One more crisis? One more "engineered" crisis? One more non-event?

If you don't believe in something, the danger is that you will fall for anything, or so the saying goes, more or less.

Is y2k one of those dangers that only exist in your mind because of "them?"

How do I know? How do you know?

Can you take some very basic knowledge and refute the whole "y2k" scenario? Well, start by listing what you know.

I'll help you by listing what I know.

• The first computers were used in:
  • code breaking
  • simulating (mostly war games, ie., dreaming up a scenario, and then testing it. Playing "what if?").
  
  
• Adaptability. Software is very adaptable. It is relatively straight forward to fix a problem of this (y2k) nature with a "patch" somewhere in the software.
  
  
• Where there are only hardware fixes, (where the problem cannot be solved by new software or a patch to the software because of the design), remember this:
  
  
  • A hardware only approach is found in small (very small) systems.
  • If the system is so hardware bound, that a new read only memory chip could not be substituted for an old one, the design was probably deficient anyway.
  • Most times, even a difficult hardware problem can be solved by "piggy-backing" a new integrated circuit chip over an old one, or by another simple hardware change.
  • The hardware is "dirt cheap," relatively speaking. (Surely you are aware of the decreasing prices).
  
  
  
• The "y2k" scenario depends upon a false notion of the American economic system. It presupposes that we have a centralized, planned socialist economy, and totally ignores our main strength which is the ability to respond to adversity through independent action and plain old "yankee ingenuity."

You are being "toyed" with again. "They" are playing games with you. "They" are running a simulation on your responses. "They" have considered the outcomes. "They" know where "they" want you when this is all over.

Think about early computers being developed in order to run simulations. Hey, here's a wild idea: simulate what will happen when you try to set the date on your computer to the year 2000!

Computer won't work with 2000 for a date? Well, here's a tough one. Insert some code that tests for the year. If the year is 2000, go over to a different area of the program, treat the date as required, set up a few things, and continue on. This the kind of elementary stuff every beginning programmer learns to do!

Do you know how many programmers and companies do something like this every year? Consider, if you will, the businesses that provide software for you to do your federal income taxes. A myriad of changes have to be dealt with every year. "y2k" is a walk in the park compared to that! And, it is done annually or more frequently, not just once a century!

How many systems really need a date to function anyway? Is a date absolutely necessary? Or, is some officious jerk demanding one? Does the date matter? Should anyone care if a different date, not the actual date, is used?

What if all the social security checks were printed with the wrong date and then had the right date added by another machine. Would that be a viable solution?

Before we had "experts" to scare us about everything, we had decent hardworking people who could solve problems like "y2k" (with "work-arounds," if need be). This is the kind of thing that the men and women I admire took in their daily stride, and then they went home and played. For today's modern "professional," that is too crude. It is beneath them, elitists that "they" are. It hasn't tied us all in knots and it hasn't demanded enough resources. "Don't you understand, we have a crisis! Another crisis! Give us attention. Give us power. Give us money."

Well, "they" are nothing but "pants pee-ers." There is no way that "they" should be mistaken for men (or women). "They" need deep therapy. Their mothers and grandmothers probably fought over them when they were just "wee" ones. "Wee-wee." I bet "they" were bed-wetters too. Not too worry, Hillary and Tipper will have a program for "them!" I am sure "they" can make this into a major crisis. Suggestion: Bill Clinton can be "their" poster-boy!"

You don't think y2k preparations could be used for cover, for an excuse, while "they" get the gestapo ready, do you?