Ok, Ron, you've succeeded in again provoking me to shread your attempts at logic, even tho I have refrained from doing so after a number of your last attempts. Your consistently weak premises, even weaker and logically faulty deductions,combined with absurd and irrelevant metaphores, simply cannot not be ignored.
Further, the obvious lack of confidence you have in your own disjunctive, non-sequitar and quite fascinating leaps of logic displayed in your attempted chains of reasoning have, in virtually each and every case, caused you to have to seek refuge in your final desperate attempts to score some points thru your wholly unsuccessful but laughable 'ace-in-the-hole' technique of insultive, name-calling, and labeling remarks...
So, since you have again induced me to take my broadsword to your statements...
<There is ONE BIG DIFFERENCE between traditional system faults and those expected over Jan 1st, 2000 (or before and after).>
Ron, there are more than just one big difference/s; I suggest you think thru this important distinction, and if you can't think of any others, just ask cordially, and I will help you on this one.
<When a fault occurs somewhere today, it usually occurs without advance notice and "experts" are left scrambling to travel to the place where the fault transpired and trying to figure out why the fault occurred. With faults occurring over 2000, they at least will have a place to start looking (and thus the possibility of cyberterrorism manifesting itself over that period. "you're looking at Y2K stuff when you should be looking for a system logic bomb")>
Correct, but what is your specific point here, in relation to my posts you are attempting to discredit ?
<When faults occur over Jan 1st, 2000, corporate engineering staffs will be prepped and ready, looking for ANY SIGNS of a fault developing.>
The absolutism of your generalizations here is a logical disaster in itself..Are you saying 'all staffs' will be prepped and ready? Are you actually saying, as it appears, every one in every utility company, govt agency, corporation? Is that regionally, nationally, or internationally, Ron? Define your words prepped and ready...What will be their budgets for fixes?
How many in each staff will be ready, willing and able to raise the flag for the company during periods of civil unrest, transport and/or gird and/or food/water disruptions? What if gasoline supplies are down to the point of rationing or unavailability? Are you speaking here of programmers only or engineers to fix emb chips/system problems, or both? There are about 90 more such relevant questions I could pose to quash your illogical, but 'happy-face' conclusion Ron, but is unnecessary as the point is made.
< They have a empowering advantage consisting of advance warning>
"They" do? Who is "they"? All of them? Again, another wonderful sweeping generalization!
What exactly will be everyone's advanced warning for mainframes? Embedded systems, e.g., in offshore platforms? Desalination plants?
Early warning radar screens? port faciliites? Please specify exactly what these warning signs will be, so I will know that this is not just more 'happy-face' babble...
<that their systems may fail. But they won't be able to rest easy for several months after the turn of the millenium.>
What do you mean by 'won't be able to rest easy'? Working overtime? in shifts? A hotline phone next to their pillow? No vacations?
Sleeping with shoes on?
Several months? How long do you think it can take for errors to show up before you can conclude 'game won'? Only several months? In some/most/all cases? Surely you jest here!
<In discussing fault tolerance of a macro-economic system, one has to look at the fault tolerance of each of its individual components>
OK, then you do that...how many man-years do you want to allocate for this?
<. Utilities have a different standard for fault tolerance than does a semi-conductor fabrication plant. A coal fired power plant has a different standard of fault tolerance from a nuclear plant>.
This is correct; very good Ron.
<You can't just whip out a calculator, enter random data, and announce a SWAG statistic based upon a minimum of variables. And you especially can't then have the gall to use that as a viable predictor>.
Again, correct Ron...the illogic here was that I never suggested that it could/should....IF you want to correctly debate, you must debate a point I made, not answer your own self-generated statements.
< The equation is just TOO DAMN COMPLEX for your kind of pseudo-analysis>
Specify the exact equation you are referring to (and don't cheat by checking back).
<YOU ASK EVERYONE BUT YOURSELF FOR EVIDENCE>...
In terms of logical debate, where exactly does that one fit in, Ron?
<And you consistently seem to imply that once a fault occurs, people are going to sit on their duffs and DO NOTHING to fix it>
A fascinating example of deductive incongruence, absurd metaphor, and inability to perceive certain statements....
< I can almost guarantee you that people will be working on any faults that occur from 2000.>
What do you mean by "almost guarantee"? A weasel way out? Where on the spectrum from 0 to 100% does you "almost" lie? Why state this at all if you can not guarantee? Do you know what 'fluff' means?
<Their jobs rely upon it, and thus their ability to feed their families.>
Their jobs rely on exactly what, Ron? Their ability to feed their families...isn't that predicated on a number of different possibilities, Ron, or are you saying that one and only one factor will determine if they feed their families?
< And their sense of patriotism>
Yeah, team, fight for the company! I am answering an obvious tongue-in-check statement or joke with my own....
< will ensure that they won't just roll-over and fall>
Did you ever study logic formally in which you try to make points by using such metaphores, as a substitute for data and syllogisms, etc?
< into a depressed delirium>
From left field came this colorful one...
<Ken, while I understand your sense of reality is totally different than mine>
Great Ron...here you finally get a point for correct logic, correctly applied...
<
<(and probably any other half-way logical being<),
Back to seeking refuge in insults again... by the way, what is the defintion of your term "half-way...."? It is illogical you know...
< and it is a waste of breath and digital dexterity trying to debate anything with you,>
I really had hoped you thought so, but you won't stay away in peace, as indicated by about your last 3 provoking attempts in a row, which I patiently refused to respond to...
< I do think that others read our debates so I write for them,>
very magnaminous of you Ron...since you admitted you want to write for them, then why don't you post a solicitation for all of them to give you their email addresses so you can daily send them your essays???
<in order to give those who would be swayed by your overbearing belief that Y2K will result in utter complete societal apocalypse>
Since I never said that, I must determine if your statement is one of illogic or inability to read, or perceive, or some combination, thereof...
, an alternative set of variables.
<I write to defend those of us who realize there may be problems, but are not going to panic or deliberately try to panic anyone else>.
without addressing the fallacies in your statement, let me try another one on you, which I am betting in advance you will refuse to answer.....this is for the benefit of the viewers...
Which is the more harmful case?
1) if anyone is 'swayed" (as you put it) by anything I write, and as a result buys a certain amount of stored food and water, and if my predicts prove incorrect, any such person is out some dollars and time, the dollar amount is mitigated by being able to 'eat the mistake' or donate it to charity..., save for other emergencies, r,
2) if anyone is 'swayed' by, and relies on anything you write, and as a result of your pollyanna statements, in such case as your predicts are incorrect, does not sufficently prepare, with the result that any such person could (1) lose some/most/all of their cash and stocks, (2) could die because of not buying additional or sufficent amount of storage food or water.....
Which of the above is the far more dangerous position, and which of us would be saying the more dangerous things, in a case where we are both wrong, but in which others relied on our statements in deciding to purchase emegency goods, or instead, not doing so, Ron?
A logical answer to the above please...
K
p.s. I am being easy on you here Ron, by not pasting here many other points you tried to make in other posts to me, then using my broadsword on them, also... |
