Starring Cherri "shut up you non-tech dweebs" Stewart

Duh

-- Anonymous, August 20, 2001

Answers

Not a bad post for me, considering my Mother was on her death bed and died 6 days after I posted it.

Did you know I ran a Y2K mail-list? For people interested in facts.

-- Anonymous, August 20, 2001

CHERRI WAS RIGHT.......DOOM ZOMBIES BATTED ZERO ON CHIPS

READ:

"Y2K experts" who think that EOW is "the real threat" are not Y2K Experts;

older satellites will not necessarily have to be replaced, though the possibility does not seem to be out of the question; and,

the chances that we "could be deaf, dumb and blind for a year" are as infinitesimal as the chances that the writer of "Satellites Going Boing" has the slightest clue about EOW, Y2K, or anything else technological.

-- Cherri (sams@brigadoon.com), August 19, 1999.

THUNDERSTORMS ANNUALLY CAUSE MORE PROBLEMS THAN THE HOGWASH THE DOOMERS SAW COMING FROM "GPS". IT WAS ANOTHER ***FAILED GUESS**.

WE KNOW NOW..........THE "EMBEDDED WILL DO US IN*** SCENARIO WAS NEVER JUSTIFIED BY THE ***FACTS***.........BEFORE.....ROLLOVER. AND THE LEADING PERPS OF "EMBEDDED" SHOULD BE REMEMBERED FOR TRYING TO SCARE THE PUBLIC WITH THE FUD: COWLES, YOURDON, JIM LORD, LEON KAPPELMAN, DAVID HALL, THE PEOPLE WHO CIRCULATED "IEE-UK'S GUESSES", HARDIN OF CENTURY SYSTEMS.

PAULA GORDON SHOULD BE SENTENCED TO WEARING A HUGE SCARLETT BADGE SHAPED LIKE A PLC SYSTEM BOARD WITH "I AM A CHIP DUMMIE" AS A LOGO.

HEY "archiving", THANKS FOR PROVING THAT **CHERRI** WAS *** RIGHT*** MONTHS BEFORE THE ROLLOVER AND THE DOOMZIES AND THE WELL KNOWN SCIENTIFIC JOURNALS "MSNBC.COM" AND "WWW.Y2KTIMEBOMB.COM" BLEW IT.

***EVERY SINGLE .........GUESS......ABOUT "EMBEDDED FAILURES*** DUE TO DATE PROBLEMS LEAD NOT TO "DISASTER" BUT TO LESS THAN ***BLIPS ON THE SCREEN OF LIFE***. Lets review. Most links to the article are dead. the Y2ktimebomb.com domain? Click on it and you find its "for sale" ( y2ktimebomb.com (Domain for Sale).

BUT....CHERRI'S POST SITS AS TESTIMONY.......SHE WAS RIGHT.

OVER 4 (FOUR) MONTHS BEFORE THE ROLLOVER: CHERRI WROTE:

"Y2K experts" who think that EOW is "the real threat" are not Y2K Experts;

older satellites will not necessarily have to be replaced, though the possibility does not seem to be out of the question; and,

the chances that we "could be deaf, dumb and blind for a year" are as infinitesimal as the chances that the writer of "Satellites Going Boing" has the slightest clue about EOW, Y2K, or anything else technological.

-- Cherri (sams@brigadoon.com), August 19, 1999.

The number of known failures of embedded systems WAS INFINITESIMAL

....... vs. the number of systems the so- called "experts" claimed were in the field (Cowles and Hall (Kappelman's engineer associate) settled for ***20,000,000 (TWENTY MILLION) after Cherri, myself and many others had de-bunked the "Billions and Billions of chips" stupidities.

EVEN IF YOU TAKE.........ALL THE MEDIA REPOSTS TO GICC, ALL OF THE "GLITCH CENTRAL" (defunct even before the minor y2k failure reports stopped coming in) and ADD THEM (don't eliminate duplicates) you can't come up with even the 60,000 that a conservative estimate of y2k totals (chips and non chip based).

And 60,000 /20,000,000 is still .003 or less than 1%. BUT SINCE NO ONE HAS COLLECTED EVEN 1,000 EMBEDDED PROBLEMS YOU HAD

CHERRI'S INFINITESIMAL ESTIMATE

<< .00005

-- Anonymous, August 20, 2001

Typical "de-bunker" approach:

1) Find a bunch of wackos who think the world is going to end over something silly on a certain future date.

2) Tell them ahead of time that they are wrong.

3) After the date passes, think that you were smart because you were right!


Too funny.

-- Anonymous, August 20, 2001

Oh, yeah, what was I thinking? I left out the final and most important step:

4) Explain that the wackos thought the way they did because they were under the influence of a meme.


(Just another day at the Roost...)

-- Anonymous, August 20, 2001

Depends on how you define "failure." Rememeber that the masthead for one of the debunker sites read "January 1, 20100". So does that count as an actual failure? As opposed to a device that can't work at all at rollover?

There were all shades of failure modes. Total population of "embedded chips" in our project was over 300,000. I forgot the actual ration of "suspect" systems, but it was WAY below 1%. Most of those had a fix or a workaround. I don't remember a workaround that wouldn't be good until the device wore out. We didn't find one instance of the "ladder logic" or "buffer overflow" fantasy.

We only found 10-20 total failures. That is, they wouldn't work at all in the new year. So the failure rate--things we had to replace-- was just about what Cherri predicted, give or take. The rest are doing just fine in production, thank you.

-- Anonymous, August 20, 2001