Thread Rating:

beachbumbabs
Administrator
beachbumbabs
Joined: May 21, 2013
  • Threads: 97
  • Posts: 13786
June 10th, 2019 at 7:41:01 AM permalink
Quote: darkoz

Im just going to mention a show where they interviewed someone who was behind the Y2K scare


Remember that? At midnight 2000 computers would crash due to no foresight from programmers when it came to file date solutions (the files were saved as the year 99 due to then current memory issues i think so the fear was when the dates cycled to 00 the computers around the world would be unable to handle it)

No computers in a computer controlled world means havoc

Y2K

The guy who prominently figured this out has been vilified as on January 1st 2000 pretty much nothing happened

In this interview with him he claims......

Because of the warnings computer programmers were able to put a workaround solution in (I actually remember the solution at the time files became saved NOT as year 00 but as year K0. In other words to preserve the 2 year nomenclature a symbol was chosen to keep the computer from going haywire in the new year) this workaround solution SAVED all the computers from crashing thereby avoiding Y2K.

The guy claims he saved the world from disaster and admits the end result was everyone believes he was lying about Y2K since it never happened.

What a conundrum if true. Save the world from disaster and be labeled a charlatan or just let the world implode with your reputation intact?

What would you guys do?



This was a BIG deal in ATC at the time. The engineers were sure the entire system would crash without that patch, but they had to find every instance of it and correct them while the system continued to run. They did shut it down sector by sector over months for reprogramming, with adjoining sectors taking the airspace during reboot, in the midnight hours.

Still, a couple places went unplanned ATC-0 during restart because the patch was incomplete or incompatible. They budgeted something like 200M just for that operation, and they did get it done prior to Y2K, so kudos to them.
If the House lost every hand, they wouldn't deal the game.
AZDuffman
AZDuffman
Joined: Nov 2, 2009
  • Threads: 218
  • Posts: 11068
June 10th, 2019 at 7:47:09 AM permalink
Quote: darkoz

Im just going to mention a show where they interviewed someone who was behind the Y2K scare


Remember that? At midnight 2000 computers would crash due to no foresight from programmers when it came to file date solutions (the files were saved as the year 99 due to then current memory issues i think so the fear was when the dates cycled to 00 the computers around the world would be unable to handle it)

No computers in a computer controlled world means havoc

Y2K

The guy who prominently figured this out has been vilified as on January 1st 2000 pretty much nothing happened

In this interview with him he claims......

Because of the warnings computer programmers were able to put a workaround solution in (I actually remember the solution at the time files became saved NOT as year 00 but as year K0. In other words to preserve the 2 year nomenclature a symbol was chosen to keep the computer from going haywire in the new year) this workaround solution SAVED all the computers from crashing thereby avoiding Y2K.

The guy claims he saved the world from disaster and admits the end result was everyone believes he was lying about Y2K since it never happened.

What a conundrum if true. Save the world from disaster and be labeled a charlatan or just let the world implode with your reputation intact?

What would you guys do?



The fault in the analogy is computers are 100% man-made and controllable. No outside forces to change them. And Y2K was one small issue. Different methods were used to update the programs, but in the end it could all be measured and controlled.

GW is an entire planet being acted on by not just internal forces but outside forces of the Sun. We have no proper measurement to know a trend, we cannot know if it is the Sun doing most of the changes. And we cannot be for sure that anything we do will have any effect at all.

A better comparison to your position is the person who goes to church not because they really believe but "just in case" so they do not go to Hell in the next life. Kind of why I believe GW has become a secular religion. GW believers have a part of their mind that must believe in something greater than themselves, but they do not want all the rule of a traditional religion. So "the scientists" become their priests, but they follow more blindly than most people who go to church out of a true belief.
Tolerance is the virtue of believing in nothing
mcallister3200
mcallister3200
Joined: Dec 29, 2013
  • Threads: 15
  • Posts: 2011
June 10th, 2019 at 7:53:09 AM permalink
Seems like any scientists expressing skepticism about the extent of global warming risk being blackballed out of their career, the field seems to be highly politicized. I believe it to an extent try to limit my use of plastic and excess waste (except for milkshake straw them sh*ts must be plastic), but the wild claims that have not happened and fear mongering to threaten the simpletons they look down on into shaping up makes them lose some credibility on the issue and common people lose faith in the field in general. Majority of people are just hypocrites on the subject anyway, other people should be more environmentally conscious while they ignore the plank in their own eye.
Last edited by: mcallister3200 on Jun 10, 2019
beachbumbabs
Administrator
beachbumbabs
Joined: May 21, 2013
  • Threads: 97
  • Posts: 13786
June 10th, 2019 at 7:57:48 AM permalink
Quote: AZDuffman

The fault in the analogy is computers are 100% man-made and controllable. No outside forces to change them. And Y2K was one small issue. Different methods were used to update the programs, but in the end it could all be measured and controlled.

GW is an entire planet being acted on by not just internal forces but outside forces of the Sun. We have no proper measurement to know a trend, we cannot know if it is the Sun doing most of the changes. And we cannot be for sure that anything we do will have any effect at all.

A better comparison to your position is the person who goes to church not because they really believe but "just in case" so they do not go to Hell in the next life. Kind of why I believe GW has become a secular religion. GW believers have a part of their mind that must believe in something greater than themselves, but they do not want all the rule of a traditional religion. So "the scientists" become their priests, but they follow more blindly than most people who go to church out of a true belief.



No, that's a very poor comparison. It depends on buying into your false equivalence that a belief system is EVER comparable to facts derived from application of a scientific method to validate them.

That's a fundamental and pervasive flaw in much current debate. It doesn't work with creationism, global warming, or inserting religious bias into lawmaking. It doesn't belong in civic matters, and it's a nonsense substitution , a gaslighting, for actual, observable events.
If the House lost every hand, they wouldn't deal the game.
AZDuffman
AZDuffman
Joined: Nov 2, 2009
  • Threads: 218
  • Posts: 11068
June 10th, 2019 at 8:24:20 AM permalink
Quote: beachbumbabs

No, that's a very poor comparison. It depends on buying into your false equivalence that a belief system is EVER comparable to facts derived from application of a scientific method to validate them.



But we do not have "facts" in GW. We look at a reading from a thermometer today and compare that to tree rings 250 years ago and somehow compare the two? We have nothing we can look at 1,000 years ago to measure, but we somehow have a trend? We have no control-planet to look at to isolate human behavior.

Quote:

That's a fundamental and pervasive flaw in much current debate. It doesn't work with creationism, global warming, or inserting religious bias into lawmaking. It doesn't belong in civic matters, and it's a nonsense substitution , a gaslighting, for actual, observable events.



Actually, I am using science to compare things. Anthropology to be specific. Religion pops up in virtually every society in history. Popular culture has been mostly against religion in the USA since the 1960s. This has produced more and more atheist/agnostic folks in our society. But the human brain does not change so easily. The need to believe in something is still there. GW has taken the place of religion for many people. I would bet even money that there is a strong correlation between believing in GW and being atheist/agnostic.

If you look with an open mind, GW followers look and act like the followers of a televangelist. It takes someone outside both groups to see it.
Tolerance is the virtue of believing in nothing
rxwine
rxwine
Joined: Feb 28, 2010
  • Threads: 159
  • Posts: 9048
Thanks for this post from:
tringlomane
June 10th, 2019 at 11:04:56 AM permalink
Iím sure we could intentionally pump enough CO2 into the atmosphere to prove once and for all that humans are affecting ppm levels. What the hell, put or shut up if you think it is having no effect.

Letís pollute.

Skeptics are people pushing a sharp knife into their belly and saying, ďi thought you said it would cut me by now?Ē

Youíre right, Iím sorry, keep pushing. Nothing will happen just like you said.
Quasimodo? Does that name ring a bell?
AZDuffman
AZDuffman
Joined: Nov 2, 2009
  • Threads: 218
  • Posts: 11068
June 10th, 2019 at 11:26:42 AM permalink
Quote: rxwine

Iím sure we could intentionally pump enough CO2 into the atmosphere to prove once and for all that humans are affecting ppm levels. What the hell, put or shut up if you think it is having no effect.

Letís pollute.

Skeptics are people pushing a sharp knife into their belly and saying, ďi thought you said it would cut me by now?Ē

Youíre right, Iím sorry, keep pushing. Nothing will happen just like you said.



What on earth are you talking about?
Tolerance is the virtue of believing in nothing
darkoz
darkoz
Joined: Dec 22, 2009
  • Threads: 215
  • Posts: 5501
June 10th, 2019 at 11:40:04 AM permalink
Quote: AZDuffman

What on earth are you talking about?



How can you deny GW and not be aware of the underlying cause which is being claimed by scientists?

You are aware of the CO2 emissions being claimed as a cause (i am not even asking if you believe it. Just that you are aware that is the supposed cause)
For Whom the bus tolls; The bus tolls for thee
AZDuffman
AZDuffman
Joined: Nov 2, 2009
  • Threads: 218
  • Posts: 11068
June 10th, 2019 at 11:47:01 AM permalink
Quote: darkoz

How can you deny GW and not be aware of the underlying cause which is being claimed by scientists?



I have given my reasoning over and over, with you and others.

Quote:

You are aware of the CO2 emissions being claimed as a cause (i am not even asking if you believe it. Just that you are aware that is the supposed cause)



I am aware. What is the point of your question? How does it relate to my asking what on earth the other poster is taking about?
Tolerance is the virtue of believing in nothing
darkoz
darkoz
Joined: Dec 22, 2009
  • Threads: 215
  • Posts: 5501
June 10th, 2019 at 1:11:05 PM permalink
Quote: AZDuffman

I have given my reasoning over and over, with you and others.



I am aware. What is the point of your question? How does it relate to my asking what on earth the other poster is taking about?



His post referred to CO2 emissions

It was a sarcastic response but you asked what he was talking about


If someone discusses CO2 emissions in regard to GW and then another poster asks what they are talking about it seems logical that question is because they dont know about CO2 emissions
For Whom the bus tolls; The bus tolls for thee

  • Jump to: