Comments on: An echo of Y2K http://crookedtimber.org/2009/01/03/an-echo-of-y2k/ Out of the crooked timber of humanity, no straight thing was ever made Sun, 27 May 2012 08:21:10 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: John Quiggin http://crookedtimber.org/2009/01/03/an-echo-of-y2k/comment-page-1/#comment-262699 John Quiggin Wed, 07 Jan 2009 03:09:52 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/?p=9045#comment-262699 sg, among other things, Australian embassies in Eastern Europe were reduced to a skeleton staff in anticipation of Y2K related havoc. And the total expenditure on remediation was estimated at $12 billion, close to 2 per cent of GDP at the time. sg, among other things, Australian embassies in Eastern Europe were reduced to a skeleton staff in anticipation of Y2K related havoc. And the total expenditure on remediation was estimated at $12 billion, close to 2 per cent of GDP at the time.

]]> By: Tracy W http://crookedtimber.org/2009/01/03/an-echo-of-y2k/comment-page-1/#comment-262621 Tracy W Tue, 06 Jan 2009 13:04:57 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/?p=9045#comment-262621 Dave - I did google it unsuccessfully before posting skeptically. I however discussed the absence of nuclear explosions as this struck me as a stronger reason for skepticism than my failure to find something on Google, which could equally well be explained by me having poor googling skills or the US military not putting all its nuclear weapon systems details online. Unless I am missing something, in the links you provided there is no mention of submarines being put on a fail-deadly mood where not receiving a signal in 24 hours they launch. There are concerns about nuclear safety and the Y2K problem, but not the specific situation described. The fear apparently was that a false alarm would lead operators to launch the nuclear weapons, plus associated fears about untested systems generally, not the mere failure to get a signal for 24 hours would lead to an explosion. Dave – I did google it unsuccessfully before posting skeptically. I however discussed the absence of nuclear explosions as this struck me as a stronger reason for skepticism than my failure to find something on Google, which could equally well be explained by me having poor googling skills or the US military not putting all its nuclear weapon systems details online.
Unless I am missing something, in the links you provided there is no mention of submarines being put on a fail-deadly mood where not receiving a signal in 24 hours they launch. There are concerns about nuclear safety and the Y2K problem, but not the specific situation described. The fear apparently was that a false alarm would lead operators to launch the nuclear weapons, plus associated fears about untested systems generally, not the mere failure to get a signal for 24 hours would lead to an explosion.

]]> By: sg http://crookedtimber.org/2009/01/03/an-echo-of-y2k/comment-page-1/#comment-262556 sg Mon, 05 Jan 2009 21:04:56 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/?p=9045#comment-262556 I would like to add, I didn't see much evidence of doomsday alarmism about Y2K in Australia. We knew it was a problem, and potentially nasty, but I don't recall much discussion of fallout shelters and bottled water. Is this an American phenomenon? I would like to add, I didn’t see much evidence of doomsday alarmism about Y2K in Australia. We knew it was a problem, and potentially nasty, but I don’t recall much discussion of fallout shelters and bottled water. Is this an American phenomenon?

]]> By: Dave http://crookedtimber.org/2009/01/03/an-echo-of-y2k/comment-page-1/#comment-262506 Dave Mon, 05 Jan 2009 12:27:40 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/?p=9045#comment-262506 Ah, the wonders of googling. The nuclear Y2K problem was certainly seen as real at the time: http://www.cpa.org.au/garchve1/965y2k.htm http://www.bu.edu/globalbeat/nuclear/BASIC1199.html http://www.angelfire.com/or/truthfinder/nuclear.html On the 'why haven't we blown up the world by accident already since we're so stupid' point, I think history shows that we very nearly have, but that fortunately it is still very hard to launch nuclear devices, due to governments and militaries appreciating how stupid we all are. Ah, the wonders of googling. The nuclear Y2K problem was certainly seen as real at the time:

http://www.cpa.org.au/garchve1/965y2k.htm
http://www.bu.edu/globalbeat/nuclear/BASIC1199.html
http://www.angelfire.com/or/truthfinder/nuclear.html

On the ‘why haven’t we blown up the world by accident already since we’re so stupid’ point, I think history shows that we very nearly have, but that fortunately it is still very hard to launch nuclear devices, due to governments and militaries appreciating how stupid we all are.

]]> By: Tracy W http://crookedtimber.org/2009/01/03/an-echo-of-y2k/comment-page-1/#comment-262502 Tracy W Mon, 05 Jan 2009 11:36:55 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/?p=9045#comment-262502 <blockquote>The most dangerous of these was the third leg of the nuclear deterrent triad, the Trident submarines. These operate on a fail-deadly rather than fail-safe mode. If they don’t receive the necessary signal every 24 hours, they launch. Game over. </blockquote> I am very suspicious of this story, on the basis that there hasn't been a non-test nuclear explosion since WWII. There are so many reasons that communication signals could fail, aside from Y2K, that I am inclined to think that if anyone was operating nukes on a fail-deadly protocol by now we should have seen a really big mushroom cloud somewhere just because a rat chewed through the critical component at the same time as someone put a bulldozer through the backup system, or the controller slept in and forgot to turn the machine on, or something. One of my communications engineering lecturers was ex-US military, and he was as firm an adherent of Murphy's law as any other professor at the engineering school.
The most dangerous of these was the third leg of the nuclear deterrent triad, the Trident submarines. These operate on a fail-deadly rather than fail-safe mode. If they don’t receive the necessary signal every 24 hours, they launch. Game over.

I am very suspicious of this story, on the basis that there hasn’t been a non-test nuclear explosion since WWII. There are so many reasons that communication signals could fail, aside from Y2K, that I am inclined to think that if anyone was operating nukes on a fail-deadly protocol by now we should have seen a really big mushroom cloud somewhere just because a rat chewed through the critical component at the same time as someone put a bulldozer through the backup system, or the controller slept in and forgot to turn the machine on, or something. One of my communications engineering lecturers was ex-US military, and he was as firm an adherent of Murphy’s law as any other professor at the engineering school.

]]> By: David http://crookedtimber.org/2009/01/03/an-echo-of-y2k/comment-page-1/#comment-262492 David Mon, 05 Jan 2009 05:04:22 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/?p=9045#comment-262492 Just to harp on this, a "fix-on-failure" approach was not a viable across the board policy. It wouldn't be for the Social Security payments problem much less the Trident gum up the works problem. Just to harp on this, a “fix-on-failure” approach was not a viable across the board policy. It wouldn’t be for the Social Security payments problem much less the Trident gum up the works problem.

]]> By: David http://crookedtimber.org/2009/01/03/an-echo-of-y2k/comment-page-1/#comment-262490 David Mon, 05 Jan 2009 04:55:38 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/?p=9045#comment-262490 I expect better from this blog. Y2K was a very real problem, more real than most people understand. The fact that dire events didn't take place and the sky fall was taken by nearly everyone as proof that the entire thing had been wildly sensationalized and blown all out of proportion. What should have been understood was that the potential problem was very real and that many very smart people worked very hard to make sure that it didn't. And this started in the early to mid-nineties when some people working with the Social Security Administration were doing some routine scenario planning x years out and ran into 2000. They realized they had a problem and that if they did, quite a few other systems/structures might as well. The most dangerous of these was the third leg of the nuclear deterrent triad, the Trident submarines. These operate on a fail-deadly rather than fail-safe mode. If they don't receive the necessary signal every 24 hours, they launch. Game over. There was every reason to believe that this system might be subject to the same Y2K problem. It was barely talked about, but you can bet a good deal of time and brainpower were expended on it. But I guess it was all false alarm since we didn't have a nuclear war (just the electoral equivalent of such a catastrophe that November). Y2K is a lousy or useless analogy in its current misunderstood context. I expect better from this blog. Y2K was a very real problem, more real than most people understand. The fact that dire events didn’t take place and the sky fall was taken by nearly everyone as proof that the entire thing had been wildly sensationalized and blown all out of proportion. What should have been understood was that the potential problem was very real and that many very smart people worked very hard to make sure that it didn’t. And this started in the early to mid-nineties when some people working with the Social Security Administration were doing some routine scenario planning x years out and ran into 2000. They realized they had a problem and that if they did, quite a few other systems/structures might as well.

The most dangerous of these was the third leg of the nuclear deterrent triad, the Trident submarines. These operate on a fail-deadly rather than fail-safe mode. If they don’t receive the necessary signal every 24 hours, they launch. Game over. There was every reason to believe that this system might be subject to the same Y2K problem. It was barely talked about, but you can bet a good deal of time and brainpower were expended on it. But I guess it was all false alarm since we didn’t have a nuclear war (just the electoral equivalent of such a catastrophe that November).

Y2K is a lousy or useless analogy in its current misunderstood context.

]]> By: Slocum http://crookedtimber.org/2009/01/03/an-echo-of-y2k/comment-page-1/#comment-262481 Slocum Mon, 05 Jan 2009 00:39:18 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/?p=9045#comment-262481 Oh, and by the way if you're looking for a true the Y2k problem, there is one coming--but you'll have to wait a few more decades: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_2038_problem Oh, and by the way if you’re looking for a true the Y2k problem, there is one coming—but you’ll have to wait a few more decades:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_2038_problem

]]> By: The Raven http://crookedtimber.org/2009/01/03/an-echo-of-y2k/comment-page-1/#comment-262477 The Raven Sun, 04 Jan 2009 23:17:31 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/?p=9045#comment-262477 This points up the likelihood that climate-change denial will persist even after a successful response to the problems of AGW. Only if we fail will the deniers be persuaded. Krawk! This points up the likelihood that climate-change denial will persist even after a successful response to the problems of AGW. Only if we fail will the deniers be persuaded.

Krawk!

]]> By: MR Bill http://crookedtimber.org/2009/01/03/an-echo-of-y2k/comment-page-1/#comment-262475 MR Bill Sun, 04 Jan 2009 22:11:02 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/?p=9045#comment-262475 Perhaps pervasive suspicion of the validity of Y2K problems was that most folk in the States experienced it as marketing of disaster preparedness: I have recently unearthed a previous tenant's Y2k supplies, stale water and some dried food in nitrogen packs, in a barn behind my place. You couldn't go into a convenience store or hardware without seen a display of Y2K survival goods, and the radio and TV preachers would do promo teases of "Was Y2K foretold in Revelations?" A lot of items of dubious value were sold during the runup to Y2K, and only some of them were computers and software. Perhaps pervasive suspicion of the validity of Y2K problems was that most folk in the States experienced it as marketing of disaster preparedness: I have recently unearthed a previous tenant’s Y2k supplies, stale water and some dried food in nitrogen packs, in a barn behind my place. You couldn’t go into a convenience store or hardware without seen a display of Y2K survival goods, and the radio and TV preachers would do promo teases of “Was Y2K foretold in Revelations?” A lot of items of dubious value were sold during the runup to Y2K, and only some of them were computers and software.

]]> By: sg http://crookedtimber.org/2009/01/03/an-echo-of-y2k/comment-page-1/#comment-262472 sg Sun, 04 Jan 2009 21:42:21 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/?p=9045#comment-262472 are we agreeing with one another then? I think I better go to bed! are we agreeing with one another then?

I think I better go to bed!

]]> By: Slocum http://crookedtimber.org/2009/01/03/an-echo-of-y2k/comment-page-1/#comment-262470 Slocum Sun, 04 Jan 2009 21:32:22 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/?p=9045#comment-262470 <i>I know what Slocum wants to say – that companies should be left to fix their AGW contributions themselves rather than the evil govt forcing them to. Just like they did for Y2K. But the analogy is completely false.</i> No -- you've got that backwards. What I'm saying (what I did say) is that Y2K and global warming are not commensurate. The analogy is false. Organizations had strong reasons to fix Y2K problems in their own systems regardless of what anybody else did. In contrast, organizations (and nations) do <i>not</i> have strong reasons to reduce their own carbon emissions independently of what others do -- from a point of view of self interest, each would be better off free-riding and letting others bear the cost. I know what Slocum wants to say – that companies should be left to fix their AGW contributions themselves rather than the evil govt forcing them to. Just like they did for Y2K. But the analogy is completely false.

No—you’ve got that backwards. What I’m saying (what I did say) is that Y2K and global warming are not commensurate. The analogy is false. Organizations had strong reasons to fix Y2K problems in their own systems regardless of what anybody else did. In contrast, organizations (and nations) do not have strong reasons to reduce their own carbon emissions independently of what others do—from a point of view of self interest, each would be better off free-riding and letting others bear the cost.

]]> By: Cranky Observer http://crookedtimber.org/2009/01/03/an-echo-of-y2k/comment-page-1/#comment-262466 Cranky Observer Sun, 04 Jan 2009 18:34:09 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/?p=9045#comment-262466 > that companies should be left to fix their AGW contributions > themselves rather than the evil govt forcing them to. Just like > they did for Y2K. The SEC, auditors of public companies, and government purchasing agents who wrote Y2K certification requirements into purchase orders (among others) did not leave Y2K compliance to enlightened self-interest. Just as well given Mr. "Oracle" Greenspan's recent comments on the limits of same. Cranky Oddly, Greenspan apparently worked as a programmer at some time around 1970 and he admitted that he had left code behind that would not work at the turn of the century under the assumption it would be replaced by that time - but he was aware it was still in production as of 1999. > that companies should be left to fix their AGW contributions
> themselves rather than the evil govt forcing them to. Just like
> they did for Y2K.

The SEC, auditors of public companies, and government purchasing agents who wrote Y2K certification requirements into purchase orders (among others) did not leave Y2K compliance to enlightened self-interest. Just as well given Mr. “Oracle” Greenspan’s recent comments on the limits of same.

Cranky

Oddly, Greenspan apparently worked as a programmer at some time around 1970 and he admitted that he had left code behind that would not work at the turn of the century under the assumption it would be replaced by that time – but he was aware it was still in production as of 1999.

]]> By: Randolph Carter http://crookedtimber.org/2009/01/03/an-echo-of-y2k/comment-page-1/#comment-262463 Randolph Carter Sun, 04 Jan 2009 17:52:44 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/?p=9045#comment-262463 In 1998, I started working for a company that sells groceries. I spent 9 months in 1999 working on fixing or replacing application code impacted by the Y2K 'bug'. This was part of an effort that had been ongoing for more than a year by the time I was added to the team. The only reason that there was no crisis for us on Jan 1 2000, is because of the efforts of our team, and the similar teams in the companies we did business with. The reason the project lead was able to get COMPLETE buy-in from senior management was he set up several test systems and rolled the clock forward to 12/31/1999. Nothing will get the attention of management faster than "can't cut purchase orders", "can't generate invoices", "can't take delivery of new product", etc..., etc... The statement that Y2K wasn't a big deal, wasn't a crisis is technically accurate, but grossly oversimplifies the efforts expended to ensure that it wasn't a crisis. In 1998, I started working for a company that sells groceries. I spent 9 months in 1999 working on fixing or replacing application code impacted by the Y2K ‘bug’. This was part of an effort that had been ongoing for more than a year by the time I was added to the team.

The only reason that there was no crisis for us on Jan 1 2000, is because of the efforts of our team, and the similar teams in the companies we did business with.

The reason the project lead was able to get COMPLETE buy-in from senior management was he set up several test systems and rolled the clock forward to 12/31/1999. Nothing will get the attention of management faster than “can’t cut purchase orders”, “can’t generate invoices”, “can’t take delivery of new product”, etc…, etc…

The statement that Y2K wasn’t a big deal, wasn’t a crisis is technically accurate, but grossly oversimplifies the efforts expended to ensure that it wasn’t a crisis.

]]> By: sg http://crookedtimber.org/2009/01/03/an-echo-of-y2k/comment-page-1/#comment-262460 sg Sun, 04 Jan 2009 16:10:33 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/?p=9045#comment-262460 and I'd like to add my voice to those disputing JQ's assertion that Y2K was not a problem. I was involved in mitigation in a part of my organisation, and the one part of our organisation which refused to cooperate collapsed with several days of serious consequences on New Year's Day. If banks, transport networks and powerplants had suffered the same problem as that part of my organisation, things would have been unpleasant. Not catastrophic, but worth the effort to avoid. and I’d like to add my voice to those disputing JQ’s assertion that Y2K was not a problem. I was involved in mitigation in a part of my organisation, and the one part of our organisation which refused to cooperate collapsed with several days of serious consequences on New Year’s Day. If banks, transport networks and powerplants had suffered the same problem as that part of my organisation, things would have been unpleasant. Not catastrophic, but worth the effort to avoid.

]]>