alert@y2knewswire.com
CORRECTIONS
In a previous alert, we discussed the potential failure of the IRS due to Y2K computer problems. We incorrectly mentioned the web
site of the alternative tax proposal as www.cats.com. It should be: cats.org
We also neglected to mention another alternative tax idea at: cse.org
In another alert, we mistakenly credited a Natioanal Guard Gereral as being the executive director of the National Guard itself. We
should have said he was a director of the National Guard Association, which is different.
We apologize for the mistakes. Notice that at Y2KNEWSWIRE, we run our corrections at the
top
of our news, not buried at the bottom. :-)
THERE'S A GLITCH ON WATCHING MITCH WIRED news is reporting that the GEOS-8 weather satellite has become "confused"
and is now unable to do its job, which included monitoring hurricane Mitch in the Atlantic. Y2KNEWSWIRE wonders why the
satellite can't "go to manual," like the Y2K-naysayers claim everything else in society can do.
As this satellite glitch shows, there is no manual override for most systems: not for the stock market that failed just two days ago,
not for the upcoming GPS system rollover on August 22, 1999, and not for critical communications satellites either. Manual override
simply doesn't exist on most systems. In fact, when you hear Y2K debates where people claim the banks, railroads and power
companies can just revert to manual, you know you're hearing words from dreamland. Yes, we did it in 1950, but just as it took
decades to get to computer-controlled systems, it would also take decades to go back. For example, if a railroad switch is
computer-controlled, and you want to run out to the tracks and flip the lever manually, how exactly do you accomplish that when
there is no lever?
WIRED story at: wired.com
Y2K TESTING IS CAUSING PROBLEMS We're getting an increase in the number of people writing in and describing how their local
bank, or DMV, or other company was running some Y2K tests and it locked up the entire system, shutting down the computers.
One reader described how his bank ran Y2K tests and the bank's computers thought it was a weekend, so it closed everything
down (that bank doesn't open on Sunday, apparently...). Another person described how a bank that had recently implemented some
Y2K code actually turned a $5000 deposit into a $5000 DEBIT, costing the customer $10,000 until they finally traced the problem
down and corrected it.
That's how virtual your money is, folks. If the bank's computer says you made a $5000 withdrawal instead of a $5000 deposit, that's
what the bank people will go on. How are you going to prove otherwise? People working at banks seem to believe whatever the
computer tells them, and all it takes is the changing of one "+" to a "-" and suddenly you're broke. This is not fiction, this is
happening right now in 1998.
WE'RE RESEARCHING TWO AREAS OF CONCERN: We're still researching two areas of Y2K compliance that almost nobody is
talking about. If you have information that would help us here, please send to our NEW e-mail address for tips and information:
tips@y2knewswire.com
Here's what we're looking into: nuclear waste sites and biological hazard labs. Are either of these compliant? And if they aren't, what
could be the impact?
Lets look at biohazard labs first. We're not experts on biological warfare and Anthrax, but we've already learned enough to know that
if the right germ makes it into the "real world" (that is, outside the lab), it would without a doubt wipe out possibly a third of the
population on the planet. As mentioned before, this is not disputed. That's why they have such high security precautions in these
labs, because allowing these agents to escape is tantamount to a death sentence on billions of human beings. That's how deadly
these are.
The REAL question is whether or not the contingency plans for these labs have taken into account all the potential Y2K problems.
Loss of power is the most important one, of course. We know that most of these labs use controlled airflow to contain the bacteria
and viruses (note: please no comments on the plural use of "virus" here, thanks!). For example, they use positive-pressure "space
suits" that try to push air OUT from the suit -- if the suit gets torn, the occupant is still safe because the air is blowing out, not
allowing anything to get in. In fact, entire rooms are set up this way. There are positive-pressure rooms and negative-pressure
rooms, and all the air that is pushed through these places is pumped through filters and exposed to various chemical agents that kill
the bacteria and viruses before they have a chance to get to the outside world.
ALL of these systems need power to operate. The question, again, is what happens if power is lost? No doubt, these labs have
backup power: they have to! But how long will the backup generators last? Do they have a 1-day supply of backup power? 1 week?
1 month? And how much is enough?
Furthermore, what happens if the power is down and stays down. What exactly happens in the labs? We would hope that the
bacteria and viruses simply die with the passage of enough time, but unfortunately, that's not true. Some of these agents simply go
dormant, and many can survive in dormancy for thousands of years (no kidding!), ready to re-awaken under the right environmental
conditions.
We should restate that at this point, we have NO information on the compliance of these labs, either positive or negative. And we
are not out to just scare people (Halloween is close, though...). We are out to find the truth, and if the truth is that these labs aren't
compliant, then we still have 14 months to finish repairs. That's not fear-mongering, that's a serious, legitimate question from people
who care about the future of our planet.
Anybody who refuses to even ask this question is contributing to the problem (lack of information), not the solution (good
information).
If
you
have any information that would help us find out the answer, you can e-mail us at tips@y2knewswire.com
In the coming weeks, we will continue researching this important Y2K story, and we will be reporting the results right here.
WIRED NEWS SUFFERS ISOLATED JOURNALISM GLITCH The following is a summary of the communications between WIRED
news, Y2KNEWSWIRE and the complaints that Y2KNEWSWIRE subscribers sent in to WIRED News.
A few days ago, WIRED ran a news piece that, in our opinion, attacked the response to Y2K by the religious community. No matter
what you think about churches and religion, this kind of "hate news" journalism is simply unacceptable. The original piece, by the
way, is still on the web at: wired.com
We told our readers about this and provided some e-mail addresses for contacting WIRED. Your responses and feedback to WIRED
have been
overwhelming
. So overwhelming, in fact, that it spurred action by the WIRED News Editor and at least one corporate lawyer.
The news editor, James Glave, replied to Y2KNEWSWIRE with a concerned e-mail. Part of it is included here:
"I'd like to chime in here and state that we cover potential Y2K fallout more exhaustively than any other commercial media outlet I
know of. We've covered just about every congressional report, as well as pieces on how Y2K might impact prisons, transportation,
medical devices and hospitals, safehavens, community preparedness, preparations by the Canadian army, status of electric
utilities, banks, FDIC, etc etc etc."
Y2KNEWSWIRE responded to James with a couple of letters that basically say the following:
Yes, WIRED News is without question, one of the most credible, highly-visited news sites on the web. Overall, the news is
extremely well-produced, with high levels of professionalism. This one piece in particular, which one WIRED editor later essentially
said "slipped through the cracks," was obviously an isolated mistake. It happened during a lapse of judgement by the WIRED news
staff: an event that is quite rare.
Also, it should be noted that the story in question was written by a freelancer, not the full-time WIRED news staff. No doubt, this
freelance writer holds some kind of deep grudge against either churches or the Y2K preparedness community, but this attitude does
not at all seem to be widespread in the WIRED full-time staff.
Nevertheless, one of WIRED's lawyers contacted Gary North with a request for him to remove text of the story from his web site (or
else. .). WIRED editors say this is just standard practice, but we pointed out that no matter what the true intention, the
PERCEPTION and the TIMING of such a legal request will appear to many people to be an attempt by WIRED to quash any
criticism of their news. Gary North's site (www.garynorth.com) has quoted and reprinted parts of WIRED news stories before, an he
always includes links to the originating page. Furthermore, Gary North is not making money from his web site efforts, and he
doesn't even accept advertising -- unlike WIRED, which makes anywhere from three to ten cents every time a person visits any
news story (thanks to the banner and icon advertising).
Overall, Y2KNEWSWIRE feels that WIRED continues an excellent reputation for reporting on a variety of news topics, and that this
story by Joe Nickell was an isolated failure of journalistic responsibility. We will continue to list WIRED news pages when they offer
useful, credible Y2K information. And as you would expect, we will also complain loudly if they mess up again. That's the way it
should be.
- Webmaster alert@y2knewswire.com |
