please join the discussion.
Regards, Brett.
Dear Michael,
I found your article quite interesting. A few comments:
I completely agree that the hysteria around Y2K is problematic
and (one
hopes) disproportionate to the real nature of the problem. In any
case,
hysteria will not help anyone. However, your article seems to
suggest that
there is little to be concered about, and on this point I
disagree.
You say,
>A whole host of real problems may be created by something
that wouldn't have
>been much of a problem if it weren't
>for our increasing reliance on the technology itself.
True. But here we are, depdendant on it. You also say,
>How did we ever survive before the advent of computers!
Well, the reality is, it's not actually all that difficult to
survive
without computers. As a former wilderness guide, I feel I have
some
authority on the matter, having lived in the backcountry for
weeks at a
time. But I argue that, simple as it is, most of us in our modern
world
are completely unprepared for such a possibility. And the
possibility,
from my reading of the issue, looms large.
Yes, credit card companies have updated their computers. However,
congressional reports and the reports of airlines themselves
point to the
very real possibility that air traffic control devices will not
be
universally tested and securely functioning by January 1, 2000.
Closer to
home (at least in most people's lives) are the allegations, again
supported
by congressional findings, that many of the largest utilities are
well
behind in their Y2K remediation efforts.
What is important to understand, I believe, is not how far behind
various
sectors are in responding to the problem, but rather how
connected we are
to a tangled web of technology upon which we have grown dependant.
We rely
on computer systems as intermediaries that provide warmth, food,
light,
critical information, waste disposal, and many other services we
daily take
for granted. Within each of these systems there are numerous
"choke
points," where a single vulnerability puts the whole system
at risk. As if
that weren't enough, these systems are so interconnected with one
another
that a failed choke point in one can affect numerous others.
So what to do? I don't believe panic is an appropriate response,
but nor
do I believe it is wise to pretend the problem away. Catastrope
is not a
sure bet, but a smooth ride is even less so.
I am not a programmer and I have nothing to gain from creating a
frenzy.
But I do see a significant need to raise awareness. With greater
awareness
of Y2K and its potential implications, an opportunity to jointly
support
neighbors and friends through the millenial shift becomes
available.
Without it, I will stand alone and "unarmed" against a
transition that
could range from a series of minor inconveniences to a serious
threat. My
hope is that by spreading the word among my own network I can
rouse
sufficient interest in cooperative preparation to stem off any
possible ill
effects. It can't hurt, (whereas I believe a hoarding,
survivalist
approach can) and maybe it will help.
In the meantime, I would urge you not to imply that there is no
cause for
concern and people should avoid preparation. That is a disservice
to your
readers. Debunking the perceived need for hysteria, however, is a
big
help. Thank you.
Amanda Blake
The Ugly...
Date: Wed, 17 Nov 1999 12:17:37 -0700 (MST)
From: Dave Deniman <xxxxx@rintintin.colorado.edu>
To: info@borderlands.com
Subject: the bell curve
Just as "Scary Gary" North represents an extreme, you
represent the other
extreme. Undue reliance on either is inappropriate. But I doubt
you care.
A number of months ago, I sent an email requesting for you to be
more
specific about how to identify and test all the embedded chips,
and their
dependent systems, particularly for less accessible, hard-coded
devices.
Of course, you must first have the inventory of all such devices.
It is
not enough to know which chips are problematic, you must also
know their
application, and how the system depends on the chip. You did not
respond.
Also, as I recall at the time, you were putting much less
emphasis on
"total" failure, and were implying the embedded chip
problem was a total
myth. Now I see you are splitting hairs between total device
failure and
"bugs" in general. What supreme arrogance and
irresponsibilty! And, even
as you yourself recognize, nobody of credibility is referencing
your
challenge. With so much invested in controlling public perception,
don't
you think more officials would use your challenge to help quash
the
"other" fanatics? That is, if it was deemed worthy?
The fact has always been that most embedded systems will not have
problems, even any problems at all! Many experts have clearly
indicated
the failure rate will be less than 1%. This makes it easy for you
to
grandstand over the other 99+%! And then, you want to nitpick
about the
severity of problems the <1% might cause!?.
The fact is, it does not take complete device failure to create
significant problems. Further, as in some software domains, the
problems
may be easier to identify if they are total failures. There are
real
problems in chips and devices, as a simple tour of several online
databases and manufacturer websites confirms. Your assertions
would like
to dismiss the issue entirely with slight of hand, and has
probably caused
a fair number of people to justify a lack of assessment and
preparation.
Your posturing is as inappropriate and irresponsible as those you
seek
to criticize.
Dave Deniman
borderland: is that like on the fringe?
(For some reason, he insists we changed our challenge based on his "recollection". Best read it again Dave)
Just had to say that the article by M. Theroux on Y2k
hysteria was one of
the most il-informed and condescending on the subject that I have
ever read.
The author is patently a complete and utter fool - and dangerous
at that for
propagating his polyann'ish viewpoint.
Check out the latest, similar, article in Readers Digest - is it
Mr. Theroux
writing under a pseudonym? (Nope,
it must be some other "utter fool")
He should be ashamed of himself.
IF things get really bad, he will have cost many lives.
"A little knowledge is a dangerous thing" Mr. Theroux.
Got wheat?
This one was really inspiring...
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1998 23:45:11 +1300
From: "jenn.vela" <jenn.vela@xtra.co.nz>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I)
To: info@borderlands.com
Subject: (no subject)
dorks
Thanks for your articles on y2k. They were a riot! You
know, with all
the worn out jokes out there its hard to find a good laugh on the
net
these days. Please keep them coming, as the general public's
ignorance
of the impending doom is becoming quite depressing.
"Y2K is a myth" That's a good one Micheal! I love it!
Cracks me up!!
Thanks again for the great humor!
To: <info@borderlands.com>
From: <nations@freeyellow.com>
Subject:
Date: Wed, 21 Oct 1998 04:46:10
10/21/98
Y2K Solution!
8 Pine Circle Dr., Silicon Valley, Calif.
OTC Company "TCFG" 21 st. Century Frontier Group has
through several members of their administrative research
department leaked vital information about their companies
efforts.
Everyone was tight lipped and interviews were refused,
and through un-named sources we have learned that the
technology and software solution are in the process of
being patented!
In over 1640 trials, using various data systems the use
of the new technology and software solved the Y2K
problem 100% of the time.
This small publicly traded company "TCFG" which is just
3 years old is through various sources now negotiating
with the "Big Boys"!
"TCFG" the letters to look for.....
Email webmaster at: info@borderlands.com